DeCaroli - Image Problems: The Origin and Development of the Buddhas Image in Early South Asia

Each time one sees it, your body gives new joy
For its sight cannot ever satiate, its aspect is so pleasing.
Where else would these virtues of a Tathgata [Buddha] be well housed?
Except in this form of yours, blazing with signs and marks.

Mtceas hymn to the Buddha in the atapacatkastotra

[The Buddha said:] What do you think, Kyapa, is any... human or non-human even able to make an image of the Tathgatas [Buddhas]? Kyapa said: No, Blessed One. Since a Tathgata is unexpressible, his body inconceivable, because of that it is not easy to make an image of them.

Kyapa and the Buddha discussing images in the Maitreyasihanda Stra

IN the decades following the start of the first century CE, Buddhists in South Asia had a great deal to say on the subject of images and their use in religious contexts. Yet for all this information, it is futile, or at least misleading, to ask for a singular response to the question of what they thought about visual representations of the Buddha. Although it can be difficult to accurately date textual sources, it is safe to say that views on image use varied widely, and the views of individual authors only occasionally conformed to those expressed by other Buddhists.

The Divyvadna, for example, includes tales of monks achieving advanced spiritual states merely by seeing a copy of the Buddhas bodily form.

It would seem that under the placid surface of the waters we collectively refer to as Buddhism there were deep currents pulling in very different directions. Although we can now look back on these texts and deduce that they represent a range of views shaped by sectarian affiliation, regional factors, historical shifts, and individual beliefs, the texts rarely identify themselves in such fashion and frequently claim to speak with the authority of the Buddha himself.

If we need to be cautious in making general claims about Buddhist ideas on image use, we also need to be wary of treating the Buddhist acceptance of figural art as something that happened at a singular moment or for a singular reason. What emerge from the sources, both textual and material, are a rich variety and wide range of views that never actually coalesce into a single, pervasive point of view. This book constitutes a portrait of an uneasy relationship between the Buddhist authors and depictions of their Teacher, whose form is sometimes rejected entirely, frequently tolerated, and rarely embraced unconditionally. Most typically, Buddhist sources produced during and after the first century adopt a middle ground between outright rejection of and total comfort with image use. These sources are replete with explanations, justifications, and restrictions seeking to regulate the viewers relationship to the art.

Given the piecemeal nature of the historical evidence, a comprehensive catalogue of the full spectrum of South Asian Buddhist views on images use is not possible. What is possible is a study of the major concepts, concerns, and issues that recur in the textual sources or can be traced in the archaeological remains. This book is an attempt to understand the history of Buddhisms relationships with figural art as an ongoing set of negotiations within the Buddhist community and in society at large. Any hope of understanding early Buddhists views on figural art requires that we situate these individuals within the world they inhabited and examine the cultural practices and concepts they would have considered familiar.