中国人民大学国学院.pdf

ISSN1349-7510 QUAESTIONES MONGOLORUM DISPUTATAE I Executive Editors: H. FUTAKI ＆ B. OYUNBILIG Editorial Board: Lhamsurengiin Khurelbaatar Liu Yingsheng Mongolian Academy of Science, Mongolia Nanjing University, China Irina V. Kulganeg Peterburg University, Russia Udo B. Barkmann DAAD, Germany David Sneath University of Cambridge, England Borjigidai Oyunbilig Inner Mongolia University, China Futaki Hiroshi Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Japan Association for International Studies of Mongolian Culture Tokyo 2005 ISSN 1349-7510 QUAESTIONES MONGOLORUM DISPUTATAE (QMD) No.1 (2005) April 30. 2005 Tokyo Association for International Studies of Mongolian Culture c/o Faculty of Foreign Studies Tokyo University of Foreign Studies 3-11-1 Asahicho, Fuchu-shi, Tokyo 183-8534 Japan hfutak@tufs.ac.jp Center for Mongolian Studies Inner Mongolia University West Daxue Road 235, Hohhot 010021 China Tel & Fax: 0086-(0)471-4992243 borjigidaiuyunbilig@yahoo.com.cn Articles in the QMD represent neither the views of Association for International Studies of Mongolian Culture nor those of the editors, but only those of the signing contributor, and responsibility for opinions expressed and for the accuracy of facts published in articles rests solely with the individual authors. Table of Contents Chen, Dezhi: dBus gtsang dpon-chen, Reexamined…………………………………………………(1) Futaki, Hiroshi: Classification of Texts Related to the White Old Man………………………………(35) Jorigt, Gombjabin: Report on Fieldwork of Use of Mongol language in Horchin Left Wing North Banner, Inner Mongolia (in Mongolian)……………………………………………………(243) Khurelbaatar, Lhamsuren: A Discussion Based on “ Jibtsundamba-yin Jalbiral” Handed to Galdan Boshugtu’s Envoy Gelong (in Cyrillic Mongolian)……………………………………………(91) Kim, Sung-so: “Principle of Religion and State” and Mongolian Khans in Late 16th Century and Early 17th Century (in Chinese)…………………………………………………………(159) Nasan Bayar: The Mongol Language not only as a Language in Inner Mongolia…………………(47) Oyunbilig, Borjigidai: History and Historical Memory of Čoγtu Tayiji / Tsogt Taij (in Chinese)…………(196) Shagdarsuren, Sharnuud Tsevel: An Explanation of the Root Bel- in Mongolian Language (1) (in Cyrillic Mongolian)…………………………………………………………………………(111) Shen, Weirong: Tibetan Tantric Buddhism at the Court of the Great Mongol Khans, Sa skya pa ita and ’Phags pa’s Works in Chinese during the Yuan Period…………………………(61) Terbish, Lhasran: A Discussion of Newly Found Two Volumes Written by Kambu Lubsangjamba of the Zaya Lamasery (in Cyrillic Mongolian)…………………………………………(128) Tuimer: From Suimeng Yuebao to Xin Suimeng and Xinmeng Banyuekan (in Chinese)……………………………………………………………………………(188) Zhang, Yongjiang: A Discussion of Some Issues concerning Ongnigud and Khara-cherig Mongols in the Late Ming Dynasty and Early Qing Dynasty on Basis of Empirical Decree of the Fifth Year of Shunzhi (in Chinese)………………………………………………………(226) List of Contributros……………………………………………………………(258) Information for authors………………………………………………………(260) QUAESTIONES MONGOLORUM DISPUTATAE No.1 Executive Editors: H. Futaki ＆ B. Oyunbilig Association for International Studies of Mongolian Culture Tokyo April 30. 2005 dBus gtsang dpon-chen, Reexamined [Nanjing] Chen Dezhi I published an article in 1984, which mainly discussed the date of the establishment of Yuan dynasty’s Pacification Commission of dBus gtsang (Wusizang xuanweisi 烏思藏宣 慰司). The arguments of that article primarily relied on the Tibetan historical works, Debther dmar-po and Deb-ther sngon po, which recorded the Yuan Emperor Shizu (Qubilai Khan)’s appointment of the first dpon-chen Shakya bzang-po as the military and civilian myriarch of the three circuits of dBus gtsang, as well as his appointment of the fifth dponchen Byang-chub rin-chen as Pacification Commissioner (xuanwei shi 宣慰使)1. In lieu of this, I made a minor point about dpon-chen as a name of office. I believed that it was not a formal title of government position, rather, it was the name that Tibetans used for calling the highest local official in dBus gtsang appointed by the Yuan emperor. It may have been a transliteration of the Chinese word 長官 (chief official) that was used in China proper at the time for calling the head of local administrations. In the beginning, the formal office title of dpon-chen should be “Military and Civilian Myriarch of the Three Circuits in dBus gtsang (Wusizang sanlu junmin wanhu 烏思藏三路軍民萬戶),” and it should be Pacification Commissioner after the Pacification Commission was established.2 Since the publication of my article, several scholars have discussed the origin, jurisdiction 1 In this article, in order to make it more convenient for identifying special names from Chinese and Tibetan sources, I will do my best to use proper Chinese characters in accordance with its pronunciation in the Yuan or early Ming period for transcribing Tibetan names from Tibetan sources. 2 The article is published in Yuanshi ji beifang minzhu shi yanjiu jikan 元史及北方民族史研究 集刊, No.8. In fact, thirty years before my article, the Italian Tibetan scholar G. Tucci had already pointed out in the chapter “A Short History of Central Tibet from the XIII to XVIII Century with Special Regard to the Province of gTsang” of the first volume of his monumental work Tibetan Painted Scrolls (Rome, 1949, pp. 3-80), that dpon-chen “was in fact Xuanwei shi,” though he did not elaborate on this point (Li Youyi 李有義 and Deng Ruiling 鄧銳齡 have a Chinese translation of the chapter. Deng Ruiling, Zangzushi lunwen yiwen ji 藏族史論 文譯文集 (Collection of Articles and Translations on Tibetan History), Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe, 2004, Vol. 2, pp. 686-846. 1 and other questions concerning this name of office in their works.1 Whether supporting, supplementing, or revising my argument, they delved in the issue deeper than I have done and enlightened me a great deal. Because this is a very important question concerning the Yuan administrative system in Tibet, one which there has yet to be a consensus among scholars, I feel the need of writing again to spell out the rational of my original argument and to respond to the scholars’ admirable works. Meanwhile, I also wish to correct some inaccuracy in my earlier article. I hope this will be a useful reference for further research. 1． Origin of the Name dpon-chen and Basic Sources Concerning It The office titles in ancient Tibet were formed by either attaching chen (chen-po, great chief) to concrete official positions, as in blon-chen (the Tang period transcription is lun chen 論茞, great minister), nang-blon chen-po (transcription nang lun zhi pu 曩論掣逋, grand inner minister), and yo-gal-ba chen-po (transcription yu han bo zhi pu 喻寒波掣逋, grand supervising minister = zhengshi daxiang 整事大相 censer), which were mostly for court officials; or by attaching dpon (chief official, zhangguan 長官) to concrete positions, as in zhing-dpon (commissioner of land = land official ying tian shi 營田使), mkhar-dpon (official for guarding city, shouchengguan 守城官), khri-dpon (transcription “qi li ben 乞 利 本 ,” 一 萬 人 將 general of ten thousand men), and stong-dpon (commander of a thousand or Chiliarch 千夫長 ), which were mostly for local officials. dpon-chen (chief official) is just a general term, and it only became a particular name for official position during the Yuan period. Tibetan historical works gave special explanation to this term that the literal meaning would have been understood by everyone (more details later), thus indicates that it was not an original Tibetan name for official position. This let me to connect it with the name of chief local officials in various Chinese places during the early 1 Shen Weirong 沈衛榮, “Yuanchao zhongyang zhengfu dui xizang de tongzhi 元代中央政府 對西藏的統治”, Lishi yanjiu 歷史研究, 1988, No. 3; Chen Qingying 陳慶英, “Yuandai wusizang benqin jilue 元代烏思藏本欽紀略”, Yuanshi luncong 元史論叢, No. 4, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1992; Zhang Yun 張雲, “Youguan yuandai wusizang xuanweisi de jige wenti 有關元代烏思藏宣慰司的幾個問題”, Xibei minzu yanjiu 西北民族研究, No. 2, 1994; Wang Xianjun 王獻軍, “Sajia benqin fei wusizang xuanweishi kaobian 薩迦本欽非烏思藏宣慰使考 辨”, Zhongguo bianjiang shidi yanjiu 中國邊疆史地研究, No. 3, 1996; Zhang Yun, “Sajia benqin yu wusizang xuanweishi guanxi wenti zai tantao 薩迦本欽與烏思藏宣慰使關係問題 再探討,” Zhongguo bianjiang shidi yanjiu, No. 1, 1997. Italian Tibetan scholar L. Petech had a detailed discussion on dpon chen and the Pacification Commission of dBus gtsang in his book Central Tibet and the Mongols: The Yuan-Sa-skya Period of Tibetan History (Rome 1990). In his book, Petech mentioned my article and voiced different opinion. I have intended to write an article to discuss the issue further. But only now I am able to make a response to him by this occasion. 2 Yuan. Since the beginning of their attack on the Jin (金朝) in 1211, the Mongols continuously appointed local officials to rule over the Chinese areas that they came to occupy. Most of these were former Jin officials or local strongmen who surrendered to the Mongols. The Mongolian rulers usually let them be in charge of both military and civilian population in their own areas (or the areas that they acquired by joining the conquest). Their official titles were conveniently granted by adopting the Jin system, such as provincial governor (行省), chief commander (都元帥), commander (元帥), imperial commissioner (jiedushi 節度使), prefect (府尹), county magistrate (縣令) etc. In addition, military title and civilian title were used at the same time, and honorific title overlapped with the ones that had actual jurisdictions. There was thus great confusion of titles. Generally speaking, the titles were either proposed by the officials themselves or suggested by Mongolian commanders’ Han advisors, and there was no clear regulation. In reality, this was not the formal system of office of the Mongols who were not very clear about the complicated official titles in China proper. The Mongols only knew that they have appointed the “chief official” (長官, Mongolian noyan) of a region or a city, and they did not care what Chinese title these people used. For example, Yelu tuhua 耶律禿花, who commanded Khitan, Jurchen, and Han armies, “was appointed the Grand Imperial Tutor, General Commander yeke noyan”（拜太傅、總領也可那延）, and was also called “Chief Official of the Xuande Circuit (宣德路長官)”, Shimo xiandebu 石抹咸得 不 who inherited his father’s office of “Yanjing Provincial Governor” was also called “the Chief Official of the Yanjing Circuit” (燕京路長官), etc. In text of burial tablets (tomb inscriptions) and the biographies in Yuanshi, we can find records of many people’s appointment as “chief official” or “military and civilian chief official (軍民長官)” of a certain circuit, district, county (or sometimes with the term “dengchu” 等處 added). “Du Feng 杜豐’s Biography” in Yuanshi recorded that Du Feng was rewarded for his merit after he surrendered to the Mongols and joined their conquest, he received the appointment of military chief commander of the Hedong south-north circuits (Hedong nanbei lu bingma du yuanshuai 河東南北路兵馬都元帥), and after Qinzhou 沁州 prefecture was taken by him, he “was promoted to 沁州長官 chief official of Qinzhou. The term zhangguan 長官 was a high official rank at the beginning of this dynasty.” In the “Epitaph for Duke Zhao of Xiangning County 鄉甯縣趙侯墓誌” (in Shanyou shike congbian 山右石刻叢編 ch.28), it was said that Zhao Zhong 趙仲 followed the order of the 太師國王（grand imperial preceptor - prince =Muqali 木華黎） to establish the city of Xiangning, and he thus “became the 撫治長官 administrative chief official which is equivalent to today’s county magistrate.” (Note: “today”refers to the first year of the Dade 大德 reign 1297 3 when the tablet was set up). When it was even necessary to give special explanation to the ordinary Chinese term zhangguan, and it turned out to refer to different rankings (in one it was high ranking, and in another it was equivalent to county magistrate), it reveals that this must be a title of office used under the peculiar conditions of the early Yuan and that it differed from the official system of China proper (Chinese system of office gave each rank of official position specific names). Actually, it may be a corresponding word to the Mongolian term noyan, which was a general name for various ranks of officials (based on the example of Yelu tuhua being called yeke noyan，it seems that those who were in charge of broader areas and larger military and civilian populations were referred to as yeke noyan). If two or three local officials were appointed in the same area, they were called according to their status as chief official, second official and third official respectively. 1 In the early Yuan, the name of “chief official” was used commonly in China proper, yet it was merely a popular name. Han officials usually had office titles according to Chinese system of office (either casually assigned by the Mongols or assumed by themselves). These varied from provincial governor, to chief commander, and to magistrate.2 The formal office titles that were “bestowed” by the Mongolian court were 萬戶 myriarch or 千戶 chiliarch (there seem to be no “bestow” of head of a hundred or centurian by the court). This is because the myriarch and chiliarch in the Mongolian system governed both military and civilians, but in the Jin system these were only military posts, thus Han officials often added the term 軍民 “military and civilian” to their titles which were often used together with the Chinese names of their office (or to use the popular name of “chief official” for such and such place). For example, Yan Shi 嚴實 was appointed 萬戶 myriarch, but he was still called Provincial Governor of Dongping 東平行 省. His son Yan Zhongji 嚴忠濟 “inherited the position of Military Myriarch and Chief Official of Civilian of Dongping Circuit” 東平路行軍萬戶、管民長官; Zhang Rou 張柔 was promoted from the Chiliarch and Chief Commander of Baozhou 保 州 長 官 to “Military and Civilian Myriarch 軍 民 萬 戶 .” 1 Later, when Baozhou prefecture was See Shanyou shike congbian 山右石刻叢編, chap. 24, “Chuangxiu Changchunkuan ji 創修長 春觀記.” But this title seems have disappeared after the time of the Shizu emperor. 2 For example, Shanyou shike congbian, chap. 27 “Liu hui bei 劉會碑” recorded that by the order of the princess (Emperor Taizu’s daughter Alaqai beki 阿剌海別吉 who was married to the chieftain of the Onggut 汪 古 tribe), Liu Hui was granted the office title of “Chief Commander and military governor of Jianzhou 堅州.” Later, the princess ordered Liu Hui’s son Ze 澤 “to inherit the position, and be the chief official in charge of the civilian of Jianzhou.” This means inheriting the title of “Chief Commander and military governor” was actually only to assume the position of chief official in Jianzhou prefecture (the Mongolian princess only knew that she appointed the chief official of Jianzhou). 4 upgraded to Shuntian 順天 circuit, Zhang’s son Honglue 弘略 inherited the position and became “Chief Administrator of Civilian and Military Myriarch 管民總管、行軍萬戶 of Shuntian Circuit.” When the Myriarch and Provincial Governor of Hedong North-Circuit Haoheshang badu 郝 和 尚 拔 都 ’s son inherited his father’s position, he became the “Military and Civilian Myriarch, the Chief Administrator 軍民萬戶、都總管 of Taiyuan 太原 Circuit.” The official title of Zhou Xianchen 周獻臣 was “Left Wing Deputy Chief Commander of Jiuyuan Prefecture 九原府左副元帥, Acting Prefect of Jiuyuan 行九原府 事, and Court Appointed Military Chiliarch 宣授征行千戶.” (Zhou referred to himself as “Court appointed chiliarch bearing imperial-granted gold tablet 御前懸帶金牌宣授宣差 千戶).1 Reading the records in Tibetan materials about the official name “dpon-chen” in the Tibetan region of the Yuan period, I immediately thought that it might have come from the influence of the common use of the 長官 as popular name for local officials in Chinese proper during the early Yuan. Hence it may also be corresponding to the Mongolian terms noyan or yeke noyan. The Deb-ther dmar-po records: Sa-skya’i dpon-chen la snga-ba Shakya bzang-po la/......Bla-ma’i ’Phags-pa’i dus/ Se-chen gyi lung gis/ dBus gTsang-gi zam klu gun min dbang hu’i dam-kha byin nas dpon-chen la bskos/ (The earliest Sa skya dpon-chen was Shakya bzang-po. ...At the time of Imperial Preceptor ’Phags pa, by Sechen(=Qubilai qaqan)’s edict, he was bestowed the seal of “Military and Civilian Myriarch of Three Circuits in dBus gTsang” and was appointed as the dpon-chen.)2 The second half of the same sentence in rGya-bod yig-tshang read: “By the Emperor Sechen’s edict, granted him the title and seal of “Military and Civilian Myriarch of Three Circuits” and appointed him the dpon-chen of dBus gtsang.” (Se-chen rgyal-po’i lung gis/zam klu gun (min) dhen hu’i ming dang./ tham-kha gnang nas./ dBus gtsang-gi dponchen la bskos/)3 Note: This work often used “dpon-chen of dBus gtsang”, but not “dponchen of Sa skya”, this is its difference with Deb-ther dmar-po. 1 See Dingxiang jin shi kao 定襄金石考, chap. 2, “Xuanyuan guan ji 玄元觀記,” and the “Gu zuo fu yuanshuai xuanshou zhengxing qianhu Zhou hou shendao bei ming 故左副元帥宣授征 行千戶周侯神道碑銘” composed by Wang Liyong 王利用 in the same chapter. 2 Deb-ther dmar-po. Tibetan version, p. 53 (Beijing: Minzhu chubanshe, 1981), Chinese translation by Chen Qingying and Zhou Runnian 周 潤 年 , p. 48 (Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe, 1988). Note: The Chinese translation has mistaken “軍民萬戶”(military and civilian myriarch) as “管民萬戶”(myriarch in charge of civilian). The character “jun” was pronounced as “geun” in the Yuan period. 3 rGya-bod yig-tshang, Tibetan version, p. 357 (Chengdu: Sichuan minzhu chubanshe, 1985), Chen Qinying’s Chinese translation, p. 224 (Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe, 1986). 5 There are two points worth noting in the above cited Tibetan sources: First, the “military and civilian myriarch of three circuits 三 路 軍 民 萬 戶 ” was written in transcription of its Chinese title of office, which is the same as the official name used by local chiefs appointed as myriarch in China proper during the early Yuan. After Emperor Shizu reformed the system of office to separate military and civilian officials, this type of office name was no longer used in China proper. However, the frontier regions continued to use the old system. Local chiefs were allowed to be in charge of both military and civilians and to set up “Chief Governing Office of Military and Civilians 軍民總管府” and “Office of Military and Civilian Myriads 軍民萬戶府” etc. Tibet belonged to the regions that enforced the system of “governing military together with civilians 軍民通攝” (see “Shi Lao zhuan 釋老傳” in Yuanshi). Secondly, when someone was bestowed the title and the seal of “military and civilian myriarch of three circuits of dBus gTsang,” he was simultaneously “appointed dpon-chen”， the two are in fact one and the same. The “military and civilian myriarch of three circuits of dBus gtsang” was the highest official appointed by the court to govern military and civilians in the dBus gtsang region; “dponchen” was the term that Tibetans used to call this particular office, rather than the name for a different office. They usually shorten a long and formal name of office (that used Chinese that were not understood by ordinary people), and merely referred it to as dponchen. This is the same as the above mentioned Chinese terms “Chief Official of Xuande Circuit”, “Chief Official of Yanjing Circuit” and “Chief official of Jizhou”, “Chief Official of Daming 大名長官” that were used in Han regions during the early Yuan.1 At the time that Shakya bzang-po was appointed military and civilian myriarch of the three circuits in dBus gtsang, this region should have already established several myriads (Tibetan khridpon). The thirteen myriads in dBus gtsang were further completed after his appointment.2 Because all these myriads should be under the jurisdiction of the military and civilian myriarch of three circuits of dBus gtsang, he was specifically referred to as the “dpon-chen.” It is just as Yelu tuhua was called “Chief Commander yeke noyan,” for he 1 See Yuanshi, chap. 153, “Wang Yuru zhuan 王玉汝傳.” “Chief Official of Jizhou 濟州” should be Shi Tianlu 石 天 祿 who was the “military commander of thousand, chief administrator of the three prefectures of Ji 濟, Yan 兗, and Dan 單,” and “Chief Official of Daming 大名” should be Wang Zhen 王珍 who was the “Junior Chief Commander of the Daming Province,” “Deputy Governor of Daming Province,” Yuanshi chap. 152 has biographies for both of them. 2 For reference see Shen Weirong, “Lun wusizang shisan wanhu de jianli 論烏思藏十三萬戶 的建立”, Yuanshi luncong, Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1993, No. 5. 6 commanded Khitan, Jurchen, and Han armies, and under his jurisdiction were the three myriads of Xiao Zala 蕭札剌, Liu Heima 劉黑馬, and Shi Tianze 史天澤. Since “dpon-chen” was used as a special term to call the highest military and civilian official who governed the entire region of dBus gtsang, the one who was above the many myriarchies, then, when the “Military and Civilian Myriads of Three Circuits” was converted to Pacification Commission (xuanwei si 宣 慰司 ), it’s chief official would naturally be used to call the Pacification Commissioner (xuanwei shi). I mainly relied on two kinds of evidence for this conclusion. One is that the two Pacification Commissioners of dBus gtsang recorded in Yuanshi—Ruannu wangzhu 軟奴汪术 and Jiawa zangbo 加瓦 藏卜 are in fact the dBus gtsang “dpon-chen” gZhon-nu dbang-phyug (the seventh and the tenth) and rGyal-ba bzang-po (the eighth and the twenty-first) written in Tibetan sources. The other evidence is the Dharma edicts (fa zhi 法旨) issued by Yuan Imperial Preceptors that are preserved in the Zha lu (Shalu 沙魯寺) monastery in Tibet. Two of them mentioned the names of “chief official of Pacification Commission [of dBus gtsang]” (mgo byas swon wi si mi dpon): Ag-len (see the Imperial Preceptor 乞剌斯八斡節兒 Grags pa ’od zer’s Dharma edict in the year of the sheep, i.e. 1295) and ’Od-zer seng-ge (see Imperial Preceptor 公哥羅古羅思監藏班藏卜 Kun dga’ blo gros rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’s Dharma edict in the year of the dragon, i.e. 1316).1 The former was the ninth “dpon-chen” of dBus gtsang, and the later was the thirteenth “dpon-chen.” These Dharma edicts of the Imperial Preceptors were official documents issued to the military and civilian population in their home region. The persons that the Dhama edicts notified as the highest local official of the region were “dpon-chen” of dBus gtsang according to Tibetan historical records; however, they were named in the edicts as “Chief official of the Pacification Commission” and there was completely no mention of the official name “dpon-chen.” It shows that this name was not a formal title of official position in dBus gtsang of the Yuan period, it was only a popular name that people habitually used.2 1 The Imperial Preceptors’ edicts preserved at the Zha lu monastery were first published by the Italian Tibetan scholar G. Tucci in the second volume of his Tibetan Painted Scrolls, and they were translated into English. Xizang lishi dangan gongwen xuan shuijing mingjian 西藏歷史 檔案公文選水晶明鑒(Tibetan), published in 1989 by Renmin chubanshe, included these twelve edicts. The two edicts cited in this article are in page 198 and 203 of this book. 2 I wish to propose an even more daring hypothesis: using the Tibetan term “dpon-chen” to call the highest local official in Tibet might not have begun in dBus gtsang, rather, it came from mDo-smad (present day Qinghai) and its surrounding regions. This is because this was the Tibetan region that was taken the earliest by the Mongols. When emperor Taizu attacked Xi Xia (Tangut Kingdom) in the later years of his life, he sent army to the districts of Jishi 積石, Xining 西寧, Tao 洮, and He 河. When Tolui attacked Jin via Sichuan during Emperor 7 Because of the above evidences, I thought that “dpon-chen” were not a very difficult problem to resolve. Nonetheless, specialists who are doing Tibetological studies both in China and overseas explore Tibetan sources more fully and conduct more thorough research in their works concerning this question. In particular, the Tibetan specialist Mr. Chen Qingying connects it to the Yuan system of granting fiefdoms and argues that “the position of dpon-chen was appointed by the Imperial Preceptor in his capacity as feudal lord to govern his domain.” He believes that “dpon-chen administrated the Imperial Preceptor’s fief and thus was in effect the duanshi guan 斷事官(judge) for feudal lord.”1 The Italian Tibetan scholar Luciano Petech posed many questions about the relationship between “dpon-chen” and xuanwei shi (more details later).2 Their works made me realize that this question is indeed quite complicated and there are points that require more thorough analysis. 2. On the Status of the Imperial Preceptor and the Taizong’s reign, he also sent army to Tibetan areas. In 1236, when Kцdдn led his army to invade Qin-Gong 秦鞏 and Sichuan, he subdued Tibetan chieftain Zhao Agechang 趙阿哥昌 in Lin tao 臨洮 and appointed him as the pacifying commissioner of Diezhou 疊州. Zhao’s son Agepan 阿哥潘 was accumulated merits in assisting the Mongol’s attack of Sichuan, he was appointed the deputy prefect of Lintao (promoted to Chief commander of Lin tao during Emperor Xianzong’s reign). This is the earliest record about Mongol appointment of Tibetan local officials. Lin tao’s neighboring region of mDo-smad must also have established Mongol rule relatively early. Soon after Emperor Xianzong ascended the throne, he ordered Helidai 和 裏歹 “to command the Mongol and Han armies in Tibet and other regions...to continue advance," this should be the troops that was stationed in the mDo-smad region. “Ye Xiannai 葉 仙鼐 zhuan” in chap. 133 of Yuanshi recorded that after the suppression of Li Tan 李璮’s rebellion (the third year of the Zhongtong reign 1262), Ye Xiannai was appointed chief commander of the western circuit (xidao 西道) and pacifying commissioner of Tibet. “Xiannai had always been familiar with the condition of the barbarians, he set up many garrisons and fortress to guard the place. He combined benevolence and force, and the stubborn and rough barbarians all obeyed him. He was the pacifying commissioner for twenty four years.” Ye later was promoted to governor of Yunnan province, and was soon reassigned to be governor of Jiangxi province. He participated in the suppression of Zhong Mingliang 鍾明亮’s rebellion (the twenty sixth year of the Zhiyuan reign 1289). From this we know that Ye Xiannai should hold the position of pacifying commissioner of Tibet from the end of the Zhongtong reign to the beginning of the Zhiyuan reign (1263-1264). Therefore the “Pacifying Commissioner of Tibet” already existed at that time, and it should be the earliest military and civilian institution established in eastern Tibet (mDo-smad and its surrounding areas). According to Deb-ther dmar-po and rGya-bod yig-tshang, the chief officials of the three regions dBus gtsang, mDo khams, and mDo-smad were all called “dpon-chen.” Then, Ye Xiannai might very likely have been called “dpon-chen” by local Tibetans, and its timing was earlier than the “Military and Civilian Myriarch of the Three Circuits in dBus gtsang” mentioned before. 1 Chen Qingying, “Yuandai wusizang dpon-chen ji lue,” Yuanshi lun cong, no. 4, pp. 237-238. 2 Petech, Central Tibet and the Mongols, pp. 43-46. 8 Bailan 白蘭 Prince in Tibet The rGya-bod yig-tshang wrote: “The Mongols and the Sa skya sect formed the relationship of patron and priest (yon mchod), the Dharma king ’Phags pa went to the court of Da du 大都 in Han region. He gave three tantric empowerments especially favored by the Sa skya pa sect to the emperor, imperial consorts, and imperial sons for three times. As an offering (yon) for the first empowerment, the emperor donated (phul-ba) the thirteen myriarchies of dBus gtsang...... as an offering for the second empowerment, he donated three chol-kha.” 1 The Sa-skya gdung-rabs embellished on this a bit: “The offering for the first empowerment was the thirteen myriads, each had four thousand lha sde (households attached to monastery), and six thousand mi sde (commoner). The offering for the second empowerment......was the monks and people in the three Tibetan districts.”2 The record in the fifth Dalai Lama’s chronicle is similar, and none of them gave exact date. Some Tibetan historical sources that came later put the event of Qubilai Khan giving the Tibetan thirteen myriarchies as an offering to ’Phags pa in the year 1253 or 1254, 3 which shows that the dates recorded in these sources are often inaccurate. According to ’Phags pa’s biography (xing zhuang 行狀) that Wang Pan 王磐 composed upon the order of Emperor Shizu, ’Phags-pa had an audience with the emperor in 1253. “The imperial consorts and the hire-apparent all received empowerments, thus granted special exultation.” This was the first empowerment.4 Fozu lidai tongzai 佛祖歷代通載 recorded that in the first year of Zhi-yuan reign (1264), “the Imperial Preceptor paхуita ’Phags Pa ascended the seat and conducted a secret empowerment.” This should be the second time. On both occasions, Qubilai Khan issued edicts of protection to ’Phags-pa, and the two documents are recorded by Sa-skya gdung-rabs. The first one is called the “Tibetan Letter Edict” (’ja’ sa bod yig ma) which explained the procedure of the empowerment and the gold, silver, and jewelry that were bestowed upon ’Phags pa. It also ordered the monks in Tibet to practice according to Buddhist principal and to pray to heaven for the emperor’s longevity for which they would enjoy the favor of tax and covйe labor exemption. The second one is called the “Pearl Edict” (’ja’ sa mu tig ma) which pronounced ’Phags pa as the National Preceptor and appointed him as the supervisor of monks who must obey his order and practice according to Buddhist principal. It 1 rGya-bod yig-tshang, Tibetan version, pp. 277-278, Chinese translation, p. 170. Chinese translation, Lhasa: Xizang renmin chuban she, 1989, p.108. 3 See Tucci Tibetan Painted Scrolls, vol. 2. In page 651-652, Tucci translated the relevant sections from dPag bsam ljong bzang and Dam pa`i chos kyi` byung tshul. 4 See Fozu lidai tongzai, chap. 21. 2 9 prohibited anyone to mistreat monks, to demand tax and covйe labor from them, and to take monastic property.1 The characteristic of these two “’ja’ sa” is entirely the same with the protective edicts or orders that were issued by the Mongolian khan or princes to the clergy and monasteries of various religions. There was not a single word in them that indicated the so-called “offering” of the thirteen myriads and the three districts (chol kha) in Tibet. Petech noticed the contradiction between the content of Qubilai’s edicts and the story in the Tibetan sources. He pointed out: “Contrary to what the tradition [recorded by Tibetan historical works] has to say, it (referring to the Tibetan Letter Edict) contains not the slightest hint at Sa-ska temporal rule ‘over the thirteen myriarchies (k‘ri skor) of dBus and gTsang’.” “Once more in contradiction to the Tibetan tradition, according to which this decree conferred upon ’Phags-pa the temporal sovereignty over the three regions (chol-kha)……, the imperial edict (referring to the Pearl Edict) merely confirmed to the Buddhist clergy the usual freedom from taxation and service, with the addition of the exemption from lodging and entertaining imperial messengers.” Yet he said: “Still, the tradition has a basis of fact, because Sa-ska-pa administrators were stationed in each of the three chol-kha.”2 He does not provide evidence for this statement, but I think that he had the “dpon-chen” in mind. I shall discuss this question later. The “Shi lao zhuan” in Yuanshi wrote about ’Phags pa’s status in Tibet this way: “Emperor Shizu saw that the [Tibet] land is vast and remote, and the people were tough and violent, and thus thought to soften them by following their customs. The emperor divided the Tibetan land into prefectures and counties, set up officials for different positions, and made the Imperial Preceptor the supervisor. Hence the Xuanzheng yuan 宣 政院 (Bureau for Tibetan and Buddhist Affairs) was established. The commissioner who held its second highest position must be a monk and come from the Imperial Preceptor’s recommendation. Both clergy and secular personal were always used for the positions ranked below the Shuai chen 帥臣 that coordinated administrative affairs in and out. They were made to command both military and civilians. Thus the Imperial Preceptor’s order and imperial edicts were both implemented in the western region.” Ouyang Xuan 歐陽玄 of the Yuan period had a paragraph in which he also discussed Qublai Khan’s policy of using Buddhist power to rule the Tibetan region: “After coming back from his expedition of Di 氐 and Qiang 羌, Emperor Shizu praised Buddhism and elevated the status of its masters, so much so that their palaces and clothing were equivalent to those of the emperor. 1 Sa-ska gdung rab, Chinese translation, Xizang renmin chubanshe, 1989, p.116(Tibetan letter edict);pp. 112-113 (Pearl edict). 2 Petech, Central Tibet and the Mongols, Rome, 1990, pp. 14-15, 17. 10 This was the strategy of observing local custom and using it to control the remote region. Common people in the world would not be able to understand this.” (“[Yunnan Yaoan] Miaoguang si ji[雲南姚安]妙光寺記) ,” in Huanyu tongzhi 寰宇通志, chap.113.) Thus we can see that Qubilai Khan supported ’Phags pa for the purpose of using Buddhism, to adjust to the special condition of Tibetans who “diligently worshiped Buddha and obeyed his principal,”1 and to adopt a policy of flexible control. Therefore, despite the fact that the “Pearl Edict” of 1264 only granted ’Phags pa the power of governing the monks, in Tibet it actually amounted to be in charge of both the monastic and the secular population. This is in effect the same with what is recorded in the “Bai guan zhi 百官志” of the same book that “The guoshi 國師 (State Preceptor) was in charge of the Zhongzhi yuan 總制院 ( later Xuanzheng yuan) that controlled the Buddhist monks and governed the Tibetan region.” This means ’Phags pa was “in charge” of the affairs of Zhongzhi yuan with his status of the Imperial Preceptor--the highest religious position set up by the court, and through this he received the power of being “in charge” of religious and administrative affairs in Tibet. People of the Yuan period said that in the Tibetan region “military, selection for official position, punishment and reward, and administration of taxes were all under the jurisdiction of the Xuanzheng yuan.”2 This indicates that there was no another government under the Imperial Preceptor (or the Sa skya sect) in the Tibetan region that was independent of the Xuanzheng yuan. The Imperial Preceptor’s “ling 領” (in charge) of Xuanzheng yuan or the Tibetan region means to preside over it and in command. Not only this had nothing to do with him receiving feudal domain, but also that he was not directly in control of the religious and administrative matters. His power is mainly expressed in providing the emperor with advice on dealing with Tibetan religious and administrative affairs, recommending candidates for the Xuanzheng yuan’s secondary commissioners and positions below it, as well as for local officials. The Tibetan sources that we have so far, especially the edicts from Imperial Preceptor have proven that he was only issuing orders to officials and monastic and secular population according to imperial edicts. He mainly promulgated the appointment of local officials (myriarchies) and protected monasteries and exempted taxes for the households and land attached to them. “Beyond this, he had no direct share in the actual running of the administration of Central 1 Zhu Derun 朱德潤, “Xingxuanzhengyuan fushi songxing shi xu 行宣政院副使送行詩序,” Cunfu zhai wenji 存復齋文集, chap. 4. 2 Ibid. 11 Tibet.”1 and he certainly would not have another set of administrative orders expressing his right as the “feudal lord” of the entire Tibet. It is true that ’Phags pa and the Yuan Imperial Preceptors after him owned fiefs bestowed by emperor. rGya-bod yig-tshang recorded that “in the Rab-kha area of Hezhou 河 州 prefecture were estate (gzhis) under the supervision of Nang-so (stewards for religious master). There was one estate at the foot of the city wall named Bla-ba mkhar, and another one below it was named Dem-khang. These were portion land (sa-phud) granted to [Imperial] Preceptor ’Phags pa by imperial edict, they did not have any Tibetan and Han region tax and covйe labor duty for government storage and the postal system, they were not included in governmental registration.” 1 Only these were the real fiefs for ’Phags pa. Of course, he undoubtedly retained the land and people that originally belonged to the Sa-skya sect, and he might have been bestowed some land by the court in other places in Tibet. The “Wuzong ben ji 武宗本紀” in chapter 22 of Yuanshi recorded under the tenth month in the first year of the Zhida 至大 reign (1308): “Following the petition of the Imperial Preceptor, the chief governor of Buddhist religion Duo er zhi ban 朵兒只班 (rDo rje dpal) was also put in charge of the land and money of nang-pa 囊八, he was appointed the Daruquchi 達魯花赤 of the Office of Chief Administration to supervise its revenue.” This “land and money of nang-pa” should be the same as the estate under the supervision of nang-so in the above-cited Tibetan source, the private domain and property of the Imperial Preceptor. In this sense, the Imperial Preceptor was also a feudal lord, but he was not the feudal lord of the whole Tibet. Arguing from the point that ’Phags pa’s younger brother Phyag na rdo rje was given the title of “Bailan Prince 白蘭王,” Mr. Chen Qingying proposes that “it allowed the Sa-skya family to gain the status of feudal lord similar to that of the Mongolian princes, imperial son-in-laws, and the meritorious generals who contributed to the founding of the dynasty. The Tibetan region began to have a Tibetan feudal lord whose titles were granted by the Yuan government.” He further assumed that when Phyag na rdo rje died suddenly in 1267, “in order to protect the Sa skya family’s newly gained status as feudal lord, Qubilai Khan let ’Phags pa took over Phyag na rdo rje power as secular feudal lord, thus made ’Phags pa a feudal lord who truly concentrated religious and secular power in one person.” Chen’s argument is based on the accounts in Tibetan sources that Qubilai Khan donated the thirteen myriarchies and the three Tibetan districts as offering to ’Phags pa. He thinks that this is the way “the authors of the Tibetan historical works viewed ’Phags pa’s domain 1 Petech, op. cit, p. 37. 12 from their stand point as Buddhists,” while “actually the Yuan government only added the Bailan prince’s secular power to ’Phags pa.”2 In other words, he sees the “donation” of the thirteen myriarchies and three districts in Tibetan sources as granting feudal domains. He presupposes that Phyag na rdo rje was entitled to be granted feudal domian as Bailan prince. Story about Phyag na rdo rje is only seen in Tibetan sources. Deb-ther dmar-po is the earliest that recorded him going to Liangzhou 涼州 with his uncle when he was five years old. Prince Kцdдn ordered him to ware Mongolian clothing and married princess Me’ga’-‘dun to him. “The Se-chen emperor (Qubilai Khan) appointed him as the general head (or viceroy?) of Tibet (Se-chen gyis bod spyi’bi steng du bskos),” but it did not mention the event of him being entitled as the Bailan prince and receiving fiefdom.3 The rGya-bod yig-tshang that came a little later gave a more detailed record on him. It said that “after the audience with the Se-chen emperor, he was bestowed the title of Bailan prince and a golden seal, and the left and right Tongzhi yamen 同知衙門 was established, he was appointed the general head of Tibet.” (Se-chen rgyal-po dang mjal nas/ ba’i len dbang gi ming dang./gser gyi tham kha/thong ji g. yas g. yon gyi khrims ra dang bcas pa gnang./ bod spyi`i steng du bkos) 4 Petech wrote: “His position at Sa-skya is not easy to define. Our earliest source (Hu-lan Deb-ther=Debther dmar-po) employs vague terms: he was placed over whole of Tibet (Bod spyi’i steng du bkos). According to another text (Saskya gdung-rabs) he was appointed Lord of the Law (khrims bdag) in the three regions (chol-kha). The term khrims bdag implies some form of judicial activity; in my opinion, it corresponds to the Mongol title jarghuchi i.e. judge.”5 I think there is not much difference between spyi’i steng and khrims bdag, they both meant chief supervisor of secular affairs. The fifth Dalai’s chronicle in fact said that he was appointed the “Head Official of Tibet” (bod gyi dpon) by Qubilai Khan.1 The jarghuchi in Mongolian means chief administrator, thus Petech’s point may be valid. But the key issue here is does this means that the whole Tibetan region was given to Phyag na rdo rje as a feudal domain? I do not think this is the case. 1 rGya-bod yig-tshang, Tibetan version, p. 277; Chinese translation, p. 107. Chen Qingying, “Yuandai Wusizang benchin shulue,” Yuanshi lun cong, no. 4, pp. 233-234. 3 Deb-ther dmar-po, Tibetan version p. 48; Chinese version, pp. 43-44. 4 rGya-bod yig-tshang, Tibetan version pp. 330-331; Chinese version p. 206 (there are slight differences in the translation). 5 Petech, op.cit, pp. 19-20, and notes 58, 59 on page 20. 2 13 The Yuan feudal system generally had two layers: the first layer is dividing the qubi 忽 必 (份子) for the imperial clan members (i.e. the so-called aqa-de’u “older and younger brothers”) which granted fiefdom and people in its real sense; and the second layer was the Soyurqal (reward) for meritorious subjects which was actually granting inheritable rights to guardianship. Although they were generally called “tou xia 投下”, but their natures were different. The former was sometimes also called “wei xia 位下.” Furthermore, the so-called “feudal system 分封制度” in Mongol-Yuan period was of two types. One was the fiefs that mainly located in nomadic areas, including the kingdoms (ulus) for imperial clan members and the tribes belong to chiliarchies (Mongolian: minqat-un noyat, the chiliads granted to the various princes of the imperial clan belonged to ulus of Imperial Princes, the rest belonged to the great ulus directly under the great Khan’s rule). Another was the Wuhu si 五戶絲 tax revenue fief mainly in agricultural areas. The aristocrat families that had marriage connection to the imperial family have dual nature: those that had been marrying princesses for generations “were treated as close as princes,” and they held favorable positions in receiving annual rewards and the right over fiefs (Yet on the list of annual reward only princesses could be treated the same with princes and called “wei 位.” Although imperial son-in-laws were entitled “prince”, they were not listed among the various “wei.”) Meanwhile, husbands of princesses were also appointed heads of myriads and heads of chiliads, and thus they were the chief military and civilian officials of chiliads directly under the rule of the Great Khan. They were similar to other meritorious subjects belong to the type of soyurqal fiefs which obviously differ from the imperial princess’s status as aqa-de’u.2 With regard to the Yuan implementation of its feudal system in Tibet, the research of many scholars now allows us to be generally certain that it was carried out once during the period of Emperor Xianzong Mongge. In 1247, Kцdдn ordered Sa skya paхуita (Sa pan), head of the Sa skya sect, to send a pacifying announcement to various areas in dBus gtsang. At this time, dBus gtsang should be under Kцdдn’s control, but it seemly was not given to him as a fiefdom. Soon after that, the throne changed hands from the Okodei line to the Tolui line and Kцdдn died of sickness. The newly ascended Mongge Khan got involved immediately. He continuously conquered and pacified the Tibetan region, and 1 Beijing: Minzhu chubanshe, 1980, Tibetan version p. 98 (cited from Yuan yilai Xizang difang yu zhongyang zhengfu guanxi dangan shiliao huibian, vol. 1, p. 45, Chinese traslation), Guo Heqing 郭和卿’s Chinese translation (Beijing: Minzhu chubanshe, 1983) p. 95. 2 For the meaning of “tou xia” and types of fiefdom, see Li Zhian 李治安, Yuandai fenfeng zhidu yanjiu 元代分封制度研究 (Tianjin: Tianjin guji chubanshe, 1992), chapter 1. 14 established connections with all the major religious sects in dBus gtsang. Following that, he sent commissioners to dBus gtsang to conduct census and divided domains according to the Mongolian feudal system. He made the areas that were controlled by the different sects into fiefs for himself (’Bri gung pa) and his brothers Qubilai (Tshal pa), Hulegu (Phag mo gru pa), and Ariq Boke (sTag lung bka’ brgyud pa) respectively. Both the rLangs kyi po ti bse rgyas pa and the fifth Dalai lama’s Chronicle recorded this. They wrote: “The Mongolian princes became lords of the various religious sects in the whole Tibet and took over their appanages” and made detailed records of the perimeters of the fiefdom that Hulegu received the area controlled by the Phag mo gru pa sect.1 This was probably similar to the tax revenue domain in China proper, however, due to lack of sources and the special conditions in the dBus gtsang region, we are not very clear about the actual relationship between the feudal lord and their domains. We only know that Hulegu had sent a “land official” (yul-bsrungs-pa) named Go-go-chu to his domain that had been the area controlled by the Phag mo gru pa. Later, Go-go-chu’s son rDo-rje still had part of the right over governing the Phag mo gru pa Myriad. They may be the Daruquchi appointed in Hulegu’s fiefdom.2 Petech thinks that Qubilai Khan “dismantled the appanage system in Tibet and recalled the representatives (yul bsrungs) of the imperial princes, with the exception of the appanage of his brother Hulegu.”3 The material base for this point must be the record in the rLangs kyi po ti bse rgyas pa that Qubilai Khan “abolished the troops sent by Mongolian [princes] for guarding their manors in Tibet.”4 Yet this is not sufficient for us to conclude that the princes’ fiefdoms were abolished, because sharing land and people was the inalienable property right for members of the “Golden Clan”. Even though it may be temporarily taken away in case of rebellion, it must be redistributed to one’s family members or his hires. For example, the families of Qaidu and Nayan were always able to keep their domains in China proper.5 Therefore, I 1 rLangs kyi po ti bse rgyas pa, Lhasa: Xizang renmin chuban she, 1986, pp. 109-111 (for reference see Yuan yilai Xizang difang yu zhongyang zhengfu guanxi dangan shiliao huibian, vol. 1, p. 8); dPyid kyi rgyal mo’i glu dbyang, Tibetan version p. 105 (for reference see Shen Weirong, “Lun yuandai wusizang shisan wanhu de jianli”, p. 88. 2 rGya-bod yig-tshang, Tibetan version p. 547; Chen Qingying’s Chinese version, p. 317. 3 Petech, op.cit, p. 16. 4 See Yuan yilai Xizang difang yu zhongyang zhengfu guanxi dangan shiliao huibian, vol. 1, p. 8. 5 Yuanshi, chap. 23, “Wuzong ben ji”: “On the gengyin 庚寅 day of the third month in the third year of the Zhida reign, Shangshu sheng 尚書省 said: ‘In past the Emperor Shizu had said to convert the wuhu si tax in the rebellious prince Haidu’s fief into money, and to bestow it to him when he come to surrender. It had been stored for over twenty years. Now his son Chapaer 察八兒 admired the benevolence of the emperor and come to the court. Please give him the money.’ The emperor said: ‘The Shizu Emperor truly thinks for the long term. Let us 15 think even if Qubilai Khan abolished the fiefs supervisors appointed by the princes (according to “Shizu benji 世祖本紀” in Yuanshi, there had been an edict to abolish the Daruquchi of the princes’ tou xia in the first year of the Zhiyuan 至元 reign 1264), he would not abrogate their rights over their fiefdoms. When many places in the dBus gtsang region were already fiefdoms of the Mongolian princes, how could they be bestowed to others as “feudal domains”? It is even more unlikely that a Tibetan would be made a great feudal lord on top of Mongolian princes. Merely a son-in-law to prince Kцdдn, Phyag na rdo rje had neither the status nor the power that would allow him to have the entire Tibet as fiefdom. Investigating Phyag na rdo rje being made a prince (if it indeed happened) and his appointment as “general head of Tibet” in the specific time period, it is actually significant for a different reason. Phyag na rdo rje and his older brother went with their uncle to Liangzhou in 1246, lived there for 18 years, and were sent back to dBus gtsang around 1264. It should be about that time that he was given the status of “prince” and the appointment. I very much agree with Petech’s analysis about the condition of that time and Qubilai Khan’s policy. For Petech, that particular year was decisive in many aspects: Qublai Khan won the internal war; he made Yanjing 燕京 replacing Qaraqorum 和林 as the capital which meant shifting the center of the empire from Mongolia to China Proper; he started military operations to pacify Xi Fan 西蕃 (mainly the mDo khams region); he established the government institution Zongzhi yuan for managing Buddhist and Tibetan affairs; and he sent ’Phags pa and his brother back to Tibet and issued the “Pearl Edict.”1 We can add one more item to the list: Qubilai Khan sent the minister Dashiman to Tibet to promulgate Yuan pacification, to investigate local conditions, and to establish postal service.2 In any case, Qubilai Khan was obviously strengthening his rule in the Tibetan wait until the morning audience of the princes. After the rewards are passed out, you must explain the reason in detail and then give the money so as to let him know the shame.’ This is a typical material about the princes’ rights over their fiefdom. The “Shizu ben ji” in the same book recorded when Neiyan and other princes in the east rebelled in the twenty forth year of the Zhiyuan reign, Shizu had ordered to abolish the Daruquchi and other officials they appointed in their fiefdoms in Yidu 益都, Pingluan 平灤, Hejian 河間, and Jinan 濟南. But according to the “Annual rewards 歲賜” section in the “Shihuo zhi 食貨志,” these fiefdoms continued to remain in the hands of those families. 1 Petech, op.cit, pp. 16-17. 2 For details, see rGya-bod yig-tshang, Tibetan version, pp. 273-276; Chinese version, pp. 167169. This book did not record the year in which Dashimen set up the postal service. Petech said it was in 1269 base on mKhas pa’i dga’ ston (Petech, op.cit, p. 62), Luosan Qunjue 洛桑 群覺 and Chen Qingying think it was between 1260 and 1265 (see “Yuandai zai Zangzhu diqu shezhi de yizhan 元代在藏族地區設置的驛站,” Xibei shidi 西北史地, no. 3, 1984), Shen 16 region. We can easily see why Qubilai Khan emphasized controlling Tibet as soon as we analyze the situation of Qubilai Khan’s war with Ariq boke for the throne during the Zhong tong 中統 reign (1260-1264). During this war, the two sides’ struggle over QinLong 秦隴 and Chuan-Shu 川蜀 was fierce and it extended to Tibet. In the second year of the Zhong tong reign (1261), after Ariq boke’s chief commander Alandar 阿蘭答兒 was defeated and died, his subordinate general Qodu 火 都 stayed in the Dianxi 點 西 mountains in Tibet and rebelled again. Qubilai Khan’s side sent many Mongolian and Han troops and spent a long time to suppress this rebellion.1 Because of Mongge Khan’s support, the very influential Karma sect refused to obey Qubilai Khan and sided with Ariq boke instead. At that time Qubilai Khan was not yet able to have stable control over Tibet. Therefore, he spent much energy to prop up the Sa skya sect as a tool for his rule over the Tibetan region. Sending ’Phags pa and his brother back was obviously for the purpose of using their influence among Tibetan people to establish his control. To ensure that this measure was enforced, he even used military support. Based on Tibetan sources, Petech points out that ’Phags pa’s travel back to Tibet “accompanied by the advance of imperial troops. A large Mongolian force headed by Du-mur (Temur?) was marching toward Tibet in 1263.”2 The “Shizu ben ji” in Yuanshi recorded under the fifth month of the second year in the Zhiyuan reign (1265): “reward four hundred and fifty taels of silver to myriarch Qongridar 晃里答兒’s troops for its expedition in Tibet.” Thus we know that an expedition into Tibet indeed happened before that. rGya-bod yig-tshang also recorded clearly that Qubilai Khan sent Dashiman to Tibet for pacification and its purpose was to confirm that “the recalcitrant Tibetans had already come under the rule of our emperor Qubilai Khan” (bod bying po/ se-chen go-dpe-la’i ’og ti chug nas).3 We can see that the source material must be understood according to its original meaning: Phyag na rod rje was only appointed as the “general head (or viceroy?) ”(spyi’i steng) or “Zhang guan” Weirong thinks it should be around the year of 1264 (See his above cited article). The author thinks that Shen’s point is more plausible. 1 Yuanshi, chap. 162, “Li Hulanji chuan 李忽蘭吉傳” records that Huodu rebelled in the ninth month of the second year of the Zongtong reign, and he was captured in the tenth month. But chap. 135 of the same book, “Yuejushuchihaiya chuan 月舉連赤海牙傳,” and chap. 155 “Wang Weizheng chuan 汪惟正傳” both recorded the suppression of Huodu’s rebellion in the third year of the Zhongtong reign. Chap. 123 “Zhao Agepan chuan” recorded it in the fourth year of the Zhongtong reign. In addition, the rebellion is also seen in chap. 121 “Anzhumi chuan 按竺邇傳,” chap.133 “Baiyan chuan 拜延傳,” chap.155 “Wang Liangchen chuan 汪良 臣傳,” and chap.166 “Shimogougou chuan 石抹狗狗傳.” The record of suppressing the rebellion in the third year of the Zhongtong reign is more reliable. 2 Petech, op.cit, pp. 17-18. 3 rGya-bod yig-tshang, Tibetan version, p. 274; Chinese version, p. 167. 17 (dpon) to manage Tibet for the emperor. He was not given Tibet as a feudal fiefdom because that would go against the emperor’s goal. Phyag na rdo rje spent three years after returning to Sa skya, and died of sickness in 1267. Nothing was recorded of the sort of political activities that he might have during this period. It is not known whether he truly carried out his duty as the “general head（or viceroy）” or how he exercised power. It is worth pointing out here that the Tibetan sources recorded that Qubilai Khan’s donation of the three Tibetan districts to ’Phags pa at the time of the second empowerment (1264) which was three years before Phyag na rdo rje died. Therefore, the assumption that “donating the three Tibetan districts” meant that after Phyag na rdo rje’s death Qubilai Khan added his secular power of feudal lord to ’Phags pa does not fit with the dates. It is completely without evidence. Phyag na rdo rje’s son 答兒麻八剌剌吉塔 Dharmapararakita, born after his father’s death, went to the court when he was fourteen years old (1281) and succeeded the position of Imperial Preceptor next year. He later married the daughter of prince Jibik temur 只必 帖木爾(Kцdдn’s son), returned to Tibet by order, and died in mDo khams. According to the Mongolian system, if his father had been made a prince, and he himself was also married to a princess, he should have inherited the title. However, there is no such record in the sources, which makes it doubtful whether Phyag na rdo rje was ever given the title of prince. According to Tibetan sources, during the time of the Yuan Emperor Yingzong 英宗, Suo nan zang bo 鎖南藏卜(bSod nams bzang po), the brother of the Imperial Preceptor Kun dga’ blo gros rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po (’Phags pa’s grand nephew), was married to princess Mun da gan and made the Bailan prince, he then returned to Tibet and died in mDo khams. His half brother Gongge lesiba jianzang banzangbo 公哥列思巴監藏 班藏卜(Kun dga’ legs pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po) then married princess Mun da gan. Yuan Emperor Shundi 順帝 bestowed on him the title of Bailan prince and a golden seal, as well as an edict for him to preside over the three Tibetan districts. Kug dga’ legs pa rgyal mtshan’s son Qilasiba jianzang banzangbo 乞剌思巴監藏班藏卜(Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po) was given the title of Bailan prince afterwards, set up the left and right Tongzhi offices, and bestowed the edict for presiding over the western land.1 Among them, bSod nams bzang po is seen in records in Yuanshi: the “Yingzong ben ji 英宗本紀” 1 Ibid, Tibetan version, pp. 334-335, 338, 342; Chinese version, pp. 209, 212, 214. Note that this book recorded that bSod nams bzang po married the princess and became prince during the period of the emperor Aiyurbarwada 愛育黎拔力八達 (Renzong), that is mistaken. Deb-ther dmar-po said it was during the reign of the emperor Gegen 格堅 which matches with Chinese sources and it correct. 18 listed that in the twelfth month of the first year of the Zhizhi 至治 reign (1321) “bSod nams bzang po was made the Bailan prince, and was bestowed a golden seal.” The “Taidingdi ben ji 泰定帝本紀” listed under the fifth month of the third year in the Taiding reign (1326) that “the Imperial Preceptor’s older brother bSod nams bzang po was put in charge of affairs of the Pacification Commission of the three Tibetan districts, he married a princess and was bestowed the title of prince.” (The Princes List of Yuanshi “諸王表” said that bSod nams bzang po was bestowed the title of Bailan prince in the first year of the Zhizhi 至治 reign. Thereafter, he entered monastery. He returned to secular life in the fourth year of the Taiding reign (1327), and was bestowed the title again. When Tibetan and Chinese sources are correlated, we know that the political position that the Yuan court conferred to Bailan prince was that of “supervising the affairs of the three Pacification Commissions of Tibet” and it was not to give the three Tibetan districts as his fiefdom. To trace it back to Phyag na rdo rje (disregard whether he was given the title of prince), the position of “Bod spyi’i steng” that Emperor Shizu granted him as some Tibetan sources related should also mean the same. The Bailan prince, with the title of “supervisor of the three Tibetan districts,” the status of imperial son-in-law, and the establishment of his own office, naturally had a certain power in managing Tibetan affairs when he was sent back. Sources reveal that the later two Bailan princes who returned to Tibet indeed in some cases used their power to interfere the local administration. But their responsibility was not that of directly in charge of local administration. rGya-bod yig-tshang recorded that when Emperor Shundi made Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po the Bailan prince, “he also bestowed an edict for governing the areas under the sTag tshang rdzong and Chu mig myriad.”1 This may be bestowing him fiefs, which demonstrates that not the entire Tibet was given as the Bailan prince’s domain. The one who truly governed the whole Tibet with the status of feudal lord was the imperial prince who was granted appanage to garrison this large area. One of the measures that Qubilai Khan took to strengthen centralization was to “order imperial princes to command troops in strategic places on the frontier,” and he set up his several sons as feudal lords in the vast territory outside of the interior regions (fu li 腹裏). When the Geographic Records in Yuanshi “地理志” talked about the Anxi prince 安西王, it used the term “given domain to guard” (fengshou 封守) which is very appropriate. But the regions they guarded were not feudal domains or tax revenue fiefs in the strict sense. Their power was mainly to command the troops for defense or offense. In the meantime, they 1 Ibid, Tibetan version, p. 342; Chinese translation, p. 214. 19 had a certain role in supervising or controlling local governments (xingsheng).1 The one who was made the feudal lord in the Tibetan region was Qubilai Khan’s seventh son, the Xiping prince 西平王 A’uruqchi 奧魯赤. Throughout the Yuan period, A’uruqchi’s descendents who was bestowed the title of Zhenxi wujing prince 鎮 西 武 靖 王 , continuously inherited the status of feudal lord in the region, and this was its highest ruler in name. In reality, they also possessed considerable power over the management of affairs concerning the three Tibetan districts (dBus gtsang, mDo smad, and mDo khams). For example, the Zhenxi wujing prince Chos dpal 搠思班 had issued a protective order to Zha lu monastery in dBus gtsang and to Phag mo gru for new appointment of myriarch (it was the same as the Imperial Preceptor’s order, issued in the name of imperial edict). He ordered to set aside a place in northern Tibet to be governed by the Sa skya sect’s Rinchen brtson-’grus and his descendents.2 However, the management of Tibetan affair was in the hand of the Xuanzhen yuan. The “Wuzong ben jin 武宗本紀” in Yuanshi listed under the seventh month of the second year in the Zhida 至大 reign (1309): the Wujing prince Chos dpal and the Xuanwei si of the mDo smad district petitioned to Xuanzheng yuan to change the Anfu si 安撫司 in Songpan 松潘 and its surrounding areas into Xuanfu si 宣撫司, to move its seat to Wen chuan 汶川 county in Mao zhou 茂州 prefecture, and to send one thousand troops from Songzhou 松州 to guard it. Xuanzheng yuan discussed it and “granted their petition,” thus it was reported to the emperor and carried out. A document that was included in the “Jamuchi 站赤” section of Jingshi da dian 經世大典 said: “In the twelfth month of the second year in the Huangqing 皇慶 reign (1313), the Wujing prince Chos dpal sent an order to Xuanzheng yuan. He said that in the three districts of dBus gtsang, mDo khams, and mDo smad the postal stations’ horses died from disease and household were impoverished, please report this to the emperor. After reporting it , the Xuanzheng yuan received the empress dowager’s edict that ordered to discuss this with the Grand Secretariat 中書省, ......it is proposed to give each of the twenty eight stations three hundred ding of Zhongtong money notes 中統鈔......and, if that is not enough, to supply them a proper amount from the Tibetan tax revenue that was managed by the Xuanzheng yuan.”3 These two events illustrate that in managing Tibetan affairs, the Zhenxi wujing prince only provided resolution and guidance, and it still needed 1 See Li Zhian, Yuandai fenfeng zhidu yanjiu, chapter 5 “Yuanchao shiqi de zongwang chu zhen 元朝時期的宗王出鎮,” Tianjin, 1992. 2 rGya-bod yig-tshang, Chinese translation, p. 247. 3 Yongle da dian 永樂大典, chap.19421. 20 to be reported through discussion of Xuanzheng yuan to the emperor for asking authorization, then could be put into effect. 3． dPon-chen’s Position and its Relationship with the Xuanwei si In rGya-bod yig-tshang, the part about the history and system of Yuan dynasty was composed by using the dynasty’s own official documents (for example the Dayuan tongzhi 大元通制 that was mentioned by the author) and is thus invaluable. In several places it recorded the system of office concerning the Tibetan region. In the following, I quote the important sections from the Chinese translation (collated with the Tibetan version): “In the time of the Mongol Sechen emperor, there were eleven provinces (zhing) under his rule......There was Zhongshu sheng at Dadu ， and there were Henan province, Lingbei province, Gansu province, Sichuan province, Yunnan province, Jiangzhe province，Jiangxi province, Huguang province, Liaoyang province in other places. The three chol-kha in Tibet were not enough to be a province, still it was counted as one because it was the Imperial Preceptor’s residential place and the region that Buddhist teaching flourished. There were eleven provinces in total. As for the various ranks of official positions, there were head of ten households (bcu dpon), head of fifty households (lnga bcu dpon), centurion (brgya dpon), chiliarch (stong dpon), myriarch (khri dpon), and Daruqachi of circuits. If one governed three circuits, then he was given the title of “Military and Civilian Myriarch of Circuit” (klu-gun-min-dben-hu), and was bestowed a crystal seal......In Tibet, this title had been granted to dpon-chen Shakya bzang-bo. The title that was given to the majority of the dpon-chen was Chief Myriarch of the Pacification Commission of the three circuits “等三路宣慰司都萬 戶”(note：the term in Tibetan edition is dhing-zam-lu-son-wi-pi-du-dben-ba-hu, there are obviously two wrong wordings in it，the pi should be corrected as si, and the ba should be sa. Therefore, this title should be “[乌思藏]等三路宣慰司都元帅府”Chief Military Command of Pacification Commission of the three circuits), and they were also given a six-sided silver seal and a tiger-head badge. The term of dpon-chen (note: it seems to be more appropriate to translate the original dpon-chen zhes-pa as “the socalled dpon-chen”) was a special name (note: the original text was che-ming, which seems to be more proper to be translated directly as “grand name”, i.e. “honorific name”) that the Tibetans used for the Imperial Preceptor’s close attendants (nye-gnas); the term chol-kha was a place name made for the regions of mDo khams, mDo smad, and dBus gtsang that the Mongolian emperor donated to the Imperial Preceptor as an offering for receiving empowerment.” “......though the three chol-kha was donated according to the 21 rules of patronage gift, each chol-kha had one dpon-chen and they were appointed according to the decision made by the emperor, after he consulted with the Imperial Preceptor.”1 At the end of the section about the dpon-chen of dBus gtsang, it said: “There were twenty seven dpon-chen in total. They obey the orders of the Imperial Preceptor and edicts of the emperor to protect administration and religion so as to make the land peaceful and Buddhist teaching flourish. Similarly, in the Gon-gyo of mDo stod and the Gling-tshang of mDo smad, each chol-kha had a dpon-chen.”1 From the above records (except the author’s excessive explanation from religious point of view), we can conclude the following: First, the whole Tibetan region was one of the provincial level administrative units under the court. It was divided into three chol-kha (mDo khams 朵甘思, mDo smad 朵思麻, and dBus gtsang 烏思藏) which undoubtedly were the “three Tibetan dao 吐蕃三道” recorded in Yuanshi. Secondly, “dpon-chen” was the highest official at the chol-kha (dao) level who was responsible for affairs within his jurisdiction. There was one dpon-chen in each of the three chol-kha in Tibet. Thirdly, dpon-chen were officials selected through the emperor’s consultation with the Imperial Preceptor and were appointed by the court. They exercised power by obeying imperial edicts and the Imperial Preceptor’s orders. Fourth, the title given to the earliest “dBus gtsang dpon-chen” Shakya bzang-bo was “Military and Civilian Myriarch of (the three) Circuits.” Later, the majority of dpon-chen were given the title of “Commissioner of Pacification and Chief Commander of the Three Circuits”. There is one more point worth noting: dpon-chen was originally an ordinary term in Tibetan that even commoners could understand, yet it was given a distinct explanation by this book that said it was a “grand name” used by Tibetans for the Imperial Preceptor’s close attendants. Whether or not this explanation is correct, it shows that the term was not a formal name of office position, rather, it was a Tibetan term that Tibetans used to call a special type of high officials during the Yuan period. This is exactly the same as Chinese sources of the Yuan period gave particular explanation to the ordinary Chinese term “zhang guan 長官” that was used frequently in the early period of the dynasty. They both had special reasons to do so. Mr. Chen Qingying cites the explanation of dpon-chen in rGya-bod yig-tshang, and he takes this as a starting point to examine its origin and jurisdiction. He believes that this position had its origin in the chief steward who managed secular affairs on behalf of the religious masters of various sects (which had already developed into local powers that 1 rGya-bod yig-tshang, Tibetan version, pp. 271-278; Chinese translation, pp.165-166, 171. 22 possessed land and people). When Sa skya paхуita was invited by Kцdдn to go to Liangzhou, he left his disciple Shakya bzang-po as the gZhis-rgan-pa (note, the original text in rGya-bod yig-tshang was gZhi-gan-pa, in the Chinese translation it is “chief steward”). But the latter’s job was still an agent for the sect’s master and was not a formal official position. By the year 1267, ’Phags pa gained the dual status of head of the sect and secular feudal lord (Qubilai Khan added his younger brother’s rights as secular feudal lord on him). Thus according to the Yuan system that aristocrats and princes were allowed to appoint subordinate officials, those who had assisted the master to manage affairs in earlier times now became formal officials. Concretely speaking, Shakya bzang-po changed from gZhis-rgan-pa to Sa skya dpon-chen. Based on this idea, he infers that dpon-chen was appointed by the Imperial Preceptor, in his capacity as feudal lord, as an official of his domain; he was the chief manager of the Imperial Preceptor’s share of land, equivalent to the Duanshi guan 斷事官 in the princes’ fiefdoms; the dpon-chen who concurrently held the position of the pacification commissioner of dBus gtsang (wusizang xuanwei shi) had double duties that were different from others: the highest priority for the dpon-chen of dBus gtsang was to carry out the order of the Imperial Preceptor who was also the head of the Sa skya sect, and to govern the sect’s monastic and secular affairs and to serve its interest, whereas the pacification commissioner (xuanwei shi) had no power over the Imperial Preceptor’s fief, etc.1 This argument based itself on the assumption that Phyag na rdo rje’s being made prince and appointed the chief official of Tibet was the same as members of the imperial clan being granted feudal domains. Phyag na rdo jre thus gained the status of feudal lord. After his death, this status of secular feudal lord was transferred to ’Phags pa (its evidence is the so-called donation of the three Tibetan districts). I have spent much time discussing this (see above), and I believe that this point does not stand on solid ground. However, Mr. Chen Qingying also proposes the concept of “the Imperial Preceptor’s fief” and he thinks that it included the estates bestowed by the emperor (such as those in Hezhou) and the land and people that originally belonged to the Sa skya sect. Yet how is this different from what he has said about Phyag na rdo rje and ’Phags pa was made feudal lords in Tibet successively? Does the Imperial Preceptor’s feudal lord status only mean that he owned “fief”, or does it mean that all three districts of Tibet were his “feudal domain”? He did not specify in his article. As I have said earlier, the Imperial Preceptor and head of the Sa skya sect indeed owned land or “domain,” and only in this sense could they be considered 1 Ibid, Tibetan version, p. 362; Chinese translation, p. 227. 23 feudal lords. Nevertheless, both Tibetan and Chinese sources cited above demonstrated that the Imperial Preceptor and head of the Sa skya sect’s land or “domain” were not managed by dpon-chen, instead, they were managed by the inner affairs manager nang-so. Before the Yuan period, the Sa skya sect already developed into a local power that owned considerable amount of people, land property, and storage of valuable goods. It should have established managing personals. For example, when Sa skya paхуita took Kцdдn’s invitation to go to Liangzhou, he entrusted the responsibility of managing the sect’s land property and money to the inner chief manager (nang gnyer) Shakya bzang-po.2 Among the Imperial Preceptor’s edicts that are preserved at Zha lu monastery, the edict by Kun dga’ blo gros rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po in the year of the rooster (1321) and the one by Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po in the year of the rat (1336) (both were for exempting tax and covйe labor for the monks and people who belonged to the Zha lu monastery), both mentioned the inner administrator (nang so’i gnyer pa).3 Thus we can see that there had always been offices of inner affairs in the Sa skya sect. I think that the head of this kind of office of inner affairs is none other than the nang-chen, whose status in Tibetan sources is only second to dpon-chen. Yet from the events recorded in rGya-bod yig-tshang, we can see that there are major differences between the two. First, “dBus gtsang dpon-chen” was all appointed by imperial edicts, but “Sa skya nang-chen” was normally appointed by the head of the Sa skya sect himself (only a few were appointed by imperial edicts). Secondly, “dBus gtsang dpon-chen” managed religious and secular affairs of the entire region of the three circuits of dBus gtsang. He mainly answered to the court. On the other hand, the “Sa skya nang-chen” answered to the head of the Sa skya sect and the ’Khon family to serve their interest. He managed the affairs within that sect. Thirdly, the last “dBus gtsang dpon-chen” remained from the demise of Yuan to the founding of Ming, afterwards, this official position no longer existed. But the position of nang-chen continued to exist during the Ming period.4 All these can prove that the head of 1 Chen Qingying, above cited article, pp. 231, 233-235, 238. rGya-bod yig-tshang, Tibetan version, pp. 323, 357; Chinese translation, pp. 201, 224. 3 Bod kyi lo rgyus yig tshags dang gzhung yig phyog bsdus dwangs shel me long (Tibetan) pp. 2 206, 208, Minzhu chubanshe, 1989. 4 It is recorded in rGya-bod yig-tshang, when the rGyal rtse chos rgyal’s predecessor bZang po dpal lived in Dan yul E mo lung, some local rich households had to pay contributions to the Sa skya pa sect’s “nang so.” They needed help from literate people, thus bZang po dpal went several times. In Sa skya he was selected as a secretary (yig mkhan, his name was yig dpon bZang po dpal, which means using secretary as name) for Sa skya nang-chen. Later his son ’Phags pa dpal bzang po (the Imperial Preceptor Bla-ma ’Phags-pa bestowed him his own 24 those who oversaw land and other affairs within the domain of the Imperial Preceptor and head of Sa skya sect, the so-called “touxia officials” were not dpon-chen but rather nangchen. Since dpon-chen was a high ranking official appointed by the court, there must have been a regular name for this position. rGya-bod yig-tshang explained it as a “grand name” that Tibetans used for calling the Imperial Preceptor’s close attendant, which left it very unclear. This is because close attendant is a general term. The Imperial Preceptor had many close attendants who had various special titles for their duties. It did not explain what was the name for those who were referred to with the honorific name dpon-chen. This is a bit similar to the Chinese of Yuan period who explained “zhang guan” as “high ranking at the beginning of the dynasty.” It can only be seen as the author’s viewpoint about the relationship between dpon-chen and the Imperial Preceptor or head of the Sa skya sect, but not a historical annotation of the name itself. If it were the judge (jarghuchi) of the feudal lord, why did it not use a transcription (for example there was one for daruqachi) or a transliteration (khrims gcod, see Imperial Preceptor’s edicts in Zha lu monastery)? The Zhongzhou duanshi guan 中州斷事官(judge appointed by Mongol Great khan Okodei to govern the north China) Shigi qutuqu 失吉忽禿忽 was called “great official”, but it was a general term and a popular name. At that time the chief daruquchi Qulan 忽蘭 of Shanxi was also called “great official.” This shows that Chinese normally called administrator with large jurisdiction 大官人(great official) in the early Yuan. The Tibetan dpon-chen is very much similar to it, but this cannot prove that its position was that of judge. Furthermore, since we absolutely cannot prove that whole Tibet or dBus gtsang was feudal domain for the Imperial Preceptor or head of the Sa skya sect, the argument of dpon-chen as judge in the fiefdom of feudal lord is invalid. Petech also traces the origin of dpon-chen to the year of 1244 when Sa-skya paхуita took his departure for Liangzhou. “On that occasion he entrusted the care of the temporalities of the see, and probably also the disciplinary supervision of the monks, to Shakya bzang-po.” “It was the unprecedented length of the absence of the abbots that gave an enhanced weight and power to the administrator. This situation did not change during name) became an attendant to the head of Sa skya and he was promoted to nang-chen. During emperor Yuan Shundi’s reign, he followed the Imperial Preceptor Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan to the court and was given the title of da situ 大司徒. He founded the rGyal rtse castle. bZang po dpal’s oldest son and second son held the position of Sa skya nang-chen and da situ respectively, his grandson inherited the positions of nang-chen and da situ (bestowed by Ming) after the founding of the Ming dynasty. See Tibetan version, pp. 376, 381, 395, 398; Chinese translation, pp. 234, 236-237, 242-243. 25 the whole of the Sa-skya -Yuan period：the abbot (gdan sa chen po) remained the figurehead of the sect， but in secular matters he acted through the dpon chen.”1 In other words, he also starts from the explanation in rGya-bod yig-tshang and the event of Shakya bzang-po, the inner chief manager of the Sa skya sect, became the first dpon-chen，and argues firmly that the original jurisdiction of dpon-chen was the chief manager of monastic and secular affairs for the Sa skya sect. He has done detailed examination of records about the series of dpon-chen of dBus gtsang，however, warped with the above idea, he is baffled by the historical facts that obviously repudiate it and made some judgments that are either far-fetched or inconsistent. He points out that “the dpon-chen was appointed by the emperor, apparently through the Department for Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs ， upon the presentation by the Imperial Preceptor； this last point ， however，is inductive only.” On the other hand, following the “vague statements” in rGya-bod yig-tshang (dpon-chen “governs by the order of the Lama and by the mandate of the emperor. He protects the two laws and keeps the realm tranquil and religion flourishing”), he writes: “the peculiar features of Tibet policy, and above all the fact of the Mongol paramountcy, created a situation in which the dpon-chen managed in his own rights the landed estates of the Sa-skya monastery, while outside them he acted in his capacity as an imperial official subject to the control of the 宣 慰 司 (pacification Commission)”. As for the question of the relationship between dpon-chen and the Pacification Commission, Petech thinks that “is moot point”. He then argues that the first dpon-chen was given the title of “Military and Civilian Myriarch of the Three Circuits in dBus gtsang”, possibly in 1264 or 1265, and “This seems to indicate that the three lu were at first considered as an appanage of imperial princes, referring either to appanages distributed to the members of the imperial family, or more likely to the special position held for a couple of years by the Bai-lan prince Phyag-na-rdo-rje. This title was then changed, and later the dpon chen was styled 等三路宣慰司都元帥府. This new title was actually conferred in 1292 only.” “All this seems to show that the dpon-chen was a permanent ex-officio member of the 宣慰司 Pacification Commission.” As for the two records in the annals of Yuanshi about the appointment of the dpon chen of the day as 烏 思藏宣慰使 Pacification Commissioner of dBus gtsang, he thinks “it probably indicate that such appointments were exceptional, and at present it is difficult to decide on this question.”2 1 2 Petech, op.cit, p. 43. Ibid, pp. 44-45. 26 Petech’s book is a Tibetan history of the Yuan period that used by far the widest range of Tibetan sources. Some of the materials that he cited are very useful for clarifying the question of dpon-chen’s position. However, restricted by the mis-explanation from rGyabod yig-tshang for this name, he has ignored the obvious fact that dpon-chen was merely a commonly used honorific name. He insists on treating it as a formal name of position, and on fixing its function as the chief manager of secular affairs for the Sa skya pa sect. He then examined the relevant facts and comes up with the point that dpon-chen held double responsibility for the religious sect as well as the court, it thus had dual status. As a result, he is unable to explain either aspect. According to my understanding, the Tibetan sources actually have already made it very clear about the real official function of dpon-chen. Shakya bzang-po was appointed by the court as military and civilian myriarch of the three circuits of dBus gtsang, therefore, he was the first dpon-chen. Military and civilian myriarch was a commonly seen name for head of local officials at the beginning of the Yuan dynasty. The three circuits of dBus gtsang were his jurisdiction, completely unrelated to the “domains of the princes.” Petech’s assumption is thus without any foundation. When Shakya bzang-po assumed the position of military and civilian myriarch of the three circuits, i.e. dpon-chen, Kun dga’ bzang po 公哥藏卜 was the chief manger of secular affair for the Sa skya pa sect with the position of nang-chen. Later when Kun dga’ bzang po became dpon-chen, his nang-chen position was succeeded by gZhon nu dpal. The two kinds of positions were distinguished very clearly. Then why did the sources also say that the responsibility of dpon-chen was to “protect both administration and religion”? This is not hard to understand. Because emperors of the Yuan dynasty upheld Buddhism, officials in the interior also had the duty to protect Buddhism and its monasteries. Let alone the Tibetan region, not a small number of local officials in China proper constructed Buddhist monasteries while in office (mainly Mongolian and Semu 色目 officials) and took it as their accomplishment. The Sa skya pa sect enjoyed special status because the prominence of the Imperial Preceptor. The Yuan emperor Renzong ordered that Imperial Preceptor temple 帝師廟 dedicating to ’Phags-pa be built throughout the country. As the highest official of administration in Tibet, it was a matter of course for dpon-chen to take it as his responsibility to serve the Imperial Preceptor and the head of the Sa skya pa sect. And it was precisely because he was the highest local official that he had the power to mobilize labor and material resources from various myriads to build monasteries for the Sa skya pa sect. We definitely cannot take this as prove of the nature of his position was “close attendant of the Imperial Preceptor”. 27 It may help resolve the problem to have a discussion on an issue related to the emergence of the name dpon-chen, that is, the date of the establishment of the military and civilian myriarch of the three circuits of dBus gtsang. Although Kцdдn had subjugated the Tibetan region through Sa pan, he did not set up institution for control. When Mongge Khan divided the region into fiefdoms, the princes set up officials in various places to guard their domain, while some local headmen were appointed myriarchies. Despite the fact that most of the region came under the Mongolian control, it was basically in a state of various local powers competing among themselves with no clear chain of command. After Qubilai Khan took the throne and defeated his rivals, he made an effort to bring dBus gtsang under solid control of his court. It has been widely accepted by scholars that Qubilai Khan sent ’Phags pa and his brother back in the first year of the Zhiyuan reign (1264) exactly for this purpose. Petech infers that Shakya bzang-po was given the title of military and civilian myriarch of the three circuits of dBus gtsang either in 1264 or 1265, that is, at the time of Bla-ma ’Phags-pa’s return to Tibet (according to Sa-skya gdung-rabs, he was in Lhasa in December of 1264). If this were the case, then before he went back to Tibet he must have discussed the establishment of this position with Qubilai Khan, recommended and gained the emperor’s permission for the Sa skya chief inner manager Shakya bzang-po to hold this position. However, this is only a guess. Phyag na rdo rje had just been appointed the general head (?) of Tibet at the time, was it possible to establish this position simultaneously? We can also propose a different hypothesis. According to what Petech said, after Phyag na rdo rje’s death in 1267, there was an event of the ’Bri gung pa sect opposing the Sa skya pa sect. In the same year, a Mongolian troop led by Kher-khe-ta (or prince Kher-ta) entered Tibet, killing one ’Dam-pa-ri-pa (probably the leader of the revolt) and suppressed all the resistance. He thinks that the advancement of this troop into Tibet “cleared path for implementing new administrative structure,” and “the year of 1268 signified a true start of the Mongolian rule with the dpon-chen Shakya bzang-po’s whole-hearted support.” 1 As far as this statement is about a unified administrative structure according to the Yuan system being established in the dBus gtsang area, it is very correct. Shakya bzang-po undoubtedly played an important role in this. According to the record in rGya-bod yig-tshang, when dispute erupted between the Sa 1 Ibid, pp. 20-21. Note: The author said according to the letter sent by Bu ston to the myriach of Phag mo gru pa Byang chub rgyal mtshan: earlier, Sa skya and ’Bri gung struggled for the power to rule. This sentence is about the events that happened before the friction between Blama ’Phags-pa and dpon-chen Kun dga’ bzang po, it should be about the dispute in 1267. The Mongolian troops led by Kher-khe-ta entering Tibet that he mentioned is according to records in mKhas pa’i dga’-ston. 28 skya pa sect and the ’Bri gung pa sect, both sides sent important figures to the court to plea their cases and to seek fairness. The people sent by Sa skya pa were Shakya bzang-po and two dGe ba’i bshes gnyen. They went to Shang du 上都 and won the trial. When they returned to Sa skya, they were called the three great men with big accomplishment and received generous rewards from the Imperial Preceptor.1 This event should happen during the period of ’Phags pa’s first return to Tibet, around 1266-1267. This is because the two dGe ba’i bshes gnyen were disciples that he took in when he was passing the place of Gyaba-lung in dBus and brought to Sa skya.1 It is very likely that ’Phags pa and his brother were unable to pacify the various forces in dBus gtsang after their return. At least the ’Bri gung pa sect that originally belonged to Mongge Khan was unhappy to have Sa skya dominating them. When the dispute between the two sects was presented at the court, Shakya bzang-po and the other representatives sent by the Sa skya pa sect won the case. In fact, as Qubilai Khan had been supporting the Sa skya pa sect, he was bond to assist it. Thus in 1267, he sent troops into Tibet to interfere. In the meantime, he decided to have the court directly appointing officials in dBus gtsang to realize unified governance and eradicate strive among the sects. Shakya bzang-po was liked by Qubilai Khan because visiting the court had given him the opportunity to demonstrate his loyalty and ability. He was thus appointed the military and civilian myriarch of the three circuits of dBus gtsang. Due to the fact that this position was the high ranking official directly appointed by the Mongolian emperor and above the other myriarchies, it was respectfully called dpon-chen. Since then, the office of the military and civilian myriad of the three circuits of dBus gtsang had become the highest local government in that area. This seems to be a more plausible theory. When was the military and civilian myriad of the three circuits of dBus gtsang elevated and changed into the pacification commission (Xuanweisi or xuanweisi duyuanshuai fu)? Answering this question is of crucial importance for clarifying the position of dpon-chen. Records in Tibetan sources said that the fifth dpon-chen of dBus gtsang Byang-chub rinchen “was liked by the Sechen (Qubilai Khan) and was bestowed the insignia of the Pacification Commission and a crystal seal” (Se chen gyi thugs la btags nas/ swon wi si’i dam kha dang/ shel gyi sa dam gnang/ see Deb-ther dmar-po, it is written as “bestowed a crystal seal and the title of the chief official of the Pacification Commission” in Deb-ther sngon-po). Based on this, I argued in my earlier article that this was the beginning of the military and civilian myriad of the three circuits of dBus gtsang being elevated and 1 rGya-bod yig-tshang, Tibetan version, p. 404; Chinese translation, p.246. 29 changed into the Pacification Commission of dBus gtsang. Byang-chub rin-chen was the last dpon-chen whose position was recommended by ’Phags pa (died in December 1280) which should happen shortly before his death. I considered this together with the historic background of ’Phags pa’s serious conflict with the second dpon-chen Kun dga’ bzang po after he returned to Sa skya the second time (1276) and eventually was murdered. As a result, the court sent a large troop led by Sangge 桑哥 into Tibet to crush the rebellion (1281). I believed that the Yuan court established the Pacification Commission of dBus gtsang exactly for resolving the turbulent situation in this region during that period; and it should be dated around the year of 1280. Using the record in rGya-bod yig-tshang, Mr. Chen Qingying points out that Byang-chub rin-chen was appointed by Qubilai Khan’s edict as dpon-chen and bestowed the seal of the Pacification Commission after the court received news about ’Phags pa’s death, thus the time should be 1281. This is correct. Based on this, my assumption of the date of the establishment of the Pacification Commission of dBus gtsang should be adjusted to 1281. Petech disagrees with me. He writes: “We may suppose with great probability that it (dBus gtsang hsuan-wei ssu) was set up in 1268, in connection with the census of Tibet taken in that year.” According to him, “it was certainly in existence in the seventies of the century, when its members met Karma Paksi on his return home.”2 Yet the military and civilian myriad of the three circuits of dBus gtsang had been established shortly before 1268, and the imperial appointed high official dpon-chen Shakya bzang-po was on duty, how could another administrative institution be set up in the same jurisdiction? There are many records about the census in dBus gtsang, but none of them mentioned the Pacification Commission or its officials. Petech proposes this idea because it is not clear about the nature of the “military and civilian myriarch of three circuits”. He mentions that there were members of the dBus gtsang Pacification Commission meeting Karma Paksi when he returned to Tibet, this event is seen in mKhas pa’i dga’ ston that was written in 1565. Due to the fact that the Pacification Commission of dBus gtsang had been the highest local government in Yuan Tibet since it was established, it is very likely that later authors mistakenly attribute it to earlier time. This is a very common phenomenon in Chinese and Tibetan historical works. For example, the Zhongzhi yuan was replaced by the Xuanzheng yuan in the twenty-fifth year of the Zhiyuan reign (1288), but when rGyabod yig-tshang recorded Sangge’s army entering Tibet, it said that Sangge was an official 1 2 Ibid, p. 403. Petech, above cited book, p. 40. 30 of the Xuanzheng yuan. Therefore, it is not enough to just rely on this one source to prove the existence of the Pacification Commission of dBus gtsang. Petech notices that the three chol-kha in Tibetan were the three Pacification Commissions in Tibet that was recorded in Yuanshi, and that such administrative division conformed to the Yuan system of frontier governance, making the entire Tibetan region part of the empire’s territory. However, because he is prejudiced about the nature of dponchen, he artificially detached it from the Pacification Commission. He believes that there existed an “autonomous government” in dBus gtsang, “the task of the dBus gTsang hsuanwei suu was to exercise a more or less strict control over the autonomous government of the country; day-to-day administration was apparently reserved to the dpon chen and, at local level, to the myriarchs.” In this fashion, the clear and concrete circuit level local government, the Pacification Commission of dBus gtsang, was hung up in the air. Apparently, he was confused by the phenomenon that in Tibetan sources we only see dpon-chen perform administrative duty and rarely see any mention of the Pacification Commission. He said with much uncertainty: “We know very little of the actual function of the hsuan-wei suu. The texts and documents show that at least the essential parts of this ponderous machinery existed and operated. As to its personal, the number of Mongol officials who actually resided in Tibet is unknown; no Chinese was employed, at least not on the executive level. It stands to reason that the staff became more and more tibetanized with the passing of time.” He continues his inference: “In the 14th century the hsuan-wei ssu underwent some changes. No resident hsuan-wei shi appears any longer in our sources (practically: in LANG) and apparently that office was left vacant; the usual formula at that time is “officials (mi dpon rnams; in the plural!) of the swon wi si.”1 This is indeed a phenomenon very hard to understand! The highest local government in charge of the whole territory of Tibet, one that is seen in Chinese and Tibetan official documents and historical works of the Yuan period, yet we cannot see activities that fulfill its function and we do not know what its actual responsibility was; and aside from two “exceptions,” we do not know who were its chief officials, it is even doubtful whether it had chief officials. However, Professor Petech’s doubts and assumptions are rootless. In reality, the idea of the Pacification Commission (xuanwei si) supervising or controlling the local government that was headed by dpon-chen is a pure conjecture 1 Ibid, pp. 40-42. A supplemental note should be added here : Among the Imperial Preceptors’ Dharma edicts preserved in Zha lu monastery, there is only one used the term mi dpon rnams (in the plural) as Prof. Petech said, yet others (the Imperial Edicts of 1304, 1316,1321,1325,1336) all used merely Swon wi si’i mi dpon when they mentioned this official. 31 without any source to prove it. Chinese and Tibetan sources provided five Pacification Commissioners of dBus gtsang during periods of emperor Shizu, Chenzong 成 宗 , Renzong 仁宗, and Wenzong 武宗. They were all recorded in Tibetan historical works as “dBus gtsang dpon-chen.” In the Imperial Preceptor Grags pa ’od zer’s edict of 1295, it is written clearly “the officials of the Xuanwei si headed by Ag-len and A-was O-khol.” The Imperial Preceptor Kun dga’ blo gros rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’s edict of 1316 also wrote clearly about “the official of Xuanwei si headed by ’Od zer seng ge (’Od zer seng ges ’go byas swon we si’i mi dpon.” Ag-len was the ninth dpon-chen, and ’Od zer seng ge was the thirteenth dpon-chen (later he again became the seventeenth dpon-chen). Because there can be found in Yuanshi only two Pacification Commissioners of dBus gtsang, who were simultaneously dpon-chen of dBus gtsang, Petech takes them as “exceptions.” Seeing that there are only five Pacification Commissioners in the sources I cited, some scholars think that some dpon-chen held the position of the Pacification Commissioner while others did not. In fact, it is a common problem for historians that sources are lost or they did not record certain things. This problem is especially serious in Chinese documents about Tibet of the Yuan period. There are also few Tibetan official documents of the Yuan period survived. Of the five examples that are found among the small amount of sources that managed to survive to this day, all of them positively support my argument and none prove the opposite. We may then ask, of all the Pacification Commissioners of dBus gtsang (or “heads of dBus gtsang swon wi si) was anyone not a dpon-chen? My understanding is still simple: the dpon-chen position recorded in Tibetan sources was actually the honorific name that Tibetans used to call the highest local officials appointed by the court. In the region of dBus gtsang, the highest local official appointed by the court was originally the “military and civilian myriarch of the three circuits in dBus gtsang,” later its name was changed to “the Pacification Commissioner of the three circuits of dBus gTsang mNga’ ris skor gsum[烏思藏納里速古魯孫等三路宣慰使].” The two positions both belonged to the empire-wide system of office and used Chinese for their names, thus Tibetan official documents used their Chinese transcriptions. Because local people did not understand these transcription of Chinese names for office, that was why authors of historical works made special note of “so called...name” (zhes pa’i ming or zer ba’i ming). Furthermore, they usually omitted the office title and only used the Tibetan name dpon-chen (great official) to call them. Therefore, the name of official position for the first four dpon-chen of dBus gtsang was military and civilian myriarch of the three circuits of dBus gtsang, the one for later dpon-chen was the Pacification Commissioners of the three circuits of dBus gtsang (some of them also held the position of chief commander). 32 They were all court appointed officials rather than attendants to the Imperial Preceptor and head of the Sa-skya pa sect. It may be asked: if this is the case, why were those who held the position of dpon-chen, i.e. the chief official of the Pacification Commission, mostly belonged to the Sa-skya pa sect (some of them used to be nang-chen, and some used to be close attendants)? Why was there no Mongol, Semu, or Han holding this position? This is in fact not difficult to understand. This is because the Yuan policy for controlling Tibet, especially the dBus gtsang region, was to rely on the Sa skya pa sect as its pillar. Allowing the Sa skya pa sect to monopolize the position of Imperial Preceptor gave it the status above all other sects. As the highest local official, the Pacification Commissioner of dBus gtsang was normally appointed with the Imperial Preceptor’s recommendation. Naturally the majority of them came from the Sa skya pa sect. Using the chieftains of minority groups as local officials was the Yuan court’s policy for controlling the frontier regions that were populated by minority peoples. This policy was enforced in the xuanwei si, anfu si, zaotao si 招討司, zhangguan si 長官司, or lu 路, fu 府, zhou 州 of areas of minorities in Yunnan 雲南, Huguang 湖廣, Sichuan 四川 and other provinces. Some prominent chieftains who held the position of the Pacification Commissioner even assumed the position of provincial Can zheng 參政 or held that title, just like several dpon-chen of dBus gtsang were appointed deputy commissioner or tongzhi of the xuanzheng yuan. Therefore, it is not at all strange that we cannot find example of Mongolian officials holding the position of the Pacification Commissioner of dBus gtsang. I do not deny that there was close connection between dpon-chen of dBus gtsang and the Sa skya pa sect. We can even say that protecting the interest of this sect was an important foundation for holding that position. Yet this is not the same as saying that officials of the Pacification Commission were purely from the Sa skya pa sect. Deb-ther dmar-po recorded one person from the Karma sect who was “appointed the chief commander of the three circuits.”1 I especially disagree with Petech’s idea that each of the three dao in Tibet had one administrative official sent by the Sa skya pa sect. Take for example the dao of mDo smad, i.e. “Tufan dengchu xuanweisi 吐蕃等處宣慰司,” its earliest Commissioner Ye Xiannai 葉仙鼐 was an Uighur, and there were several later ones who were not Tibetan. The dpon-chen of mDo khams recorded in the Deb-ther dmar-po also not necessarily belonged to the Sa skya pa sect. 1 As the highest administrative official, he should give respect and protection to the various Tibetan Buddhist sects that were patronized by the court. 1 Deb-ther dmar-po, Tibetan version, p. 121; Chinese translation, p. 105. 33 Notes: 1. This Article is translated by Wang Liping 汪利平, Associate professor at University of Minnesota. 2. The Chinese version of the article “Zailun Wusizang ‘benqin’ 再論烏思藏‘本欽’” was published in Mengyuan de lishi yu wenhua: Mengyuanshi xueshu yantaohui lunwen ji 蒙元的 歷史與文化：蒙元史學術研討會論文集(History and Culture of the Mongol-Yuan Dynasty: Proceedings of the Conference on the history of Mongol-Yuan Dynasty), Edited by Xiao Qiqing 蕭啓慶, Vol. 1, pp. 213-244. Taibei: Xuesheng shuju, 2000, Vol. 1, pp. 213-244. 1 Ibid, Tibetan version, p. 114; Chinese translation, pp. 99-100. 34 QUAESTIONES MONGOLORUM DISPUTATAE No.1 Executive Editors: H. Futaki ＆ B. Oyunbilig Association for International Studies of Mongolian Culture Tokyo April 30. 2005 Classification of Texts Related to the White Old Man [Tokyo] Hiroshi FUTAKI The White Old Man (Mong. CaGan ebUgen, Tsagaan цvgцn) is a deity of protection and importantly a deity of longevity and fertility and has been one of the most popular deities in Mongolia. In the souvenir shops of Ulaanbaatar we can see a variety of paintings and sculptures of the deity. In kiosks near the Gandan Monastery printed reproductions of Tibetan prayers for the White Old Man are sold. When in the summer of 1998 I stayed for a short time in the capital of Mongolia, a booklet and two newspaper articles related to the White Old Man were published. These phenomena show how popular the deity is even now. Three approaches are possible for the study of the White Old Man; that is, iconographical, theatrical and philological. Many paintings and sculptures remain preserved in museums and private collections and they are representative of Tibetan and Chinese influences upon the figure of the deity. The White Old Man plays a unique role in the mystical religious dance cham. The cham itself originated in Tibet and was introduced into Mongolia with the influx of Buddhism and Buddhist culture. So this might mislead researchers to believe that the White Old Man also originated in Tibet. In this respect an account by Dr.Nebesky-Wojkowitz, one of the best researchers of the cham, is invaluable. He wrote as follows in his posthumously published work on Tibetan religious dances. “This dancer is a well-known figure in the sacred dances of Mongolia and northeastern Tibet. His Mongolian name is cagan ebUgen which corresponds to the Tibetan term rgan po dkar po or short rgan dkar, ‘white old man’. His act was introduced into the New Year dance of the rNam rgyal monastery only at the beginning of this century, upon order of the thirteenth Dalai Lama as a result of a dream he had in his Mongolian exile (1904 to 1906).”1 1 Nebesky-Wojkowitz 1976, p. 44. 35 It seems to me that this account strongly suggests the origin of the deity is Mongolian. In this paper I study the White Old Man using the philological approach. There are many texts in which the White Old Man is referred to. Some are written texts and some are recorded from the oral. Some texts are devoted to the ritual for the White Old Man and some texts just mention the name of the deity. In some cases it is difficult to differentiate written texts from oral ones, because written texts can be changed into the oral and vice versa. The White Old Man is described as the ruler of the world in the famous Western Mongolian Epic Jangar. The deity also appears in Eastern Mongolian epics such as Ere-yin degedU AriyakUU and Tusibaltu BaGatur.1 These texts should be regarded as typically oral. The deity appears not only in Buddhistic narratives, but in folk-religious prayers. NoGoGan dara eke-yin tuGuji is classified as the former and Ьker-Un Ures GarGaqu yoson as the latter.2 In some cases it is also difficult to distinguish folk-religious texts from Buddhistic prayers, because most folk-religious prayers have Buddhistic elements; for example Arban Gurban sang, which refers to the White Old Man. This paper centers on the classification of religious texts in which the entire texts are devoted to the White Old Man. A. M. Pozdneev found a manuscript of a prayer to the White Old Man in the library of Jebtsundamba Khutagt and published its Russian translation in his book : Ocherki byta buddiiskikh monastyrei i buddiiskogo dukhovenstva v sviazi s otnosheniiami sego poslednego k narodu (St. Petersburg, 1887).3 This is the first known translation of the text. Since then many texts, translations and studies have been published and it is appropriate to mention the studies and publications by A. Mostaert, W. Heissig and A. Sбrkцzi. Reverend Mostaert wrote an article about the deity based on materials he collected during his stay in the Ordos district, Inner Mongolia.4 When he stayed in Ordos, the White Old Man was popular especially as a protector-deity of cattle. Prof. Heissig’s studies of the Tsagaan Цvgцn are essential to the research of the deity. He published almost all types of texts related to the god. Some were translated into German with useful explanations and footnotes. In the introduction of Mongolische volksreligiцse und folkloristische Texte (1966), he demonstrated the relationships amongst 1 Heissig 1987, pp. 614-616. Heissig 1970, p. 385; Rintchen 1959, p. 37. 3 Pozdneev 1887, pp. 84-85. 4 Mostaert 1957. 2 36 five texts (19-23).1 Dr Sбrkцzi published transcriptions and English translations of two important texts.2 There are many manuscripts devoted to the White Old Man (Tsagaan Цvgцn) preserved in libraries for Oriental Studies. The catalogue of collections of Mongolian Manuscripts and Xylographs in the Institute of Oriental Studies in St. Petersburg , compiled by Dr Sazykin , has 18 entries for the prayer.3 In Kyzyl, the capital of the Tuva Republic of the Russian Federation, he found 11 manuscripts illustrating the worship of the White Old Man.4 In the Institute of Language and Literature of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences there are 27 manuscripts, all of which are in Todo character.5 In the collection of the late academician Damdinsuren there are also several manuscripts of the texts. The number of entries of manuscripts in catalogues shows how popular the White Old Man was to the Mongols. There should have been many manuscripts of the prayer in Ikh Khьree when Pozdneev visited the city. Learned lamas do not usually recognize the importance of such a localized deity. Even now well-informed monks in the Gandan Monastery are indifferent to texts of the prayer. I suppose this partly explains why in the late nineteenth century Pozdneev had difficulty in acquiring a manuscript of the prayer to the White Old Man. In the summer of 1998 I participated in the Third International Conference of Mongolology organized by the Inner Mongolia University, and read a paper, entitled “Mergen Gegeenii zokhioson Tsagaan Цvgцnii sangiin khuvilbaruud (Versions of Incense-offering to the White Old Man composed by Mergen Gegen)”. This paper was published in the Journal of Inner Mongolia University in 1999.6 This Mongolian paper is considered a concise version of a more comprehensive article in Japanese, which was published in the Bulletin of the Japan Association for Mongolian Studies.7 After the conference of Mongolian studies I researched some materials related to the White Old Man in two libraries in Huhhot. One is the library of the Institute of Mongolian Studies of the Inner Mongolia University, the other the library of the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region. I found four manuscripts at the former and one stencil version at the latter. 1 Heissig 1966, pp. 18-23. Sбrkцzi 1983. 3 Sazykin 1988, pp. 227-229. 4 Sazykin 1994, p. 329. 5 Sambuudorj 1997, pp. 74-87. 6 Futaki 1999. 7 Futaki 1997. 2 37 I asked Professor Choiraljav of the Inner Mongolia University to survey manuscripts preserved in the library of the Academy of Social studies, because of constraints of the time I had available. He found five titles for manuscripts related to the White Old Man and managed to read four of the actual manuscripts, except the one which was missing. Thus I was able to get an outline of manuscripts connected with the White Old Man in Inner Mongolia. I flew to Ulaanbaatar to attend another conference and in the capital of Mongolia at the National Library of Mongolia I was able to research ten manuscripts related to the Tsagaan цvgцn. Through research in Inner and Outer Mongolia I managed to acquire some new materials. Using these materials I had obtained in Inner and Outer Mongolia, I would like to explain my view on the classification of texts related to the White Old Man. I believe that the classification of the texts is absolutely essential for the further study of the deity. I have already published my primary classification of the texts in the earlier-mentioned articles. This is the revised second version of my classification. I have selected nine typical types of the prayer to the White Old Man on the basis that at least two manuscripts are known. Type A: an incense-offering composed by Mergen Gegen. Type A1: a variation of type A with additional stanzas. Type B: an incense-offering which has a Tibetan equivalent. Type B1: a variation of type B with additional stanzas representing agricultural elements. Type C: a pseudo-Buddhistic sutra. Type C1: a variation of type C with some stanzas from type B. Type D: a prayer connected with Wutai mountains worship. Type E: a manual for consecration used by the Buryats. Type F: an incense-offering used by the Oirats. CaGan ebUgen-U sang dorma kemekU orosiba (type A), an incense-offering composed by Mergen Gegen, was published in Beijing in the second half of the 18th century. First it was contained in an anthology of prayers, Цljei badaraGsan sUm-e-yin qural-un aman-u ungsilG-a nom-un yabudal masi todorqai gegen oyutan-u qoGolai-yin cimeg cindamani erike kemegdeku orosiba, which was compiled by Mergen Gegen for a temple called Цljei badaraGsan sUm-e.1 According to a description in the first volume of the collected works 1 Cindamani erike, No. 35 (Tib. Khi, 330 r. – 331v.). 38 of Mergen Gegen, in which the second version of the incense-offering text to the White Old Man was published,1 this temple was built by Qoshoi Jorigt Chinwang, a prince of Khorchin, an eastern province of Inner Mongolia.2 It is difficult to identify or accurately locate the temple because there is no reference to it in other materials. Two published texts, one in the anthology, the other in the collected works of Mergen Gegen are almost the same, although there are a few trivial differences. I can not ascertain why reverend Mostaert did not examine the printed version of the incense-offering when he translated a Mongolian manuscript into French. I was able to correct his omission when I translated the original version of the text into Japanese. In my article I compared twelve copies of the incense-offering text written by Mergen Gegen, including two xylograph-editions and the three manuscripts I own. I came to the conclusion that two of them should be reclassified as type A1, because they had additional stanzas. There are two versions of type A1 text. In one version (BoGda caGan ebUgen-U sang) which was published in Ejene, supplementary stanzas are added at the beginning of text A, while in the other (CaGan burqan sang) published in Ordos, they are at the end of the text.3 Worshippers were supposed to recite the supplementary stanzas of this prayer as they moved towards the fence enclosing their livestock. In Mongolian it is expressed as “kUriy-e qasiy-a jUg yabuqu jaGur-a ungsin-a”.4 I think that this type was initiated somewhere around the Ordos area of Inner Mongolia. Originally Mergen Gegen wrote the incense-offering to the White Old Man for monks of a temple. But later the text spread in four directions from Urad district where the Buddhist incarnation practised his religion and even laymen had started to recite the prayer and I believe that type A1 was engendered by such a process. In 1998 I found a few more materials to show the popularity of Mergen Gegen’s version. For example a text preserved in the library of the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region was printed using a stencil method, possibly in the 1930s or 1940s.5 Another text in manuscript form and held in the National Library of Mongolia was written in Todo character.6 Type B is very important because there is a Tibetan equivalent and in mostcases the 1 ’Bum JarliG, Vol. 1, No. 61 (251 r. – 252 v.). Ibid., 51 v. 3 Ejen-e-yin irUgel maGtaGal, p. 148; Altan GalGudai qaGan, pp. 50-51. 4 Altan GalGudai qaGan, p. 50. 5 CaGan ebUgen-U cadig bolun sang-un sudur kemekU orosibai (the Library of the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region, B233-1), 6 r.–7 v. 6 CaGбn ObOgOni sang orosibui (the National Library of Mongolia, 8324/96), 1 v.–2 v. 2 39 Tibetan text agrees with the Mongolian one word for word. I show below an example of the relationship between the Mongolian and Tibetan texts; the Mongolian text was taken from Heissig’s text 19 (without a title), p. 129 and the Tibetan one, Sa bdag rgan po dkar po’i bsang mchod zhes bya ba bzhugs so, 1r.-2v., is from my collection. /the Mongolian text/ ay-a jimislig neretU aGula-yin orgil-un oron-aca asuru ebUgen dUrsUtU Gajar ejen tabar aqa degUU nOkOd-Un ciGulGan-luG-a setle alGasal Ugei ene oron-a iren soyorq-a /the Tibetan text/ kye shing tog ming can ri yi gnas mchog nas ha cang rgan po gzugs can sa bdag khyod lcam dral ’khor dang tshogs rnams bcas pa yi g.yel ba med par gnas ’dir gshegs su gsol At present it is rather difficult to ascertain whether the Tibetan version was translated from the Mongolian one or the Mongolian version is a translation of Tibetan. I think it is very possible that the Mongolian version preceded the Tibetan one. Generally speaking Tibetan texts were and are read by Buddhist monks in temples or in Buddhistic rituals. As for Tibetan texts for incense-offering to the White Old Man even now Mongolian monks recite type B. Some stanzas of type B are very similar to that of type A. As I argued in my Japanese article, it seems to me that type A is a shortened text of type B, or type B is an enlarged version of type A. In 1966 Prof. Heissig published a transcription of a manuscript of type B (text 19) and in1976 he published its German translation, comparing several manuscripts of the incense-offering text.1 He thought text 19 was the oldest among the five manuscripts related to the White Old Man, which he published in his anthology of Mongolian folk-religious and folkloric texts. At present it is difficult to tell whether Dr Heissig’s opinion is correct or not because at present there are no documents to prove his views. There appear to be several types of Tibetan prayer for the White Old Man. I have found four of them, including the equivalent of type B. An incense-offering text entitled Sa bdag rgan po dkar po’i bsang bzhugs so, was composed by the famous Mongolian monk, 1 Heissig 1966, pp. 129-130; Heissig 1976, pp. 52-55. 40 Lubsanchьltem (1740-1810) and was published in the sixth volume of his completed works in Beijing.1 I have two Tibetan manuscripts of the same text entitled Sa bdag rgan po dkar po tshe thar zhes bya ba bzhugs so, which was written by Blo bzang dpal mgon, a disciple of Blo bzang snyan grags dge legs rnam rgyal dpal bzang po, the second incarnation of Zaya Pandita of Khalkha (1717-1765). It is a very important factor that these texts were written not by Tibetan monks, but by Mongolian authors because it suggests the Mongolian origin of the deity. The fourth Tibetan text is entitled Sa bdag rgan po dkar po g.yang ‘gugs zhes bya ba bzhugs so.2 As the Tibetan word g.yang ‘gugs is usually translated into dalalG-a in Mongolian, there might exist a Mongolian text CaGan ebUgen-U dalalG-a, though I have not encountered it yet. The Hungarian scholar A. Sбrkцzi transcribed a text for incense-offering to the White Old Man and translated it into English in 1983.3 A few years later Dr Heissig published a transcription and a German translation of another manuscript of the same text.4 Both manuscripts contain some stanzas, representing agricultural elements, otherwise they are identical with type B. I want to call this text type B1. It is probable that type B1 was composed somewhere in the eastern part of Inner Mongolia, where the herdsmen had begun to cultivate the land. Type C is very unique in its pseudo-Buddhistic form. At the beginning of an Oirat manuscript (text 21), which was published by Prof. Heissig in Romanised transcription in 1966, the Sanskrit and Tibetan names of the sutra were written, observing the manner of Buddhist canons. However the alleged Sanskrit title is recorded by some Chinese words and under the Tibetan title the Mongolian name of the text is written. According to Prof. Heissig, the Chinese title can be identified as Chu shui an du da jing.5 I am not sure if this identification is correct. Anyway scholars don’t believe in the existence of the Chinese book. Apparently the Chinese title was only written in accordance with the form of the Buddhist canons. The Mongolian title, ~ajar usun-i nomoGadqan daruGulun cidaGci neretU sudur, translates to the sutra for the stability of the land and water. 1 Cha-har dge-bshes, pp. 309-311. The same manuscript as Sa bdag rgan po dkar po’i bsang mchod zhes bya ba bzhugs so (the equivalent text of type B), 4 v.-5 v. 3 Sбrkцzi 1983, pp. 359-361, 363-365. 4 Heissig 1987, pp. 600-602. 5 Heissig 1966, p.19. 2 41 The text is composed in the form of a dialogue between the Buddha and the White Old Man, also modeled on the style of Buddhist sutras. This type was very popular amongst the Oirats. Professor Heissig thought type C had been composed before the Oirats moved to the West.1 That a text is written in Todo character does not necessarily mean that the text was composed before the Oirats’ movement. As the territory of the Oirats has been close to that of the Mongols, texts in Mongolian character could be changed into Todo character at any time. As I mentioned above, even the incense-offering composed by Mergen Gegen, type A by my classification, was copied in Todo character. So it is difficult to accept Dr Heissig’s opinion. As I mentioned above a text of type C was translated into Russian by A. M. Pozdneev over a hundred years ago. Out of the three texts 19, 20 and 21, which were published by W. Heissig, text 20 is almost identical with text 21 (type C) except for lines 9-24 of text 20 which are equivalent with lines 10-29 of text 19 (type B). Thus we can conclude that text 20 was composed by adding some stanzas from type B to type C. A manuscript in Ulaanbaatar also contains a text which is identical to text 20.2 It is possible to recognize an independent type for text 20 and classify it as type C1. From a ritualistic point of view, types C, D and F are useful because they specify that the ritual for the deity should take place on the 2nd and the 16th day of every month. Actually in the Ordos district, the White Old Man was worshipped on these days every month. We have two texts of type D; one, without a title, was transcribed and translated into English by A. Sбrkцzi and the other, entitled ¥ dai sang-un oron-aca jalaju iregsen caGan manjusiri caGan ebUgen neretU sudur orosibai, was transcribed and translated into German by W. Heissig.3 This type is interesting in that the White Old Man makes a lot of vows himself. In other words, the text is written from the point of view of the Tsagaan Цvgцn. Explaining the relationship between the White Old Man and the Wutai mountains, where the deity originated in type D, Prof. Heissig insisted that Tsagaan Цvgцn was worshipped in the Yuan dynasty in the thirteenth century.4 However, I would say, it is more appropriate to explain the alleged original location of the deity in type D by taking 1 Ibid., p. 23. Heissig 1987, p. 604. 3 Sбrkцzi 1983, pp. 361-363, 365-367; Heissig 1987, pp. 591-196. 4 Heissig 1987, p. 591. 2 42 account of the influence of Wutai mountains worship, which became so popular for the Mongols in the Qing era, approximately from the seventeenth century onwards. Prof. Heissig examined a manuscript at the National Library of Mongolia in 1980 and published a Romanized transcription and German translation of it in 1987.1 This text (without a title) is a prayer which should be read at the so-called seterlekh ritual, the consecration of livestock for the deity. I found another manuscript of the same text in the 2 same library in the summer of 1998. The two manuscripts are basically identical except that a horse was added to the list of domestic animals, which should be consecrated. These manuscripts are written in Buryat handwriting. According to Prof. Poppe, a manuscript about the consecration ritual for the White Old Man was written in the Buryat style of writing.3 Therefore we can conclude that type E, my classification for the text, was popular amongst the Buryats, in Eastern Siberia. In my first classification of texts related to the White Old Man I excluded text 22 entitled CaGбn ObOgOni sang orSibo, which was published in the anthology of folk-religious and folkloric texts by Prof. Heissig, because I could not find other texts of the same type. In 1998 in Ulaanbaatar I managed to find almost the same manuscript as text 22. 4 I classified this text as type F. The two manuscripts of type F (an incense-offering) were written in Todo character. This suggests that this type was popular among the Oirats. A characteristic of type F is that several names of Mongolian mountains are mentioned for worship. On the basis of the comparison of the nine types, I want to emphasize some points, which are important for the study of the cult of the Tsagaan Цvgцn. First of all, these classifications are useful practically for describing manuscripts which consist of some types of prayers; a manuscript from Budapest which was studied by A. Sбrkцzi can be described as type B1 plus type D. Similarly an Ulaanbaatar manuscript can be regarded as type B plus type C and a stencil version held in Huhhot as type C plus type A.5 There are also some prayers which have several elements in the text; a manuscript entitled AtaG-a kUcUn tegUsUgsen asur caGan ebUgen-U sang-un sudur-a orosibai was 1 Ibid., pp. 605-608. CaGan ebUgen-U sudur oroSibai (the National Library of Mongolia, 5010/96), 3 v.-4 r. 3 Poppe 1932, p. 187. 4 CaGбn ObOgOni sang orosibui (the National Library of Mongolia, 8324/96), 2 v.- 4 v. 5 CaGan ebUgen-U sang oroSiba (the National Library of Mongolia, 4859/96),1 r.-5 v; CaGan ebUgen-U cadig bolun sang-un sudur kemekU orosibai (the Library of the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region, B233-1), 1 r.-7 v. 2 43 probably composed by blending three types, that is types A, B and C.1 These combinations show the importance of types A, B and C. In all texts, except type D, the place the deity lives is called a mountain abundant with fruits (Mong. jimestU aGula, jimislig netetU aGula). In type D, as I mentioned above, the location of the god is the Wutai mountains in China. At present however we should not regard him as a mere mountain-deity, because he was actually thought to rule the world. According to type C, the White Old Man ruled the god of heaven and the goddess of earth, цtцgцn eke, in Mongolian. Thus цtцgцn eke, the old Mongolian goddess was introduced into the Buddhist pantheon, by conceding to the higher rank of the White Old Man. The most symbolic possession of the White Old Man is his stick, usually with a dragon-shaped head. Prof. Heissig suggested a close connection between the dragon-head stick of the deity and the horse-headed stick of the shaman.2 His speculation is attractive, but hard to prove. In the text of type A, in Mergen Gegen’s version, the White Old Man is mounted on a deer and carries a curved stick, miracle medicine (Mong. sim-e em) and a scroll, apparently showing the influence of the Chinese deity Shou xing . The function of the Tsagaan Цvgцn is diverse, but the most essential part of it is to ensure long life for the people, an abundance of cattle and protection from disasters, illnesses and evil spirits. From the texts related to the White Old Man we are able to gain an understanding of pre-modern Mongolian people, their wishes and fears in everyday life. These texts are also useful to understand why the deity attracts people even now.* * Acknowledgements : my thanks to Ms Louise Harvey-Freeman for reading this paper’s draft, correcting and refining my English. REFERENCES AtaG-a kUcUn tegUsUgsen asur caGan ebUgen-U sang-un sudur-a orosibai (Ms., Collection of R. Otgonbaatar). ’Bum JarliG = Vcir dhara mergen diyanci blam-a-yin gegen-U ‘bum jarliG (Xyl., printed in Beijing, ca 1783, British Library, MON 12, 26, 27,76). CaGan ebUgen-U cadig bolun sang-un sudur kemekU orosibai (Stencil, the Library of the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region, B233-1). 1 2 The manuscript belongs to the collection of Mr. R. Otgonbaatar. Heissig 1970, p. 384. 44 CaGan ebUgen-U sang oroSiba (Ms., the National Library of Mongolia, 4859/96). CaGan ebUgen-U sudur oroSibai (Ms., the National Library of Mongolia, 5010/96). CaGбn ObOgOni sang orosibui (Ms., the National Library of Mongolia, 8324/96). Cindamani Erike = Цljei badaraGsan sUm-e-yin qural-un-aman-u ungsilG-a nom-un yabudal masi todorqai gegen oyutan-u qoGolai-yin cimeg cindamani erike kemegdeku orosiba (Xyl., printed in Beijing, ca 1774, British Library, MON 75, 78, 80). Sa bdag rgan po dkar po’i bsang mchod zhes bya ba bzhugs so (Ms., Collection of H.Futaki). Sa bdag rgan po dkar po tshe thar zhes bya ba bzhugs so (Ms., Collection of H. Futaki). Altan GalGudai qaGan = Yeke Juu ayimaG-un kele bicig-ьn ajil-un jцblel, Altan GalGudai qaGan, (Dongsheng), 1984. Cha-har dge-bshes = The Collected Works (GSUNG-’BUM) of Cha-har dge-bshes blo-bzang tshul-khrims, Reproduced from a Set of Xylographic Prints from the Peking Blocks by Chatring Jansar Tenzin, Vol.6, New Delhi, 1973. Ejen-e-yin irUgel maGtaGal = Badaraqu/Davasambu (ed.), Ejen-e-yin irUgel maGtaGal, Vol. 1, Ejen-e qosiGu, (undated). Futaki 1997 = H. Futaki, “Mergen Gegen sakuno Tsagaan Цvgцn kenkoukyouni tsuite,” Bulletin of the Japan Association for Mongolian Studies, Vol. 28 (1997). Futaki 1999 = H. Futaki, “Mergen Gegen-U jokiyaGsan caGan ebUgen-U sang-un qubilburi-nuGud,”Journal of Inner Mongolia University, No. 89 (1999, No.1) Heissig 1966 = W. Heissig, Mongolische volksreligiцse und folkloristische texte,Wiesbaden, 1966. Heissig 1970 = W. Heissig, Die Religionen der Mongolei, Stuttgart, 1970. Heissig 1976 = W. Heissig, “Eine Anrufung des ‘Weissen Alten’ in der Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz Berlin,” Folia rara, Wiesbaden, 1976. Heissig 1987 = W. Heissig, “Einige Bemerkungen zum Kult des ‘Weissen Alten (caGan ebьgen)’ ,” Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Memoriae Dicata, Rome, 1987. 45 Mostaert 1957 = A. Mostaert, “Note sur le culte du Vieillard blanc chez les Ordos,” Studia Altaica, Wiesbaden, 1957. Nebesky-Wojkowitz 1976 = R. de Nebesky-Wojkowitz, Tibetan Religious Dances,Tibetan Text and Annotated Translation of the ’Chams Yig, The Hague, 1976. Poppe 1932 = N. N. Poppe, “Opisanie mongol’skikh (shamanskikh) rukopisei Instituta Vostokovedeniia,” Zapiski Instituta vostokovedeniia Akademii Nauk, 1 (1932). Pozdneev 1887 = A.M. Pozdneev, Ocherki byta buddiiskikh monastyrei i buddiiskogo dukhovenstva v sviazi s otnosheniiami sego poslednego k narodu, St. Petersburg, 1887. Rintchen 1959 = B. Rintchen, Les Matйriaux pour l’йtude du chamanisme mongol, Vol.1, Sources littйraires, Wiesbaden, 1959. Sambuudorj 1997 = O. Sambuudorj, Khel zokhiolyn khьreelengiin tod ьsgiin nomyn bьrtgel, san takhilgyn sudar, Ulaanbaatar, 1997. Sбrkцzi 1983 = A. Sбrkцzi, “Incense-Offering to the White Old Man,” Documenta Barbarorum, Wiesbaden, 1983. Sazykin 1988 = A. G. Sazykin, Katalog mongol’skikh rukopisei i ksilografov Instituta vostokovedeniia Akademii Nauk SSSR, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1988. Sazykin 1994 = A. G. Sazykin, “Catalogue of the Mongol Manuscripts and Xylographs preserved in the Library of the Tuvan Ethnological Museum ‘Sixty Heroes’ (Kyzyl),” Acta Orientalia Hung. 47(1994). 46 QUAESTIONES MONGOLORUM DISPUTATAE No.1 Executive Editors: H. Futaki ＆ B. Oyunbilig Association for International Studies of Mongolian Culture Tokyo April 30. 2005 The Mongol Language Not Only As A Language in Inner Mongolia∗ [Hohhot] Nasan Bayar Introduction This article begins with a brief introduction of China’s Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (hereafter abbreviated “Inner Mongolia” or the Region) and then focuses on the Mongol language in terms of its usage, a discussion of Mongol-language education, a historical overview in the use of the Mongol Language in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, issues surrounding the designation of standard Mongol Dialect in Inner Mongolia, on what basis new loanwords are introduced in Mongol, and how contact with the Han language has affected Mongol. Inner Mongolia is situated in North China and shares a 4,221 border with Mongolia and Russia. It was founded in May 1947, two years prior to the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. The Region’s area comprises 12.5 percent of all of China. The 2002 population was 23,750,000, including 3,960,000 Mongols, or 16.6 percent of the Region’s total. This leads to such statements in government documents as “Mongols are main body and Han are the majority in Inner Mongolia”, the reason for which will be explored later in this article. Mongol and Chinese are both official languages within the Region. Mongols were originally nomads but circumstances have transformed the traditional way of life to such an extent that, for the past two centuries, agriculture has become increasingly predominant. Today, most Mongols are agricultural or semi-agricultural, with large concentrations in eastern Inner Mongolia, namely Tongliao Municipality (former Jirim League), Hinggan League, and Chifeng Municipality (former Juu-ud League)). Even in such remote areas as western Inner Mongolia, herdsmen are sedentary and natives of Shilin-gol and Hulun-boir Leagues, the so called “more traditional” people, are increasingly becoming sedentary in the face of the forces of cultural change. ∗ I would thank Kevin Stuart for his editing this paper 47 A distinctive feature of the Region is that Han have become the majority in most banners (counties) in the last half-century. This is particularly striking when population statistics for 1947 are considered. In that year, although Mongols numbered 832,000, or 14.8 percent of the total Inner Mongolia population of 5,617,000, they were the majority in more than 30 banners. The religious life of Inner Mongolia natives has dramatically changed through such political movements as the Land Reform Movement and the Cultural Revolution (19661976). The Mongols adaptation of Tibetan Buddhism can no longer be called a national belief, although there are some contemporary indications of a revival of interest, such as reestablishment of some monasteries, monks participating in funeral and marriage rituals and pilgrimages to Kumbum in Qinghai (Koknor) Province and Wutai Mountain in Shanshi Province. Stalin’s theories on ethnic groups were borrowed by the Chinese government to identify “Mongols” as an ethnicity group and therefore entitled to autonomy. As a basis for the government’s minority policies, these theories have had a profound influence for they define an ethnic group as “ a stable community formed through history, with a common language, common territory, common economic life, and common psychological qualities expressed in common culture” 1 . Consequently, ethnic groups, as they are defined in China, are supposed to generally display the above-mentioned four features. This theory serves not only as theoretical grounds for making policies on ethnicity, but also in popular interpretations, it is used by Mongols to identify themselves. Increasingly, however, Stalin’s definition of an ethnic group has become ill fitting with Inner Mongolia’s reality. As mentioned above, Mongols no longer share the same mode of production, and with respect to common territory, Mongols and Han live together in all banners. It must be pointed out that, in China, land is owned by the State, which has the authority to requisition land in fact, although pasture is supposed to owned by Gacha or collective of herders as written in relevant law. Activities associated with mining, land cultivation, and railway constructions have taken large amounts of land in the Region. As a result, the proportion of native people to that of Han immigrants has altered not only in cities but also in rural areas and the possibility for Mongols retaining a separate cultural identity in compact communities has lessened. This resulted in languages and “psychological qualities” becoming attractive criteria for ethnicity in the eyes of the government and Mongols. Due to its concrete form, the 1 Stalin 1980: 294. 48 Mongol language appears more important and is given more attention than psychological qualities in Inner Mongolia. Consequently, the Mongol linguistic situation in Inner Mongolia, particularly how both the Mongols and the government considered and act on this issue, reveals more than just the current language problem itself. Use and Users of the Mongol Language Of the Region’s present Mongol population, approximately 23 percent in both pastoral area and agricultural areas do not speak Mongol 1. The number of Mongols speaking their mother tongue is more than 2.5 million, which exceeds the 1947 Mongol total population. Optimists about the future of Mongol culture use this statistic because it implies that the Mongol population has increased and Mongol culture, including the language, have been preserved and developed. Conservely, others argue that the situation is not encouraging. They suggest that use of the mother language has decreased over the past decades in terms of percentage of the Mongol population. Furthermore, they note there is a steady acceleration in the number of Mongols unable to use their national language, who are often second and later generations of town and city Mongols. In tandem with the official China project of “Modernisation” (xiandaihua), increasingly numbers of Mongols are moving to urban areas for greater employment and educational opportunities. Consequently, the future generations will surely lose the ability to use Mongol because there are no specific quarters for Mongols to live together in Inner Mongolia’s towns, including the capital city, Hohhot. The preponderance of the Han nationality/ethnic group means that urban Mongol children begin using the Han language as soon as they start playing with the mostly Han neighbourhood children. The more the young generations forget the language, the more valuable the language seems to be in the eyes of some Mongols. As an official language, Mongol is used mainly in both media and education at institutions. Six presses publish books in both Mongol and the Han languages. By the late 1990, these presses had, in total, published 169,666,700 copies of 13,209 books 2 . According to statistics, 40 Mongol language periodicals and 14 different Mongol newspapers are issued in Inner Mongolia. Certain radio and television broadcast stations also use3 Mongol. There are more than 2,600 Mongol intellectuals working with Mongol language in these institutions and schools as journalists, editors, photographers, 1 Inner Mongolia committee for the Mongol Language 1992: 121. CCEIM 1991: 840. 3 CCEIM 1991: 859. 2 49 announcers and teachers in the Region 1. The Inner Mongolia Mongol Bookstore, which specialises in selling Mongol language publications, sell in excess of one million books yearly through its network in the Region and other areas such as Liaoning Province and the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region2. Offices related to the media are led by a bureau concerned with the Party’s political publicity efforts whose express purpose is to publicise the Party’s and the government’s polities. Primarily organisations and institutions order newspapers and periodicals. Subscriptions by private individuals are fewer in number. Inner Mongolia Daily (Mongol edition), the largest Mongol language newspaper, received only 4,800 subscriptions in 19973. The orders of the newspaper were not improved in 1998. Цnir-chechig (Flourishing Flowers) and Cholmon (Morning Star), the best selling literary magazines, are reported to have received less than 5,000 yearly subscriptions in the past decade. Mongol is rather widely used in the Party’s publicity work, as seen in the forms of media mentioned above. The effect, however, is dissatisfactory for both the authority and Mongol masses, owing to a limited subscription. The low subscription and reception (in the case of TV and radio) indicate that the media are filled with the Party’s ideology, beyond the people’s interests and demands in social aspects. This results from the fact that editorial staffs lack initiative in widening market and creating new features in their work, besides the Party’s control of the direction and contents of the media. The reason for it is that the government not only officiates their work but also appropriates specific funds to them. The party’s guidelines and editorial staff’s passive position also limits the ambition of the people to take part the editorial work. This kind of responses must have increased the gap between media and readership. Why does the government keep publishing and broadcasting these media while the effect is dissatisfactory with waste of money? The answer is that the authority wants a kind of symbolic representation. That is to say, Mongols enjoys their traditional culture. It is same as the Mongol writings on doorplates and signposts in Inner Mongolian towns and cities, on which unit names are written in both Mongol and Han languages. Usually Han characters are written in bigger form and more showy colours, while Mongol in smaller and duller. The former is practical, the latter symbolic. 1 Senamjil 1993:18. CCEIM 1991: 844. 3 Inner Mongolia Daily (Han language edition), December 20, 1996. 2 50 Apart from the Party’s publicity work and education (which we will discuss in the next part), there are few public areas employing the language, although it could be used in any field in the Region as stated in relevant laws. In early 1980s, it was said that a letter addressed in Mongol, travelled in many provinces in China for a long time, which in fact was addressed to another town within Inner Mongolia. The story shocked some people and aroused a discussion of use of Mongol. It was left unsettled. Thus, the use of the language occurs only in some areas in the public sphere, and the effect of its practical application is discounted, in today’s Inner Mongolia. Mongol-Language Education A very different arena, in terms of general interest, is that of Mongol language education. The use of Mongol as an instructional language from elementary school to the college has been available in recent decades. In the regional education, the Han language is taught as a course from the third grade of elementary school through college. There are 2,404 elementary schools, 359 middle schools, and 10 colleges offering varying degree of instruction in Mongol in Inner Mongolia. There were 249,309 elementary school pupils, 92,720 middle school students, and 3,405 college students learning in their native language in 1985-86. They accounted, respectively, for 68, 53, and 55 percent of the total Mongol students studying at the same level1. Obviously, Mongol-language education is significant, especially in elementary and middle school in areas where Mongols live in compact communities. Some Mongol students studying in Han language-classes learn the Mongol language as a separate course. It is also worth noting that many Mongol students studying in the Han language are never exposed to Mongol language classes. This is particularly true in areas where Mongols are intermixed with Han. There have, however, been encouraging changes in recent years. In Tumet Right Banner and Tumet Left Banner, for example, indigenous Mongols who have lost Mongol language for a few generations have attempted to recover it. Tumet Right Banner, with a Mongol population of 8,218 (comprising 2.5 percent of the total population of 330,000), established a primary school and employed nursery workers and teachers who spoke fluent Mongol from other areas, such as Ordus, and appropriated special funds for the school. Graduates go to the Mongol Middle School in Baotou City. 1 Inner Mongolian Committee for Mongol language 1992: 108, 113. 51 Conversely, there is a current view in some education offices that instruction in Mongol is inferior and that, over time, teaching should be conducted exclusively in the Han language in order to promote the quality of Mongolian education. To further this goal, an experiment was carried out whereby Mongol students were taught in the Han language as early as the first year of primary school in certain Banners of Tongliao Municipality. The relevant official document states that the goal was “to improve the teaching and learning quality of minority group’s education” and “good results were obtained from the experiment” 1. An appraisal by the regional Department of Education in 1988 commented that the level of success was such that it should be emulated throughout the entire region2. Nevertheless, there were differing opinions as to its success, particularly among some local people who argued that Mongol children perform better in their own language. They pointed out that the historical record has demonstrated that many Mongol current scholars and scientists had originally learnt and researched in Mongol and still reached a high standard of achievement in different fields: Most members of ethnic groups with a long-standing language and script (such as the Mongols) communicate and think in their mother tongue, and only with education in their native language and applying their national language and script widely in different fields could they effectively exploit their intelligence, improve scientific and cultural knowledge, develop productive forces, and finally catch up with developed ethnic groups 3. Wu concurred, indicating that “educational reform should not change the language of instruction4.” Similarly, a principal of a Mongol elementary school in Tongliao Municipality, where Mongols and Han each account for about one half of the total population1 and where the educational experiment was conducted, said that the number of the Mongol students who studied in Mongol Language in middle schools and who were admitted by colleges greatly exceeded their Han counterparts in the area. This contrasts sharply with the fact that few Mongol students taught in the Han language pass the higherlevel education entrance examinations. Relevant statistics support these conclusions. During the period 1980-85, Tongliao Municipality sent 4,869 students to colleges, of which 2,895 were Mongols (60 percent). Among Mongols admitted 2,087 (73 percent) 1 CCEIM1991: 742. CCEIM 1991: 743. 3 Senamjil 1993: 22. 4 Wu Guoshan1995: 6. 2 52 were educated in Mongol at middle schools 1. The elementary school principal also indicated that, in tandem with multilingual education trends current world-wide, the mother tongue is not only a means of education as a symbol of linguistic equality, but also the finest way to retain ethnic traditions and cultural heritage. The Mongol linguistic role in education is decided by the Mongols’ percentage in a local population and the local Mongol attitude toward their language, identity, and culture. Mongol is used as an instructional language at certain school in areas where many Mongols dwell and in such areas as the Tumet Banners, where there is an overwhelming desire to restore the lost language to younger generations. In the case of Tongliao Municipality’s educational experiment, the focus of the issue could have been not on improving teaching and learning in the sphere of Mongol education, but on whether to retain the Mongol language and perhaps even the Mongol culture. Certain Mongols express a profound concern that Mongol will probably lose their culture including the language in the face of a powerful challenge from the predominant social culture. They are open to development in education, but are unwilling to give up “tradition” for “development”. These people believe that Mongol education reform should be conducted at the highest level by expanding the scope of current majors in Mongol language to embrace economics, commerce, law, foreign languages, and sciences and technology. This sort of reform, they argue, would meet the unprecedented demand for education arising from processes of modernisation while, at the same time, maintain the language as the means of communication and a form of culture. The realisation of such desire requires considerable activity on the part of concerned Mongols as well as the incorporation of government support. A Historical Perspective In order to understand the current conditions better, it will be helpful to examine the official attitude and behaviour toward the application of the Mongol language, which have conflicting elements when different periods of time and involved personalities are considered. The Chinese Constitution (article 4) specially mentions the right of minorities to apply and develop their language and script. In addition, the regional National Autonomy Act (articles 21, 37, 47, 9) makes similar provisions2. The Inner Mongolia local government or, more precisely its predecessor, noted the linguistic issue as early as the 1 2 Senamjil and Heshigduuring 1992. Qiu Liyuan 1994: 272. 53 1940s. The Mongol language was part of the propagandising policies of the party concerning Mongol natives. Respecting minorities’ language and customs was seen as helpful in obtaining the trust of the natives and their support in politics. Use of the Mongol language was seen as central to the Party’s desire to successfully promulgate its view to the local people, because of the widespread use of the Mongol language in many areas at that time. One consequence was the Chinese Communist Party publishing numerous Mongol-language magazine such as Inner Mongolia weekly (Zhangjiakou), The Masses (Ulaanhot), and People’s Road and Freedom (Hailar) in the region. Inner Mongolia Daily (Mongolian edition) was founded based on these periodicals in 1948. Furthermore, the Party espoused a policy that all nationalities were equal and entitled to retain their individual languages and customs. The policy possessed great significance for Mongols at that time, because local war lords governing Inner Mongolia areas had disregarded the rights of native people, creating much discontent. The Communist Party was welcome by the natives, for people could enjoy the freedom to maintain their tradition, which they had not enjoyed for some decades. The secretary of the North-eastern Branch of the Chinese Communist Party said in a 1948 speech that the Mongol language should be used, more newspapers and periodicals in Mongol should be published, and there should be struggle against the trend to neglect the Mongol language. These same sentiments were expressed in a policy formulated by a Party delegation to Suiyuan in 1948 and reiterated in a 1949 resolution by a Party working group delivered to the Yihejuu area1. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the Party and government continued to conduct a supportive language policy, at least until the Cultural Revolution, in Inner Mongolia and in other minority areas as well. Nevertheless, in the past few decades, certain changes appeared in the nature and scope of the policy. The focus shifted from political publicity and the united Front to issues surrounded the center of power in the Region, such as what requirements officials working in local governments should meet and who should be Regional local officials. In 1952, Ulaanhu, Chairman of Inner Mongolia then, pointed out that Some people retain the intention to be a guest, and do not plan to stay here for the long term. …They do not like to learn Mongol and do not understand Mongol comrades’ feeling meticulously way. Let them change their idea about being a guest, 1 Hecheeltu 1987: 24-25. 54 serve people wholeheartedly, pay attention to minority characteristics, and deeply understand the feeling of Mongol people1. These remarks were obviously aimed at Han cadres, especially those from inner China. The Inner Mongolia government moved from Ulaanhot, where it was established, to Hohhot, and was merged with the government of Suiyuan province in early 1950s. The Suiyuan government consisted of nearly all Han officials who had worked under the leadership of Fu Zuoyi, a warlord and national hero against the Japanese. They had ignored Mongol tradition and the rights of the natives. Meanwhile, the new Regional government received many cadres from inland China who had come to “develop and defend the frontier.” Additionally, most inhabitants of the new capital and its suburban population were, and remain Han. Accordingly, the new government confronted a complicated situation, not only in terms of the social environment but also its internal structure. Mongol cadres comprised 32 percent of the total cadre number in the region, when the government was in Ulaanhot. This decreased to 15 percent after the government moved to Hohhot2. There were varying attitudes toward the use of Mongol language among those with different backgrounds in governmental departments. It was a common personal idea among cadres that “whether or not the Mongol language exists, whether or not it is applied, and whether or not it is studied, all people can work”3. There was not only this sort of neglect but also, still worse, ultra-leftists confused emphasis put on Mongol language with “narrow-minded nationalism of the natives”. In addition, Hohhot and its suburb were not viewed as a suitable linguistic environment for the application of Mongol. In recognition of these opinions, the Inner Mongolia government officially adopted such steps as organising cadres to learn Mongol, honouring diligent study, making proficiency in Mongol a requirement for the promotion of officials, issuing officials documents in both the Mongol and Han languages, and applying the language widely in the fields of economy, commerce, education, and media, in order to extend the scope of Mongol language application. Chairman Ulaanhu remarked that “to develop the Mongol Language is an important condition to do any work in minority area.” The ultimate intention of these measures was to maintain and improve the autonomous authority of the Inner Mongolia government in a 1 Inner Mongolia daily (Chinese edition) December 20, 1952. Orchilang 1993: 110. 3 Hecheelt 1987: 36. 2 55 new cultural and linguistic environment. In such circumstances, the Mongol language was and is a deal to secure more ground for Mongols in political and related arenas. Conversely, for the local Han, it is a field to restrict national ambition. An emphasis on the importance on the Mongol language met resistance from Han and aroused different reactions among the natives. Emphasising linguistic competence in Mongol elevated the status of those who spoke Mongol over Mongols who did not. This caused divisions among groups of Mongols. This is one way that a language can be more than a language. During the Cultural Revolution, the Mongol language suffered a series of setbacks. At that time, those who espoused concern for Mongol language issues were seen as nationalists and separatists. Consequently, none in official positions dared mention related concerns until 1976. At that time, high ranking officials in the Inner Mongolia government resurrected work on the Mongol language and obtained certain positive results such as restoring the use of the language in education and publishing. In 1987, Buhe, former chairman of the Region’s government and son of Ulaanhu, said in speech that “the learning and application of the Mongol language should be considered an implementation of the right of national autonomy,” and “affairs related to the Mongol language should be viewed as important in implementation of the Party’s mass line. No mastery or neglect of the language of more than 3,800,000 Mongols is to be divorced from the masses” 1 . However, more recently, the Committee for Nationality Affairs, a governmental department responsible for the Mongol language, has advanced the view that the native language should serve two objectives: economic advancement of the region and encourage unity among nationalities. This slogan, at least in the eyes of some people, implies that affairs related to the language have been moved to the outer periphery of importance in the government’s agenda. According to this interpretation, the reason for this change in policy is that, nowadays, the native people more or less understand the Han language. More importantly, they recognised the position of the Chinese government and Party over Inner Mongolia. Policies encouraging cadres to learn Mongol and widen the scope of the linguistic application have never been cancelled, but there have been marked changes in their practical implementation. In the 1950s and 1960s, competency in both the Mongol and Han languages was emphasised as a condition for promoting cadres. Today, the condition is, rarely alluded to in official documents in the area of personnel affairs, and even less seen in practical operation. 1 Buhe 1987: 4-5. 56 “Standard” Mongol Inner Mongolia is home to many different Mongol groups that have originated from different tribes. Linguists have put these dialects into three categories—Bargu and Buryat Dialect, Middle Dialect (Horchin, Harchin, Chahar, Shilingol, Urat, Ordus, and Alasha), and Oirat Dialect. This embraces all Mongol groups in China. The government of Inner Mongolia, in 1978, determined that Chahar Dialect should be considered the “standard” Mongol, based on investigation by linguists. This decision was welcome by many native intellectuals, who saw it as an important step to standardise the Mongol language in Inner Mongolia. These people thought that the existence of various dialects in the region had adversely influenced the formation of a common identity and ordinary communication. Accordingly, dialects were considered a handicap in maintaining and developing Mongol culture in the Chinese social context. Unification and standardisation of the language was seen as a prerequisite for cultural survival. In the other words, “standard” Mongol should be a means to strengthen Mongol language and culture to resist the influence from those of Han. Announcement of the existence of “standard” Mongol has, however, not achieved what many had hoped for. The language standardisation has not persuaded many Mongols including ordinary people and some intellectuals speaking various dialects that this is a benefit for them and they continue to speak their respective Mongol dialects. At present, “standard” Mongol is evident only in regional radio and television broadcasts. The reasons for the failure of standardisation are that, the so-called standard Chahar Mongol is a kind dialect which has no special influence over other dialects; meanwhile Mongols from different areas have strong feeling of localism, which make people love speaking in their own dialect rather than other dialects. The standardisation of the language reflects some Mongol intellectuals’ ambition to unify the language and reconstruct new culture in China. This ideal has not worked, in some sense, with challenges from localisms. New Terms and Loanwords In addition to the “standard” Mongol, there have been official efforts to create new terminology in Mongol, which has stirred up considerable debate around which language new terms should be borrowed from. One view holds that new terms should be directly borrowed from the Han language in the light of the Soviet Union minorities’ directly borrowing terms in Russian. Another viewpoint holds that some terms should be created in 57 Mongol while others should utilise international terms when necessary. The former position was adopted by the government during the Cultural Revolution, creating many Han terms in Mongol. An extreme example of this is the term zhongguo gongchandang -in huadexian-u weiyuanhui, which translates as “Haude County’s Chinese communist Party Committee”. In this example, no Mongol appears other than the two underlined postpositions. Since 1976, the latter view has found increasing favour. Many Han loanwords were replaced by Mongol terms. Interestingly, the basis for translation is to translate into Mongol the meaning of each Han language lexical item comprising the term. The result is often cumbersome, lacking in accuracy, and often little used. For example, the term “computer” is variously rendered electron bodolga-in mashin, oyon tarhi, chahilgan tarhi, boduur, and computer ( the former four respectively mean electric calculating machine, intelligent brain, electric brain, and calculator) only at the campus of the Inner Mongolia University. In spoken Mongol, people use more the Han terms directly not only for new technology and sciences, but also usual terms of every day’s life. Especially agricultural and urban Mongols employ higher percent Han language items in their speaking. Mongols often use this sort of Creole when speaking in informal situations. Thus, there are actually two forms of Mongols in Inner Mongolia—“low” Mongol and “high” Mongol. The informal spoken Mongol with Han terms is “low” Mongol, while the formal spoken Mongol without or with less Han loan words is “high” Mongol. The former is used among those who are familiar each other, and the latter in formal occasions. The use of the “high” Mongol and “low” Mongol is related to the closeness of users and occasions in which the discourse goes, rather than users’ strata and educated situation. Of course, the written Mongol should be considered a form of the “high” Mongol. In addition, code switching between the Mongol and Han languages is common. The Mongol language in fact, intentionally or not, has received a great amount of influence from the Han language. The influence, together with other factors such as dialects, has caused the division between “high” and “low” Mongol languages. Conclusion Mongol language issues are related to many social and political factors, such as the Mongol position in society and politics, identity, and governmental attitude and behaviour. The Mongol language, its significance, the scope of its application, different attitudes toward the language, and its changes collectively embody the contention and change 58 Mongol culture is experiencing in the Chinese cultural context. It means, the issues are not only linguistic ones, but importantly a kind of a ground in which Mongols respond to the powers from the Chinese government and Han culture. The language, for Mongols themselves, is a way to communicate their feeling thought, and unite their identity, while it is also a watershed to split among different dialects, and between those who can speak their native language and those who can not speak the language. Thus, the ideal that Mongol intellectuals unite and strengthen their language and culture is still rather far from the reality, because the language, with which they want to realise the ideal, is such a complicated phenomenon. In part, the Mongol language has become an alienated cultural form, as showed in the effect of its use in the Party’s publicity work. The language should have brought about necessary information and entertainment, and expressed the Mongols’ own will. It, in fact, has been and is a means to express other’s will that directly limits their interests in some instance in the context where there is a lack of conditions for civil society to form and develop. In respect of Mongol language education, although it runs very successfully in the educational sense, it meets challenges from almost all public spheres in which the Mongol language is not employed. The students educated in Mongol, for example, have to adapt to a new environment, including Han language, and compete with Han counterparts, while going to the society for jobs and other means of survival. The latest attitude of the local government toward the Mongol language shows the fact that the Mongols have recognised the Chinese sovereignty over them, and the authority has full confidence about its position. Consequently, the Mongol language has transformed from a communicative system between the government and Mongols, to be a symbolic form addressed to the Mongols and outsides. References Buhe1987: “Let Us Continue and Develop the Outstanding Tradition to Value and Utilise the Mongol Language”. Mongol Language Journal. No. 6. 2-7. Compiling Committee of the Encyclopaedia of Inner Mongolia(CCEIM)1991: Encyclopaedia of Inner Mongolia. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia People's Press. Hecheelt1987: “Position and function of the Mongol Language”. Mongol Language Journal. No. 2, 2-8. 59 Hecheelt 1989/1990: “Historical Outline of Linguistic Policy in Inner Mongolia.” Mongol Language Journal. No.9-12, 1989, No. 1-12, 1990. Inner Mongolia committee for Mongol language 1992: Collected References. Hohhot: Inner Mongol Committee for Mongol language. Orchilang1993:Research and Scrutiny of Inner Mongolia’s Ethnic Problems. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Educational Press. Qiu Liyuan1994: Dictionary of Minority Nationality Affairs. Beijing: China Economic Press. Senamjil 1993: “Mongol Language and the Nationality’s Intellectual Development in China”. In State Committee for Nationality Affairs, ed. Problems concerning Application and Development of Minority Nationalities. Beijing: China Tibetan Studies Press. 16-22. Senamjil and Heshigduureng1995: “The Developing Mongol School of Tumet Right Banner”. Mongol Language Journal. No. 4:3-6. Stalin, Joseph 1980: Collected Works. Beijing: China’s People’s Press. Wu Guoshan 1995: “The Mother Tongue should Be Strengthened for the Development of Mongolian Education”. Journal of Inner Mongolia education. No. 11: 6-9. 60 QUAESTIONES MONGOLORUM DISPUTATAE No.1 Executive Editors: H. Futaki ＆ B. Oyunbilig Association for International Studies of Mongolian Culture Tokyo April 30. 2005 Tibetan Tantric Buddhism at the Court Of the Great Mongol Khans Sa skya pa ita and ’Phags pa’s works in Chinese during the Yuan Period [LIRI, Nepal] Weirong Shen I It has been widely accepted that Tibetan tantric Buddhism was very popular at the court of the great Mongol khans, yet little is known about the details of the Buddhist teaching that were taught and practiced enthusiastically in and outside the Mongol court of the Yuan dynasty. Due to the prevailing misconception that it was the tantric practice of Tibetan Buddhism, notoriously epitomized in the so-called Secret Teaching of Supreme Bliss (秘 密大喜樂法 mimi daxile fa), that caused the rapid down fall of the great Mongol-Yuan dynasty, Tibetan lamas and Tibetan Buddhism were sharply criticized and dramatically demonized by Chinese literati, western travelers and Arabic historians alike.1 More often than not, Tibetan Buddhism was viewed as sorcery and magic, and Tibetan lamas as “idolaters” or “evil monks”. This has resulted in a lack of scholarly attention and contributed to the current abysmal state of our knowledge concerning the details of Tibetan Buddhism among the Mongols and Chinese during the Yuan Dynasty. Needless to say, the practice of the Secret Teaching of Supreme Bliss, broadly believed as an orgy in the garb of religious practice, was not the only activity of Tibetan Buddhism at the Mongol court. The enthusiasm about Tibetan Buddhism among Mongols and Chinese during the Yuan period was clearly demonstrated in various ways. The Mongol court in China was the center of great Tibetan Buddhist missionary activities. Not only Sa skya pa-, but also bKa’ brgyud pa- and rNying ma pa- lamas participated in the missionary activities at the Mongol court. The Mahākala cult, introduced mainly by Sa skya pa- lamas to the Mongols, spread to the whole country. Tibetan Buddhist art works were seen not only in the capital 1 Shen, 2003; Otosaka, 2001. 61 cities, but almost everywhere in the country. 1 The Mongol government devoted an enormous amount of time and effort in the compilation and production of Buddhist literature in Chinese. In addition to the translation of various Buddhist canonical texts from Tibetan into Chinese and perhaps even the composition of Buddhist texts in Chinese by Tibetan, a comparative catalogue of the Chinese and Tibetan canons was produced under Kubilai’s patronage. 2 Without doubt, it is unfair to view the Tibetan tantric teachings practiced at the Mongol court as pure sorcery that has brought calamity to the country and the people, and to place the blame for the rapid down fall of the Yuan dynasty solely on a few Tibetan monks. Since numerous previously unknown Tibetan sources for the history of the Mongol Empire period were discovered and made available in Tibetological circles during last two decade, many excellent studies on the history of political, cultural and religious interactions among Mongols, Chinese and Tibetan during the Yuan Dynasty have been published.3 However, none of these studies deals in depth with the concrete content of the teachings and practices of Tibetan Buddhism at the Mongol court itself.4 We are still not able to expel the evil spirit of the Secret Teaching of Supreme Bliss. As mentioned above, the widespread prejudice against Tibetan Buddhism is responsible for the lack of scholarly attention to Tibetan Buddhism itself at the Mongol court. However, the lack of reliable sources about tantric practice of Tibetan Buddhism at the Mongol court both in Tibetan and Chinese has also greatly contributed to this regretful situation. The only recognized work written by a Tibetan lama for his Mongolian disciples and handed down from Yuan time to the present is the renowned 彰所知論 Zhang suo zhilun, a translation of ’Phags pa lama Blo gros rgyal mtshan (1235-1280)’s Shes bya rab gsal. This work is simply an outline of the Buddhist cosmology and Weltvorstellung according to the Abhidharma teaching.5 It does not disclose any information about the tantric teaching and practice of Tibetan Buddhism disseminated at the Mongol court at that time. Twenty years ago, Christopher I. Beckwith drew attention to an until then unnoticed Yuan-period collection in Chinese on Tibetan tantric Buddhist teachings. This collection is called 大乘要道密集 Dacheng yaodao miji, or Secret Collection of Works on the 1 Xiong, 2003. Franke, 1996; Huang Mingxin, 2003. 3 Szerb, 1985; Petech, 1991; van der Kuijp, 1994; Franke, 1996; Chen Dezhi, 2000; Xiong, 2003. 4 The only attempt was made by Wang Yao based on his preliminary study on the Dacheng yaodao miji. Cf. Wang Yao, 1996. 5 Taishō Tripiсaka, Nos. 1645; Hoog, 1983; Wang Qilong, 1999. 2 62 Quintessential Path of the Mahāyāna. It includes at least 28 texts1devoted to 道果 daoguo, or lam ’bras (the path and fruit) teaching, which are particularly favored by the Sa skya pa sect, and to 大手印 da shouyin, or Mahāmudrā.2 According to the publisher’s preface, this collection became a basic teachings text of the esoteric school in China, and from the Yuan through the Ming and Manchu Qing dynasties down to the present day it has been revered as a “sacred classic of the esoteric school”.3 Needless to say, this collection is of great importance for revealing the accurate story of how Tibetan Buddhism was practiced in Yuan China, for it is the only text book of Tibet tantric Buddhism in Chinese date from the Yuan time.4 A thorough examination of the contents of the works incorporated in this collection will undoubtedly restore the true colors to the teaching and practice of Tibetan Buddhism at the Mongol court hazed over by the Secret Teaching of Supreme Bliss. According to Beckwith, “’Phags pa himself did not compile the collection. However, numerous works of Yьan-period Saskyapa provenience are included in it, and one may therefore safely assume that most – if not all – of the texts date from that period.”5 This proposition is only partly accurate. It is certainly true that ’Phags pa himself did not compile the collection, since at least more than one text seen in this collection was written after ’Phags pa’s death. The text, entitled 大菩提塔樣尺寸法 Da putita yang chicun fa, is a translation of Byang chub chen po’i mchod rten gyi tshad bzhugs so, or Proportional Manual of the Stūpa of Enlightenment, authored by the famed Zha lu pa Master Bu ston Rin chen grub (1290-1364) who was born ten years later after ’Phags pa’s death.6 Also, the same person, mKhan chen Bu ston (看纏布思端 Kan chan bu si duan) is once again mentioned in the text 北俱盧洲延壽儀 Bei juluzhou yanshou yi, or Tantric liturgy of longevity from the northern continent Julu. Bu ston was even not the last one in the lineage of transmission who received this esoteric instruction for longevity: he again transmitted it to a certain lama called 膽呤巴 Dan ling ba.7 That is to say, this text existed in written form later than Bu ston’s life time. In one other short text, entitled 苦樂為道要 1 According to 陳健民 Chen Jianmin, the editor of a new edition of the same work, this collection consists of 83 texts altogether. Sajia daoguo xinbianh, preface. 2 Beckwith, 1984. 3 The preface of the Dacheng yaodao miji by Xiao tianshi 蕭天石, pp. 1-9; Cf. Lu Cheng，1942. 4 Recently I have unexpectedly discovered several Chinese texts which are obviously translations of Tibetan tantric Buddhist texts, especially texts on the yogic practice of the intermediate state (bardo), in the fifth and sixth fascicles of 俄藏黑水城文獻 E zang heishuicheng wenxian (the Khara Khoto manuscripts preserved in Russia), published recently by the 上海古籍出版社 Shanghai Publishing House for Ancient Books. These texts now can be considered as the earliest Chinese translation of Tibetan tantric Buddhist text known to us at the present time. Shen, 2004. 5 Beckwith, 1984, p. 12. 6 Shen Weirong, 2005. 7 Dacheng yaodao miji, Vol. 4, p. 2. 63 門 Kule weidao yaomen, or the Quintessential Instruction on [the yogic practice] of Suffering and Happiness utilized as the Path [to Enlightenment], a detailed list of transmission lineage is given in its colophon, though the author of the text remains anonymous. This lineage starts with 釋迦室哩 二合 班的達 Shijia shili bandida, i.e. Kashmir pa ita śākyaśrībhadra (1140s-1225?), goes through 枯嚕布洛拶咓 Kulubu luozawa, i.e. Khro phu lotsāba, 看纏洛不囉二合巴 Kanchan luobuluo ba, mKhan chen Blo gros pa (?), 看纏爹瓦巴 Kanchan Di wa ba, i.e. mKhan chen bDe ba pa (?), 看纏屹 囉二合思巴孺奴 Kanchan Geluosiba runu, i.e. mKhan chen Grags pa gzhon nu and 看纏 莎南屹囉 Kanchan Shanan geluo, i.e. mKhan chen bSod nams grags, and ends with 法尊 莎南監藏 Fa zun Shannan jianzang. Beckwith reconstructed the name of the last person in the lineage as “Venerator of the Dharma bSod nams rgyal mtshan.”1 Obviously, he took the first two characters of the name “Fazun” as a honorific epithet attached to the person’s real name. But this does not have to be the case: it is equally possible that “Fazun” is a part of the name and stands for Bla ma dam pa in Tibetan. If my hypothesis is correct, then this lineage ends actually with the famed Sa skya pa master Bla ma dam pa bSod nams rgyal mtshan (1312-1375). Chen Qingying pointed out that this lineage should be identical to the transmission lineage of mkhan po chen po of Chos lung, one of the several eminent transmission lineages of Kashmir pa ita шākyaśrībhadra’s teaching in Tibet. This lineage is well recorded in sTag tshang rdzong pa dPal ’byor bzang po’s rGya bod yig tshang.2 However, these two lineages are not exactly the same. In particular, I am not convinced by the equation of Kanchan Luobuluo ba to mKan chen Byang chub dpal. It goes without saying that further examination is needed here. What remains true, nevertheless, is that this text must have come into existence still later than the life time of ’Phags pa, since mKhan chen Byang chub dpal was none other than the one who was invited to the boarder area between Tibet and China in order to preside over the ordination of ’Phags pa.3 Moreover, it is not the case that most – if not all – of the texts date from the Yuan period. According to excellent studies on the Dacheng yaodao miji published recently by Chen Qingying, several texts included in the collection must have been transmitted and translated during the Tangut – Xixia 西夏 – time (1032 - 1227). Chen pointed out that the text 解釋道果語錄金剛句記 Jieshi daoguo yulu jingang juji, or Commentary on the Vajra verses of the lam ’bras teaching, one of just a few lengthy texts in the collection, was definitely translated in the Tangut time. It is said that this text was translated by Śrama 1 Beckwith, 1984, p. 15. Chen Qingying, 2003, pp. 59-60. 3 rGya bod yig tshang, pp. 512-513. 2 64 a 慧忠 Hui Zhong of the 北山大清涼寺 Beishan daqingliang si, transmitted by 中國大 乘玄密帝師 Zhongguo dacheng xuanmi dishi [The Great Vehicle Esoteric Imperial Preceptor of the Central Kingdom], collected by Chan Ba, the Master of the Law of the Central Kingdom of Tibet 西番中國法師禪巴. All three persons and the monasteries they belonged to seem to be of Tangut origin.1 The Tangut version of the text, entitled 道果 語錄金剛句之解用記 Daguo yulu jingangju zhi jieyongji, was also found among the Tangut manuscripts preserved in Leningrad (today’s Saint Petersburg), Russia.2 Therefore, it is unquestionable that the collection arguably attributed to the Yuan-period had in deed included works of the Tangut kingdom period. Besides the Jieshi daoguo yulu jingang juji, there are still other texts in the collection which are also possibly of Tangut origin. For instance, two other lengthy texts, 解釋道果逐難記 Jieshi daoguo zhunanji, or the record of expelling difficulties for explaining the lam ’bras teaching, transmitted and translated by the Śrama a 寳昌 Bao Chang of the Ganquan dajue yuanjisi 甘泉大覺圓寂寺, and 依吉 祥上樂輪方便智慧雙運道玄義卷 Yi jixiang shangle fangbian zhihui shuangyundao xuanyi juan, recorded by the national preceptor 佑國寶塔弘覺 youguo baota hongjue guoshi, the Śrama a 慧信 Hui Xin”, are also of Tangut origin. It is said that the Chinese translation of the Jieshi daoguo zhunanji was made and compiled into one single text by Bao Chang based on two Tibetan texts (依兩部番本寳昌譯成漢本), and was collected by the great Master Chan Ba (此記者，大禪巴師所集也).3 It was thus just like the Jieshi daoguo yulu jingang juji, which was also collected by the same great master Chan Ba. The great master Chan Ba was said to be a disciple of 康法師 Kang fashi, the Dharma master Kang, or of 康薩悉結瓦 Kang Saxijiewa. Kang Saxijiewa can be clearly reconstructed as ’Khon Sa skya ba. This ’Khon Sa skya pa must refer to the second patriarch of the Sa skya pa sect Kun dga’ snying po (1092-1158), since it is said in the text that the so-called Kang Saxijiewa, or ’Khon Sa skya ba, is the other name of the master 極喜真心 Jixi zhenxin, while Jixi zhenxin must be the Chinese transliteration of the Tibetan name Kun dga’ snying po. Thus, the personal master of the collector of the text Chan Ba was in fact ’Khon Sa skya ba Kun dga’ snying po. This information gives us crucial clue for identifying the Tibetan original of these two major texts on the lam ’bras teaching included in the Dacheng yaodao miji. Although these two texts may not be strict translations of single Tibetan text but rather compilation composed of two or more texts, they must have followed Kun dga’ snying po’s teachings in varying degrees. It is 1 Chen Qingying, 2000; Chen Qingying, 2003. Nishida, 1977, p. 24; Shi Jinbo, 1988, p. 401. 3 Dacheng yaodao miji, Vol. 3, p. 1. 2 65 well-known that Kun dga’ snying po was the author of eleven commentaries on the lam ’bras gzhung rdo rje’i tshig rkang.1 There is a group of four small texts referred to as “the four small texts for removal of impediments” (gegs sel yig chung bzhi) in the first collection of texts on the lam ’bras, the Pod ser (The Yellow Volume) compiled by Grags pa rgyal mtshan.2 Three of which are attributed to Sa chen Kun dga’ snying po, and one of which was composed by Grags pa rgyal mtshan. In addition, many texts concerning the practice of Mahāmūdra in the Dacheng yaodao miji are also of Tangut origin. The Tangut origin of three Mahāmūdra texts in the collection can be attested simply through the existence of their Tangut versions. （1）The Tangut version of 新譯大手印頓入要門 Xinyi dashou yin dunru yaomen, or the new translation of the quintessential instruction of the sudden enterance of Mahāmūdra, is entitled 大手印直入要論 Da shouyin zhiru yaolun. （2）大手印引定 Da shouyin yinding or 大手印赤引定要門 Da shouyin chi yinding yaomen is supposed to be identical with the Tangut text 大手印定引導略文 Da shouyin ding yindao luewen. （3）The Tangut version of the text 大手印三种法喻 Da shouyin sanzhong fayu is said to be 大手印之三种義喻 Da shouyin zhi sanzhong yiyu.3 This is not all. The longest text among numerous texts concerning the practice Mahāmūdra, i.e. 新譯大手印不共義配教要門 Xinyi da shouyin bugongyi peijiao yaomen, must also have stemmed from the Tangut time, since it was, exactly like the Xinyi dashou yin dunru yaomen, transmitted by 果海密嚴寺玄照國師沙門惠賢 Guohai miyansi xuanzhao guoshi shamen huixian chuan shamenhuixian [the national preceptor Xuan Zhao, the шramaхa Hui Xian of the monastery Guohai miyan] and translated by 果海密嚴寺沙 門惠幢 Guohai miyansi shamen huizhuang [the Śrama a Hui Zhuang of the same monastery]. In short, a great deal of texts included in the Dacheng yaodao miji was in deed translated in the Tangut time. In view of the fact that several other Chinese texts of the yogic practices of Tibetan Buddhism are recently discovered among Chinese manuscripts found in Khara khoto of the Tangut Kingdom, we are certainly able to claim that it was not the Yuan, but the Tangut kingdom when Tibetan texts of tantric practices were translated into Chinese for the very first time. 1 Lam ’bras gzhung rdo rje’i tshig rkang gi rnam ’grel bcu gcig: commentaries of sa chen kun dga’ snying po (1092-1158) on the root text of the lam ’bras system of teachings written at the behest of various disciples. Dehra dun: Sakya Centre, 1985, 3 Volumes. Cf. Stearns, 2001, pp. 9-25. 2 rTsa ba rdo rje tshig rkang gtsos pod ser gsung bshad, Sa skya lam ’bras literature series, vol. 11, pp. 260-292. 3 Nishida, 1977, p. 21. 66 Compared to Khara Khoto Chinese manuscripts of Tibetan tantric yoga practice of the bKa’ brgyud pa tradition, the Dacheng yaodao miji is superior not only in terms of the total number of separate texts it includes, but also in terms of its much greater impact on the history of the dissemination of Tibetan Buddhism in China. It played and plays continuously a great role for maintaining the yogic practice among Chinese practitioners of Tibetan Buddhist tradition, since it was the only Chinese text book of tantric practice of Tibetan Buddhism until very recently. 1 Furthermore it includes texts authored or transmitted by lamas of various traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, and texts of different genres from exegetical works devoted to a specific teaching, manuals on meditative practice, to iconometrics of stūpas and praises of protective deities and great Masters. As Beckwith pointed out, “what may be of especial interest to Tibetologists are the incipits and colophons. Quite often the transmission lineage of a text is given, and some familiar names – such as “Lama Marpa, Mila Raspa, Lama Ras-chuп” etc. – may be recognized. Anyone wishing to study Tibetan historical phonology might also be interested in the numerous transcriptions of Tibetan and Sanskritic words and names scattered throughout the book.”2 However, the contents of the works in this collection must be of greater interest to scholars who want to deepen our knowledge on and reveal the historical truth about Tibetan Buddhism at the Mongol court. It is time for us to turn our attention straight to the doctrinal contents of these texts. Regrettably, hitherto studies on this collection have barely scratched the surface and has not gone much beyond a preliminary clarification the historical circumstances around this collection. None of the texts has been treated in a comparative way. Beckwith was only able to provide an imperfect list of all of the texts and to “positively identify two of the three or four works which are supposed to have been authored by ’Phags pa”. Chen Qingying successfully sorted out all texts authored respectively by Grags pa rgyal mtshan, Sa skya pa ita and ’Phags pa- the third, fourth and fifth patriarch of the Sa skya pa sect from this text corpus, though no further effort was made to identify their Tibetan originals. I plan to undertake a systematic investigation into the texts included in this collection. I will first attempt to identify the Tibetan original of each single text. Since many texts do not offer any information about their author, transmitter or translator, it is very hard to locate their Tibetan original. Even when, in some texts, the name of the author is indicated, it is still not easy to trace them back to their Tibetan original, since they might not be a 1 At least six different editions have been published respectively in Beijing, Hunan, Taiwan and Hong Kong since it was rediscovered in 1930s. Chen Qingying, 2003, pp. 49-51. 2 Beckwith, 1984, p. 11. 67 strict translation, but rather a compilation. Some texts were probably composed directly in Chinese. The difficulties notwithstanding, it is not an entirely impossible mission, given that most of texts on the lam ’bras and Mahāmūdra teachings are easily available to us nowadays through encyclopedic text collections such as gDams ngags mdzod 1 and Lam ’bras slob bshad.2 Works of the early Sa skya pa patriarchs are mostly to be found in Sa skya pa’i bka’ ’bum, or the complete works of the great masters of the Sa skya sect of the Tibetan Buddhism.3 In any case, it certainly worth the effort to find the Tibetan original of these texts because we are not able to find out the whole truth about Tibetan tantric Buddhism at the Mongol court otherwise. Secondly, I will examine whether these Chinese translations are in deed complete and correct through comparing the two versions of the same text, whenever the Tibetan original can be identified. That is the only way to perfect these Chinese texts and to let these texts serve their proper purpose.4 I will then try to provide a concise discussion of the doctrinal content and the history of the transmission of a particular text in order to further clarify who were propagating what kind of teachings at the court of Mongol Khans. It is my very best hope to be able to demonstrate the truth about the teaching and practice of Tibetan Buddhism at the Mongol court through a persistent and laborious, but interesting and rewarding endeavor. This article deals with the texts authored by Sa skya pa ita Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan (1182-1251) and ’Phags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan, both of them played the foremost role in establishing the political and religious relation between Mongols and Tibetans at the very beginning of the Tibetan-Mongol interaction. II There are four texts in the Dacheng yaodao miji that are indicated to be authored by Sa skya pa ita Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan either in the note directly behind the title or in the colophon of the text. They are: 1 gDams ngag mdzod, A treasury of precious methods and instruction of the major and minor Buddhist traditions of Tibet brought together and structured into a coherent system by ’Jam-mgon Koń-sprul, edited from a set of the Dpal-spuńs prints and published at the order of H. H. Dingo Chhentse Rimpoche by Lama Ngodrup and Sherab Drimey, Kyich u Temple, Paro, Bhutan, 1919. The Volume 5 and 6 of gDams ngag mdzod include texts of the Sa skya pa sect. 2 Lam ’bras slob bshad: the Sa-skya-pa teachings of the path and the fruit according to the Tshar-pa transmission, (Sa skya Lam ’bras Literature Series) Dehra dun u.p. the Sa skya center, 1983-1985, Vol. 1-21. 3 Compiled by bSod nams rgya mtsho, Tokyo: the Toyo Bunko, 1968. 4 Chen Jianmin, a life long practitioner and famed Chinese Master of the lam ’bras teaching of the Sa skya pa tradition, expressed his great concern about the completeness and correctness of the Dacheng yaodao miji and his regret over that fact that the situation could not have been improved when he was editing a new edition of this collection. Sajia daoguo xinbian, pp. 437-498. 68 （1）授脩習敕軌 Shou xiuxi chigui (Conferring the esoteric instruction of the meditative practice), Vol. 2, pp. 5-9; 大瑜伽士普喜幢師述 Transmitted by the great Yogin Master Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan. （2）五緣生道 Wu yuansheng dao (The path of five interdependent originations), Vol. 2, pp. 12-16; 大薩思嘉班帝怛普喜幢師述 Transmitted by the great Sa skya pa ita Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan. （3）大金剛乘修師觀門 Da jingang cheng xiushi guanmen (The gate of meditation on lamas of the great Vajrayana) , Vol. 2, pp. 16-24; 大薩思嘉班帝怛著哩哲斡上師述， 持呪沙門莎南屹囉譯 Transmitted by the Superior Master Chos rje ba, the great Sa skya pa ita, translated by the Mantradhara шramana bSod nams grags. （4）脩習自在密哩咓巴讚嘆 Xiuxi zizai miliwaba zantan (Praise of the Virūpa’s Bhāvanākrama), Vol. 4, pp. 1-2; The Colophon says, 脩習自在密哩咓巴禱祝洛拶咓 貢葛兒二合監藏班藏布於薩思加集”The Prayer for the Virūpa’s Bhāvanākrama was collected at Sa skya by Lotsāba Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po.”1 It is very fortunate that I am able to identify the Tibetan original of all these four texts in pa ita kun dga’ rgyal mtshan gyi bka’ ’bum, or the complete works of pa ita kun dga’ rgyal mtshan. In the following, I am going to give a brief introduction and analysis to each of these four texts. （1）授脩習敕軌 Shou xiuxi chigui or Conferring the esoteric instruction of the meditative practice. This text is a translation of the sGrub pa lung sbyin, text No. 44 in pa ita kun dga’ 2 rgyal mtshan gyi bka’ ’bum, pp. 345-3-2-347-1-3. The colophon of the text says: zab mo’i don ’di gzhan la phan pa’i phyir dpal ldan sa skya’i dben gnas dam pa ru grags pa rgyal mtshan zhabs rdul spyi bo yis gus pas blangs te bdag gis ye ge bkod rdo rje’i tshig ’di zab pas sngon chad gang gsal bar bkod pa’i rnam gzhag ma mdzad pas gzhan gyis bskul nas kun dga’ rgyal mtshan gyis sbyar ba ’di la dam pas bzod par dgongs Its equivalence in Chinese reads as follows: 1 Beckwith mistakenly identified this Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan as the Imperial Preceptor Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po who lived from 1310 to 1358. Beckwith, 1984, p 14. 2 This text is also seen in Sa pa Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan gyi gsung ’bum, Vol. 3, pp. 224-30. Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, 1992. 69 為他將此甚深義 吉祥白地大法席 志誠頂受名稱幢 淨蓮足塵余敬書 由此金剛句甚幽 曾無有人述明文 應他勸緣普喜幢 敍迄願上垂忍受 It is unambiguous that this text is written by Sa skya pa ita Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan in the Sa skya monastery sometime before he was invited by Kцdдn khan to China in 1244.1 Chen Qingying suggests that this text was probably translated before the Yuan time, since “Sa skya” is uncommonly transliterated here in this text into “白地” , or “the white land,” whereas it is normally transcribed as “Sa si jia” or “Sa jia”薩思嘉, 薩斯嘉, 薩迦 in Yuan Chinese literature.2 This seems to be a logical hypothesis, since it is fully proven that Sa skya pa ita had previously established contact with the Tangut kingdom before the Mongol-Yuan dynasty came into existence. In the complete works of pa ita kun dga’ rgyal mtshan there is a letter addressed to the monks of the great monastery dPal sde chen lhun gyis grub pa’i gtsug lag khang chen po in the Tangut kingdom.3 Thus, it is not implausible that the text in question was actually transmitted into the Tangut kingdom and translated into Chinese in the Tangut time. sGrub pa lung sbyin is a concise esoteric instruction of the meditative practice of lam ’bras of the Sa skya pa tradition. The practice consists of three steps: 1) to please уākinīs through the accumulation of merit (bsod nams kyi tshogs bsags pas mkha’ ’gro mnyes par bya ba, 集福資糧令喜空行); 2) [to make] external and internal auspicious connections through giving the spiritual authorization (instruction) of the meditative practice (bsgrub pa’i lung sbyin pas phyi nang gi rten ’brel, 授修習敕内外緣得扣); 3) to attain the prophecy of the Buddha Vajradhara through being bound under oath (dam la gzhag pas rdo rje ’chang gi bka’ lung bsgrub pa, 啓誓奉行大持金剛教). The actual instruction of the yogic practice of lam ’bras is mainly given through explaining the literal, 1 Jackson considered this text “as possibly of early authorship”. Jackson, 1987, pp. 62-63. Chen Qingying, 2003, p. 58. Furthermore, we come across the name 康薩悉結瓦 kang saxijiewa, i.e. ’Khon Sa skya ba and 薩廝結瓦 sasijiewa, i.e. Sa skya ba in Jieshi daoguo zunan ji, Dacheng yaodao miji, Vol. 3, p. 1, 2. Both of them are irregular compared to the standard Yuan transcription of Sa skya ba. It strongly suggests that this text was also translated prior to the Yuan time. However, Sa skya pa was not always consistenly transcribed as Sa si jia 薩思嘉 or 薩斯迦 during the Yuan period. 大金剛乘修師觀 門 Da jingang cheng xiushi guanmen (The gate of meditation on lamas of the great Vajrayana) is said to be transmitted by the Superior Master Chos rje ba, the great Sa skya pa ita, and translated by the Mantradhara bSod nams grags. It has to be translated during the Yuan period, since bSod nams grags is proven to be a well-known translator of the Yuan time. Lu Cheng, 1942; However, Chos rje Sa skya pa chen po seen in the Tibetan original of the text was not transcribed as 大薩思嘉著哩哲斡 Da sa si jia zhu li zhe wo, but 上悟薩什加韂布 shangwu sashijia chanbu. Dacheng yaodao miji, Vol. 2, p. 23. 3 “Mi nyag gi rgyal khams su gnang ba’i yi ge bzhugs”, Sa skya bka’ ’bum, Vol. 5, No. 37, pp. 337-2-1338-1-2. 2 70 symbolic and practical meanings of the following verses from the Vajra verse (rDo rje tshig rkang)1 that is the starting point and the quintessence of the text. The verse reads: dkyil ’khor lnga la btud de bskrun ’bar g.yo brten pa’i bye brag gis srog rtsol ’gog pa de bzhin te bde chen chos sku nam mkha’ bzhin 稽首五輪敬仰乞 焰動堅固差別理 命懃消滅亦復然 大樂法身如虛空 “One bows down to and multiplies the five mandalas Through the differences of blazing, moving and stabilizing The life force, effort and cessation are [differentiated] likewise The supreme bliss, the dharma body is like the space.” Sa skya pa ita explains that the first sentence of the verse shows the purification of the cause (rgyu sbyong) and the [four] empowerments (dbang [bzhi]), while the two sentences in the middle illustrate the path, and the last sentence the fruit of the practice. The basic procedure of the practice is described in the following way: the practitioner will successively attain four empowerments, i.e. 1) the empowerment of the Vajra master (rdo rje slob dpon, 金剛師灌), 2) the secret empowerment (gsang dbang, 密灌頂), 3) the empowerment of transcendent wisdom and pristine awareness (shes rab ye shis kyi dbang, 智惠灌), 4) the fourth empowerment (bzhi pa’i dbang, 第四灌), through paying homage to five mandalas, i.e. 1) mandala of colored powder (rdul tshon gyi dkyil ’khor 色末中圍), 2) mandala of body and Bodhichitta (lus dang byang chub sems, 身及菩提心中圍), 3) mandala of body and bhaga (lus bhaga, 身及婆伽中圍), 4) the three mandala of the base (rten dkyil ’khor gsum, 依所三輪) and 5) mandala of the support of the ultimate Bodhicitta (brten pa dam pa byang chub sems, 能依真諦菩提心[中圍]). The paths or the skillful means of the practice are the blazing (’bar), moving (g.yo) and stabilizing (brten pa). There are two paths, i.e. the path of maturity (smin pa, 成熟灌) and the path of liberation (grol ba, 解脫道). In the end, the practitioner will attain the fruit of the practice, that is to say, the supreme bliss or the space-like Dharma body. The actual practice is very complex. All these terms, five mandalas (dkyil ’khor lnga), the life force (srog), effort (rtsol) and cessation (’gog pa), and the blazing (’bar), moving (g.yo) and stabilizing (brten pa), have different meanings seen from the perspectives of the cause (rgyu), the path (lam) and the fruit (’bras). Their symbolic meanings change in the different paths of the practice. 1 The complete title of the rDo rje tshig rkang is Lam ’bras bu dang bcas pa’i gdams ngag dang man ngag tu bcas, or The oral instruction, together with the esoteric instructions, of the path with the fruit. It is the most fundamental text of the lam ’bras formulated by the Indian master Virūpa who received the direct transmission of the tantric goddness Vajra Nairātmyā, the consort of Hevajra. Stearns, 2001, pp. 9-16. 71 Their functions are also changing in the creation stage and the perfection stage (bskyed rdzogs rim pa). As Sa skya pa ita himself claimed, “this text completely illustrated the profound intent of four tantras and summed up the meanings of the path and the fruit.”1 Needless to say, this short text is of great significance for the actual practice of lam ’bras. （2）五緣生道 Wu yuansheng dao or The path of five interdependent originations. The Tibetan original of the text is rTen ’brel lnga rdzogs which is listed as text no. 45 in pa ita kun dga’ rgyal mtshan gyi bka’ ’bum, pp. 347-1-3 – 349-1-2,2 and directly follows the sGrub pa lung sbyin. While the Chinese text is entitled the path of five interdependent originations, the title of the Tibetan original should in fact be rendered as the perfection of five interdependent originations. There is a long colophon in the Tibetan text which reads as follows: “lam ’bras rdo rje tshig rkang las/ rten ’brel lnga yas lam rdzogs zhes// gsungs pa’i dgongs pa mdo tsam zhig/ bla ma’i dgongs pa bdag gis bris// sākya’i dge slong kun dga’i rgyal mtshan dpal/ bzang por grags pa de la ring mo nas// yang yang gsol ba ’debs ba’i blo gros can// sdom brtson mang thos bla ma la gus pa// de yis gsol ba btab nas ’di bshad do// lam ’bras rdo rje tshig rkang las/ rten ’brel lngas lam yongs su rdzogs pa’o// zhes bya ba’i dgongs pa phyogs tsam zhib// mdo smad rtse sgab kyi sdom btson seng ge rgyal mtshan legs kyis gus pas yang yang gsol ba btang nas/ drug pa rdo rje ’chang chen po/ dpal ldan sa skya pa ita chen pos sbyar ba’o.” The parallel passage in the Chinese text reads: “道果金剛句，說五緣同周，吾秉師心旨，聊敍彼意趣。玆理當是金剛句云以五緣 生道悉周矣之說，吉祥薩思嘉班帝怛普喜幢述竟。” Obviously, the Chinese translation does not precisely match the Tibetan original. It clearly omits the statement that Sa skya pa ita wrote this text at repeated requests of the ordained person Seng ge rgyal mtshan legs from mDo smad rtse sgab. Although I am unable to either identify the person Seng ge rgyal mtshan legs or locate the place mDo smad rtse sgab, this statement certainly indicates that this text might be written by Sa skya pa ita when he was staying in the area of mDo smad at Kцdдn khan’s invitation between 1244 and 1251. As the colophon tells, this text is an exegesis of the Vajra verse “rten ’brel lngas lam yongs su rdzogs pa”, or “the perfection of the path through five interdependent 1 “’dis rgyud sde bzhi’i dgongs pa ma lus par ston pa lam ’bras bu dang bcas pa’i don bsdus pa yin no”, Sa skya bka’ ’bum, Vol. 6, p. 347-1-1; “今斯総道善明四續深邃之理，括盡道果英猷之門”, Dacheng yaodao miji, Vol. 2, p. 8. 2 This text is also included in Sa pa Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan gyi gsung ’bum, Vol. 3, pp. 231-239. 72 originations”, from “lam ’bras rdo rje tshig rkang”, or “the Vajra verses of the path and fruit”. The path of five interdependent originations is an indispensable integral part of the lam ’bras practice. Though interdependent originations (rten ’brel) are commonly viewed as the origin of all phenomena, they are brought to the path to enlightenment by the secret mantra Vajrayana (gsang sngags rdo rje theg pa ni/ rten ’brel lam byed par gsungs). Contrary to the exoteric teaching, the esoteric teaching of Tibetan Buddhism advocates that all negative elements, such as disturbing emotions, ignorance and interdependent originations and so forth, are not necessarily obstacles on the way towards the enlightenment. They can be also utilized as the path of liberation. The advocates of the lam ’bras practice were especially fond of transforming five originations, i.e. 1) outer interdependent origination (phyi’i rten ’brel), 2) inner interdependent origination (nang gi rten ’brel), 3) secret interdependent origination (gsang ba rten ’brel), 4) interdependent origination of thatness (de kho na nyid rten ’brel), 5) ultimate interdependent origination (mthar thug rten ’brel), into the path of liberation and developed a sophisticated structure of applying five originations as skillful means for perfecting the path of enlightenment. In this text rTen ’brel lnga rdzogs, Sa skya pa ita expounds the way of making five interdependent originations into the path of enlightenment through giving precise instructions on the changing meanings [designations] of five interdependent originations respectively in the various phases of the cause (rgyu), the path (lam) and the fruit (’bras) and in the meditative stages of creation (bskyed rim) and perfection (rdzogs rim) of the actual practice. The first text of the same kind in the Sa skya pa tradition must be the rTen ’brel lnga attributed to Sa chen Kun dga’ snying po.1 There is one other short text with the same title 五緣生道 Wu yuansheng dao in the Dacheng yaodao miji.2 This text is one of many sub-texts under the general title 含藏因續記文 Hanzang yinxu jiwen and is said to be “transmitted by the Great Yogin, the Master Grags pa rgyal mtshan.”3 I am not able to identify this text in the Grags pa rgyal mtshan gyi bka’ ’bum.4 However, we might be able to find the Tibetan original of the text in another text attributed to Grags pa rgyal mtshan under the title Kun gzhi rgyu rgyud las ’phros nas ’khor ’dbyer med kyi lta ba’i rtsa ba 1 Sa skya lam ’bras literature series, vol. 11, pp. 163-166. Dacheng yaodao miji, Vol. 2, pp. 22-23. 3 “大瑜伽士名稱幢師述 Da yujiashi mingcheng zhuang shi shu”. Beckwith mistakenly translated this sentence into “Transmitted by the Great Yogin, the Master named T’ung [=(Kun dga’) rgyal mtshan].” Beckwith, p. 13. “名稱 Ming cheng” should not be taken as verb “named”, but a part of the name. In fact, “Ming cheng zhuang” is the regular Chinese transliteration of the Tibetan name Grags pa rgyal mtshan. 4 Sa skya pa’i bka’ ’bum, Vol. 3-4, The Complete Works of Grags pa rgyal mtshan, 1-2. 2 73 which is probably the Tibetan original of the Hanzang yinxu jiwen.1 Anyway, the content of the text differs totally from the former text of the same title. It divides into seven parts: 1) “ming yuanhui ti 明緣會體”, “Explaining the body [condition] of [the practitioner] of the interdependent originations”, 2) “ming yuanhui ji 明緣會際”, “Explaining the time of [the practice] of interdependent originations, 3) “zhengchen yuanhui 正 陳 緣 會 ”, “Explaining the main subject of interdependent originations, 4) “sizhongdao zhong qi shu hedao 四種道中其屬何道”, “[Explaining] to which path among four kinds of path [interdependent originations] it belongs to?” 5) “sizhongliang zhong qishuheliang 四種量 中其屬何量”, “[explaining] to which valid cognition 量 among four kinds of valid cognition 量 [interdependent originations] it belongs to?,” 6) “yici yuanhui xiuzheng zhigui 依此緣會脩證之軌”, “[Explaining] the way of the practice through interdependent originations,” 7) “ming ji yuanhui yuanman daozhe 明幾緣會圓滿道者,” “Explaining the number of interdependent originations that perfect the path.” These two texts with the same title are mutually complementary and form the whole of the yogic practice of five interdependent originations. （3） 金剛乘修師觀門 Da jingang cheng xiushi guanmen, or The gate of meditation on lamas of the great Vajrayana This text is a translation of the Lam zab mo bla ma’i rnal ’byor or The Guru Yoga of the Profound Path, text No. 41 in pa ita kun dga’ rgyal mtshan gyi bka’ ’bum, pp. 339-3-1 – 343-4-1. Although the two titles differ from each other literally, they are perfectly identical in substance. The Guru Yoga (bla ma’i rnal ’byor) is known as the practice of supplicating for blessings and mingling the mind of an enlightened master (or the master of the great Vajrayana as our text prefers it) with one’s own mind. It is one of the most characteristic practices of the Vajrayana Buddhism. According to Sa skya pa ita, all tantras, including Chakrasamvara, Guhyasamaja, Kalachakra, teach about supplicating the Guru. The lam ’bras teaches it in very secret way by saying “the profound path is the Guru.”2 Sa skya pa ita divided the practice of the Guru yoga into the following three steps: 1) To please the guru through four meaningful applications [preparations] (sbyor ba don yod pa bzhis bla ma mnyes par bya ba, 初加行成益令師悅), 2) Classify the means of blessing through the special main part of the practice which is endowed with bases (dngos gzhi rten bca’ ba khyad par can gyis byin rlabs kyi sgo dbye ba, 次分別攝受奇異門), 3) To 1 Sa skya lam ’bras literature series, vol. 11, pp. 191-194. Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre, 1983. “bde mchog dang/ gsang ’dus pa dang/ dus kyi ’khor lo la sogs pa las kyang/ bla ma la gsol ba ’debs par i ta gsungs/ lam ’bras las kyang/ lam zab bla ma zhes/ shin tu gsang ba’i tshul gyis gsungs la/”, Pa kun dga’ rgyal mtshan gyi bka’ ’bum, p. 339-4-4-5. 上樂輪、密集、時輪等皆明讚師，又道果云：深 道即師。其道果中說此行相文甚隱密. Dacheng yaodao miji, Vol. 2, p. 16. 2 74 supplicate for [blessing through] imagining all activities to be the enlightened activities of the Buddha finally (rjes mdzad pa thams cad sangs rgyas kyi phrin las su bsams la/ gsol ba gdab po, 後敬師合佛妙用祝). The key part of the preparations (sbyor ba) of the Guru yoga is to make the faith firm that the Guru is the Buddha of three times, no matter how strangely he may appear and act. The practitioner should please and serve the Guru in all conceivable ways. The main part of the guru yoga is again divided into three steps: 1) To please outer and inner уākinīs (phyi nang gi mkha’ ’gro mnyes par bya ba, 初供養内外空 行門), 2) Disciples offer Ma ala and supplicate [for blessing] (slob mas ma ala phul te gsol ba gdab pa, 資奉曼怛懇祝門), 3) the Guru sets up the auspicious connection and gives blessing (bla mas rten ’brel bsgrigs te/ byin gyis brlab pa’o, 後師緣相宜攝受門). The final step of the Guru yoga consists of two parts: 1) to explain the commitment to be observed (bsrung bya’i dam tshig bstan pa, 初守護記句), 2) to give instruction on trainings of the object of accomplishment (bsgrub bya’i bslab pa la gdams pa, 後囑徒習 學). The Lam zab mo bla ma’i rnal ’byor or The Guru Yoga of the Profound Path must be counted as one of the earliest and most significant among countless Sādhana texts of the Guru yoga in various traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. In the Sa skya pa tradition itself it was not the first one, but is certainly a very significant one of this kind. Before Sa skya pa- ita, Grags pa rgyal mtshan wrote a commentary on Bla ma lnga bcu pa that touches partly on the practice of the Guru yoga.1 At the end of the text group of the Yellow Volume (Pod ser) there is one small work on the Guru yoga, probably written by Grags pa rgyal mtshan.2 However, it was certainly Sa skya pa ita who established the actual practice of the Guru yoga. Besides the Lam zab mo bla ma’i rnal ’byor, he left one other text on the same subject entitled Bla ma’i rnal ’byor gug shi jo ’bum ma.3 This text gives instruction on specific meditative practice of the Guru yoga and is complementary to the Lam zab mo bla ma’i rnal ’byor. After Sa skya pa ita, ’Phags pa also left a short text of esoteric instruction on the Guru yoga (Bla ma’i rnal ’byor gyi man ngag). However, it is in fact a simplified version of Sa skya pa ita’s Lam zab mo bla ma’i rnal ’byor. （4）脩習自在密哩咓巴讚嘆 Xiuxi zizai miliwaba zantan (Praise of the Virūpa’s Bhāvanākrama) This text is an imperfect translation of Sa skya pa ita’s Birwa ba (Virūpa) la bstod pa 1 Bla ma bsten pa’i thabs Shlo ka lnga bcu pa’i gsal byed bzhugs so, Grags pa rgyal mtshan gyi bka’ ’bum, 1, pp. 87-4-1 – 94-2-3. About Bla ma lnga bcu pa and the relationship between the Master and disciple cf. Zha Luo, 2003. 2 Sa skya lam ’bras literature series, vol. 11, pp. 344-345. 3 Pa i ta Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan gyi bka’ ’bum, pp. 343-4-1 – 345-1-5. 75 or Eulogy to Virūpa, text No. 27 in pa ita kun dga’ rgyal mtshan gyi bka’ ’bum, pp. 322-1-6 – 322-3-6. It is a short eulogy in verse dedicated to the great Indian Master Virūpa. The colophon of the text reads: “rNal ’byor gyi dbang phyug birwa pa la gsol ba ’debs pa/ pa ita kun dga’ rgyal mtshan dpal bzang pos/ dpal sa skya’i gtsug lag khang du kha ton du bgyis pa’o//”. It can be rendered as “This prayer to the lord of Yoga Virūpa is done as chant by pa ita Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po in Sa skya monastery.” It slightly differs from its Chinese equivalence, since the latter gives the epithet 洛拶咓, i.e. lotsāba, instead of pa ita to the author of the text. Sa chen Kun dga’ snying po was again the first Sa skya pa master who wrote an eulogy to the Indian master who transmitted the lam ’bras teaching to Tibet for the very first time. This text dPal ldan bi rū pa la bstod pa is to be found in his bKa’ ’bum.1 There is one other short text in the Dacheng yaodao miji which was not directly composed, but transmitted by Sa skya pa ita. This text is entitled 阿彌陀佛臨終要 [門]Amituofo linzhong yao[men], which could be translated as “The quintessential instruction of the state of dying of the Buddha Amitabha.” It was translated by the Dhāraхī-holding шramaхa bSod nams grags. The colophon gives the lineage of the masters who have transmitted the text, beginning with the Bodhisattva Maсjuśrī and ending with the transmission from Sa skya pa ita to the master 思納哩探斡 Si na li tan 2 wo. This text offers practical instruction on attaining enlightenment at the time of dying mainly through visualizing oneself to be the Buddha Amitabha and one’s dwelling place the Sukhavati (bde ba can), the Buddhafield of Amitabha. The practice is designed as one kind of dream yoga. I am currently unable to locate the Tibetan original of the text. No text of this kind is to be found in pa ita kun dga’ rgyal mtshan gyi bka’ ’bum. There is a text entitled “’Od dpag med kyi sgos na sdig pa sbyong ba’i thabs”, or “The method of 1 Text No. 1, The Complete Works of the Great Masters of the Sa skya Sect of Tibetan Buddhism (Sa skya pa’i bka’ ’bum), vol. 1, pp. 1-1 – 3-2. 2 Beckwith suggests that Si na li tan wo may be reconstructed as sNar thang ba. Beckwith, 1984, p. 14. Chen Qingying however reconstructed it as Se na rig ldan pa. Chen Qingying, 2003, p. 59. I am inclined to agree with Beckwith’s suggestion. There was a certain sNar thang sGang ston Shes rab bla ma or sGang ston Sher ’bum, who was the most important disciple of dMar ston Chos rje ryal po (1198-1259) who was in turn one of the most important disciples of Sa skya pa ita. It is said that the main transmission of all of dMar ston’s lam ’bras texts have gone through this sNar thang sGang ston. Stearns, 2001, pp. 71, 198, n. 305. Furthermore, sNar thang was indeed transcribed as Si na er dang wa 思納兒黨 瓦 in the Ming time which is very similar to Si na li tan wo . Cf. Ming Shilu 明實錄, Taizu shilu 太祖實 錄, Vol. 94, Entry of the Yichou 乙丑 day of the eleventh month of the seventh year of the Hongwu 洪武 reign. 76 purifying misdeeds by means of the Buddha Amitabha, in Chos rgyal ’phags pa’i bka’ ’bum. 1 Although they share many common features, they are far from being identical. III There are also four texts in the Dacheng yaodao miji which are said to be authored by the famed ’Phags pa bla ma Blo gros rgyal mtshan, the first Imperial Preceptor (di shi 帝 師) of the Yuan dynasty. These four texts are: （1）觀師要門 Guanshi yaomen, or the Quintessential Instruction on the Meditative Practice of the Guru. In Dacheng yaodao miji, vol. 3, pp. 24-26. It is said to be “compiled by the Imperial Preceptor of the great Yuan ’Phags pa bla ma and translated by the Dhāra ī-holding Śrama i bSod rnams grags.” 大元帝師發思巴集，持咒沙門 莎南屹囉譯. （2）彌勒菩薩求脩 Mile pusa qiuxiu, or Prayer of and Practice on the Bodhisattva Maitreya, Vol. 4, pp. 3-4. “Compiled by Bla ma ’Phags pa,” 發思巴辣麻集. （3）畧勝住法儀 Lue shengzhu fayi, or A Succinct Text on Dharma Ritual of Consecration. Vol. 4, pp. 1-2, “Transmitted by the Imperial Preceptor of the Great Yuan ’Phags pa, translated by the Dhāra ī-holding Śrama i bSod rnams grags.” 大元 帝師發思巴述，持咒沙門莎南屹囉譯. （4）脩習自在擁護要門 Xiuxi zizai yonghu yaomen, or the Quintessential Instruction of the Meditative Practice of the Protection Circle, Vol. 4, pp. 1-2. The Colophon states, “脩習自在擁護要門最極明顯發思巴集竟 the quintessential instruction of the practice of all-mighty and protection, the brilliant clarity, was completely compiled by ’Phags pa”.2 These four texts together amount to less than four percent of the entire collection quantitatively. Therefore, ’Phags pa in reality falls short of his reputation as the compiler of the Dacheng yaodao miji. The Tibetan originals of the first three texts in the list have been found in Chos rgyal ’phags pa’i bka’ ’bum, or the complete works of Chos rgyal ’phags pa, though the origin of the last text remains unidentified at the present time. Again, I will give a brief introduction and analysis to each of these four texts. （1）觀師要門 Guanshi yaomen, or the Quintessential Instruction on the Meditative 1 Chos rgyal ’phags pa’i bka’ ’bum 2, No. 131, pp. 63-2-5 – 64-1-1. Beckwith translated this colophon into “The Hsiu hsi tzu tsai yung hu yao men was compiled by the Most Clearly Manifest ’Phags pa.” Beckwith, p. 14. Clearly, he took the Chinese phrase 最極明顯 zuiji mingxian as a part of ’Phags pa’s name. In fact, it is much more likely a part of the title of the text. It can probably be reconstructed as “rab gsal” in Tibetan and functions as a decorative subtitle of the text. 2 77 Practice of the Guru The Tibetan original of the text is found in Chos rgyal ’phags pa’i bka’ ’bum, 2, text No. 27, pp. 30-1-1 – 30-4-6, where it is simply entitled Bla ma’i rnal ’byor, or the Guru Yoga. Its colophon states: “bla ma’i rnal ’byor gyi man ngag chos rje sa skya pa’i zhal gdams ’phags pas la’o shu’i don du yi ger bkod pa’o.” “’Phags pa wrote down the oral instruction of Chos rje Sa skya pa [Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan], the esoteric instruction of the Guru yoga for the benefit of La’o Shu.” Its Chinese equivalence reads: “ 觀師要門，發思巴謹按著哩哲斡上師幽旨而述.” “’Phags pa transmitted this quintessential instruction on the basis of the secret teaching of the Bla ma Chos rje ba [Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan].” It is true that this short Sādhana text of the Guru yoga was written in the light of Sa skya pa ita’s Lam zab mo bla ma’i rnal ’byor. If we check the former text against the latter word for word, it becomes very clear that ’Phags pa’s Bla ma’i rnal ’byor is nothing more than a simplified version of Sa skya pa ita’s Lam zab mo bla ma’i rnal ’byor. It should be noted that the colophon in Chinese text does not mention for whom this text was written. Regretfully, I am not able to identify the person with the name La’o Shu at the present time. （2）彌勒菩薩求脩 Mile pusa qiuxiu, or Prayer of and Practice on the Bodhisattva Maitreya This text is a translation of the Byams pa’i sgrub thabs, or Means of Accomplishment of Maitreya, text No. 142 in Chos rgyal ’phags pa’i bka’ ’bum, 72-4-3 – 73-3-3. It is a very short liturgy text on visualizing the Bodhisattva Maitreya. Its colophon states: “’Phags pa byams pa’i chos skor yan lag dang bcas pa rdzogs so/ bla ma ba ri lo tsa ba’i gdams ngag sa skya pa’i zhal gdams yi ger bkod pa’o.” “’Phags pa completed the Dharma circle of the Maitreya, together with its component parts, and wrote down the oral instruction of Sa skya pa and the esoteric instruction of Bla ma Ba ri lotsāba.” Its counterpart in the Chinese text reads: “聖彌勒菩薩求脩作法，按巴哩洛拶咓要門，尊德薩思加巴語訣.” It is clear that ’Phags pa wrote this text on the basis of the esoteric instruction of Ba ri Lotsāba Rin chen grags (1040-1111) and the oral instruction of Sa skya pa. However, we are unable to determine which Sa skya pa ’Phags pa refers to. The Chinese equivalence of 78 Sa skya pa 尊德薩思加巴 Zunde sasijia ba seems to be the transcription of rJe btsun Sa skya pa which usually refers to Grags pa rgyal mtshan, though it is more likely Sa skya pa- ita who gave ’Phags pa the personal instructions on the accomplishment of the Bodhisattva Maitreya through visualization. The Byams pa’i sgrub thabs seems to be just one of numerous texts of ’Phags pa that offered practical instructions on attaining enlightenment mainly through visualizing oneself to be a Buddha, Bodhisattva or certain Yi-dam deities. There is a great number of texts of the same genre (sgrub thabs) in Chos rgyal ’phags pa’i bka’ ’bum. As Janet Gyatso described, in the Sādhana meditation, “practitioners imagine themselves as having become a particular Buddha figure. This visualized identity is effected in three dimensions of personhood: body form, verbal expression, and mental state. It is believed that by visualizing themselves as having the prescribed features of the Buddha figure in these three dimensions—as looking like the Buddha figure, as chanting its mantra, and as assuming its mental state---the meditator will eventually become that Buddha in reality.”1 The typical structure of the practice consists of a preliminary part including taking refuge, offering mandala and arousing bodhichitta, a main part that involves visualizing a Buddha, Bodhisattva or Yi-dam deity, and reciting the mantra, and a concluding part dedicating merit to all sentient beings. The instruction given by ’Phags pa in his Byams pa’i sgrub thabs follows this structure exactly. （3）畧勝住法儀 Lue shengzhu fayi, or A Succinct Text on Dharma Ritual of Consecration If we just look at the title of the text, we may easily believe that this text is a translation of the Rab tu gnas pa’i phyag len mdor bsdus, or Synopsis of Ritual Practice of Consecration, which is found in Chos rgyal ’phags pa’i bka’ ’bum, 2, text No. 120, pp. 36-2-4 – 38-2-6, though the differences between these two texts are too great to be overlooked. The Chinese text is substantially shorter than the Tibetan one. However, we are not dealing with two totally different texts either: not only the two titles match each other perfectly, their substantive contents are virtually the same. There is no other text of the same kind to be found in Chos rgyal ’phags pa’i bka’ ’bum. It is also impossible that the textual differences between these two texts are merely caused by the neglect of the translator. The translator of the text was actually none other than the Dhāra ī-holding Śrama i bSod rnams grags who translated a great number of texts included in the Dacheng yaodao miji and is proven to be a reliable translator. A more plausible answer to this riddle 1 Gyatso, 1997, p. 265. 79 must be found somewhere else. Fortunate enough, the colophon of the Tibetan text itself offers a significant clue for solving this riddle. It indicates that there were actually two different versions of the same text and that the Chinese text was probably based on an earlier version. The colophon can be clearly divided into two parts. The first part states: “rGya che pa la tshig nyung zhing/ don che ba la tshegs chung ba’i/ chos tshul ’di ni ’phags pa la/ sam gha mi tras bskul nas sbyar// dge ba de yis ’gro kun la/ phyogs bcu’i rgyal ba thams cad kyis// chos kyi rgyal tshab chen po ru// rab tu gnas pa byed par shog// It roughly matches the Chinese counterpart at the end of the text: “文寡義洪溥,利大易脩進，僧伽密淂哩二合請，聖者述斯文. 猶如過去佛，灌頂菩 薩眾.” The second part does not exist in the Chinese counterpart. It reads: “Rab tu gnas pa’i phyag len mdor bsdus pa/ chos rje sa skya pas ji ltar mdzad pa bzhin/ yu gur gyi bande sam gha mi tras bskul nas shing mo yos bu’i lo dbyar zla ’bring po la sbyar ba’o// yang skabs ’ga’ zhig tu bla ma khro phu bas zhus nas chos kyi rgyal po nyid kyis ci rigs pa bsnon no//”1 “The synopsis of ritual practice of consecration was composed at the request of the Uigur monk Samghamitra in the second summer month of the female wood-hare year (1255) exactly according to what Chos rje Sa skya pa composed. Yet, the Dharma king himself added whatever is suitable sometimes later at the request of Bla ma Khro phu ba.” Thus, it is clear that the first version of the text was composed in as early as 1255, the version on which the Chinese translation was probably based. The second version available to us now must have been completed before the death of ’Phags pa in 1280. In this light, we may infer that the Chinese translation of the text was likely made sometime between 1255 and 1280. Moreover, the colophon tells us that this text is written “exactly according to what Chos rje Sa skya pa composed.” Normally, Chos rje Sa skya pa, in Chinese 薩思嘉著哩哲斡, refers to Sa skya pa ita Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan. However, no text of the same kind is found in Sa skya pa ita’s bKa’ ’bum. Among early Sa skya pa masters, only Sa chen Grags pa rgyal mtshan (1147-1216) left a lengthy text on the ritual practice of consecration, i.e., the Arga’i cho ga dang rab tu gnas pa don gsal ba.2 This work is one of the earliest Tibetan-authored works on the topic of stūpa building and consecration ritual. In contrast to ‘Phags pa’s work, which is entirely devoted to the main 1 2 Chos rgyal ’phags pa’i bka’ ’bum, 2, p. 38-2. Grags pa rgyal mtshan gyi bka’ ’bum, 2, text No. 108, pp. 237-3 – 252-3. 80 subject announced in the title, the first one third of Grags pa rgyal mtshan’s work is devoted to general explanations of related topics, including the ‘receptacles’ (rten) that require consecration, namely stūpas and images.1 It is worth mentioning that there are two other texts concerning the building and sacralizing of stūpa and images in the Dacheng yaodao miji that form a special unit of iconometrics of stūpas together with the ‘Phags pa’s text just mentioned. They are: 1）Bu ston Rin chen grub, 大菩提塔樣尺寸法 Byang chub chen po’i mchod rten gyi tshad bzhugs so, or Proportional Manual of the Stūpa of Enlightenment, which is already mentioned above. 2）Indian Master 勝諸冤敵節怛哩巴 Sheng zhuyuandi jiedaliba (dGra las rnam par rgyal ba Jetāri pa), 聖像内置総持略軌 Shengxiang zongchi luegui (Synopsis of ritual practice of the disposition of dhāra īs into the holy images), translated by the Dhāra ī-holding Śrama i bSod rnams grags.2 While Bu ston’s text deals with the erection of stūpa itself, Jetāri pa’s and ’Phags pa’s texts discusse two distinct rituals in the Tibetan process of sacralizing stūpas and images respectively. Jetāri pa’s text gives instruction on the disposition of relics and dhāra īs (gzungs ’bul or gzungs gzhugs), while ’Phags pa’s text talks about the final consecration (rab gnas) which transforms that stūpa and image into an embodiment of a yi-dam deity.3 These three texts might have served practical purpose for active construction of Tibetan style stūpas and images in the capital city and elsewhere of the great Yuan dynasty. （4）脩習自在擁護要門 Xiuxi zizai yonghu yaomen, or the Quintessential Instruction of Meditative Practice of the Protection Circle. At the present time I am unable to find the Tibetan original of the text in Chos rgyal ’phags pa’i bka’ ’bum. This text is an esoteric instruction which deals with the meditative practice on Virūpa. It talks about five kinds of protection: 1) Protection through three-pronged Vajra 三股杵擁護 san gu wu yonghu, 2) Protection through Mudra 手印擁 護 shouyin yonghu, 3) Protection through Tantric Mudra 咒印擁護 zhouyin yonghu, 4) Protection through meditation 觀想擁護 guanxiang yonghu, 5) Protection through the time of leaving 去時擁護 qushi yonghu. It is said in the colophon of the text that this profound esoteric instruction was transmitted by Virūpa to Sa skya chen po when Virūpa 1 Bentor, 1995, pp. 31-32. Dacheng yaodao miji, vol. 4, pp. 1-3. I am unable to identify the Tibetan original of this text at the present time. This work might be of extraordinary importance, as it is the only detailed manual for the practice of depositing dhāra īs and relics into stūpas and images attributed to an Indian Master. About Indian origins of the Tibetan practice of depositing relics cf. Bentor, 1995. 3 Bentor, 1996; Bentor, 2003, pp. 22, 34-35. 2 81 was transmitting seventy two root trantras, together with their instruction, to Sa chen [Kun dga’ snying po] 脩習自在密哩咓巴付與大薩思加巴七十二本續敕時傳此甚深要[門]也. These esoteric instructions which Sa chen Kun dga’ snying po received from Virūpa are mostly included in his dPal sa skya pa’i man ngag gces btus pa rin po che’i phreng ba, or the selected collections of the esoteric instructions of the glorious Sa skya pa – the garland of jewels.1 At the very beginning of the text it gives the instruction on two kinds of meditative practice of protection. The first of them is the protection through three-pronged Vajra (rdo rje rtse gsum gyis bsrung ba). The actual process of the practice described here is similar to what is said in ’Phags pa’s text, though it is introduced in much succinct way.2 The second one is the meditative practice of protection through the progressive and reversed order (lugs ’byung lugs bzlog gis bsrung ba) and is not taught in ’Phags pa’s text. IV It is still too early to reach any conclusion on either Tibetan tantric Buddhism at the court of the Mongol khans in general or the Dacheng yaodao miji in particular. What we have done above is only the first step in a long journey. A comprehensive evaluation of the actual situation of the teaching and practice of Tibetan tantric Buddhism in Yuan China presupposes further painstaking investigations into all texts included in the Dacheng yaodao miji. I will end this paper with a few tentative remarks on the Dacheng yaodao miji and the state of Tibetan tantric Buddhism in Yuan China. First of all, it is fairly clear now that the said “Yuan-period collection attributed to ’Phags pa” was in all probability neither a Yuan-period collection nor compiled by ’Phags pa himself. This is supported by the fact that numerous works included in the Dacheng yaodao miji are in deed of Tangut origin. Some of them had circulated both in their Chinese and Tangut versions and already played a great role in disseminating Tibetan tantric Buddhism in the Tangut kingdom before they were handed down to the Mongol and Chinese followers of the Yuan dynasty. Moreover, at least a few texts in the collection must have been translated or collected after ’Phags pa’s death in 1280, or even after the destruction of the Yuan dynasty in 1368. It is unlikely that the texts transmitted either by Bu ston Rin chen grub’s disciple or by Bla ma dam pa bSod nams rgyal mtshan were already translated and circulated in the Yuan dynasty. In short, it is impossible that the Dacheng yaodao miji was compiled by ’Phags pa in the Yuan dynasty. It is up to further examination to determine when and by whom these texts were collected and put together 1 2 Kun dga’ snying po’i bka’ ’bum (Sa skya pa’i bka’ ’bum 1), pp. 268-2 – 281-2. Kun dga’ snying po’i bka’ ’bum, p. 268.4. 82 in the present form. ’Phags pa bla ma is celebrated for the key role he has played in establishing the relations between the Mongol-Yuan dynasty and Tibet in the political realm, but his impact in the realm of religion is yet to receive the same kind of recognition. Tibetan historians delighted in recounting the legendary events of how ’Phags pa gave the empowerment of the Tantra trilogy of Hevajra (Kye rdor rgyud gsum) to Qubilai khan and other members of the Mongol royal family at the court for three times, and thus received the thirteen myriarchies of dBus gtsang (dbus gtsang gyi khri ’kor bcu gsum) and three chol kha of whole Tibet (bod kyi chol kha gsum) as rewards. As an Imperial Preceptor, ’Phags pa was not only supposed to be the head of Tibet, but also to be in charge of Buddhist affairs in the whole country. Moreover, it is said that ’Phags pa had granted full monk or nun status to four thousand people from all around the world, including places like Nepal, India, China, Tangut, Mongol, Korea, Da Li, Uigur, and presided over 425 ordinations as mkhan po.1 In light of this, we have good reason to be truly disappointed when we realize that only four short and minor works attributed to ’Phags pa have been translated into Chinese and handed down to the present time among Mongolian, Chinese and Manchu followers of Tibetan tantric Buddhism. In the past, scholars were puzzled by the question why the Mongolian khans adopted Tibetan Buddhism as their faith.2 It helps to find an answer to the puzzle if we are able to determine which tradition of Tibetan Buddhism was especially favored by the Mongol khans. Obviously, the Mongol khans were overwhelmingly in favor of the actual practice of the esoteric teachings of Tibetan tantric Buddhism. In contrast, little interest was showed towards the exoteric doctrinal discourses. Their preference for the meditative practice of the esoteric teachings can be clearly demonstrated by their choice of teaching texts. As Jackson holds, Sa skya pa ita was “one of the most influential figures in the transmission of Indian Buddhist religion and learning to Tibet,” and “a savant who is counted among the very greatest Tibetan scholars of all time.” Through his doctrinal treatises Sa-pa contributed in an important way to the continuing penetration and systematic interpretation of Indian Buddhist philosophy and doctrine. But he also made great contributions indirectly through his efforts at introducing into Tibet the tools and methods of advanced dialetical and literary scholarship.3 Although Sa skya pa ita, as one of the greatest Tibetan scholars of all time, was 1 rGya bod yig tshang, p. For instance, Sechin Jagchid, 1988. 3 Jackson, 1987, pp. 1-2. 2 83 undoubtedly an adept in tantric tradition, especially in lam ’bras of the Sa skya pa school, he was renowned mainly for his penetrating and systematic interpretation of exoteric Buddhist philosophy and doctrine, as well as for his great effort in reestablishing the full logico-epistemological tradition of Dharmakīrti in Tibet. In pa ita kun dga’ rgyal mtshan gyi bka’ ’bum a total of 114 texts are included, but most of them are quite short. Only seventeen come to ten or more folios. Traditionally, only five works among the 114 texts are considered the greatest and the most influential works for later generations of Sa skya pa ita. These five works are: （1）Tshad ma rigs gter: Treasure of Logic Reasoning （2）sDom gsum rab dbye: Discrimination of Three Vows （3）Legs par bshad pa rin po’i che’i gter: An Excellent Expression, the Jewel Treasure （4）Thub pa’i dgongs pa rab tu gsal ba: The Elucidation of the Muni’i Intent （5）mKhas pa rnams ’jug pa’i sgo: The Entrance Gate for the Wise It goes without saying that the most significant works of Sa skya pa ita are original treatises on exoteric doctrinal or other specialized topics, since none of the above mentioned five works deals with the esoteric teachings of tantric Buddhism. As Jackson already noticed, only two among his seventeen longest works are concerned primarily with Tantra. Those works that have to do with tantric practice belong mostly to his early works.1 In fact, none of the five major works or even the seventeen longest works of Sa skya pa ita was translated into Chinese and included in the Dacheng yaodao miji. The fact that all four works of Sa skya pa ita included in the Dacheng yaodao miji are exclusively concerned with tantric practices shows the strong inclination of Mongol khans towards the tantric tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. The last crown prince of the Mongol-Yuan dynasty Ayushridhara 愛 猷 識 理 達 腊 once said to those in close attendance: "Although the venerable preceptor Li [Haowen 李好文] has already taught me to study Confucius’s books for several years, I still cannot understand the meaning in these books. The Tibetan monk taught me the Buddhist teachings, and I understood it after just one night's study.2 The said Buddhist teaching the crown prince learned from the Tibetan monk could not have been the teachings such as what Sa skya pa ita expounded in his aforementioned five major works. We can not imagine that a Mongolian prince was able to understand such profound teachings “after just one night's study.” What he was taught by the Tibetan monk are in all probability tantric ritual 1 Jackson, 1987, pp. 57-58. 皇太子嘗坐清寧殿，分布長席，列坐西番、高麗諸僧。皇太子曰：李好文先生教我儒書多年，尚 不省其義。今聼佛法，一夜即曉然.” Yuan Shi 元史, Ch. 46. 順帝記; Quan Heng, p. 26. 2 84 practices of the esoteric Buddhist teaching. Even though the works of Sa skya pa ita and of ’Phags pa together make up only a very small part of the Dacheng yaodao miji, they already make it abundantly clear that the teachings of Tibetan tantric Buddhism practiced at the court of the Mongol Khans were not merely related to the so-called Secret Teaching of Supreme Bliss. It is hardly conceivable that any of these meditative practices taught in Sa skya pa ita’s and ’Phags pa’s works really have to do with the practice of the Secret Teaching of Supreme Bliss. Although they are all intrinsically tantric, they are concerned with different kinds of meditative practice of the lam ’bras tradition of the Sa skya pa school other than the Secret Teaching of Supreme Bliss. Obviously, many kinds of yogic practice, such as the Guru yoga, the visualization of the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and Yi-dam deities, the dream yoga and the meditative practice of five interdependent originations, were already disseminated at the court of Mongol khans. Moreover, ritual texts concerning the building and sacralizing of stūpa and images were also introduced into Yuan China perhaps just for practical purposes. In short, the teachings and practices of Tibetan tantric Buddhism at the court of the Mongol khans were extremely complex. It is certainly better to bring to light the complexity of Tibetan tantric Buddhism at the court of the Mongol khans through careful examinations of the texts in the Dacheng yaodao miji than to simply demonize and condemn it through the vicious accusation of the secret teaching of supreme bliss. Bibliography Chinese works Dacheng yaodao miji 《大乘要道密集》(Secret Collection of Works on the Quintessential Path of the Mahāyāna), Compiled by ’Phags pa bla ma,元發思巴上師輯著 edited by Xiao Tianshi 蕭天石. Taibei: Ziyouchubanshe 自由出版社, Vol. 1-2, 1962. Sajia daoguo xinbian 《薩迦道果新編》(New Compilation of the las ’bras teaching of the Sa skya pa), Edited by Chen Jianmin 陳健民. Taibei: Huihai shuzhai 慧海書齋, 1992. Tibetan works Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan, Sa skya pa The complete works of pa ita, pa ita kun dga’ rgyal mtshan gyi bka’ ’bum, or ita kun dga’ rgyal mtshan, In Sa skya pa’i bka’ ’bum, or The Complete works of the great masters of the Sa skya pa sect of the Tibetan Buddhism, Vol. 5, Compiled by bSod nams rgya mtsho, Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968. 85 Kun dga’ snying po, Sa chen, Kun dga’ snying po’i bka’ ’bum, or The Complete works of Kun dga’ snying po, In Sa skya pa’i bka’ ’bum, or The Complete works of the great masters of the Sa skya pa sect of the Tibetan Buddhism, Vol. 1, Compiled by bSod nams rgya mtsho, Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968. Grags pa rgyal mtshan, rJe brtsun, Grags pa rgyal mtshan gyi bka’ ’bum, or The complete works of Grags pa rgyal mtshan, Vol. 1-2, In Sa skya pa’i bka’ ’bum, Vol. 3-4, Compiled by bSod nams rgya mtsho, Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968. ’Phags pa blo gros rgyal mtshan, Chos rgyal ’phags pa’i bka’ ’bum, or The Complete works of Chos rgyal ’phags pa, Vol. 1-2, In Sa skya pa’i bka’ ’bum, Vol. 6-7, Compiled by bSod nams rgya mtsho, Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968. Secondary Literature Beckwith, Christopher I 1984. “A Hitherto Unnoticed Yьan-Period Collection Attributed to ’Phagspa”, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies commemorating the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Alexander Csoma de Cцrцs, edited by Louis Ligeti, I. Budapest: Akadйmiai Kiadу, 9-16. Bentor, Yael 1995a. “On the Indian Origins of the Tibetan Practice of Depositing Relics and Dhāra īs in Stūpas and Images”, Journal of the American Oriental Society. 115.2: 248-261. ---------------1995b. “In Praise of Stūpas: The Tibetan Eulogy at Chь-yung-kuan Reconsidered,” Indo-Iranian Journal, 38: 31-54. --------------1996. Consecration of Images and Stūpas in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. Leiden: E. J. Brill. ------------2003. “The Content of Stūpas and Images and the Indo-Tibetan Concept of Relics”, The Tibet Journal, Vol. XXVIII, No. 1&2, 21-48. Chen Dezhi 陳得芝 2000. “Zailun wusizang benqin 再論烏思藏“本欽””(dpon chen of dBus gtsang, reexamined), Mengyuan de lishi yu wenhua: Mengyuanshi xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 蒙元的歷史與文化：蒙元史學術研討會論文集(Hisotry and Culture of the Mongol-Yuan Dynasty: Proceedings of the Seminar on the History of the Mongol-Yuan Dynasty), Vol. 1, Taibei, pp. 213-244. Chen Qingying 陳慶英 2000. “Dacheng xuanmi dishi kao 大乘玄密帝師攷” (On the 86 Imperial Preceptor Xuan Mi of Mahāyana). Foxue yanjiu 佛學研究 (Buddhist Study), 9: 138-151. -------------------2003. “Dacheng yaodao miji yu xixia wangchao de zangchuan fojiao《大乘 要道密集》與西夏王朝的藏傳佛教” (Dacheng yaodao miji and Tibetan Buddhism in Tangut Dynasty of Xi Xia). Xianzhe xinyan 贤者新宴 (New Festival of Scholars), 3: 49-64. Franke, Herbert 1996. Chinesischer und Tibetischer Buddhismus im China der Yьanzeit. Drei Studien: I. Tan-pa und sein chinesischer Tempel; II. Der Kanonkatalog der Chih-yьan-Zeit und seine Kompilatoren; III. Eine buddhistische Quelle ьber Kaiser Qubilai: Das Hung-chiao chi. Mьnchen: Kommission fьr Zentralasiatische Studien Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Gyatso, Janet 1997. „An Avalokiteśvara Sādhana“, Religions of Tibet in Practice, Edited by Donald S. Lopez, Jr. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 266-270. Hoog, Constance 1983. Prince Jin-Gim’s Textbook of Tibetan Buddhism. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Huang Mingxin 黃明信 2003. Hanzang dazangjing mulu yitong yanjiu---zhiyuan fabao kantong zonglu jiqi zangyiben jianzheng《漢藏大藏經目錄異同研究----《至元法寶勘同 縂錄》及其藏譯本箋證》, Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe. Jackson, David P 1987. The Entrance Gate for the Wise (Section III): Sa-skya pa ita on Indian and Tibetan Traditions of Pramā a and Philosophical Debate. Vol. 1, Wien: Arbeitskreis fьr Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universitдt Wien. Van der Kuijp, Leonard W. J. 1991. „On the Life and Political Career of Ta’i-si-tu.” Tibetan History and Language, Studies dedicated to Uray Gйza on his Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Ernst Steinkellner, Wien: Arbeitskreis fьr Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universitдt Wien, 277-327. Lu Chen 呂澂 1942. Hanzang fojiao guanxi shiliao ji daoyan 漢藏佛教關係史料集—導 言 (Introduction to the collection of historic sources on the relationship of Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism). Huaxi xiehe daxue zhongguo wenhua yanjiusuo zhuankan 華西協和 大學中國文化研究所專刊, No. 28. Chengdu. Nishida Tatsuo 西田龍雄 1977. 西夏文華嚴經 3 (The Hsi-hsia Avata§saka Sūtra), 87 Volume 3. 京都大學文學部 Kyoto: The Faculty of Letters, Kyoto University. Otosaka Tomogo 乙阪智子 2001. “Makeboluo zhuzuo zhong suomiaoshu de zangchuan fojiao 馬可波羅著作中所描述的藏傳佛教” (Tibetan Buddhism described in Marco Polo’s travels), Yuanshi luncong 元史論叢, Nanchang: Jiangxi renmin chubanshe. 62-69. Petech, Luciano 1990. Central Tibet and the Mongols: The Yuan-Sa-skya Period of Tibetan History. Rome: Instito Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. Quan Heng 權衡, Gengshen waishi 庚申外史, Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan (Congshu jicheng chubian), 1936. Sechin Jagchid, 1988. “Why the Mongolian Khan Adopted Tibetan Buddhism as Their Faith,” Sechin Jagchid, Essays in Mongolian Studies. Provo: Brigham Young University. 90-91. Shen Weirong 沈衛榮 2003. “Shentong yaoshu he zeikun: lun yuandai wenren bixia de fanseng xingxiang 神通、妖術和賊髠: 論元代文人筆下的番僧形象” (Magic Power, Sorcery and Evil Spirits: The Image of Tibetan Monks in Chinese Literature during the Yuan Dynasty). 漢學研究 Chinese Studies, Vol. 21, No. 2, 219-247. ----------------2004. “Xixia heshuicheng suojian zangchuan fojiao yujia xiuxi yigui wenshu yanjiu1: menghuanshen yaome 西夏黑水城所見藏傳佛教瑜伽修習儀軌文書研究[I]: 《夢幻身要門》(sGyu lus kyi man ngag)” (Studies on Chinese texts of the Yogic Practices of Tibetan Tantric Buddhism found in Khara Khoto of Xi Xia (Tangut) [I]: Quintessential Instruction on the Illusory Body of the Dream), Dangdai zangxue xueshu taolunhui wenji 《 當 代 藏 學 學 術 討 論 會 文 集 》 (Proceedings of the International Symposium of Contemporary Tibet), Taibei: Mengzang weiyuanhui 蒙藏委員會. ----------- (forthcoming) “Yuandai hanyi busiduan dashi zao daputita yang chicunfa zhi duikan yanjiu 元代漢譯卜思端大師造《大菩提塔樣尺寸法》之對勘、研究” (Studies on the Yuan Chinese translation of Bu ston’s Proportional Manual of the Stūpa of Enlightenment), Proceeding of the Second International Symposium of Tibetan Art. Beijing. Shi Jinbo 史金波 1988. Xixia fojiao shilue 西夏佛教史略 (Brief History of Buddhism in Xixia). Yinchuan: Ningxia renmin chubanshe. Stearns, Cyrus 2001. Luminous Lives: The Story of the Early Masters of the Lam ’bras 88 Tradition in Tibet. Boston: Wisdom Publications. Szerb, Janos 1985. “Glosses on the Oeuvre of Bla-ma ’Phags pa: III. The ‘Patron-Patronized’ Relationships”, Soundings in Tibetan Civilization. New Dehli: Manohar. 165-173. Wang Qilong 王啓龍 1999. Basiba shengping yu zhangsuozhilun duikan yanjiu《八思巴生 平與〈彰所知論〉對勘研究》(The life of ’Phags pa and a comparative study of Shes bya rab gsal). Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. Wang Yao 王堯 1996. “Yuanting suochuan xizang mifa kaoxu 元廷所传西藏秘法考叙” (Studies on the Tibetan Secret Teachings practiced in Yuan court). Neilu yazhou lishi wenhua yanjiu---Han rulin xiansheng jinian wenji 内陆亚洲历史文化研究——韩儒林先 生纪念文集 (Studies on the history and culture of Inner Asia in honor of Professor Han Rulin), edited by Research Institute for Yuan History of Nanjing University 南京大学元史 研究室. Nanjing: Nanjing daxue chubanshe, 510-524. Xiong Wenbin 熊 文 彬 2003. Yuandai zanghan yishu jiaoliu 元 代 藏 漢 藝 術 交 流 (Sino-Tibetan Artistic Exchange during the Yuan Period). Shijiazhuan: Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe. Shen Weirong 沈衛榮 was born in 1962. He graduated from Nanjing University (BA 1983 and MA 1986) and Bonn University (Ph. D 1998). Since 1999 he is a research fellow at Lumbini International Research Institute (LIRI), Nepal. His research interest covers Tibetan history, religion and cultural interactions between Tibet, China and the West. 89 QUAESTIONES MONGOLORUM DISPUTATAE No.1 Executive Editors: H. Futaki ＆ B. Oyunbilig Association for International Studies of Mongolian Culture Tokyo April 30. 2005 БОШИГТЫН ЭЛЧ ГЭЛЭНД ӨРГӨСӨН “ЖАВЗАНДАМБЫН ЗАЛБИРАЛААС” ҮҮДЭН ӨГҮҮЛЭХ НЬ [Улаанбаатар] Л.Хүрэлбаатар Ойрадын Галдан бошигт их цэргийн өмгөөр, долоон хошуу Халхыг уулгалж, улмаар Жавзандамба нарыг албат шавь нартай нь мөрдөн хөөсөөр, арга буюу Манж эзнээс түшгийг эрэн, түүний хилийн харуулын дотор шурган ороход хүргэсэн юм. Чингэснээр энэхүү “Галдан бошигтын довтолгоон нь Халхыг Манж нарын гарт хоёр зуу гаруй жил нухлагдан дарлагдах явдлыг түргэтгэж өгсөн юм” 1 . Ийм байдалд хүргэсэн хэрэг явдлын цаад үндэс юу байсан, тухайлбал Галдан бошигт, Жавзандамба хутагт хоёрын харилцаанд ямар зөрчилт тал байсан, ер үүнээс сэдэвлэн Галданг, “... харийн түрэмгийлэгчдэд буун өгч, дагаар орсонгүй, Монголын тусгаар тогтнолын төлөө эцсээ хүртэл тэмцсэн юм” 2 хэмээн, орчин цагийн монголын түүхийн судалгаанд авч үзсээр ирсэн эргэлзээтэй дүгнэлтийг эргэн мөшгөхөд, бас ч сэжүүр болох нэгэн баримтыг өгүүлсүгэй. Өндөр гэгээн Занабазарын төвд хэлээр бичсэн “Сүмбүм торвү” буюу “Зарим хэсэг зарлигийн эмхэтгэл” нэгэн баринтаг номд “Модон хулганын сар шинэд Бошигтын элч гэлэн дор” хэмээсэн төгсгөлийн үгтэй, Өндөр гэгээний номын багш нартаа даатган залбирсан, найман шолог буюу 32 шад залбирал орсон байна 3 . Үүнийг төвдөөс нь монгол хэлнээ орчуулж, тайлбар сэлтийг хийж найман шолгийн дотор өгүүлсэн санааг нэг нэгээр нь задалж үзвэл: Нэгдүгээр шологт, Очирдарын эш хийгээд онолын шашныг шүтэх, тэтгэх, дэлгэрүүлэх гурван их үйлсийн дуаз тугийг дээш өргөсөн номын мэргэн, хувьт шавь нарын оройн дээд итгэл чимэг болсон, адилтгашгүй их ачит багш дээдэстээ залбирлыг тавьсан байна. Хоёрдугаар шологт, чухаг дээд гурав, түүнд хуурмаггүй шүтэн барилдсан хорвоо нирвааны сайн буяны 1 Ш.Нацагдорж 1963, P.57; Цолмон 1994; Монгол улсын түүх 2003, P. 121. Монгол улсын түүх, PP.131 – 132. 3 Lokesh Candra 1982, pp. 613 – 615/. [32a 2 – 33a5] 2 91 хүчээр, их багш Очирдарын хувилгааны өлмий батдаж, үйлс нь дэлгэрэхийг ерөөсөн байна. Гуравдугаар шологт, Авидын бэлгэ билэгт насны бурхан, бурхны айлдал энэрэл бүгдийг нэг дор хураасан Төвдийн Гэлүгбагийн шашны их багш Богд Зонхава, мөн Төвдийн Гэлүгбагийн шашны их богд Банчин эрдэнэ Лувсанчойжижанцан хийгээд тэдэн лүгээ ялгалгүй төгс цогт номын багшдаа залбирсан байна. Дөрөвдүгээр шологт, Хэлний эрхт Агванлувсанжамц далай ламын өвөр ба бусдын хэргийг хамт бүтээгч самади дияаны бясалгалын эрдэм хийгээд цөвийн цагийн амьтан олныг удирдагч дээд Очирдара төгс цогт багшийн өлмийд сөгдөн залбирсан байна. Тавдугаар шологт, гурван чухаг эрдэнэ, багш дээдийн адистид, номыг тэтгэгч чойжин сахиус, ханд дагинасын авралд хуурмаггүй шүтсэн, би тэргүүтний үлэмж санааны хүчээр бурхны чанарт багшийгаа зуун галавт өлмий батдахыг ерөөсөн байна. Зургадугаар шологт, багш бурхан лугаа язгуурт өөрийн сэтгэл угаас чанар нэгийн учир, амьтныг энэрэх их амгалангийн агаараас эс хагацан, огторгуйн эн лүгээ сацуу олон амьтны тусыг үйлдэхийг ерөөсөн байна. Долдугаар шологт, багш тангарагтан, гурван чухаг эрдэнэ хийгээд номын сахиус дагинаст мөргөн, авралыг айлтгаад би тэргүүтэн эх болсон амьтан бүгдийн хоёр хэргийг хамтаар бүтээхүйд адистидэлж хайрлахыг ерөөсөн байна. Наймдугаар шологт, бурхдын бэлгэ билгүүн мөн чанартаа амт нь нэг боловч, номхотгох шавь тус тусын сүжиг, оюуны эрхээр хязгаарлашгүйг үзүүлсэн бөгөөд, эцэст амьтныг энэрэн хайрлахын чухам гагц санааны орлого нь анги ангид бусын тул бүхнийг хураасан багш дээддээ залбирлыг тавьсан байна. Энэхүү залбирлыг шашин номын үүднээс нь үзвэл, Төвдийн Богд Зонхава багш шавь нарын журмыг нээж дэлгэрүүлэн зохиосон Гэлүгбагийн ёсны хувраг шавийн үзэл, бясалгал, явдлын ёсон бүрэн илрэн гарсан байна. Энэ нь нэгд, “Очирдара бурхны” мөн чанарт дээд багш, “Очирдарын хувилгааны” мөн чанарт их увадини багш, “цөвийн цагийн амьтны дээд удирдагч Очирдарын” мөн чанарт их багш, “Түгээмлийн эзэн” бурхны мөн чанарт төгс цогт багш, бурхан “бүхний хураангуй” дээд лам багш зэрэг нууц тарнийн очирт багш нарынхаа алдрыг, түүн лүгээ ялгалгүй лам багш нарынхаа лагшинд холбож, мөргөн сөгдөж, аврал даатгалыг эрэн залбирсан нь яав ч Богд Зонхавын судар тарни, номлол бүтээлийг хослон барилдуулсан ламын шашны гадуур хүрээний хувраг шавийн үзэл, бясалгал, явдал бус нь үзтэл илэрхий байна. Хоёрт, Гэлүгбагийн судар тарнийн өнө ёсныг нээсэн Лувсандагва /Богд Зонхава/ болон, түүн лүгээ ялгалгүй эл Гэлүгбагийн шашинд их ачит Гэтэлгэгч Чойжижанцан /IV Банчин эрдэнэ/, Хэлний эрхт Агванлувсанжамц /V Далай лам/ нарын зэрэг номын багш нараа дурдан залбирсан нь эл Гэлүгбагийн ёсыг баригч эдгээр багш нарыг замын эрхэн болгон даган орж, 92 шүтсэн явдлаа дурдсан хэрэг мөн. Гуравт, дээр шүтсэн Гэлүгбагийн номын багш нар хийгээд гурван чухаг эрдэнэ, дэргэдээс түшсэн шашныг хамгаалан номыг тэтгэх дамжаа тангарагт чойжин сахиусын хүчээр өөрийн ба бусдын, энэ ба хойтын хоёр хэргийг төгс бүтээхийг залбирсан нь Гэлүгбагийн ёсны багшийн авралд шүтэж, амьтны тусыг бүтээхийн сайн буяны чуулганыг хураах үйлсийг өгүүлсэн зүйл мөн. Дөрөвт, энэхүү залбирлын доторхи хамгийн гол нэг санаа бол бурхдын таалал мөн чанартаа амт нь нэг бөгөөд шавь шавийн эрхээр, тэдний оюуны орцонд тааруулж, янз янз хязгаалшгүйг номлосон боловч, эцэст гагц амьтныг хайрлан нигүүлсэхийн тухайд зорьсон сэтгэлийн агаар нь анги ангид бус, чанар нэгд зорьж байгааг хэлсэн зүйл болно. Энэ нь ер Бурханы сургаалийг өөр хооронд нь зөрчилдүүлэн, “улаан” “шард” хуваан дайсагнуулахын үндэс огт байхгүй бөгөөд чингэж үзэхийн үндсийг хаасан Богд Зонхавын Гэлүгбагийн ёсны сургаалыг чухалчлан үзсэн санаа мөн. Иймээс ч Гэлүгбагийн ёс нь Богд Зонхавын айлдсан “Хамаг бүх шашныг харшилдуулалгүй онох, сайн зарлиг бүхнийг увдис дор ургуулахын” учир, судар тарни хоёрыг зөрчилдүүлэлгүй, номлол бүтээл хоёрыг эсрэгцүүлэлгүй, хөлгөний доод дээд хоёрыг мөргөлдүүлэлгүй, хослон барилдуулж тэгшид онож авч үзсэн ёс юм. Энэ ёсны багш нараа дурдаж, энэ ёсны номлол сургаалаа эш барьж, энэ ёсны багш нартаа мөргөн залбирч, энэ ёсны номыг тэтгэгч тангарагтан сахиусандаа даатган, энэ нэг залбирлыг юуны учир Өндөр гэгээн өгүүлэн, Галдан бошигтын элч гэлэнд бариулах болов? Уг залбирлын төгсгөлийн үгэнд “Модон хулганын сар шинэд Бошигтын элч гэлэн дор өргөсөн болой” 1 гэж буйгаас уг он цагийг нэхвэл, Өндөр гэгээн /1635 – 1723/, Галдан бошигт /1644 - 1697/ хоёрын байсан он цагт тэгшид харгацах жаран жилд нэг тохиолдох жилийн өнгөөр бол эл “модон /хөх/ хулгана” жил нь 1684 он болно. Энд дурдаж буй “Бошигтын элч гэлэн” гэж хэн болох нь тодорхойгүй боловч, Галдангийн Төвдийн газар илгээж байсан бичиг захидлуудын дотор “Рагвапунцаг /Дагвапунцаг/ гэлэнгийн урагш хойш явахад хэрхэж хурдан тус хийхийг өршөөмү” гэж, хэдэнтээ дурдсан байхыг үзвэл, Галдан болон Дэв нарын хооронд элч болж явсан энэ хүнийг бас Өндөр гэгээнд зарж илгээсэн байж болох юм. Энэ онд Галдан бошигтоос элч гэлэнг зарж, Өндөр гэгээнд ирүүлсэн захиа бичиг болон элчийн үг юу гэж байсныг өнөө хэр мэдэх баримт бидний гарт орж ирсэнгүй боловч, Бошигтын элч гэлэнд хариу өргөсөн Өндөр гэгээний эл залбирлын утга санааг шашин судлалын үүднээс үзэхэд, тэрбээр өөрийгөө болон өөрийнхөө шашин номыг Богд Зонхавын Гэлүгбагийн ёсны судар 1 Lokesh Candra 1982, p. 615 [33a 5] 93 тарни хоёрыг хосолсон, Шар малгайн шашин мөн гэдгийг баталж нотлоход чиглэсэн байна. Бошигтын элч гэлэнд барьсан, Өндөр гэгээний эл залбирлын шашин номын гүн ухаан, гүнзгий санаа нь чухамхүү Шар малгайн шашны номын гүн утга ялгах сонгодог боловсролтон хүнд тухайлж айлдсан үг болох нь үзтэл илэрхий бөгөөд номын багштаа мөргөсөн мөргөлөөрөө, номын нэг багштай, авралын нэг оронтой, сургаалын нэг үзэлтэйн санаагаа давхар илэрхийлж, үүгээрээ дамжуулан нэг шашны нэгдэл дор нийт монголчуудын амгалан жаргалангийн, нэгэн асралын санааг гаргаж хэлсэн байна. Үүнээс үзвэл, Галдан бошигт өөрийгөө Зонхавын шашныг цэврээр мандуулах “Цагийн бошигтой хаан” хэмээн үзэж байсныхаа хувьд, Бурханы шашны доторхи “улаан”, “шарын” хэтийдсэн үзэлтээр Өндөр гэгээнийг “улаанд” тулган, Зонхавын шарын шашныг хиртүүлсэнд үзэх үндэстэй үгийг түүнээс нэхсэн шинжтэй байгаа нь Гэлүгбагийн шашны нэг гэлэнг элч болгон сонгож явуулсан хийгээд Элч гэлэнгээр дамжуулан, шашны нь үгийг хэлүүлэх зорилгыг агуулсан нь хойшхи баримтуудаас улам тодорхой болно. Учир юун гэвэл, Өндөр гэгээн нь өөрөө улааны салбарт хамаарах Жавзан Жонан Даранатын /1575 – 1634/ хувилгаан хэмээн, долоон хошуу Халхад анх залагдсан хийгээд Өндөр гэгээний шавь долоон хошуу Халх, түүний шашин номын хийд Эрдэнэ Зуу тэргүүтэн нь эртнээс Төвдийн Сажийн лам нарыг ширээндээ суулгаж, улааны салбарын багш нарыг удаа дараа залж, улааны салбарын шашин ч тэр хүрээнд тодорхой дэлгэрлийг олсон юм. Үүний нэг жишээ нь түрүү үедээ Халхын Цогт тайжийн /1581 – 1636/, улааны салбарыг хамгаалан, Гэлүгбагийн шарын шашны эсрэг цэрэг хөдөлгөн дарагдсан түүхийн баримт ч гэрчилнэ. Энэ тухай Зава Дамдин гавж “Алтан дэвтэр” хэмээх их түүхдээ “Даян хааны аравдугаар хөвгүүн Гэрсэнзэд долоон хөвгүүн буйн, гудагаар Онохуй үйзэнгийн ач, Цөхүр Цогт хэмээх тэрбээр өөрийн нутаг Халхаас цөлөгдөж, Хөх нуурт ирээд, Хаан түүнд захиа бичиж өргөсөн нь “Манай оронд эртээс Сажабагийн шашин дэлгэрсэн бөгөөд эдүгээ Шар малгайтны шашин дэлгэрсээр байх тул, түүнийг дарваас сайн” хэмээн муу зөвлөлгөө өгүүлсэнд, түүнийг зөвшөөрч үнэмшээд...Төвдийн хаан Дэсрид Замба Пунцагнамжил лугаа хамсаж, Шар малгайтны шашныг нэр үгүй болгох санаагаар цэрэг лүгээ сэлт, Төвдийн зүг одсон ажгуу. Хөх нуурын Шар талд хүрэх үед Зөөлөн цогтын зарлигийг хүлээгч Номын хаан бээр гэтэлгэснээр, бие хийгээд монголын хаан төр хоёулаа хэсэг бусаг болсон болой”1 хэмээн бичсэн юм. Гэвч Өндөр гэгээний тухайд өмнөх түүхийн баримтыг огт өөрөөр авч үзвээс зохино. Өндөр гэгээнийг анх тодруулахаас эхлээд Гэлүгбийн 1 Lokesh Candra 1964, pp. 67 – 68/ [Kha, 8a 5 – b3] 94 багш нар оролцсон юм. Түүнийг V Далай лам Агванлувсанжамц, Лхасын Ламо чойжингийн бошгоор Жонан Даранатын хувилгаанд нягтлан тодруулж, улмаар Төвдийн оронд элч зарж, нас багаас нь V Далай ламын дэргэдийн шавь Нялба цорж Намхайсономдагвыг, язгуурын багшид шүтүүлж, 16 сүүдэртэй, 1650 онд Төвдийн Дашлхүмбийн газраа Гэлүгбагийн ёсны их багш, IV Банчин эрдэнэ Лувсанчойжижанцангаас гэцэл санваар хүртэж, монголын газраа хуврагийн аймаг, орон хүрээг үүсгэвээс шашин амьтанд аугаа их хэрэг, асар их тус болох захиа даалгаврыг авч, Гэлүгбагийн ёсны их ачит V Далай лам Агванлувсанжамцаас Авхиягарагийн ёсны Очир эрхтийн хот мандал тэргүүтэн ном сонсож, мөн Далай лам, түүний монголын газраа байгуулах орон хүрээний учирт, өөрийн тамгын газраас тавиад хуврагийг дагалдуулан гаргаж, үүнд дацан ламд Их ширээт Санжааринчиний хойдох, Шархан хувилгаанд алдаршсан Агванлувсанданзан, шанзавт Брайбүн жасын нярав, сойвонд Жамбалинбагийн хувилгаан, донирт Дээдийн гэгээний донир Харниг Чоймзод, эмч ламд Догбо Лхажин, орлогч дархан эмч Лувсанноров, умзадад Брайбүнгийн их цогчин умзад, бурхан зураач тэргүүтнийг томилон илгээж, Өндөр гэгээнд “Умар зүгийн амьтны итгэл Богд Жавзандамба хутагт” хэмээх цол тамга шагнан, их ламын ямба ёслолыг төгс гүйцээн соёрхсон юм. Ийнхүү Төвдийн Банчин Богд, Далай лам нараас зарлиг нээж, эртний их судар номд иш үзүүлсэн ёсоор Өндөр гэгээн нь Риво – гэжай – гандан – шадавлин хэмээх их хийдийг Хэнтий ханы өлгөд үүсгэн байгуулсан бөгөөд урлах ухаан тэргүүтнийг өөрөө удирдан дэмжиж, заан сургаж бүтээсэн байна 1 . Эл хийдийн нэрийн тухайд тэмдэглэхэд, Төвдийн Гэлүгбагийн ёсны анхны хийд Гандан – намбар – жалбилин хэмээхийг Брог Риво ууланд байгуулсны тул, тэр уулын нэрийг оролцуулан Гэлүгбагийн номын ёсыг баригчдыг Риво Гэлүгба гэх болж, бас Гэлүгбагийн ёсны хийдийг ч Риво – гэжай – гандан – шадавлин хэмээн газар газарт нэрлэх болсны нэг жишээ энэ аж. 1654 – 1686 оныг хүртэл, өөрөөр хэлбэл Өндөр гэгээний 20 сүүдрээс 52 сүүдрийг хүртэлх 32 жилийн явдал бол чухамдаа Гэлүгбагийн ёсны энэ их орон хийдийг дотоод шүтээнтэй нь бүтээх нүсэр их ажлын үе байсан бөгөөд Өндөр гэгээний төвд намтруудад бичсэнээр бол “Гэгээнтний насан сүүдэр 52 – ны, “барагдах” хэмээх гал улаан барс жил, Энх – Амгалангийн 25 дугаар оны /1686/ зуны эхэн сард Риво – гэжай – гандан – шадавлингийн их хийдийн дотоод тахил шүтээнийг сая бүтээн дуусгаж, Гэгээнтэн зарим лам шавь нартайгаа 1 Śata – piţaka Series. Indo – Asian Literatures. Volume 34.pp. 103 – 106/ [Kha, 80a4 – 82a2; 83a 1 - 2] 95 равнай сүнжиг өргөн, өлзий хутаг оршуулан залав. Энэ жилийн намрын эхэн сард Хүрэнбэлчирийн газар Манж, Төвд, Ойрад, Халхын элч төлөөлөгч, лам ноёдын их чуулган чуулав”1 гэжээ. Мөн энэ “Завсар Төвдийн орноо элчийг зарж, Далай лам эцэг хөвгүүнд /багш шавь хоёрт/ өргөл ба Сэ /Сэра/, Брай /Брайбүн/, Гэ /Галдан/ гурав, Дашлхүмбэ тэргүүтэн орон хийд бүгдэд олны түгээлийг үйлдүүлсэн ба жанто барын Ганжур тэргүүтэн их адистидэт шүтээнүүдийг залсан тэргүүтнийг бичиж гүйцэшгүй болой” 2 гэж, Өндөр гэгээний, Төвдийн газрын Гэлүгбагийн багш нартайгаа хэрхэн харилцаатай байсан тухай, Зава Дамдин гавж “Алтан дэвтэр” хэмээх их түүхэндээ тэмдэглэн бичсэн байна. Түүний төвд намтарт тэмдэглэснээр бол хөхөгчин хонин жил /1655/ хоёр дахь удаагаа Төвдийн газраа морилж, Банчин Богд Лувсанчойжанцанг бие чилээтэй байхад уулзаж мөргөн, “Цогт Очир аюулгагчийн авшиг” тэргүүтэн олон номыг сонсож, мөн Далай ламд мөргөн, гал улаан бичин жил /1656/ Халхын нутагтаа ирсэн хэмээх ба цагаагчин гахай жил /1671/ Төвдийн газар элчийг зарж, “Жалза тэмбан” хэмээх 111 боть бичмэл Ганжурыг залсан, харагчин үхэр жил /1673/ Халхын Очир Түшээт ханыг Төвдөд морилох үед V Далай ламд арслант сэнтий суудал тэргүүтэн олныг өргүүлж, Халх нийтийн хэрэгт “Оточ Манлын уншлага - едшинванжил” тэргүүтэн номыг номнуулж авсан зэргийг өгүүлжээ. Үүнээс үзвэл Өндөр гэгээний үзэл, бясалгал, явдлын бүх хэрэг нь Гэлүгбагийн ёсны шашин номын үйл байсан байна. Энэ тухай түүний төвд намтарт тэмдэглэхдээ “/Өндөр гэгээн нь/ Төгс буянтын /Гэлүгбагийн/ номын ёсны дамжлагыг барьсан гэдэг нь зүг хэтийдэлд эс унасан хэн бүхэнд эргэлзээгүй болсон зүйл. Жонан Даранатаас дамжлагатай зарим номын эш эрхийг болгоон хүртсэн нь үнэн ч, тэр төдийгөөр түүний үзлийг барьсан нь бус. Даранатын хувилгааны хойт зүгт хувилан зохиосон дараа дүр нь тэрбээр өөрөө мөн боловч, түүний номын ёсыг барилгүй, харин Гэлүгбагийн ёсыг дэлгэрүүлэн зарлигласныг ч шинжлэх хэрэгтэй болой” 3 гэжээ. Ийм байтал, Галдан бошигт 1686 оны Хүрэн бэлчирийн чуулган дээр Төвдийн Далай ламын элч Галдан ширээтийг, Далай ламын зэрэгт хүндэлсэнгүй, суудлын эхэнд зэргэд суудлыг засаж, эн тэгшид суусан хэмээн, Өндөр гэгээнийг баалж, түүнд хатуу үгтэй элч зарж, Гадаад монголын төрийг засах явдлын яам, улмаар Манжийн Энх – Амгалан хаанд элч бичиг илгээж, түүндээ “Богд эзний сууринд шажин хэмээвээс Шар малгайн шажин, лам хэмээвээс Далай лам 1 Śata – piţaka Series. Indo – Asian Literatures. Volume 34.p. 106/ [Kha, 84a2 – 5] Śata – piţaka Series (Volume 34), p. 111/ [Kha, 94a2 – 6; 850а 1 – 2]. 3 Агванчүлтэмжамц, PP.[14 а3 – б1] 2 96 болой” 1 хэмээн, Өндөр гэгээнийг “Умар зүгийн амьтны итгэл Богд Жавзандамба хутагт” хэмээн, урьд өмнөтөө Банчин Богд, Далай лам нарын айлдсан тэр зарлигийн эсрэгээр үгүйсгэн шүүж бичсэн байна. Үүнд холбогдуулж, өнөө хэр Бээжин дэх Дундад улсын түүхийн нэгдүгээр архивын манж монгол дансны газар хадгалагдаж буй, Галдан бошигтын, Өндөр гэгээнд элч зарж илгээсэн нэгэн бичгийг үзвэл “Өөлдийн Галдан бошигт хаан Жавзандамба хутагт дор илгээсэн бичиг. Бор талаас Жавзандамбын дэргэд өчих учир: Үйлдвэр улам дээш нэмүүлснээс энд бээр Дээд ялгуусан эрхтийн /Далай лам/ нигүүлсэхүйд шүтэж, амгалнаа амуй. Тусгайлсан хэрэг: Ширээт эрдэнийг золголцож өөд болсны учир ширээнд суухын ялгал зөв хэмээх эс болсноор үнэн бус хүү. Хэрэв үнэн болбоос чи, Хоёрдугаар ялгуусан, Их Зонхавын ширээнийг тэр мэт хэлсэн бөгөөс, тэргүүн сүүл урвасан тонгорцоглосон мэт буй за. Шар малгайн шашин ба Далай ламын шашин төр арван зүгт дэлгэрсний учир энэ мэтийг хэлэн өгүүлмү. Тэргүүлүүлж тусалж илгээсэн буй. Өглөгийн эзний өөрийн ёсон мөн бүхийн тул, үнэн бөгөөс ёсон бус. Шашинд аль тустайг Гэгээн айлд. Өчүүхний үг элчийн аманд. Эл бэлэг лүгээ улаан барс жилийн арван нэгэн сар, шинэ еснөө”2гэжээ. Үүнээ улаан барс жил буюу 1686 оны намар цаг, Хүрэн бэлчирийн чуулган дээр Жавзандамбыг Галдан ширээттэй ёс бусаар суудал зэрэгцэн суусан нь толгой сүүл тонгорцоглосон мэт болсныг дурдан, Шар малгайн шашин, Далай ламын шашныг эс хүндэлсний хэрэгт тохоон, Дээрээс тэргүүлүүлж туслахаар ирсэн хэрэгт, доороос өглөгийн эзний ёсоор хүндэтгэн хандаагүйн ёсон бус явдлыг ял тулган асуужээ. Далай ламын элчтэй суудал зэрэгцэж суусанд, Өндөр гэгээнийг ялласан, Галдан бошигтын уг санаа нь зөвхөн суудал зэрэгцсэн буюу ижилдсэнд хөнгөн уягдаж өнгөрөх зүйл бус, тэр үед “Умар зүгийн амьтны итгэл Богд Жавзандамба хутагт” хэмээх нэрийн дор тусгай бие даасан бодлоготой байсан, Долоон хошуу Халхын шашны нэгдлийг, “улаан шарын” учирт холбон, Төвдийн Далай ламын их нэрэн доогуур эргэн задалж, дундаас нь Төвдөд болон Дөрвөн Өөлдөд ашигтайгаар Халхыг булаан авахаар, Дэв Санжаажамцын газартай хийсэн түүний нууц тохиролцооны илрэл байсан нь хойшхи баримтуудаас улам бүр тодорч байна. Чухамдаа “Жавзандамба хутагт” хэмээх шашин номын их нэрийн дор, долоон хошуу Халхын өөр зуураа нягтран нэгдэхийг уриалсан, 1686 оны Хүрэн бэлчирийн чуулганы их үзэл санаа, чиг тууштай өрнөх болсон энэ үед, тас дайрч, үүнээс хоёрхон жилийн дараа, шороо луу жил буюу 1688 оны хоёрдугаар сард Галдан 1 2 Bodulγ-a-yin bicig, P. 64. Meng Wen Lao dang. 97 бошигт гурван түмэн цэргийг авч, Өндөр гэгээнийг болон түүний суусан орон хийдийг дайлаар иржээ. Энэ тухай Өндөр гэгээний намтар тэргүүтэн төвд сурвалжид бичихдээ “Өндөр гэгээний 54 сүүдэртэйд Галдан бошигт өөрийн газраас их цэргийг хөдөлгөж, Халхын баруун газрын Илжгэн хэмээхийн хоёр ноёныг дараад, тэндээсээ Халхын нутгийн төв дундруу түрэн орж ирж, өөрийн цэргийн өмөг хүчний эрхээр Халх нарыг айлган түйвээсэнд бүгд үймсэн дүрвэв. Цэргүүд замдаа Эрдэнэ Зуу тэргүүтэн сүм хийдүүдийг эвдэлж, заримд бурхны гүсэг гундаа бүгдийг сүйтгэж, Өндөр гэгээний өргөөний том жижиг гүсэг гүндаа хийгээд Риво – гэжай – гандан – шадавлингийн хийд бүгдийг эвдлэх тэргүүтэн ихэд зохисгүй олныг үйлдэв” 1 хэмээжээ. Мөн энэ тухай “Биеэр дайлж өрнө умрын газрыг төвшитгөн тогтоосон бодлогын бичигт” “...Галдан цэрэг авч урагш ирэн, Илжгэний Үйзэн хатан баатрын цэргийг ялж, Эрдэнэ Зууг шатаан, Түшээт ханы суугаа газрыг эзлэв. Түшээт хан Онгин дор ичин, Жавзандамба Түшээт ханы эхнэр хүүхдийг авч, Цэцэн ханы хошууны Өгөөмөрийн газраа дутаан хүрэв... Халхын бүх улс нийтээр үймэн дүрвэж, баахан дуун чимээ сонсдоход, даруй “Дайсан хүрч ирвэй” хэмээн умарш эсэргүүцэн тулагчид нэгэн бас үгүй... Жавзандамбын хүрээн дотор үймэн самуурч, морь тэмээгээ дагамуй. Сөнөдийн хоёр харуул дор Халх нутаглан ирж... хавчигдаж, сая харуулыг оржээ. Эзний мэдсэнд бас өршөөх буйзаа. Хөөвөөс ер гарах үгүй суужээ. Жавзандамба мөн олныг авч, харуулын ойр иржээ” 2 хэмээн бичсэн байна. Энэ тухайд Галдан бошигт Өндөр гэгээнийг нэрлэж “...Зонхавын шашныг хиртээсэн хүмүүн... шашныг эвдэж хоёрын хооронд муухан явах хүмүүн, аливаад сайн үгүй. Эдүгээ түүнийг сөнөөвөөс Дундад улсын Хуанди болон Далай ламын сэтгэл ч амар болох буй за”3 хэмээн, Манжийн Энх – Амгалангийн 27 дугаар оны арван нэгдүгээр сарын хөх бичин өдөр буюу 1688 оны өвлийн дунд сар, Манжийн хааны элч түшмэлүүдэд хэлж илгээсэн байна. Бас хиа Ананд, лам Шаннандорж нарын, Галдантай уулзаад, хойш ирж айлтгасан үгийн дотор “Галдан бас Жавзандамба хаана сууж байхыг асуусанд, түшмэл бид ”Харуулын гадна баймуй. Олон Халх мөн хязгаараа суумуй” хэмээв. Галданы хэлэх нь “Түүнийг хязгаараас дотор оруулахгүй бол тэрбээр хаана явмуй. Дундад улсын Хуандийн санаа бодлого, жич учрыг явуулах нь над лугаа цавхийтэл нийлэлцжээ. Би баярлаж барахгүй хэмээв. Та төр шажны тул надур ухуулсан нь би их л баярламуй. Амгалан хаан, Далай ламын төр 1 Śata – piţaka Series (Volume.34), p. 111/ [Kha, 94a2 – 6; 86а 6 – б6]. Bodulγ-a-yin bicig, PP.69 – 70. 3 Bodulγ-a-yin bicig, P.81. 2 98 шажнаас би өвөрчилэн явсугай хэмээх санаагүй”1 хэмээснийг тэмдэглэжээ. Үүнээс Галдан бошигтын санаа зорилгыг ажиглахад, Жавзандамба нарыг Дундад улсын хилийн харуулын дотор оруулахгүй, улмаар баривчилж өгсөн нөхцөлд Манжийн Энх – Амгалан хаан, Төвдийн Далай ламын төр шажны бодлогоос огт гажихгүй, чухамхүү “цавхийтэл нийлэлцэх” тухай өгүүлсэн нь Манжийн төрийн эсрэг монголчуудын хүчийг нэгтгэн тэмцэх санаа зорилгыг анхнаасаа агуулаагүй нь илэрхий байна. Үүнээ Галдангийн, “Зонхавын шашныг хиртээсэн”, “шашныг эвдсэн” хэмээн Өндөр гэгээнийг хэлсэн нь урьд өмнөхийн Халхын улааны шашны уламжлалыг барьж, “Жонан Даранатын хойдох” гэдгээр Өндөр гэгээнд ял тулгаж хэлсэн санаа юм. Галдангийн, улааныг хорьж шарыг тэтгэх нэрээр, тэр үед Манжаас ч, Төвдөөс ч харьцангуй бие даасан бодлоготой байсан, Долоон хошуу Халхыг уулгалан авч өөрт нэгтгэн, Төвдийн Зонхавын шашин, Далай ламын шашин төрд гавъяаг олж, улмаар түрүү үеийн Ойрадын Гүүш хаан Төрбайхын /1582 – 1654/ уламжлалаар, шашны улаан, шарын мөргөлдөөн дундаас хааны суудал хожих далд санаа нь тэр үед Төвдийн төрийн сайд байсан Дэсрид Санжаажамцын /1653 – 1705/ нууц түлхээсний бодлоготой давхар нийлж байсан юм. IV Банчин богд Лувсанчойжижанцан нэгэнтээ 1662 онд таалал төгсөж, дараа дүр нь бага сүүдэртэй, тэр цагийн төр шашны хэрэгт бүрэн оролцох боломж нээгдээгүй, мөн V Далай лам Агванлувсанжамцын 1682 онд таалал төгссөнийг, 1679 онд Төвдийн төрийн сайд болсон Дэсрид Санжаажамц тусгай шалтгаанаар 15 жил нууж, тэр цагийн Төвдийн төр шашны хоёр ёсны хэргийг Банчин Богд, Далай ламын огт оролцоогүйгээр, дан гагцаар өөрөө мэдэн шийдэж, чингэх атлаа шууд V Далай ламын нэрээр бүхнийг явуулж байсан юм. Ялангуяа Дэсрид Санжаажамцын, 1682 – 1697 онд, өөрөөр хэлвэл V Далай ламын таалал төгссөнийг илрэх хүртэл хийсэн 15 жилийн бүх явдал нь V Далай ламын хуурмаг нэрийн дор хийгдсэн зүйл болно. Тиймийн тул Төвдийн газраас 1686 онд Хүрэн бэлчирийн чуулганд Далай ламын элч болгож илгээж байсан Галдан ширээт ч, тэрхүү Галдан ширээтийг Далай ламын биеийн орлогчид үзэж, түүнийг хүндэлсэнгүй хэмээн шалтаг эрэн, Өндөр гэгээн тэргүүтэн долоон хошуу Халхыг, Манж эзний харуулын дотор бачимдуулан шахамдуулсан Галдан бошигтын явдал ч, чухамдаа бүр Төвдийн Далай ламтай харилцан зөвшиж, түүний эш зарлигаар хийсэн гэх, Манж, Халх, Ойрадын тэр цагийн шашин төрийн бүх хэрэг явдал ч Дэсрид Санжаажамцын зүгээс хийсэн тийм хуурмаг санааны явдал байсан юм. Энэ үед төрийн сайд болсон Дэсрид Санжаажамц, Төвдийн доторхи шашин 1 Bodulγ-a-yin bicig,. P.81. 99 хоорондын, шашин төр хоорондын, Төвдийн хаан төр болон цэргийн бүх хэргийг үе залган барьж байсан Хошуудын Гүүш хааныхны хүчин дарангуйлал, түүнийг сөрөн, эрх мэдэл зэрэгцэн гарч ирсэн Төвдийн төрийн сайдын эрх тушаал хоорондын зөрчилдсөн олон явдлыг тэнцүүлж, Төвдийн төр шашныг тогтоохын тулд V Далай ламын шашны их нэр хүндийг ашиглах зорилгоор таалал төгссөнийг нь нууж, тэр нэрийн өмнөөс Зүүн гар, Халх, Манж Чин улстай харилцаж байсан байна. Ялангуяа 1679 онд Төвдийн төрийн сайдын тушаалд гарч ирсэн Дэсрид нь Төвдийн хаан төрийн бүх мэдлийг гартаа барьж, жараад жилийн турш суусан Хошуудын Гүүш хааныхны ширээ залгасан ноёрхлыг араас нь устгуулахын тулд, Төвдийн газраа шашны номыг үзэж суусан номын хувраг Галданы санваарыг өргүүлж, түүнд Далай ламын шашныг ариунаар мандуулах “Бурханы бошигтой хаан” хэмээн “Бошигт” цолыг өгч, Дөрвөн Өөлдийн зүг мордуулаад, Өөлдөөр Халхыг цохиулж хүчий нь зузааруулаад, тэр хүчийг улсын дотроо оруулж, монголыг монголоор нь устгуулж, шашин төрөө чөлөөлж авах хэмээсэн далд бодлогыг явуулсан юм. Энэ нь эдүгээ Төвдийн түүхэнд бичигдсэнээс тодорхой бөгөөд Хошуудын Гүүш хаан, түүний ач Лхавзан нарын угсаа залгасан ноёрхлыг халахын тулд төрийн сайд Дэсридийн, Галдан бошигттой холбоотой байсан явдал хийгээд Галданг унаж, Лхавзан нарт Дэсридийн хорлогдсоны дараагаар, мөн Дэсридын доорхи түшмэлүүдийн Хошуудын ноёрхлоос гарахын тулд, Зүүн гарын тайж Цэрэндондовтой холбоо тогтоож, түүний цэргийг Төвдийн дотор оруулж Лхавзан хааныг устгуулсан явдал нь мөн л шашны улаан шарын тэмцэл дээр монголын хүчийг ашиглаж, төрөө төвхнүүлэхийн тухайд хийсэн бодлого байжээ. Зүүнгарын Цэрэндондовын цэрэг ч Төвдийн доторхи төр шашныг төвхнүүлсэнгүй, хуучин тарнийн ёсныхны лам хувраг, сүм дуган, ном судар, тэр ч атугай хар шар олныг нийтэд нь хөнөөн сүйтгэсэнд, Манж Чингийн цэргийг араас нь оруулж, Зүүнгарынхныг хөөлгөж, түр боловч амар амгаланг тогтоосон тухай түүхэндээ бичжээ 1 Энэ мэт баримтын үүднээс үзвэл, Төвдийн төрийн сайд Дэсрид Санжаажамц болон, ер Төвдийн төр шашны, Галдан нартай хэрхэн, ямар холбоотой байсан, тухайн үеийн бодлогыг бүрнээ мэдэж болно. Төвдийн Дэсрид Санжаажамцаас Манжийн Энх – Амгалан хааны элчид, Далай ламын үг болгож хэлүүлсэн зүйлд “Далай ламын үг. Богд эзэн дор айлтгагтун. Гагцхүү Түшээт хан, Жавзандамба хутагтыг барьж, Галданд өгвөөс амьтанд тус болмуй. Энэ хоёр хүний амийг би батлах буй”2 хэмээжээ. Энэ тухайд Манжийн Энх 1 2 Төвдийн орны ер номлол 1991, PP. 244 – 247; 248 – 250. Bodulγ-a-yin bicig, P.91. 100 – Амгалан хаан “Эдүгээ лам чиний зарсан элч Шамбалин хэмээх лам “Чиний үг” хэмээн айлтгасан нь Түшээт хан, Жавзандамба хутагтыг барьж Галданд өгөгтүн! Эд нарын амийг батлах хэмээжээ. Эдүгээ Түшээт хан, Жавзандамба хутагтыг барьж, Галданд өгвөөс нэгэн этгээдэд хэлбэрсэн болой. Ийнхүү болбоос бидний угаас Өөлд, Халхыг харилцан зохицож сайн аж төртүгэй хэмээсэн санаанд нийлцэх буюу... барьж түүнийг өшөөтэй хүнд өгвөөс болох буюу би... ийм лам хамаг амьтанд тус хаяж явахын тулд Шамбалин хэмээхийн айлтгасан үг юуны ламын үг аж. Үнэхээр лам айлтгаваас бичиг бичиж үл айлтгах буй асан уу? Миний дотор сэжиглэх тул тусгай зарлигийн бичиг бичиж илгээв. Энэ учрыг тодорхойлон бичиг бичиж айлтгагтун!”1 гэжээ. Энэ бол нэгд, Төвдийн Дэсрид Санжаажамцын, Далай ламын хуурмаг нэрийг барьж үйлдэж байсан ажлын нэг жишээ, хоёрт Төвдийн төрийн хатгаас, Галдан бошигтын явдал хоёр нэг хөлтэйн баримт, гуравт, Галдан бошигт, Өндөр гэгээн хоёрыг хавиралцуулсан хэрэг явдлын цаад үндсийг Төвдийн төрийн бодлогоор атгаж суусны гэрч, дөрөвт Өндөр гэгээн нарын, Манжийн хилийн харуулын дотор шургаж орсон нь урваж бус, амь гуйж орсон аргагүйдлийн илрэл, тавд тухайн тэр үед Манжийн Энх – Амгалан хаан нь Халх, Ойрад хоёрыг хүчий нь тарамдуулан, цувруулан идэж дуусгахад бус, эебээр засан зохицуулахад чиглэсэн, их улсын хаяа хилээ хамгаалсан бодлогыг илүү чухалчилж байсаны гэрч болно. 1696 оны сүүлээр Галдан бошигтын Төвдийн, Лхас Зуугийн газар болон Хөх нуурт илгээсэн элчүүд Манж Чин улсын цэрэгт баригдаж, түүний Далай лам, Дэв /Дэсрид/ Санжаажамц болон Хөх нуурын тайж нарт илгээсэн 14 дугтуй захидал олдсон юм.2 Галдан бошигтын “Далай ламын гэгээнд...” хэмээн бичсэн захидалд “/Таны/... зарлигийн бичиг өршөөсөн явдал цөм миний оройн чимэгт ирсэн учир би их л баярлажээ. Ламын бие мөнх байж... энэ үеэс алив үед хүртэл өршөөн хамгаалахыг хэлбэрэх үгүйгээр үргэлж тольдму, тольдму” гэх буюу, Дэвд бичсэн захидалд “Алив явдлыг сайн дор болгон тусалму. Санаан дороо тогтоож зарлиг буулгахыг усны урсгал адил тасралт үгүй миний оройн чимэг дор зарлигдахыг тольдму, тольдму” хэмээгээд, бас “Өчүүхэн хүмүүн миний санаан дор зөвхөн нэг ламын зарлиг, хүмүүний эрхт Дэвийн зарлигийн ёсоор бүтээсүгэй хэмээн санаму” хэмээн өөрийн мохсон цөхсөн явдлаа бичихийн сац, түрүү Гүүш хааны хөвгүүд ач нар болох Даш баатар тайж, Баатар тайж, Сэцэн дайчин, Галдан дайчин бошигт жонон нарт “Бас урьд айлтгасан ёсоор Дээд Далай ламын зарлигийг хурдан мордуулму. Ном унших 1 Bodulγ-a-yin bicig, PP. 91 – 92. 2 Cimeddorji 1992-1, PP. 93-126. 101 нь чухал тул Рагвапунцаг гэлэнгээр хойш урагш явахуйд хэрхэн хурдан тус хийхийг өршөөмү. Дээд дор болбоос Далай ламын явдалд тус хийх, доорд дор болбоос Дөрвөн Өөлд дор тус хийх явдлыг тасралтгүй өршөөн сургаму” хэмээн айлтгажээ. Мөн “Далай ламын хишиг дор чуулаад, дайсны өөд дахин явсугай хэмээн бүгдээр зөвлөж бэлтгэсэн бөлгөө” хэмээгээд, цэргийн дотроос буруулж оргосон Данжин омбын холбоо хоршоотноос бусдыг “Далай ламын хишиг дор бид их төлөвийг авчирчээ” гэх буюу, “Бас Дэвийн гэгээнд цол өгсөн учирт, урд басхүү айлтгасан бөлгөө. Түүний хариу маний дур хэмээн ирсэн учир, миний санаа эдүгээ хүмүүн хойш өмнөш явбаас урьд айлтгасан ёсоор илгээмүй хэмээн бодмуй” гэжээ. Эл бичсэнээс үзэхэд Галдан бошигт V Далай ламыг аль эрт арван хэдэн жилийн өмнө таалал төгсснийг мэдээгүйгээр барахгүй, түүний хуурмаг нэрээр удаа дараа Төвдийн газраас явуулж байсан захиа бичгийг үнэмшин итгэж, “оройн дээд чимэгт” санаж явсан, Төвдийн төрийн сайд Дэвийн “усны урсгал адил тасралтгүй” зарлигдах үгээр бүгдийг хийж байсан, хийсэн бүгдийнхээ үрийг Далай ламын төр шашин, Дөрвөн Өөлдийн явдалд тус хэмээн санаж явсан нь илт харагдаж байна. Мөн 1691 онд Ойрадын Галдан бошигтоос Оросын Их Цагаан хаанд илгээсэн бичигт “... Далай лам шажин төрийн тусад... элч өөд болсонд, хэн хэн Далай ламын элчний зарлигаас давж үл болох тулд, Далай ламын элчийн өмнө Халхыг манд гаргаад...” 1 хэмээн бичсэн үүнийг, долоон хошуу Халхыг Ойрадын Галдан бошигтод гаргахаар нууцаар тохиролцож, Төвдийн Далай ламын нэрэн дор Дэв Санжаажамцын зарлигдсан үг хэмээн ухаарч болно. Галдан бошигтын Халхыг уулгалан довтолж, эцэст Манжийн цэрэгт хүчин мөхөстөх үед өөрийн нь цэргийн ноён Данжилын, Галданд хэлсэн “Чи ямагт Зонхавын шашны тулд явмуй гэсээр Дөрвөн Өөлд, Долоон Халхыг дуусгав” гэсэн үгнээс ч илт харагдах бөгөөд чингэж Зонхавын шашны төлөө, Далай ламын төлөө гэх атлаа, тэрхүү номын багш Далай лам, Банчин эрдэнийн зарлиг захиагаар Халхын газар гуч гаруй жил амсхийх завдалгүй, Өндөр гэгээний барьж байгуулсан Риво - гэжай – гандан - шадавлин хэмээх, их хийдийг нь газрын хөрстэй нь тэгшилж, тэрхүү номын багш нараас нь хайрласан “Умар зүгийн амьтны итгэл Богд Жавзандамба хутагт” хэмээх, номын шавь Өндөр гэгээний нь устгахыг нэгэн хэргийн зорилго болгож явсан Галдан бошигтын явдал нь зөвхөн Зонхавын шашны нэрийг барьж, Дөрвөн Өөлдийн булаах дээрэмдэх хэргийн зүгт улайран зүтгэж явсан гэхээс өөрөөр үзэх аргагүй бөгөөд энэ нь түүний Төвдийн Дэв нар болон Хөх нуурын Хошуудын тайж нарт бичсэн өмнөх захианаас нь бүр ч тодорхой байна. Мөн 1 Н. П. Шастина 1958; J. R. Krueger 1969, pp. 286 - 295; Г. Кара1974 , PP. 111 – 118. 102 Галданы элч Гэлэй гүенгийн Энх – Амгалан хаанд “Халх буруугаар яваад манд дарагдав. Бид Халхыг туулайн ав авлах адил Богд эзэнд баривай. Үүнийг санаваас гавъяатай хүн буй...” хэмээн, чухамхүү туулайн ав мэт, Халхыг Манжид хөөж оруулсны гавъяаг Галданд тохож хэлсэн нь өнөө нэгэнтээ бүхний мэдэх баримт болсон юм. Иймд Халхын “улаанд хиртсэн” шашныг замаас цэвэрлэж, Төвдийн Зонхавын шашныг ариунаар мандуулах нэрийн дор, тухайн үед өөр дотроо үймээн самуунтай байсан долоон хошуу Халхыг өөрт нэгтгэн авч, хүчийг олоод, Далай ламын шашны төрийн эзэн болох дотоод санаа, алсын зорилгоор, юуны өмнө Долоон хошуу Халхыг шашны нэгдлээс нь салгахын учир, Өндөр гэгээн нарыг уулгалж, устгахыг нэгэн хэргийн зорилго болгож, илдийг өргөж явсаар, эцэст энэхүү ялагдал явдалдаа авралыг эрж, аль хэдийн 15 жилийн өмнө таалал төгссөн Далай ламыг буйд хууртаж, түүнтэй хэрхэн хэзээ уулзаж учрах, жил, сар, өдөр, цагийг Лхас Зуугийн Ламо чойжин, Брайбүн хийдийн Найчин сахиусаас асууж авралдаж, Далай лам, Дэв Санжаажамц нарт 14 дугтуй захиаг, их аяны замаасаа илгээж байсаар, цэрэг дайны хөлд нэгэн насны явдлаа дуусгасан Галдан бошигтыг, чухамхүү Төвдийн Дэсрид Санжаажамцын, шашнаар дамжуулж хийсэн, нэгэн улсын ашигт хичээсэн бодлогод үрэгдэж хэлмэгдэж дууссан, түүхийн нэгэн бодгаль хэмээн үзвээс зохино. Харин 2003 онд шинээр засамжлан хэвлэгдсэн гэх, “Монгол улсын түүх” таван ботийн дотор “Галдан бол Түвэдийн төлөөний хүн ч бус, Манжийн талын этгээд ч бус, харин Манжийн түрэмгийллийн эсрэг улс орныхоо тусгаар тогтнолын төлөө эцсээ хүртэл тэмцсэн юм” 1 гэж, шууд дүгнэсэнд, монгол, манж, төвд эх бичгийн судалгаа хомсдож, шашин судлалын бүхэл бүтэн шинжилгээ үгүйлэгдэж, зөвхөн гагц “марксист түүхчдийн” хуучин үзэл суртлын үнэлгээ ахин хуулбарлагдаж хувилагдаж орсны сац, нэгийг “урвасан дагасан” болгож хүчирлэн хэлбийлгэж бичээд, нөгөөг “баатарласан тэмцсэн” болгож гавъяаг цохон тэмдэглэсэн, өмнөх түүх бичлэгийн цоохортсон үнэлгээнээсээ бас л салж чадаагүйг харуулав. Харамсалтай нь эдүгээ ардчиллын, хэний ч дарамт шахалтгүй, үнэнийг үзэх чөлөөт сэтгэлгээний үед өөрийн түүхээ жинхэнэ ёсоор бичиж байгаа түүхчдийн, нэг хэлэхдээ Галданг “...Халхын, Манжид орох явдлыг ямар нэг хэмжээгээр түргэтгэжээ” гэж хэлээд, нөгөө нэг хэлэхдээ “Монголын тусгаар тогтнолын төлөө эцсээ хүртэл тэмцжээ” хэмээн, нэг аманд хоёр хэлтэй мэт дүгнэснийг юу гэж ухах вэ? Эл “Монгол улсын түүхийн” таван ботийн оршилд Монгол Улсын Ерөнхийлөгч 1 Монгол улсын түүх, P. 135. 103 Н. Багабанди гуайн “...ангид утгат бус, нэгэн утгат бус, гагцхүү өөр хоорондоо шүтэн барилдахуй...” гэж хэлсэн үгний доогуур, энэ мэт асуудал нэхсэн түүхийн үнэнийг цувуулж алдсаар байх уу?! “Модон хулганын сар шинэд Бошигтын элч гэлэнд” өргөсөн Халхын Жавзандамба хутагтын залбирал Төвд эхийн латин галиг: 1. blo chen rdo rje ’dzin pa’i lung rtogs kyi // bstan pa ’dzin skyong spel ba’i rgyal mtsan mchog // sgreng mkhas skal ldan ’dul bya’i mgon gyur pa // mtsungs bral bla ma dam par gsol ba ’debs // 2. mchog gsum bden byin chos nyid rnam dag cing // rten ’brel bslu med srid zhi’i legs byas mthus // mkhan chen rdo rje ’dzin sprul zhabs brtan zhing // mdzad ’phrun mtha’yas phyogs kun rgyas gyur cig // 3. sNang ba mTha’ yas ye shes tse yi lha // rgyal ba’i mkhyen brtze gcig bsdus bLo bzang gRags // skyabs kun ngo bo rJe btzung Chos rGyan zhabs // dbyer med dpal ldAn bla mar gsol ba ’debs // 4. Ngag dbang kun khyab bde chen dga’ba’i gar // zab mo’i dbyengs gyur don gnyis lhun grub pa // snyigs dus ’gro ba’i ’dren mchog rdo rje ’dzin // dpal ldan bla ma dam pa’i zhabs la ’dud // 5. mchog gsum bla ma lha yi byin rlabs dang // chos srung mkha’ ’gro chos dbyengs rnam dag ba // rten ’byung bslu med bdag sogs lhag bsam mthus // khyab bdag bla ma bskal brgyar zhabs brtan shog // 6. bla ma lha dang gnyng ma rang gi sems // ye nas rang bzhin gcig tu nges rnyed ba’i // bde chen dbyens su nam yang ’bral med par // nam mkha’ ji srid ’gro ba’i don byed shog // 104 7. bla ma yi dam mchog gsum bsrung bcas la // phyag ’tsal mchod cing snying nas skyabs su mchi // bdag dan mar gyur ’gro ba ma lus pa // don gnyis lhung gyis grub bar byin gyis rlabs // 8. rgyal rnams ye shes ngo bor ro gcig kyang // sna tsogs gdul bya’i blo ngor mtha’ yas ston // thugs rje’i ’jug ba tha dad dang bral phyir // kun ’dus bla ma mchog la gsol ba ’debs // shing byi zla tses la Bo shog thu’i bang chen dge slong la’o // [ 32a2 – 33a5] Төвд эхийн монгол орчуулга: 1. Оюуны эн их Очирдарын /1/ эш онолын шашныг [Огоот] барих, тэтгэх, арвитгахын /2/ дээд дуазыг /3/ босгогч мэргэн [Онц] хувь төгөлдөр номхотгогдохууны /4/ итгэл болсон [Онхид] хувь адилаас хагацсан /5/ багш дээд дор залбирлыг тавья 2.[Эрхэм] гурван чухгийн /6/ үнэнийг өгөгч номын чанар тийн ариун бөгөөд [Илт] шүтэн барилдлага /7/ хуурмаггүй сансар нирвааны /8/ буяны хүчээр [Их] увадини /9/ Очирдарын хувилгааны /10/ өлмий батдаад [Эгнэгт] хязгаалшгүй зохионгуй үйлс нь зүг бүхэнд дэлгэрэх болтугай 3.[Ямагт] хязгаалшгүй гэрэлтийн /11/ бэлгэ билгүүний /12/ насны бурхан /13/ Ялгуусны /14/ айлдал энэрлийг нэгнээ хураасан Лувсандагва /15/ [Яав ч] аврал бүхний мөн чанарт гэтэлгэгч Чойжижанцангийн /16/ өлмий лүгээ Ялгал үгүй төгс цогт багш дор залбирлыг тавья 4. Хэлний эрхтийн /17/ бүхнээ түгээмэл /18/ их амгалангийн /19/ баясгалант бүжиг /20/ [Хэзээд] гүн нарийний хоосонд болсон /21/ хоёр хэргийг /22/ хамт бүтээгч [Хэцүү] цөвийн цагийн /23/ амьтны удирдагч дээд Очирдара [Хэтэрхий] төгс цогт багш дээдийн өлмий дор сөгдье 5.[Эрхэм] гурван чухаг, багш бурхны адистид хийгээд [Илэрхий] номын сахиулс, дагинас, хоосон чанар тийн ариун ба [Илт] шүтэн гарсан хуурмаггүй би тэргүүтний үлэмж санааны /24/ хүчээр 105 [Их] түээмлийн эзэн /25/ багш зуун галавт өлмий батдах болтугай 6.[Эрдэмт] багш бурхан лугаа язгуур чанарт өөрийн сэтгэл Эн тэргүүнээс өвөр чанар нэгэн дор магдыг олсны тул Их амгалангийн агаар дор хэзээ ч хагацал үгүйгээр Энэ огторгуй хэдий чинээн сац амьтны тусыг үйлдэх болтугай 7. Багш, тангарагтан, гурван чухаг, сахиулс сэлт дор [Баттайяа] мөргөж тахиад, зүрхнээсээ авралыг айлтгая Ба бүрүн хийгээд эх болсон амьтан хоцрол үгүйн [Баримттай] хоёр хэргийг хамт бүтэхүй дор адистидэлж хайрла! 8.[Энэ] ялгуусан нугуудын бэлгэ билгүүний мөн чанар дор амт нь нэг ч Элдэв зүйл номхотгогдохууны оюуны орц дор хязгаалшгүйг үзүүлсэн [Эцэст] энэрэн нигүүлсэхүйн /26/орц нь ангидаас хагацсаны /27/ тул [Илт] бүхний хураангуй/28/ багш дээд дор залбирлыг тавья Модон хулганын сар шинэд Бошигтын элч гэлэн дор өргөсөн болой Зүүлт тайлбар 1.Санкритээр “важрадхаара” гэдэг нь тарнийг дуудах төвдийн дуудлагаар “базардара”, монголын дуудлагаар “очирдара” болж, төвдөөр орчуулагдахдаа “доржчан”, “доржзинба”, монголоор “очир баригч” болсон юм. Угтаа язгуур бүхний түгээмэл эзэн, үндэсний багш, амьтан бүхнээ бурхны хутгийг олгохыг зорьсон Ядам бурхан. Нууц тарнийн богдос гэгээд, их бүтээлч нарын нэрэнд цол чимгээр хэрэглэгддэг бөгөөд их төлөв Далай лам, Банчин Богд, их их хутагт хувилгаадын багш нарын нэр чимгэнд явдаг. Судрын зүйлд Шигьямүни бурхны нууц тарнийн номыг айлдах үеийн нэр хэмээнэ. Үүнээ “Оюуны эн их Очирдарын эш онолын шашин” хэмээсэн нь Шигьямүни бурхны эш онолын шашныг хэлжээ. 2.Шашныг “барих”, “тэтгэх”, “арвитгах” хэмээсэн нь шашныг шүтэх, засах, дэлгэрүүлэх үйлийн утга. 3.Санскритээр “дуаз” хэмээсэн нь төвдөөр “жанцан”, монголоор “ялгуусны тэмдэг”, “туг” хэмээсэн үг болно. Угтаа эс зохилдох гурван зүйл амьтныг зохилдуулж дүрслэн чимсэн ялалтын тэмдгийн зүйл, шашны найман тахилын нэг болно. Тэрхүү эс зохилдох гурван зүйл амьтан нь арслан гарди хоёр, халиу загас хоёр, матар лавай хоёр юм. Үүнээ “шашныг барих, тэтгэх, арвитгахын дээд дуазыг босгогч мэргэн” 106 хэмээсэн нь шашны тугийг дээш өргөгч номын багш мэргэдийг чимэн нэрлэсэн утга болно. 4.“Хувь төгөлдөр номхотгогдохуун” хэмээсэн нь шашин номын хувь төгөлдөр, сав төгс шавь нарыг хэлсэн санаа мөн. 5.“Хувь адилаас хагацсан” хэмээсэн нь “тэнцэх ханиас хагацсан адилтгашгүй” гэсэн утга. 6.“Гурван чухаг” гэж бурхан, ном, хувраг гурвыг хэлж буй. 7.“Шүтэн барилдлага” гэж учрахын өвөр чанар, учралдахын өвөр чанар, шүтэлдэхийн өвөр чанар гурав. “Ном бүгд үнэнгүйд бүтсэн” ба харин “Шүтэн барилдаж бүтсэн” гэх утга. 8.“Сансар нирваан” хэмээсэн нь “хорвоо ертөнц” хийгээд “амирлаж муу гаслангаас нөгчих” хэмээснийг хурааж нэрлэсэн зүйл. “Сансар хорвоо” ба “амирлиж муу гаслангаас нөгчихийн” буяны болон амгалан жаргалангийн утга. “Билиг барамидын” номд “сансар хорвоо” хийгээд “амирлаж муу гаслангаас нөгчих” хоёрыг өвөр чанаргүйд онож бясалгахыг “сансар нирвааны тэгш чанартын барилдлага” хэмээнэ. 9.Санкритээр “увадини” гэдэг нь төвдөөр “ханчин”, монголоор “их багш” хэмээсэн үг. 10.“Очирдарын хувилгаан” гэдэг нь нууц тарнийн номын багш мэргэдийн алдар. 11.“Хязгаалшгүй гэрэлт” гэдэг нь санкритээр “Авхитаавхаа”, төвдөөр “Нанватааяа”, монголоор “Авид” хэмээх, Сухавадийн орноо ном номлон суух, Язгуурын таван бурхны нэг. 12.“Бэлгэ билгүүн” хэмээсэн нь “угаас оршсон мэдэл бөгөөд амьтан бүгдийн үндсэнд өвөр чанараар оршсон хоосон тодорхой ухааныг” хэлнэ. Үүнээ “ном нугуудын бэлгэ чанар хоосныг таалалдаа оруулахын утгыг” бэлэг билгүүний чанад хүрэх гэжээ. “Хоосон чанар”, “бодь сэтгэлийн” үрэнд “бэлгэ билгүүний номын биеийг” олно хэмээн бүддийн шашны дотоод ухааны номд өгүүлжээ. 13.“Насны бурхан” гэж, Нанватааяа, Авид хэмээхийн бэлгэ билгүүний мөн чанарт, санкритээр “Апаримитааю”, төвдөөр Цэвагмид хэмээх бурхныг хэлж буй. 14.“Ялгуусан” гэж, сэтгэлийн гурван хорыг ялж туулсан бурхныг хэлнэ 15.“Лувсандагва” гэж, төвдийн Гэлүгба хэмээх буяны ёст, Шар малгайн шашны их багш Богд Зонхавыг /1357 – 1419/ хэлж буй. 16. “Чойжижанцан” гэж, Гэлүгба хэмээх Шар малгайн шашныг ихэд тэтгэсэн, төвдийн Дашлхүмбийн газраа суух номын богд, Банчин эрдэнэ Лувсанчойжижалцанг /1567 – 1662/ хэлж буй. Түүнд Ойрадын Гүүш хаан Данзанчойжил бээр “Их бандид” хийгээд монголоор “Богд” хэмээх нэр алдар 107 шагнаж, бас Манжийн Энх – Амгалан хаан “Очирдара лам” хэмээн нэр алдар хүртээжээ. 17.“Хэлний эрхт” гэж, төвдөөр “Агван” хэмээх, төвдийн V Далай лам Агванлувсанжамцыг /1617 – 1682/ хэлж буй. Түүнд Манжийн Энх -Амгалан хаан “Ялгуусны эрхт, газар дэлхийн ялгуусны шашин огоотын эзэн, хамгийг айлдагч Очирдара Далай лам” хэмээх цолыг өгсөн юм. 18.“Бүхнээ түгээмэл” гэж, огторгуйн нэр бөгөөд хоосны утга. 19.“Их амгалан” гэж, орон – “хоосон чанар” ба оронт – “урвашгүй их амгалан” хоёрыг ялгалгүй хослон барилдуулахын утга. Тарнийн ёсны орон – “хоосон чанар”, оронт – “их амгалан” бөгөөд тэрхүү “хоосон” хийгээд “амгалангийн” зүгт тасархайтан уналгүй, хослон орох тэгш чанарын хувь. Бас арга - “их амгалан” ба билиг - “хоосон чанар” хоёр амт нэгэн дор болохын утга гэнэ. 20.“Баясгалант бүжиг” гэж, “үзэгдэл хоосны” бясалгал, самади дияаны эрдмээр бусдын тусыг зохиох үйлийг утга шилжүүлэн хэлсэн санаа. 21.“Гүн нарийний хоосонт” гэж, “гүн гүнзгий”, “гүн нарийн”, “ёроол хол”, “онохуй бэрхийн” утга. “Үзэгдээд өвөрчилэн үгүй дор” үзэх нь “гүн дор суралцах” бөгөөд “гүн, тодорхой хоёргүй бурхны ёги”. Тэр нь өөрийн оюунаар чанагш нэрийдсэн төдий бус, орон өөрийн талаас янагш бүтсэн мэт үзэгдэвч, тэр мэтэд бүтсэнээр хоосон, үлгэрлэвээс арилсан толийн дотор нүүрийн дүрс хөрөг ургах цагт тэрчилэн үзэгдэвч, нүүрээр хоосон мэт, “үзэгдэл”, “хоосон” хоёр чуулсанд ургасныг “гүн, тодорхой хоёр үгүйн ёги” хэмээнэ. Энэ нь “гүн нарийний хоосонт” болой. 22.“Хоёр хэрэг” гэж, “өөрийн хэрэг”, “бусдын хэрэг” хоёрыг хэлж буй. 23.“Цөвийн цаг” гэж, шаар шавхардасын шинжээр нь хийсвэрлэн шилжүүлж, бууран доройтохын улирлыг тийн нэрлэжээ. Тиймээс “таван цөв” гэдэг нь үзлийн цөв, хорон муу сэтгэлийн цөв, амьтны цөв, насны цөв, цагийн цөв болно. 24.“Үлэмж санаа” гэж, өнө үүрд, үргэлжид ачлан тэтгэхэд урвахгүй, үлэмж санаа, сайхан сэтгэлийн утга. 25.“Түгээмлийн эзэн” гэж, бурхныг хэлж буй. 26.“Энэрэн нигүүлсэхүй” гэж, хязгаалшгүй амьтан бүгд дор тус амгаланг бүтээхийг цаг насад таалан болгоогоод, зовлон тэргүүтнээс нь авран зохиож, энэрлээр хайрлаж, ачиллаар тэтгэхийн утга. 27.“Ангидаас хагацсан” гэж, нэгэн чанартын утга. 28.“Бүхний хураангуй” гэж, гагц номын багшийг бурхан бодисад, номыг тэтэгэгч, тангарагтан сахиус, ханд дагинасын мөн чанарт бүгдийг хураан бясалгахын утга. 108 Ном зүй Ш.Нацагдорж 1963: Ш.Нацагдорж. Халхын түүх. Улаанбаатар. 1963. Цолмон 1994: С.Цолмон. Галдан бошигт хаан. Нийгэм, улс төрийн үйл ажиллагаа /1644 – 1697/. Улаанбаатар. 1994. Монгол улсын түүх 2003: Монгол улсын түүх. Дөтгөөр боть /XVП – ХХ зууны эхэн/. Редактор: Профессор А.Очир. Профессор Б.Энхтөвшин. Улаанбаатар. 2003. Lokesh Candra 1982: Life and Woks of Jibcundampa. Edited by Dr. Lokesh Candra / Śata – piţaka Series. Indo – Asian Literatures. Volume 284. New Delhi. 1982. Lokesh Candra 1964: The Golden Annals of Lamaism. Edited by Dr. Lokesh Candra / Śata – piţaka Series. Indo – Asian Literatures. Volume 34. New Delhi. 1964. Śata – piţaka Series (Volume 34): Śata – piţaka Series. Indo – Asian Literatures. Volume 34. Агванчүлтэмжамц: Номгоны Дара эх лам Агванчүлтэмжамц. Аврал итгэл Жавзандамбын биеийн эрихс дараалан заларсан нугуудын намтрыг товчлон хурааж өгүүлсэн сүсэг төгөлдөр бүхнийг баясгагч үзэсгэлэнт чимэг хэмээгдэх оршвой. Хуудас 63. Төвд үсгийн бичмэл судар. Bodulγ-a-yin bicig: Bey−e−berdayilaju OrUn−e um ar−a−yin Gajar−itObsidgen toGtaGaGsan BodulG−a−yin bicig. A laSan jegUn qosiGun−u jasaG−un ordon−aca jokiyan bayiGulju em kedgebe.+ bUrm ongGul−un soyul−un keblel−Un qoriy−a.1992. M eng W en Lao dang:Enke am Gulung−un qorin jirGuGaduGaron−u dansa.M eng W en Lao dang:M eng 51.D um dadu ulud−un teUke−yin nigedUgerarhiv.Begejing. Төвдийн орны ер номлол 1991: Төвдийн орны ер номлол /Bod ljongs bshad /stod cha/ rtzom sgrig ’gan ’khur ba/ Tse ring Don grub /O rgyan Chos ’phel/ Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe sgrun khang. 1991. Cim eddorji 1992−1: Cim eddorji. 1696 on−u yisUn sar−a−du D alai lam a. D ibe bolun K OkenaGur−un tayiji nar−tu OggUgsen ~aldan boSuGtu qaGan−u jakidal−uud. − + bUr m ongGul−un yeke surGaGuli.Erdem sinjilegen−U sedgUl/gUn uqaGan neyigem −Un sinjilekU uqaGan/.1992−1. 109 Н. П. Шастина 1958: Русско – монгольские посольские отношения XVП века /Н. П. Шастина ; [ отв. ред. С. Д. Дылыков]. Москва. 1958. J. R. Krueger 1969: J. R. Krueger. Three Oirat – Mongolian Diplomatic Documents of 1691. – “Central Asiatic Journal”. Vol. XП. The Hague – Wiesbaden, 1969. Г. Кара 1974: Г. Кара. Поправки к чтению ойратских грамот 1691 г. – “Исследования по восточной филологии”. Москва. 1974. Төвд эх 110 QUAESTIONES MONGOLORUM DISPUTATAE No.1 Executive Editors: H. Futaki ＆ B. Oyunbilig Association for International Studies of Mongolian Culture Tokyo April 30. 2005 Монгол хэлний Bel-язгуурын утга учир …(1) [Улаанбаатар] Ц.Шагдарсүрэн Энэхүү өгүүлэлийг бичигч “Монгол хэлний ‘qoyar/ jirin’ гэдэг тооны нэрийг мөшгисөн нь” 1 хэмээх өгүүлэл бичиж Солонгосын Алтай судлал нийгэмлиг(The Altaic Society of Korea)-ийн хуралд 1998 онд илтгэл тавьж хэлэлцүүлсэн бөгөөд түүндээ монгол хэлний belbesьn гэдэг үгийн талаар товч төдийхөн хөндөөд энэ тухай дараа тусхай өгүүлэл бичихээр амласан билээ. Энэ завсар “Эрдэнийн товч” хэмээх түүхэн сурвалжид бидний судлагдахуун болж буй belbesьn гэдэг үгтэй нэгэн язгуур бүхий belgьrde- (belgьrte-?) гэдэг нэгэн сонирхолтой үг байгаа нь түрүүчийн судлагаанд тэмдэглэсэн саналыг минь улам ч лавшруулан өглөө. Уг үг зөвхөн “Эрдэнийн товч”-ийн бараг бүх хубилбаруудад тохиолдох бөгөөд тухайн өгүүлэмж бүхий “Алтан товч” 2 , “Шар тууж” 3 болон “Чингис хааны Алтан товч нэртийн цадиг” 4 зэрэг бусад сурвалжид уг үгийг өөрчилөн найруулсан буюу орхисон байх тул belgьrde-(belgьrte-?) гэдэг үг ХVII зууны үед ч утга санаа нь төдий л тодорхой бус болчихсон байсаныг гэрчилэж байгаа хэрэг. Үүний дээр “Ордос толь”-д5 энэхүү belgьrde-(belgьrte-?) гэдэг толгой үгэнд франц орчуулгыг шууд хадалгүйгээр, холбогдох жишээ өгүүлбэрийг (утгачилан) орчуулсан байх ба “Эрдэнийн товч”-ийн нэг хувилбарт6 эхиний удаа хэвээр нь, нөгөө тохиолдолд өөр үгээр солисон нь үүний бас нэг баримт гэлтэй. 1 Ц. Шагдарсүрэн, Монгол хэлний “qoyar/ jirin” гэдэг тооны нэрийг мөшгисөн нь- Altai Hakpo (Journal of the Altaic Society of Korea), No. 9, June 1999, Seoul, (pp. 313-334) 327-р тал /-Acta Mongolica [Centre for Mongol Studies, Nat. Univer. of Mongolia], Tom. 3 (216), Ulaanbaatar, 2003, (33-52) 44-р тал. 2 Altan tobči, Ulaγanbaγatur, 1990; Hans-Peter Vietze, Gendeng Lubsang, Altan tobči, Tokyo, 1992. 3 (Н.П. Шастина,)Шара туджи- Монгольская летопись XVII века, Москва-Ленинград, 1957. 4 Činggis qaγan-u Altan tobči ner-e-tь-yin čadiy-Činggis qaγan-u takil-un sudur orosiba, Цbьr Mongγol-un arad-un keblel-ьn qoriy-a, 1998,60-61,107. 5 Antoine Mostaert, Dictionnaire Ordos, I-III vol. –Monumenta Serica, Monograph Series V, Peking, 1941, 1942, 1944, 64. a-b, 6 Erdeni-yin tobči, -Monumenta Historica, Tom. I, Fasc. I, Keblel-dь beledkegsen Če. Nasunbaljur, Ulaγanbaγatur, 1961, 128 (A text); Qad-un ьndьsьn Erdeni-yin tobči-a, “Eine Pekinger Palasthandschrift”- Herausgegeben von Erich Haenisch, -Asiatische Forschungen, Band 14, Wiesbaden, 1966, ss. 179,212. 111 Олон эрдэмтэний гарын дор авсаар олдох эх буюу нэрт монголч эрдэмтэн И.Дө Рахевильз(Igor de Rachewiltz) нарын нийтлүүлсэн “Эрдэнийн товч”–ид буй холбогдох хоёр өгүүлэмжийг эшлэн авч үзэe . 1-р өгүүлэмж: 37. v.10 ...Bцrte jьsin 37. v.11. Sečen sutai tayiqu iserin dotur-a цgьler-ьn: 37. v.12.Belgьrten yabuqui čaγ-tur činu: Belen-e učaraju sayitur 37. v.13.nцkьčen: Berke ьiles-i činu bьtьgejь цggьn: Bey-e 37. v.14.amiban ese qayiralaγsan Boγurči bisi bileь:...1 2-р өгүүлэмж: 41. r. 10...Sцnid-ьn Gilьgen baγatur eyin 41. r. 11. цcir-ьn Qayiratu Bцrte jьsen sečen qatun činu ьkьm j-e: 41. r. 12. Qas erdeni metь tцrь činu samaγuram j-e: Qasar Belgьtei 41. r. 13.qoyar-činu bьlegedem j-e: Qaralmai yeke ulus činu qaγ-a 41. r. 14.kereg tarqam j-e: ьčьken-eče učiraγsan Bцrte jьsin sečen 41. r. 15.qatun-činu ьkьm j-e: цndьr boluγsan tцrц jasaγ činu 41.r. 16.boγunidum j-e: Цgedei Tolui qoyar (kцbegьn) činь цničidem j-e: 41. r. 17. Ьrisьn jцgegsen albatu ulus činu ejegьyidem j-e: 41. r. 18. Onoju dokiγsan Bцrte jьsin sečen qatun-činu ьkьm [j]-e: 41. r. 19. Očigin Qačigin qoyar degьь-činь belgьrtem j-e: olan-a 41. r. 20. jцgegsen qayiran yeke ulus-činu tarqam j-a:..2 Дээрхи хоёр өгүүлэмжид онцлон тэмдэглэсэн belgьrtem j-e, bьlegedem j-e хоёр үг утгын хувьд сонирхолтойн дээр сурвалжийн бусад эхүүдэд өөр үгээр солисон тохиолдолд дээрхи хоёр үгийг нэгэн үгээр орлуулсан тул бидний анхаарaлыг багагүй татаж байгаа боловч энэ удаад зөвхөн belgьrde- (belgьrte-?) гэдэг үгийг тусxайлан авч үзэхийг чармайлаа. Иймэд шууд холбогдох бусад хувилбарууд болон орчуулгад ямар байгаа* хэрхин орчуулсан зэргийг харьцуулан үзэе. belgьrde-(belgьrte-?) гэдэг үгийн тухайд… 1.belgьrde-(belgьrte-?) гэдэг энэ үг “Эрдэнийн товч”-ийн бусад хэд хэдэн эхэд 1 Igor de Rachewiltz, John R.Krueger, Ulaan, Erdeni-yin tobči (Precious summary) –A Mongolian Chronicle of 1662, Urga Text, I, Canberra, 1990, p. 73. 2 Igor de Rachewiltz, John R. Krueger, Ulaan, Erdeni-yin tobči (Precious summary) –A Mongolian Chronicle of 1662, Urga Text, I ,Canberra, 1990, p. 80. 112 ямар байгааг авч үзсүгэй. 1.1.1961 онд Улсын Нийтийн номын сангийн хөмрөгт хадгалагдаж байсан дөрвөн эхийг харьцуулан нийтлэсэн ахмад түүхэч Ц.Насанбалжир “Эрдэнийн товч”-ийн сонгомол эх ( цаашид Ц.Н. хувилбар хэмээнэ)-эд бидний судлахуун болгож буй belgьrde-гэдэг үг мөн хоёр удаа энэ belgьrde- гэдэг хэлбэрээр тохиолдож байна. Харин “А” хувилбарт уг үгийг эхиний тохиолдолд хэвээр нь, хоёдугаар тохиолдолд γutuju qočur- гэдэг үгээр солисон байна хэмээн тэмдэглэжээ1. Үүнээс үзэхүл Ц.Насанбалжир авгайн ашигласан “А” хувилбар нь Эрих Хейниш профессорын хэвлүүлсэн барын эхтэй яг тохирч байна2. Дээр ишлэн авсан хоёр өгүүлэмжийн эхиний (буюу 37.v.12-т буй) belgьrde- гэдэг үг хэвээрээ байгаа боловч хоёрдахи удаа (буюу 41.r.19.)-д γutuju qočur-гэдэг үгээр сольжээ3. 1.2.1996 онд Э.Хиодо (Elisabetta Choido)К.Загастер(Klaus Sagaster) нарын гэрэл зургаар хэвлүүлсэн“Эрдэнийн товч”-ийн “Хэнтийн хувилбар”-т мөн л belgьrde-гэдэг хэлбэрээр тохиолдож байна4. 1.3.Чухам хаанаас олдсон нь тодорхойгүй “Хаадын үндүсүн Эрдэнийн товчи хэмээх түүх орошибай” гэдэг өөр нэг хувилбар (цаашид Ц.Ш.хувилбар хэмээнэ) энэхүү өгүүлэлийг бичигчийн цуглуулгад буй бөгөөд түүнээс үзэхүл, эхиний тохиолдолд belgьrde- гэж, хоёдугаар тохиолдолд bilgьrde-гэж I эгшигтэй буюу хоёр янзаар уг үгийг тэмдэглэжээ5. Өөрөөр хэлбэл үндсэндээ адил байна гэсэн үг. 1.4.Ц.Насанбалжир авгайн “Эрдэнийн товч”-ийн судалгаанаас үзвэл түүний “А” хэмээх хувилбар буюу Э. Хэйнишийн хэвлүүлсэн модон барын эх (Цаашид Е.Haenisch хувилбар хэмээнэ)-эд уг үгийг түрүүн удаа хэвээр нь, дараагийн удаад γutuju qočuru- гэдэг үгээр солисон гэдэгийг дээр өгүүлсэн билээ6. Ийнхүү солисон байдалыг үзвэл тухайн хам сэдэвийн утгыг харгалзасанаас биш хэлшинжлэлийн талаас уг үгийн гарал болон уугуул утга, тухайн үеийнхи утга санааг төдий л анхаараагүй гэж үзэх үндэс бүрэнээ харагдана. 1 Erdeni-yin tobči, -Monumenta Historica, Tom. I,Fasc.I, Keblel-dь beledkegsen Če. Nasunbaljur, Ulaγanbaγatur, 1961, 115,128-р тал. 2 Qad-un ьndьsьn Erdeni-yin tobčiy-a, “Eine Pekinger Palasthandschrift”- Herausgegeben von Erich Haenisch, -Asiatische Forschungen, Band 14, Wiesbaden, 1966. 3 Qad-un ьndьsьn Erdeni-yin tobčiy-a, “Eine Pekinger Palasthandschrift”- Herausgegeben von Erich Haenisch, -Asiatische Forschungen, Band 14, Wiesbaden, 1966, ss. 179,212. 4 Saγang Sečen ERDENI-TOBČI, A manuscript from Kentei Ayimag, Edited and Commented on by Elisabetta Choido with a Study of the Tibetan Glosses by Klaus Sagaster, Asiatische Forschungen, Band 132. Wiesbaden, 1996, 93 p ＋Facsimile, 46.r.7,52.v.25. 5 Qad-un ьndьsьn erdeni-yin tobči kemekь teьke orosibai（Ts.Shagdarsureng Version）,25.r.03,27.v.04. 6 Erdeni-yin tobči, -Monumenta Historica, Tom. I,Fasc.I, Keblel-dь beledkegsen Če. Nasunbaljur, Ulaγanbaγatur, 1961, 128-р тал. 113 2.Тэгвэл энэхүү belgьrde-/ bilgьrde- гэдэг үг хэрхэн үүссэн, угтаа ямар утгатай байсан бэ? гэдэг асуулт аяндаа гарч ирэх нь мэдээж билээ. Энэхүү үг Антуан Мостаер (Antoine Mostaert) авгайн 1941 оны “Ордос толь”-д тохиолдох бөгөөд франц тайлбары нь үзвэл belgьrte-=belgьrt’e- гэдэг толгой үгэндээ шууд орчуулга хийлгүй, Би хүнгүй бэлгүрдэж байна, хийдэлдээ бэлгэрдэ-, албанд бэлгэрдэ- гэх зэрэг уг үг орсон өгүүлбэрийн орчуулгыг хадсан нь тухайн үг тэр цагтаа бие даасан ямар утгатай байсан нь нарийн тодорхойгүй тул өгүүлбэрийн хам утгаас нь үүдүүлэн орчуулжээ гэж үзэх үндэс буйг харуулж байна. Үүнд: Bi k’ьn ьguī belgьrt’edži wгn je suis trиs occupй parce qu’il n’y a personne qui m’aide （Надад туслах хүн үгүй учир би тун зав чөлөөгүй байна） K’īdelt’ēě belgert’e- кtre trиs occupй de son travail（ажилдаа түүртээд завгүй бай-） Albandu belgert’ e- parvenir difficilement а payer les impфts parce que qu’ils sont trop lourds（алба гувчури хүндийн учир төлөхөд бэрхэдэ）1 гэж орчуулсан нь уг үгийг яс оноож бус, тайлбар маягаар франц болгосоныг харуулж байгаа хэрэг юм. Мөн А.Мостаер авгай энэ үгийн авиа сэлгэсэн хувилбар нь belbert’e- гэж байдагийг нэмэн заагаад үүртэ-(түүртэ-) гэдэг үгтэй утга адил гэж тэмдэглэжээ2. Ц.Насанбалжир авгайн “Эрдэнийн товч”-ийн судлагаанаас үзвэл түүний “А” хэмээх хувилбар буюу Э.Хэйнишийн хэвлүүлсэн эхэд уг үгийг түрүүн удаа хэвээр нь, дараагийн удаад γutuju qočuru- гэдэг үгээр солисон гэдэгийг дээр өгүүлсэн билээ3. Ийнхүү солисон байдалыг үзвэл тухайн хам сэдэвийн утгыг харгалзасанаас биш хэлшинжлэлийн талаас уг үгийн гарал болон уугуул утга, тухайн үеийнхи утга санааг төдий л анхаараагүй ажээ гэж үзэх үндэс бүрэнээ харагдана. Энэ бүхэнээс үзэхэд belgьrde- гэдэг үгийн хэрэглээ саарч бичгээр л дамжин ирсэн тул “Эрдэнийн товч”-ийг зохиох тэр цагт уугуул утга санаа нь хэдийнээ бүдэгшин мартагдах тийшээ хандсан байжээ. 2.1 Тэгвэл энэхүү belgьrde- гэдэг үг анх хэрхэн үүссэн хийгээд угтаа ямар утга илэрхийлж байсан бэ? Гэдэг асуулт эрхгүй хариу шаардах тул мөшгин үзсүгэй. Профессор И дө Рахевильз “Эрдэнийн товч”-ийн судлагааныхаа сүүлд оруулсан “Эргэлзээтэй үгс”(Problem words) гэдэг хэсэгтээ эл belgьrde- гэдэг үгийг багтааж 1 Antoine Mostaert, Dictionnaire Ordos,I-III vol. –Monumenta Serica, Monograph Series V, Peking, 1941, 1942, 1944:64.a-64.b. 2 Antoine Mostaert, Dictionnaire Ordos,I-III vol. –Monumenta Serica, Monograph Series V, Peking, 1941, 1942, 1944:63.b. 3 Erdeni-yin tobči, -Monumenta Historica, Tom. I,Fasc.I, Keblel-dь beledkegsen Če. Nasunbaljur, Ulaγanbaγatur, 1961, 128-р тал. 114 англиар То be very bussy or fully occupied; to find it difficult (to do something) хэмээн мөн л тайлбар маягаар орчуулсан 1 байх ба яргуулан хөөж үзвэл уг утга санааг А.Мостаер авгайн “Ордос толь”-ийн франц тайлбар орчуулгаас авсан болох нь тодорхой харагдаж байна. Энэхүү belgьrde- гэдэг үгийн гарал үүсэл болоод уугуул утгыг тодруулахад тухайн эх бичвэр дэхи хам утга санаа,мөн монгол төдийгүй Алтай овог хэлний үг бүтэх ёсон, утгазүйн судлагааг эрхгүй анхаарах шаардалгатай болно гэж үзэж байна Ингэж үзвэл “Эрдэнийн товч”-ид хоёр удаа тохиолдож буй эл belgьrde- гэдэг үгийн эхинийхи нь буюу нэгдүгээр өгүүлэмжид: хүн хүчгүйн учир алдсан найман шарга морио нэхээр Тэмүжин ганцаар явж байгаа үетэй холбоотой ажээ. Хоёрдахи тохиолдолд буюу 2-р өгүүлэмжид: чилээрхэн буй Чингис хаантаныг тэнгэр халиж үгүй болох бөгөөс үлдэж хоцорсон хатад, үр хөвгүүд чинь бэлэвсэрэх болно, өнчирөх болно, ганцаардах болно гэсэн нэгэн гол санаа Сөнидийн Гилүгэн баатарын өгүүлэж буй яруу тансаг шүлэгт нэвт шувт хаван гарсан байна. Утгазүйн үүднээс, эдгээр баримт нь бидний судлагдахуун болж буй belgьrde- гэдэг үгийн гарал болон уугуул утгыг сэргээн тэнхрүүлэхэд онцгой чухал үүрэг гүйцэдхэнэ гэж үзэж байна. Тэгвэл энэ үг чухам ямар язгуураас хэрхин үүсч, ямар утга агуулж байсан бэ? Дээрхи хам бичвэрийн утгаас үзвэл ерөнхийдөө “ганцаардах”, “ганцаар болох”, “ганцаар байх” гэсэн утга илрэх бөгөөд шүлэгийн доторхи хоёр тохиолдолын Belgьrden yabuqui čag-tur činu: Belen-e učaraju sayitur nцkьčen:... Гэсэн мөрийн Belgьrden yabuqui гэдэг нь “ганцаардан явах” гэсэн утга, нөгийхи хоёрдахи тохиолдолын Očigin Qačigin qoyar degьь-činь belgьrdem j-e: Гэсэн мөрийн belgьrdem j-e гэдэг нь хоюулаа “ганцаардам-за”гэсэн утгатай нь тодорхой харагдана. Утгын хувьд ийм бөгөөс уг үг хэрхин үүссэн бэ? асуулт аяндаа гарах болно. Бид энэхүү belgьrde- гэдэг үгийг гарлын хувьд belbesьn (бэлбэсэн ~ бэлэвсэн), belčir (бэлчир) гэдэг үгтэй хэлбэрсудлал болон утгазүйн үүднээс нэгэн язгууртай хэмээн үзэх бүрэн үндэстэй юм. Эл хоёр үгийн тайлбарыг толь бичигээс сөхөн үзэвэл: БЭЛБЭСЭН I хань нөхөрөө үхүүлсэн, эргүй эм… БЭЛБЭСЭН II малын дан ганц зүс БЭЛЧИР уулзар, уулзвар, нийлбэр; олон замын бэлчир, голын бэлчир. 1 Igor de Rachewiltz, John R. Krueger, Ulaan, Erdeni-yin tobči (Precious summary) –A Mongolian Chronicle of 1662, Urga Text, I Canberra, 1990, pp. 207-208. 115 БЭЛЧИРЛЭХ уулзварлах, бэлчир нийлэх Хэмээн тайлбарлажээ1. Үүнээс үзэхэд угтаа хоёр буюу түүнээс олон юм ганц болох, эсвэл нэгэн цэгт нэгдэн уулзах гэсэн утга тодорхой байна. Бэлчир гэхэд чөдөрийн бэлчир, замын бэлчир, голын бэлчир гэх зэрэгээр цөм салаалсан зүйлийн нэгдэн уулзасан уулзуурыг заадаг билээ. Алтай язгуурын бусад хэлэнд ч эл язгуур мөн л энэ утгаараа буй. Тухайлбал: бэлчир гэдэг үг Уйгурт белтир, Түва хэлэнд белдир: бэлбэсэн гэдэг үг уйгурт бева гэдэг хэлбэрээр дайралдаж байна2. Бас манж хэлнээ нийт, нийтээр гэсэн утга бүхий bireme ~ biretei гэдэг үг буй. 2.2.Дээрхи баримт сэлтэд үндэслэн belgьrde- гэдэг үг нь belbesьn гэдэгтэй нэгэн язгууртай, угтаа “ганцаарда- ганцаар бол-” гэсэн утгатай байсан бөгөөд цагийн саалтад зөвхөн бичигийн зохиолд хязгаарлагдмал хэрэглэгдэх болсоноор яваандаа утга санаа нь бүдгэрч А.Мостаерт авгайн толь бичигийн хэрэглэгдэхүүн цуглуулах үест хүн хүч дутмагийн учир （ажил төрөл, хийдэлдээ）түүртэх хэмээн ойлгогдоход хүрсэн байна гэж хэлэх үндэслэл гарч байна. “Ордос толь”-дахи дээр эшлэсэн жишээнд буй belgьrde- гэдэг үгийг ганцаарда- гэдэг үгээр солисон ч уг утга онц өөрчлөгдөхгүй болох нь үүний бас нэгэн баримт юм. Тэгээд ч “Шар тууж”-ид буй belgьrde- гэдэг үгийг ганцаарда- гэдэг үгээр солисон баримт буй бөгөөд хойно энэ талаар илүү дэлгэрүүлэн өгүүлнэ3. Тэгвэл “Эрдэнийн товчи”-ийн орчуулгуудад хэрхэн буулгасныг авч үзье. Манжийн хааны зарлигаар уг сурвалжийг манж, хятад хэлээр орчуулсан бөлгөө. Японд гэрэл зураг татаж хэвлэсэн манж орчуулгыг үзвэл гол үйл явдалд илүүтэй анхаарч сурвалжийн шигтгээ болгон завсараар нь оруулсан уран зохиол, домогийн хэсэгийг орхисон тул бидний судлагдахуун болж буй өгүүлэмж бүхлээрээ орхигджээ. Харин хятад орчуулгыг Улаан профессорын хэвлүүлсэн эхээс үзвэл belgьrde- гэдэг үгийн хоёр тохиолдлыг “хүчирдэх, зовох, чадалгүй болох...” гэдэг үгээр хятадчиласан нь мөн л тухайн өгүүлэмжийн хам утгад нь үндэслэсэн гэж үзэж болно. belgьrde- гэдэг үгийн тухайд нэмэн хэлэх нэгэн зүйл буй. “Ордос толь”-д энэ үгийг belgьrde- гэж -t- гийгүүлэгчтэй тэмдэглэсэн нь тухайн нутагийн дуудлага, аялгуутай холбоотой буй заа. Үүнээс үүдэж “Эрдэнийн товч”-дахи уг үгийг профессор И. Дө Рaхевильз авгай мөн л тэр хэвээр нь belgьrde- гэж галиглажээ. 1 Я.Цэвэл, Монгол хэлний товч тайлбар толь, Улаанбаатар, 1966, 121.б,122.а Sečen čoγtu, Mongγol ьges-ьn ijaγur-un toli Kцkeqota, 1988, 705.b; Pусско-узбукский словарь, Москва, 1954, стр. 56.б, Тувинско-русский словарь, Москва, 1968, стр98.а, Русско-тувинский словарь, Москва, 1980, стр. 378.а. 3 （Н.П.Шастина,）Шара туджи-Монгольская лемопись ХVII века, Москва-Ленинград, 1957, стр.28. 2 116 Самгарда-, үүлгэрдэ- гэх зэрэгээр үйл үгийн идэвхигүй үндэсээс дам үйл үг үүсгэдэг -da- / -de- дагавар буй. Монгол хэлний үг бүтэх ёсыг нарийнаа тусгаж чадсан монгол бичигийн зөв бичих зүйн ёсоор, хэрэвзээ -t- гийгүүлэгчтэй байсан бөгөөс -te- бус, -tь- гэж бичих ёстой билээ. Үүнээс үүдүүлэн хэлэхэд бас нэр үндэсээс үйл үг үүсгэдэг -da- / -de-, -tu- /-tь- гэсэн хоёр өөр дагавар буй бөгөөд цөм утга ялгадаг боловч орчин цагт “шинэ” үсэгийн дүрэмээс болж үүний ялгааг олонхи хүн мэдэхгүйн харгайгаар бохирдо- (хэтэрхий бохирын учир хэрэглэх аргагүй), бохирто(улам уламаар бохир болох) гэдэг хоёр өөр утга илэрхийлж байсан хэлбэр1 их төлөв ганц хэлбэрээр, ганц утгаар хэрэглэгдэх болсон нь монгол хэлний утга ялгах сэтгэлгээний нэгэн чухал ялгаа мартагдан үгүй болж байгаа хэрэг. 3.Дээрхи баримт сэлтээс улбаалан, бидний судлагдахуун болж буй belgьrde(belgьrde-?) гэдэг үгтэй нэг язгуур үндэс бүхий өөр ямар үг байж болох вэ? гэдэг талаар ярилцая. Цуваа цагийн үүднээс бүр эрт цагт буюу өвөг Алтай хэлний үед хүргэн мөшгиж тэнхрүүлбэл: belbesьn(бэлбэсэн ~ бэлэвсэн), belčir(бэлчир) гэх зэрэг үгстэй язгуур нэг belgьrde- гэдэг үгийн уугуул гарлыг одоо цагийн олон түрэг хэлнээ буй “нэг” гэсэн утга бүхий bir гэдэг үгтэй холбож үзэх боломжтой бөгөөд монгол бичигийн хэлний nigen, belčiger гэх зэрэг олон үгийг эдүгээ нэг(下的流弊》、 《蒙政实施刍议》 、 《旗县互相谅解解茂明安及达拉特 旗蒙汉两方都能服从政府命令》、《如何增进蒙胞的健康》、《建设蒙旗之一：提倡造 林》等。 自第 3 卷第 13 期以后，出刊渐不按时，大约出至 1948 年秋冬之际停刊。其中 第 3 卷出至第 14 期，第 4 卷至少出刊 10 期，包括合期在内，出刊达 20 余期。 统而观之，该刊自 1941 年 4 月问世起，两易其名，几经停顿，首尾 7 年余。 作为指导长官公署和绥远省政府对蒙施政的官方刊物，它无疑是民国政府大汉族主 义民族政策的宣传机器，在宣传“大中华民族”理论（即国内各民族是“同一血统” 的“宗支”，都是“炎黄子孙”），从而削弱并销蚀少数民族的民族意识和反抗精神， 以利最终同化方面，起了相当的作用。当然，在宣传抗战，鼓舞士气，以及向蒙旗 灌输新知识，进行启蒙教育和介绍蒙古文化方面，它也有些积极作用。更重要的是， 它是时代的产物，也是当时现实的反映和见证。尤其是在内蒙古地区这一历史时段 的文献留存较少的情况下，其所具有的史料价值是不言而喻的。对我们今天了解绥 境蒙旗自治指长官公署及绥远省的对蒙施政，内蒙古西部的抗日情况，蒙旗或蒙旗 人物的动态，以及国共双方在内蒙古西部的争斗等，都提供了有益的资料。 参考文献 《塞风》第 4-5 合期，民国 28 年 8 月。 《绥蒙月刊》第 1 期，民国 30 年（1941）4 月。 《绥蒙月刊》第 6 期。 《新绥蒙》第 1 卷第 1 期。 《边政公论》第 1 卷第 3-4 合期。 《新绥蒙》第 2 卷第 1 期。 《新绥蒙月刊》第 2 卷第 2 期。 《新绥蒙月刊》第 2 卷第 1 期。 《新绥蒙月刊》第 3 卷第 1 期。 《新绥蒙月刊》第 3 卷第 1 期，民国 36 年（1947）1 月 1 日。 《新蒙半月刊》第 3 卷第 12 期。 《新蒙半月刊》第 3 卷第 4 期，民国 36 年 6 月 15 日。 194 《国民政府公报》第 1981 号第 1 页，台湾成文出版社影印本，第 104 册、第 141 册。 《内蒙古文史资料》第 10 辑，内蒙古人民出版社，1983 年。 伊克昭盟档案馆编《伊盟事件资料汇编》第二辑，油印本，1985 年。 195 QUAESTIONES MONGOLORUM DISPUTATAE No.1 Executive Editors: H. Futaki ＆ B. Oyunbilig Association for International Studies of Mongolian Culture Tokyo April 30. 2005 绰克图台吉的历史和历史记忆 [呼和浩特] 乌云毕力格 前言 在蒙古国，如果问起“绰克图台吉是什么人？”，几乎无人不知，而且大部分人都 会回答说：“绰克图台吉是反抗满洲侵略的民族英雄”。绰克图台吉到底是一个什么样 的人？他是不是真的是一个民族英雄？如果不是的话，他在蒙古国民心目中怎样占 据了如此崇高的地位？ 本文在探讨绰克图台吉的生平事迹的同时，揭示绰克图台吉历史记忆的变迁， 重点阐述绰克图台吉历史形象与当代蒙古国民公共记忆中的形象的区别以及这一区 别产生的原因和过程。 一些今天被认为是历史事实的东西，或者今天已经成为某种“传统”的东西，往往 是一种虚构，是在历史的影子下面再创造出来的“当代”神话。这种“传统”或神话的根 据不是历史，而是它所产生的那个时代的具有统治地位的意识形态的需求，文化霸 权则是它的助产婆。历史和对历史的记忆往往有很大的出入，但这绝不是因为人类 的健忘。 绰克图台吉这个人物，在他身后的 300 余年的历史上，在蒙古人的公共记忆中 充当了“鬼”和“神”的两个极端的角色。所谓的公共记忆，就是一个认同体（比如一个 地域，一个组织，一个文化团体，一个阶层，一个民族或部落，等等）的集体记忆， 是与某一个个人记忆相对而言。对某种历史事件或某一个历史人物的公共记忆而言， 它是按照共同体的要求来被创造的。因此，公共记忆的构建，不是把历史原原本本 地表象化，而是把历史剪辑和拼凑成适合于该认同体的“当代”要求的行为。绰克图台 吉的公共记忆，在封建时代的蒙古，在政教二道的话语体系里，成为了“鬼”的记忆； 在蒙古人民共和国时期，在爱国主义价值观下，又变成了蒙古国民（不是全体蒙古 人！）对“神”的记忆。 第一部 从喀尔喀左翼洪台吉到青海的汗王 绰克图洪台吉（Čoγtu qung tayiji），生于 1581 年，死于 1637 年，是蒙古北喀尔 196 喀部贵族。关于绰克图洪台吉生平事迹的历史资料不多，因为他在历史上并不占据 重要地位。主要有以下资料：有关他的家系，有 17 世纪成书的《大黄史》和《阿萨 剌克齐史》的相关记载。前者成书于 17 世纪前半叶，以详细记载蒙古各部贵族系谱 为主要特点。 《阿萨剌克齐史》，成书于 1677 年，作者善巴（Šamba\Byamba）是喀尔 喀贵族，与绰克图洪台吉同祖，而且几乎是同时代人。关于绰克图洪台吉的政教活 动，有以下史料：其一，是被称作《白房子碑刻》（Čaγan ger-ьn bičigesь）的蒙藏文 碑铭。该碑立于 1617 年，是为了记述绰克图洪台吉与他的母亲在土拉河流域建造寺 庙的功德。碑文的抄件一直由绰克图台吉后裔保存，1892-1893 年间，俄国学者波兹 德涅耶夫在赛音诺颜部的绰克图台吉直系后裔伊达木台吉家里发现了《白房子碑刻》 的一份绝好的手抄件1。其二，是呼和浩特固什绰尔济译成蒙古文的《米拉列巴传》 的跋2，提供了有关绰克图洪台吉宗教活动的有益信息。其三，是《白桦法典》3。该 法典的几部法令的前言中谈到了绰克图洪台吉，这对了解他在喀尔喀的政治地位有 重大意义。其四，是五世达赖喇嘛的自传，不少地方涉及到绰克图洪台吉的政治活 动。其五，是喀尔喀王公于 1687 年呈上康熙皇帝的奏折4，其中一些奏折谈到了绰克 图洪台吉。其六，是 17-19 世纪蒙古和西藏的教法史及编年史。比如：五世达赖喇嘛 的《西藏王臣记》、松巴堪布的《青海史》、贡楚克丹巴剌布杰的《朵麦教法史・史 海》、津巴多尔济的《水晶鉴》、噶勒丹著《宝贝念珠》等。此外，还有反映绰克图 洪台吉文学修养的诗文， 比如 1624 年刻在土拉河畔绰克图洪台吉的家乡的著名的《绰 克图台吉摩崖》。 在蒙古国境外，关于绰克图洪台吉的研究论著不多。最早的研究论文为德国学 者胡特对《白房子碑刻》蒙藏文碑铭的研究。他不仅对蒙藏文碑文进行了德文翻译 和语言学诠释，而且还进行了部分史学考证，最初指出了碑文中的绰克图台吉就是 青海的绰克图台吉5。其次是旧苏联学者符拉基米尔佐夫的“绰克图台吉摩崖”6，最早 提出了绰克图洪台吉曾经支持林丹汗反满斗争的说法。其后是日本学者冈田英弘的 1 波兹德涅耶夫 1896，pp.468-469。 达穆丁苏隆 1979，p.949。 3 1970 年，当时的苏蒙考古学联合考察队在蒙古的布勒干省达西其林苏木（乡）哈剌布合遗址的 一座佛塔中发现了经典、文书、文字表等文献资料，其中有两册在白桦树皮上书写的法律文书，这 就是闻名遐迩的《白桦法典》 。第一册包括 16 世纪末到 17 世纪前期的共 17 种法典，第二册是 1639 年大法典的残片。蒙古学者普尔列博士 1974 年以“有关蒙古及中央亚文化史的两种珍贵资料：喀尔 喀新发现的法律文书”为题，发表了该法典的内容。日本学者二木博史称这些法典为“白桦法典”， 便成其学术名称。二木氏对《白桦法典》的部分内容进行了日译和详细注释，并发表了研究专文。 4 在清朝《内阁蒙古堂档》中，有一本喀尔喀王公和呼图克图、呼毕尔汗呈上康熙皇帝的奏折抄件， 题目为“康熙二十七年档子”。内容反映了自 16 世纪末到 17 世纪前半叶的喀尔喀蒙古政治、社会情 况，具有很高的史料价值。 5 胡特 1894。 6 符拉基米尔佐夫 1926-27。 2 197 “关于绰克图洪台吉”1，详尽地搜集整理了当时发表在世界各地的有关绰克图洪台吉 的资料。此后，是拙作“关于绰克图台吉”，对苏联和蒙古人民共和国学者的观点提出 了异议。该文的结论为：绰克图洪台吉“究竟是何等一个历史人物？是军事家吗？他 先败于喀尔喀内讧，被逐出漠北，后亡于和硕特，率四万人马敌不住顾实汗的一万 骑兵。除了打败过涣散不堪的青海土默特人之外，在所有战争中都是败将。是什么‘民 族英雄’吗？他从来没有采取保卫民族的行动。在喀尔喀，为争夺逃民打内战。在青 海，他打的是同一个蒙古族——青海土默特人。至于他支持红教，反对黄教，这与 民族利益并不相干。如果说他是一个宗教狂，也许并不过分。绰克图台吉是这样一 个偶然出现在历史舞台上的平庸人物。在生命的最后几年，他曾给自己戴上一顶汗 王的冕冠，但这并不能给他留下多少光彩”2。因为受到当时史料限制，该文对绰克图 洪台吉在喀尔喀的历史地位估计不足，但是基本结论是符合历史事实的。关于绰克 图台吉的最新论文是图雅的硕士学位论文3。图雅充分吸收了近年来喀尔喀史研究的 最新成果，引用了绰克图台吉生平事迹方面的不少新发现的蒙古文档案资料。但是， 该氏的基本观点值得商榷。在蒙古国，对绰克图洪台吉的评价自 1940 年代以来一直 是非常肯定的，而且奉他为反对满洲征服的蒙古民族英雄。对此，后文将进行详细 讨论。 一 绰克图洪台吉的家族和系谱 前人对绰克图洪台吉的家族和系谱讲得已经非常清楚。他的祖父是格埒森扎扎 剌亦儿洪台吉（Geresenje jalayir qung tayiji），即达延汗(Dayan qaγan)的第十一子。 达延汗把喀尔喀万户分封给了第五子阿罗楚博罗特(Alču bolod)和第十一子格埒 森扎。阿罗楚博罗特管辖的喀尔喀部落发展成为五鄂托克喀尔喀，南迁到辽河流域， 被称为“内喀尔喀五鄂托克”(Цbьr tabun qalq-a)。入清以后，五喀尔喀的巴林(Baγarin)、 扎鲁特(Jaruγud)成为外藩扎萨克旗，其余并入蒙古八旗。格埒森扎后裔所领喀尔喀诸 部被称为“七旗喀尔喀”(Doluγan qosiγu qalq-a)，或“阿鲁（北）喀尔喀”(Aru qalq-a)。 他们是清代的喀尔喀土谢图汗部(Tьsiyetь qaγan ayimaγ)、扎萨克图汗部(Jasaγtu qaγan ayimaγ)、车臣汗部(Sečen qaγan ayimaγ)和赛因诺颜汗部(Sayin noyan qaγan ayimaγ)。 格埒森扎有子七人，其中第三子名诺诺和(Nonoqu)，号卫征(Ьyijeng)。格埒森扎 死后，诺诺和继承了克勒古特(Kerigьd)、郭尔罗斯(Гorlos)两部分兀鲁思，封地在鄂 尔浑(Orqon)、土拉(Tuula)河流域和杭爱山(Qangγai aγula)地区，地处喀尔喀的心脏。 诺诺和的长子为阿巴岱(Abatai)，是第一代土谢图汗，是喀尔喀土谢图汗部诸台吉的 祖先；四子图蒙肯(Tьmengken)，号赛因诺颜(Sayin noyan)，为喀尔喀赛因诺颜汗部 1 冈田 1968。 乌云毕力格 1987，p.76。 3 图雅 2004。 2 198 的鼻祖。诺诺和的第五子为巴喀来(Baqarai)，号和硕齐(Qosiγuči)，就是绰克图洪台 吉的父亲。可见，绰克图台吉出生的家庭属于喀尔喀有权势的大家族。 下面，对绰克图洪台吉的母亲及其娘家阿巴哈纳尔(Abaqanar)做一些探讨。巴喀 来和硕齐的夫人为青必什列勒图三音玛迪太噶勒哈屯(Čing bisireltь sayin madi tayiγal qatun)，或简称太后哈屯，父亲叫做伯尔克(Berke)，是翁牛特(Ongniγud)人。这个翁 牛特不是今天的内蒙古翁牛特旗。“翁牛特”是对成吉思汗诸弟后裔部落的总称，这里 当指别力古台(Belgьtei)后裔统治下的阿巴哈纳尔部。自格埒森扎时期开始，喀尔喀 贵族与别力古台后裔之间有过密切的姻亲关系，诺诺和家族与阿巴噶(Abaγ-a)、阿巴 哈纳尔的关系更是如此。据《内阁蒙古堂档》所收 1687 年喀尔喀的翁牛特的额尔克 木公(Erkin gьng)呈上康熙皇帝的奏折，1543 年，格埒森扎前往土默特部拜见俺答汗 (Altan qaγan)，领养了俺答汗的一位九岁女儿，后嫁阿巴哈纳尔部始祖诺密土默克图 汗(Nomi temgetь qaγan)1。从此以后双方婚嫁不绝。根据该奏折可知，喀尔喀的所谓 翁牛特，时指别力古台后裔部落阿巴噶和阿巴哈纳尔。据《大黄史》记载，诺诺和 诸女中有二女嫁给了阿巴哈纳尔的诺密土默克图之子巴克图(Baγtu)和布里雅岱 (Buriyadai)。诺诺和三子奇他特伊勒登(Kitad ildeng)之女嫁给了诺密土默克图之孙敦 图(Dontu)，诺诺和六子博迪松鄂托欢(Bodisung otqun)的两个女儿的一个嫁给了诺密 土默克图之孙索诺木(Sonum)，一个嫁给了翁牛特的沙格德尔（Šaγdur,大概也是阿巴 哈纳尔台吉） 。巴喀来和硕齐娶翁牛特的伯尔克的女儿为妻2。根据巴喀来和硕齐家与 阿巴哈纳尔贵族的世婚，可以肯定伯尔克所属的“翁牛特”就是阿巴哈纳尔。 据此可知，绰克图台吉的舅父家是别力古台后裔，属阿巴哈纳尔部有势力的台 吉家族。绰克图台吉就是出生在这样一个很有根基的大家庭。他是巴喀来和硕齐的 独生子。 绰克图台吉有子五人，依次为阿尔斯兰洪台吉(Arslan qung tayiji)，剌达纳额尔德 尼(Radna erdeni)，连花车臣岱青(Linqu-a sečen dayičing)，扎安洪台吉(Jaγan qung tayiji) 和阿萨剌尔额尔克岱青(Asaral erke dayičing)3。 二 绰克图洪台吉在喀尔喀的政教活动 关于绰克图台吉在喀尔喀的政治活动，17 世纪前期形成的《白桦法典》留下了 珍贵的记载。在 1596 年到 1616 年之间，绰克图台吉前后共 6 次参加了喀尔喀王公 贵族制定大小法典的活动。 第一次，是参加制定了 1596 年《申年大法典》。该法典的前言说，“应上天和佛 祖之命而降生的、天族、圆满智慧的传承者、黄金家族的汗阿海（Qaγan aqai），执 1 《档子》，“喀尔喀的翁牛特的额尔克木公的奏折”，见宝音德力根 1999，p.80。 《大黄史》，pp.162-166。 3 《阿萨剌克齐史》，pp.85-86。 2 199 政的哈坦巴图尔诺颜（Qadan baγatur noyan），执政的达尔汗土谢图诺颜（Darqan tьsiye-tь noyan），岱青巴图尔诺颜（Dayičing batur noyan），昆都伦楚琥尔诺颜 （Kцndelen čцgцkцr noyan），卓尔古勒诺颜（Jorγol noyan），和硕齐诺颜（Qosiγuči noyan），卓哩克图诺颜（Joriγ-tu noyan） ，绰克图诺颜（Čoγtu noyan），呼朗阿拜诺颜 （Qulang abai noyan），伊勒登诺颜（Yeldeng noyan），和硕齐诺颜（Qosiγuči noyan）， 丙图诺颜（Bing-tu noyan） ，乌班岱诺颜（Ьbandai noyan），俄勒哲依图诺颜（Цljeyitь noyan），莫尔根台吉（Mergen tayiji） ，车臣台吉（Sečen tayiji） ，洪台吉（Qung tayiji）， 岱青台吉（Dayičing tayiji） ，绰克图台吉(Čoγ-tu tayiji)，喇琥里台吉（Raquli tayiji） 为首，制定了大法典。该法典制定于猴儿年春末月在塔喇尼河”1。制定该法典的猴儿 年，有 1608 年和 1620 年之说。有证据表明，该猴儿年是 1596 年。参加者包括第一 代扎萨克图汗的喀尔喀七旗有势力的王公们。当时，绰克图台吉年仅 15 岁，他这么 早就挤身于喀尔喀七旗上层贵族之列，完全是因为继承了巴喀来和硕齐的遗产，成 为这一家族的唯一代表。 第二次，是参加制定了《癸卯年小法典》。据该法典的前文记载，“以昆都伦楚琥 尔诺颜为首，鄂勒哲依图台吉(Цljeyitь tayiji)、岱青台吉(Dayičing tayiji)、绰克图台吉、 车臣台吉、朝台吉(Čuu tayiji)、土谢图洪台吉(Tьsiyetь hung tayiji)、拉玛斯齐布阿拜 (Lamskib abai)、鄂墨勒德尔（＝喇嘛达尔 Lamdar）阿拜(Emelder abai)、多尔济阿拜 (Dorji abai)等大小诺颜，于癸卯年（1603）五月十五日，在波尔和北泉(Berke-yin aru-yin bulaγ usun-a)［制定］记录了小法典”2。据二木博史考证，昆都伦楚琥尔诺颜为诺诺 和卫征的第四子，又称图门肯赛因诺颜，是清代赛因诺颜部鼻祖；鄂勒哲依图台吉 为诺诺和的长子阿巴岱汗的长子鄂勒哲依图洪台吉；岱青台吉为诺诺和次子阿布琥 墨尔根的长子；车臣台吉为昆都伦楚琥尔诺颜的长子卓特巴车臣洪台吉；朝台吉为 阿布琥墨尔根(Abuqu mergen)的次子剌呼哩朝台吉(Rquli čuu tayiji)；土谢图洪台吉为 后来的土谢图汗衮布(Gьmbь)；拉玛扎布阿拜、鄂墨勒德尔（＝喇嘛达尔）阿拜和多 尔济阿拜分别为土谢图汗衮布的二、三、四弟3。 这里，绰克图以台吉的身份出现，和鄂勒哲依图台吉与车臣台吉一样，显然还 没有洪台吉称号。这次制定的是“小法典”。该法典涉及诺诺和后裔王公的统治范围。 根据各王公名次排列，绰克图台吉的族叔昆都伦居于首位，绰克图台吉的大伯父和 二伯父的儿子居于第二、三位，绰克图台吉居于其后。很明显，他在诺诺和家族中 的地位，就是其父亲巴喀来和硕齐一支的代表。在喀尔喀左翼，阿巴岱汗和阿布琥 墨尔根的后代具有比绰克图台吉更尊贵的地位。 第三次参加制定法典，是在 1614 年。《甲寅年赛汗寺法典》的第一条说：“车臣 1 《白桦法典》，pp.59-60。 《白桦法典》，P.27。 3 二木 1981，pp.56-57。 2 200 哈屯(Sečen qatun)、昆都伦楚琥尔诺颜、鄂勒哲依图洪台吉、岱青台吉、硕垒洪台吉 (Šiolai qung tayiji)、绰克图台吉、朝台吉、车臣洪台吉、卓特巴车臣台吉(Bjodba sečen tayiji)、伊克奇塔特台吉(Yeke kitad tayiji)、巴噶奇塔特台吉(Baγa kitad tayiji)、车林台 吉(Čering tayiji)、布蚌台吉(Bьbьn tayiji)、塔鲁巴达什台吉(Tarba dasi tayiji)、巴巴哩 台吉(Babari tayiji)、土谢图洪台吉、拉玛扎布台吉、喇嘛达尔台吉、多尔济台吉、巴 朗台吉(Barang tayiji)等王公台吉们……”1。二木氏对以上王公进行了详细的考证：车 臣哈屯，为阿巴岱汗的夫人，额列克墨尔根土谢图汗的生母。硕垒洪台吉，即第一 代车臣汗。卓特巴车臣台吉为昆都伦楚琥尔诺颜的长子。伊克奇塔特台吉、巴噶奇 塔特台吉、车林台吉、布蚌台吉、塔鲁巴达十台吉、巴巴哩台吉，均身份不明2。重 要的是，绰克图在这里仍然以台吉身份出现，地位排在了硕垒之后。 第四次，是在 1614 年秋天。 《甲寅年秋法典》前文载，“愿吉祥。甲寅年（1614） 秋天最后一个月初一日，在阿勒塔噶德河（Altaγad-un γool） ，土谢图汗、昆都伦楚琥 尔诺颜、岱青台吉、达赖车臣洪台吉（即硕垒洪台吉——引者）、绰克图洪台吉、车 臣台吉、……（18 个台吉的名字）等所有王公统一了法规”3。值得注意的是，此时 的绰克图已有了洪台吉称号。可以断言，绰克图拥有洪台吉称号的时间，当在 1614 年。但是，即使成为洪台吉之后，他在喀尔喀左翼的地位仍然排在岱青台吉和硕垒 洪台吉之后。 第五次参加制定法典，仍是 1614 年。《甲寅年小法典》的前文记载，“愿吉祥。 甲寅年[？（季节）]第一个月二十五日，浩塔噶尔哈屯(Qotaγur qatun)和达赖洪台吉 的寺前，土谢图汗、岱青昆都伦楚琥尔诺颜、岱青洪台吉、达赖车臣洪台吉、绰克 图洪台吉、剌哈台吉(Raqa tayiji)、车臣台吉、诺木齐台吉(Nom-či tayiji)、洪台吉、 呼拉齐台吉(Qulači tayiji)、巴图尔台吉(Baγatur tayiji)、三阿巴噶(γurban abaγai-yin)的 大小台吉们，制定了小法典”4。 第六次是在 1616 年。《丙辰年小法典》序文说：“愿吉祥。丙辰年（1616）夏天 第二个月二十一日，昆都伦楚琥尔诺颜的寺前，四和硕大小王公协议了小法典。执 政的台吉们(Jasaγ-un tayijinar)，[即]岱青洪台吉、绰克图洪台吉、车臣台吉、额尔克 台吉(Erke tayiji)、哈尔达齐塔布囊(Qardaγači tabunung)、必力克图寨桑塔布囊(Bilig-tь jayisang tabunung)，违反上述人的命令者，无论是谁，都要按照大法典的规定进行处 罚”5。岱青洪台吉是阿布琥墨尔根的长子，绰克图洪台吉是巴喀来和硕齐的独生子， 车臣台吉是昆都伦楚琥尔诺颜的长子。可见，这个小法典是在这三家王公领地的范 1 《白桦法典》，P.39。 二木 1983，pp.19-21。 3 《白桦法典》，P.42。 4 《白桦法典》，P.44。 5 《白桦法典》，P.46。 2 201 围内制定的。在这里，绰克图洪台吉的地位排第二位。 由此可见，绰克图洪台吉是喀尔喀左翼王公中颇有地位的人物。他至少从 1596 年 15 岁开始参加喀尔喀王公的制定大小法典的重大政治活动。他是诺诺和卫征诸子 后裔中五子巴喀来和硕齐一支的独一无二的代表。在左翼诸位王公中，绰克图洪台 吉的地位排在土谢图汗（阿巴岱子孙）、昆都伦楚琥尔、岱青台吉（阿布琥子）、达 赖车臣洪台吉（即车臣汗）等人之后。绰克图洪台吉是当时喀尔喀左翼三个洪台吉 之一。《白桦法典》是真正的第一手资料，是地道的“遗留性史料”。该法典中王公的 名次，不是后人的安排，而是当时历史情况的真实反映，毋庸置疑。 关于绰克图洪台吉在喀尔喀的政治地位，土谢图汗察珲多尔济也曾谈及过。察 珲多尔济在 1687 年奏上康熙皇帝的折子中，列举历代土谢图汗的“丰功伟绩”，其中 讲道：“在这里，右翼有赖呼尔汗(Layiqur qaγan)、扎剌亦儿的乌巴锡洪台吉(Jalayir-un ubasi qung tayiji)、别速特的车臣济农(Besьd-ьn sečen jinong)，左翼有瓦齐赖汗 (Vačirai)、绰克图洪台吉(Čoγtu qung tayiji)、达赖济农(Dalai jinong)。[但是]在达赖济 农那儿来了很多察哈尔和阿巴噶的逃民，奉他为汗”1。据此，左翼的三大头目似乎分 别为土谢图汗、绰克图洪台吉和车臣汗，绰克图洪台吉在喀尔喀左翼的地位仅次于 土谢图汗，但是这个说法是不正确的。察珲多尔济这样说必定另有原因。实际上， 从 1588 年阿巴岱汗死到 1614 年衮布继土谢图汗之位，左翼的实力派人物一直是昆 都伦楚琥尔诺颜（即图门肯赛因诺颜），而在 1614 年以后的很长一段时间内，仅次 于土谢图汗的人物仍然还是昆都伦楚琥尔诺颜。1617 年的《白房子碑刻》就写道： 阿巴岱汗兄弟六个人，“在他们当中，像日月一样对教法和世俗大有恩惠的汗和楚琥 尔二人使［众生］享用幸福之时”2。可见，当时人们对昆都伦楚琥尔与阿巴岱汗是相 提并论的。岱青（洪）台吉、达赖车臣洪台吉（车臣汗）和绰克图洪台吉等三洪台 吉的地位排在楚琥尔之后。 对绰克图洪台吉在喀尔喀的宗教活动， 《白房子碑刻》提供了重要信息。据此碑 文，“和硕齐台吉之［夫人］青毕什列勒图三音玛迪太噶勒哈屯和绰克图台吉母子二 人，念无数众生之福，在土拉河富饶草原之北、哈勒都屯的济鲁肯山（Qaltud-un jirьken neretь aγula）之阳的干地上，从铁牛年（1601）腊月十五日起，建造‘不思议如意宝 刹’(setkisi ьgei indamani sьme)等六座寺庙，历时十七年，至火蛇年（1617）夏初月竣 《米拉列巴传》的翻 工”3。此外，绰克图台吉母子二人还请人翻译过不少佛教经典4， 译即是一个例子。绰克图台吉和他的母亲，曾与呼和浩特的寺院有过密切的关系， 这种关系也许与其舅父家和呼和浩特土默特的特殊关系有关。呼和浩特的顾实绰尔 1 《档子》，“瓦齐赖土谢图汗的奏折”，见宝音德力根 1999，pp.82-83。 胡特 1984，p．31。 3 波兹德涅夫 1896，pp.468-469。 4 共果尔 1970,p.212。 2 202 济喇嘛（Kцke qota-yin gььsi čorji blam-a）1618 年把《米拉列巴传》(Milaraiba-yin namtar) 译成了蒙古文。据他的译后跋文，绰克图台吉的母亲青太后哈屯以热心传播佛教而 著称，是一位抛弃一切恶业的集福之人，其子绰克图台吉是洞悉佛性，智慧过人而 信奉法门正道的人。他们二人委托绰尔济喇嘛翻译了这本传记1。可见，绰克图洪台 吉为在喀尔喀传播佛教花费了相当多的金钱和精力。 但是，绰克图台吉信奉的不是当时喀尔喀贵族们正在普遍接受的藏传佛教格鲁 派（俗称黄教），而是藏传佛教的噶玛噶举派（俗称红教）。 绰克图洪台吉与西藏的一位红教领袖沙玛尔兰占巴有过密切关系。 《水镜鉴》记 载，“其后又因藏地沙玛尔兰占巴的唆使，[绰克图]发动了毁灭黄教之事”。后来绰克 图洪台吉处死他的长子阿尔斯兰，也是因为这位沙玛尔兰占巴告发他背叛了父亲绰 克图2。沙玛尔，是藏语“红帽”（Zhwa dmar）的音译，兰占巴是有学问的佛教僧人的 头衔，所以，沙玛尔兰占巴当指红教的一位领袖人物无疑。绰克图洪台吉的信仰， 在他委托翻译的经卷和他所作的诗文中也有体现。比如，绰克图台吉请呼和浩特的 顾实绰尔济喇嘛翻译的《米拉列巴传》就是噶玛派高僧米拉列巴大师的传记，此人 被该派奉为圣人，他的传记是噶玛派的经典著作。绰克图洪台吉作于 1621 年的被称 作“绰克图台吉摩崖”（详后）的著名的诗，其哲理、风格、表现手段等等，实际上均 来此噶玛派经典之一、米拉列巴编著的《十万颂》中的诗歌，是一种模仿之作3。足 《白房子 见其对噶玛派经典的熟悉程度。除此之外，如冈田英弘氏早已指出的那样4， 碑刻》的藏文部分的作者为噶玛丁津斋巴诺尔布（Karma Ting ,dzin grags pa nor bu， 即噶玛派人丁津扎格巴诺尔布）；绰克图洪台吉的第五子被称为“噶玛派的扎安洪台 吉”(гarm-a jьg-in jaγan qung tayiji)；绰克图洪台吉与沙玛尔兰占巴有过密切交往。胡 特也指出，绰克图台吉建立的寺庙名称为“不可思议如意宝刹”，是藏文 bSam-yes 的 蒙古语译名，而 bSam-yes 就是红教名刹桑耶寺5。这些都证明，绰克图洪台吉信奉的 是噶玛教派。五世达赖喇嘛说，绰克图“汗伪称信奉噶举派，其实是信仰汉地的道教， 是一个想把佛教改变为外道的狂徒”6。这句话后来被蒙藏史家广泛引用。这显然缺乏 根据，是诋毁政敌的曲笔。不过，这句话透露了绰克图信奉噶玛教的噶玛噶举派的 1 达穆丁苏隆 1979,p.949。 《水晶鉴》，p.486。 3 呼尔勒巴特尔 1989，p．36。《十万颂》中收有一首诗，是米拉列巴的学生莱琼多尔济达格巴在 离开老师赴西藏时候写的。这首诗的大概意思是这样的：印度的河水和不丹的河水，虽然河床各异， 但是因为水的性质相同，都将汇聚在大海；东方升起的太阳和西方升空的月亮，虽然时间各异，但 是因为光的性质相同，都将存在于晴天；识一切的慧心和愚昧无知的心，虽然悟性各异，但是因为 觉悟的性质相同，都将开化于教法；恩师留居故土和学生留学异域，虽然生身各处，但是因为弘法 意志相同，都将相会在极乐净土。很明显，这实际上就是绰克图台吉摩崖所模仿的模式。 4 冈田 1968，p.122。 5 胡特 1894，p.60。 6 《五世传》，第一函（上），p．230。 2 203 真相。他的这一宗教信仰，对他后来的政治生涯产生了重大后果。 三 绰克图洪台吉的被驱逐与他在青海的所作所为 绰克图洪台吉的人生最后几年，硝烟弥漫、波澜万丈。 绰克图洪台吉的念经吟诗的生涯，因为林丹汗发动的南蒙古内战而发生了巨大 变化。 林丹汗（Ligdan qaγan，1604-1634 在位），是蒙古名义上的大汗。17 世纪初期， 蒙古社会处于四分五裂的状态，蒙古诸万户各自为政，互不同属。这时，女真-满洲 人兴起在蒙古以东，建立爱新国（Aisin gurun,1616-1636），并与科尔沁、内五喀尔喀 等东南蒙古各部建立了反察哈尔、反明朝的政治军事同盟。林丹汗采取了先统一右 翼蒙古诸万户，以此为基础，与满洲人对抗的策略。为此，1627 年，林丹汗率领大 汗直属的察哈尔万户(Čaqar tьmen)从今天内蒙古的东部向西迁移，仅仅一年时间，完 全控制了东自兴安岭西至黄河的广大地区。就在这时，为了逃避战乱，从察哈尔和 右翼蒙古有很多人北越瀚海逃到了喀尔喀。比如，此时从察哈尔和阿巴噶有大批难 民逃到了喀尔喀东部的硕垒洪台吉领地，硕垒势力壮大，称“马哈萨马蒂车臣汗(Maq-a samadi sečen qaγan)”，喀尔喀始有三汗。可见，察哈尔战争对喀尔喀蒙古影响之巨大。 然而，喀尔喀王公贵族对南蒙古难民的去留和归属并不是听之任之。为了争夺 那些没有领主的逃民，喀尔喀王公掀起了一场内战。绰克图作为有势力的洪台吉， 也抛掉念珠，拿起屠刀，参加了这场战争，结果大吃败仗。随后，1634 年被逐出喀 尔喀，来到了青海。关于这次内战的真实情况，诸书均未记载。但是，根据 1614 年 秋天绰克图洪台吉亲自参加制定的《甲寅年秋法典》第一条就规定，如果王公们相 互残杀，要流放杀人的王公，并没收他的兀鲁思进行分配，一半判给被杀王公一家1。 绰克图被驱逐这件事说明，发动这次内战的罪魁祸首，无疑是绰克图洪台吉本人。 《青 海史》中说绰克图台吉“发动内战，破坏法规”2，指的就是此事。他触犯了法律，面 临了受到科以流放并没收财产的刑罚。但是，绰克图洪台吉率领自己的领民去了青 海，与其说是被流放，还不如说是逃跑。 绰克图洪台吉为什么跑到了青海？有人说，是因为他和林丹汗有约在先，要到 青海会师，进行反满洲人斗争。但是，没有任何一种资料——蒙、满、汉、藏—— 可以证明这一点。这一点后面还要探讨。其实，绰克图洪台吉去青海，是和他的宗 教信仰有密切关系。如前所说，他与西藏的噶玛派首脑人物沙玛尔兰占巴有过密切 关系。当他走投无路的时候，逃往西藏，企图得到噶玛派的保护，是不难理解的。 出于政治宗教上的需要，噶玛派也曾招徕绰克图洪台吉。这是一方面，也是主要的 1 2 《白桦法典》，p.42。 《青海史》，P.11。 204 一方面。另一个方面，这件事与当时喀尔喀蒙古贵族之间的宗教派系的区别也有一 定的关联。喀尔喀贵族多尔济车臣济农在 1687 年上康熙皇帝的奏折中，追忆了那次 喀尔喀内战。他说，“绰克图台吉得罪于七和硕，攻击满珠习礼库伦(Manjusiri-yin kьriyen)，去了青海，再杀死了呼土克图，攻破多罗土默特人(Doluγan tьmed)，对我 们做了坏事”1。可见，绰克图台吉在喀尔喀攻击的不仅是世俗贵族，而且还有格鲁派 寺院。他攻击了满珠习礼寺，并绑架和杀害了满珠习礼呼土克图。这件事说明，绰 克图台吉在喀尔喀的时候就仇视格鲁派，这可能造成了他在喀尔喀王公中的孤立2。 绰克图洪台吉率部到青海后，遇到了盘踞在那里的多罗土默特的火落赤(Qoloči)3 部。这时的青海土默特势力已经四分五裂，没有任何战斗力，因此绰克图洪台吉轻 而易举地得到了青海，就留居在那里，被喀尔喀和土默特人奉为汗王。但是，青海 土默特是格鲁派（黄教）的传统盟友和施主，绰克图洪台吉消灭了他们，无异于向 西藏格鲁派宣了战。当时，在西藏本土，藏传佛教的红教与黄教的斗争空前激烈。 红教依靠以丹忠旺布(Bstan-skyon bdan-po)为首的后藏世俗政权，黄教依靠拉萨河流 域的部分贵族和蒙古外来武装。17 世纪 30 年代，双方的斗争已至白热化程度。所以， 红教势力极力招徕和争取绰克图台吉，他很自然地被卷进了西藏教派斗争的漩涡。 当时，后藏的藏巴汗丹忠旺布汗和安多地区苯教首领白利土司（名栋月多尔济， Don-yod rdo-rje)建立了反格鲁巴联盟，绰克图台吉自然参加了这个联盟。 据五世达赖喇嘛说，绰克图台吉在青藏地区打击的首先是支持格鲁派的土默特 和喀尔喀蒙古武装。先根据《五世达赖喇嘛传》记载，看看事实的经过（括弧里是 引者注；省略号由引者所加；不在引号里的是引者据原文记载概括的部分） ：1631 年， “大批的蒙古人来到了达木地方（腾格里湖畔的草原），霍尔上下部（藏北三十九族） 的人马在绒地方结集。对此藏巴第悉（藏巴汗）感到惶惶不安。不久陆续进藏的有： 以喀尔喀阿克岱青为首的近千名喀尔喀人，墨日根诺颜率领的三百多名厄鲁特人（卫 拉特人，即西蒙古人），……以拉尊穷瓦和古茹洪台吉弥桑（火落赤的儿子们）为首 的三百多名土默特人。……第一批来到拉萨的僧俗人员中的高贵者，被安置在甘丹 颇章的大厅里，那些平民被安排在德阳庭院中，按照蒙古人的风俗，举行了盛大的 1 《档子》，“多尔济车臣济农的奏折”，见图雅 2004，pp.19-20。 当时，喀尔喀绝大多数王公都信仰格鲁派。绰克图台吉的所作所为，不可能不引起他们的不满。 再说，在西藏发生的噶玛派迫害格鲁派和达赖喇嘛的行为，也不可能不伤害喀尔喀信徒们的宗教感 情。这样情况下，绰克图的孤立不是不可想象的。但是，把这次内战的原因完全归咎于宗教斗争是 不可接受的。绰克图洪台吉在 17 年间建立六座寺庙，翻译大量噶玛派经卷等活动，并没有遭到非 难。绰克图洪台吉被驱逐后，他的幼子扎安洪台吉留居故土，一直以“噶玛派的扎安洪台吉”著称， 可见他的信仰并没有因为他的父亲受到歧视或改变。还比如，第一世哲布尊丹巴胡土克图的前世是 觉囊派大师答喇纳塔，胡土克图本人也对佛教各教派一视同仁。如果教派斗争果真十分激烈的话， 这些事情是不可能发生的。 3 火落赤，是达延汗之子阿尔斯博罗特的孙子。他 16 世纪末移居青海，1588 年迁到黄河以南，以 蟒剌川、捏工川为根据地。17 世纪 20 年代，青海土默特人多次内讧，火落赤势力明显削弱。 2 205 宴会。那位阿克岱青有许多厄鲁特人（疑是喀尔喀之误——原译者注）军兵拥簇着， 如临阵迎战一样，显示军威。霍尔上中下三部的人们，都称他是格萨尔的化身”。喀 尔喀和厄鲁特的首领都邀请五世达赖喇嘛到蒙古地方去。五世达赖喇嘛“给阿克岱青 传授了十一面依怙随许法和珠杰派的长寿灌顶法”。1632 年夏天，“喀尔喀蒙古人击 败了霍尔上部和雅弥格如，藏巴第悉为了抵御外侮，准备召集十三万户（全藏）的 军队与之对抗”。同年，在藏巴汗的请求下，经班禅大师调停，双方和解。八月份以 后，移居藏北的永邵卜人头目到拉萨朝拜。1633 年冬天，也有永邵卜人的首领到大 昭寺朝拜。1634 年七八月间，“阿尔斯兰（绰克图台吉之子）诱骗阿克岱青，自相残 杀，制造了事端。……从前，蒙古六大部落的所有首领都是同一血统，除了在战争 中互有伤害外，从来没有互相残杀的行为。但是，察哈尔的林丹汗和却图（绰克图） 汗二人，却开创了罪过的先例”。1635 年秋，“喀尔喀蒙古却图汗之子阿尔斯兰，带 领上万军队来到达木，一举击破了永邵卜四部”。“在此以前，大批蒙古人涌入西藏。 阿尔斯兰根据他们父子与红帽然坚巴达成的协议，就同藏巴汗合为一气，决定由萨 当巴占据拉萨、拔绒巴占据热振，彻底消灭格鲁派，做噶玛巴和主巴噶举派的施主， 而对萨迦派等众多小教派则漠不关心。正如拉孜猴妃与松脂的故事一样，他对格鲁 派的所有僧人进行迫害”。十月间，五世达赖喇嘛与阿尔斯兰之间 “建立了较深的关 系”，沙玛尔兰占巴与阿尔斯兰的同盟发生裂痕。冬末，阿尔斯兰的军队左翼开往直 贡，右翼抵达后藏的北部，矛头指向了藏巴汗。1636 年初，阿尔斯兰进入拉萨，背 叛父王的意志，去甘丹康萨宫，朝拜达赖喇嘛。是年，“伦布台吉（不详）和红帽系 然坚巴（即沙玛尔兰占巴）二人，从西藏派去信使，询问却图汗：‘你儿子阿尔斯兰 不遵父命，应如何办理？’却图汗答道：‘诱而杀之！’结果，正当阿尔斯兰被征讨白 利土司时所截获的财务，弄得昏头昏脑之时，阿尔斯兰及其随侍三人同时被杀”1。 归纳起来可知：1631 年，阿克岱青率领的近千名喀尔喀人、几百名土默特人和 卫拉特人到了西藏拉萨，显然是受到了格鲁派的邀请，赴藏保护格鲁派的。此后， 阿克岱青的喀尔喀人一直留居西藏，打击亲噶玛派的霍尔人，与藏巴汗对阵。1632 年和 1633 年，蒙古的永邵卜部落首领也陆续到拉萨，他们是格鲁派的传统盟友。1634 年，绰克图台吉派他儿子杀死了喀尔喀护法势力首脑阿克岱青，次年又令阿尔斯兰 率领万余部队入藏，消灭了永邵卜人。他与噶玛派首领沙玛尔兰占巴达成协议，决 定和藏巴汗一起彻底消灭格鲁派。但是，因为阿尔斯兰的背叛，计划变成泡影，绰 克图台吉气急败坏，处死了儿子。这些事情说明，绰克图台吉为了消灭格鲁派，不 惜杀害同宗的阿克岱青、同族的永邵卜人，甚至不惜杀死亲生儿子。 《五世达赖喇嘛传》的可信性，得到了 17 世纪蒙古文档案资料的充分证实。1687 年喀尔喀蒙古王公奏上康熙皇帝的奏折，透露了这方面的重要消息。据兀良哈的额 1 《五世传》，第一函（上），p．188-189；191-192；197；211-212；215；220-221；229。 206 尔克卫征诺颜(Uriyangqan-u erke ьyijeng noyan)的奏折，卫拉特和喀尔喀约定要征讨 绰克图台吉，因为，绰克图台吉“对政教作了害。杀害了亲族的阿海岱青(Aqai dayičing)”。当卫拉特出兵时，喀尔喀没有出兵，只有喀尔喀西部的兀良哈鄂托克出 兵参加了征战1 。莫尔根济农(Mergen jinong)的奏折里说，“初，土伯特哈坦巴图尔 (Tцbed qadan baγatur)的长子洪辉车臣济农(Qongqui sečen jinong)，[车臣]济农的长子 车臣楚琥尔(Sečen čцgцkцr)和楚琥尔阿海(Čцgцkцr aqai)二人，前往西藏，欲谒见班禅、 达赖喇嘛，[但是]楚琥尔在途中仙逝。[楚琥尔]阿海和[车臣]楚琥尔的孩子们一起叩 拜[班禅、达赖]而返回时，绰克图引发战争，离七和硕而去，攻杀了[楚琥尔]阿海。 这时，[楚琥尔阿海的]十位臣下在两个多尔济(qoyar dorji)中带小的回来。因为绰克图 有错，所以，顾实汗(Gьsi qaγan)、巴图尔洪台吉(Baγatur qung tayiji)为首的诸诺颜和 蒙古的两个宾图(qoyar bingtь)出兵将他消灭”2。喀尔喀的别速特鄂托克首领多尔济车 臣济农(Dorji sečen jinong)在他上康熙皇帝的奏折中也提到，“初，作为大济农八个儿 子的长者们，车臣楚琥尔、阿海岱青二人，身先其他任何人，以教法善道护持三圣， 因此得到上面（指达赖喇嘛）的大慈悲的印信。当［他们二人］返回时，绰克图台 吉得罪于七和硕，攻击满珠习礼库伦，去了青海，再杀死了胡土克图，攻破多罗土 默特人，对我们做了坏事”3。这里提到的阿海岱青，或叫楚琥尔阿海的人，是绰克图 台吉的亲族侄儿。格埒森扎的二子诺颜泰哈坦巴图尔，其子土伯特哈坦巴图尔，其 子车臣济农，其子即阿海岱青（楚琥尔阿海）。《五世达赖喇嘛传》记载中的阿克岱 青，就是这位阿海岱青。 1636 年，格鲁派高层决定向西蒙古人（卫拉特人）求援，派出了以三世温萨活 佛（Dben-sa,蒙古人称之为尹咱胡土克图 Injan qutuγtu）罗卜藏丹津扎木措(Blo-bzang -bstan-sin rgiya-mtso)为首的使团4。以顾实汗和巴图尔洪台吉为首的卫拉特联军和部 分喀尔喀军队，于 1637 年远征青海，打败了绰克图台吉。据《五世达赖喇嘛传》说， 联军以一万多兵力，一举歼灭了绰克图台吉的近三万军队5。绰克图台吉被捕。史书 没有记载他的下落，可能被卫拉特联军杀死了。 四 小结 通过以上事实可以得出这样的结论：绰克图台吉是诺诺和卫征之子巴喀来和硕 齐的独生子，在鄂尔浑、土拉河流域拥有大兀鲁思，是 17 世纪前期喀尔喀左翼的重 要首领之一。他经常参加喀尔喀的制定法典等重大政治活动，1614 年成为左翼三个 1 《档子》，“喀尔喀的兀良哈的额尔克卫征诺颜的奏折”，见乌云毕力格 2003，p.67。 《档子》，“莫尔根济农的奏折”，见乌云毕力格 2003，p. 64。 3 《档子》，“多尔济车臣济农的奏折”，见图雅 2004，p.19。 4 乌云毕力格 1993，p. 5 《五世传》，第一函（上），P.229。 2 207 洪台吉之一。绰克图台吉有学问，善于创造诗歌。绰克图台吉信奉藏传佛教噶玛噶 举派，和他的母亲一起，出资建造了六座佛寺，并请人翻译了不少佛典。17 世纪 30 年代，因为察哈尔的战乱，有很多南蒙古难民逃到喀尔喀。为了争夺他们，绰克图 台吉在喀尔喀掀起了内战。据当时蒙古法律，绰克图台吉面临了被科以流放和被没 收兀鲁思的刑罚。因此，绰克图台吉利用同西藏噶举派首领沙玛尔兰占巴的关系， 逃出喀尔喀，奔西藏。在途中，打败了青海的土默特蒙古人，征服了青海，统治青 海地面，被奉为“绰克图汗”。此后，和后藏的藏巴汗、安多的白利土司结为联盟，从 事迫害格鲁派和打击格鲁派靠山的活动，派儿子阿尔斯兰入藏，前后消灭了入藏保 护达赖喇嘛的喀尔喀贵族阿海岱青、入藏支持格鲁派的永邵卜四王子，最后杀死了 与格鲁派结盟的亲生儿子阿尔斯兰。1637 年，顾实汗为首的卫拉特—喀尔喀联军为 了支援格鲁派而来到青海，一举消灭了绰克图。这就是历史上的绰克图洪台吉。 第二部 从民族的敌人到民族英雄 以上，论述了绰克图台吉一生的事迹。下面，再考察一下在他死后 300 多年的 历史上，蒙古人是怎样记载这个历史人物的？在蒙古人的公共记忆中绰克图台吉是 什么样的一个形象？为什么？ 正如下文将要叙述的那样，绰克图台吉在历史上具有完全相反的两个形象：一 个是蒙古政教的敌人，一个是保卫蒙古独立的民族英雄和爱国主义者。对同样一个 历史人物的如此水火不相容的、黑白相对立的记忆是怎样形成的呢？ 一 关于绰克图台吉的传统记忆 从 17 世纪 30 年代到 20 世纪 20 年代，也就是说，从绰克图台吉死去的 1637 年 到蒙古人民共和国成立的 1924 年，将近 300 年间，蒙古人对绰克图台吉的记忆是一 成不变。这期间的绰克图台吉的形象，就是民族的敌人。 五世达赖喇嘛著《西藏王臣记》，成为了构建封建时期绰克图台吉公共记忆的纲 领性文献。该书的最后一章记述了消灭绰克图台吉的顾实汗的事迹。顾实汗不仅消 灭了迫害格鲁巴的绰克图台吉，而且还消灭了康区的苯教头目和后藏的藏巴汗等反 格鲁巴势力，赋予格鲁巴以西藏第一教派的地位，使达赖喇嘛君临西藏。在五世达 赖喇嘛的著作中，包括绰克图台吉在内的以上提到的反面人物以格鲁巴的教法敌人 的身份出现。该书记载：察哈尔发生了内乱，一些人逃到了喀尔喀，“而［喀尔喀］ 首领内部，互相争夺，喀尔喀却图（绰克图）被驱逐，逃于青海。诚如谚语有云：‘罪 恶地区降宝雨’，却图暂时反增长权势，其心遂受魔使，滋生骄横，大肆破坏佛教， 尤以对宗喀巴大师教法，更生邪念，图谋破坏”1。这里，绰克图台吉记忆的基本模型 1 《王臣记》，p.177。 208 已经出台。那就是，绰克图台吉既是喀尔喀的背叛者，又是宗喀巴教法的敌人。 据前文考证，五世达赖喇嘛的说法与绰克图台吉的事迹并不相矛盾。但是，问 题在于，这也不是绰克图台吉一生事迹的全部。有关记忆理论认为，忘却是记忆的 重要组成部分。为了构建一种记忆，必须忘却不利于对此记忆宗旨的一切因素。五 世达赖喇嘛写顾实汗和其他西藏王臣传记，目的在于通过对他们事迹的叙述，统一 信徒们对西藏和藏传佛教历史的认识，构建对西藏历史的公共记忆。绰克图台吉不 过是这个叙述中的一个插曲，一个反面人物。因此，除了绰克图台吉对格鲁巴的迫 害，五世达赖喇嘛不可能、不必要也不允许全面记载绰克图台吉的所有事迹。这样， 绰克图台吉在西藏政教史的叙述中，作为敌人出现，这也就决定了蒙古人心中对绰 克图台吉记忆的基调。 众所周知，17 世纪以后到 20 世纪初的蒙古的国家与宗教，完全在藏传佛教格鲁 巴教法的影响下。该时期，藏传佛教在蒙古社会意识形态中的霸权地位是无容置疑 的。在那时，蒙古人往往以是否符合“政教二道”的原则来衡量历史人物的得失。绰克 图台吉在格鲁派的存亡关键时刻迫害它，又受到达赖喇嘛的亲笔讨伐，因此，他在 封建时期蒙古人历史记忆中的形象和地位，就不言而喻了。 在构建那时候的绰克图台吉的公共记忆方面，蒙古史学扮演了相当重要的角色。 这里首推青海蒙古出身的喇嘛学者松巴堪布·伊西巴勒珠尔。他在《青海史》中写道： “那时，在以内蒙古六盟著称的[地方的]主要法规里[规定]，只在交战时期分发武器， 而没有在部落和和硕里内讧以及把俘获的人像羊一样屠宰的恶习。[但是]在林丹汗和 麻子绰克图两个坏诺颜的时候，传开了 [这个恶习]。在第十一绕迥的土龙年（1628） ， 林丹汗破坏成吉思汗的内六个盟的主要法规，察哈尔发生了内讧，杀害了许多人， 为了成为迫害黄帽派者的朋友而向西方来的途中，毁掉遇到的土默特和鄂尔多斯的 一些部落。木狗年（1634），坏诺颜麻子绰克图发动内战，破坏法规，［因此］诸喀 尔喀流放了他。 ［他］来到青海，取了土默特的火落赤及其部属，住在那里，以青海 麻子汗著称”。“后藏的藏巴汗消灭黄帽派，安多的白利汗杀害了多数信奉佛教的喇嘛 和官人，绰克图汗杀死和监禁了许多黄帽派喇嘛。因为他们切断了信徒众人去往天 堂（指西藏）之路，所以宗喀巴教法衰微”1。 伊西巴勒丹在《宝贝念珠》中写道：“察哈尔汗所领蒙古六大和硕中，有的人逃 跑了。这时，因为诺颜们内部不和睦的原因，喀尔喀的绰克图从自己的地方被驱逐， 来到[青海]湖畔，征服安多属地，一时势力强盛，对所有的教法，尤其是对黄教尽其 所能地进行了迫害”2。 布里亚特蒙古人托因固什传也写道：绰克图“在喀尔喀四部内掀起内讧，产生恶 1 2 《青海史》，p.11-12；13-14。 转引自共果尔 1970，p.431。 209 念，未能和平相处，因此被驱逐。因为和察哈尔林丹汗志同道合，迫害西藏黄教， 进行战争，所以额鲁特的顾实汗征讨林丹汗和绰克图诺颜，使他们连同其军队彻底 粉粹了”1。 内蒙古乌拉特人津巴多尔济的《水晶鉴》记载：“从前，因为林丹汗无道，林丹 汗所属蒙古部落中许多部落避入喀尔喀。 ［为此］蒙古诺颜们发生内讧，麻子绰克图 被喀尔喀驱逐，来到青海湖畔，征伐叫做和硕齐的诺颜，取而代之。后来，听从藏 地方的沙马尔兰占巴的话，希望消灭黄教”。“当时，喀尔喀的叫做麻子绰克图的一个 武断的人占领青海额鲁特，拥有四万军队。林丹汗与之勾结。还有白利地方的敦月 特汗不喜欢佛法，和他也沟通。所以，林丹汗、藏汗、白利汗和麻子绰克图这四个 诺颜联合，将要消灭黄教的时候，天聪八年，因为持教法王的愤怒，林丹汗在叫做 沙剌塔拉的地方去世。这迫害教法的四个恶诺颜中，林丹汗和藏汗不喜欢黄教，好 红教。白利汗不信奉任何教法，喜欢苯教。麻子绰克图也不喜欢黄教，好汉地道教”2。 这些仅仅是较为代表性的历史著作对绰克图台吉的叙述，此外还有不少类似的 记载。看来，绰克图台吉在内外蒙古、卫拉特和布里亚特等全体蒙古人的记忆中留 下了同样的一个形象，即蒙古政教史上的罪人。他掀起了内战，破坏了法规；他迫 害了黄教，威胁了圣教。他是蒙古政教二道的叛逆者。绰克图台吉建造寺庙、翻译 佛经等的善事，早已被人们忘得一干二净。 在蒙古口传文学中，绰克图台吉同样留下了骂名。在绰克图台吉的家乡有不少 有关他的传说。解释绰克图台吉居住的白房子为什么是白色的传说中讲到，是因为 他用女人的乳汁搅拌了泥土。解释地名“七座丘陵”（Doloon dobon）的传说中讲到， 因为洪台吉的七个夫人不和睦，互相攘沙子，形成了七座丘陵。还有一个传说，说 绰克图台吉向达赖喇嘛磕了头，达赖喇嘛赐给了他一顶帽子。绰克图台吉不予理会， 垫坐在屁股下面，因此洪台吉的便道就从此被堵了。直到现在，在民间称绰克图台 吉为“没有直肠的洪台吉”之说。绰克图台吉处死他儿子的事，也在传说故事中得到了 反映。有两种传说：第一种传说讲，绰克图台吉建造了一个宫殿，问一位喇嘛，应 该用什么东西祭为好？喇嘛说，用大象好。因为蒙古地方没有大象，绰克图台吉杀 死他的叫做大象（蒙古语叫扎安，绰克图台吉的一位儿子名叫扎安）的儿子祭了宫 殿。第二种传说讲到，绰克图台吉听信一位巫师，说如果把狮子的尸体带到白房子 来就可免灾，他便杀死了他自己的名叫狮子（蒙古语叫阿尔斯兰，绰克图台吉的一 个儿子名叫阿尔斯兰）的儿子，把尸体带到了白房子3。 在这些传说中，绰克图台吉是一个残不人道的、没有信仰的恶魔。他的这个大 众文学里的形象，其实和前面叙述的史家著作中的形象，完全是同出一辙。这说明， 1 转引自共果尔 1970，p.433。 《水晶鉴》，p.485。 3 达什敦多格 1992，PP.20-21。 2 210 在传统的绰克图台吉叙述模式中，他就是政教的敌人。这是在藏传佛教格鲁派（黄 教）的意识形态下形成的对绰克图台吉的公共记忆。 二 当今蒙古国民公共记忆中的绰克图台吉 然而，就是这位绰克图台吉，到了蒙古人民共和国时代，突然得到了新的生命， 以崭新的形象重新登上了历史舞台：绰克图台吉变成了为保卫蒙古的独立而战斗的 民族英雄和反满洲人入侵的“爱国主义者”。而且，绰克图台吉的这一创造出来的形象 很快就代替了他的历史真面貌。一直到今天，绰克图台吉在蒙古国民的公共记忆中 保持着这个被创造出来的伟大形象。 英国马克思主义历史学家艾利克· 霍布斯鲍姆(Eric Hobsbawm)写了一本名叫《传 统的发明》(Invention of tradition)的书。他指出，被发明的“传统”是一种建构的、制 度化的传统，是一种在相当短的时间内可以创造出来的东西。这种传统的产生，被 显在的或者潜在的规则所制约。为了把特定的价值或者规范灌输到人们的思想里去， 要创造传统，并以各种礼仪和象征来暗示该传统与历史之间的连续性，尽管这种连 续性往往不会历史地存在1。 绰克图台吉的“新形象”，本质上就是一种“创造的传统”。这个创造的目的，是为 了给当时蒙古国民进行爱国教育，提高蒙古人民的民族意识。这件事情，只有拿到 1940 年代第二次世界大战时期的苏联、蒙古和日本的历史大舞台上去分析，才能得 到全面正确的解答。 （一）剧本《绰克图台吉》和同名电影 事情要从剧本《绰克图台吉》讲起。 1944 年，蒙古人民共和国著名学者和著名作家宾巴金· 仁钦(Bimbagiin Rinchin) 和苏联俄罗斯人塔里齐(Yu. Tarichi)两人编写了一部电影剧本——《绰克图台吉》。剧 本一开始，就写道：“为了弘扬为祖国的自由和独立而奋斗者、开化人民的智慧者、 战斗英雄和诗人的美名，我们将这部电影献给他的历史”。接着，银幕上要推出“绰克 图台吉”两个蒙古文金色大字，这既是电影剧本的主人公，又是电影名。这个开场白， 是作者对绰克图台吉一生的评价和定位。 下面，简单介绍一下这部剧本的故事梗概。 蒙古林丹汗和满洲俺巴海车臣汗（指天聪汗）进行战争，因为蒙古诺颜投敌， 林丹汗兵败。林丹汗发誓为祖国的自由战斗到底，并派人将祖传宝剑送给绰克图台 吉，请他率领军队前来援助。林丹汗说：“绰克图台吉成为我们祖国的惟一依托”。 达赖喇嘛的使者来到了俺巴海车臣汗那里。他说，林丹汗虽然大势已去，但是， 1 霍布斯鲍姆 1983，p.1-3。 211 在喀尔喀还有一个可怕的绰克图台吉。俺巴海车臣汗封达赖喇嘛为全蒙藏黄教领袖， 黄教答应协助满洲人征服蒙古。 在喀尔喀进行着七和硕诺颜大会盟。会盟上，不仅有喀尔喀王公，而且还有和 硕特顾实汗和已经投降满洲的漠南蒙古诺颜，甚至还有满洲贵族多尔衮。会盟宣布 了弘扬黄教的法典，迈达礼活佛和王公贵族大加赞赏，绰克图台吉和人民群众愤怒 反抗，随后发展成为一场械斗。 绰克图台吉和母亲青太后生活在书香飘溢的艺术品一般的白色楼房里。这里有 图书馆，有秘书训练班，有琵琶，有佛经，还有精通中国文史的李先生。图门肯诺 颜、迈达礼活佛和顾实汗得知绰克图台吉带领军队出去打猎，派顾实汗突袭白楼， 杀死老小，焚烧了白楼。绰克图台吉为了不削弱兵力，不使蒙古陷入内战，决定不 进行报复，宣布“我们要和主要的敌人满洲人作战”，率领所部，离开故土，为和林丹 汗会师而去。 林丹汗的军营里天花流行，士兵们患病而死。林丹汗把成吉思汗的黄金印玺藏 在山岩缝里。绰克图台吉来见林丹汗，林丹汗对绰克图台吉说：“把蒙古国家的命运 要托付给你了。我把成吉思汗的黄金印玺交给你。我把他藏在那里了”，想告诉绰克 图台吉藏印玺的秘密地方，但是已经无力再说下去，不幸逝世。绰克图台吉发誓要 征战支持满洲人的黄教首府拉萨，进军西藏。绰克图台吉命令儿子阿尔斯兰为先锋 军统帅，攻打拉萨。阿海岱青等支持黄教的军队失利。此时，达赖喇嘛、班禅喇嘛、 辅政第巴和满洲代表多尔衮密商对策。最后，决定使用“美人计”，派人送美丽无比的 松赞堪布第三十六代公主杜拉玛到阿尔斯兰军营。为了娶杜拉玛为夫人，阿尔斯兰 到布达拉宫拜见达赖喇嘛，“背叛了祖国”。绰克图台吉下令处死了阿尔斯兰。 最后，绰克图台吉率领的军队与顾实汗和西藏联军进行激烈战斗，绰克图台吉 被顾实汗射死。绰克图台吉的最后一句话：“绰克图台吉虽死，但他的蒙古国将永存”。 绰克图台吉的印有索永布图案的大旗逐渐被蒙古人民共和国的国旗所代替1。 诚如二木指出的那样，剧本中的绰克图台吉“和林丹汗的关系、绰克图台吉对西 藏佛教的态度以及他的民族主义意识形态，与史实大相径庭”2。严格地说，《绰克图 台吉》不是历史剧，而是一部故事剧。17 世纪时期的重要历史人物虽然大都登场了， 但只不过是他们的名字和影子，至于他们的灵魂，则完全被偷换了。一生崇信和支 持藏传佛教噶玛噶举派，因为政治需要疯狂迫害过藏传佛教格鲁派的绰克图台吉， 被打扮成了反佛教“英雄”。为了争夺林丹汗的属民而引起内战，被逐出喀尔喀的绰克 图台吉，变成了林丹汗准备将“国家的命运”和“成吉思汗的黄金印玺”托付给他的人 物。绰克图台吉不是被逐出喀尔喀，而是应林丹汗的邀请，为了给林丹汗“助一臂之 1 2 《朝克》1944-2，pp.19-43；1944-3/4，pp.32-51。 二木 1987，p.15。 212 力”而离乡背井。别说抵抗满洲人，连满洲人是什么模样都未曾见过，倒是以喀尔喀、 土默特、永邵卜、卫拉特等蒙古人集团为仇敌的绰克图台吉，被授予了“抵抗满洲入 侵者、保卫祖国的自由与独立的英雄”称号。为此，杜撰和大力渲染西藏格鲁派上层 与满洲爱新国之间的以牺牲蒙古独立为代价的勾当。 这部电影脚本于 1944 年在《朝克》(Čoγ／Tsog)杂志上连载发表。到了第二年， 该剧本被拍成历史故事影片，搬上了银幕上。如前所说，电影剧本的作者是宾巴金·仁 钦（1905-1977），是著名的语言学家、民俗学家、小说家、诗人和翻译大师，和达穆 丁苏隆(Damdinsurun)一起，被誉为 20 世纪蒙古两大学者。他也是知名的民族主义者。 电影作曲是达木鼎苏伦(Damdinsurun)和木鲁道尔济(Murdorj)，美术制作是噶瓦 (Gawa)，三人都是代表蒙古国家水准的大艺术家，尤其是前两个人是为蒙古国歌谱 曲而闻名。扮演绰克图台吉的演员为擦噶尼·策格米德(Tsagani Tsegmid)，是蒙古首屈 一指的男演员。担任导演的是苏联俄罗斯人塔里齐和蒙古导演罗卜桑扎木苏 (Luvsanjams)与宝勒道(Bold)三人。摄影为济格济德(Jigjid)等三位。济格济德后来成 为蒙古首屈一指的大导演1。可见，为了制作这部电影，蒙古艺术界投入了最精炼的 队伍，做出了最大的努力。效果确实非常不错，成为了蒙古电影史上的精品，直到 今天仍有很大的感染力和欣赏价值。 但是，令人感兴趣和迷惑不解的是，在民族主义成为禁忌，连成吉思汗的名字 都不能随便提及的蒙古人民共和国，在 19 世纪 40 年代，为什么像《绰克图台吉》 这样充满民族主义的文艺作品突然登场，并且蒙古国家方面尽倾本国电影艺术积蓄， 大力支持和渲染这部作品呢？ 关于这个问题，二木氏在十多年以前就一针见血地指出，“绰克图台吉[这部电 影]，实质上是以对抗军国主义日本，提高民族意识为目的被创作的”2。果真如此。 这部电影作品的出现，与当时的国际形势，尤其是和当时的日本帝国主义对苏联的 觊觎有关。 众所周知，1932 年，日本在中国东北建立了所谓的“满洲国”。“满洲国”直接与 苏联和蒙古人民共和国为邻。1936 年，日本陆军参谋本部制定了《对苏战争指导计 划大纲》，企图迫使苏联承认“大蒙古国之建设”，要陆军“强化平时进行的内蒙古工作， 唆使外蒙古背叛苏联，以此威胁敌人之侧面，同时确立大蒙古国之基础”3。1939 年， 在苏联和日本之间发生了著名的诺门罕战争。鉴于上述形势，苏联政府认识到，为 了对抗日本军国主义，有必要提高蒙古的民族意识，加强蒙古的爱国主义教育。 《绰 克图台吉》就是在这样的政治、历史背景下被创造的。从根本上讲，民族主义这个 对苏联控制蒙古的不利因素，因为战时政治的特殊需要，一时变成了保卫苏联的具 1 二木 1987，p.15。 二木 1987，p.17。 3 二木 2003，p.360。 2 213 有价值的东西。 1943 年 4 月 8 日，蒙古人民革命党中央委员会主席团第 29 次会议通过决议，批 评了中央文艺部的工作，认为，文艺部没有组织好作家们进行歌颂无限热爱祖国和 建设祖国的文艺创造工作。决议提出：“党中央主席团就以上提到的不足之处向作家 们提出主意，号召他们精心创作符合我们的时代和我们的人民的文学，创造出可以 成为培养人民产生爱国觉悟的有力武器的、战斗的、爱国主义的、美好的文艺模范 作品”1。为了响应党中央的决议，1944 年，蒙古作家协会创办了新的文艺季刊—— 《朝克》。新诞生的《朝克》杂志有什么目的和任务呢？该杂志刊登了“‘朝克’杂志的 目的”一文，向蒙古作家们明确提出了四大创造任务：“第一，更加发扬人民的爱国之 情。其中包括描写地方的美丽情景，写作与祖国有关的历史事件；第二，更加弘扬 蒙古的英雄天赋，培养人民更加大无畏；第三，增多作为蒙古人民主要生活［来源］ 《朝克》最 的牲畜；第四，为亲爱的大哥苏联能够战胜敌人作出贡献”2。特别清楚， 重要的目的，就是要宣传爱国主义。仁钦的《绰克图台吉》就是此时创作，并连载 在该季刊的第 2 号和第 3-4 连号上的。 就这样，为了满足特定的意识形态的需求，在国家级的文化霸权的操作下，凭 借仁钦的文学权威和策格米德的艺术天才，绰克图台吉在他死后的 300 年以后，得 到了他生前从未得到过的荣誉。一个神话，一个“传统”，由此突然诞生。在强大的和 大众化的文学、艺术渲染下，绰克图台吉的“历史”被蒙古国民记了下来，并一代又一 代地“记忆下去”，到今天，至少到了第三代了。 需要指出的是，作者仁钦的初衷倒并不一定是要人为地“创造”出一个民族英雄， 让大家去崇拜。对仁钦这位民族主义者来说，更重要的恐怕是借机告白自己对蒙古 国家传统和独立地位的历史思考。他借绰克图台吉的口说到，南蒙古的贵族们以自 由交换了帽子顶上的石头块（指清代王公顶戴） ，成为了满洲人的奴婢。因为他们的 变节，林丹汗兵败身亡。仁钦又借林丹汗的口说，在这个国家兴亡的关键时刻，绰 克图台吉成为了蒙古的惟一依托，因此准备把成吉思汗的黄金印玺交给他。仁钦还 特别安排了一个情节，满洲天聪汗因为未能得到成吉思汗的印玺，处死了他的将军。 这无非是想说，满洲虽然征服了蒙古，但是蒙古国家的正统却一直留在蒙古，这个 正统的惟一依托就是喀尔喀。满洲人和西藏佛教黄帽派串通一气，破坏蒙古国家的 独立和自由，是蒙古人的最大的敌人。 （二）《国史》和教科书中的绰克图台吉 绰克图台吉的复生，当然不光归功于仁钦一个人。因为国家要创造蒙古民族主 1 2 《决议》，pp．77-79。 《朝克》1944-2，P.7。 214 义者形象的目的，是为了针对日本帝国主义者所倡导的所谓“满蒙政策”和“大蒙古国 建设”，所以，仁钦首先要寻找一个被说成是抵抗满洲侵略的爱国英雄的形象是合情 合理的。 问题在于，蒙古的历史学界居然充当了创造绰克图台吉伟大形象的最热心的和 最有力的推动者。如果说，仁钦讲的是事故，那么，蒙古历史学界把故事说成了真 实的历史，指认绰克图台吉就是爱国主义者，是同情和支持林丹汗的反满斗争的斗 士。他们力图证明新创造的绰克图台吉形象就是过去真实历史的反映。但是值得注 意的是，历史学界这样做的目的，与仁钦的创作有所不同。 1955 年由蒙古人民共和国科学院历史研究所和苏联科学院东方研究所合编的 《蒙古人民共和国史》，是蒙古独立以后的第一部通史，也算是共和国时代的第一部 国史。这部史书里写道：“在喀尔喀封建主中，历史上以绰克图台吉著称的惟一的一 个人，和林丹汗建立联盟，对他助一臂之力，向征服者们（指满洲人——引者）进 行了积极斗争。在所有的文献里，有关反映绰克图台吉反满斗争的作用、过程和目 的的记载甚少”1。可见，当时虽然指出绰克图与林丹汗建立了联盟，但是措辞还是相 当谨慎的。后来，1965-1969 年间，蒙古人民共和国科学院编纂了三卷本《蒙古人民 共和国史》。在第二卷（1604-1917）涉及绰克图台吉的部分里写道：“喀尔喀的另外 一部分封建主们认识到，林丹汗的斗争是全蒙古的独立斗争，因此彻底贯彻了支持 林丹汗的政策。发生在这两部分持有针锋相对的政见的诺颜们之间的分裂，越来越 尖锐化，最后发展成为武装斗争。站在林丹汗一边的绰克图台吉为首的诺颜们被逐 出喀尔喀，为了和林丹汗会合，来到了青海”。“ 绰克图台吉首先是一位爱国者，是 一位为反抗满洲征服者、保卫蒙古独立而斗争的林丹汗的忠实盟友”2。 那么，这个结论的根据是什么呢？史学家们是怎样论证的呢？ 为了回答这个问题，我们必须先读一读 1926－1927 年苏联著名学者符拉基米尔 佐夫撰写的一篇论文。题为“绰克图台吉摩崖”的这篇论文，根据在蒙古人民共和国发 现的刻在岩石上的绰克图台吉的一首诗及其前言后跋，在考证绰克图台吉的家世生 平的同时，提出了绰克图台吉与林丹汗是政治盟友的说法。作者认为，绰克图台吉 支持了林丹汗进行的统一蒙古的斗争，与之建立了政治联盟，因此被驱逐出喀尔喀， 1930 年左右去了青海3。符氏提出这个猜想，并没有什么政治背景，是一种纯粹的学 术观点，是有关绰克图台吉摩崖的一家之说。 然而，蒙古文艺界与历史学界与其说抄袭莫如说利用了符拉基米尔佐夫的这个 观点。那么，符拉基米尔佐夫研究的所谓的“绰克图台吉摩崖”的内容到底是什么呢？ 为了论述方便，我们不厌其烦地把它全部内容汉译如下（“前言”、“诗文”、“跋”等字 1 蒙苏科学院 1955，p．178。 蒙古科学院 1968，p.58。 3 符拉基米尔佐夫 1926，pp．253-280；1927，pp.215-240。 2 215 样和公元年月日是译者所加）： “（前言：）白鸡年（辛酉年）秋天首月（七月）二十一日（1621.9.6），绰克图台 吉在杭爱山齐齐尔里克后山打猎时，骑上皮甲的粉嘴枣溜马，登高遥望，面向东方， 心感非常悲伤，想念热爱的姑母，如此说完后流下了眼泪： （诗文：） ‘天上的上帝所在/地上的汗王所居/上下虽然有区别/幸福与慈爱其性相同。 极乐净土的菩萨/金色世界的善人/处所虽然有区别/保佑与慈悲其性相同。 人间英主的贤臣/阴间阎王的鬼判/礼数虽然有区别/明断是非其性相同。 觅食不得的人/山林中的走兽/生身虽然有区别/杀生捕食其性相同。 远偷近盗的贼人/觊觎牲圈的豺狼/虽然外相有区别/贪婪之心其性相同。 我住在鄂嫩河边的亲爱的姑母/住在鄂尔浑、土拉河的我带病之身/ 虽然喀尔喀和翁牛特相距遥远/相爱思念其性相同。 此生若不能再相见/来世也要再相会/ 就像慈母爱独生子/让我们以各种因缘相助相佑。’ （跋一：）将如此这般流着眼泪朗诵的话语，［和绰克图台吉］在一起的额尔克 恰背了下来，并记录在案。后来过了四年，在鼠年（甲子年）一月十八日（1624.3.7） ， 岱青恰与贵英巴图尔二人刻在岩石上。 向普贤、无量光和释迦牟尼佛膜拜。向空智金刚和亥母以及金刚手膜拜。向上 天和汗、哈屯以及所有的有恩之人膜拜。ロ奄吗呢叭哞吽。ロ奄吗呢叭哞吽。ロ奄 吗呢叭哞吽。ロ奄吗呢叭哞吽。ロ奄吗呢叭哞吽。ロ奄吗呢叭哞吽。 （跋二：）奉成吉思汗之裔、瓦齐赖汗(Včir qaγan)之孙喀尔喀绰克图台吉之命， 岱青恰(Dayičing kii-a)、贵英巴图尔(Gьyeng baγatur)二人，因蒙古呼土克图汗之故 (mongol-un qutuγtu qaγan-u učira)，在成吉思汗诞辰水马年以来四百六十四年，年初 木鼠年（甲子年），月初火虎月（正月），十五望日（1624.3.4），刻于玉宝一般的岩 石上”1。 原来，这首诗是绰克图台吉在 1621 年外出打猎时所作的即兴诗。该诗借噶玛巴 大师怀念恩师大德的韵文体裁，表达了他对生活在鄂嫩河流域的姑母（肯定指前文 指出的嫁给阿巴哈纳尔贵族诺密土默克图之子巴克图和布里雅岱的两个姑母之一） 的怀念之情。该诗的作者、写作年代、写作缘由、目的、表达的意思，一目了然。 跋文似乎有一些问题：跋文一，很符合当时文章或碑刻的结束语特点，交待了撰写 （刻写）时间和作者（铭刻匠人）名，然后向诸佛陀和天地帝王膜拜，最后是六字 真言。然而，跋文二显得有些奇怪，内容重复了跋文一，刻写时间的说法不仅与跋 文一稍有出入（1624.3.7 和 1624.3.4），而且计算成吉思汗诞生以后的第几个年头， 1 冈田 1968，pp．122-123。 216 并加了一句“因蒙古呼图克图汗之故”。因为没有见过原碑文，所以断然不敢妄言跋文 二是后人手笔，但感觉多少有些疑问。 让我们回到讨论的主题上。就是这句“因蒙古呼图克图汗之故”的话，成为了苏蒙 学者们断言绰克图台吉为林丹汗（称呼图克图汗）的忠实盟友、爱国主义英雄的根 据。它无只言片语的依据。 在蒙古史学界，迎合和进一步论述符拉基米尔佐夫观点的代表人物是著名的历 史学家那楚克道尔济(Sh. Natsagdorj)和共果尔(D. Gongor)。前者在他的名著《喀尔喀 史》中，首先接受了符拉基米尔佐夫的观点，并说绰克图台吉在 1624 年为纪念林丹 汗即位 20 周年立了碑。绰克图台吉被逐出喀尔喀，是因为在对待林丹汗的属民问题 上与喀尔喀其他贵族意见不一致。这暗示着，绰克图台吉不是因为抢夺林丹汗的属 民，而是为了保护他们，才和其他贵族发生了矛盾。那楚克道尔济氏还认为，绰克 图台吉去青海不是偶然的，而是为了和林丹汗会合，以青海为根据地，完成他们的 使命1。共果尔几乎全盘接受了那楚克道尔济的观点，说绰克图台吉摩崖上的“因蒙古 呼土克图汗之故”表明，该碑是绰克图台吉为了纪念林丹汗即位 20 周年而建立的2。 那楚克多尔济是 1955 年和 1968 年两部《蒙古人民共和国史》中 17 世纪历史部分的 执笔，因此，他的观点也就变成了蒙古官方的观点。 蒙古“民主改革”以后，奉蒙古国总统之命编写了一部《蒙古国史》，2003 年出版。 这本书的有关绰克图台吉的部分，没有任何新史料，简单重复了上世纪 50、60 年代 的老一套。但是，对绰克图台吉的评价倒是升了一级：“绰克图台吉是 17 世纪蒙古的 较大的文化人士、诗人、哲学家，是那个时代的具有政治、军事、宗教修养的人物”。 作者直截了当地说：“绰克图台吉在林丹汗即位 20 周年之际刻写在岩石上的七段诗及 其附文，成为他的政治、哲学、宗教思想的表现。这首诗，通过想念姑母哈鲁图的 心情，表达了支持林丹汗的意思”3。 很清楚，蒙古史学家们论述绰克图台吉的关键性史料，就是“因蒙古呼图克图汗 之故”这一句话。因为这一句话，“证明”了绰克图台吉是同情和支持林丹汗的。因为 这句话，“证明”了绰克图台吉去青海是为了和林丹汗会合，与之并肩战斗。因为这句 话，“证明”了绰克图台吉不是争夺林丹汗的属民，而是同情他们而受到了喀尔喀其他 贵族的排斥。因为这些“证据”， “证明”了绰克图台吉是反满洲侵略的林丹汗的忠实 朋友，所以绰克图台吉本人也自然而然地成为了反满洲人侵略的英雄。 这纯粹是牵强附会。人们并不掌握解释“因蒙古呼土克图汗之故”这句话的任何资 料。首先，1624 年确实系林丹汗即位的 20 周年。但是，在古代蒙古，并没有纪念大 汗即位周年的习俗。碑文提到了成吉思汗出生年，但没有提到林丹汗即位年。其次， 1 那楚克道尔济 1963，p．69-70。 共果尔 1970，p．430。 3 蒙古科学院 2003，p．68。 2 217 在林丹汗即位 20 周年的 1624 年，林丹汗没有做什么值得纪念的大事情，也没有发 生过令绰克图台吉痛心的悲哀事情。1619 年，满洲和内喀尔喀五部订立了盟约；1621 年，满洲爱新国夺取了林丹汗与明朝的通商口——广宁。除此之外没有发生其他什 么事情。满洲和林丹汗之间还没有发生正面冲突，林丹汗仍然非常自信，对努尔哈 赤自称为“四十万蒙古之主巴图鲁成吉思汗”。形势变得对林丹汗不利，他被迫离开故 土西迁，是绰克图台吉立碑以后三年（1627）的事。再次，没有任何史料可以证明， 绰克图台吉与林丹汗有过什么联系。林丹汗于 1627 年底开始西征，直到 1632 年， 一直活动在今天的呼和浩特、包头、乌兰察布盟和锡林郭勒盟一带。自 1632 年到 1634 年间，主要活动在甘肃境内，1634 年在赴青海的途中病逝。如果绰克图台吉果真是 林丹汗的忠实盟友，如果他早在 1624 年就立志助林丹汗一臂之力的话，他有足足 10 年时间可以和林丹汗会师，或者往来。最后，特别值得注意的是，林丹汗与喀尔喀 左翼实力人物车臣汗硕垒有过密切关系。这也是到目前为止为人知晓的林丹汗与外 喀尔喀贵族之间的亲密关系。林丹汗的一位太后是满洲人，她的姊妹是硕垒的夫人， 也就是说林丹汗与硕垒是连襟关系。在林丹汗战乱时期，有大批难民逃入硕垒领内， 并奉他为“车臣汗”，这绝对不是偶然的。在林丹汗死后，硕垒车臣汗派使节到林丹汗 遗孀和儿子处，劝他们到他的领地。硕垒是一位具有政治远见和抱负的人。他在蒙 古大汗政权临危时，考虑使之接续，设法不要落入满洲朝廷。可是，绰克图台吉并 没有做出类似举动，恰恰相反，他在 1634 年为了争夺林丹汗的属民发动战争，失败 后逃走。就当时林丹汗难民大批流入车臣汗领地的情况推测，绰克图台吉去争夺的 或许就是车臣汗的部属。很有讽刺意义的是，1634 年正值林丹汗即位的 30 周年！ 顺便说一下，林丹汗赴青海，并不是为了和绰克图台吉在那里会合。而是他被 满洲军队打败后，通过同西藏藏巴汗的关系，准备撤退到西藏。 《水晶鉴》有一段这 样的记载：“土伯特地区藏地方的一位可汗（指藏巴汗——引者），不信黄教，对它有 所迫害。林丹汗和他志同道合，以书信商妥。时满洲天聪皇帝率大军征察哈尔汗， 林丹汗惧，弃故土属民，为破坏黄教，走西陲”1。据此，藏巴汗与林丹汗之间早已有 过联系，他准备去西藏，和绰克图台吉没有任何关系2。 “因蒙古呼土克图汗之故”，到底意味着什么？不得而知。在没有其它史料根据和 史实背景的情况下，像过去苏联学者和蒙古国史学家那样，仅靠想象力去解释是非 科学的3。 其实，蒙古学者们未必对符拉基米尔佐夫的论证丝毫不怀疑。如前所说，他们 1 《水晶鉴》，p.484。 札奇斯钦曾经认为，为林丹汗授秘密戒的沙尔巴达哈禅呼图克图就是《水镜鉴》中提到的与绰克 图台吉有密切联系的沙马尔兰占巴（札奇斯钦 1978，p.582）。作者也曾认同这个观点（乌云毕力格 1987，pp.54-55）。但是今天看来，这种说法缺乏确凿的证据。 3 按照他们的逻辑和推理，我们从这句话里完全可以得出绰克图台吉反对林丹汗而立碑的结论。 2 218 与其说是抄袭他，莫如说是利用了他。对独立的蒙古人民共和国历史学界来说，怎 样表述蒙古国家传统，怎样看待蒙古与清朝的关系，怎样阐述清朝对蒙古的征服， 都是极其重要的问题。他们在编写国史的时候，需要一个历史人物，一个在满洲征 服初期为蒙古（对蒙古国的国史来说，“蒙古”只能是“喀尔喀”）的独立而斗争的人物， 以此说明蒙古国的反满抗清的传统。苏联的东方学学术权威符拉基米尔佐夫认为绰 克图台吉是支持林丹汗、反对满洲侵略的观点，可谓正中下怀。在当时来说，吸收 苏联学者的观点，即安全又可行。如果说，电影《绰克图台吉》是二战时期苏联－ 蒙古的意识形态和政治需要的直接产物，那么，蒙古《国史》中的绰克图台吉记忆 的构建，主要是为了表述独立的蒙古国家的历史传统。但是，无论出于什么样的目 的，把绰克图台吉作为蒙古国历史上的爱国英雄的典范来叙述，都是极其拙劣的。 因为，就此历史使命来讲，他恰好是一个反面人物的典型。 以上谈到的剧本（电影） 《绰克图台吉》中绰克图台吉形象的塑造和《国史》中 对绰克图台吉历史地位的确定，看起来似乎是蒙古文学艺术界和历史学界的行为， 实际上都是国家作为。只不过，在这里国家权力的体现是间接的，是通过它的文化 霸权实现的。但是，广大群众和学术界接受了绰克图台吉以后，绰克图台吉记忆也 就被构建了，或者说，新传统就成立了。这时候，国家权力直接参与其事，把这个 记忆，这个传统，进一步合法化和普及。把新创造的绰克图台吉的历史写入蒙古义 务教育的中学教科书，就是最典型的例子。 中学《历史教科书》中写道：“林丹汗的儿子额哲在他父亲去世后为反抗满洲征 服而一直进行斗争，被捕后被杀1。喀尔喀的绰克图洪台吉（1580－1637）支持了林 丹汗的反抗满洲征服的斗争。绰克图台吉是当时的具有高文化的著名诗人和爱国主 义者。绰克图台吉是事先看到蒙古国的独立已经遭到了威胁，并为了国家的统一而 进行斗争的人物之一。当时，喀尔喀的一些汗和诺颜不接受林丹汗的政令，不支持 他的斗争。因此，绰克图台吉号召全体蒙古人团结一致支持林丹汗的斗争。在林丹 汗即位 20 周年之际的 1624 年，绰克图台吉立了［题为］因胡土克图汗之故的碑。 因为，绰克图台吉一方面彻底支持了林丹汗的事业，另一方面已经和喀尔喀的诺颜 们在思想上发生了分歧，所以，为了和林丹汗合力作战，于木狗年即 1634 年去了青 海。绰克图台吉到青海时，林丹汗已经去世。绰克图台吉为了巩固在青海的地位， 对西藏黄帽派进行了斗争，最终败于卫拉特顾实汗的优势军队，于 1637 年去世”2。 中学《文学教科书》写得更具文学性：“《绰克图台吉摩崖》是 17 世纪上半叶蒙 古文学的重要文献。这首诗证明，在当时蒙古韵文中，思考的哲学思想正在流传。 该诗的作者喀尔喀的绰克图洪台吉 1581 年生在阿巴岱赛因汗的侄儿巴喀来和硕齐 1 错误。本来，额哲被捕后，被封为和硕亲王，成为清廷额驸，率土领民，其领地被称作“察哈尔 国”。后病故。 2 《中学历史教科书》1998，p.131-132。 219 家。绰克图从青少年开始学好蒙古语文，有相当的修养。绰克图信仰佛教的红教派， 不信黄教，随后反抗利用黄教的满洲侵略者1，为了蒙古的独立，一贯支持察哈尔的 林丹汗（1592-1634）。但是，蒙古王公们屈服于满洲人，明显采取压制和迫害绰克图 等具有爱国主义思想的进步人士，散布各种诬陷的谣言。但是，绰克图对黄教和满 洲侵略者进行不懈的斗争，到 1637 年牺牲。绰克图不仅是一位为祖国的独立而战斗 者，而且还是一位欣赏家乡、歌唱家乡的天才的诗人。…… 这首诗（即《绰克图台 吉摩崖》——引者）运用思考和对比的手段，更多地体现蒙古生活，利用了书面文 学和民歌的两种形式2” 3。教科书的内容，在蒙古的“民主改革”前后完全一致4。这些 教材里的绰克图台吉与历史事实有很大出入，倒是和仁钦的电影剧本完全一致。 这样，蒙古人从少年时代就开始接触绰克图台吉的“历史事迹”，把 20 世纪编造 的故事作为 17 世纪的历史知识去接受。绰克图台吉的“历史”成为常识，深入了人心。 记忆的构建和维持，不仅需要口述和文字表现等“场所”，而且还需要更为具体和 直接的记忆“场所”，比如纪念堂（馆）、遗物展示厅、博物馆、档案馆、墓葬建筑、 功德碑、雕像（肖像）等多种多样的物化了的东西。人们在这些“场所”可以进行丰富 多彩的纪念仪式，以唤起人们对纪念对象的记忆，从而达到加强记忆和传送记忆的 目的。在蒙古目前为止还没有建立绰克图台吉的纪念碑和雕像，但并不是没有采取 类似的措施。比如，1961 年，蒙古人民共和国建国 40 周年之际，国家印发了印有绰 克图台吉剧照的纪念邮票。还有，2003 年出版的蒙古中学教科书插图采用了绰克图 台吉的图像（电影《绰克图台吉》的剧照），该年编写的《蒙古国史》也采用了绰克 图台吉白房子遗址的大幅彩色照片。 结束语 绰克图本来是喀尔喀蒙古历史上的一位有权势、有文化、笃信藏传佛教噶玛噶 举派的一位洪台吉。他曾挑起了一场内战，失败后出走。在青海稍有发迹，但不久 被杀。因此，在整个蒙古封建割据时期的历史舞台上去看，绰克图台吉不过是一个 平庸人物。绰克图台吉的敌人，始终是蒙古人：先是喀尔喀人，后来先后为土默特 1 绰克图台吉为了反满而反黄教的说法，本来是仁钦电影剧本里的虚构。后来居然被蒙古文学界和 历史学界的不少人误以为真实的历史，以至于写入教科书。实际上，西藏格鲁巴和满洲爱新国最初 进行接触，是迟在 1642 年的事情。 《五世传》记载，1640 年，达赖喇嘛派色钦曲杰前往女真地方， 给清太宗捎去了书信和礼品（第一函上，p.251）。据《清太宗实录》记载，这些使者于崇德七年十 月二日（1642.10.25）到达了盛京。次年五月五日(1643.6.20)，清朝向西藏派使节，给达赖喇嘛、 班禅大师、红帽喇嘛噶尔玛、昂帮萨斯下等各派喇嘛上层和藏巴汗、顾实汗等均致书一函（《清太 宗实录》崇德七年十月已亥；八年五月丁酉）。那时，别说达赖喇嘛和清太宗之间有什么牺牲蒙古 独立的密谋，清朝还没有把握，到底谁在西藏最终掌权。把一台戏当作真历史，为绰克图台吉反满 斗争找根据。 2 这段分析也是错误的。绰克图台吉的这首诗实际上是对印度诗人的模仿。请见前注 27。 3 《中学文学教科书》2003，pp.11-12。， 4 参考《中学文学教科书》1984，pp.11-12 和《中学文学教科书》2003，pp.11-12。 220 人、永邵卜人、喀尔喀人和卫拉特人。他的一生事迹与抵抗蒙古的外侮毫无关系。 然而，在第二次世界大战的特殊历史环境中，为了满足特定的意识形态，在国 家级别的文化霸权的保护下，绰克图台吉死而复生，摇身变成了蒙古的反抗外侮的 民族英雄。后来，他又成为了建构蒙古国家记忆的重要材料。因为国家权力的参与， 绰克图台吉的再创造的形象很快定型并合法化，通过史书、教科书等各种渠道迅速 普及，被蒙古国民铭记在心，受到崇高的尊敬和爱戴。 总之，绰克图台吉的故事是 20 世纪蒙古编造出来的一个年轻的神话，是贴着国 家颁发的历史标签的故事。它所讲述的当然不是绰克图台吉的真实故事，而仅仅是 借用他的名字讲述了一位国家历史所需要的、想象出来的英雄人物的事迹。因此， 绰克图台吉的故事所讲述的最终并不是 17 世纪的蒙古史，而是讲述了 20 世纪蒙古 的意识形态的历史以及在此之下构建对国家历史的公共记忆过程的一个段落。 引用文献 《白桦法典》 ：呼·普尔来著“有关蒙古和中央亚文化史的两份珍贵史料”（基里儿蒙古 文），载于 Monumenta Historiča Tomus VI,fasčičulus 1, 乌兰巴托，1974。 《大黄史》：无名氏著《大黄史》 （Yeke sir-a tuγuji） （蒙古文） ，巴·巴根校注，民族出 版社，1983。 《阿萨剌克齐史》：善巴著、沙格达尔苏伦整理《阿萨剌克齐史》 （Asaraγči neretь teьke） （拉丁文撰写、蒙古文原文以及单词索引），乌兰巴托，2002。 《五世传》：五世达赖喇嘛著、陈庆英、马连龙、马林汉译《五世达赖喇嘛传》，台 湾全佛化实业有限公司，2003。 《王臣记》：五世达赖喇嘛著作《西藏王臣记》，刘立千汉译本，西藏人民出版社， 1991。 《档子》：清朝内阁蒙古堂档《康熙二十七年档子》 （蒙古文），中国第一历史档案馆 藏。 《青海史》：松巴堪布伊西巴勒珠尔著《青海史》 （蒙古文），蒙古国家图书馆写本。 《水晶鉴》：津巴多尔济著《水晶鉴》 （蒙古文），留金锁校注，民族出版社，1984。 《史海》：贡楚克丹巴剌布杰著《朵麦教法史·史海》 （藏文），甘肃人民出版社，1982。 《决议》：蒙古人民共和国科学院语言文学所编《蒙古人民革命党关于文学艺术工作 的规定和决议（1921-1966） 》（基里儿蒙古文），科学院出版社，乌兰巴托， 221 1967。 《朝克》1944-2：蒙古作者协会办《朝克》（蒙古文文学季刊） ，1944 年第 2 期，国 家出版局中央处，1944。 《朝克》1944-3／4：蒙古作者协会办《朝克》（蒙古文文学季刊），1944 年第 3／4 期（合刊），国家出版局中央处，1944。 《中学历史教科书》1998：T·占布拉道尔济、Č·草勒门等编著《历史》（基里儿蒙古 文），中学七年级教科书，乌兰巴托，1998。 《中学文学教科书》1984：H·三丕勒登德布、S·巴特马格奈、A·沙拉呼编著《文学》 （基里儿蒙古文），中学八年级教科书，乌兰巴托，1984。 《中学文学教科书》2003：A·沙拉呼编著《文学》（基里儿蒙古文），中学八年级教 科书，乌兰巴托，2003。 蒙苏科学院 1955：蒙古人民共和国科学院历史所和苏联社会科学院编《蒙古人民共 和国史》（基里儿蒙古文） ，乌兰巴托，1955。 蒙古科学院 1968：蒙古人民共和国科学院历史所编《蒙古人民共和国史》第二卷（基 里儿蒙古文） ，国家出版局办事处，乌兰巴托，1968。 蒙古科学院 2003：蒙古科学院历史所编《蒙古国史》，乌兰巴托，2003。 胡特 1894：胡特（Georg Huht）著《白房子碑刻：蒙藏文碑文及其翻译和语言学、 历史学解释》 （德文），莱比锡，1894。 波兹德涅耶夫 1896：《蒙古及蒙古人》 （俄文），上卷，莫斯科，1896。 符拉基米尔佐夫 1926-27：符拉基米尔佐夫著“绰克图台吉摩崖”（俄文），载于《苏 联社会科学通报》，1926，1927。 那楚克多尔济 1963：Sh·那楚克多尔济著《喀尔喀史》 （基里儿蒙古文），国家出版局 办事处，乌兰巴托，1963。这里引用了 1997 年内蒙古教育出版社蒙古文版。 冈田 1968：冈田英弘著“关于绰克图台吉”（日文），载于《亚非语言文化研究》第一 辑，1968。 共果尔 1970：D·共果尔著《喀尔喀史纲》（基里儿蒙古文），乌兰巴托，1970。这里 引用了内蒙古教育出版社 1990 年蒙古文版。 222 札奇斯钦 1978：札奇斯钦著《蒙古与西藏历史关系之研究》，台北，1978。 达穆丁苏隆 1979：达穆丁苏隆著《蒙古文学精粹一百篇》（蒙古文），内蒙古人民出 版社，1979。 霍布斯鲍姆 1983：霍布斯鲍姆（Eric Hobsbawm）著《创造的传统》 （英文） ，剑桥大 学，1983。 二木 1981：二木博史著“白桦法典译注（二）”（日文），载于《蒙古研究》第 12 期， 1981。 二木 1983：二木博史著“白桦法典译注（三）”（日文），载于《蒙古研究》第 14 期， 1983。 二木 1987：二木博史著“银幕上活跃的骑马英雄们”（日文），载于《蒙古里卡》，1987 年第 4 期，1983。 二木 2003：二木博史著、呼斯勒译“日军的对蒙工作——诺门罕战争的真相”，载于 《蒙古的历史与文化——蒙古学论集》，内蒙古人民出版社，2003。 呼尔勒巴特尔 1989：拉·呼尔勒巴特尔著《经典的传统，蒙古韵文》 （基里儿蒙古文） ， 国家出版局，乌兰巴托，1989。 ，乌兰巴托，1992。 达什敦多格 1992：J·达什敦多格著《喀尔喀的绰克图洪台吉》 乌云毕力格 1987：乌云毕力格著“关于绰克图台吉”，载于《内蒙古大学学报》 ，1987-3。 乌云毕力格 1993：乌云毕力格著“关于尹咱呼图克图”（蒙古文） ，载于《蒙古史研究》 第 4 辑，1993。 乌云毕力格 2003：乌云毕力格著“喀尔喀右翼额尔克卫征诺颜的奏折及相关事宜”（蒙 古文），载于《内蒙古大学学报》，2003－1。 宝音德力根 1999：宝音德力根著“从阿巴岱汗与俺答汗的关系看早期喀尔喀历史的几 个问题”，载于《内蒙古大学学报》，1999－1。 图雅 2004：图雅著《喀尔喀绰克图洪台吉生平研究》 ，内蒙古大学硕士学位论文，2004。 后记 一、本文系 2004 年 7 月 23 日作者在东京外国语大学外国语学部蒙古研究室“第五次 223 蒙古研究会”上所作的学术报告的修改稿。 二、在撰写本文的过程中，东京昭和女子大学的呼和巴特尔博士提供了电影《绰克 图台吉》的录像带（博士为该电影的日译者），并在报告会上放映了电影片断。在此 谨向呼和巴特尔博士表示衷心的谢意。 蒙古国教科书中有关绰克图台吉的内容（乌兰巴托，2003） 。 224 1961 年蒙古人民共和国 建国 40 周年之际印发的印有 绰克图台吉剧照的纪念邮票 （『モンゴリカ』、1987—4） 电影《绰克图台吉》中的绰克图台吉 （『モンゴリカ』、1987—4） 《蒙古国史》采用的绰克图台吉白房子遗址图片（《蒙古国史》，乌兰巴托，2003） 225 QUAESTIONES MONGOLORUM DISPUTATAE No.1 Executive Editors: H. Futaki ＆ B. Oyunbilig Association for International Studies of Mongolian Culture Tokyo April 30. 2005 从顺治五年蒙古文档案看明末清初 翁牛特、喀喇车里克部的若干问题 [北京] 张永江 喀喇车里克（Qara cerig)，又译哈喇车里克,是明末清初东南蒙古人集团之一。 该集团与翁牛特蒙古同祖。关于喀喇车里克，一些学者的著作中虽有提到，但仅限 1 于简略地交代其由来和去向 ，对于他们在明末清初的活动几乎没有触及。2003 年夏， 笔者在赤峰市档案馆调查档案时，偶然发现该馆保存的一些蒙古文档案,其中含有顺 治年间清廷颁给喀喇车里克部第二代镇国公察哈岱（Caqadai）以及他们子孙后代授 爵、袭爵敕书抄件。这些敕书内容记载了喀喇车里克统治者投归清朝、为清朝征战 并受封为镇国公的始末。2004 年，中国第一历史档案馆、内蒙古自治区档案馆和内 2 蒙古大学蒙古学研究中心影印出版了清朝内秘书院蒙古文档案 ，其中也公布了内秘 书院所藏顺治五年颁给察哈岱的敕书抄件。本文即根据颁给察哈岱敕书的抄件，结 合蒙汉文史料中的零星记载，对该部的来龙去脉及主要活动略作钩沉。 一、 蒙古文档案原文拉丁文转写及汉译 在赤峰市档案馆所藏有关喀喇车里克的档案原件中，以下四件有较重要的价值。 第一件，是颁给察哈岱敕书原件的抄件，未写明颁发年月日和抄写时间。但根据内 容，是顺治年敕书抄件无疑，只是抄写时间无法确定。第二件，是顺治十三年（1656） 颁发给察哈岱的敕书。主要是为了说明多尔衮摄政时期皇帝未能亲自接见外藩王公 的缘由，是以笼络为目的的诏书。第三件，是喀喇车里克第六代镇国公贡格喇布坦 于乾隆四十四年（1778）上翁牛特郡王的书，其中抄写了朝廷颁给历代镇国公的敕 书内容。第四件，也是乾隆四十四年（1778）翁牛特郡王向理藩院报送贡格拉布坦 家世、袭谱事宜的呈文，内容与第三件同。 细审档案，在这四份敕书抄件中，第一件最接近原件。虽然其抄写时间无法断 定，而且明显经过篡改（比如删除了“摄政父皇”等字样），但它毕竟反映了原敕书 1 2 和田（1984），p.384 页；贾敬颜（1989）；宝音德力根（1997），pp.90、118、120；乌兰(2001), pp.337-339。 《清内秘书院档》，第三册，pp.16-17。 226 的全貌。其余抄件中关于清初喀喇车里克事宜的记载均源于此，而且均作从略。因 此之故，本文在以上四份档案中选择了该档。此外，内秘书院档中的顺治五年颁给 察哈岱敕书的档案抄件，是抄写时间最早的一件。这份抄件虽然省略了原敕书的开 头部分，但是保留了关于噶尔玛事迹的原文。以下是该两份蒙古文档案原文的拉丁 文转写及汉译。 （一） 内秘书院档中颁给察哈岱的敕书抄件(见附件 1) Ａ：拉丁文转写： P.16:（１）Qara cerig-in karma ci aru γaQar-ača ьber-ьn qariya-tu ulus-iyan abun oroQu (2) irelьge. tцrь-yi bariγsan qaγan-i ečige wang čerig-i terigьleQь. (3) beQing qota-yi daγarin Sandьng-ьn muQi-dur čeriglegsen ayan-du. Heь zьng ming gьwan-u (4) čerig-i daruqui-dur. tusalaGsan dayisun-i daruba. Tцrь-yi bariγsan. (5) qaγan-i ečige wang. ginQeь qota-yi qaγaγči terigьn ayan-du singsan-i moritu cerig-i urida (6) daruqui-dur tusalaGsan dayisun-i daruba. ginQeь-yin cerig-i Qegьn γar-a daruqui-dur (7) tusalaγsan dayisun-i daruba. sungsan-i moritu čerig-i daruqui-dur tusalaγsan dayisun-i (8) daruba. singsan-i moritu čerig-i qoyin-a daruqui-dur tusalaγsan dayisun-i daruba. P.17: (1) kemen ulus-un tьsiy-e gьng bolγaγsan bьlьge. ebedčin-iyer цnggregsen-ь qoin-a kцbegьn caqadai (2) -dur mьn kь ulus-un tьsiy-e gьng čola-yi QalγamQilabai. (3) namur-un terigьn sarain qorin tabun-a. Ｂ：汉译： 喀喇车里克之噶尔玛，尔统己属兀鲁思，自阿鲁地方来归。摄政父皇率领大军， 道经北京城，出征山东省，于击溃侯总兵官所将兵马之际，击败所击敌军。摄 政父皇首围锦州城之役，先击杏山骑兵之时，击败所击敌军。左翼军攻击锦州 军之际，击败所击敌军。攻打松山骑兵之际，击败所击敌军。后攻打杏山骑兵 之时，击败所击敌军。故封为镇国公。因疾辞世后，仍命其子察哈岱承袭镇国 公之号。 ［顺治五年］秋初月二十五日 （二） 赤峰市档案馆藏颁给察哈岱的敕书抄件（见附件 2） Ａ：拉丁文转写： (1) Tngri-yin ibegel-iyer čaG-i eQelegsen (2) qaγan-u QarliG. (3) tngri γaQar-un QayaγaGsan-ača inaGsita nigen čaγ-i eQelegesen qaγan bui bцgesь. saγar (4) ьgei tцrь-dьr tusalaγči muQi-yin noyad bui. γabiy-a ner-e-yi ilγan temdeglekьi anu (5) 227 erteki boγda qad-ud-un egьsgegsen anu buyu. eduge bi-ber boγda qad-ud-i (6) daγuriyaQu dotoγadu γadaγadu kemen ilγal ьgekьy-e čьm ab adali sanaQu olan (7) muQi-yin noyad-un γabiy-a-yi ilγaQu ergьmQilel bičig soyorqaQu Qerge togtaγabai ene (8) ergьmQilel bičig-i kьliyen abuGsan kьmьn. sidurγu setkil-iyer tцrь-dьr tusalaQu tцrь (9) šaQin-i tцb-iyer yabuγulaγtun. iQaγur-ača adaγ-dur kьrtele. itegemQi Qirum-i bьь (10) umartaγdun. eyin bцtьgebesь. kesig-inь ečige ba ebьge ečige-degen kьrьmьi. buyan-inu (11) kцbegьd ačinar-taγan qočorumui. ьy-e ularin nasuta ьbedegsi-ber tцrьnem bulai. (12) kičiyenggьile. bьь osoldaγtun. qara cerig-ьn karma ci. aru γaQar-ača činu qariyatu (13) ulus-i abču oroQu irebei. neyislel qotan-ača цnggerQь Sandьng muQi-dur iregsen (14) angqan udaγ-a-dur huu zong-bing-gьwan-u čerig-i daruqui-dur tusalaGsan dayisun-i (15) darubai. ginQeь qotan-i qaγasan angqan udaγ-a-dur singsan-u moritu cerig-i urida (16) daruqui-dur tusalaGsan dayisun-i darubai. ginQeь-yin cerig-i baraun γar-iyar daruqui-dur (17) tusalaγsan dayisun-i darubai. sьngsan-i moritu čerig-i daruqui-dur tusalaγsan dayisun-i (18) darubai. singsan-u moritu čerig-i qoyin-a daruqui-dur tusalaγsan dayisun-i darubai. (19) kemen ulus-un tьsiy-e gьng bolγaγsan bьlьge. ebedčin-iyer цnggregsen-ь qoin-a kцbegьn (20) caqadai-yi mьn kь ulus-i tьsiy-e gьng QalγamQilabai. minu kьndь yeke taγalal-i (21) цtegerkeQь urbaqu ba kimural yal-a-yi edьbesь ulus-i tьsiy-e gьng-i tasulan ebdemьi. (22) dayin-dur buruγulbasu toγtaγaGsan caγaQin-iyar sitgemьi. tegьn-eče busud yala (23) yallabaču-bar. ene ulus-i tьsiy-e gьng-i ьlь ebden. Kцbegьd ačinar-dur kьrtel-e (24) ьy-e ularin tasural ьgei QalamQilamui. Ｂ：汉译： 奉天承运 皇帝诏曰：自开天辟地以来，凡有主宰世间之皇帝降生于世，必有辅 佐朝政之臣。分明记载（诸臣）功名，乃古圣贤君王创立之法。朕遵循圣贤君 王之例，不分内外，一视同仁，明查诸部众诺颜所立功绩，赐以诰命，定其爵 号品级。受封者务须诚心辅国，以正道执行政教。自始至终，切勿忘记信义！ 如此则恩泽可上及父祖，福分可下延至子孙，使子孙后代永享福禄。谨慎为之， 切勿疏忽！ 喀喇车里克之噶尔玛，尔统所属兀鲁思，自阿鲁地方来归。于道经北京城，首次 出征山东省时，于击溃侯总兵官所将兵马之际，击败所击敌军。首征锦州城之役， 先击敌杏山骑兵之时，击败所击敌军。右翼击败锦州军之际，击败所击敌军。攻 打松山骑兵之际，击败所击敌军。后攻打杏山骑兵之时，击败所击敌军。故封为 镇国公。因疾辞世后，仍命其子察哈岱承袭镇国公之号。若负朕之隆恩，生背逆 228 之心，犯大逆不道之罪，将削夺镇国公之爵号。若临阵退缩，则依军例处置。除 此之外，即便治其他罪，令其镇国公之号可世袭罔替。 二、 几个问题的探讨 (一) 喀喇车里克部及其名号的来历 关于喀喇车里克部的来历，蒙汉文史籍中都有较为明确但又相互矛盾的记载。 蒙古文史籍如佚名的《蒙古黄史》（又译《大黄册》）第六章“成吉思汗之子弟及其 兀鲁思”部分叙及成吉思汗给与其诸弟之领地：给与合撒儿之科尔沁、劳萨津；给 与别里台吉之诺密、素僧克；给与合赤温之合克台、巴勒珠台、哈喇策里克、喀尔 1 喀；给与斡赤斤之乌尔固特、兀者穆伊勒、穆勒森。” 另一部史书罗桑丹津的《蒙古 黄金史》在讲到“帖木真四个弟弟的后裔时说： “成吉思汗之弟合赤温的儿子阿勒赤 歹、图鲁根那颜、兀鲁格、忽里也勒，他们是喀喇策力格和两个翁牛特的王公那颜” 2 。还有《金轮千辐》也提到“成吉思汗同母弟哈赤温有蒙克察罕，其子巴延岱洪果 3 尔、巴泰车臣。” 三书都认为翁牛特、喀喇车里克部是元太祖弟合赤温的后裔。 汉文史料的记载正好相反，都认为是成吉思汗弟斡赤斤（清译谔楚因等）的后 裔。如清朝官方钦定的《外藩蒙古回部王公表传》《翁牛特部总传》说：“元太祖弟 谔楚因，称乌真诺颜，见元史表。其裔蒙克察罕诺颜，有子二：长阿巴岱洪果尔诺 4 颜，号所部曰翁牛特。次巴泰车臣诺颜，别号喀喇齐哩克部，皆称阿鲁蒙古。” 《蒙 5 古游牧记》作“元太祖同母第三弟诺楚因，称乌真诺颜。……” 《皇朝藩部要略》 6 的记载与此类同 。 蒙汉文献在喀喇车里克部到底是成吉思汗哪个弟弟的后裔这个问题上针锋相 对，究竟是孰是孰非？上述档案对解决这一问题毫无帮助。 史料记载的抵牾理所当然地导致了现代研究者的歧见。有人采信清朝官方史料 的说法，认为是斡赤斤的后裔。如《蒙古世系》作者高文德、蔡志纯就将翁牛特部 7 （包括喀喇车里克部）世系归入铁木哥斡赤斤后裔项下 。宝音德力根（1997）则认 为汉文史料的记载“是个大误会”。并肯定罗桑丹津的记载可信，断言“清初的翁牛 特部和喀喇车里克、伊苏特（Isud）三部的统治者确系哈赤温后裔。”“翁牛特、喀 喇车里克、伊苏特三部就是《皇明九边考》等书中的‘冈流’三营。”为了加强可信 度，该氏还将翁牛特部始祖蒙克察罕诺颜（Mцngke CaGan Noyan）指为《明实录》 1 《蒙古黄史》，p.110。 《蒙古黄金史》，p.380。 3 《金轮千辐》，p.312。 4 《王公表传》卷 31，《翁牛特部总传》。 5 《蒙古游牧记》，卷 3，《翁牛特》。 6 《藩部要略》卷 1，《内蒙古要略一》。 7 《蒙古世系》，pp.42-43。 2 229 中出现的“永乐年间哈赤温后裔‘大酋’察罕达鲁花”。这个结论的根据实际是由两 部分构成，一是前述罗桑丹津《黄金史纲》的记载；二是明代史料《皇明九边考》、 《明实录》等书。应该指出，作为新证据的后者对其结论没有什么贡献。其一，罗 桑丹津《黄金史纲》记哈赤温的后裔，并没有提到伊苏特。尽管明末清初三部关系 密切，有时共同行动（翁牛特、喀喇车里克的的关系问题下面还要谈到）。其二，如 同该氏所主张的“冈流” （“往流”、 “罔流”，清译翁牛特）是“元代东道诸王后裔部 1 众的统称” ，并不专指哈赤温后裔，也可指斡赤斤、别里古台、哈撒尔的后裔。其 三，魏焕《皇明九边考》等书中虽然提到“冈流”三营，但没有具体营名，与蒙古 文文献中出现的翁牛特、喀喇车里克、伊苏特三部对号入座，只是一种猜测。其四， 将翁牛特部始祖蒙克察罕诺颜指为《明实录》中出现的永乐年间 “察罕部” “大酋” 察罕达鲁花更是臆测。先不谈察罕达鲁花是否是哈赤温后裔，也不论这个察罕部是 否就是《黄金史纲》中往流诸部之一的察罕万户。最大的问题是两个察罕活动的时 间相距遥远。察罕达鲁花活动在永乐年间（1403-1424），而据《王公表传》蒙克察 罕诺颜以下世次依次为巴岱洪果尔诺颜 ——图兰——逊杜棱，到逊杜棱为止共传四 世，逊杜棱卒于顺治二年（1645），上溯四世，蒙克察罕诺颜大约活动在 16 世纪中 晚期。两察罕生活的年代至少相差百年以上，故知其说不可信。要解决翁牛特、喀 喇车里克部的来源问题，还是要回到清代形成的蒙汉文史书自身来讨论。 上述蒙汉史料系统的分歧可以归结为以下两个问题：1、是成吉思汗的第几弟。 蒙古文史书只是笼统称成吉思汗弟；汉文史书则有第三弟、弟等多种说法。2、是人 名的矛盾。蒙古文史书中哈赤温（元代译名）的标准写法是 Qaciqun，异写则有 Qacigin、 QacuGu 、QaciGu，清代汉文译写则有哈济锦、鄂初古、鄂楚古等；汉文史书中则有 谔楚因、诺楚因、谔楚肯、噶初古、噶楚古等译名，其元代译写则为斡赤斤，还原 为蒙古文则为=dcigin，各种蒙古文史籍的音变写法有=cuGu、=ciGu 等。看似泾渭分 明，各有所指。之所以造成混乱，是因为这两个问题有连带关系。按《元史·宗室 世系表》的记载，成吉思汗兄弟五人，依次为“长太祖皇帝；次二搠只[哈]撒尔王； 次三哈赤温大王；次四铁木哥斡赤金，所谓皇太弟国王斡嗔那颜者也；次五别里古 2 台王。” 按《元朝秘史》的记载，五人中别里古台为庶母弟，其余四人为同母兄弟。 但是，据此对上述史书中出现的人名（原名及译音）、排行进行审音勘同时却遇到了 困难。在蒙、汉两个独立的史料系统内，记载并无矛盾，但两个系统史料对接时却 难以吻合。汉文史书中出现的谔楚因、诺楚因、谔楚肯、噶初古、噶楚古（均为斡 赤金的不同译写），在蒙古文史书中却被作为哈赤温记载。造成歧异的原因，可能是 史料来源不同，也可能是在史书形成和流传过程中由于辗转移译造成的。因此，应 该寻找并比较两个系统的史书中同时形成的另一文本。而唯一符合这一条件的是成 1 2 宝音德力根（1997），p.113。 《元史》，卷 147，“宗室世系表”，p.2710。 230 书于雍正末期的另一部代表性史料《蒙古家谱》 （也名《蒙古世系谱》、 《蒙古博尔济 吉忒氏族谱》）。该书原本应为蒙古文，“译以清、汉文字，以便披览。”则传本中应 有蒙、满、汉三种文本。其中蒙古文本（题名 MongGol-un borQigit uboG-un teUke） 已有刊本。汉文本中相关部分这样记载： “清吉思汗第三弟鄂初古之后：库尔鲁忒部 落之台吉是也。”“清吉思汗第四弟噶初古之后：今翁牛特两旗王、台吉；哈拉齐里 1 克公索诺木；及镶黄旗副都御史多尔济达尔汉诺音，……是也。” 蒙古文本的相应部 分“第三弟鄂初古”作 GutaGar tegUU ocuGu； “第四弟噶初古”作 dцdUger tegUU GacuGu2。虽然在人名和后裔所领旗分问题上与上述蒙古文史书相一致。但在兄弟排 行上却与《元史》相冲突。由于有同母、庶母之别，排行方法会导致排行顺序不同。 但无论哪种排法，哈赤温都年长于斡赤金。就是说，这里的顺序是错误的。与汉文 史书相比较，人名全不相符；排行上虽然《蒙古游牧记》中也有“第三弟诺楚因” 说法，但所指显然不同。 《蒙古游牧记》强调的是同母第三弟，应是指同母兄弟中排 行第四的斡赤金。 《蒙古家谱》似乎解决了蒙汉译名的勘同和喀喇车里克部到底是成 吉思汗哪个弟弟的后裔问题，却因排行顺序的错误大大降低了其可信度。 近年新发现的出自蒙古史料系统，但以汉文刊布的《翁牛特右旗王爵统系暨历 代袭爵年月功绩表传》，叙述了自始祖“元太祖之弟嘎楚嘎额珍”至民国为止的三十 3 五代世系 。为我们探讨这一问题提供了新的资料。考虑到该世系表传是该旗王府民 国初年向中央政府呈报的正式文件，其权威性无可怀疑。《功绩表传》以 1636 年为 界，分清以前（22 世）和入清以后（13 世）两部分。入清以后部分经与各本《王公 表传》对照，完全一致，可知就是上报清朝理藩院世系资料的底本。其价值主要体 现在入清以前的部分。兹转录如下： 一世，元太祖之弟嘎楚嘎额珍；其子—— 二世，阿拉其汰诺颜；其子—— 三世，阿拉其巴嘎诺颜；其子—— 四世，棋倍斯格诺颜；其子—— 五世，噶吉嘎布拉诺颜，其子—— 六世，赛音郭尔布拉呼诺颜；其子—— 七世，孟古希立诺颜；其子—— 八世，阿拉木图们阿都图阿拉嘎诺颜；其子—— 九世，赛音敖其立诺颜；其子—— 十世，白音诺颜；其子—— 十一世，阿拉珠诺颜；其子—— 1 《蒙古家谱》下卷， p.240。 MongGol-un borQigit uboG-un teUke，p.383. 3 《翁牛特功绩表传》，pp. 12-13。 2 231 十二世，宝洛珠诺颜；其子—— 十三世，孟河铁穆尔诺颜；其子—— 十四世，扣河铁穆尔洪台吉；其子—— 十五世，巴牙斯洪台吉；其子—— 十六世，图梅洪台吉；其子—— 十七世，图们洪台吉；其子—— 十八世，特古斯洪台；其子—— 十九世，孟河宝洛德察甘诺颜；其子—— 二十世，巴彦岱洪古立；其子—— 二十一世，额三宝洛德洪台吉；其子—— 二十二世，多罗杜棱罕；其子—— …… 这一世系与现有的有关成吉思汗诸弟的世系都不一致，表面上看，很难肯定是 1 哈赤温一系还是斡赤斤一系的后裔。有的著作认为是哈赤温一系 ，但未见具体论证。 联系我们前面所作的讨论，应该说，这一史料的出现加强了蒙古文系统史书所 记哈赤温后裔说的可信度。 首先，一世“元太祖之弟嘎楚嘎额珍”， 嘎楚嘎接近《蒙古家谱》的译名“噶 初古”，也就是哈赤温。 其次，二世阿拉其汰诺颜，与罗桑丹津的《蒙古黄金史》中的 “成吉思汗之弟 合赤温的儿子阿勒赤歹、……”完全一致，即 Alcidai。 其三，这份《表传》的重要意义还在于它将蒙古文史书与清朝官方的《王公表 传》相关记载统一起来。以《功绩表传》前段的后半部分与《王公表传》中“翁牛 特总传”部分对照，可以看到惊人的一致性。试看下表： 《王公表传·翁牛特总传》 《功绩表传》 蒙克察罕诺颜 孟河宝洛德察甘诺颜 巴延岱洪果尔诺颜 巴彦岱洪古立 ？ 额三宝洛德洪台吉 图兰杜棱汗 多罗杜棱罕 逊杜棱 逊杜棱 两相对照，除了《王公表传·翁牛特总传》中少了一代以外，其余完全吻合。 这使得《王公表传·翁牛特总传》的记载得到了有力的佐证。 至此，有关翁牛特、喀喇车里克部到底是成吉思汗哪个弟弟的后裔问题似乎已 1 《赤峰蒙古史》，p.92。 232 经是尘埃落定。哈赤温说、斡赤斤说两说相较，后者错误的可能性更大。 但问题还不止于此，我们还应该更进一步探讨造成史书记载分歧的各种可能性。 一种可能是历史本身的复杂造成了“历史记忆”的复杂，两个系统的史书各有 所本，但反映出来的只是历史事实的一部分。或许元明之际，在东道诸王如合赤温、 别里古台、斡赤斤后裔统辖下的属部和领主之间，确实发生过属民易主的情形。就 像明末清初喀喇沁的领主由黄金家族易为兀良哈的新贵们一样。由于明代记载蒙古 内部的史料极度匮乏，真相已无从稽考。 更大的可能性是史料形成过程中致误的，应该从史源学和史料学的角度进行分 析。 蒙古文系统史书多成书于 17 世纪或 18 世纪 30 年代以前，在时间上要早于汉文 史书。其史源，是那些未受过严格训练的草原史家们的作品。这些作品以传统的口 传形式或某种文字形式代代相承，侧重记述黄金家族的系谱、各部落世系和相关的 历史故事及传说。这些资料是彼此重复、凌乱和不系统的。即《蒙古家谱》所说的 “遗编散帙，缺略殊多。各家记载，每至互相舛错。”然而正是这些资料构成了《蒙 古黄金史》等蒙古文史书的材料来源。而罗密的《蒙古家谱》显然又是在包括《黄 金史》在内的上述蒙古文资料基础上完成的， “广览博稽，详加考证，删繁摘要，录 其次第源流，以备家乘” 。 《王公表传》无疑是汉文系统史书的源头。该书始编于乾隆四十四年（1779）， 1 成书于五十四年。主要编纂者为祁韻士、管干贞和郭在逵。 《藩部要略》的初纂者 为祁韻士，改定者为张穆。实际上是祁韻士一人作二书，史源相同毫无问题。至于 《蒙古游牧记》的作者则是张穆，取材于《藩部要略》更是自然的：“〈要略〉编年 2 书也，穆请为地志以错综而发明之” 。 只是增加了自己的一些考订，使之更为详尽。 由于三书存在上述的同源关系，我们只消弄清《王公表传》的史源即可解决这一系 统的史源问题。 《王公表传》的材料，主要取材于内阁大库庋藏的满汉文档（“清字红本”）和 理藩院（部）所存蒙古各部落呈送朝廷的蒙古文报告，以及世谱档册及其他有关资 料。“这批资料包括有蒙古四部王公的家谱档册、王公源流、升迁调补、恩赏予夺、 功过事迹以及承袭次数、事故年月，还有关于户口、田赋、贡输和疆理等资料，一 3 般十年选送一次。” 前引《功绩表传》应该是这类资料的一个样本。清代称其为“旗 4 册”。“王公等源流支派，则核以理藩院所存世谱，订正勿讹” 这种“世谱”当指前 述《蒙古家谱》一类资料。就是说，蒙古文系统资料应是《王公表传》的重要史源。 1 包文汉（1998）。 祁寯藻：《蒙古游牧记》序。 3 包文汉（1998）。 4 祁韻士自订《鹤皋年谱》。 2 233 既然如此， 《王公表传》所载与蒙古文资料又为何两歧呢？这恐怕与蒙古文资料 译汉过程中出现的讹误有关。 《王公表传》的三位编者都是汉族，虽然在翰林院庶常馆受过系统的满文训练， 但不通蒙古文。 “旗册” 、 “世谱”一类蒙古文资料主要借助于即史馆中的翻译们转译， 1 “择其紧要节目，随阅随译，荟萃作为底册，以备取材”。 而作为史馆翻译者都是八 旗特别是蒙古旗人充任。问题在于这些蒙古旗人入关已百数十年，久已浸淫于满汉 文化之中，蒙古文素养越来越差。此前五十余年，雍正帝就在忧虑“近见蒙古旗分 2 人，能蒙古语言翻译者甚少，相习日久，则蒙古语言文字必渐至废弃。 ” 这样的蒙古 文水平何以胜任严谨的翻译工作？加上哈赤温、斡赤金的蒙古文字形、读音相近， 异写形式又多，张冠李戴也是可能的。 另一个值得讨论的问题是喀喇车里克作为部落名的来源。八十年代，笔者亲聆 3 已故的贾敬颜教授与亦邻真教授口头讨论过这一问题 ，贾先生曾提出可能源自元代 4 黑军的看法，且曾形诸文字 。仅就字面而言，qara cerig 释为“黑军”当无疑问。但 金元时代的黑军并非一支，至少见于史料的有： 5 （1）汉人军阀史怀德、史天祥父子所领黑军，后归国王木华黎帐下 。 6 （2）石天应所辖黑军， “天应旌旗色用黑，人目之曰黑军。”后也归木华黎管辖 。 （3）金将石抹也先、查剌父子所辖黑军，也源自石天应辖军， “也先籍其私养敢 7 死之士万二千人号黑军者，上于朝。 ” 也曾在木华黎的麾下。 这些黑军的去向一无例外都指向了国王木华黎，为我们进一步讨论这一问题指 出了一个方向。众所周知，木华黎家族作为五投下之一，有自己的封地，位置靠近 东道诸王的封地。而按照蒙古的习惯和制度，由他的后人继续控制指挥某些黑军是 应该的。在元代，这种世代领有若干千户的投下，首先直属于大汗。元朝灭亡以后， 在 14-17 世纪长期的混乱和动荡中，札剌亦儿贵族控制的黑军作为武装也作为部民 转入黄金家族甚至东道诸王后裔手中也是很自然的。如同元代的军团阿速卫几经周 折成为明代永谢部中的一个鄂托克——阿速、阿速特（Asud）一样，喀喇车里克也 由军队专名最后成了部落名。佚名《黄金史纲》中叙述达兰特里衮之战时曾经提到 “ 达 延 可 汗 询 问 黑 军 首 领 卫 喇 特 的 实 古 锡 （ Qara cerig-Un aqalaGci oyirad-un 8 SigUSi），……。” 可知 16 世纪初，黑军的首领是卫喇特人实古锡。黑军的名号何 1 李兆洛：《藩部要略》序。 《钦定八旗通志》卷 101《学校志 8》 。 3 时间是 1987 年 6 月，在内蒙古大学蒙古史研究所硕士论文答辩会后。 4 贾敬颜（1989）。 5 《元史》，卷 147，“史天祥传”，p.3486。 6 《元史》，卷 149，“石天应传”，p.3526。 7 《元史》，卷 150，“石抹也先传”，pp.3542-3543。 8 《汉译蒙古黄金史纲》，pp.97，197。 2 234 时转入斡赤斤一系不得而知，总之，喀喇车里克的再一次出现，已经是 17 世纪 30 年代，作为阿鲁蒙古的一个部落出现在《满文老档》中了。 （二）归清后喀喇车里克部的主要活动 喀喇车里克部作为阿鲁蒙古之一部，清代满汉文献记载明确。上述蒙古文档案 也证实了此点，即从阿鲁地方（Aru GaQar）来归的。这个 Aru GaQar，当然是 指大兴安岭及其支脉。来归时间，汉文文献《王公表传》、 《清实录》、 《清史稿》等， 记为天聪六年（1632）。而据《满文老档》，天聪五年（1631）正月初二日，已见其 首领噶尔玛黄台吉（`arma huwang taiQi）的五位使者到达后金汗廷，四月初七日更 1 有其本人叩拜皇太极的记载。阿鲁诸台吉更与后金举行了针对察哈尔和明朝的盟誓 。 敕书中没有提具体来归时间。 根据《满文老档》，天聪五年四月至十一月间。先后来到后金朝廷的喀喇车里克 部贵族官员已有多起。从最高统治者噶尔玛黄台吉到一般贵族纳木岱戴青、诺木齐 戴青、阿喇纳诺木齐、甚至还有巴图尔台吉、托克托惠率领的多达 35 人的使团。其 活动包括朝见、献马朝贺、贡献驼马等。但参与后金的军事行动，则是天聪六年以 后的事情。主要有： （1）天聪六年（1632）四月丙子，该部阿喇纳诺木齐亲率属众参加后金征讨林 丹汗的大军。见于《清实录》。 （2）天聪八年（1634）闰八月，参加后金四路攻明行动，从龙门口入明边。后 入山西攻取明 7 座城堡。见《清实录》。 （3）天聪九年（1635）十二月，该部首领噶尔玛、贵族阿喇纳诺木齐作为蒙古 2 十六部四十九名贝勒之一上表皇太极，请改尊号。见《清实录》 。 （4）崇德元年（1636）十一月，在清朝对外藩蒙古诸部的第一次大规模编旗编 佐领行动中，该部共编成 9 牛录，与杜棱（逊杜棱）郡王所属的 16 牛录合编为一旗， 由逊杜棱任扎萨克。见《满文老档》 。 （5）崇德三年（1638）二月，噶尔玛率兵参加对外喀尔喀的军事行动。见《王 公表传》。 八月，噶尔玛率兵从清贝勒 岳托入明墙子岭，围北京，下山东，又从多尔衮围 锦州、松山。屡建战功。见于敕书记载。《实录》无。 （6）崇德八年（1643）九月，清朝叙功，噶尔玛等贵族受赏。见《清实录》。 （7）崇德八年，封镇国公，诏世袭罔替，见《敕书》、《王公表传》所记，不见 于《清实录》 。 （8）顺治五年，噶尔玛卒，子察罕泰承袭爵位。见《敕书》 、《王公表传》。 1 2 《满文老档》(1991)，天聪五年正月初二日、四月初七日。 《满文老档》记事在天聪十年即崇德元年（1636）二月初二日。 235 （三）喀喇车里克部的社会组织 喀喇车里克部进入后金统治之前，文献无征，无从得知该部落的具体情况。不 过通过《满文老档》所记载的贵族名号，可以窥到一丝信息。这个部落与一般蒙古 部落一样，大体由统治者、一般贵族和属民三个阶层构成。最高统治者是噶尔玛， 称号是黄台吉（huwang tayiQi，语源为汉语的皇太子）。作为部落长，他没有称汗， 一是由于部落较小，另一方面也表明，在他之上还有更高的政治上的统治者，即阿 鲁蒙古这个部落联盟的济农存在。噶尔玛的弟弟，名诺木岱戴青（诺密泰岱青 Nomidai dayicing）。一般贵族见于记载的有诺木齐戴青（Nomci dayicing）、阿喇纳诺木齐（Arna Nomci）、巴图尔台吉（Batur tayiQi ，又叫 Tai Batur）、托克托惠扎尔固齐（Toktohoi QarGuci）。其中阿喇纳诺木齐，诺木齐，税收官之谓，显然是负责税收的官员；托 克托惠扎尔固齐，扎尔固齐意为断事官，是担当司法断案的官员；巴图尔台吉则是 1 一位勇士，也许负责作战 。 崇德元年（1636）十一月，该部按照清朝的佐领制度进行了重组。当时，总共 500 家（实为 502）属民共编 9 牛录。具体见下表： 领主名 原有户数 编佐领数 新任牛录章京姓名 噶尔玛 150 3 德格图、劳萨、多西 诺木岱 70 1 拜都 阿喇纳 167 3 博罗胡、额森德依、布岱 索尼岱 50 1 塔里岱 阿地赛 50 合为 1 绣格 寨赛 15 合计 502 9 9人 2 虽然有 9 个牛录，但该部真正被征为甲士的实际只有 100 名 。 （四）喀喇车里克部与翁牛特部的关系 明末的阿鲁蒙古是总号，下面包含许多部落。喀喇车里克部与翁牛特部是关系 最近的两个部落。两部定名的时间《王公表传》说是天聪六年（1632）来归之后， “自 是其部称翁牛特，以喀喇车里克附之，不复冠阿噜旧称。”1632 年是两部终止使用“阿 噜（蒙古）”这个旧的总称的时间，显然不是两部自立名号的时间。至晚 16 世纪后 半，他们已自立名号。但翁牛特部大而强，喀喇车里克部弱而小，故后者实际依附 翁牛特部。1636 年编旗时，翁牛特部被编为两旗，其中杜棱（逊杜棱）郡王旗（右 1 2 《满文老档》(1991)，天聪五年四月初七日；闰十一月十四日；闰十一月十九日。 《满文老档》(1991)，崇德元年十一月初六日。 236 翼旗）有 800 家，16 牛录；达尔汉戴青（栋戴青）旗（左翼旗）下有 1830 家，34 1 牛录 。因噶尔玛与逊杜棱是叔侄关系，故喀喇车里克部众被附入翁牛特右旗，但有 自己的贵族管理。史料上喀喇车里克作为部落最后一次出现是顺治十三年（1656） 2 八月 。这说明至晚在顺治末年或康熙初年，喀喇车里克部已完全融入了翁牛特部。 作为部落，它在史册上存在的时间不过 30 余年。 引用文献 《元史》：《元史》，中华书局标点本。 《清内秘书院档》：《清内秘书院蒙古文档案汇编》，内蒙古人民出版社，2004。 《蒙古黄史》 ：佚名著、乌力吉图汉译《蒙古黄史》，载《蒙古史研究》第二辑。 《蒙古黄金史》：罗桑丹津著、色道尔吉汉译《蒙古黄金史》 ，蒙古学出版社，1993。 《金轮千辐》 ：答里麻著，乔吉校注《金轮千辐》 ，内蒙古人民出版社，1987。 《满文老档》 （1991）：《满文老档》，汉译本，中华书局，1991。 《王公表传》 ：《钦定外藩蒙古回部王公表传》，《四库全书》本。 《蒙古家谱》：罗密原著、博清额改定《蒙古家谱》，朱风和贾敬颜合译《汉译蒙古 黄金史纲》附录本，内蒙古人民出版社，1985。 《翁牛特功绩表传》： 《翁牛特右旗王爵统系系暨历代袭爵年月功绩表传》，载于《赤 峰郊区文资料选集》第一集，1988。 《藩部要略》 ：祁韵士著，包文汉整理， 《清朝藩部要略稿本》 ， 黑龙江教育出版社， 1997。 《蒙古游牧记》。 《清代蒙古史料合辑》影印本，全国图书馆文献缩微复制中心，2003。 《鹤皋年谱》 ，祁韻士自订。《山右石刻丛编》本。 《钦定八旗通志》。吉林文史出版社，2001。 MongGol-un borQigit uboG-un teUke，内蒙古人民出版社校注本，1999。 《蒙古世系》 ：高文德、蔡志纯编《蒙古世系》，中国社会科学出版社，1980。 1 2 同上。 《清世祖实录》，顺治十三年八月丙子。 237 《赤峰蒙古史》：魏昌友主编《赤峰蒙古史》，内蒙古人民出版社，1999。 和田（1984） ：和田清著、潘世宪译《明代蒙古史论集》上，商务印书馆，1984。 贾敬颜（1989）：贾敬颜著《阿禄蒙古考》，载《蒙古史研究》第三辑，1989。 宝音德力根（1997）：宝音德力根著《十五世纪前后蒙古政局部落诸问题研究》，未 刊博士论文，内蒙古大学，1997。 乌兰（2001） ：乌兰著《蒙古源流研究》，辽宁民族出版社，2001。 包文汉（1998）：包文汉著《蒙古回部王公表传的编纂与研究》， 《蒙古回部王公表传》 第一辑，内蒙古大学出版社，1998。 238 附件 1 239 附件 1 240 附件 2 241 附件 2 242 List of Contributros Chen, Dezhi 陈得芝: Professor, Research Institute of Yuan Dynasty History, Nanjing University, China Futaki, Hiroshi 二木博史: Professor, Faculty of Foreign Studies, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Japan Jorigt, Gombjabin 照日格图: Professor, Doctor, Center for Mongolian Studies, Inner Mongolia University, China Khurelbaatar, Lhamsuren: Professor, Doctor, Institute of Language and Literature, Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Mongolia Kim, Sung-so 金成脩: Associate Professor, Doctor, Department of History, University of Yonsei, Seoul, Korea Nasan Bayar 那顺巴依尔: Professor, Doctor, Department of Anthropology, Inner Mongolia University, China Oyunbilig, Borjigidai 乌云毕力格: Professor, Doctor, Center for Mongolian Studies, Inner Mongolia University, China Shagdarsuren, Sharnuud Tsevel: Professor, Doctor, School of Mongolian Language and Culture, National University of Mongolia, Mongolia Shen, Weirong 沈卫荣: 258 Doctor, Research Fellow at Lumbini International Research Institute (LIRI), Khadumand, Nepal Terbish, Lhasran: Professor, Doctor, School of Mongolian Language and Culture, National University of Mongolia, Mongolia Tuimer 忒莫勒: Research Fellow of Inner Mongolia Library, China Wang, Liping 汪利平: Associate Professor, Doctor, Department of History, University of Minnesota, USA Zhang, Yongjiang 张永江: Associate Professor, Doctor, Research Institute of Qing Dynasty History, Renmin University of China, China 259 Information for authors Quaestiones Mongolorum Disputatae (QMD) is an annual publication by Association for International Studies of Mongolian Culture, with 250-300 pages. The journal publishes articles on various academic spheres of Mongolian culture, in Mongolian (in classical Mongolian and Cyrillic scripts), English, French, German, Russian, Chinese and Japanese （with English abstracts）. Historical documents with academic significance and high-quality scholarly monographs are accepted to be published as occasional papers. Authors are required to send manuscripts in both hard copy and electronic disc to H. Futaki (Faculty of Foreign Studies, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies，3-11-1 Asahicho, Fuchu-shi, Tokyo, 183-8534 Japan, hfutak@tufs.ac.jp) or B. Oyunbilig (Center for Mongolian Studies, Inner Mongolia University, West Daxue Road 235, Hohhot, 010021 China, borjigidaiuyunbilig@yahoo.com.cn). Electronic copy is required to be processed with Microsoft Word, in B5format. Citation should be put on footnotes, and full bibliography provided separately. Manuscripts are evaluated by the Editorial Board. The Board may reject manuscripts that do not meet the standards of the journal. Articles are accepted provided they have not been published previously. We will inform authors of whether his/her article is published in the journal by email, without sending the manuscript back. Authors will be provided two copies of the issue. We do not pay for the contribution to the journal. 260 ISSN 1349-7510 QUAESTIONES MONGOLORUM DISPUTATAE Executive Editors: H. FUTAKI ＆ B. OYUNBILIG Editorial Board: Lhamsurengiin Khurelbaatar, Mongolian Academy of Science, Mongolia Liu Yingsheng 刘迎胜, Nanjing University, China Irina V. Kulganeg, Peterburg University, Russia Udo B. Barkmann, DAAD, Germany David Sneath, University of Cambridge, England Borjigidai Oyunbilig 乌云毕力格, Inner Mongolia University, China Futaki Hiroshi 二木博史, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Japan April 30. 2005 Tokyo QUAESTIONES MONGOLORUM DISPUTATAE 1 Association for International Studies of Mongolian Culture