敦煌藏文写卷P.T.972文本考释及内容对勘  

Commentary on Dunhuang Tibetan Manuscript P.T.972 Textual Source

作　　者：吉西次力 Jixi Cili

机构地区：[1]兰州大学西北少数民族研究中心暨历史文化学院,兰州730000

出　　处：《西藏研究》2023年第5期77-87,162,共12页Tibetan Studies

基　　金：国家社科基金一般项目“敦煌汉藏翻译文献整理研究”(项目编号:22BZS022)阶段性成果。

摘　　要：敦煌藏文写卷P.T.972号最早由噶尔梅·桑木丹所关注,成为论证吐蕃时期“■”是一个普遍的宗教信仰的论据。之后,石泰安、沙木等学者对此文本的性质,以及其中出现的“外道苯”(■)所指提出疑问,石泰安更是将其定性为译自汉文的疑伪经。但以上学者均未关注P.T.972号写卷的传世本《圣树木经》。在总结前人研究的基础上,梳理历史上藏族学者对《圣树木经》疑伪问题的讨论,并将其与敦煌藏文P.T.972和P.T.950号写卷进行对勘,可知P.T.972应是译自汉文的疑伪经,其中“■”应是汉文语境中“邪师”或“占卜师”的对译,而不是当时与佛教对立的外道苯,不能用其论证吐蕃时期“■”是独立于佛教之外普遍存在的宗教信仰。这也是《圣树木经》未收入《甘珠尔》任一版本,而编入《陀罗尼经集》的原因所在。对勘发现,从敦煌本到陀本中的《圣树木经》,文本发生了变化,后期增补了部分内容,这种不稳定性也是其作为伪经的特征之一。The Dunhuang Tibetan P.T.972 was first noticed by Samten Karmay,which became the basis for his argument that"éa"was a universal religious belief in the Tibetan Tubo period.Later,scholars such as R.Stein and Sam van Schaik questioned the nature of the text and the reference to the"Waidao Bon"(■heterodox Bon),which was characterized by R.Stein as a translation of the Chinese apocrypha.On the basis of summarizing the previous research,this paper sorts out the discussion of the doubtful falsity of"the Sacred Tree Sutra",and conducts a detailed investigation of P.T.972 with the Dunhuang Tibetan P.T.950 scroll and"the Sacred Tree Sutra",It has been suggested that P.T.972 may be a translation of the Chinese Sycacrypha,in which"■a"is a translation of"evil master"or"soothsayer"in the Chinese context,rather than the heterodox Bon,which was opposed to Buddhism at the time,and cannot be used to argue that"■"was a universal religious belief independent of Buddhism during the Tibetan Tubo period.This is also the reason why"the Sacred Tree Sutra"is not included in any Kangyur version,but is included in the Dhammapada Sutra.

关 键 词：■ 《圣树木经》 对勘 

分 类 号：G256[文化科学—图书馆学] K28[历史地理—历史学]