Pilgrims or other visitors to temples built on a substantial scale often perform a circumambulation (pradakṣiṇa or parikrama) – this is almost always clockwise – of one or more of the secondary images they might visit, or of the principal image or its shrine if this is possible, or even of the temple itself. In the latter case, the circumambulation may last for several days if the perimeter is traversed in penitential fashion (e.g. by way of full prostration every few feet). Indeed, on occasion the pilgrim may view the land of India itself as a holy site and undertake a circumambulation of it. Such arduous journeys are often made for such reason as the fulfilment of a vow, the performance of a penance or seeking a favour from a deity.
The priests of a temple are usually Brahmins of one jāti or other (though in the case of temples for some low castes and Untouchables, Brahmins generally do not officiate). At a large pilgrimage-centre like Benares:
[T]here are the pandās, who meet the pilgrims at the train station, arrange their rest houses, and oversee the entire pilgrimage. For many pilgrims, the pandā will be the same man or of the same family who has cared for their ancestors. There are the karmakāndīs, priests who assist in particular rites;the ghātiās, priests of a somewhat lower class who have proprietary rights along the ghāts [quays or steps leading to the water] and who tend to the needs of the bathers;the pūjārīs, who officiate in the temples;and the mahāpātras, who specialize in death rites.
(Eck 1983: 21; see also Jameson 1976: Chapter 3)
At pilgrimage centres and temples people perform specific tasks such as undergoing penance, making offerings to the deity and donations to the temple, receiving religious instruction, hearing sacred narratives, expiating or undertaking vows, immersing ashes of loved ones, bathing ritually, undergoing saṃskāras, giving alms, and worshipping and praying to the deity; sometimes they are taken there to die and/or be cremated. Specific actions require specialized functionaries, as we have seen from the division of labour described in the extract given above. But these functionaries must be distinguished from the purohita or domestic priest, who may also serve one's family by hereditary succession, and who administers saṃskāras in the home, gives religious advice and so on.
The image worshipped in the temple, referred to variously as the mūrti, vigraha, pratimā, arcā and so on,5 must be formally installed according to prescribed ritual. In the long history of religious Hinduism, various views about the nature of image-worship have been expressed. Here are some of the more important of these, given under general headings, though it must be kept in mind that under each heading there can be variations on the theme.6
(i)
The Mīmāṃsaka view: we have encountered the Mīmāṃsakas or Ritualists early on in the book. They were primarily concerned with the performance of the solemn Vedic ritual, but their influence lives on in subtle ways, not least in the continuing importance that ritual has in the lives of Hindus. With reference to the performance of the solemn ritual, there is, according to the Mīmāṃsaka, no plausible evidence for saying that the deity (devatā) in whose name the ritual is performed, has a body (vigraha), or indeed, that the deity even exists! The deity invoked in the ritual, therefore, has for the purposes of the ritual, only a functional reality; it ‘exists’ in the form of a name necessary for the performance of the ritual act. In this context, image worship – which the later MimaImsakas seemed to endorse in so far as it was part of ongoing popular tradition – would be a useful but empty ritual.
(ii)
The Advaitic view: we know that according to the Advaita of Śaṃkara, there is ultimately only one, non-differentiated Real, Brāhman, and that the world of differentiation that we experience – which includes ‘God’ ( īśvara) and ‘his/her’ many forms and manifestations, and indeed our own individual selves – is an illusory projection of congenital ignorance (avidyā). In this light, Śaṃkara accepts image-worship in temples as a dharmic yet preparatory practice on the path to advaitic illumination. According to Samkara, ‘the idea of [the] god[s] is merely superimposed [ritually and conceptually by the worshipper] on the images’ (Colas 2004: 157;emphasis added). In other words, the God concerned is in no way the image itself; the two can at most be legitimately identified only figuratively. Śaṃkara goes on to say that as one progresses towards advaitic insight, one realizes that it is only the spiritually ‘small-minded’ (alpa-medhasaṣ) who need to resort to image-worship.
(iii)
The Naiyāyika or Logician's view: for the Logician, there is a Supreme Being (īśvara) who has no body essentially, but who can take on a body for specific ends (e.g. to impart the Vedas and other forms of knowledge to humans). According to the Naiyāyika, Udayana (eleventh century), the image is not an embodiment of the God worshipped; rather, by the act of ritual consecration of the image, the deity concerned agrees to be associated with the image, without actually residing in it. So the divine presence ‘in’ an image is no more than a mental appropriation of the image by the deity.
(iv)
The view(s) of the Vaikhānasas (a Vaiṣṇava denomination): (a) the deity worshipped takes up its abode in the consecrated image for as long as the deity is pleased to do so; (b) the image is a living embodiment of the deity worshipped, the image being animated progressively as it goes through various phases of construction, which culminates in the ‘empowerment'of the image by the ritual act of consecration.
These examples show that image-worship in Hinduism has never been a straightforward practice; its meaning has been determined by context. Whilst it is the case, I believe, that all the views delineated above are still in force in one way or another in Hinduism, it is also true, I think, that in popular Hinduism the most widely held view about image-worship is a variation on the theme that the image is an embodiment of, and is empowered by, the deity. No doubt the worshipper may believe that, in its proper form or svarūpa, the one Supreme Being is transcendent and spiritual, possessing the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and so forth – though many devotional sects also maintain that in addition the deity has an anthropomorphic, celestial form in whose company the liberated delight – nevertheless, it is typical for the worshipper to go on to say that the image is an accessible and concrete form of the deity. Theologically, it is the way a gracious and compassionate God dwells among us. Since the deity is essentially spiritual and omnipotent, he/she may indwell innumerable images in innumerable locations without being fragmented or disempowered in any way.
As intimated above, once the temple-image has been produced, it must be formally consecrated by the priest(s). Such ritual generally includes ‘bathing’ the image (typically, in the case of images of a certain size, by pouring water, milk etc. over a reflection of the image in a strategically placed mirror nearby), dressing it and making offerings to it, giving it the appropriate sectarian marks, and so on. Most important would be the ceremony of prāṇa-pratiṣṭha, viz. ‘giving life to’ or animating the image by means of various rites, mantras etc. Once this elaborate ceremony is concluded, the image is regarded as being alive with the presence of the deity; the material of the image has become a temporary body of the deity.
Whilst there is scope for artistic expression in the making of images – for example, images depicting a particular theme such as Śiva Nataraja (Śiva as Lord of the Dance) may be made in different styles – the material, form and proportions of the image must conform to accredited iconometric and iconographic texts. Further, images are viewed as having different acceptable origins. Most, of course, are produced by human hands in accordance with textual prescription; but others are claimed to be svayambhū (‘self-existent’) or svayamvyaktā (‘self-manifest’), that is, sent by the deity itself, its location pinpointed in some extraordinary way, e.g. through a dream or the trance induced when some individual is possessed by the deity. It is claimed that the great image of Sri Balaji in Tirupati is a svayambhū image;unproduced by human hands, it emerged from the mists of time as a gracious gift of t
he deity.
Klaus Klostermaier writes:
In older temples, one quite often finds so-called svayamvyaktā mūrtis, images not fashioned by human hands but miraculously sent by God himself: washed up on the seashore, carried to a place by a river, or found by someone instructed in a dream. Local tradition often tells that a ṛṣi [sage] received the image of the temple directly from the deity.
(1989: 295)
A desecrated image, e.g. one defaced by vandalism or an act of war, is believed to embody the deity no longer, and is disposed of also ritually, usually by immersion or burial. An image under threat of desecration can take evasive action. I have heard devotees recount, with conviction, how temple images mysteriously disappeared or simply ‘walked away’ in time of danger, only to reappear, to the great joy of all, when the threat was no longer present.
We can now consider another pervasive expression of polycentrism in Hinduism, this time with respect to the well-known phenomenon of the worship of various images and forms of the same deity. Take the example of Tamil Śrī Vaiṣṇavism. Though there is but one Supreme Being for Śrī Vaiṣṇavas, the Godhead is regarded as being ‘binitarian’ in nature, its ‘male’ pole being referred to as Viṣṇu-Nārāyaṇa, and its'female’ pole, which represents the Goddess, as Śrī or Lakṣmī (hence Śrī-Vaiṣṇavism). In fact, these two divine centres relate dialectically in such a manner as to express, each in its own way – by means of specific liturgies of worship, prayers, sacred narratives and so on – the same divine power and graciousness (see e.g. Narayanan 1982: 224–37, 353–5). Viṣṇu-Nārāyaṇa manifests in various modes particular to time and place, e.g. as one avatāra or other, or as this or that persona through the image(s) resident in one temple or other, in accordance with his gracious will. The Goddess Śrī-Lakṣmī, the other person of the Godhead, has her own history and panoply of multiple manifestations. Yet the broad gamut of these secondary forms, which invariably have their own liturgies of worship, are expressions of the same Godhead, endorsing and reinforcing each other in a shared framework of divine salvific efficacy. Or, to put it more specifically in the language of polycentrism, the one transcendent invisible Godhead, itself composed of two personal centres in dialectical relationship, manifests concretely through individualized personae that function as interactive centres of shared grace and power within one and the same domain of Śrī Vaiṣṇava cultic practice.
There is a further dimension to this polycentric manifestation. Other non-Vaiṣṇava Gods and Goddesses – such as Śiva or Gaṇeśa or Kālī or Tārā – each perhaps a supreme centre of worship in his/her own right (in their respective traditions) – may be accommodated in the Śrī-Vaiṣṇava cult as more peripheral expressions of the one (Śrī-Vaiṣṇava) Godhead. In this way, Śrī-Vaiṣṇavism can embrace, albeit on its own terms, many centres of worship in Hinduism through a tracery of ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ manifestations of the supreme deity in a theologically justified framework of metaphysical, mythological, textual, ritual and social constituents. And the supreme divine centres of other strands of Hinduism can be – and are – made to act in the same way. This system of multiple divine manifestations is hardly ‘polytheistic’ in any obvious sense of the term; it would be more appropriate, I think, to refer to it as an instance of ’polymorphic monotheism’ (as it has been called). There is, after all, only one divine Source manifesting variously so as to be more concretely available as an access point for the devotee.
With regard to the available presence and power of its indwelling deity, images are like volcanoes: some are extinct, i.e. for one reason or other, the divine force is thought to have left the image so that it becomes a mere shell of its former vitality; some are dormant, in so far as the power of the resident deity is thought to be quiescent to a greater or lesser degree, while others are believed to be more or less active with the continuing power of the divine Presence within. Images of the latter type are referred to as jāgrata or ‘awake’, and are capable of attracting devotees from great distances.
The main deity of the temple is treated like royalty. Three or four times a day – at dawn (or earlier), at midday, in the evening and at night – the image is ceremonially worshipped. Often, a screen or door, partitioning the image, is opened or closed at the relevant times. The deity is awakened, praised, garlanded, fed, ritually bathed, entertained, perhaps cooled by hand fans or the smearing of sandal and other paste, allowed to rest during the heat of the afternoon, given a change of clothes, formally taken leave of at night, and so on. In short, it is treated as a living resident of the temple (in courts of law in India, it is a juridicial agent with rights of ownership, etc.).7 Indeed, the image does live, at least in the mind and heart of the worshipper, in the mythic tradition associated with it, and through the visits, fasts, prayers, petitions, and vows etc. of its devotees.
At certain times of the day – usually in the mornings and evenings – the image ‘holds court’ for its devotees, with a priest or priests in attendance. This is when votaries can come forward to receive/take the deity's darshan or ‘viewing’; they look upon the image and savour the deity's presence.8 Offerings – mainly of money, fruit, sweetmeats, flowers – are made, while a priest may perform ārati in the dimly-lit presence of the image, viz. make regular, circular clockwise movements of an oil-lamp held in the right hand, while continuously ringing a hand-bell with the left. The whole display – the dignified presence of the image, often impressively apparelled and garlanded, the ringing bell (sometimes accompanied by a gong) of the ārati, the fragrance of burning incense, the flowers cast from time to time in the direction of the image, the solemn hand-gestures of the priest with his tilaka or ‘sectarian’ marks glistening on his forehead (a V or vertical lines usually in white paste for Vaiṣṇavas and horizontal lines for Śaivas and Śāktas) – is a study in sacred ‘power-dressing’ ! The darshan is thus activated: direct contact between the divine focus of vision and the worshipper is established. The gloom of earthly space and time is lit up in a moment of grace.
During festivals, the main image(s) may be taken out in grand procession on special floats or carts (called rathas or ‘chariots’), sometimes preceded by a richly caparisoned temple elephant or two symbolizing fertility and royal authority, through the local streets so that the deity's darshan may be accessible to all. It is also a way of asserting the deity's rule over his or her domain. In some cases, separate processional images are used as proxies for the main images being honoured. The rituals of temple-worship are an instance of smārta rites because they are recorded in and follow the smṛti or tradition of the people.
We come now to domestic worship. This has formal features too, but it tends to be individualistic and variable. In almost every religious Hindu's home there is a shrine for pūjā, or at least sacred drawings or pictures to evoke a religious atmosphere. A cupboard, windowsill, recess in a wall, or even a small room, is set aside for images or pictures of a deity or holy person. Usually more than one deity is represented; these focuses can be very eclectic – I have even seen an abandoned crucifix placed among the sacred representations of the domestic shrine. The underlying belief, however, is the same: the Godhead is one but manifests in various ways. Usually, an iṣṭa-devata or ‘chosen deity’ prevails. Yet the iṣṭa-devatā is not an arbitrary choice. Generally, it is the divine form or person worshipped as a family tradition; sometimes, it is the divine focus recommended for one or for one's family by the guru, or adopted when one marries, or dictated by some conversion or life-changing experience. It is the concrete form by which the deity establishes contact with the devotee. As such, it is a sign of divine election – of being ‘chosen by the deity’ – rather than the reverse.
It is usually the senior woman, or the women, of the household who tend to the domestic shrine and perform pūjā on behalf of the family. Anyone in the family may worship at the shrine or in private in the home, of course, as circumstances dictate, but as a rule specific times of the day
and/or days of the week are set apart for formal pūjā by the women. These depend on which deity is being worshipped and on family custom. Variations are legion, but in Bengal, for example, where worship of the Goddess predominates, the Goddess Lakṣmī is worshipped specially on Thursdays. Saturdays, and also Tuesdays, are special to Kālī, and Mondays and Fridays to Śiva.
Whilst worship of the deity can, and according to theological dictates should, take place daily, particular days of the week are especially conducive for the worship of certain deities. There is a reason for this. Suchitra Samanta explains with reference to Kālī:
Saturdays and Tuesdays, astrologically propitious for the worship of Kālī, are described in the ritual manuals (paddhatis) aspraśasta, ‘excellent/auspicious’, when the goddess is most effectively worshipped.
(1992: 55)
In this way, besides intimating that there are more and less appropriate times for undertaking certain acts, this practice, by coordinating the location of worship (by means of the image, etc.) and the temporality of the act in the mind of the worshipper in a single continuum of experience, also, also endorses the conviction that the deity has mastery over space and time as a whole, and is empowered to free one from the natural and moral anguishes that constitute saṃsāra.
Before pūjā, the votary generally fasts and bathes. The worship might consist in drawing some sacred symbols or patterns, perhaps with rice-paste – variously called ālpanā, ragoli, etc. – in front of the shrine/image, lighting incense and candles, making offerings (fruit, flowers, water, sweetmeats, etc.), reading or chanting from a sacred text, and perhaps silent prayer or a brief meditation. An ārati might also be performed.
Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (The Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices) Page 55