On the Old Uyghur Fragments of the Bāvari Narrative Housed in the Berlin Turfan Collection

Abstract

The ancient oasis of Turfan, located on the Northern Silk Road, was a centre for interactions between the East and the West and witnessed numerous cultural, religious, and linguistic changes throughout history. A large number of texts were composed, translated, copied, and published there. One of the outcomes of these efforts is the Old Uyghur Buddhist narrative literature, parts of which have remained almost completely preserved, while a significant portion has survived as single fragments or small pieces of a fragment. For some of these texts, definitive conclusions about their original content or which work they belong to have yet to be reached. The Old Uyghur Bāvari narrative discussed in this study bears parallels, particularly in terms of themes, settings, and characters, with sections of the Pārāyaṇasūtra—known for its resemblance to the final chapter of the Sutta Nipāta, i.e., the Pārāyanavagga—as well as parts of the Maitreyasamitināṭaka and Xianyujing. This study first introduces this narrative formed by the Old Uyghur fragments preserved in the Turfan Collection of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences. Then, the text is transcribed and translated. Finally, the similarities and differences with other parallel narratives are analysed and presented.

1. Introduction

The Uyghurs produced a corpus of religious texts which includes original works and those heavily influenced by translations of texts from the religions they adopted, such as Manichaeism, Buddhism, and Christianity. Some scholars date and evaluate the works of this corpus as spanning from the adoption of Manichaeism by Bögü Qaghan1 in 762 to the 14th century, when the Uyghurs came under the rule of the Ming dynasty.

Some of the texts belonging to the Old Uyghur Buddhist narrative literature, which are also among the works that pertain to the religious literary sources of Buddhism, have survived as fragments consisting of single or several leaves. Some of the fragments that make up these narratives are listed in the catalogue Alttürkische Handschriften, part 10 (VOHD 13, 18) under the title “weitere Erzältexte (Further Narrative Texts)”. The first subtitle is considered “die Töpfer Handschrift (The Potter Manuscript)” and consists of fragments believed to belong to the same text collection. Based on the fragment Mainz 700 (T III M 184), one of the most well-known fragments evaluated in the same text collection and previously published by Ehlers (1982), this subtitle was named «die Töpfer Handschrift» (The Potter Manuscript) in the catalogue.

The texts and contents of the fragments evaluated under this title are not exactly known. The pagination numbers given at the beginning of the fragments show the sections that the manuscript belongs to. The fragments evaluated under the title mentioned in the relevant catalogue are shown in

Table 1. Fragments of the Bāvari Narrative in the Berlin Turfan Collection.

Mainz 700 (T III M 194)

Mainz 699 (Glas: T II) (Figure 1 and Figure 2)

U 1945 (T III M 184; Glas: T III M 184/a) + U 2028 + U 1188 (T III M 184) (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6)

Mainz 707 (T III M 194; Glas: T III M 194-a)

Mainz 757 (T III M 184)

U 1946a, b (T III M 184; Glas: T III M 184b, T III M 184c)

:

The fragments discussed in this section2 consist of various narrative texts. However, when considered together, they reveal a composition that does not have a direct parallel in Buddhist literature. Looking at the themes, characters (such as Bāvari, Maitreya, and Ajita),3 semantic coherence, and external form of the manuscript, it seems that these fragmentary pieces might belong to the same text collection. Additionally, when these fragments are considered individually rather than as a composition, parallels can be drawn between some passages and various works. For example, fragments believed to belong to the same collection, such as Mainz 707 (T III M 194; Glas: T III M 194-a),4 Mainz 757 (T III M 184), and U 1946a, b (T III M 184; Glas: T III M 184b, T III M 184c), document for the first time that the legend of Maitreya is recounted in another Old Turkic text other than the ‘Maitrisimit’, which describes the life of the future Buddha Maitreya.5 In addition to these fragments, other materials that are part of this collection include U 2028 and U 1188, which Peter Zieme previously published as the Old Turkic version of the Pārāyaṇasūtra, as well as the unpublished fragment U 1945 (T III M 184; Glas: T III M 184/a), which forms the previously missing left part of the text, and the Mainz 699 (Glas: T II). Apart from Mainz 700 (T III M 194), all these fragments share the common feature of containing various sections from the biography of Maitreya and show terminological parallels.6 Furthermore, the page numbers provided at the beginning of these fragments offer clues about which sections of the manuscript these fragments belong to. Accordingly, except for the fragment7 published by Ehlers, it can be deduced that the other pieces belong to the 25th chapter.8

This study provides a transcription and translation of the narrative composed of the fragments Mainz 699 (T II), U 1945 (T III M 184; Glas: T III M 184/a) + U 2028 + U 1188 (T III M 184), U 1946a, b (T III M 184; Glas: T III M 184b, T III M 184c), which are considered to belong to the same manuscript. Then, the narrative is analysed in terms of its content, context, and similarities and differences with other Bāvari narratives. Finally, the manuscript to which it belongs is critically examined.

2. Edition of the Old Uyghur Fragments of the Bāvari Narration

2.1. Text

Mainz 699 (T II) (Figure 1 and Figure 2)

0. [ altı]

001. y(e)g(i)rmi bra[man urıları]9 d(a)kš(i)nap(a)ttın

002. purvadeš10 ul[uška tägi ye]mädilär11 ičmäd[i]-

003. lär pašanak t[agk]a12 täg[dilä]r : k[altı]13

004. isig tumlıgka ämgänmiš sart-

005. lar sogık suvluk yulka tägsär

006. ančulayu ymä ○ ol braman-

007. lar ädgü ○ yıl[t]ız[lig]

008. tagda ○ tükäl {-l}14

009. bilgä ○ t(ä)ngri b[urha]n-

010. ka t[ä]gdilär : ○ [ol] üdün

011. tükäl bilgä t(ä)ngri burhan kaltı

012. k[u]vragda nomlayur ärdi : ar[s]lan15

013. ünin ol kükräyür [ä]rdi : kör[ti]lär :

014. b[r]aman urıları tükäl bil[gä t(ä)ngri]

015. [burh]anıg : kaltı kün[ ] [är]d[i]

016. [        ]y t(ä)ngri twq[   ]

017. [        ]t [t]ägrä [  ]

018. [        ]r

019. burhan t//l[ ]

020. [bu]rsang k[uv]ragı [  ]

021. [        ]twq̈ q̈[  ]

022. [        ]q̈wn[    ] [är]d[i] [  ]

023. [        ]k[/] [ ]

024. [        ]r k’[  ]

025. [  ] //// [o]tuz a[rtu]kı iki

026. [lakšan b(ä)l]güsin16 kördil[är] ötrü

027. [köng]ülin sez[ik] [ayıt]dılar : :

028. [  ] atl(ı)g nom töpü tüšmäk17 bo

029. nom[ug] [b]a[va]ri ayıtgalı ıdtı : anı

030. söz[läyin b]izingä bavari näčä

031. yašayur : tıtsıları kač ol tep

032. köngül[in] sezik ayıtdılar : tükäl

033. bilgä t(ä)ngri burhan maitrini18 braman

034. urılarnı[ng] köngülin ayıtmıš beš

035. türlüg [sez]ik19 yörä y(a)rlıkadı :

036. kayu kiši üč ärdinikä süzük

037. [köngül] turgınčara bo m[untag  ] a[   ]

verso

pagination: beš [otuzunč  ]

038. ädgü törü ol [   ]k l’r

039. [ ]z l’r [  ]y [ s]ezik

040. [ ]m’n/[   ]’q ymä kayu kiši

041. [ ]k üč ärdinikä süzük :

042. [kö]ngüli artasar ol kiši töpüdin

043. [tüš]miš20 [t]äg ○ bolur : burhan

044. [ ]/y ○ antag ol

045. [bava]ri ○ braman

046. [yüz ye]g(i)rmi21 ○ yašayur :

047. b[a]vari [bodu]n22 ○ ol: beš yüz

048. te[ts]e[la]rı ol : bilig bošgurur :

049. [ ] [u]žik biltäči bavari bram[an]

050. [ol : ]23 [ät]özintä üč [b(ä)l]güsi bar : [  ]

051. [ ] s[e]zikingizlärni köngüli[n]

052. [a]yıtd[       ]lar bo ärür : tangladı [    ]

053. [          ] : bara[nas] känttäki24 [  ]

054. [          ]y k[äzi]gčä tw[  ]y

055. b[r]aman [     ]dy

056. [t](ä)ngri [   ]wr b(ä)lgü p[  ]

057. [ ]y [   ]k kayu [o]l sözläng[lär]

058. tep : [ö]trü [     tükäl] bilgä [t(ä)ngri]

059. burhan näč[ä      ]/ tep /[  ]

060. [ ]dy [      ]y [   ]

061. [    ] ol [   ]

062. [         ]

063. [  ]wz y[     ]

064. [ ]l ’wy[      ]

065. täg [         ]k/y ol : kwz25 k// [ ]

066. üč türlüg ulug b(ä)lgü[s]i [o]l : :

067. bavari bramannıng ulu[gın] kalın

068. kuvrag ešidtilär: tägrä körür ärdi :

069. kimkä sözläyür tep bil[ir] ärdilär :

070. ötrü ol altı y(e)g(i)rmi braman urı-

071. ları : t(ä)ngri burhanka [ba]rdılar : :

072. beš mantal yinčürü yü[küntilä]r : čökiṭü

073. olurup ötüntilär : bavari braman

074. [ıra]ktın [a]dakıngı[zka] yükünür [  ]m’q

U 1945 (T III M 184/a) + U 2028 + U 1188 (T III M 184) (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6)

075. [ ] birlä tözün ätözüngüz

076. [ ] köngülüngüzni ayıtur : tükäl

077. [bil]gä t(ä)ngri burhan i[nč]ä tep

078. [y(a)rl]ıkadı : mängilig ärür : bavari26

079. [brama]n sizlär27 ymä äsängülüg

080. [bol]unglar28 ○ ötrü sävinč-

081. [lig] ögrünč ○ lüg bolup29

082. [altı ye]g(i)rmi ○ braman urı-

083. [ları čö]kiṭü ○ [ol]urdılar:30

084. [kut] bulalım ○ tep ötünti-

085. [lä]r : tükäl bilgä t(ä)ngri burhan

086. bolarnıng kutrulgu yıltızı bolup

087. iki////31 [        ]

Lacuna32

088. mängizl[ig tükäl bilg]ä t(ä)ngri

089. burhan q[     ] : ulug arha[n]t33

090. [     ]n [      ] /[  ] t(ä)ngri

091. burhan[ka] birär sezik ayıtdı-

092. [l]ar : tükäl bilgä t(ä)ngri [bu]rhan

093. [o]larnıng ayıtmıš seziklärin

094. [ ]////yn [  ]d////// [t]ıl[tagı]n

095. [a]yu berdi : tört y(e)girmi toyın-

096. lar kut bultılar : ačiti maitri

097. [i]kigü kaltılar ekagr sudurta

098. ögmiš ulug küčlüg arhantlar

099. boltı : burhan nomınta üküš asıg

100. tusu kıltılar : maitreni34 ačiti

101. ik[i toyınl]ar35 [birä]r sezik ayıtdı-

102. lar : burhanka ötrü a[čiti]

103. inčä tep ayıtdı : nägü yörgänmiš

104. ol : bo yertinčü kir yam bo yertinčü-

105. nüng kayu ol nägükä yarumaz

106. yalnguklar ulug korkınč kayu ol :

107. anı y(a)rlıkang tükäl bilgä tep

108. ötünti : yiti biliglig burhan

109. a[či]ti ayıtmıš sezik inčä yörä

110. y(a)rlıkadı : biligsiz biligkä ürtülüp

verso

Pagination: beš otuzunč ülüš al[tı ]

111. turur yertinčü ätöz mängis[i  ]

112. üčün yarumaz yašumaz : äzüg [igid]

113. üküš sözlär üčün : kirlig č[öpdik]

114. bolur kišilär : säkiz türlüg k[orkınč]

115. ol yertinčüdä tükäl bilgä [  ]

116. tä bo nom ○ y(a)rlıg ä/[ ]

117. ačiti-i ○ t(ä)ngr[i burhanka]

118. ymä sezik ○ ayı[tdı kut]

119. bulmaduk36 ○ yalng[uk]-

120. nung tamčuk[lug]ları37 a/[ ]

121. üčün kurıtur : tamčuklug üg[üzlär]-

122. ning tıdguluk alın sözlär tak[ı]

123. [     ] tükäl

Lacuna38

124. y(a)rlıkadı [  t]amčuk-

125. [la]r ol : anı [   ] ök

126. ol : apa[   ]// [ta]m[ču]k-

127. larıg bi[l]igin tıdar tuyur : ymä

128. ačiti t(ä)[ng]ri burhanka sezik

129. ayıtdı : ögin biligin t(ä)ngrim tamč[uk]-

130. luglarıg korkıtmıš s[än ]

131. ol ögli biligli ymä ayıtmaz

132. ugušlug törülär : näčük tuyar ınag-

133. ım(ı)z anı sözläng : t(ä)ngri burhan

134. inčä tep y(a)rl[ıka]dı : tuyma[k]ka

135. külänmiš ol törülär : tuymak

136. tuysar ol barča öčärlär : ačiti

137. ötrü inčä tep ayıtd[  ]/nky

138. [ ] isimäktä39 yilinmäsär

139. ötrü tuymak tuyar : ämgäktä

140. ozar : ačiti ötrü inčä tep

141. ötünti t(ä)ngrim : sizing tıtsılar-

142. ıngız bilgä biligig ötgürmišlär

143. kim ymä säkiz türlüg tözün

144. yolka40 kirmišlär : kim ymä kut

145. bulmaduk tsuylar olar näčük k[ı]lz-

146. unlar : tükäl bilgä t(ä)ngri burha[n]

2.2. Translation

(1–10)41 Sixteen [young] Brah[mans], who did not [eat] and drink (anything) from Dakṣināpatha42 to the Pūrvadeśa43 [region],44 reached the Pāṣānaka [Mountain]. [Just as] the merchants, tormented by heat and cold, arrived at a cold-water spring, so those Brahmins arrived at the perfectly wise divine Buddha in the wholesome root mountain.45 (10–13)46 At that time, the perfectly wise divine Buddha was preaching in the congregation. He was roaring with the voice of a lion. (13–27)47 The young Brahmins saw the perfectly wise divine Buddha, like the sun [ ] around [ ] Buddha [...] congregation [...] They saw his thirty-two [marks], and after that they asked questions in their mind: (28–29) He sent (them) to Bāvari (to ask) this doctrine of falling from the top of the head,48 called [...]. Tell us (30–35) “How old is Bāvari? How many pupils does he have?”, asked in their mind.49 The perfectly wise divine Buddha graciously explained the [answers to] the five types of questions asked by Maitreya50 and the young Brahmins: (36–43) “And whoever [...] to pure three jewels with pure mind immediately, like that [...] is good dharma [...]. Whoever changes his pure intention towards [...] three jewels, then he will be like falling from the top of the head. (43–50)51 Buddha [...] as follows: “[Bāvari] Brahmin is 120 years old [and] from the Bāvari clan. He instructs five hundred pupils and he [...] is the Bāvari Brahmin who knows literature. He has three marks on his body. (51–66)52 [...] your doubts in mind [...] ask [...] this is it. They were astonished [...]. In the city of Varanasi [...] respectively [...] Brahmin [...] wise [...] what is, they tell” said, then [...the perfectly] wise divine Buddha [...] saying [...] “[...] is the great mark of three kinds”. (67–73)53 The crowded community heard Bāvari Brahmin’s voice saying “He was seeing around. To whom he is answering”, they knew. After that, the sixteen young Brahmins approached the divine Buddha. They bowed, performing five maṇḍalas, and sat kneeling, and they said: (73–78)54 “Bāvari Brahmin bow on your feet from a distance [...] and your noble body [...] asks how you are”. All-wise Buddha, the God of Gods, graciously ordered: (78–87)55 “Bāvari Brahmin, be happy [and his pupils] you, also be happy!” Then the sixteen young Brahmins knelt and sat down gladly and joyfully. “May we attain salvation”, they requested. The perfectly wise divine Buddha became the root of their salvation, (87–92) two [...]—looking [...] all wise of Buddha, the God of Gods [...] the Supreme Arhat [...] each of them asked one question to the divine Buddha. (92–100) The perfectly wise divine Buddha [answered] their questions and [...] explained the reason. Fourteen monks attained salvation. Two, Ajita and Maitreya, remained [behind]; they became a praised, supreme, and mighty Arhat in the Ekāgra-Sūtra56. They did many good deeds through the Buddha’s doctrine. (100–110)57 The two monks Maitreya and Ajita each asked [one] question to the Buddha. Then Ajita asked: “What is this world surrounded by? What is the dirt and dust of this world? Why do people not shine? What is the great danger? Please, bless us with the answers, the Perfectly Wise!”, they requested. (110–124)58 The highly knowledgeable Buddha interpreted the question that A[ji]ta asked: “The happiness of this earthly body is covered in ignorance. [...]; therefore, it does not shine and glow. People get dirty and [and filthy] due to many untrue and [false] words. In the world, eight kinds of [fear…] are”. The perfectly wise [...] this dharma doctrine [...]. Ajita asked the divine Buddha again: “... [....] cause the currents of people who have not attained salvation59 to dry up? (He) tells the way how to prevent currents. [...] [The perfectly wise divine Buddha] graciously said: (124–134)60 “[...] streams. [...] is the currents. [...] prevents and stops currents with his wisdom”. Ajita asked the divine Buddha again: “My Lord, with your perception and wisdom, [you] frightened those who are in flow61 [...] considerate and wise, and also the things unasked(?). In what way are [they] prevented? Please tell us, Our Haven!” (134–146) The divine Buddha deigned to speak: “Things come to be known through perception. If one acquires perception, they all disappear. I will then [answer the question] that [you] asked, Ajita. If one does not hold on tightly [...], then he acquires perception, frees himself from suffering”. Then Ajita respectfully asked: “My Lord, your pupils have properly acquired wisdom, and they are also those who have attained the Noble Eightfold Path (Skt. āryāṣṭāṅgikamārga). What are the sins that prevent them from attaining salvation? What should they do?” The perfectly wise divine Buddha [...].

3. On the Source Text of the Old Uyghur Bāvari Narration

Mainz 699 (T II) (Figure 1 and Figure 2) is considered one of the fragments that belong to the same text collection. It is a large pustaka leaf that has been heavily damaged due to destruction, abrasion, and worms. The parts around the pustaka hole and at the bottom and edges of the fragment are severely damaged. Each side, i.e., recto and verso pages, has 37 lines. The verso side shows the pagination number as Uyg. beš [otuzunč ] ‘twenty [fifth ]’.

Figure 1. Mainz 699 (Glas: T II) recto.62 © Depositum der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in der. Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung.

Figure 1. Mainz 699 (Glas: T II) recto.62 © Depositum der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in der. Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung.

Figure 2. Mainz 699 (Glas: T II) verso. © Depositum der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in der. Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung.

Figure 2. Mainz 699 (Glas: T II) verso. © Depositum der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in der. Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung.

P. Zieme published an edition of the first 10 lines of the Mainz 699 fragment in his article “Notizen zur Geschichte des Namens sart” (Zieme 2005, pp. 533–39) indicating that it belongs to the Pārāyaṇa chapter of the Sutta Nipāta. A group of three fragments that follow the joined fragment, U 1945 + U 2028 + U 1188 (T III M 184), also belong to the same narrative text. The three fragments are separately placed between glass plates. The two fragments, U 1945 and U 2028, directly complement each other and form the upper part of the fragment. Looking at the pagination number on fragment U 1945, it is possible to identify that the narrative pertains to the 25th chapter of the collection to which the work belongs.

Figure 3. Fragments U 1945 + U 2028 + U 1188 (T III M 184) recto, before reconstruction. © Depositum der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung.

Figure 3. Fragments U 1945 + U 2028 + U 1188 (T III M 184) recto, before reconstruction. © Depositum der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung.

Figure 4. Fragments U 1945 + U 2028 + U 1188 (T III M 184) verso, before reconstruction. © Depositum der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung.

Figure 4. Fragments U 1945 + U 2028 + U 1188 (T III M 184) verso, before reconstruction. © Depositum der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung.

The two fragments, U 1945 and U 2028, are followed by U 1188, which forms the right part of the folio. The upper middle part and edges of U 1188 are severely damaged compared to U 1945 and U 2028 due to tears and worms. A tear penetrating through the middle of the fragment is attached with an adhesive strip.

Figure 5. Assembled and repaired fragments: U 1945 (T III M 184/a) + U 2028 + U 1188 (T III M 184) recto. Depositum der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung.

Figure 5. Assembled and repaired fragments: U 1945 (T III M 184/a) + U 2028 + U 1188 (T III M 184) recto. Depositum der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung.

Figure 6. Assembled and repaired fragments: U 1945 (T III M 184/a) + U 2028 + U 1188 (T III M 184) verso. © Depositum der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung.

Figure 6. Assembled and repaired fragments: U 1945 (T III M 184/a) + U 2028 + U 1188 (T III M 184) verso. © Depositum der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung.

There is only one missing line between U 1945 + U 2028 and U 1188. P. Zieme also discussed U 2028 + U 1188 in his articles (Zieme 1997, 2003). In one article, Zieme (1997, p. 743) indicates that, as noted by H. Bechert,63 “the Pārāyaṇa is a part of the Sutta Nipāta (976–1149); however, the Aṭṭhakavagga and Pārāyaṇa, the last two chapters of the Sutta Nipāta, can also be considered originally independent texts for other reasons”64 and “Central Asian manuscript fragments exist of both”. Hinüber (1996, pp. 49–50) supports this view, noting that the Aṭṭhakavagga and Pārāyaṇavagga could be very ancient texts, containing some of the early concepts of Buddhist teaching. He also highlights that the fact both texts are quoted in the Divyāvadāna may serve as evidence that they existed independently for a long time. Hinüber explains this by suggesting that the Theravāda tradition was not tolerant of independent texts and therefore sought to include them within a single collection. In addition to Hinüber’s observations, it is noteworthy that there are also commentaries on the Pārāyaṇavagga found in the Niddesa, which are known as canonical commentaries. P. Zieme also discusses that we do not usually seek or cannot find the sources of Old Turkic Buddhist texts in the Tripiṭaka; however, as with the fragment under consideration, it can be assumed that the text is based on a lost version of the text in Chinese or in some Central Asian language.

P. Zieme further states that we cannot be sure whether the fragments are independent or belong to an independent work from Old Turkic remnants and this Pārāyaṇa is most likely taken from a larger work. He argues that if the Bāvari tale was considered part of the “Tales of the Wise and the Fool (Xianyujing)ˮ collection, it could also have been incorporated into other collections. He assumes that the work most probably belongs to the Daśakarmapathāvadānamālā (Zieme 1997, p. 743). Wilkens rejects this assumption based on the evidence in the catalogue he prepared.

Wilkens asserts that the pagination number in the unpublished U 1945 fragment and the pagination number of the Mainz 707, Mainz 757 and U 1946a, b fragments, which we will not discuss here, are the same; therefore, it is clear that all these fragments mentioned belong to the 25th chapter of the collection. He further states Mainz 707, Mainz 757, and U 1945 + U 2028 + U 1188 include a biography of Maitreya and common scenes about his circle (Bāvāri, Ajita, etc.) and the 25th chapter to be devoted to Maitreya’s biography because of the topics addressed in the fragments (Wilkens 2010, p. 31). It is also noteworthy that Ajita and Maitreya are among the sixteen disciples cited in the text, and that the two disciples are associated with Maitreya in various texts.65

The original text and language from which the fragments were translated are not known. Given that the manuscript shares terminological and contextual similarities with the Maitrisimit and its external appearance is also similar to manuscript D of the Daśakarmapathāvadānamālā, there are views that it can be assumed that the work was translated from (Eastern)-Tocharian. However, it is also stated in the publication of the U 2028 + U 1188 fragments that some passages in the Old Uyghur text that differ from the Sanskrit and Pāli versions may be caused by mistranslations from Chinese, although this view is not conclusive.66 It should also be noted that some Sanskrit fragments containing parts of the Sutta Nipāta, also known from the findings of the German Expeditions in Turfan,67 are insufficient to draw a definitive conclusion as to whether the entire Pārāyaṇasūtra was transmitted to Sanskrit. It should also be emphasized that some of these Sanskrit fragments run parallel to some parts of the Sutta Nipāta and sometimes deviate from the Pāli text. The manuscript, which is also defined as one of the calligraphic variants of the classical period (11th–13th centuries?), can be considered to be from the pre-Yuan period due to its graphic and linguistic features (Zieme 1997, p. 744).

In the Pārāyanavagga (976–1149), the last chapter of the Sutta Nipāta, Bāvari is cursed by a beggar for not fulfilling the beggar’s wish. SN 983 contains the following: Sace me yācamānassa bhavaṃ nānupadassati, sattame divase tuyhaṃ muddhā phalatu sattadhā (Andersen and Smith 1913, p. 191) “‘You have rejected the pleading of a beggar!’ said the visitor. May your head split into seven in seven days’ time as a result of this refusal!”( Saddhātissa 1985, p. 115). Bāvari learns that there is a Buddha who knows what this “head-splitting” means and sends his disciples, 16 Brahmin ascetics (please see Figure 7 below), to find and meet the Buddha to ask him about this issue.

Accordingly, the ascetics will first test whether the Buddha actually has 32 physical signs (Skt. mahāpuruṣa lakṣaṇa) and then ask him questions from their minds without using their mouth or tongue. Next, the ascetics will assess Buddha’s answers and, accordingly, decide whether the man is Buddha. Only then will they ask Buddha about the “head-splitting” issue. With this end in view, the ascetics set out on a long journey from Deccan in South India, through Ujjayinī in the Avanti country, and follow the ancient trade route Dakṣiṇāpatha, known as the Southern Road, to get to Vidiśa, Kauśāmbī, and Sāketa. Then, they finally reach Śrāvastī. However, they cannot find the Buddha in Śrāvastī, and go to Rājagṛha following the Northern Route Uttarāpatha. There, they become Buddha’s disciples. Then, the 16 disciples pose questions, one by one, to the Buddha. Universally recognized as one of the oldest and most original narratives in the Tripiṭaka,68 this narrative is thought to date from the period after the spread of Buddhism to South India.69

The passage, which parallels the Mainz 699 (T II), U 1945 (T III M 184/a) + U 2028 + U 1188 (T III M 184) fragments, approximately corresponds to sections 1013–1039 of the SN. However, looking at it as a whole, one can definitely see differences rather than parallels. In general, the names of Ajita and Maitreya are directly mentioned in the fragments of the Old Uyghur narrative, which makes them the leaders among the 16 Brahmin ascetics.70 To illustrate, the emphasis on Maitreya in the passage tükäl bilgä t(ä)ngri burhan maitrini braman urılarnı[ng] köngülin ayıtmıš beš türlüg [sez]ik yörä y(a)rlıkadı in Mainz 699 (T II) lines 32–35 is absent in the SN. Additionally, the emphasis on “Maitreya together with Ajita” in the passage ačiti maitri [i]kigü kaltılar ekagr sudurta ögmiš ulug küčlüg arhantlar boltı “The two, Ajita and Maitreya, remained [behind]; they became a praised, supreme and mighty Arhat in the Ekāgra-Sūtra” and maitri’i ačiti ik[i toyınl]ar [birä]r sezik ayıtdılar “Maitreya and Ajita, each of the two monks, asked [one] question” in U 1188 (T III M 184) is also missing in the SN. Another text in which this emphasis is clearly made several times is the Maitrisimit. The Hami/Kumul (Qumul) version, for instances, includes multiple examples: anta ötrü tözün maitri kadašı ačitida ulatı biš ygrmi urılar birlä badari bramannıng ınag savın täginip yašları savrılu ıglagu badari bramanka kašanti kılıp biš yüz braman urılarınga tägürtü badari braman balıkıntın ünüp b(a)rdılar “Then the noble Maitreya, together with his religious fellow Ajita and fifteen other young men, received the blessing of Brahmin Bādhari, and, weeping tears and lamenting, they made their confessions before Brahmin Bādhari, and accompanied by five hundred young Brahmins, they departed from Brahmin Bādhari’s city and went on their way”, anta ötrü tözün maitri bodisiwt ačitida ulatı biš ygrmi urılar birlä takı ymä adan kırk tümän tınlıglar birlä ... “Then, the noble bodhisattva Maitreya, together with Ajita and fifteen other young men and also 400,000 people”.71

It should also be underlined that the Bāvari narrative is also treated in the Xianyujing (Tales of the Wise and the Fool). In this regard, which of the texts that contain the Bāvari narratives is original? The Pārāyana, the Maitreyasamitināṭaka, or the Xianyujing?72 Or which was derived from which? Although the links between all these texts are clear, it is difficult to make a definitive judgment on this issue.

4. Final Remarks

The presence of only a few severely damaged fragments of a text makes it highly challenging to determine the work to which it belongs and reconstruct its content. In this study, the fragments believed to be part of the same text collection were compared with other similar narratives based on semantic context, setting, events, and characters. The fragments were transcribed and translated, followed by an analysis of their content and themes. Upon examining the motifs of the characters, themes, and intended messages, the narrative that emerges is commonly associated with the Bāvari story. While the narrative shows significant parallels with the Sutta Nipāta, the emphasis on Maitreya and Ajita and the differences in character depiction suggest some deviations from the Sutta Nipāta, raising questions about the source text from which it was translated. Furthermore, the presence of a similar Bāvari narrative in the Maitreyasamitināṭaka and Xianyujing, along with the overlapping content and characters, makes it difficult to definitively determine which of these texts is the original and which is a translation. If considered from another perspective, although there is no definitive evidence, perhaps the “cult of Maitreya and possibly the desire to transmit part of it to the East” may also be one of the reasons for the translation and transmission of this text. In Buddhist studies, many people strive to find an answer regarding which original text was used in the translation of the text or from which source language the translation was made. Perhaps it would be helpful to consider the possibility of oral transmission and the diversity of these fragments, especially as the religious history of Central Asia comes into play. In addition, we must emphasize the importance of this text in highlighting the complexity of the religious history and the multicultural diversity of the region in which it was found.