Ken Yifertw - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Ken Yifertw

In 2023, Jan Nattier has her article “On Two Previously Unidentified Verses in Zhi Qian’s Hybrid ... more In 2023, Jan Nattier has her article “On Two Previously Unidentified Verses in Zhi Qian’s Hybrid Dharmapada” published on the ARIRIAB (Annual Report of The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University). It indicates that the so-called ‘two previously unidentified verses’ of the Faju jing (T210, here highlighted as verse 22.7 and 22.8) may be traced to two verses of the Divyāvadāna and Uv 17.7-8 as their paralles. Her article also provides detailed expoundings and comparative studies among them. It examines verses of the Shufo chapter 述佛品 of T210 with comments against its translation style. By the end of this article it reflects and proposes that these multi-language ‘recensions’ of extant manuscripts of ‘Dharmapada/Dhammapada’ may be referred as ‘books belong to a specific catagory’ instead of ‘versions of the same book’.
Authors (Zhang and Su) introduce and make notes on key arguments of Nattier’s article following these six topics:
1. Parallels of the first verse of the Shufo vagga述佛品 of T210.
2. Parallels of the twelfth verse of the Shufo chapter 述佛品 of T210.
3. Zhi Qian used to translate Indic ‘bhikkhu’ as ‘沙門’(Sha-Men).
4. On Ge’s 700-verses version of ‘Dharmapada/Dhammapada’.
5. On possible Indic sources of verse 22.7 and 22.8.
6. The underlying language of the Faju jing (T210) by Zhi Qian 支謙

《大正藏》校勘註記當中，有不少標示為來自「明版」的異讀，此一「明版」即指《嘉興藏》。《嘉興藏》為私人勸募、集資、鳩工而開雕刊印，無法與朝廷集官方人力、物力所完成的「官刻大藏經」比擬。本文僅以... more 《大正藏》校勘註記當中，有不少標示為來自「明版」的異讀，此一「明版」即指《嘉興藏》。
《嘉興藏》為私人勸募、集資、鳩工而開雕刊印，無法與朝廷集官方人力、物力所完成的「官刻大藏經」比擬。
本文僅以「阿含經」與「法句經」為主，就以下四類異讀予以評述：
1、《大正藏》的校勘註記與《嘉興藏》顯示的用字不同。
2、《嘉興藏》比《大正藏》錄文「正確」的異讀。
3、《嘉興藏》的異讀是明顯的訛誤。
4、《嘉興藏》的異讀與《大正藏》的錄文均為「訛誤」。
從以上所舉的四類異讀可知，《嘉興藏》的異讀具多種情境：有些保存難能可貴的譯本原貌，有些純粹出諸抄寫或刊刻訛誤，也有些難辨優劣。《大正藏》與《嘉興藏》有關的校勘註記，或應記而未記，或註記與今本不盡相符，顯示不能全賴前者的校勘，有待以實本覆驗。
為研習經典的讀者設想，僅是陳列歷代大藏經的各種異讀，其實幫助不大；必需能有較可靠的方法去校勘、辨析，進而抉擇最貼切的用字，才能得到譯本的「原貌」，並借助梵、巴對應經典，以探討漢譯的差異是出自文本的流變、部派詮釋的差異，還是出自翻譯團隊的誤解。
本文也說明《嘉興藏》有其校勘價值，也有其瑕疵；過度頌揚或忽視、貶抑，都不是面對古代文獻的合理態度。

Both Chinese Za Ahan Jing(T99) and Pāli Saṃyutta Niākya are the major two of important sources in... more Both Chinese Za Ahan Jing(T99) and Pāli Saṃyutta Niākya are the major two of important sources in the field of the early Buddhism studies. Scholars claimed that they must have shared coherent contents for its common origination, though there are variations here and there.
This article explains that we should pay attention to coherent structure and contents as well as variations between them. Here I highlight eight types of variations about them. They are:
1. Total numbers of texts.
2. The structure of chapters.
3. Title of each single text.
4. Uddāna.
5. Unique text and/or special dogmatic claim(s).
6. Derivative texts.
7. Stereotype phrases.
8. Details of the parallel text.

These eight types of variations points to the complicate relations between them, it might not show a simple and single line transition through a dedicated genealogical investigation. It takes further tasks to find out if each pair of Āgama/Nikāya were collected under specific editorial guidelines, or they came simply out of a single recension under ages of historical changes.

法鼓文理學院的「阿含研究小組 Āgama research group」在2018年十月底於阿根廷召開「《雜阿含經》研究」國際學術研討會，會中宣讀的最後三篇論文依次為馬德偉、筆者以及辛島靜志，我... more 法鼓文理學院的「阿含研究小組 Āgama research group」在2018年十月底於阿根廷召開「《雜阿含經》研究」國際學術研討會，會中宣讀的最後三篇論文依次為馬德偉、筆者以及辛島靜志，我們三人發表的論文都涉及與《別譯雜阿含經》漢譯所據的印度文本相關的議題，而各自有不同的主張。

單純依賴漢譯經文表面字義來詮釋阿含經義，從漢、巴對應經典的比較研究看來，此一方法既不完整，也容易出錯。在詮釋經義、字義方面，跨語言文本的對應詞彙可以作為詮釋的鑰匙，解開窒礙不通的文句，或如推窗... more 單純依賴漢譯經文表面字義來詮釋阿含經義，從漢、巴對應經典的比較研究看來，此一方法既不完整，也容易出錯。
在詮釋經義、字義方面，跨語言文本的對應詞彙可以作為詮釋的鑰匙，解開窒礙不通的文句，或如推窗見日一般，顯示另一可能的經典相貌。例如《相應部1.61經》偈頌當中的「addhabhavi 勝過、征服 overpowered, weighed down」，可能詮釋為「anvabhavi」，而作「包含、包圍 to encompass, to cover」解釋；因此改變了《雜阿含1020經》、《別譯雜阿含247經》、《中部101經》與《相應部35.29經》的相關句意。又如巴利《法句經》266頌的「vissaṃ dhammaṃ」字義，《雜阿含97經》與《別譯雜阿含263經》的譯詞「在家法」，替此一爭訟不定的詞彙提供一個古義。而《雜阿含1041經》對亡者「信心布施、信施」的譯詞，對應的巴利用字「saddhaṃ, saddhāni」(供品)顯示了不同層面的意涵。
當然，其他版本的異讀或字義差異僅僅是另外一把詮釋的鑰匙，而不該將其當作唯一的答案而完全抹煞以往既存的解讀。但是，當原來的字義無法顯示合理的經義時，此一額外的線索所提供的新視角就顯得彌足珍貴了。

田光烈於西元1955年撰寫的「增一阿含經」詞條，其風格較「平舖直述」，僅是依次簡要地描述各經的內容，甚少剖析評論，詞條最後歸結此經為「大眾部」誦本。無著比丘出版於西元2009年的詞條則未概述全... more 田光烈於西元1955年撰寫的「增一阿含經」詞條，其風格較「平舖直述」，僅是依次簡要地描述各經的內容，甚少剖析評論，詞條最後歸結此經為「大眾部」誦本。
無著比丘出版於西元2009年的詞條則未概述全經內容，也未依次條列各經的摘要。該文專注於探討《增一阿含經》的重要議題，諸如「譯者」、「部派歸屬」、「大乘元素」、「篡入晚期資料」、「保存與巴利文獻不同的經文」。
雖然錫蘭版的《佛教百科全書》最終採用無著比丘的詞條，而未存錄前者；但是，田光烈編纂的詞條遵循早期「佛教經典題解」的風格，應該算是編輯宗旨的差異，而不是繁簡優劣的差別。
筆者介紹兩則詞條，並評述《增一阿含經》的「譯者忘失」及「編後增刪」等議題，以作為下一版《佛教百科全書》的參考。

福嚴佛學研究, 2023

In 1965, Lü Cheng呂澂 published an article in the Buddhist Journal Xian Dai Fo Xue 現代佛學titled The D... more In 1965, Lü Cheng呂澂 published an article in the Buddhist Journal Xian Dai Fo Xue 現代佛學titled The Date When the Sūtra on the Forty-two Chapters (Si-shi-er zhang jing) was Extracted. This article claims that the Sūtra on the Forty-two Chapters dates from the Eastern Jin dynasty and was extracted from Tan Guo’s translation of the Dharmapada (Fa Ju Jing). Lü’s article is concise and brief on details about the deduction process and philological evidence. In his article, there is an appendix of comparative verses that cross references the texts of the Sūtra on the Forty-two Chapters with verses from three extant Chinese translations of the Dharmapada.
This paper will first examine the comparison of the verses presented in the appendix and highlight the many points that are worthy of further investigation. This task concludes that there are only five verses showing reasonable correspondence to support the claim that the text was extracted from the Dharmapada. This paper also demonstrates that some texts from the Sūtra on the Forty-two Chapters can be traced back to the Āgamas and/or Nikāyas.
Lü’s claim that the Sūtra on the Forty-two Chapters is an extract from the Dharmapada that was then converted into prose format lacks convincing philological evidence. Furthermore, the possibility of other sources cannot be ruled out. This paper takes a different position to that of Lü’s claim.

在《大正藏》的校勘註記當中，常出現來自「聖」或「聖乙」的異讀。依據飯田剛彥〈正倉院･聖語蔵経巻について〉(關於正倉院「聖語藏經卷」)一文，正倉院的經卷於明治43年(西元1897年)開始分類整理、... more 在《大正藏》的校勘註記當中，常出現來自「聖」或「聖乙」的異讀。依據飯田剛彥〈正倉院･聖語蔵経巻について〉(關於正倉院「聖語藏經卷」)一文，正倉院的經卷於明治43年(西元1897年)開始分類整理、修整，於昭和5年(西元1930年)整理成《正倉院聖語蔵経巻目録》，內容分「寫經之部」、「版經之部」及「雜書之部」。「寫經之部」分為以下六類：「隋經」、「唐經」、「天平寫經」、「神護寫經」、「甲種寫經」、「乙種寫經」。所以，《大正藏》校勘註記的【聖】、【聖乙】這二個略符，恐怕不是「天平寫經」四個字所能涵括；【聖】、【聖乙】兩個略符應該是指上述「寫經之部」的六類，但是，詳細的指稱範圍恐怕需待進一步分疏、研究。
本文列舉《大正藏》僅出現【聖】的校勘註記，討論其中的四類異讀：
1. 正倉院「聖語藏經卷」的異讀與《大正藏》的錄文均可能是訛誤。
2. 正倉院「聖語藏經卷」保存了可貴的異讀。
3. 正倉院「聖語藏經卷」的異讀是明顯的訛誤。
4. 難以判定正倉院「聖語藏經卷」的異讀與《大正藏》的錄文的正誤或優劣。

唐人寫經為人類瑰寶，在文化、書法、佛教文獻等面向都是彌足珍貴的文物。這當中日本正倉院《聖語藏》的隋唐寫經，以及依據此類遣唐僧帶回經本的抄本尤其珍貴。雖然這些古代寫本遺珍都是價值連城的文化瑰寶，但是，如《開寶藏》為奉皇帝敕令開雕，在人力、物力都是一時之選，後繼的《思溪藏》、《崇寧藏》、《磧砂藏》、《嘉興藏》也都謹守其規矩。邊疆敦煌的寫本或日本遣唐僧帶回的經本雖有可能比上述雕本優秀，但是事實上，不可能每份鈔本都能達到如此水準。
對於古代漢譯佛典的「異讀」，一般讀者容或有一些不切實際而羅曼蒂克的幻想。例如認為「宋版」大藏經的錄文就優於「明版」大藏經，「明版」大藏經的錄文就優於《大正藏》；或者認為「敦煌遺書寫卷」的用字就會比《高麗藏》或《大正藏》正確；這樣的期待與事實不符。大抵版本之間的用字差異，應該如司法斷案，校勘取捨應持平而論，不能因年代早晚、寫本或雕本而有所偏頗。

補充：《阿毘曇八犍度論》〈偈跋渠〉與《阿毘達磨發智論》〈伽他納息〉的第16頌釋譯

Comparative studies the 「百讚頌」（Varṇaśatam verses） among its Chinese, Sanskrit and Pali versions

福嚴佛學研究, 2022

It seems that the Sanskrit version of the *Jñāna-prasthāna-śāstra 發智論 is lost, fortunately we hav... more It seems that the Sanskrit version of the *Jñāna-prasthāna-śāstra 發智論 is lost, fortunately we have two ancient Chinese translations of it. One of them is the Apitan bajiandu lun (T1543), which was translated by Saṁghadeva and Zhu fonian in CE 383. The other one is the Apitanmo fazhi lun, which was translated by Xuanzang in CE 660. Zhu fonian. The last chapter of each Chinese translations is composed of verses and their expounding. The title of the previous one is Ji baqu (偈跋渠, verse vagga) located at the Jian jiandu (見犍度, diṭṭhi skandha), while the title of latter one is Jiata naxi (伽他納息, gāthā skandha) located at the Jian yun (見蘊, diṭṭhi skandha). Both of them, the last chapter of verses, carry 17 verses each. The wording of verses show minor variations between them, while their expounding differs more difference.
There are three translations of the so-called Piposha 毘婆沙, which serves as the exegesis of *Jñāna-prasthāna-śāstra 發智論. It is stated explicitly, as translated by Xuanzang in the Apitanmo fazhi da piposha lun 阿毘達磨發智大毘婆沙論, that there would be no need for the expounding for those verses of the last chapter, due to it is easy and plain.(如文易了, 故不復釋). It is the clear evidence to assure that there was a chapter of verses skipped in those Piposhas, and possibly carried 17 verses at the last chapter.
This article offers the contemporary Chinese translations for both T1543 and T1544 with the modern punctuations to the original texts. It also compiles the comparative catalogue for all these 17 verses and their uddāna with comparative studies.
As the article getting along with these 17 verses, it sounds that it is no longer ‘easy and plain’ at all. We found the exegesis of T1543 and T1544 to the very verse differs a lot. Sometimes the expounding is mis-leading, and not complied to the original verse. It also shows that T1543 and T1544 might be traced back to different tradition or version of commentary linage. It leaves plenty of rooms for further explorations.
Some modern scholars such as Kazuko Tanabe田辺和子, Satoshi Hiraoka 平岡聰, and Jan Nattier criticize in their papers against Zhu Fonian’s translation, the wording they use to describe works involved Zhu Fonian’s works as ‘forgery’. I stand by Zhu Fonian and acknowledge his contributions. His works include translations of many topics and fields, such as Āgamas, Vinayas, Abhidharmas, collections of sūtras, collections of Abhidharmas, Apadānas, and Dharmapada together with its expounding. Some of them are the only recension of this very Buddhist documents while their Indic sources absent. I hope this article would call for more investigations and papers to position Zhu Fonian’s works as he deserved.

五十卷本《雜阿含經》偶有字句疑義，筆者認為這些疑義，部分是出於抄寫訛誤，部分是誤判「否定接首詞-a」或「否定詞 ma」之有無，部分為字句遺漏。本文嘗試列舉部分經例，作為未來精審版《雜阿含經》校勘... more 五十卷本《雜阿含經》偶有字句疑義，筆者認為這些疑義，部分是出於抄寫訛誤，部分是誤判「否定接首詞-a」或「否定詞 ma」之有無，部分為字句遺漏。本文嘗試列舉部分經例，作為未來精審版《雜阿含經》校勘之建議。

溫宗堃老師的論文，刊於《福嚴佛學研究》第二期，新竹：福嚴佛學院，頁57－90。蘇錦坤不是作者，僅在此轉貼。

Karashima Seishi’s article, ‘The Sarvāstivādins “Encroachment” into the Chinese Translation of th... more Karashima Seishi’s article, ‘The Sarvāstivādins “Encroachment” into the Chinese Translation of the Daśottara-sūtra in the Dīrgha-āgama of the Dharmaguptakas’, highlights that there are differences among recensions of the Shisang jing(十上經) of Chinese Dīrgha-āgama (T1). These differences locate majorly in the three-dhammas(三法) section and the four-dhammas(四法) section of this very sūtra. He classifies the major recensions into two groups according to its own variants of that counter passages. These two groups are so-called the ‘Korean Tripitaka group’ and the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’. Furthermore, he claims that passages of these two sections of the previous group are ‘original translation’ and that of latter group are ‘the Sarvāstivādins “Encroachment”’.
This article firstly introduces Karashima’s major claims in his own article then it enumerates and offers a critical review or comment to the following items:
1. For both the three-dhammas(三法) section and the four-dhammas(四法) section, details of the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’ and that of the Sarvāstivādins manuscript(in Sanskrit) are exactly the same.
2. The counter passages of the Taishō Tripitaka, which is ascribed to the ‘Korean Tripitaka group’, are the ‘original translation’. They are replaced by the ‘new translation’ in the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’.
3. The translator or the translation team of the counter variants of the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’ might have had the Indic text in hands. They somehow simply change those two sections according to their Indic text.
4. It is highly probable that this very Indic text, the Indic text of An Shigao’s Shibao fa jing (十報法經) and the Sanskrit Daśottara-sūtra belong to the same Buddhist School.
5. The counter variants in the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’ would probably be translated before the Tang Dynasty.
6. Due to unknown reasons, the counter variants from ‘new translation’ in the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’ occur only in that very two sections.
7. There might be similar cases apply to other yet-to -define Chinese translations that Indic texts of ‘new arrivals’ was adopted to modify the previous translation anonymously.

簡述封興伯(Oskar von Hinüber)關於 addhabhavati 的字義詮釋，及其影響。

正觀, 2021

Taishō Tripitaka lays down milestones for modern Chinese tripitakas. Buddhist scholars do not hes... more Taishō Tripitaka lays down milestones for modern Chinese tripitakas. Buddhist scholars do not hesitate to give greater esteems to its contributions of following areas: ‘new structure of Chinese Buddhist literature’, ‘more collections of ancient Chinese translation, local Chinese writings and works done by Japanese’, ‘new critical editions of extant Buddhist literature’, ‘new corresponding tables between Pāli and Chinese Buddhist literature’, ‘including newly found Dunhuang manuscripts’, ‘including newly found Indian religious texts other than Buddhism’, ‘including apocryphal texts’, and ‘new numbering systems of its Buddhist literature’.
Be that as it may, both Master Yinshun and Professor Fang Guangchang highlighted some pitfalls of it. Following their works, this article aims to highlight errors ascribed to the editor’s note with examples enumerated from Taishō volume I and II. Those so-called errors was grouped by me into three categories:
1. errors out of quoted Pāli passages: They are pitfalls of incorrect title of a sutta, wrong spelling and improper passage quoted as the parallel of a Chinese passage.
2. improperly identify some Pāli suttas as the counter Chinese parallel: Since it is the very beginning to set up the corresponding tables between them, it would be inevitably leave a big room for further improvements.
3. collation errors: in addition to its collation errors, some
examples pertaining to its collating guidelines are highlighted here.
Of course it is definitely not my intention to be nitpicking against this fantastic Taishō Tripitaka. My humble opinions are to offer some suggestions to the upcoming tripitakas-to-be, and hopefully, as a guideline and warning signal for those students to quote something from it.

This article was published in "Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama", pp. 843-880, Dhammadinnā Bhikkhun... more This article was published in "Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama", pp. 843-880, Dhammadinnā Bhikkhunī (ed.), Dharma Drum Publication Corporation, Taipei, Taiwan. (2020)
In this article I first explore the relationship between T 100 and T 99, and then present reasons why the translation of T 100 was based on an oral recitation (sections I to III). Last, I examine the proposals by Karashima Seishi 辛嶋靜志 (2020) regarding the translators and Indic sources of both T 99 and T 100 (section IV).

Fuyan Buddhist Studies, 2020

〈初期漢譯佛典疑難詞釋義（2）〉： There are two approaches to expounding “difficult phrases” found in Chinese Bud... more 〈初期漢譯佛典疑難詞釋義（2）〉：
There are two approaches to expounding “difficult phrases” found in Chinese Buddhist literature. One situation is when the phrase is abstruse and/or impossible to discern even with the help of extant ancient Chinese records and references. In such a case, comparative studies among extant renditions of the text in other languages may assist in the understanding of the difficult Chinese phrase. The original meaning may be discerned with reference to the counter Indic term(s). The other situation is when the difficult phrase is a result of the native Chinese language. In this case there are ways to render the difficult terms using the tools and methods offered by the “Chinese Classical Exegesis” (訓詁學 xungu xue). This paper continues on from my previous paper, “Some Notes Regarding the So-called ‘Difficult Phrases’ in Those Earlier Sūtras Translated During the Han and Jin Dynasties” (2013). In this paper I will provide seven more examples to demonstrate the process and methods to tackle issues of rendering difficult Chinese phrases.
-------
Keywords: Āgama; Parallels of Chinese and Pāli texts; Exegesis of Chinese Buddhist phrases

About Professor Karashima Seishi

福嚴佛學研究, 2023

補充：《阿毘曇八犍度論》〈偈跋渠〉與《阿毘達磨發智論》〈伽他納息〉的第16頌釋譯

Comparative studies the 「百讚頌」（Varṇaśatam verses） among its Chinese, Sanskrit and Pali versions

福嚴佛學研究, 2022

溫宗堃老師的論文，刊於《福嚴佛學研究》第二期，新竹：福嚴佛學院，頁57－90。蘇錦坤不是作者，僅在此轉貼。

簡述封興伯(Oskar von Hinüber)關於 addhabhavati 的字義詮釋，及其影響。

正觀, 2021

Fuyan Buddhist Studies, 2020

About Professor Karashima Seishi

關於 Purindada (「釋提桓因」七號之二)：「釋提桓因」(Sakka devānaṃ Inda 帝釋)的形象演變

A lecture about rendering Buddhist texts in light of its parallels.

《慧炬》639期，3-7頁，2023年10月15日。

蘇錦坤〈佛典翻譯的過去、現在與未來〉，《慧炬》639期，3-7頁，2023年10月15日。 ------- 在1970年代的學佛大專青年，《慧炬》不僅是重要的知識來源，還報導講法活動，後來更是大... more 蘇錦坤〈佛典翻譯的過去、現在與未來〉，《慧炬》639期，3-7頁，2023年10月15日。
-------
在1970年代的學佛大專青年，《慧炬》不僅是重要的知識來源，還報導講法活動，後來更是大專佛學社團的聯絡平台。
這次能在《慧炬》刊出我的短文，算是我的榮幸，也呼應我早期的學佛日子；當年「學佛青年」會被貼上「迷信、消極、不上進、灰色」的標籤，同學甚至會迸出「你是不是感情遭遇到挫折了，不然怎麼會想學佛？」
當年「基督教校園團契」是「青春、歡樂、歌唱、積極、活躍、能拓展交友圈」的代表，有時「團契」裡的同學還慕名而來跟我辯論，希望藉主的恩寵或憐憫而把我這頭「迷途羔羊」帶回正路。
當年我那麼早就決定自己的宗教信仰，不被聲光歡樂所吸引，也算是不容易。

在2021年七月二日元智大學關則富教授為他擔當責任編輯的《元智全球在地文化報》79期向我邀稿，範圍是「翻譯」，當時我的構想是撰寫一篇〈佛教與翻譯〉的文章跟大學生介紹佛教的傳播與翻譯的關係，以及佛... more 在2021年七月二日元智大學關則富教授為他擔當責任編輯的《元智全球在地文化報》79期向我邀稿，範圍是「翻譯」，當時我的構想是撰寫一篇〈佛教與翻譯〉的文章跟大學生介紹佛教的傳播與翻譯的關係，以及佛教藉由翻譯對漢文化產生的影響。
為了避免文章充滿陳年往事，我特別提到西元2013年應邀前往雲南省普洱市參加「大藏經漢譯藏補遺工作坊」一事，呼應翻譯與異文化接觸、翻譯以注入文化深度的思維。

閱讀《相應部》的〈有偈品〉與《雜阿含經》的〈八眾誦〉

This ppt takes up two aspects of the transmission of the so-called ‘shorter’ Saṃyukta-āgama colle... more This ppt takes up two aspects of the transmission of the so-called
‘shorter’ Saṃyukta-āgama collection extant in Chinese translation (T
100). The first aspect concerns its underlying Indic text, which appears
to have been transmitted in parallel to the other Saṃyukta-āgama
collection (T 99), rather than having evolved from it. The second
aspect concerns the way the collection was translated, likely based
on an orally performed translation of the Indic original, rather than on
the basis of a written manuscript. On the basis of the findings related
to these two aspects, the proposals by Karashima Seishi 辛嶋靜志
(2020) about the Indic sources and the translator(s) of these two
Saṃyukta-āgama collections are then reviewed.

探討以下兩個議題： 1. T100《別譯雜阿含經》的翻譯為依據寫本，還是依據默誦？ 2. T100《別譯雜阿含經》與T99《雜阿含經》的文本譜系關係。

這一時代的學佛者擁有西元1980年以前，古今中外任何學佛者所未有的優勢，能夠坐擁浩瀚的漢譯大藏經；並且透過電腦光碟與網際網路，能夠簡易地接觸到巴利佛教文獻及其英譯、漢譯成果；也能接觸到有關梵文殘... more 這一時代的學佛者擁有西元1980年以前，古今中外任何學佛者所未有的優勢，能夠坐擁浩瀚的漢譯大藏經；並且透過電腦光碟與網際網路，能夠簡易地接觸到巴利佛教文獻及其英譯、漢譯成果；也能接觸到有關梵文殘卷、藏譯佛典以及來自敦煌、吐魯番劫後遺書的圖檔和訊息。感謝古今中外這些經典的傳誦者、翻譯者、文物保存者、文獻整理者以及佛教研究的守護者，透過他們無私的奉獻，我們今日才能擁有如此篇帙數量驚人的佛教文獻。
無著比丘(Bhikkhu Anālayo)曾經引用澳洲教授狄鍾(de Jong)的敘述：「沒有任何佛教學生能忽視如此龐大的中文翻譯資料，即使是他只對印度佛教有興趣。」無著比丘並且補充一句：「沒有任何佛教學生能忽視如此龐大的印度語系佛教文獻，即使是他只對漢傳佛教有興趣」。參考了印度語系佛教文獻，修習佛教的學生可以避免口誦訛誤或翻譯錯謬的風險。

T198 《義足經》：「優填王經」(CBETA, T04, no. 198, p. 175, c26)。

11 反思《雜阿含經論會編》的結構 (20181006)

本文是作者封興伯教授(Oskar von Hinüber)2019年10月27日作為「雜阿含經研究國際學術研討會（The IVth Seminar of the Āgama Research G... more 本文是作者封興伯教授(Oskar von Hinüber)2019年10月27日作為「雜阿含經研究國際學術研討會（The IVth Seminar of the Āgama Research Group, DILA: Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama）的開幕主題演講，會議於2019年10月27–28日於阿根廷布宜諾艾利斯舉行。會後，此篇英文演講“The Sagātha-vagga in the Saṃyutta-nikāya: Formation and Vedic Background”收於Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama（《雜阿含研究》），頁3–51。臺北：法鼓文理學院，2020年。
本文承蒙原作者封興伯教授惠予授權翻譯，初稿又經胡海燕教授訂正，在此致謝。本文英文版權及翻譯權隸屬Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama（《雜阿含研究》）一書的出版社「法鼓文理學院」與「法鼓文化」(Dharma Drum Corporation)承蒙原出版社授權翻譯及本書編者法施比丘尼(Bhikkhunī Dhammadinnā)協助，在此致謝。

〈巴利《優陀那》的結集發展〉，(2017)，《新加坡佛學研究學刊》4期153-181頁，新加坡佛學院，新加坡。(Bhikkhu Anālayo 原作：‘The Development of th... more 〈巴利《優陀那》的結集發展〉，(2017)，《新加坡佛學研究學刊》4期153-181頁，新加坡佛學院，新加坡。(Bhikkhu Anālayo 原作：‘The Development of the Pāli Udāna Collection’, Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, Bukkyo Kenkyū, 《佛教研究》, Vol. 37, pp. 39-72, Tokyo, Japan.)。

〈回溯印度語系原典〉，(2017)，《新加坡佛學研究學刊》4期141-152頁，新加坡佛學院，新加坡。(Rod Bucknell 原作：‘Taking Account of the Indic ... more 〈回溯印度語系原典〉，(2017)，《新加坡佛學研究學刊》4期141-152頁，新加坡佛學院，新加坡。(Rod Bucknell 原作：‘Taking Account of the Indic Source-Text’, Translating Buddhist Chinese, Problems and Prospects, Konrad Meisig (Editor), pp. 3-10)

Exploring the Four Satipaṭṭhānas in Study and Practice 探討四念住的研究與修行 David Chiou is the very transl... more Exploring the Four Satipaṭṭhānas in Study and Practice
探討四念住的研究與修行
David Chiou is the very translator of this article, I simply can not delete the name of Ken Su here.
邱大剛是本文的唯一譯者，因系統問題，此處無法去除「蘇錦坤」此一人名。

作者無著比丘 Bhikkhu Anālayo 譯者蘇錦坤 When studying the practice of healing in early Bu... more 作者無著比丘 Bhikkhu Anālayo
譯者蘇錦坤

When studying the practice of healing in early Buddhism, a central source of information are Vinaya narratives, in particular those found in the Pāli Vinaya. Here particularly the cures effected by the royal physician Jīvaka stand out as testimonies of an impressive medical ability, going even as far as the successful performance of cranial surgery. Understandably such material has been somewhat at the forefront of studies of healing as reflected in early Buddhist texts. However, Jīvaka reportedly learnt his art in Takkasilā, so his abilities should be understood as reflecting general ancient medical knowledge and skills.

In other words, aside from the fact that he was a Buddhist lay follower and offered free medical service to Buddhist monastics, there is nothing particularly Buddhist about his cures. In order to explore if there might be a more typically Buddhist approach to health, and what that could involve, in what follows I turn to a few selected passages that report how the Buddha or his eminent disciples dealt with a condition of sickness. My approach is based on translating the relevant passages from the Chinese agamas and comparing them to their parallels in the four Pāli Nikāyas, in other Chinese āgamas, and whenever extant also in Sanskrit fragments and Tibetan translation. With the help of such comparative study of this particular genre of texts the early stages in the development of Buddhist thought can be uncovered, in as much as these have left traces in literature.

當研究初期佛教文獻裡的「醫療」時，主要的資訊來源為律藏裡的對話，主要是保存在巴利《毗奈耶》(Vinaya)。特別是此處皇家醫師耆婆(Jīvaka) 治療的一些特殊案例，甚至是包括諸如成功的頭顱手術，成為古代醫療技術的見證。可以理解這樣的反映在初期佛教文獻的資料，位居此類(古代)醫療研究的優先參考材料。據說耆婆在怛叉尸羅(Takkasilā)學得醫術，所以，他的能力應是反映古代一般的醫學知識與醫療技術。也就是說，除了他是佛教居士且提供僧伽免費醫療服務之外，關於他的治療沒有其他特別的佛教事蹟。
為了探究是否有一典型的佛教醫療方式與這些醫療會涵蓋那些層面，以下我將考察一些佛陀與他的大弟子如何面對疾病的經文。我的方法是基於漢譯阿含的相關經文，以此與對應的四尼柯耶、其他漢譯阿含經文、存世的梵文殘卷或藏譯作比較。藉助此一特殊體裁的經文比較研究，在文獻留下蛛絲馬跡的初期佛教的思想發展，可以被顯露出來。

無著比丘)原著 / 蘇錦坤翻譯摘要本文意圖顯示部分阿含經文受到來自註釋書的概念與見解的影響，這樣的影響不僅發生於漢譯時，而且也可能已經發生在口誦傳承時，這些影響已經成為印度語系原文的一... more 無著比丘)原著 / 蘇錦坤翻譯摘要本文意圖顯示部分阿含經文受到來自註釋書的概念與見解的影響，這樣的影響不僅發生於漢譯時，而且也可能已經發生在口誦傳承時，這些影響已經成為印度語系原文的一部分而被翻譯成漢語。本文的第一部分，我檢校了一些與其巴利對應經典不同的阿含經文，有一部分此類經文顯示了這個差異與巴利註釋傳統十分相似，而給人這樣的顯著印象，這些我們所考慮的經文可能已受到古印度註釋傳統所影響，這個註釋傳統與現存的巴利註釋書的解釋相似。為了顯示在這些例子所觀察到的模式並不限於阿含經文，接著我以一些巴利經文的例子顯示此一特性。綜合來看，這些例子則意涵著註釋可能在口誦傳承的時期就已經影響了所註解的經文，這樣的結論會與諾曼 (K. R. Norman)「註釋書與經典為分開來傳誦」的建議衝突。如果註釋書與經典分別傳誦，會使得前者影響後者的情況變得較不可能發生。因此，在本文的最後部分我謹慎地審核諾曼的意見，而得到「註釋非常可能與經文一起傳誦」的結論。 10 正觀雜誌第四十八期/二 ΟΟ 九年三月二十五日 1. 與晚期巴利經文有關的阿含經文在藉助巴利對應經典以審慎閱讀漢譯阿含之後，發現有一些特定經文並未在巴利對應經典中發現對應文句，而是出現在較晚期的巴利文獻，特別是隸屬於註釋傳統的巴利文獻。 1.1) 第一個例子是對應於《中部 106 經，Āneñjasappāya-sutta》的《中阿含 75 經，淨不動道經》，巴利經文囑咐應作如是觀： Suññam idaṃ attena vā attaniyena vā, 「我空或我所空」。 1 對應的《中阿含》經文有比較多描述：「此世空，空於神、神所有，空有常，空有恒，空長存，空不變易」 2 在四部《尼柯耶》中，似乎不曾出現將無常當作空的一種形式的觀點，只有在稍後的巴利文獻如《無礙解道》與其他註釋書才出現這樣的解說： ◎Rod Bucknell 和 Ken Su 兩位對本文初稿提供意見，作者在此致謝。 1 MN 106 at MN II 263,26 (依據 B e , C e , S e 版本，與 Horner 1959: 48 note 6 讀為 suññam idaṃ ，而非 E e 版本的讀為 saññam idaṃ，前面的「空」的讀法得到《中阿含 75 經》( T I 542c18)的支持，也可參考 Minh Chau 1991: 329。 2 《中阿含 75 經》( T I 542c18)。也可參考《佛光阿含藏》《中阿含》633 頁，註 4，對此的解說：「無有常的，無有恒的，無長存的，無不變易的」。

Taisho T210 Faju jing Comparative catalogue 1 〈無常品〉 v. 9

Taisho T210 Faju jing Comparative catalogue of 2 〈教學品〉 v. 7

Taisho T210 Faju jing Comparative catalogue 3 〈多聞品〉 v. 2

Taisho T210 Faju jing Comparative catalogue of 4 〈篤信品〉 v. 3

Taisho T210 Faju jing comparative catalogue of 5 〈戒慎品〉 v. 2

Taisho T210 Faju jing Comparative catalogue of 6〈惟念品〉 v. 6

Taisho T210 Faju jing Comparative catalogue of 7〈慈仁品〉 v. 4

Taisho T210 Faju jing Comparative catalogue of 8〈言語品〉 v. 2

Taisho T210 Faju jing Comparative catalogue of 9〈雙要品〉 v. 7

Taisho T210 Faju jing Comparative catalogue of 10 〈放逸品〉 v. 15

Taisho T210 Faju jing Comparative catalogue of 11〈心意品〉 v. 7

Taisho T210 Faju jing Comparative catalogue 12 〈華香品〉 v. 5

Taisho T210 Faju jing T210 《法句經》13 〈愚闇品〉對照表 v. 16

Taisho T210 Faju jing Comparative catalogue of 14 〈明哲品〉 v. 12

Taisho T210 Faju jing Comparative catalogue of 15 〈羅漢品〉 v. 3

Taisho T210 Faju jing Comparative catalogue of 16 〈述千品〉 v. 5

Taisho Faju jing Comparatice catalogue of 18〈刀杖品〉 v. 4

Taisho T210 Faju jing Comparative catalogue of 19〈老耗品〉 v. 3

Taisho T210 Faju jing Comparative catalogue of 20〈愛身品〉 v. 3

中外論壇, 2022

陳世峰、紀贇合譯的《佛教文獻學十講》，英文原著的書名為 “A Philological Approach to Buddhism---The Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai Lectur... more 陳世峰、紀贇合譯的《佛教文獻學十講》，英文原著的書名為 “A Philological Approach to Buddhism---The Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai Lectures”，譯者翻譯為「佛教研究的文獻學途徑」作本書的副標題。
原著作者Kenneth Roy Norman 諾曼博士(K. R. Norman, 1925-2020) 於1994年擔任講座教授時，環繞「佛教文獻學」的主題作了十場演講，事後他將演講內容略加修訂而結集成書出版。他是「中古印度-雅利安語(MIA, Middle Indo-Aryan language)」及「佛教文獻學」領域的偉大學者，其研究範圍也涵蓋耆那教研究與「阿育王法敕 Aśoka Edicts」碑銘；他論著的特點是純粹從文獻資料以語言學和語源學的方法梳理出佛教經典的「正確字義與詞性」和「早期面貌」。

Satyābhisamaya, 正觀, 2019

This article offers an introduction to Bhikkhu Dhammajoti’s book, The Chinese Version of Dhammapa... more This article offers an introduction to Bhikkhu Dhammajoti’s book, The Chinese Version of Dhammapada, Translated with Introduction and Annotation, with a few comments for the complete translations of Chinese Dharmapada (T210) in the future.
There are many outstanding points highlighted in this book. Such as:
1. Highlights one of the problems showed in the previous English translations of this Chinese Dharmapada. Some of them tends to ‘read Pāli into Chinese’.
2. Offers facts that the Indic text(s) of some verses out of the ‘core 26 chapters’ apparently not from the Pāli version. It also suggests that ‘the source text’ of this Chinese Dharmapada might be in neither Pāli nor Sanskrit.
3. Envisages a proposal to answer the reasons why Dhammapada or Dharmapada was included in neither four major Nikāyas nor four Āgamas.
4. Accomplishes a complete translation of the ‘core 26 chapters’ with lots of valuable annotations.
5. Where there is a difference between Pāli version and Chinese translation, some scholars inclined to suggest it due to Zhi Qian’s improper rendering(s). Through comparative studies, Bhikkhu Dhammajoti claims that Zhi Qian’s work demonstratd some sort of authenticity of its own original text.
This article also provides comments against this book for the future reprints or revisions. They are majorly: ‘Another proposals for the rendering of some verses’, ‘about collations and scribe’s errors’ and ‘issues pertaining to tetrasyllabic verses and pentasyllabic verses’.

〈書評：屈大成《法句經今注今譯》〉，(2017)，《新加坡佛學研究學刊》4期183-189頁，新加坡佛學院，新加坡。

Vol. 3, 第 3 輯, Apr 2, 2016

王建偉、金暉的《《雜阿含經》校釋》八冊於2014年出版，這是繼印順法師《雜阿含經論會編》、佛光山《雜阿含經》之後，漢語世界的另一部《雜阿含經》校訂、編次、註釋與新式標點的重要著作。此書不僅在「重... more 王建偉、金暉的《《雜阿含經》校釋》八冊於2014年出版，這是繼印順法師《雜阿含經論會編》、佛光山《雜阿含經》之後，漢語世界的另一部《雜阿含經》校訂、編次、註釋與新式標點的重要著作。此書不僅在「重編經次」與前兩書不同，也根據對應的巴利《相應部》篇章進行「補譯」與「補佚」，在經文的字詞註釋方面，其質與量都遠超出前兩者，本書的校勘規模也非他書所能比擬。書中第六到第八冊為《雜阿含經詞典》，是第一部出書的「阿含詞典」，其中各個詞條大都附有梵、巴字彙，少數附上巴利對應經文與漢譯論典的相關譯文，筆者覺得使用起來十分省時省力，可以說是嘉惠學者。
本文僅就「篇章架構」、「校勘註釋」、「偈頌詮釋」與「《雜阿含經詞典》」四個面向提出評論，作為該書再版訂正時的參考。

對於發表於《圓光佛學研究》26期(2015年12月)的屈大成〈姉崎正治有關《雜阿含》整編之研究〉，介紹與評論。

在了參法師的「巴利《法句經》漢譯」之後，後續的漢譯多達十餘種，筆者在此之後重譯了巴利《法句經》，似乎是「疊床架屋」。但是，筆者《法句經白話翻譯本與巴利文法分析》一書與先前各本漢譯主要有兩個的差別... more 在了參法師的「巴利《法句經》漢譯」之後，後續的漢譯多達十餘種，筆者在此之後重譯了巴利《法句經》，似乎是「疊床架屋」。但是，筆者《法句經白話翻譯本與巴利文法分析》一書與先前各本漢譯主要有兩個的差別，一為巴利偈頌的句型分析，二為對幾首偈頌進行比較研究；並在各品之後作一個簡短的「結語」。
今日的佛學論述，已有相當多的論文與專書以「跨語言文本的比較研究」發表作者的觀點與主張，涵蓋了「佛典傳播史與佛典部派溯源」、「佛典詮釋與教義剖析」、「佛典校勘與佛典譜系」，但是，漢譯《法句經》卻尚未有較具系統而深入的漢、巴偈頌比較研究，在此舉例深論此一觀點。
一般而言，近代巴利《法句經》的漢譯本大都翻譯成「整齊的句式」，成為「五言四句(或六句)」或「七言四句(或六句)」的形式，有的譯本只有譯文而無註釋，有的雖有註釋，但數量不多。這當中僅有廖文燦的譯本附有巴利單字的詞性分析，但是，並無明確的句型解析，本文介紹此中各本的體例差異。
筆者坦承，確實有些偈頌我並未確知其意義與句型結構；以我的學習程度，應該也是不足以勝任此一艱鉅的工作。但是，一直期待有人訂正出一版精確的《法句經》偈頌句型分析。筆者在此拋磚引玉，希望此書能作為諸山長老與學界先進訂正或探討的平台。

The official record Dazhong Xiangfu Fabao Lu (大中祥符法寶錄) described the Faji Yaosong Jing (法集要頌經, T2... more The official record Dazhong Xiangfu Fabao Lu (大中祥符法寶錄) described the Faji Yaosong Jing (法集要頌經, T213) was translated in the second year of Yongxi (C. E. 985, 雍熙二年). Members of this translation team are Tianxizai (天息災), Fatian (法天), Shihu (施護), etc. Formal report of the accomplishment of this task had been submitted to the Emperor Song Taizong (宋太宗). Soon after this event, this translation received orders from him to be collected as part of the first printed tripitaka, Kaibao zang (開寶藏). Members of this translation team were all either promoted or rewarded. Be as it may, there are some issues of the Faji Yaosong Jing(T213), such as ‘the translation period was questionably short’, ‘its script showed missing stanzas of some verses’ and ‘some verses copied directly from Chuyao Jing (出曜經, T212)’.
This article then explores issues of this translation, such as ‘was it translated with an Indic text’, ‘was its source text equivalent to the Udānavarga’ and ‘the criticism against this translation by Tansen Sen and Mizuno Kogen respectively’.
Here I enumerate five reasons why it is translated with an Indic text: ‘the tiltes and sequence of it are close enough to that of the Udānavarga’, ‘its unique verses’, ‘duplicated verses are different with that of T212’, ‘it corrects the previous translation’ and ‘its unique phonetic vocabulary’. So, the sentence of the Dazhong Xiangfu Fabao Lu (大中祥符法寶錄), ‘All five sutras above-mentioned are translated out of Sanskrit texts of Middle-India’, sounds reliable.
Then I raised some examples demonstrating that the Faji Yaosong Jing (法集要頌經, T213) is quite close to the Udānavarga, but not completely equivalent to it.
The next topic is about the criticism against this translation by Tansen Sen and Mizuno Kogen respectively. I would like to say that it is not a fair comment against this translation.
During the collating process among these four Chinese ‘Dharmapadas’, it comes to me that it would not be efficient and sufficient to simply collate only one of them. The collations, expoundings and applying modern punctuation to any one of them do call helps from the other three translations. And, it takes the comparative catalogues among them to simplify this task.

Fuyan Buddhist Studies, 2019

The titles of chapters and the sequence of both chapters and verses in the Faji yaosong jing (T21... more The titles of chapters and the sequence of both chapters and verses in the Faji yaosong jing (T213), which was translated by Tienxizai (天息災) of the Northern Song dynasty, are similar to that of the Sanskrit Udānavarga with some differences. There are quite a few verses that are ‘new’ translations, while there are verses adopted directly from the Chuyao jing (出曜經, T212). The Chuyao jing carries another set of verses inherited from the Faju jing (T210). This scenario would offer a chance to trace the position of each recension along the genealogical tree of the Dharmapada.
On account of the transmission process over hundreds of years, the Faju jing (T210), the Faju piyu jing (T211) and the Chuyao jing (出曜經, T212), were inevitably induced with errors such as missing words or wrong spelling. On the contrary, the translation of the Faji yaosong jing (T213) was instructed by the Emperor to be incorporated into the Kaibao zang (開寶藏) right after its completion. It is quite obvious that the Faji yaosong jing would not carry the aforementioned errors.
As a matter of fact, the Faji yaosong jing did carry errors such as missing stanzas, translation errors, scribe’s error and modifications.
This article will explore and demonstrate the Faji yaosong jing’s errors in order to improve modern explanation and presentation of this translation.

Dharma Drum Journal of Buddhist Studies, 2019

In recent years, scholars have discussed the question of the sectarian affiliation of the Dharmap... more In recent years, scholars have discussed the question of the sectarian affiliation of the Dharmapada source text used for the translation of the T210 Faju Jing. Scholars such as Yin Shun, Huang Chanhua, and Charles Willemen argue that the earliest section, namely the core 26 chapters, are based on the Pali Dhammapada. Lu Cheng on the other hand believed that it belonged to the Mahīśāsaka school. Bhikkhu Dhammajoti showed how a number of the verses do not have any parallels in the Pali version, and that the translation reveals that the language of the original text was probably neither Pali nor Sanskrit. Qu Dacheng argued that “the early translation belongs to the Tāmraparṇīya, Dharmaguptaka, or Mahīśāsaka school. […] The whole text belongs to the Tāmraparṇīya school joined with the Sarvāstivāda.”
Yet, in his preface Zhi Qian tells us that the translation went through three phases: early translation, subsequent translation, and compilation. For this reason, the questions of the sectarian affiliation and language of
the source text, together with duplicate verses and genealogical issues among different versions of the Dharmapadas, cannot be adequately addressed without clearly distinguishing the contents belonging to the
early translation and those belonging to the subsequent translation phase. It is therefore necessary to first devise a method or methods for identifying the contents of these two parts of this text.
In this article I shall propose five principles for this work: comparing chapter divisions to the Pali and Sanskrit versions; comparing translation word use and word interpretation to the Pali and Sanskrit; considering mistranslated verses; considering duplicate verses; looking at the verses appended to each of the 26 core chapters.
My wish with this framework is to foster interest in this work of developing methodologies for this type of textual analysis.

Among those four Chinese translations out of various recensions of Dhammapadas, the Faju Jing is ... more Among those four Chinese translations out of various recensions of Dhammapadas, the Faju Jing is not only the earliest, but also the one to be adopted by the latter translations. The latter three translations carried more than tens of verses either directly from the Faju Jing, or with minor modifications to them. That is the reason why the research of the Faju Jing is critical to all of them.
This article explores the mutual renderings between Chinese translations and Pāli Dhammapada. We may not only have better expoundings of the difficult words in the previous ones in light of the Pāli one, but also collate the Pāli one in light of the previous ones.

The translation of the Faju jing (T210) was at the Three-Kingdom era (C. E. 222 approximately) wh... more The translation of the Faju jing (T210) was at the Three-Kingdom era (C. E. 222 approximately) while the translation of the Buddhist canonical documents was kicked-off maybe not more than 50 years. Those books under such a rough translation are hardly eligible and readable. It has been 800 years under the transcribing process to hand it down before the first printing of the Faju jing of the Kaibao Zang (開寶藏). It would be no wonder to find lots of errors such as extra, missing, reverse and wrong characters of it as defined by the traditional Chinese Textual Criticism. Furthermore, we can not find any commentaries of the Faju jing translated from its Indic sources, neither the commentaries written by Chinese monks. It would sum up difficulties to translate or render the Faju jing.
I recommend two basic tasks as the preparation for its translation: ‘task of collation, meaning of the very word in ancient books and modern punctuations’ and ‘comparative studies’. The first one is to give each Chinese character a precise and correct rendering, while the latter to trace its counter words in its Indic source-text.
In this article, it enumerates several examples to demonstrate the process and details about the first task. On one hand it explains the meaning of a word and selects the most proper variant of it, On the other hand it takes account of the counter word of its Indic source-text.
Secondly, this article locates some troublesome word(s) or stanza of the Faju jing, and tries to show the mechnism of this translation error. By this way, the problems of the contemporary books of vernacular translation of the Faju jing are highlighted.
As one of the major tasks for a modern translation of the Faju jing is to define the beginning and the ending of a verse, It would not be a clear cut and reliable decision for the translator(s) due to the similar ambiguities between the Pāli and Sanskrit parallels.
It is the author’s expectations that this article would offer the platform for discussions of how to evolve the next translation of the Faju jing.

This article is to explore the meaning in Master Yinshun’s article ‘Faju xu’. Its approach is to ... more This article is to explore the meaning in Master Yinshun’s article ‘Faju xu’. Its approach is to investigate the duplicated verses translated in Chinese Dharmapada (T210 《法句經》) pertaining to the issue of two successive translations, as highlighted in ZhiQian’s preface. By the end of this article, it offers different opinions against the issue raised by Lu Cheng, Lin Meicun and Dhammajoti: ‘The translation of Faju jing follows or copies its prior translations for some verses’.

《法句經》(T210)先經「初譯」26品，「後譯」再增加13品，編訂之後成為今本的篇幅。魏查理(Charles Willemen)宣稱：「《法句經》(T210)之中，譯自巴利《法句經》的偈頌是四... more 《法句經》(T210)先經「初譯」26品，「後譯」再增加13品，編訂之後成為今本的篇幅。魏查理(Charles Willemen)宣稱：「《法句經》(T210)之中，譯自巴利《法句經》的偈頌是四言偈頌，譯自梵文《法句經》的偈頌大都是五言偈頌。」如此，意味著四言偈頌僅出現在「初譯」，而來自巴利《法句經》，或者至少是非常接近它的版本。
本文從「『四言句』在『核心26品』的分布狀況」、「重譯偈頌」、「偈頌內容」與「引用的偈頌」來論斷，並且作出結論：「偈頌是『四言句』或『五言句』不能做為判斷此一偈頌出自『初譯』或『後譯』的判斷標準」。

There is a set of three-worded sentences in the extant Faju jing (法句經, Chinese Dharmapada, Taishō... more There is a set of three-worded sentences in the extant Faju jing (法句經, Chinese Dharmapada, Taishō 210). We are not able to locate any parallels for them in the Pāli Dhammapada yet. Under this scenario it is quite difficult to identify each verse of them, to properly re-punctuate them and to offer renderings for them. Significant variations in their reading have been found in recent articles and books.
This article intends to define the verses with proper punctuation, to offer new renderings and propose translations into plain Chinese in the light of parallel verses found in Chinese, Pāli and Sanskrit sources. This article ends by offering a response to Nattier’s comments against Zhi Qian’s literal style of verse translations.

This article explores issues of Chuyao jing (《出曜經》, T212), such as titles of vargas, uddānas, qua... more This article explores issues of Chuyao jing (《出曜經》, T212), such as titles of vargas, uddānas, quantity of fascicles (Juan 卷), the year of this translation accomplished and the total quantity of verses preserved in it as the ‘Dhammapada’ verses. Such an investigation is intended to tell if it is out of ‘simple’ translation, with extra ‘insertions’, or through compilation(s). Furthermore, it highlights characteristics shown in T212 such as duplicated verses, adopting passages directly from Faju jing (《法句經》, T210), translation errors, adopting ‘later’ verses, adopting passage similar to Abhidharma-vibhāsā-śāstra* (「阿毘曇毘婆沙」) and vocabulary equivalent to ‘bodhisattva’ and ‘six pāramitā’. By the end of this article, it is proposed as the conclusion that verses of the Chuyao jing was translated against Sanskrit script with certain messages interpolated among the original text probably by the translator(s).
本文探討《出曜經》是否純粹出自「依據梵本」翻譯，或是編輯自「譯講同施」的講說紀錄，還是另有其他「增刪內容」的現象。此處依次探討品名、攝頌、卷數、翻譯年代及偈頌數量等相關議題，並且指出此經有「重譯偈頌」、「承襲《法句經》偈頌」、「詮釋偈頌的體材不一致」、「誤譯」、「引用晚期偈頌」、「引用『阿毘曇毘婆沙』」與「出現菩薩、六度無極的用語」等等狀況。本文最後建議《出曜經》的偈頌為譯自梵本，但是釋文部分有插入解說的現象。
蘇錦坤 Ken Su，(2015)，〈《出曜經》研究〉，《新加坡佛學研究學刊》2期65-175頁，新加坡佛學院，新加坡。

This article explores issues of the translation(s) of Chinese Dhammapada (T210), and investigate ... more This article explores issues of the translation(s) of Chinese Dhammapada (T210), and investigate the relationship between the so-called 'core 26 chapters' and Pali Dhammapada. It also relates to discussions of the language of Indic text(s) and 'duplicated' verses in T210.
本文簡介現存《法句經》(T210)的翻譯議題，並且探索所謂「核心26品」與巴利《法句經》的關係，《法句經》(T210)的原始文本所用的語言，以及「重譯偈頌」等尚待解決的項目。

《吳越佛教》第十卷 48-67頁 This article explores issues of the translation(s) of Chinese Dhammapada (T210),... more 《吳越佛教》第十卷 48-67頁
This article explores issues of the translation(s) of Chinese Dhammapada (T210), and investigate the relationship between the so-called 'core 26 chapters' and Pali Dhammapada. It also relates to discussions of the language of Indic text(s) and 'duplicated' verses in T210.
本文簡介現存《法句經》(T210)的翻譯議題，並且探索所謂「核心26品」與巴利《法句經》的關係，《法句經》(T210)的原始文本所用的語言，以及「重譯偈頌」等尚待解決的項目。

About the new translation of Pali Dhammapada, including syntax analysis and comparative studies