The Spread of Buddhism

86 xavier tremblay

showed to be nothing else than a Sarvstivdin synod. Elaborating this

tradition, Salomon (1999a, pp. 10 and 180f.)^46 stated that the Indo-

Scythians were favourable to the Dharma guptakas, whereas the Kuas

inclined to the Sarvstivda sect. Salomon thus called for a reappraisal

of the role of the Indo-Scythians to account for the prevalence of the

Dharmaguptaka sect among the Gndhr manuscript remains recently

found in Haa, near the present-day Jalalabad (the so-called British

Library Kharo

h fragments).^47

Let alone that not only the Sarvstivdins but even Mahynists paid

tribute to the Kuas and were fostered by them,^48 and let alone still

that Kanika is not mentioned by Paramrtha (T.2049) in the history

of the Kashmir council and that the colophon of the *Abhidharmamah

vibhstra (T.1545)^49 only indicates that the council occurred under his

reign, Salomon was apparently not aware of the fact made clear since

the discovery of the dynastic temple in Surkh Kotal that the Kuas

were not Buddhists, but Mazdeans. In the coins they issued, Buddha

was struck on but two rare types of gold coins, only under Kanika,

whereas Nana, the Eastern Iranian great goddess, Vaiiu or Mithra are

found in hoards in very numerous quantities. Buddha thus fares hardly

better than foreign deities like Horus, Serapis or Skanda-Kumara.

The U-shaped Buddhist sanctuary in Dalverdzin has aisles contain-

ing stucco statues with the Buddha and bodhisattvas on one side and lay

donors with a prince in Kua dress, court ladies and a magnate on the

other. This site dates from Kanika or his predecessor (Vima Kadphises)

and provides contemporary testimony of the good relations between the

nobility and the Buddhists, but there is no indication as to the person

who erected it. A local aristocrat is as good a candidate as the central

power. To be true, a big monastery in Peshawar (in Gandhra!) was

ascribed to Kanika by a tradition reported by Xuanzang.^50 More than

 fteen temples, vihras and stpas, some of them of great dimensions,

were ascribed to the Kua era in Bactria by Soviet archaeolo gists^51

(^46) See a similar reasoning in Konow 1929, p. lxxix.
(^47) These ca. 100 fragments from more than 33 manuscripts (upon which Salomon
1999a) date from the  rst century AD. They were perhaps relegated to a pot dedicated
to Dharmaguptakas, since they are worn out and may have been deemed unusable.
(^48) Cf. note 58.
(^49) “Great Commentarial Treatise on Abhidharma”, a commentary written in Kashmir
around the second century AD. 50
T.2087.51.880b15–881a10. Cf. Beal 1884, book 2, pp. 103–109.
(^51) See Staviskij 1989, pp. 203–215 and 263–279 et passim.
Heirman_f5new_75-129.indd 86 3/13/2007 1:15:53 PM