第二章　早期大乘经典：般若、法华、华严、净土、维摩¶

参考文献

1. Edward Conze. The Prajñāpāramitā Literature. 2nd ed. Tokyo: Reiyukai, 1978；及氏译 The Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom, with the divisions of the Abhisamayālaṅkāra. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 1975（1984 年首次平装重印，ISBN 0-520-05321-4）。孔泽〈序〉自陈其底本："The translation of pages 37 to 430 (abhisamayas I-IV) normally follows the version in 25,000 lines which has been adjusted to conform to the divisions of the Abhisamayālaṅkāra."，即正文所说的《二万五千颂》系。《大智度论》一层的书证在 T1509：卷首僧叡〈摩訶般若波羅蜜經釋論序〉即以此论为《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》（什译《大品般若》，T0223）之释论，卷一正题作"大智度初序品中緣起義釋論第一（卷第一）／龍樹菩薩造／後秦龜茲國三藏法師鳩摩羅什奉詔譯"，开篇设问亦作"佛以何因緣故說《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》"。惟须知今本是节译：同序谓"論之略本有十萬偈，偈有三十二字，并三百二十萬言。梵夏既乖，又有煩簡之異，三分除二，得此百卷"，又谓"梵文委曲，皆如初品。法師以秦人好簡故，裁而略之。若備譯其文，將近千有餘卷"；今本百卷只当原论三分之一，初品以后皆经删削。定式见书内 52 页第十三 a 节："Just that which the Tathāgata has taught as the wisdom which has gone beyond, just that He has taught as not gone beyond. Therefore is it called 'Wisdom which has gone beyond'."，孔泽给该节所立的标目正作"Transcendentality: the dialectical nature of reality"，与正文"这个三段否定不只是修辞"一语相合。同式复出于书内 46 页（佛国庄严：“The harmonies of Buddhafields, the harmonies of Buddhafields, Subhuti, as no-harmonies have they been taught by the Tathāgata. Therefore he spoke of ‘harmonious Buddhafields’.”）与 48 页（personal existence；该处的第三拍跨页，续在书内 49 页）。惟两处比正文的三拍更曲折：其一，书内 48 至 49 页那一处在第二拍之后另加一句“for not, O Lord, is that existence or non-existence”，于有无两边并遮，不止于“非 X”；其二，孔泽释"no-dharma"曰"not a simple and clear-cut negation, in that emptiness lies somewhere between affirmation and negation, between 'is' and 'is not'"（书内 34 页），亦见此式所遮不限于自性一层。 ↩↩↩

2. Jan Nattier. "The Heart Sūtra: A Chinese Apocryphal Text?" Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 15, no. 2 (1992): 153–223，关于《心经》成书地的核心讨论。本段三处原与该文不合，已照该文改（裁决 0095），其据如下。其一，本段说"现存梵本里最早见于七世纪写本"，而该文书内 209 页注专驳此说：法隆寺贝叶梵本“supposedly brought from China to Japan in 609 CE”一说源出 Max Müller 受日本助手误导，所据《斑鳩古事便覧》（1836）于古代纪年 “entirely unreliable”；同文书内 174 页反谓《心经》“is attested in China at least a century before its earliest known appearance in India”。其二，本段说"玄奘的汉译（649 年）是通行本的基础"，而该文书内 205 页注 28 谓 649 之说“extremely problematic”，书内 174 页并指出玄奘译此经之说最早只见于八世纪《开元释教录》，其传记只说他从病人处得此经而非译此经。其三，"最短的梵本仅十四行"一数该文全篇无之。　般若经群由《八千颂》而《二万五千颂》而《十万颂》的扩张，及《大般若经》六百卷十六会，另见 Edward Conze. The Prajñāpāramitā Literature. 2nd ed. Tokyo: Reiyukai, 1978。 ↩

3. Paul Williams. Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2009. 般若波罗蜜见 pp. 49–57，《华严经》的佛身观见 pp. 132–135，《法华经》的佛寿与方便入灭见 pp. 157–158。 ↩↩

4. Burton Watson (trans.). The Lotus Sutra. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993（－29）。本段四事各有其处。火宅：诸子所索者为“the goat-carts and deer-carts and ox-carts”，而“the rich man gave to each of his sons a large carriage of uniform size and quality”，其车“drawn by a white ox, pure and clean in hide, handsome in form and of great strength”，见书内 57—58 页第三品〈Simile and Parable〉，正文括注“其实只给一种大白牛车”即据此。穷子：“the impoverished son wandered from village to village, passing through various lands and towns, till at last he came to the city where his father was residing”，见书内 82 页第四品〈Belief and Understanding〉。化城：见书内 117—123 页第七品。佛寿量：见书内 224 页起第十六品〈The Life Span of the Thus Come One〉。 ↩

5. Thomas Cleary (trans.). The Flower Ornament Scripture: A Translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra. Boston: Shambhala, 1993. ↩

6. Luis O. Gómez (trans.). The Land of Bliss: The Paradise of the Buddha of Measureless Light — Sanskrit and Chinese Versions of the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sutras. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1996（大小两本《无量寿经》的梵汉译注，两经的分野与各自重心即其本题）。三经之目见该书附录四〈Glossary〉"Meditation Sutra"条：《观无量寿经》为"the third of the 'Three Pure Land Sutras'"，英文亦称 The Visualization Sutra 或 Amitayurdhyana Sutra。断代须分说：同条紧接便谓《观经》"may have been composed outside India, and much later than the two Sukhavativyuha Sutras"，故不可与大小两经同置于一二世纪。本书旧版把三经一并系于一二世纪，今改。 ↩

7. 《佛說觀無量壽佛經》一卷，宋畺良耶舍译（T12, no. 365）。十六观的名目与次第出于经文自身：日想“名曰初觀”，水想“名第二觀”，以下逐观编号，至下辈生想“名第十六觀”止。善导一系对此经的解释，及其在东亚净土教中的分量，参 Julian F. Pas. Visions of Sukhāvatī: Shan-tao's Commentary on the Kuan Wu-liang-shou-fo ching. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995；该书所研究者为善导《觀無量壽佛經疏》（T37, no. 1753），非经文本身。 ↩

8. Alan Sponberg and Helen Hardacre, eds. Maitreya, the Future Buddha. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.（弥勒信仰的通论。兜率往生、弥勒信仰在印度与早期中国的流行，见该书南亚一部与中国、朝鲜、越南一部；玄奘恒河遇盗、请缓片刻而发愿往生兜率一节，见 Kitagawa 一章所引 Grousset 之述；阿弥陀与药师取代弥勒一事，见论朝鲜一章的反衬"long after the cult activities in China had given way to other Buddhist interests, especially those concerning Amitābha and Bhaiṣajyaguru"。该书不涉道绰、善导、法然、亲鸾诸师，四人全书零命中；净土诸祖的弘扬另见本篇第九章与第三卷第十三篇。） ↩

9. Burton Watson (trans.). The Vimalakirti Sutra. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997；所据为 Motilal Banarsidass 一九九九年印度版（Buddhist Tradition Series 42，－14）。入不二法门一节见书内 110—111 页。众菩萨各说已毕，文殊自述其解，继而“Then Manjushri said to Vimalakirti, ‘Each of us has given an explanation. Now, sir, it is your turn to speak. How does the bodhisattva enter the gate of nondualism?’ At that time Vimalakirti remained silent and did not speak a word.”（书内 110 页）；文殊之叹作“Manjushri sighed and said, ‘Excellent, excellent! Not a word, not a syllable—this truly is to enter the gate of nondualism!’”（书内 111 页）。 ↩

10. 早期经典里有一则与此主题相关的故事：佛陀同父异母的弟弟难陀（Sundarananda）出家后始终惦念未婚妻，据传佛陀以"勤修可得天女"相许引导其用功，难陀最终证阿罗汉，欲望自然消散，并告知佛陀无需兑现承诺。若属实，则"为度化而说不尽真"的手法在早期传统中已有先例，不为大乘独创。然此故事的主要出处是巴利小部《自说经》（Udāna 3.2）与《法句经》注疏，《自说经》记难陀证果后白佛解约："yaṃ me, bhante, bhagavā pāṭibhogo pañcannaṃ accharāsatānaṃ paṭilābhāya kakuṭapādānaṃ, muñcāmahaṃ, bhante, bhagavantaṃ etasmā paṭissavā"，即佛曾为其得五百鸽足天女作保，今请免之；汉译《增壹阿含经》卷九〈惭愧品〉亦有此经，所叙相当完具，全经二千三百余字，有孙陀利、香山瞎猕猴与五百天女诸节，难陀证阿罗汉后白佛"世尊前許證弟子五百天女者，今盡捨之"，与《自说经》同构；马鸣《孙陀罗难陀诗》（Saundarananda，约公元二世纪）则为文学创作。以上来源的历史可信度均有限，本书不将其作为可靠史实采信。然若不提及，则有隐瞒之嫌，故以注出；读者可自行判断。 ↩

11. 《无量寿经》诸汉译版本的比较研究，参 Fujita Kōtatsu 藤田宏達. Genshijōdo shisō no kenkyū（原始浄土思想の研究）. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1970。本书据以核者为作者本人认可的英文节译：Kōtatsu Fujita, "Pure Land Buddhism in India"，收 James Foard, Michael Solomon and Richard K. Payne (eds.), The Pure Land Tradition: History and Development（Berkeley: Jain Publishing, 1996）首篇，日文原书未及取得，页码不与原书相当。该节译书内第 7 页出五种汉译之目：《阿彌陀三耶三佛薩樓佛檀過度人道經》（T362，支謙译，222–253，一说支娄迦谶）、《無量清淨平等覺經》（T361，旧题支娄迦谶而实为帛延译，约 258，一说竺法护）、《無量壽經》（T360，旧题康僧鎧而藤田断为佛陀跋陀罗與寶雲约 421 年所译）、《無量壽如來會》（T310[5]，菩提流志译，706–713）、《大乘無量壽莊嚴經》（T363，法賢译，991）；连梵本與藏译共七种传本。愿数之目在书内第 16–17 页："the vows number forty-eight, but the actual number differs with the particular recension… the other versions in Chinese translation have either twenty-four or thirty-six vows, the Sanskrit text contains forty-seven vows, and the Tibetan translation forty-nine vows"。惟藤田于三十六愿一本另有断语，与"另有一种"的平列说法不同："The thirty-six vows should not be regarded as an intermediate form between the twenty-four and forty-eight vows; actually it is based upon the forty-eight vows"，即三十六愿本并非居于二者之间；其所本正是四十八愿本。二十四愿本则确为最古："the version with twenty-four vows is the oldest chronologically"。　愿数之异的两说（裁决 0198）。通说一侧，藤田同篇书内第 17 页："what is called the forty-eight vows is a relatively late formulation, containing additions and modifications"。异说一侧，见 XIAO Yue. "On the Vows in the Earliest Version of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra." Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies（《印度学仏教学研究》）67, no. 3 (2019): (174)–(179)。他断通行的两项假定（愿数由《大阿弥陀经》的二十四愿经《平等觉经》演为后来的四十八愿；《悲华经》弥陀愿出自四十八愿系统）"no evidence can support these two assumptions at all"（书内 (174) 页）；《大阿弥陀经》中有一套关于六度菩萨行的术语与梵本显异，系译者"purposely compiled into the DA based on the translator's own Mahāyāna ideas"（(175) 页）；结论作"The original Indian text of the DA and the PDJ were probably similar to the extant Sanskrit version, with the forty-eight vows system. The translator of the DA purposely edited them"（(178) 页）。须记其分量：肖越自陈此前研究皆依通说，"until the recent publications of my own research series about this issue"（(174) 页），所据几全是其本人 2010—2018 诸作，所据材料未见他家采用，故正文两说并列，不下断语。原句前半"梵本来源本身就不止一个"两说皆不担（藤田所说是层累增益，肖越所说是汉译改编），故改写时删去。 ↩

12. 智昇《开元释教录》（《大正藏》第 55 册，第 2154 号）。入藏录一节作："大佛頂如來密因修證了義諸菩薩萬行首楞嚴經十卷（一帙）大唐循州沙門懷迪共梵僧於廣州譯（新編入錄）"；传记一节作："沙門釋懷迪。循州人也。住本州羅浮山南樓寺……往者三藏菩提流志譯寶積經。遠召迪來以充證義……後因遊廣府遇一梵僧。（未得其名）齎梵經一夾請共譯之。勒成十卷。即大佛頂萬行首楞嚴經是也。迪筆受經旨兼緝綴文理。其梵僧傳經事畢莫知所之。有因南使流經至此。"通检该录全书四十三万余字，"般剌蜜帝""房融"二名皆无一见。《大正藏》题此经作"唐 般剌蜜帝譯"，系后起的题署，非最早著录所记。通行的那套传译故事另有其源：现所见最早的出处是唐大兴福寺惟愨法师疏，其文赖日僧玄叡《大乘三论大义钞》卷三所引而存："唐大興福寺。惟愨法師疏云。唐神龍元年五月二十三日。中印度沙門般刺密帝。於廣州制止寺道場。對擧梵本。烏萇國沙門彌伽釋迦。譯玆梵語。房融筆受"。玄叡把它与智昇所记并列而断曰"兩匠稱眞"，可见九世纪的日本僧人已经把这两套人事摆在一处比对了。惟玄叡所引的智昇一条作"修州沙門懐迪"，而 T2154 本文作"循州"，两本有异，此处从大正藏本作循州。 ↩

13. 《楞严经》疑伪问题的学术综述，参 Robert E. Buswell Jr., ed. Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1990，其导论把本经与《梵网经》《大乘起信论》并列为实系东亚本土撰述而被误系译者译年、后又进入主流大藏目录的一组："Many Buddhist texts that were actually of East Asian origin—including such seminal scriptures as the Fan-wang ching…Shou-leng-yen ching (Sūraṃgama-sūtra…T 945)…and Ta-sheng ch'i-hsin lun…were in this wise assigned a translator and translation date"。须留意该书并无以《楞严》为题的专章（全书为导论一篇、专论八篇、附录一篇，分论汉地经录对疑伪的判定、《灌顶经》、道经中的十地、《观无量寿经》、《占察经》、三阶教之禁、《法镜经》之废、日本天台的《梵网经》，末附印度佛教判定经典真伪的标准），故其所提供的是判断的归属，不是专题的论证。专题的论证一侧，本书第三卷第九篇第二章另有案卷，所据为吕澂〈楞嚴百僞〉（《呂澂佛學論著選集》一，書 370–395；逐条编次自"其偽一"至"其偽一百一"，实为一百零一条）、釋愍生《辨破楞嚴百偽》（一九九一，逐条对辩）、玄叡《大乘三論大義鈔》卷三（T70, no. 2296，据 SAT 对勘）所记唐人法詳居士"房融偽造"之说及玄叡本人的驳辞，此处不重列。 ↩↩