A Note: Concerning Vajradbarma-Lokesvara
By Marie-Thérèse de Mallmann
Summary
This brief communication comments on a recent article by Debala Mitra which identified certain Bodhisattva images from Sanchi and the Indian Museum in Calcutta as representations of Vajradharma-Lokeśvara, a form of Avalokiteśvara combining the attributes of Vajradharma and Lokeśvara. The author of the note, Marie‑Thérèse de Mallmann, explains that she had already proposed this identification in her earlier monograph Introduction à l’étude d’Avalokiteśvara published in 1948, where she discussed stele no. 3784 of the Indian Museum and compared it with similar images from Sanchi. She acknowledges that the new paper by Mitra, though unaware of her work, arrives at the same conclusion through independent analysis. Mallmann describes the characteristics of the images: the Bodhisattva stands in a relaxed posture holding a lotus and a thunderbolt (vajra) with additional attributes signifying compassion and power; the figure is attended by smaller figures and inscribed with Buddhist mantras. She emphasises that such composite forms illustrate the doctrinal syncretism of late Mahāyāna Buddhism, where Avalokiteśvara absorbed features of other deities. The note stresses the importance of acknowledging prior scholarship to avoid duplicating discoveries. Mallmann remarks on the difficulty of academic communication between Eastern and Western scholars, especially when research is published in different languages and forums, and encourages greater exchange of information. She points out that her earlier identification was based on a careful reading of the Sādhanāmālā, a tantric Buddhist manual, and that Mitra’s article, by reaching the same conclusion via epigraphic analysis, corroborates her interpretation. The note ends by expressing satisfaction that independent research confirms her hypothesis and by hoping that cross‑cultural dialogue will improve in future studies of Buddhist art.
Conclusion
Mallmann’s brief note serves as a reminder of the importance of scholarly communication and citation. By drawing attention to her prior identification of Vajradharma-Lokeśvara images, she underscores the value of consulting earlier research and acknowledges that Mitra’s work independently confirms her conclusions. The note also highlights how composite Bodhisattva forms reflect doctrinal syncretism in Mahāyāna Buddhism. Enhanced dialogue between scholars across linguistic and geographical divides can prevent unnecessary duplication and enrich the study of Buddhist iconography.