Introduction
i.1Siṃha’s Questions is listed as the thirty-seventh chapter of the Ratnakūṭa (Heap of Jewels) section of the Kangyur and was translated into Tibetan from an unknown Sanskrit source in the early ninth century by the Indian scholars Dānaśīla and Munivarman and the Tibetan translator and chief editor Yeshé Dé. It is listed in both ninth-century imperial catalogs, the Denkarma and Phangthangma.
i.1《師子太子刷護經》是寶積部甘珠爾中第三十七章,由印度學者達那尸羅、牟尼跋摩和藏文翻譯家兼主編智慧義在九世紀初期從未知的梵文資料翻譯成藏文。該經被列入兩份九世紀的皇帝目錄,即頓喀目錄和芳唐瑪目錄。
i.2There are three versions of the text found in the Chinese Tripiṭaka. The translator of Taishō 344, the first and likely earliest version of the sūtra, is unknown. Taishō 343 was translated by Dharmarakṣa (zhu fa hu 竺法護) during the Jing Dynasty, around 200–300 ᴄᴇ. The text was again revised in China by the Indian translator Bodhiruci (pu ti liu zhi 菩提流志) sometime between 706 and 713, when he undertook a project to translate the Ratnakūṭa collection as a whole (Taishō 310) into Chinese. At that time, Siṃha’s Questions was included among fifteen sūtras that Bodhiruci chose to retranslate while accepting into his collection the Chinese of twenty-two other sūtras that had been translated previously.
i.2中文藏經中存在三個版本的經文。大正344是經文的第一個版本,也可能是最早的版本,其譯者不詳。大正343由竺法護在晉朝期間(西元200–300年左右)翻譯。後來,印度譯者菩提流志在西元706年至713年期間在中國再次修訂了這部經文。當時他進行了一項將整個寶積部翻譯成中文的翻譯計畫(大正310)。在那個時候,師子太子的提問被列入菩提流志選擇重新翻譯的十五部經文之中,同時他也接受了之前已翻譯的二十二部經文的中文版本納入他的藏經集合中。
i.3Any Sanskrit original was thought to be lost until recently, when a Sanskrit manuscript of Siṃha’s Questions, along with nineteen other sūtras, was found in the Potala Palace in Lhasa. Bhikṣuṇī Vinītā published a critical edition of this collection in the series Sanskrit Texts from the Autonomous Region (2010) along with an emended edition of the Sanskrit, parallel editions of the Tibetan and Chinese, an English translation based on the Sanskrit, and reference to other Tibetan and Chinese recensions in the notes. Unfortunately, due to the manuscript’s inaccessibility and the collection missing a final colophon, its origin and date are currently unknown.
i.3原先人們認為梵文原典已經遺失,但最近在拉薩布達拉宮發現了《師子太子刷護經》的梵文手稿,以及另外十九部經典。比丘尼維尼塔在《自治區梵文典籍叢書》(2010)中出版了這部典籍集的校訂版,包括經過修訂的梵文版本、藏文和漢文的並行版本、以梵文為基礎的英文翻譯,以及注釋中對其他藏文和漢文版本的參考。不幸的是,由於手稿無法進入,且該典籍集缺少最後的跋文,其來源和年代目前仍然不詳。
i.4The sūtra is not particularly well known, but verses of it are quoted in a few Indian commentaries, including Śāntideva’s training anthology, the Śikṣāsamuccaya. It is also quoted in some Tibetan commentaries, usually in the context of using the Buddha’s words to verify that a certain virtuous practice is the concordant cause for developing a particular positive result or quality.
i.4這部經典雖然並不特別著名,但其中的偈頌在幾部印度論著中被引用過,包括寂天菩薩的《學集論》。在一些藏地論著中也有引用,通常是在運用佛陀的言教來驗證某項善法是導致特定正面結果或品質的相應因的脈絡中被提及。
i.5Siṃha’s Questions presents the practices of bodhisattvas through a question-and-answer dialogue between the Buddha and Prince Siṃha, the son of King Ajātaśatru of Magadha. At the beginning of the sūtra, Siṃha and five hundred of his attendants approach the Buddha and supplicate him, each offering a golden parasol. Feeling confident, Siṃha asks the Buddha a series of questions about the conduct of bodhisattvas concerning how one attains the various sublime qualities and attributes possessed by bodhisattvas and by the Buddha himself. The Buddha then directly answers each question, listing the practice or virtuous conduct that acts as the concordant cause for acquiring each particular quality. The dialogue thereby becomes an elementary teaching on virtuous causes and results, encompassing a broad range of attainments and how they are accomplished through the proper virtuous activity.
i.5《師子太子問經》通過師子太子與佛陀之間的問答對話,闡述了菩薩的修行實踐。師子太子是摩揭陀國阿闍世王的兒子。在經文的開始,師子太子和他的五百名侍者來到佛陀面前,向他懇請,每人都奉獻了一把金傘。師子太子信心滿滿,向佛陀提出了一系列關於菩薩行為的問題,詢問如何獲得菩薩和佛陀本身所具備的各種殊勝品質和特徵。佛陀隨後直接回答了每一個問題,列舉了作為獲得各項特殊品質的共同因的修行或善行。通過這樣的對話,經文成為了一部關於善的因果的初等教法,涵蓋了廣泛的成就及其如何通過適當的善業活動而實現。
i.6The dialogue between Siṃha and the Buddha seems to keep a wide audience in mind, discussing matters that could potentially appeal to a layperson’s worldly interests, such as acquiring wealth, beauty, power, and loyal servants. However, the primary focus of Siṃha’s series of questions remains how to correctly follow the practices of bodhisattvas and attain the final goal of becoming a buddha. Even when his questions are concerned with how to attain wealth and power, they can be understood to be relevant to a bodhisattva’s career (to attract followers, etc.), and we can surmise that Siṃha’s interest in them is for the benefit of others.
i.6師子太子與佛陀之間的對話似乎考慮到了廣泛的聽眾,討論了可能吸引俗人世俗利益的事項,例如獲取財富、美貌、權力和忠實的僕人。然而,師子太子一系列提問的主要重點仍然是如何正確遵循菩薩的修行,以及達成成為佛陀的最終目標。即使他的提問涉及如何獲得財富和權力,也可以理解為與菩薩的修行生涯有關(例如為了吸引追隨者等),我們可以推測師子太子對這些事項的興趣是為了他人的利益。
i.7At the conclusion of the sūtra, Siṃha and his attendants promise to follow this teaching. The Buddha is pleased and gives them an extraordinary prophecy: Siṃha and all five hundred attendants will become buddhas and will, three hundred eons after the emanation of Maitreya, in an eon called Great Illumination, establish buddhafields “like that of Amitābha.”
i.7在經文的結尾,師子太子和他的隨從承諾要遵循這些教法。佛陀感到歡喜,並給了他們一個殊勝的授記:師子太子和全部五百位隨從都將成為佛陀,在彌勒的出現之後三百個劫,在一個名叫大光明劫的時代,建立如同阿彌陀佛般的佛土。
i.8Prince Siṃha himself is an elusive figure in Buddhist literature. While his father, King Ajātaśatru, is quite famous in the sūtras, any mention of this particular Siṃha seems to be unique to this sūtra. King Ajātaśatru’s other son and eventual successor, Udayabhadra, is much better known in the histories and literature, but from our research there does not seem to be any connection between these two princes, nor mention of Siṃha, outside of this sūtra.
i.8師子太子本身在佛教文獻中是一個不太為人所知的人物。雖然他的父親阿闍世王在各部經典中相當著名,但這位特定的師子太子似乎只在本經中提及。阿闍世王的另一個兒子優陀夷跋陀羅後來成為繼承人,在歷史和文獻中名氣更大,但根據我們的研究,這兩位王子之間似乎沒有任何關聯,而且在本經之外也找不到關於師子太子的任何記載。
i.9Our translation is based primarily on the Tibetan found in the Degé Kangyur, with reference to all the recensions found in the Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma) and Stok Palace Kangyurs. Any significant differences in meaning between these versions have been documented in the notes. We also consulted fragments of the text found in the collection from Dunhuang, but these did not show any notable differences.
i.9我們的翻譯主要以德格甘珠爾中的藏文本為基礎,並參考了校訂版和托克宮甘珠爾中發現的所有版本。這些版本之間在意義上的任何重大差異都已在註釋中記錄。我們也查閱了敦煌收藏中發現的文本片段,但這些片段沒有顯示任何顯著差異。
i.10The Sanskrit manuscript from the Potala was closely consulted, as were the Sanskrit verses quoted in the Śikṣāsamuccaya. The Sanskrit witnesses have been favored in some instances where they present a clearer reading than the Tibetan, particularly when these differences were verified by the Chinese translations. In this regard, Vinītā’s critical edition was an invaluable source, as we consulted it for the Sanskrit as well as for its comparative editions of the Tibetan and Chinese. In cases where we have referred to the Chinese, we have given preference to Bodhiruci’s translation, as it was a revision made with knowledge of the previous Chinese versions, and it also corresponds most closely with the Sanskrit manuscript. Any significant differences in meaning found in the Sanskrit and Chinese have been documented in the notes.
i.10布達拉宮的梵文手稿經過仔細研究,《學集論》中引用的梵文詩頌也被詳細查閱。在某些情況下,梵文文獻因為提供了比藏文更清晰的讀法而受到重視,特別是當這些差異被漢文譯本驗證時。在這方面,維尼塔的校訂版是一個寶貴的資源,我們查閱了它的梵文版本以及它的藏文和漢文校訂版。在涉及漢文譯本時,我們優先採用菩提流志的譯本,因為它是在了解先前漢文譯本基礎上進行的修訂,也與梵文手稿最為接近。梵文和漢文中發現的任何重大語義差異都已在註釋中記載。