Studying Hinduism

Key Concepts and Methods

Sushil Mittal, Gene Thursby

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781134418282
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

This book is an indispensable resource for students and researchers wishing to develop a deeper understanding of one of the world's oldest and most multifaceted religious traditions.

Sushil Mittal and Gene Thursby, leading scholars in the field, have brought together a rich variety of perspectives which reflect the current lively state of the field. Studying Hinduism is the result of cooperative work by accomplished specialists in several fields that include anthropology, art, comparative literature, history, philosophy, religious studies, and sociology. Through these complementary and exciting approaches, students will gain a greater understanding of India's culture and traditions, to which Hinduism is integral. The book uses key critical terms and topics as points of entry into the subject, revealing that although Hinduism can be interpreted in sharply contrasting ways and set in widely varying contexts, it is endlessly fascinating and intriguing.

1
Art

Heather Elgood

Problems of definition
Icons in Worship
Affinities Between Sound, Forms, and Ideas
Material Embodiment of the Divine
Hinduism through Study of Hindu Art

Exploring India’s religious imagery provides an alternative to textual interpretation as a basis for understanding Hinduism. As Diana Eckrightly stated:

Hermeneutics has been used to describe the task of understanding and interpreting ideas and texts. In a similar way, we need to set for ourselves the task of developing a hermeneutic of the visible, addressing the problem of how we understand and interpret what we see, not only in the classical images and art forms created by the various religious traditions, but in the ordinary images of people’s traditions, rites, and daily activities.

(1985: 14; emphasis in original)

From this point of departure, the chapter considers Hindu sacred art, the factors that gave rise to the use of icons, and affinities among sound, form, and philosophical concepts in Hinduism.

Problems of definition

Any definition of Hindu art might appear to require a definition of Hinduism, but the desire to codify a religion and to identify its unique features is a Western preoccupation. Julius Lipner (1994) compares Hinduism to “an ancient banyan tree” which “unlike the botanical model…is not uniform to look at. Rather, it is a network of variety, one distinctive arboreal complex shading into another, the whole forming a marvelous unity-in-diversity” (1994: 5–6). Lipner also characterizes Hinduism as “both a way of life and a highly organized social and religious system, quite free from any dogmatic affirmations concerning the nature of God” (Lipner 1994: 2, citing Zaehner 1966: 2). He is seeking to correct distorted perspectives that have persisted in two hundred years of Indological scholarship owing to overreliance on ancient Brāhmaṇical texts for interpreting Hinduism. The study of Hindu religious art can make a contribution to an appropriately broader view of Indian religious development.

Can one define Hindu art? Scholars have argued that one cannot distinguish between Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain imagery and iconography in the formative period of Hindu art from the second century BCE to the third century CE (Chandra 1983: 22). The earliest known depiction of the Hindu goddess Gajalakṣmī is found on a second-century Buddhist stūpa at Bharhut (Elgood 2004: 333–36). As late as the ninth century, Jain temple sculpture at Osian is barely distinguishable from that at the roughly contemporary Hindu temple of Jagat. However, Doris Srinivasan (1997: 4, plate 1.1a; 6) argues that certain concepts such as multiplicity are inherently Vedic and by extension Hindu; consequently, multiple heads and arms on some Hindu sculpture distinguish it from Jain and Buddhist imagery.

Hindu art consists of a range of anthropomorphic, aniconic, and ritual objects. According to Michael Meister:

Images that designate divinity clothe the absolute, specify a path for meditation, give form to devotion, even specify a sociology for kingship or society; they “contain” divinity called down by human ritual, embody the potency of patronage, the “beauty” of their craftsmen’s inner vision, the “subtle body” that is “real” form. This is their function and their history.

(1984: xxiii)

Anthropomorphic icons express mood and movement by posture and gesture but, beyond this, the figures and their animal vehicles reveal a complex iconography in which multiple heads and arms bear significant emblems. However, Hindus also recognize the deity in aniconic forms and do not inevitably require figurative art. Śiva, for example, may be represented as a sculpted liṅga or in the naturally occurring stones called svayambhū liṅga, and Viṣṇu is sometimes personified as an ammonite called śālagrāma. Many other objects can be perceived as spirit vessels. Hindu art is both functional and artistic, and it seeks to express the universal rather than the individual. Hindu interest in the inner spiritual over the mundane outer form is seen in ritual practices, such as the worship of icons that are blackened with smoke or concealed by cloth, by respect for such impermanent sacred art as kōlam or rangoli designs at domestic thresholds, and in the discarding of images at the completion of some rituals.

Hindu sacred art nonetheless has a highly developed aesthetic. Alfred Gell (1998) argues that the separation of the functional from the aesthetic is a Western distinction and is meaningless in a Hindu context wherein strict adherence to a fixed iconography serves as a stimulus for the worshipper. Ancient prescriptive texts support his argument and link ritual efficacy with the appropriate form and method of preparation of sacred images. The deity’s attraction to the beauty of the icon and its recognition of itself is ritually enacted by the practice of holding a mirror in front of a newly crafted image during its consecration ritual. Ralph Hallman argues that the viewer’s response to an art object consists of two parts—“that which is immediately present in perception, and that which is mediately present through suggestion”—and claims that the retinal image is not identical to the intellectual image (1954: 493; emphasis in original). His argument becomes obvious when one considers that most icons in a Hindu worship setting are barely visible to the devotee owing to their covering by layers of garlands and clothing. In other words, the devotee contemplates the icon while visualizing the living deity.

According to the Śilpaśāstras, the craftsman (śilpī) should undergo ritual purification and conduct rites that include due respect for the wood, stone, paint, and his tools before starting work. The texts also stress the need for the artist to be guided by inner vision and revelation, conceptualizing the appearance of the work during this mental state of openness and receptivity. Traditional sculptors see themselves not as creators or innovators but as attempting to express an order that already exists and acting as a vehicle to represent it to the world (Coomaraswamy 1956: 153). According to Jitendra Banerjea (1974: 13–14), the status of traditional artists was based on their claim to spiritual connection with the lineage of the Vedic Sapta Ṛṣis and mythic figures like Viśvakarma and Māyā, which established the artist’s pivotal role as a bridge between the mundane and the supramundane. In sum, the role of the artist as a spiritual vehicle is central to understanding his significance and his faithfulness to a common aesthetic and iconographic language.

Alongside prescribed form and measurement was a sophisticated aesthetic theory, known as rasa (literally, “taste”) that was codified by about the fourth to fifth century CE. Rasa theory developed as a part of Hindu dramaturgy and emphasized the importance of taste received by the recipient or rāsika. The Viṣṇudharmotarra Purāṇa revealed precise guidelines for the depiction of pure (satya) deities that included facial details, such as eyes like lotuses and a head like an egg. The text advises that an image should be seen from the front and should not be bent or crooked; it should be given a beautiful countenance, the cheeks well formed; the face should have a pleasant expression; good arms, hands, and a full chest. The eyes of the figures, their expressions, limbs, and hands have to be treated as in dance. The deities should be depicted in an idealized form, one that is youthful and immortal (with the exception of some of the more terrifying, or ghora, aspects) and at the peak of their energy. Deities are heroic or voluptuous, sensuous, and perpetually beautiful. In the epics and devotional Tamil poetry, divinity and beauty tend to be synonymous (Shulman 1980). Early inscriptions also provide evidence of the importance given to aesthetics or beauty. Whereas icons within a temple might be largely invisible, the temple exterior is visible and was expected to attract devotees and deity toward the interior.

The purpose of Hindu images, icons, or sacred objects can best be understood by the term “vigraha” (“something to hold onto”), a tool for grasping God. The image provides a focus in the ritual exchange of offerings in return for the acquisition of spiritual merit and divine union. Though the spiritual essence within the icon has paramount importance, the correct outer form is essential to remind the devotee and to support the deity’s recognition of itself. The purpose of the image

is to represent some fundamental aspect of the universe which is not perceptible to our senses, and to act as a metaphor to enable the religious devotee to more easily recognize that truth. Essentially the image is intended to reveal divinity to man and to help manifest divinity in man, in other words, to represent and participate in this process. The image is also intended to assist the concentration of the worshipper by providing a focus for his devotions.

(Elgood 1999: 27)

Icons in Worship

There are examples of sculpture and figurative seals from the Harappa or Indus Valley culture (ca. 2800–1500 BCE) that continue to stimulate scholarly discussion and controversy. However, there is widespread consensus that the absence of sculpture and icons in wood or stone during the Vedic period (ca. 1500–200 BCE) indicates a lack of interest in this imagery. Ananda K. Coomaraswamy describes Vedism “at least in orthodox and official circles, as to constitute by itself a complete artistic vocabulary and an iconography without icons” (1927: 290–93). Images of Vedic deities apparently were held in the collective mind and described in hymns but not represented in tangible form. Perhaps heightened or altered consciousness due to drinking soma may have contributed to intense visions of Vedic and later Hindu gods with multiple heads and arms. Despite the absence of stone sculptures, a large number of terracotta figurines have been excavated and assigned to 2000–300 BCE. These have been interpreted as votive offerings destined for Goddess shrines or as offerings to non-Vedic cult shrines (Ahuja 2001: 67, 172–78; Jayakar 1953–54). It has been suggested that Hindu goddesses with distinctive functions who came into prominence later may have developed from a more amorphous generic female deity (Elgood 2004: 337), and evidence of the close interaction of Vedic and non-Vedic society is provided by archaeological excavation. Himanshu Ray posits multilayered societies, particularly at Nagarjunakonda. “Almost every sacred spot was associated with more than one religion.…Practices such as that of pilgrimage provided wider connectivity through movements of groups and communities, thereby linking several spots across the religious landscape” (2004: 357). Such interaction, according to Srinivasan (1997: 190), may be seen in the burial of non-Vedic male and female clay pots in the foundation of the Vedic altar. The early form of the goddess Lajjā Gaurī, imaged in the shape of a filled vessel, is also associated with non-Vedic fertility rites (Elgood 2004: 216).

The earliest surviving Indian stone sculpture¹ is Mauryan and dates from 300 BCE in the region of Sarnath. Many stone images dating from 200 BCE and the third century CE have been found in the Mathura district of Uttar Pradesh. Mathura was a wealthy mercantile community where lay donors made gifts to priests and local monasteries. The city was situated at the junction of major trade routes and was noted for its diverse religions and its artisans. Surviving sculptures dating from the first century BCE to the first century CE show a developed iconography. Scholars have taken the view that image worship arose from the use of votive images and aniconic shrines in non-Vedic cults. This is reinforced by the fact that the earliest sculpture dates from the second to the first century BCE with excavations revealing goddesses, yakṣas, yakṣīs, nāgas, and nāginīs among the stone and terracotta images of early historical Mathura. One of the earliest freestanding yakṣa images in the Mathura region represents Maṇibhadra, who was a tutelary deity of merchants and travelers and was worshipped in important trading centers (Singh 2004: 383–84). Under the name Jakheiya, it is still worshipped in modern Mathura. This demonstrates mercantile investment in the propitiation of deities associated with wealth, access to whom was not controlled by Brāhmaṇas. The massive size of the third-century BCE yakṣa images suggests the importance of this religious following, and the fully formed character of the images suggests that their development predates this period. Serpent deities were also popular in Mathura and associated with water and fertility. Apsidal temples at Sonkh near Mathura have a mātṛkā plaque, nāga and nāginī terracotta figurines, inscriptions, and the top half of a stone nāga image demonstrating that these images were worshipped in structural temples (Singh 2004: 391–92). Other inscriptions reveal urban wealthy patrons, for example, the gift of nāga and nāginī figures from Girdharpur Tila, northwest of Mathura, from a cloak maker (Singh 2004: 386–87). Another factor in the rise of icons associated with Hinduism and the development of image worship may have been growing popularity of Buddhist and Jain anthropomorphic imagery.

Despite the coexistence of a variety of religious cults, Mathura was the stronghold of Brāhmaṇical culture and therefore of a strong Sanskritic cultural milieu. Recent scholarship has begun to refute the claim for lower caste initiative in the creation of sculptural icons. Evidence of the patronage of high-ranking officials and foreign influence for these early images is provided by inscriptions. One example is the inscription that reveals the foreign patron Heliodorus on the pillar at Besnagar,² whereas the other suggests the patronage of wealthy urban classes, referring to the installation of images of the five heroes by a woman named Toṣā in the late first century BCE at Mora (Lüders 1937–38: 194).³ Gilles Tarabout (2004: 70) points to the popular use of stone or tree markers but not precise figuration and notes that the old notion that images developed from the uneducated classes has been discarded by scholars of Buddhism and now should be set aside for Hinduism. This is consistent with the views of Gregory Schopen who argued that the initiative for the creation of Buddhist monumental sculpture arose not from the lower classes but from the need for a visual language by the monks themselves. The use by Buddhists and Hindus of common imagery makes it likely that there were some shared ritual practices in the use of images (Schopen 1989: 153–68). The earliest Hindu imagery is found in Mathura. This reinforces Tarabout’s view that the priests themselves may have devised complex anthropomorphic representation. During the Kṣatrapa and Kuṣāṇa periods, the warrior and trader classes gave offerings to Brāhmaṇas, the former to seek legitimacy and the latter for material well-being and useful astrological predictions. Trade also brought foreigners, new ideas, and cultural diversity.

Fully formed iconography that included reference to distinctly Vedic concepts, such as multiplicity, also strongly suggests the involvement of Brāhmaṇical prescriptions in establishing the form of these early Hindu images. Examples of this ready-made iconography can be seen as early as the second century BCE. One example is an aniconic stone liṅga image of Śiva with five heads from Bhita in Uttar Pradesh and assigned to the second century CE (Srinivasan 1997: plate 14.3). Another early anthropomorphic image is on a liṅga at Gudimallam, a two-armed Śiva holding an axe and a deer, supported by a dwarf (Apasmura), assigned for stylistic reasons to the second to first century BCE (Srinivasan 1997: plate 17.9). The earliest dated Vaiṣṇava image has multiple arms and is from first-century BCE Malhar in Madhya Pradesh. It is a four-armed Vāsudeva-Viṣṇu carrying the mace or gadā and cakra or discus in the upper hands and a śaṅkha or conch in the lower hand (Srinivasan 1997: plate 14.1). Scholars suggest that the four arms express the extension of divine sovereign power to all four quarters of the universe symbolized by the lotus and by the discus, conch, and mace (Srinivasan 1997: 22). A small Kuṣāṇa relief shows Kubera, Gajalakṣmī, and Śiva in androgynous form, each with t...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Studying Hinduism
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contributors
• Introduction
• 1: Art
• 2: Body
• 3: Cinema
• 4: Cognitive Science
• 5: Colonialism
• 6: Diaspora
• 7: Ecology
• 8: Ethnography
• 9: Ethnosociology
• 10: Exchange
• 11: Experience
• 12: Fiction
• 13: Gender
• 14: Intellect
• 15: Kinship
• 16: Law
• 17: Memory
• 18: Myth
• 19: Nationalism
• 20: Orientalism
• 21: Postcolonialism
• 22: Psychoanalysis
• 23: Ritual
• 24: Romanticism
• 25: Sacred
• 26: Stratification
• 27: Structuralism
• 28: Subaltern