思考(2008/01/22)

2008/01/22 09:45
今天結束英文廣論ch.12, vol.3之抄讀功課，依例把個人覺得英譯與漢譯之間的不同處記錄如下：
漢譯(p.43101)：
觀察實性正理，非能破一切生者，月稱論師明了宣說。四百論釋云：「若此觀察破一切生，顯示有為皆無生者，爾時彼等不應如幻，應以石女兒等而為量度，然恐違犯無緣起過，故不順彼喻，令如幻等，不違緣起。」
英譯(p.159)：

The master Candrakīrti also clearly states that rational analysis of reality does not refute all forms of production. [611] His Commentary on the “Four Hundred Stanzas” says:

Incorrect position: Āryadeva means that compounded phenomena lack production because this analysis refutes all forms of production.

Reply: In that case, the production of compounded phenomena would not be like a magician’s illusion. Rather, we would make it understood using examples such as the son of a barren woman. Wary of the absurd implication that dependent-arisings would not exist, we avoid such comparisons. Instead, we compare the production of things to a magician’s illusion and so forth, examples that do not contradict dependent-arising.

我的分析──
英譯的Āryadeva means that應該是指《四百論》，而前面的Incorrect position:，我理解作「對《四百論》所說的誤解」。那麼，漢譯的若此觀察破一切生，顯示有為皆無生者則理解作「若有誤以為《四百論》所言之觀察破一切生，故顯示有為皆無生者」。對否？