Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Elements of Buddhist Iconography c7: Supplementary Notes and Descriptions

Elements of Buddhist Iconography c7

Language
English

Supplementary Notes and Descriptions

c7.1

p. 4, l. 27 . . . . . *Manamattakam* is predicated of the anthropomorphic *cetiya* in a pejorative sense because the worshipper may fancy that the Buddha really subsisted or subsists in such a manner, that the Buddha is in some sense “like” the icon. The same danger inheres in the use of verbal symbols; the hearer goes far astray if he thinks that the words depict the principle, on the contrary that they merely point to it, the principle itself is not a thing in any likeness. This is developed at length in the *Laṅkâvatāra Sūtra*, text pp. 194–196, cf. Ch. II, 114 and 118–119, and Ch. III, 74. *Saṃyutta Nikāya*, text I, p. 11, is also very pertinent: “Those who take their stand on what is literally expressed, without comprehending what was expressed, fall into the bondage of mortality; those who understand what was really indicated form no vain concepts of (*na maññati*) him who makes the indication.”

c7.2

p. 6, l. 21 . . . . . Cf. *yāvan na khedo jāyate bhāvayet* in *Sādhanamālā* texts.

c7.3

p. 16, l. 27 . . . . . See also note 146, below.

c7.4

p. 17, l. 13 . . . . . Cf. Figs. 13–15.

c7.5

p. 21, l. 9 . . . . . Cf. *Śatapatha Br.*, IV, 1, 5, 16 (Aśvins).

c7.6

p. 22, l. 8 . . . . . Cf. Fig. 23.

c7.7

pp. 22–23, with notes 41–48 In a monograph *On the Iconography of the Buddha’s Nativity*, Mem. Arch. Surv. India, No. 46, received as the present volume goes to press, M. Foucher reasserts the view that the *Śrī-Lakṣmī* representations at Bharhut and Sāñcī are Buddha nativities, and expresses the hope that I may agree with him. He will find that I do so to the extent that I admit the fact and propriety of a Buddhist application in this sense. At the same time I am very far from agreeing that Buddhism originated the formula; in my view there is nothing specifically or originally Buddhist in early Buddhist imagery, whether visual or verbal. The present case is very much to the point; for to postulate a Buddhist invention or development of the lotus-seated Mother *Śrī* type would be possible only by assigning a considerably post-Buddhist date to the *Śrīsūkta*, in which the lotus-seated (*padme-sthitām . . . śriyam . . . puṣkariṇīm . . . lakṣmīm*) *Śrī-Lakṣmī* is invoked as the mother of Agni-Jātavedas and darling of Viṣṇu (cf. Aditi as the “lady of Viṣṇu” in *Taittirīya Saṃhitā*, IV, 4, 12 and VII, 5, 14, and *Vājasaneyī Saṃhitā*, XXIX, 60) and described as “bathed by royal elephants with golden jars” (*gajendrair . . . snāpitā hema-kumbhair*). But “the *khila* texts . . . are by no means a

c7.8

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

c7.9

modern product, they belong rather to the Vedic age. . . . Only a few of them can be assigned to a late Brāhmaṇa period. . . . The Śrīsūkta is connected with the cult of Śrī and Lakṣmī which came into prominence in the Yajurveda period” (Scheftelowitz, *Die Apokryphen des Ṛgveda*, 1906, pp. 2–4). It may be added that Śrī and Lakṣā are mentioned as *brahmavādinī* in the Bṛhad Devatā, II, 84.

c7.10

p. 28, l. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . Cf. Figs. 19, 20.

c7.11

p. 34, l. 15 . . . . . . . . . . . Cf. Fig. 39.

c7.12

p. 36, l. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . Cf. in the *Tilakamañjarī* of Dhanapāla, *Kāvyamālā*, No. 85, p. 144, the distinction of *cārutva-tattvam* from *rūpam*.

c7.13

p. 48, l. 17 . . . . . . . . . . . Cf. Vedic Mitra as “Agni when enkindled,” *Ṛg Veda*, III, 5, 4 and V, 3, 1.

c7.14

p. 48, l. 35 . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 29.

c7.15

p. 48, l. 36 . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. B.

c7.16

p. 50, l. 30 . . . . . . . . . . . In place of “he is *nirvāta*, and realizes” read: in reality he faces both ways, like Agni *pathām visarge* (*Ṛg Veda*, X, 5, 6, cf. *Dhammapada*, 282, *dvedhāpatha*) seeing at once the operation of and, etc.

c7.17

p. 55, l. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . Cf. Figs. 2, 3, 12.

c7.18

p. 57, l. 8 . . . . . . . . . . . Cf. *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*, VII, 2, 2, 14, “What is silent (*tūṣṇīm*, = *maunam*, the characteristic state of the *muni*) is unexpounded (*aniruktam*), and what is unexpounded is everything (*sarvam*).”

c7.19

p. 66, note 15 . . . . . . . . . See also notes 100 and 139.

c7.20

p. 69, note 33 . . . . . . . . . Cf. also *Majjhima Nikāya*, I, 421, *ajjhatikā paṭhavī-dhātu*, “the personal earth-element.”

c7.21

p. 70, note 37, l. 5 . . . . . . Cf. Fig. 41.

c7.22

p. 71, note 39 . . . . . . . . . Add: *Nakṣatra* designates the Sun in *Ṛg Veda*, VII, 86, 1, X, 88, 13, and X, 156, 4.

c7.23

p. 68, note 30 . . . . . . . . . The *Gopatha Brāhmaṇa*, I, 16, has *brahma ha vai brāhmaṇam puṣkare sasṛje*, rendered by Bloomfield “Brahman created Brahmā on the lotus.” This is scarcely more than a paraphrase of RV., VII, 33, 11, where Vasiṣṭha, child of Mitrāvaruṇau and Urvaśī, as a sperm-drop fallen “by divine efflux” (*daivyena brahmaṇā*), is born in the lotus (*puṣkare*), and is addressed as “priest” (*brahman*). Although we have avoided a tendenzios translation, it can hardly be overlooked that the contrast of *brahman* (n.) and *brahmā* (m.) occurs in both texts, and it would have been very easy to render the RV. passage as “Brahmā born in the lotus, drop let fall by Brahman”; as remarked by Grassmann (*Wörterbuch*, s. v. *brahman*, m.), “die Keime der späteren Sonderung (i. e. of Brahmā from Brahman) finden sich schon im RV.” Vasiṣṭha corresponds to Agni, puṣkare, in VI, 16, 13; and in any case the prototype of the Buddha iconography is unmistakable in all three passages.

c7.24

p. 73, note 48, l. 5 . . . . . Add: though this is not quite true as regards Māyā-devī. See P. D. Shastri, *The Doctrine of Māyā*, 1911, p. 28.

c7.25

p. 73, note 48, end . . . . . For the shining in the womb (*Jātaka* I, 52, *Buddhacarita*, I, 22) see *Ṛg Veda*, VI, 16, 35, and cf. the Pseudo-Matthew, Ch. xiii.

c7.26

p. 82, note 104 . . . . . . . Add: *avijjā* (*avidyā*) is “knowledge of,” to be contrasted with *vijjā* (*vidyā*, *jñāna*), which is “knowledge as.”

c7.27

p. 84, note 113, l. 7 . . . . . Buddhism in fact preserves the older Ṛg Vedic meaning of *brahma* as spiritual power contrasted with *kṣatra* as temporal power.

c7.28

p. 86, note 124, l. 1 . . . . . For “the transcendental knowledge of” read “an awakening to.”

c7.29

p. 87, note 127 . . . . . . . Add: The monastic as distinguished from the dogmatic Buddha is but one such *upadarśana* and *ārambaṇa*. Cf. R. O. Franke in O. Z., N. F. IV, 1915–16, p. 10, “All the seven Buddhas are only paradigms of the dogmatic Buddha . . . which dogmatic Buddha is the cloudy image of a more ancient concept of the deity” — that is, as has been amply demonstrated, of the Vedic Agni-Sūrya.

c7.30

p. 88, note 135 . . . . . . . Add “They are, *ante principium*, what the Angels are *in principio*.”

c7.31

p. 89, note 139 . . . . . . . See also notes 15, 100, and Mus, “Barabudur” in *BÉFEO*, 1932.

c7.32

Fig. 28, description, add:

c7.33

The “*vajra* in operation,” tantamount to “*dharma-cakra-pravartana*.” *Karma-vajra*, which is the direct equivalent of *katsuma-kongō* (*katsuma* being the regular Japanese transliteration of *karma*), occurs in *Mahābhārata*, I, 6487, where it is applied to Śūdras, “whose power is work,” or “whose virtue is labor.” As the designation of a symbol, *karma-vajra* is evidently equivalent to *dharma-cakra*, *brahma-cakra*, cf. *Śvetāśvatara* Up., VI, 1–4: “. . . it is by the all-might (*mahimā*) of the Angel that this Brahma-Wheel is whirled in the world (*loke bhrāmyate*). For it is turned (*āvṛttam*) by him — who is ever omniscient of all this (*nityam idaṃ hi sarvaṃ jñaḥ*), whose knowledge is entire (*sarvavidyaḥ*) of time, untime, and factors — it is by him that that operation (*karma*) is revolved (*vivartate*), viz. all that is regarded as solid (*pṛthvya*), phlogistic (*teja*), liquid (*āpya*), gaseous (*anila*), or spacial (*kha*). Having done that work (*tatkarma kṛtvā*), he again desists (*vinirvartya bhūyaḥ*), unifying (*samêtya yogam* = *saṃgamya*, Sāyaṇa), Quiddity with Quiddity (*tattvasya tattvena*, cf. the Buddhist “sameness of all dharmas”). . . . Thus undertaking (*ārabhya*) all these factorial operations (*guṇānvitāni karmāṇi*), and again laying them aside (*viniyojayed yaḥ*), there being a negation of active operation (*kṛta*

c7.34

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

c7.35

karma-nāśaḥ) in non-being (abhāve), he, in that annihilation of operation (karma-kṣaye), remains other than the Quiddity-nature (tattvato'nyaḥ).”

c7.36

FIG. 30, description, add:

c7.37

The appearance of the “totally extinct” (parinirvāta) Prabhūtaratna side by side with the “still living” (sthita) Śākya-muni forms the theme of innumerable Chinese sculptures (cf. Sirén, Chinese Sculpture, Pls. 47, 55, 121, 181). The appearance of Prabhūtaratna is a resurrection of the “body,” and the whole manifestation on Mt Gṛdhrakūṭa (Jap. Ryōzen Jōdo) is a “Last Judgment,” at least in this sense, that those unqualified are excluded. How can such a resurrection be understood? How can one who was “totally extinguished” (in European terms, “drowned,” “dead and buried in the Godhead”) in a former aeon now appear and be seen and heard by the still living Angels of the present aeon?

c7.38

Without discussing in detail the whole problem of the condition of past and present Sādhyas, Munis, Jinas, Tirthaṃkaras, etc. (which the Buddha refused to discuss), it may be pointed out that in all traditional formulations such beings are evidently thought of, not indeed as “individuals,” but as distinct “Persons” in the same sense that the Persons of the Trinity (the “Several Angels” who are anyonyayonita, itaretarajanmāna, etc.) are distinct, at the same time that they are One (ekam bhavanti, Aitareya Āraṇyaka, II, 3, 8, “where all existence becometh of one nest,” Mahānārāyaṇa Up., II, 3 = Vājasaneyī Saṃhitā, XXXII, 8, yatra viśvam bhavaty ekaṇīḍam); and the condition of sadasat, tantamount to “simultaneously quick and dead in the Supernal” may be partially explained. Thus, allusion to an individual by name so and so, and of aspect such and such, of whom it is asserted that the manifestation of such a form and aspect had been amongst the primordial possibilities of existence. Now possibility in this sense is in no way bound up with time; whatever has been a possibility of manifestation remains a possibility not merely in saecula saeculorum, but without regard to time, as well in one aeon as another. By the same token, any such possibility will always be visible to the jñāna-cakṣu (for which there is no proceeding from potentiality to act) as an actuality. Or we may express this by saying that every part of the World-picture “painted by the Self on the canvas of the Self” is necessarily ever-present to the Self. Whatever has been mirrored in the speculum eternum (Augustine, De Civ. Dei, lib. a, xii, c. 29) is now and forever imaged there, and mentes se videntium ducit in cognitionem omnium creatorum. Inasmuch as Prabhūtaratna, who had been totally extinguished, had seen with the Eye of Wisdom, a vision that cannot change, his own image, that is his understanding of himself, must be thought of as remaining for ever within the range of his own vision, and in this sense “he” is always virtually “present.” The notion is similar to that of John x, 9, “I am the door (= loka-dvāra); by Me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture,” where “find pasture” = annam ad, “to exist,” cf. John, 1, 3 “All things that have been created were in him as life.” and Matthew xii, 29, “For he is not a God of the dead but of the living: for all live unto him.” This immortality of one who has been utterly extinguished and is dead and buried in the Godhead is not indeed an immortality of the ego as commonly understood; it is rather the potential being of a “name” (nāma) that cannot be annihilated, and of an “aspect” (rūpa) which must be presented whenever this “name” is recalled.

c7.39

Fig. 31, description, add:

c7.40

By far the most interesting of these representations is the upper central symbol of the "Wisdom of All the Tathāgatas," corresponding to the manifested form of Prajñāpāramitā in the centre of the lower panel. Prajñāpāramitā, corresponding to Vedic Aditi and Gnostic Sophia, is also Tabhāgata-garbha, "Womb of all the Buddhas," potential and maternal: for a more detailed exposition see Obermiller, E., "The Doctrine of Prajñāpāramitā, etc.", in *Acta Orientalia*, XI. This universal potentiality of the possible intellect is represented by a flaming equilateral triangle (see illustration, p. 31) resting on its base, and supported by a lotus "ground." Of the two *svastikas*, one situated at the "point" (*bindu*) within the triangle is principial, and represents the Unmoved Mover or First Cause of Motion, the second external to the triangle implies the actual motion of the worlds. As corresponding to the rising Sun, this triangle is situated in the East; it corresponds also to Manas in the Trinity Manas, Vāc, Prâṇa. The corresponding Vajra-dhātu symbol of the operative intellect is a triangle in the image of this, but with its point downwards, situated in the West, where the Sun is reflected or "sets" in the Waters, corresponding also to Vāc in the Trinity Manas, Vāc, Prâṇa.

Cites (21)