Jérôme Seregni
The purpose of this essay is to focus on the early images of the Buddha figure and relate them with the origin and the rise of Buddhism in India.
The variety of different approaches that many scholars gave in trying to explain certain conditions that appeared in the first sculpted images of religious monuments encouraged a growing interest in the study of comparative iconography in early representations of the Indian art.
From the second century BC until perhaps the first half of the second century AD, we cannot see any image of Buddha represented in anthropomorphic figure. There is no evidence and no sign of his physical presence. Instead, he is symbolized by alternative objects that are proved to have a long tradition in Indian cults and worship, like the wheel, the tree, the empty throne, the horse, the bowl, the footprint…
The common general belief that these symbols are strictly of Buddhist religion and culture are in contrast to the theories that favor their earlier usage in Hinduism.
The actual absence of the Buddha image in human form in art is known as aniconism. All the scenes that are supposed to depict important events in the life of the historical Buddha Sakyamuni or have different purposes that we will see, are deliberately represented avoiding his human body and are converted or substituted by symbols.
The reasons that lie behind the aniconic images are multiple and still obscure, and I will try to explain the main theories. But the reasons that lay behind the change of mind for the representation of Buddha from symbol to human form, is still more inexplicable and uncertain.
We know that the firsts anthropomorphic figures of Buddha appeared in the region of Gandhara (nowadays, East Afghanistan and North Pakistan) and then spread in Mathura and in other parts of India.
A good part of this research will be concerned on issues to relate if whether or not the actual influence of the Greek art, that came through this region after the Alexandrian conquest and invasion and that was in close connection with Greek-Baktrian culture; led signs of introduction of Hellenism or instead, the origin of the image and its iconography is supported by a continuity of representations that existed well before in some Hindus motifs.
Indeed, at the base of these hypothesis, lies the fact that the spread of the Buddhist religion after the conversion of King Asoka in 260 BC, was powerful and dominant over a wide area, and the fact that he sent missionaries to convert millions of people to that religion and that commissioned the construction of pillars and Stupas with countless images of Buddha life, started to change radically popular traditions and beliefs.
CITIES OF PILIGRIMAGE
In 270 BC King Asoka, third emperor of the Mauryan dynasty of India ascended to the throne. His reputation of being a cruel ruler ended up after the attack to Kalinga (today Orissa) in 260 BC, where he decided to convert himself into Buddhism after deliberating on the horrendous actions he took part. His conviction towards a new way of understanding a peaceful life without war and without animal sacrifices came clear in his famous edicts, carved on pillars and rocks, and on his desire to spread the Buddha’s teaching all over the continent with the aid of missionaries and monks.
The cities of Sanchi and Bharhut became the first centers of expression for the development of the early Buddhist art. But, as for every new culture that becomes in vogue, its contributions are not entirely new, but they proceed from a precedent culture so that they become interconnected. The first steps of this continuity are clearly evident in the iconography of the Stupas, where popular motifs of Indian life and cults coexist with the stories of Buddha.
“The Sanchi art is plainly not an expression of Early Buddhist felling: and so also is not primitive, but, on the contrary, it is the classic achievement of an old popular art already long practiced in less permanent materials” (Coomaraswami 1946, p. 73)
For “less permanent material” here is intended mainly wood, where is supposed that early Hindus images of gods and spirits were carved. The fact that archaeological data is lacking many of those figures because of their short longevity, clearly denotes an impossibility of a perfect view and understanding of how they were represented and therefore, to compare them with later images will create a large critical body of hypothesis and suggestions to demonstrate their connections.
In any way, it is to believe that a great congregation of people came to see these monuments, and that the main purpose of these fine carved images was done with the intention to appeal pagans and to convert them to the new religion.
The iconography shows a particular feeling of happiness and delight of the multitudes, a description of how life and its environment were embedded with intrinsic representations of non-Buddhist figures concerned with old cults associated with fertility and nature.
So, if in the beginning Buddhism was a religion of spiritual strictness and rational contemplation of the mind to reach the illumination, it is certainly not reflected in the images. And even if we know of the existence of monks and nuns, we cannot deny that their physical presence is not shown. The main characters in early Buddhist art are lay citizens. And if in the third and second centuries BC Buddhists start to employee craftsmen and artisans to decorate the Stupas, they are supposed to carry with them their knowledge from primitive ways of carving Brahmanical deities and imagery, and therefore they were supposed to adopt their art to Buddhist requirements.
Images of laymen worshippers playing devotion to Buddha symbols are intended to call into prayer pilgrims with popular beliefs. The function of the bas-reliefs decorations in the railings of the Stupas is to educate the viewer (perhaps with the aid of literate monks and nuns), to enable him to “appreciate the contents of the work, sitting or standing in front of it, (…) and where the meaning and significance of every scene depicted can be derived easily from its own dramatic or theatrical aspect” (Tanaka 1964, p.14)
The showing of characters playing instruments and dancing is part of this “theatrical” behavior, of this gathering of people holding some feast or festival around the place. So, we might believe that in its origin Buddhism has a popular background, but the purpose of this background is to convert people, to produce a transition of devotional attitude. And perhaps one of the apparent contradictions of this feeling is that we do see actually images of laymen in their own customs in joyous performances, but the “majority of them have folded their hands towards Buddhist monuments in sitting or standing postures (…) with the attitude of devotees acting collectively and cooperatively rather than in a personal and characteristic way.” (Tanaka 1964, p.28)
Thus, their being devotional towards images that show an absence of Buddha, is a contrast between “the collective worshipper and the empty throne under the tree, the crowd versus the emptiness, and the human form versus the non-human form” (Tankara 1964, p.31). These images are the contrast and the unification at the same time of two different religions of two methods of cultural representation. They are primitive figures of Brhamanical Naga Serpent Kings, of Yaksha Kings of the four Quarters and Yakshas as protecting spirits of fertility and guardianship that are there together with symbols of the new Buddha to bring the expression of the practice of “Buddhist meditation by those who lived in a period which did not have any custom of making and worshipping the Buddha images” (Tanaka 1964, p.31).
Therefore, two feeling are common in every scene, that of “bhakti” and that of “ananda” (Tanaka 1964), love, devotion, and delight, blissful joy.
And we believe these two feelings being the common source of the two main religions in India. They, together with the images, are part of this continuity, of a “conscious sectarian adaptation, accompanied by an unconscious, or at least unintentional, stylistic evolution.” (Coomaraswamy 2001, p.29)
YAKSHAS
According to many scholars, the oldest known images in India are those of the Yakshas. But what exactly does this term mean? It is not easy to trace back the origin of the word related to its use, but through the passage of time we found different meanings. From a “wondrous thing” to “spirit” or “genius” of protecting and productivity aspect, they are usually represented as guardians of main gods, attendants, bearers or supporters in a variety of situation. And more meanings like “auspicious, implying fullness, increase, prosperity” (Coomaraswamy 2001, p.11), and later on of fertility and abundance are to take into account when we start to relate their images with their cult. In fact, is beyond doubt that they were worshipped and invoke in the pre-Christian era. They were part of the long tradition of devotional cults (Bhakti) were devotees (Bhakta) used to pry to principal gods like Vishnu, but also to “the Four Great Kings, the Maharajas, Regents of the Quarters and Nagas.” (Coomaraswamy 2001, p.28) Yaksha worship correspond in everything, thus, to the Bhakti religions, in fact, “the use of images in temples, the practice of prostration, the offering of flowers, incense, food, and cloths, the use of bells, the singing of hymns, are all characteristics of Hindu worship even at the present day” (Coomaraswamy 2001, p.28).
It is not to avoid, then, the incorporation of Buddha symbols and reverence from his followers inside these traditions as a continuity of practices. And it is not to reject, therefore, a common source of representation that it would have simplified the process of recognition. Again, we have to stress the popular aspect of these worships, the fact that laymen and not literate and intellectual people were to identify primitive images of Yakshas and aniconic devotional representations.
The fact that the practice of worship didn’t originate with monks, reflects a necessity of idolatry that is not considered to be new. But it is, for some scholars (see Coomaraswamy, Jacobi and Banerjea), a necessity that comes from Bhakti, from a devotional development that is “inseparably bound up with theistic cults in India and with the making of images and the building of temples” (Cooomaraswamy 2001, p.11). The worship of statues appeared to be in evidence since the fourth century BC, and to be, by the second century, an advanced practice
We discover here that the appearance of the deities is worshipped in visual form, in either anthropomorphic and aniconic aspect, and that this commemoration is influenced by primitive ways of representation (we can see, for instance, the figures in the seals of the Harappan civilization with both symbols (fish, bull, etc.) and human shaped individuals).
But an important and relevant point where to see this dual aspect of representation is based upon a numismatic study. In fact, several “deities of Brahmanical cults like, Siva and Vasudeva Vishnu, seem to have already come to be iconically represented in the first and second centuries BC.” (Banerjea 1973, p.102)
But, coming back to the Yakshas, so far as devotional images are concerned, one predominant iconographical style is in use. According to the famous interpretation of Coomaraswamy, the “standing figure with the right hand raised and the left on the hip”, is considered to be the oldest and the most recurrent model-like representation that function almost like a prototype or standard pattern, and is proved to be an example for cult images of other deities, such as Siva or Buddha. And we will see how, from this kind of posture, the first images of Buddha were first influenced and developed into a systematic method of craftsmanship, and later on adopted as a common way of iconographical resource and compositional meaning.
FIRST IMAGES
Why at the beginning Buddha images in human form are absent? What was the transition that brought a change of ideas and a change of representation from that absence to his first appearance on sculpture? Is there any written evidence or religious text where to find any answer?
Many attempts to justify this absence had been made, but it seems evident that no text was found to rely on for an explanation. There are clearly many suggestions and ideas, and I will briefly mention some of them.
One is related to Buddhism as an ontological point of view. A concept that goes beyond the life of Buddha and is related to a state of liberation from sensual life and thus from sorrow.
“He cannot be reckoned as existing (like other men and gods who are in bondage of earthly sensations) even while he is still alive in this world.” (Tanaka 1998, p.55)
Therefore, his physical presence is subordinate to his spiritual condition, and his state of “nothingness” (Zimmer 1946) is beyond the conception of a karmic body.
The true essence of Buddha is related to the concept of nirvana that makes him “inconceivable in visual form and human shape” (Tanaka 1998, p.55)
A second approach is very much related to the former one and tries to explain aniconism through a possible existence in those times, of a law that didn’t allow the making of the images (perhaps proclaimed by the same Asoka). But, again, no literary foundation was found regarding a possible taboo against representation of Buddha in art.
A third and more controversial issue is related to whether or not the images have the purpose of showing and describing the life and deeds of Buddha.
It is known that King Asoka went on a pilgrimage “to honour all the places where the Buddha had lived and to set up a caitya, a commemorative monument, at each of the places (…) as a favour to future pilgrims so that they might retrace and remember the events of the Buddha’s life”. (Tanaka 1998, p.77)
If we do not consider the political aspects behind the Asoka’s reform, and if we look at the bas-reliefs, it seems that the theory that goes for the depiction of images as scenes of Buddha’s life is at first instance obvious, and it was accepted by many scholars after Foucher (1911, 1917) proclaimed it. But doubts regarding this conclusion emerge through many researches that focus instead on the importance of worship and adoration at sacred sites. (Huntington 1990, Tanaka 1998)
With the study of the Bharhut inscriptions, in fact, Huntington states that the depictions are intended to evidence the importance of the sites, and the “invariable presence of devotees and worshipers in such compositions suggests that it is not a historical event in the life of the Buddha that is being represented, but rather the activities of darsana – of ‘seeing’ a sacred place, person, or object – and the associated devotional practices.” (Huntington 1990). In other words, is to believe that the devotees were conscious in recognizing the absence of Buddha, and they were commemorating rather an actual event, the rite associated with the cult in a place that probably had a particular importance, than the edifying tales of the Master’s life. And perhaps the images had symbolic meanings more important than the narrative elements. Perhaps they had the intention of enjoying their seeing, to share a common joyful atmosphere with performances of dance and music. And therefore, the whole approach is wrong, and that the absence of Buddha “is not to be explained by an aniconic proscription or by the belief that these common motifs reflect a substitution for a figure of a Buddha.” (Huntington 1990)
HELLENSIM OR HINDUISM?
The last part of this essay is concentrated on the first anthropomorphic images of Buddha found in the regions of Gandhara and in Mathura, and on the two main different approaches about their possible iconographical origin.
One is an attempt made by Foucher to focus on the geographical location of Gandhara as a strategic position very close to the Greek-Baktrian culture.
The other, made by Coomarswamy, is more focus on the pre-Buddhist influence to describe the development of the images.
Buddhism was introduced in Afghanistan (where Gandhara is today situated) in the third century BC by the King Asoka. An exact chronology is considered a hard task, because we don’t know with certainty when precisely Buddhism reached its popularity, but it is probably between the last part of the first century BC and the beginning of the first century AD, when the great Kushan ruler Kanishka went to the throne and elevated a sectarian believe into a religion of state, and the so-called Gandhara school of Buddhist sculpture was most productive.
If we look at the Buddha images of that region, we cannot deny a certain Greek influence. The first Buddhas are represented in coins and are identified with Kanishka, and previous Gandhara kings are represented as Greek heroes and Gods. But of how these two cultures were in connection is a matter of theories. Fergusson tells us of a couple of hypotheses:
- Baktrian Greeks carried with them into Asia the principles of Grecian sculpture, and either during their supremacy or after their expulsion from Baktria established a school of classical art in Peshawar valley.
- The presence of classical elements is derived from the previous existence of the Baktrian Greeks but spread the development of classical feeling through Buddhist art and ascribed its peculiar forms to constant communication with the West rather than to the original seed planted there by Baktrians. (Fergusson 1910, p.219)
Even if the Greek style is visible, especially in the straightness of the images and in certain patterns and techniques, and even if Hellenic elements are present, the origin of their form is completely Indian.
Commaraswamy believes that the first seated Buddhas are in a typical yogi posture and that this way of representation it can be traced back in the comparison with the Proto-Siva images of the Harappan seals. Thus, a non- Hellenic aspect is borrowed in Buddhist art. Another Hindu motif regards the previous mentioned standing figure of the Yakshas with the right hand standing up, and if compared with the images of the preaching Buddha as a teacher, the similarities cannot be discussed. Moreover, the concept of classical beauty claimed by Foucher, is far from being an Indian principle in art. Indian art is less related to aesthetics than to spiritual edification.
The Hellenic approach, or the so-called Indian Greek art, is not applicable to these Buddha images, not because of their physicality, but because of their iconographical origin.
The Foucher comparison between Buddha and Apollo it might have some fundament, but not as a primary resource.
“It seems probable that the actual Gandhara sculptures are mainly the work of western craftsmen employed by the Gandhara kings to interpret Buddhist ideas, rather than Indian workmen under western guidance; and if some of the workmen were Indian by birth, they nevertheless did not give expression to Indian feeling.” (Coomaraswamy 1948, p.79)
In Mathura style the Indian origin is more evident, and that is why Coomaraswamy, to contrast the Hellenistic theory, believes antecedes the Gandhara school. But again he has no foundation and no archaeological data to prove it.
Perhaps these two schools were in contact, perhaps a mutual influence was felt, but with the passing of the years, the general development is of “stylistic Indianization in Gandhara, and one of adherence to the Mathura style in the Ganges valley.” (Coomaraswamy 2001, p.37)
CONCLUSION
I deliberately avoided, through the course of the essay, a specific study and description of the images. The vast quantity of them would have been an impediment for the brevity of the research. And even if the whole work is based upon iconographical issues, a proper comparison of the images was put on a secondary plane.
I have tried to give a generic historical approach and a detailed overview of different opinions and theories.
I personally agree with the Coomaraswamy statements, and I think he provides a great support of data to generate his believes.
I also tried not to mention any religious text evidence. The labyrinth of Indian literature, Buddhist and not, it deserves perhaps special research on its own.
Indeed, one of the major problems is dating. The vague sense of chronology of the images, and in general of everything related to those three, four centuries in between BC and AD, makes it difficult to assume any relation between history and archaeological evidence.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-Coomaraswamy A., The Dance of Shiva. Asia publishing house. 1948
The Origin of the Buddha image. Munshiram
Manoharlal Publishers. 2001
Yaksas. Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers. 2001
-Fergusson, J., History of Indian and Eastern Architecture.
John Murray. 1910
-Foucher, A., The beginnings of Buddhist art.
Humphrey Milford. 1917
-Huntington, S.L., Early Buddhist art and the theory of aniconism.
Art journal. Vol 49, No.4. 1990
-Jain, P.C., Putting the Ocean in a Bowl: The origin of Buddha
Image. 2004
-Jitendra Nath Banerjea, The Development of Hindu Iconography.
Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers. 2002
-Tanaka, K., Absence of the Buddha image in early Buddhist
Art. D.K. Printworld. 1998
-Zimmer, H., Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and
Civilization. Bollingen series- Princeton. 1974