關於《增一阿含》所屬部派、譯者的爭辯，關於譯文的忠實程度與一致性的批評，與其他對等地位的其他漢譯《阿含經》相比，這些問題與其他問題造成《增一阿含》處於不可靠的地位。現存的《增一阿含》(T125)出現顯然的「大乘影響」或「添補、篡改」以致於無法確切地將它歸諸於任何一個初期印度部派的原本阿含經。
無著比丘在本書熟練地探討《增一阿含》這些與其他的諸多問題。作者運用各種原典並列對比研究，不僅是漢譯，還有梵、藏、巴利原典，這樣地平衡的應用各種原典讓我們能超脫早期(佛教)思想的僵局。本書的三個附錄分別檢視「大乘」、「小乘」與「上座部」三個令人煩惱的佛教術語，開拓新的觀點。對這些術語在佛教思想與修習在佛教進展過程扮演角色的加強理解，讓讀者對《增一阿含》出現的「大乘元素」能有較清晰的觀察。
本書的每一單篇論文圍繞著《增一阿含》某一經的翻譯，並以之與巴利文獻中的對應經文進行比較研究。此一翻譯有時也加入作者已發表過的其他阿含譯文，以及Thich Huyén-Vi (越南釋玄微法師，靈山講堂淨行法師的老師)、帕沙迪卡比丘 Bhikkhu
Pāsādika 法文、英文翻譯中的註解。這些研究和他正在進行的《雜阿含》英譯，讓現代的英文讀者第一次能接觸到漢譯阿含經的內容。
書中討論的議題包含「獨覺 Pccekabuddhas」(p. 215ff and 249ff)、世尊弟子中的「賢德比丘尼」(p.
301ff)，與佛陀奇特的「三十二相」。選定來和翻譯進行比較研究的經文，不僅是出自四部主要的巴利《尼柯耶》，也參考其他諸如《長老尼偈》、《譬喻》、《本生》- 整個譜系顯示了佛教(文獻)引人入勝的互文性。
無著比丘的研究釐清了前人的研究。藉助諾曼(K. R. Norman)含其他人之前的建議，他檢視了使用形容詞「聖 noble」來形容四諦的用例(p. 239ff)。如同一開始時「對應」或「平行」的觀念就存在一些問題，在比較研究，他們彈性地處理此一分類。在《增一阿含》，無著比丘討論來自不同的來源的經文或部分經典湊在一起產生「新經」的例子。它增此一過程為「經典併合」，並且得到此一結論：併合只會產生在經文以口誦方式傳到中國之後，(經翻譯)而以文字書寫。
無著比丘是新一波初期佛教文本研究與翻譯的領導人物，特別是在漢譯《阿含》與巴利《尼柯耶》的範圍。爭辯，他的廣泛搜尋具不武斷與注意細節的特色；不僅涵蓋了「主要的阿含譯本」，也包括了常被忽略的「別譯經」。
無著比丘的嚴密研究填補了空檔而提供一個初期佛教思想演化的清晰畫面，給我們一個對佛教深度理解的較確定的基礎。它們展示了，對現存文獻無驕慢無偏見的比較研究是佛學研究最恰當的研究方法，而且我期望這樣的方法將來能成為學術規範。
本書所呈現的深入研究，讓《增一阿含》研究變得熱絡，也增進我們對漢譯《阿含》、巴利《尼柯耶》與其他佛教經典的理解。這些優美的論文拓寬了佛法的深度與廣度，也帶來佛學研究此一領域的新氣息。
Peter Skilling 彼得˙斯乞林
Nandapurī 難陀鎮
28 October, 2015
Debates about the school affiliation of the Ekottarika-āgama,
doubts about the identity of the translator, criticisms of the quality and
consistency of the translation - these and other problems have placed the Ekottarika in an insecure position vis-á-vis the other Āgamas translated
into Chinese. Apparent “Mahāyāna influences” or “interpolations” have led to
uncertainties about the status of the extant Ekottarika-āgama (Taishō 125) as the genuine Āgama of
any of the early Indian schools.
These and many other questions about the Ekottarika-āgama are adroitly addressed by Bhikkhu Anālayo in the essays
brought together in this volume. The author draws on original texts – not only
in Chinese but also in Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Pāli – side by side with current research to present
balanced and original assessments that enable us to step beyond the impasses of
earlier ideas. Three appendices carefully examine the troubled terms Mahāyāna, Hīnayāna, and Theravāda, opening fresh perspectives. An enhanced
understanding of the role of these terms in the development of Buddhist thought
and practice allows a clearer picture of the “Mahāyāna elements” of the Ekottarika-āgama to emerge.
Each essay in this collection is structured around
a translation or translations of texts from
the Ekottarika-āgama, comparing these discourses with their counterparts in Pāli. The translations add
to those from the other Āgamas
already published by the author, and to the pioneering annotated translations
of Ekottarika-āgama discourses into French and English by Thich Huyén-Vi and Bhikkhu Pāsādika. Together with his ongoing publication of sections
of the Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama,
they make portions of the Chinese Āgamas accessible to modern English-speaking readers for
first time.
The topics include
Pccekabuddhas (p. 215ff and 249ff), the “foremost nuns” who were disciples of Śākyamuni (p. 301ff), and
the distinctive physical marks that identify a Buddha. The texts chosen for
comparison and translation are drawn not only from the four main Pāli Nikāyas, but also from other collections like the Therīgāthā, the Apadāna, and the Paññāsa-Jātaka – a florilegium that itself demonstrates Buddhism’s
intricate inter-textuality.
Anālayo’s researches
clarify those of his predecessors. His examination of the problem of the use of
the adjective “noble” for the four truth lends support to the previous
suggestions of K. R. Norman and others (p. 239ff). Like those undertaken from
the time of the very idea of a “counterpart” or “parallel” can be problematic,
and they call for flexibility in comparative research. In the case of the Ekottarika-āgama,
Bhikkhu Anālayo discusses instances in which passages or partial
texts from different sources have been merged to create new texts. He
identifies this process as “discourse merger”, and concludes that in a few
cases such mergers would have taken place in the written medium, presumably in
China, after the Indic original had reached China by oral transmission.
Bhikkhu Anālayo is a leading figure
in a new wave of research into and translation of the early Buddhist textual
tradition, in particular the Chinese Āgamas, in relation to the Pāli Nikāyas. His broad sweep is characterized by a lack of dogmatism
and a remarkable attention to detail; it covers not only the “primary Āgamas”
but also the “separate translations” which are too often neglected.
Anālayo’s meticulous
studies fill in the gaps to give a broader picture of the evolution of early
Buddhist thought that provides a surer basis for deeper understandings. They demonstrate
that the practice of comparing available sources without pride or prejudice is
the most appropriate methodology for Buddhist studies, and I hope that this
methodology will become the rule.
The excursions into the Ekottarika-āgama
presented in this volume bring this Āgama out of the cold and advance our understanding not
only of the Āgama traditions but of the Pāli and other Buddhist scriptures. These fascinating
essays plumb the breadth and the depth of the Buddhadharma to breathe new life
into the field of Buddhist studies.
Peter Skilling
Nandapurī
28 October, 2015
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
aacdsee 提到...
Ken Yifertw 提到...
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
「大乘、小乘與上座部佛教」......
說得活似有一個叫做小乘的部派阿......。
無著比丘相信不至於在書中使用小乘一詞吧。
說得活似有一個叫做小乘的部派阿......。
無著比丘相信不至於在書中使用小乘一詞吧。
Ken Yifertw 提到...
Dear Aacdsee,
這是我的翻譯遣詞用字不夠清晰，造成有此疑慮。
我修改如下：「本書的三個附錄分別檢視「大乘」、「小乘」與「上座部」三個令人煩惱的佛教術語，開拓新的觀點。」
實際上，書中檢驗「小乘」此一詞，無著比丘的結論是：「I conclude that the current academic use of the term as a referent to a Buddhist school or Buddhist schools is misleading. 我的結論是，目前此詞的學術用語將其當作一個部派或幾個部派的指稱，此種用法是誤導了。」
這是我的翻譯遣詞用字不夠清晰，造成有此疑慮。
我修改如下：「本書的三個附錄分別檢視「大乘」、「小乘」與「上座部」三個令人煩惱的佛教術語，開拓新的觀點。」
實際上，書中檢驗「小乘」此一詞，無著比丘的結論是：「I conclude that the current academic use of the term as a referent to a Buddhist school or Buddhist schools is misleading. 我的結論是，目前此詞的學術用語將其當作一個部派或幾個部派的指稱，此種用法是誤導了。」
