滿清的族號「滿洲」，其淵源究從何來？自清中葉乾隆年間開始，朝廷編輯有《滿洲源流考》一書，考證出三個可能來源：即文殊佛號、古部族名稱，與部落領袖的尊號。到了清末民初，日本學者提出「滿洲」為清太宗皇太極的「偽作」之說，引起了中國學者的進一步研究，於是在前舉三項考證以外，又多加了一項「源於地名」之說。諸家學者雖反駁前說，並分別提出新的論據，但由於作為支持的資料不足以說服眾家，使得「滿洲」族號的由來長期成為清史學界的一大公案。 本文並非加入究此公案何者為實的討論，而是想從蒙藏文資料的角度，探究清乾隆年間為何官方出版的》滿洲源流考》會將「滿洲」名號考證為西藏獻丹書所稱的「曼殊師利大皇帝」，並檢驗是否在皇太極及順治初年，蒙藏人士即以「曼殊師利大皇帝」，並檢驗是否在皇太極及順治初年，蒙藏人士即以「曼殊師利」來稱呼清帝。就所見的資料可知，蒙藏領袖使用「文殊」名號來書最早當在順治九年（1652）中，是為了五世達賴訪問北京的目的而使用的。而五世達賴亦是到順治十年（1653）初在長城以北受到清朝冊封「達賴喇嘛」的名號與金冊金印之後，才使用「文殊」名號還贈清帝，以表達藏方的謝意。此時距清太宗崇德七年（1642）西藏首次來使前往盛京，與滿清首次使用「滿洲」為號的崇德年間，皆有相當的時間之遙。是以乾隆君臣關於「滿洲族號取自西藏來書」之稱是為一無資可據的考證。但是，本文第二部分欲加證明：考證的差誤並非由於清宮君臣的昏憒使然，而是因為乾隆時期在長年征伐之後，欲利用蒙藏民族對佛教的篤信，而對藏傳佛教一連串有計劃地與「滿清」拉近關係的政策主導下，所採取策略的一個環節。 本文第三部分，回顧西藏政教歷史，逐步考證出對於西藏而言，賜贈佛號給外國領袖並非稀鬆平常。為「尚存的外國弘佛領袖」贈以佛菩薩名號，如五世達賴對順治帝所作的，猶是西藏近世政教經驗中的一項創舉，並從諸多證據得知，擅長寧瑪派密教的達賴五世，在此後似將此種宗教觀念加以「外文化」的運用，後期蒙古宗教首教亦擁有菩薩化身的名號。在餘論中作者考察在順治十二年以後，清朝諸帝異於前朝地頻繁向漢地文殊菩薩道場--五臺山朝禮，與五世達賴以「文殊」名號相稱的關係。最後，舉成書於康熙元年的蒙古鄂爾多斯部貴族薩囊徹辰所著的《蒙古源流》中所呈現出的「王統觀」，考察清藏之間互贈尊號後的外交成效。

　　　　　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 puzzsle 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 thefirst 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 muddleheadedness, but that this word was part of a series of strategies intended by Qian-long 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 doctrin'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 "Manjustri 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 respevtive 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.