Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Development of Hindu Iconography c16: Chapter IX

The Development of Hindu Iconography c16

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IX

c16.1

Vyantara Devatas

c16.2

It has been shown in Chapter III of this book how the element of *Bhakti* ushered in striking changes in the religious outlook of a large section of the people of India. This element had long been present in the country especially among the previous settlers and the lower orders of the Indians, who used to offer homage and adoration (*pūjā*) to the gods and goddesses of their choice. These deities were different in their essential traits from those venerated by the higher orders of the people, most of whom had their moorings in the Vedas. The transformation of a few of the latter into central deities of various orthodox cults originating in the post-Vedic period, and the appearance of newer sectarian deities as a result of the deification of some of the historical, semi-historical and mythical personages of ancient India seem to have been much influenced by the beliefs and practices of the primitive Indians. With the rise to importance of these newer cult-deities, the primitive folk gods and goddesses were relegated to the position of inferior or secondary deities described in early Jaina texts as Vyantara Devatās. In the changed set-up of the religious life of the people, most of them became accessories and attendants of the chosen divinities of the various sectaries, or of their principal aspects, while others appeared in the role of the opponents of the higher gods. But there can be no doubt that it was these primitive deities and their worship, which lay at the root of the evolution of the various cults associated with Brahmanical Hinduism, and to a certain extent with the development of Buddhism and Jainism. One of the five recognised Brahmanical Hindu cults, *viz.*, that of Gaṇapati, retained to a great extent in the iconic type of its central deity its primitive form, and some of the forms of the principal deities of the other major Brahmanical cults seem to have been appreciably influenced by the earlier image types of the various folk divinities.

c16.3

The Jaina canonical literature enumerates the Vyantara Devatās usually in this manner: Piśācas, Bhūtas, Yakṣas, Rākṣasas, Kinnaras, Kimpuruṣas, Mahoragas (Nāgas) and Gandharvas. The Buddhist texts also mention similar orders of divinities as Devas, Yakṣas, Nāgas, Rākṣasas, Gandharvas, Asuras, Garuḍas, Kinnaras and Mahoragas. Various sections of Brahmanical Hindu literature contain not only the names of these, but add many more names of such mythical beings, as Kumbhāṇḍas, Kabandhas, Daityas, Dānavas, Apsarasas, Siddhas, Sādhyas, Vidyādharas, Pramathas, Gaṇas, etc. In fact, most, if not all, of these different groups are common to the various early texts of India. The word ‘Deva’ (or ‘Devatā’) in the Buddhist list is of special significance in this context, for it denotes the original character of many of these beings of which the Yakṣas and the Nāgas form the most important and interesting groups. These two along with the groups of the Gandharvas and the Apsarasas occupy also a very prominent place in the Brahmanical Hindu mythology. Reference may be made in this connection to the first three lines of the mantra recited by many Hindus in the tarpaṇa and śrāddha ceremonies when they offer water and other objects to the manes (Pitṛgaṇas), mythical heroes like Rāma and Bhīṣma, the gods, the Yakṣas and others. These three lines contain the names of most of the orders of these Vyantara Devatās: Devas, Yakṣas, Nāgas, Gandharvas, Apsarasas, Asuras, Sarpas, Suparṇas (Garuḍas), Trees (sacred ones), Jihmagas (a class of sacred reptiles), Khagas (sacred birds), Vidyādharas, Jalādhāras (sacred acquatic animals), Ākāśagāmis (Sādhyas and Siddhas), etc.¹

c16.4

¹ Devā Yakṣāstathā Nāgā Gandharvāpsaraso'surāḥ| Krūrāḥ Sarpāḥ Suparṇāśca taravo Jihmagāḥ Khagāḥ| Vidyādharā Jalādhārāsthaivākāśagāminaḥ|

c16.5

Whatever may be the root meaning of the word Yakṣa¹, it does not fail to make its appearance in the Vedic literature in the sense of a class of beings, supernatural no doubt, but undoubtedly of a category far dissimilar to the order of the proper Vedic divinities. One of the earliest allusions to the Yakṣas is to be found in the *Atharvaveda* where they are named as Itarajanāḥ, ‘other folks’; in the Paippalāda version of the same text, however, the word used is ‘Puṇyajanāḥ’, ‘sacred folks’. In later lexicons, both the words Puṇyajana and Itarajana are regarded as the synonyms of the word Yakṣa, and that this was also their meaning in the *Atharvaveda* passage is proved by the mention of Kubera or Vaiśravaṇa as the king of the Yakṣas (Yakṣeśa, Yakṣarāja, Yakṣendra, etc.); in the developed mythology of later times, he was also the guardian of the northern quarter (Uttaradikpati). The association of the Yakṣas and their king Kubera with riches (he is also called Dhanapati, Nidhipati) and one of their principal appellations, Guhyakas, mainly indicative of ‘concealment’, may also be traced to this *Atharvaveda* passage. Reference is made in it to the ‘milking of “concealment” (tirodhā) out of the Universe (Virāj) by the “Rajatanābhi son” of Kā(au)bera’. ² The Yakṣapati or Guhyakapati Vaiśravaṇa is referred to by Patañjali in his *Mahābhāṣya* several times, though his more common name Kubera is not mentioned. While commenting on Vārttika 2 on Pāṇini’s Sūtra VI. 3, 26 (*Devatādvandve ca*) he appears to distinguish between two different types of divinities, namely, *Vaidika* and *Laukika*, and the gods mentioned in this context by him can be placed under these two different groups. The names of the gods included in the two compounds, Śiva-Vaiśravaṇau and Skanda-Viśākhau, undoubtedly fall under the Laukika (folk) group. Again, while commenting on Pāṇini’s Sūtra, V. 2, 129 (Vātātisārābhyāṃ-kukca), he says that Vaiśravaṇa had Piśācas (as his attendants—piśācakī Vaiśravaṇaḥ). There can be little doubt that the commentator refers here to the Yakṣa attendants of Kubera, described here as Piśācas. His commentary on Vārttika 2 on Sūtra III. 1, 133 (nvulṭṛcau), clearly refers to the raised pedestals of (the images of) Vaiśravaṇa (utthitā āsakā Vaiśravaṇasyeti). Lastly, while commenting on Sūtra II. 2, 34 (alpāctarau), he refers to the temples of Dhanapati (Kubera-Vaiśravaṇa), Rāma (evidently Balarāma) and Keśava (Kṛṣṇa) where various kinds of musical instruments were played on in the assemblage of the worshippers (mṛdaṅgaśaṅkha-tūṇavaḥ pṛthañnadanti saṃsadi prāsāde Dhanapati-Rāma-Keśavānām).

c16.6

¹ Vedic Yakṣa, quick, ray of light, but also “ghost”, from *yakṣ* to move quickly; perhaps, swift creatures, changing their abode quickly and at will’: Rhys Davids and Stede, *Pāli-English Dictionary*, under *Yakkha*. In the Pāli commentaries, the word *Yakkha* means ‘a being to whom a sacrifice (of expiation or propitiation) is given’. Coomaraswamy thinks that the word is non-Aryan in its origin.

c16.7

² A.V., VIII. 10, 28: *Sodakrāmatsetarajanānāgacchattāmitarajanā upāhūyanta tirodha ehīti. Tasyāḥ Kubero Vaiśravaṇo vatsa āsīdāmapātram pātram. Tām Rajatanābhiḥ Kāberako’dhoktām tirodhāmevādhok.*

c16.8

Patañjali’s evidence regarding the existence of Yakṣa images and shrines is corroborated by early Buddhist and Jaina texts, copious references to which have been collected by Coomaraswamy in his Yakṣas (Part I, pp. 17 ff.). The Mahābhārata tells us that there were far-famed shrines of Yakṣiṇīs at Muñjavaṭa and Rājagṛha where daily (naityaka) rituals were performed (III. 83, 23 and III. 84, 85). The Agnipurāṇa, while referring to respective positions of the temples of different deities in a town, enjoins that those of Yakṣa and Guha (Kārttikeya) should be set up in the northern sector of it (saumye Yakṣa-Guhasya ca; Ch. 39, verse 12). It is a fact, however, that iconographic texts systematised at a comparatively late date seldom contain any explicit description of the Yakṣa images. T. A. G. Rao has collected several texts descriptive of such iconographic types as Vasus, Nāgas (Nāgadeva), Sādhyas, Asuras, Apsarasas, Piśācas, Vetālas, etc., from various sources, but no mention of the Yakṣa type is made by him (op. cit., Vol. II, Appendix B, Pratimālakṣaṇāni, pp. 271-76). So, Hemādri’s characterisation of it on the basis of the Mayasaṃgraha is of great interest: ‘the Yakṣas should be made pot-bellied, two-armed, holding nidhis in their hands, and (be shown) fierce (due to)

c16.9

drunkenness; (their lord) Vaiśravaṇa should hold a club in his hand'.¹ But there is no dearth of texts describing the iconic type or types of the chief of the Yakṣas, the reason undoubtedly lying in the fact that he was regarded as one of the Guardians of the Eight Quarters (Aṣṭadikpālas). Some of the important Vedic gods like Indra, Agni, Vāyu, Varuṇa and others were his companions in this set-up, and thus he could command sufficient iconographic notice along with them. A careful study of such texts characterising his images brings out several important traits; these are: he is usually two-armed (rarely four), holding a club or mace (gadā) in one of his hands, accompanied by two nidhis (śaṅkha and padma) personified or not, is sometimes terrific in appearance, has either a man (nara, no ordinary or mortal man, but some mythical anthropomorphic type) or a lamb for his mount, is pot-bellied and long-armed. But the fairly long description of Dhanada given in the Viṣṇudharmottara (Bk. III, Ch. 53, Vv. 1-7) contains some interesting additional iconographic traits, the most important of them being his northerner's dress and armour (apīcyaveśa, kavacī), his four hands (the right ones carrying a mace and a spear, the left, a jewel and a pot), his fangs and moustache, and his consort Ṛddhi (Prosperity personified) seated on his left lap. There can be little doubt that many of these features are based on an iconographic type derived from the Kubera (sometimes described as Pañcika) and Hāritī compositions of the Hellenistic art of Gandhāra.² It may also be noted here incidentally that the Kubera figures of the early and late mediaeval periods usually carved on the outer faces of Vaiṣṇava or Śaiva shrines as a Dikpāla retain the pot-bellied feature and hold either a bag or sack (evidently of treasure),

c16.10

² The different iconographic texts collectively noticed above are in T. A. G. Rao, op. cit., Vol. II, App., pp. 263-65. Kubera-Hāritī reliefs from Gandhāra have been studied by Foucher in his lecture on the Tutelary Pair in Gaul and India published in The Beginnings of Buddhist Art, pp. 140-46, Pl. XVIII.

c16.11

Caturvargacintāmaṇi, Vol. II, Vratakhaṇḍa, Pt. I, p. 138; Tundilā dvibhujāḥ kāryyā nidhihastāḥ madotkaṭāḥ | Gadī Vaiśravaṇaḥ . . . . . . . Hemādri mentions in this connection the names of such Yakṣas as Siddhārtha, Maṇibhadra, Sumanā, Nandana, Kaṇḍuti, Tāṅcaka, Śaṅkha, Maṇimān, Padma, Rāmaka and others, and their king is described as Dhanādhipa (Kubera-Vaiśravaṇa).

c16.12

or is shown squeezing the neck of a mongoose vomiting jewels; they are generally seated on lotus in *ardhaparyanka*, the dangling leg resting upon either two jars (indicating the *nidhis*, *sankha* and *padma*) or eight jars, one of which is upturned, representing the *astanidhis*: *padma*, *mahapadma*, *makara*, *kacchapa*, *mukunda*, *nila*, *nanda* and *sankha* (according to the *Markandeyapurana* list).

c16.13.1

In comparing theory with the actual practice of the ancient Indian iconographers, we should bear in mind that though Yaksa types of the Maurya-Sunga period are known, there is no corresponding iconographic texts of that period. It has been suggested on several occasions in this book that in most cases the actual iconic types of very early times were at the root of these texts, and this can be well demonstrated in this connection. A glance at the Yaksa image from Parkham (Mathura Museum), Patna Yaksas (Indian Museum) and Manibhadra Yaksa (Gwalior Museum) shows how the *tundila* (pot-bellied) trait of the Yaksas was incorporated in a much later text utilised by Hemadri. In most of these images, the head and hands are either gone or grievously damaged, thus making recognition of many other features difficult and sometimes impossible. The Parkham Yaksa shows the Indian dress with long waist- and chest-bands, necklace, and broad breast-chain (*graiveyakaharabhari*) and ear-ornaments; its hands are gone, and thus we do not know what (if any) objects were placed in them. The Patna Yaksas are slightly differently dressed, but there cannot be any doubt about the Indian character of their dresses. Manibhadra (Pl. XIII, Fig. 3) wears thinner waist- and chest-bands and appears to have a sacred thread worn in the *upaviti* fashion;

c16.13.2

a round pot-like object, it may be a purse or encased treasure (*nidhi*), hangs from his left hand, while his right hand (broken) seems to have held a yak-tail, the latter object being apparently one of the attributes of the Patna Yaksas.¹ The original pedestals, wherever they are preserved, are all very high, and this fact explains Patañjali’s observation about Vaiśravaṇa’s ‘raised pedestal’ (utthitā āsakā Vaiśravaṇasya) noted above. All these images, as also several other extant images of more or less similar types, were cult objects regularly worshipped by their devotees (the pedestal inscription of the Maṇibhadra image clearly proves it), and were set up in different shrines. But shrines might not necessarily mean structural temples in all cases, and many were the images that were placed under big leafy trees with which these Yakṣas were prominently associated. It may be incidentally observed here that the usual association of many of the higher cult deities like Viṣṇu and Śiva with particular trees (referred to in Brahmanical religious texts as sthala vṛkṣas) should be traced to this primitive custom of associating these folk divinities with different trees. Reference has already been made in Chapter VI of this book to the solicitation of the ritualists to the spirits residing in the tree (being felled for its wood to be used for making a divine image) to leave it and reside elsewhere (Bṛhatsaṃhitā, Ch. 57, v. 11).

c16.13.3

Some early archaeological evidence in support of this trait of the primitive folk cults may be noted here. Plate VIII, figure 5 of this book contains a line drawing of an Amaravati sculpture in which a human face is shown on a tree-trunk; there is no doubt that the face stands for the spirit residing in the tree. Another fragmentary sculpture (Pl. XIII, Fig. 2) finally settles this point; it shows the head and upper part of a big-eyed Yakṣa beneath some sort of a structure with the top portion of a tree and probably a heap of coins arranged in cylindrical form in the background. The inscription in Brāhmī script of the 2nd or 1st century B.C. gives out the identity of the Yakṣa as Candramukha, and of the particular tree where it dwelt as Vakula (the tree in the relief may stand for this species botanically known as Mimusops Elengi).¹ It is unfortunate that the figure of Candramukha Yakṣa, the dweller of the Vakula tree, was not found intact, and we are not in a position to say what its attributes and mount were. It is probable, however, that his hands might have been in the *namaskāra mudrā*, as the hands of Kubera and some other Yakṣas in Bharhut are, their role, here and at Bharhut, being that of so many worshippers of Buddha. The extant Yakṣa figures on the Bharhut rail have been labelled by the artists of Bharhut as Virūḍako Yakho, Kupiro Yakho, Ajakālako Yakho, Gāṅgeya Yakho, Sucīlomo Yakho and Supavāso Yakho.

c16.13.4

Of them Virūḍaka and Kubera Yakṣas are the guardians of the southern and northern quarters respectively, while the other four are not associated with any major or minor quarters. But the Bharhut artists appear to have distinguished their separate identities by means of different mounts (*vāhanas*) or pedestals shown under them. Virudaka Yakha (Virūḍhaka Yakṣa), Kupiro (Kubera-Vaiśravaṇa), Gāṅgeya (Gamgito in the Pāli texts), Sūcīloma (the ‘needle-haired’), Supavāsa (Supravāsa)—all have their hands in the *namaskāra mudrā* and are dressed in a similar manner, but they have different mounts beneath them. Thus, Kubera stands on the back of a malformed pot-bellied Yakṣa sitting on his haunches (Pl. XIII, Fig. 1), Virūḍhaka, on a high rocky ground (trees are shown on either face of the pedestal), Gamgito's right leg is placed on the top of a tree, while his left one is firmly placed on the back of a tusker, Sūcīloma stands erect on the coping stone (*uṣṇīṣa*) of a railing (*vedikā*), and Supravāsa stands with right knee slightly bent on a caparisoned tusker trotting to right. Ajakālaka, whose hands are shown in different poses (his right hand holds a half-blossomed lotus-flower, his left hand being in the *kaṭihasta* pose) stands in a graceful pose on the back of a composite animal, unfortunately very much broken, with ‘the tail of a makara (a mythical aquatic animal somewhat resembling an alligator) and the forelegs of a lion or tiger’.

c16.14

¹ For a detailed discussion about the Patna, Parkham and Pawaya sculptures, cf. R. P. Chanda's article on 'Four Ancient Yaksa Statues' in J.D.L., Vol. IV (1921), pp. 47-84.

c16.15

¹ The inscription was read by R. P. Chanda as Yagocada mugovaka nivesi. But there is no doubt about its correct form read by Sivaramamurti, which is Yakho cadamukho vaku(la)nivāsi meaning ‘the Yakṣa Candramukha, the dweller of the Vakula (tree)’. Sivaramamurti remarks, ‘The presence of a tree and a

c16.16

¹ Caitya beside the Yakṣa (named Candramukha) should explain the word *vaku*, for Yakṣas often lived in trees. The tree should then no doubt be a *vakula* tree (*Mimusops Elengi*), the sculptor having missed the letter *la*; Amaravati Sculptures, p. 82

c16.17

¹ For elaborate comments on these Bharut reliefs and their reproductions, see B. M. Barua, Bharut, Vol. II, pp. 57 ff., and Vol. III, Plates LV-LIX.

c16.18

The unnamed figure carved on one of the uprights of the Bharhut railing, however, does not seem to belong to any order of the Vyantara Devatās. It was described by Cunningham as a foreign soldier on account of its dress and other features (some sort of foot-wear, close-fitting coat and broad sword). R. P. Chanda on the same grounds identified it as Asura (demon) Vipracitti who is described in the Samyukta Nikāya as wearing boots and moving about armed with a dagger. Barua would identify it as Mihira, the Iranian Sun God, on account of its northern dress (udīcya-veśa, the main characteristic of the North Indian Sūrya image). But none of these suggestions appears to be correct, for they do not account for ‘the broad band or ribbon fastened at the back of the head in a bow with its long ends streaming in the end’ (Cunningham). Cunningham could not understand its significance, though his description of it is correct. It seems to be nothing but the Indian way of representing the ‘diadem’, the unmistakable sign of Greek royalty. This feature and the non-Indian dress as well as the grape-bunch in its right hand led me to suggest that the figure may be an idealised representation of some Indo-Greek king, probably Menander, who had close connection, political and cultural, with Indian interior (Pl. XIII, Fig. 4).²

c16.19

² For fuller details in support of my suggestion, cf. my article ‘A Bharhut Railing Sculpture’ in Proceedings of the Bombay Session of the Indian History Congress (1947), pp. 65-8.

c16.20

Several unnamed figures which may represent Yakṣas are found in Bharhut, the identifying inscriptions by their side being lost, their exact identity cannot be ascertained; many such figures in the early Buddhist art of India leave little doubt about the existence of an elaborate iconography of the primitive deities long before the iconographic details of the higher cult gods and goddesses were systematised,—some on the lines of these earlier folk deities. When, however, this was done, the latter had been much absorbed in the principal divinities or their various aspects, and many details about their earlier iconographic traits were forgotten and not canonised. We meet their counterparts in the various gate-keepers (dvārapālas) of the shrines of a Śiva or a Viṣṇu, and in similar other accessories of the cult-deities. The Mahābhārata (III. 83, 9 and 52 and 208) seems to indicate this process of gradual transformation, when it emphasises the association of the Yakṣas as ‘treasure-hiders’ with the Nāgas, the former being described as the ‘gate-keepers of the Nāga-Tīrtha at Kurukṣetra, viz., Arantuka and Tarantuka on one side and Macakruka on the other; these are Yakṣa gate-keepers, as well as places bounding the holy land’. ¹ But Kubera, the lord of the Yakṣas, did not lose his separate entity even in much later times, though his image was necessarily of a subsidiary character. Reference may be made here to one such icon of the god belonging to the late Gupta period, now in the collection of the Mathura Museum. Two-armed bejewelled Kubera, slightly pot-bellied, is shown seated in the ardhaparyaṅka pose on a cushioned seat beneath which are two jars (of treasure, perhaps symbolising the śaṅkha- and padma-nidhis) on one of which his right leg is placed; he holds a cup in his right hand and a pouch in his left and is shown attended on either side by a bearded male, and a female (Pl. XIV, Fig. 2). The iconography has no doubt developed to a great extent by this period, but its former traits are not altogether obliterated.

c16.21

¹ E. W. Hopkins, Epic Mythology, p. 149.

c16.22.1

The next group of folk gods and goddesses retained till much later times their iconographic entity to a greater degree, though here also elaborate developments took place. The Nāgas and the Nāginīs had far more individualistic iconographic traits from the earliest times, and the wide prevalence of the ‘snake-cult’ in India also explains their retention. Before the question of the iconographic types is discussed it is necessary to say a few words about the cult itself. The practice of adoration of the serpent is very primitive in India and it has also some Vedic association (most probably the result of the culture contact of the Aryans with the previous settlers of India). The Ṛgvedic Ahi budhnya, the ‘serpent of the Deep’, representing the beneficent aspect of Ahi Vṛtra, may stand for an atmospheric deity; in this association the serpent form seems to be emphasised more or less figuratively. But many passages in the later Vedas, like the Yajus and the Atharva, especially in the latter, unmistakably refer to the great awe and veneration in which these dread, and at the same time beautiful, objects of nature were held. Various snake-gods are mentioned by name in the Atharvaveda in different contexts,¹ and they are associated in some passages with the Gandharvas, Apsarasas, Puṇyajanas (Yakṣas) and the Manes (VIII, 8, 15: Gandharvāpsarasaḥ sarpāndevānpuṇyajānānpitṛṝn).

c16.22.2

Five among them, Tiraścīrājī, Pṛḍāku, Svajo, Kalmāsagrīvo and Svitro are the respective guardians (rakṣitā) of the southern, western, northern, eastern and upper quarters. Nay, even in one of these Atharvaveda passages (VIII. 10, 29) we find probably the first mention of the epic Takṣaka described here as a descendant of Viśāla (Takṣako Vaiśāleyo). Dhṛtarāṣṭra, the son of Irāvant (Dhṛtaraṣṭra Airāvato) is also named in this connection as the person who milked poison, the subsistence of the serpents, from Virāj (the Universe); Dhṛtarāṣṭra is sometimes the name of a Nāgarāja in later Brahmanical and Buddhist texts. He is the best of the Nāgas according to a Mahābhārata passage (IV. 2, 17), and the later confusion between the two meanings of the word nāga (‘a snake’ and ‘an elephant’) seems to be present in another statement in the same passage that Airāvaṇa (in southern rescension, Airāvata) is the best among elephants. The Great Epic also mentions one Maṇimat, a Nāga, and the name perhaps contains an allusion to the common belief persistent through the ages that the serpents bear jewels on their hoods.¹ The epic and Purāṇic tales about the Nāgas being the sons of Kadru and many other myths associated with them leave little doubt about the fact that popular imagination was greatly excited about them. Their names were many, and as in the case of the Yakṣas and the Yakṣiṇīs, the Nāgas and the Nāginīs were some of the most common among the folk divinities.

c16.22.3

The Gṛhyasūtra account of the ‘ Sarpabali ’, the performance of which annual rite was prolonged for no less a period than the four months of the rains, served ‘ the two-fold purpose of honouring and warding off the snakes ’. The custom of worshipping the Aṣṭanāgas (Vāsuki, Takṣaka, Śeṣa, Ananta and others) and the snake goddess Manasā during the rains and especially in the Nāgapañcamī day (usually falling in the month of Śrāvaṇa), even now current in Bengal, seems to be the popular counterpart of the Sarpabali of the Gṛhyasūtras. The early Buddhist and Jaina religious texts also do not fail to supply us many interesting facts about the wide prevalence of the popular cult in India. Vogel has rightly drawn our attention to the passage in the Cullavagga (V. 6) ‘ in which four tribes of serpent-kings (ahirāja-kulāni) are mentioned ’. The names of the kings are Virūpakkha, Erapatha (Elāpatra), Chabyāputta and Kaṇhagotamaka; of these the first two are well known in Buddhist literature.² The Buddhist texts frequently refer also to various Nāga chiefs like Muca(i)linda, Kāliya, Apalāla and others who came to pay respects to the Buddha on different occasions. There are many early reliefs hailing from different places of India where these themes are illustrated.

c16.22.4

Reference should be made in this connection to the epic and Purāṇic account of Kṛṣṇa’s encounter with Nāga Kāliya of the Mathura region, and his victory over and severe chastisement of the serpent chief, the inner significance of the whole story being the supersession of the more primitive Nāga cult by the newer and more generally accepted Kṛṣṇa cult of the Mathura region (cf. supra, p. 112). A candidate for admission to the Buddhist order was often asked whether he was a Nāga or not (Grünwedel, *Buddhist Art*, p. 44). It may be presumed that the question was put to ascertain whether the particular person was primarily an adherent of the Nāga cult or not.

c16.23

¹ A. V., III. 26 & 27; V. 13, 5-6; VII. 56, 1: X. 4, 13. Some of the names are Tiraścīrājī, Asita, Svaja, Babhru, Pṛḍāku, Kaṅkaparvan, Kairāta, Pṛṣṇa, Upatṛṇya, Taimāta, Apodaka, Svitra, etc. These names are not common in the epic and Purāṇic texts, though in the name of Babhruvāhana, the son of Arjuna and the Nāga princess, we may find the survival of the Vedic Babhru.

c16.24

¹ The belief is very old; Varāhamihira says, “ The snakes of the lineage of Takṣaka and Vāsuki, and the snakes roaming at will (kāmagāḥ) have bright blue-tinged pearls in their hoods ” (Bṛhatsaṃhitā, LXXXI, 25).

c16.25

² J. P. H. Vogel, Indian Serpent Lore, p. 10.

c16.26

Before I describe some of the early and late iconographic types of the Nāgas and the Nāginīs as represented in Indian art, I shall refer only to a few of the texts of the mediaeval period, which describe the Nāga or Nāginī types. This is necessary to show in what manner the nature of the latter was determined by the former. Hemādri quotes five couplets from Maya (evidently *Mayasaṃgraha* from which he takes his materials for the description of the Yakṣas), where the peculiarities of the figures of Takṣaka, Karkoṭaka, Padma, Mahāpadma, Śaṅkhapāla and Kulika Nāgas are described. In the last part of the extract are given the following common traits of the iconographic type: ‘the Nāgas have two tongues and arms, and seven hoods with jewels on them; they hold rosary of beads (*akṣasūtra*) in their hands and are endowed with curling tails; their wives and children bear either one or three hoods’.¹ The *Viṣṇudharmottara* (Bk. III, Ch. 65, verses 2-8) describes Ananta Nāga as ‘four-armed, endowed with many hoods with the beautiful earth goddess standing on the central hood; in the right hands of the god are to be placed a lotus and a pestle, while his left hands should hold a ploughshare and a conch-shell’. Mention here of the ‘sea of liquor’, ‘palm tree’ and other features in association with the divine Nāga leaves little doubt that Ananta in this context is no other than an incarnation of the Lord Viṣṇu, and is closely associated from the iconographic point of view with Saṃkarṣaṇa or Balarāma. The 17th century text of *Silparatna* characterises the iconography of the Nāgas in two couplets: these verses lay down that ‘the Nāgas are human in shape from the navel upwards, their lower part being serpentine in form; they have encircling hoods on their heads; the hoods may be one, three, five, seven or nine; they should have two tongues, and should hold a sword and a shield in their (two) hands’.¹

c16.27

¹ Hemādri, *op. cit.*, p. 139. The last three lines of the text read: *Dvijihvo bāhavaḥ sapta phaṇāmaṇisamanvitāḥ | Akṣasūtradharāḥ sarve kuṇḍikā-pucchasaṃyutāḥ | Ekabhogāstribhogā vā hyetajjāyāsutādayaḥ ||*

c16.28

¹ *Silparatna* (as quoted by T. A. G. Raó, *op. cit.*, Vol. II, Appendix B, p. 274): *Nāgānāṃ vakṣyate rūpaṃ nābherurdhvaṃ narākṛtiḥ | Sarpākāramadho-bhāgam mastake bhogamaṇḍalam || Ekam phaṇātrayam vāpi pañca vā sapta vā nava | Dvijihvāste vidhātavyāḥ khaḍgacarmakarairiyutāḥ ||*

c16.29

Two of the earliest figures of the Nāgarājas are to be found in the Bharhut railings. Of these that of Elāpatra on the Prasenajit pillar in the scene of the Nāga chief’s meeting the Buddha is very interesting. Plate XIV, Fig. 1, depicts first the five-hooded Nāgarāja in his natural form in his element (water) with a damsel standing on his middle hood (*cf.* the *Viṣṇudharmottara* description of Ananta); then in the right corner he is shown advancing towards the left with his hands in the *namaskāra mudrā* accompanied by his queen and daughter, and lastly in the left corner he alone is shown kneeling down and paying homage to the Buddha symbolised by the Bodhi tree with Vajrāsana beneath it. In the second appearance of Elāpatra, only the upper parts of him and his queen and daughter are shown, and they are all human with the snake-hoods behind their heads, the two ladies having only one hood each (*cf.* the *Mayasaṃgraha* description of the Nāginīs). Finally, we see the all-human Nāgarāja making his obeisance to the master, his five snake-hoods being shown sideways on his head by the artist in order that the spectator may have a full view of them. Cakravāka Nāgarāja on another Bharhut railing is shown standing with his hands in the *namaskāra mudrā* on a high rock by the side of a lotus lake, having a heavy turban and the usual five snake-hoods; here also the figure is all human except the hood attachment behind the head. These as well as similar other figures in the early Buddhist art of Central India, Gandhāra and Amaravati are to be understood as representing the Nāgas assuming sometimes the almost complete human form in the presence of the Buddha, just as the Yakṣas (the names of some of them are probably indicative of their original beast form,—cf. the name Sūciloma, perhaps it describes a porcupine) hid some of their ungainly physical features before the Master. But the Nāga images, found in the Mathura region and mostly to be dated in the early centuries of the Christian era, are real cult objects, inasmuch as they were enshrined by their votaries. A Sanskrit inscription (in the Lucknow Museum collection) tells us of a local deity, by the name of Dadhikarṇa, whose shrine was probably near the Buddhist Vihāra founded by Huvishka in the year 47 (Kanishka Era). The Nāga image from Chargaon (a village, 5 miles due south of Mathura) is a typical cult object of this type where the hoods (now their number is raised to seven) are ‘part of a complete serpent whose coils are plainly visible both at the front and at the back of the sculpture’. The dual nature of Nāgadeva is fully given expression to by the artist ‘by portraying a human being standing in front of a polycephalous serpent’. ¹ The type in a modified form was similar to Baladeva, one of whose aspects is based on a trait of this primitive folk cult.

c16.30

¹ J. P. H. Vogel, op. cit., p. 42, Pl. V(a) and (b). Vogel emphasises the spirited attitude of the standing Nāga with his raised right arm (left broken, probably the hand held a cup). The inscription engraved on the back of the image shows that it was originally set up at a tank during Huvishka's time (year 40 of the Kanishka Era). The Kukargam Nāga image also reproduced by Vogel (op. cit., Pl. VIb) has the upper part much better preserved; the cup in the left hand and the raised right hand are in tact (is the right hand in the abhaya pose?), The Nāga appears to wear a vanamālā.

c16.31

Most of the Nāga and the Nāginī figures of the Gupta and later periods are shown in the role of accessories to the higher cult gods, especially Viṣṇu. Their hybrid iconographic type is retained; but when the figures of Ādi, Śeṣa or Ananta Nāga are shown as so many seats or couches of Viṣṇu seated or lying down, they are usually represented in their original form of huge polycephalous snakes with many coils. Śeṣa Nāga or his consort in the Varāha reliefs are shown, however, according to the conventional hybrid form, their upper part being human and lower, serpentine. But shown singly, the Nāga appears as a human being with snake-hoods attached behind his head. This motif is illustrated by the very beautiful Nāga image from Khitching in the district of Mayurbhanj (Orissa) reproduced here (Pl. XIV, Fig. 3). The two-armed Nāga stands in a charming pose (dvibhaṅga) holding a long thick garland in his two hands, wearing many ornaments, and having a graceful canopy of seven hoods. But the exquisite Nāginī figure from the same place is part woman and part serpent, her lower half coiling round a column; she has three hoods in accordance with the iconographic texts, and holds a yak-tail (caurī) and a pitcher in her right and left hands respectively (Pl. XX, Fig. 1). It is profitable to compare these two beautiful art objects of Orissa of the mediaeval period with two hieratic figures of Nāginīs from Central and Eastern India. The first of these hails from Sutna (Madhya Pradesh) and shows an elaborate composition with the central figure of the Nāginī, an eight-armed female seated in lalitākṣepa on a double-petalled lotus spread on the back of a roaring lion, with various attendants on all her sides (Pl. XX, Fig. 4). The goddess is otherwise human in appearance, but her snake-hoods (possibly seven in number, this being a departure from the textual injunction) and a large number of hands distinguish her from ordinary mortals. In order to establish her identity definitely the artist engraves the label—Śrī Nāiṇi (Śrī Nāginī) in mediaeval Brāhmī characters. She may illustrate the Jaina version of the snake goddess, her Brahmanical counterpart being Manasā. The latter is represented by the other relief hailing from Birbhum in West Bengal. The seven-hooded and two-armed goddess is seated in the same pose on a double-petalled lotus placed over a jar from which two snakes are coming out; she wears various ornaments among which is shown a sarpa-kucabandha (breast-band made of snakes) and holds a hooded snake in her left hand, the object in her right hand being indistinct; Jaratkāru and Āstika, her husband and son respectively according to the epic and Purāṇic tradition, are seated on either side of her. Both the sculptures stand for the snake goddess conceived in different ways, and their divine character is emphasised by the number of hoods and of the hands in the case of the former.

c16.32

The Gandharvas and Kinnaras are two other classes of mythical beings of a semi-divine character, which played a secondary part in the religious literature and art of ancient and mediaeval India. One of the earliest references to the former is to be found in the same section of the *Atharvaveda* (VIII. 10) wherefrom the allusions to the Yakṣas and the Nāgas have been cited above. The Gandharvas are mentioned in this context with the Apsarasas (‘ the maidens of the waters ’), and special mention is made here of Citraratha, Vasuruci and Sūryavarcas in this connection. In post-Vedic literature their names are often found associated with various myths, and Citraratha is almost invariably described as the king of the Gandharvas in the *Mahābhārata* and the *Rāmāyaṇa*. The Gandharvas are believed to be the denizens of the air or atmospheric region, and the towns associated with their name, *Gandharva nagaras*, are supposed to have no real existence. This belief is found very early, for we find Patañjali referring to it while commenting on a *Vārttika* of Pāṇini’s *Sūtra*, *Striyām* (IV. 3).¹ But it has not prevented in any way the formation of concrete concepts about their physical forms in the minds of the Indians from early times. They are described in some comparatively late iconographic texts such as *Mānasāra*, *Mayasaṃgraha* (as quoted by Hemādri in his *Caturvargacintāmaṇi*, *Vratakhaṇḍa*, Part I, p. 139), etc. *Mānasāra* in its section on *Yakṣa-Vidyādharadilakṣaṇam* describes the Gandharvas and Kinnaras together, but the verses are corrupt. The description given here seems to characterise both as having animal-like legs (really lower part of the body), the upper part being human in form with a face like that of Garuḍa; their arms are endowed with wings, (they wear) lotus crown and (have) colour of the shade of a flower; they are also associated with sweet songs and musical instruments.¹ In Chapter VII of this book a distinction has been made between these two iconographic types, and Kinnarīs have been equated with horse-faced (Aśvamukhī) Yakṣiṇīs. But the Mānasāra does not seem to distinguish between the two. The Mayasaṃgraha does not at all refer to the hybrid form of the Gandharvas (Kinnaras are not described here), but gives a general idea about them in this way: ‘The Gandharva, handsome in appearance, should be made as conferring boon on his devotees, wearing a crown and ear-ornaments, holding a club, and engaged in playing on a lyre’.²

c16.33

¹ *Mahābhāṣya*, Kielhorn's Edition, Vol. II, p. 196; *Yathā Gandharva-nagarāṇi dūrato dṛśyanta upaśṛtya ca nāpalabhyante*....

c16.34

¹ *Gītarīṇāvidhanaisca Gandharvamiti kathyate|* *Caraṇam paśusamānam cordhvakāyam tu narābham|* *Vadanam Garuḍabhāvam bāhukau(ca) pakṣayuktau|* *Makuṭam kamalayuktam puṣpasacchāyam varṇam|* *Paritaḥ karuṇavīṇam Kinnarasya tu svarūpam|* These lines appear to be equally applicable to the Gandharvas and the Kinnaras; *Mānasāra* (Acharya), Ch. 58, p. 370.

c16.35

² *Varado bhaktalokānām kirīṭi kuṇḍali gadī|* *Kāryassurūpī Gandharvo vīṇāvādyaratastathā||*—as quoted by Hemādri op. cit., *Vratakhaṇḍa*, Pt. I, p. 139.

c16.36

The iconographic types of the Gandharvas, as preserved in Indian art from a very early period, conform partially to the description given in the Mānasāra. Some of the garland-bearers (mālādhāris), shown hovering in the air round such symbolic representations of the Buddha as a stūpa, etc., in the early Buddhist monuments of Central India (Bharhut, Sanchi), are very often shown with bird-like lower parts, with wings attached to their arms, with a human head and torso, and adorned with crowns, ear-rings and other ornaments. The musical instrument is no doubt absent here, but it should be noted that their hands are shown holding garlands in these reliefs. Gandharvas, both male and female, however, are painted in the Ajanta frescoes with similar hybrid forms, but are shown playing on the vīṇā with their hands. This is also the way in which they are represented in early and late mediaeval relief compositions as accessories to the central figures of different cult-icons, Viṣṇu, Śiva and others. To heighten the emotional effect of such representations, they are often shown in pairs on the prabhāvalī of the cult image, the male playing on a musical instrument and the female dancing to its tune. A Gandharva or Kinnara couple from Deogarh (Lalitpur sub-division, Jhansi district, Madhya Bharat) of the late Gupta period, illustrated here (Pl. XVI, Fig. 1), is of great interest in this connection. The pair stand facing each other on either side of a tall tree inside a beautifully designed arc of a medallion; their upper part is human with wings (the arms are not distinct, but the wings are), the legs below the knee are also human, the feet only being those of a bird; they have ‘goggle eyes’, like those of a Garuḍa as represented in early and late mediaeval art. Grünwedel’s remark about the Gandharva-Kinnara type, which he considers to be a purely Indian one, should be quoted here: ‘These secondary deities may have been originally represented in the costume of the aborigines of India. . . .’ It is based on the representation of a Kinnara couple in one of the reliefs on the coping stone of the Bharhut railing, illustrating the Kinnara Jātaka; the couple are ‘so represented as to be seen only to the knees and who appear to be wearing leaves of trees round the body (parṇa : leaf and feather)’.¹ The Apsarasas did not appear to have had any peculiar iconographic trait of their own, inasmuch as they are usually shown in the forms of exceedingly beautiful damsels from the early period onwards. The Bharhut relief depicting the joy and merriment among the gods after Māra’s defeat contains the dancing figures of the four Apsarasas described by the artist as: (1) Miśrakeśī, (2) Alambuṣā, (3) Subhadrā and (4) Padmāvatī (cf. Pl. II, Fig. 23). They appear as so many beautiful danseuse and very similar is the way in which they are represented in Indian art of later times. The river goddess, Gaṅgā and Yamunā, so frequently shown on the temple doors of the Gupta and the early mediaeval periods can justifiably be traced to these proto-types, though they are not depicted in the dancing pose. Their gracefully standing figures as architectural decorations (*cf.* the Besnagar Gaṅgā) are afterwards endowed with the hieratic form of cult deities (*cf.* the Isvaripur Gaṅgā) or exceedingly beautiful women of a voluptuous type (*cf.* the figure of Gaṅgā in the Rajshahi Museum; Pl. XVII, Fig. 3). The Besnagar Gaṅgā stands in a very graceful pose on the back of a Makara, a mythical crocodile, with legs crossed (? the vidgala pose as described in the Viṣṇudharmottara); her right elbow rests on the shoulder of an attendant, and a male figure on the left corner is striking a blow to the snout of the animal (this may be Bhagīratha goading it to move swiftly (Pl. XV, Fig. 4).

c16.37

¹ Grünwedel, *Buddhist Art*, p. 48, fig. 22. Though he has no doubt about the Indian character of the type, he thinks that the wings are of West Asian form, and the siren type of these secondary deities was a result of the admixture of primitive Indian and ‘antique’ forms.

c16.38

Before an account of the ‘Devatās’, the Yakṣiṇīs and the iconographic types based on them are given, it is necessary to study an iconic type and its variants which appear to have been derived from the Yakṣa and Nāga types discussed above. Images of Gaṇapati, the god who became the principal object of worship of the Gāṇapatyas, one of the five recognised Brahmanical sects, appear to be basically connected with these two groups of folk divinities. A brief notice of the origin of the cult itself will be necessary before the iconic forms of the god and a few of the corresponding iconographic texts are considered at some length. It has been the opinion of many scholars that the cult of Gaṇapati was a comparatively late development. R. G. Bhandarkar is of opinion that as there is no mention of Gaṇapati and his worshippers in any of the Gupta inscriptions and as the description of the image of Gaṇapati in the chapter on Pratimālaḳṣaṇam of the Bṛhatsaṃhitā seems to be an interpolation, this elephant-headed and pot-bellied god came to be regularly worshipped after the late Gupta age. He, however, traces the beginnings of this worship to the veneration paid by many Indians to such ‘imps and evil spirits’ as Śāla, Kaṭamkaṭa, Uṣmita, Kuṣmāṇḍarājaputra, Devayajana and others mentioned in the Mānava Gṛhyasūtra and the Yājñavalkya Smṛti.¹ They are collectively described in these texts as well as in the Mahābhārata as Vināyakas who were prone to possess men and women, make them failures in life and put obstacles in their performance of good deeds; the texts also lay down various ways of propitiating these spirits and thus freeing oneself from their possession. It may be mentioned incidentally that the main characteristics of Gaṇapati-Vināyaka as the ‘King of obstacles’ (Vighnarāja), the ‘destroyer of obstacles’ (Vighna-vināśana) and the ‘bestower of success’ (Siddhidātā) after proper propitiation can be traced to the traits of the ‘imps and evil spirits’, the like of whom can even be found in the earlier Gṛhyasūtras (cf. supra, p. 73, f. n.),. In the Yājñavalkya smṛti (I. 271 ff.) one Vināyaka came to be described for the first time as the son of Ambikā, and this was the beginning of the very confused mythology about the origin of Gaṇapati to be found in later literature. T. A. G. Rao has collected a good many stories about this topic from several Purāṇas and Āgamas, in which the god is variously described as the son of Pārvatī alone, as the son of Śiva and Pārvatī, and even having an independent origin.¹ This shows the attempts of the later mythologists to bring this cult-god in line with the more important cult deities, Śiva and Śakti, of much earlier origin. It should be noted, however, that Gaṇapati’s affiliation was at first sought mainly with those of the cult deities who had many primitive and un-Aryan traits in their composition; but in much later Purāṇas like the Brahmavaivartta Gaṇeśa is sometimes described as one of the aspects of Kṛṣṇa. The literal meaning of Gaṇapati is ‘the leader of the Gaṇas’ who have almost invariably been associated with Śiva (the association of Rudra, the Vedic counterpart of Śiva, with Marutgaṇas should be noted in this connection). Śiva is sometimes described in the Mahābhārata as Gaṇeśvara, and this may also explain his ideological association with Gaṇapati.² The elephant-head of

c16.39

¹ R. G. Bhandarkar, *Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism and Minor Religious Systems*, pp. 148-50. He doubts whether all the six sub-sects of the Gāṇapatyas as described by Anantānandagiri in his *Śaṃkaradigvijayakāvya* actually existed at the time of

c16.40

¹ Elements, etc., Vol. I, pp. 35-45.

c16.41

² Gaṇeśvara is also one of the names of Viṣṇu among the one thousand names of the god (Viṣṇusahasranāma) given in Ch. 149 of the Anuśāsanaparva in

c16.42

Śaṃkarācārya. But reliefs depicting the elephant-headed and pot-bellied divinity undoubtedly go back to the early Gupta age, if not still earlier.

c16.43

the latter may be explained by referring to the animal faces of the Mahāpāriṣadas of Rudra as described in the Skandābhiṣeka (ch. 45) chapter of the Śalyaparva of the Great Epic. These Pāriṣadas (Gaṇas) who are described in this context as so many attendants of Skanda bear the faces of various animals and birds such as tortoise, cock, crow, owl, parrot, falcon, dog, fox, boar, elephant, lion, etc. (vv. 76 ff.). The Śiva temple of Bhumara (c. 6th century A.D.) contained the figures of many Gaṇas with faces of various animals and birds on its walls. Another explanation of the characteristic iconography of Gaṇapati may be sought in the fact that he combined in him some of the characteristic traits of both the Yakṣas and the Nāgas. Coomaraswamy pointed out long ago that Gaṇeśa was undoubtedly a Yakṣa-type, and an elephant-headed Yakṣa is to be found in an Amaravati coping.¹ The tundila (pot-bellied) trait of the Yakṣas is prominent in Gaṇeśa and he possesses the head of a Nāga in the sense of an elephant (Nāga meant a snake as well as an elephant). The current idea about the association of this god of peculiar iconographic traits with wisdom seems to have been due to the confusion made between his name and that of the Vedic sage god Bṛhaspati or Brahmaṇaspati who is invoked also as Gaṇapati (Gaṇānāṃ tvā Gaṇapatiṃ havāmahe). That this confusion was comparatively late in its origin is borne out by the apocryphal character of the tradition about Gaṇeśa's having served as the amanuensis of Vyāsa when the latter was engaged in the task of composing the Mahābhārata. The veneration specially paid to him by traders and businessmen of Hindu India even in modern times can be traced to the early mediaeval period. The Ghatiyala (Jodhpur, Rajasthan Union) pillar contains four images of Gaṇapati facing four quarters as its capital piece, and the inscription engraved on it (V.S. 918-861 A.D.) informs us that it was erected by Kakkuka for the success of the business enterprise

c16.44

¹ A. K. Coomaraswamy, Yakṣas, Pt. I, p. 7.

c16.45

the Mahābhārata. But there can be little doubt that some appellations of Śiva are also included in the stotra.

c16.46

of the local traders through the grace of this god. As the bestower of success he was not only highly venerated by the Hindus, but the Buddhists and Jains also seem to have held him in some respect. The appeal of this god with peculiar iconography even spread outside India, and his images of the mediaeval period have been found in Indo-China, Java and other places. In India itself the sect of the Gāṇapatyas came to have as many as six sub-divisions sometime before the time of Anantānandagiri, the biographer of Śaṃkarācārya. Those belonging to the subsects were the exclusive worshippers of the six different aspects of Gaṇapati, known as Mahā, Haridrā, Svarṇa, Santāna, Navanīta and Unmatta-Ucchiṣṭa. It is a fact, however, that his cult never became of such importance as some of the other major cults, but ‘his worship without reference to any particular sect is practised even now by nearly all Hindus at the beginning of any religious ceremony and on special occasions’ (Bhandarkar, op. cit., p. 150).

c16.47

A careful and comparative study of the iconographic texts characterising various types of images of Gaṇeśa leaves little doubt that the earliest of them were either of standing or seated variety and endowed with two arms, the objects held by the hands being a hatchet (*paraśu*) and a radish (*mūlaka*); the elephant-head with only one tooth and the pot-belly are the features invariably present in both the early and late texts. Most of the texts, if not all, describing the general form of Gaṇapati collected by Gopinath Rao from various sources characterise him as four-armed, the only exception being that from the Bṛhatsaṃhitā chapter (57) on Pratimālakṣaṇa. It has already been said that this couplet describing Gaṇapati is suspect, but there is little doubt that it describes the earliest variety of his image in this manner: ‘The lord of the Pramathas (the same as the Gaṇas) should be elephant-faced, pot-bellied, holding a hatchet and a radish, and should have one tooth’ (*Pramathādhipo gajamukhaḥ pralambajaṭharaḥ kuṭhāradhārī syāt | Ekaviṣāṇo bibhran-mūlakakaṇḍam . . . . .*). This is no doubt the description of a two-armed image; there is no mention here, it is true, of a pot of sweet-meat, but the ‘ radish ’ or the bulbous root (mūlakakanda) which is mentioned here is the edible of an elephant. The peculiar trait of ‘ one tooth ’ (ekaviṣāṇa) noted here gave rise to the later explanatory myth referred to by Rao (Vol. I, p. 51; Rao does not mention the name of the Purāṇa where it occurs). The couplet enumerating the various synonyms of Gaṇapati in the Svargavarga section of the Amarakoṣa also contains a reference to the one-tooth, elephant-head and pot-belly of the god (Vināyaka-Vighnarāja-Dvaimātura-Gaṇādhipāḥ | Apyekadanta-Heramba-Lambodara-Gajānanāḥ). The other texts like Amśumadbhedāgama, Uttarakāmikāgama, Suprabhedāgama, Viṣṇudharmottara, Rūpamaṇḍana, etc., invariably endow the god with four hands, the attributes held by them being any four among the following: ‘ own tooth ’ (svadanta), wood-apple (kapittha), sweet-meat (modaka), elephant-goad (aṅkuśa), noose (pāśa), snake (nāga), rosary, lotus, etc. In these later texts, a mouse is very often described as his mount, and his consorts are sometimes mentioned as Bhāratī (another name of Sarasvatī, the goddess of learning), Śrī (Lakṣmī), Vighneśvarī, Buddhi and Kubuddhi. Other characteristic traits which can be gathered from these texts are: his three eyes, his slightly bent (ābhaṅga) or straight (samabhaṅga) pose when standing (sthānaka), tiger-skin garment (vyāghracarmāmbaradhara), sacred thread made of a serpent (vyālayajñopavītī). Many are the iconographic varieties of the god described in the different texts under such names as Bīja-Gaṇapati, Bāla-Gaṇapati, Taruṇa-Gaṇapati, Vīra-Vighneśa, Śakti-Gaṇeśa, Lakṣmī-Gaṇeśa, Mahā-Gaṇeśa, Haridrā-Gaṇeśa, Unmatta-Vināyaka, Nṛtya-Gaṇapati, Ucchiṣṭa-Gaṇapati, Heramba-Gaṇapati, etc. Names of the cult pictures of some of the subdivisions of the Gāṇapatya sect can be recognised in this list, and some forms of the god like Śakti- or Unmatta-Ucchiṣṭa-Gaṇapati seem to be associated with the left-handed (Vāmācāra-Tāntric) variety of his worship. Only a few of the aforesaid forms are actually met with in the Gupta and post-Gupta mediaeval art, and they are thus of great interest in this connection.

First 53 of 117 passages. Read on

Linked texts (37)