Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c42.s2.t2: Image-Worship
Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c42.s2.t2
- Language
- English
Image-Worship
v2.c42.s2.t2.1
In the Mahāvastu and the Lalitavistara Buddha is deified but there are no directions for making images of Buddha. The earliest literary evidence relating to image-making is yielded by the Divyāvadāna, in which Aśoka is found to be consulting Piṇḍola Bharadvāja regarding the features (mahāpuruṣa-
v2.c42.s2.t2.2
Sabbābhibhu sabbavidu'ham asmi
sabbesu dhammesu anupalitta
sabbamjaho taṇhakkhaye vimutto
sayam abhiññāya kam uddiseyyam. Cf. Mahāvastu, iii, p. 326.
v2.c42.s2.t2.3
lakṣaṇa) of the image.¹ In the Mahāvaṃsa² too is recorded a similar attempt of Aśoka who consulted the Nāga king for an account of the image. One need not be so credulous as to take these traditions as authentic, but the fact is that the practice of image-worship was taken up by the Buddhists sometime before the 4th century A.D. about which time the Divyāvadāna and the Mahāvaṃsa were composed. We may now pass on to the monumental evidences. In the Sanchi and Barhut sculptures there are no images of Buddha. The most significant fact is that the seats of Buddha are shown as vacant. The earlier methods of indicating Buddha's place in a scene were by depicting his Vajrāsana, Bodhi tree or pādukā (wooden slippers) or stūpa. If the date of Sanchi and Barhut sculptures be placed in the 2nd and 1st century B.C. we have to admit that image-worship did not prevail at that period. The practice of image-worship therefore came into vogue about the 1st or 2nd century A.D. at the earliest. The Amarāvatī sculptures, belonging to the Mahāsanghikas and their offshoots, are studded with numerous Buddha-images but the dates of these sculptures are placed by the archaeologists in the 2nd century A.D.³
v2.c42.s2.t2.4
¹ Divyāvadāna, p. 400.
v2.c42.s2.t2.5
² Mahāvaṃsa, p. 37
v2.c42.s2.t2.6
³ Buddhist Remains in Andhra, etc. by K. R Subramanian, 1932, p. 15.
v2.c42.s2.t2.7
Though the image of Buddha is wanting in the earlier sculptures there are ample evidences to show the wide prevalence of symbol worship. The artists probably did not make an image of the omniscient refulgent Buddha with all the signs of great men (mahāpuruṣa), but the feeling of adoration to Buddha was there, and this they expressed by concourse of men and gods and even animals, bowing down reverentially to the stūpas, Bodhi-tree or the Vajrāsana, or offering flowers and garlands. In the post-Christian eras, however, the Buddha images not only came into vogue, but practically the Buddhist centres were flooded with such images, some of the most exquisite Gandharan art while others of indigenous local developments. Merit accrued to both the artist and the donor of an image, and so it was quite natural there should be such an exuberance of Buddha-images in the post-Christian eras. Both the Hīnayānists and the Mahāyānists started making images and temples and decorated the stūpas with countless images.
Linked texts (4)
- Mahāvastu — Sanskrit
- Divyāvadāna — Sanskrit
- Mahāvaṃsa — Pāli
- Majjhimanikāya — Pāli