再談「浮屠」與「佛」

1947年，我寫過一篇文章：《浮屠與佛》[1]，主要是論證中國最古佛典翻譯中的「佛」字，不是直接從梵文 Buddha，而是間接通過吐火羅文 A（焉耆文）pat和 B（龜茲文）的 pud，pud譯過來的。一個字的音譯，看來是小事一樁，無關宏旨，實則與佛教傳入中國的途徑和時間有關，決不可等閒視之。文章中有一個問題頗感棘手，這就是，吐火羅文的pat、pud和pud都是清音，而「佛」字的古音則是濁音。由於周燕孫（祖謨）先生的幫助，這個問題算是勉強解決了。從那以後，雖然有時仍然有點耿耿於懷，但是沒有認真再考慮這個問題。最近幾年讀書時讀到一些與此問題有關的新材料或者對舊材料的新解釋，覺得有必要對那篇文章加以補充和擴大，於是寫了這一篇文章。這篇文章分為兩個部分：一、「佛」字對音的來源；二、從「浮屠」與「佛」的關係推測佛教傳入中國的途徑和時間。

關鍵字

無資料

並列摘要

Second Talk on ＂Fu Tu＂ and ＂Fo＂ Ji Xian-lin Summary In 1947, I wrote an article on ＂Fu Tu and Fo＂ to examine and ascertain that ＂Fo＂ in Chinese oldest translationof Buddhist texts was translated not directly from the Sanskrit word ＂Buddha＂ but indirectly through the ＂ pat ＂ in Tukhara and the ＂pud＂ and ＂ pud ＂ in Kuchean. The transliteration of one word seems to be trivial, yet it has relationship with the path and time of the introduction of Buddhism into China. Therefore, it should not be neglected lightly. In that article there is one problem very hard to tackle with, i.e. ＂pat＂, ＂pud＂ and ＂pud＂ are all clear sounds while the ancient sound of ＂Fo＂ in Mandarin is voiced sound. Thanks to Mr. Chou Yen-sun's assistance, this problem has been solved temporarily. Since then, although I still feel a little unsatisfied, I never consider this problem seriously. In recent years, I have encountered some new materials about this problem or new interpretations of the old materials, I feel it necessary to supplement and enlarge that old article. Accordingly, this present paper is written. It consists of two parts: (1) The source of the counter-sound of ＂Fo＂, and (2) The deduction of the path and time of the introduction of Buddhism into China from the relationship between ＂Fu Tu＂ and ＂Fo＂ in Chinese language.＞