Buddha Images

Beginning in the second and third centuries bce, Buddhist iconography becomes available for archaeological study. The earliest Buddhist imagery is found on the railings defining the pradakshina at second century bce pilgrimage centers and, perhaps, columns erected by Mauryan kings in the third century bce. Early Buddhist iconography is rich and detailed, with numerous depictions of stupas, people worshiping the Buddha, and events in the Buddha’s life. What is not depicted, however, is the Buddha himself. Prior to the beginning of the first millennium CE, depictions of the Buddha were limited to standardized symbols of his presence, including footprints, empty thrones, trees, and parasols. The earliest Buddha images in India were sculpted in Gandhara and Mathura in the first and second centuries CE. From this location in the northwestern periphery

Figure 1.4: First or second century BCE relief from the North Gate of Sanchi and fourth-seventh century Gandharan Buddha image

Both images courtesy of the Digital South Asia Library and the American Institute of Indian Studies (Accession Nos. 40173 and 20510).

Of India, the tradition of Buddha images spread across other portions of India and beyond. By the mid-first millennium ce, Buddha images were common at both pilgrimage centers and monasteries throughout India (see Figure 1.4).

Beginning in Chapter 5, I extensively examine the origin and development of Buddha images in India. Buddha images were first carved at roughly the same time as Mahayana Buddhism began to develop. The earliest Buddha images, however, did not depict Mahayana figures—they were depictions of biographical events in the life of the Buddha consistent with the theology and doctrines of early Buddhism (Leidy 2008; Schopen 2005:11-12). That is, where earlier Buddhist iconography would depict the Buddha through symbols of his presence, the earliest Buddha images retained the earlier style, but replaced the symbols of the Buddha with images of the Buddha. While Buddha images demonstrate that the earlier taboo on depictions of the Buddha was being challenged, they do not signify the advent of Mahayana Buddhism. The earliest images with Mahayana elements might date to the second or third century CE, with Mahayana images becoming common only in the fifth and sixth centuries CE (Bareau 1985; Leidy 2008; Schopen 2005:11-12). This is not to say that the origin of Buddha images and Mahayana Buddhism are unrelated. They both testify to a shift in the practice of Buddhism between the first and fifth centuries CE. Both Buddha images and Mahayana Buddhism signify a greater emphasis on the person of the Buddha and the beginning of a new ascetic ideal within Buddhism.

The Limits of Archaeological Evidence

While archaeology has much to offer the study of Indian Buddhism, there are some issues on which it is mostly mute. Most important, currently there are no Buddhist remains that date to the time of the Buddha, and very few that date to the two centuries after his death. In fact, with the exception of Lumbini (Coningham et al. 2013), no archaeological materials can be unequivocally shown to both be Buddhist and date to a period prior to the third century bce. Given this, archaeology cannot be used to study Buddhism in the time of the Buddha or the centuries immediately following his death. As I have argued above, the same can be said of the Buddhist textual sources, which date to the beginning of the first millennium CE. Without significant textual, inscriptional, or archaeological evidence to employ, an archaeological history of Indian Buddhism can only begin in the third century bce, some two centuries after the Buddha’s death. This does not mean that archaeology has nothing to say about the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries bce. There are numerous archaeological sites dating to this period. It’s just that very little in these sites is unequivocally Buddhist. Archaeology can inform on the general social context in which Buddhism emerged, but it cannot inform on the specifics of Buddhism during that period.

Another problem with the archaeological sources is the lack of research on domestic settings. With few exceptions (e. g., Marshall [1951] 1975; Smith 2001), archaeological research has been limited to the pilgrimage centers and monasteries of India. Buddhist textual sources frequently note that the sangha would perform rituals in the homes and villages of the laity. Without excavations of domestic contexts, archaeology cannot contribute to a study of domestic Buddhist ritual. It would undoubtedly be interesting and informative to compare the ritual practices of the Buddhist sangha and the laity, to see the points of similarity and disjuncture. With luck, future excavations can focus on the more quotidian lives of ancient Indians, but for now this hole in Buddhist history cannot be filled.

There is one final absence in the archaeological record that is more difficult to ignore. At present, no archaeological evidence for Buddhist ascetics has been found in India. There are many caves that are alleged to have been used by the Buddha, his disciples, or other prominent ascetics, but none has been properly excavated or has inscriptions dating to the time of their use. For example, Faxian notes in his fifth-century CE chronicle of his travels in India that several natural caves near the city Rajgir were used by ancient ascetics, and that the caves were the focus of pilgrimage at the time he visited them. But no archaeological or epigraphic evidence confirms Faxian’s claims. While it is possible that the evidence of Buddhist asceticism has not yet been found, or that the structures used by Buddhist ascetics were too perishable to have survived to the present day, at some point negative evidence begins to actually mean something.

The absence of evidence for Buddhist ascetics in India becomes more problematic when viewed in terms of the ample evidence for early asceticism in the rest of the Buddhist world. In Sri Lanka, for example, caves were used by early Buddhist ascetics from, perhaps, as early as the third century BCE (Carrithers 1983:6; Coningham 2001). In Thailand, the archaeological signature of Buddhist asceticism is similarly easy to find, with the caves and other material remains of forest monks dating as early as the sixth and seventh centuries CE (Munier 1998:34). Given the relative ease with which Buddhist asceticism has been found in other parts of the Buddhist world, the lack of evidence of Buddhist asceticism in India becomes more notable. Among the central arguments of this book is that, contrary to the standard history of Buddhism, asceticism was a late development in Indian Buddhism, and existed more as an ideal to think about than as an actual thing the sangha did. Lacking any archaeological evidence of Buddhism prior to the third century BCE, and arguing from negative evidence for the rest of the sequence, this will be difficult.