imagesmysterious and transcendent aspects of the divine nature. This prohibi-
tion against representation extends to the Prophet Muhammad whose
face is left blank on paintings of him, a practice that does not extend to
Sikhism where representational paintings of the faces of Gurus Nānak
and Gobind Singh are prominently displayed at places of worship.
In contrast to Islam, Hinduism uses images extensively because it
brings the divine closer to the devotee. Since Hindus believe that a god
or goddess descends into the image and entrusts itself to the care of
humans, it must be treated with the utmost respect as the deity is a
sovereign. Although the image does not represent full divinity, a visual
image objectifies the divine and enables ordinary people to see it.
Images are incomplete, inadequate, and impermanent because they are
believed to be created, live, die, and are replaced. Often images cre-
ated for festivals are discarded at the end of the event. Many Hindu
images are created with large eyes in order to stress the importance of
a mutual process of perception between the divine image and the
devotee.
In Buddhism, symbols associated with the Buddha are revered a few
centuries before the advent of image worship between 100 bce and 100
ce. There are three basic reasons for the creation of images of the
Buddha: an image signifies the Buddha’s presence without which rituals
cannot take place because they would be rendered ineffective; an image
discloses the Buddha’s teaching; and it ensures the continuation of the
monastic tradition. With kings playing the role of patrons of image, stūpa
(memorial mound), and monastery construction, the installation of a new
image involves a ritual, called either “eye opening” or consecration
(abhiseka), to make the image holy by pouring water, connecting the rite
to the life-giving force of water in a dissemination of sacred power.
Typically, opening the eyes of the image brings it to life. Once the image
is installed and consecrated, the image mirrors the Buddha in a mutual,
self-reflexive act during which the Buddha recognizes the image as him-
self and vice versa.
In the current postmodern period, images and the representations of the
divine that they depict are called into question by thinkers such as Jean
Baudrillard, a postmodern cultural critic, who confesses to finding him-
self within a time of simulation. This artificial, malleable period tends
towards equivalence that suggests faking that which one does not pos-
sess. This scenario suggests an absence rather than a presence, and it
threatens the distinction between true and false, real and imaginary. What
he calls the simulacrum opposes representation, terminates meaning, and
simultaneously renders the real and illusory impossible because the latter
is no longer possible without the latter. Within this confused context, the