Jain Journal 1979 07

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 30

JULY, 1979
23
different meaning than 'Linga' or 'Phallus'. The occurrance of the same word in the same adjective form in another near-contemporary inscription precludes the possibility of its being a scribal mistake in the Govindapur Inscription of Laksmana Sena.
Now another suggestion may be made that the word was the corrupt form of 'Linga-deva' or the phallic representation of Siva, the great God of the Brahmanical Hindus.
That 'Lenga-deva' is not a corrupt form of 'Linga-deva' or a phallic representation of Siva can be shown conclusively by putting the following arguments.
The great God Siva was the family deity of Sena dynasty. This is evident from the Sadāśiva Seal affixed to the Charters of the kings of this line. Vijaya Sena, the founder of the greatness of the dynasty and Vallala Sena, the greatest monarch of the line, were Saivites by religious persuasion as is proved by the Deopara Prasasti,15 Barrackpore Copperplatel of Vijaya Sena and Naihati Copper-platel7 of Vallala Sena which open with the obeisance to Lord Siva. Though the Govindapur18, Tarpanadighi19 and Madhainagar20 Copper-plates of Laksmana Sena begin with the obeisance to God Narayana yet in these grants Lord Siva, the family deity of the Senas had been invoked in beautiful verses. Even the later inscriptions of Visvarupa Sena 21 and Kesava Sena22 are replate with reverential references to the great God Siva.
A close and critical perusal of these inscriptions leaves no doubt that the composers along with their patron kings had unlocked the gates of their hearts to release the pent-up devotion for Siva, their family deity and that they were well acquainted with all the forms. (including the phallic form) in which the God Siva is worshipped by his devotees. So, had the temple in question housed some phallic image of Lord Siva, the composer would have mentioned it reverentially adding some honorifics to the deity housed there-in and would not have dismissed the temple of the great god at the time of its description in a cursory and derisive fashion as he really did.
The fore-going arguments help us show that 'Lengha-deva' cannot be equated with 'Linga-deva' or phallic image of Siva. On the other hand if we suppose that by the word 'Lengha-deva’ the composer of the Prašasti wanted to describe some god characterised for his nakednesswe will not be wrong. In the Hindu pantheon all the principal gods are clad in celestial attires save and except Siva or Mahadeva. But as