Indian Buddhist Thought as it appears in the Mongolian Historical Works. From the Abhidharmakosa Reconstruction as found in the Sheng-se-chih-lun (彰 所 知 論) of Hphags-pa Shuyu Kanaoka I Sanang Secen, the famous historical writer and pious Buddhist of 17th. century Mongolia, in speaking of the Emperor Hobilai Ian, used both the Mongolian and the Indian honorifics: viz., Hotokto, which means res. pectab le and holy, and Cakravartin, which is the title of honour for the ideal king of Indian Buddhism. In the character of this king is sym- bolized the idealistic king long dreamt of by the Indian Buddhist. This, it (1) may be conjectured, is why his Meng-ku-yuan-liu (蒙 噛古 源 流) attempts to trace the origin of the Mongolian dynasty through the Indian Buddhist literature on the ideal king (cakravartin). On the death of Chingis Han, who was feared as the Storm of the Steppes by the Western people, his descendants were captured by the spirit of Bharatavarsa. Thenceforth, it was in this same spirit that they recorded their militaristic history. In other words, after a certain period, almost all the Mongolian historical works could be identified with Buddhistic historical works. The Tibetan name for them was Chos-hbyun. Throughout their recording of history their in- tention was to set forth the history of the Buddha's teachings (dharma- udbhava=chos-hbyun). The so-called Bouddhisme Steppe of Rene Grousset was at first clearly noticed not in their cannonical works, but in their secular works. Now, let us consider what kind of Buddhist teaching has influenced (1) Its original Mongolian name is Hat da undusun u erdeni yin tobciya. It was completed in 1662. See Minorn Go's M6-ko-gen-ryu (江 實 蒙 古 源 流) p, I of its Section entitled Research, (1940, Tokyo). -784- Indian Buddhist Thought in the Mongolian Historical Works (S. Kanaoka) (50) these historical works, and also when it was introduced into them. There are two works which should be cited as contributing towards a resolution of this problem. One is the Sheng-se-chih-lun, which was written by Hphags-pa (1239-1280) for hls crown prince Chen-chin (眞 金) as a synopsis of Buddhism and a Buddhistic genealogy of the Mongolian dynasty. The other is the Abhidharmakosa-sastra of Vasubandhu which was completed in India about the 4th. century A. D.; and introduced into (2) China in the 6th and 7th centuries A. D., and into Tibet in the 9th century. Through a comparison of these two works, we will now show that the former of these two works depended on the latter for its particular con- struction. As we will mention later, a large majority of the Mongolian historical works were based on the pattern of the She-se-se-lun. The establishment of the original source of this work is very essential in order to resolve the problem of the original thought of the Mongolian historical works, and of the principal Indian teachings prevalent in the Lamaistic areas. II Once before, I read a paper on the construction of the Sheng-se-chih- (3) lun at an academic meeting, where, however, I could not reach the conclusion that the original book on which this synopsis is based is the Abhidharmakosa-sastra. Therefore, I did not on that occasion criticize the opinion of Prof. Chen-yen-ko (陳 演 格) who mentions the Lokasthiti- (4) Abhidharma-sastra (立 世 阿 毘 曇 論) as the original source. Here, I now intend, by making some clear comparisons to reach the conclusion that it is the Abidharma-kola-sastra and not the other Abhidharmic works such as theAbhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra, Salpyuktabhidharma-krdaya-sastra (雑 (2) The two Chinese translations are 1. made by Paramartha, in 563 A. D. and 2.made by Hsuan-chuang (玄 美) in 651-654 A. D. The Tibetan translation was made by Jinamitra and Dpal brtsegs raksita, in the reign of King Khri-ral-pa- can (816-899 A. D.). Tohok No. 4090. (3) Academic Meeting of Japan Tibetlogy Association at Taisho University, Tokyo, on the Nov. 9, 1957. (4) 國 立 中央 研 究 院 史 語 言研 究 所 集刊, 第2巻 第3分 (1931) (第2巻 通 頁p. 302) -783- (51) Indian Buddhist Thought in the Mongolian Historical Works (S. Kanaoka) 阿 毘 曇 心 論), Lokasthiti-Abhidharma-sastra and c., that has been the principal influence in the construction of the above work. As we have already men- tioned, this is not an original work on Buddhist philosophy, but a sort of synopsis of it. At the same time, it is better known as a genealogy of the Mongolian dynasty rather than as a Buddhist work. Therefore, it is natural that this work is classified in the Chinese Tripitaka under the section of (5) the Hinayana-commentary (小 乗 論 部), while it is considered by the historian as one of the most important sources for the study of Mongolian history. Thus, it is clear that it is based on some original Buddhist book. In other words, the Sheng-se-chih-lun was compiled, on the one hand, on Hphags-pa's knowledge of Buddhism, and on the other hand was based on some such Buddhist authority. But, to this day, it is only Prof. Chen- yen-ko who has investigated this problem of the original source of the Sheng-se-chip-lun. His study of it, however, has not been thorough. In his Sheng-se-chin-lunyu Meng-ku-yuan-liu (彰 所 知 論 興 蒙 古 源 流) he says that it imitates the style of the Lokasthiti-Abhidharma-sastra.; but he does not enlighten us any further. For, he then goes on to investigate these two works as a historian and not as a Buddhist philologist. Therefore, we cannot know how he reached the conclusion that the original source of the Sheng- se.chih-lun is the Lokasthiti-abhidharma-sastra. This would be clear if we were to examine the nature of the Sheng. se-chih-lun, first. first.The original text of this book is not extant. We now (6) possess only a Chinese translation of it by Sha-lo-pa (沙 繹 巴). Therefore, we cannot ascertain whether the original text was in Mongolian or in Tibetan. However, it may be conjectured that it was in Tibetan, on the following grounds. Firstly, we have no positive evidence that Hphags-pa (7) wrote his books in the Mongolian language. Secondly, it may be said that the same holds good of the translator Sha-lo-pa. Anyway, our investigation (5) Taisho, vol. XXXII. (6) His original Tibetan name is not known. See Mochizuki, vol. VIII, p. 111 c- 112 b. (7) See Hor-chos-hbyun edited by Hashimoto, pp. 126 ff. -782- Indian Buddhist Thought in the Mongolian Historical Works (S. Kanaoka) (52) has to be based only on this extant Chinese translation and that of the (8) Abhidharma-kosa-sastra. Let us first consider how it is that we could postulate that the original work on which the Sheng-se-chih-lun is based is an Abhidharmic one. As a primary reason we could mention the author Hphags-pa's tendency towards Abhidharmic teachings which seem to underlie his thought which is so infused with a deep knowledge of the Abhidharma. The precept professed by him was that of the Sarvastivadins. For it is stated in the (9) Hor-chos-hbyun that his precept was founded on the So-sor-thar-bahi- (10) mdo. This, however, is no positive proof that he was a specialist in Abhi dharma a teachings, because the precepts of the Sarvastivadins are identical with the orthodox Tibetan precepts which all Tibetans and Mongolians professed. Nevertheless, we are fortunate enough to be able to say that, judging from his extant works, he had a special knowledge of the Abhi dharma. Besides the Sheng-se-chip-lun there are two other extant works of his. One is the Chu-chia-shou-chin-yuan-chieh-mo-i-fan (出 家 授 近 圓 錫 磨 儀 範) (1270 A. D.), and the other is the Ken-pen-shuo-i-chie-yu-pu-pi- (11) hsi-hsueh-lueh-fa (根 本 読 一 切 有 部 芯 習 學 略 法) (1271 A. D.). Both these works are on the precepts of the Sarvastivadins. Therefore we may be allowed to say that the Abhidharma teachings formed a special branch of his knowledge. This is clearly portrayed by the knowledge of the Abhidharma which is displayed in these works. It need not be said, however, that this f act alone is not sufficient to conclude that the original work on which the Sheng-se-chih-tun is based is the Abhidharma-kola-sastra. Here, we have to make a comparison between the two works both as regards their construction and their contents. Provided that complete coincidences between them could be established, we cannot come to the (8) Needless to say, we could refer the Sanskrit original and the Tibetan trans- lation thereof, should the necessity arise. (9) Op. cit., p. 138. (10) Tohoku No. 2. Taisho No. 1453. (11) Both in Taisho vol. XIV. -781- (53) Indian Buddhist Thought in the Mongolian Historical Works (S. Kanaoka) above conclusion. Especially because the thought content of the Abhidharma. kosa-sastra is not original, but is the summarization of all the Abhidharmic works which appeared before it. It is well known theat it is based on the (12) Salpyuktabhidharma-hrdaya-sastra (雑 阿 毘 曇 心 論); and we have may com.