Temples of Kumbhariya

Author(s): M A Dhaky, U S Moorty
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 64

24
dry. The exteriors of the temples in particular, as can be inferred from Bhandarkar's observations, had been periodically repaired/renovated. There are, of course, a few factual errors and inaccuracies in his statements, which here will be pointed out in their proper context.
The Temples in Kumbhāriyā
While describing the Neminatha temple, he rightly mentions that its main shrine is decorated though its sikhara just as its closed hall are later in workmanship. Inside the closed hall, along the walls, he noticed sculptures like the standing Jina images (still in position), that of Gaṇadhara Puṇḍarīka, Meru, Sahasrakūta, Cauvisvat (caturviṁśati-Jina-patta)—all of which no longer traceable-next Aśvāvabodha-Samalikāvihāra-caritra-patta (the subject of which he could not identify since the myth that underlay its portrayal he apparently was unaware of) and at the end of the first list he added the word "and so forth" which perhaps implied and included the pattas like Jinamātā, Vis-viharamāna, Saptatiśata etcetera, some of which are now transferred to the Mahāvīra temple. He, however, errs in equating the 'mukhamandapa' (satcatuskya) of the inscriptions with 'gūdha-maṇḍapa'. And although he notices there the figure of Ambika and the Nandiśvara-paṭṭa, he does not mention the Saptatiśata-patta and the 'Kalyāṇatraya' sculpture also located there. As for the hall's (rangamaṇḍapa's) painted dome, he took it to be modern. It, of course, is original and of c. A.D. 1137: And the painting apparently was of the Mughal period.
Bhandarkar next describes the Mahāvīra temple. He takes the walls of the (main) shrine as modern, a statement not correct. They are devoid of figure sculptures on the jangha but otherwise are original. Likewise, his observation that the sikhara is rebuilt by using original pieces is also not fully accurate. There are minor resettings, reparations and substitution of older decayed stones but no wholesale rebuilding appears to have been undertaken.
He had seen the central ceiling of the rangamaṇḍapa-hall as 'broken' and whitewashed. It has been since then carefully conserved and no lime coating is any longer discernible there. He refers to other ceilings of the rangamaṇḍapa (showing narratives etc.) and compares them with those in the Vimala temple at Mt. Ābu. Actually, these are not located in the rangamaṇḍapa proper: they cover the aisles between the paṭṭaśālā-cloister and the rangamanḍapa. And they are superior to, and earlier than those in the Vimala temple which are six to ten decades posterior in time. He accurately reads the inscriptional date of the mulanayaka's pedestal as A.D. 1061.
For Private Personal Use Only