Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East (Vol. I: Champa; Vol. II: Suvarnadvipa) v1.c7.s6: Chapter VI
Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East (Vol. I: Champā; Vol. II: Suvarṇadvīpa) v1.c7.s6
- Language
- English
Chapter VI
v1.c7.s6.1
The new dynasty that supplanted the old seems to have been founded by Indravarman II, though we are not quite certain on this point. The Dong Duong Inscription (No. 31), issued by this king in 875 A. D. gives the following account of the family.
v1.c7.s6.2
“From the son (or family) of Parameśvara was born Uroja, the king of the world. From him was born the fortunate and intelligent Dharmarāja.
v1.c7.s6.3
“From him was born the intelligent king Śrī Rudravar-mā. The son of the latter was the far-famed king Śrī Bhad-ravarma.
v1.c7.s6.4
“The son of Śrī Bhadravarma, known as Śrī Indravarman, has become the king of Champā through the grace of Maheś-vara.
v1.c7.s6.5
“Thus the sovereignty of the king was transmitted in its entirety from those kings (lit. sons). It was not given by the grandfather or the father.
v1.c7.s6.6
“By the special merit of his austerities, and by virtue of his pure intelligence, he gained (the kingdom), not from his grandfather or father.”
v1.c7.s6.7
(Verses No. 31. A. 18-22)
v1.c7.s6.8
The last verse is echoed again in a prose passage “Śrī Jaya Indravarma Mahārājādhirāja became king of Champā by virtue of peculiar merits accruing from austerities of many previous births” (Ins. p. 87)
v1.c7.s6.9
Now as to the genealogy of Indravarma, it is traced from Mahādeva, and thus a divine origin is attributed to the family. Elsewhere the family is referred to as the ‘Bhrgu family (No. 42, v. 8, No. 39, v. 16) evidently because of the mythology contained in No. 31, according to which Bhṛgu was sent to Champā by Mahādeva himself. The next king Uroja also belongs to the category of mythical kings, for he is elsewhere (No. 31, A. 10,) described as a god sent down to the earth by Mahādeva. As to the third king, Dharmarāja, it is doubtful whether he is a historical figure, or belongs to the category of divine or mythical beings. It may be noted that his name does not end in ‘varman’ which is almost the invariable custom of the kings of Champā at this period. Further, it is somewhat singular that whereas Indravarman is said to be the son of Bhadravarman, and the latter the son of Rudravarman, the last named king is simply said to have been born from Dharmarāja; similarly Dharmarāja is simply said to have been born from Uroja. Of course ordinarily such expressions indicate the relation of son and father, but here the obvious contrast in the two sets of expressions may be taken to mean that Rudravarman was merely descended from Dharmarāja and not his son.¹ In short we shall be on the safe side if we look upon the last three kings alone as historical figures viz. Rudravarma
v1.c7.s6.10
¹ These arguments have been elaborated by Finot. (B. E. F. vol IV. pp. 96 ff).
v1.c7.s6.11
Bhadravarma
v1.c7.s6.12
Indravarma
v1.c7.s6.13
Now both Rudravarma and Bhadravarma are explicitly referred to as kings. It would then follow that the royal dynasty to which Indravarma belonged was founded by Rudravarma, and the former inherited the throne of his father and grandfather. Strangely enough, this is exactly the conclusion against which we are warned by the king himself, who declares, in no uncertain voice, that he did not inherit the throne from his father or grandfather, but gained it through the grace of Maheśvara, by virtue of his meritorious acts in previous births (cf. the last four verses quoted above).
v1.c7.s6.14
It is a very hard task to reconcile these conflicting statements. Finot supposes that the grandfather of the king (i. e. Rudravarma) had probably usurped the throne by murdering the legitimate king, and hence Indravarman, unwilling to base his claim to the throne on this criminal act, referred to his own austerities and grace of Maheśvara as forming sufficient claims thereto.¹ This is no doubt a possible view, but a better explanation seems to be that Rudravarman and Bhadravarman were local kings, and it was Indravarman who first made himself the master of Campā. Thus although descended from a line of kings he did not owe the kingdom of Campā either to his father or to his grandfather, but only to his own meritorious acts. That kings Rudravarman and Bhadravarman were historical personages we gather from Hoa Que Inscription (No. 39 C.) and An-Thai inscription (No. 37). The last named inscription further proves that Bhadravarman actually ruled in the Quang Nam district and made donations to a Buddhist monastery. There is nothing to support Maspero's view that Vikrāntavarman III, having no children, recommended Indravarman to the principal citizens who sought him out and placed him on the throne of Campā.²
v1.c7.s6.15
¹ Ibid.
v1.c7.s6.16
² The expressions "Sandarsita" (No. 31 B, v. II) and "Mahajanavarair-anugamyamanah" (Ibid, v. 9.) have led Finot to suppose that king Indravarman was "nominated by the king" and proclaimed by the citizens (Ibid p. 97). The passages, however, do not seem to me capable of yielding this interpretation. Maspero's view is apparently based upon that of
v1.c7.s6.17
In any case Indravarman II. seems to be the first notable king of this dynasty. He was originally called ‘Śrī Lakṣmīndra Bhumīśvara Grāmasvāmin’¹, and on gaining the sovereignty of Champā, he assumed the title ‘Śrī Jaya Indravarmā Mahārājādhirāja’. He married his aunt, a niece of his grandfather Rudravarman III (Hoa Que Ins. No. 39). The Dong Duong Inscription praises him in extravagant terms, and commemorates the erection of a monastery and a temple for Svabhayada, i. e. Buddha. This is very interesting, for it shows that the king had leanings towards Buddhism. But he had of course the traditional faith in Śaivism. For the inscription not only refers to a Śivalinga made by him (No. 31 B. V. 3), but also contains a long invocation of the god Śambhubhadreśvara (No. 31 A. V. 10). This god is already familiar to us, and we have seen above that it was erected by Bhadravarman about 400 A. D., destroyed by fire, and re-installed by his successor Śambhuvarman. Indravarman II, however, completely ignores these historical facts and gives an altogether different story about its origin. He says in effect that the sage Bhṛgu got the liṅga from Mahādeva himself, while Uroja got it from Bhṛgu and installed it at Champā. Thus the two mythical names Bhṛgu and Uroja are substituted for those of Bhadravarman and Śambhuvarman. Indravarman could not possibly have
v1.c7.s6.18
¹ Dong Duong Ins. No, 31. B. v II. Cf. B. E F., vol. IV. p. 97.
v1.c7.s6.19
Finot, but he has transformed it a great deal. Finot apparently means that Indravarman was nominated by the king, his father, but Maspero takes this king to be Vikrantavarman, and adds two new facts viz. that Vikrantavarman had no children, and that the nobles of his court went in search of king Indravarman, nominated by him. I do not find any authority for either of these statements.
v1.c7.s6.20
been ignorant of these kings, for their inscription recording the installation of the linga were there before the temple. It was then a deliberate misrepresentation on the part of Indravarman II, actuated no doubt by a policy of ignoring kings and dynasties from whom he could not legitimately claim his succession.
v1.c7.s6.21
Besides Dong Duong Inscription two other inscriptions (Nos. 32 and 33 ¹) belong to the reign of Indravarman II. Phu Thuan (No. 33) inscription simply records that the king exempted the temple of Śri Bhāgyakānteśvara from taxes, and employed four priests for daily worship there. From Bo Mang inscription (No. 32) we learn that the king dedicated a field together with slaves to Śri Mahālingadeva, installed by his minister named Manicaitya in the year 889 A. D. Conventional praises are bestowed on him in An-Thai inscription (No. 37).
v1.c7.s6.22
¹ This is doubtfully attributed to Indravarman II, cf No. 33
v1.c7.s6.23
Indravarman II must have enjoyed a fairly long and peaceful reign between 854 A. D., the date of Vikrāntavarman III, and 898 A. D., the earliest date of his successor. His known dates are 875 and 889 A. D. ² So far as we know he sent only a single embassy to China in 877 A. D., as he had nothing to fear from that quarter on account of its internal conditions. Indravarman II seems to have been succeeded by Jaya Siṁhavarman.³ The relationship betwen the two is not definitely known. The Dong Duong inscription (No. 36), however, says that the mother of king Jayasiṁhavarman had a younger sister, Pov ku lyan Śri Rājakula, also known as Haradevi. Haradevi's husband was king Śrī Parama-Buddhaloka, and she installed Śrī Indraparameśvara for the sake of religious merit of her own husband. This might be taken to imply that the coronation-name of her husband was Indravarman, as the name of the gods is often formed by the addition of the name of the king. It may be held therefore that Haradevi was the queen of Indravarman II.¹ According to this view, Simhavarman would be the son of the elder sister of Indravarman's queen,² and Indravarman would have the epithet of "Parama-Buddhaloka".
v1.c7.s6.24
² To this we may possibly add 893 A. D. (See Introduction to the Chausa Ins. No. 38).
v1.c7.s6.25
³ This conclusion seems to follow from the Ban-lanh Inscription (No. 35), and the Chau-sa Inseripiton (No. 38).
v1.c7.s6.26
¹ This point has been fully discussed in the Introduction to Dong Duong Inscription No. 36.
v1.c7.s6.27
² Maspero concludes from a reference to Guhesvara in v. 2 of the Dong Duong Inscription, that Guhesvara was the name of Jaya Simhavarman's father (T'oung Pao vol. XII, p. 58). But this seems to be a far-fetched interpretation. In any case the name should be Guhavarman and not Guhesvara.
v1.c7.s6.28
We possess five inscriptions belonging to the reign of Jaya Simhavarman (Nos. 34-38), but they merely give a list of his pious donations and do not contain any reference to political events. Only we hear a great deal of the wealth and splendour of Indrapura which seems to have been the real capital of this dynasty, although the city of Champā is still officially recognised as such.
v1.c7.s6.29
Out of gratitude to his maternal aunt Haradevi, to whom he owed the throne, king Jaya Simhavarman exempted from taxes several temples erected by her and installed the august goddess Haromā.
v1.c7.s6.30
Other pious works of the king in the form of direct donations to gods, or protection and immunity granted to temples established by others, are referred to in Bo-Mang (No. 34), Ban-lanh (No. 35), An-Thai (No. 37), Hoa-Que (No. 39), and the fragmentary Chau-sa Inscriptions (No. 38).
v1.c7.s6.31
It is important to note that the royal patronage was not confined to Śaivism alone but Buddhism also had a fair share of it.
v1.c7.s6.32
The queen of Jaya Siṁhavarman was named Tribhuvana-Mahādevī who is praised in extravagant terms in the Nhan-Bieu Inscription (No. 43) and whose religious donations are referred to in the Ha-Trung inscription (No. 44). The Nhan-Bieu inscription refers to her father's family as of very high standing and gives the following genealogy.
v1.c7.s6.33
Lyaṅ Vṛddhakulā
v1.c7.s6.34
| . . . . .
| |
v1.c7.s6.35
Narendrādhipati Son
v1.c7.s6.36
Daṅghter Tribhuvanadevī=
v1.c7.s6.37
| king Jayasiṁhavarman
v1.c7.s6.38
Pov Kluñ Piliḥ Rājadvāraḥ
v1.c7.s6.39
The Nhan Bieu inscription furnishes a detailed account of Pov Kluñ Rājadvāraḥ, the son of the queen's cousin. He became a favourite of king Jayasiṁhavarman and was sent on a diplomatic mission to Java. The Bo-Mang inscription (No. 34) makes a vague allusion to the power of the king having spread to other lands, and this is confirmed by the diplomatic mission sent to Java which, as we shall see, was continued by his successors. King Jayasiṁhavarman was succeeded by his eldest son Śrī Jayaśaktivarman.¹ He is only referred to in the Nhan Bieu Ins. (No. 43) and probably reigned for only a short time. The earliest known date of Jayasiṁhavarman is 898 A. D. and that of the successor of Jayaśaktivarman, 909 A. D. Jayasimhavarman, therefore, must have died sometime between 903 A. D. his last known date, and 909 A. D. His son, too, must have died before 909 A. D. The next king was Bhadravarman III. whose relationship to his predecessor is not known as yet. The way in which he is introduced in the Nhan Bieu inscription seems to indicate that he did not occupy the throne by any unfair means. For Instance, Pilih Rājadvāraḥ, the son of the cousin of Jaya Simhavarman’s queen, continued to occupy a high position under Bhadravarman, as he did under his two predecessors, and was again sent on a diplomatic errand to Java. This, of course, proves nothing, but gives rise to a fair presumption that there was no violent disturbance in the internal polity of the kingdom.
v1.c7.s6.40
¹ It is unnecessary to point out in detail the errors in Maspero's accounts of this period. They are due partly to the misreading of the Po-Nagar Ins. (No. 45) by Bergaigne, thereby introducing a new king Haravarman, and partly to the fact that several inscriptions throwing new light on this period were not yet discovered.
v1.c7.s6.41
We possess four inscriptions of the time of Bhadravarman III. (Nos. 39-42). Conventional praises are bestowed upon the king, and in particular his victories over enemies are referred to again and again. Whether these are mere eulogistic expressions or have any historical basis to stand upon, we have no means to determine. The Bang-An inscription (No. 42) refers to the multitude of royal ambassadors coming from different countries. The Hoa-Que Inscription (No. 39) says with reference to one of his ministers, that he was able to understand thoroughly the meaning of messages sent by kings from different countries.’ The Nhan-Bieu Inscription (No. 43) states that he sent Pilih Rājadvāraḥ on a diplomatic mission to Java. These isolated statements, occurring in different contexts, leave no doubt that the kingdom of Champā was now recognised abroad as an important and powerful kingdom and took part in international politics. The first stages of this new departure we have already noticed in the reign of Jaya Simhavarman.
v1.c7.s6.42
The Hoa-Que inscription (No 39) refers to an important collateral branch of the royal family which supplied high officials to the kingdom. The founder of this family, Sārthavāha, was a nephew of Rudravarman III, the first king of the dynasty, and a brother of the principal queen of Indravarman II. His three sons Ājñā Mahāsāmanta, Ājñā Narendra nṛpavitra and Ājñā Jayendrapati occupied high positions in the kingdom as ministers of king Bhadravarman. These three brothers, together with a younger sister, called Ugradevī,¹ erected an image of Mahā Rudradeva, ‘out of devotion to, and in imitation of the features of their father.’ Other religious endowments of the members of the family are also referred to in the same inscription.
v1.c7.s6.43
¹ Huber who edited the Hoa-Que inscription remarks that Ugradevī had married a Cham king, probably Bhadravarman III, the reigning king (B. E. F. vol. XI, p. 286). This is apparently based on his interpretation of verse XXVI (c) of the inscription. But the verse does not contain any word equivalent to "queen" so far as I could see (cf the text and translation of the inscription No. 39).
v1.c7.s6.44
Bhadravarman erected many temples and images of gods, a list of which is given in the Hoa-Que inscription (No. 39). Other religious endowments are referred to in the Bang-an inscription (No. 42).
v1.c7.s6.45
Bhadravarman must have a very short reign. His known dates are 909 and 910 A. D. He must have died in 910 or 911 A. D. the known date of his successor. His reign, therefore, falls between this date and 903 A. D. the last known date of Jaya Siṃhavarman. As one king intervened between the two he did not probably reign for more than a period of five years, 905 to 910 A. D.
v1.c7.s6.46
Bhadravarman III. was succeeded by his son Indravarman III. We possess eight inscriptions of his reign (Nos. 43-50).¹ The king had a remarkable personality. His literary accomplishments are described in the Po-Nagar inscription (No. 45). He is said to have mastered the six systems of Brāhmaṇical Philosophy as well as the Buddhist Philosophy, the Grammar of Pāṇini together with its commentary Kāśikā, and the Uttarakalpa of the Śaivites. Inspite of obvious exaggerations, the king must be taken to have been a remarkable scholar in his day.
v1.c7.s6.47
¹ It has been usual to distinguish between Indravarman III and his successor Jaya Indravarman I, the last five inscriptions (Nos. 46-50) being attributed to the latter. But I do not see any reason for this distinction. Indravarman II, for example, is twice called Jaya Indravarman (cf. Dong Duong Ins. No. 31, B., and Bo-Mang Inscription No. 32) and the same thing may hold good in the case of Indravarman III. Besides, the Po-Nagar inscription (No. 47) of the so-called Jaya Indravarman I refers to the re-erection of a stone image in place of the golden one formerly installed by the king himself (cf. yena in line 1 and its correlative sa in line 3). Now we know from No. 45 that Indravarman III erected a golden image of Bhagavatī. The identity of the two may therefore be presumed on fairly satisfactory evidence, although it cannot be definitely proved. It may be objected that as Indravarman III ascended the throne in 910 or 911 A. D. and the last known date of Jaya Indravarman is 971 A.D. the identification of the two would lead us to presume an unusually long reign. But as the Lai-trung Inscription (No. 46) of Jaya Indravarman I is dated 918 or 921 A.D. we have in any case to presume quite a long reign. Besides, Maspero's theory that Indravarman III was succeeded by Jaya Indravarman I about 960 A.D. is proved erroneous by the Lai-trung Inscription (No. 46).
v1.c7.s6.48
But while the king was busy with the study of Philosophy and Grammar, the kingdom was invaded by the Cambodgians. The Po-Nagar inscription (No. 47) informs us that the golden image installed by the king was carried away by the Cambodgians and the king substituted a stone image in its place in 965 A. D. This golden image is no doubt that of the goddess Bhagavati which was installed by the king in the year 918 A. D. (cf. Po Nagar Ins. No. 45).
v1.c7.s6.49
The date of this Cambodian invasion is not difficult to determine. The Baksei Cankran inscription of Rājendravarman II, dated 947 A. D.,¹ states that the king was a fire of destruction to his royal enemies, commencing with that of Champā. As Rājendravarman ascended the throne in 944 A. D., his expedition against Champā must have taken place between 944 and 947 A. D.
v1.c7.s6.50
¹ J. A. 1882 (2) p. 151; 1884 (1) p. 54. Aymonier, Cambodge vol. III p. 8.
v1.c7.s6.51
Indravarman ultimately hurled back the forces of the Cambodian king, but his straitened circumstances are indicated by the fact that the golden image of Bhagavati which was carried away by the invading troops could only be replaced by a stone figure. (Po Nagar Ins. No. 47).
v1.c7.s6.52
For a long time the kings of Champā stopped their customary presents to China, apparently because it was torn by internal dissensions after the downfall of the T'ang dynasty. The four ephemeral dynasties that succeeded the T'ang were all ignored by the Cham kings, but on the accession of Kouo Wei, who founded a new dynasty—the Heou Tcheou Indravarman sent an embassy to China with various presents (951 A. D.). The intercourse thus resumed continued uninterrupted throughout his reign. When Tchao K'ouang-Yin founded the Soung Dynasty in China (960 A. D.), Indravarman sent an embassy to offer congratulations. Altogether seven embassies from Champā visited the Imperial court in 958, 959, 962, 966, 967, 970 and 971 A. D.¹
v1.c7.s6.53
¹ T'oung Pao 1911, p. 62 ff.
v1.c7.s6.54
Indravarman III. enjoyed a long reign of sixty years. He ascended the throne about 911 A. D. and died in 971 or 972 A. D.
v1.c7.s6.55
KINGS REFERRED TO IN CHAPTER VI.
v1.c7.s6.56
1. Rudravarman III.
2. Bhadravarman II. (Son of No. 1)
3. Indravarman II. (c. 870-c. 895 A.D.) (Son of No. 2)
4. Jaya Simhavarman (c. 895-904 A. D.) (Son of the elder sister of the queen of No. 3)
5. Jayaśaktivarman (c. 904-905 A. D.) (Son of No. 4)
6. Bhadravarman III. (c. 905-911 A. D.)
7. Indravarman III. (c. 911 A. D.-972 A. D.) (Son of No. 6)
Cites (1)
- Aṣṭādhyāyī — Pāṇini, Sanskrit