The Twelve Deeds of Buddha: A Mongolian Version of the Lalitavistara (Mongolian Text, Notes, and English Translation)

Table of contents :
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface ... 9
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Mongolian Text in Transcription . . . . . . . . . . 21
Notes to the Mongolian Text... 69
Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Notes to the Translation . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 163
Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Citation preview

(i ASIATISCHE FORSCHUNGEN BAND 23

THE TWELVE DEEDS OF BUDDHA A MONGOLIAN VERSION OF THE LALITAVISTARA MONGOLIAN TEXT, NOTES, AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY

NICHOLAS POPPE

OTTO HARRASSOWITZ · WIESBADEN

6/

NICHOLAS POPPE

THE TWELVE DEEDS OF BUDDHA A Mongolian Version of the Lalitavistara Mongolian Text, Notes, and English Translation

ASIATISCHE FORSCHUNGEN MONOGRAPHIENREIHE ZUR GESOHIOHTE, KULTUR UND SPRAOHE DER VOLKER OST- UND ZENTRALASIENS Herausgegeben fiir das Seminar fiir Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft Zentralasiens der UNIVERSIT.AT BONN von

W.ALTHER REISSIG unter Mitwirkung von HERBERT FRANKE, NIKOLAUS POPPE UND 0MELJAN PRITSAK

BAND 23

THE TWELVE DEEDS OF BUDDHA A MONGOLIAN VERSION OF THE LALITAVISTARA MONGOLIAN TEXT, NOTES, AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION by

NICHOLAS POPPE

1967

OTTO HARRASSOWITZ · WIESBADEN

THE TWELVE DEEDS OF BUDDHA A MONGOLIAN VERSION OF THE LALITAVISTARA MONGOLIAN TEXT, NOTES, AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION

by

NICHOLAS POPPE

1967

OTTO HARRASSOWITZ · WIESBADEN

VNIVERSIT.X..TS BIBLIOTHBK HEIDELBERG

Alie Rechte vorbehalten Photomechanische und photographische Wiedergaben nur mit ausdtiicklicher Genehmigung des Verlages Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden Herstellung: Buchdtuckerei Hubert & Co., Gottingen Druck det Faksimiletafeln: Julius Beltz, Weinheim Printed in Germany

Jiemrnrpa;r:i;cRoey rocy;r:i;apcTBeHHOMY YmrnepcMTeTY IIOCBHru;aeT ero 6nIBIDMit BOCIIMTaHHHR M rrpOlpeccop

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ........................................................

9

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Mongolian Text in Transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21

Notes to the Mongolian Text.....................................

69

Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

111

Notes to the Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

163

Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

175

PREFACE The present work is the first volume of my projected series of pre-classical Mongolian Buddhist texts, with translations and commentaries. It is devoted to the famous Arban qoyar Jokiyangyui which is often quoted in works dealing with pre-classical Written Mongolian language. Publication of a pre-classical text and its translation is by no means an easy task. In the process of working on this rather difficult text, I was helped by my friends and colleagues. Some words of Chinese origin were explained by Professor Fang-kuei Li. Important historical information contained in the Yilanshih was supplied by Professor Yan-shuan Lao. Some Tibetan and Sanskrit words were interpreted by Professor Leon Hurvitz, and identification of some other obscure Sanskrit terms was made by Professor Agehananda Bharati. Without their help many questions would have remained unanswered. I should also mention that my English translation of the text was edited by Mrs. R. E. Conley. While reading the proofs of this book, I was helped by Miss Gladys Greenwood. In extending my warmest thanks to the persons mentioned, I should remark, however, that I alone bear full responsibility for the inadequacies found in this book. When the book had already been set up, and some portions of it had been printed, I learned from a letter of March 6. 1967, from my friend, Professor Walther Reissig, that he had just seen, in the latest issue of the Acta Orientalia Hung., an article by L. Ligeti devoted to the manuscript which is the subject of this book. Not having seen Ligeti's article, I am in no position to say how its appearance affects the present work. Seattle March 15, 1967

Nicholas Poppe

INTRODUCTION "The Twelve Deeds of Buddha" is the translation of a Tibetan original compiled by C'os-kyi 'Od-zer, a well-known translator of Buddhist works. 1 The Tibetan original of this work has never been found. Therefore, the Mongolian translation is of the value of the original, not to mention that it is a rare specimen of early Mongolian Buddhist literature and is of great interest both as an old literary source and a specimen of the Mongolian language of the Yiian period. According to the colophon, the translation was made by the Saskya monk Ses-rab Sen-ge. Not much is known about him. We do not even know the years of his birth and death, and it is unknown how long he lived. There is only a brief mention of him by Sayang Secen from which follows that Ses-rab Sen-ge was invited by the Yiian Emperor Yisiin Temiir:

tendece kamala-yin kobegun yisun temur qayan kui moyai Jiltei : yucin qoyariyan ga quluyana Jil-e qayan sayuJu : saskiy-a puniya pada kemeku lam-a kiged mongyol-un baysi kelemurci sirab sengge qoyar-iyar urida orciyuluy-a edui nomud-i orciyulyayad tabun Jil-e qayan oron sayuJu yucin Jiryuyan-iyan uu luu Jil-e qalibai 2 , "After that, Kamala's son, Yisiin Temiir Qayan, born in the Kiii 1 C'os-kyi 'Od-zer was commissioned to translate a number of works under the Yuan Emperor Oljeitu ( = Temiir, son of Cinggim, 1294---1307) and, after the latter's death, he was in Qaisan Kuliig's (Dharmapala's son and Cinggim's grandson, 1307-11) service. Vide Georg Huth, Geschichte des Buddhismus in der Mongolei, aus dem Tibetischen des 'Jigs-med nam-mk'a, II. Teil, Nachtrage zum I. Teil, Ubersetzung, Stra13burg 1896, pp. 160, 162. Only few facts about C'os-kyi 'Od-zer's life are known. 2 I. J. Schmidt, Geschichte der Ostmongolen und ihres Fiirstenhauses, verfaj3t von Ssanang Ssetsen Ohungtaidschi der Ordus, St. Petersburg 1829, p. 120. Identical passages in Erich Haenisch, Eine Urga-Handschrift des mongolischen Geschichtswerkes von Secen Sagang (alias Sanang Secen), Berlin 1955, fol. 45v; A. Mostaert, C. I. C. M., Erdeni-yin Tobci, Mongolian Chronicle by Sayang Secen, with a critical introduction, Part. II, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1956, p. 122 (fol. 61r); Part III, p. 107 (fol. 53r) [the only difference is that, instead of kiii, ga, and uu, the Mongolian terms qaraycin, cayan, and .fora respectively are used, although cayan is not equivalent toga]; Part IV, p. 121-22; Erich Haenisch, Der Kienlung-Druck des mongolischen Geschichtswerkes Erdeni-yin Tobci von Sagang Secen, Wiesbaden 1959, p. 111. The dates, with the exception of Yisiin Temiir's birth date, agree with the dates given in the Yuan-shih. There Yisiin (Yesiin) Temiir is said to have been born on Nov. 6, 1276 (Yuan-shih 29, 1a. I owe this information to Dr. Yanshuan Lao, University of Washington). However, according to Moule, the dates are: born on Nov. 28, 1293, ascended to the throne on Oct. 4, 1323, and died on Aug. 15, 1328, vide A. C. Moule, "A Table of the Emperors of the Yuan Dynasty," Journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. XLV, Shanghai 1914, p. 124. Moule's dates are almost identical with those given by Sayang Secen.

12

Introduction

Snake year, ascended the throne 3 in the Ga Mouse year at the age of thirty-two, and having made the Saskya Lama PU]J.ya Pada and the teacher and translator of the Mongols, Sirab Sengge translate books that had not been translated before, he reigned for five years and deceased, at the age of thirty-six, in the Wu Dragon year." Kamala was the eldest son of Cinggim who, in his turn, was Kubilai's third son. Consequently, Yisiin Temiir was Kubilai's great-grandson. According to Sayang Secen, he was born in 1293, ascended the throne in 1324 and died in 1328. These dates help establish the approximate chronology of the beginning of Ses-rab Se:ri.-ge's literary activities. Sayang Secen states that it was Yisiin Temiir who commissioned Ses-rab Se:ri.-ge to make translations of books that had not been translated before. Consequently, Ses-rab Se:ri.-ge began his literary activities after 1323 (or even 1324), the year when Yisiin Temiir became Emperor, but no later than 1328, the year of Yisiin Temiir's death. Sayang Secen's statement concerning the invitation by Yisiin Temiir is confirmed by the author of the Tibetan work on history of Buddhism in Mongolia, who is known in literature as 'Jigs-med nam-mk'a. He also says that Yisiin Temiir invited the Saskya Lama dGa-ba bsod-nams and the Mongolian Lo-tsa-ba Ses-rab Seii-ge who were to translate Buddhist books. 4 Of what ethnic origin was Ses-rab Se:ri.-ge? His name is Tibetan but this does not mean anything because many Mongols had Tibetan names not only in the Yiian time but even earlier. Sayang Secen calls him mongyol-un baysi kelemilrci "the Mongol's (or Mongols') teacher-translator." This can mean several things, namely 1. translator of Mongolian, 2. translator and teacher of the Mongols, and 3. the Mongolian teacher and translator. The second possibility is to be ruled out as improbable for the reason that Ses-rab Se:ri.-ge was by no means the only teacher (or enlightener) of the Mongols: the other were C'os-kyi 'Od-zer and even Ses-rab Se:ri.-ge's colleague, dGa-ba (or PU]J.ya Pada). If Sayang Secen had meant to say that Ses-rab Se:ri.-ge was a teacher of the Mongols, i.e., the man who enlightened them, he probably would have said that Yisiin Temiir had invited the teachers of the Mongols, Pm;iya Pada and Ses-rab Se:ri.-ge. On the other hand, if he had meant to say that Ses-rab Se:ri.-ge was the teacher of the Mongols but the other Lama was not, he would probably have mentioned Ses-rab Se:ri.-ge in the first place. Therefore, the first and the third interpretation are more probable. Of these two the first is, in its turn, less probable; for "translator and teacher of Mongolian" is a superfluous epithet. The Emperor invited Ses-rab Se:ri.-ge to translate books into Mongolian. This alone would be quite sufficient because it goes without saying that, to translate books into Mongolian, one invites someone who is a translator from other languages into Mongolian. Therefore, the author of these lines is inclined to interpret mongyol-un baysi kelemilrci as "the Mongolian teacher and translator," i.e., a Mongol. This is corroborated by 'Jigs-med nam-mk'a who mentions Ses-rab Seri-ge as a Mongolian Lo-tsa-ba, i.e., a Lit. "sat down as a qayan". Huth, op. cit., p. 166. Note the difference in the names of the other person, dGa-ba here, and Pul).ya Pada in Sayang Secen's work. 3

4

Introduction

13

Mongolian learned translator. Going further, the undersigned believes that baysi is simply an honorific title, and baysi kelemurci can be translated as "master translator", i.e., equivalent to Lo-tsa-ba. Consequently, it is probable that Ses-rab Seri-ge was a Mongol. This possibility is by no means ruled out by the fact that he was a Saskya monk: there were enough Saskya monasteries, and many monks were Mongols. Ses-rab Seri-ge must have been a learned person, otherwise 'Jigs-med nam-mk'a would not have called him a Lo-tsa-ba. Of his translations at least three are known. The first of them is Arban qoyar !fokiyangyui, the second is Tabun sakiyan (= Paiicarak~a), and the third is Altan Gerel (= Suvarriaprabhasa). 5 Ses-rab Seri-ge possessed a good knowledge of several languages. Whereas Arban qoyar !fokiyangyui is a translation from Tibetan, 6 Paiicarak~a is a translation from Tibetan and Uighur. 7 This is stated in the respective colophons and is to be regarded as an indisputable fact. It is doubtful, however, that he also knew Sanskrit. That he did not can be concluded from the colophon in the Paficarak~a in which Ses-rab Seri-ge says that "because the names of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas do not agree with the Mongolian phonetics, they were turned into Indic, in accordance with the Uighur custom, and transcribed together with Pu]J.ya Sri Situ who knew both Indic and Tibetan, etc." 8 It goes without saying that Ses-rab Seri-ge would have done this part of his work alone if he had sufficient knowledge of Sanskrit. 9 There is sufficient indirect evidence that Ses-rab Seri-ge knew Uighur very well. He probably had a full command of it and obviously did not always distinguish between Uighur and Mongolian. It will be seen infra that he uses in his Mongolian translation of Arban qoyar !fokiyangyui such Turkic words as aday "foot" which to him must have been synonymous with Mongolian kol 5 Pentti Aalto, Qutuy-tu Pancarak:/i Kemeku Tabun Sakiyan N eretu Y eke Kolgen Sudur, Nach dem Stockholmer Xylograph 15. 1. 699, Wiesbaden 1961; Louis Ligeti, Catalogue du Kanjur mongol imprime, vol. I, Catalogue, Budapest 1942-44, pp. 56-57. Ses-rab Sen-ge's translation of the Suvar'(l,aprabhasa is unknown to the author of these lines but it is mentioned by Damdinsuri.ing, cf. Ce. Damdinsuriing, Mongyol uran jokiyal-un degeji jayun bilig orosibai, Ulayanbayatur qota 1959, p. 169. 6 Vide colophon of the Mongolian text, fol. 65r. 7 Aalto, op. cit., p. 117, note 17r. 8 Aalto, op. cit., pp. 117-18, note 17r. 9 In the Kanjur there are found several other works translated by a Ses-rab Sen-ge, among them Varahi eke, Gurugulli akin tngri which has a colophon in which it is said that this is a translation by Ses-rab Sen-ge who, not having studied Sanskrit, asks to be excused in the case mistakes were discovered, vide Ligeti, op. cit., pp. 28-29. However, this Ses-rab Sen-ge must have been another person because he says that he undertook his work, basing himself on Kunga 'Od.zer (Ligeti, p. 29). Kunga 'Odzer was a translator at the time of Ligden, i.e., in the first half of the XVII century, vide W. Reissig, Die Pekinger lamaistischen Blockdrucke in mongolischer Sprache, Wiesbaden 1954, p. 41, note. This Ses-rab Se:n-ge was one of the translators of the Kanjur, and his name is mentioned in the list of authors which is appended to the Kanjur, vide Reissig, op. cit., p. 41, note 5.

14

Introduction

"foot". He probably knew Chinese because sometimes he uses Chinese terms such as k'ung "void, emptiness". In one word, he must have known several languages. The translation of "The Twelve Deeds", as the colophon says, was undertaken on reminder by Esen Temiir. Who was he1 This question cannot be answered easily because this was a very common name in Yiian history. Thus San-shih t'ung-ming lu alone distinguishes between 23 persons by this name10 • The name of Esen Temiir occurs, strange as it may sound, in the colophons of all above mentioned works translated by Ses-rab Sen-ge. What is of particular interest is the occurrence of this name with different titles. 1. In Arban qoyar Jolciyangyui he is simply Esen Temiir and has no title. He "reminded" Ses-rab Sen-ge to translate this work. He must have been of noble descent because he is called "of Bodhisattva birth". He was probably an important person and close to the Empress. This can be concluded from the fact that he reminded Ses-rab Sen-ge "in accordance with the true and firm wish (lit. "thought") of the Empress (huang-hou)". The Empress was probably Babuqan of the Qongqirad clan.11 2. As remarked above, Ses-rab Sen-ge translated also the Paiicarak~a. This translation was also sponsored by Esen Temiir. Here he is called dayu, cf. esen temilr dayu-da duradqan ogillegsen sakiliy-ud-un toyin sirab sing-i. 12 In another place, in the same copy, the name is given as Esen diyu, cf. esen diyu-da duradqan ogillegdeJil "being reminded by Esen Diyu, " 13 i.e., Temiir is lacking. However, there is no doubt that esen temilr dayu and esen diyu are one and the same person. 3. In another, more recent copy, a xylograph of the XVIII century, 14 the term dayu is replaced by diu-a-da in Aalto's transcription, 15 or diba-tan, in Heissig's transcription. 16 Heissig's transcription diba is more correct. Vladimirtsov also writes diba-da, to be exact, deba-ta.17 The initial consonant of the suffix can be read as d or t. Therefore, it does not matter whether -da or -ta is found in Vladimirtsov's transcription, although -dais to be preferred because after a stem-final vowel the suffix has d. As for final n in Heissig's transcription diba-tan, it is due to an error. The xylograph reads clearly diba-ta L. Rambis, Le chapitre CVIII dii Yuan Che, t. 1, Leiden 1954, p. 9. Rambis, op. cit., p. 106, note 2. This huang-hou was hardly the other wife, Irinj'inbala, who started as a concubine, cf. Rambis, op. cit., p. 32, note 6. 1 2 Aalto, op. cit., p. 117. note 17r. 13 Aalto, op. cit., p. 126, note 10v. 1 4 Reissig, op. cit., p. 82. 15 P. Aalto, "Prolegomena to an Edition of the Pa:ficarak~a", Studia Orientalia ed. Soc. Orient. Fenn. XIX: 12, 1954, p. 38. 16 Reissig, op. cit., p. 17, note 4. 17 Note that Vladimirtsov also writes Esen Temur deba-ta but not -tan, cf. B. Ya. Vladiniircov, Sravnitel'naya grammatika mongol'skogo pis'mennogo yazyka i xalxaskogo nareciya, Vvedenie i fonetika, Leningrad 1929, p. 38. 10

11

Introduction

15

or diba-da. 18 In this xylograph Esen Temiir is called diba or diu-a in the following context: toyan temur qan-u yeke suu-dur inu: dulduyidiSu esen temur diba-da oriSiyuluysan: eiSige eke-deiSe edugulju bi qaraday-i : ene bey-e-yi oluysanaiSa eduge: ejen qayan-a soyurqaju naran-iyar: erketu burqan-u nomlaysan nom unen-iyer:: yayiqamsiy burqan baysi bidan-u: qamuy amitan-u tusa-yin tulada: qayarqai-a iledte nomlaysan : qabiy-a tusatai baniSarags-a nere-tu ene nom-i:: sayibar oduysan burqan-u nomlaysan sakiyan-u degedu baniSarags-a ene nom-i: sayibar oduysad-un ene sudur-i : saiSalal ugei kiiSiyen duradiSu biiSigulugsen-iyer (V, fol. 14v-15r) "In consequence of having reminded, with peerless efforts, [to do so J and caused to write this siitra of the Sugatas, this book Paficarak~a, the supreme among the magic formulas, that had been preached by the WellGone Buddha, this useful book called Paficarak~a which had been preached clearly and manifestly for the benefit of all the living creatures by our wondrous Teacher Buddha, the book that had been truly preached by the mighty Buddha and translated, in reliance on the great majesty of Toyan Temiir Qan, for Esen Temiir Diba, being graciously granted the sun now and ever since [I] received this body, the personality, originating from [my] parents ... " This translation differs from that by Reissig. He translates esen temur diba-da 19 oriSiyuluysan as "Esen Temiir Deba-tan translated". However, such an interpretation runs into difficulty. First of all, the Nomen perfecti of an active verb with the dative of the acting person is unusual. "Translated by Esen Temiir Diba" would have been diba-yin oriSiyuluysan or diba-da oriSiyuluydaysan but not diba-da oriSiyuluysan. Consequently, Esen Temur Diba is not the translator but the person for whom the translation was made. Second, all translatori, of the Yiian period had Buddhist, Tibetan names so that a learned translator by the name of Esen Temiir and a namesake of a person who had already sponsored Ses-rab Sen-ge's translation of the same work becomes very doubtful. 4. In the Kanjur, Esen Temiir is called simply "a person", cf. tayidu qota-da esen temur neretu kumun duradqan ogulegdeju : sakyalig-ud-un toyin Sirab Sengge tobed-eiSe : mongyol-un ayalyus-tur oriSiyulbai 20 "being reminded by a person by the name of Esen Temiir in the city of Tayidu, 21 the Saskya monk Ses-rab Sen-ge translated from Tibetan into Mongolian." 22 Consequently, Kanjur does not give titles equivalent to dayu (diyu, diba) but states that Esen Temiir lived in Tayidu. The information contained in the colophons does not help establish the identity of Esen Temiir because we do not exactly know what dayu or diba is. However, some suggestions can be made. The title dayu (diyu) is unknown as such. There has never been a Mongolian or Chinese title closely resembling 18 A photostat of the colophon was obtained by the author of these lines from his friend, Professor Walther Reissig. 19 Reissig writes -tan, cf. l. c. It would be difficult to explain Esen Temur diba-tan "those having the Esen Temiir Diba". 20 Ligeti, op. cit., p. 57. 21 The Mongolian capital near present Peking. 22 Lit. "turned it from Tibetan into Mongolian sounds".

16

Introduction

this word. One should, however, take into consideration that the Mongolian letter for y can also stand for v or even f. Consequently, dayu can stand for dafu, i.e., the Chinese title ta-fu "Great Censor". It is interesting to note that two of the many Esen Temiirs who are mentioned in Yuan history had the title yu-shih ta-fu. One of them became famous as a member of a conspiracy against the Emperor Yin-tsung, 23 in September 1323. For this crime he was executed in the same year. There is no doubt that this Esen Temiir and the sponsor of Ses-rab Seit-ge's translations were different persons. This leaves only the other Esen Temiir who was the younger brother of Toyto, the prime minister during Toyon Temiir's reign. He was granted the title yu-shih ta-fu "Great Censor" in 1346. 24 Whether this Esen Temiir and the one under iliscussion are the same person cannot be established with certainty, although it is very possible. If this is so Arban qoyar Jokiyangyui must have been translated before the Paficarak~a because Esen Temiir has the title ta-fu in the colophon of Paficarak~a. In other words, Paficarak~a must have been translated after 1346, i.e., at the time of Toyon Temiir (1333-68), whereas Arban qoyar Jokiyangyui was translated before the year of 1346 when the title ta-fu was bestowed upon Esen Temiir. This tallies with Heissig's statement that Ses-rab Seit-ge's version of the Paficarak~a originated in Toyon Temiir's time. 25 This would then indicate that Ses-rab Seit-ge still lived at that time. To conclude the iliscussion of Esen Temiir ta-fu, let it be said that in 1355 he, together with his brother Toyto, was banished and died shortly afterwards. 26 This, however, does not affect the Paficarak~a translation at all. If this Esen Temiir is the sponsor of the translation it can only mean that the Paficarak~a was translated after the year of bestowal of the title (i.e., after 1346) and before Esen Temiir fell into ilisgrace (i.e., before 1355) because after 1355 he was no longer ta-fu. If this is correct it might explain why in a later edition of the Paficarak~a Esen Temiir is mentioned as "a man" in Taidu, cf. tayidu qota-da esen temur neretu kumun duradqan ogillegdejil, 27 because to later generations he was no longer a ta-fu but an orilinary person. Supposing the title diba is not a distortion of dayu ( = dafu = ta-fu) but another title, let it be stated that such a title did exist. It is of Tibetan origin, cf. Tib. sde-pa "regent, administrator", also the title of the sde-pa of the Dalai Lama, and the rulers of Bhotan. 28 The Mongolian transcription of this word is diba. 29 There is little doubt that such a title really existed but could one of the Esen Temiirs have been a deba/diba? Who of the Esen Temiirs was a ruler? 23

The emperor who ruled before Yisiin Temiir. Yuan-shih 40, 4a. The author owes this information to Dr. Lao. 26 Reissig, op. cit., p.17. 26 Yilan-shih 138, 32b-33a. I owe this and all following information taken from the Yilan-shih to Dr. Lao. 2 7 Ligeti, op. cit., p. 57. 28 H. A. Jaschke, A Tibetan-English Dictionary, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. 1949, p. 296. 29 K. F. Golstunskiy, Mongol'sko-russkiy slovar', t. III, Sanktpeterburg 1893, p.111. 24

Introduction

17

One of them was a ruler ofYiin-nan with the title of Yun-nan wang. This was Hiigeci's son. 30 He had been Yun-nan wang since 1280 (Yuan-shih 108, 4 b), and in 1307 he was proclaimed Ying wang, 31 i.e., wang of the region of Hopei and Liao-tung. The same Esen Temur went to establish garrisons in the north (Yuan-shih 30, 12a) and died in 1332 (Yuan-shih 36, 3a). There was another Esen Temifr who ruled as the prince of Chen-tung, a region not identified but possibly located in Fu-chien. He was promoted in 1291. His lineage is unknown but it seems that he has nothing in common with the above mentioned Esen Temiir. 32 It is possible that there were still other Esen Temiirs who were princes or rulers. It should be added that it is quite possible that the title dayu ( = ta-fu 1) discussed supra is the distorted diba. In such a case the above mentioned Esen Temurs would also belong here. Consequently, the material available is rather inconclusive. Therefore, it would be wiser, under the present circumstances, to abstain from categorical st;i,tements regarding identity of Esen Temur who sponsored Ses-rab Sen-ge's translations. Prnceeding to C'os-kyi 'Od-zer's authorship of the Tibetan original of the work under investigation, it should be reiterated that the original has never been found. Therefore, it is impossible to find out how accurate Ses-rab Senge's translation is. Comparison of the Mongolian text with other works leads, however, to the conclusion that the text is nothing but a slightly abbreviated version of the Lalitavistara. C'os-kyi 'Od-zer's was by no means an original new work. He simply abbreviated the Lalitavistara by eliminating a number of gathas and skipping details in the unversified portions of the original text. Ses-rab Sen-ge translated this abbreviated version into Mongolian. Only the second volume of his translation has been preserved. This begins with the Chapter VI ("The one in which he became a monk and left home") and ends with Chapter IX ("Subdual of Simnu"). This corresponds, in contents, to the Chapters XIII-XXI of the Lalitavistara. 33 This shows that the Tibetan original included all of Lalitavistara because "Collection of commandments" corresponds to ecus quriyaqui (Kanjur, fol. 308v-312v) which is the final chapter of Lalitavistara. This means also that there must have been a third volume of the Mongolian translation, although the colophon is given at the end of the second volume, the only one which has been preserved. The Mongolfan Lalitavistara in the Ka,njur was translated from Tibetan by Samdan Sengge "by order of Chingis Khan". 34 Samdan Sengge was a paJJ-