御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 1.13

1.13

Sūtra: Thus have I heard.

Exposition: Second, the bodhisattva transmitting the Dharma who can hear refers to his own person, saying, "Such [Dharma] I personally heard from the Buddha"; hence it is called "I have heard." "I" does not fixatedly belong to one single person. As for what is called "heard": first, in the Hīnayāna traditions, the Sarvāstivāda masters hold that the ear hears, not consciousness; the Sautrāntikas reverse this, the Dṛṣṭāntika masters stating that the conjunction of mind and mental factors is able to hear. According to the Mahāyāna tradition, the conjunction of faculty, consciousness, and mental factors constitutes hearing. In the second [fascicle of the] Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā, it asks: "Does the eye see form, or does consciousness, and so forth?" It answers: "Neither does the eye see form, nor does consciousness, and so forth. Because all dharmas lack active function, seeing is only nominally established based on conjunction. The ear and the rest are also like this." However, the holy teachings, in terms of the superior basis, sometimes state that the faculty hears, because it can discern; or state that consciousness hears, possessing both of the previous two senses. Saying that the faculty or consciousness hears does not involve any contradiction. Furthermore, according to conventional truth, the ear and so forth can hear; according to ultimate truth, neither the ear can hear, nor consciousness and the rest. The fifty-sixth [fascicle of the] Yogācārabhūmi says: "Because the intrinsic nature of dharmas is produced from multiple conditions, is destroyed in an instant, and lacks active function." The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa also says: "Neither the ear, nor consciousness, nor the intellect can hear. Because of multiple conditions, hearing of sound is attained," and so forth, down to: "Within the Buddha's Dharma, there is not a single dharma that can act, see, know, and so on." Furthermore, the ear faculty and consciousness only hear sound, but do not hear the teaching. If viewed in terms of names and sentences, it is only the mental consciousness that hears; therefore, the Yogācārabhūmi states that hearing is inference (anumāna). However, because the ear consciousness directly hears sound, it raises an inquiry for the intellect, and only then is the intellect able to hear. Taking the ear and intellect as conditions, the habit-energy perfumes consciousness, which is accomplished due to hearing. Taken collectively, it is termed "hearing"; setting aside the specific ear and so forth, it is collectively called "I have heard." Therefore, the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra says: "'I' refers to the conventional designation of the aggregates. 'Heard' refers to the ear faculty giving rise to consciousness to listen and receive. Setting aside the specific to rely on the general, it is therefore said, 'I have heard.'"

First, question: Why is it necessary to set aside the specific and rely on the general?
Answer: If one does not say "I," one does not distinguish oneself from others. The ear is common to all—whose ear heard it? Furthermore, at the time of hearing, it is not merely the ear and the rest; the conditions depended upon are exceedingly numerous. If one were to state each one individually, it would become cumbersome and broad. If one only stated one, its meaning and function would not be comprehensive. To reveal that hearing occurs in conjunction, the conventionally designated subject is collectively indicated.
However, there are three kinds of "I": 1. The falsely grasped "I," namely, the "I" erroneously conceptualized by non-Buddhists and the like; 2. The conventionally established "I," namely, the blissful, pure, permanent "I" of the Mahāparinirvāṇa, which is forcefully established to eliminate the perversions of the two vehicles; 3. The conventionally circulating "I," namely, Devadatta, Yajñadatta, and so forth, as commonly transmitted in the world. Now, the transmitter of the Dharma, conforming to the world, designates himself and says "I." Unlike the previous two, this is the "great self" of selflessness. The parikalpita lacks substantial reality, and the pariniṣpanna lacks characteristics and is ineffable. As for hearing, in terms of the paratantra, there is also no hearing; through the conjunction of causes and conditions, it is conventionally called "hearing."

Second, question: The Buddhas preach the Dharma originally to eliminate the grasping at a self. Why not say "selflessness" instead of saying "I have heard"?
Answer: The sixth [fascicle of the] Yogācārabhūmi explains this with four meanings: 1. Because linguistic expressions differ: if one said "selflessness," which applies across the aggregates, bases, and elements, who would be known as speaking this? 2. To conform to the world; 3. To remove the fear of selflessness: if one says "selflessness," for whom does one cultivate and learn? 4. In order to proclaim the causes, effects, and activities of defilement and purification of oneself and others, so as to cause the mind of decisive faith and understanding to arise. Therefore, it is called "I." In the first [fascicle of the] Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, among the four siddhāntas, based on the worldly siddhānta, stating "I" has no fault; this corresponds to conforming to the world in the Yogācārabhūmi. It also says that worldly language has three aspects: 1. Fundamental view; 2. Conceit; 3. Name. The first two are impure; the last is universally pure. All ordinary beings have three kinds of language; practitioners on the path of seeing have two, eliminating the view. Now, based on the third, saying "I" has no fault.

Third, question: Since it relies on the name, why not say "Ānanda heard"?
Answer: There are five meanings: 1. To show no conflict with conventional truth: although the ultimate truth is revealed, it does not conflict with conventional principles; although subtle words are revealed, they do not conflict with the coarse. This is to show that ultimate truth is not separated from the conventional. 2. "I have heard" carries the meaning of mastery and sovereignty. The Buddhabhūmi-śāstra says: "It reveals that the hearer has the competence to collect the Dharma." A tradition says there are three Ānandas: first, Ānanda, here translated as "Rejoicing Joy," who retained the Śrāvakapiṭaka; second, Ānandabhadra, here translated as "Joyful and Worthy," who retained the Pratyekabuddhapiṭaka; third, Ānandasāgara, here translated as "Ocean of Joy," who retained the Bodhisattvapiṭaka. It was only one single person who received different names according to his attainments. Ānanda held total retention and sovereignty over the teachings. If he had stated his personal name, though conforming to correct convention, it would lack the meaning of having attained mastery over all dharmas. Because of this, he says "I" and does not speak the name Ānanda. 3. To express direct hearing: in the world, people commonly say "I saw" or "I heard" to indicate personal testimony. If he had said "Ānanda heard," it might seem not to be direct hearing; thus it breaks the net of doubt. 4. Those who do not know Ānanda would ask, "Who heard it?" 5. There may be others with the same name, and people would wonder if that other person heard it.

Fourth, question: Ānanda at that time saw and perceived [the Buddha] in person; why does he only speak of hearing?
Answer: There are four meanings: 1. Names and sentences signify meaning, not physical form, and so forth; wishing to realize the profound truth, one must hear the Dharma. 2. In this world, sound is used to perform the Buddha's work; sound is the basis upon which names and so forth exist. 3. Aspiring to realize bodhi requires the perfuming of hearing; through the perfuming of hearing, the supramundane is accomplished. 4. To show that it is not direct realization. An explanation says: consulting and receiving from someone involves no fault of self-confidence; this attributes the merit to the Buddha and expresses one's own status on the causal stage, having not directly seen the Dharma, but merely heard it. If he said "saw and perceived," it would be thought that he was equal to the Buddha.

Fifth, question: Did the Buddha preach the Dharma and [Ānanda] say "I was able to hear," or did the Buddha not preach and he said "I heard"?
Answer: There are two explanations: First, Nāgamitra, Asvabhāva, and others say that the Buddhas possess only three dharmas, namely, great samādhi, wisdom, and compassion; long free from conceptual proliferation, they never preach the Dharma. Through the conditioning power of the Buddha's compassion and fundamental vows, the images of words and meanings arise upon the consciousness of sentient beings; although directly arising from the power of their own wholesome roots, in terms of the predominant condition, it is called the Buddha's teaching. For instance, through the sovereign power of the gods and so forth, one is caused to obtain mantras, treatises, and the like in a dream. A master of the Buddhabhūmi[-śāstra] also shares this explanation. Second, Bandhuprabha and others say that the Buddha's body fully possesses the aggregates, bases, and elements, and because he discerns names, there is no conceptual proliferation. That is, from the conditioning power of the hearer's wholesome roots and fundamental vows, the images of words and meanings arise upon the Tathāgata's consciousness; this is produced by the Buddha's wholesome roots of benefiting others and is called the Buddha's teaching. Although the mind and consciousness of the hearer do not directly obtain it, an image resembling it appears as an objective aspect (nimittabhāga); hence it is called "I have heard." It should be known that speaking this "Thus have I heard" is intended to avoid the faults of addition, subtraction, or discrepancy. That is: "Such Dharma I heard from the Buddha, not transmitted through others"; this reveals that the hearer has competence, and all that was heard is free from the faults of addition, subtraction, or discrepancy. In order to cause sentient beings to respectfully believe and accept, the text and meaning are definitive without addition or subtraction; therefore, hearers, having heard correctly, should contemplate in accordance with principle and diligently cultivate and learn.

Sixth, question: Ānanda was born on the day the Buddha attained bodhi, and only became his attendant twenty years later. How could he have directly heard the earlier teachings?
Answer: There are six meanings: 1. Due to the power of his past vows: in the past, he was a novice who long made offerings and recited sūtras, and now he attained dhāraṇī. Nāgārjuna praised him: "His face is like the pure full moon; / his eyes are like the blue lotus. / The great ocean water of the Buddha's Dharma / flows into Ānanda's heart." 2. Heard through transmission: the second fascicle of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says, "When the Buddha first turned the wheel of the Dharma, at that time I did not see it; thus I heard it through transmission." 3. Due to the Buddha's empowerment: the Sūtra on Repaying Kindness says that the Buddha entered a worldly mind to cause Ānanda to know. 4. Due to the Buddha's brief explanation: this also comes from the Sūtra on Repaying Kindness; the Buddha roughly raised the beginning, and he was able to fully understand. 5. Due to the power of samādhi: the Vajrapuṣpa Sūtra says that Ānanda attained sovereignty over the awareness of the nature of dharmas. 6. Due to the power of hearing the Dharma: the fifth fascicle of the Sūtra on the Ocean of Samādhi on the Contemplation of the Buddha says that when Ānanda saw the Buddha and heard the Dharma, preaching the bodhisattva practice, he immediately recollected the baskets of sūtras taught by ninety billion past Buddhas. The fourth fascicle of the Lotus Sūtra says: "Having personally heard the bestowal of prophecy, he immediately recollected the Dharma storehouses of immeasurable thousands of myriads of koṭis of past Buddhas, penetrating them without obstruction," and spoke a gāthā: "The World-Honoured One is extremely rare," and so forth. Among the six conditions above, due to the power of his past vows, the latter five were accomplished.

Seventh, question: There being immeasurably many [beings], why was only Ānanda entrusted with holding the Dharma?
Answer: The bodhisattvas were each busy adorning their retinues and subduing their own persons, unable to proclaim and circulate it widely. Ānanda was like pouring from one vessel to another; thus the transmission of the lamp belonged to him. Furthermore, Ānanda constantly followed the Tathāgata and was known to humans and devas; his transmission would definitely give rise to faith. The bodhisattvas had different forms and dwelt in distant places, not known to all, and might not have been believed.

Eighth, question: All sūtras say "Thus have I heard"; why does the Sūtra on the Bathhouse say, "Ānanda said: I heard from the Buddha," and the Bhaiṣajyaguru Sūtra say, "I heard thus," and so forth?
Answer: Words are placed according to regional conventions; their meaning is no different. Just as when Ānanda ascended the seat to preach the sūtras, the great assembly wished to say: "The power of impermanence is great, the power of impermanence is great! Dharmas such as these, I personally heard in the presence of the Buddha; now he says, 'I heard thus.'"