Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vastu-shastra (Vol. I: Hindu Science of Architecture; Vol. II: Hindu Canons of Iconography and Painting) v2.c74.s2: B. Sculptural Sources

Vāstu-śāstra (Vol. I: Hindu Science of Architecture; Vol. II: Hindu Canons of Iconography and Painting) v2.c74.s2

Language
English

B. Sculptural Sources

v2.c74.s2.1

With these observations on the literary sources (the Śastrīya) of Hindu Iconography, let us very briefly introduce the sculptural ones (the Sthāpatya) the second line of investigation. I have purposely used the second word, the Sthāpatya, to hint at its wider field of enquiry. It may include not only the stone-images, wooden ones or the clay icons, but also the images on the coins and the seals and so many other terracotta figures and figurinens as found in the remotest past. To put it in one word all that goes by the name of Archaeological data can be easily included in the broad scope of sculptural traditions of this country where the services of not only the stone-mason, wood-carver and the potter but also those of the metal-caster were employed by the numerous religious-minded people of India. Among metallic images (those of gold, silver, bronze etc.) the images on ancient coins and seals presuppose the flourishing metal-casting art of India. Hence all these data provide a facinating field of enquiry to reconstruct not only the sources of Hindu Iconography but also its rise and development.

v2.c74.s2.2

Dr. J. N. Bannerjea in his monumental work ‘Development of Hindu Iconography’, has very ably utilized the archaeological data of inscriptions, coins and seals in relation to the development of iconic cult and the iconography. As regards the sculptures (the stone images) found in the different parts of the land, mainly on the temple sites and cities, these have not been satisfactorily studied from this angle, though some purvācāryas like Smith, Havell, Brown, Kramrisch, Gangoli, Bhattacharya, to mention a few of them, have treated this subject in their own way. But as the writer is more concerned with the canons of the art rather than the monuments, these artistic studies unless coordinated with canonical ones, are only half done. In our opinion it provides a very vast field of research and study and scholars interested in this very paying branch of Indology may take up this study not only from the point of view of the monuments but also from canons as well. The author has set up this ideal, though it is not very easy to correlate the sculptures with the canons and so the present work may suffer from initial limitations. Nevertheless raising of certain problems in this field is itself not devoid of value.

v2.c74.s2.3

This problem of the synthetic sttudy *i. e.* correlation between the monuments and the literature on the subject may be proceeded with historical chronology—the different periods of Indian history presenting evidences both in the literary sources and the the monumental remains. We may begin with Vedas. As already hinted before, the anthropomorphic descriptions of the Vedic gods and goddesses are material descriptions very valuable in forming their coherent pictures. This iconology therefore may be considered to be the progenitor of the later iconography as set out in both the sources of Art and literature. The descriptions of Indra, Sūrya, Viṣṇu, etc. as given in the Ṛgveda are full of iconographical features. All these early Vedic iconographical elements will therefore have to be valuated ahead when the Pratimālakṣaṇas of individual gods and goddesses are attempted.

v2.c74.s2.4

After the Saṃhitās, Sūtras also provide a valuable field of enquiry to reconstruct an early iconography. Many gods and goddesses have been described therein. After Sūtra works Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa are our very rich literary sources, which also need be studied from this angle. Both these great works throw a flood of light, not only on the early traditions of image-worship in relation to the yakṣas and gods and goddesses but also give a valuable hint at the early arcāgṛhas—the caityas, etc. Before the full-fledged temple envolved in brick and mortar with its characterstic grandeaur of superstructure, early premitive shrines in the shapes of catvaras and caityas were very much in vogue. The Mahābhārata has a further importance in this respect as it has laid down vivid descriptions of some of the popular gods of the time, like Skanda (A. P. Skandavaṁśa) from where we can reconstruct an early icnography. All these early literary sources like Saṃhitās, Sūtras and epics, unfortunately cannot be shown correlated in the monuments as the finds in our possession do not warrant this. In this direction the archaeological material like terracotta figures and figurines found in the early excavations on the sites like Mohenjodaro, Harappa, etc. do give some clue towards this reconstruction but that has still to be worked out satisfactorily before a proper evaluation is attempted.

v2.c74.s2.5

After Mahābhārta, the different periods of ancients Indian History, like Śuṅga, Kuṣāṇ and Gupta are clear enough from where we can start in reconstructing the correlation between the manuals on the one hand and the monuments on the other.

v2.c74.s2.6

With this general introduction to this line of investigation, for completeness’ sake let us first take a bird’s eye view on the principal schools of Indian sculpture as well as characteristic features of the sculptures of various periods before we give our own lines from which these studies should be taken up. In this connection, the first thing to be noted in this historical point of view is that the early art is simple and ‘free from the cramping influence of artificial rules, and are notably realistic; a desire on the part of the artist to copy nature as faithfully as possible is plainly visible in his work’—Rao. The arrangement of the different limbs particulary the chest and outline of the whole body are remarkably natural in earliar sculptures. The drapery too is very effective and natural. In later sculptures however, there is a marked tendency of decorations and arrangements too deviate from a natural simplicity and seem to unwieldy effort. The later tendency is also represented in the iconographical prescriptions of the later Vāstu-texts, notably the Āgamas.

v2.c74.s2.7

Viewing broadly, writers on this branch have classified Hindu sculpture in four different schools, representing four different regions of India. “The first comprises what Mr. V. A. Smith calls the Mathura school. The second school is represented by the sculptures of the early Chalukyas of Badami and also those of Pallavas of Kanchi. All the three groups comprised within these two schools are marked by the same characteristic simplicity and elegance combined with much naturalism. The South Indian Sculptures of a later period corresponding to the re-established dominancy of the Cholas and Pandyas are but the continuation of the Pallava style, and may therefore be canveniently classed with it. The third school of Indian Sculpture is the later Chalukya-Hoysal school, which is distinguished from the other schools by its extremely florid sytle of ornamentation and delicate tracery in details (*e. g.* Chennakesava: stone Belur). In this school convention naturally holds a dominent place; and we notice a striking similarity between figures representing the same subjects, although they may be found in different and distant parts of the country; the same kinds of ornamentation, clothing, head-gear, posture and grouping may be observed in the same subjects in a uniform manner. The fourth school, which resembles closely the third in respect of ornamentation and grouping, is chiefly represented by the sculptures of Bengal, Assam and Orissa. It is at once recognized by the human figures therein possessing round faces, in which are set two oblique eyes, a broad forehead, a pair of thin lips and a small chin.”—Rao.

v2.c74.s2.8

Having this classification of Hindu Sculptures with their general characteristics in view, I am prompted to remark that all this is very elementary in the faithful and the fullest estimation of Hindu sculptures. Much needs be done in this realm of Indology where an integration of the prevalent faiths, the dominant creative urges as well as the exuberance of particular local or regional styles are given due consideration before a proper elucidation of this vast field of sculpture can be tackled with some satisfaction.

v2.c74.s2.9

Here we may raise certain problems as starting points to fathom the unfathomed (though not unfathomable) ocean of Indian sculpture or better would be the analogy of the vast firmament with innumerable shining devas, devīs, sages, apsarās, gandharvas, kinnaras, yakṣas, nāgas, animals, and birds and hence for a comfortable flight, we need some device for our aerial sojourn.

v2.c74.s2.10

The first question is: Can we investigate these scattered icons and other sculptures and gather them together in groups or styles or orders on the basis of the aforesaid integration as we have been able to do, to some extent, in case of the architectural remains? The answer may be in negative. As already pointed out that the background of Hindu Iconography is the institution of worship and this institution has had manifold transformations with the rise of different and divergent cults and sects. The rise of iconography, therefore, in our view, is synchronous with the cult-rituals. Granted that there were only five principal religious schools—Śaivism, Vaiṣṇavism, Śāktism, Buddhism and Jainism—developing their own Theology, Philosophy, Mythology and Rituals and in accordance with them for a proper evaluation of the sculptures associated with these religious trends, we have to go back to sacred sites. Naturally therefore, all the iconic sculptures scatterd far and wide in the different templesites to mention a few of them—Khajuraho and Bhuvanesvara in the North, Madura, Srirangam, Ramesvaram, etc. in the south can conveniently be grouped into two or three groups as the affinity is bewildering and evolution too is a result of inter-mixture of one another. Similarly the Buddhist and Jain Sculptures can be studied even though apparently hetrodox they are really very much influenced by the Brahmanical influences.

v2.c74.s2.11

Temples and temple-sites or temple-cities are our open museums. For a proper sculptural analysis—its origin and development as well as their grouping—there can be no better way than to devote a good deal of our attention to these sites and attempt a comparative estimation. The affinity between Bhuvanesvara and Khajuraho is remarkable; so is the case with Madura. The other sites too will unfold some another vista of vision. Therefore in my humble opinion, the study of the temples of India is still incomplete. The pioneering lead from this angle has already come from that gifted and talented lady, the author of Hindu Temple (two Volumes), Dr. Stella Kramrisch. We hope such volumes can be prepared on one single temple. Let us wait for the day when such specialised undertakings are forthcoming.

v2.c74.s2.12

CLASSIFICATION OF IMAGES IN GENERAL

v2.c74.s2.13

As the previous pages of this work maintain that the Iconography was intimately related to religion, and religious creeds and sects being many, the natural corrolary was that the different religious creeds both hetrodox and orthodox gave rise to different sets of icons and images. Furthermore we have also seen—vide the last chapter (Sources of Hindu Iconography)—that this religious upsurge is fully represented in the pages of the literary texts. Hence here in this chapter I shall try to give the classification of images in general and incidentally dwell at length on the variety of Hindu images of gods and goddesses as found not only in the sculptures, but in the canons of the Śāstras, so that this equipment may provide a connecting link between them in the next chapter in which the images as described in Samarāṅgaṇa-sūtradhāra and Aparājita-pracchā as well as other sources which have been taken notice of.

v2.c74.s2.14

Now before proceeding with the classification we have to take into consideration one fact of fundamental importance that each sculpture of an ancient date has a religious history behind it. The religious history of India in the pre-Christian and post-Christion periods is memorable in giving rise to so many faiths or cults, though they are all, as if they were, branches of one great tree. The Buddhism, Vaiṣṇavism Śaivism, Jainism, and the Śāktism together with Saura and Gāṇapatya cults, to mention only the principal ones, are the illustrations. A good many minor sects also arose in their respective folds, some of which assumed the character of a school itself. The Mahāyānism and Hīnayānism in Buddhism, schools of Śvetāmbaras and Digambaras in Jainism are notable examples of this fact. Similarly, Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism too had their minor schools of thought and ritual. All these varieties in the religious life of India as a consequence, increased correspondingly, the varieties of sculptural representation in the realm of National Iconography of India.

v2.c74.s2.15

Thus it is evident that the classification of images is not a simple thing. Classification can start only from some angle or other, naturally, therefore, there emerge various classifications, a brief notice of which I am going to take here. The classification of images can have various bases and these have been found currency in various treatises of modern scholars.

v2.c74.s2.16

A. Centres of Art

v2.c74.s2.17

We can classify images from the point of view of centres of art:—
1. Gandhara sculptures.
2. Magdha ,,
3. Nepalese ,,
4. Tibetan sculptures.
5. Dravidian ,,
6. Mathura ,, and so on.

v2.c74.s2.18

But this classification is not scientific, it is only an explanation. Because though the images may belong to the different centres, they may be of the same style and hence there would be overlapping.

v2.c74.s2.19

B. Religious Basis

v2.c74.s2.20

1. Vaidic 2. Paurāṇic 3. and Tāntric.
1. Vaidic—*i. e.* those based on the conception of the Vedas.
2. Paurāṇic ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Purāṇas.
3. Tāntrīc ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Tantras.

v2.c74.s2.21

But this also falls too short of a complete classification of Indian Images. What about the Buddhist and Jain Images? Though Buddhists and Jains too had their mythology, *i. e.* the Purāṇas and Tantras, but their images were quite different from those of the orthodox Hindu deities.

v2.c74.s2.22

C. Sectarian Basis

v2.c74.s2.23

1. Śaiva 2. Vaiṣṇava and 3. Saura images—it is also not broad enough. It only refers to minor faiths or sections of a principal school. Therefore, a good many scholars advocate three broad divisions of Indian Images :—
1. Orthodox Hindu or Brahmanical Images.
2. Buddhist Images.
3. Jain Images.

v2.c74.s2.24

But this classification too needs some modification. There is vast difference and divergance between the Paurānic images and the Tāntric images, both in Hinduism and Buddhism alike. Hence unless it is modified like the following, it may not be a systematic and scientific classification :—
1. Brahmanical Images (i) Paurāṇic (ii) Tāntric.
2. Buddhist Images. (*i*) Paurāṇic (*ii*) Tāntric,
3. Jain Images.

v2.c74.s2.25

Rao, Gopinath, T. A. in his ‘Elements of Hindu Iconography’ however, gives a somewhat quite different classification of the Images. As his treatment is confined to the Hindu or Brahmanical images, it is more acceptable than any so far advanced, though it may be pointed out that in several works on Śilpa-śāstra, Brahmanical and Buddhist as well as Jain images have been treated side by side (cf. Mānasāra). Of the different bases—hitherto not taken into account—of the classification of Hindu images, Rao takes up the following ones:—

v2.c74.s2.26

**A. Basis as portability.** Images are divided into three classes on the basis of portability or otherwise:—

v2.c74.s2.27

1. Cala—Movable.
2. Acal—Immovable and
3. Calācala—Movable-immovable.

v2.c74.s2.28

Now movable and immovable images again can be classified into five categories as per Bhṛgu's Vaikhänasāgama.

v2.c74.s2.29

Gopinath Rao has adduced from it the following four categories of movable images:—

v2.c74.s2.30

1. Kautuka Beras .. for worship.
2. Utsava Beras .. to be taken out on festive occasions.
3. Bali Beras .. daily service of offerings.
4. Snapana Beras .. for bathing.

v2.c74.s2.31

These are made of metal and are easily portable.

v2.c74.s2.32

**B. Basis as Posture.** Now the immovable images, called Mūla-Vigrahas or Dhruva-Beras, are generally made of stone to be permanently fixed in the central shrine, and they are invariably large and heavy images. They are classified into the following three categories:—

v2.c74.s2.33

1. Sthānaka—Standing.
2. Āsana—Sitting.
3. Śayana—Reclining.

v2.c74.s2.34

Here the basis is posture and a particular point of attention is that images of Viṣṇu alone can have all these three postures, *i. e.* reclining posture is not admissible in any other god except Viṣṇu. Again in case of Vaiṣṇava images, each of these three kinds of images are further sub-divided into the following four varieties:—

v2.c74.s2.35

1. Yoga 2. Bhoga 3. Vīra and lastly 4. Ābhicārika.

v2.c74.s2.36

Thus the Vaiṣṇava Dhruva-Beras are classified into as many as twelve varieties as per the tabulation below:—

v2.c74.s2.37

1. Yogasthānaka
2. Bhogasthānaka
3. Vīra-Sthānaka
4. Ābhicārika-Sthānaka
5. Yogāsana
6. Bhogāsana
7. Vīrāsana
8. Ābhicārikāsana
9. Yoga-śayana
10. Bhoga-śayana
11. Vīra-śayana.
12. Ābhicārika-śayana

v2.c74.s2.38

The first variety is meant to be worshipped for the spiritual realisation, the second for the worldly prospects, the third for the military prowess and the fourth, that is the last, for the purpose of inflicting defeat and death on the enemies and this last variety is not auspicious and is fit for setting up only in forests, on mountains, marshy tracts, etc., as they are not fit to be installed in the temples built in towns and villages.

v2.c74.s2.39

**C. Basis of Sculpture.**—Sculptural basis presupposes the different and manifold substances as well as modality of the icons. It is with this fundamental angle that our texts of Vāstu-śāstra (cf. Mayamata, Śilparatna, Samarāṅgaṇa, Aparājita, etc. quoted in Pr. Laks. pp. 10-14) have classified an image into three broad divisions, *viz.* Niṣkala, Sakala and Miśra. Niṣkala is liṅga, the non-manafest; Sakala is Bera, the fully manifest, and Misra—the manifest-non-manifest—the mixture of the first two, e. g. Mukha-liṅga.

v2.c74.s2.40

From the point of view of art, these images can have another classification into:—
1. Citra 2. Citrārdha and 3. Citrābhāsa.

v2.c74.s2.41

**Citra**—fully sculptured. It is also called Vyakta *i. e.* the images in the round, with all their limbs worked out and shown.

v2.c74.s2.42

**Citrardha.**—is half represented, say upto the chest. It is Vyaktaavyakta—manifest-non-manifest and is also called half-relief.

v2.c74.s2.43

**Citrābhāsa.**—refers to images painted on walls and clothes and such other suitable objects.

v2.c74.s2.44

**D. Bhāva or Sentiment.**—There is yet another basis for the classification of images. It is Bhāva, the sentiment: Raudra—the terrific—or Śānta or Saumya—the mild. It is particularly represented in the Śaiva Images.

v2.c74.s2.45

These are some of the bases from which the images are classified. In the Samarāṅgaṇa-Sūtradhāra and other texts (vide P. L. pp. 10-14) however, the criterion of classification of images are the substances—the different varieties of which shall be dealt with in a subsequent chapter (cf. Iconoplastic Art) of this part.

v2.c74.s2.46

This in short, is the contemporary treatment of the classification of images in general. A critical examination (vide Pratimā-Vijñāna p. 196-7) however would reveal that all these classifications so far advanced are faulty; for instance, classification proceeding from the basis of relegion—Brāhmaṇa, Baudha and Jain—is too wide and very general classification and in an iconographical analysis, it is of no help. Brāhmaṇa images themselves vary in accordance with the various cults and cult deities also vary with reference to the particular objects, forms and modes of worship. Similar have been the transformations in relation to Buddhist and Jain images as well. Naturally this classification may be helpful for a catalogue of images, but for our treatment which aims at dealing with the characteristic types of images and their gradual development, this is not very helpful.

v2.c74.s2.47

Similarly the classification of Indian Images having basis of the art-centres, Gandhara, Mathura, etc., is also faulty. Many of the images belonging to the two different centres tally one another not only in stylistic details but also in conceptual analysis. Thus this division commits the fallacy of overlapping each other. Further these divisions of art-centres do not claim sufficient exclusiveness from the point of view of art. 'Interchange of artistic styles has for all ages obtained among the ancient artists. It may be shown that Tibetan style of sculpture and the Dravidian style influenced each other and are identical in several ways. Similarly the style of the Mathura artists was deeply affected by Gandhara style. Needless, therefore, to multiply the defects of this classification'.

v2.c74.s2.48

In consonance to the spirit of the cultural background (in which art and religion both are integrated) the following five-fold criterion or basis of the classification of Indian Images may be adhered to:—

v2.c74.s2.49

1. Dharma (religion) 2. Deva, the deity, 3. Dravya the substance, 4. Śāstra—the canonial literature, and 5. Śailī, the style.

v2.c74.s2.50

The first criterion is broad enough to include all the images, Brāhmaṇa, Baudha and Jain. The Second one may be comprehended into the five principal classes of gods—Brāhma, Vaiṣṇava, Śaiva, Saura, Gāṇapatya, etc. The Śakti forms, i. e. the female images of the consorts of the gods, can be coupled with their companion gods. As regards the Buddhist and Jain images, they are nothing but an improvisation or extemporovisation of the Brahmanical deities. They have sprung up from the same channel, but with a coloured water (except the Buddha image) that colour being the Yab yum of the Tibetan Tāntricism. As regard the different varieties of Buddha's images they can very easily be included in Daśāvatara images of Viṣṇu. So is the case with the Jina images also.

v2.c74.s2.51

As regards the 3rd basis, the criterion of Substances, enough has to follow on this topic. The Śāstra and Śailī have been already taken into account. Thus the sum and substance of advancing this classification is to impress on the readers the desirability of such a classification of Indian Images which takes into its account all the above-mentioned bases.

v2.c74.s2.52

ICONO-PLANNING AND ICONOMETRY IN RELATION TO A PERFECT ICONOGRAPHY

v2.c74.s2.53

While introducing this part, it has been already pointed out that image-making in India was a very sacred institution. Though an art, it was a ritual as well. Similarly the complete adherance to the prescribed laws of image-making, was also an essential pre-requisite before iconography could be undertaken. It is in accordance with these two fundamental backgrounds that in evolving out a perfect iconography, let us first say something on both these pre-requisites—the Iconoplanning and Iconometry,—the subject matter of the Chapter.

v2.c74.s2.54

**Icono-planning.**—The word icono-planning is a new coinage in the contemporay studies on Hindu Iconography. According to Hindu view of life, every creation is a pre-planned act. Even the Creation of the Universe is first Mānasī Sṛṣṭi. Therefore an image-maker, a mortal, however, adacious he is, while creating an image of the immortal (cf. ‘Amarāh nirjarāh devāh’) must undergo a descipline of mind and body both. The ancient studios were neither a factory nor a shop. They were either temple-sites themselves or a sacred secluded corner—a family chapel as it were—in the house itself.

v2.c74.s2.55

With the intellectual, practical and the moral equipment of an ancient Sthapati (vide B. V. S. Vol. I “Sthapti evam Sthāpatya’—ch. 6) who was not only an architect but also a sculptor or image-maker, an equipment of a rigorous discipline of concentration like that of a Yogī was also a sacred tradition of Art in ancient India. The S. S. has very aptly hinted at this artistic sacrament of the past. The S. S. says (vide P. L. p. 9; and also other texts M. P. and A. P. pp. 9-10): ‘The wise image-maker should commence the immage-making, observing complete Brahmacarya and having fullest of control over his senses (jitendriyah). During these sacred operations, he has to continue the ‘Japa’ (counting of beads with a sacred formula of a mantra) and ‘homa’ (the offerings in fire—sacrifice). He has regularly to live only on the remains of the sacrificial offerings (the haviṣyānna). He has to abandon sleeping on the cot and should sleep on the ground only……’

v2.c74.s2.56

The Matsya also corroborates this procedure of self-purification of an image-maker. The Aparājita-pracchā, however, goes further and has very brilliantly brought out the philosophical or metaphysical implication of the concrete image being nothing but a symbol of the Abstract Absolute. The sculptor has to meditate upon the deity whose icon he has to carve out, with the mantras as hinted at in the text [P. L. pp. 9-10 (iii) अ० पृ० ]; the image-maker has not only to make his various instruments fit for the job, but also with the Japa-mantras, he has to bring in, the power of the deity in question, into his or her icon.

v2.c74.s2.57

This preliminary procedure is a step towards the planning of an image-maker and the image both. To carve out or mould or shape or paint the image of a deity, requires a perfect ‘Yoga’ (the ‘citta-vṛtti-nirodha) and this yoga can be attained only under a proper discipline of body and mind—the regulations both in the mode of living and ways of doing. Only under a proper concentration, an artist can conceive an image. Conception follows conceptulation. Both these cnoception and conceptulation have a meaning, a purpose. This is the transformation of the Divine, the Absolute, the Nirguṇa God into a concrete god—Saguṇa. We know that the sculptural productions of the Indian artists had a deeper meaning. The Indian images used to be wrought and fashioned for the purpose of worship. Brindāvana has very aptly said: ‘And in order that the worshipper might, without much effort, meditate upon them, might think that his dearest, his saviour, his object of reverence has come before his eyes, might forget his own individual identity and identify his own self with the image of god, the artists of India have tried their fullest to render the image as impressive and imposing as could be possible in a sculptural art. They believed with the devotee that ‘God comes near the worshipper if the images were made fine.’

v2.c74.s2.58

Haya-śīrṣa-pañcarātra (also cf. ahead Pt. III—Pictorial images), has clearly put this ancient tradition:

v2.c74.s2.59

“आभिरूप्याच्च बिम्बानां देवः सान्निध्यमृच्छति”

v2.c74.s2.60

Further this conceptual process of the image-maker has a further meaning and purpose. As the seeds of Hindu Iconography are to be found in the semi-philosophical hymns of the Ṛṣis—the Dhyānas, Stutis and Mantras, and as the Nirguṇa Brahma, the Absolute can not easily be an object of worship, spontaneous springing up of Upāsanā (सगुणब्रह्मविषयकमानसव्यापारः) was the most natural outcome. Image-worship, therefore, was a historical necessity, Images were found to supply the readiest means of fulfilling the needs af Upāsanā. ‘Prayer in the Hindu sense, chiefly, means meditation on the divine. The steps leading to it, as systematically treated in the practical side of the Yoga-philosophy, may be shown to co-ordinate with the stages of Iconolatry’. And Śukrācārya, one of the greatest Ācharyas of the science of Indian Architecture and sculpture has rightly echoed this ancient tradition in the following lines:

v2.c74.s2.61

ध्यानयोगस्य संसिद्धयै प्रतिमालक्षणं स्मृतम् ।
प्रतिमा-कारको मर्त्यो यथाध्यानरतो भवेत् ।।
शु० नी० चतु० १४७ ।

v2.c74.s2.62

Thus in relation to icono-planning, the first thing enjoined by the text, keeping in the old tradition, both of the culture and the theology of India, is that the icon-maker, be he a sculptor or carpenter or a mason or a painter, he must attend to some of the ethical and religious discipline.

v2.c74.s2.63

The iconographer must be adept in the śastras and endowed with insight and lead a life of perfect Brahmacarya and the Saṁyama (control over his senses). Before taking up this sacred task of giving a mūrta, the manifest form to the amūrta, the non-manifest one, of the gods—the presiding deities of the destiny of mankind, he should perform the sacrifice and then start japa in order to purify himself of all the secular impurities, so that his hands may be in complete union with the spirit and the mind. A code, indeed of rigorous discipline, is prescribed. He cannot even sleep on a cot, must sleep on the ground specially spread over with the Kuśa grass.

v2.c74.s2.64

**Iconometry:--**Thus equipped spiritually (the mental equipment gained by the perfect study of the Śāstras and physical equipment consisting of the practical experience gained beforehand), the sculptor starts his work of image-making. Now in fashioning the image the artist has to follow the rules of measurements as given in the śāstra (the subject-matter of the Iconometry of this chapter), the strict adherence to which is a matter of supreme importance. But even the code of measurements is there, the materials not wanting, what are the models set before him. After all an artist cannot fashion out an image just from his own imagination, though the element of imagination is very necessary, the model is indispensible for any such creation of art. This model can be got from no where than from the man himself, the maker. It is here that the Maker and the maker meet. It is here that irony is most remarkably exhibited and the metaphysical truth of the identity of the supreme soul with the individual souls is realised. Varāhamihira’s dictum regarding the display of the drapery and the decorations of the images in consonance with those prevalent in a country among men and women themselves, perhaps needs some addition that the forms of the images too must conform to the forms prevalent among the mankind.

v2.c74.s2.65

The conception of gods as anthropomorphic in nature and their representation in the mythology and art as mortals, was not peculiar to India. It was so in other ancient countries too. This affinity between the mortals and immortals, as hinted above lies deeper. The gods become gods only when they assume the human forms (cf. the Doctrine of Incarnation) otherwise the God, the Absolute, has no form. This is the underlying philosophical and mystic truth which has led men from very early times to endow the gods with human forms, human dresses, human decorations and even human emotions and passions. The innumereble illustrations of this fact in all the classes of ancient literature, Vaidic, Paurāṇic, Epic, where the denizens of the heavens appear for all practical purposes, as mere men, living their lives of joys and sorrows, though there was a time when the mortals and immortals were one and living only a life of joy alone (S. S. Sahadevādhikāra, Chapter VI).

v2.c74.s2.66

Thus the model of the image is the model of the man himself. Therefore, the proportions of height, length, breadth, girth, together with various limbs of the body of the image to be fashioned out from head to foot, correspond to those of the standard types of men. Iconometrical measurements of the images of the gods to be fashioned out in sculpture and painting are akin to those of men. Our Sāstras believe in five different types of men and Samarāṅgaṇa-Sūtradhāra has assigned a separate chapter to this subject (cf. Pañcapuruṣa-Strīlakṣaṇa, the 81st chapter) wherein the author has not only described the five different types of men but also five different types of women. These five different types of men and women serve the models for the iconographer in fashioning out the different deities, gods and goddesses together with their accessories—the dami-gods and their opponents, the demons.

v2.c74.s2.67

Five types of men, according to Samarāṅgaṇa-Sūtradhāra, are Hamsa, Śaśa, Rucaka, Bhadra and Mālavya. The māna, that is the height of the first type, namely the Hamsa is eighty eight aṅgulas and by increasing the measurement of Hamsa by two aṅgulas we get the height of Śaśa, and similarly increasing again two angulas in each of the remaining types we get the following chart of the proportions of all these types:—

v2.c74.s2.68

| 1. | Hamas | .. | 88 | Aṅgulas | 3. | Rucaka | .. | 92 | Aṅgulas |
| 2. | Śaśa | .. | 90 | " | 4. | Bhadra | .. | 94 | " |
| and | | | 5. | Mālavya | .. | 96 | Aṅgulas | | |

v2.c74.s2.69

This standard of measurements of the Samarāṅgaṇa-Sūtradhāra however, does not tally with that of the Bṛhatsaṃhitā, which is so much talked of in the contemporary critical works on Architecture and Iconography. Perhaps this variation is due to the fact that all the measurements as given in the text are for the images in paints and the images that are painted must be of lesser size than those carved out in the stone or made of the wood or the clay. The Aparājita-pracchā is conspicuous by the absence of any metion in it of the standards of measurements. It however has a chapter on Tālamāna and that too in relation to the Citra-images cf. सू० २२५ “चित्र-प्रतिमा-ताल-निर्णय”.

v2.c74.s2.70

According to B. S. of Varāhamihira (belonging to the Gupta period), the height as well as girth of the self same five types of men is 96, 99, 102, 105 and 108 aṅgulas, respectively. It may however, be pointed out that the standards of measurement of the length of the five principal types of men as given in the text is the middle of the path canon, and the text which is missing might have added something more to relate these measurements to the traditional ones as ordained in so many other books. Or are these standards of measurements influenced by the secular tendencies of medieval art when the royal statues and the statues of great men, men of letters and artists (cf. the statues of Maṇḍana and his sons) came to the sculptured? Again as elucidated by Utpala, the famous commentator of the B. S. on the authority of Parāśara, a hoary sage and one of the earliest authorities on Vāstu-śastra, these standards of Varāha-mihira appear to apply to mahāpuruṣas alone and so are most suited to the standards of the divine beings.

v2.c74.s2.71

The B. S. itself lays down some of the characteristic signs of the best type of men viz. Mālavya in the verse—Mālavyo nāganaso.... etc., etc., which supports this conclusion. Dr. Bannerjea also (cf. p. 312) supports this very conclusion that the physical features of Mālavya, as enumerated by Varāhamihira, contain several of the major Mahāpuruṣa-lakṣaṇas, which are also characteristic signs of a Buddha or a god.

v2.c74.s2.72

As pointed out, the iconometrical chapters of the S. S. are very corrupt, we do not find in full the relative nomenclature and the proportionate measurements of the height, etc. of the five principal types of women as promised in the very first line of this chapter:

v2.c74.s2.73

पञ्चानां हंसमुख्यानां देहबन्धादिकं नृणाम् ।
दण्डिनीप्रमुखानां च स्त्रीणांतद् ब्रूमहे पृथक् ।।

v2.c74.s2.74

Here Haṃsa and other four companions are clear in the text, but the Daṇḍinī and other companions are not clear. Vṛttā, Pauraṣī, Balākā and Daṇḍā, four types of women could only be reconstructed (see the detailed measurements in the appended charts Appendix A).

v2.c74.s2.75

In the Viṣṇudharmottara also, the five-fold varieties of women-models have been hinted at, but there too the whole picture is not clear, nor the nomenclature of the five varieties are mentioned. It only says: (vide Pr. Lakṣ. p. 311)—As five models of men Haṁsa, etc., have been described, similarly there are five varieties of women as well. The height of women (when she is with her companion) should not exceed the shoulder of the man. Her waist should be thinner by two aṅgulas and it should exceed the waist of the man by four aṅgulas. Her breasts of course should go after her the *uras* and should be made fine.

v2.c74.s2.76

With this introduction to the five principal standard measurements as illustrated in the five principle types of men Haṁsa, etc., we may now say something more on this iconometrical theme. As Iconography and Iconometry are related subjects and complementary to each other, a working knowledge of the Iconometry is indispensible to draw a iconographical picture in its fullest of structure.

v2.c74.s2.77

The 75th Chapter entitled ‘Mānotpatti’ gives the units of measurements together with other allied canons of iconometry. We know that there are two different kinds of units of measurements in the traditional measure of length. They are absolute and relative. The following table shows the relation between the various quantities used in the absolute systems as prescribed by the Samarāṅgaṇa-Sūtradhāra:—

v2.c74.s2.78

| 8 Parmāṇus make | 1 Raja |
| 8 Rajas make | 1 Roma |
| 8 Romas make | 1 Likṣā |
| 8 Likṣās make | 1 Yūkā |
| 8 Yūkas make | 1 Yava |
| 8 Yavas make | 1 Aṅgula (also Mātrā, cf. 9th Chapter), |
| 2 Aṅgulas make | 1 Golaka or kalā |
| 2 Golakas or Kalās make | 1 Bhāga—part. |

v2.c74.s2.79

This is the Mānāṅgula-measurement employed in connection with Iconographers’ art, while for the Architect in planning out a building, a village or town or a street or road the measure called Hasta is employed, a notice of which has already been taken in connection with the Town Planning in Vol. I of the study. This Hasta measure has been dealt with fully in the text (S. S. 9th Ch.).

v2.c74.s2.80

In the relative system there are as many as three types of Aṅgulas--Mānāṅgula, Mātrāṅgula and Dehāṅgula (or Dehalabdha-aṅgula). The first is what is described above. Dr. Bannerjea (cf. D. H. I. p. 316-7) doubts the applicability of this type of aṅgula as the unit of measurement by the iconographers of ancient and medieval India, as the width of eight yavas (barley corns) placed side by side is far thicker than the same of the unit which was adopted by the artisis in measuring different sections of images. And higher units of length-measurement as used in Śilpa-texts, such as Kiṣku (*i. e.* 24 aṅgulas making one kiṣku), Prājāpatya (25 aṅgulas) Dhanurgṛha (*i. e.* 26 aṅgulas) Dhanurmuṣṭi (*i. e.* 27 aṅgulas) and Daṇḍa (*i. e.* 4 dhanurmuṣṭis) have no place in iconometry. Though derivatives of aṅgula, *i. e.* mānāṅgula, they are employed in such architecutral planning as streets and towns, etc.

v2.c74.s2.81

The second type, the Mātrāṅgula was most suited and it was adopted by the image-makers in fashioning out the divine images. This is arrived on the basis of ‘the length of the middle digit of the finger of either the sculptor or the architect or of the rich devotee who causes a temple to be built or an image to be set up’—Rao. There is yet another manner in which the Mātrāṅgula was reached, and it is referred to, by Dr. Bannerjea (p. 317), as laid down in the Śukranītisāra (IV. 4. 82). This is the fourth part of one's own fist.

v2.c74.s2.82

Now as regards the third type of aṅgula, *i. e.* the Dehalabdha or Dehāṅgula, which was really the principal basis of the various kinds of image-measurements, it may be pointed out as per the commentary of Utpala, commented by Dr. Bannerjea (pp. 317-18) and also translated by him as to how this aṅgula was derived: ‘First, the height of the block of wood or stone out of which the image is to be made, leaving aside that portion of it on which the pedestal is to be shown, should be divided into 12 eqaul parts; when one of the latter is again divided into 9 equal partis, each of these sub-divisions is equivalent to the aṅgula unit, thus the height of an image is 108 aṅgulas; lastly the length and breadth, of the face of the image should be 12 such aṅgulas, *i. e.* the aṅgula of the image itṣef’. Further critical details as initiated by Dr. Bannerjea, may not be taken up here. In regard to this aṅgula, however, one significant remark which need be made is that the different names are given to certain lengths represented by two or more dehāṅgulas upto twenty-seven; a knowledge of which is very helpful in understanding the texts on this topic—vide P. L. pp. 14-15—the Mānagaṇanam, a tabulation of which is given in the appendix ‘A’.

v2.c74.s2.83

Again in order to understand the canons of iconometry as prescribed in the texts (vide P. L. p. 15), it is necessary to know something about the meaning and usage of certain technical terms denoting the different ways in which the images used to be measured.

v2.c74.s2.84

The iconometrical measurements as laid down in the ancient text like Mārīcī’s Vaikhānasāgama (P. L. p. 15) are sixfold: *Māna*, *Pramāṇa*, *Unmāna*, *Parimāṇa*, *Upamāna* and *Lambamāna*. “Māna is the measurement of the length of a body; pramāna is that of the breadth, that is a linear measurement taken at right angles to and in the same plane as the māna; measurements taken at right angles to the plane, in which the māna and pramāna measures have been noted, are called unmāna, which obiviously means the measure of thickness; pramāṇa is the measurement of girtha or periptery of images; upamāna refers to the measurements of inter-spaces, such as, for instance, that between the two feet of an image; and lastly lambamāna is the name given to measurements taken along plumb lines.”

v2.c74.s2.85

Dr. Bannerjea, however, notices some difference in meanings in relation to a comparative study of the early texts both inconometrical and general, and this discussion may be seen in his book (pp. 314-15). The last measure namely the lamba-māna has very ably expounded in the Mānasāra—vide P. L. pp. 26-30. These terms however have several synonyms tabulated in the Appendix A.

v2.c74.s2.86

Now with this introduction to the angular-measure, let us come to the Tāla-measure, the more popular measure in the Āgamas and other Dravidian texts, like Mānasāra, Sakalādhikāra, Amśumadbheda, etc. But before we do so, it may be noted that besides the smaller unit known as the dehāṅgula there are other larger relative units of length, which are called *Prādesa*, *Tāla*, *Vitasti* and *Gokarṇa*. “The distance between the tips of the thumb and the forefinger, when they are stretched out to the utmost, is called *Prādeśa*; that between the tips of the thumb and the middle finger, when they are also so stretched out, is called the *Tāla*; that between the tips of the stretched out thumb and ringfinger is known as the *Vitasti*; and that between the stretched out thumb and little finger is called the *Gokarṇa*.

v2.c74.s2.87

Leaving aside all others (*i. e.* prādeśa, etc.) we have to concentrate on the tāla, the most widely used term of measuremeni in Āgamic texts like Suprabhedāgama and Śilpa-texts like Mānasāra and Śilpa-ratna. These tāla-measures vary from Uttama daśa-tāla to ekatāla—vide P. L. pp. 16-18. Bimba-māna, a manuscript in the British Museum No. 552-558 (mentioned by P. A. Mankad—editor of Aparājita-pracchā—vide his introduction p. CXXXVII) has a wider range going upto 12 tālas. The Aparājita-pracchā (cf. Sutra No. 225. 4-25) has, however, overtopped all the above texts and here the range of the tāla-māna extends upto 16 tālas, a comparative tabulation is given in the appendix A.

v2.c74.s2.88

It may be noted that tāla-measure is not altogether a new thing—aṅgula is its constituent. The Vaikhänasāgama has laid down that a tāla is constituted of 12 aṅgulas and has its various synonyms such as Vitasti, Mukha, Yama, Arka, Rāśi and Jagatī. In some texts Vitasti is more common while in others Mukha—vide Matsya purāṇa (Ch. 258. v. 19.) Again in this relative measure of Tāla-māna, the different varieties pertain to a single tāla itself, e. g. uttama, madhyama and adhama daśa-tāla, uttama navatālas, satryaṅgula nava-tāla, etc. etc. Except Matsyapurāṇa, no other Purāṇas or the Śilpa-texts of purely Nāgara school like the Samarāṅgaṇa-Sūtradhāra give their iconometrical proportions in tāla-measure. It is a characteristic of Āgamas and the Dravidian texts like Mānasāra and Śilparatna, etc. Dr. Bannerjea makes a significant remark—p. 326—“Thus it is quite likely that the tāla of different measurements was a comparatively late feature in the iconometrical system of India. The earlier method of arriving at the smaller and higher units was a much simpler and practical one”.

v2.c74.s2.89

The subject of Tālamana, however, cannot be so lightly passed on. It is really a very fascinating branch of Indian Iconometry as it opens up a wider field for research in which anthropologists, ethnologists and other workers in allied sciences can co-operate.

v2.c74.s2.90

In the hierarchy of relative superiority of the Devas, Devīs, Daityas, Dānavas, Gandharvas, Yakṣas, Kabandhas and Kūṣmāṇḍas, etc., etc., the assignment of tāla-measurement in accordance with the superiority and inferiority (vide the tabulation already referred—appendix ‘A’) is itself an indication that this topic has got some deeper meaning and purpose. Moreover these tāla-measures as prescribed in the Indian texts of Iconometry should not be deemed as mechanical rules. They are apparently so. Their practical utility is not devoid of aesthetic principles. Mr. Hadaway, a metalist of repute, rightly observes, “Hindu image-maker or sculptor does not work from life, as is the usual practice among Europeans, but he has in place of the living model, a most elaborate and beautiful system of proportions, which he uses constantly, combining these with those of observation and study of natural detail. It is in fact, a series of anatomical rules and formulae of infinitely practical use than any European system which I know, for the Indian one treats of the actual proportion and surface form, rather than the more scientific attachments of muscles and articulations of bones”.

v2.c74.s2.91

A word need be said on the Lamba-māna, one of the six categories of measure as already spoken before. Among the Śilpa-texts, Mānasāra has got a full chapter on this topic cf Pralamba-lakṣaṇa—vide P. L.

v2.c74.s2.92

pp. 26-30—and its canons on this category of iconometrical measure are more or less common to those prescribed in the Āgamas and I better give the following reproduction from Rao’s book (Vol. I Pt. 2—Appendix pp. 29-32".

v2.c74.s2.93

"For measuring lengths along plumb-lines an instrument called the lamba-phalakā is employed. It is a plank, two aṅgulas in thickness and measuring 68 aṅgulas in length and 24 in breadth. All round the plank a margin of 3 aṅgulas is left. A small · hole, just a trifle larger than a yava in diameter, is bored in the centre of the margin along the length of the plank; this hole is meant for the madhya-sūtra. Other holes are bored for the puṭa-paryanta-sūtra (nāsā-puṭa-sūtra), netra-paryanta-sūtra, karṇa-paryanta-sūtra, kaksha-paryanta-sūtra, and bāhu-paryanta-sūtra, in places marked on the accompanying diagram of the Lamba-phalakā. Through these are suspended by strings, which are one yava in thickness, small plummets of iron or clay. In the case of reclining figures the sūtras are strings stretched horizontally in front of the figure which is in the process of modelling. In the case of the sthānaka-mūrti, the madhya-sūtra which is suspended from the śikhāmaṇi (crest-jewel) set in front of the kirīṭa (crown) of the image, should pass through the middle of the forehead, between the brows, the middle of the nose, the neck, the chest, the abdomen, the private part and between the legs; it should touch the body at the tip of the nose and the middle of the abdomen. The distance of the top of the crown behind the madhya-sūtra is 6 aṅgulas ; that of the middle point of the chin 4½ aṅgulas ; that of the hikkā-sūtra, 4 aṅgulas ; that of the middle of the chest, 2½ aṅgulas ; that of the navel, 1¾ aṅgulas ; that of the root of the penis, 2 aṅgulas ; that of the middle of the thighs, 3 aṅgulas ; that of the knee-joint, 8 aṅgulas ; that of the shin bone, 16 aṅgulas ; of the total length of the great toe a portion measuring half an aṅgula is to be in front of the madhya-sūtra, while the remaining portion of it measuring 2½ aṅgulas is found to be behind the madhya-sūtra. The bāhu-paryanta-sūtra, which is also known as the aṅga-pārśva-madhya-sūtra should pass through the middle of the side jewel of the crown, the head the sides of the ear, the upper arm, the elbow, and the middle of the knee, the foreleg and the foot. The other madhya-sūtra which is hung behind the middle of the back, should pass through the middle of the back of the crown, the head, the nape of the neck, the back-bone, between the two glutials, and the heels. The vaktra-bāhya-sūtra should pass by the side of the head, through the extremity of the mouth, side of the cheek, end of the chin, side of the śrōṇi, and the middle of the thigh and the foreleg.

v2.c74.s2.94

All the six sūtras mentioned above should be suspended as far below as the pīṭha or pedestal on which the image is made to stand, whereas other sūtras, which are required for taking the measurements of particular limbs of the body may be suspended as far as the lower extremity of those limbs.

v2.c74.s2.95

The nāsā-puṭa-sūtra is also called the dṛigantarī-sūtra, that is, the line that passes through the inner margin of the eye near the nose. This sūtra also passes through the extremity of the mouth and is the same, therefore, as the vaktra-bāhya-sūtra. The antarbhujāvadhi-sūtra is the same as the kaksha-paryanta-sūtra and is also sometimes called the aṅga-pārśva-madhya-sūtra, a term which means the line which is to pass through the middle of the side of the body. The sūtra, which passes through the back of the head and is known as the śiraḥ-pṛishṭhāvasāna-sūtra, is also the outer limit of the back hands of a figure with four arms.

v2.c74.s2.96

Different names are found given to the same sūtra, according as the sūtra is viewed from the front or the side of the Lamba-phalakā; for example, the kaksha-paryanta-sūtra, when viewed from the front of the Lamba-phalakā, is seen passing just in front of the arm-pit and is therefore called the line that forms the limit of the arm-pit; the same sūtra when viewed from the side is seen passing just in front of the bhuja or the upper arm; hence it is called the line which forms the inner boundary of the upper-arm or antarbhujāvadhi-sūtra.

v2.c74.s2.97

If the image is a seated one, the six sūtras should be suspended as far as the pīṭha on which it is seated. The distance between the two knees in a figure seated with crossed legs, as in the yōgāsana posture, is equal to half the total height of the corresponding standing figure, that is 62 aṅgulas."

v2.c74.s2.98

Now with this criterion of measurement in hand, Samarāṅgaṇa-Sūtradhāra's prescriptions of the different classes of measurements in relation to gods, demi-gods and men can be seen in the charts worked out ahead (cf Pt. III—‘Painting’).

v2.c74.s2.99

Thus this is the standard of measurement of the body of the gods. Now after this, the text proceeds with the different varieties of the forms of the gods, demons and men etc., together with the enumeration of the species of elephants, horses, lions, serpents, hens, etc. etc. and this I believe, is altogether an innovation in this work. In the ancient paintings the motifs centered round the celestial beings, *i. e.*, Yakṣas and Apsaras and the natural sceneries, but with the advent of the Medievel trends in the art, the motifs from animal kingdom also fascinated the artist. A detailed tabulation will be found in the subsequent Part III—‘Painting’.

First 99 of 214 passages. Read on

Linked texts (38)