The Development of Hindu Iconography c8.49

Language: English

c8.49.1

It is necessary here to discuss briefly the question of the universal or regional character of the texts in relation to the images discovered in various localities of India. Gopinath Rao, while discussing this question, makes this general observation, “From the uniformity observable everywhere throughout India in the arrangement, say, of the individual figures belonging to a subject, it is clear that the rules laid down in the Āgamas and Tantras have had a very general application.”² He further remarks, “The same rules having been obeyed everywhere in the matter of making images, it is no wonder that the same results have been produced by artists belonging to all parts of the country in so far as the art is apt to be bound down by rules.” But, are the rules same everywhere, and are the results obtained by the artists of different parts of India always the same? No doubt Rao notes some difference in the images belonging to the various parts of the country; but this, according to him, is “only observable in the outline of the feature and the details of ornamentation.” The quotation, “*Deśānurūpabhūṣaṇaveśālaṅkāramūrtibhiḥ kāryā | Pratimā lakṣaṇayuktā sannihitā vṛddhidā bhavati*”, from the *Bṛhatsaṃhitā* of Varāhamihira in his support is apt. But in many cases difference lay deeper than that.

c8.49.2

The treatment of the same type of an image of a divinity can be shown to differ in essential features in widely different regions of India, and variant iconographic texts can be utilised to explain them. It has been shown already how the Vaikhānasaāgama description of the Dhruva-beras of Viṣṇu closely tallies with the fairly early Viṣṇuite images of the South. But few are the Viṣṇu images of northern India which can be explained by the same text. In the south Indian images of Viṣṇu, his two invariable attendant consorts (except in the Yoga varieties) are Śrīdevī and Bhūdevī holding, besides a fly-whisk, a lotus and a blue-lotus respectively; this characteristic has its textual basis in the Vaikhānasa. But the north Indian varieties of Viṣṇu images, on the other hand, have almost invariably Śrī and Puṣṭi or Sarasvatī holding a lotus and a lute in their respective hands; this particular feature of theirs corresponds to the descriptions of such images given in the Matsya, Agni and Kālikā Purāṇas. The Matsya text lays down that Śrī and Puṣṭi holding lotuses should be made by the side of Viṣṇu (Śrīśca puṣṭiśca kartavye pārśvayoḥ padmasaṃyute: Matsya, 258. 15); the Kālikāpurāṇa says that Śrī should be made to appear on his right while Sarasvatī on his left (dadhānam dakṣiṇe devīṃ Śriyam pārśve tu bibhratam | Sarasvatīm vāmapārśve......); the Agnipurāṇa text, however, closely fits with the actual images when it definitely lays down Śrīpuṣṭī cāpi kartavye padmavīṇākarānvite |

c8.49.3

Urumātrocchritāyāme... i.e., “Śrī and Puṣṭi holding a lotus flower and a lute respectively in their hands and shown up to the thigh of the main image in their height should be carved on either side of the figure of Viṣṇu” (Agnipurāṇa, Ch. 44). There can be no doubt that the application of the respective texts mentioned above was regional in character, the three latter texts being followed in the north; and the Vaikhānasa, in the south. We can further substantiate our point by referring to the two varieties of the images of the Sungod—north Indian and south Indian,—and the different iconographic texts describing the Sūrya image. The most important characteristics of a north Indian Sūrya are its udīyaveśa (consisting of the close covering of the body and top-boots of the legs—gradually these features were subdued) and its waist-girdle, the viyanga or avyaṅga; these are conspicuous by their absence in the south Indian images of Sūrya. Now, if we study some relevant iconographic texts descriptive of the sun icons, we find that they also can be classified into two well-defined groups on the basis of the mention or non-mention of the particular iconic features noted above.

c8.49.4

Of the various texts collected by Gopinath Rao to describe the icons of Sūrya, the *Amśumadbhedāgama*, the *Suprabhedāgama* and the *Śilparatna* do not at all record the features to be found in the Sūrya images of northern India, while the others, viz., the *Bṛhatsaṃhitā*, *Viśvakarmāvatāra-śāstra*, *Viṣṇudharmottara*, *Matsyapurāṇa*, *Agnipurāṇa*, etc., do so. We can with a great deal of plausibility assign on this basis the former groups of texts to the southern region and the latter group to the northern. The *Pūrvakāraṇāgama*, which is also presumably a southern text, contains passages such as *kañcukāñcitavigraham* and *pādau sakaṭakau tasya* reminiscent of the northern feature and thus seems to be influenced by the latter group of texts. Thus, as a broad division can be made between the Brahmanical images of India into north Indian and south Indian on the basis of important iconographic features, so the texts also can be generally classified into two groups, the one followed in the north and the other in the south. But there can be no denying the fact that sometimes texts belonging to one group showed traces of their contact with those belonging to the other, as undoubtedly varieties of images usually current in one region are occasionally to be found in the other. The *Pūrvakāraṇāgama* has just been shown to have been influenced by the iconographic texts of the north;

c8.49.5

similarly, examples can be cited where north Indian texts can be shown to bear south Indian characteristics. This is especially noticeable in the late compilations. Maṇḍana, an artist of Rajputana, draws copiously from both the sources in his works, and in many instances his descriptions of particular images are given in the approved south Indian manner. Thus, the following description of the image of the sun in his *Rūpamaṇḍana* : *Sarvalakṣaṇasaṃyuktaṃ sarvābharaṇabhūṣitam* ¹ *Ādityasya tvidaṃ rūpaṃ kuryāt pāpa-praṇāśanam* does not contain the well-known iconographic traits of the Sūrya images of the north.¹ Kṛṣṇānanda Āgamavāgīśa, a great Tāntric pandit of Bengal, refers to two dhyāna-mantras of Sūrya, none of which contains any of the same.² The omission of these details in the north Indian compilations may have also another explanation in this particular case; as these were late works, most of the traits which had their basis in the non-Indian motifs were purposefully omitted, a reason which might also have been at the root of such an omission in their earlier prototypes of the south.