The Beginnings of Buddhist Art and Other Essays in Indian and Central-Asian Archaeology c5.s1.4

c5.s1.4

As far as we know, no perfectly satisfactory explanation of this fact has until now been given. First of all we tried to dispose of the matter more or less by the supposition, as evasive as gratuitous, that the ancient school had either not desired or had not been able to figure the Blessed One; neither of these two reasons appears to us to have the least value in proof. Shall we speak of incapacity? Assuredly, one can see that the concrete realization of the image of the « perfect Buddha » was not an easy task : and the difficulty could not but increase with the years, in proportion as the time of the Master grew more distant and his features faded more and more into the mists of the past. Nevertheless, we must not form too poor an opinion of the talent of the old image-makers, and the argument becomes moreover quite worthless, when one attempts to apply it to the youth of Buddha. What was he, in fact, up to the time of his flight from his native town, but a « royal heir apparent »? Now the type of râja-kumâra, or crown-prince, is common on the gates of Sânchî, as also on the balustrade of Barhut (¹); what material hindrance was there to their making use of it to represent the Bodhisattva? It is clear that they could have done so, and yet they carefully abstained from doing so. Shall we fall back, then, upon the other branch of the dilemma and say that they did not dare? Assuredly the gravest members of the order must long have held to the letter the stern saying that « the master gone, the law remains (²) »; and we are quite willing to believe that the law alone was of import for them. The reverend Nâgasena still teaches king Menander that henceforth the