Dr.R.Nagaswamy #708090 "FORMS OF THE GODDESS LAJJA GAURI IN INDIAN ART" By Carole Radcliffe Bolon, Pennsylvania, 1992, P.P. - 91, Illustrations 130. The Book, "Forms of the Goddess Lajja Gauri in Indian Art", is a definite contribution to the understanding of one of the fascinating aspects of Indian art. A remarkable collection of basic data, on the culture of Lajja Gauri, the study is objective, penetrative, sympathetic and at the same time critical in the true scholarly tradition. The author has clearly brought to light a fundamental fact about the image that, "though it shows the sex organ, it is not primarily erotic, but has a profound spiritual message couched within a seemingly erotic display". That certainly is the essence of this image. Having surveyed almost all the Lajja Gauri images so far known, the author has done a signal service by classifying them into four broad categories. She has also focused the attention of scholars, on the fact that Lajja Gauri was important to the Chalukyas. The reference to the inscriptional material and that the God was worshipped as Nanda is interesting. The discussion on the frog type is illuminating. The names of the sites where the images are found are associated with 'Ela' and Carol Bolon rightly points to the association of Place names with the Gramadevata function. Discussing the English names given to Lajja Gauri the author points out the misconceptions and erroneous translations of the functions and names of the Goddess. Carol Bolon also agrees with the suggestion that "the ideas embodied and the textual descriptions of Aditi seem to correspond to the appearance of the image of Lajja Gauri". When the Lajja Gauri image at Dasasuram was noticed by me, I did suggest that it is a 12th cent. Chola image. Carol has suggested it might be a Chalukyan one, brought like other Chalukyan sculptures by the Cholas. However that it could still be a chola is not ruled out. We have a few instances of Ganesa - in bronze cast by South Indian Sthapati, but modelled on the Pala sculpture of Bengal - Orissa now in the Nagesvara temple - Kumbakonam. It was probably for a section of the people who hailed from the region from where the culture was popular. In my article cited, I have drawn attention to the Saurashtra, people of Darasuram, being specially devoted to the Goddess. However, I will not assert, that it is not Chalukya, similar to the one now kept in the Alampur Museum, in the light of Carol Bolon's description. Her rejection of the suggestion that the image was Roman inspired is convincing. The following observations are not out of place in this connection. 1. Carol has noted my reference to Lalita Sahasra Nama and also the modern name of the Goddess as Cakraraji, (Cakrayi) which she considers "possible but not in-contravertile" (P. 37 - No.85). When other lines of identification are not positively clear, one has to take recourse to local tradition. Carol herself refers to the local names of villages like Ellama, Yellala - Yellesvara etc. After all what is the antiquity of these names? Here, only the modern names are taken to drive home a concept! 2. I. K. Sharma's reference (P. 29) to an image in the Kamakshi temple, Kanchipuram, as (a) Lajja Gauri, (b) Pre-Chalukyan in date and (c) it was the original image for worship in the Sakti pitha - is to say the lest, off the mark. The sculpture is worn out. But it is hundred percent, a Gajalakshmi, a Pallava image, akin to the ones in Pallava monuments. The Goddess is seated on a high lotus seat as in the Gajalakshmi sculpture at Mamallapuram. Her legs are not in spread-leg pose, one of the most important criteria for Lajja Gauri images (Carol Bolon p. 5), but both are hanging down as seen in Lakshmi sculptures at Mamallapuram. Her two hands are in the position of holding lotus and by her sides are the remains of elephants as in Gajalakshmi. She is seated with a human face. One conversant with Gajalakshmi images, will have no doubt about its identity. It has however a cut vertically from the face to the seat, obviously that has occurred in later times but this obscures the original identity of the image. It is locally called 'Arupa Lakshmi'(Formless Lakshmi) and is later built into the wall. This local tradition also clearly links the image with Lakshmi and not Lajja Gauri. To conclude erroneously, that it is Lajja Gauri and to assign a pre-Chalukyan date and to assert that it was the original image of worship, is to stretch the imagination too far. Carol has done well simply to quote Sharma with a note that it has neither been illustrated nor described. 3. The statement of Carol Bolon that "the normal birth pose in India is supine" (p. 6) is not totally correct. There are sculptural and mural representations showing women giving birth to child - standing. 4. It is suggested that it is perhaps the "grama devata" which got absorbed into Hindu Pantheon (P.48). There is no clear cut definition offered in the book to the concept of "grama devata" but probably Carol Bolon meant that it was a folk deity. If the concept is like the "Madhurapuri devata", "Campapati", or "Kanchipuri devata", then they are highly classical deities, identified with Durga. Kali, Saptamatas, Jyeshta etc. which are generally called gramadevatas, are highly classicial deities, codified in texts. If the ideas echoed in Vedic Srauta and Smarta traditions" are given form in the image" (P. 6) then also the concept of "grama devata" does not hold good. This suggestion has not been property explored or sustained. 5. Carol Bolon accepts, that (a) the concept of Aditi must be considered to foster, philosophically, the idea of Lajja Gauri (P. 65). (b) the name Gauri includes Parvati, Tripura, and Sri (P. 64). (c) The various forms used to represent the idea of Fortune-Sri. Srivatsa or Lajja Gauri draw from one pool of forms (P. 58). (d) There seems to be a relationship in meaning as well as form of Lajja Gauri and Srivatsa, thereby kinship with Sri (P. 56). (e) The lotus symbolizis cosmic consciousness or the idea of perfect wisdom (P. 52), that is Vakdevi. All these concepts clearly demonstrate, the truth behind the suggestion I have made (P. 37 for 85) that this image further evolved or merged with the figures of Mahadevi, Mahalakshmi, and Maha Saraswati, all being shown seated on a lotus, with elephants pouring water over their head. This further is identified with Tripura as in Lalitasahasranama. It is therefore not clear, what are the points that contravert my suggestion, Carol has not pointed out any contravertible points beyond suggesting that "they are not incontravertible". 6. The Kesarigutta plaque (P. 45), according to the statement, was found under the base of an altar of a Siva temple. It would suggest the form of the temple ritual directly, then Vedic ritual. 7. There seems to be a slip in 'the date of assimilation of this culture into Saiva theme'. (a) "By the mid sixth cent. the early auspices Uttanapad, 'pot-Goddess' in a new anthropomorphic form, seems to have become identified as a Sakti of Siva" - P. 40., contra - see P. 48. "There is no doubt that atleast by the fourth cent. Lajja Gauri had became accepted into the Hindu Pantheon as a Sakti of Siva". There is a gap of two cent. between these two dates. May be it is a slip. 8. That Kartikeya carries a trident in his hand is not irreconcilable - (P. 46). It is in fact the earlier form of Sakti, and Kartikeya is Saktidhara. In the South Indian context, two tridents one inverted and joined, is called Sakti in later times. These are some of the questions that I would like to raise for purpose of clarity. But I must hasten to add that all these are peripheral in nature and there could be no two opinion that this is a masterly treatise, the main thrust of which is unassailable. I am extremely happy to record that this book is, absolutely scholarly and will remain a standard reference Book on the subject. My congratulations and best wishes.(R. NAGASWAMY) Dr. Carol Bolon, Assistant Curator,Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.