04-历史上的佛陀

③战乱与书写之间，原始文献自始至终未系因果。先前查到的 Norman 一环，其上游即 Adikaram 1946 与 Rahula 1956，本书原来的错是这条二手链条的末端。　柯林斯并给出他自己的正面提议（非本行所需，但可备）：书写当与大寺派同无畏山寺之争相联系，「at least one of the motives for the decision was the fixation, through writing, of a definitive list of scriptures, at a time when the position of the Mahāvihāra as sole legitimate custodians of Buddhism was under threat」——韦多迦摩尼所护正是无畏山一方，故此举当读作受威胁一方的自固，不是灾变下的抢救。　正文已按两史改毕（见上），Collins 一环今亦落实，判语由「疑」改「确」。人证已备，见清单。

, un maître vénéré de ses disciples, et nullement comme un surhomme ou un dieu, si l'on écarte les éléments et épisodes légendaires qui furent ajoutés plus tard」——正当正文末句「让佛陀显得更像凡人者最可信」。全文 tardif 十见、postérieur 十三见、prodige 十八见，「后出＝增饰」是其通篇常法，非孤证。故正文书 19 行四项（越早／不增饰／体系神异者低／似凡人者高）俱由一文坐实，无一项须俟 Recherches。脚注已相应补硬：补入上举三处原语，并把末句「本书未能取得，故此处只据前者立说」改作平实的指路语「成段的方法论述见该书第一卷导论」——指明其所在而不复标为缺，读者仍知何处可求其详。惟旧记的一条戒律仍有效，勿删：《Recherches》与《Les sectes bouddhiques du Petit Véhicule》非同一书，日后不得相冒。

又一拼写陷阱，记以备后用：DN 16 作 ossaji，而《自说经》作 ossajji（双 j）；按前者检后者，零命中。同一事跨部检索，须试各部的拼写异形。紧接一句更强：「Cela seul suffirait à rendre suspects tous les épisodes des sept premières parties du MPNS」。该文立论确比《Recherches》所能提供者更直接：它不止说此节可疑，而是指出其为解释塔名而造。（三）脚注已按此改讫：改标 BEFEO 1979 并直引上举两语；《Recherches》降为「或有更详细的讨论，本书写定时未见原本」；Waldschmidt 保留作「另参」。Waldschmidt《Die Überlieferung vom Lebensende des Buddha》(1944–1948) 仍未取，惟其在注中本即「另参」性质，非承重之据，故不碍本行结案。**

：（一）「After the Buddha attained enlightenment and returned to his home, the Sakya nobles were discussing politics in the congress hall」；（二）「When the Sakyas later built a new congress hall in Kapilavatthu, the Buddha and his followers were invited to the newly constructed building to preach」；（三）「When the Mallas of Pava built a new congress hall called Ubbhataka they immediately asked Sakyamuni to visit it」。又得一条脚注未记而与正文相干者：同页续举毘琉璃（Vidudabha）因母族出身低微而在议事堂受辱、其座位被视为不洁一事，中村元据以断「only those of high rank gathered in the congress hall」——是则议事堂虽非王庭，亦非人人得入，此层可备后用。判确。

, salute him respectfully, rise from their seats and make obeisance before him, and show a humble attitude before him."」脚注把《长部》原文与中村元的断语分列，与该页的行文次序一致，无误。须记一处版本内的异文：同书 另引《起世因本经》（Aggaññasuttanta）同一段而译文小异，作「The Sakyas are the vassals of King Pasenadi of Kosala. The Sakyas are submissive to him, bow before him…」——即同一部《长部》文句在此书中有两种英译（obedient／submissive，salute／bow），日后逐字引用须标明所据之页。又该处并谓释迦族与憍萨罗「perhaps in a tributary relationship」，用语较 suzerain 一词为松，可见中村元于此层的措辞前后有轻重之别。判确：脚注所承担的两项（《长部》原文、憍萨罗为宗主）俱得。

已在正文 51 行补引 ，脚注定义已加在 之后。

正文「按 1-2、2-1、1-2-3、3-2-1…… 的花样绕诵」，正是 ghana 一式的开头数位，无误。（二）串错即露：原文谓 krama 之效在「if a pair were forgotten, the continuity between the succession of pairs would show a break」，而此正是 saṃhitā 与 pada 所无者——「if a word is forgotten in their recitation, it does not leave a trace」。《阿闼婆相续论》4.108 曰 krama 之学「has for its object the fixation (dārḍhya) of Saṃhitā and Pada」。后出诸式更被比作「methods that resemble the scanning of a tape by a computer」。（三）保真度：「there is less variation among the oral traditions of the Vedas than among the manuscripts of much later date that Western scholars have used and that are themselves based upon these oral recitations」。（四）两处宜留意。①年数：原文系《梨俱吠陀》之成书于「around 1500 B.C., give or take a few centuries」，而称其传世为「the colossal time-span of three-and-a-half millennia」，即三千五百年；正文作「约三千年」略低，可径改作「三千余年」或「约三千五百年」。②krama 与 jaṭā、ghana 不同代：原文明记「The Kramapāṭha is fully explained in the Ṛkprātiśākhya and is mentioned by Pāṇini; it must therefore be at least as old as the 6th century B.C. The other modifications are of later date.」——即佛陀之世可为先例者唯 krama 一式，jaṭā 与 ghana 皆后起。正文書 25 行以此段作「吠陀的先例」而三式并举，若后文据以论佛世口传之可靠，须只取 krama，不得连举后二式。（五）另有一层可供正文他处取用，且与本书论旨相关：原文明言此类记诵之固定「pertains only to the form of the mantras; there is no corresponding tradition that fixes and preserves their meaning」，谓咒语之义历代聚讼而「meaning is ephemeral」，其固定之目的只在供仪式诵念，「where their form is all-important and where meaning plays no part」。即：吠陀先例所能担保者是音形之传，不是义解之传。 本书若以之类比佛教口传的教义保真，此限须写明。

Wynne 并指此为早期佛教鉴于耆那教身后争执而立的防错之法。　②口传主体为群体：「The evidence suggests that communal recitation was the norm」，并引 Allon「[C]ommunal or group recitation or performance requires fixed wording. It is not possible for more than one individual to perform at the same time in the manner described by Parry-Lord without producing utter chaos」，故「the formal conventions of group chanting would have ruled out the ability of individuals to improvise in the manner of a single oral performer」——群诵之制排除了个人即兴，与正文「口传主体为群体」相合。证据面不限于《清淨經》，另及《眾集經》(Saṅgīti Sutta)。判语改「确」。

the bhikkhus came together, and in order that the true doctrine might endure, they wrote them down in books.」，其后紧接「Here ends the thirty-third chapter, called 'The Ten Kings'」。所给的理由确只两项，与本注所述一字不差。　（二）《岛史》XX.20–21 逐字全中，页码亦对： Oldenberg 1879 本（－8），书内 211 页作「20. Before this time, the wise Bhikkhus had orally handed down the text of the three Pitakas and also the Atthakatha. 21. At this time, the Bhikkhus who perceived the decay of created beings, assembled and in order that the Religion might endure for a long time, they recorded (the above-mentioned texts) in written books.」；巴利一侧（书内 102 页附近）作「hanim disvana sattanam tada bhikkhu samajjata / ciratthitattham dhammassa potthakesu likhapayum」。两处措辞几乎相同、理由只有两项，本注所述属实。　（三）Norman 一环最要紧，亦得实证： Norman《Pāli Literature》(1983)（－10），书内 10 页作「The Dipavamsa states that during the reign of Vattagāmani Abhaya (29-17 B.C.) the monks who had previously remembered the Tipiṭaka and its commentary orally now wrote them down in books, because of the threat posed by famine, war, and the growing power of the newly established Abhayagiri [vihāra]」，本注所引 “the monks … now wrote them do[wn]” 逐字在此。并得一层本注未及而更有力的旁证：Norman 该处自注（注七四）所据正作 Dip XX 20—21，而那一段（见上文（二））恰恰不载饥荒、战乱与无畏山寺三事。即通行说法的三项原因，是 Norman 加在《岛史》头上的，非《岛史》所有。此外该书书内 5 页另有一处同旨之语（「as a result of threats to the Saṅgha from famine, war, and the growing power of the Abhayagiri vihāra」），本注只举 10—11 页，未及此处。惟本注的实质断言不受影响且已坐实：第三十三章（韦提噶玛尼朝，书内约 228—237 页）之内 famine 一词零命中，饥荒确未系于该朝。惟「原文未系因果」一事已由（一）所引 100–101 两节自身坐实——那两节只给两项理由，无一涉战乱。

the bhikkhus came together, and in order that the true doctrine might endure, they wrote them down in books.」，其后紧接「Here ends the thirty-third chapter, called 'The Ten Kings'」。所给的理由确只两项，与本注所述一字不差。　（二）《岛史》XX.20–21 逐字全中，页码亦对： Oldenberg 1879 本（－8），书内 211 页作「20. Before this time, the wise Bhikkhus had orally handed down the text of the three Pitakas and also the Atthakatha. 21. At this time, the Bhikkhus who perceived the decay of created beings, assembled and in order that the Religion might endure for a long time, they recorded (the above-mentioned texts) in written books.」；巴利一侧（书内 102 页附近）作「hanim disvana sattanam tada bhikkhu samajjata / ciratthitattham dhammassa potthakesu likhapayum」。两处措辞几乎相同、理由只有两项，本注所述属实。　（三）Norman 一环最要紧，亦得实证： Norman《Pāli Literature》(1983)（－10），书内 10 页作「The Dipavamsa states that during the reign of Vattagāmani Abhaya (29-17 B.C.) the monks who had previously remembered the Tipiṭaka and its commentary orally now wrote them down in books, because of the threat posed by famine, war, and the growing power of the newly established Abhayagiri [vihāra]」，本注所引 “the monks … now wrote them do[wn]” 逐字在此。并得一层本注未及而更有力的旁证：Norman 该处自注（注七四）所据正作 Dip XX 20—21，而那一段（见上文（二））恰恰不载饥荒、战乱与无畏山寺三事。即通行说法的三项原因，是 Norman 加在《岛史》头上的，非《岛史》所有。此外该书书内 5 页另有一处同旨之语（「as a result of threats to the Saṅgha from famine, war, and the growing power of the Abhayagiri vihāra」），本注只举 10—11 页，未及此处。惟本注的实质断言不受影响且已坐实：第三十三章（韦提噶玛尼朝，书内约 228—237 页）之内 famine 一词零命中，饥荒确未系于该朝。惟「原文未系因果」一事已由（一）所引 100–101 两节自身坐实——那两节只给两项理由，无一涉战乱。

(A)(B) 两段原文为 Devanaṃpiyena Piyadasina lājina visati-vasābhisitena atana āgācha mahiyite hida Budhe jāte Sakyamuni ti 与 silā vigaḍabhī cha kālāpita silā-thabhe cha usapāpite hida Bhagavaṃ jāte ti，英译作 he came himself and worshipped (this spot), because the Buddha Śākyamuni was born here 与 caused a stone pillar to be set up, (in order to show) that the Blessed one was born here，与注中所述"灌顶二十年亲临礼敬，并立石柱以示世尊生于此"相合。ubalika 之义亦有本：同页注二作 For ubalika = Skt. *udbalika，列 Barth、Bühler、Fleet、Lyall、Thomas 诸家，故正文所说"免其贡而只取八分之一"不误。