The Development of Hindu Iconography c15.2.1

c15.2.1

It has already been briefly mentioned in the fifth chapter that the Indian sculptors used to follow certain rules of proportions in the making of images. I have criticised the view that the stereotyping of these rules and their adoption by the artists lay at the root of the gradual decadence of Indian iconoplastic art. These canons were really the results of the accumulated experience of generations of artists; if they were judiciously followed, they would not have been injurious to art. T. A. G. Rao, who was responsible for the above view criticised by me, himself observes, ‘. . . the rules arrived at by the Indian artists do not appear to be divergent from those evolved by the European artists, and if in Indian sculpture the results are not good in some instances it is the fault of the artists and not attributable to the guide books’ (Elements, etc., Vol. I, App. B, p. 8; italics are mine). In some of the compilations containing these rules, it is expressly laid down that the divine images must not only be well-proportioned but must also be good-looking; the image-maker should visualise in his mind’s eye the god to be represented in concrete and then should fashion him according to his mental perception, for these images are really the aids to the attainment of dhyānayoga (Dhyānayogasya saṃsiddhyai pratimālaKṣaṇaṃ smṛtam | Pratimākārako marttyo yathādhyānarato bhavet—Śukranītisāra, IV, 147).