- 期刊
- OpenAccess
The Missing Link: Siṁha Bhikṣu and the Construction of an Indian Chan Lineage, with Special Attention to Zongmi
缺少的環節－師子尊者與宗密對禪宗印度祖師系譜的建構
摘要
As Chan identity began to coalesce around its claim to embody an unbroken historical lineage tracing all the way the back to the Buddha, the Transmission of the Dharma Treasury (Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳) came to assume an indispensable role in the tradition's construction of a credible lineage of Indian patriarchs during the late-eighth and early-ninth centuries. While the Transmission of the Dharma Treasury was welcomed by Chan genealogists in the late Tang, it also presented a major problem for them, since the transmission of the dharma was explicitly said to have been cut off with the head of the twenty-third Indian patriarch, Siṁha bhikṣu. This paper examines the various attempts to resolve this problem found in Chan sources during this period, with special attention to Zongmi 宗密 (780-841). Part One analyzes the different lists of Indian patriarchs that appear in Chan texts during this period, for which there are two issues. The first had to do with standardizing the list of names for the first twenty-three (or -four) patriarchs derived from the Transmission of the Dharma Treasury, and the second had to do with supplying the missing names for the patriarchs between Siṁha and Bodhidharma. The differences in the details of the various lists-although relatively minor in regard to the first twenty-three (or -four) patriarchs and greater for those between Siṁha and Bodhidharma-are even more striking in the case of the narrative accounts of Siṁha. Such differences strongly suggest that these sources, while reflecting a problem common to all Chan communities, were compiled independently of one another. Part Two examines how the three extant Tang-dynasty narrative accounts of Siṁha's fate address the problem posed by the Transmission of the Dharma Treasury. Although the Record of the Dharma Jewel Down Through the Generations (Lidai fabao ji 歷代法寶記, ca. 775) and the Jeweled Grove Transmission (Baolin zhuan 寶林傳, dtd 801) were compiled between a half to a quarter century before Zongmi's Subcommentary to the Scripture of Perfect Awakening (Yuanjuejing dashuchao 圓覺經大疏鈔, dtd 823-824), Zongmi's account of the Indian patriarchal line shows no evidence of their influence. His solution to the problem is noteworthy for highlighting the central aim of his Comprehensive Preface to the Collected Writings on the Source of Chan (Chanyuan zhuquanji duxu 禪源諸詮集都序, dtd 833): the resolution of the split that divided Chan practitioners (chanzhe 禪者) and textual scholars (jiangzhe 講者) into contending camps. He uses the Transmission of the Dharma Treasury's statement that the transmission of the dharma treasury (fazang 法藏) came to an end with the death of Siṁha bhikṣu to explain the historical origin of the split between the transmission of the canonical tradition (法藏) and the mind ground (xindi 心地) as part of his revisioning of Buddhist history into a three-stage devolution. The paper concludes by reflecting on the methodological problem that the different treatments of Siṁha bhikṣu and the Indian patriarchs in late Tang Chan texts raises for the reconstruction of Chan history: modern scholars must be wary of the tendency to assume that the reading texts in chronological order offers an accurate account of the filiations among different Chan groups in the late Tang. Given regional developments that separated different Chan groups, we cannot forget that we may have access to texts composed during this period that would not have been available to the authors or compilers of other texts composed during this period even though they were extant at the time.
並列摘要
在八世紀末九世紀初時期，《付法藏因緣傳》在禪宗號稱具有無間斷可追溯到佛陀的印度祖師傳承中扮演著不可或缺的角色。雖然《付法藏因緣傳》在晚唐受到禪宗系譜學家的歡迎，但也帶給他們一個很大的難題，因為它明確指出法脈斷絕於第23代祖師師子尊者。本文考察了這一時期在禪宗文獻中發現的解決這一問題的各種嘗試，特别是宗密（780－841）。第一部分分析這一時期禪宗文本中出現的各種祖師名單，其中含有二個問題：第一個與標準化出自《付法藏因緣傳》的前23或24位祖師名稱有關；第二個與增補從師子尊者至菩提達摩之間的祖師名字有關。各種名單之間的差異，就前23或24位祖師名稱而言相對較小，而在師子尊者至菩提達摩之間的祖師名字上則差異較大，還有最明顯的是對師子尊者的描述有很大的不同。這些差異顯示出，這些資料雖然反映了禪宗各宗的共同問題，但是是各自獨立被彙編而成的。第二個部分考察現存的三個唐朝文本是如何敘述師子尊者的生平以解決由《付法藏因緣傳》所造成的問題。雖然《歷代法寶記》（約775）與《寶林傳》（801）比宗密的《圓覺經大疏鈔》（823－824）早成書了半個到四分之一世紀，但是對宗密的印度祖師系譜沒有影響。宗密的解決方法突顯了《禪源諸詮集都序》（833）的中心目的：調和將禪者與講者劃分為競爭對手的分裂。他利用《付法藏因緣傳》的內容，也就是「法藏」（dharma treasury）的傳遞隨著師子尊者的死亡而結束，來解釋「法藏」與「心地」的傳承分裂的歷史源頭，並以此作為他將佛教歷史修訂為三個階段傳承的一部分。本文最後藉由反思晚唐文本中對師子尊者與印度祖師的不同處理以重建禪宗歷史的方法論問題而總結：當代學者必須警惕於這種傾向，也就是認為按照文本的時間順序來閱讀就能正確理解晚唐禪宗各宗之間的關係。鑒於禪宗各宗在不同的區域發展，我們不能忘記，我們現在所可以接觸到的在這時期所編寫的文本，很可能是當時其它文本的作者或編纂者無法取得的，即使它們當時已經存在。