Indian Antiquary Vol 33

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 44

40
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[FEBRUARY, 1904.
Bhagavat samyak-sambuddha spa-mat-áviruddha, and two - an inscription from Buddhagaya27 and the Set-Mahet inscription which forns the special subject of the paper - where the statue is described as that of a Bodhisattva. To the latter class the present inscription is to be added.
" A detailed comparison of the three Bodhisattva statues is impossible for the present, as no photographs or drawings are available either of the Set-Mabet or of the Mathura image, and Mr. Growse's remarks, moreover, are rather brief, yet I should like to draw attention to the following points. According to the statements of Growse, Bloch and Cunningham, the three figures are all of the same material. The Mathurå statue is in red sandstone,' the Set-Mahet statue is made of a sort of reddish sandstone, the same material which the Mathura sculptures of the Kushaņa period are made of,' and the stone of which the Gayů statue is made is a sandstone like that of Mathurâ, and not from a local quarry. In size also the three figures seem to be similar. The seated Gaya figure is 39' high by 3' 1' in breadth across the knees; the standing Set-Mahet figure is 11' 8' in height; for the Mathurâ figure no exact measurements are given, but Mr. Growse speaks of a large figure, Besides the three statues apparently agreed in attitude. Of the Mathura figure only the crossed legs remain, which show - to use Mr. Growse's own words that the left band of the figure had rested on the left thigh, the right being probably raised in an attitude of admonition,'28 The Gayê figure is a little better preserved. Of the left arm only the upper portion is left, but its direction and remains of the hand, distinctly visible on the phototype, prove that it originally rested on the left thigh.
The right arm is entirely gone, but from the absence of any marks on the body or the right thigh it may be safely concluded that it was raised up without touching the body. The Set-Mahet statue also has lost the right arm, but Dr. Bloch remarks that we may fairly well conclude from the analogy of similar statues that the missing right arm of the figure was represented lifted up in an attitude which is usually called that of "teaching," while the left hand rested on the hip, bolding up the end of the long vestment. Whether the Mathura figure also had the right shoulder bare like the other two figures, cannot be decided. There would thus seem to be only one point of difference: the Mathurâ and Gaya figures are seated, whereas the Set-Mabet figure is standing.
The close resemblance between the three statnes sufficiently shows in my opinion that they are the work of the same school of sculptors, and that they cannot be very widely separated from each other in time. Probably the Set-Mahet figure is the oldest, as Dr., Bloch describes the characters of the inscription as belonging to the Northern Kshatrapa type. The Gayâ figure, on the other hand, is certainly the latest of the three, though perhaps not so much later than the others as Dr. Bloch seems to think. At any rate, the advanced form of the sa in the Gaya inscription, which he takes as a criterion for its late origin, is found also in the Mathura inscription; compare mahárájasya Jévayutrasya and sai.29
Considering the scantiness of the evidence, the question which particular Bodhisattva is represented by the three statues cannot be touched at present. But whether they be meant for Maitreya or one of the numerous other Bodhisattvas, they certainly bear witness to the wide spread of the Mabayanist Bodhisattva worship during the first century of our era.
No. 10.- Mathura Jains elephant capital inscription of Sam. 38; edited by Cunningham, Arch. Suru. Rep. Vol. III. p. 32, No. 9, and Plates V. and XIV.
And by Bloch, Journ. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. LXVII. Part I. p. 276, note 2. This inscription is engraved on the base of the large figure of an elephant surmounting the bell capital of a pillar, and records the setting up of a Namdirisála by the áréshthin Rudrad isa, the son of the sreshthin Sivadása, for the worship of the Arhats. The last phrase characterises the donor as A member of the Jains community.
27 Cunningham, Makabidhi, p. 53, and Plate XXV.
* Mr. Growse adds that another mutilated figure of similar character, but without inscription, was found on the same spot, and that these were the only specimens he had with the hands in this position, in all the others the hands being crossed over the feet.
* A more detailed examination of the Gay& in cription I reserve to some future occasion.