I’ve often been struck by the casual diversity in ancient Buddhist images. Western people often tend to think of “Indian” people as being of a similar racial background, but the reality is that it has always been an incredibly diverse subcontinent. The religious, linguistic, economic, and cultural diversity of India is far greater than, say, Europe.
We like to think that we’ve discovered diversity, but it’s been a normal part of human culture ever since we’ve had culture.
And this is represented in the skin tones of people in ancient paintings. Here’s an example I stumbled across this morning, from a Tibetan Prajnaparamita manuscript. But I’ve seen plenty of other cases, in art from India, Tibet, and Sri Lanka.
There’s even a white guy hanging round the edges!
Another one from Tibet:
Does anyone know any other ancient Buddhist art where we can see different skin colors?
I was wondering about that, too. I mean, it doesn’t negate the fact that they are still diverse, obviously they are human in form. You have a case like Krishna, whose name means “Black” and who is usually represented as dark blue.
I’m not sure! I’d always assumed that in crowd scenes at least it was just the whim of the painter, but it’s Indian art: there’s always a system.
Here’s another one, this time from China. Clearly the painter was striving to be as diverse as possible.
Bodhisattvas, tantric Buddhas, and the various protector spirits almost never have normal human skin colors in Tibetan Buddhism. The color usually has some significance, and there can be more than one version of a bodhisattva, the difference being the color of their skin and their mudras (like green and white Tara). I think bodhisattvas that are part of the same “family” will often have the same skin color. Anyway, it gets pretty complicated, lol.
I’ve always found it interesting when Tibetan thangka painters portray the great tantric Indian masters of yore. They generally look distinctly non-Tibetan, like the one above.
There are some exceptions, like Nagarjuna, though. You wouldn’t necessarily guess that the person depicted was supposed to be Indian:
Monasteries in the first few centuries must have been very diverse, colorful places. There were monks from north India and south India, along with the occasional Chinese. Some of the 18 Schools existed during that time, too, and I believe they already had differently colored robes.
This one is from the Kizil Caves. There are paintings from different styles and traditions, created by artists from a variety of backgrounds. The paintings may also include writing in a variety of languages including Sanskrit, Tocharian, and Chinese.
Lol, true. I’ve seen some very…unflattering representations of the Indian madhyamaka philosophers, for example, done by Tibetans in thangkas. To be fair, the Asian monk standing next to that Western monk is rather stylized, too.
I believe that figure is a Sogdian monk. There are Sogdians, Uyghurs, and Han Chinese depicted in those paintings. All three groups inhabited the Tarim Basin region at the time.
And that’s what’s so fascinating, the artists clearly made an effort to represent everyone. I’m pretty sure it’s not just a matter of artistic style: it’s a way of emphasizing the universality of the Buddha’s message. In globalizing, multicultural contexts like the Silk Road, the cosmopolitan nature of the Dhamma must have been a major selling point. Sadly, these days Dhamma has been so identified with nationalism that the depictions of people have become blandly uniform.
Sure, I’d guess so. It seems to be a common thing in post-colonial Indian art, and perhaps Asian art more generally. But I’m no expert, it’s just something I’ve noticed. I just tried googling “Hindu art” and honestly, there’s hardly a single person depicted who looks anything like the people who live around us here in Harris Park.
What! No blue-faced Krishnas hanging around Parramatta?
Thank you for this interesting thread. I imagined that I would learn that various people, devas etc were traditionally represented with specifically coloured skin. So it’s interesting that people think the connections are more likely to be to caste and race.