親愛的老師：
近來好嗎？上次告退之後，又經歷一段時間久未向你問安，你準備出版的書進行得還算順利吧？
希望你那邊萬事順心如意。
最近我在跨語言文本比較研究的基礎下，寫了四篇關於漢譯《法句經》的論文。
我有一個關於巴利《法句經》180 頌的問題，希望得到你的教導，請你幫我解惑。
有不少台灣學生從此一網址學習巴利《法句經》，並且學習詳盡的文法分析。
在巴利《法句經》180 頌：
http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/DLMBS/lesson/pali/reading/gatha180.htm
Yassa jālinī visattikā taṇhā natthi kuhiñci netave;
Taṃ buddhamanantagocaraṃ apadaṃ kena padena nessatha.
Whose ensnaring craving and thirst that could carry him away does not exist anywhere,
by what way will you destroy such an Awakened one, trackless and of endless sphere?
能帶走他的虛妄的欲望與貪愛已不存在；
有誰能破壞佛陀無痕跡、無限量的境界？
網路上，這位善巧而博學的老師將巴利偈頌的 nessatha 當作 'nas' 的衍生字而解釋作「破壞 'to destroy':(2.Pl.act.caus.fut. = nessatha.)」
但是， Thera Narada 那羅陀長老與 K. R. Norman 諾曼教授都將它解釋作「引導 'to lead', (page 28)」。
Norman, K. R., (1997c), The Word of the Doctrine (Dhammapada), PTS, London, UK.
漢譯是翻譯作「將，引導 'to lead'」。
《出曜經》卷26〈30 雙要品〉：
「猶如網叢林， 無愛況有餘，
佛有無量行， 無跡誰跡將？」(CBETA, T04, no. 212, p. 752, b15-16)
我的問題是，如果 'nessatha' 是引導的話，那麼這個字的動詞字根是那一個字？
哪些字典能夠支持這樣的解釋？
敬祝 輕安吉祥
學生 yifertw 鞠躬 2014.3.8
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
Dear Yifertw,
Good to get word from you. Sorry I have been a little slow in replying. This has been (and still is) a busy period for me. But I can always find time to look into your interesting questions.
As regards nessatha, I agree with the more usual interpretation "you will lead" (e.g. Narada). The alternative, "you will destroy", suggested by "the learned author", is surely incorrect (see below).
For nessatha the first place to look is the "Pali English Dictionary". There, the relevant heading is neti "he leads" (page 377). The future 1st person singular is given as nessaami (see top of column b). From this form we can infer nessatha = "you will lead".
If you have Warder's "Introduction to Pali", go to the table called "Principal parts of verbs" at pages 375-381, and look for the root nii (page 377, column 1). Under "Fut. 3rd sing." (column 6) we find (nessati), i.e. "he will lead". This is in parentheses because the form nessati is not actually found in the Pali canon, though other person/number forms are. One of these other forms is the first singular (cited in PED); another, it seems, is nessatha, the form in question, found at Dhp 179 and 180.
As for "you will destroy", the suggested alternative, this can be checked by going first to PED, nassati (p. 348 b) "he perishes/dies". The causative is given as naaseti; (the same form is given in Warder p. 377 at nas, two lines up from nii (column 7)). We then look up naaseti in PED on page 351 a: it means "he kills/destroys". For the causative future 3rd singular we infer naasessati "he will destroy", and for the causative future 2nd plural we infer naasessatha. That is, "you will destroy" would be naasessatha, not nessatha as claimed by the learned author.
Returning now to your question, I'm not sure what you mean by "the original form of this verb", but I assume you mean the dictionary form of the verb meaning "he leads". The answer is neti; this is what you should look up in PED. But you actually asked about "the cusative future form of a verb implying 'to lead'". For this we would need to look in Warder page 377, nii; in column 7 (Causative) we find naayeti, which means "he causes to lead". The 2nd plural would be naayetha. This too is not what is present in Dhp 179. The form in Dhp 179 is found by looking not in column 7 (Causative) but rather in column 6 (Future). There we find nessati (3rd singular), implying nessatha (2nd plural). (For the relevant verb endings see Warder page 10, table.)
But how do we know to look up neti or nii in the first place? For this you probably need Buddhadatta's English-Pali Dictionary or the English-Pali Vocabulary in Warder, pages 415-448. There you can begin by looking up "lead". Buddhadatta (p. 301) has "neti"; Warder (p 432) has "nii"
So Narada and Norman are right, and your "learned author" has got it wrong.
Best wishes,
Best regards,
2014.3.11
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
親愛的老師：
在犍陀羅、梵文、波特那(Patna)《法句經》的整理陸續出版之後，西方學者開始陸續比較它們與巴利《法句經》、漢譯《法句經》「(T210 )《法句經》，T211《法句譬喻經》，T212《出曜經》、《法集要頌經》」之間的差別。
但是，我的印象是，這種比較是從「非漢語」的偈頌來審視其間的異同，而不是以漢譯《法句經》的立場來檢驗這一問題。兩者的差別在於，偈頌選取上，前者會忽視漢譯有偈頌、而非漢語無對應偈頌的情況。(舉例來說，如以巴利《法句經》的視角，會忽略對應偈頌在梵文《法句經》的漢譯偈頌。如以梵文《法句經》為視角，會忽略對應偈頌在巴利《法句經》與犍陀羅《法句經》的漢譯偈頌。)
如果說「以漢譯偈頌」為觀點的「《法句經》偈頌比較研究」較稀少，是否合理？
學生 yifertw 鞠躬 2014.3.12
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
Dear Yifertw,
Glad you find it helpful. For your blog, I think best to keep it anonymous. I feel a little guilty now about having bluntly said that 'the "learned author" has got it wrong'. It looks like a very useful website. I would not want to dismiss it just because of this one mistake.
I think you are probably right in saying that few scholars have really studied Dhp comparatively from the viewpoint of the Chinese translations. So you have the field almost to yourself.
2014.3.12
沒有留言:
張貼留言