『科判』對英譯漢佛典的意義的初步研究─
以《首楞嚴經》兩英譯本為例
楊宗漢
華梵大學佛教學系專任講師
(2011年五月)
摘要
《楞嚴經》目前主要有兩本英文翻譯本，而兩本譯本卻各有強項。在沒有更完美的英文翻譯本完成以前，英語人士同時參酌兩翻譯本來研究《楞嚴經》是一種選擇的。本文是為英譯《楞嚴經》研究做準備的最初步的比較研究，著重在翻譯《楞嚴經》全經結構之探討，而非對兩譯本文辭『信、雅、達』之研究。是宏觀的比較、而非微觀的。本文以明‧憨山大師所著以天台理論為主軸的《首楞嚴經通議》、《首楞嚴經通議提綱略科》及《首楞嚴經懸鏡》為綱；以Buddhist Translation Text Society
(BTTS) 2009出版的英譯本”The Śūraṅgama Sūtra”為主文，並參酌Charles
Luk譯本之目次，以重新編列BTTS譯本之節要目次。探討時發現兩譯本可有互補之處，從而發現『科判』為在翻譯漢本佛經為英文本時的重要參考資料。為方便閱讀，本文使用有編碼的現代新式『科判』排列方式，編譯列出新的目次。研究過程中為比較所製作之文件可以提供為欲研讀英譯本《楞嚴經》的人做對照尋文之用。本文原文為英文。
【關鍵詞】楞嚴經、天台、科判、目次、翻譯
A Preliminary
Study on the Significance of
Sectionalizing-Interpretation
to
English
Translated Buddhist Doctrines
– Using “The Śūraṅgama
Sūtra” As Example
Hahn Yang
Lecturer, Dept. of
Buddhist Studies, Huafan University
Abstract
There
are five English versions of “The Śūraṅgama Sūtra” available at present, I use Charles Luk’s
translation and the Buddhist Text Translation Society’s (BTTS) for study. Both
of the two translations present strength and advantage of its own. Naturally, serious
readers would use both versions to study the essence of “The Śūraṅgama Sūtra”.
This paper presents a preliminary study on comparison of the two. The study
focuses on the structural, a macro view, rather than a micro view that focusing
on accuracy, style, or esthetics of a translation. The major classical Buddhist
texts used for reference are “General Discussions on The Śūraṅgama Sūtra《首楞嚴經通議》”,”A
Brief Sectionalizing-Interpretation and General Discussions on The Śūraṅgama Sūtra《首楞嚴經通議提綱略科》” ,”The Hanged-Mirror of The Śūraṅgama Sūtra《首楞嚴經懸鏡》”
, all those were written by Master Han Shan (1546-1623) of Ming dynasty. The study
suggests that the two versions could compensate each other. The study also
suggests that Han-traditional sectionalizing-interpretation (kepan科判)
for Buddhist texts is a major aid in translation of Buddhist sutras into
English, especially in assistance of division and subdivision of the whole text
into chapters, sections, and so forth. For the sake of easy reference, a modern
numeric sectionalizing-interpretation system is used and a new table of
contents hence generated for the BTTS’s version based on the philosophical
essence of Tien-tai School through Master Han-shan’s books. This is a
preparatory study for further studies of the Sutra.
【Keywords】: The Śūraṅgama Sūtra (Surangama), Tien-tai,
Sectionalizing-interpretation (kepan, 科判), Table of Contents (TOC), Translation
A Preliminary
Study on the Significance of
Sectionalizing-Interpretation
to
English
Translated Buddhist Doctrines
– Using “The Śūraṅgama
Sūtra” As an Example
Hahn Yang
Lecturer, Dept. of
Buddhist Studies, Huafan University, Taiwan
Background
Although The Śūraṅgama Sūtra is controversial academically, as one of
the most important sutras in the Northern traditional Buddhism, the Sutra is
equivalent to that of the Lotus Sutra, the Avatamsaka Sutra, the Diamond Sutra,
the
Ksitigharba Sutra, and the Heart Sutra. The influences on and
its acceptance in the Northern traditional Buddhism are enormous and is simply could
not
to be neglected. The year of 2009 is a very special year for The Śūraṅgama Sūtra in the Buddhist community. A new
English version, as translated by the Buddhist Text Translation Society (BTTS) from
the Chinese version, published in the U.S. The Surangama Research Center is established in the Dept. of Buddhist Studies at Huafan University, Taiwan. A“Surangama Books Club” is also registered
in Chia-Yi University in Taiwan the same year. All those three events occurred
concurrently within a very short window of time without
any prior coordination. All those timely occasions intrigued me while I was
looking for textbooks and references for teaching courses of Buddhist
English at HFU. One master once said that it would benefit more in terms of learning
Buddhism to master in The Śūraṅgama Sūtra than to read through
the whole collections of Tripitaka[1]. Collectively,
there are fifty five different publications of commentaries[2] on The Śūraṅgama Sūtra available in the CBETA Chinese Electronic
Tripitaka Collection, version April 2009. Though, one reported there are at
least one hundred and twenty seven commentaries written on the Sutra between years
of 767 and 1968[3]. There are even
more commentaries made by modern elite masters after WWII which are not
collected in any version of Tripitaka. For instance, Venerable Master Tanxu’s[4] “dafodi
shoulengyanjing jiangji[5]” published in Taiwan 2005. Also,
In Taiwan, there are more than 12 research theses and dissertations themed on The Śūraṅgama Sūtra were performed and published for awarding
of advance academic degrees between 1990 and 2010. However, in other sides of
the world, academically
The Śūraṅgama Sūtra is still
frozen in the ice castle. For that reason I am motivated to write this paper in
the hope of being going to be able to
provide introductory tools for those whom are intrigued
by The Śūraṅgama Sūtra.
Literature Review
Comparing
to modern book formats, there are crucial differences that make the classical doctrines
very difficult to read and hence limit understanding of the original meaning.
Those differences are listed as following:
1. There is no punctuation in the text;
2. There is no obvious chapter division
in the whole text; and
3. There is no sub-division of paragraphs
or sub-section of chapter in the text.
All
those make the original classical Buddhist doctrines very hard to read and, in
the mean time, provide rooms for debating of different interpretation on some
texts due to different sectionalizing. Just like the translator Lu, one
translator of one of the translation “The Śūraṅgama Sūtra”
in this study, had pointed out in the Preface that the text “is a forest of
vertical columns.” Although the original Pali Buddhist Texts, Tipitaka,
logically divided into three categories, Sutta Pitaka, Vinaya Pitaka, and
Abhidhhamma Pitaka, whether or not the contents of each Sutta/Sutra have a
logical arrangement is an interesting topic to explore. According to a
commentary book about “Caturvargika Vinaya” entitled “s-fen-lu-sin-shi-cho-zi-chi-gi[6]” stated the way that “Caturvargika
Vinaya” being divided into four parts was not based on any special meaning
or contents rather divided by the sequence of collection. Once a division was
completed, then another division started. That was how the four divisions
formed. This is probably true for the case of Vinaya collections, as least like
the main precept collection observed by Chinese Bhiksus and Bhiksunis, “Caturvargika
Vinaya”, is not collected in any logical or meaningful sequence. Likewise,
it is true for Chinese version of Sutra collection and Sastra collection.
However, for the sutra, there is a historical coincidence in terms of
sectionalizing Sutras into logical divisions in India and China. The first Buddhist, in China, initiated sectionalizing a sutra into three divisions
was Master Dau-an (314-385) in Tang dynasty[7].
The three divisions are the Prelude (xu序), the Main Theme (zheng正),
and the Circulation(liutong流通)[8], “Trilogy of sutras” as I would
call it. The reason for that, as stated by Master Jizang (吉藏)
in the “Commentaries on the Prajna Sutra of the Humane King Who Protects His
Country, Ren-wang-po-ruo-bo-luo-mi-jing《仁王般若經疏》”, was
“The
reason that there are three divisions is to explain the causes and
conditions
that the Buddha preached the sutra. It started with the Prelude
which
gradually unrolling and fully revealing the occasion. Then, using the
Main
Theme section to preach formally with proper distinguished,
righteous
Dharma. With great compassion, the Buddha, for the sake
that
immerse sentient beings, then and in the future, can be benefited
from
His teachings, there comes the third section - Circulation.[9]”
in China, it was only after Master Xuan-Zhuang (玄奘大師)
had translated Bandhuprabha’s (Bodhisattva
Ching-guan親光菩薩) “Buddhabhūmisūtra-śāstra 《佛地經論》” into Chinese, had people realized that Master Dau-an’s propose to sectionalize a
sutra into three divisions had also been applied in India as an real-life
example in Bandhuprabha’s work.
That also revealed how remarkable it was that Master Dau-an[10] had done for interpretation of
Buddhist canon, who actually set a new era for study and interpretation of
Chinese Buddhism. Sectionalizing-interpretation (kepan科判) of Buddhist scriptures has led Chinese
Buddhism into an era of writing of Interpretation of Buddhist scriptures. It
has led the Chinese Buddhism from the era of “explanatory study, Yixue義學”
into the era of “study of scripture master, jingxue經師之學[11]”
One study shows that
sectionalizing-interpretation of Buddhist canon has not only crucial impact to
Buddhist studies in China, but also has great effects on theories of Chinese
literature greatly[12].
In the second section of that research paper, “Sectionalizing-Interpretation of
Buddhist Scriptures and Literature Theory in Early Tang Dynasty[13]”, “A brief
explanation on the Sectionalizing-Interpretation of Buddhist Scriptures佛經科判略說”, the author depicts the
subject of Sectionalizing-Interpretation well. Master Dau-an’s sectionalizing-interpretation
of three-division also have differentiated the Chinese Buddhism from other
traditions of Buddhism in terms of exegesis, i.e. Theravada and Tibetan
Buddhism. If anyone wants to understand the Chinese Buddhism, understanding the
technique of sectionalizing-interpretation of Buddhist scriptures is one
subject could not be overlooked. With that in mind, the author is motivated to
write this paper. I hope the work could provide a little bit of benefit to those
whom are intrigued by the English version of Sutras.
In addition, there are
multiple commentaries have been done on the Sutra which usually containing both
the text of the original Sutra and Commentary. If all those would be
translated, duplicated efforts in translation of the Sutra text for each
commentary should be avoided. In order to prevent that duplicated efforts, the
Sutra text should need to be translated only once. For the sake of referencing
convenience, the translated Sutra text should also be marked with the original
corresponding number of roll (or fascicle, juang卷), page number, paragraph number, and/or line number such that
all translated commentaries could refer to the same translated Sutra text. There are simply too many classical
Chinese Buddhist texts waiting to be translated and translators do not
coordinate in terms of translation a task. It is the author’s humble hope that
all translation of the Chinese Tripitaka into English can be done on a common
ground through a common understanding of using minimum efforts. This is another
reason motivates me to do the study. This is a
preliminary study of structure of the translated English versions of The Śūraṅgama Sūtra,
a study of
macro view rather than a study of micro view. So this does not involve in
criticism on accuracy, style, or esthetics of translation. Therefore, the author introduces a piece of cross
reference table as an example to show how that proposal, minimizing duplicated
efforts of translation, can be materialized and practiced in the latter part of
the paper.
The English Versions of The Śūraṅgama Sūtra
According to my search, there are
five different English versions of The Śūraṅgama Sūtra, item (1)
through (4), and one Mantra only translation, item (5), published as of writing
of this paper. The first four version are all entitled “The Śūraṅgama Sūtra” with
various subtitles and the fifth is part of a translation entitled “Morning
Recitation”. The translator of each version
is listed as follows:
(1) Upasaka Lu K'uan Yu A.K.A.
Charles Luk (LKY). 1963, ISBN 9788121510028. This version is printed by The
Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation, Taiwan for free of
distribution. This is also available on the internet for free downloading.
http://www.buddhanet.net.
(2) The Buddhist
Text Translation Society (BTTS-9), subtitled Sutra Text and Supplements, 9
books series, 2003, ISBN 088139940X
(3) The Buddhist
Text Translation Society (BTTS-1), 2009, ISBN 9780881399622. This is a new
translation of the previous, BTTS-9.
(4) Mr & Mrs
Carroll Aitkins, a Canadian couple. This version is an abridgement of the first
version which originally translated by Charles Luk. It
used to be available on the internet but as of this writing I could not locate
it any more. Though, I still kept a downloaded version. The publisher is
unknown since it is not documented anywhere in the book.
(5) The
translator is anonymous and copyrighted by Dragon Flower Ch’an Temple, Inc.
1996-2003. This is online available. The title of the book is “Morning
Recitations”, and only the Mantra part is available. The URL for Online
viewing is http://www.fodian.net/world/morning_recitations.htm
The two versions that I use for the study of this paper are
No. 1 (LKY’s) and No. 3 (BTTS-1’s). The reason that I do not choose No. 4 is because that is only an abridgement of No. 1, and also, which is no
longer available to the public. I choose No. 2 (BTTS-1) instead of No. 3
(BTTS-9) is owing to the latter is a more recent translation. Although No.2
(BTTS-1) does have a feature that No. 3 (BTTS-9) has omitted, in which each
paragraph marked with a reference number to the original Han Tripitaka version’s
volume and paragraph sequence order number. That would have been a very usable
feature for referencing to the original text in this study. The main text is
not included; therefore No. 5 is not used in this study.
Upasaka Lu
K'uan Yu’s
Version (LKY’s)
According
to page #21 of LKY’s version in the Preface, the book was published no latter than
1963[14] in Hong Kong. LKY’s version includes abridged Commentaries made by Ming Dynasty’s Ch’an Master
Han Shan (1546-1623). As it points out in the Preface:
“The
original Chinese Text is a forest of vertical columns and is not
divided,
as in our presentation, into chapters with headings and
sub-headings
which the master added for the benefit of students.”
Here what
the author, Lu, has referred to as “the master” was Master Han Shan, who born
in Ming dynasty. It is this reference that intrigued me and initiated the idea
of doing this study. I found the original books that the author had used for
reference were “General Discussions on The Śūraṅgama Sūtra[15]”(GDSS)、”General
Discussions, Outlines and SectionalizingIinterpretation on The Śūraṅgama Sūtra[16]” (GDOSIS) and “Hanged
Mirror on The Śūraṅgama Sūtra[17]” (HMSS). They are all originally
authored by Ch’an Master Han Shan of Ming Dynasty. Ch’an Master Han Shan was one
of the Four Great Elite Monks of the Ming Dynasty[18] who mastered not only in the
Tripitaka but also attained great achievement in meditation. He had foreseen
his last day, a very important evidence of enlightenment in Han traditional
Buddhism, and passed away sitting in lotus posture which is also another indication
of attaining enlightenment. His whole body Śarīra[19] still exists and is worshipped
in Nan-hwa Temple, Guangtong[20].
Since this is a paper not mainly on the Master whose biography will not be
detailed.
There
are a few unique features that other versions do not provide. While LKY’s is the
first translated English version, the LKY’s version is also the first to use a
sectionalizing-interpretation[21]
to divide and subdivide the translated English text, and as a consequence, the
table of contents (TOC) is created based on the sectionalizing-interpretation of
the reference. In this case, LKY might have use Han Shan’s GDOSIS as a main reference. Due to this feature, this
paper presented. However, this is not a complete version, as of the translator’s,
Lu’s, intend, he did not translate the core part of the Sutra, i.e. Setting a place
for pleading of Buddha’s assisting to enlightenment and the Mantra. As Lu’s own
words in the Preface, there are three reasons why he had not done that:
1.
the
Chinese transliteration of the mantra is corrupted so that the
English transliteration would
be misleading;
2.
being lack
of space.
3.
the
average Western student of Buddhism seems to have little
faith in mantras and rituals
which should not be published lest
they create unnecessary
disbelief and confusion and so
compromise the beauty of the
profound sutra.
However
this personal opinion could not be accepted by other Buddhist practitioners.
The main sponsor and original instructor of the commentaries of the version No. 2 (BTTS-9) and No. 3 (BTTS-1), Dharma Master Hsuan-hua (Xuan-hua), was actually furious about that omission. He wrote in the Preface of a reprinted book, Chin Dynasty’s Master XuFa’s “Commentary on the Śūraṅgama Mantra” as follow:
The main sponsor and original instructor of the commentaries of the version No. 2 (BTTS-9) and No. 3 (BTTS-1), Dharma Master Hsuan-hua (Xuan-hua), was actually furious about that omission. He wrote in the Preface of a reprinted book, Chin Dynasty’s Master XuFa’s “Commentary on the Śūraṅgama Mantra” as follow:
“So
we know that the Śūraṅgama Mantra is the main
body of
the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. If there
were no Śūraṅgama Mantra, there
should have no
Śūraṅgama Sūtra. But what Charles Luk
has translated,
the English
version of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra assertively
eliminated
the portions
of the
Śūraṅgama Mantra and setting
up place for ritual.
With his own reason, he stated
that the Westerner would not be interested
in reading the Śūraṅgama Mantra. This was
not only wrong and but also ridiculous. That was what we said about someone had
substituted one’s eyes with ears; a blinder has been led by a blinder; a
copycat; It is not only the most
ignorant, the most pathetic, and also
the most shameless. He has not asked
for help from learned instructors.
He has done things with totalitarian
attitude and is not afraid of
retributions. He was too bold as intended to
dictate the whole world. And
people of no vision had agreed with him
and cheered for him. That was
even more ridiculous.”[22]
That
was really some harsh comments without any reservation. But it is
understandable why Lu had done that. Lu had lived and experienced the anti-tradition
era in 1950’s and 1960’s in China. However, Lu’s initial translation of the Sutra should not be overlooked. Especially
the way he used Master Han Shan’s sectionalizing-interpretation for
sectionalizing is simply remarkable.
The Buddhist Translation
Text Society’s (BTTS-1’s)
The
version of “The Śūraṅgama Sūtra with
excerpts from the Commentary by the Venerable Hsuan Hua” is translated from the
Chinese by the The Śūraṅgama Sūtra Translation
Committee of the Buddhist Text Translation Society and published as such in
2009. By far that is the most recent and most complete translation of the
Sutra. This version of translation also has gone through a very strict 4-step
translation process as it stated in the Introduction page lii. In addition to
excerpts from the commentary made by Ven. Hsuan Hua, according to BTTS-1’s it also consults commentaries from the Masters: Xuyun’s (虛雲), Yuanying’s (圓瑛), Jiaoguang
Zhenjian (交光真鑒), Hanshan
Deqing (憨山德清), and Xufa
(續法). For all
those reasons I choose BTTS-1 version as the target source for reference.
Charles Luk’s vs. BTTS-1’s
In all respects of translation process,
scope, and introduction of the Sutra, BTTS-1’s is far more rigorous, comprehensive, and detailed than LKY’s. It is obvious that if we had not read the title of
the two translations of the Sutra and read only the table of contents, we would
have thought that the two versions were translated from two different sutras. While
BTTS-1’s translation divides and subdivides the text using logic of natural flow, different titles of chapters and sections are hence created. There is no
obvious meaningful relationship among the chapter titles in BTTS-1’s version. However, LKY’s version refers to Master Han Shan’s sectionalizing-interpretation in GDOSIS to subdivide the text, with omission of the Mantra and Setting
up place for rituals, into eight chapters. LKY’s chapter titles do show relationship
among chapters. Especially the very first six chapters, as shown in the
following:
I.
The
Noumenon in the Tathagata Store[23],
II.
The
Phenomenon in the Tathagata Store[24]
III.
The
Tathagata Store Containing Both Noumenon & Phenomenon[25]
IV.
Self-Enlightenment[26]
V.
The Enlightenment
of Others[27]
VI.
Bodhisattva
Development into Buddhahood[28]
VII.
The Six
Planes of Existence Caused by Unenlightenment[29]
VIII.
Warning to
Practisers: The Fifty False States Caused by the Five Aggregates.
By
just reading those chapter titles, we would have educational guessed that the
Sutra is centered on the Tathagatha (Chapter I & III), and through this
Tathagatha, one would not be only self-enlightened (Chapter V) but also to
enlighten others (Chapter V). And through the path of Bodhisattva one would
develop into Buddhahood (Chapter VI). If we treat the first six chapters as one
logic section, the last two chapters naturally fall into one section. Chapter
VII shows the consequences of the unenlightenment and Chapter VIII lists
warnings for those who seeking for enlightenment from the five aggregates.
It
is may not be so obvious to somebody that meaningful relationship between
chapters. As a matter of fact, Master Han Shan’s GDOSIS does contain such
interpreted division. Just like sectionalizing-interpretation of other sutras,
there is trilogy, the Prelude, the Main Theme, and the Circulation, defined in
GDOSIS. Master Han Shan subdivides the Main Theme into two sections: 1.
Initial: Grand revelation of the gate of cultivation & enlightenment[30]; 2. Secondary: Tactful
instructions the difference between the enlightened and the infatuated[31].
If Lu
would have placed those two titles in the proper positions and included the
trilogy, the Table of Contents would have been more self-explainable. I would
suggest the following as a revised Table of Contents for Lu’s version, where I
add in bold print:
THE
PRELUDE
THE
MAIN THEME
A.
Grand Revelation of the Gate of Cultivation & Enlightenment[32]
I.
The
Noumenon in the Tathagata Store,
II.
The
Phenomenon in the Tathagata Store
III.
The Tathagata
Store Containing Both Noumenon & Phenomenon
IV.
Self-Enlightment
V.
The
Enlightenment of Others
VI.
Bodhisattva
Development into Buddhahood
VII.
Setting up
a Place for Enlightenment (omitted)
VIII.
The
Śūraṅgama Mantra (omitted)
B. Tactful Instructions the Differences between
the Enlightened and
the Infatuated[33]
IX.
The Six
Planes of Existence Caused by Unenlightenment
X.
Warning to
Practisers: The Fifty False States Caused by the Five Aggregates.
THE CIRCULATION
With
this augment, a section with the subtitle of “Ananda’s Weakness – The Reason
for the Sermon” would have to place under the Prelude. The last second
paragraph on page 329 to the end of the LKY’s would have to place under the
Circulation section, i.e.
“Ananda, if a man fills space
in the ten directions with the
seven treasures and then
offers…were filled with joy, paid
reverence to Him and left.”
Interpretation of The
Śūraṅgama
Sūtra in Tien-tai’s
Perspective
There
are more we could do to enhance LKY’s version so that the exegesis of The Śūraṅgama Sūtra in Tien-Tai’s perspective, One
Mindfulness with Three-Contemplation (Yi-xin-san-guang 一心三觀), regarding
Tathatagarba can be revealed. As a matter of fact Master Han Shan has a
snapshot of The Śūraṅgama Sūtra using
Tien-tai’s perspective, Yi-xin-san-guang , in the book entitled ”The Hanged-Mirror of The Śūraṅgama Sūtra《首楞嚴經懸鏡》(HMSS).
Tien-tai School has some unique exegeses of the Dharma, like “Three-Thousand
Realms in One Mindfulness一念三千”、”The
Buddha-Nature Containing Wholesomeness and Unwholesomeness性具善惡.”
Master Han Shan used yi-xin-san-guang (一心三觀) of Tien-tai School’s foremost guideline for practisers as the axiom to interpret the whole Śūraṅgama Sūtra. By excluding
the Prelude and the Circulation which were detailed in the GDOSIS according to the author, he divided
the whole Sutra into two major portions. The first portion is from the
beginning, where Ananda request for the sermon, to the middle part of the
Eighth Roll. It is labeled as “Grand revelation of the Gate for Cultivation and
Enlightenment.” The second portion is from “the detailed
description of the 7 destinies” to “the fifty layers of demonic states induced
by aggregates”, which labeled as “Tactful Instructions on the Differences of
the Infatuated and Enlightened.” In the first portion, Master Han Shan
sectionalized the Sutra text, using the logic of Yi-xin-san-guang as a framework,
and interpreted the Tathagatagarba in terms of nomenon, phenomenon, function,
and nomenclature. He equated the Tathagatagarba to the nomenon of yi-xin-san-guang.
He also sectionalized the Sutra in a more detailed manner in the book than that
LKY’s has applied. Here I extract the labeled sections from the book of HMSS.
Then, number and arrange it as a table for benefit of ease of reading and
demonstrate as in Illustration-1. The corresponding page number of each section
from HMSS to the LKY’s version is appended in the end in a pair of braces ( ).
Also, based on the “General Discussions, Outlines and Sectionalizing-Interpretation on The Śūraṅgama Sūtra[34]” (GDOSIS), I have constructed
a cross reference table for the original Chinese sectional text verse LKY’s
sectional title as shown in the Appendix – 1. Only applicable items are listed
as one could identify what LKY’s has eliminated since the sectional numbering
is not continuous. Actually Lu has eliminated quite a bit. The procedures on
how to construct the cross reference is available in the note of the appendix.
Applying Master
Han Shan’s Sectionalizing-Interpretation to BTTS-1’s
Master Han Shan’s another exegesis on the The Śūraṅgama Sūtra is the “General Discussions, Outlines and Sectionalizing-Interpretation on The Śūraṅgama Sūtra[35]” (GDOSIS). HMSS is obviously
a summary descriptive version of GDOSIS. Master Han Shan sectionalized the
Sutra into 987 divisions and subdivisions in GDOSIS. I create a cross reference
with a modern numbering sectional system like I do for the HMSS in the
Illustration-1 in the end of this paper. And the table of sectionalizing-interpretation fits in 30 pages of A4 paper with the deepest sectional title
of 20 layers[36]
after reducing from the original A3 size paper. Due to limitation of space, the
complete result of the task is not attached. But I will publish it in the near
future as soon as a complete study performed. By reading this modernized sectionalizing-interpretation
we would conceive the general theme and structure of the Sutra. Adding page numbers
of the corresponding text of the Sutra to each section will make a table for
indexation of the text, i.e. a table of contents. In tradition, the Buddhist
texts are published without logical sectionalizing that only lead to increasing
difficulty of comprehension for readers. That is the reason why people usually
rely on elite monastic masters’ commentaries to understand the true meaning the
original text. As shown in the Illustration-1, the corresponding page number of
each section from GDOSIS to BTTS-1’s version is appended in the end in a pair of brackets, [ ].
Conclusion
Traditionally,
sectionalizing-interpretation on sutras plays an important role in helping
people to comprehend sutras. That is a unique feature that no other traditions
of Buddhism have ever presented. It not only logically defines the structure
and organization of a sutra, it also reveals the essence of the sutra. The
technique originally invented for sectionalizing and interpretation of Buddhist
text. However, it also affects Chinese literature fundamentally. Translation of
Han-traditional Buddhist scriptures is an important task in transferring
Buddhism thought to English spoken countries. Though
sectionalizing-interpretation (kepan 科判) has contributed its role significantly in both Chinese Buddhism
and literature, it has not been paid enough attention in translation of
Buddhist text into English. Mostly translation works are done for sutra text
itself only, I have not read much translation work with focus on kepan. Translation
of LKY’s version is a good example in applying of kepan in
sectionalizing the Sutra. In my personal opinion, in term of structure of the
translated text, LKY’s version is much more meaningfully organized than the
BTTS-1’s. LKY’s reveals the theme of the Sutra, although omission of the Mantra is a major default. Though, BTTS-1’s translation text is much more comprehensive. It’s my intention to join the two tasks in this study so readers
would be benefited. In expansion, Master Han Shan’s kepan on the Sutra
is used to create a new table of contents indexed to BTTS-1’s translation text. A summary version of kepan is used and paged. And consequently a table of contents is created and listed as in Illustrated-1.
Due to mass existence
of Han-traditional Buddhist exegeses, translation of such task is not only
enormous but also complicated. Therefore as the special feature in
Han-traditional Buddhism, translation of most of exegeses of all sutras will
continue for some time. However, translation of exegeses of Buddhist sutra
usually focuses on translating of the original text and only briefly on the
commentary. Efforts have been being duplicated on translating the same sutra.
Maybe it is time to form a translation consortium internationally. Using the
internet as a platform in which translators can communicate and exchange idea
and editing a certain sutra, like the Open Source software organization. Aim is
to translate flawless Buddhist Texts for people to use. Each sentence or line
of stanza of all translating sutras should be encoded with the line and volume
numbers of original source. By doing so, when one translates an exegesis, only
needs to translate the commentary. For the case of The Śūraṅgama Sūtra’s 128 different commentaries, it would be almost a job impossible
to finish for translation with the original Sutra text repeatedly. By using the
publicly edited version of translated sutra, translation of an exegesis would
only need to translate the sectionalizing-interpretation part and encode them
with page number corresponding to the Sutra text. An example is listed as the
Illustration-1, in the end page of this paper.
2 Main
Theme[40]
[13](26)
2.1 Grand
Revelation of the Gate of Cultivation & Enlightenment[41] [13] (26)
[13] (27)
Practice[48]) [166] (137)
2.1.2.2 Formal
Instruction on the Tri-Contemplation[50]
[169] (137)
2.1.2.2.1 General
Instruction on the roots of the Infatuated and Enlightened[51] [169]
(137)
2.1.2.2.2 Formal
Instruction on the Phenomenon of the One Mindfulness with
Tri-Contemplation[52] [190]
(146)
2.1.2.2.3 Brief
Instruction on Methods of Untying Knots[53]
[195] (166)
2.1.2.2.4 Extensive
Instruction on the Initial Expedience[54]
[205] (171)
2.1.3 Instructions on
the function of the Tri-Contemplation (On Attaining
2.1.4 Conclusion of
the nomenclature of the Tri-Contemplation[57]
[344](242)
2.2. Subtle
Instructions on the Differences of the Infatuated and Enlightened[58]
[346]
(244)
3. Circulation[59] [463]
(330)
|
Illustration – 1
A
Sectionalizing-Interpretation List of The Śūraṅgama Sūtra
With Corresponding Page No.
of BTTS-1’s in [ ] and Lu’s in ( )
Appendix – 1
Cross Reference of Kepan
GDOSIS (X12 No.278) vs. Sections of Lu’s translation[60]
This is a reduced 8 pages
list. Please retrieve from the internet:
http://hfu.edu.tw/~colb/rapidhare/surangamakepan01.pdf
[2] There are No. 1799 in T19 and No. 265, No.266 through No. 318 in X10.
[3] Ronald
B. Epstein, “The Śūraṅgama Sūtra with
Tripitaka Master Hsuan-hua’s Commentary An Elementary Explanation of Its
General Meaning: A Preliminary Study and Partial Translation, Appendix B: Chinese Commentaries to The Śūraṅgama Sūtra” Ph.D.
Dissertation, UC Berkeley 1975
[6] 《四分律行事鈔資持記》卷上一上:『以法正尊者於根本部中。隨己所樂采集成文。隨說止處即為一分。凡經四番一部方就。故號四分。非同章疏約義判文。』，CBETA T40,
No. 1805, p.0158, L. a24
[7] 吉藏法師撰《仁王般若經疏》卷上一:『次入經文。然諸佛說經本無章段。始自道安法師分經以為三段。第一序說第二正說第三流通說。序說者由序義說經之由序也。正說者不偏義一教之宗旨也。流通者流者宣布義通者不擁義。欲使法音遠布無壅也。』CBETA T33, No.1707, P.315,
L.c12-c16
[9] 吉藏法師撰《仁王般若經疏》卷上一『所以有三說者欲明勝人致教必有因緣。先明序說開漸既彰。正經宜辨故復正說。聖人大悲無限眾生受化無窮。非止復益當時乃欲遠傳後世故有第三流通也。』
CBETA T33, No.1707,
P.315, L.c16-c20
[10] 《仁王護國般若波羅蜜多經疏》卷第一上:『…昔有晉朝道安法師。科判諸經以為三分。序分正宗流通分。故至今巨唐慈恩三藏譯佛地論。親光菩薩釋佛地經。科判彼經以為三分。然則東夏西天處雖懸曠。聖心潛契妙旨冥符。』CBETA T33,
No.1709, P.435, L.b13-b17
[11] 張伯偉〈佛經科判與初唐文學理論〉“Sectionalizing-Interpretation
of Buddhist Scriptures and Literature Theory in Early Tang Dynasty”， 《文學遺產》二○○四年，第一期，P.60-70
[12]張伯偉〈佛經科判與初唐文學理論〉“Sectionalizing-Interpretation
of Buddhist Scriptures and Literature Theory in Early Tang Dynasty”， 《文學遺產》二○○四年，第一期，P.60-70
[14] “…when
hearing of our hesitation during their visit to Hong Kong in 1963, immediately
offered to purchase a thousand copies of our translation for free
distribution.” LKYP.21-22
[18] 《佛光大辭典》第三版, 名相釋文, online, “憨山”:
Four Great Elite Monks of Ming Dynasty (明代四大高僧): Liench Zhhong(蓮池袾宏)、Zbo Zhke(紫柏真可)、Hanshan Deqin (憨山德清)、OuYi Zhxu(藕益智旭)
[20] 《五燈嚴統》卷第十六『師曰。曹溪是吾昔日重興也。即杖錫南行。越明年冬十月十三日。忽告眾曰。緣與時違。化將焉托。一期事畢。吾將歸矣。午後索浴更衣端坐而逝。世壽七十八。臈六十六。塔全身於南華寺天子崗。歷念餘歲。弟子輩。因龕縫。覩師狀貌如生。髮爪俱長。即以金漆其身。迎寺供養。稱肉祖云。』CBETA X81, No.
1568, P.163, L. b12.
[22]清‧續法大師著《楞嚴咒疏》〈序〉,『故知楞嚴咒。乃楞嚴經之主體。若無楞嚴咒，則不應有楞嚴經。而Charles
Luk所翻譯。英文本楞嚴經。竟將楞嚴咒。及敷設壇場等經文。武斷刪除。謂西方人不會對咒發生興趣，此真大謬不然也。正所謂以耳代目。以盲引盲。人云亦云。無知之至。可憐之至。可恥之至。既未請教大善知識。以私人管見。獨裁經義。不畏果報。膽大包天。而無識之士。竟從和之。更為莫明其妙…』printed by Mahayana
Vihara Press, 1993, ｐ.1:
[59] 流通分CBETA X12, No. 278, p.531, L.a20. This item is omitted
intentionally by Han Shan in the HHMS.
1.
retrieve kepan
sections from GSOSIS
2.
remove indent
from the kepan sections
3.
assign
section number to each kepan section
4.
find text
of each section in GDSS and match Corresponding translated Text in Lu’s
translation
5.
assign
corresponding page number of Lu’s translation to each section
