Buddhism and the Rise of the Written Vernacular in East Asia: The Making of National Languages Author(s): Victor H. Mair Source: The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Aug., 1994), pp. 707-751 Published by: Association for Asian Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2059728 Accessed: 06-03-2015 16:42 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Association for Asian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Asian Studies. http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Buddhismand the Rise of the WrittenVernacular in East Asia: The Makingof NationalLanguages

VICTOR H. MAIR

THE VAST MAJORITY OF PREMODERN CHINESE LITERATURE, certainlyall ofthe most famousworks of the classical tradition,were composedin one formor anotherof LiterarySinitic (hereafter LS, wen-yen[-wen},also oftensomewhat ambiguously called "ClassicalChinese" or "LiteraryChinese"). Beginning in themedieval period, however, an undercurrentof writtenVernacular Sinitic (hereafterVS, pai-hua[-wen})started to develop. The writtenvernacular came to full maturityin China only with the May FourthMovement of 1919, afterthe finalcollapse during the 1911 revolution of the dynastic,bureaucratic institutions that had governedChina formore than two millennia.It must be pointedout that the differencebetween wen-yen and pai- hua is at least as great as that betweenLatin and Italian or betweenSanskrit and Hindi. In my estimation, a thorough linguistical analysis would show that unadulteratedwen-yen and pure pai-hua are actuallyfar more dissimilarthan are Latin and Italian or Sanskritand Hindi. In fact,I believe that wen-yenand pai-hua belong to wholly differentcategories of language, the formerbeing a sort of VictorH. Mairis Professorof Asianand MiddleEastern Studies at theUniversity of Pennsylvania. Researchfor the final version of thisstudy, begun a half-dozenyears ago, was carried out at theNational Humanities Center during the academic year 1991-92. Workat the Centerwas supported by grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the AndrewW. MellonFoundation. I am gratefulto all threeof theseorganizations for pro- vidingme theideal conditions to completea numberof projects. In addition,I wouldlike to thankthe following individuals who read this work in one or moreof itsmany previous incarnations:John DeFrancis, Gari Ledyard, S. RobertRamsey, James Unger, Jan Nattier, Tsu-LinMei, LudoRocher, Oskar v. Hinaber,T. GriffithFoulk, Stephen F. Teiser,Rich- ard Mather,David Utz, and LindaChance. While all of themoffered helpful comments and usefulreferences, I alone am responsiblefor any errors of factand interpretationthat remain.The linguists,Chou Yu-kuang, Jerry Norman, W. SouthCoblin, and TakataTo- kio, providedassistance on technicalquestions, for which I am deeplythankful. Finally, I appreciatethe close, critical reading of three anonymous referees for this journal who made severaluseful suggestions for improvement. A monographictreatment of thissubject, entitled The Concept of "National Language" in EastAsia and ItsBuddhist Beginnings, is forthcoming in Sino-Platonic Papers. TheJournal of Asian Studies 53, no. 3 (August1994):707-75 1. (? 1994 by theAssociation for Asian Studies, Inc.

707

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 708 VICTOR H. MAIR demicryptographylargely divorced from speech and the latter sharing a close correspondencewith spoken formsof living Sinitic. This differenceis reflectedin the namesfor these two typesof writtenSinitic, wen-yen literally meaning "literary language" and pai-hua meaning "unadornedspeech." The problemis that stylists in both the wen-yenand pai-hua traditionsseldom, if ever, employedan unalloyed formof thesetwo typesof writtenSinitic. Thus, thereare varyingdegrees of mixtures that are looselycharacterized as pan-wen-pan-pai(semiliterary-semivernacular). Linguisticdata indicatethat LS and VS have been distinctsystems as farback as theycan be traced.This is certainlytrue from the WarringStates period (475- 249 B.C.E.) on, but I suspect that eventuallywe will be able to demonstrate conclusivelythat LS, startingwith its earlieststage in the oracle shell and bone inscriptions(around 1200 B.C.E.), was alwaysso drasticallyabbreviated and so replete with obligatorynonvernacular conventions used only in writingthat it nevercame close to reflectingany contemporaryliving varietyof Siniticspeech. Naturally,LS musthave been foundedupon and continuouslyinfused by some varietyor varieties of VS, just as writtenSumerian (which was likewise"unsayable") must have been basedupon a formof the livinglanguage of thepeople of ancientSumer (cf. DeFrancis 1989:78-79). Yet the disparitybetween LS and VS is of a whollydifferent order of magnitudethan that between,say, writtenand spoken English or writtenand spokenRussian. An analogythat may be used to illustratethe relationshipbetween LS and VS is thatof the relationshipbetween a code or cipherand the naturallanguage upon which it is based, althoughthe differenceis not so drasticas it normallyis in the lattercase whereintentional (though strictly principled and hence reversiblefor a privilegedreceiver) scrambling may be involved.Or we may describethe radical reductionof VS to LS as being somewhatsimilar to the making of shoppingor chorelists and the jottingdown of lecturenotes that include all sortsof abbreviations and omit auxiliaries,prepositions, endings, and other morphemesthat are not absolutelyessential. Apart fromits being unnecessaryfor the writerto spell out everythingexplicitly in detail,early scribes doubtless had added incentivesto economize on the time-consumingtask of preparingthe awkwardmaterials they worked with- clay on the one hand and bones and shells on the other-and to be as terseas possiblewith the complicated,inefficient morphosyllabic symbols of theirscripts. Afterthis sortof shorthandgot started,it may have seemed the normfor writing. Such drasticallypared-down, unnatural (in termsof real [spoken] language) styles would have been fosteredand perpetuatedby thoseelite ritualspecialists who wished to monopolizetheir exotic skill. In the case of Sinitic,once such an ellipticalsystem was established,it divergedmore and morefrom the spokenlanguage as the writing remainedlargely fixed while speech changed over time (DeFrancis 1991). The difference betweenLS and VS is thus not just a matterof diachronicchange, as betweenOld English and Modern English or betweenOld Russian and Modern Russian. It is, rather,a distinctionbetween two separatelystructured linguistic media. As we shall see below, LS and VS coexistedin China forthousands of years.Their maintenance as competing systemswas due to support from differentsocial and political constituencies. Going fromLS to VS or in the otherdirection definitely requires a processof decoding/encodingor translation;witness the burgeoningnumber of VS translations of LS textsfrom all ages thatare beingproduced in Taiwan and the People'sRepublic of China. If LS and VS weremerely two variantsof the same language, therewould be no compellingneed to translatethe one into the other.The confusednotion that

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 709

LS and VS are simply constituentsof a single language is due to theirfrequent borrowingfrom and mixingwith each other. More of this is done by VS fromLS (e.g., ch'eng-yii["set phrases,"commonly referred to looselyas "idioms"] whose LS grammar,syntax, and lexiconare noticeablydistinct from the VS matrixin which theyare implanted)than by LS fromVS, sincewriters of LS tendto be moreconscious ofmaintaining the integrityand purityof theirhighly mannered style, while writers of VS oftenaspire to affectan LS aura withoutreally mastering the entireartificial language. In a stimulatingarticle, "On RepresentingAbstractions in ArchaicChinese," HenryRosemont, Jr. (1974) basicallyconcurs with these views on LS whenhe states that it was not a spoken language but an exclusivelywritten language and hence that it cannot be classifiedas a naturallanguage. Tsu-Lin Mei (1992a) takes the contraryposition that the Analects,to a certainextent, reflects spoken language. He sees the best evidence for this in fusionwords (or what W.A.C.H. Dobson [1974:101-21 has called "allegroforms"). Since theycan occuronly in rapidspeech, he regardsthem as "primafacie evidence that the Masterdid speak in a formpretty close to what was recorded."Indeed, the Analectsis more vernacularthan the Tso chuan[Tso's Chronicle] in the sense that it uses moregrammatical particles, requires more words to say the same thing, etc., and that both are more vernacularthan contemporarybronze inscriptions.Nonetheless, I still maintainthat all LS texts (includingthe Analects and Tso'sChronicle) are dramaticallydivorced from vernacular speech and representa separatesystem of linguisticand orthographicconventions employedsolely in writing.The clearestevidence for the separatenessof the two systemscan be seen in the much higherdegree of polysyllabicityof the vernacular, starklydifferent grammatical structures and usages (see the discussionof shihbelow forone tellingexample; many others, such as distinctivedemonstrative words, the methodfor handling possessives and relativeclauses, different approaches to measure words [also called countersand classifiers},and verbal complements,might be adduced), and the factthat the borrowingback and forthbetween the two systems is so conspicuous.We shall returnto the alleged vernacularityof the Analectsagain underthe rubricof kuan-hua.

EarlyWritten Vernacular in China

A curiousphenomenon about the way the vernacularfirst comes to be written down in China is thatthe earliestinstances of writtenVS occuralmost exclusively, certainlywith absolute and unmistakablepredominance, in Buddhistcontexts. The most conspicuous examples of this phenomenonare the Tun-huang pien-wen (transformationtexts: eighth to tenthcenturies) that I have workedon forthe past two decades (Mair 1983, 1988, 1989; Iriya 1961, 1985) and the recordedsayings of Zen mastersreferred to as yii-luthat date fromthe periodimmediately following (Maspero 1914; Kao 1948; Berling 1987). Equally strikingis the high proportion of vernacularelements that are presentin the earliesttranslations of Buddhisttexts into Sinitic,starting from the second centuryof the Common Era (C.E.). This has been demonstratedconclusively through the carefulresearch of the eminentDutch Buddhologist,Erik Zurcher(1977; 1980; 1991), and, followingin his footsteps, the youngChinese linguist,Chu Ch'ing-chih(1990). Chu's studyis based on a close readingof all the ChineseBuddhist texts of the earlymedieval period, by whichhe intendsthe Eastern Han, Wei, Chin, and Northern

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 710 VICTOR H. MAIR and SouthernDynasties, from about 25-589 C.E. There is an enormousamount of materialto be covered-Buddhistscriptures of theearly medieval period alone amount to 960 titlesin 2,990 scrollsor fasciclescomposed of roughly25,000,000 graphs, surprisinglymore than the secularnative literaturefrom the same period. Chu richlyand conclusivelydocuments a highlysignificant phenomenon, that medieval Buddhist texts are decidedly more vernacularand colloquial than their non-Buddhistcounterparts from the same period. One of the most obvious aspects of ChineseBuddhist texts in comparisonwith nativeworks is that theycontain far morepolysyllabic words (particularly disyllabic words), but thereare also noticeable syntacticand grammaticaldifferences (cf. Watters'sexcellent but littleknown work of 1889, esp. chapters8 and 9 ["The Influenceof Buddhism on the Chinese Language"]). Some of this influencewas in directresponse to the linguisticfeatures of theIndic (and perhapsIranian and Tocharian)prototypes for the Chinese translations of Buddhisttexts. It is clear, however,that the implantationof Buddhisminto the Chinesesociolinguistic body also servedto elicitin an activeway vernacular, colloquial, and dialecticalelements that belonged properly to spokenSinitic languages but that had been rejectedby the indigenoustextual tradition as vulgarisms. I shallgive hereonly two examples in supportof Chu's thesis,the first grammatical and the secondlexical. Shihas the copulativeverb shows up in the earliestBuddhist translations(i.e., startingfrom the second centuryC.E.) and is quite common in medievalpopular Buddhist literature.This is in completecontrast to its use as a demonstrativein LS. Veryearly use of shihas the vernacularcopulative has recently been archaeologicallyconfirmed by the discoveryof an astronomicaltext in which it repeatedlyand unmistakablyoccurs in thatcapacity (cf. Tuan Li-fen1989). Since this newlyfound text dates to well beforethe beginningof the CommonEra (from near the beginningof the WesternHan [i.e., the earlypart of the second century B.C.E.}), copulativeshih can hardlybe attributedto the coming of Buddhism. It must, rather,be a featureof the vernacularlanguage that was presentvery early, perhapsfrom the start,but thatwas ignoredby LS writers(cf. Cantonesehai, which seems to representanother modern survival of the same vernacularelement). This distinctivecharacteristic of VS (A shihB ["A is B"J) which is so apparenteven up to thepresent day, is utterlydifferent from LS, whichlacks a copulativeverb altogether. Instead, LS employsthe nominativesentence structure A B yeh("A [is] B"). It is noteworthythat Ssu-ma Ch'ien's Records of the Grand Historian (Shih-chi) (c. 90 B.C.E.), which of all LS textsdating to the period beforethe Common Era has a tendency to admit a few discernableelements from VS, includes a numberof instancesin which A shihB and A B yehare combined,hence A shihB yeh. Ohta (1958:189) offersan astuteanalysis of this phenomenon. The emergenceof thelargely polysyllabic VS lexiconis oftenerroneously explained as the resultof the combinationof monosyllabicwords from LS, as thoughVS were somehowderived from LS or an attemptto make LS moreexplicit and understandable whenspoken. Conceptuallythis makes no sensewhatsoever, since spokenlanguages alwaysprecede the inventionof theirwritten forms. Historically, the alleged derivation ofVS fromLS is also demonstrablyfalse. In a fullertreatment, I could cite hundreds of instancesthat show that polysyllabicvocabulary has been a featureof VS from the earliesttimes that can be attested,but here I shall referonly to one, namely tao-lu("way, road"). Tao-lu is a venerableVS word still in use todaythat is found in a wide varietyof pre-Ch'intexts, including the Tso chuan(Tso's Chronicle)(463 B.C.E.) by Tso Ch'iu-ming(cf. Mair 1990:22-23 forthe phonologyand philology ofthis word). The factthat the word tazo-/u is usuallyreduced to justtazo in LS texts

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 711

7t!mq

: .5 5.1::.

Figure 1.MediealVenaculrSintic writ Lin 1 of...... theI"Long Scroll" from Tun huang At

ofigthe OriMentealandrndacOffic Colletincowithe indTibeanOffiscrLibrar.

With the permissionof the BritishLibrary. showsthat the relationshipbetween LS and VS is exactlythe oppositeof thatwhich is commonlyassumed. To wit, wherewe can test specificinstances in the early stagesof the formationof LS, it seems to be the resultof drastictruncation of VS, includinganaphora so extremethat it could not possiblybe toleratedin intelligible

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 712 VICTOR H. MAIR speech. Of course,once LS was securelyestablished, it became possible to create new polysyllabic(chiefly bisyllabic) words in VS by joining togethermonosyllabic LS words. But this was a relativelylate phenomenonand would have been possible only forthose few who were literatein LS. The mass of the populationwould have continuedto use and createpolysyllabic words as theyalways had fromthe beginnings of the Sinitic languagegroup, i.e., irrespectiveof the tetragraphicscript. What Zurcherand Chu haveboth shown clearly is that,from the verybeginnings of Buddhism in China, the translatedtexts of this new religiondisplay a higher degreeof vernacularcontent than do non-Buddhisttexts. No othertexts from the same periodcan begin to comparewith the earlyBuddhist translations for the large amountof vernacularisms they contain. Indeed, it is extremelyrare in non-Buddhist textsof the same age ever to findeven a single unambiguouslyvernacular usage. Nonetheless,it must be pointed out that, as the eminentRussian specialiston MedievalVernacular Sinitic, I. S. Gurevich(1985) has shown,even the Tun-huang pien-wencan by no means be said to representa pure formof VS, inasmuchas they still containa significantproportion of LS elements.This is probablydue to the natureof the sinographicscript which is so perfectlywell suited to LS but rather inimicalto a full representationof any VS language. It should also be mentioned that, once Buddhistshad paved the way for the use of a vernacularizedwritten medium,it was tentativelyadopted-through emulation-for secularpurposes by otherswho were living in close associationwith them. Witness the occasional transformationtexts, stories, rhapsodies, cantos, and othergenres on non-Buddhist subjectsthat came to be writtendown at Tun-huang.By the Sung period, it had become acceptable-among certainstill mostlynonelite social classes-to employ the writtenvernacular for historical medleys, love stories,and lyrics. The evidencefor the intimaterelationship between Buddhism and the written vernacularin Chinais so irrefutable,yet so unexpected,that it demandsan explanation. Given thatthe connectionis bothobvious and uncontested,one mightimagine that therewould be an easily identifiableset of reasonsfor this phenomenon.Such, unfortunately,is not the case. The situationis actuallyquite complex and it is difficultto declarewith assurance precisely what it was about Buddhismthat proved to be conduciveto the adoptionof the vernacularas an acceptablewritten medium. This is all the moreremarkable in light of the factthat Chinese literati had always looked down upon any traceof the vernacularin writingas crude and vulgar(su). Naturally,like all othervocal humanbeings, Chinese scholars themselves were forced to use the vernacularin daily conversation,but committingit to writingwas an entirelyseparate matter. On the face of it, the adoption by Chinese Buddhistsof writtenvernacular and BuddhistHybrid Sinitic (hereafter BHSi) as vehiclesfor the expressionof theirfaith seems improbable. One would have thoughtthat they would have chosen,instead, LS, since it was uniformlyconsidered by the Chineseelite to be moreelegant. Surelystraight wen-yen would have been more appropriateif one were deliberatelysearching for a suitable sacred language in which to couch one's scripturesin a new arenaof evangelism.Hence, the blatantBuddhist preference for pai-hua or wen-yenmixed with large chunks of pai-hua vocabularyand syntaxis puzzling froma conventionalpoint of view. With time, stylesof Buddhistwriting in China more nearlyapproximating LS did develop, especiallyfor those texts that were composed by native authorsand were not translatedfrom non-Sinitic languages. To one degree or another,most Buddhisttexts that were translatedfrom non-Sinitic languages, particularly those done by non-Chineseindividuals, display various types of grammaticaland syntactical

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 713 discrepancieswith LS. This is not, of course, to mentionthe large amounts of translatedand transcribedterminology that also stamp BHSi as differentfrom LS. In the next section,I would like to identifya numberof factorspeculiar to Buddhismthat possibly might have contributedto the acceptanceof the vernacular as a workabletool forwritten expression. Because of the tremendouscomplexity of thisissue, I will refrainfrom any simple, unidimensional explanation. Starting from the most abstractand generalaspects, I shall move to more concreteand specific featuresthat may have fosteredthe growthof the writtenvernacular in China.

Buddhismand Language

Buddhism,above all, is a sophisticatedreligion with an extensivebody of doctrine. PerhapsBuddhist teaching contains a coreprecept that is conduciveto the vernacular, a teachingfor which therewas no parallel in native Chinese traditions,such as Confucianismand Taoism. One that leaps to mind is the notion of upaya (fang- pien,skillful means). According to thisdoctrine, believers should use whatevermeans are appropriateto ensurethe salvationof all sortsof living creatures.Upaya was notjust a rarefiedtheory, but was activelyapplied in Buddhistpreaching and teaching. In China, forexample, lecturesfor laymen (su-chiang) were deliveredby eminent monks(kao-seng) and, upon occasion,by a fewwho werenot so eminent.The notes forsome of theirlectures have been preservedamong the Tun-huangmanuscripts as sutra-lecturetexts (chiang-ching-wen) and they are quite vernacularin theirorientation (Mair 1986). Otherliterary ramifications ofthe doctrine of upaya are Buddhistparables, apologues,and birth-talesknown as avadana, nidana,and jataka. These, too, were much-favoredin China and popularwith the masses.Vivid descriptionsof Buddhist storytellingand lecturingmay be foundin the Biographiesof EminentMonks (Kao- sengchuan), travel records of foreignersin China (e.g., Ennin'sDiary), classicalfiction (ch'uan-ch'i),Tun-huang texts (e.g., the tale of Hui-yuan [S2144 in the British Library]),anecdotal literature, and othersources. Buddhismis not only a religion,however, for it also functionsas an elaborate philosophicalsystem. Is thereanything inherent in Buddhist thoughtthat might sanctionthe use of the vernacular?Here I am ratherskeptical that we can find much that will help us elucidatethe mysteryof the ChineseBuddhist predilection forthe vernacular.My suspicionabout the applicabilityof philosophicalpremises to our presentquandary is based on the fundamentalineffability of Buddhahood and otherassociated concepts, such as nirvana.Already in the Nikayas (the early Pali texts)and the Agamas (a group of textsin the Sanskritcanon that correspond to the Pali Nikayas), it is clear that ultimatereligious goals are held to lie outside the realm of discourseand, hence, discursivethought. The Suttanipatainforms us thatthe Buddha is beyondthe "pathsof speech"and in the Theragathahe is described as being inconceivablein visual or auditoryimages (Gomez 1987:446a). It is a commonplacein Mahayana texts that enlightenmentis incompatiblewith words and intellection.The usual formulationis "the way of language is cut off,the workingsof the mind are obliterated"(yuen-yiu tao tuan, hsin-hsingch'u mieh). See, for example, MahdprajfipdramitopadeYa/Tachih-tu ln (T25[15091.7 1c), Avatamsakasitra/Hua-yenching (T9[278J.424c), and *Mahasamathavipasyana[?P/Mo- he chih-kuan(T46[19111.59b). Even the Zen masters,whose words are ironically preservedin writtenvernacular (perhaps one should say, especiallythe Zen masters),

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 714 VICTOR H. MAIR insiston such notionsas "transmissionfrom mind to mind" (i hsinch'uan hsin) and "nonestablishmentof writtenwords" (pu 1i wen-tzu),which disparagethe efficacy of language, especiallyin its writtenform, to conveyessential truths. Despite Buddhism'spresumed philosophical derogation of language,no religion can survivewithout sacred texts, and Buddhismdefinitely produced an abundance of scripture(three huge basketsfull!). What is unusual about the Buddhistcanon, however,is the pervasivepretense that it has an immediateoral basis. It is remarkable how many works in the Buddhist Tripitaka begin with the formula evam maydsrutam, Pali eva,mme suta,m ("Thus have I heard," in Siniticju shihwo wen),or words to that effect.The simulacrumis that of the eminent disciple Ananda recitingthe Buddha's words to the assembledfaithful at Rajagrha afterhis death. This formulanot only stressesthe presumedreliability of directtransmission, but also revealsthat the Buddhistsiutras were orallyconveyed to Ananda, and thence to the restof the community.This self-evidentmark of oral transmissionis like a stampthat authenticates the textthat follows.It distinguishesthe doctrinesof the Buddha fromthose of teacherswho were presumablyheretical. Ultimately, then, the entireBuddhist canon-while it clearlyrepresents a large and long scriptural traditionwith rules, commentaries, discourses, and exegesesadded later-is ostensibly (one mightalmost say "aggressively")founded upon the spokenword (v. Hinuber 1990:ch. 5). This is also reflectedin the large numberof East Asian s-utraswhose fulltitles start with the expressionFo shuo("spoken by the Buddha," fromSanskrit buddhavacanaor buddhabhhisita),even thoughit would have been impossiblefor the Buddha to utter all of the words in them, especiallythose that were originally composed in China, Japan, and Korea! There is even an entireszitra (Pali sutta) entitledthe Itivuttaka,which means roughly "the speechesbeginning with the words 'This was spoken (by the Lord).'" The equivalentSinitic title is Ju shihyi ching [SzitraSpoken Thus]. This is the fourthscripture in the Khuddaka-nikayaof the Pali canon. Each section of the siutrabegins Vuttamheta,m bhagavatd vuttam arahatd'ti mesuta,m (Wo wenshih-tsun ying-kung ts'eng ju shihshuo ["Thus did I hearthe worshipful World-Honoredspeak"}). Interspersedin the text we find such expressionsas iti vuccati(ju shihyen ["said thus"}). At the end of each sectionoccurs the following formula:Ayam pi atthovutto bhagavata iti mesutam ti (Wo wenshih-tsun shuo tz'u i ["I heardthe World-Honoredexplain this meaning"], translatingthe Sinitic text; the Sanskrithas "I also heard . . ."). The oral affinitiesof earlyBuddhist religious textsare underscoredby the professionof bha,nakaor dharma-bhdnaka,whose duty it was to declaim themaloud, apparentlyin a ratherentertaining fashion (Hoffman 1990). With such tremendousemphasis on the presumedorality of the canon, there mighthave been resistanceto renderingit in stilted,"unsayable" LS. I am somewhat dubious, however,that this is a sufficientexplanation for the decision to employ largeamounts of vernacularin ChineseBuddhist texts. After all, the Analects[Lun- yiiJare famousfor the tzuyiieh ("the Mastersaid"), whichprefaces Confucius's every utterance,but that did not detertheir compilers from utilizing LS as the vehicle forconveying his sagelywisdom.

Translation,Linguistics, and Psalmody

It would seem, instead,that the actual processof translationitself had a greater impacton the quality of Chinese Buddhistwritten language than any ideas about

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 715

4~~~~~N

Figure 2. Imperial Decree [of June 17, 1389} to the Buddhist Monk Irinjin Dzangbu (in Tibetan Rin-c'en bTsang-po). Huaz-i i-yii fSino- MongolianTranslations}, ed. by Qoninc'i and Ma Salh-Muhammad( 1389), 8a. Mongoliantext transcribedin sinographswith interlinearphonological notes between graphs and on the left, interlinearvernacular (Early Mandarin)glosses on the right,and vernacular(Early Mandarin)translations at theend of eachsentence. Lewicki 1949: 183; Mostaert1977: 17. thenature of the canon. The entireenterprise of rendering the Buddh'st scriptue and literarytexts into Sinitic was begunby foreigners,about a dozenof whom are knownfor the period from the middle of thesecond century to thecollapse of the EasternHan dynastyin 220 C.E. Amongthese individuals were the Parthian prince An (forArsacid) Shih-kao, who arrivedin the capitalat Loyangin 148 and was activeuntil' around 170; anotherParthian, An Hsuian,who was activein Loyang c. 180; the Yuieh-chih(also transcribedas Ju-chih),presumably Kushain, Lokaksemawho workedin Loyangfrom c. 170-90; anotherKush-an, Chih Yao, who was activelate in thesecond century; and theSogdian, K'ang Meng-hsiang,

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 716 VICTOR H. MAIR who collaboratedwith the Indians Chu Ta-li (Mahabala [?1) and Chu T'an-kuo (Dharmaphala[?}) around the turn of the century.These men produced a large amount of materialin Sinitic. Applyingthe most stringentcriteria, there are 29 differentworks in 70 fasciclesthat still survive,and hundredsof additionaltitles are attributedto them. LS is an extremelydifficult language to master,not just becauseof the sinographs but also because it is so terriblyallusive, requiringat least ten to fifteenyears to gain a modicumof proficiency.In contrast,the spoken Sinitic languages,in part due to theirlack of inflection,are relativelyeasy to acquire throughimmersion in a Chinese environment,especially if one does not have any severehangups about the tones. Since theseforeign translators usually came to China as adults and often, accordingto theirbiographies, quickly plunged into the businessof translation,it would have been well-nighimpossible for them to commandLS sufficientlywell to create passable translationsin it. Therefore,it was inevitablethat whatever proficiencythey acquired in writingSinitic was bound to be highlycontaminated by vernacularelements. Even whenthe foreigntranslators relied on Chineseassistants or collaboratorsto writeout theirdrafts in sinographs,the necessaryoral metaphrases thatthey provided would have had a pronouncedtendency to infiltratethe intended LS product.The result,then, was the peculiartype of BHSi that is so conspicuous in the earliesttranslations and, indeed, whichexists to one degreeor anotheras an acceptablesubcategory of LS throughoutthe historyof Chinese Buddhism. This would also have been the case with the presumablybetter acculturated translators such as the TocharianDharmaraksa (active c. 265-313), the so-calledBodhisattva of Tun-huang,and Kumarajiva(b. 344 or 350, d. 409 or 413), who was of Indian (Kashmiri) and Tocharian (Kuchan) parentage. These famous pillars of Chinese Buddhism produced an enormousnumber of Sinitic texts but, wheneverprecise informationconcerning their modus operandi is available, we findthat-more often thannot-they workedin teamswith Chinesecollaborators, sometimes as manyas tenpeople fora singletext, or thatthey simply dictated their translations to Chinese scribes(Fuchs 1930). The famouslate Ch'ing-earlyRepublican "translator" of Europeanand American novelsinto Sinitic, Lin Shu (1852-1924), was also dependenton oralVS interpretation by othersbecause he knew no Westernlanguages. However,where he was content to paraphraseloosely the secularnovels that he renderedinto LS, the earlyBuddhist translatorsstrove to make accuraterenditions of the sacredtexts with which they were dealing, in spite of the vast dissimilaritiesbetween the Siniticand Sanskritic languagesin which theywere written. The special quality of BHSi persistseven when learnednative Chinese such as Hsuan-tsang(596-664) and 1-ching(635-713) laterbecome proficient in Sanskrit by travelingto India and studyingthere for an extendedperiod of time. The translationsthey produced upon theirreturn to China werestill so heavilyinfluenced by Sanskritgrammar, syntax, and lexicon that they are noticeablydistinct from typicalLS. I should note, furthermore,that individualssuch as Hsuan-tsangand 1-chingwho acquiredthe abilityto read Sanskritwere extremely rare in China. The majorityof Chinesewho claimeda knowledgeof sacred Buddhist language(s) usually were familiaronly with the Siddhamscript at best (van Gulik 1956).1 Oftentheir acquaintancewith Indic languages was limited to syllabic transcriptionsof very 'Siddhamwas derivedfrom the Gupta form of the Sanskritalphabet and was used in East Asiancountries for the writingof dhdrani-s,mantras, and other(usually very brief) Buddhisttexts.

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 717

shorttexts in sinographs.Systematic expositions of grammardo not seem to have become available before about the eighteenthcentury, and even these were disappointinglyobscure. Regardlessof how we classifyBHSi, however,one thing is clear: the early impetusfor the translationof Buddhisttexts into Siniticcame primarilyfrom foreign monks residentin China. Indeed, the churchat Loyang initiallyseems to have consistedsolely of foreignersand it only graduallycame to include a few Chinese (Zurcher1990; Maspero 1934). Anothercomplicated facet of the earlytranslations is thefact that most of themwere done not by Indians,but by Iranian-and Tocharian- speaking individuals.This must have had a great impact on the developmentof the Chinese Buddhist canon, yet, aside froma few articlesby the distinguished Sanskritistand Tocharian specialistChi Hsien-lin (1947; 1956; 1959; 1990) on veryspecific terms, this vital issue has scarcelybeen touched. JohnBrough (1961) has highlightedthe importanceof the northwesternPrakrits (vernaculars)for the early Chinese Buddhist translations.In particular,he makes the case that many of the earlyChinese translationsof Buddhist textswere done fromPrakrits such as Gandharlrather than from Sanskrit. There is also good evidence fromChinese sources that the Sinitic translationof the Sfitraof the Wise and the Foolish(Hsien-yi ching) was takendown orallyin Khotanby eightmonks from western China and compiled by them afterthey had returnedto Qoco (Turfan)(Takakusu 1901; Pelliot 1929). There must have been a flourishingvernacular Buddhist "literature"(if that is whatwe maycall it; I preferto referto nonwrittennarrative and dramatictraditions as "dicture")in the oral realm in CentralAsia beforeBuddhism was transmitted to China. The paucityof written Buddhist texts in the indigenouslanguages of CentralAsia beforethe seventhcentury may be due to the perceptionof adherents of the religionthere that scriptureshould be reservedfor the sacred language of Sanskrit.Some evidencefor the existenceof Buddhist textsin the local languages of CentralAsia may be foundin the rich traditionof Buddhistnarrative art at sites such as Kucha and Bezeklik, severalexamples of which have extensivenarrative inscriptionsin Tocharianor othernon-Sinitic, non-Indic Central Asian languages, e.g., the exquisiteMahdprabhdsa avadina fromthe Knights' Cave at Kirish (Along theAncient Silk Routes:105-6). We must also rememberthat, under Indian tutelage, the Tibetans started translatingBuddhist texts into theirown languageby the seventhcentury. Buddhist Tibetan, while stickingclosely to the Sanskrit,is as much Tibetan as the usually quite loose BHSi translationsare Sinitic. Furthermore,the Tibetansplayed a truly major political role in CentralAsia just at the time translationsof Buddhist texts into Khotanese,Sogdian, and otherlanguages were becoming popular (cf. Beckwith 1987). I suspect that the second vernacularrevolution (from around the seventh century),when Buddhist texts were appearing in the indigenouslanguages of Central Asia, may be relatedto the wide-rangingactivities of the Tibetansthere beginning about that time, just as the first"vernacular" revolution (from the second half of the second century),when textsbegan to appear in BHSi, was most likelydue to the sponsorshipof Kushan, Parthian,and otherCentral Asian peoples. The large intervalbetween the two revolutions(nearly half a millennium)would seemto indicate that, while the idea of the translationof Indian Buddhist textshad alreadybeen floatedby thesecond half of thesecond century, sociopolitical circumstances apparently did not permitits realizationoutside of China until the seventhor eighthcentury. Hence, in strivingto understandthe timing of the firstand second vernacular

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 718 VICTOR H. MAIR revolutions,perhaps we should focusmore on geopoliticalconditions and less on religiousand linguisticcriteria. As a matterof fact,the first"vernacular" revolution was not reallyvernacular in naturebecause BHSi is basicallyLS with some admixturesfrom VS. This may explain why it was possible forCentral Asian monksand missionariesto translate Indian Buddhisttexts into BHSi but not into theirown vernaculars.In essence,by renderingSanskrit and Pali textsinto BHSi, theywere simply transferring scriptures fromone sacredlanguage into another.Like LS, BHSi was not sayable(i.e., it was nonvernacular)and hencehad presentedlittle danger of trulysecularizing the sacred Indian texts.The firstvernacular Buddhist texts in Siniticdid not appear until the middleof the eighthcentury (the pien-wen [transformation textsj), after the vernacular revolutionhad alreadytaken place in CentralAsian Buddhism. As we have seen above, the pien-wenthemselves were farfrom being fullyvernacular, though they weredecidedly more vernacular than the typicalBHSi text,and incomparablymore so than all writingin LS. Aboveall, it cannotbe stressedoften enough or stronglyenough that our biggest problem in reconstructingthe historyof Central Asian Buddhism (and virtually everythingelse about Central Asia) is due to the lack of systematic,scientific archaeologicalexcavation in Sinkiang.Until the Chinesegovernment authorizes and supportsmore thorough investigations in thisregion, all thatwe say about its history must be consideredextremely tentative. The notion that CentralAsian Buddhists did not create texts in theirown languages beforethe sixth or seventhcentury, whereasthey did so for the Chinese fromthe second century,may be simplyan artifactof preservationor lack thereof(cf. Nattier 1990). While the repercussionsof the Buddhisttranslation enterprise for language usage in China were undoubtedlyenormous, more specifickinds of linguisticexpertise were also being transferred.It would not be an exaggerationto state that every majoradvance in linguisticsfrom the Han perioduntil the adventof Jesuit-inspired evidentiallearning (k'ao-cheng-hsiieh) in the Ch'ing period over 1,500 yearslater, particularlyin phonology,was dependentupon or conditionedby Buddhismin one way or another.Here we need-mention only such momentousdevelopments as the creation of countertomyor cut-and-splicepseudospelling (fan-ch'ieh), generally attributedfor the last thousandand more yearsto the Buddhists,which for the firsttime enabled Chinese to indicatethe pronunciationof unknowngraphs fairly unambiguouslyand analytically(Mair 1992a); the wholesystem of rhymeclassification (teng-yun)which laid the foundationsof linguisticscience in China that are still operativetoday; and the thirty-sixquasiletters (san-shih-liu tzu-mu) of the late T'ang monkShou-wen, inspired by Sanskritvyanjanam ("consonants"), which constituted a sortof abortivealphabet (more accurately termed a "consonantary")for Sinitic (Ni 1948:17). All of this unaccustomedattention to the soundsof spokenlanguage, in contrastto the traditionalemphasis of Chinesescholars on the shapesof the written graphs, must have contributedto the legitimationof the vernacularvis-a-vis LS. While the nonphonologicalaspects of Indianlinguistics were not so readilytransferable to China, Buddhistswere vaguely aware of theirimportance as subsumedunder the generalcategory of siabda-vidyd, accurately rendered in Siniticas "voice-insight"(sheng- ming),although the Sanskritexpression refers to grammarand philologyas well as phonology.The significanceof sabda-vidydfor the Indian traditioncan be seen by its inclusionamong the panca vidyd-sthdndni(five typesof knowledge,Sinitic wu- ming),the otherfour being hetu-vidyd(logic, yin-ming),adhydtma-vidyd (psychology, nei-ming),iyddhi-cikitsd-vidyd (medicine, i-fang-ming), and .si/pa-karmnasthdna-vidyd(arts

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 719 and crafts,kung-ch'iao-ming). Yet we should rememberthat this kind of linguistic knowledgewas restrictedto a relativelysmall groupof specialists,so I suspectthat it was not the chiefreason for the establishmentof the writtenvernacular. Probablymore important in raisingthe consciousnessof some Chinesethat the simplesounds of languagewere just as essentialas theirelaborate and exaltedscript, if not more so, was the Buddhistpenchant for psalmody. There was no precedent in the indigenousliterary and religioustraditions for the flood of sacred singing and chantingthat engulfedChina with Buddhism. The Chinese were completely unpreparedfor and utterlybedazzled by the meticulousnessand seriousnesswith which theirIndo-Iranian teachers delivered their *brahma-pdtha (hymns, fan-pai), gdthd(verses, chi), sloka (stanzas, shou-/u),songs of praise (sung),stotra (eulogies, tsan),dhdranT (mystical charms and prayers,t'o-lo-ni), mantra (magical formulasand incantations,man-t'e-lo), and so forth.Dharanf, for example, were thoughtto be potentonly if properlypronounced, hence theywere transcribedin theirentirety, not translated.Even the manticrecitation of the Buddha's name (nienFo) musthave impressedupon the masses the power of the spoken word, althoughmost of the othertypes of religiousutterances listed above were principally the preserve of religious experts. The very real consequencesof Indian prosody, as introducedthrough Buddhism, for even the most celebratedsecular verse in China have now been demonstratedby Mair and Mei (1991).

Social Values, IntellectualHistory, and ReligiousMission

So farwe havebeen examining doctrinal, philosophical, intellectual, and technical aspects of Buddhism that may have played a role in the growthof the written vernacular.Perhaps we have overlookedcertain social valuesof Buddhismthat might have had an equal or even greaterbearing on this question. We must remember that traditionalChinese society,according to Confucianorthodoxy and to a great extentin actuality,was rigidlyhierarchical from the familyright up to the emperor. The same, of course,was largelytrue of Hindu society.It is noteworthythat, both in India and in China,at leastin the earlyphases, Buddhism functioned (and perhaps originated)as a meansfor the individualto escape fromthe normalsocietal bonds. Leaving the home (Sanskritpravrajya; Sinitic ch'u-chia)and becoming a monk representeda profoundbreak with the ordinaryrules governing social and political intercourse.Even the elder(srestha; chang-che), the householder(grhastha; su-jen), the layman(updsaka; chii-shih), and the lay woman (updsikd;chin-shih-ni), who never reallyquit the family,was enjoinedto subscribein his/herdaily lifeto an entirely differentset of preceptsfrom those who were completelyoutside of the Buddhist community.This constituteda dangerouslysubversive challenge to existingstructures and institutions,one thatis measurablein economic(Gernet 1956) and demographic (Hartwell and Hartwell 199 la; 199 lb) terms,not to mentionother indicators.2 Certainlythe Chinese authoritieswere threatenedby encroachmentsof Buddhist 2Accordingto the Hartwells,the Buddhistsamgha was perhapsthe mostegalitarian institutionin Sungsociety. See especiallytheir interesting note and comments on themonk Tsung-ku(database # 16548) who was the illiterate son of a Shao-wu(in northwestFukien) farmerand became the founder of an importantZen temple.Among his friends and disciples weremembers of someof themost distinguished families of theSung period.

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 720 VICTOR H. MAIR ideology,organizations, and wealth, so much so that they periodicallylaunched massivepersecutions against the alien faith-even afterit had, as it were, been domesticated.For theirpart, the more narrowlydoctrinaire Confucian literati kept up a vigorouspolemical attack almost fromthe momentBuddhism set foot on Chinese soil, so that therewas frequenttension betweenchurch and court even when the latterwas not burningthe temples,melting the statues,confiscating the lands, and defrockingthe monksand nuns of the former. We are slowlygaining a betterpicture of the truecomposition of the Buddhist communityin China and are findingthat it includeda high proportionof widows, orphans,and othertypes of individualswho did not fitwithin the usual patternof societal relationships.The compositionof the Chinesesamgha may be interpreted as having a bearingon language usage. LS was clearlyidentified with the literati establishment.The vernacular,on the otherhand, servedas a moreeasily acquired tool forwritten expression of the dispossessedand thosewho lacked the opportunity or meansfor the long and tediouseducation necessary to masterthe literarylanguage. With these qualities of sociallyembedded Buddhism in mind, I view the written vernacularas a kind of demotic empowerment.Living in an age of massive manipulationof language forsociopolitical ends, which I have oftenreferred to as "linguisticengineering," I thinkwe can readilyappreciate the dramaticconsequences of an assertivewritten vernacular opposing itselfto a privileged,hieratic, classical 3 script. Daniel Gardner(1991) has recentlycalled attentionto the importanceof the writtenvernacular in Neo-Confucianism,both for the freer,more inquisitive approach it permittedtoward the classics and for allowing the extensionof philosophical discourseto a broadersegment of the population.Considering the powerfulinfluence of Buddhismon the formationof Neo-Confucianthought and practice,the adoption of the writtenvernacular as a legitimateform of seriousintellectual discussion would seem to be one moreexample of the radicalrestructuring of Confucianismbrought about by this foreignreligion (Angurarohita 1989). Tsu-Lin Mei has writtena lengthyresponse (1992b) to Gardnerthat he does notplan to publish. Some of the majorpoints he raises,and whichhe has authorized me to presenthere, are: 1. WhereasGardner stresses the epistemological assumptions of Neo-Confucians concerningthe power of mind in everyman to comprehendthe truth expressed in plaincolloquial style, Mei emphasizesthe sociolinguistic and historicallinguistic backgroundof thedevelopment of thewritten vernacular. 2. In spiteof its technicalsounding name, yu-lu is simplythe "transcript"of conversationsinvolving two or morepersons in colloquialSinitic. Its use during 3Althoughthose who wrote down early vernacular texts in Chinawere necessarily dependent uponthe very script which limited their freedom of expression, they treated it rathercasually by usingthe graphs more for phonetic purposes and lessfor logographic purposes than was customaryin LS. This is evident,for example, in T'ang periodtransformation texts where homophonicborrowings and "mistakes"routinely occur. The fundamentalnature of the sinographsis still verymuch in dispute.A few philosophically/theoreticallyminded scholars continue to insistthat the Chinesewriting systemis pictographicand ideographic, whereas most historically/empirically oriented linguists considerit to functionfundamentally as a hugeand phonetically imprecise morphosyllabary withconspicuous logographic features (Hansen 1993a, 1993b;Unger 1993). One thingis sure,however, and thatis thefact that Chinese characters-unlike the elements of a true syllabary,consonantary, or alphabet which convey only phonetic information-carry both semanticand phoneticweight (albeit limited in bothcases).

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 721

the Sung was not just limitedto Zen (Ch'an) Buddhistsand Neo-Confucians; emissarieson foreignmissions also used this form to transcribewhat was said during theirdiplomatic negotiations (e.g., Shihpei yu-lu [Transcripts from a NorthernMission)), particularlywith the Khitans and Jurchens. The rationalefor using the vernacular ratherthan the literary language was that the former medium was capable of recording moreaccurately what was actuallysaid duringthe negotiationswhich, after all, touchedupon sensitive matters of nationalsecurity (Mei 1980). 3. Vernacularshort stories and southerndramas (hsi-wen) containing colloquial dialoguealso make theirappearance around the same time (twelfth-thirteenth centuries). 4. The questionof timing cannot be limitedto theyu-lu, but must also be asked aboutthe colloquial diplomatic transcripts and thevernacular literary texts. 5. The mostnatural context for understanding the origin of Sung colloquial and its use amongdifferent social classes is the riseand developmentof the written vernacularduring the late T'ang period. During the T'ang, the ability to compose in thewritten vernacular was limited to persons(especially individuals with a Buddhist disposition)not belonging to, or marginallybelonging to, theelite. The turning pointseems to havecome in thesecond half of the eleventh century, and especially duringthe twelfth, when a substantialnumber of thebureaucratic elite acquired theability to writecolloquial Chinese. The reasonwhy Confucians did not turn to thecolloquial yu-lu form prior to thesecond half of theeleventh century may merelybe thatthey and othermembers of the elite had not yetmastered the writtenvernacular, which theretofore had developedin an essentiallyBuddhist environment. 6. Anotherfactor that has to be takeninto account is the spreadof literacy. Obviously,the Neo-Confucians' efforts to disseminatetheir doctrines via the colloquial yii-luwould have been in vainif a readershipwith an adequatedegree of literacy had notexisted at thattime. Victor Mair (1989:135-39) hasshown that low-level literacywas alreadywidespread in the late T'ang period.From previous studies, we knowthat the invention of printing, the establishment ofgovernment schools and privateacademies (attached to monasteries),and thecivil service examination system(particularly at its lowestlevels) all promotedliteracy. By the Sung,the spreadof literacyhad becomean East Asianphenomenon; the Tangut script and the chui'n0om script were both invented during this period in orderto writethe vernacularlanguages of theTanguts and theVietnamese.

Combiningthe findingsof Gardnerand Mei with the comprehensiveintellectual historyof the period, we may deduce that the gradual adoptionof the vernacular for limited purposesduring the T'ang and Sung was the resultof a complicated adjustmentto the normsand values of Buddhistideology. These normsand values manifestedthemselves in diversefields of human endeavor(literature, philosophy, governmentdocuments, commentaries for non-Sinitic rulers, etc.), but all of them may be analyzedsociolinguistically as emanatingfrom the fundamentallydemotic impulsesof the religion. Anotherreason for Buddhism to choose the vernacularover the classical may have been its strongmissionary zeal. For a religionthat wishes to move rapidly intoa new area, complexand hard-to-learnwritten languages like LS are a frustrating obstacleto rapid disseminationof its doctrines.They are, furthermore,usually the jealous possessionof an entrenchedbureaucratic or priestlyelite who would actively oppose the spreadof potentiallysubversive ideologies that are directedtoward the populace. One of the major themesin David Diringer'swell-known book Writing is that "alphabet follows religion." In particular, he shows the close connection

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 722 VICTOR H. MAIR betweenthe spreadof Buddhismand the creationof writtenvernaculars from India to Central,Inner, East, South,and SoutheastAsia (1962:148). It would be revealing to make a study of just how many languages in these areas receivedtheir first writtenexpression through the activitiesof Buddhist monks and other types of proselytizers.I suspectthat, beforethe coming of Christianityto this part of the world, aside froma handfulof sinographicallyinspired scripts (most of which are now dead [Tangut, Khitan, Jurchen,Vietnamese, etc.] or dying [Yao, Women's Script/Nu-shu,etc.)) (Zhou 1991; Sofranov1991; Sino-PlatonicPapers 31 [October 19911:29-33), nearlyall of the writtenvernaculars east of the Pamirsto the Pacific Ocean were a directresult of the Buddhist missionaryenterprise. Thus, the two great missionaryreligions, Christianity and Buddhism, togetheraccount for the overwhelmingmajority of Central,Inner, East, South,and SoutheastAsian languages thathave been committedto writing.The othergreat religion of conversion,Islam, and the olderSemitic faiths account for most of the remainder.The roleof Christian missionariesduring the nineteenthand twentiethcenturies in creatinghundreds of writtenvernaculars throughout the entireworld is well known.

The IndianBackground

The final characteristicof Buddhism that seems to have lent supportfor the writtenvernacular which I wish to examineis a matterof religiouspolicy or practice. As Buddhism swiftlyexpanded from its original base in Magadha (Rajagrha, Pataliputra)and gained convertseven fromamong the Brahmans,the founderof the religionwas facedwith the pressingissue of linguisticusage. Should a single prestigedialect be designatedto ensurerespect for the Buddha's word?Or should a pluralityof languagebe permittedto enable the unimpededspread of the dharma among thosewho werenot privyto the priestlytongue? Judging from all accounts, the Buddha made the wise decisionto allow Buddhistpractitioners to transmithis teachingsin theirown respectivelanguages.4 This scenario,at any rate,is repeatedly maintainedby mostextant versions of thevinaya (monastic rules) and mustrepresent one of the earliestlayers of Buddhistliterature. Since the storyis well known,I will simplysummarize it here. Two brahman brothersconvert to Buddhismand join the sam.gha.Having a backgroundin Vedic recitation,they are concernedthat other monks of diversebackgrounds will corrupt the Buddha'steachings by recitingthem in substandardways. They go to the Buddha

4Due to themisleading, if not wholly erroneous, commentary of Buddhaghosa (Cullavagga 5.33; Vinaya ii, 139, 1-16), therehas been a small amount of scholarlycontroversy over whetherthe Buddha enjoinedhis followersto use his own nativetongue or theirown native tonguesin spreadingthe dharma(Brough 1980). It would seem thatthe operativePali word sakdya(or sakkiya= Sanskritsatkdya), under the givencircumstances, is moreapt to function as a third-personreflexive pronoun than as a first-personreflexive. Furthermore, it has not previouslybeen pointedout that the passage in questionwould seriouslycontradict itself if we accepted Buddhaghosa's explanation("Lord, here monks of miscellaneousorigin are corruptingthe Buddha's [i.e., your) words [by repeatingthem) in your own dialect"[!}). This simplydoes not make sense. Only when we understandsakdya as "their"is the entire passagecomprehensible. Cf. Edgerton(1953:1-2) and Lin Li-kouang(1949:216-27). Finally, no one seriouslydisputes the claim that the Buddha was in favorof the vernacularsat the expenseof the classical,priestly language. Of one thingwe can be certain,linguistic diversity was presentin ancientBuddhism almost fromthe verybeginning of the religion(Bechert 1980:15).

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 723 and proposethat they standardize his wordin chandas.Although there are numerous interpretationsof the word chandas,this presumablysignifies mannered, metrical verse and in this contextprobably just means "Veda," which is how the famous grammarian,Paanini (fifth or sixthcentury B.C.E.) uses it. In anyevent, the brahman brothersare surelyproposing an elite styleof deliveryfor which their training suits them. The Buddha will have none of it. Roundlyrejecting them, he emphatically advocatesthe propagationof his teachingsin the vernacular. The actual historyof linguisticusage in Indian Buddhismaside, the Buddha's pronouncementin this celebratedpassage stuck. Let us followit throughthe vinaya of five differentschools preserved in the Chinese Buddhist canon. In the Dharmaguptakarecension translated by Buddhayasasduring the years410-12, the Buddha calls upon his followersto use "the vernacularlanguages understoodin diverselocales (pradesandm prdkrtabhdsah) (Lamotte 1958:612) to recitethe Buddhist sztras"a(T22[14281.955a). Althoughthe equivalentsentence is missingin the vinaya of the Sarvastivadins,translated by Punyatara,Dharmaruci, and Kumarajivafrom 404-9, thesame senseis retainedin thepassage taken as a whole.(T23[14351.274a).5 The Vinayamatrkaversion, translated into Chinese in about 418, expandsthe passage thus: "You should speak in whateverlanguage all the living beings can obtain enlightenment.For this reasonit is called 'doing in accordancewith the country',b (T24[14631.822a). The vinayaof the Mahisasakaschool, translatedinto Chineseby Buddhajiva in 422-23, only indicatesthat the Buddha's word should be "recited according to the language of the country''C(T22[14211. 174b). Finally, the Vinayaksudrakavastuof the Malasarvastivada,translated by 1-chingin 702 or 703, declaresthat "therewill be no errorif one is requiredto draw out the voice when recitingin the languageof a given locale (prade(asvara)"d (T24[14511.232c).6 There can be littledoubt that, no matterwhich versionof the vinayaChinese Buddhists chose to follow,use of the vernacularwas approvedby the Buddha himself. It is worthobserving that Pali, the language of the earlyBuddhist canon, was originallybut one of the Prakrits(v. Hinuber 1986). Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (BHS), likewise, was actually a Prakritwith augmentedelements from Sanskrit (Bender 1991). Aside frombeing the usual prosedialect of Sanskritplays, Sauraseni is a type of Prakritused in the later Digambara scripturesof the Jains. Magadhi is anothertype of Prakritused in Sanskritplays, but forpersons of still lowerrank than those who speak Sauraseni. Ardha-magadhi(semi-Magadhi) is intermediate betweenSauraseni and Magadhi and is importantbecause it was used in the old Jainwritings. Alsdorf (1980) has demonstratedthat Mahavira (the founderof Jainism) and SakyamuniBuddha sharedcertain Magadhisms (Chi 1959). There are also clear 5JanNattier (1991:3) makesthe excellentpoint that the sentencerecommending the use ofthe vernacular is absentin theSarvastivada vinaya. This was,after all, probablythe firstsect to abandonthe use ofPrakrit in favorof elegant, classical Sanskrit. In herwords, "It wouldnot be at all difficultto see thisabsence as a deliberateomission." 6The quotationgiven here is precededby these sentences:"If a bhiksuin re- citinga satraprolongs the sounds as thoughhe weresinging or chanting,that is a mistake. Therefore,a bhiksu should not draw out hisvoice in songor chantwhen reciting the sutras or thevinaya. If a bhiksurecites the siitras and othertexts with the sounds of thechandas, he willcommit a sinby overstepping the law." The quotationis followedby this commentary: "Chandasrefers to themethod of recitation of the brahmans. They prolong the sounds and keepthe rhythmby pointingwith their finger in the air. The mastersings first and the othersfollow along after him." I have not been able to locate the equivalentpassage in the vinayaof the Mahasamghika (T22[ 14251.227-549), translated by Fa-hsien and Buddhabhadra in 4 16-18.

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 724 VICTOR H. MAIR similaritiesbetween Old Ardha-magadhiand the language of the Asokan pillar inscriptions,which is thereforealso referredto as Asokan Magadhi. Maharastrior Old Marathiwas influentialbecause of its use in thelater scriptures of the Svetambaras and in drama. Among the Vibhasas, or lesserPrakrits, of which thereare many, Saurastriis interestingbecause it containselements of Scythiandialects (Walker 1968:2.234-35). Fromthis very brief survey of the Prakrits(early Indian vernaculars), it is apparentthat theywere oftenused by religionsand othersocial groups who stood outsideof the dominantVedic-Upanisadic-Sanskritic culture. Viewed in this light, the Prakritsplayed the same role in Indian societythat BHSi and written VS did in China. The wholeapproach to desa-bhdasa,an expressionmeaning "language of a country" which can be foundalready in the Mahabhdrata(Poona Criticaledition, 9.44.98; Calcutta edition, 9.2605; Madras edition, 40.103; Bombay edition, 45.103cd), may have stimulatedor reflectedthe exerciseof the vernacularsin India, unlikethe attitudetoward fang-yen (topolect, "the languageof a place") (Mair 1991), its parallel in China, which seems to have inhibitedtheir use. There has always been such pronouncedofficial disdain in Chinafor the topolects (in favorof the standard language) that the notion of theirbeing writtendown is virtuallyinconceivable. This is in contrastto the situationin India wherefamiliarity with local languageswas esteemed. Thus, among the 64 kala (practicalskills) cataloged in the Saivatantra,we find dei'a-bha,s-(vi)jFdna("knowledge of local languages").This is immediatelypreceded by mlecchitaka-vikalpd4,which clearlysignifies a babel of foreigntongues, and is followedby puspa-s'akatika-nimitta-jnana,the ability to understandthe omens of heavenlyvoices. Given such a positiveattitude toward the variousdes'a-bhhas,, with the advent of alphabeticwriting it has always been acceptable in India to record many differentlanguages and dialects. Conversely,since any living language in China was perforcemerely a topolect, therewas an almost insuperableprejudice against the writingdown of vernaculars,even the spoken language of the capital. The verynotion of the Prakrits(prakrta, literally "made before")as "natural" (i.e., unadorned,unrefined) languages versus Sanskrit(samnskrta, literally "made together,"i.e., refined)as an "artificial"(in the Buddhistcontext) language differs markedlyfrom the Chineseconception of the variousfang-yen as vulgar(su) and LS as elegant (ya). Eventually,however, even the Prakritsbecame decadent,and by about 550 C.E., variousapabhrams'a (deviations) spoken by the laukika(commoners) came into existence.We find no mentionof apabhrazms'ain Vararuci,the oldest Prakritgrammarian who was writingaround 579 C.E. (Cowell 1854). Hemacandra (1088-1172), on the otherhand, interestinglydefines apabhrarms'a as Prakrit with additionalinfusions of popular (deff)speech (Walker 1968:2.233)7 Were it not forthe permissiveIndian attitude toward the vernaculars, we would not have the presentsituation where there are overa dozen majorIndo-Aryan official languagesstill being spokenand writtenin India, includingsome such as Hindi, Bengali, Marathi,Gujarati, and Oriya with rich literarytraditions. This is not to mentionthe Dravidian languages such as Tamil, Telugu, and Malayalam, which

7It is likely, however, that there were already written apabhramsraby the sixthcentury (e.g., an inscriptionof King DharasenaII of Valabhl refersto compositionin apabhrams'a)and they may even have existed by the thirdor fourthcentury (e.g., certain versesin the fourthact of Kalidasa's Vikramorvasfya).The bulk of laterapabhrars'a literature was mostlyJain works(eighth to twelfthcenturies). See EncyclopaediaBritannica, 15th ed. (1988), vol. 22, p. 618:2a; vol. 21, p. 50:lb; and vol. 1, p. 475:3a. Technicallyspeaking, defiis consideredto mean language that is "non-derivablefrom Sanskrit."

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 725 likewisehave long and gloriousliterary histories. How starklydissimilar the situation is in China can be seen by the factthat therewas not even officialrecognition of ModernStandard Mandarin (MSM) as an acceptableform of writing until the founding of the Republic of China in the firstquarter of this century.The amount of unadulteratedwriting in the othervernacular Sinitic topolectsand languagesis so patheticallysmall as to be virtuallynonexistent, except in fairlyrecent romanized transcriptions(mostly by Christianmissionaries and theirChinese followers). Since about the Sung dynasty(960-1279), therewas a rathersurreptitious tradition of secularvernacular fiction and drama, based largelyon the language of the capital. Beforethat, as I have shown, virtuallyall vernacularand semivernacularwriting was done by Buddhists.And, to this day, it remainsalmost unthinkableto write downany of the topolectsin a relativelyintegral form, although isolated topolectical expressionsare occasionallyadded to Mandarintexts to give a bit of local flavor. Judgingfrom the overallpattern of the developmentof the writtenvernacular in China, I believewe are justifiedin statingunequivocally that Buddhism was centrally involvedin its establishmentas a viable mode of expression.

The Concept of "National Language"

One mightgo evenfurther to saythat the whole idea ofwritten national languages in East Asia as foundedon the spokenvernaculars may well have been inspiredby theIndian concept of de&a-bhdsd introduced by Buddhism. The exactSinitic equivalent ofdeda-bhds4 is kuo-yii.Before the comingof Buddhismto China, thesetwo graphs, in theorder given, meant only one thing:the title of a book in 21 fasciclestraditionally said to have been completedby the historianTso Ch'iu-mingin the year469 B.C.E. Naturally,the Kuo-yu,like all otherpre-Buddhist writing in China, was composed in LS. In thiscase, the two sinographs designate the individual accounts (yu) concerning each of the eight majorcontending states (kuo) that became prominent as the Chou dynastybegan to breakapart into spheres of influence.After the advent of Buddhism, however,the expressionkuo-yu began to takeon a radicallydifferent meaning, namely, the vernacularlanguage belongingto a nation in the sense of a people who saw themselvesas a separatepolitico-ethnic entity. Perhapsthe earliestoccurrence of kuo-yuithat may referto a vernacularSinitic topolect(fang-yen) is foundin a Buddhistcontext. This is the accountof Vighna's translationof the Fa-chuching (Dhammapada) in the Kao-sengchuan (Biographies of EminentMonks) by Hui-chiao (497-544):

Vighna(Wei-chih-nan) was originallyfrom India. Forgenerations his family had professeda heterodoxway, considering the fire sacrifices (presumably of the Atharva-vedaor possiblyof Zoroastrianism)as the truereligion. It so happened thatan Indiansramana (monk), who was practiced in Hinayana("Lesser Vehicle") and whowas proficientin Buddhisticarts, wished to lodgein Vighna'shouse at nightfallafter a longjourney. Since Vighna's family subscribed to a heterodoxway, theywere suspicious of Buddhists and madehim sleep outside in theopen. During the night,the sramana secretly uttered an incantation,causing the firethat was worshippedin Vighna'shouse suddenly to be extinguished.Thereupon the entire householdwent out and respectfullyinvited the sramana to go insidewhere they madeofferings to him. The sframanaresponded by causingthe fire to lightagain withhis incantatoryarts. Perceiving that the supernaturalpower of theframarna

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 726 VICTOR H. MAIR

surpassedhis own,Vighna happily and enthusiasticallybecame an adherentof the Buddhadharma(the Buddhist doctrine). Consequently,he abandonedhis previous faith and lefthis family (pravraj) to followthe Buddhistway. Inductedas a monkby thes'ramana, he receivedthe teachingsof theTripitaka (the "three baskets" of theBuddhist canon), wonderful goodness,and the four Agamas (division of the "Hinayana" scriptures). He travelled to manycountries, preaching and converting, and all whomhe encounteredaccepted thefaith. In theyear 224, withhis companionChu Lu-yen(the surname indicates that he wasan Indian),he arrivedat Wu-ch'ang(in Hupeiprovince) where he presented the Sanskrittext of theDharmapada,8 that is, theSu7tra of Verses on theDharma. At thattime, the gentlemenof Wu requestedthat Vignha produce [a Chinese versionof) thescripture. But Vighnahad not yetmastered the languageof the country(kuo-yu) so, togetherwith his companionLi-yen, he translatedit into writtenSinitic (Han-wen). Lu-yen likewise had notmastered spoken Sinitic (Han- yen),so therewere quite a fewdeficiencies. Their aim was to preservethe sense of theoriginal, but theirstyle approached plainness. It was notuntil the end of thereign of theChin emperor Hui (r. 290-306) thatthe s'ramana Fa-li retranslated it in fivescrolls, with the sramana Fa-chii writing it down.Their style was somewhatornate. Fa-li also producedfour or so minor scriptures,but mostof themwere lost during the chaos at theend of theYung- chiaperiod (307-13). (T5012059).326bc)

Althoughthis passage is valuablefor its earlymention of kuo-yui with the ostensible meaningof vernacular,it evincesthe same sort of confusionbetween spoken and writtenlanguage as well as betweenlocal and nationallanguage that has plagued Chinese linguisticsright up to the presentday. Han-yenand kuo-yiiboth imply spoken language, but kuo-yi here seems to indicatethe local Ngua (Wu) topolect (forwhich therenever was a full writtenform until Christianmissionaries much latercreated a romanizedalphabet to recorddifferent varieties of Nguo speechand to publish religioustracts in them) whereasHan-yen would appear to indicatea nationallingua franca. The relationshipbetween Han-yen and Han-wenin thispassage is unclear,as is the varietyof Sinitic upon which they were based. Presumably, however,the basis forHan-yen was the standardizedspeech of the capital used by bureaucratsfrom around the countryto communicatewith each other(a precursor of kuan-huaor Mandarin).9Han-wen must have been a currentdesignation for LS (or, moreprecisely in this case, its BHSi variant). It is remarkablethat the firstclear applicationof kuo-yiiwith the new meaning of a vernacularbelonging to a separatepolitico-ethnic entity was to the language of a devoutlyBuddhist non-Sinitic group of people knownas the Tabgatch (T'o-pa in ModernStandard Mandarin transcription) who ruledover north China from386- 534 as the NorthernWei dynasty.These weremost likely proto-Mongols (or perhaps a Turkicpeople) who wereresponsible for the building of themonumental assemblages of Buddhist sculpture at Yun-kang and Lung-men in north China. In the 8Thisshould, perhaps, more accurately be thoughtof as "thePali text of the Dhammapada." In the eleventhchapter of his Chu7gokugoshi tsz7kJ,Ohta tOtal Tatsuodescribes the sporadicrise of Han-erh yen-yu (the [common]language of theHan people)as a legitimate modeof expression. He demonstratesnot only that the development ofthe national vernacular was fitful,but thatit occurredin thepopular realm and thatit was counterpoisedto the LS of the elite. For an extensivediscussion of the termkuan-hua and its history,see the nextsection.

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 727

"BibliographicalTreatise" ("Ching-chi chih") of Chang-sunWu-chi (d. 659) et al., in the Historyof the Sui (Sui shu), part 1, we read that, Whenthe Later Wei [i.e., theNorthern Wei = Tabgatch}first took control ofthe Central Plains, all ofthe commands for the disposition of their armies were givenin "barbarian"language (i-yi). Later,when they had becometainted by Chinesecustoms (jan Hua-su),many of themcould no longerunderstand their own tongue.So theybegan to teachit to each other,calling it their"national language"(kuO-yd).e (4. 32.947)

It is most intriguingthat the "BibliographicalTreatise" lists over a dozen works (4.32.935, 945; Dien 1991:55a, 59b n. 87; Ligeti 1970:279-80) on a wide variety of topicswritten in Tabgatchand *Saerbi(or *Shirvi;Hsien-pei in ModernStandard Mandarintranscription), another powerful, supposedly proto-Mongol, group who were active in northChina fromthe second centuryon.10 Unfortunately,none of thesebooks survive, but it would be extremelyvaluable to knowwhat script(s) they werewritten in. This tantalizingevidence from the "BibliographicalTreatise" indicates that it was possible to write Tabgatch and *Saerbi centuriesbefore any formof Altaic writingknown to modernscholars. What script(s)did the Tabgatch and *Saerbi use? This is a dark mysterywhose solution may unfolda new and very importantchapter in the historyof writing.What is significantfor our purposes here,however, is the factthat written Tabgatch and *Saerbiare openlyreferred to in the "BibliographicalTreatise" as kuo-yuior "nationallanguages." Elsewherein Chinese historicalrecords, we can find referencesto such works as Liao shih kuo-yui[National Language History of theKhitanj and Chin shih kuo-yui [NationalLanguage History of theJurchenl. These were presumablyhistories of the Khitanand Jurchendynasties that ruled over much of northChina duringthe tenth throughtwelfth centuries, written in theirnative Altaic and Tungusic languages. Althoughthese books have also regrettablybeen lost, scatteredinscriptional and documentaryinstances of writingin thesesinographically inspired scripts do survive and scholarsare workingon theirdecipherment (Sofranov 1991; Jensen1969:195- 97). It is clear that the earliestusage of the term kuo-yui("national/vernacular language"), indeed rightup to the end of the last dynasty,the Manchu Ch'ing, was almost alwaysin referenceto non-Siniticpeoples (Norman 1988:133). The Historyof the Yuan Dynasty(10. 115.2893) recordsthat, in the sparemoments whenhe was not attendingto his troops,the greatMongol warrior-princeKammala (1263-1302, son of Chen-chin["True Gold"J, who was Khubilai's second son) would orderone of his trustedadvisers to lecturehim on the Tzu-chiht'ung-chien [ComprehensiveMirror for Aid in Governmentj,the quintessential chronologically arranged historyof China compiledby Ssu-maKuang (1019-86), in the "nationallanguage,"' meaningMongolian. Manchu, too, was referredto explicitlyin the same fashion. For instance,in Wei Yuan's Sheng-wuchi [Recordsof Sagely Military Exploitsl (1.9a), we read that "the literaryofficials were orderedto createa nationalscript on the basis of the nationallanguage, using neitherMongol nor Sinitic writing."gEven the.1 Vietnameseadopted the notionI of a writtenvernacular with the creationof quoc ngu'. As used in Vietnam, quocngu' seems originally(perhaps as earlyas the fourteenthcentury) to have signifiedthe spokennative language as opposedto Sinitic languages.Later, quoc ngu' was appliedto chui'nom ("script" + "vulgar"= "vernacular 10Itmay be morecorrect to statethat Tabgatch was thename of one clan (the royal clan) withinthe ethnic group known as the*Saerbi or #Shirvi.

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 728 VICTOR H. MAIR writing"),a systemfor writingVietnamese involving phonetic use of sinographs and the creationof new, wholly indigenous lopographicsymbols composed of tetragraphiccomponents. Still later, the termquo^ ngui' was used to designatethe French-sponsoredromanized alphabet currently employed by theVietnamese (DeFrancis 1978:83-87). The notionof quo^cngu' as a writtennational language appears to have been borrowedby Vietnameserefugee intellectuals in Japan fromkokugo (Modern StandardMandarin, hereafter MSM, kuo-yii).

Mandarin as koine

Mandarinis, in effect,the close English translationof the MSM expression kuan-hua("officials' speech") which, in the latterpart of the Ch'ing period, was based on the dialect of the capital at Peking and which enabled the bureaucrats fromthe various parts of China whosenative languages were mutually unintelligible to conversewith each other.The word "Mandarin"was borrowedinto Englishfrom Portuguese,which picked it up fromMalay menteri.Malay, in turn,acquired the word fromHindi mantri,which is fromSanskrit mantrin ("counselor, minister") < mantra("counsel"). The termkuan-hua was in use fromthe Yuan period on and referredto the spokenlanguage of officaldom(kuan-ch'ang), which was based on the speechof the capital (mostlyPeking fromthat time till the present;Nanking speech was taken as the standardduring the late Ming)." There are many recordsfrom the Ming and Ch'ingperiods that prove that kuan-hua was consideredto be a prestigesupradialect that bureaucratsfrom all over the empirewere forcedto learn if theywished to have a successfulcareer. For most of them, this meant acquiringa second spoken language,not merely making minor adjustments in theirpronunciation and vocabulary. The complexionof kuan-huawas deliberatelychanged by reformersaround the end of the nineteenthcentury who wishedto make it the linguafranca of all China, not just of the officials.Chief among thesewas Wang Chao (1859-1933), a high- rankingliteratus who fled to Japan afterthe collapse of the ReformMovement of 1898. While there,the Japanese use oftheir kana syllabaries to overcomethe difficulties and restrictivenessof the Siniticscript inspired him to devisehis own spellingsystem called kuan-huatzu-mu ("Mandarin letters").Aside fromcourageously promoting this enlightenedphonetic script during the late Ch'ing-earlyRepublican period, Wang also energeticallypushed forthe adoption of Mandarinas China's national spokenand writtenlanguage. The followingremarks from the introductorynotes to his Kuan-huaho-sheng tzu-mu [Letters for Combiningthe Sounds of Mandarin] serve to illustrateWang's attitudetoward kuan-hua and his consciouseffort to remoldit as a popular language forthe whole Chinese nation:

Becausethe Chinese characters are difficult to understand,I wish to devisea script basedon colloquialPekingese. To facilitatepopular usage, I do notrefer to it as colloquialspeech but ratheras kuan-hua.The reasonfor this is to followpopular custom.North as faras theAmur River, west across the T'ai-hang Mountains to Nanyangand Loyang,south almost to theYangtze, and eastto theocean: all of "Paul Yang (1989) has shownthat Standard Mandarin of theMing dynasty was based on theNanking topolect, not thatof Peking,in spiteof thefact that the lattercity was theprimary capital for most of the dynasty. Nanking was the capital during the early Ming (1356-1421) and continuedto serveas thesecondary capital later.

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 729

the colloquiallanguages from north to southand fromeast to westfor several thousandtricents {li, threehundred paces or abouta thirdof a mile]are moreor less mutuallyintelligible with the languageof the capital,but the languagesof provincesoutside this area are mutuallyunintelligible. For this reason, it is most convenientto spreadthe language of thecapital. Therefore, I call it kuan-hua.By kuan,I mean"public"; kuan-hua is thus"speech for public use." Its selectionis appropriatebecause it occupiesthe greatest area and thelargest proportion of the population.

AlthoughWang's explanationof kuan is quite differentfrom its originalmeaning as "[pertainingto thel Mandariniatel,"the linguisticfeatures of the language in questionwere essentially the same in bothcases. Wang Chao laterplayed a blustery, belligerentrole in enforcingnorthern Mandarin as the standardnational language overthe other topolects in February1913, not long afterthe foundingof the Republic of China (Ramsey 1987:7-8). Kuan-huacorresponds to JerryNorman's concept of a koine(a linguafranca developingout of a mixtureof otherlanguages) (1988:5, 48, 186f., 246, and 249) whichmay be tracedback as earlyas theT'ang dynasty.12 This was a supradialectical formof speech which was normallybased on the dialect of Ch'ang-an,Loyang, or K'aifeng (capitals located along the centralpart of the Yellow River). The early Siniticequivalent of the termkoine is t'ung-yii("common language"; cf. the current name for Mandarin in the People's Republic of China, P'u-t'ung-hua["common speech")),which dates to aroundthe beginning of the CommonEra. Strainedattempts have been made to find evidenceof such a commonlyaccepted patternof speech even in the time of Confucius(55 1-479 B.C.E.). The usual referenceis to ya-yen ("elegantlanguage") whichoccurs in Analects7.18. Much fantasticspeculation has beenuttered over the passage in question.Aside fromthe assertion that it demonstrates the existenceof Mandarinin the sixthcentury B.C.E., the passage supposedlyalso "proves"that there was a connectionwith the nebulouslyconceived spoken language of the Hsia dynasty(whose historicity remains to be demonstrated,in spiteof wishful thinkingto the contrary).To arriveat this forcedinterpretation, ya is conveniently made to be a synonymof Hsia. Such readingsare possible only if much violence is done to the originaltext, which is quite straightforward:"The language that the Master consideredelegant is that of the Odes,History, Arts, and Ritual; these are all writtenin elegant language. h Judging fromthe actual texts that have been transmittedto us, it is fairlycertain that ya-yen is a designationfor an earlyform of LS or, at best, a standardreading pronunciation. In any event,by no means can this sentencebe legitimatelyused to constructa theoryof a VS koineduring the mid-firstmillennium B.C.E., whateverother data may or may not be available to constructsuch a theory. We must observethat the koinedid not correspondto the writtenlanguage of government,which was alwaysLS. Instead, the koineconstituted the foundationof the emergingwritten VS. When spokenby individualsfrom various areas of China 121 have benefitedmuch from conversations on thissubject with Tsu-Lin Mei who is currentlypreparing a majorstudy concerning the grammatical influence of the koine on the topolectsduring the T'ang and Sungperiods. In it, he will showhow the Early Mandarin dialectof the mid-eighth century came to functionas a koineand how,by theSung, it had developedas a writtenvernacular both for popular literature and forlimited bureaucratic purposes.Nonetheless, until the turn of the twentieth century, LS remainedthe sole sanctioned, officialmedium for writing and therewas no consciousattempt to elevatethe koine to the statusof a nationallanguage.

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 730 VICTOR H. MAIR outsideof the urbancenters upon whichit was based, the koinewas heavilyaffected by local pronunciation,lexicon, and, to a lesserextent, grammar-as is MSM today. The otherSinitic languages essentially remained unwritten and, indeed,"unwritable" because the set of morphosyllabicsinographs (han-tzu), though mind-bogglingly enormous,was inadequate to recordaccurately all the morphemesin the spoken vernaculars.At the same time, therewere no conventionsin medieval China for the alphabeticor syllabicspelling of connectedSinitic speech. This situationis verydifferent from that in medievalEurope whereLatin was both sayableand writableand hence could serveas a completevehicle both forthe speech and the writingof the educated. Subsequently,just beforeand during the Renaissance,each nationalvernacular in Europe took on a life of its own separate fromLatin. The developmentof the writtenvernaculars in Europewas also facilitated by an alphabetthat was capableof recordingwith ease anyvariety of spokenlanguage. In contrast,the sinographsinhibited the growthof the individualwritten vernaculars in China and tendedto discourageeven the writingof full-fledgedMandarin (it is usuallycontaminated by LS to one degreeor another).Thus thereis no flourishing literarytradition for Cantonese, Taiwanese, Shanghaiese, and the otherVS languages as thereis forFrench, German, Italian, English, and so forth.At best, thereare scatteredtexts (only an exceedingfew of whichdate frombefore the late nineteenth century)that include a smatteringof elementsof the various regional languages embedded in basicallyMandarin or semi-Mandarin-semi-LSmatrices to providea bit of "local flavor."

The JapaneseInspiration for kuo-yii

It is paradoxicalthat the Chineserecognized one of theirown spokenvernaculars as the basis for a national language (kuo-yii)only in this century.This occurred when the governmentof the Republic of China declared afterthe May Fourth Movementof 1919 that Mandarinwas to be spreadthroughout all of China as the officiallanguage of governmentand education.The firstperson known to have used the termkuo-yii in referenceto a Siniticlanguage was the scholarand educatorWu Ju-lun. In 1902, Wu went to Japan to observethe educationalsystem there. He was deeplyimpressed by thesuccess with which the Japanese government had spread the use of the Tokyo dialect as theirkokugo (i.e., kuo-y/)(Ramsey 1991). Upon his returnto China, Wu began advocatingto the Ch'ing governmentthe adoptionof Mandarinas a nationallanguage. By 1909, varioustentative steps had been taken in this direction,but the dynastycollapsed before they became a reality(Chung-kuo ta pai-k'ech'iian-shu, Yii-yen wen-tzu: 123ab). It remainedfor the Republic of China, under pressurefrom progressive intellectuals (Li Chin-hsi 1934), to make official what had slowly been becoming a realityever since the arrivalof Buddhism in China-the acceptanceof the vernacularas a legitimatetool forwriting. It is not strangethat Wu Ju-lunwould have picked up the idea of a kuo-yiiin Japan, forthe Japanese actually had a strongconsciousness of possessinga writable vernacularfor centuries. The Tale ofGenji (Genji monogatari),for example, was written by the courtlady MurasakiShikibu in the vernacular(with phonetickana) already at the beginningof the eleventhcentury. (Gender dynamicsappear to have been operativein this and similarcases, such as thatof the recentlydiscovered Women's Script[Nii-shul in Hunan. Phoneticscripts for representing the vernacularserve as

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 731

an empoweringcounterweight to the male-dominatedmorphosyllabic [or logographici sinographsthat are so splendidlywell-suited for writing LS.) The Japanesepreface (dated 1714) to the Fa-hua lun-shu(Commentary on theLotus Su7tra) by the noted Chinese monk Chi-tsang(fl. 549-69), who was of Parthiandescent, states that in preparingthe blocks for printing"the national/vernacularlanguage (kokugo)has been added at the side."' (T40[18181.785a) Regrettably,modern editions have not preservedthe runningJapanese annotations. In its earliestJapanese appearances, the termkokugo seems to have had more the connotationof "local vernacular"than of an official"national language." In Tokugawa-periodJapan, for example, it could even referto Dutch (Ramsey 1993:3). All of this, plus the distinctlySinitic ring to the word, recallsthe Chinese usage ofthe term kuo-yu to designatespoken vernacular languages as opposedto thecustomary writtenlanguage, namely kanbun (LS). As we have alreadyseen, it was the Buddhists who introducedthis notion to China and it seems to have spread fromthere to Japan. Only slowly,however, did the idea ofJapanese kokugo as "local vernacular" become transformedinto the status of "national language." Not until around the middleof the nineteenthcentury did it graduallycome to referspecifically to Japanese as theofficial national language of Japan. Slow as the transformationmay have been, vernacularJapanese became the accepted,official language of the people who spoke it long beforeany varietyof VS was sanctionedas the nationallanguage of China. It is ironic,in both cases, that the rootsof the acceptanceof the vernacularas the officiallanguage of the countrylay in the Indian Buddhist conceptof desa-bhhsa. The seminal importanceof Buddhism in the developmentof writtenvernacular Japaneseduring the earlyHeian (794-898) is recognizedby Habein (1984:22) and Miller(1967:126). The role of Buddhismin the developmentof the kana syllabaries is detailedby Seeley(1991:ch. 4, 59-89), especiallyin such textsas the Abidatsuma zojuron(Abhidharmasamuccayavydkhyd) and OkutsumarakyJ (Angulimalika-suitra or Ahgulimd1iya-sutra),both of which date to around 800 C.E. (also see Miller 1967: 128).

Language Reform in Korea

While, like kuo-yiifor Mandarin and quocngui' for Vietnamese, the conceptof kug'oas the language of a modernKorean nation-statewas inspiredby Japanese kokugo,the Koreans themselveshad a traditionof writingin the vernacularthat stretchedall the way back to the idu ("clerkreadings") and hyangch'al("local letters") scripts.These depended on eitherSino-Korean phonetic or native glosses (similar to Japaneseon and kun readingsof sinographs)and are attributedto S61 Ch'ong, son of Korea's greatestBuddhist thinker, W6nhyo, in the late seventhcentury. The hyangch'al,used exclusivelyfor vernacular songs and poetry(judging fromthe few survivingspecimens), may alreadyhave died out beforethe advent of the Chos6n (so-calledYi) dynastyin 1392. The earliestvernacular texts (songs and poems) in Korean literaryhistory are foundonly in Buddhist sources,and most of them are by Buddhists on Buddhist themes (Lee 1959, 1961). The secular derivativeof hyangch'al-idu-lasted rightdown to the nineteenthcentury, even in spite of the coexistenceof the alphabet(Ledyard 1992b). In 1446 the enlightenedKing Sejong (1397-1450) promulgatedHunmin chong'uzm ("correctsounds for instructing the people," also the titleof the book in which the

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 732 VICTOR H. MAIR king introducedthis new systemof writing)as an easilylearned phonetic script for Korea.'3 Of course, the elite Chinese-orientedConfucian literati were adamantly opposedto the use of a demoticscript like Hunminchong'zm and gave it the pejorative name Jnmun(vernacular writing, literally "proverbial writing") because it threatened theirmonopoly on literacy.The Sinitic script,which was the prevailingmethod forwriting in Korea fromthe end of the seventhcentury, was clearlythe preferred choiceof mostof the officials.Thus, althoughHunmin ch&ng'im was initiallyattacked by Korean intellectualswho had a vested interestin the cumbersomesinographs, duringthe twentiethcentury it has now becomeuniversally accepted in Korea (both northand south) as the standardform of writingcalled han'gul(Korean letters). Since 1948, therehas been exclusiveuse of han'gulin the north,and the occasional admixtureof sinographs has beensteadily decreasing-now dwindled almost to nothing in generalpublic usage (a small group of Siniticallyoriented scholars still cling to the Chinese charactersstubbornly, if only in a tokenfashion)-in the south. The Koreans take great nationalisticpride in han'gulas a scriptthat permits them to recordaccurately the sounds and wordsof theirown language ratherthan LS or what amounts to various degreesof writtencreolization (if we may coin a phrase)that resulted when they were forced to relyon the sinographs.Florian Coulmas (1989:115-17) and Hans Jensen(1969:2 10-11) describethe contortionsthat Koreans had to go throughwhen theytried to writetheir language with sinographs.King Sejong's own intentionsin creatingthe Hunminch&ng'um are expressedin his preface as follows: The speechsounds of our country'slanguage are differentfrom those of the MiddleKingdom and arenot confluent with the characters. Therefore, among the stupid[i.e., "common"]people, there have been many who, having something to put intowords, have in theend beenunable to expresstheir feelings. I havebeen distressedbecause of this,and havenewly designed twenty-eight letters, which I wishto haveeveryone practice at theirease and makeconvenient for their daily use. (adaptedfrom Ledyard 1966:224)

It is clear that Sejong was deeplyconcerned about literacyfor the commonpeople and that he believed a phonetic script permittingthem to write out easily the sounds of their own spoken language would be much more appropriatefor that purposethan the clumsysinographs. A similarattitude is expressedin Ch6ng Inji's postfaceto the Hunminch,ng'z`m haerye(Explanations and Examplesof the CorrectSounds for Instructingthe People),a commentaryon the Hunminch6ng'zm prepared by a group of scholarscommissioned by King Sejong: In ourEastern Quarter, ceremonials, music, and literatureare comparableto and imitativeof those of China, but ourlocal speech and rusticcolloquial are not the same. Studentsof booksare troubledby the difficultyof understandingthe purportand meaning[of Chinesecharacters]; those who presideat processesare distressedat thedifficulty of thetwists and turns[of a legaltext]. In oldendays, S61Ch'ong of Silla firstmade the Clerk Readings, and theyare practicedin the governmentoffices and amongthe people to thisday. But all of themare used as borrowedcharacters; some grate on you,others stop you completely. They are not 13Foran excellentbrief account of Hunmin chotng'um, seeRamsey 1992. For more information on thehistory of han'gul, see Gari Ledyard'ssuperb dissertation which, unfortunately, has neverbeen published. I haverelied on it heavilyfor the account of Korean writing presented in theseparagraphs.

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 733

'0~~~ m

1~~~~$~i _ -_

m

Figure 3. Opening page of the preface to Hunmin chong'Wm[Correct Sounds for instructingthe Peop/le by King Sejong ( 1397- 1450). It was in this work that the Buddhistically inclined, enlighted ruler formally presented his alphabet for spelling vernacular Korean. National Treasure No. 70, preserved in the Kansong Art Museum. Ch'on 1993:13.

just rusticand crude and unattested;when it comes to the realmof actual speech, not one in a myriadof them is applicable. . Though only twenty-eightletters are used, their shiftsand changes in flunctionare endless;they are simpleand fine,reduced to theminimum yet universally applicable.Therefore, a wise man can acquainthimself with them before the morning is over; a stupid man can learn them in the space of ten days. Using these in explainingbooks, one can knowthe appropri[elties; using these in hearinga litigation, one can grasp the situation. Insofaras the phonologyof charactersis concerned, clear and eluvial can be distinguished;in mattersof music and singing,the twelve semi-tonesmay be blended. There is no usage not providedfor, no directionin which theydo not extend. Even the sound of the winds, the cryof the crane, the cackle of fowland the barkingof dogs-all may be written. (quoted in Ledyard 1966:257-58)

There can be no doubt that the devisers and advocates of the Korean alphabet were searchingfor a simple means that would permit their people to express their thoughts

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 734 VICTOR H. MAIR and ideas in theirown language and that theyconsidered the sinographsto be ill- adaptedfor that purpose. What is more,the strikingformulation of the last sentence manifestlyderives from a remarkableexpostulation in the prefaceto theSung scholar Cheng Ch'iao's (1104-62) Ch'i-yinliueh [Compendium on theSeven Sounds] in which he profuselypraises the phonological sophisticationof Buddhist monks (Mair 1993:338-39). Ch6ng Inji and his associateswere obviouslystriving to emulate the flexibilityof Indianphonetic writing that was so muchadmired by ChengCh'iao. It is significantthat King Sejong and his wife (d. 1446) were both devout Buddhistsand that all except two of the earliesttexts writtenin this new script were Buddhist. The two exceptionsare the stultifyinglyConfucian Songs of Dragons Flyingthrough Heaven (Yongbi och'on ka, 1447) and the Sino-Koreanglossary entitled Tonggukchong'un. As literature,the Buddhistworks are quite impressive,certainly farsuperior to the Songsof the Flying Dragons. Furthermore, although Hunmin chong'uim (i.e., han'gul)is deservedlypraised as an ingeniousand accuratephonetic script, it was based in parton 'Phags-pa,a Mongolianscript devised by a Tibetan lama with thateponym in 1260 to replacethe modifiedold Uighur(< old Syriac< Palmyrene < Aramaic< NorthSemitic) script that had previouslybeen used to writeMongol (the modifiedold Uighur scriptsurvived as the usual way to write Mongol until the twentieth-centuryimportation of Cyrillicand was lateradapted by the Manchus to writetheir own language). The shapes of the 'Phags-pa letterswere inspiredby Tibetan letterswhich themselveswere modeled upon Indian Gupta letters.The Tibetan scripthad been commissionedby the greatking Srong-brtsan-sgam-po(ca. 608-50), who is creditedwith introducingBuddhism to Tibet. It is evidentthat Khubilai was acting underBuddhist influence when he ordered'Phags-pa to create a new scriptfor Mongol. The Buddhistimpetus, in turn,carried through to King Sejong's Hunminchong'um. Also operativewas Chinese phonology,in which King Sejong and his closestassociates in devisingHunmin chong'um were quite learnedand which,in turn,was based on Indianphonological theories initially brought to China by Buddhistmonks during the Han and Six Dynastiesperiods. It is not surprising, therefore,that Korean Buddhists enthusiasticallywelcomed the new alphabetic, demoticscript as an effectivedevice forthe propagationand studyof theirfaith, unlike the elitist,Confucian-minded officials who resolutelyresisted it. A furtherobservation concerning the Buddhistaffiliations of phoneticwriting in Korea is that Hunminchong'km was precededby an even more explicitlyIndian- inspiredscript, poms6 (= MSM fanshu, "Brahmanicscript," probablya formof Siddham). The name, arrangement,and phonologicalcomposition of the scriptall clearly reveal its ultimate Indian origins. Pomsois still employed today for the transcriptionof Sanskritterms in Buddhistritual texts(Jensen 1969:216). Ledyard'sdissertation (1966) providesa greatamount of detailedevidence that Buddhism was indeed a key factorin the creationof the Korean alphabet. For example, he delineates(pp. 261ff.) an alliance betweenthe pro-alphabeticistsand Buddhists.He shows,furthermore (p. 267), that manyof the earliestcompositions using the new alphabet were Buddhist, including a Korean translationof the Prajfidpdramita-hrdaya-si7tra(Heart Suitra). He also notes(p. 90) that the good king Sejong himselfput his alphabet to work by composingodes in Korean on the life and workof the Buddha. It cannotbe emphasizedtoo oftenthat Sejong carriedout his Buddhist-inspiredprogram of vernacularlanguage reformin the face of fierce oppositionfrom the literati: In thelast years of his life,Sejong turned more and moreto thecomforts of Buddhism,and thiswas tantamountto alienatinghimself almost completely from themen of his time,whose hatred of thatreligion bordered on thepathological.

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 735

--

Cal I, VYM I JZ P A~~~~~~~~~~

19Sam sw f C, y CaIIV,2samt e

~in ~can

t~~~~~~(-Yu. ' n+ A lyUl pr M R -u p tei AR

^T XI 1.'UI m

Fiur 4 Oenngpae f n rtcl o witn4 ro Hitzgc'-h A~~~~~~

( 15 52- 1610). Although Ricci's book was written in Literary Sinitic, it represented the first use of the Roman alphabet to indicate the sounds of a Sinitic language and ultimately led to the creation of convenient methods for writing all of the vernacular languages of China. Published here with the permissionof the Vatican Library.

But Sejonghad actuallybeen sympathetic to Buddhismfrom early in his reign, and hisremonstrators hadfought him on thisever since 1426, when they petitioned himto haveremoved from his throneroom a dharanbwritten on oneof the ceiling beamsin Siddhamletters. (Ledyard 1966:90; thereference in thelast sentence is to Sejongsi//ok, November12, 1426, 34.3a)

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 736 VICTOR H. MAIR

But it was not just King Sejong whoseBuddhist affinities stimulated him to concrete action aimed at the vernacularizationof writingin Korea. Alreadynine centuries earlier,the Buddhist contributionsto the establishmentof an authenticKorean literaturewere absolutelyessential:

The leadingrole played by Buddhistsin theearly history of Koreanwriting must be emphasized.. . . If whathas survivedof Silla poetryis anyindication, it was Buddhistswho wrote most of Silla's native literature. Buddhists preserved it through theKory6 period, and Buddhistswrote the biography of Kyunyoand theSamguk yusaand thustransmitted all we knowof thatliterature to moderntimes. Even S61Ch'ong, the great expositor of the Chinese (Confucian) classics, was theson of a Buddhistpriest (the famous W6nhyo, b. 597), and wouldhave grown up with theconcern for the native language shared by his co-religionists. It was no accident thatit was a manof thisbackground who should have finally systematized long- standingpractices in transcriptioninto a practicalway of writingKorean. It was notjust in Koreathat it was so. The roleof Buddhismin thegeneral history of writingin Asia is a storythat, when it comesto be writtenin its entirety,will fillmany interesting volumes. (Ledyard1966:57)

The role of Buddhism in the rise of printingis anotherimportant area of investigationthat deservesattention. There is little doubt that printingin East Asia, fromits veryinception, was primarilya Buddhistphenomenon. In fact,the inventionof printingitself may have occurredas an extensionof the practiceof impressingwoodcut engravingsof the Buddha's image on silk and paper and of duplicatingdhdranzf (charms or prayers,especially as used in Tantrism). Both of these practiceswere alreadywidespread in China during the seventhcentury. By the eighthcentury, millions of dhdranTwere being printedin Japan. For example, between764 and 770, one milliondhdranz were printed by the orderof the empress Sh6toku(d. 769) and were depositedin small st-upaswhich were distributedto a numberof major Buddhisttemples (Goodrich 1960:117). The Buddhistmonopoly on the earlyprinting of books properin Japan is noteworthy:

Printingafter its introductioninto Japan (about 740 A.D.) was confinedto wealthyBuddhist monasteries until toward the end of the Kamakura period (about 1569)[sicl with the result that it wasrestricted either to Buddhistsutras or Chinese texts.There was verylittle secular printing in thisperiod from 740 to 1569. (Peake 1939:58)

The matterof Buddhism's contributionto the historyof printingin East Asia, althoughrelated to the rise of the writtenvernacular in the sense that both pertain to the disseminationof learningbeyond Confucian literati circles, is a separatequestion requiringintensive, specialized research of its own. Still, it is significantthat this Indian religionhad a decisiveimpact upon both of thesefundamentally democratic developmentsconcerning writing in East Asia that occurredat approximatelythe same time. This naturallyleads us to a considerationof the broaderissues of the sociologyof knowledge,but theseunfortunately lie beyondthe scope of the present study.For the moment,however, it needs to be pointedout thatthe legitimization of the vernacularas a writtenmedium, the inventionof phoneticsyllabaries and alphabets,and the inventionof printingare all interrelatedphenomena that would appear to stem fromthe Buddhist missionizingproclivity, namely, the desire to

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 737

- %

BMfibAL's LN .e af-- 4-t -ddrbLoJMs-XCC -n t@C iY-M' 0 o

zJtfl; !4L tJux,&o xurW iL LL~?r

# ~4S'fj '~1~ / C4e WrJ-4a Pt-T eI

$t-4NS } c&ue;-crkt-+

Figu . pI-muA / a Lchu-chec[F rs t-St j D $ttat7ts1i c-&-bU-cwo wt44XiNtt w I-A A f,s

Figure 5. A page fromI-mu liao-j'anch'u-chieh [First Stepsin BeingAble to Comprehendat a Glance] by Lu Chuang-chang(1854-1928), who had close ties with Christianmissionaries. This is the firstwork by a Chinese author advocatinga systemof phoneticspelling for Sinitic languages. It was publishedin Amoy in 1892 and was keyed to the local Southern Min language,but Lu contendedthat his systemcould be applied to all theliving Sinitic vernaculars. spreadthe Buddha'sword as farafield and to as manypeople, regardless of their backgroundor station,as possible. Ledyard(1992a) has recentlyreturned to the questionof the significanceof 'Phags-pafor the creation of han'gul in his"The International Linguistic Background ofthe Correct Sounds for the Instruction of the People." Along with him, we must makea specificdisclaimer that Hunmin ch6ng'zm was notmerely a combinationof 'Phags-paorthography and Sino-Indianphonology, but a remarkablecreation for

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 738 VICTOR H. MAIR whichKing Sejongpersonally deserves much credit. Ledyard correctly and perceptively pointsout the connectionbetween the Korean adoptionof vernacular(i.e., native) languageas a legitimatemedium for writing (as opposed to LS) and the consequent need fora phoneticscript with which to representit. It was this motivationthat impelled the king and his associatesingeniously to adapt 'Phags-pa to theirown purposes. The han'gul alphabet that resultedis marvelouslywell suited for the phonologicalrepresentation of Koreanand is justlyhailed as beingperhaps the most logicallydesigned of all alphabetsin the world. A drawbackto the use of han'gul becameapparent only in thiscentury with the advent of modern information-processing techniques(mechanical and electronic).The tetragraphic(i.e., square) configuration of syllables(originally intended for ease of combinationwith the sinographs)in the Koreanalphabet poses an obstacleto the efficientapplication of moderninformation- processingmethods that are essentiallylinear (Chung 1991). There have latelybeen attemptsto rearrangethe scriptin a linearsequence and to markword boundaries forgreater efficiency in information-processingsystems (Hannas 1993).

Conclusion

We have seen how, under the probable influenceof the Indian concept of de(a-hhd4sbrought to China by Buddhism,numerous peoples in East Asia created a whole seriesof writtenvernaculars. While Chineseauthorities stubbornly resisted recognitionof any of theirown vernacularsas a nationallanguage-probably due to the extremelyhigh prestigeand powerof LS-the Buddhistsused the vernacular liberallyin theirown writings.Once profferedas a functionalalternative written language,use of the vernacularsteadily grew until, by the late Ming-earlyCh'ing, it is likely that as many books were being printed in vernacularor a heavily vernacularizedliterary style as in LS, notwithstandingthe censureand ridiculeof strait-lacedscholars. Finally, even the Manchus,who alreadyhad theirown written nationallanguage, which was swiftlydying out because of pervasivesinicization, yieldedto the idea thattheir Sinitic subjects, too, neededa nationallanguage keyed to one of the spokenvernaculars. After the agitationof the May FourthMovement led by progressiveChinese intellectualsand students,many of whom wereexposed to radicalideas about languageand otheraspects of cultureand societythrough the window of Japan, kuo-yiiwas publiclyproclaimed the officialwritten language of the nation. This markedthe formalend of the multimillennialseparation between book language(shu-mien-yi) and spoken language (k'ou-yfi)in China. That Buddhismplayed a crucialrole in the evolutionof the writtenvernacular throughoutEast Asia is beyondany doubt. The questionremains, however: Which aspectof Buddhismwas responsiblefor these momentous changes? Was theresome religiousdoctrine belonging to Buddhismthat fosteredthe writtenvernacular? Or was it due to a special Buddhistphilosophical principle? Was it the fondnessfor storytelling,preaching, and public speakingby the earlyBuddhists in the language of the people? Did the ostensibleorality of Buddhistscripture have anythingto do with the originsof the writtenvernacular in China? Was the factthat most of the earlytranslators of Buddhisttexts into Siniticwere foreigners with a poor command of the literarylanguage a significantfactor? And did the phonologicalsophistication of Indian linguisticalscience lend credibilityto the spoken vis-a-visthe written? What of the elaborate,rigorously defined Indian traditionsof chantingand recitation?

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 739

And may the social values, institutions,and positionof Buddhismhave contributed to the riseof the writtenvernacular? Last but not least, did Buddhistpractice have anythingto do withthe validation of the vernacular? Perhaps I haveentirely overlooked some vital facetof Buddhismthat contributed to thisprocess. In the end, Buddhist supportfor the writtenvernacular may best be identifiedas a complexcombination ofdiverse factors, all ofwhich were determined by an integratedsocioreligious ideology.

Abbreviations

B.C.E. BeforeCommon Era BHSi BuddhistHybrid Sinitic BHS BuddhistHybrid Sanskrit C.E. Common Era LS LiterarySinitic MSM ModernStandard Mandarin p.n. propername T TaishoTripitaka (the standardedition of the Chinese Buddhistcanon) VS VernacularSinitic

Glossary

Abidatsumazojuron P" Abhidharmasamuccayavydkhyd AnHsuan p.n. AnShih-kao 2tJtfI p.n. chang-che AA sresthaelder Chang-sunWu-chi, "Ching- Af,*i1EEa3,g "BibliographicalTreatise" chichih" ChengCh'iao p.n. ch'eng-yui F= setphrase (so-called "idiom") chi gdthdverse ChiHsien-lin p.n. ChiTsang p.n. Ch'i-yinluieh -bE1J Compendiumonthe Seven Scripts chiang-ching-wen _go 3 siitralecture text ChihLou-chia-ch'an jV U p.n. ChihYao z w p.n. Chinshih kuo-yii i gl=o NationalLanguage History ofthe Jurchen chin-shih-niiLT upasikalay woman Ch6ngInji MA p.n. ChouYu-kuang FM p.n. ChuCh'ing-chih ; p.n.

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 740 VICTOR H. MAIR

ChuLu-yen p.n. ChuTa-li p.n. ChuT'an-kuo *- * p.n. chi' no^m Vietnamesevernacular writing ch'u-chia pravrajyd,Pali pabbajjd leaving thehome (to becomea monk) chui-shih updsakalayman ch'uan-ch'i classicalfiction Chu-gokugorekishi bunpo Yg= o"u <; A HistoricalGrammar ofModern Chinese Chu-gokugoshitszko t A HistoricalStudy of Chinese Language Chung-kuotapai-k'e ch'uan-shu - TheT Great Chinese Encyclopedia. Yii-yenwen-tzu 3Zi Languageand Script. Fa-chui p.n. Fa-chiiching Dhammapada Fa-hsien p.n. Fa-li t;Lp.n. Fa-hua lun-shu *f:L Commentaryonthe Lotus Sitra fan-ch'ieh

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 741

Hsiian-tsang p.n. Hua-i i-yui Sino-MongolianTranslations Hua-yenching , Avatamsakasi7tra Hui-chiao p.n. Hui-yuan M p.n. r Hunminch'ng'ufm JiIE,1 correctsounds for instructing thepeople Hunminchong'um haerye d1 I :IIE 'E""4J Explanationsand Examplesof the CorrectSounds for Instructing thePeople hyangch'al ORL local letters 1-ching A p.n. idu Z-f clerkreadings i-fang-ming j75 vyddhi-cikitsa-vidydsthana medicine i hsinch'uan hsin J1JLfW'L transmissionfrom mind to mind IriyaYoshitaka p.n. i-yii "barbarian"language jan Hua-su taintedby Chinesecustoms Ju-chih,see Yiieh-chih ju shihwo wen 4JRThR evammayda rutam Thus have I heard;var. POlYg, Thr41II ;t, nXglU?,etc. ju shihyen 1Ui t- said thus Ju shihyu ching _1 10 SiitraSpoken Thus kanbun i ; LS as writtenin Japan K'ang Meng-hsiang IT0/ p.n. Kao Ming-k'ai M. p.n. kao-seng eminentmonk Kao-sengchuan mit Biographiesof Eminent Monks k'ao-cheng-hsuieh -r evidentiallearning kokugo IfIi (Japanese)national language k'ou-yii I spokenlanguage kuan-ch'ang officialdom:the Mandarinate kuan-hua Mandarin Kuan-huaho-sheng tzu-mu 4:1 a Lettersfor Combining the Sounds of Mandarin kuan-huatzu-mu t==n a Mandarinletters kug'o Ig=E (Korean) nationallanguage kun 011 theJapanese reading of a sinograph kung-ch'iao-ming II1'5EH sfilpa-karma-sthdna-vidydarts and crafts kuo country,nation kuo-yui national(vernacular) language; titleof an ancientChinese historicalwork Li Chin-hsi,Kuo-yui yun-tung ; J OutlineHistory of the National shihkang LanguageMovement

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 742 VICTOR H. MAIR

Li-shihyen-chiu Studieson History Liaoshih kuo-yui NationalLanguage History ofthe Khitan LinShu 4, p.n. Lu Chuang-chang,I-mu liao- F H J; FirstSteps in Being Able to jan ch'u-chieh Comprehendat a Glance Lun-yii Analects Lung-men place-name Ma S51h-Muhammad I i ' , p.n. man-t'e-lo mantramagical formula or incantation Mei Tsu-Lin,"San-ch'ao pei- Ft,iifiM,A "VernacularMaterials in the menghui-pien li te pai-hua JMb M--, (Lt1Ig CompendiumofNorthern tzu-liao,"Chung-kuo shu-mu Hf IJ) Treatisesof Three Emperors," chi-k'an BibliographicQuarterly Mo-hechih-kuan *Mahasamathavipasyand nei-ming adbydtma-vidydpsychology Ni Hai-shu,Chung-kuop'in- vf#T,@g -3r; Introductiontothe Chinese yinwen-tzu kai-lun PhoneticScript nienFo I f recitethe name of the Buddha nii-shu t;f women'sscript Ohta [Otal Tatsuo )K p.n. Okutsumaraky5o Angulimalika-sutraor Angulimdlyd-sutra on Chinese-stylephonetic reading of a sinographused in Japanese onmun i ; vernacularwriting pai-hua[-wen] D[j;1 writtenVernacular Sinitic pan-wen-pan-pai 3ZTj J semiliterary-semivernacular Pei Wei 1LV NorthernWei pien-wen W; transformationtext pomso $ Brahmanicscript (seefan-shu) pu 1iwen-tzu T not to establishwritten words p'u-t'ung-hua X= j commonspeech (i.e., Modern StandardMandarin) QoninJ'i p.n. quocngu'l Vietnameseroman alphabet san-shih-liutzu-mu thirty-sixletters Sejong p.n. Sejongsillok t tffi VeritableRecords of the Reign of KingSejong Shao-wu MA name of a place in Fukien sheng-ming sabda-vidydlinguistics shih to be Shihpei yii-lu Transcriptsfrom a Northern Mission shou-lu slokastanza Shou-wen tw p.n. shu-mien-yuil book language

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 743

S61Ch'ong -g4,! p.n. Ssu-maCh'ien, Shih-chi, J , t U Recordsof the Grand Historian Ssu-maKuang, Tzu-chih Il$g?, j - ComprehensiveMirror for Aid in t'ung-chien Government Su f4 vulgar su-chiang f4 lay lecture su-jen f{J\ grhasthahouseholder sung songof praise Sung Lien,Yuan shih , i Historyof the Yuoan Dynasty Ta chih-tulun Mahoiprajoiipdramitopadeia Takata Tokio, "Chibettomoji 14 , ') y hi>: "Studieson the 'Long Scroll'in shosha'Ch6kan' no kenkyu @9; -:F ow3p TibetanTranscription (Text)," (honbunhen)," Toh5gakuh5 (4C7XJ), 7 Journalof Oriental Studies Ta-lu ti-ch'iipo-shih lun-wen 7 MainlandRegion Doctoral ts'ung-k'an DissertationsSeries "T'ang-taich'an-chia yii-lu so }ffftTiT ffi

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 744 VICTOR H. MAIR

Wei Cheng,Sui shu a M Historyof the Sui Dynasty Wei-chih-nan Vighna(p.n.) Wei Yuan, Sheng-wuchi P6 t-" Recordsof Sagely Military Exploits wen-yen[-wen] 3Z-A [i13] LiterarySinitic Wowen shih-tsun shuo tz'u i ,ZJt-lLt "I heardthe World-Honored explainthis [meaning]." Wowen shih-tsun ying-kung . "Thus did I hearthe worshipful ts'engjushih shuo World-Honoredspeak." W6nhyo p.n. Wu (Ngua) p.n. Wu Ju-lun p.n. wu-ming paozcavidyd-sthdndni five types of knowledge ya-yen elegantlanguage yeh LS sentenceparticle Yen-chinghsueh-pao A,8T YenchingJournal yin-ming [MR)] hetu-vidydlogic yiiff language yii-lu recordedsayings Yii-yenyen-chiu a, 1= , LinguisticResearches Yiin-kang place-name yen-yiitao tuan, hsin-hsing ch'u T JL'VIAM "The way oflanguage is cut mieh off,the workingsof the mindare obliterated." Yongbioh'on ka 1,4 iv Songsof Dragons Flying the Heavens Yiieh-chih(also pronounced , ., var. ,l ;, , "Indo-Scythian,"more properly as Ju-chih) Kushan or Kusana; perhaps wereoriginally Tocharians

Texts a. A c.

f. mm'H g.L. ripXCS_npREStW--nENgSXM TS S iJ

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 745

List of References

Alongthe Ancient Silk Routes:Central Asian Artfrom the West Berlin State Museums. 1982. New York: The MetropolitanMuseum of Art. ALSDORF, LUDWIG. 1980. "Ardha-Migadhi."In Heinz Bechert,ed., Die Sprache der iltestenbuddhistischen Uberlieferung, pp. 17-23. ANGURAROHITA, PRATOOM. 1989. "BuddhistInfluence on the Neo-Confucian Concept of the Sage." Sino-PlatonicPapers 10 (June). BANERJEE, MURALYDHAR. 1931. TheDesffnamamdld ofHemacandra. Part I-Text withReadings, Introduction and Indexof Words. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. BECHERT, HEINZ, ed. 1980. Die Spracheder iltesten buddhistischen Uberlieferungl The Language of the Earliest Buddhist Tradition. Symposium zur Buddhismusforschung,II. Abhandlungender Akademieder Wissenschaftenin Gottingen,philologisch-historische Klasse, dritteFolge, Nu. 117. Gottingen: Vandenhoeckand Ruprecht. BECKWITH, CHRISTOPHER 1. 1987. The TibetanEmpire in CentralAsia: A History ofthe Struggle for GreatPower among Tibetans, Tarks, Arabs, and Chineseduring theEarly Middle Ages. Princeton:Princeton University Press. BERLING, JUDITH. 1987. "Bringingthe Buddha Down to Earth: Notes on the Emergenceof YII-lu as a BuddhistGenre." Historyof Religions 27. 1 (August): 56-88. BENDER, ERNEST. 1991. Personalcommunications (February). BHAYANI , HARIVALLABH C. 1966. Studies in Hemacandra'sDeszna-mamlad. ParshvanathVidyashram Research Institute. Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University. BOND, GEORGE. 1982. The Wordof the Buddha. Colombo: M. D. Gunasena. BROUGH, JOHN. 1949-50. "Thus Have I Heard. Bulletinof theSchool of Orientaland AfricanStudies 13.2:416-26. .1961. "A KharosthiInscription from China." Bulletinof the School of Oriental and AfricanStudies 24:517-30, plus 1 plate. . 1980. "Sakaya [sicl Niruttiya:Cauld kale het." In Heinz Bechert,ed., Die Spracheder altesten buddhistischen Uberlieferung, pp. 35-42. CH 'EN, KENNETH K. S. 1964. Buddhismin China:A HistoricalSurvey. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press. CHI HSIEN-LIN (also transcribed as CHI HSIAN-LIN, DSCHI HIAN-LIN, and JI XIANLIN). 1947. "On the oldestChinese transliterations of the nameof Buddha." Sino-IndianStudies 3.1-2 (April and July):1-9. . 1956. "T'u-huo-lo-yiite fa-hsienyii k'ao-shihchi ch'i tsai Chung-Yin wen-huachiao-liu chung te tso-yung(The TokharianLanguage: Its Discovery and Deciphermentand Its Role in the Cultural Relations betweenIndia and China)." Yi-yenyen-chiu (Linguistic Researches) 1:297-307. . 1959. "Tsai lun yiian-shihFo-chiao te yii-yenwen-t'i (A Re-examination of the Language Problemof PrimitiveBuddhism)." Yi-yenyen-chiu (Linguistic Researches)4:87-105. . 1990. "Tsai t'an Fu-t'u yii Fo (More about the ChineseTerms 'Fu Tu' and 'Fo')." Li-shihyen-chiu [Studies on Historyl2:3-11. CH'ON HYE-BONG. 1993. "Typographyin Korea: Birthplaceof Moveable Metal Type." Koreana7.2 (Summer):10-19. CHU CH'ING-CHIH. 1990. "Fo-tien yii chung-kuHan-yu tz'u-hui yen-chiu[A Studyof the Relationshipbetween Buddhist Scriptures and the Vocabularyof

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 746 VICTOR H. MAIR

Middle Sinitic}." Ph.D. diss. Chengtu: SzechwanUniversity, Department of Chinese. Publishedin Taiwan with the same Chinesetitle (English title: Study ofthe relationship between Buddhist scrzptures and thevocabulary of medieval Chinese) as partof the Ta-lu ti-ch'iipo-shih lun-wen ts'ung-k'an [Mainland Region Doctoral DissertationsSeries]. Taipei: Wen-chinch'u-pan-she, 1992. CHUNG, WON L. 1991. "Hangeul and Computing." In Victor H. Mair and YongquanLiu, eds., Charactersand Computers.Amsterdam, Oxford, Washington, and Tokyo: IOS Press,pp. 146-79. Chung-kuota pai-k'e-ch'iian-shu[The Great ChineseEncyclopedial. Yu-yen wen-tzu [Languageand Script}.Peking and Shanghai:Chung-kuo ta pai-k'e-ch'iian-shu, 1988. COULMAS, FLORIAN. 1989. TheWriting Systems ofthe World. Oxford and Cambridge, Mass.: Basil Blackwell. COWELL, E. B. 1854. The Prgkrta-prakaksa,or the Prckrt Grammar of Vararuchi, withthe Commentary (Manoramd) of Bhomaha.Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1962. Firstedition, Hertford,1854; second edition, London, 1868. DEFRANCIS, JOHN. 1978. Colonialismand LanguagePolicy in VietNam. Contributions to the Sociologyof Language, 19. The Hague: Mouton. . 1989. VisibleSpeech: The DiverseOneness of WritingSystems. Honolulu: Universityof Hawaii Press. . 1991. Letterof March 17. DIEN, ALBERT. 1991. "A New Look at the Xianbei and theirImpact on Chinese Culture."In GeorgeKuwayama, ed., AncientMortuary Traditions of China: Papers onChinese Ceramic Funerary Sculptures. Los Angeles:Los AngelesCounty Museum of Art, pp. 40-59. DIRINGER, DAVID. 1962. Writing.Ancient Peoples and Places,25. London:Thames and Hudson; rpt., 1965. DOBSON, W. A. C. H. 1974. A Dictionaryof the Chinese Particles: with a prolegomenon in whichthe problems of theparticles are consideredand theyare classifiedby their grammaticalfunctions. Toronto: University of TorontoPress. EDGERTON, FRANKLIN. 1953. BuddhistHybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. 2 vols. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress. FUCHS, WALTER. 1930. "Zur technischenOrganisation der Ubersetzungen buddhistischerSchriften ins Chinesische."Asia Major 6:84-103. GARDNER, DANIEL K. 1991. "Modes of Thinkingand Modes of Discourse in the Sung: Some Thoughtson the Yi-lu ('RecordedConversations') Texts." The Journalof Asian Studies50.3 (August):574-603. GERNET, JACQUES. 1956. Lesaspects economiques du Bouddhisme dans la societechinoise du Ve au Xe siecle.Publications de l'Ecole francaised'Extreme-Orient, 39. Saigon: Ecole frangaised'Extreme-Orient. GOMEZ, LOUIS 0. 1987. "BuddhistViews of Language." In Mircea Eliade, ed., The Encyclopediaof Religion.New York: Macmillan. Vol. 8, pp. 446-5 1. GOODRICH, L. CARRINGTON. 1960. "Two Notes on Early Printingin China." In H. L. Hariyappa, ed., ProfessorP. K. Gode CommemorationVolume. Poona OrientalSeries, 93. Poona: OrientalBook Agency,pp. 117-20. GUREVICH, I. S. 1985. "Esche Raz o Byan'ven'. . . (zametki)." In Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Ordena TrudovogoKrasnogo Znameni InstitutVostokovedeniya, LeningradskoeOtdelenie, Pis'menn'ie Pamyatniki i Problem'i Istorii Kul'tur'i Narodov Vostoka.XVIII GodichnayaNauchnaya Sessiya lo IV AN SSSR (Doklad'i i Soobschenniya,1983-85), part 3. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 96-101.

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 747

HABEIN, YAEKO SATO. 1984. TheHistory of the Japanese Written Language. Tokyo: Universityof Tokyo Press. HANNAS, WILLIAM CARL. 1988. "The Simplificationof ChineseCharacter-Based Writing." Ph.D. diss., Universityof Pennsylvania. . 1993. "Korea's Attempts to Eliminate Chinese Charactersand the Implicationsfor Romanizing Chinese." Unpublishedpaper. HANSEN, CHAD. 1993a. "ChineseIdeographs and WesternIdeas." TheJournalof Asian Studies52.2 (May):373-99. . 1993b. Reply to J. Marshall Unger. TheJournal of Asian Studies52.4 (November):954-57. HARTWELL, ROBERT M., and MARIANNE C. HARTWELL. 1991a. Executive Financeand StateCouncil, "Notes and Documentation."Philadelphia: electronic database. . 1991b. Personalcommunications (February 18 and 21, 1991). v. HINUBER, OSKAR. 1986. Das iltereMittelindisch im Uberblick.Osterreichische Akademieder Wissenschaften.Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte. 467. Band. Vienna: Verlagder OsterreichischenAkademie der Wissenschaften. . 1990. Der Beginnder Schrift undfriihe Schriftlichkeit in Indien. Abhandlungen der Geistes-und SozialwissenschaftlichenKlasse, Jahrgang 1989, Nr. 11. Mainz: Akademieder Wissenschaftenund der Literatur;Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Esp. sectionV (pp. 22-25) on the oral originsof the earliestBuddhist texts. HOFFMAN, FRANK J. 1990. "Evamme sutaik: Oral Traditionin NikayaBuddhism." Paperpresented at the NineteenthAnnual Conference on SouthAsia, University of Wisconsin-Madison,November 2-4. 34 pages. Published with the same title in a shortenedand revisedform in JeffreyR. Timm, ed., Textsin Context: TraditionalHermeneutics in South Asia. Albany: State Universityof New York Press, 1992, pp. 195-219. IRIYA YOSHITAKA. 1961. "TonkYhenbun sh7" kogogoi sakuin[Index of Colloquial Expressionsin "Tun-huangpien-wen chi"j. Kyoto: privatelyprinted. 1985. "TonkJhenbun shi" kogogoi ho-i [Supplementof ColloquialExpressions in "Tun-huangpien-wen chi"1, I. Kyoto: privatelyprinted. JENSEN, HANS. 1969. Sign,Symbol and Script:An Accountof Man's Effortto Write. Thirdrevised and enlargededition; translated from the German by GeorgeUnwin. New York: G. P. Putnam'sSons. KAJIYAMA, Y. 1977. "Thus Spoke the BlessedOne . ." In Lewis Lancaster,ed., Prajipdramitdand RelatedSystems: Studies in Honourof Edward Conze. Berkeley: Regentsof the Universityof California,pp. 93-99. KAO MING-K'AI. 1948. "T'ang-tai ch'an-chiayu-lu so chien te yii-fach'eng-fen [GrammaticalElements Observed in Zen Records of Conversationsfrom the T'ang Period]." Yen-chinghsiieh-pao [Yenching Journall 34:49-84. KIM-RENAUD, YOUNG-KEY, ed. 1992. KingSejong the Great: The Light of Fifteenth- CenturyKorea. Washington, D.C.: The InternationalCircle of KoreanLinguistics. LAMOTTE, ETIENNE. 1958. Histoiredu bouddhismeindien, des origines a' l'ereSaka. Bibliotheque du Museon, 43. Louvain: PublicationsUniversitaires, Institut Orientaliste. LEDYARD, GARI KEITH. 1966. "The Korean Language Reformof 1446: The Origin, Background,and EarlyHistory of the Korean Alphabet." Ph.D. diss., Universityof California,Berkeley. . 1992a. "The InternationalLinguistic Background of the CorrectSounds forthe Instructionof the People." Unpublishedpaper, 74 pp.

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 748 VICTOR H. MAIR

. 1992b. Letterof October 6. LEE, PETER. 1959. Studiesin theSaenaennorae: Old KoreanPoetry. Serie orientale Roma, 22. Rome: Istitutoitaliano per il Medio ed EstremoOriente. . 1961. "The Importanceof the Kyuny6chon (1075) in Korean Buddhism and Literature-Bhadra-cari-pranidhdnain Tenth-Century Korea." Journal of the AmericanOriental Society 81.4 (December):409-14. LEWICKI, MARIAN. 1949. La Languemongole des transcriptionschinoises du XlVe siele. Le Houa-yiyi-yu de 1389. Travauxde la Societe'des Scienceset des Lettres de Wrod'aw, ser. A, 29. Wroctaw: Nakladem WroclawskiegoTowarzystwa Naukowego. Li CHIN-HSI. 1934. Kuo-yiyiin-tung shih kang [Outline History of the National Language Movement].Shanghai: Commercial. LIGETI, Louis. 1970. "Le Tabghatch,un dialectede la langue Sien-pi." In Louis Ligeti,ed., MongolianStudies. Bibliotheca Orientalia Hungarica, 14. Amsterdam: B. A. Gruner,pp. 265-308. LIN, LI-KOUANG. 1949. l'Aide-me'moirede la vraieloi (Saddharma-sm.tyupasthdna- szitra):Introduction au compendiumde la loi (Dharma-samuccaya).Recherches sur un Si7traDeveloppe du PetitV6hicule. Publications du Musee Guimet, Bibliotheque d'Etudes, 54. Paris: Librairied'Amerique et d'Orient Adrien-Maisonneuve. MAIR, VICTOR H. 1983. Tun-huangPopular Narratives. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress. . 1986. "Oral and WrittenAspects of ChineseSutra Lectures (chiang-ching- wen)." Han-hsiehyen-chiu (Chinese Studies) 4.2 (cumulative 8) (December): 311-34. . 1988. Paintingand Performance:Chinese Picture Recitation and Its IndianGenesis. Honolulu: Universityof Hawaii Press. . 1989. T'ang TransformationTexts: A Studyof the Buddhist Contribution tothe Rise of VernacularFiction and Drama in China. Harvard-YenchingInstitute MonographSeries, 28. Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversity Council on East Asian Studies. . 1990. "[Thel File [on theCosmicl Track [and lndividual)Dough[tinessl: Introductionand Notes fora Translationof the Ma-wang-tuiManuscripts of the Lao Tzu [Old Master]."Sino-Platonic Papers 20 (October). . 1991. "What Is a Sinitic 'Dialect/Topolect'?Reflections on Some Key Sino-EnglishLinguistic Terms." Sino-PlatonicPapers 29 (September). . 1992a. "Two Papers on Sinolinguistics:1. A HypothesisConcerning the Origin of the Termfanqie ('Countertomy'); 2. East Asian Round-TripWords." Sino-PlatonicPapers 34 (October). 1992b. "Scriptand Word in Medieval VernacularSinitic." Journal of the AmericanOriental Society 112.2:269-78. . 1993. "ChengCh'iao's Understandingof Sanskrit:The Conceptof Spelling in China." A Festschriftin Honourof ProfessorJao Tsung-ion theOccasion of His Seventy-FifthAnniversary. Hong Kong: Chinese Universityof Hong Kong, pp. 331-41. MAIR, VICTOR H., and Tsu-LIN MEI. 1991. "The SanskritOrigins of Recent Style Prosody."HarvardJournal of Asiatic Studies 51.2 (December):375-470. MASPERO, HENRI. 1914. "Sur quelques textesanciens de Chinoisparle." Bulletin de l'EcoleFranfaise d'Extreme-Orient 14.4:1-36. Translatedinto English as "On Some Texts of AncientSpoken Chinese" by Yoshitaka Iriya, Ruth F. Sasaki, and BurtonWatson. Kyoto: privatelycirculated, 1954.

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 749

* 1934. "Les originesde la communautebouddhiste de Lo-yang."Journal Asiatique225 (July-December):87-107. MATHER, RICHARD B. 1990. "TranslatingSix Dynasties'Colloquialisms' into English:The Shih-shuohsin-yii. " Paper deliveredat the InternationalConference on the Translationof ChineseLiterature, organized by the Departmentof Foreign Languages and Literature,National Taiwan University,held at the National CentralLibrary (Taipei, Taiwan), November 16-18. . 1991. Letterof March 17. MEI, Tsu-LIN. 1980. "San-ch'aopei-meng hui-pien Ii te pai-huatzu-liao [Vernacular Materialsin the CompendiumofNorthern Treaties of ThreeEmperors (1117-62)1." Chung-kuoshu-mu chi-k'an (Bibliography Quarterly) 14.2 (September):27-52. 1992a. Letterof October 8. 1992b. "VernacularTexts in HistoricalContext, 750-1200; Some Further Thoughtson the YI-lu Form." Unpublishedmanuscript, 14 pp. MILLER, Roy ANDREW. 1967. TheJapaneseLanguage. Chicago and London: The Universityof Chicago Press. MOSTAERT, ANTOINE. 1977. Le MaterialMongol du Hua i i iu de Houng-ou(1389). Edited by Igor de Rachewiltz,with the assistanceof AnthonySchonbaum. Melanges chinois et bouddhiques, 18. Brussels: Institutdes Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 1977. NATTIER, JAN. 1990. "Church Language and VernacularLanguage in Central Asian Buddhism." Numen37.2 (December):195-219. . 1991. Letterof March 13. NI HAI-SHU. 1948. Chung-kuop'in-yin wen-tzu kai-lun [Introduction to the Chinese PhoneticScript]. Shanghai: Shih-tai shu-pao. NORMAN, JERRY. 1988. Chinese.Cambridge Language Surveys. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. OHTA [OTAI TATSUO. 1958. Chz7gokugorekishi bunpJ (A HistoricalGrammar of ModernChinese). Tokyo: K6nan shoin. . 1988. Chzgokugoshi tszikJ(A HistoricalStudy of Chinese Language). Tokyo: Hakutei sha. PEAKE, CYRUS H. 1939. "AdditionalNotes and Bibliographyon the Historyof Printingin the Far East." Gutenberg-Jahrbuch,ed. A. Ruppel. Mainz: Gutenberg- Gesellschaft. PELLIOT, PAUL. 1929. "Neuf notessur des questionsd'Asie Central." T'oungPao 26.4-5:201-65. PISCHEL, R., ed. 1938. The Des'indmamdldof Hemachandra.Second edition by ParavastuVenkata Ramanujaswami. Bombay Sanskrit Series, 17. Bombay:The Departmentof Public Instruction. PYE, MICHAEL. 1978. SkilfulMeans: A Conceptin Mahayana Buddhism.London: Duckworth. RAMSEY, S. ROBERT. 1987. TheLanguages of China. Princeton:Princeton University Press. . 1991. "The Polysemyof the Term Kokugo."In Victor H. Mair, ed., Schriftfestschrift:Essays on Writingand Languagein HonorofJohn DeFrancis on His EightiethBirthday. Sino-Platonic Papers 27 (August 31):37-47. . 1992. "The KoreanAlphabet." In Kim-Reynaud,ed., KingSejong the Great, pp. 43-50. . 1993. "The JapaneseLanguage in Japan." Unpublishedmanuscript.

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 750 VICTOR H. MAIR

ROSEMONT, HENRY, JR. 1974. "On RepresentingAbstractions in Archaic Chinese." PhilosophyEast and West24.1 (January):71-88. SEELEY, CHRISTOPHER. 1991. A Historyof Writing in Japan. Leiden: E. J. Brill. SILK, JONATHAN A. 1989. "A Note on the OpeningFormula of BuddhistSz7tras." Journalof the International Association of BuddhistStudies 12. 1:158-63. SOFRONOV, M. V. 1991. "Chinese Philologyand the Scriptsof CentralAsia." Sino-PlatonicPapers 30 (October). SUNG LIEN, et al. 1976. Yuoanshih [Historyof YAoanDynasty]. 15 vols. Peking: Chung-hua. TAKAKUSU, J. 1901. "Tales of theWise Man and theFool, in Tibetanand Chinese." Journalof the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland(July 15):447-60. TAKATA TOKIO. 1993. "Chibettomoji shosha'Ch6kan' no kenkyu(honbun hen) [Studies on the 'Long Scroll' in Tibetan Transcription{Text}}." Tohogakuho (journal ofOriental Studies) (Kyoto), 65 (March):313-80, plus 13 plates. TUAN LI-FEN. 1989. "Tsui-tsaoch'u-hsien hsi-tz'u 'shih' te ti-hsiatzu-liao [The EarliestExcavated Material for the Copula shih}." YI-went'ien-ti [The Worldof Languageand Script)6 (January):19-21. UNGER J. MARSHALL. 1993. Communicationto the Editor. TheJournal of Asian Studies,52.4 (November):949-54. VAN GULIK, R. H. 1956. Siddham:An Essayon theHistory of Sanskrit Studies in China andJapan. Nagpur: Intert?ationalAcademy of Indian Culture. WALKER, BENJAMIN. 1968. Hindu World:An EncyclopedicSurvey of Hinduism. 2 vols. New Delhi: MunshiramManoharlal, 1983. First published by George Allen and Unwin, London. WATTERS, THOMAS. 1889. Essayson theChinese Language. Shanghai: Presbyterian Mission Press. WEI CHENG, et al. 1973. Sui shu [Historyof theSui Dynasty].6 vols. Peking: Chung-hua. WEI YUAN. Sheng-wuchi. Ssu-pu pei-yao ed. WRIGHT, ARTHUR F. 1957. "Buddhism and Chinese Culture: Phases of Interaction." TheJournal of Asian Studies17. 1 (November):17-42. . 1971. Buddhismin ChineseHistory. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959; rev. ed. YANG, PAUL Fu-MIEN. 1989. "The Portuguese-ChineseDictionary of Matteo Ricci: A Historicaland LinguisticIntroduction." Proceedings of theSecond International ConferenceonSinology. Taipei: AcademiaSinica. Vol. 1 of the Sectionon Language and Script,pp. 191-242. ZHOU, YOUGUANG. 1991. "The Familyof ChineseCharacter-Type Scripts (Twenty Membersand FourStages of Development)." Sino-Platonic Papers 28 (September). ZURCHER, E. 1972. The BuddhistConquest of China: The Spreadand Adaptationof Buddhismin EarlyMedieval China. 2 vols. Leiden:E. J. Brill, rpt. withadditions and corrections. . 1977. "LateHan VernacularElements in theEarliest Buddhist Translations." Journalof the Chinese Language Teachers Association 12.3 (October):177-201. . 1980. "Buddhist Influenceon Early Taoism." T'oungPao 66.1-3:84- 147. . 1990. "Han Buddhismand the WesternRegions." In W. L. Idema and E. Zurcher,eds., Thoughtand Law in Qin and Han China: Studiesdedicated to

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BUDDHISM AND THE RISE OF WRITTEN VERNACULAR 751

AnthonyHulsewe6 on theoccasion of his eightiethbirthday. Leiden: E. J. Brill, pp. 158-72. - 1991. "A New Look at the EarliestChinese BuddhistTexts." In Koichi Shinoharaand GregorySchopen, eds., FromBenares to Beijing: Essays on Buddhism and ChineseReligion in Honourof Prof. Jan Yiin-hua.Oakville, Ontario: Mosaic, pp. 277-304.

This content downloaded from 151.100.162.37 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:42:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions