Devapriyaji - True History Analaysed

CHAPTER-10Relevance of Agamic Studies in Modern Times - A case Study

Contents | Chapter-9 | Chapter-11 | Home

There is a popular notion that Hindu temple worship did not exist in the time of the Vedas but came into existence quite later. This is obviously influenced by Occidental scholarship under colonial rule. However this notion had over looked one fundamental question namely “what is a Hindu temple”. Is it a structure, image or space? This question came up in an important case, in London High Court in 1986-87, where a case relating to a metal image of Naṭarājā that was seized by the London Scotland yard police, and claimed by the government of India, as belonging to a ruined temple of Tamilnad. The dispute has to deal with some basic questions like what constitutes a Hindu temple? Whether a metal image is a chattel? Whether a ruined temple continues to exist as a legal entity to claim its ownership and when images remained buried for several centuries without worship could be worshipped again and so on: I appeared as an expert witness in the case both during the trial of the case in the Trial court and also the appeal in the Appeal court.This is one important case that related to an image (of art piece) belonging to one country was seized in another country and a law suit instituted in a foreign country, that needed to settle many questions of religious institution. In this important case I relied in my evidence, mainly on Āgamic literature, which proved to be crucial in winning the case. India won the case based on my evidence, and the image is back in our country. This case proved the importance of Āgamic studies, not only for religious and worship purposes, but as relevant in modern times in settling disputes of even international of importance.There are over one lakh or more temples that are alive, having regular worship and festivals, acquiring movable and immovable properties and matters relating to social tensions etc that need to be addressed based on Āgamic authorities. For most temples follow Āgamic injunctions in matters relating to temples and quite a number of these texts are still available for study and verification. Unfortunately the one subject that has an intimate connection with people and temples, spread throughout the country, is totally neglected by the universities all these years. No Indian university in India, offers Āgamic studies in the post graduate level. This paper will show how the Āgamic studies are relevant and hope will induce educationists to bestow some attention on this aspect.At the beginning I have raised the question what constitutes the Hindu temple? This is not my question but a question addressed to me by the London Court to answer? My answer has to be legally acceptable and not vague, and should be telling as otherwise the case was sure to be last. The point of dispute was, that the metal images were found buried behind a reined temple in an open space, and so can it be proved that the Bronzes belonged to the temple. They were not found in the temple.One of the earliest Vaiṣṇava Āgamic texts is Marīci Samhitā, published in Thiruppati in 1926. The Marīci  Samhita is a Vaikhānasa text, which seems to give a very good definition of Hindu temple. The text is itself called “Vimāna-arccana-Kalpa”. It is known that temple structures are generally called “Vimāna”. Rājarāja Chola I who built the great temple of Tanjore calls the main temple - “Śrī-Vimānam”, the stone temple of Śiva, built by Rājendra Chola I (the son of Rajaraja I) at Thiruvoṟṟiyur, near Madras, calls the main temple “Śrī Vimāna”. Thus references to temples as “Sri Vimāna” in Chola inscriptions in 11th cent, show the popularity of the usage.Evidently “Vimāna-arccana” means “temple worship”. So Marīchi's reference to temple worship as “Vimāna-arccana” is important. According to Marīchi, “worship of the Supreme” is “Vimāna-arccana”. It means “God” himself is Vimāna. Elaborating this Marīci says worship of the Supreme is of two kinds - Amūrta (without form) and Samūrta (with form): that which is offered in fire (agnau-hutan amūrtam) is worship of the formless. Worship in idols is Samūrta woirship of form - (pratimā ārādhanam is sa-mūrtam). Idol worship is considered superior by Marīci, because he says, the worship will continue even after the demise of the builder (whereas the sacrifices in fire, cease, when the Yajamāna dies). It is abundantly clear from this that worship of the formless is called Vimāna-arccana as the fire and the fire altars themselves are considered Vimānas.त्तस्मात् परम्ब्रह्म ज्योतिः अक्षरं सर्वभूतात्मकं सर्वाधारंसनातनं परमपुरुषं अर्च्चयेत् तत विमानार्च्चनम्तदाराधनं द्विविधं अमूर्तं समूर्तं इति,अग्नाहुतं अमूर्तं  प्रतिमाराधनं समूर्तंतत श्रेष्टं यजमान अभावेपि अविच्छिन्नं भवति“The word used here is Vimāna, and it has remained one of the most generally accepted names which designate a temple. Vimāna measured in its parts, in the form of God which is the universe, the macrocosm, and the temple as well, as a middle term made by man, the microcosm, according to his understanding and by measure. To measure means here as much as to create, there is identity of measure and object.” “The temple as Vimāna, proportionally measured throughout, is the house and body of God.” (The Hindu Temple vol.I,  by Stella Kramrisch, p. 132-133).“The temple is made up of the presence of Śiva and Śakti and of the principles and all forms of manifestations from the elementary substance, Earth to Śakti. The concrete form of Śiva is called House of God. Hence one should contemplate and worship it”.(Īśāna Gurudeva paddhati, Pt. III, chapt. XII. 16.)(Sanskrit)From these citation the temple is considered “The abode of God”, the body of God, and God himself. It is known, when one mentions “temple” rather vaguely, he considers the whole complex of buildings, images, and the space as temple. And he is right. A sculptured image is technically an abode of God or body of God. It becomes God by invocation by associating the mantra hymn with it. Similarly the temple becomes an abode of God only after consecration.  Similarly even an empty space sanctified by consecration becomes an abode of God, temple. In any temple, the image, structure and the space within the prākāra, or even outside, limited by consecration, collectively or individually is “the temple”.In the said London Naṭarājā case, though the images were found behind the ruined structure of a temple, the space where they were found, was in the enclosure, within the prākāra walls which were shown by excavation. The prākāra space of a temple is equally a consecrated space of the temple and is part of the temple. The court agreed to my evidence and held that the temple had the right to claim the images. This position was proved on the authority of Āgamic texts.The question whether the temple, without worship, can be considered a legal entity? I deposed that any ruined temple, according to our Āgamic texts, continues to retain sanctity and has not ceased to exist and can be brought back to worship by renovation and re-consecration. I am not going into other questions raised in the court, like, when a temple is considered totally gone out of existence and what would be the textual position. I have answered these questions but as they would lengthen this essay, I am not going into them.There was one other question, which was relevant to the case and is important to our study. In the said case there were about nine bronze images, which were found in a pit all buried together. One question was whether these images were buried deliberately for purposes of safety or random burials and whether they could belong to other temples.In this instance also I could show that the burial was deliberate and intended for safely. I said there is a chapter in the Āgama - how to safeguard the processional image (metal images) in times of emergency like epidemics, fire, robbery and the like disasters. The Āgamas prescribe that the bronzes should be buried in a pit accompanied by rituals, with a prayer to the Gods and Goddesses, that they should remain in the pit buried so long as the threat remained and that they will be taken out and after expiatory rights, will be restored to worship when the danger is removed. However, during the time of the danger, the images will continued to be worshipped in dharbha grass, daily. The court wanted to know, at this point two answers. A) Whether any such actual burials of bronzes for safety are known. I did show that several hundred treasure trove bronzes were found in such burials and that they are now in the Madras Government Museum and some returned to the temple for worship. The second question was whether it could be demonstrated that such burials were deliberate. The person who found the bronzes said that all the bronzes were found carefully laid one over the other upside.A last but a challenging question of almost devastating evidence, came up towards the close of the case. It was found that some sand particles sticking to the bronzes were totally different from the mud particles found in the actual pit from where images were recovered. The other side came with the argument that as these two sand particles are totally different, these images could not have come from that pit.  Our side felt that our case was almost lost at this turn of events. I was asked to give my comment on this piece of evidence? I said that the two sand particles should necessarily be different. Those assembled were startled by my answer. I said that the ground where the temple stood and the pit where the images were found with the images, was a clayey soil, but the sand particles found on the images were river sand particles of large size. Our Āgamic texts tell us that when the bronzes are burried for safety in a pit, the pit should be filled with river sands to act as proper cushion to the bronzes to prevent damages. This whole subject matter is detailed in chapter 70 of Marīci samhitā, which is called bhaya-rakṣārtham-niṣkṛtiḥ. The following portion in Sanskrit from that chapter is relevant.  (अथसप्ततितमःपटल:) ; (भयरक्षार्थनिष्कृतिः) — अथ भयरक्षार्थं निष्कृतिं वक्ष्ये - चोरैः शत्रुभिः परचक्रभयाद्वा ग्रामसंकुले सति भयरक्षार्थं कौतुकस्नप नोत्सवबलिबेरलौहिक प्रतिमानां देवीनां च तिरोधानं कारयेत् ।(तत्प्रकारः) — गुप्ते शुचौ देशे अवढं खनित्वा सिकताः प्रक्षिप्य उपरि कुशानास्तीर्य अवटे महीं देवीमभ्यच्ये “आपोहिष्ठे”तिप्रोक्ष्य आचार्यः अर्चको वा यजमानेन भक्तैस्सार्धं देवागारं प्रविश्य देवं प्रणम्य “यावत्कालं भयमस्ति ताद्धरण्या सह शयने शयीथा जनार्दने”ति देवेश मनुमान्य बिम्बस्थां शक्तिं ध्रवबेरे समारोपयेत् । बेराभावे हृदये समारोपयेत् । “परं रंह” इति “पीठमादाय” “प्रतद्विष्णुस्तपत” इति अवटेऽप्रमादं सन्यस्य “यैद्वष्णव” मिति प्राक्च्छिरसः शाययेत् । अवटं सिकताभिः मृदावापूरयित्वाअवटच्छिद्रंसुदृढंकारयेत् ।(atha saptatitamaḥ paṭala:) ; (bhayarakṣārtha niṣkṛtiḥ) — atha bhayarakṣārthaṃ niṣkṛtiṃ vakṣye - coraiḥ śatrubhiḥ paracakrabhayādvā grāmasaṃkule sati bhayarakṣārthaṃ kautukasnapa notsavabaliberalauhika pratimānāṃ devīnāṃ ca tirodhānaṃ kārayet .(tatprakāraḥ) — gupte śucau deśe avaḍhaṃ khanitvā sikatāḥ prakṣipya upari kuśānāstīrya avaṭe mahīṃ devīmabhyacye “āpohiṣṭhe”tiprokṣya ācāryaḥ arcako vā yajamānena bhaktaissārdhaṃ devāgāraṃ praviśya devaṃ praṇamya “yāvatkālaṃ bhayamasti tāddharaṇyā saha śayane śayīthā janārdane”ti deveśa manumānya bimbasthāṃ śaktiṃ dhravabere samāropayet . berābhāve hṛdaye samāropayet . “paraṃ raṃha” iti “pīṭhamādāya” “pratadviṣṇustapata” iti avaṭe'pramādaṃ sanyasya “yaidvaṣṇava” miti prākcchirasaḥ śāyayet . avaṭaṃ sikatābhiḥ mṛdā vā pūrayitvā avaṭacchidraṃ sudṛḍhaṃ kārayet .The text says “Sikatān - prakshipya” spread of sand in the pit etc. This Āgamic passage and also actual finds in other places proved the case.It must be remembered that mere referring to the text is not sufficient. As is known, the English courts have the greatest reputation for upholding highest standards in judiciary. In order to accept the textual evidence it was necessary to give Xerox copies of the original text, a true translation in advance for the other side to verify the accuracy of the translation with their experts, the title page of the book, the name of the Book, the name of the Editor, the place of publication and the year of publication. When all these are accepted for authenticity the evidence gets accepted.Thus the Āgamic texts like Marīci Samhitā, and Kāmikāgama etc., were found relevant in deciding the case in favour of India, and I was happy a knowledge of Āgamic studies helped me in proving in a foreign court the famous London Naṭarājā case.I would like to state that this is an excellent example of the relevance of Āgamic studies in modern times. There are many intricate questions that require answers based on textual material. In my opinion this study has been neglected far too long and deserve to be given immediate attention.