Notes on Marco Polo : vol.1 / Page 228 (Grayscale High Resolution Image)

0228	Notes on Marco Polo : vol.1

to doubt, an original «munshee» (an Arabic word !) was proposed by EITEL (Handbook², 186) and
repeated by LEGGE (Travels of Fâ-hien, 58); an impossible derivation from Pers. ḥwājah, ḥōjah,
«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 NANJIŌ, Nos. 1117 and
1125, with the corresponding yin-i by Hsüan-ying, reproduced by Hui-lin), there is also a form 和
闍 oh-shê (*γuâ-d'ẑ'ia; with a purely graphic variant 惒闍 ho-shê), occurring in NANJIŌ, No. 1082.
The translation of the latter work is of uncertain date (there is a contradiction between what
NANJIŌ 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 Guṇavarman 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 upādhyāya current in «the kingdom of Khotan
and others» (cf. Tōkyō Tripiṭ. of Meiji, 菀, VII, 36 a, 58 a, 66 a, reproduced in Hui-lin's more
comprehensive work, ibid. IX, 146 b, 173 a-b).

The pilgrim I-ching, 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 : «Upādhyāya . . . In the Western countries (西方 si-fang),
when recklessly addressing (況喚 fan-huan) men of great learning (博士 po-shih), people always
call them 烏社 wu-shê (*·uo-žia); this is not a duly recognized term (典語 tien-yü). In all the
Sanskrit texts of the sûtras and the vinayas, the term used is upādhyāya, 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 (訛音 ê-yin).» There is no doubt, from what follows in the
text, that by «Western countries» I-ching means India, and by «Northern countries», the 胡
Hu countries of Central Asia, mainly Iranian, but also «Tokharian». A later work quoted in
ODA Tokunō's Bukkyō daijiten, 1853ᵃ, although evidently based on I-ching's text, gives the Indian
form 烏邪 wu-hsieh (*·uo-žia); 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 波底
邪 pa-ti-yeh. As a matter of fact, this other apheretical form of upādhyāya, unknown or almost
unknown in China, has been more or less in use in Japan, where it is pronounced pateiya (cf.
ODA Tokunō, 1452ᵃ; Hôbôgirin, 58).

The same Hui-yüan who wrote the note on *Kharoṣtrag, a contemporary of I-ching, has a
note on ho-shang (Tōkyō Tripiṭ. of Meiji, 菀, x, 115 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 upādhyāya.

National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books

Citation Information

OCR Text

National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books

Citation Information

OCR Text

National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books