国立情報学研究所 - ディジタル・シルクロード・プロジェクト
『東洋文庫所蔵』貴重書デジタルアーカイブ

which flows into the Punjaub country; and two days journey west from the Maun Surwur is
the large town of Teree Ladak . . . Proceeding from Ladak, seven days journey to the south-
ward, there is a mountain called Cailasa Cungri, which is exceedingly lofty; and on its summit
there is a Bhowiputr tree, from the root of which sprouts or gushes a small stream, which the
people say is the source of the Ganges, and that it comes from Vaicont'ha, or heaven, as is
also related in the Purânas; . . . At four days' journey from Cailasa Cungri is a mountain
called Brâhmadanda, or Brahma's staff, in which is the source of the Aliknundra Ganga . . .

This description really betrays several defects of the memory of the holy Fakir.
He has quite forgotten the situation of Kailas Gangri, and he has not been able to
get the Ganges to rise from any of the two lakes. But he has heard the people say
that the source of the Ganges is situated on the Kailas. He has nothing to say of
any channel between the two lakes. When he says it is one lake, one feels inclined
to think of a communication, but when he talks of a partition wall one thinks of two
different lakes. He positively asserts that the Satlej comes out from Langak-tso and
he makes the Brahmaputra begin from the Manasarovar. The fact that he makes one
river flow to the east from the eastern lake, and the two other rivers to the west
from the western lake seems to indicate that he regards the »partition wall« as a
definite water-parting. Add to this that, although he went round the Manasarovar
and visited the temples, he does not mention any channel. From all this one
gets the impression that there was no water in the channel at the time of his journey
which has obviously taken place several years before 1792, say 1770 or 1780.

It is not easy to draw any reliable conclusions from such a meagre and fan-
tastic report as this and it would not be worth while to attempt the task, if it
were not for using every possible hint in clearing up the periodical fluctuations in
the hydrography of a country very little known. To a certain extent the Fakir's
view is so like Tieffenthaler's map, that both seem to come from the same
source. In both cases there is no talk of any channel; the Brahmaputra begins
from the Manasarovar and the Sardjou or Surju begins from Rakas-tal. The names
of the lakes are the same, although written in different ways, Manasaroar and
Maun Surwur, Lanka Dhé and Lunkadh or Lunkdeh. The only difference is that
on Tieffenthaler's map the Satlej goes out of the Manasarovar, whereas the Fakir
makes it begin from Rakas-tal. The Fakir also makes the Ganges start from
Kailas, but here he relies upon what people and Purânas say and does not tell
where and how the river passes the lakes, unless he means that it goes to Rakas-
tal and reappears in the Surju.

As he is wrong in everything he says about the Ganges, the Brahmaputra
and the Surju, his statement of the Sutroodra, which happens to be correct, is not
worth very much. But strengthened by the information given to Tieffenthaler, it
points, although vaguely, to the fact that the Satlej really went out of the Rakas-
tal in those days. And if this view be accepted, the channel between the lakes
must, of physical necessity, also have been full of water, as the Satlej could not be
fed from any other source.