CHAPTER 7 TEMPLES : INDIA, HINDUTVA AND HISTORY
CHAPTER 7: TEMPLES
The Shift from Vedic to Puranic Hinduism
It is in the Chalukyan and Pallavan age, beginning the
6th – 7th centuries AD, that the construction of permanent
Hindu religious structures such as cave shrines, temples and permanently
installed idols really takes off in South India below Maharashtra. Prior to
this, we have prehistoric ritual grounds, followed from around the 3rd
century BC by cave retreats of Jain and Buddhist ascetics, as described in the
previous chapters.
From about the 1st century BC onwards we
have the appearance of carved figures and murals in Buddhist cave sites. Carved
figures begin to appear at Jain cave sites in the early centuries of the first millennium
AD. The first Jain temples appear in Tamil and Karnataka country in the 3rd
to 4th centuries, increasing in number in the 5th to 6th
centuries AD.
The first Hindu cave sites appear in Karnataka in
Badami starting from the end of the 6th century AD. In Tamil Nadu, among
the earliest Hindu sites are the rock-temples of Mahabalipuram built by Pallava
Mahendravarman around the 7th century AD.
Historians have an interesting explanation for the
relative absence of Hindu temples in deep South India before the 6th
century AD. They say that early Hindu practice did not have temples and idols,
atleast not permanent idols (141). Instead, Hindus worshipped through Vedic
fire yagyas, which were performed in temporary structures, called “mandapas”,
with blood sacrifice and offerings to the fire. This is called the “Vedic Age”
of Hinduism, as distinguished from the later “Puranic Age”. The fact that the Rig
Veda has no reference to temple-based worship of idols indicates that this
theory may be correct (149).
If Hinduism existed for thousands of years in the
Vedic Age, the beginnings of which advocates of Hindutva are fond of pushing
further and further back in time – 5000 years, tens of thousands of years, even
millions of years in the past…..then the fact that Hinduism did not need
temples till the 6th century AD in most of South India should give
everyone interested in them some pause.
PTS Iyengar says that in the Vedic age, there were other religious traditions besides Hinduism not just in South India, but also in North India. He says that these non-Hindu religions did not involve the mantras and making of offerings to fire, as in the Vedic yagyas. Instead, they involved the offering of flowers and other oblations to the deity with singing and dancing (184).
These religious “Agamika” traditions remained in vogue
among the mass of people even after the advent of Hinduism, as Vedic sacrifices
were elaborate, expensive and excluded many classes of people from
participation.
Over the centuries, the Vedic tradition expanded to include these non-fire Agamika traditions and deities by developing the ideas of the numerous human avataras of Vishnu, the different manifestations of Shiva and the concept of the Trimurti from the Sankhya philosophy of the three gunas of matter (185).
We also read in Chapter 5 about the absorption into the Northern Vedic pantheon
of non-vedic deities that were worshipped in Tamil country such as “Seyon”, god
of the hills becoming Murugan or Kartikeya, the son of Shiva; “Senon”, god of
the rains, becoming Indra; a local sea-deity being
assimilated as Varuna; a “Black” God of the pastures called “Mayon”, who sported
with shepherdesses, becoming Krishna or Vishnu; and a goddess of the
desert-lands called “Korravai” to whom blood sacrifices were made, becoming
various forms of Shakti.
According to Iyengar “the religion that is practiced
today by the Hindus is almost entirely based on the Agamas and has little or
nothing to do with the Vedas”. Iyengar traces idol worship to the Agamika
tradition. He writes: “The essence of the Vaidika [Vedic] rites is the pouring
of oblations [into the fire], but that of the Agamika one is upcara, washing,
decking, and feeding the god, in fact showing him all the attentions due to a
human guest or a human king. Hence in the Vaidika rite no physical representation
or representative of the deity worshipped was necessary, visible fire
representing all the gods; in the Agamika rite, the only deity worshipped had
to be represented by some visible emblem, the emblem being a fetish, a tool,
such as a sword or a club, a living or dead tree, a stone, a running stream, a
linga, a Salagrama or, above all, a picture or a statue of the deity in brick
and mortar, stone, or metal, made in the shape assigned to him by his
worshippers (186).”
Iyengar sees the Tamil Bhakti movement, which we shall discuss in the next chapter, as the culmination of the Agamika way – where enlightenment is achieved by adoration leading to union with God, as opposed to enlightenment through philosophical reasoning as expounded in the Upanishads or Vedanta.
MS Ramawsami Ayyangar and B. Seshagiri Rao say that
Jains in the Sangam Age worshipped images of their tirthankara, whereas idol
worship was not the essence of Brahminism. They also speculate that the images
of alvar and nayanar saints in temples of South India may have been inspired by
the idols of Jain thirthankaras (187). Nilakanta Sastri says that it was the
Tamil Bhakti movements that propelled temples to an important place in the religious
and social life of Tamil country (189).
In the South, Iyengar says, the Agamika and Vedic traditions were initially opposed to each other. On the one hand, Agamikas were opposed to the Vedic practices of caste division and blood sacrifice (188). On the other hand, followers of the strict Vedic tradition were against temple worship.
Iyengar says, writing in 1929, that he could
recall a time in the last quarter of the 19th century, when “there
existed to my knowledge followers of the Advaita Vedanta, who would not enter
any temples. The Vedanta, which was the culmination of the Veda, also severely
condemned the Agamika path (190)”.
Most of the famous South Indian Hindu temples that we
know of today came up in the 6th-14th centuries. The
earliest of these temples were generally renovated or expanded over later
centuries, coming down to the 17th-18th centuries.
Iyengar says that: “Before the 4th century AD of Arya temples there
were few or none in the Tamil country. In the 6th century, we learn
that Kanci [Kanchipuram], Vengadam, Srirangam [in Trichy] and Madura [Madurai]
temples had become famous. From the 7th century onwards, the
hymnists [alvars and nayanars] sang in praise of numerous temples in the
Pallava, [Chola], [Pandya] and [Chera] provinces. Therefore all these, which
are the living temples of South India, i.e., those which are renowned for their
holiness ever since the hymnists sang of them and where puja is still being
daily performed, must have arisen in the 6th century AD…..
…..Mahendra Pallava…first started the fashion of stone
temples, by excavating them from the sides of hills. His successor, Narasimha,
carved whole rocks into temples. Structural temples then began to appear and
the early Tanjore [Chola] kings (9th and 10th centuries
AD) pulled down and rebuilt in stone the garba grahas (small inner shrines) of
all these temples. These early [Chola] structures consisted but of a small
shrine and a ‘half mantapa’ in front and no more. In later times were added
more mantapas, and procession paths walled in and numerous additional
shrines….a few of these Chola shrines were pulled down in later times and
rebuilt on a larger scale. This process is going on in our own times, so that
when we say that a certain temple is ancient, we mean that the temple sites as
well as possibly the original stone or brick or wooden idol, and not the
building, belongs to old times (183).”
Other historians have also noted the expansion and
rebuilding of older temples in South India by the Pandyas, Cholas, Hoysalas,
Vijayanagaris and Nayakars.
Some pre-6th century AD Hindu
structures in Andhra
Some historians believe that the ruins of
Nagarjunkonda may have included some Hindu shrines or temples from the age of
the Andhra Ishkavakus, i.e. around the 3rd-4th century
AD. The dedications that have been found
include one to a “yaksha”, which could be Jain. Others are to Kartikeya, his
consort “Devasena”, and deities that are today considered to be forms of
Vishnu, i.e., Ashtabhujasvamin, and Shiva, i.e., Sarvadeva and
Pushpabhadrasvamin (193A). As mentioned above, many local deities were absorbed
into the Vedic pantheon later, and Kartikeya might have been a non-Vedic deity
originally.
The Ashtabhujasvamin temple was commissioned by a king
of Abhira heritage. It is believed that Abhiras from the north might have
briefly defeated the Ishkavakus to occupy Nagarjunkonda. The foreign or
Northern connections of the rajas to follow here is indicated by the use of
Sanskrit in inscriptions from this time in place of the earlier Prakrit (193J).
The earliest inscription in Nagarjunkonda is of the
last Satvahana king, and the earliest monument is a huge Buddhist “Mahachaitya”
commissioned by Chamtasri (193H). Four Buddhist sects were to be found in
Nagarjunkonda under the Ishkavakus – Apara Mahavinaseliya, Bahushrutiya,
Mahishasaka and Mahavihara Vasin (193I). The Mahavihara Vasin was a Sri Lankan
sect.
Many of the temples in Nagarjunkonda were in the
apsidal shape, which was developed by the Buddhists, as we know. In regard to
some of the structures designated as Hindu here, the Archaeological Survey of
India (ASI) itself reports that their affiliation is “uncertain” (193B). There is one dedication to
“Nodagaisvarasvamin” who the ASI say is “possibly” a form of Shiva (193C).
There is also a burning ghat where a few sculptures have
been found depicting the performance of Sati (193E). The ASI reports that a
bathing area at the site had been popularly confused for an “Ashvamedha site”
(193D). This is an example of how preconceived notions can play a role in the
interpretation of archaeological ruins.
The valley as a whole has many more Buddhist than
Hindu structures. The Hindu structures are all confined to the area around the
main citadel of Nagarjunkonda and the bank of the uttaravahini (northward)
Krishna River (193F). The raja in whose time most of them were built, Ehuvala
Chamatamula, had a Buddhist sister, Chamtasri, who built the Mahachaitalaya
referred to above.
A large number of the Buddhist structures at
Nagarjunkonda were commissioned by Chamtasri. She seems to have enjoyed a
position of prestige in her own right. It may well have been that Ehuvala’s
mother was a Buddhist Satvahana princess who was given in marriage to the
Ishkavakus once they defeated the Satvahanas. Most of the Ishkavaku royal women
were Buddhist (193G).
In Gudimallam in Andhra Pradesh there stands a
structure that has been functioning as a Hindu temple for centuries with a
five-foot high phallic idol. The idol is dated by some historians to the 2nd
century BC (193K). Other historians have assigned it to the 5th to 6th
century AD.
The temple structure around the idol is of later
vintage. It was built in stages starting with an apsidal structure dated to the
1st to 3rd century AD. Various elaborations to the temple
structure were made in early medieval times.
The idol has the carving of a male figure
standing on the shoulders of a goblin-like figure. The male figure is said to
be of Lord Shiva.
The figure is unlike the usual depictions of Shiva. It
is wearing jewellery and has on its head what appears to be a turban.
A bow-like weapon, which might also be a sword, is in one hand. The usual marks
of Shiva comprising matted hair tied in a top-knot, crescent moon and snakes
around the neck and arms are not depicted. The goblin at the base is on its
knees, which is not a common pose in Hindu imagery.
Influences on the Design of the South Indian Hindu Temple
In the Deccan, the earliest idols are Buddhist, which
tend to be massive. It may be that this “massive” aesthetic grew out of the
worship of megaliths that Buddhists encountered when they first came to South
India. Japanese Buddhist historian Hajime Nakamura says that the origin of the
Buddhist stupa can be traced to the megalithic cultures here (191).
Nakamura writes that to start with the Buddha was revered as a man. His deification occurred later, over time. This deification began with the symbolic worship of his footprints or the Bodhi tree, under which the Buddha is said to have attained enlightenment. Over time this evolved into meditation on idols of the Buddha (192). In early Buddhism, the object of worship was a stupa. The tradition of the Buddha image or idol came later, with Mahayana Buddhism (194).
Nakamura also says that whereas Indian sculpture was first in the form of bas-relief rock carvings, the idea of free-standing sculpture came to India from developments in Buddhist structures in Sri Lanka (193). The Sri Lankan Buddhists had close contacts with Buddhist regions in South India, one such hub being the Satvahana domains in Andhra (193I).
Buddhist sculpture, sacred monuments and painting had
a profound influence on Hindu art and architecture well into the Pallavan age. Archaeologist
KV Soundara Rajan writes “the Satvahana art-bequeathal in the countless
Buddhist centres of its realm became the grass roots for the growth of South
Indian religious art (193L)”.
Experts have the same view of the Andhra Ishkavaku
capital of Nagarjunkonda, saying that: “a close similarity of the Brahminical
tradition of the valley with that of the Buddhist can hardly escape a critical
eye (193M).”
Soundara Rajan traces the influence of Buddhist
shrines on the earliest Hindu cave shrines excavated in Udayagiri in Central
India (near Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh) by the Guptas and in Karnataka by the
Chalukyas. The Chalukyas, as we have studied in previous chapters, rose in the
6th – 7th century.
.jpg)
Soundara Rajan says that the early Hindu temple
builders “could not totally ignore or live-down the Buddhist formula in
Mahayanism wherein a rough and ready shrine was carved on the rear part of the
vihara itself providing for a Buddha cut in the round and circumnavigable with
a door-frame in front of this and an attached ante-chamber leading to the
pillared hall. Obviously, this was what was largely to become the rudimentary
Brahminical cave temple (193N).”
According to Soundara Rajan the Buddhist viharas of
the Ajanta caves from the Mahayana period acted as one of the proto-types for
Hindu excavations (from around the 8th century AD) in Ellora. Sastri
also notes the influence of Buddhist viharas on the earlier Hindu caves at
Ellora (193O).
We noted in Chapter 2 that the Nagarjunkonda findings
included a number of Roman-type amphitheatres pointing to connections with the
theatre of ancient Greece from the Alexandrian and Seleucid excursions into South
Asia.
In this way, we see the multiplicity of influences
that went into the making of South Indian Hindu and secular art as we know it
today. Andhra’s Satvahana-era Amaravati School of Art, itself developed from
the Mathura and Gandhara Schools of Art whose aesthetic ancestry goes all the
way to ancient Greece, Persia and Bactria, as well as to the megalith-worshippers
of pre-history. The evolution of the Amaravati School of Art from the Gandhara
School is described in detail in previous chapters.
This is only one strand of the influences on South
Indian Hindu art and architecture, as this paper does not extend to a study of
the influence on these things of the South East Asian and Far Eastern kingdoms.
These kingdoms were in close contact with South India for centuries through
trade and diplomatic alliances.
This aesthetic evolution continued on the
sub-continent, with Hindu art in turn influencing and being influenced by
Islamic and Christian art in South and Central Asia. When Timur raided Delhi in
the 14th century, he had his eye on the famous artisans of the Indo-Gangetic
plain, as much as on its wealth. He is said to have taken back hoards of
artisans from here to build his legendary capital of Samarqand.
The secular architecture of the Vijayanagaris in the
16th and 17th centuries AD, such as the Lotus Mahal of
Vijayanagar and a palace in Chandragiri (in Andhra country), show Islamic
influence. The Nayaka palace at Madurai has European influence. And so, the
aesthetic keeps evolving on and on (202).
From Caves to Temples
The Hindu structures that first came up around the 6th
century AD in the deep South were not free-standing, as in built from the
ground-up. Rather, they were in the form of cave- and rock-carvings; temple
chambers cut into rocks and caves; and temples and shrines chiselled and
cut-away from a parent rock-outcrop. Sastri says that these structures are best
regarded as a “branch of sculpture” rather than as architecture (182).
The first Hindu caves of the Deccan were excavated by
the Chalukyas in the 6th-7th century in their capital of
Vatapi or Badami in Karnataka. In Tamil country they were excavated by Pallava
Mahendravarman I and the Pandyas after their legendary conversion from Jainism
to Shaivism in the 7th century AD (183A).
Hindu
Cave Temple, Mahabalipuram, Tamil Nadu. Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons.The most famous of the early Pallava works in Tamil Nadu are at the rocky sea-side location of Mahabalipuram just outside Chennai. It is here that you have the first appearance of stand-alone structures. These were not constructed from the ground up, but cut away from the parent rock, and fashioned into monolithic carved “rathas” or chariots and temples. Thus, in Mahabalipuram you can see the temple design evolving from cave-carving and cut-in rock chambers, to stand-alone structures.
The Kailashnath Shiva temple built by the Rashtrakutas in the 8th century AD at the cave complex at Ellora is another example of a temple being built into a free-standing structure by cutting it away from the parent rock.
Close-up
shot of one of the Pancha Ratha temples (see above photo). Note the parent-rock
around the base of the structure from which the Ratha was fashioned into a
stand-alone structure. Photo Credit: AV Kumar85 via Wikimedia Commons..png)
Kailasha
Temple, Ellora. Note how the complete structure is cut-away from the parent
rock.The Virupaksha temple built by one of the queens of Chalukya Vikramaditya II at Pattadakal in 740 AD has a Nandi bull, which is the mount of Shiva, facing the central structure (204A). This mid-8th century design went on to become typical of Shiva temples in South India.
Early examples in Tamil country of free-standing temples built from the ground up, as opposed to being cut away from rock, are the Kailashnath and Vaikuntha Perumal temples in Kanchipuram. They were built by the Pallavas between the 8th and 9th centuries AD. Among the earlier stand-alone Hindu Chalukyan temples are the ones at Badami, Aihole and Pattadakal in Karnataka. These sites were added to over the centuries by different kings to become sprawling temple complexes.
Height and South Indian Temples
The grandeur, opulence and larger number of South
Indian temples as compared with temples in North India, which is always blamed
vaguely on “invasions” by the Hindutva-minded, may have more to do with the
relative wealth of the South Indian rajas. Other factors at play were aesthetic
and design choices based on the available materials.
Most temples in Kerala have low sloping roofs made of
the red laterite tiles that are typical of buildings here, an example of the available
building materials and design not lending themselves to height.
The earliest Chalukyan temples at Aihole appear to
have been without towers. The Ladh Khan temple at Aihole, dated to around 620
AD, is low and flat-roofed. The so-called “Durga Temple”, which is dated to the
8th century AD, has a shikhara above the garba griha, but the rest
of the roof is flat. According to Sastri, the shikhara might have been a later
addition (204).
_(14382588182).jpg)
Ladkhan
Temple, Rear/Side View. The roofs of both the chamber on top as well as the
ground floor are flat.
In Nagarjunkonda too, whose temples may be the oldest Hindu ones in South India, if they have been properly so designated, the ASI reports that their roofs would have been flat or barrel-vaulted (193I).
In other words, to start with the shikhara was not a
part of Hindu temple design in South India.
Even the Buddhist stupas took a while to gain in
height. Initially, the stupa was a low hemispherical mound. Later, it came to
be raised on a tall plinth. The largest stupa at Amaravati was first built in
the 2nd century BC, and reconstructed somewhere around the second
half of the 2nd century AD. It could have been 100 feet high (204B).
The earliest Hindu shrines in South India which were
built as chambers cut into rock were, naturally, not concerned with height at
all. The first chiselled-out rock temples or “rathas” at Mahabalipuram built by
Mahendravarman Pallava and Narasimha Pallava did not aspire to great height. Their
aesthetic concerns were different. The early stone temples of the Cholas, such
as the Muvarkoil and Narttamalai were also relatively low in height (203A).
For rock-cut work, the height of the structure was in any case dependent on the height of the available parent rock. It was a clutch of tall rocks at Ellora that provided the first opportunity for a cut-away temple with a high shikhara (tower) (207).
Taking the Pallava innovation of cutting the temple
free of the parent rock, and combining it with the gigantism of the earlier
Buddhist works at Ajanta and Ellora, the Rashtrakutas built the Kailashnath
temple with an impressively tall shikhara. It is here that the idea of height
as part of the temple design in the Deccan may have begun.
It is with the construction of free-standing temples that we see them gaining in height. The Vaikuntha Perumal temple built by the Pallavas between the 8th and 9th centuries AD is 60 feet high (203).
The stepped pyramid design of temple towers found in
South India’s “Dravida” style also may have contributed to the relative
tallness of temple shikharas here. This is a form that lends itself to height.
The smooth, curved shape of the Nagara-style shikara that is typical of North
Indian temples is a design that is not so pre-occupied with height in producing
its aesthetic effect.
The stepped pyramid-shaped temple rooftops in South India began with the Kadambas. They are called “Kadamba Shikaras”. These are not massive. Height was gained over time in the later temple architecture of the Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas, Cholas and Hoysalas.
_(14211313068).jpg)
Temples also took a while to evolve in size, not only
as respects their height, but also their breadth. Early temples of the Gupta
Age in North India are said to have been on a smaller scale. It took a while
for the more elaborate temple style to evolve from one-cell structures housing
the idol to larger and larger complexes with ornamentation, other deities, and
so on (205).
The Cholas temples were not very large till the end of
the 10th century when they began to rise in wealth and prestige. The
largest Chola temples were built in the 11th century AD. This was
the age of the grand Chola temple-cities, the most exquisite being the Brihadisvara
temple in the Chola capital of Tanjore. Its shikhara is the tallest in India.
The garbha griha contains a colossal Shiva-lingam, also one of the tallest in
India, if not the tallest.
Outside the garbha griha, and facing its entrance is a
massive Nandi. Both the lingam and the Nandi are made of black rock superbly
polished to gleam like a jewel.
A lot of pride is taken in the height of the temple, but its true beauty lies in the carving and sculptures that decorate the whole complex.
Some kings preferred adding to existing temples rather
than building new ones. For example, Pandya construction mainly involved the
addition of heavily carved “gopuras” or double gateways and enclosure walls to
existing temples (205A). The Meenakshi temple in Madurai was rebuilt by
Tirumala Nayaka in the 17th century AD (206A). It appears to have
had major additions and renovations during Nayakar rule both before and after
Tirumala Nayaka.
The building of huge temples also required vast
amounts of wealth, which was not always available even to kings. Not only were
massive temples expensive to build, they also required huge resources to be
kept in operation.
The Brihadisvara temple of the Cholas took nearly a
decade to build, and was said to have “an income of 500 lb troy of gold, 250 lb
troy of precious stones and 600 lb troy of silver, which was acquired through
donations, income from taxes and the revenue from about 300 villages. It also
maintained temple staff consisting of about 600 employees….212 attendants –
which included treasurers, accountants, record-keepers and watchmen….quite
apart … from the craftsmen of various categories (such as carpenters, braziers,
goldsmiths, tailors)….(206)”
The Pallavas built smaller temples in Kanchipuram and
other areas in the 9th -10th centuries AD, owing to a
decline in their power and wealth. As with the Pallavas, the size of the Chola
temples decreased as they declined in wealth and power.
Then, from the 12th century onwards, it was
the Hoysalas, Vijayanagaris, Telugu Nayakars and Marathas who built temples. With
them, and the discovery of other, softer building materials, the trend of
“massive” idols seems to have gone out of fashion.
The idols and carved frescoes of the Hoysalas and Vijayanagaris
are smaller, finer and more intricate. The workmanship is so delicate as to
make the walls and pillars look as though they are dressed in jewels.
The Hindutva monomania about temple height, when there
is so much more to temples that make them meaningful and beautiful, not least
the universal love and freedom from ill will towards anyone that you are
supposed to carry in your heart when you visit them, demonstrates, yet again, its
aesthetic and moral alienation from the true culture and values of Hinduism.
As a side note on design, the domes and chhatris of
Muslim and Rajput architecture also did not aspire much to height. Stand-alone
towers like the Qutub Minar of Delhi could reach height, as could plinths built
over tombs, but mosques and minarets themselves never reached anything like the
height of the temples of South India.
Timur aspired to build a very tall mosque in Samarqand
– the Bibi Khanum Mosque. It was so high that a famous courtesan visiting it is
said to have exclaimed that it was as high as the milky-way! I have visited
this monument, and while it is tall, there is nothing much more to recommend
it. Besides, the construction was not a success; it was too tall and kept
collapsing. Height is not the only thing.
In India, the Sultanate and Mughal architecture was
not overly concerned with height except for a few early exceptions like the
Qutab Minar of Delhi. The whole effort with the Jama Masjid of Old Delhi or the
Taj Mahal, from the point of view of design and aesthetics, is to give the
appearance of delicacy and lightness despite their massive proportions.
Even with buildings like the Humayun’s Tomb, said to
have been a proto-type for the Taj Mahal, you can see that the design is
concerned with combatting scale rather than emphasising it. Unlike the
aesthetic, if it can be called that, of 21st century Hindutvavad,
for a truly confident and refined design sensibility, size does not
matter.
In South India, the temple design evolved from
rock-carving to construction, and from colossal idols to intricate sculpting.
This is the way to understand its aesthetic history. Height is ancillary to
what matters about temple design. Many relatively short temples were
breathtakingly beautiful too.
Hindu Construction at Buddhist and Jain Sites
One of the trends to emerge regarding religious construction
in South India is the appearance of Hindu temples and shrines at sites that
were earlier Jain, and even earlier than that, Buddhist.
It is not clear whether the successive appearance of
temples and idols to the gods and deities of other faiths at such sites was
friendly or hostile. Some believe they are examples of Buddhist shrines being
taken over by Jain ones, or of Hindu temples taking over both.
We see some of the earliest Hindu temples in the
Deccan being built at Jain and Buddhist cave sites. In Maharashtra, the
Rashtrakutas began building temples at the previously Buddhist site of Ellora.
In Karnataka, the earliest temples are at Badami, Aihole and Pattadakal which
have earlier Jain and Buddhist structures.
Even later, in Tamil country, the Cholas began with building Hindu temples near ancient Jain cave sites in Pudukkottai. Examples are the 9th-10th century Narttamalai temple near the Aluruttimalai Jain caves and the Muvarkoil near the Kotrambai Jain rock-beds (210).
Sastri says that with the surge in royal patronage of
Hinduism starting with the Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas “many Buddhist shrines
and viharas were turned to Hindu uses (218).”
Soundra Rajan says that Ellora, which had Buddhist
followed by Hindu works, represents the “snuffling” of the Buddhist faith and
implanting of a “Brahminical veneer” by the Hindu kings of the Rashtrakuta
dynasty (218A).
B. Seshagiri Rao says that Dhanyakataka (Amaravati) in
Andhra was invaded by a Pasupata Shaivite dynasty called the “Kotas” in the 6th
or 7th centuries AD, and that they were hostile to Buddhism (218B).
Their prashastis (laudatory inscriptions) describe them as “the weapon by which
the Buddha root is dug up (218C)". According to him, the Kotas co-opted a
deity by the name of “Amareshvara”, which was probably originally a Jain or
Buddhist one.
Sastri reports that the Chinese traveller Yuan Chwang
of the 6th century AD noted the decline of Buddhism in Andhradesa.
According to Sastri, the worship of the Buddha at Amaravati as an incarnation
of Vishnu converted many of the Buddhist centres there into Hindu shrines (218D).
In a mid-10th century Ganga inscription in Karnataka,
there is reference to the Ganga Raja Butuga II defeating in dispute the
followers of “ekantamata”, which could be a reference to Buddhism (218E).
Soundara Rajan writes that with the rise of the Cholas
in the 9th century AD, religious harmony “ceased to exist in Tamil
Nadu” and “even within Hindus sectarian conflict started” (218F). This is a
reference both to the refutation of Buddhism and Jainism by various schools of
Hinduism (which is discussed in the next chapter), as well as to the hostility
between Shaivites and Vaishnavites that arose a century later. The literature and
philosophy of the first and early second millennium is filled with disputations between the
Buddhists, Jains, Shaivites and Vaishnavites.
Historians speak of persecution of the Jains in Andhra
country under a later Chalukya of Vengi (Eastern Chalukya), Raja Narendra, in
the 11th century. They also speak of persecution of the Jains by
Kakatiya Rudra Deva and Ganapati Deva of Warangal in the 12th-13th
centuries (177B, 177C).
RG Bhandarkar says, writing of the 12th
century, that: “There is a tradition in some parts of the country that some of
the existing temples contained Jaina idols at one time and that afterwards they
were thrown out and Brahminic ones placed instead (219)”. Ayyangar and Rao also
say that “If the traditions of the country [under the Kalyana Chalukyas] are to
be believed in, the Jain statues and idols in bastis [Jain settlements and
temples] were thrown away and idols of the puranic gods were substituted (220)”.
Some Jains maintain till today that many of their temples and tirths were taken
over by Hindus.
The Thiruparankundram
complex of caves and hills near Madurai in Tamil Nadu with Jain structures
dating to the 2nd century BC have larger Shaivite
temples of a later date around it. Some of the Shaivite structures in this
complex appear to have taken over earlier Jain monuments. For instance, the
outer wall of a rock cut chamber has this image provided below, which is
claimed to be a Shiva idol, but looks distinctly like a Jain idol (213).
In a cave temple complex in Chitharal in Kanyakumari (Tamil Nadu), on one side there is a Jain shrine dated to the between the 1st century BC and the 6th century AD, and on the other side is a Hindu temple dated to the 14th century (214). The Hindu temple appears to incorporate the Jain idol of Padmavati on the cave face, treating it as the Hindu idol of Durga.
.jpg)
The ASI also reports a “paucity” of sculptured fragments
that indicates that the walls of the temples did not have sculptures as is
usual for Hindu temples (218G). This again indicates the take-over of structures
built by others.
The Nagarjunkonda area continued to be used into the
18th century, with Jain structures coming up in the 14th
century and Hindu structures in the 15th to 18th century
(218H). Some scholars believe that the Jain ruins here go back to the age of
the Ishkavakus. Shiva and Shakti idols dated to the 17th to 18th
centuries have also been found here (218I).
There is, therefore, a mingling over the years of
sacred idols and structures of different denominations and eventually a take-over by Hindu ones,
making it difficult to make a precise assessment of the chronology and
provenance of structures in the ruins.
This is compounded by the general lack of awareness of
the centuries of Buddhism and Jainism in these areas leading to
misunderstandings, such as the belief that a bathing tank was an “Ashvamedha
Yagya site”, mentioned above.
When the Vijayanagaris conquered the Gajapatis in
Nagarjunkonda, Krishnadeva Raya is believed to have converted two Jain temples
into Vishnu ones. After him, Rama Raya displaced Jains living around the hill
to build a fort using material from the Jain shrines around the valley (218J).
The Jain Temples of the Gangas and
Kadambas
Many of the Ganga- and Kadamba- era Jain temples,
settlements, idols and other structures are known of only through inscriptions
(221). These inscriptions mention Jain temple cities that were built in various
places in Karnataka. But we do not find them, whereas Hindu temples and
cave-carvings of the same period survive in many of these places till today.
The ancient Kadamba capital of Palasika (Halasi in
Belgaum) is known of only through copper plate inscriptions that contain
references to various grants to Jain temples, settlements and monasteries.
Inscriptions say that Kadamba Mrigesvarma built a temple of “Arhat” (the term
used for Jain tirthankaras) in Palasika. A later grant of Kadamba Harivarma speaks
of an endowment for this temple. But today we find mostly Hindu temples in
Halasi. Many of these are said to be of Kadamba architecture, but the question
arises as to what happened to the Jain temples mentioned in the inscriptions (168).
There are ruins of one temple in Halasi that has been acknowledged to be Jain,
but these ruins are dated to a much later era of Kadambas in the 11th
to 12th century AD.
We know from inscriptions that after being attacked by
the Rashtrakutas, the Ganga king shifted his capital from Kolar to Manne
(Manyapura), then known by the king’s name of “Sripurusha”. Here he built
several Jain temples, including one called “Lokatilaka”. However, the ruins of
his capital have been heavily built over by the Chalukyas, Hoysalas and Cholas
who espoused Shaivism and Vaishnavism (222).
The Vaidyanathapura Shiva temple here has an inscribed
stone dated to the 8th century AD which belongs to a Jain temple. But
the ruins of this temple could not be located by the ASI. Their report says
“The complex, as it stands today, is majorily (sic.) a Hoysala
construction of the time of Vishnuvardhana (1131) and subjected to several
renovations later on…..
…..An interesting assortment of images and
architectural members were found in the temple, either lying loose or built
into the later renovations. These clearly point out for an early Ganga-Pallava
edifice here before the advent of the Nolamba-Chalukya and later on Cholas
too…” (223).
The Kapilesvara and Somesvara temples in Sripurusha’s
capital, which are ascribed to the 8th -9th century AD,
have been found to have earlier brick foundations (223A). Brick was the
preferred building material of the early Gangas and Kadambas. In the
Kapilesvara temple, you have Chalukyan-style pillars above these Ganga
foundations (223B).
The Bannur complex, which was the residence of Ganga
Sripurusha, was extensively built over by the Cholas in the late 10th-early
11th century AD (224).
The Somesvara Temple at Kunigal in Tumkur, Karnataka,
which is listed by the ASI as a temple of the Gangas, is described as having
“lost its original features under a wholesale renovation during Chola and
Hoysala periods” (224A).
Another Somesvara temple in Gangavara in Bangalore
District has Ganga features that are dated to the era of Daggamara, i.e., circa
788-795 AD. However, it has been built over by various later kings, including
the Cholas and Hoysalas. The temple has inscriptions describing Rajaraja
Chola’s rout of the Gangas, while a, possibly discarded, hero stone discovered nearby
depicts a victory in battle of Daggamara from his time (224B).
So it would be plausible to surmise that this was a
temple commemorating Daggamara which was then taken over by the Cholas after
they defeated the Gangas.
The Rajeshvara temple at Kittur, another structure that
is attributed by the ASI to the Gangas, is reported to have been “largely
rebuilt in the early part of the nineteenth century” (224C).
The ASI reports that an ancient Ganga centre in Kittur
(also Kirtipura) in Mysore District of Karnataka finds mention in the 2nd
century AD, and the earliest Jain migration from the North reached here in the
3rd century BC. The place is also mentioned in the records of Ganga
Avanita of the 6th century AD. However, “no Jaina-basti could be
seen here”. Instead, you have the Ramesvara temple which appears to have been
built over an early Ganga-Pallava “nucleus” here (224D).
Of a grant recorded in inscriptions for a temple site by
Ganga Durvinita of the late 6th to early 7th centuries
AD, the ASI reports that while some shrines might have been built in the time
of later Ganga kings, the “Rest of the temples within the prakara are of middle
Chola workmanship. No structure assignable to the times of Durvinita, was,
however, traced (225)”.
In Talakad, which was a capital of the Gangas, there
has again been refurbishing by the Cholas, and many of the idols kept in the
temples there are not built-in, but detached idols, placed in the mandapa (226).
The Dadigesvara temple in Mandya, which is said to
have a “linga” in the sanctum, is described by the ASI as “largely a modern
renovation with stone slabs”. The original foundation was of brick, and might
have belonged to the tomb of the Ganga King Dadiga (224E).'
The Early Chalukya Temples
The basement of the so-called “Durga Temple” of the
Chalukyas was found to have an inscription referring to a Jinalaya, again
pointing to the use of or building upon Jain structures by Hindu kings (224F).
So, while many temples in Karnataka country are today
designated as Hindu and attributed to the Gangas or Kadambas, in fact, the form
in which they exist is as refurbished by later Hindu kings.
In Aihole, a Buddhist chaitya and broken image of the
Buddha was found below the Brahminical temples (209, 212A). There is also a
brick temple attributed to the Satvahanas under the Chalukyan Ambergudi stone
temple complex in Aihole. Archaeologist SR Rao reports that under a debris
layer of objects that are typical of the Satvahanas is a “neatly built brick
temple, rectangular in plan, over which the Chalukyan stone temple with a
projecting garbhagriha stands.”
In the Chalukyan temple complex of Pattadakal, in
front of the Sangamesvara temple, thought to have been the first Chalukyan
temple in the complex, is a pillared brick Satvahana temple. SR Rao reports that
the Satvahana structure might have been disturbed during the building of the
Chalukyan one. In conclusion SR Rao says that “the present excavations have
confirmed both Aihole and Pattadakal were centres of temple construction even
during Satavahana rule.”
Difficulties in Denominating Temples and
Other Sacred Sites
From the 8th century onwards, Hinduism has
dominated among the people of South India. That is over 1200 years. We will
read about the competition, refutation and proselytization by Shaivite and
later Vaishnavite ideologues against Buddhism and Jainism in the next chapter.
For present purposes it has to be born in mind that by the 12th
century AD, the victory of Hinduism over these other creeds was complete. The
confrontation was over, and the land was dotted with now abandoned or neglected
Buddhist and Jain sites, especially the latter, that began to be given Hindu
names, their deities incorporated into the Hindu pantheon, and their histories
incorporated into the histories of Hindu rajas and communities.
This was not always done maliciously, deliberately or
even with a view to obfuscating the true history of these structures. Even
today we will see that if someone places the idol of a god or some religious
symbol somewhere, soon it will grow into a shrine of one or other denomination.
Sometimes this is a tactic for grabbing land, but
often it is simply an expression of that universal aspect of Indian nature that
loves symbols of divinity, spirituality and god’s blessings, and delights in
consecrating such symbols even in the middle of busy roads or abandoned lots.
There is something very sweet about this. It is in
this spirit that you will see villagers near an ancient Jain temple give it a
Shaivite or Vaishnavite name, or pick up the broken off sculptures and stones
found around a Buddhist or Jain ruin, and place it reverentially in their own
local temple. However, these phenomenon make it difficult to correctly ascribe
the provenance of a temple or sculpture.
In the case of the Satvahana Sannati Buddhist complex,
some stones and carved panels were found in nearby Hindu temples. A panel
showing the Buddha when he was still a prince that was belatedly identified by
the ASI has now been placed in the Mysore Government Museum in Bangalore.
Taking into account India’s non-Hindu, co-Hindu and proto-Hindu past, it is important to bear in mind that ancient sacred monuments in South India that we today assume to be Hindu, and, indeed, which have functioned as Hindu for centuries, may have had very different beginnings.
This combination of assimilation, incorporation and
take-over by Hinduism makes it very difficult to definitively distinguish
between Hindu, Jain and Buddhist structures, and gives the false appearance of
a continuously Hindu past.
Similarities in Jain, Buddhist and Hindu
Imagery and Inscriptional Language
Another difficulty in correctly identifying the
denomination of a shrine or temple is something that archaeologists and
historians have repeatedly pointed out - similarities between Jain and Hindu
iconography and temple rituals in South India (212L). Even inscriptions can be
confusing, as endowments to Jain establishments are equally called
“brahmadeyas” or “devabhogas” (212B).
Voluptuous female figures found in Hindu temples are also to be found in Jain and Buddhist ones (212C).
Readers will be intrigued to note that the Jain saint Parsvanath is depicted with a hood of serpents. In other words, Vishnu is not the only deity that is depicted with a many-headed snake above him. While Vishnu with the sesha naga came to be depicted with him reclining, early depictions of Vishnu in the Badami caves show him sitting with the snake arranged in a hood above him similar to the manner in which Parsvanath of the Jains is depicted. Some idols of Parsvanath have him draped in snakes, as is to be found in depictions of Shiva. Like Vishnu, the Buddha too is often depicted lying down.
The Jains also have pot-bellied yaksha deities similar to Kubera. In some depictions the pose is like the Hindu god, Ganesha’s.
Experts have also warned that the presence of
cylindrical stones (which we think of today as Shiva lingas) even in the
sanctum of a temple does not mean that it was originally dedicated to Shiva (212D).
Similarly, the same icon or idol, especially if partially worn down or broken
over time, can be interpreted as being Buddhist or Jain.
Some experts believe that Jainism survived longer than
Buddhism owing to its deliberate embrace of Hindu practices and iconography.
For this reason, they say, “while Buddhism was consciously ousted, Jainism was
permitted a co-existence…. (212E)”.
In Karnataka this accommodation of Hindu ways went as
far as Jains here adopting the sacred thread, promoting temple dancers and incorporating
Hindu-ized rituals for the consecration of idols in temples (212F).
Ram Bhushan argues: “The appearance of Shankaracharya
in the 8th-9th centuries proved detrimental to the
existence of Jainas in the South. He started a systematic campaign against the
Jainas and denounced them as atheists and tried to excite the people against
them.”
According to Ram Bhushan, the Jain teachers of Karnataka
showed “farsightedness” by assimilating Hindu elements “for maintaining their
position (212G)”. If this assessment is correct, then it shows the severity
with which Jainism was besieged by Hindu ideologues of the time.
The ASI also reports that while early Gangas
worshipped Hindu and Jain deities, as well as espousing local creeds such as Naga worship
and ancestral trees: “The temples, whether Brahminical or Jaina, exhibited
identical plans and elevational features….Even in respect of general sculptural
repertoire and disposition of the various architectural parts.. [features]…
were alike in respect of both Brahminical temples and Jain basadis. It is only
the ritual cult-orientation and such of those minor details or set up of attendant
deities aligned to the consecrated main god within the garbhagriha that
differed. Even in this regard during the later phase from circa ninth
century AD religions other than Brahminical, were imitating and evolving their
rituals and creedal deities adapting from Saiva or Vaishnava pantheon [emphasis
added] (212I).”
,_Jinanathapura,_Hassan_district_06.jpg)
So here we are witnessing the reverse of Hindu assimilation of deities into their pantheon, with other faiths re-articulating their deities to fit with the Hindu pantheon. It may even have been that Jain temples were consciously given the appearance of Hindu ones in order that they be spared during raids and invasions by the Cholas or other Hindu rajas.
The confusion as to whether particular sites were
originally Hindu, Jain or Buddhist, is compounded by the fact that from the 7th
century onwards in the Deccan, you have depictions of female deities with very
similar forms in all three of these religions.
The worship of female deities rose in Jainism around
the 9th-10th century AD (212H). The Gangas worshipped a
female deity called Kiltabel Eretti Bhatari or “Bhagavati”, which may have been
a form of the Hindu deity Kali or an independent local deity. Other local
female deities honoured by the Gangas were Pulikkrukkibhatara and Honnadevi
(212J).
Sarasvati, a well-known Hindu goddess, appears in both Jain and Buddhist sites. Another well-known Hindu deity, Lakshmi, appears in Jain temples, as well as female divinities such as Ambika, Padmavati and Jvalamalini, some of which are similar in form to depictions of the Hindu Goddess Shakti or Durga (212).
Both Buddhism and Jainism also adopted forms of tantra, making it all the more likely to confuse their iconography with that of the Hindus (212K).
There are numerous other difficulties in correctly
identifying the religious denomination of a structure in a land as ancient as
India. One cause for confusion in the dating and provenance of temples is the
repurposing of earlier secular constructions. For example, Sastri says of the
Ladh Khan temple at Aihole that “the entire disposition is totally inadequate
for the purposes of a temple” and that experts have suggested that it may not
have been a temple at all, but a public assembly hall that was converted into a
temple (204).
With later temples being built on the sites of earlier
temples, the ancient structures can suffer damage making them all the more difficult
to identify correctly.
Competing claims over some cave temples and other religious
structures at Badami and Aihole in Karnataka are an education in the
difficulties of ascribing one or other denomination to ancient shrines.
Badami has a number of rock-cut caves of which one has
Buddhist and another has Jain carvings (212M). There is also a tank in the
vicinity where a Mahavir idol was found. There are three more caves at Badami
with Hindu carvings. It is not clear as to who built the Buddhist cave as no
inscriptions have been found connecting the Chalukyas to these carvings (208).
The carvings include scenes from the life of the Buddha (212N). There is also a figure that has been identified by the ASI as Bodhisatva Maitreya or Padmapani. Female sculptures depicted in poses of the Buddhist style have also been noted here. Above these figures is a carved-in Ganesha of the Chalukyan style. Again the question arises whether this insertion of a Hindu deity was friendly or hostile.
The Jain Cave at Badami depicts Mahavir in padmasana
with a triple parasol above the idol’s head. There are also depictions of
Parsvanath and Gomatesvara (212O). There are Yakshas, Yakshis and other Jain
figures said to be in the same style as Jain carvings in Aihole and
Ellora.
One cave has a bas-relief carving of a Buddha-like seated figure under a Peepal tree and other iconography associated with the Buddha (215). However, there are also a conch shell, chakra and traces of jewellery on the figure, all of which are associated with the Hindu god, Vishnu. As the figure lacks the top-knot usually shown in depictions of the Buddha, some scholars believe this may be a Jain figure. As can be seen in the photograph below, the seated posture and positions of the hands is as seen in Buddhist and Jain figures. This is not how Vishnu is usually depicted. The figure is also double-armed and not four-armed as Lord Vishnu and other Hindu deities are usually shown.
While the above-mentioned carving has set off a vigorous debate among scholars as to whom it represents, Buddhist visitors to Badami claim that there is another cave in the complex which also has Buddhist-like carvings, but is not given any sign, and tends to be missed by visitors (216). According to them, the carvings include the figure of an Avalokiteswara Padmapani.
Aihole, where the Chalukyas built many Hindu temples, has a number of earlier Jain and possibly Buddhist sites, apart from the Satvahana ruins described earlier. Below the flat top of the Meguti Hill with the temple built by Ravikirti, is a two-storied cave chamber over which experts and laypersons alike disagree as to whether it is Buddhist or Jain.
ASI, Dharwad Circle has listed this structure on its
website as a “two-storied Jain temple”, though the description says that “In
the veranda of the upper floor, on the ceiling in front of the shrine-door, is
a small seated human figure with triple umbrella over it, which is variously
identified as Jina or Buddha. [Italics added] (210).” The
archaeologist S. Rajasekhara treats the two-storied vihara as Buddhist, while Soundara
Rajan treats it as Jain (211).
Two-storied
vihara of Buddhist or Jain denomination cut into the side of the Meguti Hill at
Aihole..jpg)
The slab with the carving of the Buddha or Jain-like figure referred to in the above quote has been placed, rather awkwardly on the ceiling. The inner sanctum that usually has an idol of the temple deity is empty, but outside is a broken statue that is headless and missing one arm but appears from its posture and robe to be that of the Buddha according to some.
Buddhist visitors to the site have stated that these
include a statue and bas relief carvings that look like depictions of
meditating Buddhist figures (211). A third statue appears to be a headless
Avalokiteswara Padmapani – which is a Buddhist idol that shows a figure with a
tall tiered crown and a lotus bud in one hand.
Buddha Sculpture found in Aihole, kept in Aihole Museum.
The so-called “Durga Temple” at Aihole it does not appear to be a specifically Durga temple as the deities carved on it include Vishnu, Surya, Brahma and Shakti. The image of the presiding deity is missing, and it is not known whose it might have been. Archaeologists have noted the difficulty in identifying the original deities of the Aihole temples (212P).
Attacks on Temples and Idols
By now the reader will have noted how from the start
of our historical record, temples and temple cities have been attacked, their idols
broken or carried off, and their treasures looted in war. A Nanda king (364/345-324
BC) is said to have carried away a statue of Jina and various heirlooms from
Kalinga (Odisha) as trophies of war (228). As mentioned in Chapter 4, Narasimha
Pallava (7th century AD) looted temples in the Chalukyan capital of
Vatapi and carried away the “Vatapi Ganapati” idol of Ganesha. This idol is
installed in a temple in Nagapattinam, the famous ancient port-city near today’s
Tanjore. There is a famous Carnatic bhajan (written much later in the 18th-19th
century by Muthuswamy Dikshitar) by the name “Vatapi Ganapathim” referring to
this idol (229).
As mentioned in Chapter 4, Vikramaditya Chalukya beheaded
idols in the Pallava temples of Kanchi during his attack of 674 AD (233).
The Gangas allied with the Chalukyas against the
Pallavas in the 7th century AD after Mahendravarman Pallava is said
to have converted to Shaivism. The Hindu temples which are described by the ASI
as having “Ganga-Pallava” architecture could have been Ganga structures built-over
by the Pallavas in this hostile atmosphere.
At the start of the 11th century, the
Cholas defeated the Eastern Gangas at Talakad (232). They also invaded and sacked the Chalukya capital
of Manyakheta. As mentioned in Chapter 4, the Chalukyas described their
invasion as brutal saying the Cholas “plundered the entire country,
slaughtering women, children and Brahmins (233)”.
This is the hostile backdrop to the assimilation of
Ganga temples by the Cholas, who were Shaivite by this time. The threat from
the Cholas may also have played into the decision of the Hoysala raja to
patronise Vaishnavism at the time of Ramanujacharya, who was well-known as an opponent
of the Cholas, and popular with the people. We will read about this in the
following chapters.
Rajendra Chola I of the early 11th century
displayed as trophies idols that he had seized in battle from the Chalukyas,
Kalingas and Palas (of Bengal) (233A).
In early-1000 AD, the western (southern Karnataka) Kalyana
Chalukyas attacked the Eastern Vengi Chalukyas (in Andhra country), burning
their Buddhist capital of Dhanyakataka (Amaravati) (88).
Plunder and desecration was also conducted overseas in
the many wars between the rajas of South India and Sri Lanka, as described in
Chapter 4.
A Vaishnavite poet, who was also a warrior chief from Tanjore, is said to have stolen an idol of solid gold of the Buddha from a monastery in Nagapattinam and used the gold for the temple of Srirangam (235). His compositions are said to attack Jainism and Buddhism, which is typical of the Tamil Bhakti poetry of the alvars and nayanars of the time.
Temples in War and Peace
This is by no means an exhaustive account of the
plunder and destruction of Hindu temples by Hindu rajas. But this saga of the
attack, plunder and desecration of temples and monasteries is not the whole of
the story of the South Indian rajas.
Though wars involved attacks on temples built by the
enemy raja, and the carrying away of idols and relics associated with his
patronage; and although it would appear that temples built by the defeated raja
would be converted to the religion or deities favoured by the victorious one,
both before and after the war you had countless examples of the same rajas
patronising temples, priests, ascetics and teachers of all religions, including
that of the defeated raja’s.
The early royal dynasties that were primarily Jain or
Buddhist, such as the Satvahanas, Andhra Ishkavakus, Gangas, Kadambas and early
Chalukyas, also performed Hindu rituals such as the Ashvamedha yagya and
settled Brahmins in villages (“agraharas”). Satvahana kings patronised both
Hindu and Buddhist establishments. They gave land grants to Brahmins and
Buddhists (236). Some who were not born kshatriya would, according to some
historians, attempt to raise their status by conducting Ashvamedha yagyas or
other Hindu rituals as mentioned in their inscriptions in order to be elevated
to the kingly kshatriya class (236A).
In Karnataka, royal houses such as the Chalukyas,
Rashtrakutas and Hoysalas continued to give grants to Jain temples, settlements
and monasteries, even while they increasingly espoused Hindu creeds. For
instance, while it is likely that Chalukya Vijayaditya built the first Hindu
temple at Pattadakal (Vijeshvara, now known as Sangamesvara), his sister,
Kumkum Mahadevi was a Jain who commissioned a Jain temple and settlement (181A,
181B) elsewhere.
The extensive construction of Jain temples and
settlements in Karnataka by the Gangas continued well after their defeat in the
early 11th century by the Cholas. We have already read about the massive
Gomatesvara of Shravana Belagola. Rakkasa Ganga of the late 10th
century AD built a Jain temple at Talakad, after the decline of the Gangas had
begun (227). His daughter, Chattaladevi built a Panchakuta Jain temple in the
11th century.
Even when the kings themselves began to build Hindu temples and adding Hindu images to Jain cave-sites, their queens, feudatories, high officials and lay persons, such as merchants, continued to enthusiastically give donations to Jain establishments and build Jain temples.
Though Tanjore and neighbouring areas are famed for
their Jain and Shaivite temples and cave complexes, it is claimed by some that
many Buddha idols have also been found in this region dating from the 9th
to the 16th century (236B).
Centuries after Buddhism had virtually disappeared
from India, Buddhist structures were built in Tamil country by the Sri Lankan
rajas. This was despite Tamil and Sri Lankan kings having a long history of
battling one another. The Cholas included carvings depicting scenes from the
life of the Buddha in their famous Brihadisvara temple in Tanjore (240). They
also built Buddhist structures in their possessions in Sri Lanka.
A Buddhist vihara was commissioned by the king of
Srivijaya in the port town of Nagapattinam not far from Tanjore and Kumbakonam
during the Chola years (238). The Cholas assigned the revenue of a village to
this vihara.
In the upper Deccan, Buddhist rock-carvings and the
building of rest-houses for travelling monks at various sea-ports continued
into the 9th century AD in Mumbai (Kanheri Cave complex) and Konkan (239).
The Yadavas of Maharashtra gave grants to Jain temples (240).
The Pallavas and Cholas continued to patronise Jain
establishments right to the end, though they mostly built Hindu temples. We
also had the continued commissioning of Jain works in Pudukkottai (near Tanjore)
and Tirupattikunram at the time of Chola, Pandya and Vijayanagar-Nayaka rule in
these places (131B).
The rock-cut Jain cave temple of Thiruparankundram has
several layers of construction starting in the 8th century, and
going to the 13th century. Additions to the Pudukkottai Jain complex
continued to be made from the 2nd century AD to the 11th
century AD.
So the answer to the question of whether the building-over
or incorporation of Buddhist and Jain structures by Hindu ones was in a
friendly or hostile spirit may be both for there is evidence of both
hostility and friendship, even a mutual embrace of each other, in the history
of these religions.
The liberality and patronage extended to all religions
outside the context of battle by the warring rajas of South India demonstrates
that the attacks on temples were not directed against the religion that they represented,
but against the enemy raja whose reign they symbolised.
Temples and the Hindu World
Among the warring South Indian rajas, temples were
among the prime targets, whether actual or rhetorical, by any attacker, both
for their wealth and prestige. This created in the Hindu mind, atleast among
the Brahmins who saw themselves as custodians of these things, a siege
mentality about their temples and idols which has plagued our body politic ever
since.
Once the Cholas started building their more elaborate
temples in the 10th century, there was an increase in royal donations
to temples and of settlements of Brahmins associated with temples (236E). Attacks
on temples, or the death or defeat of the patronising raja thus directly
impacted the economic circumstances of the many Brahmins who were dependent on
these temples for their livelihood as purohits and temple administrators.
In the Tamil Bhakti songs of the alvars and nayanars,
devotion is expressed in the form of praise to the beauties of the temples and the
miraculous powers of their idols. Taken in the best spirit the temples and
idols are meant to embody the beauty and power of the Divine.
However, sometimes this had the effect of attaching
the divine spirit too literally to a particular temple or idol in the Hindu
mind. Afterall, in Hinduism, as in other religions, god is omnipresent – god is
always present everywhere from the smallest particle, to the limitless expanse of
the Universe. In Hinduism, god is not limited to any temple or idol.
Rather, god can be embodied in a temple or idol anywhere.
But there developed over time a growing paranoia over
temples and idols that is reflected in legends of idols being stolen or broken
by kings of a different creed; or of temple priests scurrying away to hide the
idol when the kingdom was under attack.
Today this is only spoken of in terms of Muslim raids
and invasions. However, in Tamil country such legends go back to ancient times.
The age of kings, as we have seen in the preceding chapters, was also an age of
frequent war and hence, inevitably, of a menacing of the main temples in any
area, especially if they were identified with the reigning king.
The Shaivite Chola Kulottunga who is said to have
persecuted Vaishnavas, especially Ramanujacharya who lived in Chola lands, is believed
to have thrown the Vaishnavite Govindaraja idol of a famous temple in Chidambaram
into the sea (236C).
Other versions of the legend say the idol was
plundered during a raid by the Delhi Sultanate. But the troops had come to the
area at the invitation of a Pandya prince who was fighting his brother for the
throne of Madurai, and they left after installing that prince, who was, of
course, a Hindu.
We will read about these events in the chapters to
follow. Suffice it to note here that the long and varied history of battle in
South India lends itself to such legends and they need to be taken with a large
pinch of salt instead of, as Hindutva narrations of history do, so many black
stars against “invaders”.
It should also be borne in mind that “desecration” has
a subjective connotation in Hinduism where the touch or “shadow” of a so-called
“lower” caste or non-Hindu can be taken as polluting. In this view, even the
touch of an idol or entry into a temple by a Muslim would be sufficient to consider
them as having been “desecrated”, which is not quite the same as the deliberate
desecration of a temple.
Sentiment and Morality
The building up of sentiment around temples and idols,
and relegating to the background, if not quite forgetting the abstract notions
of the omnipresence and indestructibility of god, has sown the seeds of
unending sectarian strife in India since ancient times. The only thing to
redeem this sorry situation is the beauty of our ancient temples. In their
eloquent grace and serenity; in the robust celebration of the gift of life in
the sculptures dancing around them, these grand old temples stand apart like
the proverbial lotus in the swamp from the violent, malicious and hate-filled
politics of the Hindu Right all about them.
I come to end of this chapter on temples with a sense
of relief. The politics around temples has poisoned my life since I was in
school. As I would draft and correct these pages, the filthy abuse of Sanghi activists
when I fasted against the production at Ayodhya last January would ring in my
ears.
Memories of the rabid communalism of fellow students at
Modern School and St Stephen’s College during the awful years of LK Advani’s
Ram Janma Bhoomi agitation would flash up in all their ugliness. Then I would
want to fling away my laptop and be done with this whole project; to think of
something else.
But each time I would be drawn back to this work. Not
from anger, but to speak up for these very temples and what they truly stand
for; to take them back from their capture by the Hindu Right. Because these
temples are mine too. Their history is entwined with mine.
When I was attacked by the Sanghi activists, one of
the worst thoughts that occurred to me was that maybe these rabid Hindus would
not allow me into a temple again. Maybe I would never see the Brihadisvara
temple again. That temple, which is a stone’s throw from my ancestral village, which
I had shown to my husband and children with such pride when our family was just
starting.
I had been there only the previous summer on the death
of an uncle from the village. Then I had thought of buying a house there to make sure that my family stays in touch with our roots.
Coming from a first-generation mixed family, raised as
a South Indian in the North, I had to do some work to find my place in India.
Everyone needs a history. In the unchartered territory of my life, the magnificent
temple of Tanjore was one of the North Stars I found for myself.
Even if I could not speak Tamil and did not know a
tenth of the rules that apply in a traditional Tamil household, the enjoyment
of the Brihadisvara temple allowed me an entry into my Tamil heritage against
all the odds of my North Indian upbringing. If that were taken away from me,
then it would be a loss indeed.
So I too have sentiments around temples. If I would
hate to be shut out of the Brihadisvara temple, then I would also hate to see it
broken, for whatever reason. But sentiments are not the only thing. Is that not
the message of Hinduism? Are we not taught to be detached and composed in all
situations? Is it not morally wrong to love any temple for its own sake? Even
to the exclusion of the very values and beliefs that it consecrates?
I shall leave this fraught topic, with this wise
legend of the Jains (236D): “Chamundaraya [who built the magnificent
Gommatesvara statue at Shravana Bela], after having established the worship of
this image, became proud and elated at placing this God by his own authority at
so vast an expense of money and labour. Soon after this, when he performed in
honour of the God the ceremony of Panchamritasnana for washing the image with
five liquids – (milk, curds, butter, honey and sugar), vast quantities of these
things were expended in many hundred pots; but, through the wonderful power of
the God, the liquid descended not lower than the navel, to check the pride and
vanity of the worshiper. Chamundaraya, not knowing the cause, was filled with
grief that his intention was frustrated of cleaning the image completely with
this ablution.
While he was in this situation, the celestial nymph
Padmavati, by order of the God, having transformed herself into the likeness of
an aged poor woman, appeared, holding in her hand the five amritas in a Beliya
Gola (or small silver pot) for washing the statue and signified her intention
to Chamundaraya, who laughed at the absurdity of this proposal, of
accomplishing what it had not been in his power to effect. Out of curiosity,
however, he permitted her to attempt it, when to the great surprise of the beholders,
she washed the image with the liquid brought in the little silver vase.
Chamundaraya, repenting his sinful arrogance, performed a second time, with
profound respect, his ablution, on which they formerly wasted so much valuable
liquids, and washed completely the body of the image. From that time this place
is named after the silver vase (or Beliya Gola) which was held in Padmavati’s
hand.”
Click here for Table of Contents and full paper
Comments
Post a Comment