“MAITREYA” AND “METRAK”

 The study of À±°Ç Mile (Maitreya) Metrak with its wide-ranging appeal is of great importance in the history of Indian and Chinese Buddhism.  The present study is mainly concerned with the channel and medium through which Indian Buddhism found its way into China. As the problem leads back to a crucial link in the history of Sino-Indian cultural exchange, it deserves serious attention.

The term Mile À±°Ç appears to be a simple problem and has actually been treated as such Von Gabain, for example, maintains that it was Serindian culture that influenced the development of the concept of À±°Ç Mile Metrak, as the Chinese transliteration À±°Ç Metrak did not derive from Sanskrit but from mittra in Khotansaka and metrak in Tocharian, hence the term miroku in Japanese.[i]  It seems to me that von Gabain has oversimplified this problem, which is, in fact, considerably more complicated. Involved here are at least three questions: (1) Did Metrak derive directly from Maitreya? (2) Was the term Metrak formed independently? And finally, (3) Why did À±°Ç Metrak and not ±öËã§Q­C Maitreya appear in the earliest Chinese versions of Buddhist texts? There are the problems that I shall deal with in this article.



¢¹. Did Metrak Derive Directly from Maitreya?

There is undoubtedly some connection between Maitreya in Sanskrit and Metteya in Pāli on the one hand, and Metrak in Tocharian on the other, as all three words refer to the “Future Buddha”. That all three are related to Maitri in Sanskrit is also without doubt. Morphologically speaking, however, the Tocharian word is somewhat different from either the Sanskrit or Pāli word. How is this to be interpreted? With regard to Indian Buddhist history, the most rational interpretation seems to be that Metrak derived from Maitreya and Metteya, for Tocharian came into being later than Sanskrit and Pāli.

There are indeed scholars who have arrived at this conclusion, one of whom is Franz Bernhard. In his “Gāndhārī and the Buddhist Mission in Central Asia,”  Bernhard confirms the part that Gāndhārī played in the spread of Buddhism to Central Asia and China.[ii] His argument is certainly very convincing in that Gāndhārī was a northwestern dialect of ancient India, in which The Dhammapada discovered in Xinjiang, China, was written. Moreover, in geographical terms, it is reasonable to argue that Gāndhārī served as a medium of crucial importance in the Buddhist mission in Central Asia.

In passing, Bernhard touched on Metrak and À±°Ç Mile. After quoting von Gabain who traces the origin of the Chinese transliteration of À±°Ç Mile to Tocharian, he argues that “this idea, however does not solve the problem but simply transfers it, as in Tocharian a phonetic change from ‘y’ to ‘k’ is quite unknown.”  Bernhard suggests that Tocharian should be replaced by Gāndhārī, where such suffix doublets as

-aya-aga

-eya-ega

are often seen,“g” being a voiced fricative. In Gāndhārī are found “metraya/metreya: metraga,” which sometimes become “metrae/metre” when the ending consonants are deleted. It is to these forms that the East Tocharian term Metrak and the Chinese terms À±°Ç Mile are traced. Furthermore, other related word forms in Khotan-saka, Parthian, Uighur, Mongolian, Kalmyk and Manchu can either directly or indirectly be traced back to those forms in Gāndhārī.

In West Tocharian (Kuchean) are found two distinct forms. Maitreye and Maitrak, which, in Bernhard’s view, register the paired-off suffixes and two distinct stages of linguistic borrowing as well.

Here Bernhard cites “On the Earliest Chinese Transliterations of the Name of Buddha,” an essay of mine written some forty years ago.[iii] In it I argue that while ¦òªû Fuotuo, can be traced to “Buddha” etymologically, ¦ò Fuo is not of Sanskrit but of Tocharian origin. ¦ò Fuo is not a shortening of ¦òªû as is popularly believed; rather the latter is a lengthening of the former. Bernhard admits that ¦ò did not derive from “Buddha”, yet he reconstructs a socalled Old Tocharian form *but, asserting that this was where the Chinese transliteration ¦ò came from. He concludes that ¦ò can testify to the role of Tocharian as a medium if À±°Ç fails to do so.

Now let’s come back to the ending “ega.”“g” is voiced while “k” is voiceless. Granted that voiced fricatives were not used as endings in Tocharian, the phonological transition from “g” to “k” cannot have come about smoothly. Therefore, the problem needs further inquiry.

It seems that something might be worked out if we switch to the relations between “-eya” and “-eka.” The interchangeability of “ya” and “ka” is evident in Old Indian Dialects. According to Pischel,[iv] Amg. daga¡×udaka¡×udaya, posakiya¡×upavasathika, tumbavīniya¡×tumbhavīnaka, etc. Lüders[v] cites several instances of “-ika” in place of “-iya”: ekavāciya and ekavācika, rathiyā and rathikā, ghātikā and ghātiyā, jāgariyā and jāgarikā, etc, As K.R. Norman[vi] points out, in the Upkt of the Asokan Inscriptions, the phonological transitions such as -k/-g-¡Ö-y- and -y-¡Ö-k- do occur. For instance, janiyo, nom. plur. of janī, varies to janiko in some particular inscriptions.

Even as we take up Gāndhārī, we find instances of -y-¡Ö-k- and -k-¡Ö-y-. John Brough[vii] renders mrga ¡ámuya and kāka ¡ákaya as instances of the transition from -g-/-k- to -y-, and udaya ¡áudaka as one of the reverse transition -y-¡á-k-. In a note,[viii] Brough discusses the problem of Maitreya[ix]¡áMetrak. After enumerating Metrak in Agnean (Tocharian A or East Tocharian), Maitràk in Kuchean (Tocharian B or West Tocharian) and m’ytr’k in Sogdian, he observes that a variant of m’ytr’k  also existed in Sogdian i.e. m’ytr’y, a quite ambiguous form (refer to Gershevitch, Grammar of Manichean Sagdian,§960). He points out that the Chinese form À±°Ç Mile may have come from Metraka. These might be purely literary borrowings mechanically transcribed; but it is of course possible that even within Gāndhārī the written forms may have subsequently induced pronunciations with [k], if only as a reading-style adopted by the less literate monks for use in the recitation of sacred texts.” The meaning of the cited passage is clear in spite of its obscure wording. Brough demonstrates in great detail the subtle involved relations between -y- and -k-. What is meant here is that sometimes monks were induced to pronounce -y- as -k-. In short, Brough’s interpretation of Metrak is entirely different from Bernhard’s.

Different as their opinions seem to be, both Brough and Bernhard hold that the term Metrak derived directly from Maitreya. As to Gāndhārī, Brough noted its important role in the Buddhist transmission in Central Asia and China even before Bernhard. According to Brough, a great number of early Chinese transliterations of Buddhist terminology were based on Gāndhārī as a source language.[x] However, it does not follow that À±°Ç Mile must likewise have come from Gāndhārī. Brough and Bernhard have good grounds for taking Maitreya as the origin of Metrak, and they are well supported in their arguments. Nevertheless, there may be other and perhaps more reasonable approaches to the problem of À±°Ç Mike.

¢º. Was Metrak Formed Independently?

“Independent formation” refers to the process in which Metrak was formed in accordance with the Tocharian rules of word-formation, independent of Gāndhārī or any other intermediary language.

As a matter of fact, in their Tocharische Grammatik,[xi] Sieg, Siegling and Schulze devote a whole chapter to the discussion of some related problems. According to the three authors, the ending “-ik-” functions in the following ways.

1. It may turn an abstract noun into a person with the characteristic represented by that noun. For example, kākmart (prestige)¡Ï-ik¡á kākmärtik (B kamartike), meaning a person having prestige, or a prestigious person; kāruṃ (mercy)¡ákārunik (cf. Sanskrit: “kārunika”) meaning a merciful person; kritāṃ (the meaning of which is not clear)¡Ï-ik¡ákritānik, i.e. a person doing kritāṃ; spaktāṃ (A¡×B, service, devotion) ¡áspaktānik (B spaktanīke), i.e., a devotee, a donator.

It may turn an adjective into a noun. For example, A āsāṃ/B asāṃ (respectable)¡Ï-ik¡áāsānik, meaning an arhat, a person worthy of being worshipped.

3. Where loan words are concerned, the situation becomes more complicated. The Sanskrit word niraya¡Ïpāla (ka) is varied to ñarepālik in Tocharian, meaning a guard of hell; pindapāta(Skt.) ¡ápiṃnwātik (Toch.) from which comes the Chinese term ¤À½Ã (alms-begging) Fenwei. The function of -ik in these cases is not clear. Another example: ṛṣi (Skt, seer, sage)¡Öriṣak (B rṣāke).

©~¤h(Jushi) is gṛhin, gṛhastha in Sanskrit and kātäke (B kattāke) in Tocharian, yet the latter did not emerge from Sanskrit, but very probably from Iranian languages. Awesta kad means a house, and in New Persian kat-x-udā refers to layman¡]©~¤h¡^. Therefore, it is the ending “ä” that causes kātäk to mean a person living at home.

As to Metrak, the three authors observe without further explanation that “Maitreya” frequently occurred in the form of Metrak. In Tocharian B there existed both forms, Maitrāk and Maitreye. Then, in a note, the authors make it clear that they have been informed by Andreas of the fact that Metrak also occurred in Middle Persian manuscript remains found in Turfan. Here I venture to offer a different interpretation of Metrak or Maitrāk. This form, in my opinion, is not to be traced back to the Sanskrit form Maitreya; rather it came directly from another Sanskrit form Maitri meaning “kindness”. Maitrī¡Ï-k¡áMetrak/Maitrāk, i.e., a kind person—the original for the earliest free translation ·O¤ó Cishi. In my opinion this explanation is well grounded and reasonable. Thus, my view is that Metrak was formed independently and that it is not necessary to derive it from “Maitreya.”[xii]



¢». Why Was It That À±°Ç and Not ±öËã§Q­C
Appeared in the Earliest Chinese
Versions of Buddhist Scripture?

Now that the problem of Maitreya and Metrak is clarified, we can set about examining how these terms occurred in the Chinese Buddhist texts, as this is a question of pivotal importance to the studies of the Buddhist transmission from India to Serindia and China, and of the History of Chinese Buddhism.

Maitreya and Metrak occurred in the Chinese versions of Buddhist texts in three different forms.

1. À±°Ç―the phonetic transliteration of Metrak

À±°Ç appears many hundreds of times in the Chinese Tripiṭaka and it is therefore not possible nor necessary to enumerate all of them. What is of significance to my inquiry is: (1) when did the earliest translations appear; (2)in which sūtras they occurred; and (3) who translated them. By “the earliest” I mean the periods of the Later Han and the Three Kingdoms. The occurrences of À±°Ç from the Two Jins, the Northern and Southern Dynasties through the Sui and Tang down to the Song and Ming Dynasties will not be listed here, as they are irrelevant to my discussion. Recorded here are the earliest texts that containÀ±°Ç in order of their appearance in ¤j¥¿·s­×¤jÂøg (Taishōsinshūdaizōkyō, hereafter abridged to T.)

¤»«×¶°¸g (Liu Du Ji Jing, ṣ aṭpāramitā-saṅgraha-sūtra, trans. Kang Seng Hui of the Kingdom of Wu §d±d¹¬·|Ķ) Vol. 1¡J©¼°ê¤ýªÌÀ±°Ç¬OThat king was Metrak. T. 3, 3b;

¤j¤è«K¦ò³ø®¦¸g (Da Fang Bian Fo Bao En Jing) in the Later Han Catalogue, Sūtra of the Great Upāya [Mahopāya] by which Buddha recompenses the Favour [of his Parents]. Trans, anonymous¥¢Ä¶¤H¦W¦b«áº~¿ýVol.1¡JÀ±°ÇµÐÂÄ“Metrak Bodhisattva.”T. 3, 124b;

¦ò»¡¤ë©úµÐÂĸg (Fo Shuo Yue Ming Pu Sa Jing, Buddhabhāṣita-Candraprabhābodhisattva-sūtra, trans. Zhi Qian of Wu§d¤äÁ¾Ä¶)¡Jº¸®É´¼¤O¤ýªÌ¡A¤µÀ±°ÇµÐÂĬO¡C“The king jñānabala of that time is now the Metrak Bodhisattva,”T. 3, 411c;

¦ò»¡¿³°_¦æ¸g (Fo Shuo Xing Qi Jing, Buddhabhāṣita-nidānacaryā-sūtra, trans. Kang Meng Xiang of the Later Han Dynasty«áº~±d©s²»Ä¶)¡AVol.2:º¸®É¯f¤ñ¥CÀ±°ÇªÌ¡A«h¤µÀ±°ÇµÐÂĬO¡C“The sick Bhikṣu Metrak is now Metrak Bodhisattva.”T.4 172b;

¼¶¶°¦Ê½t¸g (Zhuan Ji Bai Yuan Jing, Śatanidāna—saṅgraha—sūtra, trans. Zhi Qing of Wu§d¤äÁ¾Ä¶)¡AVol. 10¡J§Ú¤ÎÀ±°Ç­Ñ¬°µÐÂÄ¡C“Both Metrak and I were Bodhisattva.”T. 4, 253c;

ÂøÄ´³ë¸g (Za Pi Yu Jing, Saṃyuktāvadāna-sūtra, trans. Zhi Lou Jia Chen of Later Han«áº~¤ä°ú­{Æ@Ķ)¡J±ý¸@À±°Ç¦ò®É¤T·|¤G¦Ê¤K¤Q´X¤H±o¯u¤H®É.“I would like to see the occasion when at the 3 assemblies of Metrak Buddha 280 koṭis of people attain Arhathood.”T. 4, 499b;

ÂÂÂøÄ´³ë¸g (Jiu Za Pi Yu Jing, An Old Saṃyuktāvadāna-sūtra, trans. Kang Seng Hui of Wu§d±d¹¬·|Ķ)¡AVol.1¡JÀ±°Ç§@¦ò®É¡A·í±oÀ³¯u«×²æ¡C“When Metrak turns Buddha, he will attain Arhathood and get deliverance.”T. 4, 512b;

¹D¦æ¯ë­Y¸g ¡]Dao Xing Ban Ruo Jing, Dasasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra, trans. Zhi Lou Jia Chen of Later Han«áº~¤ä°ú­{Æ@Ķ¡^¡AVol.1¡JÀ±°ÇµÐÂÄ¡C“Metrak Bodhisattva.”T. 8, 425c;

Ibid. Vol. 3¡JÀ±°ÇµÐÂÄ¡C“Metrak Bodhisattva.”T. 8, 438a;

Ibid. Vol. 5¡JÀ±°ÇµÐÂÄ¡C“Metrak Bodhisattva.”T. 8, 451b;

¤j©ú«×¸g¡]Da Ming Du Jing, Daśasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, trans. Zhi Qian of Wu§d¤äÁ¾Ä¶¡^¡AVol. 4:À±°Çñm¤h.“Metrak Bodhisattva.”T. 8, 496c;

¦ò»¡¤K¦N²»¯«©G¸g (Fo Shuo Ba Ji Xiang Shen Xhou Jing, Aṣṭabuddhaka, trans. Zhi Qian of Wu§d¤äÁ¾Ä¶)¡JµÐÂĤd¤H¬ÒÀ±°Çµ¥.“One thousand Bodhisattvas and all equal to Metrak.”T. 14, 72b;

Ibid.À±°ÇµÐÂÄ“Metrak Bodhisattva.”T. 14, 73a;

¦ò»¡ºû¼¯¸×¸g (Fo Shuo Wei Mo Jie Jing, Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, trans. Zhi Qian of Wu§d¤äÁ¾Ä¶),Vol.1¡J©ó¬O¦ò§iÀ±°ÇµÐÂÄ¡C“Then the Buddha told Metrak Bodhisattva.…” T. 14, 523c;

¦ò»¡ªøªÌ¤l¨î¸g (Fo shuo Zhang Zhe Zi Zhi Jing, Śreṣṭhi-pūtrajeta-sūtra. trans. An Shi Gao of Later Han«áº~¦w¥@°ªÄ¶)¡J§Ú«ù·O¤ß¬Ò¥IÀ±°Ç¦ò.“I maintain kindness in my mind totally devoted to Metrak Buddha.”T. 14, 801b;

¦ò»¡¯Â¯uªûù©Ò°Ý¦p¨Ó¤T¬N¸g (Fo Shuo Chun Zhen Tuo Lou Sho Wen Ru Lai San Mei Jing , Druma-kinnara-paripṛcchā-ratnatathāgata-samādhi-sūtra, trans. Zhi Lou Jia Chen of Later Han«áº~¤ä°ú­{Æ@Ķ)¡AVol. 1¡J´_¦³µÐÂÄ¡A¦W¤êÀ±°Ç¡C“Further there was a Bodhisattva named Metrak.”T. 15, 349a;

Ibid, Vol.2¡J¦ò»yÀ±°Ç¡C“The Buddha told Metrak.”T. 15, 367a;

The above citations bring to light the basic situation regarding the occurrences of À±°Ç Metrak in the Chinese Buddhist texts during the Later Han and the Three Kingdoms. It was not a long period, but there nevertheless appeared a considerable number of translators (±d¹¬·|¡A¤äÁ¾¡A±d©s¸Ô¡A¤ä°ú­{Æ@¡A¦w¥@°ª¡Aetc.) who, moreover, came from quite different places such as¤ë¤ó¡AIndoscythia¡A±d©~Sogdiana, and ¦w®§ Parthia. It is worth noticing that whoever the translator was and wherever he came from translators unanimously employed the term Metrak À±°Ç¡C The phonetic transliteration of Metrak À±°Ç was an accepted term for the Future Buddha during that period.

2. ±öËã§Q­C or the like—the phonetic transliterations of Maitreya ±öËã§Q­Cunrelated to Metrak, is the phonetic transliteration of the Sanskrit term Maitreya.  Its occurrences in the Chinese Buddhist texts are as follows:

ªü¬s¹F¿i¤j¬s±C¨F½× (A Pi Da Mo Da Pi Po Sha Lun, Abhidharma-mahāvibhāsā-śāstra, trans. Xuan Zang of the Tang Dynasty¡A­ð¥È®NĶ)¡AVol. 177¡F¤G¦W±öËãÄ×ÃÄ¡C“The second one was called Maitreya.”T. 27, 890b;

ªü¬s¹F¿i¶¶¥¿²z½× (A Pi Da Mo Shun Zheng Li Lun, Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra, trans. Xuan Zang Tang­ð¥È®NĶ)¡AVol. 44¡J¤@¦W±ö©ÍÄ× ( ÄR ) ÃÄ¡C“The first one was called Maitreya.”T. 29 591c;

§®ªk½¬µØ¸g¥ÈÃÙ ( Miao Fa Lian Hua Jing Xuan Zan, Profound Eulogy of addharmapundarīka-sūtra, written by Kui Ji of Tang­ð¿s°ò¼¶ ) end of Vol. 10:±ë¤ª±öËã§Q¥½¨º¬G¡C“Because the Sanskrit word is Maitrimanas.”T. 34, 849c;

¤TÀ±°Ç¸g²¨ ( San Mi le Jing Shu, Commentary on Three Maitreya-sūtras, written by Jing Xing of Korea·sù¼©¿³¼¶ )¡J¤µ¥¿±ë­µ¤ª±öËã§Q­C.“The right wording in Sanskrit now is Maitreya.”T. 38, 305b;

»¡µL«¯ºÙ¸g²¨ ( Shou Wu Gou Chen Jing Shu, Commentary on Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, written by Kui Ji of Tang­ð¿s°ò¼¶ )¡Aend of Vol. 3:±ë¤ª±öËã§Q­C¦¹¤ª·O.“The Sanskrit word is Maitreya, which means here in Chinese Kind-hearted.”T.38, 1048b;

Ibid Vol. 4:±ë¤ª±öËã§Q­C¡A½¬°·O¤ó¡C¥j¤ªÀ±«ÒÄR¡A©Î¤ªÀ±°Ç¡A¬Ò³_²¤¤]¡C“The Sanskrit word is Maitreya, which is translated into a ‘Kind-hearted person’.” In ancient times it was called Maitri or Metrak which are both wrong and abridged.”T.38 1057b;

ª÷¥ú©ú³Ì³Ó¤ý¸g²¨ ( Jin Guang Ming Zui Sheng Wang Jing Shu, Commentary on Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra, written by Hui Zhao¼z¶@¼¶¡Atrans. Yi Jing of Tang­ð¸q²bĶ )¡A Vol. 1¡J·O¤ó¡A±ë­µ±öËãÄR¦²¡A¦¹¤ª·O¤ó¡C©Î¤ª¨º¡A§Y·O©m¤¤¥Í¡A©Î¥»©Ê¦æ·O¡C©Î¤ª¦²¥§¡A§Y¤kÁn¤¤¡C“Kind-hearted person, in Sanskrit wording Maitreya, here in China he is called a Kind-hearted person, or Maitreyāna, which means Born in the Maitreya Caste, or Kind by Nature; it is also called Maitreyāni, being feminine gender”T. 39, 188b;

­º·«ÄY¸q²¨ª`¸g ( Shou Leng Yan Yi Shu Zhu Jing, Commentary on Sūraṅgama, ed. Zi Jun of Song§º¤lÂ{¶° )¡AVol. 5,¢º¡J¨ã¤ª±ö©C ( wrongly written for “Ëã”) §Q¦²¨º¡A¦¹¤ª·O¤ó“The full complete name is Maitreyāna, which means here in China Kind-hearted person.”T. 39, 902a;

­ÑªÙ½×°O ( Ju She Lun Ji, Description of Abhidharmakośa-śāstra, compiled by Pu Guang of Tang­ð´¶¥ú­z )¡AVol. 18¡J¤G¦W±ö©ÍÄ×ÃÄ¡A§¨ª`¡J±ö©Í¡A¦¹¤ª·O¡FÄ×ÃÄ¡A¦¹¤ª¤ó¡CµÐÂĦb·O©m¤¤¥Í¡A±q©m¥ß¦W¡A¬G¦W·O¤ó¡C¤ªÀ±°Ç¡A³_¤]¡C“The second one was called Maitreya. Interlinear notes: Mait means here in Chinese kindness; reya means here a person. The Bodhisattva was born in the caste Kindness (Maitrī), hence he was called the Kind-hearted. The old transliteration Metrak is wrong.”T. 41, 282b;

­ÑªÙ½×²¨ ( Ju She Lun Shu, Commentary on Abhidharma-kośa-śāstra, written by Fa Bao of Tang­ðªkÄ_¼¶ )¡AVol. 18:¤G¦W±ö©ÍÄ×ÃÄ.“The second one was called Maitreya.”T. 41, 682a;

¦¨°ßÃѽ׭z°O ( Cheng Wei Shi Lun Shu Ji, Description of Vidyāmātrasiddhi-śāstra, written by Kui Ji of Tang­ð¿s°ò¼¶ )¡AVol. 4:±ë¨¥±öËã§Q­C¡A¦¹Â½¨¥·O¤ó¡C±öËãù¦²¥§¡A¦¹ÁnÂध²§¡C±Cùªù¤Q¤K©m¤¤¡A·O¬°¤@©m¡C¤ó¿×¤ó±Ú¡A¬Ò·í¬Ò¥Í¦¹ºØ©m®a¡A¬G¥H¬°¸¹¡C“The Sanskrit word Maitreya is translated into ‘Kind-hearted’ here in China. Maitreyāni is a different morphological form. The caste Maitreya is one of the 18 Brahman castes. “¤ó” means clan. All who are born in this caste should be called Maitreya.”T. 43, 352b;

ªk­b¯]ªL ( Fa Yuan Zhu Lin, Pearl Forest in Dharma Garden written by Dao Shi of Tang­ð¹D¥@¼¶ )¡AVol. 29¡J¤S¤j¦x¤¤¦³¨è¤ì±öËãÄR­C ( ¤ªÀ±°Ç ) µÐÂĹ³.“Further, in the great temple there is a statue of Maitreya (formerly Metrak) Bodhisattva carved in wood. T. 53, 498b;

¤@¤Á¸g­µ¸q ( Yi Qie Jing Yin Yi, Commentary on All Sūtras, written by Hui Lin of Tang­ð¼zµY¼¶ )¡AVol. 27:À±°Ç¡A±ö©Í§Q¦²¡A¦¹¤ª·O¤ó¡A·O¬°¥»©m¡A©Î¥H¤ß¦æ¬°©m¤]·“Metrak Maitreya means a ‘Kind hearted person’ here in Chinese. Or the clan name Kind-hearted is deduced from [kind] mentality.”T. 54, 482c;

½Ķ¦W¸q¶° ( Fan Yi Ming Yi Ji, Mahāvyutpatti, ed. Fa Yun of Song §ºªk¶³½s )¡AVol.1¡JÀ±°Ç¡A¡m¦è°ì°O¡n¤ª±ö­ù ( wrongly written for “Ëã”) ÄR­C¡A­ð¤ª·O¤ó¡A§Y©m¤]¡C¤êÀ±°Ç¡A³_¤]¡C¤°¤ê¡J‘©m¤]¡Cªü¶h¦h¡A¦r¤]¡C«n¤ÑªÇ±Cùªù¤l¡C’¡m²b¦W²¨¡n¤ª¡J‘¦³¨¥±q©m¥ß¦W¡C¤µ¿×«D©m¡A®£¬O¦W¤]¡C¦óªÌ¡HÀ±°Ç¦¹Â½·O¤ó¡C¹L¥h¬°¤ý¡A¦W¾è¼¯¬y¤ä¡A·O¨|°ê¤H¡C¦Ûº¸¦Ü¤µ¡C±`¦W·O¤ó¡C©lªü¶h¦h¡A¦¹¤ªµL¯à³Ó¡C¦³¨¥ªü¶h¦h¬O¦W¡C¬J¤£¿Ë¨£¥¿¤å¡A¥¼¥i©w°õ¡CÆ[¡m¤U¥Í¸g¡n¤ª¡A®É­×±ë¼¯¡A§Y»P¤l¥ß¦r¡A¦W¤êÀ±°Ç¡C“Metrak, in Records of the Western World, is called Maitreya ¡e­ùwronglywritten for “­ù”¡f. In the Tang language it means kind hearted person which becomes a clan name. Formerly it was called Mi-Le [Metrak], which is wrong. Kumārajiva said it was his clan name. Ajita was his given name. He was a son of a Brahman in South India. The Vimalakîrti Comentary states: Somebody says, his personal name comes from his clan family caste name. Now in my opinion it is probably a personal name. Why? Metrak is translated here into Chinese “Kind hearted Person.” He was in a former birth a king called Dharmaruci, who took care of his subjects kind heartedly. Hence he has from that time until now always been called the “Kind-hearted One.” From the beginning(?) Ajita has always mean invincible. It was said that, Ajita was his personal name. Because I haven’t seen the text personally, I cannot say anything definite. We see in ¤U¥Í¸g (Maittreya-Vyākaraṇa): at that time Subrahman gave his son the name Metrak. T. 54, 1058b;

These examples, in my view lead us the following conclusions:

(a)  ±öËã§Q­CMeitanliya and other phonetic transliterations of Maitreya appeared       as late as the Tang Dynasty.

(b)  These phonetic transliterations occurred predominantly in annotations, commentaries and dictionaries, and only rarely in the Sūtras proper.

(c)  Diversity exists within a context of roughly identical Chinese characters employed in the transliterations. Master Xuan Zang himself was not consistent.  He used ±ö©ÍÄ×ÃÄ in the two instances cited above while in Records of the Western World of the Tang Dynasty ( ¤j­ð¦è°ì°O )¡AVol. 7, the transliteration appears as ±öËãÄR­C¡C

(d)  Some of the explications by Chinese monks are simply nonsensical.±öËã¡A¦¹¤ª·O¡FÄ×ÃÄ¡A¦¹¤ª¤ó¡C That Mait means here in Chinese Kind-hearted, reya means here in Chinese for instances is wrong because in Sanskrit “Maitreya” cannot in any circumstances be divided into “Mait” and “reya”. Such is also true of ±öËã§Q¦²¨º Meitanliyana as there is no such word as Maitreyann in Sanskrit. As to©Î¤ª¨º¡A§Y·O©m¤¤¥Í (huo yun na, ji ci xing zhong sheng) the Sanskrit equivalent should be “Maitreyaja”; however, “ja” means “¥Í”(being born) while “na” ( ¨º ) has nothing to do with “¥Í”.

(e)  The relationship between À±°Ç Metrak and ªü¶h¦h Ajita has not been clarified.

(f)  In Records of the Western World of the Tang Dynasty ( ¤j­ð¦è°ì°O ) as well as in the above citations À±°Ç Mile was held to be a wrong and an abridged translation ( ³_²¤¤] Elüeye ), which fact hints that the origin of À±°Ç had long been inaccessible to Chinese monks, including the Great Master Xuan Zang.

3. ·O¤óCishi—the free translation

In the Chinese Buddhist texts, the term ·O¤ó Cishi is used with remarkable frequency comparable to that of À±°Ç Mile/metrak or only slightly lower. Examples given below will be restricted to the earliest periods, that is, the Later Han and the Three Kingdoms, so that the use of ·O¤ó Cishi can be studied along with that of À±°Ç Metrak. Citations after those periods are omitted, as ·O¤ó on a parallel with À±°Ç appear in great abundance in the translated Buddhist texts of every dynasty.

¤j©ú«×¸g ( Da Ming Du Jing, Daśasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, trans. Zhi Qian Wu§d¤äÁ¾Ä¶ ), Vol. 2:º¸®É·O¤óñm¤h»yµ½·~¡J¦³ñm¤h¤j¤h¥NÅw³ß³Ì´L¤À¼wªk¡C“At that time, Metrak Bodhisattva told Subhūti: Bodhisattva Mahāsattva rejoiced in the Prajñāpāramitā.”T. 8, 486a;

Now let’s compare this passage with those in different versions of the same sūtra.

¹D¦æ¯ë­Y¸g¡J¼¯¶F¯ë­Yªiù»eâx惒©ëªÙùÄU§U«~²Ä¥| ( Dai Xing Ban Ruo Jing, Daśasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā, trans. Zhi Lou Jia Chen Later Han«áº~¤ä°ú­{Æ@Ķ )¡A§4:º¸®ÉÀ±°ÇµÐÂĿ׶·µÐ´£¡J­Y¦³µÐÂļ¯¶FÂÄÄU§U¬°ºÖ¡C“At that time, Metrak Bodhisattva told Subhūti: if a Bodhisattva Mahāsattva causes the people to take upon themselves the religious duty to accumulate puṇya [Merit]…” T.8, 438a;

¼¯¶F¯ë­Y¶r¸g¡Jµ½Åv«~²Ä¥| ( Mo He Ban Ruo Chao Jing, Daśasāhasrikāprajñāparamitā Shan Quan Pin, §4 trans. Dharmapriya and Zhu Fo-Nian²Å¯³¾è¼¯ãë¦@ªÇ¦ò©ÀĶ )¡AVol. 3:º¸®ÉÀ±°ÇµÐÂĿ׶·µÐ´£¡J­Y¦³µÐÂļ¯¶FÂÄÄU§U¬°ºÖ¡C“At that time, Metrak Bodhisattva told Subhūti: if a Bodhisattva Mahāsattva causes the people to take upon themselves the religious duty to accumulate punya [Merit]…”T. 8, 519c.

It can be seen clearly that what was translated as ·O¤óñm¤h and ñm¤h¤j¤h in the first version was rendered into À±°ÇµÐÂÄ and µÐÂļ¯¶FÂÄ in the last two, the former being free translations and the latter, phonetic transliterations. The term ñm¤h kaishi occurs frequently in Zhi Qian’s version and sometimes varies to ¶}¤h kaishi or even ÄĤh chanshi in other sūtras.[xiii]

Other examples follow:

¤j©ú«×¸g ( Da Ming Du Jing, Daśasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, trans. Zhi Qian Wu§d¤äÁ¾Ä¶ ) Vol. 2:·O¤óñm¤h§@µL¤W¥¿¯u¥­µ¥Ä±®É¡C

“When Maitreya Bodhisattva turns to Anuttarasamyaksambuddha.” T. 8,492c;

Ibid.­Y©ó°Â³N¤Ñ¤W±q·O¤óñm¤h°Ý¼z¡C“If he asks Maitreya Bodhisattva about Prajñā in Tuṣita heaven.…” T. 8, 492c;

ªkÃè¸g ( Fa Jing Jing, Ugra-paripṛcchā, trans. An Xuan Later Han «áº~¦w¥ÈĶ )¡J«K¨Ï·O¤ó¶}¤h¤Î¤@¤Á¦æ²b¶}¤hÅ¥¡C“Bhagavān: You just let Metrak Bodhisattva and all Sila-pāramitā-practising Bodhisattvas hear it.”T. 12, 22c;

¦ò»¡µL¶q¹Ø¸g ( Fo Shuo Wu Liang Shou Jing, Aparimitāyus-sūtra, trans. Kang Seng Kai of Cao Wei,±äÃQ±d¹¬ñZĶ¡AVol.1¡J·O¤óµÐÂÄ¡C“Metrak Bodhisattva,” T. 12,265c;

Ibid. Vol.2¡J·O¤óµÐÂÄ (Metrak Bodhisattva), T. 12, 278a. It is noticeable that·O¤óµÐÂÄbecomesÀ±°Ç in b and c on the same page of Vol.2 of that sūtra.

¦ò»¡¥XµL¶qªù·L±K«ù¸g ( Fo Shuo Chu Wu Men Wei Mi Chi Jing, Buddhadhāsita-amitamukhaguhyadhara-sūtra, trans. Zhi Qian of Wu §d¤äÁ¾Ä¶ )¡J·O¤óµÐÂÄ“Metrak Bodhisattva,”T. 19, 680b.

Here again, I would like to point to the fact that parallel versions of this sūtra have different renderings of the same term.·O¤óµÐÂÄCishi Pusa is found in some versions, like Zhi Qian’s, and À±°ÇµÐÂÄ Metrak Pusa, in others. Here are two such examples:

¦ò»¡¥X¥ÍµL¶qªù«ù¸g ( Fo Shuo Chu Sheng Wu Linag Men Chi Jing, Buddhadhāṣita-jātāmita-mukhabhara-sūtra, trans. Fo Tuo Ba Tuo Luo East Jin BuddhabhadraªF®Ê¦òªû¶[ªûù )¡JÀ±°ÇµÐÂÄ¡C“Metrak Bodhisattva,”T. 19, 682b;

ªüÃøªû¥ØÊ]¥§¨þÂ÷ªû¸g ( A Nan Tuo Mu Qu Ni He Li Tuo Jing, Anantamukha-sādhaka-dhāranī, trans. Qiu Na Ba Tuo Luo Liu Song, Gunabhadra,¼B§º¨D¨º¶[ªûùĶ )¡J·O¤óµÐÂÄ¡C“Metrak Bodhisattva,”T. 19, 685a.

With this, I end citations which furnish us with a general idea of the occurrence of ·O¤ó Cishi in the Chinese versions of Buddhist texts during the Later Han Dynasty and the Three Kingdoms.

From the study of the occurrences of the three terms À±°Ç Metrak ±öËã§Q­CMeitanliya and ·O¤ó Cishi we can inductively arrive at the following points:

(a)  À±°Ç Metrak and ·O¤ó Cishi appeared simultaneously in the earliest periods, i.e. the Later Han and the Three Kingdoms, while ±öËã§Q­C Meitanliya and the like appeared later.

(b)  In the earliest periods, the translator could freely use either À±°Ç Metrak or ·O¤ó Cishi even within the same sūtra. Translators treated phonetic transliteration and free translation in an indiscriminate way.

(c)  From the Later Han and the Three Kingdoms through to the Ming Dynasty, À±°Ç Metrak(Mile) and ·O¤ó Cishi were used as parallel and equivalent to each other.

Now that a great many examples have been given, I can finally furnish a definite answer to the question put forward in the title of this part: “Why was it À±°Ç and not ±öËã§Q­C that appeared in the earliest Chinese versions of the Buddhist Scripture?” Actually those versions were not based on Sanskrit or Pāli texts. Among their sources there may have been a small amount of Gāndhārī texts, but Ancient Serindian languages, including those of Xinjiang. And most probably, Tocharian, constituted the major part. In one of my articles written about thirty years ago,[xiv] I said: “This fact shows us that China and India did not have much direct contact with each other in the early phase of their cultural exchange. It was the Tocharian speaking people that served as a link between the two countries.” I based that conclusion on an analysis of two terms: «íªe Henghe (the Ganges) and ¶·À± ( ¤s ) (Sumeru), to which À±°Ç Metrak can be added now. My theory is that it was the term Metrak and not Maitreya that appeared before the earliest translators, to whom the meaning of Metrak was associated with Maitri meaning “kindness,” the ending -ak only turning the abstract noun into “a kind person,” which, in turn, was rendered into ·O¤ó Cishi. Things were indeed quite obvious.[xv]

Finally, I want to touch on why Metrak was transcribed À±°Ç. Almost no one has raised such a question perhaps because no scholars have ever thought of it as aproblem. However, close scrutiny does pose a difficulty. I.e.‚ -rek was quite correctly transcribed as °Ç, since °Ç Lek is pronounced in the entering tone ending in -k. Mi À± on the other hand, is not an entering tone ending in -t, and so À± is not an appropriate transcription of Met.

An interpretation has been offered by H.W. Bailey[xvi] who applies the rule “tr¡Ödr¡Ö1” to the phenomenon “tr¡Öl” in Metrak. He cites several examples, among which are the Sanskrit word trayastrimsa transcribed as É{§Q Taoli; the Sanskrit term “kṣudra¡Ökṣulla¡Öculla”; the phonetic transcription of «b§Q from the Sanskrit term “kṣatriya,” and so on. In my opinion, Bailey’s thesis is quite satisfactory and can at least serve as a justifiable interpretation.



¡@¡@NOTES