說無垢稱經疏 1.24

1.24

問：若爾，何故不稱名字，但稱我耶？答：有三義。一、示不乖俗。宗雖顯真，言不乖俗；理雖顯妙，言不乖麁。欲顯真諦不離俗故。二、我者主宰自在之義。阿難多聞聞持，其聞積集，三慧齊備、文義兼持，於三藏教總持自在。若稱名字，雖順正理，無於諸法得自在義。由斯稱我，不道阿難。三、我者親義。世間共言：我見聞此，將為親證。若言阿難聞，或非親聞，從他傳受。今顯親聞世尊所說，非是傳聞，破他疑網，故不稱字，但言我聞。聞謂耳根發識聽受所說。今癈耳別，就我總稱，故名我聞。雖依大乘，根識心所境至和合方名為聞，然根五義勝於識等，故根名聞。若但聞聲可唯在耳，既緣名義便在意中，故《瑜伽》言「聞謂比量。」耳名聞者，親聞於聲，與意為門，意方聞故。因聞所成，總名為聞。若緣名義，稱之為聞。既在於意，故合名聞，廢別耳意，總稱我聞。以耳為門，熏習在總，因聞所成，總名為聞，故名我聞。慶喜于時雖亦見覺知佛所說，欲證深理要先聞故、此界以聲為佛事故、希證菩提要聞熏故，由斯經首不說見覺知，唯說我聞。據實于時亦見佛說諸餘佛土以光明等而為佛事，可言見等。龍軍等言：「佛唯有三法，謂大定、智、悲，久離戲論，曾不說法。由佛慈悲本願緣力，眾生識上文義相生。此文義相，雖親依自善根力起，而就強緣名為佛說。」由耳根力及自意變，故名我聞。故無性云：「聞者識上，直非直說聚集顯現，以為體性。」若爾，云何菩薩能說？彼增上生，故作是說。譬如天等增上力故，令於夢中得論呪等。故經亦言「始從成道、終至涅槃，於其中間不說一字。」汝亦不聞親光等言「佛離分別，名無戲論。豈不說法，名無戲論。謂宜聞者善根本願緣力，如來識上文義相生。此文義相，是佛利他善根所起，名為佛說。聞者識心雖不親得，然似彼相分明顯現，故名我聞。」世親說言：「謂餘相續識差別故，令餘相續差別識生，彼此互為增上緣故。」由此經說「我所說法，如手中葉。未所說法，如林中葉。」此中二解，隨彼兩文綺互解釋。應知說此如是我聞，意避增減異分過失。謂如是法，我從佛聞，非他展轉，顯示聞者有所堪能，諸有所聞皆離增減異分過失。非如愚夫無所堪能，諸有所聞或不能離增減異分。結集法時，傳佛教者依如來教，初說此言，為令眾生恭敬信受，言如是法我從佛聞，文義決定，無所增減。是故聞者，應正聞已，如理思惟，當勤修學。

Question: If so, why does he not state his own name, but only says "I"? Answer: There are three reasons. First, to show that he does not contradict worldly convention. Although the fundamental tenet reveals the ultimate truth, his words do not contradict worldly convention; although the principle reveals the subtle, his words do not contradict the coarse. This is because he wishes to show that the ultimate truth is not separate from conventional truth. Second, "I" has the meaning of sovereign mastery. Ānanda had heard much and retained what he heard; his learning was accumulated, the three kinds of wisdom were fully possessed, and he retained both the letter and the meaning, possessing sovereign mastery in grasping the teachings of the three collections. If he had stated his own name, though it would accord with correct principle, it would lack the meaning of having attained sovereign mastery regarding all phenomena. For this reason he says "I", and does not say "Ānanda". Third, "I" has the meaning of direct personal experience. In the world, people commonly say, "I saw and heard this," taking it to mean personal witness. If he had said "Ānanda heard", it might not have been directly heard, but received by transmission from another. Now, to show that he directly heard what was spoken by the Bhagavat, and that it was not hearsay, so as to destroy others' web of doubts, he does not state his name, but only says "I heard". "Heard" means that the ear faculty gives rise to consciousness that listens to and receives what is spoken. Now, setting aside the specific [faculty of the] ear and referring collectively to the "I", it is called "I heard". Although according to the Mahāyāna, hearing is designated only when faculty, consciousness, mental factors, and object harmoniously come together, nevertheless the faculty is superior to consciousness and the like in five aspects, and therefore the faculty is called "hearing". If it were merely hearing sounds, it could reside solely in the ear; but since it takes names and meanings as objects, it then resides in the mind; hence the Yogācārabhūmi says: "Hearing is an inference." The reason the ear is called "hearing" is that it directly hears sound and acts as the gate for the mind, and only then does the mind hear. What is accomplished due to hearing is collectively called "hearing". If taking names and meanings as objects is termed "hearing", since it already resides in the mind, they are combined and called "hearing"; setting aside the separate ear and mind, it is collectively called "I heard". Taking the ear as the gate, the perfuming resides in the whole; what is accomplished due to hearing is collectively called "hearing", hence it is called "I heard". At that time, although Ānanda also saw, perceived, and knew what the Buddha spoke, because one must first hear in order to realize the profound principle, because in this realm sounds perform the Buddha-work, and because one must be perfumed by hearing if one hopes to realize bodhi, for these reasons the beginning of the sūtra does not say "saw, perceived, or knew", but only says "I heard". In fact, at that time he also saw the Buddha say that in all other Buddha-lands light and so forth perform the Buddha-work, so one could say "saw" and so on. Nāgasena and others say: "The Buddha possesses only three dharmas, namely, great samādhi, wisdom, and compassion. Having long been free from conceptual proliferation, he has never spoken the Dharma. Through the conditioning power of the Buddha's compassion and fundamental vows, the images of letters and meanings arise upon the consciousnesses of sentient beings. Although these images of letters and meanings directly arise based on the power of one's own wholesome roots, they are called 'spoken by the Buddha' in reference to the dominant condition." Due to the power of the ear faculty and the transformation of one's own mind, it is called "I heard". Hence Asanga's brother [Nirvedhavyākhyā/Sthiramati/Vivṛtasaṃgraha] says: "The direct and indirect discourses, gathering and manifesting upon the consciousness of the hearer, constitute its intrinsic nature." If so, how can a bodhisattva speak? Because of their dominant arising, he makes such an exposition. It is like how, through the dominant power of a deity or the like, one obtains treatises, dhāraṇīs, and so on in a dream. Hence a sūtra also says: "From attaining the Way up to Nirvāṇa, in the interim I have not spoken a single word." Have you also not heard that Jñānaprabha and others say: "That the Buddha is free from conceptual thought is called 'freedom from conceptual proliferation'. How could not preaching the Dharma be called 'freedom from conceptual proliferation'? This means that through the conditioning power of the wholesome roots and fundamental vows of those suited to hear, the images of letters and meanings arise upon the Tathāgata's consciousness. These images of letters and meanings are arisen from the Buddha's wholesome roots of benefiting others, and are called 'spoken by the Buddha'. Although the conscious mind of the hearer does not obtain them directly, nevertheless, an image resembling them clearly manifests, hence it is called 'I heard'." Vasubandhu says: "Due to the distinction of the consciousness of another continuum, it causes the distinct consciousness of another continuum to arise, because they mutually serve as dominant conditions for each other." Due to this, the sūtra says: "The Dharma I have spoken is like the leaves in my hand; the Dharma I have not spoken is like the leaves in the forest." Between these two explanations, each interprets according to its respective text. One should know that the statement of this 'Thus have I heard' intends to avoid the fault of a discrepancy in addition or subtraction. That is to say, this Dharma was heard by me from the Buddha, not handed down through others; this demonstrates that the hearer possesses competence, and all that was heard is free from the fault of discrepancy in addition or subtraction. It is not like a foolish commoner who has no competence, and in all that he hears might be unable to avoid addition, subtraction, or discrepancy. When compiling the Dharma, those who transmitted the Buddha's teaching relied upon the Tathāgata's instruction and first uttered these words in order to cause sentient beings to reverently believe and accept them, saying: 'Such a Dharma I heard from the Buddha, the letters and meaning are definitive, with nothing added or subtracted.' Therefore, hearers, having heard correctly, should contemplate in accordance with principle, and diligently cultivate and learn.