19. The newly-married couple is now enjoying their happiness in the
woman’s quarter. In honour of them, and to the accompaniment of
music, a court-dancer is showing her art of dancing. This fair
dancer is one of the best proofs of the sculptor’s art.
20. Returned at _Hastinâpura_ the newly-married distribute presents
among their people.
In this same series follow 6 other sculptures referring to the
Maitrakanyaka-_jâtaka_; a note-worthy _karma_-legend.
We shall find them after having turned the _fifth_ corner of the
_northern_ staircase, and on our having reached the _east_ side of the
ruin where we are going to view the 2nd, 3d and 4th sculpture (W. L.,
214, 216 and 218), and 1 after the _sixth_ corner (W. L., 220), and 1
and 2 after the _seventh_ corner (W. L., 222 and 224) all of which Mr.
Winter photographed for me.
On the _first_ of these imageries we first see a woman handling a
balance, and probably serving the customers of the young merchant
Maitrakanyaka. This woman is likely to be his mother, and if he himself
has been hewn near her, he can’t possibly be the shabbily dressed and
bearded man who stands next to her. This man rather reminds of a brahmin
or a mendicant friar instead of a rich merchant. The man by her other
side is not visible on the photograph.
Clearer however, is the following group in which professor Speyer made
us known Maitrakanyaka’s mother throwing herself at her son’s feet, and
beseeching him to give up his plan to undertake a sea-voyage.
The widow’s tress made the professor suppose that the beautiful
moustache (with which Wilsen adorned this little sculpture in Leemans’
work) should be a mistake of the draughtsman. And he observed this
rightly, and so did I after heaving read Speyer’s essay,[55] because I
have been able to ascertain _in loco_ that even the woman’s breasts,
Wilsen didn’t see or engrave at least, are clearly to be seen and
palpable. To be very short the legend runs as follows:
Maitrakanyaka was still a child when his father was shipwrecked on a
voyage. According to time-honoured usage he was afterwards inclined to
choose his father’s profession. In the beginning his mother told him
that he had kept a shop, and afterwards had dealt in perfumes and in
gold.
Maitrakanyaka did likewise, and gave his mother the first 4, 8, 16 and
32 _kârshâpanas_ he gained, that they might be divided among the
brahmins and indigent. These were four _good_ deeds.
But when he was told that his father had gone abroad on business, and as
he soon saw that his mother could not deny this he resolved to tread in
his father’s foot-steps in spite of his mother’s resistance who feared
to lose her only child in the very same way like she formerly lost his
father. Bathing in tears she fell on her knees at last, and tried to
detain him at the last moment, but he gave her a kick and went on board.
This was one _evil_ deed, and according to the doctrine of the _karma_,
the eternal law of cause and consequence, he should be _punished_ for
this deed of his as sure as he would be rewarded for his _good_ deeds.
On the _second_ sculpture we see him shipwreck, and after having reached
the shore he finds there _four_ celestial young women who reward him for
his first _good_ deed by letting him, for many years, dream a dream of
perfect happiness till his _karma_ drives him away from there,
successively showing him _eight_, afterwards _sixteen_, and at last
_two-and-thirty_ more and more beautiful nymphs in return of the as many
_kârshâpanas_ he formerly gave away to the indigent. Finally he happens
to enter a castle which gate closes itself behind him, and there he sees
a martyr bearing a red-hot wheel turning for ever on his head, that is,
the inexorable punishment to all who insulted their father or mother.
This wheel the unhappy one will always bear till another, guilty of the
same deed, will release him.
On the _third_, _fourth_, and _fifth_ sculpture have been hewn the
encounters with the 8, 16 and 32 nymphs, though, for want of room, we
can’t see 5 of the 16 and 19 of the 32 nymphs. And on the _sixth_ and
last sculpture we first see Maitrakanyaka suffer under the torture of
the red-hot wheel, but at a short distance from this we see him
_released_ by the expression of his self-denying wish, that another,
guilty of such a deed, may _never_ come to free him.
I think the last group of this very same imagery should refer to the
conclusion of this _karma_-legend: the Bodhisattva’s dying and his
transition into the _nirvâna_.[56].
Foucher means that the four relievoes which precede the shipwreck, refer
to the same _jâtaka_, and that Maitrakanyaka may have been already
represented with his mother on the first sculpture where the son offered
his mother a purse filled with the kârshâpanas he first gained. On the
following panel, divided into two by a style of building, Foucher sees,
to the right, the son in his last business which may appear from the
goldsmith’s balance whereas the larger purse should refer to the very
same one in which he gathered the 32 kârshâpanas.
On the other, left part, Foucher thinks he also sees the mother at her
son’s feet. So does Speyer, and so do I.
As with regard to the following relievoes I refer to that which I
already said formerly.
As for the _seventh relievo_ I beg to point to my explanation, and
interpretation in my “_Oudheidkundige aanteekeningen_” IV^th (page 25
and 26). According to Foucher the sculptor should not have dared to
represent Maitrakanyaka as a repentant sinner, because of his being the
_Bodhisattva_ himself. Anyhow, the redemption of this punishment by a
deed of the highest self-denial appeared so very significant to me that
it should not have been unnoticed, neither in metaphor nor in writing,
but this would have been impossible if this punishment had not preceded
the redemption itself.
And moreover, granting the one little sculpture to represent the older
penitent with the flaming nimble on his head, it surely should have
preceded Maitrakanyaka’s sculpture, and by no means come after this
whilst M. first arrives in the town of darkness, and afterwards finds
there the martyr from whom he takes possession of the nimble. And last
of all, the separating trees should not have had any sense at all if
they should not refer to two following events relating to the very same
person.
I think it my duty to point to the following sculptures of the upper
series of the front-wall which represent no jâtakas but refer to the
_Buddha_ of after life.
After the _eastern_ staircase and the _second_ corner, 15 (W. L., 28).
Buddha in a _preaching_ posture forming the _tyakra_ with the thumb and
index of his right arm such as all Buddhas do, we see hewn in the niches
of the highest, fifth, wall[57].
Lotus-throne and _prabha_, style of hair-dress and costume have been
hewn in the same manner as those of the Buddhas of all niches. All round
about him we see auditors rendering homage to him.
_Western_ staircase, _fifth_ corner, 2 (W. L., 235) shows a similar
sculpture, but above the Buddha two angels are floating in the air, and
near him we see stand burning incense-offerings.
After the _seventh_ corner, 4 and 8 (W. L., 252 and 256) we see similar
representations, with this difference however, that on the last
sculpture the Lord has been hewn in the posture of the fifth
_Dhyâni-Buddha_ (like all Buddhas on the 4 lower walls on the north
side), and that his curls of hair have not been finished.
Still other relievoes of this very same lower series have been explained
by Mr. Foucher.
At the _south-west_ corner, west of the southern staircase, has been
hewn king Mândhâtar’s life, but not any sculpture before the eighth can
be expounded from the _Divyâvadâna_ text. The seven preceding sculptures
are likely to refer to the same history the sculptor brought to light
something more than the text’s writer did, who starts from the hero’s
birth, and describes his acts of government after having given a short
account of his youth.
Foucher’s meaning was quite unexpectedly confirmed by another writing,
the so-called _Bodhisattvavadânakalpalata_ which runs as follows:
“One day (king) Uposyada went on horseback in order to visit a hermit’s
colony which had asked for his assistance to be defended from demons.
There were princely risyis who kept a stone bottle ready. This was meant
for a sacrifice which was to have the power to procreate children. The
king, tired as he was of the long ride, and before he could be prevented
from doing so, empties the bottle. Returned at home he discovers an
unpainful swelling on his head, and when the tumour had ripened at
length out came a boy whose education was disputed by the 60.000 women
of the _harem_.”
On this ground of birth the child was _called_ Mûrdhyaya, and Mândhâtar
or Mûrdhatar when both names are joined together.
It was the Kasymir poet Ks_yemendra who gave Foucher this missing link
to explain the sculptures.
On the two first relievoes we see the distribution of presents done in
the name of the king that he might get a child.
On the third sculpture the king is departing.
On the fourth we see Upasyada dismounting, and the sacrificial vase he
is going to drink from.