On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India, 629–645 A.D. v2.c22.s20.5

v2.c22.s20.5

In the statement that it was in a monastery here that the Buddha gave bhikshus permission to wear shoes the expression rendered by "shoes" is *Ki-foh-si* (屐 縛 屨). This term was taken by the native annotator to be a foreign one, and he interpreted it as meaning "boots" or "shoes", an interpretation which Julien naturally adopted. But the third character *si* is the common Chinese name for "sandal" or "shoe", and *Ki-foh* is a qualifying adjective. What this word means, however, is not clear, and we are not certain that the first character is correct. Instead of it one text of the Life, and the C text of the Records, have *chêng* (丞), which is apparently only a printer's mistake for *chi*, and the Fang-chih has *hu* (互)-*foh*. Considered as a foreign word *Ki-foh* has been regarded as another way of writing *Ki-p'a* (綺 吧), a foreign term denoting felt or coarse woollen cloth, and supposed to be the Turkish Kebe with that meaning. But this does not suit the circumstances and cannot be accepted. If the *hu-foh* of the Fang-chih be the correct reading this may represent a word like the Tibetan *Kō-ba* which means "leather". But it is possible that *Ki-foh* is merely a native term not written in the usual form, and meaning "secured by strings on straps". The proper form of expression and one frequently used is *Ki* (繼 or 繫 or 係)-*foh* which means "bound" or "attached" literally and figuratively. The *Ki-foh-si* would thus be "sandals with securing garters." This agrees with the Indian name for sandal which is *upāhanā* from *upa* and *ānah*, "to tie" or bind. The sandals originally permitted to the Buddhist Brethren were probably not of leather, but of a vegetable material, although some Vinaya texts expressly state that they were of leather. Those allowed to the Brethren of Northern cold countries were of leather, and were "continued" up the legs by stripes of cloth or leather. An illustration and some very interesting observations will be found in Mr. W. Simpson's "Identification of the Sculptured Tope at Sanchi".¹ Now there is apparently no justification in the Buddhist canon for Yuan-chuang's statement that it was in Avanda that the Master granted to his disciples the indulgence of wearing foot-coverings of any kind. According to most of the Vinaya texts it was at Rājagaha that Buddha on the request of Śroṇaviṃśatikoṭi of Champā gave the bhikshus permission to wear single shoes, sandals with a single leather sole according to the Chinese texts. Afterwards also at Rājagaha Buddha, yielding to the petition brought by Koṭikarṇa from Avanti, a country hard, rough (and very thorny), allowed the Brethren of that land to wear several-fold sandals of leather.²