Dialogue - Idolatry, iconoclasm, and aesthetics of the human form: Becoming God�s image in the Mirror of (Self-) Recognition

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) Abhinavagupta forum-index under the following headings and topics:

[Aesthetics:Music]

Index to threads below on �Between Abhinavagupta and Bollywood� dialogue:

Indian Cinema: Heir to a Krishnaite-Sufi Tradition? On Oothukadu Venkata Subbaiah�s Hindu experience of fan�!

Re: Indian Cinema: Heir to a Krishnaite-Sufi Tradition? On Oothukadu Venkata Subbaiah�s Hindu experience of fan�!

Are Sufis who sing the praises of Lord Krishna �Hindu� polytheists? On bhakti, idolatry (shirk) and self-annihilation (fan�)!

Re: Are Sufis who sing the praises of Lord Krishna �Hindu� polytheists? On bhakti, idolatry (shirk) and self-annihilation (fan�)!

Re: Are Sufis who sing the praises of Lord Krishna �Hindu� polytheists? On bhakti, idolatry (shirk) and self-annihilation (fan�)!

"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)

Was brahmanical orthodoxy hostile to the arts? depends on where on how you look at the Vedic sacrifice!

Re: �Religious art as propaganda: trans-sectarian aesthetics of rasa� (for feedback)

On the customary �prohibition� of (anthropomorphic) images in (early) Brahmanical and Buddhist �orthodoxies�

�Muslim allegories on the taste of Love: becoming God�s image� (for feedback)

Sumptuous Javanese tribhanga Buddha

RE: sumptuous Javanese tribhanga Buddha

Re: On the customary �prohibition� of (anthropomorphic) images in (early) Brahmanical and Buddhist �orthodoxies�

Re: The customary �prohibition� of (anthropomorphic) images in (early) Brahmanical and Buddhist �orthodoxies�

Re: The customary 'prohibition' of (anthropomorphic) images in (early) Brahmanical and Buddhist 'orthodoxies'

Re: The customary 'prohibition' of (anthropomorphic) images in (early) Brahmanical and Buddhist 'orthodoxies'

 

 


[Sunthar�s invocation of Sufi fan� in relation to Krishna-bhakti provoked this discussion of idolatry and aniconism]

Subject: [Abhinava msg #2989]

Indian Cinema: Heir to a Krishnaite-Sufi Tradition? On Oothukadu Venkata Subbaiah�s Hindu experience of fan�!

From:  Sunthar Visuvalingam

Date:  Tue Feb 22, 2005; 7:24 am

Venkata Kavi was a master of Sanskrit and Tamil, the two great old languages of India, both of which developed independently and are even now poles apart, despite centuries have passed since Tamilians have become very familiar with Sanskrit and have incorporated hundreds of words from it.  He was a prolific composer in both these languages and was equally gifted in both.  The hallmark of real scholarship is to reveal it spontaneously but without making any effort to showcase it.  Venkata Kavi�s compositions are excellent examples of this fact.  In several compositions, we find him speaking most naturally of things in a very personal manner but his erudition cannot help standing out.  Be it Sanskrit or Tamil, there are certain sections which compel attention, admiration, nay awe for the manner in which he has constructed them.  A study of Venkata Kavi�s lyrics reveals that not only were his expressions superb but his thoughts even more amazing.  He himself was most modest about his skills, attributing it all to the grace of God, who was also his guru.  In the anupallavi of his composition in Sriranjani �Guru padaravinda komalam ennul kondapode kolahalam�, he declares �I have never studied the scriptures or yoga nor pretended to have done so.  I received my whole fortune in a trice through the benevolent glance of my guru.� [Lyrical Skill and Style]

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 Krishna) standing in front of him and blessing him. He immediately disappeared. Venkata Kavi then felt an immediate transformation in himself and started composing. From this point onward, he sang only in the presence of this particular deity, and is believed to have experienced many such visual and aural manifestations of Lord Krishna. He gave expression to his intense devotion through a large number of songs. No wonder, his music and compositions are filled with saguna bhakti. His narration in a simple style, of the devotion underlying the love between Radha and Krishna reminds us of similar works by Jayadeva and Narayana Teertha. But unlike these composers, Venkata Kavi was not caught up in bridal mysticism. This is all the more remarkable since he remained a life-long celibate, and spent his entire life in pure devotion to God.  Most of his compositions are dance-oriented, and contain plenty of solkattu jati-s, and madhyamak�la passages. He was a master of intricate rhythmic patterns. His usage of rhythmic syllables for the Kalinga-nartana dance is superb, and rivals the cosmic Ananda tandavam of Lord Siva himself! His compositions are well suited for concerts, bhajans and dance. The combination of swara, sahitya and jati he employed is most fascinating and many of his songs have intervening passages in double speed as embellishments. Being reclusive by nature, he did not accept disciples nor did he sing in public. In fact, he went so far as to sing only at nights so as to not be heard by anybody, but the Lord. Thus, only a meager amount of the vast number of his compositions have come down to us, and even many of those remain relatively unknown. Moreover, he never used any mudra to identify his compositions. Only one of his kritis, Sankari srirajarajeswari in Madhyamavati, the 8th Navavaranam, contains a reference to �Venkata Kavi�. This shows that he was a man who didn�t particularly care for name or fame. 

Dr. P.P. Narayanaswami, �Oothukadu Venkata Kavi�The Divine Composer�

Dear Umair,

> 

[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 Krishna and, it is said, that whatever we have inherited of the outpourings of his heart we owe to the unscrupulous eavesdropping of a despairing admirer. Perhaps, I might still be rewarded in this lifetime with that authentic (erotic sur-)rendering (fan�? [Note the question-mark here to better understand some of the discussion that follows � SV]) that alone could do justice to such a musical masterpiece?

Best wishes

Sunthar

P.S. Those who are not too Internet-savvy might take this as a challenge to learn how to download streaming audio at no extra cost...

[Start of this thread at Sunthar V. (Jan 14, 2002)

�Andalusian contribution to �Abhinavagupta and the Synthesis of Indian Music��

Subject: [Abhinava msg #2995order of thread reversed]

 

Re: Indian Cinema: Heir to a Krishnaite-Sufi Tradition? On Oothukadu Venkata Subbaiah�s Hindu experience of fan�!

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 Krishna. Since there is nothing in this account involving Sufis, I would like to know how the connection is made. Specifically, what silsila [�master-disciple lineage�] of Sufism is involved here.

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?

Frank Burch Brown (November 12, 2000), �From Abhinavagupta to Bollywood: Music, Rasa, Ecstasy

(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 Krishna. Incredibly, there is a superb reply by the Lord to every one of these charges in another piece by Venkata Kavi in Mohanam, �Illai illai� (�No! Not at all!� = �I didn�t do it!� SV;-). This song also has 8 charanams.

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 Krishna. The charanam, the poet takes a dig at Krishna�s culture and music as few others have done. [...] �This royal guy would ask the price of Culture by weight!  And look at Music suffering in his hands like a temple monkey!  Sarali varishais � to him�means just ornaments in his flute while the Jantai varishais mean the same for his hair.  And Alankaras mean only the beauty of the snake he has danced upon!� It is remarkable that Venkata Kavi has punned on the terms Sarali varishai, Jantai varishai and Alankarams in a charming manner.  An equally enchanting example is his Vishamakkara Kannan (Junjooti), describing the childhood pranks of Krishna.  In one of the verses, he says: [...]Krishna would call the girl across the fence and ask her to render Mukhari ragam.  If she would protest that she did not know the raga, he�d pinch her hard and as she weeps in pain, he�d say, �This is Mukhari for you!�� Venkata Kavi has made use of the well known view that Mukhari raga is best suited for sorrowful situations.  This also reveals that this view on Mukhari has prevailed for a few hundred years at least! [...] The above should not mean that Venkata Kavi�s opera on Krishna is one whole disrespectful work.  There are several songs which brim with devotion and reverence.  Example 1:  Mun sheida tavappayane (Bhoopalam), a gopi says: [...] �It is the fruit of my prior good deeds that I am devoted to Krishna[...] He measured the three worlds with his feet once upon a time, today he plays great music that nourishes the three worlds��  This is a remarkable piece a la his Saptaratnas (with Pallavi, Anupallavi and multiple  Charanams with swara sahityam) and he concludes by saying � [...] �(It is my fortune to be able to sing the praise of) the Lord who resides on the banks of the river Yamuna, who is the master of the world, who fills my heart and rules me, the 14 worlds, the hearts of devotees and the whole of Yadava race�  2:   Sharanam gopa bala � Manirangu. In the charanam, he declares: [...] �You are my sole refuge Oh Lord. Even Brahma�s abode, Satya Loka with its abundant luxury cannot stand anywhere near your sanctum sanctoram.  Various things like Saloka, sameepa etc seem unreal with one look at your feet.�

[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, Krishna and Bollywood�when does music become religious?�

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 province of Indian devotional currents, his was above all a form of saguna bhakti where the attributes of the Lord, and particularly in his manifestation as the child Krishna, remain paramount in the consciousness. The focus of his dance-dramas is on the inexhaustible possibilities of the interpersonal relations that the Absolute, incarnated in a human body, might assume towards other mortals. Not only would this be simply blasphemous in an Islamic context, I�m unaware of any Sufi musician joking with (much less making fun of...) Allah!

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 Indic Colloquium at Menla (NY), some of us were treated one night to devotional songs from Brindavan, several of them composed by a Sufi�the ardent Krishna bhakta who sang them was a white American. Despite his temperamental preference for Krishna bhakti, Venkata Kavi himself was a tantric adept, who seems to have known full well the contingent nature of all forms, including those of his chosen deity (iSTa-devat�).

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 Krishna as �polytheists�.

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]

Re: Are Sufis who sing the praises of Lord Krishna �Hindu� polytheists? On bhakti, idolatry (shirk) and self-annihilation (fan�)!

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:

Re: Are Sufis who sing the praises of Lord Krishna �Hindu� polytheists? On bhakti, idolatry (shirk) and self-annihilation (fan�)!

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 Krishna] (or Kalki stuti for that matter) is fully justified.

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 Iran (if Alberuni is as accurate) and we know that Central Asia was Buddhist before it was Islamised. The pre-Islamic mystic, Mani of Iran, had also freely borrowed from Buddhism and had a considerable following in Iran. The thoroughness and rapidity of effacement in Arabia of pre-Islamic traditions could not be replicated elsewhere. Which is the reason why all the early Sufis are from outside the Arabian peninsula. Most of them are Mesopotamian, Iranian, or Central Asian. And, most tellingly, the prophet himself never said that he attained �fana,� or that his followers were equally capable of attaining it.

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�sS�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:

Was brahmanical orthodoxy hostile to the arts? depends on where on how you look at the Vedic sacrifice!

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 (Helsinki) , �Pre-proto-Iranians of Afghanistan as initiators of Z�kta Tantrism:

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� Benares...).

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 #3231order 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:

On the customary �prohibition� of (anthropomorphic) images in (early) Brahmanical and Buddhist �orthodoxies�

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 Krishna, could intervene to narrate the secrets of bodily perfection or become the recipient of unbounded love, against the canvas of (not just Islamic) self-annihilation (fan�). Devotional worship amounts, in the Pratyabhijn� doctrine, to externalizing the self through the objectified image of the chosen deity upon the Void (of Consciousness) so as to better realize and dissolve within the non-dual Principle.[7][7] With his prodigious ability to assimilate and synthesize �ever-new� approaches to the Ultimate Reality, Abhinava it seems to me, would have readily �recognized� (praty-abhij��) himself in this Indo-Muslim universe in construction.[8][8]

 


[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 South-East Asia and well after the efflorescence of anthropomorphic representations (Michael Rabe). The argument (Susan L. Huntington) that these friezes do not depict (scenes from the life of) the Buddha, but the contemporary (lay) adoration of such symbols at pilgrimage sites, fails to explain why, to begin with, primacy was given to such potent symbols. The existence of pre-first-century bodhisattva (Buddha-in-the-making) images confirms (rather than refutes) this doctrinal rationale behind the refusal to transform Buddha (-hood) into tangible divinity. The real issue here is not so much that of anthropomorphism versus aniconism, but that of conserving, transmitting, and diffusing the Buddha�s �Awakening� at the risk of deformation.

[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 India who have found ingenious �theological� solutions to get around the interdiction). It may be recognized as a powerful (Western) tendency, already within a pagan context, in a philosopher-mystic like Plato: art as being engrossed in the shadow of an already �imaginary� world in the (allegory of the) Cave.

[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 Burma.

[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 Kashmir itself, the �elitist� Sanskritic legacy of Trika non-dualism was inherited and generalized at the popular level by the Muslim Rishi tradition through luminaries like Nuruddin in close spiritual symbiosis with Hindu ascetics like Lall�.

Sunthar V., �Towards an Integral Appreciation of Abhinava�s Aesthetics� (2005)

Hello Mr. Krishnan,

During his recent talks here in Paris, Aditya Behl did emphasize (with some rather amusing stories...even on the martyrdom of a converted cat!) the spirit of religious competition and proselytism that often inspired the Sufi appropriation of not only indigenous yogic traditions, but also the various arts like rhetorics and music. But as our Dutch friend, Thomas de Bruijn (who did his doctorate also on the Padm�vat) subsequently emphasized, the poet is an intermediary�like the parrot H�raman, the indispensable go-between in furthering its narrative plot�who works in both directions. The whole point here, it seems to me, is that it�s never clear whether the Krishna-devotion or allegorical exaltation of the tantric physiology is simply a means to convert or a novel way of attaining fana (why should one exclude the other?). The point of my section �Religious art as propaganda: trans-sectarian aesthetics of rasa� is precisely that the means employed end up transforming the rival interlocutors.

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 Mount Hira by Archangel Gabriel to the sleeping Prophet. 

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)  

On the customary �prohibition� of (anthropomorphic) images in (early) Brahmanical and Buddhist �orthodoxies�


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 Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka-influenced sculptures in Sukothai, Thailand. In Sri Lanka in the 11th C Pollonaruwa there is the Tivanka Buddha statue for example in three bended pose.

Susantha Goonatilake

[Response to Troy's post at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/3236]

Subject: [Abhinava msg #3247order of thread reversed]

Re: On the customary �prohibition� of (anthropomorphic) images in (early) Brahmanical and Buddhist �orthodoxies�      

From: S. R. Krishnan

Date: Fri Jul 1, 2005, 4:17 pm

To: [IndianCivilization msg #76917]

The earlier �prohibition� of (anthropomorphic) images, probably more tacitthan explicit, in the mainstream culture may be recognized in the fivecenturies it took before the Buddha was actually portrayed in human form (asopposed 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, noteven 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 thethird member of the Hindu Trinity never received image worship (seemingexceptions 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 thePur�nic myths that fix the sacred geography of the pilgrimage circuitsresort to myths that seem to devalorize the creator-god Brahmā before thesupreme ViSNu and Ziva, the real reason is that the brahmanical ideologythat still underpins Hindu bhakti (Biardeau) accords no independent statusor 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 brahminfriend�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 worshippingthe 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 onthis topic after his talk here on 24th June 2003...), the �prohibition� ofimages is not peculiar to the monotheistic cultures (it�s not just theCatholics in Europe but even the Muslims in India who have found variousingenious �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 Goa, and take the mummified Xavier on a yearly procession around the town, but will look askance at a rath-yatra of Pagan Gods.

Instead of being stuck in the rut of idolatry versus iconoclasm, we�d makemuch better progress in our understanding of the treatment anthropomorhismin art if we looked more closely at the different processes and strategiesat 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:

Re: The customary �prohibition� of (anthropomorphic) images in (early) Brahmanical and Buddhist �orthodoxies�

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 India during the early centuries of the Christian era--more than half a millennium after the Buddha lived. In Gandhara, he surmised, Indian artists were introduced to what he considered a superior sculptural heritage--that of the Greek and classical world--which stimulated the creation of anthropomorphic images of the Buddha. Indian sentiment was naturally offended at the suggestion that Western influence was required to motivate the production of the Buddha image. Ananda Coomaraswamy took the case to the Art Bulletin, where he contended in a frequently cited article that the impetus for creating the Buddha image was rooted in indigenous beliefs and sculptural traditions. At the same time, Coomaraswamy, like Foucher, accepted the theory of aniconism to explain the art in which portrayals of the Buddha in human form did not occur. [...] Specifically, I will examine a type of relief that is among those that are usually said to illustrate scenes from the life of the Buddha, with the Buddha, however, not depicted. It is possible that most, if not all, of these compositions do not represent events in the life of the Buddha at all, but rather portray worship and adoration at sacred Buddhist sites. Although some of these reliefs may depict devotions made at sacred sites even while the Buddha was still alive, most of them probably show the sites as they were worshiped after the lifetime of the Buddha. Further, I hope to show that the so-called aniconic symbols, such as empty thrones, trees, wheels, and stupas (hemispherical structures containing relics), were not intended by the makers of the reliefs to serve as surrogates for Buddha images, but were the sacred nuclei of worship at these sites. The reliefs, then, are essentially �portraits� of the sites and show the practices of pilgrimage and devotion associated with them. [...] Inasmuch as specific sacred sites were the focus of many of the early reliefs, the significance attached to pilgrimage to these locations forms an important background for understanding early Buddhist art. The Buddha himself, upon his deathbed, instructed his followers to make pilgrimage to the sites of the four main events of his life: his birth, enlightenment, first sermon, and death (parinirv�na). The practice of making such pilgrimages was popularized in the third century B.C. by Emperor Asoka, Buddhism�s paradigmatic lay devotee, whose pious journey was immortalized in the Asokovadana. The same text also records Asoka�s well-known embellishment of the sacred sites of Buddhism with architectural and artistic creations, some of which may be depicted in the �aniconic� compositions. The presence of lay worshipers in virtually all of the reliefs in question supports the theory that they record a practice of lay devotion. A number of reliefs specifically show devotees performing the Buddhist rite of circumambulation, which may be ascertained by the depiction of the figures as if turning in space as they walk around a sacred object of devotion (fig. 8).

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 (OM)�contemplated the (hidden connections being established within the) ritual drama unfolding before his eyes (like Abhinava enjoying the theater?).

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 OM (-k�ra), represents in reality the s�tra-dh�ra Brahmā himself...yours truly, the ultimate �scriptural authority� (z�stra-k�ra)!

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]

Re: The customary 'prohibition' of (anthropomorphic) images in (early) Brahmanical and Buddhist 'orthodoxies'

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 South Asia, indeed, focus on the worship of 'divinities-spirits' not represented by any anthropomorphic, theriomorphic, or even 'natural' (stones, trees etc.) icon. For example, the _bonga_ divinities-spirits worshipped by the Munda tribes of the Chotanagpur plateau, in spite of their periodical temporary descent on sacred trees, stone slabs or blocks, carved posts etc., are not really conceived of as dwelling in these cult objects but at certain times during the year when sacrificial oblations are routinely offered to them. This basic feature of the so-called 'bongaic' religion of the Mundas has always reminded me of the Vedic gods being invited to temporarily sit as high-ranking guests on a bed of kuza grass during the performance of sacrifices in their honor.

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]

Re: The customary 'prohibition' of (anthropomorphic) images in (early) Brahmanical and Buddhist 'orthodoxies'

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 (Calcutta), particularly his The Buddha and Five After Centuries (1957). My essay, however, stands as polemical in a sense much broader than merely undertaking to establish validation for the sixth century quasi-historical Buddha to have forbidden his followers to worship cult-specific mimetic products of his corporal appearance; but rather, the essay hyperthetically extends its reach to dramatically depict the character of Gautama in the colours of a sindhu yogin/sannyasin � or even more specifically, as Angirasa, "the proto-Tantric Buddha." However oddly enough, it was not the renunciate's apparent tantric propensity that made his rUpa "forbidden" fruit. Entering thus deeply the Bauddha-purANa, I simply made use of its inherent rhetoric and based my account on the curtly crafted premise that in its primacy the Bauddha Doctrine was not conceived as a new religion.

[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 Northwest Pakistan, known in those times as Gāndhāra. Gāndhāra's chief city, Takshashila (also spelled Taxila), was a wealthy, prosperous and well-governed cultural centre from the 5th century BCE and an important meeting place of Indian and Mediterranean cultures. Taxila (not far from present-day Islamabad) was also ancient India's most prestigious seat of learning and a place for rich families to send their children to be taught by famous teachers. The Greek philosopher Anaxarchus, together with his prot�g� Pyrrho of Elis, travelled to this region in the train of Alexander's overland invasion. There they mixed with the odd appearing gymnosophists, or "naked philosophers," plus a whole menagerie of other ascetics. It is curious, however, that returning to Greece, they founded not a school of meditative mysticism, as one might readily expect, but the first Greek school of Scepticism

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 school of Buddhist sculpture evolved its own artistic style by infusing the prevailing Indian Naturalism with the spirit of Greco-Roman Realism. Immediately following this Gāndhāran breakthrough, the older Mathurā school of Indian sculpture, whose center was located on the banks of the Yamunā River at Mathurā, also succumbed to the irresistible urge to fashion the corporal form of Gautama as the embodiment of nirvāna (Saunders 1960: 13)

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, Hannover, Autumn 1997. [Intertextual hyperlinks added.]

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).

References

Dutt, Sukumar 1957. The Buddha and Five After Centuries.

Dutt, Sukumar 1962. Buddhist Monks and Monasteries of India: Their History and Their Contribution to Indian Culture.

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, Hannover, Autumn 1997http://www.apsara.clara.co.uk/troyoga/by/by.htm.

 

[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 Vlmki depicts Lord Rma 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 Tulsds transforms him into a deity to be worshipped. The participation of Muslims in the Rmnavam / 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 practicesoften in the context of religious rivalrymay 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 South-East Asia and well after the efflorescence of anthropomorphic representations (Michael Rabe). The argument (Susan L. Huntington) that these friezes do not depict (scenes from the life of) the Buddha, but the contemporary (lay) adoration of such symbols at pilgrimage sites, fails to explain why, to begin with, primacy was given to such potent symbols. The existence of pre-first-century bodhisattva (Buddha-in-the-making) images confirms (rather than refutes) this doctrinal rationale behind the refusal to transform Buddha (-hood) into tangible divinity. The real issue here is not so much that of anthropomorphism versus aniconism, but that of conserving, transmitting, and diffusing the Buddha�s �Awakening� at the risk of deformation.

[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 India who have found ingenious 'theological' solutions to get around the interdiction). It may be recognized as a powerful (Western) tendency, already within a pagan context, in a philosopher-mystic like Plato: art as being engrossed in the shadow of an already 'imaginary' world in the (allegory of the) Cave.

[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 Burma.

[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.