谁写了大乘经（二）·在家塔寺说的兴衰¶

参考文献

1. 平川彰《印度佛教史》，庄昆木译（北京：北京联合出版公司，2018），第三章第三节〈大乘佛教的源流〉，该节自注说明是据一九六八年的《初期大乗仏教の研究》改写的。原书页 330：“大乘佛教是由何处兴起的，现在并不清楚，但是从大体上来看，认为其有三大源流。第一是由部派佛教发展而来。”同页：“至今为止，一般认为大众部发展成大乘佛教，但是大乘佛教出现以后，大众部仍持续存在，所以难以看作是由大众部发展而消解成大乘。”页 332：“但是教理有所类似，并不直接意味着是此部派出身者述作了大乘经典。”页 339：“无名修行者自己起了菩萨的自觉，是无法由佛传文学的赞叹菩萨行导出来的，而有其他原理。”Akira Hirakawa, “The Rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism and Its Relationship to the Worship of Stupas”, Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 22 (1963): 57–106，第 57 页："This relationship between Mahāyāna Buddhism and Nikāya Buddhism is complicated, and it would be premature to conclude that the Mahāyāna is a development from the Mahāsāṃghika, simply because the latter advocated a number of progressive ideas. In this paper I propose to analyze the doctrinal relationship between Mahāyāna and Nikāya Buddhism and examine the institutional aspect of the early Mahāyāna Saṃgha as possible clues to the rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism." ↩

2. 平川前书，原书页 342：“部派佛教是出家中心的佛教，是重视戒律的佛教，所以成为以法为中心的佛教。”页 343：“相对地大乘佛教本来是在家中心的佛教。在古大乘经典里说到了在家菩萨中心的教理，当然大乘也在后来变成出家中心的佛教，但是是由在家佛教逐渐转变成出家佛教。”同页：“如此产生教法的宗教上的场所，可以考虑佛塔。”页 344：“首先，佛塔本质上是在家信众之物。”页 346：“因此除了有包含在部派教团中的佛塔之外，可以看作存在着不属于部派而由信众团体独立经营的佛塔。”页 348：“如此佛塔有财产，有护持、管理者，他们非得是与一般信众不同，但又不属于僧伽的”非僧非俗“的专家不可。”页 349：“在大乘经典里，记载有菩萨的集团是作”菩萨众“（Bodhisattvagaṇa），存在于部派教团”声闻僧伽“（Śrāvakasaṃgha）之外。将菩萨众的起源假设于佛塔教团，未必是牵强的”。 ↩

3. Hirakawa 1963 前文第 81 页："The bhikṣu and bodhisattva must have lived independent of each other, because if the two had led a communal life in the same vihāra, they probably would not be mentioned separately."第 85 页：“As I have stated, there were both renunciants and householders among the bodhisattvas, and the former lived by the offerings made by the faithful worshippers. The question arises as to the place and method by which the renunciant bodhisattva received the offerings of the faithful. From my studies of this problem I have reached the conclusion that it was the stupa which was the religious center for the renunciant bodhisattvas.”第 103 页："Therefore, it would not be wrong to conclude that those who cremated the Buddha's body and erected stūpas were followers among the laity. If this is accepted, then we must also accept the fact that those who administered and maintained the traditions of stupa worship were also lay followers."第 106 页："The Mahāyāna sutras as we have them today are not the words of the Buddha, but there must have been a reason for them to uniformly begin, ‘evaṃ mayā śrutam.’ I believe that the institution of the stūpa provides an tentative answer to this question."同页："this paper which attempts to show the importance of stūpa worship is merely a preliminary chapter"。Sasaki Shizuka, “A Study on the Origin of Mahāyāna Buddhism”, The Eastern Buddhist n.s. 30/1 (1997): 79–113，四点的归纳分见第 87 至 88、98 至 99、109 页，第 88 页："Since many of the early Mahāyāna sūtras severely criticize the sectarian bhikṣus as inferior to the Mahāyāna bodhisattvas, it is impossible to think that the Mahāyāna bodhisattvas were also sectarian bhikṣus. Therefore, the only rational conclusion is that the Mahāyāna bodhisattvas who played the major role in the early Mahāyāna movement were lay people."第 87 页注 15 说明四点在《初期大乘佛教之研究》重版第二卷中的位置：第一点第 3 至 78 页，第三点第 189 至 316 页，第四点第 332 至 356 页。 ↩

4. 平川前书，原书页 349：“但是《般若经》的支持者的起源，应在与佛塔不同的方向上探求。”Paul Williams, Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2009)，第 22 页："Hirakawa's main point appears to be that the Mahāyāna grew up among an identifiable order of Bodhisattvas, composed of lay and renunciate members of equal status, centred on the stūpas, relic mounds, and relic shrine worship."第 23 页：“Hirakawa's paper relies on too many suppositions to be fully convincing”。 ↩

5. 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，第 86 页："The point of view presented in the earliest Chinese translations of Mahāyāna sūtras is most probably that of Mahāyānist bhikṣus."第 76 页：“It is clear, therefore, that there is a definite ambivalence in these texts about the position of lay bodhisattvas.”《法镜经》原文见附篇第十段。Jan Nattier, A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path according to The Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā) (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2003)，第 74 页注 2："In light of the fact that the distinction between home-dwelling and renunciant bodhisattvas is not only a major element of the plot, but determines the very structure of the sutra itself, it is astonishing to read the claim in Hirakawa 1990b that ‘in the Ugra the distinction between the home-leaving (shukke) and the home-dwelling (zaike) [bodhisattva] is not clear’ (p. 136)."第 93 页：“In sum, Hirakawa's contention that the ‘Mahāyāna’ emerged out of a cult of the stūpa finds absolutely no support in the Ugra. On the contrary, the sutra provides copious evidence in support of the opposite theory: that the bodhisattva path was developed, as an optional religious vocation, within the confines of the traditional monastic community.”Daniel Boucher, Bodhisattvas of the Forest and the Formation of the Mahāyāna (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2008)，第 55 页转述同书。Paul Harrison, “Searching for the Origins of the Mahāyāna: What Are We Looking For?”, The Eastern Buddhist n.s. 28/1 (1995): 48–69，第 58 页："It is quite natural that no precepts for the monastic bodhisattva existed, since Mahāyāna bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs would have already been covered by the Vinaya of their respective nikāya or ordination lineage. This is stated explicitly, for example, in the Pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi-sūtra (PraS), one of the older Mahāyāna texts which Hirakawa himself cites, at 9B and 9Mv1, where pravrajita bodhisattvas are enjoined to observe the Prātimokṣa (see also KP 134). And yet Hirakawa asserts that this early evidence points in the opposite direction."同页："His view of an originally lay movement taken over by monks and nuns is, I think, almost the reverse of the truth."David Drewes, “Early Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism I: Recent Scholarship”, Religion Compass 4/2 (2010): 55–65，第 57 页：“The publication of this article spelled the end of the lay origin theory in the West. Harrison did not make an elaborate argument against it, but did not need to. The old theory was no more than an assertion propped up by repetition. As soon as Harrison questioned it, it immediately collapsed.”Richard Gombrich, “How the Mahāyāna Began”, Journal of Pali and Buddhist Studies 1 (1988): 29–46，第 43 页。原文："The most widespread view of the matter is that the Mahāyāna is the Buddhism of the laity. By and large I disagree with that theory." ↩

6. 释印顺《初期大乘佛教之起源与开展》（台北：正闻出版社，1981）第一章第一节：“他在佛與僧別體佛塔非僧伽的所有物及部派間不能共住交往大乘當然也不能與部派佛教者共住大乘經以十善為尸羅戒波羅蜜十善為在家戒等理由推想大乘與出家的部派佛教無關”；“部派間真的不能交往嗎十善戒但屬於在家嗎這些問題應該作更多的研究”。第十四章第三节：“這是很正確的但據十善戒解說初期大乘的菩薩為在家生活在家立場的宗教生活還值得審慎的研究”。第十五章第二节：“所以法師而通於在家出家應該是從比丘法師而演化到在家的”。据 CBETA Y0035 本核对，CBETA 本不标点。平川前书第三章第五节，原书页 395 至 397。Sasaki 1997 前文第 98 页："In A Study of Early Mahāyāna Buddhism, this is the only example from a Mahāyāna sūtra that can be interpreted as a criticism of bhikṣus, but as I think is plain, it is clearly not such a criticism. Therefore, none of the Mahāyāna texts Hirakawa presents criticize the bhikṣus of sectarian Buddhism. … On the other hand, the fact that Hirakawa presents many texts that criticize the śrāvakas of the śrāvakayāna, but is not able to mention even one text that criticizes the bhikṣus, indicates the possibility that the ordained bodhisattvas were bhikṣus of the sectarian communities, as I suggested when discussing point one." ↩

7. Tilmann Vetter, “On the Origin of Mahāyāna Buddhism and the Subsequent Introduction of Prajñāpāramitā”, Asiatische Studien 48/4 (1994): 1241–1281，第 1241 页：“The first tries to show that lay believers played an important role in what I consider the group of initiators of Mahāyāna buddhism, custodians and visitors of stūpas which were supposed to contain relics of the Buddha.”同页自称“an adapted form of his idea, but he might no longer recognize it as his own”；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.”Williams 前书第 272 页注 34。原文：“relatively recent sympathetic restatement” ↩

8. Gregory Schopen, Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2005)。第 II 章原刊 Indo-Iranian Journal 17 (1975)，第 51 页："it is apparent from the texts cited above that the Mahāyāna of at least these documents is predominantly associated not with the stūpa cult, but with the cult of the book. This association with the cult of the book, in turn, is invariably associated with an unambiguously negative attitude to the stūpa cult [I would now say 'an ambiguously negative attitude']."第 52 页："By ignoring this negative [or less than positive] treatment of the stūpa cult in a number of Mahāyāna texts (some of which are undoubtedly early) and by leaning too heavily on the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka without, at the same time, being altogether critical in his use of it, Hirakawa has presented his case in such a way as to render what is an exciting hypothesis more than a little doubtful."第 IV 章第 109 至 110 页："There have, for example, always been at least two puzzling things about Akira Hirakawa's theory that the Mahāyāna arose out of the stūpa cult. The first is the simple fact that there is no evidence in early Mahāyāna sūtra literature that would support it. The second—which is equally straightforward—is that to say that the Mahāyāna arose out of the stūpa cult is to say no more than that it arose out of the established monastic Buddhism of its day"；第 112 至 113 页："there is surely so little in early Mahāyāna sūtra literature that concerns stūpas that one must wonder how Hirakawa's 'theory' connecting the emergence of the Mahāyāna with the stūpa cult could have arisen at all. … The most likely source for this description of the early Mahāyāna would therefore appear to have been its author's preconceived ideal or vision of the early Buddhist monk and his religious behavior." ↩

9. Harrison 1995 前文第 61 页："Speaking more generally, it is implausible that such a powerful movement as stūpa-worship would ever have been allowed to pass under predominantly lay control, since that would have posed a major threat to the livelihood of the Saṅgha."第 62 页："Stūpa-worship, or, as it is often expressed, making offerings to the Realized Ones (Tathāgatas), is indeed frequently cited as (hitherto) the most meritorious activity conceivable, but the purpose is not to promote it, nor even to forbid it, but to compare it unfavourably with other religious activities or values, e.g., the realisation of prajñā-pāramitā, the memorisation of sūtras, or the practice of samādhi. … Is this the work of a lay order of stūpa-worshippers engaged in devotional religion? I believe it is quite the contrary: it is the work of a predominantly monastic order of meditators engaged in strenuous ascetic practices, people asserting, in short, that the Buddha is to be found in and through the realisation of the dharma, not the worship of relics."同页注 23：“In my view Schopen over-emphasizes the negative attitude displayed by Mahāyāna sūtras towards stūpa worship.” ↩

10. 印顺前书第二章第一节：“佛塔與僧伽出家比丘比丘尼眾不但關係密切佛塔反而是從屬於僧伽的這是部派佛教時代的歷史事實”；“不宜依據早期情況塔物由在家人經營及誤解比丘不得在塔中住宿而想像為從僧伽以外非僧非俗的佛塔集團中出來”；第一章第一节：“不過佛塔與出家的僧伽別體佛塔非僧伽所有是否就等於佛塔與在家人或不僧不俗者一體佛塔屬於不僧不俗者的所有物”。Jonathan A. Silk, “What, if Anything, is Mahāyāna Buddhism?”, Numen 49/4 (2002): 355–405，第 379 至 381 页转述 Schopen 1991 与 Sasaki 1991，谓平川论证的主柱倒塌；两文本书未取得。 ↩

11. 平川的"塔寺"与"庙"论证见 Hirakawa 1963 前文第 89 至 98 页，Nattier 前书第 90 页注 26 有梳理。Sasaki 1997 前文第 104 页："Thus, a rational assumption is that the original term was vihāra. However, Hirakawa claims that the original term was stūpa and not vihāra. As before, he makes such a claim to support his theory that Mahāyāna Buddhism emerged from the laity."第 105 页论支谦译《华严》说到礼塔时用的是"塔"字，"It is thus unnatural to ignore this fact and assume that the original term for 廟 was stūpa"；第 109 页："Unless Hirakawa can prove that the bodhisattvas' residences were called stūpa, he cannot claim that they lived in places separate from the sectarian monastic communities. Considering the point that śrāvakayāna bhikṣus lived in such residences, and that bodhisattvas and śrāvakayānists often had close contact, as Hirakawa himself points out, it is more reasonable to think that ordained bodhisattvas and śrāvakas lived together."第 99 页："By reading some of the Mahāyāna texts that Hirakawa provides, we can confirm that ordained bodhisattvas lived around stūpas, where lay bodhisattvas would visit and worship."Nattier 前书第 91 页：“Hirakawa is quite right in pointing out that the vocabulary does change over time, and if this did indeed reflect changing conditions in India (rather than simply the changing preferences of Chinese translators) it would certainly be a major discovery. But there are methodological problems with his hypothesis at every turn.”第 92 页："Even without this philological evidence, however, the Ugra's descriptions of those who dwell at the miao (in AY's rendition) and of the events that take place there make it clear that we have here not a new stūpa-based community, but a traditional—indeed, quite ordinary—Buddhist monastery." ↩

12. Sasaki Shizuka, “A Basic Approach for Research on the Origins of Mahāyāna Buddhism”, Acta Asiatica 96 (2009): 25–46，第 36 页：“the part of this thesis that has been roundly rejected in recent research is only Hirakawa's assertion that the origins of Mahāyāna Buddhism are to be found in groups of lay followers, and the view that the Mahāyāna began from stūpa worship has still not been rebutted.”Sasaki Shizuka, “The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra and the Origins of Mahāyāna Buddhism”, Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26/1–2 (1999): 189–197，第 192 至 193 页：“Shimoda clarifies the process whereby the dharma-kathikas at first rejected stūpa worship, and then later reaffirmed it in a different form through the worship of ‘Buddha nature,’ that is, ‘the Buddha-stūpa immanent in sentient beings.’”第 195 页："The first stage of Mahāyāna Buddhism was the introduction of stūpa worship into the life of the saṅgha."第 196 页：“It is not my intent to argue too strongly for my interpretation.”Michael Radich, The Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra and the Emergence of Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine (Hamburg: Hamburg University Press, 2015)，第 165 页：“Thus, by what Shimoda has called the ‘internalisation’ of the stūpa, the funerary monument of a lamented dead Buddha is transformed instead into the seedbed of new buddhahood for the future. Tomb becomes womb.” ↩

13. 平川前书第三章第一节，原书页 313：“若如以上所见，可以说本来佛塔并不属于部派教团。自公元 1 世纪左右起，也出现了属于部派的佛塔，但其数量远远少于不属于部派的佛塔。”Schopen 前书第 142 至 143 页注 25，谓平川用碑铭"seriously flawed"，“draw wholly unwarranted conclusions”，"The sad truth is that we still know very little about the diplomatics that determined the shape of Buddhist donative inscriptions, and even less about the actual significance of Buddhist sectarianism 'on the ground.'"Harrison 1995 前文第 62 页："he invokes the argument from silence to claim that where stūpas bear no inscriptions mentioning a nikāya, they must therefore have been looked after and used by Mahāyānists. Indeed, Hirakawa is right to be tentative about this."Mark Allon and Richard Salomon, “New Evidence for Mahayana in Early Gandhāra”, The Eastern Buddhist 41/1 (2010): 1–22，第 18 页：“the silence of the inscriptions in this regard proves nothing”。 ↩

14. 印顺前书第六章第三节：“然為了證明菩薩教團的屬於在家而引用部派間的不可能共住是不能成立的因為部派與部派間不能共住的一切文證都是脆弱而不能成立的”；“所以對部派時代的佛教界設想為彼此間的交往不可能無疑是一項嚴重的誤解”；“作者的構想大乘是從不僧不俗的第三者而來的以作者的廣博知識對漢譯經律的熟悉而作出這樣的結論是令人深感意外的”。拘睒弥与瞻波分部的原则、旧比丘与客比丘、诃黎跋摩与无畏山寺诸事见同节。Sasaki 1997 前文第 112 页："The definition of saṃghabheda prior to this time was for ‘those who opposed the teachings of the Buddha to form a separate community.’ However, with the need to unify different communities without changing their doctrines, the definition was changed to ‘perform the commutative rituals such as the uposatha separately within a single community.’ With this change, as long as the commutative rituals were performed together, even those who adhered to different doctrines were able to live together in a single community. … Hirakawa's point four becomes invalid when considering these facts. It was possible for Mahāyāna and śrāvakayāna Buddhists to live together."专题《提婆达多》第二篇第三节已据佐佐木另文讲破僧定义之变。Silk 前文第 375 至 376 页。 ↩

15. Harrison 1995 前文第 52 页：“Now, first of all I agree with Professor Hirakawa about the importance of the earliest Chinese translations of Mahāyāna sūtras. Indeed, that is the foundation-stone of my own research.”Sasaki 1997 前文第 112 至 113 页："In this paper, I have reviewed the four major points that support the Hirakawa theory. At this point, the validity of these points is not confirmed and therefore, there is no contradiction in thinking that both bhikṣus from within sectarian communities and the unordained bodhisattvas who supported them contributed to the development of Mahāyāna Buddhism. For this paper, I did not cite any materials other than those presented by Hirakawa himself. … However, I believe that my approach reveals the possibility that the materials Hirakawa presents to prove that Mahāyāna Buddhism emerged from the laity can also be used to support the theory that the Mahāyāna emerged from monastic Buddhism."印顺前书第一章第一节：“平川彰博士的初期大乘佛教之研究開闢一新的方向大乘教團的起源這是一個卓越的見解”。Sasaki 2009 前文第 31 页注 11 谓平川因预设在家起源而“his conclusions headed in the wrong direction”，并称其研究为本领域“the most outstanding”。Shimoda Masahiro, “The State of Research on Mahāyāna Buddhism”, Acta Asiatica 96 (2009): 1–23，第 13 至 14 页：“they were ahead of the research being conducted by researchers today”。平川前书原书页 341：“问题在于他们以什么样的方式得到生活之资、住什么地方、与何种人接触过。” ↩

16. 印顺前书第一章第一节：“果真這樣初起的大乘教團倒與現代日本式的佛教相近這一說大概會受到日本佛教界歡迎的也許這就是構想者的意識來源”。Drewes 2010 前文第 57 页：“Several have pointed out that it projects aspects of contemporary Japanese Buddhism, which is oriented primarily toward lay practice, has a married clergy, and does not preserve a lineage of full monastic ordination (upasampadā), onto ancient India”，所引为 Harrison 1995、Nattier 2003、Silk 1994 与 Williams 1989；同页引 Durt 1991："the Western lay origin theory depicts the Mahayana as originating in the same manner as Protestantism in the West and that it likely involves a projection of French secularism (laïcité)"。Shimoda 前文第 3 页：“Hirakawa interpreted Mahāyāna sūtras from the perspective of social and economic history. In contrasting the laity with renunciants in terms of their respective values, he portrayed the Mahāyāna movement as a process of the unfolding of tensions between the two.” ↩