This book is also available as a paperback or pdf download from Lulu.com

Warts and topknots

The Buddha-figure is familiar, not only to every Buddhist, but to a large number of other people as well. It is simply the figure of a man, usually seated cross-legged, but sometimes standing or lying. Both the artistic style and the features of the figure vary enormously depending on the origin of the figure, from Japan to Sri Lanka or perhaps from a Western artist. Formally speaking, what makes such a figure a Buddha-figure, as opposed to a figure of any other man, is its possession of the traditional thirty-two marks of a great being. The most frequently visible and distinctive of these are long earlobes, some sort of topknot, and what usually appears to be a wart above the bridge of the nose, in the centre of the forehead – which is intended to represent the “third eye” of wisdom.

However, what usually draws Western people to the Buddha figure is his expression: calm, subtlety and elevation emanate from a well-made Buddha figure. In this sense the Buddha-figure is like any other sculpture, which may provide strong aesthetic inspiration, part of which is created by the achievements of the artistic tradition in which the Buddha is made. However, not every Buddha figure does this just because it is a Buddha figure conforming to the traditional norms. Some traditional Buddha figures obey all the rules but are distinctly uninspiring (though of course this is a matter of taste).

Whether the Buddha-figure relates to your experience, then, depends on a number of factors: not only the artistic skill of the maker, but your own understanding of the tradition in which it is made, your ability to appreciate art, and the placing of the Buddha as a symbolic object worthy of worship. It also depends on whether the Buddha represents qualities that you can relate to your experience. Does it just stand for a metaphysical abstraction of enlightenment, or does it represent qualities that inspire spiritual progress from the place you are now?

The answer seems to depend on how far the artist has succeeded in representing spiritual qualities from experience, and how receptive you can be to the qualities the artist has represented. It does not depend on the formal marks of a Buddha, such as the wart and topknot. It is the warts and topknots that stand for the metaphysical dogma in people’s relationship to the Buddha, because they have been put there only in obedience to tradition, and to mark out the figure as an enlightened figure.

The expression of the Buddha can model spiritual qualities and inspire spiritual effort, whether or not its qualities are supposed to come from an enlightened being. Other sculptures could also inspire such qualities. However, there are some good reasons for continuing to use Buddhas rather than other sculptures. The artistic tradition of Buddha-making is not just a tradition of dogma, but also a tradition of skill. There is not necessarily anything dogmatic about choosing to limit artistic expression to particular traditional forms. The dogma emerges when the traditional forms are all there really is to the piece.

As noted in relation to ritual in the previous section, there will always be some individuals who relate to symbols of enlightenment readily enough, and will be able to project their experience onto a form that represents an absolute. However, there is no reason why the rest of us, that are not able to do this, should find ourselves bowing to Buddhas that do not, in fact, represent any particular spiritual quality but rather only a metaphysical abstraction. Nor is there any reason why the only figures bowed to or worshipped should be Buddhas with warts and topknots. For example, if a reproduction of Michelangelo’s David or a Greek statue of Apollo fulfilled the same function, there is no reason why these should not be used instead.

Buddhists may respond here that the purpose of Buddha-images is not only to inspire spiritual qualities, but also to represent the historical Buddha, and the enlightenment he achieved. For Theravadins at least, the Buddha-figure reminds Buddhists of the fact that a human being was able to reach enlightenment, as well as the qualities of the Buddha. Of course, there is nothing wrong with representing a historical human being, but if the meaning of the representation is so dependent on beliefs in Reality and revelation, we have again struck the rock of dogma. Since the capacity of human beings to make spiritual progress is in any case not in the least dependent on this supposed historical achievement, it is probably more useful for Buddhists not to be reminded of such claims. If that is what Buddha-figures really represent, perhaps modern Buddhists really would be better off with statues of Apollo, as in that case it would be clearer to them that the figure is only symbolic of spiritual qualities, and no other dogmatic claims come into play.

In general, though, there is no reason why all kinds of people, Buddhists or not, should not be inspired by figures that happen to have warts and topknots, nor why they should not cultivate and express that inspiration in any way they wish, whether bowing, prostrating, or whatever. It is attachment to the warts and topknots as ends in themselves that seems to be problematic.

Return to 'Trouble with Buddhism' index page

Return to moralobjectivity.net home page