The Spread of Buddhism

the spread of buddhism in serindia 85

subjects the image of iva was nothing but an iconographic garb for

a Mazdean deity.^38 Such an amphibology is explicit in the Rabatak

inscription, where over the list of predominantly Mazdean gods (but

with some Hindu intruders), a line was added:   

  

    “and he (

þ?) is called Mahsena (= iva) and

he is called Vikha”.^39 The system of interpretationes hinduicae was prob-

ably created in Bactria before Vima Kadphises. If not, the iva-coins

bearing the legend 

þ, which are most numerous in the Kua

coinage and were seen by the eyes of every Bactrian, would have been

incomprehensible.

Vima’s ivaist iconography was not necessarily dictated by hypocrisy

or political adap tation to local situations in the Achaemenids’ manner,

who let themselves be depicted as Pharaohs and performed rites to

Marduk or Apis. He may have perceived no difference between iva

and Vaiiu. In India, a Mazdean temple curator (bakanapati)^40 could

bestow a Hindu temple (devakula); its restorer, a Kua general, could

adorn it with statues of a Kua king (Huvika?; from Huvika) and

proclaim he owed his sovereignty to iva.^41 Kanika’s (from Kanika)

second successor Vasudeva bore a Viuist name.^42 Such equivalences

between Mazdeism and Hinduism, in Kua Bactria as well as later in

seventh century Sogdiana,^43 presuppose intense dealings and probably

immigrations that go back to the Indo-Greek realms. Buddhism could

thus have come into Bactria in the swarm of the Indian  ow.

In view of the above data the question arises whether the spread

of Buddhism in Bactria followed a spontaneous, osmotic course, or

whether the Kuas favoured it actively? Long after the wane of the

Kua reign, the Sarvstivdin tradition^44 depicted the Kuas as

active promoters of Buddhism. They especially favoured king Kanika,

who according to Xuanzang summoned the Kashmir council, the

misnamed Kanika council, which Frauwallner (1952, pp. 250–256)^45

(^38) The interpretatio theory was already put forward by Rosen eld 1967, pp. 247 and
249, although he did not consider 
þ to be an Iranian god.
(^39) Sims-Williams 1998, p. 82.
(^40) According to Henning 1965b, pp. 250–252, bakanapati does not designate a lay
servant but a priestly class, perhaps higher than the 41 magus.
M
inscription. See Fussman 1998, pp. 605–614.
(^42) Rosen eld 1967, p. 104. See further Rapin 1995, pp. 278–281.
(^43) Nana’s temple in PenÌikent sheltered a ivaist chapel. Cf. Grenet 1994, p. 46.
(^44) Upon the whole legend, see Lévi 1896, vol. 1, pp. 444ff. and Lüders 1926. La Vallée
Poussin 1930, pp. 324–328, already raised doubt and enlisted some discrepancies.
(^45) See already La Vallée-Poussin 1930, pp. 326ff.
Heirman_f5new_75-129.indd 85 3/13/2007 1:15:53 PM