金剛般若經旨贊 1.8.2

1.8.2

[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?