Devendra
Pratap Mishra & Preeti Pandey
The Gandhara School of art
was devoted to service of Indian religion. The Gandhara School art was
typically Buddhist in origin as well as content. Early Buddhist art was
aniconic. The Buddhist art-forms before the 1st century B.C. was
typically symbolic ; at Bharhut, Sanchi
and Amaravati, the Buddha as represented variously through a rideless horse,
the tree or wheel, stupa and the rest indicating the grat renunciation,
enlightment, preaching of the doctrine and nirvana1 . But the
earlier aniconic art was completely transformed at Gandhara. This school of art
came to represent the Buddha in human form for the first time, sculptures
representing bodhisatvas were forthcoming from this area. A proper analysis of
the different facets of this school of art will bring out the contributed of
Buddhist art to its origin as well sustenance more vividly.
The
sculptures of the Gandhara School of art, geographically covering the area of
north-western provinces of India and parts of Afghanistan, represent an
artistic development which at the first sight seems to be outside the
traditional development of art in Ancient India.2 This is
certainly an interesting development linked up with contemporary historical-
cultural context of that area. Geographically this region was so situated that
it lay exposed to all sorts of foreign contacts and foreign influences-Persian,
Greek, Roman, Saka and Kusana. The result was the birth of hybrid cosmopolitan
culture that found expression in an electric school of art, naturally outside
the scope of the natural and consistent growth of the Indian art movement. The
Gandhara School is often described as Greeco-Buddhist, but it is strange, to
note that art forms and motifs of Gandhara do not come to view before Greek
domination of this area became a thing of the past3 and that the
patrons of this art were principally the central Asiatic Sakas and Kusana. No
doubt, the technique employed is unquestionably borrowed from Hellenistic
standards, as modified by such trends as Iranian, etc. but the themes depicted
are Indian, almost exclusively Buddhist. Moreover, the technique too seems to
be gradually indianised. Thus, in the so called Greeco-Buddhist art, there is
nothing directly associated with Greece.
It should be
borne in mind that
already in the centuries proceeding the Christian era the different peoples who
had settled in the Gandhara region had come in contract with the Indian ethos.
The process of acculturation that was initiated led to certain fundamental
changes in the way of life of these groups. In a way they were Indianised and
absorbed within the indigenous cultural mainstream obviously with certain
modification as a result of their differing cultural patterns. But in general they
come under the influence of Buddhism.4 The Gandhara school of art,
devoted primarily to the service of Buddhism, represents really a stage and
process of this Indianisation and should be viewed in that light instead of
emphasizing the extraneous factor.
Marshall's
excavation at Tekshashila coupled with the results of other excavations and
finds, appear to indicate that the ruler associated with the earliest remains of
Buddhist art of Gandhara was Azes I belonging roughly to the middle of the 1st
century B.C.5 . Thus the school had started manifesting itself after
the Greek power had already declined, but before the Kusana power had appeared
on the scene. This certainly implies the lack of any direct link between Greece
and the Gandhara School of art. The days of its expansion and flourish coincide
with the period of Imperial Kusana, especially Kaniska, and the school
continued to make prolific contribution to Indian art in the 3rd,
the 4th and the 5th centuries A.D.6
The earliest
specimen of this art, so far discovered, is the Bimaran reliquary which
circumstantially, has to be dated in the reign of Azes I (c. 50 B.C. at the
earliest)7. This is followed about half a century later, i.e. in the
first century, A.D. by two headless standing images of the Buddha - one from
Loriyan Tangai (A.D. 6)8 and
other from Hastnagar (A.D.72)9, a standing Hariti figure from
Sakrah-dheri (A.D. 87)10 , the Kaniska reliquary from
Shah-ji-ke-dheri (A.D. 78-100) and a few others that may be dated only
approximately11. The early
group of the Buddha figures is characterized by clear and impressive heads with
long and beautifully drawn curves outlining the lineaments. Preference for long
and rhythmic lines, a strong outline of the structure, a wide and vast
treatment of the usnisa and loose heavy hair are equally manifest.
The
situation, changes in the 2nd century A.D. Quantitatively there is
certainly advancement over the past but qualitatively there are distinct signs
of decadence. The 2nd century A.D. records a large number of
finds-stone and stucco reliefs at the various sites of Takshashila which can be
dated approximately with the help of the data furnished by Marshall's
excavations. There are distinct changes in the Buddha images. The drapery is
shown in distinct changes in the Buddha images. The drapery is shown in small
and narrow folds and the figures themselves are shorter in stature, stumpy in
appearance and treated in a rough manner. This degenerate and debased art of
this period implies that the extraneous influences felt in the earlier
productions become less manifest and a schematisation of the 2nd
century A.D. led to the changes in the earlier artistic forms.
From the 3rd
century A.D. onwards, there seems to be a revival of artistic forces that
were current in the 1st
century. The 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries are
characterized by a large number of finds in stucco and terracotta. Stone
sculptures are rare and the few known examples are qualitatively inferior to
that of stucco and terracotta figures. The most significant specimens of this
phase come from Mohra Moradu and Jaulian, but more profusely from Hadda, near
Jalalabad. The style is once again free and erythematic. This revival certainly
derived a lot from the traditions of the 1st century12
but it was much more softened down. It is this phase of Gandhara art which was
taken on the shoulders of Buddhism and Buddhist monks through hadda and Bamiyan
to central Asia and China. It was into this last phase that the contemporary
arr of the Ganga valley contributed some of its contents and spirit.13
The above survey amply
bears testimony to the meaningful contribution of Buddhism not only to Indian
art but also to the artistic traditions of central Asia and China. The Gandhara
School of art not only drew its sustenance from Buddhism but also thrived on
Buddhist traditions, myths and legends. Thus, the Gandhara art is strictly
Buddhistic in nature as well as content. It has been suggested, however, that
this school of art was a contribution of Mahayana Buddhism, a suggestion which
needs careful evaluation in the context of the contribution of Buddhism to
Indian art. It is generally presumed that the Gandhara art is a manifestation
of the Mahayana form of Buddhism. The tone was set in this direction towards
the close of last century when Foucher asserted that entire responsibility for
the development of Gandhara art belongs to the Mahayana school.14
Zimmer expressing identical views credited this departure in the Buddhist art
to a new fundamental teaching Mahayana.15 Percy Brown even goes to
the extent of suggestions the evolution of the Gandhara composition as marking
the beginning of the movement leading to the supersession to the Hinayana or
primitive system of Buddhism by the Mahayana or theistic system.16
This view is rather reinforced by the discovery of Bodhisatvas of the Gandhara
origin.
It is
universally accepted that at its inception the Gandhara art received
considerable encouragement from Kaniska who, according to tradition, convened
the fourth Buddhist council either at Jalandhar or Kashmir where the Vibhasa or
the commentaries on the three Pitakas were composed. Obviously it was dominated
by the arhats of the Sarvastivada a school of the Hinayana. There is therefore
hardly any evidence of Mahayana Buddhism being patronized by Kaniska or even so
of being prevalent in this area. It is interesting to note that even in the
time of the Chinese traveler; Fa-hsien (5th century A.D.) and
Hsuan-Tsang (7th century A.D.), when the Mahayana had fully
developed in India, it did not appear to be a very popular or widespread faith
in this region. From their accounts it is clear that the Hinayana was the
predominant school of Buddhism in the region of Gandhara and Kabul valley. In
the 5th century A.D., at the time of Fa-hsien's visit, the
predominance of Hinayanism seems to be almost unquestionable.17 this
situation is further corroborated by the inscriptions of this region. The
inscription of the year of Kaniska on the reliquary discovered at
Shahji-ki-dheri,18 the Zeda inscription of year 11 (A.D. 139) near
Ohind19 and the Kurram Casket inscription of the year 20 (A.D. 148)20 all relate to gifts etc. to Sarvastivada
teachers. Other inscriptions of the area like Takshashila Copper Ladle
Inscription,21 and the Palatu Dheri Jars inscription22
also after to the gifts to the different Hinayana sects. Thus from the
religious point of view its beyond doubt that the Gandhara region was dominated
by the Hinayana school of Buddhism, a situation which warrants a lot of
rethinking in terms of the alleged association of the Gandhara art with
Mahayana.
This theory
is further undermined if one analysis the form in which the Buddha is
represented at Gandhara. The Gandhara art primarily centers around the Buddha ;
only two bodhisattvas have been identified with Padmapani23 or
Avalokitsvara,24 the former identification not being very certain.
The only other identifiable bodhisattvas are Siddhartha25 or
Maitreya26 . It is significant to note that in the earliest phase
only the Buddha is represented, the Mahayana bodhisattvas appear late.
The theory
of Mahayanist association of the Gandhara art is further weakened if viewed
from yet another angle. From a perusal of the Gandhara Buddha images one gets
the impression that this school was aware of the tradition which believes in
eight Buddhas27, including six who preceded Siddhartha Gautama and
Maitreya who was to follow him in the Buddhavamsa, belonging to the Pali canon
and a late addition to the Khuddakanikaya, the number of the previous Buddhas
is extended to 24 beginning with Dipankara and ending with Maitreya. But the
number of the Buddhas in the Mahayana is innumberable, as the Parinirvana of a
Buddha does not mean his exitinction. Thus, the representation of eight Buddhas
(including Maitrey) in the Gandhara school explicity implies that the school
belonged to a period when the number of Buddhas had not multiplied and hence
Per-Mahahanic. Moreover, the representations of Maitreya and Vajrapani at
Gandhara too are quite distinct from the later day representations of these two
figures in the Mahayana artistic tradition.28
Here it may
be pointed out that the Gandhara region has yielded certain artistic remains
which are clearly of Mahayanic, including Tantric, inspiration. They include
the paintings in the vaults and safts of the gigantic Buddha at Bamiyana, the
steel or the rock carvings found in Swat representation Lokeshvara and the
paintings on a rock near Skardu. But all these artistic remains are posterior
to the period in which Gandhara art flourished.
The Bamiyana paintings have been dated to the 6th, 7th
centuries A.D.29 whereas the Swat30 and Skardu31
remains belong to the 7th - 8th centuries A.D. and 10th
century A.D. respectively. They also seem to be the product of a different
artistic tradition.
In the light
of the above survey of the nature and content of the Gandhara School of art it
can be asserted that it hardly contains anything which can be considered as an
expression or manifestation of the Mahayana Buddhism. This assertion is further
confirmed by the Buddhist paintings at Miran discovered by Aurel Stein and
dated to about the 3rd or 4th century A.D. These are
probably "the only examples of the same (Gandhara) art expressed in
paintings, at present known."32
The Miran Buddha is only an ordinary man in the act of teaching,
distinguished just by his plain nimbus and the colour of his robe.33
It is pertinent note that the Bodhisattvas of the Mahayana pantheon have no
place in these paintings.34
Now when it
is reasonably established on the basis of the accounts of Chinese pilgrims,
contemporary epigraphic recores and an analysis of the form and content of the
Gandhara art that the emergence of an anthropomorphic art at Gandhara was not
due to any change in the doctrinal content of Buddhism. If viewed in a proper
perspective it will see that the art of Gandhara was certainly not a break with
the prevalent art tradition. Its anthropomorphism was the logical of a powerful
personality cult which is the most outstanding feature of the early Buddhist
art.35 Moreover, in every art tradition it is but natural that the
transition from aniconism to anthropomorphism is made in due course of time.
The contemporary milieu is more relevant in this context than changes in
religion. In the early centuries of the Christian era certain important
developments were taking place. The royalty was not only getting increasingly
associated with divinity but even feudal hierarchical formations were appearing
on the scene. This naturally exalted the status of the royalty. This together
with the origin of the idea of bhakti
added new dimensions to the personality of the ruler. These changes were
bounded to affect the world of artists and the increasing emphasis on the
element of personality pervaded the domain of art. The anthropomorphic
representations of Mathura and Gandhara School were only a step forward in this
direction.
References :
1. For different symbols symbolizing
the Buddha, see A.K. coomaraswamy, History of
Indian and Indeonesian art, Newyork, 1965, pp. 27-32.
2. Burgess, JAS., the Gandhara
Sculpture, New Delhi, 1978, pp. 6011 ; S.K. Saraswati,
A Survey of Indian Sculpture, Calcutta, 1957, p. 70.
3. Mazumdar, R.C., (ed), The age of
Imperial Unity, (Bombay, 1960), p. 519.
4. Saraswati, S.K., op. cit., p. 71
5. Barges, JAS., op. cit., p. 6-20
6. Coomaraswamy,A.K., op. cit. p. 52
7. Mazumdar, R.C., (ed), op.
cit., p. 520
8. ASI, Annual Reports, 193-04, p. 254
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Saraswati S.K., op. cit., p. 74-75
12. Burgess, C.F. James, Buddhist stupas
at Amaravati and Jaggayyapea in Krishna district,
Madras presidency, London, 1887.
13. Mazumdar, R.C., (ed), op. cit., p. 521
14. Quoted in Grunwedel, Buddhist art in
India, London, 1901, p. 147.
15. The Art of Indian Asia, New York,
1955, pp. 340.
16. Indian Architecture (Buddhist and
Hindu), Bombay, 1949, p.41.
17. Krishan, Y., Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Pt. 3- 4 (1962), pp. 106-08.
18. Sten Konow, Corpous Inscriptionum
Indicarum,Vol. II, Pt. I, London,1929, pp. 137.
19. Ibid; 142-145
20. Ibid; 152-155
21. Ibid; pp 87-88
22. Ibid; pp. 122
23. Lyons & Ingholt, Gandhara Art in
Pakistan, Descriptive Catalogue No.324,pp. 142.
24. Ibid; Catalogue No. 326, p. 142.
25. Ibid; Catalogue No. 277-287, p. 644
26. Ibid; Catalogue No. 288-312, 542, 563
27. Krishna, Y., op.cit., p. 110.
28. Ibid; pp. 111-13,
29. Rowland, wall paintings of India,
Central Asia and Ceylon, Plates 11 and 12, p. 64; Plate 13, p. 69; Plate 14, pp. 70-71.
30. Tucci, G., 'Preliminary Report of an
Archaeological Survey in Swat, East and West, Vol.
0, No. 4, pp. 322-324.
31. Mariani, F., Karakoram (tr. James
Cadell), p. 60
32. Andrews, F.H., Wall paintings from
Ancient shrines of central Asia, pp. xx.
33. Ibid; p. xxi.
34. Andrews, F.H., Indian Art and
letters, Vol. VIII, p. 12.
35. Krishna, Y., 'The Origin of Buddha
Image', Marg, Apri, 1962, pp. 15-16.
Dr. Devendra Pratap Mishra
AIHC & Arch., B.H.U. Varanasi &
Dr. Preeti Pandey
Anc.
Ind. History Culture & Arch.
University
of Allahabad
