谁写了大乘经（四）·部派与年代¶

参考文献

1. Jonathan A. Silk, “What, if Anything, is Mahāyāna Buddhism? Problems of Definitions and Classifications”, Numen 49/4 (2002): 355–405。第 374 页："it is very difficult to believe that the authors of these texts, the de facto representatives of the Mahāyāna communities, were other than educated monks. It is difficult to imagine that the Mahāyāna sūtras could have been written by anyone other than such monks or, more likely, communities of such monks."第 375 页：“Without a Vinaya of their own, the breakaway monks would have been unable to carry out further ordinations of new monks in their own lineage. If correct, this suggests that most probably it would not have been possible, in an Indian Buddhist context, for one to become a Buddhist monk at all without ordination in an orthodox ordination lineage.”同页：“Mahāyāna communities could not have become institutionally independent of Sectarian communities, for they would have had no way of effecting the continuity of the movement other than by conversion of already ordained monks.”第 364 页注 23 声明“there is no evidence”只指没有证据；第 374 页保留“Unless there existed a tradition of which we are totally ignorant—and this is far from impossible”。 ↩

2. La Vallée Poussin 1930 年语据 Silk 前文第 365 页所译："From the disciplinary point of view, the Mahāyāna is not autonomous. The adherents of the Mahāyāna are monks of the Mahāsāṃghika, Dharmaguptaka, Sarvāstivādin and other traditions, who undertake the vows and rules of the bodhisattvas without abandoning the monastic vows and rules fixed by the tradition with which they are associated on the day of their Upasampad."Seishi Karashima, “Who Composed the Mahāyāna Scriptures? The Mahāsāṃghikas and Vaitulya Scriptures”, Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 18 (2015): 113–162，第 146 页：“though these two brothers had converted to Mahāyāna Buddhism, they remained Sarvāstivādin monks all their lives, because they had been ordained into that school, held its Vinaya rules and had to recite the Prātimokṣasūtra, belonging to this school, every fortnight at the Poṣadha ceremony ––– there was no Mahāyāna Prātimokṣasūtra nor a monk who was ordained as a Mahāyāna monk in India.”义净的定义据 Silk 前文第 360 页转述，原文见《南海寄归内法传》卷一。 ↩

3. Mark Allon and Richard Salomon, “New Evidence for Mahayana in Early Gandhāra”, The Eastern Buddhist 41/1 (2010): 1–22。第 6 页：“Within the last few years, six Mahayana texts have been identified among the newly discovered collections of manuscripts in the Gāndhārī language, dating from about the first or second to the third or fourth centuries CE.”第 13 页："All of the Mahayana texts in Gāndhārī which have been discovered to date are part of larger collections in which the majority of the manuscripts contain distinctly non-Mahayana or mainstream texts. This seems to support the view of the origins and early development of Mahayana currently favored by an increasing number of scholars, according to which those who espoused the new ideas and practices which we now associate with Mahayana and who composed the texts which traditional commentators commonly class as Mahayana did not live in distinct communities apart from the mainstream nikāya monastics, but rather were fully ordained and active resident members of various mainstream communities."Ingo Strauch, “More Missing Pieces of Early Pure Land Buddhism: New Evidence for Akṣobhya and Abhirati in an Early Mahayana Sūtra from Gandhāra”, The Eastern Buddhist 41/1 (2010): 23–66，第 25 至 26 页：“This proves beyond doubt that at least certain groups of the new movement acted in close institutional association with the establishments of the so-called mainstream Buddhism and did not form separate sectarian units with independent organizational structures.”巴焦尔藏的内容据同文第 26 页：十九卷、约二十二种文本、至少十八位抄手。 ↩

4. Allon 与 Salomon 前文第 15 页："the presence of one or more Mahayana texts in a collection of predominantly mainstream texts found at a particular site does not automatically prove that there were practitioners of the Mahayana in that monastery"；第 16 页：“In the case of the Bajaur Akṣobhya manuscript, for example, we do not know who copied it; who paid for its production; whether it was written in the monastery in which it was found; why it was in that monastery; whether it was ever read by members of that monastery”；第 16 至 17 页："does still provide strong evidence that there were adherents of the Mahayana in the institutions that interred these manuscripts, or at least in some neighboring institutions." ↩

5. Sasaki Shizuka, “A Basic Approach for Research on the Origins of Mahāyāna Buddhism”, Acta Asiatica 96 (2009): 25–46。第 32 页：“omitting all detailed proof and presenting only my conclusions”；同页：“in order to unify Buddhist communities in a state of saṅghabheda, the definition of saṅghabheda was altered during the reign of King Aśoka, and if members of the same monastic community split into two groups and performed commutative rituals such as the poṣadha separately, this was now deemed to constitute saṅghabheda.”第 32 至 33 页：“As a result of this change in the definition of saṅghabheda, Buddhism subsequently turned into a religion that sanctioned any doctrine whatsoever as long as people participated in the same group rituals.”第 33 页注 13：“This is no more than speculation”。破僧定义两型与佐佐木、森章司、小南薰的分歧，见本站专题《提婆达多》第二篇第三节。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 16 页：“Sasaki deserves credit for having elucidated in institutional terms on the basis of the Vinaya the circumstances in which the Mahāyāna originated in the existing monastic community”，同页记李慈郎的疑问与“there is still room for further investigation of this issue”。 ↩

6. Joseph Walser, Nāgārjuna in Context: Mahāyāna Buddhism and Early Indian Culture (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005)。第 95 页：“For both reasons, Mahāyānists were vulnerable under Buddhist monastic law to the charge of instigating a schism.”第 135 页："only those texts categorized as sūtra piṭaka or 'word of the Buddha' would be assured of oral preservation in the monastery."第 11 页：“there are no smoking guns here.”他对大乘为少数派的设定，第 54 页自认“relies on the weight of what may be circumstantial evidence”，并预设“if a hoard of second-century Mahāyāna manuscripts are found”；此书成于分裂藏与巴焦尔藏公布之前。 ↩

7. 释印顺《初期大乘佛教之起源与开展》（台北：正闻出版社，1981），第十五章第三节：“初期大乘經決不是離開傳統的部派佛教由不僧不俗的第三集團所闡揚出來起初是從部派佛教中傾向於佛德菩薩行的少數比丘或重信或重智或重悲多方面傳出漸漸的廣大起來”；第十五章第二节：“上來詳細的檢討了初期大乘經可以肯定的說初期大乘的傳宏者多數是比丘也有少數的在家人”。据 CBETA Y0035 本核对，CBETA 本不标点。 ↩

8. Karashima 2015 前文。四级经题与经录统计在第 117 至 132 页，第 127 页：“we can conclude that the scriptures, which were later and are presently called mahāyāna-sūtras, had been originally labelled as *vevulla- / vaitulya-”；第 137 至 138 页论"大乘"经题约四百年出现与鸠摩罗什的译法；〈虚空目分〉授记在第 139 页：“We may assume that the composer of this vaitulya-scripture belonged to the school of the Mahāsāṃghikas”；毗昙部不引大乘经在第 141 页；《阿毗达磨灯论》在第 144 页；结论在第 148 页：“In conclusion, I assume that members of the Mahāsāṃghikas composed new scriptures, often consisting of questions and answers”，“I assume, further, that the original background of the Madhyamaka school, founded by Nāgārjuna, might have been the Mahāsāṃghikas, while that of the Yogācāra school, founded by Vasubandhu and Asaṅga may have been the Sarvāstivādins.”此文中译〈誰創造了大乘經典──大眾部與方等經典〉，《佛光學報》新 3 卷 1 期（2017）: 1–86，中译本第 59 页把“inscriptions”译作"經典"，引用时须据英文本。 ↩

9. Karashima 2015 前文第 148 页：“Those who composed, recited, copied, read or proclaimed these 'new scriptures', did not call themselves 'mahāyanists' in the beginning, as after all, they were members of the Mahāsāṃghikas. Therefore, it is quite natural that the name mahāyāna does not occur in early Indian inscriptions. However, that does not mean at all that Mahāyāna Buddhism was a 'minority movement', as Schopen maintains.” ↩↩

10. Sasaki 2009 前文第 35 页两条必要条件；同页论大众部元素只说明“had bearings on”起源；第 34 页：“but on no account should one start from the assumption that the Mahāyāna had its origins in a single source, for once the direction of one's research has been drawn towards the single-source thesis, it becomes impossible to turn back.”第 27 页：“The Mahāyāna was a new Buddhist movement that should be regarded as a sort of social phenomenon that arose simultaneously in different places from several sources.” ↩

11. 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，原书页 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 333：“然而在教团史上，不清楚大众部的教团与大乘教徒之间究竟有何种关系……但是这点难以确认。”Silk 前文第 376 页："this virtual uniformity of opinion suggests that the explicit position of the Mahāsāṃghika in this regard cannot serve as evidence for its particular connection with a nascent Mahāyāna movement."Allon 与 Salomon 前文第 13 页：“we cannot be certain that all of the Mahayana texts in the collection were associated with the Mahāsāṃghika community”；巴焦尔藏倾向法藏部，据同文第 14 页注 49 转引 Strauch 2008。 ↩

12. Michael Radich, The Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra and the Emergence of Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine (Hamburg: Hamburg University Press, 2015)，第 82 页注 198 记学界久已把案达罗与大众部、如来藏联系；Stephen Hodge, The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra: The Text and its Transmission（慕尼黑 2010 年工作坊论文修订稿，2012，未正式刊行），第 34 页：“this older work need not even be viewed as fully Mahāyānic in nature – at most it may just have been a member of that grey area of texts, a 'proto-Mahāyāna' work.”Walser 前书第 88 页：“Nāgārjuna probably lived in a Pūrvaśailya, Aparaśailya, or Caityaka monastery during the time he wrote the Ratnāvalī”。印顺前书第六章第二节：“這一東方系的佛教在發展中成為大乘佛法興起的主流這是不可忽視的事實”；第九章第一节：“這不是某一部派而是佛教界的共同傾向所以說大乘佛法的興起代表了那個時代佛教界的共同心聲”。Paul Williams, Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2009) 第 21 页说"There can be no doubt that at least some early Mahāyāna sūtras originated in Mahāsāṃghika circles"，第 6 页又说部派归属的研究“very tentative”，不把大乘整体归于某一部派。 ↩

13. Allon 与 Salomon 前文第 10 页："This scroll has been radiocarbon dated to a range of 23–43 CE (probability 14.3 percent) or 47–127 (probability 81.1 percent), and a date in the later first or early second century CE is consistent with its paleographic and linguistic characteristics. Therefore in this Gāndhārī Prajñāpāramitā manuscript we have the earliest firm dating for a Mahayana sutra manuscript in any language"；碳十四数据转引 Falk 2009 未刊稿。Harry Falk and Seishi Karashima, “A First-century Prajñāpāramitā Manuscript from Gandhāra – parivarta 1”, ARIRIAB 15 (2012): 19–61，第 19 页：“the distance in time between the present copy and its exemplar cannot be expressed in a number of years”；第 22 页：“The manuscript was copied from another one which was written in Kharoṣṭhī as well.”；第 23 页论底本每行约三十字母。同题 parivarta 5，ARIRIAB 16 (2013): 97–169，第 100 页：“a fork model looks more promising, starting from an Urtext, leading in three directions”，“even this simple fork-model presupposes so many intermediate stages that locating the Urtext deep in the first century BCE, if not earlier, seems safe”。Strauch 前文第 26 页：“Judging from their scripts and language, all of the manuscripts can be tentatively dated to the first two centuries CE.”巴米扬两件的年代据 Allon 与 Salomon 前文第 5、9 页。 ↩

14. Strauch 前文第 25 页：“it is quite obvious that a substantial corpus of Mahayana literature must already have been in existence during the period of his translations (178–189 CE).”平川前书第三章第二节，原书页 321：“大乘经典的初次出现，基本确定可上溯到公元前 1 世纪”；印顺前书第九章第三节考定道智大经即原始般若。Karashima 2015 前文第 116 页：“which is another trap of 'common sense' in which even the late Prof. Akira Hirakawa was caught, when he considered liu boluomi jing 六波羅蜜經 and daozhi da jing 道智大經, found in the earliest Chinese translation of the Lager Sukhāvatīvyūha, as the 'Six Pāramitā sūtra' and the 'Mahāsūtra of the Path and Wisdom'”，"However, jing 經 is used predominantly to render dharma and sometimes also dharmaparyāya in the earliest Chinese translations." ↩

15. Gregory Schopen, Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India: More Collected Papers (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2005)。阿弥陀像座一章原刊一九八七年，第 247 页："'the 26th year of the Great King Huveṣka.' Assuming that 78 c.e. marked the beginning of the Kaniṣka Era, this would give 104 c.e. [but now, following Falk, = 153 c.e.]"；第 267 页：“it also was not a part of a wholly independent movement”。Endere 石刻与 Guṇaighar 铜板据 Allon 与 Salomon 前文第 3 至 4 页与 Schopen 前书第 12 至 13 页；Guṇaighar 受施者的译法据 Masao Shizutani, “Mahayana Inscriptions in the Gupta Period”, 印度学仏教学研究 10/1 (1962): 358–355，第 358 页："the Avaivarttika congregation of monks (belonging) to the Mahāyāna (Mahāyānika-avaivarttika-bhikṣusaṅgha)"；Śākyabhikṣu 一衔的猜测与自限在同文第 356 页：“This conjecture, however, may possibly be erroneous”。Schopen 1979 年文（前书第 VII 章）第 239 页："what we now call the Mahāyāna did not begin to emerge as a separate and independent group until the fourth century"，第 238 页自称“One possible interpretation”，第 246 页 2005 年补记承认“Schopen was wrong”于南印度一点；Cousins 2003 的批评本书未取得，据 Williams 前书第 29 页“(controversially)”与注 37。Schopen 2000 年文（前书第 I 章）第 11 页："the Mahāyāna in India was—until the fifth century—institutionally and publicly all but invisible." ↩

16. Schopen 前书第 269 页："the history of Mahāyāna literature and the history of the religious movement that bears the same name are not necessarily the same thing."Allon 与 Salomon 前文第 18 页："the silence of the inscriptions in this regard proves nothing, whereas the actual presence of Mahayana manuscripts among mainstream collections indisputably establishes a significant presence of the Mahayana in some shape or form—albeit still, apparently, as a minority—in mainstream Gandhāran monasteries in the early centuries of the Common Era."辛嶋的解释见注 ⁹。 ↩

17. Seishi Karashima, “Was the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Compiled in Gandhāra in Gāndhārī?”, ARIRIAB 16 (2013): 171–188。第 179 页：“we may assume that the underlying language of Lokakṣema's translation of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā was Gāndhārī or at least contained Gāndhārī elements.”第 181 页：“I assume that, in the above-quoted prophecy by the Buddha, Uttarāpatha is none other than the Gandhāra region”，“whose name seems to hint at Gandhāra”。第 182 至 183 页论“佛神在像中耶”一段，原文《道行般若经》卷十：“賢者！呼佛神在像中耶？”第 183 至 184 页：“it could be assumed that the original Indic text used by Lokakṣema for his translation of this scripture had appeared by the beginning of the second century at the latest, though more probably in the latter half of the first.”Falk 与 Karashima 2012 前文第 20 页：“It is hardly far‐fetched to assume that this text had its origins in Gandhāra proper, that is in the Peshawar valley with its tributaries, including the adjoining region of Taxila.” ↩

18. Radich 前书第 82 页：“the group espousing these texts, and the life of the texts themselves, probably began in the South, in Andhra country, under the Śātavāhanas”；第 83 页论北迁克什米尔。Karashima 2013 前文第 180 页：“though we can never exclude the possibility that the basis of Prajñāpāramitā thought was formed in southern India, such as in the Andhra region where the Mahāsāmghika school, with which this scripture is closely related, predominated, as is often maintained.”印顺前书第一章第一节：“大乘佛法是新興的邊地佛法”，“大乘就是起源於南方傳入罽賓而大盛的受到異族文化異族宗教的影響是勢所難免的但初期大乘不是異文化異信仰的移植而是佛教自身的發展所成”。 ↩

19. Allon 与 Salomon 前文第 17 页：“However, the discovery of these very early Mahayana manuscripts in Gandhāra rather than, say, in southeastern India may be due merely to the comparatively dry climate of the northwest which is more favorable to the survival of manuscript materials.”Strauch 前文第 45 页：“Unless a solid linguistic study of Lokakṣema's AkṣV text can prove its Gāndhāran character, there is virtually no need to assume such a provenance.”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 107 页："So while we can more or less confidently assert that Dharmarakṣa's Indic source text was written in kharoṣṭhī script, we cannot definitively prove that the earliest version of the Rāṣṭrapāla was composed in the region of Greater Gandhāra."第 xx 页：“It is, in my opinion, much more likely that the Mahāyāna quickly became a pan-Indian phenomenon and that any attempt to isolate its location is doomed in advance.” ↩