buddhism in gandhra 61
logical ndings, the White Huns’ attitudes towards Buddhism seem
to have differed from region to region. While Taxila and Gandhra
were damaged considerably, in the more western areas monasteries
hardly suffered at all according to archaeological ndings.^71 In the
early seventh century, however, when Xuanzang visited this region,
a marked decline of Buddhism had taken place. Most of the monas-
teries were now deserted and lied in ruins.^72 The temple of the Buddha’s
“alms-bowl” (ptra) was destroyed and the alms-bowl itself brought to
Persia.^73 The great stpa near Puruapura (Peshawar), once constructed
by Kanika was still in existence, but the old monastery nearby, also
built by him, was delapidated. A few monks studying Hnayna teach-
ings still lived there.^74 The same holds true for the old monastery
north of Pukalvat (Charsadda). In the monastery near Varapura
(Shhbzga h) Xuanzang found more than fty monks, all followers
of the Mahyna. But the pious Buddhist lay community he met with
in Haa consisted of such a small number of monks that they were
hardly able to look properly after the large monasteries. This could
have been the result of a general decline in economic prosperity leaving
laymen with few funds to feed a large community of monks.
A second, and perhaps even more decisive, factor in the decline was
the revival of Hinduism. The numerous hi dynasties that ultimately
inherited the Kua empire in Afghanistan and further west mostly
professed Hinduism. The Pa ola his of Gilgit (7th century AD),
however, evidently favoured Buddhism. Four of them are named as
donors in the colophons of manuscripts,^75 unearthed from two small
stpas at Naupur near Gilgit. Peculiarities of orthography and the names
mentioned in the colophons at the end of the manuscripts, show that
(^71) von Hinüber 1984, pp. 101f.
(^72) Beal 1884, vol. 1, p. 98.
(^73) Xuanzang tells us that the Buddha’s “alms-bowl” (ptra) is said to have come to
Gandhra after his nirv a. At Xuanzang’s time it had already been taken to Persia.
Cf. Beal 1884, vol. I, pp. 98f.
(^74) Beal 1884, vol. 1, pp. 103f.
(^75) von Hinüber 1979, pp. 336f.; von Hinüber 1980, pp. 49–82. Besides this
mention of four rulers of the Pa ola-hi dynasty, only one ruler of this dynasty,
Navasurendrdityanandin, is known from an inscription at Hat n. This inscription is
dated to the year 47 of an unknown era. Only one date is mentioned in the colophons,
the year 3 of an unknown era. Von Hinüber 1980, pp. 55f. and 70, assumes that the
unknown era might refer to the Laukika era and the mentioned dates to the year
627/628 AD and 671/672 AD respectively.