|
|
|
| The Importance of Phonetic-Semantic Research in Ancient Buddhist Scriptures: A Version Comparison Between Liudu Jijing and Kehong Yinyi |
| Bian Tiangang |
| College of Language and Literature, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Received: 26 November 2021
|
|
|
|
1 方一新： 《关于重新校释汉文〈大藏经〉的一点想法》，见安平秋、舒大刚主编： 《古籍整理与文献学学科建设》，北京：中国社会科学出版社，2021年，第218-221页。
2 朱庆之： 《佛教汉语研究》，北京：商务印书馆，2009年。
3 陈正正： 《汉文佛经异文研究的回顾与展望》，《图书馆理论与实践》2019年第3期，第65-72页。
4 方一新： 《玄应〈一切经音义〉卷一二〈生经〉音义劄记》，《古汉语研究》2006年第3期，第62-65页。
5 郑贤章： 《可洪〈随函录〉与汉文佛经校勘》，《古籍整理研究学刊》2006年第5期，第45-47页。
6 郑贤章： 《〈新集藏经音义随函录〉研究》，长沙：湖南师范大学出版社，2007年。
7 韩小荆： 《〈可洪音义〉与佛典整理》，《长江学术》2006年第2期，第149-155页。
8 谭翠： 《〈思溪藏〉随函音义与汉文佛典校勘释例》，《古籍整理研究学刊》2019年第6期，第78-81页。
9 王筠： 《说文句读》，上海：上海古籍书店，1983年。
10 桂馥： 《说文解字义证》，上海：上海古籍出版社，1987年。
11 毛远明： 《汉魏六朝碑刻异体字典》，北京：中华书局，2014年。
12 释行均： 《龙龛手镜》（高丽本），北京： 中华书局，1985年。
13 黄征： 《敦煌俗字典》，上海：上海教育出版社，2005年。
14 裘锡圭： 《释殷墟甲骨文里的“远”“（迩）”及有关诸字》，见中国古文字研究会、中华书局编辑部编： 《古文字研究》第十二辑，北京：中华书局，1985年，第85-98页。
15 边田钢： 《上古汉语清鼻音声母音位化构拟新探》，《中国语文》2021年第2期，第159-173页。
16 王念孙： 《读书杂志》，徐炜君等点校，上海：上海古籍出版社，2014年。
17 阮元校刻： 《十三经注疏》，北京：中华书局，1980年。
18 史光辉： 《常用词“矢、箭”的历时替换考》，见浙江大学汉语史研究中心编： 《汉语史学报》第四辑，上海：上海教育出版社，2004年，第160-167页。
19 韩小荆： 《〈可洪音义〉研究——以文字为中心》，成都：巴蜀书社，2009年。
20 王利器： 《风俗通义校注》（第2版），北京：中华书局，2010年。
21 顾野王： 《原本玉篇残卷》，北京：中华书局，1985年。
22 白维国主编： 《近代汉语词典》，上海：上海教育出版社，2015年。 |
|
|
|
2022, Vol. 52 
