論《阿彌陀經》漢文異譯本的詞彙與篇章風格

On the Lexicon and Discourse Style of "the Smaller Sukhāvatī-vyūha" in Different Chinese Translations

10.6187/tkujcl.200912.21-3

高婉瑜(Wan-Yu Kao)

阿彌陀經 ； 同經異譯 ； 語言風格 ； 鳩摩羅什 ； 玄奘 ； The smaller Sukhāvatī-vyūha The Amitabha Sutra ； the same sutra with two different Chinese translations ； language style ； Kumārajīva ； Xuanzang

淡江中文學報

21期（2009 / 12 / 01）

89 - 118

繁體中文

《阿彌陀經》是淨土三經之一，通行本為鳩摩羅什所譯，另有異譯本，為玄奘所譯。在中國的佛經翻譯史上，鳩摩羅什代表了舊譯（第二階段），玄奘代表新譯（第三階段），本文利用比較法，試圖透過同經異譯的對比，進一步瞭解兩位譯經家的譯經風格。 本文認為不宜簡單地以對立的評語評定譯經，如一般所謂｢鳩摩羅什採意譯，玄奘採直譯｣。因為從詞彙語篇章來看，某些名詞鳩摩羅什採意譯，玄奘採音譯，有時剛好相反。雖然玄奘提出｢五不翻｣，但實際操作時沒有嚴格遵守｢五不翻｣，例如同樣是名號，羅漢名、菩薩名與佛名的翻譯方法並不一致。在篇章和通順度方面，鳩摩羅什譯本雖然簡潔，仍有費解之處，反觀玄奘的翻譯卻比較流暢。

”The smaller Sukhāvatī-vyūha” (”The Amitabha Sutra”) is one of the three sutras of Pure Land Buddhism. This sutra had two different Chinese translations, one by Kumārajīva and one by Xuanzhuang, with Kumārajīva's translation being the more popular of the two. In the history of the translations of Chinese Buddhist scriptures, Kumārajīva is a second-stage translation representative, and Xuanzhuang is a third-stage translation representative. In comparing these two translations of the same sutra, we are able to understand the styles of the two translators. The opinion put forth in this paper is that we should not criticize translations of Buddhist Scriptures in a simplistic and contrastive way, for example saying, ”Kumārajīva's interpretation is a free translation, and Xuanzang's is a literal translation.” This paper has actually discovered that some nouns are based on free translation in Kumārajīva's translation, and the same nouns were transliterated in Xuanzang's version, and sometimes the reverse is true. Although Xuanzang advocated ”Five Untranslatables,” that is, five instances where one should transliterate, his translation did not strictly comply with these five rules, for instance the names of Ahrats, Bodhisattvas, and Buddha were not translated consistently. Although Kumārajīva's translation is fluent, there are some areas that are difficult to understand, whereas Xuanzang's translation is more fluent and easier to understand.

1. Peter Newmark(1998).A textbook of Translation.New York:Prentice Hall International, Ltd..
2. 大藏經刊行會(1988)。大正新修大藏經。臺北:新文豐。
3. 中村元著、劉建譯(1994)。基於現實生活的思考－鳩摩羅什譯本的特徵。世界宗教研究，2
4. 中華電子佛典協會(2008)。CBETA電子佛典集成。臺北:中華佛典電子協會。
5. 沈蘇儒(2000)。論信達雅－嚴復翻譯理論研究。臺北:台灣商務印書館。
6. 林光明編註(1995)。阿彌陀經譯本集成。臺北:迦陵出版社。
7. 高婉瑜(2008)。漢譯佛典「住」與「著」初探。第三屆漢文佛典語言學國際學術研討會，臺北:
8. 張德宗(1996)。玄奘譯經活動述論。史學月刊，3，18-23。
9. 梁啟超(1984)。中國佛教研究史。臺北:新文豐。
10. 梁曉虹(2001)。佛教與漢語詞彙。臺北:佛光文化。
11. 盛文輝、王元建(2008)。鳩摩羅什與玄奘的翻譯－文學性與神學性。湖南稅務高等專科學校學報，5，52-55。
12. 許淵沖(1998)。文學翻譯談。臺北:書林。
13. 董力燕(2008)。從玄奘譯經看翻譯中的文化因素。科教文化，1，169。
14. 劉賓(1999)。鳩摩羅什的譯典在比較文學研究上的意義。西域研究，3，81-85。
15. 蔡新樂(2005)。翻譯的文體論研究。上海:上海譯文出版社。