The Development of Hindu Iconography c9.22

Language: English

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).