ARS ORIENTALIS sponsored* by FREER GALLERY OF ART SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION THE DEPARTMENT OF THE HISTORY OF ART UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN published by THE DEPARTMENT OF THE HISTORY OF ART UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Volume 22 1992 • T REJOINDER TO SUSAN HUNTINGTON My essay on multivalence and the problem of aniconism proposed the existence of three alternative ways, sometimes conflated, of interpreting early Buddhist reliefs; it did "not use a systematic and comprehensive approach to critiquing [Susan Huntington's] ideas" (S. Huntington, "Aniconism and the Multivalence of Emblems: Another Look," Ars Orientalis 22 [1992]: 142) since such a critique was not my objective. Nor is criticism my intention in this brief rejoinder; rather, I wish succincdy to restate my stance on the issue of aniconism, a term that is best abandoned in the context of early Buddhist art since it seems to carry so much "baggage" with it. It is my opinion that the majority of early Buddhist reliefs—whether they tell the story of the Buddha or, alternatively, in Susan Huntington's current formulation, of per-sonalitieswhose lives intersectedwith that of the Buddha—do indeed contain a visual reference to the presence of the Buddha. A wide range of emblems, including a slab of stone, an empty seat, footprints, and empty space topped by a parasol, constitute the Buddha's presence as "absent signifi-er." Terms such as indexical traceor more simply visual marker, generated in student seminars, may be more appropriate to designate the many emblematic indicators of the Buddha's presence; my forthcoming book on Buddhist visual narratives will address the use of such terminology. I visualize a sophisticated ancient artistic and literary milieu and, hence, multivalence is a key concept in my interpretation of early Buddhist reliefs. A panel focusing on an "absent signifier," and which I interpret as referring primarily to an event in die Buddha's life, frequendy contains a secondary level of meaning that carries reference to the site ofthat event (with trees and pillars simply representing themselves, as Susan Huntington clarifies in her response) . Conversely, a panel depicting a pilgrimage site may carry reference to the figure whose actions converted it into a sacred ürtha. In either case, die panels may contain additional allusions to Buddhist ideals, with the tree bearing reference to the wisdom of enlightenment and the wheel-crowned pillar testifying to the truth of the doctrine. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the substantial contribution made by the Huntingtons in accentuating the importance of pilgrimage and tirthas and thereby challenging die unquestioning acceptance of aniconism. Beyond diis, in the spirit of The Journal of Asian Studies' recommendation to its reviewers to "generate light and not heat," it may be best to agree to disagree. Vidya Dehejia ArS OiieMkMi UI*y\Wyt.hs-C(>: t,'ct-aiM'c&v\ ANICONISM AND THE MULTIVALENCE OF EMBLEMS* ByVIDYADEHEJIA Although rr is axiomatic among literary critics that a work may contain multiple layers of meaning, many historians of art, particularly of early Buddhist art, seem curiously reluctant to accept a comparable conflation of meanings. Yet if Asvaghosa, writing his Buddhacharita around a.D. 100, could make habitual use of words in two or more meanings,1 and if Aryašura could constantly use slesa or double entendre in his fourth-century Jatakamälä* parallel skills were undoubtedly known to the artist producing visual narratives in the media of stone and paint. This essay advocates the need to recognize, accept, and even admire the multiplicity of meanings apparent in early Buddhist sculpture and painting, in which the artist reminded the viewer of the manifold religious interpretations that may be suggested by any single emblem. Scholars have insisted too much upon singular and exclusive explanations of early Buddhist reliefs, from the totally aniconic interpretation of the early 1900s* to the somewhat restrictive site-oriented interpretation of this last decade.4 There are two critical and complementary prerequisites for the accurate interpretation of early Buddhist art. The first is an awareness of the multiple meanings conveyed by the major Buddhist emblems of the tree, the piHar, and the stüpa. The emblem is a picture that represents something different from itself. The tree, pillar, and stüpa may in fact be interpreted in three distinct and equally valid ways in different contexts and in varying visual compositions. In their first aspect, emblems may be read as aniconic presentations of the Buddha. The term "aniconic" carries the dictionary meaning of "symbolizing without aiming at resemblance," and "aniconism" is defined as "Svorship or veneration of an object that represents a god without being an image of him."5 This essay will show that a variety of emblems, including footprints, a seat or throne, a parasol, and a pillar of radiance, were frequently used, singly or in combination, to represent the person of the Buddha in a narrative art that was primarily concerned with the biography of the Buddha. To deny the validity of this concern of the ancient artists, devotees, monks, and nuns6 is to misread the overall message of the monuments. In their second aspect, the emblems of the tree, pillar, and stüpa, seen in relief sculptures, may 'Editor's note:The Ars Orientalis Editorial Board has invited Susan Huntington of Ohio State University to respond to this article. Her rejoinder will appear in volume 22. represent sacred spots, or lirthas, and the devotions performed there. Thus, the bodhitxee may be intended to representBodh Gayä, site of the enlightenment; the wheel-crowned pillar may represent Sämäth, site of the first sermon; and the stüpa may represent one of the sacred relic mounds built at a variety of sites. In their third aspect, these same emblems of tree, pillar, and stüpa are to be viewed as attributes of the faith; thus the tree is intended to recall the divine wisdom of the Buddha, while the pillar suggests his sacred doctrine. The exact interpretation of the emblems depends on their visual context In one panel, the tree sheltering a seat may be an emblem that portrays the presence of the Buddha himself; the sacred pipal tree may indicate the enlightenment of the Buddha, while a mango tree may indicate his presence at Šrävasti. In another panel, the tree with a seat beneath it may stand for a hallowed pilgrimage site; the sacred pipal tree may indicate Bodh Gayä, site of the enlightenment. In yet other panels, the pipal tree is intended to recall the essence of the enlightenment—the supreme wisdom of the Buddha. Clearly, not every depiction of symbols should be read as an aniconic portrayal of the Buddha, but it is equally invalid to deny the existence of an aniconic phase and to maintain that scenes with symbols should be interpreted either as sacred tirthas or as pageantry reenactments of events from the life of the Buddha. The second crucial prerequisite for interpreting the emblems is to acknowledge their multilayered significance. The nonfigural emblem, in narrative presentations, makes simultaneous reference both to the presence of the Buddha and to the truths that his life manifested. Equally, a relief may be read both as an event in the life of the Buddha and as the holy site at which that event occurred. It must be emphasized that the artists working at the early Buddhist sites frequendy seem to have intended a conflation of meanings. When the primary intention was to depict an event from the Buddha's biography, the artist often included a reference to the site as a (irtha. For instance, the Bhärhut scenes of the Buddha's enlightenment on the Prasenajit pillar, considered below, include a shrine around the bodhi tree that was not built until two centuries after the historical moment of the enlightenment While the prime intention of this panel was to depict the historical event, the artist's portrayal of the shrine also suggests the holy site. In fact, as explained below, parallel instances of 46 VIDYA DEHEJIA *£*.»■-"*■" Fig. 1. Visií ofKing Prasenajit of Kasala to Shrine Built to Honor the Buddha, Bhärhut. Courtesy American Institute of Indian Studies (AIIS). such depictions exist in non-Buddhist contexts too. It is probable that neither the artist nor the early Indian worshipper at Bhärhut found anything incongruous in such conflations. Panels with the reverse emphasis also occur: When a wheel is portrayed to suggest primarily the site of the first sermon, it is also surely intended to remind the viewer of the Buddha who preached that sermon at the site. In a similar manner, the attribute and the aniconic portrayal are conflated: a wheel, intended to indicate the wisdom of the Buddha, also serves to remind the viewer of the Buddha whose wisdom it exemplifies. Through its capacity for multiple reference, the emblem suggests the simultaneity of events that occur at separate times. Significandy, a double layer of meaning appears to inform the greater number of narrative reliefs at Bhärhut, Sänchi, and other early Buddhist sites. One such instance of multilayered meaning may be seen on the Prasenajit pillar at Bhärhut, in a panel that uses ANICONISM AND THE MULTIVALENCE OF EMBLEMS 47 the synoptic mode7 to depict the visit of King Prasena-jit to the shrine he built in honor of the Buddha (fig. 1). It is important to understand that the panel does not depict Sämäth, the site of the first sermon.8 To the lower right is a barrel-roofed gateway from which emerge horse and riders who represent the monarch and his entourage; they are repeated to the lower left as they ride on towards the shrine. On the roof of the gateway is the inscribed identifying label "King Pasenaji of Kosala," which may not be ignored; it suggests the actual historical event in which the monarch visited the Buddha at Prasenajit's capital of Šrävasti and listened to his sermon. A large barrel-vaulted shrine housing a garlanded wheel surmounted by a garlanded parasol occupies the larger part of the panel; the two flanking figures probably represent the circumambulating monarch rather than two separate worshippers. The circumambulation of the shrine building itself is suggested by the placement, on either side, of figures riding horses and elephants. The shrine roof carries the words "Bhagavato dhammacha-ko," or "Wheel of doctrine of the Holy One,"9 suggesting that the intention is to portray the wheel as an object of worship in the shrine erected by King Pra-senajit and to recall the sermon given there rather than to indicate the actual presence of the Buddha. However, the conflation of meanings is inevitable and surely intentional. The shrine was built by King Prasenajit at the spot where the Buddha had preached to him; undoubtedly, the artist intended that the relief should also recall that event. As a nonfigural emblem, the wheel emphasizes the Law and also refers to the Buddhá as the Giver of that Law. Most early Buddhist visual narratives contain this double layer of meaning. As soon as we accept the validity of such a system, with its accent on the fluidity of meanings, and cease to insist upon a single explanation to be applied in every instance, aniconism ceases to be such a vexed problem. It may be advisable first to correct certain misconceptions that have arisen around the problem of aniconism so that we may clearly distinguish the "baby"from the "bath water." Certainly, the oversim-plistic assumption of a Hínayäna phase which produced aniconic art, followed by a Mahäyäna phase which introduced the anthropomorphic icon, must be abandoned. The basic split of early Buddhism into the Sarvästivädin (Hínayäna) and the Mahäsarrighika (from which all Mahäyäna schools probably developed) occurred prior to the tíme of Asoka, and the two systems coexisted from an early date. Evidence of such coexistence at around the turn of the Christian era is provided by the inscriptions of Rajüvala (ca. a.D. 1-15) and Šodasa (ca. a.D. 10-25). Their Kharosthl record on the Mathurä lion capital refers to the dedication of a Sarvästivädin stüpaznd monastery for the monks of the four directions and to the gift of a vihara to the Sarvästivädins as dhammadäna; it concludes with a mention of ächärya Budhi, "who had knowledge to teach the foremost Mahäsamghikas the truth."10 In addition, it is today accepted that Hínayäna schools were actively involved in the worship of the Buddha image; in fact, it has been demonstrated that some of the earliest images were Hínayäna dedications.11 One such is the ten-foot-tall Šrävasti image of the Buddha, which, together with its monumental umbrella and shaft, was dedicated in the year 3 of Kanishka by the monk Bala, who was well versed in the Tripitakas. The image was set up in the hall known as Kosambakuti "for possession of the Sarvästivädin Teachers." Hínayäna and Mahäyäna schools12 coexisted for centuries, and both were interested in images; it would be quite incorrect to associate the one with aniconism and the other with the anthropomorphic icon. The differences between them lay in other and more complex realms. The pageantry theory proposed as an alternative to aniconism is riddled with complications; in particular, there is little evidence, if any, that Buddhism had a tradition akin to that of the Christian passion plays, in which events from a sacred biography were staged.1' The suggestion that the great departure of the Buddha (fig. 2), portrayed on the central architrave Fie. 2. The Great Departure, Sänchi. Courtesy Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). 48 VIDYA DEHEJIA (inner face) of the east gateway at Sänchi, depicts not the actual event in the life of the Buddha but a later reenactment14 poses major problems both for the interpretation of the visual material and for the perception of early Buddhist devotions at a sacred site. In visual terms, if aniconism did not exist, what could possibly have led the artist to avoid portraying upon the horse the human actor who played the part of the Buddha? Why would he have resorted to the extraordinary device of portraying a parasol hovering at an appropriate height above empty space over the horse? Equally problematic is the effect of the pageantry interpretation on the concept of the expression of Buddhist religious sentiment. It does a disservice to the notion of the religious devotion of the many hundreds of monks, nuns, and lay worshippers who contributed towards the decoration of the Sänchi stüpa (no less than 631 donative records) to suggest that they would build the immense stone structure and then decorate it merely with pictures of a pageant! Surely it was unnecessary to depict the enactment of an event when the artist could easily circumvent that middle step and depict the event itself. The whole purpose of going to a stüpa was indeed to experience the presence of the Buddha through proximity with his enshrined relic. The inscription on the Bajaur relic casket, dated in the reign of the Indo-Greek King Menandér (ca. 140-110 b.c.), speaks of the bodily relics of Šäkyamuni as präna-samäda, or "endowed with life."15 Recentstudy of the inscription at the main stüpa at Nägärjunakonda suggests that both monks and lay worshippers considered the essence of the Buddha, perhaps even his living presence, to be actually contained within the relic.16 However, the presence of the relic does not thereby preclude the need for stories from the life; in fact, reliving the historic life through viewing narrative sculptures recounting those events would enrich the experience of going to a stüpa. Equally, it is not valid to assume that the prevailing religion during this early period emphasized the perfection of virtues narrated in thejätakas, thereby obviating the need for life scenes. The proposition that the early art of India was not primarily concerned with the biography of the Buddha17 is difficult to sustain. On the contrary, scenes from the Buddha biography took pride of place in the decorative scheme of the first extensively decorated stüpa at Bhärhut. Life scenes were carved primarily on the prominent entrance pillars of the Bhärhut railing, where they would be readily seen by those who visited the site. Not a single biographical scene exists on the smaller spaces created by the meandering lotus stem along the Bhärhut coping, several fee t above eye level, where onlyjätaka tales are placed. The half dozen or so portrayals of (irthas at Bhärhut are all to be found sculpted upon the crossbars of the railing.18 The interpretation of the emblem, with its inherent fluidity of meanings, will be considered under its three valid categories—first as an aniconic presentation of the Buddha, next as a sacred site, and finally as an attribute. Relief panels from Bhärhut, Sänchi, Amarävati, and the Gandhäran region will illustrate the discussion, although this brief analysis makes no attempt to present a chronological development. The necessary independent treatment of each site will be found in my book-length study of Buddhist visual narratives. The Aniconic Presence A number of panels at Bhärhut, some with inscriptions of vital importance, provide incontrovertible evidence that the artist is depicting not the site of a great event but rather incidents from the sacred biography in which the Buddha is portrayed in aniconic form. One such is the story of the Serpent King Erapata, told through the mode of synoptic narrative in three distinct episodes on the central panel of the outer face of the Prasenajit pillar (fig. 3). To the rear of the panel, Erapata emerges from the waters of a river in purely reptilian form with his daughter upon his hood; beside them, also half submerged, is the young brahmin who provides the answer to Erapata's question. The second scene, in the right foreground, depicts Erapata in human form with a snake hood above his head, accompanied by his two queens as they emerge from the waters to go in search of the Buddha. The identifying label "Erapato Nägaräja" is inscribed directly below the serpent king, along the vertical pillar of the band of railing that encloses the scene. Of crucial importance to the interpretation of aniconism is the final episode, which occupies the left third of the panel: Erapata, with hands joined in adoration, kneels in fron t of a seat beneath a garlanded tree. To ensure that the viewer is aware of the significance of the seat and garlanded tree as the emblematic presence of the Buddha, the words "Erapato Nägaräja Bhagavato Vadate," or "Serpent King Erapata adores the Holy One," are inscribed intrusively into the visual field, just behind the kneeling figure. It seems difficult to read this inscribed piece of visual narrative as anything other than an instance of the aniconic depiction of the Buddha. A second panel that provides undeniable evidence of aniconism is the visit of King Ajätashatru to the Buddha (fig. 4), narrated in aset offourscenes on the lowest panel of face one of the Ajätashatru pillar. To the lower left, the monarch and his queens ride upon ANICONISM AND THE MULTIVALENCE OF EMBLEMS 49 'l>-'"j>~viÄ'.**r'~7i:0sr:ft ■*■ **"*(• ^-s^wk^i^-.! ľľSLl: Fig. 3. Story of Serpent King Erapata, Bhärhut. Courtesy ASI. Fig. 4. King Ajatashatru Visits the Buddha. Courtesy ASI. 50 VIDYA DEHEJIA Fíc. 5. Enlightenment face of Prasenajit pillar, Bhärhut. Courtesy ASI. elephants on their way to visit the Buddha, while to the rightisakneelingerephantfrom which Ajätashatru has dismounted in the mango grove (two trees suffice) of Jíva, where the Buddha is residing. The third scene, occupying the left rear of the panel, depicts the king and his queens standing with hands joined in adoration while a hanging lamp places the incidentin the nighttime hours.19 The final scene to the right rear is crucial to the issue under discussion; it depicts Ajätashatru kneeling before footprints, throne, and parasol. To ensure that the viewer correctly identifies the footprints, throne, and parasol as the Buddha, the artist added the label "Ajäíasatu Bhagavato vamdate," or "Ajätashatru bows to the Blessed One," which is inscribed sideways along the pilaster enclosing the panel to the right. It is difficult to misconstrue the artist's intention. Three interrelated panels pertaining to the enlightenment (fig. 5) on the inner face of the Prasenajit pillar at Bhärhut provide a third instance of ani-conism, in which inscriptional evidence (all of nine epigraphs) confirms the interpretation. The uppermost panel depicts the bodhi tree surrounded by a shrine upon whose roof are inscribed the words "Bhagavato sakamunino bodho," to be interpreted as "enlightenment of the Holy One Šakyämuni. "*° The throne, which is surmounted by triratna emblems and stands beneath the bodhi tree encircled by a hypaethral shrine, represents, in this instance, the presence of the enlightened Buddha. The inclusion of a pillar or shrine that was built after the event represented in the relief need not invalidate this identification. First, a double layer of meaning appears to be intended. By including in a scene of the enlightenment the shrine around the tree that was built some time after the event, the artist surely intended that the viewer also recall the sacred site of the bodhi tree at Gayä. Secondly, there are other instances in which artists included later structures in scenes of a life event. In one of these a sixteenth-century artist painted events from the life of the seventh-century Tamil saint Sambandar around the temple tank at Madurai.21 The sacred sites visited by Sambandar in seventh-century Tamilnädu consisted merely of hallowed lingas standing out in the open air beneath trees; the temples that enshrine them were built three hundred years later under Chola rule. The sixteenth-century artist, however, quite happily portrayed Sambandar visiting temples that never existed during the life portrayed. Temples had become the hallmark of the sites; it probably never occurred to him, nor to the Bhärhut artist, that such a portrayal might be considered anachronistic. On the panel immediately below, four sets of gods, ANICONISM AND THE MULTIVALENCE OF EMBLEMS separated by the compositional device of a tree, arrive to praise the enlightened Buddha—an event that occurred simultaneously with the enlightenment. Confirming the identification are the inscriptions, which identify the gods thus: "in the northern quarter, the three [classes of] Savaganisisas," "in the eastern quarter, the Sudháväsa gods," and "in the southern quarter, the six thousand Kämävacharas." There does not appear to be an inscription in the damaged portion of the panel to identify the gods of the western direction, among whom winged figures and nag-as are clearly evident. To the far left, disconsolately drawing pictures on the ground with a stick, is the figure of Mara, whom certain texts*2 place at the event. Connecting the two panels on a visual level is an elephant-crowned column that rises from the lower into the upper level. The lowest panel, depicting a group of female musicians and four dancing figures, also portrays an event simultaneous with the enlightenment; it represents the heavenly nymphs who in the tradition referred to above2' arrive to honor the enlightened Buddha. The five inscriptions on this panel substantiate the identification of the scene. The names Sub-hadrä apsarä, Padmävati apsarä, and Alambusä apsarä are inscribed immediately beside three of the dancing figures; lack of space apparently required the name of the fourth, Mišrakeši apsarä, to be engraved along the pilaster that flanks the panel to the right. As a further aid to identification, the sculptor added the caption "music^of the gods enlivened by mimic dance," engraving it sideways along the fourth and fifth bands of the railing (from the left) that served as a lower border for the scene. The three panels on this face of the Prasenajit panel thus represent simultaneous events; they pertain to the enlightenment of the Buddha, as proclaimed by the inscription in the topmost panel, in which the Buddha's presence is indicated by aniconic emblems. Read thus, the presence of the gods of the four directions and of the heavenly apsaras becomes meaningful. A Bhärhut medallion that uses the monoscenic mode to tell the tale of Mucalinda näga, who sheltered the Buddha from a torrential rain storm in the sixth week24 after his enlightenment, provides further evidence of aniconism (fig. 6). The Buddha's biography recounts that, oblivious to everything around him, the Buddha sat in deep contemplation under a tree, while Mucalinda coiled himself to form a seat for the Buddha, with his multiheaded hood serving as a parasol above the Buddha's head. Mucalinda, portrayed in purely reptilian form beneath a tree, occupies the larger part of the medallion as he envelops the Buddha, represented by a seat and a pair i% ... ** Fig. 6. Serpent Mucalinda Shelters the Buddha, Bhärhut. Courtesy AIIS. 52 VIDYA DEHEJIA ili v \3l& /§ ,:/:-- ^ :V.A ^ .TO ■•*' ';s#§íiÉlra Fig. 7. The Enlightenment, Gandhära. Courtesy Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, DC. of footprints. The identifying label on the pillar, above the medallion, reads "MucilidoNägaräja." This seems to be another clear instance of aniconism. The only way to suggest that the medallion represents the spot where the Buddha was sheltered by Mu-calinda would be to propose that the spot was marked in later days by the image of a serpent enveloping a seat and footprints. But the fact that the serpent image was portrayed sheltering a seat and footprints rather than an anthropomorphic image of the Buddha in itself constitutes evidence of a one-time aniconic tradition. The exact time and place of an event are certainly key indicators of the depiction of episodes from the Buddha's life; firfAaproponents maintain that these elements are always explicitly indicated in iconic life scenes but generally absent in aniconic renderings, which are hence, presumably, to be understood as sacred sites.85 It is an interesting exercise to compare two scenes depicting the enlightenment of the Buddha—an iconic version from Gandhära (fíg. 7) and the aniconic rendering (fíg. 8) from Sänchi's west gateway (south pillar, inner face, top panel). The Gandháran panel portrays the Buddha seated in the earth-touching gesture beneath the piped tree; the Sänchi panel depicts a seat beneath the tree. Mára's demon armies—some purely animal, others humanized but with animal heads—are placed on either side of the Buddha in the Gandhäran panel; at Sänchi, the demon armies, animal and humanized, are placed to the right of the Buddha. The Gandhäran panel portrays Mara and his warriors in the foreground, first attempting to confront the Buddha and then having abandoned the attempt; Mara is portrayed once more to the far left, sitting disconsolately in defeat. At Sänchi, the artist chose to portray defeated Mära accompanied by his three daughters, bowing before the Buddha. The Sänchi panel also portrays the gods, ANICONISM AND THE MULTIVALENCE OF EMBLEMS 53 Fie. 8. The Enlightenment, Sänchi west gateway. After Fergusson, Tree and Serpent Worship. with their hands raised in a gesture of wonder as they marvel at the events. (The foreground of the Sänchi panel contains an additional detail that precedes the events of the enlightenment; referring to the earlier penance of the Buddha, it portrays three gods hovering anxiously over the weakened Buddha.) If place and tíme are key clues indicating a life scene, both elements occur in the aniconic portrayal at Sänchi. Recent excavations in the Gandhäran region, where the anthropomorphic Buddha image appears in great numbers, have yielded a few instances of aniconism. A significant panel from Butkara, now in the museum at Swät, portrays the Sänkissa descent of the Buddha from the heavens (fig. 9). A central ladder displays a pair of footprints upon its lowest rung, while flanking ladders carry standing figures of the gods Indra and Brahma. Kneeling at the foot of the central ladder is the figure of nun Utpala, whom several traditions, including the accounts of Chinese pilgrims Faxian and Xuanxang, view as the first to greet the Buddha upon his descent to earth. Those who deny the exist- ence of aniconism would see the ladders as the actual set of stairs set up at the pilgrimage site of Sänkissa, whose one-time existence is attested in the memoirs of the Chinese pilgrims. This, however, conveniently ignores the footprints—depicted both here and on a similar scene from Bhärhut26—which suggest that for one reason or another the artist avoided presenting the bodily image of the Buddha.27 Even if the panel represents not the actual event but the pilgrimage site of Sänkissa, the portrayal of footprints in place of the bodily image can only suggest a tradition of aniconism that persisted into early Gandhäran art. In this context, one must further query why a Mathurä relief of the descent at Sänkissa, which portrays an anthropomorphic Buddha on the central ladder flanked by Indra and Brahma on the side ladders, is unhesitatingly accepted as a life scene. After all, Xuanxang's account of the site of Sänkissa speaks of an image atop the steps. Why is it suddenly assumed that "depictions of events of the life of the Buddha, as opposed to thepijthas, became commonplace"28 at the precise stage when the iconic replaces the aniconic? It is instructive, in this context, to consider the many Gandhäran representations of the first sermon in which a seated anthropomorphic image of the Buddha reaches out a hand to turn awheel that either Fig. 9. The Buddha's Descent at Sänkissa, Swät, Gandhära. Courtesy Martha Carter. 54 VIDVA DEHEJIA ■ár®i," 3*^*^. ■^V fP ■*' •. HJ .,**8>^9SW*íí»í~ :>>,-• -•&■ Fig. 10. TheBúddha Turns the WheelofLaw, Gandhära. Courtesy ASI. t^: V*. Fig. 11. Buddha Touches Fig. 20. Homage to Relief Medallion of the Buddha, dome slab from Amarävati. Courtesy Amarävati Site Museum. Fig. 21. Homage to Portable Shrine with Buddha Icon, Amarävati. After Burgess, The Buddhist Stupas of Amarävati andjaggayyapeta. 62 SSSS«^ VIDYA DEHEJIA Fig. 22. Homage to /AíTriratna, Gandhära. Courtesy Peshawar Museum. dome slabs dome slabs Fig. 23. Amarävati stüpa showing location of dome slabs. After Barrett, Sculptures from Amaravati in the British Museum. ANICONISM AND THE MULTIVALENCE OF EMBLEMS 63 momentous occasion. In like manner, the sacred tree and the seat beneath may indicate neither the event of the Buddha's enlightenment nor the site of Bodh Gayä but the wisdom and supremacy of the Buddha established at that event. Similarly, the stúpa may indicate neither the great decease of the Buddha nor a sacred stüpa site but rather the Buddha's achievement in finally severing the bonds of rebirth. Not infrequently, the main intention of the artist depicting a pillar, tree, or stüpa was to emphasize the Buddhist truth to which it attests. Such seems to have been the case with the emblems carved on the "dies" or blocks between the architraves of the Sänchi tora-nas, as also on the uprights between architraves. However, due to their capacity for multiple reference, emblems intended to indicate the attributes of the Buddhist faith also serve to remind the viewer of the Buddha himself and of the site with which an attribute is associated. A number of Gandhäran panels depict the worship of the Buddha's halo, as also of the triratna emblem, or threejewels of Buddhism (fig. 22). A declaration of belief in this triple refuge—the Buddha, the Dhamma or doctrine, and the Samgha or monastic community—is a key expression of commitment to Buddhism. New adherents to the faith would repeat three times their belief in this triple refuge; the formula was chanted repeatedly in Buddhist devotional worship; and Buddhist occasions commenced with its affirmation. The great store placed on declaration of belief in this triple refuge is well exemplified by a tale in the Divyävadäna. A minor god, destined to be born from the womb of a sow; was reborn instead in the Tushita heavens by the mere expedient of following Šakra's advice to repeat "I go for refuge to the Buddha, the best of men; I go for refuge to the Dhamma, the best of the destroyers of desire; I go for refuge to the Samgha, the best of orders."41 Gandhäran panels centering on the halo, or triratna, depict neither the worship of the Buddha in aniconic form nor worship at any specific site; rather they represent homage paid to the Buddhist faith itself through adoration of its attributive emblems. The most impressive use of emblems as attributes is apparent in the decoration of the dome of the Amarävati stüpa (fig. 23). Each of the two hundred and more dome slabs, roughly eleven feet in height and three feet wide, was divided into three registers, and, during the final phase of embellishment of the stüpa,10 their design followed a standard repetitive scheme (fig. 24). The lowest register depicts either a tree sheltering a seat or the Buddha himself seated beneath a tree. The central register usually portrays a wheel upon a pillar, although occasionally the Fig. 24. Dome slab with attributes, Amarävati. Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum. 64 VIDYA DEHEJIA image of the preaching Buddha took its place. The upper register invariably portrays a stüpa. In each register, the emblem, or the image in characteristic pose that replaced the emblem, is flanked by worshippers. The slabs are completed by a band of running lions and a band of triratna emblems. The precise interpretation of these dome slabs is crucial to an appreciation of the Buddhist message of the site. On this occasion, the tree or the image beneath the tree represents neither the event of the enlightenment nor the site of the event; the wheel or the preaching Buddha represents neither the first sermon nor its site; and the stüpa stands neither for the great decease of the Buddha nor for a stüpa site. The intention seems to lie in quite another direction. While inextricably connected with the life events of the Buddha and the sites at which these occurred, the dome slabs refer to the attributes suggested by the emblems. They repetitively reiterate the belief in the three jewels of Buddhism: the Buddha (lowest register), the Dhamma or doctrine (central panel), and the Samgha or community of monks (top register) .4' For the lay worshippers and the monks circumambulating this large hemispherical monument, the slabs were a visual affirmation of the formula that was upon their lips: "Buddham, saranam gacchämi, Dhammam 'saranam gacchämi, samgham saranam gacchämi," or "I take refuge in the Buddha, I take refuge in the Doctrine, I take refuge m the Monastic community." For a group of largely illiterate laymen and laywomen who made the pilgrimage to this great stüpa, a visual reiteration of the creed was an effective means of religious propagation. The upper row of lions may have been intended as a reference to the Buddha as šäkyasimka, or "lion of the Šäkyas," while the topmost band of triratnas serves only to reemphasize the message of the dome slabs. Conclusion While it is true that Foucher, writing in the first decades of the twentieth century, misstated the nature and extent of aniconism, he was certainly accurate in perceiving its existence. No doubt, the general correlation of Hlnayänawith aniconism and Mahäyäna with the anthropomorphic image is false. No doubt, too, early scholars did not perceive that certain reliefs on the early Buddhist monuments depict the devotions performed at sacred si tes. However, denying the existence of aniconism is equally invalid. I argue that an emblem may carry different meanings in varying contexts. The worship of a bodhi tree may, in certain circumstances, be interpreted as the enlightenment, and thus a scene in the biography of the Buddha. In other instances it may represent devotions at the site of Bodh Gayä. In yet another context, it merely serves as a reminder of the supreme wisdom of the Buddha. One must accept the multilay-ered significance of many early bas reliefs and recognize that more than one meaning may have been intended by the artist, as well as read by the ancient beholder. Twentieth-century analytical viewers may find it strange that a scene portraying the enlightenment of the Buddha should include a shrine erected two hundred years after the event. They may also consider it anachronistic that a panel portraying Ašoka's visit to the site of the sacred bodhi tree should include a shrine built only after the visit. Yet artists and devotees of the first century b.c. probably viewed such a scene as a perfectly reasonable way to present a reminder of both the sacred site at Bodh Gayä and an event in the life of the Buddha or of King Asoka. ANICONISM AND THE M Notes 1. See E. H.Johnston, ed., Ašvaghosa's Buddhacarita, or, Acts of the Buddha, in Thru Parts (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984 reprint), xciii. 2. Peter Khoroche, ed., Once the Buddha was a Monkey: Ärya Süra's Jaiakamälä (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), xvii, describes Sura's constant use of double entendre as the despair of the translator. 3. Alfred Foucher, The Beginnings of Buddhist Art," in his The Beginnings of Buddhist Art and Other Essays in Indian and Central-Asian Archaeology, trans. L. A. Thomas (Varanasi: Indological Book House, 1972), 1-29. This essay first appeared as "Les debuts de l'art bouddhique,"/ouma/ Asia-tique, 10th ser., 17 (January-February 1911): 55-79. 4. Susan Huntington, "Early Buddhist Art and the Theory of Aniconism," Art Journal 49 (Winter 1990): 401-7. See also her The Art of Ancient India: Buddhist, Hindi, Jain (New York: Weatherhill, 1986), esp. 70-73, 98-100. For further understanding of their argument, see also John C. Huntington, "Sowing the Seeds of the Lotus: A Journey to the Great Pilgrimage Sites of Buddhism," pts. 1-5, Orientations 16, no. 11 (Nov. 1985): 46-61,17, no. 2 (Feb. 1986): 28-43,17, no. 3 (March 1986): 32-46,17, no. 7 (July 1986): 28-40,17, no. 9 (Sept. 1986): 46-58. See also his "Pilgrimage as Image: The Cult of the Astamahäprätihärya," pts. 1-2, Orientations 18, no. 4 (April 1987): 55-63,18, no. 8 (August 1987): 56-68. Though Susan Huntington asks that critics await her forthcoming book, we have considered it necessary to address their arguments because these have been presented in a volume (not just in specialized journals) that has entered the textbook repertoire as early as 1985. 5. W. Geddie, ed., Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary (Edinburgh and London, 1959); the negative connotation sometimes associated with the word is absent here. However, The Random House Dictionary speaks of "opposition to the use of idols," and the Webster of "a primitive form of worship." 6. S. Huntington, "Early Buddhist Art," 405: "Essentially, I suggest that the early Buddhist art of India was not primarily concerned with the biography of Šakyämuni Buddha, as has been assumed for so many decades." 7. Those interested in my classification of narration may refer to Vidya Dehejia, "On Modes of Narration in Early Buddhist Art," Art Bulletin 72 (September 1990): 374-92. 8. John Huntington's caption to this panel reads: "Relief depicting the temple of the First Sermon," which suggests the site of Särnäth. See his "Sowing the Seeds," pt. 2, 34. 9. Since early Buddhist inscriptions are so easily readable, I have used my own translations to avoid burdening the text unduly with footnotes. In the single instance where variant readings are possible, a note has been added. 10. Sten Konow, ed., "Kharosfhi Inscriptions, with the Exception of Those of Asoka," Corpus Ins criptionum Indicarum, vol. 2, pt. 1 (Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1929), 99. TVALENCE OF EMBLEMS 65 11. Gregory Schopen, "On Monks, Nuns, and 'Vulgar' Practices: The Introduction of the Image Cult into Indian Buddhism," ArtibusAsiae49, no. 1/2 (1989): 153-68. 12. The terms "Hinayäna" and "Mahäyäna" are being used, somewhat loosely, for convenience of reference. 13. John S. Strong's statement in The Legend of King Asoka: A Study and Translation oftheAiokävadäna (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), 34, that, according toTäranätha, the poet Mitrcefa rewrote his hymns in praise of the Buddha in the form of dramatic performances to be staged by troupes of actors is misleading. Täranätha merely states that Mäfrcefa's stotras, or hymns of praise, were recited even by singers, dancers, and jesters; there is no suggestion of dramatic performances and enactment of plays. See Lama Chimpa and Alaka Chattopadhyaya, trans., Täranätha's History of Buddhism inlndia (Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 1970), 134. A detailed search through Buddhist texts for any evidence of pageants uncovered just one instance— in a tale titled The Overreached Actor" from Anton Schief-ner's Tibetan Tales, Derived from Indian Sources (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1882), which is an English version of selected stories from the Tibetan translation of the original Sanskrit Mülasarvastivadin Vinaya. According to the tale, an actor, having acquired the facts of the Buddha's life up to the enlightenment, pitched a booth at Rajagriha and sounded a drum. When a great crowd gathered, he exhibited in a drama the events from the life of the Buddha (p. 244). The tale adds that he made a good profit from this venture. This is intriguing information but certainly not the same as a regular tradition of reenactment of significant events from the Buddha's life. 14. S. Huntington, Art of Ancient India, 99. John Huntington's suggestion ("Sowing the Seeds," pt. 4,30) that the monkey's offering of a bowl of honey at Vaisäli (west pillar of north gateway at Sänchi) "may be a reenactment of the event at the site before a group of pilgrims" is even more problematic. 15. N. G. Majumdar, The Bajaur Casket of the Reign of Menander," Epigraphia Indica 24 (1932): 1-7; See also Epigraphia Indica 26 (1942): 318-22; Epigraphia Indica 27 (1947): 52-58. 16. Gregory Schopen, "On the Buddha and his Bones: The Conception of a Relic in the Inscriptions from Nägär-junikonda,"yournaZ o/lA« American Oriental Society 108, no. 4 (1988): 527-37. 17. See n. 6 above. 18. Evidence for this distribution will be found in my forthcoming full-length study of Buddhist visual narratives. 19. The canonical "Šamanaphala Sutta" of the Dxgha Nikaya, which narrates this story at length, specifies that the incident occurred on the night of a full moon. See Maurice Walshe, Thus Have I Heard: The Long Discourses of the Buddha (London: Wisdom, 1987), 91-110. 20. My interpretation is at variance with H. Luders, Bhärhut Inscriptions, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, vol. 2, pt. 2 (Ootacamund: Government Epigraphist for India, 1963), 66 VIDY*. DEHEJIA 95, who reads the phrase as "the building around the Bodhi 34. Strong, Legend of King A'soka, 266. tree of the holy Sakamuni." Much as I respect Luders, there is no word in the inscription that could be read as "building. "R. C. Childers, A Dictionary of the Pali Language (1875; reprint, New Delhi: Cosmo Publications, 1979), 93, col. 2, specifies, "BODHO, Knowledge, wisdom, intelligence; supreme knowledge, Buddhaship." The tree is not included under BODHO. Admittedly, Childers (93, col. 2) gives three meanings for BODHI: the knowledge possessed by a Buddha, arhat, etc. (as in BODHO); a Bodhi tree; a precept. It is worth noting that each of the inscribed medallions at Bhärhut that depicts the worship of the tree of one of the previous Buddhas (five such medallions survive) uses the term bodhi, while in the case of the Buddha Vessabha, the label specifies bodhi Säla, or the šäla tree (of enlightenment). 21. See K. Dessigane, P. Z. Pattabhiraman, and J. Filliozat, La Legende de jeux de Civa d Madurai (Pondicherry: Institut Francais d'Indologie, 1960), vol. 2, pl. 34. 22. The Lalitavistara places Mara at the scene and immediately thereafter speaks of the arrival of the Suddhäväsa gods. See Rajendralala Mitra, The Lalitavistara (Calcutta: Asiastic Society of Bengal, 1877), 457 (end of ch. 22 and beginning of ch. 23). 23. Mitra, Lalitavistara, 451 (ch. 22). 24. The exact week varies in different textual accounts. 25. S. Huntington, "Early Buddhist Art," 402, where she italicizes the two words to emphasize their importance. 26. Susan Huntington has Bypassed the problem of the footprints in the Sänkissa depiction at Bhärhut, both in her Art of Ancient India, 72f., and, in her more recent article "Early Buddhist Art," 404. 27. The Bhärhut panel avoids the human form even for the gods Indra and Brahma. Such an avoidance is to be seen in the context of Hindu worship which, in the Vedic period, was concerned only with sacrifice and in which images of the gods played no part. Few early images of Hindu deities exist. It was mainly with the spread of Puränic Hinduism that images of the Hindu gods proliferated. This fact has been largely lost sight of, parti cularlywith the nineteenth-century projection of Hindu India as a polytheistic country whose multitudes of gods had multiple heads and handsl 28. J. Huntington, "Pilgrimage as Image," pt. 1, 56. 29. J. Huntington, "Pilgrimage as Image," pt. 1, 56. 30. T. W. Rhys Davids, The Buddhist Suttas (London: Dover, 1969), 90. 31. Strong, Legend of King A'soka, 246. 32. Strong, Legend of King A'soka, 249. 33. The point is well made by Strong, Legend of King A'soka, 120-22. 35. John Huntington's suggestion that this is the Vaisäli stúpa is based on the premise that since the monkey incident on the same pillar occurred at Vaisäli, all other incidents refer to the same site. See his "Sowing the Seeds," pt. 4,29-31. Such a premise, as I shall show in my book-length study, is unjustified: frequently, the Sänchi pillars group together incidents that have no geographical or temporal connection with one another. 36. Davids, Buddhist Suttas, 91. 37. The Rrtha theory states that the emphasis on sacred pilgrimage to sites never waned. One has to ask, then, why representations of the lay worship of trees, pillars, and stúpaš do not occur at Gandhära or Ajanfä or on Gupta monuments. Would not the absence of such emblematic depictions, after the period of the sites of Bhärhut, Sänchi, and Amarävati, indicate that emphasis on devotions at sacred sites faded into insignificance, as did the "exaltation of lay worship"? It is perhaps pertinent to quote here S. Huntington's "Early Buddhist Art," 408, n. 43, in which she takes a less rigid stand on aniconism: "At this time, I am unable to predict whether there are indeed some images that require a Buddha figure and must be seen as truly 'aniconic' in the sense that they employ a symbol as a substitute for what should be an anthropomorphic representation. However, even if a few images are truly aniconic, the vast majority are not, and the role of 'aniconism' has been vastly overemphasized, ultimately leading to the misinterpretation of most of the extant art." 38. Schopen, "On the Buddha and His Bones," 527-37, and his "On Monks, Nuns," 153-68. 39. U. P. Shah, Studies in Jaina Art (Banares: Jaina Cultural Research Society, 1955), 68. 40. Shah, Studies in Jaina Art, 67. 41. James R. Ware, "Studies in the Divyävadäna,"your»uií o/ťAŕ American Oriental Society 48 (1928): 159-65. The tale is titled "Sükarikävadäna." 42. While the three registers of dome slabs belonging to earlier work at the site are decorated with a range of themes, including the chakravartin, the great departure, Rämagräma, the enlightenment, and certain unidentified scenes, all later slabs conform to the scheme described. 43. I. K. Sarma (verbal communication), who seems to agree with such an interpretation, informs me that dome slabs recently unearthed at the site reveal the letters fa and dha, for "bodhi tree" and "dhammachakra," presumably inscribed as shorthand notations for sculptors' information. As he rightly pointed out, Ganapati Sthapati, who is in charge of the Sculpture School at Mahabalipuram, similarly writes Nata and Ví upon slabs of stone for "Nataräja" and "Vish-nu." Why should the stüpa stand for the Sarrigha? I suggest it was because the relic mound was indeed the center of the monastery and the very raison d'etre for the formation of the monastic community that congregated around a stüpa.