Abstract：Chinese Buddhist scriptures have been hand-copied and engraved for many generations, textual differences inevitably caused inconveniences to their study and dissemination leading to their collation into canonical Buddhist scriptures. The compilation and publication of Dazheng Xinxiu Dazangjing (《大正新修大藏经》) and Zhonghua Dazangjing (《中华大藏经》), completed a comparison of different texts in important editions. However, limited by various conditions at that time, further systematic discrimination between different texts was not possible, and regretted in academic circles. With further development of the study of Buddhist language, Fang Yixin and other scholars advocated the rearrangement of the Dazangjing, importantly developing systematic identification of version differences. Simultaneous research in this field won increasing attention from the academic circle and made substantial achievements. Of course, it should be noted that despite the above-mentioned scholars’ appeals and practices, the guiding significance of phonetic-semantic study of ancient Buddhist scriptures has not received due attention. Due to the lack of attention to the research results of the phonetic-semantic study of ancient Buddhist scriptures, it is not uncommon in today’s academic circles to repeat the work in which the ancients have already obtained the correct answer, or ignore the correct answer and make a new interpretation that is unreasonable. In view of this, we believe that the guiding significance of the study of phonetic-semantic study is worthy of further emphasis.The phonetic-semantic study of ancient Buddhist scriptures is a pioneer in the study of ancient Buddhist scriptures. These achievements not only record the earlier Buddhist scriptures, but also contain profound research insights, providing important implications for today’s research. (1) In the passage of “手探寻之，即获虱矣” in the chapter “Shamen Bensheng” (《沙门本生》), 手探 corresponds to 探手 and 掬手 in other versions. 掬 is actually a glyph error of 探. (2) In the passage of “贫家不育，以褻裹之，夜无人时，默置四街” in the chapter “Tongzi Bensheng” (《童子本生》), 褻裹 corresponds to ?裹 in other versions. 褻 is actually a glyph error of ?. ? and ? are variant characters, meaning fine cotton cloth. (3) In the passage of “王乃弯弓擩矢，股肱势张” in the chapter “Guowang Bensheng” (《国王本生》), 擩矢 corresponds to 愽矢 and 搏矢 in other versions. 愽 and 搏 are actually glyph error of 擩, meaning to pinch. (4) In the passage of “更乎众艰、魃?之拂，疿忤之困” in the chapter “Chaweiwang Jing” (《察微王经》), 魃? corresponds to 魑魅 in other versions. 魃? is an irregular glyph for 妖魑. 魃? and 魑魅 are version differences caused by the interchange of synonyms. While advocating the great research reference value of previous phonetic-semantic research achievement, we should also have an objective understanding of the shortcomings, so as to better play its value. In the process of using the previous phonetic-semantic work to identify different versions of Buddhist scriptures, the following three aspects need special attention: (1) to acknowledge the lack of preceding phonetic-semantic research; (2) to discriminate differences between phonetic-semantic works; (3) to explain the cause of the variant from the perspective of history of Chinese language.
边田钢. 考辨佛经异文应当重视佛经音义[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2022, 52(5): 49-55.
Bian Tiangang. The Importance of Phonetic-Semantic Research in Ancient Buddhist Scriptures: A Version Comparison Between Liudu Jijing and Kehong Yinyi. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2022, 52(5): 49-55.
2022, Vol. 52 
