《維摩詰經》支謙譯本的點校 ──兼論該一經本的譯者歸屬及其底本語言 =Textual Criticism of Zhi Qian’s translation of Vimalakīrtinirdeśa With Discussions on the Identity of the Translator and the Language of the Original Text
Based on current available textual sources, Zhi Qian’s translation of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa should be the oldest version of this Mahāyāna text. Before Kumārajīva’s translation appeared in China, Zhi Qian’s translation once had its glory days when it first emerged in the third century CE. It was after the fifth century that it gradually depart from the Chinese historical stage. In the beginning of this century, with the Lhasa discovery and the publication of the Sanskrit original, this Mahāyāna text that was once prominent among East Asian countries, is now attracting much attention among many scholars again. From the viewpoint of influence and effect in history, Kumārajīva’s version is no doubt, still the most outstanding work. However, if not for Zhi Qian’s translation which had initiated an interest and admiration to this foreign text amongst Chinese monastic and lay communities, there may not have been the subsequent re-translations of the scriptures by Kumārajīva and Xuan Zang. Hence, from the perspective of Chinese history of thoughts, by examining Zhi Qian’s translation, one could gain insight into the minds of the vast number of Chinese intellectuals of the time. Furthermore, the study of this text is also essential for the understanding of the influence upon which the scripture had on the development of Chinese thoughts during that period. Next, with the publication of the Sanskrit original text, issues concerning cross-linguistic and cross-culture translation include: How has Zhi Qian dealt with the tremendous divergence between Sanskrit and Chinese language and how has he overcome cultural differences between China and India in his translation? In other words, has it been the Chinese who were conquered by this foreign text or was it the translator who has successfully “tamed” this text from the foreign land? Also, studies on textual comparison between the Sanskrit original and Zhi Qian’s translation are inevitable in the research of Indian-Chinese cultural exchange. From a Philological viewpoint, Zhi Qian’s version played an important role in determining the significance of the commonalities and differences between a fragments of Chinese manuscript from the end of the fourth century and a Sanskrit manuscript, believes to have been from the eleventh to thirteenth century. Once we have decide to revisit this ancient Chinese work, not only are we faced with the obscurity and incomprehensible phrasings found within the text, we are also encountering problematic of the true identity of the translator. The present paper intent to study the text based on a block-printed edition from a manuscript that was made at the end of fourth century. Incorporating techniques of grammar analysis of the Classical Chinese language and philological approach of textual analysis on the Sanskrit and Chinese texts to interpret an obscure and incomprehensible section found in Zhi Qian’s translation. In addition, the present study aims to resolve the controversy concerning the identity of the translator by examining the evidence from the analysis and interpretation of the text.
