________________
148
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
.
TJUNE, 1909.
Now Dr. Bloch has shortly maintained that the ancient Indians did not originally represent their deities in anthropomorphic form, but only by means of symbols. In the famous Jamalgarhi relief which represents the prince Siddharthi in his palace and in the moment when he leaves his wife in order to renounce the world he identifies the animal which has hitherto been considered to be meant for a bull, as a boar, and this boar, he maintains, is the symbol of the god Vishnu. He further mentions the linga of Siva, and he is inclined to explain the four animals on the capitnl of the Sârnâth Asôka pillar as representations of Hindu gods. "It is," he says, "only hypercriticism to doubt that we have to see in the elephant a symbol of Indra, in the humped bull a symbol of Siva and in the horse a symbol of Sürya." With regard to the lion, Dr. Bloch is in doubt whether it should be explained as the odhana of Durgå or Parvati. The conclusions to which he arrives may be summed up as follows: the old Indians represented their gods by means of symbols, and they did not begin to represent them in an anthropomorphic form till a comparatively late date, when the Greeks had become their teachers in art.
I am unable to accept this theory, for several reasons.
In the first place, the representation of a stereotype Lakshmł on old monuments necessarily carries the anthropomorphic representation of at least this goddess back to a time when it is difficult to think of Greek influence. Professor Minayeff 7 has analysed the gods represented in the Bharhut sculptures. Kubera and Viruhaka, both designated as yakkhô (yaksha) are depicted in human form, I cannot help thinking that these figures, as also the gods represented in Sanchi, were taken over from older non-Buddhist models. We may here think of wood carvings or of roughly dressed logs, perhaps similar to those mentioned by Dr. Bloch (1.c., p. 652) from Pari. The Parkham image seems to me to be an evident imitation of such a log. I have not seen any representation of the Bernagar imáge, and caunot therefore judge about it. At all events, it seems to me that the Parkham image, whether it represents a Hindû god or a Buddhist saint, cannot possibly be explained as a result of Greek influence. The Greek influence on Indian sculpture can hardly be pushed farther back than the times of Menander, in whose days Dr. Bloch seems to place the best Gandhåra art. The Parkham image, however, is apparently, to judge from the inscription, older. So far as I can see the existence of images in India can be proved for a much older time, as it is presupposed by Panini, who, according to tradition which I see no reason to donbt, lived under the Nandas. In V-8-96 he teaches that the suffix kan gives the meaning of likeness when an imitation of a thing is to be expressed. Thas, asvaka an'imitation of a horse. V--99 then runs jivikártha ch-dpanyé (an elision of the suffix kan takes place) also (when the figure is made) & means of livelihood, it being presumed that no traffic is driven thereby. The old scholia give as examples Vasudeva Siva, Skanda, Vishņu and Aditya, which words are here used in the sense of images of Vasudeva. Sive, Skanda, Vishņu and Aditya, respectively, I am unable to see how this can be explained otherwise than as a direct proof that Påņini knew of statues and images of the gods. The examples given by the old glossators do not, of course, prove anything for Panini's time. But, so far as I can see, bis rule itself proves that images existed in his times, that is to-day before we can well assume the influence of Greek art. It can be objected that these images may have represented animals and other symbols of the gods. This would, however, be against the explanations of later grammarians including Patañjali, and such an explanation is a priori very anlikely. The old Kdrild to Panini V-8-100 soms ap the instances in which the suffix kan is elided as follows:
arckány pájanárthdeu chitrakarmmadhvajesha chai
iná prati kritta löpan kang dewapathadishu !! the altix kan denoting a likeness when the imitation of thing is to be expressed, is elided when the imitation is (1) an image for worship, (2) a picture, or (3) a design on a flag, and (4) when the
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morsontandischen Gesellschaft. Vol. LXII., PP. 646 and A. Recherches sur le Bouddhisme, Paris 1894, pp. 138 and ff.
