覺音論師的註

　　西元 1980 年之後，巴利《尼柯耶》與覺音論師「註釋書」初期傳入台灣時，有些人總是將其抬舉到「佛口親說」、「比古代漢譯《阿含》優越」的高度。 
但是，如同印順導師在〈法句序〉文中所說：「我覺得：一切佛法，同源於釋尊的身教、語教。在後後的流傳中，或重於句義的集理，或重於微言的發揮；或寧闕無濫的偏於保守，或適應無方而富於進取；或局而不通，或濫而不純：這才因時因地而成為眾多的學派。現存的一切佛教，一切聖典，都染有部派的色彩。現代的佛教者，應該兼收並蓄。從比較的研考中，了解他的共通性與差別性。從發展演變的過程中，理解教義的進展，停滯或低落，這才能更完整更精確的體解佛意，才更能適應這無常流變的世間。如執一為是，或自稱為原始，或自譽為究竟，自是非他，這於世界佛教的前途，將是一重可怕的陰影！ 
一切佛法，同源異流。任何學派、文典，都難以絕對的推為一如佛說，而應從比較中去理解。」 
------ 
關則富老師重申此說，而提出「How Closely Should We Follow the Commentarial Tradition? 我們應遵循巴利註釋書傳統到怎樣的程度？」，或者，換一種方式來說：「我們怎樣知道巴利註釋書在此處出了錯？」 
我們在此一園地提出不少例證，指出有些相當稀少的例子顯示巴利文獻出了錯。 
Norman (2004: 69–72) suggests that the commentarial tradition sometimes does not agree with philology and is not always correct in interpreting the Nikāyas. 
前巴利聖典協會會長諾曼認為，「註釋書傳統」的註解有時與「philology 文獻學」不同，「註釋書」在解釋尼柯耶時並非總是正確。 
K. R. Norman, (2004), ‘On Translating the Suttanipāta’, Buddhist Studies Review 21/1: 69–84. 
----- 
關則富老師說(關老師的許多論文以英文發表，造成漢語讀者較難得知他的論說。)： 「Moreover, the Pali commentaries and subcommentaries are separated from the sutta texts by more than seven or eight centuries. They are even later than many Chinese ranslations of the Indic texts. The four Āgamas in Chinese translation from various traditions (see Section 6.3 below) correspond to the four main Nikāyas of the Theravāda tradition. They were translated from Prakrit languages or Sanskrit into Chinese in the 4th and 5th centuries CE. 進一步說，巴利的『註 aṭṭhakathā』與『疏 ṭīkā』距離經的結集至少有七、八百年，其中有些甚至比漢譯還晚(覺音論師的註含有古註，但是頗難判定和辨識)，與巴利四《尼柯耶》對應的漢譯四阿含譯自不同的部派傳統(如 6.3 節所示)，它們在西元第四、五世紀譯自俗語或梵語。」 
關則富老師引 Sharf 說： 
Sharf (2002: 12) says: 「Our appraisal of the accuracy of Chinese translations and interpretations is, therefore, compromised by our own distance from the Indic originals. Indeed, we are at a far greater temporal and geographic remove from the Indian sources than were the Chinese of the Six Dynasties and the T’ang. 我們對漢譯精準程度的評估被現代學者與『印度語系原典』的距離所影響，確實，我們與『印度語系原典』的距離，不管是時間上還是空間上，都遠於中國六朝和唐朝的譯者。」 
關則富老師接著說：「It is not sensible to confine our research to the Pali sources, which just belong to a single tradition of the Theravāda school. The (Hybrid) Sanskrit and Chinese sources from different traditions may cast valuable light on the issues of translating Pali texts into English. 將我們的研究侷限在巴利文獻並不合理，那只是上座部的某個單一傳統；相對於此，漢譯文獻和梵語文獻源自多個不同的部派傳統，它們將有助於巴利文獻的英譯。」