I’m not familiar with that one, could you tell the details?
I feel that it’s quite clear that the Buddha was not significantly different in appearance than his monks. From an essay I wrote:
The early discourses present the Buddha, even after his enlightenment, as a human being not unlike many of his disciples. Physically he looked much like the monks who ordained under him. Like them, he shaved off his hair when he left his family 31 , and remained shaven-headed as we can tell since he is referred to as having a shaven head 32 in various parts of the canon through his career. 33 His ordinary appearance is nicely illustrated by the following story:
There was a renunciate named Pukkusāti who stayed the night in a potter’s shed. Though a follower of the Buddha’s teachings, he had never met the Buddha. The Buddha happened to stop by at the same house asking for a place to stay the night, and so they shared the shed and meditated together through the night. Realising he did not recognise him, the Buddha asked, "Have you ever seen that Blessed One before? On seeing him, would you recognize him?” Pukkusāti replied, “No, my friend, I have never seen the Blessed One before, nor on seeing him would I recognize him.” 34
Similarly when King Ajātasattu first visited the Buddha, he could not distinguish him from the gathering of monks in Jivaka’s mango grove, and had to have him pointed out. 35
NOTES:
- 31 Maha-Saccaka Sutta at MN i 237
- 32 By the term ‘muṇḍaka’
- 33 E.g. by various brahmin, in Vasala Sutta at Sn 21; Ambaṭṭha Sutta at DN i 90; Sundarika Sutta at SN i 167
- 34 Dhātuvibhaṅga at MN iii 237; parallels in Tibetan and Chinese at T 511 and MĀ 31
- 35 Samaññaphala Sutta at DN i 47
And the two sets of marks that he’s meant to have would make him look entirely peculiar. That’s why I cannot imagine the Buddha claiming that he looked so peculiar as these fanciful lists would claim.