The Buddha’s Begging Bowl

H A R RY FA L K

Gandhara is different from other Buddhist areas on (Kuwayama 1990: 950). The term used for this building
the South Asian subcontinent: there are no direct vestiges by Faxian is futu, the standard term for the stupa. Since
of the Buddha, no place where he has set his foot, no it is difficult to imagine that the bowl was kept inside a
place where he delivered a speech. When the Buddha was solid stupa, it became customary to translate futu in this
cremated only ashes were left of his body. Some 800 context as “tower”.
years later Chinese pilgrims started to tour Gandhara in According to local, i.e. mahayanist traditions, the
the middle of the first millennium. They were shown Kakyamuni received his begging bowl from 4 Lokapalas
places the Buddha supposedly had visited and they went as he was about to take his first food after the enlighten-
to see monasteries housing famous body parts of the ment. The Lokapalas shaped the vessels from the rock of
Buddha – such as hair, teeth, eyeballs, uÒniÒa bone – or the Vinataka hill above Uruvilva. Each one handed his
items he had used – such as his robe or staff. bowl to the Buddha, he accepted them all, and they then
The Chinese pilgrims never doubted the authenticity merged into one single bowl of quadruple capacity. From
of the Buddha’s visits and items, although to our eyes the this merger, it is said, the new bowl preserved lines near
stories as well as the relics are plain forgeries. In a sensi- its rim. The stories differ in detail, but all insist that the
tive study now 10 years old, Kuwayama found an expla- bowl was made from stone; most sources specify that the
nation for these fakes: monks and devotees needed a stone was of a blue colour.
visible link between faith and daily life. The landscape Some Chinese pilgrims claim to have seen the bowl.
which was decorated with stupas commemorating events Most detailed is Faxian: “The bowl can contain about
in the life of the Buddha made the people feel as if they two dou [four litres], and is of various colours, black pre-
were living in the vicinity of the Kakyamuni, within his dominating, with the four rims clearly marked. Its thick-
range of influence. ness is two fen [about half a centimetre], and it has a
Kuwayama’s main object was to demonstrate the bright and glossy lustre” (948). Other authors speak of
importance of one particular object, the begging-bowl of three dou [six litres] and of blue jade (949).
the Buddha, visited in Gandhara by numerous Chinese There was the belief that the bowl would react to
pilgrims, some of whom reported their experience in a people offering into it: “When poor people throw a few
travel account. flowers into it, it becomes immediately full, while some
There were several stories about how the bowl had very rich people, wishing to make offerings of many flow-
come to Gandhara. According to one version, it had been ers, might not stop till they have thrown in hundreds,
kept in Madhya Deka, and was brought to Gandhara thousands, and even myriads of bushels, and still will not
either by a king of the Little Yuezhi or by king Candra be able to fill it.” (Faxian, Kuwayama 1990: 948). This
KaniÒka (Kuwayama 1990: 961). This begging-bowl was interaction can be compared to the pair of foot prints at
kept in a building of seven storeys, either 30 zhang or 4 Tirat in Swat Kohistan, chisselled into a flat piece of rock,
zhang high, i.e. either 72 or 9.6 m (Kuwayama 1990: visited by Faxian (Chapter 8, Legge 1886: 29) and Xuan-
950). According to Faxian (Chapter 12) the bowl was zang (Beal 1884, I: 123). In fact, the prints are inscribed
shown to the public in a monastery around midday and bodhasa kakamunisa padani in rather old style KharoÒ †hi
again in the evening, and was kept inside the building (Konow 1929: 8f.). Both pilgrims were of the opinion that
overnight; according to the Shuijingzhu, the bowl was the foot prints varied in size according to the religious
entwined with golden threads, and suspended by a chain merit of the visitor. Their size being about twice the length

445
The Buddha’s Begging Bowl ❘ falk ❘

of a human foot,1 was not regarded as something unusual. tuowei, made of blue jade” (Kuwayama 1990: 949).
Instead, the Chinese pilgrims regarded the apparent size Thus, as far as I can see, there is nothing in early trav-
as connected to the perception of the onlooker. ellers’accounts that points specifically to PuruÒapura:
Faxien speaks only of the “country” and of Gandhavati,
Where was the bowl in Gandhara? Xuanzang did not see the bowl, and other sources speak
The exact place where the bowl was kept seems quite of Gandhavati, i.e. PuÒkalavati, i.e. Charsadda.
well attested. All modern translators of Faxien’s and suc-
ceeding travel reports are unanimous about a site inside The size of the bowl
PuruÒapura, i.e. Peshawar. This is a view I would like to All Chinese accounts agree in describing the bowl as
contest. According to Kuwayama, “Faxian… clearly saw about four times the size of an ordinary bowl, clearly in
the Buddha’s bowl in PuruÒapura” (950). But, when agreement with the story about the merger of the four
Faxian reports about his approaching Gandhara he says stone bowls. When we see depictions of the Buddha car-
“The Buddha’s bowl is in this country”. Now “country” rying his bowl it is always of normal dimensions. In stark
(guo), is certainly different from “town”. contrast to these scenes we have a series of depictions of
In addition, at the end of Chapter 12 Faxian relates people venerating the bowl at its place of storage.
how one of his companions died at the monastery of the Kuwayama has given a long list of reliefs showing the
bowl, after having gone with two other monks west to Buddha’s bowl, enumerating 21 cases where the bowl is
visit the places of the Buddha’s shadow and the tooth and seen on the front side of the pedestal of a statue, 13 cases
uÒniÒa relics near modern Jalalabad. Only one of the three where the bowl is in a false gable, 9 cases where the bowl
came home to PuruÒapura, the second one having stayed is in an arch, and 5 others: 48 cases all in all.
with the sick brother. Since it is said that he died in the To me, the most remarkable fact in all these cases is
monastery of the bowl and did not make it to PuruÒa p u r a , that the size of the bowl is shown everywhere to be about
it seems logical to look for the monastery of the bowl twice the diameter of an accompanying adorant. The
somewhere on the road from the western relic sites at bowl is nowhere shown to be four times the size of an
Jalalabad towards Peshawar. ordinary bowl, as the Chinese accounts have it. The bowl
When in Ceylon, Faxian again reports on the bowl is always placed on a throne, fully occupying it. Irrespec-
in connection with an Indian monk who recited a text tive of the adorants standing, sitting or kneeling, of their
about its history. According to this text, “Buddha’s praying to it or their throwing flowers into it, the size is
bowl was at first in Vaikali, and now it is in Jiantuowei always twice the diameter of a man. I insist: there is no
[Gandhavati]”.2 Faxian uses the term Gantuowei for variation in size.
PuÒkalavati, i.e. Charsadda. If Faxian is taken literally the Rosenfield has explained this fact with an art-
bowl should be looked for not in PuruÒapura, but 20 km historical argument. The bowl he regards to be “hierati-
to its north in the region of Charsadda across the Kabul cally enlarged” (1967: 222). Hieratical enlargments are
river.3 well attested in statues of the Buddha and his followers,
200 years after Faxian, informants of Xuanzang who usually appear slightly smaller than he himself.
pointed north when telling him that the place of the bowl Apart from that, this feature is not used at random in
lay in ruins: “11. In the northeast inside of the royal city Gandhar a n plastic art. In addition, we see that the begging
there remains a foundation of the building which in the bowl in the hands of the Buddha has a silhouette exceed-
old days housed the Buddha’s bowl”.4 With regard to the ing a half-circle in most cases, whereas the bowl under
location of the bowl it cannot be over-emphasized that veneration, again in most cases, is less than a half-circle.
Xuanzang did not see the bowl himself. It may even be This creates a problem: all Chinese sources speak
doubted that he went to visit the ruins of the building. only of one bowl, and, if Faxian is to be trusted, it con-
About the same time when Xuanzang toured tained about 4 litres. The bowl depicted in examples of
Gandhara, the Y i w e n l u i j u, an encyclopedia edited art, however, is much bigger and of a different shape.
between 622 and 624, quoted from an earlier travel There may have existed two bowls at the same time, one
account: “The Buddha’s bowl is, in the country of Gan- inside the monastery to be shown at particular times, and

446
 Fig. 1 – Mathura Museum no 662 (Palikhera) and 97 (Mathura).

another one as an icon, accessible to the public through- usual Gandharan leaf-pattern, although its surface is
out the day. Alternatively, when we consider the amount divided into 16 or more adjoining rounded ridges, ending
of flowers brought to the bowl each day, there might now, after the inscription was superimposed, in curved
have been the necessity to dispose of the flowers in style. arches.
It seems conceivable that a huge bowl was originally b and c) Two stone bowls at Mathura
installed simply to receive the many flowers from the According to Agrawala (1939: 40) the Museum at
overflowing small bowl, and that after some while, so far M a t h u ra houses two big stone bowls, numbered 97 and
as the laity were concerned, this secondary receptable 662, “carved all round with beautiful creepers of ako k a,
adopted functions of the true bowl of the Buddha. vine and lotus. These appear to be symbolical represen-
It will not be possible at the moment to solve for good tations of Buddha’s begging bowls placed in monaster-
the riddle of the two sizes. Archaeological evidence of the ies with an obvious two-fold purpose, namely, for wor-
small bowl is completely missing. Big bowls, on the other ship and for receiving gifts from pious devotees. No. 662
hand, seem to have been produced in several places, both is better decorated, and was dedicated to the acceptance
in Gandhara and in Mathura. of the Mahas aœghika monks residing at Palikhera vil-
lage”.
Big bowls The bowl numbered 662 (Fig. 1a) was first men-
a) Kandahar tioned in ASIAR 1915-16 part I: 16 as a “first rate speci-
There was an idea in the 19th century that a large men of Mathura sculpture in the Kushan epoch”. It is
bowl found in Kandahar made from black marble could inscribed / / / ( m a ha) samghiyan am parig[r]a[he] ma[ t ]ap i t® n-
be linked to what the Chinese pilgrims once visited. This [a]m… ... .. nam hita[s](ukhaye) bh[ava]t[u], according to
bowl is of a diameter of 125 cm, and around 75 cm high. Lüders (1961 § 125). From the same site comes a pedestal
It was first mentioned by Bellew, who in 1857 saw it in of a Bodhistattva statue, dated in the year HuviÒka 39, i.e.
“in an obscure little Mahammadan shrine” and who AD 166 (Lüders 1961 § 126). Presently, this bowl is not
regarded it as “carved out of a solid block of dark green on display, but illustrated in ASIAR 1915-16 part I: pl. V,
serpentine”. Using Bellew’s undocumented report, it d = Vogel 1930: pl. XLVIII, b. According to Vogel (1930:
then received a full treatment by Cunningham who also 118) it is 88 cm wide and 57 cm high.
presented it in a line drawing (1883: 10, pl. 3), unfortu- The second bowl (Fig. 1b) was found in the Sadder
nately without giving text or translation of the long Bazar at Mathura in 1910. It measures 95 cm in width
inscription in 6 bands written in Arabic dating to ca. the and 76 cm in height (Vogel 1930: 118).
15th century.5 Fussman (1966: 41 n. 4) pointed out the As a place of the bowl Mathura is not completely
difference in size of the Kandahar bowl and the descrip- unknown to Pali sources. The B u d d h a v ams a’s 28th chap-
tion in the Chinese reports and suspects that the stone ter is called dhatubhajaniyakatha, “story of the distribu-
(“calcaire (?) noir veiné de blanc”) resembles the one tion of the relics”. According to its verse 8ab the bowl
found in the mountains behind Kandahar. was stored in Vajira (vajirayam bhagavato patto dan∂a ca
Until recently, the bowl was stationed in the Kabul civ a r am), a place not definable. One Ceylonese edition of
Museum, in the entrance hall. A good photograph is the main text, however, reads madhurayam instead of
found in Dupree e.a. 1974, fig. 48. It does not show the vajirayam (ed. Jayawickrama 1974: 103).6

447
The Buddha’s Begging Bowl ❘ falk ❘

Fig. 2 – Bowl from Chalagram, Charsadda. Fig. 3 – Inner decoration of the bowl from Chalagram.

d) A new bowl from Charsadda band of KharoÒ†hi letters covers slightly less than half the
To this short list we can now add one more big bowl circumference.
from Gandhara (Fig. 2). It was found in 2000 in the vil- The characters are rather traditionally shaped, with
lage Chalagram, on the outskirts of the old town of no embellishments at the lower end; the sa is open and
Charsadda.7 The antiquity of the site is apparent in its the ya shows the broken line of the younger KharoÒ†hi
name: villages ending in grama are otherwise only found script. The text reads without spaces (Fig. 4):
in the Swat valley. sam 20 20 10 1 kartaasa masasa divasam mi 10 1 1 1 iÒe
This bowl is the only one located in Gandhar a .8 Its kÒunammi samghe caudikami krida§akae puyaka-viharami
dimensions do not quite reach those of the Kandahar acaryana kakaviana parigrahammi vairasa danamukhe Òaveasa
uvajayasa arogadakÒine sarvatvana puyae
piece, but is almost as big as the larger of the Mathura
In the year 51, at the 13th day of month Kartaa (Karttika), at
bowls: it is 93 cm wide, 40 cm high and tapers to an this date, in the (Buddhist) order of the four quarters, at Kri-
inner diameter of 52 cm at the bottom. The sides are dañaka in the Puyaka-monastery, for the acceptance of the
5 cm thick; on the inside the upper rim is decorated (Fig. teachers of the Kakyapiya (sect): this donation of Vaïra, for
the bestowing of health on the monk Uvajaya, in veneration
3) with a striped band. The material is hard green-blue of all living beings.
schist. The outside is fully ornamented by a series of
three rows of lotus leaves topped by a three-fold band. This text follows the traditional donatory form in all
Many depictions, e.g. the panel from Shotorak (Rosen- major respects. It furnishes us with new information
field 1967: fig. 103) shows a similar band on the bowl. about the geography of the Buddhist settlements of
The upper row of lotus leaves consists of 16 big petals, ancient Gandhara. Some phrases and parts of the vocab-
the middle one of 32 and the lowest one of 64. Such ulary need separate comments:
petals are typical for the area and are found on several sam 20.20.10.1: From the number and the area, this
reliquary boxes, including the lid of the so-called KaniÒk a date of a year 51 can only belong to the era founded by
casket9 from Peshawar as well as on the Chandigarh the KuÒana king KaniÒka I, most likely in AD 127/128
bowl. This ornament has so far not been found on arti- (Falk 2001). If relating to the first century of this era, it
cles of a secular nature, so that we can expect that this was carved during the reign of HuviÒka, in c. October AD
bowl served some religious purpose.10 178, as was the famous Wardak reliquary. In the
The piece is very heavy and can be shoved over second century of the KuÒanas, starting in spring 227
smooth ground only with difficulty. It was found broken AD, the same year 51 would correspond to October AD
into about 12 parts, which now are reunited, glued 278, during the reign of KaniÒka III (if he was still reign-
together by thick layers of cement. ing 10 years after the Ara inscription which mentions his
Although the circumstances of the recovery are not name). The palaeography speaks in favour of the first
reported it is certain that this object was part of a Bud- possibility.11
dhist monastery, since the top contains an inscription kartaasa: This reading presupposes that in rta the
recording the date and purpose of the donation. The r-bend leads to a downward movement, unlike in

448
Fig. 4 – Text on the bowl from Chalagram (read from right to left).

449
The Buddha’s Begging Bowl ❘ falk ❘

acaryana, where the loop ends in the usual line pointing to Skt. pujaka, a “worshiper”. Today, the monastery
right. Also the loop is not fully closed on the left side. The walls as well as the remnants of the stupa are still visible.
only alternative is to expect a ligature t-†ha, which would Already in 1994, Ali (1994: 31) declared the site to have
be without linguistic basis and without parallel in been robbed.
KharoÒ†hi writing. Instead of kartiasa the scribe clearly k aka v i a: The Ka ky a piyas are quite well-known to have
wrote kartaasa, either because he forgot to add the held monasteries throughout Gandhara and the adjoining
i-matra, or because of some vowel assimilation, also mountains. There was a monastery at TakÒakila, being
found in munaana instead of muniana in a late stone ded- called (in KharoÒ †hi orthography) keriana vihara, i.e. “the
ication from Malakanda (Falk 2003: 80). monastery of those living in Kira” (Falk 2000/01). Our
caudikami: Dropping of intervocalic t is not unusual, stone bowl provides the first evidence for this sect’s
but seems to be an indicator for a relatively late stage of dominion in PuÒkalavati.
the language. vaïra: A new personal name, whose etymology is not
kridañaka: This is the locality housing the monastery, self-evident. It could be short for vajira from vajra, as the
at the present-day Chalagram. The term lends itself to first part of a compound name. Intervocalic ja is also
two explanations. The more simple would be to connect dropped in dhamaraie from dharmarajike (Konow 1929:
it with Skt. k®tajña, “knowing what has been done”, i.e. 90); cf. vairakakhi… for vajrakakha at Mathura (Lüders
“thankful”. An unattested *k®t a j ñ a k a would be “someone 1961: 53).
thankful”, either a monk or a saœgha. Usually, syllabic ® Òavea: for usual Òavaka, Skt. kravaka, also found as
changes to a or i in Gandhari, but a similar shift to ri is Òavaa, here with an additional vowel-dissimilation, again
also found in dri∂ha, for Skt d®∂ha, a personal name on pointing to the advanced stage of the language. The
the copper sieve from Taxila (Falk 2000/01: 31). change from -aka to -ea can also be found in naveamio
The second possibility refers to Skt. k®taj ña, “an order from navakarmika (Salomon 1997: 188), or in dham-
promulgated” by the king, possibly to the effect of pro- auteana for dharmaguptakanam (Sadakata 1996b: 312,
viding the monastery with some necessities. For seman- ins. b; 1996c: 22).
tic reasons I prefer the first possibility. uvajaya: A term with many possible restaurations. Of
puyaka-vihara: The name of the monastery is related the letter ja only the vertical stroke is clear, whereas the

Fig. 5 – Buddha with begging-bowl filled with flowers, from Butkara I.

450
branch slanting upwards is only left in traces. It is tempt- discovery we can be sure that this monastery was lodged
ing to expect a j h a, but the traces do not admit such an in the surroundings of PuÒk a lav a ti. From the object, from
emendation. Also the ya is rather sketchy in its left lower the name of the monastery, from the many depictions of
part, so that a simple a might also be thought of. For an people venerating a big bowl and from the location close
explanation we can chose between a personal name like to where the Chinese monks had seen the begging bowl
Upajaya, or the designation u p a d h yay a, often found in it seems possible that the Chalagram bowl was intimately
Buddhist donation records, denoting a certain class of connected with the legendary small begging bowl of the
teachers. Buddha, in whatever way. Vogel (1930: 54) dealt with the
sarvatvana: Here the scribe forgot one sa for the usual antiquity of the cult of the alms’ bowl in Mathura: “À
sarvasatvana. défaut de la relique actuelle, il était aisé de se procurer des
It seems as if the donation was made to support the imitations qui pouvaient aussi bien servir au but éminem-
recovery process of the sick u p a j a y a, as in so many other ment pratique de recevoir les offrandes des riches et des
donation records where one person mentioned is directly pauvres”. The idea had only to come up some place.
linked to a r o g a, whereas some others simply receive From style and legend, Gandhara seems to have been
puja. The stone object certainly was not available for a first, followed by Mathura. According to Duroiselle
trifling sum. This fact seems to speak in favour of a sick (Vogel 1930: 54), such big bowls today are customarily
upad h yay a, i.e. a monk of some superior grade. placed near the stupas for visitors to deposit all sorts of
This record tells us about the Kakyapiya sect, in pos- food. Something similar may have been the case in
session of a plot which was received by “thankful” peo- G a n d hara as well, but before this habit could spread to all
ple, living in a monastery made for the worshiper, puj a k a. of the monasteries in the region, Buddhism in Gandhara
From the object itself and from the circumstances of its as well as at Mathura had fallen into decline.

NOTES north-west of Bala Hissar. In 2001, the bowl was Bodhisattva Akv a g h oÒa, “said to have been trans-
on the art market at Peshawar. lated by Kumar a jiva who had been in Gandhara
1 8
According to Ashraf Khan 1993: 26 the stone A bowl-like object is on display at the Chandi- between 348 and 361” (Kuwayama 1990: 960),
measures 90 µ 70 µ 23 cm, the padukas them- garh Museum, Acc. No. 2074, decorated just connects the raid into North-India with an un-
selves are 63 cm large and 27 cm wide. like the true bowl, with a diameter of 47 cm. But named king of the Little Yuezhi. This would
2
Faxian chap. 14, Kuwayama 1990: 960. it is nothing but the dome of a miniature stupa exclude any KuÒana from Kujula to Vasudeva II.
3 For a full description of the area see I. Ali 1994. (Paul 1986). The Fufazangyinyuanzhuan was edited “in north-
4 Kuwayama 1990: 951; Beal 1884, I: 98; Watters 9 Konow 1929: 136 pl. XXV. ern Wei in the early 6th century but in part sup-
10
1904: 202. On a well-known relief from Jamal g a r hi plemented later” (Kuwayama 1990: 960). Here,
5 Because of this inscription it excaped destruc- depicting the simultaneous birth of Candaka and the king simply belongs to the “Yuezhi”, he is
tion inside the Kabul Museum organised by K an ∂haka, there are two smaller bowls, one used called Candra KaniÒka, and he marches to
the erstwhile Ministry of Vice and Virtue of the for washing the new-born child, the other as a Pa †aliputra, being ferocious and brave.
Taliban. feeding tray for the mare. Both are decidedly
6 This stanza is not treated in the commentary smaller than the one dealt with here, and both Acknowledgements: Various relevant literature
called madhuratthavilasini. have higher side walls; cf. Marshall 1960: 80, fig. was pointed out by Martina Stoye and Gérard
7 It is located 3 km from Umarzai and can be 104. Fussman; Pia Brancaccio brought the bowls
approached via the Charsadda-Tangi road or via 11 The diverse myths about the winning of the orig- from Mathura and Chandigarh to my knowl-
the Tarnab-Cheena road. On the map no. 1 in inal bowl are of little historical value. The Chinese edge and provided the figures; David Brown
Ali 1994 it is marked as no. 113, about 9 km text Mamingpusazhuan, i.e. the biography of the supervised the English.

451
The Buddha’s Begging Bowl ❘ falk ❘

REFERENCES Falk, H. (2003), Five KharoÒ†hi Records from Rosenfield, J.M. (1967) The dynastic arts of the
G a n d hara. Silk Road Art and Archaelogy, Kushans. Berkeley/Los Angeles.
Ali, I. (1994) Settlement history of Charsadda 9.2003, pp. 71-86. Salomon, R. (1997) Another Reliquary Inscrip-
District, Peshawar, University of Peshawar Fussman, G. (1966), Notes sur la topographie tion of the Apraca Princess Uttara. Bulletin of
= Ancient Pakistan 9. de l’ancienne Kandahar. Arts asiatiques 13, the Asia Institute 11, 1997, pp. 183-191.
Agrawala, V.S. (1939) Handbook of the sculptures pp. 33-57. Vogel, J.-Ph. (1930) La sculpture de Mathurâ
in the Curzon Museum of Archaeology Muttra. Jayawickrama, N.A. (1974) (New edition of) (Ars Asiatica 15), Paris/Bruxelles.
Allahabad. Buddhavas a and Cariyap i†a k a. London/ Watters, V.A. (1904) On Yuan Chwang’s travels
Ashraf Khan, M. (1993) Gandhara Sculpures in Boston. in India (A.D. 629-645), Ed. after his death by
the Swat Museum. Saidu Sharif. Konow, St. (1929) Kharosh†hi Inscriptions. – T.W. Rhys Davids and S.W. Bushell. London.
Beal, S. (1884) Si-Yu-Ki, Buddhist records of the With the exception of those of Akoka. Calcutta.
Western world, Translated from the Chinese of Kuwayama, Sh. (1990) The Buddha’s Bowl in
Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629) (2 vols.). London. Gandhara and Relevant Problems. M. Taddei
Cunningham, A. (1883) Archaeological Survey (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1987 (SOR
of India, vol. 16: Report of Tours in North and 66,2). Rome, pp. 945-978.
South Bihar in 1880-81. Calcutta. Legge, J. (1886) A record of Buddhist kingdoms,
Dupree, N. Hatch & L. Dupree, A.A. Motamedi being an account by the Chinese monk Fâ-Hien of
(1974) The National Museum of Afghanistan. his travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399-414).
An Illustrated Guide. Kabul. Oxford.
Facenna, D. (1981) Butkara I (Swat, Pakistan) Lüders, H. (1961), Mathura inscriptions, Unpub-
1956-1962, Part 5.1, Plates, Rome IsMEO. lished papers edited by Klaus Janert. Göttingen.
Falk, H. (2001) The yuga of Spujjiddhvaja’s Marshall, J. (1960) The Buddhist Art of Gand-
yuga and the era of the KuÒanas. Silk Road Art hara, The story of the early school, its birth,
and Archaeology 7.2001, pp. 121-136. growth and decline. Cambridge.
Falk, H. (2000/01) A copper sieve from Taxila. Paul, S. (1986) Gandhara Sculptures in the
Indo-Asiatische Zeitschrift 4/5.2001, pp. 28-34 Chandigarh Museum. Chandigarh.

452
Sorry, no offprints provided

The following paragraph with footnote was not added to the text of the proofs, although the accompanying
fig. 5 and the additions for the References were accepted. Please add on page 447a after the first paragraph
(...of the true bowl of the Buddha.):

In any case, putting flowers into begging bowls was a custom well-documented in this area.
Schopen has recently pointed to the Tibetan version of the Mūlasarvāstivādin Uttaragrantha, Derge Pa
99a.7-100a.6, where a courtisan puts the begging bowl of a high monk on an altar, rubs it with perfume and
fills it with flowers. Customers, to their great surprise, are asked to venerate it beforehand. At Butkara I in
Swat, the Buddha himself is found holding his begging bowl filled with flowers (fig. 5).[fn] That means, in
plastic art we have the Buddha on the one hand with a normal sized bowl filled with flowers, and many lay
adorants on the other venerating a huge bowl filled with flowers.

------------------------------
[fn] Cf. Faccenna 1981, pl. 82b, where, however, the content of the bowl is not visible.

Adpf association pour la diffusion de la pensée française

Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations

Ministère des Affaires étrangères

Direction générale de la Coopération internationale
et du Développement
Sous-direction des Sciences sociales et de l'Archéologie

6, rue Ferrus 75683 Paris cedex 14

ISBN : 2-86538-301-6
© adpf - Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Paris, 2005