01-大乘起源问题

放弃部派归属之据有二处正面表述——「there is little evidence of any urge on their part to enshrine their different point of view in hard and fast sectarian categories」；早期大乘者未尝「cut themselves 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」。书 107 行脚注称此文为「放弃部派归属说的理由，最早见」，与文中所论相符。附记：全文「Mahāsāṃghika」零命中——该文不以驳大众部说立论，而以早期大乘自我认定不循部派为据；书 107 行行文作「放弃部派归属说的理由」而非「驳大众部说」，措辞正确，无须改。

正文「约一至二世纪」「目前已知最早的大乘写本实物」逐项相合。（二）一处分寸已写进新注：原文说的是「最早的确切定年」，不是「确知别无更早者」。同文另举巴焦尔《阿閦佛国经》残卷，无碳定年，斯特劳赫据字体断为一至二世纪而偏后半，并谓巴焦尔诸卷「clearly older than the Bamiyan Kharoṣṭhī fragments」。（三）材质與出土地亦已坐实：艾伦與萨洛蒙记诸批来处为「present-day eastern Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan」；桦树皮之说见 Salomon《Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhāra》(UW Press, 1999)，所收二十九件即桦树皮卷，序谓「likely to be the oldest Buddhist manuscripts, as well as the oldest Indian manuscripts, known to date」。但大英图书馆这一批不是大乘写本（其内容属主流部派一系），只能作材质與年代的旁证，新注已明写此界，免得与般若残卷相混。

Silk〈Origins of the Mahāyāna〉(IIJ 63, 2020: 371–394)——ls | grep -iE 'origins of the mahāyāna|origins of the mahayana|indo-iranian' 全列得两条，皆非此篇（King 论《圣教论》年代 IIJ 38.4、Kvaerne 论苯教藏经 IIJ 16）。　（四）判确不待件：本注举四件而其最承重的一项（放弃部派归属说之理由最早见于 Harrison 1987）已由原刊坐实，综述一项（Drewes 2010）亦逐字对上；未到的两件一为论文集、一为其书评，属「参」与「书评见」之列，不担独立断言。

herefore in this Gandhārī Prajñāpāramitā manuscript we have the earliest firm dating for a Mahāyāna sūtra manuscript in any language, as well as the earliest specific attestation of Mahāyāna literature in early Gandhāra；其四，该卷"正面写第一品、背面写第五品"作 contains a manuscript with texts corresponding to the first (on the recto side) and fifth (verso) chapters of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā，且明记其属尚未刊布的 split 藏、由 Harry Falk 研究中；其五，萨洛蒙一九九九年那本的序作 acquired the collection of twenty-nine birch bark scrolls containing texts in Kharoṣṭhī script… these fragments are likely to be the oldest Buddhist manuscripts, as well as the oldest Indian manuscripts, known to date，二十九件与桦树皮之说皆合；其六，注中「大英图书馆这一批不是大乘写本」的提醒亦不误。订正两处分寸：其一，巴焦尔《阿閦佛国经》一节，原注作「斯特劳赫据字体断为……」，而原文先明记 No radiocarbon dating is available for the Bajaur Akṣobhya-sūtra，继谓 Strauch plausibly concludes that a comparison of the paleographic features of the Bajaur scrolls in general with those of other datable Gandhārī manuscripts would speak in favour of a date…——所比是整批而非此一卷，语气是「would speak in favour of」而非径断，已照改；其二，present-day eastern Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan 在原文里是界定「大犍陀罗」一区的范围，非直接描述诸卷出土点，已改为「是大犍陀罗一区的范围，诸批残卷即出于此区」。检索坑一条：该本 把 47—127 断在行末作「47— 127」，按「47-127」直检零命中；同本 Prajñāpāramitā 出作 Prajfaparamita、Aṣṭasāhasrikā 出作 Astasahasrika，变音符与 ñ 尽失，须按坏码或按纯拉丁词检。

herefore in this Gandhārī Prajñāpāramitā manuscript we have the earliest firm dating for a Mahāyāna sūtra manuscript in any language, as well as the earliest specific attestation of Mahāyāna literature in early Gandhāra；其四，该卷"正面写第一品、背面写第五品"作 contains a manuscript with texts corresponding to the first (on the recto side) and fifth (verso) chapters of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā，且明记其属尚未刊布的 split 藏、由 Harry Falk 研究中；其五，萨洛蒙一九九九年那本的序作 acquired the collection of twenty-nine birch bark scrolls containing texts in Kharoṣṭhī script… these fragments are likely to be the oldest Buddhist manuscripts, as well as the oldest Indian manuscripts, known to date，二十九件与桦树皮之说皆合；其六，注中「大英图书馆这一批不是大乘写本」的提醒亦不误。订正两处分寸：其一，巴焦尔《阿閦佛国经》一节，原注作「斯特劳赫据字体断为……」，而原文先明记 No radiocarbon dating is available for the Bajaur Akṣobhya-sūtra，继谓 Strauch plausibly concludes that a comparison of the paleographic features of the Bajaur scrolls in general with those of other datable Gandhārī manuscripts would speak in favour of a date…——所比是整批而非此一卷，语气是「would speak in favour of」而非径断，已照改；其二，present-day eastern Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan 在原文里是界定「大犍陀罗」一区的范围，非直接描述诸卷出土点，已改为「是大犍陀罗一区的范围，诸批残卷即出于此区」。检索坑一条：该本 把 47—127 断在行末作「47— 127」，按「47-127」直检零命中；同本 Prajñāpāramitā 出作 Prajfaparamita、Aṣṭasāhasrikā 出作 Astasahasrika，变音符与 ñ 尽失，须按坏码或按纯拉丁词检。