Alexandrian age (Alexander was known as Iskander in India) and in multiple
ways reflected the character of the times. Skanda became the coalescence
of all relevant forms of divinity.^5
Vis.n.u also became a high god during this period. Vis.n.u was mentioned
as a relatively minor deity in late Vedic literature, and is plausibly the most
vaidikaof these “rising” urban deities. However, it appears that other deities,
presumably of clans or tribal communities, became associated with Vis.n.u
- names such as Bha ̄gavan or Va ̄sudeva, for example, may have such origins.
By way of illustration, some scholars have suggested that Va ̄sudeva, depicted
iconographically by the Kus.a ̄n.a period, represented the coalescence of two
streams – one heroic, one brahmanic. In the city of Mathura ̄, a heroic clan
known as the Vr.s.n.is practiced a form of ancestor worship. Their cultic
practice and deity are thought to have been linked to the brahmanic practice
of memorializing the dead in the rituals know as s ́ra ̄ ddha.^6 In addition, it
is also possible that the teriomorphic beings eventually depicted as incar-
nations or avata ̄ ras(anglicized as avatars) of Vis.n.u have their origins in tribal
or folk culture – the tortoise, the boar, etc. may have had their origins as
totemic deities, though this is clearly speculative.
What is more apparent is that the two major figures, eventually thought
to be avatars of Vis.n.u – namely, Kr.s.n.a and Ra ̄ma – had significant roles
in this period. By the time Ra ̄ma’s story was told in the Ra ̄ma ̄yan.a, he was at
the least a folk hero and paradigmatic son, husband, warrior, etc., as well as
a sacral king, at least as sacralized as other kings of the period. As for Kr.s.n.a,
some scholars have suggested that his worship was connected to Mathura ̄,
a center of Buddhist art and culture, where he was cowherd and warrior.^7
He was teacher par excellence in the Bhagavadgı ̄ta ̄where he was also the
embodiment of the cosmos and the epitome of all attributes, cultural and
geographic, in short, the personification of totality. In short, Kr.s.n.a came to
be seen as a vaidikaalternative to the figure of the Buddha.
All these deities were seen as personifications of brahman, and, in the later
Upanis.ads,brahmanwas indeed depicted as personal deity. All of them were
ascribed links to vaidikaimagery, provided a model for different strata
of society, served to link king to his people and to incorporate various com-
munities of people into the urban complex. Not least important, they
provided an alternative to Buddhist imagery, as they not only incorporated
Buddhist ideology (teacher, virtuous attributes, etc.) but also went beyond
the Buddha in accessibility, for, after all, Buddha did not come directly to
people’s aid, whereas, S ́iva, Skanda, or Vis.n.u would.
Goddesses were also a part of this theistic pantheon, but the goddesses of
which we read in the classical texts of the period have not yet reached the
status of high deity. For the most part, the goddesses of this period were
of three types: 1) They were consorts to male deities, often benign, and only
The Urban Period 59