01-瑜伽行派的形成

ese works since the doctrines expounded in them show a clearly pronounced originality and distinguish themselves noticeably from Asaṅga's own works. We are therefore justified in seeing in their author a historical personage other than Asaṅga, who was probably known by the oft handed down name of Maitreyanātha, and who was only later seen as the well-known Bodhisattva.」（二）「部分五论」之「部分」亦准：CFC.1 所列弥勒奴「most frequently mentioned works」仅三种——Abhisamayālaṃkāra、Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra、Madhyāntavibhāga，非五种。脚注作「部分『弥勒五论』作者」，措辞恰当，不可改作「五论作者」。（三）文体证据在，惟非藏译：其立论所据为文体与义理两端——「it is striking that the works attributed to Maitreya are not sutras, as one would expect, but philosophical works like any others」（不是经而是论，此为文体一层），及上引与无著自作诸论「clearly pronounced originality」之别（义理一层）。通检该节，Tibetan 与 Tibet 皆零命中，其论不倚藏译。故本行前判所云「所据文体藏译证据」当收窄为「所据文体与义理证据」，藏译一项系此前判语的想当然，非该书所有。

长者所著列《中边分别论》及《十地经论》《法华经论》《金刚般若论》《发菩提心论》，“He died before his brother Asanga, possibly about 380 A. D.”；少者 “was born about 400 A. D.”，师佛陀蜜多罗，属说一切有部，“He died around the year 480 A. D. in Ayodhya, at the age of 80 years”。又第 54 页明言旧传所载相牴牾之诸事「distribute themselves partly on the younger and partly on the elder Vasubandhu」，即两世亲说之枢纽，脚注括注「两世亲说的系统提出」不虚。已改：脚注原为白文书目条，今补書頁换算与上述三处页码，使正文年代可径复核。

er left for the 'two Vasubandhus' thesis.」并驳二世亲说之根基「rested from the start on a biased, shaky historical foundation」，谓所谓第二世亲「is just a catchall, a basket toward which we can throw dubiously attributed texts」。另有一处论证亦可取：若真有一位早于《俱舍》的「长老世亲」，则佛教史上千百年间对其「complete and utter lack of awareness」无从解释。（二）《俱舍》与唯识论著的思想连续：作者以「Buddhist Causal Framing」一名统摄世亲全部著作，谓此一贯之见「is implicit in the doctrines of the Three Natures and the storehouse consciousness (ālayavijñāna), and which I have shown Vasubandhu drawing from the central goals of Abhidharma and the Buddha's core doctrines of impermanence, dependent origination, and no-self」。正文「完全可以是同一个人在不同阶段的著作」措辞有分寸，与原书相合。（三）一处宜留意（不改判）：作者虽主一人一贯，却明拒目的论式的读法——「I believe it is a mistake to set up a teleological directionality for Vasubandhu's works, with the Yogācāra system as its ultimate end」，又谓其思想「cut across, and against, doctrinal identities」，连《俱舍》虽可标为经量部，亦「collects within it countless alternative viewpoints」。正文書 64 行作「思想发展脉络」，尚不违此戒；若他处有把世亲写成「必然走向唯识」者，须按此收紧。