Reopening the Maitreya-files – Two almost identical early Maitreya sūtra translations in the Chinese Canon: Wrong attributions and text-historical entanglements
tải về 1.27 Mb. Chế độ xem pdf
|
| Appendix III
Annotated translation of the postscript 74 Thanks to Robert E. Buswell’s thorough study on the editorial proc- ess of the Koryŏ II Tripiṭaka, the seemingly anonymous postscript that follows the Maitreya sūtra no. 453 can clearly be attributed to Sugi 守其, the Korean editor-in-chief of the Koryŏ II canon. 75 “Com pleted in 1251 after sixteen years of labour by thousands of scholars and crafts men, the entire set (of the Koryŏ II canon) consisted of some 1,514 texts in 6,815 fascicles, carved on 81,258 individual blocks. All texts appearing in previous editions of the canon were included, mak ing it the most com pre hensive collection of East Asian Buddhist literature assembled up to that time.” 76 Sugi strongly sus pected that the Maitreya sūtra in question was wrongly attributed to Dharma rakṣa, but since he did not have enough evi- dence for a diff er ent attribution, he left the attribution intact, but added a scholarly post script to the text. 74 Cf. T14, no. 453, 423b14–423c1. I thank Jan Nattier, International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology (IRIAB), Tokyo, for going through a preliminary version of this translation with me, for her valuable suggestions, and for introducing Robert E. Buswell’s research to me. I am also very grateful to Christoph Anderl, Insti tutt for kulturstudier og ori- entalske språk (IKOS), (the Department of Culture Studies and Oriental Languages), Oslo University, for revising one of my last ver sions of the post script’s translation, and I wish to thank those who commented on the translation when I presented it in Vienna in April 2007 at the Symposium on Early Chinese Buddhist Translations. 75 Cf. Robert E. Buswell 2004: introduction and 156–157, for the post- script in question. I quote from the introduction: “Sugi’s work appears in cases chun, i, and mil of the xylographs of the Koryŏ canon. It has been reprinted in Koryŏ taejang gyŏng, vol. 38 (1976), p. 512–725; it appears as K. 1402 in the reprint. The text was also included in the Pinqie edition of the canon (Shanghai: Pinqie Qingshe, 1909–14), case jieh, nos. 9–10; vols. 397–98.” 76 Cf. Buswell (2004), introduction. Parenthesis added by the author of the present paper. 280 Elsa I. Legittimo #77# 按開元録有譯無 本 。中有法護譯彌 勒成佛經一名彌勒 當來下生經者。 I checked [the section on items] for which there is a [known] translator but no [extant] work in the Kaiyuan catalogue. 77 In [this section] there is the “Sūtra on Mai- tre ya’s buddhahood” translated by Dharma rakṣa, also called the “Sūtra on Maitreya’s future coming down to birth. ” 乍觀此經。即彼失 本而還得之。其實 非也 。 At a fi rst glance this sūtra is just that lost work and we [may think we] have regained it. But in reality this is not so (i.e. this assumption is incorrect). 何則羅什譯彌勒成 佛經目下注云。與下 生經異本與法護譯 彌勒成佛經同本 。 兩譯一闕。則彼失 本經非此下生經 。 六譯三失之一者明 矣。 Why is that so? [Because in the Kaiyuan catalogue] the note after the title of the “Sūtra on Maitreya’s buddha- hood” translated by Kumārajīva says: “[This text] is a diff erent text from the “Sūtra on the coming down to birth” but it is the same text as the “Sūtra on Maitreya’s buddhahood” translated by Dharmarakṣa. There are two translations and one is missing.” So that lost text is not this (i.e. the present one) “Sūtra on the coming down to birth.” It is evident that [this text] is one of the three lost translations among the six translations. 又按孤山智圓重校 金剛般若後序云。 古徳分經皆用紙數 者。一紙有二十五行 一行十七字。 Moreover, according to Gushan Zhiyuan’s 78 reedition (i.e. collation) of the Vajraprajñā (金剛般若) 79 the follow- ing is stated in the postscript: “When the ancient virtuous ones were distinguishing sūtras they used [the method of] counting the pages. 80 One page consists of twenty- fi ve lines containing seventeen Chinese charac ters each.” 78#79# 77 The Kaiyuan shijiao lu 開元釋教録, T55, no. 2154. 78 Gushan Zhiyuan 孤山智圓 is a Chinese master (967–1022). I could not fi nd that special notice which Sugi attributes to him, but the information he is said to have reported regarding the ancient manuscripts seems correct and is evidenced by exist ing manuscripts. The number of lines might vary slightly and the last page might just contain a few lines. Besides other methods, the ancient Chinese way to check the size of the extant texts for verifying whether the title and lengths of a text fi t its descrip tion found in the catalogues is indeed an appropriate approach. 79 He must be referring to one of the versions of the Vajracchedikā, the Jin’gang jing 金剛經, in its shortened Chinese title as found in T7, no. 220(9) and T8, no. 235–239. Reopening the Maitreya-fi les 281 今撿失本彌勒經目 下注云。一十七紙 則計有七千二百二十 二字 。此經只有三 千一百七十六字 。 則尚未其半。豈是 彼經歟。 If we critically compare [this information with] the note [found] under the title of the lost Maitreya sūtra that says: “seventeen pages,” then [we can] estimate [that this text] consisted of seven thousand two hundred and twenty two characters. This (i.e. the present) sūtra only has three thousand one hundred and seventy six charac ters. Since this is less than half that size, how could it possibly be that sūtra? 80##81# 則丹藏無此經為 得 。然此經文頗似 漢晉經注。又有漢 云之言。還恐此是三 失本中第一本。録 云今附西晉者耳 。 Although the Khitan Canon (Danzang 丹藏) does not have this sūtra, the style of this scripture rather resem- bles that of the sūtras and commentaries of the Han 漢 and Jin 晉 dynasties. In addition, it contains words spoken (i.e. used) during the Han dynasty. 81 I also sus- pect that this is the fi rst (anonymous) translation (lit. text) among the three lost translations (lit. texts) [of the Maitreya sūtra that was translated six times]. [In support of my assump tion] the [Kaiyuan] catalogue states [about this translation]: “Now it is attributed to the Western Jin pe riod.” 82 82# 80 I.e. they counted the paper sheets, which when glued together constituted a scroll (or several scrolls). Particularly in the case of scriptures that have variant versions, various translations, and that are known under diff erent titles – espe- cially when it comes to shorter texts – only the number of pages might help to diff erentiate similar texts. Cf. note 78. 81 As noted by Ch. Anderl the formulation han yun zhi yan 漢云之言 is indeed tải về 1.27 Mb. Chia sẻ với bạn bè của bạn:
|