Wrath as a concept occupies a complex niche in the realm of religion, and as such manifests in a number of ways in art. The very meaning of the word varies significantly across cultures, carrying with it a variety of different, often contradictory connotations. The formal definition of wrath is simply “extreme anger”. However, as will become apparent in this post, anger and wrath are not as synonymous as one might initially believe. This definition is telling of the traditional western interpretation of wrath, which sometimes fails to account for different interpretations of the concept. Attached to this is an inherent negative connotation, which is not present in buddhist interpretations, which this post primarily aims to delve into. In my research, I aimed to explore the role of wrath in Buddhism holistically, as well as critically examining how this contrasts western perspectives, and finally how it all appears in art.
First, I would like to establish the western perspective on wrath, which is largely defined by christianity, and is most likely the interpretation most familiar to many reading this publication. Wrath in the west is synonymously negative, or even malicious. It exists in the absence of mercy or compassion. Wrath in christianity is defined by anger and justice. It exists when anger manifests in unjust quantities, or when anger is directed at an unjustified target. This definition is straightforward, in essence simply equating wrath to unjust anger, which is clearly outlined to be a moral wrongdoing to be avoided. In christianity, wrath is one of the seven deadly sins, or the transgressions that represent the root of all human evil. The boundaries of wrath in christianity are very cut and dry, but this actually presents a number of interesting implications. Firstly, It is represented as an inherently human emotion, originating from the hearts of people, and being subsequently expressed by people, rather than any sort of deity. Additionally, anger is integral to the function of wrath, but not synonymous. The christian definition allows for the existence of justified anger. These implications may not seem inherently noteworthy on their own, but are acutely important when juxtaposed with buddhism.
Buddhism presents a more nuanced understanding of wrath. It is not perceived as a human behavior or emotion that requires suppression. Instead, somewhat surprisingly, wrath is tied to compassion above anything else. This is made abundantly evident by the countless depictions of wrathful deities found in Buddhist art. These deities are depicted to embody ferocity, or even terror. There is a significant amount of consistent motifs that appear across many examples, notably, flames, depictions of suffering, and weapons or tools. While these deities incite terror, they are more than anything compassionate entities. The wrath that they illustrate is directed towards the obstacles of enlightenment. With their destructive power, they cast away earthly attachments, serving as guides and protectors of dharma. Vajrabhairava for example, one of the most prevalent wrathful deities, is specifically related to death. One of the greatest attachments to abandon is that of life and death. Vajrabhairava violently destroys human attachments to clear the path of enlightenment. Similarly, mahakala directs its wrath towards ignorance and negativity. Regardless of their specific purpose, the commonality that a vast majority of wrathful buddhist deities share is that they aim to illuminate the path to enlightenment for others. Herein lies the most significant difference between christian and Buddhist wrath, being that one views it as wrong and evil, and the other as just and compassionate. This is the most fundamental difference, but more interesting contradictions arise the deeper one looks. Unlike christianity, wrath most often manifests as a deity, as opposed to being inherent to humans. The role that anger plays, separately from wrath, also differs from christianity, almost inversely. Anger in Buddhism is a completely separate concept to wrath, being an emotion that one should sever attachment to. Furthermore, anger is never justified, as it sometimes is in christianity. In essence, wrath in Buddhism is compassionate, existing in opposition to obstacles to enlightenment, which is most often depicted via a deity. That being said, it is important to note that wrath in Buddhism is very multifaceted and nuanced, and it is reductive to say it is any one thing.
The idiosyncrasies of the ways in which wrath is depicted in buddhism are exemplified in the following works of art. By analyzing these works, we can further understand the meaning of the concept, how it is portrayed in art, and how this differs between cultures.
The Wisdom King Aizen
4th century, Japanese Buddhist, ink and gold on silk, 53×32 in, Metropolitan Museum of Art
Here we see a depiction of the deity Aizen Myoo, with red skin, a fierce expression, and six arms, some of which hold weapons. He is adorned with a lion’s head as a crown. The name of this deity translates to “dyed in love” which comes from the fact that his fearsome appearance emerged as he was transformed by his deep compassion for others. The symbolism that is typical of wrathful deities is shown here, showcasing many artistic motifs as well as the general idea that wrath exists in opposition to desires and obstacles to enlightenment, but there are a few unique qualities to Aizen Myoo specifically. The wisdom king is seen as a transformative force, which is both tied to his own transformation, but more importantly to his ability to aid humans in their own spiritual transformation. By praying to Aizen, practitioners aim to transform their desires, especially sexual ones, into spiritual energy. The deity serves as a guide on the path to enlightenment, as well as a vessel for self reflection and personal transformation.
Mahakala, Protector of the Tent
Ca. 1500, Tibetan Buddhist, distemper on cloth, 64×53 in, Metropolitan Museum of Art
Here we see a depiction of an often appearing deity, mahakala, wielding a flaying knife and holding a skull cup full of blood while trampling a corpse. Monks line the edge of the piece, wearing serene expressions, which juxtaposes the intense violence of the central deity. Again, much of the symbolism and motifs that are consistent with wrathful deities in Buddhism appear here. The five skull crown adorned here represents the transformation of the five afflictions into the five virtues. It is interesting to note that this motif was not present in the previous example, as it would align strongly with Aizen’s purpose as a deity. While this is one of the most consistent motifs in Tibetan Buddhist art, it appears less in esoteric Buddhist art, which is the origin of the wisdom king Aizen. Along with the skull crown and other motifs, the piece also embodies the concept of wrath as destruction of impediments to enlightenment. One of the main aspects that make mahakala unique is his role as a protector. More So than other deities, mahakala serves to provide sanctuary for those on the path to enlightenment.
The Deity Vajrabhairava, Tantric Form of the Bodhisattva Manjushri
15th century, Chinese Buddhist, silk embroidery with horse hair and metallic fibers, 57×40 in, Metropolitan Museum of Art
Here we see the wrathful deity Vajrabhairava, depicted in classic form, with a buffalo head, and many arms some of which hold various weapons. He is shown trampling animals and hindu gods, similar to the previous example of mahakala, and the embroidery also features many common motifs such as flames or the five skull crown. Vajrabhairava is one of the most recognizable wrathful deities in buddhism, and as such embodies the most quintessential symbolism of wrathful deities in general. That being said, Vajrabhairava is unique for its connection to death. This form is also sometimes referred to as Yamantaka, or the conqueror of death. The deity exists at the end of the cycle of rebirth, guiding people to enlightenment. It frightens away impediments to enlightenment, and alludes to the true nature of enlightenment in its fearsome form.
Wrath, from the ‘Seven Deadly Sins’
Léon Davent after Luca Penni, etching, 26 x 29 cm, Ca. 1550, French & Italian Christian, Metropolitan Museum of Art
Here we see a depiction of a city or town under siege, being subjugated to military activity. The city burns in the background and scholarly looking prisoners are being decapitated in the foreground. Immediately, if only at a visual level, some differences jump out in contrast to the previous three examples. The most notable of these differences is the depth of the scene. The wrathful deities are all shown on a relatively 2 dimensional level, whereas this piece, embodying the classical artistic sensibilities of the renaissance, makes a point to illustrate a 3d scene. In this, the art is less symbolic and more strictly representational, although that is not to say it is without meaning or symbolism. The prisoners being decapitated connect to the christian definition of wrath, being unjust or misguided anger. Being scholarly, they represent innocence and virtue, as scholars have no means to fight, and intellectualism was of great value during this time period in europe. Finally, the absence of any non-human subject is indicative of christianity’s interpretation of wrath as a strictly human phenomenon.
The Fury of Monk Raigō
Kobayashi Kiyochika, ink and gold paint on silk, 108 x 79 cm, Ca. 1900, Japanese Buddhist, Metropolitan Museum of Art
In this piece, we can see a depiction of the quasi historical event of monk Raigo flying into a rage during a buddhist flame ritual. A statue of the wrathful deity fudo myoo watches on, partially obscured by the smoke and flame. Ritual instruments are scattered and thrown as the monk falls away from the altar. The incident supposedly happened after emperor shirakawa went back on his word to let the monastery carry out ordination ceremonies. Interestingly, this piece bridges the gap between different artistic depictions of wrath. The scene is dynamic and with depth, similarly to the christian example of the renaissance. In addition, the piece is more narrative and less strictly symbolic or religious. Along with this, the scroll features a depiction of a statue of a wrathful deity, which differs from the previous buddhist examples. While the statue actually has some narrative agency and role in the piece, the fact that it is a statue makes the piece overall more humanist rather than spiritual. The reason this piece differs from the other buddhist examples could be due in part to it being much more contemporary. The other works were made within two centuries of each other roughly, while this piece comes 300 years after the latest of the other 4. In all, the scroll represents ideas both spiritual and visual that align in some ways with both christian and Buddhist interpretations of wrath, albeit only showing a slight semblance of christian ideas.
