Three Fragments of a Commentary on the Buddhāvataṁsaka-sūtra
Uğur Uzunkaya, Tümer KaraayakThe transmission of Buddhism to China has been dated to the 1st-century CE. There are two theories about how Buddhism this transmission. The first is that Buddhism came to China from Central Asia and Xinjiang, and the second is that it followed the Silk Route. Although Buddhism started spreading in China during the Huan and Ling periods of Han, it developed significantly during the Tang dynasty. Many schools of thought that did not have an Indian equivalent emerged in China during and after the Tang period. Most of those schools were based on Sanskrit canons. One of the texts was the Buddhāvataṁsaka-sūtra, which is the subject of this study. In China, the Huayan school emerged based on this work. This paper investigates three unpublished fragments of a commentary on the Buddhāvataṁsaka-sūtra in Old Uyghur. They are preserved at the Berlin Turfan Collection with archive numbers Mainz 769- 3 (fragment b), Mainz 18 and Mainz 758-7 (fragment a), respectively. They form the 20th chapter of a manuscript containing the texts related to the Faxiang school of Buddhism. The fragments in question belonging to chapter 20 have no pagination.
Eski Uygurca Buddhāvataṁsaka-sūtra Tefsirine Ait Üç Fragman
Uğur Uzunkaya, Tümer KaraayakBudizmin Çin’e girişi MS 1. yüzyıl ile tarihlendirilir. Budizmin Çin’e girerken izlediği yol hakkında birincisi Orta Asya ve Xinjiang’dan geldiği düşüncesi ve ikincisi ise İpek Yolu güzergâhını takip ettiği düşüncesi olmak üzere sıklıkla öne sürülen iki fikir vardır. Budizmin Çin’de Huan ve Ling dönemlerinde yayıldığı bilinse de esasen bu öğreti Çin’de Tang hanedanlığı (618-907) döneminde ciddi bir gelişim sağlamıştır. Tang döneminde ve sonrasında Çin’de bir Hint muadili olmayan birçok ekol ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu ekollerin çoğu Sanskritçe külliyata dayanır. Bunlardan birisi de, bu çalışmanın da konusunu oluşturan, Buddhāvataṁsaka-sūtra’dır. Çin’de bu eser temelinde Huayan ekolü ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu yazı şimdiye kadar neşredilmemiş Eski Uygurca Buddhāvataṁsaka-sūtra tefsirine ait üç fragmanın neşrini konu edinmektedir. Bu fragmanlar Berlin Turfan Koleksiyonu’nda sırasıyla Mainz 769-3 (b fragmanı), Mainz 18 ve Mainz 758-7 (a fragmanı) arşiv numaralarıyla saklanmaktadır. Eski Uygurca Buddhāvataṁsaka-sūtra tefsiri, Budizmin Faxiang ekolüne ilişkin metinleri içeren bir yazma eserin 20. bölümünü oluşturmaktadır. Bu yazıya konu olan fragmanlar ise 20. bölüme ait olmasına karşın sayfa numaralarına sahip değildir.
This paper examines three fragments of a commentary on the Buddhāvataṁsaka-sūtra, which is the literary source of the Huayan school of Buddhism. The article consists of six parts: (1) Introduction: A Brief Overview of Chinese Buddhism During the Tang Dynasty, (2) Content of the Study and Method Followed, (3) Translation and Transcription of the Old Uyghur Text, (4) Translation of the Old Uyghur Text into Turkish, (5) Notes to the Old Uyghur Text, and (6) Index and Glossary.
The first chapter in this paper provides an overview of Chinese Buddhism during the Tang dynasty. The important points of this section can be summarized as follows. The transmission of Buddhism to China has been dated to the 1st-century CE. There are two theories about how Buddhism was transmitted to China. The first is that Buddhism came to China from Central Asia and Xinjiang, while the second argues that it followed the ancient Silk Route. Translations of the Sanskrit Buddhist canons into Chinese began in the 2nd century, and during these translation activities, Buddhist concepts were either transliterated into Chinese due to cultural and linguistic differences, or Daoist expressions were borrowed and used as related concepts (cf. Green and Mun 2018: 24; also cf. Ge 2013: 318; Poceski 2012: 199). Although Buddhism spread in China during the Huan and Ling periods of the Han dynasty, it developed significantly during the Tang dynasty. The Tang dynasty is considered a golden age in many ways in China. The reign of the Tang dynasty was a period that yielded examples of cultural and artistic changesthat had never been encountered before. Diverse schools that did not have an Indian equivalent emerged in China during and after the Tang period. Most of these schools were based on Sanskrit canons. The schools that emerged during the Tang period included: Tiantai (天台 Tiantai), Chan (禪宗 Chan zong), and Pure Country (淨土 Jingtu). Another was the Huayan (華嚴 Huayan) school. The philosophical foundations of the Huayan school are presented in the Buddhāvataṁsaka-sūtra, which is the subject of this study.
The second chapter identifies the fragments examined in this paper. This paper discusses three unpublished fragments of a commentary on the Buddhāvataṁsaka-sūtra in Old Uyghur. An explanation of the three unpublished fragments is required because Özertural (2012: 215–217) stated they were published in the article titled “A preliminary report on the study of the so-called Uigur Lehrtext: Chapter 20 and 21” by K. Kitsudō in 2009. However, in Özertural’s catalog, this article by Kitsudō was cited as an “unpublished copy” and has not been published since. However, it should be noted here that Kitsudō’s article states that these fragments belong to chapter 20 (cf. Özertural 2012: 215–217). These fragments are preserved at the Berlin Turfan Collection with archive numbers Mainz 769-3 (fragment b) (T I D 3), Mainz 18, and Mainz 758-7 (fragment a) (T I D 7), respectively. There are 28 lines on the front page of Mainz 769-3 (fragment b) (T I D 3), 14 of which are on the front page and 14 on the back page. The first lines of the front and back pages of the fragment are damaged and only one letter can be detected. On the front and back pages of Mainz 18, which forms the second fragment without pagination in this paper, there are 38 lines in total however, only a few letters can be detected on the first line of the front of the fragment, but there are some illegible letters on the last line of the back page. On the front and back pages of Mainz 758-7 (fragment a) (T I D 7), which forms the third fragment without pagination in this article, there are 24 lines in total. The first line of the front side of the fragment as well as the first two lines of the back side are damaged.
In this paper, the transcription and transliteration of Old Uyghur fragments, their translations into Turkish, and notes and glossary with an analytical index are presented. In the chapter entitled Transcription and Transliteration of the Old Uyghur Text, the transcription and transliteration method from Uigurisches Wörterbuch was followed (cf. Röhrborn 1977–1998: 9–10 and 13–14; Röhrborn 2010: XXXIII-XXXV). The glossary of this study also contains an index. This study makes a small contribution to demarcating the boundaries of Central Asian Turkish Buddhism.
