[Buddha-l] Gandharan Buddhist Art at NY Asia Society

[Dan Lusthaus]

Hi Lance,

Let's start with where we have some agreement.

>> The Mahapurusa lists, which, if followed would produce a very freakish
>> looking individual with too many teeth, arms down to his ankles, 
>> misshapen
>> skull, webbed hands and feet, etc., . . .
>>
> Quite.

This suggests to me that the list is not to be taken as an inventory of how 
Buddha's appearance was remembered by his immediate followers, or even the 
earlier generations of followers, but were cobbled from a a variety of 
sources and concerns. Some are simply Indic imagery adopted for Buddha. 
Some, such as the extra teeth, may have been an earlier attempt to explain 
the proliferation of relics (just speculating, as an example of the type of 
thing that have contributed to the list). Sheathed penis could have symbolic 
significance (along with reminding us he was not circumcised). That his 
teeth don't show when he smiles could have some intriguing history 
representing something or other re: modesty, etc. -- or it could be an 
actual feature (if this is all it took to be a Buddha I would be one, since 
my teeth tend not to be visible when I smile). Some are simply Indian 
template. One can look at John Strong's work on Buddha's relics and John 
Powers' recent book on Buddha as an exemplar of masculinity (as understood 
in India) to get backgrounds on some of the features.

Since the cobbling comes from various sources, various concerns, and results 
in a misshapen individual unlike anything that has ever walked the planet, 
it is reasonable to conclude that the cobbling was done over a protracted 
period of time, but different individuals and groups, and the standardized 
list emerged late.

>This suggests to me that it is really not possible to understand
> the list of marks if you have never utilized it as a meditation subject.

I'm not sure which meditative prism you are using to reconstruct the 
misshapen into the handsomest "Bull among men," but your suggestion simply 
sounds like one of many strategies for suspending attention to literal 
details.

As to your other points:

>The list is fairly similar
> in Theravādin and Sarvāstivādin sources; this suggests rather an earlier
> date.

Not necessarily. First, according to many of the early doxographic surveys 
(and by "early", I mean 1st c BCE - 3rd/4th c CE) the Sarvastivada is 
considered an offshoot of Theravada, so one shouldn't overplay similarities, 
projecting them as blanket assumptions about other Buddhist contemporaries. 
Unfortunately, much of the literature of those other schools has not 
survived, so the actual degree of variance on a huge range of issues can 
only be guessed at.

Second, the redaction of Theravada and Sarvastivada literature remained an 
open process well into the 5th c CE or later, so assuming very early dates 
simply on the basis of a convergence may be problematic. Especially when 
their graphic, countervaling evidence, such as the quantity of Buddha 
representations found in Gandhara, Mathura, etc. and that traveled the silk 
road. They don't conform to anything like the marks until quite late. That 
they present something strikingly different than the common iconography is 
one of their most memorable features. And that the mahapurusa iconography 
does eventually make its appearance late in their art (late 4th, 5th c or 
so) suggests that is when the lists had become ensconsed.

That doesn't mean that a variety of lists of descriptions on the physical 
attributes of the buddha were not in circulation early on. But it suggests 
that the major and minor mark lists were codified late.

> There is nothing in the list of marks as to whether the Buddha-to-be had
> a moustache and no mention of 'snails'.

Exactly. Yet for many centuries artists in Gandhara, C. Asia and China 
almost invariably included moustaches, indicating they were working from a 
different list of iconic "must shows".

How the hair became "snail-like" thingies is a curious phenomenon, which 
also seems to have happened relatively late (ca. 4th c or so). In the 
earlier centuries Buddha had relatively straight (or slightly wavy) hair, 
pulled back and piled on top as a hair bun. After some centuries, the hair 
got curlier, so that initially what become the "snail-like" thingies began 
as curly ringlets. The curls got more and more stylized until reaching the 
form that's been the basic "standard" for the last 1500 years or so.

Incidentally, any good explanations for why the Buddha and some of his top 
honchos don't shave their heads like everyone else? (Mahayana Bodhisattvas 
are typically depicted with full heads of hair)

> As I understand it, there is no certainty as to whether the earliest
> representations of the Buddha(-to-be) were made in Gandhāra or in Mathurā.

Both are early.

Dan