|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
從後說絕 -- 單卷本《雜阿含經》是否將偈頌譯成長行=“Cong-Hou-Shuo-Jue”: Are Gāthās Rendered in Prose for T101(Za-AHan- Jing, Single Fascicle)? |
|
|
|
| Author |
蘇錦坤 (著)=Su, Ken (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
正觀雜誌=Satyabhisamaya: A Buddhist Studies Quarterly
|
|---|
| Volume | n.55 |
|---|
| Date | 2010.12.25 |
|---|
| Pages | 5 - 104 |
|---|
| 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 |
|---|
| Note | 作者為佛學論文翻譯作家Independent Researcher
|
|---|
| Keyword | 單卷本雜阿含經(T101)=T101(Za-A-Han-Jing, single fascicle); 漢巴對應經典=Comparative studies; 安世高=An Shi-gao; 尊婆須蜜菩薩所集論(T1549)=T1549 (Zun-Po-Xu-Mi-Pu-Sa-Suo-Ji-Lun); 偈頌譯為長行=Gāthās rendered as prose 5 |
|---|
| Abstract | 在Harrison(2002)及自拙法師(2001)各自的論文裡，分別建議單卷本《雜阿含經》為後漢安世高所譯。此兩篇論文認為「從後說絕」是安世高的獨特譯語，即使譯者已經註明下文是偈頌，安世高仍然「將偈頌譯為長行」，他們將此一特徵作為「單卷本《雜阿含經》為後漢安世高所譯」的論證之一。實際上，印順法師(1989)已經提到單卷本《雜阿含經》為後漢安世高所譯，舉出的安世高「從後說絕」等獨特譯語，也比此兩篇論文所舉的例子多，很可惜兩者並未引用印順法師(1989)此一資料。本文在對照單卷本《雜阿含經》帶有相當於「從後說絕」的六部經文之後，接著審視其他與偈頌相關的譯文，筆者認為單卷本《雜阿含經》中，部分經文將偈頌譯為字數整齊的「偈頌形式」的可能性仍然很高，不能一概而論。雖然表面上對應於偈頌的譯文字數不齊，經過審慎的「經典對照閱讀」之後，也許可以推論「原譯」有部分偈頌譯為「字數整齊」的句式。關於「單卷本《雜阿含經》譯者」的議題，印順法師(1989)，自拙法師(2001)以及Harrison(2002)都推論此經的譯者為安世高。Nattier(2008) 對這個議題持保留態度，在此，筆者簡述印順法師(1989)、Harrison(2002)、自拙法師(2001)及attier(2008)的不同意見，並且表達筆者對這個議題的看法。
In Harrison (2002) and Ven. Shih Tzu-jwo (2001), both of
them suggest strongly that T101(Za-A-Han-Jing, single fascicle)
was translated by An Shi-gao. According to them, the Chinese
term “Cong-Hou-Shuo-Jue” is the distinctive feature of An Shigao’s
translation. Even the term “Cong-Hou-Shuo-Jue” did imply
the phrases in question were gāthās, the translator still rendered
them in prose.
In fact, Yin-Shun (1989) had recommended it based on the
term “Cong-Hou-Shuo-Jue” shown in T101. He also raised
examples from suttas other than T101 and T150a. However, both
Harrison (2002) and Ven. Shih Tzu-jwo (2001) did not mention
opinions of Yin-Shun.
In this article, I examine six suttas carrying the passage
“Cong-Hou-Shuo-Jue” in T101 against its parallels respectively.
Then I examine those suttas with passage of gāthā(s) but without
the use of “Cong-Hou-Shuo-Jue”. I find it probable that some
translations of gāthās was not in ‘prose’. Through detailed
comparative studies among suttas picked by me, it showed some
chances that the original translation was confused by transcribing
errors. These errors might introduce ideas such as gāthās had been
rendered in prose in T101.
On the issue of the translator of T101, Yin-Shun (1989), Ven.
Shih Tzu-jwo (2001) and Harrison (2002) suggested it to be An
Shi-gao, while Nattier(2008) was quite hesitated to agree upon it.
I enumerate ideas of them first, then I describe the reasons why I
oppose to this suggestion. |
|---|
| Table of contents | 一、「單卷本《雜阿含經》將偈頌譯為長行」的推論 8
二、 單卷本《雜阿含經》「從後說絕」經文與偈頌的翻譯 10
1.《雜阿含1經》
2.《雜阿含3經》
3.《雜阿含5經》
4.《雜阿含8經》
5. 《雜阿含21經》
6. 《雜阿含26經》
7. 小結
三、 單卷本《雜阿含經》其他偈頌的判讀 39
1.《雜阿含1經》
2.《雜阿含2經》
3.《雜阿含4經》
4.《雜阿含7經》
5.《雜阿含25經》
6.小結
四、 單卷本《雜阿含9經》的探討 50
五、 初期的漢詩格式 63
六、 初期漢譯經典的偈頌翻譯 66
七、 單卷本《雜阿含經》是否出自安世高所譯 72
八、 結語 91
九、 謝詞 91 |
|---|
| ISSN | 16099575 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 782 |
|---|
| Created date | 2013.07.11 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2017.09.06 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
