從「道行般若」到「摩訶般若波羅蜜多」：譯經師的重譯之「道」

Abstract

從漢末至唐初近五百年間，《八千頌般若經》（Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra）共譯出5個經題迥異的譯本。筆者在對比經文過程中，發現各譯本之翻譯風格差異頗大，而且玄奘譯作亦並非如歷來譯評所言「一如梵本」。關於其「同本異譯」之風格問題，梁啟超早在1920年便略有著墨，但是關於此經何以一再翻譯、其具體翻譯之前因後果等問題隻字未提，其後數十年亦未見有學者探究此一課題。到了二十一世紀初，辛嶋靜志寫出兩篇而黨素萍寫出一篇與此課題相關之論文，然而這幾篇論文篇幅甚短，關鍵亦不在說明經典重譯之因緣。筆者這篇論文，便是從「道」字的幾個層面，論述從漢末支婁迦讖初譯《道行般若經》到唐初玄奘翻譯《大般若經》（第四會）為止，《八千頌般若經》源典與中譯本流傳之時空背景、五位譯經師重譯此經的歷史軌跡以及重譯之因緣，最後藉由分析各中譯本之翻譯風格，從歷史的視角檢視之，發現《八千頌》之重譯，實乃政治推力、時代的需求、文化的轉向、語言政策、譯者意識形態等眾多因緣交織而成的結果。The Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sutra was translated five times within a period of five hundred years, ranging from the late Han to the early Tang, with each of the translations bearing a completely different title. In comparing the texts, I found that there were great stylistic differences among them and that Xuan Zang’s text had not been rendered “strictly according to the Sanskrit,” as one commentator put it. In 1920, Liang Qichao raised stylistic issues in reference to “different translations of the same text” but did not delve into the ancient monks’ reasons for retranslating the sutra, nor did he touch on the purpose or the results of retranslation. For decades thereafter, scholars ignored this issue. It was not until the beginning of the twenty-first century that Karashima Seishi wrote two papers and Dang Suping wrote one paper respectively on the question, but those works are relatively short and none focuses on reasons for retranslation. Basing my discussion on various aspects of the term “Dao” as it is used in the five translations – beginning with Lokakṣema’s late-Han Daohang Boruo Jing and ending with Xuan Zang’s early-Tang Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sutra – I will explore the background of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sutra’s dissemination, the historical trajectory of the five different translations, and the reasons for and strategies of retranslation. Finally, by analyzing the style of the Chinese translations from a historical perspective, I will show that reasons for the retranslations of the sutra grew out of a combination of political interference, market demand, cultural shifts, language policy, translators’ ideologies, and a host of other possible factors as well.