JON PAUL SYDNOR SHAIVISM’S NATARAJA AND PICASSO’S CRUCIFIXION An Essay in Comparative Visual Theology Introduction This essay is highly experimental in nature. It will explore the possibility of com- parative visual theology or the potential enrichment that art criticism across reli- gious boundaries might offer. We often look at works of art from our own tra- dition and we occasionally look at works of art from other traditions. But what would happen if we were to study purposefully, self-consciously, and reflectively works of art from different traditions together? Is it possible that such study might unlock presence within the compared works which would otherwise remain hid- den? Is it possible that contrast might increase the being of each contrasted work? Often in interreligious dialogue or comparative theology perspectives, convic- tions, dispositions and assumptions which had lain dormant in the home tradition suddenly leap to consciousness when stimulated by their foil within the foreign tradition. Or, to put it more technically, the other tradition’s analogous doctrines, or even the absence thereof, disturb the dogmatic slumber of our own beliefs. In so doing, they bring our religion to life in its fullness, raising into the light aspects of our faith which had previously remained unnoticed, unexamined and unap- preciated. By accident or design, and I believe by design, the road to self-knowl- edge leads through other-knowledge. Conversely, for the other, the road to self- knowledge leads through us. If we are to know, then for reasons beyond our un- derstanding we are compelled to know in community which is characterized by difference. Consciousness needs plurality. And ultimately plurality needs plural- ism. This study will be offer a brief exploration into visual pluralism. In this particular essay, we will compare, contrast and reflect upon two works: the famous Nataraja of Shaivite devotionalism and Pablo Picasso’s Crucifixion of 1930. They are very different works from very different traditions, composed in different times and places for different purposes using different artistic forms. They are in every aspect different; each is other to the other, artistically, theo- logically and historically. It is hoped that this difference and otherness will prove fruitful and not desultory to our endeavor. If consciousness is in fact reliant on 86 SHAIVISM’S NATARAJA AND PICASSO’S CRUCIFIXION difference and otherness, then by the end of this essay we should know more than we did at the beginning.1 It is important to note that in this experiment, at least for those relatively new to Nataraja and Picasso’s Crucifixion, there will be three moments of hermeneutical consciousness. The first moment will be pre-critical: the two works as interpreted prior to encounter with their critical analyses. The second moment will be dis- cretely post-critical: the two works as interpreted after encounter with their critical analyses. The third moment will be comparatively post-critical: the two works as interpreted after their comparison with one another and their respective analyses. It is the premise of this essay that understanding will increase with each step in the hermeneutical process—that discrete criticism deepens understanding but that comparative criticism more profoundly deepens understanding. And so the experiment proceeds. Hopefully, this essay will generate some empir- ical data regarding the promise of comparative visual theology. And more hope- fully, it will inform us a little more deeply about both Christianity and Hinduism, in and through and with the other. At this point in the essay, I would like to invite you to consider Nataraja prior to the encounter of any criticism of that work. Please take your time. This reflection will provide content regarding the pre-critical encounter with this work of art. Seeing Nataraja: Visual Exegesis by Heinrich Zimmer Heinrich Zimmer was one of the foremost Indologists of the twentieth century. Noted for his lucid prose and sympathetic (perhaps empathetic) commitment to Indian philosophy and religion, Zimmer’s works combine academic mastery with poetic accessibility. Prior to his premature death by pneumonia in 1943, Zimmer taught a lecture course on Indian Art at Columbia University. It is from this lec- ture course—his writings, his students’ notes, published articles in the field —that the book Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization was collated by Joseph Campbell. In that book Zimmer specifically addresses the famous statue of Na- taraja (Zimmer 1946: 151-75).2 1 It may be objected that Picasso’s Crucifixion is not a work of explicit Christian devotion and therefore is not a legitimate conversation partner for Nataraja. Picasso (see O’ Brian 1994: 286) would disagree: “What do they mean by religious art? It’s an absurdity. How can you make religious art one day and another kind the next?” 2 This section of the paper is fundamentally a precis of Zimmer’s visual exegesis of the Nataraja statue. It is entirely derivative of his own work and intermixes direct quo- tation, paraphrase, and summary of his thought. 87 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 15 (2005) 1 Nataraja is, first and foremost, a statue of a dancer. According to Zimmer, within Indian civilization dancing is a form of magic in which the enchantment one wish- es to grant others is first granted to oneself through dance as well as through pray- er, fasting, and meditation. Pantomimic dance is intended to transmute the dancer into whatever demon, god, or earthly existence he impersonates. In this way, then, the dance is an act of creation beyond creation. Such is depicted in the statue Na- taraja. Shiva, as the Cosmic Dancer, appears before us in his Dancing Mani- festation as Nataraja. The forces gathered and projected in his frantic, ever-endur- ing gyration are the powers of the evolution, maintenance, and dissolution of the world. Nature and all its creatures, and the experience thereof, are the effects of his eternal dance. At this point in the essay we will address aspects of the statue individually. The upper right hand of Shiva-Nataraja carries a little drum, shaped like an hour- glass, for the beating of a rhythm. The drum symbolizes Sound itself, which is the power of creation as well as the conveyer of revelation, tradition, incantation, ma- gic, and divine truth. Sound is associated with Ether, which is the first of the five elements, and the source of Air, Fire, Water, and Earth. Sound and Ether, and therefore the drum, signify the first, truth-pregnant moment of creation, the pro- ductive energy of the Absolute, in its pristine, cosmogenetic strength. The upper left hand bears on its palm a tongue of flame. While Ether is the element of creation, Fire is the element of destruction which will consume all of creation at the close of the Kali Yuga. In the balance between the upper right hand and the upper left hand we find a ruthless counterpoise of creation and destruction united in one cosmic dance. The field of this terrible interplay is the Dancing Ground of the Universe Himself, Shiva, brilliant and horrific in his dance as Nataraja. The second right hand displays the “fear not” gesture, an oasis of peace between the dynamism and kinesis of the Drum of Creation and Fire of Destruction. Even within humanity’s own precarious position after creation and before destruction, we are to find solace in the grace of the Dancer who both creates and destroys. The lower left hand, drawn across the chest, points downward to the uplifted left foot. It is imitative of the elephant trunk of Ganesh, Shiva’s son, the Remover of Obstacles. The obstacles which Ganesh removes are those blocking Release, sig- nified by the lifted left foot, which lifts gracefully from the ground as the devotee is lifted graciously out of karma. The right foot rests on the demon Apasmara Purusha: “The Man or Demon called Forgetfulness, or Heedlessness.” It is through conquest of the demon of heedless- ness that human ignorance and blindness are overcome and release is received. 88 SHAIVISM’S NATARAJA AND PICASSO’S CRUCIFIXION The ring of flames around Nataraja offers several different allegorical inter- pretations. One, it is taken to symbolize the vital processes of the universe, the in- ner energy which animates all of creation. Two, it is said to symbolize the trans- cendent light of the knowledge of truth emitted by Shiva. Three, it is taken to symbolize the holy syllable AUM which is understood to unify all of creation within its evocation. “A” represents the state of waking consciousness and ma- terial existence; “U” represents the state of dreaming consciousness; “M” is the state of dreamless sleep, the natural condition of quiescent, undifferentiated con- sciousness, wherein every experience is dissolved into a blissful non-experience, a mass of potential consciousness. The Silence following the pronunciation of the three reflects the union of perfected supra-consciousness with the pure essence of Divine Reality, or Atman merging with Brahman. AUM (Silence) is therefore a sound-symbol of the whole of consciousness-existence, and at the same time its willing affirmation. Amidst the turbulence of creation and destruction, of the defeat of heedlessness, in the midst of a dance which sends his hair flying wildly outward in irresistible centrifugal force, the face of Shiva remains in a state of expressionless serenity, immune to the whirl of activity about him. The duality of creation and destruction, of ignorance and knowledge, of Atman and Brahman, are resolved in his su- premely non-dual countenance, manifesting perfect divine bliss. The fury of Il- lusion and the bliss of the Absolute are united in one trans-dual form. As noted above, Shiva’s hair flies out in the wild centrifugal force of the divine dance.