辛岛静志 日本创价大学
Seishi, Karashima, Sōka University
原文Original
早期汉译佛典的语言研究——以支娄迦谶及支谦的译经为中心
不少佛典不是一次而是多次被翻译成汉语。出于对以往的翻译的不满，后代的译者做了部分修改或干脆重新翻译，这样就造成了重复翻译。不满的原因大概有几个：一是因为初译往往难免直译，不大像汉语；二是因为后代人觉得古译、旧译的语言（包括当时的口语表现）较古老不易懂；三是因为后代的译者发现已往的汉译和自己手里的最新原典写本不一致。新译出现之后，往往取代旧译，旧译就逐渐散失。但是也有不少的佛经，新译与旧译都流传至今。换言之，不少汉译佛典有不同译出年代及不同译者的“异译”。既然译出时代不同，它们的语言也应该或多或少反映出各自时代的特征。所以，如果对它们仔细地进行对比研究的话，我们很可能得知语法、词汇、音韵发展演变的情况。
例如，东汉支娄迦谶译《道行般若经》（公元179年出; T[大正藏].8, No. 224）有六本“异译”，即：
吴支谦译《大明度经》（公元222~257年出; T8, .No. 225）
前秦昙摩蜱与竺佛念译《摩诃般若钞经》（公元4世纪后半出? ; T.8, No. 226）
后秦鸠摩罗什译《小品般若波罗蜜经》（公元408年出; T.8, No. 227）
唐玄奘译《大般若波罗蜜经．第四会》（公元660~663年出; T.7, No. 220）
同《第五会》（公元660~663年出;T.7, No. 220）
北宋施护译《佛母出生三法藏般若波罗蜜多经》（公元982年出; T.8, No. 228）。
此外，还有梵文本及藏译本。
东汉支娄迦谶和这些“异译”的译者都是当时佛典译者的代表。我们参考梵文本及藏译把它们放在一起进行对比研究的话，可以“俯瞰”从东汉到宋代汉译佛典的语言演变。
重要的是，一般后代的译者通常参考以往的翻译。从吴支谦译《大明度经》、昙摩蜱及竺佛念译《摩诃般若钞经》、鸠摩罗什译《小品般若经》这三部中也可以看出这些译者都参考了第一部汉译《道行般若经》的痕迹。支娄迦谶对传统文言不太熟悉，在翻译佛经时，无意中使用了当时的口语及俗语词汇，同时又多用音写词，译成汉语时也往往按照原文（梵文或是犍陀罗文）的语顺翻译。归纳来说，支娄迦谶的翻译是直译。
而支谦出生在中国，精通文言，且具有避俗求雅的语言能力。支谦用通畅、自然的语言把支娄迦谶译中国化，而基本没有参照原典。《摩诃般若钞经》的译者基本上袭用《道行般若经》的读法，他们参照原典做了部分修改，同时更换了一些《道行般若经》中的难词及较老的用语。如果我们着眼于支谦、竺佛念等译者对支娄迦谶译的修改，就能够追溯从东汉到晋代的语言的变迁。
译文Translation
A Linguistic Study of the Early Chinese Translations of Buddhist Scriptures with a Particular Focus on the Scriptural Translations Done by Lokaksema (支娄迦谶) and Zhi Qian (支谦)
Many Buddhist Scriptures were translated into Chinese repeatedly. Dissatisfied with the early translations, the later translators would revise part of them or even replace them with totally new versions. New translations were done for three probable reasons. Firstly, earlier translations inevitably tended to be literal and did not sound Chinese; secondly, later generations would consider the language of the old translations archaic and difficult to understand; thirdly, later translators found inconsistencies between the extant translations and the latest original texts in their hands. The new translations would gradually overwhelm and replace the older ones. But both the old and new translations coexist in some scriptures, which have been preserved and transmitted to the present day. Thus ‘variant translations’ appear. Different versions reflect different characteristics of the times when they were produced. Therefore, a close comparative study of them will reveal the grammatical, lexical and phonetic evolutions of the Chinese Buddhist language.
For example, besides Dao Xing Bo Re Jing (179 CE; T. 8, No. 224) translated by Lokaksema, there are other six variant Chinese versions as follows:
1) Da Ming Du Jing, translated by Zhi Qian (222~257; T8, .No. 225)
2) Mo He Bo Re Chao Jing, translated by Dharmapriya and Zhu Fonian (500; T.8, No. 226).
3) Xiao Pin Bo Re Bo Luo Mi Jing, translated by Kumārajīva(408; T.8, No. 227)
4) Da Bo Re Bo Luo Mi Duo Jing (Di Si Hui), translated by Xuan Zang (660~663; T.7, No. 220)
5) Da Bo Re Bo Luo Mi Duo Jing (Di Wu Hui), translated by Xuan Zang (660~663; T.7, No. 220)
6) Fo Mu Chu Sheng San Fa Zang Bo Re Bo Luo Mi Duo Jing, translated by Shi Hu (982; T.8, No. 228)
In addition, there are also Sanskrit and Tibetan versions.
Through a comparative analysis of these translations, we can catch a glimpse of the linguistic changes from the East Han Dynasty until the Song Dynasty in Chinese Through a comparative analysis of these translations, we can catch a glimpse of the linguistic changes from the East Han Dynasty until the Song Dynasty in Chinese Buddhist Scriptures.
What should be noted is that, generally, the later translators would make use of the early works. Traces of the first Chinese translation of Dao Xing Bo Re Jing are found in Zhi Qian's Da Ming Du Jing, Dharmapriya and Zhu Fo Nian’s Mo He Bo Re Chao Jing and Kumārajīva’s Xiao Pin Bo Re Jing. Being unfamiliar with the classical Chinese, Lokaksema employed, though unintentionally, contemporary oral and informal words and phrases. He also made many transliterations and followed the word order of the original text. In a word, his translation was literal.
But Zhi Qian was born in China and was proficient in classical Chinese. He could distinguish the graceful and formal expressions from the profane ones. He made his revision work of Lokaksema's translation more natural and smooth without comparing it with the original text. The translator of Mo He Bo Re Chao Jing relied upon the reading of Dao Xing Bo Re Jing, replaced the obscure and archaic expressions of the earlier version, and made revisions in the light of the original text. If we take a close study of the revisions of the scholars like Zhi Qian and Zhu Fo Nian on Lokaksema's work, some linguistic changes from the East Han Dynasty until the Jin Dynasty can be seen.