圓測 『해심밀경소』 티벳역의 성격과 의의 __「일체법상품」을 중심으로__

Abstract

The most distinguishing characteristics of the Tibetan translation consists in the fact that it used the same Tibetan term for the Sanskrit Original, with the result that the consistency of the Tibetan translation could be relatively good preserved. This terminological fixation, owing to the publication of two book, Mahāvyutpatti and sGra sbyor bam po gnyis pa, was established in the early 9th century CE. through the Royal decree. Through the terminological fixation of Sanskrit into Tibetan, it is possible to make consistent and reliable translations, which has been proved to be a decisive step toward creative assimilation of Indian Buddhism in Tibet. It should be also mentioned that the old translations have been revised according to the "New fixation of Buddhist Terminologies", thereby the old terms totally discarded and substituted for the new one. It is hard, therefore, to find out the old usages prevailed before the terminological fixation. It is the very existence of Dunhuang manuscripts that bridges this gap between the old and new translation terms. It is also interesting to note that there are among the Dunhuang manuscripts some materials translated from the Chinese Texts, which show not only some important aspects of Tibetan translation in Dunhuang area, but they reflect on vivid religious picture around these days in Tibet. In order to demonstrate the importance of these sources translated into Tibetan from the Chinese originals, I choose the Tibetan translation of Won-ch'uk's commentary on Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra (解深密經疏, hereafter SNST) by Chos grub (法成), probably in the days between 814-824. The reason for the selection of Won-ch'uk's work is that there exist some relevant texts, for example, revised version of Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra in the Peking Kanjur and its Dunhuang version, which is now easily available through Hakamaya edition. Compared with each other, it is assumed that the problem of on what version SNST's terminologies is based can be substantially solved. The present paper has examined some relevant researches in the field, then, proceeded to the wording of the colophon, given at the end of the SNST, thereby intending to discuss and find out some clues about the translator, Chos grub. At the next step this paper compares the terms of SNST with that of two versions of SNS in order to grasp the characteristics of Chos grub's translation. And, in order to indicate the reliance of SNST on the new fixed terminology, I particularly examine the terms in the VI. chapter of SNS and pointed out its dependance upon the "New Fixation of Buddhist Terminology". The examination of the passage is extended to the text citations in SNST. The number of the citation is over 108, and I chose 9 citations to investigate the differences and similarities of the cited passages with the corresponding one in the Tibetan Tanjur. My tentative conclusion is that it seems to be two strata in Chos grub's translation; when he translated the passage connected with the Indian materials, his terminology is relatively similar with the terms in the Tibetan Tanjur. But as far as the passages of Won-ch'uk's interpretation are concerned, Chos grub is leaning to the Word-to-word translation. Lastly, I try to emend some errors found in the Korean Edition (= HD) with the help of Chos grub's translation, and want to demonstrate that it be the case.