The Development of Hindu Iconography c10.37

Language: English

c10.37.1

Incidental reference has already been made to one or two among them in the first few pages of the second chapter of this work. But, a collected presentation of some of those as well as several other data will be necessary for the better understanding of the topic under discussion here. Pāṇini's sūtra, *jīvikārthe cāpaṇye* (V. 3. 99) as explained by the later commentators is interesting; it gives us positive information about the concrete representations of deities in the 5th century B.C.¹ But from this cryptic sūtra, we can have no idea about the kind of deities whose *pratikṛtis* were made means of livelihood by a certain class of people. It can justifiably be presumed, however, that these were not the orthodox Vedic gods, but were popular objects of worship like the Yakṣas and the Nāgas; they could also be even of Vāsudeva, Arjuna and the Mahārājas (Kubera, Dhṛtarāṣṭra, Viḍūdhaka and Virūpākṣa, the guardian deities of the Northern, Eastern, Southern and Western quarters respectively—this is A. K. Coomaraswamy's interpretation, and it seems to be the correct one), because Pāṇini under IV. 3. 95 (*yeṣāṃ bhaktir yap*) lays down rules for the formation of words denoting the *bhaktas* or the worshippers of Vāsudeva, Arjuna and the Mahārājas (IV. 3. 98: *Vāsudevārjunābhyāṃ vūñ* and IV. 3. 99: *Mahārājātthañ*). But Patañjali is much more informative on this matter in his comment on Pāṇini's sūtra (V. 3. 99). His *bhāṣya* reads:—*apaṇya ityucyate tatredaṃ na sidhyati |

c10.37.2

Śivaḥ Skandaḥ Viśākha iti | kiṃ kāraṇam | Mauryairhiraṇyārthibhirarcāḥ prakalpitāḥ | bhavet tāsu na syāt | yāstvetāḥ sampratipūjārthāstāsu bhaviṣyati*. This passage is highly important, because it throws a flood of light on our problem. He mentions a few of the gods, viz., Śiva, Skanda, Viśākha whose images were being made for worship at his time (*sampratipūjārthā*); again, his assertion that the Mauryas devised the expedient of replenishing their royal coffer by the selling of images shows that images were in great demand among their subjects; lastly, it is significant that none of the three gods mentioned above can be described as Vedic in character. Such texts as the Arthaśāstra and the Manusaṃhitā also supply us some valuable data about the subject. Kauṭilya, in his chapter on Dūrganiveśa (Buildings within the Fort) says, ‘In the centre of the city, the apartments of gods, such as Aparājita, Apratihata, Jayanta, Vaijayanta, Śiva, Vaiśravaṇa, Aśvina, and the abode of Goddess Madirā shall be situated. In the corners, the guardian deities of the ground shall be appropriately set up.’¹ These are evident allusions to the shrines of the above-named gods, and it is presumable that the images of the latter were enshrined in them; an analysis of the names shows that only one among them (or possibly two, if Vaijayanta be taken to be a synonym of Indra), viz., Aśvi (the twin gods Aśvins) is distinctively Vedic in character.

c10.37.3

Vaiśravaṇa is the same as Kubera, the lord of the Yakṣas, Jayanta is most probably the same as mentioned in the Āpastamba Gṛhyasūtra (VII. 20. 3, Jayanta in this passage should not have been translated as ‘the conqueror’ as it has been done by Max Müller in the S. B. E. series) already noted in the second chapter; the image of Śiva is referred to in the Mahābhāṣya, here, and probably also in the Āpastamba Gṛhyasūtra noted above (Īśāna’s image is mentioned there and Īśāna is the name of one of the aspects of Śiva); the goddess Madirā may be the same as Mīḍhuṣī mentioned in the latter work in the same context and translated by Max Müller as ‘the bountiful one.’² Kauṭilya also refers to the figures of the “goddesses and altars which were to be carved on wooden door frames of the royal underground chamber” (*Vāsagṛhaṃ bhūmigṛhaṃ vā āsannakāṣṭhacaityadevatāvidhānadvāraṃ*, etc. : Kauṭilya on *Niśāntapraṇidhiḥ*); these figures had most probably protective utility and acted as sorts of charms, and were not meant for worship. In the chapter on *Apasarpapraṇidhiḥ* Kauṭilya refers to the images and flags of the gods (*devadhvajapratimābhirvā*) in the guise of which weapons will be supplied by the spies outside to the spies inside the enemy’s fort; in the same section we are told about the procession of gods (*i.e.*, the images of them—*daivatapretakāryotsavasamājeṣu*), etc., which would be taken advantage of by the spies in harming the enemy.

c10.37.4

Very great importance is assigned to the images of the gods in *Manusmṛti* and there are various passages in the work which lay down that *daivatam* (images of gods) are to be circumambulated (IV, 39), that one should not voluntarily step over the shadow of the gods (IV, 130), that at the *parvans* one should go to the images for protection (IV, 153), and that he who destroys a bridge, the flag of a temple (really the votive column in front of it), a pole (really a pillar) or images (*saṃkramadhvajayaṣṭīnāṃ pratimānāṃ ca bhedakaḥ*) shall repair the whole (damages) and pay 500 (*paṇas*) as fine (IX, 285). Manu gives us another interesting information that though images were highly venerated by the people in general, temple-priests, whose duty was to minister to these icons, were greatly deprecated, and they were placed in the same class with the Brahmans who earned their livelihood by medical practice, selling of meat and trading (*Cikitsakān devalakān māṃsa-vikrayiṇastathā | Vipaṇena ca jīvanto varjyāḥ syurhavya-kavyayoḥ*; III, 152). The same social stigma attaches to the temple-priests in modern times also; it can be explained by the suggestion that it was so because