探索《佛母寶德藏般若波羅蜜經》的前二章和《文殊師利所說摩訶般若波羅蜜經》的互文性關係=Mapping the Intertextuality between the 41 Verses and the Sūtra of Mahā-prajñāpāramitā Pronounced by Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva
文殊=Mañjuśrī; 般若=Ratnaguṇa; 佛母寶德藏般若波羅蜜經=Prajñāpāramitā; 一四句偈=Diamond Sutra; 小品般若經=One Four-Line Verse; 《文殊師利所說摩訶般若波羅蜜經》=Sūtra of Mahā prajñāpāramitā Pronounced by Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva
摘要
Edward Conze 認為，Prajñā-pāramitā Ratnaguṇasaṁcayagāthā（《佛母寶德藏般若波羅蜜經》）的前二章中的四十一偈為般若文獻中最為古老的部分。但圍繞這一文本的來源以及它和《大般若經》之間的關係，迄今為止尚無定論。本文通過五個層次的綜合分析，認為該四十一偈極可能曾是《文殊師利所說摩訶般若波羅蜜經》的偈頌部分。本文的五個層次的分析如下：一、大乘佛教的歷史敘事、大乘佛經、以及印度佛教藝術史都表明，大乘佛教中的般若為文殊菩薩所說。二、《文殊師利所說摩訶般若波羅蜜經》從形式到內容，都屬於早期大乘經典。其內容非常明白地表明般若為文殊所說，並得到佛陀的印可。以西方哲學分類的角度而言，文殊對般若從本體論、認識論、方法論、現象學、以及價值論的角度進行了闡述，並將其應用於菩薩道。這與其被稱為「大乘佛母」的身分是一致的，也和被稱為「佛母」的《寶德藏》前二章中的思想完全一致。三、藏譯《般若攝頌》（即《寶德藏》）的起首有「頂禮聖者文殊師利」的文字。在西藏，《般若攝頌》和《文殊禮贊》結合誦讀。此外，詞彙項（lexical items）分析表明，兩個文本在結構上高度對應。例如，據信是古印度獅子賢加在《寶德藏》中的標題也可以用來概括《文殊師利所說摩訶般若波羅蜜經》中的主旨。四、語意互文性分析表明，四十一偈和《文殊師利所說摩訶般若波羅蜜經》具有全面和充分的互文性，即其中一個文本完全可以用來註解另一個文本。五、最後，結合《金剛經》中語意不明的「一四句偈」，本文對《文殊師利所說摩訶般若波羅蜜經》結尾部分提及的「般若波羅蜜一四句偈」以及大正藏中的一百多個「一四句偈」進行了內容分析。本文認為，所謂「一四句偈」極有可能是「四十一偈」的誤訛。此外，本文還認為，雖然四十一偈和其它般若文獻也存在不同程度的互文性關係，但這種互文性不能合理的解釋上面五個層次中所注意到的現象，包括為何大乘佛教的歷史敘事、大乘佛經、以及印度佛教藝術史都表明大乘佛教中的般若為文殊菩薩所說。而本文的結論，即四十一偈與《文殊師利所說摩訶般若波羅蜜經》原為同一經文的偈頌和正文部分，則與這些現象相符合、相一致。最後，本文認為，如何通過「如實知」而達到慧解脫，是從佛陀到早期佛教部派時期廣泛討論到主題。在諸種對「如實知」的闡釋中，文殊菩薩的般若波羅蜜多是最為深刻、最有影響力的，因而成為大乘佛教的根基。
Edward Conze suggested that the first two chapters of the Ratnaguṇa (hereafter “the 41 verses”) were the earliest Mahāyāna text. Yet the origin of the verses and their relationship with other prajñāpāramitā texts have been murky. Through five levels of analysis, this research argues that the 41 verses were most likely the verse section of the Sūtra of Mahā-prajñāpāramitā Pronounced by Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva (SMPMB) and later became independent and expanded. The five levels of analysis are as follows. First, the Mahāyāna origin narratives, the Mahāyāna sutras, and ancient Indian Buddhist art all point to Mañjuśrī as the most likely architect of the prajñāpāramitā doctrine. Second, as an early Mahāyāna text, the SMPMB’s narrative shows that Mañjuśrī pronounced prajñāpāramitā and the Buddha sanctioned it. Third, the Tibetan Ratnaguṇa bears the line “Homage to Holy Mañjuśrī” in its beginning, and the text is usually found in conjunction with “The Recitation of Mañjuśrī’s Attributes.” Lexical items also show high parallelism between the 41 verses and the SMPMB. Fourth, a semantic intertextual analysis demonstrates full and complete intertextuality between the two texts. That is, the two texts can fully annotate each other. Finally, a content analysis of the references to the “one four-line verse” (yi si ju ji 一四句偈) in Mahāyāna texts indicates that it is most likely a corrupted reference to the 41 verses. The research further notes that intertextuality between the 41 verses and other prajñāpāramitā sutras cannot provide explanations for the observations in the above analysis, thus excluding alternative explanations. Finally, the research notes that how to attain wisdom deliverance was a widely explored subject from the Buddha’s time to the early schools. Mañjuśrī’s prajñāpāramitā doctrine is the most sophisticated interpretation of the Buddha’s teaching on “see things as they really are” and thus constituted the foundation of early Mahāyāna Buddhism.
