[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [金剛般若經旨贊](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2735) › 1.8.2 # 金剛般若經旨贊 1.8.2 金剛般若經旨贊 1.8.2 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.8.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2735.1.8.2) 顯離自離說傳聞過失。 謂結集時眾咸問言。 汝當所說。 昔定聞耶。 故即答言如是我聞。 二依譬喻。 顯離增減異分過失。 謂當所說如是文句。 如我昔聞。 齊此當說。 定無有異。 三依許可。 顯有自在堪能功德。 眾咸請言。 如汝所聞。 當如是說。 便許彼言。 如是當說。 如我所聞。 四依教誨。 顯起恭敬信受功德。 謂告結集諸時眾言。 如是當聽。 如我所聞。 應正聞已。 如理修行功德施等。 所說諸義。 應知皆是此四義攝。 言我聞者。 舉能聞人。 顯自親聞。 名聞成就。 謂傳法者。 自指己身。 言如是法我自親聞。 我謂諸蘊和合假者。 有主宰用故。 稱為我。 聞謂耳根發識聽聲。 意隨耳識而取於聲所發名等。 薰習在識。 聚集顯現。 總說名聞。 癈別就總。 答顯藉眾緣故。 謂聞法要。 故名我聞。 問。 何須如是癈別就總。 答。 顯藉眾緣故。 謂聞法時。 要具八緣。 若一一陳。 遂成繁廣。 但舉其一。 義用不周。 顯假具緣。 言我聞矣。 若爾何不言無我聞。 答。 除怖畏心故。 恐諸外道。 及凡夫等。 聞無我聲。 既言無我。 誰聞誰學。 怖畏佛法。 不肯入故。 若爾何不言阿難聞。 答。 顯自在德故。 我謂主宰自在之義。 顯傳法者有所堪能。 總持三乘廣大教法。 若稱名字。 無是義故。 若爾何異凡愚妄執。 答。 隨世流布故。 世間皆說自他彼我。 染淨因果。 所作事業。 今傳法者。 雖無妄執。 隨順世間。 令生決定信解之心。 入正法故。 而順世俗。 假稱我焉。 若爾何獨指阿難邪。 答。 是傳法者故。 過去供養誦經沙彌。 今得多聞總持第一佛法海藏。 流入其心。 如彼寫瓶。 無有遺失。 又親侍佛二十餘年。 人天所識。 傳必生信故。 佛以法而付囑之。 既傳教主自指己身故。 我聞者囑阿難矣。 若爾亦有傳聞之失。 答。 佛為重說故。 阿難請佛說已前經。 然諸聖者。 理無重語。 佛粗舉其端。 則悉通一切。 況聞授記菩薩所行。 得覺法性自在三昧。 諸佛法藏。 尚能憶持。 況已前經。 而不通悟。 雖二十年後。 方侍佛聞經。 稱我聞者。 理亦無違。 若爾應言我見覺。 答。 推功歸佛故。 此所傳教。 屬佛世尊。 是諸如來。 現覺而說。 阿難因位。 覺道未圓。 若稱知見。 謂言自說。 恐餘不信。 故但言聞。 況乎此界。 聲為佛事。 名等詮法。 不依色香希證菩提。 要聞深法。 多聞薰習。 為出世因故。 但言聞不云見覺。 更有問答。 如餘處明。 言一時者。 顯所聞法善合時宜無非時失。 時成就也。 謂明說此一部經時。 於一時間。 在某處說。 則顯說此一部經時。 餘時復說無量經故。 眾生根熟。 為感如來逗機。 而應藥病相應。 隨言得益。 說者聽者。 時分無差。 共相會遇。 名一時矣。 外道世典。 無如是名能故。 我佛教名一時也。 前簡說聽餘部經時。 後簡說聽前後之時。 顯佛教勝。 令生信也。 若爾諸法應非唯識。 說一及時。 心外法故。 答。 雖言一時。 不離心識。 謂此識心。 隨色分齊。 妄相建立一之與時。 若離色心。 則不可得故。 不應行蘊取攝。 攝論說為世識數識所聞之法尚不離心。 況一及時而別有也。 若爾三世應皆是有。 說一時者。 對過未故。 答。 五蘊諸法。 生已即滅。 生則酬前滅而引後。 所酬為過去。 所引為未來。 已滅未生。 雖不可得。 假對此二。 說現在焉。 如知往因。 應觀現果。 知未來果。 當觀現在因。 豈則一人有三身也。 但是現在一念妄心。 今說聽者。 隨心分限。 變作短長。 事緒終訖。 總名一時。 如夢所見。 謂有多生。 覺後唯心。 都無實竟。 若爾何不同下經等。 > \[First,\] to manifest freedom from the fault of passing on hearsay based on one's own fabrication: namely, at the time of the compilation, the assembly all asked, "Was what you are about to speak definitely heard by you in the past?" Therefore he answered, "Thus have I heard." Second, based on metaphor, to manifest freedom from the fault of disparity by adding or omitting: namely, "The phrases of the text about to be spoken are just as I heard in the past; up to this extent I shall speak, and there is definitely no discrepancy." Third, based on permission, to manifest the virtue of sovereign capability: the assembly all requested, "Just as you have heard, you should speak thus," whereupon he assented to them, saying, "Thus shall I speak, just as I have heard." Fourth, based on instruction, to manifest the virtue of inspiring reverent faith and acceptance: namely, addressing the assembled multitude at the time of the compilation, he said, "Thus should you listen, just as I have heard; having listened correctly, you should practice in accord with the principle." One should know that all the various meanings spoken by Guṇaprabha and others are subsumed under these four meanings. In saying "I heard," bringing forward the person who can hear manifests that he personally heard it himself; this is called the accomplishment of hearing. That is, the transmitter of the Dharma points to himself, saying, "Such Dharma I personally heard myself." "I" refers to the nominal agent formed by the aggregation of the skandhas, which is called "I" because it has sovereign agency. "Heard" refers to the ear faculty generating consciousness to listen to sound, and the mental consciousness, following the ear consciousness, grasping the names and the like produced by the sound; these perfume consciousness and gather to appear \[therein\], and are collectively designated "hearing." Setting aside the particulars to focus on the whole answers and reveals that it relies on a multitude of conditions. That is, hearing the essentials of the Dharma is therefore called "I heard." Question: Why is it necessary to set aside the particulars and focus on the whole in this way? Answer: It reveals that it relies on a multitude of conditions. That is, when hearing the Dharma, one must possess eight conditions. If each were presented individually, it would become excessively verbose; if only one were brought forward, its meaning and function would be incomplete. To manifest that the nominal agent possesses these conditions, it says, "I heard." If so, why does it not say "non-self heard"? Answer: To remove the mind of fear. It is feared that various non-Buddhists, ordinary beings, and the like, hearing the words "non-self," \[would think,\] "Since it says non-self, who hears and who learns?" and being terrified of the Buddha's Dharma, they would refuse to enter. If so, why does it not say "Ānanda heard"? Answer: To manifest the virtue of sovereignty. "I" has the meaning of sovereign agency; it manifests that the transmitter of the Dharma possesses capability, retaining the vast teachings of the three vehicles as a whole. Were he to state his personal name, it would lack this meaning. If so, how does this differ from the false graspings of ordinary fools? Answer: Because it conforms to worldly convention. In the world, everyone speaks of self, other, that person, and this person, defiled and pure causes and fruits, and activities performed. Now the transmitter of the Dharma, although free from false grasping, conforms to the world in order to lead them to generate a mind of resolute faith-and-understanding and enter the true Dharma; therefore, conforming to conventional usage, he nominally says "I." If so, why does it point solely to Ānanda? Answer: Because he is the transmitter of the Dharma. In the past, he made offerings to a novice who recited the scriptures; now he has attained the foremost status in listening extensively and holding dhāraṇī, so that the oceanic treasury of the Buddha's Dharma flowed into his mind like pouring into a vessel without any loss. Furthermore, he personally attended the Buddha for more than twenty years, being well known to humans and gods; what he transmits will certainly inspire faith, and so the Buddha entrusted the Dharma to him. Since the master of transmitting the teaching points to himself, "I heard" is entrusted to Ānanda. If so, there is still the fault of hearing via transmission. Answer: Because the Buddha restated them for him. Ānanda requested the Buddha to speak the sūtras preached prior to his attendance. Moreover, for the holy ones, in principle there are no repetitive words; when the Buddha briefly raised their beginning, he thoroughly understood everything. How much more so when he heard the prophesied bodhisattva practices and attained the samādhi of sovereignty in awakening to the nature of phenomena: he was even able to remember and retain the treasuries of the Dharma of all buddhas, so how could he fail to thoroughly comprehend the sūtras preached previously? Although it was only after twenty years that he attended the Buddha and heard the sūtras, saying "I heard" in principle does not conflict with this. If so, he should say, "I saw and perceived." Answer: Because he attributes the achievement to the Buddha. This transmitted teaching belongs to the Buddha, the World-Honoured One; it was spoken by the Tathāgatas through direct awakening. Ānanda is in the causal stage, where the path of awakening is not yet complete. If he claimed to know and see, people would say he spoke it himself; fearing that others would not believe it, he only says "heard." What is more, in this world, sound serves as the Buddha-work; names and so forth explain the Dharma, and one does not rely on form or fragrance to hope for the realization of bodhi. One must hear the profound Dharma, and perfuming through extensive listening serves as the cause for leaving the world; therefore, he only says "heard" and does not say "saw and perceived." There are further questions and answers, as clarified elsewhere. Saying "at one time" manifests that the Dharma heard appropriately accords with the right occasion without the fault of mistiming; this is the accomplishment of time. That is, it clarifies that when this single scripture was spoken, it was spoken at a certain time and in a certain place, which reveals that while this scripture was being spoken, countless other scriptures were also spoken at other times. The faculties of sentient beings were ripe, evoking the Tathāgata to respond to their capacities; matching the medicine to the disease, they obtained benefit following his words. The speaker and the listeners had no discrepancy in timing, meeting together; this is called "at one time." The secular scriptures of non-Buddhists have no such capability; therefore our Buddha's teaching calls it "at one time." The former delimits the time of speaking and listening to other scriptures, while the latter delimits the times before and after speaking and listening, manifesting the supremacy of the Buddha's teaching to inspire faith. If so, all phenomena would not be consciousness-only, because speaking of "one" and "time" would be phenomena external to the mind. Answer: Although it says "at one time," it is not separate from the mind-consciousness. That is, this consciousness-mind, following the boundaries of form, falsely establishes the designations of "one" and "time." If separated from form and mind, they cannot be found; therefore, they should not be grasped and subsumed under the saṃskāra-skandha. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha explains them as the worldly consciousness and numerical consciousness. Even the Dharma heard is not separate from the mind, so how could "one" and "time" exist separately? If so, the three times should all exist, because speaking of "at one time" is contrasted with the past and future. Answer: The phenomena of the five skandhas perish immediately after arising. Arising requites the prior, and perishing leads to the subsequent. What is requited is the past, and what is led to is the future. Having perished and not yet arisen, although unobtainable, the present is nominally spoken of in contrast to these two. Just as to know past causes one should observe present results, and to know future results one should observe present causes, how could one person have three bodies? It is merely a single thought of the deluded mind in the present. Now, the speaker and the listeners, according to the limits of their minds, transform it into short or long; when the matter has reached its conclusion, it is collectively called "at one time." Just as in a dream one sees what is taken to be many lifetimes, after waking it is mind only and completely lacks reality. If so, why does it differ from the scripture below and the like? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.8.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2735.1.8.1) - [Next: 1.8.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2735.1.8.3) - [Up: 1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2735.1.8) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2735~en-mt.1.8.2) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2735.1.8.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2735.1.8.2) · Pramāṇa