In the year 1933 Dr. Hu Shih wrote an article entitled “On the Sūtra of the 42 Sections” (Hu Shih lun shue kin cho, ⒐, 2, pp. 177-186) in the order to discuss the authenticity of the Sūtra. In this article, just at the beginning, he discussed the probable dates when the two transliterations Fou-t’u ( 疊監 ) and Fo ( ︱ ) cane to be used in China. Prof. Chen Yuan then communicated his view on the transliterations in some letters to Dr. Hu Shih. They were agreed only on one point that Fou-t’u came to be used earlier than Fo. On several other points their opinions differ specially when Prof. Chen says: “Fo is not mentioned in the historical materials of the Latter Han dynasty collected by Fan Wei-tsong” (ibid. p.179). He further says― “In the decrees and the memorials to the Emperors of the Letter Han dynasty only Fou-tu is used and not Fo. This I have told you in my last letter. A chapter on India is quoted in the commentary on the San kuo che by Pei Sung-chih. In this chapter the word Fou-tu occurs eight time and there is no mention of Fo. Twice there is mention of Fou-t’u-king and not of Fo-king. Chen Shou uses Fou-t’u and Fo at the same time. Yuan Hung use only Fo and explains Fou-t’u by Fo. Fan Wei-tsong retains in the decrees and memorials quoted by him the name Fou-t’u and uses Fo when he writes himself (ibid, p.189).
From the study of the historical materials already mentioned Prof. Chen draws the following conclusions: (ⅰ) From the Letter Han to the middle of Wei period only Fou-t’u is used; (ⅱ) From the period of the Three Kingdoms to the beginning of the Tsin Fou-t’u and Fo are simultaneously used; (ⅲ) From the Eastern Tsin to the Song period only Fo is used. In the light of these deductions he draws the further conclusion that the Li-hui-lun of Mou Tseu and all the Han translations of the Buddhist texts cannot be treated as really written and translated in the Han period (ibid. p.190). Dr. Hu Shih however does not agree with the view that Fo does not occur in the historical materials of the Han period collected by Fan Wei-tsong.
I propose here to discuss the problem from a quite different point of view. Dr. Hu and Prof. Chen have tried to find out the probably date of the two forms of the name. I shall try to trace the origin of the two forms of the name. If we can trace their origin clearly it will throw some light on the problem raised by Dr. Hu and Prof. Chen.
We know that Śākyamuni came to be known as Buddha after his attainment of Sanyak Sambodhi. The word Buddha means “the illumined”. In Chinese there are more than 20 different transliterations of this name: Fo-t’o, Fou-t’o, Fou-t’ou, Pu-t’o, Pu-ta, Pu-to, Pu-t’o, Mu-t’o, Meita, Fo-ta, Pu-t’a, Fou-t’u, Fu-tou, Mu-ta, Fo-t’u, Fo, Pu-t’o, Wu-t’a, Pu-t’o, Mei-t’o etc.*
I will confine my discussion to the four oldest of these transliterations namely: Fou-t’u, Fou-t’u, Fu-tou and Fo. The first three belong to the same group each consisting of two words while the fourth belong to a different group of only one word.
Let us consider the first group. The ancient pronunciation of the word occurring in this group according to the reconstruction of Karlgren are the following (Grammata Serica, reprinted from the Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, Stockholm, no. 12 1940):
疊*b’iôg/b’iɘu/fou (449,1233l)
監*d’o/d’uo/t’u (136-137, 45ⅰ’)
瓜*d’o/d’uo/t’u (143-144, 63a)
確*b’iôk/b’iuk/fu (398, 1034d)
ě*d’u/d’əu/tou (158, 118a)
※︱疊繷场⊿工疊監︱瓜疊玨场︱工確ě︱靈疊瓜玨工ダ˙ダ工˙⊿
The final vowel in both Fou-t’u and Fou-t’u was in ancient pronunciation -o-, it became later -u-; Fu-tou had a final -u- in ancient times. None of them corresponds to Sanskrit Buddha. In Sanskrit becomes Buddho only in the nominative case when the following word begins with a sonant or with the vowel a. But I do not believe that Chinese Fou-t’u and Fou-t’u came from the nominative Buddho. In Prakrit and Pali the nominative of Buddha is Buddho. In Ardha-Māgadhī and Māgadhī, the masculine bases in a have e in the nominative, but in Ardha-Māgadhī verses it is sometimes found with an ending in -o-. But we have not sufficient materials to say from which Prakrit Fou-t’u and Fou-t’u came. We are however justified in assuming that they were based on some Prakrit forms.
As to Fu-tou the problem is somewhat complicated. Since the old pronunciation, according to Karlgren, was b’iukd’ə̯u, the corresponding Indian form would be *bukdu or *vukdu. But this form is not found either in old texts or inscriptions. The final -u- reminds us of Apabhraṁśa because in Apabhraṁśa the masculine -a- bases have -u- in nominative and accusative. But in spite of the -u- it does not seem to have been an Apabhraṁśa form. In the North-Western dialect of India the ending -u- is common, even the accusative ending of Sanskrit am and Prakrit -aṁ become at times -u- (cf. my article“Die Umwandlung der Endung-aṃ in -o und -u im Mittelindischen”, Nachrichten Ak. Wiss. Göttingen, Philo-Hist. Kl. 1944, nr. 6). The name Fu-tou most probably comes from this Prakrit.
Let us now discuss the form Fo. Karlgren reconstructs the old pronunciation as b’iwət/ b’iuət/fu (Grammata Serica 252, 500 l). Usually the word Fo is considered to be an abridgement of the word Fo-t’o. In the Tsong Liun lun shu ki it is said “Fo-t’o is a Sanskrit word; in Chinese it means kioche ‘the awakened’; we follow the old abridgement and call it Fo. ” In the Buddhist dictionaries we find the same explanation of Fo (Cf. ‘Bukkyo daijiten’, p.155. la). This seems to have been the explanation as established by tradition. The explanation seems to be reasonable at the first sight for in Chinese such abridgements are common.
But it we go deeper into the problem then we find that such an explanation is unsatisfactory. A study of loan words in other languages point out to a common rule. When a word is introduced from another language it retains mostly the original form at the beginning. It then does not get mixed up with the native words. Gradually it changes its original form and is mixed up with the native words. The name of Buddha came to China with Buddhism from India. When it first came to China the translators would surely retain the original form of the name. They would not use an abbreviation from the beginning. Moreover the name of Buddha was a sacred name for the Buddhists. They would not venture to alter it.
Under these circumstances it is more reasonable to assume that the word Fo is not at abridgement. There is further evidence to confirm it. I have collected all the transliteration in the translations of the Latter Han period and of the period of the three Kingdoms. Some of the transliterations formerly considered to be abridgements do not appear to me to be so. The words in transliterations used to be formerly compared with original Sanskrit words as it was believed that the texts had been translated from Sanskrit original. As the transliterations were found not corresponding with the Sanskrit they were explained as abbreviation. Even Hiuan-tsang in his Ta t’ang si yu ki makes that mistake. We now know that most of the oldest Buddhist translations were not based on Sanskrit. So the old transliterations should not be compared with Sanskrit forms. As l propose to deal with problem in another article I will confine my attention here to the discussion of the word Fo.
The Sanskrit word for Fo, we have seen, is Buddha. The word Buddha becomes in Tokharian A ptāñkat and is written in different ways such as: ptāñkat, ptāñkte, ptāṁñkte, ptāñakte, ptāñäkte, ptāñikte, ptāññakte, pattāñakte, pattāññakte, pattāñkte, pattāṁñkte, pattāṁñkte (cf. Sieg, Siegling, Schulze Tocharische Grammatik, §76, 116, 112a, 123, 152b, 192, 206, 207, 363c). The word ptāñkat is a combination of two word ptā and ñkat. Ptā corresponds to Sanskrit Buddha. In Tokharian the sonants are rare. Therefore the initial -b- changes into -p-. The second part -ñkat means “god” and thus stands for Sanskrit -deva. The word ptāñkat therefore may be translated as Fo-t’ien i. e. Buddhadeva. In Tokharian A the Sanskrit word Buddha is always translated as ptāñkat. In the Chinese Tripiṭaka we find the term t’iem chong wang ( ぱい ) in the translation of the Saddharmapuṇḍarī ka where they stand for Sanskrit devātideva. Cf. the Sanskrit text, ed. Kern, Nanjio, p. 169, lx 12-13:
Namo ’stu te apratimā maharṣe devātideva Kalavinkasusvarā/
Vināyakā loki sadevakasminvandāmi te lokahitānukampī//
But the term Fo-t’ien is never found in the Chinese Buddhist texts. Neither is the term “Buddhadeva” found in Sanskrit texts. From which source did then the Tokharian borrow this word? This question cannot be answered now. A similar term is found in the Uigur translation of the Buddhist texts. Cf. the Uigur translation of the Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra (Müller, Uigurica, A. K. A. W., 1908, p.28ff. Uigurica ⒑, 1911, p. 16): tngri tngrisi burxan “Buddha, the god of gods”. A comparison of the Uigur and Tokharian names of Buddha shows either that the former was derived from the latter or that both go back to the same origin which might probably have been Iranian.
In the compound ptāñkät the first part seems to be ptā, but in fact it is not quite so. In the Tokharian A when two words are compounded an -a- is inserted after the first part if it does not end in an -a-. Cf. aträ∠tampe∽atratampe, kāsu∠ortum∽kāswaortum, kälp∠pälskāṁ∽kälpa–pälskāṁ, pär∠krase∽pärra–krase, pältsäk∠pāṣe∽pälska-pāṣe, prākär∠pratim∽prākra–pratim, brāhmaṁ∠purohitum∽brāhmna–purohitum, ṣpät∠koṁ∽ṣäptakoñi (Tocharische Grammatik,§363a). The -a- may be sometimes lengthened as in wäs∠yok∽wsā-yok, wäl∠ñkät∽wlā-ñkät (ibid.363 c). From these examples we can infer that ptā was originally pät. The word pät is clearly preserved in the compound pättañkät which is another form of ptāñkät. In the manuscripts we have not yet found an independent pät. But its existence cannot be doubted. It may be further assumed that the vowel -a- stands here for an older -u-.
The hypothesis that the vowel -ä‧ stands for an older -u- can be proved from Kuchean. The corresponding word for Tokharian ptāñkät in Kuchean is pūdñäkte pudñäkte, pudñikte (cf. Lévi, Fragments des textes Koutcheens, Paris, 1933, p.139). The word may be analysed with certainty as pūd/pud∠ñäkte. Pūd/pud corresponds with Tokharian pät. In some respects the Kuchean is older than Tokharian. Therefore the change from pūd/pud to pät/ptā is quite natural.
So far we have indulged in a digression from our main point. It may be however shown that Sanskrit Buddha becomes in Kuchean pūd/pud and in Tokharian Pät and that the Chinese Fo is a transliteration from Kuchean. Thus Fo is not an abridgement of Fo-t’o as hitherto believed. In the texts of the Latter Han and the Three Kingdoms it is the word Fo which is used first. Fo-t’o is a latter lengthening of Fo and not that Fo is an abridgement.
The hypothesis however raises an important question. The old pronunciation of Fo starts with a sonant “but”. In Kuchean pūd/pud it is a surd. Why do the Chinese Buddhist texts render a surd by a sonant? Unless this question is satisfactorily answered our hypothesis cannot become a proof. It might be argued that Chinese Fo is not based on the Kuchean but on some other Central Asian form. In Sogdian Sanskrit Buddha is rendered as pwty pwtty (Gauthiot, Le Sūtra du religieux Ongles-Longs, p.3). In later Khotanese it is babsa, beysa, biysa (Sten Konow, Saka Studies, Oslo Etnografike Museum Bulletin, 5, p.121, Hoernle Manuscript Remains …,⒐, pp. 239, 242). In Uigur “Burxan” is the common translation of Sanskrit Buddha. But in the Uigur translation of the Suvarṇaprabhāsa-Sūtra (Müller, Uigurica p.11) we find “namo bud…namo drm…namo sang” which correpond to Sanskrit “namo buddhāya…namo dharmāya…namo saṅghāya.” In this Uigur translation we find the words taising and sivsing which are really Chinese ta cheng and hsiao cheng. The occurrence of these words shows that the text was translated from Chinese. But the line “namo bud… etc.”, comes directly from Indian source. Why the Sanskrit word become bud in Uigur cannot be explained. Anyhow the Uigur Bud might be the source of Chinese Fo if there had not been a chronological difficulty. The Uigur translation is not older than the T’ang period but Fo goes back to the Han. Fo therefore could not have been derived from Uigur.
There are many other evidences to show that the oldest Chinese Buddhist transliteration were based on Tokharian and Kuchean. The Chinese Fo could have only been derived from these two sources.
Till now I have tried to show only that the source of Chinese name is Tokharian or Kuchean but the problem that a Kuchean sonant becomes a surd in Chinese remains unsolved. The only way of solving the problem is to re-examine the old pronunciation of Fo. The old pronunciation as reconstructed by Karlgren is bud. But besides this Fo there was another Fo. The character is the same but the pronunciations are different. Cf. Li Ki, chap. chi yi, comm. of Cheng…“( ēǎせラ︱ㄓ )”. She-wen the pronunciation of fang ( ラ ) as ( 疊┕の ) and of fo as 疊の ( p’iwɘd ). There are also other instances of this pronunciation of Fo in Yi-li, chap. Chi hsi li, She-ki etc.
From these examples we can find that the word Fo had two pronunciations. In the ancient Chinese phonetic system the word Fo belongs to the group ( ) the final of ju sheng of the che group if t; the kiu-sheng related to ju-sheng has a final d. Therefore Fo is pronunciation in two ways: (ⅰ) ju-sheng-b’iwɘt and (ⅱ) kiu-sheng-p’iwɘt. The Kuchean pud-pūd exactly correspond with the kiusheng of Fo in initial and final.
We may therefore conclude that Fou-t’u, Fou-t’u, Fu-tou, and Fo are of different source. The first three come from an Indian Prakrit and the last come through Kuchean. The conclusion seems to be very simple but it throws some new light on the history of the introduction of Buddhism in China.
Either in the history of the world or in the history of China, the introduction of Buddhism in China is an event of the greatest importance. Although in the ancient Chinese accounts there are many accounts of the introduction of Buddhism yet they are so contradictory to each other that we cannot make a clear idea from them (T’ang Yung-tung, Han wei leang tsin nan pei caho fo kiao she, ⒐, pp. 1-15). Towards the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th the European scholars sent several expeditions to Central Asia. They discovered among the ruins of ancient cities and temples numerous manuscripts, paintings etc. Since then they made epoch making progress in the study of the history and geography of Central Aaia and also in the study of the history of Buddhism. Prof. Sylvain Lévi proved that the technical terms in the Chinese translations of the Han period did not come directly from Sanskrit but through a medium, which was according to him a Central Asian medium (Le Tokharien B, Langue de Koutcha, J. As, 1913, pp. 311 ff). We find records in ancient Chinese literature which amply confirm his views.
I have tried to show that the Chinese Fo does not come directly from Sanskrit but through Kuchean. This goes to strengthen the theory of Prof. Lévi. The other word Fou-t’u which was used in Chinese earlier than Fo came directly from India most probably from an Indian dialectal form. How to explain this fact? Anyhow the theory of Prof. Lévi must be supplemented. We do not know exactly when the Chinese first received Buddhism. Buddhism must have come to China earlier than what is usually believed. It first came either by sea or by land. If it had come by land through Central Asia, the small countries in Central Asia did not yet play any part in the transmission. Chinese translations were made at that time from texts written in Prakrit. The sūtra of the 42 Sections was one of them. The name Fou-t’u came to be used at this time. It was towards the end of the Han period that Central Asian monks and laymen came to China. They were Ngan She-k’ien, Che-k’ien, Che Lokakṣema, Ngan Hiuan, Che Yao, K’ang Mongsiang etc. Buddhism began to be transmitted to China by the Buddhist monks of Central Asia. The texts which they translated into Chinese seem to be have been not Indian but written in their own languages. The word Fo came to be used in this period. Dr. Hu Shih says “I suppose boldly that the term Fo came to be used under the latter Han dynasty, when the number of translations and Buddhists began to increase.” (ibid, p.181). I entirely agree with his assertion.
We now come to question of the authenticity of the Sūtra of the 42 Sections, and its bearing on the use of the terms Fou-t’u and Fo. So far as the Sūtra is concerned Dr. Hu Shih and Prof. T’ang have discussed the problem thoroughly. I will confine my attention only to one of the points raised by them. Prof. T’ang contends that there were two translations of the Sūtra of the 42 Sections and that the existing one in the Chinese Tripiṭaka is in too fine a style to be a Han translation. He thinks that the Han translation which was in a plain and simple style was lost. The second translation of the text, that by Che-k’ien of the Wu dynasty, which is in a more refined style, has come down to us (T’ang, loc. cit. ⒐, p.36). Dr. Hu Shih agree with this theory (loc. cit. p.178). To me also the theory appears to be very plausible. But one point still remains unexplained. Siang Kiai in his memorial to Huang-ti says “Fou-t’u does not sleep for three nights under a mulberry tree. He does not want to remain there longer lest he may have love for it. This is due to his utmost exertion. The god sends him beautiful girls. Fou-t’u says ‘there are only leather sack with blood.’ He does not look at them. He is so devoted to his asceticism” (Hou Han Shu ch. 60b). In the Sūtra of the 42 Sections we find similar expressions: “He eats only once a day; he remains under the tree only one night, he never repeats. What blind the people are the desire the ignorance” (Taisho ed. ⒙⒖, 722b). “The god offers the Buddha a beautiful girl in order to try him. The Buddha looks at the Tao and says ‘you are a leather sack with dirts; why have you come? You can cheat with the common people but cannot shake me who has got six spiritual powers,” (ibid, 723b).
A comparison shows that Siang Kiai was most probably drawing upon the Sūtra of the 42 Sections. Both Dr. Hu Shih (ibid. p.171) and Prof. T’ang (ibid. pp.33-34) are of this opinion. But Prof. Chen on the contrary contends that “to remain for one night under a tree” and “leather sack with dirts” are of common usage among the Buddhists. The quotation of Siang Kiai, according to him, does not necessarily come from the Sūtra of the 42 Sections (ibid. p.179). Moreover he points out that Siang Kiai uses the term Fou-t’u in his memorial Fou-t’u in his memorial but it is Fo which we find in the Sūtra of the 42 Sections. Dr. Hu admits that there is much force in this contention. Prof. T’ang tries to explain it thus: “The old Chinese books were transmitted only through copies. A term like Fou-t’u does not represent exactly the original name. Besides the Chinese words literally convey a sense of despise. In course of repeated copying the old was changed into a new one” (ibid. p.36).
Now that we know the source of Fou-t’u was an Indian dialectal form and that of Fo was Kuchean, we can look at the problem from a new point of view. A satisfactory explanation of the problem may be found by having recourse to a new hypothesis. We know that the Sūtra of the 42 Sections was twice translated into Chinese. The first translation which was done in the Han period was based on an Indian original. This translation used the term Fou-t’u and Siang Kiai’s quotation was from this translation. This translation was subsequently lost. The second translation, that of Che Kien has come down to us. The original of this translation must have been in some Central Asian dialect.
We thus find that the three principles that were enunciated by Prof. Chen are not based on very strong grounds. He has overlooked the fact that the use of the two names Fou-t’u and Fo concerned chiefly a difference in sources. Simply for the fact that some of the Han translations use only Fo and not Fou-t’u we cannot consider them as not being Han translations. His contention that “even if they are translations” cannot also be supported.
Prof. Chen besides pointed out that Fo is not used in the historical material used by Fan Wei-tsong. Dr. Hu Shih gives a reasonable explanation of his fact thus: “Yu (chüan), Ch’en (sho), Sse Ma (p’iao) and Fan (Wei-Tsong) etc. were all non-Buddhist historians. From the fact that they used only Fou-t’u and not Fo or probably Fo in some cases, we cannot infer that the Buddhists of those days had not yet used Fo as common term for Buddha”(ibid. p.195). The Chinese scholars and historians borrowed the word Fou-t’u from such texts as had been directly translated from Indian sources. The word Fo was brought later by the Central Asian monks and at the beginning it was confined only to the texts translated by them. Later on it became a word of common use and replaced Fou-t’u on account of its apparent advantages.
(Sino-Indian Studies)