藏譯三部《三摩地資糧品》之譯注與研究

Abstract

根據佛教的說法，三摩地分成世間與出世間，而其中的出世間三摩地，佛教認為，是解脫輪迴的過程當中所必要得到的。而它的資糧，也就是修習三摩地之前所該具備的先決條件，在得到三摩地的過程當中，扮演了重要的角色，可以說沒有三摩地資糧，就無法成就三摩地，這是世尊乃至阿底峽、德稱、宗喀巴等大師所異口同聲的看法，由此可看出三摩地資糧的重要性。 在蒐集資料的過程中發現，西藏大藏經的丹珠爾當中收錄了三種《三摩地資糧品》，作者分別是覺賢、黑尊者以及阿底峽。依據作者們的年代與宗派傳承，三部皆是後期中觀派的作品。其中，覺賢把三摩地支分分成九支，而每一項都有詳加說明，是三部當中份量最大，也是唯一有引用經論的。而黑尊者把三摩地支分分成七支（第八支為補充），七支之下又分成七種項目。而阿底峽則是以偈誦的方式撰寫，把三摩地支分分成十三支。 究竟這三部後期中觀派的著作之間是什麼關係？三位作者為何寫出內容不同而題名相同的論著？本論文擬試著研究三位作者的背景、宗義思想與傳承，以及在蒐集藏譯版本、進行對勘之後，中譯三部《三摩地資糧品》，並進行對三部內容的研究，包括三部的特色、三部支分的異同比較、三部所指的「三摩地」定義、宣說的對象、三部之間是否有相互影響（前前影響後後）、與其他論典的三摩地資糧做比較，以及禪定術語與非禪定術語之語詞討論、翻譯、版本與其他的問題等等，透由這些研究，期望裨益吾人能夠較完整地了解三部的內容、釐清三部之間的關係，以及對三摩地資糧有更完整、全面的了解。

According to Buddhism, samādhi is divided into two kinds: the mundane and the transmundane. Obtainment of the latter, the transmundane samādhi, is necessary to the process of liberation from saṃsāra in Buddhism. And its sambhāra, which means the preconditions, is a prerequisite for practicing samādhi. In the process of attaining samādhi, sambhāra playes an important role. It can be said that without sambhāra, a yogi, a practitioner of yoga, can not attain samādhi. This view is shared by Bhagavan Śākyamuni Buddha and even Atiśa, Yon tan grags, Tsong kha pa with one voice. Thereby, the importance of samādhisambhāra is evident. In the process of collecting informations, I found in the bstan ’gyur of Tibetan Tripitaka there includes three kinds of Samādhisambhāraparivarta. Their authors are Bodhibhadra, Kṛṣṇa pa and Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna respectively. According to this authors’ chronology and sectarian heritage, this three works belong to the later Mādhyamika. The first author, Bodhibhadra, divided samādhisambhāra into nine factors (or branches, divisions, or Tsering Dolkar translated the ”yan lag” into organ in TR, etc..), and delineated each factor in detaile. His work is the largest one among these three Samādhisambhāraparivartas, and this work alone quotes various sūtras and śāstras relative to the other two works. The second author, Kṛṣṇa pa divided samādhisambhāra into seven factors, in which the eighth factor is a supplement or an addendum to the former seven factors, furthermore the above seven factors are divided in to seven subitemsm, individually. And the last one, Atīśa, composed his work in verse, but not in prose. He divided samādhisambhāra into thirteen factors. What kind of the relationship is between these three works belonging to the later Mādhyamika? Why did these three authors compose their works with the same title? This thesis intends to study the background, tenets and inheritance of each of these three authors. After gathering and collecting Tibetan versions of all of these three works, I translated them, studied their contents including the characteristics, and compared the differences of their factors, the definition of samādhi within these three works, the audiences or readers of these works, the temporal order of their publications. Besides, I compared samādhisambhāra with other śāstras, discussed the terms related to meditation and the other terms unrelated to meditation, and also tried to elucidate the problems in translation and versions, and other related issues, etc.. Through these studies, I hope this thesis could clarify the relationship between these three works, and help readers to understand the contents of these three works and samādhisambhāra more completely and comprehensively.