|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
石室《心經》音寫抄本校釋初稿之二=A Preliminary Report on the Chinese Transliteration of the Heart Sutra in the Tun-huang Manuscripts Part II |
|
|
|
| Author |
萬金川 =Uwan, Chin-choa
|
|---|
| Source |
圓光佛學學報=Yuan Kuang Journal of Buddhist Studies
|
|---|
| Volume | n.9 |
|---|
| Date | 2004.12 |
|---|
| Pages | 25 - 84 |
|---|
| Publisher | 圓光佛學研究所=Yuan Kuang Buddhist College |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://www.ykbi.edu.tw/
|
|---|
| Location | 桃園縣, 臺灣 [Taoyuean hsien, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Keyword | 心經=Heart sutra,; 音寫; 音譯=transliteration; 梵漢對音; 佛經譯音; 二合; 引; 中古音=the phonetics in the Middle Age; 隋唐音韻=phonetics in the Sui, Tang Dynasty; 長安方言=the dialect in Changan; 風格學分析=stylistic analysis; 河西方言=dialect in Hexi |
|---|
| Abstract | 敦煌遺書裡有五件《心經》音寫抄本，其中斯二四六四號抄本即是當年《大正藏‧般若部》(No.256，冊八，頁851a～852a)據以錄文而題名為《唐梵飜‧對字音般若波羅蜜多心經》的本子。關於此一音寫抄本的譯者歸屬問題，學者之間雖也有長田徹澄針對該一抄本題記裡所云「出自奘師之手」的說法提出質疑(參見《密教文化》第五十六號，昭和十年，頁44～45)，但多數學者似乎仍然接受斯二四六四號抄本題記中的記述，而認定該一文本乃出自玄奘所譯。在這個問題上，陳寅恪先生或許是華夏學圈裡首先發難質疑題記之說的學人，他曾懷疑該一石室文本或許並非出自玄奘而是來自不空所譯(參見氏著《金明館叢稿二編》，上海古籍出版社1980年初版第一刷，頁175)。此後方廣錩教授也提出了類似陳寅恪先生的觀點，並主張該一文本或為「玄奘原譯」，而由「不空潤色」。但陳、方兩人也都不曾提出任何積極有效的證據以實其說(方氏之說參見氏編《般若心經譯注集成》，上海古籍出版社 1994年初版第一刷，「前言」頁12)。
及至1985年，福井文雅教授以〈新出「不空譯」梵本写本般若心經〉為題，藉由文獻學的比對與若干經錄的載記，學界之間似乎才有學者真正面對了問題而嘗試證成此一說法(福井之文參見《仏教學論集--中村瑞隆博士古稀記念論集》，東京春秋社1985，頁229～246)。此後福井教授繼雲居寺《房山石經》的出土與刊佈，一連串發表了不少有關《心經》音寫本的論文。然而，在有關譯者的歸屬問題上，福井教授的立場則一如他所使用的論證方式，始終都未曾改變，仍然堅持敦煌石室抄本與《房山石經》裡兩方《心經》音寫刻石之一，是出自不空三藏之手。我們雖然並沒有在譯者歸屬的認定上提出任何新穎的說法，但是在這個問題的探究上，卻也不打算再度採取福井教授那種純以外部證據來進行論證的方式。在本文對《心經》音寫抄本的校釋過程裡，我們將嘗試讓這些文本自己訴說它們的身世。
換言之，我們準備從這些文本自身的「口供」與「筆錄」著手，而試圖透過其內部字裡行間所反映出來的語音特徵的描寫，以及其間音寫用字的選造分析，來找出更為直接而有力的證據，從而顯示我們在譯者歸屬問題上的論斷也更具可靠性。並且，我們認為這種藉由語段的音韻分析以及字詞選造的風格學分析(stylistic analysis)，其間所能得出來的證據將會比福井教授所舉出來的那些外部證據更為直接而有力。蓋諸如《房山石經》之類的出土文獻，這一類外部證據的獲致往往都是既偶然而又意外的，但文獻的語音特徵乃至其字詞選造的語言風格之類的成素，則明顯的具有其存有論上的旨(ontological significance)，因為它們都是內在於文獻之中並隨文獻的存在而存在。
Concerning the Heart Sutra, five pieces are found in the Tun-huang Manuscripts. Among these five, the Manuscript S. 2464 is exactly the one titled ‘The Chinese transliteration from Sanskrit of the PrajJApAramitA-hRdaya-sUtra’ in the Taisho Tripitaka (Vol. 8, No.256, p. 851a-852a). In terms of the authorship of this material, one can find that it has been explicitly mentioned in the preface of the manuscript, that this transliteration was composed by Master Husan-tsang. Although Tetsucho Nagata had doubted the authenticity of this statement, it is generally accepted among scholars. In the Mandarin-speaking culture circle, Mr. Yinke Cheng probably is the first one who suspects that this Chinese transliteration was not from Master Husan-tsang but Amoghavajra. Furthermore, Prof. Guangchang Fang also suggests that it is plausible that this transliteration was translated by Husan-tsang, and revised by Amoghavajra. However, it is failed to see any strong evidences are supported by them.
In 1985, an article titled ‘The newly found Amoghavajra’s translation of the Sanskrit manuscript of the PrajJApAramitA-hRdaya-sUtra’ was published by Prof. Fumimasa Fukui. Through the philological comparison and the examination of the recordings of Buddhist Catalogue, Prof. Fukui has asserted that this transliteration was done by Amoghavajra instead of Husan-tsang. After the Fang Shan Stone Sutras in Yun Ju Temple are found and published, Prof. Fukui wrote several monographs on this transliteration of the PrajJApAramitA-hRdaya-sUtra based on the Fang Shan Stone Sutras. In these works, he had affirmed that the author of the Tun-huang Manuscripts and one of the two Chinese transliterations in the Fang Shan Stone Sutras was Amoghavajra. In this present paper, the main issue is not about the argument of the authorship. The emphasis is applying a different approach here. Not using the ‘external evidence’ as Prof. Fukui did, but the ‘internal evidence’ is supplied.
In other words, I am trying here to demarcate and describe the phonetic characteristics of these words, as well as trying to analysis the words they used, in order to provide more solid evidence on the issue of the authorship. It is because, I suppose, these internal evidences such as the phonetic and stylistic analysis would stand on a firm ground than those external evidences such as Fang Shan Stone Sutras which are not available in every circumstances. After all, these phonetic components are within the words and texts. |
|---|
| ISSN | 16086848 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 2386 |
|---|
| Created date | 2006.12.14 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2017.07.26 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
