Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Development of Hindu Iconography c9: Chapter II: The Antiquity of Image-Worship in India

The Development of Hindu Iconography c9

Language
English

Contents

Chapter II: The Antiquity of Image-Worship in India

c9.2

It has already been pointed out in the introductory chapter that the term icon (derived from Greek *eikon*) signifies an object of worship, or something which is associated with the rituals relating to the cults of different divinities. The English word ‘image,’ derived from old French and Latin ‘imago,’ on the other hand, has got the basic connotation of ‘likeness’; from this it came to be used in the sense underlying the Greek word mentioned above. Image in its primary sense has its close parallel in such Indian words as *pratikṛti*, *pratimā*, *vimba*, etc., which again like their English counterpart came to acquire the secondary significance. The word *vimba* means reflection, and it is very frequently used in the sense of the images of divinities. There is a common custom adhered to in Bengal at the time of the annual autumnal worship of the clay images of the goddess Durgā; it consists in placing a mirror on a brass or copper bowl in front of the deity in such a manner that the image is reflected in the mirror. The water for bathing the deity (*snāna-jala*) is poured on the reflection there, and thus the bathing of the image is done. This practice thus emphasises the true significance of the word *vimba*; it is also necessary from the practical point of view.¹

c9.3

¹ Water cannot be poured on the clay image with its coating of paint and other tinsel ornaments without damaging the whole object of worship. In southern India, substitute images, known as *snapanaberas* (i.e., images meant for bathing), are made, usually of bronze, and regularly bathed in place of the principal image in the sanctum. But in the case of the Śiva-liṅgas, no such intermediary is usually needed, for they are not generally coated with daubs of paint and decorated with ornaments. They are, only occasionally (once at night), endowed with various ornaments and garlands (*śṛṅgāraveśa*), and this is done long after the bathing is over. Sometimes, gold leaves in the shape of a crescent (*śaśāṅka*), three eyes or the third eye (*trinetra*), etc., are permanently inset into the *pūjābhāga* of the Liṅga.

c9.4

Even when such words as *vimba*, *pratikṛti*, etc., came to be used in their secondary sense, they retained their former usage in comparatively late texts. In the *Pratimā-nāṭaka* of Bhāsa, mention is made of the statues (*pratimā*) of the departed royalties, which, though objects of respect, were not certainly meant for regular worship. The iron figure of Bhīma, which was crushed by the blind old Kuru king Dhṛtarāṣṭra by being hugged close to his body, is described by Kṛṣṇa as ‘*āyasī pratimā*’.¹ The golden image of Sītā served as her substitute during the performance of the Aśvamedha sacrifice by Rāma, when she herself was in exile in Vālmīki’s hermitage.² The word *pratikṛti* meaning ‘likeness’ occurs in the *Sūtra* (V. 3.96) of Pāṇini, which reads *ive pratikṛtau* and which can be explained thus,—the affix *kan* means also ‘like this,’ ‘in imitation of this,’ when imitation or likeness of a person or thing is meant. That images of human beings were made in ancient India is fully proved by many other texts, one of which may be mentioned here. The *Śukranītisāra* says that “images of divinities, even if they are without the characteristic signs, are beneficial to men; those of mortals, on the other hand, even if they are endowed with them, are never so.”³ The free-standing sculptures discovered in Patna and Parkham were identified by K. P. Jayaswal as royal statuaries of the Śaiśunāga dynasty; few scholars, if any, accept this suggestion now, and they are almost unanimously described as Yakṣa figures. But numerous references to images of kings and great men are to be found in Indian literature, which, though of special veneration, were certainly not objects of worship. The red sandstone sculptures representing some of the Kushan kings like Wema Kadphises and Kanishka and the Saka satrap Caṣṭana discovered near Mathura are a few of the extant figures testifying to the prevailing practice in those remote times. The Kushan emperors no doubt assumed some amount of divine character which is borne out by their adoption of the title devaputra (possibly in imitation of the Chinese royal practice), by such features as ‘a halo round the head’, flames issuing from the shoulders, ‘the royal bust rising from the clouds’, etc., characterising their portraits appearing on coins, and by the glorious title such as Iśvara used by one of them, viz., Wema Kadphises in his coin legends.¹ Still it must be wrong to suppose that their figures commanded the same amount of religious fervour culminating in their ritualistic worship with deep devotion as was roused by the images of the cult-deities which had much earlier made their appearance in India. These royal statuaries were in all probability housed in structures of a funerary character and regarded by their living relations and subjects with great veneration, just as pictorial representations and statues of mediaeval and modern Rajput kings and potentates used to be enshrined in chatris or funerary monuments and highly venerated; but, the service and attention offered to them must have been done through the media of divine images which were the objects of proper veneration, as was the custom and is still the custom with the Rajput kings. In the case of the latter, the phallic emblems of Śiva usually served this purpose. Under no circumstances, however, could they have enjoyed the same position as was done by the images of cult deities, some of whom, as we shall see later on, were apotheosised human beings.

c9.5

¹ ‘*Mā śuco Dhṛtarāṣṭra tvaṃ naiṣa Bhīmastvayā hataḥ |* *Ayasī pratimā hyeṣā tvayā rājanipātitā !*’ *Mahābhārata*, Strīparva, Ch. 12, v. 23.

c9.6

² *Kāñcanīṃ mama patnīṃ ca dīkṣāyajñāṃśca karmāṇi |* *Agrato Bharataḥ kṛtvā gacchatvagre mahāyaśāḥ ||* *Rāmāyaṇa*, Uttarakāṇḍa, Ch. 91, v. 25. Some such word like *pratimā*, *pratikṛti* or *vimba* is to be understood here, though none of them is expressly mentioned.

c9.7

³ IV. 4, 36: *Api śreyaskaraṃ nṛṇāṃ devavimbamalakṣaṇam |* *Salakṣaṇaṃ martyavimbam na hi śreyaskaraṃ sadā ||* The use of the word *vimba* should be noted.

c9.8

¹ Antiochus IV, the Seleucid king of Syria, describes himself in some of his coin legends as Theou Epiphanous (Basileos Antiochou Theou Epiphanous, i.e., ‘Of king Antiochus the God Manifest’). He identified himself with the great Greek god Olympian Zeus, and on some of his coins the head of Zeus shows his own features. He went much further than Alexander the Great who regarded himself as the son of Zeus; he even married Atargatis, the great Goddess of northern Syria. For all these ostentatious claims to divinity, however, he was regarded by the subsequent historians as vain, silly and theatrical.

c9.9

Words like *sandṛś*, *pratimā*, etc., might have signified from a comparatively early date symbolical representations of divinities which were not associated with particular cults; such use, in fact, can be found in texts assignable to a period when the cult gods and goddesses had either not made their appearance, or, even if they had done so, had not been assigned any important position in the religious lives of the higher sections of the Indo-Aryans. Thus, the word *sandṛś* occurs in the *Kaṭhaka Upaniṣad*, II. 3, 9—" he has no form visible to the eye; no one sees him with the eye."¹ The word ‘*sandṛśe*’ has been explained by Śaṃkarācārya as ‘*sandarśanaviṣaye*’, i.e., ‘objects visible to the eye’. It has been interpreted as ‘images proper’ by some scholars; but the utmost that it can signify is some sort of sensible representation which could symbolise the god. The same sense is possibly recorded by the word *pratimā* in verse 19, Chapter IV, of the *Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad*, which says that " there is no image of him whose name is great glory."² The word *pratimā* occurs in a verse of the tenth *maṇḍala* of the *Ṛgveda* in which the hymnist asks about the measure and the image of the sacrifice; he answers his own question in the next verse that the symbol of the sacrifice was the sacrificial fire itself. There is very little justification for taking it here in the sense of the image proper of gods.³

c9.10

¹ *Na sandṛśe tiṣṭhati rūpamasya na cakṣuṣā paśyati kaścanainam*: This part is retained without any alteration in the first half of verse 20, in the fourth chapter of the *Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad*.

c9.11

² *Na tasya pratimā asti yasya nāma mahadyaśaḥ*; but the word here may more probably mean ‘comparison’.

c9.12

³ *R. V.*, x, 130, 3.

c9.13

The words *pratikṛti*, *pratimā*, etc., came to denote *arcā*, i.e., objects of regular worship in course of time. It appears that the former had attained the significance as early as the time of Pāṇini. *Pratikṛti*, in the sense of likeness, has already been noticed in one of his *sūtras* in the fifth *adhyāya* (V. 3, 96); another *sūtra* under it, viz., V. 3, 99—*jīvikārthe cāpaṇye*, refers to certain *pratikṛtis* which are *jīvikārtha* as well as *apaṇya*. On the authority of the commentaries like the *Mahābhāṣya* and the *Kāśikā* we can assume that these objects which were meant for livelihood (*jīvikārtha*) but at the same time were not for sale (*apaṇya*) were really the images of gods which were highly venerated by some people of his time. The *sūtra* has been explained thus in the latter, " That which is bought and sold is called *paṇya*; that which is not so dealt with is *apaṇya*. The rule applies to the images of gods which are made means of subsistence by a low order of Brahmans, not by selling them but by exhibiting them from door to door."¹ These images were undoubtedly important as objects of worship, otherwise people would not give alms to their bearers and exhibitors. It will be proved in a subsequent section of this book that the practice of worshipping some divinities had already made its appearance in the time of Pāṇini. Patañjali uses the very word *arccā* in his *Mahābhāṣya* while commenting on the above-mentioned *sūtra* of Pāṇini. He says that the Mauryas had images of gods (*arccā*) made for obtaining gold (*Mauryairhiraṇyārthibhiḥ arccā prakalpitā*). In the sectarian literature of later times, this word is very frequently used along with the earlier ones noticed above as well as such terms as *vapuḥ, tanu, vigraha, rūpa, bera*, etc., which denoted that these objects of worship were not mere symbolical representations of the particular gods and goddesses, but were their very bodies and forms.

c9.14

¹ *Aṣṭādhyāyī*, Srischandra Vasu's Edition, p. 975.

c9.15

The above discussion shows that some of the Indian words for image had different connotations according to their appearance in texts of early or late dates and according to their use in particular contexts. Iconography as a subject for study is chiefly concerned with images or icons having the third significance just delineated, and their accessories. It has very little to do with mere symbols or symbolic representations of gods, whether they are anthropomorphic or theriomorphic. This point will have to be particularly borne in mind while determining the question of the antiquity of image-worship in India in connection with the preliminary considerations regarding our subject. This discussion has gained some new orientation since the discovery of many objects, seals with representations of human and animal figures and pictographs on them, numerous terracotta figurines and a few fragmentary stone sculptures, in course of the excavations of the prehistoric sites in the Indus Valley. Marshall has discussed the nature of many aniconic objects, usually of stone, more or less realistically modelled as phalli, a large number of which have been discovered there; he is of opinion that their ostensible use seems to have been as cult objects. Further notice of these will be taken in connection with the interpretation of the Rgvedic epithet Śiśnadeva and the evolution of phallicism in India. The three-headed horned figure, represented as seated in a particular yogic āsana (it greatly corresponds to the kūrmāsana of later times in which the heels are placed crosswise under the gluteals), surrounded by such animals as a rhinoceros, a water-buffalo, an elephant and a tiger and crude representations of men, appearing on a seal, has been described by Marshall as the prototype of Śiva-Paśupati of subsequent days. Another seal bears on it a seated human figure having on either side a half-kneeling figure in respectful attitude, above whom a snake is shown with its hood spread; the attitude of the flanking figurines in this seal, even though their hands may not be in the añjali pose, distinctly reminds us of the pose in which the attendants of the cult deities are shown in the later sectarian art of India. " Three more seals bear on them representations of nude tree gods standing erect with arms hanging on sides like the images of the Jinas in the kāyotsarga posture and each attended by a half-kneeling votary above whom a serpent spreads its head." On the basis of the above data, R. P. Chanda observes, " The excavations at Harappa and Mohenjodaro have brought to light ample evidence to show that the worship of images of human and superhuman beings in Yoga postures, both seated and standing, prevailed in the Indus Valley in the Chalcolithic period."¹ But whether these and such others appearing on a few more seals of this type can be regarded as definite representations of cult-objects cannot be determined with certainty so long as we are unable to unravel the mystery of the script and language of the highly cultured people of the Indus Valley. Similarly, many of the numerous terracotta figurines, unearthed there in course of excavations and tentatively described by Mackay as images of household gods, are very difficult of correct interpretation at the present state of our knowledge.¹ Similar difficulty confronts us with regard to the definite explanation of the character of a few of the neolithic finds in India which have been described by some scholars as cult objects. The metal manikin of crude design in the collection of the pre-historic objects in the Indian Museum may or may not represent such a specimen.²

c9.16

¹ R. P. Chanda, *Mediaeval Indian Sculptures in the British Museum*, p. 9.

c9.17

¹ For the stone Phalli, read Marshall, *Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Civilisation*, Vol. I, p. 59. For two figures on the seals noticed above, *cf.* Marshall, *op. cit.*, Vol. I, p. 52; Pl. XII, Figs. 13-14, 18-19, 22. For Mackay's interpretation of the terracotta figurines, *cf.* Mackay, *Further Excavations at Mohenjo-Daro*, Vol. I, pp. 258-59.

c9.18

² *Cambridge History of India*, Vol. I, p. 614; Pl. X, Fig. 17.

c9.19

The nature of the prehistoric remains just discussed cannot be determined with certainty on account of the absence of any literary data throwing clear light on them; but with the help of certain passages occurring in the Ṛgveda, the earliest extant literature of the Indo-Aryans, it is possible to offer a tentative explanation about some of them. It may be observed, however, that in India, prior to the advent of the Aryans, image-worship might have been practised by her original settlers. But it is still a matter of doubt and controversy when this was first introduced among the Aryans who migrated into India. From the beginning of the scientific method of Vedic studies in India this question engaged the attention of scholars. The question, "Did the Vedic Indians make images of their gods?", was answered in the negative by Max Müller. He said, "The religion of the Vedas knows no idols. The worship of idols in India is a secondary formation, a later degradation of the more primitive worship of ideal gods."'¹ H. H. Wilson, in his preface to Viṣṇupurāṇa (p. ii), remarks that "the worship of the Vedas is for the most part domestic worship, consisting of prayers and oblations offered, in their own houses, not in temples, by individuals for individual good and addressed to unreal presences, not to visible types. In a word, the religion of the Vedas was not idolatry." Macdonell has discussed the question further and suggested that image-worship was not known to the Indians of the early Vedic period. He observes, "The physical appearance of the gods is anthropomorphic, though only in a shadowy manner; for it often represents only aspects of their natural bases figuratively described to illustrate their activities. . . . The arms of the sun are simply his rays, and his eye is intended to represent his physical aspect. The tongue and limbs of Agni merely denote his flames. The fingers of Trita are referred to only in order to illustrate his character as a preparer of Soma, and the belly of Indra only to emphasise his powers of drinking Soma. Two or three gods are spoken of as having or assuming all forms. It is easy to understand that in the case of deities whose outward shape was so vaguely conceived and whose connection with natural phenomena was in many instances still clear, no mention of either images or temples is found in the Ṛgveda."² This long extract very accurately sums up the view-point of those scholars who would answer the question under discussion in the negative.

c9.20

¹ Max Müller, *Chips from a German Workshop*, Vol. I, p. 38.

c9.21

² Macdonell, *Vedic Mythology*, pp. 17-18. Refer also for his views to *J.R.A.S.*, LVII, 1909, p. 317.

c9.22.1

But, quite an opposite view is expressed by others who, on the basis of some passages in the Ṛgveda, suggested that the practice of making images was well known among the early Indo-Aryans. The descriptions of many of the divinities given in various hymns, which have been explained away as cases of vague and uncertain anthropomorphism by Macdonell and others, have been made much of by their opponents who find in them definite allusion to images. Bollensen says that from the common appellation of the gods as ‘divo naras’, i.e., men of the sky, or simply as naras, i.e., men, and from the epithet ‘nṛpeśas’, i.e., ‘having the form of men’ (R. V., III. 4, 5), we may conclude that the Indians did not merely in imagination assign human forms to their gods, but also represented them in a sensible manner. The passage in the Ṛgveda (II. 33, 9) describes a painted image of Rudra in this manner, “ with strong limbs, many-formed, awful brown, he is painted with shining golden colours ” (Sthirebhirangaiḥ pururūpa ugro babhruḥ śukrebhiḥ pipiśe hiraṇyaiḥ); an image of Varuṇa is described thus, “ wearing a golden coat of mail, he veils himself with his radiance; spies sit around him ” (R. V., I. 25, 13: vibhraddrāpiṃ hiraṇyayaṃ varuṇo vasta nirṇijaṃ | pari spaśo niṣedire); the Maruts appear to be distinguished from their ‘gods’, i.e., images, in the Ṛgveda (V. 52, 15), where the hymnist says, “ we now pray to the gods of these (Maruts) so as to get to them (nū manvāna eṣāṃ devāñ acchā);

c9.22.2

then such commonly found expressions as vapuḥ, tanu, rūpa, etc., used in connection with some of the Vedic gods, have particular reference to their images : the word sandṛś, found in some Vedic texts, is one of the oldest expressions most probably denoting an image. Thus argued Bollensen in support of his contention that the images played a very prominent part in the religious practice of the early Vedic Indo-Aryans.¹ S. V. Venkateswara, another exponent of this view, went still further and adduced more textual evidence in its support. While he was engaged in a controversy with Macdonell about the development of early Hindu iconography, carried on in the pages of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1916, 1917 and 1918, he mentioned, among others, the following passages which contained according to him definite reference to the images of the gods: R. V., I. 21, 2—Indrāgnī śumbhatā naraḥ (men decorate Indra and Agni) ; R. V., VIII. 69, 12—sūrmyaṃ suṣirāmiva (like a hollow tube; Ballantyne has rendered this passage as ‘a beautiful perforated iron image,’ cf. his Mahābhāṣya); Indra is referred to in many Rgvedic passages as *suśipra* (having beautiful cheeks and jaws), Rudra as *kapardin* (wearing braided coil of hair), Vāyu as *darśata* (striking to the eye, beautiful); *R. V.*, IV.

c9.22.3

58, 3—*catvāri śṛṅgā trayo asya pādā dve śīrṣe sapta hastāso asya* (he has four horns, three feet, two heads and seven hands).¹ But after a long controversy with Macdonell on this as well as other matters relating to the subject, Venkateswara was then of opinion that the Vedic evidence was not at all sufficient for deciding whether gods were iconically represented in the early Vedic period or not. In a later contribution (*Rūpam*, Nos. 42-4, 1930), he was more definite, and he collected numerous additional passages from the *Ṛgveda* and other Vedas in support of his view; he even used the term iconography in relation to the representation of the Vedic deities. He assigned the foremost place to the well-known verse in the *Ṛgveda*, IV. 24, 10, which was also noticed by Macdonell and others. The latter thought that it was a late passage probably containing an allusion to some concrete symbol of Indra. It is: *Ka imam daśabhirmamendram krīṇāti dhenubhiḥ | Yadā vṛtrāṇi jaṃghanadathainam me punardadat* (‘Who will buy this my Indra for ten cows? When he has slain his foes, he may give him back to me’). Venkateswara remarks about the passage thus: “The context shows that there were permanent images of Indra made and hired for what was in probability an Indra festival, and there were apparently images of Vṛtra made for each occasion, whence the plural *Vṛtrāṇi* to be slain by Indra.” With regard to *R. V.*, V.

c9.22.4

52, 15, noticed above, Venkateswara makes this significant observation, “This passage is also interesting in that it shows that there was no idol worship, but that images were used as concrete representations of gods whose real form and existence were conceived as different.” The existence of two forms of each god, one the concrete and finite and the other the abstract and infinite, is clear according to him in a Yajurveda passage (T.S., I. 7. 12; also A.V., VII. 31) which reads *svayā tanvā tanumairayata* (‘with your own, i.e., real, body enter this concrete body’). In his opinion, the image is regarded in the *Ṛgveda* merely as a physical tenement of the real form of the god, while in these texts we have two forms of the god mentioned—that in the image being only an apparent and evanescent form, and that in the universe being the real and permanent form (*svā tanuḥ*). He finds reference to the relationship of these forms, finite and infinite, of the god even in the *Ṛgveda* (VII. 100, 6) which speaks of Viṣṇu’s assumption of another, the finite form in the battle with Vṛtra, where he was a worthy companion of Indra (*yadanyarūpaḥ samithe babhūtha*); Indra, who used Viṣṇu as his vehicle (*Viṣṇvanuṣṭhitaḥ*), asked him to expand into the infinite space (*sakhe Viṣṇo vitaraṃ vikramasva*) elbowing Vṛtra out of existence till the latter begged to be received into the body of Indra himself.

c9.22.5

From this Venkateswara concluded that the belief was that the finite cabined in a particular form was not cribbed or confined by this fact but was capable of infinite expansion. He finds distinct references to the fashioning of images in such passages as *R. V.*, VI. 28, 6 (*aśrīraṃ cit kṛṇuthā supratīkaṃ* i.e., ‘make that which was an ugly mass a beautiful image’); *R.V.*, IV. 17, 4 (*Indrasya kartā svapastamo bhūt*, i.e., ‘the maker of Indra was a most stalwart being, a most skilful workman’); casting of metal images is also referred to in the *Ṛgveda* and other Vedas in such passages as *R.V.*, VIII. 69, 12 (*sūrmyam suṣirāmiva*, i.e., ‘like a hollow tube’), *R. V.*, X. 184, 1 (*Viṣṇuryonim kalpayatu tvaṣṭā rūpāṇi piṃśatu | Ā siñcatu prajāpatirdhātā garbhaṃ dadhātu te*, i.e., ‘May Viṣṇu make the female organ fit; may Tvaṣṭā fix the limbs; may Prajāpati sprinkle; may Dhātā hold your embryo’), *R.V.*, I. 32, 2 (*Tvaṣṭāsmai vajraṃ svaryaṃ tatakṣa*, i.e., ‘Tvaṣṭā made the thunderbolt for Indra, which could be far flung’), etc. He further finds references to temples (*devagṛhas*) in such passages as *R.V.*, VII. 56, 14 (*Sahasriyam damyaṃ bhāgametaṃ gṛhamedhīyaṃ maruto juṣadhvam*, i.e., ‘ Oh! Maruts accept this your portion offered at the temple ’), *R.V.*, VII. 59, 10 (*Gṛhamedhāsa*, i.e., the Maruts in the houses are munificent), etc. Venkateswara thinks that this inference from the passages is supported by the finds of images of the storm gods in Babylonia.

c9.22.6

He even finds allusion to processions of images in *R. V.*, I. 10, 1 and III. 53, 5-6. “ In the latest (*Khila*) Vedic texts, the goddess Śrī is represented as a golden antelope adorned with garlands of silver and gold ” (he obviously refers to the *Śrī Sūkta* in this statement).

c9.23

¹ Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts, Vol. V, pp. 453-54.

c9.24

¹ Venkateswara says that this is a description of Agni; for a late sculpture of a deity corresponding to it, now to be found in the east gate of the Chidambaram temple, see H. Krishna Sastri's *South Indian Gods and Goddesses*, Fig. 147; Krishna Sastri describes it as Agni, but it should more accurately be described as Yajñapuruṣa, one of the minor manifestations of Viṣṇu; cf. T. A. G. Rao, *Elements of Hindu Iconography*, Vol. I, Part 1, pp. 248-50.

c9.25

The arguments of the two sets of scholars holding opposite views about the problem under discussion had to be given at some length in order to assess their proper worth. The whole question, however, revolves round the correct understanding of the nature of the religion which was in vogue among the higher section of the Indo-Aryans in the Vedic period. The early and late Vedic texts mostly throw light on the customs and practices of this class of people, and whatever hypothesis we make is mainly concerned about them. There are certain passages in the texts, however, which may incidentally throw some light on the beliefs and practices of the pre-Aryan settlers of India. The former believed in the divine character of the many and various forces of nature which inspired their awe and imagination. Not only these were duly personified and venerated by them, but also various abstract principles were raised by them to a similar august position and respected. The ostensible mode of the expression of their regard for these multifarious divinities was by means of the ritualistic performance of various types of sacrifices in which a certain spirit of contract prevailed. The god or gods in whose honour different sacrifices were to be performed by a king or a nobleman with the help of his priests, really the mediators, were required to fulfil the desires of the sacrificer. He sought to propitiate the divine powers by the process of offering gifts to them, realising fully his comparative weakness and inability to exist satisfactorily without their constant aid. Again, such was the efficacy of these sacrificial offerings, accompanied by regular prayers in the shape of hymns recited and sung with due intonation and emphasis, that the whole act used to cast a spell as it were on the deities who then condescended to grant his desires. There was no one particular god who was venerated as the highest by the hymnist or his client for all times and places, and the same man who was extolling the greatness of a certain god in one hymn and subordinating the other divinities to him might in the next hymn make another the most exalted. Thus, the main trend of the religion as practised by the higher section of the early Vedic Indo-Aryans was polytheistic and henotheistic or kathenotheistic, in which sacrifice played the most important part; it was, in fact, the religious practice, *par excellence*, which was full of ritualistic acts (*kriyāviśeṣabahula*) and which had for its objective the attainment of wealth and enjoyment in this world (*bhogaiśvaryagatim prati*). Other-worldliness was mostly conspicuous by its absence in the thought of the early Vedic Indo-Aryan, who felt a real pleasure in living a prosperous and joyful life. There was little scope for deep meditation in his early rituals, his deities being hardly ever the objects of his *dhyānayoga*. In such religious practice as briefly outlined above, what conceivable place could be assigned to the images of the Vedic gods? Those scholars who advocate their existence in this period would have us believe that all these sacrificial acts were performed in the presence of these sensible representations. But, in most of the early authoritative Brāhmaṇas, which lay down with meticulous details the mode of performing the various sacrifices, there is practically no reference to the idols of the gods, which would certainly have been explicitly mentioned if they were found necessary. In the subsequent period of the history of India, when the divine images had come to play a requisite part in the religious lives of her people, they are clearly described as such in the contemporary literature.

c9.26.1

Scholars like Bollensen and Venkateswara mainly utilise the anthropomorphic descriptions of many of the Vedic divinities as contained in the hymns of the *Ṛgveda* in support of their theory. But what is the extent of this anthropomorphism? Keith correctly remarks, "Though it would be wrong to ignore the anthropomorphic character of the gods, the Vedic pantheon has none of the clearcut figures of the Greek, and unlike the Greek deities it is seldom difficult to doubt that the anthropomorphic forms but faintly veil phenomena of nature."¹ The degree of this anthropomorphism, again, was extremely variable. Such deities like Sūrya, Uṣas, Agni, etc., for example, were intimately connected with their natural bases, and thus they could have very little of this element in their character; whereas Indra, Varuṇa and some other Vedic gods, who were considerably freed from their connection with the phenomena which produced their conception, could possess it to a very great extent. The endowment of the Vedic gods with particular forms in the imagination of the seers has been discussed at length by Yāska in his Nirukta, a work to be dated as early as 500 B.C. This interesting discussion requires to be fully quoted here, as it throws a flood of light on the problem at issue. Yāska writes, "Now follows discussion of the form of the gods (*ākāra-cintanaṃ devatānām*).

c9.26.2

Some say, they resemble human beings in form (*puruṣavidhāḥ*), for their panegyrics and their appellations are like those of sentient beings; and their human limbs are referred to in the hymns. . . . They are also (associated in their hymns of praise) with objects with which men are usually associated. . . . Moreover, they are associated with the sort of actions with which men are usually associated. Others say, the gods do not resemble human beings in form (*apuruṣavidhāḥ*), because those gods that are (actually) seen do not resemble human beings in form; as, for instance, Agni (fire-god), Vāyu (wind-god), Āditya (sun-god), Pṛthivī (earth-goddess), Candramas (moon-god), etc. As to the view that panegyrics of the gods are like those of sentient beings, (they reply) that inanimate objects, beginning from dice and ending with herbs, are likewise praised. As to the view that the human limbs of the gods are referred to in the hymns, (they reply) that this (treatment) is accorded to inanimate objects. . . . As to the view (that in their hymns of praise the gods are associated) with objects with which men are associated, (they reply) that it is just the same (in the case of inanimate objects). . . . . Or the gods may both resemble human beings in form as well as may not resemble human beings in form. Or the gods who do not resemble human beings in form exist in the form of Karman (sacrifice); as for instance, the sacrifice performed by the Yajamāna (sacrificer).

c9.26.3

This is the opinion of those who know the legends."' This long quotation fully illustrates the attitude of a person of the 6th century B.C., well-versed in the Vedic lore, to the whole question of anthropomorphism of the Vedic divinities. To this anthropomorphisation will have to be added the characteristic manner of presenting many of the gods in theriomorphic forms, the latter again in some instances being ideologically connected with the different deities. Thus, the sun traversing through the wide firmament of the sky could be easily conceived as a mythical bird having beautiful wings (*suparṇo garutmān*); the fleet-footed horse might also symbolise the sun as a Ṛgvedic verse indicates (VII. 77, 3; here the goddess Dawn is said to lead a white steed). Sometimes, this connection cannot be easily established. Thus, Agni is very often likened to various animals, " in most cases doubtless with a view to indicating his functions rather than representing his personal form." He is endowed with various animal and other forms such as those of a bull, a calf, a steed, an eagle, a swan and many other things. Two deities who are conceived invariably in animal form are the one-footed goat (Aja Ekapād) and the serpent of the deep (Ahi budhnya). The former may be the lightning flash coming down to earth in a single streak while the latter would seem to be an atmospheric deity dwelling in the atmospheric ocean.

c9.26.4

But these and many other similar concepts are pure and simple imageries without actual concrete bases. These theriomorphic and anthropomorphic descriptions, however, played an important part in the evolution of some of the cult gods in the subsequent religious history of India. Thus, it will be interesting to refer to two typical cases. Rudra, the Vedic base of the cult god Śiva, is very often mythologically connected with Agni in the Epic and Purāṇic literature. Agni has been likened frequently with a bull in the Vedic texts, and Rudra himself is called a bull in some Vedic verses (cf. R.V. II. 33, 8: *Pra babhrave vṛṣabhāya śvitice* etc., or II. 33, 6: *Unmā mamanda vṛṣabho marutvān*, etc.). Now, on the basis of this very fact, Rudra-Śiva is sometimes primarily conceived in the form of a bull, and there are definite numismatic data in support of the representation of Śiva as a bull. But, by a converted mental process of thinking on the part of his worshipper, the theriomorphic form of the deity is assigned the position of a mount of the same god conceived anthropomorphically. Again, in some much later representations, this so-called animal mount of Rudra-Śiva is made to assume the pure human form of the deity himself, with this difference only that its front hands are shown in the *añjali* pose.

c9.26.5

Similarly, the Vedic Viṣṇu, one of the constituent elements of the composite cult god Vāsudeva-Nārāyaṇa-Viṣṇu of the Epic and Purāṇic age, is undoubtedly one of the aspects of the sun-god in the Vedic period. The sun-bird, Garutmān referred to above, is invariably assigned the position of the mount or vehicle to the above-named cult deity and is represented in the later art as a hybrid creature, part man and part bird (though in the early Buddhist monument of Sanchi, Garuḍa is represented as a mythical bird with *kuṇḍalas* in its ear). But the concrete representations of these anthropomorphic, theriomorphic and hybrid forms make their appearance in the sectarian art of much later date, and we do not find any reference whatsoever to such figures in the multifarious descriptions of the early Vedic divinities.

c9.27

¹ A. B. Keith, *Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads*, Vol. I, p. 58.

c9.28

¹ Lakshman Sarup, *The Nighaṇṭu and The Nirukta*, English Translation and Notes, pp. 116-17. R. P. Chanda first noted the importance of this passage in his work, *The Beginnings of Art in Eastern India*, M.A.S.I., No. 30, pp. 1-2. Gopinath Rao, on the basis of this passage in the Nirukta, wrongly inferred that image worship seems to have become common in the time of Yāska; T. A. G. Rao, *Elements of Hindu Iconography*, Vol. I, Introduction, p. 5.

c9.29

It is to be noted, however, that the affinity of these later hybrid creatures of imagination is more marked with the different composite forms of a peculiar character found on the various Indus Valley seals of the pre-Vedic period. The latter have been discussed at some length in the first part of Chapter V of this book.

c9.30.1

It will be useful, now, to consider in their proper perspective some of the early Vedic texts, already referred to, which are utilised by Bollensen and Venkateswara in support of their views. The whole of the 33rd hymn of the second maṇḍala of the Ṛgveda, the first line of the 9th verse of which is taken by the former to allude to a painted image of Rudra, contains the praises of the god in which he is described in various ways; thus in verse 3, he is addressed as Vajrabāhu (with thunderbolt-like arms); in verse 5 he is characterised as soft-bellied, of good hailing voice, brown and possessing a beautiful nose (Ṛdūdarah suhavo...babhruḥ suśipro...); in verse 8, he is brown and white at the same time (babhrave... śvitice); in verse 10, he is addressed as the worthy god holding bow and arrow, wearing a beautiful and multiformed niṣka garland (i.e., a garland made of niṣkas covered with many forms—Arhan bibharṣi sāyakāni dhanvārhan niṣkaṃ yajataṃ viśvarūpam); above all, in the line quoted by Bollensen the word pururūpaḥ (having multifarious forms) shows that the god Rudra was endowed with various forms according to the imagination of the hymnist Gṛtsamada, and there is not the least justification for assuming that these were based on actual concrete figures. Similarly, the allusion to a probable image of Varuṇa wearing a golden coat of mail with spies sitting around him, in R. V., I. 25, 13, is not at all convincing.

c9.30.2

Varuṇa, the moral god, sung by the hymnist in various ways, is conceived as covered by a coat of mail and veiled in his radiance, thus being impervious to prying eyes, but himself looking into the secret virtues and vices of the mortals; the hymnist's idea about his spies is a necessary corollary of this conception about him, for the god sends them to look into the actions of mankind and report to him all about them. As regards R. V., V. 52, 15, Max Müller has translated the whole verse in this way, “If he, after perceiving them, has approached them as gods with an offering, then may he for a gift remain united with the brilliant (Maruts) who by their ornaments are glorious on their march.” He further remarks, “This verse, as Roth says, is very obscure;...whatever the verse may mean, *eṣām devān* cannot mean the gods of the Maruts or prove the existence of idols, as Bollensen and even Muir imagined.”¹ This verse is undoubtedly difficult of correct interpretation; it is extremely uncertain whether the particular extract from it at all means the images of the Maruts, and one cannot support a theory with the help of this enigmatic passage. The eleventh verse in the same hymn, however, may throw some light on it; there we are told that the Maruts might assume different forms according to their different functions (*iti citrā rūpāṇi darśyā*), such as protecting the world or collectively supporting it or sustaining from afar (the planets, stars and others).

c9.30.3

The devas in the passage in question may mean these various imaginary forms. In any case, if we read the whole hymn in which it occurs, we cannot but hesitate to accept the interpretation put upon it by the above-mentioned scholars. *Śumbhatā* in the passage in *R. V.*, I. 21, 2, explained by Sāyaṇa as ‘*nānāvidhairalaṅkāraiḥ śobhitau kuruta*’, actually means ‘adorned with various praises,’ which are figuratively taken by Sāyaṇa to mean ornaments. The words *sūrmyam suṣirāmiva* in *R. V.*, VIII. 69, 12, cannot unquestionably refer to an image of Varuṇa in that particular context; Ballantyne’s rendering of this passage is based on the similar description of a perforated iron image in later works, which was heated and employed as a sort of punishment for wrong-doers who were compelled to embrace it. But that sense can hardly be applied here. No great importance can be assigned to the descriptive epithets as *suśipra*, *kapardin*, *darśata* and such others which merely emphasise the anthropomorphic conception of the deities to whom they are applied. The Ṛgvedic verse, *Catvāri śṛṅgā* etc. (IV. 58, 3), merely presents to us in a metaphorical manner the Vedic sacrifice. Yāska explains the imagery, thus, " The four horns stand for the four Vedas, three legs for the three savanas, viz., the prātaḥ-, the mādhyandina- and the tṛtīya-savana, the two heads for the iṣṭis, viz., the prāyaṇīya and the udayanīya, and the seven hands for sapta chandas or the mantras.

c9.30.4

Here sacrifice is likened to a bull bellowing, tied in three ways; this threefold binding is explained by Yāska as referring to its association with the mantras, brāhmaṇas and the kalpasūtras; the bellowing of the bull stands for the praising of the gods in sacrifices with Ṛk-mantras, offering oblations to them with Yajus ones, and praying to the gods with Sāman songs. The god Sacrifice is said to have entered into human beings for the purpose of making them offer sacrifices.¹ Such passages as R. V., VI. 28, 6 and IV. 17, 4, which according to Venkateswara contain distinct references to the fashioning of images, do not admit of the interpretations which have been put upon them, if they are read along with their contexts. What is the full meaning of the two verses in which the above occur? In the first, cows, probably the clouds alluded to in a metaphorical manner, are exhorted by the hymnist, Bharadvāja, the son of Bṛhaspati, to nourish him and his people, to make lean, and thus ugly-looking, bodies beautiful, and to make his and his friends' houses prosperous; the cows are described as emitting auspicious sounds, the gifts of which are so well sung in the sacrificial assemblies (Yūyaṃ gāvo medayathā kṛśaṃ cidaśrīraṃ citkṛnuthā supratīkam | Bhadraṃ gṛhaṃ kṛnutha bhadravāco bṛhadvo vaya ucyate sabhāsu).

c9.30.5

In the second, on the other hand, Vāmadeva Ṛṣi describes Dyaus who was the progenitor of Indra, copiously praised, wielder of good thunderbolt and not fallen from heaven, as being possessed of a valiant son by bringing forth whom Dyaus became a most skilful workman (Suvīraste janitā manyata dyaurindrasya kartā svapastamo bhūt | Ya īṃ jajāna svaryaṃ suvajramanapacyutaṃ sadaso na bhūma). Thus, there cannot be the least justification for our finding in any portion of these Ṛk verses a reference to the practice of image-making. Pratika in the first passage should not be made much of, because the sense of a symbol or an image became attached to it in later texts; as vigraha primarily meant a body and secondarily also came to denote an image, so was the case with this word. Very little also can be said in support of the above-named scholar's method of finding a reference to the practice of casting metal images in the particular passages quoted by him from the Ṛgveda. The late hymn of the text (R. V., X. 184, 1) is really a mantra uttered in the time of impregnation (garbhādhāna), and there are clear indications of the real meaning of the three verses constituting the hymn. As regards the particular passages in such Ṛk verses as VII. 56, 14, and VII. 59, 10, if these are taken to allude to the temples of the Maruts, numerous others may be collected from the same text, which can be assumed to denote them.

c9.30.6

But the fact is that there is practically no support for the assumption that words like gṛhamedhīyaṃ or gṛhamedhāsa even distantly allude to the temples or shrines of such Vedic gods as the Maruts. The characteristic terms, however, used in the gṛhyasūtras, as we shall presently see, are devagṛha, devāgāra, devakula, devāyatana, etc., which denote the shrines of the gods; but, by the time the latest section of the Vedic literature was composed, images and temples had already been accepted by the higher sections of the Vedic Indo-Aryans. In the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, description is given of a structure of post and thatch with mat walls, which was discussed by Simpson as denoting a temple; but Coomaraswamy has rightly pointed out that "this was a building for the performance of sacrifices, not a temple in the later sense." This, again, was a very simple shed of the primitive type and was called prācīnavaṃśa or prāgvaṃśa (also described as śālā) on account of the top beams which were bamboo ones extending from west to east; on a different mode of laying these again, the fire chapel was differently designated. In the udīcīnavaṃśa type of structure, also named vimata by Hiranyakeśin (Śrautasūtra, 3, 2 and 7, 1), the beams were laid from south to north. In more pompous types of sacrifices performed by kings, these types of buildings also served as fire chapels.

c9.30.7

In the Brāhmaṇa literature, again, “ many precise and elaborate details are given regarding the building of altars, generally fire-altars ” of various shapes; and it is noteworthy that the rules for the construction of these sacrificial altars, given in the Śulva Sūtras, make use of dynamic symmetry, of which no trace can be recognised at a later period.¹ But nowhere in such literature is to be found any reference, however slight, to the mode of construction of temples or shrines, which must have found some place if the images and temples had played some part in the sacrificial religion of the early Vedic Indo-Aryans. The supposed allusion to the processions of the images of Indra in Ṛgveda, I. 10, 1 and III. 53, 5-6, if carefully scrutinised, will be found to rest on no better data.

c9.31

¹ S.B.E., XXXII, pp. 313, 317-18.

c9.32

¹ Yāska, Nirukta, XIII. 1, 7—Catvāri śṛṅgā itivedā vā etā uktāstrayo asya pādā iti svarāṇi trīṇi dve śirṣe prāyaṇīyodayaniye saptahastāsaḥ sapta chandāṃsi tridhābaddhah tredhā baddho mantrabrāhmaṇakalpairvṛṣabho roraviti roravaṇamasya savanakrameṇa ṛgbhiryajurbhissāmabhiryadenamṛgbhiśśamsanti yajurbhiryajanti sāmabhisstuvanti mahodeva ityeṣa hi mahān devo yadyajño martyo āviveśetyeṣa hi manuṣyānāviśati yajanāya tasyottarā bhūyase nirvacanāya. Reference has already been made to a late sculpture corresponding partly to this description (the figure is human, its mount being the bull) in the eastern Gopura of the Chidambaram temple. It is Viṣṇu in one of his minor manifestations; in the Brāhmaṇa literature (cf. Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, XIV. 1, 1, 6), Viṣṇu is identical with sacrifice, and here we see the imagery is carried further and given a concrete shape.

c9.33

¹ Coomaraswamy, History of Indian and Indonesian Art, p. 42.

c9.34

It has been found necessary to discuss the views of Bollensen and Venkateswara at some length in the above paragraphs, because their hypothesis was adumbrated with great skill and confidence as well as with the hypothetical support of elaborate textual data, their presentation of the case being by far the ablest one. Brindavan Ch. Bhattacharyya, in the long introduction to his work on Indian Images, Part I, did also expound the view sponsored by the above scholars; but the premises laid down by him in support of his conclusion were more or less the same as have been critically estimated and need not be discussed here in detail. The Ṛgvedic verse, X. 130, 3, does not prove the existence of the practice of image worship in early Vedic religion; but as has been pointed out above that the verse, if it is read along with the succeeding ones and if the commentary of Sāyaṇa is properly understood, does not at all justify us in finding in it an allusion to the making of images of the early Vedic gods and worshipping them. The mere use of the word *pratimā* or *pratīka* without the proper context will not be sufficient to demonstrate anything. Venkateswara, as has been pointed above, expressly remarks with reference to *R. V.*, V. 52, 15, "that it shows that there was no idol worship." In this connection, the interesting remark of Bloomfield requires to be noted at length: "The mind of the Vedic poet is the rationalistic mind of the ruminating philosopher, rather than the artistic mind which reproduces the finished product. It is engaged too much in reasoning about and constantly altering the wavering shapes of the gods, so that these remain to the end of Vedic time too uncertain in outline, too fluid in substance for the modelling hand of the artist. On a pinch we could imagine a statue of the most material of the Vedic god Indra; but it is hard to imagine a statue of the god Varuṇa. As a matter of fact there is no record of Vedic ikons, or Vedic temples. In all these senses there is no Vedic Pantheon."' The long extract from Yāska's *Nirukta*, already referred to above, dealing with the anthropomorphism of the Vedic gods, should be noted again in this connection. R. P. Chanda rightly remarks, in regard to it, "This discussion clearly shows that up to the time of Yāska which synchronises with the last phase of the Vedic period the Vedic gods had not been invested with the forms in which they appear in the Epics and the Purāṇas."² Non-existence of images and temples or the absence of the practice of image-worship among the higher section of the Vedic Indo-Aryans was not the characteristic only of this ancient people of the world. Many other nations of the ancient world can be shown to have been aniconists in practice. It is late in the religious history of China and Japan that any tangible traces of image-worship are to be found. Many of the nomadic tribes of the Semites did not practise it. “Among the Jews it appeared only in exceptional cases (e.g., the Golden Calf and the Brazen Serpent). Caesar and Tacitus assert that there were neither temples nor images among the Teutons. In Rome, according to Varro, the Romans lived 170 years without representing their gods by images. Even among the Greeks we find scarcely any traces of idolatry in the time of the Pelasgi.”¹

c9.35

¹ Bloomfield, *Religion of the Veda*, p. 89.

c9.36

² R. P. Chanda, M.A.S.I., No. 30, p. 2. The Gṛhyasūtras which refer to shrines of gods are collectively to be placed much later than Yāska.

c9.37

¹ *Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics*, Vol. VII., p. 113.

c9.38.1

When Bloomfield very guardedly wrote that one could imagine ‘on a pinch’ a statue of Indra as he was the most material of the Vedic gods, he had in his mind the verses (R. V., IV. 24, 10 and VIII. 1, 5) which had already been noted. Macdonell thus observes in his *Vedic Mythology* (p. 155), “Material objects are occasionally mentioned in the later Vedic literature as symbols representing deities. Something of this kind (possibly an image) must be meant even in a passage of the *Ṛgveda*, in which the poet asks, ‘Who will buy this, etc’.” Again, in *R. V.*, VIII. 1, 5, reference to some form of an idol is seen by him. The hymnist says, “O thunderbolt-bearing Indra. We do not sell you even at a large price; O Vajra-bearer, not even for thousands or ten thousands of riches; O possessor of many treasures, not even in exchange of untold wealth” (*Mahe cana tvāmadrivaḥ parā śulkāya deyām! Na sahasrāya nāyutāya vajrivo na śatāya śatāmagha*). Hopkins remarks about these two passages in his *Religions of India* (p. 150), thus, “That images of the gods were supposed to be powerful may be inferred from the late verses (*R. V.*, IV. 24, 10)—‘Who will buy my Indra, etc’., but allusions to idolatry are elsewhere extremely doubtful.” There can be no gainsaying the fact that in these two passages, very likely references to some sensible representations of Indra are made, for these are actually offered for hire by the hymnist.

First 52 of 82 passages. Read on

Linked texts (21)