[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) › [金剛般若經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2741) › 1.11 # 金剛般若經疏 1.11 金剛般若經疏 1.11 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2741.1.11) 經。我聞　演曰。第二能聞。傳法菩薩。自指己牙言。如是法親從佛聞故名我聞。非謂我聞。非謂我者定屬一人。所言聞者。且小乘宗薩婆多師。耳聞非識。經部翻此。譬喻師說心心所法和能聞。依大乘宗根識心所和合為聞。雜集第二云。問。為眼見色為識等耶。答。非眼見色亦非識等。以一切法無作用故。由有和合假立為見。耳等亦爾。然諸聖教。就勝所依。或說根聞以能分別。或說識聞。具前二義說根識聞皆不相違。又依世耳等能聞。依勝義理耳非能聞亦非識等。瑜伽五十六說。諸法自性眾緣生故。剎那滅故。無作用故。智論亦云。非耳及識意等能聞。從多緣和合故得聞聲。乃至云。佛法中無有一法能作能知等。又耳根識唯聞於聲而示聞教。若約名句唯意識聞故。瑜伽言。聞謂比量。然由耳識親聞於聲。與意為意門方得聞。意為緣熏習在識因聞所成總說名聞。廢別耳等總名我聞。故佛地云。我謂諸蘊世俗假者。聞謂耳根發識聽受。廢別就總故說我聞。一問何須廢別而說於總。答。若不言我不顯自他。耳通一切。是誰耳聞。又復聞時非唯耳等待緣極多。若一一陳遂成煩廣。若唯說一義用不周顯和合聞。總標假者。然我有三。一妄所執。謂外道等所橫計我。二假施設我。謂大涅槃樂淨常我。除二乘例強施設故。世三流布我。謂世共傳天授祠等。今傳法者。隨順世間自指稱我不同前。即是無我之大我也。遍計無體圓成無相不可說聞。然就依他亦無實聞。因緣和合假說名聞。二問諸佛說法本除我執。何故不稱無我為言我聞。答。瑜伽第六四義釋之。一言說易故。若說無我通蘊處界知此說誰。二順世間故。三除我怖故。言無我者為誰修學。四為宣說自他染淨因果事業令生決定信解心故。所以稱我。智論第一四悉檀中。依世界悉檀說我無過。即當瑜伽順世間故。又云。世間語言有三根本。一見二慢三名字。前二不淨後一通淨。一切凡夫三種語言見道學人二種除見。今依第三說我無失。三問既依名字。何故不言阿難問。答。有五義。一示不乖俗宗。雖顯真序不乖俗理。雖顯妙言不乖麁欲。顯真諦不離俗故。二我者主宰自在之義。佛地論云。顯不聞者有所堪能。集諸傳云有三阿難。一阿難此云慶喜。持聲聞藏。二阿難跋陀此云喜賢。持獨覺藏。三阿難伽羅此云喜海。持菩薩藏。但是一人隨德名別。阿難於教總持自在。若稱名字。雖順正理。無於諸法得自在義。由斯稱我不通阿難。三表親聞世聞共言我見聞。此將為親證。若言阿難聞或非親聞從他傳受。今顯親聞以破疑網。四不識阿難者。謂言誰聞。五有同名者。謂言彼聞。四問慶喜于時親亦見覺何唯說聞。答。有四義。一名等詮義非色等故。欲證深理要聞法故。二此界以聲而為佛事聲為所依名等有故。三希證菩提要聞熏習。由聞熏習出世故。四顯非現證故。有釋云。諮承有無自信之過。即推功歸佛。表已因位未現見法但聞而已。若言見覺謂言同佛。五問為佛說法言我能聞。為佛不說言我聞耶。答。有二解。一者龍軍無性等說。諸佛唯有三法。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。雖親依自善根力起而就強緣名為佛說。譬如天等增上力故。今於夢中得呪論等。佛地一師亦同此解。二者親光等言。佛身具有蘊處界等。由離分別名無盡戲論。是不說法名無戲論。謂宜聞者善根本願緣力如來識上義相生。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。應如說此如是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。諸有所問皆離增減異分過失。為令眾生恭敬信受。文義決定無所增減。是故問者應正問。已如理思惟當勤修學。六問阿難成是佛成道日生。二十年後方為侍者。已前諸教何得親聞。答。有六義。一本願力故。去作長者供養誦經。沙彌令得總持。龍樹讚云。面如淨滿月。眼如青蓮華。佛法大海水。流入阿難心。二展轉聞。智論第二說。佛初轉法輪。爾時我不見如是展轉聞。三佛加持故。報恩經云。佛入世俗心令阿難知。四佛為略說故。亦出報恩經。佛粗舉其端而能盡解。五三昧力故。金剛華經說。阿難得法性覺性自在王三昧能憶天聞法力故。觀佛三昧海經第五。阿難見佛聞法說菩薩行。即憶過去九十億佛所說經藏。法華第四云。自聞授記等。即時憶念過去無量千萬億法諸藏通達無礙等而說偈言。世尊甚希有等。上來六緣由本願力得成後五。七問有無量大菩薩。何故唯付阿難持法。答。諸菩薩等。各怱務莊嚴眷屬調伏自身不能宣通難寫瓶有寄。所以傳燈是屬。又後阿難常隨如來人天所識傳必生信。諸菩薩等形異處疎非眾皆識。或容住一問。諸經皆云如是我聞。何故溫室經云阿難曰吾從佛聞。藥師經云聞如是等。答。隨方置言其意無別。如阿難昇座說經已大眾難言。無常力大無常力大。無常力大。如此等法。於佛所親自聽聞。今者乃言我聞如是。 > Sūtra: “I have heard.” Exposition: The second is the ability to hear. The bodhisattva who transmits the Dharma points to himself and says: “Such a Dharma was heard directly from the Buddha; therefore it is called ‘I have heard.’” It does not mean that the “I” definitively belongs to a single \[real\] person. As for what is called “hearing,” first, according to the Sarvāstivādin masters of the Hīnayāna school, the ear hears and not consciousness. The Sautrāntikas invert this. The Dārṣṭāntika masters state that the mind and mental factors in harmonious combination can hear. Relying on the Mahāyāna school, it is the combination of sense-faculty, consciousness, and mental factors that constitutes hearing. Fascicle two of the Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā says: “Question: Does the eye see form, or does consciousness, etc.? Answer: It is not the eye that sees form, nor is it consciousness, etc. Because all dharmas lack active operation, ‘seeing’ is nominally designated on account of harmony and combination. The ear, etc., are also like this.” However, the holy teachings, in terms of the superior basis, either say the sense-faculty hears because of its ability to discriminate, or say that consciousness hears. Possessing both of the preceding senses, to speak of sense-faculty or consciousness hearing does not conflict. Moreover, according to conventional truth, the ear, etc., can hear; according to ultimate truth, the ear is not able to hear, nor is consciousness, etc. The Yogācārabhūmi (fascicle 56) states that because the intrinsic natures of all dharmas are produced from manifold conditions, because they perish in an instant, and because they lack active operation \[they do not possess agency\]. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa also says: “It is not the ear, consciousness, mind, etc., that can hear; hearing sound is obtained from the combination of many conditions,” and so on, up to: “in the Buddha’s Dharma there is not a single dharma that can act, know, and so forth.” Furthermore, the ear faculty and consciousness only hear sound and do not discern the teaching; if in terms of names and sentences, it is only mental consciousness that hears; thus the Yogācārabhūmi states: “Hearing refers to inference.” Yet because the ear consciousness directly hears the sound, it serves as the gateway for the mental consciousness, which only then gets to hear; the mental consciousness serves as the condition, perfuming the consciousness; on account of the culmination of hearing, it is comprehensively designated “hearing.” Setting aside the particular ear, etc., it is comprehensively called “I have heard.” Therefore the Buddhabhūmyupadeśa states: “The ‘I’ refers to the conventionally designated person among the aggregates; ‘hearing’ refers to the ear faculty giving rise to consciousness to listen and receive. Setting aside the particular to adopt the general, one therefore speaks of ‘I have heard.’” > First question: Why is it necessary to set aside the particular and speak in general? Answer: If one does not say “I,” self and other are not distinguished. Ears are common to all; whose ear hears? Furthermore, at the time of hearing, it is not merely the ear, etc.; the conditions relied upon are exceedingly numerous. If each were expounded one by one, it would become cumbersome and broad. If one only stated one, the meaning and function would not be comprehensive. To reveal hearing through harmony and combination, the designated person is indicated generally. However, there are three kinds of “I”: 1. The falsely grasped “I,” namely the “I” arbitrarily calculated by non-Buddhists and the like. 2. The nominally designated “I,” namely the blissful, pure, permanent “I” of the Great Nirvāṇa, conventionally established by strong designation to set aside the two vehicles. 3. The conventionally widespread “I,” namely Devadatta, Yajñadatta, and so on as commonly used in the world. Now the transmitter of the Dharma, in accordance with the world, points to himself and calls it “I,” which is different from the former; this is precisely the great “I” of non-self. The imagined nature lacks substantial entity, and the consummated nature lacks marks, so neither can be said to hear. Yet even in terms of the other-dependent nature, there is no real hearing; it is nominally termed hearing on account of the harmonious combination of causes and conditions. > Second question: Since the Buddhas preach the Dharma primarily to eliminate the grasping of self, why not say “non-self” instead of “I have heard”? Answer: The sixth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi explains this through four meanings: 1. Because discourse is easy: if one spoke of non-self, it would pervade the aggregates, sense-bases, and elements; who would know who is speaking this? 2. Because of conforming to the world. 3. To dispel the fear of non-self: if one says “non-self,” for whose sake would one cultivate and study? 4. To proclaim the causes, effects, activities, and deeds of defilement and purification in self and other, so as to cause the mind of decisive faith and understanding to arise. For these reasons one speaks of “I.” In the first fascicle of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, among the four siddhāntas, stating “I” according to the worldly siddhānta incurs no error; this corresponds to conforming to the world in the Yogācārabhūmi. It also states: “Worldly language has three roots: 1. views, 2. conceit, 3. names. The first two are impure; the last one is open to purity. All ordinary people have three kinds of language; practitioners on the path of seeing have two kinds, having eliminated views.” Now, relying on the third, to speak of “I” is without fault. > Third question: Since it relies on names, why not say “Ānanda heard”? Answer: There are five meanings: 1. To show that it does not oppose the conventional principle: although revealing the ultimate order, it does not oppose conventional truth; although revealing subtle words, it does not oppose coarse desires; to reveal that ultimate truth does not depart from the conventional. 2. “I” has the meaning of master and sovereign mastery. The Buddhabhūmyupadeśa states: “It reveals that the non-hearer possesses capability.” Compiling various traditions, it is said that there are three Ānandas: 1. Ānanda, translated here as “Rejoicing,” who maintained the Śrāvaka canon; 2. Ānandabhadra, translated here as “Joyous Virtue,” who maintained the Pratyekabuddha canon; 3. Ānandagala, translated here as “Ocean of Joy,” who maintained the Bodhisattva canon. But this is just one person whose names differ according to his virtues. Ānanda possessed sovereign mastery in retaining the teachings. If he were referred to by his name, although conforming to correct reason, it would not convey the meaning of attaining sovereign mastery over all dharmas. Because of this, “I” is stated rather than “Ānanda.” 3. To indicate direct hearing: the world commonly says “I saw and heard,” taking this as direct verification. If it were said “Ānanda heard,” it might not be direct hearing but transmitted from someone else. Now direct hearing is revealed to dispel the net of doubt. 4. Those who do not know Ānanda would ask, “Who heard?” 5. For those who share the same name, it might be thought that that other person heard. > Fourth question: Since Ānanda at that time also directly saw and was conscious, why does he only speak of hearing? Answer: There are four meanings: 1. Names and the like express meanings, which are not forms, etc.; to realize the profound truth, one must hear the Dharma. 2. In this realm, the Buddha’s work is done through sound; sound is the basis upon which names and so on exist. 3. To hope to realize bodhi, one must hear the perfuming \[of the Dharma\]; through hearing the perfuming, one transcends the world. 4. To show that it was not direct realization. One explanation says: to avoid the fault of self-confidence in having inquired and received, he attributes the merit to the Buddha, showing that in his causal stage he had not yet directly seen the Dharma, but merely heard it. If he said “saw and was conscious,” it would imply he was equal to the Buddha. > Fifth question: Did the Buddha preach the Dharma and \[Ānanda\] say “I can hear,” or did the Buddha not preach and he said “I have heard”? Answer: There are two explanations. First, Nāgamitra, Asabhāva, and others say that the Buddhas possess only three dharmas, namely great samādhi, wisdom, and compassion; long free from conceptual proliferation, they have never preached the Dharma. By the conditioning power of the Buddha’s compassion and fundamental vows, the images of words and meanings arise in the consciousness of sentient beings. Although directly arising dependent on the power of one’s own roots of goodness, with respect to the predominant condition it is called the Buddha’s preaching. Just as by the sovereign power of devas and the like, one is caused to obtain dhāraṇīs, treatises, and so on in a dream. One master of the Buddhabhūmyupadeśa also shares this explanation. Second, Bandhuprabha and others say that the Buddha’s body fully possesses the aggregates, sense-bases, elements, and so forth; because it is free from discrimination, it is called endless conceptual proliferation, yet not preaching the Dharma is called the absence of conceptual proliferation. That is to say, through the conditioning power of the roots of goodness and fundamental vows of those suited to hear, the image of the meaning arises in the Tathāgata’s consciousness; this, having arisen from the Buddha’s roots of goodness that benefit others, is called the Buddha’s preaching. Although the consciousness of the hearer does not directly grasp it, an image resembling it appears clearly; therefore it is called “I have heard.” It should be that in speaking this: “such was spoken, thus have I heard,” the intention is to avoid the fault of difference in adding and subtracting; that is to say: “such Dharma I heard from the Buddha, not transmitted through others.” Revealing that the hearer possesses capability, whatever is asked is free from the fault of difference in adding and subtracting. In order to cause sentient beings to reverently believe and accept, the text and meaning are decisive without addition or reduction. Therefore, the questioner should question properly, and having reflected in accordance with the truth, should diligently cultivate and study. > Sixth question: Ānanda was born on the day the Buddha attained enlightenment, and became his attendant only twenty years later; how could he have directly heard all the preceding teachings? Answer: There are six meanings: 1. By the power of his past vows: in the past he was an elder who made offerings to a novice reciting sūtras, causing him to obtain retention (dhāraṇī). Nāgārjuna’s praise says: “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. Transmitted hearing: 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 it was heard via transmission.” 3. By the Buddha’s empowerment: the Bao’en Jing says that the Buddha entered the worldly mind to cause Ānanda to know. 4. Because the Buddha briefly expounded them for him: also from the Bao’en Jing; the Buddha roughly raised the beginning, and he was able to understand completely. 5. By the power of samādhi: the Vajrapuṣpa Sūtra states that Ānanda obtained the Sovereign King Samādhi of Dharmatā and Bodhi-nature, and by its power was able to remember the Dharma heard by devas. Fascicle five of the Guanfo Sanmei Hai Jing states that Ānanda saw the Buddha, heard the Dharma expounding bodhisattva practice, and immediately recalled the sūtra collections preached by ninety billion past Buddhas. Chapter four of the Lotus Sūtra states that having heard his prophecy, he immediately recollected and unimpededly penetrated the inexhaustible billions of dharma-stores of the past, and spoke in verse: “The World-Honoured One is extremely rare,” and so forth. Among the six conditions above, through the power of his past vows the latter five were accomplished. > Seventh question: There were immeasurable great bodhisattvas; why was the maintenance of the Dharma entrusted solely to Ānanda? Answer: The bodhisattvas were each busy adorning their retinues and subduing their own persons, unable to widely propagate it; to pour water from a full vessel requires a receptacle, and therefore the transmission of the lamp belonged to him. Furthermore, later Ānanda constantly followed the Tathāgata, known to humans and devas; his transmission was certain to generate faith. The forms of the various bodhisattvas were different and their abodes distant, not known to all the multitude. Or it may abide \[in another explanation\]. One question: All sūtras say “Thus have I heard”; why does the Wen Shi Jing say “Ānanda said: I heard from the Buddha,” and the Bhaiṣajyaguru Sūtra say “Hearing thus,” and so on? Answer: Words are arranged according to the region, but their meaning is not different. As when Ānanda ascended the seat to preach the sūtra, the great assembly questioned him: “Great is the power of impermanence! Great is the power of impermanence! Great is the power of impermanence! Such dharmas were personally heard in the presence of the Buddha; now you state: ‘I have heard thus.’” > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2741.1.10) - [Next: 1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2741.1.12) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2741.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2741~en-mt.1.11) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (6) - [妙法蓮華經玄贊](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1723.1.55) — Classical Chinese - [說無垢稱經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1782.1.22) — Classical Chinese - [仁王護國般若波羅蜜多經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1709.1.50) — Classical Chinese - [仁王經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1708.1.25) — Classical Chinese - [阿彌陀經通贊疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1758.1.32) — Classical Chinese - [御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2733.1.13) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2741.1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2741.1.11) · Pramāṇa