Mediaeval Sinhalese Art c10.s2: II. Nētra Maṅgalya
Mediaeval Sinhalese Art c10.s2
- Language
- English
II. Nētra Maṅgalya
c10.s2.1
The *Netra Maṅgalya* ceremony is one of great interest in itself, and important from our point of view as showing the craftsman in his sacerdotal capacity (see p. 63) and as illustrating the relation between him and his patron. The ceremony was really the dedication of the temple (more exactly, the image in it); and it will be well for the sake of completeness to trace very briefly the whole course of events connected with the building of a new vihāra, before laying special stress on the *netra maṅgalya*. The patron was almost always the King, who had, of course, the state workmen at his disposal. But in many cases the patron was a layman or group of laymen*; or might be a priest who made himself responsible for the construction or restoration of a temple.† Having determined to build and endow a new vihāra, the King sent presents of betel, etc., by yoke, to the artificer (whom hereafter I speak of as the foreman) in the *paṭṭal-hatara* who was to be entrusted with the work, and requested him to undertake it. Any lesser man than the King would on such an occasion go himself with the presents to the smith's house. The foreman appointed a meeting with the patron (as I shall call the King hereafter) on the spot, after determining an auspicious moment for beginning the work (*nekat balanava*). He there received presents of clothing and rice, and performed various preliminary ceremonies analogous to those proper to the building of a house, but more elaborate. An altar to Gaṇa Deviyō (Gaṇesha) and *bulat taṭuva* to Bhūma Dēvī were erected and an *aṭamagala* diagram drawn (see glossary), after which the work on the foundation was begun.
c10.s2.2
The artificers were provided with food and clothing while the work continued. Presents were made to the foreman from time to time, especially when the image was first plastered and whitened preliminary to painting, and again later as described below.
c10.s2.3
By far the most important ceremony connected with the building and decoration of a vihāra or with its renovation (*jarā-ves-arinava*) was the actual *nētra maṅgalya* or Eye ceremonial. The ceremony had to be performed in the case of any image, whether set up in a vihāra or not. Even in the case of flat paintings it was necessary. D. S. Muhandiram when making for me a book of drawings of gods according to the Rupāvaliya, left the eyes to be subsequently inserted on a suitable auspicious occasion, with some simpler form of the ceremony described. Knox has a reference to the subject as follows: "Some being devoutly disposed, will make the Image of this God (Buddha) at their own charge. For the making whereof they must bountifully reward the Founder. Before the Eyes are made, it is not accounted a God, but a lump of ordinary Metal, and thrown about the Shop with no more regard than any thing else. But when the Eyes are to be made, the Artificer is to have a good gratification, besides the first agreed upon reward. The Eyes being formed, it is thenceforward a God.‡ And then, being brought with honour from the Workman's Shop, it is dedicated by Solemnities and Sacrifices, and carried with great state into its shrine or little house, which is before built and prepared for it. Sometimes a man will order the Smith to make this Idol, and then after it is made will go about with it to well-disposed people to contribute towards the Wages the Smith is to have for making it. And men will give freely towards the charge. And this is Netra looked upon in the man that appointed the Image to be made, as a notable piece of Maṅgalya Devotion.”
c10.s2.4
∗ *As in the cases recorded in the Damunumeya and Ovala sannas, quoted on pp. 77, 78, below.* † *As, for example, recorded in the Dembaralave Vihara tuḍapata (Lawrie's Gazetteer, p. 717).* ‡ *Rather it is thus consecrated; as Knox himself remarks elsewhere, ‘As for these Images they say they do not own them to be Gods themselves but only Figures, representing their Gods to their memories; and as such give to them honour and worship.’*
c10.s2.5
Almost in the same way, the mediæval guilds in Europe, wishing to make offerings to the parish church, would sometimes undertake a work beyond their means, and raise money for it by a popular entertainment or ‘Ale,’ which nowadays has degenerated into a bazaar. But the Sinhalese made use of no such inducements; they had only to ask, and the money was gladly given, by those who were eager to share in the merit of the work! The ceremony would seem to be rather Hindu than Buddhist in origin; the underlying idea seems to be an endeavour to secure good ‘conditions’ at the time of definitely consecrating the image as a medium which shall put the worshipper in touch with the unseen god whose symbol is thus set forth, and this is rather a Hindu than a Buddhist idea; for Southern Buddhism does not regard Buddha as a still existent personal God, and would not have been likely to originate such a ceremonial, in connection with a mere memorial. But the ceremony no doubt dates back to the time when Buddhism and Hinduism were more distinctly recognized as two aspects of one faith, which historically and fundamentally they are. Some idea of danger (as of ‘playing with fire,’ or ‘calling down lightning from heaven’) appears to attach to this consecration of the image, whereby it is made a medium between the worshipper and his god (which would be a Hindu not a Buddhist idea); and the object of the ceremonial is, in this connection, to avert misfortunes, akin to those resulting from a glance of the ‘evil eye,’ which might otherwise afflict the presumptuous builder and artist. Something of the same feeling is shown in other cases, where images are held to be the vehicle of power. A golden image at Morapaya vihāra, is said to have possessed such power, that when a priest attempted to repair its head, his own head became leprous and withered away.* The image appears to be regarded as charged with power, like a Leyden jar, and similarly, when dealing with it, means should be taken to avoid a shock; but all this is rather foreign to the spirit of Southern Buddhism, and belongs to the Hindu stratum in it.
c10.s2.6
The first essential was, as always, to find out a suitable day and hour for the ceremony (nekat balanava). As the eyes had to be painted about five a.m. in memory of the fact that Buddha attained enlightenment at that hour, a nekat that falls at that time must be waited for. Till then the ceremony had been postponed, even if for a whole year, as auspicious nekat falling at other times were of no use.
c10.s2.7
The preparations for the ceremony were elaborate. At about six p.m. the previous evening, a beginning was made with the recitation of Kosala-bimba-varṇanava†; at eight or nine the arrangement of the kalasthapanaya was begun; about three a.m. the offerings (pidenna) at the altars were made; and about five the eyes were painted. Outside the vihāra were erected eight altars (dibba-gē, lit., god’s houses) to Indra, Agni, Yama, Nairṛita, Varuṇa, Vaijavya, Uttara and Īsānaḥ*; alternating with these were eight others for the attendants of these gods. On each side of the door were prepared altars to the guardian dēvatāvō (dvārapāla), whose images (doraṭu-pala-rūpa) were carved at the base of the door jambs (often on ivory plaques, as at the Daḷadā Māligāva, Kandy); and on the threshold an altar to the guardian (kṣētrapāla) of the site. One altar, for the Kadgapala dēvatāva was prepared outside the vihāra, beyond the limits of the pansala grounds. A kalasthāpanaya was prepared, i.e., a collection of eighty pots (muṭṭi), in which were placed rice, coconuts, jaggery and money (a fanam in each); each pot was covered by a napkin. A kanya nāl (thread spun by a virgin) was drawn round, and the pots covered with a cloth of five colours.
c10.s2.8
The details of the preparation of the kalasthāpanaya were as follows: rice (hal) was spread on the ground, and an aṭamagala diagram [see glossary] drawn in it with the finger. The area was next covered with mats over which five kinds of paddy had been thinly spread, and the space was then divided into eighty parts by strips of coconut leaf. The eighty pots were arranged in the places thus indicated, separated into two groups of forty each, forming the Brahma Garbbhaya and the Viṣṇu Garbbhaya. A special pot set in the middle of those of the former group, containing gold, silver, pearls and the nine gems, was called Brahma Kalaya, and another pot set in the middle of the other group and containing rice was called the Viṣṇu Kalaya. These chief pots were elevated on stools above the others. The whole collection formed the kalasthāpanaya.
c10.s2.9
Inside the vihāra was prepared an altar to Gaṇa Deviyō (Gaṇeṣa); also the indrakila. This was a figure made of rags, supported on a rukattana stick (Alstonia scholaris) set up in a kaḷageḍiya (earthen pot) in which the nine gems, gold, rice, etc., had been placed. It was set in the middle of an aṭamagala diagram drawn in rice on the vihāra floor, in front of the image and facing it.
c10.s2.10
All the foregoing arrangements were made by two or more men or youths dressed as Brahmans; the costume (brāhmaṇa eṇḍuma) consisted of dhoṭi, shawl, turban, ear-rings, and thread. When completed another man, dressed in red clothing, called raṭu eṇḍuma (red tuppoṭiya, heṭṭaya, handkerchief, and tall pointed jagalat toppiya), and provided with a sword, took a dummala kabala and a kotalaya and went before each of the altars offering incense and water and reciting Sanskrit ślōkas; he walked round the vihāra ten times (keeping always to the right), and finally proceeded with drums and music to the Kadgapāla altar and made offerings there, then returned to the vihāra. The purpose of the drum was to attract the attention of those to whom offerings were made. Offerings were also made at the Gaṇa deviyō dibba-gē inside the vihāra.
c10.s2.11
All was now ready for the second and most essential part of the ceremony. The foreman dressed up as a prince, and had further a fine cloth (called vahantarāva) over his head. The costume (kumāra eṇḍuma) consisted of tuppoṭiya, heṭṭaya, toppiya, sword and jewellery. It would appear from the Mahāvaṃsa (Ch. LXXIII.) and other references that the eyes were at one time regularly painted by the King himself. The chronicle states that an ecclesiastical building (Dhammāgāra) was erected by Parākrama Bāhu I. “It was adorned with many images of the Conqueror made of gold and the other precious substances, and decorated with an array of pictures of the Omniscient wrought on cloth. And whenever the great king entered the house to paint with his own hands the eyes of the images of the Conqueror, or to make offerings to the Tathāgata, or to hear the preaching of his doctrines that have never been surpassed, the nautch girls danced and Netra sang songs sweet and melodious as the music of heaven; and it was also adorned with Maṅgalya (the image of) a peacock of great splendour that joined the women always in the dance, uttering wild screams that amazed and delighted the people greatly.” The use of the frequentative probably implies that the building referred to was regularly used by the king for performing the Netra Maṅgalya ceremony for images intended for various situations. Another instance is recorded in a sannasa held by one Kalu Nayide, of Vannipola (Lawrie, p. 910): “When the King of Kings, Śrī Saṅghabo Senasammata Vikrama Bāhu, was reigning in Senkaḍagala, he ordered on the full moon day of the twentieth year of his reign two sheets of cloth (twenty cubits by nine cubits) to be woven, and caused Ācharilla Dityaya and his son Sivanta Dityaya to paint thereon the likeness of Buddha seated on the Vajrāsana and surrounded by Śakra, Brahma, and other Dēvas. On the completion of painting the two sheets, he ordered the performance of the ceremony of placing pots full of water and of other rites; and on the completion of the Nētra Pinkama, his hands having been washed, he was graciously pleased to bestow on the two artists, with the object of satisfying them and to enable them to make offerings to Buddha, fields . . . to be held absolutely from generation to generation.” Here the King himself painted the eyes, as the reference to the washing of his hands shows; and this appears to have been the usual custom. It is stated likewise of Kirti Śrī, that on the completion of the Gaṅgārāma Vihāra, and all preparations had been duly made, that “he set the eyes of the image amidst great rejoicing, and the sound of musical instruments.” On the other hand, the eyes were sometimes painted by the craftsmen themselves, even in the days of kings. A deed of A.D. 1753 makes mention of a land which had been ‘granted to Hamadi Baḍala for painting the eyes of Buddha’ (Lawrie’s Gazetteer, p. 937). Evidently the ceremony was performed by the king if possible; just as in modern times, great men are availed of to lay foundation stones; but when the king was not available (and, of course, always after 1815, when the rule of the Kandyan kings came to an end) the chief painter, in royal garb, performed the ceremony himself; and it is thus that the ritual has been described to me by present-day craftsmen.
c10.s2.12
∗ Regents of the four quarters and four half-quarter points of the compass, E., S.E., etc., in the order in which the names are given.
c10.s2.13
The painter of the eyes, whether the King or craftsman, was accompanied by a second man, also robed, and with a cloth over his head, but less elaborately; both, and also the ‘Brahmans’ if not very youthful, entered the vihāra, but all other men, and still more, women, stood afar off. The second man carried a mirror (kannaḍiya: originally, no doubt, of metal) and the brushes and black paint for painting the eyes. On opening the door, mantrams were said, and the dhoby spread a white cloth to walk upon (or perhaps this was done at an earlier stage). Proceeding to the image, before which stood the indrakila above described, the second man held the mirror in front of it while the first man painted in the eyes. The second man repeated mantrams* the while. If there Netra Mangalya
c10.s2.14
∗ As “Ōm ayusmantan karmasvaham visam visāradhayastu bhūmi sabbhyāse āyus svardhatēmid-ham. Ōm nētra prasādakāraya akshavudahava tathāgatāya āyusvargāya balavardhanāya, Ōm santir astu tushtir astu pustir astu avignam astu ārōgyam astu subham astu subhakarmmāstu karmma siddhir astu”: of which the general significance is perhaps, ‘Hail! mayest thou become possessed of the fruit of deeds may there be increase on earth . . . and length of days. Hail eyes! auspicious orbs giving felicity, increase, blessing, prosperity and power. Hail! let there be peace, let there be joy, let there be fulness, let there be freedom from hindrance, let there be freedom from sickness, may it be auspicious, may our deeds be auspicious, may our actions be blessed’; but the mantrams are very corrupt, and are given as recorded. The correct originals could probably be traced in India. I give this version merely as a sample of the corrupt Sanskrit in use.
c10.s2.15
were more than one image, the same process was repeated for each, also for the images of gods, if any; but no ceremony was needed in the case of representations of human beings, as, for example, if the patron were represented on the walls. The purpose of the mirror was to receive the glance (belma) of the image*; and similarly the indrakila acted as a scapegoat, like the scarecrow (pambaya) in a rice-field which serves not only to frighten birds, but to avert the effects of the evil eye by receiving the glance. As soon as the work was done the painter drew the vahantarāva over his eyes, and thus blindfolded, was led out and up to a vessel of water already prepared. Here he washed his head, repeating the ashtaka
c10.s2.16
Ganga yamuna tire, Godha sindhu sarasvati
Narmada sindhu kaveri, Jalais nasmin santi mispure,
Padman patran visa laksh(m)i, Padman kesaran varan,
Nityan padmalayan devi, Savahpatu sarasvati.
c10.s2.17
which is particularly corrupt; but the first part of it is of interest as it evidently represents a mantram used in India for ceremonial bathing, viz. :
c10.s2.18
Om ganga ca yamune caiva godavari sarasvati:
Narmade sindhu kaveri jale 'smin sannidhim kuru.
c10.s2.19
“Hail! Oh ye Ganges, Jamna, Godāvari, Sarasvati, Narmada, Sindhu (Indus) and Kavērī, come and approach (hallow and purify) this water.” This is an invocation of the seven sacred rivers of India, a prayer that the ceremonial may be, as it were, a lustration with the very waters of these sacred rivers.† It has also a mystical interpretation.‡ The foreman, while thus purifying himself by ceremonial bathing, cut the water with his sword (cf. diya-kēpīma or water-cutting ceremony performed by the kapurāla of a dēvāle after a perahera; see p. 39); and after that the vessel was shattered. Returning to the vihāra, the doors, carefully closed after the ceremony, were opened, and the foreman stood on the threshold facing the people who cried, ‘kartri darisenayaṭa ava,’ i.e., the patron has come to see the work’; for so it was, and he now approached the door and gave presents into the hand of the kāraka (craftsman). These the latter handed to a pupil, and taking water repeated mantrams§ and sprinkled the people.
c10.s2.20
∗ Is this a parallel to the Gorgon’s head, which could only be safely regarded in a mirror? It seems to belong to the same group of ideas, but with this difference, that the mirror is not used by the painter to avoid the necessity of looking at the image, but only as a ‘lightning conductor’ to receive the glance. A remarkable parallel to the use of the mirror on this occasion, is its use on the occasion of the annual Nanamura mangalya, or head-washing festival. The priest washes the sacred reflection of the head of Buddha in a mirror held in front of the image for the purpose (Service Tenures Commission, 1872, p. 501). It is said to be a weekly ceremony at the Maligāva (Rep. Temple Lands Comm., 1858, p. 5). See also Rhys Davids, ‘Buddhism,’ for use of mirrors in Tibetan ceremonial. † The same prayer is uttered by the Buddhist in Ceylon, and by the Hindu in Bengal! We have here a single example of the ‘geographical sense’ which pervades Hindu culture and religion. ‡ See ‘Daily Practice of the Hindus,’ Allahabad, 1906 (?), p. 212. § These are evidently the verses called “dorakaḍa asna,” which are referred to in the copper sannasa (A.D. 1415) of Beligala Vihāra, as having been recited by Sendipperuma Baṇḍāra when a nētra maṅgalya ceremony was celebrated there in the reign of Parākrama Bāhu VI. (Bell, Kēgalla Report, p. 28).
c10.s2.21
At the same time the Royal or other patron made grants of land to the temple, arranged Netra for the establishment of priests for its service, or set afoot further building operations for Maṅgalya their accommodation. Thus, in the Dambulla Vihāra tuḍapata of A.D. 1726, it is stated that King Senaratna restored and repaired the temple. “At the completion of the repairs, which took three years, the king, on the festival of painting of the eyes of the images of Buddha, proceeded to the temple accompanied by the three queens and three princes. After the festival was over the king stood on the semicircular step-stone of Mahārāja Vihāra and called on the priests there assembled to nominate a person fit to be appointed incumbent of this vihāra, sixty-five images of which, including the one in a reclining posture, had been painted and finished. The priests, in response to the call, stated that Kahavandala Tanhankara was fit to be incumbent, being also a lineal descendant of the priests who had officiated in the temple since the days of King Valagam-Bāhu, and a person who took much pains in effecting the repairs. The king being very much pleased, defined boundaries for the four villages aforesaid, viz., Sirasgamuva, Nalalkumbura, Giriyagamuva, and Pāḍeniya. . . . For the above . . . and their appurtenances, high and low lands, jungles, and ponds, he, the king, granted a Śrī Sannas in order that the rites and ceremonies in the Dambulla Vihāra might be continued to be performed duly, and that this vihāra benefice might permanently continue in the Śisyanu-paramparava* of Kahavandala Tanhankara. And further considering that a lasting sannas should be given to the said priest he also caused the figures of the sun and moon to be engraved on the stone lying to the south of the Dēvarāja Vihāra. After this, standing on the semicircular stone of the Mahārāja Vihāra, His Majesty directed Abasiṃha Mudiyanse to have dormitories built in the village Lenavela, and allowed him (for the expenditure) thirty amuṇu of seed paddy from Akuramboda, thirty pieces of iron, ten buffaloes from the fold of Dumbukolagama, ten oxen that were brought laden with sacks of sand from Kandalama, ten cows with calves from Bovatte, and ten she-buffaloes with calves from the gabaḍa village Kaduruvela” (Lawrie’s Gazetteer, p. 126).
c10.s2.22
On such occasions, king, chiefs and people were brought near together, taking part in joint dedications. At Ovisa, for instance, in 1775, on the occasion of eye painting, the King dedicated lands to the Nallegoḍa Vihāra, and many dedications of praveṇi lands by villagers were also made, the chiefs and others being witnesses (Lawrie’s Gazetteer, p. 671). In the case of communal or private dedications, the Royal consent was required, and readily given, often with the addition of further gifts. And so, to quote again the words of the chronicle, the king was ‘one with the religion and the people.’†
c10.s2.23
After such almsgivings had been completed, the curtains before the image were drawn back, and all the people entered with loud cries of ‘Sādhu! Sādhu!’ For some days the festival (netra pinkama) continued, when many further presents were given to the craftsmen, and the temple was formally endowed with lands.
c10.s2.24
The workmen remained at the vihāra a week before returning to their homes, and on the night of their return a pirit service‡ was held to complete their purification.
c10.s2.25
∗ Pupillary succession. † How very different a state of affairs now exists, must be apparent to all who contrast with this picture, that of the English Governor, often, it may be, conscientious, efficient and hardworking, even perhaps sympathetic, but very far from being ‘one with the religion and the people.’ ‡ Described by D. J. Subasinha, ‘Twentieth Century Impressions of Ceylon,’ p. 193; also J. F. Dickson, J.C.R.A.S., Vol. VIII., p. 226.
Linked texts (2)
- Mahāvaṃsa — Pāli
- Dhāturūpāvalī — Sanskrit