06-印度佛教的衰亡

Padmanabh S. Jaini. "The Disappearance of Buddhism and the Survival of Jainism: A Study in Contrast." In Studies in History of Buddhism, ed. A. K. Narain. Delhi: B. R. Publishing, 1980, 81–91；重刊于 Jaini, Collected Papers on Buddhist Studies. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2001.（在家信众身份界限模糊与"无感改宗"的经典对照分析）

商羯罗传记文学的史实问题，见 David Lorenzen. “Las ideologías sociales del hinduismo: Shankara, Tukaram y Kabir.” Estudios de Asia y África 21, no. 4 (1986): 576–603（本书所据为作者自撰的西班牙文本；英文论文集 Who Invented Hinduism? Essays on Religion in History（New Delhi: Yoda Press, 2006）未见）。该文书内 581 页分商羯罗传记为二系：与 Kanchi 相系者以 Anantanandagiri 之 Shankaravijaya 为要，与 Shringeri 相系者以 Mādhava 之 Shankaradigvijaya（一名 Sankshepa-Shankarajaya）为底本，而后者的成书年代，作者别处论之更明：David N. Lorenzen. “Warrior Ascetics in Indian History.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 98, no. 1 (1978): 61–75（即该论文集第二篇），书内 65 页作 “recent researches by Baldev Upadhyāy, Sri Balsastri Hardas, and W. R. Antarkar have shown conclusively that the Mādhavācārya who compiled the Śaṅkaradigvijaya cannot be dated earlier than sometime between the years 1630 and 1800 although many of the verses found in this text were borrowed from earlier works”；西班牙文本作“en una fecha entre 1650 y 1800”，起年与英文本差二十年，两说并存以英文本为先。无论取何说，成书皆距商羯罗八百年以上，“hoy en día, la mayoría de los seguidores monásticos de Shankara la aceptan como la autoridad principal”。巴克提一路的社会可及性亦见此文（其正题即 Tukaram 与 Kabir）。须记两层限：该文不涉佛教（budista、budismo 全篇零命中），故商羯罗与佛教之关系一层此文不担；商羯罗学派影响年代与南印度佛教式微时序两事，该文亦不论（全篇 siglo 仅一见，无世纪序数），须另举其书。商羯罗学派并未因他一举独尊一层，见 Andrew J. Nicholson. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010（本书所据为 2014 年平装本）：书内 160 页言十四世纪摩陀婆著书时，二元论与限定不二论 "represented the greatest threat to the Advaita Vedānta"；书内 15 页言以不二论为 "the essence and culmination of Indian philosophical systems"，是 "the hegemonic narrative established in the nineteenth century"；书内 8 页并言近代不二论之霸权 "has blinded most modern authors to the diversity of opinions among the Vedānta schools"。正文原作"要到十一、十二世纪以后才稳固"之断代，此书不载，今删；书内 38 页且以设问言九至十三世纪为不二论与限定不二论并盛之期，故原作"在他死后的两三个世纪里并不特别显著"一语亦一并收去。

商羯罗著作的归属与真伪，参 Karl Potter (ed.), Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, vol. 3: Advaita Vedānta up to Śaṃkara and His Pupils. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1981（该卷即商羯罗著作真伪与《梵经注》内容提要的标准工具书）：书内 15 页作 “The basic problem however, not only for arriving at Saṃkara’s date but also for arriving at reasoned conclusions about much else about him and his philosophy, concerns the authenticity of the works attributed to him… It is difficult if not impossible to be sure which works Saṃkara wrote.”；商羯罗驳佛教诸派一节的专论，见 D. H. H. Ingalls, "Śaṃkara's Arguments against the Buddhists," Philosophy East and West 3 (1954): 291–306；原文见 George Thibaut (trans.), The Vedānta-Sūtras with the Commentary by Śaṅkarācārya（Sacred Books of the East 34），《梵经注》二品二章十八至三十二颂。

玄奘所记南印诸国寺院的荒废，见《大唐西域记》卷十（T2087）：驮那羯磔迦国"伽藍鱗次，荒蕪已甚，存者二十餘所，僧徒千餘人"（T51 p.930c）；珠利耶国"伽藍頹毀，粗有僧徒"（p.931b）；秣罗矩吒国"伽藍故基，寔多餘址，存者既少，僧徒亦寡"（p.931c）。须并记其不平衡：同卷达罗毗荼国"伽藍百餘所，僧徒萬餘人，皆遵學上座部法"（p.931b），憍萨罗国"伽藍百餘所，僧徒減萬人"（p.929a），是七世纪中叶的南印有盛有衰，非一概衰落。另参 Kanai Lal Hazra. Buddhism in India as Described by the Chinese Pilgrims AD 399—689. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1983：该书所记朝圣者所见的地区性衰落，点名者为憍赏弥、舍卫、吠舍离，皆在恒河流域；其据玄奘所列僧数表（书内第 101—103 页）反以达罗毗荼为上座部之最。故南印荒废一事据原书，不据此书（裁决 0152）。

Johannes Bronkhorst. Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism. Leiden: Brill, 2011（Handbook of Oriental Studies）。该书正以佛教与婆罗门教的长期对峙为题，谓这场对峙"ended in its almost complete disappearance from the subcontinent"。婆罗门一侧的在地根基见其论赐村（agrahāra）一节：受赐者所负的仪礼职责"usually concerned rites they could carry out on their own"，故一村之赐即足以自立，不待外来班底；书中并录多方铭刻实例，如 812 年古吉拉特一铜板记地方君主赐村于若干婆罗门，为其父母与己身增福，并"for maintaining the bali, the caru, the vaiśvadeva, the agnihotra, the sacrificial rites, etc."。须注明三事：其一，该书通检 rebuild 零命中、recover 仅一见，并未论及寺院被毁之后能否重建，正文那一句是本书据此不对称所作的推断；其二，耆那教一侧本书未据该来源复核专门文献，故正文不再以耆那教并举；其三，Hazra 前引书所涵为公元 399—689 年的行记，早于毁寺期约四百年，不承担本段所述，其用处在上文所记朝圣者所见的地区性衰落。