- Jahrgang 57 (2014)
- Vol. 57 (2014)
- >
- Ausgabe 1
- Nr. 1
- >
- Seiten 111 - 122
- pp. 111 - 122
Further Reflections on the Relation between the Dacheng Yaodao Miji and Its Tangut Equivalents
Seiten 111 - 122
DOI https://doi.org/10.13173/centasiaj.57.2014.0111
During recent decades scholars have observed that the
此前人们曾感觉到《大乘要道密集》中所收“道果”法、“大手印”法经典与西夏所传藏传密法有很大关联，并猜测《大乘要道密集》所收诸多汉文本可能最早是西夏时期翻译的。本文发现有些西夏文本题名与内容均可以勘同，但有些虽然题名一致，而实际内容却大相径庭，这一事实提醒我们注意：不能只根据西夏文本的题名就判断汉文本可能最早是西夏时期翻译的，西夏文本与同名汉文本可能并非出自同一个传承体系，即西夏时期传行的萨迦派、噶举派部分教法与元代的传承体系颇有不同。
1 Nie Hongyin 聶鴻音, “Qianyou Ershinian Mile Shangsheng Jing Yuzhi Fayuanwen de Xiahan Duikan Yanjiu” 乾祐二十年《彌勒上生經御製發願文》的夏漢對勘研究, in Du Jianlu, (ed.), Xixiaxue 西夏學 4 (Yinchuan: Ningxia Renmin Chubanshe, 2009), pp. 42–45.
2 'Phags-pa et al., Dacheng Yaodao Miji (Taipei: Ziyou Chubanshe, 1974), p. 407.
3 Nishida Tatsuo 西田龍雄, Seikabun Kekonkyō 西夏文華嚴經, III, Kyoto: Faculty of Letters, Kyoto University, 1977, p. 24.
4 E. I. Kychanov, Katalog tangutskikh buddijskikh pamyatnikov, Kyoto: Kyoto University, 1999, pp. xxxviii–xlv.
5 Chen Qingying and Shen Weirong wrote a series of articles discussing the lineage from the Tibetan Tantric patriarchs to the Xixia Imperial Preceptors and the relevance between surviving Tangut texts and Chinese ones in DYM. With the aid of published Chinese texts and the catalogue of Tangut Buddhist literature from the Khara-khoto collection, scholars further pointed out that many Chinese texts in DYM seemed to be translations from the Xixia era. Chen Qingying 陳慶英, “Dacheng Yaodao Miji yu Xixia Wangchao de Zangchuan Fojiao” 《大乘要道密集》與西夏王朝的藏傳佛教, Zhongguo Zangxue 中國藏學 no. 3, 2003; Chen Qingying, “Dacheng Xuanmi Dishi Kao” 大乘玄密帝師考, Foxue Yanjiu 佛學研究 9, 2000, pp. 138–151; Shen Weirong 沈衛榮, “Xushuo Youguan Xixia, Yuanchao Suochuan Zangchuan Mifa zhi Hanwen Wenxian” 序說有關西夏、元朝所傳藏傳密法之漢文文獻, in Xizang lishi he Fojiao de Yuwenxue Yanjiu (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe, 2010), pp. 440–459; Shen Weirong, Dacheng Yaodao Miji yu Xixia, Yuanchao Suochuan Xizang Mifa 《大乘要道密集》與西夏、元朝所傳西藏密法, ibid., pp. 347–391.
6 K. Solonin, “Xixiawen Dashouyin Wenxian Zakao” 西夏文 “大手印” 文獻雜考, forthcoming.
7 Sun Bojun 黑水城出土《大手印定引導略文》考釋, “Heishuicheng Chutu Dashouyin Ding Yindao Lüewen Kaoshi” 西夏研究,Xixia Yanjiu 西夏研究, no. 4, 2011, pp. 12–19; Sun Bojun 孫伯君, “Ecang Xixiawen Dashouyin Ding Yindao Yaomen Kaoshi” 俄藏西夏文《大手印定引導要門》考釋, in Shen Weirong (ed.), Xiyu Lishi Yuyan Yanjiu Jikan 西域歷史語言研究集刊, 5 (Beijing: Kexue Chubanshe, 2012), pp. 189–208.
8 Sun Bojun 孫伯君, “Heishuicheng Chutu Zangchuan Fodian Zhongyoushen Yaomen Kaoshi” 黑水城出土藏傳佛典<中有身要門>考釋, presentation at the International Conference on Tibetan History and Archaeology, Religion and Art (7th–17th C.), Chengdu, Sichuan, China, 2013.
9 This volume is introduced by K. Solonin in “Xixiawen Dashouyin Wenxian Zakao” 西夏文 “大手印” 文獻雜考, forthcoming.
10 DYM, vol. 4 (Taipei: Ziyou Chubanshe, 1974), pp. 415–416.
11 DYM, vol. 4, pp. 395–396.
12 E. I. Kychanov, Katalog tangutskikh buddijskikh pamyatnikov, p. 545.
13 Nishida Tatsuo 西田龍雄, Seikabun Kekonkyō 西夏文華嚴經 III (Kyoto: Faculty of Letters, Kyoto University, 1977), p. 24.
14 Chen Qingying 陳慶英, “Dacheng Yaodao Miji yu Xixia Wangchao de Zangchuan Fojiao” 《大乘要道密集》與西夏王朝的藏傳佛教, Zhongguo Zangxue 中國藏學, no. 3, 2003.
15 DYM, vol. 3, pp. 171–200.
16 Centre for Oriental Studies, St Petersburg Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, et al., Ecang Heishuicheng Wenxian 俄藏黑水城文獻 5 (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe, 1998) pp. 106–112.
17 DYM, vol. 4, pp. 46, 53.
18 Sun Bojun 孫伯君, Xixia Xinyi Fojing de Duiyin Yanjiu 西夏新譯佛經的對音研究, (Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe, 2010).
19 Chengjiu bashiwushi daozhu 成就八十五師禱祝 (vol. 4), Sanskrit Indrabhūti is transcribed into Yindeluo(erhe)buti 因得囉（二合）部底, bhūti being transcribed as boti 波矴 maybe by mistake.
20 DYM, vol. 4, p. 425.
21 DYM, vol. 4, p. 338.
22 Shen Weirong 沈衛榮, “Dacheng Yaodao Miji yu Xixia, Yuanchao Suochuan Xizang Mifa” 《大乘要道密集》與西夏、元朝所傳西藏密法, p. 369.
23 DYM, vol. 4, pp. 293–294.
24 The corresponding Sanskrit form of the first sentence should be *Oṃ namo bhagavate, showing slight differences from the Sanskrit text Namo ratna trayāya namo ārya.
25 That the transcription characters 都 du and 忒 te used for Sanskrit ti and sam show difference between the Northern and Northwestern dialect. Maybe there are errors involvree.
26 Dun 敦 is not in accordance with Sanskrit gar. Maybe these are slips of the pen.
27 Taisho Tripitaka, vol. 46, pp. 1007–1013.
28 Erroneously 磀 instead of 丑.
29 Chen Qingying 陳慶英, “Dacheng Yaodao Miji yu Xixia Wangchao de Zangchuan Fojiao” 《大乘要道密集》與西夏王朝的藏傳佛教, Zhongguo Zangxue 中國藏學, no. 3, 2003.
