書房夜話 258：長老班智達：〈《毘奈耶註》與《阿毘達摩註》的作者：對封興伯的回應〉的結論

------

長老班智達(Thera Pandita)"The Authorship of the Vinaya and Abhidhamma Commentaries: A Response to von Hinüber" 〈《毘奈耶註》與《阿毘達摩註》的作者：對封興伯的回應〉

----------

I have reassessed in this paper von Hinüber’s theory on Buddhaghosa’s authorship, and the evidence he has offered in support thereof. My approach is based upon three hypotheses:

在此篇論文，我已經呈現並檢討封興伯關於各本註釋書是否為覺音論師所造的理論，以及支持的證據。我的論證基於以下三項假設：

1. That the so-called “Buddhaghosa colophons” have not come from Buddhaghosa’s hands. Modern scholars hitherto have not been able to accept the mere presence of such a colophon in a given text as evidence of Buddhaghosa’s authorship, hence all the research, including mine, on the question of which texts he has actually written. On the other hand, they have not gone to the length of claiming that all those colophons are later interpolations; I am the first researcher to make such a claim. 所謂的「出自覺音論師的註記」不是覺音論師所為。現代學者不會僅因書上註明「覺音論師造」就接受作者就是覺音論師，他們(包括我在內)關於作者問題的研究仍然繼續進行與發表。另一方面，他們還沒到達宣布所有的「覺音論師造」的註記都是後代所加的程度，我是作此宣稱的第一位研究人員。
2. Without those colophons, all Buddhaghosa’s works come to be anonymous. Why? Another hypothetical answer: it is probably because he wished to have all the intellectual credit and responsibility transferred to the contemporary Mahāvihāra community. 如果原稿缺乏「覺音論師造」的「作者註記」，所有覺音論師的作品都會成為「作者佚名」。為什麼？(我給)另一個假設：「可能是因為覺音論師想將這些著作的名譽和責任都歸給「大寺派」。
3. If Buddhaghosa chose to be anonymous, why has he carefully recorded his initiators’s names? One more hypothetical answer: to seek their help in promoting his works. 假如覺音論師選擇在他的著作上匿名，他為何要在這些著作上標上祈請者的名號？(我再給)另一個假設：「想讓他的著作能廣為流傳，這些人或許能幫上忙。」

Those hypotheses have little value in themselves; rather, their value lies in whether they can be used to explain the available historical data consistently and plausibly. It is up to other scholars to judge whether I have succeeded in my attempt to give such explanations.

這些假設本身沒有多大價值，但是，這些假設的價值在於它們是否能不產生矛盾、令人激賞地詮釋現存的歷史資訊。

As a result of this approach, I have arrived at a revised list of Buddhaghosa’s works as given in the table (5), in which both the Vinaya commentary (Sp) and the Abhidhamma commentaries are confirmed as having come from Buddhaghosa’s hands, whereas the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī and some Khuddaka-nikāya commentaries have been ruled out.

這一途徑的結果，我完成了＜表5＞所列的覺音論師著作清單，此一清單將《毘奈耶》與《阿毘達摩》的注釋書列為他的作品，而將 Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī 及一些《小部》的注釋書剔除。

Now readers may ask: what is so important about the question of Buddhaghosa’s authorship? The identification of his works is important for the direction of further research in commentarial studies. For, we all know that Buddhaghosa chose certain texts over others to expound. His choices tell us his priorities, which can provide important insights into the Buddhist atmosphere of his times.

現在，讀者或許會問：「那些著作是或不是覺音論師所造，這個問題為什麼重要？」這些著作是否為覺音論師所造，對未來「註釋書研究」的方向非常重要。因為，我們知道覺音論師只選擇一部分佛教文獻邊寫註釋，他的選擇顯示了(他認為的)重要性的先後次序，這能讓我們預見覺音論師那個時代的佛教氛圍。

Take the Dhammapada, for instance. Nowadays, this is “one of the most popular texts of the THERAVĀDA canon” (Hinüber, “Dhammapada” 216). And it might have been as popular and important during Buddhaghosa’s times, if the tradition is correct in asserting that the Dhammapada commentary has come from Buddhaghosa himself.

以巴利《法句經》為例，巴利《法句經》是今日最普遍的上座部經典，(Hinüber, “Dhammapada” 216)。假如《法句經註》為覺音論師所造，這部經的重視程度與風行程度很可能在覺音論師的時代一樣。

Both von Hinüber and myself have argued that Buddhaghosa is not the author of the Dhammapada commentary. If we are right, this leads to interesting research questions. Why did he pass over the Dhammapada? Because the text was not so important in his times? Or because it was viewed by his contemporary Buddhist world as too simple to warrant a serious Pāli commentary of its own? Such questions make sense only when the Dhammapada commentary has not come from Buddhaghosa.

但是我和封興伯都主張「《法句經註》不是覺音論師所造」。假如此一主張正確的話，這會導致一個有趣的問題：「為何覺音論師不替《法句經》造註？」是否因為在他的年代這部經並不重要？或者是因為他和他當代的佛教世界認為這部經太簡單了而不值得位他寫一部嚴肅的註釋？這類問題只有當他未造「《法句經註》」才成立。

The situation above is applicable to every commentary that Buddhaghosa chose not to write. A plausible identification of Buddhaghosa’s actual works can really help if we wish to understand the Buddhist atmosphere of his times.

這樣的情境可以適用於所有覺音論師未造註釋的佛教文獻。一個對覺音論師所造註釋的精確認證，可以幫助我們了解他那一時代的佛教氛圍。