frog and princess(?)

[H.B.Dave]

Valerie J Roebuck wrote:

> The materials sound unconventional for an image intended for worship, but
> that doesn't necessarily mean that it's not authentic.  It could be part of
> a piece of shrine decoration, for example.
>
> It's not possible to decide on date, authenticity etc without actually
> handling the object, so I can only suggest that the owner takes the piece
> to the nearest museum with a good Indian collection for an opinion.
> (Perhaps list members can advise which this is?)
>
> As the owner says, it is far from crude, and clearly deserves following up.
> I am still trying to find out about the iconography.
>
> I rather like Swaminathan Madhuresan's suggestion of a Monsoon rain god.
> In any case, there must surely be some sort of water/fertility connection.

*** please see below ***

>
>
> Valerie J Roebuck
> Manchester, UK
>
> Vidyasankar Sundaresan writes:
> >
> >The owner of the statue, who is in Florida, says the
> >following -
> >
>
> >Her right hand, forearm, elbow and upper arm rests upon
> >the right shoulder of the frog.  She sits upon his knee
> >with his left hand just behind where she sits.  She seems
> >to lean into the crook of his left forearm, elbow, and
> >upper arm.

Just a thought :
Frog (mu"ndaka.h) represents jeevaatmaa or aatmaa inVedas. The female figure
may represent Shushumna or Kundalini. Resting on the left hand of frog  and at
the same time contact with the right shoulder of frog, is indicative of this.
In non-tantrik terms, she would be Vaak.

For all this is worth!
-- Himanshu