Further Reflections on Zhi Qian’s Foshuo Pusa Benye Jing: Some Terminological Questions

Abstract

Zhi Qian (支謙, fl. ca. 220–257 CE), a prolific Yuezhi-Chinese translator of Indian Buddhist scriptures into Chinese, is widely known for his broad range of styles and terminology. For several decades, his translation activities and his legacy in the history of Chinese Buddhist literature have been a rich field of research, particularly within the context of the transmission of Buddhism from India to China. In the present article, as a follow-up study to “Buddhism for Chinese readers: Zhi Qian’s Literary Refinements in the Foshuo pusa benye jing,” recently published by the authors in this journal, we offer additional reflections on distinctive features of Zhi Qian’s language. We focus on four unusual and interesting renderings in the Foshuo pusa benye jing (佛說菩薩本業經, T. 281), namely (1) santu 三塗; (2) shezui 捨罪; (3) kong 空, wu xiang 無想 and bu yuan 不願; and (4) sishi buhu 四時不護. Through an analysis of these words and phrases, we discuss Zhi Qian’s translation techniques and lexical idiosyncrasies, highlighting their significance in our understanding of the dynamics of language contact and change in the early period of the Chinese Buddhist tradition. Thus, the paper investigates some key Buddhist terms as coined by the early translators on the basis of the classical Chinese and illustrates the semantic changes of the Chinese language taking place in the period as well as influence of Buddhist regimes of knowledge.

1. Introductory Remarks—The Historical Interaction between Buddhism and the Chinese Language

It is well known that the influx of Buddhism into China starting from the beginning of the first century CE changed the Chinese language and Chinese thought in many ways. To absorb the systems of knowledge embedded in Buddhism, terminologies had to be created by adopting existing Chinese terms and using them with new meanings expressing Buddhist concepts. This process had a lasting impact on Chinese culture in general, especially in the fields of religion, literature, philosophy, and even usage in every-day language.

In researching this process, we consider the work of the earliest translators, such as An Shigao (安世高, fl. ca. 148 CE), Lokakṣema (Zhi Loujiachen 支婁迦讖, fl. ca. 168–186 CE), Zhi Qian (支謙, fl. ca. 220–257 CE), and others. Many of their translations have been preserved, and they can serve as materials for assessing this process of Buddhist culturalisation. These outstanding pioneers created terminologies and styles with which to communicate Buddhism to the Chinese. Most of these translators were from Central Asia and knew Sanskrit and other Prakrits, such as Pāli and Gāndhārī, that were used to promulgate Buddhism. However, they were also naturalised Chinese inhabitants who were proficient in literary Chinese and were therefore able to communicate the rich Indian heritage of Buddhism as it was conveyed from India to an interested Chinese public.

Not all of the early created Buddhist terms would survive, but a surprisingly great part of them became standard throughout the Chinese Buddhist tradition and established the basis for further refinement by later scholars. These newly created terms would also gradually diffuse into the general Chinese language, even the spoken languages, and remained in use not only as learned constructions.1

The title of Eric Zürcher’s famous Buddhist Conquest of China can also be understood in the sense of a Buddhist conquest of the Chinese language. In the same way that European languages were “conquered” by Greek and Latin, the Chinese language was “conquered” by Buddhist Sanskrit concepts. Thus, Buddhist language and ideologies coexisted with the classical Chinese systems of thinking and knowledge, creating intellectual cooperation in some periods and conflict in others.

Here, we examine a few of Zhi Qian’s Buddhist translation equivalents to illustrate the development from their classical meanings into purely Buddhist concepts. This involves exploring their semantic changes, or rather development, in the dynamic process of the “sinicisation” of Indian Buddhist ideology.2

2. Terminological Questions

Zhi Qian was a prolific Yuezhi—but fully sinicised—translator of Indian Buddhist scriptures into Chinese, who was active in the third century CE, that is, the embryonic phase of Buddhism in China. He is widely known for his broad range of styles and terminology, particularly for his stylistic and terminological adaptation of already-existing translations by his predecessors, such as Lokakṣema, An Xuan (安玄, fl. ca. 180 CE), and Yan Fotiao (嚴佛調, fl. ca. 180 CE), and also for his refined and elegant style of writing, designed for a high-class readership at the time. As such, his life and works have been discussed by many scholars from various points of view (for some examples, see Tang 1938; Zürcher [1959] 2007; Lancaster 1969; Saitō 2000; Nattier 2003, 2005, 2007a, 2007b, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Cheung and Lin 2006; Park 2008; Zacchetti 2010; Karashima 2013b, 2016). However, more detailed studies, especially those dealing with his individual works and their characteristic features thereof, are needed to understand Zhi Qian’s translation process, strategies, and techniques, partly because the circumstance of his career as a translator was long and multifaceted, and partly because of his preference for liberal translation.

In the previous paper, entitled “Buddhism for Chinese Readers: Zhi Qian’s Literary Refinements in the Foshuo pusa benye jing (Han et al. 2021),” recently published by the authors in this journal, we investigated Zhi Qian’s stylistic characteristics as represented in the Foshuo pusa benye jing (佛說菩薩本業經, T. 281; henceforth referred to as Benye jing) from the terminological, formal, and conceptual points of view in conjunction with three related texts, the Foshuo dousha jing (佛說兜沙經, T.280), the Zhu pusa qiufo benye jing (諸菩薩求佛本業經, T. 282), and the Pusa shizhu xingdao pin (菩薩十住行道品, T. 283), all of which can be attributed to Lokakṣema. In that paper, we argued that Zhi Qian experimented with various strategies to make Buddhism palatable to the upper classes of the society in which he spent his most productive years as a translator and that the Benye jing, with its particularly free translation style, different from the style of his other works, appears to be such an experiment.

In the present paper, we reflect further on distinctive features of Zhi Qian’s language by focusing on four noteworthy renderings in the Benye jing, which are not treated in previous studies such as those of Erik Zürcher, Karashima Seishi, and Jan Nattier.3 Through an analysis of these words and phrases, we will examine Zhi Qian’s translation techniques and lexical idiosyncrasies, highlighting their historical significance and implications in a broader context of the dynamics of language contact.

To this end, we partly rely on Karashima’s insightful studies on early Chinese Buddhist translations (e.g., Karashima 2001, 2013a, 2013b, 2016), the results of which can be roughly summarised as follows: (1) Zhi Qian’s translation procedure can be described as “sinicising” already-existing translations. That is to say, he produced an elegant and refined translations by modifying an earlier translation written in more readable Chinese;4 (2) the underlying language of Zhi Qian’s works is Gāndhārī or Prakrit containing Gāndhārī elements.

These results have greatly contributed to our understanding of Zhi Qian’s translation style and vocabulary. However, it should also be noted that these results are not drawn from an analysis of the Benye jing, but of his other works, such as the Da mingdu jing 大明度經 (T. 225), the Wuliang qingjing pingdengjue jing 無量淸淨平等覺經 (T. 361), and the Weimojie jing 維摩詰經 (T. 474), all of which are preserved in Indic languages. In the case of the Benye jing, there is no extant Indic original. Thus, this study refers to the Tibetan version of the larger Buddhāvataṃsaka, the Saṅs rgyas phal po che (D 44), translated in about 800 CE by two Indian masters, Jinamitra and Surendrabodhi, and the Tibetan translator-editor Ye shes sde, from which we can draw conclusions concerning the Indic text that underlies the Tibetan translation.5 When necessary, we also consult Zhi Qian’s other works, the Da mingdu jing, the Weimojie jing, and the Faju jing 法句經 (T. 210), and their parallels in Sanskrit, Pāli, and Gāndhārī if needed.

2.1. San Tu 三塗: The Three Times

Buddhism, with its metaphysics of the “three times”, presented a highly abstract and philosophically complex concept of time, differing somewhat from the more concrete classical Chinese concept, reflected in terms connected with the concepts of generations, dynasties, years, seasons, months, and days.6 The term san tu 三塗, literally meaning “three routes,” is Zhi Qian’s rendering of the Sanskrit7 tryadhvan (the three times), i.e., past, present, and future (cf. BHSD, s.v. tryadhva(n)). Adhvan (G. adhvana; P. addhan) is a complex term that has different meanings in different contexts, for example, “way”, “journey”, “method”, and “time” (cf. MW, s.v. adhvan),8 of which the original meaning appears to be “road.” In the Buddhist context, however, this term is generally used in connection with the concept of time (cf. BHSD, s.v. adhvan), and Chinese Buddhist translators, beginning at an early stage, have successfully conveyed this meaning. For example, the late third-century translator Dharmarakṣa (Zhu Fahu 竺法護, fl. ca. 280–308) renders the term tryadhvan as san shi 三世 (the three periods), which is the most widely accepted by later translators (Karashima 1998, p. 370, see also Kumārajīva’s and Xuanzang’s translations below). It is noteworthy in this regard that Zhi Qian translated tryadhvan as san tu 三塗 in the Benye jing as well as in his other works since the term san tu 三塗 is often interpreted as referring to the three unfortunate destinies (trayo durgatayaḥ)—namely, hell beings (naraka), animals (tiryag), and hungry spirits (preta)—because the character tu 塗 has a negative meaning, “mire”.9 Let us first look at the following examples, taken from the Weimojie jing 維摩詰經 (T. 474), in which Zhi Qian alone understands tryadhvan in the sense of “way” (see the underlined parts): 10

1. VknSkt. 40b1: yathāvadmaitrī tryadhvasamatayā

Zhi Qian (T. 474, 528a25): 行等之慈等于三塗

Kumārajīva (T. 475, 547b16-17): 行等之慈等三世故

Xuanzang (T. 476, 573a2-3): 修如實慈三世等故

VknTib. 209b3: dus gsum mñam pa ñid kyi phyir ci bźin pa ñid kyi byams pa’o

2. VknSkt. 45b1: tryadhvasamatikrāntā hi bodhiḥ

Zhi Qian (T. 474, 529b9-10): 夫三塗等且如

Xuanzang (T. 476, 574c24-25): 無上菩提超過三世

VknTib. 213b6: byaṅ chub ni dus gsum las yaṅ dag par ’das pa’o

* No parallels in Kumārajīva’s translation (T. 475).

In the Benye jing, the term san tu 三塗 appears six times (T. 281, 446c8, 449b3, 450b15, 450c4, 450c17), in each case corresponding to guoqu danglai jinxianzai 過去, 當來, 今現在 in Lokakṣema’s translation (T. 280, 445a19-20; t. 282, 453c11-12; T. 283, 455c22-23, 456a25-26, 456b22)11 and to dus gsum (three times) or ‘das pa daṅ|ma ‘oṅs pa daṅ|da ltar byuṅ ba (past, future, and present) in the Tibetan version (D185, 256b4, 218b6, 250a1-2,251b7).12 We give three examples:

1. Zhi Qian (T. 281, 446c8-9): 三塗之事, 靡不貫達。

Lokakṣema (T. 280, 445a19-20): 皆入過去當來今現在法中。

Tib. (D185, 256b4-5): ‘das pa daṅ|ma ‘oṅs pa daṅ|da ltar byuṅ ba la dpyod pa śa stag daṅ thabs cig go

2. Zhi Qian (T. 281, 449b2-3): 若欲入水 當願衆生 身口意淨 等於三塗 [Var.: 若=如 (三宮、聖、聖乙)]

Lokakṣema (T. 282, 453c10-12): 菩薩入水時, 心念言: 十方天下人皆使入佛智慧中, 過去當來今現在悉平等。

Tib. (D185, 218b6-7): chu ‘bog pa’i tshe byaṅ chub sems dpas sems can thams cad dus gsum mñam pa ñid kyis thams cad mkhyen pa’i ye śes la ‘bogs par gyur cig ces sems bskyed do

3. Zhi Qian (T. 281, 450c17): 學佛三塗無際之慧。

Lokakṣema (T. 283, 456b22-23): 一者, 過去當來今現在, 無端亟從佛學。[Var.: 亟=底 (三、宮)]

Tib. (D185, 251b7): dus gsum gyi ye shes brjod pa mdzad do

As we will see below, Zhi Qian seems to have had access to Lokakṣema’s translation while working on the Benye jing. He appears to have deliberately chosen the term san tu 三塗 to translate tryadhvan or a similar expression instead of using the set of words guoqu danglai jinxianzai 過去, 當來, 今現在 (past, future, and future), which are semantic loanwords from atīta (gone by), anāgata (not come), and pratyutpanna (just arisen) (Feng 2004).

Thus, Zhi Qian’s translation of the term adhvan, is based on the etymological meaning of the term tu 塗, road. However, other translators, such as Lokakṣema, Kumārajīva, and Xuanzang have employed the metaphorical sense, namely time, as reflected by shi 世.

However, Zhi Qian did not always use the term san tu 三塗 for tryadhvan. In his other works, such as the Ban nihuan jing 般泥洹經 (T. 6, 184c15), the Fan moyu jing 梵摩渝經 (T. 76, 885b29, 885c5), and the Yizu jing 義足經 (T. 198, 176b6, 180b29), he used a different term, san shi 三世 (the three times) instead. The term san shi 三世 originally referred to “three generations” in the classical Chinese language,13 but the word was used in the Buddhist translations to refer to the Indian concept of the three times of past, present, and future.14 As such, it was widely accepted by later Buddhist translators, including Dharmarakṣa, Kumārajīva, and Xuanzang, and the meaning and usage in classical Chinese changed over time in the context of and under the influence of Buddhism.

As for the word san tu 三塗 as Zhi Qian’s rendering of the three times, it is also notable that the same usage of the term san tu 三塗 occurs twice in the first chapter of the Da mingdu jing, once in the interlinear commentary (T. 225, 481a24, 481b2).15 Modern scholars generally agree that the first chapter, Xing pin 行品 (T. 225, 478b20–482a26),16 is not Zhi Qian’s work (Lancaster 1969; Nattier 2008a). According to Zacchetti (2010, pp. 154–60), the interlinear commentary is related to Kang Senghui 康僧會 (fl. ca. 249–280) or his circle, active in Jianye 建業, the capital of the Wu dynasty. More textual evidence is needed; however, a more comprehensive and systematic investigation of the term san tu and other similar cases may shed further light on the question of who translated the Da mingdu jing.

2.2. Shezui 捨罪: To Leave the Secular Life

Karashima has shown that the underlying Indian texts used by Zhi Qian were transmitted into China in Gāndhārī or a Prakrit close to Gāndhārī and that, in the process of translation, Zhi Qian confused such vernacular or colloquial forms with those of the standard Sanskrit.17 In the Da mingdu jing (T. 225), for instance, he often used the word shui 水 (water) where the Sanskrit equivalent is ābhā (splendour, light). The Gāndhārī form of Sanskrit ābhā is ava, and the Gāndhārī form of Sanskrit āpas (water) is also ava. Therefore, it is highly probable that here, Zhi Qian mistakenly translated Gāndhārī ava as “water”, when it should be understood as “light”. Specifically, the Zhi Qian’s renderings for the heavens related to the second dhyāna, viz. shuiwei tian 水微天 (heaven of subtle water), wuliangshui tian 無量水天 (heaven of unlimited water), and shuiyin tian 水音天 (heaven of water sound), (T. 225, 485a12) should have been *guangwei tian 光微天 (heaven of subtle light), wuliangguang tian 無量光天 (heaven of unlimited splendour), and guangyin tian 光音天 (heaven of radiant sound), as these terms correspond to parīttābha, apramāṇābha, and ābhāsvara, respectively (Coblin 1983, p. 244; Nattier 2008c; Karashima 2016).

The same pattern of confusion is also found in the Benye jing. Before focusing on the case of the term shezui 捨罪, we first give four examples, presumably arising from the confusion between Gāndhārī/Prakrit and Sanskrit in order to verify the possibility that the Benye jing was also translated from Gāndhārī or a Prakrit that is similar to Gāndhārī: (a) the same heaven names, shuiwei tian, 水微天, wuliangshui tian 無量水天, and shuiyin tian 水音天, occur in the first chapter;18 (b) the word jingjin 精進 (effort) attached to the names of various buddhas, such as Ru jingjin 入精進, Xing jingjin 行精進, and Jin jingjin 盡精進, probably resulted from the confusion between a certain Prakrit form related to vid- (to know) and the Sanskrit vīrya (G. viya, viriya, cf. GD, s.v. viriya).19 This is supported by the Tibetan and later Chinese equivalents rig byed and zhi 智 in the corresponding passages in the larger Buddhāvataṃsaka (D44, 177a1–178a7; T. 278, 418b19–c28); (c) the word shou 首, used in bodhisattvas’ names, like Jingshou 敬首, Zhishou 智首, and Baoshou 寶首, reflects Zhi Qian’s confusion between the Prakrit form of Skt. śrī (glory) and that of Skt. śira (head) (Karashima 1992, p. 277); (d) the word lin 林 (forest), included in the names of buddhakṣetras, reflects Zhi Qian’s interpretation of the term vana as “forest.” However, the term mdog (colour, appearance) is found in the corresponding passages in the Tibetan version (D44, 177a1–178a7). The Sanskrit equivalent of Tib. mdog is varṇa, and, in the sound changes from Sanskrit to Gāndhārī, the alveolar tap r [ɾ] can undergo complete assimilation to a following consonant (Baums [2010] 2019, pp. 6–7). Therefore, we can assume that G. vana was differently interpreted by Zhi Qian and by those who produced the Sanskrit manuscripts on which the Tibetan is based.20

We now turn to the expression shezui 捨罪, which literally means “to abandon sin”. In the Benye jing, it corresponds to pravraj-, which literally means “to go forth” but refers to “the act of leaving the secular life,” or rather “the lower ordination.” The term occurs only once in the Benye jing, but, with its Sanskrit, Gāndhārī, Pāli, and Tibetan equivalents, it is more common in the Faju jing (T. 210).21 Let us first take a look at the following passage from the Benye jing and its parallels in Lokakṣema’s translation and the Tibetan Buddhāvataṃsaka:22

Zhi Qian (T. 281, 447c13–14): 請求捨罪　當願衆生　得成就志　學不中悔.

[When a bodhisattva] seeks to become a śramaṇa (lit. to get rid of sins), he should wish for all living beings to attain accomplishment and resolution without quitting in the middle of learning.

Lokakṣema (T. 280, 451c17–18): 菩薩索作沙門時, 心念言: 十方天下人皆使所至到, 悉令得成就, 莫復中悔止.

When a bodhisattva seeks to become a śramaṇa, he thinks: may all livings beings reach and attain accomplishment without quitting or halting.

Tib. (D185, 213b1–2): rab tu ‘byuṅ bar gsol ba’i tshe|byaṅ chub sems dpas sems can thams cad bar chad med ciṅ phyir mi ldog pa’i chos can du gyur cig ces sems bskyed do||

When seeking the lower ordination, the bodhisattva should wish for all living beings to be endowed with the irreversible dharma (avaivartyadharma) without any obstacles.

Given the context and structure, namely the bodhisattva’s activity and the related wish for all beings’ benefit, one can easily observe that the underlined phrases agree with one another. Yet it is still unclear why the term shezui 捨罪was chosen to translate the Indic word underlying zuo shamen 作沙門 and rab tu ‘byuṅ ba, which is probably a certain Gāndhārī or Prakrit form of Skt. pravraj- (to become a monk). A possible explanation is that Zhi Qian figuratively rendered Skt. pravraj- as “to abandon sins” in the light of the fact that living a secular life inevitably entails vices. Fortunately, however, the term shezui 捨罪also appears several times in another of Zhi Qian’s works, the Faju jing, and its use there can shed further light on this issue, as the Faju jing is currently available in various Indic versions, including Gāndhārī. Let us examine the following two verses and their parallels:

1. DhpChi. T.210, 569c25–26: 學難(a)捨罪難 居在家亦難 會止同利難 難難無過有 [Var.: 難難=艱難 (三)]

DhpG. 262: drupravaï druabhiramu druajāvasaṇa ghara|dukhu samaṇasavaso dukhaṇuvadida bhava.||

DhpP. 302: duppabbajjaṃ durabhiramaṃ durāvāsā gharā dukhā|dukkhosamānasaṃvāso dukkhānupatitaddhagu|tasmā na caddhagu siyā dukkhānupatito siyā||

UvSkt. 26, 2: duṣpravrajyaṃ durabhiramaṃ duradhyāvasitā gṛhāḥ|duhkhāsamānasaṃvāsā duhkhāś copacitā bhavāḥ||

UvTib. 219a4: dge sbyoṅ spyod pa ji ltar bya||ñes par rab byuṅ ñes rtsom byed pa dag||sdug bsṅal mñam med sten pa dag||yaṅ srid sdug bsṅal sogs par zad||

* No parallels in DhpBHS.

2. DhpChi. T.210 569a7–8: 謂(b)捨罪福 淨修梵行 慧能破惡 是爲比丘 [Var.: 福=業 (明)]

DhpG. 68: yo du (c)baheti pavaṇa vadava brammayiyava|saghaï caradi loku so du bhikhu du vucadi ◦||

DhpP. 267: yo ‘dha puññca (d)pāpañ ca bāhetvā brahmacariyavā|saṅkhāya loke carati sa ce bhikkhū ‘ti vuccati||

* No parallels in DhpBHS, UvSkt, and UvTib.

Here, it is notable that in the first of the verses above, (a) shezui 捨罪 is used in the sense of “leaving the secular world”, corresponding to Skt. pravraj- (e.g., Skt. pravrajya, pravrajita; P. pabbajjā, pabbajita; Tib. rab tu byuṅ ba), while in the second verse, (b) shezui directly refers to its literal meaning, as seen in the Pāli equivalent in the second verse (d) pāpañ ca bāhetvā (keeping away from sins). Another noteworthy point is that the Gāndhārī form of Skt. pāpa (evil, sin) is pava, as found in the phrase (c) baheti pavaṇa in the second verse (see also GD, s.v. pava). In the sound changes from Sanskrit to Gāndhārī, the clusters of plosives followed by r [ɾ] are generally unchanged (Baums [2010] 2019, pp. 7–8); accordingly, the regular form of Skt. pravraj- in Gāndhārī is pravaj(or -y)- (e.g., pravaja, pravayadi).23 However, irregular changes are also attested, for instance, pavaja, pavaje, parvaja for pravaja and pavayadi, parvayaḏi, padaïdi for pravayadi (cf. GD, s.v. pravaja, pravayadi). Therefore, it is possible that the supposed Indic original form that Zhi Qian translated was pavaj(or -y)- (e.g., pavaja, pavayadi). Furthermore, he may have rendered it as shezui 捨罪 by adopting the meaning of G. pava (evil, sin). However, it is still unlikely that Zhi Qian failed to understand the meaning of the term since he also used the expression zuo shamen 作沙門 (to become a śramaṇa) in the Benye jing (T. 281, 447c19–20) shortly after the citation above (see the underlined passages):

Zhi Qian (T. 281, 447c19–20): 已作沙門　當願衆生　受行佛意　開導天下

Having become a śramaṇa, he should wish for all living beings to receive and practice the disposition of the Buddha, which guides beings in the world.

Lokakṣema (T. 280, 451c25–27): 菩薩作沙門時, 心念言: 十方天下人皆使作沙門時, 令如佛悉度十方天下人.

When a bodhisattva becomes a śramaṇa, he thinks: may all living beings, when they become śramaṇas, save others as the Buddha did.

Tib. (D185, 213b3–4): rab tu ‘byuṅ ba’i tshe byaṅ chub sems dpas sems can rnams skye bo thams cad yoṅs su skyoṅ ba’i phyir|de bźin gśegs pa‘i rab tu ‘byuṅ bar rab tu byuṅ bar gyur cig ces sems bskyed do ||

When taking ordination, the bodhisattva should wish for living beings to take ordination (in the same way) as the tathāgata took ordination, (namely,) in order to protect all beings.

We can see here that Zhi Qian adopted Lokakṣema’s rendering zuo shamen 作沙門 and added the particle yi 已, indicating the completion of an action. It is clear that yi zuo shamen has the same meaning here as shezui in the first verse from the Faju jing that is quoted above. Some other examples can be found in Zhi Qian’s translations of the Weimojie jing and the Faju jing:

1. VknSkt. 19a3: iyam ucyate pravrajyā|ya evaṃ pravrajitās te supravrajitāḥ |

Zhi Qian (T.474, 523b14): 為是故作沙門

Kumārajīva (T.475, 541c22): 若能如是是真出家

Xuanzang (T.476, 563a14): 若能如是名真出家

VknTib. 190b6: de ni rab tu byuṅ ba źes bya|gaṅ dag de ltar rab tu byuṅ ba de dag ni legs par rab tu byuṅ ba’o ||

2. DhpChi. T. 210, 567a25-26: 觀行忍第一 佛説泥洹最 捨罪作沙門 無嬈害於彼

DhpP. 184: khantī paramaṃ tapo titikkhā nibbāṇaṃ paramaṃ vadanti buddhā|na hi pabbajito parūpaghātī samaṇo hoti paraṃ viheṭhayanto ||

DhpBHS. 239: khāntī paramaṃ tapo titikkhā nibbāṇaṃ paramaṃ vadanti buddhā|na hi pravrajito paropaghātī śamaṇo hoti pare vihesayāno ||

UvSkt. 26, 2: kṣāntiḥ paramaṃ tapas titīkṣā nirvāṇaṃ paramaṃ vadanti buddhāḥ|na hi pravrajitaḥ paropatāpī śramaṇo bhavati paraṃ viheṭhayan vai ||

UvTib. 232b3–4: bzod pa dka‘ thub mchog ste bzod pa ni || mya ṅan ‘das pa mchog ces saṅs rgyas gsuṅ || rab tu byuṅ ba gźan la ‘tshe ba daṅ || gźan la gnod pas dge sbyoṅ ma yin no ||

* No parallels in DhpG.

Two points are noteworthy here:

(1) Zuo shamen in Zhi Qian’s translation of the Weimojie jing was later replaced by Kumārajīva with chujia 出家, literally meaning “to leave home”, and this is also the translation adopted by Xuanzang.24 Regarding the expression zuo shamen 作沙門, here, it is uncertain whether Zhi Qian learned it from Lokakṣema’s translation, as seen in the Benye jing (T. 280, 451c25–27), or whether he borrowed it from the older translation of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa by Yan Fotiao 嚴佛調 (fl. ca. 180 CE), now lost, on which Zhi Qian’s translation is perhaps based (Karashima 2016). Yet zuo shamen does not appear in the Fajing jing 法鏡經 (T. 322), the only surviving text attributed to Yan Fotiao (Nattier 2008b, p. 177).

(2) In Zhi Qian’s translation of the Faju jing, the two terms, shezui and zuo shamen, appear together. Since there is nothing in this verse in any of the texts that suggests the literal meaning of the word shezui 捨罪 (to abandon sin), we can assume that shezui is used in the sense of pravraj-, and thus that the phrase shezui zuo shamen 捨罪作沙門 in the third pāda corresponds to the Sanskrit expression pravrajito … śramaṇo bhavati (P. pabbajito … samaṇo hoti; BHS: pravrajito … śamaṇo hoti; Tib. rab tu byuṅ ba … dge sbyoṅ … yin no).

In sum, we can learn from the examples examined so far that Zhi Qian intentionally rendered the Gāndhārī (or Prakrit) form of pravraj- as shezui 捨罪 even though he knew the expression zuo shamen 作沙門, which appears in the Benye jing and his other works. Further, the underlying Indic form of shezui may be pava-, from which Zhi Qian could derive the meaning of “evil, sin” and not merely his figurative interpretation of “leaving a secular life (or becoming a monk)” as “abandoning sins.”

In Indian hermeneutics, as practised by Hindu and Buddhist writers and commentators alike, one would explain words with etymologies that were sometimes not at all in accordance with scientific etymologies. With pāpañ ca bāhetvā (doing away with sin) as an etymology for pravrajyā is definitely such a case, and one may indeed call the procedure a folk-etymology or pseudo-etymology. However, a better term might be “intentional etymology”, as in its Buddhist context, it better expresses the intention of the word pravarajyā, though its (true) etymological reference is “leaving (home)”.

Thus, we would like to contend that Zhi Qian’s choice of the Chinese equivalent shezui is based on this principle of Indian hermeneutics to convey the Buddhist intention of the expression rather than a misunderstood reading of the Gandhārī word pavaj- or Pāli pabbaj- as etymologically connected to pāpa.25

In addition, there is a notable case found in the Fo kaijie fanzhiaba jing 佛開解梵志阿颰經 (T. 20), which is traditionally attributed to Zhi Qian but not included in the list of his genuine works prepared by Nattier (2008b, pp. 177–78; 2019, p. 821). In this sūtra, the term shezui 捨罪 is used in the sense of pravraj- as follows:

T. 20, 264a13-16: 阿颰等五百人, (a)欲作沙門, 佛言: 各自歸家, 善持五戒, 意志已固, (b)乃可捨罪^*。佛説經已, 皆大歡喜, 作禮而去。 [Var.: 自=且 (三); ^*罪=家 (三); 而=如 (三)]

Ambāṣṭha and five hundred people desired to be ordained (lit. become śramaṇas). The Buddha said “Each [of you should] go home and keep the five precepts well. [When you are] firm in resolve, then [you] may be ordained.” When the Buddha spoke [thus], all of them rejoiced. Having made obeisance, they left.

After the expression (a) yu zuo shamen 欲作沙門, “to desire to become a monk”, it seems reasonable to interpret the following phrase (b) nai ke shezui 乃可捨罪 as “then, [one] may become a monk” and not as “then [one] may abandon sins.” The Taishō edition as well as the second Koryŏ edition on which the Taishō edition is based contain the term shezui 捨罪, whereas the Sixi zang 思溪藏 (1126–1138), the Puning zang 普寧藏 (1277–1290), and the Jingshan zang 徑山藏 (1589–1712) read shejia 捨家 (abandon home) as indicated in the Taishō note (see above). Thus, the correct, or rather original, reading here is presumably shezui 捨罪, as presented in the second Koryŏ edition, even though the term shejia 捨家 sounds more natural in the given context. It is also likely that this modification was made by the editor(s), who did not know that the term shezui referred to pravraj- in Zhi Qian’s terminology or who thought that the term does not adequately convey the original meaning of the text. Further, although this occurrence of a single term, shezui, is limited evidence, it may support the supposition that the Fo kaijie fanzhiaba jing is Zhi Qian’s genuine work or a text related to him.26

2.3. Kong 空, Wu Xiang 無想, and Bu Yuan 不願: Emptiness, Signlessness, and Wishlessness

The word kong 空 is a good example of the Buddhist influence on Chinese terminologies, particularly in terms of their semantic changes. It used to simply mean “hollow” or “nothing”, similar to wu 無, but its meaning was later extended to reflect the concept of śūnyatā with much greater philosophical depth.27 Even as late as the Dang dynasty, we find, parallel with the Buddhist connotation, what sems to be the original meaning of the word kong, where the term sikong 司空 is used for a title of Amoghavajra (Bukong 不空, 704–774), meaning “Imperial craftsman” or “Imperial architect” (cf. Hucker 1985, p. 450, nr. 5687). The fact that the word is originally associated with craftmanship is also evident in the etymology of the character kong 空.28 The character kong may be a phonetic loan to represent the concept of “empty”, but the old Sino-Tibetan words kong, etc., seem also to connote “boring a hole”, etc., as documented, e.g., in Naxi, Tamang, and Western Tani, underpinning the meaning expressed by the character.29

In pre-Buddhist Chinese, the two characters xiang 想, usually equivalent to saṃjñā, and xiang相, most often used to represent nimitta, have often been used in the same sense from the very early period of Chinese Buddhist translation (cf. Karashima 1998, pp. 474–75; Karashima 2010, pp. 517–18; Vetter 2012, pp. 116, 210–11). Rather, the two terms represent a case of semantic continuity, as xiang想 would in early texts mostly mean “to perceive, conceptualise”, while xiang相 would carry the connotation of “mutually, each other, meeting with” but also “to see, to perceive”. The classical terms were thus the natural choices for the early translators, though xiang 相 would absorb the special Buddhist meaning of “quality, distinguishing mark (in perception),” that is, nimitta, as a technical term. The terms saṃjñā and nimitta are also interrelated in Buddhist epistemological theory—saṃjñā being defined as nimittagraha (cf., e.g., saṃjñā nimittodgrahaṇātmikā in the Abhidharmakośa 1.14 (Pradhan 1967, p. 10)). The two xiangs are, though, often intermingled in Chinese translations, at least as we have them handed down.

The etymological connotations of praṇidhi and praṇidhāna would be “place at, in, before” and in the Buddhist use, evidently to “place your mind” at “some object”. Thus, in the Mahāyāna context, the word acquires the meaning of “wish” but with both positive and negative connotations. First, it denotes the bodhisattva’s wish or promise to attain bodhi, more or less a synonym of bodhicitta. In the other use, as is relevant here in the case of trīṇi vimokṣamukhāni (three doors to liberation), the pranidhāna still means wish but refers to wishful thinking to be done away with, similar to that of constructing qualities (nimitta) of objects and then wanting them, though they are of course empty, constructed, and illusory. The meaning of yuan 願 before it was “invaded” by the special and well-defined connotations of Buddhism, is gleaned from a number of classical texts as “to long for (often persons)” but also “deep desire” in general. In this way, the case of yuan 願 is that of semantic continuity but is recreated as (two!) Buddhist technical terms; yuan 願 acquires a much more defined philosophical and religious connotation when adopted by Lokakṣema, Zhi Qian, and the other translators.

The words kong 空, wu xiang 無想, and bu yuan不願are Zhi Qian’s translations, often in a set of three (空無想不願) for śūnyatā (emptiness), animitta (signlessness), and apraṇihita (wishlessness), which represent the three doors to liberation (trīṇi vimokṣamukhāni). According to Zacchetti (2008, p. 472), this string of three words, particularly the term bu yuan, is rare, mostly only occurring in the texts dating back to the Three Kingdoms period. Indeed, the Parthian An Shigao, who is the first historical figure of Chinese Buddhism active in Luoyang (洛陽) during the Later Han dynasty, uses kong 空, bu xiang 不想, and bu yuan不願 for śūnyatā, animitta, and apraṇihita (Vetter 2012, p. 224). Soon afterwards, however, the terms bu xiang 不想 and bu yuan不願 seem to have been replaced by wu xiang 無想 and wu yuan無願, as can be seen in the works of Lokakṣema and Dharmarakṣa (Karashima 1998, pp. 475–76; Karashima 2010, pp. 521–22), and wu xiang and wu yuan are now generally accepted for animitta and apraṇihita (cf. DDB, s.v. 無相, 無願, 空無相無願). In this regard, it is notable that Zhi Qian, who was later than Lokakṣema, still used bu yuan for apraṇihita, but adopted wu xiang for animitta at the same time. The set of words kong, wu xiang, and bu yuan is found only once in the Benye jing but more often in Zhi Qian’s other works.30 For instance, it occurs five times in the Da mingdu jing (T. 225, 478c3, 478c11, 479a7–8, 496c8, and 505b27),31 twice in the Foshuo weimojie jing (T. 474, 526b18–19 and 526b21), and once each in the Fanmoyu jing 梵摩渝經 (T. 76, 884b17) and the Faju jing (T. 210, 561b13). Let us look at the following sentences that include this set of words:

Zhi Qian (T. 281, 447b12-13): (a) 言見信用, (b) 降心正意, (c) 攝念入禪, (d) 曉空、無想、不願之法. [Var.: 想不=相無 (三、宮、聖乙)]

[How should he practice] (a) to make his word trustworthy? [How should he practice] (b) to control himself [for the sake of] correct thought, (c) to keep his mind in concentration, and (d) to comprehend the emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness?

Lokakṣema (T. 280, 451a25-28): (a) 多所出入語者, 人皆信用之, 無有不敬附者; 身所行無有不淨潔者; 諸所視經無有不了知者。(b) 一心降意, (d) 思惟明曉, (c) 迴念入禪。 [Var.: 降=隆 (宋、宮); 迴=佪 (三、宮)]

(a) The words that he often recited can all be trusted by people, so there is no one who does not respect or follow him. The action produced by his body is nothing but pure; regarding all sūtras that he looked into, there was nothing left to understand. (b) He one-pointedly controlled his mind, (d) contemplated the enlightenment, and (c) was attentive in entering into meditation.

Tib. (D185, 211b1): … stoṅ pa ñid yoṅs su bsgoms pa yin|mtshan ma med pa yoṅs su bsgoms pa yin|smon pa med pa yoṅs su bsgoms pa yin …

… he has been thoroughly imbued with [the notions of] emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness…

Here, even though Zhi Qian’s translation does not completely agree with Lokakṣema’s, the two Chinese versions seem related to one another to some extent. That is to say, (a) yanjian xinyong 言見信用, (b) jiangxin zhengyi 降心正意, and (c) shenian ruchan 攝念入禪 in T. 280 correspond to the (a) duosuo churu yuzhe, ren jie xinyong zhi 多所出入語者, 人皆信用之, (b) yixin jiangyi 一心降意, and (c) shenian ruchan 攝念入禪 in T. 281, respectively. There is, however, no counterpart for the terms (d) kong 空, wu xiang 無想, and bu yuan 不願 in Lokakṣema’s translation, apart from the word xiao 曉 in the phrase siwei mingxiao 思惟明曉 (to be awakened to what he thinks). Thus, it seems safe to say that a counterpart of the expression, kong, wu xiang, and bu yuan, is only found in the Tibetan translation and not in Lokakṣema’s translation. Since the Tibetan translation has the corresponding set of words, stoṅ pa ñid, mtshan ma med pa, and smon pa med pa, and since it is impossible to derive the concepts kong, wu xiang, and bu yuan without referring to sources other than Lokakṣema’s translation, it is likely that Zhi Qian had access to an Indic original, although we do not know what version it was. We can also assume that, when Zhi Qian worked on the Benye jing, he not only consulted an already existing translation as we will see below, but he also consulted, at least to some degree, the Indic original.

2.4. Sishi Buhu 四時不護: Four Methods of Winning [People] Over

Finally, we will present an additional terminological issue found in the Benye jing in the Taishō edition. The phrase sishi buhu 四時不護, which literally means “four periods of non-guards”, is found nowhere else in the entire Taishō edition. No variant reading is given in the Taishō edition. However, this expression appears as sishi buhu 四事不護 (four kinds of non-guards) in the corresponding passage in the second Koryŏ 高麗 edition (13th century CE) as well as in all other ancient printed editions available to us, namely the Qisha zang 磧砂藏 (completed in 1322), the Hongwu nan zang 洪武南藏 (completed in 1402), and the Qing zang 清藏 (completed in 1738).32 Furthermore, another important modern edition, the Zhonghua dazangjing 中華大藏經, has the same phrase, sishi buhu, in the corresponding place without indicating any variant readings. Therefore, the same reading is probably found in all of the editions collated in the Zhonghua dazangjing, namely the Sixi 思溪 edition (completed in 1138), the Puning zang 普寧藏 (completed in 1290), the Yongle nan zang 永樂南藏 (completed in 1420), and the Jingshan zang 徑山藏 (completed in 1712).33 More notably, the phrase sishi bu hu 四事不護 is found in a parallel passage in the Foshuo dousha jing 佛說兜沙經 (T. 280):

Zhi Qian (T. 281, 446c14–16): 悉爲我現佛行、佛智、佛神、佛力、佛定、無量變化隨時。四時不護、四無所畏、十八不絶、一切敏慧、無上道徳, 衆事敷露。

He shows us the Buddha’s practice, the Buddha’s knowledge, the Buddha’s supernormal power, the Buddha’s ability, the Buddha’s samādhi, and (the Buddha’s) immeasurable transformation as the situation demands. He also presents all qualities [of the Buddha, namely], the four kinds of non-guards, the four forms of fearlessness, the eighteen distinctive abilities, all kinds of wisdom, and the utmost merit.

Lokakṣema (T. 283, 445b8–15): 現我佛所止處, 現我佛諸法所部界, 現我佛威神, 現我佛所行, 現我佛筋力, 現我佛四事不護, 現我佛三昧所入處, 現我佛所變化在所爲, 現我佛無有過勝者, 現我佛所有尊號, 無有能及逮者, 現我佛所根, 現我佛飛, 現我佛光明, 現我佛智慧, 現我佛四事無所畏。佛悉知諸菩薩心所念, 佛悉現光明威神。

He shows us the place where the Buddha dwells; he shows us the field and boundary of all the Buddha’s dharmas; he shows us the Buddha’s dignity; he shows us the Buddha’s practice; he shows us the Buddha’s power; he shows us the Buddha’s four kinds of non-guards; he shows us the place where the Buddha entered into for samādhi; he shows us the Buddha’s transformations taking place where needed; he shows us that no one transcends the Buddha; he shows that the respected names that are possessed by the Buddha; [he shows us that] no one reaches [the Buddha]; he shows where the Buddha originated from; he shows the Buddha’s high [stature]; he shows the Buddha’s brightness; he shows us the Buddha’s wisdom; and he shows the Buddha’s four forms of fearlessness. The Buddha knows completely what all bodhisattvas thinks and completely shows his brightness and dignity.

Two inferences can be made from these passages:

(1) It is very probable that the phrase sishi buhu 四時不護 in the Benye jing in the Taishō edition is not a misinterpretation but an editorial error for the phrase sishi buhu 四事不護. It is likely that the error was the result of confusing the characters shi 事 and shi 時 (perhaps influenced by the compound suishi 隨時, underlined in the previous phrase), even though the words are pronounced in different tones. This case is a good example that highlights the importance of directly consulting multiple editions in the study of Chinese Buddhist texts and not just relying on the given apparatus.34

(2) According to Karashima, the phrase sishi buhu 四事不護 is Lokakṣema’s misinterpretation of catursaṃgrahavastu (four means of attracting people) (Karashima 2011, p. 464), which is more often translated as si shefa 四攝法 (four methods of winning (people) over). Since there is no counterpart in the corresponding passage in the Tibetan Buddhāvataṃsaka (D44, 176b2–7), it can be assumed that Zhi Qian directly consulted Lokakṣema’s translation here, which is now known as the Foshuo dousha jing, and that he borrowed the expression sishi bu hu 四事不護 from there even though it was initially misinterpreted. Indeed, it is difficult to explain why Lokakṣema translated saṃgraha, which means “seizing, grasping” as buhu 不護 (not guarding, not being on guard),35 and why Zhi Qian subsequently adopted this translation without modification.36 This is an example of how investigating a mistranslation may lead to further topics of discussion: in this case, the textual relationship between the Benye jing and the Foshuo dousha jing and Zhi Qian’s translation procedure.

3. Conclusions

This paper is a follow-up to the authors’ previous study (Han et al. 2021) dealing with Zhi Qian’s stylistic embellishments in the Foshuo pusa benye jing (佛說菩薩本業經, T. 281). Zhi Qian played a significant role in the introduction and spread of Buddhism in China during the Three Kingdoms period (ca. 220–280 CE), and the Benye jing, one of his most influential pieces among his works, clearly documents his unique translation style and techniques.37 In the present paper, we examined Zhi Qian’s four particular renderings in the Benye jing, viz., (1) santu 三塗, (2) shezui 捨罪, (3) kong 空, wu xiang 無想 and bu yuan 不願, and (4) sishi buhu 四時不護, and discussed their semantic interpretations and their later reception in the history of Chinese Buddhist translation. Specifically, it was shown that the terms santu 三塗and shezui 捨罪 are Zhi Qian’s unique renderings of tryadhvan (the three times) and pravraj- (to become a monk), respectively, and that the two cases are examples of Zhi Qian’s lexical idiosyncrasies that may shed further light on the questions of how to identify his genuine works. The set of words kong 空, wu xiang 無想, and bu yuan 不願 allowed us to see the dynamic process of language change, or rather evolution, during the formative period of Chinese Buddhism, and Zhi Qian’s place therein. The term sishi buhu 四時不護, probably an editorial error only occurring in the Taishō edition, demonstrated the necessity of consulting multiple editions in the study of Chinese Buddhist texts. The last two cases, kong, wu xiang, bu yuan, and sishi buhu, also showed how the Benye jing was produced, that is, through the use of an Indic original source but also with reference to Lokakṣema’s pre-existing translation.

In this paper, we also illustrated some semantic changes of the Chinese language taking place in the period as well as the influence of Buddhist regimes of knowledge. The semantic continuities, or disruptions, between classical Chinese and Buddhist Chinese seem to be quite understudied though the topic potentially has great importance for understanding the Chinese history of language as well as the history of Chinese thought. In view of this, as the authors of this paper, we would contend that the semantic changes of the Chinese language deserve further study.