The Development of Hindu Iconography c9.38

Language: English

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.

c9.38.2

But, even here, if we read these verses along with the context, we feel grave doubt about accepting them as referring to actual images of Indra. As Coomaraswamy remarks, “ Just as the Bodhi-tree and *pādukā* at Bharhut are called ‘ Buddha ’ (*bhagavato*), so here a symbol may have been referred to as ‘Indra’ ” (H.I.I.A., p. 42). But, here also the analogy is not complete. In the case of the various symbols aniconically representing the Master in the early Buddhist art of Central India, there cannot be the least hesitation in accepting them as regular objects of worship (*pūjā*); the use of the word ‘ *bhagavat* ’ in the Bharhut labels, the attitude of the accessory human and animal figures clustering round the central symbol in the bas-reliefs, and the very nature of the monuments in which they appear leave no doubt as regards their character. These Indra fetishes, on the other hand, were they mere symbols or images, were certainly not so many objects of worship. Reference has already been made to Venkateswara’s remark about accepting these as ‘permanent images of Indra’ used in Indra festival. But the very context in the former passage and the term ‘*vṛtrāṇi*’ used in it give in my opinion the clue regarding their character. These were in all probability meant for *abhicāra* purposes, for inflicting harm and injury on the enemies of the hirer by performing some sacrificial rituals in which they were principally utilised;

c9.38.3

if this interpretation of their original character is accepted, there remains no ground for Venkateswara’s supposition that *vṛtrāṇi* in the passage means ‘ apparently images of Vṛtra made for each occasion, whence the plural *vṛtrāṇi* to be slain by Indra.’ As Vṛtra was the arch enemy of Indra, the plural of the word in this passage figuratively refers to the enemies of the hirer, who were to be harmed or slain through the agency of these Indra fetishes. This is fully borne out by Sāyaṇa in this manner; the commentator says, *Tadānīṃ he kretāro yuṣmākaṃ madhya evamapi samayaḥ kriyate | Yadāyamindro vṛtrāṇi tvadīyān śatrūn jaṃghanat*, etc., i.e., the hymnist says that this Indra of mine when it had killed your Vṛtras, i.e., enemies, etc. Reference to *abhicāra* ritual, though implicit here, is explicit in many other Vedic, especially Brāhmaṇa, passages, and a substantial portion of the *Atharvaveda* is devoted to it. Thus, there can be no question of placing the Indra fetishes on the same footing with the images of the cult gods of the subsequent period, though we shall see afterwards that particular varieties of some of the latter were used also for *abhicāra* purposes (the rites associated with these acts unquestionably differed in the two periods).

c9.38.4

The above-mentioned sensible representations of Indra again remind us of various other objects which are mentioned in the Brāhmaṇas as symbolising several Vedic divinities, all these symbols being necessarily intimately connected with the rituals of sacrifice. Thus, “the wheel is in various ritual performances employed as a symbol of the sun, as representing both its shape and its motion. It is thus used in the Vājapeya sacrifice, in the ceremony of laying the sacrificial fire, and at the solstitial festival. Gold or a firebrand was employed as a symbol of the sun, when drawing water after sunset instead of before; and in piling the fire-altar, a disc of gold was placed on it to represent the sun.”¹ But the clearest mention of a sensible representation is in association with the *Agnicayana* ceremony in sacrifice. This ceremony deals with the building of the fire-altar, independently of the ordinary *Agnyādheya* and *Punarādheya* ceremonies (the installation and the re-installation of the sacrificial fires). The *Taittirīya Saṃhitā* (V. 2, 6-9) lays down that the objects named below are to be deposited in the foundation of the altar in this particular rite—a lotus leaf, a gold disc, a golden man (*hiraṇmaya puruṣa*), two wooden ladles, a perforated brick, a brick of *dūrvā* grass, a living tortoise, the heads of dead animals including those of a horse and a bull, a mortar, a pan in the middle of which the head of the man is put, and the head of a snake. R. P.

c9.38.5

Chanda surmises that “in such a company the golden man probably represents the human victim originally immolated and buried at the foundation of a sacred edifice.” It may be mentioned here in *passim* that in the foundation ceremonies of buildings in many parts of India, one rite consists of drawing in outline with vermilion paint the figure of a man on a full-sized brick which is then placed in the lowermost depth of the foundation trench, it being understood that the particular brick with the outline drawing must not be disturbed in any way during the construction; this figure is described in the ritual texts dealing with *vāstuyāga* as *vāstupuruṣa* to whom flowers, sandal paste, and five jewels (*pañcaratna*) are offered. The partially sacred character of the golden man, also, has rightly been emphasised by Chanda by referring to a *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* passage (VII. 4, 1, 15) which identifies it with Prajāpati, Agni and even the sacrificer himself in turn. With regard to the mode of representation, the following extract from the same text (VII. 4, 1, 15) deserves careful notice, "As to this they say 'Let him make no arms to this golden man, lest he should cause him to be redundant;

c9.38.6

for these two spoons are (in lieu of) his arms.' Let him nevertheless make (him with arms)."' Coomaraswamy offers an apposite comparison of this crude figure, which must have been a plaque in human form, with the "little plaque supposed to represent Pṛthivī found in a burial mound, regarded as Vedic, at Lauriya Nandangarh" (H.I.I.A., p. 42). This may also be compared with the tiny gold-leaf female figure which was found among many other precious and semi-precious objects in the inscribed relic casket at Piprawa, the relics, as the inscription informs us, being associated with Buddha. After a critical consideration of all these data, it can be confidently observed that, even when some references to symbols or sensible representations are found in the Vedic and Brāhmaṇic texts, this does not necessarily mean that they were the images proper of the respective divinities.