The Development of Hindu Iconography c19.s6.16

c19.s6.16

The Ardhanārīśvaramūrti of Śiva in a way symbolise the syncretic ideology, for they apparently emphasise the union of the principal cult deities of Śaivism and Śāktism. It is true that the ideological union of Śiva and Śakti, the primaeval parents of the universe, has been delineated by many early and late texts, but that sometimes, though rarely, separatist tendencies lurked in the minds of exclusive worshippers of the two deities is also testified by literary data. Gopinath Rao relates a story about this Ardhanārīśvara form of Śiva, which seems to suggest the presence of such a tendency. On one occasion the Devas and Ṛṣis circumambulated Śiva and Pārvatī at Kailāsa (the abode of Śiva), but the Ṛṣi Bhṛṅgī being an exclusive worshipper of Śiva went round the god of his choice alone, neglecting to go round or pay homage to the Devī. She grew angry at this insult to her and reduced the sage to a skin-covered skeleton, and Bhṛṅgī was unable to stand erect on his two skinny legs. Śiva took pity on him and provided him with a third leg, which act of grace was thankfully acknowledged by the sage. But to save also Pārvatī's honour, Śiva united his body with hers, in order that Bhṛṅgī would be compelled to pay homage to the goddess, while paying his respects to him. Thus originated this Ardhanārīśvara form, but such was the pugnacious tenacity of this sectarian sage that assuming the form of beetle he cut a hole through the composite body and circumambulated the Śiva part only.¹ The story is no doubt naïve, but in a way it lays stress on the exclusive tendencies of sectarianism, which have been finally overcome (in the case of Bhṛṅgī of the story this was still present) according to the Purāṇic myth-maker by such a composite form of the god and the goddess. The iconic motif of Ardhanārīśvara, however, was evolved at a fairly early period, long before such explanatory myths came to be fabricated, and glyptic and sculptural evidence regarding the existence of such motifs in Northern India as early as the Kushan and Gupta periods has been cited in Chapter V of this book (*supra*, pp. 181-82). Two south-Indian reliefs of the Chola period are being reproduced here to illustrate this composite form, one from the Bṛhadīśvara Temple, Tanjore, and the other from Darasuram. The one from Tanjore shows the three-armed god standing reclining in a slight *tribhaṅga* pose on Nandī, his right half being male, and the left half, female. Of the two right arms, the back hand holds a *triśūla*, the front one being in the *varada* pose; the one hand of the Pārvatī half holds a *nīlotpala* flower. The dress and ornaments of the two halves of the body are different inasmuch as they are made to befit a male and a female (Pl. XXXVIII, Fig. 4). The composite god shown in Darasuram relief has many novel features such as three faces, eight arms, a big halo behind its three heads, and he stands in the *samapādasthānaka* pose without Nandī behind him; some of the eight hands hold an *akṣamālā*, a *khaḍga*, a *pāśa*, a *darpaṇa*, the objects in the other hands (one left hand is broken) being indistinct. The male and female halves are clearly demarcated as in the other relief (Pl. XXXIX, Fig. 4). Rao remarks about this exceedingly interesting and extraordinary piece of sculpture, ‘In no Sanskrit work that has been examined do we meet with a description of Ardhanārīśvara which agrees with this image . . . . . . .’ (*op. cit.*, Vol. II, p. 332). The multiplicity of hands and faces of this image cannot be satisfactorily explained, but the faces may emphasise the *ugra*, *saumya*, and Umā aspects of the god already noticed in the Elephanta and Gwalior Museum sculptures (*supra.*, pp. 476-77). But one thing worthy of note in this connection is that in none of these reliefs the *ūrdhaliṅga* feature of the composite god is present, which is very often found in such figures of Northern and Eastern India.