Page 82 [82]
OCR
OTGON BORJIGIN fewer words in each line of its text than the Zanjur version (52 folios or 104 pages). Thus, the lost Dunhuang xylograph edition of the Mongolian Bodhicaryavatara, just like the manuscript in New Delhi, should have been composed of around 56 folios. Professor Walther Heissig once made a detailed comparison between the corresponding words in different versions of the Mongolian Bodhicaryavatara. In the same way, the present author also compares the words in the Dunhuang fragment with the different forms in other texts: Dh L6 M480 K T 107,4 | dayus/gal] ügei | dayusgal iigei dayusgariügei | dayusgariügei | dayusgar-i ügei 107,4 | oroyu oroyu oroyu odoyu odoyu 108,1 | amitan amitan-i amitan-i amitan-i amitan-i 108, 1 | oJoyata oyoyata oyoyata oyoyata oyoyata 108, 1 | tonilbasu// tonilyaysan-iyar | tonilyaysan-iyar | tonilyaysan-iyar | tonilyaysan-iyar From the above list, we can easily see that the cross-textual changes in these words have certain regularities: the first expression listed here might have appeared as dayusgal ügei in the Dunhuang text (although the possibility of dayusgal ügei cannot be completely ruled out), as it is attested in L6; oroyu in Dh, L6 and M480 has been changed into odoyu in K and T; amitan, oyoyata, and tonilbasu in Dh changed respectively into amitan-i, oyoyata, and tonilyaysan-iyar, in the later texts. This fact further proves that the Dunhuang fragment should be earlier than the New Delhi manuscript. In addition, the Dunhuang fragment is different from the Commentary ofthe Bodistw-a Cari-a Awatar of 1312, which we can read from the relevant words mentioned above. In short, the Document B121:40 unearthed in the northern area of Dunhuang’s Mogao Caves is a remnant of the Mongolian printed version ofthe Bodhicaryävatära translated by the eminent monk Chos kyi ‘od zer in the Yuan dynasty. It may be earlier than the Commentary of 1312, but a solid evidence is needed here. The Buddhist and semi-Buddhist texts unearthed from Turfan and Dunhuang, such as two different versions of the Bodhicaryavatara, two different fragments of the Heart Sutra,’ and three Square Script editions of Sonom Gara’s Erdeni-yin sang Subasida,"° bear a great deal of similarity, repeatability and correlation to each other ° For the Turfan xylograph fragment, see Cerensodnom, Dalantai — Taube, Manfred, 106ff. For the Heart Sutra fragments from Dunhuang, see Ao Tegen (Otgon Borjigin): Mogaokubeiquchutu Basiba Mengguwen “Sajiageyan” canpianyanjiu. Zhongguo Zangxue 4 (2007), 58-65; Kápolnás, Olivér: A Heart-Sutra Fragment from Dunhuang. Quaestiones Mongolorum Disputatae 10 (2014), 1-5. In this article, Dr. Oliver Kapolnas identified a fragmentary page in Paul Pelliot’s findings from 1908 as a Heart Sutra fragment from the same manuscript as the one unearthed in Dunhuang between 1988 and 1995. For two different editions from Dunhuang, cf. Borjigin Otgon’s interpretation in Ao Tegen (Otgon Borjigin): Mogaokubeiquchutu Basiba ..., OTroH6aaTap, P.: MOHrOoJIoop CyHapHHJUDK XO9BJI3CJH WepBewwKHH ycruin CyOammypi mus xyynac. // Jepeenscun yceuün myxaü dopseon syün. DMX. OrronH6aarap, P. Yıraan6aarap 2014, 32-40. 80
