[Buddha-l] Gandharan Buddhist Art at NY Asia Society

[L.S. Cousins]

Dan Lusthaus writes
> What that does suggest is that the presumed "standard" list of major and
> minor marks of a great person (mahapurusa) was formulated rather late, and
> didn't impact Gandharan representations of the Buddha and bodhisattvas,
> which had a different list of iconic "marks" to include. Since it is usually
> also presumed that Gandharan art was the first to offer representations of
> the Buddha (and not just his footprints, or empty seat under a tree -- the
> earlier anaconic representations), those depictions show how Buddha(s)
> was/were envisioned  for many centuries after his death.

I don't see that anything so far said would support the suggestion that 
the list of the major marks was formulated rather late. (The minor marks 
are only known to us in much later  lists.) The list is fairly similar 
in Theravādin and Sarvāstivādin sources; this suggests rather an earlier 
date.

There is nothing in the list of marks as to whether the Buddha-to-be had 
a moustache and no mention of 'snails'. No artistic representation of 
the Buddha ever attempts to show all the marks for obvious reasons.

As I understand it, there is no certainty as to whether the earliest 
representations of the Buddha(-to-be) were made in Gandhāra or in Mathurā.

> The Mahapurusa lists, which, if followed would produce a very freakish
> looking individual with too many teeth, arms down to his ankles, misshapen
> skull, webbed hands and feet, etc., . . .
>
Quite. This suggests to me that it is really not possible to understand 
the list of marks if you have never utilized it as a meditation subject.

Lance Cousins