|
|
|
| A Study of the New Collection of Avata?saka-sūtra at National Archives of Publications and Culture in Hangzhou |
| Fu Jisi |
| School of Humanities, Tongji University, Shanghai200092, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract This paper discusses the academic research value of the Avata?saka-sūtra scroll recently acquired by the National Archives of Publications and Culture in Hangzhou, also called Wenrunge. Based on the postscripts attached to the manuscript, it is known that the manuscript originated from Dunhuang library of Mogao Cave. Through a survey of Dunhuang’s Avata?saka-sūtra texts, the handwriting style and format of the Wenrunge version show significant similarities with other Dunhuang Avata?saka-sūtra manuscripts of Jin translations, confirming the manuscripts as a genuine Dunhuang work.From the perspective of the manuscript itself, it is transcribed by the same scribe as BD00985, Ebo (鄂博) No. 4, and the Japanese Yurinkan collection, all dedicated by Upāsikā community. Through similar colophons, it can be identified as a manuscript from the Kaihuang Period of the Sui Dynasty. This scribe’s version of the Avata?saka-sūtra is found in 13 known Dunhuang manuscripts (10 pieces when combined), including BD11652+BD12146 (volume 17), the Wenrunge edition (volume 21), BD00985 (volume 22), BD10217+BD15675 (volume 29), BD11110 (volume 29), Ebo No. 4 (volume 29), the Kyoto University Museum edition (volume 31), Toru Haneda No.589-25/26 (volume 41), BD14825CC (volume 41), and the Kyoto Yurinkan edition (volume 47). A comparison of the common characters among these texts, such as suo (所), de (得), mie (灭), zi (子), zhu (诸) and others, reveals similar handwriting, and that they also share the same layout format (all featuring black silk columns, similar line spacing, character spacing, and font size), with a comparable writing style (clerical script style) and a close paper height. Aside from the one collected in the National Archives of Publications and Culture in Hangzhou, the others are preserved in various institutions, such as the National Library of China, Hubei Provincial Museum, Kyoto University Museum, Kyoto Fujii Yurinkan, and Osaka Kyōu Shoyā, reflecting the complex process of the dispersal of manuscript materials from the Dunhuang library over the past century.From the perspective of volume division of the manuscripts, most of the Jin translations of the Avata?saka-sūtra found in Dunhuang texts are the Fifty-volume Avata?saka-sūtra, preserving an early form of the sutra’s transmission. The Avata?saka-sūtra held in the National Archives of Publications and Culture in Hangzhou is also of this type. This article compares the volumes of the Avata?saka-sūtra transcribed by the same scribe and discusses the instability of volumes division during the period of the Sui Dynasty, particularly in relation to the series of manuscripts by Yuan Jingzi, which were also copied in the Sui Dynasty. The conclusion drawn is that although the Jin translation of the Avata?saka-sūtra under discussion is in a fifty-volume format, some of its divisions differ from those of the mainstream fifty-volume Avata?saka-sūtra. We believe that this group of manuscripts is closer to the Imperial Household Agency Library editions, rather than the mainstream Zhonghua Tripitaka.From the postscript attached to the manuscript, the writings of the three renowned connoisseurs, Zhang Daqian, Ye Gongchuo, and Wu Hufan, hold both artistic and academic value. All of them determined the manuscript to be from the Early Tang Period, and their dating is quite accurate. Among them, Ye Gongchuo’s postscript is particularly important in that it provides insights into how scholars of that time dating manuscripts through calligraphy and characters, and reveals the delivery process of the manuscript. Besides the “Mr Renyu” mentioned in the postscript, this manuscript was also previously collected by Aili Garden, whose owner was a female Buddhist who supported the development of the Huayan School. The acquisition of this Avata?saka-sūtra, created in the Upāsikā community, by Aili Garden may not be coincidental. Finally, correspondence between Ye Gongchuo and his friends from the same period indicates that the transfer of Dunhuang manuscripts during those tumultuous times was not easy. The survival of this Avata?saka-sūtra manuscript to this day is indeed fortunate.
|
|
Received: 23 August 2024
|
|
|
|
1 叶恭绰：《矩园余墨》第二辑，沈阳：辽宁教育出版社，1997年。
2 王倚平、唐刚卯：《湖北省博物馆藏敦煌经卷概述》，见季羡林等主编：《敦煌吐鲁番研究》第五卷，北京：北京大学出版社，2000年，第269-276页。
3 京都大学文学部編：『京都大学文学部博物館考古学資料目録：第3部（中国）』，京都：京都大学文学部，1963年。
4 日］高田时雄：《京都大学综合博物馆所藏敦煌遗书简介》，见方广锠主编：《佛教文献研究》第三辑，桂林：广西师范大学出版社，2020年，第23-38页。
5 日］高田时雄：《羽田亨与敦煌写本》，见《近代中国的学术与藏书》，北京：中华书局，2018年，第138-149页。
6 日］高田时雄：《清野谦次搜集敦煌写经的下落》，见《近代中国的学术与藏书》，北京：中华书局，2018年，第129-137页。
7 刘波：《国家图书馆与敦煌学》，北京：国家图书馆出版社，2018年。
8 藤井有鄰館学芸部編：『有鄰館精華』（改訂版），京都：藤井斉成会，1985年。
9 日本書芸院編集：『有鄰館名品展図冊』，東京：日本書芸院，1992年。
10 荣新江：《海外敦煌吐鲁番文献知见录》，南昌：江西人民出版社，1996年。
11 饶宗颐：《京都藤井氏有邻馆藏敦煌残卷纪略》，见《饶宗颐二十世纪学术文集·卷八敦煌学》（上），北京：中国人民大学出版社，2009年，第134-143页。
12 季羡林主编：《敦煌学大辞典》，上海：上海辞书出版社，1998年。
13 李丞宰：《探寻敦煌佛经的50卷本〈华严经〉》，见［日］石冢晴通编：《敦煌学·日本学——石冢晴通教授退职纪念论文集》，上海：上海辞书出版社，2005年，第36-51页。
14 方广锠：《佛教文献研究十讲》，上海：复旦大学出版社，2020年。
15 万君超：《叶恭绰鉴藏编年事辑》，杭州：浙江人民美术出版社，2022年。
16 沈建中：《施蛰存先生编年事录》（上），上海：上海古籍出版社，2013年。
17 施蛰存：《闲寂日记》，上海：文汇出版社，2002年。
18 胡厚宣：《八十五年来甲骨文材料之再统计》，《史学月刊》1984年第5期，第15-22页。
19 胡厚宣：《大陆现藏之甲骨文字》，《“中研院”历史语言研究所集刊》第六十七本第四分，1996年，第815-876页。
20 李恩绩：《爱俪园梦影录》，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，1984年。
21 佚名：《广仓学会第一次开会陈列金石书画录存》，《广仓学演说报》1916年第4期，第1-14页。
22 赵大旺：《叶恭绰与中国近代敦煌学》，《中华文史论丛》2020年第2期，第55-84页。
23 沈津：《顾廷龙年谱》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2004年。
24 郑重：《徐森玉》，北京：文物出版社，2007年。 |
|
|
|
2024, Vol. 54 
