Buddhist sources from all traditions list "The 32 Major Marks of a Buddha" or "The 32 Signs of a Great Man".

These very abbreviated lists of "marks/signs", preserved in various different languages by the different Buddhist traditions are very similar, however differ slightly in detail as well as in the order of these "marks/signs". Unfortunately, when interpreting these "marks/signs" purely on a physical basis one quickly comes to the conclusion that the Buddha must have been some sort of freak, which had caused confusion among even accomplished practitioners, often leading to some rather peculiar theories and interpretations. Here I would like to present an interpretation based upon the Lalitavistara Mahāyana Sūtra which is consistent with accounts from other traditions and provides an insight into what was, in my opinion, its original meaning.

First, one has to consider that the Theravāda Sūtras were memorized and transmitted orally for hundreds of years before being recorded on palm leaves around the beginning of the Christian era. To do this, it was necessary to condense these texts, omitting unnecessary words and passages, and often making them rhyme as a mnomic aid.

Secondly, one should remember that a large part of many (all?) languages is based upon the use of idioms which, when their origin is forgotten, are in themselves nonsensical.

Thirdly, anyone versed in the Sūtras knows the Buddhist tendency to express ideas as analogies. In English many idioms express traits by analogy. Many are negative, however some: "Wise as an owl", "eyes like a hawk", "busy as a beaver", "strong as a bear" are not uncommon.

Within the cultural context and language (Pāli) of central India around 500-0 BCE, where these texts were memorized, they probably retained their original meaning. However when these highly condensed/abbreviated texts were written down and later transported into areas with other languages and cultural traditions the actual meanings of the idiomatic analogies became obscured. To make matters worse after being translated numerous times and finally interpreted into the cultural context of the 21st century misunderstandings are inevitable.

In an English version of the Lalitavistara Mahāyana Sūtra - which was first translated from Sanskrit into French and then from French into English - we find something very interesting. Here among other descriptions of the Buddha we find the 32 signs expressed in the following form:

"He (The Buddha) is called the one who"_______________, because he has long: __________________

By expressing the idiom as "He IS CALLED the one who has/with a certain physical characteristic instead of saying he HAS a certain physical characteristic the 32 signs/marks of a Buddha take on completely different meaning. Instead of stressing the existence of a certain physical characteristic the underlying quality which is implied by this physical characteristic is highlighted. The 32 implied qualities (and not their idiomatic expression) are in fact worthy of a great man/a Buddha. Keeping this in mind, I list in the tables below the thirty-two signs as derived from several sources, and include the generally omitted causal qualities of a Buddha which are found in the Lalitavistara Mahāyana Sūtra.

I chose the Theravāda version for the enumeration order which often coincides with Mahāyana and Vajrayana sources. The Lalitavistara version I highlight with bold letters.

Unfortunately the signs/marks are not always the same. One reason for adding or dropping of traits is whether the various descriptions of teeth are to be taken as one or several marks. In spite of these discrepancies I hope the following list provides some insight into what "the 32 signs of a Buddha" actually symbolize. I would also like to thank Dharma Publications for publishing the Lalitavistara Sūtra and hold a great number of their books in high regard.