________________
BOOK NOTICES.
APRIL, 1880.]
attendants, the ushnté (turban) or top-knot at once indicates that they are not disciples (who are never so represented), but all three are Buddhas. On plate xxi. fig. 3 is another similar sculpture which he has failed to explain (p. 135), though it is plainly enough Buddha travelling, with Indra the raja of Swarga carrying the umbrella over him, and Nagaraja the king of Pâtala with the saptaphana or seven-hooded cobra and bearing the kamandalu or water bottle.
The object in the lap of Buddha (plate xxiii. fig. 2) seems to have perplexed our author (p. 134), yet it is quite common in the later representations of Buddha, and indicates no penance, as he imagines, but is simply the bhikshápátra.s
With the representations of the Bodhisattwas he seems to be even less acquainted than with those of the Buddhas; for, (on p. 136) he makes out fig. 2° on pl. xiii, with the chakra chinha on his hand, to be Avalokiteswara-which it certainly is not. On pl. xx. fig. 1, the figure now worshipped as T & râ dê vi, was indeed originally a form of Padmapâni, though it is hardly ever recognised as such, but is well known as Simhanatha Lokêsvara-easily recognised by the lion which attends him, and on which he is sometimes represented as seated. At the right side of this figure is cut, in letters of the 8th or 9th century, the words Sri Buddhanagasya, which neither the artist nor the author has noticed. The figure on pl. xxxii. fig. 3 may be Padmapâni, as he says,-but it is much more like Mina nåt ha or Manjughosha; and that on plate xxiii. fig. 6, is not Padmapâni, for it has a bell in the one hand and a jala pátra in the other, and is a figure frequently seen in temples of the Abhyantara sect of Buddhists. Figure 3 on the same plate is similarly wrongly called Padmapâni (p. 136), for it has the northern style of dress, described by Varaha Mihira as appropriate to Sarya, with stockings on his feet and two lotus flowers in his hands.
Figure 2 on pl. xxxii is the image now wor. shipped as Vagiśvari. This the author mistakes for Vajrapani, whilst it is undoubtedly a form of Manjuéri, the Buddhist god of learning, of which Vagisvara (Vak-iévara) is a well known name among the Buddhists of Nepal, a fact that might have kept the learned author right. The three figures (pls. xxix. and xxvi.figs. 1 and 3) which he calls Mâyâdêvis (p. 137), we suspect are not so, for what the Bâbu calls a
This again is quite misrepresented in the plate. It is almost always so represented in the images in Nepal. He says "fig. 1,"-but mistakes of this kind are numerous; on p. 139 he refers to fig. 4 on "plate xxx," when he must mean pl. xxxi. On p. 125 he has Saka 1230-1153 A.D. 10 So an old man informed the writer.
11 The front or proper pair of hands are in the dharma
115
tilaka is really a third eye which Mâyâdevi is never represented with;-these are most probably Tantric forms of Târâ.
The supposed female Demon, plate xxxi. fig. 2, is Vasudhar &,-and here again the Bâbu perhaps forgot his spectacles when he examined the original, for there are no horses on the stone (as on his drawing) but pigs! This figure is common on the east side of the great tope at Sânchi: at least three lay there, not long ago, among the ruins. In Banaras there is a fine black stone one with seven hogs below, and an inscription; and there one of the faces of the dêvî is also that of a pig.
Again fig. 1 plate xxxi. is another image of Vasudhara, which he "fancies" is "intended for Savitri Devi, who has apparently seized an opportunity to have a drive in the chariot of her husband the sun-god Surya" (p. 132). Where in India did he get hold of such an idea ? and the horses !-why, he has indeed represented them by seven horse heads, but the stone has boars!
Plate xxxi. fig. 3 represents an image of a dêvi, brought from the ruins of the monastery to the north of the temple :10 by estimation it is about 7} feet high by 4 broad. This figure with its nine pairs of hands11 is not accurately described by our author, (p. 138) nor does he notice the inscription below it in letters of the 9th or 10th century, which reads,
[] देयधम्मयं प्रवरमहायानयायिनो महाक्षपटलव्यक्तकरणिhuge vergat ngawardimaammftनृपूर्वङ्गमं कृत्वा सकलस[2] càg.
What he calls in the text (p. 138) another representation of this dêvi,' but on the plate (xx. fig. 2) 'a figure of Buddha,'-is a form of Târâ.
Figure 2 on pl. xxi. he calls a Nagakanya (p. 138): why a mother with her child in her lap should be called a kanyd or 'maiden,' he does not tell us. The dress is sufficient to show that his "devotee," on pl. xxiii, is only a salika or figure of a laic, such as were often presented by worshippers to the temples.
Even Hindu gods, the author misnames; thus (p. 139) he calls fig. 4 on pl. xx. Prithvidêvi, whereas it is evidently Yamun & on the tortoise, as represented again and again at Elurâ, at Udayagiri in Bhopal, and elsewhere. Fig. 4 on pl. xxxi. he has not recognised as the Buddhist Mahakala. The subject represented in plate xxvi. fig. 2 is at the Mahant's monastery, built into
chakra mudra; the right hands from below are,-2nd broken; 3rd in the vara mudra (blessing with prosperity); 4th, holds the khadaga or sword; 5th, in the tarjant attitude, or bidding begone; 6th, holds the btjapura or citron; 7th, the ankusa; 8th, the vdira; and 9th, the parasu. Of the left, the 2nd is broken, the 3rd holds the danda; 4th, the lotus stalk; 5th, the kalasa; 6th, the pasa; 7th, the chakra ; 8th, the dhvaja (P); and the 9th is broken.
