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 of Buddhism, for examples,
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’.