敦煌文獻의 漢文佛敎經典 構成類型 考察

Abstract

Among the numerous Chinese manuscripts from Dunhuang, Buddhist Canons written in chinese characters be summed to tens of thousands. Although our research task to make a concordance catalogue to the Tripitaka-Koreana(K; 高麗大藏經) and Dunhuang Buddhist manuscripts projected by The research Institute of Tripitaka-Koreana do not yet accomplished, I had made comparisons between Dunhuang manuscripts, especially Stein collection with some Russian collection and Tripitaka-Koreana for throughout the year. And I had find out that there are somewhat peculiar items as to write out Dunhuang Buddhist manuscripts. It would be devided into two sections. The one is external form of Dunhuang Buddhist manuscripts, the other is its internal substance. The former related to three kinds of external form, the latter is connected with two kinds of substance.To explain these five patterns of the two sections are as follows.1. To begin with as to Dunhuang Buddhist manuscripts, One of outstanding external feature in many manuscripts is that not only the order of volume but also the order of chapter do not accord Dunhuang Buddhist manuscripts with Tripitaka-Koreana each other. These divergencies may be mostly derived from the difference of alternative version, though the large portions of which passed down no longer nowadays. To explain as to the Saddharma-pundarīka-sūtra(妙法蓮華經), there are many various alternative versions in which the order of volumes had been extended to eighth volume (ex. S.3120) or ninth volume (ex. 北.6189), although the present version is made up seven volumes. If we know about such things, it would be no more stranger thing to understand the different order of chapters of them. 2. Although those manuscripts have originated from the same Buddhist Canon, in many cases these manuscripts had been called such title as another name & abbreviation & different name. To give an example, the name of Stain Collection’s S.0992 is 勝 鬘經, and S.1649 is 勝鬘夫人經. Both the title of S.2771 is 勝鬘師子 經, and S.1027 is 勝鬘獅子吼經. But according to Tripitaka-Koreana (K.54), all of these manuscripts’ original title should be 勝鬘獅子吼一 乘大方便放光經(Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda-sūtra). Besides these cases, some style peculiar to the Dunhuang Buddhist manuscripts are displaied. Though the title of S.2863 is 觀 音經 and S.4389 is 觀世音經, the common naming of 觀音經 or 觀世 音經 seems to be the abbreviation of 妙法蓮華經觀世音菩薩普門品 (Avalokiteśvara-vikurvaṇa-nirdeśa-parivarta). And similarly the nameof 摩訶衍經(Mahāyāna-sūtra) of S.2761 seems to be different name of 大智度論(Mahā-Prajñāpāramitā-śastra). 3. As to the methods of transcription, some sorts of peculiar handwriters are noticed to us. The manuscript S.3555 is 摩訶般若波羅 蜜經(Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-Prajñāpāramitā) translated by Kumārajīva (鳩摩羅什), which is consist of three chapters. Its sentence of each had been written with abridged transcription of the sūtra. The manuscript S.2944 is compoused of five sūtra such as 放光般若經 (Pañcaviṁśatisāhasrikā-Prajñāpāramitā) translated by Mokṣala(無羅叉) & 大寶積經(Ārya-mahāratnakūṭa-dharmaparyā-śatasāhasrika-grantha) and so on. The five sentences had been copied with intermixed. The manuscript S.3559 transcribed two parts sentence of the 26th volume of 瑜伽師地論(Yogācāra-bhūmi), but a portion sentence located in the center of them had been omitted. I have named such case as jumping-transcription. S.2544 is 佛說觀無量壽佛經(this sūtra has no sanskrit name) which transcription is out of order. Its sentences had been copied without in regular sequence. Manuscript S.2401 is 大般若 波羅蜜多經(Śatasāhasrikā-Prajñāpāramitā) which contents filled with two sentences of the sūtra. But the two sentences had been copied identicaiiy. 4. Hundreds of Dunhuang Buddhist manuscripts are not involved in Tripitaka-Koreana & Taiso-Tripitaka, and vice versa. Moreover some chapters of sūtras are not passed down today. The title of 我 Дҳ00825 is 大般湼槃經佛母品, which is no more existed chapter of 大 般湼槃經(Mahāyāna-Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra). 5. Although many published catalogues made from China andJapan have ever disclosed tens of thousands of Sūtras from Dunhuang, nevertheless at the least hundreds of Sūtras have not been elucidated yet. In the course of this investigation, I have find out more or less fifty Sūtras’ name in the Stein collection between (S.2197)-(S.3659). It would be taken us as long as some years to know all the Sūtras’ name of Dunhuang manuscripts.