漢、藏《華嚴經•淨行品》研究

Abstract

《華嚴經•淨行品》是一部關於大乘菩薩道發菩提心的修行手冊。其漢譯本是《華嚴經》中唯一一品從原文的長行文體翻譯成四字為一句的偈頌體。目前中國佛教將〈淨行品〉內容視為願或戒的修行，與經文的旨趣不同。不僅如此，流傳多時的〈淨行品〉具有多個傳本，彼此之間的差異甚大，但對於此品傳本關係的瞭解所知甚少。另外，從長行翻譯成偈頌所涉及的文體轉換不僅增加翻譯上的難度，同時也凸顯譯者詮釋上的差異。為了解決以上三個問題，本論文首先釐清〈淨行品〉的旨趣，然後從印度、西藏和中國古德對〈淨行品〉的應用瞭解這三個傳統對此品的詮釋。同時，透過譯本比對與差異現象的分析來探究《六十華嚴•淨行品》、《八十華嚴•淨行品》和《藏譯華嚴•淨行品》的傳本關係與流傳脈絡，而且檢視閱讀漢、藏〈淨行品〉時可能遇到的問題。 本研究發現就修行概念而言，〈淨行品〉的應用面廣泛且多元，與中國佛教一貫對此品的認知相當不同。印度古德認為此典籍所闡述的行持是於六根的行境和日常生活的行為舉止中發起利益眾生的菩提心。該行持具有迴向的功能，更是一種願力的展現，同時也是防護心念和增長福德的行徑。西藏僧人將〈淨行品〉的教導作為對治懈怠和轉化無記業為善業的方法。在華夏的西域梵僧認為〈淨行品〉的修行兼具沙門戒和菩薩戒的功能。中國古德也將〈淨行品〉視為戒，而且是一種願行、防護心念的方法以及成就淨土的方便。 從傳本而言，在印度只發現單行《淨行經》的痕跡，而西藏和中國則有單行經以及大部頭的《華嚴經•淨行品》流傳。印度和華夏的單行本可能來自於不同的傳本。漢、藏《華嚴經•淨行品》與漢地流傳的單行經源流較為相近。《六十華嚴•淨行品》傳本與晚期的《八十華嚴•淨行品》以及《藏譯華嚴•淨行品》分屬不同傳本源流。單就此品來說，《八十華嚴•淨行品》和《藏譯華嚴•淨行品》的內容比較一致，這與目前學術界的看法有所出入。《六十華嚴•淨行品》可能比較接近《菩薩本業經•願行品》的傳本，而《八十華嚴•淨行品》、《藏譯華嚴•淨行品》則與《諸菩薩求佛本業經》的傳本關係較密切。另外，《菩薩本業經•願行品》傳本形成的時間可能比《諸菩薩求佛本業經》早。 若要正確、客觀地理解〈淨行品〉，不僅對其內容源流要有概括性的瞭解，也要熟悉譯本的特色、譯者的詮釋與翻譯風格。同時藉由漢、藏譯語去重構可能的原文，才能逐漸釐清從單一譯本所無法呈現的經文編纂背景與關懷，例如從印度語音諧音聯想而來的經文，進而正確理解經文所要傳遞的內容。

The “Chapter on Gocarapariśuddhi” in Buddhāvataṃsaka is a manual on generating Bodhicitta in Mahāyāna practice. It is the only chapter in Buddhāvataṃsaka which translates proses into verses. Chinese Buddhism interprets the practice of Gocarapariśuddhi as vows or precepts, which differ from its original concern. Very little we know about its recension background. Moreover, the conversion from prose to verse does create difficulty to both translators and readers. In order to solve the above problems, this research first clarifies the objective of the text, meanwhile investigates how do monks from India, Tibet and China make use of it. By comparing and analyzing the differences between the “Chapter on Gocarapariśuddhi” of The Sixty-Fascicle Chinese Buddhāvataṃsaka, The Eighty-Fascicle Chinese Buddhāvataṃsaka and སངས་རྒྱས་ཕལ་པོ་ཆེ་སྤྱོད་ཡུལ་ཡོངས་སུ་དག་པའི་མདོ, I managed to identify the relationship between the three recensions as well as the problems faced by both Chinese and Tibetan translation texts. In India, this chapter is only known as “Gocarapariśuddhisūtra” and it is widely used as a practice to generate Bodhicitta. Besides, the practice does accumulate merits, can be a kind of vows practice and it is used to guard the minds too. It appears as sūtra and chapter form in both Tibet and China. Tibetan monks make use of the teaching as antidote of laziness and methods to transform neutral deeds into virtues, meanwhile the Chinese monks interpreted the teaching as vows, precepts and Pure Land practice. The independent transmission of “Gocarapariśuddhisūtra” in India and China are two separate recensions. The chapter in Chinese and Tibetan Buddhāvataṃsaka are close to the Chinese independent recensions. In the present study, I find out that the “Chapter on Gocarapariśuddhi” in The Eighty-Fascicle version is near to the Tibetan version; it is very much different from what is known to the academic world. It is important to get accustomed to the characteristic of the text, its interpretation and translation style. By reconstructing the Indian text, we may be able to trace some sort of wordplay in the text, which impossible to perceive through translation itself. Mastering all the above factors will contribute to a correct and subjective understanding of the text.