281 
T. Blocli — Buddhistic statue from Cjravastt. 
[No. 4, 
dharmacahramudra , and which Prof. Griinwedel in his valuable “ Hand- 
buck dev Buddhistischen Kunst in Indien ” (Berlin, 1893, p. 146 if) has 
from independent reasons, tried to establish as a characteristic of 
statues representing not Cclkyamuni , but the future Buddha Maitreya. 
Maitreya, according to Buddhist Mythology is not a Buddha yet, and I 
question the correctness of Prof. Griinwedel’s words who calls these 
statues representations of “ Maitreya as Buddha.” To my mind, it 
would be more appropriate to speak of them as “ statues of Maitreya,” 
and from the result which I have arrived at above, it is extremely 
probable that the fact that such statues wear the right shoulder un¬ 
covered by their vestment, is due to their being representations of a 
Bodliisattva, in this particular case the Bodhisattva Maitreya. 1 The 
next point in connexion herewith refers to the Bihar Buddhist statues. 
Among these, I have met with the type of Buddha with his right 
shoulder bare only in connection with a peculiar attitude of the hands 
commonly called “ bhumisparga-mudra .” 2 This holds good almost 
throughout, as far as I know. Now it is my opinion that this particular 
attitude where Buddha touches the earth with the top of the fingers of 
his right hand, while the left lies in his lap, always is intended to depict 
him as sitting under the Bodhi-tree (which indeed is always represented 
on such statues), and calling the earth as a witness during his great 
struggle with Mara. This opinion of mine rests on the fact that 
in some of the Bihar images belonging to this type the demons of 
1 There remains of coarse one donbtfnl point. Some statues of a different type, 
representing figures in royal dress, and formerly called “ statues of princes,” have 
been explained by Prof. Griinwedel as representations of Maitreya. How then is 
this difference in type to be accounted for ? I can see no reasonable explanation. 
My above statement rests on carefnl examination of the Indian Museum collection 
of Gandhara sculptures, among which there are about 200 images of Buddhas or 
BSdhisattvas, coming partly from Swat, partly from Yusufzai (Jamalgarhl, Takht-1- 
Bahi, etc.). I have come across only one exception, i.e., a figure seated cross-legged, 
the right shoulder bare, and the right hand raised in the attitude of teaching. On 
the base of the statue, a small relievo of the Indrasdlaguhd scene is sculptured (see 
my note in Proceedings, A. S. B., 1898, July, p. 186 ff). My statement referring 
to the Bihar sculptures also is based on the Indian Museum collection ; the number 
of Buddhist statues among them may be given approximately as 200. Their date, 
as will be known, is the time of the Pala Kings of Magadha. 
2 A fair specimen of this type may be seen in Plate II of this Journal, Vol. 
LXIII, 1894, Parti. It is a photo-etching of a statue excavated by Dr. G. A. 
Grierson near Itajgir, the ancient Rajagrha. In the description given by Babh 
Qarat Candra Das on the authority of Lama Slierab Gya-tsho (p. 37) this attitude 
is called the dhyanl dsana which seems to be wrong. Also the tree above the head 
of Buddha is wrongly called the Kalpavrksa. Other similar statues may be seen in 
Cunningham, Mahabodhi, Plate XXI7,D, E, F, and Plate XX 71. 
