龜茲國與西域的大乘佛教： 從兩漢至鳩摩羅什時代=The Buddhism of Kucha and Central Asia: From the Han to the Period of Kumārajīva

唐秀連 =Tang, Xiu-lian

Author

唐秀連 =Tang, Xiu-lian

Source

中華佛學研究=Chung-Hwa Buddhist Studies

Volume

n.10

Date

2006.03.01

Pages

71 - 106

Publisher

中華佛學研究所=Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies

Publisher Url

http://www.chibs.edu.tw/

Location

新北市, 臺灣 [New Taipei City, Taiwan]

Content type

期刊論文=Journal Article

Language

中文=Chinese

Note

作者為香港能仁書院講師

Keyword

龜茲=Kucha; 大月氏=Dayueshi; 于闐=Kustana; 鳩摩羅什=Kumārajīva; 大乘教=Mahāyāna

Abstract

自西元前一世紀至一世紀頃接收佛教以來，古龜茲國一直是絲路北道上小乘教法的大宗。不過，小乘教的風行並不等如全然切斷了大乘教在該國流通的命脈。鳩摩羅什以前，小乘教在龜茲雖頗有一枝獨秀的如虹氣勢，然而大乘教仍孜孜不倦地盡其所能，拓展生存的領域。至羅什遊學回國後，憑藉一力鼓吹，龜茲大乘教的聲望更攀登至史無前例的巔峰狀態。
　　整合經錄的記載，可發現龜茲吸收大乘教，主要受益於兩大西域教國──大月氏與于闐的弘法活動，而兩國的大乘教信仰各有其側重面，大月氏特尊崇方等深經，于闐則奉華嚴部為中心。若分別考察兩國流通的經籍、僧眾的傳法譯經活動，與龜茲大乘教狀況的關係，可發現龜茲明顯受大月氏大乘教的烙印較深，這可能由於兩國古來在文化、語言已緊密交融之故，兼且隨侍大月氏高僧迻譯經典的龜茲佛徒並不在少數，以致月氏大乘教經籍的弘規，亦順理成章地為龜茲佛教學者所吸納。至於作為于闐信仰核心的華嚴部，反而遭到龜茲佛教界的拒斥，於茲該國大乘教對於龜茲的影響力，誠然遜於月氏。
　　至羅什，龜茲大乘佛典的傳譯活動，不論在數量、種類上的擴充，皆取得長足的進展。不過，羅什的譯經事業雖開闢了中土佛教的新面貌，彼所譯出的大乘教經典，大體上仍踐履其祖國龜茲大乘教的一貫發展路向，此即以方等部為核心。羅什從大月氏齎來的大乘佛典體系中，擷菁採華，重新迻譯，另一方面又大力引入中觀等新學，令龜茲的大乘教風一度高張，追源尋本，大月氏對龜茲大乘教的啟導之功，理當不可忽略。

Table of contents

一、前言 73
二、羅什以前龜茲國的疆域與勢力範圍 73
三、大月氏的佛教與龜茲 76
四、大月氏的大乘佛教概況 80
五、于闐的佛教與龜茲 82
六、于闐的大乘佛教概況 86
（一）《大方廣佛華嚴經》六十卷
（二）《大般涅槃經》四十卷
（三）《禪要秘密治病經記》
（四）般若類經典
（五）《觀世音懺悔除罪蟥經》一卷、《法華經．提婆達多品》
七、羅什以前的龜茲大乘佛教 88
（一）羅什以前龜茲僧徒傳譯大乘佛典的概況
（二）大月氏、于闐、龜茲三地大乘譯經狀況之對照
八、羅什與龜茲的大乘佛教 97
（一）羅什修學大乘教的歷程
（二）羅什時的龜茲大乘佛教
（三）羅什的大乘教典翻譯事業
九、結語 104

Abstruct:
Beginning in approximately the first century B.C., with the arrival of Buddhism, Kucha was a center of Hīnayāna Buddhism on the Northern route of the Silk Road. However, Mahāyāna Buddhism also existed there. Although Hīnayāna Buddhism was dominant prior to Kumārajīva, Mahāyāna gradually gained ground. After Kumārajīva returned following his studies, Mahāyāna Buddhism became increasingly influential.
　　 By integrating information from catalogs, it is evident that Kucha absorbed Mahāyāna Buddhism, benefiting mainly from the proselytizing activities of two Buddhist countries in Central Asia: Dayueshi and Kustana. The Mahāyāna of these two countries had distinguishing characteristics: in Dayueshi, Vaipulya texts were valued, while in Kustana, Huayan texts were valued. Through an examination of the texts in circulation in the two countries, translation activities, and their relationship with Mahāyāna Buddhism in Kucha, it becomes evident that the Mahāyāna Buddhism of Dayueshi was the more influential; this may be due to the close relationship of the language and culture of these two countries. Kucha Buddhists, who used texts translated by eminent Dayueshi monks, were not in the minority. Because of the scale of the Dayueshi Mahāyāna texts, they were naturally accepted and integrated by Buddhist scholars in Kucha. Huayan texts, which were favored by Kustana Buddhists, were not readily accepted by Kucha Buddhists; Kustana Buddhism’s influence on Kucha was less than that of Dayueshi.
　　 Beginning with the time of Kumārajīva, the activities of translation and transmission of Kucha’s Mahāyāna Buddhism, in terms of number and type, all saw rapid growth. Although Kumārajīva’s translation activities created a new face for Buddhism in China, the Mahāyāna sūtras that he translated mostly follow Mahāyāna Buddhist trends of his native Kucha. That is, the Vaipulya were esteemed. Of the system of Mahāyāna Kumārajīva brought from Dayueshi, he selected its essential parts, and re-translated them. He also made a great effort to bring in Mādhyamika materials, to the benefit of Kucha Mahāyāna. Thus the many contributions of Dayueshi Mahāyāna Buddhism to Kucha Buddhism should not be overlooked.

ISSN

1026969X (P)

	Search Criteria	Browse