IIIF Color HighRes
National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
| |||||||||
|
| IIIF Color HighRes |
| Notes on Marco Polo : vol.1 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citation Information
123. CASCAR 213
But in the vulgar practice of those countries (i. e. India), [the upâdhyâya] are called C jft wushê (*•uat-uia; yün[g]-shê in EITEL and LEGGE is a misreading). In Khotan and Shu-lo
(Kâsyar), people say LP; hu-shê (*yuat-zia). Now this country (i. e. China), with a corrupt
sound, says ho-shang... »
At the end of the 8th cent., the pilgrim Wu-k'ung came back from India; while in Kashmir, he had become a full monk. Speaking of his upâdhyâya, the biography inserted at the beginning of the translation of one of the works he had brought back from India says that « at
An-hsi, [for upâdhyâya] people say ho-shang» (JA, 1895, u, 353); since the protectorate of An-hsi had its seat at Kueâ, CHAVANNES concluded (TP, 1904, 380) that the form ho-shang had originated there.
A last text remains to be mentioned. Tsan-ning, who compiled by Imperial order the great collection of Buddhist biographies called Sung kao-sêng chuan (NANJIÔ, No. 1495), completed in 988, wrote a final dissertation to conclude the biographies of the translators. We find in it the following passage (Tokyo Tripit. of Meiji, fic, iv, 81 a; cf. Ltvi, in BEFEO, iv, 562-563) : « For instance, the Sanskrit says upâdhyâya, Shu-lo (Käyar) says hu-shê (*yuat-zia), and Khotan, ho-shang ... » Here, a form is expressly stated to be the one used in Kâgyar, and this is the reason for the present notes on upâdhyâya. But is the form hu-shê specifically Kashgarian?
First of all, I-ching was mistaken when he distinguished wu-shê from upâdhyâya. If « men of great learning » (po-shih) were popularly addressed in India by a Prâkrit form of upâdhyâya, it is the exact counterpart of what occurred in Central Asia when the same po-shih used in I-ching's
text passed into Uighur as ball, became a designation of Buddhist masters (see «Bacsi»).
Hui-yüan, who had not travelled in India like I-ching, had however in the present case a more correct idea of the real facts. I-ching's wu-shê (*•uo-zia) would suppose *ûj"h6, and Hui-yüan's wu-shê (*•uat-zia), *ûjjh6; that is to say, the reduction is stronger than in the ordinary Prâkrit form uvajjhâa; but ujJhâa is precisely another attested Prâkrit form of upâdhyâya (cf. PISCHEL, Grammatik der Prâkrit-Sprachen, pp. 116-117).
On the other hand, the note in Wu-k'ung's biography is not to be understood, as it was by CHAVANNES, as meaning that the form ho-shang started from Kueâ. As it is clear from a following sentence concerning karmacârya, the biographer, when speaking of An-hsi, means the whole territory of An-hsi and the Four Garrisons, which include Khotan and Kâsyar as well as Kucâ. As a matter of fact, the forms of upâdhyâya known in « Tokharian I » are iipâdhyâ-, upâdhyâ-, opâdhyâ- (SIEG and SIEGLING, Tocharische Grammatik, § 93, 121, 149), that is to say, are not based on the Prâkrit forms, and I see no reason why the case should have been different in the closely cognate Kuchean. All that we can conclude from the note in Wu-k'ung's biography is that the form ho-shang was current in part at least of western Chinese Turkestan. We naturally turn then to Kâsyar and Khotan.
We have no text in Kashgarian, and I do not find a form of upâdhyâya in the published texts in Khotanese. The hu-shê (*yuat-zia) which Hui-yüan gives as the form in Khotanese and in Kashgarian would suppose *'ujyhâ, and ho-shang, which he gives as a Chinese corruption of hu-shê, would be *'vajhâ; in other words, the Chinese « corrupt » form would come nearer the classical Prâkrit uvajihâa than the intermediate form from which it is supposed to have been
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright (C) 2003-2019 National Institute of Informatics and The Toyo Bunko. All Rights Reserved.