For a long time many scholars in China, Taiwan, Japan wanted to find out the true origin of the clan name ”Manchu” of the Qing rulers. Four possible answers were offered: (1) it stemmed from the name of a Bodhisattva ”Manjusri”; (2) it was based on the traditional ethnic name; (3) it was taken from a respectful title for the clan leaders, and (4) it was derived from the name of the land the Manchu originally inhabited. Although new evidence was found to justify these presumptions, most scholars were not convinced by the proofs. The origin of ”Manchu” remained a puzzle in early Qing history. This paper does not engage in solving the puzzle of the name, ”Manchu”, and its true origin, but merely sets out to ask the following question: ”On what grounds can the clan name 'Manchu' be traced to 'Manjusri'-a Bodhisattva?” From certain materials, we know that the connection was drawn built by the Manchu themselves. During the fifth emperor Qian-long's reign, Qing officials compiled a book entitled: Manzhou Yuanliu Kao (Textual Research into the Origins of the Manchu). In this book, the authors referred the name ”Manchu” to early Tibetan diplomatic letters, which had addressed the Qing leader as ”Manjusri emperor”. But in fact, according to earlier scholars, the Qing people had already used the title ”Manchu” as their clan name prior to the arrival of the first Tibetan mission at Mukden in Hong Taiji Chong-de 7. Still, most scholars relied on the scanty evidence upon which the textual enquiry was founded. In the second section of this paper, the author explains that the Qian-long court conducted such incorrect textual research not because of its muddle-headedness, but that this word was part of a series of strategies intended by Qianlong to tighten the relationship between ”Manchurian” and ”Tibetan Buddhism”. The attempt included the three aspects of ”Buddha”, ”Dharma” and ”monk”, and the aim was to support the Qing dynasty's rule over the western and north-western parts of the empire. At least, from the middle period of Qian-long's reign, the Manchurian rulers had partly used the Tibetan doctrine of the unity of polity and religion (”Zhen-jiao-he-yi”) as a political skill to rule their empire. In the third section the author discusses the history of the above-mentioned Tibetan doctrine, and comes to the conclusion that there were 6 steps in the Tibetan politico-religious relationship. In the tenth year of the Shun-zhi's reign, for the first time ever in the doctrine's history Dalai V offered a Bodhisattva name to a foreign living leader, which shows that the very procedure by which the Manchuian leader did manage to obtain his ”Manjusri emperor” title was due less to Tibetan custom than to politics. In conclusion the author mentions the events following the Qing emperors' acquisition of their respective Manjusri titles, the nature of their reactions as well as the effects the visit of Dalai V to the Qing empire had on governing the Mongolian tribes.
