The Development of Hindu Iconography c13.65

Language: English

c13.65.1

It can be freely translated thus:— The installation of different divinities who are worshipped by different groups of people with bhakti should be done according to their respective tenets; thus, the images of Viṣṇu should be installed according to the Pāñcarātra, those of Sūrya according to the Saura, those of Śiva according to the rites mentioned in the Vātulatantra, the images of the Mātṛgaṇas, according to their individual tenets, that of Brahmā according to Vedic rites, of Buddha according to the Pāramitā rules, of the Arhats (Jinas) according to their own system. The Vātulatantra evidently refers to some such śāstra of the Pāśupatas as the Pāśupatasūtras, according to which, the means or doors for the attainment of the highest powers by them are such apparently insane acts as krāthana ('affecting to be asleep when one is awake'), spandana ('shaking the limbs as if they significant; the Gāṇapatyas as a sect are not included here. and it is presumable that though the worship of Gaṇapati-Vināyaka was in vogue from a time much earlier, still the sect of his exclusive worshippers had yet to be organised. The Iranian element in the worship of the sun especially in northern India had been long acclimatised; the Bhāgavata (known also as the Pāñcarātra) and the Pāśupata were still the authorised names of the sects centering respectively round Vāsudeva-Viṣṇu and Rudra-Śiva; the worship of the Mātṛgaṇas (the Saptamātṛkāḥ) was the chief manifestation of the Śakti cult.

c13.65.2

The Vedic section of the Indians had even not given up their efforts for the inclusion of Prajāpati-Brahmā, the Vedic-Brāhmaṇic god par excellence, as one of the sectarian divinities, though we know they were fighting for a losing cause; eighth century sculptures in illustration of the mythology of Śiva's curse on Brahmā for his immorality (falsehood—cf. the Ellora Liṅgodbhavamūrti of Śiva) show that Brahmā had no chance against his powerful and virile rivals like Śiva and Viṣṇu. There can be no doubt about the existence of feelings of jealousy and rivalry among these sectaries, though, as we have shown in the first chapter, this ill-feeling and bitterness might not have been as keen and destructive as in the countries of Europe, long after this period; still the feelings of rivalry were there and helped to create new iconic forms for the edification of and worship by the individual sectaries. I have already drawn attention to the particular type of the Saiva image known as Śarabha which was a direct counterpart of the Vaiṣṇava one, Narasimha, itself pre-eminently sectarian in character. Our attention to this particular type was first drawn by T. A. G. Rao who also emphasised the nature of the Trimūrti icons of southern India in which Vāsudeva-Viṣṇu is the central figure with Brahmā and Śiva half-issuing from his either side with their hands in the *añjali* pose.

c13.65.3

It is not a simple presentation of the later Brahmanical triad Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Śiva, but is a direct sectarian rejoinder to a type of Śiva image known as Ekapādamūrti. The latter represents Śiva standing on one leg (this type evidently based on the Vedic Aja Ekapāda described in the epic texts both as one of the eleven Rudras and an epithet of Śiva), the figures of Viṣṇu and Brahmā projecting from his left and right sides respectively, with their front hands in the *añjali* pose. Rao remarks, ‘In opposition evidently to this Śaiva view, and with an equally strong Paurāṇic authority on their side, the Vaiṣṇavas have similarly represented the Supreme God as Viṣṇu with Brahmā and Śiva proceeding from him.’¹ Many of the mythological stories connected with one or other of these sects have this bias underlying them and reliefs in illustration thereof were carved in large numbers and put into prominent parts of the temples where icons of the different sectarian divinities were worshipped.

c13.65.4

Rao has noted in the same connection, that ‘often in the Purāṇas, Śiva is said to have paid homage to Viṣṇu and equally often is Viṣṇu said to have paid homage to Śiva.’ The presence of sectarian bias in the origin of these myths and in the manufacture of sculptures thereof is undoubted, and a study of such stories and reliefs, connected with Viṣṇvanugraha or Cakradānamūrti of Śiva, Viṣṇu offering redemption of Śiva from the sin of Brahmahatyā for the Brahmaśiraśchedaka aspect of the latter, the Dāśarathi Rāma and Jāmadagnya Rāma avatāras of Viṣṇu (the last also basically illustrates in a way the struggle between the Brāhmaṇas and the Kṣatriyas), etc., will fully prove the hypothesis. Rao thinks that the fanciful rendering of the Tamil name Kacchiyappa, meaning the lord of Kacchi (Tamil for Kāñcīpura—Conjeevaram), has given rise to a new god and his image, *viz.*, Kacchapeśvara where Viṣṇu in his tortoise incarnation is seen bathing a Śivalinga (*ibid.*, pp. 42-3, pl. D.). But in this we do not find the creation of a new god or a new image, but a novel presentation of a theme, in which also sectarian prejudice is clearly discernible, by a Śaiva devotee who took advantage of the phonetic similarity between Tamil Kacchiyappa and Sanskrit Kacchapa (the latter meaning a ‘tortoise’). Rao has not noticed the other class of images which show definite efforts towards a rapprochement between the different sects.

c13.65.5

I have already referred to several of them, in which this tendency is clearly present, in the introductory chapter of this work, and such images as Hari-Hara, Dattātreya (Hari-Hara-Pitāmaha), Arddhanārīśvara, etc. are evidently of this class.