Buston On Languages Used By Indian Buddhists At Schismatic Period

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided text, "Bu-ston on the Languages Used by Indian Buddhists at the Schismatic Period" by Akira Yuyama:

The article by Akira Yuyama focuses on the historical account provided by the Tibetan Buddhist scholar Bu-ston (1290-1364 A.D.) regarding the languages used by Indian Buddhists during periods of schism. Bu-ston's "Chos-'byun" (History of Buddhism) is presented as a valuable, and seemingly unique, source that details these linguistic aspects of early Buddhist sectarian divisions, particularly concerning the Third Buddhist Council.

Yuyama first establishes the significance of Bu-ston's work as a historical text and notes the availability of its Tibetan original and various translations (Obermiller's English, Teramoto's Japanese, and Lin Li-kouang's French). He highlights that while these translations are helpful, some interpretations may be imprecise, necessitating a closer look at the original Tibetan.

The core of the article details the four theories about languages used by different Buddhist schools at the time of schisms, as presented by Bu-ston:

Theory I (General Account):

• This theory, linked to the period of King Aśoka, states that Arhats recited the Teacher's Scripture in four languages: 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").
• The separation of disciples due to these linguistic differences is said to have led to the formation of eighteen schools.

Theory II (from Sakyaprabha's Prabhavati):

• This account, from an eighth-century work, suggests that after King Dharma Aśoka's death, Arhats compiled the Scripture into "great extensiveness" (rgya-chen-po'i skad) to counter adherence to Prakrit, Apabhramsa, and an "intermediate speech" (bar-mar 'don-pa'i tshig).
• This compilation, forming the sutras and the like, led to the eighteen branches of the doctrine. The exact nature of "great extensiveness" is discussed, with Yuyama suggesting it refers to languages that attracted a wider audience, potentially those used in Vaipulya-sūtras, rather than just Sanskrit or Chinese.

Theory III (from Padmakaraghosa's Bhiksu-varṣagra-precha):

• This theory, from the late 10th or early 11th century, provides specific linguistic associations for different schools:
  • Mūla-Sarvāstivādins: Spoke Sanskrit (sam-sky-ta'i skad) and were considered the root of other schools' traditions. Their master was named Rāhulabhadra.
  • Mahāsāmghikas: Spoke Prakrit (tha-mal-pa'i skad). Their master was Mahākāśyapa.
  • Sammitiyas: Spoke the corrupted Apabhramśa language (zur-chag-pa a-bha-bhram-si’i skad). Their master was Upāli.
  • Sthaviras: Pronounced an "intermediate language" (skad 'brin-du 'don-pa). Their master was Katyāyana.

Theory IV (Another Theory, from Bu-ston's collation):

• This theory presents a different linguistic distribution for some of the same schools:
  • Mahāsāmghikas: Spoke an "intermediate language" (skad 'brin-du 'don-pa'i skad).
  • Sammitiyas: Spoke Prakrit (tha-mal-pa'i skad).
  • Sthaviras: Spoke in a "corrupted" manner, implying Apabhramsa (zur-chag-tu 'dod-do).

Yuyama notes that the term "intermediate language" (skad 'brin-du 'don-pa'i skad) likely refers to a language of moderate character, neither too extreme nor too refined, potentially absorbing neighboring dialectal elements to appeal to a broader audience. He emphasizes that this refers to a synchronic comparison of dialects, not a diachronic stage of language development.

The article concludes by acknowledging that it's currently impossible to verify the historical accuracy of these theories. However, Bu-ston's detailed account remains crucial for understanding the traditional Indian perspectives on the linguistic landscape of early Buddhist sectarianism. The paper's aim is primarily to present Bu-ston's rendition of these theories with some explanatory notes, with a deeper linguistic and historical analysis planned for future work.