The Indian Origin of the Buddha Image

Abstract

IN PREPARING A WORK on the history of Indian art,' to be published probably at the end of the current year, I have found it necessary to abandon the commonly accepted theory of the Greek origin of the Buddha image. The argument will be set forth in greater detail in that work. In the meantime. I have thought that it would be interesting to gather together a number of quotations, mostly, though not invariably, from well known scholars already committed to the theory of Greek origin. These extracts are admittedly selected ad hoc, and do not always fairly represent the author's real views; they are rather, at least in some cases, to be regarded as incidental admissions. My object in gathering them together here is to show that there actually exists a great deal of evidence in favour of an Indian origin of the Buddha image, and that a theory of an Indian origin must not be lightly regarded as a rank heresy proceeding par engouement d'estheticien ou rancune de nationaliste, as M. Foucher has rather awkwardly suggested, but must be seriously considered in the light of all the evidence now available. The view to which I now adhere is that the Buddha image is of Indian origin; that is, that the Gandhdra and MathurA types were created locally about the same time, in response to a necessity created by the internal development of the Buddhism common to both areas 2; that in each area the sculptors, following similar literary and oral traditions in respect of iconography, created a type plastically in accordance with stylistic traditions of their own,3 and that the Mathurd type is the main source of the