Idolatry, iconoclasm, and aesthetics of the human form:
Becoming God�s image in the Mirror of (Self-) Recognition
[Introduction will be completed in due course � Sunthar]
This debate�about the existence,
scope, and significance of (the taboo on) depicting the (divine in) human form
in Indian civilization ranges from the (pre-) Vedic period, through Buddhism
and Islam, down to our own times�focuses primarily on the Hindu aesthetics of the
body in the light of Abhinavagupta�s doctrine of Recognition (pratyabhij��).
�Sparked off by S. R. Krishnan�s
sceptical response to Sunthar�s comments to Umair juxtaposing the Carnatic
composer Oothuk�Du Venkata Subbaiyar�s immersion in Krishna-devotion to the
Sufi experience of self-annihilation (fan�). The participants
include several Hindu brahmins (S. R. Krishnan, Rangachariar, Rajagopal S.
Iyer, R.N. Iyengar, G. Subrahmaniam), an American Protestant (Frank Burch Brown),
a Pakistani Muslim (Umair Ahmed Muhajir),
an American Theravada Tantric Buddhist (Troy Dean Harris), a Srilankan specialist
of Singhalese Buddhism (Susanta Gunatilake), an Italian anthropologist of
Indian tribal religions (Francesco Brighenti), and a Malaysian �Hindu� (Sunthar
Visuvalingam). The exchanges compiled into this digest occurred in 2005
primarily on the Indian Civilization
list, found their way into the Abhinavagupta forum
(links provided to the original unedited posts), and are reflected in several
sections of the expanded version of Sunthar�s essay �Towards an integral
appreciation of Abhinavagupta�s aesthetics of Rasa� (Evam 2005). They focus
on the religious dimension of musical traditions, the risks and rewards of
commingling these separate streams, the common challenge posed by the
secularization of popular tastes, and the resulting birth of new aesthetic
sensibilities whose contours have yet to be adequately explored and formulated
in conceptual terms. Most of these core-issues were then addressed by Sunthar�.
The intervening �digressions� on [�] have been consigned to separate digests. I
have inserted introductory comments to contextualize some of the posts [Do let me know if your views have been inadvertently omitted or
distorted: this is an evolving archive!]. Having decided to make this
archive available to the public, I would like to offer some concise
clarifications�a conceptual grid as it were�of my own take on the various
perspectives that are under scrutiny in this discussion:
Aesthetics:
Aniconism:
Idolatry:
Iconoclasm:
Hinduism:
Related threads at svAbhinava:
"The Politics of Iconophilia: Idolatry, Iconoclasm, and the problem of representing God" - svAbhinava dialogue
"Towards an integral appreciation of Abhinavagupta�s aesthetics of Rasa" (Sunthar Visuvalingam)
From Abhinavaupta to Bollywood: �The waves surge, O Krishna!�
This compilation will
be eventually complemented by others including those listed above; in the
meantime please check out the (incomplete)
Index to threads below on �Between
"Religious art as
propaganda: trans-sectarian aesthetics of rasa" (for feedback)
Re: �Religious art as
propaganda: trans-sectarian aesthetics of rasa� (for feedback)
Re: �Religious art as
propaganda: trans-sectarian aesthetics of rasa� (for feedback)
Re: �Religious art as
propaganda: trans-sectarian aesthetics of rasa� (for feedback)
�Muslim allegories on the
taste of Love: becoming God�s image� (for feedback)
Sumptuous Javanese tribhanga Buddha
RE: sumptuous Javanese
tribhanga Buddha
[Sunthar�s invocation of Sufi fan� in relation to Krishna-bhakti provoked this discussion of idolatry and aniconism]
Subject: [Abhinava msg #2989]
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005; 7:24 am
Venkatasubbayyar seems to have chosen to remain in complete
isolation (but always in the company of Lord Krishna), and therefore, accurate
details relating his life are not available. However, legend has it that
as a young boy, he craved for musical knowledge. He was not fortunate enough to
find an proper guru to guide him
though. After some basic training under Pooranoor Natesa Bhagavatar, and
fascinated by the music of one Sri Krishna Yogi, he hoped to study under
him. But the Yogi would not accept him as a disciple. His own elder
brother, Kattu Krishna Iyer, who was a musician in the court of
Tanjavur, was not willing to teach him. Disappointed, and at the advice of
his mother, he started praying and singing in the presence of his chosen deity,
Lord Krishna, accepting him as his manaseeka
guru (guide and role model). It is believed that a miracle happened one
day. A child covered with dust appeared and sat on his lap, and would not
leave. At the same time, divine music through a flute was heard, and Venkata
Kavi became so absorbed in it that he fell unconscious. When he woke up, he saw
Balakrishna (the child
Dr. P.P. Narayanaswami,
�Oothukadu Venkata Kavi�The Divine Composer�
>
[Sunthar�s full post may be accessed at
and is also included in the digest �The waves surge, O Krishna�]
>
The life-long celibate Venkata Kavi never sang to
an audience but only at night before the �deaf� idol of his beloved
[Start of
this thread at Sunthar V. (Jan 14, 2002)
�Andalusian contribution to �Abhinavagupta and the Synthesis of Indian Music��
Subject: [Abhinava msg #2995 � order of thread reversed]
From: S.R. Krishnan
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005; 9:25 am
>
Mr. Visuvalingam,
From what you have posted of Venkata Kavi�s life story, it seems that he sang songs to Sri Krishna in solitude and with great devotion.
Fan� means
literally �extinction� or �annihilation.�
http://www.sufistudies.net/glossary/
The experience of the effacement of the ego or sense of self that occurs when the mystic attains union with God or realization of the Absolute. Often referred to as �annihilation.�
Could you kindly point to me compositions of his which refer to this state?
As per information you provided, Venkata Kavi
seems to have had no guru but Krishna Himself,
and sang his songs only in front of a m�rti
[�idol�] of
S.R. Krishnan
[Response to Sunthar�s post (Feb 22, 2005 ) at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/2989]
Subject:
�Are Sufis who sing the praises of Lord Krishna �Hindu� polytheists? On bhakti, idolatry (shirk) and self-annihilation (fan�)!
From: Sunthar
Visuvalingam
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005; 1:14 pm [Abhinava msg #2995]
When religious traditions encounter one another aesthetically, therefore, it is indeed an encounter, not simply a non-event. It is not without significance that (unless I�m mistaken) the forms of Islam (particularly Sufi) that have been most at home with musical styles derived from the Mughal period in India (which includes much of the modern Hindustani �classical� tradition) are those that are most sympathetic with mysticism (of some sort), and that are, specifically, most open to what has been called an Islamic variation on bhakti. Nor is it insignificant that certain traditional Christian worries (in India) about adopting traditional Indian musics have been worries precisely about ways in which Indian music seems so conducive (they say) to mystical surrender and absorption as contrasted with a sense of community that retains relations (divine and human) in contrast to seeking fusion or complete union. [...] It appears that we don�t have religious traditions at all without some sorts of teachings identified with those particular traditions. Nor do we have religious traditions without aesthetic styles associated with them, and in some cases vital to them. This is not to deny all sorts of affinities across traditions, with exoteric or esoteric. But unless we want one grandly amalgamated universal religion (which, with apologies to some of our Bahai friends, would surely be almost infinitely boring), why not welcome certain distinctive teachings of each tradition along with the distinctive aesthetic sensibilities/styles that each religion cultivates? Yet, at the same time, why not explore where and how these distinctive teachings and aesthetic styles can be transgressed, borrowed, reshaped, and shared?
�(Abhinava & Synthesis of Indian Culture)
The greatest
evidence of his musical pedigree is his compositions. His works reveal his high
quality musicianship. There are several references to good musical
approach, practices and even technical terms of ornamentation like [...]. Venkata Kavi believed that music had to
be blended with bhakti in order to shine. His theme �Bhakti yoga sangeeta margame paramapavanamahume�
is exactly seen in the work of another great composer, Tyagaraja in his �Sangeeta gnanamu bhakti vina sanmargamu galade�.
Need more be said of great minds thinking alike? Venkata Kavi�s works
reflect his philosophy; they are an ideal combination of music, devotion,
intellect and a soul that was in a state of spiritual bliss. [...] Taking another popular example, we can
visualise the scene vividly in his Taye yasoda (Todi), where the Gopis are
complaining to Yasoda about her son Lord Krishna. This song actually
has 8 charanams and each one abounds in description of the
humorous pranks that make us smile at
Chitravina N. Ravikiran, �Oothukkadu Venkatasubbayyar� (Navaratri 2001)
This
imagination takes several forms and churns out several emotions (rasas)
including hasya rasa, humour. Venkata Kavi�s works are remarkable
for the high percentage of richly humorous compositions he has composed. They are a
refreshing deviation from the trend of several Carnatic composers to compose
excellent bhakti (devotion) oriented pieces but often with more
pathos in them, using God as a sounding board for their woes or critiques of
life or those around them. One of the main reasons and sources for this
is his opera on Lord Krishna, especially the sections describing his life with
the gopis in Brindavan. His Madhyamavati piece, Aashaiyinaip paradi, is an excellent example of this. The
poet takes a dig at Lord Krishna through the words of one of the gopis
in Brindavanam. [...] �Look at His greed!
He cannot be content even with billions of devotees, he needs more and more.�
In the charanam, he takes a dig at a few great devotees:
[...] �Look at his devotees�Prahlada and Shuka
who thought they were one better than their own fathers; Vibheeshana and
Sugreeva who relinquished their own brothers Ravana and Sugreeva because of
him!� Another lovely example is the piece in Huseni, Adum varai avar adattum where again, it is one lady speaking to another
about
[Venkata Kavi�s] Stupendous Imagination, �H�sya (Humour)�
If we picture Venkatakavi singing Alaip�yuDe before the Oothukadu sanctum, the song is inalienably religious; when we hear it expressing the irresistible waves of passion that impel the young couple to transgress parental authority in their physical union, it passes for �secular� in the (Hindi) movie (Saathiya) [Umair had already pointed out that that the title-song from Venkata Kavi did not make it into the Hindi version; however the scenario being suggested here is wholly plausible and the point remains valid - SV]�tired of his bow and arrows, Cupid, it seems, is merely trying out his fingers on Krishna�s flute. It might be more instructive, in this regard, to consider the range of human emotions (rasas)�and hence of ragas�that might qualify as �religious�. Would it be too restrictive to suggest that music suitable to �Christian taste� would be limited by the range of acceptable attitudes to Christ (for example, suffering on the Cross, forgiving his persecutors, our joy at his resurrection, ascending to or looking down from Heaven, communion with fellow men in partaking of the Eucharist, etc.)? Whereas music in the Islamic context is either prohibited for its frivolous audacity in seeking to mediate the transcendental reality of Allah, or embraced by the mystic in promoting a trance-like union (as in dervish dances or qawwali singing), or, curiously enough, by masquerading as �secular� poetry and song by resorting to allegory (I have intentionally omitted Judaism here...). Precisely because God not only appears in human form but takes on all possible relations to the devotee, Hindu polytheism, it would seem, can appropriate any (conceivable nuance of any) �worldly� emotion for religious purposes!
Sunthar V. (July
18, 2004), �Christ,
From Abhinavagupta to Bollywood
Hello Mr. Krishnan,
There was no suggestion in my post
that Venkata Kavi was even remotely or
indirectly influenced by Sufism; and perhaps I ought to have appended a
question (rather than an exclamation!) mark to his Hindu experience of
fan� [in the subject-line
of the original post � SV]? After all, even remaining within the purely
brahmanical
This propensity for �personalized� devotion
is central
to Utpaladeva�s �philosophy of recognition of the Lord� (�zvara-pratyabhij��), so much so that the entire
edifice has been constructed�it may be convincingly argued�to save bhakti from Advaita-Ved�nta (not to mention the
Buddhists) by grounding its dualism upon an even more radical formulation
of non-dualism. And, yes, Abhinavagupta�s metaphysics�like the Kabbalistic
notion of God�s self-contraction (tsimtsum) as
the prerequisite for the deployment of the universe�does have a
privileged place at its core for (the valorization of) Nothingness (z�nyat�) for, after all, many of the related esoteric practices were
circulating quite freely between the �soulless� Buddhists and the
�self-affirming� Shaivas. No matter for astonishment, then, that after the 12th
century these Kashmiri traditions were readily assimilated and propagated,
especially on the popular level, by the �self-annihilating� Muslim Rishis of
Kashmir, like Nur-ud-Din (whose guru was the Hindu Lallezvar�,
who is said to have fed him with her milk, just as [the saintly Tamil
psalmodist] Tirugn�nasambandhar was by the Goddess herself...). At Rajiv�s July
2002
It seems to me no more �transgressive� to
assimilate the Hindu devotee�s unio mystica
(with all its erotic associations) to the Sufi experience of
�self-annihilation (fan�) than it would be to
label Muslim musicians who render homage to Allah by singing the praises of
Sunthar
[Start of this thread at Sunthar V. (Jan 14, 2002)
Andalusian contribution to �Abhinavagupta and the Synthesis of Indian Music�]
[Sunthar�s direct response to the Subrahmaniam�s and Krishnan�s comments follows after several intervening posts]
Subject: [Abhinava msg #3232]
From: G. Subrahmaniam
Date:
Sat Feb 26, 2005, 6:23 pm [IndianCivilization msg
#71626]
They are simply
cunning conversionists.
They eventually
make Mohammed the Kalki avatar.
The Khojas and
Bohras were converted this way.
G. Subrahmaniam
Subject:
From: S.R.
Krishnan
Date:
Sun Feb 27, 2005; 1:20 pm [IndianCivilization msg
#71653]
The
Islamic answer to Mr. Visuvalingam�s question �Are Sufis who sing the praises
of Lord Krishna �Hindu� polytheists?�
1. If all this
Krishna-devotion is a method of conversion, the said Sufis are not guilty of �shirk��associating
partners with Allah - and therefore not Hindu polytheists. If born Hindu
polytheists have to be slowly weaned before eventual conversion, Krishna-stuti [�praise� of
2. If a Sufi
praises Lord Krishna for his own satisfaction, to attain �fana� etc.,
he is guilty of shirk and therefore a mushrik.
Additionally, if he continues to claim that he is a Muslim, he is a munafiq (a
hypocrite).
There is
no fana in genuine Islamic theology or the Koran or the Hadith, only a heaven
or hell. In any case, genuine Sufi mysticism is the attempt of pagan,
pre-Islamic ideas to survive in an Islamic clothing in a vigilantly Islamic
society. Therefore there is greater historical justification to say that fana is the
Sufi experience of Buddhist Nirvana (�cessation�). After all, Buddhism was
prevalent even in
To
summarize, it would be more apposite to state that fana is the
Sufi experience of some of the states described in pagan systems of thought,
not the other way round. And, for that very reason, it is also reason enough to
provoke Tabligh.
S.R. Krishnan
[Response to Sunthar�s post
(Feb 26, 2005) at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/2995]
Subject: [Abhinava msg #3224]
�"Religious art as propaganda: trans-sectarian aesthetics of rasa" (for feedback)
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date: Tue Jun 28, 2005, 4:02 pm
�[This draft of Sunthar�s section in �Abhinava�s aesthetics� was subsequently revised in the light of the discussions]
The evolution of Indian aesthetics�like that of philosophy and
spiritual techniques�was conditioned, facilitated, and even necessitated by the
needs of sectarian propaganda and (to counter) conversion within a larger
process of religious acculturation across the whole subcontinent. After an
initial period of hostility towards the gratification of the senses and the
prohibition of images as detrimental to sacrificial pursuits and/or the
spiritual vocation, both Brahmanism and Buddhism adopted the theater, the arts,
and sensuous expression in general as a privileged medium for inculcating their
respective world-views and value-systems, and as a means for gaining or
retaining adherents among the lay public and various ethnic communities on the
fringes of the �Aryan� society. The earlier forms of brahmanical theater
may only be guessed at from Bharata�s definitions of various long extinct
genres with cosmogonic, agonistic, even violent themes, of which we have no
surviving specimens, but which must have been closely modeled on the Vedic
sacrifice and its mythico-ritual universe.[1] The Mah�y�na�s
eventual appropriation of epic poetry and stagecraft to propagate the Buddhist dharma�articulated around the supreme pursuit
of nirv�na that had as its aesthetic
correlate the appreciation of quietude (z�nta-rasa)�had
for its familiar backdrop and counterpoint the profane pursuits of an urban
milieu inhabited by merchants, artisans, courtesans, rogues, monks, and kings.[2]
This process of �secularization� is reflected, for example, in the �worldly�
genre called the prakaraNa that the
Nāṭya Z�stra pairs with the supreme form called n�Taka
that, though based on traditional legendary themes, is imbued with the same
aesthetic sensibility. An earlier commentator had surmised that (a
disciple of) Bharata had more or less synthesized two pre-existing schools of
drama, namely the Brahmanical and the Shaiva, a thesis that Abhinava refutes
not so much on historical grounds but because such composite origins would
undermine the authority of the Nāṭya-Veda. It seems wholly plausible that the
brahmanical stream would have been highly ritualistic and explicitly modeled on
the Vedic sacrifice, whereas the Shaiva current would have remained closely
linked to the �shamanistic� possibilities of dance, music, and the tantric
transmutation of the emotions. The transgressive Pāśupata ascetics not only
worshipped Shiva-Rudra as the Lord of Dance but were also expected to be
familiar with the theatrical art. Bharata�s school would have recast the
interiority of rasa within the
authoritative Vedic framework but with the focus now on entertaining a much
wider lay public through epic, legendary, and profane themes.[3]
Restoring the authority of tradition for the contemporary mind would consist
rather in demonstrating the coherence of the synthesis around a unified vision
that in the past was affirmed through (the fiction of) single (often
�eponymous�) authorship (whether to Bharata, Vy�sa, or other �compiler�).
Though the �Buddhist� z�nta was
missing in the prevailing manuscripts and its status as a traditional rasa hotly contested by Hindu orthodoxy,
Abhinava himself was not above illustrating this (ongoing) acculturation
project by championing its (interpolated) cause in his (Kashmiri recensions of
the) Nāṭya Z�stra, elevating the
sentiment of �cessation� to the quintessence of the aesthetic experience, and
crowning the Buddha as its patron deity.
[1] The best
evidence for this brahmanical inheritance is to be found in the �Preliminaries�
(p�rva-ranga)
retained in Bharata�s compendium. F.B.J. Kuiper has adduced the festival of
Indra�s banner�the occasion of Brahm�s stage-production of the first drama�and
the ensuing conflict between gods and demons, the verbal contest between the
hero and the vidūṣaka, and so on, as evidence of the origin of theatre in Vedic
cosmogony.
[2] This
transformation of aesthetic sensibility was so profound that the earliest
specimens of Indian literature to have survived are of Buddhist provenance (c.
2nd century): Ashvaghosha�s epic poems on the �Life of the Buddha� (Buddhacarita) and the conversion of his handsome and
reluctant half-brother (Saundar�nanda), and
fragments of drama (S�riputraprakaraNa).
[3] The
�non-Vedic� (avaidika) vidūṣaka, who
bears so many resemblances to the �initiated� (dīkṣita)
Pāśupata, thus emerges at the intersection of the socio-cosmic model of the
brahmanical sacrifice and the �individualized� esotericism of the Tantras, to
become the indispensable alter ego of the hero in dramatic narratives often inspired
by the epics. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that already in (the fragment
from) Ashvaghosha�s� S�riputraprakaraNa, the first �Sanskrit� play, the brahmin
clown already converses in Pr�krit and seems to be the indispensable companion
of the hero bent on renouncing the world.
Here is
another fresh section just added to my essay �Towards an Integral Appreciation
of Abhinavaguta�s Aesthetcs��comments welcome!
Regards,
Sunthar
Subject: [Abhinava msg #3227]
Re: �Religious art as propaganda: trans-sectarian aesthetics of rasa� (for feedback)
From: Rangachari
Date: Tue Jun 28, 2005, 5:46 pm
To: [Indian
Civilization msg
#76804]
[Sunthar
Visuvalingam] wrote:
After an initial period of hostility towards the gratification of the senses and the prohibition of images as detrimental to sacrificial pursuits and/or the spiritual vocation, both Brahmanism and Buddhism adopted the theater, the arts, and sensuous expression in general as a privileged medium for inculcating their respective world-views and value- systems, and as a means for gaining or retaining adherents among the lay public and various ethnic communities on the fringes of the �Aryan� society.
Is there
any evidence for the �hostility� from ritual brahminism? I think there are
evidences for the contrary. Take for example the mahAvrata rite. Descriptions
can be found in pa~nchavimsha, aitareya and ShAnkhAyana
brAhmaNa.
�Skipping protocol details till after the evening
soma pouring --
�-A vANa with 100
strings, with the body made of udumbara and handle of palAsha woods, covered
with a brown ox hide is readied for the udgAtar to accompany the sAma gAnaM. A
reed bow decorated with leaves is used to play it.
-Following
musical instruments to accompany the sAma ganaMs: avaghaTarikA (a pot
instrument), alAbuvINA (a vINA), ghATakarkari (?), godhAvINAKA (vINA),
kANDavINA (vINA) and picchorA (flute) are readied.
-6 mR^idanga
drums are placed all around the saman singers
-behind the
AgnIdhra altar a hole is dug up in a hemispherical form and covered with the
hide of a sacrificed bull. This is the earth drum that is played to accompany
the sAma gAnaM.
-a round piece of
hide, held up by two posts is set up as an archery target to the left of the
AgnIdhra fire.
-a chariot with a
single horse with a bow and 3 arrows are readied for the kshatriya to use.
-pots filled with
water are readied for the dancing maidens�
Skipping the
prAtaranuvAka chant protocol, here are some more details:
�The udgAtar mounts his udumbara stool and the other brAhmaNas sit on their mats. The udgAtar picks up the 100-stringed vANa and begins playing it singing the mahAvrata sAman. The wives start playing on the other instruments that were brought in, while the drummers start beating the mR^idangas and the earth drum. Maidens water pitchers on their heads dance thrice to the left round the mArjAlIya altar singing the madhu gANaM. Then they dance thrice to the right in silence. The horse is then yoked to the chariot and the kshatriya mounts it and taking the bow and three arrows encircles the vedi and shoots the target even as he is riding.�
This
shows that music and dance was very much part of srauta ritual. So where is the
hostility???
Regards,
Rangachari
Subject:
�Re: �Religious art as propaganda: trans-sectarian aesthetics of rasa� (for feedback)
From: Rajagopal S.
Iyer
Date:
Tue Jun 28, 2005, 11:31 pm
To: [Indian Civilization msg
#76812]
--- In IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com, Rangachari
wrote:
Is there any evidence for the �hostility� from ritual brahminism? I think there are evidences for the contrary. Take for example the mahAvrata rite. Descriptions can be found in pa~nchavimsha, aitareya and shAnkhAyana brAhmaNa.
Kindly
also refer to my paper which can be found as a IOS04.DOC under the files
section of this esteemed list.
The
�hostility�, even in mahaavrata, almost amounts to verbal exchange between the
two roles: abhigara and apagara.
The echo
of inclusion of something unsavoury in every ritual to this day, can be found
in the dR^ishhTi parihaara.. Often in the form of a poor white melon
(puushaNikkai) being painted and broken etc.
Of course
eyes with the jaundice of dichotomy will obviously view it as �hostility�.
It is not
only unfair but uninformed to read violence into the shrauta ritual. ----- > This shows that music and dance
was very much part of srauta ritual. So > where is the hostility??? -----
BTW,
still looking for it...
aa no bhadraaH
kratavo yantu vishvataH
Rajagopal
[Response to Sunthar�s post (Jun 28, 2005)
at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/3224]
Subject:
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date: Wed Jun 29, 2005, 9:05 am
The Jaimin�ya-Br�hamaNa (2,69-70) relates a historical legend
about a lengthy competition between two different kinds of sacrifices. One of
the rivaling sacrifices is characterized by S�mavedic songs, Rgvedic praise
hymns and Yajurvedic priestly performances: the performer of this kind of
sacrifice is said to be Praj�pati, the main god of the Middle Vedic period who often
represents the priestly class of the Brahmins. It is obvious that the classical
Vedic Soma sacrifice (where Indra is the main deity) is meant. The other
contestant is the sacrifice characterized by songs sung to the accompaniment of
the harp (an integral part of the Vr�tya rituals [...]), by dance, and by what
is performed for [<p.299-300>] pleasure
(i.e., sexual intercourse); its performer is MRtyu, �Death�. This is clearly
the archaic �preclassical� ritual associated with the Vr�tyas. Finally Praj�pati
overcame MRtyu, and MRtyu�s kind of sacrifice decayed, ceasing to exist (...).
Asko Parpola (
On
the Scythian/Zaka affiliation of the D�sas, Nuristanis and Magadhans,� Iranica Antiqua vol. 37
(2002:233-324)
Paying close attention to anomalous elements within both the
Vedic ritual texts, the brahmanas, and the
ritual manuals, the srautasutras, Heesterman
reconstructs the ideal sacrifice as consisting of four moments: killing,
destruction, feasting, and contest. He shows that Vedic sacrifice all but
exclusively stressed the offering in the fire�the element of destruction�at the
expense of the other elements. Notably, the contest was radically eliminated.
At the same time sacrifice was withdrawn from society to become the sole
concern of the individual sacrificer. The ritual turns in on the individual as
�self-sacrificer� who realizes through the internalized knowledge of the ritual
the immortal Self. At this point the sacrificial cult of the fire recedes
behind doctrine of the atman�s transcendence
and unity with the cosmic principle, the brahman.
Based on his intensive analysis Heesterman argues that Vedic sacrifice was
primarily concerned with the broken world of the warrior and sacrificer. This
world, already broken in itself by the violence of the sacrificial contest, was
definitively broken up and replaced with the ritrualism of the single,
unopposed sacrificer. However, the basic problem of sacrifice�the riddle of
life and death�keeps breaking too surface in the form of incongruities,
contradictions, tensions, and oppositions that have perplexed both the ancient
ritual theorists and the modern scholar.
Heesterman, J. C. The Broken World of Sacrifice: An Essay in Ancient Indian Ritual. 306 p. 6 x 9 1993
Dear
Rangachari and Rajagopal,
Thanks
for the prompt feedback! You are, of course, perfectly right in insisting that
elements of music, dance, mime, and even drama were part and parcel of (what
Heesterman calls the �pre-classical�) Vedic sacrifice (that was subsequently
�reformed�). Many early Sanskritists, as you probably already know, had
attempted to find the origins of Indian classical theater in such Rigvedic
dialogue hyms and rituals as you describe.
The
problem is that the Sanskrit K�vya tradition proper is well posterior to
600 B.C. whereas the classical sacrifice had already been reformulated long
before then to eliminate not only all the �transgressive� (violent,
sexual, etc.) but also much of the �popular� artistic elements,
epitomized so well by the Mahāvrata. This is clear in the rival sacrifice
performed by Praj�pati to conquer Death (Mrtyu), where the former competes by
substituting �purified� ritual equivalents for the weapons such as music,
dance, etc., employed by the latter (see citation above from Parpola).
Orthodoxy, both the Brahmin ritualists and the Buddhist renouncers, were wary
of (= �hostile� to ) the temptation posed by artistic performances. It was
much later that the arts were gradually tamed by being assimilated into and
made subservient to a larger religio-cultural project.
Whereas
scholars like Biardeau have tended, more recently, to trace later Hindu
normative thought and practice back to Vedic origins, others like Sontheimer
have insisted instead on the �popular� character of Vedic mythology and ritual
by focusing on these very (subsequently excluded) elements. The latter was,
however, very well-disposed to my acculturation model (and even deigned to
visit us in �brahmanical�
In any
case, I�ll add another footnote to this section clarifying my thinking on this
point which is so susceptible to further misunderstanding.
Regards,
Sunthar
P.S. Rajagopal,
I�ll look at your paper in due course...in the meantime you might want to study
the �Broken World of Sacrifice� more closely...
[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V.
(Jun 29, 2005)
�Banarasipan as �intoxicated�
(mast�) state of spiritual autonomy�]
Subject: [Abhinava msg #3231
� order of thread reversed]
�Re: �Religious art as propaganda: trans-sectarian aesthetics of rasa� (for feedback)
From: S. R.
Krishnan
Date:
Wed Jun 29, 2005; 9:54 am
To: [Indian Civilization msg #76825]
--- In IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com, Sunthar
Visuvalingam wrote:
After an initial period of hostility towards the gratification of the senses and the prohibition of images as detrimental to sacrificial pursuits and/or the spiritual vocation, both Brahmanism and Buddhism adopted the theater, the arts, and sensuous expression in general as a privileged medium for inculcating their respective world-views and value-systems, and as a means for gaining or retaining adherents among the lay public and various ethnic communities on the fringes of the �Aryan� society.
Dr. Visuvalingam,
Could you kindly cite historical instances in antiquity wherein �Brahmanism� (if such a thing existed) and Buddhism �prohibited images as detrimental to sacrificial pursuits and/or spiritual vocation.� I would also appreciate direct quotes from Hindu/Buddhist scriptures advising against idolatry.
What is the historical period wherein sculpture
and other arts were �adopted� for �gaining or retaining adherents?�
S.R. Krishnan
[Response to Sunthar�s post
(Jun 28, 2005) at
�Religious art as propaganda: trans-sectarian aesthetics of rasa� (for feedback)]
Subject:
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date: Fri Jul 1, 2005, 10:27 am
The evolution of Indian aesthetics�like that of philosophy and
spiritual techniques�was conditioned, facilitated, and even necessitated by the
needs of sectarian propaganda and (to counter) conversion within a larger
process of religious acculturation across the whole subcontinent. Archaic Vedic
religion had elements of poetry, music, dance, mime, dialogue, and even
theatrical episodes that were typically marked by (sometimes overt)
confrontation, sexuality, and violence. [1] Though such performances often
seem to be the intrusion of the surrounding popular culture that must have
continued to conserve and develop them, [2] the classical sacrifice was
thoroughly reformed before 600 B.C. to all but eliminate this crucial agonistic
dimension such that whatever remained of artistic sensibility was made entirely
subservient to the claims of a purified ritual universe. [3] This
�axial� transformation was not specific to the Vedic �orthodoxy� but the
reflection of a wider spiritual movement that questioned and rejected the
violent, sexual, inebriating, and other excesses of the �pre-classical�� religious culture.[4] Both the
orthodox Brahmin steeped in a ritualistic worldview and the early Buddhist
(later Theravada) renouncer were wary of�if not overtly hostile
towards�gratifying the senses through the refined, and hence all the more
dangerous, enchantment of profane art. In their growing rivalry, however, both
Brahmanism and Buddhism were obliged to adopt the theater, the arts, and
sensuous expression in general, as a privileged medium for inculcating their
respective world-views and value-systems, and as a means for gaining or
retaining adherents among the lay public and various ethnic communities on the
fringes of the �Aryan� society. [5]
�[1] Attempts have thus been made from the beginning to trace the hieratic
�origin� of the classical theater to the Rig Vedic dialogue hymns (Yama and
Yam�; Pur�ravas and Urvaz�; Indra, VrS�kapi, and Indr�N�; etc.) episodes in the
Mahāvrata ritual (copulation between brahmac�rin
and hetaera after an abusive altercation; exchange between a brahmin praising
and śūdra reviling the sacrificial performance; etc.).� My own work on the mythico-ritual
underpinnings of the vidūṣaka
suggests rather that the theater as a whole is a transposition and reworking of
the underlying Vedic sacrificial ideology onto an all-embracing profane medium,
which would justify Bharata�s characterization of stagecraft as the Nāṭya-Veda.
[2] There have hence been opposing attempts to
derive classical theater from popular mime, puppet and shadow theater,
�subaltern� and subsequently Buddhist-inspired ridicule of Brahmanism. This
dichotomy reflects rather the distorting Western projection of a (bourgeois)
elite/popular (working-class?) opposition onto Indian culture, where the two
poles of this continuum have constantly shaped each other down the millennia
even while remaining in tension.
�[3] The triumph of classical brahmanism is epitomized by the contest
between Praj�pati and Death, where the latter performs the (Vr�tya-) sacrifice
through songs accompanied by the harp, dance, and sexual intercourse. Finally,
Praj�pati overcomes his opponent by neutralizing and appropriating these into
the Rig Vedic praise hymns, S�ma Vedic songs, and the dramatized ritual of the
Yajurveda.� The �shamanizing� potential
of such artistic expression would have however been conserved, elaborated, and
systematized by subsequent Zaiva religious currents, as exemplified by the
(brahmin) Pāśupatas.
[4] This schema attempts to simplify, for the
sake of intelligibility, a civilizational process that is more complicated. The
Indus-Sarasvat� civilization�an exceptionally pacific culture that nevertheless
seems to have sanctioned (animal and) human sacrifices�collapsed by around 1700
B.C. to be replaced by perpetually warring tribes and a generalization of
sacrificial frenzy. What Jainism, classical Brahmanism, and early Buddhism
share is the common ethos of self-restraint and �non-violence� (ahims�) that came to permeate the whole of
Indian civilization. This is the cultural rationale for the absence of tragedy
in the classical theater.
[5] It�s crucial to bear in mind that from the
perspective of acculturation, Brahmanism and Buddhism�who despite their intense
religious competition were often patronized by the same kings�found themselves
on the same side of the cultural divide that distinguished those who subscribed
to �Aryan� norms of behavior. Equally important is that these norms themselves
gradually evolved as other local (artistic) traditions were assimilated and
�ethnically� redefined.
Hello Mr.
Krishnan,
The
earlier �prohibition� of (anthropomorphic) images, probably more tacit than
explicit, in the mainstream culture may be recognized in the five centuries it
took before the Buddha was actually portrayed in human form (as opposed to
symbols like vacant throne, footprints, umbrella, tree). Well before
Buddhism, the Vedic �polytheism� never represented the deities, not even Indra,
through lifelike (much less, permanent) images. Even subsequently, at the
height of bhakti and temple-worship, Brahmā as the third member of the Hindu Trinity
never received image worship (seeming exceptions like his temple at PuSkar only
prove the rule...). Though the Pur�nic myths that fix the sacred geography of
the pilgrimage circuits resort to myths that seem to devalorize the creator-god
Brahmā before the supreme ViSNu and Ziva, the real reason is that the
brahmanical ideology that still underpins Hindu bhakti
(Biardeau) accords no independent status or even reality to the gods. This is
not because of an excess of the �monotheistic� impulse (as in Judaism and Islam)
but because these �divinities� were mere cogs in the sacrificial machinery.
Though Maitreya, the vidūṣaka (= Gaṇeśa?) in the Mrcchakatik�, complies
with his brahmin friend�s wish to leave the offerings at the crossroads for the
Goddesses (M�tRk�), he makes it a point to complain: �What�s the use of
worshipping the gods? They don�t listen anyway!�
As the
anthropologist Jack Goody has shown (I had an exchange with him on this topic
after his talk here on 24th June 2003...), the �prohibition� of images is not
peculiar to the monotheistic cultures (it�s not just the Catholics in Europe
but even the Muslims in India who have found various ingenious �theological�
solutions to get around the interdiction...). It may be recognized as a
powerful (Western) tendency in a philosopher-mystic like Plato (art as being
engrossed in the shadow of an already �imaginary� world in the allegory of the
Cave...) already within a pagan context, and even among various African peoples
(whose neighboring tribes may be devout image-worshippers). Similarly, though
the late Tantric Buddhists end up multiplying their (wrathful and erotic)
deities to an extent that would bewilder most Hindus, they are systematically
reduced to insubstantial creations of one�s own nature as the Supreme Void.
This is why it was so easy, subsequently, for Indo-Muslim Hindavi poets of
Awadh like Malik Muhammad Jayasi to sing the praises in his Padm�vat of
various Hindu gods like Shiva and Indra against a Koranic backdrop...
Instead
of being stuck in the rut of idolatry versus iconoclasm, we�d make much better
progress in our understanding of the treatment anthropomorphism in art if we
looked more closely at the different processes and strategies at work behind
the scenes!
Regards,
Sunthar
P.S. I�ve reproduced above the fresh materials since added to the revised first half of my section on �Religious art as propaganda.�
[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V.
(Jun 29, 2005)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/3227]
[Section from �Abhinava�s Aesthetics of Rasa� by way of late response to Krishnan and Subramaniam]
Subject: [Abhinava msg #3232]
��Muslim allegories on the taste of Love: becoming God�s image� (for feedback)
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date: Sat Jul 2, 2005, 3:19 pm
Since so much of Hindu aesthetics revolves around the artistic
representation of the human form whether as the protagonist of a worldly drama
or poem, in the image of a divinity to be worshipped, or hovering somewhere
between the two as in the exemplary narrative of Lord R�ma,[1][1]
the genealogy of religious aniconism and anthropomorphism in Indian
civilization assumes a central significance, especially in the subsequent light
of the wholesale adoption of the rasa-dhvani
canon by Muslim poets and musicians. The �polytheism� of the Rig Vedic hymns
attributes vivid human traits even to key ritual elements like Fire (Agni), but
the gods�even and especially the foremost among them, Indra their king�were
adored through figures of speech and never in sculpted form. Though the Buddha
was a wholly human prince of the sixth century B.C., the �Enlightened One� was
visually represented in devotional art for five centuries primarily through
symbols like the vacant throne, footprints, umbrella, tree, and/or the
spinning Wheel of the Law. The gradual concessions to the demands of lay
devotion notwithstanding, the central focus of Buddhist predication, endeavor,
and practice was not the adoration of his personhood but the intangible
principle of its self-dissolution into the Void (nirv�na).[2][2]
Even at the height of the bhakti period, the
image of Brahmā as the third member of the Hindu Trinity did not as a rule
receive worship in temples, which the Pur�nic myths account for through a curse
that devalorizes this �arrogant� creator-god before ViSNu and Ziva as the
supreme objects of devotion. The real reason, however, is that the brahmanical
ideology that still underpins Hindu bhakti
accords no independent status or even reality to the gods who were mere cogs in
the sacrificial machinery.[3][3]
Though the late Vajray�na Buddhists similarly end up multiplying their
(ferociously erotic) deities to a degree that would bewilder most god-fearing
Hindus, they are systematically reduced to insubstantial creations of one�s own
nature as the Supreme Void (z�nya).
The mystic physiology of the yogic body, the accompanying tantric techniques,
and the esoteric language (sandh�-bh�S�) used to communicate such truths (only)
to the initiated, proliferated in trans-sectarian modes within popular
religion, as exemplified above all in the celebration of the alchemy of rasa embodied in the �Nectar of Immortality� (amRta-kuNDa) attributed to Gorakhn�th.[4][4]
The Hindavi literature of Awadh at its height had systematically assimilated
not only this entire range of mystical content and understanding but also gave
ornate expression to that perennial quest for perfection through the medium of
epic romances that resorted to erotic love and sensuous descriptions as
allegories for the fusion of the human soul with the Divine.[5][5]
Such achievements had been prepared for by the meticulous translation, avid
reception, and experiments in the application of Sanskritic canon on
music, dhvani, and rasa already during the Delhi Sultanate, and
by attempts to delineate, negotiate, and bridge the gulf between Persian-Islamic
and Hindu literary genres, conventions, and tastes. The ideal listener to such
prurient recitations was designated as the Sufi novice whose heart was focused
on transmuting the (otherwise) �worldly� emotions evoked into the elixir of
divine love (prem) for the Lover who
lay behind all name and form. Skill in Koranic exegesis was not just a
religious but an aesthetic prerequisite for full appreciation because the
crisscrossing waves of meaning generated by this wide confluence of the two
rivers of literary allusion and hermeneutics traversed and played upon multiple
registers, such that inherited Indian themes and imagery could begin to
resonate with Islamic revelation, learning, pursuits, and sensibilities.[6][6]
Though such hybrid creativity received much impetus and motivation from the
competitive milieu�not just between Hindu and Muslim genealogies, but also
among rival Sufi sects, and amidst individual sheikhs�and often served to
proselytize, the net result was a shared aesthetics and an emerging synthesis
that transformed both the tributary religious cultures. Hindu divinities, like
Shiva and
[9][1] Whereas the original Sanskrit epic of V�lm�ki depicts Lord R�ma as an
exemplary human hero with his divine dimension as an avat�ra of ViSNu left in the background, the Hindi R�mcaritm�nas of Tuls�d�s transforms him into
a deity to be worshipped. The participation of Muslims in the R�mnavam� /
Dashera celebrations based on the latter version (and the participation of
Hindus in Muharram, etc.) has led some well-intentioned scholars to claim that
the denominations of �Hindu� and �Muslim� were irrelevant (or simply did not exist)
in pre-colonial India. It would be more pertinent to ask how differently such
�syncretic� practices�often in the context of religious rivalry�may have been
viewed by the parties involved.
[10][2] Despite the ongoing controversy as to whether there was in fact a
(tacit) prohibition against images of the Buddha, there is abundant evidence
from narrative friezes that depict a vacant space at the center of adoration, a
pedagogic strategy maintained much later even in
[11][3] Though Maitreya, the vidūṣaka in the �Little Clay Cart� (Mrcchakatik�),
complies with his brahmin friend�s wish to leave the offerings at the
crossroads for the goddesses, he makes it a point to complain: �What�s the use
of worshipping the divinities? They don�t listen anyway!� The �prohibition� of
images is not peculiar to the monotheistic cultures (it�s not just the
Catholics in Europe but even the Muslims in
[12][4] This esoteric knowledge was so highly treasured by the Sufis that
translations of this �text� were made into Urdu, Persian, Arabic, Turk, and
even Hebrew, and openly acclaimed as the most valuable �book� of India. Though
many of the more alien (i.e., specifically Hindu) details were often
suppressed, re-contextualized, and/or substituted with Islamic equivalents for
the consumption of Muslim novices, the true provenance and meaning were often
known to the redactors (as confirmed by the existence of multiple versions from
the same hand). Carl Ernst�who has consecrated many long years to collecting, collating,
and interpreting this complex manuscript tradition�came to the paradoxical
conclusion (at the end of his lecture series in Paris in 2003) that this corpus
would, in fact, owe very little to pre-existing Hindu esotericism but simply
attributed to India for reasons of prestige! All because his agenda is to
counter the claims of earlier Orientalists that Sufism was little more than
yoga (Central Asian shamanism, etc.) in Islamic garb. The �originality� of a
religious tradition, in my perspective, lies not in its refusal to �borrow�
(from even inimical sources) but in the specific imprint, reformulation,
re-evaluation, and sensibility it imposes on these otherwise shared contents.
[13][5] My following observations on the new Indo-Persian aesthetic sensibility
are primarily based on notes and handouts from the lectures in Paris of Aditya
Behl (June 2005) on Shadows of
Paradise: An Indian Islamic Literary Tradition, 1379-1545.� His
ongoing studies of (the audiences of) Hindavi literature (and music) focus on
Malik Muhammad Jayasi�s Padm�vat and Mir Sayyid Majhan Shattar�s Madhum�lat�
in the crosshairs of Abhinavagupta�s aesthetics of dhvani
and rasa, Persian genres (masnavi) and sensibilities, and skill in
Koranic exegesis. The Padm�vat was so highly considered that the poet
Ala�oul rendered it into (highly Sanskritized) Bengali for the delectation of
his Muslim patrons at the Arakan court in eastern
[14][6] Conversely, Hindu poets could extend the resources of the Sanskritic alamk�ra-z�stra to celebrate significant
secular developments in contemporary Indo-Muslim society. Kesavdas, for
example, wrote an elaborate panegyric in Brajbh�S� of Jehangir, using puns and
other stock rhetorical devices to equate his court with that of Indra. See
Allison Busch�s treatment of his Jahangirjascandrik�
in her forthcoming article on �Literary Responses to the Mughal Imperium: The
Historical Poem of Kesavd�s� (Sage Publications, 2005).
[15][7] Instead of being stuck in the rut of idolatry versus iconoclasm, we�d
make much better progress in our understanding of the treatment of
anthropomorphism in art if we looked more closely at the inevitable tension
between symbol and reality already inherent in the (divine) image, and the
(religious constraints on the) different strategies at work behind the scenes.
[16][8] After the twelfth century in
Sunthar V., �Towards
an Integral Appreciation of Abhinava�s Aesthetics�
(2005)
Hello Mr.
Krishnan,
During
his recent talks here in
Similarly,
I agree with earlier Orientalists that much of the content of Sufism is
actually the wholesale Islamic appropriation of pre-existing spiritual
traditions. I had criticized Carl Ernst for drawing an arbitrary line in the sand
before pre-Indian Islam, when it could be similarly argued that much of what
was there before already came from Zoroastrian (Suhrawardi), Greek, Christian,
and Jewish sources. However, if we follow such a line of reasoning to its
logical conclusions there would be little left of �Hinduism� as well. Even the
�identification with Bhairava� so central to Abhinavagupta�s own realization
has its �aboriginal� roots in the cult of �possession� (�veza).
However, its experience within the Kaula context of bhairav�veza
(unlike the ephemeral trance undergone by the majority of folks who carry k�vaDi for
Murugan...) is imbued with a distinctive gnosis. In the same way, what�s
distinctive about fana is precisely its reworking into an Islamic
context, and I�d find its inner precedent in the first intimation of the
Koran�which was already likened to an experience of death�on
I would
appreciate feedback (of course, from yourself as well) on the above new section
just added to my essay on Abhinava�s aesthetics!
Sunthar
[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V.
(Jul 1, 2005)
Subject: [Abhinava msg #3236]
�Sumptuous Javanese tribhanga Buddha
From: Troy Dean Harris
Date: Tue Jul 5, 2005, 9:13 am
Sunthar Visuvalingam:
"Though the Buddha was a wholly human prince of the sixth century B.C., the 'Enlightened One' was visually represented in devotional art for five centuries primarily through symbols like the vacant throne, footprints, umbrella, tree, and/or the spinning Wheel of the Law. The gradual concessions to the demands of lay devotion notwithstanding, the central focus of Buddhist predication, endeavor, and practice was not the adoration of his personhood but the intangible principle of its self-dissolution into the Void (nirv�na)."
It
seems to have taken a Vedicised Java to hatch the world's first and perhaps
only sumptuous Standing Buddha figure in the pose of tribhanga�as is witnessed by the Javanese Standing Buddha (detail) from a Javanese bas-relief (exact provenance unknown)
http://www.apsara.clara.co.uk/troyoga/gallery/html/Javanese_Standing_Buddha_detail.htm.
The
Buddha smiles gently. His handsome posture is graceful and sensuous. The simple
diaphanous quality of the robe renders the body nearly naked. Its delicate
transparency suggests genitalia � an extraordinary trait for Buddha statuary.
The lower fringes of the robe also mark exquisite handling. The posture confers
a sinuous curve more normally reserved for the female form. 'The weight of the
body favours his right foot. This makes the lateral lines of the hips,
shoulders and eyes slightly angled. The body thus assumes a faint
S-configuration as the hips are shifted somewhat to the right, the shoulders to
the left, and then the head leans back to the right again. The technical
Sanskrit term for the pose is tribhanga as the body is divided or bent
along three (tri) axes (bhanga) while the whole inclines to the
vertical' (Vidyasankar Sundaresan 2000).
For
more on this theme see my Buddhism and Yoga ("The Forbidden Buddha" ff) 2002 http://www.apsara.clara.co.uk/troyoga/by/by.htm.
Sritantra
[In response to S. Visuvalingam, "Muslim allegories on the taste of Love: becoming God's image" (for feedback) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/3232]
Subject: [Abhinava msg #3238]
�RE: sumptuous Javanese tribhanga Buddha
From: Susantha Gunatilake
Date: Tue Jul 5, 2005, 10:19 am
Similar statues are found in
Susantha Goonatilake
�[Response to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/3236]
Subject: [Abhinava msg #3247 � order of
thread reversed]
From: S. R. Krishnan
Date: Fri Jul 1,
2005, 4:17 pm
To: [IndianCivilization msg
#76917]
The earlier �prohibition� of (anthropomorphic) images, probably more tacit� than explicit, in the mainstream culture may be recognized in the five� centuries it took before the Buddha was actually portrayed in human form (as� opposed to symbols like vacant throne, footprints, umbrella, tree).
This is not a �prohibition� against anthropomorphic images per se. Indirect depiction of the Buddha by a vacant throne etc. is fully in consonance with Buddha�s life or Buddhist ideas of Nirvana and Shunyata, the Supreme Void, etc. In these very depictions, there are plenty of anthropomorphic (and animal) images. In fact, images of everything *but* the Buddha, the being who attained Nirvana, as per Buddhism.
http://www.indianartcircle.com/arteducation/page_3_shunga.shtml
Makes sense within Buddhist philosophy, and does not require the invocation of some �tacit disapproval� for which no affirmative evidence seems forthcoming.
�Well before Buddhism, the Vedic �polytheism� never represented the deities, not� even Indra, through lifelike (much less, permanent) images.
But there is nothing to prohibit graven images either. The sacrificial mode of worship does not require any images. This need not translate into a prohibition of imagery, tacit or explicit. Just as some people walking miles on pilgrimages does not translate into a tacit disapproval or an adverse review of the wheel.
�Even subsequently, at the height of bhakti and temple-worship, Brahmā as the� third member of the Hindu Trinity never received image worship (seeming� exceptions like his temple at PuSkar only prove the rule...).
Brahma�s idols are not worshipped even by hard-boiled idolators, because he is considered �cursed� because of his lying before Shiva. This has nothing to do with a general prohibition against imagery. This is irrelevant anyway to the original issue which is the supposed Buddhist era prohibition of images.
Though the� Pur�nic myths that fix the sacred geography of the pilgrimage circuits� resort to myths that seem to devalorize the creator-god Brahmā before the� supreme ViSNu and Ziva, the real reason is that the brahmanical ideology� that still underpins Hindu bhakti (Biardeau) accords no independent status� or even reality to the gods. This is not because of an excess of the� �monotheistic� impulse (as in Judaism and Islam) but because these� �divinities� were mere cogs in the sacrificial machinery.
So, how does this translate into a tacit prohibition? Non-Hindu Americans may not worship Ganesha, and may even mock Ganesha, but they haven�t passed laws prohibiting images of Ganesha.
Though Maitreya, the vidūṣaka (= Gaṇeśa?) in the Mrcchakatik�, complies with his brahmin� friend�s wish to leave the offerings at the crossroads for the Goddesses� (M�tRk�), he makes it a point to complain: �What�s the use of worshipping� the gods? They don�t listen anyway!�
Again, it is a disapproval of the Gods themselves, not a prohibition of imagery. Secondly, someone who disapproves of the Gods themselves on principle (as opposed merely their images) is hardly in a position of authority relative to image-making idolators. No wonder he is called the Vidushaka, the jester, in the original context, and not the Shastrakara. The Brahmin, our pet *authority figure* by contrast, wants to leave offerings for the idols�self-goal.
�As the anthropologist Jack Goody has shown (I had an exchange with him on� this topic after his talk here on 24th June 2003...), the �prohibition� of� images is not peculiar to the monotheistic cultures (it�s not just the� Catholics in Europe but even the Muslims in India who have found various� ingenious �theological� solutions to get around the interdiction...).
That�s well known,
what-I-have-is-an-icon-you-have-an-idol type of mentality. There is nothing
ingenious about it. People come up with excuses to do something themselves
while denying others similar actions all the time. To cite an example, the
Catholic idolators did not spare images in Elephanta and
�Instead of being stuck in the rut of idolatry versus iconoclasm, we�d make� much better progress in our understanding of the treatment anthropomorhism� in art if we looked more closely at the different processes and strategies� at work behind the scenes!
But then, you had written earlier,
�After an initial period of hostility towards the gratification of the senses and the prohibition of images as detrimental to sacrificial pursuits and/or the spiritual vocation, both Brahmanism and Buddhism adopted the theater, the arts, and sensuous expression in general as a privileged medium for inculcating their respective world-views and value-systems, and as a means for gaining or retaining adherents among the lay public and various ethnic communities on the fringes of the �Aryan� society.�
Does sound like an �idolatory versus iconoclasm� scenario to me.
I merely asked you for evidence regarding the �earlier period of hostility� towards images and the subsequent period of co-opting imagery �as a means for gaining or retaining adherents� or as a strategy �at work behind the scenes.� It is obvious from the foregoing that you have not presented even one canonical injunction against images by an orthodox text, dated to Buddhist times or thereabouts, as evidence of �hostility.� Neither have you cited any evidence of the ancient pagans consciously co-opting imagery for �gaining or retaining adherents.�
What you have written is however, a paraphrase of
the tension between iconoclasm and ido(icono-)latry in Christianity. After
initial iconoclasm, images were accomodated within Christianity, in order to
retain the flock and/or penetrate image-worshipping cultures.
S.R. Krishnan
[Response to Sunthar�s post
(Fri Jul 1, 2005) at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/3231]
Subject:
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date: Fri Jul 8, 2005, 6:36 am
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, European
and Indian scholars were puzzled by the absence of anthropomorphic
representations of the historical Buddha Sakyamuni in the earliest surviving
Buddhist art. Early Buddhist art, it was assumed, either avoided Buddha images
entirely, or favored the use of symbols to refer to the Buddha or important
events in the Buddha�s life. For example, the depiction of a specific tree in
early stone reliefs was interpreted to signify the Buddha�s enlightenment
beneath the bodhi tree at Bodh Gaya (fig. 5). Similarly, portrayals of the
wheel representing Buddhist law were often thought to be symbolic
representations of the Buddha�s first sermon at Sarnath (fig. 1). This supposed
practice of either avoiding images of the Buddha or using symbols as
substitutes for Buddha images became known as �aniconism.� For nearly a hundred
years, the theory of aniconism has been universally accepted in the
interpretation of early Buddhist art. The early twentieth-century writer Alfred
Foucher was the first to articulate the theory. He based his ideas on the
assumption that the earliest Buddha images were those produced in the Gandhara
region of ancient
Susan L. Huntington, �Early Buddhist art and the theory of aniconism,�
Art Journal Vol. 49 No. 4 Winter: 1990, pp.401-408
Dating from approximately one century before the Sanchi gateway we have just been looking at, and as if reflective of its relative novelty at the time of its creation in the mid.2nd century B.C.E., this oldest known depiction of the Enlightenment bears an explanatory label inscription: (Plate 11) Bhagavato Sakamunino Bodho. About the first two words there is no dispute. Unmistakably they refer to the historical Buddha as �the Venerable Sage of the Shakyas�, the aristocratic family into which Siddhartha had been born. But does the third word, �Bodho� for Enlightenment signify the Enlightenment event itself or might it be intended adjectively, as Huntington has argued, to identify the place, Bodh Gaya, or more narrowly the Bodhi tree shown growing from the admittedly anachronistic hypaethral shrine that could only have been built around it at a much later time? Restating the question with reference to the worshipful attendent figures, do they represent divine witnesses present at the very moment when Bodhisattva Siddhartha became the Buddha, or do they represent later human visitors to the site of Bodh Gaya--in which case the need for inferring the Buddha�s own presence from aniconic symbols does not arise? Fortunately, this question need not detain us long, for collateral inscriptions on two lower panels are compatible only with the traditional aniconic reading of the narrative as referring aniconically to the Buddha�s own attainment of Enlightment. [link]
Of equal significance to our inquiry into the nature of that
Enlightenment, and the many subsequent attempts that have been made to
extrapolate its ramifications for our understanding of consciousness and
�Self�, is the early Buddhist aversion toward the making anthropomorphic
icons--an aversion that persisted without any known violation for an additional
two centuries after Ashoka�s reign. What explains, in other words, the half
millenium gap, between the Buddha�s �Awakening� and the earliest figural
depictions of him as such, with the mudra/hand gesture known as
�Bhumi-sparsha: Calling the Earth to Witness [that Awakening]�? After a full
century of scholarly inquiry, this question still rankles. It remains
unsatisfactorily answered, in part because the vast canons of Buddhist
scripture and commentarial literature are conspicuously silent on the issue.
Presumably, this textual reticence reflects the fact that even the earliest
among them were not redacted in their present written forms until after the
practice of making Buddhist icons became commonplace, starting in the first
century B.C.E. Earlier iconophobic proscriptions, should they have existed,
were necessarily vitiated or �lost� altogether once figural icons gained
official sanction. Though still not widely known or cited in the art historical
literature on these twinned problems of the so-called �aniconic period� and the
[subsequent] �origins of the Buddha image� there is one telling exception to
the otherwise blanket-silence in Buddhist texts on the presumptive five-century
prohibition against Buddha icons. In the Vinaya or monastic handbook of the
Sarvaastivaadin sect, there is a long passage which deals with the decoration
of monasteries. A monk [?] named AnaahaapiNDika is said to have addressed the
Buddha as follows: �World-honoured one, if images of yours are not allowed to
be made, pray may we not at least make images of Bodhisattvas in attendence
upon you!� Buddha then grants permission.� This fine distinction--between the
prohibited Buddha icons, but sanctioned Bodhisattvas accords perfectly with the
epigraphic evidence for the first securely dated Buddha images, dedicated
in the late 1st century of the Common Era, with dates in regnal years of the
Kushan Emperor Kanishka. [...] Certainly, the
Buddha refused to define the state of consciousness he called nirvana, only hinting obliquely that �anyone who
achieves it will be no more seen by men or gods.� Others have cited a text
which states that �He who is passionless regarding all desires, resorts to
nothing-ness. ...As flame...blown by the force of wind goes out and is no
longer reckoned...Even so the sage, [released from the constructs of individual
existence, vanishes from perception]. Accordingly, the absence of Buddha images
in the early art reflects his �true Nirvana essence [which is] inconceivable in
visual form and human shape.�
Michael D.
Rabe, �Not-Self� consciousness and the
Aniconic in Early Buddhism,�
Chapter 11 in J. Scott Jodan, ed.,
Modeling Consciousness Across the Disciplines Symposium
(Lanham, Maryland: University Press
of America, 1999), pp. 269-280.
Michael Rabe [I heard in Dec 89 his brilliant interpretation at Smith College of �Arjuna�s Penance� at Mahabalipuram in terms of Sanskrit rhetorics of the pun �SV] interprets the nymphs (apsaras) depicted on the Bharhut Vedik� (st�pa railing): as �reenacting the futile wiles of Mara�s daughters [�] the earliest surviving depictions of the threesome that came to be known in later Buddhist texts as Tanh�, (�Thirst�), Arati (�Dissatisfaction�), and R�ga (�Passion�), [�] celebrating the Buddha�s triumph by reenacting the frustrated dances of Death�s daughters, to the accompaniment of harps, drums, and a flute! An early Buddhist passion play, indeed.� It is as if the Buddha would have reenacted Praj�pati�s triumph over (the artful wiles of) Mrtyu?
Sunthar V., �Towards an Integral Appreciation of Abhinava�s Aesthetics� (2005), [currently] note #29
Hello Mr.
Krishnan,
My
mention of the initial �prohibition� of Buddha images was not within the
theological context of (Hindu) idolatry versus iconoclasm (Muslim), but rather
to introduce the Brahmanical/Buddhist
wariness towards the (sensuousness of the) arts, the prime focus of which would
be the (Greek) celebration of the human figure (the kouros/kore
statues derived from less realistic Egyptian models). This is why I removed
this reference altogether in my
rewrite of the introduction, and carried that whole discussion over into the
new section on aniconism versus anthropomorphism. That the reformed
Vedic sacrificial cult and the Buddha are on the same �Aryan� side of the
original divide, is strikingly reflected in the way that the Enlightened (and
invisible!) One�s imperviousness to the seductive (songs of) Mar�s three
daughters is modeled (like much else in his Indra-like �biography�...) on
Praj�pati�s triumph over Mrtyu�s Vr�tya sacrifice performed with various
musical instruments in an overtly erotic context.
The
aniconic focus of early Buddhist art amounts to (an at least tacit)
Sarv�stiv�din �prohibition� (perhaps the very idea of statuary never occurred
to them?) on depicting the (Self-) Extinguished (nibbuta)
One, for the pedagogic reasons that you have emphasized from the start. The
frescos and friezes on the st�pa railings, etc., cannot be reduced to actual
scenes of the Buddha�s life (because of the inclusion of hypaethral shrines and
other such anachronistic
details) nor to mere depictions of contemporary pilgrimage at shrines
(because of the presence of �mythical� figures like the defeated M�ra and his
cohorts, the Buddha�s own depiction as an infant, etc.). The pictorial
representations function rather on both registers simultaneously by allowing
lay devotees to relive the whole Enlightenment in their and our own present,
without transforming (the �accomplishment� of) Siddh�rtha into a mere fetish.
The primacy of the symbols, even for a long time after the life-like depiction
of boddhisattva and eventually Buddha images, was to prevent the original insight into nirv�na
being compromised through the �appeal� to the lay (and often �self-interested�)
patronage (of wealth merchants and royalty). In the same way, what�s central to the Vedic sacrifice
is the (semiotic) �articulation� (bandhu) of its dispersed elements and moments,
the (graven) images of the deities would have been rather a distraction.
Hence, the highest-paid among these priestly �laborers� (zram-) was
the �do-nothing� brahm�n who silently�with an occasional nod of
approval (
More
radical counter-measures were adopted when growing concessions to the world
resulted in full-blown anthropomorphism and bhakti among both Hindus and Mah�y�na Buddhists.
The subsequent adoption and brilliant execution of the aesthetics of the human
form as in the seated Lord of
Obstacles (Gaṇeśa), Shiva NaTa-r�ja as the Lord of Dance, or the
�triple-curved� (tribhanga) posture of Shri Krishna, was largely
offset by an accentuation of the symbolic dimension as illustrated by the
incongruous though �humanized� animal features (single-tusked elephant-head, etc.), the
depiction of multiple arms (the underlying geometric principles of whose
compositions have been explored and underlined by Alice Boner), and the
mythical backdrop charged with esoteric notations. Though focused on the graven
image of the deity in the central �womb-house� (garbha-grha),
the ritual schema of Hindu temple-worship may be understood as a disguised
transposition of the sacrificial paradigm within the universe of (lay) bhakti, a
strategy that may be deciphered from the founding-myths and major festivals of
many of these nuclear (South Indian) pigrimage sites (David Shulman). The same
Zankar�c�rya to whom are attributed
all those devotional hymns like Bhaja Govindam is also the sanny�sin
who, in the final analysis (and wholly unlike Abhinava), rejects even God
(�zvara) as illusory (SaguNa-Brahman). This historical dialectic ultimately
culminates in the paradoxical
(atavistic?) �resolution� of the (living) body of the (Hindu) king (in the
royal temple) becoming the icon of the Divine.
Among the
many puzzles of the theatrical preliminaries is the sudden and unexplained
appearance of an actor called the �institutor� (sth�paka),
who assumes the guise of the stage-director (sūtradhāra) to usher
in the (first character of the) first Act of the play proper: for
example, the vidūṣaka Maitreya lamenting (like our pot-bellied
Gaṇeśa?) the loss of his modakas in the MrcchakaTik�. In my constructive critique of Kuiper's Varuṇa and vidūṣaka, I�ve argued that the sth�paka would be a logistical device to free up the
sūtradhāra himself to appear in the play as the vidūṣaka! This
�good-for-nothing� (anaddh�-puruSa?) �great brahmin� is indeed the seasoned
�joker� (narma-vid) who �knows� how to �pierce� and weave
together the �vital joints� (marma-vidh) of the sacrificial play through
his �incongruous� remarks. The brahmin stage-manager is so-called, not
simply because of his sacred-cord (yaj�opav�ta); rather, it is he who holds (-dh�ra from
the root dhr) and spins together the invisible thread (s�tra) not
only of the profane narrative but above all of the (noose of the) sacrificial
�plot� (of which his dear friend C�rudatta ends up the predesignated
victim...). Pischel was closer to the truth than he imagined in claiming that the sūtradhāra would have been the chief
�wire-puller� of (a classical theater that would have originated in) the
�popular� puppet-play. The biggest problem, overlooked by my mentor
Kuiper, in equating the de-formed clown with Varuṇa as the (verbal) antagonist
of Indra who presides over the hero (nāyaka), is that, in the play proper, this brahmin
is the indispensable companion and chief resource (vi-nāyaka?)
of the latter. What I have shown is that this �non-Vedic� vidūṣaka,
presided over by
The
tension between (not just human) form and the (suprasensible) truths it seeks
to convey is a problem intrinsic to art that has been subsequently compounded by explicit prohibition of
idolatry (or even any depiction of the human body) that is driven by the
very different �political� logic of monotheistic exclusivism underlying, for
example, the �double standards� of Catholic iconolatry.
Enjoy!
Sunthar
P.S. I�ll return
in due course to idolatry/iconoclasm: too many modakas in
one day can lead to indigestion...except, of course, for the vidūṣaka!
[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V.
(Jul 2, 2005)
�Muslim allegories on the taste of Love: becoming God�s image� (for feedback)
Subject: [Abhinava msg #3249]
From: Francesco Brighenti
Date: Sat Jul 9, 2005, 10:55 am
Dear Sunthar,
Thanks much for an informative and very well-argued post and for quoting from, and linking to, M.D. Rabe's and S.L. Huntington's papers on the problem of aniconism in early Buddhist art. Though they appear to be mutually exclusive, both interpretations are worth meditating on and further discussing. So also is the comparison you make between early Buddhist and Vedic aniconic worship.
I have a little/big question for you (and the
List) in this connection: how do tribal traditions of aniconic worship
fit into the aniconic cultic paradigm shared by both early Buddhist (=
pre-MahAyAna) Dhamma and the Vedic sacrificial doctrine? Most of tribal cults
in
Any thoughts?
Thanks and best regards,
Francesco
[Response to Sunthar's post (July 8, 2005) at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/3247]
Subject: [Abhinava msg #3252]
From: Troy Dean Harris
Date: Sat Jul 9, 2005, 10:55 am
Abstract: Attempting to forestall the inevitable distortion of his tantra-yogic
dispensation transforming itself into a full-blown religious cult, Prince
Gautama strongly forbade his followers to fashion images of his human form.
A few years back I published an interpretive essay that touched on the
theme of "aniconism in early Bauddha history" (Buddhism & Yoga,
2002). But let me first confess that this polemical narrative was strongly
influenced by the wonderful work of Professor Sukumar Dutt (
[Yet in spite of this, it] is also apparent that the Buddha himself foresaw and feared the
eventual error of his yogic movement transforming itself into a full-blown
religious cult. Attempting to forestall this inevitable distortion, Gautama
strongly forbade his followers to fashion images of his human form. [Now we] know from history that for many generations
following the Buddha's physical demise, a tremendous reverence was maintained
among his devotees to observe this important prohibition.
Yet
slowly and steadily as adherents grew, they began to commemorate him � not
directly, but implicitly, first through memorial
stupas,
later by cut stone bas-reliefs of the figurative Bo
tree. At Sa�chi, for example, to handle the Buddha's ineffable being,
carved expanses of sea and sky was suggested, around which adoring devotees were
shown with their palms pressed together or prostrate. Sometime later at
Bhārhut and Amarāvatī as well as at Sa�chi, a significant
thematic advance was made and the patrons of the arts dared to go a step
further and began to hint at the Buddha's presence through an empty chair or
throne. Other typical representations were a lotus flower, a single pillar, or
a juggernaut
wheel (dharma-chakra). Now, the final stage of this
circumscribing urge to worship the forbidden image of the Savoir expressed
itself through his hallowed footprints as impressed upon a lotus-shaped
pedestal.
In
326, BCE Alexander of Macedonia entered the region of
From
the time of this early Mediterranean influence, Indian monarchs and patrons of
the arts acquired a passion for Greek sculptural genius. But it still took
centuries before Buddha-statuary received large-scale commissions. It was here
at Gāndhāra that the world's first anthropomorphic representations of
the Buddha
appeared, strongly redolent of Apollo the Orator. This Gāndhāran
Sritantra "Buddhism and Yoga," 2002 http://www.apsara.clara.co.uk/troyoga/by/by.htm.
Originally published in German
translation as "Buddhismus und Yoga," Der Mittlere Weg,
Now the crucial
historical fact to grasp, I still suggest, is that "the representation of
the historical Buddha in human form first took place about the 2nd century of
the Christian era" � that is, about six hundred years after
Gautama's alleged death
(Saunders: 13). In other words, it took six centuries for the Buddhist faithful
to finally transgress their founder's prohibition. Thus in the end raga: bhakti prevailed and contravened the
theretofore hallowed aniconic custom, as the Bauddha-bhaktas surrendered en mass to that irresistible pan-Sindhu urge to enshrine
the mortal form of the Immortal, to venerate the body of the Embodiment of
Enlightenment, to adumbrate the Supreme Personality of the Godhead" or in
dashing sanskriti purushottama.
***
Now before logging off I should like to lay down a promissory note to
return and address an additional theme broached a few days back by Sunthar (� propos 'carved expanses of sea
and sky to handle the Buddha's
ineffable being' [st]); for this hints at something I would be quite
game to describe as essentially hypaethral in nature vis-�-vis the Bauddhic
perception of the Universe (Gombrich 1996: 38).
Dutt, Sukumar 1957. The Buddha and Five After Centuries.
Dutt, Sukumar 1962. Buddhist Monks and Monasteries of
Gombrich, Richard F. 1996. How Buddhism
Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings.
Saunders, E. Dale 1960. Mudra (A Study of
Symbolic Gestures in Japanese Buddhist Sculpture).
Sritantra 2002. Buddhism &
Yoga. Originally published in German translation as Buddhismus und Yoga,
Der Mittlere Weg,
[In general response
to two posts: F. Brighenti http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/3249
and S. Visuvalingam http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/3247.]
[1][1]�Whereas the original Sanskrit epic of V�lm�ki depicts Lord R�ma as an exemplary
human hero with his divine dimension as an avat�ra
of ViSNu left in the background, the Hindi R�mcaritm�nas of Tuls�d�s transforms him into a deity to be worshipped. The participation of
Muslims in the R�mnavam� / Dashera celebrations based on the latter version (and the
participation of Hindus in Muharram, etc.) has led some well-intentioned
scholars to claim that the denominations of �Hindu� and �Muslim� were irrelevant
(or simply did not exist) in pre-colonial India. It would be more pertinent to
ask how differently such �syncretic� practices�often in the context of religious rivalry�may have been
viewed by the parties involved.
[2][2]�Despite the ongoing controversy as to whether
there was in fact a (tacit) prohibition against images of the Buddha, there is
abundant evidence from narrative friezes that depict a vacant space at the
center of adoration, a pedagogic strategy maintained much later even in
[3][3]�Though Maitreya, the vidūṣaka in the
�Little Clay Cart� (Mrcchakatik�), complies with his brahmin friend's wish to
leave the offerings at the crossroads for the goddesses, he makes it a point to
complain: "What's the use of worshipping the divinities? They don't listen
anyway!" The 'prohibition' of images is not peculiar to the monotheistic
cultures (it's not just the Catholics in Europe but even the Muslims in
[4][4]�This esoteric knowledge was so highly
treasured by the Sufis that translations of this �text� were made into Urdu,
Persian, Arabic, Turk, and even Hebrew, and openly acclaimed as the most
valuable �book� of India. Though many of the more alien (i.e., specifically
Hindu) details were often suppressed, re-contextualized, and/or substituted
with Islamic equivalents for the consumption of Muslim novices, the true
provenance and meaning were often known to the redactors (as confirmed by the
existence of multiple versions from the same hand). Carl Ernst�who has
consecrated many long years to collecting, collating, and interpreting this complex
manuscript tradition�came to the paradoxical conclusion (at the end of his
lecture series in Paris in 2003) that this corpus would, in fact, owe very
little to pre-existing Hindu esotericism but simply attributed to India for
reasons of prestige! All because his agenda is to counter the claims of earlier
Orientalists that Sufism was little more than yoga (Central Asian shamanism,
etc.) in Islamic garb. The �originality� of a religious tradition, in my
perspective, lies not in its refusal to �borrow� (from even inimical sources)
but in the specific imprint, reformulation, re-evaluation, and sensibility it
imposes on these otherwise shared contents.
[5][5]�My following observations on the new
Indo-Persian aesthetic sensibility are primarily based on notes and handouts
from the lectures in Paris of Aditya Behl (June 2005) on Shadows of Paradise: An Indian Islamic Literary
Tradition, 1379-1545.� His ongoing studies of (the audiences
of) Hindavi literature (and music) focus on Malik Muhammad Jayasi�s Padm�vat
and Mir Sayyid Majhan Shattar�s Madhum�lat� in the crosshairs
of Abhinavagupta�s aesthetics of dhvani and rasa, Persian genres (masnavi)
and sensibilities, and skill in Koranic exegesis. The Padm�vat
was so highly considered that the poet Ala�oul rendered it into (highly
Sanskritized) Bengali for the delectation of his Muslim patrons at the Arakan
court in eastern
[6][6]�Conversely, Hindu poets could extend the
resources of the Sanskritic alamk�ra-z�stra to celebrate significant secular
developments in contemporary Indo-Muslim society. Kesavdas, for example, wrote
an elaborate panegyric in Brajbh�S� of Jehangir, using puns and other stock
rhetorical devices to equate his court with that of Indra. See Allison Busch�s
treatment of his Jahangirjascandrik� in her forthcoming article on
�Literary Responses to the Mughal Imperium: The Historical Poem of Kesavd�s�
(Sage Publications, 2005).
[7][7]�Instead of being stuck in the rut of idolatry
versus iconoclasm, we'd make much better progress in our understanding of the
treatment of anthropomorphism in art if we looked more closely at the
inevitable tension between symbol and reality already inherent in the (divine)
image, and the (religious constraints on the) different strategies at work
behind the scenes.