The Art of Ancient India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jain by Susan L. Huntington; John C.

Huntington; The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent by James C. Harle
Review by: Christopher Tadgell
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Jun., 1989), pp. 206-209
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society of Architectural Historians
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/990375 .
Accessed: 31/01/2015 15:19
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press and Society of Architectural Historians are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 134.83.1.244 on Sat, 31 Jan 2015 15:19:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

206

JSAH, XLVIII:2,

JUNE

1989

INDIAN

ARCHITECTURE

SUSAN L. andJOHNC. HUNTINGTON, TheArtofAncient

India:Buddhist,Hindu,Jain, New York: Weatherhill, 1985, 786
pp., 775 illus. $80.00.
JAMES C. HARLE, The Art and Architecture
of theIndian Subcontinent(Pelican History of Art), Harmondsworth: Penguin,
1986, 597 pp., 393 illus. $40.00 (cloth), $18.95 (paper).
Susan and John Huntington have written The Art of Ancient
India "for many audiences-the scholar, for whom we hope to
provide an up-to-date background against which his or her own
specific areas of interest may be examined; for teachers and
students at the college level, for whom this volume might provide both an overview of a complex subject and a resource for
their own deeper investigations into the subject; and for the
general reader, for whom we hope to provide a broad-based
introduction to what is for us one of the most fascinating areas
of world art" (p. xi). They note that the need for an up-to-date
overview of the art of South Asia has been apparent for decades-and one would readily agree that a revision of the last
significant work of this kind, Benjamin Rowland's sterling Pelican History of Art volume on the Art and Architectureof India:
Buddhist,Hindu, Jain (Harmondsworth, 1953) has long been
overdue. "The volume reflects our efforts to provide such a
synthesis," and in the integration of the three arts I find the
reflection particularly illuminating.
It would be daunting enough to set out simply to follow the
intertwined courses of the development of architecture, sculpture, and painting in South Asia-which here includes modern
India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. As the Huntingtons rightly
imply, however, a conventional art-historical approach to this
subject, preoccupied with formal analysis and the permutations
of style, is totally inadequate:"For millenia, the peoples of South
Asia have produced works of art in seemingly endless quantity
and of virtually infinite diversity. Such objects were frequently
materialisations of their creators' highest religious and philosophical ideals . . . not just aesthetic expressions or exercises in
colour or form but... visualisationsof the transcendant,brought
into the range of human understanding" (p. xxvi). "Most Indic
religions seek to ... foster the realization of universal unity and
of the understanding that each seemingly separateentity is but
a manifestation of the One. Ultimate truth is considered to be
transcendent, intrinsically beyond our limited means of acquiring knowledge. However, a number of symbolic devices (which
indicate the Truth not by revealing it but by referring to it)
may point toward the goal of realizing the undifferentiatedstate.
Among these are mantras(verbal formulae or incantations),yantras(mechanical devices such as geometric diagrams),and murtis
(images, icons, or sculptures).... These latter two devices ...
comprise the main subject of this book. What we call the art
of ancient India is, in fact, the reification of certain metaphysical
concepts, the purpose of which is to enable the religious devotee
to more easily internalise the ultimate Truth" (p. xxvi). In
general I admire the way the Huntingtons have confronted the
excruciatingly difficult task of summarizing Indian religions, as
the context for painting, sculpture,and architecture,in a manner

comprehensibleto the Western reader.I shall returnto this

aspectof the bookbelow. If religionwas the majormotivating
force behindIndianartisticendeavor,there was secularmotivation,too; andthough, admittedly,it producedlittle that has
proveddurable,the Huntingtonsmight havepaidmoreattention to it.
JamesHarle'sPelicanHistory of Art volume, TheArt and
Architecture
of theIndianSubcontinent,
replacesBenjaminRowland'sPelicanvolume.ExcludingSoutheastAsiabut including
Afghanistan,Pakistan,Bangladesh,Nepal,andSriLanka,Harle
addsa sectionon Muslimarchitecture.Seculararchitectureis
ignored,exceptfor a passingreferenceto a handfulof fortsin
"WesternIndia,Malwaans MadhyaPradesh,"and a cursory
note on the Mughalpalacesbeforea summarylist of the main
Rajputones at the end of partseven, "Indo-IslamicArchitecture."I feel I mustsayat the outsetthat the inadequacyof this
part in general-some 20 pages of text out of nearly500 in
all-is a greatdisappointment.
Given the dazzlingcomplexity
of the subjectas a whole andthe severeconstraintspresumably
exertedby the publishers,it would have been betterto follow
Rowlandor issue an expandedwork in two volumesif equal
justicecould not be done to all aspectsin one.
The greatstrengthof ProfessorHarle'sbookis the treatment
of sculpture,especiallyin the earlyparts.Herethe quantityand
qualityof EarlyIndia'ssculpturallegacyfar outweighsthe architecturalremains,except,of course,for the excavatedworks,
themselvessculpted.Thereafteran escalatingnumberof buildings survivein partor in whole and as much of the most importantsculpturewas intrinsicto the designof thosebuildings,
the descriptionof architecture
eclipsesthe analysesof sculpture
as the two artsaredealtwith in tandem.However,when early
frescosupplantssculpturein interiordesign,it is dealtwith in
the separatesectionon painting,which is inevitablydominated
by the importedminiaturetradition.
Harleadmitsto "afairlyconventionalart-historical
approach,
emphasizingstyles, their character,origins, and development
asseemed
andsupplyingonlyasmuchof the culturalbackground
necessaryfor an understandingof the basicfeaturesof the arforms"(p. 9). I findit difficult
tistic,sculptural,andarchitectural
to agree with his assessmentof how much backgroundwas
necessary.No lessthanthe Huntingtons'readers,surely,Pelican
Historyof Art readerswill need a summaryof Indianhistory,
far more on the majorreligions,and a guide to symbolism.
Harleis right to warnthat "in a field wherethe greatpreponderanceof art, mainlyreligious,relies to some extent at least
areopenon ancienttraditions,manyareasof interpretation
geomantic,cosmological,mystical,andsometimes,in the later
periods,magical"but it is not good enough to leave interpretationof the meaningbehindthe formsto "StellaKramrisch's
great TheHinduTemple[Calcutta,1946] ... by far the most
importantstudyof the templein all its aspects... [and]one of
the intellectual monuments of our time" (p. 9).
Leaving the problem of explanation aside for the moment,
let us turn to the difficulties of exposition. The problem of
assembling the vast amount of material on the development of
painting, sculpture, and architecture across a subcontinent at

This content downloaded from 134.83.1.244 on Sat, 31 Jan 2015 15:19:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS

least as rich and diversified as Europe, is notorious. Harle rightly

avoids the misleading sectarian division between Buddhist and
Hindu-if not between Hindu and Muslim-in favor of a not
unconventional four-part chronological division turning upon
the Guptas. In effect the contraction of Rowland's first three
parts("Prehistoricand Epic," "EarlyClassic Periods," and "Romano-Indian") into a prelude to the Guptas, enhancing the
undeniable importance of the latter, understates the degree to
which Gupta artists,builders in particular,were dependent upon
their inheritance. Continuity of development is further masked
by the division of the second, third, and fourth parts into "Gupta," "Post-Gupta," and "Later-Hindu"-this is not unconventional and though essentially arbitrary,the fourth division offers
a necessary corrective to Rowland's inadequate treatment of
indigenous activity in the half millenium following the decline
of the Guptas in hardly more than 40 pages of a single section
called "Hindu Renaissance."
The artificiality of this convention is a real problem when
the dynastic approachimplicit in the title of Part 2 is abandoned
in Parts 3 and 4 for subdivisions in accordance with areas of
northern India. Over such a broad time scale, in practice the
nonspecialist will often not be able to understandwhat is happening in a given area without knowing what was going on in
other areas.To be specific: how can one recall the ground plans
of Early Western Chalukyan temples (p. 136) before one has
been introduced to them; more important, in Part 3, chapters
11 and 12, the reader is given terms like Nagara and Dravida
(northern and southern) in a vacuum, without any introduction
to the fundamentalbifurcation of the development of the Hindu
temple in north and south, because the straightjacketof the area
approach has relegated any consideration of the south to Part
5. Indeed only in chapter 13 is there a clear definition even of
the northern form; this section, like the introduction to the
South Indian part itself, reads as though it had been written to
come earlier. While Harle probably relegated the Early Chalukyas at Aihole to this relatively late stage in the book to
discount their seminal importance, it would have made greater
sense to deal with them as contemporaries of the later Guptas.
More specifically, the areaapproachis unaccountably given precedence over chronology in the relegation of the Mahabody
temple to Part 3, chapter 15, even though a 6th-century datewell within the period when the areawas ruled by the Guptasis upheld for the present temple's foundation. This work, moreover, gives a crucial insight into the putative form of the northern superstructure,the 19th-century restoration notwithstanding, as Harle recognizes: "it does ... essentially represent the
structure which replaced the original shrine .... There is no

firm evidence to date this event, so crucial to the history of the

development of the Indian temple, particularlythe Nagara type,
but it was certainly no later than the fifth or sixth century" (p.
201).
Harle justifies treating the south in a separatesection-perhaps his best, in the event-after the survey of all the northern
schools, on the grounds that the earliest southern buildings were
later than the earliest northern ones and that its relatively unbroken longevity far surpassed Hindu building activity in the
north. While the latter is undeniable, in my opinion Harle
overstates the former. Apart from the restored work at Bodh
Gaya, the earliest surviving superstructuresin a recognizably
Nagara form, all generally dated between the late 5th and mid-

207

7th centuries, are to be found most notably at Deogarh and

Bhitargaon (badly mutilated), Bhubaneshwar, Sirpur, and Aihole. The earliest surviving Dravida temples are usually thought
to be the so-called rathashewn from boulders at Mahaballipuram
under NarasimhavarmanI Mamalla (c. 630-670). Countering
the assessmentof Srinivasan(creditedp. 518, n. 27, with having
written the definitive surveys of Pallava architecture), Harle
implicitly gives them to Mamalla's successors on the negative
evidence of Nagaswamy-the nonappearancein the inscriptions
on these works of the sort of title which, in accordance with
later practice,Mamalla might have been expected to use (p. 518,
n. 30). However disposed one might be toward this sort of
argument, especially in the depth of obscurity into which the
chronology of the evolution of the Hindu temple has sunk, it
is hardly adequateas the basisfor the deduction that "the earliest
temples in the 'southern' style at Badami and nearbyare perhaps
half a century earlier than those of the Pallavas"(p. 272). Harle
denies direct filiation between the surviving buildings of the
two schools-and, implicitly, the possibility that Mamalla, impressed with the stone buildings of the Chalukyas while occupying Badami in 642, could have commissioned the rathasin
emulation on his return to the south. It is certainly possible that
both worked coincidentally from the pervasive structuralprototype of the prasada,long executed in perishable materials for
both temples and palaces. It is simply not good enough, however, to ignore the counterargument, crucial not only for the
dating of individual works but for assessing the seminal importance of the Pallavas,that VikramadityaI (655-674) or even
Pulakesin II (610-642), impressed with the work of Mamalla's
architects after occupying Kanchi, brought the Dravida form
north as an alternative to the Nagara. Harle's readiness to do
this, of course, accordswith his relegation of the southern school
to a late place in the book and this, in turn, makes much that
he says in the sections on the Early and Later Chalukyas in the
Deccan-"where north meets south"-incomprehensible to a
reader with no knowledge of the south.
There is a naturalwatershed in the long development of the
southern tradition between the decline of the Cholas and the
advent of Vijayanagarand this is roughly coincidental with the
establishment of the Muslims in the north. Recognizing this,
the north and south may be dealt with in coeval phases. Which
comes first is then determinable on a need-to-know basis. As I
have already maintained, we need to know about the Pallavas
before the Early Chalukyas can be acquitted comprehensibly.
Equally we need to know about the Cholas and the mainstream
of pre-Muslim northern development before the synthesis attempted by LaterChalukyas and Hoysalas can be accounted for.
A return to the Hindus of Vijayanagarand their successors in
the south, as well as the resurgent Rajputs in the north, after
dealing with the Muslims of Delhi and the regional Sultanates,
has the advantage of counteracting the impression-reinforced
by the division of the subject into Hindu and Muslim partsthat significant Hindu activity in the subcontinent ceased with
the dominance of the Muslims. Some knowledge of the interaction of the Deccani Sultanatesand Vijayanagar,moreover, is
essential for a full appreciationnot only of the works of Vijayanagar itself but of the Mughal achievement.
In my opinion the best way around the problem of exposition
is to follow well-established precedent and adopt India-wide
dynastic ratherthan areasubdivisions for the millenium follow-

This content downloaded from 134.83.1.244 on Sat, 31 Jan 2015 15:19:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

208

JSAH, XLVIII:2, JUNE 1989

ing the adventof the Guptas.The dangerof identifyingformal

developmentstoo closely with dynastiesis no more insidious
than identifyingthem with area.Broadcontinuityof developmentwithin the divergentnorthernandsoutherntraditions
will not be obscuredeitherway, and the whole complexstory
will be told with much greaterclaritydespitethe uncertainty
of some crucialdynasticdates,which Harleavoidsby denying
his readersall but the barestminimumof historicalbackground.
Stressingthat the interactionof numerousindigenousand
importedpoliticalregimesover the pasttwo andone-halfmillenia"lefta legacyof complicatedlinguistic,racial,andcultural
patternsthat are reflectedin the importantartisticschools of
the SouthAsiansubcontinent"(p. xxv), the Huntingtonsadopt
a chronologybasedupondynastichistoryfor theirapproachto
the interweavingof regional,religious,andculturaltrends,their
acuteawarenessof the pitfallsnotwithstanding.
Afteran introductionestablishingthe geographicalcontext,
rehearsingthe problemsof datingand assertingmost persuasivelythe indissolubleconnectionbetweenartandthe essentially
religiouscultureof Indiansociety,the Huntingtonsdividetheir
book into five parts.The first,"Foundationsof IndicCivilization: The Prehistoricand ProtohistoricPeriods,"deals with
antecedents,the "Indus(or Harappa)Civilization(c. 2300 to
1750 B.c.)," and the predominantly literary evidence left by

"TheVedicandUpanisadicPeriods(c. 1500 to 450 B.c.)."Part

2, "Periodof the EarlyDynasties,"dealswith developments
throughoutthe regionfromthe riseof the Mauryasin the 4th
centuryB.C.to the decline of the Kusanastowardthe end of
the 3rdcenturyA.D.The Buddhistswere then predominantbut
one of the book'svirtuesis to takethe emergenceof Hindu,or
date.Part
at leastproto-Hindu,artbackto an earlier-than-usual
traces
the
which
Middle
of
the
3, "Dynasties
Period,"
putative
developmentof the temple,BuddhistandHindu,andits sculpturalandpaintedembellishment,is dominatedby the workdone
underthreemajorimperialregimes:the Gupta,from theiradvent in the Gangesbasinearlyin the 4th centuryA.D.to their
declineas an essentiallynorthIndianpowersometwo centuries
later,and, over the following two centuries,the Pallavasand
Chalukyas,whose rivalclaimsto the inventionof the southern
formareleft unresolvedthoughthe datingof the Pallavaworks,
at least, is generallyuncontroversial.Ratherthan continuing
with southerndevelopments,equallysatisfactorily
they turnin
Part4 to "LaterNorthernSchools"includingthoseof Kashmir,
Bihar,Bengal,Orissa,andthe variousRajputclans,notablythe
Solankis,Kalacuris,Chandellas,and ParaGujara-Pratiharas,
maras.Part5, "LaterSchoolsof the Deccan and the South,"
opens with Colas and their neighbors(mid-9th to 13th centuries);exemplarylogic then takesus to the Deccanidomains
of the Gangas,LaterChalukyas,Yadavas,Kakatiyas,andHoysalas;the next two chaptersaredevotedto imperialVijayanagar
andits Nyakssuccessors,the last(apartfroma shortafterword)
to Kerala.
Most helpfully,eachmajorsectionbeginswith an outlineof
the relevantperiodof dynastichistory.This leadsme backto
the problemof explanation.While ProfessorHarle'sapproach
precludesmuch background,religiousor dynastic,as I have
alreadynoted,the Huntingtonsconstantlyinterweavethe strands
of religiousdevelopmentwith thoseof the evolutionof all three
arts.Given the complexityof the subject,my only reservation
is that the readermight have found it easierto cope had strict

contextualrelevancebeenwaivedandthe religiousbackground
alsobeendealtwith in introductorysections,ratherthanwithin
the substantivenarrativeitself.A concisesummary,too, needed
for recurrentreference,would have obviatedrepetition.
The thirdchapterof the Huntingtons'firstpartseemsto me
to provideexactlywhat the readerneedson the Vedictradition
of the invadingAryans.The section on the Upanisadsis also
excellent,as far as it goes, in stressingtheir indigenous,nonVedic contentbut one wants more on the nativetradition:in
additionto the Vediccosmologyandthe interventionof Indra,
one looks in particularfor some accountof Varunaand what
callsthe "WaterCosmology"(Yahsas,
AnandaCoomaraswami
New
and
Delhi, 1971)-if only to discount
Washington,1928,
the lucid thesis that this was the vital sourceof iconography
andsymbolismfor BuddhistandHindu alike.It cannotbut be
bafflingto encounterits protagonists-the fertility spiritsof
sacredspots(caityas),most especiallyassociatedwith treesand
water(yaksasandnagasandtheirfemalecounterparts,
vehicles,
etc.)-emerging from the generalnarrativewithout priorintroduction(e.g., pp. 59, 68).
Chapter3 also introducesus to Mahaviraand Buddhabut
one looks in vain again for a concise summaryof the Jataka
legendsof the Buddha'slife, anothervital sourceof iconography. Latertoo, considerableargumentagainsttraditionalideas
on Hinayanaaniconicattitudesto that iconography-much of
it inevitablyspeculative,most of it not unconvincing-is unfortunatelydispersedin severalsectionsof the generalnarrative.
In line with currentthought, the Huntingtonsplausiblytake
the origins of the devotionaltheism of MahayanaBuddhism
much furtherbackthan has been traditional.In playingdown
the impactof Hellenisticforms
(p. 110), however,they produce
the associationof image ornothing to deny (or substantiate)
in
ientatedworshipwith the infiltrationof Hellenisticconcepts
the generationsafterthe briefapparitionof Alexander(pp. 113,
630). Worthy though it is to take image worshipback well
period, it seems less so to ignore
beyond the Saka-Parthian
Marshall'sidentificationof the earliestsurvivingimage shrine
in India-a votive structure of c. 78 A.D. in the compound of

the Dharmarajika
Stupaat Taxila (J. Marshall,Taxila,Cam1951)-to
saynothingof the earliestknownlarge-scale
bridge,
temple,the distinctlyGreco-Romanone at Jandialwhich was
probablybuiltby the earlySakasin the 1st centuryB.C.
For his part,Harle avoidssuch issuesas Buddhistsectarian
attitudesto the icon, but I do not think clarityis furtheredby
the treatmentof Mathura,let alone the Mahayanaphase of
beforeGandhara(p. 34). Evenif only to disputethe
Amaravati,
importancegenerallyplacedon the introductionof Hellenistic
ideasto Gandharaand assertthe primacyof indigenousideas
developedat Mathura,the obscureeventsat the lattersite are
bestseenagainstthe muchmoreclearlydelineatedonesin Gandhara.Moreover,scantattentionto the greatsitesof Taxilaand
deny the opportunityeven to registerthe first
Nagarjuniconda
of abuildingspecificallydestinedto housethe image
appearance
of the deity ratherthanto shelterthe relicsof a holy man.
Given the scopeof his coverageof the temple, indeed,it is
astonishingthat Harleneverclearlydelineatesits origin. The
basic elementsof the earliestimage shrine, cella and porch,
could andshouldhavebeen accountedfor in termsof the pernatureof Indianworship(puja)from
sonal,noncongregational
the outset,with the priestactingas intermediarybetweenthe

This content downloaded from 134.83.1.244 on Sat, 31 Jan 2015 15:19:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS

individualdevotee in the porch and the god in the sanctum.

Fullyawareof Hindudevotionalpracticethoughthe Huntingtons are, their early observationthat Hindu puja "might be
describedas a hospitalityritualinvolvingthe offeringof foods,
water,and flowersto a deity" (p. 28) needselaborationin the
contextof a sectionon the functionof the temple.
Intrinsicallyimportant,of course,someaccountof Hinduism
and its pujanot only providesthe key to the basicconstituent
elements of the buildingsconcerned,but it is crucialif the
complicateddevelopmentof the simpleprototypeinto the residence of the god-palace or mountain-is to be understood.
Excellentas they areon Hindu iconography,the Huntingtons
oftenimplythatarchitecture
wasanextensionof sculpture.This
is wholly comprehensiblegiven the significanceof excavated
workin the developmentof the monumentalmasonrytradition
andthe crucialimportanceof the temple'ssculpturalprogram.
In theirconsiderationof the excavatedworksas sculpturalrepresentations,indeed,only in passingdo we encounterthe structuresbeing represented.Moreover,they show little interestin
buildingtypology as a guide to the analysisof the origin and
significance of form.

The principalsecularandreligiousformsof buildingin India

canbe relatedbackto a commonprototype,theprasada.
Though
almosteverythingelse in Indianarchitectureis controversial,
the connectionbetweenpalaceand temple-the palaceof the
forthe dominant
god-is manifestin the useof thiswordprasada
elementof both. The earliestimage of a religiouscomplex (a
monasteryin essence)in one of the Bharhutreliefs-"palace of
the gods"-shows that it was composedof a multistoryresidentialstructureand a portico-likeshrine.A majorpartof the
fascinationof the subjectis how disparatesocialand religious
not excludingeven the Muslim,couldbe satisfied
requirements,
the
by
adaptationand developmentof this type.
Harle rightly assertsthe nonsectariannatureof Indianart,
notes in passingthe secularoriginsof the prasadaand rightly
definesthe wordliterallyas "palace"while notingthatit is one
of severalnamesfor the shrineproper(chapter11, p. 502, n.
5). Unlike the Huntingtons,who givelittle on the protohistoric
vernacular,Harledoesreproducesingleandmultistoryresidential structuresdrawnfromearlyreliefs(p. 44, P1.27) andpoints

209

to the one from Ghantasalaas an obviousprototypefor later

templeprasadas
(pp.43, 166). The persistentquotationof such
formsin the stonetemplesof the south(outof structural
context)
is notedin passing,butthereis no recognitionof the clearstages
of abstractionthroughwhich the form went in the north in
responseto the identificationof holy palaceandmountain.Appreciationof Kramrischnotwithstanding,the full significance
of the templeas a residence(vastu)is hardlyexploredin either
book.
In the hospitalityritualperformedin the templeprasada,
not
only is the god offeredsustenance,but he is put to bedwith his
wife. Though awarethat "eroticsculpturehas formedan importantpart of the Indiantraditionfrom the earliesttimes,"
Harle,for instance,canpostulate(aslate as p. 239) thatits role
is apotropaicbut that the "elaborationof the sexual acts at
Khajurahowould appearto be simply a manifestationof the
notwithouta certainplayfulness,whichpervades
sophistication,
so muchof the sculpturethere."The Huntingtons,on the other
hand,perceptivelynote:"Sexualimagery,whicheventuallyculminatesin the representation
of figuresin intercourse(yuganaddha)waslong misunderstood
by scholarsasa 'degeneration'.
... However,the total emotionalandphysicalinvolvementof
the individualwith the partnerduringsexualactivityis a metaphorin Indic religiousthought for the mysticalunion with
the Universal;the combiningof the male and female into a
totallyintegratedunity was seen to symbolizethe activepath
to enlightenment"(p.268). Beyondthis,nomenclature
provides
crucialfootholdsin the shifting sandsof interpretation.The
shrinebuildingmight be a vastubut the temple is a tirtha,a
"fordingplace"of spiritualregeneration,andthe sanctumis the
that
garbha
griha,the "wombchamber."Withoutunderstanding
the latter is the scene of the gestationof grace and that its
generationcan only be effectedby the stimulationof the male
aspectof the deity into union with the femaleaspect(sakhti)
one can hardlybe expectedto understandthe essentialfertility
associations,in particularthe explicit sexuality,of ubiquitous
Hindutempleornament-not leastthe lovingcouple(mithuna),
the most controversialof ancientIndia'ssymbols.

This content downloaded from 134.83.1.244 on Sat, 31 Jan 2015 15:19:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHRISTOPHER

TADGELL

Canterbury
Collegeof Art