法藏敦煌藏文寫卷P.T.980考釋

Abstract

法藏敦煌藏文文獻P.T.980號，於2009年《法國國家圖書館藏敦煌藏文文獻》中才開始有擬定的藏、漢文對照的經名byang chub sems dpav yul vkhor skyong gis zhus pavi mdo/ 《大寶積經•第十八護國菩薩所問經》。由於藏、漢文的擬名與現存《西藏大藏經》與《大正新脩大藏經》中所見的經名有些文字上的出入，很容易使人誤解寫卷與十世紀中葉施護漢譯本《佛說護國尊者所問大乘經》有直接的關係，以及聯想經名是根據其他相關寫卷的題記發現所擬出的；在偈句的語詞及語句上，又與六世紀中葉闍那崛多的漢譯本接近；而寫卷經文篇幅與九世紀初葉勝友、智軍等共譯的藏譯本bam po gnyis pa gleng gzhivi levu（〈卷二緣起品〉）相當；這些目前 Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā 現存的藏、漢譯本的流傳形式，內容與架構上大多與闍那崛多譯本相近，P.T.980這份寫卷，也不例外。因此，本論文的目的即在考證法藏敦煌藏文寫本P.T.980的翻譯底本是否直接譯自闍那崛多的漢譯本《大寶積經•護國菩薩會》而來。在本文之前，由於尚未有學者對整體寫本做過研究，因此研究進行首先於第二章介紹寫本的文獻紀錄及特徵，辨識原文並轉寫為拉丁字母。第三章比對P.T.980與智軍藏譯本、闍那崛多漢譯本、施護漢譯本的內容，找出相異部份，對應出P.T.980藏譯本偈句。透過歸納與統計而顯示出：在語詞方面的增加、減少、變動以及語句方面的增加、減少、變動、句次等現象中，P.T.980與闍那崛多漢譯本較接近；再從P.T.980與闍那崛多漢譯本有不一致的現象分析結果，發現P.T.980是直接譯自闍那崛多漢譯本。藉此討論，希望對於敦煌漢文藏譯寫本的研究上，有所助益。

The Dunhuang manuscript P.T.980 was given an official name in 2009’s Tibetan documents from dunhuang in the bibliotheeque nationale de france. (vol. 9) as byang chub sems dpav yul vkhor skyong gis zhus pavi mdo/ “Da baoji jing: Di shiba huguo pusa suowen jing”. Because of some difference between this given name and the names stated in Tibetan Tripiṭaka and Taishō Tripiṭaka, there commonly has a misunderstanding that this manuscript has direct connection with Dānapāla’s Chinese translation of Fushuo huguo zunzhe suowen dasheng jing in mid 10th century; other assumptions may refer this name to the prefaces of other manuscripts. As for the diction of its Buddhist scriptures, there is a considerable relevance with Jnānagupta’s Chinese translation in mid 6th century. The length of P.T.980 corresponds to that of the Tibetan translation of bam po gnyis pa gleng gzhivi levu, a joint translation by Jinamitra and Ye shes sde in mid 9th century. Many Buddhist scriptures included in Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā are consisted of both Tibetan and Chinese translation and most of their content and structure resemble the translation by Jnānagupta; P.T.980 is not an exception. As a result, this paper intends to discuss whether the Dunhuang manuscript P. T. 980 is directly translated from Jnānagupta’s Chinese translation of Da baoji jing: Huguo pusa hui (T 310.18). Since there was not any studies focused on this manuscript, there is a introduction of the documents and features of this manuscript in the second chapter, which can help the reader understand the original language and Romanize them. The third chapter contains a comparison between P.T.980, the Tibetan translation of Ye shes sde, the Chinese translation of Jnānagupta and the Chinese translation of Dānapāla, from which we can see the features of the Tibetan translation of P.T.980.By analysis, we can see P.T.980 is similar to Jnānagupta’s Chinese translation in their additions and deletions of words and their changes and sequences of sentences. Supplemented by the analysis of their differences, we can make a certain conclusion that P.T.980 is a direct translation from Jnānagupta’s Chinese translation. This research can be helpful for the study of the Tibetan Dunhuang manuscript that are translated from Chinese.