佛門的孝道

 　　這星期的英文課，我們在探討關於印度僧侶對於孝道的觀念。一般過去的看法，是認為在印度原始佛教的出家人，一但出家後就離世棄俗，完全切斷與俗家親人的關係，而佛教是在東傳中國後，才與儒學傳統的孝道結合。

　　其實，選擇出家，並非要切斷與俗家的關係，而是將這份親情，轉化與昇華。我們一樣愛家人，但已經不再只有「我」的家人，而是一切眾生。因為不再以自我為生命的重心，而是以眾生為生命的重心。

　　之前印隆有寫一些在出家路上對於親情的看法，再引用幾篇與大家分享：
-  20080316_愛父母、愛師父、愛眾生
-  親得離塵垢,子道方成就
-  20081211_割愛辭親更是重情

　　下面這一篇就是最近我們在看的文章，有空再將翻譯好的內容與大家分享。

Final Piety and the Monk in the Practice of Indian Buddhism

A Question of "Sinicization" Viewed from the Other Side

 

In memory of my father-in-law, V. L, Thorpe

 

IN HIS CATALOG of Indian Buddhist epigraphical material, the final version of

which was published in Kyoto in 1979, Shizutani Masao lists more than two

thousand separate inscriptions.[1] These inscriptions come, of course, from all

periods and virtually every part of India and have been thoroughly mined by

historians, but not, unfortunately, by Buddhist scholars. Buddhist scholars, in

fact, have shown very little interest in this material, especially those scholars

writing on the development of Buddhist doctrine--this in spite of the face [hat

this material contains considerable information about such important matters

as the conception of the Buddha or Buddhas, the conception or conceptions of

merit and religious acts, and the nature of the actual, as opposed to the ideal

goals of religious activity among practicing Indian Buddhists. In fact, this

epigraphical material has, as I have said elsewhere, at least two distinct advan-

tages. First, much of it predates by several centuries our earliest actually datable

literary sources. Second, it tells us what a fairly large number of Indian Buddhists

actually did, as opposed to what--according to our literary sources--they might

or should have done.[2] But in addition to these two advantages, there is a

third: this material, in a considerable number of cases, tells us what individuals

themselves--whether laymen or monks--hoped to accomplish by those religious

acts which they chose to record.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally published in T'oung Pao, Revile internationals de sinologie 70 (1984):110-126.

Reprinted with stylistic changes with permission of E. J. Brill.

[P. 57]

    The failure of Buddhist scholars to cake this epigraphical mateial into

account has generated a number of distortions both within the realm of Indian

studies and beyond. One particular example will concern us here.

    Ch'en, in his deservedly well known book on Buddhism in China, says in

reference co the Lung-men inscriptions that dace from the very end of the filth

to the beginning of the sixth century that:

     . . . the frequent references to filial piety in the inscriptions testify to the

     change that had taken place in Buddhism after its introduction into China.

     Buddhism started as a religion renouncing all family and social ties, yet

     in the inscriptions one meets again and again with prayers tor the well-being

     of deceased ancestors, uttered even by monks and nuns. These expressions of

     piety indicate that although the monks and nuns had joined the monastic

     order, their ties to family and ancestors still remained strong and enduring.

    This is a specific example of how Buddhism had adapted itself to contemporary

     social conditions in China (emphasis added).[3]

    It should be noted here that I have not cited Ch'en's remarks because they

are in any way unique. Quite the contrary. I cite them because they are a

particularly clear formulation of a very widely held notion concerning the transfor-

mation of Indian Buddhism in China,[4] and because they so clearly reflect the

conception of the Indian Buddhist monk presented by even our best modern

authorities. The implications of Ch'en's remarks are clear: there is not supposed

to be in Indian Buddhism anything like the kind of "filial piety" lie finds

expressed in the Lung-men inscriptions, and even if there were, Indian Buddhist

monks most certainly would not be involved in it. This second point, of course,

accords very well with the accepted view of the Indian Buddhist monk. The

Indian monk is rather consistently presented as a radical ascetic who had severed

all ties with his family and who was not involved in cult activity and, especially,

not in religious giving. According to the accepted view, these practices were

the province of the laity.[5] Questions remain, however, whether Ch'en's interpreta-

tion of his material is acceptable, whether there is not comparable material in

India, and whether the current conception uf the practicing Indian Buddhist

monk accurately reflects what we can actually know about him. We wane ro

know, then, two things: first, do our sources for Indian Buddhism give any

indication ot a concern similar to that expressed at Lung-men for the "well-

being of deceased ancestors," or for departed or living parents; and second, if

such a concern is, in fact, attested, is there any indication that this was an active

concern of Indian monks and nuns. If we look at Indian epigraphical material,

the answer to both of our questions is, I think, quite clear.

 

[P. 58]

    Most of our very earliest Buddhist donative inscriptions do not indicate the

intentions of the donor. They say, for example, only ghosāye dānam, "the gift of

Ghosā” (Bhārhut),[6] or vajigutasa dānam, “ the gift of Vajiguta” (Sāncī).[7] There

being of deceased ancestors," or for departed or living parents; and second, if

are, however, exceptions, two of which are of particular interest. The first of

these exceptions comes from Ceylon. I cite it here as Indian evidence because it

is in effect an Indian inscription: it is written in early BrahmT script and dates

from a period during which an indigenous Ceylonese Buddhism could not have

been developed. It is, in face, one of "the earliest inscriptions in Ceylon that can

be definitely attributed to a particular ruler" and dates, according to Paranavitana,

"to the period between 210 and 200 B.C."[8] The inscription concerns the gift of

a cave and reads: gamani-uti-maharajhaha{jhita abi-ti} saya lene dasa-disasa sagaye

dine mata-pitasa ataya, "The cave of princess (Abi) Tissa, daughter of the great

king GamanI-Uttiya, is given to the Sangha of the ten directions, for the benefit

of (her) mother and father."[9] The second exception comes from Bharhut and is

probably to be dared about a hundred years later than the Ceylonese inscription.

Here on a suci we read: sagharakhitasa matapituna athaya danam: "The gift of

Sagharakhita, for the benefit of (his) mother and father."[10]

     Here already in very early Buddhist Ceylon and at Bharhut, we have inscrip-

tions in which the donors themselves say that they performed acts of religious

giving for the "benefit" or profir of their parents. In either case, we do not know

if the parents were deceased when the gifts were made, although we do know

chat these inscriptions are six- and seven-hundred years older than those found

ac Lung-men. We also know that wording very like that which we find in our

Ceylonese and Bharhut inscriptions is also frequently found in the Kharosthi

inscriptions.

     Our Kharosthi inscriptions come predominantly from Northwest India. The

earliest of them may dare from around the middle of the first century B.C.E., but

most appear co fall in the first few centuries of the Common Era. Of the Kharosthi

inscriptions edited by Konow@and this is our single, most important collection--

twenty-nine contain statements in which the individual donors express the inten-

tions for which they undertook the religious act recorded in the inscription.[11] Of

these twenty-nine, fourteen, or almost exactly one-half, indicate that the religious

act was in whole or in parr undertaken on behalf of the donors' parents.[12] Similar

Statements are also found in at least five additional Kharosthi inscriptions published

after Konow's collection.[13] The donors' intentions may be expressed in as simple

a form as ... matapitu puyae, "(this is done) as an act of pūjā for my parents"

(XXXVII. 6),[14] or they might add in addition to reference to their parents any

number of Other elements. They might say . . . kue karite matapitae puyae sarvasatvaņa

hidasuhae, "... this well was made as an act of pūjā for my parents (and) for the

advantage and happiness of all beings" (XXIII), or ... par{i)vara {sha}dhadana . . .

mira boyaņasa erjhuņa kapasa puyae madu pidu puya{e}, "(this) chapel is the religious

gift of ... (name) ... as an act of pūjā for Mira, the Saviour [a royal title] (and)

Prince Kapa, as an act of pūjā for my mother and father" (XX). We can note here,

however, chat although these and other additional elements occur in the donors'

expressions of their intentions, reference to benefiting cheir parents is the single

most frequent element. We can also note at least one more additional face: in one

of our Kharosthī inscriptions, it is specifically said that the gift recorded was

made for the donor's deceased parents (. . . danamukhe madapidarana adhvadidana

puyaya bhavatu).[15]

[P. 59]

    It is clear then that "benefiting" parents, both living and dead, was, in the

Kharosthī inscriptions, the most frequently mentioned purpose for religious

giving. It was, it seems, a major preoccupation of those who engaged in such

activities. But this means that this preoccupation occurs already in inscriptions

char predate those found at Lung-men by several centuries. Again in regard to

China, we might also note that, already more than twenty years ago, Brough

published a Kharosthi inscription--which he would date "with some reservations

. . . towards the end of the second century A.D.,"--that was found at or around

Lo-yang. This might suggest chat we are dealing here Wth a case of direct

contact between two widely separated bodies ot Buddhist inscriptions.[16]

    This same preoccupation also appears elsewhere in Indian inscriptions which

predate Lung-men. In the Mathura inscriptions published by Liiders, there are

thirty-nine Buddhist inscriptions in which tlie donors' intentions are expressed.

Of these thirty-nine at least one-fourth or nine indicate that the donation was

made in whole or in part for the sake of the donors' parents;[17] and in at least

two other inscriptions not included in LLiders' collection, the donors' parents

are, again, the intended beneficiaries of the religious act.[18] Here again the

intentions of the donors can be expressed in a number of ways. The donor may

say that the gift was made "as an act of pūjā for his mother and father anil all

living beings" (māt{ā}pit{r}in{a} pujāye savasav{ā}n{a} ca § 90);[19] or he may

conclude his inscription by declaring that "what here is the merit [of my act]

may that be for my parents" (yad attra puņyam matapi{t)tra sya § 78). And here

again, although in the majority of cases we do not know if the donors' parents

were living or dead, in at lease one of our Mathura inscriptions the donor

explicitly says that he intends his act "as an act at puja for his deceased parents"

({mātāp}i{tr}na {abhyat} itakalaga{tā)nām pujāye bhavatu § 44). And another frag-

mentary Mathurā inscription also appears to make explicit reference co deceased

parents (mātāpitraņa abhatitana{m) . . . ).[20]

   Like the Kharosthi inscriptions, the inscriptions from Mathura also predate

those found at Lung-men by several centuries. Although Liiders classifies a few

as belonging to the Sunga period, the majority belong to the Ksairapa, the

Kușānā, and--to a lesser extent--the Gupta periods.[21] But we also find a

considerable number of inscriptions that fall into these same periods elsewhere

in India in which an act of religious giving is expressly scared to iiave been

undertaken for the benefit of the donors' parents. This is the case, for example,

at Bodh-Gayā, where a donor ends the record of his gift by saying "by this root

of meril may it be as an act of pūjā for mymother and father” (imenā kuśala-

mūlena mātāpitrņā{m} pūjāye bhavatu…},[22] or agaln at Bodh-Gayā, but in a

recoId more nearly contemporaneous with Lung-men: Whatever merit may

have been acquired by me by all this, may this be for the benefit of my

parents at first…" (tad etat sarvvam yan punyopacitasbhāram tan mātāpitroh
p(ūrvamgamam krtvā…).[23] This is also the case at Nāgārjunikonda, where the

donors frequently state that they made their gifts so that, first, they could

“transfer act of giving to their mothera or to their families by birth and

marriage. In several instances it is specifically said that the “transfer” is to be
made to past, present, and futune members on both sides of the donors’ families.
We find, for example,

    …this stone pillar was set up in order to transfer [it, i.e., the act and the

fruit of the act] to her mother and for procuring the attainment of nirvāņa
    for herself…

    …apano mātaram hammasirinikam parinamatuna atane ca
    nivāņasampatisampādake imam selathambham patithapitam…

C2; cf. C4[24]

or, more elaborately,

...this pillar was set up in order to transfer (it) to past, future, and present

members of both of her families for the attainment of benefits and ease in

both worlds, and for the procuring of the attainment of nirvana for herself,

and for the attainment of benefits and ease by all the world…

    …apano ubhayakulasa atichhitam-anāgata-vatamānakānam parināmetunam
    ubbayalokahitasukhāvahathanāya ca nivānasampatisampādake
    savalokahitasukhāvahanāya ca imam khambham patithapitam ti…

                                                       C3; cf. B2, B4, E

    We also have a comparatively large number of inscriptions from Sarnāth

and Ajantā that either predate or are nearly contemporaneous with the Lung-

men inscriptions. And here again the donors frequently state that their intention

in making their religious gift was, in whole or in part, to benefit their parents.

Among the inscriptions from Sārnāth that have been taken as belonging either

to the Gupta period or, more specifically, to the fourth, fifth, or sixth centuries,

I have noticed at least ten inscriptions in which the donors' parents are specifically

listed among the intended beneficiaries.[25] We find donors saying:

What here is the merit acquired by me after having had this image made,

may that be for the obtainment of cessation for my parents and gurus and

the world.

     yad atra punyam pratimān karāyitvā mayā bhramlmāpittror gurunām ca
     lokasys ca śamāptaye.[26]

[P. 61]

or, perhaps more typically,

What here is (my) merit, may that be for the obtaining of supreme knowl-

edge by my mother and father and all living beings.

    yad atra punyam tad bha{va}tu mātāpi{troh} sarvea{sattvā}nān ca
    anuttarajnnvptye.[27]

 

This second formula is, in fact, also very common at Ajantā.

    The inscriptions from Aanca, the last group of inscriptions we shall look

at here, are of particular interest. IfSpink is right--and the chances of this seem

to be very good--most, if not all, activity ceased at Ajantā in the last qunrrer

of the fifth century.[28] This would mean that the inscriptions at Aanca are close

in time to chose at Lung-men and yet clearly predate chem. Moreover, Ajantā

and Lung-men are noc only close in rime, chey are also sices of essencially die

same kind. Boch are complexes of excavated cave shrines; both received royal

patronage, and yet a large number of individual, nonroyal donative inscriptions

have been found at both sites.

    I have been able to find cwency-one inscriptions from Ajantā that have a

donative formula. Of these more than 90 percent, or nineteen inscripcions, declare

that the intended beneficiaries of the gifts recorded are, in whole or in pare, the

donors' parents.[29] In eleven, or slightly more chan half of chese, the donors'

intentions are expressed by means of variants or a single basic formula. In its

simplest form at Ajantā it occurs as

What here is his merit, may that be for the obtaining of supreme knowledge

by his mother and father and all living beings.

     yad atra {pu}nyam tad bhavatu mātāpitro{h} sarvva{sa}tvānān
     cānuttarajnānāvāp{t}aye.[30]

 

This, of course, is almost exactly the same version of the formula as in our second

example found at Sārnāhth, and this or some other variant of the basic lormula

occurs, as l have said, in eleven of the nineteen inscriptions from Ajantā in

which the donors name their parents as beneficiaries. But other donors at Ajantā

express their intentionls without having recourse to this parricular formula. We

find, for example, the donor saying simply: "This is the religious gift of…

Sīlabhadra (made) in the mane of his father and mother” (deyaddharmmo yam

…śīlabhadrasya mātāpitaram udi{sya}.[31] The expression used here, mātāpitaram

uddisya, “in the name of his mother and father,” is of particular interest abd

occurs in at least four other inscriptions from Ajantā .[32] ln fact, the use of the

term uddisya seems to impIy—as Senart appears to have suggested some time

ago, and as its occurrence in a variety of literary sources also would suggest--that

the individuals concerned are deceased.[33] This would seem to be more clearly

the case in The Prasasti of Buddhabhadra in Cave XXVI. Here Buddhabhadra

says his gift was made "in the name of Bhawiraja and also his [Buddhabhadra's]

mother and father" (tam bhavvirājam uddhisya matapitaram eva ca), and then a little

later he says "what merit is here, may that be for diem [i.e., Bhawirāja and his

parents] and for rhe world for the attainment of the fruit of great awakening

and the accumulation of all pure qualities" (yad atra punyam tat tesā{m} jagātm

ca bhavatv idam sarvvāmalagunavyāta-[ read vrata-] mababodhiphalaptaye). Bur Bud-

dhabhadra has already specifically indicated right before the iiddis.ya passage that

Bhawirāja, at least, was dead (. . . pitaryy uparate)[34].

[P. 62]

     We are now in a position to answer our first question. Indian epigraphical

sources prove beyond any doubt that rhe basic elements of the inscriptions from

Lung-men, which Ch'en interpreted as indications of "filial piety," occur already

in Indian Buddhist inscriptions chat predate those from Lung-men by as much

as seven centuries. They prove that concern for the "well-being" of both deceased

and living parents was a major preoccupation of Buddhist donors in India; that

one of the most frequently stated reasons for undertaking acts of religious giving

was to benefit the donors' parents, both living and dead; and that this concern

was both very old and very widespread in India.[35] But if we have answered our

first question, we still must discover whether there are any indications chat this

concern for the well-being of their parents was an active concern of Indian

Buddhist monks. This, perhaps, is an even more interesting question and, once

again, I think our answer can be unequivocal.

    Our two earliest donative inscriptions that refer to benefiting the donors'

parents both record the gifts of laymen. We know, however, that the Bhārhut

inscription is only one of a large number from that site recording similar gifts,

and that in thirty-six cases, or almost 40 percent of these inscriptions, the donors

were monks or nuns. In several instances the individual monks involved are

specifically said to be bhānakas or "reciters"; one is called a sutamtika, "one who

knows the sutta", another a petakin, "one who knows the Pitaka," and yet another

is referred to as a pacanekāyika, "one who is vers