從支謙與竺法護的議經風格釐測敦煌寫卷P.3006經文之譯者

Clarifying the Translator of Dunhuang Manuscript P. 3006 through Analysis of Translation Style

釋果樸在《敦煌寫卷P3006「支謙」本《維摩詰經》注解考》一書中，認為此寫卷經文部分的作者並非支謙而是竺法護，從而認為和敦煌寫卷P.3006經文相當的支謙本《佛說維摩詰經》的譯者也是竺法護。但若從支謙與竺法護的譯經風格上來檢視，是否依然支持這個論點呢？竺法護譯經時強調「事事周密」，在其他經本以母概念涵攝數個子概念的地方，他都不厭其煩的將母概念一一展開為無數的子概念，反覆申明、層層累進的從各個角度來說明一個概念。而支謙譯經的特色則在「文而不越，約而義顯」。所謂「文而不越」是指支謙翻譯時將音譯的部分完全改為「意譯」，使得不懂梵文胡語的人減少了閱讀上的障礙。而「約而義顯」則是指譯者自己先理解與消化後，再以中國人易於明瞭的語文釋出。敦煌寫卷P.3006的寫作風格乃屬於「約而義顯」，而非為「事事周密」之屬，因此釋果樸認為它是竺法護的作品，若從譯經風格上來看，此一判斷仍有商榷之處。

In his book ”The Vimalakirti Sutra: Zhiqian's Translation and Commentary (Dunhuang Manuscript P. 3006)”, Shi Guopu 釋果樸 states that he believes that the main text of the scripture was translated by Dharmaraksa 竺法護, and not Zhi Qian 支謙, and consequently that Dharmaraksa, was also the translator of the corresponding version of this scripture in the ”Taisho Tripitaka”. But does a close examination of the translation styles of the two authors support this argument? Dharmaraksa took an extremely thorough approach to translating a scripture; where other translators would gloss a number of sub-concepts as a single general concept, he took great pains to unpack and expound such general terms from every different angle. Zhi Qian's approach was firstly to translate the meaning of terms that had previously been transliterated, thereby rendering his translations more accessible. Secondly, he would first make sure he had understood and digested the meaning of a text before translating it into plain language. I find the translation in Dunhuang Manuscript P. 3006 to be more in the style of Zhi Qian, and not Dharmaraksa, and that Shi Guopu's assertion is still open to debate.