The Bamiyan Buddhas

Many of you may remember the uproar in 2001 when the Taliban in Afghanistan declared as unislamic, the two monumental statues of Buddha - 50 meters, and 36 meters tall. Unfortunately, the uproar had no effect, and the two Buddhas were destroyed.



See higher resolution version of the 1976 image.


Higher resolution version of the 2005 image.

Curious, that no one had any problem with these statues from the time Islam began - 8th century. It is only at the beginning of 21st century, that these statues were branded as unislamic. At around this time, thousands of pieces of Buddhist collection in museums in Afghanistan were also destroyed.

Fortuantely, many pieces were saved through courageous action by a few individuals, who risked their lives to save these pieces. The word is richer because of them.

By the way, this is not the first time these statues were attacked. In the 19th century, soldiers belonging to the occupying power - Britain - used these statues for target practice. Interesting.

Why is Buddhist art among the earliest art in India

Sometimes things fall into place, even without you knowing that there is a gap. We have all heard about Indus Valley Civilization, and the art-work from there. What Indian art is the next you hear about - Buddhist art. What happened to the intervening 1500 years?

Here is a plausible explanation:

1. The civilization in India between 2nd millenium BCE and 5th century BCE focused on text rather than visual art. The following texts were written during that time (Vedas, Upnishads, Puranas, and the two great epics)
   
   
2. It is possible that much of art of this period was made out of perishable material, e.g. wood.
   
   
3. Some of the art that we consider to be post 3rd century BCE (e.g. Ashok's pillars) may have existed prior to Ashok; Ashok transformed them by inscribing on them, so now they are considered Ashok's pillars, and therefore Buddhist art.
   

Ashok, and the Emblem of the Indian Goverment

The pillar depicting four back-to-back lions found at Sarnath is the basis of the official seal of the Government of India. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emblem_of_India.svg). The name Ashok is quite popular in India. Of all the kings, why was something from Ashok's period chosen to represent India? And why is Ashok a popular name? Here are a few possible explanations.

Ashok's period - 3rd century BCE is considered a golden age of India. Golden, not because of arts, but because of the spirit of tolerance that existed at that time.

Ashok unified the country much before the British did, and Ashok's boundaries closely resembled what the British did much later.

All this added up to nationalist pride in Ashok, and all things Ashok.

Finally, there is some religious angle to it too. The two major religious factions in India are Hindus and Muslims. Choosing a king who was neither Hindu, nor Muslim, but a Buddhist, may have been a nice compromise.

Early evolution of Hinduism in India

Syncretism: The attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/syncretism)

Syncretism is at the root of the millions of Deities in Hinduism. As Hindu society came in contact with other forms of worship, it formed unions with them, increasing the number of deities. Even Buddha has been accepted into Hinduism, and is considered the 9th Avatar of Vishnu. (The 10th, Kalki, is yet to come.)

Early Hinduism relied heavily on rituals. Over time, these rituals became rigid, and common people rebelled against them. That created an environment conducive to the rise of two new religions - Buddhism and Jainism. They both started around 5th century BCE.

Another few offshoots of Hinduism started a few centuries later. The Bhakti and Tantra movements, both started around the 1st century CE.

Bhakti relied on direct worship, and Krishna is the most freqeunt target of this direct worship.
"Tantrics sought to gain spiritual fulfillment by acquiring power through social transgressions, including ritual sex."*

Around the time, a third sect - Pashupat was also started - by Lakulisha. Followers consider him the 28th and last Avatar of Shiva.

Today, Bhakti, Tantra and Pashupata are considered part of Hinduism. Despite attempts to assimilate Buddhism, it has remained as a separate religion. What about Jainism - there is no clear literature on whether or not attempts were made to assimilate Jainism and Lord Mahaveer into Hinduism.

But, Hinduism's evolution continues through syncretism.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indian Art, Partha Mitter, Oxford University Press, Pg. 81.

Buddhist and Hindu temples

Given the age of Buddhism - around 500 BCE, and the age of Hinduism - closer to 2000 BCE, it is normal to assume that Hindu temples in India are older than Buddhist temples. That is not necessarily the case, however.

Buddhist temples in India have a longer history - many of them having been build between 3rd century BCE and 4th century CE. Hindu temples started being built at about this time.

The early Hindu temples - from the 5th to the 7th century were rock-cut - e.g. the Ellora temples (patterned after Ajanta temples).

Later temples - between 8th and 18th century BCE were built as structural temples.

So, the question comes up - what did the Hindus pray in, for the first 2500 or so years of their existence. Apparently, they were fire worshipers, and all they needed was a vedi to light a yagya (also pronounced yajna) fire.

The other interesting fact about these temples was that many of the early temples were financed through contributions from a large number of people. Often, but not always, the rulers were included among the contributors. Business people and even monks and nuns contributed money for the building of temples. Elephanta caves near Mumbai are a good example - both, in being rock-cut, and in being financed through contributions. An early indication of the separation of church and state, perhaps.