Ardhanārīśvara in Indian Art and Culture

Chapter for: Śaiva Iconography: A Facet of Indian Art and Culture”

Dr. Ellen Goldberg

Associate Professor of South Asian Religions
Department of Religious Studies
Queen’s University
Kingston, ON, Canada
Eg7@queensu.ca
(mobile) 647 2891600

Introduction
In this paper I look at two critical areas of scholarship on Ardhanārīśvara
(अध#नारी(वर, translated as ‘the lord who is half woman’) in Indian culture. First, I present

an overview of scholarship on Ardhanārīśvara, the half-male, half-female (ardha-nārī)

form of the great Hindu god (īśvara) Śiva. This will be an assessment of the most
prominent scholarly writings on Ardhanārīśvara in art, religion, and culture in the
twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Most research has been art historical, but, more
recently, we see philosophical and other theoretical research being done to understand
and explain the image of an androgynous god/dess in various avenues of living Hindu
thought, including bhakti literature, mythology, dance, and yoga tradition.
Ardhanārīśvara also belongs to the rich and highly stylized pantheon of Indian sacred art.
Thus, I present a detailed overview of the image itself. I discuss in some detail the
formulaic descriptions of Ardhanārīśvara from the various canons of Indian art (śilpa
śāstras). I identify significant areas of study, and point to several monuments or mūrtis
in the South Asian context. This overview represents a ‘state-of-the-art’ review of the
image of Ardhanārīśvara in Indian tradition.

(a) Scholarly Research on Ardhanārīśvara

Śiva is one of the most beloved deities in India. As a pan-Indian deity, he is
worshipped in his various aspects over the entire Indian subcontinent. The sacred image
of Ardhanārīśvara, the half-male, half-female aspect of Śiva, is also pan-Indian.1 We see
images of Ardhanārīśvara as far north as Kashmir and Nepal, and as far south as Tamil
Nadu, and even southeast Asia. The oldest images of Ardhanārīśvara are traced to
Mathurā, during the Scytho-Kuṣāṇa period, mid first to third century CE (see Figure 12).
As we will see further on in the chapter, conventional iconographic variations are
evident over time and place.

[Insert: Figure 1: Ardhanārīśvara (left), along side Viṣṇu, Gaja-Lakṣmi, and (possibly)
Skanda. Kuṣāṇa stele, mid-first century CE (Courtesy of the American Institute of
Indian Studies, Gurgaon, India)]

In their respective studies, Jan Gonda (1975) and Doris Meth Srinivasan (1997)
explain that the dual deities (dvidevata) found in Vedic literature provide a prototype for
the advent of the Śiva Ardhanārīśvara image. For example, Gonda looks at early Vedic
deities whose names are formed by dual compounds called devata dvandvas, including
Agni-Soma and Mitra-Varuṇa. Dual deity pairing represents a persistent Vedic motif
that constitutes what Gonda refers to as an “intimately connected couple, a (two-sided)
unity, acting conjointly” (1975: 7).
The Ṛg Vedic sky-earth god, Dyāva-Pṛthvī, who creates the universe by dividing
into two distinct halves, is also among the earliest dual or ardhanārī deities. Thus, the
prototype for Vedic dual deities, as Gonda says, is the gendered marital relation of ‘man’
and ‘woman’ as ‘husband’ and ‘wife.’ He refers to this Vedic feature as a “pair system”
or a system of functional and/or complementary correspondences that impresses upon
the religious, philosophical, and linguistic imagination the idea of a “fundamental unit”
or “two-sided” androgyne figure (Gonda 1975: 17; see, also, Bhattacharyya 1980).3
We see Viśvarūpa, the Asura Bull-Cow who appears as a half-male, half-female,
self-generating principle in the Ṛg Veda (3.38.4). As well as Puruṣa, the supreme being
whose all-pervading body generates the universe in the Puruṣa-suktam (Ṛg Veda 10.90).
In the Bṛhadāranyaka Upaniṣad (1.4.3-1.4.4) we find a single body (ātman) shaped like
a man (puruṣa) who procreates the universe by splitting into two halves, male/husband
(patī) and female/wife (patnī). Thus, as Srinivasan argues, the “advent of the śaiva
Ardhanārīśvara concept and form” has its distinct roots in the dual or ardhanārī deities
of Vedic literature (1997: 57).
It is worth pointing out that R. Nagaswamy (2002) locates the root of dual deities
more specifically in the early Vedic god Agni from the Kṛṣṇa-Yajur Veda. Agni, he
explains, is represented as having a two-fold nature, that is, Agni is “the power that
burns” as well as the “power that gives life and illumination (2). Both aspects are
invoked in early Vedic hymns providing Nagaswamy with ample evidence not only of a
prototypical ardhanārī form, but also the recurrent theological view that the universe is
composed of two interrelated principles. Nagaswamy claims syncretic ardhanārī forms
are based on a compound image of Agnā-Viṣṇu (also known as Rudra-Viṣṇu) in the
Vasōrdhārā hymn, where Rudra is understood as having two bodies—one is a life
giving body identified as creative and feminine, and the other is a wrathful or
destructive body portrayed as masculine (2002: 2).
However, it is not until the advent of the purāṇas that Śiva becomes the
quintessential androgyne in Indian literature. In the purāṇas, Śiva is paired in aniconic
representations with the yoni to form a yoni-liṅgam, as well as in his anthropomorphic
form alongside various female deities identified as Pārvatī, Umā, Gaurī, or Śivā.
However, as stated, this ardhanārī form is modeled on the sacred tradition of dual
deities that are woven into the complex mythological, philosophical, and iconographical
traditions of Indian culture dating as far back as the early Vedic period.
Generally, art historical studies in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries,
including mostly overviews, encyclopedic articles, and historical surveys, have not
always recognized the early roots of the image. By and large, broad surveys treat
Ardhanārīśvara as one (minor) aspect of Śiva. Thus, Ardhanārīśvara is mostly studied in
the broader Śaiva context, rather than as a complex development that has its origin in the
early Vedic period. Peter Bisschop’s entry on Śiva for the Encyclopedia of Hinduism
(2009) is an excellent example. Bisschop offers a brilliant overview of Śiva, but the
description of Ardhanārīśvara, though useful, is somewhat cursory. Gopinath Rao’s
(1914-1916) pioneer work on Indian iconography is another illustration of this type of
broad encyclopedic study. Rao describes the image of Ardhanārīśvara in the context of
Śaiva art, and bases his research primarily on south Indian śilpa śāstras (the canons of
Indian art and architecture). His study was among the first to offer a technical
terminology to understand variations of Ardhanārīśvara in the pan-Indian context. Rao
also enumerates a range of diagnostic features, as he examines eight previously
unpublished black and white illustrations of Ardhanārīśvara. Yet, he does not situate the
ardhanārī image in a broader context. Nilima Chitgopekar (1998) looks primarily at
epigraphic and literary sources in her insightful regional study of medieval Śaivism in
Madhya Pradesh, and provides an compelling intellectual history of Ardhanārīśvara; yet,
it too is not a sustained or independent study. These reference works are clearly vital
and important, but they recognize Ardhanārīśvara as only one facet of Śaiva art and
culture, and provide only a glimpse into the complex role of Ardhanārīśvara and
ardhanārī images in Indian tradition (see, also, Banerjea 1956, Bühnemann and
Tachikawa 1990, Collins 1988, Donaldson 1985, Kalidos, Rajarajan, and Parthiban
2006).
In 1967, Marguerite Adiceam wrote the first sustained art historical study
dedicated exclusively to Ardhanārīśvara. In ‘Les Images de Śiva sans L’Inde du Sud’
(‘Images of Śiva in South India’), Adiceam gives a comprehensive analysis of the full
range of diagnostic features of Ardhanārīśvara deriving from the south Indian śilpa
tradition.4 Until two recent essays by Gerv Mevissen (2014, 2013) cataloging (in his
own words) all known Ardhanārīśvara images in various media including terracotta,
stone, and metal from Bengal and Nepal, as well as southeast Asia, Adiceam’s was the
most exhaustive historical account available to scholars. Currently, Mevissen offers the
most extensive catalogue and art historical studies of Ardhanārīśvara available.
We also find significant art historical studies in the twentieth century that
examine several rare images of Ardhanārīśvara either individually or in clusters.
Noteworthy examples of this type of study include A. N. Lahiri’s (1967) essay on a rare
image of Ardhanārīśvara (no. 8) from the Tripurā collection of coins issued by King
Vijayamāṇikya in the sixteenth century. Lahiri identifies the unusual pairing of
caturbhuja Śiva and dābhuja Durgā as Ardhanārīśvara. In another art historical study, N.
Naidu (1999) discusses a rare seated image of Ardhanārīśvara, as well as an unusual
eight-armed image of Ardhanārīśvara, and identifies the image, albeit in a cursory way,
with the philosophical concept prakṛti-puruṣa. As we will see further on in the chapter,
eight armed images of Ardhanārīśvara are not standard in the śilpa tradition or at sacred
sites.
Dancing images of Ardhanārīśvara, also known as Ardhanārī-naṭeśvara, are also
rare. Sivaramamurti (1974) was among the first art historian to publish references to a
dancing Ardhanārīśvara in his study on Śiva Naṭarāja (‘king of dancers’). Since then,
several excellent art historical studies have been published that mention dancing images
of Ardhanārīśvara, including J. Soundararajan’s Naṭarāja in South Indian Art (2004),
Thomas E. Donaldson’s (1985) Hindu Temple Art in Orissa (1985), and Anne-Marie
Gaston’s Śiva in Dance, Myth and Iconography (1982). Soundararajan argues
convincingly that dance is not exclusive to Śiva; rather, it is a common activity practiced
by all of the central gods and goddesses of the Hindu tradition. Donaldson, as the title of
his monograph suggests, focuses on dancing images of gods and goddesses from Orissa,
and cites several images Ardhanārīśvara that emphasize the deity’s terrible or wrathful
qualities. Gaston argues that divine images are a vital source for our understanding
Indian classical dance. Her blended analysis of dance alongside iconography and
mythology contributes to our scholarly understanding of Ardhanārīśvara in the lived
traditions of regional dance styles in India, including Bhārat Nāṭyam, Oḍissi, and
Kucipudi.
In 2010, R. K. K. Rajarajan introduced a new element in the scholarly inquiry of
ardhanārī dancing images, that is to say, right-breasted images of Ardhanārī-naṭeśvara
from Aihole, Tārācuram, and Kuṇṇakkuṭi. Rajarajan argues that the presence of right-
breasted images derives from Tamil Caṅkam literature, specifically the Cilapptikāram.
As we will see further on in the chapter, the canons of Indian iconography reserve the
right-male side of Ardhanārīśvara exclusively for Śiva, and the left-side (depicted by the
larger female-breast) for Pārvatī. However, several art historians, including Rajarajan,
now identify and catalogue the rare feature of a right-breasted ardhanārī image.
For example, Raju Kalidos (1993) was among the first art historians to point to
this feature on non-dancing images of Ardhanārīśvara when he identified several gender
reversed images from the Cōḷā period (see figure 2).5 Kalidos claims that although they
are rare, gender-reversed or right-breasted images offer solid evidence that the
ardhanārī image has its origins in Tamil oral folk narratives and the predominance of
Devī worship, rather than the dual deities of the Vedic religion, as suggested earlier by
Gonda, Srinivasan, and Nagaswamy. P. Kandasamy (1994) published a survey of three
ardhanārī images, also from the Cōḷā period, that locates the female breast on the right
side and, like Kalidos, he argues that this atypical feature is indicative of the images
south Indian genesis.6 Moreover, Kandasamy argues that right-breasted images are
ignored in the brahmanical śilpa-śāstra tradition. It has also been suggested by scholars
working on right-breasted images that the process of Sanskritization simply absorbed
the right-breasted ardhanārī image.7

[Insert: Figure 2: Ardhanārī. Vadopusīśvara Temple, Thanjavur District, Madras, ninth

century. (Courtesy of the American Institute of Indian Studies, Gurgaon, India)]

Kalidos’s discussion of Ardhanārīśvara vis-a-vis gender is significant and worth

referencing in more detail here. In 1994, Kalidos published a pioneer article titled
“Vāmacāra Viṣṇu in Hindu Iconography: A Problem of Sociological Values” in which
he considers the significance of syncretic images, including Ardhanārīśvara, in the
context of Sanskrit and bhakti literature. As Kalidos puts it, syncretic images routinely
reflect an ideology of gender bias and subordination. Ellen Goldberg (2002), who was
influenced by Kalidos’s work, probed the significance of gender subordination further in
her monograph The Lord Who is Half Woman: Ardhanārīśvara in Indian and Feminist
Thought. A sustained feminist interrogation of the image of Ardhanārīśvara is central to
her inquiry into the egalitarian implications of a half-male and half-female god/dess.
Kalidos and Goldberg contend that the diagnostic indicators used to convey the male
and female aspects of Śiva-Śakti at times reflect female gender subordination and
patriarchal normativity.
Goldberg’s work on Ardhanārīśvara (2002, 2008) raises several critical questions.
For example, does the half-male, half-female image of Ardhanārīśvara convey an
egalitarian model, or is the image a repository of ambivalent and referential gender
constructions that tend to privilege the male Śiva half? To what extent does
Ardhanārīśvara reflect and encode gender symmetry and/or asymmetry for ‘real’ men
and women in Indian tradition? Kalidos (1993) and Kandasamy (1994) advance a
similar understanding in their respective pioneer works. They argue that the left-hand
position accorded to the female half of Ardhanārīśvara is typically associated with
‘something low,’ ‘not worthy of being accorded a commendable status of equality,’
‘weakness,’ and ‘baseness and degradation’ (see Kalidos 1993: 287; cited in Goldberg
2002, 2008). Kandasamy reminds the reader that Indian tradition is well aware of the
subordinate status associated with the body’s left side, and by assigning it to Pārvatī in
the Ardhanārīśvara aspect of Śiva, a deliberate attempt is made to ‘denigrate’ the female
half (Kandasamy 1994: 494). However, as R. J. Z. Werblowsky writes, ‘practically all
cultures…are male cultures,’ and ‘symbols of the feminine…are made symbols,’ that is,
they reflect male privilege, power, attitudes, fears, complexes and interests
(Werblowsky 1982: 123-4, Goldberg 2008, see, also, de Beauvoir 1949).
In Indian tradition and culture, it is noteworthy that Viṣṇu is also accorded left-
hand status in the iconic body of Hari-Hara. The Hari-Hara image is analogous in many
ways to Ardhanārīśvara and, thus, relevant to our discussion. Hari-Hara traces its origins
to the Kuṣāṇa and Gupta periods. Essentially, Hari-Hara is structured on the
Ardhanārīśvara model insofar as two prominent deities of the Brahmanical pantheon are
set side by side in one syncretic body. There is little specific mythology associated with
Hari-Hara, although the form is mentioned briefly in the purāṇas. For example, in the
Harivaṃśa, Mārkeṇḍeya reveals ‘there is no difference between Śiva who exists in the
form of Viṣṇu, and Viṣṇu who exists in the form of Śiva—together they form an
Ardhanārīśvara’ (cited in Rao 1914-1916: 54, Goldberg 2002: 54). We see this formula
echoed in the Vamana and Viṣṇu Purāṇas. Viṣṇu and Śiva’s unity as Hari-Hara,
corresponding to Śiva and Pārvatī’s as Ardhanārīśvara, expresses the theological
interdependence between the two aspects of (divine) reality manifesting simultaneously
as matter (prakṛti) and spirit (puruṣa), variously represented as Viṣṇu/Śakti on the left,
and Śiva on the right. Thus, it is prudent to point out that it is the creative and sustaining
‘left-hand’ that is accorded a lower status in the dual deity pair, rather than the feminine
divine. Goldberg and Kalidos also leave room for the possibility that sectarian polemics
could be hidden in the Hari-Hara image and are thus made more effective by placing
Viṣṇu on the female-identified left-hand side (Goldberg 2002: 55). The central idea here
is that whether paired with Viṣṇu or with Pārvatī, Śiva maintains the privileged right-
hand side.8

(3) Iconography: Identifying Ardhanārīśvara

In this section, I present an overview of the iconography of Ardhanārīśvara. I
discuss in some detail the formulaic descriptions of Ardhanārīśvara from the various
canons of Indian art and architecture (śilpa śāstras). I identify significant areas of study,
and point to several monuments or mūrtis. I also look at what Indira Peterson (1989)
refers to as ‘poetic iconography’. That is, depictions of Ardhanārīśvara based on the
stotra and bhakti tradition. Poetry is a rich, primary source of imagery that is
contemporaneous with the śilpa śāstras, and very often overlooked in art historical
studies.
Although not writing specifically about Ardhanārīśvara, art historians Bruno
Dagens (1989), R. N. Misra (1989), and T. S. Maxwell (1989), make some broad claims
that also are relevant here. Dagens, Misra, and Maxwell argue that so-called normative
values, that is to say, patriarchal and/or brahmanical values, are typically concretized
and encoded in Indian sacred art. This, of course, includes the androgynous deity
Ardhanārīśvara whose male and female aspects are conveyed by various iconographic
conventions outlined in the śilpa śāstras. Specific textual accounts can be found, for
example, in the Viṣṇudharottara (c. eighth century CE). This text, besides providing
rules of pratimālakṣaṇa (image-making), contains references to dharma, dance,
astrology, astronomy, temple architecture, and even the efficacy of mantra. Like most
śāstras, the Viṣṇudharottara is narrated in the form of a dialogue between King Vajra
and the sage Mārkaṇḍeya. The third khaṇḍa (adhyāya fifty five) provides a simple and
straightforward description of Ardhanārīśvara under the heading Mahādeva (Goldberg
2002: 16). Basically, it states Ardhanārīśvara should be depicted with one face, two eyes,
and four arms. The right-male side of the deity holds a rosary (aksamālā), a trident
(triśūla), and should be adorned with snakes (nāgas)—the primary attributes of Śiva.
The left-female side is Śiva’s consort (vāma-ardhadayitātanuḥ), variously referred to as
Pārvatī, Umā, Gaurī, or Śivā. She routinely holds a lotus flower (nīlotpala) and/or
mirror (darpaṇa) in her left hand. According to the cursory description in the
Viṣṇudharottara, the composite form of Ardhanārīśvara represents the nonduality
(abhedābinnā) of prakṛti and puruṣa.
However, śilpa texts such as the Viṣṇudharottara mostly offer a compilation of
formulaic recipes based on ‘older texts’ that, as Kramrisch says, may be lost to us due to
the ravages of time (Kramrisch 1924. See, also, Kalidos 1993, Kramrisch 1922,
Goldberg 2002). In fact, Dagens concludes that what we actually see more often than not
is that ‘image precedes text.’ That is, Indian iconographical texts frequently extrapolate
‘their formulaic descriptions from preexisting monuments’ (Dagens 1989: 151,
Goldberg 2002: 17). As Dagens and others point out, śāstras simply offer a guide or
documentation for the image maker that presents ‘a short, factual, and non-optional list
of compulsory requirements needed to identify the god’ or goddess (Dagens 1989: 153).
Thus, it appears the iconographical or śilpa tradition can be seen as being subservient to
practice (Goldberg 2002: 17). The image-maker or śilpin has the authorization to create
and to some extent modify the image, but only within the limits of the canonical
tradition, which is often based on previously existing monuments.
As Misra explains, the śilpa tradition is an ‘integral link in a much larger cultural
system of homologues or a network of correspondences in which the mūrti is understood
as a ‘concretized’ or ‘reconstituted’ form of the unmanifest deity’ (Mishra 1989: 175,
Goldberg 2002: 18). When viewed from this perspective, the śilpa tradition functions
mainly to uphold prevailing theological and philosophical positions, as well as social
and cultural norms, through prescriptive canonical forms (Goldberg 2002: 18). Perhaps
this is why Maxwell warns that looking for the ‘key’ to understanding Indian sacred art
using the canons of Indian iconography is ultimately ‘doomed to failure’ (1989: 10).
Maxwell suggests we need to go beyond the śāstric tradition to understand inspired
works of sacred art represented by images such as Ardhanārīśvara. Or, as Goldberg has
argued, iconography often derives aesthetic inspiration and meaning through material
religion and the presence of living communities, including adept yogins and yoginīs,
bhakti saints and sages, and the ṛsis of Indian culture.
With this in mind, we can begin to formulate the basic codification of
Ardhanārīśvara in Indian tradition. The single most important diagnostic feature on
(almost) all Ardhanārīśvara images is the division of a bi-polar body divided along a
central vertical axis that runs from the crown of the head downwards splitting the body
into right side male and left side female. This vertical axis is invisible, yet it creates the
visible body of an androgyne or ardhanārī. Although we see some variations over time
and place, the right male Śiva side frequently displays the following diagnostic features:
a jaṭāmakuṭa or uṣṇīṣa (crown of matted hair frequently worn by Śiva Yogeśvara, as
well living ascetics and yogins), ornamented with snakes, a crescent moon, the goddess
Gaṅgā flowing from the top, and/or jewels, though we don’t see these diagnostic
indicators on the earliest Kuṣāṇa images of Ardhanārīśvara from the mid-first century
CE (see Figure 1). The body of the right-male Śiva side usually displays a broader
shoulder, a wider waist, a virile chest, and a more massive or muscular right thigh. We
also see male style earrings (kuṇḍala) worn in the right ear, as well as draped garments
from the waist down (e.g., dhoti or loin cloth sometimes made from tiger skin), belts,
and accessories characteristic of Śiva, for example, a garland (mālā) made from skulls
or rudrakṣa beads, on the right male side. One diagnostic indicator found primarily on
North Indian images of Ardhanārīśvara is the half ūrdhvareta or ūrdhvaliṅga
(ithyphallic) feature on the right Śiva side.
The left-female half of Ardhanārīśvara displays a number of ‘female identifiers
or indicators’. This includes a female braided hairstyle (dhamilla) adorned with precious
jewels, and draped clothing to the ankles. Female earrings on the left side are an
important indicator of gender. For example, we can identify busts of Ardhanārīśvara
simply by the differentiation of earrings worn on the left and right sides. Also, we
sometimes see red henna on the hand and/or foot of the female half, particularly on
paintings, murals, and modern reproductions such as poster art. From time to time we
see nose ornamentation (vesara). Also, the shape of the female form typically displays a
smaller waist, and a fuller hip and right thigh, than the right-male half. However, the
most important female indicator differentiating the left-female side from the right-male
side on all standing and seated images of Ardhanārīśvara is a round, well-developed,
woman’s breast.
As a syncretic deity, Ardhanārīśvara exhibits several shared diagnostic features
jointly on the male and female sides. This includes ornamentation such as neck pieces
(hāras), wrist ornaments (kankana), rings, and belts (mekhala). We see a shared halo of
light (prabhāmaṇḍala) behind the head of the deity, though in some instances it is larger
on the right male side or, in other instances, the shape of the right and left maṇḍalas
vary. Sometimes we see a sacred thread (yajñopavīta) worn by upper castes lying across
the shared chest. Typically, Ardhanārīśvara is portrayed with one face though the shape
of the eyes, nose, and mouth vary on the right and left sides. We typically notice a
smaller right eye as well as a fully open third eye placed either in the center of the
forehead or on the right-male half. In other instances, the female half displays a bindu
marking her marital status, and the right male half is marked by either a tilak or open
half third eye.
Another significant feature of any Ardhanārīśvara image is the number of arms
presented on the deity. Early images of Ardhanārīśvara typically have two arms, such as
the one shown above from the Kūṣāṇa era (see Figure 1). Perhaps we can conclude with
some certainty that the earliest images of Ardhanārīśvara are two-armed figures, and
three and four-armed images are a later development. Although rare, references to six or
more armed images of Ardhanārīśvara can also be seen, for example, in eastern India
(see, Mevissen 2014). Two armed images are usually depicted with the right male Śiva
side holding his hand in the gesture of fearlessness called abhayamudrā. The left female
hand holds a lotus flower (nīlotpala) or mirror (darpaṇa). On multiple armed images,
the arms are usually divided at the elbows, though we do see several unusual images of
Ardhanārīśvara where the arms are divided at the shoulders.9 Moreover, we see a
number of critical variations in terms of accessories both in the canons of Indian
iconography and on specific monuments where, for example, Śiva is holding a small axe
(paraṡu), club (khatvaṅga), thunderbolt (vajra), skull (kaplāla), or noose (pāśa)
sometimes in the form of a snake in his right hand. Variations on the female side include
Pārvatī holding a water pot (kamaṇdalu), a stringed instrument (vīṇā), or small parrot
perched on her left wrist (Adiceam 1967, Yadav 2001). On four-armed images, the
second female arm can sometimes be seen resting in the posture of ease (kaṭyavalambita
mudrā) on Nandin, Śiva’s bull vehicle (vāhana).
Most images of Ardhanārīśvara are depicted in one of three different standing
poses, referred to in the Viṣṇudharmottara as tribhaṅga, sthānamudrā, and
ardhasamapāda. Tribhaṅga pose identifies the torso as having three bends (tri-bhaṅga)
in the head, shoulders, and hips, with the latter bend emphasizing the fuller left female
hip.10 Sthānamudrā (straight posture), also referred to as samapāda, displays balance and
symmetry. This pose is quite common and can be found, for example, on early Indian
coin images of Ardhanārīśvara, as well as images from Mahābalipuram (seventh century
CE), Indian poster art, and many Ardhanārīśvara images from Nepal (see Figure 3). In
sthānamudrā or samapāda, we see the weight and proportions of the androgynous body
distributed evenly and equally, and there are no obvious bends in the torso to emphasize
the fuller female form. There are also several monuments where Ardhanārīśvara is
shown in a seated posture, though they are not depicted quite as often in the canons of
Indian iconography or in material religion, as standing representations.11

[Insert: Figure 3: Ardhanārīśvara. Nepal, seventeenth century. Photograph taken by the

author.]

If one purpose of hand gestures (mudrās) is to give voice to seemingly silent

images, then technical knowledge deriving from Indian dance can be extremely useful to
an overall understanding of Indian iconography. To fully appreciate the system of poses
and gestures used in Indian iconography, it is useful for scholars look to the traditions of
Indian dance. For example, Anne-Marie Gaston (2008) offers a description of various
hand gestures used in regional and classical dance styles that includes a discussion (and
several photos) of Ardhanārīśvara. When we look at the canons of Indian iconography,
we see references to a variety of hastas or mudrās pertaining specifically to the male and
female aspects of the image. For example, abhaya mudrā (the gesture of fearlessness,
also referred to as śantida and varada mudrā) is most commonly found on the right male
side on two, three, and four armed images from the Kuṣāṇa period onwards.
Interestingly, we also see this mudra on images of Śākyamuni Buddha. As Kamil Veth
Zvelbil (1985) explains, abhaya mudrā is the male hand gesture par excellence (35).
Another critical point to mention regarding the female identifiers is that in
addition to the female breast, the darpaṇa (or mirror) is among the most common
iconographic features listed in the canons on Indian iconography to distinguish the left
side or female aspect of Ardhanārīśvara. Why? What is it about the darpaṇa or mirror
that identifies the female side? In order to elaborate on the significance of the darpaṇa
here, we must look at the image of Ardhanārīśvara in the broader philosophical context.
At the outset of this chapter we stated that ardhanārī images have their roots in the dual
deities of early Vedic religion. However, Sāṁkhya is also a dualistic system12 that
postulates the idea of two eternal principles, depicted in a way similar to Agni in the
Vedas, as discussed earlier by Nagaswamy. In the classical system of Sāṁkhya
philosophy (darśana), one principle is portrayed as a male spiritual ‘self’ (puruṣa),
while the other is portrayed as female primordial matter or nature (prakṛti, including the
body, sense organs, mental organs, intelligence (buddhi), etc.). Another way of
explaining this is to refer to the male as a witness or seer (draṣṭṛ), and the female as that
which is witnessed or seen (dṛśya). In the form and figure of Ardhanārīśvara, Śiva and
Pārvatī are simply recast as the forces of puruṣa and prakṛti deriving from the orthodox
Sāṁkhya school.
When viewed from this perspective, prakṛti/Pārvatī is portrayed as the active
principle (e.g., karma, vṛtti). Puruṣa/Śiva represent the static pole (akarma) into which
prakṛti is ultimately absorbed in the realization of self (puruṣa, ātman). That is the goal
of Sāṃkhya (and Yoga philosophy). The polarity or dualism that is depicted in
Sāṃkhya-Yoga philosophy is abandoned in later non-dualist (advaita) readings, such as
vedānta, tantra, or haṭhayoga, but the association of the feminine with matter, energy,
and life force (śakti) remains.
 Art historical discussions of the iconography of Ardhanārīśvara typically do not
interrogate particular linkages between various iconographic indicators and living
traditions of Indian culture. In 2002, Goldberg wrote an article titled “Pārvatī Through
the Looking Glass” (2002a) that investigates the association between the female half of
Ardhanārīśvara and the mirror symbol. Based on an understanding of Sāṁkhya and
Yoga, Goldberg explains that the mirror is a dynamic metaphor or simile (dhvani) that
not only identifies the female half of Ardhanārīśvara in Indian art, but perhaps more
importantly it measures the degree of inseparability between Śiva and Pārvatī
(understood as prakṛti and puruṣa) in the lived religious world. We hear over and over
in Indian tradition that Śiva and Śakti are inseparable, like moon and moonlight, but
what becomes clear in Goldberg’s analysis is that this realization is made possible
through the mind-mirror metaphor. Śiva, as pure consciousness or puruṣa, reveals
himself to Pārvatī as pure reflection. In precisely the same way she reveals herself to
him—through the mirror that she holds in her left hand. Goldberg explains that in the
aspect of Ardhanārīśvara, Śiva and Pārvatī share one body. The two halves, male and
female, stand inseparably side by side, rather than face to face.13 It is through the crucial
medium of the mirror that Pārvatī and Śiva are able to ‘see’ one another. However, it
also is important to point out that Pārvatī holds the mirror, not Śiva, thus, the power of
darśana (i.e., seeing the divine) rests with Pārvatī as prakṛti.14
I would like to probe this critical point in more detail, given its importance in
living Indian traditions. In his thoughtful analysis of Patañjali Yoga, Ian Whicher (2002)
explains that the buddhi (intellect), as an aspect of prakṛti, essentially has two functions:
to confirm sense experience and impressions; and, to attain jñāna. Understood in this
way, the mirror also has two functions (faces or, as Whicher calls it, a ‘twofold faculty
of perception’). That is, one face looks outward at form or ‘objects of perception’
(viveka-khyāti), while the other face looks inward towards puruṣa (or Śiva, viveka-khyāti,
yogi-pratyakṣa). Pārvatī turns her face either toward Śiva, or toward the external world
of form; thus, the two-sided nature of divine reality we discussed earlier is once again
depicted. However, this time the two-sided nature is seen through the symbol of the
mirror that Pārvatī holds in her left hand.15
 In living religious traditions, the mirror metaphor implies the practitioner beholds
divinity with the body-mind (prakṛti, buddhi). The literature from the traditions of yoga,
for example, are quite clear on this point. In addition to a corpus of engaged and
embodied practices, we see the mirror-like qualities of the buddhi discussed in some
detail in the Yoga-sūtras of Patañjali. It could be argued that the discriminating power of
the buddhi or the mirror-like mind in Sāṁkhya-Yoga anticipates the iconographical
image of the mirror held in Pārvatī’s (prakṛti’s) left hand. The image of Ardhanārīśvara,
inclusive of the mirror metaphor, encodes and explains subtle processes that are going
on in the higher stages of sādhana (see Goldberg 2002a).
Furthermore, with respect to gender, the mirror also serves as a potent feminine
symbol. In her insightful analysis of various conventions used in Buddhist
hagiographical literature, Liz Wilson (1996) proposes the view that the feminine utilizes
the ‘entire objective world as a mirror for self-evaluation’ (95). This is possible because
the mirror has been effectively identified with the feminine in history, since the
constructed (and reified) category ‘woman’ relies primarily upon reflection as a mode of
self-reflexivity. With this in mind, the ‘woman-and-the-mirror theme’, as Wilson calls it,
comes to epitomize the prominent metaphor used in Indian art to portray courtesans,
nuns, and, of course, the goddess Pārvatī. In Indian tradition, Pārvatī wins her status as
the wife of Śiva, and as tapasvīnī and yoginī, by denying external forms and objects
while meditating pointedly on Śiva. Thus, through the mirror, we see not only the
manifest signs of prakṛti, with its multiplicity and subject-object duality, but we also see
the unity of Śiva and Pārvatī. Thus Ardhanārīśvara as a symbol of yoga is mediated by
the mirror metaphor.
Along side the metaphors depicted in the śilpa tradition, we find references to
various iconographical indicators in the Ardhanārīnaṭeśvara Stotra, a devotional poem
attributed to Śāṅkara, the principal expounder of the advaita school of Indian philosophy.
Stotras, or hymns of praise, to a particular deity are typically eulogistic in nature. The
invocation to particular deities finds its roots in the early Vedic hymns and the Tēvāram
hymns in south India (e.g., the Śatarudrīya or The Hymns of Praise to the Hundred
Rudras, included in both the Vajasaneyī Saṃhitā (khaṇḍa 16) of the Śukla Yajurveda and
the Yajussaṃhitā, or Kṛṣṇayajurveda Taittirīya Saṃhitā). The Ardhanārīnaṭeśvara Stotra,
in which the emblems, attributes, and qualities of Ardhanārīśvara or Śiva-Śivā are
praised, is of particular interest here for several reasons. First, the stotra provides an
excellent example of the doctrine of bhedābheda (duality-in-unity). Secondly, it is a rich
source of poetic iconography that adds to our detailed description of Ardhanārīśvara
imagery.16
In the Ardhanārīnaṭeśvara Stotra, we see iconographic as well as mythic
elements of Śiva-Śivā eulogized. In other words, Ardhanārīśvara is portrayed according
to existing convention. The poet extols the physical attributes of the male and female
aspects of the deity as if beholding the deity (darśana) with his (or her) own eyes. Śiva’s
matted hair (jaṭā), the hairstyle worn by ascetics, is depicted on the right, and Śivā’s
dark hair, braided with jewels and gems (dhamilla), is on the left. Śivā is depicted by a
dot of vibrant red vermillion powder (kumkum) symbolizing her marital status as Śiva’s
wife, whereas Śiva is depicted as smasānavāsin, the yogi par excellent. His body is
smeared with ashes (bhasma) from the funeral pyre and burning cremation grounds
where he sports as the embodiment of the power of dissolution. Other right-left
references to Śiva-Śivā include her dance of creation (lāsya) and his dance of
destruction (tāṇḍava). She carries a blue lotus flower (nīlotpala) and wears a garland
(mālā) made from the flowers of the mandār tree. He wears a mālā around his neck
made from skulls. She is dressed in extraordinary fabric, he is digambara (sky-clad). His
nudity conveys asceticism, whereas her finery conveys fertility and wealth. Throughout
the stotra, Śivā is portrayed as creation, nature, or prakṛti. Śiva is portrayed as puruṣa.
The hymnist systematically demarcates the male and female aspects using clear
metaphors and indicators associated with the male and female halves; yet, he (or she)
also recognizes that male and female constitute one inseparable androgynous body, as
each stanza ends in the repeated refrain or mantra ‘I bow to Śivā and I bow to Śiva’
(namaḥ Śivāyai ca namaḥ Śivāya).
However, one particular phrase in the stotra reiterates the gender asymmetry we
discussed earlier in the chapter. In verse six, the hymnist says, ‘She is not Lord, he is
Lord of all’ (nirśvarāyai nikileśvarāya). This reference emphasizes, as Kalidos suggests,
subtle patriarchal norms within the social system. Men are the ‘lord of all’, and women
observe the rules and codes of behavior deemed proper by male constituted law.
Yet, what is perhaps most critical here is that poems of the poet-saints are
coterminous with the highly stylized canons of Indian iconography. They effectively
relay recurring motifs and employ stock diagnostic features based on the pan-Indian
history of Śaiva theology in Indian tradition. Overall, their function as ‘verbal icons,’ or
‘songs of experience,’ to borrow two phrases from Norman Cutler (1987), is essentially
devotional. Though, it is important to bear in mind, as Goldberg points out, that
‘descriptive discourse both in hymns and in iconography, in turn, becomes prescriptive
by encoding normative and divinely sanctioned patterns and models of gender and
behavior’ (Goldberg 2002: 112).
This is equally true when looking at the diagnostic indicators in several poems in
the Tēvāram. Metaphors used in Tamil bhakti (devotional) poetry focus on a range of
religious themes from myth, iconography, and tradition that evoke the image of
Ardhanārīśvara through imaginal conventions, or what Indira Peterson calls ‘poetic
iconography’ (Peterson 1989). Śiva’s male and female attributes are immediately
recognizable to the listener. For example, a woman’s earring, a slim waist, a colorful
silk sari, soft young breasts, and so on, displayed on the left female side. Moon-crowned
matted hair, a body smeared with ashes, a loincloth, and an old white bull standing at his
side displayed on the right male side. Among these many obvious conventions, we also
hear subtle references to gender. Though the image of Ardhanārīśvara is recognized as
displaying two divine forms, that is, one male and one female standing conjointly side
by side, several hymns refer to the female side as ‘silent’. For example, one Tamil hymn
by Cuntarar extols Pārvatī as a ‘silent woman’ (Peterson 1989: 233). Another by Appar
says, ‘on one side he chants the melodies of the ritual Veda, on the other, she gently
smiles’ (Peterson 1989: 105). Although both metaphors represent the essence of
Ardhanārīśvara’s divine beauty, they also capture distinct differences. The use of
metaphors, such as the ones mentioned above in which the right half chants Veda and
the left half gently smiles in a sense guarantees the equivalent paradigm at the level of
‘real’ men and women. For the most part, the female half does not engage in the liturgy
of orthodox brahmanical discourse, thus this metaphor is a subtle indicator expressing
his privilege and, conversely, her lack of privilege. Complex signs of gender are situated
in these formulaic iconographic descriptors and they require more scholarly analysis and
discussion.

Conclusion
In this chapter, I have shown that the dual deity Śiva-Ardhanārīśvara has roots in
Vedic culture and Sāṁkhya-Yoga philosophy. The androgynous image attests to the
enduring philosophical ideas of prakṛti and puruṣa, as well as the idea of nonduality or
advaita. Masculine and feminine are not viewed as separate dimensions of the divine in
Indian tradition, rather they identify a belief in ‘god’ as a divine couple. As we see,
scholars have asked whether this two-in-one androgynous image of the divine portrays
an egalitarian model, or a subtle asymmetry that privileges the right-male half (see, Sen
1992).
Furthermore, we discussed the role that diagnostic indicators play in interpreting
deeper philosophical concepts portrayed by the deity. Ardhanārīśvara evokes themes
concerned with the human processes of creation and dissolution. Through her practice of
tapas, Pārvatī subverts the normative model of behavior for women (strī-dharma) to
pursue yoga. As such, Ardhanārīśvara assumes an asexual coupling consistent with
monastic and ascetic traditions of Śaiva-yoga. As stated, male and female stand side by
side, rather than face to face. Nonetheless, by assigning gender to the left and right sides
of Śiva, Ardhanārīśvara becomes a powerful source of cultural information. When
joined with Śiva in one body, Pārvatī is no longer an object of sexual desire, rather she
portrays a heroine who actively earns her rightful status at the side of Śiva. The only
other deity of whom this can be said is Viṣṇu in the image of Hari-Hara.
What has become clear from this research is that more sustained studies of
Ardhanārīśvara are necessary, in particular studies that focus on the idea of
Ardhanārīśvara as a nuptial symbol in areas such as family law, economics, and the lives
of married Hindu couples. Critical studies analyzing the social, legal, and economic
implications of the ardhanārī ideal are still needed. Thus, a study of the broader
implications of the image of Ardhanārīśvara on the well-being of Hindu women would
be timely. Also, the possibility of understanding the image of Ardhanārīśvara from the
perspective of cognitive neuroscience might provide interesting findings. Current brain
imaging technologies, for example, could be useful to understand the deeper brain
functions involved in meditation and yogic states of consciousness. A cognitive analysis
could yield empirical data that corresponds to the encoded and symbolic language
embedded in the central metaphors of the image of Ardhanārīśvara in Śaiva culture and
tradition.

Endnotes

1 Gerd Mevissen claims the androgynous form of Śiva is rare in eastern India. See

Mevissen 2014, 2013.

2 For additional images, see, Srinivasan 1997 and Goldberg 2002. Also, see Joanna

Williams who examines two mūrtis of Ardhanārīśvara from the early Kūṣāṇa period,
and one from the later Gupta period, in her article titled ‘Ardhanārīśvara-Liṅga’ (1987).
Here, the central image is unusually carved on a standing liṅga in the mottled red
sandstone representative of this era and local.
3
For further reading, see the work of Tatyana J. Elizarenkova 1995. She gives a brilliant
analysis of the Ṛg Vedic grammatical system and its use of compounds (dvandvas)
where opposites, such as male-female, are used consistently to form dyads or pairs.
4
A precursor to Adiceam’s article is P. Z. Pattabiramin’s ‘Notes d’iconograhie
dravidienne: Arddhnārīśvaramūrti’ (1959: 13-19).
5 See John R. Marr’s “The Early Dravidians” in The Cultural History of India. In a

footnote, written one year before Kalidos’s article appeared, Marr suggested there might
be a connection between the narrative of Pattiṇi-Kaṇṇkai and Śiva-Pārvatī as
Ardhanārīśvara. However, there is no evidence Kalidos read Marr’s chapter in
Basham’s book.
6
See, also, C. Krishnamurthi and K. S. Ramachandran’s ‘Ardhanārīśvara in South
Indian Sculpture’ in The Indian Historical Quarterly 39 (1960): 69-74. Although this
article discusses the right-breasted ardhanārī, it does not provide an explanation.
Krishnamurthi and Ramachandran also explore passages from Kālidāsa’s Raghuvaṃesa,
the Tēvāram, as well as several purāṇas that reference Ardhanārīśvara.
7
R. Nagaswamy (2002: 1) is thoroughly aware that Tamil poetry and literature
recognizes Ardhanārīśvara. However, this does not change his position that dual
ardhanārī deities have their origins in Agni (the Hindu god of fire).

8 According to Nagaswamy, we hear references in the Tēvāram to Ardhanārīśvara as

Hari-Hara. For example, Appar sings ‘the Dēvi of Śiva is none other than Hari-Viṣṇu’.
In other words, Viṣṇu and Dēvi are ‘identical’. The poems also tell us ‘Śiva has no form
(uruvam – rūpa) other than Fire – Agni’ reinforcing Nagaswamy’s thesis mentioned at
the outset that ardhanārī images have their root in Agni (see Nagaswamy 2002: 1).
9 See, for example, the seventh century mūrti of Ardhanārīśvara at Mahābalipuram,

Tamil Nadu, in Goldberg 2002: 40.

10 It could be argued that three-armed images of Ardhanārīśvara place more power on

the male right side. This is evident on the beautiful ninth century CE, south Indian Cōḷā
bronzes from Tiruvenkadu currently on display at the Madras Museum, India.
11 For example, Ardhanārīśvara in Mahābalipuram, Tamil Nadu, Chengalpattu District,

Shore Temple, seventh century. See Goldberg 2002: 41.

12 See Michael Burley, 2007 for details on Sāṃkhya-Yoga philosophy.
13 As we see, for example, on various yab-yum images in Tibetan Buddhism.
14
The mirror acts as a prism to reflect pure consciousness once prakṛti attains sattva
guṇa.
15
The mirror is a critical symbol in many cultures. See, also, the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad
(Olivelle 1998: 419). We also see similar references to the mirror in Mahayana
Buddhism. See, also, Alex Wayman’s article “The Mirror as a Pan-Buddhist Metaphor-
Simile” in History of Religions. Vol. 13: 1973-74: 251-269, as well as Philip B.
Yampolsky’s translation of The Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1967, and Steven Laycock’s Mind as Mirror and the
Mirroring of Mind. Albany: State University of New York, 1994.
16 The stotra is usually chanted as an integral part of lived religious practice (e.g., pūjā)

and was sung for me in jogīya rāga (or the rāga of renunciation).

Bibliography

Adiceam, Marguerite E. 1967. “Les Images de Śiva dans L’Inde du Sud, VI.
Ardhanārīśvara.” Arts Asiatique XIX: 8:143-64.

Ardhanārīnaṭeśvara Stotra. 1976. Sanskrit. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Orientalis.

Banerjea, J. N. 1956. The Development of Hindu Iconography. Calcutta: University of

Calcutta.

Bhattacharrya, Dipak Chandra. 1991. Pratimālakṣana of the Viṣṇudharmottara. New

Delhi: Harman Publishing.

---------. Iconology of Composite Images. 1980. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal

Publishers Pvt. Ltd.


Bisschop, Peter, C. 2009. “Siva.” In Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Vol. 1. Editor- in-
Chief, Knut A. Jacobsen, 741-755. Leiden: Brill.

Bühnemann, Gudrun and Musashi Tachikawa. 1990. The Hindu Deities Illustrated
according to the Pratiṣṭhālakṣaṇasārasamuccaya. Tokyo: The Centre for East
Asian Cultural Studies.

Burley, Michael. 2007. Classical Sāṁkhya and Yoga: An Indian Metaphysics of Experience.
London: Routledge.

Chitgopekar, Nilima. 1998. Encountering Śivaism: The Deity, the Milieu, the Entourage.
Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

Collins, Charles Dillard. 1988. The Iconography and Ritual of Śiva at Elephanta.
Albany: State University of New York.

Cutler, Norman. 1987. Songs of Experience: The Poetics of Tamil Devotion.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Dagens, Bruno. 1989. “Iconography in Śivāgamas: Description or Prescription?”” Pp.

151-154 in Shastric Traditions in Indian Arts, vol. 1, ed. Anna Libera Dahmen-
Dallapiccola. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden.

Dahmen-Dallapiccola, Anna Libera, ed. 1989. Shastric Traditions in Indian Arts, vol. 1,
ed. Anna Libera Dahmen-Dallapiccola. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden.

de Beauvoir, Simone. 1949. The Second Sex. Translated and edited by H. M. Parshely.
New York: Vintage Books.

Donaldson, Thomas, E. 1985. Hindu Temple Art of Orissa. 3 Vols. Leiden: Brill.

Elizarenkova, Tatyana, J. 1995. Language and Style of the Vedic Ṛṣis. Albany: State
University of New York.

Gonda, Jan. 1975. The Dual Deities in the Religion of the Vedas. Amsterdam: North
Holland Publishing Company.

Gaston, Anne-Marie. 1982. Śiva in Dance, Myth and Iconography. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.

Goldberg, Ellen. 2008. “Ardhanārīśvara: What We Know and What We Do Not Know.”
Religion Compass. Vol. 2/3: 301-315.

---------. 2002. The Lord Who Is Half Woman: Ardhanārīśvara in Indian and Feminist
Traditions. Albany: State University of New York Press.

---------. 2002a. “Pārvatī Through the Looking Glass.” Acta Orientalia. Vol. 63: 71-92.

Kalidos, Raju. 1994. “Vāmācara Viṣṇu in Indian Iconography: A Problem in

Sociological Values.” East and West. Vol. 39: 115-43.

---------. 1993. “The Twain-Face of Ardhanārī.” Acta Orientale 54: 68-106.

Kalidos, Raju, R.L. Kesava Rajarajan and R. K. Parthiban. 2006. Encyclopedia of

Hinduism: Śiva. New Delhi: Sharada.

Kandasamy, P. 1994. “Ardhanārīśvara: Samples of Cōḻa Masterpieces.” East and

West. 44:2-4: 491-96.

Kramrisch, Stella. 1922. “The Vishnudharmottaram.” Calcutta Review X:331-86.

---------. 1924. The Vishnudharmottaram. Part 111: A Treatise on Indian Painting and
Image-Making. Calcutta: Calcutta University Press.

Krishnamurthi, C., and K. S. Ramachandran. 1964. “Hermaphroditism and Early

Ardhanārīśvara Figures in India.” Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal 2:123-
25.

---------. 1960. “Ardhanārīśvara in South Indian Sculpture.” Indian Historical Quarterly

36:69-74.

Lahiri, A. N. “Iconography of Ardhanārīśvara on a Tripurā Coin.” In The Śakti Cult

and Tārā. Edited by D. C. Sircar, 101-103. Calcutta: University of Calcutta,
1967.

Laycock, Steven, W. 1994. Mind as Mirror and the Mirroring of Mind. Albany: State
University of New York.

Marglin, Frederique Apffel. 1989. Wives of the God-King: the Rituals of the Devadasis
of Puri. 1985. Reprint, Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Markandeya Purana. 1969. English and Sanskrit. Translated with notes by F. Eden
Pargiter. Delhi: Indological Book House.

Marr, John R. 1975. “The Early Dravidians.” In A Cultural History of India. Edited by A.
L. Basham, 30-38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Maxwell, T. S. 1989. “Śilpa vs. Śāstra.” In Shastric Traditions in Indian Arts, vol. 1, ed.
Anna Libera Dahmen-Dallapiccola, 5-16. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden.

Mevissen, Gerd, J. R. 2014. “Images of Ardhanārīśvara from Bengal and Nepal—A

Chronological Survey.” In Changing Forms and Cultural Identity: Religious and
Secular Iconographies. Vol. 1. South Asian Archaeology and Art. Edited by
Deborah Klimburg-Salter and Linda Lojda, 167-182. Turnout, Belguim:
BREPOS Publishers.

---------. 2013. “Corpus of Ardhanārīśvara Images from Nepal, Eastern India and
Southeast Asia.” Berliner Indologische Studien (Berlin) 21: 273-298.

Misra, R. N. 1989. “Indian Śilpa Tradition, Śilpi and Aesthetics: A Study of

Correspondence.” Pp. 175-86 in Shastric Traditions in Indian Arts, vol. 1, ed.
Anna Libera Dahmen-Dallapiccola. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden.

R. Nagaswamy. 2002. “Foundations of Indian Art: Ardhanārī, Harihara, and Naṭarāja.”

In Foundations of Indian Art: Proceedings of the Chidambaram Seminar on Art
and Religion, February 2011. Edited by R. Nagaswamy, 1-27. Chennai:
Tamil Arts Academy.

Naidu, P. N. 1999. “Ardhanārīśvara-mūrti in the Temple of Andhra Pradesh: A

Comparative Iconographical Study (Early Chālukya to Vijayanagara.” In
Proceedings of the 8th Session of Indian Art History Congress. 40-48. New
Delhi: Indian Art History Congress, National Museum.

Olivelle, Patrick. 1998. The Early Upaniṣads: Sanskrit and English. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Pattabiramin, P. Z. 1959. “Notes d’iconographie dravidienne: I. Arddha-

nārīśvaravaramūrti.” Arts Asiatiques 6: 13-19.

Peterson, Indira, V. 1989. Poems to Śiva. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.

Rajarajan, R.K.K. 2010. “Dance of Ardhanārī as Pattiṉi-Kaṇṇaki with special reference

to the Cilappatikāram”. Berliner Indologische Studien 13/14: 401-14.

Rao, T. A. Gopinatha. 1968 [1914-1916], Elements of Hindu Iconography, Vol. II, Part I.
New York: Paragon Book Reprint Corp.

Sen, Amartya. 1992. Inequality Reexamined. Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.

Sivaramamurti, C. 1974. Naṭarāja in Art, Thought and Literature. New Delhi: National
Museum.

Soundararajan, J. 2004. Naṭarāja in South Indian Art. New Delhi: Sharada Publishing
House.

Srinivasan, Doris Meth. 1997. Many Heads, Arms, and Eyes: Origin, Meaning, and
Form of Multiplicity in Indian Art. Leiden: Brill.

Wayman, Alex. 1973-74. “The Mirror as a Pan-Buddhist Metaphor-Simile.” History of

Religions. Vol. 13: 251-269.

Werblowsky, R. J. Z. 1982. “Women…and Other…Beasts or “Why Can’t a Woman Be

More Like A Man.” Numen 29: 1: 123-31.

Williams, Joanna. “Ardhanārīśvara-Lińga.” Kusumāñjali: New Interpretation of

Indian Art and Culture (C. Sivaramamurti Commemoration Volume). Edited by
M. S. Nagaraja Rao, 299-306, Delhi, 1987.

Whicher, Ian. 2000. The Integrity of the Yoga Darśana: A Reconsideration of Classical
Yoga. Albany: State University of New York.

Wilson, Liz. 1996. Charming Cadavers: Horrific Figurations of the Feminine in Indian
Buddhist Hagiographic Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Yadav, Neeta. 2001. Ardhanārīśvara in Indian Art and Literature. Delhi: D. K.

Printworld.

Yampolsky, Philp, B. 1967. Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch. New York: Columbia
University Press.

Zvelebil, Keith Veith. 1985. Ānanda-Tāṇḍava of Śiva Sadanṛttamūrti. Tiruvanmiyur:

Institute of Asian Studies.