Chapter 38 There are false alterations from the original

Since 1791, only 120 chapters have been circulated. It was not until 1911 that Shanghai Youzheng Bookstore printed 80 chapters in stone.However, it is indeed an old manuscript, and it was later known that it was also Zhiyanzhai's manuscript.The first printing was larger and called a large print; the second printing was smaller and was called a small print, and it is still available today. At the beginning of this book, there is a preface written by Qi Liaosheng, who lived in "My Hometown" during the Qianlong period, so it is commonly called Qi Ben.But I don't really like to call it that way (although I sometimes call it that way), I think there is a difference between Qiben and having the original.Youzheng Publishing House did not make a photocopy of Qi's copy, but copied it.Exactly how much has been changed, what has been changed and what has not been changed, it is impossible to say.Because the original copy (Qi preface) has already been burned by the Shanghai Times.I heard that this is not Di Pingzi's, he borrowed someone else's.

So it is rare to have an original copy.This time I edited, although I used the original version as the base, I used the Zhigeng version, and made quite a lot of changes, just for this.Here is an obvious example of arbitrariness, and traces can be seen in the book.This is not only more interesting, but also quite meaningful. There is an original eyebrow commentary added by Di Pingzi.Every time the eyebrow commentary cites the similarities and differences of the text, and praises how better his book is than the popular ones, this is the nature of advertising, not to mention.In fact, some so-called good articles were written by Di Kai, and the old man applauded them himself.But not all of them are like that, some of them are probably like that.It is rare to deal with it here. If you see Di's criticism, you will think that Di was reformed, which is not appropriate.

The example given here is 100% correct.At the end of the twenty-fifth chapter, there is such a passage in the original version: Lin Daiyu first recited Amitabha.Xue Baochai turned her head to look at him for a long time, and gave him a sneering smile, but everyone didn't care.Wei Xichun said: "Sister Bao, why are you laughing so hard?" Baochai laughed and said, "I laugh at Amitabha Buddha who is busier than other people. He also wants to teach the scriptures and save all living beings." There is no flaw in this point, the boss is adding a superfluous addition, and added a wonderful comment:

"Amitabha Buddha is busier than other people", and this edition is changed to "Tathagata Buddha". I don't know that Tathagata Buddha is the Buddha of Saha World, and Amitabha Buddha is the Buddha of Ultimate Bliss World. The names of deeds are also at a loss, which is ridiculous. It is the ABC of Buddhism, everyone knows it.He said "altered this book without authorization", but he didn't know who altered it without authorization.None other than himself.He also said, "It's ridiculous." I don't know who is ridiculous.It's very humorous.

From the old version that was close to the original manuscript to the revision of the original version in the early years of the Republic of China, there was a series of tendencies, that is, the original version had serious contradictions on the surface, but then gradually alleviated, and finally the contradictions disappeared, and it was in line with the ABC of Buddhism.Wouldn't this be bad in the first place?Otherwise, what Cao Xueqin is writing is a novel, intended to describe the human relationship extremely well, not to promote the common sense of Buddhism, so there is no hindrance, not to mention that the contradictions are only on the surface, and they still make sense in reality.Zhi Geng's original work:

Lin Daiyu first recited Amitabha, Xue Baochai looked back for a long time, and laughed, but everyone didn't care.Jia Xichun said, why is Sister Bao laughing so hard?Baochai said with a smile, I laugh that the Tathagata Buddha is busier than people, and he has to preach the scriptures and save all living beings. Daiyu recited Amitabha, and Baochai laughed at Tathagata Buddha. Regardless of what the Buddhist scriptures say, the two names are not right anyway, and Zhang Guanli wears them.Everyone can see it at a glance. Didn't Cao Xueqin even see this?This is beyond imagination. Later generations felt that it was not very good, so from the Qianlong Jiachen manuscript to the Jiaqing Daoguang manuscript below, they all simplified the above "Amitabha Buddha" into a "Buddha", but the following Tathagata Buddha did not move, so it became The following look, Cheng Jia's original work:

Daiyu recited a Buddha first, but Baochai smiled and said nothing.Xichun said, what is Sister Bao laughing at?Baochai said, I laugh at the Tathagata Buddha who is busier than people and wants to save all living beings. (Jiachen version and other versions are the same) It seems to be a little bit easier to attribute it to the Tathagata Buddha, although the later Mr. Di Pingzi was not satisfied.In fact, they have made a mistake, but their mistake is the opposite of what Di said.Why we made mistakes, we have to ask why the original is good. First, the Amitabha in Daiyu's mouth is really Amitabha, which cannot be reduced to the word "Buddha".Because it corresponds to the "Amitabha Buddha" she said when Baoyu was ill in the same chapter above, Jiaxu Benzhi criticized the so-called:

For the sound when you are sick It is also.Of course, it is not wrong to change it to "Buddha", but it is not the author's intention to lose the context. Besides, the contradiction between "Amitabha Buddha" and "Tathagata Buddha" is also extremely superficial.Of all the Buddhas in the three thousand great thousand worlds, who doesn't save sentient beings?Thousands of Buddhas are one Buddha, otherwise, why do we all chant Namo Master Shakyamuni Buddha and Namo Amitabha Buddha?It may not be so profound to speculate that Cao Xueqin's Buddhism is profound, but there is always some common sense.Besides, the world is the same as the Tathagata.Tathagata is the general term for all Buddhas, not limited to Sakyamuni. Amitabha is also called Tathagata, which is clearly stated in the classics.However, writing and talking about novels doesn't have to be so academic.

From the point of view, Lin Daiyu recites Amitabha Buddha, but Baochai laughs at Tathagata Buddha. Changing the crown and Li Dai also has an advantage, making the tone of speech slightly staggered and not too tit-for-tat. Maybe the author deliberately arranged this way.Anyway, according to common sense, there is no need to be very serious about the names of the Buddhas. In short, the old version is good. It is not intentional to simplify the name of the Buddha below the Jiachen version. It is a big mistake to change the "Tathagata Buddha" in the original version.Although I have not read all the copies, from what I have seen and common sense guesses, there is no such thing as an original copy.This was revised by Di Pingzi, who also explained the difference between the Saha world and the Paradise of Ultimate Bliss.

Finally, a physical evidence was presented. At the end of the twenty-fifth chapter on the original copy, it can be seen that: I laugh at Amitabha The handwriting of the word Amitabha is different from the context, and the shape of the characters is also slightly larger, making it uncomfortable to squeeze there.The large print is the most obvious, and the small print can also be seen.This proves that Qi Liaosheng's preface is also the Tathagata Buddha in the other books, even if there are authentic hands, they also copied it.The one who wrote "Mi Tuo" was not only changed by Di Pingzi, but also dug out and changed temporarily after the proof was written.

I have a headache for this copy, and I don't know how much it has changed.This case is very prominent, so I don't bother to explain that we may not have such good luck in other places.