透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.81.165.210
  • 期刊

單注到集注:從敦煌吐魯番寫本遺存看僧肇《注維摩詰經》的流傳

From Single-author Commentaries to Multi-author Commentaries: The Development of Sengzhao's Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra in Light of Manuscripts from Dunhuang and Turfan

摘要


《維摩詰經》羅什譯出後,羅什本人及其門下僧肇、道生、道融等人即分別進行講說注疏,其初率以單注本流通。其中僧肇《注維摩詰經》最受歡迎。唐代有彙集諸家注文的集注本出現,當係後人託名。晚唐以降,署名僧肇集注十卷本廣為流通。各家單注本遂失傳云亡。早期注《維摩詰經》發展與演變的歷程與實況,也因傳世文獻的不足,以致無從考辨。本文從敦煌、吐魯番出土文獻梳理出45件有關《注維摩詰經》寫本,區分為單注及集注二大系,藉以考察僧肇《注維摩詰經》從單注到合注的發展及其相關問題。文中除寫卷析論外,並針對合注流行前早期的僧肇單注寫本逐一進行敘錄,又對敦煌、吐魯番寫本所見合注本分從八卷本與十卷本探討其流行時代、體制特色及相互區別,並論述先後發展。於此基礎上,同時探究合注本與道液《淨名經集解關中疏》間的關係。其中單注本抄寫時代大抵為唐前,合注本呈現八卷本與十卷本二個系統。八卷本多為初唐寫本;十卷本多為中晚唐時期的抄本。為僧肇集注八卷本與十卷本流傳先後,提供了珍貴的證明。凡此均有助於考察《注維摩詰經》從單注到合注的發展概況,釐清其演變脈絡。

並列摘要


After Kumārajīva translated the Vimalakīrti nirdeśa sūtra, he and his disciples such as Sengzhao, Daosheng and Daorong composed commentaries on it. In the beginning, these commentaries were circulated individually. Of these commentaries, Sengzhao's commentary was the most popular. In the Tang Dynasty, collections assembling various commentaries started to appear, but this seems to be the product of later generations by manipulating the Tang date. After the late Tang period, a ten-fascicle multi-author collection under the name of Sengzhao was widely circulated. It is said that the single commentaries by individual commentators disappeared. The early history of the commentaries on the Vimalakīrti is difficult to recover due to the lack of transmitted texts. However, this article will focus on 45 manuscripts from Dunhuang and Turfan and categorize them into two groups, single-authored commentaries, and the multi-author commentaries, investigating the development of Sengzhao's collection from the single-authored commentaries to the multi-authored commentaries. In addition to analyzing these manuscripts, this article also makes a catalogue of the single-authored commentaries by Sengzhao and discusses the eight- and ten-fascicle collections, looking at their circulation dates, formats, and features. In addition, based on these discussions, this article examines the relationship of Sengzhao's commentary to Daoye's Commentary within the Pass on the Vimalakīrti Sūtra. Among the manuscripts from Dunhuang and Turfan, most of the single-authored commentaries came from the pre-Tang era. The multi-authored commentaries include eight-fascicle and ten-fascicle versions. The eight-fascicle versions can be seen in the manuscripts from the early Tang era. The ten-fascicle versions were from the midto late Tang period. These manuscripts provide precious evidence for our understanding of the spread of Sengzhao's collection. This study therefore sheds new light on the transmission and development of commentaries on the Vimalakīrti nirdeśa sūtra from the single-author commentaries to the multi-authored commentaries.

參考文獻


《注維摩詰經》,CBETA,T38, no. 1775。
王建軍,2011, 《《注維摩詰所説經》研究》,西北大學碩士論文。
平井宥慶,1983,〈敦煌本注維摩詰經の原形について〉,《印度學佛教學研究》32:2,頁327-332。
池麗梅,2001,〈敦煌寫本《維摩詰經解》〉,《印度學佛教學研究》50:1,頁292-294
池麗梅,2005,〈敦煌出土の《維摩經》僧肇単注本について〉,《仏教文化研究論集》 9,頁62-85。

延伸閱讀