吐蕃禅宗:一个遗失传统的发现

Tibetan Zen:Discovering a Lost Tradition

本文为《吐蕃禅宗》一书的导论,探讨了在藏地受指责、在汉地被遗忘的一个佛教传统——吐蕃的禅宗。对于藏文禅宗写本的理解,在解读文本本身的同时也不应忘记文本的物质属性,即将文本视为实践。敦煌发现的汉、藏文禅宗写本呈现的是九、十世纪一种包容性的、不断发展的状态,是对以前发生的事件的汇聚。从公元八世纪下半叶到九世纪上半叶,在佛教被采纳为吐蕃国教的这段时间里,禅师很可能在藏地吸收佛教的过程中起到了一定的作用,其中最为人熟知的是摩诃衍,汉地禅宗顿门的代表人。敦煌禅宗写本的发现让我们重新思考吐蕃时期“顿渐之争”的结果和方式,几百年后的《拔协》等藏文历史文献的记载反映的并不一定是当时的历史事实。直到十三世纪,禅宗的文本和实践似乎在西藏仍有传承。吐蕃的禅、敦煌的禅与汉地其他地方的禅一样,都是地方性的。

As the introduction to Sam van Schaik’s book Tibetan Zen,the chapter examined a lost Buddhist tradition—Tibetan Chan,which was censured in Tibet and forgotten in Central China.To approach the Tibetan Chan manuscripts,our reading of texts should happen without discarding the physical manuscript,which means seeing all texts as practices.The Tibetan and Chinese Chan manuscripts from Dunhuang present an inclusive and evolving situation during the ninth and tenth centuries,bringing together most of what had gone before.It is likely that Chan teachers played a role in the Tibetan assimilation of Buddhism during the period when Buddhism was adopted as the imperial religion from the second half of the eighth century to the frst half of the ninth.Moheyan,the Chan master who remained well known in Tibet was the representative of“instantaneous”approach;However the discovery of Dunhuang manuscripts allows us to reconsider the result and the way of the so-called“Bsam yas debate”.The accounts of the Tibetan historical sources,such as the Testimony of Ba might have limited documentary value.It seems that Chan texts and practices were being transmitted as late as the thirteenth century.Both the Chan in Tibet and Dunhuang,just as those Chan traditions in other places of China,were part of a local tradition.