Source: Mair 1993

Mair, Victor. “The Linguistic Antecedents of The Sūtra of the Wise and the Foolish.” Sino-Platonic Papers 38 (1993): 1-95.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Mair begins by translating Sengyou's CSZJJ note on the text, which says that Tanxue 曇學, Weide 威德 and others went west in search of texts, and in Khotan, during a pāñcavarṣika, made notes and translations of sermons and lectures; they then went back as far as Gaochang 高昌, where they collated their work into a single text; and then, upon their arrival back in Hexi 河西, the resulting collection, the Xian yu jing 賢愚經 T202, was given its present title by Huilan 慧朗, who was some kind of head cleric 宗匠 at the time. The "lecture-note nature" of the text is evidenced by: relative paucity of prosimetric form, which is otherwise usual for such narrative literature; the apparent absence of any principle of organisation; disparity in style; and diversity in transcriptions and translations of the same terms and names, even within a single tale (8-9).

Mair has a detailed chart at the end of his paper in which he studies this "Phonological Data". Mair states that it is not possible to know exactly what sort of texts Tanxue, Weide and their confrères would have encountered in the Khotan of this period--source language, oral or written, etc. (8); but he attempts to arrive at some conclusions. He regards as the "most striking anomaly" in transcriptions the fact that Skt nouns in -a apppear in -i (or -ki, or in nasalised -i). He analyses in detail what he regards as "the most remarkable instance" of this phenomenon, the treatment of the placename Taxila (9 ff.)."The most reasonable explanation would seem to be that...the Chinese monks heard...a mixture of Sanskrit and Prakrit (mostly the latter) pronounced in a Khotanese fashion. This does not answer the question of the language of the whole text(s) the Chinese heard...only the pronunciation of the proper nouns and technical terms within them....All indications are that there was indeed at least a partial Indian textual basis for [T202]" (12).

Mair considers the problem of possible sources or models for T202 in our extant literature. The story of King Prabhāsa and his elephant (Tale no. 49) contains highly specific details matching Haribhaṭṭa’s Jātakamālā, and Michael Hahn has shown that some of Haribhaṭṭa’s stanzas have been translated almost verbatim in T202 (citing Hahn [1981]). T202 cannot be the source of Haribhaṭṭa. Hahn dates Haribhaṭṭa before the first half of the fifth century, and so his Jātakamālā could have been one of the texts the Chinese encountered in Khotan (or they could have encountered one of its sources). Another text "unmistakably connected" to T202 is the Daśa-karmapatha-avadānamālā. This text is thought to have originated in Tocharian B (the language of Kucha), then been retranslated into Tocharian A (Karashahr), and thence into Uyghur. Mair thinks either the Tocharian B or a collateral version was a source for T202, more probably the latter (13-14). "Judging from the tales that it included and from the title itself, there is a high degree of resonance between the Daśa-karmapatha-avadānamālā and [T202]." Mair also thinks possible connections exist with the Khotanese Jātaka-stava, which shares a story with T202 (Kāñcanasāra) (14-15).

Takakusu (1901) showed on the basis of transcription terms that the Tibetan (D341/Q1008) was translated from the Chinese (see also 23 n. 97, which notes that colophons to all but the Peking version explicitly state that the text was translated from Chinese: rgya nag las 'gyur ba(r) snang ngo). However, but Mair argues that it cannot derive entirely from our extant text. The order of stories differs. Both Tibetan and Mongolian (from Tibetan) also include three stories "not even present in the earliest known integral printed Chinese edition of the sutra, the Khitan, which is later than the time of the Tibetan translator, Chos grub" (15). Mair suggests that perhaps multiple, possibly local versions of the [Chinese] text were in circulation at Chos grub's time (ninth century). In addition, terminology and proper names in Tib are often at variance with Ch.

"From the above information concerning the Haribhaṭṭa Jātakamālā, the Daśa-karmapatha-avadānamālā, and the Tibetan and Mongolian translations, as well as from our knowledge of Indian avadāna literature in general, it would appear that the Buddhist masters in Khotan from whom the Liang-chou monks heard the stories of [T202] would have based them upon one or more available Indian texts. In some cases, they must have followed the original texts very closely, because the relationship of the Chinese text to the Sanskrit/Prakrit original shows through clearly even in translation. There is no evidence that there ever existed a written Khotanese exemplar of [T202]" (16).

Edit

 Mair begins by translating Sengyou's CSZJJ note on the text, which says that Tanxue 曇學, Weide 威德 and others went west in search of texts, and in Khotan, during a pancavarsika, made notes and translations of sermons and lectures; they then went back as far as Gaochang 高昌, where they collated their work into a single text; and then, upon their arrival back in Hexi 河西, the resulting collection, the Xian yu jing 賢愚經 T202, was given its present title by Huilan 慧朗, who was some kind of head cleric 宗匠 at the time. The "lecture-note nature" of the text is evidenced by: relative paucity of prosimetric form, which is otherwise usual for such narrative literature; the apparent absence of any principle of organisation; disparity in style; and diversity in transcriptions and translations of the same terms and names, even within a single tale (8-9). Mair has a detailed chart at the end of his paper in which he studies this "Phonological Data". Mair states that it is not possible to know exactly what sort of texts Tanxue, Weide and their confreres would have encountered in the Khotan of this period--source language, oral or written, etc. (8); but he attempts to arrive at some conclusions. He regards as the "most striking anomaly" in transcriptions the fact that Skt nouns in -a apppear in -i (or -ki, or in nasalised -i). He analyses in detail what he regards as "the most remarkable instance" of this phenomenon, the treatment of the placename Taxila (9 ff.)."The most reasonable explanation would seem to be that...the Chinese monks heard...a mixture of Sanskrit and Prakrit (mostly the latter) pronounced in a Khotanese fashion. This does not answer the question of the language of the whole text(s) the Chinese heard...only the pronunciation of the proper nouns and technical terms within them....All indications are that there was indeed at least a partial Indian textual basis for [T202]" (12). Mair considers the problem of possible sources or models for T202 in our extant literature. The story of King Prabhasa and his elephant (Tale no. 49) contains highly specific details matching Haribhatta’s Jatakamala, and Michael Hahn has shown that some of Haribhatta’s stanzas have been translated almost verbatim in T202 (citing Hahn [1981]). T202 cannot be the source of Haribhatta. Hahn dates Haribhatta before the first half of the fifth century, and so his Jatakamala could have been one of the texts the Chinese encountered in Khotan (or they could have encountered one of its sources). Another text "unmistakably connected" to T202 is the Dasa-karmapatha-avadanamala. This text is thought to have originated in Tocharian B (the language of Kucha), then been retranslated into Tocharian A (Karashahr), and thence into Uyghur. Mair thinks either the Tocharian B or a collateral version was a source for T202, more probably the latter (13-14). "Judging from the tales that it included and from the title itself, there is a high degree of resonance between the Dasa-karmapatha-avadanamala and [T202]." Mair also thinks possible connections exist with the Khotanese Jataka-stava, which shares a story with T202 (Kancanasara) (14-15). Takakusu (1901) showed on the basis of transcription terms that the Tibetan (D341/Q1008) was translated from the Chinese (see also 23 n. 97, which notes that colophons to all but the Peking version explicitly state that the text was translated from Chinese: rgya nag las 'gyur ba(r) snang ngo). However, but Mair argues that it cannot derive entirely from our extant text. The order of stories differs. Both Tibetan and Mongolian (from Tibetan) also include three stories "not even present in the earliest known integral printed Chinese edition of the sutra, the Khitan, which is later than the time of the Tibetan translator, Chos grub" (15). Mair suggests that perhaps multiple, possibly local versions of the [Chinese] text were in circulation at Chos grub's time (ninth century). In addition, terminology and proper names in Tib are often at variance with Ch. "From the above information concerning the Haribhatta Jatakamala, the Dasa-karmapatha-avadanamala, and the Tibetan and Mongolian translations, as well as from our knowledge of Indian avadana literature in general, it would appear that the Buddhist masters in Khotan from whom the Liang-chou monks heard the stories of [T202] would have based them upon one or more available Indian texts. In some cases, they must have followed the original texts very closely, because the relationship of the Chinese text to the Sanskrit/Prakrit original shows through clearly even in translation. There is no evidence that there ever existed a written Khotanese exemplar of [T202]" (16). T0202; 賢愚經