Introduction
i.1The Rice Seedling (Śālistamba ) is one of the most important sūtras on the topic of dependent arising. In this sūtra Śāriputra approaches Maitreya and requests him to explain the meaning of the following statement of the Buddha, which he had made earlier that same day while gazing at a rice seedling: “Whoever sees dependent arising sees the Dharma. Whoever sees the Dharma sees the Buddha.” What follows is an explanation of dependent arising through the twelve links, the eightfold path of the noble ones, and their relation to outer and inner causes and conditions. Crucially, it is by understanding the very nature of dependent arising that one can be free from it and attain enlightenment.
i.1《稻芋經》（稻芋）是關於緣起這一主題最重要的經典之一。在這部經中，舍利弗向彌勒菩薩請求解釋佛陀較早時在凝視一株稻苗時所說的以下陳述的含義：「誰見緣起，誰就見法。誰見法，誰就見佛陀。」隨後的內容是通過十二支、聖者八正道以及它們與外在和內在因緣條件的關係來解釋緣起。至關重要的是，只有通過理解緣起的本質，人們才能超越它並證得菩提。
i.2We are not aware of any extant complete Sanskrit text of The Rice Seedling. However, it is quoted extensively in surviving Sanskrit treatises like Yaśomitra’s Abhidharmakośavyākhyā, Candrakīrti’s Prasannapadā, Prajñākaramati’s Bodhicaryāvatārapañjikā, Śāntideva’s Śikṣasamuccaya, and also a critical non-Buddhist treatise, the Bhāmatī by Vācaspatimiśra. Mainly based on these, several Sanskrit reconstructions have been carried out which are claimed to include about ninety percent of The Rice Seedling. The first reconstructed edition was prepared by Louis de La Vallée Poussin (1913). Without having access to this, N. Ayaswami Sastri (1950) produced another reconstruction. Another one was produced by V.V. Gokhale (1961). Finally, a thorough comparative study and new reconstructed edition was carried out by N. Ross Reat (1993), taking into account Sanskrit, Tibetan, Pāli, and Chinese sources; Reat also provides a complete English translation. This work also illustrates the many parallel and similar passages in Pāli suttas.
i.2我們尚未發現《稻芋經》現存完整的梵文版本。但是，這部經典在許多現存的梵文論著中被大量引用，包括世親論師的《俱舍論註疏》、月稱論師的《明句論》、智賢論師的《入菩薩行論廣釋》、寂天菩薩的《學集論》，以及非佛教的重要論著——婆跋多論師的《梵我論》。主要基於這些文獻，人們進行了多次梵文重建工作，據稱這些重建版本包含了約百分之九十的《稻芋經》內容。第一個重建版本由路易·德拉瓦萊·普桑在一九一三年編製。在沒有接觸到該版本的情況下，阿雅斯瓦米·薩斯特里在一九五○年進行了另一次重建。後來，威克托·戈卡勒在一九六一年又製作了一版。最後，羅斯·里特在一九九三年進行了全面的比較研究和新的重建工作，他參考了梵文、藏文、巴利文和漢文的資料，並提供了完整的英文翻譯。這部著作還展示了巴利文經典中許多相似和平行的段落。
i.3There are three Indian commentaries on The Rice Seedling which have been preserved in Tibetan and Mongolian translations, namely the Śālistamba[ka]ṭīkā by Kamalaśīla, as well as the Śālistamba[ka]mahāyanasūtraṭīkā and Śālistambakakārikā , both attributed to Nāgarjuna. These works have been thoroughly studied and translated by Jeffrey D. Schoening (1995). He also gives a chronological account of both partial and complete Western language translations of The Rice Seedling, the first being a translation from the Chinese into Italian in 1908; and he mentions a Japanese translation from the Chinese of Taishō 709.
i.3有三部印度註疏是針對《稻芋經》的，這些註疏保存在藏文和蒙古文的翻譯中，即蓮花戒論師的《稻芋經註疏》，以及龍樹菩薩所著的《稻芋大乘經註疏》和《稻芋經頌》。這些著作已被傑佛瑞·舍寧（Jeffrey D. Schoening）在1995年進行了深入研究和翻譯。他也提供了《稻芋經》西方語言翻譯（包括部分和完整翻譯）的年代記述，其中最早的是1908年從漢文翻譯為義大利文的版本；他還提到了一部日文翻譯，來自大正藏709號的漢文版本。
i.4Most of the information given in this introduction can be found in more detail in the sources mentioned above, especially Reat and Schoening. Being of such significance, The Rice Seedling has also been discussed in the context of multiple other studies, the details of which would go beyond the scope of this brief introduction.
i.4本介紹中提供的大部分資訊可以在上述提及的來源中找到更詳細的內容，特別是在瑞特和舍寧的著作中。由於《稻芋經》具有如此重要的意義，它也曾在許多其他研究的脈絡中被討論過，這些細節超出了本簡介的範圍。
i.5There are four Chinese translations (Taishō 709–712), the first and earliest having been carried out during the Eastern Jin Dynasty (317–420 ᴄᴇ). A very similar sūtra (Taishō 708) had already been translated by Chih-ch’ien in the Wu Dynasty (222–280 ᴄᴇ). As Martin (2014, p. 283) has noted, the Testament of Wa / Ba (dba’ / sba bzhed) mentions that a Chinese version was translated into Tibetan before the completion of the first monastery of Tibet, Samye, toward the end of the eighth century. The Tibetan translation is also mentioned in the Denkarma (ldan dkar ma) catalogue compiled by Kawa Paltseg et al., probably in the year 812. The colophons in two of the oldest surviving Tibetan manuscripts identified so far (the Dunhuang manuscripts PT 551 and PT 552), credit Yeshé Dé, a famous Tibetan translator of the eighth to ninth centuries, as the translator. This information is absent in the later editions.
i.5有四種漢文譯本（大正709–712），其中第一個也是最早的譯本是在東晉時期（西元317–420年）完成的。一部非常相似的經典（大正708）早在吳朝時期（西元222–280年）就已由支謙翻譯過。如馬丁（Martin 2014, p. 283）所指出的，《巴藏記》提到有一個漢文版本在八世紀後期、西藏第一座寺院桑耶寺完成之前就已被翻譯成藏文。這部藏文譯本也在《丹噶目錄》中被提及，該目錄是由格瓦·白譯師等人編譯的，編譯時間大概是在812年。在迄今發現的兩份最古老的藏文手稿（敦煌手稿PT 551和PT 552）的題記中，均記載八至九世紀著名的藏文譯師智慧光為譯者。這一信息在後來的版本中則不復存在。
i.6There are considerable differences and variant readings across the many versions, editions, and translations of this sūtra that are not recorded in detail here. Variant readings as well as references to the commentaries are only given for passages that were crucial for essential decisions made with regard to the translation. Thus this translation does not aim to improve on the studies mentioned above. Readers who are interested in academic and philological research on the available textual sources may refer to them. What is intended here is a translation that is mainly based on the Tibetan version in the Degé Kangyur collection and the Pedurma (dpe bsdur ma) comparative edition of the Kangyur, with reference to available Sanskrit materials, particularly Reat’s edition.
i.6本經存在許多版本、版次和譯本之間存在著相當大的差異和異文，這些在此處未被詳細記錄。異文以及對論著的引用僅在對翻譯所做的基本決定至關重要的段落中提供。因此，本翻譯並不意圖改進上述提及的研究。對可用文本資料的學術和文獻學研究感興趣的讀者可參考上述著作。本譯本的目的主要是以德格版大藏經中的藏文版本和對勘本大藏經（藏文：dpe bsdur ma）為基礎，並參考現存的梵文材料，特別是瑞亞特版本進行翻譯。