146 erik seldeslachts
also said to be from vihra), and westward till well beyond Hamadn,
in what is now Kurdish territory. According to Bulliet, this indicates a
series of foundations directed from the navavihra of Balkh.^70
On the basis of information provided by Xuanzang and the Arab
author Ibn al-Faqh, and of the designation nava “new”, Bulliet further
suggested that the navavihra monasteries represented a speci c type or
sect of Buddhism connected with Central Asia and China and were
distinct from the older monasteries in the region.^71 Should one think
here of the Western Vaibhika or Blhika (Bactrian) Abhidharma
School founded by the Tokharian monk Ghoaka after the fourth ( fth)
Buddhist council organised by Kanika?^72 Or was it Mahyna? On
the basis of the translations made by Parthian Buddhist preachers who
reached China as early as the middle of the second century, Mariko
Walter infers the presence in Parthia of a Mahyna tradition.^73 Already
it is starting to become clear that in the entire Oxus region a variety
of Hnayna schools was active, Dharmaguptakas, Sarvstivdins and
Mahs ghikas.^74 Among other sources, this appears from Gndhr
and Sanskrit Buddhist manuscripts in Brhm and Kharoh script
that have come to light at Merv, Zang-Tepe near Termez and other
places.^75 However, a lot of work remains to be done in the study and
translation of these texts, as well as of the numerous Buddhistic inscrip-
tions from the region.
To complete this overview, mention should be made of some possible
evidence of Buddhism along the Persian Gulf, scarce and indecisive
though it is. Cave complexes at Chehelkhneh and aidar on the
northwestern shore of the Gulf to a certain extent resemble Buddhist
monasteries serving local trading communities in India and Central
(^70) Bulliet 1976, pp. 140–143; cf. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. 9 (1997), pp. 869a–
870a, s.v. sumaniyya [G. Monot]; vol. 7 (1993), p. 1039b s.v. Naw Bahr. Some caution
is expressed by Emmerick 1989, p. 493a. 71
Bulliet 1976, pp. 142–143.
(^72) Cf. Stavisky 1994, pp. 132–133.
(^73) Walter 1998, pp. 52–54, 56–58; cf. Litvinskij 1998, p. 177. On the Parthian mis-
sionaries, see also Koshelenko 1966, pp. 180–181; Litvinskij 1998, pp. 177–178. One
scholar advanced the possibility that these Parthians were in reality Indo-Parthians,
Parthian inhabitants of India that is, which would of course drastically change the
situation. Unfortunately, I cannot trace the reference now.
(^74) Litvinskij 1998, p. 177; Walter 1998, pp. 52–53.
(^75) Koshelenko 1966, pp. 181–182; Litvinskij 1981, pp. 53–54; 1998, pp. 177–179;
Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya in Litvinsky, Zhang & Samghabadi 1996, pp. 437–442.