Remarks On Religious Predominance In Kashmir Hindu Or Buddhist

Author(s): Toru Funayama
Publisher: Toru Funayama
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269553/1

Page #1

Remarks on Religious Predominance in Kashmir; Hindu or Buddhist?
Toru FUNAYAMA
The aim of this paper is to make a preliminary survey of the historical interactions between the orthodox religions (Brahmanism/Hinduism) and. Buddhism in Kashmir.
According to Buddhist materials, Kashmir was a sacred place for Buddhists: The Pali, Tibetan, and Chinese sources more or less unanimously state that Buddhism in Kashmir began with its propagation by arhat "Madhyantika (Majjhantika), a disciple of Ananda. Later it became a stronghold of the Sarvästivāda school of Buddhism. This was supported by a story of Mahadeva and King Asoka and also generated an undemonstrable legend of the Fourth Buddhist Congress called by King Kaniska, a story absent from the Pali transmission. In any case it is certain that Kashmir was at least a doctrinal center of the Sarvästivāda school,2 even if one omits the legendary elements. Moreover, the place produced eminent Buddhist logicians at later periods.
These cases may give us the impression that the land of Kashmir was occupied only by Buddhism. However, this is not the case: the impression is just the opposite when one surveys Brahmanic/Hinduistic materials. In reality, Kashmir was a somewhat special place where the orthodox power and Buddhism coexisted side by side, as is often pointed out by modern scholars." Assuming that this is true, however, it is not yet clear how they actually stood in relation to each other. Did they exist peacefully side by side for hundreds of years? Did they not try to exclude each other on the basis of doctrinal discrepancies? In order to examine these questions, I would like to survey the description of Buddhism in the Nilamata-purana (abbrev. as NM, hereafter), then compare it with some descriptions in Kalhana's Rajatarangini (abbrev. as RT, hereafter), and finally try to fill in a gap between these texts, making use of reports by Chinese pilgrims in the 7th and 8th centuries A.D.
I
It is or difficult to ascertain what idea the NM held about Buddhism because the text hardly refers to it. The only exception is the section on festivals for Buddha's birthday which begins from v. 684 as a part of the long description of
-367

Page #2

A Study of the Nilamata-Aspects of Hinduism in Ancient Kashmir
rituals in Kashmir. The section starts as follows: "Obrahman, when the twenty-eighth kali-yuga arrives, Vişņu, the protector of the world, shall become a preceptor of the world named Buddha." (v. 684). After this, the text explains in minute detail how and when the people should celebrate the Buddha. The reason why they worship Him lies in the very Hinduistic belief that Sākyamuni the Buddha is none other than an incarnation (avatāra) of Vişnu himself: through the former, they indirectly worship the latter. Hence the Buddha is treated as one of the innumerable deities in Hinduism. It is certain that in this context Buddhism was not a menace to the orthodox religion. That is, the NM suggests that Buddhism and the orthodox power of that time got along together.
On the whole it is plausible to assume that this kind of peaceful coexistence continued as a relationship of the two religious powers for the following centuries. As seen below, however, it is certain that this amity between them continued not uniformly but only intermittently through the history of Kashmir.
First, let us pick up an account of the RT (i, 177–184) to show the antagonism of the orthodox side to Buddhism in the reign of Abhimanyu I. It is summarized as follows: Buddhists who were under the protection of bodhisattva Nāgārjuna defeated their opponents and became prosperous for a while. However, as they did not keep the rituals taught by Nīla in the NM, nāgas were stoppped from receiving offerings from the people. The nāgas got angry and caused a heavy snowfall in the country in order to afflict the Buddhists, as a result of which the Buddhists perished at last. Meanwhile, brahmins who kept offering to the nāgas survived. Then a brahmin named Candradeva appeared and did penance to please nāga Nīla, so that Nīla, transforming himself into Candradeva, stopped the snow and restored the rituals which were once prescribed by Nīla himself. Thus thanks to this second Candradeva, intolerable damages owing to the Buddhists were finally stopped.
It is interesting that, though this story is composed in relation to the NM, which is named, the attitudes toward Buddhism are quite different from the descriptions of the NM. The story is indeed of a legendary character, but it does not necessarily undermine its importance; it is probable that, in some period before Kalhaņa, people on the orthodox side felt hostile toward Buddhism to the degree that they inspired such a sequal to the NM.
п
Buddhism, it seems, found opposition from the preceding orthodox power in Kashmir from the beginning. As referred to above, Buddhism in Kashmir
— 368 -

Page #3

Remarks on Religious Predominance in Kashmir; Hindu or Buddhist?
originated from Madhyāntika's missionary work. According to the oldest Chinese version of the legend, there lived a great nāgas who resisted Madhyāntika. It was only after they competed for over a week, each by means of his own supernatural powers, that the defeated nāga finally conceded to the propagation of Buddhism. This suggests that Buddhists who composed this story held the feeling that at first Buddhism had not been warmly welcomed by orthodox Kashmirians.
More evidences of antagonism in later periods are found in the Datang Xiyuji (tig tot az, abbrev. as Xiyuji, hereafter) by Xuanzang (**; 600/602-664 A.D.) who probably visited Kashmir in the reign of King Durlabhavardhana. Xuanzang reports: After Madhyāntika died, a group of *krītas (? REFU; people who had been traded from outside) put up their own king. After King Kaniska died, too, they put up a new king and dispelled the Buddhist monks in an attempt to destroy Buddhism. Then the king of *Himatala (? P/10 ) of Tokhāra came to this land, dispelled the ministers of the anti-Buddhist government, restored Kashmirian Buddhism as before, and then went back to his country. And thus, having described some historical/legendary events before his time, Xuanzang states the contemporary state of religion in the following way:
As Buddhists had overturned their religion and exterminated traditional rituals, the krītas for generations increasingly felt a grudge against and hatred for the Law of Buddha. Long time passed, they now again state that they have their own king. This is the reason why the people of this country at present do not make much of (Buddhism) and devote themselves to anti-Buddhism and deva-temples.
It is difficult to trace accurately all these descriptions as long as we have neither evidence of krītas nor the king of Himatala. As for the latter, Xuanzang states elsewhere that Kaniska ascended the throne in the 400th year after Buddha's nirvāṇa, on the one hand, and that the king of Himatala flourished in the 600th year, on the other. That is, according to the Xiyuji, the king of Himatala restored Kashmirian Buddhism about two hundred years after King Kaniska. The above stated report suggests that the orthodox religion was predominant over Buddhism in ca. 630 A.D. when Xuanzang visited Kashmir.
Comparing these descriptions in the Xiyuji with those in the RT, we get the table (next page).
It is of course dangerous to correlate each event in the two texts, believing all the descriptions in the written order, because the sources for their chronological sequences are completely different. However, several events in the texts seem to correspond to each other as indicated with lines in the table. According to the
-- 369 —

Page #4

A Study of the Nīlamata - Aspects of Hinduism in Ancient Kashmir
Kaśyapa: founder
Madhyāntika: founder
Entrance of krītas
V 50 years from Madhyantika Asoka and Mahadeva
King Aśoka
Turuşka Kings
(Huska, Juska & Kanişka)
V 300 years King Kaniska
after Kaniska's death
v Buddhist predominance King of krītas
predominance of orthodox power
Buddhist predominance Abhimanyu I
Extermination of Buddhism
-
200 years from Kaniska
The Gonantiya Dynasty
Gonanda III
King of Himatala
Restored Gonandiya Dynasty Meghavāhana
Buddhism restored
Buddhism restored
The Kārkota Dynasty
Durlabhavardhana
King of krītas
predominance of orthodox power Xuanzang's visit to Kashmir (ca. 630)
predominance of orthodox power Cf. Huichao's visit to Kashmir (ca. 725)
Muktāpida-Lalitāditya
Cf. Wukong's visit to Kashmir (ca. 760)
The Dynasty of Utpala Avantivarman
Decline of Buddhism?
RT, Buddhist predominance was overturned at the time of Abhimanyu I, which possibly has some connection to the predominance of the krītas after the death of King Kaniska in the Xiyuji. It is still uncertain how the king of Himatala should be compared with stories in the RT.
In Xuanzang's time, the prosperity of Buddhism was often dependent on the attitude of the king in power, viz., Durlabhavardhana. For example, Xuanzang mentions two monasteries, Jayendravihāra and *Huskaravihāra. The former was built by a royal family.10 The king received Xuanzang as a guest in Dharmaśālā in the vicinity of the capital. Moreover, it was because the king called twenty-five persons for transcription of sūtras and śāstras, as well as another five
-- 370 —

Page #5

Remarks on Religious Predominance in Kashmir; Hindu or Buddhist?
persons for errands, that Xuanzang could see Buddhist texts in Kashmir. 11
About a hundred years later (ca. 725 A.D.), Huichao ( ) visited Kashmir probably in the reign of Muktāpida-Lalitāditya (724–760 A.D.?),12 under whom the country was at the peak of its cultural achievements. Huichao testifies that there were a lot of Mahāyāna and Hinayāna temples along with monks in the country and that tėmples were built by kings, queens, and powerful clans in order to gain merits for themselves in the same manner as in the case of other countries in India. Thus, it is certain that a lot of temples in Kashmir at this period were built under the influence of the kingdom of the time.
About thirty-five years later Wukong (1 ; 731-? A.D.) went to Kashmir and received upasampadā in 759 A.D. at the age of twenty-nine. According to him, there were more than three hundred vihāras, as well as other stūpas and Buddhà statues. He knew Xuanzang's reports well and stayed in Kashmir for four years. 14 Therefore, he must have been conscious of the number of temples in the Xiyuji, viz., more than a hundred vihāras (this is roughly half the number of those in Gandhāra in the Xiyuji). If a simple calculation is allowed, the number of vihāras had, roughly speaking, tripled in the one hundred and thirty years since Xuanzang's visit. At any rate, it seems true that the number of Buddhist temples increased very much during this period. Wukong also states that there were vihāras build by a queen and a prince of Turks.15
In the pramāņa tradition (or logico-epistemological tradition) of Buddhism, the period of the 8th century in Kashmir is famous for two great commentators upon Dharmakīrti's works: Arcața (=Dharmākaradatta; ca. 710-770 A.D./ 720-780 A.D.), 16 the author of the Hetubinduțīkā, and his disciple Dharmottara (ca. 740-800 A.D.)," the author of the Nyāyabinduţikā and the Pramāņaviniscayaţikā as well as other important works. In particular, Dharmottara entered Kashmir from outside (according to the RT, v. 498) and had a great influence throughout India, and Kashmir, on the development of this tradition at later periods. Further, Tibetan sources state that Ravigupta18 who was a pupil of Prajñākaragupta," wrote a commentary on Dharmakirti's Pramāņavārttika, and Jñānaśrībhadra 20 who wrote a commentary on the same master's Pramāņaviniscaya, flourished in Kashmir. It is interesting that Wukong was in Kashmir during an early stage of the flourishing of the Buddhist pramāņa tradition, probably when Arcața's name had become famous and slightly before Dharmottara entered Kashmir.
- 371 —

Page #6

A Study of the Nilamata-Aspects of Hinduism in Ancient Kashmir
III
Buddhism was often under the patronage of royal families. As seen above, we can trace this tendency at least to the beginning of the 7th century, and it became more evident in the 8th century. It is likely that Buddhism apart from its theoretical side could be prosperous only when the king or royal family of the time was tolerant enough to accept and protect it as a form of Hinduism.
With the establishment of the Dynasty of Utpala by Avantivarman (855/6883 A.D. according to Stein), construction of Buddhist temples seems to have. begun to decline; the RT states nothing about new Buddhist monuments. About one hundred years later under the reign of Kşemagupta (950-958 A.D. according to Stein), Jayendravihāra, which is mentioned in the Xiyuji, was burnt and the building materials were reused for the construction of the Saiva temple named Kṣemagauriśvara (RT vi, 171-173). As far as we know from this text, it was by Queen Didda under the reign of Nandigupta (972-973 A.D. according to Stein) that Buddhist temples were built again (RT vi, 299-306). At the same time, she built Visņu temples, i.e., Abhimanyusvāmin, two Diddāsvāmins and Simhasvamin. All of them were made in order to increase the merits of certain of her blood relatives. These reveal that she built Buddhist temples, not from her special devotion to Buddhism but only as one among a variety of her religious activities.
It is likely that such a syncretic attitude as seen in the case of Queen Didda is closely related with the fact that there were a few Buddhist texts written by brahmins. For example, a famous poet Anandavardhana is recorded to have written a lost sub-commentary (vivṛtti) to Dharmottara's Pramāṇaviniścayaṭikā. He was a celebrated poet who flourished in the reign of Avantivarman (RT v, 34) and one cannot find any evidence of his conversion. Further, Sankaranandana who flourished in the 9th or 10th century wrote a commentary on Dharmakirti's Pramāṇavārttika as well as other works, on the one hand, and as a Hindu wrote the lost Prajñalamkara which was highly estimated by the Saiva philosopher Abhinavagupta, on the other. This double attitude incurred a discussion regarding whether Sankaranandana converted himself or not.22 I am inclined to assume that he composed Buddhist texts without conversion. The fact that he is called "brahmin Sankaranandana" (bram ze bDe byed dga' ba)23 in Tibetan sources does not necessarily entail that he converted from Hinduism to Buddhism.24 It should be noted here that non-Buddhists composed commenta
-372

Page #7

Remarks on Religious Predominance in Kashmir; Hindu or Buddhist?
ries on Buddhist pramāṇa works not only in Kashmir but in other countries as For instance, the above mentioned Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang testifies that he learned Dignaga's Pramäṇasamuccaya for over a month under a brahmin who was skilled in logic (hetuvidya) in the region of Kosala (or South Kosala).25 Also, Sankarasvamin who is considered to be the author of the Nyayapravesaka, a concise guidebook to Dignaga's system of logic, may not have been a Buddhist and its commentaries were certainly written by Jainas. Such connections between brahmins/Jainas and Buddhist pramāņa works are relevant to the significance of those texts, apart from its Buddhist peculiarity, as belonging to the section of logic and debates (hetuvidya), a requisite for all scholars. I suppose that the syncretic attitude evident in Kashmir promoted an acceptance of Buddhist pramāna tradition among scholarly brahmins and later gave rise to Saiva philosophers such as Abhinavagupta who often utilized and incorporated Buddhist theories, such as Dharmakirti's, into his own system.
1. There are several Skt. forms concerning his name. I provisionally follow the most popular notation. His name could be expressed by such Skt. forms as "Madhyantika," "Madhyantika" (Page #8

(mid-day or noon; see Davids and Stede, loc., cit.). (3) "Madhyamdaka" is connected with the meaning related to his legendary career. This last etymology which Yijing gives can go back to the beginning of the 4th century. See the Ayuwang zhuan (BE), Taisho vol. 50, 116a ( Z; cf.
E, Taisho vol. 50, 155c).
. 2. As is known well, the expression Kāśmira-Vaibhāṣikāṇām is often used in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya by Vasubandhu in the context where he expresses his disagreement to the view established by the Kashmirian Sarvästivādins (=Vaibhāṣikas). This reveals their theoretical authenticity and popularity at that time.
3.
E.g., A. Stein, Kalhaṇa's Rājatarāngiṇī. A Chronicle of the Kings of Kasmir, London, 1900, vol. 1., p. 9; L. Joshi, Studies in the Buddhistic Culture of India, second revised edition, Delhi, 1977, p. 16. The Ayuwang zhuan (n. 1 above), Taishō vol. 50, 116a.
Though it is often stated that Kashmir was protected by nagas, the Xiyuji states that the country was protected by yaksas (Taisho vol. 51, 886a and 886c). Cf. The Datang Ciensi sanzangfashi zhuan (
*=*, abbrev. as Cien zhuan, hereafter), Taishō vol. 50, 231c. It must have something to do with the fact that the text is written from a Buddhist standpoint and that nāgas were often opposed to Buddhism. The names of the yakṣas are not mentioned by Xuanzang. On the other hand, the Mahāmāyürividyārājni names two yakṣas, Prabhamkara and Pāñcika, as related with the district of Kashmir. For the text together with Chinese and Tibean versions see S. Lévi, Le Catalogue géographique des Yakṣa dans la Mahāmāyūrī, Journal Asiatique, 1915, p. 51.
6. The Xiyuji, Taisho vol. 51, 886b and 887a; the Cien zhuan, Taishō vol. 50, 250a. For Skt. reconstructions of the king's name, see the following studies: Watters, On Yuan Chwang's... (n. 1 above), pp. 274-275; Sh. Mizutani (*), Daito saiiki ki (2), Tokyo, 1971, p. 377, n. 1; Sh. Kuwayama (LE), Daitō saiki ki (2), Tokyo, 1987, p. 270, n. 165. Mizutani states that the Skt. form of the name would be "Himatala," but the long vowel "--" seems impossible in this case. I provisionally take the name as Himatala. Another form "Hematala" also seems possible.
4.
5.
A Study of the Nilamata-Aspects of Hinduism in Ancient Kashmir
7. This may suggest the establishment of the Karkota Dynasty by King Durlabhavardhana.
8.
The Xiyuji, Taisho vol. 51, 887b.
9. Ibid., 886b and 887a.
10. The RT (iii, 355) states that Jayendravihara was built by Jayendra, the maternal uncle of. King Pravarasena II. According to Xuanzang, it was built by the father-in-law of the king (=Durlabhavardhana?). The Cien zhuan, Taisho vol. 50, 231a.
11. The Cien zhuan, loc. cit. As pointed out by Prof. Kuwayama (n. 6 above, p. 249, n. 136), one has to take care of Xuanzang's inconsistent estimation of Buddhism in Kashmir; though Buddhism looks prosperous in the Cien zhuan, the Xiyuji reveals that Kashmirian Buddhism of his time was on the decline. Moreover, the passage of the latter (see p. 369 of this paper) looks inserted in an irregular way when one compares it with the descriptions of other countries.
12. Sh. Kuwayama (ed.), Echō Ōgotenjikukokuden kenkyu (; or Huichao's Wang Wu-Tainzhuguo zhuan. Record of Travels in Five Indic Regions), Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 1992, p. 5 and pp. 98-99, n. 80.
13.
Ibid., pp. 20, 36, 103.
14. Wukong was well acquainted with the Xiyuji, because after describing his pilgrimage to sacred places in India, he explicitly states "Thus traveling and making a pilgrimage to all the sacred places, (I found that) there is not even a slight difference between (my experience) and the descriptions of the Datang Xiyuji." The Datang Zhenyuan xinyi Shididengjingji (+), Taishō vol. 17, 716b; vol. 51, 980b.
15.
16.
17.
I.e,
and J. Ibid., Taisho vol. 17, 716a; vol. 51, 980a.
T. Funayama, Arcata, Śantarakṣita, Jinendrabuddhi, and Kamalaśīla on the Aim of a Treatise (prayojana), Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 39 (forthcoming).
H. Krasser, On the Relationship between Dharmottara, Śantarakṣita and Kamalasila, Tibetan
-374

Page #9
Remarks on Religious Predominance in Kashmir; Hindu or Buddhist? Studies: Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, Narita 1989, Narita, 1992, p. 157. 18. According to Taranatha, the pramana tradition of Buddhism became very popular at a certain period in Kashmir and there appered the logician Ravigupta (Tib. Ni ma sbas pa). A. Schiefner (tr.), Taranatha's Geschichte des Buddhismus in Indien, St. Petersburg, 1869, p. 243. He must be the same Ravigupta, as the author of the Pramanavarttikatika. 19. The colophon of Ravigupta's Pramanavarttikatika testifies that he was a pupil of Prajnakaragupta, the author of the Pramanavarttikabhasya. See H. Tosaki ( EE), Bukkyo ninshikiron no kenkyu (14 W W F), vol. 1, Tokyo, 1979, p. 31. Prajnakaragupta is considered to have flourished after Dharmottara at the beginning of the 9th century. See M. Ono (NF#), Prajnakaragupta ni yoru Dharmakirti no pramana no teigi (プラジュニャーカラグプタによるダルマキールティのプラマーナ DEX), Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 42-2, 1994, pp. 198-205 (=pp. 885-868). There is not any decisive evidence of Prajnakaragupta's place of activity, though it is a natural conjecture that Prajnakaragupta, who criticized Dharmottara's view and taught Ravigupta, was also from Kashmir. As for Dharmottara, the RT (iv, 498) states that he entered Kashmir from outside (Krasser loc. cit.) but there is no information about his previous place of activity. For Ravigupta see n. 18 above. 20. I provisionally follow the following studies for the information about Jnanasribhadra: S. Ch. Vidyabhusana, A History of Indian Logic, Calcutta, 1921, p. 342; Th. Stcherbatsky, Buddhist Logic, vol. 1, Bibliotheca Buddhica 26, 1932, p. 42. These studies state that Jnanasribhadra was a brahmin. However, I myself could not confirm it during this research. In particular, although Vidyabhusana , refers to the colophon of the Pramanaviniscayatika as well as one of his previous papers to corroborate his statement "He was born in a Brahmana family of Kasmira..." (Vidyabhusana loc. cit.), the colophon in question merely states as follows: tshad ma rnam par nes pa'i grel bsad... //slob dpon ye ses dpal bzan po'i zal sna nas mdzad pa rdzogs sol/gnas brtan mkhas pa chen po dzna na sri bha dra dan/lo tsa ba (Derge: lo tstsha ba Peking) dge slon chos kyi brtson 'grus kyis bsgyur/ ..., where Jnanasribhadra's previous career such as "brahmin" (* bram ze) is not mentioned at all. Stcherbatsky, op. cit., p. 41. R. Gnoli, The Pramanavarttikam of Dharmakirti: The First Chapter with the Autocommentary, Roma: IsMEO, 1960, pp. xxiii-xxvi. 23. E.g., Schiefner, op. cit., p. 247. 24. Does the expression "brahmin Sankaranandana" mean that he was born in a brahmin family and later became a Buddhist monk? I think that is highly doubtful. As an alternative, Prof. Gnoli (op. cit., pp. xxv-xxvi) refers to Sankaranandana's surname "Great Brahmin" to suggest a possibility of conversion in explaining the ambiguity of Sankarananana's religious standpoint, an opinion contrary to my conjecture. For the notation of his name and Skt. fragments of his works see the following paper: G. Buhnemann, Identifizierung von Sanskrittexten Sankaranandanas, Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sudasiens 24, 1980, pp. 191-198. 25. The Cien zhuan, Taisho vol. 50, 241b. 21. 375 -