Thus the Kunjarakarna contains peculiar views which are probably sectarian or individual.  On the other hand their apparent singularity may be due to our small knowledge of old Javanese literature.  Though other writings are not known to extol Vairocana as being Siva and Buddha in one, yet they have no scruple in identifying Buddhist and Brahmanic deities or connecting them by some system of emanations, as we have already seen in the Kamahayanikan.  Such an identity is still more definitely proclaimed in the old Javanese version of the Sutasoma Jataka.[438] It is called Purushada-Santa and was composed by Tantular who lived at Madjapahit in the reign of Rajasanagara (1350-1389 A.D.).  In the Indian original Sutasoma is one of the previous births of Gotama.  But the Javanese writer describes him as an Avatara of the Buddha who is Brahma, Vishnu and Isvara, and he states that “The Lord Buddha is not different from Siva the king of the gods....  They are distinct and they are one.  In the Law is no dualism.”  The superhuman Buddhas are identified with various Hindu gods and also with the five senses.  Thus Amitabha is Mahadeva and Amoghasiddhi is Vishnu.  This is only a slight variation of the teaching in the Kamahayanikan.  There Brahmanic deities emanate from Sakyamuni through various Bodhisattvas and Buddhas:  here the Buddha spirit is regarded as equivalent to the Hindu Trimurti and the various aspects of this spirit can be described in either Brahmanic or Buddhistic terminology though in reality all Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and gods are one.  But like the other authors quoted, Tantular appears to lean to the Buddhist side of these equations, especially for didactic purposes.  For instance he says that meditation should be guided “by Lokesvara’s word and Sakyamuni’s spirit.”

7

Thus it will be seen that if we take Javanese epigraphy, monuments and literature together with Chinese notices, they to some extent confirm one another and enable us to form an outline picture, though with many gaps, of the history of thought and religion in the island.  Fa-Hsien tells us that in 418 A.D.  Brahmanism flourished (as is testified by the inscriptions of Purnavarman) but that the Buddhists were not worth mentioning.  Immediately afterwards, probably in 423, Gunavarman is said to have converted She-po, if that be Java, to Buddhism, and as he came from Kashmir he was probably a Sarvastivadin.  Other monks are mentioned as having visited the southern seas.[439] About 690 I-Ching says that Buddhism of the Mulasarvastivadin school was flourishing in Sumatra, which he visited, and in the other islands of the Archipelago.  The remarkable series of Buddhist monuments in mid Java extending from about 779 to 900 A.D. confirms his statement.  But two questions arise.  Firstly, is there any explanation of this sudden efflorescence of Buddhism in the Archipelago, and next, what was its doctrinal character?  If, as Taranatha says, the disciples of Vasubandhu evangelized