^{page 104 note 1} SirWheeler, Mortimer: Rome Beyond The Imperial Frontiers (Penguin), p. 197Google Scholar.

^{page 104 note 2} Quoted by Grünwedel, in Buddhist Art in India, p. 147Google Scholar.

^{page 104 note 3} Zimmer, : The Art of Indian Asia, p. 340Google Scholar.

^{page 105 note 1} Davidson, J. Leroy: The Lotus Sūtra in Chinese Art, pp. 22–23Google Scholar.

^{page 105 note 2} Brown, Percy: Indian Architecture (Buddhist & Hindu) p. 41Google Scholar.

^{page 105 note 3} Grūnwedel: ibid., p. 182.

^{page 105 note 4} Vogel, : Buddhist Art in India, Ceylon & Java, p. 24Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 1} Beal's translation of Hsüan Tsang's: Si-yu-ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World, Vol. I., p. xxx & xxxi.

^{page 106 note 2} Beal: ibid., p. 120. At Udyāna, the Chinese traveller observed that the people were given to using charms.

^{page 106 note 3} Quoted in Mitra, R. L.: The Decline of Buddhism in India, p. 16Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 4} Beal: ibid., pp. 120–21.

^{page 106 note 5} Beal: ibid., p. xxxi.

^{page 106 note 6} Beal: ibid., p. 104.

^{page 106 note 7} Beal: ibid., pp. 109–110.

^{page 106 note 8} Beal: ibid., p. 148.

^{page 106 note 9} Beal: ibid., p. 160.

^{page 106 note 10} Beal: ibid., p. 160.

^{page 106 note 11} Beal: ibid., p. 162.

^{page 106 note 12} Beal: ibid., p. 172.

^{page 106 note 13} Beal: ibid., p. 137.

^{page 106 note 14} Beal: ibid., pp. 138–39. The correct name is Kumāralāta. Winternitz, : A History of Indian Literature, Vol. II, p. 268, n.3Google Scholar.

^{page 107 note 1} Winternitz: ibid., p. 269.

^{page 107 note 2} Beal: ibid., Vol. II, p. 275. Pārvata country has been placed in Taksaśilādi group in the Punjab by Pāṇini: ibid., n.87.

^{page 107 note 3} Beal: ibid., Vol. I, p. xxxvi.

^{page 107 note 4} Beal: ibid., p. 50.

^{page 107 note 5} Beal: ibid., p. 55.

^{page 107 note 6} Beal: ibid., p. 60.

^{page 107 note 7} Quoted by R. L. Mitra: ibid., p. 15.

^{page 107 note 8} Beal: ibid., p. xxxvi.

^{page 107 note 9} Beal: ibid., p. 91.

^{page 107 note 10} Quoted by R. L. Mitra: ibid., p. 17.

^{page 107 note 11} Beal: ibid., p. xxxvi.

^{page 108 note 1} According to Prof. Takakusu the principal seat of the Sarvāstivāda school was in Kashmir, of which another branch was established in Gandhāra. It was to the latter that the Abhidharma-hṛdaya of Dharmottara belonged. A commentary on the work called Saṃyukta-abhidharma-hṛdaya by Dharmatrāta became the fundamental text of the Gandhāra branch and subsequently of the Chinese Abhidharma School. Takakusu, : “Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy”, pp. 56–58Google Scholar.

^{page 108 note 2} Konow, Sten: Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. II, Part IGoogle Scholar. Kharoshṭhi Inscriptions, p. 137.

He dates the inscription to a.d. 128. There is, however, considerable controversy about the date of this reliquary and whether it belongs to great Kaniṣka of the Kushāna dynasty. Some scholars have placed the date of this reliquary in 3rd or even 4th century a.d. and consider that the Kaniṣka mentioned therein was another and a later ruler of the same name.

See Lyons & Ingholt: Gandhāran Art in Pakistan, pp. 29–30Google Scholar.

^{page 108 note 3} Sten Konow: ibid., pp. 142–145.

^{page 108 note 4} Sten Konow: ibid., pp. 152–55.

^{page 108 note 5} Sten Konow: ibid., pp. 88–89.

^{page 108 note 6} Sten Konow: ibid., pp. 87–88.

^{page 108 note 7} Sten Konow: ibid., pp. 122.

^{page 108 note 8} Sten Konow: ibid., p. 122.

^{page 108 note 9} Sten Konow: ibid., pp. 165–170. It is significant that this is the only Kharoshthi record which speaks of the Mahāsaṁghikas as being in charge or possession of a Vihāra. Sten Konow: ibid., p. 170.

^{page 109 note 1} Sten Konow: ibid., p. Cx vii.

^{page 109 note 2} Lyons & Ingholf: ibid., Descriptive Catalogue No. 324, p. 142.

^{page 109 note 3} Lyons & Ingholt: ibid., Descriptive Catalogue No. 326, p. 142. (See also Marshall, : The Buddhist Art of Gandhāra, p. 96, fig. 124Google Scholar. The identification with Manjuśri or Avalokiteśvara is, however, not assured.)

^{page 109 note 4} Lyons & Ingholt: ibid., Descriptive Catalogue Nos. 277–287, 544.

^{page 109 note 5} Lyons & Ingholt: ibid., Descriptive Catalogue Nos. 288–312, 542, 563.

^{page 109 note 6} According to Ingholt (Lyons & Ingholt: ibid., p. 40), the Gandhāran sculpturesfall into four groups:

Group I — from 144–240 a.d.

Group II — from 240–300 a.d.

Group III — from 300–400 a.d.

Group IV — from 400–460 a.d.

(a) Sculptures of Bodhisattva Siddhārtha fall into the following groups:

Group I — Descriptive catalogue No. 277

Group II — „ „ Nos. 278–79

Group III — „ „ Nos. 280–84, 286, 544

Group IV — „ „ Nos. 285, 287.

(b) Sculptures of Bodhisattva Maitreya fall into the following groups:

Group II — Descriptive catalogue No. 288. (This also might be a representation of Bodhisattva Siddhārtha and may be included in Group III also.)

Group III — Descriptive Catalogue Nos. 289–99, 301, 303, 311, 312, 542 & 563. The last two may also be included in Group IV.

Group IV — Descriptive Catalogue Nos. 300, 302, 310.

(c) Bodhisattva Padmapāni (Descriptive Catalogue No. 324) is assigned to Group IV but could be in Group III. Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara (Descriptive Catalogue No. 326) is assigned to Group III. According to the chronology adopted by Marshall in ibid., the Avalokiteśvara of fig. 124 already mentioned belongs to a.d. 140 to 241 called ‘Later Maturity Period’ by Marshall.

(d) Unidentified Bodhisattvas are assigned to Groups III or IV.

(i) Group III — Descriptive Catalogue Nos. 313–16, 318–23, 325, 327–330, 499, 500, 501, 502, 541, 546–48, 550, 552, 553, 554, 555–58, 564. The sculptures catalogue Nos. 499 and later can also be assigned to Group IV.

(ii) Group IV — Descriptive catalogue Nos. 317, 543, 545, 549, 550, 551. The sculpture of catalogue No. 545 could be in Group III. The Dhyānī-Buddhas of fig. 135, p. 102 in Marshall, ibid., belong to the Later Maturity Period. The panel contains four seated images of the Buddha in Dhyāna-mudrāand their identification with Dhyānī-Buddhas as done by Marshall is doubtful as Dhyānī-Buddhas are five in number and only one of them is in the Dhyāna-mudrā.

^{page 110 note 1} Marshall: ibid., pp. 41–42, fig. 53 and n.l, p. 42.

^{page 110 note 2} See the relief from Muhammad Nari in ill. 82 at page 130 of Grünwedel: ibid. Again in the fragmentary sculpture of ‘The Visit of Indra and his Harpist to the Indrasāla Cave’ (Lahore No. 550), though a row of six seated figures, five Buddhas and one Bodhisattva onthe lower part of the fragment, only survives, it is safe to assume that there were two more figures now missing, making a total of eight, seven most recent Buddhas of the past and Maitreya. Lyons & Ingholt: ibid. p. 91, Descriptive Catalogue No. 135 (Group III). Again in the damaged sculpture “Buddha with Worshippers. Amorini” (Lahore No. 2306, 2058 and 2059), five standing Buddhas are portrayed, but there were undoubtedly two more as well as a Maitreya. Lyons & Ingholt: ibid., p. 133 Descriptive Catalogue No. 224 (Group III). Likewise, though only two standing Buddhas survive on the sculpture “Two Buddhas” — Peshawar No. W.U.1927, seven Buddhas were undoubtedly portrayed. Lyons & Ingholt: ibid., p. 114, Descriptive Catalogue No. 228 (Group IV).

The sculpture Peshawar, No. 794 containing seven figures and identified by Spooner as the seven last Buddhas of our age is doubtful as three of the figures are attired in princely robes, which are associated only with bodhisattvas. Lyons & Ingholt: ibid., p. 84, Descriptive Catalogue No. 120 (Group III).

^{page 110 note 3} Maitreya, being a future Buddha, is, strictly speaking at present, a bodhisattva only.

^{page 111 note 1} Ingholt's suggestion (Lyons & Ingholt: ibid., p. 84) that the sculpture Peshawar No. 794 can be explained along the lines of Mahāyāna theology as portraying the five Bodhisattvas and their corresponding Buddha counterparts does not appear to be tenable unless we suppose that the complete panel contained ten figures instead of seven or eight.

^{page 111 note 2} It is significant to note that the jātakas and the ayadānas do not form part of the Vinaya of the Sarvāstivādins of Kashmir, while they were included in the Vinaya of the Sarvāstivādin school of Mathurā. (Przyluski, : Fables in the Vinaya-Piṭaka of the Sarvāstivādin School; Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol. V, 1929, pp. 2–3)Google Scholar. See also Przyluski, : “Dārṣṭāntika, Sautrāntika and Sarvāstivādin” in Louis de la Valée Poussin Memorial Volume, p. 33)Google Scholar. It may be presumed that the Vinaya of the Sarvāstivādins of Gandhāra was the same as those of Kashmir. That would perhaps explain, inter alia, what Foucher observed, a marked diminution in the number of jātakas in the art at Gandhāra. (Foucher, : The Beginnings of Buddhist Art, p. 26.)Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 1} The number of the heavens in the rūpa-lokas varies from 16 to 18. The Abhidharmakośa has 17 heavens.

^{page 112 note 2} In Japanese Mahāyāna Buddhism there are three main paradises: (i) Tosotsuten (Tuṣitā) or the “Heaven of Contentment”, of the future Buddha, Maitreya. (ii) Gokuraku Jodo (Sukhāvatī) of Buddha Amita and (iii) Ryōju-sen (Gṛdhrakūtṭa) of Buddha Śākyamuni. The first, the Heaven of Contentment, is not a fullfledged heaven; it is still in formation since its ruler Maitreya has still to attain Buddhahood; in fact, it is a kind of “ante-room for a real paradise”. Anesaki, in ‘The Mythology of All Races’ Vol. VIII (Chinese & Japanese) p. 241Google Scholar.

^{page 112 note 3} “In the iconographic development of both Bodhisattva, Siddhārata and Maitreya, there seem to have been two currents, one Brāhmanic, the other regal, so that neither can be claimed as sole distinguishing mark for either Bodhisattva. . . . Under these circumstances the presence of a Brāhmanic water flask . . . cannot decide the issue in favour of Maitreya.” Lyons and Ingholt: ibid., p. 131, Descriptive Catalogue No. 279, Group II. Again, the flask held in the hand is “an attribute both of the Bodhisattva Siddhārata and Maitreya”. Lyons and Ingholt: ibid., p. 135, Descriptive Catalogue No. 288, Group II (III). Again, the lunar crescent in the Uṣṇīṣa is conclusive evidence for identification with Maitreya. See Lyons and Ingholt: ibid., p. 135, Descriptive Catalogue No. 289, Group III.

^{page 112 note 4} Lyons & Ingholt: ibid., p. 135, Descriptive Catalogue No. 290, Group III. See also ibid., page 138, Descriptive Catalogue Nos. 306–07 “Preaching Maitreya”.

^{page 112 note 5} Bhattacharyya, B.: The Indian Buddhist Iconography, p. 80Google Scholar.

^{page 112 note 6} Bhattacharyya: ibid., p. 81.

^{page 112 note 7} Bhattacharyya: ibid., pp. 93–94.

^{page 112 note 8} Bhattacharyya: ibid., p. 94.

^{page 112 note 9} Getty, : Gods of Northern Buddhism, p. 23Google Scholar.

^{page 113 note 1} See the eighth Buddha identified as Maitreya at the bottom of the relief from Muhammad Nari reproduced at illustration 82 in Grünwedel: ibid, and the Bodhisattva represented in the broken relief from Kafirkot in Swat, illustration 140 ibid. See also figs. 137, 138, 139, 140 and 142 of Maitreya in Marshall: ibid.

^{page 113 note 2} Grünwedel: ibid., pp. 87–89, figure 42.

^{page 113 note 3} Marshall observes “. . .it is noteworthy that his (Vajrapāṇi's) characteristic dress at this period is identical in all respects with that worn by the attendant (?) in the Graeco-Parthian drinking-scenes . . .” ibid., p. 47.

^{page 113 note 4} Bhattacharyya: ibid., figs. 25, 26 and 27. Lotus seats are visible in figs. 26 and 27.

^{page 113 note 5} Getty: ibid., p. 51. See also Snellgrove, : Buddhist Himalaya, p. 62Google Scholar.

^{page 113 note 6} Getty: ibid., p. 50.

^{page 113 note 7} Getty: ibid., pp. 51–52. According to Sādhanamālā (Bhattacharyya: ibid., p. 98) Vajrapāṇi's one hand is held in Abhaya mudrā. According to Grünwedel Vajrapāṇi has a stūpa as cognizance (Chihna) on his forehead and the Vajra in his hand. Grünwedel: ibid., p. 185.

^{page 113 note 8} “Precisely as the transcendental substance of Viṣṇu, the primeval water, brings forth the phenomenal, dynamic form of Brahmā . . ., so likewise, the transcendent adamantean essence of enlightenment, the sheer “suchness” (tathatā) which underlies the universe, gives forth the saviors. That is why the Buddhas, the first-born of that reality, are entitled no less than Brahmā to the lotus throne. This lotus symbol, . . . in Mahāyānā Buddhism connotes the supramundane (lokottara) character of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. . .”. (Zimmer: ibid., p. 175.

^{page 114 note 1} Coomaraswamy, : Elements of Buddhist Iconography, p. 69, n. 33Google Scholar.

^{page 114 note 2} Paul Mus: “Le Buddha pare” quoted in Coomarswamy: ibid., p. 55.

^{page 114 note 3} Mus: quoted in ibid., p. 55.

^{page 114 note 4} Coomaraswamy: ibid., p. 50.

^{page 114 note 5} Coomaraswamy: ibid., p. 50.

^{page 114 note 6} Coomaraswamy: ibid., p. 59.

^{page 114 note 7} The Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra and Suvarṇaprabhāsa sūtra which contain a clear exposition of the Trikāya doctrine belong to the 4th century a.d.

^{page 114 note 8} The lion throne is the form actually favoured in the case of the oldest representations of the Buddha in human form at Mathurā. Coomaraswamy: ibid., p. 43.

^{page 115 note 1} Zimmer: ibid., p. 175. Ingholt expresses the view that the lotus seat probably was not used until the period of sculptures belonging to Group III, viz., 300–400 a.d. of the groups in which he has divided the Gandhāran sculptures. Lyons & Ingholt: ibid., p. 33. According to Coomaraswamy “The Buddha is in fact represented padmāsana, kamalāsana, from late Āndhra times onwards, that is almost from the beginning of anthropomorphic iconography” ibid., p. 48. He, however, has observed that though no representation of the Buddha on a lotus seat exists prior to the second century a.d. in actually surviving works of art of Gandhāra, and in late Āndhra works from Amaravātī, Śri Lakṣmī was seated on a lotus at least as early as the second century B.C. and it is likely that the earlier examples were on less durable material or had been painted. Ibid., pp. 21–22.

^{page 115 note 2} In support of the derivation of Miran paintings from the art of Gandhāra, F. H. Andrews observes that in sculptures and paintings alike the figures at Miran, with few exceptions, are barefooted and do not stand on padmāsana. (Andrews, : Wall Paintings from Ancient Shrines in Central Asia, p. xxiGoogle Scholar.) This would indicate that in the parent school of Gandhāra, lotus support was not a characteristic feature of the sculptures of the Buddha.

^{page 115 note 3} Lyons & Ingholt: ibid., plates No. XX, 2 ‘The Buddha in Meditation on Inverted Lotus Throne’, Karachi and No. XXI, 2 ‘The Buddha in Meditation and Other Buddhas’. According to Ingholt these sculptures are illustrations of the doctrines of Mahayāna theology: ibid., p. 38. See also ibid., pp. 121–23. “The Preaching Buddha on Lotus Throne”, Lahore, No. 1135 from Mohamed Nari, Descriptive Catalogue No. 255.

^{page 115 note 4} In the sculpture of the “Preaching Buddha on Lotus Throne” Lahore, No. 1135, flanking the lotus are a man and a woman, both standing on lotuses. They have been identified with Lūhasudatta and his wife. Lyons and Ingholt: ibid., p. 121, Descriptive Catalogue No. 255. See also: ibid., plate XVI, 3 ‘The Teaching Buddha on Lotus Throne’ and p. 124. Again in the sculptures shown in Plates No. XVI, 4 ‘The Teaching Buddha on Inverted Lotus Throne’ and No. XX, 2 ‘The Buddha in Meditation on Inverted Lotus Throne’, Karachi (Lyons and Ingholt: ibid.) elephant nāgas emerging from watery base and supporting the lotus seat of the Buddha carry figures on the tips of their trunks supported on lotuses. In the case of the first sculpture, these have been identified with Lūhasudatta on the left and his wife on the right. In the case of the latter (plate XX, 2) the figure on the left is a monk, and on the right a nun. See also Lyons & Ingholt: ibid., p. 128.

In the sculpture representing ‘The Buddha as Supernal Sun’ from Amāravatī c. a.d. 200, there are two dancing apsarases, supported by lotuses. See Coomaraswamy: ibid., plate 1, fig. 2. Again, in Hokke Mandara, a bronze work of a.d. 673 from Nara, the Tathāgata Śākyamuni on the left, is attended, inter alia, by Ānanda and Rāhula who are standing on lotus supports. See Coomaraswamy: ibid., plate VIII, fig. 30. In the paintings of Bezekh'k in Turfan, lotus support has been found in the case of devatās — (Andrews: ibid. Bez. i. M, N. p. 53 — plate XII and Bez. i. J. K. pp. 55–56 —plate XIII), a bearded nāga deity (Andrews: ibid. Bez. x. K.O. p. 86 — plate XXIV), a monk (Andrews: ibid., Bez. x D.-F, I, J. pp. 89–90 plate XXV), and Vajrapāṇi (Andrews: ibid., Bez. iv. D, p. 74 — plate XIX and Bez. x D-F, I, J pp. 89–90 — plate XXV).

^{page 116 note 1} Saunders, : Mudrā: A Study of Symbolic Gestures in Japanese Buddhist Sculpture, p. 164Google Scholar.

^{page 116 note 2} Marshall: ibid., p. 95.

^{page 116 note 3} Marshall: ibid., p. 95.

^{page 117 note 1} Rowland, : Wall Paintings of India, Central Asia and Ceylon — Plates 11 and 12, p. 64Google Scholar; plate 13, p. 69, and plate 14, pp. 70–71. For the date of these paintings, see also page 62, ibid.

^{page 117 note 2} Rowland, : The Art and Architecture of India, p. 103Google Scholar. He goes on to say that the so called ‘bejewelled Buddha’ belongs to the last phase of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India.

^{page 117 note 3} Tucci, : ‘Preliminary Report on an Archaeological Survey in Swat’ “East & West” New Series, Vol. 9, No. 4, 12, 1958, pp. 322–24Google Scholar.

^{page 117 note 4} Mariani, Fosco: Karakoram, translated into English by Cadell, James, p. 60Google Scholar. This is traced to Tibetan influence as Baltistan was under Tibetan dominance after the 5th century a.d.

^{page 117 note 5} Hackin, : ‘The recent work of the French Archaeological Delegation at Bāmiyān (Afghanistan)’. Indian Art and Letters, Vol. VIII, p. 42Google Scholar.

Again he observed that “Fondukisten probably represents the southern limit of this particular aspect of Buddhist art”.

Hackin, : “The work of the French Archaeological Mission in Afghanistan”. Indian Art and Letters, Vol. XII, p. 49Google Scholar.

^{page 118 note 1} Rowland has also observed that “The sculpture of Gandhāra seems to confirm the testimony of the Chinese pilgrims on the predominance of the Hīnayāna sect of Buddhism”. The Art and Architecture of India, p. 78.

^{page 118 note 2} Adrews: ibid., p. xx.

^{page 118 note 3} Andrews: ibid., p. xxi.

^{page 118 note 4} Andrews also came to the conclusion that “The Buddhism of Miran with which our earliest paintings were concerned seems to have been of the simple form, the Hinayāna”. “Central Asian Wall Paintings” in Indian Art and Letters, 1938, Vol. VIII, p. 12Google Scholar.

^{page 118 note 5} J. Leroy Davidson: ibid. The pictorial representation of paradises was the work of Chinese designers. Andrews: ibid., p. 13.

^{page 118 note 6} According to S. Mizuno and T. Nagahiro, “representations of Prabhūtaratna and Śākyamuni are found all over Yün-Kang and continued at Lung Men, but are not found in Central Asia, and only once in Gandhāra, . . . and then probably under T'ang (!) influence’. They are found in Tun-huang from the Wei period. . .” Mizuno, and Nagahiro, : Yün-Kang: The Buddhist cave temples of the fifth century a.d. in North China, Vols. VIII–IX, p. 73Google Scholar, Quoted by Gray, Basil in Gray and Vincent: “Buddhist Cave Paintings at Tun-huang”, p. 18–19 nGoogle Scholar. We could not, however, trace any sculpture of Prabhūtaratna in Grünwedel: ibid., Lyons and Ingholt: ibid, and Marshall: ibid.

^{page 119 note 1} Tucci, : Encyclopedia of World Art, Vol. II, Buddhism, 682Google Scholar.

^{page 119 note 2} See the author's article ‘The Origin of the Buddha Image’ MARG., April, 1962, pp. 15–16.

^{page 119 note 3} Coomaraswamy, : “The Nature of Buddhist Art” Introductory Essay to Rowland's ‘The Wall Paintings of India, Central Asia and Ceylon’, p. 16Google Scholar. “. . . the Buddha image is not in any sense a portrait, but a symbol; . . . the image is devoid of any semblance of organic structure; it is not a reflection of anything that has been physically seen, but an intelligible form or formula”. Again “. . . the ‘anthropomorphic” image in India remains abstract. . .” Coomaraswamy, : Elements of Buddhist Iconography, p. 40Google Scholar.