Articles by alphabetic order
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


Difference between revisions of "Aniconism in Buddhism"

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
[[File:MaraAssault.jpg‎|thumb|250px|]]
 
[[File:MaraAssault.jpg‎|thumb|250px|]]
 
<poem>
 
<poem>
Since the beginning of the serious study of the {{Wiki|history}} of [[Buddhist]] [[art]] in the 1890s, the earliest phase, lasting until the 1st century CE, has been described as [[aniconic]]; the [[Buddha]] was only represented through [[symbols]] such as an [[empty]] [[throne]], [[Bodhi tree]], a riderless [[horse]] (at [[Sanchi]]), [[Buddha's footprints]], and the [[dharma wheel]]. This reluctance towards anthropomorphic representations of the [[Buddha]], and the sophisticated development of [[aniconic]] [[symbols]] to avoid it (even in {{Wiki|narrative}} scenes where other [[human]] figures would appear), seem to be connected to one of the [[Buddha's]] sayings, reported in the [[Digha Nikaya]], that discouraged representations of himself after the [[extinction]] of his [[body]]. Although there is still some [[debate]], the first {{Wiki|anthropomorphic}} representations of the [[Buddha]] himself are often considered a result of the Greco-[[Buddhist]] interaction, in particular in [[Gandharaa]] {{Wiki|theory}} first fully expounded by {{Wiki|Alfred A. Foucher}}, but criticised from the start by {{Wiki|Ananda Coomaraswamy}}. Foucher also accounted for the origins of the [[aniconic]] [[symbols]] themselves in small souvenirs carried away from the main [[pilgrimage]] sites and so [[becoming]] recognised and popularized as [[symbolic]] of the events associated with the site. Other explanations were that it was inappropriate to represent one who had attained nirvana.
 
  
However, in 1990, the notion of [[aniconism]] in [[Buddhism]] was challenged by Susan Huntington, {{Wiki|initiating}} a vigorous [[debate]] among specialists that still continues. She sees many early scenes claimed to be [[aniconic]] as in fact not depicting scenes from the [[life of the Buddha]], but worship of [[cetiya]] ([[relics]]) or re-enactments by devotees at the places where these scenes occurred. [[Thus]] the image of the [[empty]] throne shows an actual relic-throne at [[Bodh Gaya]] or elsewhere. She points out that there is only one [[indirect]] reference for a specific [[aniconic]] [[doctrine]] in [[Buddhism]] to be found, and that pertaining to only one sect. As for the {{Wiki|archeological}} {{Wiki|evidence}}, it shows some {{Wiki|anthropomorphic}} sculptures of [[Buddha]] actually [[existing]] during the supposedly [[aniconic]] period, which ended during the 1st century CE. Huntington also rejects the association of "[[aniconic]]" and "{{Wiki|iconic}}" [[art]] with an [[emerging]] division between [[Theravada]] and [[Mahayana Buddhism]]. Huntington's [[views]] have been challenged by [[Vidya]] Dehejia and others. Although some earlier examples have been found in recent years, it is common ground that the large free-standing iconic images of the [[Buddha]] so prominent in later [[Buddhist]] [[art]] are not found in the earliest period; [[discussion]] is focused on smaller figures in relief panels, conventionally considered to represent scenes from the [[life of the Buddha]], and now re-interpreted by Huntington and her supporters.
+
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Since the beginning of the serious study of the {{Wiki|history}} of [[Buddhist art]] in the 1890s, the earliest phase, lasting until the 1st century CE, has been described as [[Wikipedia:Aniconism|aniconic]]; the [[Buddha]] was only represented through [[symbols]] such as an [[empty]] [[throne]], [[Bodhi tree]], a riderless [[horse]] (at [[Sanchi]]), [[Buddha's footprints]], and the [[dharma wheel]]. This reluctance towards {{Wiki|anthropomorphic}}
 +
 
 +
 
 +
{{Wiki|representations}} of the [[Buddha]], and the sophisticated [[development]] of  [[Wikipedia:Aniconism|aniconic]] [[symbols]] to avoid it (even in {{Wiki|narrative}} scenes where other [[human]] figures would appear), seem to be connected to one of the [[Buddha's]] sayings, reported in the [[Digha Nikaya]], that discouraged {{Wiki|representations}} of himself after the [[extinction]] of his [[body]]. Although there is still some [[debate]], the
 +
 
 +
first {{Wiki|anthropomorphic}} {{Wiki|representations}} of the [[Buddha]] himself are often considered a result of the Greco-[[Buddhist]] interaction, in particular in [[Gandharaa]] {{Wiki|theory}} first fully expounded by {{Wiki|Alfred A. Foucher}}, but criticised from the start by {{Wiki|Ananda Coomaraswamy}}. Foucher also accounted for the origins of the [[Wikipedia:Aniconism|aniconic]] [[symbols]] themselves in small souvenirs carried away
 +
 
 +
from the main [[pilgrimage]] sites and so becoming recognised and popularized as [[symbolic]] of the events associated with the site. Other explanations were that it was inappropriate to represent one who had [[attained]] [[nirvana]].
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
However, in 1990, the notion of [[Wikipedia:Aniconism|aniconism]] in [[Buddhism]] was challenged by Susan [[Huntington]], {{Wiki|initiating}} a vigorous [[debate]] among specialists that still continues. She sees many early scenes claimed to be [[Wikipedia:Aniconism|aniconic]] as in fact not depicting scenes from the [[life of the Buddha]], but {{Wiki|worship}} of [[cetiya]] ([[relics]]) or re-enactments by {{Wiki|devotees}} at the places where these  
 +
 
 +
scenes occurred. [[Thus]] the image of the [[empty]] [[throne]] shows an actual relic-throne at [[Bodh Gaya]] or elsewhere. She points out that there is only one indirect reference for a specific [[Wikipedia:Aniconism|aniconic]] [[doctrine]] in [[Buddhism]] to be found, and that pertaining to only one [[sect]]. As for the {{Wiki|archeological}} {{Wiki|evidence}}, it shows some {{Wiki|anthropomorphic}} sculptures of [[Buddha]] actually [[existing]]  
 +
 
 +
 
 +
during the supposedly [[Wikipedia:Aniconism|aniconic]] period, which ended during the 1st century CE. [[Huntington]] also rejects the association of "[[Wikipedia:Aniconism|aniconic]]" and "{{Wiki|iconic}}" [[art]] with an [[emerging]] [[division]] between [[Theravada]] and [[Mahayana Buddhism]]. Huntington's [[views]] have been challenged by [[Vidya]] Dehejia and others. Although some earlier examples have been found in recent years, it is common  
 +
 
 +
 
 +
ground that the large free-standing {{Wiki|iconic}} images of the [[Buddha]] so prominent in later [[Buddhist art]] are not found in the earliest period; [[discussion]] is focused on smaller figures in relief panels, {{Wiki|conventionally}} considered to represent scenes from the [[life of the Buddha]], and now re-interpreted by [[Huntington]] and her supporters.
 
Later periods
 
Later periods
  
In later periods both the major [[schools of Buddhism]] have made great use of representational [[art]], though [[Theravada]] [[temples]] and other sites typically [[concentrate]] on a single large sculpture of the [[Buddha]], whereas [[Mahayana]] [[temples]] have larger numbers of images of a greater variety of figures with varying degrees of [[spiritual]] significance. However some schools, such as [[Zen]] [[Buddhism in Japan]], have also shown a general tendency towards [[aniconism]], though without specific prohibition of figurative images.
+
In later periods both the major [[schools of Buddhism]] have made great use of representational [[art]], though [[Theravada]] [[temples]] and other sites typically [[concentrate]] on a single large {{Wiki|sculpture}} of the [[Buddha]], whereas [[Mahayana]] [[temples]] have larger numbers of images of a greater variety of figures with varying degrees of [[spiritual]] significance. However some schools, such as [[Zen]] [[Buddhism in Japan]], have also shown a general tendency towards [[Wikipedia:Aniconism|aniconism]], though without specific prohibition of figurative images.
 +
 
 +
 
 
</poem>
 
</poem>
 
{{W}}
 
{{W}}
 
[[Category:Buddhist Symbols]]
 
[[Category:Buddhist Symbols]]

Latest revision as of 19:21, 5 January 2024

MaraAssault.jpg









Since the beginning of the serious study of the history of Buddhist art in the 1890s, the earliest phase, lasting until the 1st century CE, has been described as aniconic; the Buddha was only represented through symbols such as an empty throne, Bodhi tree, a riderless horse (at Sanchi), Buddha's footprints, and the dharma wheel. This reluctance towards anthropomorphic


representations of the Buddha, and the sophisticated development of aniconic symbols to avoid it (even in narrative scenes where other human figures would appear), seem to be connected to one of the Buddha's sayings, reported in the Digha Nikaya, that discouraged representations of himself after the extinction of his body. Although there is still some debate, the

first anthropomorphic representations of the Buddha himself are often considered a result of the Greco-Buddhist interaction, in particular in Gandharaa theory first fully expounded by Alfred A. Foucher, but criticised from the start by Ananda Coomaraswamy. Foucher also accounted for the origins of the aniconic symbols themselves in small souvenirs carried away

from the main pilgrimage sites and so becoming recognised and popularized as symbolic of the events associated with the site. Other explanations were that it was inappropriate to represent one who had attained nirvana.



However, in 1990, the notion of aniconism in Buddhism was challenged by Susan Huntington, initiating a vigorous debate among specialists that still continues. She sees many early scenes claimed to be aniconic as in fact not depicting scenes from the life of the Buddha, but worship of cetiya (relics) or re-enactments by devotees at the places where these

scenes occurred. Thus the image of the empty throne shows an actual relic-throne at Bodh Gaya or elsewhere. She points out that there is only one indirect reference for a specific aniconic doctrine in Buddhism to be found, and that pertaining to only one sect. As for the archeological evidence, it shows some anthropomorphic sculptures of Buddha actually existing


during the supposedly aniconic period, which ended during the 1st century CE. Huntington also rejects the association of "aniconic" and "iconic" art with an emerging division between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. Huntington's views have been challenged by Vidya Dehejia and others. Although some earlier examples have been found in recent years, it is common


ground that the large free-standing iconic images of the Buddha so prominent in later Buddhist art are not found in the earliest period; discussion is focused on smaller figures in relief panels, conventionally considered to represent scenes from the life of the Buddha, and now re-interpreted by Huntington and her supporters.
Later periods

In later periods both the major schools of Buddhism have made great use of representational art, though Theravada temples and other sites typically concentrate on a single large sculpture of the Buddha, whereas Mahayana temples have larger numbers of images of a greater variety of figures with varying degrees of spiritual significance. However some schools, such as Zen Buddhism in Japan, have also shown a general tendency towards aniconism, though without specific prohibition of figurative images.

Source

Wikipedia:Aniconism in Buddhism