谁写了大乘经（三）·从林居说到法师说¶

参考文献

1. 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 42 至 43 页整段引 Paul Harrison, “Searching for the Origins of the Mahāyāna: What Are We Looking For?”, The Eastern Buddhist 28/1 (1995): 48–69，第 65 页（本篇据原刊核对）："Far from being the products of an urban, lay, devotional movement, many Mahāyāna sūtras give evidence of a hard-core ascetic attempt to return to the original inspiration of Buddhism, the search for Buddhahood or awakened cognition. . . . They also display a strong and positive emphasis on the dhuta-guṇas (extra ascetic practices) and araṇya-vāsa (dwelling in the forest or jungle), which is surely rather strange in the documents of a supposedly lay-dominated movement."Boucher 第 43 页："The Rāṣṭrapāla substantially confirms Harrison's characterization, providing one of the most trenchant arguments in Mahāyāna literature for the centrality of the ascetic disciplines and a return to the wilderness for those engaged in the bodhisattva career."Gregory Schopen, Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2005)，第 16 至 17 页："If some early Mahāyāna groups were marginalized, embattled segments still institutionally embedded in the dominant mainstream monastic orders, other Mahāyāna groups may have been marginal in yet another way: they may have been small, isolated groups living in the forest at odds with, and not necessarily welcomed by, the mainstream monastic orders"。Paul Williams, Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2009)，第 31 页。原文：“Mahāyāna may well have grown up among – or been significantly influenced by – those who had left the monasteries in order to practise their Buddhism more austerely and more single-mindedly” ↩

2. Boucher 前书第 46 页："In other words, I see no evidence for a premonastic or nonmonastic dhutaguṇa tradition in Buddhist literature as assumed by Ray. The practice of these additional ascetic disciplines is in my view a reformist movement within Mainstream Buddhism"；第 62 至 63 页：“If they have to live in the forest now, it is because the conditions in the monastery do not make it possible to live as real monks otherwise. … I would go so far as to say that its authors may not even have been able to envision a nonmonastic version of the bodhisattva path.”Paul Harrison, “Mediums and Messages: Reflections on the Production of Mahāyāna Sūtras”, The Eastern Buddhist 35/1–2 (2003): 115–151，第 131 至 133 页；第 133 页："despite what Ray says, there is enough evidence ... that forest-dwellers may also shoulder the burden of scripture"。 ↩

3. David Drewes, “Early Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism I: Recent Scholarship”, Religion Compass 4/2 (2010): 55–65，第 61 页："The main problem with the forest hypothesis is that Mahāyāna sūtras, the final court for any theory of the early Mahāyāna, provide little support for it. Harrison claims that Lokakṣema's texts place a strong emphasis on forest dwelling, but he does not cite actual passages or texts as evidence. So far as I have been able to determine, only two of the dozen or so texts now linked to Lokakṣema, the Pratyutpanna and Kāśyapaparivarta, actually advocate forest dwelling."同页：“In the Aṣṭasāhasrikā, the Buddha explicitly says that he does not recommend forest dwelling and explains that it is a dangerous practice recommended by Māra.”第 62 页论 Ray 与 Nattier。David Drewes, “Dharmabhāṇakas in Early Mahāyāna”, Indo-Iranian Journal 54 (2011): 331–372，第 362 页。原文：“Only a small minority of Mahāyāna sūtras advocate forest dwelling or ascetic practice, however, and it seems unlikely that they represent an especially early or important part of the tradition.”原文：“problematic in key places” ↩

4. 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 264 至 303 页，原刊 ARIRIAB 4 (2001): 143–179。第 300 页："據此，有些學者傾向於認為大乘佛教起源於阿蘭若住比丘的傳統。然而，我們也看到，有兩部大乘經典，即《諸法無行經》(Sarvadharmāpravṛtti-nirdeśa) 和《法華經》，反對阿蘭若中的頭陀苦行。"第 302 页：“由此可見，早期大乘文獻中也有一些經典明顯是由批評阿蘭若住傳統的人所創作的。”他对〈劝持品〉的重译与结论在第 286 至 290 页，并于第 289 页承认“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 前书第 195 页注 66：“Rather than aiming to deprecate wilderness monks, who in this passage almost certainly were regarded as of the Mainstream variety, the author instead uses them as a foil by which to elevate his real agenda: promoting the Lotus as buddhavacana (the word of the Buddha).”Harrison 2003 前文第 130 页注 28。 ↩

5. Richard Gombrich, “How the Mahāyāna Began”, Journal of Pali and Buddhist Studies 1 (1988): 29–46。第 29 页："This hypothesis can be simply stated. It is that the rise of the Mahāyāna is due to the use of writing. To put it more accurately: the early Mahāyāna texts owe their survival to the fact that they were written down; any earlier texts which deviated from or criticized the canonical norms (by which I mean approximately the contents of the Vinaya Khandhaka and Sutta Vibhaṅga and the Four Nikāya of the Sutta Piṭaka) could not survive because they were not included among the texts which the Sangha preserved orally."第 35 页："the Buddhist laity were never organized in a way which would have ensured the transmission of texts down the generations"；第 37 页："it must have been difficult, if not impossible, to slip a new text into the curriculum"；第 38 页："Under these circumstances, any text which is critical of the current teachings or introduces something which is palpably new has no chance of survival. It is possible that hundreds or even thousands of monks, nuns and Buddhist lay followers had visions or other inspirations which put new teachings into their minds, possible that they composed texts embodying those teachings — but we shall never know. For without writing those texts could not be preserved."第 42 页："my hypothesis does not, so far as I am aware, either refute or corroborate any of them, since it approaches the problem on a different level."原文："To put it more accurately: the early Mahāyāna texts owe their survival to the fact that they were written down; any earlier texts which deviated from or criticized the canonical norms ... could not survive because they were not included among the texts which the Sangha preserved orally." ↩

6. Schopen 前书第 II 章，原刊 Indo-Iranian Journal 17 (1975)，第 52 页：“early Mahāyāna (from a sociological point of view), rather than being an identifiable single group, was in the beginning a loose federation of a number of distinct though related cults, all of the same pattern, but each associated with its specific text.”Harrison 2003 前文第 134 页："Although we can hardly prove that these texts too were not produced orally, the frequent references in them to the act of copying the sūtras, or to enshrining and venerating them in book-form strongly suggest that they began life in written form."第 133 页："Despite its provocative title, the paper's thesis is rather modest, and bears rather on the logistics of preservation. It does not explain how the Mahāyāna began, but how its texts survived. Although one could take issue with a number of points put forward by Gombrich, his paper still made the signal contribution of raising the question of some kind of linkage between Mahāyāna and writing"。 ↩

7. Drewes 2010 前文第 60 页：“Overall, no evidence now suggests the existence of Mahāyāna sūtra shrines and it can be safely concluded that they never existed. Although Mahāyānists certainly venerated texts in written form, the practice seems unlikely to have played an especially important role in the movement.”同页：“The scholars involved generally ignore the facts that Mahāyāna sūtras advocate mnemic/oral/aural practices more frequently than they do written ones”。Schopen 前书第 51 页 2005 年补注"[I would now say 'an ambiguously negative attitude']"；他对书崇拜的保留据 Williams 前书第 273 页注 36 转述 Schopen 2004 年百科条目："That they occurred he still accepts, but he is doubtful that this was remotely the intention of the originators of the Mahāyāna sūtras."Tilmann Vetter, “On the Origin of Mahāyāna Buddhism and the Subsequent Introduction of Prajñāpāramitā”, Asiatische Studien 48/4 (1994): 1241–1281，第 1267 页："The first (c22–a5) shows there already existed a written form of the text, but it was not in high esteem."第 1243 页注 4："If we take seriously what the earliest version of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā says about its oral transmission (see Appendix Cult of the Book), the hypothesis cannot apply to this sūtra's early days."Harry Falk and Seishi Karashima, “A First-century Prajñāpāramitā Manuscript from Gandhāra – parivarta 1”, ARIRIAB 15 (2012): 19–61，第 22 页：“Although writing the Prajñāpāramitā or having it written by others is highly recommended in the text, the Gāndhārī manuscript also contains some features of an oral transmission. Three times, first in 1-52, we read pialo, Skt. peyālaṃ, an instruction to expand one topic on the basis of the narrative structure of another one just presented.”Drewes 2011 前文第 332 页注 2 论碳十四测年的写本。原文：“unambiguously negative attitude” ↩

8. Drewes 2011 前文。词频在第 335 至 336 页；第 336 页：“The term dharmabhāṇaka is used with great consistency and specificity. Mahāyāna sūtras do not use the term bhāṇaka alone or in compound with the name of any specific text or group of texts. They invariably use the compound dharmabhāṇaka. Though Buddhas and celestial bodhisattvas are often depicted preaching, they are not called dharmabhāṇakas; the term is consistently used to refer to an actual human occupation.”不见于非大乘文献，据 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."法师的活动在 2011 年文第 339 至 344 页，《八千颂》引文在第 339 页；高位菩萨与诸佛前生在第 347 至 349 页；供养与追随在第 349 至 354 页。原文：“until he has this Prajñāpāramitā in either mnemic [kāyagata] or book [pustakagata] form” ↩

9. Drewes 2011 前文第 346 至 347 页："Presuming that the authors of these texts presented themselves as reincarnations of the people about whom these predictions were made, these passages strongly suggest that they were dharmabhāṇakas."第 359 页：“Overall, these passages yield a picture of dharmabhāṇakas as people who presented themselves as exalted religious figures, sought to attract patrons and followers, commonly lived an itinerant lifestyle, often sought fame and wealth, and typically required gifts, payment, and service from their students.”第 355 页：“Because most material of this sort is normative in nature, the extent to which it can be taken as evidence for actual states of affairs surrounding historical dharmabhāṇakas is not always clear. 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”。魔事段的解读在第 357 至 359 页，《道行般若经》原文见附篇第四段。 ↩

10. 静谷 1954 年语据 Drewes 2011 前文第 331 页转引：“dharmabhāṇakas were employed in the important role of composing and disseminating nearly all of the scriptures of early-period Mahāyāna”；MacQueen 1982 年语据同页转引：“it was probably through them [dharmabhāṇakas] that [Mahāyāna] sūtras first made their appearance”；Harrison 1993 年语据同文第 345 页转引。Sasaki Shizuka, “The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra and the Origins of Mahāyāna Buddhism”, Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26/1–2 (1999): 189–197，第 192 页："When the oldest layer of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra appeared, the producers of this work were called dharma-kathika (法師, "Dharma masters“; Jpn. hōshi). This fact contradicts the commonly-accepted idea that the upholders of Mahāyāna were called bodhisattvas.”同页："But, as Shimoda himself says, just because the oldest layers of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra were produced by dharma-kathikas rather than bodhisattvas does not necessarily mean that the creators of Mahāyāna were the dharma-kathikas. At the very least, however, it has been proven as a fact that the dharma-kathikas were deeply involved in the establishment of Mahāyāna Buddhism."Michael Radich, The Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra and the Emergence of Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine (Hamburg: Hamburg University Press, 2015)，第 60 页：“These details seem to suggest that MPNMS-dhk was propounded by itinerant preachers who were possibly only semi-monastic.”Stephen Hodge, The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra: The Text and its Transmission（2012 年修订讲稿），第 59 页：“the MPNS corroborates this and several times refers quite explicitly to confraternities (gaṇa) of practitioners of the MPNS doctrines, led by an ācārya or dharma-kāthika, with supportive lay-followers in the background.”原文：“figure whom we may identify with the compilers and disseminators of Mahāyāna sūtras” ↩

11. 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：“法師是從唄比丘演化而來的”；“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”；“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”；“大乘初興菩薩比丘是少數在僧團中沒有力量每每受到擯斥這是大乘經所明白說到的”。据 CBETA Y0035 本核对。平川彰《印度佛教史》，庄昆木译（北京：北京联合出版公司，2018），第三章第五节，原书页 395 至 397。Drewes 2011 前文第 345 页。 ↩

12. Harrison 2003 前文第 127、136 页；Schopen 前书第 51 页："In the former case the development and maintenance of new cultic centers would depend on the periodic visits of wandering bhāṇakas or reciters. This was, at best, an unstable mechanism."Drewes 2011 前文第 363 页：“What led dharmabhāṇakas to compose Mahāyāna sūtras is unclear, but it seems unlikely that they did so as a reaction to anything.”同页：“There does not seem to be any good reason to imagine that dharmabhāṇakas spent much time practicing meditation. Samādhis are mentioned frequently but more often than not are depicted as accruing to bodhisattvas as a result of other practices, usually textual ones.” ↩

13. Graeme MacQueen, “Inspired Speech in Early Mahāyāna Buddhism I”, Religion 11 (1981): 303–319。第 305 页："Finally, we are favoured with a clear expression of the issue under debate at the time, namely that of authorship versus revelation. The new sūtras are dismissed as 'poetry, the work of poets' (kavikṛtaṃ kāvyam), to which is opposed buddhavacana, the truth as perfectly revealed (uncovered, opened up, displayed) to the community by the Buddha."第 304 页注 5 论此语暗引经藏原话；第 309 页引大众部律：“By 'dharma' is meant that which the Buddha has spoken and that which the Buddha has certified.”同页："Sūtra production must here come to an end."第 315 页：“but now there are no historical checks at all and we are left with a purely functional understanding of buddhavacana.”同页：“By and large, then, the religious community did indeed see itself as belonging to a closed tradition.”此文第二篇（Religion 12, 1982: 49–65）本书未取得。原文：“probably represent accurately the attacks” ↩

14. Harrison 2003 前文。第 124 页："The first is the idea that this text, and other Mahāyāna sūtras as well, are the residue of visionary experiences in samādhi."同页论法藏重现与"immediately brings to mind the famous gter ma tradition of Tibet, which it may well have played a part in inspiring"；第 127 页："For the Mahāyāna, dharma may also lie in an object, a book: this is new, and suggests the impact of writing"；梦相在第 136 至 138 页；第 135 页："I would like to suggest that these new texts may well have been the work of meditators who were also involved in the business of textual transmission, who, in their visions, encountered new revelations which they later committed to writing. In their visions, and also, I would say, in their dreams."第 142 页：“they are in fact the creative recasting of material already accepted as authentic buddhavacana by the wider community.”第 147 页："the bodhisattvas are themselves mediums, and their message is that one should become a medium"，"I freely admit that it is speculative"。第 140 页："It is therefore entirely plausible to suggest that dream-inspiration may have played a part in the various transmission scenarios sketched above"。 ↩

15. Vetter 1994 前文第 1265 页：“This prophecy is likely to be the product of a monastic writer. It shows that the samādhi was now practiced by monks, who were convinced that it could better be realized in a monastery. But that a monk should point in such a story to lay believers as the original receivers of the message makes no sense, if one assumes that the monks considered themselves as always having been in possession of this message. There existed obviously a tradition of another origin which was so strong that it could not be ignored at the time.”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 72 页：“inasmuch as this narrative about Subhūti indicates a relationship of dependence with regard to the esteemed teaching of Prajñāpāramitā, it can hardly be ficticious. I consider it to be even possible that the Prajñāpāramitā strand goes back in part to spiritual practices which Subhūti and certain other disciples of the Buddha had devoted themselves to.” ↩

16. Shimoda Masahiro, “The State of Research on Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Mahāyāna as Seen in Developments in the Study of Mahāyāna Sūtras”, Acta Asiatica 96 (2009): 1–23，第 22 页：“The latter half in which bodhisattvas figure is a commentary on the first half, which follows the terminology used by Buddhaghosa when commentating on the Nikāyas, and the bodhisattva is nothing other than a commentator on the transmitted foregoing section.”同页：“the recipient of an earlier sūtra becomes the sender of the continuation of that same sūtra, which means that the sender and recipient both participate in the production of the same sūtra.”印顺前书第十五章第三节：“先未聞經的傳出主要是最後一類在非宗教者看來這簡直是幻覺然在宗教領域中是有相當內容的與偽造不同”。 ↩

17. 第一卷第四篇第一章《大乘起源问题：史料与假说》第四节初版："本书立场：林居禅者说与经卷崇拜说的组合，目前是最有据可查的解释框架；在家起源说在现有证据下难以成立。但对整个问题保留开放：大乘起源是多源的，不是单线的。"该节已于二〇二六年十月改写，改以法师说为主干，初版原句照录于该章末的修订记。 ↩