維摩義記 1.18

1.18

Next, the third section: properly explaining the words "Thus have I heard." First, explaining "thus": within this, first we settle it with reference to the person, and afterward properly explain how it is settled. Traditionally, it has been explained with reference to Ānanda: as for the word "thus" (ru), what Ānanda transmitted conformed (ru) to the Buddha's words, and was therefore called "thus" (ru). In order to exclude a mere similarity of "likeness" (ru), he also said "is" (shi). Just as worldly people say that this thing resembles that one and may be called "like" (ru), it does not prevent its substance from not being it, so that it cannot be said to be "is" (shi). Now when saying "thus" (ru), it is not the same as that "likeness," so "is" (shi) must be made evident. If one thoroughly investigates these words, they actually refer to the Buddha, not to Ānanda. How is this known? As Nāgārjuna explained: "'Thus' (rushi) is an expression of faithful compliance. One who faithfully complies says 'this matter is thus'; one who does not believe says 'this matter is not thus.'" Ānanda faithfully complied with the Buddha's words, and therefore designated the Buddha's words as "thus" (ru), stating that what the Buddha said was "right" (shi). It is not that Ānanda himself believed his own words, stating that what he himself said was "thus" and "right." Therefore, at the beginning of the Wēnshì Jīng (Sūtra on the Bathhouse), Ānanda said: "I from the Buddha heard regarding this." Thus one knows that designating what the Buddha said as "thus" means stating that what the Buddha said was "right." It is only that regional idioms differ: that Wēnshì Jīng followed the language of this region [China], and therefore first said "I from the Buddha heard," and afterward brought out what was heard—the dharma of "thus." Most other sūtras follow the language of foreign countries, first raising "thus" and then saying "have I heard." Determining it is roughly like this. How is it explained? In saying "thus," Ānanda states that the Dharma spoken by the Buddha conformed (ru) to the prior events, and was therefore called "thus" (ru). When explaining principle, it conforms to principle; when explaining phenomena, it conforms to phenomena; when explaining causes, it conforms to causes; when explaining effects, it conforms to effects. All such words that conform to the Dharma are constant principles, and are therefore called "right" (shi). Because words contrary to this are called wrong, words conforming to the Dharma may be called "right." This is the explanation in terms of the Dharma. If discussed in terms of the person: Ānanda states that the Dharma spoken by the Buddha does not alter from what past Buddhas have spoken, and is therefore called "thus" (ru). As what the Buddhas speak is correct and not heterodox, he also says "right" (shi). Based on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra's explanation of the meaning of Tathāgata, there is also this characteristic. In saying "I heard": facing those future sentient beings, Ānanda expresses his own receiving and taking in of the teaching, and therefore says "I heard." Hearing is in fact the ear; how can one say "I"? The distinctions among the sense faculties are all instruments used by the "I"; therefore, with reference to the master, it is said "I heard." Within phenomena there is no person; where is there a master, that one speaks of referring to a master in saying "I heard"? The explanation is: although within phenomena there is no determinate master, there is nonetheless a conventional designation that directs and governs sentient beings, and therefore one may refer to it to proclaim "I heard." Hence the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "For example, four divisions of troops are deployed to form an army. Although there is no determinate master, one may still say 'our army is valiant; our army conquers that one.' This is also like that; therefore one may say 'I.'"