|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
反思辛島靜志〈說一切有部法義 「篡入」法藏部《長阿含經》的漢譯 《十上經》〉一文的論點=Notes on Karashima Seishi’s ‘The Sarvāstivādins “Encroachment” into the Chinese Translation of the Daśottara-sūtra in the Dīrgha-āgama of the Dharmaguptakas’ |
|
|
|
| 著者 |
蘇錦坤 =Su, Ken
|
|---|
| 掲載誌 |
正觀雜誌=Satyabhisamaya: A Buddhist Studies Quarterly
|
|---|
| 巻号 | n.99 |
|---|
| 出版年月日 | 2021.12.25 |
|---|
| ページ | 63 - 126 |
|---|
| 出版者 | 正觀雜誌社 |
|---|
| 出版サイト |
http://www.tt034.org.tw/
|
|---|
| 出版地 | 南投縣, 臺灣 [Nantou hsien, Taiwan] |
|---|
| 資料の種類 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| 言語 | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| キーワード | 長阿含經=Dīrgha-āgama; 十上經=Daśottara sūtra; 跨語言文本對勘=Textual criticism between recensions of different languages; 佛典校勘=Textual criticism of Buddhist literature |
|---|
| 抄録 | 辛島靜志〈說一切有部法義「篡入」法藏部《長阿含經》的漢譯《十上經》〉一文，指出漢譯《十上經》於「三法」與「四法」的經文有《高麗藏》群與「宋、元、明藏」群兩組異讀，他判讀前者與承襲它的《大正藏》錄文為原譯，「宋、元、明藏」群異讀為「說一切有部法義」，並「篡入、取代」本來的《十上經》譯文。本文譯介辛島靜志此文的論點，將他的主張整理成以下七項，並且逐一探討以下各項論點：1. 在「三法」與「四法」兩個章節，「宋元明藏異讀」與「說一切有部經本」的對應法數完全相同。2. 《大正藏》的《十上經》正文為「原譯」，而「宋元明藏異讀」則是「新譯」。3. 「宋元明藏異讀」的譯者可能手上有此經的「印度語系寫本」，他(們)根據此一寫本將「原譯」的「三法」與「四法」兩章改成新譯，此一「改譯」僅止於「三法」與「四法」兩個章節。4. 此一「印度語系寫本」顯然是和「梵文《十上經》」及安世高《十報法經》隸屬同一部派。5. 從用詞來看，此一「新譯」應是發生於唐朝之前。6.「宋元明藏異讀」的「新譯」僅修改「三法」與「四法」兩個章節，其原因尚待探索。7. 當新到的「印度語系寫本」譯出，而私下去改訂「原
譯」，此一情況也指出還有其他類似的譯例。
Karashima Seishi’s article, ‘The Sarvāstivādins“Encroachment” into the Chinese Translation of the Daśottarasūtra in the Dīrgha-āgama of the Dharmaguptakas’, highlightsthat there are differences among recensions of the Shisang jing(十上經) of Chinese Dīrgha-āgama (T1). These differences locatemajorly in the three-dhammas( 三 法 ) section and the fourdhammas(四法) section of this very sūtra. He classifies the major recensions into two groups according to its own variants of that counter passages. These two groups are so-called the ‘Korean Tripitaka group’ and the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’. Furthermore, he claims that passages of these two sections of the previous group are ‘original translation’ and that of latter group are ‘the Sarvāstivādins “Encroachment”’. This article firstly introduces Karashima’s major claims in his own article then it enumerates and offers a critical review or comment to the following items: 1. For both the three-dhammas(三法) section and the four-dhammas( 四 法 ) section, details of the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’ and that of the Sarvāstivādins manuscript(in
Sanskrit) are exactly the same. 2. The counter passages of the Taishō Tripitaka, which is ascribed to the ‘Korean Tripitaka group’, are the ‘original translation’. They are replaced by the ‘new translation’ in the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’. 3. The translator or the translation team of the counter variants of the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’ might have had the Indic text in hands. They somehow simply change those two sections according to their Indic text. 4. It is highly probable that this very Indic text, the Indic text of An Shigao’s Shibao fa jing ( 十報法經 ) and the Sanskrit Daśottara-sūtra belong to the same Buddhist School. 5. The counter variants in the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’ would probably be translated before the Tang Dynasty. 6. Due to unknown reasons, the counter variants from ‘new translation’ in the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’ occur only in that very two sections. 7. There might be similar cases apply to other yet-to -define Chinese translations that Indic texts of ‘new arrivals’ was adopted to modify the previous translation anonymously.
|
|---|
| 目次 | 1. 前言 65
2. 文本對勘與詮釋：「一法」到「四法」 70
2.1「一法」 71
2.2「二法」 76
2.3「三法」 80
2.4 四法 89
3. 辛島靜志的結論 105
4. 反思辛島靜志的結論 108
4.1 在「三法」與「四法」兩個章節，「宋元明藏異讀」與「說
一切有部經本」的對應法數完全相同 109
4.2 《大正藏》的《十上經》正文為原譯，「宋元明藏異讀」則
是新譯 110
4.3「改譯」僅在「三法」與「四法」兩個章節，「改譯」者有
「印度語系寫本」為依據 114
4.4 其餘四項「結論」 115
5. 結語 116 |
|---|
| ISSN | 16099575 (P) |
|---|
| ヒット数 | 581 |
|---|
| 作成日 | 2022.02.18 |
|---|
| 更新日期 | 2022.02.24 |
|---|
 |
Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac)での検索をお勧めします。ＩＥではこの検索システムを表示できません。
|
|
|
