47

THE TEMELES - TRADITION

Today there are five Jinalayas at Kumbharia, all of which belong to the Svetambara Faith. All students agree that this number seems to be constant at least from the thirteenth century onwards. However, there is a difference of opinion regarding their original dedications.

As of today the temples are dedicated to - Mahavira

/ Santinatha Parsvanatha Neminatha Sambhavana tha However, it is well known that the temples experi- enced a very lean period for a couple of centuries (l5th and 16th) and presumably original images were removed for safe custody. When the shrines came under use again, the original dedications were either forgotten or set aside. But inscriptional .records from these temples as well as some of the iconographic features reveal what these could have been. All scholars who have gone into this problem have concluded that the temples of Mahavira, Parsvanatha and iMeminatha have retained their original dedication, while 48

the present Santinatha temple was originally a temple dedicated to Adinatha and the Sambhavanatha temple belonged to Santinatha. In the original scheme Sambhavanatha did not have a place. The groiinds advanced for these conclu- sions can be briefly stated as under and the credit for the revision goes to Ehaky and Shastri (l97l, 191). 49

Two inscriptions found in the present sintinatha temple refer to the shrine as being dedicated to Adinatha. Further in the revised reading of an inscription found in the 'Astapada' cell of this temple, Dhaky and Shastri (l97l 191) read the words 'Wabheya Prasada', a name which also indicates that it was a temple dedicated to Adinatha. This is corroborated by . iconographic testinomy. The ceiling being in the 'trika' in front ot' the 'gudhamahdapa' door, contains an image of Cakres'vari, the Yaksi of Adinatha and Gomukha. There are two large images of Cakres'vari and Gomukha (The attendant Yaksa of Adinatha) in one of the side bays of the rangamafidapa as well. Regarding the present ^^le presen:P Sambhavanatha temple Singh (.1975, 31?) agrees with aiaky that it was originally dedicated to oantinatha.

Such changes need not be interpreted as changes in sectarian outlook or clevage but are aspects of preference of individuals responsible for the renovation of the temple. But scholars of history must take due note of them so as to be in a position to interpret correctly the iconographic and sculptural content of the shrine concerned.

Maintenanc« e and preservation of temples has always been treated as a social duty and responsibility in India. And the 'Jaina community has done so with great zest. The 50

substantial material means at its disposal have been put to a very good use in this task. Kumbharia has received its share of attention and the temples have undergone numerous repairg additions, alternations and renovations. But to some extent these are modifications. It has to be admitted that these have been brought in consonnance with earlier models as far as possible but cannot be treated as originals.

For a student of architecture the temples of Kumbharia are significant from two points of view - they represent two traditions, different but not conflicting. otUer One is the region - period tradition, the is the sectarian A tradition. The former is represented by the 'Solanki style' evolved in north Gujarat during the period Il-I5th century A.D. The latter by the Jaina tradition and requirements crystalised through the previous centuries. It is with the reference to these two traditions that the phenomenon of Kumbharia can be understood. A brief statement of the important characterestics of both there- fore pre-faces the descriptions and discussion of our monuments.

Another point taken into account is the relation 51

this temples have with the works on Vastu and Silpa sastras evolved in western India during approximately the same period. Previous" authorities like(phaky, 1975, 319-384) and Sompura (l975, 300-306)(1968, 127, 28, 59, 97) have of course given full attention to this aspect, i-iowever, it was thought necessary to cover the same ground and to find if something different can be said. And the exercise has not been entirely fruitless.

The Kumibharia temples can be properly understood as stated earlier, only with reference to two different tradition - Solanki temple architecture and Jaina temple architecture. To take up the former first, its origin, evolution and growth has been discussed by a number of eminent scholars like Sankalia, Shastri, Sompura, KtDave and Dhaky. (See Bibliography) There are some differences of opinion among them on some aspects of Solanki architecture. However, there now exists a general consensus regarding the exact chronology and cJiaracterestic of this style. Temples of this style have been found in northern Gujarat and Saurastra, specially in the modem districts of Ahemedbad, Bhavanagar, Jamnagar, Junagarh, Mehsaa and Surendranagar. There is also a spill-over towards the northeast, i.e. tov/ards Rajasthan, involving marginal Fiq. Z

MAP OF JAfNA TEMPLE SITES OF WESTERN INDIA 5Z

areas of the Banaskantha and Chittor divisions. Prominent among the Solanki temples noticed in this region are the Sun temple at nodhera, Rudresvara at Prabhaspatan, Limboji i"'iata at Delmal, Nilakanhta Mahadeva at Sunak, Navalakha % « at Sejakpur, Rudra-Mahalaya at Siddhapur and the slightly later Jina temple at Taranga. These were built during a period of two and half centuries i.e. between circa 1025 A.D. to circa 1250 A.D. The reigns of Bhimadeva I Siddharaja, Jayasimah and Kumarpala proved extremely congenial for the exercise. All the rulers were extremely liberal and tolerant in their attitude and encouraged temple building activity by sects other than the ones they professed. Bhimadeva and Siddharaja were staunch followers of Saivism while Jayasimha was a patron of Jainism. But all of them encouraged devotees of other sects to follow their chosen path.

At about this time serious dissensions had broken out within the fold of Jainism. Secterian literature recounts details of the conflict, which are not material here but the outcome is. This dispute resulted in the almost complete disappearence from the scene of the Digambara sect from this area and establishment of the total ascendency

/ of the Svetambara sect. This in its turn resulted in a 53

proliferation of Svetambara Jaina temples in northern Gujarat under the Solanki rulers.

The Solanki temples of Gujarat are members of a much bigger family of the Nagara style which prevails over Gujarat, northern Deccan, Central India, Rajasthan and Orissa; perhaps the rest of north India had temples of same style. As such there are some characteristics that are common to temples in these areas specially those that were geographically proximate. This is more so as far as some very broad aspects like plans of the temples, their elevations especially the arrangement of the sikharas etc. are concerned. But in many of the details of the treatment of the exterior and the entire interior, the Solanki temples a exhibit different approach marking them apart from the rest.

On plan the Solanki temple has three main components; the garbagraha, the gudhamandapa, and a nrtyamandapa with perches over entrances open on all sides. The entrance to the temple precinct is marked by a lofty 'toma'. It is a derivative of the distant Sanchi torana but is nearer to those at Bubhanesvara., In Gujarat this was known as 'kirti- torana'. The exteriors of the garbagraha and gudhamandapa are multi-faceted, with numerous projections and reentrants arranged in proper l\lagara tradition. The evolution and 54

Strict adherence to the sequence of decorative motifs on the mouldings or 'tharas' of the pitha and jangha can du be cited as peculiar Solanki trait. Mouldings like Gaoathara, Narathara and Asvathara appear exactly in the same sequence in all the later Solanki temples. Another noteworthy characteristic is the octagonal plan of the

detached sabhamah^apa. Sculpture has been used as thI e most important decorative element in all the schools of Nagara style, including that of tne Solankis.

However, few schools have devoted as much attention to intercolumnation; intricatly and beautifully carved doorframes and ceilings. Use of what can be called one and half pillars can be mentioned as one of the most important features of the Solanki style. Most of these features are noticeable in the temples of Kumbharia.

Rudra-Mahalaya at Siddhapura is of some interest in the present context. This seems to be the one major structure that had faced a problem which slightly later Jaina architects also had to tackle. The problem was of clustering a number of subsidiary shrines around the main one. The efforts of the builders of the Rudramahalaya the Jaina temples however took different directions as discussed later on. It had subsidiary shrines for the eleven rudras - Ekadasa rudras - around the main shrine. Each one was a free standing .structure, much smaller in size but structurally independent of it. These were placed around the main shrine but at a distance from it. All were loosely bound together, not cohered. BrShmanical structural temples did not very often face the problem of clustering, (Fergusson 1910, 350, PI. 209.) This problem and its solution marks the Jaina shrines of Gujarat apart from the rest.

The earliest Jaina remains consist of a few rock cut shrines as at Pale in Maharashtra or Khandagari-Udaigiri in Orissa; images and Ayagapattas of the Mathura school datable to the Kushana period and remains of stupas in the same general region and time span. The earliest structural temples come from Deogarh in Madhya Pradesh, Bhadresvara or Myani in Saurastra and Aihole-Pattadakal in Kamataka, all to be placed in the immediate post-Gupta period. These are 'single-shrined' or 'single-deity' temples. In the central shrine was the deity to which the temple was dedi- cated, while subsidiary/attendant deities were placed in small niches in the walls of the mahdapas.

Their number was always limited to 2 or 4, and small 56

shrines in the walls of the mandapa were provided for them. All the pre-eleventh century temples follow this pattern. To cite examples mention may be made of the Charanthi I'4atha group at Aihole (Gupte, 1967, 65-56), and Pattadkal, (Cousens, 1926, PI. XLIX, LI etc.),both in Kamataka; temple No, 9,12 at Deogarh in I^adhyaPra^sh or the ones from Bhadresvara or Miyani in Gujarat itself follow this pattern. This incidentally is the same as those of the contemporary Brahmanical shrines. Thus it is obvious that architecturally none of the early Jalna shrines were different from their Brahmanical counterparts. It was in the iconographic content that the two differ. The cave temples tell the same tale. The Jaina cave at Aihole or the Indrasabha and Jagannath-sabha at Ellora *follow the general plan of the vihara-cum-temple evolved by the Buddhists, As in the case of the latter subsidiary shrines accomodated additional deities. Thus neither the structural monuments nor the rock-cut ones give any indication of things to come of the earliest of the Kiimbharia temples the Mahavlra.