DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45392#0424
Buddha & the Gospel of Buddhism
there is no better evidence of this than the art of Gandhara.
It is of interest to observe also the manner in which certain
Indian symbols are awkwardly and imperfectly interpreted,
for this affords proof, if that were needed, that the types in
question are of older, and Indian origin. A clear case is
that of the lotus seat which is the symbol of the Buddha’s
spiritual purity or divinity. The seated Buddha of Gand-
hara is insecurely and uncomfortably balanced on the
prickly petals of a disproportionately small lotus, and this
defect at once destroys the sense of repose which is above
all essential to the figure of the yogi—who is likened in
Indian books to the flame in a windless spot that does not
flicker—and in immediate conflict with the Yoga texts
which declare that the seat of meditation must be firm
and easy (sthira-sukha). We see before us the work of
foreign craftsmen imitating Indian formulae which they
did not understand. We cannot think of this as an original
and autochthonous art, despite its historical interest, and
it is certainly not primitive in the sense in which this
word is used by artists.1
Iconography
We may digress here to describe the chief types of Buddha
image. The seated figure has three main forms, the first
representing pure Samadhi, the highest station of ecstasy
—here the hands are crossed in the lap in what is known
as dhyana imtdra, the ‘ seal of meditation ’ (Plate K);
the second, in which the right hand is moved forward
across the right knee to touch the earth, in what is known
as the bhumisparsa mudra, the ‘ seal of calling the earth
to witness ’ (Plates Ta, Zb); the third with the hands
1 “ In primitive art you will find . . . absence of representation, absence
of technical swagger, sublimely impressive form.”—Clive Bell, Art, p. 22,
330
there is no better evidence of this than the art of Gandhara.
It is of interest to observe also the manner in which certain
Indian symbols are awkwardly and imperfectly interpreted,
for this affords proof, if that were needed, that the types in
question are of older, and Indian origin. A clear case is
that of the lotus seat which is the symbol of the Buddha’s
spiritual purity or divinity. The seated Buddha of Gand-
hara is insecurely and uncomfortably balanced on the
prickly petals of a disproportionately small lotus, and this
defect at once destroys the sense of repose which is above
all essential to the figure of the yogi—who is likened in
Indian books to the flame in a windless spot that does not
flicker—and in immediate conflict with the Yoga texts
which declare that the seat of meditation must be firm
and easy (sthira-sukha). We see before us the work of
foreign craftsmen imitating Indian formulae which they
did not understand. We cannot think of this as an original
and autochthonous art, despite its historical interest, and
it is certainly not primitive in the sense in which this
word is used by artists.1
Iconography
We may digress here to describe the chief types of Buddha
image. The seated figure has three main forms, the first
representing pure Samadhi, the highest station of ecstasy
—here the hands are crossed in the lap in what is known
as dhyana imtdra, the ‘ seal of meditation ’ (Plate K);
the second, in which the right hand is moved forward
across the right knee to touch the earth, in what is known
as the bhumisparsa mudra, the ‘ seal of calling the earth
to witness ’ (Plates Ta, Zb); the third with the hands
1 “ In primitive art you will find . . . absence of representation, absence
of technical swagger, sublimely impressive form.”—Clive Bell, Art, p. 22,
330