Notes on Ou-k’ong’s account of Ka$mir.
3
Ou-k’ong found in the kingdom more than three hundred
monasteries or Vihäras, nine of which are distinctly named in
the Itinerary (Journal Asiatique, p. 354). But none of these
liave yet been identified,
The first in the list is ,the monastery of Moung-ti‘ in wliich
Ou-k’ong appears chiefly to liave pursued his studies. Its
Sanskrit name was Moung-ti-wei-houo-lo which is re-transcribed
by tbe editors into Mundi-vihära. The Itinerary clearly indi-
cates tbe identity of Wei-liouo-lo witb tbe term Viliära and
furtber informs us that ,tliis monastery was built by the King
of Northern India after be had obtained tbe dignity'. That
tbe signs Moung-ti are intended to represent tbe name of this
king, can be shown from twofold evidence.
In tbe account of Gandhära which follows immediately
after that of Kagmir, tbe Itinerary, p. 356, mentions a number
of monasteries founded there by members of tbe royal family
descended from Kaniska or by relatives of tbe king of the
Turks (Tou-kiue). With reference to these establisbments we
are distinctly told that each of tkem had received its name
from the founder.
Though no express Statement of this kind is found witb
reference to tbe Kagmir monasteries, yet we find among tbe
names of the latter designations exactly corresponding to, or
identical with, those used for tbe Gandhära Vihäras. Tlius we
have in botb lists a monastery of tbe K'o-toen wbo is des-
cribed as tbe queen of the Turks. Tbe Editors are unques-
tionably right in recognizing in this name the well-known Tur-
kish title Kätün which is borne by the Ivhän’s wife. Again
hotli lists mention monasteries founded ,by the son of the king
of Turks': they are designated as the monasteries of Yeli-fe-le
and T’e-k’in-li, respectively, both names evidently representing,
as assumed by the Editors, Turkish titles for younger members
of the ruling family. In view of these coincidences the assump-
tion seems justified that the same System of nomenclature for
religious estaplishments prevailed in both countries, and that
Indian Antiquary, II, p. 106. The exact extent of this adjustment eannot
be determined without fresh evidence, independent of Kalhana’s State
ments as to the lengths of the individual reigns, the accuracy of which
we have at present no means of testing.
1*