History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3.c37.17

v3.c37.17

The question whether the worship of images and the erection of temples spontaneously arose among the Vedic Aryans or whether they derived the idea from some other race or sectarians has been very often discussed. There are three principal views, viz. (1) that the worship of images was derived from śūdras and Dravidian tribes and absorbed in the brahmanical cult; (2) that the making of images was copied from the Buddhists; (3) that this practice was a natural and spontaneous growth. The second view is not very plausible. Images of Buddha were not made for a long time after his *nirvāṇa*. He was only represented at first by symbols. If modern chronology about Buddha's ministry is to be followed¹⁶⁹⁷ (he was born about 563 B. C. and died about 483 B. C.), it is almost impossible to hold that images of gods originally came to be made in imitation of images or statues of Buddha, since, as we saw above, temples and images of gods had already become widespread throughout India in the 4th or 5th century B. C.¹⁶⁹⁸ The first view is supported with arguments of some weight by Dr. Farquhar in J. R. A. S. for 1928 pp. 15-23. *Vide* also Dr. Charpentier in Indian Antiquary for 1927 pp. 89 ff. and 130 ff. But I do not hold that the reasons for this view are convincing. There is no apparent reason why only about 400 B. C. image worship should have been copied from the śūdras by the brāhmaṇas. The śūdra though given an inferior status had become a part of Indian Society at least a thousand years before 400 B. C., as the Puruṣasūkta shows. He had been serving the brāhmaṇas for centuries before that date and brāhmaṇas could in the times of the sūtras partake of food cooked by him and could take śūdra women in marriage. So, if the worship of images was a practice borrowed from the śūdras, it should have prevailed at least a thousand years before 400 B. C. The fact that the *devalaka brāhmaṇa* (one who maintained himself by attending on images either for a salary or by appropriating what was placed before the image) was not to be invited at a śrāddha and had thus an inferior status (Manu III. 152) is to be explained in a different way. The institution of worshippers of images had not an hoary antiquity behind it in the time of Manu, as that of priests officiating at the śrauta or gṛhya sacrifices had in his day; besides such men must have neglected the principal duty of a brāhmaṇa (viz. study of the Veda) and so they were looked down upon. Even in the times of the Brāhmaṇas the simple gṛhya sacrifices were being raised to the level of śrauta rites, which were gradually becoming less and less frequent. The Ait. Br. (11. 8) prescribes that when a man takes up an offering to a deity and is about to say 'vaṣaṭ' he should contemplate upon that deity for whom the offering is meant.¹⁶⁹⁹ This would naturally lead the worshipper to invest the deity with anthropomorphic attributes. The Nirukta devotes some space (VII. 6-7) to the consideration of the question of the form of the deities referred to in the Vedic *mantras*.¹⁷⁰⁰ Three views are propounded, viz. (1) they have an anthropomorphic form, (2) they have no anthromorphic form, (3) they may partake of both characters, i. e. the deities though really non-anthropomorphic may assume various forms for carrying out some purpose or activity. This last view contains the doctrine of *avatāras*. When Vedic sacrifices became less and less prevalent owing to various causes (particularly because of the doctrine of ahiṁsā, the various upāsanās and the philosophy of the Absolute set forth in the Upaniṣads), there arose the cult of the worship of images. Originally, it was not so universal or elaborate as it became in medieval and modern times.