Page 148 - Tibetan Thangka Painting Methodsand Mat, Jackson

Appendix A:

Iconometric Controversies and Sources

In the brief description of iconometric classes and 'dun-rgya-mtsho (1476-1542) and the artist 'Phreng-
proportions given above in Chapter 4 we pointed out a kha-ba. In 1642 the Fifth Dalai Lama gained political
few differences among the textual sources we used. control, and in the subsequent decades the religious life
Some of these variations were minor and may have of Tibet became somewhat more constricted. Not that
originated from the innovation of a single influential there was any suppression of art styles in favor of just
artist. Somewhere in the Indian or Tibetan traditions, one (both the Sman-ris and Mkhyen-ris styles received
for instance, a painter may have decided for aesthetic official patronage), but in the second half of the 17th
reasons to draw the necks of humans four sor long century the Dga'-Idan pho-brang government made
instead of the two sor prescribed by some texts. Other efforts to legitimize itself and to standardize various
more important differences also existed among the aspects of religious and cultural life. It was in this
iconometric sources, differences which indicate the general context that the question of the Buddha's
presence of sharply diverging traditions. This we saw bodily proportions came up for review.
in the case of the proportions of humans, where one We know that in the late 17th and early 18th
text prescribed a height of seven spans and the other century at least two distinct iconometric traditions
called for a height of eight. And even more significant continued to be followed, because notable scholars
was a difference that we did not mention above, a are known to have championed each system. The
disagreement concerning the proportions of the Buddha protagonist of one system was Sde-srid Sangs-rgyas-
image itself. rgya-mtsho, the man who succeeded the Fifth Dalai
Throughout the history of Tibetan art (even down Lama as the ruler of Tibet. He took what is nowadays
to the present) there has been no single universally a controversial position in asserting that paintings of
accepted system of proportions for the Buddha image. the Buddha should measure only 120 sor, or ten spans
The techniques for painting Buddhas entered Tibet at of twelve sor each. One generation later these opinions
different periods and from different regions, and they were critically answered by the artist and redactor
were never forced into complete agreement. Systems Zhu-chen Tshul-khrims-rin-chen (1697-1769). The
of iconometry, like painting styles, led lives of their latter held that a painting of the Buddha must have a
own. With the passing of the centuries some systems total height (and arm span) of 125 sor, i.e. ten spans Of
gradually flourished, some maintained only a very small twelve and one-half sor each. Zhu-chen, like the Sde-
following, and still others fell into complete oblivion. srid, believed that the establishment of an authoritative
The iconometry of the Buddha described in detail iconometry was a desirable thing; the only question was
above was one of the predominant systems, and in what the standard proportions should be.
recent times it was widely reputed to be the most The Sde-srid was not ignorant of the statements
orthodox. It did not reach Tibet until the second or in the Kiilaeakra Tantra to the effect that a Buddha
later spread of Buddhism there; the system was derived image should measure 125 sor, or ten spans of twelve
from the Kiilaeakra cycle, which itself was not translated and one-half sor. This measure, according to him, did
and propagated in Tibet until the early 11 th century. indeed apply to some Buddha images, but only to
By the 14th and 15th centuries this system of Buddha three-dimensional representations such as statues, and
proportions had gained influentiaJ adherents such as not to paintings. Painted Buddhas, he said, were
Bu-ston and Sman-thang-pa Sman-bla-don-grub, but it separately taught as measuring 120 sor in another text,
2
was by no means the only living iconometric tradition. the Samvarodaya Tantra. Thus, according to the
Alongside it there existed other systems, and Bo-dong Sde-srid, paintings of both Buddhas and bodhisattvas
Palf-chen took pains to include some of these when should have the same proportions. The differences
compiling his De nyid 'dus pa compendium in the first being talked about here can scarcely be detected in a
half of the 15th century. These early iconometric finished piece, but in the theory of iconometry a
systems have yet to be thoroughly studied. 1 difference of one-half sor per span was a crucial matter.
The development of iconometry continued in the Sde-srid Sangs-rgyas-rgya-mtsho presented his
16th and 17th centuries with what seems to have been a argument for the 120-sor Buddha in his Bstan beos
general trend toward standardization of art in the main baidurya dkar po las dris Ian 'khrul snang g.ya' sel. 3
monasteries of Central Tibet. This movement was linked Many artists were presumably following this tradition
to the growth of the Gelugpa Order, and two names when the Sde-srid wrote about it, and in the first half of
associated with it were the Second Dalai Lama Dge- the 18th century such painters were numerous in all

144