Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
After the creation of the Buddha image around the begin- around the fifth to sixth century CE displaying the preaching
ning of the Common Era, the most critical juncture in the gesture (dharmacakra-mudrā) and the earth-touching gesture
history of Buddhist icons, at least within India, is probably (bhūmisparśa-mudrā) (Figures 1 and 2).1 These two image types
the emergence of Buddha images in the middle Gangetic valley present the Buddha2 clearly engaged in two important events
from his life: the First Sermon and the Enlightenment. This
is in stark contrast to earlier forms of the Buddha in iconic
images, which feature little in the way of narrative. From this
point on, these two types, especially the bhūmisparśa, were the
most common iconic images3 of the Buddha throughout later
Buddhist art from India; they also simultaneously impacted
other parts of the Buddhist world, such as Burma and later
Thailand.4 This phenomenon is presumably related, at least
in part, to the rise of Sārnāth and Bodhgayā, the holy places
of the two great events, as important artistic and religious
centres of Indian Buddhism. But their rise was possibly linked
to the emerging of doctrinal meanings that contemporary
Buddhists attached to these two events. It has been suggested
that the bhūmisparśa type was perhaps equated with the idea
of pratītya-samutpāda, or dependent origination, which the
Buddha supposedly attained at the time of enlightenment
and which was expressed in an immensely popular verse,
commonly carved as a votive formula on stone images or clay
tablets (which were installed inside small stupas).5 Although I
wonder whether this link to pratītya-samutpāda convincingly
explains the phenomenon, I nonetheless believe that the rise
of these two types reflects a contemporary concern among
Indian Buddhists about which moment in the Buddha’s life is
the most crucial in qualifying him as such.6
In this paper, I return to the period before this important
change took place in Indian Buddhism – that is, the centuries
after the creation of the Buddha image (around the beginning
of the Common Era) – exploring the ways in which the Buddha
was presented in iconic images and what significance we may
be able to infer from their iconographic configurations.7 I
touch on all three major centres of Buddhist art in this period
– Gandhāra, Mathurā, and Āndhra, the last one comprising
Amarāvatī and Nāgārjunakoṇḍa – but focus inevitably on
Figure 1 Buddha from Sārnāth, late fifth century, H. 160 cm. Sārnāth Museum. Gandhāra, where a greater variety was shown in a significantly
Photograph: J. Rhi et al. larger body of productions. Such an exploration is certainly
Figure 3 Buddha from Sahrī-Bahlol, Gandhāra, second century, H. 264 cm. Peshawar Museum. Photograph: J. Rhi.
Figure 4 Buddha from Govindnagar, Mathurā, mid-third century, H. 101 cm. Figure 5 Buddha from Amarāvatī, third century, H. 197 cm. Amrāvatī Museum.
Mathurā Museum. Photograph: J. Rhi. Photograph: J. Rhi et al.
show abhaya-mudrā; the seated abhaya-mudrā Buddha, as if it gesture) (Figures 11 and 12). Chronologically, the two seem
were a handy device which served all purposes, is commonly to have appeared later than seated abhaya-mudrā Buddhas.24
used in narrative scenes (Figure 10).22 Evidently, independent In Mathurā, the earliest securely datable specimen of the
images of the seated abhaya-mudrā Buddha were not associated dhyāna-mudrā Buddha shows up during the later first half
exclusively with any narrative themes, regardless of region. It of the second century of the Kaniṣka era (starting in 127/8
could be conjectured, for instance, that in Gandhāra a scene CE), the third quarter of the third century CE (Figure 13).25
carved on the frontal face of a pedestal provides a seated Buddha Its appearance in Gandhāran Buddhas must be earlier,
with a specific narrative association, whereas in images from presumably during the second century CE. The precedence
Mathurā such scenes are totally absent. But this would then between dhyāna-mudrā and dharamcakra-mudrā in seated
mean having to face the troubling reality that pedestals of seated Gandhāran Buddhas is difficult to discern, but it is clear that
abhaya-mudrā Buddhas from Gandhāra represent few notable the two flourished side by side throughout a very late period in
scenes, let alone any narrative depictions.23 Gandhāran art, though we seem to see more late specimens in
Two other major types of seated Buddhas existed in dharmacakra-mudrā Buddhas.26 From Mathurā, we have only
Gandhāra and Mathurā: those showing dhyāna-mudrā (the two examples of the dharmacakra-mudrā Buddha, which date
meditating gesture) and dharmacakra-mudrā (the preaching as late as the fourth to the fifth century.27
Figure 8 Entreaty to Preach on a stupa from Sikri, Gandhāra, first–second century, H. 33 cm (relief). Lahore Museum. Photograph: J. Rhi.
Figure 9 Defeat of Māra, from Gandhāra, first–second century, H. 39 cm. Peshawar Museum. Photograph: J. Rhi.
Figure 14 Entreaty to Preach probably from Swāt, first century, H. 30 cm. Museum für Asiatische Kunst, Berlin. Photograph: J. Rhi.
Figure 16 Buddha meditating in Indra’s cave (Indraśailaguhā) from Mamane-Ḑherī, Gandhāra, dated year 89 (ca. 216 CE), H. 96 cm. Peshawar Museum. After
PGC: pl. 1.
This scene apparently takes place at a cosmogonic moment could be presumed on the basis of its conventional definition
after everything has been destroyed and submerged by water. as ‘preaching’.
Two later translations of this text, dated to 420 and 712, specify In considering this problem, we cannot fail to notice the
the time as ‘when the world is about to be created’. They also apparent similarity between the Gandhāran dharmacakra-
name the lotus(es) the ‘Emergence of the Tathāgata (Adorned mudrā and the distinctive mudrā of Vairocana or
with Various Virtuous Treasures)’.44 As the identification of the Mahāvairocana, the Buddha of ultimate reality formulated in
emergence of the Buddha with the birth of the lotus becomes the Avataṃsaka or the esoteric Vajradhātu tradition, which
clearer, so too does the contextual significance of the Buddha becomes standardised in later esoteric iconography (the
in the cosmogonic tale.45 Although this passage is only a textual mudrā is often identified with the Sanskrit term bodhyagrī-,
parallel, rather than a source, it nonetheless evokes a spirit that bodhyaṅgī-, or bodhaśrī-mudrā but is better known by the
underlies the imagery of the dharmacakra-mudrā Buddha on Japanese chikenin, the Wisdom Fist mudrā; bodhyagrī-mudrā
the lotus. We cannot of course simply equate the dharmacakra- is used here despite some confusing problems46) (Figure 18). In
mudrā Buddha with the one on the lotus. But this passage does the Gandhāran dharmacakra-mudrā, the right fingers, often
suggest that the so-called dharmacakra-mudrā was used to rep- the little and ring fingers, loosely embrace or cover the upper
resent the active aspect of seated Gandhāran Buddhas with portion of the left fingers (the thumb and the index finger
broader, and potentially more profound, implications than usually touch each other, though not as distinctly as the fingers
10
Figure 17 Buddha on a lotus from Mohammed-Nari, Gandhāra, third–fourth century, H. 105 cm. Lahore Museum. Photograph:
J. Rhi.
in the so-called vitarka-mudrā or vyākhyāna-mudrā, and not This means neither that the Gandhāran dharmacakra-mudrā
consistently in all examples); in the bodhyagrī-mudrā, the left has an exclusive tie to Vairocana (or Mahāvairocana) nor
index finger is raised straight and held by the right fist. Despite that any of the Gandhāran dharmacakra-mudrā Buddhas
this difference, the configuration of fingers shows a resem- portray such Buddhas from the advanced esoteric Buddhist
blance between the two, as some scholars have observed.47 The system, which would be obviously too early for the period of
Gandhāran dharmacakra-mudrā is extremely rare in other Gandhāran Buddhas. Yet this does suggest that the Gandhāran
parts of India: I can cite only two examples: a depiction of the dhamacakra-mudrā possessed greater semantic potential,
First Sermon from Mathurā (fourth century)48 and a seated which eventually helped to bring forth a distinctive gesture
image of what appears to be Mahāvairocana from Udayagiri in for the esoteric cosmic Buddha.
Orissa (tenth century).49 On the other hand, bodhyagrī-mudrā, We should also note the scenes carved on the frontal face
probably devised in eastern India by the seventh century, is of the pedestal in dhyāna-mudrā Buddhas and dharmacakra-
known mostly in Java, East Asia (particularly Korea and Japan) mudrā Buddhas from Gandhāra. In seated abhaya-mudrā
and Tibet.50 It is possible that bodhyagrī-mudrā was created in Buddhas, the most common motif is two–five-petalled rosettes
reference to, if it is not a derivation of, the earlier Gandhāran or lotuses (rather than a lotus throne).51 I suspect that they were
dharmacakra-mudrā, or that the two developed out of the same not simply auspicious or decorative motifs but also potentially
prototype that existed in the non-Buddhist Indian tradition. carried symbolic meaning related to the enlightenment of
11
12
Figure 19 Detail of a seated Buddha (Figure 11): a series of meditating Buddhas on the pedestal. Photograph: J. Rhi.
sitting in the Shade of the Jambu Tree’ in the Mūlasarvāstivāda- indication of, or even an allusion to, the Enlightenment or the
vinaya. I suspect that the change or reinterpretation coincides First Sermon in independent images can perhaps be attributed
with the prominence of the First Meditation on the pedestals to the general lack of narrative concern in the conception of
of Buddha images. Either the popularity of the convention in Buddha images, though such a concern was prominent in
images influenced the creation or modification of the textual narrative reliefs. Or perhaps for Buddhists in Gandhāra, if
passages or vice versa. not for those in Mathurā, where fewer specimens exist, the
We have examined thus far diverse aspects of Buddha Enlightenment and the First Sermon did not enjoy prestigious
images prior to the emergence of icons of the Buddha that positions as they did for later Buddhists in the middle Gangetic
highlight major events of the Buddha’s life. What appears to be valley. Whatever the case, we need to admit that the concep-
an anomaly in this phase is the total absence of Buddha images tion of the Buddha’s sacred history and his sacred icons differ
displaying bhūmisparśa-mudrā in the localities (Gandhāra and markedly from the newer, more prominent changes that took
Mathurā) where the Defeat of Māra was invariably depicted place in the centuries that followed and with which we are
with the distinctive hand gesture.63 One possibility is that more familiar today.
the Defeat of Māra was not equated with the Enlightenment We know little about the circumstances surrounding the
and thus the bhūmisparśa-mudrā Buddha was not considered invention of another dharmacakra-mudrā at Sārnāth. But the
important enough to be deployed in independent images. Gandhāran dharmacakra-mudrā had been adopted in narrative
However, in Gandhāra there is at least one example in which representation of the First Sermon in Mathurā by the fourth
the Defeat of Māra was apparently used for representing the century.66 It was about a century later that another gesture,
Enlightenment as one of the four major events in the Buddha’s which we also call dharmacakra-mudrā, began to be used in
life.64 The Gandhāran mode of representing the Enlightenment Buddha images in Sārnāth and Ajaṇṭā (see Figure 1). Combined
with the Defeat of Māra was also adopted in a Mathurā relief with the motif of the dharma wheel and the antelopes, it
panel of the four major events along with the Descent from clearly declares its connection to the First Sermon – though
the Trāyastriṃśa heaven.65 Among independent Gandhāran what the ‘First Sermon’ means precisely in this case is poten-
Buddha images, the First Sermon is also not identifiable, as tially problematic. The efflorescence of this type has given rise
we do not find any dharma wheel or antelopes on pedestals to our practice of calling a similar Gandhāran gesture by the
of seated Buddhas; with the Buddha alone, detecting the same name. The bhūmisparśa-mudrā had also been adopted
theme would be difficult, given the lack of a distinctive sign from Gandhāra in narrative representations in Mathurā by
like bhūmisparśa-mudrā for enlightenment. In fact, I doubt the third century and developed into a separate icon possibly
whether any dharmacakra-mudrā Buddhas were meant in Sārnāth by the end of the sixth century (see Figure 2).67
to represent the First Sermon. The absence of an explicit The bhūmisparśa type was used as the central icon at the very
13
Figure 20 Detail of a seated Buddha (Figure 12): a bodhisattva in meditation. Photograph: J. Rhi.
14
strictly speaking, of bodhisattva images, not Buddha images – was absence of fear). Since no Indic or Tibetan version is extant, it
a representation of Śākyamuni as a bodhisattva, that is, in the is not possible to determine what was used as the original word
pre-enlightenment stage (Rhi 1994). In this case, the bodhi tree for anwei. Considering that anwei was often a translation of
could have simply signified the ultimate goal of the bodhisattva’s āśvāsa or related words (Hirakawa 1997: 374b), the original Indic
pursuit; or, if one is tempted to read the scene in terms of greater may not have been abhaya. This means that by the time of the
narrative spirit, it could have marked the bodhisattva being at the Sūtrālaṃkāra there was a similar conception but the designation
moment just prior to enlightenment. abhaya-mudrā did not yet exist. In the Chinese textual tradition,
10. For example, the relevant part on a famous image dedicated by which is easy to look up through the Taishō canon, the word is
the monk Bala at Sārnāth in the third year of Kaniṣka (129/130 not found in any text translated before the mid-seventh century,
CE) reads: ‘bodhisatvo chatrayaṣṭi ca pratiṣṭāpito bārāṇasiye when it first appears in a text translated in 653, the Guanzizai
bhagavato caṃkame’ ([namely, an image of] the bodhisattva pusa suixinzhou jing (T1103, 18: 460a, 465c; trans. Zhitong, 653).
and an umbrella with a post, erected at Vārāṇasī, at the place The creation of the term or its regular usage in the Buddhist
where the Blessed One used to walk) (reading and translation context would not have appeared earlier than then.
based on Vogel 1908: 176–7 but with slight modification, cf. 17. For the western parallels, L’Orange 1953: 139–97, cf. Saunders
Tsukamoto 1996: Sārnāth 4; for the image, Sharma 1995: fig. 84). 1960: 55–6. For the examples from Parthian Iran, Ghirshman
For other examples, one from Kauśāmbī, Chandra 1970: no. 85 1962: figs 36, 100, 104–106, 110. Royal portraits from Parthia
and Tsukamoto 1996: Kosam 2; one from Śrāvastī, Sharma 1995: show remarkable similarities to Buddha images from Gandhāra,
fig. 130 and Tsukamoto 1996: Saheṭh-Maheṭh 2. not only in the positioning of the hand but also in the strict
11. Ingholt and Lyons 1957: nos. 52, 53. frontality of the statues. In terms of its establishment, the
12. Ingholt and Lyons 1957: no. 222. This Buddha is identified as distinctive Parthian hand gesture could have slightly preceded
the Buddha receiving the offering of the previous incarnation the abhaya-mudrā of Gandhāran Buddhas, or alternatively it was
of Aśoka in comparison with narrative depictions of the theme a parallel development in Iran and northern India. A slightly
(Ingholt and Lyons 1957: nos. 110, 111). different gesture with the right had stretched with the palm
13. Rhi 1999: pl. 52. Besides this sole example probably from the facing outward is also found in Āndhra as early as the second
Peshawar valley, several examples are known from the Kapiśi century BCE (Coomaraswamy 1929).
valley in Afghanistan. 18. According to Dale Saunders, providing Toganoo Shōun as a
14. Ingholt and Lyons 1957: nos. 87, 88, 89; Kurita 2003: I, fig. 312. reference, ‘Traditionally, the position of the hand in the semui-in
Buddha images that portray this theme are relatively small in [abhaya-mudrā] derives from the legend of the malevolent
size. Besides these, images of Dīpaṅkara Buddha – thus, not Devadatta, who, wishing to hurt the Buddha, caused an elephant
Śākyamuni – giving a prediction to a previous incarnation of to become drunk’ (Saunders 1960: 58). However, Toganoo simply
Śākyamuni, identifiable by a small prostrating figure at the right mentions, citing three textual sources of the theme, that the
foot of the Buddha, are known from the Kapiśi valley (Auboyer Buddha raised the right hand and stretched his five fingers (a
1968: pl. 42). In this paper, I provide – in addition to Ingholt and gesture corresponding to abhaya-mudrā) in subduing the drunken
Lyons 1957 – Kurita 2003 (2 vols) as references for Gandhāran elephant, as a natural act in such incidents (Toganoo Shōun 1932:
works that cannot be illustrated because Kurita’s book is easily 483), and neither Toganoo’s remark nor the textual descriptions
available and also includes objects from outside Pakistan. he has in mind (T211, 4: 596a; T1545, 27: 322b; T1546, 27: 429a)
Nonetheless, my citations are restricted to pieces dependable in have anything to do with the ‘derivation’ of the gesture from a
authenticity since, as many experts agree, the book contains a narrative, which clearly has no historical basis. Alfred Foucher
number of dubious pieces, especially among those from private notes that in Gandhāran representations of the Buddha’s life,
collections, unlike Ingholt and Lyons 1957, which consists mainly abhaya-mudrā was used for various purposes in multiple themes
of works from Pakistan, long before the forgery became such a (Foucher 1918: 326), a fact that Saunders also admits (Saunders
serious problem in the Gandhāran art market and scholarship. 1960: 15, 43). Saunders also suggests that ‘in Gandhāran art, one
15. Buddha images in Āndhra are usually in the standing pose, may already notice the habit of assigning certain mudrā to certain
showing abhaya-mudrā, with little variation in detail. SBDT 2000: personages, doubtless in order to differentiate among the various
pl. 121, figs 112, 123. There must have been seated images such as Buddhas and bodhisattvas’; ‘already in Gandhāra gestures had
those carved in large relief panels featuring a stupa, although few begun to designate specifically certain Buddha’ (Saunders 1960:
examples are known in actual images, and they invariably show 15, 44). These observations of course are not acceptable based on
abhaya-mudrā. For those carved as part of larger reliefs, Knox the evidence we have, and Saunders also admits this, calling it the
1992: nos. 69, 72 (standing Buddhas), 52, 53, 70, 71, 83, 85, 86, 131 ‘uncertainty of Gandhāran usage’ (Saunders 1960: 15–16).
(seated Buddhas). 19. Bhattacharyya 2002: no. 263; Foucher 1905: fig. 280.
16. It is not clear when the term abhaya-mudrā (shiwuweiyin in 20. It may be noted that in Gandhāran Buddhist imagery, abhaya-
Chinese) was first used in the Buddhist textual tradition. In the mudrā Buddhas are relatively small in number, and few of them
Sūtrālaṅkāra attributed to Aśvaghoṣa and preserved only in were made during the most productive period (cf. Rhi 2008). On
Chinese translation by Kumārajīva, a thief who was saved from the other hand, in Mathurā, Buddhas of this type are relatively
punishment through the generosity of the deeply devout Buddhist more common, although the overall number of independent
king says: ‘Why do the artisans of the world, with exquisite skills images from this region is much smaller than that from
and sacred heart, represent an image [of the Buddha] as raising Gandhāra.
the right hand and showing the form of consolation? This is for 21. For other examples from Gandhāra: Foucher 1905: fig. 201;
one who has fear to remove the fear when seeing the image. How Ingholt and Lyons 1957: no. 63; Kurita 2003: I, figs 226, 229, 235.
numerous would those saved by the Buddha have been, when he For examples from Mathurā: Sharma 1995: figs 106, 168, 170.
was in this world? I just met great suffering and misfortune, but 22. See Foucher’s remark in note 18 above.
the image saved me from it’ (T201, 4: 263b; Huber 1908: 34–5; 23. See for example Ingholt and Lyons 1957: figs XI.4, XII.1, XII.3, XII.4;
cf. Foucher 1918: 327–8; Saunders 1960: 59). This passage clearly Kurita 2003: II, figs 229, 260, 264. There is only one example in
shows the understanding of the Buddha image with the raised which a narrative theme, the Buddha’s meditation in Indra’s cave,
right hand as an iconographic type. In characterising the raised is carved on the pedestal (Ingholt and Lyons 1957: fig. XII.2).
right hand, the text uses the phrase anweixiang (the form of 24. For the relationship of the three seated Buddha types to five visual
consolation or appeasement) instead of shiwuwei (granting the types, see Rhi 2008: 49, 53, 61, 64, 71.
15
25. The Buddha is inscribed with the year 36. The year must belong rather than zhuanfalunyin with the character yin (mudrā), it
to the Kaniṣka era, but the 36th year of the era is obviously too seems likely that the name for the mudrā was established by that
early for the image, which shows a much more developed stage time.
in Mathurā than examples from the first half of the first century 40. Lamotte 1981; Tsukamoto 1979; Rhi 1991: 110–22.
of the era, which was dominated by the kapardin type. It seems 41. Rhi 2003: 168–71.
more reasonable to think that it dates from a century later, the 42. Zimmer 1946: 17, 61, 90; Bailey 1983: 90–92.
136th year of the Kaniṣka era (with the application of the so-called 43. T291, 10: 596c–597b.
‘omitted-hundred’ theory) or the 36th year of the second Kaniṣka 44. The two later Chinese translations appear as part of the
era, which started around the 98th year of the original Kaniṣka Avataṃsaka-sūtra: Buddhabhadra’s translation (420), T278, 9:
era (following John Rosenfield’s suggestion). Cf. Sharma 1995: 613b–614a; Śikṣānanda’s translation (712), T279, 10: 264a–c (cf.
198–9. Cleary 1993: 976–8); see also a Tibetan translation, P.761 Śi 84a4-5
26. Whereas there is no precisely datable piece among dhyāna-mudrā (I am grateful to Kim Seongcheol for helping me check this part
Buddhas from Gandhāra, the dharmacakra-mudrā Buddha in the Tibetan translation).
appears at the centre of a triad inscribed with the year 5 (Czuma 45. In the Tathāgatotpattisambhavanirdeśa passage cited above, the
1985: no. 109; Kurita 2003: I, pl. P3-VIII). Whether it should be comparison to Brahmā is not clearly stated, though I believe that
dated to the fifth year of the Kaniṣka era or a century later, as with there is an allusion to the cosmogonic myth of Brahmā on a lotus.
some Mathurā Buddhas, has been debated. The former date seems However, a passage in a text called Samyuktāvadāna (Zapiyujing)
too early. in Chinese translation (by Daolüe, early fifth century) speaks
27. One (datable to the fourth century) is in the Lucknow State explicitly of the myth by mentioning both Brahmā and Viṣṇu,
Museum (Sharma 1995: 201 and fig. 123), and the other (early fifth from whose navel the lotus sprouts. It says at the end: ‘Because
century) in the Cleveland Museum of Art (acc. no. 1973.214). In this Brahmā king has removed covetousness, anger, and delusion
the earlier example in Lucknow, the hands are lost, with only their without remainder, it is said that if a person practices meditation
traces visible on the chest. Sharma questions the identification and pure conduct and cuts and removes sensuous desire, the
of the hand gesture as dharmacakra-mudrā, instead suggesting conduct is called the brahmā path. The Buddha’s turning of the
the possibility of abhaya-mudrā: ‘The left hand was raised up to dharma wheel is called [the turning of] the brahmā wheel. Because
support the hem of the drapery in the parallel position to the this Brahmā king sits on a lotus, all the Buddhas, following the
right hand in the protection pose.’ However, it seems impossible custom of the world, also sit cross-legged on a lotus and preach
that the traces were of the hands of abhaya-mudrā. on the six pāramitās’ (T207, 4: 529b).
28. Lohuizen-de Leeuw 1981. 46. For the Indic equivalent for chikenin, or the mudrā that appears for
29. Carter 1988: 23–4. Vairocana or Mahāvairocana in the esoteric Buddhist iconography,
30. For the Entreaty to Preach (featuring the dhyāna-mudrā Buddha), M.-Th. de Mallmann refers to bodhyagrī (‘la “fine pointe” de Éveil’
Foucher 1905: fig. 213; Ingholt and Lyons 1957: no. 73; Kurita or the pinnacle of enlightenment), while considering bodhyaṅgī
2003: I, fig. 266. For the Indraśailaguhā, Ingholt and Lyons 1957: (the member of enlightenment) as incorrect (Mallmann
nos. 128–35; Kurita 2003: I, figs 333–5, 337, 340. 1975: 33, 393). Susan and John Huntington call it bodhyaṅgī
31. For depictions of the Entreaty to Preach (featuring the abhaya- (Huntington 1985: 402–3). Saunders gives, with hesitation,
mudrā Buddha), Ingholt and Lyons 1957: nos. 70–72. vajra-mudrā, jñāna-mudrā and bodhaśrī-mudrā (Saunders
32. Ingholt and Lyons 1957: nos. 130, 131; Kurita 2003: I, fig. 334. 1960: 102). Frederick Bunce presents the same terms cited by
33. Rhi forthcoming. Saunders as corresponding to chikenin, but his description and
34. Śāriputraparipṛcchā (Sherifuwenjing), T1465, 24: 901a; BD: 4969b; illustration actually show that he means by them what is known
MBD: 4535b–4536a. as vitarka-mudrā or vyākhyāna-mudrā (Bunce 1997: 132 and fig.
35. Cf. Foucher 1918: 328. I can recall four examples of the First 342). In the textual tradition, bodhyagrī seems best documented
Sermon depicted with the dharmacakra-mudrā Buddha (ruling in numerous texts such as the Sarvadurgatipariśodhanatantra
out dubious pieces): two in the Museum für Asiatische Kunst, and the Mañjuśrīmulakalpa, while bodhyaṅgī is also found in
Berlin (I577, I588), one in the National Museum, Karachi, and one the Sādhanamālā and Niṣpannayogāvalī (both in Benoytosh
formerly in the Islamabad Museum. For the sole extant depiction Bhattacharya’s editions). What these terms actually meant in
of the presentation of the first Buddha image, see Ingholt and relation to visual images is of course debatable. I thank Alexander
Lyons 1957: no. 125. Other examples of the dharmacakra-mudrā von Rospatt for the information about the textual tradition.
Buddha used in different or unknown themes include a depiction 47. Getty 1914: 168; Huntington 1984: 155–7. Citing Getty’s idea,
of the conversion of the nāga Elapatra (Museum Volkenkunde, Saunders admits that the two are ‘sculpturally very close’, but
Leiden), two reliefs in the Peshawar Museum (Ingholt and Lyons he expresses scepticism about the derivation of the Japanese
1957: no 165A; Kurita 2003: I, fig. 559), and a relief in the Lahore chikenin from the Gandhāran dharmacakra-mudrā (Saunders
Museum (unpublished). 1960: 103).
36. For an overview of the issue, Rhi 1991; for the Great Miracle 48. Williams 1975: fig. 13c.
theory, Foucher 1909; for the Amitābha theory, Higuchi 1950 49. Donaldson 2001: I, 106; II, fig. 144. Donaldson calls this hand
and Huntington 1980. gesture bodhyaṅgī-mudrā, without pointing out its resemblance
37. For the most recent attempt on the Amitābha theory, Harrison to the Gandhāran dharmacakra-mudrā or its difference from the
and Luczanits 2011. proper mudrā by the same name of Mahāvairocana.
38. The term dharmacakra-mudrā was probably first used for 50. Actual examples from India are extremely rare. Bak Hyeongguk
Gandhāran Buddhas by Foucher in its French translation ‘la cites a relief figure carved in Cave 12 at Ellora (eighth century)
mudrā qui fait tourner la roué de loi’ (Foucher 1918: 328, cf. (Bak 2001: 144 and fig. 62). Another example is a small metal
Foucher 1900: 68, which explains the dharmacakra-mudrā of image from Nālandā (eleventh century), which actually holds
the middle Gangetic type). a vajra as well (Huntington 1985: fig. 18.18). For lesser-known
39. The Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang, who reached Mṛgadāva (Deer examples from Java and Korea compared with those from Japan
Garden) at Sārnāth in the early 630s, describes a Buddha image and Tibet, Fontein 1990: pl. 68; Kim 2007: 91–9.
in the main shrine as ‘taking the posture of turning the dharma 51. The following discussions of the scenes carved on the pedestals
wheel’ (T2087, 51: 905b, cf. Beal 1884: 46). Although Xuanzang of Buddha images are based on my own database of works
uses the phrase zhuanfalunshi with the character shi (posture) dependable in authenticity. I will cite only representative
16
examples or readily consultable examples. For seated abhaya- Beal, S. (tr). 1884. Si-yu-ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World, vol.
mudrā Buddhas carved with rosettes or lotuses on the pedestals, 2. London: Trübner & Co.
see Ingholt and Lyons 1957: fig. XII.3; Zwalf 1996: II, pl. 20; Bhattacharyya, D.C. (ed). 2002. Gandhāra Sculpture in the Government
Kurita 2003: II, fig. 264. These motifs also appear commonly in Museum and Art Gallery, Chandigarh. Chandigarh: Chandigarh
the pedestals of standing Buddhas. Ingholt and Lyons 1957: fig. Museum and Art Gallery.
XVII.4, nos. 195, 209, 215, 225; Kurita 2003: II, fig. 222. Boisselier, J. 1975. The Heritage of Thai Sculpture. New York and Tokyo:
52. The motif of three rosettes appears distinctively with the seated Weatherhill.
abhaya-mudrā Buddha in the two scenes immediately following Boucher, D. 1991. ‘The pratītyasamutpādagāthā and its role in the
the Enlightenment among 13 reliefs decorating the Sikri stupa, medieval cult of the relics’, Journal of the International Association
while the Enlightenment itself is not represented in this stupa. of Buddhist Studies 14(1): 1–27.
Ingholt and Lyons 1957: nos. 68 (Offering of Four Bowls), 70 Bunce, F.W. 1997. A Dictionary of Buddhist and Hindu Iconography. New
(Entreaty to Preach). Delhi: D.K. Printworld.
53. Ingholt and Lyons 1957: fig. XIII.3, no. 234; Zwalf 1996: II, pl. 32; Carter, M. 1988. ‘A Gandharan bronze Buddha statuette: its place in the
Bhattacharyya 2002: figs 615, 616. evolution of the Buddha image in Gandhara’, Mārg 39(4): 21–38.
54. Ingholt and Lyons 1957: figs XVI.1, XVI.2, nos. 248–249, 251; Zwalf Chandra, P. 1970. Stone Sculpture in the Allahabad Museum: A
1996: II, pls 24, 26; Kurita 2003: II, figs 223, 240. Descriptive Catalogue. Poona: American Institute of Indian Studies.
55. The identification of this type as Prince Siddhārtha’s first Cleary, T. (tr). 1993. The Flower Ornament Scripture: A Translation of the
meditation is based on a ploughing scene carved on the pedestal Avatamsaka Sutra. Boston and London: Shambala.
of an image in the Peshawar Museum (Ingholt and Lyons 1957: no. Coomaraswamy, A.K. 1929. ‘A royal gesture; and some other motifs’, in
284). For other examples, Ingholt and Lyons 1957: no. 318; Kurita Feestbundel uitgegeven door het Koninklijk Bataviaasch Genootschap
2003: II, fig. 124. For narrative depictions of the First Meditation, van Kunsten en Wetenschappen bij gelegenheid van zijn 150 jarig
Ingholt and Lyons 1957: no. 36. For similar seated bodhisattvas bestaan, 1778–1928, vol. 1. Weltevreden: G. Kolff, 57–61.
from Mathurā, Sharma 1995: figs 70, 115. Czuma, S.J. 1985. Kushan Sculpture: Images from Early India. Cleveland,
56. Ingholt and Lyons 1957: nos. 233, 236 (dhyāna-mudrā Buddhas), OH: Cleveland Museum of Art.
206 (standing Buddha); Kurita 2003: II, fig. 199 (standing Donaldson, T.E. 2001. Iconography of the Buddhist Sculpture of Orissa, 2
Buddha). vols. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts.
57. Mahāvastu, Jones 1952: 195; Buddhacarita, Johnston 1936: 184; Fontein, J. 1990. The Sculpture of Indonesia. New York: Harry N. Abrams.
Lalitavistara, Goswami 2001: 246. Foucher, A. 1900. Étude de l’iconographie bouddhique de l’Inde d’après
58. For the Four Encounters, there is only one extant depiction from des documents nouveaux. Paris: Ernest Leroux.
Gandhāra: Kurita 2003: I, fig. 135. Foucher, A. 1905. L’Art gréco-bouddhique du Gandhâra, vol. 1. Paris:
59. For seated bodhisattvas in the meditation pose, Ingholt and Lyons Imprimerie nationale.
1957: no. 318; Kurita 2003: II, fig. 124. Foucher, A. 1909. ‘Le grand miracle du Bouddha à Çrâvastî’, Journal
60. Schopen 2005: 128. asiatique 13 (Jan–Feb): 5–78.
61. Schopen 2005: 129–34. Foucher, A. 1918. L’Art gréco-bouddhique du Gandhâra, vol. 2, pt. 1. Paris:
62. T1435, 23: 352a, 355a; this translation is based on Soper 1950: 140a, Imprimerie nationale.
with significant modification. In the original text, the phrase I Getty, A. 1914. The Gods of Northern Buddhism. Oxford: Clarendon
translate here as ‘an image of the time [when the Buddha was] Press.
a bodhisattva’ (pusashixiang) literally reads ‘an image of the Ghirshman, R. 1962. Persian Art: The Parthian and Sassanian Dynasties,
attendant bodhisattva’ as Soper translates it. The difference in 249 BC–AD 651, S. Gilbert and J. Emmons (trs). New York: Golden
understanding this phrase depends on the character shi. The shi Press.
(with the radical ‘human’) in the original has the meaning of GNB 1970. Genshoku nihon no bijutsu (Japanese art in colour), vol. 9:
‘attendant’, but, following Lin Li-kouang’s suggestion (Lin 1949: chūsei jiin to kamakura chōkoku (Medieval temples and Kamakura
97 and n. 2), I believe that it was a scribal error for the shi (with sculptures). Tokyo: Shogakukan.
the radical ‘sun’) meaning ‘time’, which makes better sense; Rhi Goswami, B. (trs) 2001. Lalitavistara. Kolkata: The Asiatic Society.
1994: 221. GSRB 1988. The Grand Exhibition of Silk Road Civilizations: The Route
63. Ingholt and Lyons 1957: nos. 63, 66; Kurita 2003: I, figs 226, 227, of Buddhist Art. Nara: Nara National Museum.
229, 235; Sharma 1995: figs 168, 170, 175. Harrison, P. and Luczanits, C. 2011. ‘New light on (and from) the
64. Four reliefs in the Freer-Sackler Gallery in Washington, DC: Kurita Mohammed-Nari stele’, unpublished paper presented at the
2003: I, figs 31, 226, 280, 483. Conference on Pure Land Buddhism at Otani University, Kyoto,
65. Sharma 1995: fig. 168. November 2011.
66. See note 48 above. Higuchi, T. 1950. ‘Amida sanzonbutsu no genryū’ (‘The origin of the
67. Leoshko 2000/2001. Amitābha triad’), Bukkyō geijutsu 7: 108–13.
Hirakawa, A. 1997. Bukkyō kanbon daijiten (Buddhist Chinese-Sanskrit
dictionary). Tokyo: Reiyukai.
Huber, É. (tr.) 1908. Sûtrâlaṃkâra. Paris: Ernest Reloux.
Huntington, J.C. 1980. ‘A Gandhāran image of Amitāyus’ Sukhāvatī’,
Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 40 (n.s. 30): 652–72.
References Huntington, J.C. 1984. ‘The iconography and iconology of Maitreya
images in Gandhāra’, Journal of Central Asia 7(1): 133–78.
Auboyer, J. 1968. The Art of Afghanistan, P. Keebone (tr.). Feltham: Paul Huntington, S.L. 1985. The Art of Ancient India: Buddhist, Hindu and
Hamlyn. Jain. Tokyo: Weatherhill.
Bailey, G. 1983. The Mythology of Brahmā. Delhi: Oxford University Ingholt, H. and Lyons, I. 1957. Gandhāran Art in Pakistan. New York:
Press. Pantheon Books.
Bak, H. 2001. Vairochanabutsu no zuzōgakuteki kenkyū (Iconographical Johnston, E.H. 1936. The Buddhacarita, or, Acts of the Buddha, part 2
study of Vairocana Buddha). Tokyo: Hōzōkan. (translation). Lahore: University of the Punjab.
BD -- Bukkyō daijii (Dictionary of Buddhist vocabulary), Ryūkoku Jones, J.J. (tr.) 1952. The Mahāvastu, vol. 2. London: Luzac & Co.
University (ed), 2nd edn. Tokyo: Fuzanbō, 1936.
17
Kim, L. 2007. Buddhist Sculpture of Korea. Elizabeth, NJ, and Seoul: Rhi, J. 2010. ‘Does iconography really matter?: the iconographic
Hollym. specification of Buddha images in pre-Esoteric Buddhist art’,
Knox, R. 1992. Amarāvatī: Buddhist Sculpture from the Great Stūpa. unpublished paper presented at the conference New Research in
London: British Museum Press. Buddhist Sculpture, Victoria and Albert Museum, November 2010.
Kurita, I. 2003. Gandhāran Art, rev. edn, 2 vols. Tokyo: Nigensha. Rhi, J. forthcoming. ‘Vision in the cave, cave in the vision: the
Lamotte, É. 1981. ‘Lotus et Buddha supramondain’, Bulletin de l’École Indraśailaguhā in textual and visual traditions of Indian
Française d’Extrême-Orient 69: 31–44. Buddhism’, in Buddhism across Asia, T. Sen (ed). Singapore: Institute
Leoshko, J. 2000/2001. ‘About looking at Buddha images in eastern of Southeast Asian Studies.
India’, Archives of Asian Art 52: 63–82. Saunders, E.D. 1960. Mudrā: A Study of Symbolic Gestures in Japanese
Lin, Li-kouang 1949. L’Aide-mémoire de la vraie loi (Saddharma- Buddhist Sculpture. New York: Pantheon Books.
smṛtyupasthāna-sūtra). Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve. SBDT 2000. Sekai bijutsu daizenshū tōyōhen (New History of World
Lohuizen-de Leeuw, J.E. van. 1981. ‘New evidence with regard to the Art: Asia), vol. 13: India (1). Tokyo: Shogakukan.
origin of the Buddha image’, in South Asian Archaeology 1979, H. Schopen, G. 2005. ‘On sending the monks back to their books: cult
Härtel (ed.). Berlin: Museum für Indische Kunst, 377–400. and conservatism in early Mahāyāna Buddhism’, in Figments and
L’Orange, H.P. 1953. Studies on the Iconography of Cosmic Kingship in Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India, G. Schopen. Honolulu,
the Ancient World. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co. HI: University of Hawai’i Press, 108–53.
Luce, G.H. 1969. Old Burma, Early Pagan, vol. 1. Locust Valley, NY: Sharma, R.C. 1995. Buddhist Art: Mathura school. New Delhi: Wiley
Artibus Asiae and the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University. Eastern and New Age International.
Mallmann, M.-T. de 1975. L’Introduction à l’iconographie du tântrisme Soper, A.C. 1950. ‘Early Buddhist attitudes toward the art of painting’,
bouddique. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve. Art Bulletin 35(2): 147–51.
Miyaji, A. 1992. Nehan to miroku no zuzōgaku (The iconography of T – Taishō Buddhist canon (Taishō shinshū daizōkyō, Tokyo: Taishō
the mahāparinirvāṇa and Maitreya). Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan. issaikyō kankōkai, 1924–1934), number, volume, page.
MBD – Mochizuki bukkyō daijiten (Mochizuki Buddhist dictionary), Toganoo, S. 1932. Mandara no kenkyū (Study of maṇḍalas). Koyasan:
Mochizuki Shinkō (ed.), 2nd edn (rev. Tsukamoto Zenryū). Kyoto: Koyasan University Press.
Sekai seiten kankō kyōkai, 1954–63. Tsukamoto, K. 1979. ‘Rengejō to rengenza’ (‘The birth on the lotus and
P – Tibetan Buddhist canon Peking edition (reprint, Tokyo, Seizō the lotus seat’), Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 28(1): 1–9.
daizōkyō kenkyūkai, 1955–1961), number, box, page. Tsukamoto, K. 1996. Indo bukkyō himei mokuroku I: Text, note, wayaku
PGC 2002. Pakisutan gandāra chōkokuten (Exhibition of Gandhāran (A comprehensive study of the Indian Buddhist inscriptions, part
sculpture). Tokyo: NHK Promotion. 1: text, notes, and Japanese translation). Kyoto: Heirakuji shoten.
Rhi, J. 1991. Gandhāran Images of the Śrāvastī Miracle: An Iconographical Vogel, J.Ph. 1908. ‘Epigraphical discoveries at Sarnath’, Epigraphia
Assessment, PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Indica 8: 166–79.
Rhi, J. 1994. ‘From bodhisattva to Buddha: the beginning of iconic Williams, J.G. 1975. ‘Sārnāth Gupta steles of the Buddha’s life’, Ars
representation in Buddhist art’, Artibus Asiae 54(3/4): 207–25. Orientalis 10: 171–92.
Rhi, J. (ed.) 1999. Kandara misul (Gandhāran art) (exhibition Zimmer, H. 1946. Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization.
catalogue). Seoul: Seoul Arts Centre. New York: Pantheon Books.
Rhi, J. 2003. ‘Early Mahāyāna and Gandhāran Buddhism: an assessment Zwalf, W. 1996. A Catalogue of Gandhāra Sculpture in the British
of visual evidence’, The Eastern Buddhist 35(1&2): 152–89. Museum, 2 vols. London: British Museum.
Rhi, J. 2008. ‘Identifying several visual types in Gandhāran Buddha
images’, Archives of Asian Art 54: 43–85.
18