Quantcast

It was in the December of 2009 when me and Arvind set out on an interesting road trip - one of the uncharted sites we visited was the ruined Muchukunda temple ( very near to the Moovar Koil complex). Nestled midst lush green farms amidst an idyllic village setting, wading through about half a feet of slush we arrived at a pillared mandapa which was devoid of any sculptures. The assortment of pillars suggested that someone had attempted a complex puzzle assembling the structure from what appeared to be a mix and match of many different game pieces - they did not match. The Sanctum was dark and damp, rodent infested and the camera flash repeatedly failed to provide the illumination required to focus. In such uncomfortable settings on a empty stomach a chance click lit up the side of the Artha Mandapa. The seemingly heavy pillar rested on an innocuous looking sand bag miraculous showed up on the camera display.

muchukunda_linga

We ventured closer and tortured the camera a few more times to get a clear shot in the near dark and there he was in all his glory. A Shiva Linga of truly massive proportions.

linga_muchukunda
size

We had just met with a master Stapathy Sri Umapathy Acharya and in all my amateurish ignorance had asked him ” Which form would he consider the most difficult to sculpt” and prompt came the unexpected reply = ” Shiva Linga”. He went on to mention that he had conducted a two day session just on the Iconography of the Shiva Linga recently. I felt he was pulling my leg at that time. what was so difficult in sculpting something as simple as a Linga ! It has taken me almost 4 years to muster the courage and conviction to do a post on this ” simple” form.

For starters it is the most controversial of subjects in Hindu Iconography and being very much the amateur i am treading a precarious line here, but then what is so special about this form that has seen its spread across the nook and corner of not only India but deep into South East Asia - in central Vietnam, into Cambodia - and that too as early as the 6th and 7th Centuries ? Cannot believe it… Standing a full 4 feet tall, holding the pride of place among exhibits, the massive stone pillar is an awe inspiring site. On closer scrutiny, it is not any stone pillar but a Shiva linga and this is no Indian Museum – this is at the Museum of Vietnamese History, Hochi Minh city, Vietnam and is a local find. Fu Nan period, 6th C CE.

linga_vietnam

This isn’t some Vietnamese version of the Shiva Linga, rather one that has been perfectly sculpted as stipulated in the Agamas or the Iconographic canons. The main stem of the Linga seen here is paired with its pedestal called the Avudai to make up the Lingam you see in all our temples. Further, the main stem of the Linga is made up of three distinct parts – the bottom most being square shaped denoting the Brahma Bagam, the middle being octagonal – Vishnu Bagam and the topmost cylindrical being the Rudra Bagam. When matched with the Avudai which is circular at the base and oval on top, with a hole bored through it middle to receive the stem, the Brahma Bagam would be below the Avudai, the Vishnu Bagam within it and the Rudra Bagam would be visible on top. The actual dimensions, proportions and further intricacies like inscribing the lines of the Brahma sutras are subjects of serious study but it is worthy to note that in the Vietnamese Linga, there is a face sculpted just above the Vishnu Bagam. Such are called Mukha Lingams though the Indian variants have more pronounced features.

For those who are already feeling heady it is worthy to point out that one of the world’s oldest Shiva Linga is found in Gudimallam, situated about 21 kms from the more famous Kalahasti temple near Tirupathi. Dated to between 2nd C BCE and 1st C BCE, this imposing Linga measures an exact 5 feet in height and has one of most interesting sculptures carved on it.

sanctum

For the keen observers it would immediately strike that this could also be on the earliest apsidal shrine as well ( though not as old as the Linga though!)

I am taking the liberty of posting some early photos from the ASI review 1973-74 - to show how the lower portion of the Linga could have been hidden by the rather crudely fashioned late day Yoni - which incidentally could have given rise to the version that the figure sculpted is Parasurama ( and a local legend forming to substantiate the story as well)

asi review 1973-74

It is however not right to completely discredit the local legends since the two armed figure, holds a Ram/Goat by its hind legs with his right hand, holds a curiously shaped pitcher with his left hand and has an Axe slung over his left shoulder.

siva

Scholars however are unanimous in the view that it is indeed Shiva ( the Parasu ofcourse being his choice of weapon) and shown standing on a rather grotesque Rakshasa, who is shown as kneeling down and supporting the weight with both his hands on his knees. His face is nowhere near the cute muyalakans we see in the Nataraja form - his ears are pointed like those of a bat and his cheeks marked with deep lines but he has a shrek like smirk with both rows of teeth exposed. His head dress and ornaments however, are sculpted in style.

muyalagan

An important start book for students of Hindu Iconography is Sri Gopinath Rao’s Elements of Hindu Iconography and am using some of his illustrations to further analyse this rare form - especially the ornamentation and designs.

ornamentation_gopinath_rao

It is important to notice that this early Linga is definitely a representation of a Phallus.

gopinath_rao
guimallam_linga
reverse

The shaft is seven sided which needs to studied as well.

The unique way in which the ram /Goat is held by its hind legs show that it is definitely a quarry brought back from a hunt and not the later day antelope being petted/fed. What is more interesting is though the lower torso is clothed - you can clear see the waist cloth ( not skin curiously again), the male organ is visible as well. The popular assumption being the garment being a thin cloth. What is important otherwise is the fact that the representation is not shown as Urdhva ( am sure some of you would have to google for it!).

This raises lot more fundamental questions - The most popular reason attributed to lack of pre 5th -6th C CE Hindu Icons is that stone was earlier associated with funerary stuff and hence they were made of wood or sudhai ( limestone mix). How come we have such an advanced stone sculpture predating the accepted timeline by over 800 years. The quality of workmanship, the detail, the ornamentation etc are far too advanced to state that this is a one off freak.

The features of the central figure is unique and the first impression is the feeling that its origin could not be from South India !

Am sure lot of questions will be raised in your comments….

Photo Credits: Mr Wasantha Fernando, Mr Gaman Palem, ASI Review 1973 -74 and Elements of Hindu Icongraphy - Sri Gopinath Rao.

Leave a comment »

Category: Sculpture

Tags:  ,

Related Posts:

No posts to display.

Read this in தமிழ்தமிழ்

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 6th, 2013 at 11:08 and is filed under . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

11 Comments so far

  1  

/// இந்த “சாதரணமான” உருவத்தின் மீது ஒரு பதிவை எழுதுவதற்கான துணிவை திரட்டி முடிவெடுக்க எனக்கு நான்கு ஆண்டுகள் ஆகியுள்ளது. ///

இது மேலும் வியப்பை தருகிறது…

March 6th, 2013 at 13:09
injamaven
  2  

Looks a lot like Bharhut style, doesn’t it. Great post!

March 6th, 2013 at 19:24
GRS
  3  

What are your thoughts on Greek and Baudha influence on Hindus to create temples?

March 10th, 2013 at 3:46
Satish
  4  

Comparing Linga with Phallus is a western concept which, unfortunately many of us have accepted. I dont buy in this as the westerners do not have any insight into our philosophy. Linga is the representation of Jothiswaroopam, the all luminous, formless form of the Brahmam. Hope all of us know the Lingothbhava concept, where Shiva stands as a pillar of fire and Brahma and Vishnu goes in search of his head and feet. Even today, Linghothbhava has the shiva form depicted inside a linga, which is representation of the supreme in human form insite the pillar of fire (or jothi or whatever we want to call). The cut in the Linga form is just a representation and if it resembles a phallus, its a coincidence.

Coming to the article, its wonderful and thanks a lot for the pictures..I have heard about Gudimallam but never got my eyes on this beautiful linga. This again proves my above statement. Mr. Gopinaths representation has the cross section shown with seven sides. And its unfortunate that you have said that

“It is important to notice that this early Linga is definitely a representation of a Phallus”

Agni is represented with Seven hands, and said to have seven tongues. Sun is said to have seven horses. All these are depiction of the seven colours of light and I will rather go with the seven sides of the lingam to represent the agni form rather than the phallus.

Regards,
Satish

March 14th, 2013 at 12:25
  5  

[...] Shiva Rathri was just over, it is a good time to look into the iconography of the Shivalingam at Gudimallam For starters it is the most controversial of subjects in Hindu Iconography and being very much the [...]

March 15th, 2013 at 12:32
தேவ்
  6  

சிவபெருமானுக்குரிய வில் ‘பிநாகம்’;
புராணம் அவரைப் பிநாக பாணியாகக் காட்டுகிறது.
‘நமஸ்தே அஸ்து தந்வநே’ - ருத்ர ப்ரச்நம்.
சிமைய நெடுஞ்சிலை உடைய பரம்பொருளாகச் சைவர் சிவனை வழிபடுகின்றனர். ஆக லிங்கத்தில் இருப்பவரைச் சிவபெருமானாகவே கருத இடமுள்ளது

தேவ்

April 1st, 2013 at 17:48
Prabhakar
  7  

Good one Vijay… such a passion in sculptures.. thnx fr sharing :)

June 28th, 2013 at 18:18
Selvaraj V M Muthuraja
  8  

Revered Sir, Need to get in touch with you
for guidance in making maragatha
Somaskanda linga. Grateful for an email
from you, so that I can write back in detail.
Thank you for the privilege of your time.
Selvaraj M

December 31st, 2013 at 20:51
k
  9  

அருட் பெரும் ஜோதி
pillar of fire…that’s what it means and not a phallus.

It’s only sad to see even people like are mislead under western influence and know completely nothing about our religion.

February 7th, 2014 at 23:04
  10  

சிவன் தனது மகன் முருகன் பிறப்பதற்கு முன்னரே தேவர்களால் எச்சரிக்கப்பட்டான் என்பதை மாபாரதமும் இராமாயணமும் புராணங்களும் குறிப்பிடுகின்றன. பரசுராமனே சிவன் என்படற்கும் பல சான்றுகள் உள்ளன. பரிபாடலும் கலித்தொகையும் பிற பாடல்களும்கூட உறுதிப்படுத்துகின்றன. செவ்வாய் முருகனின் அடையாலமே ஆடு; இது சோதிடத்திலும் மேஷம் எனக் காட்டப்படுகிறது; முருகனைக் கொலைசெய்ய முயன்ற வரலாற்றைப் பரிபாடலும் கந்தபுராணமும் உறுதிப்படுத்து கின்றன. அதனையே இங்கு சிற்பத்தில் ஆடு எனக் காட்டியுள்ளனர். சிலப்பதிகாரத்தில் செங்குட்டுவனே செஞ்சடை வானவனின் மகன் என்பதைப் பல இடங்களில் காணலாம். செங்குட்டுவனே அர்ச்சுனனாக இமையவனுக்கு எத்ராகச்சென்று சிவனோடு போரிட்டவன். இந்த வரல்ற்றை மாபாரதம் மறைத்துவிட்டது. ஆனால் சிலப்பதிகாரத்தில் அவர்களுக்கிடையே போ நடந்ததை உறுதிசெய்வதைக் கலாம். மாஆரதத்தில் துர்யோதனனே பரசுராமன் என்பதை உணர்த்தும் தகவல்கள் உள்ளன. கிளைக்கதைகளில் யமதக்கினியின் மகனாகக் காட்டுவது ஐயத்துக்கு உரியது. யமதக்கினியான அலெக்சாண்டனின் வளர்ப்பு மகனே பரசுராமன். வரலாற்றில் அவனைப் பிம்பிசாரன் எனக் காணலாம். முழுமையான வரலாற்றைக் காண விரும்பினால் http://nhampikkai-kurudu.blogspot.com என்ற வலையை googlesearch ல் தேடிக் காணவும். பல கட்டுரைகள் அந்த வலைப்பதிவுகளில் உள்ளன. அனைத்துமே பரசுராமன், அவனால் கெடுத்துக் குருவுற்ற கரிகால்சோழனின் த்ங்கை, அப்பெண்ணுக்குப் பிறந்த செங்குட்டுவன் என மேலும் பலௌடையவரலாற்றோடு இராமாஅணத்தில் இராவணனாகக் காட்டப்படுபவனே பாண்டியன் செழியன் என்பதையும் ரிக்வேத புராண இதிகாசச் சான்றுகளுடன் பழந்தமிழ்[சங்க]ப் பாடல்களின் இடுகைகளையும் காணலாம்!

March 26th, 2014 at 20:11
Shivakumar
  11  

On what basis they decided that it is 2000 years old?

August 23rd, 2014 at 14:09

Leave a Reply

Name (required)(*)
Mail (will not be published)(*)
URI
Comment