|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
『大乗四論玄義記』寫本의 기초적 검토=Basic Exminations on the Daeseung saron hyeonui gi Manuscripts |
|
|
|
| Author |
최연식 (著)=Choe, Yeon-shik (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
불교학리뷰=Critical review for Buddhist studies =仏教学レビュー
|
|---|
| Volume | v.5 |
|---|
| Date | 2009.06.30 |
|---|
| Pages | 22 - 64 |
|---|
| Publisher | 金剛大學 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
https://www.ggu.ac.kr/
|
|---|
| Location | Korea [韓國] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 韓文=Korean |
|---|
| Note | 저자정보: 목포대학교 소속 |
|---|
| Keyword | 『대승사론현의기』=the Daeseung siron Iyeonui gi; 혜균=Hyegyun; 백제 불교=Baekje Buddhism; 교감본=Critical edition; 이체사=Variants of Chinese characters; 삼론종=Sanlun Buddhism |
|---|
| Abstract | Through the critical edition of the Daeseung saron hyeonui gi we have examined the manuscripts of this text and found out some basic facts about them. 'There are two types of manuscripts remained; a copy of 2 fascicles and 3 copies of 7 fascicles. Except one of the 7 fascicles manuscript which just came to known and is not permitted to be read or copied yet we examined all the other manuscripts including the 2 fascicles one which has been not open to public. The 2 fascicles manuscript contains 2 chapters in 1 volume, while the 7 fascicles one contain 9 chapters in 6 volumes. The 2 fascicles manuscript and the 7 fascicles one are not the parts of one copy of the Daeseung saron
hyeonui gi there is no common chapter between them and the style of the characters are different. The features of the manuscripts are very different too; each line of the 2 fascicles manuscript contain 21characters, while that of 7 fascicles manuscript contain 20 characters. The 2 fascicles manuscript known as written in 18th century is regarded to have preserved more the original features of the text than the 7 fascicles manuscripts which might have written about 20th century.
Through the compering examinations we found out that the Zokuzo text of the Daeseung saron hyeonui gi which contains the same 7 fascicles is different from the two copies of the 7 fascicles manuscripts.
Another copy of the manuscript must have been the draft for the Zokzo; the unavailable manuscript might have some relation with the Zokzo text.
There are a lot of mis-deciphered and un-deciphered characters in the manuscript, especially in the 7 fascicles one, and not a little passages fails to make sense. The variants and the cursive writings of Chinese characters are thought to have caused the disastrous phenomena.
Through comparing reading we succeeded in correcting some of the mis or un-deciphered characters. In some cases the character 炁, the variant of gi(氣) which means the spirit or the energy, has been falsely deciphered as 'not one(无一or無一),and the character of 开,the rare variant of gi(其) which means this, has often been misidentified as the simplified form of bodhi-satva(卄サ). Also the variant of the character ga(假) is usually regarded as the character of im(住) and the varinat of ya(也) is transcribed as ji(之). We also found that the similarity in the cursive writings caused the confusions between the characters such as gi(既)and seol(說),li(離)and 녀(雖),cha(此)andmu(無),bi(非)and neung(能),neung(能) and yeon(然),wi(謂)and su(隨),yeon(然)and chwi(就) etc. We should be much more careful in reading the passages which contain the characters mentioned here.
There are also some characters which cannot be deciphered at all. Repetitive transcribing might have derived the characters of the original feature. Among the un-decipherables such characters as [彳*又][兀][丨*又][充] used very often. Some of them might not be the variant of single character but the arbitrary mark of un-decipherbale characters.
By the comparing the quotations in the manuscripts with the original Buddhist cannons we managed to correct some false characters. Some characters show entirely different form from the original ones. The enigmatic and un-understandable passages of the Daeseung saron hyeonui gi might have come from this false transcriptions. We also
compared the passages from the Daeseung saron hyeonui gi quoted in other texts with the same parts of the manuscripts and found out some different characters. 'The most important among them is related with the problem of the original title of this text; the phrase of '3 generations of four theses(四論) teachers' in the manuscript is different from the 3 generations of three theses(三論) teachers' in the quotation. If the passage of the manuscript reflect the original text the Daeseung saron hyeonui gi might have not be the original title of this text. |
|---|
| Table of contents | 머리말 23
1. 『大乗四論玄義記』寫本의 傳存狀況 25
2. 2卷本 寫本과 7卷本 寫本의比較 27
3. 7卷本 諸本의比較 29
4. 7卷本 寫本에 보이는 異體字의 사례 34
5. 經典 原本과의 比較를 통한 誤字 訂正 40
6. 後代 문헌 중의 引用文과 寫本 내용의 비교 42
맺음말 44 |
|---|
| ISSN | 19752660 (P) |
|---|
| DOI | 10.29213/crbs..5.200906.23 |
|---|
| Hits | 170 |
|---|
| Created date | 2021.07.28 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2021.08.13 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
