The Spread of Buddhism

the spread of buddhism in serindia 87

and even in midtown Termez a small temple has been reported.^52 The

datings, however, are under discussion. Moreover, the only witnesses^53

that the Kuas personally sponsored these buildings are the traditions

reported by Xuanzang and three Kharo

h ostraca from Kara-tepe

(near Termez) provided one can prove that they really bear the Indo-

Bactrian hybrid term Khadevakavihara “royal vihra”.^54 And even if the

Kuas actually did support Buddhism, it proves nothing concerning

their religious af liation: the mahakatrap Kharapallana is mentioned

in the Sarnath inscription as the patron of the stpa, but fortunately

his seal is conserved, which bears the Iranian deities Xvarnah and AÜi

Vavuh  ^55 The Kuas and their of cials thus may have supported

as sponsors the construction of religious buildings of all prominent

religions. There is no reason to surmise that the Kuas’ Buddhist

“convictions” went further and that they pushed forward one school

rather than another. No Sarvstivda or Dharmaguptaka hegemony is

found in Bactrian Buddhism.

Must then the whole Buddhist lore around Kanika (none of which is

earlier than the  fth century) be a pious fake? Most Bactrian Mazdeans,

including the Kuas, probably did not consider Buddhism as a rival

or contradictory to Mazdeism. Later evidence documents that Buddha

could also have a place in a Mazdean pantheon. For instance, over the

head of a painted Buddha in Termez, the overtly syncretistic name

 was written (perhaps later).^56 The Eastern Mazdean pan-

theon was not a closed one and could integrate Buddha, as an ignotum

deum.

On the other hand, to the eyes of Buddhist (probably H nayna)

monks for which the sole de nite conversion token was to become

a monk oneself, there was but a faint difference between a devout

lay Buddhist, a sympathiser and a mere tolerant ruler who eventu-

ally sponsored religious buildings of all the faiths of his multiethnic

empire: all were equally upsakas (lay followers) from whom no special

ethical behaviour or formal declaration was required.^57 Since Kanika

(^52) Leriche, Pidaev & Généquand 2002, pp. 408f. This interpretation is contested
(Fussman, personal communication), but further  53 nds have been released.
The so-called “Kanika reliquary” bears in fact no relation to Kanika. Cf.
note 18. 54
According to Vertogradova 1982.
(^55) Staviskij 1986, pp. 141f.
(^56) Stavisky 1988, p. 1400.
(^57) Fussman 1994, p. 25.
Heirman_f5new_75-129.indd 87 3/13/2007 1:15:53 PM