|
to my knowledge, if you look far back enough, any depiction of Buddha is an insult.
historically, early buddhist paintings never showed Buddha himself. there was always an iconic image to represent him, such as two footprints, or a royal parasol.
this was because Buddha worked his whole life the gain freedom from this existence, to show him was considered a disrespect to his intentions.
it has been said (and if anyone can confirm this please feel free) that Buddha himself said that (paraphrase) "if my image appears, my teachings were for naught".
the practice of painting Buddha is a relatively new one.
(i learned this in an asian art class i took last year. if it turns out i am wrong, yell at my prof, not me ;oP)
__________________
I'm so awesome I made your mom cry!
|