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*