Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Development of Hindu Iconography c13: Chapter VI: Icono-Plastic Art in India—Factors Contributing to its Development

The Development of Hindu Iconography c13

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VI: Icono-Plastic Art in India—Factors Contributing to its Development

c13.2

The data which have been gathered together and presented by me in the three preceding chapters prove that the construction of images and other objects associated with the worship of the deity with deep loving faith was fairly well prevalent in India during the few centuries preceding the Christian era and those immediately succeeding it. From the multiplicity of evidence in support of the above hypothesis it would be natural for us to expect a large number of very early images belonging to the various sectaries, both orthodox and heterodox from the Brahmanical standpoint, from various parts of India. True it is that several free-standing Yakṣa statues or relievo-figures principally associated with early Buddhist funerary monuments have been discovered, which can go back to two or possibly three centuries before the Christian era; it is also true that many Buddhist, and several Jain and Brahmanical images and sculptures have been discovered in stray groups from distant parts of India like Gandhāra, Mathurā and Amaravati that belong to two or three centuries after its commencement. But when we consider the vastness of the Indian continent and think of the religious needs of the majority of her untold millions of people, we cannot but be struck with the fact that the actual discovery of the extant images going back to these earlier times is quite incommensurate with our expectations. The reasons for this extreme paucity have been briefly mentioned by me in passim in the last part of the introductory chapter of this book. The iconoclastic zeal of the image-haters of alien faith, the ever-active spoliation of ancient religious structures for building materials by the utilitarian vandals of mediaeval and modern times and the natural causes of decay and destruction were no doubt responsible to a great extent for this comparative infrequency of early finds of images. The ancient practice of making images in such perishable materials as wood and clay is also one of the main reasons which explain the above fact. In the Vedic times, in the fashioning of the ritual implements that were necessary for the correct performance of particular sacrifices, wood was the principal material that was used, and the altars of various shapes and kinds were made of clay and bricks. In referring to the materials out of which the god Viśvakarmā could have created the universe the one that comes foremost to the mind of the Vedic seer is wood. The hymnist asks, ‘Which was the forest and what was the tree out of whose wood the heaven and earth were carved?’ (R.V., X, 81, 4—Kim svidvanam ka u sa vṛkṣa āsa yato dyāvāpṛthivī niṣṭatakṣuḥ). It is natural that wood should be easily thought of in the construction of structures and other objects, for it is not only one of the easily procurable materials but also is an important one among such, being the easiest to work upon. It is no wonder then that we find so many passages in early Indian iconographic texts expatiating on the selection of wood to be used in the construction of images. Some of these are taken notice of here; attention of the reader, however, needs to be drawn in passim to the extreme care and consideration, which is enjoined by the writers of these texts on the image-makers in the cutting of the particular trees whose wood should be employed by them for the shaping of the arcā of the god.

c13.3

Some writers on Indian iconography and iconometry have noted the importance of chapter 57 on Pratimālakṣaṇam of Varāhamihira’s Bṛhatsaṃhitā (Sudhakar Dvivedi’s edition) and have utilised its contents to some extent; but practically no notice has as yet been taken by them of the next chapter, viz., Vanasampraveśādhyāya and its bearing on the art of image-making in ancient India. The latter lays down details regarding the ceremony of securing wood from the forest trees, and bringing it home for the purpose of making images of gods and goddesses. We are first told that the image-maker should enter into the forest on an auspicious day selected by the astrologer and be careful about the omens which he might see on his way to it. Then a list of trees which are to be avoided in the search for proper wood is given ; trees which grow in cremation ground, by the side of roads, near temples, or on ant-hills, in gardens and hermitages, caitya or sthala vṛkṣas, those growing by the confluences of rivers, or which are planted by human hands, extremely bent ones, trees growing very close to other trees or overgrown with creepers, trees struck by lightning or broken by storms, falling by themselves or damaged by elephants, dried or burnt trees, or those on which bees make their hives, are not to be selected by the sculptor. Next are given the names of those the wood of which is to be used for making images ; deodar, candana, śamī, madhuka for images to be set up by Brahmans ; ariṣṭa, aśvattha, khadira, bilva for those to be made for the Kṣatriyas ; jīvaka, khadira, sindhuka and syandana are auspicious for images (to be enshrined) by the Vaiśyas ; tinduka, keśara, sarja, arjuna, āmra and sāla are (proper) for the Śūdras.¹ Before the selected tree is to be felled by axe certain rites are to be performed by the sculptor. First he is to mark off on its trunk the various sections of the Liṅgam or image to be made out of it in order that the top, bottom and the sides of the object to be fashioned may correspond to those of the trunk of the tree.² Next he will propitiate the tree with various offerings and worship the gods, manes, Rākṣasas, Nāgas, Asuras, Gaṇas, and

c13.4

¹ > Suradāru-candana-śamī-madhukataravaḥ śubhā dvijātīnām |

c13.5

² > Liṅgaṃ vā pratimā vā drumavat sthāpyā yathādiśam yasmāt |

c13.6

Kṣatrasyāriṣṭaśvattha-khadira-bilvā vivṛddhikarāḥ ||
Vaiśyānāṃ jīvaka-khadira-sindhuka-syandanāśca śubhaphaladāḥ |
Tinduka-keśara-sarjārjunāmraśālāśca śūdrāṇām ||
(Verses 5-6).
The same list is given by Kāśyapa in his work; Utpala quotes three couplets from it in his commentary.

c13.7

Tasmāccihnayitavyā diśo drumasyordhvamathavādhaḥ ||
(Verse 7).
Kāśyapa says :—
Vṛkṣavat pratimā kāryā prāgbhāgādyupalakṣitā |
Pādāḥ pādeṣu karttavyāḥ śīrṣamūrdhve tu kārayet ||

c13.8

Vināyakas at night and utter the following mantra, touching the tree with his hands:—

c13.9

Oh, thou tree, salutation to thee, thou art selected for (being fashioned into) the icon of this particular deity; please accept this offering according to rules. May all the spirits which reside in this tree transfer their habitation elsewhere after accepting the offerings made according to rules; may they pardon me today (for disturbing them); salutation to them.¹

c13.10

¹ Arcārthamamukasya tvaṃ devasya parikalpitaḥ | Namaste vṛkṣa pūjeyam vidhivat sampragṛhyatām | Yānīha bhūtāni vasanti tāni balim gṛhītvā vidhivat prayuktam | Anyatra vāsam parikalpayantu kṣamantu tānyadya namo'stu tebhyaḥ || (Verses 10-11). The same mantra is to be found in the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa chapter on Pratimāvidhi; a few other passages common to both can be found in the two.

c13.11

Lastly, in the morning, after sprinkling water on the tree and smearing the blade of his axe with honey and clarified butter, he should cut round the trunk rightwards, beginning from the north-east corner. In the last verse of the chapter the author states that further details about the felling of the tree, omitted by him in this chapter, have been described in his chapters on Indradhvaja and Vāstuvidyā, and the same should apply in this case also. The information which we gather from a study of this chapter is also supplied to us in various other texts like the sections on architecture and sculpture of the Purāṇas like Bhaviṣya, Viṣṇudharmottara, Matsya and others and such works as Mānasāra, etc. Of these the chapter of Bhaviṣyapurāṇa on Pratimāvidhi (Ch. 131) in the Prathama Brāhma Parva which begins just after the chapter on Prāsādalakṣaṇavarṇanam gives details more or less similar to those noted above. Nārada, while explaining to Sāmba rules for the construction of images of gods in general and Sūrya in particular, mentions that seven kinds of images tending to the welfare of the devotees are known, viz., those made of gold, silver, copper, earth or clay, stone, wood and the ones that are drawn (on canvas and other objects); of these Nārada selects those made of wood as deserving special notice.¹ This shows that wood was the most frequently used material for image-making from very early times. In the Viṣṇudharmottara a whole chapter entitled *Devālayārtha dāruparīkṣaṇam* (Bk. III, Ch. 89) is devoted to the details of procuring wood for temple-building and image-making activities, and rules similar to the above for marking off the different sections of the images and building posts on the trunk of the tree are incorporated.² The next two chapters deal with *Śilāparīkṣā* and *Iṣṭakāparīkṣā*, in the former of which rites enjoined are somewhat similar to those mentioned in connection with *Dāruparīkṣā*. The *Mānasāra*, a work giving details of architectural construction its foremost consideration, deals at great length with the topic of *Dārusamgrahaṇa* in lines 251-347 in the chapter on *Stambhalakṣaṇam* (P. K. Acharya's Edition, Ch. XV, pp. 103 ff.). These particulars are of the same nature as those gleaned from the other texts, but here they apply chiefly to the construction of wooden columns. A formidable list of *śakunas* is given in lines 260-94; in lines 295-304 are mentioned rules about sacrifices to the various kinds of evil spirits, the eight Dikpālas beginning with Indra and ending with Īśāna, to eight Rākṣasas like Mukhya, Mṛga, Aditi, Udita, Vitatha, Antarikṣa, Bhṛśa and Pūṣan, and lastly to the Vanaspati.¹ The whole of the chapter 257 entitled *Vāstuvidyānukīrtanam* of the *Matsyapurāṇa* deals with the *Dārvāharaṇavidhi* in a succinct way; the next few chapters (258-263) expatiate on details of iconometry and iconography, incidentally referring to different kinds of materials used for image-making. Thus, while recording the characteristic signs of the pedestals (*pīṭhikā*), the author remarks that stone, earthen, wooden and mixed pedestals are to be assigned to images which are made of stone, earth, wood and mixed materials, respectively.² In the next chapter on *Liṅgalakṣaṇam*, the author expressly mentions in the last verse that ‘Liṅgas should be made of (such materials) as precious metals, crystals, earth and wood in the manner laid down in the previous lines.’³

c13.12

¹ *Atha te sampravakṣyāmi pratimāvidhivistaram |* *Sarveṣāmeva devānāmādityasya viśeṣataḥ ||* *Arcā saptavidhā proktā bhaktānām śubhavṛddhaye |* *Kāñcanī rājatī tāmrī pārthivī śailajā smṛtāḥ ||* *Vārkṣī cālekhyakāceti mūrtisthānāni sapta vai |* *Vārkṣividhānam te vīra varṇayiṣyamyaśeṣataḥ ||* *Bhaviṣyapurāṇa*, Bk. 1, Ch. 131, Verses 1-3.

c13.13

² *Agram mūlam prayatnena kartavyam tasya cihnāni—* *Agram devasya mūrdhānam pādam mūlam tu kārayet |* *Arcākṛtā viparyastā māraṇāvahā ||* *Agramūlam viparyāsam stambhānām ca vivarjayet |* *Agramūlaviparyāse kṛte veśmakṣayam vrajet ||* *Pūrvāgrā cottarāgrā vā drumā yojyā gṛheṣu ca |* . . . . . *Tasmāt sarvaprayatnena cihnaistam kārayed drumam |* *Agre mūle ca dharmajñāstataḥ samyak praveśayet ||*

c13.14

¹ A few other details are recorded here; one such refers to three sex groups among the trees. The last lines in this section are :

c13.15

² *Śaile śailamayīm dadyāt pārthive pārthivīm tathā |* *Dāruje dārujām kuryānmiśre miśrām tathaiva ca ||*

c13.16

³ *Evam ratnamayam kuryāt sphaṭikam pārthivam tathā |* *Śubham dārumayañcāpi yadvā manasi rocate ||*

c13.17

It will be of interest to refer in this connection to the different classifications of images on the basis of materials out of which they were made, mentioned in a few other texts. Gopala Bhatta, purporting to quote from the *Matsyapurāṇa* and *Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra*, supplies us with two such groupings in his *Haribhaktivilāsa*. The first is that images can be divided into four broad divisions, *viz.*, *citrajā* those that are painted on canvas, wall or *pātra*, i.e., a jar or a pot), *lepajā* (made of clay), *pākajā* (made of molten metal, i.e., cast images) and *śastrotkīrṇā* (carved by metal instruments). The second list includes seven different varieties, *viz.*, *mṛṇmayī*, *dārughaṭitā*, *lohajā*, *ratnajā*, *śailajā*, *gandhajā* and *kausumī*. It will be seen that with the exception of the

c13.18

Vṛkṣasya mūlam mūle ca agre cāgram tathaiva ca |
Bhūmisparśamukham jñātvā tadūrdhvam parabhāgataḥ ||

c13.19

The first of them can be freely translated thus: ‘The base (of the column) is (to be marked) on the lower part of the trunk of the tree, while the capital (of the column) is (to be marked) on its upper part.’ The second line does not make any sense; Acharya's translation of it as ‘the part other than these (i.e. the middle part) is known to be that which touches (i.e., makes) the body, i.e. the shaft of the column’ is unwarranted.

c13.20

last two in the second list (or one, viz., *kausumī*, because *gandhajā* may come under *lepajā* in the first list), which are evidently *kṣaṇika* images, all the others in it can very well come under the first one. The *Śukranītisāra* refers to eight kinds of materials thus:—*Pratimā saikatī paiṣṭī lekhyā lepyā ca mṛṇmayī | Vārkṣī pāṣāṇa-dhātutthā sthirā jñeyā yathottarā* (IV, 4, 72). In this list several new materials occur, such as *sikatā* (sand) and *piṣṭa* (substance ground and then mixed with water into a dough); the latter evidently refers here to such a material as rice powder mixed with water (in colloquial Bengali it is called *piṭuli*) and not to the compound which is called stucco. Each succeeding material in this list is more durable than the preceding one, and the metal images are described as the most permanent (*sthirā*) among them. The *Samarāṅganasūtradhara*, a late anthology by king Bhojadeva, also refers in these lines to the seven kinds of images:—*Pratimānāmatha brūmo lakṣaṇaṃ dravyameva ca | Suvarṇa-rūpya-tāmrāśma-dārulekhyāni śaktitaḥ || Citraṃ ceti vinirdiṣṭaṃ dravyamarcāṣu saptadhā* (Gaekwar Oriental Series, Vol. II, Ch. I, v. 1). This list is practically the same as that in the *Bhaviṣyapurāṇa*, noticed above, with this difference only that it omits reference to clay images while mentioning pictorial representations twice under the heads *lekhya* and *citra*. That clay was undoubtedly one of the most commonly used media for making images (as it is so used now in Bengal for the making of *kṣaṇika* or impermanent ones) is fully borne out by a very interesting passage quoted by Gopala Bhatta from *Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra* which lays down rules about preparing clay for this purpose. It can be freely translated thus:—‘Members of all castes, from the highest downwards, should collect earth from river banks, cultivated fields or sacred places; then equal portions of powdered stone, *karkarā* (sand) and iron should be mixed with it and the whole mixture should be pressed with some astringents; extracts of *khadira*, *arjjuna*, *sarjja*, *śrī*, *veṇṭa* (?) and *kuṅkuma*, *kauṭaja* and *āyasa* wood, and curds, milk and clarified butter should be repeatedly stirred up with the above; the whole compound should then be left over for a month till it is ready to be shaped into images.”¹ This mode of the preparation of clay, however, shows that the material thus prepared was used for making images far more durable than ordinary clay ones, some of its constituents being powdered iron and stone. This compound is much similar to the material known as stucco which was so copiously used by the Hellenistic artists of Gandhāra from the third to the fifth century A.D. ; if we are to understand that limestone is meant by the word pāṣāṇa, then the similarity becomes greater. This seems to be the substance which was so frequently used in making many figure sculptures on the towering gopuras of many of the south Indian temples. We are further informed in the same text that a central wooden frame or core designated here as pratimāśūla of a length of 120 or 125 aṅgulas (daśatāla or uttamadaśatāla measurement) and made of khadira or yajñīya (yajñadumbura) wood is to be set up on the ratnanyāsa (ratnavedī or altar on which the image is placed), whereon the different limbs of the image are to be modelled according to the proportions laid down in the text.² Reference has already been made to the Matsyapurāṇa passage where there is mention of mixed materials used for image-making; evidently the compound just noted falls under this category. The text is of unique importance; it not only gives the formula for the preparation of the stucco-like substance, but also shows how wood, clay and such other

c13.21

¹ > Mṛttikāvarṇapūrveṇa gṛhṇīyussarvavarṇinaḥ |

c13.22

² > Sthāpayet pratimāśūlaṃ ratnanyāsasya copari |

c13.23

Nadītīre’thavā kṣetre puṇyasthāne’thavā punaḥ ||
Pāṣāṇa-karkarā-lohacūrṇāni samabhāgataḥ |
Mṛttikāyāṃ prayojyātha kaṣāyena prapīḍayet ||
Khadireṇārjjunenātha sarjaśrīveṇṭakuṅkumaiḥ |
Kauṭajairāyasaiḥ snehairadhikṣīraghṛtādibhiḥ ||
Ālodya mṛttikāṃ taistaiḥ sthāne sthāpya punaḥ punaḥ |
Māsaṃ paryuṣitaṃ kṛtvā pratimāṃ parikalpayet ||
Haribhaktivilāsa. 18th vilāsa.

c13.24

Śūlañca khādirādīnāṃ yajñīyānāṃ prakalpayet ||
Viṃśottaraśataṃ śūlaṃ kuryādvā pañcaviṃśatiḥ |
Pratimāṅgulamānena kṛtvā saṃsthāpayed budhaḥ ||
Haribhaktivilāsa, 18.

c13.25

This wooden core (pratimāśūla) in modern clay images of Bengal is described as kāṭhāmo in Bengali language; the word is derived from kāṭha or kāṣṭha meaning wood. At present, it is made of bamboo slits and straw.

c13.26

perishable materials were mixed up for making images of a comparatively durable nature.

c13.27

The above extracts fully prove how in ancient and mediaeval India, wood, as well as clay, was one of the commonest media for making images. Texts like the *Bhaviṣyapurāṇa* and the chapter 58 of the *Bṛhatsaṃhitā* which lay special stress on wood as the material for image-making are of comparatively early date, because they take stock of earlier traditional practice. Some of the later texts like *Agnipurāṇa*, though mentioning it among other materials, chiefly expatiate upon the use of stone. Scholars, after a careful study of the early extant architectural remains throughout India, came to the conclusion long ago that much of the form and technique of their construction was influenced by their earlier and commoner prototypes of wooden structures. It can very well be presumed that some of the characteristic features of the several extant early Indian sculptures in the round and many relief carvings show their intimate connection with wooden sculptures which were common in ancient times. From this it does not necessarily follow that the indigenous artists of India first learnt to use stone for architectural and sculptural purposes after their contact with the foreigners. But the data collected above prove that stone, though certainly in use from a very early date, was much less frequently employed than wood and clay. In the 6th chapter of *Antagaḍa Dasāo*, a Jaina text, we find a clear reference to the wooden image of the Yakṣa Moggarapāṇi in a shrine outside the city of Rājagṛha. Even long after stone began to be principally used for image-making, wooden images continued to be made by the artists. The finely carved wooden pillar bearing figure sculptures and decorative motifs on it discovered at Arial near Dacca and now preserved in the Arial Museum, and the weather-beaten standing Viṣṇu and several other objects of carved wood in the collection of the Dacca Museum show that wood remained as one of the principal media for image-making. The wooden images of Jagan-nātha, Balarāma and Subhadrā enshrined in the main sanctum at Puri are renewed every twelve years and the old ones are buried underground in an unfrequented part of the extensive temple compound. Images of many village and cult deities even now enshrined in Bengal for daily worship (*nityapūjā*) are mostly made of wood with bright colours painted on them; these images are reconditioned and freshly painted at regular intervals. Very few wooden images, however, of any antiquity have so far been discovered; the reason is obvious. In this tropical country with its humid climate and infested by destructive agencies like white ants and rats, wooden objects seldom attain to great age. Herein lies one of the explanations of the extreme paucity of the extant images of the pre-Christian period in India. References to images in the literature and inscriptions of India to be dated in the 3rd century B. C., if not earlier, are found; but few, if any, are the images discovered up till now which can be confidently dated back to this period. Two other interesting deductions can be made from the data collected above. The first is that the wide celebrity of the artists of such centres as Mathura, Gandhāra and Sarnath might have been greatly due to the fact that they made more systematic and constant use of such durable materials as red sandstone, black slate and Chunar sandstone. The second is that the method of colouring stone images with appropriate paints, so much practised in earlier times, was due to their wooden prototypes which were surely coated with paint in ancient days (it is still the custom everywhere).

c13.28

Of the seven different kinds of *mūrtisthānas*, i.e., materials for the making of images, several others, such as metal, stone and paint, etc., require to be considered at some detail. The metal images, especially the bronze ones, fall under the *pākajā* class as has been mentioned above and the discovery of some early specimens fully proves that the Indian artists were quite adept in the art of bronze casting. In fact, the skill they displayed in the casting of the beautiful bronze Buddha of the early Gupta period, found at Sultanganj and now in the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, is unique; it can surely rank as one of the best specimens. The gold-plated bronze image of Mañjuśrī recovered from the Balai Dhap mound, close to the ruins of Mahāsthān and now in the Rajshahi Museum, is another fine specimen of the same art, though of a slightly later date. It is unfortunate that very few, if any at all, earlier bronze images have so far been found, but the discovery of those mentioned above proves that the Indian artists had long experience in this branch of fine arts. The uninscribed and inscribed cast coins of the pre-Christian period, some of them going back to an age as early as the 2nd or 3rd century B.C., if not earlier, do not portray, it is true, that excellence which is evinced by the bronze images of a later date. But it should be borne in mind that the Indians in their early efforts at coinage both in the issues of the punch-marked and cast coins, especially the former, were never very successful, and the crudeness with which some of the purely indigenous money were being manufactured up till recent times should be noted.¹ The metal-casters' art, especially in the fashioning of divine images, on the other hand, remained throughout at a high level and the mediaeval bronze statues and statuettes from Nalanda, Kurkihar, Jhaveri (Chittagong) and other places of eastern India, and Chamba, Rajputana, etc., of northern India and the bronze images found at Negapatam, Madura and various other parts of southern India amply testify to the truth of the remark made above.

c13.29

¹ The copper coins of Udaipur, Mewar, now known as *dhinglā*, and some of them formerly known also as *triśūliāñ* on account of their bearing on them the device of a trident, can be mentioned as an example. W. W. Webb informs us that these coins were still being manufactured as late as the sixties of the last century: *The Currencies of Rajputana*, p. 13.

c13.30

It is however interesting to note that though a few texts contain detailed descriptions of the method of casting images, there are many others which remain silent about it. The earliest of the latter, as we have shown, lay down rules for making images in wood and clay, materials comparatively inexpensive and easily procurable. A devotee who wished to give some sort of permanency to the image of his god would naturally think about stone of various kinds; and texts incorporated in the Purāṇas and Āgamas give minute details.

c13.31

about the method of stone-carving. But the casting of large-sized metal images was an elaborate process and required a great deal of expense and could thus be practised only occasionally. This is borne out by the significant observation of T. A. G. Rao that ‘metal is rarely employed in the making of *dhruva-beras*; this material is almost exclusively used for casting *utsava*, *snapana* and *bali* images,’ the latter being usually small ones cast solid. The compilers of the later group of the iconographic and iconometric texts usually incorporated rules and canons which would be mostly in demand for supplying the religious needs of the general class of devotees belonging to various sects. But rules about the method of casting for the use of the more skilled technicians were no doubt collected by some of the ancient and mediaeval iconographers of India. A few comparatively late compilations, thus, base their description of this method, called the ‘*Madhūcchiṣṭa-vidhānam*,’ on these collections. The word *madhūcchiṣṭa* means bees’ wax, *i.e.*, what is left over (*ucchiṣṭa*) after the honey is strained. In this process, which is known to the western artists as ‘*cire perdue*’ or ‘lost wax’, the molten metal is left over in the earthen mould to congeal after the wax is gradually melted away by heat, and as the bees’ wax played the most important part in it, the process acquired its name after it. Gopinath Rao quotes three passages from *Kāraṇāgama*, *Suprabhedāgama* and *Viṣṇusaṃhitā*; the first two merely testify to the use of bees’ wax in metal casting, while the last mentions briefly the process thus: ‘if an image is to be made of metal, it must first be made in wax and then coated with earth; gold or other metals are purified and cast into (the mould) and a complete (and fully solid—*sarvatoghanam*) image is thus obtained by capable workmen.’¹ The *Mānasāra* (P. K. Acharya’s Edition) devotes a complete chapter (LXVIII) for describing the method of casting images in metal.

c13.32

¹ T. A. G. Rao, *op. cit.*, Vol. I, Part I, Introduction, p. 51 : *lohe sikthamayīṃ arcāṃ kārayitvā mṛdāvṛtām suvarṇādīni saṃśodhya vidrāvyāṅgāravapunah kuśalaiḥ kārayed yatnāt sampūrṇam sarvato ghanam*; *Viṣṇusaṃhitā*, Paṭala, XIV (a Pāñcarātra text).

c13.33

S. K. Saraswati rightly points out, however, that the whole chapter is concerned chiefly with the ritualistic side of the subject; and the meagre information regarding the technique of the process is hardly intelligible, on account of the extremely corrupt form of the text. Saraswati has drawn our attention to the first *prakaraṇa* of the *Abhilaṣitārthacintāmaṇi*, also known as *Mānasollāsa Śāstra*, said to have been composed by king Someśvara Bhūlokamalla of the Western Cālukya line of Kalyāṇī, who came to the throne in 1124-25 A.D. In connection with the topic of ‘adoration to the gods’ (*devatābhakti*) the *prakaraṇa*, consisting of 21 verses, gives a succinct but by far the best account about the process of manufacture of metal images.¹

c13.34

¹ J.I.S.O.A., Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 139ff, S. K. Saraswati on ‘An ancient text on the casting of metal images’.

c13.35.1

The text first refers to the preparation of the image (*i.e.*, the model, evidently made of wax, though not expressly said so here) complete with all the details, according to the *navatāla* measurement; then instructions are given about the placing of wax-tubes on its back, shoulders and the neck or crown and besmearing it with refined clay in three layers. Rules for the preparation of the clay are given in detail and it is needless to say that they are very different from those mentioned in the *Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra*. The clay coatings should be made in regular intervals and be carefully dried up in the shade. The textual injunction to be noted is that the amount of wax used to prepare the model should be weighed in the very beginning by the wise artist (*sikthakaṃ tolayedādāvarccālagnam vicakṣaṇaḥ*). Then the particular metal out of which the casting is to be done should be measured according to certain proportions; if the image is to be made of brass or copper, the metal should weigh ten times (or eight times according to a variant reading), if of silver, twelve times, and if of gold, sixteen times, the weight of the wax model, according to the specific gravity of the metals. Then the measured metal should be encased in a cocoanut shaped earthen crucible (*nārikelākṛtiṃ mūṣām*), and the wax from the clay-coated mould should be melted away by heating the image in fire. The crucible with the metal within ought to be so heated that the latter may form a liquid mass;

c13.35.2

then after puncturing the top of the crucible with an iron rod, the whole molten metal should be carefully poured down the mouth of the tube. When the molten metal has congealed after cooling down, the clay coating should be broken up very carefully. Any superfluous metal and tubes adhering to the fully fashioned metal image should be filed away with a cāraṇa (a file?), and lastly the whole should be brightly polished (paścādujvalatāṃ nayet). When this is all done in the manner prescribed above, the king should instal it on an auspicious day according to the usual rites and should offer daily worship to it.¹ Saraswati remarks that the above text ‘does not say whether the model would have to be made of solid wax or with an inner core.’ But a perusal of the text will show that it does seem to refer to solid casting which was the general rule in case of small images. In the case of bigger images, the method of hollow casting seems to have been followed in consideration of their cost and weight. Several of the earliest big metal images of India, the Mahāsthān Mañjuśrī and the Sultanganj Buddha mentioned above, exhibit a core still sticking tightly to their inside. From this it seems that the wax model was worked over an inner compound probably consisting of charred husk, finely rubbed clay, thoroughly carded cotton and powdered salt—the same ingredients that were used in the preparation of the clay for applying to the outside of the wax mould.

c13.35.3

Another edited text on metal casting is found in a section of the Śilparatna of Śrīkumāra who flourished in the 16th century A.D.; it may be noted here. It consists of twenty-two verses incorporated in the second chapter (verses 32-53) of the printed edition of Śilparatna, Part II, by T. Ganapati Sastri. The text, though corrupt, seems to lay down details which are concerned with hollow casting. The first verse (Madhūcchiṣṭena nirmāya sakalaṃ niṣkalaṃ tu vā | Baddhvā mṛdā dṛḍhaṃ śuṣkamadhūcchiṣṭaṃ bahiḥ srjet) and verses 42ff. speak of a process in which the inside of the image remains hollow after the wax inside and the wax outside are melted away by heat. The last verse (No. 53, viz., *Ghanam cellohajam vimbam madhucchiṣṭena kevalaḥ | Kṛtvā mṛllepanādīni pūrvavat kramataścaret*) does nothing but refer to the casting of *ghana*, i.e., solid images. That metal images cast hollow were made is fully proved by writers on Smṛti works like Manu and others who refer to such images heated from within which an adulterer would have to embrace as a sort of punishment. The Ṛgvedic passage *sūrmyam suṣirāmiva* (VIII. 69, 12), though not referring to an image of the god meant for worship, seems also to refer to the practice of hollow casting.

c13.36

¹ The above is a summary of S. K. Saraswati's translation of the text under observation.

c13.37.1

Elaborate details are laid down in early and late texts about the selection of proper kind of stone for the making of images. The earlier ones, however, have special preference for wood as we have already shown from such texts as *Bhaviṣyapurāṇa*, *Bṛhatsaṃhitā* and the *Matsyapurāṇa*. The *Viṣṇudharmottara* lays down elaborate rules not only for the selection of wood, but also for that of stone to be used in making durable images of gods. The whole of the nineteenth chapter, entitled *Śilāparīkṣā*, of the third book of the *Viṣṇudharmottara* deals with this topic and the details mentioned there closely follow those enjoined in connection with *Dāruparīkṣā*. In the first few verses it is laid down that the *sthapati* will go to a hill and select a particular kind of stone for image. White, red, yellow and black stones are used for the Brāhmaṇ, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra devotees, respectively. Stone that is suitable for such images should be one-coloured, smooth, imbedded in earth, without any grains of sand in its layers, good to look at, washed by spring water or merged in water, shaded by trees and hailing from sacred *tīrthas*, of good length, breadth and thickness (*āyāmapariṇāhāḍhyam*).

c13.37.2

Stones, that are not so, are those which are burnt by sun-rays, which are used for other works, which contain alkaline water, which are very rough, which are marked with minute spots or patches of different shape and size (*Tilaiḥ sambhūṣitā yā tu vicitrairvindumiśritā*) and so on (on this authority the spotted red sandstone of Mathura will be unsuited for image-making). Then mention is made of various modes of testing the selected stone,—the test consisting of different kinds of *śilālepas*, a few recipes of which are given; the application of this test to the stone and the reactions which will follow will show whether the stone is worth collecting for images or not. After being fully satisfied on all these points, the artist will take the selected stone according to rules to the temple for being fashioned into the divine image. The last part of the eighteenth *vilāsa* of Gopala Bhatta’s *Haribhaktivilāsa*, entitled *Śilāgrahaṇam*, is devoted to the consideration of the same subject.

c13.37.3

He quotes extensively from the section of the *Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra*, which elaborately deals with the rituals connected with entrance into the forest, selection of flawless one-coloured stone, worshipping the god Viṣṇu, offering of *bali* to the guardians of the quarters, worshipping the selected stone with sandal paste, flowers and *naivedya* and propitiating the various Yātudhānas, Guhyakas and Siddhas who may reside in the stone or in its vicinity and asking their permission to use the stone for the image of Viṣṇu and entreating them to go to reside in another place with these words—‘*Viṣṇuvimbārthamasmākam yatraiṣā Keśavājñayā | Viṣṇvartham yadbhavet kāryam yuṣmākamapi tad bhavet || Anena balidānena prītā bhavatha sarvathā | Kṣemeṇa gacchatānyatra muktā sthānamidam punaḥ*’. The Pañcarātra text also refers to the significance of the various dreams which the selectors of the stone might dream while sleeping at night near it. Then early in the morning of the next day, after the performance of the daily rites and paying respects to the stone and the stone-cutting implements, the sculptor with the *ṭaṅka* (stone-mason’s chisel) in hand (*śilpī ṭaṅkahastaḥ*) should commence his work. The stone for the image should measure a little more than the image to be fashioned out of it. After cutting it out and raising it up, it should be brought near the temple, and the wise (donor) should have the work begun by expert artists (*Tataḥ pravartayet karma vidvān vijñaistu śilpibhiḥ*).

c13.37.4

In the section under *Śilālakṣaṇam*, the *Hayaśīrṣa* refers to various kinds of stones that are to be avoided.¹ A list of different kinds of stone fit for being fashioned into the images of Vāsudeva Viṣṇu is now given. Those stones which are procured from sacred places, which are found merged in rivers, on shady hills or under ground, not burnt by sun-rays, which are of one pleasing colour like pale brown, red, yellow or black (*pāṇḍurā cāruṇā pītā kṛṣṇā śastā ca varṇinām*) are recommended. Then details are given about different types of stones such as *yuvā* (youthful), *madhyā* (of middle age), *bālā* (very young) and *vṛddhā* (old), of which the first two only are to be used for images (these refer to the geological age of particular varieties) ; stones of masculine, feminine and neuter gender are to be distinguished with the help of their characteristic signs such as their ring and their glaze. The main image should be made of masculine stone, the pedestal of feminine, while the *piṇḍikā* (lowermost base) of the neuter (*Pumliṅgaiḥ pratimā kāryā strīliṅgaiḥ pādapīṭhikā | Piṇḍikārtham tu sā grāhyā dṛṣṭvā yā ṣaṇḍalakṣaṇā*). This injunction would mean that the above three were made of separate stones; but in most cases, the actual practice was different, the three being made out of one single block of stone. If the stones at the time of being cut and dressed show circular patches inside them, they are to be avoided as far as possible;

c13.37.5

stones with different kinds of patches (many are enumerated) bring forth various kinds of misfortunes, if they are worked upon. The *Hayaśīrṣa* then goes on to describe the characteristic signs of the *piṇḍikā* and *pīṭha* of the image proper. Elaborate details are given and as many as ten different kinds of the former, such as *sthaṇḍilā*, *yakṣī*, *vedī*, *maṇḍalā*, *pūrṇacandrā*, *vajrā*, *padmā*, *ardhaśaśī* and *trikoṇā* (the name of the tenth is not given), are enumerated. As regards the height of the image and its pedestal, it is expressly laid down here that the shrine door should be divided into eight equal units; the image proper should measure two of these units, while the *piṇḍikā* should measure one part of the height of the image divided into three equal parts.¹ The *Matsyapurāṇa* distinctly says that all this work connected with the fashioning of the image in all its minute details should be done in a covered secluded place by the image-maker in a pious and well-controlled manner, and while engaged in his work he should always meditate on the god whose image is being fashioned by him.² Detailed instructions are incorporated in most of the texts dealing with Brahmanical iconography about the actual proportions to be followed in the carving of the entire image and its various sections and sub-sections;

c13.37.6

a reference to the details about the canons of iconometry in Chapter VIII of this book where some of these iconometric texts are discussed will testify to the thoroughness and accuracy of the ideal which was set before the ancient and mediæval iconographers of India.

c13.38

¹ *Kṣārāmlasevitā yā ca nadītirasamudbhavā | Puramadhye sthitā yā ca tathāpi tu vane sthitā || Catuṣpathe sthitā yā ca mṛcchilāpakkaṇe ca yā | Uṣare ca tathā madhye valmīke vāpī yā sthitā || Sūryaraśmi-prataptā yā yā ca dagdhā dāvagninā | Anyakarmmopayuktā yā anyadevārthanirmitā | Kravyādā-dyairupahatā varjyā yatnena vai śilā | Yena kenacid ānītā varjjanīyā tathā śilā ||*

c13.39

¹ *Dvārocchrāyasya yanmānamaṣṭadhā tattu kārayet | Bhāgadvayena pratimām tribhāgīkṛtva tat punaḥ | Piṇḍikā bhāgataḥ kāryā nātinicā na cocchritā.* The distinction between *piṇḍikā* and *pīṭhikā* or *pīṭha* is not very clear; in the text, under *piṇḍikālakṣaṇam*, we are told that the former should measure half the height of the main image in its altitude and be equal in its width to the same of the image—*Ucchrāyam pratimārddhañca dairghyeṇa pratimāsamā*. Then after enumerating the ten different kinds of *piṇḍikās* noted above, the text lays down some interesting details in the following lines some of which I quoted from the *Matsyapurāṇa* in a previous chapter:—*Saile śailamayīm piṇḍim pārthive pārthivīm tathā | Dāruje dārujām kuryānmiśre miśrām tathaiva ca | Nānyayonistu kāryā vai sadā śubhaphalepsubhiḥ | Arccāyāmasamam dairghyam liṅgāyāmasamam tathā | Yasya devasya yā patnī tām pīṭhe parikalpayet*; then it adds, *Evameva samākhyātam samāsāt pīṭhalakṣaṇam.*

c13.40

² *Vivikte saṃvṛte sthāne sthapatiḥ samyatendriyaḥ | Pūrvavat kāladeśajñaḥ śāstrajñaḥ śuklabhūṣaṇaḥ | Prayato niyatāhāro devatādhyānatatparaḥ | Yajamānānukulena vidvān karma samācaret |* All the quotations from the *Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra* and the *Matsyapurāṇa* are here taken from the 18th *vilāsa* of Gopala Bhatta's *Haribhaktivilāsa*.

c13.41

Pictorial representations of divinities were also much in vogue in ancient and mediæval India; this custom still persists in present times, but the background on which the image is now painted mainly consists of paper. When it is found inconvenient and expensive to worship his god in stone, bronze or even clay icons, a sectary would often worship him in ‘ghaṭa’ and ‘paṭa,’ i.e., in a water-vessel with vermilion and sandal or other paints on it and in a picture of the deity painted (and nowadays printed) on paper and encased in a wooden frame (this custom is mostly in vogue in Bengal, where it is called in local dialect—‘ghaṭe paṭe pūjā’). In earlier times, cloth or canvas was the principal medium and the word paṭa which originally signified cloth acquired the sense of pictorial representation of a deity or of some mythology connected with it. This is citra in a more restricted sense of the term, one of its wider significance being sculpture fully in the round. It is used in the former sense in many of the texts dealing with iconographic matter, and when the Matsyapurāṇa refers to the first of the four different kinds of images it undoubtedly uses the word in the former sense. But the scope of these citrajā images, as we have seen, is much wider, for it refers to divine images painted not only on cloth but also on walls and vessels (Paṭe kūḍye ca pātre ca citrajā pratimā smṛtā). Not only colour drawings on the bare surface of mud walls, but also frescoes that are painted in variegated colour on some kind of plaster fixed to the surface of stone walls as in those of the rock-cut caves of Ajanta are included in this group of icons. The pātras are evidently water-vessels, e.g., ghaṭas mentioned above, made of clay or metal and these were painted in colour on their outer surface with the figures of divinities. The Viṣṇudharmottara gives a detailed account of the rules of painting, which is of unique interest and importance for a thorough appreciation of the great advance that the Indian artists of ancient and mediæval times made in the art of painting.¹

c13.42

¹ Viṣṇudharmottara, published by the Venkatesvara Press, Book III, chs. 2, 27, 35-43. Translation with introduction and notes by Stella Kramrisch, Calcutta University Press, 1928, pp. 1-20, 31-62. Several emendations of this translation were made by A. K. Coomaraswamy, in J.A.O.S., Vol. 52, 1932, pp. 13-21. The Citralakṣaṇa, said to have been composed by Nagnajit, now available only in its Tibetan version, deals extensively with the rules of painting. The Silparatna also has a section which deals with painting. The sections on Paṭavidhāna in Ārya Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa (edited by T. Ganapati Sastri, in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series) also contain some useful information on this art; but it is more concerned with the iconographic presentation of the Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna divinities. M. Lalou in the work on Iconographie Der

c13.43

The *Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra* expressly eulogises the pictorial representations of Hari and says that he who paints beautiful *rūpas* of Viṣṇu (on cloth or other objects) enjoys one thousand yugas of blissful residence in the Viṣṇuloka ; as Hari is always present in the frescoes (*lepya citra*), so he should always be worshipped in his *lepya citra* forms; as beauty, ornament, expressions, etc. are clearly discernible in his painted forms, therefore, Janārddana approaches them ; so the sages ordain that hundredfold virtue accrues to the worshippers of the lord in these forms; seeing Puṇḍarīkākṣa in picture, full of grace and fascinating beauty, one is freed from sin hoarded through untold numbers of births; therefore, the god Nārāyaṇa should be worshipped in pictures (*paṭasthah*) by those who want welfare and religious merit.¹

c13.44

¹ *Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra* in connection with the installation of *citrajā* images, as quoted by Gopala Bhaṭṭa: *Yāvanti Viṣṇurūpāṇi surūpāṇiha lekhayet | Tāvadyugasahasrāṇi Viṣṇuloke mahīyate | Lepye citre Harirnityam sannidhānamupaiti hi | Tasmāt sarvaprayatnena lepya-citragatam yajet | Kāntibhūṣaṇabhāvādyāścitre yasmāt sphuṭam sthitāḥ | Ataḥ sännidhyamāyāti citrajāsu Janārddanaḥ | Tasmāccitrārccane puṇyam smṛtam śataguṇam budhaiḥ | Citrastham Puṇḍarīkākṣam savilāsam savibhramam | Dṛṣṭvā vimucyate pāpairjjanmakoṭīsuasañcitaiḥ | Tasmācchubhārthibhibhirdhīrairmahāpuṇya-jigīṣayā | Paṭasthah pūjanīyastu devo Nārāyaṇaḥ prabhuḥ* (Haribhaktivilāsa, Bengal Edition, 1767 Sakābdā, p. 624).

c13.45

A short account may be given here about a peculiar practice of painting divine figures and mythologies associated with them with coloured rice-powder in particular parts of the shrine current even now in different parts of India. In many Vaiṣṇava shrines of Bengal it is still adopted to illustrate the stories connected with the early life of Kṛṣṇa through the medium of differently coloured, but dry, rice-powder. A part of the shrine, generally a section of the *nāṭamaṇḍapa*, is set apart for this purpose; on a raised flat platform (usually wooden) there, are painted these scenes with great care by the judicious and deft use of this dry powder. This is done at the time of such Vaiṣṇava festivals as Jhulanayātrā, Janmāṣṭamī, Rāsayātrā, etc., and its purpose is mainly decorative and edifying. Such pictorial representation

c13.46

Etoffes Peintes (Paṭa) has translated these chapters in French, given their Tibetan version and written a very useful introduction (Paul Geuthner, Paris, 1930).

c13.47

is most probably referred to in the *Silparatna* as *Dhūlicitra*. *Dhūlicitra* is not the same as *Alponā* as has been suggested by Kramrisch (cf. *Viṣṇudharmottara*, C.U., 1928, p. 8); the latter seems to be referred to by Śrī Kumāra as *Rasacitra*. The author of the *Silparatna* tells us that there are three kinds of *citras*, viz., *Rasacitra*, *Dhūlicitra* and *citra* (*Rasacitraṃ tathā dhūlicitraṃ citramiti tridhā*). The second in this list is described by him in this manner:—‘After powdering separately fire and other colours (methods of preparing different mixed colours such as autumnal green, the colour of elephant, those of vakula fruit, fire, water, etc., are first accounted for), a beautiful altar (platform) should be painted temporarily with these powders. The old painters have described this as *Dhūlicitra*; in it likeness is shown just as reflection appears in a mirror’.¹ It should be noted that Śrī Kumāra here lays stress on the different kinds of colours, but does not explicitly state the nature of the medium with the powder of which these dry colour powders are to be mixed. But that this method of painting was old is distinctly proved by the author’s statement that it was described by the old painters.

c13.48

¹ *Silparatna*, Part I, Ch. 46, verses 144-45:—

c13.49

Reference ought to be made here, for the sake of completeness to various other modes of representing the deity. The *Āgamas* enumerate several kinds of precious and semi-precious stones like *sphaṭika* (crystal), *padmarāga* (lapis-lazuli), *vajra* (diamond), *vaidūrya* (cat’s eye), *vidruma* (coral), *puṣya*(?) and *ratna* (ruby). That crystal could be very skilfully handled and fashioned into beautiful forms is proved by the discovery of the excellently carved crystal bowl with fish handle among the relics of Buddha inside the big monolithic chest at Piprawa. This class of images really falls under the *ratnajā* group of the *Hayaśīrṣa* and the *śastrotkīrṇā* one of the *Matsyapurāṇa*, the latter

c13.50

*Etānyanalavarṇāni cūrṇayitvā pṛthak pṛthak |*
*Etaiścūrṇaiḥ sthaṇḍile ramye kṣaṇikāni vilepayet ||*
*Dhūlicitramidaṃ khyātaṃ citrakāraiḥ purātanaiḥ |*
*Sādṛśyaṃ dṛśyate yattu darpaṇe prativimbavat ||*

c13.51

also including images made of wood and stone. To the *śastrotkīrṇā* class will also belong those metal plaques, of gold and other metals, which bear on them the effigies of gods. Mention has already been made of the Lauriya Nandangarh and Piprawa gold plaques bearing the representations of a nude goddess; among the several other tiny gold leaves discovered inside the big relic casket at Piprawa, a few figures in outline—an elephant, a crude human figure, etc.,—can still be recognised, though their character cannot be determined with certainty. The unique representation of Śiva-Pārvatī embossed on a concave plaque of pure gold, 2½ inches high, found on the site of the Patna fort, if it is genuine, is one of the most interesting finds of this nature.¹ Metal plaques containing the figures of Vāsudeva-Viṣṇu and his incarnations, described by some scholars as Viṣṇupaṭṭas (these were also made of stone), as also of various other divinities are to be grouped along with the above. There was not much of technical nicety and elaboration that was wanted in the fashioning of such objects of worship, and the texts are usually silent about the methods of their manufacture. The same remark cannot be made with regard to the ornamental stone ring and stone discs of the Maurya-Śuṅga period described in Chapter V, which also fall under the *śastrotkīrṇā* class. They undoubtedly testify to the excellence of the technical skill of the unknown carvers of these objects, who seem to have belonged to the finest class of lapidaries of ancient times. As regards the *ratnajā* class of images, little or no details about their manufacturing technique are to be found in the general body of the iconographic literature for the obvious reason that these images, being expensive ones, were seldom in demand by the common class of devotees, and even when a few wealthy ones were in need of them, the highly skilled jewellers and ivory-carvers of ancient and mediaeval India were never handicapped for lack of instructions in meeting their wants.

c13.52

¹ K. P. Jayaswal, 'Pataliputra Śiva-Pārvatī Gold Plaque' in *J.I.S.O.A.*, Vol. II, 1934, p. 1. Jayaswal writes: 'Below the *jaṭā* knot of the male figure, there is a crescent-like band. Its left hand touches the bosom of the female figure. It is undoubtedly a figure of Śiva-Pārvatī. The figures are not nimbate; the style of the female figure is that of the Didarganj Yakṣī and that of the male figure of the Patna statues. The absence of nimbus and general treatment assign it to the Maurya or Pre-Maurya times.' If this dating is accepted, then it becomes the earliest joint representation of these two deities in the historic period, the second in point of date being that on the coins of Huvishka, noted in a previous chapter; but it is doubtful whether it can be dated so early. The Didarganj Yakṣī has been assigned by Marshall to as late a date as the 1st century B.C. or later, in his latest work, viz., *Monuments of Sanchi*. It is also to be noted that there are grave doubts about the genuineness of the gold plaque.

First 58 of 110 passages. Read on

Linked texts (41)