CC BY
16
Koichi Higuchi
Ehime University, Matsuyama
LINGUISTIC AND PHILOLOGICAL VALUE OF MONGOLIAN BUDDHIST WORKS: The case of Mongolian versions of Ratnajali1
1. Introduction
Most of Mongolian Buddhist works were firstly translated into Mongolian in the 14th century when Buddhism was introduced among the Mongols by the Uighurs, but they are missing today. At our hand are only their Modern versions gone through revisions after the 17th century when the Tibetan Buddhism was said to be secondly introduced. However, careful examinations into their lines enable us to assume that the revisions were not so exhaustive that we find many archaic forms of high linguistic value, as well as many mistaken forms there, which can give us a well-founded conjecture as to how Mongolian Buddhist works, at least some portion of them, were translated and had been transmitted from generation to generation.
2. Mongolian versions of Ratnajali
Spotlighted below are the Mongolian versions of Ratnajalipariprccha; its Sanskrit original is missing and we have the Tibetan version 'Phags pa rin chen dra ba can gyis shus pa shes bya ba theg pa chen po 'i mdo [Tohoku 13; Otani 830], the Chinese version Foshuo bao wang jing tte^WM^ [Taisho 433] and the Mongolian version Qutuy-tu erdeni tour-tu-yin ocigsen neretu yeke kolgen sudur. There are a manuscript and four printings of the latter, which can be classified into three groups, A, B and C, in terms of philological as well as linguistic features. Version A is a manuscript, H. 5810, which belongs to the Hedin Collection of the Swedish Ethnographical Museum [Aalto 1953: 81]. The next version consists of another manuscript of the Collection, H. 1830a,
1 This study is supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 2010-2012 and 2013-2015.
and two Peking xylographs, PLB4 and PLB39 [Heissig 1954: 10, 47]. Version C is no other than a Kanjur version, K919 [Ligeti 1942-44: 244]. Only the last mentioned has a colophon which describes that this one was a revision of the translation by Unuku-tu bilig-tu tai guusi, who was a real historical figure performing central roles hand in hand with Toyin Corji and Samdan sengge in the publication of the Mongolian Kanjur under the reign of Ligdan Qan of Chaqar in the 17th century.
3. Archaisms in Mongolian Ratnajali
Though all the existing versions are productions of the modern period, we find many archaisms in their lines; worth noting is Pre-classical orthography -qi-, as well as forms like busire- 'to believe in', gure- 'to beg', jilmayan 'soft', siyun 'voice', bili- 'to pat', bilge bilig 'prajnaparamita, or perfect wisdom', quvray 'monk' and so forth, all of which are quite rarely attested in the literature of the middle period and were out of use even in the 17th century2.
Spatial restriction prevents me from presenting all the passages in which these forms are found. Here is an example of -qi-. This orthography, peculiar to Pre-classical Written Mongolian, cannot be found in the modern literature and even in the middle period its equivalent -ki- was predominant, so we can utilize it as an index of the age of production of manuscripts or printings. We attest -qi- 16 times in A, but they all are replaced with -kirn the other two versions. Given below is the 35 th verse3:
<35-a>
A ked ba doloyan edur soni:
B ked ba doloyan edur soni:
C ked ba doloyan edur soni:
<b>
A burin ilayuysan-u ner-e-yi baribasu :
2 The forms cited above are mostly hapax legomena; their detailed description was given in [Higuchi 1994: 32-65].
3 This work, in accordance with the Tibetan version, consists of 195 stanzas and prose divided into 16 parts, while the Chinese version has 198 stanzas. Furthermore, the ordering of the prose is different between the Mongolian versions, as well as the Tibetan one, and the Chinese version. The manner of citation adopted here is the same as that in [Higuchi 1994]. See the introductory remarks of the second part of the monograph [Ibid.: 12-15, 71-72].
B burin ilayuysan-u ner-e-yi baribasu : C burin ilayuysan-u ner-e-yi baribasu :
<c>
A burqan-a sayisiyaydaysan qijayalal ugegu : B burqan-a sayisiyaydaysan kijayalal ugegu : C burqan-a sayisiyaydaysan kijayalal ugegu :
<d>
A tein buged ariyun nidu-tu boluyu :: B tein buged ariyun nidu-tu boluyu :: C tein buged ariyun nidu-tu boluyu ::
'Anyone who, for seven days and nights consecutively, has been reciting the holy name of the Conquered, namely Buddha, will be praised by Buddha and have limitless and perfectly clear eyesight given'.
The form with -qi- is found only in A. This fact implies that A is older than any other and in fact its orthography is rather Pre-classical. However, it does not mean that any other versions are newer and have no forms worth noting. In the following passages of all three, we find jilmayan and bili-, which are both peculiar to Middle Mongolian.
<85-a>
A tendece teguncilen iregsen : B tende teguncilen iregsen C tendece teguncilen iregsen :
<b>
A asuru jogelen jilmayan yar-iyaran : B asuru jogelen : jilmayan yar-iyar-iyan : C asuru jogelen jilmayan yar-iyaran
<c>
A licavi uri-yin terigun-i B licavi uri-yin terigun-i : C licavi uri-yin terigun-i
<d>
A basa basa surcin bilibai:: B basa basa surcin bilibai::
C basa basa bilin bayibai::
'Then Tathagata patted Ratnajali on the head with his soft and smooth hand'.
The Mongolian Ratnajali is of much value since jilmayan has been witnessed only once so far: the Mongolian Lalitavistara (f. 63r) furnishes us the only usage of this form: siliyun jilmayan-dur quricaqui ugei '[We do not attach to] any soft and smooth things' [Poppe 1967: 66].
bili- 'to rub, pat' is also a very rare form. It is found only in the Secret History of the Mongols and Lalitavistara twice each; followed are the usages in the two:
ke'eli minu biliju 'patting me on the abdomen'
(SecretHistory § 21 [Ozawa 1984: 118])
barayun yar-iyar ober-un usun-i bilibesu
'after rubbing herself on the hair with her right hand'
(Lalitavistara 58v [Poppe 1967: 63]).
These forms which have been rarely attested even in the literature of the middle period can convince us that the original of A was produced in the middle period and also that both B and C were modern revisions, but their originals can be dated back to the same age. In the light of such archaic forms peculiar to the 14th century, we cannot believe that Unuku-tu bilig-tu tai guusi had produced the original translation; if so, he should not have used those forms which were completely obsolete in the 17th century. The content of the colophon is far from being trustworthy. It is probable that some unknown monk or monks involved in the revision of the original texts utilized his authority and dignity.
4. Mistakes and their implications
Quite different from typical Buddhist translations of the middle period such as Bodhicaryavatara, a masterpiece of Chos kyi 'od zer, Ratnajali in question has not a few mistakes in the lines. Some of them are surprisingly so careless that we can regard this work as translated by ill-versed monks. Here is an example. The contrast in the second stanza of the 47th verse is worthwhile to note: A and B lingqu-a 'lotus' vs. C degedu-yin 'of the superior, sacred'.
<0047-a>
A ende ibegel-un ner-e-yi sonosbasu : B ende ibegel-un ner-e-yi sonosbasu : C ende ibegel-un ner-e-yi sonosbasu :
<b>
A masida ciyuluysan linqu-a egesig-tu : B masida ciyuluysan lingqu-a egesig-tu : C masida ciyuluysan degedu-yin egesig-tu :
<c>
A samadi-yi odter olqu bol-un : B samadi-yi odter olqu bolun : C samadi-yi odter olqu bolun :
<d>
A kolti erdem-ud-i sayitur dayurisqayu :: B kolti erdem-ud-i sayitur dayurisqayu :: C kolti erdem-ud-i sayitur dayurisqayu ::
'If they heard here the name of the Savior, namely Buddha, it would be a sound as the voice of assembled lotus (sic! — K. H.), and helping them obtain dhyana quickly, it would glorify the limitless virtue'.
The phrase 'the voice of lotus' is almost meaningless; in fact it has no equivalent in the Chinese version or the Tibetan one. The fact that its Tibetan counterpart is dam pa 'holy' enables us to conclude that this form must be misread as Tib. pad ma 'lotus' in A and B, and only in C this mistake is corrected. However, even C in turn is not free from such careless mistakes. Presented below is prose put at the very beginning of this work in which the shape of Prince Ratnajali is described:
0032-34
Ajayun nasun nasulaysan metu nigen buluge : B jayun nasun nasulaysan metu nigen buluge : C jayun nasun nasulaysan metu buluge :
'[Prince Ratnajali looks as if] he was one who is a hundred years old (sic! — K. H.)'.
The translation is quite strange since we know that Ratnajali is an eight-year-old boy in terms of the corresponding Tibetan lines
brgyad lon pa' drab a zhig or the Chinese passage jue nian ba sui M ^A^, namely 'he was only eight years old'. Our anonymous translator must have misread Tib. brgyad 'eight' as another Tibetan form brgya 'hundred' and further Tib. zhig/cig 'a few, only' as Tib. gcig 'one'. Both Tibetan forms, brgyad and zhig, can be sometimes mistaken as such by mere beginners. Thus, correctly translated, the passage means 'He is only eight years old'. He has grown up to be an old man who survives a century in Mongol. The original translator of the 14th century committed these mistakes and they escaped from detecting at the revisions and even at the compilation of the Mongolian Kanjur. Such half-heartedness also provides us of many valuable forms.
With these facts presented so far at our hand we can suppose that the Mongolian Ratnajali was originally translated from the Tibetan original in the 14th century in haste by monks who were not so acquainted with Tibetan and that the original translation thus produced had been transmitted from generation to generation with careless revisions and linguistic modernizations committed hurriedly by another monks ill-versed in Tibetan or even in Buddhism as well.
5. Conclusions
These facts shown above warn us that colophons are not always reliable and also tell us that careful examinations into the lines can furnish us many valuable findings from not only linguistic but also philological and even historical viewpoint. One of them is about the real age of the introduction of the Tibetan Buddhism and the translation of the Mongolian versions. The fact that the mistakes presented so far can be explained only in terms of the Tibetan corresponding lines can lead us to the conclusion that the original translation was based on the Tibetan original and in view of the presence of the forms peculiar to the middle period in the lines we are convinced that the original translation was produced in that period. Those who committed the original translation and the revisions onward were supposed to be not so good at Tibetan and Uighur.
Roughly speaking, Mongolian Buddhist works can be classified into two categories: on the one hand works so elaborately translated or revised by the well-learned monks that they escaped mistakes, such as Bodhicaryavatara and so on, and on the other hand works so hastily and lukewarmly translated or revised by the ill-learned monks that
easy mistakes which only beginners could commit were left uncorrected; the Mongolian versions of Ratnajali belong to the latter. It is sometimes the case that anonymous monks involved in the translations or revisions assumed the names of other renowned monks; it may be not only in the case of this work. Only exhaustive and close examination into the lines can reveal the real state of arts to us.
Abbreviations
Otani — Suzuki (ed.) 1961; PLB — Heissig 1954; Taisho — Takakusu, Watanabe, Ono 1934; Tohoku — Tohoku Imperial University (ed.) 1934.
Bibliography
Aalto 1953 — P. Aalto. A Catalogue of the Hedin Collection of Mongolian Literature // Contributions to Ethnography, Linguistics and History of Religions: Reports from Scientific Expedition to the North-West Provinces of China under the Leadership of Dr. Sven Hedin [Publication 38:8: Ethnography 6]. Stockholm: Statens Ethnografiska Museum, 1953. P. 67-108. Heissig 1954 — W. Heissig. Die Pekinger lamaistischen Blockdrucke in mongolischer Sprache: Materialien zur mongolischen Literaturgeschichte [Göttinger Asiatische Forschungen 2]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1954. Higuchi 1994 — K. Higuchi. Mökogoyaku Hömögyö no kenkyü [The Mongolian Ratnajälipariprcchä: Introduction, Texts, Translations and Notes]. Tokyo: Taga Press, 1994.
Ligeti 1942-44 — L. Ligeti. Catalogue du Kanjur mongol imprimé [Bibliotheca
Orientalis Hungarica 3]. Budapest: Société Körösi Csoma, 1942-44. Ozawa 1984 — S. Ozawa. Genchö Hishi Zenshaku (Jö) [The Complete Transliteration and Translation of the Secret History of the Mongols]. Tokyo: Kazama Shobö, 1984. Poppe 1967 — N. Poppe. The Twelve Deeds of Buddha: A Mongolian Version of the Lalitavistara: Mongolian Text, Notes, and English Translation [Asiatische Forschungen 23]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967. Suzuki (ed.) 1961 — D. Suzuki (ed.). The Tibetan Tripitaka: Peking Edition — kept in the Library of the Otani University, Kyoto. Tokyo — Kyoto: Tibetan Tripitaka Research Institute. 1961. Takakusu, Watanabe, Ono 1934 — J. Takakusu, K. Watanabe, G Ono. A Catalogue
of the Taisho Tripitaka. Tokyo: Taishö issaikyö kankökai, 1934. Tohoku Imperial University (ed.) 1934 — Tohoku Imperial University (ed.). A Complete Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons. Sendai: Tohoku Imperial University, 1934.
