【如来藏佛学 • 入道部 • 6了义大中观 • 5宝性论新译 • 0序言后记 • 1序言 • 6050001】  

序言与后记

第一讲 序

高崎直道

佛法自公元一世纪已传入汉土，源远流长。若论中国对佛教的贡献，首要提及的自然是历代不断的佛典翻译，使不少佛家经典，在国家监掌译事下得以保存。汉传佛典，或称为汉译三藏者，渐次传播至邻近的国家，如东方的韩国及日本，以及南方的越南，由是对形成东亚佛学传统的伟大文化，作出贡献。如今汉译佛典为当代佛学研究最重要的研究资料之一。

近代有关佛学的学术研究，始自十八世纪欧洲人对「印度学」(Indology)的热忱。其治学方法，主要依据「语文学」(Philology)，着重从文字上理解各种印度文写成的经典，然这样的理解则与传统的诠释相违。由此源自欧洲的佛学研究来看，汉译佛典的准确性往往遭受批评，且被认为不比相应的藏译佛典重要，因为西藏的翻译在译文上较忠于梵文原文。然而，汉译与藏译的佛典实各有所长， 例如，不少已佚失的梵本佛典，唯保留于古汉译本中；西藏比较后期的翻译，则保留了于印度佛教后期传入西藏的经论，而这些佛典却未曾传入汉土。我们作为佛教学者应对佛家各宗派所传的文献，皆平等视其重要性。

至于汉土近代的佛学研究，可以说直至上世纪中叶，实未曾有长足的发展。在此情况下，我们只知道有一位出类拔萃的法尊法师，于三十年代翻译了《现观庄严论》 (Abhisamayalamkara)以及宗喀巴大士(Tsong kha pa)的部分著作；此外，尚有如季羡林等数字在二次世界大战前于欧美研究「印度学」的学者。战后，此情况改变了许多，如今不少中国学者皆活跃于佛学界，尤其是对敦煌、 吐蕃以及藏传佛教等课题的研究。谈锡永上师正是其中的 一位表表者。

谈上师对佛学的研究，乃自其对藏传佛教宁玛派的修学。由是可说，他是一位精通藏传佛家宗派的「修行学者」。同时，他亦学习梵文，披读当代国外学者的研究，且对其自身的中国文化与传统思想有深刻的认识。谈上师近年把西藏佛典翻译为汉文，此事业遥距法尊法师已五十年；亦正如法尊法师一样，谈上师可堪称为当代的「三藏法师」(Tripitakacarya)。

谈上师所译的《宝性论》(Ratnagotravibhaga)，是有关如来藏学说的重要论著。自Obermiller于三十年代把它由藏文译为英文以来，此著名论典即广为学者研究及讨论，有时甚至予以批判，尤以五十年代之后，E.H. Johnston及T. Chowdhury所整理梵文原论的出版为然。谈上师此书，是对于《宝性论》研究新添的学术论著。此与其他研究所不同者，乃自梵文本译为近乎文言体的汉文 (如作者所说)，故亦可视其为汉译经藏中，新添重新整理 的汉译本。

谈上师此译的另一特色，是他依宁玛派的观点来作诠释及翻译，亦即视《宝性论》(即《无上续论》 Uttaratantra)为佛陀教法中的了义(nitartha)经论 > ，而与格鲁派视此论为不了义(neyartha)的说法大相径庭。

谈上师乃一位出众的宁玛派学人，此依据自宗观点来诠释《宝性论》及如来藏学说，实亦代表了其个人对自宗的坚定信念。相对一般学者仅持客观的态度来作哲学讨论，这或即是谈上师治学的独特之处。我们衡量他的著作时，应当把上来的评价持之于心。

以下我们将讨论译文。谈上师的译笔，即使对于我等只习惯于古汉文而不懂白话文者"亦易读易解，是故我们可以容易持之与六世纪初勒那摩提（Ratnamati）的旧译本作比较。

谈上师于其先前依藏译本之翻译中，批评旧译倾向于诠释（如来藏）思想为实有的本体，例如，他批评旧译所用「体」之一字，如把buddhatva译为「佛体」、把 svabhava译为「实体」。由是，他建议翻译为「性」来代替 「体」。然而，这也衍生出同以「佛性」翻译buddhadhātu及 buddhatva的混淆：

前者为「佛性」，即相当于「如来藏」；

后者指诸佛及有情皆具有的「佛自性」，亦即 buddhatā，佛的证境（于旧译则译为「佛菩提」）。

「体」 之一字，亦具有「性」或本质之意，不一定诠释为实有的本体。为分划

buddhadhātu为因位、

buddhatva为本质。

我提议「佛性」一词只用于前者，而后者则可沿用旧译的 「佛体」，或用一个新的名相：「佛体性」（将-tva译为「体性」）。此等名相如何取舍，则有待读者。

至于buddha-gotra或tathāgata-gotra中的gotra—词，译为「种性」实最为洽当，以ratnagotra亦可同样译为「宝性」故（若直译 ratnagotra，则以「宝山」为准）。依我所理解, ratnagotra （「宝性」）无非即「如来藏j （tathāgatagarbha），从本质而言，则可说为「佛体性」（buddhatva）。

总括而言，谈上师的译本编排得井然有序，依论义将原文分成各个段落及章节，且将「根本论」与「释论」以大小不同字体作分剧，以方便读者（此分别乃依据汉文旧译本，首先用于我的英译本，而不采取现行梵文整理本的编排）；至于论中所引经文，则以楷体印出。

对此最后一点，我想指出（谈上师）前译本页59-60中有一段引文， 漏以楷体刊印，此即《华严经〉（Avatamsakasūtra）（即《宝王如来出现品〉Tathāgatotpattisambhavanirdesa）的经文， 以之说明一切有情皆具足诸佛功德。

此外，读者亦应留意前译页90至91所引的经文，译者以为出自《宝蔓喻论》 （Ratnamalavadana ），然此实出自《宝髻菩萨反诘经》 （Ratnaketu-paripr ccha ），汉文翻译见于《大集经》（Mahdsagipdta siitra）「宝髻菩寝会第一」（《大正藏》卷十三，页181a），以及《大宝积经》（Maha-ratnakutasutra） 「宝髻菩萨会第四十七」（《大正藏》卷十一，页668a）。同经亦复引于第99页（即《大正藏）卷十三，页175c至 176a），而译者亦同样误以为出自《宝蔓喻论〉。

还有一点须加注意的，是第一品第96颂的释论，于说 「如来藏十义」之后，以九喻以明如来藏被污染所障的状态。法义上，前段说法性（dharmatā）尽未来际 （aparāntasama）皆「有」，故为恒常；后段则说如来藏自无 始以来（anādisāmnidya）被烦恼所缠，然其自性不（与烦恼）相应（asambaddhasvabhava），却于同时与清净法 

（subha dharma ）相应（sambaddhasvabhāva ）。

虽然有上来未惬之处（编按：于今译本中 ，译者对此已加以注意），我仍衷心向佛学界推荐此书，作为带领当代中国佛学研究往新发展的开拓。

高崎直道 

横浜鹤见大学校长 

东京大学退休教授 

编按：高崎直道教授这篇序文，是于细读谈锡永上师依藏文翻译之前汉译本（1996年，密乘版）后而写。谈上师因其坦率的批评，故决定重新依梵本校译，亦即全论尽可能依梵文直译，并加详明脚注，以说明脉络，这即是本版的面目。

Preface

China has a long history of Buddhism since her encounter with it in the 1st century of the Common &a. As for her contribution to Buddhism, mention must first be made to the continuous translation of Buddhist scriptures into Chinese through different dynasties, and their preservation in a form of canon under governmental regulation. The Chinese Buddhist Canon, otherwise known as the Chinese Tripitaka, has gradually spread in the surrounding countries such as Korea and Japan in the East and Vietnam in the South, and thus contributed to the forming of a great cultural sphere of East Asian Buddhist tradition. And now it is worldly estimated as one of the most important source materials for modem Buddhist scholarship.

Modern Buddhist scholarship, started by Europeans1 enthusiasm for Indian studies or Indology towards the end of the 18th century, is based fundamentally on the method of Philology and keeps importance on the literal understanding of the texts written in the original Indian languages, and therefore often contradicts with traditional hermeneutics. From this point of view, the Chinese canons were accused of their inaccuracy and regarded as less important than the equivalent Tibetan texts which are literally more true to the Sanskrit original. However, both Chinese and Tibetan Buddhist canons have their own merits, for example, many of die Sanskrit original texts that were lost are preserved in the archaic Chinese translations, while the comparative modernity of Tibetan materials preserved the transmission of texts during the later phase of development of Indian Buddhism that were not transmitted into China. We Buddhist scholars should keep equal importance on all kinds of materials kept in various Buddhist traditions.

As for the modem Chinese Buddhist scholarship, we may say that it was not highly developed up to the middle of the last century. In such circumstances, an cxily exceptional figure as far as we know is Vea Fazun （法尊）,who translated the AbhisamayalanJcara and s（Mne works of Tsong kha pa from Tibetan materials into Chinese during the early 1930s. There were a few others such as Ji Xianlin （季羡林）who studied Inology in Europe and America before the second world war. Circumstances have changed after the war, and now there are many scholars active in the academic Buddhist field, especially in Tun-huang and Turfan studies and on Tibetan Buddhism as well. Master Tam Shek-wing is one of the brilliant figures among them.

Master Tam was initiated in Buddhist studies through entering into the order of rNying ma pa, an esoteric Tibetan Buddhist sect So he may be called as a "priest scholar" well-versed in Tibetan Buddhist traditions. At the same time, however, he studied Sanskrit language and works of modem foreign scholars on Buddhism as well, and, with deep knowledge on his native Chinese classics and their thought, he started to translate texts in the Tibetan Buddhist canon newly into Chinese. His activity being thus following to Ven. Fazun after fifty years, he may deserve to be called, just as Fazun, a Tripitakacarya, ie san-ts'ang fa-shih （三藏法师）of modem times.

The Pao-hsing-lun （宝性论）or the Ratnagotravibhaga. here translated by Master Tam, is a well-known important text on the Tathagatagarbha doctrine, studied, discussed, and sometimes criticized among scholars since Obermiller*s English translation from Tibetan source appeared in 1930s, especially after 1950 when its Sanskrit original text edited by E.H. Johnston and T. Chowdhwy was published. So this new study and translation by Master Tam adds to the scholarship on the Pao-hsing-lun. with a unique significance as being translated from Sanskrit into Chinese in a semi- classical style （so the author says）, and is to be regarded as a kind of revised Chinese version to be added to the Chinese canon. Another significance of his work is that he translated the text according to the way of interpretation or hermeneutic of the rNying ma tradition which regards the Ratnagotravibhaga, or the Rgyud bla ma （Uttaratantrd）, as of the ultimate meaning （nitartha） of the Buddha's teaching against or in contrast to the dGe lugs pafs interpretation that treats it as belonging to the group of incomplete meaning （neyartha） to lead to the ultimate. For him, who is a distinguished practitioner well trained in the rNying ma esoterism, this rNying ma evaluation of the Pao-hsing-lun and the Tathagatagarbha doctrine in general also represents his firm conviction or belief. This may be his unique standpoint in comparison to usual scholars who assume their standpoint as neutral, keeping philological objectivity. We should estimate his work with this evaluation keeping in mind.

Now we should proceed to examine the translation. Master Tam's translation is mostly quite understandable even for those like me who, though accustomed with classical Chinese, don't know modem Chinese. So we can easily compare it with the old version translated by Ratnamati in the early 6th century. In his earlier translation from Tibetan, he criticizes the old translation as being inclined to interpret the thought from a substantial aspect. For example, he accuses the use of the character t‘i （体）such as in 佛体 for buddhatva,实体 for svabhava, and instead he suggests to use hsing （性）to replace t’i （体）.  But this also causes the arousal of the conftision between 佛性 as translation of Sanskrit buddhadhatu or Buddha nature, equivalent to ju-lai-tsang （如来藏），and buddhatva, the essence of the Buddha common to Buddhas and sentient beings, or buddhata, the state of the Buddha, i.e. enlightenment （佛菩提 in old translation）. Rather, the Chinese term t'i （体）has a sense of nature （性）or essential, proper nature, and not necessarily be interpreted as something substantial. For distinction between buddhadMtu as the state of cause and buddhatva as the essence, I wish to recommend to use the term 佛性 only for the former, while for the latter, to use 佛体 as used in the old translation, or to adopt a new term 佛体性（体性 for -tva） in translation. Anyway, to fix technical terms in translation is desideratum for the readers. As for the term gotra, in Buddha- （or tathagata-） gotra, the term 种性 seems most suitable, while ratnagotra may be rendered as 宝性 as adopted here （a literally better translation for ratnagotra is 宝山，a jewel mine）. （To my understanding, ratnagotra is nothing but tathagatagarbha, although identified in essence with buddhatva).

Generally speaking, Master Tain's translation is well-arranged in making divisions and sections in accordance with doctrinal contexts, and very kind to the readers in using different font-sizes of letters for the basic verses and commentary verses respectively (tfiis distinction is originally based upon the old Chinese translation, and adopted in my English translation for the first time against the numbering of verses given in die present Sanskrit edition), and using gothic characters for quotations. Of this last point, I wish to indicate a passage in his previously published translation where diis principle is missed to be applied where a passage of the Avatamsaka suira (or the Tathagatotpattis(mbhava-nirdesd} is quoted as the authority for the concept of the Buddha's qualities reserved in all sentient beings. Anodier point I wish to reach to the notice of the readers is that a passage of quotation (in pp. 90-91 of die previous translation) which the translator thought of as coming from the Ratnamalavaddna (宝蔓喻论)("Analogy qf entering a castle'1). This quotation is in fact quoted from the Ratnaketu-pariprccha. equivalent Chinese translation being in the Mahasaninipatasutra (大集经)(宝髻菩萨会第十一, Taisho vol. 13, p. 181a) and in the Maha-ratnakutasutra (大宝积经)(宝髻菩萨会第四十七，Taisho vol. 11, p. 668a). The same sutra is again quoted in p. 99 (= Taisho vol. 13, pp. 175c-176a), and the translator mistook it again as from the Ratnamalavaddna with the title 宝蔓喻论.

commentary passage on verse 96 as illustration to the 9 examples of covering of defilements on the tathagatagarbha after finished explanation of its essential nature in 10 aspects. Doctrinal point here is that in the fonner 皿ssage the text explained the essential nature (dhannata) existing nas far as the end of the future" (aparantasama), i.e., forever constantly, while hereafter the text is going to explain the apparent state of the tathagatagarbha as having defilements covering over it since the beginningless time (anadisamnidhya) but not associated by nature (asambaddhasvabhava) and at the same time having associated by nature (asambaddhasvabhava) with pure characters (subha dharma).

In spite of the few unsatisfied points mentioned above (which have been corrected in the present edition), I heartily recommend this work to the world of Buddhist scholarship as a pioneering work which will lead the modem Chinese scholarship on Buddhism to a further development.

Jikidd Takasaki

President, Tsurumi University, Yokohama

Professor Emeritus, University of Tokyo