14 Indian Seeing and Western Knowing : an Art-Historian’s Perspective Michael W. Meister ‘The year (1970) I first met M.S. Nagaraja Rao he was in America for an internship program at the Metropolitan Museum in New York City; for the first time he was attempting to cross the lines that separate the realities of practice and belief that surround art in India and the academic, market, and museum realities in the western world. As a project, students were sent out into the cavernous commerce of Manhattan to find an art-object under $1000 the merits of which might justify its inclusion in the Met's vast undisplayed storage. If I recall his story, M.S. found a small Karnatak sculpture in a funky dealership well down the island that was one rare illustration of a particular Indian theme: the Kirdtarjuniyam. Presenting the object to the Board of the MET, M.S. spoke eloquently about the subject, the significance of the sculpture as its sign, and, was rewarded (in the course's crude competition) by having the museum actually buy it for its collection. M.S. also, on his return to India and during his illustrious career, carried that theme with him and ultimately produced a monograph of considerable merit in which he found the source for many of the illustrations of the Kirdtdrfuntyam in local tales rather than in the high literary tradition (see Meister 1982). It is this broad aspect of M.S.’s mind, work, and world that I wish to celebrate in this volume. My own contribution starts with a request two years ago to speak in Mexico for the Instituto de Investigaciones Est ticas at an international colloquium on “Los discursos sobre el arte” (Discourses on Art). For this 1 produced a paper entitled “Seeing and Knowing: Semiology, Semiotics and the Art of India” which will eventually be published in the Spanish proceedings of the XV Annual Colloquio by the Universidad National Autonoma de Mexico.!_ I, however, have felt that the issues introduced there 1. Tam grateful to staff and faculty of the Institute for their hospitality during this conference, which was held in Taxco, Mexico, 11-15 November 1991, and for their collegiality since.Indian Seeing and Western Knowing: an Art-Historian's Perspective 159 taken to be the result of incomplete knowledge, not the source of new truth (sea Kramrisch 1981a and 1981b). In India's textual tradition, there are said to be both “received” and “remembered” sources: the first are unvarying; the second, as applied knowledge, are subject to variegation and change (Meister 1985a). On that model, the subject and structure of much Indian art must be taken as “received” and its forms “remembered”. Art, thus, in this tradition, is only a shadow; but the experience of art is taken as “real”. Art has as its goal a transforming vision, of which the artist and artwork are tools and the viewer becomes the vehicle. Such experience has something in common with what in the West we have defined as “religious” experience, yet its psychology is one of signs and is not restricted to a particular subject-matter (James 1902; de Wit 1991). Any critical evaluation of such a tradition requires a sense of the “timelessness” defined as part of the tradition’s internal structuring as well as of the specific time- bound frames for the analyst's as well as analysand’s cultural assumptions. We cannot simply argue dates and style for any art or attempt to extract universals for aesthetic criticism as had Roger Fry (1939). If the goal of Indian art was most often its efficacy, and efficacy was defined as vision, then we must truly “see” to “know” (Meister 1990). I have brought several brief examples from India’s art to this forum in order to discuss the nature of this concept of “vision” and the way it may assist and alter our task as art historians. If Western study of Sanskrit grammarians in the nineteenth century helped lay the ground for a modern linguistics, the study of Indian art can pethaps also contribute to our understanding of what Aldous Huxley called - in a much different context - the “doors of perception” (Skéld 1926; Huxley 1963; Bourdieu 1991). I should make clear my commitment to’ the study of the function of signs, and indeed my indebtedness to the work of such scholars as Charles Sanders Peirce (1955) and Rowland Barthes (1968); I can claim to be no more than an amateur in their shadow. I, however, should also like to make a distinction between systems of thinking about signs that assume an underlying archetypal or universal structure and those that seek to find the different structures inherent in given bodies of material. I sometimes use “semiology” versus “semiotics” to differentiate these two positions (although the widely varying use of these terms in America and Europe, and in their160 Sri Nagabhinandanam translation, make them all too often treated as interchangeable).4 India’s art assumes a semiology, in my use of the term; and our study of the Indian position a semiotics. Stella Kramrisch - perhaps the greatest Indian art historian of this century - has written, from a more or less Indian position, that “Consciously and subconsciously the entire world of traditional sacred knowledge was at the command of the sculptor. He activated the ancient cosmogonic symbols, such as the branching tree or the cosmic egg ... and even more imperative elements of visualization, the vertical that traverses and connects the planes of the cosmos, the horizontal thar divides above from below" (Kramrisch 1988). Thave argued in an article in the Art Journal that there must always be limits to such a sample, and that we must look for how a sign functions within its own synchronic - that is, simultaneous - system without assuming universality of meaning (Meister 1990; 399). 7S. Maxwell, an English scholar now teaching in Germany, has written persuasively of Indian sculptures as “meditational constructs” used to guide the initiate, through a Process of visualization, beyond physical form toward a transcendental state (Maxwell 1984). A reverse process - from concept to image in the minds of the artists - had brought these objects into reality. Doris Srinivasan, an American Sanskritist, in a similar fashion has written of temple-forms as the “Loci of God's Unfolding Body” (Srinivasan 1987). In the sanctum of a Saiva temple, at its central Point, is a cylindrical pillar - a Phallic emblem but also one of cosmic parturition, Abstract and elemental, it focuses the worshipper's mind. Behind it in some regional traditions, on the back wall of the sanctum, can be placed a relief showing Siva and his family in anthropomorphic form - this image acting as a kind of cinematic projection from the elemental reality of the abstract emblem in front of it. Other images over time, both Saiva and Vaishnava show deities coming into visible form on the model of cosmogonic origination (PL. XIX), (See Mitterwallner 1984; Srinivasan 1987; Maxwell 1988). Behind every temple is the mental image of the mountain - either the mountain at the center of the cosmos or Kailasa on which Siva built his palace. Within the form of 4. As, for example, when Femande Saint-Martin, Semioiogie du langage visuel, is translated into English as Semiotics of Visual Language (Bloomington 1990).Indian Seeing and Western Knowing: an Art-Historian’s Perspective 161 each temple is the cosmogonic axis, physically present only at the top of the towering superstructure. A South Indian temple builds its terraced body up around a mandala, and at the top places a domed structure behind which is a visualization of the ascetic’s potent hut (Meister 1991 and 1986a). In the fabric of the North Indian temple's compact tower, built in by means of a syntactically powerful veneer, is embedded the body of a sheltering palace, its open terraces and enclosing pavilions only traced indexically in. the tower's architectural ormament (Meister 1989). Behind the many carved deities on a temple’s wall is always, and intentionally, the abstraction of masonry construction; its architectural forms refer both to wooden shelters and to a mountain cave (Meister 1985b). The mental vision produced in the mind of the worshipper is conditioned by his or her knowledge of the tradition; but making that mental vision possible is the responsibility of the artist and architect as builders of signs We may ourselves look - as Western art historians or, worse, as collectors, dealers or antiquarians - at an image of the Hindu Great Goddess first to judge if it is beautiful, well formed, or to ask its age or provenance; but its role in the temple's sanctum is as a stimulus for the worshipper's “vision” (PL. XIX). Thus around it rituals arise that paint and clothe the image, surround it in sound and scent, in order further to accentuate its psychological effect on the viewer and make it efficacious (Welbon and Yocum 1982). Any stimulus in fact can do for this purpose - even painted rocks - and when an old image has lost its efficacy it can be replaced by a new one with no regrets. (Many objects regrettably have reached the West when dealers paid priests the cost of making new images to replace old ones).5 In some famous performance rituals in South India known as Dhilicbitra have priests make a large image of a deity called Ayyappan out ‘of coloured powder. This is worshipped then destroyed by a priest performing an ecstatic dance (jones 1981). Probably India's most famous (or at least most often cited) aesthetic theory speaks of categories called rasas as the “juices” of things. Each rasa - we may, perhaps, get 5, The wooden bbiva figures from Mekkekatty_ now in the National Handicrafts Museum, New Delhi, were obtained in a similar fashion (Jain and Aggarwala 1989).162 $ri Nagabhinandanam by calling this “mood” - can be created in an audience through the use of poetics or as part of drama 6 (Sankaran 1926; Raghavan 1967 and 1988). This idea of a unitary but fragmentary emotional field originates in poetics and drama, which are arts with duration that exist within time; although some critics have attempted in recent years to deal with all of Indian art in similar terms (Goswamy 1986). This has worked most successfully where the tradition itself has chosen to create a classification of moods using visual images, as in sets of paintings that illustrate the musical scales, called ragas, available to a performer. Each raga has a proper time and place, its own emotional mood, and in these visual representations its own emotional setting. (Yet the earliest sets of such illustrations show abstract emblems for a series of deities, not the narrative settings of the most widely known sets (see Ebeling 1973; Waldschmidt 1967-1975; Dallapiccola 1975). Ultimately, most Indian art goes back to stimulating the mind to face the universal, not the individual. The structure of Indian art is meant to make the mind “see” what - in the Indian system - it already must “know”. I’m not sure this is that much different from the enthusiasm of experience built into many other religions,? but in India it has been worked into the artistic tradition in systematic and startling ways. If the abstract column of the /ingam has implicit the physical “vision” of Siva that can be made real only by placing over it a metal mask or by carving a face on the front of its shaft, so also the temple as a whole has implicit a mental vision of earlier sacred shrines with an enclosed space, for example, and a vertical shaft such as the tree-shrines shown in many Buddhist reliefs from the first centuries B.C. and A.D. (Mitterwallner 1984; Coomaraswamy 1930). Some structuralists, such as my colleague Wendy Doniger at the University of Chicago, might argue that such a mental order has a universal basis (O’ Flaherty 1973). She once presented, as an example, narrative images of the hero-god Krishna subduing the snake-demon Kaliya. To Doniger, the axiality of the snake-demon and the tree, with Krishna over his head, referred structurally to the cosmic axis, the simple cow- herder’s narrative embedded in a broader Indian water cosmology.® I think that such 6. Holly Pittman, in reading this, remarked on the “auto-hypnosis” of rituals. 7. As for example in America (Edwards 1815 and 1948). 8, See her discussion of ‘archetypal forms" (O'Flaherty 1984: 290-91).Seeing and Western Knowing: an Art-Historian's Perspective 163 intal associations cannot, in fact, be denied (as, for example, flagwaving in America a “mental” structure); yet Doniger can sometimes be caught up by such perceptions. She once showed a scene of Krishna hiding in a tree with the clothes he has stolen ‘from the bathing cow-girls, and compared it with its “mental” pair — in her view, the scene of Vishnu sleeping on the cosmic ocean at the moment of creation. The lotus Which grew from Vishnu's navel as creation began she called the world-lotus, and made the tree in which Krishna sits, his hands filled with cow-gitl spoils, congnate ‘with it (@ comparison that is half specious, if also half real). In the Indian system, the psychological reality is real. If Doniger, as a Hindu, were to see the world-tree in such a scene, then both it and her vision actually “exist.” (Of course, if she does not “see” the world tree, but only Krishna and the cow-girls, then only that exists).!° In the ceremony to create Ayyappan, or when a temple, or tree, or boulder is bedaubed with paint, what is “given” is the structure of mental perception in the viewer, What is stimulated is what is real, not the image itself. This, of course, has its limits and its dangers. I have pointed out, in that Art Journal atticle (Meister 1990), that the Fox theatre in Oakland, with its formal reference to a Hindu temple’s tower, can be taken as no more than a sign of the exotic cinematic pleasures to be found within. The form of its tower cannot be interpreted using the pp same sign-system as for the temple itself; that is, it requires, in my terms, not _ semiology but semiotics (Meister 1990: 399).1! Heinrich Zimmer (1984) as well as some other scholars over the years, have given the impression that the spiritual potency of the Indian system is based on a series of rigid rules, making all temples and images essentially into potent but interchangeable parts. Yet there is more room for both “art” and “originality” than this metaphor from modern precision technology might suggest. In India we are dealing with the human 9. Ibid., p. 291, “the world tree is now the homely Kadamba on the banks of the swimming hole (the tree from which Krishna dives into the pool).” In other public presentations, such longing for a hidden structure has made Siva's turban into an anthill and a stallion into a mare. 10. In some poetic versions of this tale, the cow-girls imagine themselves as Krishna, holding up the Govardhana mountain, and sculptures sometimes show them assisting this phantom Krishna in their mind Qfeister 1973: 28-35). 11. This is more of an issue than merely appropriation. ‘The Indian system implies the effectiveness of a form, and in many cases of appropriation it is precisely a form's power, but not meaning, that is being appropriated (as true in the case of Oakland) as, perhaps, that of the iron pillar in the Qutb mosque in Delhi.164 ‘Sri Nagabhinandanam mind, not with Fritz Lang’s movie of a mechanistic modern Metropolis. Temple architects, for example, found means to take the sacred space in the sanctum and to make it physically present in the measurements of the temple’s outer walls (Meister 1979 and 1992). Both the width of the inner sanctum and that of the central space where the deity itself was made manifest are rigorously respected in the wall's proportions. Yet over several centuries — still using this system but finding ways to vary its means of application — temple architects found ways radically to transform the temple’s form |? (Meister 1985c, 1986a and 1991). Discontinuity as well as consistency can be seen in how this “iconic” identity of the temple's measurements can be related to the placement of images on the temple's outer walls, as part of an iconographic scheme. Most important, and therefore most rigidly controlled, are the three images placed in the cardinal directions; each one is a reflection of the cult image in the sanctum. Corner niches house protective divinities - usually a fixed set of eight Guardians of the Quarters i.e. dikpdlas (Meister, in press.) Intermediate offsets can have a variety of solutions - attendant figures, celestials, secondary divinities. In one instance at the site of Osian, for example, on the south wall of the Harihara temple no.1, the image placed left of the central niche is Ganééa, the elephant-headed son of Siva, although the centrally placed Trivikrama would show that the temple was dedicated to Vishnu and not to Siva. Ganésa may always be shown on the south wall, as here, but would have been placed in the principal central niche on a Siva temple. On this temple to a different divinity, he functions quite separate from his iconographic role as the son of Siva - a role to which Saivism had, in part, coopted him — but rather as a lord of good luck and good fortune connected with his girth, thus worthy of placement on any temple. At Osian, the’ slightly pudgy figure to the right of the central niche on the south wall is the moon-god, Chandrama; on early temples he sometimes is shown as one of the temple's guardian figures. His placement here has two reasons: first, to complement the complete set of guardian figures (dikpalas) on the temple's corner piers and as a pendent to the corpulent figure of Ganesa framing the central niche. But Ganééa has often a different pendant, visually as well as in meaning. This is the corpulent god, Kubéra, lord of wealth, shown often with a sack of coins in his 12, Holly Pittman comments that “this is not truly radical because the root stays unaffected,” yet here formal change és radical; in Oakland formal change is not radical whereas change in significance is.Indian Seeing and Western Knowing: an Art-Historian’s Perspective 165 hand. What unites these otherwise quite separate deities is primarily their corpulence and their association with good fortune. Ganéga as a Saivite deity is shown, with Siva, in attendance on a set of seven mother goddesses (the saptamdirikds), a role with iconographic and mythic validity in India (Meister 1986b). Yet in certain instances, where the frame to the sanctum doorway requires an additional figure as pendant to Ganesa, who is attending the Seven Mothers with Siva at their center, artists have chosen to use the iconographically disparate figure of Kubera (Meister 1986b: 245 and Fig. 5). ‘This they seem to have done because of his separate and, in this context, discontinuous association with Ganééa as lord of good fortune. This multivalency of images within what has often been billed a prescriptive system is, in part, casual but not invalid. It works much as the mind works in making symbols, finding links: that is, a semiotics still, not what I call semiology.”? Tend with one further example of the way India’s way of seeing can test our understanding of a science of signs. Early in this century, D.R. Bhandarkar, Assistant Superintendent of the Western Circle of the Archaeological Survey of India, visited the old Rajput Capital of Amber near Jaipur and reported on a “shrine to Sitala,” the goddess of smallpox, within the compound of the large Ambikesvara temple there (ASIWER 1909-10). Sitala is a goddess often shown riding on a donkey, as on the ninth-century Sun temple at Madkheda in Central India (Meister and Dhaky 1991). Propitiation of this goddess has been of great importance to villagers because of the Scourge of smallpox and I was particularly interested to find the shrine when I visited Amber almost seventy years after Bhandarkar (Meister n.d.). In entering the temple's compound, I looked where he had reported this shrine, but found nothing resembling what I expected. I asked local worshipers, who pointed to a small shelter in the compound wall containing two fragments of sculpture. “Here is Sitala,” they said, confirming at least the survival of the long-standing tradition of worship on which Bhandarkar had reported. 13, I repeat that my use of “semiology” in English as if it meant a “theology of semantics” is at best buried in common usage. Semiology, as defined in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, is “the science dealing with signs or sign language, Semiotics is defined only as “semantics” and semantics as “the study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent.”166 Sri Nagabhinandanam Yet the images to which they pointed, from a Western scholarly view, had riothing to do with Sitala. One was a pair of lovers Ceight-century” my “trained” eye would tell me); the other was a male attendant with a bit of a crescent visible behind his shoulders (Meister, n.d.). An iconographer would probably state that this was Chandrama, the moon-god, or possibly Vishnu’s Garuda bird-man, his wings just visible behind. Yet the worshippers are right: for centuries these images have conjured up the vision of Sitala in the minds of the devout, My conclusion in analyzing these images for publication for the first time was as follows (Mesiter 1986 b: 245 and note 41): In India, artists worked to develop a visual language strong enough to express complex meanings to an often illiterate, but orally educated, population. Compaction of many meanings into a visually recognizable formula was one of the strongest tools available to them. But iconicity and symbolism, however, are not the same thing. The visual formula és what it means (its iconic value), but what it means may vary according to use and tradition (its symbolism). The development of iconic formulas guaranteed the identity of the image with its meaning, without restricting further evolution or the transformation of myth. This Sitala shrine at Amber, can, in fact — perhaps best of all my examples — demonstrate the radical separation possible between iconicity and symbolism. It is the mind that gives colour to signs, as art does to images. It was Nagaraja Rao’s vision, indeed, that made a small piece of Indian stone an object to be added to the Metropolitan Museum of Art's unendingly enlarging reserve collection.Indian Seeing and Western Knowing: an Art-Historian's Perspective 167 References ASIWCR 1909-10 Archaeological Survey of India, Western Circle, Progress Report 1909-10. Barthes, Roland 1968 Elements of Semiology, translated by Annette Lavers and Colin Smith, Hill and Wang, New York. Bourdieu, Pierre 1991 Language and Symbolic Power, edited and introduced by John B. Thompson, translated by Gino Raymond and Matthew Adamson, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. 1909 Tbe Indian Craftsmen, with a foreword by C.R. Ashbee, Probsthain, London. 1930 Early Indian Architecture, II : Bodhi-gharas, Eastern Art Il; 224-235 Dallapiccola, Anna Libera 1975 Rdgamdld-Miniaturen von 1475 bis 1700, Harrassowitz, Weisbaden, De Wit, Han F. 1991 Contemplative Psychology, trans. Marie Louise Baird, Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh, Pa. Ebeling, Klaus 1973 Ragamald Painting, Ravi Kumar, Basel. Eck, Diana L. 1985 Darsan, Seeing the Divine Image in India, 2nd tev.ed., Anima Books, Chambersburg, Pa. Edwards, Jonathan 1815 Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God : a sermon, preached at Enfield, July 8tb, 1741, at a time of Great Awakenings, and Attended with Remarkable Impressions on Many of the Hearers, Riggs & Stevens, Schenectady, N.Y. 1948 Images or Shadows of Divine Things, ed. Perry Miller, Yale University Press, New Haven. Fry, Roger 1939 Last Lectures, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Goswamy, B.N. 1986 Essence of Indian Art, Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, ‘San Francisco. Huxley, Aldous 1963 The Doors of Perception, and Heaven and Hell, Harper & Row, New York. Jain, Jyotindra and 1989 Museums of India, National Handicrafts and Handlooms Aarti Aggarwala Museum, New Delbi, Mapin Publishing Co., Ahmedabad. James, William 1902 The Varieties of Religious Experience : a Study in Human Nature, Longmans, Green, New York.168 Jones, Cifford Reis Kramrisch, Stella Maxwell, TS. Meister, Michael W. Meister, Michael W. 1981 a 1981 b 1988 1984 1973 1979 1982 1985a 1985b 1985¢ 1986a 1986b 1988 1989 Sci Nagabhinandanam Dholicitra : Historical Perspectives’ on Art and Ritual in Kalddarsana, American Studies in the Art of India, Joanna G: Williams (ed.), Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi pp. 69-75. The Presence of Siva, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Manifestations of Siva, Philadelphia Mueseum of Art, Philadelphia. Foreword to T. Press, Delhi. p. . Maxwell, Visearapa, Oxford University Nand, Parel, Kalyanpur : Saiva Images as Meditational Constructs, in Michael W.Meister (ed.), Discourses on Siva, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. pp. 62-81. Kyispa Lila at Wadhwan and Osian, Journal of the Indian Society of Oriental Art, n.s. 5: 28-35. Mandala and Practice in Nagara Architecture in Northern India, Journal of the American Oriental Society 99.2: 204-19. Review of “M.S. Nagaraja Rao, Kiratarjuniyam in Indian Art’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 102: 236. Temple Building in South Asia : Science as Technology's Constraint, in Peter Gaefike and David A. Utz (ed.), Science and Technology in India (Proceedings of the South Asia Seminar 2), Department of South Asia Regional Studies, Philadelphia. pp. 31-36. Symbol’and Surface : Masonic and Pillared Wall-Structures in North India, Artibus Astae 46: 129-48. Measurement and Proportion in Hindu Temple Architecture, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 10: 248-258. On the Development of a Morphology for a Symbolic ‘Architecture: India, Res. Anthropology and Aesthetics, 12: 35- 50 Regional Variations in Matrka Conventions, Artibus Asiae 47: 233-62. Making Things in South Asia : The Role of Artist and Craftsmen, South Asia Regional Studies Department, University of Pennsylvania, Philidelphia. Prasada as Palace : KOtina Origins of Nagara Temple, Artibus Asiae 49; 254-280.Indian Seeing and Western Knowing: an Art-Historian's Perspective 169 Meister, Michael W. 1990 De- and Re-constructing the Indian Temple, Art journal 49: 395-400. 1991 The Hindu Temple : Axis and Access, in Kapila Vatsyayan (€d.), Concepts of Space, Ancient and Modern, Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts and Abhinav Publications, New Delhi. pp. 269-80. 1992 Symbology and Architectural practice in India, in Emily Lyle (ed.), Sacred Architecture (Cosmos, the Yearbook of the Traditional Cosmology Society, Vol.8), Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. pp. 5-24. ip. Fragments from a Divine Cosmology : Unfolding Forms on India’s Temple Walls, Gods, Guardians and Lovers, The Asia Society, New York. (in press). n.d. Amber's Antiquities : Text and Context, in Chandramani Singh and Neelima Vashishta (ed.), Pathways to Literature, Art and Archaeology, Jaipur. Vol.2, pp. 192-97 & PL. pp. 10- 15. Meister, Michael W. and 1991 Encyclopaedia of Indian Temple Architecture, Vol.II Part 2, M.A. Dhaky (eds.) North India : Period of Early Maturity, Princeton University Press, Princeton. pp. 45-48. Mitterwallner, Gril. V., 1984 Evolution of the Liga, in Michael W. Meister (ed.), Discourses on Siva, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. O'Flaherty, Wendy Coniger 1973 Asceticism and Eroticism in the Mythology of Siva, Oxford University Press, New York. 1984 Siva Erect and Supine, in Michael W. Meister (ed.), Discourses on Siva, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Peirce, Charles Sanders 1955 Logic as Semiotic : The Theory of Signs, in Justus Buchler (ed.), Pbilosopbical Writings of Peirce, Dover Publications, New York. Raghavan, V. 1967 The Number of Rasas, 2nd rev.ed., Adyar Library and Research Centre, Madras. 1988 The Concept of the Beautiful in Sanskrit Literature, Kuppuswami € Sastri Research Institute, Madras. Sankaran, A. 1926 Some Aspects of Literary Criticism in Sanskrit, or, The Theories of Rasa and Dbvani, University of Madras, Madras. Skold, Hannes 1926 Papers on Panini and Indian Grammer in General, CW. Gleerup, Lund.170 Srinivasan, D.M. 1987 ‘Waldschmidt, Ernst and 1967-75 Rose Leonore ‘Welbon, Guy R. and 1982 Glenn E. Yocum (ed.) Zimmer, Heinrich 1984 $11 Nagabhinandanam Saiva Temple Forms : Loci of God’s Unfolding Body, in M. Yaldiz (ed.), Investigating Indian Art: Proceedings of a Symposium on the Development of Early Buddbist and Hindu Iconograpby, Museum fur Indische Kunst, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin. pp. 335-47. Miniatures of Musical Inspiration in the collection of the Berlin Museum of Indian Art, 2 Vols, Harrassowitz, Weisbaden. Religious Festivals in South India and Sri Lanka, Manohar, New Delhi. “Artistic Form and Yoga in the Sacred Images of India, translated by Gerald Chapple and James B. Lawson, Princeton. (first published as Kunstform Und Yoga in indischen Kultbild, Frankfurter Verlags - Anstalt AG, Berlin, 1926).Indian Seeing and Western Knowing : An Art-Historian’s Perspective Michael W. Meister