Prologue

Saivism has been intriguing and interesting scholars since a long time and there have been several attempts at tracing its history. Classic studies such as Bhandarkar’s or more recent explorations by Gonda, Jash and Siddhantashastree as Muller-Ortega^[1] observes provide only “the thinnest outlines of the history of Saivism”. There are just too many lacunae in the sequence that leads from the Mohenjo-Daro so called Proto Siva to the Vedic Rudra, the Yajurvedic Satarudriya, the Rudra-Siva of the Svetasvatara Upanisad, the Pancavaktramurti and Ashtmurti of Puranic Siva. This lengthy process of historical development and the antecedent history of Saivism that leads to a scholar and unifier of ideas like Lakulisa and continues beyond him are extremely complicated. One often comes face to face with theological intricacies, the dense rituals with terribly cryptic written material if found any and the yogic and tantric complexities which add to the confusion. What one can glean through all the material scattered across time and space is the rise in the popularity of Siva, not simply as one of the deities of pantheon but as a divinity around whose worship developed various sectarian groups who in return projected their beliefs and customs on the image of the deity. This wonderful give and take has given rise to plentitude of Saivite sects which many a time on looking at superficially seem to have nothing in common with each other but the central deity.

Art history as a discipline has opened up gradually to include various branches of learning in it. No longer is the focus only on the art objects and its form and style. Various questions pertaining to patronage, politics of representation and the purpose of creation are taken into consideration. An interdisciplinary approach and questioning the earlier works leads to formation of new hypothesis which can tremendously increase the scope and importance of any art-historical work. Efforts have been made by scholars to contextualize the art-works, and to study them as a part of broader philosophical, historical, political and last but definitely not the least the theological discourse along with the usual formalistic and iconographical studies.

Such an approach demands a thorough and critical study of the texts, images, myths and whatever archeological evidences are available to go beyond the apparent literal meaning.

The importance of such an approach for religious studies is deftly explained by Kapila Vatsyayan^[2] in these words,

“While the myths constitute the kernel of philosophic schools, the speculative thought provides the basis for the emergence of iconic forms and symbols and a complex system of rites and rituals”.

Hence it is the magical coalescing of mythical, philosophical ritualistic and the artistic expressions each complementing and enriching the other which gives meaning to any religious system and which again needs to be looked into as a whole for a better understanding.

The limitations of a linear approach was felt by Bhartrhari as he said that, the process of deriving meaning is not a logical one and more so when one is dealing with religious art and philosophy. Vakya Padiyam II.130 succinctly differentiates between the language used in common parlance and language used in a sastra (a codified text) where in the latter the language is visualized as both word and meaning but the actual essence depends on whatever is the intention of the codifier.. The apparent literal meaning often leaves more to be desired and leads the query to unknown waters where many a times the researcher finds himself/herself completely at loss. So there is a necessity to go beyond the literal and seemingly “correct” meaning and that can only be achieved if one delves deep without a pre-conceived notion.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Muller-Ortega Paul E,” The Triadic Heart of Siva”,Delhi, 1997, p 26

[2]:

Vatsyayan Kapila,Saivism and Vaisnavism, in “The Variegated Plumage: Encounters with Indian Philosophy “Ed by N.B Patil and Mrinal Kaul, Delhi, 2003,p 121