Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c41.s13: Idol-Worship.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c41.s13

Language
English

Idol-Worship.

v3.c41.s13.1

Though thus Hinduism was in this period and is even now a blend of Vedic and Puranic worships, the Vedic ritual such as Tarpaṇa, Suryopasthāna and Havana gradually declined in importance and the worship of the Puranic gods, Śiva, Viṣṇu, Devi, and Gaṇeśa and even Sūrya became the normal and chief part of Hindu daily worship. Whether idol-worship is countenanced by the Vedas or not we will not stop here to enquire. But the Vedic Sūtras do not mention worship of idols in the daily service of God. After the suppression of Buddhism which began in the denial of God and ended in the universal worship of Buddha's images, Hinduism took up idol-worship with greater zest and it seems that the daily worship of small idols in every household came into vogue and was prescribed in the various nibandhas and works on religious practice. It is difficult to say whether the modern Pañchāyatana worship came into vogue at this time or was prescribed by Śankara in order to avoid the constant fight between worships of different gods. But certain it is that there were small images of different deities in every household at that time as at present. For the ceremony of worshipping Śiva or Viṣṇu or both by kings when making land grants mentioned in inscriptions can not refer to worship in temples. The images worshipped must have been the images in the royal household. They were either images of metal or small unfashioned stones of a particular appearance and with particular signs to be seen even now in Hindu households, which were considered to represent the different deities. This idol-worship in every household must have eventually thrown into the background the Vedic sacrificial fire therein.

v3.c41.s13.2

Of course there were besides temples in every town and village dedicated to different deities in which idols of stone or metal were placed and worshipped. Kings, queens, ministers, rich merchants and even mendicant Brahmin ascetics who secured large donations made in reverence to their holy character, vied with one another in building superb and stupendous temples to their tutelary deities, chiefly Śiva and Vishnu and India was in this period full of such temples throughout its length and breadth. The idols placed in these temples were usually of stone, but these were sometimes of silver and gold and even of precious stones; and bigotry came to the help of opulent kings and merchants by prescribing different merit and fruit to the construction of idols of different precious materials. Al-Beruni, probably quoting from Varāhamihira, details this different merit as follows: "The benefit of a statue made of precious stone will be common to all men and women of the empire. A golden statue will bring power to him who erects it; a statue of silver will bring him renown and one of bronze will bring him increase of rule, while one of stone will bring acquisition of landed property" (ditto p. 121). Thus were rich kings and merchants prompted to make statues of gold and silver and even precious stone inviting marauders and conquerors to commit sacrilege. Al-Beruni, however, cleverly adds that the Hindus honour the idols on account of those who erected them and not on account of the material of which they are made. Thus a stone idol was as good as a golden one for the devotee and precious idols were useful only to the plunderer and the thief. In spite of the plundering of temples and the removal of golden idols by Mahmud, the Hindus, however, still continued to make golden idols and to decorate stone idols with precious ornaments during this sub-period as inscriptions already noticed prove. This rage of decorating idols still continues though perhaps the fashioning of golden idols is no longer in vogue.

v3.c41.s13.3

We have already described in Chapter VI-16 how idolatry had drifted into bigotry at this time in India. The idolatry of the Hindus was a mystery to the philosophic mind of Al-Beruni, though even he notices how the whole human race in ancient times including even the Arabs was idolatrous. There were, however, sober men in India, candidly admits Al-Beruni, who did not worship idols. While commenting on the ludicrous views of the Hindus on the subject of idols, he states that these views were held by the common uneducated people. "Those who march on the path to liberation or who study philosophy and theology would never dream of worshipping an image manufactured to represent God. We may not give the stories of Ambarīsha and Nārada related by him to explain how Hindus took to making idols; but it is necessary to detail the several famous idols in India described by him. First there was the idol of the sun at Multan "It was of wood covered with red Cordovan leather with two rubies for the eyes. It was said to have been made in the last Kritayuga (i. e. 43 lakhs of years before). Mahomed Kasim who conquered Multan spared it as it was a source of great revenue. On the same place, however, he built a mosque. When Karmatians occupied Multan, Jālam Ibn Shaiban broke the idol and killed the priests. He shut the mosque built by the Caliphs and made the sun-god's mansion his (Karmatian) mosque. When the blessed king Mahmud swept away the Karmatian rule, he made again the old mosque the place of the Friday worship and left the Karmatian mosque to decay". This is a very interesting account about the temple of the sun-god of Multan and the vicissitudes of its fortune.

v3.c41.s13.4

The information given in the next para of Al-Beruni is still more important; indeed we must apologise to the reader for not having looked into this mine of information earlier. It is to be wondered how even Elliot did not come across this passage. It solves two difficulties which puzzled both Elliot and ourselves. Al-Beruni says (p. 117 Vol I Sachau) "At Thanesar there was in idol highly venerated by the Hindus, called Chakrasvāmin. It is of bronze and is nearly the size of a man. It is now lying in the hippodrome at Ghazna together with the Lord of Somnath which is a linga of Mahādeva. The Chakrasvāmin idol is said to have been made in the time of Bhārata as a memorial of the war of that name". Now this statement solves two mysteries. The name of the idol of Thanesar given as Jagasom by later Mahomedan writers is a plain misreading in Persian of Chakrasvāmin which must be a Vishnu idol and not a Śiva one. Secondly, although Utbi does not relate Mahmud's expedition to Somnath, this statement of Al-Beruni recorded in 1030 A. D. and therefore almost a contemporary statement, removes all doubts about the truth of the Somnath expedition.

v3.c41.s13.5

These idols superstitiously believed to be fashioned thousands or even lakhs of years before must have been highly venerated and must have also been invested in the popular mind with miraculous powers. Riches consequently flowed into Multan and Thanesar which, therefore, eventually invited destruction on themselves.

v3.c41.s13.6

Al-Beruni refers to one more famous idol viz. that of Śāradā in Kashmir visited even by Śankara. The other famous idols in India of which we have historical mention were the Śiva-idols in Kashi and Ujjain, the Bhailkasvāmin idol (Viṣṇu) at Bhelsa, the Viṣṇu idol at Jagannath (p. 268) and of Vithoba at Pandharpur and the Mahālakshmi idol at Kolhapur (p. 293), not to speak of the Śiva idols at Kāñchi and Rameśvar referred to by Al-Beruni himself. We have already spoken of the Devī idol at Kotkangṛa and the idols at Mathura and Kanauj described vaguely by Utbi as destroyed by Mahmud.

v3.c41.s13.7

Varāhamihira’s Brihatsamhitā is by name quoted by Al-Beruni here with regard to how the idols of different gods were to be fashioned. Two or three interesting points may be first noted which appear from this quotation. First, it is doubted by many if there were temples of Rāma before Rāmānanda; but Varāhamihira refers to idols of Rāma, son of Daśaratha and as Al-Beruni quotes this statement, it shows that there were idols of Rāma certainly from the 6th to the 11th century A. D. Secondly, idols of Viṣṇu are said to be with *eight, four and two hands*, and in these, different weapons or things are to be placed. The idol of Viṣṇu with two hands has to be made with conch in one hand and as drawing water the other; a description which is rather strange and which does not apply to the idol of Vithoba at Pandharpur. Thirdly, there were idols of Baladeva, of Pradyumna, of Sāmba, of Brahmā, of Indra, and Yama, of Revanta son of the sun, of the sun himself, of the seven mothers, of Bhagavatī and lastly of Vināyaka* with the elephant’s head or a human body.” All these except the last two have latterly gone out of fashion. We, however, ourselves saw in the Baijanath temple in Kangra at the entrance an idol of Gaṇeśa with six hands with weapons in the several hands as described by Jñāneśvara in his famous Marathi commentary on the Bhagavadgītā. This Baijanath temple has images of different gods carved on the outside of its walls and its pinnacle which are so charming and so true in detail to the description of the different Āyudhas, Pārishadas and Vāhanas of the several gods that they are worth studying. This temple was built about 1200 A. D. as an inscription in it records.

v3.c41.s13.8

∗ Hanumān though not mentioned here must have been worshipped in this period as we find his figure stamped on coins of the Chandellas (p. 181).

v3.c41.s13.9

“The worshippers of these idols kill sheep and buffaloes with axes (Kuthāra) that they may nourish themselves with their blood.” This is a strange observation, perhaps taken from the Tāntric worship of Devī and not from actual observation. With regard to the pujaris of the different gods, Al-Beruni gives the following information: “To the idol of Viṣṇu are devoted the Bhāgavatas, to the idol of the sun the Magas, to the idol of Mahādeva, “anchorites with long hair, who cover their skin with ashes, hang on their persons the bones of dead people and swim in the pools”. (p. 120). This observation is supported by inscriptions of the period, especially with regard to the worshippers of Mahādeva. Thus in the Badaun inscription (E. I. I p. 64) there are two Śaiva ascetics described at length. The first named Varmāśiva was an inhabitant of Anahilpāṭaṇa who in his boyhood, while in the Deccan country, removed an idol put up by the Bauddhas and who in later age by his austerities and learning became famous. He came to Badaun in his wandering and was placed in charge of a Śiva maṭha built by one Rulha, a Divira minister to the king of Badaun. The other ascetic was originally “a Brahmin in the Hariyāna country (round Delhi) who gave up wealth and the world for the worship of Śiva. His disciple a Gauḍaja (of Gauḍa country) Brahmin with Vatsagotra having five pravaras and named Iśānaśiva, was placed on the throne of ascetics by his guru after due trial. He built a fine Śiva temple, with a high pinnacle in that city of Bharata with the help of the same minister Rulha to the king of Badaun and the temple was given in charge of the first ascetic”. From this description Śaivite ascetics appear to be both Brahmins and non-Brahmins and they followed the same severe austerities and pious mode of life. The non-Brahmin ascetic was usually entrusted with the worship of the deity in Śiva temples, as is the practice even now. Many inscriptions speak similarly of Śaivite ascetics being placed in charge of temples. Thus the Bheraghat inscription of Ālhaṇadevi speaks of a Lāṭa ascetic* being placed in charge of a Śiva temple built by her (E. I. I p. 52); and two Śiva temples built by a Brahmin ascetic of the Vātsava gotra and by Gaṅgādhara a pious and learned Brahmin of Madhyadeśa are mentioned as placed in charge of Śaiva ascetics in E. I. II (p. 52 and 41).

Linked texts (8)