|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
梵漢藏三本《瑜伽師地論》〈本地分〉 中〈五識身相應地第一〉及〈意地第二〉 之對勘研究=A Comparative Study of Pañcavijñānakāyasamprayuktā Bhūmiḥ and Manobhūmiḥ of Bahubhūmikavastu in the Yogācārabhūmi with Both of the Chinese and Tibetan Versions |
|
|
|
| Author |
廖本聖 (著)=Liao, Ben-sheng (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
正觀雜誌=Satyabhisamaya: A Buddhist Studies Quarterly
|
|---|
| Volume | n.85 |
|---|
| Date | 2018.06.25 |
|---|
| Pages | 91 - 185 |
|---|
| 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 | 1. 本文依據2017 年11 月3 日~11 月5 日，由佛光大學佛教研究中心及國立中央大學國文學系主辦「第十一屆漢文佛典語言學國際學術研討會」《會議論文集》的同名論文（pp. 415-436）修訂而成。
2. 作者為法鼓山文理學院副教授級專業級技術人員。 |
|---|
| Keyword | 梵（YBh）漢（T30）藏（CTT72）三本《瑜伽師地論》 前二地=the first two grounds (bhūmi) of the three Yogācārabhūmi versions; 非佛教術語; 各種詞類=various parts of speech; 語境邏輯=logic in contex; 解讀佛教梵典的原則=the translation model of Sanskrit buddhist texts; 版本對勘與歧異的問題=the issues of collation and diversities in three versions |
|---|
| Abstract | 本文所要處理的文獻有梵本Yogācārabhūmi（YBh）及對應的漢譯《瑜伽師地論》（T30）、藏譯rNal ’byor spyod pa’i sa（CTT72）的五分中〈本地分〉的前二地，即「五識身相應地」和「意地」，試圖探討其中所涉及的梵、漢、藏三種語言學方面的問題。至於此論的作者究竟是彌勒、無著還是另有其人？以及八識，尤其是阿賴耶識等教義方面的問題，則非本文關注的焦點。
有解讀佛典經驗者多半知道，在解讀梵語佛典時理解是否正確，除了掌握「佛教術語」的意義外，還跟「非佛教術語」中各種「詞類」（parts of speech）的理解及語境邏輯（logic in context）息息相關，尤其是當透過這些各種詞類來解釋甚至定義「佛教術語」時，更是如此。因此，筆者首先擬在前述設定的文獻範疇內，對勘梵、漢、藏三本中的各種詞類（名詞、代名詞、動詞、形容詞、數詞、副詞、疑問詞、關係詞、接續詞、複合詞、接頭詞、不變化詞），以及片語表達、句法、語境邏輯等，依循玄奘三藏及印度勝友堪布、西藏智軍（Ye shes sde）等多位譯師的翻譯模式，在漢、藏二譯的基礎上，從中找出在解讀梵典上最關鍵的詞類與句法，嘗試建立一套有效正確解讀佛教梵典的原則。
其次，從梵、漢、藏三個版本的對勘中，去探討這些歧異究竟是來自於各自所依梵語傳本的差異？還是現存梵語傳本（YBh）有誤？漢譯（T30）所依的梵本（*YBhc）有誤？或藏譯（CTT72）所依的梵本（*YBht）有誤？抑或是漢、藏二譯本身有誤譯的情況？而梵語名詞（代名詞、形容詞、數詞等）所使用的格位（case）與其對應的漢、藏二譯格位的歧異問題，究竟是來自所依梵語傳本的不同？還是漢、藏譯師分別為配合漢語及藏語本身的表達方式與語法結構所做的調整？最終結果或許依然難有定論，但至少讓讀者瞭解現存梵本與漢、藏二譯之間，實際上存在哪些差異。最後，透過現存梵本與漢、藏二譯之間的對勘，希望得出幾個結論就是：《瑜伽師地論》前二地的可信度到底如何？在不同時、空的脈絡底下，有沒有經過人為增減或大幅修改？梵（YBh）漢（T30）藏（CTT72）三本對於理解前二地的教義來說，可以相互補足到什麼程度等等。
This paper adopts the first two grounds , i.e. thePañcavijñānakāyasaṃprayuktā bhūmiḥ (PBh) and the Manobhūmi (MBh) of the Basic Section in Five Sections of Sanskrit version Yogācārabhūmi (YBh), its Chinese counterpart《瑜伽師地論》（T30）, and Tibetan counterpart rNal ʼbyor spyod paʼi sa (CTT72), and tries to deal with the issues in respect of collating various parts of speech, linguistics and discrepancy involved in above three versions. However, Itʼs not this paperʼs chief concern as to whether the author of YBh is attributed to Maitreya or Asaṅga or not, and eight consciousnesses, especially the issues with regard to doctrines of Ālayvijñāna. Those who have some experiences in reading buddhist texts may know that besides mastering the buddhist terms, whether the understanding is right or not is close related to various parts of speech belong to non-buddhist terms and logic in context, all the
more so as using these parts of speech to explain or even define the buddhist terms. Therefore, first of all I intend to collate the
examples of various parts of speech, including nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, numerals, adverbs, interrogatives, relatives,
conjunctives, compounds, prefixes, suffixes, indeclinables, phrasal expressions, syntax, and so on, between the three
versions in Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan of which the ranges are set up as above. On top of that, I try to establish the scalable
effective interpretation and translation model of Sanskrit buddhist texts preliminarily on the basis of the essential parts of speech
and syntax sorted out from the Chinese translation by Xuanzang (玄奘, fl. ca. 602-664) and the Tibetan translation by Ye shes sde
(Skt. Jñānasena, mid 8th cent.-early 9th cent.) etc.Secondly, with regard to the three versions in Sanskrit,Chinese, and Tibetan as above, I would like to research whencetheir diversities come. Are these diversities derived from the Sanskrit manuscripts themselves upon which YBh, T30, and CTT72 are based respectively? Do there exist some errors originally in the extant Sanskrit manuscript (YBh) or in the
Sanskrit manuscripts (*YBhc and *YBht) upon which T30 and CTT72 are based? Or these errors come from the translatorsʼ
misunderstanding or mistakes in writing in the process of translation later. In addition, do these diversities originally exist between the cases used in Sanskrit nouns, pronouns, adjectives, numerals, etc and the cases of nouns, pronouns, adjectives,numerals, etc in Sanskrit manuscripts upon which the Chinese translation and the Tibetan translation based respectively? Or these cases which are different from the extant Sanskrit version (YBh) are adapted by the translators according to the way of Chinese and Tibetan expression and syntax structure respectively.The ultimate result perhaps still remains in suspense, but at least let us know how many differences actually exist between the
extant Sanskrit version (YBh), its Chinese counterpart (T30) and Tibetan counterpart(CTT72).At last, through the collation between the above three v |
|---|
| Table of contents | 0.1 文獻略語 94
0.2 格位與詞類略符表 95
0.3 句法學略符表 98
0.3.1 從梵語單句譯至中文單句或藏文單句常見的六類基本句型略符表 98
0.3.2 從梵語複句譯至中文或藏文常見的六類複句略符表 98
壹、前言 100
貳、簡介對勘的內容 102
叁、界定對勘的範疇 117
肆、梵、漢、藏三本《瑜伽師地論》非佛教術語的對應原則 118
一、梵語名詞（代名詞、形容詞、數詞等）格位與漢、藏二譯格位的歧異問題 119
二、梵語動詞對應的漢、藏二譯 128
（一）、梵語動詞對應的漢、藏二譯 128
（二）、梵語助動詞對應的漢、藏二譯 131
（三）、梵語複合動詞對應的漢、藏二譯 132
三、梵語副詞對應的漢、藏二譯 134
四、梵語疑問詞80對應的漢、藏二譯 136
五、梵語關係詞對應的漢、藏二譯 138
六、梵語接續詞對應的漢、藏二譯 139
七、梵語接頭詞對應的漢、藏二譯 142
八、梵語常用語詞對應的漢、藏二譯 143
九、梵語不變化詞的對應的漢、藏二譯 143
十、梵語複合詞及其特殊語尾對應的漢、藏二譯 144
十一、梵語副詞對應的漢、藏二譯 152
十二、梵語感嘆詞對應的漢、藏二譯 153
十三、梵語片語對應的漢、藏二譯 154
十四、梵語對應的漢、藏二譯句法學 160
十五、其他特殊對應 165
伍、梵、漢、藏三本《瑜伽師地論》歧異的對勘比較 165
陸、結語 175
柒、參考文獻 177
|
|---|
| ISSN | 16099575 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 599 |
|---|
| Created date | 2018.11.01 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2018.11.15 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
