ART. XI.-Further Notes on Early Buddhist Symbolism. By R. SEWELL, Esq., Madras Civil Service, M.R.A.S. In an article on Early Buddhist Symbolism, in Vol. XVIII. Part 3, of the Royal Asiatic Society's Journal (1886), I expressed my belief that the three objects of worship and ornament so commonly seen on Buddhist sculptures in India, the srastika, the chakra, and the trisula, were not indigenous Indian emblems, but symbols of Western Asian originwhether Semitic or Aryan matters little-adopted of old by the Hindus, and accepted, originally by Buddhists, not as being in themselves Buddhist symbols, but as being symbols of religious signification in general use among the people. I stated my conviction that they were in their inception sunsymbols, the svastika representing probably sun-motion; the chakra a fiery circle or orb emblematic of sun-power, the sun, for instance, in an Asiatic noon-day, as well as the giver of light, the vivifier; and the doubtful triśūla (and this was the point of my story) in all probability derived from the Egyptian scarab. The paper was enriched with several illustrations, showing the transition of the scarab into various forms in Assyria, Phoenicia, Persia, and, thence, in Buddhist India. To prove that this novel theory was not lacking in common sense, I gave a concise resumé of the historical aspects of the case, pointing out that Northern India had been, for perhaps a thousand years prior to the teaching of the Buddha, and for quite a thousand years prior to the construction of such Buddhist buildings as now remain to us, in much closer communication with the countries of Western Asia than has been commonly supposed. I am not alone in my belief that several Indian forms have been derived from forms in religious use further west. Mr. Fergusson, for instance, thought that the well-known Vaishnava garuḍa was nothing more than the hawk-headed divinity of the Assyrians. So far no apology is needed. When, however, my scarab theory for the origin of the trisula is considered, the standpoint is different; for there I am alone, and on ground that is exceedingly slippery. It is because subsequent discussion appears to me to strengthen rather than to weaken the force of my arguments, that I venture again into the arena. At present I desire to put on record a few remarks on Mr. F. Pincott's paper," The Tri-Ratna," in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Vol. XIX. Part 2, p. 238, and, with their kind permission, to publish some criticisms by Dr. E. W. West of Munich, and Prof. J. Darmesteter of Paris. It is perfectly true, as noted by Mr. Pincott, that Buddha set his face against metaphysical speculation, that his object was to draw his countrymen away from idle dreaming and to teach them to concentrate their efforts on the practical duties of life, and also that he discouraged the use of all images and representations; but we are concerned, not with Buddha himself, but with Buddha's followers some centuries after his death, when they had begun to sculpture the buildings, the ruins of which now exist. And all Buddha's teaching did not cause them to refrain from a lavish use of symbols. The question at issue is, what was the origin of those symbols? They may have been deliberately invented by the Buddhists from simple ideas, or they may, equally I think, have been adopted from symbols then in common use among the people. Mr. Pincott seems to think that I have accused Buddha himself of dabbling in solar myths, but I must protest against such an interpretation of my arguments. Buddha himself had nothing to do with the symbols sculptured by his devotees. Mr. Pincott states that the triśūla is merely the threepronged object on the top of the illustrations in my paper, and that that term is never applied to the circular object found underneath it, and he continues: "The two objects 1 Op. cit. p. 238. 2 Id. p. 239. are totally distinct, and are often represented separately in different places and for different purposes. This could never be the case if they formed part of one object; for there is no sense in depicting the front claws of a scarab on one building, and his headless trunk on another." He also adds that sometimes the circle is seen over the triśūla. I am afraid that I must have expressed myself very badly. I never had it in contemplation to assert that the term trisula was ever applied to the circle minus the head. My belief was, and is, that the original trisula was the whole object depicted on the Amaravati sculptures, but that constantly that object came to be mutilated, so that often the symbol was represented merely as the three-pronged top plus the circle, with or without the side-members, and in later times the three-pronged top alone. In modern India, of course, the trisula is understood to be simply the trident portion. Personally I have never seen the lower portion of the emblem-circle, wings, and (may I say?) hind-legswithout the trident top, nor have I ever seen the circle depicted above the trident. Mr. Pincott believes that the trident standing alone represents the old Indian letter J, the first letter of the celebrated formula Ye Dharma, while the whole symbol represented in my illustrations represents this letter, the chakra (Buddha), and a supporting stem or stand, symbolizing the Sangha. This may be so, but it is dangerous to argue from mere similarity, and it would be easy to show that there are other prominent portions of the symbol-for instance, the lower members-unaccounted for by this theory. At any rate I do not think that the scarab theory is yet quite "annihilated," as will be seen below. Meanwhile, I am personally indebted to Mr. Pincott, not only for his article, but for his courteousness in handling my, to him probably absurd, theory. On March 7th, 1887, Dr. E. W. West wrote to me the following letter from Munich: "Will you allow me to suggest that Fig. 14 on p. 399 of J.R.A.S. N.S. Vol. XVIII. (in your article on Early Buddhist Symbolism, see Plate, Fig. 1) may be merely a rude skeleton outline of a sitting figure of Buddha, with the arms upraised in an unusual attitude. At any rate it must be symbolical of Buddha, because the Pahlavi legend can hardly be intended for anything else than Búḍ déró, 'the demon Bûḍ,' a term applied to Buddha by the Zoroastrians, as seems evident from Bundahish xxviii. 34 (Sacred Books of the East, vol. v. p. 111), which can be otherwise translated thus: The demon Bûḍ is he whom they worship among the Hindûs, and his spirit-breath is lodging in idols such as Bûḍâsp worships." I pause to note references. The translation of the Bundahis referred to is Dr. West's own. There the passage is rendered: "34. The demon Bût is he whom they worship amongst the Hindûs, and his growth is lodged in idols, as one worships the horse as an idol." A footnote says: "Av. Búiti of Vend. xix. 4. 6. 140, who must be identified with Pers. but an idol,' Sans. bhúta 'a goblin,' and not with Buddha." The letter continues: "I was doubtful about this identification of Bûḍ with Buddha, because there is a demon Bûiti (Pahl. Búḍ) mentioned in the Avesta (Vendidád, xix. 1, 2, 43) [Spiegel 4, 6, 140] as a special enemy of Zarathushtra, but without any other details. Whether the demon Bûidhi of Vend. xi. 9 [Spiegel 28] is the same is quite uncertain, as no information about him is given. The passages mentioning these demons may very possibly be interpolations made in early Sassanian times, when Buddhism had become a rival of Zoroastrianism in the east of Irân; but this is only a guess. However, Prof. J. Darmesteter was clearly of opinion that the demon Buḍ of Bund. xxviii. 34 was intended for Buddha, and he pointed out that Bûḍâsp is mentioned as the creator of Sabeism by Hamzah. Supposing that the legend correctly repre sents the original, the most obvious reading is Búḍino, which might be mistaken as an adjective of or pertaining to Buddha,' similar to, j, k, 'wooden, golden, silvery;' but I am not aware that the adjective suffix -în can be appended to a name; at any rate, in Pahlavi the proper suffix for forming an adjective from a proper name is -án, as in pusht- Vishtáspán, the ridge of Vishtâsp' (a mountain name). If therefore the word |