覺音論師與「註釋書」---- 6 班智達尊者〈哪些「註釋書」是覺音論師所編寫？〉

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〉，關於漢譯《善見律毘婆沙》的篇章。

------

〈THE PARALLEL EVIDENCE OF THE CHINESE〉 來自漢譯《善見律毘婆沙》的證據

Samantapāsādikā Von Hinüber has rejected Buddhaghosa’s authorship of Samantapāsādikā (Sp) partly because of Finot’s following argument: 封興伯反對將巴利《善見律毘婆沙》列為覺音論師的作品，部分是因 Finot 的下列論點：

There exists a Chinese translation of the Samantapāsādikā under the title of Chan-kien-pi-pro-cha-lu (sid.) by Saṅghabhadra, a Śramaṇa of the western region: it is exactly dated 489 A. D., and therefore posterior to the utmost by 50 years to the presumed date of Buddhaghosa. It is not possible that in such a short lapse of time the name of the author had fallen into oblivion: now, the translator does not mention it in any way. Therefore, in the time of the Chinese translation, the Samantapāsādikā was an anonymous work. (Finot) 有一相當於巴利 Samantapāsādikā 的漢譯名為《善見律毘婆沙》(英文作「善見毘婆沙律」，應是失誤)，為僧伽跋陀羅所譯，他是一位來自西域的沙門，翻譯於西元 489年，大約晚於覺音論師的著作五十年。漢譯並未提起任何原作者的名號，要在這麼短的期間內遺失作者的名字是不可能的。所以，在漢譯時(西元 489年)已經佚失巴利 Samantapāsādikā 的作者名號。(Finot 的主張)

I am not convinced by Finot. Even if he is correct in assuming that Saṅghabhadra’s work is a translation of Sp, the very short time interval of not more than fifty years between Buddhaghosa and the Chinese translation of Sp means that the “Buddhaghosa colophons” were probably not yet present when Saṅghabhadra undertook to translate Sp into Chinese. Without those colophons, all Buddhaghosa’s works, even the Visuddhimagga, would be anonymous, so this anonymity is not evidence convincing enough to deny Buddhghosa’s authorship of Sp. (班智達尊者的主張) Finot 的陳述並未說服我。Finot 認為僧伽跋陀羅所譯即是巴利 Samantapāsādikā 的漢譯，即使他在此一論點是正確的，由於漢譯年代(西元 489年)和覺音論師的著作相隔如此短的年限，很有可能僧伽跋陀羅漢譯時，巴利 Samantapāsādikā 「覺音論師造」的作者註記尚未存在。如果此一作者註記尚未存在，所有的覺音論師的著作，包括《清淨道論》，也會佚失作者名號。所以光憑漢譯未提到作者名號這個理由，並不足以否定「巴利 Samantapāsādikā 的作者為覺音」。

Furthermore, even if Saṅghabhadra happened to know Buddhaghosa’s identity, there are valid motives why the former would not mention the latter’s name in the former’s work such as:

再者，即使僧伽跋陀羅漢譯時已經知道作者是覺音論師，他也有如下的理由不提作者是誰。

Even when a translator knew the original author’s identity, the former was not obliged to name the latter explicitly when the latter is being deliberately anonymous; 即使翻譯者知道原著的作者名號，當此一作者名號未標示在作品上時，翻譯者並無此需要去標示他。

Given that Buddhaghosa could not become famous yet in that short lapse of time, whatever prestige and authority which his works possessed, and which the translator was trying to inherit, must be based upon the endorsement of the Mahāvihāra. In such a case, mentioning the original author’s name would only hinder, not help, the translator trying to get Chinese readers to accept his translation as an authority on the Mahāvihāra monasticism. 如果在這五十年間覺音論師的名號不是太響亮，不管被翻譯的著作多麼權威與著名，這都是來自大寺派的光芒。在此情況之下，要讓漢地讀者接受此本翻譯，提起大寺派的權威要比提起覺音論師有效。

Therefore, I argue, the absence of Buddhaghosa’s name in the Chinese translation is not convincing enough evidence to let us assume Sp is not one of Buddhaghosa’s works. 所以我主張，光憑漢譯未提到作者名號這個理由，並不足以否定「巴利 Samantapāsādikā 的作者為覺音」。