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

[Dan Lusthaus]

Lance replied:

> I would see the list as a unity and not at all as cobbled together.

I would expect a non-cobbled list to produce a coherent picture of the 
handsomest, most pleasant guy around, not a rag-tag mishmash of cultural 
templates, obscure symbols, odd features, and the kitchen sink that adds up 
to what we both agree would be a very odd looking human. Since the list 
reflects a mishmash, rather than coherence, I have trouble seeing it as 
anything other than something cobbled together -- numerology dictated the 
number of items required by each list.

> This is rather poor, Dan. There is only one early doxographic survey,
> which may not be earlier than the second century A.D. i.e. Vasumitra.

There may be a language issue, but there is only one *well-known survey* 
that has been translated several times, viz. Vasumitra. But there are many 
'histories' and lineage mappings, some quite early, but mostly preserved in 
(fairly early) Chinese translations. Lamotte consults many of them and puts 
them to good use in his History of Indian Buddhism.

>By the second century A.D. the
> Sarvāstivāda and the Theriya schools had been separated for many
> centuries. And many of their teachings had long taken a fixed form.

I think we (meaning modern scholars) have fooled ourselves into accepting a 
severely simplified, streamlined version of a history of Buddhist 
sectarianism that was much messier, with many more leaks and cross 
pollinations than the simplified schematics imagine. The idea that 
Theravadas (of whichever stripe) and Sarvastivadas were isolated and 
hermetically sealed from each other at any point -- early or late -- strikes 
me as inconceivable. People quite easily traversed back and forth and 
through those locales, and ideas travel easier than people. We partially 
have a skewered view due to the low survival rate of texts (not only of 
rival schools, but of varying recensions while Theravada and Sarvastivada 
literature was developing and fixing itself). For a variety of reasons, 
Abhidharmakosa has become for many the signature Sarvastivada text, but it 
is NOT standard Vaibhasika -- as Sanghabhadra rightly complained, and as 
careful comparisons of the Kosa's positions with those in the Mahavibhasa 
and other Sarvastivada texts shows; a point emphasized by Dhammajoti in his 
studies on Sarvastivada abhidharma). Chinese translations preserve various 
recensions, and date the translations (if not the actual time of writing) 
precisely enough for us to see how numerous texts were "in development" over 
time. And while we have a much more complete record of Sarvastivada writings 
preserved in Chinese than in any other language, we are also well aware that 
what the Chinese managed to preserve is far from a complete inventory of 
Sarvastivada literature. To imagine that a Theravada canon and interpretive 
tradition was fully codified prior to Buddhaghosa is also assuming too much. 
The degree of flux -- and which portions of which texts are most or least 
affected across the centuries is a question still not adequately addressed.


>The commentaries of
> Buddhaghosa in the fourth or fifth century A.D. comment [...] are simply a 
> revised version of
> much earlier commentaries — they contain no historical information later
> than the first century A.D.

That's a huge claim which I am not prepared to accept as factual. I see, 
e.g., too much influence in Buddhaghosa from Asanga and Vasubandhu (H. 
Guenther saw that as well) to find that claim credible.

>We are dealing here with textual traditions
> that are older than any artistic representations from the North-West.

Partially. The question always remains: *which* parts.


> All it tells us is that the list of marks was not being used for
> artistic purposes and that artists may not have known about it.

Given the nature of religious art, and the intimate familiarity that the 
artists did have with details of Buddha's life, etc., had there been such a 
list in circulation that was being taken seriously in the mainstream, it 
would have been hard from them to ignore it. That, on the contrary, we can 
see the development, in time, of certain features that become later iconic 
indispensible signature features, illustrates that the way the Buddha was 
envisioned was also a work in progress. Had there been a fall-back list on 
which to base one's visualizations, that would certainly have entered the 
picture (or sculpture, as the case may be) early on.

For those not familiar with Buddha's evolving hairstyles, go to 
images.google and type "buddha gandhara" in the search box. Voila.

> We have no earlier representations of the Buddha in the heartland or the
> Deccan or further south. He appears always to be represented by symbols.
> That may be precisely because something like the marks was current and
> not thought capable of representation.

You are serious?

> I am not clear whether the earlier representations with a hair bun in
> the North-West actually represent the Buddha Gotama after enlightenment.
> Some may be the Bodhisattva before enlightenment or Mahāyāna Buddhas.

Check the image.google pictures.

Dan