北本《涅槃經．現病品》古藏譯本語文特色之研究

Abstract

本論文的研究對象是譯自北涼曇無讖《大般涅槃經》（簡稱：《北本》）的藏譯本。此名為 'phags pa yongs su mya ngan las 'das pa chen po'i mdo/ 釋典（經號：D 119，簡稱：T1）是 wang phab zhun, dge ba'i blo sgros 以及 rgya mtsho'i sde 共譯的。本文探討的範圍鎖定在其中相當於《北本》第六〈現病品〉的內容。一直以來，在著重研究「印度原文」佛學領域，譯自漢譯──即從印度語言釋典譯成華文的經典──的藏譯釋典研究是不備受矚目。儘管如此，以漢、藏學研究聞名的波瀾學者 Rolf Stein，於其大作 Tibetica Antiqua 指出：不少譯自漢譯的藏文釋典常見有直譯華文的藏文佛學術語。這些術語的翻譯與《?譯名義大集》所收不盡相同。基於此理解，筆者進行斠勘八個 T1 跟六個〈現病品〉版本的經文。在此基礎上，對照漢、藏譯的經文，從而辨識兩者中實詞和虛詞的寫法與功能。藉由此兩個步驟，筆者討論其中語文特色與現象。據初步的瞭解，T1 的確有 Stein 所提的情形。此外，筆者依據斠勘成果略論西藏藏經版本系譜的情形。另略探 T1 華籍譯者姓名的對音問題。

This dissertation investigates several linguistic features of the Tibetan translation (D 119) of the Chinese Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra. I focus the section corresponding to the chapter on the “Manifestation of Illness” in the Chinese version. Buddhist texts in Tibetan that were translated directly from Chinese works — based, in turn, on Indic originals — have, generally speaking, failed to attract the attention of modern Western scholarship, whose prevalent religio-historical interest is the Indo-Tibetological perspective. However, already Rolf Stein pointed out in his Tibetica Antiqua that a number of Tibetan translations based on the Chinese versions make use of vocabulary that does not depend on or look at the underlying Indic terminology but related directly to the Chinese translation. Stein indicated that Chinese translations are often found translating into Tibetan with mixed lexicons deviate from or according to the two great glossaries, namely the Mahāvyutpatti and companion Madhyavyutpatti. With this understanding, the present study firstly collates eight available Kanjur versions that fall under the tshal pa, them spangs ma and mixed transmission lineages. On this basis, the patterns of varying ortographies and usages of the cases of classical Tibetan are identified. Then comparison of the Tibetan and Chinese translations provides evidence for an analysis of the linguistic features of the Tibetan translation. The results of this philological investigation support Stein’s argument. The thesis also briefly discusses the transmission lineages of the Kanjur based on the findings of the collation, as well as the possible Chinese characters that would match the different Tibetan transliterations of the name of one of the translators.