Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Development of Hindu Iconography c19.s1: Brahmā

The Development of Hindu Iconography c19.s1

Language
English

Contents

Brahmā

c19.s1.1

To the first member of the orthodox Brahmanical triad, Brahmā, is assigned the act of creation in Hindu mythology. His position in the pantheon is, however, inferior to that of any of the principal cult deities like Viṣṇu, Sūrya, Śiva and Durgā, nay, even Gaṇapati. The very act of creating this universe and peopling it, which is supposed to have been his main duty, is primarily attributed by the followers of these cults to the respective divinities of their choice. The picture that we get of Brahmā from the Purāṇas, or sections of them associated with one or other of these cults, is usually an inane and helpless god, having very little practical initiative of his own. The initiative almost invariably rests with the principal cult deities, Brahmā being at best represented in the role of a mediator with the more important among them on behalf of other deities and persons of lesser importance approaching him for help and advice in times of distress and danger.

c19.s1.2

Such was, however, not his position, when the concrete concept about him and gods allied to him began to take shape and develop in some of the late Vedic texts. Many sections of this literature contain passages about creation, and the creator is described there by various names like Viśvakarman, Brahmaṇaspati, Hiraṇyagarbha, Prajāpati, Brahma and Brahmā. Viśvakarman is characterised in the 81st and 82nd hymns of the tenth maṇḍala of the Ṛgveda; in the first of them he is described as the one god who has produced the sky and earth and shaped them with his hands (Saṃ bāhubhyāṃ dhamati saṃ patatrair dyāvā-bhūmiṃ janayan devaḥ ekaḥ). Brahmaṇaspati, another god of allied nature, is said to have shaped all these (created things) like a blacksmith (R.V., X. 72, 2: Brahmaṇaspatir-eta saṃ karmāraḥ ivādhamat). Hiraṇyagarbha is assumed to have been the first to be born, and is said to have established the earth and the sky in their proper position (ibid., X. 121, 1). In the last verse of the same hymn Prajāpati is described as the lord of all the created beings. In the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (XI. 2, 3, 1) Brahma (neuter) is said to have existed alone in the beginning and to have been the creator of the gods and the original source of all things. Another passage of the same text (X. 6, 5, 9), tells us that Prajāpati originated from Brahma who is self-existent (Prajāpatir-Brahmaṇaḥ, Brahma svayambhū). Both these gods along with Puruṣa Nārāyaṇa are described in the different sections of this Brāhmaṇa as having sacrificed themselves for acquiring superiority over gods, men and all created things. Prajāpati is also the supporter (bharataḥ) of this universe, a function invariably assigned to Viṣṇu in the epic and Purāṇic literature. The same god is also identified in some passages with the presiding deity of sacrifice with which Viṣṇu is also identified in one passage of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (III. 2, 2, 4; XIV. 1, 1, 6). The more concrete concept of Brahmā took some time to develop and one of the earliest allusions to this god is to be found in the first verse of the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad. He is described there as the first of the gods, who was the creator of the universe and the preserver of the world (Brahmā devānāṃ prathamaḥ sambabhūva viśvasya kartā bhuvanasya goptā). Lastly, we find in the first canto of the Manusamhitā how the irresistible self-existent (svayambhū) Lord was born in the golden egg (haimam aṇḍam) as Brahmā, the progenitor of all the worlds (tasmin jajñe svayaṃ Brahmā sarvalokapitāmahaḥ). It is also interesting to note that the appellation Nārāyaṇa is applied in this context to Brahmā and not to Viṣṇu. There is no doubt that this part of the great Smṛti text is based on passages of the much older texts like the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and others in which it is said how Prajāpati assumed the forms of fish, tortoise and boar for the attainment of particular ends.

c19.s1.3

The concept of the concrete god Brahmā, also known by such names as Prajāpati, Dhātā, Vidhātā, Pitāmaha, etc., was further developed in the epic literature, though it does not necessarily mean that his position *vis-à-vis* that of the other great cult gods was made more prominent.¹ But it is at the same time apparent that he was enjoying some importance in the period during which the earlier sections of the epics were composed. The various mythologies associated with him there invest him with some power which he undoubtedly inherited from his late Vedic and Brahmanic prototypes. He is regarded as the creator, preserver and destroyer, all at the same time, and it is in the later sections of the two epics that his position is gradually weakened and his honours and activities become more or less of a titular character. One of the causes of this gradual decline may be traced to the fundamental weakness of his character, which led him to be equally susceptible to the ascetic practices not only of the gods, but also of the demons who on many occasions bring disaster to the universe with the power acquired by propitiating Brahmā by the practice of severe austerities. In fact, the epic and Purāṇic tales about the great cult gods Viṣṇu and Śiva exerting themselves to set matters right on these occasions emphasise in a way the greatness of these gods in comparison with that of Brahmā. The latter now gets subservient to them; he is born from the lotus issuing forth from Viṣṇu's navel, he worships the horse-headed form of Viṣṇu and receives the law from him, and he becomes the demiurge of the great cult god. In some epic passages Śiva is described as creating the creator, Brahmā praises the greatness of Śiva, and reveals to Indra the great power of Mahādeva. The Mandasor Stone Inscription of Yaśodharman Viṣṇuvardhana of the Mālava Samvat 589 (A.D. 533-34) refers, it is true, to Brahmā as creator, preserver and destroyer, but in all these acts Svayambhū is employed by Śambhu (Śiva) and is obedient to Śiva's commands, and Śiva is described in the same context as *bhavasṛj*, i.e., ‘the creator of the universe’ (C.I.I., III, p. 152-55). Thus, Brahmā is merely a figurehead in these matters. This decline in Brahmā's position is persistent, and some of the Purāṇas take advantage of many of the vaguely allegorical, deprecatory myths associated with Prajāpati in the later Vedic texts and the Brāhmaṇas, and cast all sorts of opprobrium on him.¹ One of the early Purāṇas, the Mārkaṇḍeya, paints him as helpless to defend himself from the demons Madhu and Kaiṭabha, from whose clutches he is saved by Viṣṇu's timely intervention.

c19.s1.4

¹ The following are some of the names of Brahmā collected by Hopkins from the two epics :-Viśveśa, Sraṣṭṛ, Lokaguru, Lokavṛddha, Suraguru (a confusion with Bṛhaspati, the preceptor of the gods), Lokabhāvana, Lokeśvareśvara, Lokādinidhaneśvara, Ādideva, Bhūtātman, etc.; *Epic Mythology*, p. 192.

c19.s1.5

¹ The myth of Brahmā's incestuous love for his own daughter as noticed in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (I. 7, 4, 1ff.) can be traced to the Ṛgveda passage (X. 61, 4) which seems to refer to some atmospheric phenomenon; this story is further elaborated in the Matsya, Bhāgavata and other Purāṇas to the detriment of this god. Brahmā's passion for telling lies is to be noted in the sectarian story explaining the Liṅgodbhavamūrti of Śiva whose Bhairava form is sometimes described as Brahmāśiraśchedakamūrti (the form in which he cut off one of the superfluous heads of Brahmā).

c19.s1.6.1

Brahmā appears to have enjoyed no success as a cult god. It is true that he illustrates in a way an aspect of Vedism, one of the constituent elements of the composite Hinduism of the epic and Purāṇic times, but if any attempt was ever made by an orthodox Vedic section of the Hindus to formulate his cult in imitation of those of Viṣṇu and Śiva, it was destined to failure. Reference has already been made in a previous chapter of this book (Ch. VI, p. 230) to Varāhamihira's injunction that Brahmā's images could only be installed by those who were well-versed in the Vedic lore (*Viprān vidur-Brāhmaṇaḥ*). The analogous references by the same author to the Bhāgavatas, the Pāśupatas, the Magas, etc., being only entitled to instal the images of Viṣṇu, Śiva and Sūrya, may suggest that these persons, ‘well-versed in the Vedas’, were the exclusive worshippers of Brahmā. But if there were such a sect at all, they did not enjoy any great importance. This hypothesis is substantiated by the Purāṇic stories connected with such Śaiva icons as the Liṅgodbhavamūrti; Brahmā was cursed by Śiva for telling a lie not to have any cult of his own. Separate temples enshrining Brahmā are very few and far between, and mention may be made here of the early mediaeval and later Brahmā shrines found at Dudahi and Khajuraho (Madhya Bharat), Vasantgaḍh (Rajputana), Unkal (near Hubli, Dharwar district), and Kheḍ Brahmā (Mahi Kantha). The Dudahi temple was well-built having many artistic carvings;

c19.s1.6.2

the presence of a three-headed figure of the bearded Brahmā with his swan mount on the centre of the sanctum doorway and the evidence of an inscription found there recording that the writer paid his adoration to Caturmukha (an appellation of Brahmā) and his wife Sāvitrī, led Cunningham to ascribe this shrine to Brahmā with certainty (A.S.R., Vol. X, pp. 93-4, Pl. XXXI). A small square temple of the god was noticed by the same scholar at Khajuraho, which he thought to have been the oldest of the extant shrines at the place (Ibid., Vol. XXI, p. 57). The Vasantgaḍh (Rajputana) brick temple of the god is as old as the 7th century A.D., which faces east and has a standing life-size image of Brahmā with three faces and a nimbus behind him; the figure is two-armed, the hands holding an akṣamālā and kamaṇḍalu. The interest attaching to the temple of the god at Kheḍ Brahmā (Idar, Mahi Kantha) is great, for it was still functioning in 1906-07, when it was visited by Henry Cousens. Cousens writes that there is a community of Brahmans at the place who have been there for generations, who devote themselves exclusively to the worship of Brahmā; they are Audīcya Brahmans (Brahmans of the north), are followers of the Śukla Yajurveda, and are entrusted with the ritual worship of the shrine deity.

c19.s1.6.3

Another interesting feature of this Brahmā temple is its three Pārśvadevatās which are three images of Brahmā (or three aspects of the god), one placed on each of the three principal niche of the temple. Brahmā on the western niche has the usual symbols in his hands (sruk, pustaka, akṣamālā and kamaṇḍalu), but he has a bull (Nandin) as his mount; a similar figure on the northern face has a horse below him, and the small figure with wings beneath another similar figure on the south side may be Garuḍa. These traits of the Pārśvadevatās would appear to associate Brahmā with Śiva, Sūrya and Viṣṇu, for the mounts are connected with the latter. An interesting exhibit in the collection of the Indian Museum, Calcutta (No. Gr. 18), may be noted in this connection. It is a carved door-lintel in stone (hornblende schist) from Gauḍ, District Malda (Bengal), showing the figure of standing Brahmā, three-faced and four-armed, flanked by his two consorts, Sarasvatī and Sāvitrī, and other attendants dancing and playing on musical instruments. The figure of Brahmā in the centre of the composition proves that the small shrine, over the doorway of which the slab rested, was dedicated to this god. Its size can be guessed from that of the carved lintel which measures 5′ 10″ × 1′ 8″. It is very likely that it originally belonged to a Pañcāyatana temple of about the middle of the tenth century A.D., in which the shrine of Brahmā was a subsidiary one.

c19.s1.6.4

Another temple of Brahmā, that is still functioning, is at Pushkar near Ajmer; the big temple there is linked up with the shrine of his consort Sāvitrī on a hill about a mile distant from it. This sacred Tīrtha is frequented by Hindus of different cult affiliations, and its existence does not necessarily mean the existence of any Brahmā cult there in modern times. The present shrine of the god at the place is not more than 160 years old, for Tod writes in 1806-07 that it was built about four years ago; but it was built on the site of older religious establishments. The temple priests, however, belong to the community of Puri Gosains unlike those at Khed Brahmā.¹ Pushkara is a very old Tīrtha; reference is made to it in the Nasik inscription of Uṣabhadāta, Nahapāna’s son-in-law, but there is no clear proof whether it was associated with Brahmā worship at that early age.²

c19.s1.7

¹ For the Vasantgaḍh Brahmā temple, see *Progress Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, Western Circle*, 1905-06, p. 50. For the Khed Brahmā shrine, see *A.S.I.A.R.*, 1906-07, pp. 176-77.

c19.s1.8

² T. P. Bhattacharya has recently published two articles on ‘The Cult of Brahmā’ (*J.B.R.S.*, Vol. XL, pp. 364-94, and Vol. XLI, pp. 13-58). He tries to prove in them that 'the Brahmā cult is non-Vedic and pre-Vedic', and he infers 'the antiquity of the Rātra cults of Brahmā from their existence in the period when the ancient Sumerians, Cretans and Egyptians lived on this world'.

c19.s1.9

One of the earliest iconographic descriptions of the god is to be found in the *Bṛhatsaṃhitā* (Ch. 57, v. 41). The passage says that the four-faced god holds a ritual water-vessel (*kamaṇḍalu*) in one of his hands and is seated on a lotus (*Brahmā kamaṇḍalukaraścaturmukhaḥ paṅkajāsanasthaśca.*) In this summary description, there is no reference to the number of hands, and the attribute of one of these only is mentioned; the lotus-seat is there, but the god’s swan mount is not. In the line quoted by Utpala from Kāśyapa in the last part of his commentary on this chapter, Brahmā is described as four-faced having a staff, the hide of a black antelope and a ritual water-vessel (*Brahmā caturmukho daṇḍī kṛṣṇājinakamaṇḍalī, Bṛhatsaṃhitā*, Dvivedi’s edition, p. 785). This account seems to emphasise the character of the god as a Brahmacārin wearing a black antelope skin as his upper garment, his two hands holding a staff and a ritual water-vessel. If we compare these somewhat sketchy descriptions of a presumably earlier date with texts about Brahmā images quoted by Rao from *Aṃśumadbhedāgama, Suprabhedāgama, Śilparatna, Viṣṇupurāṇa*, and *Rūpamaṇḍana*, we can at once see the great elaboration that has taken place in the iconic representation of the god. The following are some of the additional details : his hands are invariably four in number, the attributes in them being a rosary, sruk, sruva (sacrificial implements), the Vedas etc. ; he rides on a swan or on a chariot drawn by seven swans (this is evidently adopted from the seven-horsed chariot of Sūrya) ; having Sāvitrī on his left and Sarasvatī on his right side, he wears white garments, *jaṭāmukuṭa*, jewelled ear-rings, is white in colour, etc. Yet it is curious that in none of these elaborate accounts there is an explicit reference to his face or faces being bearded, though the Ṛṣis who accompany him in a Brahmāyatana (? a Brahmā shrine) are described as bearded (*śmaśrula*, Rao, *op. cit.*, Vol. II, App. B. pp. 243-47). It is true, however, that all the later images of Brahmā have bearded faces, most of the earlier ones being shown without this trait. The evidence of the Navagraha reliefs on the Bhauma-Kara and Gaṅga shrines at Bhuvanesvara (Orissa) should be cited in this connection. The two spiritual preceptors of the Devas and Daityas, Bṛhaspati and Śukra, are shown invariably without beards in the earlier shrines of the Bahuma-Kara period there, while the same Deva- and Daitya-gurus in the later Gaṅga shrines have always been endowed with beards and moustaches (*cf. supra*, p. 444).¹

c19.s1.10

¹ K. D. Bajpai refers to some Brahmā figures of the third-fourth centuries A.D. in the collection of the Mathura Museum, which have four or three bearded faces (in the case of the four-faced one where three faces are shown in one line and the fourth face is placed over the central face, the fourth super-imposed face does not show any beard); *Baroda State Museum Bulletin*, No. 5, p. 18.

c19.s1.11.1

Some of the earliest representations of Brahmā are found in the Buddhist reliefs of Gandhāra; his figure is used there either in the Nativity scene of Buddha or as one of Buddha's acolytes. He is invariably shown in them as having profuse dishevelled hair, beard and moustache, being dressed in the garments of a Brahman, one of his two hands holding a water-vessel. Such figures are, however, not hieratic, for they are presented from the unorthodox Buddhist point of view. The later Jaina representations of Brahmā, either as a Yakṣa attendant of the Jina Śītalanātha or as one of the Dikpālas are endowed with a great deal of hieratism, even perhaps more pronounced than in their originals in the Brahmanical pantheon. The earliest ones of these originals are mostly two-armed and three- or four-faced, the faces being usually shown without a beard; the four-armed images are, as a class, of a later period. The stone image of Brahmā in the collection of the Mathura Museum (No. 382) shows the four-faced god with faces arranged in a peculiar manner. Three of them are put in one line, the fourth one being placed over the central head; none of the faces, however, is shown bearded (the figure is of the Kushan period).² The standing Brahmā image of the Gupta period in the same Museum (No. 2481) shows him three-faced, its middle face only being bearded; the god is two-armed, the right hand being in the *abhaya* pose.

c19.s1.11.2

An image of the god belonging to the early Chālukya period hailing from Aihole is illustrated by Rao. The god is seated astride on the back of his swan mount (an unusual sitting posture) his four hands holding a rosary, a manuscript and two other indistinct objects; he is surrounded by a number of Ṛṣis in bowing and praising poses, who are all shown bearded (Rao, *op. cit.*, Vol. II, p. 506, Pl. CXLIV). The other Brahmā relief from the same place illustrated by him shows some variations; the three beardless faces are there, but the god is seated in *lalitāsana* on a lotus-seat, and his four hands show a rosary, a noose, a water-vessel and *varamudrā* (ibid, Pl. CXLVI). The Kumbakonam and Halebidu reliefs of Brahmā of the early Chola and late Hoysala schools, reproduced by Rao (ibid, Pl. CXLVII) are *Sthānakamūrtis* of the god, the latter showing his two consorts, Sāvitrī and Sarasvatī; but the faces of the god have no beards. One of the most remarkable and earliest figures of the god is the metal image found at Mirpur Khas in Sindh (it is now in the Karachi Museum). It is of great iconographic interest, for it does not correspond to the usual mode of representation of the deity. As the image is fully in the round, all four beardless faces of the god are shown;

c19.s1.11.3

it is two-armed, the right hand being bent with the palm turned inwards as if holding a book (this pose is not described in the texts), the left hand holding probably a water-vessel (it is broken, its handle only being shown). Clad in diaphanously treated garments, and probably wearing a deer skin in the *upavītī* fashion, this bronze figure of the god presents to us a fine specimen of the Indian metallurgists' art of the late Gupta or early mediaeval period (Pl. XLV, Fig. 3). Brahmā in the lintel piece from Gauḍ (Malda) previously noted has three beardless faces, the left hands carrying a water-vessel and a sacrificial ladle, the two right ones being broken; both Sarasvatī and Sāvitrī are four-armed, the former showing *varamudrā*, *akṣamālā*, *vīṇā* and *kamaṇḍalu* in her four hands, while the latter holds *caurī*, *akṣamālā* and *pustaka* by three of her hands, the lower left one being in the *kaṭihasta* pose. An elaborately carved image of Brahmā seated on a *viśvapadma* in the *lalitākṣepa* pose in the Rajshahi Museum collection is interesting. Though it is of the late mediaeval period, the carving is not indifferent, and such details as the pot-bellied character of the god, the two-armed standing female attendants holding *caurī* in their hands, the swan mount, the donor couple, the garland-bearing flying Vidyādharas, etc. are all systematically displayed (*DHB*, Vol. I, p. 439, Pl. V, Fig. 15).

c19.s1.12

² K. D. Bajpai, *Ibid.*, p. 18.

c19.s1.13

Many of the images of Brahmā that have been just discussed are of a subsidiary character, having been used either as *Āvaraṇadevatās* or as accessory figures in the shrines of the major cult deities. His figure also appears in ‘relief compositions’ associated with Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism, some of which have already been noted. The god is seated on a lotus, the stalk of which issues from Nārāyaṇa-Viṣṇu’s navel, in the Anantaśayana reliefs; in the Liṅgodbhavamūrtis of Śiva, Brahmā is shown first as soaring upwards along the side of a ‘columnar Śivaliṅga’, and then as standing by its side with his front hands in the *namaskāra mudrā*; in the Tripurāntakamūrti of Śiva, he is shown as the charioteer of the great god, and in Śiva’s Kalyāṇasundaramūrti, Brahmā is shown as the officiating priest in the marriage ceremony of Śiva and Umā. In the Ekapāda-Trimūrti of Śiva or its Vaiṣṇava counterpart, Śiva or Viṣṇu occupies the central position, Brahmā being invariably shown as a lateral accretion in the attitude of bowing to the central deity.

Linked texts (13)