The Development of Hindu Iconography c8.2

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.