Indian Antiquary Vol 35

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 28

16
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[JANUARY, 1906.
D. - See page 5 above and note 8; original page 552, note .
It would have been interesting to compare the transcription of the name Zarathustra. But in the passages pointed out hitherto (Chavannes, Journ. A8. 1897, I. 61; Deveria, 16. II. 462) the name Zoroaster is represented, with complete disregard of the original form, by Sou-lou-tchi
M. Chavannes inadvertently transcribes Sou-li-tchi). This transcription deserves notice; in common with the Greek form and unlike the Oriental forms (Jackson, Zoroaster, p. 23), it has a labial vowel in the first part of the name; it presupposes, in fact, the pronunciation : so-ro-ci or B0-ro-ti, sor-ti, sor-ci, sro-ci, sro-ți, which comes neither from the Zend Zarathustra nor the Pehlevi Zaratust. Among all the forms collected by Mr. Jackson in his excellent work (Appendix V.), the one approaching most nearly to the Chinese rendering is that employed by Marius Victorinus Afer (§ 23 in Jackson) who writes, about 350 A. D. (ad Justinum Manichæum, col. 1003, ed. Migne): “Jam vidistine ergo quot Manis, Zoradis aut Buddhas haec docendo deceperint ?" The form Zoradis, employed by Victorinus, is evidently of Manichæan origin. We know moreover that Manichæista had made powerful strides in China ; the first Chinese text that names Zoroaster (Sou-low-Ichi), in alluding to an imperial odiet given forth in 631 A. D.(cf. Chavannes, loc. laud.), associates his name with that of the Mo-ni, that is the Manichæan cult. Either it was Manichæism that introduced into China the form Suu-lou-lchi, or there existed in the regions where Manichæism took its rise and in the Persian countries in touch with China a form of the name Zoroaster more nearly allied to the Greek than to the original Zend or to the Pehlevi derived from this latter. It is for Iranian scholars to clear up the problem ; the solution may bring with it some interesting corollaries. A propos of Zoroaster, and only in passing (to avoid bringing in too many combinations) I will point to a hypothesis which I perhaps might be reproached for omitting. The rşi K baroetha, whom I shall have the occasion to deal with later, as the imaginary sponsor of the Kharoşthi writing, is introduced into the pantheon of Central Asia as a revealer of astronomy, though no known antecedente qualify him for the rôle. But Zoroaster, on the other hand, as “Chief of the Magi,” is intimately connected with astrology (cf. Jackson, Zoroaster, p. 95 and 125). The Greek transcription of his name translates this idea, or at least, has helped to propagate it. Might not Kharoạtha perhaps be only a disgaise for Zoroaster popularized in Central Asia by the syncretism of the Indo-Scythians, who have given so great a place on their coins to the Avestic pantheon? In this way there would be a distant connection between Zoroaster and the Kharoetbi character.
E. - See page 12 above and note 18; original page 588, note 1.
This information goes back to Sie Ling-yun: -"Sie Ling-yun of the Soung kingdom says: The Hou writing is that which is employed, concurrently with the Fan writing, both for religious and secular purposes. And the origin thereof likewise goes back to the Buddha. The sūtra says: the words, letters, cāstras and heterodox mantras - all have been set forth by the Buddha and not by the heretics. The heretics use them for communicating by letters. The Hou writing is, etc." Sie Ling-yun was a Chinese man of letters (Nanjio, III. 3) who collaborated with Houei-yen and Houei-kouan, between 424 and 453, in a corrected translation of the Mahāparinirvāņa-sūtra (Nanj. 114, Tôk, ed. XI. 7 and 8). The Mabāparinirvāņa būtra contains (chap. 8, sect. 13, of the revised translation = chap. 8, sect. 4, div. 5 of Dharmarakşa's translation) a chapter on the characters of the writing and their mystic value, which occupies a large place in the speculations of the Siddham. We might hesitate to ascribe the whole quotation to Sie Ling-yun, if the phrase immediately following the passage I have translated (: "Thus it is that in this country (China) Trang (hse)...") did not occur again, on the anthority of this same Sie Ling-yun in a commentary on the Mahāparinirväņasūtra, the Ta-pan-nie-pan-king hiouen-yi (Nanjio, 1544 ; Tok. ed. XXXI. 6, p. 91).