Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Development of Hindu Iconography c8: Chapter I: Study of Hindu Iconography

The Development of Hindu Iconography c8

Language
English

Contents

Chapter I: Study of Hindu Iconography

c8.2

The term Icon (ikon, Gr. eikon) means a figure representing a deity, or a saint, in painting, mosaic, sculpture, etc., which is specially meant for worship or which is in some way or other associated with the rituals connected with the worship of different divinities. Thus, though this is not exactly the same as a fetishistic symbol used for their crude ritualism by undeveloped mankind, yet it is not very far removed from the latter; it has attached to it, however, some higher clear-cut conception which is missing in the other. This Greek word eikon with its above connotation has its close parallel in such Indian terms as arcā, bera, vigraha, etc., which definitely denote sensible representations of particular deities or saints receiving the devout homage of their bhaktas or exclusive worshippers. Euphemistically, these are often described in various Indian texts as the very body or form of the gods concerned (tanu or rūpa). These representations are mainly anthropomorphic or theriomorphic in character, but they may also at times be purely symbolic without any such explicit form. The special branch of knowledge or study which deals with these images is generally known as Iconography, a proper understanding of which enables one to be quite conversant about one of the most important aspects of the religious life of certain races of mankind. But this branch of knowledge is not merely concerned with the study and interpretation of the characteristics of the principal icons or images proper which are enshrined in the main sanctum of a temple or church, but it also deals with the delineation of the special features and the understanding of the true significance of the figure-sculptures, frescoes or such other objects which are executed on different parts of the shrine mainly for decorative purpose. Thus, in its broader sense, the term iconography really signifies the interpretative aspect of the religious art of a country, which becomes manifest in diverse ways. Even before the evolution of the image proper representing the principal deity of the cult, when such a divinity is usually represented by various aniconic symbols as in the case of early Buddhism, the monuments (mostly funerary in character) associated with it contain numbers of reliefs illustrative of various mythological stories connected with it. Thus, the early remains of Bharhut and Sanchi, which are really funerary monuments, do not contain any icon of the Master (in the developed sense of an anthropomorphic representation), but contain numerous figure-sculptures, medallions and reliefs which are extremely interesting to any student of religious art of India. A proper interpretation of these scenes reproduced in stone reliefs falls necessarily under the province of a student of iconography, and he will do scanty justice to his subject if he fails to take note of them. In another respect, the interpretation of pictures painted on canvas, manuscript covers or such other objects, *e.g.*, the banner paintings (*taṅkas*) of Nepal, Tibet and Central Asia, etc., also falls within the scope of this subject when it is conceived in its broader aspect. But, it must never be lost sight of, that in all these cases, a definite religious character must permeate all such objects, in order that their study and interpretation may come under this branch of knowledge.

c8.3.1

The above account of the nature of the subject will fully prove how it is intimately connected with religion. In fact, it is nothing but the interpretation of the religious art of man. It has been time and often shown by various scholars that the art of man in its very beginnings is mainly religious in character. Grünwedel observes, “The most important basis for the development of an independent art among any people lies in its religion.” Della Setta, in the work on Religion and Art has shown the intimate connection which exists between the art and religion of various nations of the world. This deep association is the more pronounced in the case of the early Indians. Grünwedel has rightly remarked, "The religious character, so deeply rooted in the national life of the Indian races, has also continued the guiding principle in their art."¹ Foucher has in a very striking manner endeavoured to show how the innate religious tendencies of the Buddhists have been mainly responsible for the beginnings and dissemination of the Buddhist art in India.² Thus, this intimate association between the religion and art being clearly demonstrable, it is hardly necessary to point out how the study of iconography helps one to understand the nature of religious practices indulged in by some races of mankind.

c8.3.2

In the very first instance, the discussion about the presence or absence of the practice of image worship among the early Indo-Aryan races in connection with the study of this subject will enable the student of Indian Iconography to get hold of positive data for the true evaluation and appraisement of their religion. An intensive and historical study of this subject will throw much valuable light on the gradual changes which were constantly being introduced in certain well-defined religious practices of the Hindus. The ever-increasing pantheon of a particular cult and the constant increase in mythological stories associated with it will find a ready illustration in the iconographic representations, which will throw very interesting sidelight on these transformations. Sometimes, a proper and scientific study of this subject will help us in correcting errors made by previous scholars in the understanding of the religious practices of different peoples. Thus, Fergusson, after a close observation of the reliefs of Bharhut, Sanchi and Amaravati, remarked that about one-half of the bas-reliefs of Sanchi. . . represented religious acts such as the worship of the dāgoba or of trees; once or twice the wheel was the object of adoration and once the serpent. Now, this explanation of the significance of many of the above reliefs has been proved to be erroneous by the patient researches of subsequent scholars. No student of iconography would interpret them in that way at present;

c8.3.3

but what he would find in them is that in most cases the trees within railings, with a rectangular seat underneath them, especially when they are adorned with garlands and parasols, are really the tangible emblems of the Master or his predecessors who are not iconically represented; other trees without these honorific adjuncts are really the *rukkha-cetiyas*, not usually objects of worship by themselves but so many objects of veneration because of their being residences of different Yakṣas. The dāgobas or *dhātugarbhas*, funerary structures, also symbolise the *Mahāparinirvāṇa* of Śākyamuni Buddha or that of the other Buddhas that preceded him. In the case of the Nāgas, Yakṣas, Yakṣiṇīs, etc., who can be recognised in the reliefs, it is to be observed that originally they were no doubt objects of worship, but they are depicted on these monuments in quite an opposite role, *viz.*, in that of so many worshippers of the Bhagavān Buddha. Fergusson, even in that early stage of the study of iconography, could partially hit the truth when he remarked in the same context, "There are also half a dozen scenes that can be identified with more or less certainty as representing events in the life of Śākyamuni"; but his statement that there is "a considerable number of representations of scenes in domestic life, regarding which it will probably be impossible ever to feel sure that we know who the actors in them are,"¹ has been modified to a great extent in the light of subsequent research.

c8.4

¹ Grünwedel, *Buddhist Art in India*, p. 1. But he seems to have gone too far when he remarks in the same place that "the architecture as well as the sculpture (of India), which has always been intimately connected therewith, was never and nowhere employed for secular purposes." That there certainly flourished a well-developed secular art, which was mainly utilised in the building of royal palaces and in the construction of cities and forts, etc., is clearly vouchsafed not only by the indigenous literary texts, but also by the accounts left by foreign travellers in ancient and mediaeval India. Again, the art of sculpture was employed in the execution of royal statuaries which, though at times endowed with some sacred character, were mainly secular ones.

c8.5

² Foucher, *The Beginnings of Buddhist Art*, Ch. I, pp. 10-13; pl. 1.

c8.6

¹ J. Fergusson, *Tree and Serpent Worship in Ancient India*, 2nd ed., p. 104.

c8.7

The study of this subject also throws some interesting sidelight on the presence of rivalry and jealousy between diverse Indian sects. In the whole history of religious developments in India, there might not have been many instances of intense hatred and violent strife between the members of rival sects as are to be found in the religious history of Europe.¹ But these sectarian animosities of the Indians found vent through the milder channel of concoction of mythological stories and construction of interesting images in illustration thereof. Thus, the story about Śiva having incarnated himself as Śarabha for the chastisement of Narasimha (an incarnatory form of Viṣṇu, itself an outcome of sectarian rivalry—Hiraṇyakaśipu, an ardent devotee of Śiva, was killed by Viṣṇu in this hybrid form, on account of his bitter denunciation and cruel persecution of his own son who was an exclusive worshipper of Hari) was illustrated by the peculiar image of Śarabha, none other than Śiva himself in the composite form of man, bird and beast, killing Narasimha with his claws. In the creation of many other images, this characteristic mode of giving vent to sectarian ill-feeling is clearly discernible. Just the opposite tendency is to be marked in the case of other icons which illustrate genuine attempts towards a reconciliation between the principal rival sects. The images of Hari-Hara, Ardhanārīśvara and such others can be distinctly shown to bear traces of this different mental approach to religious problems. In the collection of the Indian Museum, Calcutta, there are several sculptures which emphasise this peculiarity; on the four sides of roughly square Śiva-liṅgas are carved the figures of Viṣṇu, Durgā-Pārvatī, Sūrya and Gaṇapati, which four, along with the central liṅga, symbolise the cult pictures of the five principal sects, viz., Vaiṣṇava, Śākta, Saura, Gāṇapatya and Śaiva. Miniature shrines, with the representations of these chief sectarian gods carved on their different sides, mostly of early and late mediaeval period, have been discovered in various places of northern India, especially at Banaras which has been the happy home of the different Hindu sects from remote past. These emblems are evidently the objects of worship of the Smārtas who are eclectic in their religious concepts. Guided mainly by the rules laid down in the Smṛtis like those of Manu and Yājñavalkya, they worship the five cult deities (pañcopāsanā, pañcāyatana pūjā). Spirit of reconciliation and rapprochement between the different sects is present behind this sort of mental attitude in religion. A brief reference may also be made in this connection to at least one of the Brahmanical Hindu icon types where even distinct traces of Buddhist iconic motif are discernible. A very favourite mode of representing Lakulīśa in eastern India (especially Orissa) is to show him as Buddha in the great miracle of Śrāvastī. Like the latter, he is seated on a double-petalled lotus being raised up by two Nāga kings, and his hands are in the dharma-cakra mudrā. In some reliefs, even the two deer and the wheel (dharma-cakra) are carved on the pedestal. This is a sure sign of Buddhism and its art motifs being absorbed by the rival creed. Many other cases of this cult amalgam and absorption can be cited.

c8.8

¹ But reference may be made to the story of the impalement of the Jainas through the efforts of a renowned Śaiva saint of Southern India, viz., Tirujñāna-sambandha; a less known era used to be current among the Śaivas there, the initial year of which dated from this event.

c8.9

The importance of the study of this subject can also be rightly emphasised from the point of view of its association with artistic studies. Many images of the gods and goddesses are in themselves great works of art, and a proper and careful study of these will enable students of iconography to acquaint themselves with the general character of the artistic achievements of different races. The excellence or decadence of art in particular localities in different periods can be easily demonstrated with the help of images found in those places. The study of a Buddha image of Sarnath belonging to the fifth or sixth century A.D. or a Brahmanical or Buddhist bronze or stone image of Magadha or Bengal of the early Pāla period would not fail to impress on the student of iconography the flourishing nature of the iconoplastic art in those places, at different times. Similarly, a Buddhist or Brahmanical stone image from Bengal of the late Sena period will throw light on the artistic decadence which had already set in there. Thus, these images form the true index of the achievements in the domain of religious art and are, in this manner, very interesting aids to the study of the artistic activities of particular races.

c8.10

Sculptures or images are sometimes indirectly very useful for shedding light on obscure periods of political or general history of India. The inscriptions which are sometimes carved on their pedestals contain in many cases the names not only of their donors, but also of those of the sovereigns during whose reign these were constructed; on some of them again, we can decipher dates which materially help us in the reconstruction of little known periods of history. These images are very often definitely illustrative of the general cultural level of their makers; they are also at times clear indicators of the social traits of the people who made and worshipped them. The conception underlying them illustrate, too, in a remarkable manner the inner workings of the human mind, and a proper and scientific study of their different groups very often acquaints us with the psychological factors which lay at the origin and evolution of these images.

c8.11.1

The importance of this branch of study having been emphasised in the previous paragraphs, it is necessary to take stock of the different materials which are required for its prosecution. The first and foremost data to be utilised in this connection are evidently of monumental or archaeological character. The extant images or sculptures themselves are to be closely studied by every student of this subject in order to acquire proficiency in it. By a proper and scientific study of them, it will be possible for us not only to trace the gradual evolution of the art of image-making and the practice of worshipping these images, but also to classify them satisfactorily in ordered groups and understand the underlying peculiarities of the constituents of each of these groups. Besides the images proper, reliefs carved on sections of religious architecture or figures appearing on extant painted frescoes and such other objects, are important data in this connection. Two other archaeological data which have been practically ignored by most of the previous writers on Brahmanical Hindu iconography, but which are extremely important for its study, are of epigraphic and numismatic character. Foucher and Coomaraswamy have no doubt utilised these sources in their scholarly works on Indian art and iconography; but few writers on Brahmanical iconography have cared to avail themselves of these materials.

c8.11.2

Figures of divinities on the coins of particular localities belonging to different periods will indicate the manner of their representation that was in vogue in different times and places. It is very often the case that we do not light upon comparatively early specimens of images in various localities of northern India; in such cases, the coins discovered in those places are sure to help us in a very remarkable manner to determine the early iconographic types of various gods and goddesses worshipped there. It is needless to remark further that these numismatic depictions of deities are in many cases really based on the actual sculptural representations of them. Where both the early sculptural type and its numismatic counterpart are extant, we do not fail to find very close parallelism. Thus, the figure of Buddha belonging to the second century A.D. is well represented in plastic form among the Gandhāra sculptures; when we compare it with the numismatic type appearing on the coins of Kanishka and clearly described by the Kushan die-cutter as CAKAYMO BOΔΔO (Śākyamuni Buddha), we are struck by the great similarity between these two. The figure of a Śiva or a Mahāsena has not so far been discovered among the extant Gandhāra sculptures of the second or the third century A.D.;

c8.11.3

but when we find the devices on certain coins of Kanishka and Huvishka delineating the features of either of these divinities definitely described by the die-cutters as such, it will not at all be presumptuous to conclude that these forms are some of those in which the two abovenamed gods used to be plastically represented during the period. It will then be interesting to compare their early features with the peculiar traits of the extant icons of a later period. We find the figure of an enthroned deity, with the figure of an elephant or the forepart of an elephant with its trunk upraised in front of it, on some coins of Eukratides, Antialkidas and certain other Indo-Greek rulers; on a particular coin-type of Antialkidas, we find the same deity walking by the side of the elephant striding to right with its trunk upraised. On some coins of Maues the same god seated on throne is shown to place his hand on the head of the personified vajra (thunderbolt). It has been proved by me that these coin-devices are nothing but the various ways of representing Indra (very easily identified by the Greeks with their Zeus) who was the tutelary deity of Śvetavatālaya or Indrapura, a locality in the neighbourhood of ancient Kapiśā, on the basis of certain observations of Hiuen Tsang and an explicit statement in the Mahāmāyūrī.¹ This point can be substantiated further by a reference to the coin-types of the Greek city-states;

c8.11.4

these, when they represented different Hellenic divinities like Zeus, Heracles, Pallas Athene, Artemis, Nike and others, were actually based on their sculptural representations current in those localities. In many cases they were tutelary deities and cult divinities of such city-states, and they made their appearance as such on the coins.² In an opposite manner, the devices appearing on the earliest indigenous coins of India shed a flood of light on the problem of symbolic representations of gods and goddesses. Coomaraswamy, while referring to the number of symbols (rūpa) appearing on the punch-marked coins "in general use from about 600 B.C. up to the beginning of the Kushan period or somewhat later," makes the following interesting observation, ". . . the importance of these symbols, many of which have remained in use to the present day, lies in the fact that they represent a definite early Indian style, amounting to an explicit iconography.”¹

c8.12

¹ Indian Historical Quarterly, 1938, Vol. XIV, pp. 293-308.

c8.13

² Not to speak of very well-known examples, we can refer to the coin-types of two inland Cretan cities of Rhaucus and Sybrita. The former state had a cult of Poseidon Hippios. "The god holding a trident stands beside his horse"; Dionysus and Hermes were the gods of Sybrita and appeared as obverse and reverse devices of her coins: C. Seltman, Greek Coins, p. 173.

c8.14

¹ Coomaraswamy, *History of Indian and Indonesian Art*, pp. 44, 45.

c8.15

Inscriptions, too, in a remarkable manner, serve as important data for the study of iconography. Many of these not only inform us about the peculiarities of religious cults with which, as we have seen above, our subject is intimately associated, but also record the erection of shrines and construction of images of divinities to be enshrined in them. On some rare occasions, they even contain rough descriptions of the iconographic features of the deities, the erection of whose shrines is being recorded in them. The so-called Ghosundi inscription of the second century B.C. refers to the erection of a *pūjā-śilā-prākāra* round the shrines of Saṃkarṣaṇa and Vāsudeva, which presumably contained the images of these gods. Many and various are the Gupta epigraphic records which refer to the creation of shrines of such divinities as Bhavānī, Kātyāyanī, Śiva, Svāmī-Mahāsena, Viṣṇu-Śārṅgin, Buddha, Mahāvīra and others; sometimes there are passages or epithets contained in them, which give us a fairly accurate description of these gods and goddesses. Again, the seals which were impressed on the copper-plate records of rulers responsible for issuing those charters often contain the representations of various religious objects which were specially used by different sovereigns as their respective royal insignia (*mudrā*). Thus, the imperial Gupta ruler Samudragupta, who seems to have been a devout worshipper of Viṣṇu, used Garuḍa as his special *rājāṅka* (royal mark or emblem) on his charters, as we know from a passage in the Allahabad pillar inscription (*Garutmadaṅka-svaviṣayabhukti-śāsanayācanādyupāya-sevākṛta*); we know this Garuḍa-emblem being depicted on most of the gold and silver coins of the imperial Guptas. The Pāla rulers of Bengal and Magadha who were *Paramasaugatas*, i.e., devout worshippers of the Buddha, used the symbol representing the preaching of the first sermon by the Master as their royal insignia, and we very often find this characteristic scene represented in their various charters. The copper-plate grants of the Sena rulers of Bengal, on the other hand, bear in many cases the figure of the god Sadāśiva who was their patron deity and who was utilised as their royal insignia. Again, on rare occasions, the outlines of the figure of some deity can be found on the uninscribed portion of a particular copper-plate charter; thus, the copper-plate grant of Mahāsāmanta Śrīmad Dommana-Pāla, who was a local ruler of Southern Bengal, contains a very beautiful outline drawing of Nārāyaṇa-Viṣṇu riding on a chariot and his bird Garuḍa on its reverse side; the iconographic details are interesting.¹ Many and various such instances can be cited, which will prove how the extant epigraphic records furnish us with interesting and significant materials for the study of our subject.

c8.16

¹ The copper-plate grant is in the collection of the Asutosh Museum, Calcutta University. It was discovered in the Sunderbans, and presented to the Asutosh Museum by Mr. Devaprasad Ghosh, its Curator.

c8.17

The second, though hardly less important, class of materials for the study of our subject is of literary character. These data can be subdivided into various groups. Among them mention may first be made of the general literature of the Indians, both of early and late periods. Their earliest extant literature, the Ṛgveda, as I shall show fully in the next chapter, contains some very interesting details, of negative as well as positive character, which will help one to elucidate various points connected with the subject. Not only the general problem of the origin and development of the practice of image-worship among the higher section of the Indo-Aryans is to be discussed on the basis of the evidence supplied to us by this and other early Vedic literature, but also the basic similarity of the later iconographic conceptions of many Hindu deities with the anthropomorphic and sometimes theriomorphic details of their Vedic counterparts is to be emphasised with the help of the early and late Vedic texts. A careful handling of this material will show the significant connection between the Vedic anthropomorphism and subsequent iconism. Several passages of the early Vedic literature, when read between the lines, will enable us to-know something about the peculiar religious practices of the original settlers of India, which will throw light on our subject. The Gṛhya sūtras, the grammatical works of the pre-Christian period, and the dharma- and the artha-śāstras of early date incidentally throw interesting sidelights on this topic. Early literary records of religious systems like Buddhism and Jainism contain incidental references to the religious practices of the Hindus, which will be specially useful for our study. Epic and purāṇic texts of early and late period, are of pre-eminent importance in this connection; the wealth of mythological lore contained in them requires to be very carefully studied, in order that we may interpret the significance of various carvings, frescoes and such other objects. As a thorough acquaintance with the early and late Buddhist records enables a student of the Buddhist iconography to understand the meaning of various carvings belonging to early and late Buddhist art, so the innumerable legends incorporated in the above class of Brahmanical literature will help us to throw clear light on the Brahmanical art of different periods. In fact, the study of the mythology of a people is essential for the understanding of its religious art, and the importance of that class of its literature which is the repository of such mythological materials can never be over-estimated. Again, incidental iconographic descriptions of divine figures contained in many sections of epic and purāṇic literature, as also iconographic and iconometric canons appearing in some of the early and late purāṇas, are of immense value, nay indispensable, for a proper study of our subject. Another class of literature which throws casual light upon some aspects of our subject is the accounts of foreign travellers who make interesting observations on particular religious practices of the people of India.

c8.18

But the foremost place among the literary data for the study of our subject must be given to the iconographic and iconometric texts which have got a direct bearing on it.

c8.19

This great mass of literature took centuries to attain its present shape, and some idea about its vastness may be hinted by remarking that what is left to us is only a portion of what was actually composed in course of ages. These canons are really the results of the accumulated experience of generations of artists whose business was to construct these images. The Indians of ancient times possessed a common trait of character, which led them to incorporate their own independent achievements into systems and to merge their own individuality in greater corporate wholes, in order that their own experiences in particular fields of knowledge might have greater authority and sanctity to rest upon. Thus, to refer to one outstanding example in the domain of literary composition, it is a well-known fact that the whole of the present *Mahābhārata* was not composed in one period and by one particular individual. Still, as early as the sixth and seventh centuries A.D., it had attained the character of an epic system, the credit for the elaboration of which was given to a mythical sage, *viz.*, Vyāsa. True it is that some late purāṇic texts like the *Devībhāgavata* allude to not one but as many as twenty-eight Vyāsas;¹ most of these, however, are mythical figures, and it is significant to note that the work in its characteristic manner actually refers to a system or institution typified by the mythical sage Vyāsa who, under different names and as different incarnations of Viṣṇu in 28 successive *dvāpara* ages, was responsible for the composition of the Vedas, *Mahābhārata*, the Purāṇas, etc. In fact, the word *vyāsa* primarily means arranger or compiler, and in a secondary sense it means explainer or expounder. Similarly, as regards the iconographic and iconometric texts, it must be observed that attempts were made to systematise this floating mass of canons which were the direct outcome of the activities of the image-making artists themselves and were passed off in the names of such mythical sages as some of the seven *ṛṣis*, like Bhṛgu, Atri and Vaśiṣṭha, or legendary artists like Viśvakarmā and Maya.¹ The Matsya-purāṇa refers to eighteen expounders of the Vāstuśāstras, among whom mention may be made of Vasiṣṭha, Viśvakarmā, Maya, Nagnajit, Garga and Bṛhaspati.² The Mānasāra (to be noticed later) mentions as many as 32 expounders of this subject, the list here containing additional names such as Manu, Nala, Mānasāra, Mānabodha and others; that the list is a corrupt one can be proved by the fact that in some cases there is difficulty in understanding whether the names are of persons or titles of works, while in others we find a name and its various synonyms being utilised to enlarge it. The Bṛhatsaṃhitā (LII, 1) tells us that the knowledge of the Vāstuśāstras came to be imparted through generations of artists from Brahmā, the creator (Vāstujñānamathātaḥ Kamalabhavānmuniparamparāyātam), and Utpala, while commenting on it, says that the word ‘sages’ refers to Garga and others (Kamalabhavād Brahmaṇaḥ sakāśānmunīnāṃ Gargādīnāṃ yat pāramparyeṇa yātaṃ prāptamiti). The Mānasāra further elaborates the tradition and gives a mythical account of the origin of the various kinds of artists (śilpin) in its section of Śilpilakṣaṇa. Brahmā, the creator by the grace of Śiva, is the Mahāviśvakarmā; his four faces are named Viśvabhū (the eastern), Viśvavid (the southern), Viśvastha (the northern) and Viśvasraṣṭā (the western); from the east face was born Viśvakarmā, from the south Maya, from the north face Tvaṣṭā, and from the west Manu; Viśvakarmā, Maya, Tvaṣṭā and Manu married the respective daughters of Indra, Surendra, Vaiśravaṇa and Nala and became the fathers of Sthapati (architect), Sūtragrāhī (the draughtsman-designer), Varddhaki (well-versed in the law of proportions,

c8.20

¹ *Devībhāgavatam*, Vangavasi Edition, Bk. I, Chapter 3, verses 26-33. Some of these names such as Svayambhū, Prajāpati, Uśanas, Bṛhaspati, Savitṛ, Yama, Maghavan, Vaśiṣṭha, Sārasvata and others are significant.

c8.21

¹ The names of these Sapta Ṛṣis are invoked in various connections. They were the same as the Citra-Śikhaṇḍins who were the earliest and best promulgators of the Bhāgavata lore according to the Nārāyaṇīya section of the Mahābhārata.

c8.22

² Matsya-purāṇam, Vangavasi Edition, Ch. 252, verses 2-4 :—

c8.23

Bhr̥guratrirvasiṣṭhaśca Viśvakarmā Mayastathā |
Nārado Nagnajiccaiva Viśālākṣaḥ Purandaraḥ ||
Brahmā Kumāro Nandīśaḥ Śaunako Garga eva ca |
Vāsudevo'niruddhaśca tathā Śukra-Bṛhaspati
Aṣṭādaśaite vikhyātā Vāstuśāstropadeśakāḥ ||

c8.24

the painter) and Takṣaka (the engraver, the stone-mason, etc.), respectively. Of these four, the position of the first, i.e., the Sthapati, was the most important, and he was the teacher of the other three; the next in point of importance was Sūtragrāhī who was the preceptor of the remaining two, and so on. The first was well-versed in all the śāstras, the Sūtragrāhī in draughtsmanship, the Varddhaki in the rules of proportions (mānakarmajña) and the Takṣaka was an adept in chiselling and engraving.¹ The very name Sthapati shows that he was fit for founding everything (sthāpanāyā-rhaḥ), and as he was sthāpanādhipati, so he was called Sthapati; Sūtragrāhī and others always worked carefully under his orders and according to rules laid down in the Vāstuśāstras. There are four orders of śilpīs, viz., Sthapati and the other three; of these the first is characterised by the signs of an ācārya, the second is well-informed about śruti, the lines and the śāstras, the third is the possessor of good judgment, versed in the śrutis and citrakarma (work of painting, etc.), while the last, that is, Takṣaka, is adept in his work, cultured, balabandhu ² and merciful. The śrutiśāstra (treatises about śilpa, māna, etc.) should be full of all details (sarvalakṣaṇam), and that cannot be acquired in this world by anybody without the help of an artist or a preceptor (vinā śilpi vinā gurum); as the knowledge of this śāstra is unobtainable without the aid of a śilpin, it should be learnt from him. If the knowledge thus acquired is not put to any use, (its possessor) attains neither enjoyment nor salvation. The above, a free translation of Mānasāra (Acharya's edition), pp. 3-4, verses 1-19, shows how the author systematises the tradition about the origin and evolution of art through some mythical names, making it contemporaneous with creation itself. The other interesting point to be noted here is the relative importance which is assigned by the writer to the four different orders of artists and the highest position allocated to the architect. Scholars have always observed how the architectural art was the most important branch of all arts in ancient and mediaeval India; thus Grünwedel remarks, "The sculpture of ancient India . . . remained simply decorative and always connected with architecture" (*Buddhist Art*, pp. 1-2). Coomaraswamy says, "In the Gupta period the image has taken its place in architecture; becoming necessary, it loses its importance, and enters into the general decorative scheme, and in this integration acquires delicacy and repose" (*HIIA*, p. 71). In the above passages from *Mānasāra* we have a textual corroboration of what was known from a careful study of the ancient and mediaeval Indian art forms. It is to be noted, however, that in later period the art of sculpture asserted itself to a great extent. Resting as before on architectural art for its greater display, it became so profuse and abundant that it tended to smother and overshadow the lines and forms in architecture. This tendency is amply illustrated in the mediaeval temples of Abu and other places.

c8.25

¹ Acharya, Mānasāra, Chapter 2, vv. 5-9; on other occasions the author refers to his predecessors; Ch. 1, v. 2; Ch. 70, v. 58.

c8.26

² The word balabandhu has not been translated by me. In the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa Balabandhu is the name of one of the sons of Manu Raivata; in the Vāyu Purāṇa, a son of Bhṛgu in the 10th Dvāpara is known by the same name.

c8.27.1

The *Vāstuśāstra* or the science of architecture and allied arts is dwelt upon in the *Matsya-purāṇa* just prior to its treatment of the iconographic and iconometric canons, and the names of some expounders are similar to those of a few of the reputed authors of treatises on *Pratimālakṣaṇa* and *Citralakṣaṇa*. Thus, Varāhamihira, in Chapter 57 of his *Bṛhatsaṃhitā* (Sudhakar Dvivedi's edition), while dealing with the characteristic signs of images and their measurements, incidentally refers to a few other writers on this subject like Nagnajit and Vasiṣṭha who, as we have seen above, are included among the 18 *Vāstuśāstropadeśakas*. Nagnajit has been cited by him twice and Vasiṣṭha once and Bhaṭṭa Utpala, the commentator of the *Bṛhatsaṃhitā*, actually quotes passages from the works of these two previous writers in support of his author. This proves that, however mythical might be the nature of these names, śilpa treatises actually passed current in their names at a comparatively early period; otherwise Utpala, who flourished in the tenth century A.D., could not have quoted passages from them. The art treatise, entitled *Citralakṣaṇa* (now to be had only in its Tibetan version—its Sanskrit original not being available), which has been edited by Laufer, is ascribed to this Nagnajit; it, as has been remarked by the learned editor, is sometimes referred to as *Nagnajiccitralakṣaṇam* or simply as *Nagnavratam*.

c8.27.2

Nagnajit was probably also the author of a work, *Pratimālakṣaṇa* by name. While commenting on verse 15 of Chapter 57 of the *Bṛhatsaṃhitā*, the first line of which runs, "*Āsyaṃ sakeśanicayaṃ ṣoḍaśa dairghyeṇa Nagnajitproktam*," Utpala makes this interesting comment, "*Nagnajitproktam Pratimālakṣaṇe āsyaṃ mukhaṃ sakeśanicayaṃ ṣoḍaśāṅgulāni*"; or this *Pratimālakṣaṇa* might have been simply a section of his other work just mentioned. Further, there were other such works passing current in the names of such mythical sages as Kāśyapa and Agastya, or legendary artists like Viśvakarmā and Maya. Utpala quotes extensively from Kāśyapa in his commentary, while many iconographic and iconometric texts passing current in the south pass in the names of both these mythical sages. The *śilpaśāstra* ascribed to Kāśyapa is called the *Kāśyapīya*, known also as the *Aṃśumadbheda* (or rather forming a part of the *Aṃśumadbheda*).¹ Agastya is the reputed author of the work entitled *Sakalādhikāra* about which Ram Raz makes this interesting observation: "the portion of the work which has as yet come under my own observation, is exclusively on the subject of sculpture as connected with the formation of statues;

c8.27.3

but it is so diffuse that if we suppose the whole work to be written in a similar style it must considerably exceed the volume of *Mānasāra*, the largest at present of my collection".² A large volume of texts dealing with architecture and allied arts passing current in the name of Maya and edited by T. Ganapati Sastri in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series fully justifies the remarks made above. Many other texts like *Viśvakarmāvatāraśāstra* contain ample materials for the study of this subject, and Gopinath Rao rendered a first-rate service to all its students by partially editing relevant portions of them as appendices to his monumental work on Hindu Iconography, when many of them had not been published. Mention may be made here of many other *śilpa* works, most of which have not yet been edited, while others are known only from quotations in various known *śilpa* treatises. Acharya mentions *Sanatkumāra Vāstuśāstra*, which is known to exist in manuscripts mostly fragmentary. The author of this text owns his indebtedness to *Pūrvācāryas* like Candra, Yama, Bhṛgu, Aṅgiras, Vyāsa, Manu and others. A *Sārasvatīya-śilpaśāstra* is referred to in Aufrecht's *Catalogus Catalogorum* (Vol. I, p. 714).

c8.27.4

Hemādri quotes from one *Aparājita-pṛcchā* which may be the same as *Aparājita-vāstuśāstra* attributed to Viśvakarmā, one of the 18 authors mentioned above.¹ Extensive anthological works containing texts on architecture, iconography (dealing with the construction of images belonging not only to Brahmanical Hinduism but also to the rival creeds of Buddhism and Jainism), iconometry, and the allied arts of bronze-casting and painting were composed, and mention can be made of one such work, *viz.*, *Mānasāra*, referred to above, which has been already edited by P. K. Acharya. The name of another such work, though in a less comprehensive scale, can be alluded to here, and it has been edited in the Gaekwad Oriental Series; this is *Mānasollāsa*, which is itself a part of *Abhilaṣitārtha-cintāmaṇi*, a bigger anthology dealing with various topics, said to have been compiled by the Cālukya king Someśvaradeva who flourished in the 12th century A.D. King Bhoja of Dhara, who flourished a century earlier, is the reputed author of the Samarāṅgana-sūtradhara, a work mainly on architecture. Extensive collections of such and other allied texts have been edited by Ganapati Sastri in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, and they are entitled Mayamata of Mayamuni (already mentioned) and Śilparatna of Śrīkumāra which were originally written in Malayalam script.

c8.28

¹ It has been edited in the Anandasram Sanskrit Series, Poona.

c8.29

² Ram Raz, *Essay on the Architecture of the Hindus*, p. 8.

c8.30

¹ *Devatāmūrti-prakaraṇam*, Introduction, pp. 12-15. The writer of the introduction refers to numbers of other texts whose *śilpa* character cannot be definitely demonstrated. Ram Raz's remarks on the *śilpaśāstras* of the Hindus are worth quoting in this connection: "It is true that the Hindus were in possession of numerous treatises on architecture, sculpture, etc., which collectively are called the *Śilpaśāstra* but unfortunately few traces of them remain. There appears to have been, according to some, 32 and according to others 64, standard treatises on the above-mentioned arts. In a series of memorial verses prescribed among the artists are recorded the names of the authors or titles of the above-mentioned 64 treatises. Of these 32 are *mukhya*, the others are *upa* or subordinate."

c8.31

But, in most cases the original sources of these anthologies on religious art are to be sought in the numbers of Saṃhitās, Āgamas and Tantras, associated with one or other of the principal Brahmanical sects. These religious treatises, belonging to the Pāñcarātra (Vaiṣṇava) and Śaiva systems, are usually divided into four parts, technically known as pādas, each of which deals with one or other of the topics, viz., Caryā, Kriyā, Yoga and Jñāna. The first part dealt with the rules of conduct to be adopted and actions to be performed by the individual aspirant after salvation; the second one, with the varieties of ‘making’, which meant everything connected with the construction of temples and images; the third, with concentration; all three of which, if properly and systematically worked out, would lead to the attainment of true knowledge, the resultant of which would be salvation. We are here concerned with the second part, viz., kriyāpāda, which is admittedly one of the most important and voluminous sections of these sectarian treatises. Schrader rightly remarks, “ Very few Saṃhitās (Pāñcarātra) seem to have actually consisted of these four sections :...The proportion of interest shown for each of the four branches seems to be well illustrated by Padma Tantra in the edition of which the Jñānapāda occupies 45 pages, the Yogapāda 11 pages, the Kriyāpāda 215 pages and the Caryāpāda 376 pages. The practical part, Kriyā and Caryā, is the favourite subject, the rest being treated as a rule by way of introduction or digression.”¹ Thus, many of the Pāñcarātra and Śaiva Saṃhitās and Āgamas came to contain important sections dealing with elaborate rules about the construction of temples and images which were regarded as practical guides by numbers of sectarian devotees. This class of literature may conveniently be compared with portions of the Brāhmaṇa literature which were principally concerned with laying down meticulously details for the correct performance of different Vedic sacrifices. Gopinath Rao mainly drew from the Kriyāpāda of the Pāñcarātra Vaikhānāsāgama in order to explain the various characteristic features of the Vaiṣṇava images in his work, and he utilised the relevant sections of such Śaiva Āgamas as Suprabheda, Kiraṇa, Kāmika and Amśumadbheda, for throwing light on the Śaiva icons. The Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra, not yet critically edited, contains very elaborate details of this nature. A full and critical edition of this work will throw a flood of light on the different branches of Brahmanical Hindu Iconography.

c8.32

¹ Schrader, Introduction to the Pāñcarātra, p. 22.

c8.33

Reference has already been made to the Purāṇic literature, a study of which is essential for proficiency in Brahmanical Iconography. It is not only the mythological lore contained in them which is indispensable for a thorough acquaintance with our subject, but indispensable is also the multitude of iconographic and iconometric canons found in such Purāṇas and Upapurāṇas of early and late periods as Matsya, Agni, Padma, Viṣṇudharmottara, etc. Many of these Purāṇas, though they profess generally to deal with the five principal topics of Purāṇic lore, namely, sarga, pratisarga, vaṃśa, manvantara and vaṃśānucarita, associate themselves prominently with one or other of the few principal sects and contain elaborate details about pratimālakṣaṇa (sometimes described as devatārccānukīrtana), pratiṣṭhāvidhi (the exact method of the installation of images), devagṛhanirmāṇam (construction of temples), etc. Sometimes, a very close similarity is clearly discernible between one or other of such texts and those of the same nature appearing in the relevant sections of particular Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās; this probably signifies that the former borrowed from the latter or both drew from the same source. Thus, comparison of the chapters on Bhūparigraha in connection with the Pratiṣṭhā ceremony and the other chapters on *Pātālayoga*, *Prāsādalakṣaṇam*, *Pratimālakṣaṇam*, etc., of the *Agnipurāṇa* with the similar chapters in the *Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra* fully shows that the compiler of this section of the *Agnipurāṇa* condensed much that was in the latter work. It must be said to his credit that he shows his indebtedness to the Pāñcarātra text by introducing his essay with these words, ‘*Hayaśīrṣaḥ pratiṣṭhārtham devānām Brahmaṇe*’ *bravīt*.’¹ In most cases, these topics are incorporated in the general body of the Purāṇas as replies to the questions of the sages put to Sūta, as most of the other topics in them are introduced. But in rare instances, the usual order is changed . . . . Thus, the *Viṣṇudharmottara*, which contains the fullest details among the Purāṇic literature not only on iconography and iconometry but also on painting and architecture, introduces them by way of questions and answers between the sage Mārkaṇḍeya and the king Vajra (a sagotra of Kṛṣṇa and a son of Aniruddha), when the latter is the interlocutor and the former, the expounder. This Upa-purāṇa, occasionally given out as a part of the *Garuḍapurāṇa* and quoted repeatedly by Alberuni as the ‘*Viṣṇudharma*,’ is a very useful work of an encyclopaedic character; Section III of it treats of the canons for the construction of temples and images and of the rules for painting, and other fine arts.

c8.34

¹ This fact has not been noticed by the editor of *Devatāmūrtiprakaraṇam* (Calcutta Sanskrit Series).

c8.35

Iconographic and iconometric texts were also allotted some place in some authoritative early Indian works on astronomy and Nītiśāstra. Mention has already been made of one chapter in the *Bṛhatsaṃhitā* of Varāhamihira which deals with iconography and iconometry; there are two other chapters, one on the installation of images, and the other on the selection of material for the construction of images (Chap. 58, *Vanasampraveśādhyāya*, and Chap. 59, *Pratiṣṭhāvidhi*, in Dvivedi’s edition), which have got an important bearing on studies in Indian Iconology, and which will be discussed in their proper place. All these chapters, with Bhaṭṭa Utpala’s valuable commentary on them, are very important for our purpose, because in them we find iconographic data which can be dated with some certainty. As regards the iconographic matter in the Nītiśāstras, we may refer to the Śukranītisāra, Chap. IV, section IV of which is of immense value to all students of the religious art of India.

c8.36

Of the many and various omnibus works, generally belonging to the category of Smṛtis compiled at a much later date, mention may be made of the Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi from the pen of the great compiler Hemādri. The Vratakhaṇḍa of this monumental work contains numerous extracts dealing with the iconographic features of a really formidable host of gods and goddesses belonging to the pantheon of different Brahmanical cults. Hemādri's compilation is extremely interesting and helpful not only from the point of view of its supplying us with such details about less known members of the Hindu pantheon, but also on account of his mentioning almost invariably the sources from which he has quoted. This last fact enables us to compare the extracts with the passage in their original setting, wherever the original source is extant. Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, in his Haribhaktivilāsa, followed in the lines of Hemādri; but as he was preeminently a Vaiṣṇava, the divinities whose iconographic details he incorporated in his work were chiefly connected with Vaiṣṇavism. The last three vilāsas (18-20) of his book deal with the construction of images, their installation, various rituals connected with them, the building of temples, etc. Like Hemādri he not only quotes from such previous works as the Matsya, Agni, Viṣṇudharmottara and other Purāṇas, but also very frequently utilises the Pāñcarātra text Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra. As the last has not yet been critically edited, extensive quotations from this unpublished work furnish us with materials of an authoritative character, and we can check the readings of the manuscripts of this Pāñcarātra text with the help of these extracts. Another work of such a character is Tantrasāra of Kṛṣṇānanda Āgamavāgīśa, which contains extensive quotations from various Tantras like Rudrayāmala, Brahmayāmala, Kubjikāmata, Śāradātilaka and others; many of these contain the dhyānas of Tāntric gods and goddesses, which help to explain their iconographic features.

c8.37

Several works attributed to Maṇḍana, the son of Śrīkṣetra, both of whom flourished in Mewar during the reign of Mahārāṇā Kumbha, are of great importance in this respect. Maṇḍana, a reputed artist of his age, had his own statue as well as those of his two sons Jaita and Saita carved in relief inside the dhvaja-stambha raised under the orders of the said Mahārāṇā, his patron, in honour of the great god Samiddheśvara Śiva whose temple was erected by Rāṇā Mokal near by at Chitorgaḍ. Maṇḍana is said to have composed or compiled several works on art and architecture, two of which are specially connected with our subject. These are Devatāmūrti-prakaraṇa and Rūpamaṇḍana, both of which have been edited in the Calcutta Sanskrit Series (No. XII). These two texts are evident compilations, the first one mainly drawing from South Indian works like Mayamata and Śilparatna referred to above; the author of the introduction to this edition has carefully noted the borrowings not only from these but also from such Purāṇas as Matsya, Brahma, Padma, Skanda and Viṣṇudharmottara, etc., in Chapter V of the Introduction. Another interesting fact to be noted in this connection is that, of these two works, Rūpamaṇḍana seems to be the more authoritative one as materials from it were freely utilised in the other text.

First 44 of 76 passages. Read on

Linked texts (36)