Bhavasaṃkrānti譯本研究

Abstract

Bhavasaṃkrānti 本來是一部闡述轉有輪迴與空性之印度論典，但原文早已佚失，現存古譯本有三部藏譯本及一部漢譯本。前者包括（一）སྲིད་པ་འཕོ་བ་（Bhavasaṃkrānti I，《東北目錄》No.3840），（二）སྲིད་པ་ལས་འདས་པ་（Bhavasaṃkrānti II；《東北目錄》No.4558），（三）སྲིད་པ་ལས་འདས་པའི་གཏམ་（Bhavasaṃkrānti III；《東北目錄》No.4162）；後者則為施護的《大乘破有論》（《大正》 No. 1574）。本文以《大乘破有論》與 Bhavasaṃkrānti I 的藏文本及其近代漢、英譯本為範圍，深度探討，並針對第一品的偈頌進行比對與分析，以窺出 Bhavasaṃkrānti 譯本的語言現象與意涵。當代的譯本有：任傑《轉有論頌》的漢譯本與 N. Aiyaswami Sastri 的 English Translation of The Bhavasaṅkrānti 及 Will May 的 Transference of Existence 兩種英譯本。 在學術方法上，本文以傳統文獻學的研究（目錄、版本學等）為基礎，進而採用語言學的方法，方便分析譯本詞彙。藏文以《德格》、《北京》二版為底本，中文則提供精斠本，期以（一）探討藏譯本與漢譯《大乘破有論》之對應關係；（二）考證譯本之文獻史，剖析論典於大乘論藏之定位；（三）比對與分析古今譯本，增進對論典語言特色之理解。 透過古代藏、漢譯本之整理證實三種藏譯本中 Bhs II、Bhs III 二者內容與架構極其相似，Bhs III 與漢譯《大乘破有論》相對應程度較高。至於 Bhavasaṃkrānti 作者是否為龍樹的歸屬問題，尚有疑點，未得定論。翻譯歷史方面，經由古藏、漢譯者（即藏譯者月童、名稱滿智與北宋漢譯者施護）及其譯經背景與貢獻的考究，發現 BhS II 與 BhS III 的翻譯年代雖與 BhS I 相近，但比較早，且均比《大乘破有論》的年代晚。藉由藏、漢、英譯本之詞彙分析及譯文比對，剖析譯本文體架構、翻譯用語抉擇以及翻譯風格等多種差異，呈現文本的語言現象、特色與內涵。

The Bhavasaṃkrānti was an Indian treatise discussing rebirth and emptiness. Its original is no longer extant, but several ancient translations have survived, to wit three Tibetan versions and one Chinese. The former are སྲིད་པ་འཕོ་བ་ (Bhavasaṃkrānti I, Tōhoku No. 3840), སྲིད་པ་ལས་འདས་པ་(Bhavasaṃkrānti II, Tōhoku No. 4558) and སྲིད་པ་ལས་འདས་པའི་གཏམ་ (Bhavasaṃkrānti III, Tōhoku No. 4162), the latter Shihu’s Dàshèng pòyǒu lùn (《大乘破有論》, Taishō No. 1574). The present thesis provides an in-depth study of the Dàshèng pòyǒu lùn as well as the old Tibetan and modern Chinese and English translations of Bhavasaṃkrānti I, scrutinizing the verses of Chapter One by way of analytical comparison in order to catch a glimpse of its linguistic features and philosophical content. The modern versions based on the Tibetan are Rèn Jié’s Zhuǎnyǒu lùn sòng (《轉有論頌》) and N. Aiyaswami Sastri’s English Translation of The Bhavasaṅkrānti plus Will May’s Transference of Existence. In terms of methodology, the present study is grounded in traditional philological lore dealing with bibliography, the various editions, etc., yet makes use too of linguistics in order to analyze the respective vocabulary of the translations. The Tibetan text is based on the Derge and Peking editions, for the Chinese the reader is offered a new text-critical edition. It is hoped to clarify the relationship of correspondence between the Tibetan translations and the Dàshèng pòyǒu lùn, to gain, in the light of literary history, a better understanding of the position the Bhavasaṃkrānti occupies among Indian Buddhist scholastic works, and to deepen our understanding of the linguistic peculiarities of both ancient and modern translations. It is demonstrated that the Bhavasaṃkrāntis II and III are extremely similar in terms of structure and content, and among them Bhavasaṃkrānti III turns out to be closer to the Dàshèng pòyǒu lùn. No definite consensus could be reached on whether the attribution of authorship to Nāgārjuna is tenable or not. As to the history of the translations, it could be shown that despite the fact that the dates of all three Tibetan versions are quite close, Bhavasaṃkrāntis II and III are slightly earlier, but still later than Shihu’s Dàshèng pòyǒu lùn. Last not least, detailed comparison and analysis of the lexicon as well as observations regarding the structure manifest clearly great differences in style, choice of wording, and understanding. Thus it becomes possible to illustrate the particular characteristics of language and meaning of each of the translations.