The Kandariya Mahadeo and other temples at Khajuraho in Madhya Pradesh are rightly famous for their exquisitely crafted erotic sculptures. They belong to a class of architecture that includes, among other examples, the well known Konarak temple in Orissa. The question that arises is why such explicit maithuna themes were depicted on religious edifices. Could they possibly be the expression of Tantric ideology?
An authority on the Tantric cult, Agehananda Bharati has without qualification called these temples ‘Tantric”. Other scholars, Indian and Western, have not, however, been so definite; some have, in fact, denied that they could be Tantric. There are still others who have called them obscene, though there is quite patently a vast gulf between the blase, dehumanizing efforts of Playboy magazine and its clones, and these tender and sublime religious sculptures.
Perhaps one reason why scholars have hesitated to call these sculptures Tantric lies in the cultural attitudes they hold. Many western scholars are quite possibly influenced by their Christian traditions: in Christianity, religion has a lot to do with morality, which is not the case in Hinduism. Thus, persons brought up in the Judaeo-Christian tradition would possibly find it difficult to appreciate the use of amoral, erotic methods in religious experimentation.
The question then arises why Indians should also share this value-system. The answer is perhaps equally obvious. The official culture of India has been deeply influenced by two centuries of catechization, conscious and unconscious, by British missionaries and administrators; and before that, there was the influence of seven centuries of rule by Muslims, whose ideology is similarly "Mediterranean”. Further, Indians suffer from a deep anxiety-syndrome regarding the loss of the semen virile; this fear is linked, among other things, to the magical, cross-culturally documented fear of loss of soul. These two strands of asceticism were brought together in the Victorian personality of Mohandas Gandhi, who has had a tremendous effect on recent generations of Indians. Gandhi’s opinions have been criticized only by an intellectual like M. N. Roy, who pointed out, for example, that Gandhi even wanted to deface the Khajuraho sculptures! This shamefaced attitude is shared by most Indian scholars.
Let us now look at the social history of these temples. They were built under the aegis of the Chandella rulers of Bundelkhand, who were the dominant regional power in the tenth and eleventh centuries. They built these magnificent temples partly to acquire religious merit, and partly to symbolize their power.
It is possible that the Chandellas were of tribal origin, as Pramod Chandra points out. That whole region of India has even today a large concentration of tribal groups; besides, this phenomenon of lower-ranked tribal and other social groups forming royal dynasties is not uncommon in Indian history. These and similar groups did not share the ascetic world-view of the mainstream Indian societies.
This is so even today in the matrifocal areas of India, viz. Kerala, Orissa, Bengal and Assam. In these comparatively open societies, Tantrism has survived even into modem times; and in medieval times, this cult had an even wider spread, extending into Kashmir and even into areas that are now in Pakistan. The point is that a powerful royal dynasty, in a social milieu that was much less puritanical than that of modem India, had the wherewithal and the psychological security to depict Tantric rites sculpturally, assuming that the rulers or their acharyas were members of the cult. If they were there was precious little that the establishment, i.e. Brahmans and others, could have done, especially if these temples were private shrines for royalty, as has been argued.
Let us come now to the specific opinions of art historians and other scholars. Pramod Chandra feels that the Khajuraho erotica were the work of Kaula and Kapalika cults. (Without going into the exact nature of these cults, one may generally agree that they were Tantric.) Chandra feels that the ideology of these cults was above reproach, being aimed at moksha, or “salvation”. He, however, feels that these cults “degenerated” in time and became licentious. Such emotive terms, however, should give one pause: can one divine another’s inner experiences (especially ineffable ones like the mystical), and then magisterially distinguish “proper” from “improper”? As Bharati rightly points out, mysticism cannot be qualified as either “proper” or “improper”; it is either “genuine” or “spurious”. Perhaps, as he also points out, what people resent here is the personal autonomy generated by the mystical experience, whether obtained by Tantric or other means.
Comments
Post a Comment
If you want more information, please let me know.