Vastu-shastra (Vol. I: Hindu Science of Architecture; Vol. II: Hindu Canons of Iconography and Painting) v2.c74.s8: III Ābhūṣaṇa—Drapery and Decorations

Vāstu-śāstra (Vol. I: Hindu Science of Architecture; Vol. II: Hindu Canons of Iconography and Painting) v2.c74.s8

Language: English

III Ābhūṣaṇa—Drapery and Decorations

v2.c74.s8.1

There are three manuals of note which have treated the subject of Ābhuṣaṇa in connection with the general canons of Iconography. These are Mānasāra, Aparājita-pracchā and Śilparatna. The relevent portions of these texts have been gathered together in the writer’s ‘Pratimā-lakṣaṇa’, also appended with this work (cf. pp. 46-55). Amongst these, Mānasāra has devoted two chapters dealing with ‘Mauli’ and ‘Bhuṣaṇa’—the contents to be utilised ahead [cf. (c) headgear]. The second text, the Aparājita-pracchā, of Bhuvanadevācharya, has unique distinction to have treated very systematically all the traditional sixteen ornaments. Sodaśābhūṣaṇas, the sixteen types of ornaments, are also as famous as Sattrimśatiāyudhas, the thirty-six types of weapons (already dealt with). The third text, Śilpa-ratna, however, restricts its treatment to the general description of both the ornaments as well as other items of dress and decorations as well as weapons and implements, etc., etc. under the general heading ‘Kirīṭādilakṣaṇa’ the 16th Chap. All these contents as incorporated in Pr. Lak. (46-53) will be briefly made use of in the following exposition.

v2.c74.s8.2

It may be noted at the very outset that according to Varāhamihira’s dictum “देशानुरूपभूषणवेषालङ्कारमूर्तिभिः कार्या” the varieties of drapery and decorations were largely dependent upon local influences. Besdies we have another dictum of Bharatamuni (cf. Nāṭyaśāstra) :

v2.c74.s8.3

भूषणानां विकलपं च पुरुषस्त्रीसमाश्रयम् ।
नानाविधं प्रवक्ष्यामि देशजातिसमुद्भवम् ।।

v2.c74.s8.4

The types of the dress, including ornaments, are to be determined by the class of representative people to whom it should fittingly be apportioned. “Thus we find the kings wear the royal costume, the warriors the military dress, the ascetics the hermit's robe, the ladies have their own dress especially rich in ornaments and gems. Iconographically, Viṣṇu (whether as Vāsudeva or Nārāyaṇa), Indra, Kubera and others, who represent ideal royalty, put on gorgeous royal dress. Śiva, Brahmā, Agni and others, who represent ideal asceticism, put on the requisite robe of a Yogī. Likewise, Sūrya, Skanda and others who particularly typify martial activities, are dressed in military costume, in arms and armours, Durgā Lakṣmī or Kalī and other female deities are attired in sculpture; in various ornaments and jewels as fit for ladies of a high social standing (I. I.)". Similarly the colours of dress were such as would match the complexion of a particular deity. Thus Viṣṇu, who is of a bluish colour, had, in representation, a yellow garmnent (Pītāmbaradhārī). Similary, Sūrya, Brahmā, Laksmī, who are of fair complexion, are robed in red clothes.

v2.c74.s8.5

With this introduction, let us make a survey of drapery and decoration associated with the representation of the images of the Hindu divinities. These may be broadly divided under three heads:—

v2.c74.s8.6

A. Costumes. B. Ornaments. C. Headgear.

v2.c74.s8.7

A. COSTUMES

v2.c74.s8.8

(i) *Drapery*—Śilaparatna (P. L. p. 55) enjoins that in the allotment of different kinds of vastras (the clothes), kauśeya (made of silk), kārpāsa (made of cotton), the cīra (?) and carma (the skin), the sculptor has to use his own descrimination. "The early Indian artists attained much success in the treatment of drapery which, in the case of male figure is made up of a loin cloth (dhotī) whose folds were very tastefully arranged in parallel rows in the early and medieval periods and long scarf thrown loosely on the upper part of the body. In the early figures of Maurya—Śuṅga period and even sometimes afterwards, the excess of the long loin-cloth is gathered together and shown hanging in a long tapering fold or folds in front. This form is common to both the male or female figures (cf. the figures of Parkham Yakṣa and Besnagar Yakṣiṇī in H. I. I. A., Pl. III Figs. 8 and 9). Thus there was not much difference in the dressing of male and female figures in early Indian art especially in the lower part of the body. But the long scarf shown on the upper half of the male figures is usually absent in the female, the upper part of the latter remaining mostly uncovered"—D. H. I. p. 293.

v2.c74.s8.9

Again a point of special importance is that a few figures met in early art of Sanchi and Bharhut, there is a close covering of the whole body, from the neck to the feet. On this Dr. Bannerjea’s learned comment is worth reproducing: “This is one method of representing the ‘udīcya veṣa’ named by the authors of iconographic texts while describing such figures as Sūrya, Citragupta and Dhanada (cf. Hemādri’s Caturvarga-Cintāmaṇi); Varāhmihira characterises it fully as ‘gūḍham pādāduro yāvat’ in his description of the Sūrya figures. In the extant images of Sūrya of an earliar date, the custume worn by the God is exactly similar to the dress worn by the Kushan kings like Wema Kadphises and Kanishka (cf. the sculptural and numismatic representations of these kings with the Sūrya relief at Bhumara). The mode of presentation of costume changes in the latter sculptures and varies mostly in details according to the different localites they belong. In the case of some late medieval figures great care is bestowed by the artists on the carving of the garment; thus the ‘sārī’ i. e. the cloth worn by women, which is shown round the body of the figure of Pārvatī, one of the pārśva-devatās (deities shown on the side niches) of the Liṅgarāja temple at Bhuvanesvara, Orissa, is an example of the highest skill in carving”—D. H. I. p. 293-94.

v2.c74.s8.10

Images are also dressed in different other materials such as cotton and silk, clothes and the skin of the tiger or deer. The Cotton and silk clothings are dyed in various colours. Rao remarks ‘The tiger’s skin is worn over the silk or the cotton clothing, while the deer skin is thrown over the body’. There is yet another manner of wearing the deer skin—it is in the Upavīta fashion as illustrated in Deogarha relief (cf. Nara and Nārāyaṇa.

v2.c74.s8.11

Again we know some deities have their particular colours—the great Viṣṇu is pitāmbara, Balarāma is nīlāmbara, Devis like Durgā raktambarā and other famous gods like Brahmā are śuklāmbara. Therefore some of the sculptured images are even painted so as to show the intended colours of their chiselled costumes.

v2.c74.s8.12

As regards the wearing of Yajñopavita, the sacred thread invariably worn by the Dvijātis, is also found on the images of the gods from the Gupta period onwards. It is contended that in the earliar images it is not usually to be found; e. g. the Gudimallam Lingam, one of the earliest known sculptures, does not show Yajñopavīta.

v2.c74.s8.13

(ii) *Other articles of dress usually associated with figures of gods and goddesses are:*

v2.c74.s8.14

| 1. | Hāra (Necklace) | 4. | Udarabandha |
| 2. | Keyūra (arm-ornament) | 5. | Kaṭibandha |
| 3. | Kaṅkaṇa (bracelet) | 6. | Kucabandha (esp. female deities). |

v2.c74.s8.15

| 7. | Bhujaṅgavalaya (cf. Śiva) | 12. | Jālaka |
| 8. | Yajñopavīta | 13. | Vana-mālā |
| 9. | Uraḥ-sūtra | 14. | Pītāmbara, Nīlāmbara, Suklāmbara, Raktāmbara etc. |
| 10. | Skandhamālā | | |
| 11. | Kaṭi-sūtra | 15. | Udīcyaveśa |
| | | 16. | Kṛttivāsa, etc., etc. |

v2.c74.s8.16

Some remarks are needed to explain and illustrate some of these various articles of drapery and decorations. Some of these are oranaments as well as dresses.

v2.c74.s8.17

**Hāra**—though usually regarded as an ornament, can stand for a dress also. It is to decorate not only the neck but also the breast. It has many varieties, some of them being simply superlatively sublime, like Kaustubha, Vajayantī and Vanamālā, associated with grand image of Vāsudeva-Viṣṇu. It is also called Niṣka and Graiveyaka. The earliest form of neck ornaments is to be found in the representations of Śiva-Paśupati’s prototype in Mohenjo-daro and Harappa. Ṛgveda (33rd hymn) describes Rudra as wearing a beautiful niṣka. Bṛhatsaṁhitā describes Sūrya as ‘pralamba-hārī’; here hāra means a torque or a necklace. Śiva is also described in some texts as hārbhārārpito Haraḥ—loaded with the weight of haras.

v2.c74.s8.18

**Graiveyaka**—a broad necklace is represented almost invariably in the figures of Yakṣas adorning their neck and breasts in Central Indian Art. Dr. Bannerjea remarks : “In many cases the these necklaces are adorned with jewel-pendants and the jewel par excellence adorning the breasts of Viṣṇu is Kaustubha (cf. Bṛhatsaṁhitā’s description of Viṣṇu as Kaustubhamanibi bhuṣitoraskaḥ”.

v2.c74.s8.19

The breasts of Viṣṇu, Buddha and Jinas are also characterised by **Śrīvatsa** mark. It is a sort of hairy mole, one of the ‘Mahāpuruṣa-lakṣaṇas’; Utpala explains it as a ‘romāvarta’. Rao says, ‘In sculpture this mole is represented by a flower of four petals arranged in the form of a rhombus, or by a simple equilateral taringle, and is invariably placed on the right side of the chest’. According to Dr. Bannerjea Gupta seals represent this mark and its varients.

v2.c74.s8.20

Now the long necklace, the **Vanamāla**, a garland of woodland flowers, is peculiar to Viṣṇu-Vāsudeva. It is defined (cf. Śabda-mālā) as :

v2.c74.s8.21

आजानुलम्बिनी माला सर्वर्तुकुसुसोज्ज्वला ।
मध्यं स्थूलकदम्बाढ्या वनमालेति कीर्तिता ॥

v2.c74.s8.22

There is a great varient of this long necklace or garland universally known as **Vaijayantī-mālā**. It hangs from the neck below the knees and is peculiar to Viṣṇu, Rao says :

v2.c74.s8.23

“The Vaijayantī is a necklace composed of a successive series of groups of gems, each group wherein has five gems in a particular order; it is described in the Viṣṇu-Purāṇa thus :—‘“Viṣṇu’s necklace called Vaijayantī is five-formed as it consists of the five elements and it is, therefore, called the elemental necklace. Here five-formed points to five different kinds of gems, namely the pearl, ruby, emerald, blue stone and diamond”. Viṣṇurahasya also says, “from the earth comes the blue gem, from water the pearl, from fire the Kaustubha, from air the cat’s eye and from ether the Puṣparāga”

v2.c74.s8.24

No as regards the other items of dress, they are **Kucabandha** and **Udarbandha**. Both these are flat bands, the former to keep the breasts in postion and the latter the protruding belley, characteristic of male figures (cf. Parkham nd other Yakṣa figures). **Katibandha**, **Mekhala** and **Kancidam** may also be taken as another set of drapery and decorations. The Besanagar and the Didarganj Yakṣiṇī figures are repesented in these decorations. Dr. Bannerjea remarks ‘In medieval reliefs, both of the north and the south, they are far more elaborate’.

v2.c74.s8.25

Another very peculiar kind of dress current both in sculptures as well as the iconographical texts is the **avyanga**, the waist-girdle peculiar to the Sun images of the north. Br. Sam. supports it. It is said to be based on the Avestan ‘aiwiyaon’ the sacred wooden thread girdle which a Zoroastrian is enjoined to wear round the waist.

v2.c74.s8.26

B. ORNAMENTS

v2.c74.s8.27

We find an excessive fondness on the part of the Hindu artists for displaying ornaments on the images of gods and goddesses from the very early times. Practically all parts of body had their various appropriate ornaments. This excessive display according to some modern critics like Grundwedel has hindered very considerably the development of the human figure. But the case is not so, because we never aimed at the development of the figure so much as at the development of the symbolism behind it. The ornaments in which the Indian images are found (or said to be) decorated can be classified as per the following tabulation :

v2.c74.s8.28

(i) Ear ornaments (Kuṇḍala). There are five principal kinds of Kuṇḍalas : 1. Patra-kuṇḍala (cf. Umā), 2. Nakra-kuṇḍala (common), 3. Śankha-patra-kuṇḍala (cf. Umā) 4. Ratna-kuṇḍala (Common), 5. Sarpa-kuṇḍala (Śiva and Gaṇeśa).

v2.c74.s8.29

(*ii*) Ornament of nose—Vesara (cf. Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā) .

v2.c74.s8.30

(*iii*) Ornaments of neck : 1. Niṣka, 2. Hāra, 3. Graiveyaka, 4. Kaustubha and 5. Vaijayantī.

v2.c74.s8.31

(*iv*) Chest Ornaments : 1. Śrīvatsa, 2. Cannavīra, 3. Kucabandhas—they are also a class of ornaments together with the costumes.

v2.c74.s8.32

(*v*) Ornament of the Waist : 1. Kaṭibandha (Waistband), 2. Mekhalā (Girdle), 3. Kāñcīdam (Girdle with twinkling bells).

v2.c74.s8.33

(*vi*) Ornaments of the leg ankles : 1. Mañjīra.

v2.c74.s8.34

(*vii*) Ornaments of the upper & lower arms Kaṅkaṇa, Valaya, Keyūra, Aṅgada etc.

v2.c74.s8.35

Now after this tabulation some remarks are necessary to expound their association with their deities and their representation in art.

v2.c74.s8.36

**Ear ornaments.—**Their very names indicate that they were made of cones of coconut or palmyra-leaves or even thin gold leaves (metal, ivory or wooden piece) in the shape of the mythical ‘makara’ ( a crocodile like animal), cut sections of conch-shells, jewels and (metal, ivory or wooden piece) fashioned like a cobra, respectively’—Bannerjea. Among these, as already pointed out, some of these are particularly associated with particular gods, but nakra-kuṇḍala and ratna-kuṇḍala can with equal appropriateness be used to decorate the ears of the divinities of both sexes. Viṣṇu, Sūrya and Baladeva are described, (cf. Br. Samhitā) as ‘Kirīṭa-kuṇḍaladhārī’; ‘Kuṇḍalabhūṣitavadana’; and ‘bibhṛt-kuṇḍalamekam’; respectively.

v2.c74.s8.37

Aparājita-pracchā (vide Pr. Laks. p. 52), however, associates Kuṇḍala only in the image of Vāsudeva and it also directs that in this type of Vāsudeva-kuṇḍala, all varieties of gems studed with the grains of diamond are to be applied.

v2.c74.s8.38

**Nose-ornament—Vesara.**—is not to be found in early Indian images.

v2.c74.s8.39

**Neck-ornaments.**—as tabulated above, have been already expounded in drappery. They are both ornaments as well as dresses.

v2.c74.s8.40

**Chest-ornaments.**—like Śrīvatsa, etc. are already explained (vide costumes). ‘Here a word on canna-vīra is called for, ‘Channavīra’, according to Rao, is a kind of flat ornament, a kind of jewelled disc, meant to be tied on the makuṭa or hung round the neck by string, so as to lie over the chest’. But Rao is not quite sure about his explanation; the ornament is mentioned very often in the iconographic texts. ‘An ornament made of two chin-like objects worn crosswise on the torso, one in the upavītī and the other in the prācīnavītī fashion (the latter is just the reverse of upavītī) with a flat disc, may illustrate Channavīra; this is sometimes found on some late South Indian sculptures of Viṣṇu or his incarnatory forms (cf. Rao, op. cit. Vol. I. pl. LV. Figs. of Rāma and Lakṣamaṇa) and other images’—Bannerjee. Dr. Bannerjea has found the representation of this ornament in the Taxila museum (torso is decorated with it). Besnagar Yakṣiṇī and Culakokā devatā in Bharhut pillar also seem to be decorated in this ornament.

v2.c74.s8.41

*N. B.*—Reference was already made (p. 144) of the ṣoḍaśābhūṣaṇas of the Aparājita-pracchā. Its complete list of these sixteen ornaments (Pra. Laks. pp. 48-52) is as follows :

v2.c74.s8.42

Sodasabhusanas

v2.c74.s8.43

v2.c74.s8.44

C. HEADGEAR, i. e. *MAULI

v2.c74.s8.45

Mānasāra describes as many as twelve types of headgear both crowns and head dresses which along with the association of the respective deities are tabulated hereunder:—

v2.c74.s8.46

v2.c74.s8.47

| 8. | Dhammilla | Other Goddesses. |
| 9. | Alaka | Other Goddesses. |
| | | ” ” |
| 10. | Cūda | Other Goddesses. |
| | | ” ” |
| 11. | Makuṭa | Brahmā, Śiva and also Viṣṇu. |
| 12. | Paṭṭa | For kings and queens, etc. |

v2.c74.s8.48

(a) Patrapaṭṭa (b) Ratnapaṭṭa (c) Puṣpapaṭṭa.

v2.c74.s8.49

It may be noted that in the above tabulation the 3rd, 4th and 5th denote different types of crowns, while the rest so many different modes of dressing the hair. The jaṭamakuṭa, consists of matted locks of hair, done up into the form of a tall crown on the centre of the head. It is very often adorned with jewels, a crescent and skull (cf. Rudra-Śiva, who is also named ‘Kapardī’ (meaning one whose matted locks wave spirally upward like the top of a shell). Dr. Bennerjea observes: ‘Some Buddha figures of Saka-Kushān period at Mathura have the Kaparda type of jaṭamakuta on their heads.

v2.c74.s8.50

As regards Kirīṭa-makuṭa specially appropriate for Nārāyaṇa, according to the Mānasāra ‘is a conical cap sometimes ending in an ornamantal top carrying a central pointed knoli’—Rao. “This type of headgear was not worn, however, exclusively by the God Nārāyaṇa-Viṣṇu; it could also be worn by Sūrya and Kubera. Varāhmihira not only describes Viṣṇu as Kuṇdala-kirīṭadhārī (wearing ear rings and Kirīṭa crown), but also says that Ravi should be wearing a makuṭa (makuṭadhārī) and kubera should be ‘Vāma-kirīṭī’

v2.c74.s8.51

**Karanda.**—makuṭa is shaped like conical basket with the narrow end shown upwards. This is the type of crown peculiar to most of the other gods and the goddesses and is indicative of subordinate status according to Rao.

v2.c74.s8.52

**Sirastraka.**—an elaborate turban invariably associated with Nāgas, Yakṣas, Vidyādharas, is depicted in the early Indian art of Sunga period.

v2.c74.s8.53

The items nos. 6th to the 8th (cf. tabulation above) as hinted already, are different modes of dressing the hair. They are appropriate to different goddesses like Indirā and Sarasvatī.

v2.c74.s8.54

There is still another very famous head dress called **Kākapakṣa** (mastaka-pārśvadvaye keśaracanā-viśeṣaḥ). It is only style of doing the hair like those in very young boys. It was being used by Eastern Indian artists in the in the representation of youthful Kṛṣṇa and other divinities from the late Gupta period onwards. Dr. Bannerjea illustrates this mode in some figures of Kṛṣṇa at Paharpur.

v2.c74.s8.55

There are yet two more mudrās which though not ornaments proper but may be called ornamental decorations. They are ‘Prabhāvalī’ and ‘Siraścakra’ which are characteristic features of Indian images in general. Both these are halos, round the whole of the divine body and from the artistic point of view they really serve the purpose of the stele or the back slab.

v2.c74.s8.56

**Prabhavali.**—the larger halo, is an ornamental decoration, usually elliptical in shape. It is sometimes endowed with a number of jvālās or projecting tongues of flame. Dr. Bannerjea remarks (D. H. I. p. 298)—“The prabhāvalī sometimes contains the emblems special to the god to whose image it serves as the background; while in the case of some principal types of Viṣṇu images (dhruvaharas) the ten avatāras are carved on it. In early and late mediaeval Hindu images of northern and eastern India, it commonly depicts a scheme of decorative carving on it, thus, in a fully complete stele, the order of arrangement of the motifs from the pedestal (pīṭhikā) upwards is first the leogryph (lion upon elephant gaja-śārdūla; sometimes the animals bear sword-bearers on their backs), then the ‘makara’ transom, above it the hybrid couple (Gandharvas) playing on lute and dancing, a little higher up the flying garland-bearers (mālādharī Vidyādharas) among the clouds and lastly the Kīrtimukha finial. This last motif consists of a grinning lion face with protruding goggle eyes and fangs, just placed in the top centre of the prabhāvalī, sometimes chains of jewel garland issuing out of either corners of its mouth. The ‘Kāla-makara’ motif in Indonesian art seems to be an adaptation of this Indian motif.”

v2.c74.s8.57

**Sirascakra.**—is the smaller halo-circle. Art critics like Grundwedel hold the view that these halos owe their origin from the Greek nimbus. Dr. Bannerjea, however, holds that origenally, it belonged to the astral deities. According to Rao Siraścakra ‘should have the form of a circle or a full blown lotus, eleven angulas in diameter, and should be away from the head by a distance equal to a third of its diameter. This halo circle is attached to the back of the head of images by means of a rod whose thickness is equal to one-seventh of the diameter of the śiraścakra’.

v2.c74.s8.58

As regards its artistic representation, Dr. Bannerjea says—‘In Gandhara it is almost invarialy plain; in the Śaka-Kushān art of Mathura it shows a scalloped border, while in the Gupta period though retaining this feature, it is endowed with more ornamentation. But several images of the Hindu divinities in the Gupta period are represented with comparatively plain nimbus. In the medieval sculptures different types of Siraścakra are used to decorate the figures, the commonest of them taking the shape of a lotus flower in full blossom;

v2.c74.s8.59

another common variety is parabolic in shape, with two concentric layers of gable decorations at its outer end. Varāhamihira describes the image of Sūrya as having a prabhāmaṇḍala shining with jewels (ratnojjvalaprabhāmaṇḍalaśca’) D. H. I. p. 296.—The medieval bronze Viṣṇu image from Rungpur show separate prabhāmaṇḍalas attached to their heads which in case of stone or wooden images is carved on the back of their heads in the same piece.

v2.c74.s8.60

Now in the end a word about the ideology underlying this custom may again be repeated. These manifold mudrās of multiple hands and abundant decorative items were regarded by writers like Smith, etc., as monstrosity of the Indian iconographic art. A deeper examination, keeping in view the philosophy and symbolism of Indian culture, will however give quite another estimation and this estimation of the Western critics like Smith and others will seem misconceived (cf. Coomarswamy’s observations in this regard—Dance of Śiva). Dr. Bannerjea also holds : The idea of symbolising the manifold activities of the deity, in however imperfect manner, undoubtedly lies at the root of placing in these multiple hands the variety of objects noted above. In the developed concepts about the numerous members of the Hindu pantheon, particular activities were associated with the individual units among them. It is no wonder then that one or more of these objects came to be regarded as special to different gods, though it must not be forgotten that the same objects could also appear in the hands of other deities in secondary role. The mythology at the root of divinities also determined the allocation of the objects.

v2.c74.s8.61

ICONOGRAPHICAL AESTHETICISM

v2.c74.s8.62

AND THE INSTALLATION OF THE IMAGES—PRĀSĀD AND PRATIMĀ

v2.c74.s8.63

This is the concluding chapter of this second part—‘Canons of Iconography’. Practically all the principal canons of Hindu Iconography relating to the classification of Indian images, their code of manufacturing—planning, measures, substances—etc.—together with their symbolic manifestation as are conveyed through manifold mudrās both bodily poses and external symbols like weapons, seats, implements as well as the drapery and decorations, have already been taken into consideration. Now remain the two very important topics of this canonical exposition. These are aestheticism in Indian iconographical art and the installation of an image in its abode, the garbhagṛha, of a Vimāna or Prāsāda, the Hindu Temple. Both these are taken up for the first time in an iconographical dessertation in contemporary writings.

Linked texts (15)

Mānasāra — Sanskrit
Nāṭyaśāstra — Bharata, Sanskrit
Bṛhatsaṃhitā — Varāhamihira, Sanskrit
Harappā
Mohenjo-daro
Ṛgvedasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Viṣṇupurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Lingaraja Temple
Gudimallam
Bhumara
Parkham
Aparājitapṛcchā — Bhuvanadeva, Sanskrit
Śilparatna — Śrīkumāra (Śilparatna) 1500, Sanskrit
Viṣṇurahasya — Sanskrit
Caturvargacintāmaṇi — Hemādri, Sanskrit