In McGovern’s article, he mentions that he was unable to consult Zysk’s work, The Indian System of Human Marks (2016). Out of curiosity, I looked into this work, and one interesting result came up for the thirty-two marks in Google Books. But of course the view was very limited (snippet view). So, I did the reasonable thing, and got my hands on the hardcover two-volume set.
The early Indian physiognomy systems presented by Zysk are interesting in that they show so many different lists of marks for men and women. The marks are often made with obscure references to lines on the body, or analogies to animals in ways that to us would seem quite unflattering whether they are meant to be positive or negative. In light of these other ancient systems, the marks listed for the Buddha don’t even seem very strange or unusual.
Zysk also connects the earlier traditions and texts to modern traditions. He has apparently done quite a bit of fieldwork, presenting his experiences with fortune tellers and physiognomy in modern India. He’s clearly passionate and curious about the subject, and all its variations. That comes through despite the more academic presentation.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, the origins of these systems can be traced back to Mesopotamia. From there, they spread to India (specifically the west and northwest). And eventually then to Greece and Rome, from where there was some later influence as well. So what we are dealing with is a large body of knowledge, with many variations, traveling across cultures.
In these two volumes, there is one chapter primarily that deals with the 32 marks. Or maybe I should say that the chapter is broadly based on a type of numerology of marks for men, numbering 31-33 depending on the tradition. The method of dividing and counting the different parts of the body also apparently served as a mnemonic device for memorizing the different parts of the body (149).
As with the EBT’s, non-Buddhist Indian texts may refer to the mahāpuruṣalakṣaṇāni (156). So they are the “marks of a great man”, but with none of the Buddhist implications of being a buddha or a cakravartin king. The number of marks given in Sanskrit literature is often referenced as 32; however, in extant Indian physiognomy texts, the number of marks may sometimes instead be 33 (156, 160).
Zysk is generally skeptical of the claim that the Buddhist system of 32 marks presented in the EBT’s was actually connected to the Brahmins specifically. He instead thinks it represented a more general body of knowledge that was spread from western or northwestern India (164):
In all the stories, knowledge of the collection of the thirty-two marks was part of a group of “mantras,” on which there is no further elaboration. It is unlikely that the reference here is to the Vedas, which elsewhere in the Pāli Canon are specified by manta. It is very probable that they include the different divinatory arts mentioned above [i.e. those inappropriate for ascetics and Brahmins]. Being called “mantras,” the thirty-two marks were meant to be repeated and hence memorised. In one version, they are said to have been acquired in the Deccan, which probably corresponds to the general region west of the Ganges, where such traditions were known and taught. This general location corresponds to the movement of the system of knowledge from (north)west to east.
He further connects it to systems of physiognomy that were applied specifically to royalty. This is following the theories of Burnouf, who noted that poets used the same qualities to describe epic heroes. Zysk concludes that these marks were meant to characterize men at the higher orders of society (164):
As we have noticed already from around the first century CE, the system of human marks was used by the royal orders. The connection to the warriors and Kṣatriyas supports Burnouf’s theory of the origin of the thirty-two marks in Buddhist sources. It is altogether likely, therefore, that the form of human marks found in the Buddhist texts derived from a numerical system of marks applied to kings and warriors, who lived in the region called the Deccan.
There is substantial overlap between the Buddhist 32 marks, and the 31-33 marks for men in other sources. In fact, most of the Buddhist 32 marks are found in the other texts (165-166):
A closer examination of the Buddhist Pāli and brahmanic śāstric formulations reveals the following: of the thirty-two marks of the Buddha, fourteen correspond to the śāstric lists [4, 8-10, 12-16, 19, 24-27]; of the fourteen that correspond to śāstric lists, five are from the non-fixed number and two from the fixed number of body parts. An additional seven have a semantic similarity to the śāstric formulations. They make up about two-thirds (21) of the thirty-two marks.
The marks that are unique to the Buddhist tradition are: 1-3, 5-6, 20-21, 23, 28, 30, and 31, in the traditional order of the 32 marks (165-166).
Also unique to the Buddhist tradition of 32 marks is that they are connected to buddha or cakravartin king, and connected with concepts of karma.
The major variation in the presentation of the Buddhist 32 marks is that the earlier formulas go toe-to-head (early Greece, India). However, some later texts such as the Lalitavistara and Mahāvyutpatti go from head-to-toe. Zysk suggests that the shift to head-to-toe, may have been influenced by systems of physiognomy in the Middle East and the Hellenistic world after the time of Aristotle and Polemon (170-171).
So what does this all mean for the Buddha’s genitals? Well, as number 10 in the list of 32 marks, it is included in standard fixed lists of 31-33 marks for men, grouped by characteristic. In the brahmanical śāstric formulations, the characteristic appears under the category of parts that are “short” (hrasva) (157-158). Additionally, the Bṛhatsaṃhitā says about this mark that, “kings have penises concealed in a sheath” (198).
But more broadly, it means that this particular characteristic was one part of a common body of knowledge about physiognomy for men. Probably physiognomy for high-status men in western or northwestern India.
On this last point, it may be notable that the earliest extant text on physiognomy in India (Gārgīyajyotiṣa), contains references to animals, minerals, and metals. According to the author’s analysis, those references place it around the Gandhara region (i.e. modern Afghanistan and Pakistan) (63-64).
