查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 《大正藏》校勘註記「明版」異讀之檢示:以《阿含經》與《法句經》為主=Examination of Variant Readings in Collation Notes from the "Ming" Tripiṭaka, Found in the Taishō Tripiṭaka: Examples Enumerated Majorly from Ahan Jings and Faju Jings |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 蘇錦坤; | 書刊名 | 福嚴佛學研究 |
| 卷 期 | 19 2024.12[民113.12] |
| 頁 次 | 頁1-29 |
| 分類號 | 221.08 |
| 關鍵詞 | 嘉興藏; 大正藏校勘註記; 異讀的判定; 佛典校勘; Jiaxing Tripiṭaka; Collating notes of the Taishō Tripiṭaka; Determination of variant readings; Textual criticism of Chinese Buddhist texts; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 《大正藏》校勘註記當中,有不少標示為來自「明版」的異讀,此一「明 版」即指《嘉興藏》。 《嘉興藏》為私人勸募、集資、鳩工而開雕刊印,無法與朝廷集官方 人力、物力所完成的「官刻大藏經」比擬。 本文僅以「阿含經」與「法句經」為主,就以下四類異讀予以評述: 1、《大正藏》的校勘註記與《嘉興藏》顯示的用字不同。 2、《嘉興藏》比《大正藏》錄文「正確」的異讀。 3、《嘉興藏》的異讀是明顯的訛誤。 4、《嘉興藏》的異讀與《大正藏》的錄文均為「訛誤」。 從以上所舉的四類異讀可知,《嘉興藏》的異讀具多種情境:有些保存難 能可貴的譯本原貌,有些純粹出諸抄寫或刊刻訛誤,也有些難辨優劣。《大正 藏》與《嘉興藏》有關的校勘註記,或應記而未記,或註記與今本不盡相符, 顯示不能全賴前者的校勘,有待以實本覆驗。 為研習經典的讀者設想,僅是陳列歷代大藏經的各種異讀,其實幫助不 大;必需能有較可靠的方法去校勘、辨析,進而抉擇最貼切的用字,才能得 到譯本的「原貌」,並借助梵、巴對應經典,以探討漢譯的差異是出自文本的 流變、部派詮釋的差異,還是出自翻譯團隊的誤解。 本文也說明《嘉興藏》有其校勘價值,也有其瑕疵;過度頌揚或忽視、 貶抑,都不是面對古代文獻的合理態度。 |
| 英文摘要 | Among “collating notes” in the Taishō Tripiṭaka, there are quite a few variant readings denoted by “Ming” (明), which means they are from the Ming Tripiṭaka. In this context, “Ming” specifically refers to Jiaxing Tripiṭaka, which is one of several “Ming” editions. This article examines variant readings marked as “Ming” found largely in the Ahan Jings and Faju Jings, and they are classified into the following four categories: 1. Inconsistency between the variant readings marked as “Ming” and those found in the extant Jiaxing Tripiṭaka. 2. Variant readings from the extant Jiaxing Tripiṭaka are proper compared to the counterparts shown in the Taishō Tripiṭaka. 3. Variant readings from the extant Jiaxing Tripiṭaka are apparently wrong readings. 4. Both variant readings from the extant Jiaxing Tripiṭaka and its counterparts shown in the Taishō Tripiṭaka are wrong. The Jiaxing Tripiṭaka was a private-funded tripiṭaka, and its funding and team for the whole production process cannot compare with the level achieved by the state-funded team of an official tripiṭaka. Examining the variant readings, this paper reveals that the variant readings marked as “Ming” offer interesting insights including preservation of correct readings from the “original” script, errors by scribes or engravers, and some areas that are difficult to judge. This paper shows that “collating notes” of the Taishō Tripiṭaka does not always comply with the differences in the variant readings, which indicates that there is a need to doublecheck the extant tripiṭaka instead of simply adopting what is presented in the “collating notes” of the Taishō Tripiṭaka. In conclusion, simply enumerating variant readings out of other extant tripiṭaka offers little benefit. Reliable and systematic methods to judge, analyze and choose the most suitable variant reading should be applied. By means of these systematic methods, with their Pāli and/or Sanskrit parallels, this paper also explores the possible causes of these variant readings. This paper also concludes that there are both pitfalls and advantages in the extant Jiaxing Tripiṭaka, and it is not proper to exaggerate its value or underestimate its disadvantages. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。