365bet娱乐

I have already dealt with the topic of the sun鈥檚 iconography in PALLADINO 20??a. Since it constitutes one of the most peculiar aspects of the North Indian sun cult, it is necessary to add some further details.

In 厂腻尘产补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 31, the ideal image of the god, based on the one found in the 颁补苍诲谤补产丑腻驳腻 river by 厂腻尘产补, is described. First, the measurements of its parts are listed; then, we have a description of its attributes. It should have long eyes with thick eyelashes, and be smiling, with red-coloured lips like the Bimba fruit; it should wear the 补惫测补峁単补 (v. 18), a diadem/crown (尘耻办耻峁璦-, v. 17b), and many other ornaments, like bracelets, bangles, a necklace, anklets and earrings. In both hands, the sun god should hold a lotus.^[1] The idol is a perfect synthesis of typical Indian elements, like the lotus, and Iranian attributes, like the 补惫测补峁単补 and perhaps the diadem/crown^[2], too.

The above-mentioned astronomer and astrologer 痴补谤腻丑补尘颈丑颈谤补, in 补诲丑测腻测补 58 of his 叠峁沨补迟蝉补峁僪颈迟腻, adopts the same structure: he gives the measurements of the sun鈥檚 statue and then describes it. The god should be dressed in northern style, and his dress should cover his body from breast to feet; he must wear armour. He should hold a lotus in both hands, and wear a diadem and the girdle around his waist (here the 补惫测补峁単补- is called viyadga-); he must have earrings and a necklace. His face should be pleasant, with a smile (vv. 46鈥�48). The similarities between the two descriptions are evident. In 痴补谤腻丑补尘颈丑颈谤补鈥檚 text, we have another important Iranian element, the long garment, which recalls the 碍耻峁Ｄ佱箛补 dress or a similar garment.^{[3] [4]} On a statue and relief found in 惭补迟丑耻谤腻, the sun god wears a long, heavy garment and boots, and holds a sword.^[5] PANDEY (1971: 139) specifies that, also in the 惭补迟蝉测补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺, the sun idol is described as holding a lotus in both hands.

痴补谤腻丑补尘颈丑颈谤补 then adds (补诲丑测腻测补 60, 19; cf. SASTRI 1946: 525) that the priests charged with installing the sun god鈥檚 image are the Magas. Chapter 177 of the 痴补谤腻丑补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 also refers to the installation of the sun鈥檚 image. First, it narrates the story of 厂腻尘产补鈥檚 curse and recovery (IYER 1985: 526鈥�529); in the end, 碍峁涐梗峁嘺鈥檚 son installs the sun鈥檚 image in 惭补迟丑耻谤腻, and the place is named 厂腻尘产补pura in honor of him (v. 58; Ivi: 530; cf. also BANERJEA 1974: 158).

The northern iconography of the sun is characterized by this union of Indian and Iranian elements; this perfectly reflects the syncretistic features of the cultures that inhabited the lands between India and Iran (艢补办补蝉, 碍耻峁Ｄ佱箛补s, 贬奴峁嘺蝉 etc.), and who reached North India during the first centuries of the Common Era. In that period, we find a complete identification of Mitra (Mithra) with the sun god. Already in the first century B.C., with the inscription of Antiochus I at Commagene, we find the 鈥楳ithra-Helios-Apollo-Hermes鈥� figure, showing both the identification of Mithra with the sun god (Helios), and their combination with Greek deities. This tendency is also clear from the coinage of the 碍耻峁Ｄ佱箛补 kings, especially the well-known 碍补苍颈峁�k补 (Kani拧ka). On these coins, Mithra is associated with Helios, and the god鈥檚 name is MIIRO (or MIORO)^[6]; this is the form of the name that appears in Sanskrit texts as Mihira.

The anthropomorphic form is probably due to Greek influence as well. In India and in Iran, the sun used to be represented as a disk. Particularly from the first centuries A.D., the human appearance of the sun acquired importance in both areas. In India, this anthropomorphic representation was canonized in the Gupta period. In any case, the northern iconography of this god differs from the southern.^[7] Among the Iranian attributes, the 补惫测补峁単补 is surely the most important in our perspective, because it shows a prescription directly connected with the 艢膩kadv墨p墨ya 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉.

叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 I. 142:

n膩gar膩j膩峁単asambh奴to dh峁泃o yasm膩c ca bh膩nun膩 // 4b
tat tasm膩d dh膩ryate s奴ryapr墨tyai tadbhaktim 颈肠肠丑补迟腻 / 5a

鈥楽ince it (the 补惫测补峁単补), [which is] made of the skin of the 狈腻驳补 king, is worn by 叠丑腻苍耻, it is worn by 厂奴谤测补鈥檚 beloved ones, who desire [to participate in] his adoration.鈥�

Leaving aside the very interesting topic of the snakeskin for the moment, the 补惫测补峁単补 represents a peculiar attribute of the 艢膩kadv墨p墨yas. PANDEY (1971: 179) argues that this attribute of the sun is a later addition, because it is present only in the Gupta and post-Gupta period. As a matter of fact, it is not possible to date the sections of the 厂腻尘产补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 and 叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 that mention this ritual object for the first time. 痴补谤腻丑补尘颈丑颈谤补 mentions it as well (though he calls it by another name), and it is perfectly in line with the trend of the first centuries A.D. Furthermore, we have no proof of the presence of the 艢膩kadv墨p墨yas on Indian soil before the second century A.D. (cf. paragraph 4.3). We may postulate that this peculiar iconography had its roots in the 艢膩kadv墨p墨ya texts and tradition, or that the 艢膩kadv墨p墨ya tradition adopted this peculiar feature of the sun god, rich in foreign elements, to augment its own specific identity. Thus we risk a 鈥榗hicken and egg鈥� situation, but I do not think it is necessary to establish whether the 艢膩kadv墨p墨ya cult influenced the iconography or vice versa; the fundamental and undeniable element is that the two entities were deeply connected.

We mentioned the fact that the figure of Mitra (Mithra) merged with that of the sun god. According to GRENET (2006), 鈥榯he Central Asian type of Mithra as charioteer deeply influenced the iconography of the Indian 厂奴谤测补, including the costume.鈥� Very important is the symbology of the horses that draw the sun鈥檚/Mitra (Mithra)鈥檚 chariot: constituting a group of seven in later times, they represent the seven days of the week and, in classical literature, the seven notes etc. This iconography influenced Bactria and the neighbouring regions, as well. Mitra (Mithra), as the sun, has been very popular across Central and South Asia throughout history; moreover, Mithraic cults reached the West as well. From an iconographical, cultural and religious point of view, the influence was bidirectional.^[8] A curious example of Indian attributes being exported to Iran is the representation of Mithra, standing on a lotus, on the Sasanian relief at T膩q-e Bust膩n. The lotus is clearly a solar attribute, but it features a thick stem and its petals completely open, recalling the Indian style. Moreover, this is the only example of this kind of representation in Sasanian art.^[9] The lotus has even been interpreted as the x^v补谤菨苍补丑, abiding in the waters.^[10]

Finally, we must underscore the fact that not only does the sun god/Mitra (Mithra) have a prescribed iconography, but so do 厂腻尘产补 and his family.

The 叠峁沨补迟蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 (LVIII, 40) describes the characteristic iconography of 厂腻尘产补 and his wife, along with that of Pradyumna and his consort.

蝉腻尘产补艣肠补 驳补诲腻丑补蝉迟补岣� pradyumna艣c膩pabh峁泃 sur奴pa艣ca /
anayo岣� striyau ca k膩ryhe khe峁璦kanistrim虈 艣adh膩ri峁噛au // 40

鈥�Samba should be made with a mace in his hand; Pradyumna, endowed with a charming body, with a bow in his hand. Their wives also should be made holding swords and shields in their hands鈥� (SASTRI 1946: 513).^[11]

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

For the description of the idol, cf. STIETENCRON 1996: 225 and SRIVASTAVA 2013: 92鈥�94; for the Sanskrit text, see also 碍贬础峁吗笇贰尝础痴膧尝础 2012: 152鈥�155.

[2]:

The crown may symbolize the x^v补谤菨苍补丑, the royal power, often depicted as a nimbus or directly as a crown.

[3]:

The long garment is also useful for obscuring 厂奴谤测补鈥檚 feet. According to the the Pur膩峁噄c legend (厂腻尘产补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 11/叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 I.

[4]:

, but also Matsya-辫耻谤腻峁嘺, ch.. 32; cf. PANDEY 1971: 139 as well as Ivi: 183), 痴颈艣惫补办补谤尘补苍 shaped the sun鈥檚 form only down to his knees; therefore the feet, with their excessive splendour, must not be exposed.

[5]:

Cf. CHAKRABERTI 1981. These two pieces definitely exhibit typical 碍耻峁Ｄ佱箛补 dress.

[6]:

On this topic, see THOMAS 1876; MACDOWALL 1975; Id. 1978; HUMBACH 1975; SHRAVA 1985.

[7]:

NAGAR (1995: 135) describes all the different types of northern clothing found in the various texts. Cf. also BANERJEA 1952.

[8]:

Cf. PALLADINO 20??c.

[9]:

Cf. CARTER 1981: 74 ff.

[10]:

Cf. GRENET 2006.

[11]:

See also BANERJEA 1974: 31.