再論《彰所知論》與《蒙古源流》

A Re-examination of the Shes bya rab gsal and the Erdeniyin Tobči

一九三一年，陳寅恪先生於〈《彰所知論》與《蒙古源流》〉一文中指出，《蒙古源流》（成書於十七世紀後半葉）說蒙古民族起源、於天竺、吐蕃，乃受元帝師八思巴（'Phags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan, 1235-1280）所造《彰所知論》（Shes bya rab gsal）的影響，因為《彰所知論》取天竺、吐蕃王統，聯接於蒙兀兒史，使後者成為由西藏上續印度之通史，而《蒙古源流》即依此歷史的新觀念、新方法，採集材料而成書者。上個世紀八○年代，蘇魯格先生撰文否定陳先生的主張，提出《彰所知論》中有關蒙古的全部論述既未追溯蒙古之族源，也未說印、藏、蒙同源。印、藏、蒙同源之說，始見於《黃金史綱》，而集大成於《蒙古源流》。本論文先對《彰所知論》所載印度、吐蕃、蒙古王統的藏文原文與元代沙囉巴的漢譯文作了對勘，糾正一些因譯文的不完美而造成前人對文獻的錯誤理解。然後討論《彰所知論》於藏、蒙寫史傳統中的位置和影響，及其於蒙古地區的流傳和與《蒙古源流》的關係。本文指出，《彰所知論》的確不是《蒙古源流》所載蒙古王統的直接來源，而且「印、藏、蒙同源說」並不始於《彰所知論》。儘管如此，對陳先生主張的「《蒙古源流》之基本觀念及編製體裁實取之於《彰所知論》」一說的全盤否定實屬矯枉過正，二者之間確實具有觀念和體裁上的源流關係。

In his article ''The Shes bya rab gsal and the Erdeniyin Tobči'' (1931 ), Chen Yinke pointed out that the Erdeniyin Tobči (written in the late seventeenth century) traced the origin of the Mongols to India and Tibet. Chen argued that linking the origin of the Mongols to India and Tibet was inspired by the new historiographical ideology and method advanced by the Yuan Imperial Preceptor 'Phags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan (1235-1280) in his work entitled Shes bya rab gsal. In this work, Mongol history was closely associated with historical accounts of lndian and Tibetan royal lineages. In the 1980s, Suluge objected to Chen's view by arguing that the Shes bya rab gsa/ did not attempt to trace the origin of the Mongols, nor did it claim that the Indians, Tibetans, and the Mongols are of the same origin Suluge asserted that the theory of a common origin shared by the Indians, Tibetans, and Mongols first took shape in the Altan Tobči and reached its culmination with the compilation of the Erdeniyin Tobči. In this article, the author compares the relevant parts of the Tibetan original text and Shaluoba's (Shes rab dpal ?) Chinese translation of the Shes bya rab gsal in order to rectify several textual misunderstandings due to imperfect translations. Furthermore, this article discusses the Shes bya rab gsal's position in, and impact on, the Tibeto-Mongolian historiographical tradition, as well as its relationship with the Erdeniyin Tobči. The author agrees with Chen Yinke that the attempt to present an historical account of the Mongol royal lineage and the notion of a common origin shared among the Indians, Tibetans, and Mongols did not arise from the Shes bya rab gsal. However, it would be unwarranted to deny completely the relationship between the Shes bya rab gsal and the Erdeniyin Tobči since these two works share a common underlying ideology and form of compilation.