|
我者，如是我聞
我者，今當說。問曰：若佛法中言一切法空，一切無有吾我，云何佛經初言如是我聞？
答曰：佛弟子等雖知無我，隨俗法說我，非實我也。譬如以金錢買銅錢，人無笑者。何以故？賣買法應爾故。言我者亦如是，於無我法中而說我，隨世俗故不應難。
如天問經中偈說：
阿羅漢比丘，
諸漏以永盡，
於最後邊身，
能言吾我不？
佛答言：
阿羅漢比丘，
諸漏以永盡，
於最後邊身，
能言有吾我。
世界法中說我，第一義。以是故，諸法空無我而說我，無咎。復次，世界語言有三根本：一者邪，二者慢，三者名字。是中二種不淨，一種淨。一切凡人三種語：邪、慢、名字；見道學人二種語：慢、名字；諸漏盡人用一種語，名字。內心雖不違實法，而隨世界人共傳是語故，除世邪見，順俗無諍。復次若人著無我相言是實，餘妄語，是人應難：汝一切法實相無我，云何言如是我聞？
今諸佛弟子，於一切法空無所有，是中心不著亦不著諸法實相，何況無我法中心著？以是故，不應難言何以說我。如中論中偈說：
若有所不空 應當有所空
不空尚不得 何況得於空
凡人見不空 亦復見於空
不見見無見 是實名涅槃
不二安隱門 能破諸邪見
諸佛所行處 是名無我法 |
|
"I" in "Thus I Have Heard..."
T25.64a14-b18
Question: If within the Buddha's Dharma it is said that all dharmas are empty and nowhere is there a "self", why then is it declared at the very beginning of the Buddha's scriptures, “Thus `I' have heard.”?
Reply: Although the Buddha's disciples are aware that there is no self, they accord with common practice in speaking. The "I" thus used is not an actually-existent "I". This is just as when one uses gold coins to purchase copper coins. Nobody laughs at this. Why not? Because the protocols of commerce dictate this way of doing things.
Saying "I" is just the same as that. Within the Dharma of no-self, one nonetheless says "I" in conformance with worldly convention. Therefore one need not call this practice into question.
This is as referred to in a verse from The Questions of the Gods Sutra:
If there be an arhat bhikshu
Who has forever ended outflows
And who dwells in his very last body,
May he speak of an "I" or not?
The Buddha replied:
If there be an arhat bhikshu
Who has forever ended outflows
And who dwells in his very last body,
He may speak as if there were an "I."
When in accordance with worldy convention one speaks of a self, it is not spoken from the standpoint of the supreme and actual meaning. For this reason, although dharmas are empty and devoid of a self, there is no fault in speaking of an "I" [simply] to take into account [the dictates of] worldly convention.
Three Bases of “Worldly” Discourse
Moreover, worldly discourse has three bases: first, false views; second, conceit; and third, names. Of these, two are impure and one is pure. The discourse of all common people is characterized by three types: false views, conceit and names. The discourse of those with more to study on the path of seeing is characterized by two types: conceit and names.
The discourse of the sages is characterized by one type: names. Although in their minds they do not contradict the actual Dharma, because they go along with the practice of worldly people, they participate in the perpetuation of this type of discourse. Because they have gotten rid of the worldly man's false views, in their going along with common practice, there is no disputation. On account of this they have gotten rid of both kinds of impure bases of discourse. Because they go along with the worldly convention, they employ one of the types of speech. Because the disciples of the Buddha go along with common practice, their speaking of an "I" is without fault.
Moreover, if a person becomes attached to the characteristic of no self, saying, "This is actual; everything else is false discourse," he should be challenged with a difficulty: "If for you the actual characteristic of all dharmas is devoid of a self, why do you say, `Thus "I" have heard...'?"
Now, for all of the Buddhas disciples, all dharmas are empty and devoid of anything which exists. Their minds are not attached herein. Nor are they attached in their speech to the actual characteristic of all dharmas. How much the less are they attached in their thoughts to the dharma of no self. On this account one need not challenge with the difficulty, "Why do you say `I'?"
This is as referred to in a verse from The Treatise on the Middle:
If one has something which has not been rendered empty,
Then one ought to have that which is rendered empty.
Non-emptiness has still not been attained,
How much the less has emptiness been realized?
The views of the common person have not been rendered empty.
And so they also have a view of emptiness.
To have no view of either views or absence of views:
This is truly what is known as Nirvana.
The gate to the security of non-duality
Is able to shatter all false views.
The place where all the Buddhas course,
This is known as the dharma of no self. |
