谁写了大乘经（一）·经文里的自画像

本专题 DOI 10.5281/zenodo.23268244

专题系列《谁写了大乘经》四篇之一。大乘经一律托佛口说，没有一部署了作者的名字，所以"谁写了大乘经"不能从题记里读，只能从经文自己怎样描写传经的人、听经的人与反对的人里推。本篇只做这一件事：读最早一批汉译大乘经，看它们给自己画了一幅什么样的像，这幅像哪些部分可信。第二篇讲平川彰的在家塔寺说怎样被推翻，第三篇讲林居说、书写说与法师说，第四篇讲部派、年代与地点。全部引文的原文与今译见附篇。

本篇的结论有三层。其一，最早的汉译大乘经把自己的听众分成出家菩萨与在家菩萨，再按性别分成四辈，而把写经与传经的人写成法师与受经者；经里的菩萨不是受拜的神，是发了心的人，在家菩萨常居叙事中心，却不断被劝出家，女人受教而不称菩萨。其二，这批经的处境在字里行间：自我吹嘘到"几乎呻吟"，预先记下反对者"是经非佛所说"与"自作此经典"的指控，用的却不是"大乘"对"小乘"那套宗派范畴。其三，自画像可信的是处境，不可信的是自我评价：少数、防御、被指自作，这些有旁证；法师如佛、持经即成大菩萨，这些是写经人自己写的。各节所答的追问如下：

追问 容易想成的样子 本篇
材料是什么 梵文原典 第一节
经里的菩萨是谁 受人崇拜的大菩萨 第二节
经怎样看反对者 大乘骂小乘 第三节
经怎样写传经的人 没有写 第四节
自画像能信多少 要么全信要么全不信 第五节

一、材料：支娄迦谶译的那批经

现存的梵本大乘经多是十一世纪以后的写本，经过几百年的梵语化、增补与删节；藏译是九世纪以后的。最早的书面见证是汉译。支娄迦谶在洛阳译经约在一六八至一八九年间，《道行般若经》题光和二年即一七九年译出；安玄在差不多同时译出《法镜经》。Harrison 一九八七年用这批经检验通行的几条假设，材料是十一部二世纪后半的汉译：《道行般若经》《般舟三昧经》《伅真陀罗所问如来三昧经》《阿阇世王经》《兜沙经》《内藏百宝经》《文殊师利问菩萨署经》《遗日摩尼宝经》八部归支娄迦谶，《阿閦佛国经》题支娄迦谶译而他认为"大概出自他同时代人或其门下后学之手"，《成具光明定意经》题支曜译，《法镜经》题安玄与严佛调译。他说这批经的价值在于"把那场运动最早的阶段冻结在一种古拙的半白话汉语里"，后出的译本与梵本"可能而且常常含有后来的增益"。1

他同时交代了这批材料的限度。原经"很可能写于不同时间、不同地点，出自不同人之手"，而那些手"几乎可以肯定是识字的男性，大概是比丘"，所以经文代表的是一个有限的视角。这句话定下了本篇的读法：读的是一群人给自己画的像，画的人就在像里。2

二、经里的菩萨：是人，不是神

这批经里的人分两层。听经的人叫“善男子善女人”，经文对他们说持经、诵经、写经的功德；发了心的人叫菩萨，支娄迦谶几乎一律音译作"菩萨"，安玄译作"开士"，支曜译作"明士"。菩萨先分出家与在家，再按性别分成比丘菩萨、比丘尼、白衣菩萨、优婆夷四辈。《般舟三昧经》第六品依次讲这四种人怎样学这个三昧，附篇第九段所辑的五百人也是四众俱全。3

Harrison 的第一个发现是，经里的菩萨不是受拜的对象。观世音在这十一部经里只出现两次，都在名单里，对这些作者他是"无足轻重的角色"；文殊与弥勒常见，但"没有证据显示存在对大菩萨的普遍崇拜，也没有段落劝人礼敬他们。他们的作用是象征，不是救主"。经文的信息是"人不该礼拜菩萨，该自己成为菩萨"。菩萨是"有血有肉的真人"，发了菩提心，在出家或在家的环境里修行，写经的人把自己算在其中。4

第二个发现是在家菩萨的位置摇摆。他们常居叙事与教法的中心，《般舟三昧经》《成具光明定意经》《法镜经》尤其如此；同时又不断被劝出家、修头陀。《法镜经》说得最直：“未曾有開士在家為得道者，皆去家入山澤。”Harrison 的判断是"这些经对在家菩萨的位置有明显的两可态度"。Nattier 后来专门研究《郁伽长者所问经》，即《法镜经》的同本异译，Boucher 转述她的结论：那部经把林居写成成佛者必经的一步，"使人无法把《郁伽长者所问经》看作在家菩萨伦理的蓝图"。5

第三个发现关于女人。教法面向善男子善女人，女人能发菩提心，《伅真陀罗经》里乾闼婆王的八万四千妻都发了心；但经文"小心地避免称女人为菩萨"，女身须转男身才能成佛，佛土里或无女人，或女人远胜此世。Harrison 的结论是"男女都可以乘大乘，但只许男人驾驶"，这反映的是写经的男人、大概是比丘的态度。6

Vetter 在同一批材料里读出一个与 Harrison 不同的倾向，须一并记下。他注意到早期译本的序分把菩萨与比丘截然分开，"菩萨在早期大乘经的序分里与比丘、比丘尼判然两列"，菩萨的诸种德目没有一项指向寺院生活；他由此推想最初的菩萨出家者"不大可能加入过佛教僧团"。他又据支娄迦谶把 yāna 译作"道"而不是"乘"，主张 mahāyāna 本义是"大道"或"大生涯"。这两点第二篇与第三篇都会用到；这里只记一句，Vetter 自己说"不能说那一定是在家人"。7

三、经里的"我们"：少数、防御、被指自作

Harrison 读这批经的第一印象是防御："这些经在自我颂扬的重压之下几乎要呻吟，一章接一章宣说这一教义或那一修行的功德，读者涉过去时劫数都能流逝。"经文咒骂诽谤者，诽谤者多被画成懒惰破戒的比丘。他由此推断写经的人"大概是极少数"，拼命维护一个理想，"但他们并不打算把其余的佛教僧团一笔勾销，也不打算把'小乘''大乘'当作宗派范畴到处使用，从而切断自己与僧团的联系"。证据是用词："大乘"一词在这批经里约二十见，"少得出人意料"，"小道"只有四见；śrāvaka 极少译作"声闻"，多译作"弟子"或"阿罗汉"，译者"毫不怀疑声闻既指志求阿罗汉果或涅槃的人，也指实际证得的人"。8

反对者的话经文自己记下了。《般舟三昧经》说不信的人三三两两议论：“是語是何等說乎？是何從所得是語乎？是為自合會作是語耳，是經非佛所說。”同卷又说诽谤者言：“是彼不知愧，為自作是經耳，是經非佛所說。”《法华经·劝持品》记住阿兰若的比丘指控传经者“自作此經典，誑惑世間人，為求名聞故，分別於是經”。《八千颂般若》里魔化作沙门说，你刚才听的不是佛语，是诗，是诗人所作，MacQueen 指出这句话暗引经藏的原话，"大概准确地记录了当时的攻击"。9 这些指控有一个共同点：反对者针对的是经的来历，教义不在其中。Drewes 统计大乘经批评非大乘人的理由，最常见的也是"拒斥大乘经"，而不是道德或理想。10

辛嶋静志把〈劝持品〉的指控者与被指控者分开读。他据梵本偈颂的动词形式重译第五至十一偈，结论是说话的"我們"是向在家信众传法、被林居比丘骂作自创经文的比丘，"此處的'我們'正是《法華經》的創作者或持有者"，他们在寺院里属弱势，“一方面被阿蘭若住比丘們批評，另一方面被寺院的掌權者迫害”。他也承认“現在還不能確定哪一部分是誹謗性的言語哪一部分是描述性的文字”。Boucher 从《护国尊者所问经》的梵本里读到更直接的一条：一位后来的编者插入两偈，自承其师与师祖都说这部经"绝非佛语"，"这一段非同寻常，它表明一位后来的编者或编集者已经不顾其师的反对，把某个原始形态的《护国经》流传了出去"。11

四、经里的传经人：法师、受经者与经卷

经文没有写作者，写了传经的人。《道行般若经》把写经、持经卷供养、法师到处说经三件事并列，又说法师若“身得不安”、受经者若“欲復轉去”，两不和合，“亦不得書成般若波羅蜜”；法师想要衣服财利而受经者不给，法师“所有經卷而不肯現”，同样写不成。《阿閦佛国经》说一个佛国里法怎样灭，不是魔灭的，是“法師比丘於法教亦寂，說法少，以是故法稍滅盡”。《法华经·法师品》说能“竊為一人說法華經，乃至一句”的人“則如來使，如來所遣，行如來事”，毁谤在家出家读诵此经者罪重。附篇第三至六段辑有原文。12

这幅像里的生产过程是口对耳、耳对手：法师口诵，受经者听、学、写。Drewes 把这个人物从大乘经里整个提出来，统计了他在各经的出现次数，指出这个词只见于大乘经，并据经文把法师的活动画成记诵、口传、让弟子抄写、在布萨日与城镇公开讲、面对敌意的听众；第三篇专讲他的论证。13 印顺从另一头看：《道行般若经》说“善男子善女人為法師者”，他认为大乘初兴时菩萨比丘少，受擯斥，便在六斋日教化善男子善女人，其中“善於音聲”的人出来协助而成为法师；《道行般若经》另有一句“善男子善女人……自解出一一深法以為經卷”，他读作在家人传经的痕迹，后期译本已删。14

五、自画像能信多少

自画像的可信度要分开算。可信的是处境。少数派、防御性、被指"自作"，这三条有经文以外的旁证：五世纪以前的碑铭里几乎没有大乘，大乘写本在犍陀罗出土时全部混在部派文本的藏卷里，第四篇讲这些。不可信的是自我评价。法师当如佛供养、持经一句即是大菩萨、这部经胜过供养舍利，这些话是写经的人自己写的。Drewes 说得直白："这些材料多半是法师自己写的，他们显然有鼓励人们善待自己的利益考虑"。15

还有一层不可信，是作者对自己身份的遮掩。Boucher 指出《护国经》的作者大量借用前大乘经典的语汇，"这不无可能是为了给文本添一层古风，以遮掩他们在制作中的角色"。佐佐木闲从方法上说同一件事：当事人没有全貌，"不能指望这样的人写成的大乘经把事情的真相明白记下"。Silk 则提醒，现存最早的材料在年代意义上已经是中期的，"我们大概永远接触不到最古的层"。16

本书的判断：这批经给自己画的像有三部分。写经的人把自己画成发了心的人、如来的使者、佛所付嘱的法师，这是自评，证明不了什么；他们把反对者画成说"自作是经"的人，这是处境，有旁证；他们把生产过程画成法师口授、受经者书写，这是一幅工作图，第三篇与第四篇要拿它去对学界的重构。

六、小结

最早的汉译大乘经把听众分成四辈，把菩萨写成发了心的人而不是神，把女人排在驾驶座之外，把在家菩萨放在中心又不断劝他们出家。经文的处境在字里行间：自我吹嘘，预先记下"自作是经"的指控，却不用宗派的范畴切断与僧团的联系。经文没有写作者，写了法师与受经者怎样把经写成。自画像可信的是处境，不可信的是自我评价与对身份的遮掩。

引文说明：Harrison、Vetter、Drewes、MacQueen、Boucher、Sasaki、Silk 各文据原刊页码核对，正文用译文，英文原文录于注；Nattier 二〇〇三年书的结论转据 Boucher 二〇〇八年书所引；汉译经文据 CBETA 本逐字核对，出处与标点说明见附篇；辛嶋二〇〇一年文据《佛典語言及傳承》中译本核对，引文保留繁体；印顺据 CBETA 本核对，引文保留繁体，CBETA 本不标点。

注

参考文献

  1. Paul Harrison, “Who Gets to Ride in the Great Vehicle? Self-Image and Identity among the Followers of the Early Mahāyāna”, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 10/1 (1987): 67–89。十一部经的清单在第 68 至 72 页，大正藏编号依次为 T224、T418、T624、T626、T280、T807、T458、T350、T313、T630、T322；《阿閦佛国经》一条作“Attributed to Lokakṣema, but probably the work of one of his contemporaries or of later members of his school.”第 68 页：“Their value lies in the fact that they are the oldest literary evidence for the Mahāyāna, and preserve the earliest phase of that movement frozen, as it were, in an archaic semi-vernacular Chinese; later translations and the Sanskrit texts themselves can and often do contain later accretions, which reduce their value as historical evidence, at least as far as the early period is concerned.”支娄迦谶的译经年代据同文；《道行般若经》的年代据《出三藏记集》所记光和二年。 ↩

  2. Harrison 前文第 72 页：“Although they were all produced at roughly the same time and roughly the same place, the original sūtras may well have been written at different times, in different places, and by different hands. Furthermore, those hands were almost certainly those of literate males, probably monks, which means that the sūtras must represent a limited point of view, albeit an influential one.” ↩

  3. Harrison 前文第 73 至 74 页论译名与四辈；第 74 页论《般舟三昧经》第六品的四种人。附篇第九段引《般舟三昧经》卷中〈授决品〉。 ↩

  4. Harrison 前文第 79 页：“For all this, there is no evidence to suggest a widespread cult of the great bodhisattvas, and no passages recommend devotion to them. They function as symbols rather than as saviours.”第 80 页：“But as far as bodhisattvas are concerned the initial message of the Mahāyāna is clear: people should not worship bodhisattvas, they should become bodhisattvas themselves.”第 86 页：“For this group bodhisattvas were certainly not just semi-mythical beings raised on high to receive the adoration of the masses, but real flesh-and-blood people, among whom they counted themselves, who had conceived the bodhicitta, the aspiration for awakening, and were pursuing the appropriate course of training either in the monastic context or in the household life. There is no sign at all of any cult of the ‘Celestial Bodhisattvas’; this was probably a later development.”原文：“non-entity” ↩

  5. Harrison 前文第 76 页：“It is clear, therefore, that there is a definite ambivalence in these texts about the position of lay bodhisattvas. On the one hand lay bodhisattvas frequently occupy the centre stage, both in terms of the narrative framework of the sūtras and in terms of the teachings expounded in them (this is especially so in the PraS, CGD and UP); on the other hand they are constantly exhorted to leave lay life behind, to become renunciants”。《法镜经》原文见附篇第十段。Daniel Boucher, Bodhisattvas of the Forest and the Formation of the Mahāyāna: A Study and Translation of the Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā-sūtra (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2008)，第 55 页："Both of these passages—and many others that could be marshaled—make it impossible to see the Ugraparipṛcchā as a blueprint for a lay bodhisattva ethic."所据 Jan Nattier, A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path according to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā) (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2003)，第一卷第四篇第一章已引其第 73 至 102、127 至 134 页。 ↩

  6. Harrison 前文第 77 页：“In other words it scrupulously avoids calling women bodhisattvas.”第 79 页：“Of course all this reflects the attitudes of the men (probably monks) who produced these texts, but this does not make the conclusion any less inescapable: although both men and women can ride in the Great Vehicle, only men are allowed to drive it.” ↩

  7. Tilmann Vetter, “On the Origin of Mahāyāna Buddhism and the Subsequent Introduction of Prajñāpāramitā”, Asiatische Studien 48/4 (1994): 1241–1281，第 1252 页：“The first bodhisattva renunciants are therefore not likely to have entered the buddhist order.”第 1253 页：“So one cannot say that it must have been a lay person. But monks and nuns are not the first persons to think of. At any rate, they were not the first who took up the idea; bodhisattvas are clearly distinguished from monks (and nuns) in the prologues of early Mahāyāna sūtras (see part II).”Tilmann Vetter, “Once Again on the Origin of Mahāyāna Buddhism”, ed. and trans. Anne MacDonald, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 45 (2001): 59–90，第 63 页："Lokakṣema thus did not associate yāna with 'vehicle,' but rather with 'way,'"。 ↩

  8. Harrison 前文第 80 页：“The first thing that strikes one when reading these early Mahāyāna sūtras is their extreme defensiveness. The texts fairly groan under the weight of their own self-glorification, and kalpas can tick by while one wades through chapter after chapter proclaiming the merits of this doctrine or that practice.”第 84 至 85 页："What they do tell us is that the early adherents of the Bodhisattvayāna—who were probably very much in the minority—were prepared to go to great lengths to uphold their ideal against what they conceived to be the traditional goal of Buddhist practice, namely arhatship or nirvāṇa for oneself alone, but they were not prepared to write off the rest of the Buddhist saṅgha or sever their own connection with it by the wholesale use of such terms as "Hīnayāna" and "Mahāyāna“ as sectarian categories.”用词的统计在第 72 至 73、80 至 81 页；第 81 页："by consistently rendering śrāvaka by arhat, Lokakṣema and his colleagues showed they were in no doubt that śrāvakas are both people who aspire to arhatship or nirvāṇa and people who actually attain that goal."原文：“surprisingly rare” ↩

  9. 《般舟三昧经》卷上〈譬喻品〉两段与《妙法莲华经》卷四〈劝持品〉原文及出处见附篇第一、二段。Graeme MacQueen, “Inspired Speech in Early Mahāyāna Buddhism I”, Religion 11 (1981): 303–319，第 304 页引《八千颂》魔语“What you have heard just now, that is not the word of the Buddha. It is poetry, the work of poets.”，注 5 谓此语暗引经藏原话，“with their ring of orthodoxy probably represent accurately the attacks”。 ↩

  10. David Drewes, “Dharmabhāṇakas in Early Mahāyāna”, Indo-Iranian Journal 54 (2011): 331–372，第 363 页：“The most common thing that Mahāyāna sūtras criticize non-Mahāyānists for is rejecting Mahāyāna sūtras.” ↩

  11. 辛嶋静志〈誰創作了《法華經》？──阿蘭若住比丘與村住比丘的對立〉，吳蔚琳译，收入《佛典語言及傳承》（上海：中西書局，2016），第 290 页："但事實上，此處的'我們'正是《法華經》的創作者或持有者。因此，我們可以得出這樣的結論：那些創作和宣講《法華經》的人是村住比丘或有村住傾向的比丘。"第 296 页：“他們在寺院中屬於弱勢群體，一方面被阿蘭若住比丘們批評，另一方面被寺院的掌權者迫害。”第 289 页：“我承認，現在還不能確定哪一部分是誹謗性的言語哪一部分是描述性的文字。”Boucher 前书第 72 页译 RP 28.7–10：“My teacher was an ocean of knowledge, very learned, the best of expounders [of the Dharma]. And yet this [sūtra] was forbidden by him: ‘it is by no means the word of the Buddha.’”，并谓"This passage is extraordinary in that it demonstrates that a later editor or compiler had already circulated some primitive version of the Rāṣṭrapāla despite his teacher's objections." ↩

  12. 《道行般若经》卷二〈功德品〉、卷四〈觉魔品〉，《阿閦佛国经》卷下，《妙法莲华经》卷四〈法师品〉，原文与出处见附篇第三至六段。 ↩

  13. Drewes 2011 前文第 335 至 344 页；David Drewes, “Early Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism II: New Perspectives”, Religion Compass 4/2 (2010): 66–74，第 69 页："The term dharmabhāṇaka is not known to occur in non-Mahāyāna Indian Buddhist texts, which strongly suggests that this type of preacher was peculiar to the Mahāyāna." ↩

  14. 释印顺《初期大乘佛教之起源与开展》（台北：正闻出版社，1981）第十五章第二节：“信心懇篤理解明徹而善於音聲的善男子善女人就出來協助而成為法師”；第十五章第三节：“大乘初興時在家弟子傳出經法讀誦解說應該有事實根據的等到大乘漸興出家菩薩多起來出經與弘持的任務自然的落在出家菩薩手中”。据 CBETA Y0035 本核对，CBETA 本不标点。《道行般若经》“善男子善女人為法師者”见卷四〈叹品〉。 ↩

  15. Drewes 2011 前文第 355 页：“This is especially so in consideration of the fact that most of this material was probably composed by dharmabhāṇakas themselves, who had an obvious interest in encouraging people to treat them well whether or not they were accustomed to receiving reverential treatment in actual practice.” ↩

  16. Boucher 前书第 xiii 页："Just as the early Mormons preached largely from the King James Bible in winning new converts, the authors of the Rāṣṭrapāla strategically borrowed from the idiom of pre-Mahāyāna sources, including some of the earliest texts in the Buddhist canon. It is not unlikely that this was intended to impart an archaic aura to the text that would have disguised their role in its production."Sasaki Shizuka, “A Basic Approach for Research on the Origins of Mahāyāna Buddhism”, Acta Asiatica 96 (2009): 25–46，第 32 页：“One cannot possibly expect the truth of the matter to be plainly recorded in Mahāyāna scriptures composed by such individuals.”Jonathan A. Silk, “What, if Anything, is Mahāyāna Buddhism? Problems of Definitions and Classifications”, Numen 49/4 (2002): 355–405，第 374 页：“we will probably never have access to the oldest stratum”。 ↩