Buston On Languages Used By Indian Buddhists At Schismatic Period

Author(s): Akira Yuyama
Publisher: Akira Yuyama
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269503/1

Page #1
Bu-ston on the Languages Used by Indian Buddhists at the Schismatic Period By AKIRA YUYAMA 1.1. In treating an event in the history of Indian Buddhism it is always interesting, and in some cases important, to see if any information in this connection is given by Bu-ston (1290-1364 A. D.) in his work Bde-bar gsegs-pa'i bstan-pa'i gsal-byed chos-kyi 'byun-gnas gsun-rab rin-po-che'i mdzod, or (Bu-ston) Chos-'byun in short, which is believed to have been written when he was thirty-three in the year of Chu-phokhyi, "Water-male-dog", i.e. 1322 A. D.). 1.2. Among the so-called Chos-'byun literature Bu-ston seems to be the only original author who has told us in detail of the languages used by Indian Buddhists at the time of their schism ). The story starts in the section devoted to the controversial Third Council for the first instance. In the sections on the previous councils no mention is made in regard to the languages). 1) For this literature see among others A. I. Vostrikov, Tibetskaja istoriceskaja literatura, Moskva 1962 (Bibliotheca Buddhica 32), pp. 91f., 257-261 (notes), also its English version: Tibetan Historical Literature, translated by H. C. Gupta, Calcutta 1970 (Soviet Indology Series 4), pp. 140-145. The date of composition is given as such in the colophon of Bu-ston's work itself: cf. Vostrikov n. 405 on p. 257 (Russian edition), p. 141 (English ed.). Cf. otherwise D. S. Ruegg, The Life of Bu ston Rin po che, Rome 1966 (Serie Orientale Roma 34), p. VIII (under Buch). 2) Padma dkar-po (1527-92 A.D.) may well have borrowed Bu-ston's description in his work Chos-'byun bstan-pa'i padma rgyas-pa'i nin-byed, or 'Brug-pa'i Chos-'byun in short (1575 A.D.). Some passages correspond almost verbatim to the Bu-ston Chos-'byun, without reference to it or to the works quoted by Bu-ston. This rare book has been published in facsimiles: Tibetan Chronicle of Padmadkar-po, edited by Lokesh Chandra, with a foreword by E. Gene Smith, New Delhi 1968 (Satapitaka Series 75), 8 colums (Smith), 310 folios in facsimile, numbered 1-619. 3) Incidentally, Gzon-nu dpal (1392-1481 A.D.) has also described the schisms in detail in his well-known work Bod-kyi yul-du chos dan chos-smra-ba ji-ltar byun-ba'i rim-pa deb-ther snon-po, or Deb-ther snon-po in short (1476-78 A.D.), but has made no mention of the languages in question: cf. The Blue Annals completed in A.D. 1478 by Hgos-lotsawa Gzhon-nu-dpal (1392-1481), reproduced by Lokesh Chandra from the Collection of Raghu Vira, New Delhi 1971 (Satapitaka Series 212), esp. folios 29.2-32.7 (= Kun-bde-glin Monastery edition, folios 15 a 2-16b7); George N. Roerich, The Blue Annals, Part I, Calcutta 1949 (Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal Monograph Series 7), pp. 27-31 = Ju. N. Rerix, Izbrannye Trudy, Moskva 1967, pp. 304-308. For this literature see Vostrikov, op.cit. pp. 92-94 (Russian ed.), pp. 146-148 (English ed.).

Page #2
176 Akira Yuyama 1.3. The Tibetan original of Bu-ston Chos-'byun has been known to exist for some time, e.g. in the Libraries of Tohoku University at Sendai"), the Seminar of Indian Philosophy and Literature at the University of Tokyo5), and the Toyo Bunko in Tokyo). A facsimile edition of Bu-ston's collected works has appeared from New Delhi (1965-71), in which is included our text (= Tohoku 5197)?). 1.4. It admits of no doubt that Obermiller's English translation has served as the first aid for those who were unable to consult the original Tibetan text because of its navailability, and that it "gives an accurate idea of the original text and is a valuable contribution to the study of Tibetan historiography" (Vostrikov-Gupta p. 142f.). In some cases, however, his translation is rather free and misleading, unless the original is referred to). 1.5. The sections concerning the schisms have been translated into Japanese from the Tibetan by Enga Teramoto and appended to his Japanese translation of Taranatha's history of Buddhism. It is to be regretted, however, that the readers have to face some fatal misprints and mistakes in addition to his somewhat free translation). 1.6. Proper attention has been drawn to Bu-ston's description of the languages at the time of the schisms by L.-K. Lin in his suggestive work. It is a matter for regret, however, that he had to translate it into French from Obermiller's English version 10). 1.7. Under these circumstances it will not be superfluous to present the original Tibetan text with regard to the languages used by Indian Buddhists at the period of earlier schisms, though it has not been 4) A Catalogue of the Tohoku University Collection of Tibetan Works on Buddhism, edited by Y. Kanakura, R. Yamada, T. Tada and H. Hadano, Sendai 1953: No. 5197 (Bu-ston's Works, tome 24: YA 1-212). 5) A Catalogue of the Tibetan Extra-Canonical Works preserved in the University of Tokyo (A preliminary report), compiled by H. Kitamura, Tokyo 1965: No. 280 (190 folios = No. 345 B-2558 of the Toyo Bunko). 6) Catalogue of the Toyo Bunko Collection of Tibetan Works on History, edited by Z. Yamaguchi, Tokyo 1970 (Classified Catalogue of the Toyo Bunko Collection of Tibetan Works 1): No. 345 A-2557 (incomplete; written in dbu-med: folios 1-335b, missing 2, 3, 101); No. 345 B-2558 (= No. 280 of the University of Tokyo); No. 345C-2559 (folios 1-244 a); No. 345 D-2560 (folios 1-203a). ?) The Collected Works of Bu-ston, Part 24 (YA), edited by Lokesh Chandra from the Collection of Raghu Vira, New Delhi 1971 (Satapitaka Series 64), folios 633-1055 ( YA 1-212a). An exact reprint of the text has separately been made: Bu-ston's History of Buddhism: Tibetan text edited by Lokesh Chandra from the Collection of Raghu Vira, New Delhi 1971. 8) E. Obermiller, History of Buddhism (Chos-hbyung) by Bu-ston, Heidelberg 1931-32 (Materialien zur Kunde des Buddhismus 18-19) [repr. Tokyo 1964 (Suzuki Research Foundation Reprint Series 1)]. This is not a complete translation. ) E. Teramoto, Taranatha Indo Bukkyoshi, Tokyo 1928 (repr. 1974), pp. 395-404. 10) Lin Li-kouang, L'aide-memoire de la vraie loi, Paris 1949 (Bibliotheque d'etudes du Musee Guimet 54), pp. 180-187 (with copious notes and comments).

Page #3
177 Bu-ston on the Languages Used by Indian Buddhists collated with other editions 11). In this short paper it is intended only to give a straightforward translation with some glossarial notes, and by no means to examine its historical background or linguistic evidence. It is my future task to check the obscure readings with the other editions. 2.1. First of all Bu-ston refers to a theory in regard to the languages used at the time of King Asoka: kha-cig ston-pa 'das-nas lo brgya-drug-cu-na gron-khyer me-tog-gis rgyas-pa tes-par rgyal-po mya-nan-med byun-ba'i tahe dgra-boom-pa-rnams legs-par abyar-ba dan tha-mal-pa dan zur-chag dan da-za's skad-kyis ston-pa'i geun-rab 'don-pa-las slob-ma-rnams so-sor byes-pas sde-pa bcobrgyad-du gyur-te... (folio 88b5-6 ed. Lokesh Chandra folio 808.5-6)1). "Some [say]:-160 years after the Teacher had passed away, in the city called Kusumita (i.e. Pataliputra) at the time of King Asoka's appearance the Arhats recited the Scripture of the Teacher in Sanskrit (legs-par abyar-ba, 'well-prepared'), Prakrit (tha mal-pa, 'vulgar') ), Apabhramsa (zur-chag, 'corrupted'), and Paisaci (da-za'i skad, 'language of the flesh-eaters') 14). The disciples thus separated. They have thus grown into eighteen schools 3.1. Bu-ston then quotes Sakyaprabha's Prabhavati, composed in the eighth century (ed. Sde-dge 4125 SU 74a5-162b2; Snar-than 3618 HU 83a-184a; Peking 5627 HU 79b5-184b3), the autocommentary to his Arya-mula-sarvastivada-eramanera-karika 'Phags-pa gzi thams-cad yod-par smra-ba'i dge-tshul-gyi tshig-le'u byas-pa (Sde-dge 4124, Snarthan 3617, Peking 5626) 15): 11) For other Tibetan editions see e. g. Shuki Yoshimura, Buton no Chibetto Bukkyoshi, Indo Daijo Bukkyo Shiso Kenkyu (Collected works), Kyoto 1974, p. 548. [This article was originally published in the Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 6 (1951)]. 12) Cf. Obermiller II p. 96 (= Lin p. 184), Teramoto p. 400. 13) Teramoto's translation of tha-mal-pa with "Hendo-go (a language of borderlands)" is misleading, although it seems to be etymologically connected with tha-ma, "last", tha-ma-la, "in the last place", cf. mtha'-ma, "end", mtha'-mal-pa (tha-) (cf. Jaschke's Tibetan-English Dictionary, ss. vv.). Cf. also Mahavyutpatti, ed. R. Sakaki: Nos. 4717-4720. 14) It is to be much regretted that no names of the schools that used these languages are given, and that Bu-ston has not cited the sources of the original materials. As for the language of the Pisacas, it may well reflect a theory that the Sthaviravadins have used the Paisaci language (cf. otherwise 4.2-4 and 5.1 below). Needless to say, the Sthaviras do not necessarily mean the Pali Buddhists. One must however bear in mind that the term Pali did not exist as an appellation of the language before the works quoted by Bu-ston had been composed; cf. R. Pischel, Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen, Strassburg 1900 (Grundriss der indoarischen Philologie und Altertumskunde 1.8) [repr. Hildesheim - New York 1973], SS 27 end; M. Winternitz, A History of Indian Literature, Vol. II, Calcutta 1933, repr. 1972, p. 226 n. 2; G. K. Nariman, Literary History of Sanskrit Buddhism, Bombay 1920, p. 259; Kogen Mizuno, Pari-go Bunpo, Tokyo 1955, pp. 1, 5 n., 22f., 26. 15) Cf. P. Cordier, Catalogue du fonds tibetain de la Bibliotheque Nationale, IIIe partie, Paris 1915, p. 410 ad Mdo-'grel LXXXIX 2-3; also E. Lamotte,

Page #4
Akira Yuyama 'od-Idan-nas/ de-nas rgyal-po dharma abva-ka si-ba dan dgra-bcompa-rnams-kyis tha-mal-pa dan zur-chag-pa dan bar-mar 'don-pa'i tahig-la mnon-par zen-pa gdul-pa'i dban-gi phyir rim-gyis gun gran dan gian-du sbyar-te rgya-chen-po'i skad-du sbyar-ba's mdo-sde-la sogs-pa lta-bu-ste / bstan-pa rnam-pa bco-brgyad-kyi bar-du gyur-pa yin-no... (folio 89 a 1-3 = ed. Lokesh Chandra folio 809. 1-3) 16). 178 "From the Prabhavati ('Od-ldan):-Then King Dharma Asoka died, and the Arhats, in order to subdue adherence to Prakrit (tha-mal-pa), Apabhramea (zur-chag-pa) and the language of intermediate speech (bar-mar 'don-pa'i tshig) 17), have gradually compiled the Scripture. severally, (which have become) the sutras and the like, composed in the language of great extensiveness (rgya-chen-po'i skad) 18). The doctrine has after all grown into eighteen kinds..." 3.2. In regard to the schisms Bu-ston then pays attention to the opinion of the Mula-sarvastivadins. As a matter of fact, however, it is an extract from the Prabhavati (cf. Obermiller II p. 97 n. 636): gzi-yod-smra-ba na-re badu-ba gnis-pa'i bar-du gti-thams-cad-yod-emra goig-bu-las med-pa-la de-rjes-nas skad tha-dad-kyis 'don-pas beu-bdun-te / ... (folio 89a5-6 ed. Lokesh Chandra 809.5-6) 19). = "The Mula-(Sarva)astivadins say:-Until the Second Council there was nothing but only Mula-Sarvastivadins. After that (they) recited in different languages, and thus (it has grown) into (another) seventeen (schools)..." 4.1. Then Bu-ston refers to the Bhiksu-varsagra-precha / Dge-slon-gi dan-po'i lo dri-ba of Padmakaraghosa, composed towards the end of Histoire du bouddhisme indien, Louvain 1958 (Bibliotheque du Museon 43), p. 604. 16) Cf. Obermiller II p. 97, Teramoto p. 400. Incidentally, Padma dkar-po describes in the same wording (folio 24 a 3-4 ed. Lokesh Chandra folio 47.3-4) as Bu-ston (without reference to the source material). Only a few minor variants are a-so-ka (for asva-ka), 'dul-ba'i (for gdul-pa'i) and dban-gis (for dban-gi). 17) It is difficult to know the exact meaning of the Tibetan bar-mar 'don-pa'i tshig. Obermiller translates it by "a dialect of intermediate character" (II p. 97), and Teramoto by "Chukan-go (an intermediate language)" (p. 400). However, it is certainly used as synonymous to skad 'brin-du 'don-pa or -pa'i skad (cf. 4.4, 5.1 below). 18) What is the language of great extensiveness? Tibetan rgya-chen-po'i skad seems to denote not just a single dialect with a small audience. The nucleus of a dialect, absorbing its neighbouring elements as much as possible, would have attracted a more extensive audience. And this appears to have been a specific character of the languages used by Indian Buddhists. It could not be the Sanskrit language (so Obermiller!). Certainly not "Dai Shina-go (the great Chinese language)" (so Teramoto!). It may well be a language or languages used in the socalled Vaipulyasutras. It is a matter for regret that the original Indic text is lost. Incidentally, ryyal-po'i skad-du (for rgya-chen-po'i...) in the original Tanjur (cf. Obermiller II p. 97 n. 630a) seems to be simply a misprint. 19) Cf. Obermiller II p. 97f., Teramoto p. 401.

Page #5
Bu-ston on the Languages Used by Indian Buddhists 179 the tenth or at the beginning of the eleventh century (ed. Sde-dge 4133 SU 66 a 1-70b3; Peking 5649 U 317 a 1-323 a 8) 20): lo-dri mkhan-po ltar-na / ... yod-smra-la bai ... ya-rabs-las 'jig-rten-gyi chos lugs 'byun-ba bzin-du) sam-sky-ta'i skad-kyis brjod-cin sde-pa gzan-gyi chos lugs 'byun-ba'i gzi yin-pas gzi-thams-cad-yod-smra'o / mkhan-po rgyal rigs ... sgra-gcan-zin-bzan-pol skad sam-skr-ta'i skad ... (folios 89 b 6-90a 1 = ed. Lokesh Chandra folios 810.6-811.1) 21). "According to the author of the Bhiksu-varsagra-prccha, ... (there were) four (schools) among the (Sarva)astivadins ... Just as the mundane laws and customs derive from the upper classes-speaking in the Sanskrit language, (the Sarvastivadins) were the root (gzi = mula) of derivation of the laws and customs of the other schools, and thus (they are) the Mula-Sarvastivadins. The master was ... Rahulabhadra, a Ksatriya. The language was the Sanskrit language ..." 4.2. ... dge-'dun-phal-chen-pa / mkhan-po bram-ze... 'od-srun-chen-po/ skad tha-mal-pa'i skad / ... (folios 90 a 2-3 = ed. Lokesh Chandra folio 811.2-3) 22). ."... the Mahasamghikas: The master was Mahakasyapa, a Brahmin ... The language was the Prakrit language ..." 23) 4.3. ... kun-gyis-blur-ba, mkhan-po dmans rigs ... ne-bar-'khor/ skad zur-chag-pa a-bha-bhram-si'i skad / ... (folio 90 a 3-4 = ed. Lokesh Chandra folio 811.3-4) 24). "... the Sammitiyas: The master was Upali, a Sudra ... The language was the corrupted Apabhramsa language ..." 25) 20) Cf. Cordier's Catalogue III p. 416f. ad Mdo-'grel XC-21; also Lamotte, op.cit. p. 603. The reference to the Snar-than edition made by Mibu seems to be incorrect: A Comparative List of the Tibetan Tripitaka of Narthang Edition (Bstan-hgyur Division) with the Sde-dge Edition, compiled by T. Mibu, Tokyo 1967, p. 98. 21) Cf. Obermiller II p. 99f., Teramoto p. 402. Incidentally, Bu-ston's description of the language etc. has been ingeniously incorporated (without referring to the source) by Padma dkar-po in his 'Brug-pa'i Chos-'byun (folio 24b 5-6 = ed. Lokesh Chandra folio 48.5-6): ... thams-cad yod-par smra-ba / sam-sks-ta'i skad-kyis brjod-cin sde-pa gzan-gyi chos lugs 'byun-ba'i gzi yin-pas gzi-thams-cadyod-par-smra-ba'o // mkhan-po rgyal rigs . . . sgra-gcan-'dzin-bzar-po... 22) Cf. Obermiller II p. 100, Teramoto p. 402. 23) Teramoto's translation of tha-mal-pa with "Bongo (Sanskrit)" is a fatal mistake. The original must have been tha-mal-pa (neither legs-par sbyar-ba nor sam-sky-ta): cf. 'Brug-pa'i Chos-'byun of Padma dkar-po (folio 25a 1-2 = ed. Lokesh Chandra folio 49.1-2):... dge-dun-phal-chen-pa... // mkhan-po bramze'i rigs ... 'od-srurs-chen-polskad tha-mal-pa/... 24) Cf. Obermiller II p. 100, Teramoto p. 402. The correct reading for a-bhabhram-di should be a-pa-bhram-da, equivalent to Tibetan zur-chag(-pa). Teramoto reconstructs it as Avabhaca (for Avabhasa ?), which is not at all acceptable. Padma dkar-po reads A-wa-bhram-sa (i.e. Apabhramsa) (cf. n. 25 below). 25) Cf. 'Brug-pa'i Chos-'byun of Padma dkar-po (folio 25 a 2-3 = ed. Lokesh Chandra folio 49.2-3): skye-bo man-pos bkur-ba'i slob-d pon-gyi luge ston-pas manba-kur-ba / mkhan-po dmans rigs ... ne-bar-'Khor / skad zur-chag-pa a-wa-bhram

Page #6
Akira Yuyama 4.4. gnas-brtan-pa / mkhan-po rje rigs... ka-tya-na / skad 'brin-du 'don-pa... (folio 90a4-5 ed. Lokesh Chandra folio 811.4-5)). "... the Sthaviras: The master was Katyayana, a Vaisya ... (They) pronounced the language intermediately... 33 5.1. Then Bu-ston refers to other sources on the Mahasamghikas, Sammitiyas and Sthaviras (cf. 4.2-4 above): kha-cig phal-chen-pa skad 'brin-du 'don-pa's skad kun-gyis-bkur-ba tha-mal-pa'i skad / gnas-brtan-pa zur-chag-tu 'dod-do ... (folio 90a5-6ed. Lokesh Chandra folio 811.5-6) 7). 180 "Some [say]:-The Mahasamghikas spoke the language, the language (which they) pronounced intermediately, the Sammitiyas the Prakrit language, and the Sthaviras in the corrupted (manner) (i.e. Apabhramsa) dw 6.1. In regard to the languages used by Indian Buddhists at the time of earlier schisms Bu-ston has after all cited four theories, i. e. I (2.1), II (3.1-2), III (4.1-4), and IV (5.1): sa... "As (they) show the customs of the teacher honoured by many people, (they are called) 'the Honoured-by-Many' (man-ba-(b)kur-ba, cf. kun-gyis-bkur-ba: Skt. sam-man-, 'to honour'!). The master was Upali, a Sudra... The language was the corrupted Apabhramsa..." 26) Cf. Obermiller II p. 100, Teramoto p. 402. For skad 'brin-du 'don-pa see 5.1 below. ka-tya-na is to be ememded to ka-tya-ya-na; cf. 'Brug-pa'i Chos-'byun of Padma dkar-po (folio 25a4 ed. Lokesh Chandra folio 49.4): ... gnasbrtan-pa mkhan-po rje rigs... ka-tya-ya-na [read ka-tya-deg]/ skad 'brin-du 'donpa/... 27) Cf. Obermiller II p. 100, Teramoto p. 404-od-do should most probably be emended to 'don-no. Obermiller translates skad 'brin-du 'don-pa'i skad by "the intermediate dialect", but Teramoto by "Chugoku (Magada)-go (the language of the middleland, i. e. Magadhi)", in which he seems to take 'brin, "middle", as meaning "the middleland, i.e. Madhyadesa"! (cf. Teramoto in 3.1 above). This is by any means impossible and unacceptable. skad 'brin-du 'don-pa'i skad is used in the same sense as bar-mar 'don-pa'i tshig (3.1) or as skad 'brin-du 'don-pa (4.4). Tibetan 'brin or bar-ma must be used for something moderate in regard to the quality and quantity-neither too large or loud (chen/ che) nor too small or low (chun), neither too strong or high (drag) nor too weak or low (zan). In this case it denotes the language of moderate character with moderate hybridity. At the same time it seems to me that the language also refers to the manner of speech, that is to say, a language which is neither too harsh nor too soft, neither too loud nor too low. By using such a language they must have attracted wider audience. The more active they were in propagation, the more their language must absorb the neighbouring dialectal elements. This is a specific character of the languages used in Indian religious texts, even in the Rgveda; cf. M. B. Emeneau, The Dialects of Old Indo-Aryan, Ancient Indo-European Dialects, Berkeley-Los Angeles 1966, p. 131. The most important thing in our text is that the language of moderate character, no matter how one may translate it, refers to a language compared with other dialects synchronically, and never diachronically. That is to say, it denotes by no means the language in the intermediate stage of the Sanskritization process; cf. A. Yuyama, Butten no Hensan ni Mochiirareta Gengo no Tokushitsu (A Distinctive Character of the Languages Used by Indian Buddhists in the Formation of the Canon), Studies in Buddhist Thought dedicated to J. Okuda, Kyoto 1976, pp. 873-887. =

Page #7
Bu-ston on the Languages Used by Indian Buddhists 181 Asokan period Mula sarvasti- vadins Maha samghikas Sammitiyas Sthaviras I: One theory Prakrit Apabhramsa Paisaci Prakrit Apabhramsa Bar-mar 'don pa'i tshig II: Sakyaprabha Rgya-chen po'i skad III: Padmakaraghosa Sanskrit Prakrit Apabhramsa Skad 'brin-du 'don-pa IV: Another theory Skad 'brin-du 'don-pa Prakrit Apabhramsa 6.2. At this stage it is not possible to judge if any of the theories transmits the historical truth. In the meantime Bu-ston's work remains important as describing Indian traditions on the topic.