Pratītyasamutpāda, the Doctrine of Dependent Origination in Old Uyghur Buddhism: A Study of Printed Texts

Abstract

Pratītyasamutpāda, the doctrine of dependent origination, has a long history in Old Uyghur Buddhism. It was first articulated in the Early Old Uyghur Buddhist texts and is evident in the terminology of Maitrisimit and the Daśakarmapathāvadāna-mālā. The dependent origination is systematically illustrated in at least three Pratītyasamutpāda texts, one text with Brāhmī elements, and the other two in Dunhuang and Turfan prints. The latter two are discussed in detail in this paper. The Dunhuang print provides the most comprehensive demonstration of the Old Uyghur understanding of dependent origination. The structure of the text is largely consistent with the corresponding passages in the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣaśāstra and other Abhidharma texts. The text offers a more comprehensive account than the Chinese text. The Turfan prints, which consist of four fragments, are derived from two distinct prints. Print U 4170 is an Abhidharma text, and it has parallels in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. It seems plausible to suggest that the print bearing the abbreviated titles Pratyitasamutpad in Old Uyghur and Buladi 布剌帝 in Chinese may have been translated from a Chinese text sharing the same or a similar Chinese name. However, as with the Dunhuang print, the Turfan prints may have been produced by the Old Uyghurs from some Abhidharma texts. The Dunhuang print and the Tufan prints are unique within the corpus of known Old Uyghur prints. These texts represent the first known printed examples of the Abhidharma tradition. Moreover, the illustration employed in the Dunhuang print is not known in other printed texts discovered in Dunhuang and Turfan, representing the first instance of such an illustration in printed form.

1. Introduction

Pratītyasamutpāda, the doctrine of dependent origination or dependent arising, represents a fundamental tenet of Buddhism, espoused by all Buddhist schools. The doctrine of dependent origination posits that no entity is self-contained, independent, or possesses a separate and independent nature. This is the condition of being related to something else, resulting in emergence or production. In terms of causal production, all phenomena emerge through the interrelationships of innumerable causes, which are referred to as hetu in Sanskrit and yin 因 in Chinese, and conditions, which are known as pratyaya in Sanskrit and yuan 緣 in Chinese, do not exist independently. In the Old Uyghur translation of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, yin 因 was rendered with tïltaγ and yuan 緣 with basutčï (Shōgaito 2014, pp. 30–31, 25R5-11). If all the causes and conditions did not exist, there could be no effects. It is usually depicted by means of the twelve links of dependent origination or the cycle of dependent origination, which Sopa (1986, p. 1) calls the special theory of the pratītyasamutpāda. The fundamental principles of the pratītyasamutpāda have been elucidated in a multitude of Buddhist sūtras and Abhidharma texts, as well as in a plethora of recent scholarly publications (see Sopa 1986; Hakuyu 1991, p. 61l; Bucknell 1999; Schulman 2008; Jones 2024).

The Old Uyghur term pratityasamutpad, which denotes the doctrine of dependent origination, was initially documented in a printed text from Dunhuang. It is derived from Sanskrit pratītyasamutpāda via the Tocharian A form pratītyasamutpād (see Kudara 1986, p. 158). As a Buddhist term, pratītyasamutpāda was also rendered as avant tïltaγ or tïltaγ, both of which mean ‘reason’ in Old Uyghur. However, the cycle of dependent origination is described in several Old Uyghur texts, including the Maitrisimit and the Daśakarmapathāvadāna-mālā (henceforth referred to as the DKPAM); both date from the early period of Old Uyghur. The terms are also found in the Altun Yaruq Sudur (Gold Light Sūtra), the Old Uyghur translation of the Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra, one of the representative texts from the Middle Old Uyghur period. They are also seen in the Old Uyghur translation of the Saṃyuktāgama-sūtra in Late Old Uyghur (Raschmann 2017). The terms in the Maitrisimit were discussed in Geng et al. (1993b).

Recently, some Old Uyghur texts specifically on the pratītyasamutpāda have been identified. One of them is a Brāhmī-inserted Old Uyghur manuscript Ch/U 8159 (T III 62) currently preserved in the Berlin Turfan collection. It is written on the verso of the Chinese Vinaya text Genben shuo yiqie you bu pinaiye 根本說一切有部毘奈耶 (Takakusu et al. 1924–1932, Taishō, no. 1442, vol. 23), namely the Mūlasarvāstivādavinayavibhaṅga, translated by Yijing 義浄. The Old Uyghur text comprises 28 lines, with 12 lines on the recto and 16 lines on the verso. The edition of the text has been included in Kasai and Ogihara (2017, pp. 67–71). Later, it was published in Kasai (2019, pp. 14–17) in English. Aside from this, some prints of on the pratītyasamutpāda have also been discovered among the findings from Dunhuang and Turfan. The printed fragments of the pratītyasamutpāda can be traced back to at least two distinct print types: (1) a printed folded print book with illustrations and (2) a block-printed folded book with Old Uyghur–Chinese bilingual pagination. All fragments of the former (1) originate from Dunhuang, and thus they are designated as Dunhuang print. In contrast, the latter (2) fragments originate from Turfan, and thus they are designated as Turfan prints.

This paper focuses on the printed Old Uyghur fragments of the pratītyasamutpāda, which represent different Abhidharma texts and are important illustrations of dependent origination, the teaching on the arising from causation in Old Uyghur Buddhism. As Abhidharma texts in print are rare among the Old Uyghur texts, they occupy a special position in understanding Old Uyghur print culture. In the first section of the paper, I provide an overview of the basic information on the fragments of the Dunhuang print, including a re-edition of the fragments in the Tenri University Central Library in Tenri (天理大学附属天理図書館 Tenri Daigaku Fuzoku Tenri Toshokan), Nara, and the edition of a fragment kept in the Princeton University East Asian Library. This is followed by a discussion of the characteristics of the text and key terms. In the second part of the paper, I will present an edition of three new pratītyasamutpāda fragments preserved in the Berlin Turfan Collection, followed by a discussion of their content and textual background. The third part of this study is an examination of the terminology of the pratītyasamutpāda, or dependent origination, as presented in a selection of representative Old Uyghur texts. In the fourth section, I provide a brief overview of the peculiarities of the printed fragments in terms of the printing techniques employed. The final section summarizes the main findings of the paper.

2. The Dunhuang Print

The Dunhuang print comprises eight printed Old Uyghur fragments, currently housed in the Tenri University Central Library in Tenri, Nara. The six fragments have been affixed to a robust, rigid backing sheet (29.1 cm × 38 cm), with two fragments per sheet, in an album. This album bears the signature number 『敦煌遺片』 (180-イ1), along with a collection of Chinese, Tangut and Old Uyghur texts from Dunhuang. The remaining two fragments are affixed to a backing sheet in a separate album, bearing the signature 『西夏回鶻』 (222-イ63), which contains a collection of Tangut and Old Uyghur fragments from Dunhuang. They were brought from Dunhuang by the late Chinese painter Zhang Daqian 張大千 (1899–1983) in 1943 and were given to the Tenri University Central Library in 1960 by Nakayama Shōzen中山正善, the second Shinbashira 真柱 (Central Pillar) of Tenrikyō 天理教, or Tenriism (see Kudara 1986, pp. 178–79).

K. Kudara (1986), who carried out the first research on these fragments, describes them under the provisional title ‘pratītyasamutpāda of every kind.’ His research on the fragments consists of an edition of all eight fragments and a brief discussion of possible source texts. He also includes excellent photographs of all eight Old Uyghur text fragments that were later published in Ryukoku University (2003, pp. 67–68). The photographs of these texts are also kept in Toyo Bunko 東洋文庫 as part of the photographs of the Dunhuang texts preserved at Tenri Central Library. For detailed information on Tangut and Old Uyghur materials in the Tenri University Central Library in Tenri, Nara, see Nishida (1957, 1958, 1962), Kudara (1986) and Arakawa (2012).

All eight fragments of text are well preserved and each page measures approximately 24 × 15 cm. It should be noted, however, that some fragments, for example those pasted onto 『西夏回鶻』 (222-イ63-18) (=Fragment 7 and Fragment 8, Figure 1 and Figure 2), exhibit discrepancies in size. The fragment on the left (=Fragment 7, Figure 1) is 24.6 cm × 15.18 cm, whereas the fragment on the right (=Fragment 8, Figure 2) is 24.8 cm × 15.3 cm.

Figure 1. (=Fragment 7)『西夏回鶻』(222-イ63-18a) © Tenri Central Library.

Figure 1. (=Fragment 7)『西夏回鶻』(222-イ63-18a) © Tenri Central Library.

At the bottom of the left margin of two fragments, Fragment 4 and Fragment 8, we find the paginations Shi十 ‘ten’ and Shiyi十一 ‘eleven’ in Chinese characters. However, the pagination differs from the Chinese paginations observed in the Old Uyghur woodblock-printed texts, which are typically set on the crease and serve as a basis for pasting print sheets in the correct sequence, typically remaining hidden. In both fragments, the Chinese pagination is located on the left margin of the text and is clearly discernible (Kudara 1986, p. 171). Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the print sheets were pasted. As the pagination Shiyi十一 ‘eleven’ is found four pages after the pagination Shi十 ‘ten’, we can assume that each four page section could have been considered a unit. If so, only three pages of the immediately preceding unit have survived, and at least 33 pages from the beginning of the text have been lost, while the last two pages of the unit with the pagination Shiyi十一 are missing.

Figure 2. (=Fragment 8)『西夏回鶻』 (222-イ63-18b) © Tenri Central Library.

Figure 2. (=Fragment 8)『西夏回鶻』 (222-イ63-18b) © Tenri Central Library.

On 『敦煌遺片』 (180-イ1-7) and 『敦煌遺片』 (180-イ1-6), the part above the margin has been cut off, making the page shorter than the original. K. Kudara thinks that they were cut off by Zhang Daqian in the process of pasting them onto the backing sheet. Originally, the space above the top and bottom margins must have been about 4–5 cm (Kudara 1986, pp. 172–71). Seven fragments have eight lines of text on each page. The only exception is Fragment 6, where a space for a line of text between line 4 and line 5 was left unwritten.

A fragment held by the Princeton University East Asian Library (Peald 6a) originates from the same print as the Tenri University Central Library. It is evident that Zhang Daqian did not present the entirety of the text to the Tenri University Central Library (see Bullitt 1989; Chen 2010; Arakawa 2012). The Princeton fragment follows immediately after Fragment 8, namely『西夏回鶻』(222-イ63-18b) in the Tenri University Central Library, and elucidates the fourth and fifth pratītyasamutpāda as enumerated in the Āvasthika-sūtra, namely Sāṃbandhika and *Dharmaśaktivyañjaka. However, the subsequent part of the text is missing. The information provided on the homepage of the International Dunhuang Project (IDP) indicates that the fragment’s height is 24.5 cm and the width is 16.5 cm. This matches the dimensions of the fragments currently held at the Tenri University Library.

2.1. Edition of the Text

2.1.1. Transcription

Fragment 1 (Figure 7) (=『敦煌遺片』 (180-イ1-7a))

Fragment 2 (Figure 8) (=『敦煌遺片』 (180-イ1-7b))

Fragment 3 (Figure 9) (=『敦煌遺片』 (180-イ1-5a))

Fragment 4 (Figure 10) (=『敦煌遺片』 (180-イ1-5b))

Fragment 5 (Figure 11) (=『敦煌遺片』 (180-イ1-6a))

Fragment 6 (Figure 12) (=『敦煌遺片』 (180-イ1-6b))

Fragment 7 (Figure 1) (=『西夏回鶻』(222-イ63-18a))

Fragment 8 (Figure 2) (=『西夏回鶻』(222-イ63-18b))

Fragment 9 (Figure 3, Princeton University East Asian Library, Peald 6a)

Figure 3. (=Fragment 9) Princeton University East Asian Library (Peald 6a) © Princeton East Asian Library.

Figure 3. (=Fragment 9) Princeton University East Asian Library (Peald 6a) © Princeton East Asian Library.

2.1.2. Translation

If someone asks (you), “What is Prākarṣika?” It is the dharma which revolves from the long saṃsara without beginning until it becomes nirvāṇa (=enters nirvāṇa).

If someone asks (you), “What is Kṣanika?” It is called Kṣanika because it is said in the sūtra that if the twelve bhāvaṅgas exist together in one kṣana, or if all the created dharmas exist in one kṣana, it is called Kṣaṇika.

If someone asks (you), “What is Sāṃbandhika?” It is the association of the dependent origination, such as ignorance, one with another. To put it another way, the dependence of the dharma of the previous kṣaṇa on the dharma of the later kṣaṇa is called Sāṃbandhika.

If someone asks (you), “What is *Dharmaśaktivyañjaka?” It is the five aggregates that were the result. If you ask, “Why?” The bhāvaṅgas that was the reason is called dharma, the achievement of the result is called śakti, and the manifestation of the (dharma is vyañjaka …)

2.2. Discussions

The content of the Dunhuang print consists of two parts: (1) the description of various dependent arisings (ll. 1–48), and (2) the introduction of the five types of pratītyasamutpāda, including the explanation of each type of this fivefold pratītyasamutpāda (ll. 49–63).

K. Kudara compares the first part of the text with all possible Chinese Buddhist texts that could have served as a basis for the Old Uyghur text and concludes that the first part of the text is basically the same as chapter 24 of the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣaśāstra, namely Apidamo dapiposha lun 阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論 (Taishō, no. 1545, vol. 27), translated by Xuanzang 玄奘, and chapter 13 of the Abhidharmavibhāṣāśāstra, namely the Apitan pipo sha lun 阿毘曇毘婆沙論 (Taishō, no. 1546, vol. 27), composed by Katyāyanīputra and translated by Buddhavarman and Dao Tai 道泰.

The expression ‘This holy pratītyasamutpāda, the jewel of Dharma, has xx types’ appearing in the beginning of different types of pratītyasamutpāda seems to indicate that the Old Uyghur is closer to the Abhidharmavibhāṣāśāstra than the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣaśāstra, because the latter only has ‘xx dependent arising/dependent origination’, or ‘xx pratītyasamutpāda’ but does not show expression corresponding to ‘the jewel of dharma’. The Abhidharmavibhāṣāśāstra does not have an expression exactly matching this but has 法 fa ‘dharma’ after the name of each pratītyasamutpāda. Moreover, the name of the Mahānidāna-sūtra occurs in the Chinese rendering in the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣaśāstra, whereas in the Abhidharmavibhāṣāśāstra it is found in the transcription, as we find in the Old Uyghur text. Below, I only provide the corresponding passage in the Abhidharmavibhāṣāśāstra (Taishō, no. 1546, vol. 27, 28.0096a14-25) and its English translation. In reconstructing the sūtra names, I follow K. Kudara (1986, pp. 153–51).

復有七種縁起法。所謂無明行識名色六入觸受。諸未來現在五支。應攝在過去現在七支中。現在愛取是過去無明。現在有是過去行。未來生是現在識。未來老死是現在名色六入觸受。

復有八種縁起法。所謂識乃至有。過去未來四支。應攝在現在八支中。過去無明是現在愛取。過去行是現在有。未來生是 現在識。未來老死是現在名色六入觸受。

復有九種縁起法。如摩訶尼陀那經所説。復有十種縁起法。如城喩經所説。復有十一種縁起法。如智種中説。復有十二種縁起法。如餘經處處中説十二有支

Translation:

There are also seven types of Dharma of dependent arising. Ignorance, action, consciousness, name, colour, six-fold sphere (sense contact) and contact. The five links of the future and present are retained in the seven links of the past and present. Present thirst is past ignorance. Present becoming is past action. Future birth is present consciousness. The future old age and death is the present name and colour, the six-fold sphere (sense contact) and contact.

There are again eight types of Dharma of dependent arising. The so-called consciousness, as far as being, the four links of the past and the future to be retained in the eight links of the present. Past ignorance is present craving and grasping. Past action is present being. Future birth is present consciousness. Future old age and death is the present name and colour, the six-fold sphere (sense contact) and contact.

There are nine other types of the dharma of dependent arising, as described in the Mahānidāna-sūtra. And there are ten more types of dharmas of dependent arising, as told in the Nagara-upama-sūtra. There are eleven types of dharmas of dependent arising, as told in the Jñānavastu-sūtra. And there are twelve other types of dharmas of dependent arising, as told in the other sūtras, which tells of twelve links of dependent arising everywhere.

In contrast to the Chinese texts, which verbally illustrate the relationship of the links of the twelve dependent originations of seven and eight types, the Old Uyghur text prefers different colours, blue, yellow, green and red. In the illustration of the nine types of the dependent originations, the text uses only blue and red to illustrate the relationship of feeling to ignorance and desire and the relationship of becoming to action. In the illustration of nine, ten, eleven and twelve types of dependent origination, the Old Uyghur text separates each link with a punctuation mark of four square dots.

In the illustration of nine, ten, eleven and twelve types of dependent origination, the Chinese texts only state the name of the sūtras where the subsequent illustrations are available. The Old Uyghur text also gives the name of the sūtras in Sanskrit at the beginning of the passage. It then gives the specific names of all the links. Amongst the sūtra-names mentioned in the Old Uyghur text, Sanskrit fragments of the Mahānidāna-sūtra have been discovered in the Berlin Turfan collection and in the Hoernle collection. One fragment of the Old Uyghur translation of the Nidāna-sūtra was discovered in the Serindia collection at the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It was identified as a translation of the Yuanqi shengdao jing 緣起聖道經 (Taishō, no. 714, vol. 16) by the late Japanese philologist and linguist Masahiro Shōgaito (2003, pp. 207–12).

The complete text of the Sanskrit Nagaropamasūtra has been published based on the Macartney/Petrovsky manuscript currently kept at the Hoernle collection, the Stein/Pelliot fragments from Dunhuang and the fragments in the Berlin Turfan collection as well as other fragments from Dunhuang and Central Asia in various manuscript collections in Bongard-Levin et al. (1996, pp. 12–131). Presumably, the Macartney/Petrovsky manuscript was obtained in Kucha. The title of the text that occurs in the Macartney/Petrovsky manuscript, written in Tocharian B, reads *nagaropam, which must be the origin of the Old Uyghur title, while in the Sanskrit manuscripts we find the title in the forms Nagaropamasūtraṃ samāptaḥ and Nagaropamasūtraṃ samāpta (Bongard-Levin et al. 1996, p. 22). The discovery of such a huge number of fragments of the text in Dunhuang and various parts of Central Asia clearly indicates that the compiler of the Old Uyghur text might have had various versions of the text at their disposal. The Sanskrit title of this work observed in the Dunhuang print was not merely reconstructed based on the Chinese title Cheng yu jing 城喩經; the titles in Sanskrit and other languages, above all Tocharian B, were also consulted. It should be noted that amongst the texts discovered by P. Pelliot existed some leaves in the poṭhī form written in Brāhmī by the Uyghurs, and among these leaves Bongard-Levin et al. (1996, pp. 14–15) discovered six of the opening part of the Nagaropamasūtra.

The other work title mentioned in the Old Uyghur text, Inyanavasdu Sudur, was correctly reconstructed as the Jñānavastu-sūtra by K. Kudara based on the Old Uyghur form and the Chinese title Zhishi jing 智事經. The same reconstruction was put forth for the Zhishi jing 智事經 in the early 1930s by Loui de La Vellée Poussin (see English translation of de La Vallée Poussin [1923–1931] 1971; Pruden 1988–1990, vol. 2, pp. 511–12, note 152 to chapter 3).

The title of the *Āvasthika-sūtra, which, as K. Kudara states, tells of the twelve dependent origination, is not yet known. However, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya states that ‘according to the School of the Blessed One distinguishes the twelve parts only with respect to the static pratītyasamutpāda’ (see Pruden 1988–1990, vol. 2, p. 405). The static pratītyasamutpāda, as we find it in the second part of the text, is Āvasthika. It is possible that the Old Uyghurs have simply presented it here as a work title, like the previous four, with a clear indication of the source from which this explanation originally came. This is different from the two Chinese texts, the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣaśāstra and the Abhidharmavibhāṣāśāstra, which merely say that ‘it has been told in numerous sūtras or other sūtras’, but do not state its true origin. It seems plausible to suggest that Old Uyghurs may have consulted the subsequent part of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Regrettably, this part of the text is absent from the Old Uyghur translation of the text.

In essence, the Old Uyghur text allocates a single page to the illustration of a singular type of the twelve dependent originations, whereas the two Chinese texts referenced above present a concise sentence for each. Evidently, the Old Uyghur text is more comprehensive than the Chinese text. It seems plausible to suggest that the text was composed with the intention of providing an accessible introduction to the teachings of pratītyasamutpāda for those who may lack a profound understanding of Buddhism.

Some diagrams are known to illustrate the twelve links, for example, in the form of the wheel of continued existence (bhava cakra). Images of the twelve dependent originations are positioned around the rim of the wheel and symbolize the twelve stages of a human being’s life in saṃsāra (Teiser 2006, pp. 8–13; Jones 2024). It remains unclear whether the presentation of the twelve dependent originations observed in the Dunhuang print is a distinctive feature of this Old Uyghur text, or whether it is a convention employed in other sources. Furthermore, it is unclear which rules the Old Uyghurs may have adhered to in their use of colour in this representation. Further investigation of this topic will be reserved for another paper.

Four of the five types of pratītyasamutpāda mentioned in the second part of the Dunhuang print are known from the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. In Chapter 3, we find the following explanation (cited from Pruden 1988–1990, vol. 2, p. 404)

It is also said that pratītyasamutpāda is fourfold: momentary or of one moment (kṣaṇika); prolongued (prākarṣika: extending over many moments of many existences); serial (sāṁbandhika, through the union of causes and effects); and static (āvasthika: embracing twelve states, or periods, of the five skandhas).

However, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya does not mention the fifth. This part is not preserved in the Old Uyghur translation of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. K. Kudara (1986, pp. 155–54) finds passages in the following two texts, where the five-fold pratītyasamutpāda was mentioned:

Chapter 27 of the Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra (Treatise Conforming to the Correct Logic of Abhidharma), namely the Apidamo shun zheng lilun阿毘達磨順正理論 (Taishō, no. 1562, vol. 29) composed by Saṅghabhadra and translated by Xuanzang 玄奘, and

Chapter 14 of the Abhidharmakośaśāstrakārikāvibhāṣya (Treatise Clarifying the Tenets of the Abhidharma Treasury), namely the Apidamozang xianzong lun 阿毘達磨藏顯宗論 (Taishō, no. 1563, vol. 29) composed by Saṅghabhadra, and translated by Xuanzang 玄奘.

The passages in these two texts, as pointed out by K. Kudara (1986, pp. 151–50), are identical, which is why he only cites the passages from the Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra. Indeed, the introductory passage in these two texts is basically identical with the one in Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, and both texts do not explicitly mention five-fold pratītyasamutpāda in the passage K. Kudara cites. They first mention the four-fold pratītyasamutpāda, and then mention Xianfa gongneng 顯法功能as the additional one not mentioned in some other sources. Below, I cite the passage in the original Chinese (Taishō, no. 1562, vol. 29, 0493b22-24) and provide its English translation:

又諸縁起。差別説四。一者刹那。二者遠續。三者連縛。四者分位。有餘復説。顯法功能。

• Translation:

Again, the different dependent arisings: They have fourfold: the first is momentary or of one moment (kṣaṇika), the second is prolongued (prākarṣika), the third is serial (sāṁbandhika), and the fourth is static (āvasthika). Some other sources mention additionally the latent power manifesting the dharma.

The Sanskrit term corresponding to the latent power manifesting the dharma, Xianfa gongneng 顯法功能 in Chinese, is unknown. The Old Uyghur text uses darmašaktidiviyančak, which has been reconstructed as *Dharmaśaktivyañjaka by K. Kudara. After illustrating the difference in efficacy (śakti-bheda), the passage states that all these are the differences in efficacy within the members of the five types of dependent origination, which is Wu zhong yuanqi 五種縁起 in Chinese.

The order of the five-fold dependent origination mentioned in the Old Uyghur text differs from the one in the afore-mentioned two texts. The order of the first four also does not follow the order of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. K. Kudara (1986, p. 151) assumes that if this is Old Uyghur’s own order, āvasthika may have been placed first because it was the correct teaching of Sarvāstivāda. This point is strongly supported by the statements cited in the previous passage from the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (see Pruden 1988–1990, vol. 2, pp. 404–5).

The definition of the āvasthika in the Old Uyghur text also differs from the one we find both in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and the Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya states that ‘Static (āvasthika) pratītyasamutpāda is made up of the twelve states (āvasthā) embracing the five skandhas’ (see Pruden 1988–1990, vol. 2, p. 405), while the Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra uses the definition that ‘āvasthika pratītyasamutpāda is the uninterrupted cycle of the twelve five aggregates in the three lifetimes.’

The definition of the prākarṣika in the Old Uyghur text is precise. It reads, ‘It is the dharma which revolves from the long saṃsara without beginning until it becomes nirvāṇa.’ The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya sees it as the prolonged form of the āvasthika, ‘extending itself over three consecutive existences.’ The definition in the Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra is a little more detailed; it reads, ‘Continuous (prākarṣika) pratītyasamutpāda is the very beginning and the very end. It is the trouble of subsequent and indeterminate sufferings. It is the beginning and the end of the cycle.’

The definition of the kṣaṇika in the Old Uyghur text is basically the same as that given in the Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra, where we find the following explanation:

此中刹那。謂因與果。倶時行世。如契經説。

• Translation:

“The karmic moment (kṣaṇika) is the cause and the effect, and they are in the world at the same time,” as stated in the sūtra.

The explanation of kṣaṇika in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya is philological. First, it explains kṣaṇa as ‘to perish immediately after having acquired its being’, and then states that ‘kṣaṇika is a dharma that has kṣaṇa, as a daṇḍika is one who has a staff (daṇḍa).’ (Pruden 1988–1990, vol. 2, p. 553). Obviously, this clearly differs both from the Old Uyghur text and the Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra.

The explanation of the serial (sāṃbandhika) in the Old Uyghur text is clear cut: ‘It is the association of the dependent arising, such as ignorance, one with another. To put it another way, the dependence of the dharma of the previous kṣaṇa on the dharma of the later kṣaṇa is called Sāṃbandhika.’ In contrast, the description in the Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra is quite abstract: ‘serial (sāṃbandhika) means one with the different types, cause and effect are inseparable, and they are produced in relation to each other, as described in the sūtra.’

The definition of the *Dharmaśaktivyañjaka is brief in both the Old Uyghur text and the Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra. The Old Uyghur text says that the *Dharmaśaktivyañjaka ‘is the five aggregates that were the result.’ And then, one by one, it explains the meaning of each element of the *Dharmaśaktivyañjaka. The Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra says, ‘Karma is the cause of birth, and desire is the cause of an event, as is said in the sūtra.’ The same sentence, in addition to the Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra and Abhidharmakośaśāstrakārikāvibhāṣya, also occurs in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Taishō, no. 1558, vol. 29, 0116a21). Among the three clauses used to illustrate the *Dharmaśaktivyañjaka, the illustration of dharma is clear. However, the meaning of the second clause, tüšüg tarplamaq šakdi ärür, remains somewhat unclear, as the definite meaning of the word tarplamaq is not very clear. Clearly, it comes from the verb tarpla-, which in this context could mean ‘to achieve’. However, the *tarp on which the verb based is, to the best of my knowledge, unknown in the Old Uyghur texts published to date.

3. The Turfan Prints

The Berlin Turfan collection has four fragments of two different prints, namely U 4170 (T II M), U 4406, U 4684 (T II M) and U 4168 (T II M). These can be classified within the Pratītyasamutpāda texts. Except for U 4406, which lacks a find-signature, the remaining three fragments were discovered in Murtuq during the second German Turfan expedition. For a detailed description of the formal characteristics of these fragments, please refer to Yakup (2008, catalogue no. 241) and Yakup (2009, catalogue no. 384–85). However, the identification of the fragments U 4406 and U 4784 as Mahāyāna texts in Yakup (2009) needs to be corrected.

3.1. U 4170

U 4170 has double margins above and below the text, with the outer margin being thicker than the inner one. As the right and left margins of the fragment are missing, it is uncertain whether it also had right and left margins. Unlike the other two fragments, this one has text on both sides. It should be noted, however, that the document lacks any form of pagination. It seems reasonable to assume that the pagination was on the right or left side of the fragment’s verso.

Below are the transcription and translation of U 4170.

• Transcription:

Recto (Figure 4)

Figure 4. U 4170 (T II M), recto © Depositum der BERLIN-BRANDENBURGISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN in der STAATSBIBLIOTHEK ZU BERLIN—Preußischer Kulturbesitz Orientabteilung.

Figure 4. U 4170 (T II M), recto © Depositum der BERLIN-BRANDENBURGISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN in der STAATSBIBLIOTHEK ZU BERLIN—Preußischer Kulturbesitz Orientabteilung.

Verso (Figure 13)

• Transcription:

Together with the caitasika dharmas such as [attention to (object)] within just one kṣana through the causes called coexistence with another (sahabhū-hetu) and concomitance (saṃprayuktaka-hetu), they become causes for each other. Therefore, the caitasika dharmas, including sensation, are (associated) with the mental functions (literally, the heart place) and saṃskartalakṣanas, such as jāti, which are the mental states of the dharmas. [… the condi]tioned dharmas […].

In consequence of this word, as it is set forth in the śastras, all the mahābhutas become causes for the colour upâdāyarūpa through five types. If one asks, “Which they five are?” They are: The first is through production, the second is through providing support, the third is through providing a dwelling, the fourth is through maintenance, and the fifth is through increase. [ ] The five types of words […].

The recto of the text is on the mental states, i.e., caitasika, which is čaytasike in the Old Uyghur text. The Old Uyghur form comes via Tocharian A. caitasike, which originates from Skt. caitasika, which is xinsuo 心所 in Chinese. The mental states are also known as caitasikā dharmāḥ, which is rendered as xinsuo fa 心所法 in Chinese. Although the text is fragmentary, the preserved part of the text is on the first omnipresent mental factors, which are designated as sarvatraga-dharmāḥ in Sanskrit and bianxing xinsuo 遍行心所 in Chinese. These constitute the first category of the caitasika in the Yogācāra list, specifically contact (Skt. sparśa, Chin. chu 觸), focusing of attention (Skt. manaskāra, Chin. zuoyi 作意), sensation (Skt. Vedanā, Chin. shou 受), perception (Skt. saṃjñā, Chin. xiang 想) and volitional impulse (Skt. cetanā, Chin. si 思). The text begins with the lines on attention to (object), whereas the part on contact is missing. Given that only some letters are visible in the term designating attention to (object), it is possible to reconstruct it as köngül kärmäk based on the Old Uyghur version of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, where köngül kärmäk is used to render zuoyi 作意 (see Shōgaito 2014, 34V 39/51). The text then proceeds to describe the lines on sensation, which is täginmäk in Old Uyghur. It concludes with a description of the characteristic marks of the original dharma or original teaching, which is known as svayam or dharma in Sanskrit and benfa 本法 in Chinese. The Old Uyghur term sanskrta lakšanlar stands for saṃskṛta-lakṣaṇāni, of which sanskrta lakšan goes back to Tocharian B saṃskṛtalakṣaṃ, ‘perfect-sign, sign of perfection’ (?), which in turn is derived from the Sanskrit saṃskṛta-lakṣana (Adams 2013, p. 734). The benfa 本法or saṃskṛta-lakṣana encompasses the fourfold classification of phenomena: arising, abiding, changing, and extinction (see Nakamura 1981, p. 80b and p. 531d). In this section, the text makes reference to two terms, birlä boluγma and birlä [qa]tïlma, which correspond to the second and third of the six categories of causes. These are concurrent causes, which are referred to as sahabhū-hetu in Sanskrit and Juyou yin 倶有因 in Chinese, and concomitant causes, which are known as saṃprayuktaka-hetu in Sanskrit and xiangying yin相應因 in Chinese. The two terms diverge slightly from the version known from the Old Uyghur Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, where the terms occur as birlä bolmaq and birlä qatïlmaq tïltaγlar, respectively (see Shōgaito 2014, p. 181, note to 26V51).

We do not find an exact parallel to the recto of the text. The following lines in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Taishō, no. 1558, vol. 29, 32c04-06) may be the basis for the text on the recto (comparable parts are in bold, henceforth):

謂要同依心心所法方得更互爲相應因。此中同言顯所依一。謂若眼識用此刹那眼根爲依相應受等亦即用此眼根爲依。

The verso of the text has parallels in the following texts:

(a)

The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Taishō, no. 1558, vol. 29, 38b08-10);

(b)

The Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra (Taishō, no. 1562, vol. 29, 452a15-453a04);

(c)

The Abhidharmakośaśāstrakārikāvibhāṣya (Taishō, no. 1562, vol. 29, 826a09-826b18);

(d)

The commentary of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Taishō, no. 1822, vol. 41, 580a07-10).

The text in (a) to (c) is essentially identical, whereas (d) demonstrates some differences. Below, I will present only the excerpts from (a) and (d).

論曰。初言大爲大二因者。是諸大種更互相望。但爲倶有同類因義。大於所造能爲五因。何等爲五。謂生依立持養別故。如是五因。但是能作因之差別。從彼起故説爲生因。

(Taishō, no. 1558, vol. 29, 38b08-10)

類大唯有一因。謂同類因。水望於水非倶有因故｣論。大於所造至因之差別。此明大種與造色爲因也。謂有五因。謂生･依･立･持･養。此即於能作因中分出五因。

(Taishō, no. 1822, vol. 41, 580a07-10)

The key term on the verso is upadaya urup öng, which might be rendered as ‘the colour upâdāyarūpa’ (ll. 04-05). It translates here in Chin. As suozao 所造 or zaose 造色, which is also known as suozao se 所造色. All these terms correspond to the Sanskrit term upâdāyarūpa, which refers to derivative matter. In this context, it signifies the expansion of matter or composition of material phenomena from the basic elements. In our text, these elements are the four mahābhutas, or fundamental substances: earth, water, fire and wind. The text states that all mahābhutas function as causes of the derivative matter or expansion of matter, specifically ‘the colour upâdāyarūpa’. The names of five causes, known as pañca hetavaḥ in Sanskrit and wuyin 五因 in Chinese, essentially align with the one mentioned in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, namely producing cause (Skt. jānana, Chin. shengyin 生因), supporting cause (Skt. niśraya, Chin. yiyin 依因), establishing cause (Skt. sthāna, Chin. liyin 立因), maintaining cause (Skt. upastambha, Chin. chiyin 持因) and nourishing cause (Skt. upabṛṃhana, Chin. yangyin 養因), which are represented as in the Old Uyghur text as tuγurmaq (producing or causing to exist), tayaq bolmaq (being support), ornaγ bolmaq (being a dwelling), särgürmäk (maintaining) and üklitmäk (increasing). Of these, only the third, ornaγ bolmaq (being a dwelling), more closely matches better zhuyin 住因 (cause of abiding in the present condition), as observed in the Nirvāṇa-sūtra (see Hakuyu 1991, p. 89b; DDB n.d., entry 五因).

3.2. U 4684

It is estimated that the text on the remaining two fragments, U 4406 and U 4684, was encircled by marginal lines on all four sides. On U 4406, a thick marginal line is observed on the right side, with double marginal lines present below the text. U 4684 also preserves double marginal lines on the left side, in addition to those above and below the text. This is currently the only known example from the block prints of a commentary to the Bodhicaryāvatāra (see Raschmann and Zieme 1985). The style of the text indicates that it was produced in the same printing house as the block prints of the commentary to the Bodhicaryāvatāra.

On the left side of U 4684 (T II M), we find the pagination pratityasamutpad iki yüz bir altmıš ‘Pratītyasamutpāda, 251’, and then in Chinese we find 布剌帝二百五十一下 bu la di er bai wu shi yi xia ‘Pratītyasa-mutpāda, 251, verso’. On the backing sheet of this fragment, we find the Chinese characters 縁起經 and 因縁經; both mean the Pratītyasamutpādavibhaṇga-sūtra or the Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra. This indicates that someone who had access to the fragment paid attention to the fragment. Unfortunately, nothing was published on these fragments until the publication of Yakup (2008), where the fragment in question was described for the first time. Regarding the Yuanqi jing 緣起經 or Yinyuan jing 因緣經, it should be noted that there are several texts with similar or identical titles. For example, we have Beiduo shuxia siwei shier yinyuan jing 貝多樹下思惟十二因縁經 (Taishō, no. 713, vol. 16) and Yuanqi shengdao jing 縁起聖道經 (Taishō, no. 714, vol. 16), both known as the Nidāna Sūtra, as well as the Yuanqi jing 縁起經 (Taishō, no. 124, vol. 2), namely the *Vikalpa-pratītya-samutpāda-dharmottara-praveśa sūtra or *Ādiviśeṣavibhāga-sūtra, translated by Xuanzang 玄奘. The latter text is also known as the Fenbie yuanqi jing 分别縁起經 (Distinguishing the origin of things), namely the *Ādiviśeṣavibhāga-sūtra. However, none of these texts contain an identical set of parts to those found in the Old Uyghur text. Given the fragmentary nature of the Old Uyghur text, it has not yet been established whether it is a translation from a Chinese text or a compilation by Old Uyghur Buddhists based on various Abhidharma texts, particularly the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya.

The Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra is included as chapter three in the 16th sūtra of the Za ahan jing 雜阿含經, namely the Saṃyuktāgama, while the Sanskrit version is included in the Nidānasaṃyukta. Apart from this, the text is known as an independent text in Chinese and Tibetan (see Chung 2017, p. 109). The Turfan prints indicate that the Pratītyasamutpāda existed as an independent text in a distinct form in Old Uyghur, thereby demonstrating a disparate nature when compared to the independent versions of the Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra in Chinese and Tibetan.

Below are the transcription and translation of U 4684 (Figure 5).

• Transcription:

• Transcription:

Therefore, the god of gods, Buddha, the One Whose Name Is Exalted, having seen the benefit of the extremely high vaineyekas (=disciples), has deigned to name these twelve links of dependent arising (dvādaśa-bhavâṅga) by two kinds of names, i.e., one arising from the cause (pratītya-samutpāda), and one born from causes (utpādanatas; hetumattva).

• Commentary:

iki y(e)girmi bavanglar: twelve links of dependent arising; translated in Chin. as shier you zhi 十二有支, Skt. dvādaśa-bhavâṅga. The term occurs in the Dunhuang print, ll. 61–62. Kasai and Ogihara (2017, p. 70, Ad17-18) has iki y(e)girmi türlüg [pratītya]samutpād tegmä tïltaγ, which could be translated as ‘the twelve reasons called pratītya-samutpāda’. It is noteworthy that the Brāhmī spelling of the word for pratītya-samutpāda bears a striking resemblance to the form observed in the Old Uyghur prints.

tïltagtïn turuγma: one arising from the cause or dependent arising. stands for Skt. pratītya-samutpāda, Chin. yuanqi 緣起; both mean independent arising, or interdependent arising. For 緣起, see Nakamura (1981, pp. 118c–199a).

tïltaγtïn tuγmïš: one born from the cause, or one born/produced from the causes. Stands for Skt. utpādanatas or hetumattva, Chin. yuansheng 緣生; means produced by causal conditions, interdependently arisen. For detail, see Nakamura (1981, p. 120a).

We find similar lines in the 14th sūtra of the Nidānasaṃyukta, where we read the following (quoted from Chung and Fukita 2020, p. 147):

pratītyasamutpādaṃ vo bhikşavo deśayişye: pratītyasamutpānnāṃś ca dharmāṃ tāṃ śṛṇuta sadhu ca şuşṭhu ca manasikuruta bhāşişye:

爾時世尊。告諸比丘。我今當説因縁法及縁生法。

(Taishō, no. 99, vol. 2, 84b13-14)

As the other fragment of the same manuscript has parallels in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and other Abhidharma texts, we assume the passage may also refer to a similar passage in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya or other Abhidharma texts. In the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, the following two passages come somewhat close:

(a)

十二支如前已辯。謂前後中際爲遣他愚惑。如世尊告諸＊苾芻言。吾當爲汝説縁起法縁已生法。此二何異。且本論文此二無別。(Taishō, no. 1558, vol. 29, 49c17-18)

(b)

論曰。諸支因分説名縁起由此爲縁能起果故。諸支果分説縁已生。由此皆從縁所生故。(Taishō, no. 1558, vol. 29, 49c27-29)

3.3. U 4406

The heavily damaged fragment U 4406 has the pagination on the right side, where we find [] üč []r yetmiš 布剌帝三百六十一上, of which the Chinese part means ‘Pratītyasamutpāda, 361, recto’. A reconstruction of the Old Uyghur part based on the Chinese part and the pagination of U 4684 may be proposed as [Pratityasamutpad] üč [yüz bi]r yetmiš, which might be translated as ‘‘Pratītyasamutpāda, 361’’. In contrast to the Chinese pagination, the Old Uyghur pagination does not include any information regarding the side of the text to which it belongs. However, an analysis of the two fragments suggests that the pagination is arranged on the right side of the recto and on the left side of the verso. It is regrettable that only the recto of U 4406 and the verso of U 4684 have survived.

It is not clear why the pratītyasamutpāda is abbreviated as 布剌帝 Buladi in this text. Surely, it goes back to the Chinese transcription of the pratītyasamutpāda. So far, we only know 钵剌底帝夜参牟播头 Boladiye canmuchatou as it is the phonetic presentation, and the abbreviation on the pagination seems to come from another transcription in which 布剌 bula is used to transcribe Skt. pra instead of 钵剌 bola. The pagination clearly indicates that the text had existed in at least more than 360 folios.

The only complete word that has survived on U 4406 (Figure 6) is the one on line 2, which is öngi, meaning ‘other’. A reconstruction of the word on line 3 would be [är]tmädük, which can be interpreted as ‘not exceeding’. On line 3, only the remaining three letters are visible (see Yakup (2009, catalogue no. 384)).

3.4. U 4168

On the verso of U 4168 there is a small fragment of a block print with two lines of Uyghur text (only traces recognizable) and a remnant of Chinese pagination. The pagination reads [布]剌帝八十三上 [Bu]ladi bashisan shang, which could be rendered as ‘Pratītyasamutpāda, 83, recto’. Prior to the Chinese pagination, it can be reasonably assumed that the fragment was originally paginated in Old Uyghur, although this pagination is no longer extant. In addition to the pagination, the marginal lines on the right side and below show the clear relationship between this fragment and U 4006 and U 4684. Only one letter, <y>, is visible at the end of the first line, and a single <’> is visible at the end of the second line.

The bilingual pagination in Chinese and Uyghur and the double margins on all four sides are unusual features in ancient Uyghur printed material. However, this format seems to be standard in Abhidharma texts. This hypothesis needs to be confirmed, but it is plausible that Ot. Ry. 5284 from the Ōtani collection in Kyoto, which is held in the Omiya Library of Ryukoku University, may belong to this group of texts. A discussion of the fragments in the Ōtani collection will be reserved for another paper.

4. Terminology

The Old Uyghur terms of the twelve dependent originations are known first through a fragment of the Maitrisimit which was obtained in Sängim in the Turfan oasis during the second German Turfan expedition and was first edited by F.W.K. Müller in Uigurica II (Müller 1911, pp. 11–14). The fragment has the shelf number U 3650 and was recently joined with U 3782n by Jens Peter Laut and Jens Wilkens (2017, pp. 137–38, Catalogue No. 94). Based on the fragment, F.W.K. Müller identified Old Uyghur terms with Sanskrit and Chinese parallels and pointed out that they closely match the Chinese terms but not the Sanskrit, especially the terms for action, name and form, six sense organs, sensation and desire. As the text also exists in Tocharian, he raised the question whether the terms showing clear divergences from Sanskrit but not from Chinese were only produced after Central Asian transmissions (Müller 1911, pp. 13–14). Later, the fragment was re-edited partly by Masahiro Shōgaito (2003, pp. 207–8) because of its close connection to some lines of a fragment of the Nidāna-sūtra, namely SI 2Kr.1 in the Serindia collection at St. Petersburg. The joined fragment (U 3650 + U 3782n) in the Berlin Turfan collection was identified as folio 9 of the fifteenth chapter of the Maitrisimit (Laut and Wilkens 2017, p. 138). Below (

Table 1. Terms for the twelve dependent originations in the Sängim manuscript of the Maitrisimit.

Order	Maitrisimit	Chinese	Sanskrit	English
1	biligsiz bilig ‘ignorance‘	無明	avidyā	ignorance
2	tavranmaq ‘movement’	行	saṃskāra	action intentions
3	bilig köngül ‘knowledge and mind’	識	vijñāna	consciousness
4	at öng ‘name and colour’	名色	nāmarūpa	name and form
5	altï qačïγ orunlar ‘six sense organs’	六處	ṣaḍāyatana	the six-fold sphere of sense contact
6	bürtmäk ‘touching’	觸	sparśa	contact
7	täginmäk ‘feeling’	受	vedanā	sensation
8	az alm(ï)r ‘desire and lust’, az qïlïnč ‘craving action’, az bilig ‘thirst’	愛	tṛṣṇā	thirst
9	tutyaqlanmaq ‘getting infested’	取	upādāna	grasping
10	qïlïnč ‘action’	有	bhava	becoming
11	tuγmaq ‘giving birth, birth’	生	jāti	birth
12	qarïmaq ölmäk ‘ageing and dying’	老死	jarā-maraṇa	old age and death (impermanence)

) is the list of terms observed in the Sängim manuscript of the Maitrisimit (the list slightly differs from the one in Müller (1911, p. 14); we offer a word-for-word English translation. The English translation of the Chinese and Sanskrit terms is basically taken from Jones (2024), the Hakuyu (1991) and DDB (n.d.)):

• The text has a parallel in the Qomul (Hami) version of the Maitrisimit. Folios 6–9 of the Qomul (Hami) version of the text illustrate the pratītyasamutpāda (Geng et al. 1993a, pp. 193–94; Laut 1994, pp. 92–94). However, the Qomul version of the text mentions only ten nidānas or causes: the terms for the first and second, namely ignorance and action intentions, do not occur. The scholars who edited the Qomul version of the text identifies them with the list of nidānas observed in the Central Asian Sanskrit work Mahāvadāna-sūtra (Geng et al. 1993b, pp. 369–70). They write the following (I cite the text first in the original German and then in English translation):

Mit Geigner und Waldschmidt ist davon auszugehen, dass die 10gliedrige Nidāna-Reihe altertümlicher als die 12gliedrige ist, und die Maitrisimit hat diesen Archaismus in die atü. buddhistische Literatur tradiert. Der uigurische Text weist jedoch in den Reihen “rückwärts (negativ)” und “vorwärts (negativ)” (s. oben!) die Bestandteile saṃskāra und avidyā auf. Diese beiden Glieder werden im Mahāpadānasuttanta nicht erwähnt, erscheinen jedoch im Strophenteil des Mahāvadānasūtra 12: Dies ist ein weiterer Hinweis auf eine gemeinsame Überlieferungskette dieses Sūtra und unseres atü. Textes, doch erst eingehende Textvergleiche, auch unter Berücksichtigung chin. Parallelen zum Mahāvadānasūtra und vor allem unter Hinzuziehung des tocharischen Maitreyasamitinātaka, werden hier nähere Aufschlüsse bringen.

• English translation:

With Geigner and Waldschmidt, it can be assumed that the 10-membered nidāna series is more ancient than the 12-membered series, and the Maitrisimit has passed this archaism on to the Uyghur Buddhist literature. However, the Uyghur text shows in the rows “backwards (negative)” and “forwards (negative)” (see above!) the components saṃskāra and avidyā. These two elements are not mentioned in the Mahāpadānasūtra but appear in the stanzaic part of Mahāvadānasūtra 12: This is a further indication of a common chain of transmission of this sūtra and our Old Turkish text, but only detailed textual comparisons, also considering Chinese parallels to the Mahāpadänasuttanta and, above all, by consulting the Tocharian Maitreyasamitinātaka, will shed more light on this.

As Geng et al. (1993a) observed, the two terms, ‘ignorance’ and ‘action’, which pertain to a past existence, were omitted from the text in the forward positive order. In lieu of an explicit reference to the past existence, the text merely mentions the effects of this past existence (3–7), the causes of a future existence (8–10) and a future existence (11–12). This is consistent with the two-part division of the pratītyasamutpāda, as outlined in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (see Pruden 1988–1990, vol. 2, p. 402). This is the standard formula, as represented in the Nagaropamasutra and as stated in the Dunhuang print.

The Sanskrit fragments of the Mahāvadānasūtra discovered in Northern Turkestan were first edited by Ernst Waldschmidt in 1953. The text was recently republished in a revised edition by Takamichi Fukita (2003, pp. 126–42). As T. Fukita (2003, p. 126, fn. 2) states, this sūtra presents ‘a dependent origination formula that has a tenfold origination (pravṛtti) process and a twelvefold extinction (nirvṛtti) process which is the same as the Nagaropamasūtra from the Saṃyuktāgama’, which has parallels and translations in Chinese. For the comparable Sanskrit passages in the Mahāvadānasūtra, see Waldschmidt (1953, pp. 137–45) and Fukita (2003, pp. 126–36).

An examination of the Qomul version of the Maitrisimit (folio 9, ll. 6–19) shows that it corresponds to parts of I.14 and I.15 of the Central Asian version of the Nagaropamasūtra. In contrast, the verso comprises parts of I.21 to I.25 (selectively) and from I.26 to I.27 of the same Sanskrit text (Bongard-Levin et al. 1996, pp. 78–79). The relevant passages are presented below (

Table 2. Parallel passages in the Qomul manuscript of the Maitrisimit and the Nagaropamasūtra.

The Qomul Manuscript of the Matrisimit, Folio 9, Recto	The Sanskrit Parallel Passage from the Nagaropamasūtra (Taken from Bongard-Levin et al. 1996: p. 78, I.14–I.15)
06 [ančulayu ymä bilig kön]gül at	nāmarūpre sati vijñānaṃ bhavati
07 [öng birlä bir ikintiškä] avant	nāmarūpapratyayaṃ ca punar vijñānaṃ …
08 [tïltaγ tüš tam bo]lur .. antaγ	yad uta nāmarūpra tyayaṃ vijñānaṃ
09 [türlüg bilig köngü]1 tïltaγïnta	vijñānanapratyayaṃ
10 at öng bolur .. at öng tïlt-	nāmarūpaṃ nāmarūpapratyayaṃ
11 [aγïn]ta altï qačaγ orunlar bolurlar	ṣaḍāyatanaṃ
12 [a]ltï qačaγ tïltaγïnta bürtmäk	ṣaḍāyatanapratyayaḥ sparśaḥ
13 [bo]lur .. bürtmäk tïltaγïnta tägin-	sparśapratyayā vedāna
14 [mäk] bolur .. täginmäk tïltaγïnta az	vedānapratyayā tṛṣṇā
15 [qïlïnč] bolur .. az qïlïnč tïltaγïnta	tṛṣṇāpratyayam
16 [tutuny]aqlanmaq bolur .. tutunyaq tïlta-	upādā(na)m (u)pādānapratyayo
17 [γ]ïnta qïlïnč bolur .. qïlïnč tïltaγïn-	(bh)ava bhavapratyayā
18 [ta tuγm]aq bolur .. tuγmaq tïltaγïnta	jātir jātirpratyayaṃ
19 [qarïmaq ölmäk bo]lur .. busuš qadγu ämgäk	jāramaraṇaṃ śokaparidevaduḥkhadaurmanasyopāyāsāḥ
20 [tolγaq sïqïγ tangï]γ uluγ ämgäklig	saṃ(bha) vaṃty evam asya kevalasya mahato duḥkhaskandhasya samudayo bhavati.
Translation:
Translation of the Old Uyghur Passage:	Translation of the Sanskrit Text (Quoted from Bongard-Levin et al. 1996, p. 92):
In this manner, once more, (the relationship) between knowledge, mind, name and form (can be described) as a cause and effect (relationship). In this way, knowledge, mind, name and form will be the cause and result of one another. The following sequence of events will then occurs: knowledge will give rise to the mind, which in turn will give rise to name and form. The six sense organs will then come into being because of name and form. Touching will follow the emergence of the six sense organs. Feeling will then result from touching. Desire and action will follow the emergence of feeling. Getting infested will then occur because of desired action. Action will follow the emergence of getting infested. Birth will then result from action. Ageing and dying will follow birth.	When there are name and form there is consciousness. Consciousness, moreover, is caused by name and form … Conditioned by name and form is consciousness, conditioned by consciousness are name and form, conditioned by name and form are the six sense-fields, conditioned by the six sense-fields is contact, conditioned by contact is sensation, conditioned by sensation is craving, conditioned by craving is grasping, conditioned by grasping is coming into being, conditioned by coming into being is birth, conditioned by birth are old age and death, by which grief, sorrow, suffering, lamentation, and despair are produced.
The Qomul Manuscript of the Matrisimit, Folio 9, Verso	The Sanskrit Parallel Passages from the Nagaropamasūtra (Taken from Bongard-Levin et al. 1996, p. 79)
01 bürtmäk [bolmasar täginmäk bolmaz ..]	(I.21–I.25) sparśe asati vedanā na bhavat(i sparśa)nirodhād vedanānirodhāḥ …
02 altï qačïγ orunlar bolmasar bürt]-	ṣaḍāyatane asati sparśo na bhavati …
03 mäk bol[maz .. at öng bolmasar]	nāmarūpe asati
04 altï qačïγ [orunlar bolmazlar .. bilig]	ṣa(ḍāyatana)ṃ na bhavati …vijñānane
05 köngül bo[lmasar at öng bolmaz ..]	asati (nāmarūpaṃ na) bhavati…
06 tavranmaq [bolmasar bilig köngül bolmaz	saṃskāreṣv asa(tsu) vijñānanaṃ na bhavati …
07 biligsiz [bilig bolmasar tavranmaq]	(I.26–I.27) avi(dyāyā)m a(s)atyāṃ saṃskārā na
08 bolmaz .. b[ili]gsiz b[ilig öčsär tavr-	bhavaṃ(ti) avidyānirodhāt
09 anmaq öčär .. t[avranmaq öčsär bilig]	saṃskāranirodhaḥ saṃskāranirodhad
10 köngül öčär .. bi[lig] kö[ngül] öčs[är]	vijñānananirodhaḥ vijñānananirodhān
11 at öng öčär .. at öng öčsär	nāma(rūpani)rodhaḥ nāmarūpanirodhāt
12 altï qačïγ orunlar öčär .. altï q[ačïγ]	ṣaḍāyatananirodhaḥ ṣaḍāyatananirodhād
13 orunlar öčsär bürtmäk öčär amrï-	ṣaḍāyatananirodhāt sparśanirodhaḥ sparśanirodhād
14 lur .. bürtmäk öčsär täginmäk [öčär]	vedanā nirodha
15 täginmäk öčsär amrïlsar az bil[ig]	ve(danāni)rodhāt
16 öčär amrïlur .. az bilig öčsär [amrïl]-	tṛṣṇānirodhāḥ tṛṣṇānirodhhād
17 sar tutunyaq öčär .. amrïlur .. tutunya[q]	upādānanirodhaḥ
18 öčsär amrïlsar qïlïnč ö[č]är amrïl[ur ..]	upādānanirodhād bhavanirodhaḥ
19 qïlïnč öčsär amrilsar [tuγmaq öčär]	bhavanirodhāj jātinirodhaḥ jāti
20 amrïlur .. tuγmaq öč[sär amrïlsar]	(nirodhā)j jāramaraṇanirodhaḥ
	śokaparidevaduḥkhadaurmanasyopāyāsā nirudyaṃty evam asya kevalasya mahato (duḥkha)s(ka)ndhasya nirodha bhavati.
Translation:
Translation of the Old Uyghur Text:	Translation of the Sanskrit Text (Quoted from Bongard-Levin et al. 1996, pp. 93–94):
If there is no touching, there is no feeling. If there is no feeling, there is no six sense organs. If there is no feeling, there is no six sense organs. If there is no name and form, there is no six sense organs. If there is no knowledge mind, there is no name and form. If there is no action, there is no knowledge mind. If ignorance is extinguished, there is no action. If action ceases and disappears, the knowledge mind will cease. If the knowledge mind ceases, the name and form will cease. If the name and form cease, the six sense organs will cease. If the six sense organs cease, contact will cease. If contact ceases, feeling will cease. If feeling ceases, desire will cease. If knowledge extinguishes, desire will cease and die out. If desire ceases, grasping will cease and disappear. If grasping ceases, action will cease and disappear. If action ceases, birth will cease and die out. If birth ceases and dies out, …	From the cessation of ignorance follows the cessation of (karmic) predispositions. From cessation of (karmic) predispositions of consciousness; from the cessation of consciousness follows the cessation of name and form; from the cessation of name and form follows the cessation of the six sense-fields; from the cessation of the six sense-fields follows the cessation of contact; from the cessation of contact follows the cessation of sensation; from the cessation of sensation; from the cessation of sensation follows the cessation of caving; from the cessation of craving follows the cessation of grasping; from the cessation of grasping follows the cessation of coming into being; from the cessation of coming into being follows the cessation of birth; from the cessation of birth follows the cessation of old age and death, whereby grief, sorrow, suffering, lamentation, and despair are destroyed.

) in parallel (the transcription of the Old Uyghur text is largely consistent with the one presented by Geng et al. (1993a)):

This demonstrates that the Sängim manuscript of the Maitrimit followed the standard version of the pratītyasamutpāda doctrine as we find it in the Pratītyasamutpādavibhaṇga-sūtra (for further details, see Bucknell 1999; Chung 2017). In contrast, the Qomul version follows the formula of the Central Asian version of the Nagaropamasūtra in the forward positive order, although in the backward negative order the text reflects the standard version. It seems reasonable to posit that this was also the case with the Tocharian recension.

The several terms observed in the Sängim manuscript of the Maitrisimit, e.g., biligsiz bilig, the term for ignorance; at öng, the term for name and form; bürtmäk and täginmäk, terms for contact and sensation; as well as the terms for birth, old age and death, namely tuγmaq, qarïmaq and ölmäk, can be found in texts from all periods of Old Uyghur. We find them in the DKPAM (see Wilkens 2016, vol. 2, pp. 10405–18). These terms appear in the same form in the pratītyasamutpāda text written in Brāhmī-Uyghur scripts (see Kasai and Ogihara 2017, pp. 68–70). They were established as the standard term in the Dunhuang print, which is re-edited in this paper. The Old Uyghur translation of the Saṃyuktāgama (see Raschmann 2017, p. 144) also shows most of these terms. However, it is noteworthy that it uses biligsizlig for ignorance, a term not seen in other Old Uyghur texts.

The term for action intentions, tavranmaq, meaning ‘moving’ or ‘movement’, found in the Sängim version of the Maitrisimit, is not seen in other texts. Even in the Qomul version of the text, we find qïlïnč for action intentions. It is noteworthy that the term appears in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Shōgaito 2014, p. 276), where it is documented in the form tavranmaqlar, with the plural suffix. This seems to be used to indicate a particular category. Additionally, the term tavranmaq is employed in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā-Tattvārthā (Shōgaito 2008, 656b) to translate the concept of 行 (xing), which is equated with the Sanskrit term saṃskāra.

The term for consciousness, bilig köngül, which could be rendered word-for-word as ‘knowledge mind’ or ‘knowledge and mind’, could be considered a hendiadys in this context. This term is specific to the Maitrisimit. The DKPAM has simply köngül, ‘mind’, which is not observed in other texts. The Altun Yaruq Sudur (Gold Light Sūtra) has tuymaq, which can be translated as ‘awareness’ (Kaya 2021, p. 399, ll. 9821–25). However, this term is not used in other texts when presenting the pratītyasamutpāda formula.

The term for the six sense organs is altï qačïγ orunlar in the Sängim manuscript of the Maitrisimit. It occurs in the abbreviated form alt[ï] qačïγ ‘six senses’ in the DKPAM, while other texts use altï orun ‘six places (of sense contact)’.

The Sängim version of the Maitrisimit has three different terms for thirst, az alm(ï)r ‘desire and lust’; az qïlïnč ‘craving for action’; and az bilig ‘craving for knowledge’. The first occurs in the Old Uyghur Buddhist Catechism written in the Tibetan script as part of the term az almïr köngül, ‘overwhelming desire’ or ‘attachment to desires’ (Moriyasu 1985, ll. 8, 13, 38), where it stands for desire: Chin. 貪欲 tanyu, Skt. kāma-cchanda or kāma-rāga. The introduction of the term az alm(ï)r reflects the Old Uyghur attempt to formulate a term for thirst or greed based on Old Uyghur materials, apart from az, which is of Iranian origin (Erdal 1991, p. 389; Röhrborn 2017, p. 103). The Maitrisimit also has azlanmaq for greed, which also occurs in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Shōgaito 2014), whereas other texts, including the DKPAM, simply have az.

The Sängim version of the Maitrisimit uses tutyaqlanmaq, ‘to be caught’, ‘to be befallen by upādāna’ (Erdal 1991, p. 515) or ‘to be infested for grasping’, while the other texts mostly have tutyaq, ‘grasped one’ or ‘grasping’. The base of tutunyaq (also tut(un)yaq) and tut(un)yaqlanmaq, mentioned in Geng et al. (1993b, p. 370), is not tut-, ‘to grasp’, as in the case of tutyaq, but tutun-, ‘to hold oneself on something’ or ‘to be held or caught’ (Erdal 1991, p. 621). An interesting term for grasping is alγuluq, ‘should be gotten’, seen in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Shōgaito 2014, p. 40, 26R34). Note that in this word {-GUlUK} does not have the meaning of necessity, but the word is reserved in this text for grasping.

The use of qïlïnč, ‘action’ or ‘deed’, for becoming (Chin. you 有, Skt. bhava) in the Sängim version of the Maitrisimit is interesting. It is used in other texts to render action intentions (Chin. xing 行, Skt. saṃskāra), which is also true of the Qomul version of the Maitrisimit. The common term for becoming in other texts is bolmaq. Table 2 shows the terms for the twelve dependent originations taken from the texts other than the Sängim manuscript of the Maitrisimit. For a list of the Qomul version of the text in comparison with the Sängim manuscript, see Geng et al. (1993b, p. 370).

In general, most of the terms for the twelve dependent originations established in the Early Old Uyghur, as represented by the Maitrisimit and the DKPAM, have been used continuously in other texts (see

Table 3. Old Uyghur terms for the twelve dependent originations.

Prints	DKPAM	AY	Kośa-bhāṣya	Br-Uyg.	Skt.	Chin.
biligsiz bilig	biligs(i)z b[i]lig	biligsiz bilig	-	biligsi[z bili]g	avidyā	無明
qïlïnč	q[ïlïnč]	qïlïnč	tavranmaqlar	qïlmaq	saṃskāra	行
bilgä bilig	köngül	tuymaq	bilig	bilig	vijñāna	識
aṭ öng	at öng	aṭ öng	at öng	at öng	nāmarūpa	名色
altï orun	alt[ï] qačïγ	altï orun	-	altï orun	ṣaḍāyatana	六處
büritmäk	bürtmäk	büritmäk	bürtüg	büritmäk	sparśa	觸
täginmäk	täginmäk	täginmäk	täginmäk	täginmäk	vedanā	受
az	az	az	azlanmaq	azlar	tṛṣṇā	愛
tutyaq	tutyaq	tutyaq	alγuluq	tutyaqlar	upādāna	取
bolmaq	bolmaq	bolmaq	bolmaq	bolmaq	bhava	有
tuγmaq	tuγmaq	tuγmaq	tuγum	tuγmaq	jāti	生
qarïmaq ölmäk	qarïmaq ölmäk	qarïmaq ölmäk	-	qarïmaq ölmäk	jarā-maraṇa	老死

Prints: the prints which were edited in this paper; DKPAM = Daśakarmapathāvadāna-mālā (Wilkens 2016); AYS = Altun Yaruq Sudur (Kaya 2021); Kośa-bhāṣya = Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Shōgaito 2014); Br-Uyg. = Old Uyghur text with Brahmi elements (Kasai and Ogihara 2017).

). The forms in the DKPAM and Altun Yaruq Sudur appear to represent standards, and the terms observed in other texts are essentially identical to them, including the terms used in the prints, which are thought to represent the ‘standardized’ forms as the text. In particular, the Dunhuang print is used to instruct Old Uyghur Buddhists, and presumably non-Buddhist Uyghurs as well, in one of the fundamental Buddhist doctrines, Pratītyasamutpāda, which is referred to in the text as sacred dharma or sacred doctrine. Interestingly, the Old Uyghur Abhidharma texts show a certain similarity to the Sängim manuscript of the Maitrisimit regarding the terms used to describe action intentions and thirst. This may indicate that the source of these terms served as a basis for the Old Uyghur translation of subsequent terms and therefore warrants further investigation.

5. Notes on the Printing Technique

The most striking formal feature of the Dunhuang text is that in the first three fragments, the words, more precisely the names of twelve dependent originations in the upper part, are connected to the words by lines of different colours, or more precisely the names of dependent arisings, in the lower part of the pages. For example, in Fragment 1 (Figure 7) the word biligsiz bilig, ‘ignorance’ (=Skt. avidyā), is connected by a blue line first to az, ‘thirst’ (=Skt. tṛṣṇā), and then to tutyaq, ‘grasping’ (=Skt. upādāna); qïlïnč, ‘action’ (=Skt. saṃskāra), is connected by a yellow line to bolmaq, ‘becoming’ (=Skt. bhava); bilig, ‘wisdom’ or ‘consciousness’ (=Skt. vijñāna), is connected by a green line to tuγmaq, ‘birth’ (=Skt. jāti); the four words aṭ öng, ‘name (and) form’ (=Skt. nāmarūpa); altï orun, ‘the six places (of sense contact)’ (=Skt. ṣaḍāyatana); büritmäk, ‘contact’ (=Skt. sparśa); and täginmäk, ‘sensation’ (=Skt. vedanā), are connected by a red line to qarïmaq ölmäk, ‘ageing (and) dying’ (=Skt. jarā-maraṇa), demonstrating links between different conditioned existences within the twelve dependent originations (Kudara 1986, pp. 155–56).

In Fragment 2 (Figure 8), the word bilig, ‘wisdom’ or ‘consciousness’ (=Skt. vijñāna), in line 2 is connected by a yellow line to tuγmaq, ‘birth’ (=Skt. jāti), in line 6; the four words aṭ öng, ‘name (and) form’ (=Skt. nāmarūpa); altï orun, ‘the six places (of sense contact)’ (=Skt. ṣaḍāyatana); büritmäk, ‘contact’ (=Skt. sparśa); and täginmäk, ‘sensation’ (=Skt. vedanā) in lines 3–6 are connected by a red line to qarïmaq ölmäk, ‘ageing (and) dying’ (=Skt. jarā-maraṇa) in line 8. The two words az, ‘thirst’ (=Skt. tṛṣṇā), and then tutyaq, ‘grasping’ (=Skt. upādāna), in lines 7–8 are connected by a blue line to biligsiz bilig, ‘ignorance’ (=Skt. avidyā), in line 3; qïlïnč, ‘action’ (=Skt. saṃskāra), in line 5 below is connected by a green line to bolmaq, ‘becoming’ (=Skt. bhava), in the first line of Fragment 3, showing that the pages of the text are connected and originally belonged to a folded book.

In Fragment 3 (Figure 9), the word tutyaq, ‘grasping’ (=Skt. upādāna), in line 6 is connected by a blue line to biligsiz bilig, ‘ignorance’ (=Skt. avidyā), in the same line below and then to az, ‘thirst’ (=Skt. tṛṣṇā), in line 8; the word bolmaq, ‘becoming’ (=Skt. bhava), in line 7 is connected by a red line to qïlïnč, ‘action’ (=Skt. saṃskāra), in the same line below. Note that in this fragment a different coloured line is used to connect bolmaq, ‘becoming’, and qïlïnč, ‘action’, than that seen in Fragment 2.

The other striking feature of the text is that Fragments 4–6 (Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12) contain colour illustrations, not above the text as in the case of the Jātakas, but as part of the text. In Fragment 4, we observe a seated Buddha, and in Fragment 5, we see a stupa with a woman pointing to it with her fingers, oriented to the right.

In Fragment 6, first we see a cloud under lines 2–3, then a Buddha on the cloud placed underneath, occupying a space under lines 1–4, and then another Buddha on the cloud at the bottom, under that Buddha. On lines 5–7, we find a monk (bhikṣu) on the cloud at the same level as the Buddha at the bottom to his left.

Figure 12. (=Fragment 6)『敦煌遺片』 (180-イ1-6b) © Tenri Central Library.

Figure 12. (=Fragment 6)『敦煌遺片』 (180-イ1-6b) © Tenri Central Library.

The punctuation of the text differs from the usual punctuation we see in the Old Uyghur prints: The four dots are occasionally employed as punctuation marks following sentences, as evidenced in lines 2 and 8 of Fragment 7, as well as in line 5 of Fragment 8. However, in the majority of instances, they are utilized after each word, as observed in Fragments 4–6. It is notable that these punctuation marks are scarce in Old Uyghur prints. It is noteworthy that these punctuation marks were found among the movable letters discovered by Paul Pelliot in Dunhuang (for further detail, see Shi and Ashuri 2000, p. 105). They have also been observed in a fragment now in the Fujii Yurinkan藤井有鄰館 Museum in Kyoto (No. 24), which K. Kudara considered to be a print made with movable letters (Ryukoku University 2003, p. 71). More interestingly, we also found them in a Tangut print (『西夏文経断簡』(183-イ279)), housed at the Tenri University Central Library.

Several words in the Dunhuang print are repeated in a consistent form. Some of these are also present among the movable letters discovered in Dunhuang by Paul Pelliot. On the verso of the Turfan print U 4170 (Figure 13), the word üzä, which means ‘by means of’, is consistently written in the same form throughout the entire fragment (see ll. 9–13). The last letter of the word, the aleph, is always placed at the beginning of the following line and bears a remarkable resemblance to the identical letter identified among the movable letters unearthed in Dunhuang (see Shi and Ashuri 2000, p. 92).

These observations suggest that these prints may not simply be block prints, as is the case with most Old Uyghur prints. It is possible that other printing techniques were used in their preparation and production, although they are not all, by definition, prints derived from movable wooden type.

We knew of three woodblock prints by Namo Shakyamuni from the Liao 遼 period in three colours, red, blue and yellow, in the form of a folded book. The face of the Buddha and his disciples as well as beautiful places were depicted in red and black. According to experts, they are silk-screen printed and were probably printed from two plates. First, the red part was silk-screen printed and then the blue part, while the yellow letters were coloured with a pencil. They were not printed on paper but on silk (Zhang and Han 2006, pp. 170–71). Colour prints from the Yuan are known from several collections. The colour in the Dunhuang colour prints attributed to the Tang period appear to have been added by hand to the printed outline (Tsien 1985, p. 19).

The printing technique of both the Dunhuang and Turfan prints is an important issue and occupies a special place in illustrating the Old Uyghur print culture, even in the discussion of the print culture of the Northern Silk Road. A detailed discussion is reserved for my forthcoming monograph on Old Uyghur prints and print culture.

6. Conclusions

The concept of dependent origination, or dependent arising, has a long history in Old Uyghur Buddhism. It was first articulated in the early Buddhist texts and is evident in the terminology of Maitrisimit and the DKAM, suggesting that the twelve-membered links and the ten-membered links were already known to the Old Uyghurs in the formative period of Old Uyghur Buddhism. In addition to its inclusion in several important Old Uyghur Buddhist texts, such as the Altun Yaruq Sudur and the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, the dependent origination is also systematically illustrated in at least three Pratītyasamutpāda texts, one text with Brāhmī elements, and three prints from Dunhuang and Turfan that were introduced.

The Dunhuang print provides the most comprehensive and systematic demonstration of the Old Uyghur understanding of dependent origination. While the structure of the text is largely consistent with the corresponding passages in the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣaśāstra and other Abhidharma texts, it offers a more comprehensive account than the Chinese text. It refers to dependent origination as ‘the holy dharma Pratītyasamutpāda’ or ‘the sacred doctrine Pratītyasamutpāda,’ underscoring its pivotal role in Old Uyghur Buddhism.

The names of the sūtras referenced in the Dunhuang print are derived from Tocharian and can be traced back to their origin in Sanskrit. The Nagaropamasūtra, referenced in the Dunhuang print as a representative text exemplifying the ten-membered links, has parallels in the Maitrisimit, with a high degree of similarity. This demonstrates that the text was known to Old Uyghur Buddhists during the formative period of Old Uyghur Buddhism. The list of ten links mentioned in the text, which is absent from the Chinese Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣaśāstra, may have been known to the Old Uyghur Buddhists through both the Old Uyghur and Sanskrit originals, even though they are do not directly originate from the Sängim or Qomul versions of the Maitrisimit.

The Turfan prints show that the Old Uyghur pratītyasamutpāda literature was much more profound than we know today. Print U 4170 may be an Abhidharma text, probably from the printed version of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, since most of the text has parallels in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. The print with the abbreviated Chinese name 布剌帝 Buladi and the Old Uyghur title pratityasamutpad could have been translated from a Chinese text with the same or a similar Chinese name, although the name in exactly this form is not known in any known Chinese Buddhist texts. However, like the Dunhuang print, the Turfan prints may have been produced by the Old Uyghurs from a variety of texts, most likely including some Abhidharma texts, as they have parallels in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and other Abhidharma texts.

The Old Uyghur terms for the twelve dependent originations have been established in the Early Old Uyghur period. Amongst the texts representing Early Old Uyghur, the Sängim manuscript of the Maitrisimit defines the twelve dependent origination terms in accordance with the standard version as set forth in the Pratītyasamutpādavibhaṇga-sūtra. In contrast, the Qomul version of the Maitrisimit adheres to the formula of the Central Asian version of the Nagaropamasūtra, presenting the dependent origination terms in a forward positive order. However, in the backward negative order, the text reflects the standard version. It is noteworthy that certain terms employed in both the Sängim and Qomul manuscripts of the Maitrisimit have not been seen in the DKPAM. Nevertheless, the terminology documented in the DKPAM and the Altun Yaruq Sudur is largely consistent, indicating the persistence of a terminological system in Early Old Uyghur and Middle Old Uyghur, at least regarding dependent origination. The texts of the subsequent period predominantly employed the terminology documented in these two sources as a reference point. This is evidenced by the fact that the terms identified in Late Old Uyghur texts, including those found in printed materials, exhibited substantial consistency with the terms observed in the DKPAM and the Altun Yaruq Sudur.

The Chinese–Old Uyghur bilingual pagination and the double border lining on all four sides are rare amongst the Old Uyghur prints and have special value in investigations of Old Uyghur print culture and in illustrations of the print culture of the Northern Silk Road. This format seems to be the standard for Abhidharma texts.

The printed character of both the Dunhuang print and the Tufan prints distinguishes them from other known examples. Primarily, these texts represent the first known printed examples of the Abhidharma tradition. Secondly, the illustration employed in the Dunhuang print is not known in other printed texts discovered in Dunhuang and Turfan, representing the first instance of such an illustration in printed form.