Umbrella of Serpent by Columbia South Asia Review

Umbrella of Serpent: A Portrayal of Divine Kingship in Early Indian Art, upto C. 500 C.E.

Duli Ete University of Delhi

Umbrella of Serpent: A Portrayal of Divine Kingship in Early Indian Art, Upto C. 500 C.E. Duli Ete

University of Delhi

One of the most enduring western stereotypes about India is that it is the land of serpent worship, and this stereotype has primarily stemmed from the point of view of “the great tradition”—a totemic belief of a particular race or ethnic group, and as a “local,” “folk” and “rural” belief-system, which is being “acculturated” and “assimilated” into the sophisticated contemporaneous religious traditions. The textual references to nāgas in Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jain literature have been invoked invariably to understand the origin and manifestations of serpent worship, but the presence of serpent imagery in their monuments has been seen as ‘mere ornament’ and never an object of worship. Such an approach simplifies the religious dynamism and rules out the possibility that a sacred landscape and visual vocabulary were shared between many contemporaneous religious traditions. This paper focuses on one such sacrosanct serpent iconography, which was adopted by Buddhism, Brahmanism and Jainism. By moving across four inter-related sources, namely, art, archaeological, inscription and textual, this paper not only traces the antiquity of the iconography, in which a serpent canopies a deity with an umbrella of its multiple heads, but also illustrates how in this iconography, the pairing of a serpent deity with Buddha, Visnu, and Pāśvanātha completes their divine kingship, and enhances their cakravartin status or the jina status. By emphasizing on iconographic transference, this paper highlights the religious dynamism, and demonstrates that serpent imagery was an active participant in the visual culture of early India (up to c. 500 CE).

Duli Ete

n India, serpents are not merely part of a class of reptile which crawls on the ground and endangers lives, but are considered powerful supernatural beings, which possess humanly qualities whilst at the same time assuming the status of gods. These common animals have been viewed with such ambivalence in India that the nāgas, the supernatural counterpart of earthly cobras (Naja Naja), are an embodiment of polarities, bestowed with numerous meanings, metaphors, symbolism and similes. The nāgas symbolize life giving water, but they also represent death. They are believed to be the denizens of the aquatic paradise, but they breathe fire, control atmosphere and could haunt heaven and earth. They are thought of as the most generous beings, who grant material prosperity, but are at the same time, also capable of annihilating prospering cities. These ambiguities of the nāgas that abound in the Buddhist, Brahmanical, and Jaina literature have also contributed to the ways in which historians have been approaching them. Since the publication of Tree and Serpent Worship by James Fergusson in 1868, serpent worship in India has been generating considerable scholarly interest. Armed with Buddhist, Brahmanical, and Jaina art and literature, as well as ethnographic studies, many nineteenth and early twentieth century scholars presented a biased and stereotypical understanding of the serpent worship in India. For scholars such as James Fergusson,1 Pratapchandra Ghosha,2 C.S. Wake,3 C.F. Oldham4 and D.D. Kosambi,5 to name a few, serpent worship in ancient India was a totemic belief of a particular race or ethnic group. Although the indispensability of the serpent deities in ancient Indian religious milieu was acknowledged, their imagery in Buddhist, Brahmanical, and Jain material culture has been seen by Alexander Cunningham,6 Pratapchandra Ghosha7 and Ananda Coomaraswamy,8 among others, as “reluctant concessions to the masses.”9 Such approach rules out the possibility of religious interaction between many contemporaneous faiths. Lately, however, there have been efforts by historians, arthistorians and archaeologists such as J. Ph. Vogel,10 Joanna Williams,11 H. Hӓrtel,12 Upinder 1 James Fergusson, Tree and Serpent Worship or Illustrations of Mythology and art in India in the First and

Forth Centuries after Christ from the Sculptures of the Buddhist topes at Sanchi and Amaravati (London: WM H. Allen and Co., 1868), 58. 2 Pratapachandra Ghosha, “The Vāstu Yāga and its bearing upon Tree and Serpent Worship in India,” Journal of the Asiatic Society, 39, pt.1, (1870): 199-232. 3 Wake, C. S, “Origin of Serpent Worship,” The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 2, (1873): 386. 4 C. F. Oldham, “Serpent -Worship in India,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, (1891): 361-392. 5 D.D. Kosambi, An Introduction to the Study of Indian History (Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, (1956), 128-130. 6 Alexander Cunningham, The Stūpa of Bharhut (London: WM H. Allen and Co.,1879), 24. 7 Ghosha, “The Vāstu Yāga,” 219. 8 Ananda Coomaraswamy, Yakṣas-I (New Delhi: Munishiram Manoharlal, 1931), 9-10, 32-33. 9 Robert DeCaroli, Haunting the Buddha: Indian Popular Religions and the Formation of Buddhism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 7. 10 J. Ph. Vogel, “Nāga Worship in Ancient Mathura,” Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASIAR) (1908-09):159-163; Indian Serpent Lore or The Nāgas in Hindu Legend and Art (Varanasi & Delhi: Indological Book House, 1926). 11 Joanna Williams, “New Nāga Images from the Sāñchī Area,” Oriental Arts, 22, no. 1 (1976), 174-179. 12 Herbert Härtel, “Aspects of Early Nāga Cult in India,” Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, 124 (1976): 663-583.

Columbia South Asia Review

Singh,13 and Julia Shaw,14 who have studied independently affiliated nāga sculptures, from the Mathurā and Sañcī areas, to highlight a negotiation of serpent worshippers with more sophisticated and institutionalized contemporary religious traditions. Although the tradition of serpent worship has not left behind any texts of its own, it has made itself visible in the sacred visual culture of ancient India through the variegated serpent imageries and cultivated serpent iconographies that we find in Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jain arts, as well as in independent contexts. While it is true that the serpents in Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jain arts, are represented as guardian deities, submissive demonic devotees, and form part of composite scenes sanctioned by their literature and as ornamentation to their sacred monuments, the depiction of the Buddha, Pārśvanātha and Viṣṇu as well as independently affiliated nāgarājas, worshipped as agricultural or fertility deities in a particular iconography is very significant. This is especially true when the religious interaction between many contemporaneous traditions is considered. The permeation of this iconography, cutting across the religious and regional boundaries, provides a visual signature, i.e. the Nāgarāja iconography, indeed a fitting term, from which the dynamic religious interaction between various contemporaneous religious strands of early India may be gauged, understood and appreciated.

The Nāgarāja IcoNography- a Shared IcoNography aNd ITS aNTIquITy This iconography is characterized by a human dressed usually in a royal manner, having single or multiple serpent hoods as a canopy. The presence of multiple snake hoods is emblematic of the divine nature of the deity. Although the number of the serpent hoods varies according to religious affiliations, it is always an odd number. In Buddhist context, the nāgarājas have five serpent hoods. But in free standing sculptures or those found in independent context in the Mathurā and Sāñcī cultural zones, the nāgarājas mostly have seven serpent hoods as canopy. The antiquity of this iconography can be traced back to the Harappan Civilization. On a faience sealing and an amulet from Mohenjo-Daro, dated to c. 2000 BCE, the Nāgarāja iconography is represented (fig. 1).15 In both the scenes, two seated human figures, flanking the central figure, are supplemented with a canopy of serpent which rises behind their back, thereby making them “personified nāgas.” 16 These representations from Mohenjo-Daro is the forerunner of the Nāgarāja iconography as it resurfaced, after a gap of about 1700 years in an independent context at Mathurā to depict a life sized free standing serpent deity (fig. 2). Stylistically dated to c. 300- 200 BCE, this sculpture is an image of a nāgarāja, who is royally attired and adorned with big earrings and a V-shaped necklace. He shares features in 13 Upinder Singh, “Cults and Shrines in Early Historical Mathura (c. 200 BC-AD 200),” World Archaeology,

36, no. 3 (2004): 378-398. 14 Julia Shaw, “Nāga Sculptures in Sanchi’s archaeological landscape: Buddhism, Vaiṣṇavism, and Local Agricultural Cults in Central India, First Century BCE to Fifth Century CE,” Artibus Asiae, 64, no. 1 (2004): 5-59. 15 Härtel, “Aspects of Early Nāga Cult,” 665, fig. 1. 16 Ibid, 664.

Duli Ete

common with the famous Parkham yakṣa in frontal posture and with a slightly bent left knee.17 The monumental size of the sculpture suggests that this icon was meant for worship. This sculpture inaugurates the artistic tradition of life-sized free standing sculptures of nāgarājas and nāginīs that are pervasive in the Mathurā cultural zone during the early centuries CE. From the second century CE, nāgarājas and nāginīs of this iconography were generously depicted on various Buddhist monuments, such as those at Bharhut, Sāñcī, Kuḍa, Kārle, Kānherī, Amarāvatī, Nāgārjunakoṇḍa, Gandhāra regions and Ajantā, as the guardian deities of the stūpa or monastic complex, as part of visual narratives of the Buddha’s life and his previous births, and as ornamental motifs. For instance, the scene of nāgarājas Nanda and Upananda aiding the Buddha in performing the Miracle at Śrāvastī has been copiously represented in Buddhist sites in the western Deccan, such as Kuḍa (cave 6), Kānherī (caves 50, 67, 87, 90) and Ajantā (cave 26).18 Uniformly, in all these representations, Nanda and Upananda are shown in the Nāgarāja iconography, supporting the stalk of the huge lotus on which the Buddha is seated in anthropomorphic form. It is worth noting here that the Nāgarāja iconography, in which the serpent deities were first fashioned, was soon adopted by the Buddhists as early as the second century BCE. Images of the Buddha protected by the nāgarāja Mucālinda, adhering to the Nāgarāja iconography were first carved on the railings of the stūpas at Bharhut,19 Pauni20 (fig. 3) and Dhaulikatta.21 These three reliefs are contemporaneous to each other, dated to c. second century BCE, and are marked by an aniconic Buddha protected by five headed nāgarāja Mucālinda. The differences, however, are that the Bharhut and Pauni reliefs have nāgarāja Mucālinda seated under a tree, and the Buddha is represented by an empty throne and both the reliefs have label inscriptions clearly stating nāgarāja Mucālinda.22 The Dhaulikatta relief has neither the Mucālinda tree depicted, nor a label inscription. These reliefs from Bharhut, Pauni and Dhulikatta have been overlooked by historians, which have led them to wrongly attribute Sāñcī or Amarāvatī as the first site in which this motif was first depicted.23 This motif was first depicted in the second century BCE Bharhut 17 Susan Huntington, The Art of Ancient Indian (New York and Tokyo: Weather Hill, 1985), fig. 5.5. 18 Narrated in the Divyāvadāna, the earliest representation of this theme is carved in the interior of cave 6 at

Kuda, Mahārāṣṭra, dated to the early second century CE (Huntington, 1985: 171, fig. 9.15). This theme seems to be very popular in the Western Deccan. 19 Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. II, part II, Bharhut Inscriptions, ed. H. Lüders (Ootacamund: Archaeology Survey of India, 1963), 104, no. B 31a, pl. XXXIX; Satish Chandra Kala, Sculptures in the Allahabad Municipal Museum (Allahabad: Kitabistan,1945), 26, pl. XI. 20 Indian Archaeological Review (1968-69), 14-16, pl. XVII; S.B. Dev and J. P. Joshi, Pauni Excavation (196970) (Nagpur: Nagpur University, 1972), 27, 39-40, nos. 9 and 10, 45. The pillar on which the theme is carved has two inscriptions. The first is engraved horizontally and labels the sculptures as “Mucarido Nāgo”, and the second is vertically engraved, and states “The gift of a female disciple Mahāyasā. 21 V. V. Krishna Sastry, The Proto and Early Historical Cultures of Andhra Pradesh (Hyderabad: Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1983), 144-145, pl. 61. 22 Bharhut Inscriptions, 104, no. B 31a; Indian Archaeology Review (1968-69), 15. 23 Vogel has attributed Sāñcī as the place where the motif of the Buddha protected by nāgarāja Mucālinda was first depicted: Indian Serpent Lore, 103; while Robert DeCaroli holds that Amarāvatī provides the earliest example of this motif: Robert DeCaroli, “Shedding Skins: Nāga Imagery and Layers of Meaning in South Asian Buddhist Context” in Buddhist Stupa in South Asia: Recent Archaeological, Art-Historical, and Historical Perspective, eds. J. Hawkes & A. Shimada (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009), 95.

Columbia South Asia Review

and Pauni stūpa railings, which is different from what one sees in the textual references. In these reliefs, Buddha is shown in aniconic form. However, when the motif was depicted in the second century CE at Amarāvatī Stūpa (fig. 4) and in the Gandhāra school24 and then, in the third century CE at Nāgārajunakoṇḍa (fig. 5), and in the fourth century CE at Goli,25 the Buddha came to be shown in an anthropomorphic form, thereby making him a nāgarāja, as far as iconography is concerned. In the first century BCE, Brahmanic iconography adopted the Nāgarāja type to depict Saṁkarṣaṇa Balarāma, the elder brother of Kṛṣṇa Vāsudeva. The earliest image of Saṁkarṣaṇa Balarāma, dated to c. second century BCE, comes from a coin of Agathocles, excavated from Aï-Khanoum, Afghanistan, in which he is shown holding plough and pestle without serpent hoods.26 But in a sculpture from Jansutī, dated to c. first century BCE, Saṁkarṣaṇa Balarāma came be to represented as a proper nāgarāja (fig. 6). In fact, the Jansutī Saṁkarṣaṇa Balarāma represents the earliest visual evidence of Vaiṣṇavism in Mathurā region.27 The sculptures of Saṁkarṣaṇa Balarāma in Nāgarāja iconography have been found at Jansuti (Uttar Pradesh), Tumain (Madhya Pradesh)28 and in Sāñcī area (Madhya Pradesh).29 It has been pointed out that Saṁkarṣaṇa Balarāma, reckoned as a nāgarāja, was an agricultural deity, that was incorporated into Vaiṣṇavism as the elder brother of Vāsudeva Kṛṣṇa because of the popularity of nāga worship.30 The Jainas too adopted the Nāgarāja iconography from the first century CE onwards to represent the 23rd Tirthankara Pārśvanātha. The earliest image of the Jina Pārśvanātha in Nāgarāja iconography, dated to c. first century CE has been recovered from Kaṅkālī Ṭīlā in Mathurā (fig. 7). It is noteworthy that unlike the Buddhist affiliated male deities in Nāgarāja iconography who have a canopy of five serpent hoods, the image of Saṁkarṣaṇa Balarāma and the Jina Pārśvanātha in the Nāgarāja iconography made in Mathurā region have mostly seven serpent hoods as a canopy in direct compliance with the independent nāga deities in the same iconographical type from Mathurā itself. Although Buddhism, Brahmanism and Jainism all adopted the Nāgarāja iconography and depicted the nāgarājas and nāginīs in this iconographical type on their monuments, the images of nāgarājas and nāginīs were continued to be made and worshipped as independent deities of rain, fertility and material prosperity which is also supported by epigraphical sources 24 A rendition of this theme conforming to the textual description is executed in the Gandhāra region. On

a mutilated relief panel, dated to c. second century CE, the meditating Buddha is shown wrapped seven times by the coils of nāgarāja Mucalinda, leaving only the Buddha’s head visible. The nāgarāja has seven hoods providing a canopy to the Buddha. The relief is now housed in Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Accession no. IS. 179-1949. 25 Elizabeth Rosen Stone, The Buddhist Art of Nāgārjunakoṇḍa (Elizabeth Rosen. (Delhi: Motilal Banaridass, 1994), fig. 98. 26 Doris Meth Srinivasan, Many Heads, Arms and Eyes: Origin, Meaning and Form of Multiplicity in Indian Art (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997), pl. 16.6. 27 Sonya Rhie Quintanilla, History of Early Stone Sculpture at Mathura, CA. 150 BCE-100 CE (Leiden, Boston: Brill , 2007), 92. 28 N. Joshi, Iconography of Balarāma (New Delhi: Abhinav Publications, 1979), pls. 8a-c. 29 Shaw, “Nāga Sculptures,” figs. 5-8, 13, 14. 30 Vogel, “Nāga Worship in Ancient Mathura,” 162; K. M. Shrimali, History of Pañcāla, I. (New Delhi: Munishram Manoharlal, 1983), 119-120.

Duli Ete

as well. The archaeological remains from Sonkh (Uttar Pradesh) and Maṇiyār Maṭh (Bihār) inform that even shrines were dedicated to serpent deities.31 Thus, the Nāgarāja iconography in which the serpent deities were initially represented was soon shared between its contemporaneous religious traditions when they manifested themselves in the visual culture. The compulsive need to use this visual vocabulary by the Buddhists, Vaiṣṇavites and the Jainas for representing the Buddha, Saṁkarṣaṇa Balarāma and the Jina Pārśvanātha respectively shows that the Nāgarāja iconography was one of the most sacrosanct iconographies. When Viṣṇu emerged as a supreme deity from the fourth-fifth century CE, he too was represented with this iconography (fig.).

making oF the primary ruler and portrayal oF divine kingship Why was the Nāgarāja iconography adopted by institutionalized faiths like Buddhism, Bhāgavatism and Jaina? It is tempting to answer this question by saying that it was a strategy to increase the popularity of these religions amongst the masses, as serpent veneration and the serpent iconography are much older, popular and widespread. However, this assumption not only runs the risk of undermining the fluid religious identity in ancient India, but also tends to neglect psychological factors like fear, which is so central to the veneration of serpents. The fear of serpent or the ophidiophobia is embedded in human beings as an evolutionary trait,32 and seems to be a crucial factor in the invention of diverse meanings, symbolisms, mythologies and fascinating iconographies of serpents that are scattered across the globe. In India, at least five iconographies of serpent are discernible from the available visual source.33 Scholars who have explored serpent worship in ancient India paid attention to appeasement of nāgas and often overlooked the fear of the nāgas. Robert DeCaroli has convincingly demonstrated how the Buddhist saṁgh was used to scare the saṁgha members to obey the monastic rules.34 Observing that the nāgas are very prominently placed alongside new images, new lineages and new ideas with remarkable regularity, Robert De Caroli suggests that the presence of nāgas “seems to have sanctioned new concepts and eased moments of political, religious, and ideological transition” and acted as a “semi-divine celebrity endorsement.”35 But a question arises as to why ophidian beings were possibly treated as ‘semi-divine’, and thus warranted legitimated political, religious and ideological transition. DeCaroli answered this by citing the popularity of nāgas and the water symbolism they represented. 31 Härtel, “Aspects of Early Nāga Cult,” 663-683; T. Bloch, “Excavations at Rajgir,” ASIAR (1909): 103-106;

G.C. Chandra, “Excavations at Rajgir,” ASIAR 1935-36 (1938): 52-54; Mohammad Hamid Kuraishi, Rajgir (New Delhi: Department of Archaeology, 1939), 19-25; M. Nazim, “Excavations at Rajgir,” ASIAR 1936-37 (1940): 45-47. 32 Balaji Mundkur, “The Roots of Ophidian Symbolism,” Ethos, 6, no. 3 (1978): 125- 158. Here, he examines

some of the theories that view ophidiophobia as learned, culturally conditioned, and instinctive, and suggests that fear is evolutionary. He points out ophidiophobia has no rational justification, and is observed in most primitive societies as well as most developed societies. 33 Duli Ete. “Serpent and Serpent Worship in Post-Mauryan Art: With Special Reference of Bharhut and Sāñcī” (M. Phil. Dissertation, University of Delhi- Delhi, 2014), 33-59. 34 DeCaroli, Haunting the Buddha, 142. 35 DeCaroli, “Shredding Skins,” 111.

Columbia South Asia Review

While this may be so, the fear of nāgas is not entirely unrelated to this “semi-divine celebrity endorsement.” On the one hand, there is the fear of poisonous fangs of the earthly cobras and the annihilating fiery breaths of the supernatural nāgas, which drove people to be afraid of offending them; on the other hand, there is an edifying emotion that led people to appease them because of the material prosperity they were reputed for. Perhaps, questioning new ideas, artistic motifs and political dynasties in which nāgas are invoked were regarded by ancient Indians as showing disrespect to the serpent deities, which might have angered them. And when angered, the nāgas are described to be the most wrathful beings, capable of bringing climatic catastrophes and destroying prosperous cities by their fiery breath. These two embedded emotions, namely fear and appeasement, seem to have played an important role in elevating the nāgas as divine kings leading to obedience. And obedience is a crucial constituent of the legitimization process in this case. The Brahmanical, Buddhist and Jaina texts of the post-Mauryan period unanimously refer to the nāgas, benevolent or malevolent, as kings. The nāga as king is supported by the epigraphic records as well. The label inscriptions on the carved railings of the Bharhut Stūpa read as Cakavāko nāgarāja, Mucalindo nāgarāja, Erapato nāgarāja36 and an inscription recovered from Jamalpur Mound, Mathurā dated to the second century CE informs that the site was the sacred abode of Nāgendra Dadhikarṇa.37 They are referred to as kings of the nāgas but by extension they can be regarded as the primary rulers of a territory because they are believed to have lived in a specific locale, protected the people and bestowed rainfall, rewarded the virtuous and punished the evil.38 These qualities of the nāgas described in the textual sources are some of the prominent duties ascribed to a king, divine or mortal, in ancient India. Nāga as king is not only confined to textual and epigraphical sources. From the beginning of their sculptural representations, the nāgas in the Nāgarāja iconography have been shown as royalty. Often they are accompanied by their queens and attendants bearing royal insignias such as umbrellas and fly whisks.

the regal duty oF rainmaking and the Nāgas Since the Ṛg vedic period, rainmaking has been described as one of the qualities of the king, heavenly or earthly. The Ṛg vedic poets never got tired of praising their supreme god, the king of gods, Indra for slaying the rain withholding cloud serpent demon and bringing rain to the parched land.39 The encounter between Indra and the cloud serpent demon Vṛtra is in fact, the earliest textual reference which testifies to the belief that the serpents have control

36 Bharhut Inscriptions, 76-77, 104, 110, inscription nos. B 6, B 31a and B 36 respectively. 37 Vogel, “Nāga Worship in Ancient Mathura,” 159. 38 Lowell W. Bloss, “The Buddha and the Nāga: A Study in Buddhist Folk Religiosity,” History of Religions,

13, no. 1 (1973): 36-53. 39 For example, Ṛg Veda, I, LVI. 5, says, “When thou (Indra) with might, upon the framework of the heaven, didst fix, across, air’s region firmly, unremoved. In the light−winning war, Indra, in rapturous joy, thou smotest Vrtra dead and broughtest floods of rain.” In the Book II, hymn XI.2, Ahi is mentioned as the withholder of water, “Hero, thou (Indra) slewest in thy valour Ahi concealed in depths, mysterious, great enchanter, dwelling enveloped deep within the waters, him who checked heaven and stayed the floods from flowing.” Ṛg Veda tr. Ralph T. H. Griffith (1896).

Duli Ete

over rain.40 This encounter has been seen as representative of a historical conflict between the serpent worshipper and the Aryans, and as a symbolic fight between the immigrant Aryans and the Nāga-cults in India.41 What is significant to the present context is the emergence of Indra as the supreme god and the god of rain. R. N. Dandekar, in his meticulous study of the Vedic mythological tracts has demonstrated that Indra was not the original god of rain in the Vedas. The original rain god was Trita Āpatya. Indra was a warrior god who was subsequently elevated as the supreme god by the Vedic Indians. Among the factors that contributed to the popularity of Indra was his association with rain. When Indra became the supreme god, he came to be credited as the god of rain. 42 This ascription of rain making power to Indra shows that it constituted one of the qualities of a king. The kingship of Indra became the heavenly prototype of earthly rulers.43 Although the Vedic texts don’t specifically state that the sarpas were the rain makers, it suggests the belief that the serpents as the rain makers existed in India before the arrival of the Vedic gods, and the Vedic poets credited the rain making quality of the nāgarājas to Indra to enhance his kingship. Because even when the popularity of Indra declined and Viṣṇu superseded him as the supreme god in the Purāṇas, the nāgas remained as the rain maker kings. In the post-Mauryan period, the nāgas were elevated to a high royal pedestal. All the nāgas with great supernatural powers were regarded as kings. Buddhism, which lost its royal patronage in this period, positioned itself, as pointed out by DeCaroli, as an active buffer between the people and the supernatural deities in order to be socially relevant. The saṁgha with its well established moral system and ethics contained the capricious nature of the nāgas and at the same time was able to channelize their power over weather, among others for the greater benefit of the society.44 In doing this, the saṁgha created a hierarchy between the Buddha and the nāga deities. The rain making power of the nāgarājas was recognized by the saṁgha but it was ultimately the Buddha who granted them this power. Here again, the Buddha who is also described as cakravatin or the universal monarch is the ultimate rain maker. This is well reflected in The Megha or The Mahāmegha Sūtra, a Mahāyāna Buddhist text, containing rituals and invocations for rain making, composed between the mid-second century CE and end-fourth century CE. In this sūtra, the nāgarājas are presented as concerned kings like other ideal mortal kings. The monarch of the nāgas asks the Buddha, “How, O Venerable One, may all the troubles of all the snakes subside; (and how) may they (thus) gladdened and blessed, send forth raintorrents here, seasonably for Jambudvīpa; make all grasses, bushes, herbs, forest-trees to 40 In the Ṛg Veda, the word sarpa is used. But in later texts such as the Grhyasūtra, the Manusmriti and the

Mahābhārata, the words, sarpa and nāga are used interchangeably. The word sarpa is a generic term for anything that moves while the nāgas simultaneously mean “a species of superior sarpas,” and the most venomous serpent, the Cobra de capello: R. S. N. Mandlik, “Serpent Worship in Western India. The Nāgapanchamī Holiday as it is now observed; Serpent Worship, the Nāgās and the Sarpās,” Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 9. No. 26 (1869): 183. 41 R. N. Dandekar, Vedic Mythological Tracts (Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1979), 191-192, fn. 108. 42 Ibid, 141-198. 43 Jan Gonda, Aspects of Early Viṣṇuism (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1969), 166. 44 DeCaroli, Haunting the Buddha, 31-53.

100

Columbia South Asia Review

grow; produce all corn; give rise to all juices, whereby the men of Jambudvīpa may become blessed?”45 To this, the Buddha, advises them to live on charity, maintain benevolent action of body, speech and mind, and grants them dhāraṇīs, that have been “spoken, appointed and approved by all the Buddhas for the weal and bliss of all beings.”46 These dhāraṇīs, the Buddha says, will not only benefit the nāgas but also to the entire sentient beings. The sūtra refers to the nāgas as “great snake kings”, “mighty snake kings,” and invokes all the serpent kings to bless Jambudvīpa with rainfall. The sūtra describes the rite called “The Great Cloud Circle” which has to be performed by an accomplished monk. The epigraphic and archaeological sources also support the nāgarājas association with rain and water. The sculptures of the serpent deity were often installed during the rainy season or near the water bodies, or both. The Jamālpur Mound inscription, referred to earlier also informs that the sculpture of the nāgarāja was installed in the third month of the rainy season.47 Another sculpture of a nāgarāja in Nāgarāja iconography with a seven-headed serpent canopy from Mathurā city, dated 130 CE, has a single line inscription at its base, which informs that the sculpture was also installed in the third month of the rainy season.48 The Chaṛgāon inscription inscribed at the back of an impressive nāgarāja sculpture inscription, dated 118 CE, mentions that the sculpture of the deity was installed by two named Sēnāhastin and Bhōnuka at their own tank.49 The reverse cause and effect, which the ancient Indian subscribed to, enabled them to conceive that it was nāgarājas who cause the rainfall. The nāgas power over rain and their association with water made them important agricultural deities. Over a dozen sculptures of nāgarājas and nāginīs from Sāñcī area documented by Julia Shaw testify to it.50

Nāgas as proteCtors and upholders oF moral order These two qualities have been associated with kings since the Vedic period. Varuṇa, the great god of cosmic order, is described as the world’s sovereign—the protector of law and the upholder of moral order. He punishes the cosmological and ethical sinners through his pāśas. He is called Asura and Yakṣin, denoting him as the magician, who possess great magical powers and creates miracles. His abode is described to be among waters.51 With these qualities, Varuṇa enjoyed unchallenged supremacy among the Vedic gods. But later, Indra was glorified and became the supreme god. Varuṇa’s control was reduced to only one realm of his power: the ocean. He became the lord of the oceans in the later-Vedic and epic-purāṇic

45 46 47 48

Megha-Sūtra, trans. Cecil Bendall, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, New Series XII (1880): 293-295. Ibid, 299-301. Vogel, “Nāga Worship in Ancient Mathura,”159. Ibid., 161. When the sculpture was first noticed by Vogel, it was worshipped as Dāujī or Baladēva at a shrine in Mathurā. Hence, it is difficult to ascertain its original spot. 49 Ibid., 160-161. 50 Shaw, “Nāga Sculptures,” 21-49. 51 Dandekar, Vedic Mythological Tracts, 28-67.

101

Duli Ete

literature.52 It has been suggested that Varuṇa, in his capacity as the lord of oceans, became the lord of nāgas because oceans were also considered to be the abode of nāgas.53 However, it was not just Varuṇa’s association with oceans that contributed to his transformation into the lord of nāgas. By the post-Mauryan period, Varuṇa is a nāgarāja and it is an established fact in both Brahmanical and Buddhist literatures. For example, in the Vidhurapaṇḍita-Jātaka (no. 545), Varuṇa is referred to as nāgarāja. As a king of nāgas, he goes to the Migācira Park at the city of Indraprastha and discusses pre-eminent virtues with other kings namely, Indra, the king of gods; the garuḍa king and King Dhanañjaya of the Kuru kingdom.54 Why did Varuṇa acquire the status of a nāgarāja? Varuṇa became the king of nāgas because his above mentioned regal qualities are similar to the qualities of the nāgarājas mentioned in texts. Protection, which is associated with Varuṇa, is intimately connected with the nāgas. The nāgas are the guardians of the western quarter, which in the Brahmanical mythology is vested to Varuṇa, and is assigned to Virūpākṣa, the monarch of nāgas in Buddhism.55 In fact, providing protection is described as a forte of the nāgas. On the south gate of the Bharhut stūpa, Cakavāka nāgarāja is carved among the guardian deities.56 Numerous drum slabs and railing pillars from Amarāvatī Stūpa depict nāgas protecting stūpas. At the entrance to Cave 4 of Pitalkhora rock cut caves, a five-headed serpent is carved as a guardian. In Ajantā, a nāgarāja seated majestically in his shrine, overlooking river Wāghorā, guards the entrance of the Cave 16, which was executed in the fifth century CE (fig. 8). The nāgas not only protected the Buddha from inclement weather, but also his corporeal relics at Rāmagrāma and his spiritual relic or teachings, the Prajñāpāramita Sūtra. The nāgas are the guardian of all the buried treasures and the tutelary deities of every vastu or domicile.57 Like nāgarāja Mucālinda, nāgarāja Dharaṇendra protected the jina Pārśvanātha. The nāgarāja Śeṣa was granted the boon to carry the fragile earth on his head and to protect her from unsteady jolts.58 In Mahāpaduma Jātaka (no. 470) and Sīlānisaṁsa Jātaka (no. 190), the nāgarājas are the saviours of the bodhisattvas. Just as the Vedic god Varuṇa punishes the cosmological and moral evil doers with his pāśa, which affects humans in the form of drought and diseases,59 nāgarājas punish earthly evil not only through their fiery breath but also by withholding rain, thereby causing drought or flood. Xuan Zang dramatically narrates how nāgarāja Apalāla punished the unapologetic inhabitants by flooding the entire Swāt valley, which was restored to normalcy only after the 52 Dandekar has pointed out three distinct phases of the relationship between Varuṇa-Indra in the Vedic hymns:

firstly, Varuṇa’s unchallenged supremacy among all the gods; secondly, rivalry between the old Varuṇa religion and the new Indra-religion, and attempts to bring about a compromise between the functions of Varuṇa and Indra by the Vasisthas, reflects this compromise whereby Indra conquers but it is Varuṇa who rules; and finally, Varuṇa’s supersession through Indra: Dandekar, Vedic Mythological Tracts, 64-67. 53 The Mahābhārata, Ādi Parvan, XXI, XXII. The entire section, XXI is devoted to graphically describe Varuṇa abode, Oceans. His home is called the residence of the nāgas. 54 The Jātaka, VI, ed. E. B. Cowell (London: Cambridge University Press, 1907), 126-156. 55 Vogel, Indian Serpent Lore, 32. 56 Cunningham, The Stūpa of Bharhut, 23-27, 79-82; The Bharhut Inscriptions, 73. 57 Ghosha, “The Vāstu Yāga,” 199-232. 58 The Mahābhārata, Ādi Parvan XXXVI. 59 Coomaraswamy, Yakṣas, II, 27.

102

Columbia South Asia Review

interference of the Buddha.60 The Mahāvaṁśa graphically narrates how monk Majjahantika subdues and converts flood causing nāgaraja Aravāḷa.61 In Mahāvānija Jātaka (no. 493) and Jarudapāna Jātaka (no. 256), the nāgarājas punish the greedy merchants by reducing them to ashes through fiery breath, and reward the virtuous caravan leader. In both these jatakas, the nāgarājas are justice serving figures. In the story of the Śākya fugitive who marries a nāginī and becomes the king of Udyāna, the nāgarāja father-in-law presents a sword to the Śākya youth. With that sword the Śākya youth kills the usurper and re-conquers the kingdom.62 The Śākya youth asserts his right to rule because he has a sword gifted “by a holy nāga wherewith to punish the contumelious and subdue the arrogant.” 63 In the Cāmpaka Jātaka (no. 506), the defeated king of Magadha becomes the legitimate ruler of Magadha and Aṅga because of the aid and guidance of nāgarāja Cāmpaka, who lives in the river Campā. What emerges from all these stories is that the nāgarājas’ role corresponds to that of the Vedic Varuṇa. Due to the similar regal qualities and functions between Vedic Varuṇa and nāgarājas, Varuṇa came to be regarded as nāgarāja and not simply because he was the lord of oceans. The very fact that Varuṇa was transformed as the lord of ocean suggests that there existed a belief which intimately connected the divine ruler with the waters. Viṣṇu, the god of fertility and vegetation of the Vedic Indians became the supreme god, the ruler of the world in the post-Vedic period.64 Jan Gonda has pointed out that Viṣṇu with his power to pervade and penetrate the provinces of the universe, came to acquire kingship. He surpassed Indra as the supreme god but inherited some functions of Indra and became the ruler and protector of the world.65 These functions, fertility and protection, are not only associated with kings, but also with nāgas. Both Viṣṇu and nāgarājas performed similar regal functions, but to complete the image of his divine royalty, Visnu came to be associated with nāgarāja, a pre-existing divine royal figure. Like Indra who came to be associated with serpent when he rose to prominence, Viṣṇu too came to be associated with serpent, nāgarāja Śeṣa when he emerged as the divine ruler. Among the factors that contributed to his emergence as a supreme ruler, was his association with a pre-existing divine royal figure, nāgarāja. In addition, Viṣṇu came to be known as having power over the ocean, just like Varuṇa. The cakravatin Viṣṇu is now visualized as sleeping in the midst of the ocean, on the coils of nāgarāja Śeṣa in the intermission between two periods of creation. By the Gupta period, new elements such as avatāra system, the identification of Nārāyaṇa and Vāsudeva Kṛṣṇa to the personality of Viṣṇu, absorption of Saṁkarṣaṇa Balarāma and association of Srī-Lakṣmī as the consort of Viṣṇu and bhakti led to assertion of Viṣṇuism in full force.66 In the Śeṣa Nārāyana panel of Cave 13 of Udayagiri,67 the visual combination of 60 Si-Yu-ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World, trans. Samuel Beal (London: Trübner & Co., Ludgate Hill,

1884), I, 121-123. 61 The Mahāvaṁśa, trans. W. Geiger (London: Oxford University Press, 1912), 82-83. 62 Si-Yu-ki, II, 128-132. 63 Si-Yu-ki, II, 131. 64 Gonda, Aspects of Early Viṣṇuism, 10-11; Dandekar, Vedic Mythological Tracts, 88-89. 65 Gonda, Aspects of Early Viṣṇuism, 164-167. 66 Suvira Jaiswal, The Origin and Development of Vaiṣṇavism (Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1967), 32-132. 67 Joanna Williams, The Art of Gupta India: Empire and Province (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), pl. 39.

103

Duli Ete

Viṣṇu in anthropomorphic form and nāgarāja Śeṣa in reptilian form with multiple heads makes Viṣṇu a nāgarāja iconographically. Yet another fine example of Visnu in the Nāgarāja iconography is carved on the lintel of the Daśāvatāra temple (fig. 9). In this sculpture, Viṣṇu is seated on the coils of nāgarāja Śeṣa in lalitāsana, identical to the two nāgarājas carved as symmetrical bracketing of Indra’s heaven on the gateway of the Sāñcī Stūpa-3 (fig. 10). The features which save this image from being mistaken as a nāgarāja are Visnu’s four hands and his signature attributes, conch and discuss which he holds in his upper hands. Even with these attributes, Visnu can be mistaken for a nāgarāja by those who are accustomed to the Nāgarāja iconography of serpent deity. The Devalkhera Viṣṇu image, documented by Julia Shaw is yet another example of how Viṣṇu was shown in the manner of the nāgarājas.68 The “Nāgaization” of Viṣṇu continued and received a new impetus in the Western Calukyan art such as at Bādāmī and Aihoḷe. For example, in the veranda of Cave 3 at Bādāmī, Viṣṇu is shown seated in lalitāsana on the coils of Śeṣa, and he is canopied by multiple heads of the nāgarāja Śeṣa.69 The nāgas’ role in enhancing and completing the image of a cakravartin, explains why the sculptural representations of the Buddha protected by nāgarāja Mucālinda, from Bharhut to Cambodia deviated from textual descriptions. The Vinaya Piṭaka,70 Nidānakathā,71 Lalitavistara72 and Mahāvastu73 narrate the story of the Buddha sheltered by nāgarāja Mucālinda with slight variations. However, all these texts agree that the nāgarāja Mucālinda enveloped the Buddha’s body seven times to protect him from the cold and rain. The sculptural representations of this theme from the very beginning have shown the Buddha whether in aniconic or anthropomorphic form, seated on the coils of nāgarāja Mucālinda. The deviation from the textual description was necessary in the sculptural representations because the Buddha’s cakravatin status can be emphasized only though the juxtaposition with a reputed king. And in the finished product, Buddha becomes a visible ruler just like the nāgarāja.

ConClusion This exploration shows that the nāgas were important elements in the representation of divine kinship. They were regarded as the rulers of a territory, and described in the texts as performing regal duties such as rainmaking, moral upholding, providing protection and serving justice. Divine rulers from the Vedic period onwards were described in conjunction with a nāga. Varuṇa, the supreme Vedic god of the Vedic Aryans performed similar regal functions as the nāgas that he later came to be known as a nāgarāja. The divine kingship of Indra and Viṣṇu could only be completed with their association with the nāgas. Both the deities, as the supreme rulers of the world had to perform that duty at least once in their career. The nāgas were prototypes for divine kingship, and played an important role in legitimating the kingship of Indra in the Vedic period, and Viṣṇu and the Buddha later. 68 69 70 71

Shaw, “Nāga Sculptures,” figs. 34-35. Vogel, Indian Serpent Lore, 194, plate XX. Vinaya Piṭaka, IV, trans. I.B. Horner (London: Luzac & Company Ltd., 1962), 3-4. Buddhist Birth Stories or Jātaka Tales. The Oldest Collection of Folk-Lore Extant: Being the Jātakatthavaṇṇanā, Vol. I, edited by V. Fausböll (London: Trübner & Co., Ludgate Hill, 1880), 109. 72 The Play in Full (the Lalitavistara), trans. Dharmachakra Translation Committee (2013), 291 73 The Mahāvastu III, trans. J. J. Jones (London: Luzac & Comapany Ltd., 1956), 287.

104

Columbia South Asia Review

In a perfect lithic translation of the term ahichhatra, or the parasol of serpent, the Buddha, Pāśrvanātha, and Viṣṇu in Nāgarāja iconography are canopied by an umbrella formed by the multiple heads of a nāgarāja. The nāgas who were known as a royalty now form an umbrella to these deities. The umbrella in ancient India was a royal insignia and as royalty, the nāgas visually seem to help to legitimize the imperial status of these deities. Through the juxtaposition with nāgas as kings, the sovereignty of the Buddha, Pāśvanātha and Viṣṇu are highlighted visually. In doing so, they themselves appear to resemble a nāgarāja. And to the people who were accustomed to the nāgarāja iconography of serpent deities, the composite motifs of Buddha-Mucālinda, Pāśvanātha-Dhareṇendra and Viṣṇu-Śeṣa become much easier to comprehend. The divine kingship of these deities becomes immediately understandable to common people because the Nāgarāja iconography in which they are depicted had been an established and reputed image of divine ruler, the nāgas. In other words, it is the presence of a nāga in the Nāgarāja iconography of Viṣṇu, Buddha and Pāśvanātha which complete their divine kingship, enhance their cakravartin status or the jina status and complete their iconography. Both textually and visually, the cakravartin status of Indra, Viṣṇu, and the Buddha is emphasised through the juxtaposition with a nāgarāja, and as sovereign lords, these deities, are described to have performed those regal functions for which the nāgas were reputed for. Artistically, the adoption of the Nāgarāja iconography by the Buddhists, Jainas and the Vaiṣṇavites to depict the Buddha, Pārśvanātha and Viṣṇu respectively, was a well thought one. The Nāgarāja Iconography, by the virtue of being an image of the serpent deities, the primary rulers, becomes an easily comprehensible image of a divine ruler. The serpents, in visually legitimizing the cakravartin status of the Buddha and Viṣṇu, and the jina status of Pārśvanātha by forming an umbrella to them, succinctly portray them as divine rulers.

105

Duli Ete

Works Cited Bloch, T. “Excavations at Rajgir.” In Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India 1905-06, edited by John Marshall, 103-106. Calcutta: Government of India, 1909. Buddhist Birth Stories or Jātaka Tales. The Oldest Collection of Folk-Lore Extant: Being the Jātakatthavaṇṇanā, Vol. I. Edited by V. Fausböll, London: Trübner & Co., Ludgate Hill, 1880. Chandra, G. C. “Excavations at Rajgir.” In Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India 1935-36, edited by J. F. Blakiston, 52-54. Delhi: Manager of Publications, 1938. Cohen, Richard S. “Nāga, Yakṣiṇī, Buddha: Local Deities and Local Buddhism at Ajanta,” History of Religions, 37, no. 4 (1993): 360-400. Coomaraswamy, A. K. Yakṣas, part I & II. New Delhi: Munishiram Manoharlal, 1931, reprint 1971. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum (CII), Vol. II, part II, Bharhut Inscriptions, edited by H. Lüders, revised by E. Waldschmidt and M. A. Mehendale. Ootacamund: Archaeology Survey of India, 1963. Cunningham, Alexander. The Stūpa of Bharhut, London: WM H. Allen and Co., 1879. Dandekar, R. N. Vedic Mythological Tracts. Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1979. DeCaroli, Robert. Haunting the Buddha: Indian Popular Religions and the Formation of Buddhism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. “Shedding Skins: Nāga Imagery and Layers of Meaning in South Asian Buddhist Context.” In Buddhist Stupa in South Asia: Recent Archaeological, ArtHistorical, and Historical Perspective, edited by J. Hawkes, & A. Shimada, 94-100. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009. “An Abode of the Nāga King: Questions of Art, Audiences and Local deities in Ajaṇṭā Caves.” Ars Orientalis 40 (2011): 142-161. Deo, S.B and J. P. Joshi. Pauni Excavation 1969-70. Nagpur: Nagpur University, 1972. Ete, Duli. “Serpent and Serpent Worship in Post-Mauryan Art: With Special Reference of Bharhut and Sāñcī.” M. Phil. Dissertation, University of DelhiDelhi, 2014. Fergusson, James. Tree and Serpent Worship or Illustrations of Mythology and art in India in the First and Forth Centuries after Christ from the Sculptures of the Buddhist topes at Sanchi and Amaravati. London: WM H. Allen and Co, 1868. Ghosha, Pratapachandra. “The Vāstu Yāga and its bearing upon Tree and Serpent Worship in India.” Journal of the Asiatic Society, XXXIX, Pt.I (1870): 199-232.

106

Columbia South Asia Review

Gonda, Jan. Aspects of Early Viṣṇuism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1969. Hӓrtel, Herbert. “Aspects of Early Nāga Cult in India.” Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, 124, no. 5243 (1976): 663-583. Excavation at Sonkh: 2500 Years of a Town in Mathura District. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1993. Huntington, Susan. The Art of Ancient Indian. New York and Tokyo: Weather Hill, 1985. “Early Buddhist Art and the Theory of Aniconism,” Art Journal, 49, no. 4 (1990): 401-408. Jaiswal, Suvira. The Origin and Development of Vaiṣṇavism, (Vaiṣṇavism from 200 B.C. to A.D. 500). Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1967. The Jātakas, Vols. I-VI. Edited by E. B. Cowell. London: Cambridge University Press, 1895-1907; New Delhi: Cosmos Publications, reprint 1978-79. Also available online http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j1/index.htm Jayaswal, K. P. History of India 150 A.D. to 350 A.D. Delhi: Low Price Publications, 1933, reprint 1990. Joshi, N. Iconography of Balarāma. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications, 1979. Kala, Satish Chandra. Sculptures in the Allahabad Municipal Museum. Allahabad: Kitabistan, 1945. Kosambi, D.D. An Introduction to the Study of Indian History. Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, 1956, reprint 2012. Krishna Sastry, V. V. The Proto and Early Historical Cultures of Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad: Government of Andhra Pradesh, Archaeological Series: 58, 1983. Kuraishi, Mohammad Hamid. Rajgir. New Delhi: Department of Archaeology, 1939, fifth edition 1958. The Mahābhārata, Ādi Parva. Translated by Protap Chandra Roy. Calcutta: Bharata Press, 1884. The Mahāvaṁśa or The Great Chronicle of Ceylon. Translated by W. Geiger. London: Published for The Pali Text Society by Oxford University Press, 1912. Also available online at www.themahavamsa.org/ The Mahāvastu III. Translated by J. J. Jones. London: Luzac & Comapany Ltd., 1956. Mandlik, R. S. N. “Serpent Worship in Western India. The Nāgapanchamī Holiday as it is now observed; Serpent Worship, the Nāgās and the Sarpās.” Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, No. XXVI. Vol. IX. (1869): 169-200. Marcus, Margaret. F. “Buddha Sheltered by Mucālinda.” The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 52, no. 7 (1965): 185-193. Megha-Sūtra. Translated by Cecil Bendall. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,

107

Duli Ete

New Series, Vol. XII (1880): 286-311. Mundkur, Balaji. “The Roots of Ophidian Symbolism.” Ethos 6, no. 3 (1978): 125-158. Nazim, M. “Excavations at Rajgir.” In Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India 1936-37, edited by Rao Bahadur K. N. Dilkshit, 45-47. Delhi: Manager of Publications, 1940. Oldham, C. F. “Serpent- Worship in India.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, (1891): 361-392. Pal, Pratapaditya. “An Unusual Naga-Protected Buddha from Thailand.” Quintanilla, Sonya Rhie. History of Early Stone Sculpture at Mathura, CA. 150 BCE-100 CE. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2007. Ṛg Veda, translated by Ralph T.H. Griffith, 1896. Also available at http://www. sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/ Sen, K. Joyanto. “The Naga-Protected Buddha in the Simon Norton Museum: Further Comments.” In Buddhist Art Form and Meaning, edited by Pratapaditya Pal, 64-69. Mumbai: Marg Publications, 2007. Shaw, Julia. “Nāga Sculptures in Sanchi’s archaeological landscape: Buddhism, Vaiṣṇavism, and Local Agricultural Cults in Central India, First Century BCE to Fifth Century CE.” Artibus Asiae 64, no. 1(2004): 5-59. Shrimali, K. M. History of Pañcāla,Vol. I. New Delhi: Munishram Manoharlal, 1983. Singh, Upinder. “Cults and Shrines in Early Historical Mathura (c. 200 BC-AD 200).” World Archaeology 36, no. 3(2004): 378-398. Si-Yu-Ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World. Translated by Samuel Beal, II vols. London: Trübner & Co., Ludgate Hill, 1884. Srinivasan, Doris Meth. Many Heads, Arms and Eyes: Origin, Meaning and Form of Multiplicity in Indian Art (Studies in Asian Art and Archaeology), Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997.w Stone, Elizabeth Rosen. The Buddhist Art of Nāgārjunakoṇḍa. Delhi: Motilal Banaridass Publishers Pvt. Ltd, 1994. The Play in Full (the Lalitavistara). Translated by Dharmachakra Translation Committee: 84000. Available online at http://read.84000.co/browser/ released/UT22084/046/UT22084-046-001.pdf Vinaya-Piṭaka: The Book of Discipline IV. Translated by I.B. Horner, Sacred Books of the Buddhists. London: Luzac & Company Ltd., 1962. Vogel, J. P. “Nāga Worship in Ancient Mathura.” In Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India 1908-09, (1912): 159-163. Indian Serpent Lore or The Nāgas in Hindu Legend and Art. Varanas & Delhi: Indological Book House, 1926, reprint 1972.

108

Columbia South Asia Review

Wake, C. S. “Origin of Serpent Worship.” The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 2 (1873): 372-390. Williams, Joanna. “New Nāga Images from the Sāñchī Area.” Oriental Arts, 22, no. 1 (1976): 174-179. The Art of Gupta India: Empire and Province. New Jersey, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982. Zimmer, H. Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization, The Bolligen Series VI. Washington DC: Pantheon Books Inc., 1946

109

Duli Ete

appendix

Figure 1. Early representations of Nāgarāja iconography from Mohenjo-Daro, Harappan Civilization. Left: On a faience sealing. Right: on an amulet. c. 2000 BCE. Photo: Herbert Hӓrtel, 1976.

Figure 2. A nāgarāja from Mathurā, c. 300-200 BCE, Government Museum, Mathurā; Photo: American Institute of Indian Studies.

110

Columbia South Asia Review

Figure 3. NÄ garÄ ja Mucalinda sheltering the Buddha from Pauni, c. second century BCE; National Museum, New Delhi. Photo: Duli Ete

111

Duli Ete

Figure 4. The Buddha protected by Nāgarāja Mucālinda, Amarāvatī Stūpa, c. second century CE, Madras Government Museum, Chennai. Photo: American Institute of Indian Studies.

Figure 5. The Buddha protected by Nāgarāja Mucālinda from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa, c. third century CE, Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Photo: Victoria and Albert Museum.

112

Columbia South Asia Review

Figure 6. Saṁkarṣaṇa Balarāma in Nāgarāja Iconography. Jansuti, c. 100 BCE. State Museum, Lucknow. Photo: American Institute of Indian Studies.

Figure 7. Pārśvanātha in Nāgarāja Iconography. Pārśvanātha āyāgapaṭa from Kaṅkālī Ṭilā, Mathurā, c. first Century CE. State Museum, Lucknow. Photo: American Institute of Indian Studies.

113

Duli Ete

Figure 8. Majestically seated nāgarāja in his shrine, cave-16, Ajantā, c. fifth century. Photo: American Institute of Indian Studies.

Figure 9. Viṣṇu in Nāgarāja iconography, lintel of the Daśāvatāra temple, Deogarh, c. fifth century CE. Photo: American Institute of Indian Studies.

114

Columbia South Asia Review

Figure 10. Nāgarāja carved on the lowest architrave, front face of the Sāñcī Stūpa-3 gateway, c. first century CE. Photo: Duli Ete

I am grateful to Dr. Parul Pandya Dhar, Associate Professor, University of Delhi, under whose guidance the principal research of this paper was carried out. This paper has gained immensely from Prof. Upinder Singh and Prof. Nayanjot Lahiri, who introduced ancient Indian epigraphy and archaeology of religion, respectively, to me during my Post-Graduation at the University of Delhi. I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Robert DeCaroli, Associate Professor, George Mason University, Fairfax, for sending me a copy of his 2011 publication, which was not available to me. For any errors, however, I am entirely responsible. I would also like to thank the library of the Centre for Art and Archaeology, American Institute of Indian Studies in Gurgaon; Kalanidhi of Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts, New Delhi; and the library of Tibet House, New Delhi.

115