The creation of the Buddhist symbol Sacred space(TM) is within the image of the Buddha

University Degree Creative Arts and Design

The creation of the Buddhist symbol ‘Sacred space’ is within the image of the Buddha

The ‘Sacred’ Symbol of The image of the Buddha

In Buddhist art, there are two main styles of the image of the Buddha, Shakyamuni or the present Buddha and Maitreya or the future Buddha. Both relate to two doctrines of Buddhism, Hinnayana/Theravada and Mahayana.

For example;

A. The Image of Shakyamuni or the present Buddha

Shakyamuni is the sage of the Shakya family. Shakya is the family of Prince Siddhartha, who became the historical Buddha and was the founder of Buddhism.

Shakyamuni is associated with the symbol of ‘enlightenment and heroic achievement’.

B. The Image of Maitreya or the future Buddha

The image of the future Buddha appears in a form of Bodhisattva in the Tushita heaven, who be reborn as the new Buddha, He wears a form of stupa on his headdress and often carries a vase and a wheel. One example can be seen in the Mahamini temple in Arakan. The Maitreya sometimes appears with many arms. The symbols of Maitreya convey many types of happiness and the next life.

These two ways of representing the image of the Buddha not only have appearances using different symbols, but are also, the two main doctrines, Theravada and Mahayana, and they show different aspects of sculpture (Figure 1).

The characteristics of these two main images of the Buddha demonstrate a significance of the different meanings of the symbol. However, how can we define the use of the sacred symbol? In fact, the attitude of the six variations of the hand and other religious surrounding objects the image of both present and future Buddha directly indicate a sacred symbol of worshipping. Nevertheless, each ‘sacred symbol’ can be found in different perspectives, depending on the sculpture.

As seen in the ‘sacred symbol’, which is often found in the image of Theravada Buddhism, mostly relate to the ‘sacred ritual’ of the Lord Buddha. However, the ‘sacred symbol’ of the Mahayana Buddhism can be seen in various styles of image. It is note of worthy to point that the symbol of the image of Theravada Buddhism is static, severe, peaceful and untouchable whereas the image of the future Buddha is more curved, friendly, imaginary, beautiful and moving (figure 2). Moreover, we can see these mythological animals and sacred symbol, which are to be found in both types ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The Wheel of the Law

This symbol shows the Shakyamuni’s first Sermon in the Deer park and represents the time of teaching of the Buddha. In Mahayana, Buddhism especially in Tibet, the Wheel of the Law signifies the processing of life or the circle of life and often appears with two deer representing renunciation and solitude.

The Lotus

The lotus throne was a symbol of the attainment of enlightenment. In Mahayanist doctrine, the lotus is a symbol of the feminine and female wisdom.

Naga or the Serpent

Naga usually signifies the protector of the Buddha during his meditation and a guardian of the earth’s water. However, in Mahayanist Tibet, Naga is believed to enhance the fortune of devotees and to send rain for crops and pastures.

In addition, the position of ‘Touching the Earth’ in the meaning is different. Theravada Buddhism refers this position to the ‘witness’ of the Buddha describing when he got enlightenment in solitude and the goddess Earth comes to confirm his enlightenment. However, the Mahayana Buddhism refers to the position of his victory over Mara. Although, the ‘sacred’ symbols taken from the legend of the Lord Buddha depict different senses in different versions of the image of the Buddha, which depends on the individual perception of different cultures, the main subject and theme are both influenced by the ritual cult of the Buddha. Nevertheless, are ‘sacred’ symbols essential interpreting the image of the Buddha? We can tell from the above example that the ‘sacred’ symbols narrate the holy story of the Lord Buddha and that and help us to understand the image of the Buddha.

In this essay, Basic Writing, the origin of the Work of Art, Heidegger, define the work of art as a symbol, as follow,

‘ Allegory and symbol provide the conceptual frame within whose channel of vision the art work that manifests another, this one element that joins with another, is the ‘thingly’ feature in the artworks. It seems almost as the thingly element in the artwork is like the substructure into upon which the other, proper element is built’

This paragraph insists that the symbol can lead us to discover the ‘ truth of the art’, which is the main topic of Heidegger’s theory.

However, one thing that come to mind after having summarising these ‘sacred’ symbols is that the construction of the ‘sacred symbol’ and the image of the Buddha such as, the Wheel of law can be understand as either whole or separate entities. In terms of sculptural form or art objects, they seem to be separated, because the Wheel of Law show in the form of a wheel and the image of the Buddha is the representation of and there is no physical connection between them. However, if they are understood as the theme of the Buddha, scared symbols or in this case the Wheel, and the image of the Buddha are seen as a whole.(Figure 3) In the narrative sense, when we see the Wheel of Law and the image of the Buddha place next to each other, we understand that the theme of this sculpture is the representation of the Buddha learning and teaching the Buddhist lesson. So, can the Wheel be ‘sacred’ without the image of the Buddha? Heidegger believes that ‘art is a truth’ and ‘art is the essence of being’, so that a work of art becomes a ‘thing’ when we perceive it as an actual object.

‘ Works of art are familiar to everyone, Architecture and sculptural works can be seen installed in public places, in churches, and in dwellings. Artworks of the most diverse periods and people are housed in collections and exhibitions. If we consider the works in their untouched actuality and do not deceive ourselves, the result is that the works are a naturally present as are things’

(Heidegger, the Basic writing: the Origin of the work of art )

Heidegger also mentions that the knowledge of art may not convey the whole meaning of the essence of art. In effect, what does Heidegger think about the association of ‘art and space’ if he believes, that art is art itself?

‘ We should have to learn to recognise that things themselves are places and do not merely belong to a place…The interplay of art and space would have to be thought from out of the experience of place and region. Art as sculpture: and on occupying of space. Sculpture would not deal with space’

(Heidegger, the Basic writing: the Origin of the work of art )

For me, his theory raises the question of whether time affects the motion of space.

I do not agree that art and space are not combined, or art is independent of space. For example, if we look on the religious symbol as the ‘truth of art’, which meaning without an understanding of the narrative, is the symbol still a symbol? If we look at the Wheel of Law in a museum without the image of the Buddha, do we have a feeling of the teaching or the learning of the lesson of Buddhism?

Moreover, does the ‘sacred symbol’ become a ‘sacred’ object because of the image of the Buddha? In this sense, we have to consider that the combining of ‘sacred symbol’ and the image of the Buddha causing them to become ‘sacred’.