Mr. Foucher starts from the principle that he doesn’t like to contradict the explanation as if these _Buddha_ images were to represent _Dhyâni-Buddhas_, but he means that they should be examined more closely, and completed, and that the different groups ought to be judged again after severe study. As for the present he discerns: 1, the _bhunisparsya mudrâ_ in the 92 niches on the 4 first walls to _the East_; 2, to the _South_ the _vara-mudrâ_; 3, to the _West_ the _dhyâni-mudrâ_; 4, to the _North_ the _abhaya-mudrâ_, and 5, in the 64 niches on the fifth and highest wall the _vitarka-mudrâ_ (the gesture of _discussion_) and higher, among the 72 cupolae of the 3 circular terraces: 6, the _dharma-tyakra-mudrâ_ (mark of distinction), and finally the _only_ sculpture from the wholly closed _dagob_, hewed in the _bhumi-sparsya-mudrâ_. So there is a slight difference between Foucher’s idea about the north-indian _Mahâyânists_ and my defended explanation of the _Siam Hînayânists_. “_This is Buddha preaching the tyakra_” said king Tsyula Longkorn to me, “_and this means the tyakra_”, joining the tops of the thumb and the index of his right hand so as to form something like a circle. This seemed convincing to me, and I found this idea confirmed not only on all and still undamaged statues on the highest wall, but also, and especially, on a great many _relievoes_ of the second gallery which represent the _Buddha_ in a preaching posture. It is true that the exactness of this view of mine had been indirectly _denied_ by my great official antagonist, the late Dr. Brandes, but never did he dispute or refute this scientifically. Mr. Groeneveldt, formerly the most competent authority on our Hindu sculptures in the Dutch Indies, thought the unfinished image of the middle-dagob to be a representation of the _Adi-Buddha_, and this would certainly have expounded this statue in it separately placing, if this _im_material _primeval_ Buddha might have been ever represented in a material image. And there are more objections than only this _impersonality_ of the divine primeval being materially revealing himself in the different _Buddhas_, and consequently _not_ hewed at _Nepâl_ and _Tibet_ but only represented by a symbol, a circle or two eyes[80]. Would the mahâyânistic architects of the Båråbudur have acted in quite a different sense? _I_ don’t see any _Dhyâni_-Buddha in this Buddha, but only the _perfect_ preacher _having taken flesh_ as the Buddha, the Master, who, though he did die, continues to live as long as _this his_ world will exist. Each posture of the hands has its own meaning, and there are much more than five _mudrâs_ even in the hînayânistic countries like _Siam_ where one doesn’t know any Dhyâni-Buddha.