Aniconism in Buddhism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An aniconic representation of Mara's assault on the Buddha, 2nd century CE, Amaravati, India.

Buddhist art used to be aniconic^{[citation needed]}: the Buddha was only represented through his symbols (an empty throne, the Bodhi tree, the Buddha's footprints, the prayer 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.^{[citation needed]} Although there is still some debate, the first anthropomorphic representations of the Buddha himself are often considered a result of the Greco-Buddhist interaction.^{[citation needed]}

However, in recent times, the notion of aniconism in Buddhism was challenged by a number of Buddhologists.^{[citation needed]} They point to the fact there is only one indirect reference for the doctrine to be found, and that pertaining to only one sect. As for the archeological evidence, it shows anthropomorphic sculptures of Buddha actually existing during the supposedly aniconic period, which ended in the first centuries CE. ^[1]

1 See also
2 References
- 2.1 General
- 2.2 Buddhism

[edit] See also

[edit] References

[edit] General

Jack Goody, Representations and Contradictions: Ambivalence Towards Images, Theatre, Fiction, Relics and Sexuality, London, Blackwell Publishers, 1997. ISBN 0-631-20526-8.