IIIF Color HighRes
National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
| |||||||||
|
| IIIF Color HighRes |
| Notes on Marco Polo : vol.1 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citation Information
212 123. CASCAR
to doubt, an original « munshee » (an Arabic word !) was proposed by EITEL, (Handbook 2, 186) and repeated by LEGGE (Travels of Fâ-hien, 58); an impossible derivation from Pers. Iawâ ah, hôjah, « master », started many years ago by WATTERS (Essays on the Chinese language, 358), has recently again found its way into a memoir by TAKAKUSU (BEFEO, xxvIII, 441); and the new Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms by SOOTHILL and HoDOUS (p. 253) still proposes « vandya (Tibetan and Khotani ban-de) ».
It must be admitted, however, that Chinese Buddhist scholars of early date were also puzzled by the transcription. I ought rather to say the transcriptions, since, apart from the two spellings of ho-shang which are used almost indifferently and go back to the beginning of the 5th cent. (for instance in Fa-hsien's travels, LEGGE, 58, or in the 1st chapter of both NANJI6, Nos. 1117 and 1125, with the corresponding yin-i by Hsüan-ying, reproduced by Hui-lin), there is also a form RU
r] oh-shê (*yua"-di)ia; with a purely graphic variant 4,!, f ] ho-shê), occurring in NANJI6, No. 1082. The translation of the latter work is of uncertain date (there is a contradiction between what NANJI6 says in his notice of No. 1082 and his statement in App. II, 79; cf. also BAGCHI, Le canon bouddhique, 375; the attribution of the translation to Gunavarman may be due to a confusion with the work of similar title described by BAGCHI, 373-374, as No. 1), but certainly prior to the 7th cent.
Hsüan-ying, who wrote in the middle of the 7th cent., seems to have taken it for granted that ho-shê and ho-shang were corrupt forms of upâdhyâya current in « the kingdom of Khotan and others» (cf. Tokyo Tripit. of Meiji, A, vII, 36 a, 58 a, 66 a, reproduced in Hui-sin's more comprehensive work, ibid. ix, 146 b, 173 a-b).
The pilgrim I-thing, towards the end of the same century, gives a different explanation in his Nan-hai chi-kui nei-fa chuan (translated by TAKAKUSU, A Record of the Buddhist Religion, 117-118). His text runs as follows : « Upâdhyâya ... In the Western countries (i Jj si-fang), when recklessly addressing (7J{, I fan-huan) men of great learning (f. ± po-shih), people always
call them 1~~ wu-shê (*•uo-zia); this is not a duly recognized term ( tien-yii). In all the
Sanskrit texts of the s iitras and the vinayas, the term used is upâdhyâya, the translation of which is «the master [giving] personal instruction ». The kingdoms of the Northern countries ( pei fang) all address [the masters] as ho-shang, with the result that the translators became accustomed to that corrupt sound ( ;;ft p ê-yin). » There is no doubt, from what follows in the text, that by « Western countries » I-thing means India, and by « Northern countries », the tifj
Hu countries of Central Asia, mainly Iranian, but also «Tokharian ». A later work quoted in ODA Tokunô's Bukkyô daijiten, 18533, although evidently based on I-thing's text, gives the Indian form Si ¶5 wu-hsieh (*•uo-zia); it goes on to deplore that a term referring to lay scholars should have come to be used for Buddhist masters, and insists that the proper form to be used is 4J,ß
TAM pa-ti-yeh. As a matter of fact, this other apheretical form of upâdhyâya, unknown or almost unknown in China, has been more or less in use in Japan, where it is pronounced pateiya (cf. ODA Tokunô, 14522; Hôbôgirin, 58).
The same Hui-yüan who wrote the note on *Kharostrag, a contemporary of I-thing, has a note on ho-shang (Tokyo Tripit. of Meiji, ,t,.', x, 115 a, 135 a; reproduced by Hui-lin, ibid. VIII, 139 b; used by Hsi-lin, ibid. vIII, 16 a) : «The refined language of the Five Indies says upâdhyâya.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright (C) 2003-2019 National Institute of Informatics and The Toyo Bunko. All Rights Reserved.