|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
圓測 『해심밀경소』 티벳역의 성격과 의의 -「일체법상품」을 중심으로_=Significance of the Tibetan Translation of Won-Ch‘uk's Commentary on Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra: With Special Reference to the VI Chapter |
|
|
|
| Author |
Ahn, Sung-doo (著)=안성두 (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
인도철학=印度哲學=Korean Journal of Indian Philosophy
|
|---|
| Volume | n.27 |
|---|
| Date | 2009 |
|---|
| Pages | 207 - 246 |
|---|
| Publisher | 印度哲學會 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://krindology.com/
|
|---|
| Location | Korea [韓國] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 韓文=Korean |
|---|
| Note | 저자정보: 금강대학교 불교/복지학부 조교수 |
|---|
| Keyword | 원측=Won-ch'uk; 해심밀경소; 法成; 티벳어 번역=Tibetan translation; 돈황본=Dunhuang manuscript; 번역명의대집; 댄까르마 목록; 新定語; Chos grub; Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra; Commentary on Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra; Mahāvyutpatti; lDan dkar ma; sGra sbyor bam po gnyis pa |
|---|
| Abstract | 티벳불전의 번역이 갖는 특징은 9세기 초 칙령으로 확정된 번역용어의 통일에 의해 동일한 산스크리트어가 일관되게 번역되었다는 점에 있다. 본고는 9세기 초반 法成에 의한 원측의 해심밀경소 티벳어 번역의 문제를 다루면서, 번역어 통일이 이루어지기 이전 티벳어 번역의 방식을 관련된 돈황본 해심밀경 티벳역과 티벳장경에 수록된 해심밀경과의 비교를 통해 추적하고자 했다. 비교를 위해 구체적으로 세 판본에 나오는 티벳어의 어휘를 비교했고, 인용된 경전의 문장을 티벳장경의 그것과 비교해서 법성의 번역이 가지는 특징을 제시했다. 끝으로 법성역을 통한 한문본의 교정가능성을 예시했다.
The most distinguishing characteristics of the Tibetan translation consists in the fact that it used the same Tibetan term for the Sanskrit Original, with the result that the consistency of the Tibetan translation could be relatively good preserved. This terminological fixation, owing to the publication of two book, Mahāvyutpatti and sGra sbyor bam po gnyis pa, was established in the early 9th century CE. through the Royal decree. Through the terminological fixation of Sanskrit into Tibetan, it is possible to make consistent and reliable translations, which has been proved to be a decisive step toward creative assimilation of Indian Buddhism in Tibet. It should be also mentioned that the old translations have been revised according to the "New fixation of Buddhist Terminologies", thereby the old terms totally discarded and substituted for the new one. It is hard, therefore, to find out the old usages prevailed before the terminological fixation. It is the very existence of Dunhuang manuscripts that bridges this gap between the old and new translation terms. It is also interesting to note that there are among the Dunhuang manuscripts some materials translated from the Chinese Texts, which show not only some important aspects of Tibetan translation in Dunhuang area, but they reflect on vivid religious picture around these days in Tibet. In order to demonstrate the importance of these sources translated into Tibetan from the Chinese originals, I choose the Tibetan translation of Won-ch'uk's commentary on Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra (解深密經疏, hereafter SNST) by Chos grub (法成), probably in the days between 814-824. The reason for the selection of Won-ch'uk's work is that there exist some relevant texts, for example, revised version of Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra in the Peking Kanjur and its Dunhuang version, which is now easily available through Hakamaya edition. Compared with each other, it is assumed that the problem of on what version SNST's terminologies is based can be substantially solved. The present paper has examined some relevant researches in the field, then, proceeded to the wording of the colophon, given at the end of the SNST, thereby intending to discuss and find out some clues about the translator, Chos grub. At the next step this paper compares the terms of SNST with that of two versions of SNS in order to grasp the characteristics of Chos grub's translation. And, in order to indicate the reliance of SNST on the new fixed terminology, I particularly examine the terms in the VI. chapter of SNS and pointed out its dependance upon the "New Fixation of Buddhist Terminology". The examination of the passage is extended to the text citations in SNST. The number of the citation is over 108, and I chose 9 citations to investigate the differences and similarities of the cited passages with the corresponding one in the Tibetan Tanjur. My tentative conclusion is that it seems to be two strata in Chos grub's translation; when he translated the passage connected with the Indian materials, his terminology is relatively similar with the terms in the Tibetan Tanjur. But as far as the passages of Won-ch'uk's interpretation are concerned, Chos grub is leaning to the Word-to-word translation. Lastly, I try to emend some errors found in the Korean Edition (= HD) with the help of Chos grub's translation, and want to demonstrate that it be the case. |
|---|
| Table of contents | I 들어가는 말. 207
II 초기 전파기 시대 티벳어 불전번역의 특색. 209
III 敦煌에서의 한문불전의 티벳어 번역과 法成의 해심밀경소 번역. 212
IV 해심밀경소 「일체법상품」에 대한 法成(Chos grub) 티벳역의 검토. 221
V 요약 및 결론. 240
|
|---|
| ISSN | 12263230 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 121 |
|---|
| Created date | 2023.09.29 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2023.09.29 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
