Oirat version of the “Sutra of eight luminous of heaven and earth”: some remarks Jaya-Pandita's translating techniques

The article analyzes four manuscript copies of Oirat version of the “Sütra of Eight Luminous of Heaven and Earth” translated from Tibetan in the first half of the 17th century by Jaya-pandita Nam-mkha’ rgya-mtsho (1599-1662), a person who elaborated one of graphic systems of Mongolian peoples which is known as “Clear Script” (oir. todo bichig). This sütra under Mongolian title “Naiman gegeen” (namely version B of the sütra) has been widely spread among Mongolian peoples till nowadays that can be explained by its functioning in various astrological and life-protecting rituals. Comparative analysis of four Oirat sütra texts available at Tod Nomin Gerel digital manuscript collection leads us to some conclusions about formation and development of Jaya-pandita’s translating techniques. Differences between texts outlined concern both the text structure and language pecularities. As for the first one, varying part of texts is the colophone which can be found in three manuscripts excluding TNG 1, but has different length: in TNG 3 - 1 stanza, in TNG 4 - 2 stanzas, TNG 2 - 3 stanzas. Analysis of the texts’ lexicon and grammar shows that there are differences in usage of synonymic words and grammatical affixes. Based on these differences four texts are divided into two groups: group 1 - TNG 1 and TNG 3; group 2 - TNG 2 and TNG 4. In conclusion we propose text stemma suggesting their chronological succession. According to this stemma, the earliest of four is TNG 2 (group 2) followed by TNG 4 from the same group, then TNG 3 and TNG 1 of the group 1. TNG 1 is considered to be the latest one because it is the only text where we find adequate translation of the name of patron of healers Jivaka Kumarabhuta as Tedkün üyiledüqci zalou. Thus, we suggest that in the last version of his translation (TNG 1) Jaya-pandita corrected previous wrong variant üküülün üyiledüqci zalou found in TNG 2, TNG 3 and TNG 4. This stemma is actual in the context of the analysis of Jaya-pandita’s translating techniques in diachronical aspect. Lexical and grammatical differences between two groups of the texts lead us to suggestion that basic features of Jaya-pandita’s translating techniques such as tendency to use Tibetan loan-words rather than Uighur or usage of grammatical affixes different from Mongolian Classical script and peculiar only for Oirat developed gradually, in the process of Jaya-pandita’s translating techniques transformation.