of the monument discovered in 1908 probably dates
from the time of Kanishka. The base is a square measuring 285 feet on
each side, with massive towers at the corners, and on each of the four
faces projections bearing staircases. The sides were ornamented with
stucco figures of the Buddha and according to the Chinese pilgrims the
super-structure was crowned with an iron pillar on which were set
twenty-five gilded disks. Inside was found a metal casket, still
containing the sacred bones, and bearing an inscription which presents
two points of great interest. Firstly it mentions "Agisala the
overseer of works at Kanishka's vihara," that is, probably Agesilaus,
a foreigner in the king's service. Secondly it states that the casket
was made "for the acceptance of the teachers of the Sarvastivadin
sect,"[189] and the idea that Kanishka was the special patron of the
Mahayana must be reconsidered in the light of this statement.

Legends ascribe Kanishka's fervour for the Buddhist faith not to
education but to conversion. His coinage, of which abundant specimens
have been preserved, confirms this for it presents images of Greek,
Persian, Indian and perhaps Babylonian deities showing how varied was
the mythology which may have mingled with Gandharan Buddhism. The
coins bearing figures of the Buddha are not numerous and, as he
undoubtedly left behind him the reputation of a pious Buddhist, it is
probable that they were struck late in his reign and represent his
last religious phase.[190] Hsuean Chuang[191] repeats some legends
which relate that he was originally anti-Buddhist, and that after his
conversion he summoned a council and built a stupa.

The substance of these legends is probable. Kanishka as a barbarian
but docile conqueror was likely to adopt Buddhism if he wished to keep
abreast of the thought and civilisation of his subjects, for at that
time it undoubtedly inspired the intellect and art of north-western
India. Both as a statesman and as an enquirer after truth he would
wish to promote harmony and stop sectarian squabbles. His action
resembles that of Constantine who after his conversion to Christianity
proceeded to summon the Council of Nicaea in order to stop the
dissensions of the Church and settle what were the tenets of the
religion which he had embraced, a point about which both he and
Kanishka seem to have felt some uncertainty. Our knowledge of
Kanishka's Council depends chiefly on the traditions reported by