Shifting the Paradigm: The Aniconic Theory and Its Terminology

Abstract

Focusing on imagery that purportedly depicts life events of Śākyamuni Buddha, this essay examines the terms ‘iconic’ and ‘aniconic’ as they have been applied to interpreting the early Buddhist art of India. In this context, ‘iconic’ has been used to refer to a figurative depiction of Śākyamuni Buddha; the antonym, ‘aniconic,’ has been used to refer to trees, stūpas, pillars, and other non-human subjects that are claimed to be substitutions for the figurative. Because one of the terms, aniconic, is a negation of the other, a binary, oppositional construct is automatically created. However, the so-called aniconic subjects are not the opposite of figurative depictions nor are the scenes in which these motifs occur representations of Śākyamuni’s life events. Examination of the art indicates that the objects depicted and the Buddha figures are both important but neither is a replacement for the other. Further, both terms are exogenous to India, having been introduced from Europe and carrying meanings from the Abrahamic religious traditions. These terms project ill-fitting concepts onto the understanding of Buddhism, including the suggestion that Śākyamuni Buddha was a deity. Removing the artificial framework these terms create paves the way to studying the art within the Indic cultural context and in its own right.