Buddhist Art of the Himalayas, Essay Example

Aniconism is the theory about why the Buddha was not depicted in the Buddhist art. This theory says that the early Buddhist art did not make images of Buddha because it was forbidden by the “Hinayana” Buddhists (Huntington, 1990, p. 401). Instead, Buddhist art used symbols for Buddha, like the bodhi tree of enlightenment or the Wheel of Law (p. 401). The theory also says that Buddhist art copied from the Greeks in making images of Buddha: the scholar Alfred Foucher thought that Indian artists in Gandhara made images of the Buddha because of the influence of the Greek, classical in that region (p. 401).

The author Susan Huntington (1990) argued that the theory of aniconism is not true, because the Hinayana Buddhists did not forbid the making of images of the Buddha, and “’almost all the Hinayana schools were actively interested in and concerned with images and the cult of images’” (pp. 401-402). Also from archaeology it has been discovered that older Buddha images have been found, images from before “the first or second century A. D.” (p. 402). These images prove that the Buddhist art was making images of the Buddha long before the theory of aniconism thought. In fact the images of the Buddha were made at the same time as the aniconic images (p. 402).

Susan Huntington (1990) argues we should understand ‘aniconic’ Buddhist works of art as “’portraits’ of the sites and show the practices of pilgrimage and devotion associated with them” (p. 402). Meaning that the images are of the religious sites and show the practices that the Buddhists performed there. Huntington says that place and time are important in depictions of the Buddha in human form: a depiction of the Buddha on the throne in Gandhara shows him “with five ascetics and a pair of deer flanking a wheel below”, which is a reference to the Buddha’s first sermon at Deer Park and Benares (p. 402). Huntington says that the actual depictions of the events of Buddha’s life show the actual place of the event, as well as the actual time of the event (p. 402). For example, while at Sanchi, a carving of a large wheel refers to the wheel of law which Buddha set in motion with his first sermon (p. 402).

On the other hand the aniconic images of the Buddha do not depict the scenes of his life, either place or time: instead Huntington (1990) says that they depict Buddhist worshipers showing their devotion (pp. 402-403). The worships that the people did in the specific places is seen in a roundel from Bharhut of a tree and an alter with a man and women and two children (p. 403). The writing on the relief says bhagavato Vesabhuna bodhi salo or “The Bodhi tree of the holy Vesabhu (Visvabhu), a Sala tree” (p. 403). Huntington says that this is the tree of enlightenment or bodhi tree which that shows “the enlightenment took place, but not the event of Buddha Visvabhu’s enlightenment itself” (p. 403). So that the people are performing worship and veneration at the site of the enlightenment but it is not the event of Buddha Visvabhu’s enlightenment itself (p. 403). The good evidence for this is the fact that the people are draping garlands on the tree, which is a kind of the worships that was performed at these sites (p. 403).

There is a relief at Amaravati dating from the second century A.D.; the relief shows the Buddhist worshipers performing worships to an image of the Buddha who is on the throne (Huntington, 1990, pp. 402-403). Huntington tells us that there is an asvattha tree there, and also a pair of footprints; all of these are the symbols of the Buddha in the aniconic theory (p. 403). But Huntington says that instead they are representing an act of worship and devotion at a sacred site called a pitha (p. 403). The scene is not a depiction of the Buddha’s enlightenment at Bodh Gaya and the image clearly shows that this was after his time, because the image in the relief does not have “the earth-touching gesture that characterizes representations of his imminent enlightenment at Bodh Gaya” (p. 403).

And other reliefs show trees of enlightenment for other mortal Buddhas; Huntington says that these have inscriptions with them that show they “represent the sacred trees at their sacred sites, rather than enlightenment events” (1990, p. 403). There is such a depiction which shows an asvattha tree within a temple, and the tree is the bodhi tree of Sakyamuni (p. 403). Huntington says that this is not an aniconic depiction, because of the inscription, which states: bhagavato Sakamunino bodho, which means “the bodhi (tree) of holy Sakyamuni” (p. 403). This is a good piece of evidence that Huntington is right? Because it shows that these depictions of the sacred trees in the Buddhist art were intended to show the trees in their sacred locations, and where therefore not depictions of the events which occurred at those trees.

Another example of Huntington’s theory (1990) is the carving from Bharhut without an inscription, which dates from about the first century B.C. (p. 404). In the aniconic theory, this is believed to be the inscription of the Buddha descending from the heaven of Trayastrimsa at Sankasya, and so the ladder marks his descent back to earth (p. 404). However, Huntington says that it is a depiction of pilgrimage activities to Sankasya which were intended to commemorate the Buddha returning from Trayastrimsa Heaven at that place (p. 404). Huntington points out that the figures in the picture seem to be moving “as if in a clockwise procession around the ladders”, which is a very common ritual in Buddhism (p. 404). And at Sankasya there were many pilgrims from the third century B.C., and the eyewitness accounts say that “an actual set of stairs—perhaps the very ones depicted in this relief—were the focal point of worship” (p. 404).

The depictions of the stupas from Bharhut are also used by Huntington (1990) for the theory that she proposes (p. 404). The eight stupas were used to house Buddha’s relics after he died, and so in the Buddhist art whenever there is a stupa it is believed to be a depiction of “the Buddha’s great decease (parinirvana)” (p. 404). But the depictions of the stupas also show many lay worshipers or pilgrims, and this suggests to Huntington that the carvings are not depicting the Buddha’s decease (p. 404). But rather, they are depicting the pilgrimage of the lay worshipers to the stupas to see the relics (p. 404). In the same way other sites were holy, and they were known as pithas or “holy seats” (p. 404). At many of these holy seats there were shrines, pillars, or stupas, and so these depictions can also be understood as the Buddhist devotional art (p. 404). Some very good evidence for Huntington’s (1990) theory is that pilgrimage to the stupas to see the sacred relics of the Buddha is an actual practice in Buddhism even today (p. 405). Buddha himself “instructed his followers to make pilgrimage to the sites of the four main events of his life: his birth, enlightenment, first sermon, and death” (pp. 404-405). Still today, the Buddhists make pilgrimages to these four sites, and in Sri Lanka, they make pilgrimages to the “Sixteen Great Places” associated with the Buddha’s three visits to that island (p. 405). There are three kinds of relics that are from Buddha, and all of these can be objects of the devotion and worships: there are “sariraka (pieces of the body)”; “paribhogaka (things he used)”; and “uddesaka (reminders, i.e., representations, or images)” (p. 405). If the aniconic theory is true, Huntington says, the uddesaka should be the most important, if other things are used to represent the Buddha instead (p. 405). But this is not the case, because it is the sariraka and the paribhogaka that are most commonly pilgrimaged to (p. 405).

The author Vidya Dehejia (1991) has a different theory on aniconism, which is that the aniconic images had multiple meanings (p. 45). The first of the meanings was that the images of the “footprints, a seat or throne, a parasol, and a pillar of radiance,” were used to depict the Buddha by representing him in a symbol (p. 45). The second meaning was that these emblems depicted “sacred spots, or firthas, and the devotions performed there” (p. 45). This is an area where Dehejia agrees with Huntington: that the images can depict sacred sites and the worships that the Buddhists performed there. And the third meaning was that the emblems could be depictions of the attributes of the faith, so that the tree could represent Buddha’s divine wisdom and the pillar “suggests his sacred doctrine” (p. 45).

How do you think the meanings of the aniconic art can be sorted? To sort between the meanings and determine what is the meaning of the Buddhist aniconic art, Dehejia (1991) says we should look at the context, because the visual context is what determines the interpretation of the images (p. 45). So in one panel, a “tree sheltering a seat may be an emblem that portrays the presence of the Buddha himself” and in a second panel the tree and seat may indicate that it is a site of the hallowed pilgrimage (p. 45). And the sacred pipal tree can be a symbol of the Buddha’s enlightenment, and it can be a symbol of Bodh Gaya, which is where the site of the enlightenment of the Buddha took place (p. 45). So that many meanings are possible depending on the visual context of these images. Dehejia also agrees with Huntington that Hinayana Buddhism did not prohibit the making of images of the Buddha (p. 47).

One example Dehejia (1991) gives is the Prasenajit pillar at Bharhut, where a panel shows how King Prasenajit visited a shrine to Buddha that he built (pp. 46-47). The inscription identifies the king, and so this means that the picture is of an actual historical event, when the king went to that shrine (p. 47). It also suggests the worships performed at the site, by the figures on horses and elephants who are circumambulating the shrine, and the shrine says “Bhagavalo dhammacha-ko” or “Wheel of doctrine of the Holy One” (p. 47). So the depiction not only shows a historical event, it also commemorates the worships performed there. But it also refers to Buddha because Buddha gave the Wheel of Law (p. 47).

Dehejia rejects Huntington’s argument that the aniconic depictions are simply showing worships and devotion, however (p. 48). Dehejia (1991) explains that at Sanchi which shows the great departure of Buddha, the Buddha is not shown: instead, all that is shown is a horse in his place, with a parasol hanging over it as if the Buddha were invisible (p. 48). If the depiction was simply showing a pageantry of the scene, why wouldn’t it depict the actor who played the Buddha? (p. 48). And at Bharhut, Dehejia explains that the Buddha is portrayed in aniconic form for major life events. So at Bharhut, the Serpent King Erapata comes out of the water and takes human form, and him and his daughters go to search for Buddha (p. 48). In the final scene, “Erapata, with hands joined in adoration, kneels in front of a seat beneath a garlanded tree” (p. 48). The inscription says “Erapato Nagaraja Bhagavlo Vadate”, which means “Serpent King Erapata adores the Holy One” (p. 48).

Dehejia also cites more evidence in the panel that shows King Ajatashatru visiting the Buddha (1991, p. 48). In one scene Ajatashatru dismounts from his elephant in a mango grove at Jiva, and this is where the Buddha is living, though he is not shown as an icon (p. 50). In another scene, the king and his queens are “standing with hands joined in adoration while a hanging lamp places the incident in the nighttime hours” (p. 50). And in the last scene, Ajatashatru kneels in front of three symbols for the Buddha: “footprints, throne, and parasol” (p. 50). The inscription for this scene reads “Ajatasatu Bhagavalo vamdate”, which means “Ajatashatru bows to the Blessed One” (p. 50). This is some of the most compelling evidence that Dehejia is correct, and Huntington is incorrect: how can this be accounted for, if these emblems are not showing Buddha as the aniconic theory says? And there are many other examples Dehejia gives for her theory: at the Prasenajit pillar at Bharhut again, there are three panels which are related to the Buddha’s enlightenment, and all depict him as the aniconic theory says (p. 50). In one scene the bodhi tree is shown with a shrine, and the shrine’s roof says “Bhagavalo sakamunino bodho”, or “enlightenment of the Holy One Sakyamuni” (p. 50).

The key area where Huntington and Dehejia agree is that these depictions can show the worships that the people performed at sacred places, and simply the sacred places. Huntington makes a very good case that many of these images and pictures in the Buddhist art are showing the sacred Buddhist places, and the worships that the Buddhists performed there. It is very clear that she is right about this, because many of the images and pictures are showing the worships people did at the Buddhist sacred sites. So at Sankasya it is obvious that the picture is of the depiction of the pilgrims, because it shows the pilgrims going around the ladder. However, Dehejia makes a better case that many of these images can have multiple meanings. So for example, could the depiction of the ladder and the pilgrims at Sankasya also mean that it is a depiction of Buddha’s return from heaven at that site? Yes, it could, because the theory of Dehejia is that these images and depictions in the Buddhist art have multiple meanings, and not only one meaning. And Dehejia makes the point that many of these images are very clearly and necessarily aniconic depictions of the Buddha: the actions that they show the people portraying, the emblems associated with the Buddha, and the inscriptions all make it very clear that the Buddha is depicted but not shown, i.e., he is depicted in an aniconic fashion.

I think that Dehejia’s theory is more likely to be correct, because it has better evidence for it and explains more. If someone asked me why I thought this way? I would show them the inscriptions at the Bharhut, where the Serpent King Erapata adores the Buddha according to the text and the depiction, although it does not show the Buddha. If the garlanded tree is not an aniconic depiction of the Buddha, how does the scene make any sense at all? I would also point them to the visit of King Ajatashatru, where Ajatashatru kneels before an empty throne, a parasol and footprints. These two depictions and many others show that the Buddha was depicted in an aniconic fashion, because there is no other way to understand them, and so aniconism is right.

References

Dehejia, V. (1991). Aniconism and the multivalence of emblems. Ars Orientalis, 21, 45-66.

Huntington, S. (1990). Early Buddhist art and the theory of aniconism. Art Journal, 49(4), 401-408 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/