《釋摩訶衍論》考--兼論《大乘起信論》的真偽

Abstract

本文從史料考證與義理分析等方面，對《釋摩訶衍論》的真偽問題進行了 詳細考辨。從文本和義理分析來看，本論《大乘起信論》與釋論《釋摩訶衍 論》息息相關，本論、釋論必為同時譯出，出自同一人之手，《釋摩訶衍論》 根本不可能為後人的偽作。爲了對《釋摩訶衍論》作進一步的考證，必然涉及 到《大乘起信論》真偽的考證。雖然現在還有許多不同觀點，但通過考辨，筆 者認為，《大乘起信論》是真諦三藏於梁承聖三年在衡州始興郡建興寺翻譯 的，而且本論《大乘起信論》與釋論《釋摩訶衍論》作為一個整體同時所譯。 真諦的佛學思想與《釋摩訶衍論》義理是否相符合，這與本文的考證密切相 關。通過考察，筆者認為，真諦是在用如來藏、阿摩羅識思想來解釋與補充唯 識思想。真諦的佛學思想與《大乘起信論》及《釋摩訶衍論》的義理是相互貫 通的。為了廓清圍繞《釋摩訶衍論》真偽的迷霧，本文對關於《釋摩訶衍論》 的責難給予了全面回應。不管是三船的四難、最澄的七難，還是梁啟超的六 難，除去針對《釋摩訶衍論》的譯者署名及篇首之序以外，其餘針對《釋摩訶 衍論》本身的指責均不能成立。

The Commentary to the Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna, the Shi Moheyanlun, was attributed to Nāgārjuna in the tradition of Chinese Buddhism. This attribution is doubted by modern scholarship, which argues that this commentary was composed in China by a Chinese author. Taking this issue, the present paper analyzes in depth the content and doctrines of the text in question, and the translation history of both the root treatise and the commentary. The article shows that the root treatise, the Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna, was doubtlessly translated by Paramārtha at the Jianxing si of the Shixing commandery in the Heng in the third year of Chengsheng era of the Liang Dynasty (554), and conclude that the Commentary was translated by Paramārtha himself.