Fragments of the Old Uighur Maitrisimit nom bitig in St. Petersburg, Helsinki, and Berlin

Abstract

The author examines some small Old Uighur fragments belonging to three collections of Turfan texts that provide parallels to passages of the extant full versions of the Maitrisimit nom bitig, an important Buddhist text on the coming of the future Buddha Maitreya known only from Tocharian and its Old Uighur translation.

Full Text

Peter Zieme Fragments of the Old Uighur Maitrisimit nom bitig in St. Petersburg, Helsinki and Berlin Abstract: The author examines some small Old Uighur fragments belonging to three collections of Turfan texts that provide parallels to passages of the extant full versions of the Maitrisimit nom bitig, an important Buddhist text on the coming of the future Buddha Maitreya known only from Tocharian and its Old Uighur translation. Key words: Turfan, Maitreya, Maitrisimit, Old Uighur literature, Old Uighur texts The Maitrisimit nom bitig is one of the oldest and best known Old Uighur 1 texts. It was translated from Tocharian and occupies a prominent place in Old Uighur literature, as it is not only well translated but appears at the very beginning of Old Uighur literature. Manuscripts that were written during the 10th and 11th centuries were found at different sites of the Turfan oasis. Today they are preserved in several collections of Central Asian texts. The majority of manuscripts from Sängim and Murtuk are housed in the Berlin 2 Collection, others in the Xinjiang Museum of Urumqi. One fragment belongs 3 to the Otani Collection in the Library of the Ryūkoku University in Kyoto. A slightly different manuscript was found in 1959 near Hami (Qomul), in the village of Tömürti. While this manuscript is preserved in the Xinjiang Museum, some 436 small fragments, probably from the same manuscript that came to light only in 2006 near the village of Närnasi, are owned by the 4 Cultural Centre of Qomul. Thus, there are two groups of manuscripts, one from the Turfan oasis with the manuscripts from Sängim and Murtuk, the other consists of the fragments © Peter Zieme, Institute of Turcology, Free University of Berlin 1 A new comparative edition of all Maitrisimit nom bitig fragments is the aim of the project “Gesamtedition der alttürkischen Überlieferungen zur Maitreya-Literatur” at the “Seminar für Turkologie und Zentralasienkunde” of the University of Göttingen, cf. its website. 2 ISRAPIL 2013. 3 ZIEME 2000. 4 ISRAPIL, LAUT, SEMET 2012/2013, 220-221. from Tömürti and Närnasi. While the latter ones may belong to one and the same manuscript, it is still debated how many manuscripts were written in Sängim and Murtuk or collected there. In a recent paper, the authors reported for the first time that fragments of a manuscript from Sängim are also kept in St. Petersburg without giving any 5 details. Besides the pieces labelled as “Maitrisimit”, there are some small fragments in the Central Asian Collection of the Institute of Oriental Manu- 6 scripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences that can probably be regarded as parts of that text. St. Petersburg Fragments Fragment SI 5129 (SI Kr IV 448) belongs to the so-called Krotkov Collec- 7 tion, but there is no record about the exact site of its origin. It is a small part of a large pustaka leaf which might have been as large as those known from the Berlin Collection, probably about 50 cm wide. Whether it can be joined with another fragment of other collections, must be examined in future. The fragment belongs to one of the “hell chapters” comprising large part 8 of the Old Uighur Maitrisimit nom bitig. Among Old Uighur fragments published so far, there is no direct evidence of both sections, but there is at least a probable candidate for the verso side. Text of SI 5129 in transcription (recto) [toyın] (01) [-larnıŋ] köŋülläri ki[rsiz arı]g (02) turug üčün köni ol k[uv]ragka (03) kirür-lär : ötrü ol toyın-lar inčä (04) tep ötüntilär : kim-lär sizlär nä (05) ayıg kılınč kılıpan bo muntag (06) [tamularta ]dip ol 5 ISRAPIL, LAUT, SEMET 2012/2013, 220, fn. 2. Probably the authors thought of the items SI 4a Kr 48 and 49, SI O 40a, b, c for which the catalogue of UMEMURA, SHOGAITO, YOSHIDA, YAKUP 2002, 143, 159 gives the identification as “Maitrisimit”, but this is not the case. 6 I am grateful to the responsible persons of the collections in St. Petersburg, Helsinki and Berlin for the opportunity to work with the Old Uighur texts housed there. 7 N.N. Krotkov (1869-1921), consul in Urumqi, collected 4,070 text fragments. 8 GENG, KLIMKEIT, LAUT 1988b. Pl. 1. Turfan Collection of St. Petersburg. SI 5129 (SI Kr IV 448) recto Pl. 2. Turfan Collection of St. Petersburg. SI 5129 (SI Kr IV 448) verso “As [the monks’] hearts are [spotless and] clean, they enter this true convent(?). Then these monks requested: Who are you? What bad deeds have you done [to be born] in these [hells]. Hea[ring it(?)], they […]” (verso) (01) [ kama]gın anta [ölüp] (02) ulug t[am]u-larda tugdumuz ta[mu] (03) -ta kurtulup amtı bo kičig tam (04) -ularda tugmıš ärür-biz : körüŋ (05) -lär bäglärim(i)z tämirlig örtlüg (06) čomakların [ ] “[Theref]ore, then [we died and] were born in large h[ell]s. Having escaped from the h[ells,] we are now reborn in these small hells. Look! Our lords [beat us on our heads] with flaming maces of iron. […]” The text of the verso side can be compared to the following passage on 9 10 leaf 7 of the 22nd chapter of the Maitrisimit nom bitig. (Pl. 73 = Mainz 975 recto 3-13) ol tıltagın biz titsilarıg boš ıdmıš üčün anta ölüp kamagın tamuda tugdumuz : tamudın ozup bo kičig tamular-da tugmıš ärür biz : : körüŋlär bäglärim(i)z munta tugup örtänür yalar-biz : bahšı boltačılar ačarilar öŋrä yorıyur-biz yaŋ udu titsi boltačı-lar örtlüg yalınlıg ät’özin ört- 11 lüg čomaklar tuta bizni tokıyu inčä tep teyürlär. “Because of this, as we 12 disregarded pupils, we died there and altogether were born in hell. Released from (that) hell, we were born in these small hells. Look, our lords! We were born here, and we are all in flames and burn. As those who were 13 masters, ācāryas, we go ahead, and those who are pupils following the rule hold with their flaming and burning bodies flaming maces and beat us saying thus.” As one finds only the highlighted words of Mainz 975 in the St. Petersburg fragment, it remains doubtful whether this is really a variant of the Maitrisimit text, but the probability is very high as the following table shows. 9 iki otuzunč ülüš yeti ptr. 10 TEKIN 1980, Pl. 73. 11 GENG, KLIMKEIT, LAUT 1988b, 92. 12 It is a special phrase boš ıd- “boş göndermek”, cf. Şen 2010, 62. 13 The phrase yaŋ udu translated by Ş. Tekin “[uns als ihrem] Vorbild folgend” (TEKIN 1980, I, 185) was slightly changed by GENG, KLIMKEIT, LAUT 1988b, 92: “und das Gefolge”. But I think that Tekin’s translation fits better, as it is improbable that udu can be understood as a noun. Mainz 975 SI 5129 anta ölüp [kama]gın anta [ölüp] kamagın tamuda tugdumuz ulug t[am]u-larda tugdumuz tamudın ozup ta[mu]-ta kurtulup bo kičig tamular-da tugmıš ärür biz amtı bo kičig tam-ularda tugmıš ärür-biz körüŋlär bäglärim(i)z körüŋ-lär bäglärim(i)z munta tugup örtänür yalar-biz : bahšı boltačılar ačarilar öŋrä yorıyurbiz yaŋ udu titsi boltačı-lar örtlüg yalınlıg ät’özin (omitted?) ört-lüg čomaklar tuta bizni tokıyu tämirlig örtlüg čomakların The word kılıpan contains the converb suffix -XpAn, which is rare, espe- 14 cially in Buddhist texts. Another example is kör-üpän in a Sängim manu- 15 script. Further, it occurs in the augmented form uk-upanın. The order of recto and verso sides is not clear. But considering that, be- 16 fore leaf 7, a large gap of about 90 lines must be reckoned with, it is very probable that the recto side contains the question of the monks. The editors of the Göttingen project will hopefully find a proof of my assumption. Another fragment of the Krotkov Collection, SI 4433 (SI Kr I 348) is too small to allow its exact placing in the Maitrisimit nom bitig. The handwriting of this fragment is similar to the manuscripts of the Maitrisimit nom bitig, but this fact is not conclusive per se, especially because the verso side contains no text. Even if it is a piece of a scroll, one cannot exclude the possibil- 17 ity of its belonging to this text. While, in the Suttanipāta, Ajita is, like 18 Metteya, the Buddha’s disciple, later Ajita became an epithet of Mai- 19 treya. 14 Cf. TEKIN 1980, I, 231, pl. 106, 5. 15 Cf. TEKIN 1980, I, 71, pl. 23, 13. 16 GENG, KLIMKEIT, LAUT 1988b, 91. 17 See the other case of a Berlin manuscript (U 4963). 18 The fragments of an Old Uighur translation of the Pārāyānasūtra contain the passage from the Suttanipāta in which Ajita and Metteya [Skt. Maitreya] put their questions to the Buddha (see ZIEME 1997). 19 NATTIER 1988, 38, fn. 12. Pl. 3. Turfan Collection of St. Petersburg. SI 4433 (SI Kr I 348) recto This is also the case in the Maitrisimit. Thus both texts are candidates. Since all places where Ajita occurs in the currently known Maitrisimit text fragments have no match to any of the few other words, the question of identifying this small fragment remains unsettled. Text of SI 4433 (SI Kr I 348) in transcription (01) [ ] ačiti [ ] [ ] Ajita [ ] (02) [ ] : beš türl[üg ] [ ] five kin[ds ] (03) [ ] : mn // ’w’[ ] [ ] Pl. 4. Mannerheim Collection of Helsinki. M14E recto Pl. 5. Mannerheim Collection of Helsinki. M14E verso [11] Fragments of the Mannerheim Collection in Helsinki The following two fragments of the Mannerheim Collection in Helsinki resemble the Sängim manuscript of the Maitrisimit. But, due to its meagre text, there is little chance to locate them in the Maitrisimit nom bitig. From the few legible words one can guess that “all monks” will keep “true belief” and venerate the “Noble Maitreya”. Pl. 6. Mannerheim Collection of Helsinki. M14F recto Pl. 7. Mannerheim Collection of Helsinki. M14F verso M14E in transcription (recto) (01) alku dentar [ süz] (02) -ük köŋül ör[it ] (03) tözün maitri [ ] (04) [ ] 21 (verso, margine) pw (01) [ ]-lar-ka (02) [ ö]zümin kutlug (03) [ ] ančulayu sakınıp (04) [ ] M14F in transcription (recto) (01) [ ] (02) [ ] inčä tep tedi [ ] (03) [ ]ym’n yw[ ] (verso) (01) [ ]l[ ] (02) [ ]wy ymä s[ ] (03) [ ] körsär ’[ ] (04) [ ]č [ ] A Fragment of the Turfan Collection in Berlin In the following, I turn to a passage of the first leaf of the 10th chapter of the Tömürti manuscript: anta ken šamnu t(ä)ŋri ötügingä t(ä)ŋri t(ä)ŋrisi šakimun burxan čap(a)li atl(ı)g yemišliktä ölümlüg šamnug utup isig özin ıdıp ikilä üč ay köni adištit üzä tuta y(a)rlıkadukta tözün maitri bodis(a)v(a)t t(ä)ŋri t(ä)ŋrisi burxanta öŋräräk yalŋuk ät’özin ıdalap tužit t(ä)ŋri yerintä tugdı.22 “When the god of gods Śākyamuni Buddha on request of God Māra in the garden called Cāpāla had conquered the Death-Māra and was giving up his life and graciously retained it again for three months through adhishita, the Noble Maitreya Bodhisattva gave up his human body earlier than the god of gods Buddha and was reborn in the Tusita heaven’s 23 land”. 21 In Uighur cursive script. 22 Tömürti ms. X, 1b1-9. 23 It is comparable to the life of Buddha, cf. WALDSCHMIDT 1982, 224: “Darauf antwortete der Erhabene Mara, dem Bösen: ‘Gib dir keine Mühe weiter, o Böser, bald werde ich ins Nirwana eingehen! Nach Verlauf von drei Monaten wird der Pfadvollender von hinnen scheiden.’ So gab der Erhabene im Tschapala-Heiligtum klar und bei vollem Bewußtsein das Dasein auf, und als er so tat, entstand ein gewaltiges, schreckliches, haarsträubendes Erdbeben, und der Donner krachte.” Parts of this phrase occur in fragment U4963 of the Turfan Collection of 24 the Berlin Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. According to the old signature (T), it originates from Toyuq, so far not known as a place where Maitrisimit fragments were found. It is a fragment of a book-scroll. If the identification of this fragment as part of the Maitrisimit nom bitig can be ascertained, it would be the first specimen of a Maitrisimit manuscript that definitely is not from a pustaka. Pl. 8. Turfan Collection of Berlin. U 4963 recto 25 Text of U4963 in transcription 26 (01) […] [o]l k[…]k[ ]l [urunčaq tuta täginti : anta ken] (02) [šmn]u t(ä)ŋri ötügiŋä [šakimun burhan čapali atlg yemišlik-tä] (03) […]-ka ölüm-lüg [šmnug utup] (04) [is]ig özüŋüzni ıd[ıp ikilä üč ay köni adištit] (05) [üz]ä tuta y(a)rlıkadıŋ[ız…] 24 The verso side bears the old entry T II T., while the label on the glass has T II T 503. 25 The verso side remained empty, as is normal with scrolls, later it was used to write down some phrase of a document that contains in its second line the well-known term kuanpo “official linen”. 26 Unclear. The following table may show how the two texts are related to one another. The identical words are highlighted in bold letters. Tömürti ms. X 1b U 4863 anta ken šamnu t(ä)ŋri ötügingä t(ä)ŋri t(ä)ŋrisi šakimun burxan [… šmn]u t(ä)ŋri ötügiŋä […] čap(a)li atl(ı)g yemišliktä ölümlüg šamnug utup -ka ölüm-lüg […] isig özin ıdıp ikilä üč ay köni adištit üzä tuta y(a)rlıkadukta [is]ig özüŋüzni ıd[ıp … üz]ä tuta y(a)rlıkadıŋ[ız …] tözün maitri bodisvt With some hesitation I suggest that U4963 is part of another manuscript of the Maitrsimit nom bitig. The corresponding passages are striking, but still some deviations are unsurpassable. In line 3 of U4963, there is an unexpected suffix -ka. Another problem is the shift from the narrative style (3rd person) in the Tömürti text to the addressing style (you) in U4963. Further Notes on Maitreya In their editions of the 10th and 11th chapters of the Tömürti manuscript, the authors pointed out how essential the descent of Maitreya from the Tuṣita and his birth on earth are; these events present the culminating phases of 27 the whole story. In the following, I discuss some passages of chapter XI. a) In the passage which describes Maitreya’s stay in his mother’s womb we read: ög karnınta olurup kaltı mončuk ärdni kaš atlag agıda urmıš 28 osuglug kalı[n] k[an] kir yamka arıtı yukulmaz “Maitreya sits in the mother’s womb as a pearl jewel wrapped into brocade called kāśi, totally not flawed by thick blood, dirt and dust”. The authors comment on the fourth word of 4b27, which they read ärši: 29 according to the context, this word should denote a kind of fabric. Now, instead of ärši one can read agı. As noted by Mahmūd al-Kāšγarī, this agı 30 has the special meaning “brocade”. What could fit Maitreya better? 27 GENG, KLIMKEIT, LAUT 1987 and 1988a. 28 Tömürti ms. XI.4a25-29. 29 GENG, KLIMKEIT, LAUT 1988a, 343, fn. 40. 30 CLAUSON 1972, 78A. b) At another place, the text has the following passage: k(ä)ntü ät’özin hua 31 yavıšgu töltäklig ag(a)r yıdın tıkmıš äv barkča sakınıp. Two words have to be read, in my view, differently from the authors’ reading: kr = ag(a)r instead of ädgü and tıkmıš instead of tugmıš. Considering these different spellings, one can translate the phrase as follows: “(She) envisages her own body as a house endowed with flower garlands and filled 32 with agaru fragrance”. c) A further sentence will be discussed here: t(ä)ŋrilär eligi hormuzta t(ä)ŋri on ay kö[ni] t(ä)ŋridäm tatag bodis(a)v(a)t morvantın(ı)ŋ [tü] tüpintin 33 ät’öziŋä kigürür “God Indra, the king of the gods, lets heavenly sweetness enter into his body for ten months from the ends of the chain of the bodhisattva”. 34 In their note, the authors point to the legend that Brahmā offers a drop of 35 36 honey to the Bodhisattva from a crystal bowl (vaidūrya-bhājana). In this connection, one should consider Dieter Maue’s explanation of morvant. He writes 37 that this word can be understood as “chain”, not “pearl”, as sometimes assumed. d) In 2009, Jens Peter Laut edited the joint fragments U3798 + Mainz 38 1098. He writes that their text is similar to the first leaf of chapter X of the Tömürti version. I read the text of U3798 + Mainz 1098 somewhat differently: (recto) (01) ///y yüz [ ] (02) ugrınta m[ ] 39 40 (03) [yer]tinčüdä [ärkän] beš kırk (04) [ya]šınta burhan kutın bultı : (05) beš älig yıl burhanlar 41 (06) išin išlädi kırk kırk 42 (07) yıl yašagu-[luk] yašın 31 Tömürti ms. XI.6b22. 32 RÖHRBORN 1977-1998, 62 (see Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 73 (1978), col. 329 (’kr in U3148)). 33 Tömürti ms. XI.4b2-5. 34 GENG, KLIMKEIT, LAUT 1988a, 343, fn. 44. 35 This term is apparently the origin of Old Uighur t(ä)ŋridäm tatag. 36 WINDISCH 1908, 152. 37 MAUE 2009, 297-298. 38 LAUT 2009, 334. 39 The emendation to [ärkän] follows similar patterns. 40 LAUT 2009, 334, reads tört with question mark. But I believe the letters can be clearly read as beš, and one also expects the age of 35 for the moment of enlightenment. 41 The editor has not read the word before kırk. 42 The editor reads yašar, but the parallel text clearly has yašagu-[luk]. 43 (08) kodup isig [özin ] 44 (09) bardı : s/// a/[ ] (verso) (01) [ ] aya[gka] (02) tägim[lig täŋri täŋrisi bur]han isig (03) özin [yavlak] ölümlüg 45 (04) šmnug alaŋurtı üč ay kö[ni] (05) tirigin yašayu y(a)rlıkar : ötrü (06) yag(ı)z yer ämgäkintä täpräyür 46 (07) kamša[yur] buluŋ yıŋak oytan (08) [ ]dın ot 47 (09) [ünüp ] tägzinip karaŋgu The editor gave no translation, here is a trial version: (recto) “[…] hundred […] at the time [of…] […when he was] in the world, he reached the Buddhahood when he was 35 years old. For 45 years, he accomplished the Buddhas’ deed. After 40 (plus) 40 years, he left (the world), [gave up] his life and went […]”. (verso) “In his life, the Honou[rable, the god of gods, the Bud]dha weakened the 48 [evil] death-Māra. For three months he graciously lived his life . Then the brown earth in its suffering trembles and shakes all corners and ends. From caves […] fire arises, […] turns, dark […]”. There are two fragments in the Turfan Collection of Berlin with Sanskrit text on one side and Old Uighur on the other: U7248 and U7249. The Old Uighur side of U7248 has the same text as the joint fragment edited by J.P. Laut. A comparative table may help to clarify this. 43 The author has not read this word, he gave the transliteration ’’SYP. 44 This word was transliterated as [ ]’DY. 45 The author transliterated ’’L[ ]. 46 The author transliterated ’WYT’’. 47 Not sure, perhaps kork[….?]. 48 A difficult passage. Pl. 9. Turfan Collection of Berlin. U 7248 recto U7248 Mainz 1098 + U3798 (01) [ ] korkınčıg akl[ančıg šmnug] (02) [u]tup yegädip : anta [kırk] kırk (03) kırk yıl yašagu-[luk yašın] kırk 07 yıl yašagu-[luk] yašın (04) [t]idip ıtalayu y(a)rlıka[dı] 08 kodup isig [özin berip] 09 bardı (05) [ ]öz-süz tu[ ] (06) [ ] bo [ ] The other fragment is U7249 (T II M 866) with some traces of words 49 only. 49 Between the Sanskrit lines of the other side of U7249, there is an entry in Uighur script and language. Pl. 10. Turfan Collection of Berlin. U 7249 recto (01) [ ] (02) [ ]m[a]z ärsär : a[ ] (03) [ ]lıgın [ ]. The most interesting matter is that we find here the traditional dates of the Buddha’s life, in short: enlightenment at the age of 35, teaching for 45 years, 50 parinirvā¹a at the age of 80. Instead of säkiz on “eighty”, this text has kırk kırk, of course also equal to eighty. I cannot trace such very unusual dou- 51 bling of kırk to denote eighty in any of the Turkic languages. It cannot be ruled out that, in fact, the fragments of section (d) do not belong to the Maitrisimit nom bitig, but are rather parts of another Life of the Buddha. 50 ZIEME 2014, 403, fn. 13. 51 But, of course, I am not sure of my result. Hopefully, other scholars will correct me. References CLAUSON, Gerard 1972: An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish, Oxford: Oxford University Press. GENG Shimin and KLIMKEIT, Hans-Joachim and LAUT, Jens Peter 1987: “Der Herabstieg des Bodhisattva Maitreya vom Tuşita-Götterland zur Erde”. Das 10. Kapitel der HamiHandschrift der Maitrisimit. Altorientalische Forschungen 14 (1987), 350-376. GENG Shimin and KLIMKEIT, Hans-Joachim and LAUT, Jens Peter 1988a: “Das Erscheinen des Bodhisattva”. Das 11. Kapitel der Hami-Handschrift der Maitrisimit. Altorientalische Forschungen 15 (1988), 315-366. GENG Shimin and KLIMKEIT, Hans-Joachim and LAUT, Jens Peter 1988b: Eine buddhistische Apokalypse. Die Höllenkapitel (20-25) und die Schlußkapitel (26-27) der HamiHandschrift der alttürkischen Maitrisimit. Unter Einbeziehung von Manuskriptteilen des Textes aus Säŋim und Murtuk. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. ISRAPIL, Dilara 2013: “The Old Uighur Maitrisimit Preserved in the Xinjiang Museum - a Study of Four Fragments of the Sängim Versions”. Die Erforschung des Tocharischen und die alttürkische Maitrisimit. Symposium anläßlich des 100. Jahrestages der Entzifferung des Tocharischen. Berlin, 3. und 4 April 2008. Ed. by Y. Kasai, A. Yakup, D. DurkinMeisterernst. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 51-66. ISRAPIL, Dilara and LAUT, Jens Peter and SEMET, Ablet 2012/2013: “Neu entdeckte Bruchstücke der Maitrisimit aus Närnasi in Qomul (VR China)”. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher. Neue Folge. 25 (2012/2013), 220-227. LAUT, Jens Peter 2009: “Neues aus der Katalogisierung der Maitrisimit”. Studies in Turkic Philology. Festschrift in Honour of the 80th Birthday of Professor Geng Shimin. Ed. by Zhang Dingjing and Abdurishid Yakup. Beijing: China Minzu University Press, 332-338. MAUE, Dieter 2009: “Einige uigurische Wörter indischen und iranischen Ursprungs”. Exegisti monumenta. Festschrift in Honour of Nicholas Sims-Williams. Ed. by W. Sundermann, A. Hintze, F. de Blois, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 293-311. NATIIER, Jan 1988: “The Meanings of the Maitreya Myth: A Typological Analysis”. Maitreya, the Future Buddha. Ed. by A. Sponberg and H. Hardacre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 23-47. RÖHRBORN, Klaus 1977-1998: Uigurisches Wörterbuch. Sprachmaterial der vorislamischen türkischen Texte aus Zentralasien. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1-6. ŞEN, Serkan 2010: Eski Türkçenin Deyim Varlığı, Samsun: Uğur Ofset Matbaacılık. TEKIN, Şinasi 1980: Maitrisimit nom bitig. Die uigurische Übersetzung eines Werkes der buddhistischen Vaibhāsika-Schule, Tl. I-II, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (Berliner Turfantexte IX). UMEMURA Hiroshi and SHOGAITO Masahiro and YOSHIDA Yutaka and YAKUP Abdurishid 2002: A Provisional Catalogue of the Microfilms of Uighur, Sogdian and Manichaean Manuscripts Belonging to the St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, brought to the Toyo Bunko. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko. WALDSCHMIDT, Ernst 1982: Die Legende vom Leben des Buddha. In Auszügen aus den heiligen Texten. Aus dem Sanskrit, Pali und Chinesischen. Graz: Verlag für Sammler. WINDISCH, Ernst 1908: “Buddha’s Geburt und die Lehre von der Seelenwanderung”. Abhandlungen der Philologisch-historischen Klasse der Königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, no. II. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner. ZIEME, Peter 1997: “Das Pārāyaņasūtra in der alttürkischen Überlieferung”. Bauddhavidyāsudhā-karah. Studies in Honour of Heinz Bechert on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Ed. by P. Kieffer-Pülz, J.-U. Hartmann. Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 743- 759. ZIEME, Peter 2000: “Fragments of the Old Turkic Maitrisimit nom bitig in the Otani Collection”. Nairiku Ajia gengo no kenkyū [Studies on the Inner Asian Languages], 15 (2000), 123-134. ZIEME, Peter 2014: “Collecting of the Buddhist scriptures: Notes on Old Uighur ‘annals’ ”. Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University for the Academic Year 2013, XVII (March 2014). Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology Soka University, 401-422.