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

Abstract

[[abstract]]《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。[[abstract]]"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.[[journaltype]]國內[[incitationindex]]THCI Core[[ispeerreviewed]]Y[[booktype]]紙本[[countrycodes]]TW