Buddhas and bodhisattvas in art

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Buddhas and bodhisattvas in art present one of the richest and most intricate visual traditions in human history. Step into a Japanese Shingon or Tibetan Buddhist temple and you may find yourself facing a mandala containing hundreds of distinct figures. As Carl B. Becker, a professor at Kyoto University, described it, the uninitiated observer confronting the Buddhist pantheon of Japan may feel something bordering on bewilderment or dismay. Far from the ascetic agnosticism taught by Gautama, these Buddha-like deities are available to answer every material or spiritual need. They wear regal robes or deerskins; they sit, stand, or fly; they have their own sutras, temples, and guardians.

  This documentary asks how a listener, confronted by this vast visual world, might begin to read it. What are the clues hidden in a figure's posture, its hand gesture, or the objects it holds? Which figures are often mistaken for the historical Buddha, and why? And what does the fate of specific sculptures tell us about the political weight these images carry?

• 2. Reading the Figures

  ›

  Physical characteristics offer the first layer of meaning in Buddhist imagery. A figure's identity can be read through its mudra, the precise position of its hands, as well as its asana, meaning the sitting or standing posture of the body. Beyond gesture and pose, the objects a figure holds carry significance. A book, a thunderbolt, a vase, a jewel, or a lotus flower or stem each point toward a different identity or function within the tradition.

  An image in the figure's crown is another clue. Depictions could represent Gautama himself, or a bodhisattva, guardian, protector, disciple, or saint. Especially in Mahayana Buddhism, the main image in a temple or shrine often does not represent the historical Buddha at all. Buddhist teachings such as trikaya beliefs hold that buddhas, including the historical Buddha, have different manifestations, which further complicates identification. Mandalas created for Japanese Shingon Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism can contain hundreds of different figures, each requiring careful interpretation.

• 3. The Five Dhyani Buddhas

  ›

  The five Dhyani Buddhas are not gods or historical figures but abstract aspects of Buddhahood itself. Their representations carry elaborate visual rules. Each must face a different direction: north, south, east, west, or center. When painted, each is assigned its own color, either blue, yellow, red, green, or white. Each embodies a different aspect, type of evil, and cosmic element, and each is paired with a different consort and spiritual son, as well as distinct animal vehicles including the elephant, lion, peacock, harpy or garuda, and dragon.

  Vairocana, the first Dhyani Buddha, occupies the center and embodies sovereignty. He is distinct from Gautama and is not normally confused with him. Vairocana was one of the Buddhas of Bamiyan destroyed by the Taliban. China mourned that loss and attempted to replace the statue with the world's tallest statue, named the Spring Temple Buddha. Japanese Pure Land Buddhists regard Vairocana and the other Dhyani Buddhas as manifestations of Amitabha, while Japanese Shingon Buddhists hold the opposite view, treating Amitabha and the rest as manifestations of Vairocana.

  Amitabha, known as Amida in Japanese, is the most ancient of the Dhyani Buddhas. He embodies light and faces west, and serves as the central figure in Pure Land Buddhism. A seated statue of Amitabha is recognizable by its samadhi mudra: both palms face up, resting on top of each other in the lap.

  Akshobhya, the second Dhyani Buddha, embodies steadfastness and faces east. He presents a particular challenge for viewers because Akshobhya and Gautama are visually indistinguishable. Both can be shown seated in the Vajraparyanka pose, also known as the Bhumisparsha pose, with the right hand on the right knee, palm turned inward, and the middle finger touching the ground.

• 4. Bodhisattvas and Their Rise

  ›

  In early Buddhist art, bodhisattvas commonly appeared in pairs, flanking Gautama Buddha as protective figures, usually depicted at a smaller scale. Over time, bodhisattvas began to appear as the main figure in images and developed their own iconography. After roughly the year 600, they became increasingly prominent. In art created for Vajrayana uses, bodhisattvas began to replace images of the historical Buddha altogether.

  Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva of compassion, presents one of the more striking cases of potential confusion. Images of Avalokiteshvara might be mistaken for Gautama. He is incarnated in the Dalai Lama, who is a tulku and the most revered Tibetan Buddhist monk.

  Another figure that generates confusion, especially among Western audiences, is Budai, called Hotei in Japanese. Budai is often mistaken for Gautama or believed to have originated Buddhism. In fact, he is an incarnation of the bodhisattva Maitreya, the future Buddha, who according to tradition will come to Earth four thousand years after Gautama disappears. His name means "Cloth Sack," referring to the bag of sweets he carries, eats, and gives to children. His reputation for happiness and contentment earned him the name "The Laughing Buddha" in Chinese, and sometimes "The Fat Buddha" in English.

• 5. Gautama's Many Forms

  ›

  Gautama himself might be represented in a hundred different attitudes or positions, making him both the most familiar and one of the most variable figures in Buddhist art. The range of attitudes available to artists was wide enough that even trained observers must look closely at posture, gesture, and context before identifying an image with confidence.

  That breadth of representation points toward the deepest puzzle in the visual tradition. Trikaya teachings allow for the historical Buddha to appear in different manifestations, meaning that what looks like Gautama may be understood, within certain schools, as something else entirely. The question of who is depicted is never simply a matter of facial likeness. It is also a question of doctrine, of which community commissioned the work, and of which tradition the viewer belongs to.