01-新经的机制

大乘起源的史料、传说与假说（犍陀罗写本、支娄迦谶译经下限、Drewes 铭文统计、平川彰在家说的兴衰、林居说与经卷崇拜说的限度、法师说、"大乘不是部派"与破僧的程序定义、"佛说"判准的重定义），见第一卷上部第四篇第一章〈大乘起源问题：史料与假说〉第一、三至五节及其所引 Schopen、Nattier、Harrison、Drewes 诸研究；本章直接取用其结论。

四大教法见《长部》第十六《大般涅槃经》（汉译《长阿含·游行经》，T1, no. 1, pp. 17c1–18a22）；鼓栓喻见《相应部》20.7（汉译对应《杂阿含》第一二五八经"阿能诃鼓"，T2, no. 99, pp. 345b1–7）。

犍陀罗《八千颂》桦皮卷，Falk 与 Karashima 刊布（"A First-Century Prajñāpāramitā Manuscript from Gandhāra", parivarta 1, ARIRIAB XV, 2012；parivarta 5, ARIRIAB XVI, 2013），碳十四测年约当公元一世纪：区间作 47–127 CE（概率 81.1%），另有 23–43 CE 一支（概率 14.3%）。此数可核，见 Mark Allon 与 Richard Salomon. "New Evidence for Mahāyāna in Early Gandhāra." The Eastern Buddhist 41.1 (2010): 1–22，书内 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 Mahāyāna sūtra manuscript in any language."同页并记该卷所存正是《八千颂》第一品（正面）与第五品（背面），与上举二文的 parivarta 编次相合；又该"分藏"（split collection）当时尚未刊布，由 Falk 主持整理。（上引数字已据原书页图复核；原文此句下注 38 谓测年见 Falk 2009, p. 7。）支娄迦谶译经批次与《郁伽》之早，见第一卷第四篇第一章及所引 Nattier；《宝德藏般若伽陀》韵文层早于或并行于散文八千颂之说有争议（Edward Conze, The Prajñāpāramitā Literature, 2nd ed., Tokyo: The Reiyukai, 1978）。

Richard Gombrich, "How the Mahāyāna Began"（Journal of Pali and Buddhist Studies 1, 1988）：口传体制下少数派文本无法存活，书写是大乘兴起的技术前提。早期大乘的口头性一面（法师记诵宣讲为中心）见 David Drewes, "Oral Texts in Indian Mahāyāna"（Indo-Iranian Journal 58, 2015），两说须并观（并观之下并非各补一面，详见下文）。该文未见；惟同一论点，德鲁斯本人在综述里已经说过：David Drewes. "Early Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism I: Recent Scholarship." Religion Compass 4/2 (2010): 55–65。书内 56 页把"书写为大乘存续所必需"一说的主张者列作 Gombrich 1988、McMahan 2002、Norman 1997；书内 60 页逐条驳之："The idea that the survival of the Mahāyāna was made possible by its use of written texts…[is] problematic. The only evidence that has been cited for either is passages advocating worshiping and copying sūtras. The scholars involved generally ignore the facts that Mahāyāna sūtras advocate mnemic/oral/aural practices more frequently than they do written ones…and consistently attach higher prestige to mnemic/oral practices than to ones involving written texts…It is thus highly unlikely that writing was necessary for the preservation of Mahāyāna sūtras during the movement's formative centuries."，并谓"written"与"oral"两分本不适于印度诸教，宜用 Narayana Rao 所提的"literate orality"。是则此处所谓两说并读，其实是正面相抵，非只各补一面。另见下田正弘的综述：Shimoda Masahiro, "The State of Research on Mahāyāna Buddhism," Acta Asiatica 96 (2009): 1–23。下田以为书写何时进入印度佛教无从确指，而其影响至巨，书写之兴与大乘之兴"must be closely related"（书内 19 页）；书面经典使正统判准不再系于"四大教法"所凭的人之权威（书内 20 页）；书写初起时采用快慢不一，守口传者照旧、书面只作辅助，积极接受书写者则汇合诸系传统，大乘经的若干新特征即由此出（书内 21 页）。

书写供养功德与"经在即塔"的表述，散见《般若》《法华》诸经，如《金刚般若》"若是经典所在之处，则为有佛"（T8, no. 235, p. 750a6）、《法华·法师品》"经卷所住处，皆应起七宝塔……此中已有如来全身"（T9, no. 262, pp. 31b26–29；第一卷上部第四篇第一章〈大乘起源问题：史料与假说〉第四节引 Schopen 论经卷崇拜）。

多宝如来证明见《法华经·见宝塔品》（T9, no. 262, pp. 32b16–c20）；"后五百岁"式预言，如《金刚般若》"如来灭后，后五百岁"（T8, no. 235, pp. 749a27–b5）、《法华·劝持品》恶世弘经诸偈（T9, no. 262, pp. 35c27–37a1）。