At the Crossroads of Civilization: The Development of the Buddha Image Chukyi Kyaping Advisor: Dr. Sumreen Chaudhry Ursinus College Art History 390: Independent Research Project 1 June 2016 1 In the first century CE, a Buddha image emerged from Gandhara (a region that encompassed modern day Pakistan, Afghanistan, and northern India) that later served as the foundation of subsequent representations of the Buddha. The syncretic nature of the various states that occupied Gandhara allowed the region to adopt elements of Hellenistic, Persian, and Indic culture, which was clearly reflected in the resulting establishment of Gandhari Buddhist art. I will argue that significant changes in royal patronage and monastic communities during the period of the Kushan Empire facilitated the spread of Buddhism into the northern reaches of Gandhara, areas with extensive Hellenistic and Persian influence through both artistic and philosophical traditions. As Buddhism came into contact with these regions, the desire for a Buddha image arose within populations whose cultures were already steeped in anthropomorphic deities. This desire, paired with cultural features such as manners of dress, was infused into existing Indic interpretations of the Buddha to formulate the image of the Buddha that remains central to Buddhist iconography to this day. From the fifth century BCE to the first century CE, Buddhist art was defined by a period of aniconism. In early Buddhist art, the Buddha was manifested in two ways: in stupas and in the symbolic representations of the Buddha. Historically, a stupa was the “traditional sepulcher of worldly monarchs” in the Vedic Indian tradition. Before his death, the Buddha had instructed his followers to consecrate his remains in a stupa, located in the four locations most significant in his life — Lumbini, his birthplace; Bodhgaya, the place of his enlightenment; Banaras, the place of his first sermon; and Kushinara, the place of his death (Srivastava 4). Upon his achievement of parinirvana (nirvana after death), the Buddha’s body was cremated with a ceremony indicative of a universal king and his remains were divided eight shares, housed in stupas (Buddhist Art of 2 India 14). His followers visited these structures as pilgrimage sites to invoke their own path toward Enlightenment. The corporeal relics of the Buddha were treated as the “living presence of the Buddha” (Fogelin 286). The construction of these stupas had established a “tangible expression of devotion” (Buddhist Art of India 15). In fact, Lars Fogelin argued that Buddhists had “viewed stupas as symbols of Buddhism,” above the symbolic representations of the Buddha (Linrothe 288). Relief panels depicting these symbolic representations surrounded these stupa sites, although these would only be secondary to the main site of the stupa — specifically the relics within the stupa (289). It is important to realize the symbolic character of Buddha was not by any means an indication of artistic inhibitions. Other figures, such as his mother, Maya, and his assistant, Chandaka, were rendered as fully realized humans (Krishan 1). If artists had the capability of rendering the human form, why was the Buddha not initially anthropomorphically rendered? Rob Linrothe reasoned that in a general sense, religious art seeks to “render the ineffable in time and space” (Linrothe 253). Therefore, it would be more difficult to delineate the transcendent quality of the Buddha in an anthropomorphic form, as the image would trap the concept of the Buddha within the earthly world. Aniconism in the Indian subcontinent was not exclusive to Buddhism – early Jain art from Khandagiri and Udayagiri were equally aniconic (figure 2). Both Buddhism and Jainism have roots in the Vedic tradition, in which the highest gods were conceived of as impersonal and formless forces of nature (253). Jitendra Nath Banerjea reiterated this absence of image-worship in early Vedic period. While the physical appearances of Vedic deities were conceptually anthropomorphic, these deities were only artistically rendered through their specific actions or powers (Banerjea 43). Ultimately, “the worship of deities in anthropomorphic form, whether in 3 Brahmanism, Buddhism, or Jainism, is chronologically more coeval with each other” (Buddhist Art of India 28). What then, if not the pre-established Vedic tradition, could have influenced the anthropomorphic image of the Buddha? Ananda K. Coomaraswamy inferred that the multiple references of Yaksa and Naga cults in Buddhist texts could point to early hints of a shift in Indian artistic tradition towards the anthropomorphic representations of deities. Yaksas and Nagas were tutelary divinities with the feminine power of fertility, and these cults primarily consisted of lower caste Indians (Coomaraswamy 298) (figure 3). Eventually, the Yaksa and Naga figures were incorporated into Buddhist scriptures and later into the Buddhist pantheon in an effort to gain more converts, particularly from the aforementioned lower castes. As a result, Yaksas and Nagas came to be worshipped not for the sake of enlightenment, but as guardians from earthly ills. This would have been a significant shift in Buddhism toward the concept of divine intervention (Coomaraswamy 304). Jitendra Nath Banerjea added that this cultish influence evolved into the Upanishadic concept of bhakti, the devotion to a personal deity as the object of worship and ritual (Banerjea 72). In a sense, this led to an underlying growth and development of monotheism (or, at the very least, pantheism) in various religions rooted in Vedism, including Buddhism (Banerjea 73-4). Using this line of thought, aniconism could have been an effective tool to differentiate the Buddha from other sentient beings. Though the Yaksas and Nagas were deified, only the Buddha gained the ability to escape the cycle of life and death (Linrothe 253). The significant transition in the perception of the Buddha began with the lay community, rather than the monastic community. The population desired to subscribe to a “higher” religion than the bhakti cults, but remained unsatisfied with Buddhism’s lack of rituals in deistic worship (Srivastava 20). As a result, Buddhism underwent significant doctrinal changes, seen in the 4 evolving extent of his mortality and his transcendental abilities. Early Buddhist texts suggest the Buddha himself had actively warned against his own deification, including the Pali Canon, traditionally known to Buddhists as the “Word of the Buddha.” Believed to have originated from teachings of the Buddha himself, the canon was passed down through oral transmission until the first century BCE, when it was recorded in writing (Liu 89). Originally, Buddhism emphasized that no “external help” would be available to guide the individual towards the path to salvation. The Buddha, not considered divine, would not have the ability to interfere with the lives of the individuals after his death (89). However, even by the first century BCE, there were hints of dissatisfaction at this prospect. The Milindapanha was part of the Pali Canon, a specific section that dates to the first century BCE. It describes the philosophical exchange between Menander I (known as Milinda in the text), the ruler of the Indo-Greek kingdom in Bactria, and Nagasena, a Buddhist sage (The Questions of King Milinda xvii). In one instance, Milinda asks Nagasena if the continued worship of the Buddha’s relics suggested that the Buddha is still present in this world. Nagasena replied that the Buddha had left the world, and to honor his relics or give him offerings is more for the benefit or merit of his followers than to the Buddha himself (144-6). In another instance, Milinda stated that the Buddha claimed he should not lead his followers or believe that they depend on him, but later claimed he was the leader of his followers — was this a contradiction in the Buddha’s teachings? Nagasena replied that it is not the Buddha who seeks followers, but the followers who seek the Buddha’s guidance (225-6). This dilemma seems to justify the ambiguity regarding the Buddha’s status as a deity among his followers, thereby allowing the circumstances for an anthropomorphic depiction to be condoned. Although early texts stated that the Buddha 5 had warned against his own deification, this dilemma suggested that the Buddha did not in fact condemn the act of worship, but simply that he would not encourage it himself. According to tradition, the Lotus Sutra was written during the lifetime of the Buddha and subsequently hidden for five hundred years before resurfacing from the Fourth Buddhist Council in the first century CE. In the text, the Buddha remarked: “using skillful means I have manifested the state of nirvana to bring sentient beings to this path; yet I have not actually entered nirvana, but continually abide here expounding the Dharma. Although I am always among these erring beings, with my transcendent powers, I prevent them from seeing me” (The Lotus Sutra 228). This suggests that although the Buddha himself became enlightened and passed on through parinirvana, he has not yet ascended to nirvana and remains tied to the fate of the earthly world. This passage also implies his transcendent powers, allowing him to be invisible and to multiply himself into various manifestations. This divine perception of the Buddha is a far cry from the doctrines of early Buddhism, which simply depicted the Buddha as any other sentient being, but who ascended to nirvana and left behind the earthly world. The drive to popularize Buddhism meant that a level of idolatry needed to be tolerated and thus, by the first century CE, the Buddha image held little resemblance to the depiction of the Buddha at Buddhism’s intellectual inception in the fifth century BCE (Coomaraswamy 300). Madeleine Hallade argued that three primary events led to the development of the hybrid Buddha image: the conquests of Alexander the Great and the onset of Hellenism; the growing popularity of Buddhism; and the nomadic origins of the Kushan Empire (Hallade 13).