Some Early Jaina Temples in Western India

Author(s): M A Dhaky
Publisher: Z_Mahavir_Jain_Vidyalay_Suvarna_Mahotsav_Granth_Part_1_012002.pdf and Mahavir_Jain_Vidyalay_Suvarna_

Page 46

SOME EARLY JAINA TEMPLES IN WESTERN INDIA : 335
explain since it is, even as a casual examination reveals, old and original upto the cornice.
In style, the Mülaprāsāda comes very close to the Mahāvira temple at Ghanerao (c. 954), Ambikā temple (961) at Jagat, Lakheśvara temple at Kerakot, Śiva temple at Kotai---both of mid-tenth century-, in short to all such temples of the different schools of Mahā-Gurjara style with a central date of mid-tenth century. At the same time it differs sharply from the contemporaneous Nilakantheśvara temple at Kekind, a most representative example of the Mahā-Māru tradition in its late maturity.
The fluted vase-and-foliage class of pillars in the Güdhamandapa seem to be derivative of those seen in the well-known Sun temple at Osia, while the doorframe shows general relationship with the doorframe of Kameśvara temple at Auwa. The figures in the doorframe reveal nuances of the tenth century despite the thick coating of painting. It seems, a different guild altogether, the one which followed Mahā-Māru tradition, had worked on the Güdhamandapa.
V THE TEMPLE OF MAHĀVĪRA, SEWADI
Sewadi was known in the early second millenium as samipāți according to the inscription of 1115 in the Mahāvīra temple. The temple itself is of the usual Jaina plan with a Mülaprāsāda, Gudhamandapa, Trika, Rangamandapa, and the surrounding Devakulikās.
The Mūlaprāsāda, some 6.8 M in width, is tri anga on plan where karna and pratiratha are not only samadala (equilateral) but also of the same proportions. The mouldings of undecorated karna-pitha are otherwise bold. The lotuses on the kumbha of the vedībandha are also powerfully rendered. The mandovara is simple and its bhadra-niches are vacant. Above the sanctum comes the sikhara which is in Bhūmija mode. It is a brick and plaster structure. The plaster is naturally oft-renovated since the temple is a living monument. That perhaps misled BHANDARKAR who wrote that the “spire....is a later work, but resembles the Dekkan style of śikhara."63 The spire is certainly not late. There is a complete accord between the Mülaprāsāda and the spire both in proportions as well as details not possible had the spire been late. The absence of kūţacchädya, the bold śūrasenaka at the root of the latā (spine) and the beautiful regression of its kūțastambhas differentiate it from later examples such as known from Rankpur (Sun temple: mid 15th-cent.) and Chittor (Adbhutanāthaji temple : late 15th
63
Ibid., p. 53.