雜記(2008/01/13)

2008/01/13 09:00
今晨英文廣論抄讀功課停在p.147, ch.11, vol. 3，相當於漢譯卷十八p.42405。
關於漢譯第四二四頁第二行末之其後又云內的文字，漢英兩相對照如下：
漢譯：
……其後又云：「何故若見有事無事成常斷見耶，若有自性者，非無故應常，若先有現無，是故應成斷。若說法由自性而有，性無可滅終不應無，故許有性應成常見。又先住時許法有性，如是後壞許為無故，應成斷見。」
英譯：
...It then says:

Why is it that when you have the view that things exist and the view that things do not exist, it follows that you have views of permanence and of annihilation? As Nāgārjuna’s Fundamental Treatise says:

Whatever exists intrinsically is permanent
Since it does not become nonexistent.
If you say that an intrinsically existent thing that arose before
Is now nonexistent, that entails an extreme of annihilation.

Since intrinsic existence is not overcome, something that is said to be intrinsically existent would never become nonexistent; thus the assertion that something is intrinsically existent entails a view of permanence. Also, a view of annihilation is entailed by (p.147) the assertion that there was intrinsic nature in things at an earlier time, but it has now been destroyed and no longer exists.

若依英譯版面，漢譯當修訂如下：
……其後又云：「何故若見有事無事成常斷見耶？《中觀論》云：『若有自性者，非無故應常，若先有現無，是故應成斷。』若說法由自性而有，性無可滅終不應無，故許有性應成常見。又先住時許法有性，如是後壞許為無故，應成斷見。」
此中，其後又云乃指《明顯句論》又云。按照漢譯文字，這整段屬《明顯句論》中所說，然而，從英譯來看，「若有自性者，非無故應常，若先有現無，是故應成斷。」則是《明顯句論》引《中觀論》所說。至於《中觀論》中有沒有這段文字，則待進一步查證。