|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
日本正倉院《聖語藏》顯示的異讀=Variants Identified in Taishō Tripitaka as Words from Scriptures in Shogozō at Shōsōin, Japan |
|
|
|
| Author |
蘇錦坤 (著)=Su, Ken (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
正觀雜誌=Satyabhisamaya: A Buddhist Studies Quarterly
|
|---|
| Volume | n.105 |
|---|
| Date | 2023.06.25 |
|---|
| Pages | 77 - 106 |
|---|
| Publisher | 正觀雜誌社 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://www.tt034.org.tw/
|
|---|
| Location | 南投縣, 臺灣 [Nantou hsien, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Keyword | 正倉院「聖語藏經卷」=Scriptures in Shogozō at Shōsōin, Japan.; 《大正藏》校勘註記=Collation notes of Taishō; 異讀=Variants; 佛典校勘=Buddhist textual criticism |
|---|
| Abstract | 在《大正藏》的校勘註記當中，常出現來自「聖」或「聖乙」的異讀。依據飯田剛彥〈正倉院･聖語蔵経巻について〉(關於正倉院「聖語藏經卷」)一文，正倉院的經卷於明治43 年(西元1897 年)開始分類整理、修整，於昭和5 年(西元1930 年)整理成《正倉院聖語蔵経巻目録》，內容分「寫經之部」、「版經之部」及「雜書之部」。「寫經之部」分為以下六類：「隋經」、「唐經」、「天平寫經」、「神護寫經」、「甲種寫經」、「乙種寫經」。所以，《大正藏》校勘註記的【聖】、【聖乙】這二個略符，恐怕不是「天平寫經」四個字所能涵括；【聖】、【聖乙】兩個略符應該是指上述「寫經之部」的六類，但是，詳細的指稱範圍恐怕需待進一步分疏、研究。本文列舉《大正藏》僅出現【聖】的校勘註記，討論其中的四類異讀：
1. 正倉院「聖語藏經卷」的異讀與《大正藏》的錄文均可
能是訛誤。
2. 正倉院「聖語藏經卷」保存了可貴的異讀。
3. 正倉院「聖語藏經卷」的異讀是明顯的訛誤。
4. 難以判定正倉院「聖語藏經卷」的異讀與《大正藏》的
錄文的正誤或優劣。
唐人寫經為人類瑰寶，在文化、書法、佛教文獻等面向都是彌足珍貴的文物。這當中日本正倉院《聖語藏》的隋唐寫經，以及依據此類遣唐僧帶回經本的抄本尤其珍貴。雖然這些古代寫本遺珍都是價值連城的文化瑰寶，但是，如《開寶藏》為奉皇帝敕令開雕，在人力、物力都是一時之選，後繼的《思溪藏》、《崇寧藏》、《磧砂藏》、《嘉興藏》也都謹守其規矩。邊疆敦煌的寫本或日本遣唐僧帶回的經本雖有可能比上述雕本優秀，但是事實上，不可能每份鈔本都能達到如此水準。
對於古代漢譯佛典的「異讀」，一般讀者容或有一些不切實際而羅曼蒂克的幻想。例如認為「宋版」大藏經的錄文就優於「明版」大藏經，「明版」大藏經的錄文就優於《大正藏》；或者認為「敦煌遺書寫卷」的用字就會比《高麗藏》或《大正藏》正確；這樣的期待與事實不符。大抵版本之間的用字差異，應該如司法斷案，校勘取捨應持平而論，不能因年代早晚、寫本或雕本而有所偏頗。
There are some collation notes of Taishō Tripitaka which have been identified as variants with “Sheng 聖” or “Sheng-Yi 聖
乙”. According to the paper of Iida Takehiko 飯田剛彥, ‘正倉院･ 聖語蔵経巻について’(About the Fascicles of Scriptures in Shogozō at Shōsōin), fascicles of scriptures at Shōsōin were managed and categorized into three parts as ‘Buddhist manuscripts’, ‘engraved editions of Buddhist scriptures’, and Miscellaneous scriptures’, Furthermore, ‘Buddhist manuscripts’ were sorted into six categories, they are: ‘Sui texts’, ‘Tang texts’, ‘Tai-Ping manuscripts 太平寫經’, ‘Shen-Hu manuscripts 神護寫經’, ‘A-type manuscripts 甲種寫經’, and ‘B-type manuscripts 乙種寫經’. Therefore the collation mark as “Sheng 聖” or “Sheng-Yi 聖乙” should not be simply referred to ‘Tai-Ping manuscripts 太平寫經’. It takes further investigations to find out which category did they imply. In this article I shall take up variants of Taishō Tripitaka identified as “Sheng 聖” alone by following four categories: (where ‘A’ stands for words adopted by fascicles of Scriptures in Shogozō, and ‘B’ stands for words adopted by Taishō Tripitaka.)
1. Both ‘A’ and ‘B’ are probably wrong.
2. ‘B’ is much favorable than ‘A’.
3. It is quite obvious that ‘B’ is the wrong one.
4. It is difficult to tell which one is correct.
‘Tang manuscripts’ is one of the most valuable legacies to modern world. It is a precious gift regards to cultures, Calligraphy arts, and Buddhist literature. Among them, Sui-Tang scriptures in Shogozō at Shōsōin, together with rase copies of them done in earlier era, are even better. Be that it may, it is still not proper to assume that the Shogozō scriptures are always the best version where there is a variant issue. Because the Kai-Bao Tripitaka (開寶藏) were sponsored by emperors of earlier Song Dynasty, its authenticity should not be underestimated. It is also true for Si-Xi Tripitaka (思溪藏), Chong-ning Tripitaka (崇寧藏), Qi-Sha Tripitaka (磧砂藏) and Jia-Xing Tripitaka (嘉興藏). It might be too optimistic to assume those Buddhist scriptures brought back from Tang to Japan happen to be the best recension. As to the topic of Buddhist textual criticism, some readers might second guess that the older recension is the better one. As a matter of fact, there would not be such a conclusion in general. It takes efforts to judge variants based on disciplines of Buddhist textual criticism, not by discrimination against recension, age, manuscripts or engraved scriptures of a specific Tripitaka. |
|---|
| Table of contents | 1. 前言
2.《大正藏》錄文與《聖語藏》異讀均訛誤
2.1 於隣無所作
2.2 三十六刀
3.《聖語藏》的重要異讀
3.1 日日身蒙塵土
3.2 億年設福業
3.3 其身善解脫
4. 《聖語藏》異讀的商榷
4.1 浚輸涅槃
4.2 膿癡凡夫
4.3 埏埴作器
4.4 孰能擇地
5. 難以判定的異讀
6. 結語 |
|---|
| ISSN | 16099575 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 127 |
|---|
| Created date | 2023.07.19 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2023.07.19 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
