|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
『구사론』 제9장에 대한 진제와 현장의 한역용어 비교: 중국역경원칙에 따른 음역과 의역 비교=A Comparative Study of the Chinese Terminology Between Paramartha’s and Xuanzang’s in the 9th Chapter of the Abhidharmakoshabhasya, in Light of the Translation Principles in Chinese Buddhism |
|
|
|
| 著者 |
손경록 (著)=Son, Kyung-rok (au.)
|
|---|
| 掲載誌 |
보조사상=普照思想=Journal of Bojo Jinul's Thought
|
|---|
| 巻号 | v.71 n.0 |
|---|
| 出版年月日 | 2025.03 |
|---|
| ページ | 99 - 127 |
|---|
| 出版者 | 普照思想研究院 |
|---|
| 出版地 | Korea [韓國] |
|---|
| 資料の種類 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| 言語 | 韓文=Korean |
|---|
| ノート | Author Affiliation: 동국대학교, South Korea |
|---|
| キーワード | 진제=Paramārtha=眞諦; 현장=Xuanzang=玄奘; 오불번=Transliteration-in-the-fivecases=五不翻; 정번=Literal translation=正翻; 의번=Figurative translation=義翻 |
|---|
| 抄録 | 본고에서는 『구사론』 제9장을 중심으로 진제(真諦, Paramārtha, 499- 569년)와 현장(玄奘, 602-664년)의 한역용어들을 비교 고찰한다. 이를 위해서, 『구사론』의 산스크리트어 원문과 진제와 현장의 한역용어들을 음역과 의역으로 구분하여 살펴본다. 중국역경전통에 따르면, 음역은 오불번(五不翻) 원칙에, 의역은 정번(五翻)과 의번(義翻)에 해당된다. 따라서 본문 제Ⅱ장에서는 먼저 진제와 현장의 음역 용어들을, 그리고 제Ⅲ장에서는 의역 용어들을 정번과 의번 용례로 나누어 살펴본다. 이상의 비교연구를 통해서 진제와 현장의 한역이 역경 원칙과는 어느 정도 부합되는지, 그들의 한역용어들을 어떻게 해석해야 하는지, 그리고 이에 대한 기준점을 제시하고 있는 중국역경원칙인 오불번, 정번과 의번 원칙은 어떤 것인지에 대해서도 살펴본다. 이와 같이 중국역경원칙에 비추어 진제와 현장 한역 용어들의 특징을 살펴보는 것은, 진제와 현장의 한역 용어들의 특징을 중국불교 역경사의 한 부분으로서 통시적으로 살펴볼 수 있다는 점에서 연구의 의의를 찾을 수 있다.
This is a comparative study of the Chinese terminology made by Paramartha(眞諦) and Xuanzang(玄奘) in the 9th chapter of the Abhidharmakoshabhasya(俱舍論).
According to the traditional Chinese principles of translation, the transliteration(音譯) corresponds to the phonetic transliteration-in-the-five-cases(五不翻) which means the transliteration should be applied for the exceptional five cases where the literal translation can’t convey the original meanings exactly; while the literal paraphrase(義譯) corresponding to the literal translation(正翻) and the figurative translation(義翻). In light of these traditional translation rules of the Chinese Buddhism, I discussed the characteristic features of Chinese terms used by Paramartha and Xuanzang by dividing them into two groups of phonetic transliteration and semantic literal translation.
In this survey, I found that their translation generally coincide with the traditional principles of translation. Although Xuanzang is known to have established the principles of the transliteration, but there must have been a sort of practice of translation before him judging from this coincidence. Anyway, the principles of translation were eventually presented as a solution to overcome the dilemmas of translation itself, there are slight differences in their actual application of the rules. Compared with Paramartha’s, Xuanzang’s has more literal terms(義譯), notably in proper nouns (as in ‘毘伽羅論師’→‘記論者’). Xuanzang seems to have preferred the literal translation to transliteration, to make it easier and clearer for the average readers to understand the meaning of the original text.
However, despite Xuanzang’s ground-breaking translation with his own new terms, it’s quite surprising that his terminology coincide with Paramartha’s than expected, which means he must have referred to Paramartha’s whose terminology is basically comprised of older terms(舊譯). And it also indicates that each of them employed the older terms that were verified throughout the history. The fact that his terminology has many parts in common with the Paramartha’s reveals that the history of translation from Sanskrit into Chinese of Buddhist scriptures in Chinese Buddhism was the result of such a collective intelligence accumulated over a long period of time. |
|---|
| 目次 | 국문초록 100
Ⅰ. 서론 101
Ⅱ. 오불번 원칙에 따른 음역 비교 102
Ⅲ. 정번과 의번 원칙에 따른 의역 비교 110
1. 정번 의역 111
2. 의번 의역 114
Ⅳ. 결론 120
참고문헌 123
Abstract 126 |
|---|
| ISSN | 12297968 (P) |
|---|
| DOI | 10.22859/bojoss.2025..71.004 |
|---|
| ヒット数 | 1 |
|---|
| 作成日 | 2025.11.19 |
|---|
| 更新日期 | 2025.11.19 |
|---|
 |
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。
|
|
|
