DETIGE (2024) ETERNAL SALUTATIONS

Tillo Detige

DETIGE (2024) ETERNAL SALUTATIONS

2024, Eternal Salutations: Memorials of Digambara Jaina Ascetic Lineages from Western India

Eternal Salutations: Memorials of Digambara Jaina Ascetic Lineages from Western India Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der Philosophie in der Fakultät für Philologie der RUHR-UNIVERSITÄT BOCHUM vorgelegt von Tillo Detige Gedruckt mit der Genehmigung der Fakultät für Philologie der Ruhr-Universität Bochum Referent: Prof. Dr. Jessie Pons Korreferent: Prof. Dr. John E. Cort Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 17/05/2024. For Nathalie, who never leaves a book unﬁnished. And for Mohsen, whose last book was. Abstract This dissertation presents a study of the Digambara Jaina ascetic lineages of Western and Central India in the Sultanate (1206-1526 CE) and Mughal (1526-1857 CE) period. It is built around the ﬁrst ever survey of memorials of Digambara renouncers in Western India. I analyse the memorials' spatial, architectural, iconographic, and ritual aspects. My arguments are also backed by information from numerous other material and textual sources like manuscript colophons, devotional song compositions, and inscriptions of temple images. I focus on the history of three branches of the Balātkāragaṇa tradition which centred their activities in the contemporary state of Rajasthan. My ﬁndings go a long way in dislocating notions prevalent both among Jains and in scholarship that Jaina traditions faced only adversity, decline, and discontinuity in the period of the ‘Muslim rule’ of Northern India. Prior scholarship long interpreted the sedentarised and clothed bhaṭṭārakas which led the Digambara mendicant lineages in the Sultanate and Mughal era as mere ‘clerics’ or ‘corrupted ascetics’ who replaced the naked and itinerant munis, the ideal Digambara renouncers. The latter were thought to have disappeared early in the Sultanate period because of persecutions by supposedly fanatical Sultans. A substantial number of munis is now found attested ﬂourishing as pupils and devotees of the bhaṭṭārakas up to the early Mughal period, and memorials and other sources also make it abundantly clear that lower-ranking renouncers and laypeople venerated the bhaṭṭārakas as paramount Digambara ascetics. The remaining memorials are also uniquely helpful in reconstructing the geographical distribution of the Digambara ascetic lineages. Their subsequent relocations can often be directly mapped onto political history and the attendant socio-economic conditions in the Delhi Sultanate, the regional Sultanates, the Rajput kingdoms, and the Mughal empire. Far from ﬂeeing from them, the bhaṭṭārakas were often attracted to the capital cities of the Indo-Muslim polities. They no doubt followed in the wake of lay communities of Jain merchants and literati migrating there in search of professional opportunities. Bhaṭṭārakas can also be conceptualised as lords of Digambara polities, sharing many markers of sovereignty and courtly practices with South Asian monarchs. Though long abandoned and frequently dilapidating, memorials, then, still stand to remind us that lay and ascetic Digambara Jaina communities did not wither but ﬂourished in the Indo-Muslim states. As arguably the most fundamental Jaina technology of the self, the ritualised praise of asceticism which in the Sultanate and Mughal period was instantiated in the devotion of bhaṭṭārakas constituted a deep continuity of the Digambara tradition throughout the second millennium CE. i ii Table of contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................................i Table of contents ..............................................................................................................................................iii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................ix Published work .................................................................................................................................................xii Further front matter ......................................................................................................................................xiii Chapter 1. Memorials and Discontinuity ..................................................................................1 1.1. Of clerics and zealots: Jains in the ‘Muslim Era’ .....................................................................1 1.1.1. Two times three Digambara renouncers... ...........................................................................................1 1.1.2. ... and the six centuries in between: .........................................................................................................2 1.1.3. Digambara Jains in the Indo-Muslim polities ...................................................................................5 1.2. Digambara memorials as a historical source..........................................................................9 1.3. Chapter outline ...................................................................................................................................13 Chapter 2. Digambara Ascetic Traditions of Western and Central India ................19 Chapter contents ............................................................................................................................................................19 2.1. Venerability...........................................................................................................................................21 2.1.1. Bhaṭṭārakas as ‘clerics’.....................................................................................................................................21 2.1.2. Bhaṭṭārakas as venerable renouncers................................................................................................22 2.1.3. Bhaṭṭārakas’ practices .....................................................................................................................................24 2.2. Lineages ................................................................................................................................................30 2.2.1. Ascetic traditions of pre-20th century CE Western and Central India ........................31 2.2.2. 19th and 20th century CE continuation, and discontinuation ..........................................36 2.2.3. Balātkāragaṇa lineages ................................................................................................................................39 2.2.3.1. Balātkāragaṇa epithets...........................................................................................................................................39 2.2.3.2. Balātkāragaṇa lineage appellations ............................................................................................................40 2.2.3.3. Classical and medieval periods .......................................................................................................................43 2.2.3.4. Uttaraśākhā and Balātkāragaṇa bifurcations ........................................................................................44 2.2.3.5. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā ........................................................................................................................................................47 2.2.3.6. Vāgaḍāśākhās...............................................................................................................................................................48 2.2.3.7. Śākambharīśākhās .....................................................................................................................................................49 2.2.3.8. Lāṭaśākhās ......................................................................................................................................................................50 2.2.3.9. Mālavāśākhās ................................................................................................................................................................52 2.2.3.10. Cambalaśākhās .........................................................................................................................................................55 2.2.3.11. Prācīnaśākhā, Kārañjāśākhā, Lātūraśākhās ...........................................................................................57 iii 2.2.4. Maṇḍalācāryas ....................................................................................................................................................58 2.2.4.1. Maṇḍalācāryas and the dynamics of lineage formation ..............................................................58 2.2.4.2. Functions of maṇḍalācāryas ..............................................................................................................................62 2.2.4.3. Lineage expansion and regionalisation ....................................................................................................66 2.2.4.4. Undivided Lāṭaśākhā and Mālavāśākhās.................................................................................................67 2.2.4.5. Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā ..................................................................................................................................................68 2.2.4.6. Śākambharīśākhās ....................................................................................................................................................69 2.2.4.7. Cambalaśākhās ............................................................................................................................................................70 2.2.4.8. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā ........................................................................................................................................................71 2.2.4.9. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................................73 2.3. Saṅghas .................................................................................................................................................75 2.3.1. Composition of the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas...........................................................................................75 2.3.2. Munis and ācāryas (15th to 17th century CE) ................................................................................78 2.3.3. Size of the saṅghas ..........................................................................................................................................82 2.3.4. Ascetic careers ....................................................................................................................................................87 2.3.5. 18th century CE ācāryas ...............................................................................................................................91 2.3.6. Practices ..................................................................................................................................................................94 2.3.7. Paṇḍitas, yatis, rṣis ̥ (18th to 20th century CE)................................................................................97 2.4. Seats, courts, kings, states, and polities ..............................................................................103 2.4.1. Seats..........................................................................................................................................................................103 2.4.2. Indo-Muslim States .......................................................................................................................................105 2.4.3. Polities......................................................................................................................................................................110 2.4.4. Courts and kings...............................................................................................................................................113 Chapter 3. Digambara Memorials...........................................................................................119 Chapter contents ..........................................................................................................................................................119 3.1. Iconography and architecture...................................................................................................122 3.1.1. Chatrīs, cabūtarās, tibārās ..........................................................................................................................122 3.1.2. Caraṇa-pādukās ...............................................................................................................................................126 3.1.3. Niṣedhikās .............................................................................................................................................................129 3.1.4. Kīrtistambhas ......................................................................................................................................................132 3.1.5. Anthropomorphic depictions ..................................................................................................................137 3.1.6. Hierarchies carved in stone .....................................................................................................................142 3.1.7. Continuities and innovations in contemporary Digambara memorials ...................145 3.2. Inscriptions ........................................................................................................................................150 3.2.1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................150 3.2.2. Lineage ...................................................................................................................................................................152 3.2.3. Dates .........................................................................................................................................................................152 iv 3.2.4. Commemorated individuals ...................................................................................................................154 3.2.4.1. Late medieval renouncers .................................................................................................................................154 3.2.4.2. Lineage incumbents (bhaṭṭārakas, maṇḍalācāryas, ācāryas) ................................................157 3.2.4.3. Early modern ācāryas, munis, brahmacārīs .........................................................................................158 3.2.4.4. Early modern female renouncers ...............................................................................................................163 3.2.4.5. Paṇḍitas (18th - 20th century CE) ................................................................................................................165 3.2.5. Consecrating agents ....................................................................................................................................167 3.2.6. Other elements ................................................................................................................................................169 3.3. Finding spots .....................................................................................................................................171 3.3.1. Cremation sites ..................................................................................................................................................171 3.3.2. Multiple memorials ........................................................................................................................................174 3.3.3. Removal, dilapidation, renovation, repurposing ......................................................................177 3.4. Necropoles ........................................................................................................................................185 3.4.1. Vāgaḍā necropoles ........................................................................................................................................185 3.4.2. Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera ............................................................................................................................186 3.4.3. Vidyānandi Kṣetra, Sūrata ........................................................................................................................187 3.4.4. Surapura ................................................................................................................................................................190 3.5. Ritual .....................................................................................................................................................192 3.5.1. Evidence of ritual usage of pre-20th century CE memorials .........................................192 3.5.2. Living traditions of ritual veneration of Western Indian bhaṭṭārakas .......................196 3.5.2.1. Vidyānandi Kṣetra, Sūrata (Gujarat) ............................................................................................................196 3.5.2.2. Kārañjā (Maharashtra) ..........................................................................................................................................200 3.5.3. The ritual veneration of living and deceased contemporary renouncers ...........202 3.5.4. Relic veneration ...............................................................................................................................................205 Chapter 4. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā ...................................................................................................209 4.1. The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā...................................................................................................................209 4.1.1. Cittauḍagaṛha (16th century CE)............................................................................................................211 4.1.2. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa (late 16th - 17th century CE) .......................................................................................213 4.1.3. Dillī (ﬁrst half of the 18th century CE) ................................................................................................218 4.1.4. Jayapura (second half of the 18th and 19th century CE) ...................................................219 4.1.5. Mahāvīrajī (later 19th and 20th century CE) .................................................................................222 4.2. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials: overview...............................................................................222 4.2.1. Bhaṭṭārakas ..........................................................................................................................................................225 4.2.2. Lower-ranking renouncers ......................................................................................................................226 4.2.3. Unidentiﬁed renouncers ............................................................................................................................227 4.2.4. Paṇḍitas .................................................................................................................................................................228 v 4.2.5. Material features .............................................................................................................................................230 4.2.6. Inscriptions ...........................................................................................................................................................231 4.3. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials: sites ........................................................................................232 4.3.1. Bijauliyāṃ, Pārśvanātha Atiśaya Kṣetra (s. 1465, s. 1483) ...................................................232 4.3.2. Āvāṃ, Nasīyā (thrice s. 1593) ..................................................................................................................235 4.3.3. Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha (s. 1681, reported s. 1589) ......................................................................................238 4.3.4. Cākasū, Śiva Ḍūṅgarī (reported s. 1593).........................................................................................242 4.3.5. Sāṅgānera, Nasiyā (s. 1696) ....................................................................................................................245 4.3.6. Āmera, Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ (n.d. [s. 1691-1722], twice n.d. [s.1733-70], s. 1771) .... 247 4.3.7. Sāṅgānera, Saṅghijī Mandira (s. 1783) ..............................................................................................251 4.3.8. Bassī, Nasiyāṃjī (s. 1750/81, s. 1828) ................................................................................................252 4.3.9. Āmera, Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ (s. 1845) .........................................................................................256 4.3.10. Jayapura, Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ (thrice s. 1853, 1881) .....................................................260 4.3.11. Cākasū, Bhaṭṭāraka Nasiyāṃjī (s. 1886)........................................................................................266 4.3.12. Jayapura, Nasiyāṃ Śyojī Godhā (s. 1880) ...................................................................................267 4.3.13. Jayapura, Digambara Jaina Mandira Bijairāmajī Pāṇḍyā (twice n.d.) .....................270 4.3.14. Caurū, Nasīyā (s. 1888, twice n.d.) .....................................................................................................271 4.3.15. Phāgī, Candraprabhū Digambara Jaina Nasiyāṃ (s. 1924) ............................................272 4.3.16. Bagarū, Nasiyāṃ (four n.d.) ...................................................................................................................274 4.3.17. Būndī, Nasyājī (s. 1911, twice s. 1949, s. 19[5?]6) ......................................................................277 4.3.18. Bārāṃ, Nasiyāṃjī (s. 1525, s. 155[1?], thrice no legible date) .........................................281 4.3.19. Ṭoṅka (seven n.d.) .........................................................................................................................................284 Chapter 5. Vāgaḍāśākhā ............................................................................................................287 5.1. The Vāgaḍāśākhās .........................................................................................................................288 5.1.1. The undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā (15th century CE) ........................................................................289 5.1.2. The Vāgaḍāśākhā bifurcation .................................................................................................................291 5.1.3. Laghuśākhā incumbents: ācāryas to maṇḍalācāryas to bhaṭṭārakas .....................294 5.1.4. Laghuśākhā-Brhatśākhā interrelations (early 16th to early 18th century CE) ...299 ̥ 5.1.5. The Laghuśākhā (late 15th to mid-19th century CE) ............................................................303 5.1.6. The later Brhatśākhā (17th - early 20th century CE) .............................................................310 ̥ 5.2. Vāgaḍāśākhā memorials: overview ........................................................................................312 5.2.1. Sites ............................................................................................................................................................................312 5.2.2. Commemorated individuals ...................................................................................................................315 5.2.3. Material features ..............................................................................................................................................321 vi 5.2.4. Inscriptions...........................................................................................................................................................323 5.3. Naugāmā necropolis (late 15th - early 17th cent. CE)....................................................324 5.3.1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................324 5.3.2. Lineage incumbents (ācārya, maṇḍalācārya) ...........................................................................329 5.3.3. Munis and ācāryas .........................................................................................................................................329 5.3.4. Brahmacārīs ........................................................................................................................................................331 5.3.5. Kīrtistambha (s. 1571) ....................................................................................................................................332 5.4. Sāgavāṛā necropolis (16th - early 18th cent. CE) .............................................................334 5.4.1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................334 5.4.2. Lineage incumbents (bhaṭṭāraka, maṇḍalācārya) .................................................................342 5.4.3. Munis and ācāryas .........................................................................................................................................343 5.4.4. Brahmacārīs .......................................................................................................................................................346 5.4.5. Kīrtistambha (s. 1769) ..................................................................................................................................346 5.4.6. Balātkāragaṇa and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha in Sāgavāṛā .......................................................................349 5.5. Memorials of the later Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā (18th - 19th cent. CE) ...........................352 5.5.1. Aṅkleśvara (s. 1756) ........................................................................................................................................352 5.5.2. Sāgavāṛā (n.d. [poss.], s. 1822, s. 1881, s. 1905 [3]) ....................................................................353 5.5.3. Bhānapura (poss., s. 1780) ........................................................................................................................357 5.6. Memorials of the later Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā (mid-17th - early 20th cent. CE)......358 ̥ 5.6.1. Sāgavāṛā (s. 1802) ...........................................................................................................................................358 5.6.2. Udayapura (s. 1759 [2], s. 1769) .............................................................................................................359 5.6.3. Sūrata (s. 1703, n.d. [prob.], s. 1825 [3], s. 1863 [2], s. 1887) ................................................363 5.6.4. R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī (s. 186[6?], n.d. [prob.]) ........................................................................365 5.6.5. Īḍara (s. 1855, s. 1887) ..................................................................................................................................368 5.6.6. Surapura (s. 1939) ...........................................................................................................................................375 Chapter 6. Śākambharīśākhā ...................................................................................................377 6.1. The Śākambharīśākhās ................................................................................................................377 6.1.1. Undivided Śākambharīśākhā .................................................................................................................379 6.1.2. Śākambharīśākhā Nāgaura-paṭṭa ......................................................................................................385 6.1.3. Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa.......................................................................................................388 6.1.4. Śākambharīśākhā ācārya lineage ......................................................................................................392 6.1.5. Śākambharīśākhā memorials: overview........................................................................................394 6.2. Ajamera, Ānteḍa Nasīyā (s. 1572, s. 1765-1992) .................................................................399 6.2.1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................399 6.2.2. Early memorials ..............................................................................................................................................405 vii 6.2.3. Mid-18th century CE development of the site.........................................................................407 6.2.4. Ācāryas ....................................................................................................................................................................411 6.2.5. Later bhaṭṭāraka memorials ...................................................................................................................416 6.2.6. Paṇḍitas .................................................................................................................................................................419 6.3. Sākhūna, Nasīyā (s. 1887, s. 1918, s. 1992) ............................................................................428 6.4. Nāgaura-paṭṭa memorials..........................................................................................................434 6.4.1. Nāgaura, Bīsapantha Baṛā Mandira (s. 1863) ..............................................................................434 6.4.2. Gvāliyara, Nasīhājī (s. 1972) ......................................................................................................................435 Chapter 7. Commemoration and Continuity .....................................................................437 7.1. 19th century CE Digambara munis and the reversal of the ascetic hierarchy ....437 7.2. Conclusions, caveats, further research ................................................................................441 7.3. Commemoration and liberation...............................................................................................447 7.4. The continuity of the Digambara tradition across the early modern period.......455 Appendix I. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa-, Vāgaḍā-, and Śākambharīśākhā memorials .................................................459 Appendix II. Inscriptions .............................................................................................................................................467 Appendix III. Memorials of other Balātkāragaṇa lineages, other traditions, & unknown aﬃliation .............................................................................................................................................................................497 Appendix IV. List of illustrations and tables included ..................................................................................503 Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................................................511 viii Acknowledgements Standing on the shoulders of giants. My research would not have been possible without the existing scholarship. Topping a body of work by Jain scholars mostly published in Hindi in the second half of the 20th century CE is Vidyādhara Joharāpurakara’s Bhaṭṭāraka Sampradāya (1958). This seminal work ﬁrst outlined the successions of the Digambara ascetic lineages of Western and Central India. The vast corpus of epigraphic and textual evidence edited in it is of lasting interest. It remains to be seen whether there will ever be another book, scholarly or other, to remain on my desk similarly long, constantly consulted yet never depleted. His relatives and acquaintances in Kārañjā (Lāḍa) kindly arranged for me to visit Dr. Joharāpurakara at his home in Nāgapura (Maharashtra) in January 2015. (Fig. 0.1 L.) Kastūracanda Kāsalīvāla and Anūpacanda Nyāyatīrtha performed a mammoth task cataloguing the Digambara manuscript collections of Rajasthan (Kāsalīvāla 1949, 1954, 1972; Kāsalīvāla & Nyāyatīrtha 1957, 1962). The information contained in their catalogues still needs to be tapped more fully. Kāsalīvāla also developed a proliﬁc oeuvre mostly discussing literary compositions discovered in manuscripts (e.g., Kāsalīvāla 1967a, 1967b, 1979a, 1981, 1989). Nyāyatīrtha’s (1990, 1997) later work on the Digambara temples of the Jayapura region guided me to many ﬁnding spots, and gathers important historical information on the sites. The same counts for Balabhadra Jaina’s (1974, 1976, 1978) volumes on the pilgrimage sites of Uttar Pradesh, Dillī, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra. Among more recent, late 20th and 21st century CE Jain scholars, Navanīta Kumāra Jaina (e.g., N. K. Jaina 2013) has done much epigraphic and other work on the bhaṭṭāraka lineages of especially Madhya Pradesh. Figure 0.1. L.: The author with Vidyādhara Joharāpurakara (left), Nāgapura, Maharashtra. (Photo Sunil Jain, January 2015) R.: Bhaṭṭāraka chatrīs, Candragiri, R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī. (March 2013) (5.6.3.) In Western scholarship, the work of John E. Cort (Denison University) stands out in shaping my thoughts on Jaina devotion, and his work on the Digambara traditions in the Jayapura region is similarly foundational. I stand blessed among a squad of junior scholars who owe ever so much to his generosity, knowledge, and support. More comments of his went into this dissertation than are explicitly acknowledged. And yet more are stored elsewhere for a later reorganisation of the ix present discussion, or for an even slower ripening. As part of his equally diverse interests and specialisations, Peter Flügel (SOAS) developed a unique oeuvre on Jaina memorials and commemoration practices. He was similarly engaged with my project from its beginnings, and is another model of a scholar whom I stand no chance to ever emulate. As irregular as was my contact with Paul Dundas (University of Edinburgh), his words of encouragement still ring in my ears with a robustness of oak. Brian Hatcher (Tufts University) and his work appeared late on the stage of my thinking on the bhaṭṭārakas, but nevertheless pulled the curtains on half of the scene, which otherwise I would have missed out on altogether. At conferences attended and invited to throughout the years, I was fortunate to get to know an ever expanding, international circle of senior scholars and peers working on various aspects of Jainism and other South Asian traditions. The kindness among folks in the ﬁeld of Jaina studies deserves to be known, and emulated. This dissertation is the outcome of a project initiated at Ghent University (Belgium), where Eva De Clercq formulated a research proposal on Digambara history, secured funding for it, and entrusted it to me. The project ‘Early Modern Digambara Jainism in Western and Central India: The Age of the Bhaṭṭārakas?’ was supported by a grant of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) from 2012 to 2016. Much of my documentation stems from ﬁeldwork conducted through it, although the full analysis of the material is more recent. A clan of friends from the department in Ghent has meanwhile dispersed throughout the near and further-oﬀ world, on I hope always happy pathways. Arthur McKeown (Carleton College) invited me to teach the history of South Asian Buddhism at the Carleton-Antioch Buddhist Studies in India program in Bodhgaya in Fall 2018. First Bodhgaya and then the public library of Ghent (its reading room, concert piano, views over the city and the river ﬂowing by, my apartment on the other bank) were marvellous bridges across what otherwise could have been troubled waters. After continuing my research and publishing for some years as an independent researcher, I returned to institutional life in the course of 2020 at the Center for Religious Studies (CERES) at Ruhr-Universität Bochum (RUB, Germany). Taking me into their academic home, Jessie Pons and Patrick Krüger gave me various teaching and research opportunities. After a basis of more textual studies in Ghent, it was in Bochum that my focus turned further to material sources. With the host of bright and amicable minds populating its kitchens, corridors, meeting rooms, and class rooms, CERES came to be a hallowed ground. While I was far too often locked up between the lines of this work, it did not go unnoticed to me that the research institution set up by Volkhard Krech is a as laudable as it is successful. Students of Hindi and Sanskrit were willing to sit and learn, often enough laugh, and sometimes dance with me. Dinners and desserts with my PhD and other pals were precious. As will be our future parties, Percy (Arfeen-Wegner), Maren (Jordan), Neda (Darabian), Floriana (Marra), and Mohsen (Zakeri)! Undoubtedly the most formative part of this research project have been the four ﬁeld trips in the winters and springtimes of 2013 to 2016, and my meetings with countless Digambara Jains while hopping from town to town in Rajasthan, and sometimes straying further. The ﬁrm foundation plinth of the ediﬁce that is this dissertation is the published work of Jain researchers cited above, and far more often below. The Digambara past is the very hillock it stands on. The interests of contemporary Western scholarship are the pillars of the pavilion (chatrī, Fig. 0.1 R.) which it became. The dome of course is respect for all those past ones of good intentions. But the living x people I encountered in studying the memorials of their tradition were the life, depth, colour, sparkle and shine, third, fourth and further dimensions. The surrounding landscapes and the ambience, the weather and the climate, the rays of sun and the touch of rain, the stars and the moon, the break and close of day, the heat of the desert and the coolness of marble, the expected chill of winter and the welcomed blossoms of spring, the breeze that ﬂows through this hilltop chatrī. The panorama, the horizons, the houses in the towns below, the din of traﬃc and the bhajans rising to the sky. The clouds, the trees, the chattering Mynas frolicking on the ground, the Babbler and the Bulbul in the bushes, and the emerald green, long-tailed, Rose-ringed parakeets darting past squawking and screeching. The fruit and chai and local veg dishes. Countless laypeople and renouncers answered my questions and questioned me. Trustees, donors, and devotees, regulars, paṇḍitas, and pujārīs allowed me into and showed me their temples. They let me observe and sometimes join their rituals, and inspect the inscriptions of their beloved icons up close. They opened the treasure troves of their manuscript collections and let me leaf through their centuries old and venerated scriptures. They accommodated me in their dharmaśālās and temple complexes, buzzing with activity and yet so deeply tranquil. They took me to sites, invited me into their shops, and on into their homes, where their families served me food in their living rooms. They supported me much, and censured me only ever so often. They shared their knowledge, jotted down phone numbers, introduced me to relatives, and sent me on my way further through their networks. They continue to live near to and hold dear the places which it was my privilege to pass through shortly and to write on longer. Multiple PhDs could be ﬁlled with the study of their lives, and multiple lives with sharing theirs. They remain unnamed here, as do the even larger crowds with whom I only shared spaces or exchanged friendly glances. Yet their kindness and hospitality could not possibly go in vain. Regardless of the merits of my work, the cells of my body attuned to much of what they hold dear, and my aspirations sharpened. Their typical modesty might bar them from seeing and certainly saying it thus, but for me it is their dispositions and demeanour which truly raise the victory ﬂag over their tradition. Micchāmi dukkaḍam, for every error remaining. In my allegory of a doctoral chatrī, the centre piece is still missing. From the A. to the Z., and between and beyond, those who were dearest to me during the years on this project, very much alive, remain enshrined in my heart. The memories, happiness, and fruits of those times spent together will by far outlive this study and this life. The dedication of this dissertation is for everything I took away from them, and into it, to ﬂow back to them. My friend Hannes was with me on this journey all the way. To bring it to completion, my friend Lieven oﬀered a table in his lush orchards, and a house of wood, straw, and clay. Long before, my parents had set it in motion. Rastafari did the magic. Or if not, it sure played the soundtrack to it. My gratitude goes out to all of the above. And my salutations and homage to those below, otherwise reduced to names, dates, ascetic ranks, lineage aﬃliations, and memorial stones, and hypotheses, long, long conjectures. I stand on this earth, count my blessings, look to the sky, give thanks and praises. May good things radiate from the ﬁnial kalaśa. xi Published work Although the in-depth study of the memorials I present here is entirely new, my understanding of the bhaṭṭāraka traditions of Western and Central India had already substantially developed before I began drafting this dissertation. This dissertation therefore takes much from and regularly refers back to materials, arguments, and insights developed in various conference papers and meanwhile published elsewhere. A short summary of the main conclusions from the present study has already been published in a recent edited volume (Detige 2023). A ﬁrst, preliminary report on Digambara memorials and commemorative practices appeared in the 2014 Newsletter of the Centre of Jaina Studies (Detige 2014). The present corpus includes a large number of further memorials surveyed since, and the analysis of the material, spatial, and ritual aspects of the memorials is carried through in far greater detail in Chapter 3. I have most comprehensively set out my interpretation of early modern Digambara Jaina ascetic traditions in my contribution to the Brill Encyclopedia of Jainism (Detige 2020a). A brief outline of the main arguments was also published in a piece in the 2020 Newsletter of the Centre of Jaina Studies (Detige 2020b). The present Chapters 1 and 2 in some respects recapitulate my earlier discussion (esp. 1.2., 2.1.), while other aspects are developed further (esp. 2.2.3., 2.3.), or entirely new (esp. 2.2.4., 2.4.). The full analysis of the history and the corpus of memorials of the three Balātkāragaṇa branches presented in Chapters 4-6 is also newly presented here. I already and at more length documented the former venerability of the bhaṭṭārakas (2.1. et passim) in a book chapter (Detige 2019a) and a journal article (Detige 2019b), the latter focusing on bhaṭṭāraka consecration practices. A small side-project developed during my ﬁeld work for the present study forms a useful parallel to the practices of veneration of the bhaṭṭārakas of Western and Central India (Detige 2024a). I frequently refer to an earlier, substantial study of a corpus of Digambara manuscript colophons which complements and often conﬁrms the ﬁndings from the memorials, especially with regards to the composition of the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas (Detige 2018). I have studied the bhaṭṭāraka lineages of Kārañjā (Maharashtra) in a dedicated book chapter (Detige 2015). Some of my ideas on the bhaṭṭāraka polities set out in Chapter 2 (2.4.) are included in a recent book chapter (Detige 2024b). An article under review (Detige in preparation) collects the full available information on 19th century CE Digambara munis shortly adduced in the concluding chapter (7.1.). My reﬂections on Jain ritual which form the ﬁnal frame for the ﬁndings of this study (7.3.) were initially developed in papers presented at the AAR and DANAM conferences in Atlanta in November 2015, to which I travelled with the support of Dallas-based Shraman Foundation. My assessment of Jain ritual was preﬁgured by earlier reﬂections on Jaina and Buddhist narratives (Detige 2020c). xii Further front matter PHOTOS All photos by the author, except for Fig. 0.1 L., photo by Sushil Jain, and Fig. 3.40, photos courtesy of the oﬃce of the Vidyānandi Kṣetra. CHARTS On the charts included in Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (see overview in Appendix IV) and throughout the text, the ranks and titles of individuals are indicated with the following colour scheme: bhaṭṭārakas orange, maṇḍalācāryas maroon, ācāryas red, munis yellow, brahmacārīs salmon, female renouncers light blue, and paṇḍitas dark blue, and on the charts unknown grey. Memorials are indicated with the same colour scheme (full colour ﬁll), with year recorded in the inscription, and the name of the town of the ﬁnding spot. A dotted arrow from an individuals to a memorial indicates his consecration or construction of the memorial. A full arrow between two individuals indicates either institutional succession (between bhaṭṭārakas), institutional aﬃliation (indicated with 'āmnāya'), or pupillary aﬃliation, as recorded in the memorial inscriptions or other sources. ABBREVIATIONS s.: vikram saṃvat ś.: śāka saṃvat v.n.s.: vīra nirvāṇa saṃvat p.: paṭṭa, consecration to bhaṭṭāraka seat (e.g., p. s. 1507) or period of incumbency (e.g., p. s. 1507-71). EDITORIAL CONVENTIONS I generally follow the IAST transliteration scheme. See the introductory note to Appendix IV for the editorial conventions applied in my edition of inscriptions. In citing published inscriptions and textual sources, I follow the spacing applied by the editors, and do not typically hyphenate compounds. My transliteration of place names follows current spelling. All towns mentioned are located in the state of Rajasthan unless otherwise noted. Names of individuals are standardised (e.g., Dharmakīrti instead of the spelling Dharmakīrtti more often found in primary sources). xiii CHAPTER 1. MEMORIALS AND DISCONTINUITY 1.1. Of clerics and zealots: Jains in the ‘Muslim Era’ 1.1.1. Two times three Digambara renouncers... Early in the 13th century CE in Maṇḍapagaṛha (Mandu, Madhya Pradesh) in Central India, Digambara Jaina ascetics were reportedly harassed by foreigners (mleccha), presumably Muslims. As the leader of the Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa, a Digambara ascetic lineage, Bhaṭṭāraka Vasantakīrti therefore instructed his pupils to wear clothes in public and return to their normal state of nudity only in their place of residence.1 This was a drastic step for a tradition which takes special pride in the permanent nudity of its fully initiated, male renouncers (muni), the main marker distinguishing them from the renouncers of the Śvetāmbara branch of Jainism, and sets it as a prerequisite for liberation. Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra, a later successor of Bhaṭṭāraka Vasantakīrti who was the leader of the Balātkāragaṇa in the second half of the 13th and the ﬁrst quarter of the 14th century CE, is anachronistically recorded to have donned a loincloth in Dillī at the request of the ruler of the Delhi Sultanate, Sulṭān Firūz Šāh Tuġluq (r. 1351-1388 CE).2 In an even larger chronological mismatch, Prabhācandra’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi, who ﬂourished up to the late 14th century CE, is narrated to have put on a loincloth at the request of the earlier, Central Asian ruler Muḥammad Ġūrī (1144-1206 CE), whose queen wanted to meet the famous Jaina ascetic whom she had heard of.3 Fast-forward half a millennium, zoom out to a map of the whole South Asian subcontinent including South India, and again zoom in on the scenes of the ascetic initiations (dīkṣā) of another set of three Digambara renouncers, Ācārya Ādisāgara ‘Aṅkalīkara’ (1866-1944 CE), Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’ (1872-1955 CE), and Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Chāṇī’ (1888-1944 CE). In 1913 CE, Śivagauḍā Pāṭīla from the Caturtha caste threw oﬀ his clothes while initiating himself as a muni in front of the main icon of the pilgrimage site of Kunthalgiri (Maharashtra). Ādisāgara ‘Aṅkalīkara’ had already taken Digambara novice initiation as a kṣullaka and an ailaka a few years earlier, and in 1926 CE laypeople also extended the higher rank of ācārya to him. Meanwhile another Caturtha caste layman from north west Karnataka, Sātagauḍā Pāṭīla, had been initiated as a kṣullaka in 1915 CE, self-initiated as an ailaka, and in 1919 CE took initiation as a naked muni. This Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’ received the ācārya title in 1924 CE, after initiating the ﬁrst of his own pupils to the muni rank. Still around the same time, one Kevaladāsa who had been born in the Dasā Hummaḍa caste 1 According to Śrutasāgara’s 16th century CE Ṣaṭ-prābhrta-ṭīkā, see Joharāpurakara 1958: 89, lekha 225. ̥ According to Bakhatarāma Sāha in his 1770 CE Buddhi-vilāsa. P. C. Jain (1983: 42) knew an inscription from 1363 CE as also referring to a renouncer putting on clothing under Firūz Šāh Tuġluq but recording this to have happened in s. 1390. 2 3 Hoernle 1891: 361. The narratives on Vasantakīrti, Prabhācandra, and Padmanandi have been discussed by Tuschen (1997: 20-1), Cort (2002a: 41), and Flügel (2006: 345-6). 1 in a village in south Rajasthan self-initiated as a kṣullaka in 1919 CE and as a muni in 1923 CE. At the latter event, in front of an icon of the jina at a temple in Sāgavāṛā, a town in his native region, Śāntisāgara ‘Chāṇī’ ritually pulled out the hair from his head (keśa-locana) and threw oﬀ his clothes. In 1926 CE a local lay congregation awarded him the title of ācārya.4 1.1.2. ... and the six centuries in between: The choices of the 13th and 14th century CE bhaṭṭārakas Vasantakīrti, Prabhācandra, and Padmanandi, as handed down in historical narratives on the one hand, and the ascetic careers of the ācāryas Ādisāgara, Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’, and Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Chāṇī’ in the ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE on the other hand serve as pivotal points in the understanding of the history of Digambara asceticism popular among Digambara Jains and for long underlying scholarship. Often, either of the former narratives is taken to evince the sudden and complete disappearance of naked and itinerant Digambara renouncers, and their replacement by clothed and sedentary bhaṭṭārakas for several centuries.5 And the muni dīkṣā of Ādisāgara and the two Śāntisāgaras, in turn, are seen as the foundational moments of the so-called ‘muni revival’, in which the communities (saṅgha) of itinerant Digambara renouncers gradually grew, up to the point of counting some four hundred munis (including the higher ranks of upādhyāya and ācārya) in the early 21st century CE (Jaina & Pāṇḍyā 2008: 51-8), and reportedly just over a thousand at present (Anon. 2023: 174). Meanwhile, although seats of bhaṭṭārakas continue to ﬂourish in South India today, the various bhaṭṭāraka traditions and lineages which spread throughout Western and Central India in the course of the early modern period (ca. 1400-1800 CE) were all discontinued in the 19th and 20th century CE. The period between the assumed, abrupt disappearance of naked, itinerant Digambara renouncers in the late medieval period and their reappearance in the 20th century CE is often conceptualised as a distinct phase of Digambara history, sometimes dubbed the ‘bhaṭṭāraka era’. The so-called institution of the bhaṭṭāraka accordingly arose because of changing socio-political conditions early in the Sultanate period (1206-1526 CE), with Digambara renouncers taking to clothing because of persecution by Muslim rulers.6 In popular as well as scholarly analyses, bhaṭṭārakas and munis are set oﬀ against each other. Bhaṭṭārakas are labelled as clerics, administrators, pontiﬀs, priests, or at most semi-renouncers, regarded as overly ritualistic, corrupt with regards to ascetic codes, and as caste gurus overly concerned with worldly existence, lay society, and their connections to secular rulers. Munis on the other hand are conceived of as All information according to Cort 2020: 232-3. Accounts of the ascetic career of Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’ with sometimes slightly diﬀering details are given by B. K. Jaina ([1932] 2013: 192), N. Jaina (1997: 130), and Shrivastava (2010: 148). An important biographical source on Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Chāṇī’ is an account of his life as an ascetic written by his pupil Brahmacārī Bhagavānasāgara (Bhagavānasāgara 1997) and published during his life in 1927 CE (see N. Jaina 1997: 135; Kāsalīvāla 1997a: 153). On Ācārya Ādisāgara ‘Aṅkalīkara’, see the contributions to Shrivastava 2010. 4 While these narratives all play out in Northern India, no alternative account is available for South India, and developments there remain in need of further study. 5 6 E.g., Sangave 1981: 62; 2001: 133. 2 hardened ascetics, completely aloof from lay society and ritual culture. Bhaṭṭārakas are ‘routine leaders’, munis are ‘charismatic leaders’. (2.1.1.) The so-called ‘bhaṭṭāraka era’ is often explained with reference to unfavourable conditions supposedly created for both lay and ascetic Digambara communities in the Indo-Islamic polities, and contrasted to an imagined, golden past in the classical and early medieval period on yonder side and the idealised, contemporary muni saṅghas closer-by. Conceptions of the ‘era of Muslim rule’ as a period when Digambara Jainism faced decline and hostility are widespread in popular thought and often also inform scholarship. Indo-Muslim rulers are depicted as fanatical zealots pursuing a theologically motivated policy of temple destruction and persecution or harassment of naked Digambara munis. Actual evidence of persecutions of ascetic and lay Digambara communities is more limited. Defaced icons remain as muted witnesses to desecrations of Jain temples. Yet these were probably mostly motivated by locally and temporally speciﬁc, political factors, rather than driven by a wholesale ‘theology of iconoclasm’. In his studies of 80 cases of temple desecrations in the Indo-Muslim states from the late 12th to the early 18th century, Richard Eaton (2000a, 2000b, 2001) found that these were typically selective operations taking place under speciﬁc circumstances. Desecrations of the temples of adversaries occurred in the Mamluk and Sultanate (1206-1526 CE) and Mughal (1526-1857 CE) periods to amass booty, during the conquest and annexation of new territories, or as retaliation for disloyalty, treason, or rebellion by subordinate, non-Muslim oﬃcers. The Indo-Muslim rulers aimed at maiming rival rulers, not the common populace which formed the basis for their own prosperity. The temples looted or destroyed during conquests or in retaliation for insubordinate rulers were often royal temples, while temples that did not carry this symbolic capital were more often left unharmed. Seizing images of deities connected to the dynasties of conquered rulers and destroying or desecrating their temples meant eﬀacing the most prominent emanation of their legitimacy and political authority. In doing so, Muslim rulers followed a practice and a political logic which had been well-established throughout South Asia since at least the early medieval period. It is found attested during inter-dynastic and inter-regnal conﬂicts by various major dynasties like the Pallavas (ﬁrst half of the 7th century CE), Chalukyas (second half of the 7th century CE), Rasthrakutas and Pandyas (early 9th century CE), Pratiharas (early 10th century CE), Candellas (mid-10th century CE), Cholas (11th century CE), and Paramaras (late 12th and early 13th century CE). The singling out of the ‘bhaṭṭāraka era’, the prevalent tropes of large-scale, pervasive temple desecrations by Indo-Islamic rulers, and the scathing views of the Sultanate and Mughal period in Digambara historiography are an instance of a wider spread pattern underlying conceptions of the history of Jainism, South Asian religious traditions, and South Asia more broadly, which in turn are a legacy of colonial and nationalist rhetoric. Failing to diﬀerentiate between literary tropes and the actual practices of Indo-Muslim state-formation, 19th century CE British historians presented a straightforward reading of accounts of temple desecration in Persian language chronicles in reality expressing a normative ideology in which temple destruction is projected as a good quality of a Muslim ruler (Chattopadhyaya 1998: 13-7; Vose 2013: 28-35). Gimmicking the despotism, cruelty, and fanaticism of the preceding Muslim rulers served as a foil to the ‘enlightened’ British rule. Elliot & Dowson ([1849] n.d., cited in Eaton 2000b: 63), for example, explicitly hoped that making 3 available translations of the Persian chronicles would “make our native subjects more sensible of the immense advantages accruing to them under the mildness and the equity of our rule”. Early post-independence Indian historiography followed suit in its depictions of Indo-Muslim rulers as iconoclastic zealots, and of Sultanate and Mughal era, ‘medieval’ India as an inauspicious period for native religious traditions. This is evident for example from K. M. Munshi’s (1955) foreword to one of the volumes of the mammoth book series ‘The History and Culture of the Indian People’ (Majumdar 1955a). Munshi (1955: vii) argues that “the Age of Imperial Kanauj”, which is the focus of the volume, “deserves a more important place in Indian History than it has been given so far”, because it saw the last period of Hindu domination before the infringement of the Muslims, and indigenous rulers managing to ward oﬀ ‘lustful’ Muslim invaders. “[The Ghaznavid rulers'] lust, which found expression in the following decades, was to shake the very foundations of life in India, releasing new forces. They gave birth to medieval India. Till the rise of the Hindu power in Mahārāshṭra in the eighteenth century, India was to pass through a period of collective resistance.” (Munshi 1955: vii) In a further preface to the same volume, Majumdar (1955b: xxxv) expresses an anachronistic conception of an Indian nation state, an imagined, uniﬁed and homogenous Hindu country threatened in its integrity by the peril of alien, Muslim forces. In this binary Hindu-Muslim worldview, the ‘Hindu’ empires of the Pratīhāras and the Rāṣṭrakūtas are seen as a single block opposing the Muslims, despite their own mutual hostilities. And the Afghan and Central-Asian rulers similarly constitute a uniform Muslim block, despite ethnic diﬀerences, and hostilities like those between the consecutive dynasties of the Delhi Sultanate, the various regional Sultanates, the Mughals and the Sultanates, and the Mughals and the Sūr dynasty. The ‘religious toleration’ of the Pratīhāras and the Rāṣṭrakūtas in allowing Muslims to settle in their territory and to build mosques and be ruled by their own governors, “which characterized India,” is furthermore contrasted to the supposed ‘iconoclastic fury’ of the Indo-Muslim states (Majumdar 1955b: xxxivxxxv). Elsewhere, Majumdar ([1960] 1967b: xxviii) contrasts the actions of the Muslims to a supposedly long-established pattern of people moving into South Asia and merging into a common cultural pattern. “[F]or the ﬁrst time in Indian history”, two distinct communities and cultures stood face to face, and ‘India’ was “permanently divided into two powerful units, each with marked individuality of its own, which did not prove to be amenable to a fusion or even any close permanent coordination”. This formed a “knotty” problem which “has not entirely been solved by the partition or bifurcation of India.” Majumdar ([1960] 1967b: xxxi) epitomises the framework that held together his views on ‘medieval’, ‘Muslim’ India: “The end of Hindu ruling dynasties, followed by almost wholesale destruction of temples and monasteries by the Muslim invaders and rulers, very nearly extinguished the Hindu culture by destroying the sources which fed and nourished it. Its further growth was arrested and an almost impenetrable gloom settled over it. It seemed as if the whole course of its development came to a sudden halt.” Majumdar (Ibid.) calls upon historians to realise more fully that only in the Hindu principalities of Mithilā and Vijayanagara “the lamp of the past glory and culture of Brahmanical Hinduism was kept 4 burning”, since “Brahmanical culture was submerged under the sea of Islām from one end of India to the other”. “Modern Hindu India,” Majumdar (Ibid.) opines “is indebted to these Hindu kingdoms for having preserved the continuity of Brahmanical culture and traditions, from the Vedic age downwards, which was in imminent danger of being altogether snapped.” The period of the Sultanate and Mughal dynasties, accordingly, is best framed as a highly inauspicious interval between benign periods of Hindu domination, as sad and dark 'Middle Ages'. This narrative disregards ethnic and other diversities in presenting Muslim and Hindu parties as homogeneous blocks, places too much stress on religious identities as opposed to other socio-economic and often pragmatic motivations of historical actors, and fails to explain the actual ﬂourishing of Hindu and, in my case, Jain communities not just in the period of the Indo-Muslim polities, but often even in the very heart of them. 1.1.3. Digambara Jains in the Indo-Muslim polities Interpretative a prioris of bigotry, iconoclasm, intolerance, persecution, and forced conversion also sustain the narratives on the Sultanate period of some Indian historians of Jainism.7 A particularly illustrative case is a piece by S. S. Nigam (2010) titled ‘Jainism vis-à-vis or vs. Delhi Sultanate’, included in the three-volume History of Jainism edited and chieﬂy authored by K. C. Jain. Nigam (2010: 1131-2) projects that all rulers of the Delhi Sultanate were iconoclasts, intolerant of Jains and Hindus, and took to the destruction of temples and icons and the conﬁscation of properties of temples and businessmen as a religious activity. Supposedly, the sole interest of the Sultanate polities was to convert Indians to Islam or to impose heavy taxes on those who did not convert, and “to suppress them in a hundred ways.” “For their trivial military, religious and political interests,” Nigam (2010: 1132) continues, “they did not hesitate even a mite to shed the blood of the nonMuslims”. A few pages later, S. S. Nigam (2010: 1135) repeats that the Dillī sultan “left no stone unturned in destroying the Hindu and the Jaina temples and images.” In between both indictments of the Delhi Sultanate rulers and his assessment of the predicament of the Jain tradition under their rule, Nigam amasses much evidence to the contrary, only to subsequently disregard it. Unfortunately giving little or no references to his sources, Nigam (Ibid.: 1132-4) compiles attestations of favourable Jain-Sultanate relations and of Jain renouncers and laypeople ﬂourishing in the Delhi Sultanate polity. Among these are the following examples from the Digambara tradition or from an unspeciﬁed, possibly Digambara Jaina tradition. Ācārya (Bhaṭṭāraka) Vasantakīrti, the leader of the Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa whom we already encountered at the outset of this chapter, was an inﬂuential and “eﬀective” renouncer during the reign of Muḥammad Ġūrī. Ācārya (Bhaṭṭāraka?) Mādhavasena of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha, another Digambara ascetic tradition, impressed a Delhi Sultanate ruler, apparently ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Khaljī (r. 1296-1316 CE), “by his personality and learning”, and established his seat in a village near Dillī. The latter sultan also paid respect to the Digambara Muni Śrutavīrasvāmī and other Jain renouncers. At the time of Sulṭān Muḥammad bin Tuġluq (r. 1324-1351 CE), Bhaṭṭāraka Durlabhasena of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha, Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnakīrti of the Nandisaṅgha (= Mūlasaṅgha 7 See also Vose 2013: 22-39. 5 Balātkāragaṇa), the latter’s pupil Prabhācandra, and other Jain renouncers were similarly honoured in Dillī. Ācārya (Bhaṭṭāraka) Prabhācandra established his seat in Dillī and received honours at the hands of the “fanatic” Firūz Šāh Tuġluq (r. 1351-1388 CE). And in the later Lodi dynasty, Sulṭān Sikandar Lodī (r. 1489-1517 CE) honoured one Viśālakīrti, probably an early incumbent of the Kārañjāśākhā branch of the Balātkāragaṇa.8 The information provided by Nigam indicates that the Jain laity also fared well in the Delhi Sultanate. Laymen received high posts in the administration of the Khalji and Tughluq dynasties, and one (Ṭhakkura Pherū) was the “royal president of the mint.” Digambara laymen of the Agravāla caste were prominent in Dillī under the Sayyid dynasty. A Jaisavāla caste Digambara layman was a reputed businessman in Dillī. Gaḍa Sāv, the father of Tāraṇa Svāmī, the founder of the Tāraṇa Svāmīpantha, was oﬀered a high post by Sulṭān Bahlūl Lodī (r. 1451-89 CE). A Jain was the “chief trader” of Dillī at the time of Sikandar Lodī, and the Lodis maintained generally “very cordial relations” with the Jains. Temple construction occurred under the Tughluqs, and literary production and manuscript copying are reported under the Mamluk (“during the reign of fanatic Balban”), Khalji (“during the intolerant rule of Alauddin Khilji”), Tughluq, Saiyyad, and Lodi dynasties. The 15th century CE Digambara poet Raïdhū from Gvāliyara received honours in Dillī. And laymen received imperial edicts (faramāna) to take out large congregational pilgrimages. The attestations of favourable relations between various Delhi Sultanate dynasties and Digambara renouncers, and of the high positions Digambara laymen held in the administration and trade in the Sultanate capital accumulated by S. S. Nigam defy his own conclusions concerning the agendas, policies, dispositions, and practices of Indo-Muslim rulers. The idea of Jain ascetic and lay communities prospering in the Sultanate period seems to have been inconceivable even in the face of a wealth of evidence. Nigam ﬁnds a rhetorical device to overcome the incompatibility of his data and his conclusions in maintaining that, against all odds, “Indian society kept up its existence” and “Jaina followers proved more zealous”, because “as and when the Indian society was suppressed and oppressed, the cultural awakening became more energetic and vigorous” (Nigam 2010: 1135). Whatever Jains did accomplish in the Sultanate period was not in spite of but, paradoxically, because of the unfavourable Muslim rule. Next to the continued temple construction and the awarding of high government positions to lay Jains under supposedly iconoclastic and suppressive rulers, Nigam’s interpretation also fails to explain why Digambara bhaṭṭārakas ﬂocked to Dillī (and indeed to Indo-Muslim polities more generally) instead of ﬂeeing from there.9 The Uttaraśākhā Prabhācandra had connections with lay communities all the way to coastal Gujarat. Prabhācandra also visited the former Yādava capital Devagiri (Maharashtra) after it had been subdued by the Delhi Sultanate ruler ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Khaljī in the early 14th century CE, and perhaps around the time, two decades later, when Muhammad Tuġluq (r. 1325-51 CE) transferred his capital from Dillī to Devagiri, renaming it to Daulatābāda. In A textual source attests Viśālakīrti as receiving honours from Sikandar Lodī (‘sikaṇdara-suritrāṇa’, Joharāpurakara 1958: 48, lekha 99). An attestation of Viśālakīrti’s successor Vidyānanda is available from s. 1598, so Viśālakīrti may have ﬂourished during the rule of Sikandar Lodī (r. 1489-1517 CE). 8 As Nigam (2010) also records, so did Śvetāmbara mendicant leaders. See also Cort 1998, Vose 2022. This paragraph summarises materials presented in full in section 2.4.2. 9 6 discontinuity to multiple predecessors who were seated in Ajamera, Prabhācandra’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi (p. s. 1385-1450) chose to be in Dillī possibly from the very beginning of the Tughluq Sultanate. The vast expanse of the Sultanate empire under Muhammad Tuġluq (r. 1325-51 CE) also seems to have oﬀered unprecedented opportunities for ascetic lineages to spread their inﬂuence over an enlarged region.10 Padmanandi dispatched his pupils to outlaying corners of the Delhi Sultanate, which led to the arising of new Balātkāragaṇa lineages under maṇḍalācāryas subordinate to the bhaṭṭāraka in Dillī. The Balātkāragaṇa notably proliferated in the wake of the relatively long reigns of Muhammad Tuġluq and Firūz Šāh Tuġluq (r. 1351-89 CE). New Balātkāragaṇa lineages developed within the Sultanates of Gujarat and Malwa which arose around the turn of the 15th century CE, when after the disintegration of the Delhi Sultanate and the sack of Dillī by Timur in 1398 CE the governors of these regions were able to wrest themselves free from the Tughluq rulers. The development of two Balātkāragaṇa lineages, the Mālavāśākhā and the Lāṭaṣākhā, may well be directly related to the existence of the Sultanates of Malwa and Gujarat. While it was the strength and great expanse of the Delhi Sultanate under the Tughluq dynasty which facilitated the broad geographical expansion of the Balātkāragaṇa, the arising and stabilisation of independent, regional Sultanates in the wake of the declining power of the Delhi Sultanate formed the cradle for new Balātkāragaṇa lineages to ﬂourish. Jain sources also contain positive references to the rulers of the Sultanates of Malwa of Gujarat, and the incumbents of the lineages developing within their polities are recorded to have been honoured at their courts. The city of Āgarā (Uttar Pradesh) provides another clear example of the attraction which the IndoMuslim centre cities exercised upon bhaṭṭārakas. Founded as the new capital of Sikandar Lodī (r. 1489-1517) in the early 16th century CE, by the end of the century the city was home to various Balātkāragaṇa and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha ascetic lineages. And the relocations of a Balātkāragaṇa lineage which I refer to as the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā from the 16th all the way to the 20th century CE can all be connected to the shifting fates of the Delhi Sultanate, the Sisodiyā and Kachavāhā Rajput kingdoms, and the Mughal empire, and the attendant economic conditions. Instead of ﬂeeing the Indo-Muslim polities, Digambara ascetic lineages were attracted to them, their spread closely tied to socio-political and economic developments. Digambara ascetic leaders shifted to the new centre cities of the independent Sultanates, eager to be close to the political powers of the day, regardless of their religious persuasions. They undoubtedly did so in the wake of their lay communities, Jain merchants, literates, and moneylenders who migrated to rising trade towns and administrative centres in pursuit of economic opportunities. In addition to such structural patterns, the anecdotal, formulaic references to Sultans and Mughal emperors in manuscript colophons and other textual sources also oﬀer micro-evidence of constructive relationships between Indo-Muslim rulers and bhaṭṭārakas. Manuscript colophons recording the honour bhaṭṭārakas received from Muslim rulers are found with relative frequency. Rulers probably gave symbolic deference to them as a means to placate the economically important lay Digambara communities. Yet, the record of the recognition and honour the bhaṭṭārakas received at This would form a parallel to the geographical expansion of the Kharataragaccha (Vose 2022) and the better known movement of Suﬁ sheiks and their association to Indo-Muslim rulers. The Suﬁ Makhdum Shaikh Ahmad Khattu (1336-1445 CE), for example, relocated from Dillī to Ahamadābada, the newly built capital of the Gujarat Sultanate (Asher & Talbot 2006: 92). 10 7 the courts of Indo-Muslim rulers, indeed as much as at any other court, indicates that these were seen as prestigious occasions by their lay supporters. All of this confutes the historiographical narrative of the dire straits of the Digambara tradition in the ‘Muslim era’. The picture that appears instead is one of Digambara communities ﬂourishing rather than withering in the Indo-Muslim polities. Rather than having to ﬂee for fear of persecution under Islamic laws and mores, Digambara lay people and renouncers ﬂocked to the capitals of the Indo-Muslim states. Ascetic leaders were received and honoured at court, and laymen were successful in business and worked in state administration. Manuscript culture thrived, temple construction boomed, and huge numbers of icons were consecrated. The late medieval and early modern Digambara tradition can be characterised by ﬂorescence and continuity, rather than decline and discontinuity. Even if we take the narratives cited to account for the origins of the ‘institution’ of the clothed bhaṭṭāraka and the supposedly attendant disappearance of Digambara munis at face value, their sheer multiplicity already indicates that there was no singular event causing an overall, longstanding sea change in the practice of Digambara ascetic traditions at large. Hitherto littleknown and to be discussed in more detail in this dissertation, there in fact exist many indications and much explicit evidence to unhinge the popular account of the evolution and properties of Digambara asceticism in the Sultanate and Mughal eras. The bhaṭṭāraka rank (pada) actually originated in the late ﬁrst millennium CE as the highest rank in the Digambara ascetic hierarchy and continued to function as such throughout the Sultanate and Mughal eras. The muni rank in turn did not disappear in the 13th or 14th century CE. Munis instead ﬂourished as the pupils and devotees of the bhaṭṭārakas up to the early Mughal period. (2.3.2.) The introduction and standardisation of the bhaṭṭāraka rank, the disappearance of the muni rank, and the clothing and sedentarisation of Digambara renouncers were not directly related, coeval events but distinct developments which played out over a period of several centuries, the latter completed only in the course of the Mughal period. The conception of the bhaṭṭārakas of early modern Western and Central India as managers of temple properties clad in orange robes and of lower rank than the munis seems to have been based on an unfounded equation with the contemporary southern Indian bhaṭṭārakas. At the nearer end of the supposed ‘dark phase’ of Digambara history, there is also evidence of 19th century CE munis who were in some way precursors to the three illustrious early 20th century CE ācāryas and should be considered in any account of the ‘muni revival’. (7.1.) Yet further elements speak of the continuity of the Digambara tradition throughout the early modern period,11 like the initiation practices of the contemporary muni saṅghas, which are based on those of the early modern bhaṭṭāraka traditions, and the reﬂections on commemoration and other Jaina praxis which I turn to in the concluding chapter. (7.3.) The boundaries of what hitherto appeared in both popular and scholarly understandings of Digambara ascetic history as a clearly delineated, starkly divergent, and inferior ‘bhaṭṭāraka era’ thus dissolve on both ends of the temporal spectrum. I use the label early modern (1400-1800 CE) merely as a convenient shorthand, covering the period when the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas still featured lower-ranking, fully initiated renouncers (muni, upādhyāya, ācārya, 2.3.). For a problematisation of the concept of the early modern as a historiographical category, see Cort 2024. 11 8 Ultimately then, this study seeks to rethink the period between the bhaṭṭārakas Vasantakīrti, Prabhācandra, and Padmanandi, and the ācāryas Ādisāgara ‘Aṅkalīkara’, Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’, and Śāntisāgara ‘Chāṇī’, to challenge the rhetoric construction of a distinct ‘bhaṭṭāraka era’, and to answer the disparity between on the one hand prevalent conceptions of the history of the Digambara tradition in the Sultanate and Mughal period and on the other the available, remaining primary sources and the ﬂourishing of Digambara communities and the veneration of bhaṭṭārakas that speaks from them. My study of memorials and assorted sources and the insights into the development and spread of the Digambara ascetic lineages and the composition of the early modern ascetic saṅghas they lead to ultimately forms an overarching argument concerning the fate of Digambara communities in the Indo-Muslim polities. 1.2. Digambara memorials as a historical source Epigraphic and material evidence for the erection of the memorials of Jaina renouncers stretches back to the earliest historical records of the tradition. The famous Hāthigumphā inscription in Orissa from the second or ﬁrst century BCE refers to a Jain memorial (‘niṣidhi’, Flügel 2010b: 402). Three relic urns of renouncers of the Yāpanīya sect recently found in the Tuḷu region of coastal Karnataka are estimated to belong to the 5th century CE (Murthy 2014). Memorial inscriptions found on boulders in Tamil Nadu date back to the 6th century CE (Flügel 2010b: 402 n. 30). In Śravaṇa Belagolā and elsewhere in Karnataka, large and heavy Digambara commemorative pillars found under square pavilions called maṇṭapas (maṇḍapa) were erected from around 600 CE onwards (Settar 1989: 97). The present study presents evidence for continuous practices of commemoration of Digambara renouncers in Western India throughout the second millennium CE. Memorials are commonly erected for the renouncers of the contemporary Digambara muni saṅghas (3.1.7.), and also typically constructed for deceased incumbents of the continued bhaṭṭāraka lineages of South India (3.5.3.). Pādukās of deceased renouncers are also found in the iconic (Laughlin 2005), and more recently even in the aniconic (Flügel 2011) Śvetāmbara Jaina traditions. The format of the Western Indian Digambara memorial pavilions (chatrī) seems to have been adopted most directly from those of the Rajput dynasties (Miśra 1991: 92-107; Belli Bose 2015). The latter in turn represented an appropriation of the Indo-Islamic tradition of mausolea of rulers (maqabarā) and tombs of suﬁs (dargāh). Prior to this, Rajputs were commemorated with hero stones (devalī, govardhāna) enshrined in non-permanent structures (Belli Bose 2015: 17-8). As McLaughlin (2021) has shown, there are also pre-Islamic roots of Hindu relic shrines (samādhi). Despite the ubiquity of ascetics’ memorials in the various Jain traditions, and although practices of veneration seem to have been widely performed at these, focused scholarship has remained limited. Commemoration practices have become the object of focused, scholarly attention only recently, notably in the work of Peter Flügel (2008, 2010a, 2010b, 2011, 2012, 2015). General analyses of Jain ritual have failed to include attention to the commemoration of deceased renouncers. Studies of the material culture of the Jains and Jain architecture (Hegewald 2009: 137-40, 495-6) also devote limited attention to memorials. Comparatively more work has been 9 done on Digambara memorials from South India.12 Those of Western and Central India had hitherto been poorly studied,13 although suﬃcient information was already available to picture these regions as dotted with the memorials of Digambara renouncers. This dissertation is a study of Digambara memorials from Western and to a lesser degree Central India from throughout the second millennium CE, the majority dating to the 16th to 19th century CE. I surveyed Digambara memorials during several ﬁeld trips in 2013 to 2016,14 visiting sites in Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, Dillī, (western) Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra. Most of the memorials analysed in this dissertation had not been thoroughly studied or even reported before, and the majority of inscriptions has not previously been published.15 Some memorials were noted in scholarship from the second half of the 20th century CE, mostly in Hindi.16 Yet their signiﬁcance for the study of the distribution of the ascetic lineages and the composition of the saṅghas had not been fully explored. A comprehensive and longitudinal study of Digambara ascetics’ memorials from the region was altogether lacking. The present study shows that memorials of Western Indian bhaṭṭārakas were erected commonly and probably by default, and that their lower-ranking pupils were also commemorated occasionally. Among the latter were both male renouncers (ācārya, muni, brahmacārī) and female renouncers (āryikā, kṣullikā, brahmacāriṇī), and from the late 18th century CE onwards also lay ritual specialists and scholars (paṇḍitas). The main focus of this study are the memorials of three branches (ultimately ﬁve lineages) of the Balātkāragaṇa tradition which originated and developed most of their activities in various parts of the contemporary state of Rajasthan and its bordering regions. Yet I also discuss Digambara ascetic lineages and memorial sites from other parts of Western and Central India (Gujarat, Haryana, Dillī, western Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra). As it is clear that many of my ﬁndings on the bhaṭṭāraka lineages of Rajasthan are equally applicable to those of Western India more broadly and of Central India, I often frame my arguments for this wider region. Most generally, the corpus of memorials, and the study of the concerned ascetic traditions undertaken here and in earlier scholarship shows a continuous Digambara presence in Western India. It was previously often assumed that for long only Śvetāmbara traditions were present in Western India, and the Digambara traditions were limited to South India. I even touch upon evidence of activity of bhaṭṭāraka traditions in the peninsula of Saurashtra (Kathiawar), a region yet to be further investigated. (2.2.3.6.) To date, I have discovered memorials of over 40 lineage incumbents (bhaṭṭārakas, three maṇḍalācāryas, and three ācāryas) dating from the 15th to the 20th century CE. (3.2.4.2.) The majority of the memorials of lower-ranking renouncers and of lay paṇḍitas are also related to the same three Balātkāragaṇa lineages. I have found memorials of ﬁve munis (late 15th-16th century 12 Contributions to Settar & Sontheimer 1982; Settar 1989; 1990: 295-309; Nagarajaiah 2006 [2001]; 2012. 13 See already, shortly, Flügel (2010b: 391 n. 4; 403, 425) and Cort (2010a: 189, 192 Fig. 4.23). 14 Feb.-March 2013, Dec. 2013 - Feb. 2014, Nov. 2014 - Feb. 2015, Feb.-March 2016. 15 For a small number of already published inscriptions I refer to the relevant sources in the body of the text. E.g., K. C. Jain 1963: 86-7; B. Jaina 1978; A. Nyāyatīrtha 1990: 70; 1997: 8, 34, 45, 68, 79-81, 147; Ś. J. Jaina 2011: 147-8, 160. 16 10 CE), some twenty ācāryas (early 15th - late 18th century CE), and one more, unranked but probably also fully initiated (= at least muni) male renouncer17 (early 15th century CE), about a dozen brahmacārīs (early 16th to 18th or 19th century CE) (3.2.4.3.), and seven female renouncers (s. 1483-1593, 3.2.4.4.). 34 memorials commemorate a total of 47 lay paṇḍitas (18th-20th century CE). (3.2.4.5.) In each of the respective chapters 4 to 6, I include a chronological table including all discovered memorials of the three core Balātkāragaṇa branches (Tables 4.1, 5.1, 6.1), as well as a chart showing the memorials on the full succession list of the lineages (Charts 4.2, 5.2, 6.5), and maps with all ﬁndings spots, again per branch (Maps 4.2, 4.3, 5.4, 6.2). An alphabetical list of ﬁnding spots of the memorials of the three Balātkāragaṇa lineages with their memorials in chronological order is included in Appendix I, and transcriptions of their inscriptions are presented in Appendix II. Especially in Chapters 2 and 3, I also discuss memorials discovered in Central and Western India of other Balātkāragaṇa lineages and other bhaṭṭāraka traditions. A register of these memorials is included in Appendix III. Table 3.1 gives an overview of all memorials of ācāryas, munis, and brahmacārīs. Also noteworthy is a relatively small number of late medieval memorials (3.2.4.1.) and memorials of two 19th century CE munis (7.1.). I also include a comparative discussion of the iconographic features of the memorials of the contemporary Digambara muni saṅghas (3.1.7.), and occasionally refer to such memorials present at of commemoration sites with memorials of the bhaṭṭāraka traditions. Appendix IV lists all ﬁgures, tables, charts, and maps included. Memorials of bhaṭṭārakas can be found near most of the former seats, and in relation to all known traditions and lineages. Little-known to scholarship, many of these memorials are also infrequently visited by Jains, and progressively cleared or repurposed (3.3.3.). Yet, the corpus of remaining memorials still constitutes a considerable and thus far untapped historical source, an important epigraphic repository, and a neglected but revealing element of Jain architecture. It allows for a number of important insights regarding the early modern and 19th century CE Digambara ascetic traditions. On the one hand, the memorials supplement other textual and epigraphic sources available to study early modern Digambara Jainism. Beyond this, inscriptional and material elements of the memorials sometimes also form unique attestations or clearer illustrations or indications of speciﬁc aspects than available in other sources. Especially in Madhya Pradesh, and often under the direction of Terāpanthī renouncers, active attempts are made to remove the Bīsapanthī identity of mandiras and pilgrimage sites by removing inscriptions recording the bhaṭṭāraka traditions, and by removing or purposing memorials related to them (3.3.3.; see p. 213-4, 217-9 on the Digambara sectarian division of the Terāpantha and the Bīsapantha). Even in Bīsapanthī regions, the memorials regularly stand abandoned and dilapidating, or are removed for new construction projects. The partial survey undertaken for this study may therefore prove to have been timely, collecting documentation in threat of being lost. The ﬁndings from my survey of memorials are important additions to the history of the lineages as reconstructed by earlier scholarship because the memorials oﬀer information not available from Today, the term muni is both a speciﬁc ascetic rank and a collective term for fully initiated Digambara renouncers, also including the higher ranks of upādhyāya and ācārya. As this study shows, in the early modern Digambara ascetic hierarchy, the bhaṭṭāraka rank was higher still than that of the ācārya, and bhaṭṭārakas would also have been included under the collective term muni. 17 11 other sources. In his important study of the bhaṭṭāraka traditions of Western and Central India, Joharāpurakara (1958) had no access to data from memorials. As the memorials were typically built on the cremation sites of the commemorated individuals (3.3.1.), and hence close to their place of death, the corpus ﬁrstly oﬀers precious information to reconstruct the geographical spread of the bhaṭṭāraka lineages. The location of the memorials does generally indicate the hometowns and the broader spheres of inﬂuence of individual bhaṭṭāraka lineages. It also conﬁrms the mobility of the bhaṭṭāraka seats, and sometimes remind us of the former importance of now insigniﬁcant towns. Other epigraphic sources like icon inscriptions (mūrtilekha) give less deﬁnite indications about the usual residence of the consecrating bhaṭṭārakas recorded therein, since the bhaṭṭārakas travelled widely to perform consecrations or sometimes distributed large numbers of icons consecrated by them across wide areas, and especially smaller icons often moved along with migrating lay communities. Importantly, the memorials of munis and ācāryas also constitute attestations for the thus far poorly known conferment of these ranks to lowerranking renouncers of the early modern bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas. Memorials of paṇḍitas appearing around the 19th century CE conﬁrm that such lay or celibate but not-initiated religious specialists carried an enhanced status in the absence of broader circles of initiated Digambara renouncers. (2.3.7.) Memorials of two 19th century Digambara munis testify to a thus far poorly known moment in the history of Digambara renunciation, a period when the epistemic shift between the hierarchies of the bhaṭṭāraka traditions and those of the contemporary muni saṅghas may have begun. The inscriptions, locations, and material aspects of some memorials also implicitly speak of the relations between diﬀerent ascetic lineages or traditions. Given the close relation between speciﬁc ascetic lineages and lay castes, ﬁndings concerning the spread of speciﬁc bhaṭṭāraka lineages also automatically entail information on the history and migrations of Digambara castes. Although this aspect is in need of further study, the available material already indicates that the formation of ascetic lineages was tied to caste and sub-caste groups dynamics. The bhaṭṭāraka memorials and the associated practices of ritual commemoration form an important indication of the devotion towards the bhaṭṭārakas as full-ﬂedged renouncers, and thus as a very diﬀerent type of ﬁgure than the clerics which contemporary scholarship took them to have been. The speciﬁc iconography of the kīrtistambha (3.1.4.) and the systematic development and planned arrangement of a necropolis in Ajamera (6.2.) testify that ritual commemoration was also practiced of entire mendicant lineages. Notwithstanding iconographic innovations (3.1.7.), and although the epistemic framework in which they were inserted may have changed dramatically, the material infrastructure and ritual formats of Digambara commemoration practices show a considerable continuity throughout the early modern period and up to the present. The paṇḍita memorials appearing when few Digambara renouncers other than bhaṭṭārakas were available to stand as the object of commemoration ﬁlled a vacuum in ritual practice. (3.2.4.5.) Ultimately, Jaina practices of veneration of deceased renouncers can be understood as a contemplative praxis fully in line with Jaina temple ritual. Both similarly constitute instances of the praise of asceticism, considered as itself a salviﬁc practice. (7.3.) Like the ritual procedures of ascetic initiation, commemorative practices then form a ﬁeld of deep continuity between the early modern and the contemporary Digambara mendicant lineages. From this perspective, instead of barely surviving 12 the supposedly purely disruptive period of Muslim rule, the Digambara tradition appears as a continuous stream across the early modern period. (7.4.) Throughout this dissertation, and in relation to my various ﬁndings concerning the history of the Digambara lineages, I foreground the relevant information from my corpus of memorials, since they have been largely disregarded by prior research on these lineages and constitute a valuable and sometimes unique source to reconstruct their distribution, shifts, and composition. At the same time, I also build my arguments with reference to a considerable corpus of inscriptions, manuscript colophons, and other textual sources edited and published by earlier scholars.18 My arguments here are often structured by conclusions reached through my earlier studies of manuscript colophons (Detige 2018), devotional song compositions (Detige 2019a), and initiation manuals (Detige 2019b). Often taking my leads from references in earlier scholarship or from informants met during ﬁeldwork, I travelled between dozens of cities and smaller towns in Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Dillī, western Uttar Pradesh, and especially Rajasthan, visiting hundreds of mandiras. I occasionally refer to unpublished inscriptions of temple icons (mūrtilekha) and plaques (śilālekha), but complete or partial photographic documentation of the epigraphic corpus of numerous mandiras collected during my ﬁeldwork remains further unstudied in my folders. I also spent limited time at bhaṭṭāraka manuscript collections (on which, see Detige 2017), mostly looking for selected compositions like bhaṭṭāraka eulogies, bhaṭṭāraka pūjās, and paṭṭāvalīs. Only the Āmera Śāstra-bhaṇḍāra, the manuscript collection of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā lineage, now augmented with manuscripts of other provenance, is hosted by a research institution providing facilities for researchers. Other manuscript collections visited are traditional grantha-bhaṇḍāras kept at mandiras, like those of the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭā at the Bābājī kā Mandira in Ajamera, of the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā at the Pārśvanātha Jinālaya in Īḍara (Gujarat), and of the Cambalaśākhā ̥ Sonāgiri-paṭṭa in Sonāgiri (Madhya Pradesh). Unpublished catalogues of these manuscript collections are usually available locally, although some collections were found in disarray and preserved under precarious conditions. I could not get access to the vast Śākambharīśākhā Nāgaura-paṭṭa manuscript collection preserved at the Bīsapantha Baṛā Mandira in Nāgaura, nor to the Ailaka Pannālāla Sarasvatī Bhavana now preserved in Byāvara and Jhālarāpāṭana (both Rajasthan). 1.3. Chapter outline The narratives on the 13th-14th and the early 20th century CE Digambara renouncers with which I began the present chapter frame the period most closely investigated in this dissertation. In many ways, the ﬁndings of my study also refute the prevalent notions discussed above of a distinct ‘bhaṭṭāraka era’ in Digambara history prompted by an adverse period of ‘muslim rule’. Although individual textual sources and general conclusions from earlier studies of textual materials support Despite the substantial work in Rajasthan by Kastūracanda Kāsalīvāla and Anūpacanda Nyāyatīrtha, far less Digambara sources like mūrtilekhas and manuscript colophons have been edited and published than of the Śvetāmbara Mūrtipūjaka traditions. This means less prosopographical information is available to reconstruct the history of the ascetic lineages. 18 13 my arguments, my main sources for this study are the hitherto poorly studied early modern Digambara memorials from Western India. Chapter 2 presents the key ﬁndings on various aspects of the pre-20th century CE Digambara ascetic traditions of Western and Central India. Much textual and material evidence remains to show that the bhaṭṭāraka was the paramount rank (pada) in the early modern Digambara ascetic hierarchy, and that far from being conceived of as mere administrators, semi-renouncers, or ‘clerics’, bhaṭṭārakas were considered and ritually venerated as ideal renouncers by lay and ascetic devotees. The following chapter also discusses novel insights into the changing constitution of the communities of religious specialists surrounding the bhaṭṭārakas of Western and Central India. Hitherto, early modern bhaṭṭārakas were often thought to have had pupillary circles composed solely of lay scholars and ritual specialists (paṇḍitas) and celibate but not fully initiated renouncers (brahmacārīs). It is now clear that instead they led substantial ascetic communities (saṅgha) of pupils with a broad range of lower ascetic ranks, both male (brahmacārī, muni, upādhyāya, ācārya, maṇḍalācārya) and female (brahmacāriṇī, kṣullikā, āryikā). Munis and ācāryas ﬂourished up to respectively the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE and the second half of the 18th century CE, and bhaṭṭārakas often seem to have had renunciant careers ascending the ascetic hierarchy over the subsequent ranks. In the 18th century CE, the Digambara circles were constellations of bhaṭṭārakas, ācāryas, and paṇḍitas. In the 19th century CE, networks of Bīsapanthī paṇḍitas and occasionally yatis and rṣis ̥ operated as satellites to the bhaṭṭārakas in various towns throughout their regions of inﬂuence. Chapter 2 also studies the origins, development, and geographic distribution of the various lineages of the Balātkāragaṇa tradition which proliferated especially in the 15th to 17th century CE and spread throughout Western and Central India. Most of these lineages ﬂourished up to the 19th and many even into the 20th century CE. New insights are also reached concerning the arising of many Balātkāragaṇa lineages not through the direct creation of new bhaṭṭāraka seats but through a gradual process in which lineages of maṇḍalācāryas or at ﬁrst even ācāryas came to claim bhaṭṭāraka-hood, and with that full autonomy, after decades or even centuries of subordination to a parent bhaṭṭāraka lineage. I introduce and use alternative appellations for the various Balātkāragaṇa lineages which are more representative of their whereabouts and interrelations than those which had become standardised in earlier scholarship. Much remains unknown about the actual conduct and observances of early modern bhaṭṭārakas and the lower-ranking renouncers of their ascetic communities. Crucial issues here are itinerancy and nudity, the deﬁning markers of Digambara asceticism. Although from at least the 17th or 18th century CE Digambara renouncers were not permanently naked, ascetic nudity remained a temporary or perhaps optional practice. And devotees continued to ascribe all the vows, virtues, and practices proper to an ideal Digambara renouncer to the ascetic leaders. The Western Indian bhaṭṭārakas were highly mobile, travelled widely, and up to the 18th century CE regularly shifted their seats between towns within a speciﬁc region, or to cities in diﬀerent regions altogether. We can often discern speciﬁc political developments in the Sultanates, Rajput kingdoms, and Mughal empire functioning as push and pull factors in the consecutive movements of the bhaṭṭāraka seats. The bhaṭṭārakas undoubtedly followed in the wake of lay communities 14 who migrated in pursuit of mercantile and other professional opportunities. Indo-Muslim states were frequented and sought out as much Hindu kingdoms. As indicated by their commemoration and various courtly practices, the bhaṭṭārakas were themselves the lords of polities modelled after those of South Asian monarchs. Chapter 3 introduces the Digambara memorials of Western India, focusing in turn on architectural, iconographic, spatial, epigraphic, and ritual aspects. Feet icons (caraṇa, pādukā) or pillars (niṣedhikā) which were typically installed in pavilions (chatrī) commemorated individual renouncers. The often heavy and tall kīrtistambha pillars which were erected in commemoration of entire ascetic lineages were a thus far little known type of commemorative memorial. Portrait statues (mūrti) of deceased Digambara renouncers are an invention in the second half of the 20th century CE. Yet, early modern memorials commonly feature generic anthropomorphic depictions of the commemorated renouncers. All in all, Digambara commemorative iconography and architecture show a remarkable continuity throughout the second millennium. Early modern Digambara memorials generally seem to have been erected at the cremation sites of the commemorated renouncers. Sometimes secondary memorials of bhaṭṭārakas were erected at other towns with which they had a close relation, and some memorial sites grew into veritable necropoles with large numbers of memorials. Still in Chapter 3, I also outline the general structure and contents of the memorial stones’ inscriptions which are the source for the historical study which forms the core of this dissertation. These inscriptions are important sources to reconstruct the geographical distribution of the ascetic lineages and the successions of their incumbents. They also show the presence of munis, ācāryas, and female renouncers in the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas, and include unique attestations of the actual, lower ācārya and maṇḍalācārya ranks of lineage incumbents who in later sources were recorded as bhaṭṭārakas. Especially in Chapters 2 and 3, I also refer to memorials of other ascetic lineages than the three Balātkāragaṇa branches studied in subsequent chapters. These include memorials of yet other Western and Central India Balātkāragaṇa lineages and of other bhaṭṭāraka traditions. I also discuss a small number of 10th to 12th century CE memorial stones discovered, which attest a period prior to the proliferation of Balātkāragaṇa lineages and prior to the standardisation of the bhaṭṭāraka rank at the top of the Digambara ascetic hierarchy. Often substantial memorials of paṇḍitas were constructed from the late 18th until the early 20th century CE, after the disappearance of lowerranking renouncers from the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas and before the reappearance of Digambara munis on the Northern Indian scene. I also shortly introduce the memorials of the 20th and 21st century CE muni saṅghas to indicate the iconographic and ritual continuity, and because they are often erected at the ﬁnding spots of pre-20th century CE memorials. As few early modern Digambara renouncers are actively remembered today, their memorials are often abandoned, left to dilapidate, cleared, or repurposed. Those memorials which are maintained are often visited without a clear historical sense of who they originally commemorated, perhaps used as a form of generalised guru-vandana. Material and textual evidence however remains to show that early modern Digambara memorials were meant for ritual veneration (pūjā) and reverence (vandana) of the commemorated individuals. At a few sites in Western India and Central India, the ritual commemoration of bhaṭṭārakas is still continued, especially on their death 15 anniversaries (puṇyatithi). The usage of memorials of the renouncers of the contemporary Digambara muni saṅghas and of recent South Indian bhaṭṭārakas also shows parallels to early modern practices. The interment of bone relics under contemporary Digambara memorials is attested, but we cannot ascertain whether they were also included in the early modern Digambara memorials of Western and Central India, since no corroborating material, epigraphic, or textual evidence is found. The main focus of this study is on the history and the memorials of three Balātkāragaṇa branches which were predominantly active in diﬀerent parts of the contemporary state of Rajasthan and its border regions. In one case this concerns a single lineage (which I term the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā), bifurcations in the other two branches ultimately led to sets of two related lineages (Vāgaḍāśākhās, Śākambharīśākhās). An in-depth analysis of these lineages and their memorials is developed in Chapters 4-6. Each of these chapters oﬀers an outline of the known history of the lineages, an introduction to the corpus of their memorials discovered, and a roughly chronological discussion of all sites. The memorials tell us much about the history of these three Balātkāragaṇa branches and about early modern and 19th and early 20th century CE Digambara ascetic traditions more generally. Many features of the history of these ﬁve lineages as they appear from the study of their memorials are shared between them, and with reasoned inferences allow us to draw a relatively coherent picture of the characteristics and development of the Digambara Jaina ascetic traditions of early modern Western India. At the same time, the available sources on each of these branches highlight diﬀerent aspects, probably largely due to factors of contingency in the preservation of memorials or to diﬀering commemoration practices, although actual, internal diﬀerences in the development of the three concerned Balātkāragaṇa branches and the composition of their saṅghas cannot be excluded. Chapter 4 largely deals with memorials of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, but also includes discussions of a few memorials commemorating incumbents and other renouncers from the preceding Uttaraśākhā dating to the 15th and the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE. We have an almost complete corpus of memorials of Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents from the early 17th up to the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE. In conjunction with other sources, it allows us to reconstruct subsequent shifts of the Uttaraśākhā-Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat from Dillī to Mevāṛa, from Mevāṛa to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region, shortly back to Dillī, and back again to Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa. All of these shifts can be related to socio-political developments and the attendant economic conditions within the Sultanate and Mughal empires and the Rajput kingdoms of Rajasthan. Chapter 5 focuses on the Vāgaḍāśākhā, the Balātkāragaṇa branch which developed in the Vāgaḍā region in the Rajasthan-Gujarat borderland. The undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā originated around the turn of the 15th century CE, and by the end of the century a process had begun which ultimately led to two independent bhaṭṭāraka lineages. The Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā (or in short, Brhatśākhā) was ̥ ̥ continued up to the early 20th century CE and also expanded its sphere of activity to include Mevāṛa and Lāṭa. Its ultimate home base was Īḍara in south Vāgaḍā. The originally subordinate Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā (Laghuśākhā) may also have developed some activity in coastal Gujarat, but mostly remained in the nearby towns of Naugāmā and Sāgavāṛā in north Vāgaḍā until its demise in the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE. A considerable corpus of memorials of Vāgaḍāśākhā 16 renouncers of various ranks has been retrieved. Important necropoles in Naugāmā and Sāgavāṛā oﬀer some of the most concentrated evidence of the ﬂourishing of munis and ācāryas in the 16th and 17th century CE bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas. Memorials also form an important source to reconstruct the bifurcation of the Vāgaḍāśākhā. While later sources present it as an immediate duplication of bhaṭṭāraka seats, in reality the Laghuśākhā started as a succession of ﬁrstly ācāryas and then maṇḍalācāryas. Textual sources and memorials allow us to trace the frequent relocations of the Vāgaḍāśākhā seats between various towns. In the early 17th century CE, the Laghuśākhā replaced the Brhatśākhā in Sāgavāṛā, probably ﬁlling a vacuum after the latter lineage developed its ̥ activities outside of Vāgaḍā. Around the time of this contested Laghuśākhā expansion, the ﬁrst of its incumbents claimed bhaṭṭāraka-hood. The Śākambharīśākhās discussed in Chapter 6 mostly ﬂourished in the Śākambharī region in Central Rajasthan but were also active in towns closer to Jayapura and in Jayapura itself. The last incumbents of the two Śākambharīśākhā lineages in the 19th and 20th century CE also maintained connections with migrant lay communities in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. Initiated in the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE and often considered to have been a bhaṭṭāraka lineage, the undivided Śākambharīśākhā actually remained a maṇḍalācārya lineage throughout its existence, up to a bi- or in fact trifurcation in the early 18th century CE. One of the two long-lasting lineages arising at this time, which I refer to as the (Śākambharīśākhā) Ajamera-paṭṭa, became a full-ﬂedged bhaṭṭāraka seat around the mid-18th century CE. From that time up to its discontinuation in the ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE, the seat of this lineage remained ﬁrmly located in Ajamera. The second Śākambharīśākhā, the Nāgaura-paṭṭa, may have gone through a parallel development, its last incumbent and probably several of his predecessors seated in Nāgaura. There is some evidence for an apparently shorter-lived ācārya lineage which arose from the undivided Śākambharīśākhā at the same time as the Nāgaura-paṭṭa and the Ajamera-paṭṭa. The two centuries long continuation of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā as a maṇḍalācārya lineage, the promotion of two of its sub-branches to bhaṭṭāraka lineages later on, and the formation of a separate ācārya lineage, all form good examples of the dynamics underlying the formation of early modern Digambara ascetic lineages. Like those of the Vāgaḍāśākhās, the seats of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā, the Ajamera-paṭṭā. and the Nāgaura-paṭṭa frequently relocated between various towns within a relatively clearly demarcated region. Relatively few Śākambharīśākhā commemoration sites have been surveyed thus far, but two of them are particularly rich. The Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera is the largest Digambara necropolis of Rajasthan. The site was purposefully developed in the mid-18th century CE as a necropolis for the full Ajamera-paṭṭa lineage. Also boasting considerable numbers of ācārya and paṇḍita memorials, it oﬀers an excellent sample of the 18th century CE constellations of bhaṭṭārakas, ācāryas, and paṇḍitas, and of the networks of paṇḍitas operating as assistants to the bhaṭṭārakas in the 19th century CE. A second Śākambharīśākhā site, the Nasīyā in Sākhūna also has memorials commemorating a considerable number of paṇḍitas from the 19th and ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE. The inscriptions attest a pupillary succession of several generations of local paṇḍitas who at times seem to have enjoyed an enhanced status of venerability and shifting lines of allegiance to the Ajamera-paṭṭa. 17 I begin the concluding Chapter 7 with a short epilogue on two memorial chatrīs discovered in Rajasthan commemorating 19th century CE munis who did not belong to the Western Indian bhaṭṭāraka traditions. Although poorly known, scattered reports are available of other precursors to the contemporary muni saṅghas moving through 19th century CE Northern India. This was undoubtedly a pivotal moment in the transition from the bhaṭṭāraka traditions to the contemporary muni saṅghas, including a reversal of the Digambara ascetic hierarchies and changing perceptions concerning the venerability of bhaṭṭārakas. In rounding up of the ﬁndings of the preceding chapters, I also discuss some caveats and aspects open for further research. The conclusion of this dissertation closes the arc opened by my observations in the present chapter on the perceived discontinuity of the Digambara tradition in the ‘Muslim era’. This study collected suﬃcient evidence to speak of a continuum of Digambara memorials and commemoration practices in Western India from the late medieval to the contemporary period. And these are, I argue, but a single expression of a deeper continuity of the Digambara tradition right across the ‘bhaṭṭāraka era’, located in the praise of asceticism and the functions of ritual praxis more broadly. 18 CHAPTER 2. DIGAMBARA ASCETIC TRADITIONS OF WESTERN AND CENTRAL INDIA Chapter contents In reviewing the Digambara ascetic traditions of pre-20th century CE Western and Central India in the present chapter, I come to challenge several assumptions underpinning both earlier scholarship and popular, contemporary Digambara self-perceptions. Novel insights especially concern the conception and veneration of bhaṭṭārakas as ideal renouncers (2.1.), the formation and distribution of Digambara ascetic lineages (2.2.), the composition of the ascetic communities (2.3.), and the structure and socio-political functioning of the bhaṭṭāraka polities (2.4.). Pre-20th century CE bhaṭṭārakas are often conceived of as mere administrators, ‘clerics’, or semirenouncers. (2.1.1.) Yet ample sources remain to testify that they were considered and ritually venerated as ideal renouncers by their lay and ascetic devotees. Next to the memorials studied in this dissertation, various other material and textual evidence is found, including devotional and ritual textual compositions. (2.1.2.) The ‘institution’ of the bhaṭṭāraka did not replace the Digambara munis in the Sultanate period, as is commonly thought. The ascetic rank (pada) of the bhaṭṭāraka was instead introduced in the late medieval period and functioned as the paramount post in the Digambara ascetic hierarchy up to the early 20th century. Devotees also ascribed all the proper vows, virtues, and practices of ideal Digambara renouncers to the bhaṭṭārakas. While much remains unknown about the actual conduct and observances of the early modern bhaṭṭārakas and the lower-ranking renouncers in their ascetic communities, they did follow many practices which closely resembled those of today’s Digambara munis. Ritual nudity, the deﬁning marker of ideal Digambara asceticism, was possibly maintained up to the early Mughal period, and even later seems to have remained an optional and part-time practice. Western and Central Indian bhaṭṭārakas also held rainy-season retreats (cāturmāsa), and their initiation rituals closely resembled those of the contemporary muni saṅghas, or in fact the latter have been based on the former. (2.1.3.) The second section of the present chapter lays out my understanding of the various Digambara ascetic lineages spreading through pre-20th century CE, Western and Central India. (2.2.) Although earlier scholarship had already done important work in reconstructing their successions (2.2.1.), new insights have been developed concerning their origins, bifurcations, distribution, and later-day fates. While the bhaṭṭāraka traditions are sometimes thought to have suﬀered irremediable loss from the rise of the Digambara Terāpantha in the 17th and 18th century CE, and to have largely disappeared shortly after, it is now clear that the majority of lineages continued into the 19th and even 20th century CE. (2.2.2.) Among a number of Digambara ascetic traditions active in pre-20th century CE Western and Central India, the Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa (2.2.3.1.) saw an especially 19 strong proliferation. A single Balātkāragaṇa lineage coming down through the medieval period (2.2.3.3.) saw repeated bi- or trifurcations in the early modern period, especially in the 15th to 17th century CE (2.2.3.4.). This led to a patchwork of a dozen Balātkāragaṇa lineages active in various parts of Western and Central India (2.2.3.5-10.), ﬁfteen lineages if including those in the contemporary state of Maharashtra (2.2.3.11.). My study of memorials and other epigraphic and textual sources oﬀers much new information about the geographic distribution of the Western and Central Indian Balātkāragaṇa lineages. This leads me to introduce alternative appellations which are more representative of their whereabouts than those introduced by Joharāpurakara (1958) and adopted in much later scholarship. (2.2.3.2.) Thus far, little was known about the bifurcations of pre-20th century CE Digambara ascetic linages. (2.2.4.) Without evidence, earlier scholarship routinely presented bifurcations either as conscious initiatives of inﬂuential bhaṭṭārakas to create new seats, or as splits occurring because of strife between multiple candidate-successors. Later narratives relate two of the Balātkāragaṇa bifurcations to consecration festivals planned in outlaying areas (2.2.3.8., 2.2.4.5.), but these accounts do not align with other ﬁndings. It is now clear that the arising of new Balātkāragaṇa lineages rarely was the consequence of the direct multiplication of a bhaṭṭāraka seat, in which an incumbent bhaṭṭāraka consecrated two or more successors as bhaṭṭārakas, or more than one renouncer claimed successorship as a bhaṭṭāraka. New Balātkāragaṇa lineages instead arose through a gradual process in which successions of maṇḍalācāryas (2.2.4.1.) or at ﬁrst even ācāryas who were subordinate to the bhaṭṭārakas later came to claim bhaṭṭāraka-hood and with that reached full autonomy from their former parent lineages. A few successions of ācāryas which did not lead to the arising of independent bhaṭṭāraka lineages are also found. I discuss the functions of the hitherto little-known post of the maṇḍalācārya (2.2.4.2.) and the regional identiﬁcation of various Balātkāragaṇa branches (2.2.4.3.), and oﬀer write-ups on the gradual development of those Balātkāragaṇa lineages of Western and Central India which originated under maṇḍalācāryas or used this rank in their later history (2.2.4.4-8.). The next section studies the shifting composition of the bhaṭṭāraka circles. (2.3.) Early modern bhaṭṭārakas were often thought to have had pupillary circles composed solely of lay paṇḍitas and brahmacārīs, celibate but not fully initiated renouncers. It is now clear that bhaṭṭārakas instead led ascetic communities (saṅgha) with pupils of a broad range of ascetic ranks, both male (brahmacārī, muni, ācārya, maṇḍalācārya, more rarely upādhyāya) and female (brahmacāriṇī, kṣullikā, āryikā). Pupillary relations between female renouncers are recorded next to their aﬃliations and subordination to the bhaṭṭāraka lineages. (2.3.1.) Munis and ācāryas ﬂourished in the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas well into the Mughal era, up to respectively the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE and the second half of the 18th century CE. (2.3.2.) A few singular sources and data amassed from multiple sources attest that early modern bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas were sometimes of substantial size. (2.3.3.) The preparatory ranks of the kṣullaka and the ailaka do not seem to have been used. This might be an indication that fully initiated renouncers were not naked. As with the bhaṭṭārakas, much remains unknown however about the conduct of the lower-ranking, pre-20th century CE Digambara renouncers. (2.3.6.) Some sources show that early modern bhaṭṭārakas had long renunciant careers gradually rising up through the ascetic hierarchy, from brahmacārī to muni and 20 ācārya, before ascending the bhaṭṭāraka seat. Only later, after the muni and ācārya ranks had become obsolete, it became customary to consecrate low-ranking, not fully initiated brahmacārīs and lay paṇḍitas as bhaṭṭārakas. (2.3.4.) By the 18th century CE, the Digambara circles were constellations of bhaṭṭārakas, ācāryas, and paṇḍitas. (2.3.5.) In the 19th century CE, the ācārya rank also became defunct, and Bīsapanthī paṇḍitas saw an enhanced prestige and probably took up additional functions formerly also carried by renouncers, forming networks and operating as satellites to the bhaṭṭārakas in various towns throughout their regions. Digambara yatis succeeded the last bhaṭṭārakas of a few lineages in the 20th century CE, and individuals of this poorly known rank are also attested in prior centuries. (2.3.7.) A single source also attests the otherwise unknown title of rṣi. ̥ (2.3.7.) The last section of the current chapter turns to the socio-economic and political dimensions of the bhaṭṭāraka polities. (2.4.) Although Western Indian bhaṭṭārakas were presumably no longer strictly itinerant from ca. the 17th century CE onwards, the terminology of bhaṭṭāraka ‘seats’ may carry all too static connotations. Bhaṭṭārakas travelled widely, both throughout their own spheres of inﬂuence and to pilgrimage sites beyond these. Especially up to the 18th century CE, the seats of most lineages also frequently shifted between various towns and sometimes between diﬀerent regions. Bhaṭṭārakas no doubt often followed in the wake of lay communities who migrated to new capitals and upcoming towns in pursuance of mercantile and other professional opportunities. In some cases, we can clearly discern political events and developments operating as push and pull factors in the consecutive movements of bhaṭṭāraka seats. Gainsaying the widespread presumptions that Digambara ascetic and lay traditions withered in the ‘muslim era’, bhaṭṭāraka seats were often attracted to Sultanate and Mughal capitals and centre cities. The well-known royal insignia which the bhaṭṭārakas assumed, like thrones, parasols, and chatrīs, are an external marker of their functioning at the centre of courts and polities modelled after those of South Asian monarchs. 2.1. Venerability 2.1.1. Bhaṭṭārakas as ‘clerics’ Scholarship long understood the Digambara bhaṭṭārakas of pre-20th century CE Western and Central India as administrators (Jaini 1979: 307), clerics (Dundas 2002: 214), priests (Bühler 1878: 28), pontiﬀs (Hoernle 1891, 1892), caste gurus (Sangave 1980: 270), ritual specialists (Jaini 1979: 311, Sangave 1980: 52), or at most ‘semi-renouncers’ intermediate between laypeople and ascetics (Sangave 1980: 269, 317). Bhaṭṭārakas are depicted as ‘degenerate’, overly ritualistic and selfserving sacerdotal ﬁgures, from whose ‘clutches’ the Digambara Jain communities needed to be freed by the 17th century CE Terāpantha and modern reformers (e.g., Sangave 1980: 52, Carrithers 1996: 533, 536). These tropes exemplify the ‘protestant’, Orientalist template of the corrupt, crafty priest or the ‘spiritual despot’ leading the masses astray (Gelders 2009, Gelders & Balagangadhara 2011, Scott 2016). The distinction which Carrithers (1991: 285) drew between naked munis and the contemporary, South Indian bhaṭṭārakas as respectively ‘charismatic leaders’ and ‘routine leaders’ 21 also epitomises long-standing scholarly perceptions of the late medieval and early modern bhaṭṭārakas. Currently widespread Digambara stances on the bhaṭṭārakas are similarly marked by a limited appraisal. They are crediting with the preservation of the Digambara tradition during the putatively adverse period of ‘Muslim rule’, the Sultanate (1206-1526 CE) and Mughal (1526-1857 CE) era, yet ultimately rejected as lax and deﬁcient with regard to ascetic codes. The late medieval and early modern bhaṭṭārakas also serve as a rhetorical foil to today’s naked, itinerant, and possessionless Digambara munis, who are idealised as standing entirely aloof from worldly aﬀairs. Bhaṭṭārakas are instead portrayed as overseeing monastic establishments (maṭha) and managing other properties and ﬁnancial assets, as caste gurus (all too) closely connected to lay communities, and as uniformly clothed and sedentary. Unsurprisingly, conceptions of the late medieval and early modern bhaṭṭārakas as ‘corrupted’ renouncers are particularly potent among followers of the Digambara Terāpantha, the reform movement which arose in opposition to bhaṭṭārakas. Yet in the course of the 20th century CE, the Bīsapanthī communities of Western and Central India who had supported and venerated the bhaṭṭāraka lineages to which their castes were connected up to the 19th and 20th century CE also came to see the bhaṭṭārakas primarily as safe-keepers of the Digambara tradition in the inauspicious ‘Muslim era’, rather than as venerable renouncers in their own right. Jain scholars writing on the bhaṭṭāraka traditions of Western and Central India since the mid-20th century CE like Kastūracanda Kāsalīvāla and Vidyādhara Joharāpurakara collected ample attestations of the former devotion to the bhaṭṭārakas in their work. Yet they rarely if ever paused to theorise, or even note the former conception of the bhaṭṭārakas as venerable renouncers. This dimension of their materials and the tradition they studied may at the same time have seemed self-evident to them and unﬁtting of the dominant historiographical narrative of the unfavourable ‘Muslim era’ (1.1.2-3.). Western scholarship also failed to come to terms with the former, deemed venerability of the pre-20th century CE bhaṭṭārakas despite the abundance of evidence both in the materials brought to light by earlier Jaina scholars and in myriad other primary sources. 2.1.2. Bhaṭṭārakas as venerable renouncers In recent decades much eﬀorts have been made in the conservation, cataloguing, and digitalisation of Jain manuscripts. Yet especially smaller, often poorly studied Digambara manuscript collections in mandiras often still lay rapidly degenerating (Detige 2017). Material sources have often received even less attention, and while some pre-20th century CE memorials are well protected, maintained, and renovated, others have been cleared for new building projects or repurposed, or stand dilapidating. (3.3.3.) All in all, we can take it that considerable amounts of textual and material sources have been lost. And still, the remaining corpus contains copious evidence of the Western and Central Indian bhaṭṭārakas’ former status as high-ranking, highly venerated renouncers. Although these honoriﬁc terms were not yet used as often in the early modern period as today, manuscripts and memorial inscriptions also explicitly call bhaṭṭārakas venerable (pūjya) or most venerable (parama-pūjya) and append the numeral 108, another 22 indicator of venerability, to their names, next to the standard, often multiple times repeated śrī (illustrious, etc).19 Several literary genres attested in the manuscripts collections preserved at former bhaṭṭāraka seats stand out as prime textual sources. Scribal colophons express deep respect, idealisation, and veneration of the bhaṭṭārakas who ﬁgure as the recipients of the manuscript donations or as the superiors of the renouncers for whom the manuscripts were prepared (Detige 2018). Some individualised praise of more recent incumbents is often included in paṭṭāvalīs. Although mostly mined for the historical information on the successions of the ascetic lineages they contain, paṭṭāvalīs as a genre are eulogistic at least as much as historiographic in nature. Even more extensive veneration and idealisation is found in vernacular songs of praise on individual bhaṭṭārakas (gīta, also jakhaḍī, hamacī, lāvaṇī, etc., Detige 2019a). Such compositions had already been edited and discussed by Kastūracanda Kāsalīvāla and Anūpacanda Nyāyatīrtha,20 and more examples have been discovered from manuscript copies. Steeped in deep devotion and voicing the devotees’ exaltation, these eulogies present the bhaṭṭārakas as munis observing all the rules of conduct of an ideal Digambara renouncer, as venerable saints, and as virtuous gurus. Wooden thrones (gaddī, siṅhāsana) on which bhaṭṭārakas were seated are preserved in many of the mandiras where they resided. (2.4.4., Fig. 2.7) Some of these seem to have been reinstalled in recent years, probably as a demonstration of Bīsapanthī identity. Framed portrait photos or paintings of the last incumbents are often placed on the seat. (Figs. 2.2., 2.7 top M. & M., 6.2 bottom) These typically depict the bhaṭṭārakas with a manuscript, a symbol of learning, and the typical paraphernalia of a Digambara muni, a water pitcher (kamaṇḍalu) and whisk (picchī). Books (śāstra) are often found placed on the thrones nowadays, identifying them as seats of learning. (Fig. 2.7 M. left, bottom right) In one case the sandals of the last bhaṭṭāraka were preserved on his throne. (Fig. 6.1 bottom R.). The memorial pavilions (chatrī) which form the focus of this study are so commonly found that we can conclude that deceased bhaṭṭārakas were commemorated almost as by rule. Both chatrīs and thrones marked the bhaṭṭārakas’ identity as venerable renouncers and as the lords of their polities (2.4.4.), and remain as a prime material manifestation of the esteem in which they were held. Compositions for the ritual veneration of individual bhaṭṭārakas following the devotional songs (gīta) in their terms of exaltation of the bhaṭṭārakas as ideal Digambara renouncers have been found in a number of manuscript collections. Among these are both eightfold pūjās and āratīs, designed for respectively the oﬀering of eight substances and an oil lamp. (3.5.1.) In manuscripts, bhaṭṭāraka pūjās are often found along with ritual texts related to the veneration of the gaṇadharas (Gaṇadhara-pūjā, Gaṇadhara-pādukā-sthāpana-vidhi, etc.), the ﬁrst leaders of the In manuscript colophons, the numeral 108 is used in s. 1714 for an ācārya (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 61, n. 47), in s. 1801 for a bhaṭṭāraka (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 250, n. 60), in s. 1822 and s. 1824 for ācāryas (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 41-2, n. 29), and in s. 1856 for bhaṭṭārakas (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 205, n. 6). In the present corpus of memorial inscriptions, it appears in reference to bhaṭṭārakas in memorials from Sākhūna (s. 1887, #6.26), Surapura (s. 1927, 3.4.4.), Ajamera (s. 1928, #6.25; s. 1992, #6.9; s. 1992, #6.10), and Bairāṭha (s. 1930, 3.1.6.). A manuscript colophon from s. 1619 for example calls the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Bhānukīrti parama-pūjya (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 159, n. 30a). 19 20 E.g., Kāsalīvāla 1967a, 1979a, 1981, 1982 (full references in Detige 2019a: 276-7); Nyāyatīrtha 1985a, 1985b. 23 Jaina ascetic community after Mahāvīra. This probably indicates a connection between the veneration of bhaṭṭārakas and gaṇadharas, and a perception of the former as the legitimate, full successors of the latter. Some of the bhaṭṭāraka pūjās and āratīs may have served in the veneration of living bhaṭṭārakas,21 of which we also ﬁnd some attestations (Detige 2019a: 277-9; 2019b: 17), and which parallels the common ritual veneration of living contemporary Digambara munis (Detige 2024a, 3.5.3.) and South Indian bhaṭṭārakas. Some pūjā compositions however explicitly refer to the bhaṭṭārakas’ caraṇa-pādukās and were thus composed for commemorative rituals. (3.5.1.) This complements our understanding of the early modern Digambara memorials as sites of ritual veneration. Some structural features of the memorials like spouts for the outﬂow of ablution liquids on pādukās also conﬁrm their former ritual use. (3.5.1.) Ritual veneration at the memorials of bhaṭṭārakas and possibly also lower-ranking renouncers was probably commonly performed for varying times after their demise, until the memory of these renouncers had faded and was replaced with devotion to more recent renouncers. Popular cults may have developed around particularly charismatic individuals. At a few sites in Western and Central India we still ﬁnd a living tradition of the veneration of bhaṭṭārakas, notably on their death anniversaries (puṇyatithi). (3.5.2.) Today’s South Indian bhaṭṭārakas also are still ritually venerated. Next to conﬁrming their status as venerable renouncers, in the eyes of their devotees, the attested ritual veneration of living and deceased bhaṭṭārakas also underscores the important function of the veneration of asceticism as a deep-rooted Jaina ‘technology of the self’. (7.3.) In the course of this study, it became clear that many of the bifurcations of the Balātkāragaṇa tradition were not the consequence of a multiplication of bhaṭṭāraka seats, as they were referred to in later sources and therefore understood by earlier scholarship. Several lineages instead gradually arose from successions of ācāryas and maṇḍalācāryas who originally remained subordinate to the bhaṭṭāraka seat of the parent lineage but at some later point claimed bhaṭṭāraka-hood and with that full independence themselves. (2.2.4.) As long as the incumbents of the forming new lineages carried the lower ranks of ācārya and maṇḍalācārya, the bhaṭṭāraka of the mother lineage remained the single renouncer of the branch with this paramount rank, a new bhaṭṭāraka consecrated only after his death or abdication. 2.1.3. Bhaṭṭārakas’ practices The bhaṭṭārakas of Western and Central India were venerated as observing and embodying the ascetic rules, vows, practices, virtues, and skills also deemed proper for Digambara munis today. Eulogistic texts like bhaṭṭāraka gītas commonly ascribe the main vows of the fully initiated muni to the bhaṭṭārakas, including the ﬁve mahāvrata vows, the ﬁve samiti regulations, the three guptis, and the extended set of 28 mūlaguṇas.22 The ﬁve mahāvratas are non-violence (ahiṃsā), truthfulness (satya), not stealing (asteya), chastity (brahmacharya), and non-possession (aparigraha). The ﬁve samitis prescribe taking care in walking, speaking, accepting alms, picking From an unspeciﬁed source, Kāsalīvāla (1982: 8) reports āratī performed of the 15th century CE Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Somakīrti in welcoming him during his vihāra. 21 22 E.g., Kāsalīvāla 1981: 99. 24 up and putting down things, and excretory functions. The three guptis involve the restraint of mind, speech, and body. Next to the ﬁve mahāvratas and the ﬁve samitis, the extended set of 28 mūlaguṇas also include the controlling of the ﬁve senses and the six essential duties (āvaśyaka),23 and pulling out one’s hair, remaining naked, sleeping on the ground, not bathing, not brushing one’s teeth, eating while standing, and eating only once a day. Bhaṭṭārakas are also attributed with the ten forms of righteousness (daśa-lakṣana-dharma),24 and eulogised as knowledgeable of all scriptures, and various arts.25 They are praised for their restraint (saṃyama), and referred to as seeking liberation (mumukṣu)26 and being free of the vices of anger, delusion, passion, and greed.27 Sanskrit consecration manuals (Detige 2019b) and a speciﬁc genre of vernacular bhaṭṭāraka gītas which constitute an account of the consecration festivals of individual incumbents, and which I refer to as paṭṭa-sthāpanā-gītas (Detige 2019a), record bhaṭṭārakas as taking the mahāvratas, samitis, and guptis as part of their consecration to the bhaṭṭāraka seat. Early modern bhaṭṭārakas had probably often gone through an earlier ascetic career as lower-ranking renouncers (2.3.4.), and then presumably merely renewed these vows as part of their promotion to the bhaṭṭāraka rank (bhaṭṭāraka-pada-sthāpanā, bhaṭṭāraka-dīkṣā) and consecration to the seat (paṭṭābhiṣeka), since some Balātkāragaṇa initiation manuals also prescribe the taking of the mahāvratas as part of the muni initiation (Brhad-dīkṣā or Mahāvrata-dīkṣā (Detige 2019b: 4 n. 11). Further elements of the ̥ early modern bhaṭṭāraka consecrations attested in these sources also closely resemble contemporary Digambara initiation praxis, which again conﬁrms their status as full-ﬂedged, highranking renouncers. Notable examples are the gifting to the initiand of a water pitcher (kamaṇḍalu) and whisk (picchī), the typical paraphernalia of contemporary munis, and the performance of keśaloñca, the pulling out of the hair. The crucial element of the bhaṭṭāraka anointment was the transmission of the sūri-mantra (not continued in contemporary initiation praxis), which granted bhaṭṭārakas the monopoly of consecrating temple icons (although see 2.2.4.2.). A crucial aspect of the 28 mūlaguṇas ascribed to the early modern bhaṭṭārakas of Western and Central India is ritual nudity, the most emblematic characteristic of an ideal male Digambara renouncer, and nowadays considered his deﬁning property. Both early modern bhaṭṭārakas and lower-ranking, fully initiated renouncers (muni, ācārya) were also depicted naked on their memorials. (3.1.5.) These representations and eulogies should however probably be seen as expressing the ascetic ideal, rather than necessarily also forming absolute evidence of their actual The āvaśyakas include meditation (sāmāyika), veneration of the twenty-four jinas (caturviṃśati-stava) and the ascetic teachers (guru-vandana), repentance (pratikramaṇa), standing meditation (kāyotsarga), and repudiation of evil deeds (pratyākhyāna). 23 The ten forms of righteousness (daśa-lakṣana-dharma) are forgiveness (kṣamā), kindness (mārdava), honesty (ārjava), purity (śauca), truthfulness (satya), restraint (saṃyama), asceticism (tapas), renunciation (tyāga), non-possessiveness (ākiṃcanya), and celibacy (brahmacarya). 24 The 16th century CE Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti, for example, is extolled as being skilled in scripture (āgama, veda), doctrine (siddhānta), vyākaraṇa (grammar), dance (nātaka), metre (chanda), and logic (pramāṇa) (Vijayakīrti-gīta, Kāsalīvāla 1982: 195). 25 E.g., ‘dharmacaṃdro mumukṣuḥ’, in a composition (stuti) on the 16th century CE Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra (Detige 2019a: 275, n. 20 & 277, n. 32). 26 E.g., the late 17th century CE Lāṭaśākhā Bāraḍolī-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra in a song composition (Kāsalīvāla 1981: 84). 27 25 practice. It is uncertain up to when nudity was actually practiced by the bhaṭṭārakas and their lower-ranking pupils. Cort (2019) discusses devotional compositions which show that nudity remained the highest ideal of renunciation in laypeople’s imaginaire throughout the early modern period, and takes their expression of longing for the sight of a naked muni to form an indication of the actual absence of such renouncers. Yet, importantly, the introduction of the bhaṭṭāraka and the general taking to clothing of Digambara renouncers were both gradual processes separated by several centuries. When the bhaṭṭāraka rank was introduced and gradually standardised across the various Digambara ascetic traditions in the late medieval period, it was superimposed on the ascetic hierarchy over and above the ācārya rank, and did not refer to a clothed, sedentary renouncer as opposed to and as subordinated to the naked muni.28 While the bhaṭṭāraka rank was already used in the 9th century CE (Joharāpurakara 1958: 4), the general taking to clothing of Digambara renouncers should perhaps be situated no earlier than the 17th century CE. By at least the 18th or 19th century CE, bhaṭṭārakas had no doubt largely become the clothed and sedentary ﬁgures we know from contemporary South India. Still, even 20th century CE bhaṭṭārakas of Western and Central India seem to have taken to nudity as part of their own consecration, during their annual rainy season retreats (cāturmāsa), at meal times, or to consecrate mūrtis (see below). While we don’t have further accounts of the nudity or clothing of lower-ranking, early modern Digambara renouncers, it seems unlikely that clothed bhaṭṭārakas at any time would have presided over naked munis and ācāryas. (2.3.6.) Sultanate and early Mughal period bhaṭṭārakas may well have dwelled naked at times, generally, or even permanently. Nudity seems to have remained a personal or temporary option for Digambara renouncers throughout the early modern period. Practices may also have varied between diﬀerent regions, periods, and perhaps socio-political circumstances. Attestations of naked early modern Digambara renouncers are certainly found. All my examples are of individuals related to the various Balātkāragaṇa lineages. This is probably dependent on the greater abundance of materials related to this tradition, and my greater usage of them. In need of further research, the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha likely went through parallel developments in this respect as in others. In a paṭṭāvalī, the ﬁrst incumbent of the Balātkāragaṇa Vāgaḍāśākhā Sakalakīrti, whose ascetic career played out in the ﬁrst half of the 15th century CE, is reported to have dwelled as a naked muni prior to his ordination to the bhaṭṭāraka rank (Kāsalīvāla 1967a: 3-4). Kāsalīvāla (1981: 97) reports a composition (pada) in which the ﬁrst Lāṭaśākhā incumbent Vidyānandi from the mid-15th century CE is praised as naked. A reference to the late 15th century CE Lāṭaśākhā Bāraḍolī-paṭṭa Abhayacandra as a ‘nirgranthācārya’ may also indicate that he was naked (Joharāpurakara 1958: 193, lekha 516). Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra, the ﬁrst Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent from the early 16th century CE, is also eulogised as naked in an undated colophon dating back to his own times.29 A textual source on the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā contains an interesting account of 63 individuals In need of further research, and seemingly less wide-spread, the bhaṭṭāraka rank is also attested in the early modern Śvetāmbara lineages. 28 29 ‘yathoktanagnamudrādhārī’ (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 89, n. 4d). 26 (apparently all renouncers) including one Anantakīrti being instructed by their guru, probably the incumbent Ācārya Yaśakīrti from the second half of the 16th century CE, to go south on peregrination (vihāra, see below, this section), one of them becoming an incumbent (‘pāṭadhara’) in the southern country and upholding a tradition (lineage, ‘pāṭa’) of pure nudity (‘sudī nagna’) until, reportedly, the time of the text’s composition in the mid-18th century CE (Ibid.: 160, lekha 402, p. 166; 5.1.5.).30 A Marāṭhī song (lāvaṇī) constituting a summary vita of the late 18th century CE Kārañjāśākhā incumbent Devendrakīrti composed by his pupil Mahatisāgara describes the bhaṭṭāraka as dwelling meditating naked at the end of his life.31 Joharāpurakara (Ibid.) also held that bhaṭṭārakas became naked during their consecration (and thus were not naked generally), which is conﬁrmed by a number of independent sources. We ﬁnd it attested in the accounts of the paṭṭābhiṣekas of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti in Jayapura in the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE (s. 1880, 1823 CE) and of an earlier Mālavāśākhā namesake Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti in the late 17th century CE (s. 1740). In the former case, Narendrakīrti was seated naked on a stone platform (caukī) at the Pāṭodī Mandira, where the seat of his lineage was located, the committee of laymen (pañca) then imploring him that this wasn’t the time to spread dharma naked, and dressing him again in a loincloth and shawl while establishing him on the bhaṭṭāraka seat (Varmā 1998: 44-46). The attestation of the earlier Mālavāśākhā Narendrakīrti comes from a song composition commemorating his consecration reported by P. C. Śāstrī (1992: 89). Accordingly, the initiand was adorned with clothes and ornaments (‘vastrābhūṣaṇa se susajjita kara’) and taken to a temple, where he seems to have become naked (‘vastrābhūṣaṇa uttārakara’), performed keśa-loñca, and took muni-dīkṣā. Further elements of the consecration reported in this composition align with those described in other paṭṭa-sthāpanā-gītas, like the pouring of 108 pitchers (kalaśa) and the record of a privileged layman taking ﬁrst place in the ritual proceedings (Detige 2019a, 2019b). The decking out and parading of the initiand and his subsequent stripping naked may therefore also have been common practices, although not mentioned in other, similar compositions. By no means an unconditional supporter of the bhaṭṭārakas of his own age, the Jaina scholar Nāthūrāma Premī (1913: 58) also asserted that it was a common practice for the bhaṭṭārakas (of his own time) to become naked during their consecration, objecting to it as inappropriate for someone who keeps property and intends to take up clothing again immediately after the ritual. Premī (1913: 58-59; 1942: 363) also reported that many bhaṭṭārakas took oﬀ their clothes when taking food, and that some followed a practice of taking up nudity once a year. Another attestation of contemporary bhaṭṭārakas’ temporary nudity similarly carries some credibility precisely because of its opposition to these practices. In the Bhaṭṭāraka Carcā, a pamphlet published in 1941 CE by Narasiṅhapurā laypeople in opposition to Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha, the tradition to which their caste had been connected,32 laypeople decried the bhaṭṭārakas’ nudity during their 30 It is not clear whether this section of the letter stems from its entry on Yaśakīrti, or on his predecessor Ratnakīrti. Joharāpurakara (1958: 166) discusses it as relating to the latter, but in the edition of the text it is included in the section of the former (Ibid.: 160, lekha 402). 31 ‘vastra-rahita nagna mudrā padmāsana yukta’ (Joharāpurakara 1958: 69-70, lekha 190). 32 On the Bhaṭṭāraka Carcā, see Detige 2020a: 204-7. 27 dīkṣā (Anon. 1941: 22), during their rainy season retreats (see below; Ibid.: 5), and in front of a jina icon (Ibid.: 6). The latter might be a conﬁrmation of Gough’s (2017: 295) suggestion that bhaṭṭārakas possibly also took oﬀ their clothes to consecrate icons. R. K. Jain (1999: 33, cited in Gough 2017: 295) held that bhaṭṭārakas removed their clothes when eating, and when initiating another bhaṭṭāraka. Some 19th century CE Western travellers and scholars also report the sight or hearsay of bhaṭṭārakas or other Digambara renouncers dwelling almost permanently naked or taking to nudity on special occasions. Colin Mackenzie (1807: 249), East India Company army oﬃcer and Surveyor General of India, was informed in coastal Karnataka of a class of Digambara ascetics (yati), referred to as “Nirvána”, which close resembles the Digambara muni as he is known today, entirely naked, eating only once every second day, barred from moving around after sunset, carrying “fan and pot” (picchī and kamaṇḍalū), and having his hair pulled out by disciples (see Detige in preparation). In his Travels in Western India, the British lieutenant-colonel James Tod (1839: 389-390) claimed to have actually observed an unspeciﬁed naked Digambara renouncer, “to whom was assigned the place of honor at the Court of Dhalpoor, without even a ﬁg-leaf”, had seen or heard of seemingly another naked renouncer present at Girnār (Gujarat), and mentioned a “Bhaṭṭāraka Vedyavandaboosan”, “the great unclad Sri-pooj” of the Sūrata seat (gaddī), who accordingly remained naked except for covering himself with a quilt in the cold season. The latter reference most likely concerns the Balātkāragaṇa Lāṭaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Vidyābhūṣaṇa, whose pādukā at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata is dated to 1826 CE (s. 1883, 3.4.3.). Georg Bühler (1878: 28) reported that the bhaṭṭārakas, who otherwise “make a compromise with the spirit of the times and the British law” in covering themselves with a shawl, sit fully naked when eating, while a pupil rings a bell to ward oﬀ strangers. We occasionally also ﬁnd attestations of bhaṭṭārakas performing speciﬁc ascetic practices. The 16th century CE Lāṭaśākhā Vīracandra for example is recorded to have eaten insipid food for sixteen years (Joharāpurakara 1958: 197). On the basis of the above mentioned attestation of the late 18th century CE Kārañjāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti dwelling as a naked renouncer later in life, Joharāpurakara (1958: 4) held that some bhaṭṭārakas became naked with death approaching as part of the Digambara practice of ritual fasting to death (sallekhanā, also santhāra, paṇḍitamaraṇa). Yet we do not ﬁnd actual records of the practice of sallekhanā by bhaṭṭārakas or renouncers of their saṅghas. The 15th century CE Vāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti did write a text on sallekhanā, the Samādhi-maraṇotsāha-dīpaka (Clines n.d.), which could be taken as an indication that these traditions carried these ideals even if not actively practicing them. References to early modern bhaṭṭārakas’ peregrination (vihāra) are encountered frequently. According to Kāsalīvāla (1982: 7-8), the 15th century CE Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Somakīrti engaged in continuous vihāra in Rajasthan and Gujarat. Around the same time in the Balātkāragaṇa, the Vāgaḍāśākhā founder Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti (Kāsalīvāla 1967a: 4; 5.1.1.) as well as Devendrakīrti who stood at the origins of the Lāṭaśākhā and the Mālavāśākhā also seem to have engaged in considerable travel, perhaps sent oﬀ in the ﬁrst place by their Uttaraśākhā guru Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi. Devendrakīrti was ﬁrst active in coastal Gujarat, then appeared in the Mālavā region (Madhya Pradesh), and is also attested in Devagaṛha (Uttar Pradesh). (2.2.3.8-9.) 28 Such late Sultanate period Digambara renouncers may have followed the Digambara ascetic ideal of quasi-continuous peregrination while travelling through diﬀerent regions, visiting local lay communities much like today’s munis. Bhaṭṭārakas are also regularly reported to have made large travels upon their consecration to the seat. The descriptions of such trips, also referred to as vihāra, are reminiscent of the narratives of the dig-vijaya (conquest of the quarters) of an ideal monarch (cakra-vartin), and these travels and the narratives thereof may have served a parallel function in establishing their authority throughout their own dominions and in the broader region. (2.4.) Later bhaṭṭārakas whom we otherwise know to have been sedentary are also found attested as practicing vihāra, but here this might be a liberal application of this term to occasional pilgrimages or travels undertaken to perform icon consecrations or fulﬁl other tasks for lay communities. Western and Central Indian bhaṭṭārakas also seem to have held rainy season retreats (cāturmāsa), both in the towns where they resided and at other places. Parallel to the community formation and close renouncer-laity interaction that takes place during the rainy season retreats of contemporary munis, the former probably served to strengthen existing relations to lay communities in various towns and regions, or even to develop new connections with distant localities. A biographical account of the late 17th century CE Balātkāragaṇa Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti found ̥ in a paṭṭāvalī is unique in reporting the locations of all his cāturmāsas, from his paṭṭābhiṣeka in s. 1730 to his death in s. 1757. Alternating between various towns, Kṣemakīrti spent a total of six of his rainy retreats in Udayapura (where he also seems to have passed away) and ﬁve in Ahamadābāda, and fewer or single cāturmāsas in other places, mostly in Rajasthan (Vāgaḍā and Mevāṛa regions) and Gujarat, but also in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh (Āgarā). (5.6.2.) Singular attestations of bhaṭṭārakas’ cāturmāsas are found with some frequency. An early example is found in the autograph manuscript of Bhaṭṭāraka Somasena’s Traivarṇikācāra, where Somasena records having composed the text while passing his cāturmāsa at Gvāliyara (Gopācala) in 1610 CE.33 A vernacular composition on the Senagaṇa Bhaṭṭāraka Jinasena from the second half 17th century CE records his rainy season retreat (‘caümāsa’) in Acalapur in Maharashtra (Joharāpurakara 1958: 16, lekha 50). A narrative section of a Guru-pūjā on the early 18th century CE Kārañjāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti records him as holding a cāturmāsa in Sūrata in Gujarat (Joharāpurakara 1958: 62, lekha 161). And the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti from the second half of the 18th century CE, known to have been based in Ajamera otherwise, is recorded as holding his cāturmāsa in Māroṭha in s. 1824 in an inscription on a pillar of the Sāhoṃ kā Mandira (K. C. Jain 1972: 611-2 n. 46), a temple consecrated by his predecessor Anantakīrti in s. 1794 (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 157; K. C. Jain 1972: 340). P. S. Jaini (2017) discusses a ś. 1792 (1870 CE) letter from Bhaṭṭāraka Rājendrakīrti of the Balātkāragaṇa branch of Mānyakheḍa (Malkhed, Karnataka) possibly referring to his cāturmāsa in Sātārā (Maharashtra). And even the last incumbent of the Balātkāragaṇa Kārañjāśākhā, Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, still went on annual rainy-season retreats in the early 20th century CE, both in Kārañjā itself and in various other places in the Vidarbha region (Detige 2015: 160). The last bhaṭṭāraka of Western India, the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Yaśakīrti also 33 Paul Dundas, personal communication, 2015 CE. On this text, see Dundas 2011. 29 practiced cāturmāsa, as attested by the lay reformers who opposed him in the mid-20th century CE (Anon. 1941: 10-12). Another element of the prestige of some bhaṭṭārakas was their knowledge of mantras (mantraśāstra) and their application of it (mantra-sādhanā, mantra-śakti) in the performance of miracles (camatkāra). Most famously, the Balātkāragaṇa Uttaraśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi from the 14th century CE is narrated to have won a debate with adversaries, in some versions Śvetāmbaras, by making a stone Sarasvatī mūrti speak (Hoernle 1891: 342-3; Joharāpurakara 1958: 91, lekha 233; p. 44), an event cited as the source of the Balātkāragaṇa’s secondary epithet Sarasvatīgaccha. A 17th century CE Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent is remembered to have engaged in a miracle competition with an unspeciﬁed Śvetāmbara renouncer (Cort 2002a: 54). When the Āmera based Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti was holding a grand image consecration festival in Karavara in s. 1704, the proceedings were disturbed by a Śvetāmbara monk why caused all the food for the feast to ﬂy up into the sky. Jagatkīrti countered and neutralised the opponent’s tricks by his own mastery of mantras, making the food come down by sprinkling water from his pitcher. The 16th century CE Senagaṇa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Jinasena cured himself by reciting the Viṣāpahārastotra after a snakebite and another time after having been poisoned (Joharāpurakara 1958: 16, lekha 50; p. 33). In many of the frequently encountered narratives about the honours bhaṭṭārakas received at the courts of Indo-Muslim rulers, this recognition is related to miraculous feats performed by bhaṭṭārakas at their courts. (2.4.3.) And even the last, 20th century CE Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha bhaṭṭārakas of Pratāpagaṛha are remembered as mantra specialists and miracle workers. Painted epigraphs on the s. 1981 caraṇa-chatrī of the penultimate bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti (d. s. 1974) in Pratāpagaṛha commemorate him as miracle-working saint (‘camatkārī santa’), and his successor Yaśakīrti (p. s. 1974, d. s. 2023?), the last bhaṭṭāraka of Western India, is also remembered at the Jain Boarding where he resided as having performed camatkāra.34 Sometimes contemporary Jain critics of the bhaṭṭārakas use this element of their engagement with mantra and miracles as part of their opposition to them, or to rhetorically juxtapose the bhaṭṭārakas to contemporary Digambara munis, who supposedly are purely ascetic and disengaged from such practices. Yet, miraculous feats are also ascribed to some contemporary munis, and only heighten their venerability. (7.4.) 2.2. Lineages Prior scholarship has brought to light many materials to reconstruct the history of the Digambara ascetic traditions of early modern Western and Central India. (2.2.1.) Their memorials had however not been systematically studied, and often give us better information on the whereabouts of the various lineages throughout their history than other types of sources. My study of memorials and other sources also advances our understanding of the history of the Digambara ascetic lineages of especially Western India in a number of further ways. Whereas the rise of the anti-bhaṭṭāraka Terāpantha reform movement in the 17th and 18th century CE is sometimes presumed to have led 34 Personal communication with staﬀ at the Jain Boarding, Pratāpagaṛha, February 2014. 30 to the decline of the bhaṭṭāraka traditions, it is now clear that most Western and Central Indian bhaṭṭāraka lineages were continued into the 19th and 20th century CE. Reform movements, the inﬁltration of Orientalist tropes about the pernicious inﬂuence of sacerdotalism, and the muni revival formed further factors which led to their ultimate discontinuation. (2.2.2.) Drawing from earlier scholarship and newly studied materials, I present an overview of the various Western and Central Indian lineages of the Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa tradition which forms the focus of the present study. (2.2.3.) New insights have also been developed regarding the dynamics of lineage bifurcations. New Balātkāragaṇa lineages often originated through a gradual process in which successions of ācāryas and maṇḍalācāryas came to claim autonomy and bhaṭṭāraka-hood. (2.2.4.) Balātkāragaṇa seats frequently relocated, both within rather clearly delineated regions and over longer distances. The latter relocations can often be related to socio-political and no doubt attendant economic conditions in the Sultanates, the Mughal empire, and the various Rajput kingdoms of Rajasthan. Following in the wake of lay Digambara communities migrating in pursuit of economic opportunities, bhaṭṭārakas shifted from declining or conﬂict prone polities to new or newly ﬂourishing cities and regions. These included Sultanate and Mughal polities as much as the realms of Hindu rulers. (2.4.) 2.2.1. Ascetic traditions of pre-20th century CE Western and Central India The Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa was the most widely distributed ascetic tradition in Western and Central India in the second millennium CE, especially proliferating from the 15th century CE onwards. Upwards of a dozen Balātkāragaṇa lineages came to occupy complementary territories across Western and Central India, no doubt serving lay communities in the various subregions. (2.2.3.) Next to its various epithets which were equally used by all lineages (2.2.3.1.), the Balātkāragaṇa tradition did not employ any terminology to distinguish between the various lineages. Manuscript and epigraphic sources instead identify the attested lineage by citing a few successive incumbents. Joharāpurakara (1958) therefore devised his own appellations for the diﬀerent lineages, which became current in later scholarship. The names Joharāpurakara introduced were often based on the location of the seat of the last incumbent known to him. The seats of most lineages had long been located at other towns, and sometimes in altogether diﬀerent regions. Later scholarship however often wrongly took Joharāpurakara’s Balātkāragaṇa lineage names to indicate that they had been located at the towns after which they were named throughout their existence. I therefore introduce new names to distinguish between the various Balātkāragaṇa branches and lineages which are more representative of the broader geographical regions in which they ﬂourished, regularly shifting between various towns. (2.2.3.2) The Mūlasaṅgha Senagaṇa is also attested to have been active in Western India.35 Yet the northern most known seat is that of a branch of its Puṣkaragaccha subdivision which ﬂourished in Kārañjā (Maharashtra) for probably a considerable time prior to its demise in the ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE (Detige 2015: 153-6). The last incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Vīrasena died in Kārañjā in s. 1995. (3.5.2.2.) The distribution of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha tradition which was far more widespread in northern 35 E.g., Joharāpurakara 1958: 30-1, attestations from Gujarat and Rajasthan from around the 15th century CE. 31 India is also in need of further study, but the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha had half a dozen lineages in Western India (see below, this section). The Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha had a seat in Bairāṭha around the 18th century CE (3.1.6.), and is also attested from Haryana.36 Attestations of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Lāḍavāgaḍagaccha (or Lāṭavargaṭagaccha), which takes its names from the regions of south (Lāṭa) and north (Vāgaḍa) Gujarat are found from Gujarat, R̥ ṣabhadeva-Kesariyājī, Dillī, and Gulbarga (Kulabarga, Karnataka) (Joharāpurakara 1958: 259-260). According to Joharāpurakara (1958: 257), earlier ācāryas of this lineage came from Karnataka.37 Prior scholarship has done much to map out the successions and bifurcations of the Digambara ascetic lineages of Western and Central India. Prior to Vidyādhara Joharāpurakara’s seminal and still unsurpassed 1958 Bhaṭṭāraka Sampradāya, some information on speciﬁc lineages had already been made available in earlier scholarship like that of Brahmacārī Śītalaprasāda (1919), Kastūracanda Kāsalīvāla (1949, 1950, 1954), Anūpacanda Nyāyatīrtha (Kāsalīvāla & Nyāyatīrtha 1957), and Jhammanalāla Jaina (1951). Joharāpurakara’s Bhaṭṭāraka Sampradāya is of lasting value both for the manuscript and epigraphic sources edited in it and for the comprehensive overview of the Western and Central Indian bhaṭṭāraka lineages developed on the basis of these sources. Throughout the second half of the 20th century CE, Joharāpurakara (1965, 1971), Kāsalīvāla (a.o., 1967a, 1989), Nyāyatīrtha (1985a, 1985b, 1990, 1997), and other scholars like Balabhadra Jaina (1974, 1976, 1978), Paramānanda Śāstrī (n.d., 1963), Nemicandra Śāstrī (1974), and Phūlacandra [P. C.] Śāstrī (1985a, 1992) continued to bring to light further information. More recently, Navanīta Kumāra Jaina (2013) published much epigraphic research on the bhaṭṭāraka lineages of Central India (see also Siṅha & Jaina 2012). Later scholarship mostly ﬁlled out the picture laid out by Joharāpurakara (1958), adding dated attestations of incumbents for whom Joharāpurakara had no or incomplete dates, adding mostly later-day incumbents missing from the succession lists as reconstructed in Bhaṭṭāraka Sampradāya (2.2.2.), and occasionally describing lineages unknown to Joharāpurakara. An important example of incumbents not included in the lineages reconstructed by Joharāpurakara (1958) comes from what I call the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, Joharāpurakara’s (1958) Dilli-Jayapuraśākhā. The successive maṇḍalācāryas Dharmacandra (paṭṭa s. 1581) and Lalitakīrti (p. s. 1603) are now known to have ﬂourished as successors to Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra (p. s. 1571) and predecessors to Candrakīrti (p. s. 1622). The latter also began his incumbency as a maṇḍalācārya but in the late 16th century CE was promoted to the rank of bhaṭṭāraka. (2.2.3.5, 4.1.2.) A s. 1895 pādukā (unpublished inscription) preserved in the Mahāvīra Mandira in Hāṃsī (Haryana) commemorates one Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti of an unspeciﬁed tradition. This is likely the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha incumbent Lalitakīrti for whom Joharāpurakara (1958: 244) had references from s. 1861 to 1885, and who is also attested in Bairāṭha (3.1.6.). The colophon of a manuscript donated in s. 1700 in Hisāra (Haryana, near Hāṃsī) situates it in the tradition of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrasena (PS: 156), an incumbent of another Māthuragaccha lineage (ﬂ. s. 1680-94, Joharāpurakara 1958: 243). 36 Yet other Digambara ascetic traditions ﬂourished only in South India. Most notable are the Drāviḍa Saṅgha, the Mūlasaṅgha Kraṇūragaṇa, a number of subdivisions of the Mūlasaṅgha Deśīgaṇa like the Pustakagaccha, further subdivisions of the Mūlasaṅgha Senagaṇa (other than its Puṣkaragaccha), and a number of gaṇas of the Yāpanīyasaṅgha (Joharāpurakara 1965, 1-16; 1971, 15-24; see also Premī 1915; Flügel 2006: 346). 37 32 Although he left some ‘branches’ (śākhā) or ‘subbranches’ (praśākhā) unnamed, Joharāpurakara (1958) already developed a particularly complete understanding of the complex of Western and Central Indian Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa lineages. Only one entirely new bhaṭṭāraka lineage can be added, from Central India, and that too not in great detail. Phūlacandra Śāstrī (1992: 88) documented three successive, 17th century CE incumbents as constituting a third lineage of what I call the Mālavāśākhā branch of the Balātkāragaṇa, referring to it as the Siroñja-paṭṭa, after the town of Siroñja (Madhya Pradesh) with which it was related. Two early 19th bhaṭṭārakas are attested in primary sources as related to the ‘seat of Siroñja’, but it is not clear how these connected to Śāstrī’s ‘Siroñja-paṭṭa’. (2.2.3.9.) Given that many Balātkāragaṇa lineages originated from successions of ācāryas or maṇḍalācāryas (2.2.4.), I also include in what I call the Śākambharīśākhā branch of the Balātkāragaṇa a lineage of successive ācāryas attested in a single source. (2.2.3.7.) Not enough information is available on Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā ācāryas commemorated in Bassī to also consider them as forming a lineage. (4.3.8.) A few more additions can already be made to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha lineages reconstructed by Joharāpurakara (1958). The most notable is a long-lasting Nandītaṭagaccha lineage described by Ś. J. Jaina (2011: 93-9) on the basis of textual and epigraphic sources. The lineage branches oﬀ from one the Nandītaṭagaccha lineages described by Joharāpurakara (1958: 298-9) after Vijayasena, the successor of the late 15th century CE Somakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1532-1540, Ibid.: 293). Next to Yaśakīrti, who continued the lineage known to Joharāpurakara, Vijayasena had a second successor in one Kamalakīrti. A kīrtistambha and another, kīrtistambha-like pillar were consecrated by the ﬁfth incumbent of this lineage, Bhaṭṭāraka Viśvabhūṣaṇa. (3.1.4.) Ś. J. Jaina (2011: 96) traces the lineage further until a thirteenth incumbent, Bhuvanakīrti. According to Ś. J. Jaina (2011: 98), this lineage was connected to what he calls the Brhadśākhā (‘major branch’) of the Narasiṅhapurā caste, and ̥ the lineage described by Joharāpurakara (1958) was aﬃliated to another sub-caste group of the Narasiṅhapurā, which he refers to as the Laghuśākhā (‘minor branch’). While I do not study these Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha lineages further in this dissertation, they could in parallel be diﬀerentiated as respectively the Nandītaṭagaccha Brhatśākhā (the lineage added by Ś. J. ̥ Jaina), and the Nandītaṭagaccha Laghuśākhā (the lineage described by Joharāpurakara). Another bifurcation occurred in the Laghuśākhā however. Joharāpurakara (1958: 298) reconstructed this lineage up to the 17th century CE, running [Somakīrti > Vijayasena >] Yaśaḥkīrti > Udayasena > Tribhuvanakīrti > Ratnabhūṣaṇa (ref. s. 1674) > Jayakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1686) > Keśavasena > Viśvakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1696-1700). Within this succession, a bifurcation followed after Jayakīrti, with a second lineage ensuing which was continued up to the second half of the 20th century CE, running [Jayakīrti >] Kamalakīrti > Bhuvanakīrti > Viśvasena > Mahīcandra > Sumatikīrti > Jagatkīrti > Pratāpasena > Khaṅgasena > Nemisena > Vijayasena > Devendrakīrti > Nemisena > Hemacandra > Kṣemakīrti > Yaśakīrti (Jaina & Jaina 1965: 25; Ś. J. Jaina 2011: 96). Among the latter, Bhaṭṭāraka Hemacandra died in s. 1918 in Bāṃsavāṛā, and Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti in s. 1974 in Pratāpagaṛha (Jaina & Jaina 1965: 25). Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti came to seat in the same year (Ibid.), and died as the last Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha bhaṭṭāraka of Western India. (Fig. 2.1) He had three pupils in the paṇḍitas Rāmacandra, Kiśanalāla, and Ḍāḍhamacanda, who constructed a chatrī with a pādukā and a portrait statue of Yaśakīrti in Pratāpagaṛha, inscribed as dating to s. 2023 (1966 CE, Fig. 3.12 M. & R.), and also installed a s. 2034 33 pādukā of Yaśakīrti in a repurposed, early modern chatrī in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī (5.6.4., Fig. 5.22 R.). Yaśakīrti had himself erected of caraṇa-chatrī of his predecessor Kṣemakīrti with a pādukā dated to s. 1981 on a broad crossroads near the Dīpeśvara lake in Pratāpagaṛha.38 (Appendix III.1) Figure 2.1. Portraits and seats of the last Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti at the Gurukula (Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti Digambara Jaina Gurukula) in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī (March 2013) and at the Jain Boarding in Pratāpagaṛha (R., February 2014). At the very end of a second Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha lineage which Joharāpurakara (1958) described next to the ‘Laghuśākhā’, he recorded three successors to the late 17th, early 18th century CE Surendrakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1744-73, Ibid.: 297), namely Devendrakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1881-85, attestations from Nāgapura, Maharashtra, Ibid.: 198), Sakalakīrti (ref. s. 1816, Ibid.: 291-2, lekha 763), and Lakṣmīsena, the latter succeeded by Vijayakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1812, attestation from Sūrata, Ibid.: 291, lekha 761). A narrative instead records Sakalakīrti and Vijayakīrti as both direct pupils of Surendrakīrti, who had a fall-out and both came to occupy separate seats in diﬀerent mandiras in Sūrata. (3.4.4.) The incomplete (unpublished) inscription of a s. 192[9?] Dharaṇendra mūrti at the Neminātha Mandira in Sojitrā (Gujarat) attests two further incumbents after Devendrakīrti, in its record of a succession Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti > Bhaṭṭāraka. Devendrakīrti > Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti (Jasakīrti) > Bhaṭṭāraka Amarendrakīrti. The Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti who consecrated the s. 1909 mūlanāyaka of the Nayā Bairāṭhiyoṃ kā Mandira in Jayapura is recorded as belonging to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha (further unspeciﬁed tradition) and as standing in the tradition of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, presumably again the latter Nandītaṭagaccha incumbent (Nyāyatīrtha 1990: 1239). Nearby, on the bank of the Dīpeśvara lake in Pratāpagaṛha also stand two chatrīs housing three memorial stones commemorating in total four individuals, all related to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha. A s. 1879 pādukā installed in one the chatrīs commemorates Paṇḍita Kuśala, a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Nemasena (Nemisena), consecrated by a pupil (probably the paṇḍita’s) Paṇḍita Amaracanda. The inscription also seems to refer to yet another paṇḍita pupil, possibly pupil again of the latter, Amaracanda. The second chatrī has two memorial stones, a single and a double pādukā. The former is possibly dated s. 1896 (18[96?]), commemorates one Ratnacanda, probably a paṇḍita, and was consecrated by Nemakīrti, whose rank is obliterated in the inscription, probably Bhaṭṭāraka Nemisena here referred to with an alternative name. The double pādukā is dated to s. 1966, probably to be corrected to s. 1866. Its inscription was left incomplete. It may have commemorated two more paṇḍitas or, less likely, bhaṭṭārakas of the same Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha lineage. (Appendix III.2) 38 39 I thank John Cort for bringing this reference to my attention. 34 In two towns in Gujarat, ﬁnally, we ﬁnd references to an otherwise unknown Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha tradition named after the nine heavenly bodies (nava-graha). An unpublished s. 1984 śilālekha in the Śāsanadevī Mātāji Mandira in Sojitrā records Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnakīrti of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Navagrahagaccha, and according to Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 198), the Neminātha Mandira in Aṅkleśvara belonged to the Navagrahasaṅgha, presumably the same tradition. Joharāpurakara (1958: 11-2, 19-20) collected a substantial number of attestations of cooperation between various bhaṭṭāraka traditions. Occasionally we do get glimpses of strained relations between diﬀerent bhaṭṭāraka traditions or between diﬀerent lineages of a single tradition. In Sāgavāṛā we ﬁnd indications of competition or strife both between the Balātkāragaṇa and the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha (6.4.6.) and between the two Balātkāragaṇa Vāgaḍāśākhās (6.1.6.). Apart from possible tensions at the time of bifurcations and of maṇḍalācāryas claiming bhaṭṭāraka-hood, the Balātkāragaṇa lineages generally seem to have cooperated. Incumbents of diﬀerent seats occasionally performed pratiṣṭhās together,40 and new incumbents were sometimes consecrated by incumbents of other seats.41 Bhaṭṭāraka traditions were often closely connected to speciﬁc castes.42 The Balātkāragaṇa was supported by castes such as Khaṇḍelavāla (on which, see Kāsalīvāla 1989; Babb 2004: 145-51), Hūmaṛa (= Huṃbaḍa, Humaḍa, Dośī et. al. 2000), Paravāra (= Paurapāṭa, P. C. Śāstrī 1985a; 1992), and Laveñcu (= Laṃbakañcuka, J. Jaina 1951) castes, while Agravāla (= Agrotakānvaya, Babb 2004) and Narasiṅhapurā (Jaina & Jaina 1965) laity were associated to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha.43 According to some accounts, 25 out of 52 gotras (clans) in the Bagheravāla caste were related to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha, while the remaining 27 were connected to the Balātkāragaṇa (Joharāpurakara 1958: 284; 2001: 4; Ś. J. Jaina 2011: 99). Hūmaṛa caste laypeople at times also seem to have supported Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha bhaṭṭārakas (Ś. J. Jaina 2011: 99). Individual castes were often associated with speciﬁc, local bhaṭṭāraka lineages. The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and the Śākambharīśākhās were connected to the Khaṇḍelavāla caste, while the Vāgaḍāśākhās were supported by the Huṃaḍa and Pūrvī Golālāre castes. Laypeople are regularly found supporting renouncers of sister-lineages of the lineage to which their caste was most closely related. Khaṇḍelavāla patrons for example also sponsored manuscripts donated to or produced within the Cambalaśākhā, Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā, and Śākambharīśākhā, and Bagheravālas and Poravālas44 ̥ A particularly noteworthy example is a mahāpratiṣṭḥā-mahotsava (grand consecration ceremony) at Cāndakheḍī in 1689 CE for which the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti allegedly invited no fewer than ten other bhaṭṭārakas (Cort 2002: 54). 40 Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra was established on the Lāṭaśākhā Bāraḍolī-paṭṭa in s. 1721 by one Gacchapati Dharmabhūṣaṇa ‘from the south’, probably the bhaṭṭāraka of that name then on the Kārañjāśākhā seat (Śubhacandra-hamacī; Kāsalīvāla 1981: 81, 227-8). In s. 1770 in Āmera, Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti was consecrated on the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat by one Candrakīrti, most probably the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamerapaṭṭa bhaṭṭāraka of that name then ﬂourishing (Nyāyatīrtha 1985b: 34, 36). And in s. 1957 Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti of the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa performed the paṭṭābhiṣeka of the Kārañjāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (Detige 2015: 152-3). 41 42 See Joharāpurakara (1958: 12-3). Rarely, Agravāla laypeople are attested as supporting the Balātkāragaṇa (s. 1736 manuscript donated to Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā by Agravāla patrons, Kāsalīvāla 1950: 235, n. 42). 43 Most Poravāla or Prāgvāṭa caste Jains were Śvetāmbaras (John Cort, personal communication, 17th May 2024). 44 35 sponsored manuscripts for the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā (Detige 2018: 303). With the exception of the Bagheravālas, the main distinction therefore was between castes supporting the Balātkāragaṇa and others supporting the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha. The association between castes and speciﬁc bhaṭṭāraka traditions and lineages is also reﬂected in the recruitment of renouncers. The paṭṭāvalī information digested by Kāsalīvāla (1989: 146-61) for example records all of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and the Śākambharīśākhā incumbents as Khaṇḍelavālas. Given the close association between Digambara castes and ascetic lineages, an enhanced understanding of the distribution of bhaṭṭāraka lineages can contribute to our knowledge of the history of the Digambara lay communities. 2.2.2. 19th and 20th century CE continuation, and discontinuation 19th and even 20th century CE incumbents are now known to have ﬂourished in a number of Balātkāragaṇa and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha lineages which Joharāpurakara (1958) reconstructed only up to earlier centuries. (Fig. 2.2) In the previous section (2.2.1.), I already discussed a number of 19th and 20th century CE Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha successions and individual incumbents to be added to the overview developed in Bhaṭṭāraka Sampradāya. Later, especially 19th and even 20th century CE incumbents can also be added to several Balātkāragaṇa lineages. Vijayakīrti (paṭṭa s. 1802), the last incumbent of one of Joharāpurakara’s (1958: 123, 125) two Nāgauraśākhās (my Śākambharīśākhā Ajamerapaṭṭa), and actually the ﬁrst incumbent of this lineage to hold the bhaṭṭāraka rank, had ﬁve successors in Ajamera, up to Harṣakīrti (d. s. 1999), who ﬂourished up to the mid-20th century CE. (6.1.3.) Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, who was already on the other ‘Nāgauraśākhā’ seat (my Śākambharīśākhā Nāgaura-paṭṭa) in Nāgaura at the time of Joharāpurakara’s (1958: 123 n. 53, 125) writing, died in Haidarābāda in 1967 CE (s. 2024, Kāsalīvāla 1989: 161) as its last incumbent. (Fig. 2.2 R., 6.1.2.) Figure 2.2. Portraits of 19th and 20th century CE bhaṭṭārakas preserved in mandiras. From left to right: Bhāvasenācārya, aka Bhavanakīrti, Ajitanātha Mandira, Udayapura (unknown lineage, according to a caption on the painting main seat Sūrata, March 2013); the last Senagaṇa bhaṭṭāraka of Kārañjā Vīrasena (d. 1938 CE), Senagaṇa Mandira, Kārañjā (Maharashtra, January 2015); the penultimate Kārañjāśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnakīrti (d. s. 1953), Pārśvaprabhū Digambara Jaina Moṭhe Mandira, Nāgapura (Maharashtra, January 2015), 36 the last Śākambharīśākhā Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (s. 2024), Bīsapantha Baṛā Mandira, Nāgaura (February 2013). In the ‘Īḍaraśākhā’ (Joharāpurakara 1958: 153-8, my Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā), four later-day bhaṭṭārakas ̥ can be added, ﬂourishing up to the early 20th century CE. (5.1.6.) And six bhaṭṭārakas from the second half of the 18th to the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE can be added after the last ‘Bhānapuraśākhā’ (Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā) incumbent known to Joharāpurakara (1958: 166-8). (5.1.5.) In a footnote, Joharāpurakara (1958: 200, n. 90) noted three later-day successors reported to him of Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmacandra, the last incumbent of his main ‘Sūrataśākhā’ lineage (my Lāṭaṣākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa) for whom he had attestations from primary sources. Dated attestations now available for these place them in the second half of the 19th and ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE. (2.2.3.8.) Four 17th century CE Lāṭaśākhā Bāraḍolī-paṭṭa incumbents unknown to Joharāpurakara (1958) were documented through the work of K. C. Kāsalīvāla (1967a, 1981), and a pādukā from the early 19th century CE (s. 1862) in Sūrata commemorates yet a further bhaṭṭāraka of this lineage, now the last known (Kāpaḍiyā 1964: 196 lekha 19). (2.2.3.8.) Joharāpurakara’s (1958: 135, 136) last ‘Aṭeraśākhā’ (my Cambalaśākhā Gvāliyara-paṭṭa) incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Rājendrabhūṣaṇa (ref. from s. 1920) had one further bhaṭṭāraka rank successor who seems to have ﬂourished until the later 19th century CE. (2.2.3.10.) The Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Candrabhūṣaṇa already attested by Joharāpurakara (1958: 133, n. 56) died in 1974 CE as the last incumbent of this lineage, and as the last Balātkāragaṇa bhaṭṭāraka of Western India. (2.2.3.10.) In Maharashtra, a further Lātūraśākhā incumbent also seems to have postdated Joharāpurakara’s (1958) work.45 In his administrative report of 1875-6 CE, Bühler (1878: 28) reported information on Digambara ‘seats of learning’ (‘vidyāsthānas’) active at the time in Western and Central India, obtained from Digambara paṇḍitas in Jayapura and probably referring to bhaṭṭāraka seats of the Balātkāragaṇa tradition. Bühler (Ibid.) listed Jayapura, Dillī and Sonepat, Gvāliyara, Ajamera, Nāgaura (‘Nāgar’), Rāmapura-Bhānapura near Indaura, Kārañjā (‘Karangi’), and Sūrata. This list of ‘vidyāsthānas’ largely agrees with the Balātkāragaṇa lineages now conﬁrmed to have been continued up to the late 19th century CE and the locations of their seats at the time. (Comp. Chart 2.2) The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā was closely related to Jayapura, the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa was located in Ajamera and the Śākambharīśākhā Nāgaura-paṭṭa in Nāgaura, the Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa in Sūrata (Gujarat), and the Kārañjāśākhā in Kārañjā (Maharashtra). The reference to Gvāliyara (Madhya Pradesh) might relate either to the Cambalaśākhā Gvāliyara-paṭṭa, on which the last incumbent may still have been ﬂourishing at the time, being commemorated in s. 1939, or the Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa, which especially after the discontinuation of the Gvāliyara-paṭṭa no doubt also maintained a connection to Gvāliyara. (2.2.3.10.) None of the Mālavāśākhās are known to have continued beyond the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE, and the reference to Rāmapura-Bhānapura near Indaura (Madhya Pradesh) is unclear. The same is the case for the mention of a combined place of learning in Dillī and Sonepat (prob. Sonīpata, Haryana, 40 km north of Dillī). Bühler (Ibid.) is in fact not clear about which tradition the bhaṭṭāraka he met in Dillī belonged to. It could either have been a 45 Vidyādhara Joharāpurakara, personal communication, January 2015. 37 Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha (Nandītaṭagaccha) bhaṭṭāraka, or the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti (p. s. 1937) who was otherwise based in Mahāvīrajī and was no doubt also still active in Jayapura, and whose lineage also had historical connections to Dillī. The Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā and ̥ one of the Lātūraśākhās were also still continued in respectively Īḍara (Gujarat) and Lātūra (Maharashtra), but are not included in the information reported by Bühler. The decline of the bhaṭṭāraka traditions of northern India is sometimes presumed to have been directly prompted by the rise and development in the 17th and 18th century CE of the Digambara Terāpantha, a reform movement propagating changes in Digambara ritual and opposing the bhaṭṭārakas (Flügel 2006: 346). Yet the majority of Western and Central Indian bhaṭṭāraka lineages (including possibly all Balātkāragaṇa lineages) continued into the 19th century CE, and about half of the Balātkāragaṇa lineages even up to the 20th century CE. (Chart 2.2) The ultimate discontinuation of the bhaṭṭāraka traditions of Western and Central India ultimately thus did not solely depend on the success of the Terāpantha. Instead, reform movements sweeping through Bīsapanthī lay communities from the later 19th century CE onwards led to a preference for modern regimes of governance and administration which rendered the autocratic, courtly style of the bhaṭṭāraka polities outdated. (2.4.) Pre-existing Terāpanthī stances in the discourse of these modernising movements dovetailed with, and, through processes yet to be studied, were probably ampliﬁed by colonial perspectives on the muslim era as an era of decline and Orientalist tropes about the corruption of religious traditions at the hands of ritualistic priests (Detige 2020a: 204-10). New types of lay-funded educational institutions like the Jain Sanskrit College in Jayapura also came to replace the bhaṭṭāraka traditions as institutions of learning (Cort 2020: 226). Another factor in the dwindling support for the bhaṭṭārakas undoubtedly was the gradual reappearance of naked Digambara munis in the ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE, and their routinisation in the latter half of the century. This in turn might have been inspired by a 19th century CE development in the Śvetāmbara mūrtipūjaka traditions, where itinerant saṃvegī renouncers observing the full mendicant vows (mahāvrata) successfully came to replace yatis (also gorjī) and śrīpūjyas who observed only the lesser vows, were sedentary, and could hold possessions (Cort 1991: 657-61; Villalobos 2021a, 2021b, 2023). The members of the growing contemporary Digambara muni saṅghas came to take over many of the functions formerly held by bhaṭṭārakas, standing ﬁrmly at the centre of the Digambara devotion of asceticism as ideal and idealised renouncers, and operating as gurus, preachers, spokespersons, the sources of authority or inspiration in construction and publication projects, and, along with lay paṇḍitas, as ritual specialists. Increasingly large segments of the Bīsapanthī communities formerly associated to speciﬁc bhaṭṭāraka seats withdrew their support. Often no new successor was consecrated upon the demise of the incumbent bhaṭṭāraka, and sometimes seated bhaṭṭārakas were opposed46 or even deposed.47 The successions of seemingly celibate paṇḍitas who held seats in mandiras in See for example the 1941 CE pamphlet Bhaṭṭāraka Carcā in opposition of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti (Anon. 1941). 46 47 E.g., Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (III), the last Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā incumbent (5.1.6.). ̥ 38 Jayapura and probably elsewhere in Rajasthan from the 18th up to the 20th century CE were also discontinued, and the lower-ranking ascetic yatis which operated in some towns in Western and Central India in the late 18th to the mid- 20th century CE ultimately also disappeared. (2.3.7.) Legal trusts were formed to organise the management of mandiras and other aspects of community life formerly overseen by bhaṭṭārakas.48 2.2.3. Balātkāragaṇa lineages 2.2.3.1. Balātkāragaṇa epithets As mentioned, the Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa was the most widely distributed Digambara ascetic tradition in pre-20th century CE Western and Central India. No other Mūlasaṅgha traditions existed within the region, apart from the Mūlasaṅgha Senagaṇa, which is not known to have settled north of Maharashtra. Inscriptions, manuscript colophons, and other textual sources refer to the tradition in full as the Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa Sarasvatīgaccha Kundakundācāryāmnāya (alt. Kundakundācāryānvāya), sometimes interjecting the additional epithet Nandyamnāya. These various names are all appellations of a single tradition rather than successive subdivisions. The string of locatives used in countless primary sources (‘mūlasaṅghe balātkāragaṇe sarasvatīgacche kundakundācāryāmnāye’) should therefore not be understood as ‘in the Kundakundācāryāmnāya, [which is part of] the Sarasvatīgaccha, [part of] the Balātkāragaṇa, [in the] the Mūlasaṅgha’, as is sometimes done, but simply as ‘in the Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa [which is also called the] Sarasvatīgaccha [and the] Kundakundācāryāmnāya’.49 The epithet Nandyamnāya signiﬁes ‘the felicitous lineage’. The moniker ‘lineage’ (anvaya) or ‘tradition’ (āmnāya) ‘of Kundakunda’ refers to Ācārya Kundakunda, the alleged author of many Digambara philosophical texts from the ﬁrst millennium CE (Balcerowicz 2023). The appellation Sarasvatīgaccha50 (‘ascetic group of Sarasvatī’) appears from the 14th century CE onwards. It refers to an oft-cited narrative according to which the 14th century CE incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi in Giranāra (Gujarat) made a stone Sarasvatī mūrti speak to show his prowess in a debate with adversaries, sometimes cited to be Śvetāmbaras (Hoernle 1891: 342-3; Joharāpurakara 1958: 91, lekha 233; p. 44). The appellation Balātkāragaṇa is usually thought to refer to the ﬁerceness in debate (balātkāra, use of force) of the (earlier) members of this ascetic group (gaṇa). Joharāpurakara (1958: 44) notes attestations of alternative forms Baḷagāra, Baḷātkāra and Baḷatkāra, and deems the former to have been the original name. P. S. Jaini (2017: 29-30) proﬀered that the appellation refers to a caste name of bangle-makers. In contemporary Hindi, the primary meanings of the word balātkāra are violence, coercion, and especially rape. The name On the role of trusts, courts, and legislation on the formation of modern Jain identities, see Ku 2007, 2020; Sethi 2009, 2020. 48 The various terms for divisions and subdivisions of Jain ascetic lineages (gaccha, gaṇa, saṅgha, āmnāya, etc.) often overlap and their usage was not standardised, varying widely across era, region, and sectarian tradition. 49 Alternatively, Bhāratī-, Vāgeśvarī-, and Śāradāgaccha (Joharāpurakara 1958: 44). E.g., ‘śrī-bhāratīgaccha’ (Joharāpurakara 1958: 117, lekha 293),‘śrīmacchārada-gaccha’ (Joharāpurakara 1958: 64, lekha 137), and Śāradāgaccha. 50 39 Balātkāragaṇa therefore often causes discomfort and many laypeople prefer to refer to the tradition as the Mūlasaṅgha. Only in Kārañjā (Maharashtra) I noticed people still commonly naming it the Balātkāragaṇa, no doubt to distinguish it from the Mūlasaṅgha Senagaṇa which also had a presence in this town. 2.2.3.2. Balātkāragaṇa lineage appellations The Balātkāragaṇa tradition itself did not use further designations to distinguish between its various branches and lineages which spread out throughout Western and Central India. Inscriptions and colophons instead identify the speciﬁc lineage attested by naming a varying number of successive incumbents. At least a few, and not infrequently up to a dozen and more consecutive bhaṭṭārakas or maṇḍalācāryas are listed with the standardised phrasing ‘on the seat of’ (paṭṭe). It was such references in primary sources which in the ﬁrst place allowed us to reconstruct the lineages, and now help us identify which lineage we ﬁnd attested in new sources. In order to distinguish between the various Balātkāragaṇa lineages, Joharāpurakara (1958) devised names for thirteen branches (śākhā) which became naturalised in later scholarship, the Prācīnaśākhā, Dakṣiṇaśākhā, Kārañjāśākhā, Lātūraśākhā, Uttaraśākhā, Īḍaraśākhā, Bhānapuraśākhā, Sūrataśākhā, Jerahaṭaśākhā, Dilli-Jayapuraśākhā, Nāgauraśākhā, Aṭeraśākhā, and Sonāgiriśākhā. Further bifurcations of the Nāgauraśākhā, Sūrataśākhā, Jerahaṭaśākhā, and Lātūraśākhā did not receive separate appellations. The Īḍaraśākhā, Sūrataśākhā, and DilliJayapuraśākhā arose in the late 14th - early 15th century CE from a trifurcation of the Uttaraśākhā. The Bhānapuraśākhā and the Jerahaṭaśākhā are late 15th century CE oﬀshoots of respectively the Īḍaraśākhā and the Sūrataśākhā. The Aṭeraśākhā and the Nāgauraśākhā are two oﬀshoots from the Dilli-Jayapuraśākhā from the later 15th and early 16th century CE. The Sonāgiriśākhā is an 18th century CE oﬀshoot from the Aṭeraśākhā, and the Lātūraśākhā a 17th century CE oﬀshoot from the Kārañjāśākhā. Although Joharāpurakara (1958) did not explicate this much, most of the designations he introduced for the Balātkāragaṇa lineages refer to the towns where the last incumbents known to him were seated. This is the case for the Kārañjā-, Lātūra-, Īḍara-, Sūrata-, Dilli-Jayapura[Jayapura], Nāgaura-, and Sonāgiriśākhās, probably the Aṭeraśākhā, and possibly the Bhānapuraśākhā. Based on a cursory reading of Bhaṭṭāraka Saṃpradāya, later scholars sometimes unwarrantedly took Joharāpurakara’s denominations to mean that the seats of these lineages were located in these towns throughout their often centuries long existence. In reality, many seats were established in the towns after which they were named by Joharāpurakara only under the last or last few incumbents. These lineages may have had long-standing connections to these towns, and in some cases already had their seat there for some time in prior centuries too. Yet other towns in sometimes entirely diﬀerent regions had often played more important roles in their history. Among the Balātkāragaṇa lineages which feature most centrally in this dissertation, the Īḍaraśākhā had been centred among others in Sāgavāṛā, Udayapura, and Sūrata, before settling in Īḍara, and the whole history of the Bhānapuraśākhā as we can reconstruct it now played out in Naugāmā and Sāgavāṛā. (5.1.) Prior to the foundation of Jayapura in the ﬁrst half of the 18th 40 century CE, the so-called Dilli-Jayapuraśākhā was active in Cittauḍagaṛha and various towns in the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region (both north and south Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa), and only had a shorter stint in Dillī. And the Nāgauraśākhās moved between a number of towns in the Śākambharī region before its two seats settled in Nāgaura and Ajamera. Because Joharāpurakara’s appellations for the Balātkāragaṇa lineages often do not accurately represent their earlier distribution and have led to misunderstandings in later scholarship,51 I propose alternative names which refer instead to the broader regions where they ﬂourished, often moving between various towns. (Table 2.1, Chart 2.1) Apart from being more representative of the long-term geographical distribution of the lineages individually, my appellations also show how the various Balātkāragaṇa lineages came to cover complementary parts of Western and Central India. My names for the lineages arising from later bifurcations do again refer to towns, because their seats remained settled in these cities for a substantial part of their existence or in the absence of suﬃcient information on their whereabouts (Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa and Nāgaurapaṭṭa, Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa and Bāraḍolī-paṭṭa, Mālavāśākhā Canderī-paṭṭa and Siroñja-paṭṭa, Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa and Gvāliyara-paṭṭa). I refer to Joharāpurakara’s Dillī-Jayapuraśākhā as the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, which admittedly excludes a shorter but apparently also successful period of activity in Mevāṛa in the 16th century CE, but captures its longer presence in a number of towns in the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region. (2.2.3.5.) Although they also saw expansions into Mevāṛa and coastal Gujarat, I refer to Joharāpurakara’s Īḍaraśākhā and Bhānapuraśākhā as the Vāgaḍāśākhās, after the Vāgaḍā region of south Rajasthan and north-east Gujarat where they developed and mostly ﬂourished. I distinguish between both lineages as respectively the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā (or in short, Brhatśākhā) and the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ ̥ (Laghuśākhā). These appellations indicate the original subordination of the latter lineage to the former, as ﬁrst an ācārya and later a maṇḍalācārya lineage. (2.2.3.6.) I refer to what Joharāpurakara in the singular named the Nāgauraśākhā as the Śākambharīśākhās, after the Śākambharī region where both the undivided lineage and the two longer-lasting lineages arising from a trifurcation in the early 18th century CE were active. I term the two separate lineages the (Śākambharīśākhā) Ajamera-paṭṭa (Ajamera seat) and the Nāgaura-paṭṭa (Nāgaura seat), after the cities Ajamera and Nāgaura where both lineages came to settle. (2.2.3.7.) These three Balātkāragaṇa branches, the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, Vāgaḍāśākhā, and Śākambharīśākhā, are the focus of this study and are discussed in more detail in the chapters of Part II. Further below in the present section, I also summarise what is known about the other Balātkāragaṇa lineages of Western and Central India. Hence, I also devise and use new names for these branches, the Lāṭaśākhā (2.2.3.8.), Mālavāśākhā (2.2.3.9.), and Cambalaśākhā (2.2.3.10.).52 In renaming Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 184) and Nigam (2010: 1179), for example, both thought that Jñānakīrti, the ﬁrst incumbent of what I call the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā (the Bhānapuraśākhā) in the second half of the 15th century CE and actually an ācārya (2.2.4.5.), established a bhaṭṭāraka seat in Bhānapura, where the lineage is only attested in the ﬁrst half of the 18th century CE (5.5.3.). 51 I use the singular forms Vāgaḍāśākhā, Śākambharīśākhā, Lāṭaśākhā, Mālavāśākhā, and Cambalaśākhā (branch) to refer to the complex of these originally undivided lineages and the two or more diﬀerent lineages arising from bifurcations within them. Thus, the term Vāgaḍāśākhā (or Vāgaḍāśākhā branch) for example refers to the sum of the undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā, the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā, and the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā. ̥ 52 41 Joharāpurakara’s (1958: 169-201) Sūrataśākhā as the Lāṭaśākhā, I refer to the broader Lāṭa region of southern or coastal Gujarat, where much of its activities took place. One Lāṭaśākhā lineage may have stayed on in Sūrata throughout its existence, and I therefore refer to it as the (Lāṭaśākhā) Sūrata-paṭṭa. For want of further information, I refer to an oﬀshoot which remained unnamed by Joharāpurakara as the (Lāṭaśākhā) Bāraḍolī-paṭṭa, after a town with which it seems to have become associated for at least part of its existence. (2.2.3.8.) Joharāpurakara (1958) Mine Section Uttaraśākhā Uttaraśākhā 2.2.3.4. Dilli-Jayapuraśākhā Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā 2.2.3.5., 2.2.4.8., 4.1. Īḍaraśākhā Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ Bhānapuraśākhā Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā 2.2.3.6., 2.2.4.5., 5.1. Nāgauraśākhā Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa Śākambharīśākhā Nāgaura-paṭṭa Sūrataśākhā Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa 2.2.3.7., 2.2.4.6., 6.1. 2.2.3.8., 2.2.4.4. Lāṭaśākhā Bāraḍolī-paṭṭa Jerahaṭaśākhā Mālavāśākhā Canderī-paṭṭa 2.2.3.9., 2.2.4.4. Mālavāśākhā Siroñja-paṭṭa Aṭeraśākhā Cambalaśākhā Gvāliyara-paṭṭa Sonāgiriśākhā Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa Prācīnaśākhā id. Dakṣiṇaśākhā / Kārañjāśākhā id. Lātūraśākhā id. 2.2.3.10., 2.2.4.7. 2.2.3.11. Table 2.1. Scholarly appellations for the Balātkāragaṇa lineages. Joharāpurakara (Ibid.: 202-9) devised the denomination Jerahaṭaśākhā for another, earlier oﬀshoot arising from his Sūrataśākhā in the middle or second half of the 15th century CE, which he knew to have bifurcated again in the late 16th century CE. A third lineage originating around the same time is now also known. I refer to this set of lineages as the Mālavāśākhās, after the region of Mālavā in Central India where they ﬂourished. I follow earlier scholarship in referring to two of the Mālavāśākhās as the Canderī-paṭṭa and Siroñja-paṭṭa, referring to the towns of Canderī and Siroñja (both Madhya Pradesh) where they were probably based. (2.2.3.9.) I relabel Joharāpurakara’s (Ibid.: 42 126-35) Aṭeraśākhā as the Cambalaśākhā, referring to the Central Indian region of Cambala where it ﬂourished, renaming the late 18th century CE sub-lineage which Joharāpurakara (Ibid.: 133 n. 56) named the Sonāgiriśākhā instead the (Cambalaśākhā) Sonāgiri-paṭṭa, and his main lineage the (Cambalaśākhā) Gvāliyara-paṭṭa. (2.2.3.10.) Joharāpurakara’s (Ibid.: 89-95) appellation Uttaraśākhā (Northern branch) refers to the single Balātkāragaṇa succession ﬂourishing in late medieval Northern India, prior to its multiple, consecutive bifurcations in the early modern period. (2.2.3.4.) I maintain this term, as it serves well to indicate the northern spread of this lineage, setting it apart from the South Indian Balātkāragaṇa lineages (Flügel 2006: 346). Joharāpurakara (1958: 39-47) used the label Prācīnaśākhā for a discontinuous series of successions from the late medieval period (early 11th to late 14th century CE). I do not deal with the earlier of these successions in this dissertation, but a section from the ﬁrst half of the 13th century CE seems to overlap with a succession in Joharāpurakara’s Uttaraśākhā. (2.2.3.11.) Joharāpurakara’s (Ibid.: 48-78) Kārañjāśākhā may represent a continuation of the latter section of his Prācīnaśākhā. The Lātūraśākhā (Ibid.: 79-88) was an oﬀshoot of the Kārañjāśākhā which again bifurcated in the second half of the 17th century CE. I do not substantially deal with these lineages in this dissertation, and maintain Joharāpurakara’s names whenever I do refer to them. (2.2.3.11.) 2.2.3.3. Classical and medieval periods Early modern paṭṭāvalīs or lineage lists of the Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa are commonly retrieved in manuscript collections (e.g., Hoernle 1891, 1892). In their earlier sections, paṭṭāvalīs largely imaginatively trace the tradition back to the ﬁrst century BCE Bhadrabāhu53 through a single lineage of classical and medieval period ācāryas, incorporating illustrious Digambara authors like Kundakunda (p. s. 49) and Umāsvatī (p. s. 101) whom recent scholarship places centuries later (Balcerowicz 2023). Paṭṭāvalīs typically include the location of the seat of each incumbent (though see 2.4.) and the date of their consecration to the seat. Detailed paṭṭāvalīs also record his caste and the time he had spent as a householder, as a lower-ranking renouncer prior his ascension to the seat (2.3.4.), and as a lineage incumbent, these three periods summed up into the total length of his life. Sometimes stock phrases lauding the skills and virtues of earlier incumbents are inserted, and more speciﬁc historical information about incumbents closer to the time of composition of the paṭṭāvalīs is supplied (e.g., 2.3.3., 5.6.2.). Starting from Bhadrabāhu (p. s. 4), 26 Balātkāragaṇa incumbents are chronicled as having had their seat in ‘Bhaddalpur’, ‘Bhādalpur’ or ‘Bhaddalpurī’ (= Vidiśā, Madhya Pradesh, P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 90). According to one version (Hoernle 1892: 61), the next incumbent Mahākīrti (p. s. 686) was consecrated in ‘Bhaddalpur’, but shifted his seat to Ujjaina (Madhya Pradesh), where it purportedly remained for another 24 incumbents. Māghacandra (p. s. 1140) then shifted the seat to Vārā (= Vaḍodarā, Baroda, Gujarat), where it remained up to his eleventh successor in line Gaṅgakīrti (p. s. 1199), who, oddly, ﬂourished no more than half a century later. According to two alternative This diﬀers from Śvetāmbara paṭṭāvalīs, which trace their tradition further back, to Sudharma, one of the successor-disciples (gaṇadhara) of the jina Mahāvīra (Dundas 2007: 2). 53 43 accounts (Hoernle 1892: 61), the latter 37 incumbents from Mahākīrti to Gaṅgakīrti were either all seated in Vārā, or the seat moved consecutively from Ujjaina (Madhya Pradesh, 18 incumbents) to Canderī (Madhya Pradesh, 4), ‘Bhel’ (?, 3), Kuṇḍalapura (Madhya Pradesh, 1), and only then Vārā (12). According to one account (Hoernle 1891: 353-4), another very quick succession of fourteen incumbents was then seated in Gvāliyara (Madhya Pradesh), from Gaṅgakīrti’s successor Siṅhakīrti (p. s. 1206) to Abhayakīrti (p. s. 1264). In an alternative account (K. C. Jain 1963: 73; Hoernle 1892: 61), the ﬁrst ten incumbents after Gaṅgākīrti were seated in Cittauḍagaṛha (Chittorgarh; Siṅhākīrti, p. s. 1206; Hemakīrti, p. s. 1209; Sundarakīrti, p. s. 1216; Nemicandra, p. s. 1223; Nābhikīrti, p. s. 1230; Narendrakīrti, p. s. 1232; Śrīcandra, p. s. 1241; Padmakīrti, p. s. 1248; Varaddhacandra/Varddhamāna, p. s. 1253; Akalaṅkacandra, p. s. 1256) and four more in Bagherā (Lalitakīrti, p. s. 1257; Keśavacandra, p. s. 1261; Cārukīrti, p. s. 1262; Abhayakīrti, p. s. 1264). While these accounts thus posit a northern Indian spread of the Balātkāragaṇa from before and throughout the medieval period, the oldest historical references to the Balātkāragaṇa predominantly stem from Karnataka (Joharāpurakara 1958: 44). 2.2.3.4. Uttaraśākhā and Balātkāragaṇa bifurcations Joharāpurakara (1958: 89-95) described the ﬁnal phase of the undivided Balātkāragaṇa starting from Abhayakīrti’s successor Vasantakīrti (p. s. 1264) as the Uttaraśākhā (Northern branch). Some paṭṭāvalīs locate Vasantakīrti in Gvāliyara (Hoernle 1892: 83), others in Ajamera (Hoernle 1891: 354; Joharāpurakara 1958: 89 lekha 223). The Uttaraśākhā seat is said to have remained in Ajamera under Vasantakīrti’s successors Viśālakīrti (p. s. 1266; alt. Prakṣātakīrti, Hoernle 1891: 354), Śubhakīrti (p. s. 1268; alt. Śāntikīrti, Ibid.), Dharmacandra (p. s. 1271), Ratnakīrti (p. s. 1296), and Prabhācandra (p. s. 1310) (Hoernle 1891: 354; 1892: 83). The seat then moved to Dillī under Prabhācandra’s successor Padmanandi (alt. Padmanandin, Padmananda, p. s. 1385, Ibid.). After Padmanandi, in the late 14th and early 15th century CE, the ﬁrst split of the hitherto single, Northern Indian Balātkāragaṇa lineage occurred. Three successors to Padmanandi came to stand at the start of separate lineages, active in geographically dispersed locations. In Dillī, Padmanandi was succeeded by Śubhacandra (p. s. 1450-1507, Joharāpurakara 1958: 108), while Sakalakīrti of the Vāgaḍāśākhā (b. s. 1443, d. s. 1499, 5.1.1.) is mostly attested in south Rajasthan and north Gujarat, and Devendrakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1473-93, 2.2.3.8.) who stood at the origins of the Lāṭaśākhā and the Mālavāśākhā was ﬁrst active in south Gujarat (Lāṭa) and then in Mālavā. (Chart 2.1) Two mūrtilekhas from s. 1490 and s. 1492 record Sakalakīrti as Śubhacandra’s brother (bhrātā, Joharāpurakara 1958: 136, lekha 331-2), but this should perhaps be read as recording their relation as guru brothers (guru-bhrātr)̥ only, pupils of the same teacher (Padmanandi). According to Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 130), who cite a paṭṭāvalī from Jayapura, not just three but four pupils of Padmanandi came to occupy various seats, a fourth, unnamed successor sent to the south. Despite the sack of Dillī by Timur in 1398 CE, which occurred early during the incumbency of Śubhacandra (p. s. 1450), both Śubhacandra and his successors Jinacandra (p. s. 1507) and 44 Prabhācandra (p. s. 1571)54 are reported to have been based in Dillī (Joharāpurakara 1958: 98, lekhas 246, 248). Chart 2.1. Balātkāragaṇa bifurcations (my appellations). Colours indicate whether the lineages originated under incumbents with the rank of bhaṭṭāraka (orange), maṇḍalācārya (maroon), or ācārya (red). Joharāpurakara (1958: 112) listed the Balātkāragaṇa succession from Śubhacandra onwards as the Dillī-Jayapuraśākhā. For analytical ease, I extend the Uttaraśākhā to include Śubhacandra and Jinacandra, and with that up to another trifurcation. Among three successors to Jinacandra, Prabhācandra was the ﬁrst incumbent of what I term the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā (2.2.3.5.), while Ratnakīrti (I) (p. s. 1572?, see 6.1.1., Joharāpurakara 1958: 121) and Siṅhakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1520-1531, Joharāpurakara 1958: 132) stood at the origins of what became respectively the Śākambharīśākhā (2.2.3.7) and the Cambalaśākhā (2.2.3.10). (Chart 2.2) According to the transmitted records of the Vāgaḍāśākhā (but see 5.1.1.), its founder Sakalakīrti was succeeded by Bhuvanakīrti, after whom the Vāgaḍāśākhā bifurcated. The Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā was originally a subordinate ācārya and later maṇḍalācārya lineage which originated under Ācārya Jñānakīrti (s. 1534) and later obtained independence from the main lineage, the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā. (2.2.3.6.) The mid-15th century CE Devendrakīrti stood at the origins of both the ̥ Lāṭaśākhā and the Mālavāśākhā, although no sources contemporary to him are known attesting him with any rank higher than muni (2.2.4.4.). In Gujarat, Devendrakīrti was succeeded by consecutively Maṇdalācārya Vidyānandi (ﬂ. s. 1499-1537, 2.2.3.8.), Bhaṭṭāraka Mallibhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1544, Joharāpurakara 1958: 201), and Bhaṭṭāraka Lakṣmīcandra (ﬂ. s. 1556-82, Ibid.). After Lakṣmīcandra, the Lāṭaśākhā bifurcated into what I call the Sūrata-paṭṭa, under Vīracandra, and the Bāraḍolī-paṭṭa, under Abhayacandra (ref. from s. 1548). (2.2.3.8.) In Central India, another Hoernle’s (1891: 355) Manuscript A gives the reverse succession Prabhācandra > Jinacandra. This is clearly an error of this manuscript or this manuscript tradition, as an overwhelming majority of sources record the succession as Jinacandra > Prabhācandra (e.g., Joharāpurakara 1958: 104-5, lekhas 265-8). A paṭṭāvalī also narrates how the young Prabhācandra became a pupil of Jinacandra (Kāsalīvāla 1981: 183-4). 54 45 successor to Devendrakīrti, Tribhuvanakīrti, stood at the origins of the Mālavāśākhā, which proceeded to trifurcate in the late 16th century CE. (2.2.3.9.) As we saw, a ﬁrst trifurcation in the Uttaraśākhā after Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi around the turn of the 15th century CE led to the origins of the Vāgaḍāśākhā on the one hand, and the Lāṭaśākhā and the Mālavāśākhā on the other. And a second trifurcation under the later Uttaraśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra in the second half of the 15th and the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE led to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, the Śākambharīśākhā, and the Cambalaśākhā. The Vāgaḍāśākhā saw a gradual bifurcation beginning in the later 15th century CE. The Lāṭaśākhā bifurcated around the turn of the 16th century CE. The Mālavāśākhā trifurcated around the early 17th century CE. A bifurcation in the Śākambharīśākhā occurred in the early 18th century CE. And the Cambalaśākhā bifurcated in the second half of the 18th century CE. In this manner, the single, late medieval and Ajamera and Dillī based Uttaraśākhā stood at the origin of a complex of Balātkāragaṇa lineages developing throughout the early modern period through consecutive, repeated bi- and trifurcations. These lineages branched out throughout Western India and the north of Central India, covering regions with Digambara communities in the territory of the contemporary states of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh. 46 Chart 2.2. Western and Central Indian Balātkāragaṇa lineages (excl. Maharashtra). Direct successions are indicated with solid arrows, abridged successions with dash dot arrows. Colours indicate the highest attested rank of each individual, bhaṭṭāraka (orange), maṇḍalācārya (maroon), ācārya (red), muni (yellow), or unconﬁrmed (grey). Dates represent start of incumbency (paṭṭa), unless when noted diﬀerently. The ﬁrst incumbent of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā Ratnakīrti (I) (p. s. 1572?) is attested as a bhaṭṭāraka, but his successor Bhuvanakīrti (p. s. 1586) and the latter’s successors were maṇḍalācāryas. (6.1.1.) Similarly, the successors of the ﬁrst Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra (p. s. 1571), Dharmacandra (p. s. 1581) and Lalitakīrti (p. s. 1603), were also maṇḍalācāryas. (4.1.1.) The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā was a maṇḍalācārya lineage from the second quarter of the 16th century CE until the late 16th century CE, when Candrakīrti obtained the bhaṭṭāraka rank. (2.2.4.8., 4.1.2.) The Śākambharīśākhās probably even remained maṇḍalācārya lineages up to the mid-18th century (6.1.2., 6.1.3., 6.1.4.). It is not clear to which bhaṭṭāraka lineage the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and the Śākambharīśākhā maṇḍalācārya lineages would have deferred. The most likely option is the Central Indian Cambalaśākhā, whose founder Bhaṭṭāraka Siṅhakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1520-1531) is recorded as a successor to the Uttaraśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra (2.2.3.10, 2.2.4.7.), just like the Śākambharīśākhā Ratnakīrti (I) and the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra. The undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā and its continuation in the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā also formed a continuous bhaṭṭāraka ̥ lineage throughout the 15th and the 16th century CE. And the undivided Lāṭaśākhā had promoted to a bhaṭṭāraka lineage by the late 15th century CE. The undivided Mālavāśākhā started under a maṇḍalācārya, Tribhuvanakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1525-52), and the ﬁrst incumbents attested as bhaṭṭārakas are Lalitakīrti and his successor Dharmakīrti (ﬂ s. 1645-83), the rank of the intermediate incumbents Sahasrakīrti, Padmanandi, and Yaśaḥkīrti thus far unconﬁrmed. (2.2.3.9) The Vāgaḍāśākhā, Lāṭaśākhā, and Mālavāśākhā had however split of from the Uttaraśākhā earlier, in the early 15th century CE, and therefore may have stood at a further remove from the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and the Śākambharīśākhā maṇḍalācāryas. In the 16th century CE, the Śākambharīśākhā and the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā were each other’s peers as maṇḍalācārya lineages. Throughout the 17th and into the 18th century CE however, the Śākambharīśākhā maṇḍalācāryas would have been of lower standing and technically subordinate to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, which by then had become a bhaṭṭāraka lineage. In the following subsections, I introduce each of the Western and Central Indian Balātkāragaṇa lineages one by one. I ﬁrst oﬀer short summaries of the history of the three lineages which form the focus of this study, and which are introduced more fully in the subsequent chapters, the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā (2.2.3.5.), Vāgaḍāśākhās (2.2.3.6.), and Śākambharīśākhās (2.2.3.7.). After these, I present the available information on the Lāṭaśākhās of Gujarat (2.2.3.8.), the Mālavāśākhās (2.2.3.9.) and Cambalaśākhās (2.2.3.10.) of Madhya Pradesh, and the Kārañjāśākhā and Lātūraśākhās of Maharashtra and the so-called Prācīnaśākhā they seem to have sprung from (2.2.3.11.). 2.2.3.5. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā 47 Joharāpurakara’s (1958: 97-113) appellation Dilli-Jayapuraśākhā in the ﬁrst place referred to Dillī because of the presence of this lineage there in the late 14th to early 16th century CE under Śubhacandra and Jinacandra, whom I include in the Uttaraśākhā (2.2.3.4.). Their successor Prabhācandra was consecrated in Dillī in s. 1571 but later moved his seat to Cittauḍagaṛha (Kāsalīvāla 1967a: 183-4). He probably left Dillī during the disintegration of the Sultanate under the late Lodi dynasty. (4.1.1.) The lineage had only a very short, further stint in Dillī the ﬁrst half of the 18th century CE. (4.1.3.) As the Sultanate and Mughal capital, the city on the other hand attracted the seats of several bhaṭṭāraka lineages throughout the centuries. (1.1.3., 2.4.) My alternative appellation Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā instead captures this lineage’s long-lasting connection to the broader Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region in eastern Rajasthan. Admittedly, this designation glosses over an apparently also very proliﬁc period at Cittauḍagaṛha in the Mevāṛa region in the mid-16th century CE, under the maṇḍalācāryas Dharmacandra (p. s. 1581) and Lalitakīrti (p. s. 1603). (4.1.1.) Their successor Candrakīrti (p. s. 1622), who was promoted from maṇḍalācārya to bhaṭṭāraka in the late 16th century CE, turned from Mevāṛa to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region. This shift was no doubt related to Akbar’s sack of Cittauḍagaṛha in 1567-8 CE. (4.1.2.) The lineage had already been active in a number of towns in south Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa in the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE, Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha (4.3.4.), Āvāṃ (4.3.2.), and probably Ṭoṅka (4.3.19.). From the 17th century CE onwards, it came to centre its activities further to the north, probably attracted there because of the Kachavāhā rulers’ good relations with the Mughals and their rising importance through this. (4.1.2.) The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat was consecutively established at Cākasū, Sāṅgānera, Āmera, and Jayapura. The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti, whose predecessors were based in Āmera, was consecrated in Dillī in 1735 CE (s. 1792) and probably started his incumbency there. Yet in 1739 CE the Persian ruler Nader Shah (r. 1736-47) invaded the Mughal Empire, and shortly occupied and looted Dillī. Mahendrakīrti left the city and after some travels seems to have settled in Jayapura, the newly founded Kachavāhā capital. (4.1.3.) His successors remained in Jayapura almost until the discontinuation of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā in the mid-20th century CE. 2.2.3.6. Vāgaḍāśākhās The pair of lineages which I term the Vāgaḍāśākhā branch originated from Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti, who ﬂourished in the late 14th and ﬁrst half of the 15th century CE as a pupil of the Uttaraśākhā Padmanandi. In a coeval biographical composition, Sakalakīrti is recorded as a naked muni before his subsequent higher promotions, up to the bhaṭṭāraka rank. (5.1.1.) Some records are found of Sakalakīrti’s consecutive successors Dharmakīrti and Vimalendrakīrti in the ﬁrst half of the 15th century CE, but later accounts of the lineage uniformly record Bhuvanakīrti as the direct successor to Sakalakīrti. (5.1.1.) The Vāgaḍāśākhā bifurcated after Bhuvanakīrti in the second half of the 15th century CE. (5.1.2.) The Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā (in short, Brhatśākhā, Joharāpurakara’s Īḍaraśākhā) ̥ ̥ sprang from Bhuvanakīrti’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Jñānabhūṣaṇa, the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā (Laghuśākhā, Joharāpurakara’s Bhānapuraśākhā) from Ācārya Jñānakīrti (att. s. 1534). My appellations ﬁrstly refer to the Vāgaḍā region in south Rajasthan where both lineages ﬂourished, and secondly also express the ﬁnding that the ‘minor’ (laghu) lineage originally consisted of a succession of ācāryas and maṇḍalācāryas who were subordinate to the bhaṭṭārakas of the ‘brhad’ ̥ 48 or major Vāgaḍāśākhā. (2.2.4.5.) There is a scholarly precedent for these appellations, with Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 162) already speaking of the ‘brhad śākhā’ and the ‘laghu śākhā’. ̥ Technically, the Laghuśākhā ācāryas and maṇḍalācāryas could be considered to belong to the undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā. Yet, while sources coeval to the Laghuśākhā ācāryas only record their pupillary relation to the Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭārakas and among themselves, by the time of the ̥ Laghuśākhā maṇḍalācāryas these were also recorded as successors to each other (‘paṭṭe’), indicating a developed sense of lineage. (5.1.3.) The Laghuśākhā is now known to have ﬂourished up to the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE (5.1.5.), and the Brhatśākhā up to the early 20th century CE ̥ (5.1.6.). 2.2.3.7. Śākambharīśākhās I refer to the set of two related lineages which Joharāpurakara (1958: 114-25) termed the Nāgauraśākhā (in the singular) as the Śākambharīśākhā branch. The Śākambharī region in Central Rajasthan was home to both the undivided Śākambharīśākhā and to its two long continued lineages, up to their demise in the 20th century CE. These lineages also operated in towns close to Āmera and Jayapura, such as Jobanera and Kālāḍerā, and were even active in consecrating icons in mandiras in Jayapura, home of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. In Jayapura, they were probably serving communities of laypeople who had migrated to the new Kachavāhā capital from nearby towns which fell within the Śākambharīśākhā sphere of inﬂuence. Although its incumbents came to be referred to as bhaṭṭārakas in later sources, the undivided Śākambharīśākhā seems to have been a maṇḍalācārya lineage from its origins in the early 16th century CE up to its trifurcation in the early 18th century CE. (6.1.1.) After this, two Śākambharīśākhā lineages grew into bhaṭṭāraka traditions. I refer to these as the Ajamera-paṭṭa (6.1.3.) and the Nāgaura-paṭṭa (6.1.2.), after the respective towns where they ultimately settled. Here, I follow K. C. Jain (1963: 85-8), who already spoke of the ‘Nagaur Patta’ and the ‘Ajmer Patta’, and Kāsalīvāla (1989: 157-162), who similarly referred to the ‘Nāgaura paṭṭa’ and the ‘Ajamera paṭṭa’. A chronological congruency can be observed between the recorded dates of the death of the last undivided Śākambharīśākhā incumbent Ratnakīrti (II) in s. 1766, and the consecration two weeks later of Vidyānandi, the ﬁrst Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent. The Nāgaura-paṭṭa on the other hand possibly only started two decades after the death of Ratnakīrti (II). The Ajamera-paṭṭa therefore seems to have been the continuation of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā. (6.1.3.) Memorials at the Ānteḍa Nasiyāṃ in Ajamera, the largest pre-20th century CE Digambara necropolis retrieved in Western India (6.2.), indicate that the Ajamera-paṭṭa remained ﬁrmly established in Ajamera from the mid-18th century CE to its demise in the ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE. The whereabouts of the early Nāgaura-paṭṭa are still less well-known, but its last incumbent in the second half of the 20th century CE and at least a few of his predecessors were seated in Nāgaura. A third Śākambharīśākhā lineage not yet described by Joharāpurakara (1958), consisting of at least four successive (tatpaṭṭe) ācāryas, originated simultaneously to the Ajamera-paṭṭa and the Nāgaura-paṭṭa, and was similarly active in the Śākambharī region. (6.1.4.) 49 2.2.3.8. Lāṭaśākhās Joharāpurakara (1958: 169-201) used the singular term Sūrataśākhā to refer to a Balātkāragaṇa lineage originating in the 14th century CE and bifurcating in the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE. Further ﬁlling out the patchwork of Balātkāragaṇa lineages coming to cover and map out Western and Central India amongst themselves, these lineages were active in the Lāṭa region of south Gujarat. I therefore propose to dub them the Lāṭaśākhās. The Uttaraśākhā already seems to have been active in Gujarat in the early 14th, or possibly even second half of the 13th century CE. The Uttaraśākhā incumbent Prabhācandra (p. s. 1310-85), recorded in paṭṭāvalīs to have been based in Ajamera, is also reported to have travelled up to Khambhāt in coastal Gujarat as part of apparently very substantial travels through Western and Central India (Ibid.: 91, lekha 236; 94; see 2.4.). And a narrative preserved in paṭṭāvalīs situates the consecration of his successor Padmanandi in Gujarat.55 Accordingly, a layman (mahājana) in Gujarat invited the Uttaraśākhā incumbent Prabhācandra to perform an icon consecration in s. 1375 (1318-9 CE). Prabhācandra, however, could not attend, and the donor therefore gave the sūri-mantra to Padmanandi, an ācārya of Prabhācandra who was in Gujarat at the time, making him a bhaṭṭāraka so he could perform the pratiṣṭhā.56 The sūri-mantra is a secreted spell required to perform icon inscriptions, and its possession was the monopoly and the deﬁning characteristic of the bhaṭṭārakas (Gough 2017). Next to the direct transmission of the sūri-mantra from a bhaṭṭāraka guru to the initiand, Balātkāragaṇa consecration manuals indeed also allow for its transmission via an enveloped manuscript passed on to the initiand through devotees (Detige 2019b: 15-6). Like the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and the Vāgaḍāśākhā, the Lāṭaśākhā is recorded to have originated with Devendrakīrti, a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi who is known to have ﬂourished from at least s. 1473 (P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 84) to s. 1493 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 169, lekha 425). According to P. C. Śāstrī (1992: 84, 90-91 [referring to Kāpaḍiyā 1964: 35]), Devendrakīrti ﬁrst settled at Gāndhāra (Gandhāra, Gandhar), formerly an important port town on the Gulf of Khambat less than a hundred km north of Sūrata,57 in the early 15th century CE moved 120 km further south to Rāndera (Gujarat), and ﬁnally travelled on to Canderī (Madhya Pradesh), having placed Vidyānandi (ﬂ. s. 1499-1537) on the seat in Rāndera. In the Mālavā region, the Mālavāśākhās also sprang from Devendrakīrti. (2.2.3.9.) Meanwhile, Vidyānandi resettled to Sūrata, just across the Taptī river from Rāndera. In later sources Devendrakīrti and Vidyānandi came to be referred to as bhaṭṭārakas. Sources coeval to them however indicate that the highest rank Devendrakīrti and Vidyānandi reached was that of respectively muni and maṇḍalācārya. (2.2.4.4.) Vidyānandi’s late 15th century CE successor Mallibhūṣaṇa (ﬂ s. 1544) was probably the ﬁrst Lāṭaśākhā incumbent to obtain or claim the bhaṭṭāraka rank. (2.2.4.4.) See especially two diﬀerent vernacular accounts in Hoernle 1892: 78. See also Hoernle 1891: 354; Joharāpurakara 1958: 91, lekha 233; Kāsalīvāla 1997: 453; Gough 2017: 297. 55 Joharāpurakara (1958: 95) has an alternative reading of the account, as recording that it was the layman who could not attend the pratiṣṭhā which he had organised, and Prabhācandra therefore using the event instead to consecrate Padmanandi as his successor. 56 57 See B. Jaina (1978: 200-1) on the Amījhara Pārśvanātha mandira of Gandhāra, 50 The Lāṭaśākhā bifurcated during the time of Mallibhūṣaṇa or his successor Bhaṭṭāraka Lakṣmīcandra. We don’t have many dated attestations of Vīracandra and Abhayacandra, the ﬁrst incumbents of the two Lāṭaśākhā lineages, respectively the Sūrata-paṭṭa and the Bāraḍolī-paṭṭa. Yet, what little information is available indicates that Abhayacandra was already active during the incumbency of Lakṣmīcandra. Lakṣmīcandra ﬂourished in s. 1556 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 179-80, lekha 468), but Abhayacandra is already attested as a bhaṭṭāraka through the activity of a pupil in s. 1548 (Ibid.: 192, lekha 514). The Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa may have had a continuous, stable presence in Sūrata. My appellation for the Bāraḍolī-paṭṭa is based on its recorded connection to the nearby town of Bāraḍolī, 30 km east of Sūrata, but we also have attestations of it from Maharashtra and Saurashtra (see below). I have not visited Bāraḍolī or Saurashtra, nor found references to this lineage at other sites, and further information is lacking for the time being. The last Sūrata-paṭṭa incumbent for which Joharāpurakara (Ibid.: 191, lekha 512) had an attestation from a primary source was Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmacandra (att. s. 1899). Referring to Śītalaprasāda (1919: 38), Joharāpurakara (1958: 200, n. 90) footnoted three latter-day successors, Candrakīrti > Guṇacandra > Surendrakīrti. Pādukās of all three have now been found at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra necropolis in Sūrata, dated s. 1921 (Candrakīrti58), s. 1977 (Guṇacandra, according to the inscription died s. 1974), and s. 1987 (Surendrakīrti). (3.4.3.) Identical framed portrait photos of Surendrakīrti were still found on display at the Cintāmaṇi Pārśvanātha Mandira in the Gopīpura neighbourhood of Sūrata, where his seat was established (Fig. 2.3), and at the Neminātha Mandira in Sojitrā (Gujarat, Fig. 2.7), the latter a mandira which also had a connection to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha. According to captions to the portraits, Surendrakīrti was born in s. 1935 and consecrated to the seat in s. 1970 (1913-4 CE). Surendrakīrti was thus consecrated a few years prior to the reported death of Guṇacandra in s. 1974 (1918 CE). Given that his predecessor Candrakīrti’s memorial is dated to more than half a century earlier (s. 1921), it is possible that Guṇacandra abdicated from the seat due to old age. Śītalaprasāda (1919: 38) also reported both Guṇacandra and Surendrakīrti to be ﬂourishing at the time of his writing, possibly with some delay in the publication of his work. Figure 2.3. Cintāmaṇi Pārśvanātha Mandira, Gopīpura, Sūrata (Gujarat) (top), with seat (gaddī, bottom left) with framed portrait of the last Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa incumbent (bottom right), Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti (b. s. 1935, p. s. 1970). (January 2014) A second pādukā of this Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmakīrti is probably also found preserved in a mandira in Mahuvā (Gujarat), some 40 km inland from Sūrata (3.3.1. n. 204). 58 51 Joharāpurakara (1958: 201) had attestations of only two consecutive successors to the Bāraḍolīpaṭṭa Abhayacandra, Abhayanandi and Ratnakīrti.59 Information about four further, 17th century CE incumbents of this lineage, Kumudacandra > Abhayacandra > Śubhacandra > Ratnacandra, is available through the work of K. C. Kāsalīvāla (1967a, 1981). Kāpaḍiyā (1964: 196 lekha 19) has an inscription of a s. 1862 pādukā from the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata commemorating a further Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra as a successor to Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra. Kāsalīvāla (1981) reports particularly large numbers of praise compositions on the Bāraḍolī-paṭṭa bhaṭṭārakas composed by their brahmacārī and paṇḍita pupils, and edits seven of them (see Detige 2019a). Many of these compositions are examples of what I have dubbed paṭṭa-sthāpanā-gītas (see above, 2.1.3.). From these we learn that the anointment (paṭṭābhiṣeka) of Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnakīrti took place in Jālaṇapura “in the southern country” (probably Jālanā, Maharashtra) in s. 1630 (Kāsalīvāla 1981: 104), that of his successor Bhaṭṭāraka Kumudacandra in Bāraḍolī in s. 1656 (Ibid.: 101-2; 204-5; 233-4), of Bhaṭṭāraka Abhayacandra in s. 1685, again in Bāraḍolī (Ibid.: 105-6; 116-7), and of Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra in Poravandara (Porabandara, Porbandar, Gujarat) on the west coast of in Saurashtra in s. 1721 (Ibid.: 80; 226-8?). I have not visited any sites in Saurashtra, and the Digambara presence there is still in need of study. 2.2.3.9. Mālavāśākhās As discussed in the previous section, the activities of Padmanandi’s pupil Devendrakīrti in coastal Gujarat led to the origins of the Lāṭaṣākhā. Yet, leaving Vidyānandi in charge there, Devendrakīrti himself went on to Mālavā. We ﬁnd references to Devendrakīrti as the maṇḍalācārya of Canderī (‘canderī maṇḍalācārya’, source from s. 1532, P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 127), and in s. 1493 Devendrakīrti also consecrated a mūrti in Devagaṛha (Madhya Pradesh), some 30 km south of Canderī (Joharāpurakara 1958: 169, lekha 525). In Mālavā, in or around the late 15th century CE, yet another Balātkāragaṇa lineage arose from a further claimed successor of Devendrakīrti, Tribhuvanakīrti. Ibid.: 202, lekha 523) had a reference to Tribhuvanakīrti (‘tihuvaṇakitti’, no rank) in a source from s. 1552, a Hari-vaṃśa-purāṇa by his pupil Śrutakīrti (‘sudakitti’, no rank). P. C. Śāstrī (1992) has earlier attestations of Tribhuvanakīrti as a maṇḍalācārya from s. 1525 (Ibid.: 86), s. 1532 (twice, Ibid.: 127), and s. 1541 (twice, Ibid.: 128). I dub the lineage which started from Tribhuvanakīrti the (undivided) Mālavāśākhā. Most attestations of Tribhuvanakīrti relate him back to Devendrakīrti, a posteriori ascribing the rank of maṇḍalācārya (s. 1532, P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 127) or bhaṭṭāraka (s. 1532, Ibid.: 127; twice s. 1541, Ibid.: 128) to the latter. In practice, as a maṇḍalācārya, Tribhuvanakīrti would have been subordinate to the Uttaraśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra or the Cambalaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Siṅhakīrti (2.2.3.10.) who were ﬂourishing at the time. The inscription of a s. 1525 icon from Lalitapura (Uttara Pradesh) indeed seems to relate Maṇḍalācārya Tribhuvanakīrti to Bhaṭṭāraka Siṅhakīrti, recording the latter as a successor to Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra (Ibid.: 86). The edition of the inscription lists Bhaṭṭāraka The inscription of a s. 1662 Mahāvīra mūrti records the probable patron Bāī Vīramatī as a pupil of Ācārya Ratnakīrti, and the latter in turn as a pupil of the Lāṭaśākhā Bāraḍolī-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Abhayanand[i] (Joharāpurakara 1958: 193, lekha 522). Ācārya Ratnakīrti is probably the latter’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnakīrti, recorded here with the ācārya rank prior to this ascension to the bhaṭṭāraka seat. 59 52 Siṅhakīrti and Tribhuvanakīrti consecutively, but without an explicit indication of their relation. A s. 1532 mūrtilekha from Vidiśa (Madhya Pradesh) lists ﬁrst (the Cambalaśākhā) Bhaṭṭāraka Siṅhakīrti, then ‘the Canderī maṇḍalācārya’ Devendrakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1473-93), otherwise known to have ﬂourished earlier than Siṅhakīrti, and ﬁnally (the Mālavāśākhā) Tribhuvanakīrti (no rank). In P. C. Śāstrī’s (Ibid.: 85) edition, Siṅhakīrti and Devendrakīrti are again recorded without an indication of their connection, while the abbreviation ‘ta.’ between the latter two probably served to record Tribhuvanakīrti as either a pupil (tat-śiṣya) or a successor (tat-paṭṭe) of Devendrakīrti. Joharāpurakara (1958: 202-9) referred to the Mālavāśākhā as the Jerahaṭaśākhā. This name was based on a reference to the unknown town Jerahaṭa or Jerahada in the two earliest attestations of the lineage known to him, in compositions from s. 1552 (1495 CE) and s. 1553 (1497 CE) (Ibid.: 202, lekha 523, 524). Both praśastis also refer to Mandu (Maṇḍapagaṛha), the capital of the Malwa Sultanate. (2.4.2.) Tribhuvanakīrti was succeeded by Sahasrakīrti > Padmanandi > Yaśaḥkīrti > Lalitakīrti > Dharmakīrti (Ibid.: 207). Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmakīrti was active in literary composition and in performing pratiṣṭhās from s. 1645 to s. 1683 (Ibid.: 203-4, lekhas 525-532), recording his predecessors Yaśaḥkīrti and Lalitakīrti as bhaṭṭārakas. Lalitakīrti is also attested as a bhaṭṭāraka in independent inscriptions (see below). Joharāpurakara (1958: 206) referred to all incumbents of the undivided Mālavāśākhā bhaṭṭārakas. However, in the lack of attestations of Sahasrakīrti, Padmanandi, and Yaśaḥkīrti contemporary to them, and given Tribhuvanakīrti’s conﬁrmed maṇḍalācārya-hood, I refrain from conclusions about their actual rank. At some point in this succession, one of these incumbents of the undivided Mālavāśākhā claimed or obtained bhaṭṭāraka rank, but we do not know whether this happened already prior to Lalitakīrti. Repurposed chatrīs which presumably commemorated some of these Mālavāśākhā incumbents were found in a mandira in Canderī and on a site outside of this town. (3.3.3., Figs. 3.32, 3.35) While referring to it in the singular, Joharāpurakara (1958: 208) knew the Mālavāśākhā (Jerahaṭaśākhā) to have bifurcated after Lalitakīrti in the late 16th century CE. A third Mālavāśākhā lineage is now known to have originated shortly after. Two of these Mālavāśākhās persisted for some time as bhaṭṭāraka lineages, connected to and probably based in respectively Canderī (Madhya Pradesh) and Siroñja (Madhya Pradesh), the latter town less than a 150 km south-east of Canderī. On the basis of these locations, P. C. Śāstrī (1992: 90, et passim) referred to these lineages as respectively the Canderī-paṭṭa and the Siroñja-paṭṭa, and I adopt his terminology. A continuous record of the Mālavāśākhās disappears by the end of the 17th century CE, but there are stray attestations of three later, late 18th and early 19th century CE bhaṭṭārakas who may also have belonged to the Mālavāśākhās, two of them referred to in the primary sources as related to the Siroñja-paṭṭa (see below). Among the two separate Mālavāśākhā successions known to Joharāpurakara (1958) is one in which Lalitakīrti and Dharmakīrti of the undivided Mālavāśākhā are succeeded by three further bhaṭṭārakas, Padmakīrti > Sakalakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1711-20) > Surendrakīrti (ref. s. 1756) (Ibid.: 207-8). Surendrakīrti is also attested in a s. 1757 inscription from Kuṇḍalapura (Madhya Pradesh), which records the succession Yaśakīrti > Lalitakīrti > Dharmakīrti > Padmakīrti > Surendrakīrti (omitting Sakalakīrti). Formerly present in the main temple of this site, the śilālekha relates of Surendrakīrti visiting Kuṇḍalapura and inspiring the restoration of abandoned mūrtis, including the famous Baṛe 53 Bābā. Accordingly, Surendrakīrti’s pupil Brahmacārī (Śu?)ci oversaw a temple building project until his sudden death, after which the temple was completed by another brahmacārī, Nemisāgara. The inscription also records the patronage to this temple by the Bundelā ruler Chatrasāla.60 Surendrakīrti was the last incumbent of this lineage known to Joharāpurakara (1958: 208), and P. C. Śāstrī (1992: 87) also took it Surendrakīrti was the last incumbent of the Canderī-paṭṭa. However, a Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti who consecrated a mandira at the Sonāgiri hill (Madhya Pradesh) in s. 1890 is recorded in an inscription as belonging to the Canderī-paṭṭa (N. K. Jaina 2013: 37, 191). Perhaps this is the same Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti who is attested several decades earlier, in s. 1835, and reportedly was active in many pratiṣṭhās at Paṭeriyā, Binā, Barahā, Paṭanāgañja, and Kuṇḍalapura (all Madhya Pradesh).61 Joharāpurakara (1958: 206, lekhas 539-40) also had yantra inscriptions from s. 1675 and s. 1681 attesting a second lineage following Lalitakīrti. The yantras were consecrated by one Ācārya Candrakīrti, who is recorded as the successor (tatpaṭṭe) to a Maṇḍalācārya Ratnakīrti, in turn recorded as the successor (tatpaṭṭe) to Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti. Joharāpurakara did not edit these inscriptions in full, and we do not learn where the yantras were consecrated, only that the latter was patronised by laypeople from the Golāpūrva caste (‘golāpūrvānvaye’, Ibid.: 206, lekha 540). Maṇḍalācārya Ratnakīrti is also attested as successor to Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti in a mūrtilekha from s. 1672 which seems to stem from Siroñja (P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 87), and no doubt the same Ratnakīrti is also attested in an unspeciﬁed relation to Lalitakīrti in a mūrtilekha from s. 1688 from Siroñja (Ibid.). No further attestations are found of this second, seemingly short-lived Mālavāśākhā lineage. Given the descending rank of the successive incumbents of the recorded succession, from a bhaṭṭāraka (Lalitakīrti) to a maṇḍalācārya (Ratnakīrti) and ﬁnally an ācārya (Candrakīrti), it can be related to the process of gradual lineage formation under subordinate maṇḍalācāryas and ācāryas attested elsewhere, in this case not developing into a full-ﬂedged bhaṭṭāraka lineage. P. C. Śāstrī (1992: 88) documented a third Mālavāśākhā lineage unknown to Joharāpurakara (1958), starting after Lalitakīrti’s successor Dharmakīrti, running [Dharmakīrti >] Jagatkīrti (alt. name Yaśakīrti) > Tribhuvanakīrti > Narendrakīrti. A song composition by Brahma Gulālā eulogises the paṭṭābhiṣeka of Narendrakīrti in Siroñja in s. 1740 (P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 88-9). P. C. Śāstrī (Ibid.: 88) proﬀered that the seat at Siroñja may have begun with Jagatkīrti, and therefore referred to the lineage as the Siroñja-paṭṭa. Two early 19th century CE bhaṭṭārakas are recorded in primary sources as having belonged to the Siroñja-paṭṭa. Presumably taking this information from the inscription of its now lost pādukā, Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 34) reported a chatrī from the pilgrimage place Cāndakheḍī built by Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanendrakīrti of the Siroñja-paṭṭa in s. 1860.62 And the inscription of a s. 1871 yantra found in Guṇa (Madhya Pradesh) records an otherwise similarly At the time of my visit to Kuṇḍalapura (March 2016), the late 16th century CE main mandira of the hillside pilgrimage complex had largely been razed in preparation of a new, large temple. The plaque with the śilālekha was said to be preserved, but was locked away. Malaiyā (2001: 27-33) gives an edition, translation, and photos of the inscription. Malaiyā (Ibid.: 35) also reports a s. 1890 composition by a later Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti of unknown aﬃliation, relating of his pilgrimage to Jaina Badrī (Mūḍubidire), Sonāgiri, Paporā, Droṇagiri, Siddhagiri, and Kuṇḍalapura, building 40 temples in the latter place. 60 61 Personal communication, Yashwant Malaiya, 25th December 2013. Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 34) reported a second chatrī at the site as built in s. 1883 by Bhaṭṭāraka Rājendrakīrti of unconﬁrmed aﬃliation (possibly Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha, see 3.3.3.). 62 54 unknown Bhaṭṭāraka Rājakīrti ‘on the seat of Siroñja’.63 The inscription does not indicate Rājakīrti’s pedigree, nor his relation to one Ācārya Devendrakīrti who probably consecrated the yantra, presumably as a pupil or successor of Rājakīrti. (2.2.4.2.) If Bhuvanendrakīrti (ﬂ. 1860) and Rājakīrti (att. s. 1871) indeed belonged to the lineage which I call the Mālavāśākhā Siroñja-paṭṭa, this Balātkāragaṇa seat may have remained continuously occupied since Narendrakīrti (p. s. 1740). More research needs to be done in Mālavā.64 2.2.3.10. Cambalaśākhās The connection of Joharāpurakara’s (1958: 126-35) ‘Aṭeraśākhā’ to the town of Aṭera, some 30 km north-west of Bhiṇḍa (Madhya Pradesh), is unclear, and the town was certainly not singularly important.65 I instead refer to this Balātkāragaṇa branch as the Cambalaśākhā, as it is mostly attested from towns in the Central Indian region of Cambala. The lineage originated from Bhaṭṭāraka Siṅhakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1520-1531), one of the successors to the Uttaraśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra (2.2.3.4.). The Cambalaśākhā from its origins onwards continuously was a bhaṭṭāraka lineage, contrary to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and the Śākambharīśākhā which also arose from Jinacandra but reverted to being maṇḍalācārya lineages for a while after in each case a single bhaṭṭāraka rank incumbent (2.2.3.4.). In the second half of the 18th century CE, after Lakṣmībhūṣaṇa, the Cambalaśākhā bifurcated. I term the continuation of the main lineage the (Cambalaśākhā) Gvāliyara-paṭṭa, and refer to the oﬀshoot which Joharāpurakara (1958: 133, n. 56) termed the Sonāgiriśākhā as the Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa. Joharāpurakara (1958) had limited sources available to reconstruct these lineages, but meanwhile much work on them has been done by Navanīta Kumāra Jaina (especially N. K. Jaina 2013, see also Siṅha & Jaina 2012). The Cambalaśākhās were also active in Bateśvara (Śaurīpura-Baṭeśvara, Uttar Pradesh, some 70 km south-east of Āgarā), a pilgrimage site on the banks of the Yamuna river. A s. 1734 pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Viśvabhūṣaṇa of the undivided Cambalaśākhā is preserved in the Ajitanātha Mandira (App. III.1), and there is much evidence of the activity of the Gvāliyara-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Jinendrabhūṣaṇa in Bateśvara. A colophon from s. 1845 records Jinendrabhūṣaṇa as dwelling in Bateśvara (N. K. Jaina 2013: 192), he consecrated a s. 1849 pādukā of Ācārya Guṇakīrti preserved in the Ajitanātha Mandira (App. III.1), and a s. 1838 śilālekha here records him as building a (this?) mandira. Two consecutive, lower-ranking yatis seem to have been related to the Gvāliyara seat, one of them reportedly also coming to be consecrated as a 63 ‘[...] siroṃjapaṭṭe bhaṭṭārakaśrī rājakīrti ācārya devendrakīrti upadeśāt [...]’ (P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 90). B. Jaina (1976: 109) gives incomplete and undated information of succession records relating to all three Mālavāśākhā lineages from the temple complex in Papaurā (Madhya Pradesh): Dharmakīrti > Padmakīrti > Surendrakīrti; Narendrakīrti ‘on the Candrapurī paṭṭa’; Lalitakīrti > Ratnakīrti. 64 I could not ﬁnd any direct proof of the former presence of a bhaṭṭāraka seat during a short visit to Aṭera (March 2016). At the Digambara Mandira, I found a ca. 19th century CE pādukā without inscription. The feet on the thin yellowish sandstone slab were carved up to the ankles, a design not encountered elsewhere. A sign was placed next to the pādukā with a few verses on the intended object of veneration, ‘Ācārya Siṅgakīrti’. No contemporary Ācārya Siṅhakīrti is known, and this seems to be a reference to the 15th century CE Aṭeraṣākhā/ Cambalaśākhā founder Bhaṭṭāraka Siṅhakīrti. Probably the pādukā came to be used as such under the inﬂuence of the scholarly identiﬁcation of Aṭera as the hometown of the Cambalaśākhā. 65 55 bhaṭṭāraka in Bateśvara. (2.3.7.) The Sonāgiri-paṭṭa at some point came to be based in the nearby pilgrimage site Sonāgiri, 70 km south of Gvāliyara, 15 km north-west of Datiyā. (Fig. 2.4) Figure 2.4. Palanquin (bottom right) preserved at the Bhaṭṭāraka Koṭhī (bottom left) and chatrīs in the courtyard of the Ādinātha Jinālaya (top), with (from left to right) pādukās of the Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa bhaṭṭārakas Surendrabhūṣaṇa, Candrabhūṣaṇa (II), Harendrabhūṣaṇa, and Jinendrabhūṣaṇa, Sonāgiri (Madhya Pradesh). (December 2013) Joharāpurakara (1958: 134-5) already reconstructed the undivided Cambalaśākhā as Siṅhakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1520-31) > Dharmakīrti > Śīlabhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1621) > Jñānabhūṣaṇa > Jagadbhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1686-95) > Viśvabhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1722-4) > Devendrabhūṣaṇa > Surendrabhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1757-91) > Lakṣmībhūṣaṇa, and the successions of the Gvāliyara-paṭṭa as (Lakṣmībhūṣaṇa >) Jinendrabhūṣaṇa > Mahendrabhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1852-76) > Rājendrabhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1920). Joharāpurakara (1971: 115) later had attestations of a further incumbent Śīlendrabhūṣaṇa from 1873 and 1878 CE, and his pādukā is found in Gvāliyara, dated to s. 1939. (6.4.2., Fig. 6.22 R.) Joharāpurakara (1958: 133, n. 56) listed the incumbents of the Sonāgiri-paṭṭa with a dated attestation for only the ﬁrst incumbent: (Lakṣmībhūṣaṇa >) Munīndrabhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1842, Ibid.: 130, 56 lekha 323) > Jinendrabhūṣaṇa > Devendrabhūṣaṇa > Narendrabhūṣaṇa > Surendrabhūṣaṇa > Candrabhūṣaṇa (I) > Cārucandrabhūṣaṇa > Harendrabhūṣaṇa > Jinendrabhūṣaṇa > Candrabhūṣaṇa (II). N. K. Jaina (2013: 189-93) established improved dates for many incumbents of the Cambalaśākhās, in the undivided Cambalaśākhā for Jagadbhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1686-96) and his successor Viśvabhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1722-47), in the Gvāliyara-paṭṭa for Jinendrabhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1819-45) > Mahendrabhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1851-76) > Rājendrabhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1888-192566), and in the Sonāgiri-paṭṭa for Devendrabhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1830-62) > Narendrabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1862-3) > Surendrabhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1863-84) >> Cārucandrabhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1921-3) > Harendrabhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1946-73) > Jinendrabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1988) > Candrabhūṣaṇa (II) (p. s. 2001). Joharāpurakara (1971: 115, n. 304) mentions evidence of a controversy in the ﬁrst quarter of the 19th century CE (s. 1873 and s. 1878) concerning the authority to construct mandiras on the Sonāgiri hill between the Gvāliyara-paṭṭa Śaīlendrabhūṣaṇa (Śīlendrabhūṣaṇa) and the Sonāgiri-paṭṭa Cārucandrabhūṣaṇa, which was settled by Rājā Bhavānasiṅha. Bhaṭṭāraka Candrabhūṣaṇa (II) died in 1974 CE as the last Balātkāragaṇa bhaṭṭāraka of Western and Central India. An anthropomorphic image of Candrabhūṣaṇa (II) is installed at the Bhaṭṭāraka Koṭhī (Mandira n. 8-9) in Sonāgiri. (Fig. 3.12. L.) This large building functioned as the seat of this lineage, and according to N. K. Jaina (2013: 171) was built in 1762 CE. In the courtyard of the Ādinātha Jinālaya (Mandira n. 11-12), immediately facing the Bhaṭṭāraka Koṭhī, a s. 2031 pādukā of Candrabhūṣaṇa (II) is found in probably an earlier, repurposed chatrī, along with the caraṇa-chatrīs of three earlier Sonāgiri-paṭṭa incumbents, Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrabhūṣaṇa (date?), Bhaṭṭāraka Harendrabhūṣaṇa (s. 1991), Bhaṭṭāraka Jinendrabhūṣaṇa (v.n.s. 24[??]).67 (Fig. 2.4) Upon the demise of Candrabhūṣaṇa (II), a lay trust was formed. A yati seems to have operated in relation to this Cambalaśākhā seat too. (2.3.7.) 2.2.3.11. Prācīnaśākhā, Kārañjāśākhā, Lātūraśākhās The consecutive incumbents Vanavāsi Vasantakīrti, Devendra-Viśālakīrti, and Śubhakīrti included in the discontinuous lineage labelled the Prācīnaśākhā by Joharāpurakara (1958: 45, 47) seem to match the early Uttaraśākhā succession Vasantakīrti (p. s. 1264), Viśālakīrti (p. s. 1268), and Śubhakīrti (p. s. 1268). (2.2.3.4.) ‘Vanavāsi’ or ‘forest-dwelling’ seems to be a moniker appended to the name of Vasantakīrti,68 and Devendra (Devendrakīrti) could have been recorded in the source as an alternative name for Viśālakīrti or represent an editorial mistake. If this identiﬁcation of both successions is correct, the Uttaraśākhā and the latter part of Joharāpurakara’s Prācīnaśākhā have a common origin in the early 13th century CE under two successors of Śubhakīrti, respectively Dharmacandra (p. s. 1271-96, Hoernle 1891: 354; 1892: 83) and Dharmabhūṣana (no dated With among others an attestation from Sāgavāṛā from s. 1934, Bhaṭṭāraka Rājendrabhūṣaṇa seems to have become active in the Vāgaḍā region later, probably ﬁlling a void after the discontinuation of the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā, but also related to the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā. (5.1.5.) ̥ 66 I found a triple pādukā stored in a room in this mandira where the Sonāgiri-paṭṭa manuscript collection was kept. The inscription was damaged but mentioned one Paṇḍita Gopāladāsa. A further reading could still be attempted. 67 The name Vasantakīrti is reconstructed from an incomplete or unclear source by Joharāpurakara (1958: 45; comp. Ibid.: 42 lekha 95). 68 57 attestations). The parallelism of their names could be seen as a conﬁrmation that both were pupils of the same guru. Such a pattern is found elsewhere too, as with the Vāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti’s pupils (and ultimately successors) Jñānabhūṣaṇa and Jñānakīrti (2.2.3.6.). The Kārañjāśākhā (Joharāpurakara 1958: 48-78, Fig. 2.2 second from right) and its oﬀspring the Lātūraśākhā (Ibid.: 79-88, actually a set of two lineages) of Maharashtra fall outside the main geographic focus of this dissertation.69 According to Joharāpurakara (1958: 6), they were branches of the Balātkāragaṇa seat of Malakheḍa (= Mānyakheḍa, Malkhed, Karnataka, see also Detige 2015: 149, P. S. Jaini 2017). The Kārañjāśākhā might be a continuation of Joharāpurakara’s Prācīnaśākhā (Detige 2015: 150, n. 35). Joharāpurakara (1958) did not describe the Uttaraśākhā-Prācīnaśākhā and Prācīnaśākhā-Kārañjāśākhā links in his text, but in his schematic representation of all Balātkāragaṇa lineages the ﬁrst bifurcation is that between on the one hand the Uttaraśākhā and its bifurcations, and on the other hand the Kārañjāśākhā and the Lātūraśākhās, taking the latter together under the moniker ‘dakṣiṇa’ (Ibid.: 209). It thus seems possible to reconstruct all Balātkāragaṇa lineages of Western and Central India as deriving from a single lineage, the Uttaraśākhā. (Charts 2.1, 2.2) 2.2.4. Maṇḍalācāryas 2.2.4.1. Maṇḍalācāryas and the dynamics of lineage formation Cort (1991: 661) identiﬁed four principles behind the formation of subdivisions (samudāya) within the Śvetāmbara Tapāgaccha, including demographic and geographic factors, the charisma of mendicant leaders, and splits. New Tapāgaccha samudāyas arising because of disagreements are attested extremely rarely. Instead, as ascetic saṅghas grew too large, smaller groups of renouncers could be placed under the supervision of senior renouncers who gradually became the sole source of authority of these groups. Yet, as Cort (Ibid.) continues, the latter rarely declared their groups to be new samudāyas themselves. Instead, it was the descendants of inﬂuential ācāryas around whom much devotional and other activity developed who came to consider themselves as constituting a new, separate entity. Geographic separation or a close identiﬁcation with a speciﬁc geographic region ﬁnally also led to the arising of new Tapāgaccha samudāyas (Ibid.). As Cort also suggests,70 another possible factor leading to the creation of new lineages was the role of important laymen pushing their preferred monks to promotion to a prestigious ascetic rank. Earlier scholarship sometimes routinely and without evidence presented the bifurcations of the early modern Digambara ascetic lineages as splits following disagreements between multiple I have studied the Kārañjāśākhā, the Senagaṇa seat of Kārañjā, and the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha presence in town elsewhere (Detige 2015). I have not visited Lātūra (Maharashtra). 69 Personal communication, 17th May 2024, referring to the 17th century CE example of the wealthy layman Śāntidāsa Jhaverī in Ahamadābāda who wished to promote his favourite monk (Satyavijayagaṇi) to the rank of ācārya/sūri and thereby helped create a new śākhā of the Śvetāmbara Tapāgaccha (see Dundas 2007: 26). 70 58 successor-candidates.71 Yet we ﬁnd little explicit evidence of this, other than indications of tensions surrounding the maturing of the Balātkāragaṇa Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā into an independent bhaṭṭāraka lineage (5.1.4.). The 14th century CE Uttaraśākhā Padmanandi, under whom the Balātkāragaṇa polity came to cover much of the expanded territory of the Tughluq dynasty's Delhi Sultanate, must have commanded networks with much ﬁnancial and other resources (2.4.2.), and the new Balātkāragaṇa lineages which subsequently developed from this activity came to identify themselves with speciﬁc regions (2.2.4.3.). Yet these and later, early modern bifurcations of Digambara ascetic lineages rarely seem to have been clear-cut, singular events. At least in the Balātkāragaṇa, there were but few instances where a bhaṭṭāraka was directly succeeded by two (or more) bhaṭṭārakas. Two later-day narratives relate the origin of new lineages to the need for an additional bhaṭṭāraka to perform a planned image consecration (pratiṣṭḥā). These narratives however contradict information from other sources, and are clearly post facto rationalisations or legitimisations for the arising of the new lineages. (2.2.3.8., 2.2.4.5.) The multiplication of Balātkāragaṇa lineages instead often was the outcome of a gradual process of lineage formation under successive, subordinate ācāryas and maṇḍalācāryas which later claimed the bhaṭṭāraka rank. Successions of ācāryas and maṇḍalācāryas which did not later make it into full-ﬂedged bhaṭṭāraka lineages are also attested. As we saw, Cort (1991: 661) indicated that Śvetāmbara Tapāgaccha ācāryas rarely presented themselves as the heads of the new samudāyas which were later called after them. It was similarly only the later Balātkāragaṇa tradition which came to record the ﬁrst incumbents of the various lineages as such. The Uttaraśākhā Devendrakīrti, presented as the founder of the Lāṭaśākhā and the Mālavāśākhā, seems to have been a low-ranking muni, and Ācārya Jñānakīrti, later recorded as the ﬁrst incumbent of the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā, was actually an ācārya subordinated to the Brhatśākhā. ̥ The bifurcations of the late medieval and early modern Digambara ascetic lineages also seem to have gone hand in hand with the close identiﬁcation between speciﬁc bhaṭṭāraka lineages and the various Digambara castes of Western and Central India. The 13th to mid-15th century CE incumbents of the single Balātkāragaṇa Uttaraśākhā lineage are recorded as having belonged to various castes, including Bagheravāla, Huṃaḍa, Padmāvatī Poravāla, Agravāla, and Nāgadrahā (Joharāpurakara 1958: 89-98 lekhas 223, 230, 232; Kāsalīvāla 1989: 146). Some paṭṭāvalīs record the consecutive Uttaraśākhā Prabhācandra, Padmanandi, and Śubhacandra as Brahmaṇas (Joharāpurakara 1958: 912, lekhas 233, 237, 246). Elsewhere they are noted as respectively Padmāvatī Poravāla, unrecorded, and Agravāla (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 146). Later, the incumbents of speciﬁc Balātkāragaṇa lineages are often recorded to have all come from the caste to which the lineage was connected. (2.2.1.) And the bifurcations of ascetic lineages and the creation of new seats are sometimes explicitly recorded, or at least post facto explained, as having occurred under the inﬂuence of caste or subcaste group dynamics. The Brhatśākhā and Laghuśākhā of the ̥ Balātkāragaṇa Vāgaḍāśākhā were connected to respectively the Baḍa Sājana and the Lohaḍa Sājana groups of the Hūmaṛa caste (in some sources called the Hūmaṛa caste Brhatand ̥ K. C. Jain (1963: 85) ascribes both the origin of the Śākambharīśākhā in the early 16th century CE and its split around the early 18th century CE to disagreements, without indicating his sources for this. Nigam (2010: 1178) also ascribes the latter bifurcation to the emergence of ‘diﬀerences’ (of opinion) within the undivided Śākambharīśākhā, but similarly does not adduce evidence. 71 59 Laghuśākhās). (5.1.2.) Similarly, after a bifurcation of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha in the 16th century CE, one lineage was connected to the Laghuśākhā (minor branch) and the other to the Brhatśākhā (major branch) of the of the Narasiṅhapurā caste (Ś. J. Jaina 2011: 98).72 A manuscript ̥ source records that it was a disagreement between laypeople which led to the establishment of the Balātkāragaṇa Lātūraśākhā maṇḍalācārya seat in the mid-17th century CE (s. 1715) to serve the Saitavāla caste (Detige 2015: 151). According to Cavare (2010: 19), the Lātūraśākhā was established as an oﬀshoot of the Kārañjāśākhā in s. 1719 to cater to the Saitavālas because of their custom of widow-remarriage speciﬁcally. Maṇḍalācāryas are now known to have ﬂourished in the Balātkāragaṇa lineages throughout the early modern period and across Western and Central India, and are also attested from the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha. Yet little was known thus far about this now lapsed Digambara ascetic rank or title. Joharāpurakara (1958) did not explicitly discuss speciﬁc maṇḍalācāryas nor this rank, although attestations of maṇḍalācāryas are found in the materials he edited. Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 117) later held that 16th century CE bhaṭṭārakas seated in Dillī appointed maṇḍalācāryas to conduct consecrations (pratiṣṭhā), rituals (pūjā), and festivals (samāroha) on their behalf. In the Balātkāragaṇa, this would refer to the early Śākambharīśākhā (Nāgauraśākhā) and Cambalaśākhā (Aṭeraśākhā) maṇḍalācāryas. By the late 16th century CE the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā was also led by maṇḍalācāryas, who were subordinate to the bhaṭṭārakas of the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā. (2.2.4.5.) ̥ Maṇḍalācāryas are already found in the 15th century CE in the Uttaraśākhā,73 the Lāṭaśākhā and Mālavāśākhā (2.2.4.4.), and the Cambalaśākhā (2.2.4.7.). With reference to the Cambalaśākhās, N. K. Jaina (2013: 188-9) argued that maṇḍalācāryas administered a part of the sphere of inﬂuence of the bhaṭṭārakas, to whom they were subordinated and by whom they were appointed as authorised representatives. Yet the bhaṭṭārakas' appointment of maṇḍalācāryas seems to have been fairly limited, since we have only very few attestations of multiple maṇḍalācāryas operating simultaneously. A s. 1595 colophon attests two pupils of a Śākambharīśākhā Ratnakīrti (I) with the double rank of muni maṇḍalācārya. (2.2.4.6.) The early Lāṭa- and Mālavāśākhā may also have been maṇḍalācārya-led lineages for a while. (2.2.4.4.) Maṇḍalācāryas could on the other hand apparently also be assigned to secondary centres of activity at a small remove from the bhaṭṭāraka seat. In the late 15th and 16th century CE, Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā ācāryas and maṇḍalācāryas were active in the town of Naugāmā, at only 40 km from Sāgavārḁ̄ where many of the coeval and superior Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭārakas were ̥ probably seated. Most importantly, successions of maṇḍalācāryas or at ﬁrst even common ācāryas often came to claim bhaṭṭāraka-hood, and with that independence from their former parent lineages. As a parallel from the Śvetāmbara tradition, two Tapāgaccha lineages also arose around the time when a split had occurred among the Prāgvāṭa caste into the Laghu and Bṛhat or Vṛddha branches (Dundas 2007: 51). 72 73 An early attestation is found in a manuscript colophon from s. 1461 which records a succession (tatpaṭṭe) Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnakīrti > Bhaṭṭāraka Maṇḍalācārya Prabhācandra > Abhayakīrti (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 89, n. 4c). The succession Ratnakīrti > Prabhācandra is the well-known, 13th-14th century CE Uttaraśākhā bhaṭṭāraka succession (2.2.3.4.). Barring mistakes in the edition of the colophon, Prabhācandra is here recorded with both bhaṭṭāraka and maṇḍalācārya ranks (with eulogy in between). Abhayakīrti is recorded without a rank and otherwise unknown. 60 For the sake of ease, I refer to maṇḍalācārya-hood as an ascetic rank, intermediate between the ranks of ācārya and bhaṭṭāraka. However, since we have no indications of the instatement of maṇḍalācārya-hood through a dedicated initiation rite, it might in fact better be understood as a mere title or designation. Balātkāragaṇa manuscripts outlining the rites of initiation into the various, consecutive ascetic ranks of kṣullaka, muni, upādhyāya, ācārya, and bhaṭṭāraka (Detige 2019b) do not include prescriptions for the consecration of a maṇḍalācārya, nor have I found indications of such a practice elsewhere. Maṇḍalācāryas then appear to be ācāryas distinguished with a further title, and presumably additional tasks and responsibilities. (2.2.4.2.) A mid-18th century CE document giving much unique information on the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā records the three Laghuśākhā maṇḍalācāryas from the second half of the 16th and the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE as ācāryas. (5.1.4.) Beyond expressing an awareness at this time of the actual origins of the Laghuśākhā as a (maṇḍal)ācārya lineage, and not as the result of a direct bifurcation of the undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā into two bhaṭṭāraka lineages, this may also indicate a perception of the ācārya and maṇḍalācārya posts as corresponding. Since maṇḍalācāryas were subordinate to bhaṭṭārakas, we could see them as forming part of the bhaṭṭāraka lineages and saṅghas. In considering them instead as constituting separate lineages, I follow records of successions of maṇḍalācāryas which use the same terminology as that used for successions of bhaṭṭārakas (‘tatpaṭṭe’, on his seat). While the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā maṇḍalācāryas from the second half of the 16th to the early 17th century CE are recorded as succeeding each other (‘tatpaṭṭe’), the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā ācāryas who proceeded them from the late 15th to the late 16th century CE are only recorded with pupillary connections (tatśiṣya, etc.) between them mutually and between them and the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭārakas. (5.1.3.) Other successions of ācāryas ̥ however use the same formal terminology of succession (‘tatpaṭṭe’). I therefore consider a succession of four 18th century CE ācāryas attested in a s. 1822 manuscript colophon as a separate Śākambharīśākhā lineage. (2.2.4.6., 6.1.4.) Two 18th century CE ācāryas recorded in a manuscript colophon as succeeding each other and as related to a Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭāraka may have been the representatives of this lineage in Udayapura. And ācāryās connected to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā commemorated in Bassī may also have been part of a local lineage in this town closer to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā home base. (2.2.4.8., 4.3.8.) Yet other cases of such ācārya lineages or additional information on these cases from other sources may oﬀer further insights into the phenomenon of ācāryas setting up their own lineages, their degree of autonomy from the bhaṭṭāraka lineages, and the potential role of such successions in the formation of new bhaṭṭāraka lineages. Examples of an ācārya and even a muni recorded as succeeding a bhaṭṭāraka are also found from the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha. According to a s. 1643 colophon, one Ācārya Padmakīrti came to the seat (‘tatpaṭṭe’) of the Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 27, n. 20). And a s. 1592 colophon records Muni Kṣīmakīrti as having succeeded 61 (‘tatpaṭṭe’) Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇabhadra, himself the successor (‘tatpaṭṭe’) of the Māthurānvaya or Māthuragaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Malayakīrti (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 116, n. 19).74 In the following subsection, I discuss the functions of the maṇḍalācāryas as we can reconstruct them from the available sources. (2.2.4.2) While they certainly overlooked pupillary, ascetic saṅghas, it is less clear whether maṇḍalācāryas typically had the authority to perform icon consecrations. The formation of Balātkāragaṇa maṇḍalācārya lineages often seems to have gone in hand with a regional mooring and the construction of a regional self-identiﬁcation of these new lineages. (2.2.4.3.) In the second half of this section, I review the usage of the maṇḍalācārya rank/ title in the Lāṭaśākhās and Mālavāśākhās (2.2.4.4.), Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā (2.2.4.5.), Śākambharīśākhās (2.2.4.6.), Cambalaśākhās (2.2.4.7.), and Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā (2.2.4.8.), before concluding (2.2.4.9.). 2.2.4.2. Functions of maṇḍalācāryas Maṇḍalācāryas could gather renouncer saṅghas around them. Probably a part of the ascetic saṅgha of the bhaṭṭāraka lineage fell under their responsibility and dwelled with them. According to Kāsalīvāla (1989: 149), munis, brahmacārīs, and āryikās stayed for example with Dharmacandra, the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā maṇḍalācārya from the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE. At the necropolis in Naugāmā, memorials of lower-ranking renouncers were erected while this town was the hometown of the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā maṇḍalācāryas. (5.3.3-4.) Memorial inscriptions and manuscript colophons also attest brahmacārīs, munis, and even ācāryas as pupils of maṇḍalācāryas.75 Lower-ranking early modern renouncers are not infrequently found recorded as pupils of munis and ācāryas just as well (Detige 2018: 339-43, 2.3.1.), and the later Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti is attested to have led an ascetic saṅgha already as ācārya (2.3.4.). Pupillary links of lower ranking renouncers to muni, ācārya, and maṇḍalācārya rank gurus probably typically ran next to other connections to bhaṭṭārakas. While the latter would have functioned as dīkṣā-gurus, giving them initiation (dīkṣā), and presumably would have remained the ﬁnal authority, lowerranking renouncers could also function as practical teachers (śīkṣā-guru). In contemporary Digambara and Śvetāmbara ascetic traditions too, renouncers are regularly given initiation by one guru, and then entrusted to another for training. We do have two attestations of early modern renouncers being initiated by lower-ranking gurus. A s. 1668 colophon refers to the female renouncer Bāī Hīrā as having been initiated by the then ﬂourishing Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā Maṇḍalācārya Sakalacandra.76 Sakalacandra was the predecessor of Ratnacandra, the ﬁrst Laghuśākhā incumbent to obtain bhaṭṭāraka-hood. (5.1.3.) The initiation of renouncers may have formed part of the growing autonomy of this lineage. In the inscription of an icon which he consecrated, the early Lāṭaśākhā incumbent Vidyānandi is also recorded as having been initiated From the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha also comes an attestation of a bhaṭṭāraka succeeding (‘paṭṭe’) an ācārya. The colophon of a s. 1714 copy of Brahma Nemidatta’s Śrīpāla-caritra records one Ācārya Keśavasena as the predecessor (tatpaṭṭe) of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 61, n. 47; Detige 2018: 352). This Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha succession at this time then would have changed from an ācārya to a bhaṭṭāraka lineage. 74 E.g., Kāsalīvāla 1950: 190, n. 40c, a s. 1632 colophon attesting Ācārya Hemacandra as pupil of Maṇḍalācārya Lalitakīrti. 75 76 ‘[…] śrī sakalacaṃdrāya taddīkṣitā bāī hīrā […]’ (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 57, n. 45b) 62 by his predecessor Devendrakīrti.77 Devendrakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1473-93) is not found attested with a rank higher than that of muni in sources coeval to him, Vidyānandi (ﬂ. s. 1499-1537) consecutively as a muni, ācārya, and maṇḍalācārya. (2.2.4.4.) The initiation referred to here probably was Vidyānandi’s muni dīkṣā. Devendrakīrti also consecrated icons (see next), and the authority to perform pratiṣṭhās and to initiate renouncers may have gone hand in hand. In the absence of any records thereof, I take it that the authority to appoint new maṇḍalācāryas typically lay with the incumbent bhaṭṭārakas of the main lineage, not with the maṇḍalācāryas themselves. The introduction and frequent usage of the maṇḍalācārya rank (title) may have made the upādhyāya rank somewhat superﬂuous, which could explain the infrequent attestations of the latter rank in the early modern Digambara ascetic lineages. (2.3.1.) Multiple ‘common’ ācāryas are sometimes attested within a single saṅgha. (2.3.3.) This also indicates that maṇḍalācāryas held additional responsibilities as compared to them. We can think of several other activities which also could have fallen within the purview of the maṇḍalācāryas, like teaching and counselling laity or conducting communal rituals (vidhāna, etc.). Another major ﬁeld in which they seem to have partaken at least occasionally, though perhaps not always, is that of icon consecrations. As mentioned previously, Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 117) held that maṇḍalācāryas performed consecrations (pratiṣṭhā) on behalf of the bhaṭṭārakas, and that this was one of the prime reasons why they were appointed. Yet it is all but clear whether maṇḍalācāryas commonly had the authority to conduct pratiṣṭhās. Without discussing maṇḍalācāryas, Gough (2017: 296-7) concluded that in the early modern period the key distinction between an ācārya and a bhaṭṭāraka was the latter’s possession of the sūri-mantra. The sūri-mantra is crucial in the performance of Digambara icon consecrations and was indeed transmitted to early modern bhaṭṭārakas as part of their initiation to the seat (Detige 2019b: 14-6). In the paṭṭāvalī narrative on the origins of the Lāṭaśākhā, Ācārya Padmanandi also received the sūri-mantra when he was made a bhaṭṭāraka, and this too speciﬁcally to perform a consecration. (2.2.3.8.) The question is then whether maṇḍalācāryas like bhaṭṭārakas typically held the sūri-mantra, and could perform icon consecrations, or like ‘common’ ācāryas did not have this prerogative. The available evidence is somewhat inconclusive still. Icons consecrated by maṇḍalācāryas are certainly found, though in the light of the frequent use of the maṇḍalācārya rank perhaps only relatively rarely so. Here, similarly as with regard to other aspects, our insights would be furthered by the edition of more Digambara mūrtilekhas, comparable to the more extensively published materials from the Śvetāmbara traditions. Ratnacandra, the ﬁrst bhaṭṭāraka of the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā is also the ﬁrst incumbent of this lineage whom we ﬁnd attested as consecrating an icon (Joharāpurakara 1958: 162, lekha 411). Additional sources on Ratnacandra’s ācārya rank predecessors might however change the picture for this lineage. In the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, Candrakīrti was promoted from maṇḍalācārya to bhaṭṭāraka between s. 1645 and s. 1653. (2.2.4.8.), and he is attested to have performed pratiṣṭhās in s. 1651, in s. 1658 in Ḍhūḍhū (Dūdū, 60 km south-west of Jayapura), and in s. 1660 in Sākhūṇa (80 km south-west of Jayapura), and in s. 1661 (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 243). Candrakīrti is 77 ‘devendrakīrti dīkṣitācārya śrī vidyānandi’ (Joharāpurakara 1958: 169, lekha 428). 63 also said to have constructed mandiras in Vānarasindarī (?), Harasūlī (prob. Harasolī, 40 km north of Alavara), Lakhā (?), and Sākhūṇa (Ibid.). Yet Candrakīrti’s two maṇḍalācārya-rank predecessors are also attested as consecrating memorials and temple icons, Lalitakīrti in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha in s. 1606 (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 177), and Dharmacandra in Āvāṃ and Cākasū in s. 1593 (4.3.2.), and in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha in s. 1595 (Ibid.) and possibly already in s. 1589 (4.3.3.).78 The Uttaraśākhā Devendrakīrti and the ﬁrst Lāṭaśākhā incumbent Vidyānandi, whose highest recorded ranks are those of respectively muni and maṇḍalācārya (2.2.4.4.), were also proliﬁc pratiṣṭhācāryas (Joharāpurakara 1958: 194). Both are attested with notable frequency without rank, which might indicate confusion about the fact that renouncers without the bhaṭṭāraka rank were performing icon consecrations. (2.2.4.4.) P. C. Śāstrī (1992: 127-8) gives incomplete editions of inscriptions of mūrtis seemingly consecrated by the Mālavāśākhā founder Maṇḍalācārya Tribhuvanakīrti in s. 1532 and s. 1541. A s. 1672 icon was consecrated by Maṇḍalācārya Ratnakīrti, who is recorded in the inscription as successor to the later Mālavāśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti (Ibid.: 87). Joharāpurakara (1958: 115, lekha 281) edits an incomplete inscription of a s. 1601 Candraprabha mūrti icon probably recording it to be consecrated by Ācārya Dharmakīrti, whom Joharāpurakara treats as the incumbent of the early, undivided Śākambharīśākhā. Cambalaśākhā maṇḍalācāryas also performed pratiṣṭhās in the ﬁrst quarter of the 19th century CE. Vijayakīrti (ﬂ. 1863-88), who was connected to the Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa and is alternatively recorded as an ācārya and as a maṇḍalācārya, is known to have consecrated a pādukā, a yantra, and a mūrti. And around the same time Maṇḍalācārya Surendrakīrti, who stood in the lineage (āmnāye) of a Cambalaśākhā Gvāliyara-paṭṭa bhaṭṭāraka, consecrated a pādukā slab of the twenty-four jinas and two jina mūrtis, the latter together with one Ācārya Devendrakīrti (N. K. Jaina 2013: 190-3, 2.2.4.7.). Cases of yet other maṇḍalācāryas consecrating images can be expected to be found through further research. Especially from the long-lasting Śākambharīśākhā maṇḍalācārya lineage(s) very little epigraphic material has been published. Meanwhile, we also ﬁnd ritual objects consecrated by even lower-ranking early modern renouncers, including in the ﬁrst place several ācāryas. In the early 17th century CE (s. 1675, s. 1681), two yantras were consecrated by one Ācārya Candrakīrti (Joharāpurakara 1958: 206, lekhas 539-40). Candrakīrti is recorded as a successor to Maṇḍalācārya Ratnakīrti, who as we just saw also consecrated an icon in s. 1672, and here is again recorded as the successor to the Mālavāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti. Presumably Maṇḍalācārya Ratnakīrti received the authority to perform pratiṣṭhās from Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti, and passed it on to Ācārya Candrakīrti. Still in the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE, both a yantra (s. 1686, Ibid.: 53, lekha 119) and a mūrti (ś. 1569 [= s. 1704], Ibid.: 54, lekha 124) were consecrated by one Ācārya Pārśvakīrti, a pupil of the Balātkāragaṇa Kārañjāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmacandra.79 A s. 1871 yantra found in Guṇa (Madhya Pradesh) was consecrated by one Ācārya Devendrakīrti (P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 90). Its inscription also records one Bhaṭṭāraka Rājakīrti as belonging to the ‘Siroñja-paṭṭa’, possibly a late, further unknown Mālavāśākhā incumbent, but the inscription (or its edition) fails to indicate the relation between Devendrakīrti and Rājakīrti. (2.2.3.9.) Interestingly, one Ācārya Hemacandra, a pupil Earlier Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 243) concluded that Dharmacandra did not give much attention to performing pratiṣṭhās. 78 Pārśvakīrti is referred to as an ācārya in the ﬁrst inscription, and as a dharmācārya in the second. The latter phrasing however probably indicates the common ācārya rank. 79 64 of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti, is attested as ‘writing a mantra for consecration’ (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 243), a clear indication of his involvement with pratiṣṭhā. The founder of the undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti is recorded as a muni in the inscription of a mūrti he consecrated in s. 1490 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 136 lekha 331), but according to other sources he had already made promotion to the ācārya and bhaṭṭāraka ranks by then. (5.1.1.) Yet around that time even Brahmacārī Jinadāsa of the undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā is recorded as having consecrated temple icons (Ibid.: 138 lekha 340; Clines 2018: 12-3). Still in the same period, but in another Balātkāragaṇa lineage, a s. 1505 mūrti was consecrated (‘upadeśāt’) by Brahma Dharmapāla, a pupil of the early Lāṭaśākhā incumbent Vidyānandi (Joharāpurakara 1958: 172 lekha 438).80 Among the icons consecrated by early modern ācāryas is a notably large number of yantras. A certain division of tasks may have existed at times in the ﬁeld of consecration praxis, with ācāryas taking care of minor ritual objects like small bronze yantras, and bhaṭṭārakas (and maṇḍalācāryas?) performing the more elaborate rituals connected to the consecration of mūrtis. Yet both yantras and mūrtis or also found consecrated by paṇḍitas. One Paṇḍita Khīṃvasī, recorded as a pupil of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti, performed a pratiṣṭhā in Dhūletanagara in s. 1773 (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 154). At that time, Jagatkīrti had already been succeeded by Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1770) Recorded as operating in the lineage (āmnāye) of the latter, Paṇḍita Bhāmani consecrated a yantra or a mūrti in the unknown town Yāsapāha a decade later, in s. 1783 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 107, lekha 273). The inscription of a s. 1899 Padmāvatī mūrti found in Sūrata indicates that it was consecrated (‘upadeśāt’) by Paṇḍita Bhānacanda, who is recorded as a gurubhrātr ̥ of the Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmacandra Ibid.: 191, lekha 512). The (unpublished) mūrtilekha of a s. 1868 Pārśvanātha mūrti at the Neminātha Mandira in Sojitrā (Gujarat) records that the marble icon was consecrated by most probably the same paṇḍita, here recorded as Paṇḍita Bhāṇajī and (perhaps by oversight) as the real brother (‘bhrātā’) of Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmacandra. 19th century CE paṇḍitas also regularly consecrated memorials. (3.2.5.) As with regards to other functions, we can that paṇḍitas took over responsibilities in icon consecration in the absence of broader circles or renouncers, and after the discontinuation of some bhaṭṭāraka lineages and perhaps the weakening of others. While generally we would expect the various lineages of the Balātkāragaṇa tradition to subscribe to common practices, it is quite possible that some variation concerning the authority to perform consecrations existed in diﬀerent times and places, or that it was sometimes pragmatically extended to (maṇḍal)ācāryas depending on needs and circumstances. In the Terāpantha, paṇḍitas also performed consecrations prior to the muni revival. And today also wide divergences are seen between various Digambara traditions, with pratiṣṭhās either uniquely performed by naked munis secreting the sūri-mantra, by bhaṭṭārakas and similar ﬁgures, or, in the Kānjīsvāmīpantha, by laymen (Gough 2017). By contrast, the inscription of a s. 1722 Padmāvatī mūrti records Brahma Jayasāgara merely as bowing (‘praṇamati’), and thus not also as consecrating the icon (Joharāpurakara 1958: 189, lekha 502). The inscription does not explicate who consecrated the mūrti, but refers to Jayasāgara as a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Mahīcandra and also records the latter’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Merucandra who by then was on the Lāṭaśākhā Sūratapaṭṭa. Similarly, in the inscription of a s. 1662 Mahāvīra mūrti which she might have patronised, Bāī Vīramatī is recorded as venerating it (‘praṇamati’), being recorded as a pupil of Ācārya Ratnakīrti, in turn a pupil of the Lāṭaśākhā Bāraḍolī-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Abhayanand[i] and probably the latter’s later successor Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnakīrti (Ibid.: 193, lekha 522). 80 65 2.2.4.3. Lineage expansion and regionalisation As we saw, after the ﬁrst Balātkāragaṇa bifurcation in the 14th century CE, various successors of Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi came to stand at the origins of three separate lineages which were active in various parts of Western and Central India. The lineage continued under Śubhacandra, the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, originally remained in the Delhi Sultanate capital but later turned to ﬁrst Mevāṛa and then Ḍhūṇḍāḍā, no doubt due to the instability of the Delhi Sultanate under the late Lodi dynasty and of the early Mughal empire. (4.1.1.) Sakalakīrti’s Vāgaḍāśākhā developed in the Vāgaḍā region of south Rajasthan and north Gujarat. And the Lāṭaśākhā and Mālavāśākhā maṇḍalācāryas which sprung from Padmanandi’s pupil Devendrakīrti were respectively based in coastal Gujarat and Mālavā. A reference is also found to a fourth, unnamed pupil of Padmanandi being sent to the ‘south’, probably to the Deccan. Padmanandi possibly sends out pupils in response to new opportunities for patronage, perhaps triggered in part by his renown. It is notable that this ﬁrst branching out of the Balātkāragaṇa follows shortly after Muhammad Tughluq (r. 1325-51 CE) under whose rule the Delhi Sultanate reached its zenith, for a while coming to expand across most of South Asia. The sudden expansion of the Balātkāragaṇa polity across Western India then seems to be related to that of the Delhi Sultanate, the appointment of maṇḍalācāryas and the installation of new bhaṭṭāraka seats serving to facilitate the geographical proliferation of the Balātkāragaṇa. As the Balātkāragaṇa maṇḍalācāryas came to settle in diﬀerent parts of Western and Central India, they also came to identify themselves to their respective home regions. This much is expressed in attestations of a few early Mālavāśākhā, Lāṭaśākhā, and Cambalaśākhā incumbents explicitly connecting them to the regions of Mālavā and Gujarat. In the inscriptions of icons from s. 1532 now found in Canderī (Madhya Pradesh) and Kārañjā (Maharashtra), (Muni) Devendrakīrti (s. 1473-93) is remembered as ‘the maṇḍalācārya of Canderī’,81 itself a type of phrasing rarely encountered. These inscriptions postdate Devendrakīrti with almost half a century and ascribe the maṇḍalācārya rank to him a posteriori. An even later praśasti from the early 17th century CE (s. 1663) which goes a step further in according the bhaṭṭāraka rank to Devendrakīrti also refers to him as ‘the master of the country of Mālavā’.82 An undated composition by Sūri (= Ācārya) Śrutasāgara (ﬂ. early 16th century CE) refers to the early 16th century CE Lāṭaśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Lakṣmīcandra (ﬂ. 1556-82) as sitting on the throne of Gujarat and to the Cambalaśākhā founder Bhaṭṭāraka Siṅhakīrti as belonging to Mālava.83 The development of the Mālavāśākhā and the Lāṭaṣākhā may well be directly related to the existence of the Sultanates of Malwa and Gujarat. 81 ‘canderī maṇḍalācārya’ (P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 127). 82 ‘mālavādeśādīśa’ (P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 87). ‘[…] gurjaradeśa-siṅhāsana-bha.-śrī-lakṣmīcandra […] mālavadeśa-bha.-śrī siṅhanandi […]’ (Joharāpurakara 1958: 181, lekha 472). 83 66 84(1.1.3.) While it was the strength and great expanse of the Delhi Sultanate under the Tughluq dynasty which facilitated the broad geographical expansion of the Balātkāragaṇa overseen by maṇḍalācāryas, the arising and stabilisation of independent, regional Sultanates in the wake of the declining power of the Delhi Sultanate formed the cradle for the lineages to develop into independent bhaṭṭāraka seats. 2.2.4.4. Undivided Lāṭaśākhā and Mālavāśākhās Although later attestations ascribe the bhaṭṭāraka rank to Devendrakīrti and his Lāṭaśākhā successor Vidyānandi, sources coeval or roughly contemporary to them attest them instead as munis,85 ācāryas,86 or maṇḍalācāryas.87 The attestations of Devendrakīrti and Vidyānandi with these various, consecutive ranks are clearly delineated in time. They appear as munis in s. 1473, s. 1499, and s. 1501 (one exception s. 1552, and one n.d.), as ācāryas in s. 1513 and s. 1518, and as maṇḍalācāryas in s. 1532 and s. 1537. This means that Devendrakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1473-93) is only found attested as a muni during his own times, and Vidyānandi (ﬂ. s. 1499-1537) consecutively as muni, ācārya, and maṇḍalācārya. A notably large number of attestations of Devendrakīrti and Vidyānandi is also found without any indication of their rank,88 despite the frequent indication of Padmanandi’s bhaṭṭāraka rank in the same sources. In his own composition Sudarśana-carita, preserved in a manuscript copied in s. 1592, Vidyānandi refers to his guru Devendrakīrti as a sūri (= ācārya) and to himself without a rank (Joharāpurakara 1958: 170-7, lekha 434). In the inscription of a mūrti which he consecrated in s. 1537, Vidyānandi is referred to as a maṇḍalācārya in the tradition (āmnāya) of Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra (Ibid.: 102, lekha 257). It was probably Jinacandra (p. s. 1507-71), who was then on the Uttaraśākhā seat, who awarded the maṇḍalācārya rank to Vidyānandi, somewhere between the late s. 1510s and the early 1530s. Paṭṭāvalīs and most other sources recording Devendrakīrti (Joharāpurakara 1958: 169, lekha 426) and Vidyānandi (Ibid.: 172, lekha 439) as bhaṭṭārakas are much later. An inscription from s. 1544, dating from the time of Vidyānandi’s successor Mallibhūṣaṇa, refers to Devendrakīrti, Vidyānandi, and Mallibhūṣaṇa as bhaṭṭārakas (Ibid.: 177, lekha 458). Mallibhūṣaṇa was the ﬁrst Lāṭaśākhā incumbent to hold the bhaṭṭāraka rank. Recording his predecessors as The Lāṭaśākhā however immediately established itself in coastal Gujarat, not in the Gujarat Sultanate's capitals Ahamadābāda and Cāmpānera. The earliest available evidence of Balātkāragaṇa presence in Ahamadābāda dates to the last quarter of the 17th century CE (5.6.2.), but more research is required. The Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha is known to have been active in Ahamadābāda already in the second half of the 15th century CE. (2.4.2.) 84 Muni rank attestations: Devendrakīrti: s. 1473 (P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 84), s. 1499 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 169, lekha 427), s. 1552 (Ibid.: 203, lekha 523). Vidyānandi: s. 1501 (Ibid.: 171, lekha 437), n.d. (Ibid.: 172, lekha 440). 85 Ācārya rank attestations: Devendrakīrti: s. 1513 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 170, lekha 429). Vidyānandi: s. 1518 (Ibid.: 169, lekha 428; Ibid.: 170, lekha 430). 86 Maṇḍalācārya rank attestations: Devendrakīrti: s. 1532 (thrice, P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 85, 127). Vidyānandi: s. 1537 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 102, lekha 257). 87 Attestations without rank: Devendrakīrti: s. 1493 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 169, lekha 425), s. 1505 (Ibid.: 172, lekha 438), s. 1513 (Ibid.: 169, lekha 428); s. 1518 (Ibid.: 170, lekha 431), s. 1521 (Ibid.: lekha 432), s. 1537 (Ibid.: lekha 433). Vidyānandi: s. 1499 (Ibid.: 169, lekha 427), s. 1505 (Ibid.: 172, lekha 438), s. 1513 (Ibid.: 170, lekha 429), s. 1518 (Ibid.: 170, lekha 431), s. 1521 (Ibid.: lekha 432), s. 1537 (Ibid.: lekha 433), n.d. (Ibid.: 171, lekha 435). 88 67 bhaṭṭārakas was probably a strategy of legitimisation. Slightly earlier attestations of Devendrakīrti as a bhaṭṭāraka are found in the inscriptions of icons seemingly consecrated by Tribhuvanakīrti, his late 15th century CE successor in Mālava and the ﬁrst incumbent of the Mālavāśākhā, in s. 1532 (P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 127) and in s. 1541 (Ibid.: 128). Tribhuvanakīrti is repeatedly recorded as a maṇḍalācārya (Ibid.: 85-6, 127-8), and would thus have been subordinate to either the Uttaraśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra (p. s. 1507-71) or the Cambalaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Siṅhakīrti who were ﬂourishing at the time. (2.2.3.9.) As discussed, the ranks of Tribhuvanakīrti’s successors Sahasrakīrti, Padmanandi, and Yaśaḥkīrti, are unconﬁrmed, but the next incumbents Lalitakīrti and Dharmakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1645-83) are known to have been bhaṭṭārakas. (2.2.3.9.) A single attestation is also found of the usage of the maṇḍalācārya rank in the later Mālavāśākhās. The inscriptions of two yantras consecrated in s. 1675 and s. 1681 by one Ācārya Candrakīrti record him as the successor to one Maṇḍalācārya Ratnakīrti, who in turn was the successor of the Mālavāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti. The incomplete editions of the inscriptions provided by Joharāpurakara (1958: 206, lekhas 539-40), do not tell us where the yantras were consecrated, only that the s. 1681 yantra was patronised by laypeople from the Golāpūrva caste (‘golāpūrvānvaye’) which is found in Bundelkhand. No doubt the same Maṇḍalācārya Ratnakīrti is also attested as a successor of Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti in an incomplete icon inscription from s. 1672 (P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 87). 2.2.4.5. Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā Reminiscent of the narrative about the promotion of Ācārya Padmanandi to the bhaṭṭāraka rank (2.2.3.8.), the Vāgaḍāśākhā bifurcation is attributed to a pratiṣṭhā in an account found in a paṭṭāvalī. (5.1.2.) Accordingly, pratiṣṭhācāryas were required for two icon consecrations planned on the same day in s. 1535 in the nearby towns of Sāgavāṛā and Naugāmā. Two pupils of the incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti, the full brothers Jñānabhūṣaṇa and Jñānakīrti, were therefore sent to the two towns and became the incumbents of separate lineages, the Brhatśākhā and the Laghuśākhā. ̥ Yet, while later epigraphic and manuscript sources refer to Jñānakīrti and his successors in the Laghuśākhā as bhaṭṭārakas (e.g., Joharāpurakara 1958: 159, lekha 399), the niṣedhikās of early incumbents retrieved in Naugāmā (5.3.2.) and textual sources contemporary to them (e.g., Joharāpurakara 1958: 161, lekha 406) indicate their actual ācārya and maṇḍalācārya ranks. On the basis of these sources, it is now clear that the formation of the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā as an independent bhaṭṭāraka lineage took place in three distinct steps, spread out over a century and a half. Jñānakīrti and his ﬁrst two successors, ﬂourishing in the late 15th and ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE, carried the ācārya rank. Guṇacandra, the fourth Laghuśākhā incumbent in the second half of the 16th century CE, was the ﬁrst to hold the maṇḍalācārya rank. The next two incumbents, the ﬁfth and sixth, were also maṇḍalācāryas. Ratnacandra, the seventh incumbent in the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE, is recorded as a maṇḍalācārya in early attestations, but mid-way through his incumbency came to carry the bhaṭṭāraka rank, which his successors also held. (5.1.3.) The friction recorded between both lineages precisely around this time indicates that Ratnacandra’s bhaṭṭāraka-hood may have been contested by the Brhatśākhā rather than granted by it. (5.1.4.) ̥ 68 2.2.4.6. Śākambharīśākhās Balātkāragaṇa paṭṭāvalīs report a split of the ‘gaccha’ in s. 1572, during the time of Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra, relating one part to Cittauḍagaṛha and the other to Nāgaura.89 While the faction related to Cittauḍagaṛha can be recognised as the early Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, the faction related to Nāgaura likely stood at the origin of the Śākambharīśākhā, and may well have been led by its founder Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnakīrti (I). (6.1.1.) Ratnakīrti (I) is found attested as a maṇḍalācārya in some sources (e.g., a s. 1595 colophon, Joharāpurakara 1958: 114, lekha 279), but as a bhaṭṭāraka in others, including the inscription of his probably original, s. 1572 pādukā in Ajamera (#6.1, 6.1.1.). While later sources may refer to all its further incumbents as bhaṭṭārakas,90 the undivided Śākambharīśākhā seems to have remained a maṇḍalācārya lineage throughout its existence, from Ratnakīrti (I)’s successors in the early 16th century CE until its trifurcation in the early 18th century CE, after Maṇḍalācārya Ratnakīrti (II). (6.1.1.) A manuscript colophon from s. 1654 for example lists all the incumbents up to the then ﬂourishing Nemicandra as maṇḍalācāryas (Ibid.: 116, lekha 286). The s. 1595 colophon attests two pupils of Maṇḍalācārya Ratnakīrti (I) with the double rank of muni maṇḍalācārya (Ibid.: 114, lekha 279, 6.1.1.). One of these, Muni Maṇḍalācārya Bhuvanakīrti, can probably be recognised as Ratnakīrti (I)’s recorded direct successor. The other, Muni Maṇḍalācārya Hemacandra, is not further attested. As they are not referred to as each other’s successors, Bhuvanakīrti and Hemacandra seem to have ﬂourished simultaneously, perhaps both responsible for distinct parts of the Śākambharīśākhā realm. The incumbents of the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa were probably maṇḍalācāryas until the ﬁfth incumbent Vijayakīrti in the mid-18th century CE. (6.1.3.) The undivided Śākambharīśākhā and its Ajamera-paṭṭa sub-lineage thus remained a maṇḍalācārya lineage for a period totalling two centuries and a half. Information on the early Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbents is missing, but this lineage may have gone through a roughly simultaneous evolution. (6.1.2.) The third Śākambharīśākhā, a shorter-lived lineage of four successive ācāryas attested in a s. 1822 manuscript colophon, does not seem to have developed into a bhaṭṭāraka or even maṇḍalācārya lineage. (6.1.4.) It is not clear whether the simultaneous arising of three diﬀerent Śākambharīśākhā lineages solely depended on increased opportunities for patronage or other factors of success, or whether a conﬂict between peers claiming to be the heir-apparent also was a factor. The creation of an additional ‘Śākambharīśākhā’ maṇḍalācārya post would typically not have been the prerogative of Maṇḍalācārya Ratnakīrti (II) of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā, but rather in need of sanction by a Balātkāragaṇa bhaṭṭāraka. This would most likely have been the incumbent of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat which was then based in nearby Āmera, Jagatkīrti (p. s. 1733) or his successor Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1770). In either case, there would have been a need for suﬃcient resources to support the diﬀerent factions within the Śākambharī region, especially for the maintenance, possibly, of both the Nāgaura-paṭṭa and the ācārya lineage in the city of Nāgaura. 89 ‘ekai vāra gacha doya huvā cītoḍa ara nāgora kā saṃ. 1572 kā aṣvāla’ (Joharāpurakara 1958: 104 lekha 265). The Śākambharīśākhā (‘Nāgauraśākhā’) paṭṭāvalī edited by Joharāpurakara 1958: 114, lekha 277 ﬀ.) does not indicate the incumbents’ ranks. 90 69 (6.1.4.) The ācārya succession may have been discontinued exactly around the time when the other two Śākambharīśākhās turned from maṇḍalācārya to bhaṭṭāraka lineages (6.1.4.), which may indicate that resources and support came to be focused on these seats. 2.2.4.7. Cambalaśākhās The Lāṭaśākhā, Mālavāśākhā, Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā, the undivided Śākambharīśākhā, and the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa and Nāgaura-paṭṭa all originated as successions of (ācāryas and) maṇḍalācāryas that later developed into independent bhaṭṭāraka lineages. The undivided Cambalaśākhā however seems to have been a bhaṭṭāraka seat from its origins. The ﬁrst Cambalaśākhā incumbent Siṅhakīrti is recorded as a bhaṭṭāraka in the inscriptions of several mūrtis which he consecrated between s. 1520 and s. 1531 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 126, lekhas 303-5, 307-8). In a few of these, Siṅhakīrti is recorded as a successor to the Uttaraśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra (Ibid.: lekhas 303, 306, cf. 307).91 According to paṭṭāvalīs, the latter was consecrated in s. 1507 and stayed on the seat for 64 years (Ibid.: 98, lekha 248). Independent attestations are available conﬁrming that Jinacandra ﬂourished until at least s. 1548, when he conducted a large scale pratiṣṭhā in Muḍāsā (Ibid.: 104, lekha 263, p. 109). Siṅhakīrti thus ﬂourished as a bhaṭṭāraka during the incumbency of Jinacandra, and much prior to Jinacandra’s successor in Dillī, Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra (p. s. 1571, Ibid.: 104, lekha 265). Perhaps the notable frequency of inscriptions in which Siṅhakīrti is recorded without predecessors (Ibid.: 126, lekhas 304, 305, 308), a rather uncommon practice even at this early time, indicates some unease about his aﬃliation or bhaṭṭāraka-hood. As a bhaṭṭāraka lineage, the early Cambalaśākhā itself seems to have employed maṇḍalācāryas. A short colophon from s. 1534 records a pupillary aﬃliation from Bhaṭṭāraka Si[ṅ]hakīrti to his pupil Pracaṇḍakīrti (no rank), and again the latter’s pupil Maṇḍalācārya Si[ṅ]hanandi, who either copied the manuscript or had it copied (unclear, Kāsalīvāla 1950: 85-6, n. 3a).92 Pracaṇḍakīrti is otherwise unattested. His inclusion in a pupillary succession between a bhaṭṭāraka and a maṇḍalācārya is no certain indication for his rank, nor of any incumbency. But presumably the same Maṇḍalācārya Siṅhanandi is also attested in a later colophon from s. 1599, recorded as standing in the lineage (āmnāya) of Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra, and as having had a pupil (śiṣya) in Maṇḍalācārya Dharmakīrti, in whose tradition (āmnāya) the manuscript was donated (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 21, n. 18c). The latter very likely is the second Cambalaśākhā incumbent, Siṅhakīrti’s successor, perhaps prior to a later promotion to the bhaṭṭāraka rank. A s. 1621 colophon from the time of the third Cambalaśākhā A colophon from s. 1533 also records the gifting of a manuscript to Muni Ratnabhūṣaṇa, a pupil (śiṣya) of Bhaṭṭāraka Si[ṅ]hakīrti, the successor (paṭṭe) of Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 19, n. 17). 91 Although the colophon doesn’t record Jinacandra or any other predecessors of Bhaṭṭāraka Si[ṅ]hakīrti, nor contains references to the place of manuscript copying or other indications for its aﬃliation, I assume it refers to the ﬁrst Cambalaśākhā incumbent, as seems to be conﬁrmed by the second attestation of Maṇḍalācārya Siṅhanandi (discussed next). 92 70 incumbent Śīlabhūṣaṇa records him as well as his predecessor Dharmakīrti as bhaṭṭārakas (Joharāpurakara 1958: 127, lekha 309).93 Maṇḍalācāryas are also attested in the later Cambalaśākhās. One Vijayakīrti (ﬂ. 1863-88) is recorded both as an ācārya and as a maṇḍalācārya, as a guru-bhāī of the Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiripaṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrabhūṣaṇa, and thus a pupil also of the latter’s predecessor Bhaṭṭāraka Jinendrabhūṣaṇa, as a guru-bhāī of the later Sonāgiri-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrabhūṣaṇa, and thus a pupil also of the latter’s predecessor Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrabhūṣaṇa, and as laying the foundations of a mandira in Sonāgiri in the presence of Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrabhūṣaṇa (N. K. Jaina 2013: 190-1). (Maṇḍal)ācārya Vijayakīrti also seems to have had many paṇḍita pupils, including Paramasukha, Bhāgiratha, Hīrānanda, and Megharāja (Ibid.: 78, 191), oversaw the construction of mandiras in Sonāgiri (Ibid.: 191), and also engaged in pratiṣṭhās, consecrating a pādukā (n.d.), a yantra in s. 1874 (Ibid.: 130), and a mūrti in s. 1888. One Maṇḍalācārya Surendrakīrti recorded in the lineage (āmnāye) of the Cambalaśākhā Gvāliyara-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Rājendrabhūṣaṇa consecrated a pādukā slab of the twenty-four jinas in s. 1888 in Sonāgiri, and Ādinātha and Ajitanātha mūrtis in Gvāliyara in s. 1872, together with one Ācārya Devendrakīrti (Ibid.: 193). N. K. Jaina (Ibid.) also refers to probably the latter individual as Maṇḍalācārya Devendrakīrti, also as related to the Gvāliyara-paṭṭa. 2.2.4.8. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Kāsalīvāla (1967a: 184) remarked that Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra (p. s. 1571), the ﬁrst incumbent of the succession which I discuss as the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, appointed maṇḍalācāryas, including one Dharmacandra. The latter is the ﬁrst out of the two successive, 16th century CE incumbents Dharmacandra (p. s. 1581) and Lalitakīrti (p. s. 1603) who were not integrated in Joharāpurakara’s (1958) reconstruction of this Balātkāragaṇa succession, and indeed not in many primary sources, but are included in paṭṭāvalīs and attested in various other sources as successors to Prabhācandra and predecessors to Candrakīrti (p. s. 1622). Dharmacandra and Lalitakīrti were already active in south and even north Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa, but it was Candrakīrti who later fully relocated to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region. The paṭṭābhiṣeka of both Dharmacandra (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 236; Kāsalīvāla 1989: 148) and Lalitakīrti (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 150) is reported to have been performed in Cittauḍagaṛha, and a paṭṭāvalī also locates Lalitakīrti’s seat at Cittauḍagaṛha (Hoernle 1892: 83). (4.1.1.) Dharmacandra and Lalitakīrti are solely attested as maṇḍalācāryas. Candrakīrti is attested as a maṇḍalācārya until s. 1645 and as a bhaṭṭāraka from s. 1653 onwards, and thus was promoted to the latter rank somewhere in the interspersing period. (4.1.2.) Just like the Śākambharīśākhā, under its maṇḍalācāryas the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā was presumably subordinated to the Central Indian Cambalaśākhā or to one of the other bhaṭṭāraka lineages ﬂourishing at this time. (2.2.3.4, 2.2.3.10, 2.2.4.7.) According to the paṭṭāvalī edited by Joharāpurakara (1958: 104, lekha 265), Prabhācandra (p. s. 1571) was on the seat for nine years. Kāsalīvāla (1981: 184), however, without indicating his source, The colophon attests a number of female renouncers in his tradition, Ārya [Āryikā] Cāritraśrī and her pupil Vrata Guṇasundarī, and the recipients of the manuscript, Bāī Hīrā and Candā, the latter presumably also a brahmacāriṇī (Joharāpurakara 1958: 127, lekha 309). 93 71 held that Prabhācandra remained on the seat for 25 years, until s. 1596. Both periods for the incumbency of Prabhācandra would have diﬀerent implications for the status of especially Dharmacandra. In the former version of facts, Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra appears as a successor to Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra, in the absence of a bhaṭṭāraka-rank successor to Prabhācandra. In the latter version however, much of Dharmacandra’s tenancy as a maṇḍalācārya (s. 1581-1603) would have passed subordinate to Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra (then, p. s. 1571-96). Only Lalitakīrti (p. s. 1603-22) would have been fully and functionally in charge of the lineage throughout his maṇḍalācārya-hood, as would his successor Candrakīrti (p. s. 1622), ﬁrst as a maṇḍalācārya and later as a bhaṭṭāraka. Maṇḍalācāryas are now known to have been widely appointed in the 16th century CE Balātkāragaṇa lineages, the appearance of Dharmacandra and Lalitakīrti need not surprise us. Their functioning as chief lineage incumbents is however remarkable for an otherwise seemingly very successful lineage. The failure to appoint a new bhaṭṭāraka after Prabhācandra, whether in ca. s. 1580 (1514-5 CE) or in s. 1596 (1539-40 CE), predates the destruction of the lineage’s later home base Cittauḍagaṛha in 1567-8 CE. (4.1.2.) It might however very well have related to the political and economical instability of the Delhi Sultanate under Ibrāhim Lodi (r. 1517-26 CE) during the incumbency of Prabhācandra, the subsequent defeat of the Lodis by the Mughals in 1526 CE, still during his incumbency according to the long chronology, and the interruption of early Mughal rule by the Sur Empire (1540-56 CE). (4.1.1.) Some traces are also found of lineages of ācāryas working under or possibly breaking away from the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas. At least two late 17th and mid-18th century CE Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā ācāryas commemorated in Bassī may form part of a longer, local lineage of ācāryas which originally was connected to the nearby Jayapura seat but later may have come to greater independence. (4.3.8.) And a manuscript colophon roughly coeval to that recording the four successive Śākambharīśākhā ācāryas (6.1.4.) attests two successive Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā ācāryas. The colophon stems from a copy of Kavivara Khaḍgasena’s Triloka-darpaṇa produced in Udayapura in s. 1798 (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 219, n. 25b). The manuscript’s commissioner Paṇḍita Khetasī is referred to as a pupil of Ācārya Sakalakīrti, who accordingly had succeeded (‘tasya paṭṭe’) Ācārya Jñānakīrti.94 The manuscript also records the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti (p. s. 1792-1815) who indeed was on the seat at the time of the manuscript’s copying and is recorded as the successor of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti in the familiar terms (‘tatpaṭṭe’). The colophon (or its edition) does not specify the link between Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti and the ācāryas. Still according to the colophon, the manuscript was copied in the Maiḍāṃ temple (?, ‘maiḍāṃkūṃ dehurai’) in Udayapura during the rule of the Sisodiyā ruler Rāṇa Jagat Siṅha (r. 1734-51 CE). Founded in the mid-16th century CE and rising to prominence after Akbar’s sack of Cittauḍagaṛha in 1567-8 CE, Udayapura undoubtedly long had a ﬂourishing Digambara community by the mid-18th century CE. At the time, the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā was active in Udayapura and possibly had its seat there, as is ̥ indicated by memorials of two bhaṭṭārakas and an ācārya of this lineage on the outskirts of the city dating to three and four decades prior to the present colophon (s. 1759, s. 1769). (5.6.2.) The ‘saṃvat 1798 varṣe […] bhaṭṭāraka śrī devendrakīrttijī tatpaṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka śrī mahendrakīrtti jī ācāryajī śrī jñānakīrtti jī tasya paṭṭe ācārya śrī sakalakīrtti jī tasya śiṣya paṃḍita khetasī likhāpitaṃ śrī udayapura nagaramadhye rāṇājī śrī jagatasi[ṅ]hajī rājakare śrī maiḍāṃkūṃ dehurai likhyo |’ (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 219, n. 25b). 94 72 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat on the other hand was at considerable distance at the time. A few years before the production of the manuscript (s. 1792), Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti was consecrated in Dillī, more than 600 shortly kilometres to the north-east, and he later moved to Jayapura, still more than 350 kilometres away. (4.1.3.) If the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā did have some connection to Udayapura, for example through laypeople who had migrated there from Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa, we can easily imagine that some permanent representation through for example resident ācāryas might have been useful. Yet the scribe Paṇḍita Khetasī may also have become a pupil of Ācārya Sakalakīrti elsewhere, and the manuscript colophon therefore cannot be taken as a certain indication of both ācāryas’ whereabouts. The colophon also does not include any information on the donors. 2.2.4.9. Conclusions The maṇḍalācārya rank, or title, was used fairly commonly in the 15th to 18th century CE Balātkāragaṇa lineages.95 Maṇḍalācāryas are also attested in late medieval South India.96 It is not yet clear whether it was similarly common in the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha. So far only two cases are known. A manuscript colophon from s. 1582 records one Muni Maṇḍalācārya Kṣemakīrti as a pupil of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇabhadra (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 149, n. 27c). As mentioned, a colophon from a decade later (s. 1592) probably attests the same renouncer as Muni Kṣīmakīrti, and as succeeding (‘tatpaṭṭe’) Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇabhadra (Ibid.: 116, n. 19). The (unpublished) inscription of a pillar in Cāndakheḍī mentions a Maṇḍalācārya Keśavasena in an unspeciﬁed relation to Bhaṭṭāraka Sumatikīrti, an incumbent of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Laghuśākhā succession Bhuvanakīrti > Viśvasena > Mahīcandra > Sumatikīrti (2.2.1). Innovations in ascetic hierarchies and saṅgha organisation often spread from one tradition to the other, as with the introduction and formalisation of the bhaṭṭāraka rank in the late medieval period. Still, as the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha did not bifurcate exactly as proliﬁcally in Western and Central India as the Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa, it may have had less of a need to appoint maṇḍalācāryas. Maṇḍalācāryas were probably appointed by bhaṭṭārakas to conduct aﬀairs in towns and regions away from the main seat, in response to increased or newly arisen chances for patronage or to fulﬁl the needs of local communities at further oﬀ places. The exact degree of the maṇḍalācāryas’ autonomy with regard to for example icon consecrations is uncertain, and may have varied between various times, regions, or even lineages. Other activities like conducting rituals and counselling laity undoubtedly formed part of the core tasks of the maṇḍalācāryas. And maṇḍalācāryas could clearly also maintain their own saṅghas of lower-ranking renouncers. Just like common ācāryas and munis, the maṇḍalācāryas and the ascetic saṅghas dwelling with them technically belonged to their parent bhaṭṭāraka lineage and saṅgha. Yet, the successions (paṭṭe) of To be added to the cases discussed above is an attestation of an otherwise unknown Maṇḍalācārya Mānikanandi, recorded as a pupil of the early 18th century CE Kārañjāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (Joharāpurakara 1958: 63, lekha 162). In the second half of the 17th century CE, the Lātūraśākhā is also reported to have arisen as a maṇḍalācārya seat originally, meant to serve the Saitavāla caste (Detige 2015: 151). 95 96 See some examples from the 12th and 13th century CE in Settar 1989: 34, 40 and Dhaky 2000: 53. 73 maṇḍalācāryas and sometimes ācāryas recorded in inscriptions and colophons express a distinct sense of internal lineage identity. Importantly, the study of the usage of the maṇḍalācārya rank in the Western and Central Indian Balātkāragaṇa lineages improves our understanding of the dynamics of the formation of early modern Digambara ascetic lineages. Counter to what prior scholarship assumed, most Balātkāragaṇa bifurcations were not direct multiplications of bhaṭṭāraka seats, neither a consequence of splits caused by disputes, nor of the benign creation of new seats. New bhaṭṭāraka seats instead more often arose as the ﬁnal outcome of longer, gradual processes whereby successions of (maṇḍal)ācāryas who were appointed by and were subordinate to the bhaṭṭārakas of the parent lineage after a number of generations themselves came to obtain the bhaṭṭāraka rank, and with that autonomy. In this process, it is mostly not clear whether the bhaṭṭāraka rank was granted to the maṇḍalācāryas by the incumbents of their parent lineages, or they rather claimed it in deﬁance of their former superiors. Only the promotion of the Laghuśākhā incumbent Ratnacandra from maṇḍalācārya to bhaṭṭāraka stands out as likely an example of the latter option, given the attestation of friction between the Vāgaḍāśākhās precisely around this time. Given the actual ācārya and maṇḍalācārya ranks of the ﬁrst Vāgaḍāśākhā and Lāṭaśākhā incumbents, the origin narratives of these lineages describing these as direct creations of new bhaṭṭāraka seats in response to imminent pratiṣṭhās are clearly a posteriori constructions. Later sources commonly ascribe the bhaṭṭāraka rank to lineage incumbents who actually had been ācāryas or maṇḍalācāryas. As far as the evidence allows us to reconstruct it, Devendrakīrti who stood at the origins of both the Lāṭaśākhā and the Mālavāśākhā, even seems to have been a mere muni. Often the ﬁrst incumbent to become a bhaṭṭāraka immediately initiated the practice of recording his predecessors with this higher rank. We see this being done by Mallibhūṣaṇa in the late 15th century CE Lāṭaśākhā (2.2.4.4.), by Ratnacandra in the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā in the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE (5.1.3.), and by Vijayakīrti in the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa in the mid-18th century CE (6.2.3.). The Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā maṇḍalācāryas also ascribed their own rank to their ācārya rank predecessors. (5.1.3.) The countless epigraphic and manuscript sources produced in later decades and centuries in which bhaṭṭāraka-hood is ascribed to earlier (maṇḍal)ācārya incumbents ‘falsiﬁed’ the archive and mislead prior scholarship to conceive of the bifurcations of ascetic lineages as direct multiplications of bhaṭṭāraka seats.97 Sources closer in time to the ācārya and maṇḍalācārya rank incumbents, like the inscriptions of memorials stones, are valuable witnesses to their actual ranks. The Uttaraśākhā’s installation of the maṇḍalācāryas of the Lāṭaśākhā and the Mālavāśākhā, and of the Vāgaḍāśākhā and Cambalaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas, seems to have gone hand in hand with the great expansion of the Delhi Sultanate under the Tughluq dynasty. The arising and ﬂourishing of the regional Sultanates of Gujarat and Malwa subsequently formed the background for the development of all these into independent, often further bifurcating lineages. Caste or sub-caste Most extensively so, Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 228) for example regard the full undivided Śākambharīśākhā from its origins in the early 15th century CE onwards as a bhaṭṭāraka lineage. 97 74 group dynamics also played a role in processes of lineage formation. The various Balātkāragaṇa and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha lineages were also developed to serve the various Digambara castes. (2.2.1.) Intra-caste discord often lead to the installation of separate seats and hence the formation of diﬀerent lineages. Parallel to the role of lay communities in extending the ācārya rank to Digambara munis in the ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE (1.1.1.), local lay constituencies probably had agency in the promotions of the incumbents of the lineages to which they were connected, pushing their gurus to the more authoritative bhaṭṭāraka rank. 2.3. Saṅghas 2.3.1. Composition of the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas The Western and Central Indian bhaṭṭārakas were formerly perceived as venerable renouncers (2.1.2.), we now have a clearer understanding of the distribution (2.2.3.) and the formation (2.2.4.) of new Digambara ascetic lineages in the early modern period, and we know that many continued longer than previously thought (2.2.2.). A further major revision to earlier understandings of pre-20th century CE Digambara Jaina asceticism concerns the composition of the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas. It was often assumed that these counted only lay paṇḍitas operating as ritual specialists and scholars, and celibate brahmacārīs, low ranking renouncers who can hold possessions. Higherranking, fully initiated renouncers (munis, upādhyāyas, ācāryas) were thought to have been replaced by clothed bhaṭṭārakas and to have completely disappeared in the Sultanate period. Ample evidence shows that the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas instead also featured munis, ācāryas, and female renouncers of various degrees well into the Mughal era. The saṅghas were composed of sometimes considerably large numbers of renouncers of various ranks. (2.3.3.) Individuals sometimes had long ascetic careers, making consecutive promotions up the ascetic hierarchy, for some up to the bhaṭṭāraka seat. (2.3.4.) Yet we still know relatively little about the practices followed by these renouncers. (2.3.6.) Textual sources and memorials commonly attest munis from the 15th to the 17th century CE (2.3.2.), and ācāryas until the 18th century CE. (2.3.2., 2.3.5.) Multiple ācāryas ﬂourished within a single lineage and even within a single saṅgha. The kṣullaka and ailaka initiatory ranks do not seem to have been used in this period. (2.3.6.) Brahmacārīs ﬂourished in large numbers. Memorials of early modern brahmacārīs were erected, and especially from Gujarat broad literary circles are known to have centred around bhaṭṭārakas consisting mostly of brahmacārīs and paṇḍitas. Brahmacārīs are still found in the 18th century CE (2.3.5.), but rarely encountered in the 19th century CE.98 Another early modern rank or title occasionally attested is that of varṇī, which appears to have been used 98 Since the 20th century CE, brahmacārīs are once more commonly found in the muni saṅghas. 75 as a synonym for brahmacārī in at least some cases and is also interpreted as such by Joharāpurakara (1958: 166).99 Although often remaining unrecorded in the male renouncer dominated and male renouncer oriented Digambara tradition (Shāntā 1997), female Digambara renouncers seem to have ﬂourished up to the 17th century CE. Often recording pupillary successions of female renouncers, about half a dozen memorials (3.2.4.4.) and numerous textual attestations of female Digambara renouncers conﬁrm that until at least100 the 16th century CE the full hierarchy of female ascetic ranks was also preserved, from brahmacāriṇī (bāī) to kṣullikā and fully initiated āryikā.101 Starting in the 18th and especially in the 19th century CE, we see a steep rise in attestations of paṇḍitas in the bhaṭṭāraka circles. When renouncer saṅghas decreased in size and variety of ranks, and ultimately disappeared, paṇḍitas probably took up new or extended roles as ritual specialists, teachers, scholars, or astrologers. Their appearance in the corpus of memorials probably indicates an enhanced position. (2.3.7., 3.2.4.5.) Diverse sources clearly express the hierarchy of early modern Digambara ascetic ranks, including the preeminence of the bhaṭṭārakas. Consecration manuals of the Balātkāragaṇa list their outlines for the initiation rituals into the various ranks in ascending order, from kṣullaka to muni, upādhyāya, ācārya, and ﬁnally bhaṭṭāraka (Detige 2019b). Vernacular gītas commemorating bhaṭṭāraka consecrations refer to the renouncers of various ranks attending these events as their devoted pupils. Other textual and epigraphic sources also often record early modern ācāryas, munis, brahmacārīs, and female renouncers as pupils of bhaṭṭārakas. In other cases, they are more generally indicated as ﬂourishing in the tradition (tadāmnāye) of a bhaṭṭāraka or maṇḍalācārya, also an indication of their subordination to the latter. Similar attestations are so common that we can transpose this hierarchy to cases where early modern munis and ācāryas are attested without an explicit indication of their relation to the bhaṭṭārakas. To be sure, nowhere do we ﬁnd any indication of early modern renouncers opposing the bhaṭṭārakas. Both textual sources (Detige 2018: 339-43) and memorial inscriptions do regularly attest ācāryas, munis, brahmacārīs, and occasionally laypeople, as the pupils of other munis and ācāryas, rather than of bhaṭṭārakas. These muni- and ācārya-rank gurus probably acted as śīkṣā-gurus, instructing Varṇī Rāyamalla = Brahma Rāyamalla (ﬂ. s. 1667-98, Joharāpurakara 1958: 161, lekha 408; Kāsalīvāla 1950: 43, n. 31), Varṇī Māghananda (ﬂ. s. 1530 [corrected from s. 1730], pupil of Muni Jayakīrti, Ibid.: 63, n. 48b), Śrīpāla Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra, Ibid.: 39, n. 27), Varṇī Cokhacandra Varṇī (ﬂ. s. 1608, pupil of the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ (ﬂ. s. 1730, related to Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, Joharāpurakara 1958: 105, lekha 269). The varṇī rank is also used in the contemporary period, most notably by the famous scholars-renouncers Kṣullaka Ganeśaprasāda Varṇī (1874-1961 CE) and his pupil Jinendra Varṇī (1922-83 CE), the author of the Jainendra Siddhānta Kośa (Varṇī 2012). 99 Three niṣedhikās at the Atiśaya Kṣetra in Devagaṛha, near Lalitpur (Uttar Pradesh), estimated to date to ca. the 18th century CE, commemorate an āryikā and two kṣullikās of unconﬁrmed lineage aﬃliation. (3.2.4.4.). 100 Early modern female renouncers are attested with considerable frequency in manuscript colophons, as the recipients of the manuscripts or in other capacities. In the Balātkāragaṇa Cambalaśākhā in the second half of the 16th century CE (s. 1621) for example, a Yaśodhara-carita was copied for Bāī Hīrā and Candā (the latter probably also a brahmacāriṇī), pupils of Āryā [Āryikā] Cāritraśrī (Joharāpurakara 1958: 127, lekha 309). In Kāsalīvāla’s (1950) collection of colophons and other manuscript sources, I found attestations of six āryikās, about a dozen and a half brahmacāriṇīs, and one unranked female renouncer belonging to various Balātkāragaṇa lineages and to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha, and dated from the 15th to the early 17th century CE (Detige 2018: 320-4). 101 76 their ascetic pupils in diverse ﬁelds like scripture, philosophy, language, or conduct. This indicates a certain degree of agency and authority, with these munis and ācāryas taking up roles assigned in the contemporary muni saṅghas, in theory more than necessarily also in practice, to upādhyāyas. Such sources then chose to memorialise the pupils’ devotion to their muni and ācārya rank teachers. Yet, at the same time the former would have had another relation to a bhaṭṭāraka as their dīkṣā-gurus, from whom they received consecration, and who presumably also remained the ﬁnal authority. Those ācāryas attested as succeeding (paṭṭe) bhaṭṭārakas or other ācāryas presumably had an extended degree of independence from the bhaṭṭārakas. (2.2.4.1.) Although Balātkāragaṇa consecration manuals include an outline for the ritual conferment of the upādhyāya rank (Detige 2019b: 4), individual attestations of early modern upādhyāyas are rather rare. To date, no memorials of them have been found. The number of 33 upādhyāyas cited to have been present in the saṅgha of the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra in the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE is rather incredulous and probably erratic (perhaps a mere editorial mistake, to be corrected to three), but may still be taken as an attestation of the usage of the rank. (2.3.3.) The 16th century CE Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇakīrti is eulogised as having passed through the ̥ rank of upādhyāya during his ascetic career. (2.3.4.) In the later 16th century CE (s. 1637), one Upādhyāya Dharmakīrti belonging to the Balātkāragaṇa Lāṭaśākhā copied a manuscript in the unknown town of Kodādā (Joharāpurakara 1958: 186, lekha 491). Probably this is the same individual as the Upādhyāya Dharmakīrti (no lineage aﬃliation given) who according to Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 196) composed a Yaśodhara-carita narrative in the Cintāmaṇi Pārśvanātha Mandira in Aṅkleśvara (Gujarat) in s. 1657. The inscription of a s. 1718 mūrti from Ahāra (Madhya Pradesh) records one Upādhyāya Nemicandra in relation to Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti of the undivided Mālavāśākhā (Joharāpurakara 1958: 205, lekha 536). Most probably the same Upādhyāya Nemicandra is attested as renovating a caityālaya in an unpublished s. 1696 śilālekha in the Baḍā Mandira in Lalitapura (Uttar Pradesh), some sixty km to the west of Ahāra. The incomplete inscription of a pādukā from s. 1707 found in the Neminātha Mandira in Sojitrā (Gujarat) possibly also attests an upādhyāya (rank not fully legible, name illegible) as a pupil of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha (unknown tradition) Bhaṭṭāraka Śrībhūṣaṇa (unpublished inscription). Even today, only a very limited number of upādhyāyas is present in the Digambara saṅghas.102 Jaina & Pāṇḍyā 2008: 51-8) listed over four hundred fully initiated, male Digambara renouncers ﬂourishing at the time of writing, among whom some 340 munis and about sixty ācāryas, but only nine upādhyāyas. Flügel (2006: 358) also observed that the upādhyāya rank represents as an honorary rather than an administrative role in the contemporary Digambara saṅghas. The seemingly even larger disregard of the upādhyāya rank in the early modern Digambara ascetic lineages may be due to the superimposition of the bhaṭṭāraka rank to that of the ācārya, the frequent usage of the maṇḍalācārya title, and the disappearance of the muni rank. Ācāryas and maṇdalācāryas may have taken up an intermediary position between munis (as long as they still ﬂourished) and bhaṭṭārakas comparable to that of upādhyāyas between munis and ācāryas today. The upādhyāya rank is also infrequently used in the contemporary Śvetāmbara mūrtipūjaka ascetic lineages, or occupied only for a few years (John Cort, personal communication, 17th May 2024). 102 77 As we saw, maṇdalācāryas indeed could be responsible for a part of the ascetic saṅgha. (2.2.4.2.) As such, the upādhyāya rank could have been rendered functionally superﬂuous. 2.3.2. Munis and ācāryas (15th to 17th century CE) My research has brought to light a sound body of attestations of early modern munis and ācāryas from various parts of particularly Western India, collected from newly studied as well as previously published, textual and epigraphic sources. The sources clearly show that these munis and ācāryas were members of the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas, and often relate them to speciﬁc lineages. Among the attestations of early modern munis and ācāryas is a substantial number of memorials discovered at ﬁnding spots in Western India. I have discovered memorials of ﬁve munis, dating from the late 15th to the second half of the 16th century CE (s. 1[5?]5[1?]-1627), some twenty ācāryas, dating from the early 15th to the late 18th century CE (s. 1465-1855), and one further, unranked but probably fully initiated, male renouncer (muni or ācārya) from the early 15th century CE (s. 1465). (3.2.4.3.) Two 16th century CE Vāgaḍāśākhā munis are commemorated in Naugāmā (5.3.3.) and two more in Sāgavāṛā (5.4.3.), and a late 15th century CE (s. 155[1?]) memorial in Bārāṃ commemorates a muni probably related to the Uttaraśākhā or the Vāgaḍāśākhā. (4.3.18.) Vāgaḍāśākhā ācāryas are found commemorated at sites in Naugāmā (s. 1594, s. 1601, poss. s. 1638, 5.3.2.), Sāgavāṛā (s. 1579, s. 1725 s. 1739, s. 1749, prob. n.d.; 5.4.2.), Udayapura (s. 1759, 5.6.2.), and Īḍara (s. 1855, prob. ﬂ. third quarter of the 18th century CE, 5.6.5.). An early 17th century CE memorial of a Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā ācārya is found at the Nasiyā in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha (s. 1681, 4.3.3.). In Bassī two caraṇa-chatrīs are found commemorating ācāryas with a pedigree from the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, dated s. 1750/1781 and s. 1828, and two further, unidentiﬁed chatrīs possibly also commemorated ācāryas. (4.3.8.) At a necropolis in Ajamera, caraṇa-cabūtarās dated from s. 1782 to s. 1821 commemorate ﬁve ācāryas taken to be related to the local Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa. (6.2.4.) The inscriptions of some of these memorials attest yet more munis and ācāryas. Some memorial stones which no longer feature suﬃciently legible inscriptions may also have commemorated further munis and ācāryas, other muni and ācārya memorial stones may have been lost altogether, and as lower-ranking renouncers many munis and ācāryas may never have been commemorated to start with. Most of the discovered memorial stones of munis and ācāryas are niṣedhikā pillars with carved depictions of the commemorated renouncer and jina ﬁgures, installed in chatrī pavilions. Pādukā feet carvings are more rarely found of ācāryas and especially munis, as this iconography became more popular in later centuries. (3.1.) Memorials of ācāryas and munis are thus structurally similar to those of bhaṭṭārakas, yet often materially reﬂect the ascetic hierarchy by being more modest in some respect. At the Vāgaḍāśākhā necropolis in Naugāmā, niṣedhikās of munis and common, non-incumbent ācāryas are smaller than those of lineage incumbents (bhaṭṭārakas, maṇḍalācāryas, ācāryas), and niṣedhikās of brahmācārīs smaller still. At the Śākambharīśākhā necropolis in Ajamera, ācāryas are commemorated with caraṇa-cabūtarās, a more modest medium of commemoration than the chatrīs of maṇḍalācāryas and bhaṭṭārakas. (3.1.6.) 78 While the sheer materiality of the 15th to 17th century CE muni and ācārya memorials arguably presents some of the most compelling evidence for the ﬂourishing of renouncers of these ranks in the early modern Digambara saṅghas, textual attestations are more numerous. Scribal colophons and praise songs of bhaṭṭārakas record considerable numbers of early modern munis and ācāryas of various lineages and traditions. The records help to gauge the prevalence of renouncers of these ranks in the early modern ascetic saṅghas, and sometimes supply more information than the memorial inscriptions. Manuscript colophons often attest munis and ācāryas as recipients of manuscript donations, as copyists, as inspiring others to produce manuscripts, or as the gurus or pupils of others active in the manuscript production (Detige 2018). They also appear as litterateurs. Two compositions are known, one dated to s. 1646, of Ācārya Narendrakīrti, who was related to the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Vādibhūṣaṇa and to ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ Sakalabhūṣaṇa (?103) (Kāsalīvāla ̥ 1981: 25). And another ācārya rank pupil of the late 16th century CE Brhatśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka ̥ Vādibhūṣaṇa, Ācārya Jñānakīrti, composed a Sanskrit Yaśodhara-carita (Balabhadra Jaina 1978: 62). Muni Harṣakīrti was perhaps related to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and wrote vernacular poetic compositions, one dated to s. 1683 (Kāsalīvāla 1981: 13-4). It is not clear to which lineage Muni Rājacandra, who wrote a composition in s. 1684, was related (Ibid.: 22). Another poet, Kalyāṇakīrti, may also have been a muni. He was a pupil of one Muni Devakīrti, related to the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi, and wrote compositions in s. 1692 and s. 1705 (Ibid.: ̥ 14-6). Aﬃliated to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha and the Agravāla caste, and probably based in Dillī, Muni Sabhācanda composed a Padma-Purāṇa in s. 1711 (Kāsalīvāla 1984). In Kastūracanda Kāsalīvāla’s 1950 Praśasti-Saṃgraha (PS), a collection of some 250 manuscript colophons (puṣpikā), authorial verses of praise (praśasti), and other fragments of textual compositions from the Āmera śāstra-bhaṇḍāra, the manuscript collection of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā now preserved in Jayapura,104 attestations were found of 38 munis (15th - mid-17th century CE, a single attestation mid-18th century) and 30 ācāryas (16th - 18th century CE). Among these were nine munis (s. 1530-1631) and eleven ācāryas (s. 1597-1831) aﬃliated with the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, six or seven munis (<s. 1533 - s. 1690) and four ācāryas (s. 1627-1691) of the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā, two ̥ munis related to the Uttaraśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi (s. 1518), ﬁve ācāryas (ca. 1802-22 - s. 1822) and four or possibly ﬁve munis (s. 1541-1666) of the Śākambharīśākhās, one Mālavāśākhā ācārya (s. 1552-3), one Cambalaśākhā muni (s. 1533), and three early Lāṭaśākhā ācāryas (s. 1585-1616/25). (Detige 2018: 324-5, 360-5) Although the sources edited by Kāsalīvālā (1950) stem from a manuscript collection which formed around that of a Balātkāragaṇa seat, and thus predominantly contains manuscripts related to this tradition, considerable numbers of Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha munis and ācāryas are also attested in his materials. From the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha we ﬁnd attestations of three ācāryas (s. 1656, s. 1714), ﬁve munis (s. 1577-92), and ﬁve more renouncers who were probably at least munis (s. 1479). One ācārya belonged to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha (s. 1643), and one ācārya is of Probably Ācārya Sakalabhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1627), attested as a pupil of the earlier Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka ̥ Śubhacandra (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 3, n. 4a, verse 10). 103 104 On this manuscript collection, see Kragh 2013. 79 unspeciﬁed Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha aﬃliation, possibly Māthuragaccha (s. 1723).105 (Detige 2018: 325, 360-5) To date, no memorials of Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha munis and ācāryas have been discovered. A s. 1576 mūrtilekha attests three ācāryas, probably as pupils of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha bhaṭṭāraka who consecrated the icon. (2.3.3.) The sources collected by Joharāpurakara (1958) also contain attestations of a considerable number of munis and ācāryas. Among the latter are one early 19th century CE Cambalaśākhā ācārya (ﬂ. s. 1858, Ibid.: 131, lekha 326), a Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā ācārya from the ﬁrst half of the 18th century CE (att. s. 1797, Ibid.: 107, lekha 274) and four Lāṭaśākhās ācāryas from the 15th to the early 17th century CE (s. 1585-1616/25, Ibid.: 175-93, lekhas 450-1, 455, 459, 474, 484-8, 491, 497, 522). The munis attested in the materials included in Bhaṭṭāraka Saṃpradāya were aﬃliated to various Balātkāragaṇa lineages and predominantly ﬂourished in the 15th to mid-16th century CE, far more rarely in the 17th century CE. Muni Jayakīrti, Muni Cārukīrti, Muni Jayanandi, and Muni Bhīmasena are attested in a text from s. 1516 as pupils of Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra (p. s. 1507) who was then the Uttaraśākhā incumbent (Ibid.: 100, lekha 253). Muni Nayanandi received a manuscript in s. 1512, its colophon according to the edition recording him as a pupil of the earlier Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi, although also noting the ﬂourishing Jinacandra (Ibid.: 99, lekha 251). According to Joharāpurakara (1958: 108) Netranandi, for who a manuscript was copied in s. 1521 was also a muni, as was perhaps then his guru Madanakīrti, who is again recorded as a pupil of Padmanandi (Ibid.: 101, lekha 255). Muni Vimalakīrti is attested in a colophon from s. 1541 as a pupil of the Śākambharīśākhā founder Maṇḍalācārya Ratnakīrti [I] (Ibid.: 102, lekha 258). Muni Puṇyakīrti is attested in a s. 1595 colophon as a pupil of the Śākambharīśākhā ‘Muni Maṇḍalācārya’ Bhuvanakīrti (on the latter, see 6.1.1.; Ibid.: 113, lekha 279). Muni Gunanandi, a pupil of the ﬁrst Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka ̥ Jñānabhūṣaṇa, composed a R̥ ṣi-maṇḍala-pūjā (Ibid.: 143, lekha 361). Muni Nemicandra, a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Lakṣmīcandra, the last incumbent of the undivided Lāṭaśākhā, received a copy of Puṣpadanta’s Mahāpurāṇa in s. 1575 (Ibid.: 180, lekha 469). Another pupil of Lakṣmīcandra, one Sakalakīrti who copied a manuscript in s. 1605, may also have been a muni (Ibid.: 180, lekha 471). A late Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā muni, Muni Tribhuvanacandra, copied a manuscript in s. 1725 (Ibid.: 151, ̥ lekha 391). Tribhuvanacandra is recorded as a pupil of Ācārya Kalyāṇakīrti, himself a pupil of Muni Devakīrti, a pupil of Muni Śrutakīrti. This pupillary succession is also attested in other sources, and in one of these Ācārya Kalyāṇakīrti also appears as a muni. (5.4.3., Chart 5.3). The foregoing is a non-exhaustive list of early modern munis and ācāryas attested in the materials collected by Joharāpurakara (1958). Other scholars too edited or reported materials attesting further early modern munis and ācāryas. One Muni Sahasrakīrti is attested in a s. 1516 colophon, related to the Uttaraśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra (Kāsalīvāla 1978: 123). A copy of Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti’s Dhanya-kumāra-caritra was prepared for Muni Ratnabhūṣaṇa in s. 1533, recording the muni as a pupil of the Cambalaśākhā founder Bhaṭṭāraka Siṅhakīrti (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 19, n. 17). The inscription of a s. 1534 mūrti records Muni Deśabhūṣaṇa and Muni Guṇakīrti among a list of renouncers, probably the pupils of the early Vāgaḍāśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmacandra who consecrated the icon (P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 128, see 2.3.3., 5.1.1.). Muni Ratnakīrti received a copy of One more ācārya (s. 1820) and four munis (s. 1580 - prior to s. 1803) in the corpus of Kāsalīvālā (1950) are of entirely unknown aﬃliation. (Detige 2018: 325) 105 80 Dhanapāla’s Bhaviṣyadatta-catritra in s. 1540, and Muni Maghanandi a copy of Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti’s Praśnottara-śrāvakācāra in s. 1553, both munis related to the ﬁrst Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Jñānabhūṣaṇa (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 170). An undated, possibly 15th or 16th century CE manuscript colophon attests Muni Siṅhanandi, Muni Rājacandra, and Muni Ravibhūṣaṇa (Clines 2018: 26). In s. 1597, a manuscript was donated to Muni Padmakīrti, a pupil of one Ācārya Abhayacandra, the colophon referring to the tradition (‘āmnāye’) of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 189, n. 40a). The early 17th century CE Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1662) reportedly was a muni before he ascended the bhaṭṭāraka seat, and as a bhaṭṭāraka he had a group of munis (muni-gaṇa) under him (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 244; Kāsalīvāla 1989: 151). A song composition probably records Muni Udayasāgara, Śubhakīrti, and Jayakīrti (possibly also munis) as attending the paṭṭābhiṣeka of the Mālavaśākhā Narendrakīrti in Siroñja in s. 1740, along with female renouncers, brahmacārīs, and paṇḍitas (P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 89). Another late muni (Muni Kanakā?) seems to be recorded in the largely illegible inscription of a s. 1749 niṣedhikā in Sāgavāṛā consecrated by the Brhatśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti and commemorating an unidentiﬁed ācārya. (#5.23, ̥ 5.4.3.) Based on the sampled, non-exhaustive attestations collected above, taken from memorial inscriptions and from the published work of Kastūracanda Kāsalīvālā, Vidyādhara Joharāpurakara, and various other scholars, it is already clear that munis ﬂourished in the various Balātkāragaṇa lineages in the 15th (Uttara-, Dhūṇḍāḍa-, Vāgaḍā-, Śākambharī-, and Cambalaśākhā) and 16th century CE (Dhūṇḍāḍa-, Vāgaḍā-, Śākambharī-, Lāṭa-, and Kārañjāśākhā). Their numbers clearly decreased in the 17th century CE (Vāgaḍā-, Śākambharī-, and Mālavaśākhā) and they were virtually absent by the 18th century CE. We are uncertain about the actual dates of two munis attested through a vernacular composition copied in s. 1803, a Tattvārtha-sūtra-bhāṣā by Muni Prabhācandra, a pupil of Muni Dharmacandra (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 215, n. 23). In his paṭṭa-sthāpanāgīta, Paṇḍita Akhairāma does records munis attending the consecration of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti in Dillī in s. 1792. (2.3.3.) And a Muni Vāsavakīrti is attested in the late 18th century CE Kārañjāśākhā (Joharāpurakara 1958: 66, lekha 178). No memorials of munis belonging to the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas are found postdating the 16th century CE. Two 19th century CE munis found commemorated in Rajasthan are precursors to the 20th century CE muni revival who roamed in relative independence from the bhaṭṭāraka traditions. (7.1.) Ācāryas on the other hand are amply attested not only in the 15th (Vāgaḍā-, and Lāṭaśākhās), 16th (Dhūṇḍāḍa-, Vāgaḍā-, Lāṭa-, and Mālavaśākhā), and 17th century CE (Dhūṇḍāḍa-, Vāgaḍā-, and Lāṭaśākhās) but also in the 18th (Dhūṇḍāḍa-, Vāgaḍā-, Śākambharī-, and Cambalaśākhā), and 19th century CE (Śākambharī-, and Cambalaśākhā). (2.3.5.) In the 15th and 16th century CE, when the muni rank was still in use, ācāryas are unsurprisingly attested less numerously than munis. In the contemporary Digambara saṅghas, the leading ācāryas are similarly outnumbered by lowerranking renouncers (upādhyāyas, munis, ailakas, kṣullakas, brahmacārīs). Ācāryas are however attested more numerously after the disappearance of munis than while munis still ﬂourished (Detige 2018: 360-2, 2.3.5.). The disappearance of the muni rank in the course of the 17th century CE and the lack of attestations of kṣullakas by then may well signal the end of the itineracy and nudity 81 of Digambara ascetics, with the concrete application of the ācārya and bhaṭṭāraka ranks from then gradually changing. (2.3.6.) In his early 18th century CE Hari-vaṃśa-purāṇa (s. 1769), Nemicandra lists the Digambara religious actors as ācāryas, brahmacārīs, brahmacāriṇīs, and paṇḍitas,106 munis notably absent. While this source should in the ﬁrst place be seen as relating to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, with which the author was aﬃliated, it possibly also represent the contemporary situation more generally. A source from about a century earlier seems to speak of the compression of the ranks of fully initiated renouncers in the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha in the later 16th or early 17th century CE. The source is a short vernacular composition by Brahma Jñānasāgara titled Saṅghāṣtaka or ‘Eightfold Composition on the Saṅgha’ (Joharāpurakara 1964; see also Cort 2006a: 265). According to Joharāpurakara (1964: 131), Jñānasāgara was a pupil of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Śrībhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1634-76, Joharāpurakara 1958: 295). In his Saṅghāṣtaka, Jñānasāgara describes, or rather prescribes, the ideal conduct and virtues of respectively a layman (śrāvaka), laywoman (śrāvikā, ‘śrāvakanī’), paṇḍita, brahmacārī, bāi (a brahmacāriṇī, or an āryikā, as Joharāpurakara [1964: 231] takes it), vratī, and bhaṭṭāraka. The vratī rank renouncer is said to be itinerant (‘viharata deśa’) and to adhere to the ﬁve mahāvratas and the mūlaguṇas. This refers to a fully initiated renouncer, a muni, upādhyāya, or ācārya, the bhaṭṭāraka excluded here for being mentioned separately. The absence of an explicit reference to the muni and ācārya ranks in Jñānasāgara’s overview of Digambara personae is conspicuous. Around the turn of the 17th century CE, when munis are no longer commonly attested and the conduct of fully-itinerant renouncers may have been changing, the moniker vratī (‘one who takes vows’) may have come to act as a stand-in for ranks no longer in practice (muni) or no longer used in the same way as before (ācārya). 2.3.3. Size of the saṅghas Collating attestations of munis, ācāryas, and other lower-ranking renouncers from diﬀerent, textual as well as epigraphic sources, we can sometimes gauge the breadth of the early modern Digambara ascetic saṅghas.107 The data of the necropoles in Vāgaḍā and Ajamera for example can be supplemented with attestations of further munis and ācāryas related to respectively the Vāgaḍāśākhās and the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa. Even then, we can probably take it that the numbers of renouncers attested from a speciﬁc lineage and period represent only a part of a ‘ācārya brahma bāī sabai, paṃḍita sabayana […]’ (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 280, n. 87, verse 25). In his jakheḍī on the paṭṭābhiṣeka of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti in Āmera in the next year (s. 1770), the same author (here Nemacanda) does record the presence of six unranked, but judging from their names fully initiated renouncers. (2.3.3.) 106 The term saṅgha is used in diﬀerent senses. It can refer to (a) the local Jain lay community of a given town, (b) the complete lay and ascetic Jain community (often referred to as the sakala-saṅgha, the full saṅgha, or as the caturvidha saṅgha, the fourfold saṅgha, consisting of male and female, lay and ascetic members), (c) a group of renouncers travelling together, or (d) the larger group of renouncers aﬃliated to a single mendicant leader. I use it here in the latter sense of the totality of renouncers belonging to a speciﬁc bhaṭṭāraka lineage. Barring the case of the Naugāmā-based Laghuśākhā saṅgha, which under its ācārya and maṇḍalācārya rank incumbents formed part of the Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭāraka saṅgha (5.1.3., 5.3.), we lack explicit evidence of ̥ segments of the bhaṭṭārakas' pupillary circles dwelling at a remove from the bhaṭṭāraka. 107 82 larger saṅgha, with many other members no longer found attested. The numbers of attestations collected should then be extrapolated to gain some idea of the actual size of the saṅghas. Occasionally, we also ﬁnd individual sources witnessing the breadth and diversity of speciﬁc bhaṭṭārakas’ saṅghas. Some of the bhaṭṭāraka songs of praise which so lucidly voice the former venerability of the Western Indian bhaṭṭārakas also form an important source of information on the constitution of their saṅghas. Of speciﬁc relevance are once again the paṭṭa-sthāpanā-gītas (2.1.3.). Next to describing the rituals of consecration of bhaṭṭārakas and the surrounding festivities, these compositions also record sometimes longish lists of lay donors, paṇḍitas, and renouncers attending the consecration festivals, the latter including brahmacārīs, munis, ācāryas, and female renouncers. Nyāyatīrtha (1985a, 1985b) edited two Ḍhūṇḍhāḍī language compositions on the paṭṭābhiṣeka of successive 18th century CE Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas (Detige 2019a: 280-2). A ﬁrst of these is a composition by Paṇḍita Akhairāma celebrating the consecration of Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti in Dillī in s. 1792 (Nyāyatīrtha 1985a: 422-3). The song ﬁrst mentions that ācāryas, āryikās, brahmacārīs, and paṇḍitas attended the event (no munis),108 but then names three brahmācārīs (Ṭekacanda, Keśavadāsa, Kapūracanda), two āryikās (Rājaśrī, Kamalaśrī), and six male renouncers (Kṣemakīrti,109 Harṣakīrti, Padmakīrti, Acalakīrti, Sakalakīrti, Vimalakīrti).110 The latter three seem to be recorded as munis, given the indication of this rank before their names. The former three were either also munis, or ācāryas. The latter is more likely, given that they are recorded ﬁrst, and given the earlier reference to the presence of ācāryas at the event. If accurate, the record of munis in this early 18th century CE saṅgha is of considerable interest, given the general disappearance of munis otherwise after the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE (2.3.2.). A similar composition (called a jakheḍī) by one Nemacanda (no rank or title recorded) deals with the paṭṭābhiṣeka of Mahendrakīrti’s predecessor Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti in Aṃbāvatī (Āmera) two decades before, in s. 1770. The song records the presence of a crowd of 51 paṇḍitas and six renouncers (Nyāyatīrtha 1985b: 36).111 No rank is given for the latter (Viśālakīrti, Jñānakīrti, Subhacandra, Nemacandra, Nemanandi, 108 ‘ācārija ara arijikā | brahmacāra paṃḍita’ (Nyāyatīrtha 1985a: 423, verse 6) 109 My correction of the probable scribal or editorial mistake ‘Kṣetrakīrti’ in Nyāyatīrtha 1985a: 423. ‘brahmacāra paṃdita śrāvikā guru caraṇa pūja viśeṣikā || jahāṃ kṣetrakīrati haraṣakīrati padamakīrati pāmiye | muni acalakīrati sakalakīrati vimalakīrati bakhāṇiye || ima raja śrī ara kamala śrī ye arajikā doya āniye |’ (Nyāyatīrtha 1985b: 423, verse 6) 110 ‘sukha līṇa ati hī viśālakīrati jñānakīrati subhacandajī | nemacanda nemānandi merukīrati brahma nāthū ṭekacadajī | lālacanda likhamīdāsa paṇḍita giridhara lakhamaṇa rasa līyo | devaïndra kīrati pāṭi thāpitāṃ svāmī candakīratijī jasa līyo ||3||’ (Nyāyatīrtha 1985a: 36) 111 83 Merukīrti), but the suﬃxes -kīrti, -candra, and -nandi used in their names indicate they were fully initiated renouncers,112 probably either munis or ācāryas.113 From a manuscript from Siroñja (Madhya Pradesh), P. C. Śāstrī (1992: 88-9) reported a paṭṭasthāpanā-gīta commemorating the paṭṭābiṣeka of the Mālavāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti in Siroñja (Madhya Pradesh) in s. 1740 which also seems to list the members of the bhaṭṭāraka saṅgha. Śāstrī edits a few other verses of the composition, but only reports a list of individuals who were probably again recorded as having attended the consecration (P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 89). They include Muni Udayasāgara, two individuals without rank, Śubhakīrti and Jayakīrti (probably also munis), Brahmacārī Bhayasāgara, one Rūpasāgara (probably also a brahmacārī), Āryikā Rāmaśrī, Bāī (= Brahmacāriṇī) Ṣibhaunī, one Candrāmatī (probably also a brahmacāriṇī), and, in a seemingly non-exhaustive list, ten or eleven paṇḍitas. Other paṭṭa-sthāpanā-gītas, and various types of other textual compositions commonly refer to the meeting of the caturvidha saṅgha, the fourfold Jaina community consisting of male (śrāvaka) and female (śrāvikā) laypeople, and male (sādhu) and female (sādhvī) renouncers. Given the ample evidence of the ﬂourishing of renouncers of various ranks, we can understand this concept of the fourfold community as having been more than just an empty trope. At the same time, the use of the term caturvidha saṅgha can also be understood as reﬂecting the former perception of these renouncers as genuinely venerable. While mūrtilekhas typically only record the consecrating agents, mostly bhaṭṭārakas, the inscriptions of a late 15th and an early 16th century CE mūrti also include a list of lower-ranking renouncers and paṇḍitas. In both cases, their relation to the consecrating bhaṭṭārakas is not speciﬁed, but presumably they were their pupils. The inscription of a s. 1576 mūrti from Ahamadābāda consecrated by the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Viśvasena records three ācāryas, one brahmacārī, two kṣullikās (kṣullikā bāī, ‘kṣu. bā.’, ‘kṣu. vā.’), and three paṇḍitas, Ācārya Sakalakīrti, Ācārya Vinayakīrti, Ācārya Rājakīrti, Brahmacārī Dharmadāsa, Kṣullikā Bāī Demī (prob. editorial or scribal mistake for Devī?), Kṣullikā Bāī Kuari (Kumārī?114), Paṇḍita Bhojā, Paṇḍita Nākara, and Paṇḍita Kīkā (Parikh & Shelat 1997: 352, lekha 841). The apparent absence of munis in Bhaṭṭāraka Viśvasena’s saṅgha is noteworthy, since munis are otherwise still frequently attested in the 16th century CE, both in the Balātkāragaṇa and the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha (2.3.2.). The inscription of a mūrti dated to less than half a century earlier (s. 1534), found in Kārañjā and consecrated by the early Vāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmakīrti, does include two munis, as well as two brahmacārīs, probably an āryikā, a paṇḍita, and interestingly also a kṣullaka, in listing Muni Deśabhūṣaṇa, Muni The suﬃxes -kīrti, -candra, -nandi, as well as -bhūṣaṇa are common in names of early modern munis, ācāryas, and bhaṭṭārakas. Only -cand[r]a is also regularly used in names of paṇḍitas, which also end in -dāsa. Early modern brahmacārīs typically have names with suﬃxes -dāsa, -sāgara, or -cand[r]a, or carry vernacular lay names without such standardised suﬃxes. 112 Nyāyatīrtha (1985b: 34-5) wrongly identiﬁes these six as paṇḍitas, together with the individuals listed next in the composition. However, the titles brahma and paṇḍita are interspersed before further names and identify only these individuals named after them as such. (I take it the text has a record of two brahmacārīs, Nāthū and Ṭekacada, and, in the next verse, four paṇḍitas, Lālacanda, Lakṣmīdāsa, Giridhara, Lakṣmaṇa.) This implies that those recorded before were of another, no doubt higher rank, as is also conﬁrmed by their names. 113 I take the last syllable in the editors’ reading of the name of the second kṣullikā (‘kuariya’) for the abbreviation ‘pa.’ for paṇḍita, the otherwise missing title of the next individual recorded (Bhojā). 114 84 Guṇakīrti, Brahmacārī Jinadāsa, Āryikā Dhana (‘ā. dhana’), Brahmacārī Nyānadāsa, Kṣullaka Sumati (‘kṣu. sumati’), and Paṇḍita Nāku (P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 128). While I take sources on the composition of the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas like the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā paṭṭa-sthāpanā-gītas and the Ahamadābāda and Kārañjā mūrtilekhas at face value, others need to be treated with more caution. From an unspeciﬁed source, Kāsalīvāla (1989: 190) apparently had a record of a grand consecration festival (pañca-kalyāṇaka-pratiṣṭhā) held in Lāḍanūṃ in s. 1352 and led by the Uttaraśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra which, reportedly, was attended by 1500 munis, 300 āryikās, 714 upādhyāyas, and 1800 paṇḍitas. Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 118) report a manuscript from unspeciﬁed provenance115 describing the saṅghas of one Maṇḍalācārya Guṇacandra and one Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra (Ratanacandra). Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla do not give any indication about the aﬃliation of Guṇacandra and Ratnacandra, but since the information on their saṅghas apparently stems from a single manuscript, they probably belong to the same lineage. It seems very likely then that Guṇacandra and Ratnacandra are the fourth and seventh incumbent of the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā, situated in the last quarter of the 16th century CE and the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE respectively. As we saw, Guṇacandra (d. s. 1653) was the ﬁrst Laghuśākhā incumbent distinguished as a maṇḍalācārya, and Ratnacandra (p. s. 1670, succeeded s. 1699, d. s. 1707) the ﬁrst to hold the bhaṭṭāraka rank. (2.2.4.5., 5.1.3.) Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla report the saṅgha of Maṇḍalācārya Guṇacandra as having counted nine ācāryas, one muni, 27 brahmacārīs and twelve brahmacāriṇīs, and that of Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra as composed of six ācāryas, 33 upādhyāyas (as mentioned probably an editorial mistake, maybe instead three,116 2.3.1.), forty brahmacārīs, and ten brahmacāriṇīs. The saṅgha of Maṇḍalācārya Guṇacandra then counted no less than 49 renouncers, and that of the later but higher-ranking, autonomous Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra 59 (counting three upādhyāyas). We do not know whether these were records of their saṅgha at any given moment, or of the total number of renouncers under them during their full incumbency. The latter is more likely, as the records appear in a source which is later at least than the former incumbent. The cited numbers of brahmacārīs (27, 40) and brahmacāriṇīs (12, 10) are particularly high, but large congregations of these lower-ranking, not fully initiated renouncers are indeed attested elsewhere too (see below). The numbers of ācāryas (9, 6) seem rather high but perhaps not impossible. Even in the mid-18th century CE Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa we ﬁnd a similar total of ācāryas ﬂourishing concurrently, although by this later time Digambara ācāryas may have been a rather diﬀerent type of ﬁgure. (6.2.4.) Especially the nine ācāryas connected to Maṇḍalācārya Guṇacandra are of interest, as this indicates that maṇḍalācāryas too could have a considerable number of common ācāryas under their supervision. The single muni in the saṅgha of Guṇacandra and the complete absence of munis in Ratnacandra’s later saṅgha correspond to our picture of the general disappearance of munis by the mid-17th century CE (2.3.2.). Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 118, n. 2) only describe their source as a guṭakā apparently found in the collection of one Paṇḍita Candanalāla Jaina (‘p. 73-4’). 115 116 Kāsalīvāla (1997c: 452) does repeat the same information, including the 33 upādhyāyas. 85 If the numbers of renouncers reported in the 16th and 17th century CE Laghuśākhā saṅghas of Guṇacandra and Ratnacandra are anywhere near accurate, the attestations collected from memorials and textual sources oﬀer but a very fragmentary glimpse of the actual sizes of the early modern Digambara renouncer communities. The few dozen attestations of munis and ācāryas which I have collected from various sources seem particularly negligible as they are found in textual and epigraphic sources stemming from a period spanning four centuries and a region as large as Western and Central India. Yet a number of factors can be cited to contextualise these low numbers and validate them as reﬂecting a more numerous ﬂourishing of Digambara munis and ācāryas in the late Sultanate and Mughal period. As the paramount renouncers of their days, superior to munis and ācāryas, bhaṭṭārakas are prone to have a far larger visibility in the created and preserved epigraphic and textual corpora. Apart from perhaps the most charismatic individuals among them, the majority of lower-ranking renouncers would have received less devotional, ritual, and poetic attention and acknowledgement from laypeople and other renouncers. Typically only bhaṭṭārakas are recorded in the inscriptions of the countless temple icons they consecrated. Bhaṭṭārakas also feature far more commonly in colophons, and as the subjects of praise compositions or other textual or material expressions of devotion. While memorials of bhaṭṭārakas seem to have been erected by default, this does not seem to have been the case for lower-ranking renouncers. The scarcity of memorial stones of brahmacārīs for example contrasts their actual prevalence evinced in textual sources. The higher-ranking and more popular bhaṭṭārakas would also have been honoured with more elaborate and better quality memorials which were more likely to stand the test of time than those of lower-ranking and less prominent renouncers like munis and ācāryas. Parallels can be drawn with the contemporary Digambara saṅghas. Memorials of common munis are typically modest chatrīs of low quality, often found abandoned and decaying a mere few decades or less after their construction. The more elaborate memorials of the more popular and inﬂuential ācāryas on the other hand are constructed with better building materials, more frequented, and better maintained. And while the leading ācāryas stand at the centre of frequent ritual veneration and numerous ritual and devotional compositions (pūjā, āratī, stuti, vandana, etc.) are written on the most famous among them, common munis receive less elaborate ritual veneration and ﬁgure as the subjects of such texts far more rarely (Detige 2024a). Most of my textual attestations of early modern munis and ācāryas stem from a single collection of manuscript colophons (Kāsalīvāla 1950), and in this sense should be read as a mere case study. Many more early modern munis and ācāryas can be expected to be attested in unstudied texts in manuscripts collections spread throughout Western and Central India, or even in other already published materials. The scarcity of manuscripts predating the 15th century CE sets a limit upon our chances of ﬁnding attestations of late medieval munis, since the mūrtilekhas and paṭṭāvalīs we have available to document this period only record the lineage incumbents (bhaṭṭārakas, ācāryas). My survey of memorials similarly is by no means conclusive. I mostly focused on towns where bhaṭṭāraka seats were known to have been established, and where memorials could be expected to be found. Further memorials of lower-ranking renouncers, especially of ācāryas functioning as local representatives, may also be located at other places, including many small towns. 86 All these factors indicate that lower-ranking, fully initiated renouncers probably ﬂourished in larger numbers than found attested, being less frequently recorded in material and textual sources than bhaṭṭārakas to start with, and evidence on them more prone to quickly perish. The available data is sometimes bolstered by ﬁndings of sites with considerable numbers of memorials of munis and ācāryas from a single lineage, like those of the necropoles in Naugāmā (5.3.), Sāgavāṛā (5.4.), and Ajamera (6.2.), or by textual compositions attesting a large number of renouncers, like the two Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā gītās discussed above. Such sources may draw out of proportion the number of attestations of munis and ācāryas in the concerned lineage, period, and region in comparison to others. Other times and places may have seen a similar prevalence of munis and ācāryas, on whom sources have disappeared or remain to date undiscovered. But it is also possible that ﬁndings like those from the Vāgaḍā region indicate a temporary, regional ﬂourishing of Digambara saṅghas which was not paralleled throughout early modern Western and Central India. We should therefore also caution against a premature conclusion that munis and ācāryas ﬂourished in large numbers throughout the late medieval and early Mughal period and throughout Western and Central India. While according to the logic outlined above, the low-ranking brahmacārīs would have received even less ritual and devotional attention than munis and ācāryas, textual attestations of brahmacārīs are sometimes more numerous. The literary circles which we can reconstruct to have formed around some bhaṭṭārakas for example consisted of considerable numbers of proliﬁc brahmacārīs and paṇḍitas (Kāsalīvāla 1981: 88-120), but smaller numbers of munis. (2.3.2.) It is unlikely that munis and ācāryas were somehow less involved in literary production than both the lower-ranking brahmacārīs and the higher-ranking bhaṭṭārakas, as if more engaged in asceticism. Instead, apart still from the dwindling numbers of munis by the 17th century CE, we probably ﬁnd an indication here that even in the 15th and 16th century CE the numbers of munis and ācāryas were generally much lower than those of brahmacārīs. This is also what we found attested in the records of the composition of the saṅghas of the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā incumbents Maṇḍalācārya Guṇacandra and Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra (above, this section). And it is unsurprising, if we conceive of pools of lower-ranking brahmacārīs of which fewer individuals took full ascetic initiations. Considering such qualiﬁcations and caveats, and despite the modest absolute numbers of attestations, the evidence for the prevalence of munis and ācāryas notably in the various early modern Balātkāragaṇa lineages is already relatively plentiful and at least somewhat indicative of the actual sizes of the saṅghas. Taking into account possible regional and temporal variation, the number of attestations collected so far are probably also representative for the quantity of further attestations which we could expected to ﬁnd through a continued survey of memorials and unexplored manuscript archives. 2.3.4. Ascetic careers As we have seen, until the 17th century CE broad and diverse Digambara ascetic saṅghas ﬂourished under the bhaṭṭārakas, with fully initiated (ācārya, muni) and lower ranking (brahmacārī) 87 male renouncers, as well as female renouncers. New bhaṭṭārakas were probably typically elected from the midst of these saṅghas, and consecrated at the demise or retirement of the previous incumbent. Often their gurus had assigned them as their chosen successors, as we will next see in the case of a 16th and a 17th century CE bhaṭṭāraka. At least some early modern bhaṭṭārakas went through a sequence of consecutive ranks prior to their consecration to the seat. This is most singularly illustrated by the biographical account of Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇakīrti found in a song of praise by his pupil Brahmacārī Jayarāja (Kāsalīvāla 1969117; Detige 2019a). The composition oﬀers a precious peep into Guṇakīrti’s ascetic career, gradually rising along the successive ranks of (probably) brahmacārī, muni, upādhyāya, and ācārya, before ascending the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ seat. Accordingly, the studious, bright, and good-looking Digambara youngster Gaṇapati experienced disillusion with worldly existence (vairāgya) early in life and took to the feet of Bhaṭṭāraka Sumatikīrti. Impressed by his virtues, Sumatikīrti accepted Gaṇapati as his main pupil and gave him his ascetic name Guṇakīrti. The ﬂedging renouncer joined the bhaṭṭāraka on his peregrination (vihāra), probably as a brahmacārī at ﬁrst. Cheered by a crowd at a function in Ḍūṅgarapura, he became a muni by taking the ﬁve mahāvratas. He received the rank of upādhyāya after becoming a skilled and captivating orator well-versed in scriptures and logic, and started teaching the Gommaṭasāra and other texts. Sometime later again, he was promoted to the rank of ācārya, a leader of the saṅgha. Sumatikīrti then announced that Guṇakīrti was to become his successor, and an auspicious date was determined for his consecration to the bhaṭṭāraka seat, which once again took place in Ḍūṅgarapura, in s. 1632.118 After his consecration, Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇakīrti went on vihāra as far as South India and Orissa. The narrative on Guṇakīrti’s early life reads remarkably similar to contemporary Jaina hagiographies, including elements like his promising childhood and youth, studious nature, and early sense of detachment. Guṇakīrti’s career path also has clear parallels to those of contemporary Digambara renouncers. The initiatory stages of the kṣullaka and ailaka (2.3.6.) and the upādhyāya rank (2.3.1.) were not used in the early modern period. Beyond such diﬀerences however, Guṇakīrti was initiated over time into the then prevalent, successive Digambara padas before reaching the bhaṭṭāraka seat. Today’s ācāryas typically also rise over the various ranks before receiving this now paramount post. Also of interest is Sumatikīrti’s abdication from the seat in favour of Guṇakīrti. While we have other examples of this process,119 it was presumably more common that new incumbents were installed after the death of the previous incumbent (see also Detige 2019b: 14-6). The record of Guṇakīrti going on a long tour immediately after his Kāsalīvāla (1969: 453-4; 1981: 234-5) gives a seemingly comprehensive outline of the composition’s contents, and elsewhere provides a few of its verses, referring to it as Guru chanda (Kāsalīvāla 1967a: 190-1). He locates the manuscript at the Mahāvīra Bhavana (= Āmera Śāstra-bhaṇḍāra) in Jayapura (register n. 5, p. 145), but I could not thus far trace the manuscript and thus did not have access to the full text. 117 118 Joharāpurakara (1958: 148, lekha 378) has an attestation of Guṇakīrti as a bhaṭṭāraka from s. 1631 already. E.g., according to a paṭṭāvalī, the mid-17th century CE Śākambharīśākhā incumbent Śrībhūṣaṇa (d. s. 1724) lived for 12 years after giving his seat to Dharmacandra (Joharāpurakara 1958: 117, lekha 291), and the ﬁrst Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra is recorded to have consecrated his successor Harṣacandra in s. 1699 and to have died only in s. 1707 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 163, lekha 414). 119 88 consecration to the seat is also a recurrent trope in early modern paṭṭābhiṣeka narratives. It may reﬂect an actual practice, designed to aﬃrm the new bhaṭṭāraka as the new kingpin of the polity of his lineage, parallel to the royal dig-vijaya. (2.4.) Guṇakīrti’s ascetic career with consecutive promotions to higher ranks may represent a common pattern for late Sultanate and early Mughal period bhaṭṭārakas. Balātkāragaṇa initiation manuals also describe a suitable candidate for the bhaṭṭāraka seat as a muni, the latter term here probably used as a common denominator for all fully initiated renouncers, including upādhyāyas and ācāryas (Detige 2019b: 8-11, 25). In later centuries we instead ﬁnd accounts of brahmacārīs and even paṇḍitas consecrated directly as bhaṭṭārakas or ācāryas. Given the parallelism in the names of both, the layman and probably paṇḍita Trilokacandra recorded in a manuscript colophon as a pupil of the mid-18th century CE Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti may be the latter’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Trilokendrakīrti (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 35, n. 25; 6.2.4.). If so, he may in between also have passed through the ācārya rank which was frequently used in this lineage at this time. (6.2.4.) In the Kārañjāśākhā, Brahmacārī Guṇasāgara was initiated as Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti in the second half of the 18th century CE (Joharāpurakara 1958: 69, lekha 190). And in the early 19th century CE Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā, Paṇḍita Mīṭhājī seems to have been put on the seat as Bhaṭṭāraka Mahīcandra (in s. 1856), and Brahmacārī Gulābacandra was consecrated as Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra (in s. 1877, Dośī e.a. 2000: 264). Referring to a period from the later 18th to the early 20 th century CE, Bhaṃvaralāla Nyāyatīrtha (1986: 357) also held that the (Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā) bhaṭṭārakas selected the most distinguished scholar from the paṇḍita circles of Jayapura as their pupil, and by implication probably their chosen successor (see 2.3.7.). Such promotions of lay paṇḍitas and low-ranking renouncers to the bhaṭṭāraka seat are unsurprising in this later period, given the disappearance by then of ﬁrstly the muni and later also the ācārya rank. Yet we also ﬁnd examples of individuals skipping these ascetic ranks from times when they may still have been in use. In the late 16th century CE, when the muni rank was perhaps already becoming less prevalent, Brahmacārī Jayasāgara was directly initiated as an ācārya of the Lāṭaśākhā Bāraḍolī-paṭṭa (Kāsalīvāla 1981: 47). And in the second half of the 17th century CE, Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti was consecrated to the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā seat as a brahmacārī. Although ̥ the rank of ācārya remained in common usage much longer, it was apparently not a prerequisite for bhaṭṭāraka-hood in this case. The paṭṭāvalī recording Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti’s promotion is another rare, extensive account of an early modern renouncer’s ascetic career. I already referred to it as a unique source because of its record of the sites of Kṣemakīrti’s annual rainy season retreats. (2.1.3., 5.6.2.) I did not see the text, but here give the account of it as provided by Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 220-1). The lay name of the future bhaṭṭāraka is apparently not recorded, but he was born in Bhīloḍā in the Vāgaḍā region in s. 1697, and took refuge to the feet of Ācārya Devendrakīrti at the tender age of seven. The latter is the later Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, who is ̥ attested as a bhaṭṭāraka in sources from s. 1713 and s. 1725 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 157). At sixteen, the aspirant renouncer took the aṇuvrata vows, and at the occasion of an icon consecration festival, Devendrakīrti, by now a bhaṭṭāraka, proclaimed him his pupil and gave him the name 89 Brahmacārī Kṣemā. Brahma Kṣemā continued to live with his guru for another fourteen years, studying scriptures (śāstra). Seeing his studiousness and personality, Devendrakīrti announced Kṣemā to be his main pupil and expressed his wish that he be given the bhaṭṭāraka post. Devendrakīrti died on s. 1730 Māha sudi 2 (7th February 1674 CE), and on the same day still Brahmācārī Kṣemā was consecrated as Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti, at the relatively young age of 33. Since this relatively detailed account makes no mention of Kṣemakīrti being initiated as muni or ācārya, we can take it that he skipped these ranks. His guru Devendrakīrti however was an ācārya before he ascended the bhaṭṭāraka seat. Also of interest is that Devendrakīrti already as an ācārya had his own saṅgha with renunciant pupils. A few other elements of this biographical account are again typical for Jaina hagiography, like the young age at which Kṣemā joined his guru, the long period of study in his saṅgha, and the incumbent monastic head nominating the promising renouncer as his successor. Bhaṭṭāraka gītas also often record their subjects as having renounced in childhood. The status of the child celibate (bāla-brahmacārī) is still highly esteemed for renouncers today.120 Some paṭṭāvalīs also provide information on bhaṭṭārakas’ earlier careers in recording the time (years, months, days) they spent ﬁrst as a layperson and then as a renouncer, from their initial initiation up to their ascension to the bhaṭṭāraka seat (e.g., Hoernle 1891: 351-55; 1892: 74-77, 79). The paṭṭāvalīs do not explicate which initiation is taken as starting the ascetic life. Possibly they count from the brahmacārī initiation already. Nor do the paṭṭāvalīs inform us which further ascetic ranks (muni, upādhyāya, ācārya) the incumbent held before he ascended the bhaṭṭāraka seat. It seems improbable that the biodata of the ācāryas of the classical and early medieval periods who are ﬁtted into the paṭṭāvalīs’ lineages should be taken as anything more than fabrications. But if we take the information provided for the incumbents closer to the texts at face value, it is clear that early modern bhaṭṭārakas often renounced at very young ages, and some had long ascetic careers before ascending to the bhaṭṭāraka seat, like Guṇakīrti and Kṣemakīrti in the narratives cited above. Bhaṭṭārakas were on average consecrated between their early thirties and late forties, though some already in their twenties, and others as late as their sixties. The latter may have been preferred for this high-ranking position as experienced renouncers. Those consecrated to the seat at a relatively young age may on the other hand have been particularly charismatic or gifted renouncers. Paṇḍitas or other laymen often seem to have been consecrated to the Western and Central Indian bhaṭṭāraka seats in the 19th and 20th century CE, when the bhaṭṭārakas no longer had the substantial and diverse pupillary saṅghas of their early modern predecessors. The ﬁndings discussed in this section however show that the latter had often carved out an earlier career path across the ascetic ranks which were still en vogue in their regions and traditions. The gradual assumption of higher ascetic ranks as we found it recorded for Guṇakīrti, from brahmacārī to muni, upādhyāya, and ācārya, was probably an ideal and perhaps also a common practice until the 17th century CE disappearance of the muni rank. Most individuals among the ﬁrst generations of 20th century CE Digambara munis took initiation later in life (Carrithers 1990: 148). Nowadays many munis are also initiated at a younger age. The small numbers of nirvāṇa svāmīs who ﬂourished in Karnataka and South Maharashtra in the 19th century CE, some of whom were naked, also renounced at an advanced age (Cort 2020: 232). 120 90 2.3.5. 18th century CE ācāryas As mentioned (2.3.1.), the muni and ācārya ranks disappeared at diﬀering times. No memorials of munis are found postdating the 16th century CE, and textual attestations are also no longer commonly found after the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE. Memorials and textual attestations of ācāryas on the other hand are found until the second half of the 18th and even the early 19th century CE (6.3.) in several Balātkāragaṇa lineages (Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa, Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā, Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa) and possibly also in the ̥ Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha. The data of memorials and textual sources closely dovetail with regard to the disappearance of the ācārya rank. In the corpus of manuscript colophons, the last attestations of ācāryas date from the s. 1820s and s. 1831 (Detige 2018: 362). The youngest ācārya memorials found are dated s. 1821 (Ajamera, 6.2.4.) and s. 1828 (Bassī, 4.3.8.). Only two or three attestations postdate the 18th century CE. A late Śākambharīśākhā ācārya is found attested in the inscription of a s. 1887 paṇḍita pādukā found at the nasīyā of Sākhūna, some 60 kilometres north north-east of Ajamera. (6.3.) The commemorated paṇḍita is recorded as a pupil of Ācārya Jagatkīrti, who stood in the lineage (‘tadāmnāye’) of the third last Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa, who ascended the seat in s. 1880. Ācārya Jagatkīrti therefore must have ﬂourished in the s. 1880s (s. 1880-7, 1820s CE). This is half a century later than any other ācārya known from the Western Indian Balātkāragaṇa saṅghas. In the Central Indian Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa, one Vijayakīrti (ﬂ. 1863-88) is attested similarly late, both as an ācārya and as a maṇḍalācārya. (2.2.4.7.) Even later, a s. 1927 pādukā in Surapura commemorates one Paṇḍita Rāmapāla as a pupil of one Sakalakīrti, possibly an ācārya (‘asāragī [= Ācārya?] sakalakītījī’), in turn recorded as a pupil of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka (Jñ?)ānakīrti. (3.4.4.) In manuscript colophons as well as in the corpus of memorials, a larger number of ācāryas is attested after the disappearance of munis than before. Among the 30 ācāryas (16th-19th century CE) which I found attested in the materials collected in Kastūracanda Kāsalīvāla’s (1950) compilation of manuscript materials, just over half of them (16) occur after s. 1690, when attestations of munis disappear from thus corpus, and eleven can be situated in the late 17th and 18th century CE (sources dated s. 1751-1831) (Detige 2018: 360-2). Five of the latter are related to the Śākambharīśākhā,121 ﬁve to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā,122 and is one of uncertain aﬃliation.123 Similarly, while only seven or eight ācāryas (s. 1465-16[1/2]8, including the three Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā incumbent ācāryas) are found commemorated during the period when memorials of munis are Ācārya Devendrabhūṣaṇa, copied manuscript in the mid-18th century s. (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 35, n. 25); and the four successive incumbents of the Śākambharīśākhā ācārya lineage (2.2.3.7.), Ācārya Lakṣmīcandra, Ācārya Narendrakīrti, Ācārya Sakalakīrti, and Ācārya Kṣemakīrti, ref. in s. 1822 colophon (Ibid.: 41, n. 29 [1/2]), the latter ācārya also receiving the same manuscript in s. 1824 (Ibid.: 42, n. 29 [2/2]). 121 122 Ācārya Śubhacandra, receiving manuscript in s. 1751 (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 29, n. 21); Ācārya Jñānakīrti and Ācārya Sakalakīrti, ref. in s. 1798 colophon (Ibid.: 219, n. 25b); Ācārya Nemicandra, ref. in s. 1801 colophon (Ibid.: 250, n. 60); Ācārya Vijayakīrti, ref. in s. 1831 colophon (Ibid.: 39, n. 27). 123 Ācārya Devendrakīrti, copied manuscript in s. 1820 (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 231, n. 37). 91 also found (ﬁve munis, s. 155[1?]-1627),124 ﬁfteen or sixteen later ācārya memorials have been discovered (s. 1638-1855). (Table 3.1., 3.2.4.3.) As mentioned, the proportionally smaller number of ācāryas vis-a-vis munis in the earlier period when the latter still ﬂourished is to be expected, since smaller numbers of higher-ranking renouncers typically oversee larger number of lower-ranking renouncers. The later prevalence of the ācārya rank on the other hand may be related to a shift in its application by the end of the early modern period. (2.3.6.) By the 18th century CE, the circles of Digambara religious specialists were mostly constellations of bhaṭṭārakas, ācāryas, and paṇḍitas. Brahmacārīs are attested less frequently. 18th century CE brahmacārīs sometimes appear between paṇḍitas in pupillary successions traced back to bhaṭṭārakas in manuscript colophons.125 Memorials of brahmacārīs are found from the 16th and the 17th century CE (5.3.4., 5.4.4.), but disappear by the 18th century CE. A rare late example is a s. 1855 memorial in Īḍara commemorating a pupillary succession including three 18th century CE brahmacārīs. (5.6.5.) Although the jati (yati) title seems to have become a distinct Digambara rank in the 18th to 20th century CE, Yaśodānanda / Yaśodānandi (ﬂ. 1842) who founded a mandira in Jayapura and probably worked under the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas is attested both as an an ācārya and as a yati/jati. (2.3.7.) In manuscript colophons and memorial inscriptions, late 17th and 18th century CE ācāryas are often recorded in close connection to paṇḍitas, and as intermediaries between bhaṭṭārakas and paṇḍitas. An ācārya in the tradition (āmnāye) of a late Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa bhaṭṭāraka seems to have stood at the foundation of a local paṇḍita tradition in Sākhūna. (6.3.) Ācāryas often ﬁgure as gurus of paṇḍitas, and some sources give the impression of a type of pupillary circles of paṇḍitas (which we could dub paṇḍita-maṇḍala) centred around an ācārya. In the colophon of a manuscript donated to Ācārya Śubhacandra in the unknown town Livāṇa ‘in the country of Pacavārā’ in s. 1751, Śubhacandra is recorded as the guru of no fewer than seven paṇḍitas.126 The ācārya himself is recorded as a pupil of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti. A similar, even larger circle of learned laymen seems to have been connected to Ācārya Devendrabhūṣaṇa, the pupil of the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti. According to his colophon, Devendrabhūṣaṇa copied Bhaṭṭāraka Somakīrti’s Pradyumna-caritra in s. 1816 for his own reading pleasure and that of a dozen laymen.127 No titles are included for the latter but they are referred to as ‘learned men’ (‘budhās […] budhā’) and they carry names typical for paṇḍitas. The ﬁrst two, Next to two further renouncers of uncertain rank, probably either munis or ācāryas, from s. 1465 (Hemakīrti, Bijauliyāṃ, 5.3.1.) and an unknown date ([Jñāna?]kīrti, Bārāṃ, 5.3.18.). 124 125 n.d. [s. 1750-68]: Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti (Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā) > Brahmacārī > Paṇḍita > Paṇḍita > Paṇḍita > Brahmacārī + 2 pupils no rank/title > 2 pupils no rank/title > 3 pupils no rank/title > 4 pupils no rank/title (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 175, n. 36); s. 1803: Bhaṭṭāraka Viśvabhūṣaṇa (prob. Cambalaśākhā) > Brahmacārī > Brahmacārī + Paṇḍita > Paṇḍita > Paṇḍita ~ Paṇḍita (Ibid.: 1, n. 1). 126 The edition of the colophon lists six paṇḍitas, Tārācaṃda, Nagarāja, Jīvarāja, Devakaraṇa, Megharāja, and Mayācanda, but the text explicitly refers to seven (‘ityādi paṇḍita 7’, Kāsalīvāla 1950: 29, n. 21). ‘sa[ṃ]vatsare rasaikakarmaikāṅkayukteḥ […] bhaṭṭārakapravara bhaṭṭārakajichrī 1008 śrī vijayakīrttittadvinayatatparavineyācāryajichrī devendrabhūṣaṇajīttatsatīrtha budhāstrilokacaṃdraḥ sadārāmastadvinayā budhā dayācaṃdra varddhamāna vimaladāsa daulatarāma rṣabhadāsa gulābacaṃda ̥ bhagavānadāsa vīradāsa motī jagajīvaṇatyabhi dhānadharā eteṣāṃ paṭhanārthaṃ ācārya śrī devendra bhūṣaṇena svapaṭhanārthaṃ idaṃ caritraṃ likhitaṃ |’ (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 35, n. 25). 127 92 Trilokacandra and Sadārāma, are recorded as pupils of Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti, just like Devendrabhūṣaṇa (‘sa-tīrtha’, having the same teacher). Although the text is ambiguous at this point, it seems that the other ten laymen are referred to as pupils (‘tad-vinayā’) of Ācārya Devendrabhūṣaṇa (and not of Sadārāma). Pupillary circles of paṇḍitas of course also formed around bhaṭṭārakas, and long pupillary successions of paṇḍitas tracing back their pedigree or ascribing themselves to a bhaṭṭāraka are also commonly found. (2.3.7.) Yet the direct nexus between ācāryas and paṇḍitas is also seen in the corpus of memorials. Late 17th and an 18th century CE ācāryas commemorated in Bassī are attested with paṇḍita pupils. These ācāryas seem to have developed some autonomy at a small remove from the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭāraka seat to which they had originally been connected (4.3.8.), and their considerable caraṇa-chatrīs indicate a high standing. At the Ānteḍa Nasīyān, the Śākambharīśākhā necropolis in Ajamera, surprisingly few of the paṇḍita memorial stones were consecrated by the local bhaṭṭārakas. Only a single, late bhaṭṭāraka in the ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE consecrated the pādukās of paṇḍitas who had been connected to his predecessors. In the mid-18th century CE, an ācārya (Ācārya Rājakīrti) instead built the memorials of three paṇḍitas, and a paṇḍita (Paṇḍita Basanta[rāma]) vice-versa built those of two ācāryas. (6.2.4.) A s. 1855 memorial stone at the Pārśvanātha Jinālaya in Īḍara (Gujarat) attest an ācārya who seems to have operated at a remove from the seat of the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭāraka to whom he was ̥ subordinate. The memorial commemorates a bhaṭṭāraka, an ācārya (Ācārya Devacanda), and three brahmacārīs, who in the memorial inscriptions are all placed in a single pupillary succession, along with ultimately two paṇḍitas. I suggest that these individuals of various ranks were successively in charge of proceedings at the mandira, or the Digambara community of the town of Īḍara more broadly. While the Pārśvanātha Jinālaya probably became the seat of the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭāraka who consecrated the memorial stone (Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti), and ̥ remained so for his successors, his predecessors were probably active elsewhere. Ācārya Devacanda, who can be situated in the s. 1810s to 1830s (third quarter of the 18th century CE), then seems to have resided and held responsibilities in Īḍara, away from the incumbent bhaṭṭāraka of his lineage. (5.6.5.) We sometimes also ﬁnd ācāryas attested as pupils of individuals of lower ranks. Ācārya Devacanda, whom we just discussed as being commemorated in Īḍara in s. 1855, traced his pupillary descent to Brahmacārī Lahu. (5.6.5.) An earlier example is found in the colophon of a s. 1722 manuscript of Mahāpaṇḍita Āśādhara’s Pratiṣṭhā-pāṭha (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 34, n. 24c). The manuscript seems to have been commissioned by the paṇḍitas Ghāsīrāma and Bhīvasī for the reading of one Mayācanda. No title is recorded for the latter, but given the subject matter of the text (icon consecration) and his name he probably also was a paṇḍita. Ghāsīrāma and Bhīvasī had themselves recorded as the pupils of one Ācārya Candrakīrti. The latter in turn was the pupil of 93 Paṇḍitarāja Tejapāla, the pupil again of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti.128 Although the colophon doesn’t name the latter’s predecessors, there is little doubt that he is the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent of that name who was succeeded in the very year of the manuscript copy by Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti (Joharāpurakara 1958: 113). It is possible that the ācāryas Devacanda and Candrakīrti had been the pupils of these gurus of lower standing when they were themselves also still paṇḍitas or more generally laymen, and later outgrew their former teachers by becoming ācāryas, but continued to defer to their śikṣā-gurus. Yet today also, there are no injunctions against renouncers studying with laypeople. Both munis and South Indian bhaṭṭārakas are known to study subjects like Prakrit with lay teachers, both prior to their ordination, and at least in the case of munis also afterwards. 2.3.6. Practices The ﬂourishing of munis and ācāryas in the early modern Digambara saṅghas is now wellestablished, as is the paramountcy over them of bhaṭṭārakas. Yet very little is known to date about their conduct and observances. As with the bhaṭṭārakas (2.1.3.), from the internal Digambara perspective the crucial aspect is the practice of nudity. Just like the bhaṭṭārakas, the early modern munis and ācāryas of their saṅghas were certainly regarded as ideal renouncers by their contemporaries and devotees. This is amply evinced by textual and material sources, including elements of the memorial iconography, where bhaṭṭārakas, commemorated munis and ācāryas are depicted naked and sporting the typical ascetic paraphernalia (3.1.5.). Today, the muni and ācārya ranks are synonymous to ascetic nudity. For the early modern period, the administration of these ranks or the naked depiction of such renouncers should probably not necessarily be seen as entailing the same. As we have seen, Sultanate and perhaps also early Mughal era bhaṭṭārakas probably had an ideal career path from brahmacārī to muni (upādhyāya?) and ācārya before ascending the bhaṭṭāraka seat (2.3.4.). It is possible that at any given time there existed a spectrum of ascetic practices, including the choice for nudity or clothing. It is also possible that a naked lower-ranking renouncer would be selected for the bhaṭṭāraka post because of his ascetic prowess. Yet i would ﬁnd it surprising if naked munis and ācāryas were at any point structurally subordinated to clothed bhaṭṭārakas, or if the promotion from muni or ācārya to bhaṭṭāraka generally entailed a change from nudity to clothing. I instead expect that whenever and wherever bhaṭṭārakas practiced nudity, so did the munis and ācāryas of their saṅghas, and that vice-versa clothed bhaṭṭārakas presided over saṅghas of clothed renouncers. An indication that early modern, fully initiated Digambara renouncers (munis and ācāryas as well as bhaṭṭārakas) did not typically practice nudity may be found in the apparent disuse of the initiatory ranks of the kṣullaka and the ailaka. Kṣullakas and ailakas are clothed novices sometimes referred to as ‘junior monks’. These consecutive, nowadays customary and it seems compulsory stages gradually prepare the renouncer for initiation as a naked muni, especially with ‘saṃvat 1722 varṣe […] bhaṭṭārakavrndaśobhita śrīmannarendrakīrtti tat śiṣya paṃḍitarāja śrī tejapālajī tat ̥ śiṣya ācārya śrī caṃdrakīrttijī tat śiṣya paṃ. ghāsīrāma paṃ. bhīvasī ciraṃjīvī mayācaṃda paṭhanārthaṃ likhāpitaṃ |’ (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 34, n. 24c). In another colophon from s. 1730, Paṇḍitarāja Tejapāla is identiﬁed as the brother (‘bhrāta’) of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti (‘[…] bha. śrīmannareṃdrakīrtijī tat bhrāta paṃ. rājaśrītejapāla […]’, Joharāpurakara 1958: 105, lekha 269). 128 94 regard to manners of comportment, eating, and other daily observances. Balātkāragaṇa initiation manuals do include an outline for the consecration of a kṣullaka under the name Laghu-dīkṣāvidhi (‘Method for minor initiation’, Detige 2019b: 4). Kṣullakas also seem to have ﬂourished in the Sultanate period.129 And kṣullaka like ﬁgures, and in one case also ailaka like ﬁgures and naked Digambara renouncers, are also reported from South India in the early 19th and the early 20th century CE (Detige in preparation). In Karnataka, the East India Company army oﬃcer and Surveyor General of India Colin Mackenzie (1754-1821 CE, Mackenzie 1807: 249) was informed of three classes of Digambara ascetics (yati), the “Anuvrata”, “Mahávrata”, and “Nirvána”. The former, the aṇuvrata, resembles the kṣullaka as we now know this ﬁgure, carrying a whisk and water pitcher (picchī and kamaṇḍalu), and wearing tawny coloured robes. The second rank of mahāvrata is reported as wearing a single piece of cloth, a mark of the ailaka. And the naked ‘nirvāṇa’ who eats once a day and does not move around after dark corresponds to the muni. A century later, the museologist and ethnologist Edgar Thurston (1855-1935 CE, Thurston 1909: 432-3), in what seems to be a discussion of the Jains of Tamil Nadu, also included an “Annam or Annuvriti” among “three priestly classes” of the Jains. Here, however, this title referred to a layman performing ritual functions, and it is instead the members of another ‘priestly’ class, the “Nirvānis or Munis”, whose description matches that of the kṣullaka, celibate, dressed in red, and carrying picchī and kamaṇḍalu. We do not know whether the information supplied to Mackenzie and Thurston was also representative of actual practice at the time in South India. And no similar, coeval accounts of kṣullakas are found from Northern India. Attestations of individual kṣullakas and ailakas are in fact entirely absent from Western and Central India throughout the Mughal era. We could hypothesise that they went unrecorded because of their low status in the ascetic hierarchy. Yet records of the even lower-ranking brahmacārīs are commonly found. Brahmacārīs were commemorated (e.g., 5.3.4., 5.4.4.), are included in records of the composition of speciﬁc saṅghas (2.3.3.), and are frequently attested in other textual sources. The preparatory kṣullaka and ailaka phases may have become obsolete, having lost their signiﬁcance because the otherwise particularly potent distinction between clothed brahmacārīs and naked, fully initiated renouncers had disappeared, and therefore deemed unnecessary. In terms of the vows they take, today’s South Indian bhaṭṭārakas are sometimes regarded as kṣullakas by their devotees (Flügel 2006: 344). This is refuted by their opponents, who consider them of even lower ascetic standing than kṣullakas, or as even lower than laypeople for being completely unauthorised by tradition. Early modern bhaṭṭārakas were certainly never regarded as kṣullakas. The bhaṭṭāraka rank was at the time instead considered higher even than that of munis and ācāryas. This reversal of the Digambara ascetic hierarchy was the major change between the early modern bhaṭṭāraka traditions and the 20th century CE muni revival. One element of this development was the reintroduction of the kṣullaka rank in the late 19th century CE, in circles A reference to kṣullaka-hood is found in Meghāvī’s Dharma-saṃgraha-śrāvakācāra from s. 1485 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 103, lekha 259), and a s. 1534 mūrtilekha seems to include a kṣullaka among a list of renouncers probably recorded as pupils of the consecrating Vāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmakīrti (‘kṣu. sumati’, P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 128, 2.3.3., 5.1.1.). 129 95 which stood at some remove from the bhaṭṭāraka lineages, in a probably Terāpanthī milieu in Western India, and among South Indian renouncers (Detige in preparation). By the 18th century CE, Digambara munis were exceptional and brahmacārīs were also more rare. The circles of religious personae were instead primarily constellations of paṇḍitas, ācāryas, and bhaṭṭārakas. (2.3.5.) The disappearance of the muni rank in the course of the 17th century CE may well signal the end of the itineracy and nudity of Digambara ascetics. The continued usage of the ācārya rank may have been accompanied by a change in its application. From the Sultanate to the later Mughal era, bhaṭṭārakas gradually evolved from itinerant and naked to fully sedentarised and generally dressed renouncers. The signiﬁcation of the ācārya rank probably saw a parallel, simultaneous evolution, from a high position in a fully preserved hierarchy of ascetic ranks, applied to itinerant renouncers to a title for a celibate but sedentary ritual specialist or scholar primarily operating as an assistant to a bhaṭṭāraka. Attestations of 18th and early 19th century CE paṇḍitas directly promoted to the bhaṭṭāraka and ācārya ranks (2.3.4.) indicate that in the bhaṭṭāraka-ācārya-paṇḍita constellations of that period, ācāryas and bhaṭṭārakas were elected from the circles of paṇḍitas. Rather than ascetics gradually progressing in renunciation, such ﬁgures might seem to correspond closer to the stereotype of the ‘cleric’ or the ritual specialist. Beyond their probable celibacy, the rank of these later-day ācāryas rank may primarily have come to distinguish them from the paṇḍitas who made up the bhaṭṭārakas’ broader networks. The inscriptions and iconography of the pādukās of 18th century CE ācārya give no clear indications concerning their perceived venerability. In Ajamera, no additional emblems were carved on pādukās of ācāryas, nor on those of bhaṭṭārakas or paṇḍitas. An ācārya pādukā in Bassī (s. 1828) depicts emblems, but these are not the typical ascetic’s two paraphernalia, picchī and kamaṇḍalū, but a set of four, probably ritual objects, including a spouted water pitcher, a staﬀ or club (or ﬂy whisk, probably not a picchī), a spiralled rope (mālā?), and an unidentiﬁed, squarish object, perhaps a scripture. (Fig. 4.12 R.) Yet, later-day bhaṭṭārakas were still highly venerated as ideal ascetic despite the evolution of their actual practices and appearance, and the same seems to have applied to the 18th century CE ācāryas. One manuscript source reads as a particularly clear enunciation of their contemporaries’ regard for 18th century CE ācāryas as ideal Digambara renouncers, ascribing to them all the ascetic vows and codes of conduct which are still associated with the ācārya rank today (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 41, n. 29 [1/2]). In the s. 1822 manuscript colophon attesting the succession of four Śākambharīśākhā ācāryas (2.2.3.7., 6.1.4.), the recipient of the manuscript, Ācārya Kṣemakīrti, is eulogised most extensively as observing the ﬁve mahāvratas, the ﬁve samitis, and the three guptis, as bearing the 28 mūlaguṇas, being ﬁrm in his endurance of the 22 torments (parīṣaha), and practicing the seventeen constraints (saṃyama; on these various vows, see 2.1.3.).130 Such eulogy may well diﬀer from the actual conduct of these ācāryas, especially with regards to nudity. Yet even so, we could say that the Digambara tradition preserved its ideals of renunciation precisely through such eulogy. (7.3.) Thus far, we unfortunately have few clues, and no explicit sources on the ‘saṃvat 1822 varṣe […] paṃcamahābratadhārakaḥ paṃcasamitidhārakaḥ trayaguptisādhakaḥ aṣṭāviṃśamūlaguṇayuktaḥ dvāviṃśapariṣahasahanadhīraḥ saptadaśasaṃyamabhedanityācāran ācāryavarpyadhairyaḥ sakalaśiromaṇi ācārya jī śrī 108 śrī kṣemakīrtti […]’ (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 41, n. 29 [1/2]). 130 96 actual conduct of the 18th century CE ācāryas, of the renouncers of the earlier bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas, and of the bhaṭṭārakas themselves. A study of scriptures on ascetic conduct included in manuscript collections could throw more light on this subject. Local diﬀerences may apply. Yet the simultaneous praise of ācāryas as ideal renouncers on the one hand and the impressions we have of them as rather merely distinguished above paṇḍitas on the other hand should perhaps also be seen in light of the preservation of ascetic ideals in devotional practices (7.3.). 2.3.7. Paṇḍitas, yatis, rṣis ̥ (18th to 20th century CE) After the 18th century CE, ācāryas disappeared from the bhaṭṭāraka lineages, and only paṇḍitas remained as associates of the bhaṭṭārakas. Digambara paṇḍitas were active prior to the 18th century CE too.131 And they also play important ritual and scholastic roles for local communities today, working next to and often in cooperation with the renouncers of the muni saṅghas. Yet paṇḍitas seem to have enjoyed a particularly enhanced status around the 19th century CE. This is indicated among others by the appearance of oftentimes considerable paṇḍita memorials from the late 18th century CE until the early 20th century CE. (3.2.4.5.) The successful paṇḍita tradition of the Terāpantha may have been an inspiration, but the main factor was probably the disappearance of broader renouncer saṅghas. Paṇḍitas presumably ﬁlled this void by taking up roles also performed by renouncers in other periods, as ritual specialists, teachers, preachers, story-tellers, scholars, philosophers, astrologers. These activities and the authority associated with them gave the paṇḍitas an enhanced standing. Paṇḍitas also came to oﬃciate and establish themselves in pupillary successions at mandiras, receiving allowances and land grants for their ritual activities and also engaging in medical services (see below). One can imagine that paṇḍitas acted with considerable autonomy especially in small towns at some remove from the bhaṭṭāraka seats, but they even had considerable status and agency in a city like Jayapura, where a ﬂourishing bhaṭṭāraka seat was also located (4.3.12-13.). Pupillary circles of paṇḍitas comparable to those attested around ācāryas (2.3.5.) also formed around bhaṭṭārakas. Long pupillary successions of paṇḍitas tracing back their pedigree to a past bhaṭṭāraka or ascribing themselves to the tradition (āmnāya) of a ﬂourishing bhaṭṭāraka are commonly found both in manuscript colophons and in memorial inscriptions.132 Inscriptions of single memorials or groups of memorials allow us to reconstruct genealogies of multiple consecutive generations of paṇḍitas operating in a pupillary descent in Ajamera (6.2.6.), in Bairāṭha (3.1.6.), Būndī (4.3.17.), Jayapura (4.3.12.), and Sākhūna (6.3.), and in the nearby towns of Caurū and Phāgī (4.3.14-15.). 19th and early 20th century CE paṇḍitas also often themselves built and A famous example from the late medieval period is the 13th century CE Paṇḍita Āśādhara. The paṇḍita trade sometimes ran in the family, as indicated by a manuscript colophon from s. 1599 recording four of the six sons of a paṇḍitācārya as paṇḍitas as well (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 21, n. 18c; Detige 2018: 309-10). An even earlier attestation is that of Paṇḍita Mehākhya, recorded as a pupil of the Uttaraśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra when receiving a manuscript in s. 1541 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 102, lekha 258). 131 s. 1765: Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti ~ Paṇḍita > Paṇḍita > Paṇḍita ~ Paṇḍita (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 174, 35a). 132 E.g., 97 consecrated the memorials of their paṇḍita gurus or peers, both at cities with active bhaṭṭāraka seats,133 and elsewhere.134 (3.2.4.5.) One attested pupillary lineage of paṇḍitas oﬃciated at the Bijairāma jī Pāṇḍyā Mandira in Jayapura, and probably somehow was in charge of the mandira. (4.3.13.) The same likely applies to other local paṇḍita traditions. A single page manuscript preserved in the Āmera Śāstra-bhaṇḍāra (cat. n. 1645), the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā manuscript collection, is a list of 19 entries connecting towns in Western Rajasthan to individual paṇḍitas and rṣis. ̥ The Digambara title or rank of the rṣi ̥ (sage, saint, ascetic) is otherwise unknown.135 In its juxtaposition to paṇḍitas here, it may refer to celibate individuals, similar to brahmacārīs or yatis (see below). The manuscript is undated but I estimate it to belong to ca. the second half of the 18th or the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE. The handwritten list seems to record the towns where the attested paṇḍitas and rṣis ̥ were active or over which they had some authority. In Kucāmana, for example, there was one Paṇḍita Mahīcandra (‘kucāmaṇi mai paṃ. mahīcaṃdra’), and in Bhagavatagaṛha, a R̥ ṣi Nānūlāla (‘bhagavatagaṛha mai rṣi ̥ nānūlāla’). Some paṇḍitas and rṣis ̥ are assigned to two towns, and some towns have two paṇḍitas or rṣis ̥ assigned to them. The document thus seems to register a network of paṇḍitas and rṣis, and given its ̥ provenance perhaps belonged to a Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭāraka. Taking information from unspeciﬁed manuscripts and oral tradition, Bhaṃvaralāla Nyāyatīrtha (1986) and Anūpacanda Nyāyatīrtha (1990: 18-9) give valuable information on the 18th to 20th century CE paṇḍitas of Jayapura. B. Nyāyatīrtha (1986: 357) reported the death a month earlier of a Paṇḍita Kastūracanda, who stood in a pupillary lineage (of probably all paṇḍitas) Nihālacanda > Dalasukha > Dayācanda > Śivalāla > Manasukha > Mohanalāla > Paṇḍita Kastūracanda. Nyāyatīrtha (Ibid.: 357-8) also mentions Lūṇakaraṇa Pāṇḍyā as an eminent and much respected scholar who established his own mandira, a Paṇḍita Bhaktāvaralāla connected to the Jobanera Mandira in Jayapura, Yati Yaśodānanda, in his own mandira, and a succession Tanasāgara > Jati Ganeśasāgara > Ratnasāgara > Candrasāgara in the Jatījī kā Mandira (see below on these jatis/yatis and their mandiras). Bhaṃvaralāla Nyāyatīrtha (1986: 357-8) further discussed the paṇḍitas and jatīs of Jayapura as ritual specialists and ayurvedic doctors. They accordingly were mostly connected to a speciﬁc mandira which was either built for them or which they adopted to establish their seat (gaddī). They were celibate, lived like brahmacārīs, and were known as paṇḍitas, pāṇḍes, or jatīs. They formed circles of paṇḍitas (paṇḍita maṇḍala) and pupillary lineages (guru paramparā), and upon the demise of an incumbent another famous paṇḍita occupied the seat. They were supported in their livelihood by the lay community, and received gifts like honorary shawls and cash payments for 133 Ajamera, s. 17??, s. 1827, s. 1828, s. 1928 (6.2.6.); Jayapura, s. 1880 (4.3.12.). Bairāṭha (3.1.6.); Būndī, s. 19[5?]6, prob. s. 1911 (4.3.17); Caurū, s. 1888 (4.3.14); Jhālarāpāṭana, s. 1951 (7.1.); Phāgī, s. 1924 (4.3.15.); Sākhūna, s. 1887, s. 1918 (6.3.). 134 John Cort (personal communication, 2nd February 2024) suggests the rṣi ̥ rank might have crossed into the Digambara tradition from the Sthānakavāsī and Lonkāgaccha Śvetāmbara traditions which were prevalent in the region. 135 98 the work they did for the society.136 Land in the village Loharavāḍā near Savāī Mādhopura was also given to Jati Ganeśasāgara (or his guru Tanasāgara?) by the (unspeciﬁed) mahārāja of Jayapura after the jatī had displayed his skill at interpreting pulse, a main ayurvedic diagnostic method. The paṇḍitas and jatīs were Bīsapanthīs and supported the bhaṭṭārakas. Still according to Nyāyatīrtha (Ibid.), the bhaṭṭārakas selected the most distinguished scholar from the paṇḍita circles as their pupil, and when the bhaṭṭāraka traditions in Northern India were discontinued, the described paṇḍita tradition also ended. Anūpacanda Nyāyatīrtha (1990: 18-9) gives further, concurring and complementary information on Paṇḍita Lūṇakaraṇa, who was also mentioned by Bhaṃvaralāla Nyāyatīrtha (1986: 357), and on the paṇḍitas succeeding him at the eponymous Pāṇḍe Lūṇakaraṇa Mandira in Jayapura. According to Anūpacanda Nyāyatīrtha (1990: 18-9), the Pāṇḍe Lūṇakaraṇa Mandira (aka Candraprabha Jinālaya) was built by Dīvāna Tārācanda Bilālā between s. 1773 and s. 1790. Paṇḍita Lūṇakaraṇa (ﬂ. s. 1788, d. s. 1855) seems to have established himself at this mandira from its foundation. He was a pupil of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1770-92), but also of (Paṇḍita) Khīṃvasī137 (and of one Rāmacandra?). Lūṇakaraṇa was a scholar of Sanskrit and well-versed in among others ‘yantra-tantra-mantra’, astrology, and Ayurveda. He had pupils in Paṇḍita Sarūpacanda, Paṇḍita R̥ ṣabhacanda, and Paṇḍita Sadāsukha, and according to Nyāyatīrtha (Ibid.: 19), his pupillary lineage (ṣiśya paramparā) continued until s. 1934, after which no more paṇḍita was established (sthāpanā). Land grants in Savāī Mādhopura and Khandāra (ca. 25 km east of Savāī Mādhopura) were given to these paṇḍitas by the royal court, and they also received an annual allowance of salt from the salt lake of Sāmbhara. They founded mandiras and performed pratiṣṭhās, and rendered medical services for laity. They visited the homes of laypeople for their meals and also preached there. Pupils were made by adopting or buying children. Old account books of the Pāṇḍe Lūṇakaraṇa Mandira also record gifts from laypeople for the performance of pūjās and vidhānas, gifts from bhaṭṭārakas and dīvānas, and gifts and ceremonial clothes given to other paṇḍitas. It is not clear whether the practice and terminology of the paṇḍitas’ ritual establishment (sthāpanā) on seats (gaddī) in mandiras was actually used in these 18th to 20th century CE paṇḍita traditions, or is solely the phrasing of the Nyāyatīrthas. Yet much of the information they provide aligns these paṇḍitas with bhaṭṭārakas, notably through their feeding practices, institutional establishment, and succession. John Cort138 suggests the paṇḍita title of such ﬁgures represents a speciﬁc application, diﬀerent from that of early modern and contemporary Bīsapanthī and Terāpanthī paṇḍita scholars and authors like Ṭoḍaramala and his son Gumānīrāma (4.1.4.), R̥ ṣabhadāsa Nigotyā and his son Pārasadāsa Nigotya, and Cainasukhadāsa Nyāyatīrtha. Although the latter paṇḍitas might have been attached to a speciﬁc mandira, their primary activity consisted of study, writing, and teaching, and they gave sermons and conducted seminars (goṣṭhī) in multiple mandiras. Those paṇḍitas recorded as established in mandiras on the other hand were in the ﬁrst place ritual specialists, and 136 Kāsalīvāla (1990: 227) also mentioned that laypeople gave dakṣiṇā (fees) to the bhaṭṭārakas of Rajasthan. Most likely the Paṇḍita Khīṃvasī who performed a pratiṣṭhā in Dhūletanagara in s. 1773, recorded as a pupil of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 154). 137 Personal communication, 27th October 2023. I thank John Cort for various suggestions, references, and information concerning the Digambara paṇḍitas of Jayapura. 138 99 apparently ayurvedic doctors, expected to perform and direct rituals and other services in return for the allowances and gifts they received. It might have been only the latter kind of paṇḍita, Cort suggests, who was commemorated with a chatrī. It indeed also only seems to have been among these ‘institutionalised’, oﬃciating paṇḍitas that a sense of succession developed, although memorial inscriptions and colophons record their successions as pupillary (tatśiṣya) and not institutional (tatpaṭṭe). As we saw, Bhaṃvaralāla Nyāyatīrtha (1986: 357-8) claimed that the Bīsapantha paṇḍitas of Jayapura were celibate. If this is accurate, this could have been another distinguishing mark between the ‘institutionalised’ paṇḍitas and the more freelance paṇḍita scholars who lead married lives. It could also help explain the veneration of the former as expressed in the erection of their memorials. And it might also account for the disappearance of brahmacārīs in the 19th century CE, this rank then perhaps no longer suﬃciently diﬀerentiated from celibate paṇḍitas. In a s. 1918 memorial inscription in Sākhūna, the honoriﬁc terms pūjya (venerable) and 108, usually reserved for renouncers (2.1.2.), are applied to Paṇḍita Vimanarāma, and his pupil Varddhamāna is also recorded as pūjya.139 And the caption of a mural painting at the former Ajamera-paṭṭa seat in Ajamera dating to probably ca. the ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE adds the title mahārāja ('māhārāja', great king) to the name of the portrayed Paṇḍita Panālāla, usually reserved for initiated renouncers. (Fig. 6.17 R.) Such references (pūjya, 108, mahārāja) can probably be taken as indicating that these paṇḍitas were celibate at least. (6.3.) Interestingly, Hoernle (1878: 28) also reported the paṇḍitas associated with the bhaṭṭāraka whom he met in Dillī as ascetics. In the new ascetic landscape of the 20th century CE, with the reappearance of naked, itinerant munis and ācāryas, the position of paṇḍitas qua renouncers was again curbed. Instead, modern educational institutions arose where Digambara paṇḍitas were trained in degree programs lending them titles like śāstrī and nyāyatīrtha. Bhaṃvaralāla Nyāyatīrtha (1986) regarded the titles paṇḍita (pāṇḍe) and jatī (yati) as interchangeable. Yet the latter appears to me as a distinct rank used around the time of the twilight of the bhaṭṭāraka lineages. Yati lineages dominated the various gacchas of the 17th to mid-20th century CE Śvetāmbara mūrtipūjaka tradition. They engaged in preaching, education, Ayurveda and other medical systems, astrology, mantra-śāstra, and ritual practice, and travelled by vehicles and handed money. Networks and branches (śākhā) of yatis were headed by higherranking śrīpūjyas. Female yatinīs also existed. Some yatis were not celibate, and from their descendants formed independent yati gotras (caste groups). Although small numbers of Śvetāmbara yatis still exist, they largely disappeared after they were opposed by reformist lay factions, displaced by so-called saṃvegī Śvetāmbara mendicants who follow stricter ascetic codes. (Villalobos 2021a, 2021b, 2023) In the prior Digambara tradition, yati was a generic term for initiated renouncers.140 In the 18th, 19th, and 20th century CE, however, it seems to have come to ‘tat śiṣya pūjya-vā(-?)vā-jī-śrī-śrī-varddhamāna-jī’ (#6.27). It is not clear to me what ‘vāvā’ or repeated ‘vā’ stands for. 139 E.g., in a composition from s. 1627 by Ācārya Sakalabhūṣaṇa, a pupil of the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka ̥ Śubhacandra, ‘śrī-nemicaṃdrācāryādi-yatinām-’, ‘of Ācārya Nemicandra and other yatis’ (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 3, n. 4a, verse 10). 140 100 have of use as a new Digambara rank used for apparently celibate, low-ranking renouncers established at mandiras. An earlier example of such a yati seems to be the 16th century CE Puṇyasāgara Yati, who is reported to have built a temple in Āgarā as a pupil of the Dillī Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrasena (B. Jaina 1974: 60).141 Attestations are found of more recent Digambara jatis related to the Balātkāragaṇa Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and Cambalaśākhā, and from Jayapura, Śaurīpura-Baṭeśvara (Uttar Pradesh), Gvāliyara, Rurā village near Datiyā, and Panāgara (all Madhya Pradesh), Tijārā, Basavā, and Najaphagaṛha (Dillī). The names of two Digambara mandiras in Jayapura commemorate their yati-rank founders, the Digambara Jaina Mandira Yati Yaśodānandajī and the Digambara Jaina Mandira Jati Tanasāgarajī. According to Anūpacanda Nyāyatīrtha (1990: 52), Jati Tanasāgara who built the latter mandira was part of a lineage Jatī Krpāsāgara (d. s. 1829) > Jatī Tanasāgara (ﬂ. s. 1842) > Manasāgara > Jatī ̥ Gaṇeśasāgara > Jatī Ratanasāgara > Candrasāgara. After the latter, the lineage ended. The names of Manasāgara and Candrasāgara indicate that they too were probably jatis, the suﬃx -sāgara not commonly used in the names of paṇḍitas. Information on the Yati Yaśodānandajī Mandira is also provided by Nyāyatīrtha (Ibid.: 34-5). The mandira was built in s. 1842 by Dīvāna Bhakhatarāma Bagaḍā, under the inspiration of Yati Yaśodānanda, the land for it donated by Dīvāna Bhāgacanda Bhauñca. Both Bhakhatarāma Bagaḍā and Bhāgacanda Bhauñca had sons who also became dīvānas, and their families kept supporting the temple. According to Nyāyatīrtha (Ibid.: 34), the Bīsapanthī Yati Yaśodānandajī temple was subservient to the Pāṭodī Mandira, where the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat was located. Yati Yaśodānanda thus probably also worked under the bhaṭṭārakas. In account books from the Pāṭodī Mandira dated to s. 1854, s. 1855, s. 1857, and s. 1926-27, the temple is variously referred to as connected to Jatī Jaso[da?]nanda, Ācārya Yaśodā Nandi, and Ācāryajī. Interestingly, its founder Yaśodānanda / Yaśodānandi is thus both referred to as a yati/jati and as an ācārya. In the late 18th and 19th century CE, these titles, ranks, or posts thus seem to have been exchangeable or overlapping. In s. 1941, Pāṇḍe (Paṇḍita) Phatelāla is said to have been a good scholar working at the Yati Yaśodānandajī Mandira (Ibid.). The Jayapura jati lineages do not seem to have been continued into the 20th century CE. Yatis did operate in relation to the 20th century CE Cambalaśākhā. Two yatis oﬃciated in connection to the late Gvāliyara-paṭṭa. One Yati Rāmapāla was reportedly even made a bhaṭṭāraka in ŚaurīpuraBaṭeśvara (Uttar Pradesh), where he was murdered in 1924/5 CE (s. 1981, Jhammanalāla Jaina 1951: 3, 19, 20, 21, 281). His successor Yati Haraprasāda is said to have come from Gvāliyara (Madhya Pradesh) to Śaurīpura-Baṭeśvara when a controversy between Digambaras and Śvetāmbaras started there after the death of Rāmapāla. Jhammanalāla Jaina (Ibid.: 24) visited Haraprasāda when he was blind and living in the village of Rurā near Datiyā (Madhya Pradesh). A picture and a wall painting preserved near a seat and venerated with a lamp at the Bhaṭṭārakajī Mandira at Soḍā ka Kuāṃ (Dānā Aulī) in Gvāliyara at the time of my visit may depict one of these yatis. (Fig. 2.5) One Yati Sakalakīrti had a seat at the Baṛā Jaina Mandira or Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra in Panāgara, The attestation appears in the Argalpura Jinavandana from 1594 CE (s. 1650-1), a report of a pilgrimage to Āgarā by Paṇḍita Bhagavatidāsa (see B. Jaina 1974: 59-60). On Paṇḍita Bhagavatidāsa and Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrasena, see also Joharāpurakara 1958: 243. 141 101 near Jabalapura (Madhya Pradesh), and may have had connections to the Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiripaṭṭa.142 Figure 2.5. Framed photo portrait, wall painting, and seat, possibly of a Digambara yati, Bhaṭṭārakajī Mandira, Soḍā ka Kuāṃ, Gvāliyara (Madhya Pradesh). (December 2013) In the Pārśvanātha Mandira in Tijārā, portraits are preserved of an orange-clad Brahmacārī Gaṅgāsahayajī. (Fig. 2.6) People at the mandira also referred to him as a yati, and thought him to have died around 1953 CE. They also knew of other yatis who had ﬂourished contemporary to Gaṅgāsahayajī at Basavā and in ‘Navābagaṛha’ near Dillī. At Basavā, some 85 km north-west of Jayapura and 100 km south of Tijāra, the Digambara Jaina Mandira Kālā Bābā seems a late Mughal temple.143 The Āmera Śāstra-bhaṇḍāra manuscript cat. n. 1645 referred to before (this section) records a R̥ ṣi Mulatānacanda in Basavā (here, Vasavā). The reference to ‘Navābagaṛha’ must relate to the Pāvāpurī Jatijī Jaina Mandira at Najaphagaṛha in west Dillī, north-west of Dvārakā, where a recent structure signposted as ‘Digambara Jaina Jatī jī Caraṇa Chatrī’ shelters a classic caraṇachatrī with a ca. late 19th or early 20th century CE pādukā.144 Yashwant Malaiya (personal communication, 25th December 2013) observed a raised platform with cushions at the at Panāgara Baṛā Jaina Mandira around 1960 CE and a symbolic miniature seat more recently. I did not see the latter during my visit in February 2016. Still according to Malaiya, the seat was set up in awaiting of the return of Yati Sakalakīrti who had mysteriously disappeared in the colonial era, and the mandira was managed by the bhaṭṭārakas of Sonāgiri (= Balātkāragaṇa Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa) after his disappearance. B. Jaina (1976: 223) also mentioned the presence of the seat (gaddī) of a ‘jatī bābā’ (which he took to mean bhaṭṭāraka) at the Panāgara Baṛā Jaina Mandira. A few unidentiﬁed chatrīs stand on the bank of a lake close to this mandira, which were reported to Jaina (Ibid.) as commemorating bhaṭṭārakas. 142 143 Photos at Google Maps, accessed 28/1/2024. I have not visited Basavā. 144 Photos at Google Maps, accessed 18/6/2023. I have not visited Najaphagaṛha. 102 Figure 2.6. Two framed portraits of Brahmacārī Gaṅgasahāyajī at the Pārśvanātha Mandira in Tijāra. (February 2016) 2.4. Seats, courts, kings, states, and polities 2.4.1. Seats My study of Digambara memorials and other sources gives us a more accurate picture of the geographical distribution and shifts of the Western and Central Indian Balātkāragaṇa lineages than available hitherto.145 Early modern bhaṭṭāraka lineages turn out to have been far more dynamic than usually presumed, their seats often shifting to a diﬀerent town with every few incumbents. While the concept of the bhaṭṭāraka seat (paṭṭa) stood metonymically for the bhaṭṭāraka post and all its associated functions and properties, the terminology of bhaṭṭāraka ‘seats’ then creates a perhaps all too static image. Especially in the Sultanate period many Western and Central Indian bhaṭṭārakas and their saṅghas may well have remained largely peripatetic. The continued mobility of the bhaṭṭāraka seats in the Mughal era also mirrors that of the imperial court, in both cases aimed at maintaining regular contact with their constituencies.146 Perhaps the waning of the muni rank in the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE also indicates a change in practices like nudity and itinerancy. While in the 15th-17th century CE the Balātkāragaṇa lineages regularly changed location, from the 18th century CE onwards many settled down more stably. The Śākambharīśākhā Ajamerapaṭṭa and the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā remained in Ajamera and Jayapura respectively from the mid-18th century CE. In the Vāgaḍā region, the Laghuśākhā was based in Sāgavāṛā from probably the second half of the 18th century CE, and the Brhatśākhā in Īḍara (Gujarat) possibly from the turn of ̥ the 19th century CE. While the indications of the location of the seat (paṭṭa)147 of individual bhaṭṭārakas in paṭṭāvalīs are usually interpreted as representing their place of residence throughout their incumbency, these may furthermore instead solely indicate the place of their consecration to the seat (paṭṭābiṣeka) or their place of residence at that time, rather than The history of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha lineages stands in need of further research, but these too seem to have relocated frequently. 145 146 As suggested by John Cort (personal communication, 17th May 2024). The term paṭṭa also referred to a strip of silk cloth or gold worn as a headband or ﬁllet as a piece of royal insignia at the time of consecration to the throne (paṭṭabandha, Ali 2006: 118-20, Dundas 2007: 24). As used in Jaina traditions however, the term paṭṭa unambiguously referred to the seat, as a metonymy for the institutional position of the seat-holder (paṭṭadhara). 147 103 necessarily throughout their incumbency. Bhaṭṭāraka consecration festivals may also have been organised at towns other than those which formed the main residence of the bhaṭṭārakas. Even the travels of later, more clearly sedentary bhaṭṭārakas are referred to as vihāra (2.1.3.), and as we saw in the hagiography of Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇakīrti (2.3.4.), eulogistic sources often record bhaṭṭārakas as having undertaken extensive travels throughout the length and width of Digambara South Asia immediately upon their consecration to the seat. These accounts are reminiscent of the conquest of the quarters (dig-vijaya) of South Asian monarchs, and both the actual journeys and the literary representations thereof may have had a parallel function in establishing the legitimacy of a new incumbent as the kingpin of the bhaṭṭāraka polity throughout his dominion and beyond.148 Bhaṭṭārakas often travelled widely to perform pratiṣṭhās and to hold their rainy season retreats (cāturmāsa, 2.1.3.), both within their own core regions and beyond. As suggested by John Cort,149 such travels would have served to maintain relations with lay communities and secure their continued allegiance and ﬁnancial support, parallel to the travels of Śvetāmbara Mūrtipūjaka ācāryas today and śrīpūjyas and yatis formerly. The peregrination of contemporary Digambara ācāryas throughout sometimes the width and breadth of India is also clearly scheduled towards their performance of various social activities of considerable ﬁnancial scope, like overseeing temple building projects and consecrations. Bhaṭṭārakas also went on pilgrimages to famous pilgrimage sites throughout Western, Central, and Northern India later in their incumbency, sometimes leading groups of laypeople, and performing pratiṣṭhās during their trips.150 The main icon (mūlanāyaka) of the Svarṇa Mandira (Digambara Jaina Baṛā Mandira) in Gvāliyara (Madhya Pradesh) was consecrated by the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti (p. s. 1852) on the ﬁfth day of the bright half of the month of Vaiśākha in s. 1861. The black marble Pārśvanātha mūrti was patronised by Saṅgahi Rāyacanda Chābaṛā, a Khaṇḍelavāla Digambara Jain who served as the dīvāna of Jayapura around the turn of the 19th century CE (s. 1850-64).151 Sukhendrakīrti and Rāyacanda are known to have held a large icon consecration festival on the very date of the Gvāliyara mūrti, and in s. 1863 undertook a large pilgrimage to Sammedaśikhara (Jharkhand), eulogised as having counted 5000 people participating, four hundred ox carts, and as many horses (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 212). The bhaṭṭāraka and the dīvāna probably stopped over in Gvāliyara on the way to Sammedaśikhara and to have installed one of the mūrtis consecrated before in Jayapura there.152 We can discern two diﬀerent types of relocations of Balātkāragaṇa seats, repeated movements between various towns within a given region, and more abrupt relocations to entirely diﬀerent With references to Śvetāmbara Tapāgaccha narratives, a.o. Meghavijaya's 17th century CE Digvijayamahākāvya, Dundas (2007: 23) also discusses such Jaina narratives as a method to assimilate monastic leadership to kingship. 148 Personal communication, 4th February 2023; see also Cort 2008: 162, with reference to the activities of Muni Jñānasundara (1880-1955 CE) of the Śvetāmbara Upakeśagaccha. 149 150 See the attestations collected by Joharāpurakara (1958: 13-4). For the inscription, see Siṅha & Jaina 2012: 48. On Dīvāna Saṅgahi Rāyacanda Chābaṛā, see Kāsalīvāla 1989: 211-2. 151 152 John Cort, personal communication, 17th September 2020. 104 regions. As we saw, when the Balātkāragaṇa proliferated, its various branches and lineages spread throughout Western and Central India, more or less dividing the region among themselves. The seats of the Balātkāragaṇa lineages often moved between various towns within the relatively welldeﬁned and complementary geographical regions which constituted their respective spheres of inﬂuence, sometimes returning to earlier places. Such relocations may have been responses to ﬂuctuations in ﬁnancial support, but also a way to cultivate and maintain connections of patronage with diﬀerent local communities. Diﬀerent from these relocations between various towns in a given region are longer-distance shifts between diﬀerent regions. A now particularly well-known example are the migrations of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā from Dillī to Mevāṛa in the 16th century CE, to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region in the late 16th and 17th century CE, shortly to Dillī in the ﬁrst half of the 18th century CE, back to Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa in the second half of the 18th century CE, and ﬁnally to Mahāvīrajī in the 20th century CE. (4.1.) Each of these shifts can be understood as a direct response to political developments and attendant changes in economic conditions. As such, the relocations of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā can clearly be mapped onto Sultanate, Rajput, Mughal, and colonial history. In fact, as discussed in the next section, the whole history of the Balātkāragaṇa in Northern India, including its locations and its bifurcations, can be related to political changes. 2.4.2. Indo-Muslim States In general, the bhaṭṭārakas and their ascetic saṅghas shifted to ﬂourishing cities and trade centres in the wake of the mercantile and literate lay communities which supported them. These in turn migrated in pursuit of newly arising economic opportunities which depended on political conditions. As part of these dynamics, and far from ﬂeeing from them, bhaṭṭāraka seats were attracted to Sultanate and Mughal capitals and realms at least as much as to the capitals and kingdoms of local Hindu rulers.153 At the heyday of the Delhi Sultanate, the Uttaraśākhā had a ﬁrm presence in Dillī. The subsequent proliferation of the Balātkāragaṇa, in part organised at ﬁrst by the assigning of maṇḍalācāryas, dovetailed with the geographic expansion of the Delhi Sultanate under the Tughluq dynasty, and in the wake of the relatively long reigns of Muhammad Tuġluq (r. 1325-51 CE) and Firūz Šāh Tuġluq (r. 1351-89 CE). The maturing of subordinate lineages into independent bhaṭṭāraka seats in turn played out in the regional Sultanates which arose after the disintegration of the Delhi Sultanate. Manuscript colophons and other textual Digambara sources regularly include positive references to Sultans or Mughal emperors (see below, this section, on Mālavāśākhā praśastis' references to Malwa Sultanate Sultans), and record the honours bhaṭṭārakas received at their hands (see below for some examples, this section, last two paragraphs), indicating pragmatic if not outright benign relations between the rulers of the IndoMuslim polities and the Digambara communities. On the political history and the historiography of the Sultanates in relation to Jain ascetic lineage and lay communities, see Vose 2013: 70-149 (Delhi Sultanate), Clines 2018: 15-9 (the Vāgaḍā region in the 15th century CE), and Sheikh 2010: e.g. 64, 185-6 (Gujarat). See Truschke (2016; 2021: 133-60) and S. Jain (2017) on Śvetāmbara communities under the Mughals. Granoﬀ (1991) has discussed 14th century CE Śvetāmbara narratives explaining the destructions of images by Muslims without incriminating Islam. See also Talbot 1995, Metcalf 1995, Dundas 1999. 153 105 The Uttaraśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra, whom according to paṭṭāvalīs was based in Ajamera, is also recorded to have travelled widely, up to Khambhāt (coastal Gujarat), Dhāra (Madhya Pradesh), and Devagiri (Daulatābāda, Maharashtra) (Joharāpurakara 1958: 91, lekha 236; p. 94). We already encountered an account of how Prabhācandra was invited to perform an icon consecration (pratiṣṭhā) in Sūrata in s. 1375 (1318-9 CE), but sent an ācārya of his to perform the ritual because he could not attend. (2.2.3.8.) Such interactions indicate long-distance connections between Digambara lay and ascetic communities across the realm of the Delhi Sultanate. The Yādava capital Devagiri had ﬁrst been raided by Delhi Sultanate ruler ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Khaljī in 1296 CE, and was ﬁnally subdued by him in 1308 CE. In 1328 CE, and only until 1334 CE, Muhammad Tughluq transferred his capital from Dillī to Devagiri, renaming it to Daulatābāda. Prabhācandra is recorded to have been incumbent from s. 1310 (1254 CE) to s. 1385 (1328 CE), so he might have visited Devagiri/Daulatābāda after the Yādavas became vassals of the Delhi Sultanate, and perhaps even speciﬁcally around the time Muhammad Tughluq was moving there. This would be a parallel to the case of the Śvetāmbara Kharataragaccha mendicant leader Jinaprabhāsūri (c. 1261-1333 CE), who is known to have been particularly close to Muhammad Tughluq and who travelled to Daulatābāda with Jain merchants, apparently to establish a Jain community there (Vose 2022: 4). Prabhācandra’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi (p. s. 1385) was based in Dillī during the reigns of Muhammad Tuġluq and Firūz Šāh Tuġluq. In Dillī, Padmanandi was succeeded by Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra (p. s. 1450-1507), but two other pupils of Padmanandi stood at the beginning of new lineages which were active in Western India, Sakalakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1443-99) of the Vāgaḍāśākhā (2.2.3.6.) and Devendrakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1473-93) of both the Lāṭaśākhā (2.2.3.8.) and the Mālavāśākhā (2.2.3.9.). According to a paṭṭāvalī from Jayapura cited by Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 130), a fourth pupil and successor to Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi was sent south. It is tempting to think that this pupil was sent to the Bahmani Sultanate which, like the Sultanate of Bengal, was founded around the middle of the 14th century CE. Around the turn of the 15th century CE, the governors of Mālavā, Gujarat, and Jaunpur were also able to wrest themselves free from the Tughluq rulers. The sack of Dillī by Timur in 1398 CE was merely indicative of the earlier disintegration of the Tughluq empire, but hastened the formation of independent, regional Sultanates. The Malwa Sultanate was founded by the former Delhi Sultanate governor Dilawar Khan, who ceased to pay tribute in 1392 CE and exclaimed independence in 1401 CE. His dynasty was replaced a quarter century later by a Khalji dynasty. The Sultanate of Gujarat was similarly founded by the former Tughluq governor Zafar Khan, who declared his independence in 1407 CE as Sultan Muzaﬀar Shah. The Sultanates of Malwa and Gujarat existed up to the mid-16th century CE, when they were conquered by Akbar and their territories became part of the Mughal empire. The development of the Mālavāśākhā and the Lāṭaṣākhā seems to have been related to the formation of the Sultanates of Malwa and Gujarat. The strength and great expanse of the Delhi Sultanate under the Tughluq dynasty facilitated the broad geographical expansion of the Balātkāragaṇa and initiated the process of its bifurcations. And the independent, regional Sultanates arising and ﬂourishing after the decline of the Delhi Sultanate subsequently formed the matrix for the new Balātkāragaṇa lineages. 106 The second Muzaﬀarid dynasty ruler Sultan Ahmad Shah (r. 1411-42 CE) founded Ahamadābāda as the capital of the Gujarat Sultanate in 1411 CE. Some 65 years later, in s. 1532, the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Somakīrti performed pratiṣṭhās in Ahamadābāda along with his pupil Ācārya Vīrasena for both Narasiṅha and Prāgvāṭa caste donors (Kāsalīvāla 1982: 6, with n. 2-3), indicating that by then at least these two Digambara castes had come to establish themselves and ﬂourish in the city. The Balātkāragaṇa Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti is recorded to ̥ have spent ﬁve of his annual rainy season retreats (cāturmāsa) in Ahamadābāda in the last quarter of the 17th century CE. (5.6.2.) A good number of Digambara temples are also found at the Pāvāgaṛha fort and in the nearby town of Cāmpānera (B. Jaina 1978: 178-85), which functioned as the capital of the Gujarat Sultanate for some time under Mahmud Begada (Mahmud Shah I, r. 1458-1511 CE). A Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha bhaṭṭāraka is recorded to have interacted with Sultan Firūz Šāh in Pāvāgaṛha, and a Mūlasaṅgha Senagaṇa incumbent is recorded from the court of possibly, Mahmud Shah I (see below, this section). The harbour city of Sūrata, which gained importance after the salinization of the bay of Khambhāt, was an attractive location for Jain merchants and therefore also emerged as an important pole for renouncers. Early in the 15th century CE, almost immediately after the founding of the Gujarat Sultanate in 1407 CE, the activities of Devendrakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1473-1493) in Sūrata developed the earlier Balātkāragaṇa presence in coastal Gujarat into a new branch, the Lāṭaśākhā. Devendrakīrti’s successor in Sūrata, Vidyānandi, was a maṇḍalācārya who would have served local lay communities on behalf of the Balātkāragaṇa bhaṭṭārakas in Dillī. His successor Mallibhūṣaṇa became an independent bhaṭṭāraka, and the one branch of the Lāṭaśākhā remained ﬁrmly moored in Sūrata. (2.2.3.8.) The city at times also attracted other Balātkāragaṇa lineages, and became home to a Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha seat as well. (3.4.3.) The Balātkāragaṇa Mālavāśākhā in turn fared well in the Malwa Sultanate. (2.2.3.9.) Just like Devendrakīrti’s successor in Lāṭa, the late 15th century CE Tribhuvanakīrti, the ﬁrst incumbent of the Mālavāśākhā, was a maṇḍalācārya. The ranks of the next three incumbents after Tribhuvanakīrti are unconﬁrmed, but by the second half of the 16th century CE the Mālavāśākhā also became an independent bhaṭṭāraka linage. (2.2.4.4.) The praśastis of two compositions from s. 1552 (1495 CE) and s. 1553 (1497 CE) attesting the Mālavāśākhā refer to its capital Maṇḍapagaṛha (Mandavagaṛha, Mandu)154 and contain benign references to the rulers of the Malwa Sultanate. The s. 1553 praśasti describes the Malwa Sultanate ruler Ghiyas-ud-Din Shah (r. 1469-1500 CE) as ‘powerful’155 and his successor Nasir-ud-Din Shah (r. 1500-10 CE) as devoted to royal duty (rājadharma) and very virtuous.156 A paṭṭāvalī also records the ﬁrst Lāṭaśākhā bhaṭṭāraka Mallibhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1544) as visiting Maṇḍapagaṛha (here, Maṇḍapagiri) and as being honoured at the court of Ghiyas-ud-Din.157 Maṇḍapagaṛha had ﬁrst been captured by ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Khaljī of the Delhi Sultanate in 1304/5 CE, and became the capital of the Malwa Sultanate under the second ruler Hoshang Shah (r. 1406-35 ‘maṃḍayagaḍu vara mālavadesaï’ (Joharāpurakara 1958: 202, lekha 523), ‘mālava deśa dugga maṇḍavacalu’ (Ibid.: lekha 524). 154 155 ‘sāhi gayāsu mahābalu’ (Joharāpurakara 1958: 202, lekha 524). 156 ‘sāhi ṇasīru [...] rāyadhamma aṇurāyaü bahuguṇu’ (Joharāpurakara 1958: 202, lekha 524). 157 ‘gyāsadīna-sabhā-madhya-prāpta-sanmāna’ (Joharāpurakara 1958: 177, lekha 461). 107 CE). It was also in Maṇḍapagaṛha that the Uttaraśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Vasantakīrti reportedly took to clothing in public in the early 13th century CE. (1.1.1.) The Balātkāragaṇa thus seems to have remained active in Maṇḍapagaṛha during the changing rule over the city of subsequently the Paramāra dynasty, the Delhi Sultanate, and the Malwa Sultanate. P. Jain (2010) collects ample further attestations of the ﬂourishing of Śvetāmbara and Digambara ascetic and lay communities in the Malwa Sultanate. According to Asher & Talbot (2006: 99), Jain merchant-bankers closely cooperated with the muslim ruling elite of the Malwa Sultanate, and the presence of Jains was vital to the success of the independent sultanates in insuring their economic vitality.158 The city of Āgarā (Uttar Pradesh) provides another clear example of the attraction which the centres of the Indo-Muslim polities exercised upon bhaṭṭārakas. Sikandar Lodī (r. 1489-1517 CE) of the Delhi Sultanate founded Āgarā as his capital in 1505 CE (Lal 1963: 176; Gupta 1986: 10), and the city also intermittently served as the Mughal capital up to 1648 CE. In the 1594 CE report of his pilgrimage to Āgarā, the Argalpura Jinavandana, Paṇḍita Bhagavatidāsa reports that two bhaṭṭārakas resided in Āgarā at the time, and that various Digambara temples in the city were connected to at least ﬁve diﬀerent Balātkāragaṇa and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha lineages (B. Jaina 1974: 59-60, see Detige 2020a: 196). A spurt of Digambara temple construction seems to have taken place in the city under the late Lodi dynasty and early in the Mughal period. Presumably, laity of various Digambara castes migrated to Āgarā and invited the ascetic traditions with which they were traditionally aﬃliated. Dillī also attracted various bhaṭṭāraka lineages both during the Sultanate period, as we have seen, and as the capital of the Mughal Empire. The Balātkāragaṇa Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti was consecrated in Dillī in 1735 CE (4.1.3.), and in fact all the relocations of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā from the 16th to the 20th century CE can be connected to the shifting fates of the Delhi Sultanate, the Sisodiyā and Kachavāhā Rajput kingdoms, and the Mughal empire. (4.1.3.) In Āgarā, Dillī, and Jayapura, the Jaina neighbourhoods were also located close to the imperial and royal courts, which indicates the importance of the Jains both as merchants and as serving in the Mughal and Kachavāhā administration with their literary and numeracy skills. Mapping the distribution of the various Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa lineages onto Sultanate and Mughal history indicates that instead of ﬂeeing the polities of the Indo-Muslim rulers, the seats of the Digambara lineages were often attracted to them. The spread of Digambara ascetic lineages was clearly tied to socio-political developments and attendant economic conditions, not to the religious identity of rulers. We often see Digambara ascetic leaders shifting to the new centre cities of the independent Sultanates some decades after their foundation. They were eager to be close to the political powers of the day, it seems, regardless of their religious persuasions, and no doubt followed in the wake of their communities of lay supporters, merchants, literates, and moneylenders migrating to rising trade towns and administrative centres in pursuit of economic opportunities. Lower-ranking pupils, munis and ācāryas, were sent out to cover new ground, Asher & Talbot (2006: 99) make this observation with reference to two Śvetāmbara manuscripts dated to 1439 CE (Kalpa-sūtra and Kalakācārya-kathā) written at Mandu and referring to Mahmūd Šāh Khaljī (r. 1436-69), the ﬁrst Sultan of the Khalji dynasty of the Malwa Sultanate. 158 108 subordinate maṇḍalācāryas administered outlaying areas, and later incumbents of the lineages they founded ultimately became autonomous bhaṭṭārakas. In addition to such structural patterns, the anecdotal, formulaic references to Sultans and Mughal emperors in manuscript colophons, praśastis, and other textual sources also oﬀer micro-evidence of constructive relationships between Indo-Muslim rulers and bhaṭṭārakas. We already saw the example of the positive references to the Sultans of Malwa in Mālavāśākhā sources, and textual attestations of the honour bhaṭṭārakas received from Indo-Muslim rulers are found with some frequency. Prior to his activities under the Tughluq dynasty, the Uttaraśākhā Prabhācandra had for example already been honoured by Nasīruddīn Mahmūd Šāh (r. 1246-66 CE) of the Mamluk dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate (Joharāpurakara 1958: 92, lekha 236). And in the Kārañjāśākhā, Viśālakīrti was honoured at the courts of Sikandar Lodī as well as Virūpākśa of Vijayanagara, and Devappa, the daṇḍa-nāyaka of Āraga (Ibid.: 48, lekha 99). And his successor Vidyānanda (d. ś. 1463, s. 1598) was honoured by one Sultan Allāuddīna (= Ālam Šāh of the Sayyid dynasty?), as well as by Vīra Prthvīpati of Śrīraṅgapaṭṭaṇa, Sāluva Krṣṇadeva, and Śrīkrṣṇarāya of Vijayanagara (Ibid.: 48-9, ̥ ̥ ̥ lekhas 100-1). Indo-Muslim rulers as much as others probably maintained pragmatic relations with Jain ascetic leaders regardless of religious aﬃliations, giving symbolic deference to them as a means to placate the economically important lay communities. Yet, the transmitted records of the recognition and honour the bhaṭṭārakas received at the courts of Indo-Muslim rulers indicates that these were seen as prestigious occasions by lay communities at the time and in subsequent centuries. Some accounts also claim that the Sultans had a personal interest and appreciation for the renouncers because of their reputation, learnedness, or demeanour. A notably frequent type of narrative ascribes the honour Jain mendicant leaders received from Indo-Muslim rulers to displays at court of their erudition, literary skills, and especially their command over the knowledge of incantations (mantra-śāstra). The 13th-14th century CE Uttaraśākhā Prabhācandra was victorious in a debate in Dillī with one Rādho Cetana by making the new moon appear as the full moon and by ﬂying up in the sky with a palanquin (Kāsalīvāla 1967a: 183; 1989: 252; 1997c: 451). This performance of his command of mantra (mantra-śakti) impressed Firūz Šāh, and led to the invitation to visit the queen which in turn resulted in Prabhācandra taking up clothing. (1.1.1.) In another, related narrative, Rādho and Cetana make an appearance as two diﬀerent brāhmaṇas conniving ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Khaljī into interrogating the various religious communities (Śītalaprasāda 1919: 34). Accordingly, an ultimatum was posed for an elected representative of each community to appear at the court, but the Digambaras had diﬃculties to ﬁnd a suitable spokesperson. They ultimately found Mādhavasena of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha in Giranāra (Gujarat), but he could not be enticed to make the trek (vihāra) to Dillī. Yet on the morning of the day when the Sultan’s ultimatum was expiring, Mādhavasena miraculously appeared in Dillī. After reviving a child who had been bitten to death by a snake, he proceeded to face Rādho and Cetana. The latter caused ﬁshes to appear in Mādhavasena’s pitcher (kamaṇḍalu) in order to defame him, but before the contents of the pitcher could be checked, he transformed the ﬁsh into ﬂowers, presenting these as ﬁt for pūjā. Mādhavasena subsequently also defeated the two brāhmaṇas in a debate on the diﬀerent 109 philosophical schools (ṣaḍ-darśana). The Sultan was impressed, and invited Mādhavasena to stay in Dillī, and, again, to visit the harem, clothed. The 15th century CE Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Somakīrti is remembered to have made a palanquin ﬂy in a display for Sultan Firūz Šāh in Pāvāgaṛha (Gujarat, Joharāpurakara 1958: 265, lekha 645, p. 293). From an unspeciﬁed source, Ś. J. Jaina (2011: 99) reports a similar narrative about the earlier Nandītaṭagaccha incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti causing a palanquin to ﬂy and defeating heretics (mithyātvī) in a debate at the court of Emperor Mahamūd Šāh in Dillī (probably the Sayyid dynasty sultan, r. 1434-45), and receiving much honours from the ruler for the former especially. The Mūlasaṅgha Senagaṇa incumbent Śrutavīra is recorded to have performed a samasyā-pūrti, the completion of a verse, at the court of Sultan Muhammad Šāh, possibly Mahmūd Šāh I (Mahmūd Begada, r. 1458-1511 CE) of the Muzaﬀarid dynasty of the Gujarat Sultanate (Ibid.: 9 lekha 18; p. 30). And in the mid-18th century CE in Sūrata (Gujarat), the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti used mantras to ﬂy across the river and over the city walls after his former guru-brother and now competitor Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti had conspired with the navāba of Sūrata to bar him from entering the city after a stay in Karnataka. Upon seeing these miraculous feats, the navāba repented and a new mandira was built where Vijayakīrti was allowed to establish his seat. (3.4.3. n. 216) A narrative about the miraculous feats of the late 18th and 19th century CE Kārañjāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi (d. s. 1879) still well remembered in Kārañjā (Maharashtra) also involves the intervention of a Muslim ruler (B. H. Jaina 2010: 29). When some Jains wanted to bring a jina icon from Ardhāpurī near Nāndeḍa (Maharashtra)159 to Kārañjā, local non-Jains opposed and prevented them from doing so. Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi went to intervene but also could not get the job done and turned to the Nizam of Haiderābād, displaying his powers by arriving at the court with his palanquin hovering mid-air. Impressed, the Nizam granted Padmanandi a boon, and with this the mūrti was brought to Kārañjā without further problems. 2.4.3. Polities Ultimately, the correspondence between the movements of the bhaṭṭāraka seats and dynastic and political history also speaks of the alignment of bhaṭṭārakas with secular courts and their interactions with rulers on behalf of lay communities. Although prior scholarship often stressed this function of the bhaṭṭārakas over and above their ascetic identity, it was never fully explored. While venerated as renouncers (2.1.2.), the Western Indian bhaṭṭārakas also carried considerable political and socio-economic clout as the kingpin of devotional and ﬁnancial networks constituted by ascetic and lay communities. The close interaction between Jaina mendicant leaders and secular rulers of course long predates the late medieval and the early modern period. Famous examples from the late medieval Śvetāmbara tradition are the close association of Hemacandra with the Caulukya rulers in 12th century CE Gujarat (Cort 1998) and of the Kharataragaccha Jinaprabhasūri (ca. 1261-1333 CE) with Sultan Muhammed bin Tughluq (r. 1325-51 CE) (Vose 2022). A later Śvetāmbara example is the inﬂuence which the 16th century CE Tapāgaccha Hīravijayasūri 159 Prob. Ardhāpura, ca. 20 km north of Nāndeḍa (Maharashtra). 110 famously had over the Mughal Emperor Akbar (Dundas 2007: 53; S. Jain 2017: 206 ﬀ.), and the presence of Śvetāmbara monks of diﬀerent gacchas at the Mughal court (Truschke 2016). Following ideas of Inden ([1990] 2000), as recently applied by Hatcher (2020), I view the bhaṭṭāraka circles as renouncer-centred polities. Polities can be conceived of as partially self-governing groups with a collective identity constituting an identiﬁable political entity, organised through institutionalised social relations, capable of mobilising resources, and lead by a sovereign lord (after Ferguson & Mansbach 1996). Inden ([1990] 2000) theorised polities as operating within a hierarchical, poly-centric ‘scale of forms’.160 Sultanate era bhaṭṭāraka polities aligned themselves under Sultanate courts. Mughal era bhaṭṭāraka polities associated with regional courts, which in turn were subordinated to the Mughal empire. Particularly ample attestations are found of the interactions of 17th to 19th century CE Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas with the Kachavāhā mahārājas, who were closely allied to the paramount polity of the Mughal emperors (Detige 2024b). The second Śākambharīśākhā Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbent Candrakīrti obtained a pharamāna of the mahārāja of Jodhapura to protect the seat (gaddī) of Nāgaura (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 160, probably taking his information from a paṭṭāvalī). Other regional religious traditions constituted parallel polities which often conﬂicted with the bhaṭṭāraka polities or rivalled them for royal patronage and recognition. Among these were Hindu and Śvetāmbara traditions as well as the Digambara Terāpantha which introduced ritual reforms and opposed the bhaṭṭārakas of the Bīsapantha tradition, particularly and ﬁrstly in the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region (Cort 2002a). The maṇḍalācāryas, ācāryas, rṣis, yatis, and paṇḍitas who often operated in ̥ mandiras and towns away from the bhaṭṭāraka seat can be seen as the lords of satellite polities subservient to the bhaṭṭāraka seat. The relation of the subordinate maṇḍalācāryas to the bhaṭṭārakas in particular can be understood in parallel to that of vassal kings (maṇḍaleśvara) to the emperor. The broad basis of the bhaṭṭāraka polities were the various Digambara castes who were often devoted to the bhaṭṭārakas of speciﬁc lineage. Among the elites of the wealthy merchant communities were the saṅghapatis or chief donors, and Digambara dīvānas, ministers, and courtiers at the royal court. Local caste councils (pañca) and family patriarchs formed another location of power. The mūrtis and mandiras consecrated by bhaṭṭārakas can also be theorised as functional agents of the bhaṭṭāraka polities. Apart from the mandiras most closely associated with speciﬁc lineages and the mūrtis installed there consecrated by its consecutive incumbents, bhaṭṭārakas occasionally also held grand-scale consecration festivals at which hundreds or thousands of mūrtis were consecrated and subsequently dispatched to mandiras throughout their inﬂuence sphere (Cort 2002a: 60). We regularly see interactions between bhaṭṭāraka polities and royal courts, or attempts of the former to link themselves up to the latter. The case attested most clearly is that of the connections of the 17th to 19th century CE Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā to the Kachavāhā dynasty of Āmera and Jayapura (Detige 2024b). The Kachavāhā mahārājas were in turn closely allied to the paramount polity of the Hatcher (2020) uses the concept of the polity to study both the cosmopolitan Rājā Rāmamohana Rāya (Rammohun Roy) and the traditionalist Svāmi Nārāyaṇa (Swami Narayan), beyond the rhetoric of reform otherwise setting them apart, as the lords of their polities, respectively the Brahmo Samāja and the Svāmi Nārāyaṇa Sampradāya. 160 111 Mughal emperors. The connections between the three polities went back to the early 17th century CE. In s. 1664, the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti consecrated a mandira and thousands of temple icons, subsequently distributed throughout Northern India, at a large consecration festival in Mozamābāda which reportedly received some, possibly nominal cooperation by the Mughal emperor Akbar (by then deceased) and the Kachavāhā Mahārāja Māna Siṅha (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 151). The Bīsapanthī Pāṭodī Mandira which later became the seat of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas was built close to the royal palace of Jayapura right at the time of the foundation of the city (s. 1784, Nyāyatīrtha 1990: 47). The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti who spent a part of his incumbency in Dillī (Śāhajahānābāda) was consecrated in 1735 CE (s. 1792) in a Jaina mandira in Jayasiṅhapura, a neighbourhood of the Mughal capital founded by the Kachavāhā ruler Mahārāja Jaya Siṅha (r. 1688-1743 CE). It was no doubt the Kachavāhā alignment with the Mughal empire which had opened up avenues to Dillī for Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti and the Digambara lay communities connected to him. (4.1.3.) A pillar erected in Āmera in the late 18th century CE (s. 1845) functioned as an axis of interaction between the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and Kachavāhā polities. When the name of a new Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent was engraved on the kīrtistambha, gifts were dispatched from the royal court of Jayapura in recognition of his legitimacy. (4.3.9.) Deference to the ruling dynasty monarch seems to have been deemed speciﬁcally appropriate for the inscriptions of kīrtistambhas, which commemorate a full bhaṭṭāraka lineage (3.1.4.). The early 16th century CE (s. 1571) Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā kīrtistambha in Naugāmā features a short, seemingly ̥ defective reference to the reign of an unnamed ruler over the Vāgaḍā land. At the time, Naugāmā was administered by the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā ācāryas, who were subordinated to the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭārakas in nearby Sāgavāṛā. (5.1.3-4.) The Naugāmā kīrtistambha then may ̥ have stood as an axis connecting the three hierarchically diﬀerentiated polities of the Laghuśākhā ācāryas, the Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭārakas, and the royal court. References to local rulers in the ̥ inscriptions of a few individual memorial stones also seem to have been intended to inscribe the bhaṭṭāraka polities into the royal states. (3.2.6.) In Īḍara, Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti recorded the victorious rule of Māhārāja Gambhīra Siṅha both on his own, s. 1887 memorial, of which he uniquely seems to have consecrated at least the pādukā himself (#5.54), and in a śilālekha adjoining a multi-pādukā slab which he consecrated in s. 1855 in commemoration of a pupillary lineage of renouncers who I suspect may have been prior Brhatśākhā representatives in Īdara (#5.52). (5.6.5.) On the s. 1887 ̥ memorial, the reference to the mahārāja is added as a separate inscription on the back of the niṣedhikā, which conﬁrms its intentionality. Yaśakīrti seems to have been the ﬁrst Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭāraka to permanently establish his seat in Īḍara, and his repeated ̥ deference to the local ruler may have been part of his eﬀorts to moor his lineage in its new home town. Two centuries earlier, the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Narendrakīrti initiated the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā practice of referring to Kachavāhā mahārājas in memorial inscriptions when moving into their capital Āmera, probably similarly in an attempt to establish his polity here. (4.3.6.) 112 2.4.4. Courts and kings The model of the scale of polities with overlapping realms of authority and graduated power captures worldly rulers and religious leaders within a single analysis, highlighting forms of governance and ritual practices common to both. Kāsalīvāla (1990: 227) claims that the bhaṭṭārakas called themselves ‘Jaina Bādaśāha’ (Jaina emperor), but this is unattested from other sources. Yet the designation bhaṭṭāraka was itself an epithet for medieval monarchs. The ascetic names of individual bhaṭṭārakas also referred to the paramount social attribute indicating kingship, fame, glory, and reputation (kīrti, yaśas; Ali 2006: 83-4). And lordship was articulated in largely similar ways in the bhaṭṭāraka polities as at royal courts, expressing an epistemic continuity in conceptions of power, governance, authority, and legitimacy. As Dundas (2007: 23) has argued in relation to the late medieval and early modern Śvetāmbara Tapāgaccha, ascetic teacher lineage (itself overlapping with institutional lineage) and kingship were conceived as "overlapping social institutions whose constitutive mechanism derived from similar concerns". Dundas (Ibid.: 21, 25) also pointed out that the Jaina literary genre of the paṭṭāvalī or lineage list, which developed by the end of the late medieval period and was geared towards constructing authority and legitimisation through the presentation of an unbroken monastic lineage ultimately leading back to Mahāvīra, formed a clear parallel to the royal dynastic genealogies which were prevalent from the early modern period onwards, allowing the identiﬁcation of monastic leadership with the institution of kingship. Digvijaya-like Jaina narratives (see already 2.2.), also present the itineracy of Jaina lineage incumbents as a spiritual, non-violent counterpart to the ritualised military circumambulation of his territory by an ideal monarch (Dundas 2007: 23-4). The ethical virtues, intellectual qualities, and literary practices claimed by the bhaṭṭārakas, and the rituals of their gloriﬁcation also partly matched the courtly culture of the royal and imperial polities (Ali 2006). As the lords of Digambara polities and courts, the bhaṭṭārakas were installed on the seat with rituals of anointment parallel to royal consecrations (Joharāpurakara 1958: 5; Detige 2019b), sat on thrones, surrounded themselves with regal paraphernalia like parasols and whisks, travelled or were paraded in palanquins, and were commemorated with chatrīs. The thrones on which the bhaṭṭārakas were seated and which demonstrated their identity as both lords and venerable renouncers are preserved in many mandiras.161 (Fig. 2.7) Reproducing a photo of a throne (siṅhāsana) with ﬂy whisks (caṃvara) and peacock feather fans (morachala) of the 161 Ajamera, Bābājī kā Mandira, two thrones with framed portraits of the last Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents Lalitakīrti (p. s. 1922, Fig. 6.2 top & bottom L.) and Harṣakīrti (d. s. 1999, Fig. 6.2 top & bottom M.); Ajamera, Baṛe Dhaṛe kī Nasiyāṃ, with framed portrait of Harṣakīrti (Fig. 6.2 R. top and bottom); Īḍara, Pārśvanātha Jinālaya, two thrones, Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā (Fig. 5.23 bottom L.); Jayapura, Pāṭodī Mandira, Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā (Fig. 2.7); Kārañjā, Candranātha Svāmī ̥ Balātkāragaṇa Mandira, with portraits of the last three Kārañjāśākhā incumbents ‘Moṭhe’ Devendrakīrti (d. s. 1941), Ratnakīrti (d. s. 1953), and ‘Lahāna’ Devendrakīrti (d. s. 1973) (Fig. 2.7); Nāgapura, Pārśvaprabhū Digambara Jaina Moṭhe Mandira, with portraits of the last two Kārañjāśākhā incumbents Ratnakīrti and ‘Lahāna’ Devendrakīrti (Fig. 2.7); Nāgaura, Bīsapantha Baṛā Mandira, with portrait and sandals of the last Śākambharīśākhā Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbent Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1995, Fig. 6.1 bottom); R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī, Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti Digambara Jaina Gurukula, two thrones of the last Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti (p. s. 1974 d. s. 2023?, Fig. 2.1); Sāgavāṛā, Junā Mandira, Vāgaḍāśākhā (Fig. 2.7); Sāgavāṛā, Seṭhoṃ kā Mandira (= Ādinātha Mandira), Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha (Fig. 2.7); Sojitrā (Gujarat), Neminātha Mandira, Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa (Fig. 2.7); Sūrata (Gujarat), Cintāmaṇi Pārśvanātha Mandira, Lāṭaśākhā Sūratapaṭṭa (Fig. 2.3); poss. Aṅkleśvara (Gujarat), Cintāmaṇi Pārśvanātha Mandira (Fig. 5.12 M.); poss. Pratāpagaṛha, Junā Mandira (Fig. 2.7). Mūlasaṅgha (Balātkāragaṇa) and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha (Nandītaṭagaccha) bhaṭṭāraka seats said to have been present at the R̥ ṣabhadeva Mandira in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī by Vāṇāvata e.a. (n.d.: 11-2) were no longer present at the time of my visit (March 2013). Vāṇāvata e.a. (n.d.: 12) interpreted another structure in the mandira as having been a seat of the (Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha) Māthuragaccha. 113 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas, Varmā (1998: 42) claims these were donated by an (unspeciﬁed) Mughal emperor. The Kachavāhā court also sent a shawl of honour when a new Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā was consecrated (Varmā 1998: 28). And when the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti held a grand image consecration festival in Cāndakheḍī in s. 1689, along with no less than ten other bhaṭṭārakas, the royal courts of Būndī and Koṭā donated elephant-drawn chariots for the festival (Cort 2002a: 54). The gifting of royal emblems like thrones and elephants by royal sovereigns formed a clear endorsement of the legitimacy of the bhaṭṭārakas as subordinate lords.162 I found bhaṭṭārakas' palanquins preserved at former seats in Īḍara (Gujarat, Fig. 5.23 bottom R.) and Sonāgiri (Madhya Pradesh, Fig. 2.4 bottom R.). The memorial pavilions (chatrī) of the bhaṭṭārakas which form the focus of this study were another courtly symbol shared with royal and imperial dynasties. The practice was appropriated from the Indo-Islamic tomb tradition of the Sultanate and Mughal rulers and the Rajput dynasties’ adoption thereof since at least the 16th century CE. Belli Bose (2015) has studied the functions of the memorial chatrīs of the Rajput dynasties of Rajasthan. Chatrīs, or ‘umbrellas of stone’, were “an integral component of the visual vocabulary of North Indian kingship” (Ibid.: 2), and “metonyms for political and religious authority in South Asia” (Ibid.: 8). Royal chatrīs marked the spots where Rajput kings were cremated and where their ashes were interred, and they were places of memorialisation and occasional veneration (Ibid.: 3-4). The commissioning of a chatrī of a deceased mahārāja was an essential part of the establishing of the legitimacy of his successor, and a performance of royalty vis-a-vis courtiers, subjects, other Rajput dynasties, and imperial overlords (Ibid.: 4-5). Rajput chatrīs and commemorative practices then constituted a performance of kingship and sovereignty, dynastic lineage, political legitimacy and authority, and occasionally formed explicit architectural expressions of resistance and deﬁance against overlords or enemies. Many of these insights also apply to the memorial practices of the bhaṭṭāraka traditions of Western India. Similarly expressing lordship, the bhaṭṭārakas’ chatrīs were also typically erected by their successors, and would similarly have functioned to demonstrate the latter’s legitimacy as much as to commemorate the deceased predecessor. As such, the bhaṭṭāraka chatrīs stand as a prime material manifestation of the esteem in which the bhaṭṭārakas were held again not only as idealised ascetics but also as the lords of their polities. For their sermons and during other public functions, contemporary Digambara munis are typically seated on lower wooden seats with backrests which at mass events are raised on high and large stages (Detige 2024a). 162 114 Figure 2.7. Bhaṭṭāraka seats. Top, from left to right: Pāṭodī Mandira, Jayapura (December 2014), Neminātha Mandira, Sojitrā, Gujarat (January 2014), Junā Mandira, Sāgavāṛā (January 2014). Middle, left & right: Seṭhoṃ kā Mandira (= Ādinātha Mandira), Sāgavāṛā, and Junā Mandira, Pratāpagaṛha (prob.). (both January 2014) Bottom, left & right: Nāgapura, Pārśvaprabhū Digambara Jaina Moṭhe Mandira, and Kārañjā, Candranātha Svāmī Balātkāragaṇa Mandira. (both January 2015) 115 Well-established, endowed maṭhas developed as the permanent home base of the South Indian bhaṭṭāraka seats which were supported by the mostly agricultural, settled Digambara communities of South India. No similar monastic institutions developed in Western India and Madhya Pradesh, where bhaṭṭāraka seats frequently changed location in following migrating merchant communities.163 Yet we can still recognise residential buildings of bhaṭṭārakas in some of the towns where the lineages came to settle down in the 18th and 19th centuries.164 In Jayapura (Fig. 2.8) and Īḍara (Gujarat, Fig. 5.23 top), these buildings were annexed to mandiras. In Sonāgiri (Madhya Pradesh, Fig. 2.4 bottom L.) the bhaṭṭāraka residence was integrated with a mandira into a fortiﬁed, purpose-built structure. These buildings often feature balconies on the street-side which may have been used by bhaṭṭārakas to give darśana to their devotees, parallel to the practice of Mughal emperors. Carvings on late 18th and 19th century CE Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā chatrīs in Jayapura (Fig. 3.14) and Cākasū (Fig. 4.19 R.) also seem to depict the bhaṭṭārakas in projecting windows (jharokhā). Perhaps the commemorated renouncers were visualised as such on their memorials because these public sightings of theirs impressed lay communities and were well-remembered. Figure 2.8. Possibly former bhaṭṭāraka residential building, with balconies overlooking street and inner courtyard (seen from the inner courtyard), Pāṭodī Mandira, Jayapura. (December 2014) The alignments of courtly symbols, practices, and material infrastructure of the bhaṭṭāraka polities and the royal dynasties discussed in this section, including parasols, chatrīs, thrones, and palanquins, formed a lingua franca of power and authority which facilitated ritualised interactions between hierarchically diﬀerentiated but structurally similar polities. Religious lords like the The possible former practice of endowments made to the Western and Central Indian bhaṭṭāraka seats is in need of research. A few attestations are available of land and village grants to Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā institutions by the Kachavāhā rulers of Jayapura. According to Kāsalīvāla (1990: 227), a village was given to the pilgrimage centre of Mahāvīrajī by a Jayapura mahārājā to cover the costs of rituals. And as we saw (3.5.7.), an again unspeciﬁed mahārājā of Jayapura also rewarded a Jayapura yati with land in a village near Savāī Mādhopura (B. Nyāyatīrtha 1986: 358) and the royal court also made land grants in Savāī Mādhopura and nearby Khandāra to (18th-?)19th century CE, Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā aﬃliated paṇḍitas (A. Nyāyatīrtha 1990: 18-9). 163 In Virāṭanagara (3.1.6.), 19th century CE Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha bhaṭṭārakas reportedly resided in a separate building in the town centre. 164 116 bhaṭṭārakas drew cultural capital and inﬂuence from their association with worldly rulers. And in ceremonially honouring the mastery of lordly gurus, monarchs acknowledged and integrated the wealthy lay communities associated with them into their realms. The ultimate causes of the discontinuation of the bhaṭṭāraka lineages in the 19th and 20th century CE, then, were not so much the modernisation and reform movements of lay communities and the rise of the contemporary muni saṅghas, but changes in conceptions of power and governance underlying the latter developments by rendering obsolete the old regime of the bhaṭṭāraka polities and their courtly paradigms of lordship. At the same time, and in seeming contradiction to their portrayal as possessionless, forest-dwelling ascetics, much of the royal imagery and language was retained in relation to the contemporary Digambara 'muni mahārājas'. 117 118 CHAPTER 3. DIGAMBARA MEMORIALS Chapter contents This chapter introduces the material, iconographic, architectural, spatial, epigraphic, and ritual aspects of the Digambara memorials included in the corpus studied in this dissertation. The main focus of this study is the corpus of discovered memorials of three Balātkāragaṇa branches which focused their activities in diﬀerent parts of the contemporary state of Rajasthan and bordering regions. An in-depth analysis of the memorials of these three branches is developed in the chapters of Part II (Chapter 4-6). In the current chapter, I also refer to Western and Central Indian memorials of other Balātkāragaṇa lineages,165 the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha,166 Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha,167 and Mūlasaṅgha Senagaṇa.168 I also discuss late medieval Digambara memorials found in Rajasthan (3.2.4.1.), and memorials of the renouncers of the contemporary muni saṅghas (3.1.7.). The ﬁrst section of this chapter discusses the iconographical and architectural aspects of the Digambara memorials of Western India. (3.1.) They are either stone slabs with carvings depicting a pair of feet (caraṇa, pādukā, 3.1.2.), or commemorative pillars of two to seven feet high (niṣedhikā, 3.1.3.). These memorial stones were installed in pavilions (chatrī, caraṇa-chatrī) or on simple platforms (cabūtarā, caraṇa-cabūtarā). A simple building with a ﬂat roof and a pillared entry (tibārā) also seems to have become associated with memorial sites. (3.1.1.) Niṣedhikās were popular in late medieval Western India, as they were in South India at the time, but in the course of the early modern period they were entirely replaced by pādukās. A separate type of commemorative pillar were the often taller and heavier kīrtistambhas, which are communal memorials commemorating an entire ascetic lineage rather than an individual. (3.1.4.) Especially when individuals of various ranks were commemorated at a single site, the allotted memorials often materially express the hierarchical diﬀerentiation between them. This can be accomplished through the choice for either chatrīs or cabūtarās, by the types of memorials stones selected, the height and weight of niṣedhikās, or the size of feet carvings on slabs with multiple pādukās. (3.1.6.) While portrait statues of Digambara renouncers became popular only in the 20th century CE (3.1.7.), early modern precedents can be found. Generic depictions of the commemorated renouncers were carved on niṣedhikās and kīrtistambhas and occasionally inside chatrīs, and a few freestanding anthropomorphic mūrtis are also found. (3.1.5.) I did not comprehensively survey memorials of the 20th and 21st century CE muni saṅghas, and these ascetic traditions fall outside of 165 Other Balātkāragaṇa lineages: 3.1.5., 3.3.3., 3.4.3., 3.5.2.2., also 2.2.3.8., 2.2.3.10., 6.4.2. (Appendix III.1) 166 Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha: 3.1.4., 3.1.5., 3.3.1. n. 204, 3.3.2., 3.4.3., 3.4.4., 3.5.2.2. (Appendix III.2) 167 Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha: 3.1.6., 3.3.1. n. 204. (Appendix III.2) 168 Mūlasaṅgha Senagaṇa: 3.5.2.2. (Appendix III.3) 119 the scope of the present dissertation. Yet, I shortly introduce these materials to indicate the iconographic continuity and because they often continue to be erected at ﬁnding spots of pre-20th century CE memorials. (3.1.7.) In the second section of this chapter I introduce the memorials’ inscriptions. (3.2.) Although a small number never seems to have featured any inscriptions, the majority of pre-20th century CE Digambara memorial stones was provided with an inscription. (3.2.1.) The state of preservation of the inscriptions depends on the type of stone the memorial stones were carved in and the weather conditions they faced. Some memorials and their inscriptions are well preserved, but many are weathered or damaged, and rendered partly illegible. The length of the inscriptions ranges from very brief to relatively extensive, but most follow a set syntax, and they never include extensive verses of praise. The date usually featured at the beginning of the inscriptions can variously be that of the death of the commemorated individual or of the memorial’s consecration. (3.2.3.) The inscriptions furthermore typically record the name and rank of the commemorated individual(s) (3.2.4.), the ascetic lineage they belonged to (3.2.2.), and often also the agents who consecrated or commissioned the memorials (3.2.5.). Yet other elements are also included occasionally, like the names of local rulers or of the artisans who built the memorials or carved their inscriptions. (3.2.6) The corpus of memorial inscriptions forms an important source to reconstruct the history of the pre-20th century CE Digambara ascetic lineages. Next to the more numerous early modern and 19th century CE memorials analysed in subsequent chapters, a small number of memorial stones of 10th to 12th century CE ācāryas and bhaṭṭārakas has been retrieved in Western India. These date to a period prior to the standardisation of the bhaṭṭāraka rank as constituting the apex of the Digambara ascetic hierarchy, and prior to the proliferation of the Balātkāragaṇa throughout Western India. (3.2.4.1.) Far more numerous memorials remain from the early modern period. Memorials of early modern lineage incumbents (bhaṭṭārakas, maṇḍalācāryas, ācāryas) shed insights into the shifting locations of individual Balātkāragaṇa lineages, the geographic complementarity and spread of the various lineages, relations between lineages, and the dynamics of lineage formation. Memorial inscriptions attesting the actual ācārya and maṇḍalācārya ranks of some lineage incumbents who in later sources were canonised as bhaṭṭārakas form rare, sometimes unique evidence that some Balātkāragaṇa lineages reached independence as bhaṭṭāraka lineages only after decades or even centuries of subordination to another, full bhaṭṭāraka lineage. (3.2.4.2.) Memorials of lower-ranking, male renouncers (ācāryas, munis, brahmacārīs) attest the constitution of early modern Digambara saṅghas. In the 18th century CE, munis had disappeared from the record, but ācāryas continued ﬂourished as intermediate ﬁgures between bhaṭṭārakas and paṇḍitas. (3.2.4.3.) Memorials of paṇḍitas appear from the late 18th century CE onwards and become rather common in the 19th century CE, when the ācārya rank had also become obsolete. Paṇḍita memorials again ceased to be erected after the early 20th century CE, when Digambara munis reappeared on the Northern Indian scene. (3.2.4.5.) No memorials of female renouncers relating to any of the three Balātkāragaṇa branches of Rajasthan have been found. Textual sources however conﬁrm that female renouncers did ﬂourish in the early modern period, in these ascetic lineages as much as others. And although memorials of female renouncers were probably far less 120 commonly erected than of male renouncers, memorial stones have been found of more than half a dozen female renouncers of various ranks (āryikā, kṣullikā, brahmacāriṇī) of other lineages and traditions. (3.2.4.4.) The next section discusses further material and spatial features of the ﬁndings spots. (3.3.) The Digambara memorials of early modern Western India generally seem to have been erected at the cremation sites of the commemorated renouncers. Some sites are still in use for the cremation of contemporary renouncers, and many ﬁnding spots are situated outside of the historical town centres. Mandiras now found at many of the memorial sites often postdate at least the earliest memorials. (3.3.1.) Pre-20th century CE renouncers were typically commemorated with a single memorial. Yet, memorials of eight or possibly nine bhaṭṭārakas have been found at two diﬀerent locations. One of these memorials probably represents the actual place of death and cremation, and we can often gauge speciﬁc motivations for the installation of the secondary shrine elsewhere. (3.3.2.) As the memories of commemorated individuals fade, their memorials are visited more rarely. Many pre-20th century CE chatrīs are therefore left to dilapidate, cleared, or repurposed, ﬁtted with memorial stones of more recent individuals or other ritual objects. (3.3.3.) Some sites grew into veritable necropoles with large numbers of memorials. (3.4.) Two such sites are found in the Vāgaḍā region. Their epigraphic corpus is an important source for reconstructing the history and interrelations of the two Balātkāragaṇa Vāgaḍāśākhās, and oﬀers a good glimpse of the diverse composition of the early modern bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas and the processes of lineage formation. (3.4.1.) The Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera is the largest pre-20th century CE Digambara necropolis discovered to date in Rajasthan. Its mostly 18th century CE memorials of lineage incumbents, ācāryas, and paṇḍitas gives us a good example of the constitution of the bhaṭṭāraka circles in that period. (3.4.2.) The Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata (Gujarat) is the largest Digambara necropolis known from Western India. The site features close to a hundred memorials commemorating classical, medieval, early modern, and contemporary renouncers. Among these are the incumbents of a number of Balātkāragaṇa and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha lineages. (3.4.3.) A smaller site in Surapura near Ḍūṅgarapura in south Rajasthan is also of interest, as it has a mixed corpus of Balātkāragaṇa, Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha, and Śvetāmbara memorials. (3.4.4.) The last section of the present chapter reviews Digambara commemorative rituals. Textual and material evidence is found conﬁrming the formerly probably widespread ritual usage of early modern memorials. (3.5.1.) Living traditions of ritual veneration of Western and Central Indian bhaṭṭārakas are found at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra, the necropolis in Sūrata (3.5.2.1.), and in Kārañjā (Maharashtra, 3.5.2.2.) The ritual veneration of contemporary, living and deceased Digambara renouncers also forms a parallel to pre-20th century CE practices. (3.5.3.) Although relic veneration is widely attested in contemporary Jaina traditions, the inclusion of relics in early modern Digambara memorials remains unconﬁrmed. (3.5.4.) 121 3.1. Iconography and architecture 3.1.1. Chatrīs, cabūtarās, tibārās The archetypal Digambara memorial from early modern Western India is a memorial stone installed in an open pavilion or chatrī.169 Chatrīs consist of a solid platform with at least a few steps, and four, six, eight, or more pillars supporting a vaulted, corbel, or true dome. (Fig. 3.1) Referring to parasols, a sign of royalty, both memorial chatrīs and decorative chatrīs functioned as indicators of sovereignty and extraordinariness in Indo-Islamic, Rajput, and colonial architecture (Belli Bose 2015, 2.4.). In early modern Digambara chatrīs, a single footprint icon (pādukā, 3.1.2.) or commemorative pillar (niṣedhikā, 3.1.3.) is typically installed centrally under the dome, directly on the ﬂoor or on a low plinth. A few chatrīs at a site in Bairāṭha have a unique set-up, with pādukās installed chest-high in a brick wall added between two of the pillars. (Fig. 3.17 R.) Chatrīs with pādukās (caraṇas) are referred to as caraṇa-chatrīs. The architectural design of memorial chatrīs varies between diﬀerent centuries and regions. Especially within Rajasthan however a classical form was used with considerable continuity. These chatrīs typically have six or eight pillars, or in a more modest version only four, stand on a low, accordingly hexagonal, octagonal, or square plinth, and feature a hemispherical dome and angular eaves (e.g., Fig. 3.1), and from the second half of the 17th century CE onwards baluster pillars and foliated arches (e.g., Fig. 4.15). Today, the chatrī remains the typical Digambara commemorative structure, although innovative designs also appeared in the last decades thanks to new building techniques. (3.1.7.) Chatarī; my transliteration chatrī mimics the common pronunciation. On Jaina chatrīs, see Hegewald 2009: 137-40. 169 122 Figure 3.1. Chatrī of Ācārya Harṣakīrti (s. 1681), Nasiyā, Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha. (December 2014) Unique to south Rajasthan were square, multi-pillared chatrīs with one or more additional, pillared storeys as a superstructure instead of a cupola. I found ﬁve such chatrīs, one in Aḍindā in Mewāḍa (Fig. 3.11 L.), and the others in Naugāmā (Figs. 5.2, 5.5) and Sāgavāṛā (Figs. 5.6, Fig. 5.10 L.), two nearby towns in the Vāgaḍā region. In Jayapura (Figs. 4.15-16) and Cākasū (Fig. 4.19), particularly reﬁned caraṇa-chatrīs are raised on pillared platforms. At two sites in other towns in the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region, chatrīs were built on tibārā-like structures rather than on solid plinths. (Figs. 4.22 M., 4.24-25) Two chatrīs with communal commemorative pillars (kīrtistambha, 3.1.4.) in Naugāmā (Fig. 5.5 L., 6.3.6.) and Jayapura (Fig. 4.14, 5.3.9.) are closed structures, in the latter case with carved stone screens (jālī) between the pillars. Murals are found preserved inside the dome and on the pillars of some 18th and 19th century CE chatrīs, and may have been applied more commonly. Well-preserved, seemingly original murals with ﬂoral and geometrical motifs are found in an 18th century CE chatrī in Bassī (Fig. 4.13, 4.3.8.) and in 19th century CE chatrīs in Sākhūna (Fig. 6.3, 6.18-19, 6.3.). Mural paintings, predominantly in red on an ochre (or yellowed) base, are preserved inside two, late 18th and 19th century CE Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha chatrīs in Bairāṭha. (3.1.6.) Abstract decorations of cassettes have been applied inside the dome of a s. 1930 paṇḍita memorial (Fig. 3.2 top R.), a s. 1851 bhaṭṭāraka chatrī also featuring ﬁgurative paintings of ﬂower vases (Fig. 3.2 top L.). A chatrī in Surapura from the second half of the 19th century CE preserves remainders of ﬁgurative paintings on the ceiling of the dome, showing animals and human ﬁgures, probably musicians or dancers. (Fig. 3.2 bottom, 3.4.4.) 123 Figure 3.2. Murals in late 18th and 19th century CE chatrīs. Top: Abstract decoration (L.) and ﬂower vases (R.), Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Naśiyā, Bairāṭha. (February 2016) Bottom: Anthropomorphic ﬁgures and animals, nasīyā, Surapura. (March 2013) Two 19th century CE bhaṭṭāraka chatrīs feature stucco or bas-reliefs depictions of dancers and musicians similar to those more often found in the domes of mandiras. (Fig. 3.3 bottom) Depictions of dancers and musicians above the corbels of a chatrī from the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE (s. 1887) annexed to the Sambhavanātha Mandira in Īḍara are painted in bright colours. (Fig. 3.3 top, Fig. 5.25 L.) At the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera, a relatively ornate chatrī from a decade and a half later (s. 1892) has a larger number of stucco depictions of dancers between the ribs of the cupola. (Fig. 6.11 M.) Floral motifs in stucco or carved in marble are also found inside some chatrīs, the elegant Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā caraṇa-chatrīs from the late 18th and ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE in Jayapura. (Fig. 4.17 bottom M.) A beautiful, early 19th century CE chatrī at R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī (s. 186[6?]) uniquely features elephants carved into the corbels of the ornamented pillars, as well as ﬂoral motifs carved into the lintels. (Fig. 5.22 M.) Figure 3.3. Sculptures of dancers and musicians inside the chatrī of Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti (s. 1887), annexed to the Sambhavanātha Mandira in Īḍara (top, January 2014) and in the dome of the main shrine room of the Neminātha Mandira in Āmera. (bottom, February 2013) Small anthropomorphic depictions of jinas and presumably the commemorated renouncers are found inside the cupolas of a few chatrīs. A single jina is carved in one of the corbels of an unidentiﬁed, probably 18th or 19th century chatrī at the necropolis in Surapura. (Fig. 3.4 top L. & bottom L.) Two undated chatrīs in Cākasū, one on the Śiva Ḍūṅgarī and one at the foot of this hillock, can be identiﬁed as Jaina memorials because of carvings of a single padmāsana jina on the inside of one of their lintels. (4.3.4.) A padmāsana jina is carved into each of the corbels of two 124 early 17th century CE chatrīs at the Nasiyā in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha. (Fig. 3.4 bottom M.) Their memorial stones are missing, but inscriptions inside the domes are another unique feature of these two chatrīs, one Digambara, one Śvetāmbara. (4.3.3.) The s. 1681 Digambara chatrī has inscriptions on two lintels. One inscription is carved around a padmāsana jina and two khaḍgāsana ﬁgures (Fig. 3.4 top M. & R.), the other around a carved pādukā. In the s. 1682 Śvetāmbara chatrī, a single pādukā is carved on one of the lintels, but the inscription is applied to a stone just above the lintel which has deliberately been selected in a distinct, lighter colour to set it apart. The inscription surrounds carvings of a padmāsana jina, identiﬁed through an inscribed caption as Śāntinātha, two khaḍgāsana ﬁgures, and two pādukās. (Fig. 3.4 bottom M. & R.) The khaḍgāsana ﬁgures in these carvings presumably depict the commemorated renouncers, as is more clearly the case in other chatrīs, where ascetic paraphernalia are depicted to identify them as such (3.1.5.). Figure 3.4. Carvings on corbels and lintels of chatrīs. Jina on one of the corbels of an unidentiﬁed chatrī, Surapura (L. top & L. bottom). (March 2013) Jinas, khaḍgāsana ﬁgures, and pādukās in s. 1681 Digambara chatrī (top R. & M.) and s. 1682 Śvetāmbara chatrī (bottom R. & M.), Nasiyā, Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha. (December 2014) Cabūtarās were a more modest form of commemoration than chatrīs, often used for individuals of lower ranks. These are cubical or at one site, the Ajamera necropolis, lower, octagonal platforms (Fig. 6.9, 6.4.), with a single pādukā exposed to the open air. Elongated cabūtarā tables with multiple pādukās are also found occasionally. (3.4.4.) Later 18th to early 20th century CE memorials of lay paṇḍitas established at sites where bhaṭṭārakas or ācāryas were also commemorated are mostly caraṇa-cabūtarās. Elsewhere substantial chatrīs were also erected to commemorate paṇḍitas. (3.2.4.5.) Another architectural form associated with Digambara memorial sites is the tibārā, a simple ﬂatroofed structure with typically three arched doorways. (Figs. 4.4 middle L., 4.5. top L.) They were possibly built at these remote sites for storage or accommodation purposes. At two sites in the Jayapura region, chatrīs were raised on top of tibārā-like structures instead of solid plinths. (Figs. 125 4.22 M., 4.24 M. & R., 4.25 L.) It is not clear what the rooms inside were used for. Later on, tibārās occasionally came to house memorial stones themselves. (Figs. 4.20 L., 6.12 R., 6.13 L.) Many Digambara memorial sites feature mandiras. These were most often erected after at least the earliest memorials. (3.3.1.) At some sites, pillared galleries were erected around the chatrīs and mandiras, probably added as part of the development of the commemoration sites into mandira complexes. (Figs. 4.4. middle L. & R., 4.5 top R.) Inscriptions of pādukās and niṣedhikās attest that early modern and 19th century CE Digambara memorials were typically erected and consecrated by incumbent bhaṭṭārakas. Bhaṭṭārakas were commemorated by their direct successor or by later successors, lower-ranking renouncers and paṇḍitas by their bhaṭṭāraka-gurus. Most Digambara memorial structures were erected for single individuals, but chatrīs commemorating multiple renouncers or paṇḍitas are encountered relatively frequent. In some cases, a chatrī now housing multiple separate pādukā slabs may originally have been a memorial structure for a single individual to which further memorial stones were added later.170 Some structures were designed to commemorate multiple individuals. Some of these feature a single memorial stone commemorating multiple individuals, like a slab with multiple pādukās. (Figs. 6.13, 6.16, 6.20) Chatrīs with kīrtistambhas could also be counted in this category. (3.1.4.) Other chatrīs house multiple memorial stones. An elegant, early 18th century CE (s. 1759) twin chatrī in Udayapura for example is a combined memorial with separate memorial stones for a bhaṭṭāraka and an ācārya. (Fig. 5.18.) Two square chatrīs in the Vāgaḍā region are cumulative monuments which remained in use for respectively two centuries and, possibly, a century and a half, with memorial stones of Balātkāragaṇa Vāgaḍāśākhās renouncers of various ranks added throughout time. The chatrī on the Choṭī Nasīyāṃ hillock in nearby Sāgavāṛā has seventeen niṣedhikās dated from the early 17th to the early 18th century CE. (Figs. 5.6, 5.7) The chatrī at the Nasiyājī in Naugāmā has thirteen, late 15th to the early 17th century CE niṣedhikās. (Figs. 5.2, 5.4) 3.1.2. Caraṇa-pādukās The majority of Digambara memorial stones in Western India are ﬂat stones with carvings representing the feet of the commemorated individual (pādukā).171 (Fig. 3.5) Technically speaking there is a distinction between carvings of feet (caraṇa) and footprints (pādukā, caraṇa-cihna). I use both terms interchangeably, following the practice of most Digambara Jains today, who do not distinguish between both terms and often prefer the compound caraṇa-pādukā. Feet icons of E.g., a chatrī on the bank of a lake in Pratāpagaṛha with a Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha paṇḍita pādukā from s. 18[96?] installed next to a double pādukā from s. 1[8?]66, likely to have commemorated two paṇḍitas. (2.2.1. n. 38). 170 On Jain pādukās, see most recently and most extensively Hegewald 2020b, 2020c, 2020d, as well as Settar 1989: 189 ﬀ., and plate xvii, xviii; Granoﬀ 1992: 199; Humphrey & Laidlaw 1994: 22, 30; Banks 1999; Laughlin 2005; Dundas 2007: 54 & 199: n. 8; Hegewald 2007: 182-3, 2009: 26, 70, 139, 330, etc.; Flügel 2008, 2010a, 2010b, 2011; Cort 2010a: 128-9, 188-92. See Flügel 2011: n. 4 for some more references to brief discussions of Jain pādukās. 171 126 teachers, renouncers, enlightened beings, and deities are used in many South Asian traditions.172 This iconography reﬂects the widespread and common practice of bowing to and touching the feet of a living guru or other superior being (caraṇa-sparśa) as an act of respect and veneration. The lotus ﬂower motif on most pādukās from the 19th century CE onwards (e.g., Figs. 3.5, 4.17, 4.20) can be taken as an allusion to the poetical notion of the guru’s ‘lotus-feet’ (caraṇa-kamala, pādapadma). Banks (1999: 313-4) seems to miss out on this rationale underlying the pādukās’ iconography when in comparing their use against that of anthropomorphic statues he explains the preference for pādukās to the fact that they are “eﬀaced representations” which “indicat[e] that it is their liberation that is being represented”. While this aspect of absence may be astute for the pādukās of liberated siddhas, the feet icons of deceased gurus can vice-versa be seen as facilitating continued devotional practices as if they are still present. (7.3.) Figure 3.5. Caraṇa-pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti (s. 1881). Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura. (February 2013) The oldest pādukās commemorating historical renouncers from Western India date back to the 11th century CE. (3.2.4.1.) Commemorative pillars (niṣedhikā) were popular among Digambara Jains in the various regions of Rajasthan up to the 16th and 17th century CE, and in the Vāgaḍā region also appear later. (3.1.3.) Yet, in the course of the early modern period niṣedhikās came to be replaced with pādukās. There is considerable variety in the style and size of pādukās in diﬀerent regions and centuries. Especially towards the end of the early modern period we often see an evolution from basic, small pādukā stones with simple, crude depictions to larger, ﬁnely carved, and intricately On Buddhist pādukās, see Strong [2004] 2007: 85 ﬀ. On Vaiṣṇava pādukās, see Bakker 1991. The earliest footprint icons of the Buddha have been dated to the 2nd century BCE, there is archaeological evidence for Viṣṇu pādukās from the ﬁrst centuries CE, and pādukās engraved on boulders in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka from the 6th century CE are the oldest known Jain specimens (Flügel 2011: 2 n. 5). 172 127 decorated pādukā slabs. At the Ānteḍa Nasīyāṃ in Ajamera, pādukās show a notable iconographic continuity over a period of almost two and a half centuries, from the early 16th to the mid-18th century CE (s. 1572 to s. 1810). (6.1.5.) In the Jayapura region we see a much faster stylistic evolution of the pādukās, developing in less than a century from rather basic (Āmera, s. 1722-71) to particularly reﬁned (Jayapura, s. 1853-81). (4.2.5.) The pādukā slabs’ feet carvings are often more or less life-size or slightly smaller or larger than life. A ca. 17th century CE chatrī in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī reported to commemorate the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Bhīmasena uniquely has a heavy slab with feet of about half a metre long, perhaps referring to the commemorated bhaṭṭāraka’s naming after the giant Bhīma. (5.6.4.) Slabs with multiple pādukās functioning as combined memorials for several individuals are found relatively frequently. Double pādukā slabs are especially common.173 A few slabs with more pādukās are also found.174 Some structural features of pādukās indicate that they were intended for ritual veneration. Most notable are the frequent carved funnels meant for the outﬂow of ablution liquids. (3.5.1.) An unidentiﬁed, probably 18th century CE pādukā possibly related to the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā in Sāgavāṛā uniquely includes a large, carved space for the collection of ablution liquids beyond the spout. (Fig. 5.17 R., 5.5.2.) Chatrīs could house niṣedhikās as well as pādukās, but only pādukās were installed on cabūtarās. Pādukās of early modern renouncers now found in mandiras were probably mostly transferred there after the chatrīs or cabūtarās to which they originally belonged were ruined or cleared. This sets them apart from the pādukās of famous 20th century CE ācāryas found in many mandiras or in outdoors shrines, which are especially produced for this purpose. Pādukās of jinas are also found commonly in mandiras. Anthropomorphic statues (mūrti) are a far more common medium of representation for jinas in mandiras. Yet pādukās of jinas, siddhas, and other liberated beings are idiomatic at the pilgrimage sites where they are believed to have attained liberation. At Sammedaśikharajī (Jharkhand) for example, the exact places where twenty jinas are believed to have reached liberation are indicated by footprint shrines. Miniature Sammedaśikharajī models with pādukās enshrined in small shrines have also become popular in recent decades. (e.g., Fig. 3.6) From the second half of the 18th century CE onwards, pādukās of renouncers often include carvings of a water pitcher (kamaṇḍalu) and whisk (picchī), the paraphernalia of an initiated Digambara renouncer, a rosary (mālā) also regularly depicted. These symbols do not appear on jina pādukās and probably serve to indicate to the ritual practitioner that the pādukā commemorates a non-liberated renouncer, not a jina. Pādukās of lay paṇḍitas instead regularly depict a scripture ( ), next to mālās, ﬂy whisks, water pots, and other, sometimes unidentiﬁed but probably ritual objects. (e.g., Fig. 4.29, 3.2.4.5.) E.g., Sāgavāṛā, s. 1881 (prob. two bhaṭṭārakas, Fig. 5.13 R., 5.5.2.); Sāgavāṛā, s. 1905 (two bhaṭṭārakas, Fig. 5.14 R., 5.5.2.); Sākhūna, s. 1918 (two paṇḍitas, Fig. 6.20 L., 6.3.). 173 Īḍara, s. 1855 (ﬁve pādukās, one bhaṭṭāraka, one ācārya, and three brahmacārīs, Fig. 5.24, 5.6.5.); Ajamera, s. 1992 (three pādukās, one bhaṭṭāraka and two paṇḍitas, Fig. 6.13, 6.2.5-6.); Ajamera, s. 1992 (nine pādukās, one bhaṭṭāraka and eight paṇḍitas, Fig. 6.16, 6.2.5-6.); Sākhūna, s. 1992 (four paṇḍita pādukās, Fig. 6.20 R., 6.3.). 174 128 Figure 3.6. Miniature Sammedaśikharajī model (L.) with pādukās of jinas (R.) enshrined in small shrines (M.). Nasīyājī, Naugāmā. (January 2014) 3.1.3. Niṣedhikās Commemorative pillars (niṣedhikā175) were popular in the medieval period, and into the early modern period. (Fig. 3.7) They were commonly used throughout Western India in the 16th and 17th century CE. After that time, niṣedhikās remained in use only in the Vāgaḍā region. Niṣedhikās were the preferred, almost sole form of memorial stone used in the Vāgaḍāśākhās from the late 15th to the late 17th century CE, with numerous specimens found in Vāgaḍā and Mevāṛa. Ensembles of separate pādukā and niṣedhikā stones were en vogue in the 18th century CE.176 Two Vāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭāraka memorials from the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE are a hybrid form integrating one or more pādukās and a niṣedhikā, raised on an hourglass-shaped plinth.177 Thereafter niṣedhikās disappeared from the Vāgaḍāśākhās too, replaced by pādukās which had been prevalent in the other Balātkāragaṇa lineages of Western India since the 16th (Śākambharīśākhā) and 17th (Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā) century CE. Apart from a single anthropomorphic mūrti, all the memorials of female renouncers that have been discovered are niṣedhikās. (3.2.4.4.) From the second half of the 16th century CE, Western Indian niṣedhikās are smaller and lighter than the better-known, late medieval Digambara niṣedhikās of Karnataka, which are bulky and heavy pillars.178 A group of late medieval niṣedhikās and some niṣedhikās from the 15th and the ﬁrst half of the16th century CE discovered at sites in Rajasthan are also heavier and taller. A dozen large pillars found in Jhālarāpāṭana are the oldest niṣedhikās of the region. Inscriptions remaining on a few identify them as commemorating 11th and 12th century CE ācāryas and bhaṭṭārakas. (3.2.4.1., Fig. 3.26) These pillars are no longer found in their original display, but in this period niṣedhikās may Also niṣidhikā, niṣīdhikā, etc. On the Prakrit words ṇisīhiyā and ṇisīdhiyā and the Sanskritised forms niṣīdhikā, niṣiddhikā, niṣadyā, originally signifying a place for the disposal of the corpse of deceased Jain renouncers (hence the related naśīyāṃ, 3.3.1.), see H. Śāstrī 1967, Polyākā 1990, Settar 1989: 120-4. 175 E.g., Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti, s. 1759, Aśoka Nagara, Udayapura (5.6.2., Fig. 5.18 R.); Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, s. 1769, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā (doubling as a kīrtistambha, 5.4.5., Fig. 5.9 R.); Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, s. 1769, Candraprabhu Caityālaya, Āyaṛa, Udayapura (5.6.2., Fig. 5.19 L.); unidentiﬁed, s. 1802, Nayā Mandira, Sāgavāṛā (5.6.1., Fig. 5.17 L.); Bhaṭṭāraka Devacandra, s. 1822, Jūnā Mandira, Sāgavāṛā (5.5.2., Fig. 5.13 L.). 176 The memorial chatrī of Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti (s. 186[6?]) on the Candragiri hillock in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī has four pādukās carved directly into the table of a heavy plinth, arranged around a rather typical niṣedhikā. (5.6.4., Fig. 5.22 L.) A chatrī annexed to the Sambhavanātha Mandira in Īḍara has a similar, better-preserved memorial with a single, loose pādukā and a nicely embellished niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti (s. 1887). (5.6.5., Fig. 5.25) 177 178 On these, see Settar 1989 passim; Hegewald 2009: 495-6. 129 have been installed in open air rather than in chatrīs. Two Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials from the ﬁrst half of the 15th century CE found installed in new shrines at the Digambara Jaina Pārśvanātha Atiśaya Kṣetra in Bijauliyāṃ also stand taller than most later niṣedhikās. (4.3.1., Fig. 4.1) One is a large, slender slab of an estimated six feet, left a rough stone apart from its carvings. It commemorates an unranked, but probably fully initiated, male renouncer (s. 1465). The second dates to two decades later (s. 1483) and is about two feet less tall. It commemorates a low-ranking female renouncer. Judging from the size of the pillar and its deeply carved, ornate embellishments, she seems to have been popular. These late medieval and 15th century CE niṣedhikās feature depictions of a teaching scene also typical for South Indian niṣedhikās, but no longer found on later Western Indian niṣedhikās. (3.1.5.) Three consecutive, late 14th to early 16th century CE Balātkāragaṇa Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas were commemorated in Āvāṃ in s. 1593 with ca, seven to eight foot tall, ﬂat quarry stones. (4.3.2., Fig. 4.2) Figure 3.7. Niṣedhikās in the communal memorial chatrīs of the Vāgaḍāśākhās, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā (top) and Nasīyājī, Naugāmā (bottom). (January 2014) Top L.: Bhaṭṭāraka Sumatikīrti (s. 1620-30s). Bottom L.: from left to right: Ācārya Jinacandra (s. 1658), Brahma Gakarasā (n.d.), Brahma Satā (s. 1691), Brahma Laṣamaṇa (s. 169[1]), unidentiﬁed, prob. brahmacārī (s. 16[63?]). Bottom R.: Ācārya Yaśakīrti (s. 16[1/2]8). 130 Most later Western Indian niṣedhikās range between three to ﬁve feet in height, a few niṣedhikās commemorating lower-ranking brahmacārīs stand no taller than two feet. (Fig. 3.7 bottom L.) Most are square in transect, measuring one to one and a half feet on each side, though some are slightly more longer than wide. Many are simple stones with a sober appearance. (Fig. 3.7) The top is usually rounded, sometimes worked out in two separate segments, and the upper section of the stone immediately below the top is left broader. Lower sections of the pillar are often worked out octagonally. (Fig. 3.8 L.) A few of the Western Indian Digambara niṣedhikās and kīrtistambhas (3.1.4.) feature an intricate design which makes them look like miniature mandiras.179 Most niṣedhikās however are only embellished with more basic structural ornamentation and some line carvings or bas-reliefs. The broader top section typically features a ﬁgure in padmāsana (cross-legged, lotusseat) posture on each side. A ﬁgure in khaḍgāsana (standing) posture appears below these on one or more sides of the more narrow middle or lower section of the pillar. (3.1.5.) A single niṣedhikā is covered with a larger number of depiction of smaller padmāsana and khaḍgāsana jinas or siddhas. (Fig. 3.7 top left) This makes it resemble kīrtistambhas at ﬁrst sight, but the latter also feature depictions of a large number of lineage incumbents identiﬁed through captions. (3.1.4.) On a few niṣedhikās, the padmāsana ﬁgures are identiﬁed as speciﬁc jinas through inscriptions or lāñchanas.180 On some Vāgaḍāśākhā pillars however, inscribed captions label them as depicting siddhas (‘siddha-pratimā’ etc., 5.2.3.). A crescent chiseled beneath the padmāsana ﬁgures on a few Vāgaḍāśākhā niṣedhikās is also an unmistakable symbol for the siddhaśīlā, the region at the top of the Jain cosmology where liberated souls dwell. Sometimes captions under this scene also identify it as such (mukti-śālā, sūgati-sīlā, 5.2.3.). Captions are occasionally also found inscribed near the khaḍgāsana ﬁgures, explicitly identifying these ﬁgures as depicting the commemorated renouncer (e.g., Fig. 5.7 R., #5.1, #5.8) or the niṣedhikās as their memorials (#5.21-3). Even in the absence of such inscriptions, the ascetic’s paraphernalia depicted with these generic, naked ﬁgures allow us to identify them as representing the commemorated renouncers. They often have a kamaṇḍalu (water pitcher) in their hands (Fig. 3.8 L.) or placed on the ground near their feet (Fig. 3.8 second from L. & R.), and a picchī (ritual broom) locked under the arm in a gesture also seen of contemporary, living Jain renouncers. (Figs. 3.8 second from L. & R., 5.6 R.). They often also have a mālā (rosary) in the hand. (Fig. 3.8 L. to R.) Niṣedhikās of female early modern Digambara renouncers feature carvings of both female and male renouncers. (3.2.4.4., Fig. 3.28-29) E.g., kīrtistambha, s. 1571, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā (5.4.5., Fig. 5.5 R.); kīrtistambha, s. 1610, Jūnā Mandira, Sāgavāṛā (5.4.2., Fig. 5.1); Bhaṭṭāraka Indrabhūṣaṇa, s. 1757, Yogīndragiri, Sāgavāṛā (5.4.6., Fig. 5.10 M.); Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti, s. 1887, Sambhavanātha Mandira, Īḍara (5.6.5., Fig. 5.25 M.). 179 Lāñchanas are found on an unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā from the ﬁrst half of the 18th century CE at the Saṅghijī Mandira in Sāṅgānera (Ādinātha and Mahāvīra [incompletely documented], 4.3.7., Fig. 4.10 L. & R.), and on niṣedhikās of three female renouncers in Devagaṛha (Madhya Pradesh, 3.2.4.4., Fig. 3.29 R. [not visible]). Inscriptions and possibly traces of lāñchanas are found on a s. 1769 combined niṣedhikā-kīrtistambha at the Choṭī Nasīyājī in Sāgavāṛā, identifying R̥ ṣabhadeva (= Ādinātha), Candraprabha, Śāntinātha, and Mahāvīra. (5.2.3., 5.4.5., #5.17, Fig. 5.9 R. [not visible]). According to B. Jaina (1978: 71), padmāsana ﬁgures on an early 15th century CE niṣedhikā in Bijauliyāṃ are also identiﬁed as the jinas Candraprabha, Neminātha, Pārśvanātha, and Varddhamāna (= Mahāvīra). (4.3.1.) 180 131 Figure 3.8. Carvings of commemorated renouncers on niṣedhikās. From left to right: with kamaṇḍalu and mālā in hand (Ācārya Haribhūṣaṇa, s. 1601); with kamaṇḍalu placed on the ground, picchī locked under the arm, and mālā in hand (Muni Devanandi, date not legible); with mālā in hand (id.) (three times at Nasīyājī, Naugāmā, January 2014); and with mālā in hand, picchī locked under the arm, and kamaṇḍalu placed on the ground (Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, s. 1769, Candraprabhu Caityālaya, Āyaṛa, Udayapura, March 2013). 3.1.4. Kīrtistambhas Next to the memorials of individual renouncers, a separate sculptural form also developed for the ritual veneration of entire mendicant lineages. (Fig. 3.9) Kīrtistambhas, as some are called by local Jains,181 are round or square pillars which are typically larger and heavier than average early modern niṣedhikās. Near the top, most kīrtistambhas typically feature the larger siddha or jina carvings also found on niṣedhikās. Below these, they are covered on all sides with several dozens of small, generic carvings of naked renouncers in padmāsana or khaḍgāsana posture. Short inscriptions under each of these identify them as the consecutive incumbents of a speciﬁc mendicant lineage, giving their names, and sometimes a serial number or the year of their consecration to the seat. The lineages attested on kīrtistambhas are the same as those recorded by paṭṭāvalīs and other textual sources, including the ācāryas from the ﬁrst millennium CE from which the late medieval and early modern bhaṭṭāraka traditions derived according to these accounts. In the case of Balātkāragaṇa lineages, they typically start with Ācārya Bhadrabāhu.182 Kīrtistambhas can be seen as the material counterparts to the literary genre of the paṭṭāvalī, and as enabling a ritualised performance of the legitimising factor of lineage.183 To date, ﬁve or possibly six kīrtistambhas have been discovered in Western India,184 four in veneration of Balātkāragaṇa lineages and one or two relating to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha. Notably, four of these are found in the Vāgaḍā region (three Balātkāragaṇa and one Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha), another (Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha) close-by in Mevāṛa. Four specimens are installed in dedicated chatrīs at nasīyās where memorials of individual early modern renouncers are also Not to be confused with the multi-storied structures also called kīrtistambhas, or the mānastambha pillars found in front of many Digambara mandiras. 181 182 Ācārya Bhadrabāhu, p. s. 4 in some paṭṭāvalīs (Hoernle 1891: 351), but s. 104 in others (Hoernle 1892: 81) 183 On the ritual usage of kīrtistambhas, see further 3.5.1. Similar monuments are also reported from Karnataka (Julia Hegewald, personal communication, 23rd November 2020). 184 132 found. This shows the close relationship between kīrtistambhas and individual memorials. One might be found at its original location in a mandira, one is now found in a mandira but is known to have been brought here from another location (see below). In the case of several of the Balātkāragaṇa kīrtistambhas, we can reconstruct other, speciﬁc factors, other than mere commemoration, which inspired the erection of such a memorial glorifying the full lineage, in relation to other lineages and secular polities. Kīrtistambhas could carry various ritual purposes, and some are still in usage. (3.5.1.) Contemporary practitioners however often have little knowledge of who is represented on the carvings, which are now mostly seen as representing jinas or generic renouncers. Figure 3.9. Kīrtistambhas. From L. to R.: Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā (s. 1571), Nasiyājī, Naugāmā (January 2014); ̥ Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā (s. 1769), Choṭī Nasīyājī, Sāgavāṛā (January 2014); Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā (s. 1845), Kīrtistambha ̥ Nasiyāṃ, Āmera (February 2013); Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha (s. 1649), Jinālaya, Surapura (March 2013). The Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā had a special predilection for kīrtistambhas. Brhatśākhā kīrtistambhas are ̥ ̥ found at both Vāgaḍāśākhā necropoles and at a mandira in Sāgavāṛā. A particularly heavy and at least seven foot high, broad, black marble kīrtistambha stands in a closed, square chatrī at the Nasiyājī in Naugāmā. (Figs. 3.9 L., 3.10 L., 5.4, 5.3.5.) The pillar was consecrated in s. 1571 by the Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (I). This kīrtistambha seems to have been a statement of Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ the Brhatśākhā’s authority over Naugāmā and over the Laghuśākhā, its subordinate daughter ̥ lineage. The Laghuśākhā ācāryas who were based in Naugāmā did not even receive mention on the kīrtistambha. Four decades later, in s. 1610, the Brhatśākhā erected an iconographically very ̥ similar kīrtistambha carved in a lighter stone at the Jūnā Mandira in Sāgavāṛā, probably its hometown at the time. (Fig. 5.1, #5.34, 5.1.4.) A smaller pillar consecrated at the Choṭī Nasīyājī in Sāgavāṛā again over a century and a half later later (s. 1769) by another Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II) is simultaneously a niṣedhikā of his predecessor Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti and a kīrtistambha. It is installed along with a separate pādukā of Narendrakīrti in an elegant, open chatrī. (Figs. 3.9 second from L., 3.10 second from left, 5.9, 5.4.5.) Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II) consecrated a second memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti in Āyaṛa, near Udayapura, and epigraphic and contextual evidence indicates that this site more likely indicated 133 the latter’s actual place of demise and cremation. (5.6.2.) Vijayakīrti (II) presumably erected a secondary memorial-cum-kīrtistambha at the Sāgavāṛā necropolis to reaﬃrm his lineage’s authority over the town, as against the Laghuśākhā’s increased, independent activities here. (5.1.4.) This memorial then speaks of the changed relations between both Vāgaḍāśākhās in the early 18th century CE as compared to those prevailing at the time of the s. 1571 Naugāmā kīrtistambha. By this time, the Laghuśākhā had ﬁrst developed from an ācārya to a maṇḍalācārya lineage and subsequently also claimed bhaṭṭāraka-hood, and it had become active and probably even established in Sāgavāṛā. Yet the Brhatśākhā also seems to have intended to proﬁle itself against ̥ the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha, which around the time was also actively anchoring its presence in Sāgavāṛā with commemorative structures and its own mandira. (5.4.6.) Figure 3.10. Details of kīrtistambhas with inscribed captions giving names of consecutive lineage incumbents and serial numbers. From left to right: Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā (s. 1571), Nasiyājī, Naugāmā (January 2014); ̥ Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā (s. 1769), Choṭī Nasīyājī, Sāgavāṛā (January 2014); Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā (s. 1845, the depicted ̥ Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti recorded as consecrated in s. 1852), Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera (February 2013). A tall, almost four metre high and elegant pillar at the eponymous Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ in Āmera documents and venerates the local Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. (Figs. 3.9 second from right, 3.10 R., 4.14; 4.3.9.) The pillar was consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti in the late 18th century CE (s. 1845) and stands in a beautiful round chatrī closed with jālī screens. As we saw, the Vāgaḍāśākhā kīrtistambhas speak of the dynamics between the Balātkāragaṇa and the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha, and especially between both Vāgaḍāśākhā lineages. The later Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā kīrtistambha in Āmera instead can be situated in controversies between the Bīsapantha and the Terāpantha Digambara sects, and in the relations the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā maintained with the royal court. Terāpanthī opposition to the bhaṭṭārakas had raged in Jayapura in prior decades, and was continued at the time of the erection of the kīrtistambha under Paṇḍita Ṭoḍaramala’s son Gumānīrāma. (4.1.4.) Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti is known to have been active in attempting to counter the inﬂuence of the Terāpantha, propagating Bīsapantha ideas and restoring the laity’s devotion to the bhaṭṭārakas. His kīrtistambha then also appears to stand as an eﬀort to materially reestablish the glory of the 134 Bīsapantha and the bhaṭṭāraka tradition. (4.3.6.) Grand, public and state-supported rituals were performed when the name of a new, living incumbent was inscribed on the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā kīrtistambha. (4.3.6.) This evinces yet another distinct, ritual function of this kīrtistambha, to express, conﬁrm, and renew the relation of this bhaṭṭāraka polity to the Kachavāhā court in Jayapura. The names of three further bhaṭṭārakas after Surendrakīrti came to be engraved under additional, generic ﬁgures which had been provided on the kīrtistambha. (Fig. 3.10 R.) Those of the last two Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents were not added, although more blank carvings remained. The bhaṭṭārakas are depicted on alternating rungs in padmāsana or khaḍgāsana posture, which can be seen as foregrounding their ascetic and king-like (2.4.) identities respectively. One or two pillars found in the Vāgaḍā region are kīrtistambhas of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha ‘Brhatśākhā’. (2.2.1.), both consecrated by its ﬁfth incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka ̥ Viśvabhūṣaṇa. One of these is a late 16th century CE (s. 1649), black marble, round pillar of approximately one and a half metres high preserved in a mandira in Surapura. (Fig. 3.9 R.) The pillar is severely damaged particularly on two sides, rendering some of the inscriptions illegible. It was reportedly brought to Surapura from the Hariyaṇajī Mandira at Ūparagāṃva near Ḍūṅgarapura along with several mūrtis when Ūparagāṃva no longer had a Digambara population (Ś. J. Jaina 2011: 169). The damage on the pillar looks like it resulted from being dragged over the ﬂoor, possibly when it was transported. The kīrtistambha features representations of twenty-four jinas, ninety-four lineage incumbents, and, reportedly and uniquely, the parents of the consecrating bhaṭṭāraka, perhaps the patrons of the icon (Ibid.: 95-6). The kīrtistambha was established by Bhaṭṭāraka Viśvabhūṣaṇa in s. 1649. The names of the ﬁrst and last incumbent recorded on the pillar are illegible. On the basis of paṭṭāvalīs and other epigraphic material related to this lineage, Ś. J. Jain (Ibid.: 95, 169) reconstructs them as respectively Ācārya Arhadvallabha and Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśaḥkīrti. The latter was the successor of Viśvabhūṣaṇa, whose name then once again would have been added after the installation of the kīrtistambha. A pillar at the Pārśvanātha Mandira in Aḍindā relates to the same Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha lineage as the Surapura kīrtistambha. It seems to have been erected by an earlier incumbent originally, and later redesigned and perhaps repurposed as a kīrtistambha by Viśvabhūṣaṇa. (Fig. 3.11 R.) It stands in a square, sixteen-pillared chatrī with a four-pillared, decorative superstructure in front of the mandira of Aḍindā. (Fig. 3.11 L.) The structure is similar in design to the communal chatrīs in Naugāmā and Sāgavāṛā, but smaller and lighter. The pillar is now revered as a Nandīśvaradvīpa,185 which as suggested by Ś. J. Jaina (Ibid.: 147) may be a corruption of Nandītaṭa(gaccha). Apparently the pillar was ﬁrst erected in the late 15th century CE, and redone in the mid-16th century CE. Its single, continuous, largely preserved inscription refers to two separate events, the construction of a ‘catuṣkikā pañcakaṃ’ (quadrangular, ﬁvefold [pillar]?) by the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrasena in s. 1549, and again by his successor to the second degree, Bhaṭṭāraka Viśvabhūṣaṇa, possibly in s. 1649 (s. 16[0/4?]9186), the same year as 185 On the Nandīśvaradvīpa iconography, see Cort 2010a: 71, 81-2. Ś. J. Jaina (2011: 147) reads only s. 16?? for the second date in his edition of the inscription, but elsewhere gives s. 1649 (Ibid.: 94). The sign of the third digit is not a regular four nor a full zero. 186 135 the Surapura kīrtistambha.187 The broader top of the pillar features the usual padmāsana ﬁgure on all four sides. On the hexagonally carved section below that, 23 carvings of renouncers in khaḍgāsana posture carrying picchī and kamaṇḍalu are distributed over three levels. These ﬁgures seem to have been carved into a pre-existing monument, perhaps added to Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrasena’s original pillar under Bhaṭṭāraka Viśvabhūṣaṇa. Figure 3.11. Square chatrī (L.) with Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha pillar (s. 1549/16[4?]9, R.), Pārśvanātha Mandira, Aḍindā. (January 2014) A s. 1587 niṣedhikā commemorating the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Kṣullikā Bāī (Dhū?)nīnī preserved inside the Aḍindā mandira features very similar carvings of male renouncers which also seem to have been added to a pre-existing memorial stone. (3.1.5.) Presumably both pillars were redecorated together. Since s. 1587 is probably the original date of Kṣullikā Bāī (Dhū?)nīnī’s memorial, these carvings must indeed postdate the other pillar’s original consecration in s. 1549. Probably both pillars were provided with these carvings at the time of the rebuilding of the second in s.16[0?]9. It is possible that an inscription commemorating its original consecration and purpose in s. 1549 was carved away to make place for the khaḍgāsana images and the new inscription. The pillar may originally have been a memorial of an individual renouncer later developed into a type of kīrtistambha. However, the usual inscribed captions identifying the khaḍgāsana ﬁgures as lineage incumbents are absent, and the long inscription also does not include any references to its purpose as a kīrtistambha. The inscription does record the names of Bhaṭṭāraka Viśvabhūṣaṇa’s lay name Vasā, the names of his parents, Sāha Nārada and his wife Gāṅgī of the Valulā gotra of the Narasiṅhapurā caste, who as noted were also depicted on the Surapura kīrtistambha, and two brahmacārīs, Satā and Jitā, the latter possibly having been instrumental in the creation or more likely the redesigning of the pillar. ‘|| svasti śrī saṃvat 1549 [...] mahendrasenena [krta?] catu[ṣ?]kikā paṃcakaṃ kārā[p?]itaṃ pa[ścā?]tadanvaye ̥ saṃvat 16[0/4?]9 varṣe [...] bha. śrī vi[1+]bhūṣaṇena a[tha?] upa[v?]i catuṣkikā paṃcakaṃ [kā]rāpya [...]’. 187 136 3.1.5. Anthropomorphic depictions In the 20th century CE, freestanding, often close to life-size portrait statues of contemporary Digambara renouncers became popular both at their memorial sites and in mandiras. (3.1.7., Figs. 3.20-22) This development in commemorative iconography follows the very widespread reproduction of photo portraits of munis in magazines and books, in mandiras and in the homes of devotees, and on large banners put up on public places announcing the events they attend, as well as their frequent televised appearances.188 Anthropomorphic statues were also created of the two last bhaṭṭārakas of Western and Central India, the Balātkāragaṇa Bhaṭṭāraka Candrabhūṣaṇa (d. 1974 CE) and the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti (d. 1967/1978 CE). A polychrome statue of an orange-clad Bhaṭṭāraka Candrabhūṣaṇa is installed in a wall shrine inside the Bhaṭṭāraka Koṭhī, the mandira in Sonāgiri (Madhya Pradesh) where his Cambalaśākhā seat was established. (Fig. 3.12 L.) A pādukā of Candrabhūṣaṇa is also found in a chatrī in the courtyard of a mandira opposite the Bhaṭṭāraka Koṭhī, along with those of three of his predecessors, so the mūrti was presumably not intended as a memorial stone. (2.2.3.10., Fig. 2.4 top) At the Jain Boarding school in Pratāpagaṛha where the Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti is known to have resided, his memorial chatrī dated to s. 2023 houses both a pādukā and a marble portrait statue, the latter depicting him dressed in a loincloth. (Fig. 3.12 M. & R.) A second, s. 2034 pādukā of Yaśakīrti was also installed in a reused chatrī in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī. (5.6.4., Fig. 5.22 R.) Figure 3.12. L.: Undated statue of Bhaṭṭāraka Candrabhūṣaṇa, Bhaṭṭāraka Koṭhī, Sonāgiri (Madhya Pradesh). (December 2013) M. & R.: Chatrī with mūrti and pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti (s. 2023), Jain Boarding, Pratāpagaṛha. (February 2014) Large, freestanding portrait statues are an iconographic innovation from the 20th century CE facilitated through portrait photography. (3.1.7.) Yet, although these are not individualised portraits but generic depictions, a number of precedents are found in the early modern commemorative iconography of Western and Central India. The most widespread occurrences are the carvings of the commemorated, male and female renouncers in standing, khaḍgāsana pose on niṣedhikās While these contemporary depictions make it clear that the munis are naked, their genitalia are mostly hidden. 188 137 (Fig. 3.8) and kīrtistambhas (Fig. 3.10). Such carvings are occasionally also found inside chatrīs, and one niṣedhikās depicts renouncers in other postures as well. A few almost freestanding mūrtis of commemorated renouncers are also found. The aforementioned, s. 1587 niṣedhikā at the Pārśvanātha Mandira in Aḍindā is of iconographic interest. (Fig. 3.13) Its inscription calls the pillar a memorial (‘nisāhī’) of Kṣullikā Bāī (Dhū?)nīnī, erected by her pupil (‘celī’) Bāī Jī(nā?) and/or another female pupil.189 I found the pillar installed against the wall of a garbhagrha-like shrine. Niṣedhikās of female Digambara renouncers usually ̥ depict both male and female ﬁgures, but no carvings of female renouncers were found. Four naked, standing, male ﬁgures are carved on the three visible sides of the niṣedhikā. Only one of these carvings represents the common khaḍgāsana depiction, with kamaṇḍalu and picchī or mālā in hand. (Fig. 3.13 R.) The other ﬁgures appear in poses not found depicted on any other memorial. One stands in a venerational pose with the hands folded in front of the body. (left on Fig. 3.13 second from left) Another has the arms stretched out along the body in what is reminiscent of the meditative posture called kāyotsarga (‘abandoning the body’). (right on Fig. 3.13 second from left) The last has the hands brought together in what seems to represent the āhāra-mudrā, the Digambara muni’s method of eating with cupped hands. (Fig. 3.13. second from right) As with the khaḍgāsana ﬁgures carved into the possible Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha kīrtistambha at the site (3.1.4.), these carvings are unsymmetrically and somewhat oddly applied to the pillar, and may again not have been part of the original design. The style of the ﬁgures on both pillars is also very similar, and it seems likely they were carved into pre-existing niṣedhikās at the same time.190 Figure 3.13. Niṣedhikā of Kṣullikā Bāī (Dhū?)nīnī of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha (L., s. 1587) with unique depictions of male renouncers in various postures, including venerational pose and kāyotsarga (second from left) āhāra-mudrā (second from right), and common khaḍgāsana depiction (R.), Pārśvanātha Mandira, Aḍindā. (January 2014) 189 My (unpublished) reading of the inscription includes amendments to Ś. J. Jaina’s (2011: 147) transcription. No inscription was found on the visible sides of a third niṣedhikā at the site, installed facing that of Kṣullikā Bāī (Dhū?)nīnī on the other side of the entrance to the shrine room. Some indeterminate holes and considerable wear on one side seem to indicate that this stone was for some time repurposed. It features the usual padmāsana and khaḍgāsana male ﬁgures, but no further exceptional iconographic features. Given the aﬃliation of both other pillars at the site, this pillar likely also commemorated a Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha renouncer. 190 138 Generic anthropomorphic depictions of standing naked renouncers comparable to those on the niṣedhikās are occasionally also found chiseled inside chatrīs. Ornate Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā chatrīs from the late 18th and ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE in Jayapura (Fig. 3.14, 4.3.10.) and Cākasū (Fig. 4.19 R., 4.3.11.) feature bas-reliefs depicting commemorated bhaṭṭārakas naked, bald, with picchī and kamaṇḍalu, and standing in an architectural element. In some cases, the latter are clearly protruding balconies (jharokhā), possibly a reference to the bhaṭṭārakas giving darśana to their devotees. (2.4.) I already mentioned khaḍgāsana ﬁgures carved into lintel stones of two early 17th century CE chatrīs at the Nasiyā in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha. (3.1.1., Fig. 3.4) Similar carvings are also found inside the domes of two repurposed chatrīs at the Nasiyāṃjī in Bārāṃ, in one case a basic basrelief of a standing renouncer, in the other crude line carvings of a pādukā and three standing renouncers, one with a kamaṇḍalu placed near his feet and another with a picchī clasped under his arm. (Fig. 4.30 top R. & L.) Figure 3.14. Depictions of commemorated bhaṭṭārakas inside their caraṇa-chatrīs, in khaḍgāsana posture, naked, with ascetic paraphernalia, and under an architectural arch (R., s. 1853) or in a jharokhā (L., s. 1881). Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura. (February 2013) Some of the older niṣedhikās found in Western India also feature a little carved tableau with two renouncers sitting around a bookstand (ṭhūṇī) in a teaching posture. This iconographic element is better-known from late medieval niṣedhikās from South India,191 and disappears from later Western Indian niṣedhikās. In his work on South Indian Digambara memorial stones, Settar (1989) interprets this scene as depicting the ascetic teachers guiding the commemorated renouncer’s fast until death (sallekhanā), and even more imaginatively as reciting ārādhanā texts during this process (Settar 1990: 214-7). On two early 15th century CE niṣedhikās at a site in Bijauliyāṃ, the two renouncers in the scene are depicted with picchī and kamaṇḍalu, and lifting an object from the bookstand, probably a manuscript (śāstra). (Fig. 3.15, 4.3.1.) On one of the niṣedhikās, the memorial 191 See Settar 1989: Plate xxxviii [1398 CE], Plate xxxix [1432 CE], et passim. 139 of an unranked male renouncer, captions identify these ﬁgures as two consecutive Uttaraśākhā bhaṭṭārakas, who probably had been his superiors. (Fig. 3.15 L.) On the second niṣedhikā, commemorating a female renouncer, the tableau with the ṭhūṇī appears twice, on front and backside. (Fig. 3.15 M. & R.) Here, the scenes include female renouncers, probably those recorded in a pupillary succession in the pillar’s inscriptions. (4.3.1.) The teaching scene is also found on a few of the late medieval niṣedhikās found in Jhālarāpāṭana. (3.2.4.1.) And one of the niṣedhikās at the Bārāṃ Nasiyāṃjī features a rudimentary depiction of a ṭhūṇī in between two khaḍgāsana ﬁgures. (4.3.18.) Figure 3.15. Carvings of renouncers seated around a bookstand (ṭhūṇī) on the niṣedhikās of Hemakīrti (L., s. 1465) and Bāī Āgamaśrī (M. & R., s. 1483). Digambara Jaina Pārśvanātha Atiśaya Kṣetra, Bijauliyāṃ. (February 2014) Of particular note are a few well-preserved, almost freestanding, pre-20th century CE statues of renouncers. A black marble from s. 1244 representing one Muni Mahākīrti is found in the Baḍā Mandira in Vidiśā (Madhya Pradesh). (Fig. 3.16 L., unpublished inscription) Another muni mūrti is found at the Cintāmaṇi Pārśvanātha Mandira in Aṅkleśvara, installed on a vedi next to a s. 1756 Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā pādukā (5.5.1.). (Fig. 3.16 M.) The thin white marble slab shows a carving of a naked male renouncer with picchī and kamaṇḍalu in hand and framed in a setting of temple architecture. Although a reading of the full, relatively short inscription seems possible, my photo documentation does not allow for this beyond a date of s. 1465. Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 197) reports that the mūrti is believed to represent Ācārya Dharasena (‘mahāmahīmānvita dharasenācārya’). This matches the Mūlasaṅgha Senagaṇa Dhārasena. His predecessor Śrutavīra is attested to have been in Aṅkleśvara, and an attestation of a pupil of his successor Devaseṇa is available from s. 1510 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 30-1). A bas-relief of Vidyānandi, the second Lāṭaśākhā incumbent who ﬂourished in the 15th century CE, at the eponymous Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata is a recent creation (1963 CE) based on a manuscript illustration. (Fig. 3.38 R., 3.5.2.1.) Yet Vidyānandi is also depicted on a bronze pañca-meru icon which he consecrated himself in Gandhara (Gujarat) in s. 1513. The icon reportedly includes anthropomorphic depictions of four Digambara renouncers, identiﬁed through inscribed captions as Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi, his pupil 140 Devendrakīrti (no rank), again the latter’s pupil Ācārya Vidyānandi, and Muni Kalyāṇakīrti.192 Devendrakīrti is no doubt the renouncer who is regarded as a successor of Padmanandi and founder of the Lāṭaśākhā seat, and Vidyānandi again his successor. Muni Kalyāṇakīrti is further unattested. Śītalaprasāda (1919: 44) describes the munis as depicted in a posture of recitation, with one hand on the chest. Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 184) reports what seems to be a very similar icon preserved in a mandira in Pāvāgaṛha (Gujarat) dated to just a quarter century later, a s. 1537 bronze pañca-meru featuring khaḍgāsana mūrtis of the Vāgaḍāśākhā incumbents Sakalakīrti, Bhuvanakīrti, Jñānabhūṣaṇa, and Jñānakīrti, all depicted with picchī, kamaṇḍalū, and mālā.193 Figure 3.16. Pre-20th century CE mūrtis of renouncers. L.: Muni Mahākīrti, s. 1244, Baḍā Mandira, Vidiśā (Madhya Pradesh). (January 2015) M.: unidentiﬁed muni, reportedly Ācārya Dharasena, s. 1465, Cintāmaṇi Pārśvanātha Mandira, Aṅkleśvara (Gujarat). (January 2014) Kṣullikā Jinamatī and (prob.) Āryikā Ratnaśrī and Āryikā Kalyāṇaśrī, s. 1544, Digambara Mandira, Gopīpura, Sūrata (Gujarat). (January 2015) Anthropomorphic statues of contemporary female Digambara renouncers are now commonly produced. (3.1.7.) A late 15th century CE mūrti depicting Digambara nuns found in Gujarat is a unique early modern memorial. (Fig. 3.16 R.) The white marble icon is now venerated as an icon of the goddess Padmāvatī in the Digambara mandira of the Gopīpura neighbourhood of Sūrata. Yet, epigraphic and iconographic evidence shows that the sculpture depicts three female renouncers 192 Śītalaprasāda (1919: 43-4) has an edition of the icon’s main inscription and the inscribed captions. Joharāpurakara (1958: 169 lekha 428) reproduces the main inscription from this earlier source, and includes a photo reproduction of the icon, which does not however show suﬃcient detail to see the muni mūrtis (Ibid.: 201c). The caption of the illustration reads s. 1526, which is probably an editorial mistake, since Joharāpurakara elsewhere gives s. 1513 (Ibid.: 169 lekha 428, and p. 194), as does Śītalaprasāda (1919: 43-4). Joharāpurakara (Ibid.: 201c) does not include an edition of the captions, but completes Śītalaprasāda’s (1919: 44) incomplete reading ‘...naṃdī mūrtiḥ’ from these as attesting Vidyānandi. Joharāpurakara (1958: 201c) calls Muni Kalyāṇakīrti a pupil (śiṣya) of Vidyānandi, but, although well possible, this is not conﬁrmed in Śītalaprasāda’s (1919: 44) renditions of the inscriptions. Joharāpurakara (1958: 201c) refers to the records of Devendrakīrti and Vidyānandi as bhaṭṭārakas, but they are not attested as such in the inscriptions, and indeed only seem to have carried lower ascetic ranks. (2.2.4.4.) B. Jaina (1978: 184) does not reproduce the inscription, and the reported record of the ﬁrst Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā incumbent [Ācārya] Jñānakīrti as a bhaṭṭāraka is likely a misreading. 193 141 related to the Balātkāragaṇa Lāṭaśākhā, and is a memorial stone of one of them.194 (3.2.4.4.) The inscription has a date in s. 1544, records the names of Āryikā Ratnaśrī [Ārjikā Ratnasirī], Kṣullikā Jinamatī, and Āryikā Kalyāṇaśrī [Ārjikā Kalyāṇasirī], and refers to the mūrti as the memorial (‘nassahī’) of Jinamatī (no rank indicated in this place of the inscription). The central, standing ﬁgure is depicted larger and with picchī, kamaṇḍalu, and mālā in hand. She wears a lower garment, and a line carved across the chest possibly indicates an upper garment. Kamaṇḍalus also seem to be depicted near the much smaller ﬁgures to her left and right. These appear in a squatting posture and with the palm of one hand held up towards the viewer. Perhaps because of their already complex posture, these sculptures don’t feature indications of garments. It seems unlikely that these depictions of female renouncers were meant to be dressed like goddess icons. The larger standing ﬁgure seems to represent Kṣullikā Jinamatī, and the smaller ﬁgures Āryikā Ratnaśrī and Āryikā Kalyāṇaśrī. They may have been Jinamatī’s teachers or superiors, as seems indicated by their posture expressing instruction or perhaps rather blessing. The inscription also records that Āryikā Kalyāṇaśrī was initiated by the Balātkāragaṇa ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ Vidyānandi (refs. s. 1499-1537, Joharāpurakara 1958: 201, bhaṭṭāraka rank here posteriori ascribed) and also mentions the latter’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Mallībhūṣaṇa (refs. s. 1544-55, Ibid.). The nuns’ precise relation to Mallībhūṣaṇa is not explicated, but they clearly belonged to this local Balātkāragaṇa lineage, the Lāṭaśākhā. The inscription also attests Āryikā Ratnaśrī as the daughter of the Hūmaṛa caste layman Śreṣṭhī Cāmpā and his wife Rūpiṇī, and Kṣullikā Jinamatī as the daughter of the Agrotakā (= Agravāla) Sāha Devā and his wife Nāriṃgade. The latter couple seems to be recorded as the patrons of the icon, apparently surviving their renunciant daughter. The inscription also ambiguously refers to Stambhatīrtha (Khaṃbhāta, Cambay, Gujarat), either as the Hūmaṛa family’s place of origin or residence, or as the statue’s place of production. It seems very well possible that lay communities migrating from Khaṃbhāta brought the icon to Sūrata. Anthropomorphic depictions of lay paṇḍitas are rarely found. A shrine raised on a pillar facing an ensemble of paṇḍita chatrīs at a nasīyā in Būndī housed a sculpture of a standing male ﬁgure in a devotional pose, probably depicting a paṇḍita or a lay devotee. (Fig. 4.28 L., 4.3.17.) An unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā from the ﬁrst half of the 18th century CE preserved in the Saṅghijī Mandira in Sāṅgānera features standing ﬁgures in loincloth. (4.3.7.) Two of these stand in a devotional pose with hands folded in front of the chest (Fig. 4.10 R.), and one carries a ceremonial ﬂy whisk (Fig. 4.10 L.). Inscriptions on the pillar identify and name these ﬁgures as paṇḍitas, presumably devotees, pupils, or associates of the commemorated individual (more probably a renouncer), and possibly also the patrons of the memorial. 3.1.6. Hierarchies carved in stone At ﬁnding spots where individuals of diﬀerent ranks are commemorated, hierarchical relations between then are often expressed through material or spatial features of the memorials, like the size of the memorial stones and chatrīs, the type of memorial stone (niṣedhikās or pādukās), their Joharāpurakara (1958: 177, lekha 458) also list his edition of the inscription as belonging to a Padmāvatī mūrti, but in a caption to a photo of the icon correctly calls it a mūrti of Āryikā Jinamatī (Ibid.: 194b). 194 142 installation in chatrīs or on cabūtarās, and the selected location. Among the thirteen, possibly late 15th to early 17th century CE niṣedhikās installed in a single chatrī at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī, for example, the height and weight of the niṣedhikās corresponds to the ranks of the commemorated renouncers. Identiﬁed niṣedhikās of brahmacārīs are about two feet high and much lighter those of fully initiated renouncers. (Fig. 3.7 bottom L.) Niṣedhikās of munis and common ācāryas stand ca. three feet high, while those of lineage incumbents (ācārya, maṇḍalācārya) are about four feet high and even bulkier, often provided with an extended top section. (Fig. 5.3 M.) An elegant, early 18th century CE (s. 1759) memorial at the Śantinātha Mandira in Aśoka Nagara, Udayapura is a combined memorial of the Balātkāragaṇa Vāgaḍābrhatśākhā renouncers ̥ Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti and Ācārya Viśvabhūṣaṇa. The bhaṭṭāraka is commemorated by both a niṣedhikā and a pādukā installed under the large dome of the twin chatrī, while the ācārya received only a niṣedhikā, installed under a smaller cupola. (Fig. 5.18., 5.6.2.) In the late 19th century CE, Muni Siddhasena was commemorated at the Choṭī Nasīyā in Jhālarāpāṭana with a considerably large, stately chatrī raised on a high plinth (s. 1948, Fig. 7.2), while smaller, more modest caraṇachatrīs were erected for at least two paṇḍitas, possibly associates of the muni (s. 1951, n.d.). (7.1.) At the Ānteḍa Nasīyā, an important necropolis in Ajamera preserving almost two dozen memorial stones (3.4.2.), bhaṭṭārakas, ācāryas, and lay paṇḍitas are all commemorated by modest pādukās. Here, the diﬀerentiation is made by the almost exclusive use of chatrīs for bhaṭṭārakas and cabūtarās for ācāryas and paṇḍitas. While the caraṇa-cabūtarās of ācāryas and paṇḍitas are equal in size and form, those of ācāryas were built in a single group at the same height as the bhaṭṭāraka chatrīs (Fig. 6.9), whereas those of paṇḍitas are located slightly lower on the hillock’s slopes (Fig. 6.14). Two large multi-pādukā slabs at the same site dating to the ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE commemorate Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa and Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti along with respectively eight and two paṇḍitas, the latter pupils or associates of the bhaṭṭārakas. (Figs. 6.13, 6.16.) On both slabs, the paṇḍita pādukās are executed smaller than those of the bhaṭṭārakas. One counter-example can be cited, a site in Bairāṭha (Virāṭanagara) where a paṇḍita was commemorated with a chatrī similarly grand as those of one or more earlier bhaṭṭārakas. At the Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Naśiyā in this town, some 80 km to the north-east of Jayapura, stand eight sizeable chatrīs. (Fig. 3.17) Some dislocated Hindu memorial stones found stored near one chatrī indicate that not all structures at the site were Jaina. Two chatrīs at the site can still be identiﬁed as relating to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha, a tradition known to have had a seat in Bairāṭha (Nyāyatīrtha 1997: 33). They stand in a group of four chatrīs which shows considerable material continuity. A stylistic development from full brick columns and simple arches to baluster pillars and foliated arches allows us to determine their chronology. (Fig. 3.17 L.) Probably all four chatrīs commemorated individuals related to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha. One chatrī has a s. 1851 pādukā which was likely consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti in commemoration of his predecessor Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti. The pādukā of a second chatrī was consecrated in s. 1930 by R̥ ṣabhadāsa (no title given, probably a paṇḍita) with the help of Paṇḍita Śivacandra, in commemoration of Paṇḍita Sadāsukha, who is recorded as a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti. (Both inscriptions unpublished.) I could not read the inscription of a pādukā preserved in 143 a third chatrī, but it shares a platform with the s. 1851 chatrī, which can be taken as a clear indication that it shares the same aﬃliation. The pādukās of these three chatrīs are installed chesthigh in a brick wall added between two pillars of the chatrī, a set-up unique to this site. (Fig. 3.17 R.) The fourth chatrī in the row, presumably the oldest, has been repurposed as a functional building and no longer preserves a pādukā. Since on stylistic grounds the two unidentiﬁed chatrīs can be shown to predate the s. 1851 chatrī, it seems likely they commemorated earlier incumbents of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha lineage attested in the inscriptions of the two identiﬁed chatrīs. According to a booklet with information and ritual compositions on the Bairāṭha Naśiyā (Viśadasāgara n.d.: 2), inscriptions (then present) in the chatrīs recorded the memorials as commemorating Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti, Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti, Sadāsukhadāsa, Cetanadāsa, Gaṅgārāva, R̥ ṣabhadāsa, and Prabhudayāla. It is possible that the names of some of these individuals were recorded in the memorial inscriptions without themselves having been commemorated by them. Figure 3.17. Chatrīs elevated on platforms, Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Naśiyā, Bairāṭha. (February 2016) L: Three caraṇa-chatrīs, stylistic development from right to left, from full, squarish brick columns (right, partly visible), to brick columns with added, decorative half pillars (centre, Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti, s. 1851), and stone baluster pillars (left, Paṇḍita Sadāsukha, s. 1930). Unidentiﬁed chatrī in the back. R: Caraṇa-chatrī of Paṇḍita Sadāsukha with s. 1930 pādukā enshrined in an added wall between two of the pillars. The platform of Paṇḍita Sadāsukha’s chatrī has a peculiar shape, with bastion-like extensions on the corners, and is slightly lower than the platform of the previous two chatrīs, with a ﬂight of only seven instead of ten stairs. The chatrī itself, however, is equal in size and dimensions, and more reﬁned in style than the three other chatrīs which are probably all bhaṭṭāraka memorials. The attested Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha lineage was continued after Jagatkīrti and Lalitakīrti by two further incumbents (Rājendrakīrti and Munīndrakīrti), but these seem to have been active in Uttar Pradesh (Joharāpurakara 1958: 247). Presumably the later Māthuragaccha bhaṭṭārakas’ shift away from Bairāṭha allowed Paṇḍita Sadāsukhadāsa to be commemorated with a similarly grand memorial as those of the bhaṭṭārakas who preceded him in the town. Oral tradition in Bairāṭha spoke to me of a pupillary succession of a number of paṇḍitas operating in the town after Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti, Paṇḍita Sadāsukhadāsa > Paṇḍita R̥ ṣabhadāsa > Prabhudāsa (d. 1968 CE) > 144 Premadāsa (d. 1982 CE).195 The ﬁrst two are no doubt the same individuals as attested on the s. 1930 memorial at the Naśiyā, Prabhudāsa is probable the same individual as the Prabhudayāla reported to have been commemorated at the site by Viśadasāgara (n.d.: 2). 3.1.7. Continuities and innovations in contemporary Digambara memorials Today, memorials are commonly erected on the cremation sites of contemporary, male and female Digambara renouncers. Architecturally, they range from modest structures like cabūtarās to larger buildings referred to as guru-mandira or samādhi-mandira. Famous ācāryas or popular munis often receive larger chatrīs or mandira-like buildings. (Fig. 3.18 M.) Common munis are sometimes commemorated with caraṇa-cabūtarās but more typically with modest caraṇa-chatrīs, regularly constructed with mediocre building materials and techniques and found crumbling a few decades or mere years after their erection. Kṣullakas are occasionally also commemorated with shrines or small chatrīs with pādukās. A caraṇa-chatrī (v.n.s. 2539) at the Jambudvīpa complex in Hastināpura (Uttar Pradesh) is a cenotaph of Kṣullaka Motīsāgara (d. 2011 CE), who functioned as the head (pīṭhādīśa) of the site. (Fig. 3.45 L., 3.5.4.) A small, white marble chatrī of Muni Sugandhasāgara (b. 1938 CE, d. 2010 CE) at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata (Gujarat) has an undated pādukā and a photo portrait showing him as a kṣullaka. (Fig. 3.18 R., 3.4.3.) Some chatrīs have innovative designs. The memorial of Ācārya Vinamrasāgara outside of Binā (Madhya Pradesh) for example resembles the parasols (chatrā) pending above jina icons. (Fig. 3.18 L.) Occasionally the chatrīs feature some decoration like plaques with carvings of enemy animals drinking together, a symbol of non-violence (ahiṃsā). Figure 3.18. Memorials of contemporary renouncers. L.: Chatrī (2009 CE) of Ācārya Vinamrasāgara (d. 2002 CE), Binā, Madhya Pradesh. (January 2015) Middle two photos: Samādhi-sthala of Guṇasāgara (no rank), inaugurated while still under construction, with inside a shrine with a photo portrait, a round pādukā on the ﬂoor (not visible), and an empty vedi in the back. Śāntinātha Guṇasāgara Ārādhanā Kṣetra Guṇasthalī, Cakvāḍā. (February 2016) R.: Caraṇa shrine of Muni Sugandhasāgara, Vidyānandi Kṣetra, Sūrata. (January 2014) Āryikās are typically commemorated with caraṇa-cabūtarās or small caraṇa-chatrīs, but the more famous or locally inﬂuential among them receive more elaborate structures. The 2009 CE relic A smaller memorial of one of the latter successors of Paṇḍita Sadāsukha was said to have been located (formerly?) at his mansion in town, now no longer property of the Jaina community. Both Digambara mandiras in town and the mandira at the Naśiyā are said to be Terāpanthī now (Nyāyatīrtha 1997: 32-4), although Kṣetrapāla images are found in them. 195 145 shrine of Āryikā Devamatī (b. 1911 CE, d. 1988 CE) for example is an ornate, little building, referred to as a samādhi-mandira, erected on an unnamed commemoration site outside of Bāṃsvāṛā, the town where she died. (Fig. 3.19 L., 3.5.4.) Among nine smaller caraṇa-chatrīs on the site at the time of my visit (January 2014) were more memorials of āryikās.196 A smaller shrine for Āryikā Devamatī was later (2010 CE) erected behind the Ādinātha Mandira in the centre of Bāṃsvāṛā. (Fig. 3.19 M. & R.) This secondary memorial was presumably intended to provide easier access to local devotees, and ritual veneration still took place at the time of my visit. Figure 3.19. Memorials of Āryikā Devamatī, Bāṃsvāṛā. (January 2014) L.: Samādhi-mandira (2009 CE) among caraṇa-chatrīs of other Digambara renouncers. M. & R.: shrine with pādukā (2010 CE), Ādinātha Mandira. While pādukās remain the most widely used iconography at contemporary Digambara commemoration sites, freestanding portrait statues also became popular in the second half of the 20th century CE. Both plain marble (Figs. 3.20 L., 3.21 M. & R.) and polychrome icons (Figs. 3.20, other, 3.21 L.) are found, mostly depicting the commemorated renouncer in padmāsana (lotus seat) posture. Bronze icons and depictions in khaḍgāsana (standing) postures are also found, and may be increasingly produced. (Fig. 3.22) A very early example is a mūrti of Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’ at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata (Gujarat) which according to its inscription was consecrated s. 2013, just a few years after his passing in 1955 CE. (Fig. 3.38 L., 3.5.2.1.) Chatrīs or shrines with anthropomorphic statues are especially commonly found of the best known and more inﬂuential ācāryas (e.g., Fig. 3.20 L. & second from left), but also relatively frequently of āryikās (e.g., Fig. 3.20 second from right). A life-size portrait of Brahmacārī Surajamala stands in a chatrī at Śāntivīra in Mahāvīraji where he was active. (Fig. 3.20 R.) Anthropomorphic mūrtis are often combined with separate pādukā stones. (e.g., Fig. 3.20 L.) As especially polychrome images may not be suitable for ablutions (abhiṣeka), the installation of a pādukā next to them may serve a ritual purposes, but it also indicates the continued appeal of this iconography. Not all chatrīs were marked, and some were still under construction. One chatrī had a plaque identifying it as a memorial of Āryikā Videhaśrī, who died on 7 September 2013 CE, and whose memorial was consecrated already on 5 November 2013 CE. 196 146 Figure 3.20. Portrait statues of contemporary renouncers in chatrīs and shrines. Fom left to right: Ācārya Śivasāgara (d. 1969 CE, Mahāvīraji, pādukā s. 2036), Śāntivīra, Mahāvīraji (December 2013); Ācārya Deśabhūṣaṇa (d. 1987 CE, Kothali, Karnataka; shrine 2006 CE), Vidyānandi Kṣetra, Sūrata, Gujarat (January 2014); Āryikā Jñānamatī (2013 CE), Bhiṇḍa (Madhya Pradesh, March 2016); Brahmacārī Surajamala (n.d.), Śāntivīra, Mahāvīraji. (December 2013) Since the 19th century CE, a shift from pādukās to anthropomorphic statues (with often pādukās still installed next to them) can also be observed in the Dādāguru cult of the Śvetāmbara Kharataragaccha (Cort 2010a: 188-9). As portraits, the contemporary Digambara guru-mūrtis diﬀer from the generic depictions of commemorated ascetics on pre-20th century CE memorials (3.1.5.). The use of photo documentation of the commemorated renouncers allowed for the preparation of portrait statues. Photo portraits of especially the most famous Digambara ācāryas are also particularly commonly found in mandiras nowadays, and posters advertising the rituals and festivals at which they preside, also featuring their portraits, are displayed in mandiras and on street sides. Footage of the preachings and other activities of Digambara renouncers appear on Jain television channels on a daily basis. The frequently encountered portraiture and the mediatisation of these gurus allows for a personal devotional relation which diﬀers from the depersonalised, daily practice of guru veneration (guru-vandana) in which the living renouncer stands more for the ideal he or she represents. As such, the prevalence of photo portraits may even have factored in the development of individualised cults of charismatic gurus in South Asian religious traditions at large.197 Apart from the memorials at the sites of cremation, pādukās and portrait statues of contemporary renouncers are frequently and perhaps increasingly found in multiple copies in mandiras or in outdoors shrines or chatrīs. (Fig. 3.21) Inside mandiras, portrait statues are mostly installed in chatrīlike shrines or on side-altars. Most often found represented are the three pioneering ācāryas of the ﬁrst half of the 20 th century CE, Ādisāgara ‘Aṅkalīkara’ (1866-1944 CE), Śāntisāgara ‘Chāṇī’ (1888-1944 CE), Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’ (1872-1955 CE), and the incumbent ācāryas of lineages that sprang from them. Especially pādukās of Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’ can be found in Digambara mandiras throughout India. Pādukas and mūrtis of famous Tapāgaccha and Kharataragaccha ācāryas are also found in many Śvetāmbara temples (Cort 2010: 188-91). In both the Digambara and the Śvetāmbara case, these widely distributed, multiple icons of individual renouncers can be seen as serving to promote their legacy and lineage over a large area. Multiple 197 John. E. Cort, personal communication, 17th May 2024. On guru-vandana, see Cort 2001: 112-3. 147 pādukās of less well-known munis can sometimes found in their native place and in the broader region where they were active. Muni Pavitrasāgara ‘Īḍaravāla’ (b. s. 1970, d. s. 2052) for example is commemorated with an undated caraṇa-chatrī at his cremation site in the village of Pāḍavā near Sāgavāṛā, but pādukās of his are also installed in each of the Digambara temples in his native town Īḍara (Sambhavanātha Mandira, Pārśvanātha Mandira, Ādinātha Mandira), commissioned by his family members and consecrated in s. 2055.198 Figure 3.21. Portrait statues of contemporary renouncers. L.: Ācārya Śāntisāgara and Ācārya Jñānasāgara (v.n.s. 2529), Digambara Jaina Pārśvanātha Atiśaya Kṣetra, Bijauliyāṃ. (February 2014) M: Ācārya Mahāvīrakīrti (v.n.s. 2529) and Ācārya Vimalasāgara (s. 2048), Padmāvatī Poravāla Mandira, Sonāgiri (Madhya Pradesh). (December 2013) R.: Black marble of Ādisāgara ‘Aṅkalīkara’ (s. 2046) next to other temple icons, Gandhi Mandira, Sāgavāṛā. (January 2014) An original, ca. 2-3 feet high, brass, khaḍgāsana icon of Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’ was installed in the Nayā Mandira in Pratāpagaṛh as a ritual object. (Fig. 3.22 L.) A small, ca. one foot high, bronze padmāsana portrait statue of an unidentiﬁed muni (Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’?) was seen installed on the main vedi of the Ādinātha Mandira in Īḍara. (Fig. 3.22 M. & R.) It sat inconspicuously next to jina icons of similar size and presumably received the same daily ritual care, including abhiṣeka. In an early modern memorial chatrī in Udayapura, the original, late 17th or early 18th century CE memorial stones had been moved to the side to make space for a life-size, stone statue of a standing Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’. (Fig. 5.19. R., 5.6.2.) This symbolically manifests how the bhaṭṭārakas and the members of their saṅghas were replaced at the centre of the Digambara devotion of renouncers by those of the contemporary muni saṅghas. Contemporary Digambara commemorative iconography and architecture show a number of changes vis-a-vis pre-20th century CE precedents. More recent renouncers now stand at the centre of devotion, niṣedhikās have long become disused and portrait statues are instead frequently used, next to the continued penchant for the pādukās, new forms of chatrīs appear, and closed memorial structures referred to as mandiras are also used. Although more research would be required, these new iconographic developments and the mediatized veneration of contemporary Digambara renouncers generally may also lead to ritual innovation. I found at least one pādukā of a living Digambara muni. To the side of the main vedi at the Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Mandira in Bharūca (Bharuch, Gujarat) stood two similar, small shrines at the time of my visit A local publication of ritual texts also features a Gujarati language pūjā on Muni Pavitrasāgara (‘Śrī 108 Muniśrī Pavitrasāgara-jī (Īḍaravālā) nī pūjā’, Anon. 2007: 108-10). On textual compositions for the ritual veneration of contemporary Digambara renouncers, see shortly 3.5.3. 198 148 (January 2014). (Fig. 3.23 R.) One of these featured a Padmāvatī mūrti, the other a pādukā and a framed photograph of Muni Prajñāsāgara, and a print-out of a short hymn of this renouncer who had been inspirational in the construction of the mandira, and was still ﬂourishing at the time. (Fig. 3.23 L.) Figure 3.22. L.: Bronze khaḍgāsana icon of Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’ (s. 2020) Nayā Mandira, Pratāpagaṛha (February 2014) M. & R.: Bronze padmāsana portrait statue of an unidentiﬁed muni on the main vedi of the Ādinātha Mandira, Īḍara. (January 2014) Figure 3.23. Shrine with pādukā and photo portraits of Muni Prajñāsāgara next to shrine with Padmāvatī shrine, Cintāmaṇi Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Mandira, Bharūca (Gujarat). (January 2015) Notwithstanding new iconographic developments, the corpus of memorials discovered to date allows us to speak of a continuum of Digambara memorials in Western India from the late medieval to the contemporary period. Often the same sites continue to be used. Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Chāṇī’ (1888-1944 CE), for example, died in Sāgavāṛā and was commemorated at the Choṭī Nasīyājī, which has served as a Digambara cremation site since at least ﬁve centuries and constitutes an ever-growing necropolis. (5.4.1.) The same counts for the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in 149 Sūrata. (3.4.3.) Memorial formats and sites then form one ﬁeld in which contemporary Digambara asceticism stands in deep continuity to the pre-20th century CE mendicant lineages, and the same can be argued for the salviﬁc goals underlying commemorative practices (7.3.). 3.2. Inscriptions 3.2.1. Introduction An early 17th century CE chatrī (s. 1681) at the Nasiyā in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha of which the memorial stone is missing uniquely has inscriptions carved on the lintels. (3.1.1., Fig. 3.4 top M. & R.) Otherwise pre-20th century CE, Western Indian Digambara memorials typically feature one or more inscriptions directly on the memorial stones. The inscriptions of the present corpus range from well-preserved and easily legible to partly erased or almost fully illegible. Their state of preservation depends on the type of stone, its age, the weather conditions it faced, and other damages, including those caused through replacement or repurposing. A small number of memorial stones never seems to have featured any inscriptions. On niṣedhikās, the main inscription is typically applied on one side near the base of the pillar and below the carving of the commemorated renouncer. The side of the inscription appears then as the niṣedhikā’s front side. (e.g., Fig. 3.24 top left.) Sometimes inscriptions are continued over multiple sides of the pillar, or independent inscriptions are applied to various sides. Especially the name of the commemorated renouncer name is regularly repeated on several sides. On some 17th century CE pādukās, inscriptions are found applied on the front side of the slabs. (Figs. 3.24 bottom left, 4.6 R., 4.9 M.) Later they were typically applied on top of the stones, mostly running clockwise around the feet carvings in one, two, or more lines (e.g., Fig. 4.17) or less often in parallel, horizontal lines (Fig. 4.12). When funnels are present, the inscriptions often begin there. (e.g., Fig. 3.24 top right) The inscriptions are composed in Sanskrit. Especially in later, 19th century CE inscriptions, vernacular phrasings occasionally appear. (e.g., #5.39, #6.3, #6.20-23) The most complete inscriptions of pre-20th century CE Digambara memorial stones record, typically in this order, a date, the renouncer tradition to which the commemorated individual was aﬃliated (saṅgha, gaṇa, gaccha), the names of a few successive incumbents up to the current incumbent, the names of the commemorated individual(s) and the individual(s) who consecrated the memorial, and an indication of their mutual relationship. Occasionally, further renouncers, paṇḍitas, or more rarely other laypeople are mentioned as pupils or devotees of the commemorated individual or as involved in the memorial’s erection. The inscriptions usually conclude with the consecrating or commissioning agent(s) oﬀering eternal salutations to the commemorated individual(s)199 and a blessing for general wellbeing.200 As such, the contents of the epitaphs largely overlap with those of early modern Digambara manuscript colophons (Detige 2018) and temple icons (mūrtilekha). Only the genealogies of lay donors which are very frequently included in colophons are only rarely included in memorial and other inscriptions. Many memorial 199 ‘nityaṃ praṇamati’ (‘he bows eternally’), ‘nityaṃ praṇamanti’ (‘they bow eternally’). 200 ‘kalyāṇaṃ bhavatu’, ‘śrīrastu’, etc. (‘may there be prosperity’). 150 inscriptions however do not include all of the said types of information. There is generally a historical evolution from brief to longer inscriptions. Inscriptions in the late medieval period are formulaic and only include a date and the name of the commemorated individual. In the early modern period inscriptions become longer, with standardised phrasings and more information included, especially regarding the ascetic lineage and the consecrating agents, presumably related to formation processes of ascetic lineages, and the formalisation of more pronounced lineage identities. By the second half of the 19th century CE, inscriptions are often shorter again, less formalised in structure, and composed in corrupt Sanskrit. Figure 3.24. Inscriptions on early modern Digambara memorial stones. Top: niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣacandra (s. 1726, L.) and pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti (s. 1769, R.), Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. (January 2014) Bottom: unidentiﬁed pādukā (s. 1726) with legible inscription on front (L.) and weathered, illegible inscription on top (R.) (Candraprabhu Caityālaya, Āyaṛa, Udayapura. (March 2013) 151 3.2.2. Lineage The few late medieval Digambara memorials discovered in Rajasthan, a set of niṣedhikās and a single pādukā, do not record the name of any ascetic tradition. (3.2.4.1.) Two 19th century CE munis commemorated in Rajasthan probably stood aloof from the local bhaṭṭāraka traditions, although one memorial stone was consecrated by a Western Indian bhaṭṭāraka. (7.1.) The inscriptions of early modern Digambara memorials from Western India typically do record the tradition to which the commemorated and/or consecrating individuals renouncers and paṇḍitas were aﬃliated. The majority of pre-20th century CE Digambara memorials discovered in Western India relate to the diﬀerent Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa lineages which were active in the region. Smaller numbers of memorials are found of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha, and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha memorials have been retrieved at two sites (3.1.6., 3.1.1. n. 204). (Appendix III.2) Memorial inscriptions and other epigraphic and textual sources do not use further appellations to distinguish between the various lineages of the Balātkāragaṇa and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha traditions. (2.2.3.2.) Complete inscriptions typically do record the names of at least a few, and sometimes more than a dozen successive incumbents (ācāryas, maṇḍalācāryas, bhaṭṭārakas). They use the same phrasing for the successions (tatpaṭṭe) as mūrtilekhas, manuscript colophons, and paṭṭāvalīs. The record of these successions usually suﬃces to determine which lineage we ﬁnd attested. Otherwise, we can often determine memorial stones’ aﬃliation on the basis of the recorded date and name of the commemorated individuals or other factors like the speciﬁc ﬁnding spot, its region, or other memorials at the site. 3.2.3. Dates Digambara memorials of the later 20th and 21st century CE often feature Gregorian calendar dates, often still along with a conversion in vikrama samvat. The inscribed dates on pre-20th century CE, Digambara memorials from Western India follow the vikrama samvat calendar, occasionally adding the equivalent in śaka samvat, a calendar which was less frequent in the region (e.g., #4.24). The recorded dates consist of a lunar month, the day of the bright (śukla pakṣa) or dark (krṣṇa ̥ pakṣa) fortnight, and the day of the week. Occasionally the lunar mansion (nakṣatra) is also recorded. As far as I could ascertain, the dates of the memorials in my corpus follow the pūrṇimānta calendar system, in which the lunar months end on the full moon day, not the amānta or amavasyānta calendar, in which the month runs up to new moon. The inscriptions of a few memorials include two or three dates, recording information like the death of the commemorated renouncer, the consecration of a successor in case of a bhaṭṭāraka, the consecration of the memorial stone, or the construction of the chatrī. The inscription on the pādukā of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti at the Nasiyā in Sāṅgānera records the dates of the consecration of his successor by Devendrakīrti in s. 1691, Devendrakīrti’s death in the same month, and the construction and consecration of his memorial in s. 1696. (#4.6, 4.3.5.) The pādukā of the later Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti at the Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ in Āmera records the dates of Jagatkīrti’s death in s. 1770, the consecration of his successor a few days later, and the consecration of his memorial ten months later, in s. 1771. (#4.10, 4.3.6.) The niṣedhikā of the 152 ﬁfth Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā incumbent at the Nasiyājī necropolis in Naugāmā has a date in the year s. 1658 in the typical place at the beginning of a longer inscription, and a separate, short inscription with the year s. 1654. (#5.4, 5.3.2.) The former date is probably that of the consecration of the pillar or of Jinacandra’s death, and the latter year his consecration to the seat. A double pādukā commemorating the later Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Mahicandra and probably his successor Nemicandra at the Jūnā Mandira in Sāgavāṛā probably records the succession of Mahicandra by Nemicandra in s. 1858, as well as the consecration of the memorial stone in s. 1881. (#5.39, 5.5.2.) A s. 1750 inscription on the pādukā of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā aﬃliated Ācārya Kanakakīrti at the Nasiyāṃjī in Bassī dates to its consecration, and a separate inscription applied on the base stone of the pādukā records the construction of a chatrī for it three decades later in s. 1781. (#4.12, 4.3.8.) Most memorial inscriptions however record a single date without explicitly indicating which event it represents, and this often remains unclear. Sometimes external evidence is available to corroborate the nature of these dates. In some cases, the date is known to be that of the the death of the commemorated individual, at other times it can be shown to relate rather to the memorial’s consecration, for example because it comes too late for the commemorated individual. The importance of inscribing the latter date relates to the performance of commemorative rituals on the commemorated individual’s death anniversary (puṇyatithi, 3.5.2). The recording of the memorial stones’ date of consecration on the other hand can be understood in relation to the honour and merit understood to be earned through performing and patronising such consecrations, and the rituals and festivities held at these occasions. While earlier scholars have sometimes taken the dates of the memorial inscriptions for granted as indicating the death of the commemorated individuals, they may thus similarly well be those of their memorials’ consecration, and there may be gaps of several years or even decades between both events. Sometimes various types of dating are even found on Digambara memorials erected at a single site and a single time. At the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera, Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (p. s. 1802 - prob. 1830) and Ācārya Rājakīrti cooperated in commemorating earlier Śākambharīśākhā predecessors who probably had their seats away from Ajamera. The date on the pādukā they consecrated for Ratnakīrti (II) (s. 1766) may well be that of his death. The pādukās they installed of the subsequent incumbents Vidyānandi (p. s. 1766-69), Anantakīrti (p. s. 1773-97), and Bhavanabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1797-1802), however, all feature the same date in s. 1810, which is that of their consecration. (6.2.3.) A later memorial at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā, the pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Trilokendrakīrti, is dated to s. 1838, but was consecrated by his successor Bhuvanakīrti who is known to have ascended the seat only in s. 1840, after a gap of some two years after the passing of Trilokendrakīrti. The inscribed date must thus be that of Trilokendrakīrti’s death, but we don’t know when Bhuvanakīrti consecrated the memorial. The pādukā in Bhuvanakīrti’s chatrī is dated to s. 1892, and was consecrated by his successor Ratnabhūṣaṇa, who is reported to have ascended the seat more than a decade earlier, in s. 1880. In this case, the inscription also explicitly indicates that its date refers to Ratnabhūṣaṇa’s construction of the chatrī, not to Bhuvanakīrti’s demise. (6.2.5.) When both the date of death of a commemorated individual and that of the consecration of his memorial is available from the memorial inscriptions or other sources, we often see that their memorials were erected a few years or more after their death, as in the last cited example. Such 153 delays in the erection of memorials probably reﬂect the time it took to make preparations, gather funding, design, and build the memorial. Bhaṭṭāraka seats also regularly remained vacant for a number of years before a suitable, new incumbent was found and consecrated, who could then proceed to erect a memorial for his predecessor. Sometimes commemoration projects were conceived several decades after the demise of the commemorated individuals, like that of Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in the mid-18th century CE. In s. 1992, the last Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent Harṣakīrti also consecrated pādukā slabs at the same site commemorating his predecessors Ratnabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1880-?) and Lalitakīrti (p. s. 1922-?) and a substantial number of paṇḍitas, probably also long postdating the death of most of them. (6.2.5-6.) 3.2.4. Commemorated individuals A small number of late medieval memorials has been discovered in Western India. (3.2.4.1.) Memorials of two 19th century CE munis who were unconnected to the local bhaṭṭāraka traditions are noteworthy as little is known thus far about such precursors to the 20th century CE Digambara muni saṅghas. (7.1.) Among memorials of bhaṭṭārakas and maṇḍalācāryas (prob. second half 15th to 20th century CE, 3.2.4.2.), my corpus includes memorials of two Uttaraśākhā and nine Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas (two of the latter found commemorated by two diﬀerent memorials) (4.2.1.), at least fourteen, and possibly up to seventeen bhaṭṭārakas (including four, perhaps ﬁve commemorated by two diﬀerent memorials), three maṇḍalācāryas, and three incumbent ācāryas of the Vāgaḍāśākhās (5.2.1.), and twelve Śākambharīśākhā incumbents (maṇdalācāryas and bhaṭṭārakas, 6.2., 6.4.). These are the three Balātkāragaṇa lineages which were active in the contemporary state of Rajasthan and bordering regions and form the focus of the present dissertation (Chapter 4-6). I also found memorials of incumbents of other Balātkāragaṇa lineages (Lāṭaśākhās, Mālavāśākhās, Cambalaśākhās, Kārañjāśākhā, Appendix III.1), of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha traditions (Appendix III.2), and of the Mūlasaṅgha Senagaṇa or of unidentiﬁed aﬃliation (Appendix III.3). I have also documented memorials of up to 30 lower-ranking, fully initiated male renouncers (ācāryas and munis, early 15th to late 18th century CE) and up to twelve brahmacārīs (3.2.4.3.), seven female renouncers (15th and 16th century CE, 3.2.4.4.), and 34 memorials commemorating up to 47 paṇḍitas (second half of the 18th to the ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE, 3.2.4.5.). The majority of these are related to the Uttaraśākhā, Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, Vāgaḍāśākhās, and Śākambharīśākhās. A small number of memorials of ācāryas, munis, female renouncers, and paṇḍitas of other lineages and traditions or unidentiﬁed aﬃliation is also found. (Appendix III.1-3) 3.2.4.1. Late medieval renouncers The oldest Digambara memorials discovered to date in Western India stem from the 11th to 13th century CE and are all found in Rajasthan. Fifteen late medieval niṣedhikās are found in Jhālarāpāṭana, identiﬁed specimens commemorating 11th-13th century CE ācāryas, a 13th century 154 CE bhaṭṭāraka, and one or two early 12th century CE laymen. (Fig. 3.26, see below201) And a s. 1083 pādukā preserved in the Choṭā Mandira in Narainā commemorates an ācārya. K. C. Jain (1972: 317, 606, n. 23) edits the s. 1083 pādukā inscription as attesting Ācārya Guṇacandra.202 (Fig. 3.25 L.) It is a monolith marble with a prominent drainage channel elevated on a pedestal. The latter feature of the design is rarely found among later Western Indian Digambara pādukās. Like a number of beautiful, often very delicately carved mūrtis from the 10th to 11th centuries CE kept at the mandira, the ācārya’s pādukā was retrieved from excavations in or near Narainā (B. Jaina 1978: 60). A pādukā found at another temple in Narainā, the Baḍā Mandira, has a similar design and I was told it was also found in recent excavations.203 (Fig. 3.25 R.) It does not feature an inscription and cannot be ascertained to be the memorial of a historical renouncer, although the similarities to the s. 1083 pādukā indicate this is likely the case. Figure 3.25. Late medieval pādukās preserved in mandiras, Narainā. (February 2016) L.: Ācārya Guṇacandra/ Guṇasena? (s. 1083), Choṭā Mandira. R.: Unidentiﬁable pādukā, Baḍā Mandira. The town of Jhālarāpāṭana in south-east Rajasthan is home to the late medieval, partly rebuilt Śāntinātha Mandira, further Digambara temples, and two nasīyās. The latter lie to the north of the town centre, the Jūnī Nasīyā (old nasīyā) on the top of an isolated hillock, and the Choṭī Nasīyā (small nasīyā) at the foot of the hill. At the Choṭī Nasīyā stand ﬁve chatrīs belonging to ca. the late 19th to early 20th century CE. (7.1.) The late medieval niṣedhikās which I found at the Jūnī Nasīyā had clearly been relocated at the time of my visit (December 2014), perhaps related to ongoing works for a building project then underway at the site. Yet Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 36) probably mistakingly reported these pillars as located at the Choṭī Nasīyā, since Kāsalīvāla (1989: 175) already mentioned a considerable number of niṣedhikās on a hill outside of the city, probably the Jūnī Nasīyā. At the time of my visit, some niṣedhikās were provisionally set up between piled up rocks, others were lying on the ground. (Fig. 3.26 M.) It is possible that the pillars were originally These memorials have already been noted, with varying detail, by K. C. Jain (1972: 135-6), B. Jaina (1978: 36), and Kāsalīvāla (1989: 175). 201 ‘saṃvat 1083 māgha sudi 14 ācārya guṇacandrasya idaṃ pādayugmaṃ’ (K. C. Jain 1972: 606, n. 23). I instead have an unconﬁrmed reading ‘[?] saṃvat 1083 māgha sudi 14 ācārya (śrī gunasenasy?)edaṃ pāda-yugmaṃ |’. 202 203 Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 60) already reported both pādukās from Narainā, one as dated to s. 1083. 155 installed in open air, representing a stage prior to the common erection of chatrīs to house Digambara memorial stones. Decorated pillars and other parts of a small chatrī also found at the Jūnī Nasīyā belonged to a much later structure (ca. 19th or early 20th century CE). Figure 3.26. Late medieval niṣedhikās (M.), with carvings of jinas, renouncers teaching, and snakes (L. & R.), Jūnī Nasīyā, Jhālarāpāṭana. (December 2014) I did not document the niṣedhikās at the Jūnī Nasīyā suﬃciently well to oﬀer a reading of their inscriptions. Inscriptions may also have been present on the covered sides of those pillars lying on the ground. Kāsalīvāla (1989: 175) only mentions a considerable number of niṣedhikās from a hill outside of Jhālarāpāṭana, of which the oldest is dated to s. 1181, and also reports a samādhi of Pāḍā Śāha from the same site. K. C. Jain (1972: 135-6) and Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 36) report more or less the same readings of the inscriptions of four niṣedhikās, seemingly taking their information from a shared source (rather than the latter from the former). One niṣedhikā records the death in s. 1066 of Śrīmantadeva, a pupil of Ācārya Śrīmannadeva (K. C. Jain 1972: 135) or Ācārya (Śrī) Bhāvadeva (B. Jaina 1978: 36); a niṣedhikā of Ācārya Devendra dated to s. 1180; a niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Kumāradeva, who died in s. 1289 and belonged to the lineage (āmnāya) of Kumudacandra Ācārya; and a niṣedhikā with apparently two diﬀerent inscriptions, one dated to 1009 CE (converted by K. C. Jain: 1972 136) and attesting Nemidevācārya and Baladevācārya, and one dated to s. 1242 and referring to the Mūlasaṅgha and Devasaṅgha. The latter niṣedhikā is reported by K. C. Jain (1972: 136) and B. Jaina (1978: 36) from the Sātasalā kī Pahāḍī (Sātasalā hill). I take it this refers to the hill on which the Jūnī Nasīyā is located. Both authors also record a pillar from the Sātasalā hill with an inscription from 1109 CE attesting the death of the Hūmaṛa caste layman Śreṣṭhī Pīpā or Pāpā, presumably the same laymen who built the Śāntinātha Mandira and had it consecrated by Bhāvadevasūri in 1046 CE (K. C. Jain 1972: 135, B. Jaina 1978: 36). Jaina (Ibid.) also records a śilālekha from 1113 CE recording the death of another layman, Śreṣṭhī Sāṛhila. As noted by K. C. Jain (1972: 135), the considerable number of memorials found in Jhālarāpāṭana indicates that Digambara renouncers had some ﬁxed presence in this town. More research is required to reconstruct the history of the late medieval Digambara ascetic traditions and to trace their connections to the early modern bhaṭṭāraka lineages, beyond those constructed in paṭṭāvalīs. These niṣedhikās may date from a moment when the bhaṭṭāraka rank had not yet been 156 uniformly formalised as hierarchically superior to that of the ācārya. Although taller and heavier than most early modern niṣedhikās, the niṣedhikās from Jhālarāpāṭana are fairly similar to the latter, including the carvings of padmāsana jinas/siddhas in the broader top section. Some also feature a carving depicting a scene of ascetics teaching. (Fig. 3.26 L. & R.) This motif is also found on the late medieval niṣedhikās of Karnataka and on early 15th century CE niṣedhikās from Bijauliyāṃ, but afterwards disappears in Western India. (3.1.5.) Carvings of coiling serpents over much of the length of some of the pillars are not encountered elsewhere. (Fig. 3.26 L. & R.) According to Kāsalīvāla (1989: 175), these depictions relate to a belief that Jhālarāpāṭana was the site of a samavasaraṇa (preaching assembly) of the tīrthaṅkara Pārśvanātha. 3.2.4.2. Lineage incumbents (bhaṭṭārakas, maṇḍalācāryas, ācāryas) The incumbents of the various pre-20th century CE Digambara ascetic traditions of Western and Central India were commonly honoured with memorials. Particularly numerous memorials have been found of the incumbents of the three Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa branches which were active in diﬀerent parts of the contemporary state of Rajasthan and which form the core of this study, the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, the Vāgaḍāśākhās, and the Śākambharīśākhās. Memorials have been found of nine of the 17 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents, including an almost continuous corpus of memorials of its bhaṭṭārakas from the early 16th to the ﬁrst quarter of the 19th century CE. (Chart 4.2) Memorial stones of nine out of the twenty Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭārakas, and probably twelve ̥ out of the 18 Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā incumbents (ācārya, maṇḍalācārya, bhaṭṭāraka) have been discovered or reported. (Chart 5.2) Next to memorials of the founder of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā from the early 16th century CE and its last incumbent from around the turn of the 18th century CE, memorials are probably found of nine Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents, all but the last, but of only two Śākambharīśākhā Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbents (one dating to the early 19th century CE, one from the early 20th century CE). (Chart 6.5) In other parts of Western and Central India, I also found memorials of incumbents of yet other Balātkāragaṇa branches, the Lāṭaśākhā (3.4.3.), Mālavāśākhā (3.3.3.) and Cambalaśākhā (2.2.3.10.), and the Kārañjāśākhā and the Lātūraśākhā (3.5.2.2.). (Appendix III.1) Memorials of Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha incumbents were probably built just as commonly. (Appendix III.2) Memorials of lineage incumbents are found near most of the towns where seats were established for longer periods. Smaller numbers are also found in towns where the lineages were located for a shorter time. Some stand at even less expected locations, where incumbents may have died while visiting for ritual or other purposes. The necropoles of Vāgaḍā (3.4.1.) and Ajamera (3.4.2.) are especially important epigraphic repositories, but evidence amassed from sites with single or smaller numbers of memorials is similarly valuable. The dates and locations of memorials of incumbents and the lower-ranking renouncers associated to them, as well as further information included in the memorial inscriptions, contribute substantially to our knowledge of the history and geographical distribution of the diﬀerent lineages. The corpus of memorials of incumbents of a single lineage helps us understand the frequent relocation of the seats. Especially in the 15th to 157 early 18th century CE, the seats of many lineages regularly shifted. Memorials from this period are therefore often spread over several towns, each having memorials of a small number of few consecutive incumbents. Memorials of Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents for example are found in consecutively Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha (reported, 4.3.3.), Sāṅgānera (4.3.5.), Āmera (4.3.6.), and Jayapura (4.3.10.). The corpus of Vāgaḍāśākhā memorials also evinces the history and mutual dynamic of both lineages, including the Brhatśākhā’s move to Mevāṛa, Lāṭā, and Īḍara, and its replacement in ̥ Sāgavāṛā by the Laghuśākhā, which had originally been located in Naugāmā. (Chapter 5) Most importantly perhaps, memorials of bhaṭṭārakas also stand as an important source to indicate the former devotion towards them as venerable renouncers. Epigraphic and material aspects of the memorials conﬁrm that, in a reversal of the contemporary situation, the bhaṭṭāraka rank stood at the very apex of the early modern ascetic hierarchy. As such, the memorials support other sources in a reassessment of the prevailing perception of bhaṭṭārakas as mere ‘clerics’ or administrators. (2.1.) The memorials were intended for ritual practice and replaced the living incumbents in the devotional and socio-economical networks that developed around them. (7.3.) As noted, carvings on niṣedhikās, kīrtistambhas, and chatrīs also consistently depict pre-20th century CE bhaṭṭārakas as ideal, naked renouncers. (3.1.5.) Memorials also oﬀer important evidence for the origins and development of some Balātkāragaṇa lineages through successions of subordinate maṇḍalācāryas or at ﬁrst even ācāryas, which only after several decades or even centuries came to claim bhaṭṭāraka-hood and independence from their parent lineage. While later manuscript and epigraphic sources record the early Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā incumbents as bhaṭṭārakas, their memorials at the Nasiyājī in Naugāmā from probably the late 15th and the 16th century CE uniquely attest their actual, lower, ācārya and maṇḍalācārya ranks. (5.3.2.) At the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera in the mid-18th century CE, earlier Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa maṇḍalācāryas were vice-versa commemorated as bhaṭṭārakas. Their memorials were consecrated by presumably the ﬁrst incumbent of this lineage to claim bhaṭṭāraka-hood, for whom recording his predecessors as bhaṭṭārakas probably constituted a legitimisation strategy. (6.2.3.) 3.2.4.3. Early modern ācāryas, munis, brahmacārīs The memorials of lower-ranking renouncers found during my survey attest to the breadth and diversity of early modern bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas and the prevalence of the muni and ācārya ranks well into the Mughal era (1526-1857 CE). (2.3.) Hitherto, Digambara renouncers of the muni and ācārya ranks were commonly thought to have disappeared at the time of the ‘origin’ of the bhaṭṭāraka ‘institution’ early in the Sultanate period (1206-1526 CE). As also corroborated by textual sources (Detige 2018), the corpus of memorial stones shows that munis instead ﬂourished in the Digambara saṅghas until the mid-17th century CE, and ācāryas until the 18th century CE. Next to the venerability and paramountcy of the bhaṭṭārakas, this is a further ﬁnding substantiating the need for a profound reconsideration of the historiography of early modern Digambara Jainism. 158 The inscriptions of the memorials of the early modern Digambara munis and ācāryas usually oﬀer scant biographical information. Yet they clearly appear as pupils of or otherwise subordinate to bhaṭṭārakas in memorial inscriptions as much as in manuscript colophons and other textual sources (Detige 2020: 197-9). The inscriptions often record the commemorated munis and ācāryas as the pupils of the bhaṭṭārakas consecrating their memorials. Sometimes they are more vaguely recorded as standing in a bhaṭṭāraka’s lineage (‘āmnāye’). Occasionally they are attested as pupils of other munis or ācāryas who in turn were pupils of or otherwise related to bhaṭṭārakas. (#5.21) The inscriptions of some muni and ācārya memorials merely record that they were consecrated by bhaṭṭārakas, failing to explicate the relation between the commemorated individual and the bhaṭṭāraka. As these are often found among memorials of renouncers who are explicitly commemorated as belonging to and subordinate to the bhaṭṭāraka lineages, we can assume that this is a variant, protracted inscriptional phrase, rather than an indication of their aloofness from the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas. To be sure, while there are many attestations of munis and ācāryas connected to and subordinate to the bhaṭṭārakas, nowhere in epigraphic or textual sources do we ﬁnd explicit and unequivocal proof of early modern munis and ācāryas roaming entirely independent of the bhaṭṭārakas, deeming themselves superior to them, or opposing them in principle. Memorials have been found of ﬁve munis, dating to the late 15th to the second half 16th century CE (s. 155[1?]-1627), possibly up to 24 ācāryas (including the three incumbent ācāryas of the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā, 5.3.3.), from the early 15th to the late 18th century CE (s. 1465-1855), one more, unranked but probably also fully initiated (= at least muni) male renouncer (s. 1465), and up to twelve brahmacārīs from the early 16th to 18th or 19th century CE (s. 157?-poss. 19th cent. CE). (Table 3.1.) Nearly all these memorials are niṣedhikās. This is indicative of the popularity of this iconography in the early Mughal period, when broad and varied bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas with munis and ācāryas ﬂourished. To date, no memorials have been found of upādhyāyas, a rank which is generally rarely attested in the early modern period. (2.3.1.) The ﬁnding spots of nearly all early modern muni and ācārya memorials discovered to date are located in Rajasthan. A single memorial commemorating an 18th century CE ācārya is found in Īḍara, across today’s state border in Gujarat, but still in the Vāgaḍā region. (5.6.5.) Textual sources however show that early modern munis and ācāryas also ﬂourished elsewhere in Western and Central India (Detige 2018). Rank Name Year Town Site - Hemakīrti s. 1465 Bijauliyāṃ Pārśvanātha Uttaraśākhā Atiśaya Kṣetra Ācārya+ Dharasena+ s. 1465 Aṅkleśvara Cintāmaṇi (Gujarat) Pārśvanātha Mandira prob. Mūlasaṅgha 3.1.5. Senagaṇa Ācārya Jñānakīrti n.d. Naugāmā Nasiyājī Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā 5.3.2. #5.1 Ācārya Ratnakīrti n.d. Naugāmā Nasiyājī Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā 5.3.2. #5.2 159 Lineage Sectio n Inscri ption 4.3.1. - Rank Name Year Muni Hemakīrti (Ācārya?) Site Lineage Sectio n Inscri ption s. 155[1?] Bārāṃ Nasiyāṃjī Uttaraśākhā or Vāgaḍāśākhā? 4.3.18. - (...)kīrti no date legible Bārāṃ Nasiyāṃjī prob. Balātkāragaṇa 4.3.18. - Muni Prabhācandra s. 1564 Naugāmā Kalyāṇa Ṭhākura Mandira Vāgaḍāśākhā spec. 5.3.3. #5.13 Brahmacārī Ratnasāgara s. 157(5?) Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā Brhat & ̥ Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā 5.4.4. #5.26 Ācārya Dharmakīrti s. 1579 Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā Brhat ̥ 5.4.3. #5.20 Ācārya Vinayacandra s. 1594 Naugāmā Nasiyājī Brhat (& Laghu?) ̥ 5.3.3. #5.5 Muni Devanandi illegible (poss. ca. s. 1594) Naugāmā Nasiyājī Brhat? ̥ 5.3.3. #5.8 Ācārya Haribhūṣaṇa s. 1601 Naugāmā Nasiyājī Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā 5.3.3. #5.6 Muni Jayakīrti s. 1602 Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ 5.4.3. #5.24 s. 1608 Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ 5.4.1. #5.30 5.3.2. #5.3 unidentiﬁed Town Ācārya Yaśakīrti s. 16(1/2)8 Naugāmā Nasiyājī Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā Muni Siṅhanandi s. 1627 Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā Brh̥ advāgaḍāśākhā 5.4.3. ? #5.25 Brahmacārī ? s. 162(?) Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ 5.4.4. #5.27 prob. Ācārya (Guṇa?)kīrti s. 1638 Naugāmā Nasiyājī Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā 5.3.3. #5.7 brahmacārī? s. 16(63?) Naugāmā Nasiyājī - 5.3.4. #5.12 s. 1681 Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha Nasiyā Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā 4.3.3. #4.4 - Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā 5.4.4. #5.29 Ācārya Harṣakīrti brahmacārī? Brahmacārī Satā s. 1691 Naugāmā Nasiyājī Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā (prob.) 5.3.4. #5.10 Brahmacārī Laṣamaṇa s. 169(1?) Naugāmā Nasiyājī - 5.3.4. #5.9 Brahmacārī Gakarasā - (poss. post s. 1691) Naugāmā Nasiyājī - 5.3.4. #5.11 Ācārya Kalyāṇakīrti s. 1725 Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ 5.4.3. #5.21 Ācārya Jagatkīrti s. 1739 Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā 5.4.3. #5.22 Ācārya ? s. 1749 Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ 5.4.3. #5.23 ? Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā poss. Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ 5.4.1. #5.32 unidentiﬁed (ācārya?) 160 Rank Name Year Town Site Lineage Sectio n Inscri ption Ācārya Kanakakīrti s. 1750 Bassī Pārśvanātha Nasiyāṃjī Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā 4.3.8. #4.12 Ācārya Viśvabhūṣaṇa s. 1759 Udayapura Śantinātha Mandira Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ 5.6.2. #5.46 Ācārya Viśālakīrti s. 1782 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.4. #6.11 Ācārya Bhānukīrti s. 1801 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.4. #6.12 Ācārya Ratnabhūṣaṇa s. 1813 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.4. #6.13 Ācārya Devendrakīrti s. 1814 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.4. #6.14 Ācārya Tilakabhūṣaṇa s. 1821 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.4. #6.15 Ācārya Mahīcandra s. 1828 Bassī Pārśvanātha Nasiyāṃjī Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā 4.3.8. #4.13 Ācārya Guṇakīrti s. 1849 Bateśvara Ajitanātha Mandira Cambalaśākhā Gvāliyara-paṭṭa 2.2.3.10 . - Brahmacārī Lahu s. 1855 Īḍara Pārśvanātha Jinālaya Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ 5.6.5. #5.51 -52 Ācārya Devacanda Brahmacārī Lakṣmīcanda Brahmacārī Dalīcanda brahmacārī ? Jinasāgara s. 1882 Sūrata Vidyānandi Kṣetra Lāṭaśākhā 3.4.3. - Brahmacārī ? ? (poss. 19th cent. CE) Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā poss. Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā 5.4.1. #5.28 Table 3.1. Chronological list of discovered and reported (+) memorials of ācāryas, munis, and brahmacārīs (15th-19th century CE). The Vāgaḍāśākhā necropoles in Naugāmā and Sāgavāṛā in themselves oﬀer a valuable glimpse into the constitution of the late 15th to 17th century CE Digambara saṅghas. In Naugāmā, niṣedhikās are found of two or probably three ‘common’ ācāryas, two munis, and three or probably four brahmacārīs. (5.3.3-4. Fig. 3.27 L. and second from left) And in Sāgavāṛā, niṣedhikās can be identiﬁed commemorating four or possibly ﬁve ācāryas, two munis, and three or possibly four brahmacārīs. (5.4.3-4.) More isolated memorial stones of munis and ācāryas have been found at a few sites. A memorial from the ﬁrst half of the 15th century CE (s. 1465) in Bijauliyāṃ commemorates one Hemakīrti, an unranked but probably fully initiated, male renouncer related to the Uttaraśākhā. (4.3.1., Fig. 4.1 L.) Among ﬁve otherwise unidentiﬁed niṣedhikās at the Nasiyāṃjī in 161 Bārāṃ, a late 15th century CE (s. 155[1?]) niṣedhikā at the Nasiyāṃjī in Bārāṃ commemorates Muni Hemakīrti, a later namesake probably related to the Uttaraśākhā or the Vāgaḍāśākhā, and another has an inscription recording a name ending in -kīrti, perhaps an ācārya. (4.3.18., Fig. 4.30) In the very early 18th century CE (s. 1759), Ācārya Viśvabhūṣaṇa was commemorated in Udayapura along with his superior, the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti. (5.6.2., Figs. 3.27 R. and second from ̥ right, 5.18.) While 15th to 17th century CE Digambara saṅghas had a very diverse composition, with renouncers of various ranks, both male (brahmacārīs, munis, some upādhyāyas, ācāryas, maṇḍalācāryas, bhaṭṭārakas) and female (brahmacāriṇīs, kṣullikās, āryikās), by the 18th century CE the Digambara ascetic landscape had signiﬁcantly changed. The muni rank has become obsolete, the numbers of brahmacārīs plummet, and female renouncers also largely disappear from the record. The 18th century CE bhaṭṭāraka communities were instead constellations of bhaṭṭārakas, ācāryas, and lay paṇḍitas. (2.3.5.) The epigraphic corpus of the Ānteḍa Nasīyā necropolis in Ajamera, a site which saw its major development in the second half of the 18th century CE, oﬀers a good overall sample of this later period. Next to those of the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents, the site preserves memorials of ﬁve mid-18th century CE ācāryas (s. 1782-1821, Fig. 6.10) and 19 or twenty, 18th to 20th century CE paṇḍitas (s. 17[??]-1992, Fig. 6.13-16), but not a single muni, brahmacārī, or female renouncer. (6.2.) At the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata, a s. 1882 pādukā commemorates one Jinasāgara, a pupil of the local Lāṭaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Vidyānandi and possibly a brahmacārī, and further lower-ranking renouncers may have been commemorated by unidentiﬁed pādukās at the site. (3.4.3.) Figure 3.27. Memorials of early modern munis and ācāryas. Niṣedhikā of Muni Prabhācandra (s. 1564, second from left) in ruined chatrī (left), Kalyāṇa Ṭhākura Mandira, Naugāmā. (January 2014) Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Viśvabhūṣaṇa (s. 1759, right) in a chatrī also commemorating Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti (second from right). Śantinātha Mandira, Aśoka Nagara, Udayapura. (March 2013) In Ajamera, 18th century CE ācāryas seem to have formed tight networks with bhaṭṭārakas and lay paṇḍitas. Elsewhere, ācāryas apparently developed larger autonomy from the bhaṭṭāraka seats. At the Nasiyāṃjī (aka Pārśvanātha Mandira) in Bassī, some thirty kilometres east of Jayapura, stand four caraṇa-chatrīs of similar proportions and antiquity. (4.3.8., Fig. 4.11) Two of them still feature 162 pādukās, commemorating the ācāryas Kanakakīrti (pādukā s. 1750, chatrī s. 1781) and Mahīcandra (s. 1828). The other two remain unidentiﬁed. An inscription in the site’s mandira dated to s. 1750 refers to Ācārya Kanakakīrti as a pupil of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti. The memorial inscriptions however fail to pay any deference to the nearby Balātkāragaṇa seat. The Bassī ācāryas may have developed some degree of independence from the Jayapura bhaṭṭārakas, perhaps forming a lineage similar to a succession of 18 th century CE Śākambharīśākhā ācāryas. (6.1.4.) A s. 1681 chatrī in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha commemorates the earlier, Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā aﬃliated Ācārya Harṣakīrti. (4.3.3.) A s. 1849 pādukā in Śaurīpura-Baṭeśvara (Uttar Pradesh) commemorates Ācārya Guṇakīrti and was consecrated by the Cambalaśākhā Gvāliyarapaṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Jinendrabhūṣaṇa. (2.2.3.10.) The latest memorial commemorating an ācārya is a s. 1855 multi-pādukā slab in Īḍara (Gujarat) commemorating a pupillary lineage including a Brhatśākhā incumbent, one Ācārya Devacanda, and three brahmacārīs. (5.6.5.) ̥ Although memorials of early modern Digambara ācāryas and munis are far outnumbered by those of lineage incumbents, this should not be taken as indicative of their actual numbers. The higherranking bhaṭṭārakas were no doubt commemorated more frequently, and that too with higher quality memorials which were maintained longer and thus had higher chances of survival. We can therefore expect an overrepresentation of bhaṭṭārakas vis-à-vis munis and ācāryas in the preserved corpus of memorials. Textual attestations of munis and ācāryas are indeed more numerous and can be taken as more representative of their prevalence in the early modern bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas (Detige 2018). 3.2.4.4. Early modern female renouncers Memorials of seven pre-20th century CE female Digambara renouncers have been discovered in Western and Central India. Among them are one āryikā, four kṣullikās, one brahmacāriṇī, and one unidentiﬁed female renouncer. The four dated memorials among them all sit noticeably close in time, separated by not much more than a century, from the ﬁrst half of the 15th to the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE (s. 1483-1593). One of these memorials is an anthropomorphic mūrti, all others are niṣedhikās, no pādukās, although these became popular for 20th century CE female Digambara renouncers. A set of three niṣedhikās commemorating female renouncers is installed in a chatrī in Devagaṛha in Central India (Uttar Pradesh), and one niṣedhikā is found installed in a recent shrine. The others are now preserved in mandiras, and it is not clear how and where they were installed originally, whether in chatrīs or in open air. Next to the typical bas-reliefs of padmāsana jinas/ siddhas, niṣedhikās of female renouncers typically feature carvings of both male and female renouncers. (Figs. 3.28, 3.29 R.) The latter no doubt represent the commemorated individuals, the former presumably the heads of the mendicant lineages they belonged to. The inscriptions often attest further female renouncers of various ranks, often in pupillary successions. Textual attestation of female renouncers seem to be more numerous (2.3.1.), and we can assume that only the most popular among them were commemorated. 163 Figure 3.28. Depictions of female renouncers on their niṣedhikās. L.: Female renouncer on an unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā (n.d.,), Śāntinātha Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra, Āvāṃ. (December 2014) Female renouncers in teaching posture (second from right) and with picchī, kamaṇḍalū, and devotee (R.), Atiśaya Kṣetra, Devagaṛha (Uttar Pradesh). (January 2015) Figure 3.29. Niṣedhikās of Kṣullikā Kamalī, Āryikā Hemaśrī, and Kṣullikā Pal[h?]ikā in a chatrī. Atiśaya Kṣetra, Devagaṛha (Uttar Pradesh). (January 2015) The s. 1483 niṣedhikā in Bijauliyāṃ commemorating Brahmacāriṇī Āgamaśrī [Bāī Āgama Siri] already referred to above (3.1.5.) is about four feet high, heavy, and quite ornately embellished. (Figs. 3.15, 4.1) This indicates that, despite her lower brahmacāriṇī rank, Āgamaśrī was a popular and inﬂuential individual. Apart from the lay patronage of her memorial, this is also reﬂected in the two generations of female renunciant pupils of Āgamaśrī recorded in her memorial’s inscription, her direct pupil Bāī Cāritrasiri, and probably two pupils of the latter again (‘Āryā Bāī Lokasiri Vinayasiri’). (4.3.1.) One or two further female renouncers are also attested in the inscription of the s. 1587 niṣedhikā of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Kṣullikā Bāī (Dhū?)nīnī preserved in the Pārśvanātha Mandira in Aḍindā, which features unique depictions of male renouncers in various postures. (3.1.5., Fig. 3.13) The s. 1544 memorial of Kṣullikā Jinamatī preserved in a mandira in Sūrata 164 uniquely depicts this novice from the Balātkāragaṇa Lāṭaśākhā along with her probable teachers or superiors Āryikā Ratnaśrī and Āryikā Kalyāṇaśrī. (3.1.5., Fig. 3.16 R.) A niṣedhikā of an unidentiﬁed female renouncer is installed in a new mandira in Āvāṃ. (Figs. 3.28 L., 4.3 R.) Little inscription remains on the pillar, but its depiction of a standing female renouncer is a feature never found on memorials of male renouncers. The design of this memorial diﬀers from that of three s. 1593 niṣedhikās commemorating Balātkāragaṇa bhaṭṭārakas also found at the site, and it might be older. A possible reading of a remaining fragment of an inscription might rather refer to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha. (4.3.2.) Three niṣedhikās found side by side in a chatrī at the Atiśaya Kṣetra in Devagaṛha, near Lalitpur (Uttar Pradesh), commemorate an āryikā and two kṣullikās of unconﬁrmed lineage aﬃliation. (Fig. 3.29) I cannot at present oﬀer a full reading of the substantial inscriptions running over multiple sides and various parts of the three pillars, but the niṣedhikās commemorate Kṣullikā Kamalī, Āryā Hemaśrī, and Kṣullikā Pal[h?]ikā. The inscriptions do not seem to feature dates, but based on material and stylistic features I estimate the niṣedhikās to date to ca. the 18th century CE. The pillars are well-preserved, rather large, and ornately carved. Square, sharply outlined, and featuring deeply carved ﬁgures, they have a very diﬀerent feel than the niṣedhikās of Western India. The four padmāsana ﬁgures at the upper rung of the pillars are identiﬁed as speciﬁc jinas with lāñchanas (3.1.3.). The transect carving around them is not found on any other niṣedhikā in my corpus. Khaḍgāsana male renouncers on a second, lower level on all side of the pillars are still carved in relatively deep niches, with kamaṇḍalu and picchī placed near their feet. A depiction of a female renouncer appears on a single side of each niṣedhikā, below the male renouncers, and as such expressing their subordinate status. One of the carvings shows a female renouncer in a standard khaḍgāsana posture with kamaṇḍalu on the ground. (Fig. 3.29, central niṣedhikā) A second adds a picchī and a female devotee sitting to her side in a venerational pose. (Fig. 3.28 R.) The depiction of the female renouncer on the third niṣedhikā is not found elsewhere. She sits crosslegged with one hand lifted in front of the body with thumb and index ﬁnger brought together, a teaching mudra. (Fig. 3.28 M.) The depictions of the female renouncers all face to the front-side of the pavilion. This indicates that the three niṣedhikās stand at their original location inside the chatrī, as this detail could otherwise easily have escaped the attention of modern-day renovators. Many other icons at the Devagaṛha Atiśaya Kṣetra have been relocated as part of recent renovation campaigns. Among these are about a dozen niṣedhikās now found along the path leading up to the chatrī with the female renouncers’ niṣedhikās. Most of these feature little inscriptions and are heavily weathered, but these are yet to be studied. 3.2.4.5. Paṇḍitas (18th - 20th century CE) A considerable number of memorials has been found commemorating Digambara paṇḍitas, male, lay ritual specialists or scholars. 34 memorials commemorate a total of 47 individuals (some presumed to be paṇḍitas). They date from the second half of the 18th to the ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE, the majority to the 19th century CE. All discovered paṇḍita memorial are pādukās from Rajasthan. By the time paṇḍitas became the object of commemoration, niṣedhikās had 165 disappeared from Western India. Further research is required to conﬁrm whether paṇḍita memorials were similarly erected elsewhere. Nearly all commemorated paṇḍitas were connected to the bhaṭṭāraka lineages, many recorded as pupils of bhaṭṭārakas. Some inscriptions record teacher-pupil lineages of paṇḍitas which ultimately lead back to bhaṭṭāraka traditions. In the present corpus, only two late 19th century CE paṇḍitas commemorated in Jhālarāpāṭana may have been Terapanthīs. (Fig. 7.3, 7.1.) The oldest paṇḍita memorials are found at the Ānteḍa Nasiyāṃ in Ajamera. Six or seven paṇḍita pādukās at this site belong to the 18th century CE, one belongs to the 19th century CE, and two multi-pādukā slabs installed in s. 1992 commemorate in sum ten more paṇḍitas. (6.2.6.) Seven paṇḍitas in pupillary succession with seemingly shifting allegiance to the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa are commemorated on three memorial stones (s. 1887-1992) in Sākhūna. (6.3.) Mostly 19th century CE pādukās of paṇḍitas related to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā are found at nasīyās in Jayapura (s. 1880, 4.3.12.; prob. two more n.d., 4.3.13.) and in other nearby towns, Caurū (s. 1888, 4.3.14.), Phāgī (s. 1924, 4.3.15.), Būndī (4, s. 1911-19[5?]6, 4.3.17.), and, probably, Bagarū (4, n.d., 4.3.16.). Memorials of paṇḍitas belonging to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha have been found in Surapura (s. 1927, 3.4.4.), Bairāṭha (s. 193[0?], 3.1.6.), and Pratāpagaṛha (3 pādukās in two chatrīs, among which one double pādukā, s. 1879; prob., s. 18[96?], prob. s. 1[8]66, 2.2.1.). Some of the paṇḍita memorials are caraṇa-cabūtarās or small shrines with pādukās. Especially on sites where bhaṭṭāraka memorials were also still being erected, paṇḍita memorials took more modest forms (except at the site in Bairāṭha, see 3.1.6.). Yet many other paṇḍita memorials are average-sized or even considerably large caraṇa-chatrīs raised on high platforms. Iconographic features often diﬀerentiate the paṇḍita pādukās from coeval pādukās of renouncers. Instead of the ascetics’ kamaṇḍalu and picchī, paṇḍita pādukās regularly depict a scripture (śāstra), a symbol for scriptural learning, and other, probably ritual objects. (e.g., Fig. 4.29, 3.1.2.) Beyond that, however, the paṇḍita memorials are iconographically and architecturally identical to those of renouncers. Their pādukās also regularly feature funnels or openings in the frame meant for the outﬂow of ablution liquids. (e.g., Figs. 4.28, 4.29) Although some ritual veneration no doubt took place at the paṇḍita memorials, the inscriptions of a few paṇḍita pādukās in the Jayapura region include a phrase which might indicate that they were not meant for the formal pūjā rituals which were probably commonly performed at the memorial stones of bhaṭṭārakas and perhaps other fully initiated renouncers. (3.5.1) Paṇḍitas were active in the Digambara traditions from at least the medieval period. It is striking therefore that memorials of paṇḍitas only appear after the Digambara saṅghas had become devoid of brahmacārīs, munis and ācāryas, in the second half of the 18th and the 19th century CE. They also disappear again in the ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE, when growing numbers of itinerant Digambara munis started to roam. After the implosion of the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas, paṇḍitas presumably took up functions in teaching and ritual otherwise also performed by renouncers. And along with this, they also rose as personae of importance, ﬁlling the vacuum left in the absence of lower-ranking (non-bhaṭṭāraka) renouncers. (2.3.7.) When Digambara munis reappeared on the scene, the status of lay paṇḍitas was curbed back, and when the commemoration of the former was initiated, memorials of paṇḍitas were no longer consecrated. The erection of paṇḍitas’ 166 memorials from the later 18th to the early 20th century CE, when no munis or ācāryas were available as potential objects of commemoration, may itself have ﬁlled a void in Digambara devotional praxis. The practice of commemorating paṇḍitas in that period in turn also helped preserve Digambara practices of commemoration and carry these through into the 20th century CE. 3.2.5. Consecrating agents The inscriptions of Digambara memorial stones usually record who performed their consecration.204 As with mūrtis (icons), yantras (ritual diagrams), and other ritual objects which are found in much larger numbers in mandiras, most pre-20 th century CE Digambara memorial stones were consecrated by bhaṭṭārakas. Memorials of lower-ranking renouncers and paṇḍitas were mostly consecrated by the incumbent bhaṭṭāraka of the lineage they were aﬃliated to. Bhaṭṭārakas also typically commemorated their direct predecessors, although not infrequently we ﬁnd cases where they installed the memorials of their predecessor to the second (dādā-guru) or third degree (para-dādā-guru), or even earlier predecessors. In the 17 th and 18 th to early 19 th century CE Balātkāragaṇa Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, for which we have an almost complete corpus of bhaṭṭāraka memorials, a tradition seems to have developed of bhaṭṭārakas commemorating their dādā-gurus. (Chart 3.1) At the K īrtistambha Nasiyāṃ in Āmera, Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti erected a caraṇa-chatrī (n.d. [< s. 1722]) of his predecessor Devendrakīrti, but Narendrakīrti (d. s. Chart 3.1. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas consecrating predecessors’ memorials. 1722) himself and his successor Surendrakīrti (d. s. 1733) were commemorated by a twin chatrī (n.d.) built by again the latter’s successor Jagatkīrti. Jagatkīrti (d. s. 1770) in turn was commemorated in s. 1771, probably again by his direct successor Devendrakīrti, of whom no memorial has been discovered. At the Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ in Jayapura, the later Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti (p. s. 1852, succeeded s. 1880) consecrated caraṇachatrīs of both his dādā-guru Kṣemendrakīrti (p. s. 1815, succeeded s. 1822) and his para-dādā-guru Mahendrakīrti (p. s. 1790, succeeded s. 1815) at a single event in s. 1853. Sukhendrakīrti’s direct The consecrating agent is usually referred to by one of a number of terms, including pratiṣṭhita (consecrated), sthāpita (established), and 'gurūpadeśāt’ (‘upon the instruction [upadeśa] of the guru’). In inscriptions of Śvetāmbara gacchas where ācāryas do not perform the consecration (Añcalagaccha, Pūrṇimāgaccha), their role in the process is nevertheless indicated by the latter term upadeśāt (John Cort, personal communication, 17th May 2024, referring to Dundas 2009, Cort 2010b). For the Digambara inscriptions included in my present corpus, there is no reason to doubt that this term designates the individual who also consecrated the murtīs. 204 167 predecessor Surendrakīrti (p. s. 1822, succeeded s. 1852) was commemorated with a caraṇa-chatrī at the same site in s. 1881 by again his second successor in line, Sukhendrakīrti’s successor Narendrakīrti (p. s. 1880). A caraṇa-chatrī of Sukhendrakīrti was erected in Cākasū in s. 1886, once more by his second successor in line, Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1883). No memorials have been found of Devendrakīrti and the ﬁnal two Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents who still ﬂourished after him. Two late Balātkāragaṇa bhaṭṭāraka memorials were consecrated by incumbents of other lineages. One Balātkāragaṇa Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti, probably the late Lāṭaśākhā incumbent reported to have died in Ahamadābada in s. 1928 (Śītalaprasāda 1919: 38), consecrated three memorial stones at the Pagelejī Nasīyā in Sāgavāṛā at a single event in s. 1905, a double pādukā commemorating the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭārakas Guṇacandra and Hemacandra and a pādukā of a paṇḍita related to the Laghuśākhā (5.5.2.), and a pādukā of the naked and itinerant Muni R̥ ṣabhasena (7.1.). And a caraṇa-cabūtarā of the Śākambharīśākhā Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Kanakakīrti in Gvāliyara was consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti of the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa in s. 1972, when the Nāgaura-paṭṭa was still functional. The Śākambharīśākhās are known to have maintained relations to communities of migrated, Rajasthani Digambara Jains in Central India at the time. The Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent Harṣakīrti may have been visiting the region for other purposes, and as such it would have been an easier option to let him function as a pratiṣṭhācārya for the memorial than to invite Kanakakīrti’s own, ﬂourishing successor from Nāgaura. The close relations between both Śākambharīśākhā seats may have made Harṣakīrti preferable to the incumbent of the Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa, which was also ﬂourishing nearby but was connected to local castes. (6.4.2.) As discussed (2.2.4.2.), it is not clear whether ācāryas and maṇḍalācāryas typically had the prerogative to perform icon consecrations, but we do occasionally ﬁnd mūrtis (icons) and yantras consecrated by them. Lower-ranking renouncers sometimes also consecrated memorial stones, and by the 18th and 19th century CE even lay paṇḍitas did so. According to its inscription, the s. 157(5?) niṣedhikā of Brahmācārī Ratnasāgara at the Choṭī Nasīyā in Sāgavāṛā was consecrated by Ācārya Ratnakīrti, presumably the second Laghuśākhā incumbent, and built by (Vijaya?)bhūṣaṇa, a lower-ranking renouncer recorded without rank as a pupil of the Brhatśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti ̥ (I). (#5.26, 5.4.2-3.) At the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera, the necropolis of the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa, Ācārya Rājakīrti constructed the chatrī of the earlier incumbent Vidyānandi in s. 1810 (‘chatrī ācāryya-śrī-rājakīrtti-[(j?)ī karāī’, #6.4), and on the same day in s. 1828 the cabūtarās of three paṇḍitas (‘cyautaro karāyo’ etc., #6.20-22). (6.2.3.) None of the four pādukā inscriptions render it explicit that Ācārya Rājakīrti also consecrated them. Vidyānandi’s memorial is dated to the same day as when Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti consecrated caraṇa-chatrīs of other Ajamera-paṭṭa predecessors of his, and it seems likely he also consecrated that of Vidyānandi. Perhaps Ācārya Rājakīrti received the honour of being recorded as having had it built. It is very well possible however that Ācārya Rājakīrti did consecrate the memorials of the paṇḍitas, who stood below him in the hierarchy of the 18th century CE Ajamera-paṭṭa hierarchy and over whose activities he might have had some responsibility. This is all the more likely since 18th and 19th century CE paṇḍitas themselves also consecrated memorial stones of other paṇḍitas at the site. 168 The inscription of Paṇḍita Tulsīdāsa’s s. 1828 pādukā attests two paṇḍitas as involved in its creation. (#6.23, 6.2.6.) Paṇḍita Vaṇadāsa had the memorial built (‘cyautarā karāpitaṃ’), while another, Paṇḍita Dayācanda, is recorded to have established it, probably meaning that he consecrated it (‘pādikā-sathāpana kīyā’). And exactly a century later, in s. 1928, Paṇḍita [Ṭhoga?]lālaka consecrated the pādukā of his guru Paṇḍita Navanidhirāma. (#6.25, 6.2.6.) The members of a local paṇḍita tradition in Sākhūna also consecrated each other’s memorials. (6.3.) The s. 1887 pādukā of Paṇḍita Vimanarāma was built (‘kāritā’) and probably also consecrated (‘(prāṣṭapya?)’) by his three paṇḍita pupils Viradhīcanda, Devakarṇa, and Panālāla. (#6.26) And the s. 1918 memorial of the paṇḍitas Varddhamāna and Devakaraṇa was consecrated (‘praṭhisthāpitā’) by Paṇḍita Amīcandra and his pupil Phatelāla, the latter presumably also a paṇḍita. (#6.27) The s. 19[5?]6 caraṇa-chatrī of Paṇḍita Ratnalāla at the Nasyājī in Būndī was consecrated by Nemicanda and Hīrālāla, probably also paṇḍitas. (4.3.17.)205 3.2.6. Other elements Memorial inscriptions occasionally attest further lower-ranking further renouncers (ācāryas, munis, brahmacārīs)206 or paṇḍitas,207 apart from the individuals commemorated. They are recorded as involved in the establishment of the memorials, as the pupils or devotees of the commemorated individuals, or more generically as ‘eternally bowing’ to them. Some inscriptions also record the saṅgha as paying respects along with the consecrating bhaṭṭāraka, which I take to refer to the ascetic community. (5.4.5.) The presence of this element in inscriptions of early 18th century CE memorials in Udayapura, and its absence in related, coeval memorials in Sāgavāṛā, can be used as an indication that at this time the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā seat and saṅgha was located in Mevāṛa ̥ region rather than in Vāgaḍā. (5.4.5., 5.6.2.) The inscription of the pādukā of Ācārya Bhānukīrti at the Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā records that he died in a town at some distance outside of Ajamera. (3.3.1., 6.2.4.) As mentioned, a few paṇḍita memorials in the Jayapura region include an idiomatic phrase which seems to indicate that these memorials were not meant for pūjā veneration. (3.5.1.) Inscriptions of memorial stones only rarely record the names of lay sponsors and their family genealogies which are commonly found in manuscript colophons and mūrtilekhas, and never a dedication of merit. In the present corpus, only a handful of memorials from the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE feature lengthy genealogies of lay donors. A hypothetical explanation is that the commemoration of especially lineage incumbents was predominantly practiced by their successors, as has been attested in contemporary South India (3.5.3.), and therefore less explicitly connected to laypeople than the cults of temple icons. The s. 1571 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā kīrtistambha ̥ Vice-versa, paṇḍitas occasionally also called upon bhaṭṭārakas from other places to consecrate the pādukās of their paṇḍita forebears even if these bhaṭṭārakas’ actual links to them might have been rather limited (Būndī, s. 1949 [2], 4.3.17.; Sākhūna, s. 1992, 6.3.; Surapura, s. 1927, 3.4.4.). 205 The inscription of the s. 1725 niṣedhikā of Ācārya Kalyānakīrti at the Choṭī Nasīyā in Sāgavāṛā for example records his muni rank dādā-guru and muni rank guru, and one muni, four brahmacārīs, and two paṇḍitas as his pupils. (5.4.3.) 206 An inscription in the s. 1681 chatrī of Ācārya Harṣakīrti at the Nasiyā in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha for example records two paṇḍitas and exceptionally also refers to all the mahājanas of the town. (#4.4, 4.3.3.) 207 169 of Naugāmā was patronised by Humbaḍa caste laity. (5.3.5.) A reported s. 1589 niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra from Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha (4.3.3.) and s. 1593 niṣedhikās of Prabhācandra and his two Uttaraśākhā predecessors found at the Nasīyā in Āvāṃ (4.3.2) were patronised by Khaṇḍelavāla caste laypeople. The latter retrospective commemoration project was part of a larger consecration festival also organised by Khaṇḍelavāla donors. The kīrtistambha in Naugāmā is installed in a substantial chatrī, the creation of which was also a large project. The inscribing of a lay genealogy on a kīrtistambha speciﬁcally is perhaps also indicative of the close interconnection between ascetic lineage and caste history. The name of a lay sponsor is also recorded more summarily, without family genealogy, in a s. 1771 pādukā inscription at the Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ in Āmera.208 (4.3.6., #4.10) The caste aﬃliation of commemorated renouncers is not usually recorded. Only the inscription on the s. 1681 chatrī of Ācārya Harṣakīrti in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha records him as a Kāsalīvāla (‘kāśilīvāla-gotre’, #4.4, 4.3.3.). Occasionally, the inscriptions record the names of the artisans who built the memorial structures or carved the memorial stones or their inscriptions. The latter, s. 1771 inscription at the Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ in Āmera mentions the artisan who constructed the chatrī (‘kārīgara rāma-jī chatrī karī’, #4.10). The short inscription on the s. 1863 pādukā of the Nāgaura-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalabhūṣaṇa found in Nāgaura notes that is was carved (‘li.’, = likhita, etc.) by one Paṇḍita Umedarāja.209 Names of scribes are also recorded in the inscriptions of two s. 1949 paṇḍita pādukās at the Nasyājī in Būndī.210 (4.3.17.) An inscription on the hexagonal platform of the 1942 CE memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Vīrasena (d. 1938 CE), the last incumbent of the Mūlasaṅgha Senagaṇa seat in Kārañjā (Maharashtra), mentions the name of the artisan (‘kārīgāra, gajadhara’) who built the now collapsed chatrī, a Muslim from Jaisalamera (Mubāraka Khān Abdullā).211 The inscriptions of Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials in the Jayapura region from the late 18th and the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE consistently defer to the ruling Kachavāhā mahārāja. (2.4., 4.3.10., Detige 2024b) This is indicative of the long-lasting association between this Balātkāragaṇa lineage and this royal dynasty. The inscription of a s. 1589 niṣedhikā of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā founder Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra reported from Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha by Kāsalīvāla (1989: 177) also already recorded the rule of the local ruler Rāva Sūryasena. (4.3.3.) A few more memorial inscriptions refer to local rulers. The s. 1949 caraṇa-chatrī of Paṇḍita Śivalāla in Būndī records a ruler of Ajamera, Rāvā Rapudīra Siṅha. (4.3.17.) The s. 1571 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā kīrtistambha at the Nasīyājī in ̥ Naugāmā (5.3.5.) has a reference to the reign of an unnamed ruler over the Vāgaḍā land.212 It appears in a long foundation inscription which also includes an extensive family pedigree of its Hūmbaḍa caste lay patrons, another feature rarely encountered on early modern Digambara Lay patrons are also recorded in the inscription of the Śvetāmbara memorial at the commemoration site in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha. (4.3.3., unpublished inscription) 208 209 ‘li. paṃ. umedarāja-śrī’ (#6.29; Fig. 6.21, 6.4.1.). 210 ‘kārīgara-{gyāratā?}rāmena liṣitāḥ’ (#4.25), ‘kārīgara-narasighāna liṣitāḥ’ (#4.26). (4.3.17.) 211 ‘kārīgara gajadhara mobara[ka?] [kh?] abad[u/ū]la 1942 jesalameravālā māravāḍī’. ‘vāgavara-deśe rājādhirājye’ (unpublished inscription), seemingly a contraction of the common phrase ‘mahārājādhirāja māhārāja X-rājya’, and probably a scribal error. 212 170 memorials. As such, the inscription conforms more to the template of manuscript colophons, where the reference to the ruler is far less uncommon. The substantial s. 1887 memorial of the Brhatśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti at the Sambhavanātha Mandira in Īḍara has a separate inscription ̥ recording the victorious rule of Māhārāja Gambhīra Siṅha over the fortress of Īḍara. (#5.53, 5.6.5.) In the latter two cases, the uncommon reference to a local ruler seems to have been aimed at drawing connections between ascetic and royal polities. (2.4.3.) 3.3. Finding spots 3.3.1. Cremation sites Digambara memorials generally seem to have been built in the towns where the commemorated renouncers died, and at the sites where they were cremated. Some of the ﬁnding spots are still used for the cremation of locally deceased itinerant renouncers. The sites are often referred to as nasīyā (or variations213). These are plots of land which although now often engulfed by sprawling suburbs lay outside of the historical town centres. In this sense, they were suitable cremation grounds, away from inhabited areas. Nasīyās are often managed by the same committee as one or more old mandiras in town, sometimes those known to have been home to the bhaṭṭāraka seat.214 This indicates that these sites originated as part of the bhaṭṭāraka estates. Local Jains sometimes hold that nasīyās served to accommodate renouncers away from the hustle and bustle of the towns. This is not conﬁrmed by historical sources and seems a projection of a contemporary ideal of ascetics as standing outside of lay society (on which, see Cort 2022). Wherever available, isolated hillocks were preferred places for the erection of early modern Digambara memorials. (Fig. 3.30) Lakeside banks were also used.215 Mandiras found at many of the memorial sites were sometimes built under the aegis of the bhaṭṭāraka traditions. Yet these mandiras and other structures often postdate at least the earliest memorials.216 This indicates that these were originally cremation and commemoration sites which subsequently saw further developments. Mandiras at nasīyās located in areas where Digambara families live, like those resulting from allotment housing projects focusing on Jains, are sometimes well-frequented on a daily basis. Most however are relatively calm compared to mandiras in town. Often spacious plots of land in congested cities, nasīyās do serve various other functions nowadays. Many serve as marriage and festival grounds. Sometimes grand development projects are initiated at these sites as part of which various buildings and new features are added, including See H. Śāstrī 1967, Polyākā 1990. Many variants occur in site names, like nasīyāṃ, nasiyāṃ, nasīyājī, nasyājī, nisiyā, nisīyā, nasyā; nisāyī, and nasīhā in Madhya Pradesh; and nissaī in Maharashtra. I use nasīyā throughout, except in site names, when I follow local names. The term then appears capitalised. 213 The management of the Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ in Āmera for example falls under that of the Neminātha (Sāṃvalājī) Mandira (4.3.6.), and the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera is related to the Bābājī kā Mandira (6.2.). 214 E.g., Pagelejī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā (Fig. 5.15 R., 5.5.2.), Bhānapura (Śvetāmbara, Fig. 5.16 second from left, 5.5.3.), Pratāpagaṛha (2.2.1.), possibly Digambara Jaina Nasiyāṃ, Nāgaura (6.4.1.). 215 E.g., Nasiyā, Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha (4.3.3.); Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera (4.3.6.); Śantinātha Mandira, Aśoka Nagara, Udayapura (5.6.2.). 216 171 mandiras, colossal jina mūrtis in open air, accommodation for pilgrims (dharamśalā, yātrī-nivāsa) and ascetics (santa-nivāsa, etc.), Sammedaśikharajī miniature models,217 etc. To attract visitors, the sites are often promoted as pilgrimage sites (tīrtha) or places of miracle (atiśaya-kṣetra).218 Memorials of contemporary renouncers are also regularly constructed at these sites. Figure 3.30. Hilltop nasīyās. Top L.: Yogīndragiri, Sāgavāṛā. (January 2014) Top R..: Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. (January 2014) Bottom L.: Nasiyā, Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha. (December 2014) Bottom R.: Pahāṛīvāle Bābā/Śiva Ḍūṅgarī/ Baṛī Nasiyā, Cākasū (December 2014). Some ﬁnding spots feature single memorials or small numbers of them only. Others came to constitute veritable necropoles with considerable numbers of memorials of lineage incumbents, lower-ranking renouncers, or paṇḍitas. (3.4.) Larger memorial sites are especially found at the towns where seats of mendicant lineages were established for a prolonged time. At two nasīyās in nearby towns in the Vāgaḍā region, single chatrīs served as communal memorial structures in which up to respectively a dozen and a dozen and a half, mostly 16th and 17th century CE memorial stones of renouncers aﬃliated to the Balātkāragaṇa Vāgaḍāśākhās were gradually added. (3.4.1.) The Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera is the largest necropolis discovered in Rajasthan, with mostly 18th-20th century CE pādukās commemorating almost three dozen lineage incumbents, ācāryas, and paṇḍitas related to the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa. (3.4.2.) 217 E.g., Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera (6.2.); Nasiyājī, Naugāmā (5.3.). Bijauliyāṃ: ‘Pārśvanātha Atiśaya Kṣetra Digambara Jaina Pārśvanātha Atiśaya Kṣetra’ (4.3.1.) Nasīyā, Āvāṃ: ‘Śāntinātha Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra’ (4.3.2.) Bhaṭṭāraka Nasiyāṃjī, Cākasū: ‘Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra Akṣayanidhi Ādīśvara Dhāma (Nasiyāṃjī)’ (4.3.11.), Nasiyāṃjī, Bārāṃ: ‘Śāntinātha Khaṇḍelavāla Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra’ (4.3.18.), Nasiyājī, Naugāmā: ‘Vāgvara Sammedaśikhara Atiśaya Kṣetra’ (5.3.1.), Sāgavāṛā: ‘Yogīndragiri Atiśaya Kṣetra’ (5.4.1., 5.4.6.). 218 172 Most sites feature memorials aﬃliated to one speciﬁc tradition and lineage. Occasionally, cremation and commemoration sites were shared by diﬀerent traditions. This can be seen near pilgrimage sites,219 where renouncers may have died while visiting, but also at two other sites. At a hilltop site in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha, ﬁrst a Digambara and then a Śvetāmbara memorial were erected before a Digambara mandira gave the site a more outspoken aﬃliation. (4.3.3.) The largest Digambara necropolis discovered in Western India is the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata (Gujarat), a site with close to a hundred memorials, including those of bhaṭṭārakas of multiple Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha lineages. (3.4.3.) A smaller site in Surapura has Balātkāragaṇa, Nandītaṭagaccha, and Śvetāmbara memorials, with a site with royal and Hindu ascetics’ memorials also nearby. (3.4.4.) As discussed, probably four of the eight sizeable chatrīs at the Naśiyā in Bairāṭha (Virāṭanagara) are memorials of individuals relating to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha, the others Hindu, possibly royal chatrīs. (3.1.6.) Although Digambara memorials probably were most typically erected at the commemorated individuals’ cremation sites, the present corpus contains a good number of counterexamples. Among these are memorials of lineage incumbents erected several decades after their demise, in towns known not to have been the location of their seat. Niṣedhikās of the three successive Balātkāragaṇa bhaṭṭārakas Śubhacandra, Jinacandra, and Prabhācandra were consecrated together in the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE (s. 1593) in Āṃvā. Āṃvā is not found attested anywhere as having been the regular place of residence of any of them. Instead, it was their successor Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra, who consecrated the memorials, who was active in the town. (4.3.2.) And in the mid-18th century CE, Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti and an ācārya associated with him developed the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera into a necropolis of their lineage by erecting caraṇachatrīs of four earlier Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents, three of whom are attested to have been seated elsewhere. (6.2.3.) At the same site, the inscription of Ācārya Bhānukīrti’s pādukā uniquely records that the ācārya died in Dāṃtā, probably the town of that name some 20 kilometres away from Ajamera. Ācārya Bhānukīrti may have been commemorated in Ajamera after cremation in Dāṃtā, or his corpse may have been brought to the Ānteḍa Nasīyā for cremation. (6.2.4.) Textual sources attest that some Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā incumbents also died in other towns than those where their memorials are found. (5.1.5.) (Ācārya) Yaśakīrti for example is found commemorated at the necropolis in Naugāmā, although he is recorded to have died in Bhīloḍā, a town 35 km away from Naugāmā. (5.3.2.) In such cases, successor incumbents and devotees probably chose to continue expanding existing necropoles. About half a dozen Western Indian bhaṭṭārakas are also found commemorated at two places. One of these memorials then probably indicates the actual place of death and cremation, while we can often trace speciﬁc motivations for the consecration of a secondary memorial elsewhere. (3.3.2.) 219 R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī (5.6.4.), Cāndakheḍī (3.3.3.). 173 Memorial stones of early modern Digambara renouncers are regularly found in mandiras. Pādukās are often installed on vedis between other icons.220 Iconographically ambiguous, devotees now probably often take these to represent jinas. A few niṣedhikās are also found in temples, mostly installed on a low plinth in a secondary shrine.221 Some of these memorial stones are found in recent mandiras, and sometimes local Jains know them to have been moved into the temples in recent times. Material or epigraphic indications also indicate that these memorials are not found on their original location. The inscriptions of s. 1822 and s. 1881 memorial stones nicely installed on the ﬂoor in a side room of the Jūnā Mandira in Sāgavāṛā for example refer to the chatrīs in which they were originally installed (Fig. 5.13, 5.5.2., 5.6.1.)222 Others too were probably transferred to temples to protect them, or because the chatrīs to which they originally belonged had fallen into disrepair or were being demolished to make space for new building projects. This distinguishes early modern memorials found preserved in mandiras from the recent pādukās of famous 20th century CE Digambara ācāryas which are found in mandiras across India and are especially produced for this purpose (3.1.7.). Only in the Vāgaḍā region in the late 18th and ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE, the installation of renouncers’ memorials next to town centre mandiras or in chatrīs annexed to temples seems to have become fashionable. Two unidentiﬁed chatrīs were erected next to the Nayā Mandira in Sāgavāṛā, one with memorial stones dated to s. 1802, the other undatable but probably slightly more recent. (5.5.2., 5.6.1.) The inscription of a s. 1855 multi-pādukā slab at the Pārśvanātha Mandira in Īḍara also refers to this temple as its original place of installation. And two decades later (s. 1887), a spacious memorial chatrī was annexed to the Saṃbhavanātha Mandira in the same town. (5.6.5.)223 3.3.2. Multiple memorials A number of Western Indian bhaṭṭārakas were commemorated at two diﬀerent sites. Among these are two incumbents of the Balātkāragaṇa Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā (ﬁrst half 16th and mid-17th century CE), four or possibly ﬁve Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭārakas (late 17th to ﬁrst half of 19th century CE), ̥ possibly one Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa bhaṭṭāraka (second half 19th and ﬁrst half 20th Choṭā Mandira, Narainā (s. 1083, no lineage, Fig. 3.25 L., 3.2.4.1.); Neminātha Mandira, Sojitrā, Gujarat (s. 1707, unidentiﬁed, Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha); Cintāmaṇi Pārśvanātha Mandira, Ankleśvara, Gujarat (s. 1756, Fig. 5.12 M., 5.5.1.); Cintāmaṇi Pārśvanātha Mandira, Sūrata, Gujarat (s. 1812, Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha, Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti, 3.4.3., unpublished inscription); Bīsapantha Baṛā Mandira, Nāgaura (s. 1863, Śākambharīśākhā Nāgaura-paṭṭa, Fig. 6.21, 6.4.1.); Mahāvīra Mandira, Hāṃsī, Haryana (s. 1895, Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha, Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti, unpublished inscription); Nasīhājī, Gvāliyara, Madhya Pradesh (s. 1938, Balātkāragaṇa Cambalaśākhā Gvāliyara-paṭṭa, Fig. 6.22 R., 6.4.2.); Vighnahara Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra, Mahuvā, Gujarat (three pādukās which I could not inspect, among which an undated pādukā commemorating a Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti, probably the Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa incumbent from the second half of the 19th century CE, 2.2.3.8.). 220 Pārśvanātha Mandira, Aḍindā (s. 1587 and n.d., Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha, Fig. 3.13, 3.1.5.); Śāntinātha Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra, Āvāṃ (3 x s. 1593, Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, Fig. 4.3 M. & R., 4.3.2.); Saṅghijī Mandira, kīrtistambha in Sāṅgānera (s. 1777/1783, prob. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, Fig. 4.10, 4.3.7.). A s. 1610, Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ the Jūnā Mandira in Sāgavāṛā probably stands at its original location. 221 These chatrīs may have been located next to the mandira, like those remaining just behind the Nayā Mandira (see next). 222 Śvetāmbara renouncers are also sometimes cremated on open land near mandiras, and their memorials then constructed there (John Cort, personal communication, 21st July 2022). 223 174 century CE), and a late Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha incumbent (second half 20th century CE). Next to these, two diﬀerent pādukās of two Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha incumbents from the second half of the 18th and the early 19th century CE are also reported from a single site in Sūrata (Gujarat). (3.4.4.) And one of the memorials of the late Śākambharīśākhā bhaṭṭāraka is located at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera, while another reportedly stood at a diﬀerent site closer to the town centre of Ajamera, but was no longer found there. In all other cases, the two memorials are found in diﬀerent towns. No lower ranking, pre-20th century CE renouncers have been found commemorated with more than one memorial. It is not surprising that speciﬁcally bhaṭṭārakas received this honour, as they were the highest ranking and most venerated individuals prior to the 20th century CE. We can often guess which of the two memorials indicates the actual place of demise and cremation, and gauge speciﬁc factors motivating the establishment of the secondary memorial. One of the memorials is often found at a pre-existing necropolis, or more generally in the town where the seat of the commemorated bhaṭṭāraka’s lineage had been located. His devotees might have found it opportune to erect a memorial at such an established commemoration site although he passed away elsewhere. The memorial at the less obvious location then often stands out as more likely indicating the actual place of demise. Vice-versa, local communities at secondary places of activity of a bhaṭṭāraka may also have wanted to create a memorial in their own home town. In other cases one of the memorials forms part of a later, broader commemoration project. And sometimes a bhaṭṭāraka who moved his seat to a new town proceeded to erect a second shrine of his predecessor there even though he had died elsewhere. In such cases, next to their direct purpose of ritual commemoration, the secondary memorials probably served to legitimise the successor and his lineage in his new hometown. A chatrī of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra (p. s. 1571-80) is reported from Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha as dated s. 1589 (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 177), and a s. 1593 niṣedhikā of his is also found in Āvāṃ (4.3.2., Fig. 4.2). The latter memorial is found alongside niṣedhikās of Prabhācandra’s immediate predecessors Śubhacandra and Jinacandra. These memorials were installed together, at a grand consecration festival held for a new mandira. This indicates that the chatrī in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha, ﬁnalised a few years earlier, more likely indicates Prabhācandra’s actual place of death and cremation. An undated caraṇa-chatrī of the later Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (d. s. 1691) is found at the Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ in Āmera, consecrated by his successor Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti (paṭṭa s. 1691-1722). (4.3.6., Fig. 4.8) The inscription of a second, s. 1696 pādukā of Devendrakīrti found at the Nasiyā in Sāṅgānera indicates that it was also consecrated by Narendrakīrti, and also installed in a chatrī originally. (4.3.5., Fig. 4.6) Devendrakīrti is reported to have been associated with the towns of Cākasū and Sāṅgānera, while his successor Narendrakīrti was consecrated in Sāṅgānera but later shifted to Āmera, as the ﬁrst Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent to have his seat there. (4.1.2.) It thus seems most likely that Devendrakīrti’s memorial in Sāṅgānera indicates his place of death, and that Narendrakīrti built a secondary memorial in his newly adopted home-base in an attempt to moor his lineage more fully there. Such a motivation also seem to be conﬁrmed by the fact that Narendrakīrti built a large memorial platform for 175 Devendrakīrti’s caraṇa-chatrī, on which his own memorial and that of two further successors were also erected later on. (4.3.6.) Several 18th and early 19th century CE Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā incumbents are found commemorated ̥ at two diﬀerent towns. The earliest, of these, Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti was commemorated in Udayapura in s. 1759 (5.6.2., Fig. 5.18), and a pādukā of his is also reported from the Vidyānandi Kṣetra, the necropolis in Sūrata (no date available, 5.6.3.). The Brhatśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti is commemorated both at the Choṭī Nasīyājī in Sāgavāṛā ̥ (5.4.5., Fig. 5.9) and at the Candraprabhu Caityālaya in Āyaṛa, near Udayapura (5.6.2., Fig. 5.19). Both memorials were consecrated by Narendrakīrti’s successor Vijayakīrti (II), and their inscriptions carry the same date in the early 18th century CE (s. 1769). In Āyaṛa (Udayapura), separate pādukā and niṣedhikā stones are found relocated inside what probably was their original chatrī. The memorial in Sāgavāṛā also consists of separate pādukā and niṣedhikā stones installed in a chatrī, but here the pillar doubles as a Brhatśākhā kīrtistambha. Epigraphic evidence from the memorial ̥ inscriptions and contextual information indicate that Udayapura is most likely Narendrakīrti’s place of death. The construction of the secondary memorial in Sāgavāṛā can be contextualised in relation to the attested controversy between the two Vāgaḍāśākhās concerning the authority over Sāgavāṛā, with the formerly subordinate Laghuśākhā relocating to the town after the Brhatśākhā’s ̥ expansion into Mevāṛa. Erecting a secondary memorial of Narendrakīrti with an additional kīrtistambha function at the long-standing Vāgaḍāśākhā necropolis at the Choṭī Nasīyājī was probably a means for the Brhatśākhā to proclaim its authority over Sāgavāṛā, vis-a-vis both the ̥ Laghuśākhā and the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha, which was also active in town around this time. (5.4.5.) Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II) is himself commemorated on a later, s. 1855 multi-pādukā slab at the Pārśvanātha Jinālaya in Īḍara (5.6.5., Fig. 5.24), but an unidentiﬁed, s. 1802 memorial in Sāgavāṛā may have been his original memorial (5.6.1., Fig. 5.17 L. & M.). Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti dated to s. 186(6?) A beautiful, ornate chatrī of the later Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ stands at the Candragiri hillock in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī. (Fig. 6.21, 5.6.4.) A s. 1863 pādukā of his is also reported from the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata. (5.6.3.) Again both memorials were consecrated by the same successor, be it this time the second successor in line, Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti. The former, larger memorial, found at an outlaying pilgrimage site, more likely indicates the actual site of Candrakīrti’s passing. The Vidyānandi Kṣetra on the other hand was a longstanding necropolis of various lineages where in the second half of the 18th and the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE a substantial number of Brhatśākhā memorials were consecrated. Among these is ̥ a pādukā of Yaśakīrti’s immediate predecessor Rāmakīrti, consecrated along with that of Candrakīrti. (5.6.3.) It seems likely then that the pādukā of Candrakīrti was added to the Sūrata necropolis although he died in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī. If my hypothetical reading of the R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī memorial’s date as s. 1866 is correct, it postdates the pādukā in Sūrata by three years. It might well have taken a few years to gather funds for the erection of the grander 176 chatrī in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī, while adding a generic pādukā to the Sūrata necropolis required less resources and was achieved faster. Two memorials are also found of the Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti himself, both dated to the same day in s. 1887. Next to again a pādukā at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra (5.6.3.), there is also a far more substantial memorial at the Saṃbhavanātha Mandira in Īḍara (5.6.5.). The latter consists of a pādukā and a niṣedhikā installed on a waste-high plinth in a chatrī annexed to the temple. The latter, grander memorial again more likely indicates the place of death. We have considerable attestations of the activities of Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti in Īḍara, as possibly the ﬁrst ‘Īḍaraśākhā’ incumbent to establish his seat here in the ﬁrst decades of the 19th century CE. The inscription of the pādukā in Īḍara uniquely indicates that Yaśakīrti consecrated this memorial himself. The date recorded on the memorials is thus that of the their consecration, rather than of Yaśakīrti’s death. (5.6.5.) A memorial of the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa dated to s. 1992 is found at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā. (Fig. 6.16). Another was reported from the Baṛe Dhaṛe kī Nasiyā in Ajamera by Kāsalīvāla (1989: 165), but could no longer be retrieved. Dated to s. 1939, the latter would have been Ratnabhūṣaṇa’s original memorial. The later memorial formed part of a concerted eﬀort to commemorate a large number of earlier individuals related to the Ajamera lineage (two bhaṭṭārakas and eight paṇḍitas). (6.2.5.) Two memorials are ﬁnally also found of the late Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti. A chatrī with a portrait statue and a pādukā stands at the Jain boarding school in Pratāpagaṛha, with an inscription dating the chatrī to s. 2023. (Fig. 3.12 M. & R.) A s. 2034 pādukā of Yaśakīrti is also found in a clearly older, reused chatrī at the Candragiri hillock in R̥ ṣabhadevaKeśarīyājī. (5.6.4., Fig. 5.22 R.) Yaśakīrti resided at the Jain boarding school in Pratāpagaṛha where the ﬁrst memorial stands, and also had a residence in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī, but it is not clear where he died and was cremated. 3.3.3. Removal, dilapidation, renovation, repurposing Memorials serve to sustain networks of devotion for some time after the death of respected individuals. (7.3.) As memories of them fade, their memorials are also visited more rarely, disregarded, and sometimes left to dilapidate. Only a few Western and Central Indian bhaṭṭārakas are still venerated at their memorials with regularly performed rituals. (3.5.2.) An example of a site which was in a particularly bad state of preservation at the time of my visit is the necropolis in Surapura. (3.4.4.) At other sites a pujārī or other caretaker might look after the memorials, sometimes cleaning them, anointing them with water, oﬀering dravya, and lighting an oil lamp on a daily basis. Individual visitors touring a site will sometimes climb the chatrīs’ staircases and oﬀer some dravya at the pādukās. At memorial sites which are frequented because mandiras or others features continue to attract visitors, chatrīs are more likely to be maintained and renovated. At locations which still have an outspoken Bīsapanthī orientation, memorials of the bhaṭṭāraka traditions are more likely to be maintained, although even there only limited ritual activity is performed at the memorials, and visitors often do not seem to know whom they originally 177 commemorated. Notable examples of sites where pre-20th century CE Digambara memorials are still well maintained are the Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ in Āmera (4.3.6.), the Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ in Jayapura (4.3.10.), and the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera (3.4.2., 6.2.). At the time of my visit, marble slabs lay waiting to be used as new ﬂooring for the multi-storeyed, square Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha chatrī at the Yogīndragiri hillock in Sāgavāṛā, and the structure has meanwhile also been entirely painted white. (Fig. 5.10 L., 5.4.6.) Here, as elsewhere, such renovations of pre-20th century memorials often take place as part of larger development projects. (3.3.1.) Sometimes early modern Digambara chatrīs are reused for new memorial stones or repurposed into small mandiras. Their memorial stones may then be repurposed, relocated or discarded. The square chatrī at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī has been brightly painted and repurposed as a water temple (jala mandira), with a shallow moat dug around it and a water tank added on the roof. The niṣedhikās inside have been preserved, although one of them is reused as a pedestal for a new jina mūrti. (Fig. 5.4 L.) At the (Ādinātha) Nasīyāṃjī in Ṭoṅka, three ca. 19th century CE chatrīs now stand in the courtyard of a modern dharmaśālā which has been erected all around them. (4.3.19., Fig. 4.31) They have been repurposed with recent pādukās, and I didn’t ﬁnd the original memorial stones. At the Nasiyāṃjī in Bārāṃ, two or three chatrīs have been integrated into the wings of a modern-day mandira, while two other chatrīs still stand free inside its courtyard. (Fig. 4.30) The temple compound was erected on an earlier commemoration site, and consciously designed to incorporate the chatrīs. Jina mūrtis have now been installed inside the chatrīs in the courtyard, while those integrated in the building serve as garbhagrhas. (4.3.18.) ̥ Many early modern chatrīs can be expected to have been cleared throughout the centuries and perhaps especially in the last decades. Even at Bīsapanthī sites chatrīs may have been removed because they had become ruined or to make space for new building projects. The inscription of the s. 1696 pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti at the Nasiyā in Sāṅgānera for example records that it was originally installed in a chatrī, which probably had to make way for the new, large mandira which was under construction at the time of my visit. (4.3.5.) Memorial stones now found preserved in mandiras (3.3.1.) may have had similar fates. At the centre of an early modern chatrī at the Candraprabhu Caityālaya in Āyaṛa (Udayapura), a life-size, standing portrait statue of Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’ now replaces the original memorial stones, which are still found to the side. (Fig. 5.19, 5.6.2.) This is a telling expression of the 20th century CE reorientation of the Digambara devotion, now ﬁrmly geared towards the renouncers of the contemporary muni saṅghas. A hilltop site with Digambara memorials and mandiras in Cākasū has been converted into a Śaiva site. (4.3.4.). At memorial sites with a continued Bīsapanthī aﬃliation, chatrīs related to the bhaṭṭāraka traditions are often preserved. When chatrīs are repurposed or removed, the original memorial stones are often kept. At sites which now have a Terāpanthī orientation, testimonials of the bhaṭṭāraka-related past are generally unwanted, and memorials are more likely left to dilapidate, to be removed, or repurposed, and the memorial stones discarded or repurposed. It seems to have been Terāpanthī leanings which inspired the strategies of dealing with pre-20th century CE Digambara chatrīs and memorial stones at sites in Cāndakheḍī (Fig. 3.31) and Canderī (Madhya Pradesh, Figs. 3.32-35). 178 The Ādinātha Atiśaya Kṣetra in Cāndakheḍī,224 Khānapura, between Koṭā and Indaura, in Rajasthan but close to the border with Madhya Pradesh, is a popular Digambara pilgrimage place. A board at the entrance door to the mandira prescribes ritual at the site to be performed in the Terāpantha fashion. Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 34) reported two bhaṭṭāraka chatrīs from this site, one built in s. 1860 by one Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanendrakīrti of what he called the Siroñja-paṭṭa, and the other built in s. 1883 by Bhaṭṭāraka Rājendrakīrti. Oddly, Jaina (Ibid.) did not give information on who they commemorated. No Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanendrakīrti is known from other records, but this may well be an alternative name for a Bhuvanakīrti. Jaina’s (Ibid.) reference to the ‘Siroñja-paṭṭa’ seems to locate him in the Mālavāśākhās (2.2.3.9.). The only Bhaṭṭāraka Rājendrakīrti known to Joharāpurakara (1958: 244) is a possible match, a Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha incumbent known to have ﬂourished at least from s. 1910 until s. 1929, his successor Munīndrakīrti dying in s. 1952, and his predecessor Lalitakīrti attested from s. 1861 to s. 1885 (Ibid.), but probably also already commemorating his own predecessor Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti in Bairāṭha (Virāṭanagara) in s. 1851 (3.1.6.).225 Jaina (1978: 34) reported the chatrīs as located in a park in the compound of the mandira. During my visit in December 2014, I found no free-standing chatrīs, but instead two chatrīs without Jaina memorial stones were integrated into a recent, U-shaped dharamśalā compound at the site. One chatrī had been integrated into the ground ﬂoor of one wing of the new compound, a room ﬁtted exactly around the chatrī. (Fig. 3.31 second from left) The room functioned as an electricity control room, but a Śiva liṅga, Ganeśa mūrti, and other Hindu stones installed on a seemingly original vedi inside the chatrī were obviously still in ritual usage. Vermilion-dabbed Hindu carvings next to the steps of the chatrī, still visible on the outside of the new building, seemed to indicate that it was a Hindu chatrī originally too. (Fig. 3.31. L.) The preservation of the Hindu shrine inside the Jain accommodation building seems to have been a compromise with Hindu practitioners, who seem to have been permitted to continue using the place of worship. Elsewhere in the temple complex too, a row of Hindu stones, including at least one hero stone, had been integrated into a new building and were still venerated. Figure 3.31. Two chatrīs integrated into the ground ﬂour (L. & second from left. &) and higher stories (other photos) of recent dharmaśālā buildings. Atiśaya Kṣetra, Cāndakheḍī. (December 2014) 224 Chand Kheri, 90 km south-east of Kotā, 65 km south-east of Mandasaura. Another possible match, despite the diﬀerent suﬃx in his name then, would be the Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Rājendrabhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1920, Joharāpurakara 1958: 131, lekha 328), his predecessor Mahendrabhūṣaṇa attested from s. 1852 to s. 1876 (Ibid.: 130-1, lekhas 325-7). 225 179 The second chatrī I found integrated into new buildings was apparently raised on a particularly high plinth originally. The ﬂoor of the chatrī levels up to that of the ﬁrst storey of the new accommodation building, and its dome protrudes from the roof of the two-storied building. (Fig. 3.31 R.) The chatrī was well masked by the walls of the present compound, an entrance door to the chatrī from the gallery of the dharamśalā unmarked and kept locked. (Fig. 3.31 M.) I could not get access to the room, but could peep through a grill above the door. (Fig. 3.31 second from right) The spaces between the chatrī’s pillars were walled up. Some traces remained centrally under the dome where a memorial stone had probably been removed. A framed photo portrait of a Digambara muni with a withered ﬂower garland and in front of it two dozen small clay cups used for oil lamps and a coconut were placed inside the chatrī. The former chatrī had apparently been used for the ritual veneration of the depicted muni, possibly Muni Sudhāsāgara, who was instrumental in the development of the site. Cāndakheḍī is one of several sites where the Terāpanthī-oriented Sudhāsāgara, the main pupil of Ācārya Vidyāsāgara, is claimed to have miraculously brought up ancient mūrtis carved of semi-precious stone allegedly hidden in an underground room, protected by nāgās and only accessible to hardened ascetics. Sudhāsāgara again visited Cāndakheḍī since, spending his cāturmāsa there in 2021 CE. Staﬀ at the Cāndakheḍī Atiśaya Kṣetra was dismissive of my questioning about the chatrīs, but one respondent informed me that the pādukās of the two discovered chatrīs had been disposed of, that one Jaina chatrī had been demolished, and that a cabūtarā had also been present before. I take it that the chatrī integrated into the ﬁrst ﬂoor of the dharmaśālā and the demolished chatrī are the two Jaina memorials reported by Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 34), who then did not mention the Hindu chatrī. The demolishment and repurposing of the chatrīs and the disposal of their pādukās may relate to Muni Sudhāsāgara, who seems to have been associated with the development of the site and is known to oppose Bīsapantha Digambara history. The inclusion and concealment of the chatrīs in a modern building seems to represent a compromise with other actors who opposed their destruction, and as such a speciﬁc strategy of dealing with the bhaṭṭāraka past. The site’s reported second Jaina chatrī may have been demolished because it was found diﬃcult to integrate into the plans for the new buildings, or because it was in a poor condition already. B. Jaina (1978: 34) reported that the inscription on the site’s main mūrti, a two metre high Ādinātha, recorded its consecration by the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti in s. 1746. This inscription no longer seemed to be present at the time of my visit, and was probably polished oﬀ. This is another case of the deliberate removal of explicit references to the bhaṭṭāraka legacy reported by Terāpanthī munis like Sudhāsāgara elsewhere as well.226 In January 2015, I found a number of chatrīs in the process of being converted into small mandiras at Khandārajī (Khandāragiri), a site just south of the town of Canderī (Chanderi, Madhya Pradesh). (Fig. 3.32) The site is famous for its rock-cut jina icons in half-open caves on a high cliﬀ, including a few colossal images. Some of these belong to the 13th century CE, others were consecrated in the 16th and 17th century CE by bhaṭṭārakas of the Balātkāragaṇa Mālavāśākhā (B. Jaina 1976: 96-9). B. I have not heard of any cases where Terāpanthīs deem mūrtis consecrated by pre-20th century CE bhaṭṭārakas unworthy of veneration. The preferred strategy instead seems to be the removal of inscriptional evidence of the bhaṭṭārakas' agency. 226 180 Jaina (1976: 97) reported chatrīs and cabūtarās of Mālavāśākhā bhaṭṭārakas from Khandāragiri, adding that the largest memorial on site was that of Bhaṭṭāraka Padmakīrti and also mentioning a pādukā dated to s. 1717. I found four closed chatrīs at the foot of the cliﬀ, and estimate one larger chatrī among these to date to the 17th or 18th century CE (Fig. 3.32 bottom), and three smaller, cubical chatrīs with modest drums and cupolas to the (18th or) 19th century CE (Fig. 3.32 top). Figure 3.32. Four repurposed chatrīs, one possibly dating to s. 1717 and commemorating Bhaṭṭāraka Padmakīrti (bottom), Khandāragiri, Canderī (Madhya Pradesh). (January 2015) All four chatrīs have a veranda added on the entrance side, which at least in the earlier ones is clearly a later addition to the original structures with a square ground plan. The addition of these verandas may have been a part of a renovation at the site commemorated by a plaque dated to 1966 CE, probably predating their more recent conversion into mandiras. Two of the chatrīs 181 featured khaḍgāsana mūrtis identiﬁed in their inscriptions as having been consecrated in 1992 CE by paṇḍitas in the presence of Ācārya Vidyāsāgara’s pupil Muni Sudhāsāgara.227 The largest and clearly oldest chatrī on the site was originally an eight-pillared pavilion, which has been closed oﬀ by walls added between the pillars. It was being further revamped at the time of my visit. (Fig. 3.32 bottom) A new vedi had been installed inside but a mūrti was not yet present. This likely is the structure reported by B. Jaina (1976: 97) as a memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Padmakīrti, possibly dating to s. 1717.228 The other chatrīs, hypothetically, could have been memorials of Padmakīrti’s successors Sakalakīrti (s. 1711-20, Joharāpurakara 1958: 209) and Surendrakīrti (ref. from s. 1756, Ibid.), the last known incumbents of this Mālavāśākhā lineage (2.2.3.9.). Figure 3.33. Pādukās reinstalled on concrete platforms, some repurposed, Khandāragiri, Canderī (Madhya Pradesh). (January 2015). A number of pādukās found installed in open air on two platforms near the Khandārajī chatrīs are estimated to date to ca. the 19th century CE based on stylistic grounds. (Fig. 3.33) Among these are three large pādukās slabs, one smaller pādukā, and three double pādukās, two of the latter elongated slabs with particularly small pādukās. The three largest pādukās featured inscriptions identifying them as commemorating Bhadrabāhu, Kundakunda, and Samantabhadra, key Digambara ﬁgures from the classical and early medieval period. Both the script, with connected Devanagari characters, and some of the terms used, like ‘digambarācārya’ and ‘svāmī’, show that these inscriptions are recent. The pādukās were repurposed, and older inscriptions may have been removed in the process. Given their estimated dating and their relatively high numbers, especially the smaller pādukās may have commemorated paṇḍitas. Two objects also found reinstalled on concrete platforms nearby seem to be the top sections of two similar niṣedhikās with padmāsana I didn’t fully document a recent creation at the site, an original memorial of Jñānasāgara (probably Ācārya Vidyāsāgara's guru of that name) and ﬁve (of his?) gurus, consisting of six caraṇa-chatrīs arranged around a tall kīrtistambha with marble panels depicting Digambara munis interacting with laypeople (teaching, āhāra, etc.). 227 Joharāpurakara (1958: 209) had attestations of Padmakīrti’s predecessor Dharmakīrti running up to s. 1683, and attestations of his successor Sakalakīrti from s. 1711 to s. 1720, so the reported pādukā of s. 1717 likely was Padmakīrti’s memorial stone. Probably taking his information from B. Jaina (1976: 97), P. C. Śāstrī (1992: 88) also noted the memorial of Padmakīrti from Khandārajī (Canderī), but interpreted the date as recording Padmakīrti’s death in s. 1717, and concluded from this that the attestations of his successor Sakalakīrti collected by Joharāpurakara (1958: 204-5, lekhas 533-5) from s. 1712 and 1713 (and, in fact, s. 1711) must attest another bhaṭṭāraka of that name. It is more likely however that the pādukā’s date is that of its belated consecration. (See 3.2.3. on the various types of dates inscribed on Digambara memorial stones). 228 182 jina carvings. (Fig. 3.34) These do not feature any inscriptions, but probably predate the site’s chatrīs. Figure 3.34. Probably top sections of niṣedhikās, reinstalled on concrete platforms, Khandāragiri, Canderī (Madhya Pradesh). (January 2015) None of the memorial stones could be identiﬁed or aﬃliated to any tradition or lineage, but in all probability they all relate to the local Balātkāragaṇa Mālavāśākhā or to the Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa which seems to have taken over its activities in town after the discontinuation of Padmakīrti’s Mālavāśākhā. It seems probable that at least some of the pādukās were originally installed in the chatrīs. Their antiquity also seems to match with that of the later, ca. 19th century CE chatrīs. Given the recorded involvement of Muni Sudhāsāgara in the installation of the 1992 CE mūrtis now found in the chatrīs, it seems possible that the pādukās were taken out of the chatrīs upon his instructions. The repurposing of the chatrīs and the reinstallation of the repurposed pādukās on platforms nearby represent a way of engagement with the material legacy of the bhaṭṭāraka era which is both more moderate and more thorough than the concealment of the chatrī and the disposal of the pādukās in Cāndakheḍī. A vermillion clad Kṣetrapāla in a recent chatrī on the site also indicates that the site and its supporters still maintain a Bīsapantha identity.229 Two chatrīs inside the Pārśva Mandira in the town centre of Canderī are probably also repurposed memorials. (Fig. 3.35 L. & R.) The chatrīs are now painted in bright colours and furnished with glass casings, and function as vedis. One of the chatrīs stands in a part of the temple that has been roofed over recently, and the concrete roof has clearly been ﬁtted around it. (Fig. 3.35 R.) It now features a single, new, large, white marble Bāhubalī mūrti. The second chatrī stands in a part of the temple which is still partially open. (Fig. 3.35 L.) It is two-tiered, and a ﬂight of concrete stairs has Although icons of deities are sometimes also maintained at Terāpanthī sites because of their popularity and deemed miracle-working properties, and even ﬁscal considerations are attested as leading aniconic Śvetāmbara communities to maintain icons in former mūrtipūjaka mandiras (John Cort, personal communication, 17th May 2024). 229 183 been added to provide access to the second storey. This chatrī now houses a collection of old brown stone jina mūrtis. The design of both these chatrīs is more in line with that of the Western Indian memorial pavilions than the heavy, cubical chatrīs at Khandārajī. I estimate them to date to ca. the 17th or 18th century CE. Given its profuse decoration with abstract and ﬂower motifs in carved relief, the two-tiered chatrī is the youngest of the two. It features the same, rare, curved brackets supporting its overhangs, and the same corbel elements as the large chatrī at Khandārajī. (Fig. 3.32 bottom) Given this material similarity, these two chatrīs probably stand close in time. Taking the chatrī at Khandārajī to be a memorial of the Balātkāragaṇa Mālavāśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Padmakīrti, those at the Pārśva Mandira could hypothetically have been memorials of his direct predecessors Lalitakīrti and Dharmakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1645-83, Joharāpurakara 1958: 207). It is not clear what happened to the memorial stones of the two chatrīs of the Pārśva Mandira. The pādukās at Khandārajī seem to be younger, and the niṣedhikā fragments also found there could instead be older. A brightly painted pillar also found at the Pārśva Mandira may be dated to s. 1706 and was installed by three pupils of Bhaṭṭāraka Padmakīrti, Brahma Jinadāsa, Paṇḍitarāja Saṅga (?), and one ?[ū?]ma[dāsa?]. (Fig. 3.35 M., unpublished inscription) Neither the preserved inscription nor iconographic elements indicate that the pillar was a niṣedhikā. Figure 3.35. Two repurposed chatrīs (L. & R.) and a pillar (M.), Pārśva Mandira, Canderī (Madhya Pradesh). (January 2015) The two Digambara mandiras at Canderī are replete with mūrtis consecrated by bhaṭṭārakas of the local Balātkāragaṇa Mālavāśākhā and by 18th and 19th century CE incumbents of the Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa. The latter probably took over the functions of the Mālavāśākhā bhaṭṭārakas after their lineage was discontinued. The chatrīs at the Pārśva Mandira and at least the larger, older chatrī at Khandārajī presumably commemorated bhaṭṭārakas, or less likely, other renouncers, related to the local Mālavāśākhā. The smaller and later chatrīs at Khandārajī and the 184 larger number of pādukās found there postdate the demise of the Mālavāśākhā. These may have been memorials of individuals aﬃliated to the Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa, perhaps paṇḍitas or lower-ranking renouncers (yati) functioning as its local representatives. 3.4. Necropoles 3.4.1. Vāgaḍā necropoles Necropoles of the Balātkāragaṇa Vāgaḍāśākhās are found in Naugāmā and Sāgavāṛā, two nearby towns in the Vāgaḍā region. Among thirteen possibly late 15th, and 16th to early 17th century CE niṣedhikās found at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī, memorials could be identiﬁed of four lineage incumbents (three recorded as ācāryas, one as maṇḍalācārya), two or probably three ‘common’ (non-incumbent) ācāryas, one muni, and three brahmacārīs, most related to the Laghuśākhā. Two niṣedhikās at the site remain unidentiﬁed. (5.3., Figs. 5.2, 5.3) The site also features a Brhatśākhā kīrtistambha, and an early 16th century CE niṣedhikā at a Hindu temple at a short ̥ distance from the Nasiyājī commemorates another Digambara muni. (5.3.3., Fig. 3.27 left & second of left) At the Choṭī Nasīyājī in Sāgavāṛā seventeen niṣedhikās dating to the early 16th to the early 18th century CE commemorate renouncers of both Vāgaḍāśākhās, including ﬁve lineage incumbents (three bhaṭṭārakas, two maṇḍalācāryas), four ācāryas, two munis, and three or possibly four brahmacārīs. The inscriptions of four niṣedhikās do not allow a reading of the rank of the commemorated renouncers. (5.4., Fig. 5.6) A separate, round chatrī next to the communal memorial structure is an early 18th century CE memorial commemorating a Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭāraka ̥ with a pādukā and a niṣedhikā, the latter doubling as a kīrtistambha. A few unidentiﬁed, pre-20th century CE caraṇa-cabūtarās are also found near the top of the hillock. The epigraphic corpus of the Naugāmā and Sāgavāṛā necropoles in itself allows for several insights. Including memorials of renouncers of various ranks, these sites ﬁrstly oﬀer a valuable glimpse into the constitution of the 15th to 17th century CE Digambara saṅghas, showing that lowerranking renouncers ﬂourished in good numbers in the early modern Vāgaḍāśākhās, and, as conﬁrmed by other sources, by extension in the Balātkāragaṇa more broadly. (5.3.3., 5.4.3.) The memorial inscriptions, secondly, include important evidence that the Laghuśākhā did not arise from a bifurcation of the Vāgaḍāśākhā, but instead gradually developed as a subordinate succession of ﬁrst ācāryas and then maṇḍalācāryas which again later grew into an independent bhaṭṭāraka lineage. (5.1.3.) The dating and aﬃliation of the memorials at both sites, thirdly, also indicates the shifting location of the seats and saṅghas of both lineages. During the absence of the Brhatśākhā, its former mother lineage, and after a period of controversy, the Laghuśākhā was able ̥ to expand its inﬂuence over Sāgavāṛā and maintain its seat there until its discontinuation in the mid-19th century CE. (5.1.4.) Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Chāṇī’ (1888-1944 CE), one of the three illustrious ācāryas traditionally seen as having spearheaded the 20th century CE muni revival, died in Sāgavāṛā in 1944 CE and was commemorated at the Choṭī Nasīyājī, despite his own explicitly Terāpanthī orientation. Memorials of a growing number of contemporary Digambara renouncers are being erected on the lower 185 slopes of the Choṭī Nasīyājī and on the facing hillock, the Yogīndragiri, where early modern Kāṣṭhāsangha Nandītaṭagaccha memorials are also found. (5.4.1.) The oldest datable memorial at the Choṭī Nasīyājī dates to from s. 1579. This site has thus been serving as a Digambara cremation site since exactly ﬁve centuries at least.230 In fact, with numerous early modern and contemporary memorials at both memorial hills and at a number of further sites within a short range in the town centre (5.5.2., 5.6.1.), one could conceive of the whole of Sāgavāṛā as a Digambara necropolis. 3.4.2. Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera The Ānteḍa Nasīyā (aka Āteḍa Chatariyāṃjī) in Ajamera is a rich necropolis of the Balātkāragaṇa Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa. (6.2., Fig. 6.4) The site is a good example of a Digambara nasīyā, outside of the historical town centre and atop an isolated hill. On the hillock’s ﬂat upper ridge stand 11 chatrīs (incl. one repurposed) and 18 cabūtarās, the latter with an idiomatic octagonal shape. Two multi-pādukā slabs are installed in the tibārā-like top ﬂoor of a multi-storeyed building occupying one side of the hillock. I found in total 23 pādukā slabs at the site at the time of my visits in February 2013. The memorial stones of a number of cabūtarās and chatrīs were lost or covered with cement or plastering. Memorial stones could be identiﬁed commemorating ten lineage incumbents (maṇḍalācāryas and bhaṭṭārakas), one from the early 16th century CE and all others from the early 18th to the 20th century CE, ﬁve mid-18th century CE ācāryas, and 18, probably 19 paṇḍitas, commemorated from probably the late 18th to the 20th century CE. Indicative of a shift in the preferred commemorative iconography by this time vis-a-vis the niṣedhikās of the earlier Vāgaḍā necropoles, all memorial stones at the Ajamera necropolis are pādukās. The majority of the memorials at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā date to the 18th century CE. At this time, Vijayakīrti (p. s. 1802 - prob. s. 1830) established his seat in Ajamera as possibly the ﬁrst Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent with the bhaṭṭāraka rank. Vijayakīrti developed the Ānteḍa Nasīyā into a necropolis of his lineage by erecting memorials of earlier predecessors who had been seated elsewhere. (6.2.3.) Later Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa bhaṭṭārakas were also commemorated at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā, and the site came to feature memorials of all incumbents of the lineage since the Śākambharīśākhā bifurcation at the turn of the 18th century CE apart from the last one. (6.2.5.) The site may in its entirety have known a unique ritual function for the veneration of the whole Ajamera lineage, mirrored only by the kīrtistambha iconography (3.1.4.) and the possible ritual usages of paṭṭāvalī texts (3.5.1.). Caraṇa-cabūtarās of ācāryas installed in a steady succession in the mid-18th century CE form some of the thickest evidence for the ﬂourishing of ācāryas in the 18th century CE bhaṭṭāraka lineages. (6.2.4.) Around the same time and in the decades after, similar caraṇa-cabūtarās of paṇḍitas were also built in good numbers, indicating that these lay religious specialists already occupied positions of signiﬁcance at the time. (6.2.6.) The epigraphic corpus of the Ānteḍa Nasīyā thus speaks of the composition of the 18th century CE bhaṭṭāraka circles as constellations of bhaṭṭārakas, ācāryas, and paṇḍitas. Despite the Terāpanthī orientation of Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Chāṇī’, and although the pre-20th century CE memorials at the Choṭī Nasīyājī were clearly not frequented much, there was no sign at the time of my visit of attempts to eliminate the Bīsapanthī identity of the memorial sites or the mandiras in Sāgavāṛā. 230 186 3.4.3. Vidyānandi Kṣetra, Sūrata By far the largest Digambara commemoration site discovered to date in Western India is the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Katāragāma, Sūrata (Gujarat). This site ﬂaunts close to a hundred early modern and contemporary memorials, including over 80 pādukās lined up in small shrines on three long platforms (vedi). (Figs. 3.36, 5.20) The plot of land is now fully built up with administrative and accommodation buildings, a mandira (Vidyānanda Svāmī Digambara Jaina Svādhyāya Bhavana), a separate close structure with a Jambudvīpa scale model, and an approximately four metre high, khaḍgāsana mūrti of Pārśvanātha installed in open air with padmāsana mūrtis of the twenty-four jinas in small shrines around it. The new features draw most of the daily visitors to the site and are the focus of most ritual practice. Yet many visitors also make their way along the pādukās. A pādukā and a recent statue of the early Balātkāragaṇa Lāṭaśākhā incumbent (Maṇḍalācārya) Vidyānandi from the 15th century CE, after whom the site is named, receive special veneration. Āratī is performed in the evening, and an annual festival with a fair (melā) and a large pūjā takes place on Vidyānandi’s death anniversary. (3.5.2.1.) Digambara renouncers were still cremated and commemorated at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in the early 2000s CE (see below). Presuming that it was the commemoration site of Maṇḍalācārya Vidyānandi,231 this is another Digambara necropolis which has been in active use since half a millennium and longer. The site was also shared by multiple bhaṭṭāraka traditions and lineages. Figure 3.36. Pādukās in shrines on long platforms, Vidyānandi Kṣetra, Sūrata, Gujarat. (January 2014) The (Devanagari script) inscriptions of the pādukās at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra were edited in Gujarati script by Kāpaḍiyā (1964: 194-204). They commemorate foundational Jaina ﬁgures like the gaṇadharas Jambūsvāmi and Gautama, classical, and early medieval Digambara ācāryas, litterateurs, and philosophers like Kundakunda, Dharasena, Puṣpadanta, and Raviṣeṇa, early modern and 19th century CE renouncers of various Balātkāragaṇa and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha lineages, and contemporary munis. A large number of pādukās seem to have been replaced during a renovation in s. 1955. The new, substitute stones were reportedly consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra of the local Balātkāragaṇa Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa (Anon. n.d. b: 11). In Kāpaḍiyā’s (1964) edition, their According to B. Jaina (1978: 193), the memorial of Vidyānandi was the ﬁrst memorial to be erected at the site, but there does not seem to be epigraphic evidence for this. 231 187 inscription only records the year s. 1955 and the name of a layman, Śeṭha Māṇekacanda Lālacanda, most probably their patron.232 We don’t know who was commemorated by the replaced pādukās. A further renovation of the vedis took place in s. 1994 (Anon. n.d. b: 11), and plaques attached to the platforms in front of each of the pādukās record yet another renovation in s. 2067/2011 CE. The latter plaques name individual donors and also record the names of renouncers commemorated, but are mismatched to the pādukās actually enshrined at those places. The shrines in which the pādukās are now installed probably date from this latter, recent renovation. Photos of the Vidyānandi Kṣetra fair from an unknown year show diﬀerent shrines than those now in place, with cupolas instead of the current śikharas, and heavier, less decorated pillars. (Fig. 3.40 R., comp. Fig. 3.36) In that earlier set-up, the part of the platform with the mūrtis of ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ Vidyānandi and Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’ also seems to have been exposed to open air, while it now has a similar superstructure as the rest of the pādukā platforms. (Fig. 3.40 L., comp. Fig. 3.38 M.) According to Kāpaḍiyā’s (1964: 195-202) editions of the inscriptions, pādukās of six of the eight last, 18th to 20th century CE incumbents of the Balātkāragaṇa Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa are found at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra: Jinacandra or his successor Vidyānandi (II) (incomplete inscription, s. 1721 [prob. to be corrected to s. 1821], Ibid.: n. 48), again the latter’s successor Devendrakīrti (s. 1841, Ibid.: n. 16), and his successor Vidyābhūṣaṇa (s. 1883, Ibid.: n. 40), Candrakīrti (s. 1921, Ibid.: n. 18), his successor Guṇacandra (s. 1977, Ibid.: n. 7 [according to the inscription died s. 1974]), and again his successor, the last incumbent Surendrakīrti (s. 1987, Ibid.: n. 9). A s. 1882 pādukā consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmacandra (att. s. 1899 [Joharāpurakara 1958: 201], not found commemorated at the site) commemorates one Jinasāgara (no rank), who is recorded as a pupil of the earlier, Bhaṭṭāraka Vidyānandi who ﬂourished in the third quarter of the 18th century CE (Kāpaḍiyā 1964: n. 8). By the time of the latter memorial, munis had disappeared from the bhaṭṭāraka lineages. Ācāryas still ﬂourished (2.3.5.), but the suﬃx -sāgara is more typical for the names of brahmacārīs in the early modern period. Further Balātkāragaṇa pādukās with incompletely preserved (or incompletely edited) inscriptions from the site may also have commemorated bhaṭṭārakas or lower-ranking renouncers aﬃliated to the local Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa. The incomplete inscription of a s. 1730 pādukā seems to indicate that the memorial commemorated Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, successor to Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi (Ibid.: n. 70), probably then referring to the 15th century CE Devendrakīrti, who seems to have left Vidyānandi in charge in the Lāṭa region and to have moved himself to Mālavā and perhaps further. (2.2.3.8-9.) Perhaps the local Sūrata-paṭṭa tradition in the late 17th century CE felt the need to have a memorial stone of this foundational ﬁgure at its necropolis. An early 19th century CE pādukā at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra commemorates the otherwise unknown, last Lāṭaśākhā Bāraḍolī-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra, successor to Ratnacandra (s. 1862, Ibid.: n. 19, 2.2.3.8.). No less than four or ﬁve Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭārakas were ̥ commemorated at the site, Rāmakīrti I (s. 1703, Ibid.: n. 10), Candrakīrti (s. 1863, Ibid.: n. 39), Rāmakīrti II (s. 1863, Ibid.: n. 61), and Yaśakīrti (s. 1887, Ibid.: n. 82). And an apparently undated pādukā of one Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti may well commemorate the earlier, late 17th-early 18th 232 Kāpaḍiyā 1964: 195-202, n. 12, 17, 23, 25, 30, 36, 37, 43, 46, 47, 53, 60, 71, 74, 78. 188 century CE Brhatśākhā incumbent of that name (Ibid.: n. 84). Three unidentiﬁed pādukās which in ̥ Kāpaḍiyā’s (Ibid.: n. 41, 42, 62) reading date to s. 1825 also relate to the Brhatśākhā, including one ̥ commemorating the much earlier Vāgaḍāśākhā founder Sakalakīrti. (5.6.3.). The ﬁnding of a considerable number of Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā memorials is a thus far unique indication of the ̥ activities of this lineage in coastal Gujarat. Incumbents of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha, another tradition which is known to have had a presence at Sūrata, are also found commemorated at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra. Kāpaḍiyā (1964) reports two pādukās of Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti’s successor Sakalakīrti, both dated s. 1824 (Ibid.: n. 44, 85), and two of Sakalakīrti’s successor Lakṣmīsena, one dated s. 1861 (Ibid.: n. 83) and one undated (Ibid.: n. 69). The inscription of one of the pādukās of both incumbents includes a reference to the Narasiṅhapurā caste not present in the other (n. 44, n. 69), so they do seem to be separate memorial stones. None of the four inscriptions as edited by Kāpaḍiyā records who consecrated the pādukās. The three 18th century CE Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha bhaṭṭārakas attested by these pādukās were known to Joharāpurakara (1958: 299), but he reconstructed Sakalakīrti and Lakṣmīsena as both successors to Surendrakīrti.233 Joharāpurakara had references from s. 1744 to s. 1773 for Surendrakīrti (Ibid.: 297), a single attestation of a Sakalakīrti (no rank) in a vernacular composition from s. 1816 (Ibid.: 291-2, lekha 763), and a reference to Lakṣmīsena as the predecessor of Vijayakīrti in the inscription of a mūrti from Sūrata probably consecrated by the latter in s. 1812 (Ibid.: 291, lekha 761). A local story (kiṃvadantī) reported by Śītalaprasāda (1919: 51-2) and recounted by Balabhadra Jaina (1976: 190-1) records Sakalakīrti and Vijayakīrti as quarrelling pupils of Surendrakīrti, both coming to occupy their own seat in Sūrata.234 A s. 1812 pādukā of Surendrakīrti consecrated by Vijayakīrti is preserved at the Mevāṛā kā Mandira / Cintamāṇī Pārśvanātha Mandira in Sūrata.235 Although now fully enveloped by the city of Sūrata, the Vidyānandi Kṣetra was still in use as a cremation ground recently. Behind the Jambudvīpa temple stands a single cabūtarā with pādukās of three renouncers reported to me to have been cremated on site. One pādukā commemorates Muni Karuṇānandi, who according to plaques attached to the cabūtarā was cremated in September 2003 CE, his pādukā installed the same year. Another plaque on the cabūtarā records A third successor of Surendrakīrti, Devendrakīrti, is attested from Maharashtra (ﬂ. s. 1881-85) and a s. 192[9?] mūrtilekha from Sojitrā (Gujarat) attests two further incumbents of his, Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti and Bhaṭṭāraka Amarendrakīrti. (2.2.1.) 233 Accordingly, Sakalakīrti was learned, but Vijayakīrti a fool. The latter was ashamed and went to Karnataka to study, where he eventually became the bhaṭṭāraka of the gaddī of Karamasada (?). When he wanted to come back to Sūrata, his former guru-bhandu Sakalakīrti, who by now was the bhaṭṭāraka of Gopīpura, requested the navāba of Sūrat to bar him from entering the city. When the boatmen refused to ferry him across, Vijayakīrti nevertheless managed to enter the city by using mantras to cross the Narmada river at Bharūca and the Tapti river at Bariyāva (?; he apparently approached Sūrata from the north), and by ﬂying over the city gates which had been closed to him. The navāba repented and the Mevāṛā kā Mandira in the Navāpurā neighbourhood of Sūrata (now known as the Cintamāṇī Pārśvanātha Mandira) was built for Vijayakīrti. 234 Śītalaprasāda (1919: 52) reported a s. 1812 pādukā of Surendrakīrti consecrated by Vijayakīrti from an underground room of the Mevāṛā kā Mandira. Joharāpurakara (1958: 291, lekha 760) reproduced the inscription from this source with some changes. I couldn’t closely inspect and document a damaged, double pādukā slab which I saw in an underground room of this mandira, but the inscription had a date in s. 1812, and recorded the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha and the name of Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti. 235 189 Āryikā Antimamati, who had been initiated by Gaṇinī Āryikā Jñānamati and was cremated in September 2006 CE. These plaques also mention the lay patrons who donated for the cremation and commemoration to be performed. The third pādukā slab on the cabūtarā has the same design as that of the muni, including carvings of picchī and kamaṇḍalu, but has neither an inscription nor a separate plaque. In front of the mandira of the Vidyānandi Kṣetra also stands a small, four-pillared chatrī with a polychrome mūrti of Ācārya Deśabhūṣaṇa encased behind glass windows. (Fig. 3.20, second from L.) A plaque on the shrine is dated to February 2006 CE (s. 2062, v.n.s. 2532) and names its donor and seven laypeople (four men, three women) in whose memory (‘smaraṇārthe’) the memorial was erected. More in line with the long pādukā vedis stands a small, white marble shrine of Muni Sugandhasāgara, with a pādukā and a photo portrait showing him as a kṣullaka. (Fig. 3.18 R.) Apparently Sugandhasāgara took ascetic initiation when his death was imminent, a relatively frequent practice among Digambara Jains. According to a plaque on the memorial, Sugandhasāgara took kṣullaka dīkṣā on the 18th November 2010 CE and muni dīkṣā two days later (20th), dying the same day still. A frame with the same photo portrait of an attentively straight up sitting Kṣullaka Sugandhasāgara was kept at the oﬃce of the site. This indicates that he was a wellknow ﬁgure locally. The plaque on the memorial also records his birth year 1938 CE and his lay name Dānavīraśeṭha Sugamacanda Cimanalāla Śāha, and seems to call him a resident of Pratāpagaṛha. The inscription also records the names are of his brothers, sons, and daughters, and of his dīkṣa-gurus Ācārya Namisāgara and Upādhyāya Samatāsāgara. No date is given for the construction of the memorial, but the whole Digambara society of Sūrata is recorded as the builder. 3.4.4. Surapura A smaller necropolis in Surapura functioned as a cremation site for various religious traditions, probably all active in the nearby city of Ḍūṅgarapura a few kilometres to the east. (Fig. 5.26 R.) The site was neglected and overgrown, and a part was used as a latrine at the time of my visit (March 2013). It has four chatrīs and a number of cabūtarās and small caraṇa shrines featuring identiﬁed pādukās related to the Balātkāragaṇa (1), Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha (3), Śvetāmbara (1), contemporary Digambara (1), and Hindu (4) traditions. (Figs. 3.37, 5.26) Although relating to diﬀerent Digambara and Śvetāmbara traditions, the four chatrīs are erected in a single line. Three of these preserve pādukās, installed directly on the ﬂoor. The ﬁrst, eight-pillared chatrī no longer features a memorial stone, but a jina icon on the corbel allows it to be identiﬁed as Jaina. (Figs. 3.4 top L. & bottom L., 3.37 L., 3.1.5.) The second chatrī in line, also eight-pillared, preserves remainders of ﬁgurative painting inside the dome (Fig. 3.2 bottom) and has a pādukā commemorating the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Rāmacandrakīrti, dated to s. 1939 and consecrated by his successor ̥ Bhaṭṭāraka Kanakakīrti. (Fig. 5.26 L., #5.57, 5.6.6.) The third chatrī in line is four-pillared and features a pādukā dated to s. 1857 (and ś. 1723) commemorating the Śvetāmbara Tapāgaccha Hīravijayasūri, presumably the 16th century CE ācārya who was at the court of the Mughal Emperor Akbar. (Fig. 3.37 third from left, unpublished inscription) The pādukā in the fourth, also four-pillared 190 chatrī is dated s. 1883 and commemorates the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti, who is recorded as the successor to Bhaṭṭāraka Udayasena, his memorial consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Amarasena. (Fig. 3.37 second from left, unpublished inscription) It is not clear which Nandītaṭagaccha lineage is attested here, although it might be further documented and clariﬁed by a fuller reading of the inscriptions of other Nandītaṭagaccha memorials at the site. Figure 3.37. Digambara, Śvetāmbara, and Hindu memorials at a site in Surapura. (March 2013) Left: chatrīs, unidentiﬁed (front), Bhaṭṭāraka Rāmacandrakīrti (s. 1939, partly visible), Śvetāmbara Tapāgaccha Hīravijayasūri (s. 1857, barely visible in the back); second from left: chatrī of Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (s. 1883); third from left: pādukā of Śvetāmbara Tapāgaccha Hīravijayasūri (s. 1857) in chatrī; third from right: pādukā of Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Paṇḍita Rāmapāla (s. 1927) on cabūtarā; second from right: unidentiﬁed caraṇa shrine; right: unidentiﬁed Hindu caraṇa-cabūtarā. A caraṇa-cabūtarā at the site has a pādukā with a prominent drainage outlet dated to s. 1927 and commemorating Paṇḍita Rāmapāla. (Fig. 3.37 third from right, unpublished inscription) Rāmapāla is recorded as a pupil of one Sakalakīrti (‘asāragī [= Ācārya?] sakalakītījī’), himself a pupil of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka (Jñ?)ānakīrti. The memorial stone was consecrated (‘pratīṣṭaṭī’) by Bhaṭṭāraka Jasakīrti and installed (‘sthāpītaṃ’) by his pupil Manālala, probably a paṇḍita. I couldn’t fully inspect the inscription of a pādukā on another cabūtarā because it was too overgrown, but it also referred to the Kāṣṭhāsangha Nandītaṭagaccha and attested a bhaṭṭāraka. I also couldn’t suﬃciently clean the pādukās in two small shrines to enable a reading of their inscription, but they are probably still legible and may also relate to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha. (Fig. 3.37 second from right) An inscription on the front plate of a caraṇa-cabūtarā nearby identiﬁes it as the memorial of one Ānandasāgara (no rank, probably a Digambara muni). The inscription is dated s. 2042 and [19]85 CE and also names the lay couple who had it built. A chatrī and four caraṇa-cabūtarās in the back of the site are Hindu memorials. The chatrī has a pādukā with an inscription which I could not fully read but was possibly dated s. 1986. The inscriptions applied to the table of one of the caraṇacabūtarās record that this memorial commemorates Mahanta Sarayūdāsa, who died in s. 1995/1938 CE and was commemorated by Mahanta Rādhikādāsa in s. 2032/1976 CE, almost four decades later. An homage to Nimbārka (Nimbārkācārya) clariﬁes that these Hindu renouncers relate to the Nimbārka Sampradāya. Three other caraṇa-cabūtarās with the pādukā and a funnel carved directly into the cover plate do not feature inscriptions, but the conches carved onto them indicate their Hindu aﬃliation. (Fig. 3.37 R.) 191 3.5. Ritual There is textual evidence for the performance of rituals at the pre-20th century CE Digambara memorials of Western India, and material features also indicate that the memorials were designed for ritual usage. (3.5.1.) Although there are many indications for the inclusion of relics in current Digambara memorials, it is not clear how commonly relics were enshrined in pre-20th century CE Digambara memorials. (3.5.4.) At sites in Gujarat and Maharashtra, a tradition of ritual commemoration of (presumed) bhaṭṭārakas is continued. (3.5.2.) The ritual veneration of living and deceased, contemporary Digambara renouncers stands in continuity to pre-20th century CE practices, and forms a helpful parallel to understand the former veneration of the Western Indian bhaṭṭārakas. (3.5.3.) Ultimately, an understanding of commemoration practices can also lead to an enhanced appreciation of Jaina ritual and devotion more broadly, including temple ritual. (7.3.) 3.5.1. Evidence of ritual usage of pre-20th century CE memorials As we saw, pre-20th century CE Digambara memorials are often abandoned, removed, or repurposed as mandiras or memorials for contemporary renouncers. When they are maintained and even renovated, this often occurs as general heritage management. And visitors are more likely to take the memorials as commemorating generic renouncers of an undeﬁned past than to have an accurate historical understanding of who they originally commemorated. The memorials then come to be used for depersonalised guru-vandana, but ritual at them is then often quite limited. Material and textual evidence however indicates that early modern Digambara memorials were meant for ritual veneration, which was probably performed for at least some time after the demise of the commemorated renouncers. Sanskrit pūjā (pūjā, pūjana, aṣṭa-dravya-pūjā, aṣṭa-prakārī-pūjā, eightfold veneration) and āratī (lamp oﬀering) compositions in veneration of bhaṭṭārakas have been discovered in manuscript collections of former bhaṭṭāraka seats. The pūjās accompany the oﬀering to a speciﬁc, named bhaṭṭāraka of the usual eight substances of Bīsapanthī eightfold veneration, water (jala), sandalwood (gandha, candana), unbroken rice (akṣata), ﬂowers (puṣpa), sweets or sugar (caru, naivedya), a lamp (dīpa), incense (dhūpa), and fruits (phala).236 Living bhaṭṭārakas were also ritually venerated (2.1.2.), but some of the bhaṭṭāraka pūjā manuscripts explicitly refer to the pādukās (guru-caraṇa, pada-padma, etc.) and thus were clearly meant for veneration at the memorials of deceased bhaṭṭārakas. The same ritual format is used at a few sites in Western and Central India where the commemoration of bhaṭṭārakas is still continued. (3.5.2.) Pūjās and āratīs of 20th and 21st century CE Digambara renouncers are also commonly composed. The verses are now more often written in Hindi, but the same Sanskrit ritual formulas are still used. (3.5.3.) I found bhaṭṭāraka pādukā pūjās in guṭakās (bound manuscripts) preserved in manuscript collections in Jayapura and in Īḍara and Aṅkleśvara (both Gujarat), venerating incumbents of E.g., ‘auṃ hrīṃ śrī parama-caritra-pātra guru-caraṇa-yugala-kamalāya jalaṃ nirvvapāmīti svāha’, ‘auṃ hrīṃ, I oﬀer water to the pair of lotus feet of the illustrious guru, worthy and with superior conduct, svāha’ (Āmera Śāstra-bhaṇḍāra guṭakā n. 1, cat. n. 199). 236 192 respectively the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa, and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha. A manuscript of the Āmera Śāstra-bhaṇḍāra (guṭakā n. 1, cat. n. 199) contains three short ritual compositions in praise of 17th century CE Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas whose memorials are preserved in Āmera (4.3.6.). One of these is a bhaṭṭāraka pādukā pūjā written by Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti in veneration of his guru and predecessor Surendrakīrti,237 the other a similar composition in veneration of Jagatkīrti himself. The third composition praises Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti without mentioning the eight substances, but is called a stuti-pūjā (stuti = praise, eulogy) and also refers to the ‘establishing’ (sthāpana) of the pādukās. The Surendrakīrti pūjā also includes the invocation formula (āhvānana) typically used at the start of Digambara pūjā liturgy, (mentally) summoning the object of veneration to the vicinity of the devotee for the purpose of veneration.238 A guṭakā (n. 78) preserved in the manuscript collection at the seat of the later Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā, ̥ the Pārśvanātha Jinālaya in Īḍara, contains three compositions focusing on pādukās of 16th century CE Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa bhaṭṭārakas. A Bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-Jñānabhūṣaṇa-guru-stavana (introduced as a pādukā-stuti) and a Pādukā-pūjā (or Guru-pūjā) both stand in veneration of Bhaṭṭāraka Jñānabhūṣana, and a Bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-Prabhācandra-pāda-pūjāṣṭaka or Bhaṭṭāraka-śrīPrabhācandra-caraṇa-pūjā venerates the pādukā of his successor Prabhācandra. And a guṭakā (n. 4) preserved at the Mahāvīra Mandira in Aṅkleśvara has a Guru-pūjā-Surendrakīrti-aṣṭaka, a pūjā of the late 17th, early 18th century CE Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti, the successor of Bhaṭṭāraka Indrabhūṣaṇa in the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha, as well as a Guru-carana-pūjana which does not specify the intended object of veneration. Joharāpurakara (1958) edited fragments of pūjās and ārtis of Senagaṇa and Balātkāragaṇa Kārañjāśākhā incumbents. Among the former, all found in manuscripts of the Senagaṇa Mandira in Nāgapura, is an āratī of Bhaṭṭāraka Chatrasena (ﬂ. s. 1754, Ibid.: 19, lekha 61), a guru-pūjā of his successor Narendrasena (ﬂ. s. 1787-, 90, Ibid.: 20, lekha 66), and of Bhaṭṭāraka Siddhasena (ﬂ. s. 1826-46) a Marathi Siddhasena-guru-āratī by Ratana Sāh and a pūjā by Mādhava (Ibid.: 23-4, lekhas 78, 82). Joharāpurakara (1958) also included fragments of two guru-pūjās of Kārañjāśākhā bhaṭṭārakas, the 17th century CE Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmacandra (Ibid.: 54, lekha 126) and the early 18th century CE Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, the latter a composition by Jivanadāsa (Ibid.: 62, lekha 161, p. 74). A guṭakā in a private collection in Kārañjā dated to s. 1983 has compositions on the last Kārañjāśākhā incumbents ‘Moṭhe’ Devendrakīrti (d. s. 1941), Ratnakīrti (d. s. 1953), and ‘Lahāna’ Devendrakīrti (d. s. 1973) from the late 19th and the early 20th century CE, Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti aṣṭaka (guru ko gādī jī ko aṣṭaka), Guru-pūjā, Guru kī ārati, Devendrakīrti āratī, Śrī Guru Ratnakirtī ārati, Guru ko visarjana. Some of these compositions have also been printed in a recent pūjā-pāṭha manual, as Śrī Devendrakirtī Mahārājāṃce aṣṭaka, Devendrakirtī cī āratī 1, Ratnakirtiṃcī āratī, Devendrakirtīcī āratī 2, Guru-visarjana (Anon. 2011: 153-8, 179-83). Some features of the pādukās also indicate that they were designed for ritual usage. Many feature carved drainage channels for oblation liquids (e.g., Figs. 3.24 top R., 4.12 L., 4.29, 5.13, 5.14 R., 5.24 L., ‘atha bhaṭṭāraka jī śrī maheṃdrakīrtti jī kā pādukā pūjā likhyate’ (‘now the pūjā of the pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti is written’). 237 ‘oṃ hrīṃ parama-cā[ri]tra-pātra-guruṇaṃ caraṇa | atrāvatarāvatara saṃvauṣaṭ āhvānanaṃ’ (‘om hrīm, the feet of the guru, one worthy and with superior conduct, incarnate here, incarnate, samvausat, the invocation’). 238 193 6.21), and some models have very prominent spouts (e.g., Figs. 3.25, 3.37 middle two photos). On the s. 1887 pādukā of the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti in Īḍara, which according to the ̥ inscription was consecrated by Yaśakīrti himself, a narrow drainage channel was somewhat clumsily carved into the pādukā slab, attempting to avoid the inscription. . (5.6.5.) It was probably added after the memorial stone had come of use, and the need for its addition had become apparent. In the closed chatrīs of the Balātkāragaṇa necropolis in Kārañjā (Maharashtra, 3.5.2.2.), a channel through the wall is provided to drain liquids poured on the pādukās. An unidentiﬁed, possibly Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā and probably ca. second half of the 18th century CE pādukā installed in a chatrī behind the Nayā Mandira (aka Gāndhī Mandira) in Sāgavāṛā uniquely features a large space on the slab beyond the spout which vice-versa seems to have been meant for the collection of ablution liquids, perhaps meant to be used for further ritual purposes. (Fig. 5.17 R., 5.5.2.) Since the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata (Gujarat) is known to have seen repeated renovations (3.4.3.), we don’t know how the pādukās at the site were installed earlier on. Their current arrangement is however clearly intended to facilitate ritual veneration, allowing visitors to ﬁle along the long platforms and reach the lined-up pādukās without stooping. The idiosyncratic set-up of a few chatrīs in Bairāṭha is presumably also meant to facilitate ritual access, their pādukās installed chest-high in a brick wall added between two of the pillars. (Fig. 3.17 R.) In most chatrīs, the pādukās are installed on the ﬂoor or on low plinths, necessitating the devotee to bow down to the commemorated and venerated individual. Pādukās carved on the four sides of the unique memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī were possibly intended to be used by several devotees simultaneously, again raised on a waist-height plinth to enable easy access. (5.6.4.) Occasionally, niṣedhikās (3.1.3.) and kīrtistambhas (3.1.4.) also show structural features indicating that they were meant for ritual practice. Kīrtistambhas have a close relationship to individual memorials.239 They resemble niṣedhikās, were erected at nasīyās along with memorial stones of early modern renouncers, and commemorate multiple earlier lineage incumbents. Yet kīrtistambhas also had additional ritual functions, next to commemoration. While individual memorials were erected after the demise of the commemorated renouncers, the names of new incumbents were probably meant to be inscribed on the kīrtistambhas shortly upon their consecration to the seat, while they were still alive. We know that festivals featuring pūjās and vidhānas (communal pūjā) were held when a new incumbent’s name was engraved on the s. 1845 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā kīrtistambha in Āmera. (4.3.9.) Standing in veneration of a whole ascetic lineage, kīrtistambhas may also have formed a material parallel or even complement to paṭṭāvalī texts, both similarly constructing the authority of the current lineage incumbents through presenting an unbroken ascetic lineage as a legitimisation. While scholarship mostly sees and uses paṭṭāvalīs as 239 As becomes particularly clear also in the case of the s. 1769 pillar in Sāgavāṛā which is both a memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti and a kīrtistambha of his lineage, the Vāgaḍābrhatśākhā. (3.1.4., 5.4.5.) ̥ 194 (semi-)historical, eulogistic compositions, they have also been used in independent rituals.240 Perhaps ritual practice at kīrtistambhas included the recitation of a paṭṭāvalī. Although practitioners often seem to have but little knowledge of the original purpose of the kīrtistambhas, taking their carvings to represent jinas or generic renouncers, kīrtistambhas are more often found in continued ritual usage than niṣedhikās. During the daily morning rounds of veneration, the s. 1649 kīrtistambha of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha preserved in a mandira in Surapura receives ritual attention along with the temple’s other icons, including marks of sandalwood paste being applied to it. A large number of visitors was present at the Āmera Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ during one of my visits (February 2013) as a vidhāna (mahāpūjā, collective pūjā) was being held in the premises, and many devotees also entered the kīrtistambha chatrī, circumambulated the pillar, and oﬀered rice at its base. The s. 1769 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ kīrtistambha in Sāgavāṛā is located on top of a steep hillock outside of town, and none of the memorials at the site showed any signs of recent ritual practice at the time of my visit (January 2014). The nasīyā in Naugāmā on the other hand draws a number of regular devotees each morning, and the earlier, s. 1571 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā kīrtistambha there is still the object of daily ̥ ritual practice. During my stay in January 2014, I saw a small group of women sitting inside the chatrī performing pūjā facing the kīrtistambha. I did not check which pūjās were performed, and although this is more likely not the case, it could be of interest to see whether this practice still has any connection to the pillar’s original function. A raised edge at its base features openings which were clearly intended for the outﬂow of ablution liquids. (Fig. 5.5 R.) The Ānteḍa Nasiyāṃ in Ajamera also seems to have been intended to facilitate the ritual veneration of an entire bhaṭṭāraka lineage. In the 18th century CE, Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti and Ācārya Rājakīrti clearly developed a project to turn the site into a necropolis of the whole Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭā. They erected memorials of several earlier incumbents, some of whom are known to have had their seat elsewhere and to have passed away several decades before. Memorials of later bhaṭṭārakas continued to be added in a chronological arrangement over the hillock’s ridge. Devotees may well have organised and experienced their visit to the site as a ritual veneration of the whole lineage, visiting the consecutive incumbents’ memorials in a chronological order. (3.4.2., 6.2.) As we saw, some of the paṇḍita memorials which were commonly erected in 19th century CE Rajasthan are substantial caraṇa-chatrīs raised on high platforms. (3.2.4.5.) Carved emblems often diﬀerentiate the paṇḍita pādukās from pādukās of renouncers. (3.2.4.5.) Yet beyond this the memorials of the lay paṇḍitas are iconographically and architecturally often very similar to those of renouncers. Their pādukās also regularly feature funnels or openings in the frame meant for the outﬂow of ablution liquids. (e.g., Figs. 4.28, 4.29) Given that only renouncers are deemed worthy of A practice of annual paṭṭāvalī recitation by laypeople is reported from Kārañjā, Maharashtra (Detige 2015: 165-6, with n. 98). The recitation of a paṭṭāvalī also formed part of the initiation (dīkṣā) rituals of an early modern renouncer (Detige 2019b: 18), and still forms a part of dīkṣās in the contemporary Digambara muni saṅghas. Paṭṭāvalīs are often found in early modern guṭakās, which might also indicate their ritual usage. A type of early modern compositions which can be dubbed paṭṭāvalī gītas eulogise consecutive incumbents of a given lineage in chronological order (e.g., Kāsalīvāla 1967a: 226-8, s. 1518, Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha). Pūjā compositions venerating the successive ācāryas of the contemporary Digambara ascetic lineages are also found (e.g., Anon. n.d. a). 240 195 full ritual veneration in the Digambara tradition, the ﬁnding of such substantial paṇḍita memorials is somewhat surprising. According to Nyāyatīrtha (1986), the paṇḍitas operating in Jayapura in the 19th and (prob. ﬁrst half of the) 20th century CE were celibate (see 2.3.7.), and a s. 1918 memorial inscription in Sākhūna also records a paṇḍita and his pupil (probably also a paṇḍita) with markers of venerability usually reserved for renouncers (pūjya, 108, see 2.1.2.) (6.3.). If 19th century CE paṇḍitas were celibate more generally, their commemoration and perhaps veneration more broadly in the same fashion as renouncers might appear less surprising. The inscriptions of a few paṇḍita pādukās in the Jayapura region however include a phrase which is never encountered on memorial stones of renouncers and might be meant to diﬀerentiate them from the latter. (4.3.12., 4.3.14., 4.3.15.) The inscriptions stipulate that the memorials are meant for ‘endless commemoration and praise’,241 and thus not, we should perhaps understand, for the formal pūjā rituals which were performed at the memorial stones of bhaṭṭārakas and perhaps other fully initiated renouncers. 3.5.2. Living traditions of ritual veneration of Western Indian bhaṭṭārakas Suﬃcient textual and material evidence survives to conclude that pre-20th century CE Digambara memorials were used as sites of ritual commemoration for at least some time after the demise of the commemorated renouncers. Not in the least because the naked munis of the contemporary saṅghas now ﬁrmly stand at the centre of devotion, the memory of most early modern Digambara renouncers has long faded, and their commemoration has been suspended. At some commemoration sites, token ritual practice takes place (3.3.3.), but most visitors presumably have little knowledge of the individuals commemorated and their ranks. Similar to memorial stones preserved in mandiras, which are used as regular temple icons (3.3.1.), pādukās of memorial chatrīs and carvings of renouncers on niṣedhikās may instead be venerated as representing jinas or as memorials of unspeciﬁed, generic, idealised renouncers of the ‘olden days’. A living tradition of ritual commemoration of Western and Central Indian bhaṭṭārakas is only found in two towns in Gujarat and Maharashtra. Apart from occasional, individual visits for darśana, larger crowds here attend elaborate rituals (aṣṭadravya pūjā, ārti) organised during annual fairs (melā) held on the death anniversary (puṇyatithi) of the commemorated bhaṭṭārakas. 3.5.2.1. Vidyānandi Kṣetra, Sūrata (Gujarat) Vidyānandi, the second incumbent of the Balātkāragaṇa Lāṭaśākhā from the second half of the 15th century CE, is still ritually venerated at the eponymous Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Katāragāma, Sūrata, by far the largest Digambara necropolis of Western India (3.4.3.). Vidyānandi is known to have been active in Sūrata (2.2.3.8.), and may indeed well have passed away in the city and have been cremated at this site. During my visits in January 2014, the modern mandira at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra and a recent, colossal Pārśvanātha mūrti installed in open-air with a caubīsī around it drew most attention of the daily visitors to the site and formed the objects of most extended ritual practice. Yet, many visitors also made their way along the pādukās, and in the evening āratī was 241 ‘niraṃtaraṃ smaraṇārthaṃ vaṃdanārthaṃ’, and variations (#4.21-23). 196 performed in front of anthropomorphic statues of Vidyānandi and the 20th century CE Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’ (d. 1955 CE). An annual fair (melā) takes place at the site on Vidyānandi’s death anniversary during which his statue and a pādukā are ritually venerated with pūjā. The highest rank with which Vidyānandi is attested during his own times is that of maṇḍalācārya. His successor Mallibhūṣaṇa was the ﬁrst Lāṭaśākhā bhaṭṭāraka, and he already ascribed this rank to his predecessors Devendrakīrti and Vidyānandi in an inscription from s. 1544. (2.2.4.4.) While Vidyānandi has thus been remembered as a bhaṭṭāraka since more than ﬁve centuries, it is not certain whether his ritual veneration as currently practiced has also continuously been maintained. The many dozens of pādukās at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra are lined up under individual small shrines on three long platforms (vedi). The protruding middle part of the platform facing the site’s mandira, called a devaḍī in patronage plaques on it (Fig. 3.38 M.), features bas-relief sculptures of ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ Vidyānandi (Fig. 3.38 R.) and Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’ (Fig. 3.38 L.), and three caraṇa-pādukās installed in niches in the back wall (Fig. 3.38 M.). Sign boards attached above both mūrtis feature argha verses and a Sanskrit mantra on both renouncers. Similar signs are often placed near temple icons, oﬀering a few verses on the speciﬁc object of veneration which devotees can recite while they oﬀer argha (or arghya, mixed oﬀer ware, typically uncooked rice, dried fruits, and cloves). The argha verses on Vidyānandi and Śāntisāgara are composed in Gujarati language but written in Devanagari script, presumably for the beneﬁt of Hindi speaking pilgrims. One of the lines of the short composition on Vidyānandi also spells out to the devotee that the ‘bhaṭṭāraka’ died in Sūrata.242 The three pādukās installed behind the mūrtis are generic pādukās from the s. 1955 renovation of the site, with inscriptions which do not record the names of the commemorated renouncers. (3.4.3.) Those to the left and right of the mūrtis however seem to be used as similarly representing Vidyānandi and Śāntisāgara, and a Devanagari ‘śrī’ painted above the middle pādukā might indicate it is taken to represent a jina. Figure 3.38. Devaḍī (M.) with mūrtis of Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’ (L.) and ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ Vidyānandi (R.), Vidyānandi Kṣetra, Sūrata (Gujarat). (January 2014) When I visited the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in 2014, a small replica of a seat with orange cushions stood in front of Vidyānandi’s sculpture, and to its side a continuously burning oil lamp (akhaṇḍa jyoti) ‘sūrata nagaramāṃ laī samādhi, svarga padane prāpta cho’, ‘In Sūrata he took samādhi, he reached a place in heaven’. 242 197 was lit. (Fig. 3.39 R.) Some regular, local visitors seemed to have a routine of visiting the memorials of Vidyānandi and Śāntisāgara, and even made their way all along the three long platforms with pādukā shrines. They bowed and oﬀered dravya (oﬀerings) at the memorials of Vidyānandi and Śāntisāgara, at the caraṇa shrine of Muni Sugandhasāgara (3.4.3.), and at seemingly random other pādukās. Metal containers to oﬀer dravya were only put in front of the memorial stones of Vidyānandi and Śāntisāgara, not near the other pādukās. This indicates that most oﬀerings are made at their memorial stones. I observed the daily vesperal āratī at the site being performed ﬁrst in front of jina, Sarasvatī, and Kṣetrapāla mūrtis inside the mandira, and subsequently outside, in front of the memorial stones of Vidyānandi and Śāntisāgara and the former’s miniature seat. (Fig. 3.39 L.) Figure 3.39. Āratī (L.) and akhaṇḍa jyoti (R.) at the seat and mūrti of ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ Vidyānandi, Vidyānandi Kṣetra, Sūrata (Gujarat). (January 2014) Figure 3.40. Annual fair at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata (Gujarat), with ritual veneration of mūrtis and pādukās of ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ Vidyānandi and Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’ (L.) and visitors ﬂocking to the platforms with pādukās (R.). (Photos courtesy of the oﬃce of the Vidyānandi Kṣetra, date unknown, prior to 2011 CE.) The Vidyānandi Kṣetra’s annual fair (melā) takes place on the tenth day of the dark half of the month of Mārgaśīrṣa, the death anniversary (puṇyatithi) of Vidyānandi. The fair is reportedly famous and attracts a large crowd of both local residents and pilgrims each year. (Figure 3.40 R.) A picture of the main ritual shows abhiṣeka (probably pañcāmrtābhiṣeka) being performed simultaneously ̥ on the mūrtis of Vidyānandi and Śāntisāgara and on two loose pādukās put in front of the mūrtis, 198 probably also used to represent them. (Figure 3.40 L.) A Vidyānanda Svāmī Pūjā composition published in a booklet (Anon. n.d. b: 19-22), together with a pūjā of Ācārya Śāntisāgara (Ibid.: 23-6), is presumably the text used during the annual rituals. The (unpublished) inscription of Vidyānandi’s mūrti dates it to December 1963 CE (s. 2019, v.n.s. 2489). The mūrti of Ācārya Śāntisāgara, according to its (unpublished) inscription, was consecrated a few years earlier, in April/May 1956 CE (s. 2013, v.n.s. 2483). The presence of a mūrti of Śāntisāgara presumably was at least part of the motivation to produce an anthropomorphic depiction of Vidyānandi. The latter’s sculpture is highly similar to a manuscript illustration depicting Vidyānandi reproduced in Joharāpurakara’s (1958: 200b) Bhaṭṭāraka Sampradāya, a book which had appeared a few years before the mūrti was consecrated. The naked ﬁgure is depicted in a dynamic, squatting posture, with a scripture (śāstra) in one hand and a picchī hanging over the other elbow. This pose is typical for manuscript illustrations, but not commonly found in early modern or contemporary Digambara sculptures from Western India, which usually depict renouncers in padmāsana or khaḍgāsana postures. The ﬁgures in the teaching scene depicted on a few late medieval and early modern niṣedhikās sit in the same posture (Fig. 3.15, 3.1.5.), but these are generic ﬁgures depicted with far less details. The sculpture of Vidyānandi also has an inscription dating him to s. 1411-1537, which seems to be a misreading of Joharāpurakara’s (1958: 201) dating of Vidyānandi to s. 1499-1537, the Devanagari numerals 1 and 9 resembling each other.243 All in all, it is clear that the sculpture was produced on the basis of the manuscript illustration reproduced by Joharāpurakara (1958). A similar, smaller bas-relief of Vidyānandi in a shrine high against the wall in the oﬃce of the Vidyānandi Kṣetra may have been a prototype. And a pillar with larger carvings featuring the same depiction of Vidyānandi has been created at the site since the time of my visit.244 A pādukā of Vidyānandi may have been present at the site ever since his demise around ﬁve and a half centuries ago. The material and textual evidence on pre-20th century CE Digambara ritual commemorative practices (3.5.1.) indicates that, notwithstanding possible diﬀerences in performance and especially epistemic signiﬁcation, it is well possible that the commemoration of Vidyānandi has been performed with the same similar ritual formats ever since. Similar rituals performed at 19th and 20th century CE bhaṭṭāraka memorials in Maharashtra discussed next (3.5.2.2.) also conﬁrm the continuity of Digambara commemoration practices. Still it is not certain whether the commemoration at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra has been continuously observed in past centuries. Contemporary scholarship and contemporary Digambara renunciant traditions could have inﬂuenced the ritual practices at the site beyond iconography too, leading to the reintroduction of the ritual commemoration of ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ Vidyānandi in recent times. The compositions on the (undiscovered) pādukās of the 16th century CE Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa bhaṭṭārakas Jñānabhūṣana and Prabhācandra found in a manuscript preserved in Īḍara (3.5.1.) indicate that at this period ritual commemoration was practiced in this lineage. That the fair at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra takes place on what is claimed to be Vidyānandi’s death anniversary (puṇyatithi), On a photo which I was shown in the oﬃce of the Vidyānandi Kṣetra of Vidyānandi’s shrine prior to the last renovation(s), an inscription above a pādukā signposted as Vidyānandi’s mentions his date of death as s. 1518 Mārgaśīrṣa vadi 10. Yet Vidyānandi ﬂourished until at least s. 1537, when he consecrated a mūrti found in Rāndera (Sūrata, Joharāpurakara 1958: 170 lekha 433). 243 244 Photo uploaded on Google Maps, accessed 16th March 2023. 199 a date not published in Bhaṭṭāraka Sampradāya, may indicate that he has been commemorated continuously. Memorials of renouncers also seem to have been added to the Vidyānandi Kṣetra necropolis almost continuously, and although the several consecutive renovations of the vedis and replacement of pādukās (3.4.3.) could also indicate periods of decline, and the need for renovations, I take it they rather indicate care for the site and its maintenance. Ācārya Śāntisāgara’s mūrti was consecrated less than half a year after his demise in September 1955 CE in Kunthalagiri (Maharashtra). His commemoration may also have been immediately instated as part of the Vidyānandi Kṣetra’s fair, in conjunction to that of Vidyānandi and on the latter’s puṇyatithi. The now widespread, anthropomorphic iconography of Digambara renouncers (3.1.7.) was thus already in use by the end of this ﬁrst phase of the muni revival. Apparently local actors at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra did not want to delay in adding a memorial for this recently deceased, new giant of the tradition, commonly regarded as the progenitor of the muni revival. This may have been a strategy to connect the legacy of the Vidyānandi Kṣetra’s pre-20th century CE memorials to the new times and new saṅghas, presenting the site as a continued necropolis for the whole Digambara tradition. The parallel, on a par veneration of a nakedly depicted ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ Vidyānandi and the illustrious recent Ācārya Śāntisāgara could have been intended to show the continuity from the pre-20th century CE Bīsapantha into the muni revival, and an apologetic move in defence of the bhaṭṭāraka tradition in a response to the anti-bhaṭṭāraka rhetorics of the Terāpantha. 3.5.2.2. Kārañjā (Maharashtra) The death anniversaries of three bhaṭṭārakas from the second half of the 19th and the ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE still feature prominently in the ritual calendar of the Digambara community of Kārañjā (Maharashtra), some 200 km south-west of Nagpur. The puṇyatithi of the last bhaṭṭāraka of Kārañjā, Vīrasena (d. s. 1995, 1938 CE) of the Mūlasaṅgha Senagaṇa, falls on Jeṣṭha śuddha 2 (e.g., 30th of May 2014). The puṇyatithi of the Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa Kārañjāśākhā bhaṭṭārakas ‘Moṭe’ Devendrakīrti (d. s. 1941, 1884 CE) and ‘Lahāna’ Devendrakīrti (d. s. 1973, 1916 CE) fall respectively on Jeṣṭha vadi 12 (e.g., 24th of June 2014) and Śrāvaṇa śuddha 12 (e.g., 8th of August 2014). Caraṇa-chatrīs of these three bhaṭṭārakas are installed at cremation sites related to their respective lineages, at adjacent plots north of Kārañjā. (Fig. 3.41-2, unpublished inscriptions). During my visit to Kārañjā in January 2015, I received some information from local Jains about the rituals performed at the Balātkāragaṇa Nissaī on the puṇyatithi of both Devendrakīrtis. Accordingly, the celebrations start with a Sarasvatī pūjā, followed by a bhaṭṭāraka aṣṭaka (eightfold pūjā) performed at the pādukās inside the chatrī by a single person, and a communal bhaṭṭāraka āratī outside the chatrī.245 Next to this annual commemoration, Thursday (guruvāra) carries special signiﬁcance for visiting the Nissaī and paying homage to these late gurus. Local memory of Bīsapanthī Jains preserved relatively much details about these two late Balātkāragaṇa incumbents (Detige 2016). This falls in line with their continued commemoration. Elsewhere in the region, the 245 Personal communication, Kārañjā, January 2015. 200 puṇyatithi of Bhaṭṭāraka Nāgendrakīrti (d. 1854 CE) of the Balātkāragaṇa Lātūraśākhā is said to be celebrated during a melā in March/April at his samādhi at Nārakheḍa (Narkhed, Maharashtra), some 80 kilometres north-east of Nagpur.246 Figure 3.41. Chatrīs at the Balātkāragaṇa Nissaī, Kārañjā (Maharashtra). (January 2015) Figure 3.42. Memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Vīrasena (s. 1998), Senagaṇa Nissaī, Kārañjā (Maharashtra). Pādukā in a shrine (R.), installed on a hexagonal plinth with marks of former pillars (M.) on a square plinth inside a recent building (L.). (January 2015) Caraṇa-chatrīs of other Kārañjāśākhā bhaṭṭārakas (Fig. 3.41) and pādukās of recent renouncers are found at the Balātkāragaṇa Nissaī, but their puṇyatithis do not (or no longer) seem to be celebrated. Especially the oldest of the Balātkāragaṇa chatrīs are massive, closed structures (Fig. 3.41 L.), diﬀerent from the open, lighter chatrīs of Western India. The memorial of the Senagaṇa Bhaṭṭāraka Vīrasena (d. s. 1995, Kārañjā, Joharāpurakara 1958: 35, n. 20) is a collapsed chatrī over which a simple concrete building has now been erected. (Fig. 3.42) The s. 1998 pādukā is installed in a shrine on a hexagonal, cabūtarā-like basis on a square plinth provided with new stairs. Marks remain on the hexagonal basis where pillars had formerly been located. (Fig. 3.42 M.) A few more recent caraṇa-cabūtarās are also found at the Senagaṇa Nissāī. In the courtyard of the Senagaṇa mandira in Kārañjā town (Pārśvanāthasvāmī Digambara Jaina Senagaṇa Mandira), an elegant little 246 Vidyādhara Joharāpurakara, personal communication, Nagpur, January 2015. 201 building referred to as a devalī features a s. 1922 pādukā commemorating Bhaṭṭāraka Vīrasena’s predecessor Bhaṭṭāraka Lakṣmīsena (ref. s. 1899, d. s. 1922, Joharāpurakara 1958: 35). The memorial was consecrated by his pupil Paṇḍita Mohanalāla, prior to the bhaṭṭāraka consecration of Vīrasena, which passed only in s. 1936 (Ibid.: 35 n. 20). Further, yet to be studied pādukās are found in the courtyard of the Senagaṇa mandira. At a Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha nasīyā south of Kārañjā stand an unidentiﬁed chatrī similar to the idiosyncratic structures of the Balātkāragaṇa Nissaī and a platform with an unidentiﬁed double pādukā. Two unidentiﬁed pādukās were also found standing loose inside a small devalī next to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha mandira in town (Candranātha Svāmī Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Digambara Jaina Mandira). (Detige 2015) 3.5.3. The ritual veneration of living and deceased contemporary renouncers In Karnataka, where bhaṭṭāraka lineages are still ﬂourishing, memorials of earlier incumbents are little visited and sometimes dilapidated. At Śravaṇa Belagolā, late medieval niṣedhikās in beautiful, ornate maṇṭapas (chatrīs) stand within the premises of the much frequented temple complex on Candragiri. A few caraṇa-chatrīs of recent bhaṭṭārakas on a bare ridge behind the Candragiri hill however are rarely visited. (Fig. 3.43 L.) One of these is a memorial of the penultimate incumbent of the local bhaṭṭāraka seat, and informants in Śravaṇa Belagolā told me that the late Bhaṭṭāraka Cārukīrti (d. 2023 CE) had pūjā performed at the shrine on his puṇyatithi.247 In Mūḍabidri in coastal Karnataka, morphologically idiosyncratic, pyramidal memorials called muḍiñjas constructed from laterite bricks commemorate both bhaṭṭārakas and laypeople. (Fig. 3.43 R.) They are wellmaintained, and some ritual is said to be performed on them on the bhaṭṭārakas’ death anniversary (puṇyatithi).248 On a rocky slope behind the hill with the colossal Bāhubalī mūrti at Kārkala, another town in coastal Karnataka where a bhaṭṭāraka seat is located, a cluster of small shrines some of which still features pādukās was clearly not visited much, and many of the shrines were crumbling, some reduced to a pile of rubble. (Fig. 3.43 M.) Figure 3.43. Digambara memorials in Karnataka. (February 2015) L.: Bhaṭṭāraka memorials, Candragiri, Śravaṇa Belagolā. M.: Unidentiﬁed memorials, possibly commemorating bhaṭṭārakas, Kārkala. R.: Muḍiñjas constructed from laterite bricks commemorating laymen and bhaṭṭārakas, Mūḍabidri. I do not know whether a memorial has already been erected for the famous last incumbent of the Śravaṇa Belagolā seat. 247 248 Bhaṭṭāraka Cārukīrti (of Mūḍabidri), personal communication, Mūḍabidri, February 2015. 202 Only limited ritual seems to be performed at the memorials of the renouncers of the contemporary Digambara muni saṅghas (3.1.7.). Especially memorials of low-ranking and less wellknown renouncers are quickly abandoned. Memorials of popular renouncers, especially those of the leading ācāryas, may receive more frequent and longer continued visits. Many memorials are located at cremation sites outside of the town centres which are less frequented. Those erected on more regularly frequented sites near mandiras or on pilgrimage sites receive more attention. Often they are brieﬂy visited in conjunction to a temple visit or while devotees make their way through the premises. Ritual practitioners may then take darśana, bow in front of the pādukās, and recite some verses of veneration while oﬀering dry dravya (uncooked rice or fruit kernels) at the memorial stones or in collection boxes placed for this purpose nearby. Local caretakers sometimes light an oil lamp in the chatrīs or other structures. A short composition with a few verses of veneration praising the commemorated renouncer is often posted in the memorials. More extensive ritual with all-night long vigils is known to take place in the caraṇa-chatrīs of some Śvetāmbara renouncers on their death anniversary (Babb 1996: 108). I have not investigated whether puṇyatithi rituals are commonly performed at the memorials of contemporary Digambara renouncers, but have not observed or heard of it. Mūrtis and pādukās of contemporary renouncers installed in mandiras generally seem to be taken into the regular temple rites. They are at least wiped with a wet cloth (prakṣālana) on a daily basis. Visitors to mandiras which feature such icons often oﬀer rice or dried fruits on their tour through the temple just as they do near jina mūrtis. Eightfold worship (aṣṭa-dravya-pūjā) is reported to be directed at muni mūrtis at special occasions or according to individual devotees’ wishes, performed in a plate near the image (agra-pūjā) as is usual in Digambara pūjā.249 Although particularly the polychrome portrait statues sometimes seem of a more decorative nature, their regular installation in glass cases is not necessarily meant to obstruct ritual performance,250 as jina icons and other ritual objects which are meant to receive daily ritual veneration are today also regularly protected by glass doors outside of ablution times. Given its location, the small, metal portrait statue of a renouncer which I noticed installed amongst jina images of similar size at the foot of the mūlanāyaka of the Ādinātha Mandira in Īḍara almost certainly is the object of extensive, daily abhiṣeka, and a brass, khaḍgāsana icon of Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’ in the Nayā Mandira in Pratāpagaṛha was also set up a ritual object. (3.1.7., Fig. 3.22 M.) Although long unrecorded in scholarship, the ritual veneration of living, initiated, male renouncers of the contemporary Digambara muni saṅghas is a standardised and frequent practice, using the same ritual formats as temple ritual, pūjā, vidhāna, and āratī.251 A short eightfold pūjā is a ﬁxed, 249 Jīvana Prakāśa Jaina, personal communication, Hastināpura (Uttar Pradesh), 2nd January 2014. Flügel (2011: 23) noted that ritual veneration at anthropomorphic statues of renouncers of the aniconic Śvetāmbara traditions is often prevented by a.o. glass covers. 250 This paragraph and the next draws from Detige 2024a. In Śvetāmbara traditions, the ritual veneration of living renouncers seems a more controversial issue. Cort (2001: 114) reports a controversy regarding the performance of navāṅga pūjā of the living Śvetāmbara Ācārya Vijaya Rāmacandrasūri. Cort (Ibid.) also reports the guru-pūjā of a deceased Śvetāmbara sādhu, involving the sprinkling of vāskepa, a powder more generally used for blessings in the Śvetāmbara traditions. Dundas (2007: 54-5) refers to textual sources indicating controversy regarding the dravya pūjā of the pādukās of the 16th century CE Śvetāmbara Hīravijayasūri. 251 203 preliminary part of the gifting of food to a Digambara muni (āhāra-dāna).252 Usually it is performed by a handful of laypeople, notably the men and women who will subsequently feed the muni. Āratī, the nocturnal oﬀering of an oil lamp with the singing of devotional compositions, is also held of many Digambara munis on a daily basis, similar to the āratī of jina and other mūrtis in mandiras. On special occasions, large crowds also attend oftentimes particularly lavish, theatralised vidhānas of especially the famous ācāryas. At such events, the renouncers are enthroned on stage while selected laypeople come forward in procession to oﬀer dravyas on benches in front of them. The pūjās performed feature the traditional Sanskrit mantras for each dravya, interspersed with more extensive vernacular verses with individualised praise of the venerated renouncers. Live music is also performed and Hindi bhajans sung, and some attendees dance on stage or amidst the audience. In March 2016 in Konījī (Madhya Pradesh), I also observed a vidhāna of Ācārya Vidyāsāgara (d. 2024 CE) which, as I was told, is performed every day. Here, a demarcated zone in front of the dais was reserved for about a dozen and a half laypeople in pūjā attire performing the actual ritual oﬀerings, while a larger crowd stood and participated with claps and singing, and the ācārya, who was by many regarded as the greatest Digambara renouncer of the past decades, used his time to study, seated on an elaborately carved wooden throne atop a makeshift, pyramidlike dais. Fivefold ablution (pañcāmrtābhiṣeka) of the feet of living Digambara renouncers is also observed, ̥ even performed by their own initiated pupils. This is more controversial, because possessionless renouncers are often considered to be barred from performing material veneration (dravya pūjā), and because of the Terāpanthī opposition to the use of dairy products in ritual. Scholz (2011a: 272) also mentions the pañcāmrtābhiṣeka of the corpse of a Digambara ācārya before cremation. It is ̥ not clear whether this is a standard practice. Dravya pūjā is also performed today of living South Indian bhaṭṭārakas.253 While this too may be a rather frequent practice, it is probably mostly performed when no munis are also present, as the latter are by consensus regarded as hierarchically higher and would then stand as the object of veneration. The performance of pūjā of āryikās is controversial, both during the āhāra-dāna (Zydenbos 1999: 295) and at other times. I observed a pūjā of the famous and widely popular Gaṇinī Āryikā Jñānamati, performed as part of her feeding ceremony in Hastināpura (Uttar Pradesh) in April 2014. The only ritual texts on a female Digambara renouncer I have seen are also a pūjā and āratī compositions on Jñānamati (Candanāmatī [2004] 2007). Vernacular pūjās and āratīs are commonly found in print of contemporary Digambara ācāryas (e.g., Candanāmatī 2002), and occasionally also of upādhyāyas and munis. The majority are penned by renouncers, often their pupils, as is the case with early modern bhaṭṭāraka pūjās and gītas (Detige 2019a). They are published in felicitation and commemoration volumes dedicated to these ascetics, in printed pūjā collections (pūjā-pāṭhasamgraha), and in other publications. Most are published posthumously, but they are also This eightfold pūjā forms part of a more elaborate rite known as the nine-fold devotion (navadhā-bhakti) which frames the āhāra-dāna. On the rituals forming part of the gifting of food to Digambara renouncers, see Cort 1999: 96-7; Zydenbos 1999; Anon. 2008: 585-7; Varṇī 2012 (Vol. 3): 199. 252 253 Ellen Gough, personal communication, 13th January 2014. 204 composed on living renouncers. A large number of ritual compositions can be found for example on Ācārya Vidyāsāgara. 3.5.4. Relic veneration Although often denounced as ajaina (not jaina) and clandestinely practiced, Flügel (2008, 2010b, 2011, 2012) has found relic veneration attested across the various contemporary Jaina traditions. Flügel has documented Jaina relic stūpas254 of mūrtipūjaka and aniconic Śvetāmbara traditions as well as some Digambara cases, including the memorials of Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’ (d. 1955 CE) in Kunthalagiri (Maharashtra, Flügel 2010b: 391, n. 4), and of Bhaṭṭāraka Cārukīrti of Mūḍabidarī (d. 1998 CE) and a recent bhaṭṭāraka of Hūmachā (both Karnataka, Flügel 2011: 8 n. 33). The present Bhaṭṭāraka Cārukīrti of Mūḍabidarī also conﬁrmed to Flügel (Ibid.) that relics of bhaṭṭārakas and prominent monks are always interred under their memorials. Flügel (2010b: 390) concludes that bone relic stūpas and relic veneration are an ubiquitous feature across the Jaina sectarian spectrum today, and speaks of a “thriving cult of bone relic stūpas”. Nagarajaiah (2012: 51) also took it for granted that 18th to 20th century CE bhaṭṭāraka memorials in Mūḍabidri (Karnataka, Fig. 3.43 R.) were built at the site of their cremation and that the remains from the cremation were collected in an earthen pot and interred under the memorials. Nagarajaiah (Ibid.: 49-50) also sees the presence of relics as the main reason for the venerability of Digambara memorials and for renouncers to visit and venerate them. I did not investigate whether laypeople visiting the memorials of contemporary Digambara ascetics thought or expected relics to be enshrined, but never heard them refer to it. I did occasionally inquire with caretakers and other local Jains, and they often conﬁrmed the interment of relics from the cremation under recently erected chatrīs, even though is it never indicated by external marks or signs nor mentioned in published materials. Such was the case for example for the caraṇa-chatrīs of Ācārya Dharmabhūṣaṇa at Hastināpura255 (Uttar Pradesh, 2010 CE?, Fig. 3.44 M.) and of Ācārya Bharatasāgara in Aḍindā (2011 CE, Fig. 3.44 L.). Relics were also reported to be included in the 2009 CE samādhī-mandira of Āryikā Devamatī (d. 1988 CE) in Bāṃsvāṛā, which I could not enter. (Fig. 3.19 L., 3.1.7.). At the time of my visit in January 2014, some ritual veneration had already started at the place where the foundation of the chatrī of another renouncer had been dug. Preparations were underway for the construction of the samādhi and guru-mandira of Ācārya Yogīndrasāgara (d. 2012 CE, Sāgavāṛā) on the slopes of the eponymous Yogīndragiri hillock outside of Sāgavāṛā when I visited the site in January 2014 CE. (5.4.6.) A polychrome portrait statue of the ācārya to be installed in it was already on display in another building at the foot of the hill, along with a throne which he had used and his picchī and kamaṇḍalu. (Fig. 3.44 R.) Relics from the Flügel (2010b: 391 n. 5) observed that the term samādhi often refers to relic shrines and the term smāraka to commemorative shrines without relics. The compound samādhi-smaraka is also often used. 254 Two other chatrīs are found at this ﬁnding spot, which is referred to as Śāntivana and as the ﬁrst naśiyā (‘prathama niśiyāṃ’, ‘prathama naśiyā’), meaning the one closest to the centre of town or to the Jambudvīpa complex. A seemingly older chatrī which no longer features any memorial stones had been partly altered in a renovation. A plaque indicated it was renovated in 1985 [CE?]). And a small, square caraṇa-chatrī of the jina Śāntinātha is built on a large octagonal base inside a square building. 255 205 cremation were said to be kept to be interred under the memorial, which meanwhile seems to have been completed in the form of a round building.256 I also found relic worship denied, and dismissed as an impure or inauspicious (aśubha) and nonJain (ajaina) practice. This was the position taken for example by Brahmacārī Ravīndrakīrti,257 the bhaṭṭāraka-like pīṭhādīśa (head) of the Jambudvīpa complex at Hastināpura (Uttar Pradesh). Ravīndrakīrti claimed no relics were included in the various memorials erected at the site, which is also the residence of his sister, the inﬂuential nun Āryikā Gaṇinī Jñānamatī. Among its more elaborate buildings, the Jambudvīpa complex also features identical caraṇa-chatrīs of the earlier pīṭhādīśa Kṣullaka Motīsāgara (d. 2011 CE, Fig. 3.45 L.) and of another sister of Ravīndrakīrti and Jñānamatī, Āryikā Abhayamatī (d. 2012 CE), as well as a memorial of their mother Āryikā Ratnamatī (1994 CE, v.n.s. 2521, Fig. 3.45 R.). The latter is called a ‘kīrtistambha’ in its inscriptions and consists of an octagonal platform with a pādukā and an octagonal pillar. The latter is covered on all sides with biographical information on Āryikā Ratnamatī and her renunciant oﬀspring, the āryikās Jñānamatī, Abhayamatī, Candanāmatī, and Brahmācārī Ravīndrakīrti. While the inclusion of bone relics of contemporary Digambara renouncers collected after the cremation in their memorials is well attested, it remains unclear whether relics were also interred under early modern Digambara memorials. As discussed (3.3.1.), most pre-20th century CE Western Indian Digambara memorials were erected at cremation sites. We cannot however ascertain the presence of relics, since external indications of their presence are never found, and the inscriptions remain entirely silent about it. Textual attestations of the practice are also never found. Yet all of this equally counts for those contemporary memorials which are conﬁrmed to include bone relics by local actors. No underground imaging of memorials has been performed. As we saw (3.2.3.), memorials of bhaṭṭārakas often seem to have been erected a few years after their demise, in which case relics may well been kept to be enshrined later, as is attested today. In those cases where two memorials of a single bhaṭṭāraka were erected at diﬀerent towns (3.3.2.), relics could still have been transported from the cremation site to the secondary commemoration site. Memorials known to have been erected several decades after the demise of the bhaṭṭārakas they commemorate and in towns which were probably not their place of death may rather have been cenotaphs, like those forming part of commemoration projects in Āvāṃ in the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE and in Ajamera in the mid-18th century CE (6.2.3.). The inscription of the s. 1801 pādukā of Ācārya Bhānukīrti at the latter site, the Ānteḍa Nasiyāṃ in Ajamera, indicates that the ācārya had died elsewhere, probably in a town some 20 kilometres further away. (6.2.4.) His corpse may well have been brought over to this necropolis for cremation, or his relics for enshrinement. Relics are probably typically not enshrined with those memorial stones (pādukās or mūrtis) of popular contemporary Digambara renouncers found in multiple copies in mandiras throughout India. 256 Google maps, accessed 28th December 2023. 257 Personal communication, Jambudvīpa, Hastināpura, 2nd January 2014. 206 Figure 3.44. L.: Relic shrine of Ācārya Bharatasāgara (2011 CE), Pārśvanātha Mandira, Aḍindā. M.: Relic shrine of Ācārya Dharmabhūṣaṇa, Hastināpura (Uttar Pradesh, 2010 CE?). R.: Mūrti, seat, and poster of Ācārya Yogīndrasāgara (d. 2012 CE), Yogīndragiri, Sāgavāṛā. (All photos January 2014) Figure 3.45. Cenotaphs of Kṣullaka Motīsāgara (d. 2011 CE, L.) and Āryikā Ratnamatī (1994 CE, v.n.s. 2521, R.), Jambudvīpa, Hastināpura (Uttar Pradesh). (January 2014) 207 208 CHAPTER 4. ḌHŪṆḌHĀḌAŚĀKHĀ Chapter contents Compared to the Vāgaḍā- and Śākambharīśākhās, fewer memorials have been found of lower-ranking renouncers (ācārya, muni, brahmācārī) of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. On the other hand, we have an almost complete corpus of caraṇa-chatrīs of Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas from the early 17th to the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE. The late 18th and early 19th century specimens among these are some of the ﬁnest pre-20th century CE Digambara memorials of Western India. Along with textual sources, the memorials allow us to reconstruct the geographical distribution of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā throughout its existence from the early 16th to the second half of the 20th century CE. The consecutive shifts of its seat can all be directly related to the political history of the Delhi Sultanate, the Rajput kingdoms, and the Mughal empire. The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā’s connection to the Kachavāhā Rajput dynasty of Āmera and Jayapura is welldocumented and also expressed in the memorial inscriptions. Substantial memorials were frequently constructed of 19th century CE paṇḍitas related to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and indicate their considerable prestige. 4.1. The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā As discussed (2.2.3.4., 2.2.3.5.), I extend the Balātkāragaṇa succession which Joharāpurakara (1958: 89-95) called the Uttaraśākhā to include the bhaṭṭārakas Śubhacandra (p. s. 1450-1507, Ibid.: 112) and Jinacandra (p. s. 1507-71, Ibid.), whom Joharāpurakara (1958: 89-95) had included in his Dillī-Jayapuraśākhā (Ibid.: 97-113). I refer to the lineage from Jinacandra’s successor Prabhācandra (p. s. 1571-81258) onwards as the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. This better represents the Balātkāragaṇa trifurcation after Jinacandra, leading to the origins of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā (Dillī-Jayapuraśākhā), Śākambharīśākhā (Nāgauraśākhā), and Cambalaśākhā (Aṭeraśākhā). Chart 4.1. Succession of later Uttaraśākhā bhaṭṭārakas (grey) and Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas (orange) and maṇḍalācāryas (maroon), with period of incumbency. According to the paṭṭāvalī edited by Joharāpurakara (1958: 104, lekha 265), Prabhācandra was on the seat for nine years, but, without indicating his source, Kāsalīvāla (1981: 184) held that he remained on the seat for 25 years. 258 209 Joharāpurakara (1958: 112) reconstructed the Dillī-Jayapuraśākhā as succeeding from Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra directly to Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti (p. s. 1622). However, two incumbents of the maṇḍalācārya rank well-attested in many primary sources and already described by other scholars need to be added as successors to Prabhācandra and predecessors to Candrakīrti, Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra (p. s. 1581-1603) and Maṇḍalācārya Lalitakīrti (p. s. 1603-21).259 (Chart 4.1) The reference to Dillī (Delhi) in Joharāpurakara’s (1958) denomination Dillī-Jayapuraśākhā referred to two moments of this lineage’s association to the Sultanate and Mughal capital. Paṭṭāvalīs locate the seat of Śubhacandra and Jinacandra in Dillī. Prabhācandra is thought to have been consecrated in Dillī, but to have shifted to Cittauḍagaṛha later (Kāsalīvāla 1967a: 183-4). Some two centuries later, in s. 1792, the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti was consecrated in Dillī, where he also seems to have spent the ﬁrst few years part of his incumbency. (4.1.4.) Yet Dillī attracted multiple lineages throughout the Sultanate and Mughal period. (1.1.3.) My nomenclature represents this lineage’s longer lasting mooring in the broader Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region, already prior to the foundation of Jayapura. This chapter largely deals with Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā materials, but also includes discussions of a few memorials commemorating the Uttaraśākhā bhaṭṭārakas Śubhacandra and Jinacandra (4.3.2-4.), and other renouncers from their period (4.3.1.). All of these memorials are found at sites in today’s state of Rajasthan. (Table 4.1; Map 4.2, 4.3) I ﬁrstly discuss the history of this lineage by relating the shifts of the late Uttaraśākhā and the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat from Dillī to Mevāṛa, from Mevāṛa to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region, shortly back to Dillī and then again back to Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa. (4.1., Map 4.1) All of these these shifts are clearly related to the political developments within the Sultanate and Mughal empires and the kingdoms of Rajasthan, and the attendant socio-economic conditions. After introducing this sub-corpus of Uttaraśākhā and Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials (4.2.), I discuss the memorials in more detail in a roughly chronological fashion (4.2.). The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā moved into Jayapura a few decades after the foundation of the new Kachavāhā capital in 1726/7 CE and remained stably ﬁxed there for a considerable period, until its demise in the second half of the 20th century CE. Retrieved memorials and textual sources point out two nuclei of activity, in north Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa (Jayapura region) and south Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa (Ṭoṅka district). From the latter region, we have good numbers of textual attestations of 16th century CE Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents (Detige 2018: 315-6), and a number of 16th and early 17th century CE Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials are found in Āṃvā (s. 1593, 4.3.2.), Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha (s. 1681 & reported s. 1589, 4.3.4.), and possibly Ṭoṅka (4.3.19.). Judging from memorials from s. 1593 reported from Cākasū (Chaksu, Chāṭsū, Campāvatī; 4.3.3.), the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā also seems to have been active in northern Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa in the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE already. It remained based in northern Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa from the late 16th century CE until its demise in the mid-20th century CE, at consecutively Cākasū, Sāṅgānera (Sanganer), Āmera (Amber, Amer, Ambāvatī), and Jayapura. The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā was primarily connected with the Khaṇḍelavāla caste, but manuscript 259 See Hoernle 1892: 83, Nyāyatīrtha 1985a: 421, Detige 2018: 313-6, Detige 2019a. 210 colophons indicate that laypeople from other castes in the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region also called upon the services of and made donations to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. Map 4.1. Main bases of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā (indicated in blue) (16th-20th century CE). 4.1.1. Cittauḍagaṛha (16th century CE) Admittedly glossed over by my designation Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā is a period in the 16th century CE spent at Cittauḍagaṛha and perhaps other places in north-western Mevāṛa, some 200 km south- 211 west of the attested sites in south Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa, and 550 km south-west of Dillī. The Uttaraśākhā’s shift from Dillī to Cittauḍagaṛha stands in an obvious correlation to political circumstances. As mentioned, Prabhācandra reportedly was consecrated in Dillī in s. 1571 but later shifted to Cittauḍagaṛha. Prabhācandra was consecrated at the very end of the reign of Sikandar Lodī (r. 1489-1517 CE), whose rule represents the heyday of the Lodi dynasty, and who founded the city of Āgarā in 1504 CE and shifted his capital there. The latter part of Prabhācandra’s incumbency however played out under the rule of Sikandar’s successor Ibrāhim Lodī (r. 1517-26 CE), during which the political and economical situation of the Lodi dynasty disintegrated and numerous rebellions broke out. In 1526 CE, the Mughals defeated the Lodis in the battle of Panipat. Early Mughal rule was again soon interrupted by the short-lived Sur Empire (1540-56 CE). Under the Sisodiyā dynasty, Mevāṛa on the other hand had been the most powerful kingdom of Rajasthan since the time of Rānā Kumbhā (r. 1433-1468 CE) (Asher & Talbot 2006: 100), and its later ruler Rānā Sāṅgā (r. 1508-1528 CE) defeated Ibrāhim Lodi in several battles. On the one hand, the Digambara merchant communities and in their wake the bhaṭṭāraka seat were thus probably pushed away from Dillī by the instability of the late Lodi Sultanate and the early Mughal empire, while the stable power of the Sisodiyās attracted them towards Mevāṛa and Cittauḍagaṛha.260 A paṭṭāvalī entry on Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra edited by Joharāpurakara (1958: 104 lekha 265) reports that one time, seemingly in s. 1572, during the incumbency of Prabhācandra and midway during the rule of Rānā Sāṅgā, the ‘gaccha’ (ascetic group) divided in two, one part going to (or already residing at) Cittauḍagaṛha and another to Nāgaura.261 Given his reported shift to Cittauḍagaṛha, Prabhācandra probably formed part of the former faction, although he also seems to have been active in south Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa, judging from a s. 1589 memorial of his reported from Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha. (4.3.4.) The part of the saṅgha said to have turned to Nāgaura probably developed into the Śākambharīśākhā. (6.1.1.) On two consecutive days in s. 1577, three manuscripts were donated to Dharmacandra, probably in Nāgaura (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 2, 36-7, 131-2, see Detige 2018: 314-5). It would seem that Dharmacandra was staying in Nāgaura or the wider Śākambharī region with the second faction of Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra’s saṅgha. According to Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 241), Dharmacandra’s successor Lalitakīrti262 (p. s. 1603) joined the saṅgha of Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra at the age of seven, and he also stayed in the company of Dharmacandra afterwards. In two out of the three s. 1577 manuscripts donated to Dharmacandra, he is recorded uniquely as a muni, but the third also refers to him as a maṇḍalācārya. Dharmacandra’s incumbency as a maṇḍalācārya is usually thought to have started in s. 1581. Presumably Dharmacandra was a maṇḍalācārya under Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra from this earlier date (s. 1577) already, while the recorded year of s. 1581 may refer to his succession as lineage incumbent after Prabhācandra (taking the latter’s incumbency to have ended after 9 years, cf. n. 1). 260 This analysis diﬀers from Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla’s (1975: 148) unsubstantiated argument that Prabhācandra left Dillī ‘because of the inﬁghting and bigotry of the days of Muslim rulers’ (‘muslim śāsakoṃ ke āye din ke jhagaṛoṃ evaṃ unakī dharmāndhitatā ke kāraṇa [...]’). We ﬁnd no indication of the relevance of the religious persuasion of the rulers of the conﬂicting Indo-Muslim dynasties. ‘ekai vāra gacha doya huvā cītoḍa ara nāgora kā saṃ. 1572 kā aṣvāla’ (Joharāpurakara 1958: 104 lekha 265). In one manuscript studied by Hoernle (1892: 79), Cittauḍagaṛha is replaced by Gvāliyara, others also have Cittauḍagaṛha (Ibid., 1891: 355). 261 262 About twenty Sanskrit kathās composed by Lalitakīrti are known (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 241-2). 212 And perhaps Dharmacandra turned to Cittauḍagaṛha and southern Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa after the demise of Prabhācandra, leaving the Śākambharī region to the nascent Śākambharīśākhā. (6.1.) Dharmacandra and Lalitakīrti were probably never consecrated as bhaṭṭārakas.263 Their mere maṇḍalācārya-hood may have been the cause for some later sources to omit them in their records of the lineage. Yet other sources present Dharmacandra and Lalitakīrti as consecutive incumbents of the lineage and leaders of the saṅgha. Both Dharmacandra (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 236; Kāsalīvāla 1989: 148) and Lalitakīrti (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 150) are reported to have been consecrated in Cittauḍagaṛha, and a paṭṭāvalī also locates Lalitakīrti’s seat at Cittauḍagaṛha (Hoernle 1892: 83). Yet Dharmacandra and Lalitakīrti were also active in south and even north Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa already. S. 1593 memorials reported from Cākasū indicate that the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā was active in northern Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa in the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE. (4.3.4.) Kāsalīvāla (1979b: 154) held that ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ Lalitakīrti was the ﬁrst incumbent of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā to establish his gaddī in Āmera, and founded the manuscript collection at the Āmera Neminātha (Sāṃvalājī) Mandira264 which became the home of the seat. We indeed have indications of the activity of Lalitakīrti’s predecessor Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra in Cākasū, south of Jayapura.265 Yet Āmera and north Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa no doubt formed but a secondary centre at most for Lalitakīrti, since there are more 16th century CE Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā references from south Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa. There is epigraphic evidence of the activity of Dharmacandra in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha in s. 1595 (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 177) and possibly already in s. 1589 (4.3.3.), and in Āvāṃ in s. 1593 (4.3.2.). Lalitakīrti is recorded in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha in s. 1606 (Ibid.) and in s. 1612, the latter a manuscript donation to one Ārya Narasiṅha recorded as having passed in his lineage (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 94). No Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials have been retrieved in Cittauḍagaṛha, which might relate to the later destruction and abandonment of the city (4.1.2.). Two memorials of Uttaraśākhā renouncers from the ﬁrst half of the 15th century CE renouncers do indicate prior Balātkāragaṇa activity in north-western Mevāṛa. (4.3.1.). Unidentiﬁed memorials dating to the second half of the 15th and possibly 16th century CE found in Bārāṃ in the Hāḍotī region, east from Mevāṛa, and further south of south Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa, might also relate to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā (4.3.18.). 4.1.2. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa (late 16th - 17th century CE) In the late 16th century CE, the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā backed out of Cittauḍagaṛha and moved to Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa. As already observed by Somani (1982: 186), this shift can once more easily related to historical events. Cittauḍagaṛha had already been sacked by Bahadur Shah of the Gujarat Sultanate in 1535 CE, and then fell prey to tensions between the Mughals and the deﬁant Sisodiyā Jaina & Khāga (2012a, 2012b) edit yantralekhas from Āmera as recording the abbreviation ‘bha.’ (bhaṭṭāraka) for Dharmacandra (Ibid.: 2012b: 69 [#51]) and Lalitakīrti (Ibid.: 2012a: 40 [#40]), but this might be a misreading for the resembling character ‘ma.’(maṇḍalācārya). Perhaps also to be checked, Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 239, n. 2) do reproduce a yantralekha from s. 1590 as recording Dharmacandra in full as a bhaṭṭāraka. 263 Jaina & Khāga’s (2012a, 2012b) studies of the mūrtilekhas and yantralekhas of Āmera’s Neminātha Mandira should oﬀer much material to study the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and in particular its activities in Āmera. 264 Apart from one or possibly more now lost memorials installed by Dharmacandra in Cākasū in s. 1593 (4.3.4.), see other attestations relating him to Cākasū in Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 238-9). 265 213 Rāṇās. The Mughal emperor Akbar (r. 1556-1605) besieged and destroyed Cittauḍagaṛha in 1567-8 CE. In 1615 CE, Prince Khurram, the later Shah Jahan (r. 1628-58), could ﬁnally subdue Rāṇā Amara Siṅha (r. 1597-1620), but Jagat Siṅha I (r. 1628-52) and Rāja Siṅha I (r. 1652-80) broke the stipulations of the treaty with the Mughals by starting to repair the walls of the Cittauḍagaṛha fort, vexing Shah Jahan into breaking them down once more in 1654 CE. According to Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 243), ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ (then, Maṇḍalācārya) Candrakīrti ascended the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat a week after the death of his predecessor ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ (Maṇḍalācārya) Dharmacandra, in s. 1622. Paṭṭāvalīs record the month of Vaiśākha s. 1622 (April 1565) for Candrakīrti’s ascension to the seat (Hoernle 1892: 83). Akbar’s siege of Cittauḍagaṛha began two years and a half years, in October 1567. According to K. C. Jain (1963: 80), ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ Candrakīrti moved his seat from Cittauḍagaṛha to Cākasū, an argument based on his reading of an inscription which he cites as dated to 1604 CE, at the very end of Candrakīrti’s incumbency. Although Udaya Siṅha II (r. 1540-72) had meanwhile founded the new capital city of Udayapura, this city mostly seems to have fallen under the inﬂuence of the Balātkāragaṇa Vāgaḍāśākhā which moved in from its earlier centre further south in the Vāgaḍā region (5.1., 5.6.2.). The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā instead moved back north, to north Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa, bypassing the Śākambharī region where yet another Balātkāragaṇa branch, the Śākambharīśākhā, was active. (6.1.) Memorials from the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE reported from Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha (4.3.4.) and Cākasū (4.3.3.) and manuscripts produced in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha and Āmera in the second half of the 16th century CE (Detige 2018: 315-6) show that the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā developed a connection to places in both south and north Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa even prior to the sack of Cittauḍagaṛha.266 The Kachavāhā kingdom, until the 16th and 17th century CE fairly insigniﬁcant, now could function as a safe haven for lay and ascetic communities thanks to the dynasty’s association with the Mughals since Māna Siṅha (r. 1589-1614 CE). Kachavāhā rulers like Māna Siṅha and Jaya Siṅha (r. 1622-67) held particularly high oﬃces at the Mughal court, the former a commander in important military campaigns of the Mughals. The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā shift from Mevāṛa to Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa was thus again propelled by political push and pull factors, the Sisodiyā’s collision with and defeat at the hands of the Mughals, and the Kachavāhā’s rise through their alignment with and integration into the Mughal Empire. Manuscript colophons alternatively attest Candrakīrti as a maṇḍalācārya or as a bhaṭṭāraka, both types of attestations perfectly falling apart chronologically (see Detige 2018: 314 for details). Candrakīrti is referred to as a maṇḍalācārya well into his recorded incumbency, in s. 1630, s. 1631, s. 1637, and s. 1645. Colophons recording Candrakīrti as a bhaṭṭāraka all come later, in s. 1653, s. 1661, and s. 1677. Somewhere between s. 1645 and s. 1653, Candrakīrti or those around him thus seem to have considered the time ripe to claim full bhaṭṭāraka-hood, or received authority to do so. (See also 2.2.4.8.) Candrakīrti performed icon consecrations in s. 1658 in Ḍhūḍhū (probably Dūdū, 60 km south-west of Jayapura), and in s. 1660 in Sākhūṇa (80 km south-west of Jayapura), which fall in Nyāyatīrtha (1985a: 421) situates the seat of the successive Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents Dharmacandra, Lalitakīrti, Candrakīrti, and Devendrakīrti at Cākasū, which does not seem correct, although the memorials reported from the Cākasū Śiva Ḍūṅgarī conﬁrm that the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā saṅgha’s link to north Dhūṇḍhāḍa certainly goes back that far. (4.3.3.) 266 214 line with his reconstructed promotion to the bhaṭṭāraka rank by then, and conﬁrm his activity in the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 243).267 The location of the seat of Candrakīrti’s successor Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1662) is variously situated in Cākasū (Hoernle 1892: 61; Nyāyatīrtha 1985b: 421), Sāṅgānera (Hoernle 1892: 61), and Āmera (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 246). Kāsalīvāla variously locates his paṭṭābhiṣeka in Cākasū (Kāsalīvāla 1967a: 165) and in Sāṅgānera (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 150). Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 244) give hagiographical information on Devendrakīrti from an unspeciﬁed vernacular eulogistic composition (‘jābaḍī’, = jakhaḍī). Accordingly, Devendrakīrti had been a muni before becoming bhaṭṭāraka, and as a bhaṭṭāraka had munis in his saṅgha. Still according to the composition, in s. 1663 Devendrakīrti with his saṅgha went to Mozamābāda (50 km south-west of Jayapura), where a grand consecration festival was held in s. 1664. A newly built mandira was consecrated, as were thousands of mūrtis which were spread all over Northern India. This temple was built by Nānū Godhā, a minister (āmātya) of the Kachavāhā ruler Māna Siṅha (Nyāyatīrtha 1997: 137-9). In the laudatory style of writing of Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 244), these events passed with the full ‘cooperation’ of the Dillī and Āmera rulers (Akbar and Māna Siṅha). According to a few verses of a vernacular paṭṭāvalī hagiographic edited by Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 246), the next incumbent Narendrakīrti (p. s. 1691-1722) had devotees in areas as far apart as Mevāṛa, Mālavā, and Dillī. Yet he seems to have been the ﬁrst Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent whose incumbency was fully centred in north Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa. Paṭṭāvalīs alternatively situate Narendrakīrti in Sāṅgānera and Āmera (Hoernle 1892: 61), and it seems Narendrakīrti was consecrated in Sāṅgānera in s. 1691 (Kāsalīvāla 1967a: 166, Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 246, Nyāyatīrtha 1985a: 421) and later shifted his seat to the Kachavāhā capital Āmera. Narendrakīrti consecrated memorials for his predecessor Devendrakīrti both in Sāṅgānera (4.3.5.) and Āmera (4.3.6.). The former is probably an indication of Devendrakīrti’s actual place of death and the latter an attempt of Narendrakīrti to moor his lineage in his new home base. Narendrakīrti is reported to have been a inﬂuential bhaṭṭāraka, well-versed in Digambara scripture and having many devotional poets among his pupils, organising consecration festivals, and leading congregational pilgrimages to Girnar and Hastinapur (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 246-98; Cort 2002a: 51-2). Among his pupils were Akhayarāja, who wrote Hindi prose ṭīkās to many stotras, and the paṇḍitas Paramānanda and Jagannātha (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 247-8). Paṇḍita Jagannātha is said to have belonged to Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha, as did seemingly Paramānanda. This indicates that the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā at this time still maintained an active connection to south Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa, which is also conﬁrmed from Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti’s involvement in a grand consecration ritual in s. 1710 in Mālapurā, some 35 km north of Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 248). The main rationale behind Narendrakīrti’s shift from Sāṅgānera to Āmera was no doubt its attraction as the Kachavāhā capital. Yet around the same time Narendrakīrti also faced opposition in Sāṅgānera from the nascent Terāpantha, an anti-bhaṭṭāraka reform movement thought to have Candrakīrti is also said to have constructed mandiras in Vānarasindarī (?), Harasūlī (prob. Harasolī, 40 km north of Alavara), Lakhā (?), and Sākhūṇa (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 243). 267 215 originated in Sāṅgānera around the 1660s CE (Cort 2002a: 50-4; Flügel 2006: 339-42).268 According to one account, the wealthy layman Amrā Bhauṃsā Godīkā was expelled for displaying his wealth during the sermon of one Brahmacārī Amaracanda, presumably a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti. In response, Amrā Bhauṃsā Godīkā vowed to start a new sectarian tradition and built a new temple with some associates. According to a diﬀerent account, it was Amrā Bhauṃsā Godīkā’s son Jodharāja Godīkā who was expelled for repeatedly interrupting the preaching of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti himself, during the latter’s cāturmāsa in Sāṅgānera. It is possible that both accounts, found in anti-Terāpantha sources, report diﬀerent episodes of a strife continued over a longer period. The Digambara Terāpantha movement later built its own mandiras in the newly founded city of Jayapura (4.1.3.), and, through processes which still need to be studied (Cort 2002a: 66), spread throughout much of Western and Central India as an inﬂuential sectarian tradition with a distinct ritual culture, opposing the authority of the bhaṭṭārakas and objecting to ritual practices such as the use of ﬂowers and fruits in pūjā and the veneration of goddesses and guardian deities. Three more Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas from the second half of the 17th and the ﬁrst half of the 18th century CE were seated in Āmera, Surendrakīrti (p. s. 1722), Jagatkīrti (p. s. 1733), and Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1770269). From an unidentiﬁed source, probably a vernacular composition, Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 247-52) report much details about the selection and consecration of Narendrakīrti’s successor Surendrakīrti. Interestingly, Surendrakīrti had remained a paṇḍita, by the name of Dāmodaradāsa, all the way up to his bhaṭṭāraka consecration, never taking up initiation as a lower renouncer before ascending the seat. The account also gives a good image of the involvement of the lay community in the selection of a new incumbent and of the continued relation of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā to Sāṅgānera, or vice-versa of the deep involvement of the Sāṅgānera lay community in its aﬀairs, with paṇḍitas, saṅghapatis, and other prominent laymen from Sāṅgānera involved in the search for a proper successor. Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti felt his end nearing during his travels (vihāra). Passing through Sāṅgānera, he told one of his favourite pupils, Paṇḍita Dāmodaradāsa, that he wanted to consecrate him to the seat. Narendrakīrti called together the Sāṅgānera community to announce the same, and then proceeded to Āmera, where he again expressed his wish to anoint his successor. Saṅghapati Vimaladāsa, who had joined Narendrakīrti from Sāṅgānera to Āmera, then wrote to Paṇḍita Kalyāṇa from Sāṅgānera about the matter. Paṇḍita Kalyāṇa could not think of any suitable paṇḍitas but understood Narendrakīrti’s intent to elect Dāmodaradāsa. Saṅghapati Vimaladāsa, Paṇḍita Kalyāṇa, and other prominent laymen went to meet Narendrakīrti to further discuss his succession. Saṅghapati Vimaladāsa asked Narendrakīrti about his choice, adding that no better paṇḍita than Dāmodaradāsa could be found. Narendrakīrti was pleased, and Dāmodaradāsa was summoned from Sāṅgānera. More prominent laymen joined him to Āmera. On the selected day of the consecration,270 Surendrakīrti A Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā paṭṭāvalī records the origins of the Terāpantha in s. 1695 in its entry for Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti (‘yākai bāre terāpanthī huā saṃvat 1695 meṃ’, Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 237), and Canda Kavi dated Amrā Bhauṃsā Godīkā’s protest to two decades before 1618 CE (Cort 2002a: 52), but both datings seem too early (Premī [1943] 1957: 54; Cort 2002a: 52). 268 269 I take it Nyāyatīrtha’s (1985a: 421) dating of Devendrakīrti’s consecration to s. 1774 is a mistake. I take it that the cited date of s. 1728 Śrāvaṇa śukla 8, a Monday (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 251) contains a mistake, as Narendrakīrti’s consecration is otherwise reported as s. 1722, also elsewhere by Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 250) themselves. 270 216 was anointed (abhiṣeka) with water from golden pitchers (kalaśa) perfumed with saﬀron and turmeric and with unbroken rice added to it. Narendrakīrti then named Paṇḍita Dāmodaradāsa, now Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti, as his chosen pupil-successor (paṭṭaśiṣya). Dāmodaradāsa then took the Digambara renouncer’s main vows, the ﬁve mahāvratas. Narendrakīrti seated Surendrakīrti on his own throne (āsana) and putting his hand on his head uttered a mantra (the sūri-mantra, see Detige 2019b). Narendrakīrti ﬁnally encouraged Surendrakīrti to spread Jain teachings and eradicate suﬀering. Prominent laymen from Āmera and Sāṅgānera then performed the anointment (abhiṣeka) of Surendrakīrti, and the newly minted bhaṭṭāraka gave a sermon. Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti’s main centre was at the Neminātha Mandira in Āmera. According to Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 253), laypeople from both Āmera and Sāṅgānera were also involved in the selection of Jagatkīrti as a successor to Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti, and Jagatkīrti also had seats in both towns. Jagatkīrti’s consecration in s. 1733 was organised in Āmera, and probably the same Vimaladāsa who was involved in the selection of his successor received the privilege to anoint him with ﬁve golden kalaśas (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 253). According to Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (Ibid.), Ratnakīrti, Mahīcandra, and Yaśakīrti, all named without rank, gifted him the bhaṭṭāraka seat (gādī). These would be expected to have been incumbents of other Balātkāragaṇa seats, but only for Mahīcandra a match to a known, coeval Balātkāragaṇa bhaṭṭāraka can be found.271 They could also have been lower-ranking Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā renouncers. Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti was involved in icon consecrations in Karavara in the Hāḍautī region (probably Karavāra, Karwar, between Būndī, Savāī Mādhopura, and Ṭoṅka) in s. 1741 and s. 1761, and in Chāndakheḍī in s. 1746 (1689 CE) (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 153-4). The Karavāra s. 1761 festival was sponsored by a Khaṇḍelavāla donor (Sonapāla Chābaḍā) and the s. 1746 Chāndakheḍī consecration by a Bhageravāla (Kiśanadāsa). The proceedings of the latter two events are reported to have been obstructed by magical tricks by renouncers from other, unnamed traditions (‘yati’, = Śvetāmbara?) which Jagatkīrti is reported to countered with his own usage of mantra (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 254). Eleven bhaṭṭārakas were present at the Chāndakheḍī consecration festival, among which Jagatkīrti was considered the main. The ritual proceedings were reportedly so lavish that many local laypeople turned to the Terāpantha (Cort 2002a: 54). Good numbers of paṇḍitas seem to have been connected to Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 254, 248). Nyāyatīrtha (1985b) edited a composition by Paṇḍita Nemacandra on the consecration of Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti’s successor Devendrakīrti (see Detige 2019a, Detige 2019b). Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 256) also have information on the event from an unnamed source, clearly another text. According to the latter account, Āmera was decorated and toraṇas were erected for the consecration, which was attended by laypeople from Āmera, Sāṅgānera, Mozamābāda, Sāmbhara, Narainā, Cākasū, Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha, and other towns and villages. The latter information indicates the inﬂuence sphere of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas at the time. The composition edited by Nyāyatīrtha (1985b) also records that the event was attended by Dīvāna Rāyacanda Chābaḍā and A Mahīcandra was incumbent on the far removed Balātkāragaṇa Lāturaśākhā seat at the time (Joharāpurakara 1958: 88). It is less likely he was the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha bhaṭṭāraka of that name possibly incumbent at the time (Ibid.: 247). 271 217 Dīvāna Kiśanacanda, Jain ministers at the royal court, saṅghapatis from Sāṅgānera, and many other prominent laymen. In s. 1783, Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti held a grand consecration ceremony in Bhāṃsakhoha (probably Banskho, 40 km east of Jayapura) where according to Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 257) thousands of icons were consecrated. 4.1.3. Dillī (ﬁrst half of the 18th century CE) The next Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent Mahendrakīrti (p. s. 1792272) was consecrated and spent a ﬁrst short part of his incumbency in Dillī, but later moved into Jayapura. His subsequent relocations to Dillī and away from there can again easily be related to political conditions and historical events. The consecration of Mahendrakīrti took place on 24th December 1735 CE (s. 1792 Pauṣa śukla 10), during the rule of the Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shāh (r. 1719-48 CE), in a Jaina mandira in Jayasiṅhapura (Nyāyatīrtha 1985a: 421-2), a neighbourhood of Śāhajahānābāda founded by the Kachavāhā ruler close to Connaught Circle in today’s New Dillī. Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 258) take Mahendrakīrti’s consecration in Dillī as indicating that the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas’ fame had spread so much that Digambara communities in Dillī had developed faith in them. Nyāyatīrtha (1985a: 421) oﬀered a number of other, probably more accurate explanations for Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti’s consecration taking place in Dillī despite the foundation of Jayapura already in 1727 CE. The new city of Jayapura perhaps wasn’t developed enough, the Terāpantha opposition to the bhaṭṭārakas may have been too strong in the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region at the time, and the Kachavāhā ruler Jaya Siṅha (r. 1688-1743 CE) probably was in Jayasiṅhapura too, as was one Rāva Krpārāma, who was in the favour of (‘krpā-pātra’) the Kachavāhā mahārāja and the Mughal ̥ ̥ ruler, and some people associated with him. While by the time the Terāpantha may indeed not have been as strong a presence in Dillī as in Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa, the Kachavāhā connection to the Mughal empire was no doubt the most important factor in opening up avenues to Dillī for Digambara lay communities and Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti. We can derive information on the whereabouts of Mahendrakīrti from an analysis of the colophons of numerously preserved manuscripts copied by Paṇḍita Dayārāma, a native of Narāyaṇa (Narainā, some 65 kilometres west of Jayapura) who seems to have followed in his retinue (for details, see Detige 2018: 289-92). No less than ﬁve manuscripts have been preserved copied by Paṇḍita Dayārāma in Dillī’s Jayasiṅhapura in s. 1793 (1736-7 CE), shortly after Mahendrakīrti’s consecration. In 1739 CE, the Afsharid ruler of Persia Nader Shah (r. 1736-47) invaded the Mughal Empire, defeated Muhammad Shah, and took control over Dillī. An uprising against Nader Shah led to a massacre of the population and looting of the city, and Nader Shah carried oﬀ enormous booty back to Persia. In a colophon of a manuscript copied a few year later, in s. 1798, Dayārāma locates himself in Bhagavatagaṛha, Bhagwatgarh in Savāī Mādhopura district. Perhaps still in following the bhaṭṭāraka, the paṇḍita may have found a safe haven and sponsorship for his scribal activities in this smaller town after donations in Dillī had dried up due to the devastations a few years earlier. Joharāpurakara (1958: 111) gave s. 1790 as the start date of Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti’s incumbency. Hoernle (1892: 83) and Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 258) gave s. 1792, and Cort (2002a: 59) the corresponding 1735 CE. I trust a composition on his consecration by Paṇḍita Akṣayarāma probably coeval to the event gives the correct date in s. 1792 (Nyāyatīrtha 1985a: 421). 272 218 When completing a manuscript in s. 1801, Dayārāma was back in Jayasiṅhapura, but in s. 1802 and in s. 1808 he produced manuscript copies in Jayapura. In the former Dayārāma explicitly mentions being in proximity to Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti,273 which probably indicates that Mahendrakīrti had by then shifted to Jayapura. 4.1.4. Jayapura (second half of the 18th and 19th century CE) The Āmera ruler Jaya Siṅha (r. 1699-1743 CE) extended the regional power of the Kachavāhā polity and founded the new capital Jayapura in 1727 CE. The city quickly ﬂourished as a crucial trade post for long-distance trade routes.274 Jain merchants, administrators, intellectuals, and litterateurs migrated to Jayapura, attracted by tax incentives extended to them by Jaya Siṅha (Roy [1978] 2006: 52, 57-9). Among Jaya Siṅha’s courtiers were also many Digambaras. Cort (2002a: 55) sees the construction of the Pāṭodī Mandira and the Baṛā Terāpantha Mandira in respectively 1725 and 1735 CE as central temples for the Bīsapantha and the Terāpantha as indicating that the sectarian division was formally institutionalised in the new capital city from its foundation.275 The following decades saw the maturation of the Terāpantha, Paṇḍita Ṭoḍaramala’s (c. 1719/1720 - c. 1766 CE) Mokṣa-mārga-prakāśaka (Illuminator of the Path to Liberation) forming its ideological formalisation.276 Important courtiers supported Paṇḍita Ṭoḍaramala in his opposition to the bhaṭṭārakas, and more important intellectuals ﬂourished in the mid-18th century CE Jayapura Terāpantha. Daulatarāma Kāsalīvāla (1692-1772 CE) was a courtier and Terāpanthī writer and preacher,277 and Brahmacārī Rāyamalla was a close associated of Paṇḍita Ṭoḍaramala who wrote on ethics, philosophy, and ritual from a Terāpanthī perspective. In s. 1821 (1764 CE) the Terāpantha held its Indradhvaja Pūjā Mahotsava, a grand festival with a procession functioning as a ritual marker of its success. The event was supported by Mādho Siṅha (r. 1750-68 CE) and prominent Jain ministers of the royal court, and attracted laypeople from Terāpantha communities from throughout Western and Central India. (Kāsalīvāla 1979b: 157; Cort 2002a: 58-9) The 1760s CE were also period of great upheavals for the Jayapura Jain communities at large, with several violent clashes with Śaiva or Śaiva inspired actors (Kāsalīvāla 1979b: 158-9; Cort 2002a: 61; Karatchkova 2012: 7-10). In a ﬁrst episode early in the decade, Mādho Singh’s rājā-guru Śyāma Tivāṛī plotted up the Kachavāhā ruler against the Jains and Digambara mandiras were converted into Śaiva temples. A few years later, in 1766 CE anti-Jain riots broke out after complaints that the Jains had started to reconvert the Śaiva sites. Jains were persecuted and imprisoned, and Paṇḍita Ṭoḍaramala was murdered during these disturbances. A third wave of anti-Jain sentiments and 273 ‘[…] saṃvat 1802 varṣe […] bhaṭṭārakajī mahendrakīrtti jī pravartamānetat samīpe […]’ (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 226). 274 This section draws from Cort 2002a: 55-8. 275 Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 263) however note that only by the time of the consecration of Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti at the very end of the 18th century CE the Jayapura community had fully divided in Terāpantha and Bīsapantha streams. On the Digambara mandiras of Jayapura, see Nyāyatīrtha 1990. 276 On Paṇḍita Ṭoḍaramala, see Bhārilla 1974a, 1974b. 277 On Daulatarāma Kāsalīvāla, see Kāsalīvāla 1973. 219 Jaina-Śaiva animosity broke out in 1769 CE, during the rule by then of Prthvī Siṅha (r. 1768-78 CE). ̥ The anti-Jain riots were no doubt related to the success and the considerable political inﬂuence and aspirations of Jain courtiers, ministers of revenue and state (Karatchkova 2012: 22). The consecration of Mahendrakīrti’s successor Kṣemendrakīrti (p. s. 1815-22) was organised at the Pāṭodī Mandira, which Cort (2002a: 59) sees as a statement of the centrality of the Bīsapantha in the Digambara community of Jayapura.278 Bakhatrāma Śāha’s Mithyātva-khaṇḍana written in s. 1821, during the incumbency of Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemendrakīrti, is also an attempt to counter the Terāpantha inﬂuence. At the same time, Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 260) submitted that the observed lack of noteworthy activities of Kṣemendrakīrti might relate to the Terāpantha polemics raging at the time. This might also account for a lull in Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorial construction. No memorial has been ﬁrmly identiﬁed of Devendrakīrti (through see 4.3.7.). And caraṇa-chatrīs of Mahendrakīrti and Kṣemendrakīrti were built belatedly in the very late 18th century CE. (4.3.10.) Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti (p. s. 1822-52) ascended the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent seat shortly after the Terāpantha’s Indradhvaja Pūjā Mahotsava and Paṇḍita Ṭoḍaramala’s death, while the Terāpantha polemics against the bhaṭṭārakas reached their zenith. Yet Surendrakīrti was not only consecrated at the Pāṭodī Mandira in Jayapura, but also moved the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat there from Āmera shortly after (Joharāpurakara 1958: 111-2; Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 261; B. Jaina 1978: 44; Cort 2002a: 59). In the period after Paṇḍita Ṭoḍaramala’s death the TerāpanthaBīsapantha animosity abated, and Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti is said to have restored the devotion to the bhaṭṭārakas (Cort 2002a: 59, 61). Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti (p. s. 1822-52) was particularly active in icon consecrations, temple renovations, and consecrations of new mandiras and vedis. (Varmā 1998: 14-5) In s. 1826 (1769 CE), just ﬁve years after the Terāpantha’s Indradhvaja Pūjā Mahotsava, and two or three years after the death of Paṇḍita Ṭoḍaramala, Surendrakīrti organised a grand consecration festival in Savāī Mādhopura. A marker of Bīsapantha resurgence, the festival was visited by thousands of laypeople coming from all over Western and Central India and thousands of mūrtis were consecrated and sent to temples far and wide (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 261; Cort 2002a: 59-60). In the same year, Surendrakīrti also oversaw the building of a mandira at the Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ on a plot of land south of Jayapura which had been donated to his earlier predecessor Mahendrakīrti by the royal court in s. 1801. (4.3.10.) Surendrakīrti held further consecrations and temple renovations in subsequent decades, among which one at Khandāra (some 25 km east of Savāī Mādhopura) in s. 1841 which was visited by important courtiers of Mahārāja Savāī Pratāpa Siṅha (r. 1778-1803 CE), like his khavāsa (attendant) Rāmakaṃvara and his prime minister Dīvāna Rāmacandra (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 261-2; Cort 2002a: 60). In s. 1845, Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti also erected a kīrtistambha of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, a material expression of the lineage’s glory meant for ritual veneration, at the eponymous Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ in Āmera (4.3.9.). Surendrakīrti was involved in the development of Mahāvīrajī, still an There was also further Bīsapantha presence in Jayapura through the activities of Balātkāragaṇa Śākambharīśākhā (6.1.3.) and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha (2.2.1.) bhaṭṭārakas. 278 220 important Digambara pilgrimage place some 150 km east of Jayapura which remained connected to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas ever since (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 262).279 The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā remained ﬁrmly established in Jayapura under Sukhendrakīrti (p. s. 1852), Narendrakīrti (p. s. 1880), and Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1883). By the time of the consecration of Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti the Jayapura community was ﬁrmly divided in Terāpantha and Bīsapantha streams, and although both Paṇḍita Ṭoḍaramala and Daulatarāma Kāsalīvāla were no longer by then, Mahāpaṇḍita Jayacandra Chābaḍā and Ṭoḍaramala’s son Gumānīrāma were continuing the Terāpantha opposition (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 263). Gumānīrāma in particular was attempting to resuscitate the Terāpantha fervour by starting an even stricter reform movement known as the Gumānapantha or the Śuddha Terāpantha Āmnāya, the ‘pure Terāpantha tradition’ (Cort 2002a: 61-2). Still, Sukhendrakīrti seems to have been able to develop substantial, and ostentatious activities. He consecrated grand memorials of his two earlier predecessors Mahendrakīrti and Kṣemendrakīrti in s. 1853. (4.3.10.) According to Kāsalīvāla (1979b: 158), at a grand consecration festival held in Jayapura during the incumbency of Sukhendrakīrti, in s. 1861, thousands of icons were consecrated and installed in the city’s mandiras. The Jayapura bhaṭṭārakas were supported by royal courtiers, oﬃcers of the royal army, and intellectuals. Notwithstanding the upheavals of the 1760s CE, the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā maintained a close and stable relationship to the Kachavāhā court, maintained through Bīsapantha courtiers and wealthy merchants. The court made gifts of land and presented palanquins, whisks, and shawls of honour to newly consecrated bhaṭṭārakas (Kāsalīvāla 1979b: 158; Varmā 1998: 19, 24, 25, 43, 47; Cort 2002a: 60). This close link between the Kachavāhā court and the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa bhaṭṭārakas is also expressed in elegant, relatively lengthy references to the Kachavāhā rulers consistently found in Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials’ inscriptions in Jayapura, not very commonly found in early modern Digambara memorial inscriptions elsewhere (Detige 2024b, 4.2.6.). The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas made eﬀorts to sculpt their polity after that of the Kachavāhā mahārājas and to connect to it, and themselves took on royal pomp during their consecrations and public appearances. As part of their consecration, Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas were seated on a throne with a parasol (chatra) held over their head,280 and carvings of commemorated bhaṭṭārakas found inside their chatrīs in Jayapura (4.3.10.) and Cākasū (4.3.11.) depict them in jharokhā-like structures, perhaps referring to bhaṭṭārakas’ practices of giving darśana to their devotees (2.4.). Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 262) and Kāsalīvāla (1989: 1562) even hold that Surendrakīrti moved his seat to Mahāvīrajī. 279 ‘siṃghāsaṇi baidā śrī munirājaï sira para chatra dharāyajī’ (Nyāyatīrtha 1985b: 35). At the same time, even these later-day Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas apparently took to nudity as part of their consecrations. According to a letter reproduced by Varmā (1998: 30), Narendrakīrti was seated naked on a stone caukī for his consecration in s. 1880, after which the pañca pleaded with him that it was not a proper time (era) to propagate the dharma naked, and dressed him in dhotī and cādara. 280 221 4.1.5. Mahāvīrajī (later 19th and 20th century CE) The last two Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents Mahendrakīrti and Candrakīrti seem to have focused much of their activities in Mahāvīrajī, some 150 km to the east of Jayapura, and according the Kāsalīvāla (1990: 227) they also lived there. The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā had been involved with the development of this pilgrimage place in the second half of the 18th century CE, under Surendrakīrti, and remained connected to it ever since (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 262). Devendrakīrti’s successor Mahendrakīrti (p. s. 1937281) spent most of his time in Mahāvīrajī and was murdered there in s. 1974/1918 CE (Varmā 1998: 47). His successor, the last Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent Candrakīrti (p. s. 1975) also seems to have died in Mahāvīrajī, in 1969 CE, apparently having become blind (Kāsalīvāla 1990: 228). The consecration of these later-day bhaṭṭārakas was still ratiﬁed by the Kachavāhā court, and shawls of honour were sent to them as had been the custom before (Varmā 1998: 47). Yet, the gradual waning of the Kachavāhā glory in colonial times and the loss of this model of royal legitimisation may have been a factor for the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā to turn away from Jayapura and to turn instead to the miraculous icon (camatkārī mūrti) of Mahāvīrajī as a diﬀerent form of legitimisation.282 At the time of Indian independence in 1947 CE, the Rajput kingdoms were dissolved and the Rajput monarchs were oﬃcially divested of their political powers, the former Kachavāhā dominion being subsumed into the state of Rajasthan. 4.2. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials: overview The bulk of the present chapter consists of an in-depth analysis of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and Uttaraśākhā memorials discovered by site, presented in the next section. (4.3.) The current section introduces this corpus of memorials. Subsequent sub-sections focus on memorials of lineage incumbents (4.2.1.), lower-ranking renouncers (4.2.2.), unidentiﬁed renouncers (4.2.3.), and paṇḍitas (4.2.4.). Two ﬁnal sub-sections summarise ﬁndings on the material features (4.2.5.) and the inscriptions (4.2.6.) of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and Uttaraśākhā memorials. Table 4.1 includes details of all discovered memorials of individuals related to the Uttaraśākhā and the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. In Chart 4.2, these are inserted on the succession lineage of the later Uttaraśākhā and the full Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. All discovered Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and Uttaraśākhā memorials have been found within the contemporary state of Rajasthan. (Map 4.2, 4.3) No memorials have been retrieved from Dillī. The Uttaraśākhā had a longer presence in the Sultanate capital in the 14th and 15th century CE, but memorials from this period are generally rare. In the mid-18th century CE, the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā had a very brief stint at the Mughal capital (4.1.3.), but the area from where Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti is reported is now a heavily built up area. Elsewhere in Dillī too, early modern memorials would probably have had little chance of survival due to building pressure. Joharāpurakara (1958: 112) has s. 1939 for the consecration of Mahendrakīrti, but Varmā (1998: 32, 47) has s. 1937 from original documents. 281 282 I thank John Cort (personal communication, 17th May 2024) for the latter suggestion. 222 Chart 4.2. Succession of Uttaraśākhā (grey) and Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas (orange) and maṇḍalācāryas (maroon) with discovered memorials of bhaṭṭārakas (orange), ācāryas (red), a male renouncer of unspeciﬁed rank (yellow), a female renouncer (light blue), and paṇḍitas (dark blue), with year recorded on memorial stone. Full arrows indicate succession or pupillary aﬃliation, dotted arrows indicate consecration or erection of memorial. 223 Map 4.2. Towns with ﬁndings spots of Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials in the Jayapura region (north Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa) (indicated in blue). Map 4.3. Towns with ﬁndings spots of Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and Uttaraśākhā memorials in the south Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region (indicated in blue). 224 4.2.1. Bhaṭṭārakas A relatively continuous corpus of Uttaraśākhā and Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭāraka memorials from the 16th to the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE remains at nasīyās in Āvāṃ, Sāṅgānera, Āmera, Jayapura, and Cākasū. (Chart 4.2) I did not retrieve a s. 1589 niṣedhikā of the ﬁrst Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra reported from Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha (see 4.3.3.). Yet at the hillside nasīyā in Āvāṃ three particularly tall niṣedhikās commemorate the two last, 15th to early 16th century CE Uttaraśākhā bhaṭṭārakas Śubhacandra and Jinacandra, as well as their successor Prabhācandra, the ﬁrst incumbent of what I refer to as the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā (4.3.2.) They were all consecrated together in s. 1593, probably by Prabhācandra’s successor Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra, and as such can be regarded as Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials. The later-day installation of memorials of multiple incumbents at (probably) a site other than their actual place of death is an otherwise rarely attested practice. No legible inscriptions remain on a fourth, smaller niṣedhikā at the site but iconographic features indicate it is a female renouncer’s memorial. Nyāyatīrtha (1997: 81-2) reported an unspeciﬁed number of ‘caumukhas’ from the Śiva Ḍūṅgarī hill near Cākasū, which judging from his description were clearly niṣedhikās. Nyāyatīrtha (1997: 81) partially reproduced the inscription of one of them which like the Āvāṃ memorials is dated s. 1593 and similarly attests the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra. The site is now a Śaiva temple complex, but iconographic features of one of the site’s mandiras indicate it was formerly a Jain temple. A number of early modern chatrīs were found on and near the hill, some of which are still identiﬁable as Jaina, but the reported niṣedhikās had been removed by the time of my visit. (4.3.3.) No Digambara memorials have been reported from Cittauḍagaṛha and I also did not retrieve any during a short visit. It can be expected that some were erected during the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā’s presence in Cittauḍagaṛha in the 16th century CE. (4.1.1.) They may not have survived. This regional blindspot probably accounts for the absence from the corpus of memorials of the maṇḍalācāryas Dharmacandra and Lalitakīrti, their successor Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti, and lower-ranking renouncers related to their saṅghas. (4.2.2.) Caraṇa-chatrīs commemorating four consecutive Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents dating to the 17th and early 18th century CE are found in Āmera. These are memorials of Devendrakīrti (date on memorial stone illegible), Narendrakīrti and Surendrakīrti (inscriptions not recording the memorials’ date of consecration but date of death respectively s. 1722 and s. 1733), and Jagatkīrti (d. s. 1770, memorial stone consecrated s. 1771). (4.3.6.) This ﬁnding spot also features a Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā kīrtistambha consecrated in s. 1845. (4.3.9.) A second pādukā of Devendrakīrti discovered in Sāṅgānera was consecrated in s. 1696. (4.3.5.) No memorial has been identiﬁed of Jagatkīrti’s successor, another Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1770-92). A niṣedhikā preserved at the Saṅghijī Mandira in Sāṅgānera with a not fully deciphered inscription does seem to refer to Devendrakīrti, but with dates of s. 1777 and s. 1783 seems to be too early to be his own memorial. (4.3.7.) Elegant caraṇa-chatrīs of the next three Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas were erected on a single platform at a site south of Jayapura. These were built in the late 18th and the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE, after a considerable gap since the last Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials. (4.3.10.) 225 Mahendrakīrti (p. s. 1792-1815) and his successor Kṣemendrakīrti (p. s. 1815-1822) were both commemorated in s. 1853 by the latter’s second successor in line, Sukhendrakīrti (p. s. 1852). A pādukā installed on a low pillar in open air next to the platform was also consecrated by Sukhendrakīrti and bears the same date as the memorial stones of his two predecessor, but its inscription does not identify who it commemorates. Iconographic features clearly indicate it was intended as a renouncer’s memorial, and it may have served as a memorial for all other prior incumbents. A caraṇa-chatrī commemorating Kṣemendrakīrti’s immediate successor Surendrakīrti (p. s. 1822-52) was added on the platform three decades later, in s. 1881, again by his second successor in line (Sukhendrakīrti’s successor), Narendrakīrti (p. s. 1880). A caraṇa-chatrī of Sukhendrakīrti in Cākasū consecrated in s. 1886 by Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1883), once more his second successor in line, is the last Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭāraka memorial retrieved. (4.3.11.) I have not found memorials of Narendrakīrti, Devendrakīrti, or the last two Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents Mahendrakīrti (p. s. 1937, d. s. 1974 [1918 CE]) and Candrakīrti (p. s. 1975, d. s. 2026 [1969 CE]), neither in Jayapura nor in Mahāvīrajī. 4.2.2. Lower-ranking renouncers Only a few memorials of lower-ranking Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā renouncers have been found. At a site in Bijauliyāṃ, some 90 kilometres north-east of Cittauḍagaṛha, tall niṣedhikās from the ﬁrst half of the 15th century CE commemorate two renouncers connected to the Uttaraśākhā, Hemakīrti, an unranked pupil of the Uttaraśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra (s. 1465), probably a muni or an ācārya, and a female renouncer, Bāī Āgamasiri (s. 1483). (4.3.1.) At the Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha Nasiyā stands a s. 1681 chatrī of Ācārya Harṣakīrti, who is commemorated as a pupil of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti. (4.3.3.) A Śvetāmbara chatrī from s. 1682 is also found at the site, and other partially preserved but unidentiﬁed structures nearby may also have commemorated further Jaina renouncers, perhaps Digambara, and if so most likely Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā aﬃliated. Among four chatrīs in Bassī, 30 km east of Jayapura, two still feature pādukās. They commemorate the late 17th and 18th century CE ācāryas Kanakakīrti (pādukā s. 1750, chatrī s. 1781) and Mahīcandra (s. 1828). While their pedigree can be traced back to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, they may have split oﬀ from it, forming an independent, local ācārya lineage. (4.3.8.) Among the unidentiﬁed chatrīs in Bārāṃ and Ṭoṅka could also be further memorials of lower-ranking Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā renouncers. (4.2.3.) With one 16th century CE ācārya and two late 17th - early 18th century CE ācāryas, and not a single muni or brahmacārī, the number of discovered memorials of lower-ranking Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā renouncers is remarkably small, both when compared to the almost continuous body of memorials of Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents, to the substantial number of textual attestations of 226 early modern lower-ranking Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā renouncers,283 and to the much larger number of memorials of lower-ranking Vāgaḍāśākhā renouncers (Chapter 5). This can probably be ascribed to the general paucity of Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials from the 16th and 17th century CE, when Digambara munis still ﬂourished. The latter in turn probably depends on the lack of memorials from Cittauḍagaṛha and perhaps Mevāṛa more broadly. (4.2.1.) Among the corpus of retrieved Vāgaḍāśākhā memorials, the 16th and 17th century CE is also the period when a large number of lower-ranking renouncers (muni, ācārya) is found commemorated (Chapter 5), while the corpus of retrieved Śākambharīśākhā memorials shows a similar scarcity of memorials of lower-ranking renouncers from the 16th and 17th century CE (Chapter 6). Textual sources however clearly conﬁrm that lower-ranking renouncers ﬂourished in the 16th century CE Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā saṅghas of Dharmacandra, Lalitakīrti, and Candrakīrti (Detige 2018: 360-1, 364-5). 4.2.3. Unidentiﬁed renouncers Some further, unidentiﬁed memorials from the corpus may also have commemorated Uttaraśākhā or Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā renouncers. Five niṣedhikās preserved at the Nasiyāṃjī in Bārāṃ were probably originally installed in the now repurposed chatrīs on the site. The niṣedhikās are currently installed against a wall and against each other, possibly making some inscriptions unavailable, and most of those inscriptions still visible are heavily weathered. One inscription might contain a reference to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Dharmacandra, two others feature still legible dates from the second half of the 15th century CE (s. 1525, s. 155[1?]), which in the Uttaraśākhā would situate them during the incumbency of Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra. (4.3.18.) Located close to Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha, Cittauḍagaṛha, and Bijauliyāṃ, Bārāṃ too may once have been Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā territory. The niṣedhikās seem to be of similar antiquity, and would date to the second half of the 15th or ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE. Chatrīs are located at a number of nasīyās in Ṭoṅka, but none of these still bear original memorial stones or inscriptions. They could however also have related to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, and at least some may also date to the 16th or 17th century CE. (4.3.19.) The inscription of a niṣedhikā preserved in the Sāṅgānera Saṅghijī Mandira is only partly legible, but has dates in s. 1777 and s. 1783, probably refers to Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti who was then on the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat, and records three paṇḍitas. The latter were probably pupils of the unidentiﬁed renouncer commemorated through the pillar, or perhaps also its donors. They also seem to be depicted on the pillar, an almost entirely unique iconographic feature. (4.3.7.) See Detige 2018 (based on attestations included in Kāsalīvāla 1950) and Detige 2019a (discussing materials edited by Nyāyatīrtha 1985a&b). Further attestations documented in Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975) are Muni Hemakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1582, in the lineage of Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra, Ibid.: 154), Kamalakīrti (no rank, prob. at least muni, ﬂ. s. 1602, pupil of Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra, Ibid.: 240), Ācārya Hemacandra (ﬂ. s. 1632, pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti, Ibid.: 243), Ācārya Śubhacandra (?, pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti, Ibid.: 243), Ācārya Candrakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1722, pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, Ibid.: 247), Ācārya Dayābhūṣaṇa (att. s. 1736, during the time of Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti, Ibid.: 253), Ācārya Candrakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1780, during the time of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, Ibid.: 246), and Ācārya Sakalakīrti and Ācārya Jñānakīrti (?, in the saṅgha of Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti, Ibid.: 259). 283 227 4.2.4. Paṇḍitas Paṇḍitas played a role in the early modern and especially the 19th century CE Bīsapanthī traditions as associates to the bhaṭṭārakas. The large number of paṇḍitas recorded to have been present at the consecrations of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti and Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti for example, in both cases cited as 51, probably reﬂects networks of paṇḍitas connected to the bhaṭṭārakas at various towns (Nyāyatīrtha 1985a: 423; 1985b: 36). In the later 18th and the 19th century CE, memorials of paṇḍitas were also constructed, probably in the absence of broader circles of renouncers (other than bhaṭṭārakas) available for commemoration. A good number of memorials of 19th century CE paṇḍitas connected to Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā are found in Jayapura and other towns in the region. Their inscriptions often record pupillary successions of multiple generations of paṇḍitas, again indicating a ﬂourishing paṇḍita tradition, and a certain degree of independence from the bhaṭṭārakas. In s. 1880, Paṇḍita Kesarī Siṅha was commemorated in rather grand style at the Nasiyāṃ Śyojī Godhā north of the old city of Jayapura, recorded as standing in the lineage (‘āmnāye’) of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent from s. 1880 to s. 1883. (4.3.12.) Two small caraṇa shrines at the nearby Bijairāma jī Pāṇḍyā Mandira are also said to have commemorated paṇḍitas. One of these memorials may have been that of Paṇḍita Amolakacanda, and would then probably postdate s. 1890. (4.3.13.) Among three chatrīs at the Nasīyā in Caurū, some 60 km south-west of Jayapura, only one can still be identiﬁed. The pādukā is dated to s. 1888 and commemorates Paṇḍita Dhanarāja. (4.3.14.) A caraṇa-cabūtarā at the Candraprabhū Nasiyāṃ in nearby Phāgī is a memorial of Paṇḍita Jayacanda dated to s. 1924. (4.3.15.) The latter two memorial inscriptions record paṇḍita pupillary successions in the lineage (‘āmnāye’) of the then incumbent Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1883). Four unidentiﬁed chatrīs in Bagarū (30 km south, south-west of Jayapura) probably also commemorated paṇḍitas aﬃliated to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. (4.3.16.) Among an elegant ensemble of four paṇḍita memorials at a site in Būndī, the pādukās of two chatrīs built together in s. 1949 were consecrated by (most probably) the penultimate Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti (p. s. 1937). (4.3.17.) Rank Name Year Town Site Sectio n Inscripti on - Hemakīrti s. 1465 Bijauliyāṃ Pārśvanātha Atiśaya Kṣetra 4.3.1. / Bāī Āgamasiri s. 1483 Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra s. 1589+ Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha Nasiyā 4.3.3. / s. 1593 Āvāṃ 4.3.2. #4.3 Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra s. 1593 Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra s. 1593 Unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā+ s. 1593+ four unidentiﬁed chatrīs (prob. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā) / Nasīyā (Śāntinātha Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra) #4.2 #4.1 Cākasū ca. mid-17th cent. CE Śiva Ḍūṅgarī 4.3.4. / - 228 Rank Name Year Town Ācārya Harṣakīrti s. 1681 Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti Site Sectio n Inscripti on Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha Nasiyā 4.3.3. #4.4 s. 1696 Sāṅgānera Nasiyā 4.3.5. #4.6 n.d. [s. 1691-1722] Āmera Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ 4.3.6. #4.7 Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti n.d. [s. 1733-70] #4.8 Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti n.d. [s. 1733-70] #4.9 Ācārya Kanakakīrti s. 1750 Bassī Pārśvanātha Nasiyāṃjī 4.3.8. #4.12 Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti s. 1771 Āmera Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ 4.3.6. #4.10 s. 1777/83 Sāṅgānera Saṅghijī Mandira 4.3.7. #4.11 s. 1828 Bassī Pārśvanātha Nasiyāṃjī 4.3.8. #4.13 s. 1845 Āmera Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ 4.3.9. #4.15 Jayapura Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ 4.3.10. #4.16 Unidentiﬁed Ācārya Mahīcandra kīrtistambha Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti s. 1853 Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemendrakīrti s. 1853 #4.17 s. 1853 #4.18 Unidentiﬁed Paṇḍita Kesarī Siṅha s. 1880 Jayapura Nasiyāṃ Śyojī Godhā 4.3.12. #4.21 Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti s. 1881 Jayapura Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ 4.3.10. #4.19 Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti s. 1886 Cākasū Bhaṭṭāraka Nasiyāṃjī 4.3.11. #4.20 Paṇḍita Dhanarāja s. 1888 Caurū Nasīyā 4.3.14. #4.22 Paṇḍita?+ Unidentiﬁed (paṇḍita) - Unidentiﬁed - Amolakacanda?+ n.d. (> s. 1890?) Jayapura Bijairāma jī Pāṇḍyā Mandira Unidentiﬁed (probably paṇḍita) 4.3.13. - 4.3.13. - Paṇḍita Ḍuṅgarasidāsa s. 1911 Būndī Nasyājī 4.3.17. #4.24 Paṇḍita Jayacanda s. 1924 Phāgī Candraprabhū Nasiyāṃ 4.3.15. #4.23 Bagarū Nasiyāṃ 4.3.16. - Būndī Nasyājī 4.3.17. #4.25 four unidentiﬁed chatrīs (at least two probably paṇḍita) Paṇḍita Śivalāla s. 1949 Paṇḍita Sadāsevārāmasukha s. 1949 #4.26 Paṇḍita Ratnalāla s. 19[5?]6 #4.27 Table 4.1. Chronological list of discovered and reported (+) Uttaraśākhā and Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials (15th-19th century CE). 229 4.2.5. Material features This continuous corpus of Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials allows for a clear overview of the stylistic evolution of Digambara memorials in the region. The earliest memorial stones are all niṣedhikās, two heavy, early 15th century CE niṣedhikās at Bijauliyāṃ (s. 1465, s. 1483, Fig. 4.1), ﬁve 15th or 16th century CE, possibly Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā related niṣedhikās at a site in Bārāṃ (Fig. 4.30), three particularly tall slabs from the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE in Āvāṃ (s. 1593, Fig. 4.2-3), a s. 1589 niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra reported from Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha (4.3.3.), and the ‘caumukhas’ reported from the Cākasū Śiva Ḍūṅgarī, one dated to s. 1593 (4.3.4.). None of the retrieved 15th and 16th century CE memorial stones have been preserved in their original setting, and it is not clear whether they were originally installed in chatrīs. The report of the s. 1589 niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra also gives no indications on this. The probable niṣedhikās from the Cākasū Śiva Ḍūṅgarī however were reported as having been found in chatrīs, and the niṣedhikās in Bārāṃ probably belonged to the chatrīs at the site. This might be taken as an indication that the other Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā niṣedhikās were also originally installed in chatrīs. Almost a century separates this group of Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials from the next specimens retrieved, by which time the lineage had switched to using pādukās as the common commemorative iconography. The memorial stone of the s. 1681 Digambara chatrī at the Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha Nasiyā has been lost, but inscriptions on its lintels record it housed a pādukā (Fig. 4.4 bottom M. & R.). Subsequently, in the Jayapura region, solely pādukās were used, with as a single, notable exception the unidentiﬁed, s. 1777/1783 niṣedhikā preserved in the Sāṅgānera Saṅghijī Mandira (Fig. 4.10). The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā pādukās show a stylistic evolution from basic slabs with basic though not entirely crude carvings of feet in the 17th and early 18th century CE (Sāṅgānera, Fig. 4.6 M. & R.; Āmera, Fig. 4.8 R. & 4.9) to extremely ﬁnely carved, octagonal slabs featuring ﬁnely chiseled ascetics’ paraphernalia and lotus ﬂower motifs, forming beautiful centre pieces to their ﬁne chatrīs in the late 18th and ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE (Jayapura, Fig. 4.17; Cākasū, Fig. 4.19 L.). The design of the chatrīs also shows a clear development. We ﬁnd simple, four-pillared pavilions on a square ground plan with small domes (Āmera, Fig. 4.7; possibly Cākasū, Fig. 4.5 bottom L. & top R.) and stately eight-pillared chatrīs on an octagonal ﬂoor plan in the 17th century CE (Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha, Fig. 3.1, Fig. 4.4 middle L.; Ṭoṅka, Fig. 4.31 M. & R.) and possibly already in the 16th century CE (Cākasū, Fig. 4.5 bottom second and third from L.). In the late 18th and 19th century CE, more elegant, eight-pillared chatrīs were erected with bulbous, segmented domes, choice white marble, ornate ﬁnial kalaśas, more reﬁned and rounded baluster pillars, increasing decorative carving, consciously laid out radial webbed ﬂoor patterns, and, ultimately, contrasting blue stone linings (Jayapura, Fig. 4.15 & 4.17; Cākasū, Fig. 4.19 L. & M.). The stylistic development of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials parallels that of Kachavāhā chatrīs, from its earlier specimens in Āmera erected in local, grey stone and featuring smooth domes and plain pillars, to the Makrana marble, the more sumptuous ornamentation, and bulbous, externally segmented domes of the chatrīs at Geṭora, the new royal commemoration site in Jayapura (Belli Bose 2015: 52). Four late 17th and mid-18th century CE Digambara chatrīs in Bassī can be seen as an intermediate form (Fig. 4.11 & 4.13). Together with some Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha chatrīs in Bairāṭha (Fig. 3.2 Top) these 230 are the only chatrīs from the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region to preserve decorative murals inside their cupolas, featuring ﬂoral and geometric patterns. Although only two of the Bairāṭha chatrīs can be identiﬁed and dated, there too a clear evolution of their architectural design can be observed. (3.1.4.) At the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā commemoration sites in Āmera and Jayapura, a single platform supports respectively three and four chatrīs. In both cases, a larger platform was built for the ﬁrst memorial pavilions in anticipation of the addition of memorials of further incumbents later on. And in both cases these indeed came to be added later.284 The shared platform in Jayapura (Fig. 4.15-16) and the platform of a single chatrī in Cākasū (Fig. 4.19) are raised on pillars, a feature not attested anywhere else. The chambers in the plinth of two of the unidentiﬁed chatrīs of Bagarū also represent a speciﬁc development (Fig. 4.24 M. & 4.25 L.). There is relatively much variation among the memorials of 19th century CE Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā paṇḍitas, from the ornate pādukā of Paṇḍita Kesarī Siṅha installed in a spacious tibārā at the Nasiyāṃ Śyojī Godhā in Jayapura (s. 1880, Fig. 4.20) to the probably roughly contemporaneous but very modest caraṇa shrines at the nearby Bijairāma jī Pāṇḍyā Mandira (Fig. 4.21), the medium-sized caraṇa-chatrī of Paṇḍita Dhanarāja at the Caurū Nasīyā (s. 1888, Fig. 4.22), the humble caraṇa-cabūtarā of Paṇḍita Jayacanda at the Phāgī Candraprabhū Nasiyāṃ (s. 1924, Fig. 4.23), the probable paṇḍita chatrīs raised on considerable plinths in Bagarū (Fig. 4.24-25), and the elegant chatrī ensemble further oﬀ in Būndī (Fig. 4.27). 4.2.6. Inscriptions Compared to the often brief inscriptions of the necropolis in nearby Ajamera (Chapter 6) and at many other places, the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials often feature notably long inscriptions. They include types of information not often recorded in Digambara memorial inscriptions elsewhere. Some record dates for both the death of the commemorated incumbent and the consecration of his successor (Āmera, 4.3.6., #4.8, #4.9, #4.10; Sāṅgānera, 4.3.5., #4.6). As conﬁrmed by other sources, these dates indicate that new bhaṭṭārakas could be consecrated to the seat either before or after the passing of their predecessor. References are also made to the performance of festivities and rituals as part of the consecration and further usage of both a Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā kīrtistambha (#4.15, 4.3.9.) and pādukās (#4.16, #4.17, #4.19, 4.3.10.; #4.20, 4.3.11.; #4.26, 4.3.17.). Through their consistent and elsewhere rarely attested reference to the reigning Kachavāhā mahārājas, the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorial inscriptions also speak of the lineage’s close alignment to the royal court and its attempt to align itself with the Kachavāhā polity (Detige 2024b, 4.3.10.). Records of lower-ranking renouncers and paṇḍitas are infrequently attested in the inscriptions of pre-19th century CE Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials. The two retrieved memorials of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti stand out. His s. 1696 pādukā retrieved in Sāṅgānera possibly already attests the consecrating Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti’s later successor Surendrakīrti (no rank indicated/legible) and other, unnamed pupils (4.3.5., #4.6). And the inscription of Devendrakīrti’s probably later caraṇa-chatrī in Āmera was built by a brahmacārī, Keśava (4.3.6., #4.7). References to brahmacārīs, At the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha memorial site in Bairāṭha, some 70 km to the north-east of Jayapura, a platform which came to be shared by two chatrīs was built around the same time as the Jayapura chatrī platform (3.1.6.). 284 231 munis, and ācāryas as the pupils of the bhaṭṭārakas or in longer pupillary lineages are more frequently found in Vāgaḍāśākhā memorials (Chapter 5). The greater number of such attestations in the Vāgaḍāśākhā corpus should probably again be understood as a consequence of its greater share of 16th and 17th century CE memorials, from the period when the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas were still larger and more diverse. Paṇḍitas are attested in two Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials. The inscription of the s. 1681 chatrī of Ācārya Harṣakīrti in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha names the town’s mahājanas (traders) and the paṇḍitas Netasī and Rekhā, the latter two perhaps receiving special mention as having been instrumental in the conception of the commemoration project (4.3.4., #4.4). An unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā preserved at the Saṅghijī Mandira in Sāṅgānera with dates in s. 1777 and s. 1783, and probably a reference to the then incumbent Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, not only records three paṇḍitas in its inscriptions, but also, uniquely, seems to feature carvings of them. (4.3.7.) 4.3. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials: sites All discovered Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and Uttaraśākhā memorials have been found in the contemporary state of Rajasthan. Geographically, the corpus falls apart in two clearly deﬁnable nodes. (Map 4.2 & 4.3) A cluster of 17th to 19th (and perhaps 16th) century CE memorials is found at sites in northern Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa, in Jayapura (4.3.10&12-13.) and the historic towns around it, Āmera (4.3.6&9.), Sāṅgānera (4.3.5&7.), and Cākasū (4.3.3&11.), and in the smaller towns Bassī (4.3.8.), Caurū (4.3.14.), Phāgī (4.3.15.), and possibly Bagarū (4.3.16.), all within a 60 km radius around Jayapura. A smaller number of Uttaraśākhā memorials consecrated at the time of the early Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, from the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE (and one perhaps from the 17th century CE) is found in south-western Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa, at sites in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha (4.3.4.) and Āvāṃ (4.3.2.). Possible Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials are also found in another nearby town, Ṭoṅka (4.3.19.). I also discuss two ﬁnding spots further to the south and south-west. Two early 15th century CE Uttaraśākhā memorials are located at a ﬁnding spot in Bijauliyāṃ, in Mevāṛa (4.3.1.). Among a few memorial stones from the second half of the 15th and probably 16th century CE found in Bārāṃ in the Hāḍautī region, some may also be related to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. (4.3.18.) Memorials in Būndī from the second half of the 19th century CE also bear some relation to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. (4.3.17.) 4.3.1. Bijauliyāṃ, Pārśvanātha Atiśaya Kṣetra (s. 1465, s. 1483) Two particularly tall niṣedhikās installed in recent shrines stand at the Digambara Jaina Pārśvanātha Atiśaya Kṣetra in Bijauliyāṃ, some 90 kilometres north-east of Cittauḍagaṛha. (Fig. 4.1) These are the oldest memorials of the corpus referring to the Balātkāragaṇa. Their substantial inscriptions have been edited in full by B. Jaina (1978: 78-9), and Joharāpurakara (1958: 97, lekha 243-4) oﬀered partial transcriptions. A large, slender slab dated s. 1465 commemorates one Hemakīrti, a pupil of the Uttaraśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra (Fig. 4.1 L., B. Jaina 1978: 78-9). Barring three bhaṭṭāraka niṣedhikās from the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE found in Āvāṃ (4.3.2.), this pillar diﬀers from all other early modern niṣedhikās retrieved in Western India. Approximately 232 six feet high, it is far taller and bulkier than most niṣedhikās, and counter to the evenly polished surfaces of most this one is left a rough stone apart from its carvings. The inscription does not record Hemakīrti’s rank, but refers to him with a general term for an ascetic, yati (‘hemakīrttiyatinaḥ’, ‘śrī-hemakīrtir-abhavad-yatīndraḥ’, B. Jaina 1978: 79). His name is also clearly that of a renouncer, and the carvings of a khaḍgāsana ﬁgure with picchī and kamaṇḍalu identify the pillar as a renouncer’s memorial stone. No bhaṭṭāraka of this name is known from the well-documented later Uttaraśākhā. We can therefore conclude that Hemakīrti was a lower ranking, fully initiated renouncer, a muni, ācārya, or, less likely, upādhyāya. Figure 4.1. Recent chatrī shrines under an overhang (second from left) with niṣedhikās of Hemakīrti (s. 1465, left) and Bāī Āgama Siri (s. 1483, other photos). Digambara Jaina Pārśvanātha Atiśaya Kṣetra, Bijauliyāṃ. (February 2014) The second niṣedhikā at the site is dated s. 1483, less than two decades after Hemakīrti’s, and commemorates a female renouncer, Bāī Āgamasiri. (Fig. 4.1, B. Jaina 1978: 78) Although about two feet less tall than that of Hemakīrti, the niṣedhikā of Bāī Āgamasiri is considerably large and heavy compared to other niṣedhikās of early modern female renouncers (āryikā, kṣullikā, bāī), which are usually of modest size (e.g., Fig. 4.3; 3.2.4.4.). It also features deeply carved, rather ornate embellishments which distinguish it from the far more sober, almost stern appearance of most niṣedhikās of even male renouncers. Despite her lower standing as a female renouncer, and that too as a low-ranking brahmacāriṇī, these features of her memorial indicate that Bāī Āgamasiri must have been a popular, inﬂuential individual. The inscription records the Uttaraśākhā bhaṭṭārakas up to Śubhacandra, and also refers to further female renouncers. Āgamasiri is commemorated as the śikṣaṇi (teacher) of Bāī Cāritrasiri, who in turn is recorded as the śikṣaṇi of ‘Āryā Bāī Lokasiri Vinayasiri’.285 The latter record probably refers to two diﬀerent renouncers, Lokasiri and Vinayasiri, probably both pupils of Bāī Cāritrasiri. The suﬃx -siri (= -śrī) occurs in the names of both early modern brahmacāriṇīs and āryikās (for other examples, see 3.2.4.4.). There is some uncertainty A Kṣullikā (‘Kṣullakī’) Āgamasiri ﬂourishing in the Balātkāragaṇa Cambalaśākhā in s. 1531 must be a diﬀerent, later individual (Joharāpurakara 1958: 126, lekha 308). An Ārya [Āryikā] Cāritraśrī attested in s. 1621, also in the Cambalaśākhā, comes even later (Ibid.: 127, lekha 309). 285 233 whether the rank ‘bāī’ in the early modern period refers to brahmacāriṇīs or āryikās.286 Yet, barring the possibility that intended parts of the inscription were omitted by the carver by oversight, its diﬀerentiation between some female renouncers as bāīs (Bāī Āgamasiri, Bāī Cāritrasiri) and others as ‘āryā bāī’ (Lokasiri, probably Vinayasiri) seems to indicate that the former were lower-ranking brahmacāriṇīs, not fully initiated āryikās. A s. 1587 niṣedhikā from Aḍindā commemorates the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Kṣullikā Bāī (Dhū?)nīnī (3.2.4.4.), and further attestations are also known of the combined titles ‘kṣullikā bāī’ (Parikh & Shelat 1997: 352, lekha 841, a mūrtilekha) and ‘āryā bāī’ (Detige 2018: 321, a manuscript colophon), or variations thereof. I therefore take it that bāī is a mere additional title when combined with the higher kṣullikā and āryikā ranks, but represents speciﬁcally the brahmacāriṇī rank when appearing alone, as it frequently does in manuscript colophons (Detige 2018: 320-4). Both Bijauliyāṃ memorials feature the carvings of padmāsana and khaḍgāsana ﬁgures commonly found on niṣedhikās. (3.1.5.) According to B. Jaina (1978: 71), the padmāsana ﬁgures are identiﬁed as jinas (Candraprabha, Neminātha, Varddhamāna, Pārśvanātha) on (probably) Hemakīrti’s memorial, rather than as siddhas as is more often the case.287 (3.1.3.) A single male, khaḍgāsana renouncer with picchī and kamaṇḍalu is carved on the more narrow sides of both pillars, and also on the backside of Hemakīrti’s niṣedhikā. Both pillars also carry a scene of two renouncers teaching, depicted with picchī and kamaṇḍalu seated on each side of a bookstand (ṭhūṇī). As discussed (3.1.5.), this iconographic element is better-known from South Indian niṣedhikās, but is also found on the late medieval niṣedhikās of Jhālarāpāṭana (3.2.4.1.), and, in a variation, on the 15th or 16th century CE niṣedhikās of Bārāṃ (4.3.18.). On Hemakīrti’s memorial, inscribed captions identify the two ﬁgures as the consecutive Uttaraśākhā bhaṭṭārakas Padmanandi and Śubhacandra. (Fig. 3.15 L.) They were on the seat respectively from s. 1385 to 1450 and from s. 1450 to 1507 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 96, 112). Given Hemakīrti’s death or commemoration in s. 1465 it seems very well possible that both were incumbent during Hemakīrti’s lifetime and that both were his teachers and ascetic superiors. On Bāī Āgama Siri’s niṣedhikā, the tableau with the ṭhūṇī appears on both the front and backside. Fig. 3.15 M. & R.) Some of the depicted renouncers are recognisably female, and these seem to depict the commemorated nun and her pupils, as captions near both carvings record respectively the name of Āgamasiri (‘āgama-siri’), and those of Cāritrasiri (‘cāri[tra?]-siri’) and Vinayasiri (‘vinaya-siri’), all without ranks.288 Both the niṣedhikās of Bijauliyāṃ also feature carvings of pādukās. A relatively small pādukā is applied rather inconspicuously low on both sides of Bāī Āgamasiri’s memorial pillar, but a larger Vidyādhara Joharāpurakara, personal communication, 17th April 2017, referring to attestations in Joharāpurakara 1964: 232 (attestation of the bāī rank) and Joharāpurakara 2001: 105 (Bāī Ārjikā Cāritramatī, attested in a Marathi composition and commemorated at the Nissahī in Nāgapura, Ibid.: 102). The former attestation comes from a composition by the 17th century CE, Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Brahma Jñānasāgara (on which, see 2.3.2.), which describes the various actors making up the bhaṭṭāraka circles and includes the bāī as the only female rank, which Joharāpurakara (1964: 631) here takes as equal to āryikā. 286 I have not seen inscribed captions or iconographic features indicating this identiﬁcation of the padmāsana ﬁgures as jinas on either niṣedhikā. B. Jaina (1978: 71) mentions this feature as belonging to the niṣedhikā of Bāī Āgama Siri, but describes that here as the taller of the two niṣedhikās, which is actually is Hemakīrti’s. 287 Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 78) does not include these captions along with his edition of the longer niṣedhikā inscription. I don’t have a full reading. 288 234 pādukā is carved on the front side of Hemakīrti’s niṣedhikā, right above the inscription and clearly meant to be fully in sight. Pādukās are not found incised on other Western Indian niṣedhikās, and these carvings can be seen as as indicating the strong appeal of this iconography and as heralding the later preference for the pādukā as an autonomous commemorative format. 4.3.2. Āvāṃ, Nasīyā (thrice s. 1593) Niṣedhikās commemorating three consecutive, late 14th to early 16th century CE Balātkāragaṇa bhaṭṭārakas are found at the Nasīyā outside of Āvāṃ (Anwa), some 50 km south south-west of Ṭoṅka. (Figs. 4.2, 4.3) They are memorials of Śubhacandra (p. s. 1450, #4.1) and Jinacandra (p. s. 1507, #4.2) of the Uttaraśākhā, and of the ﬁrst Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent Prabhācandra (p. s. 1571, #4.3).289 The niṣedhikās are now installed on a marble clad pedestal in the parikrama (circumambulation) corridor behind the main altar (vedi) of a spacious, modern-day mandira erected at the Nasīyā. A quadrangular niṣedhikā commemorating an unidentiﬁed female renouncer is found next to them (see below). The site is now referred to as the Śāntinātha Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra and seems to have been substantially further developed since the time of my visit in December 2014.290 In noting the three bhaṭṭāraka memorials, K. C. Jain (1963: 78-9) did not comment on their location. Kāsalīvāla (1989: 166) and Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 149, 239) described them as being installed on a small hill near Āṃvā. It is not clear whether the niṣedhikās originally stood in open air or in chatrīs which may have been cleared for the erection of the large mandira or other modern-day buildings at the site. At about 2,5 to 3 metres high, these are the tallest niṣedhikās found in Western and Central India.291 Like the earlier niṣedhikā of Hemakīrti in Bijauliyāṃ (4.3.1.), they are ﬂat and roughly hewn, quarryfaced stones, diﬀering from later niṣedhikās, which are square, smaller, and smoothly chiselled and polished. The niṣedhikā of Jinacandra now stands central, that of his predecessor Śubhacandra to the right reaches a few decimetres less high, and that of his successor Prabhācandra to the left again that much less. It is possible however that the three memorials are pillars of similar size, now installed into the plinth diﬀerently. Or any diﬀerence in their height may also be attributed to the availability of quarry stones. The three slabs’ similar width of about 40 centimetres indicates that no hierarchy was intended to be expressed between these three successive bhaṭṭārakas. A pair of a padmāsana and below that a khaḍgāsana ﬁgure is carved on the front and back sides and on both narrow sides of each of the pillars, in high relief sunk in niches on the front side, and in lower sunk relief or line drawings elsewhere. Although not fully legible, the inscriptions of the three bhaṭṭāraka memorials refer to the lineage of Prabhācandra’s successor Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra (p. s. 1581-1603, maṇḍalācārya or ma. I oﬀer a complete transliteration only of the inscription of the niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra (#4.1). In the parallel inscriptions of the memorials of Jinacandra (#4.2) and Prabhācandra (#4.3), I omit most of the section recording the genealogy of the memorials’ donor, for which I lack appropriate photo documentation. 289 290 Google Maps, visited 21st July 2023. Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 149) cite the height and width of the niṣedhikā of Jinacandra as 14.5 feet to 9 inch. The opposite measurements could be accurate, 9 feet high (2,75 m) and 14.5 inch wide (37 cm). 291 235 dharmacandrāmnāye, #4.1, #4.2, #4.3) and are all dated to the same day in s. 1593. This is close to a century after the end of the incumbency and probably the passing of Śubhacandra (p. s. 1450-1507), over two decades after Jinacandra (p. s. 1507-71), and more than a decade after Prabhācandra (p. s. 1571-80, all dates according to Joharāpurakara 1958: 112). As discussed, the seat of the Uttaraśākhā Śubhacandra and Jinacandra is thought to have been in Dillī, Prabhācandra to have shifted from Dillī to Cittauḍagaṛha. (4.1.) An icon consecrated in Āvāṃ in s. 1400 by the 13th-14th century CE Uttaraśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra (an earlier namesake of the commemorated Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent) shows that the Balātkāragaṇa already had a prior relation to the town (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 126). It is possible that the commemorated Śubhacandra, Jinacandra, and Prabhācandra had all passed through the town too, or that local laypeople had been inﬂuenced by them elsewhere. Yet it is highly unlikely that all three bhaṭṭārakas extensively dwelled, let alone all died in Āvāṃ. A second niṣedhikā of Prabhācandra reported by Kāsalīvāla (1989: 177) from Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha as dated to s. 1589 perhaps more likely indicates his place of demise.292 (4.3.2.) In Āvāṃ, memorials of multiple former incumbents thus seem to have been installed on a single occasion and at a site other than their actual place of death. The only other conﬁrmed attestation of such a practice comes from the Śākambharīśākhā necropolis in Ajamera. (6.2.3.) Yet, among now lost memorial stones reported from a site in Cākasū, at least one was dated to the same year s. 1593 as the Āvāṃ niṣedhikās and similarly inscribed itself to the tradition of Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra (dharmacandrāmnāye) (see 4.3.4.). It is possible then, that Dharmacandra initiated a similar commemoration project honouring his predecessors in Cākasū, the ﬁrst town in north Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa where the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā later shortly established itself. (4.1.2.) Figure 4.2. Niṣedhikās of an unidentiﬁed female renouncer (smaller, undated, left on R.) and the consecutive Balātkāragaṇa bhaṭṭārakas Śubhacandra, Jinacandra, and Prabhācandra (all dated s. 1593), with carvings of renouncers on front and sides (second from L.). Śāntinātha Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra, Āvāṃ. (December 2014) Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 148) also mention a niṣedhikā of Śubhacandra in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha. I take this to be an erroneous reference to the s. 1589 Prabhācandra memorial which I could not recover. 292 236 The only partly preserved inscriptions of all three niṣedhikās record a long family genealogy of their patron, the Khaṇḍelavāla caste layman Śrīvant, son of Udā and his wife Utpaude (#4.1, #4.2). Information on donors is but rarely included in the inscriptions of Digambara memorial stones. (3.2.6.) The three niṣedhikās were consecrated on the same day (s. 1593 Jyeṣṭha sudi 3) as a famous Śāntinātha mūrti and other jina icons at the Śāntinātha Mandira in the centre of Āvāṃ, which were patronised by one Veṇīrāma Chābaḍo and also consecrated by Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 149, 166; see also Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 239).293 Dharmacandra thus erected the memorials in conjunction to a grand consecration festival. Dharmacandra and his patron seem to have desired to establish the authority of the Balātkāragaṇa lineage in Āvāṃ through erecting memorials of earlier lineage incumbents. The size of the niṣedhikās conﬁrms their grand intentions. Figure 4.3. L., M., & R.: Niṣedhikā of an unidentiﬁed female renouncer (n.d.), next to larger niṣedhikās of Balātkāragaṇa bhaṭṭārakas (s. 1593), Śāntinātha Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra, Āvāṃ. (December 2014) A fourth, smaller niṣedhikā is installed next to the three bhaṭṭāraka memorials in the Āvāṃ mandira. This pillar also has a unique appearance, squarish and with deep carvings of seven male and one female renouncer, two on each side. The female ﬁgure has a kamaṇḍalu in hand like the males, but lacks their picchī under the arm. Little legible inscription remains on the pillar, but the depiction of a female renouncer probably is suﬃcient indication to conclude it also commemorated one. (Right below on Fig. 4.3 L.) It could be thought that the memorial is roughly coeval with the three bhaṭṭāraka niṣedhikās from s. 1593 and commemorated a female renouncer from the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā saṅgha of Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra. A possible reading of a short inscription (unpublished) still visible however seems to connect it rather to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha. A highly uncertain and very partial reading of a snippet of inscription might refer to a Bhaṭṭāraka Somakīrti. The only known bhaṭṭāraka of that name is a 15th century CE Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha incumbent. If this reading and identiﬁcation is correct, the Kāsalīvāla (1989: 166) holds that the patron of the memorials belonged to the family patronising the Śāntinātha mūrti. 293 237 niṣedhikā would predate the three bhaṭṭāraka memorials. Dharmacandra’s commemoration project might then have served to signal the Balātkāragaṇa authority over Āvāṃ in deﬁance of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha. 4.3.3. Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha (s. 1681, reported s. 1589) Kāsalīvāla (1989: 177) reports a niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra from Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha, dated to s. 1589 (Phālguṇa budī 9) and commissioned by the layman Kālū Chābaṛā, its inscription also recording the rule of Rāva Sūryasena. The patron of this memorial thus belonged to the same Chābaṛā gotra of the Khaṇḍelavāla caste as the patrons active in Āvāṃ a few years later, in s. 1593. (4.3.2.) A hillside nasīyā outside of the Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha town centre has a Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorial from a century later and other remainders of possibly Digambara memorials, discussed further below in this section. I could not however ﬁnd the reported Prabhācandra memorial stone at this commemoration site, nor in the Digambara mandiras in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha which I could visit, the Ādinātha Mandira, the Peṛā (?) Mandira, and the recent Sahasraphaṇī Pārśvanātha Mandira. I could not visit another older Digambara temple, the Pārśvanātha Bākalīvāla Mandira. A s. 1734 pādukā preserved in the Ādinātha Mandira actually seems to be a Hindu memorial, as it features depictions of sun and moon.294 Prabhācandra’s successor Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra is known to have overseen the construction of the Ādinātha Mandira in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha in s. 1595 (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 177). It also seems well possible then that he consecrated a memorial for his predecessor Prabhācandra in this town a few years earlier. And this reported, isolated memorial perhaps more likely indicate his actual place of death than the s. 1593 niṣedhikā of Āvāṃ which formed part of a larger commemoration project. (4.3.2.) As mentioned, I take Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla’s (1975: 148) reference to a niṣedhikā of Śubhacandra in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha to be an erroneous reference to the reported s. 1589 Prabhācandra memorial, which I consider lost. At a site referred to as the Mahārāja Caurāhā in the town centre of Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha stand two octagonal, eight-pillared chatrīs which are structurally related to those on the Nasiyā (see below), though even more ornamented and with ribbed domes, and possibly younger. (Fig. 4.4 top L.) In one of them a pedestal remains centrally under the cupola, octagonal on the basis and rounded higher up. In the other a similar foundation stone carries a crumbling, waist-high pillar with a loose pādukā on top at the time of my visit. It was not clear whether the pillar was an original element, nor whether the pādukā originally belongs to the chatrī. Some fragments of its inscription remain on top of the stone but are diﬃcult to read. I found no inscriptions on the lintels like in the chatrīs at the Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha Nasiyā, but further inspection could be rewarding. At least one of the chatrīs features carvings of ﬂoral motifs on the lintels, guardians on the pillars, and decorative motifs and padmāsana ﬁgures on the lintel corner stones, but the latter do not look jina-like. I take it these are royal memorials rather than Digambara. 294 I do not have documentation of its short inscription. 238 Figure 4.4. Top L.: Unidentiﬁed, possibly royal chatrīs, Mahārāja Caurāhā, Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha. (December 2014) Other photos: Nasiyā, Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha. (December 2014) Top second from left: Unidentiﬁed structure now housing a Ganeśa mūrti. Top second from right: platform with Hanuman mūrti, possibly formerly plinth of a memorial. Top R.: Plinth supporting gallery and chatrī of Ācārya Harṣakīrti (s. 1681). Middle L.: Mandira with open maṇḍapa and śikhara (s. 1687, middle), Digambara chatrī (s. 1681, Ācārya Harṣakīrti, left), Śvetāmbara chatrī (s. 1682, higher up on the right), and tibārā (arched doorways visible left of the latter chatrī), photographed from the roof of an L-shaped, pillared gallery. Middle R.: view inside the gallery, looking out on the s. 1681 Digambara chatrī. Bottom L.: view inside the mandira’s maṇḍapa. Bottom M.: Lintel of the s. 1681 chatrī showing carving and one of the inscriptions. Bottom R.: View inside the s. 1681 chatrī, with the mandira’s maṇḍapa and pillared gallery on the background. At the hillside Nasiyā295 in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha stands a small mandira dating to s. 1687 protected on two sides by an L-shaped, pillared gallery. (Fig. 4.4 middle L.) A high plinth supports the gallery on one side, levelling out the hill slope (Fig. 4.4 top R. & middle R.). The platform on which the mandira has been built is extended on the other two sides to form a terrace. Two hexagonal chatrīs are also found at the site. One is prominently located right in front of the mandira. Its cupola is higher than that of the mandira’s open maṇḍapa, but slightly lower than its śikhara. (Fig. 4.4 middle L.) A second, very similar chatrī stands behind the mandira and the gallery, higher up against the hill’s slope. (right on Fig. 4.4 middle L.) At the time of my visit (December 2014), most of the sections between the pillars of the latter chatrī had been partly walled up, possibly with the ﬂooring stones of a tibārā structure nearby, which were missing. The chatrī in front of the mandira is dated Caitra s. 1681 and commemorates the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Ācārya Harṣakīrti (#4.4). The chatrī behind the mandira is dated two years later, Phālguṇa s. 1682, but has a Śvetāmbara aﬃliation, possibly 295 I found the site referred to as Jaina Nasiyā Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha. I use the short form Nasiyā. 239 commemorating the Bhaṭṭāraka Siṅhasenasūri mentioned in its incompletely legible inscription (unpublished inscription). Both chatrīs (s. 1681, s. 1682) thus predate the mandira (s. 1687) by a few years. The two chatrīs are solid structures with cupolas made of stacked carved blocks of rock rather than bricks. Both share further features not frequently found elsewhere. Inscriptions have been applied on the inside of the lintels around carved ﬁgures, and a single, small jina is carved on the corner stones of the lintels, above the architrave of each pillar. Two structures found lower on the hill now feature Hindu icons but may also have been Jain or Hindu memorials originally. A small, rectangular structure on six pillars is now patched up and partly walled up and houses a Ganeśa mūrti (Fig. 4.4 top second from left). And a platform carrying a vermilion-clad Hanuman mūrti may also have been the plinth of a memorial (Fig. 4.4 top second from right). Unique in my corpus of Digambara memorials, inscriptions are applied on two lintels of the chatrī located in front of the mandira of the Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha Nasiyā. (#4.4) A longer epigraph is inscribed around small carvings of one padmāsana and two khaḍgāsana ﬁgures on one lintel. A shorter inscription runs left and right of a pādukā carved centrally on another. Both inscriptions are dated to s. 1681, the longer inscription also gives a date in the month of Caitra. Neither inscription includes the common reference to the Balātkāragaṇa, but the longer concludes with a dedication wishing for the long existence of the Mūlasaṅgha within the dispensation of the jina (jinaśāsana).296 The longer inscription records Prabhācandra (no rank), Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti, and Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti. The common marker indicating their succession (tatpaṭṭe) is not included, but they are clearly recognisable as the ﬁrst three Balātkāragaṇa Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas. The inscription thus skips over the maṇḍalācāryas Dharmacandra and Lalitakīrti, who ﬂourished in between Prabhācandra and Candrakīrti, as is common in inscriptions and manuscript colophons. Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1662-91) is indeed known to have been on the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat at the time of the inscription. The chatrī is a memorial of Ācārya Harṣakīrti, who in the longer inscription is called a pupil of Devendrakīrti, and in the shorter inscription is identiﬁed as belonging to the Kāsalīvāla caste (‘kāśilīvāla-gotre’, #4.4), a type of information rarely found in early modern Digambara memorial inscriptions. The longer inscription ﬁnally also mentions all the mahājanas of Takṣaka (Takṣakagaṛha, Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha) and the paṇḍitas Netasī and Rekhā as paying endless respects.297 The memorial thus seems to have been built with contributions from the full Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha Digambara community, with the paṇḍitas receiving special mention perhaps having been central ﬁgures in the building project, involved in the memorial’s consecration, or close associates of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti or Ācārya Harṣakīrti. The chatrī no longer preserves a memorial stone. The shorter inscription however refers to Ācārya Harṣakīrti’s pādukā, and the missing centre stone of the pavilion’s hexagonal ﬂoor pattern indicates its former place (Fig. 4.4 bottom right). By the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE, the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā thus seems to have changed its memorial iconography. Priorly, niṣedhikās were used, with the last specimens dating from almost a century earlier, found in Āvāṃ (4.3.2.) and possibly also in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha (the reported s. 1589 niṣedhikā of 296 ‘jinaśāsan(a/e) śrī-mūlasa(ṃ?)gha ci(raṃ?) bhavatu’ (#4.4). 297 ‘(…) takṣaka-samasta-mahājanāḥ || pa. netasī paṃ. reṣā nityaṃ praṇamaṃti || (…)’, #4.4. 240 Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra) and Cākasū (reported s. 1593, 4.3.4.). From this time onwards however, we ﬁnd almost exclusively pādukās. The next retrieved Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorial stones date from a few years and decades later, are located in Sāṅgānera (s. 1696, 4.3.5.) and Āmera (17th century CE, 4.3.6.), and notably commemorate Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti himself. A missing stone in the middle of the ﬂooring of the second hexagonal chatrī at the Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha Nasiyā again indicates the location of the missing memorial stone, probably also a pādukā, given the other close similarities between both memorials. An inscription dated s. 1682 is again found inside the cupola (unpublished inscription). My reading could probably be improved, but the inscription records several bhaṭṭārakas of an unknown and seemingly unspeciﬁed, undoubtedly Śvetāmbara lineage. One Bhaṭṭāraka Siṅhasenasūri mentioned may be the commemorated individual. The inscription is carved in a building block of the cupola’s drum which is of a contrasting, more yellowish colour than the rest of the chatrī’s stones. As in the s. 1681 Digambara chatrī, the inscription is applied around carvings, in this case a padmāsana ﬁgure identiﬁed by a caption as the jina Śāntinātha, two khaḍgāsana ﬁgures, and two pādukās. A pādukā is also carved into the actual lintel stone below it, and padmāsana jinas are carved in each of the corner stones between the lintels. The chatrī thus shares a number of speciﬁc features with the s. 1681 Digambara memorial, and both are also similar in their structural features like pillars, ﬂooring, and especially their solid corbeled domes made from tailored rocks. Probably the Śvetāmbara donors called upon the same masons as the Digambaras had two years earlier, or perhaps expressly had the same design executed. They added the use of a stone of contrasting colour for the inscription, an original stylistic choice meant perhaps to make the inscription stand out more clearly. A foundation inscription on an oblong plaque above the entrance door to the garbhagrha ̥ of the site’s mandira is dated s. 1687 (#4.5).298 The inscription shows a similar aﬃliation as the s. 1681 Digambara chatrī. It consists of two separate parts which unconventionally share three continuous lines. The ﬁrst four characters of each line should be read together as making up a ﬁrst short inscription, while the longer remainder of each line forms a longer inscription (#4.5). Like the s. 1681 chatrī inscription, the longer inscription speaks in short of the Mūlasaṅgha, without the other traditional Balātkāragaṇa epithets. It also fails to record the ranks of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents it records, once more Prabhācandra, Candrakīrti, and Devendrakīrti. The latter is here recorded as standing ‘in the lineage’ (‘-ānvaye’) of Candrakīrti.299 I could not enter the mandira but saw only a recent mūrti installed in its small shrine room. The mandira’s original mūrti might have been moved to one of the Digambara mandiras in town, and could oﬀer a conﬁrmation of Devendrakīrti’s activity at the Nasiyā. The further phrasing of the longer inscription is ambiguous but refers to both the Śāntinātha jinālaya (‘śaṃti-jinālaye’, #4.5) and the ‘nisahī’ (#4.5), the latter either referring to memorials or to the memorial site as a whole. Immediately after its mention of Devendrakīrti, the śilālekha records Harṣakīrti, Nemacandra, Dharmacandra, all three without rank, Kāsalīvāla (1989: 177) reported the inscription above the Nasiyā mandira’s entrance door as dated to s. 1680, which would reverse the chronology of chatrī and mandira construction at the site. Kāsalīvāla’s reading however seems to be based on a hasty, erring note of the curved Devanagari 7 (‘७’) in my reading of 1687 as a 0 (‘०’). 298 299 ‘(...) prabhācaṃdra śrī-caṃdrakārtyānvaye (?) śrī-deveṃdrakīrtti (...)’. (#4.5) 241 Pāṇḍe (Paṇḍita) [Bhojā?]vīra, and the whole pañca of mahājanas bowing. Harṣakīrti, Nemacandra, and Dharmacandra are clearly ascetics’ names. The place of its record in the inscription indicates that the Dharmacandra attested here was not Devendrakīrti’s predecessor Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra. Probably all three were lower-ranking renouncers of Devendrakīrti’s saṅgha. The shorter inscription on the śilālekha plaque refers to the ‘nisahī’ of Harṣakīrti and possibly a second renouncer, Kṣemacandra (‘ṣemacaṃ[dra?]’, #4.5), both without rank. The former is no doubt the ācārya commemorated with the s. 1681 chatrī, also recorded in the longer inscription of the mandira plaque without rank. Kṣemacandra would be another renouncer whose memorial was formerly present at the site, possibly one of the structures now featuring Hindu icons. The site seems to have seen a relatively fast development. As often, the site was ﬁrst used for the erection of ascetics’ memorials. It may have been the momentum gained by this commemoration project or the visits to the site prompted by their presence which led to the temple building project, swiftly realised only some ﬁve years later. Through this temple, the Digambaras seem to have laid claim to a cremation and commemoration ground they originally shared with the Śvetāmbaras and perhaps Hindus. Although the mandira and the L-shaped gallery are architecturally related, the latter is somewhat younger. This is evident from the foliated arches between the pillars of the gallery which are lacking in the mandira. (Fig. 4.4. middle R.) The expansion of the site with the gallery may have been intended to protect the mandira, to provide space for storage or ritual practice, or to fulﬁl yet other purposes. 4.3.4. Cākasū, Śiva Ḍūṅgarī (reported s. 1593) Four kilometres north north-west of the town of Cākasū, 2,5 km further north north-west of the Nasiyāṃjī where a Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭāraka was commemorated in the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE (4.3.11.) lies a site where older Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials seem to have been erected. On top of a rocky hill (ḍūṅgarī) with steep cliﬀs is a fortiﬁed complex with entrance gates. (Figs. 3.30 bottom R., 4.5 top M.) The site is now a Śaiva (Gorakhanātha) temple complex referred to as Pahāṛīvāle Bābā, but is a converted Jaina site. Nyāyatīrtha (1997: 81) calls it the Śiva Ḍūṅgarī but also the Baṛī Nasiyā, the latter possibly its former Jaina name. The compound also includes recent annexes, but its mandira and a number of chatrīs in the temple complex on top of the hill and at its foot are early modern Jaina structures. It is not clear when the ownership of the site changed hands. It might have been converted as part of the strife between Jains and Śaivas in nearby Jayapura in the 1760s (4.1.4.), but it could also have been deserted by the Digambara community and subsequently taken in usage by Śaiva ascetics and appropriated by their supporters.300 The mandira still features depictions of jina ﬁgures on the outside of its śikhara and around the entrance door the garbhagrha. ̥ A shrine room with a beautifully carved ceiling at the very northern end of the U-shaped pillared gallery seems to have been an at least partly open maṇḍapa-like Nyāyatīrtha (1997: 80) reported a mūrti preserved at the Bhaṭṭāraka Nasiyāṃjī in Cākasū possibly dated s. 1752 as having been brought over from the Śiva Ḍūṅgarī/Baṛī Nasiyā. Nyāyatīrtha (Ibid.: 81) also knew of mūrtis and plaques (śilāpaṭṭa) originating from Cākasū preserved in the Dalārāma (Dilārāma) Bāga Museum in Āmera and the Rāmanivāsa Bāga Museum (Albert Hall Museum) in Jayapura, and thought they also may have come from the Śiva Ḍūṅgarī/Baṛī Nasiyā. 300 242 structure, perhaps similar to that of the mandira at the Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha Nasiyā. (Fig. 4.5 bottom R.) The walls now closing it oﬀ are clearly recent additions, and one side has been provided with a heightened platform functioning as a vedi for Śaiva mūrtis. The mandira, a U-shaped pillared gallery surrounding it constructed on the ridge of the hill, and a four-pillared chatrī right in front of the temple entrance form a handsome ensemble, made up of the same components as that found at the Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha Nasiyā. The baluster pillars of the Cākasū gallery however indicate it to be later, probably 18th century CE, and the structure of the mandira, notably its śikhara, also shows it to be younger than that at the Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha Nasiyā. Figure 4.5. Śiva Ḍūṅgarī, Cākasū (December 2014). Unidentiﬁed chatrī and tibārā with the hill in the background (top L. & M.) and unidentiﬁed chatrīs in the temple complex on top of the hill, with later pillared gallery built up next to it (top R.), worked into even new parts of the compound (bottom L.), or repurposed as Hindu structure (bottom second and third from L.). Maṇḍapa of the main mandiras on the hill, walled in and now featuring Śaiva icons (bottom R.). Four empty or repurposed chatrīs stand inside the Śiva Ḍūṅgarī compound, and a single, empty but identiﬁably Jaina chatrī is found on the plain a few hundred metres south-east of the hill. All these chatrīs have straight lintels, and pillars which are four-sided on the lower half and worked out octagonal higher up. This design is similar to a mid-17th century CE chatrī at the Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ in nearby Āmera (4.3.6., left on Fig. 4.7), while the late 17th - early 18th century CE chatrīs on that site have curved decorative lintels between more elegant, rounded pillars (right on Fig. 4.7). The four-pillared chatrī right in front of the temple entrance, in the middle of the courtyard created by the pillared gallery (not depicted), now seems to be used for ﬁre rituals.301 A second four- 301 Google Photos, accessed 20 January 2022. 243 pillared and a six-pillared chatrī stand just south of the mandira. The former has been integrated into the pillared gallery, or more precisely the gallery has been constructed adjoining it. (Fig. 4.5 top R.) Two sides of this chatrī have been walled in, presumable more recently. The hexagonal chatrī nearby which might be of comparable antiquity or slightly younger is now furnished with windows and houses a recent Hanuman mūrti against a wall erected between two of its pillars. (Fig. 4.5 bottom second and third from left) A third four-pillared chatrī stands at some distance from the mandira and the gallery, and has been worked into a recent building. (Fig. 4.5 bottom L.) Next to the hexagonal chatrī down on the plain also stands a ca. 18th or 19th century CE simple open building with arched doorways (tibārā). (Fig. 4.5 top L. & M.) No memorial stones were found in any of these chatrīs at the time of my visit (December 2014). The four-pillared chatrī in line with the pillared gallery of the temple complex and the chatrī at the foot of the hill however both show a padmāsana jina ﬁgure carved in one of their lintels, allowing their identiﬁcation as Jaina. Nyāyatīrtha (1997: 81-2) also reported what he called ‘caumukhas’ from the site, which from his description clearly appear to have been niṣedhikās.302 Apparently these have meanwhile been removed, possibly as part of a renovation which according to a plaque in one of the mandiras took place in 2002 CE, or in a conscious attempt to remove testimonials to the site’s former Jaina aﬃliation. Nyāyatīrtha (1997: 81) gave a measurement (of one of the ‘caumukhas’ rather than all perhaps) of 37 cm. wide, 127 cm. high, and ca. 9 inches deep, which are fairly typical measurements for a Digambara niṣedhikā, and describes them as featuring padmāsana Digambara icons, below that khaḍgāsana bhaṭṭārakas, and below these again an inscription. The identiﬁcation of the khaḍgāsana ﬁgures as bhaṭṭārakas is probably his own interpretation, perhaps based on depictions of renouncers’ paraphernalia or on a more complete reading of the pillars inscriptions than what he reports. Nyāyatīrtha (Ibid.) reproduced the legible, former part of a single inscription, which is dated s. 1593 and is a standard Balātkāragaṇa Uttaraśākhā-Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā epigraph running up to Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmacandra, and in his tradition (‘tad-āmnāye’) the layman Sāha Mālū from the Khaṇḍelavāla caste and Bākalīvāla gotra. The reference to Dharmacandra as a bhaṭṭāraka rather than a maṇḍalācārya would be rather exceptional (4.1.1.), and might well be a misreading of the abbreviation ‘maṃ.’ (for maṇḍalācārya) for the resembling Devanagari character ‘bha.’ (for bhaṭṭāraka). Although we do not know who was commemorated with this now lost niṣedhikā and the other ‘caumukhas’ and the chatrīs, it seems very likely they were all memorials of Digambara renouncers, and then most probably of Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā aﬃliation. The inscription edited by Nyāyatīrtha might belong to a memorial consecrated by Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra in commemoration of a lower-ranking renouncer of his saṅgha, or of one of his predecessors, as in Āvāṃ and perhaps in Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha. It is possible that Dharmacandra erected a set of memorial pillars of his predecessors in Cākasū exactly as he did further south in Āvāṃ in the same year s. 1593. (4.3.2.) Such planned commemoration projects would make particular sense in the context of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā’s departure from Cittauḍagaṛha under Dharmacandra, serving to implant the lineage in the new Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa home region. We see the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā do the same later again when it turned to Āmera. (4.3.6.) An inscription on a Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā memorial in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī from s. 186[6?] also seems to ̥ call a niṣedhikā part of it a caturmukha. (5.6.4., #5.50) 302 244 Despite this evidence of the activity of the 16th century CE Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra at the Cākasū Śiva Ḍūṅgarī, the mandira and the pillared gallery of the site, as already remarked, are clearly later. These rather belong to the period of the 18th century CE, Jayapura-based Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas. While the varying design of the chatrīs at the site (four-pillared and six-pillared) could relate to the diﬀering rank of the individuals commemorated, it might also point to a diﬀerent antiquity. Some chatrīs may well date to the time of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā’s short presence in Cākasū under Devendrakīrti and possibly already under his predecessor Candrakīrti in the second half of the 16th century CE and the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE, after the lineage left Cittauḍagaṛha and before it moved on to Sāṅgānera and Āmera. (4.1.2.) It is more likely that Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā aﬃliated ascetics died in Cākasū while the lineage was present in north Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa than during the time of Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra, who is more frequently reported from south Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa. At the Cākasū Śiva Ḍūṅgarī and the Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha Nasīyā, a similar set-up seems to have developed. Albeit in diﬀerent periods, respectively the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE and ca. the 18th century CE, at both sites a hilltop complex with a mandira and a pillared gallery was constructed on a site already featuring renouncers’ memorials. The Cākasū site apparently saw a slow development, with Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra consecrating one or more memorials in the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE, and further memorials perhaps added in the second half of the 16th and the early 17th century CE, but the mandira and the gallery, judging from their material features, added at least a century later again. In Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha, under the incumbency of the later Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, a mandira was added within years of the oldest retrieved memorial, although the site may also have had older memorials now lost. These ﬁndings from Cākasū and Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha may also be an indication for the former, original set-up of the Āvāṃ niṣedhikās, although that site is located on a lower hill than those of Cākasū and Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha, and the niṣedhikās preserved there are larger than those which Nyāyatīrtha (1997: 81) reported to have found in a chatrī in Cākasū. 4.3.5. Sāṅgānera, Nasiyā (s. 1696) Two memorials are found of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, who was active or at least incumbent during the time of the development of the Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha Nasiyā. A caraṇa-chatrī of Devendrakīrti remains in Āmera (4.3.6.), and a pādukā was found stored in a modern, small shrine at the Nasiyā in Sāṅgānera. (Fig. 4.6 L.) The structure was no doubt primarily intended to house the mūrti of the protective deity centrally installed. Also placed in the shrine was a recent pādukā dated s. 2044 commemorating the Digambara nun Saṃyamamatī Mātājī, a pupil of Ācārya Vimalasāgara. (Fig. 4.6 left on M.) Both pādukās were likely installed in chatrīs or other structures at the site which were removed for the construction of a new large mandira on the plot ongoing at the time of my visit (December 2015). The inscription of Devendrakīrti’s pādukā indeed refers to his chatrī (‘chatrī karāi’) being built and his pādukā being installed (‘pādukā sthāpya’) by his successor Narendrakīrti. A protuberance on the lower side was meant to anchor the pādukā when properly installed. (Fig. 4.6 R.) 245 The inscription is partly damaged and was not fully legible to me, but contains information not frequently recorded on most early modern Digambara memorial stones (#4.6). The inscription seems to record Devendrakīrti’s passing on of the bhaṭṭāraka seat (‘paṭṭa dīyā’, #4.6) to Narendrakīrti on the 15th day of the dark half of the month of Kārttika in s. 1691 (22 October 1634 CE). The inscription on Narendrakīrti’s pādukā in Āmera records his ascension to the seat in Sāṅgānera a day earlier (4.3.6.), and various paṭṭāvalīs also record the 8th (Hoernle 1891: 355, 1892: 83) and the 11th (Ibid.) of that lunar half month for this event. The inscription continues with recording Devendrakīrti’s death shortly after, on the 5th day of the bright half of the month of Kārttika (27 October 1634 CE), and the construction of a chatrī and consecration of Devendrakīrti’s pādukā ﬁve years later, in s. 1696, possibly on the 3rd day of the bright half of Phālguṇa. The inscription also refers to one Surendrakīrti (in genitive case) and his (probably Devendrakīrti’s) pupils (‘sachātrāṇāṃ’, genitive case, #4.6). This is possibly an attestation of the consecrating Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti’s later successor Surendrakīrti (p. s. 1722-33), who ascended the seat only three decades later but may already have been Narendrakīrti’s protégé at the time. Narendrakīrti also consecrated a second pādukā of Devendrakīrti in a chatrī in Āmera, which can no longer be dated. (4.3.6.) In light of Devendrakīrti’s reported association with Sāṅgānera (4.1.2.), and given its record of the s. 1696 consecration, this pādukā more likely represents Devendrakīrti’s place of death. Narendrakīrti may have proceeded to build a second memorial for his predecessor in his newly adopted home-base Āmera in an attempt to moor his lineage more fully there. The inscription of the Sāṅgānera pādukā is not located on top of the slab as with the Devendrakīrti pādukā in Āmera (Fig. 4.8 R.) and as became standard practice later, but on the front (Fig. 4.6 R.), as with two later pādukās in Āmera installed by Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti after s. 1733 (Fig. 4.9 M.). Stylistically however, given the lotus motif which is carved under the feet on the later Āmera pādukās is lacking on both the Āmera and Sāṅgānera Devendrakīrti pādukās, the latter sit closer together and represent an older stage. Figure 4.6. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (R. and right on M.), s. 1696, preserved in a small shrine (L.) with a modern-day pādukā (left on M., Saṃyamamatī Mātājī, s. 2044) and a mūrti of a protective deity. Nasiyā, Sāṅgānera.(December 2015) 246 4.3.6. Āmera, Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ (n.d. [s. 1691-1722], twice n.d. [s.1733-70], s. 1771) Memorials of four successive 17th-early 18th century CE Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas are found at the Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ in Āmera. (Fig. 4.7) The Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ still belongs to the Neminātha (Sāṃvalājī) Mandira in the centre of Āmera, where the seat of the Balātkāragaṇa Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā was established at the time of the memorials. As typical for early modern cremation and commemoration sites, the nasiyā lies outside of the historical town centre.303 The site is named after a later (s. 1845) kīrtistambha commemorating and recording the lineage of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. (4.3.9.) A single platform supports three caraṇa-chatrīs, including one double chatrī housing two memorial stones. (Figs. 4.7, 4.9 L. and second from left) The memorials are those of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1662-91), consecrated by his successor Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti (p. s. 1691-1722), of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti (p. 1691-1722) and Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti (p. s. 1722-33), both by Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti (p. s. 1733-70), and of Jagatkīrti himself, probably by Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1770).304 As discussed, Narendrakīrti, Surendrakīrti, and Jagatkīrti were particularly successful incumbents of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. (4.1.2.) Only the inscription of the latest memorial, Jagatkīrti’s, still bears a legible date (s. 1771). For the others we can only make up a date range based on the dates of death recorded in the inscriptions and the dates of the consecrating bhaṭṭārakas known from other sources. Devendrakīrti’s memorial then needs to be dated before s. 1722 (the end of Narendrakīrti’s incumbency), and the combined memorial of Narendrakīrti and Surendrakīrti during Jagatkīrti’s incumbency, from s. 1733 to s. 1770. The mandira at the Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ has a main icon (mūlanāyaka) dated s. 1642, and other icons from s. 1526, 1650, 1651, and 1656 (Nyāyatīrtha 1997: 8). Although icons are often moved from one temple to another and even mūlanāyakas can be replaced, the multiple icons from the late 16th century CE probably conﬁrm that the mandira at the Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ was constructed around that time.305 Contrary to the development pattern of many other nasīyās (3.3.1.), the mandira at this site thus seems to predate its earliest memorials. The chatrīs at the Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ are square and four-pillared, six pillars supporting the two cupolas of the twin monument. All pādukās at the site are installed in a small shrine central under their chatrīs. (Figs. 4.8 M., 4.9) This idiomatic design is rarely attested elsewhere and nowhere else from this period. (4.3.17.) The shared platform was probably built under Narendrakīrti as part of the building project of Devendrakīrti’s chatrī and anticipating the addition of memorials of further incumbents. Devendrakīrti’s caraṇa-chatrī was erected on a far end of the platform, leaving space for further additions. For some reason, Jagatkīrti subsequently built the twin chatrī at some distance from that of Devendrakīrti, and his own memorial was erected on the other side of the platform. When the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat had fully shifted to Jayapura in the late 18th century CE, A plot nearby has one or more chatrīs which I did not inspect but were reported to me at the site to be memorials of Hindu rājapurohitas. (left in the back on Fig. 4.8 L.) A comparative look at these memorials and the ﬁgures they commemorate could be instructive for understanding the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas’ self-perception and presentation. 303 Varmā (1998: 30) gave transcriptions of all four inscriptions. Nyāyatīrtha (1997: 8) gave a transcription of the ﬁrst inscription and discussed the others. My transcriptions (#4.7-10) include improvements of their readings. 304 Nyāyatīrtha (1997: 9) has a reference to one Paṇḍita Jayacandra serving and performing pūjā at the Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ at the turn of the 19th century CE (s. 1856), and receiving a governmental allowance for that. 305 247 a new site of commemoration was initiated there, and again the ﬁrst bhaṭṭāraka to erect memorials there built a larger platform. (4.3.10.) With that, the Āmera platform remained incompletely occupied. Figure 4.7. Platform with memorials of four bhaṭṭārakas, including one double chatrī (middle), Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera. (February 2013) The oldest memorial at the Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ is that of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1662-91). (left on Fig. 4.7, Fig. 4.8, #4.7) The date is obliterated, but the inscription records that it was consecrated in Āmera by his successor Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti (p. s. 1691-1722), during the rule of Mahārāja Jaya Siṅha (r. 1621-67 CE). That start of Narendrakīrti’s incumbency in s. 1691 (1634 CE) forms a terminus post quem for Devendrakīrti’s memorial, and the roughly coterminous end of Narendrakīrti’s incumbency (1665 CE) and of Jaya Siṅha’s rule (1667 CE) a terminus ante quem. Running on top of the pādukā (Fig. 4.8 R.), the inscription also records that the memorial was built by one Brahmacārī Keśava out of guru-bhakti, and calls for long-lasting praise (of the commemorated bhaṭṭāraka). As mentioned, Devendrakīrti’s s. 1696 pādukā in Sāṅgānera, 20 km to the south, more likely represents his actual pace of activity and demise. (4.3.5.) Narendrakīrti may have found it important for ritual purposes to have a memorial of the previous incumbent closer at hand, but the Āmera memorial was probably also an attempt by Narendrakīrti and his community to establish his lineage in its new hometown. 248 Figure 4.8. Caraṇa-chatrī of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (L., Hindu chatrī in the background) with pādukā (R.) installed in small shrine (M.), no legible date. Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera. (February 2013) Memorial stones of the next two Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents, Narendrakīrti (p. 1691-1722) and Surendrakīrti (p. s. 1722-33) are installed in separate shrines under a twin chatrī. (Fig. 4.9 L., second from left, and M.) Neither inscription mentions a date of consecration, and only the inscription on Narendrakīrti’s pādukā records that it was built by Surendrakīrti’s successor Jagatkīrti (p. s. 1733-70). (#4.8) The death of Surendrakīrti in s. 1733 is a terminus post quem, but we do not have any further indication when exactly during his long incumbency Jagatkīrti built the memorials. Both inscriptions record similar types of information on the commemorated bhaṭṭārakas as the inscription of s. 1691 Devendrakīrti’s pādukā from Sāṅgānera. (4.3.5.) The inscription on Narendrakīrti’s pādukā records his consecration in Sāṅgānera on the 14th day of the dark half of the month of Kārttika in s. 1691 (21st October 1634 CE), as noted a day earlier than as recorded on the Sāṅgānera pādukā. No information is provided on his own succession, but Narendrakīrti is recorded to have died in Āmera in the morning of the 8th day of the bright half of the month of Śrāvaṇa in s. 1722 (20th July 1665 CE). In a type of embellishment rarely found on Digambara memorial stones, the inscription adds that Narendrakīrti had spent a long time giving correct teachings to pious (bhavya) laypeople.306 The inscription of the pādukā of Surendrakīrti is shorter. (#4.9) Perhaps due to a mere scribal mistake, it records his passing away in the morning of the 4th day of the badi half of the month of Śrāvaṇa of s. 1733, but, incongruously, his passing on of the bhaṭṭāraka post to Jagatkīrti only the next day. The fourth pādukā at the Āmera Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ is that of Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti (p. s. 1733-70), probably consecrated by his successor Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1770) (extreme right on Figs. 4.7, 4.9 R. and second from right). Its inscription again records interesting information. Accordingly, Jagatkīrti died on the 5th day of the dark half of the month of Māgha of the year s. 1770, and Devendrakīrti was consecrated six days later, on the morning of the 11th day of the dark half of the month of Māgha. So whereas Devendrakīrti according to the inscription of his pādukā in Sāṅgānera had installed his successor Narendrakīrti on the bhaṭṭāraka seat before passing away in s. 1691, and Surendrakīrti had similarly consecrated Jagatkīrti shortly before his death in s. 1733 according to the inscription on his pādukā, Jagatkīrti died without having consecrated a successor. Devendrakīrti would instead have been put on the seat by the lay community or consecrated by an 306 ‘(...) bhavya-śrāvakebhyaḥ sad-upadeśaṃ dadati sma tatāś-ciraṃ bi(hr?)tya (...)’ (#4.8). ̥ 249 incumbent from another seat, two diﬀerent ways of bhaṭṭāraka successions known from other sources (Detige 2019b: 14-16). Figure 4.9. Twin chatrī with pādukās of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti (d. s. 1722, left on L. and second from left, and M.) and his successor Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti (d. s. 1733, right on L. and second from left) installed in small shrines (n.d.) and pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti, installed in a shrine in a chatrī, s. 1771 (R. and second from right). Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera. (February 2013) The inscription of Jagatkīrti’s memorial includes a third date, that of its installation ten months after his death, on the eight day of the bright half of the month of Mārgaśīrṣa in the year s. 1771. Pace Nyāyatīrtha (1997: 8), the inscription does not explicate that it was his successor Devendrakīrti who performed its consecration, but this is most likely. Jagatkīrti’s memorial was thus erected very shortly after his death. As discussed, we do not know this much about the other three memorials on site, the inscriptions of the memorial stones of Narendrakīrti and Surendrakīrti not giving a date of consecration, and the date in the inscription on the earlier memorial stone of Devendrakīrti illegible. For some reason, the later Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā caraṇa-chatrīs of Jayapura were erected with much delay. (4.3.10.) Almost uniquely (3.2.5.), the inscription of Jagatkīrti’s memorial also records the names of both the artisan (kārīgara) who built the chatrī, one Rāmajī, and probably the memorial’s donor, Jaisā, the son of Hararāma, and (probably) his wife Keledai.307 A stylistic evolution can be observed of the chatrīs and pādukās at the Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ. The mid-17th century CE chatrī of Devendrakīrti (left on Fig.4. 7, Fig. 4.8 L.) is of a more primitive design that the other chatrīs added to the platform in probably the last quarter of the 17th and the early 18th century CE (right on Fig. 4.7). The former has simple, straight architraves and its pillars are foursided on the lower half and worked out octagonal higher up. The latter are more reﬁned, with foliated arches between more elegant baluster pillars. Devendrakīrti’s pādukā also has a basic design, without the decorative carvings appearing on the later pādukās at the site. The two pādukās installed by Jagatkīrti add the lotus motif which would remain a standard feature on pādukās. (Fig. 4.9 M.) The bhaṭṭāraka pādukās of Jayapura from about a century later (s. 1853, s. 1881) represent a further reﬁnement in terms of carving. (Fig. 4.17) The shrine and the chatrī of Jagatkīrti’s memorial feature further stylistic developments from the combined memorial for Narendrakīrti and Surendrakīrti. The structure of the inner shrine (Figs. 4.9 R.) is slightly more 307 ‘(...) kārīgara rāma-jī chatrī karī hararāma kai pota jaisā keledai karī (...)’ (#4.10), which is a correction of Varmā’s (1998: 30) ‘hararāma ko potā jaisā ko beṭo karī’. 250 decorated than the three earlier shrines, and minimal ﬂower motifs have been applied to the chatrī’s lintels, preﬁguring the Jayapura and Cākasū chatrīs’ far more extensive and masterly carvings. Uniquely, Jagatkīrti’s pādukā is carved directly in the ﬂoor panel of the small shrine rather than being a separate stone, like the other three memorials at the Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ other Digambara pādukās in the region (Fig. 4.9 second from right). Its inscription has therefore been applied on the frontside of the shrine rather than on the pādukā slab, as is otherwise the case. Despite this gradual stylistic development, the cupolas of the Āmera chatrīs remained fairly consistent. (Fig. 4.7) They all have small domes with a smooth surface, an octagonal drum, and a square base with geometric decoration. The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā chatrīs of Jayapura from the late 18th and 19th century CE instead received larger, bulbous and ribbed domes. (Fig. 4.15) 4.3.7. Sāṅgānera, Saṅghijī Mandira (s. 1783) An unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā found in Sāṅgānera dating to the ﬁrst half of the 18th century CE most probably relates to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, and more speciﬁcally to Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1770), who possibly consecrated the s. 1771 pādukā of his predecessor Jagatkīrti in Āmera. (4.3.6.). (Fig. 4.10, #4.11) The white marble pillar was found in a glass encasement inside the famous pilgrimage temple Saṅghijī Mandira. Its inscription refers to a chatrī, so the niṣedhikā probably came to be preserved inside the mandira after the chatrī in which it originally belonged had degenerated or was cleared. At ﬁrst sight, the niṣedhikā seems to feature the usual sitting and standing ﬁgures on each side. The lāñchanas carved below the padmāsana ﬁgures are however a rather exceptional feature, identifying these ﬁgures as speciﬁc jinas. A bull (Fig. 4.10 R.) and a lion (Fig. 4.10 R.) represent respectively Ādinātha and Mahāvīra (other two sides not documented). And below the jina carvings are not the common depictions of naked khaḍgāsana renouncers, but of ﬁgures wearing a loincloth (langotī). Two of these stand in a devotional pose with hands folded in front of the chest (Fig. 4.10 R.), and one carries what probably is a ceremonial whisk rather than an ascetic’s picchī (Fig. 4.10 L., one side not documented). Inscriptions below these carvings identify them as paṇḍitas paying eternal obeisance, Lālacanda (l(ā?)lacaṃda’), Lakṣmīdhara (‘lāṣamīdara’), Giridharadāsa (‘gīradharadasa’), and possibly a fourth individual whose name could not be read. These paṇḍitas presumably were devotees, pupils, or associates of the commemorated individual, and possibly also were the memorial’s patrons. The only parallel for these carvings is a sculpture found at the Nasyājī in Būndī, of a ﬁgure wearing a langotī and a mālā probably depicting one of the paṇḍitas who were active in constructing 19th century CE paṇḍitas memorials at the site. (3.1.5., 4.3.17.) The appearance of a niṣedhikā in the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region in the early 18th century CE is itself unusual. Niṣedhikās were still used in Vāgaḍā around this time (5.6.5.), but in the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region pādukās had been the preferred commemorative iconography since the mid-17th century CE (4.2.5.). The inscriptions on the niṣedhikā are of poor quality, in defective Sanskrit, and diﬃcult to read. Apart from the individual, short captions recording the paṇḍitas found near the basis of the pillar on all four sides, a longer inscription is probably continued in two or three lines on all sides above the jina carvings, just below the top of the pillar. Many sections could not be read. Among the 251 legible and deciphered fragments are a date in the month of Vaisākha of the year s. 1783, a separate reference to the year s. 1777 (possibly also with a speciﬁc date), and references to an unidentiﬁed town, the Mūlasaṅgha, and one Bhaṭṭāraka Devendra (name continued?). The latter is probably a match for Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, who was on the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat from s. 1770 and was succeeded by Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti by s. 1792. The niṣedhikā may have been consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, or it may have commemorated Devendrakīrti himself, of whom otherwise no memorial has been found. In the latter case, the recorded dates of s. 1777 and s. 1783 could also refer to events of his life, rather than to the erection of the pillar. The latter date however seems to form the start of the inscription, and thus probably is either the date of consecration of the memorial or the date of death of the commemorated individual. Terāpantha opposition around this time (4.1.4.) could have caused a delay in the nomination of a new incumbent, but a date of death of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti in or around s. 1783 would otherwise sit rather long before his succession by Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti in s. 1792. Figure 4.10. Unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā (s. 1783) with depictions of padmāsana jinas and standing ﬁgures wearing loincloth (langotī), the latter with whisk in hand on one side (L.) and in a devotional pose with hands folded in front of the body on other sides (R.). Saṅghijī Mandira, Sāṅgānera. (December 2014) 4.3.8. Bassī, Nasiyāṃjī (s. 1750/81, s. 1828) Memorials of two late 17th - 18th century CE ācāryas related to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā have been found in Bassī, some thirty kilometres to the east of Jayapura. At the Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Mandira Nasiyāṃjī (in short, Nasiyāṃjī) outside of the town stand four chatrīs, two of which still shelter a pādukā. (Figs. 4.11, 4.12, 4.13) One memorial features two diﬀerent inscriptions. (Fig. 4.12 L., #4.12) An inscription on the pādukā slab dated to s. 1750 identiﬁes it as the lotus feet (‘padakamalaṃ’) of Ācārya Kanakakīrti, and records it was built by his pupil Paṇḍita ?dārāma (‘(ta)tsiṣya paṃ. (?)dārāmena’) at the Pārśvanātha ‘nisiyāṃ-jī’, in the park of one Nāthūrāma. A later inscription on the base stone on which the pādukā is installed records that the chatrī of Ācārya Kanakakīrti was built by the (his) pupil Sadārāma (no title given) and established by the whole pañca in s. 1781. Probably it was the same individual Paṇḍita Sadārāma ﬁrstly installed a pādukā of his guru Ācārya Kanakakīrti in s. 1750, perhaps on a cabūtarā, and erected a chatrī to house it three decades later, in s. 1781. The inscription on the pādukā preserved in a second chatrī records that Ācārya 252 Mahīcandra died in s. 1828, and that his chatrī was built by his pupil Paṇḍita Gumānirāma. (Fig. 4.12 R., #4.13) Figure 4.11. Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Mandira Nasiyāṃjī, Bassī. (December 2014) L: Four chatrīs next to the Pārśvanātha Mandira (visible in the back), caraṇa-chatrī of Ācārya Mahīcandra (s. 1828) central in front and caraṇa-chatrī of Ācārya Kanakakīrti (s. 1781) left in the back. R: Caraṇa-chatrīs of Ācārya Kanakakīrti (s. 1781, with a pādukā dated to s. 1750, front) and Ācārya Mahīcandra (s. 1828, back). Nyāyatīrtha (1997: 45) properly cites Kanakakīrti’s ācārya rank from the s. 1750 śilālekha in the site’s mandira (see below), but in discussing Kanakakīrti’s pādukā equates his ācārya rank with that of a bhaṭṭāraka (‘bhaṭṭāraka (ācārya) kanakakīrti’, Ibid.). While bhaṭṭārakas are regularly referred to as ācāryas in textual sources, especially in eulogistic verse, this is not known from inscriptions. Nyāyatīrtha’s mistaken identiﬁcation of Kanakakīrti as a bhaṭṭāraka exempliﬁes how prior scholarship struggled to come to terms with the ﬂourishing of ācāryas and munis in the early modern period, all the more evident in this case because Nyāyatīrtha (1985a&b) himself elsewhere brought to light song compositions attesting early modern ācāryas and munis. Ācārya Kanakakīrti’s pādukā features no embellishments, but Ācārya Mahīcandra’s is the only pādukā of a 19th century CE ācārya discovered to date to feature the ascetic’s picchī and kamaṇḍalū, next to what looks like a spiralled rope (mālā?) and an unidentiﬁed object, possibly a scripture. (Fig. 4.12 R.) The pādukā inscriptions record neither of the ācāryas’ gurus or predecessors, nor the tradition they belonged to. An inscription (śilālekha) in the nasīyā’s mandira308 however connects Ācārya Kanakakīrti to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. (Fig. 4.12 M, #4.14) The plaque was painted over at its margins at the time of my visit, allowing as a reading of its date only s. 17?0, but Nyāyatīrtha (1997: 45) has a complete reading of s. 1750. This date beﬁts the inscription’s reference to the reign of ‘mahārājaśrī-vibhana-siṃgha’, the Kachavāhā ruler Bhiśana Siṅha (r. 1688-99 CE) of Āmera. The śilālekha is dated to the same day as the s. 1750 inscription on Ācārya Kanakakīrti’s pādukā (Āsauja śukla pakṣa Vijayadaśamī). The śilālekha rehearses part of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā lineage, Bhaṭṭāraka A second ﬂoor was being added to the small mandira at the time of my visit (December 2014), mostly meant to cover the originally open courtyard. 308 253 Narendrakīrti [p. s. 1691] > Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti [p. s. 1713] > Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti [p. s. 1733, d. s. 1770], and then records Ācārya Kanakakīrti as standing in Jagatkīrti’s lineage (‘-tadāmnāye’) but as a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti.309 The inscription thus highlights Ācārya Kanakakīrti’s pupillary connection to the earlier Narendrakīrti over Jagatkīrti’s actual incumbency.310 The śilālekha in the Bassī mandira furthermore records the construction of the Pārśvanātha Mandira (‘pārśvanātha-jī kau dehurau’) by four or ﬁve pupils of Ācārya Kanakakīrti, the paṇḍitas Rāyamalla, Sadārāma, Ṭekacanda, Mal(a/ū?)kacanda, and possibly Keśava (?, ‘ke(sau?)’) at the instruction of the complete pañca of Bassī (‘samasta-basaī kā pañca mahājanī kā upadeśa’). Paṇḍita Sadārāma thus installed (and consecrated?) the pādukā of his guru on the same day when the mandira built by him and three associated paṇḍitas was inaugurated, erecting a chatrī for it next to the temple three decades later. At nasīyās with 16th (4.3.3.) and early 17th (4.3.4.) century CE memorials chatrīs are found predating the sites’ mandiras. By the 18th century CE, the combination of mandiras and memorials had perhaps become so common at nasīyās that erecting both in tandem here fulﬁlled an expected pattern. Figure 4.12. Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Mandira Nasiyāṃjī, Bassī. (December 2014) L: Pādukā of Ācārya Kanakakīrti, s. 1750, installed in its chatrī in s 1781. M: Śilālekha inside the Pārśvanātha mandira, s. 1750. R: Pādukā of Ācārya Mahīcandra, s. 1828. Ācārya Mahīcandra probably stood in a relation of pupillary or institutional descent to Kanakakīrti, and thus also indirectly traced his pedigree to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. The two chatrīs at the Bassī nasīyā of which the pādukās are now lost may have commemorated further ācāryas. The available materials at the site seem to attest Kanakakīrti as an ācārya originally aﬃliated to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, operating at a town at some remove from the bhaṭṭāraka seat with a pupillary circle of paṇḍitas, and locally succeeded by other, perhaps increasingly autonomous ācāryas like Mahīcandra. In mid-18th century CE Ajamera multiple ācāryas are found residing at the hometown Nyāyatīrtha (1997: 45) wrongly cites the inscription as recording Kanakakīrti as a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti. 309 Nyāyatīrtha (1997: 43) also reports a s. 1783 mūrtilekha at the Pārśvanātha Mandira in the town centre of Bassī which records the pupillary succession Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti > Ācārya Kanakakīrti > Paṇḍita Sadārāma. 310 254 of the bhaṭṭāraka seat to which they no doubt related. (6.2.4.) Ācāryas like Kanakakīrti and Mahīcandra on the other hand seem to have resided away from the bhaṭṭāraka seat, probably overseeing the activities of the Digambara community of Bassī and its mandiras. They might originally have acted as local representatives of the incumbent bhaṭṭāraka, somewhat similar perhaps to maṇḍalācāryas in preceding centuries. (2.2.4.) The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat was established in Āmera until the time of erection of Kanakakīrti’s chatrī, shortly moved to Dillī in between the time of erection of both memorials, under Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti, and had become established in Jayapura by the time Ācārya Mahīcandra was commemorated. (4.1.) Bassī is situated at a relatively short distance from Āmera and Jayapura (30 km). Āmera no doubt remained an important place for the lineage even during Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti’s period in Dillī, and Jayapura gradually became its centre after its foundation in 1727 CE. (4.1.) Yet various factors seem to indicate that the Bassī ācāryas took some distance from the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭāraka lineage to which at least Kanakakīrti had had a pupillary connection, and was no doubt subordinated. The inscriptions of Kanakakīrti and Mahīcandra’s memorials remain silent about their aﬃliation. Although the same is the case for the very brief inscriptions of the 18th century CE ācārya pādukās in Ajamera (6.2.4.), this is rather uncommon for longer inscriptions like those of the Bassī pādukās. As noted, in the mandira śilālekha Ācārya Kanakakīrti is furthermore recorded as aﬃliated to Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, who passed away three decades earlier, rather than to the then incumbent and otherwise inﬂuential Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti. Manuscript colophons occasionally also express a renouncer’s pupillary relation to an earlier rather than to the incumbent bhaṭṭāraka (Detige 2018), but there too this often seems to imply some distance to the incumbent bhaṭṭāraka. Also notable is that the Bassī ācāryas were commemorated with full-size caraṇa-chatrīs. This diﬀers from the Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā, where the caraṇa-cabūtarās allotted to ācāryas formed a clear indication of their subordination to the bhaṭṭārakas, who were typically commemorated with caraṇa-chatrīs. (6.2.) The transferral of Ācārya Kanakakīrti’s s. 1750 pādukā from presumably a cabūtarā into a full-blown chatrī in s. 1781 seems to indicate exactly an aggrandisement of the status of the late ācārya, and perhaps the growing independence of the Bassī ācārya lineage. Figure 4.13. Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Mandira Nasiyāṃjī, Bassī. (December 2014) L: Four chatrīs on a single, L-shaped platform, including the caraṇa-chatrīs of Ācārya Mahīcandra (s. 1828, second from front) and Ācārya Kanakakīrti (s. 1781, on the right in the back). C & R: Murals inside unidentiﬁed chatrī. 255 The four chatrīs at the Bassī nasīyā are erected on a low, L-shaped platform. (Figs. 4.11, 4.13 L) It seems possible however that the massive platform was extended each time new memorials were added to the site, rather than having been built in its totality along with the ﬁrst chatrī, as in Āmera (4.3.6.) and Jayapura (4.3.10.). The two unidentiﬁed chatrīs are of similar size and design as those of Ācārya Kanakakīrti and Ācārya Mahīcandra. Stylistic diﬀerences between the chatrīs are minimal and don’t allow to derive indications of the unmarked chatrīs’ antiquity relative to the others. The location of the four pavilions and the dates of the two datable chatrīs might allow us to reconstruct their chronology. Ācārya Kanakakīrti’s s. 1781 chatrī stands on the short arm of the L-shaped platform, closest to the mandira. It is probably the oldest of the set, built together with the mandira, as mentioned. Later chatrīs were added on the further side from the mandira. Ācārya Mahīcandra’s chatrī with its s. 1828 pādukā is the central of the three pavilions lined up on the long arm of the L-shaped platform. The chatrī between both identiﬁed memorials, on the corner of the L-shaped platform, would logically seem to be intermediate in time between those of Kanakakīrti and Mahīcandra. If we think of the chatrīs as commemorating a succession of local caretakers (ācāryas or other), the considerable period between the two preserved ācārya memorial stones (s. 1750 to s. 1828) would also call for at least one intermediate ﬁgure between Kanakakīrti and Mahīcandra. The chatrī at the end of long arm of the platform would seem to have been added after that of Ācārya Mahīcandra, as the most recent memorial on site, postdating s. 1828. That the now unidentiﬁable chatrīs are equal in size to those of Kanakakīrti and Mahīcandra could be taken as an indication that they too probably commemorated ācāryas, given Digambara necropoles’ common logic of distinguishing between the ranks of commemorated individuals by the sizes and types of memorials allotted. Pupillary genealogies in which gurus are succeeded by pupils with a higher rank or title than their gurus are occasionally found. Yet especially the chatrī erected in between those of Kanakakīrti and Mahīcandra, when taken to be intermediate in time to theirs, is likely to have commemorated an ācārya as well. The extensive murals of abstract and ﬂoral motifs inside its cupola certainly indicates the commemorated individual was of considerable inﬂuence and standing. (Fig. 4.13 M. & R.) The other chatrīs don’t show any traces of elaborate murals, nor of recent overpainting, and probably never featured such decoration. Only minimal painting is present on the outside of the arches of the three chatrīs on the long wing of the platform. (Fig. 4.11 L) While the Bassī memorials probably attest a succession of multiple late 17th and 18th century CE ācāryas similar to those attested in manuscript sources (2.2.4.8., 6.1.4.), it is also possible that the Bassī ācāryas were at some point succeeded by lay paṇḍitas, as we see in Bairāṭha (3.1.6.), Īḍara (5.6.4.), and probably Ajamera (6.2.6.). The fourth, latest chatrī may thus also have commemorated a paṇḍita. In Bairāṭha, some 80 km to the north of Bassī, a 19th century CE paṇḍita is indeed also commemorated with a chatrī of similar dimension as that of a Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha bhaṭṭāraka next to it. (3.1.6.) 4.3.9. Āmera, Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ (s. 1845) The ﬁnding spot of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭāraka caraṇa-chatrīs in Āmera (4.3.5.) is named after a s. 1845 kīrtistambha (3.1.4.) found at the site. (Fig. 4.14 R.) The almost four metre high, white marble 256 pillar is installed in a closed, eight-pillared chatrī raised on a terrace right next to the mandira. The tall pillar is perfectly ﬁtted under the dome of the pavilion. Twelve-facetted higher up (Fig. 4.14 M.), its base is worked out four-sided in the shape of a medallion which is also repeated in the base of the pillars or the chatrī. (Fig. 4.14 R.) The ﬁnely carved ﬂower vase ornamentation of the medallion is representative of the delicate carvings found on Digambara memorials from a few years later in Jayapura (4.3.10.). The chatrī is substantially larger than the site’s earlier caraṇa-chatrīs, which date from over a century to three quarter century earlier. The dome is also bigger, though not yet ribbed like those appearing in the Jayapura caraṇa-chatrīs shortly after. Stone lattices (jālī) between the pillars close oﬀ the structure. (Fig. 4.14 L.) These are not found in any other early modern Digambara chatrī, but are of considerable antiquity, and probably part of the pavilion’s original design. Figure 4.14. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā kīrtistambha (R., s. 1845) in a closed chatrī (L.), with depictions of bhaṭṭārakas (M., left Surendrakīrti, p. s. 1822; middle Kṣemendrakīrti, p. s. 1815; right undedicated), Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera. (February 2013) The kīrtistambha itself has ten tiers, each featuring twelve carvings of renouncers, depicted in padmāsana posture on three tiers (the third, seventh, and ninth counting from the top) and in khaḍgāsana on the remaining seven. (Fig. 4.14 M.) The khaḍgāsana ﬁgures are depicted with kamaṇḍalu and picchī in hand, those in padmāsana seated on a throne, as discussed highlighting their king-like identities (3.1.4.), but seemingly also with the same ascetic paraphernalia placed near them. Inscriptions give each incumbent’s name, the year of his consecration to the seat (vikrama samvat) and for later-day bhaṭṭārakas also a precise calendar date, and a serial number. The lineage is chronologically represented from the top of the pillar downwards, from Ācārya Bhadrabāhu (s. 4 [= 53-2 BCE]), counted as number one, down to Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1883), counted as the 101st incumbent. The sequence of incumbents largely agrees with the (undivided) Balātkāragaṇa and Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā succession list as edited from paṭṭāvalīs by Hoernle (1891). For some incumbents the kīrtistambha gives the alternative names of Hoernle’s (Ibid.) manuscript ‘Ms. P.’. A foundation inscription is applied inside the medallion on one of the sides of the kīrtistambha. (#4.15) The inscription records that the pillar was established (sthāpanā) in s. 1845 by Bhaṭṭāraka 257 Surendrakīrti and ‘all munis’ (‘bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sureṃdrakīrtinā sakala-munibhi’). The term muni should probably be read as a generic term for renouncers, since by this time muni-rank Digambara renouncers had disappeared (2.3.). The inscription was left incomplete at two places, blank spaces left for the exact calendar date (‘saṃbat 1845 madhye jyeṣṭa-māse krṣna-pakṣe ... tithau’) and the ̥ name of the ruling Kāchavāhā mahārāja (‘mahārājādhirāja-śrī-savāī ... siṃha-rājye’). Probably these data were meant to be added later, perhaps inscribed as part of the consecration rituals, or, more pragmatically and perhaps more likely, because the exact date of consecration had not been decided or was anticipated to change, and the ruler might pass before that time. The inscription also records consecration rituals (‘-arca-sṭhāpanā-’) of the icons of the gurus provided with the performance of the ritual and devotional practices of darśana, arcana, vandanā, and vidhāna,311 and with great festivities held by masses of laypeople.312 Although the kīrtistambha, as discussed, clearly stands in a chatrī which was speciﬁcally designed for it, the foundation inscription records its establishment in Cākasū (Campāvatī, ‘caṃpāvatī-arca-sṭhāpanā-’). The Āmera kīrtistambha thus seems to have been consecrated in Cākasū, perhaps a token of the Cākasū Digambara community’s devotion to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, or of the connections between the Āmera and Cākasū lay communities. As discussed, Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti (p. s. 1822-52) was particularly active in icon consecrations, travelling widely throughout the region to perform pratiṣṭhās. (4.1.4.) When he consecrated the kīrtistambha in s. 1845, Surendrakīrti had been on the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat for over two decades, seven years later he was succeeded by Sukhendrakīrti. The names and dates of Surendrakīrti (Fig. 4.14 M.) and Sukhendrakīrti are also engraved on the kīrtistambha, as well as those of two further incumbents, Narendrakīrti (p. s. 1880) and Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1883). The names and data of Sukhendrakīrti, Narendrakīrti, and Devendrakīrti were thus inscribed on the pillar after its erection. Nyāyatīrtha (1997: 9) reports old government records attesting ceremonial pūjās and other rites (‘samārohapūrvaka pūjana ādi kā vidhāna’) held when a new incumbent’s name was engraved on the Āmera kīrtistambha. Although he seems to think that it was the names of prior incumbents who were added, Varmā (1998: 28) also knows that pūjā, maṇḍala, vidhāna and other festivities were held when a bhaṭṭāraka’s name was inscribed on the kīrtistambha and that gifts were sent from the royal court at this occasion, conﬁrming the incumbent’s legitimacy. Varmā (1998: 20) reproduces a Ḍhūṇḍhāḍī language document which seems to be receipt from s. 1862 for a layman’s donation towards the performance of rituals at the occasion of the engraving the next bhaṭṭāraka’s name on the ‘kīrtistambha paṭṭāvalī’ in that year.313 The year s. 1862 is in the middle of the tenure of Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti (s. 1852-80), and it was presumably his name which was inscribed on the pillar at this occasion. The names of the two last Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents Mahendrakīrti (p. s. 1937, d. s. 1974) and Candrakīrti (p. s. 1975, d. s. 2026 [= 1969 CE]) were not added. Perhaps because these later-day bhaṭṭārakas had shifted their activities to Mahāvīrajī (4.1.5.), or because the type of ritual pomp apparently connected to the inscription of new 311 ‘śrī-gurūṇāṃ pratimā darśanār[c]ana-vaṃdanā-vidhā(?)ṇāṃ’ (#4.15). 312 ‘śrāvaka-śrāvikā-saṃdoha-krta-paramotsava-yuktābhi(ḥ?)’ (#4.15). ̥ ‘(...) saṃvat 1862 ne āmera kī nasiyāṃ meṃ ṭhākura jī ko pūjana maṇḍala maḍāya kiyo vo kīrtistambha paṭṭāvalī āgalā bhaṭṭārakoṃ kī chī tīmeṃ nāma khudāyo (...) kīmata 52/- kā diyā.’ (Varmā 1998: 20). 313 258 incumbents’ names on the pillar earlier no longer found suﬃcient support. Nineteen of the spare, generic carvings of bhaṭṭārakas which had been carved on the pillar in anticipation of a longer continued lineage instead remained unmarked. As noted, the consecration of Mahendrakīrti’s successors Kṣemendrakīrti (p. s. 1815) and Surendrakīrti (p. s. 1822) was organised at the Pāṭodī Mandira in Jayapura, and during Surendrakīrti’s time the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat also formally shifted from Āmera to Jayapura, where it maintained a stable presence for a century longer. (4.1.4.) Still the choice was made to erect the kīrtistambha in Āmera rather than Jayapura. The town no doubt remained important for the Jayapura bhaṭṭārakas, and the presence of caraṇa-chatrīs of earlier, successful Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents at the Āmera nasīyāṃ no doubt made it a particularly suitable location to erect a monument for the whole lineage. The main rationale for the location of the kīrtistambha at Āmera may however have been a parallel to the consecration practices of the Kachavāhā kings, which also continued to be held at Āmera (Horstmann 2013). Through erecting and venerating its kīrtistambha at Āmera, the bhaṭṭāraka polity, like the royal dynasty, maintained its link to its ancestral town. Perhaps the kīrtistambha in Āmera (and possibly another specimen in Sāṅgānera?) also stood as a substituterepresentative of the Jayapura seat in those towns to which it was historically and continuously connected. It furthermore wasn’t until after the erection of the kīrtistambha that the ﬁrst bhaṭṭāraka memorials were erected in Jayapura. Caraṇa-chatrīs of Mahendrakīrti (p. s. 1792), Kṣemendrakīrti (p. s. 1815), and Surendrakīrti (p. s. 1822) were built at the Jayapura Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ in s. 1853 and s. 1881, in each case a few decades after their passing. (4.3.10.) Meanwhile their names had already been inscribed on the kīrtistambha in Āmera, but that was probably never seen as replacing the construction and ritual veneration of individual monuments, but rather served to create an additional site of veneration of the whole lineage. While the kīrtistambha also served as a commemorative object, the inscription of new incumbents on the pillar furthermore also formed a ritualised part of their ascendancy to the seat rather than of their passing. Mahendrakīrti, Kṣemendrakīrti, and Surendrakīrti are known to have been active in attempting to counter the inﬂuence of the anti-bhaṭṭāraka Terāpantha reform movement, propagating Bīsapantha ideas and restoring the laity’s devotion to the bhaṭṭārakas. (4.1.4.) Yet, the belated erection of their memorials may have been related to Terāpanthī opposition in general or even speciﬁcally of practices of veneration and commemoration of bhaṭṭārakas. After the murder of Paṇḍita Ṭoḍaramala, some two decades before the Āmera kīrtistambha was erected, the Bīsapantha-Terāpantha animosity in Jayapura is said to have decreased, but by the time of the erection of the Āmera pillar, Ṭoḍaramala’s son Gumānīrāma was attempting to resuscitate the Terāpantha fervour. (4.1.4.) It seems almost impossible then not to see Surendrakīrti’s conception of the ‘pillar of glory’ as a part of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas’ eﬀorts to defy the Terāpantha inﬂuence, establishing a material expression of the Bīsapantha prestige which legitimised the present bhaṭṭārakas by showing their unbroken ascetic lineage and also served as an axis for the ritual enactment of the connection between the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bīsapanthī polity and the Kachavāhā court. A material form used earlier in the Vāgaḍā region in the framework of intraBalātkāragaṇa lineage dynamics (5.3.4.) was thus re-adopted in Jayapura with distinct motives. 259 4.3.10. Jayapura, Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ (thrice s. 1853, 1881) As just noted, the names of new Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents continued to be inscribed on the Āmera kīrtistambha after the seat shifted to Jayapura in the mid-18th century CE. (4.3.9.) Yet, by the late 18th century CE a new commemoration site closer-by was inaugurated, still referred to today as the Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ. (Fig. 4.15) The plot of land south of the historical city centre of Jayapura used for it had been donated to Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti in s. 1801 by the royal court (Varmā 1998: 13-4). On an adjacent plot of land the Rāmabhāga royal palace was developed in the 18th and early 19th century CE. A mandira was built at the Digambara site in s. 1826 (1769 CE) under Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti, and in s. 1853 and s. 1881 individual caraṇa-chatrīs were erected for the next three Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas after those commemorated in Āmera. Like the Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, the Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ thus featured a mandira before it came to be used as a cremation and commemoration site. Figure 4.15. Platform with three bhaṭṭāraka caraṇa-chatrīs, s. 1853 (right and middle) and s. 1881 (left), Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura. (February 2013) The three chatrīs at the Jayapura Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ stand on a shared platform elevated on pillars now prominently overlooking Tonk Road/Man Singh Road, near the traﬃc node Narayan Singh Circle. Today, the site also features buildings and grounds for marriages and other ceremonies, pilgrim accommodation, and an auditorium. The site previously also featured a research institute (Jaina Vidyā Saṃsthāna) with a manuscript conservation centre and an institution facilitating the study and teaching of Prakrit and Apabhramsha (Apabhraṃśa Sāhitya Akādamī) which also houses the extensive Āmera Śāstrabhaṇḍāra, the former Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā manuscript collection now expanded with acquisitions from elsewhere (Detige 2017). These institutions and the manuscript collection have now moved to a new location in Mālavīya Nagara (Malviya Nagar) 260 in south Jayapura. Memorial chatrīs raised on a high, massive platform are found at several sites in the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region. The shared platform at the Āmera Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ probably formed the direct inspiration for that in Jayapura. In Caurū (4.3.14) and Bagarū (4.3.16.), high plinths of chatrīs also came to include rooms. The pillared platform supporting the Jayapura caraṇa-chatrīs however represents a development found used at only one other site, for Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti’s later memorial in Cākasū which is clearly modelled after the chatrīs in Jayapura. (4.3.11., Fig. 4.19) Figure 4.16. Pillared platform supporting bhaṭṭāraka caraṇa-chatrīs. Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura. (February 2013) In s. 1853, a decade after the erection of the Āmera kīrtistambha and almost immediately after his own succession to the seat, Surendrakīrti’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti (p. s. 1852-80) built caraṇa-chatrīs of two earlier incumbents at the Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ. He commemorated his predecessors to the third and second degree, Mahendrakīrti (p. s. 1792, #4.16) and Kṣemendrakīrti (p. s. 1815, #4.17), his so-called ‘paḍa-dādā-guru’ (great-grandfather-guru) and ‘dādāguru’ (grandfather-guru). On the same occasion, Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti also consecrated an anonymous pādukā found installed in open air on a low pillar. (See below, #4.18) In s. 1881, Sukhendrakīrti’s successor Narendrakīrti (p. s. 1880) added a chatrī commemorating his own dādāguru Surendrakīrti.314 As we saw, the bhaṭṭārakas commemorated at the Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ were the ﬁrst Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents active in Jayapura. Sukhendrakīrti and his unknown lay donors built a platform larger than necessary for the two chatrīs they built. They probably anticipated the addition of memorials of further incumbents, as Narendrakīrti had done in Varmā (1998: 13) oﬀered transcriptions of the inscriptions of all three Jayapura bhaṭṭāraka memorials, but not of the third s. 1853 pādukā. 314 261 Āmera about a century and a half earlier. In this case, they probably measured out exactly enough space for a third chatrī of similar size. Perhaps Sukhendrakīrti had hoped for his own memorial to be added on the platform. Yet, his memorial was instead built in Cākasū in s. 1886, again by his successor to the second degree, Devendrakīrti, probably because Sukhendrakīrti passed away there, in s. 1880. (4.3.11.) Meanwhile in s. 1881, his successor Narendrakīrti (p. s. 1880) had instead used the remaining space on the platform at the Jayapura Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ for a chatrī commemorating his dādāguru, Sukhendrakīrti’s predecessor Surendrakīrti. Sukhendrakīrti and Narendrakīrti both built caraṇa-chatrīs in the ﬁrst year after their succession to the seat, in s. 1852 and s. 1880 respectively. It probably was not a coincidence that Narendrakīrti consecrated the third caraṇa-chatrī at the Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ on the same calendar date as when Sukhendrakīrti had consecrated the ﬁrst two chatrīs on the shared platform, the 5th day of the bright half of the month of Māgha, a Thursday in s. 1853 (#4.16, #4.17), and a Monday in s. 1881 (#4.19). Sukhendrakīrti and Narendrakīrti also both chose to commemorate earlier incumbents, leaving the erection of a memorial of their direct predecessor to a later incumbent. (Chart 4.3) Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti did not erect a memorial for his direct predecessor Surendrakīrti. It was instead Sukhendrakīrti’s successor Narendrakīrti who commemorated his dādāguru Surendrakīrti. And the Cākasū memorial of Sukhendrakīrti was in turn not build by his successor Narendrakīrti, but again by the latter’s successor Devendrakīrti. Although we ﬁnd this pattern repeated thrice, it is not sure whether this was conscious practice. In Āmera, Jagatkīrti build a memorial for his direct predecessor Surendrakīrti and the latter’s predecessor Narendrakīrti, but his own memorial was consecrated shortly after his death probably by his direct successor Devendrakīrti. And the earlier Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent Devendrakīrti was also commemorated by his direct successor Narendrakīrti both in Sāṅgānera and Āmera, at least the former memorial no more than ﬁve years after his passing. Chart 4.3. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā succession with memorials of bhaṭṭārakas, indicating dates, locations, and consecrating successor. The Jayapura memorials of Mahendrakīrti, Kṣemendrakīrti, and Surendrakīrti from s. 1853 and s. 1881 were erected respectively almost four decades, more than three decades, and almost three decades after their passing. Perhaps the lull in the erection of bhaṭṭāraka memorials in the second half of the 18th century CE and the delayed construction of memorials of the ﬁrst three Jayapura bhaṭṭārakas can be related to local Bīsapanthī-Terāpanthī dynamics. It is little likely that Surendrakīrti (p. s. 1822) deemed the inclusion of his direct predecessors Sukhendrakīrti and Mahendrakīrti on the Āmera kīrtistambha a suﬃcient means of commemoration. The practice of 262 constructing individual caraṇa-chatrīs was strongly normalised in the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, and although the kīrtistambha also came to serve as a commemorative object, the inscription of new incumbents on the pillar occurred at the time of their ascendancy to the seat rather than upon their passing. (4.3.9.) What is possible however is that Surendrakīrti and Kṣemendrakīrti eschewed the erection of individual memorials of their direct predecessors in the face of criticism of Terāpanthī actors, who no doubt opposed the ritual veneration and cult of deceased as much as living bhaṭṭārakas. Apparently also able to gather ample funding, Sukhendrakīrti on the other hand may have wished to state the Bīsapantha glory in the new Kachavāhā capital by erecting particularly grand memorials at a time when the Terāpantha opposition or at least the BīsapanthīTerāpanthī strife had somewhat abated. Figure 4.17. Bhaṭṭāraka caraṇa-chatrīs (s. 1853, s. 1881). Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura. (February 2013 and December 2014 [top middle]) The octagonal, eight-pillared chatrīs at the Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ are beautiful, elegant structures. (Figs. 4.15, 4.17) They are larger, stand on a higher plinth, and feature more elaborate carvings than the square, four-pillared, and plumper chatrīs of Āmera. The latter also have smaller, smooth domes, whereas the ribbed, bulbous dome with lotus leaf motif is also typical of the Jayapura chatrīs’ later style. The same stylistic evolution can be observed in the chatrīs at the Śākambharīśākhā necropolis in Ajamera. (6.2.1.) The Jayapura bhaṭṭāraka chatrīs are richly decorated with ﬂoral and geometric motifs on plinths, pillars, interior and exterior side of the lintels, inside the dome, and on the drum of the cupola. Especially noteworthy are the corbels and 263 other, decorative sculpted elements under the overhangs of the domes. When adding a third caraṇa-chatrī to the platform in s. 1881 (Fig. 4.17 top M.), Narendrakīrti stuck close to the design of the chatrīs built by Sukhendrakīrti some three decades earlier (Fig. 4.17 top R.). Some elements were added to further reﬁne the design, like the usage of contrasting blue stone in the pattern of the marble ﬂooring and for the ribs of the cupola and parts of the slightly extended kalaśa ﬁnial. (Fig. 4.17 top L. & M.) Of special interest is the carving of a single naked, standing renouncer carrying kamaṇḍalu and picchī inside the dome of each of the chatrīs, no doubt representing the commemorated bhaṭṭāraka. (Fig. 3.14, 3.2.5.) In the two s. 1853 chatrīs, the ﬁgure stands in an arched doorway similar to the foliated arches between the chatrīs’ pillars. (Fig. 3.14 R.) In the s. 1881 chatrī, this tableau appears even more pronouncer, with the naked renouncer standing in a jharokhā-like structure. This may be a reference to a practice of the bhaṭṭārakas to give darśana to their devotees. (2.4.) A similar carving is also found in the related Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorial in Cākasū from ﬁve years later, which depicts a jharokhā with a curved baṅgla roof. (Fig. 4.19 R.) A much cruder carving of a standing, naked renouncer is also found inside two unidentiﬁed, earlier chatrīs in Bārāṃ. (4.3.18., Fig. 4.30 top R. & L.) A clear stylistic evolution is also evident from a comparison of the pādukās of Sāṅgānera (4.3.4.), Āmera (4.3.5.), Jayapura, and Cākasū (4.3.11.). The pādukās of Sāṅgānera and Āmera (s. 1696 to s. 1771) are rudimentary, square blocks. (Figs. 4.6 M., 4.8 R., 4.9 M.) The pādukās of Jayapura and Cākasū from a century to a century and a half later (s. 1853 to s. 1886) are stylistically more complex and particularly ﬁnely carved. (Fig. 4.17) They are octagonal stones, nicely inlaid in the chatrīs’ marble ﬂoor pattern and repeating the shape of the octagonal plinth. Lotus petal carvings decorate the sides of the pādukās’ heightened drum. A line of ﬂower carvings all along the edge of the slabs and large carvings of the ascetics’ paraphernalia kamaṇḍalu (water pitcher), picchī (whisk), and mālā (rosary) are added around the carvings of the feet. An allusion to the notion of the guru’s lotus-feet (pāda-padma, caraṇa-kamala), the lotus ﬂower motif carved under the feet already appeared in the three latest Āmera pādukās but is more ﬁnely executed in Jayapura and Cākasū. The idiomatic practice of installing pādukās in a small shrine under a chatrī in Āmera was dropped in Jayapura. Perhaps for aesthetic or ritual purposes it was deemed preferable to keep the pādukā visible and easily accessible. The inscriptions of the Jayapura pādukās’ have been applied on top of the slabs, running all around the feet carvings and following the slabs’ octagonal shape. (Fig. 4.17 bottom R.) Like the Āmera and Sāṅgānera pādukās, the inscriptions again contain information rarely found on memorial stones elsewhere. In Āmera and Sāṅgānera, we found details concerning the death and succession of the commemorated bhaṭṭārakas recorded. In Jayapura, the inscriptions record the performance of rituals and festivities at the memorials (see next), as well as lengthy references to the ruling Kachavāhā mahārājas. The pādukās of s. 1853 were consecrated during the reign of Mahārāja Savāī Pratāpa Siṅha (r. 1778-1803 CE), while by the time of the s. 1881 and s. 1886 pādukās Mahārāja Savāī Jaya Siṅha (r. 1819-35 CE) was on the throne. A reference to the local ruler is frequently included in Jain manuscript colophons, but only rarely found elsewhere in the inscriptions of early modern Digambara renouncers’ memorials. Its presence here and the considerable terms of respect indicate a desire of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas to portray 264 themselves as perhaps more closely linked to the Kachavāhā court than the actually existing interactions between both polities. (Detige 2024b) The Jayapura bhaṭṭārakas also presented themselves in royal fashion, taking on royal pomp as part of their consecrations and in public appearances. (4.1.4.) The inscriptions of all three Jayapura bhaṭṭāraka caraṇa-chatrīs record that the pādukās were installed and consecrated with great festivities (‘mahotsavena’, #4..16, #4.17; ‘mahāmahotsavaṃ krtvā’ ̥ , #4.19). The inscriptions also prescribe the continued performance of pūjās at the memorials (‘pūjakānāṃ kalyāṇāvalīṃ karotu’, #4.16, #4.17; ‘pūjakānāṃ kalyāṇa-paraṃparāṃ karotu’, #4.19). The s. 1853 Mahendrakīrti pādukā inscription lists ﬁve Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents, from Devendrakīrti until the consecrating Sukhendrakīrti (Devendrakīrti > Mahendrakīrti > Kṣemendrakīrti > Surendrakīrti > Sukhendrakīrti), referring to Devendrakīrti as belonging to the Ambāvatī (Āmera) seat. The s. 1853 Kṣemendrakīrti pādukā inscription probably by oversight omits Devendrakīrti, referring to Mahendrakīrti as such (#4.17). The s. 1881 inscriptions also lists ﬁve incumbents, from Mahendrakīrti until the consecrating Narendrakīrti. Figure 4.18. Unidentiﬁed pādukā installed on a low pillar (R. and left on L.), consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti in s. 1853. Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura. (December 2014) As noted, another, unobtrusive memorial stands next to the platform with the three bhaṭṭāraka caraṇa-chatrīs at the Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ. (Fig. 4.18, #4.18) An octagonal pādukā installed on a waist-height pillar has an inscription recording that it was consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti on the same day as those of his predecessors’ caraṇa-chatrīs on the site. The stone is more withered from being exposed to the natural elements than the two s. 1853 chatrī pādukās. Its design slightly diﬀers from these, with carvings of leaves or petals rather than ﬂowers around the edge of the slab. The former half of the inscription runs parallel to those of the pādukās in the chatrīs, though abridged in some sections, for example in omitting Kṣemendrakīrti in the recorded Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā succession between Mahendrakīrti and Surendrakīrti. Yet after the succession, the inscription abruptly ends without naming any commemorated individual, merely noting that the pādukā was consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti (‘[sukh?]eṃdrakīrttinā iyaṃ pādukā 265 pratiṣṭāpitāṃ’). The depiction of picchī, kamaṇḍalu, and mālā on the memorial stone allow us to identify it as designed to commemorate a renouncer. Lower-ranking renouncers had mostly disappeared from the bhaṭṭāraka lineages by this time, and the lack of a record of such an individual’s name in the inscription would also be unusual. Given its diﬀerent design, it also seems little likely that this unidentiﬁed pādukā was meant for a third chatrī planned by Sukhendrakīrti for the space on the platform which remained empty, in commemoration of yet another predecessor, like Surendrakīrti, which for example fell short of funding. Perhaps it was a discarded or ﬂawed prototype originally manufactured for the chatrīs but ultimately still installed in this manner. It may also have been intended, or come to serve as a collective representation of the earlier Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents whose memorials at the Āmera Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ were not easily available for veneration after the shift to Jayapura. Or it may have been used to ritually venerate the full Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā lineage, taking over the function of the Āmera kīrtistambha for ritual purposes through a diﬀerent iconography. 4.3.11. Cākasū, Bhaṭṭāraka Nasiyāṃjī (s. 1886) At a second nasīyā in Cākasū, closer to the town than the Śiva Ḍūṅgarī (4.3.4.), stands another elegant Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā caraṇa-chatrī dating to s. 1886. (Fig. 4.19, #4.20) It commemorates Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti, who had himself consecrated memorials at the Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ in Jayapura in s. 1853. (4.3.10.) The site was formerly similarly named as the latter commemoration site, as the Bhaṭṭāraka Nasiyāṃjī, but has now been developed as the Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra Akṣayanidhi Ādīśvara Dhāma (Nasiyāṃjī). Among the new structures is a high platform with a colossal jina icon in open air on reached by a long ﬂight of stairs (right on Fig. 4.19 M.). The inscription on the chatrī’s pādukā records that it was consecrated by once again Sukhendrakīrti’s second successor in line, Narendrakīrti’s successor Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1883-1937). Devendrakīrti consecrated the memorial in s. 1886 (Mrgasira sudi 2, a Saturday), three years after his ascension to ̥ the seat. Since Narendrakīrti (p. s. 1880-3) was on the seat for only three years, we could imagine he did not have the time to erect a memorial for Sukhendrakīrti, but actually he very quickly managed to build a memorial for his earlier predecessor Surendrakīrti in Jayapura. (4.3.10.) Perhaps in following the precedents from Jayapura he did not regard it his responsibility to erect a memorial for his immediate predecessor Sukhendrakīrti. The inscription largely follows those from the Jayapura pādukās, recording the continued rule of Mahārāja Savāī Jayasiṅha and the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā succession Surendrakīrti > Sukhendrakīrti > Narendrakīrti > Devendrakīrti. It also adds that Devendrakīrti consecrated the caraṇa-yugala with great festivities (‘mahotsavaṃ krtvā’), ̥ but the injunction for pūjās to be held at the memorial found in the inscriptions of Jayapura is absent here. I could not visit a mandira at the site, and don't know from when it dates. It looks too recent however for Nyāyatīrtha’s (1997: 80) hypothesis of it belonging to the early 16th century CE and the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā association to Cākasū then. It instead seems to date to the late 18th or 19th century CE, roughly coeval to Sukhendrakīrti’s memorial on site. A tibārā standing to the side of the mandira of which the arched doorways have now been walled up belongs to the same period. The 266 mandira seems to have had an open courtyard now covered with a recent roof. Although now separated by recent structures, Sukhendrakīrti’s chatrī stands at some distance from but right in front of the mandira. The chatrī clearly resembles the Jayapura memorials. It is particularly close to the latest Jayapura chatrī from just ﬁve years earlier (s. 1881), using the same contrasting blue stone in the chatrī ﬂooring and cupola. It diﬀers from it however in lacking the geometric motifs on its plinth and lintels and through its more sparingly used but larger ﬂoral motifs on the pillars. Like the chatrīs in Jayapura, it also features a small carving of the commemorated, naked bhaṭṭāraka inside the dome. He stands in an even more pronounced jharokhā-like structure than the s. 1881 Jayapura chatrī, with a baṅgla-style roof. (Fig. 4.19 R.) Sukhendrakīrti’s pādukā also resembles those of Jayapura, apart from the absence of a line of ﬂowers on the heightened border of the slab, another more moderate usage of decorative elements. The chatrī is raised on a pillared platform reached through a ﬂight of stairs, similar to the platform at the Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ. In Cākasū however, away from the bhaṭṭāraka seat and with less chance for further incumbents needing to be commemorated here any time soon, the platform was made to size for the single chatrī. Figure 4.19. Caraṇa-chatrī of Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti (L., s. 1886) with depiction of naked renouncer inside the cupola (R.) raised on pillared platform with recently renewed balustrade, next to recent constructions (M.). Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Cākasū. (December 2014) 4.3.12. Jayapura, Nasiyāṃ Śyojī Godhā (s. 1880) In the second and third quarter of the 19th century CE, memorials of paṇḍitas related to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā appear in the broader Jayapura region. The most elaborate of these is a single paṇḍita memorial at the Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Mandira Nasiyāṃ Śyojī Godhā, a site located on Amer Road opposite a site with chatrīs of Kachavāhā mahārāṇīs (queens, see Belli Bose 2015: 88-92). (Fig. 4.20, #4.21). The memorial at the Śyojī Godhā nasīyā is a spacious tibārā now provided with metal lattices on its three arched doorways and with new dharmaśālā rooms annexed to the building. Again three porches against the back wall create what feels like a garbhagrha. ̥ A single pādukā installed in the middle section is the only cult object in an otherwise bare room. The pādukā is dated to s. 1880 and commemorates Paṇḍita Kesarī Siṅha. It has a high 267 drum and is elevated on a pillar which is clad in modern tiling and might be altogether recent. All in all, the pādukā sits waist-high, possibly meant to provide easy ritual access. (Fig. 4.20 R.) This section of the room is sunk about a foot deep. It is not clear why this is so, but the ﬂoor of the rest of the room seems to be original, not heightened. Some ritual veneration was still performed at the pādukā at the time of my visit (December 2014), and I was told a story about a giant snake living at the nasīyā which also seemed to relate to the commemorated paṇḍita, perhaps a memory of a cult surrounding the latter. Figure 4.20. Memorial of Paṇḍita Kesarī Siṅha (s. 1880), Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Mandira Nasiyāṃ Śyojī Godhā, Jayapura. (December 2014) The ﬁnely carved pādukā is akin to the coeval bhaṭṭāraka pādukās at the Jayapura Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ (s. 1853 and s. 1881, 4.3.10.) and at the Bhaṭṭāraka Nasiyāṃjī nasīyā in Cākasū (s. 1886, 4.3.11) and may well have been commissioned from the same artisans who produced these.315 It similarly is a hexagonal slab with reﬁned carving, and shares further stylistic features like the realistically depicted feet and the large lotus ﬂower motif beneath them. The latter is also found on other paṇḍitas’ pādukās from the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region (4.3.14., 4.3.15.), but not so common elsewhere. The inscription refers to the memorial with the uncommon term caraṇālaya (place of caraṇa). Although tibārās are also found at earlier memorial sites (3.1.1.), they are rarely used as memorial structures themselves. The only parallel is a structure at the Ajamera necropolis from a century later (s. 1992) housing two slabs commemorating bhaṭṭārakas and paṇḍitas. (6.2.5-6.) The term caraṇālaya also appears in the inscription of a s. 1888 pādukā commemorating another paṇḍita related to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā installed in a chatrī in Caurū. (4.3.14.) The latter inscription is however clearly modelled after that of the present memorial, and the term might simply have been copied without much further thought about it. 315 A community of stone carvers still exists in Jayapura's Khazānevāloṃ kā Mohallā. 268 The pādukā of Paṇḍita Kesarī Siṅha was consecrated (‘prasthāpitaṃ’) in his ‘eternal memory and praise’ (‘niraṃtara-smaraṇārthaṃ vandanārthaṃ ca’) by his pupil (‘tad-aṃtevāsī’316) Paṇḍita Lālacandra in s. 1880. Paṇḍita ‘śiromaṇi’ Kesarī Siṅha is in turn attested as a pupil of the foremost paṇḍita (‘paṃḍita pradhāna’) Paṇḍita Sukharāma. The whole paṇḍita succession is recorded as standing in the lineage (‘āmnāye’) of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti (p. s. 1880317-83).318 Elsewhere the phrasing ‘āmnāye’ is sometimes used to record long-deceased and long-succeeded bhaṭṭārakas as standing at the fount of local paṇḍita lineages. These may then be the actual, earlier guru of the commemorated individual himself or of the latter’s recorded paṇḍitagurus. Here instead, it clearly refers to the bhaṭṭāraka who was incumbent at the time of the memorial’s installation and is deferred to parallel to the actual lineage of pupillary descent. It is remarkable that Paṇḍita Lālacandra himself consecrated the memorial stone instead of calling upon the incumbent Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, despite the latter’s presence nearby and the reference to him in the inscription. Apparently Lālacandra had suﬃcient autonomy to undertake such a project. According to Nyāyatīrtha (1990: 50, 86) Paṇḍita Kesarī Siṅha was a leading paṇḍita of the Laśkara Mandira, a large Bīsapanthī mandira in the centre of Jayapura right next to the Pāṭodī Mandira, and the Nasiyāṃ Śyojī Godhā has continuously been managed by the pañcāyata and the committee of the Laśkara Mandira. The inscription also records two further pupillary successions after Paṇḍita Lālacandra. He had a pupil in Paṇḍita Jhāñjhūrāma, and the latter in turn had two pupils for whom no rank is indicated, Devālāla and Bhairūlāla.319 In total, the inscription records a pupillary Chart 4.4. Pupillary lineage of paṇḍitas attested in the inscription of Paṇḍita Kesarī Siṅha’s s. 1880 pādukā. succession of ﬁve generations: Paṇḍita Sukharāma > Paṇḍita Kesarī Siṅha > Paṇḍita Lālacandra > Paṇḍita Jhāñjhūrāma > Devālāla + Bhairūlāla. (Chart 4.4) In paṇḍita Although the term is used relatively rarely in coeval Digambara sources, I consider the term tad-aṃtevāsin (one who lives in with him) as a mere indication of a pupillary relation rather than as necessarily also indicated that Lālacandra actually lived with Kesarī Siṅha. The term is also appears in paṇḍita memorials in Caurū (s. 1888, 4.3.14.) and Phāgī (s. 1924, 4.3.15.). It is not known whether 19th century CE paṇḍitas in training resided with their teachers. A much earlier attestation of the term (and perhaps this practice) is found in a colophon from s. 1541, where it is used in reference to the relation of paṇḍita to a bhaṭṭāraka (‘bha. śrījinacaṃdrāṃtevāsi paṃ. śrīmehākhyaḥ’, Joharāpurakara 1958: 102, lekha 258). 316 The pādukā was consecrated in Phālguṇa (February/March) s. 1880. Narendrakīrti is recorded to have ascended the Jayapura bhaṭṭāraka seat on Āśvina (September/October) vadi 10 s. 1879 according to Hoernle’s (1891: 355) paṭṭāvalī, but in s. 1880 according to Varmā (1998: 11) and Joharāpurakara (1958: 112), and on s. 1880 Āṣāḍha (June/July) sudi 10 according to Kāsalīvāla (1989: 157). The latter is unlikely given the pādukā consecration some eight months earlier. 317 Unfortunately without indicating their source, Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 236) produce a table of a long and bifurcating pupillary succession of eight generations of paṇḍitas stemming from a Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, whom they take to be the 17th century CE Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent of that name. At the end of this succession of paṇḍitas stand a Paṇḍita Sukharāma and his pupil Paṇḍita Kesarī Siṅha, which clearly matches the paṇḍitas recorded on the Nasiyāṃ Śyojī Godhā memorial. It is not clear whether the Paṇḍita Kesarī Siṅha found commemorated is the same as the one who completed a composition in the Laśkara Mandira in Jayapura in s. 1826 (Nyāyatīrtha 1990: 50), whom Nyāyatīrtha (Ibid.) claims was a prominent paṇḍita of this Terāpanthī mandira. 318 ‘(...) paṃḍita lālacaṃdras-tac-chiṣya-vara-paṃḍita jhāṃjhūrāmas-tac-chiṣyau dvau prathama devalālaḥ dvitīyaḥ bhairūlālaḥ (...)’ (#4.21). 319 269 memorials retrieved in Caurū (s. 1888, 4.3.14.) and Phāgī (s. 1924, 4.3.15.) similar successions of paṇḍitas are attested which ascribe themselves to the lineage of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti’s then incumbent successor Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1883-1936). 4.3.13. Jayapura, Digambara Jaina Mandira Bijairāmajī Pāṇḍyā (twice n.d.) A hundred metres further up Amer Road from the previous site, still adjacent to the site with mahārāṇī chatrīs, lies another of Jayapura’s many nasīyās, the Digambara Jaina Mandira Bijairāmajī Pāṇḍyā. Two shrine-like miniature chatrīs with pādukās are installed on a further platform divided in two by a ﬂight of stairs, raised on a further plinth erected right next to the walls of the site’s mandira. (Fig. 4.21) The pādukās carry no inscriptions but have a similar design. Iconographic features indicate that they commemorate paṇḍitas. Instead of the ascetic’s picchī and kamaṇḍalu, a ﬂower, a conch, a spiralling ﬁgure (mālā?), and an unidentiﬁed club-like object are depicted. (Fig.4.21 L. & M.) Figure 4.21. Unidentiﬁed paṇḍita memorials, Digambara Jaina Mandira Bijairāmajī Pāṇḍyā, Jayapura. (December 2014) Nyāyatīrtha (1990: 86-7) has some relevant information on the nasīyā, its mandira, and three pupillary generations of paṇḍitas related to the site. Accordingly, the nasīyā was built by one Paṇḍita Gumānacanda, possibly between s. 1880 and s. 1890, and one memorial on site (‘samādhi kā cabūtarā’) is that of Paṇḍita Amolakacanda, the pupil of Paṇḍita Gumāna (whom I take to be the same individual as the aforementioned Gumānacanda). We don’t ﬁnd any indication of these paṇḍitas’ aﬃliation to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas, but the temple is Bīsapanthī. This is conﬁrmed by the presence of a Padmāvatī statue, and by the fact that in s. 1974, ‘after the death of Paṇḍita Gumānacanda’ (which presumably occurred much earlier?), the temple was bequeathed to Jayapura’s Pāṭodī Mandira by a pupil of his own pupil (praśiṣya) Paṇḍita Vijayarāma (Nyāyatīrtha 1990: 86). The name of the latter remained connected to the mandira (as Pāṇḍyā Bijairāma). It is not speciﬁed whether Paṇḍita Vijayarāma was a pupil of Paṇḍita Amolakacanda, but if so this would lead to a pupillary succession attested at this site of Paṇḍita Gumānacanda > Paṇḍita Amolakacanda > Paṇḍita Vijayarāma. The second paṇḍita commemorated here might then well be 270 Paṇḍita Gumāna(canda) or Paṇḍita Vijayarāma. The latter is less likely given Vijayarāma’s late date. He died after s. 1974, by which time we no longer ﬁnd Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā paṇḍitas commemorated. If not the shrines, then at least the pādukās also seem to be of somewhat greater antiquity, estimated to date to ca. the late 19th century CE. Either way, successive paṇḍitas seem to have oﬃciated at the temple, and two of them came to be commemorated here. 4.3.14. Caurū, Nasīyā (s. 1888, twice n.d.) Two memorials have been identiﬁed attesting a local paṇḍita tradition connected to the Jayapura Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1883) at the small towns Caurū and Phāgī (4.3.15.), 10 km apart and some 50 km to south-west of Jayapura. A caraṇa-chatrī at the nasīyā in Caurū320 is a memorial of Paṇḍita Dhanarāja established in s. 1888. (#4.22, Fig. 4.22 L., right on M.) Paṇḍita Ratanasukha erected (‘kārayitvā’) and consecrated (‘pras[th]āpitam’) the ‘caraṇālayaṃ’ ‘for eternal remembrance and praise’ (‘niraṃtaraṃ smaraṇārthaṃ baṃdanārthaṃ’) of his guru Paṇḍita Dhanarāja. The commemorated Paṇḍita Dhanarāja is recorded as a pupil of the ‘foremost paṇḍita’ (‘paṇḍita-pradhāna-paṇḍita’) Baṣatarāma (= Bakhatarāma). Dhanarāja himself is distinguished with the epithet vidyādhara (‘vidyadhara’), just like two paṇḍitas in the inscription of the paṇḍita memorial in Phāgī (4.3.15.). The pupillary succession of paṇḍitas is recorded as standing in the lineage (‘-āmnāye’) of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, who ascended the seat only a few years earlier, in s. 1883. Two other chatrīs stand at the Caurū nasīyā, one unidentiﬁable and one repurposed.321 All three are of similar size, design, and seemingly also antiquity. They are fairly typical examples of the chatrīs of Central-Rajasthan, medium-sized and octagonal, elegant in terms of individual parts as well as proportions, and featuring bulbous, ribbed domes with a stone maṭaka kalaśa pinnacle, angular eaves, foliated arches, and baluster pillars. (Fig. 4.22 M.) The three chatrīs are raised on two platforms. A passerelle connecting both is possibly a later-day addition. Figure 4.22. Nasīyā, Caurū. L: pādukā of Paṇḍita Dhanarāja (s. 1888). M: From left to right: caraṇa-chatrīs of Muni Puṣpadantasāgara (s. 2048, repurposed), unmarked, Paṇḍita Dhanarāja. R: unmarked pādukā. (February 2016) 320 I am unsure of the name locally used for the site. I refer to it as the Nasīyā. I found no grounds to conﬁrm Nyāyatīrtha’s (1990: 147) identiﬁcation of one of the chatrīs as commemorating an (unnamed) bhaṭṭāraka. 321 271 A second chatrī at the Caurū nasīyā shares a platform with that of Paṇḍita Dhanarāja, and is probably near contemporary to it. (Fig. 4.22 M., central) It houses a pādukā without inscription which is of a somewhat more rudimentary design than that of Paṇḍita Dhanarāja and therefore appears to be sightly older. (Fig. 4.22 R.) The third chatrī is raised on its own, spacious platform, which is higher and might therefore be more recent than the other. (Fig. 4.22 M., left) The chatrī now features a pādukā of Muni Puṣpadantasāgara erected in s. 2048 by Brahmacāriṇī Pyārībāī under the inspiration of Āryikā Pārśvamatī Mātājī. The inscription records Muni Puṣpadantasāgara as a pupil of Ācārya Dharmasāgara who was born in nearby Mozamābāda in s. 1969 and died in Caurū in s. 2046 (1989 CE). Architectural elements however clearly show the chatrī to be of similar antiquity as the others on site. It is thus a 19th century CE chatrī repurposed as a memorial for a late 20th century CE muni, possibly after the original pādukā had been lost. The chatrī had been whitewashed more recently than the other two at the time of my visit (February 2016), and decorative patterns and verses of poetry had been painted on the pillars and lintels and inside the cupola. Given the similar size and antiquity of the three chatrīs at the site, the repurposed chatrī and the chatrī with the unmarked pādukā are likely to also have commemorated paṇḍitas. Ācāryas had disappeared from the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā by the 19th century CE as much as from other lineages, and the chance to ﬁnd bhaṭṭāraka memorials in Caurū seems small, given the limited importance of this town for the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and the ﬁnding of memorials of most of its incumbents elsewhere. Inside the plinth of both of the chatrī platforms at the Caurū Nasīyā rooms are made. The only other Digambara memorials which share this feature are two unidentiﬁed chatrīs in Bagarū, some 30 km to the north of Caurū. (4.3.16.) Apart from the open colonnades of Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭāraka chatrīs in Jayapura (s. 1853, 4.3.10.) and Cākasū (s. 1886, 4.3.11.), chatrī plinths are otherwise typically massive. The platform supporting two chatrīs has low doors. The second platform supporting a single chatrī is higher which allowed for full-height doors. I could not access the rooms and it is not clear what they were originally designed for. Possibly they only served as storage space or for other practical purposes. It is little likely that they allowed access to relics enshrined beneath the caraṇas. In as far as they were enshrined in their memorials at all, Digambara renouncers’ relics are never kept visible, but instead interred. The inclusion of relics of lay paṇḍitas is less likely than of renouncers, and the present inscription and those of the s. 1880 and s. 1924 paṇḍita memorials of Jayapura (4.3.12.) and Phāgī (4.3.15.) also seem to explicitly indicate that these memorials were not meant for ritual veneration. (3.5.1.) 4.3.15. Phāgī, Candraprabhū Digambara Jaina Nasiyāṃ (s. 1924) A single paṇḍita pādukā is found at the Candraprabhū Digambara Jaina Nasiyāṃ in Phāgī, ten kilometres east of Caurū. (#4.23, Fig. 4.23) Formerly an independent caraṇa-cabūtarā, it has now become integrated into recent structures. There are no material features indicating that the platform was formerly the basis of a chatrī. The pādukā is dated to s. 1924 and commemorates Paṇḍita Jayacanda, whose name is still remembered in the town by elderly Jains. The inscription runs closely parallel to those of the paṇḍita pādukā inscriptions in Caurū (s. 1888, 4.3.14.) and 272 Jayapura (s. 1880, 4.3.12.), and is possibly modelled after the former or another common source. While the Caurū and Jayapura paṇḍita pādukās recorded the rule of Savāī Jaya Siṅha III (r. 1819-35 CE), Jayacanda’s memorial in Phāgī attests the rule by then of Mahārāja Savāī Rāma Siṅha II (r. 1835-80 CE). Paṇḍita Jayacanda’s memorial (‘caraṇālayaṃ’) was built by his pupil (‘tad-aṃtevāsinā’) Paṇḍita Śivalāla, again ‘in [Jayacanda’s] eternal remembrance and praise’ (‘niraṃtaraṃ smaraṇārthaṃ vaṃdanārthaṃ’). Jayacanda is commemorated as himself a pupil of Paṇḍita Amaracanda, who in turn is recorded as a pupil of Paṇḍita Vaṣatarāma (= Bakhatarāma), most probably the same paṇḍita as attested in the Caurū inscription. As in Caurū, this paṇḍita pupillary succession is recorded in the lineage (‘-āmnāye’) of the still incumbent Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti. The paṇḍitas Jayacanda and Amaracanda are distinguished with the epithet vidyādhara (‘vidyadhara’), just like Paṇḍita Dhanarāja in Caurū (#4.22). The design of the pādukā is similar to that of Caurū, though slightly less reﬁned and adding emblems missing on the latter. Depicted are two ﬂowers, a mālā, and a simple rectangular shape probably representing a scripture or manuscript (śāstra). Figure 4.23. Caraṇa-cabūtarā of Paṇḍita Jayacanda (s. 1924), Candraprabhū Digambara Jaina Nasiyāṃ, Phāgī. (February 2016) As attested by these memorials, related lineages of paṇḍitas thus seem to have been active in Caurū (Paṇḍita Baṣatarāma > Paṇḍita Dhanarāja > Paṇḍita Ratanasukha, s. 1888) and Phāgī (Paṇḍita Vaṣatarāma > Paṇḍita Amaracanda > Paṇḍita Jayacanda > Paṇḍita Śivalāla, s. 1924). (Chart 4.5) Paṇḍita Bakhatarāma had two pupils (here attested), Paṇḍita Dhanarāja, who died in or before s. 1888 and was commemorated in Caurū, and Paṇḍita Amaracanda who is attested in Phāgī. Dhanarāja in turn had a pupil in Paṇḍita Ratanasukha, who ﬂourished in s. 1888, when he built his guru’s memorial in Caurū. And Amaracanda’s pupil was Paṇḍita Jayacanda, who died in or before s. 273 1934 and was commemorated in Phāgī. The latter in turn had a pupil called Paṇḍita Śivalāla who is attested in Phāgī as ﬂourishing in s. 1934. No memorials have been found of the other paṇḍitas attested in the inscriptions, Bakhatarāma, Ratanasukha, Amaracanda, and Śivalāla. Perhaps they were ruined or removed meanwhile, perhaps they stand in other towns, or perhaps they were never built, because they were less charismatic individuals or because the prestige of the paṇḍitas was decreasing in later generations. Yet especially the apparently inﬂuential Bakhatarāma who stood at the fount of the Caurū-Phāgī paṇḍita tradition is likely to have been Chart 4.5. Pupillary lineage of paṇḍitas attested in memorial inscriptions in Caurū and Phāgī. commemorated, and one of the unidentiﬁed memorials in Caurū may well have been his. The Caurū and the Phāgī inscriptions both record the pupillary paṇḍita successions as standing in the lineage (‘-āmnāye’) of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, without further specifying the exact link. Devendrakīrti was indeed the incumbent bhaṭṭāraka at the time of erection of both memorials in s. 1888 and s. 1924, staying on the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat for a signiﬁcantly long period, from s. 1883 to s. 1936 (Varmā 1998: 31). The Phāgī and Caurū paṇḍita memorial inscriptions thus express allegiance to the incumbent bhaṭṭāraka. At the same time, rather than only aﬃliating the commemorated individual directly to the incumbent bhaṭṭāraka, they care to record the earlier pupillary descent among the paṇḍitas themselves. A similar record is found on the s. 1880 paṇḍita memorial in Jayapura itself. (4.3.12.) Yet, given Phāgī and Caurū’s location, both within the zone of inﬂuence of the Jayapura bhaṭṭāraka seat and at some distance from it, local paṇḍitas in these towns may have had some additional agency, more autonomy, and a higher, more strongly proﬁled standing in their local communities as, possibly, ritual specialists, teachers, preachers, experts in Jain doctrine and philosophy, story-tellers, and astrologers. 4.3.16. Bagarū, Nasiyāṃ (four n.d.) At the nasīyā (Digambara Jaina Nasiyāṃ) in Bagarū, some thirty kilometres west south-west of Jayapura, stand four caraṇa-chatrīs. (Figs. 4.24, 4.25, 4.26) Two of these are of considerable size and similar design, standing on a particularly high plinth with rooms in it. (Figs. 4.24, 4.25) A door inside the veranda like initial room (Figs. 4.24 R.) leads to a further, closed room under the chatrī (not depicted). In Caurū it was basically the plinth of the chatrīs which instead of being massive was provided with rooms. (4.3.14.). The two structures in Bagarū however can be seen as chatrīs built on top of tibārās. The latter are the simple buildings with three arched doorways frequently found at Digambara nasīyās from the 17th century CE onwards. (Fig. 4.4. middle L., 4.3.4.) Perhaps they had come to be associated with commemoration sites and as such led to this further development of the commemorative architecture. In Ajamera in the ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE a tibārā-like room also came to house memorial stones. (Fig. 7.12 R.) 274 Figure 4.24. Caraṇa-chatrī, possibly of a paṇḍita, Digambara Jaina Nasiyāṃ, Bagarū. L: possibly recently added pādukā on cement base. M & R: arched porches give access to rooms under the chatrī. (February 2016) The other two chatrīs are of more average size, standing on a lower, full plinth. A ﬁrst of these is otherwise of comparable design as the two grand chatrīs, also eight-pillared but probably older, featuring heavier, less elegant pillars, and lacking arches between the pillars. (Fig. 4.26 R.) The fourth chatrī is smaller and four-pillared, but shares the latter features. (Fig. 4.26 L.) Nyāyatīrtha (1997: 67) reported that the Bagarū nasīyā (its mandira?) was built some 300 years ago. The two chatrīs on lower plinths may be nearly that old, but the elevated platforms with rooms clearly belong rather to ca. the late 18th or 19th century CE. Figure 4.25. Caraṇa-chatrī, possibly of a paṇḍita, with arched doorways (L.) and probably original pādukā without inscriptions (R.), Digambara Jaina Nasiyāṃ, Bagarū. (February 2016) Pādukās without inscriptions were installed in all four chatrīs at the time of my visit (February 2016). In one of the grand chatrīs and in the two smaller chatrīs, these were small, square stones of a similar design, with unreﬁned carving and featuring the same, diﬃcult to identify emblems. (Fig. 275 4.24 L) A double trapezoid-shaped object also appears on three pādukās in Būndī and is there identiﬁed by a caption as a scripture. (4.3.17.) Judging from both their iconographic features and the cemented bases on which they were installed, these three Bagarū pādukās seemed fairly recent. They presumably replaced the lost or damaged, original memorial stones. An octagonal pādukā in the second grand chatrī however is clearly its original memorial stone, nicely worked into the chatrī’s concentric ﬂoor pattern. (Fig. 4.25 R) This pādukā bears the same emblems, be it in a diﬀerent design, as those carved on the two unidentiﬁed pādukās at the Bijairāmajī Pāṇḍyā nasīyā in Jayapura (Fig. 4.21 L &R), a ﬂower, a conch, possibly a mālā, and a club-like object. Figure 4.26. Unidentiﬁed caraṇa-chatrīs, Digambara Jaina Nasiyāṃ, Bagarū. (February 2016) Perhaps because of their considerable size, Nyāyatīrtha (1997: 68) presumed that the Bagarū chatrīs commemorated bhaṭṭārakas, even while seeing them as a sign that paṇḍitas (pāṇḍyā) and bhaṭṭārakas had a considerable inﬂuence in Bagarū. Without citing a source or any dates, Nyāyatīrtha (Ibid.) also gives the names of four local paṇḍitas who had been active in the town, Nihāla, Dayācanda, Ḍūṅgarasīdāsa,322 and Śyojīrāma. Perhaps Nyāyatīrtha received this information from local respondents, the names of the paṇḍitas who had oﬃciated in Bagarū or indeed had been commemorated at the nasīyā still part of local memory then, or maybe he still had access to the original, inscribed pādukās of these chatrīs. Bagarū’s proximity to Jayapura and its continued Bīsapanthī orientation today indicate that the local Digambara community in the 19th century CE was probably connected to the Balātkāragaṇa bhaṭṭāraka seat in Jayapura. This is also conﬁrmed by mūrtilekhas in Bagarū’s main mandira, the Ādinātha Digambara Jaina Mandira, where many icons were consecrated by Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas. Memorials of most Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas are known from other sites, and multiple memorials of a single bhaṭṭāraka were A Paṇḍita Ḍuṅgarasidāsa is also found commemorated in style in Būndī in s. 1911, and was followed there by a pupillary linage of paṇḍitas. (4.3.17.) It is not clear whether this is a namesake or the same individual as the one reported from Bagarū by Nyāyatīrtha (1997: 68). 322 276 erected relatively rarely. Clearly predating the 19th century CE, the two earlier chatrīs of Bagarū seem too large, for this period, for paṇḍita memorials. They may instead have commemorated 18th century CE ācāryas, as in Bassī (4.3.8.), although we have no other indications of the presence and activity of ācāryas in Bagarū. The two larger and later chatrīs on the other hand seem to postdate the period when ācāryas ﬂourished and would rather seem to have been erected in commemoration of 19th century CE paṇḍitas connected to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat. 4.3.17. Būndī, Nasyājī (s. 1911, twice s. 1949, s. 19[5?]6) The leafy Digambara Jaina Mandira Nasyājī outside of Būndī boasts four elegant caraṇa-chatrīs commemorating paṇḍitas and a few unidentiﬁed memorials. The identiﬁable chatrīs are nicely arranged to form a single ensemble, although the inscriptions of their pādukās indicate they were erected a few decades apart, from s. 1911 (Paṇḍita Ḍuṅgarasidāsa), to s. 1949 (twice, Paṇḍita Śivalāla; and Paṇḍita Sadāsevārāmasukha323), and s. 19(5?)6 (Paṇḍita Ratnalāla). (Fig. 4.27) Figure 4.27. Caraṇa-chatrīs of Paṇḍita Ḍuṅgarasidāsa (s. 1911, central, larger), Paṇḍita Sadāsevārāmasukha (s. 1949, left), Paṇḍita Ratnalāla (s. 19(5?)6, right), and Paṇḍita Śivalāla (s. 1949, partly visible behind the latter), and an unmarked, more recent cabūtarā (front), Digambara Jaina Mandira Nasyājī, Būndī. (February 2014) I take it sadāsevā is also part of the commemorated paṇḍita’s name, as it appears in the inscription after his paṇḍita title (‘paṇḍita-sadāsevārāmasukha-jī’, #4.26). 323 277 The central chatrī is the largest and the oldest. It is a beautiful structure, with a low plinth, twelve pillars with decorated, almost Corinthian capitals supporting ﬁrstly a square superstructure, an octagonal base drum, and a wide, ribbed dome with a kalaśa ﬁnial. The memorial’s pādukā is installed in a small shrine centrally under the cupola. (Figs. 4.27, 4.28 M&R) A similar set-up is elsewhere only found in the much earlier, 17th to early 18th century CE chatrīs at the Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ in Āmera. (4.3.6.) The pādukā’s inscription indicates that it commemorates the ‘teacher of Jain dharma’ (‘jaina-dharmopadeśa-dātā’) Paṇḍita Ḍuṅgarasidāsa, who is recorded as standing in the lineage of Ācārya Kundakunda (‘kuṃdakuṃdācāryānvaye’). (#4.24) It was consecrated in s. 1911 and a festival was held at the time of its installation. The inscription does not record who built or consecrated the memorial. This may be due to an oversight of the carver, the names of two individuals were probably meant to be included given the phrase ‘established the caraṇa of the own guru named before’, in dual form (‘tasyāṃ pūrvokta svaguroḥ caraṇau sthāpitau’). Paṇḍita Ḍuṅgarasidāsa’s memorial may well have been built (and consecrated) by Paṇḍita Śivalāla and Paṇḍita Sadāsevārāmasukha, who are recorded as his pupils in the inscriptions on their own memorials built next to that of Ḍuṅgarasidāsa almost four decades later (see next). The absence of any reference to a bhaṭṭāraka or bhaṭṭāraka lineage on Ḍuṅgarasidāsa’s memorial is notable. The singular reference to the lineage of Kundakunda is elsewhere also found used for individuals who kept aloof from the bhaṭṭāraka traditions.324 The memorials of Ḍuṅgarasidāsa’s pupils Śivalāla and Sadāsevārāmasukha however were consecrated by a Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭāraka, which conﬁrms a Bīsapanthī aﬃliation of the Būndī paṇḍitas. Figure 4.28. Caraṇa-chatrī with interior shrine (central back on M) with pādukā of Paṇḍita Ḍuṅgarasidāsa (R, s. 1911) and a statue of a devotee (L) in a shrine raised on a pillar (front on M), Digambara Jaina Mandira Nasyājī, Būndī. (February 2014) On three sides of Ḍuṅgarasidāsa’s chatrī, smaller, four-pillared caraṇa-chatrīs were added later, constructed over the ﬁrst level of the central chatrī’s plinth, and touching its second rung. They are more modest both in size and design, and their pādukās are installed on a low base directly on the ﬂoor of the pavilion as is more common. (Fig. 4.29) The pādukās are of a very similar design as that of Ḍuṅgarasidāsa, with an opening in the framing square for the draining of ablution liquids also 324 For example Muni Siddhasena on his s. 1948 pādukā at the Choṭī Nasīyā in Jhālarāpāṭana. (4.3.6.) 278 present on the earlier pādukā of Paṇḍita Ḍuṅgarasidāsa. (Fig. 4.28 R.) Whereas only a mālā was depicted on the latter, the three later pādukās feature carvings of a rosary (mālā), a manuscript/ scripture, a water pot, and some kind of whisk, possibly of the type sometimes used in temple ritual, as depicted in the hands of a paṇḍita ﬁgure carved on the unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā in Bassī (4.3.8.). The manuscript is identiﬁed by an inscribed caption as representing an ethical tract (‘śrīpustaka cāritra kī’, #4.25, #4.26; ‘śrī-pustaka cāritra kā’ #4.27). Figure 4.29. Pādukās of Paṇḍita Śivalāla (L, s. 1949), Paṇḍita Sadāsevārāmasukha (M., s. 1949), and Paṇḍita Ratnalāla (R, s. 19[5?]6). Digambara Jaina Mandira Nasyājī, Būndī. (February 2014) The pādukās of the chatrīs left (south-east) and right (north-west) of Paṇḍita Ḍuṅgarasidāsa’s memorial were erected on the same day in s. 1949, the tenth day of the bright half of the month of Āśvin. They respectively commemorate Paṇḍita Śivalāla (Fig. 4.29 L., #4.25),325 and Paṇḍita Sadāsevārāmasukha (Fig. 4.29 M., #4.26). Both are recorded as pupils of Paṇḍita Ḍuṅgarasī, undoubtedly the paṇḍita commemorated as Paṇḍita Ḍuṅgarasidāsa in the central chatrī. As mentioned, it is possible that Śivalāla and Sadāsevārāmasukha had been involved in the construction of their guru’s memorial, and their own memorials were erected adjacent to his in an elegant, symmetrical fashion. Written in corrupt Sanskrit with traces of vernacular, the inscriptions on the pādukās of Śivalāla and Sadāsevārāmasukha are structured markedly diﬀerently, perhaps to oﬀer internal variation, one of them referring to the ruler of Ajamera Rāva Raghuvīra Siṅha (#4.25). The inscriptions on both memorial stones record that they were built either by Paṇḍita Ratanalāla and Nemīcandra (no title), or by the latter alone.326 Their consecration was again accompanied by a grand festival, and was performed by Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti.327 Mahendrakīrti is referred to in one inscription as the leader of the Mūlasaṅgha (‘mūla-saṃghanāyaka-’, #4.25) and in the other as ‘the leader of the whole śrāvaka community’ (‘s[a]mastaśravaga-saṃgha-nāyaka-’, #4.26). Especially the latter reference indicates that the A Paṇḍita Śivalāla also consecrated the pādukā of his guru Paṇḍita Jayacanda in Phāgī in s. 1924. (4.3.15.) I take it these are attestations of two namesakes, given the recorded of diﬀerent (commemorated) gurus. 325 326‘paṃ. ratanalāla ci. nemīcandreṇa sthāpitāḥ’ (#4.26), ‘paṃ. ratanalāla (po?)tra ci. nemīcaṃdreṇa (karā)pita’ (#4.25). [ci. = cirañjīvī, long-lived?] ‘bhaṭ(ṭ?)āraka-śrī-mahendrakīrti-upadesāt’ (#4.25), ‘bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-maheṃdrakīrti-jī kā upadesāt’ (#4.26). On the phrasing ‘upon the instruction of’ (upadeśāt), see 3.2.5. 327 279 commemorating and commemorated paṇḍitas and their community were Bīsapanthīs. The inscriptions give no further information about Mahendrakīrti, like the names of his predecessors or even a reference the Balātkāragaṇa. It seems clear however that he was the bhaṭṭāraka of that name then incumbent on the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat (s. 1937-1974, 4.1.5.) as the successor of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, in whose lineage the paṇḍitas of Caurū and Phāgī located themselves. (4.3.14-15.) Although Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti is recorded as having consecrated the memorials of the pupils of Paṇḍita Ḍuṅgarasī(dāsa), the latter is not directly connected to any bhaṭṭāraka or bhaṭṭāraka lineage in either of the three inscriptions attesting him, his own memorial and those of his two pupils. The inscriptions on the pādukās of Paṇḍita Sadāsevārāmasukha and Paṇḍita Śivalāla also record the artisans who carved the inscriptions, respectively one Narasiṅha (#4.26), and one with name ending in -rāma (#4.25). The fourth chatrī at the Būndī Nasyājī was probably consecrated in s. 1956 (19[5?]6), a few years after the memorials of the paṇḍitas Śivalāla and Sadāsevārāmasukha. (#4.27) It stands behind Paṇḍita Ḍuṅgarasī’s chatrī (to its south-west) and completes the cluster of memorials. It commemorates Paṇḍita Ratnalāla and was consecrated (‘sthāpitaṃ’) by (I take it two diﬀerent individuals) Nemicanda and Hīrālāla. (Fig. 4.29 R.) Paṇḍita Ratnalāla and Nemicanda are undoubtedly the same individuals as attested on the s. 1949 memorials of Śivalāla and Sadāsevārāmasukha (the latter recorded there as Nemīcandra). As in the inscription on the pādukā of Paṇḍita Śivalāla, Paṇḍita Ratnalāla is referred to as the pupil of ‘Sivalāla’ (no rank here), and the latter recorded once more as the pupil of Paṇḍita Ḍuṅgarasidāsa. On the fourth side of the central chatrī, facing the shrine and completing a cross-shaped architectural ground plan, a tall pillar of an estimated six or seven foot high stood about to collapse at the time of my visit (February 2015). (Fig. 4.28 M.) A shrine at its top featured a loose, one foot tall, anthropomorphic statue of a man standing in a devotional pose with hands folded in front of the chest, wearing a langoṭī and a long garland. (Fig. 4.28 L.) Arranged so as to face the chatrīs in veneration, directly in front of the central chatrī, this ﬁgure probably represented a pupil of the commemorated paṇḍitas, a patron of the chatrīs, or a generic devotee, rather than one of the commemorated paṇḍitas. An inscription on the pillar was plastered over at the time of my visit and illegible, but would probably still be decipherable after removing layers of plastering and paint. The pillar may have been erected together with the original chatrī or added together with the latter chatrīs, completing the memorial cluster. As in inscriptions of paṇḍita memorials of Jayapura (4.3.12.), Caurū (4.3.14.), Phāgī (4.3.15.), and Ajamera (6.2.6.), the Būndī memorials in sum again attest a coherent tradition of paṇḍitas in a pupillary succession. (Chart 4.6) The Būndī paṇḍita genealogy counts three generations and ﬁve individuals: Paṇḍita Ḍuṅgarasidāsa, commemorated in s. 1911, ‘in the lineage of Ācārya Kundakunda’, his pupils Paṇḍita Śivalāla and Paṇḍita Sadāsevārāmasukha, who commemorated their guru in s. 1911 and were themselves commemorated in s. 1949, and Paṇḍita Ratnalāla and 280 Chart 4.6. Pupillary lineage of paṇḍitas attested in memorial inscriptions in Būndī. Nemicandra (Hīrālāla) who commemorated the previous two paṇḍitas in s. 1949, the former also commemorated by the latter in s. 19(5?)6. Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti consecrated the s. 1949 pādukās, but none of the paṇḍitas is recorded in a pupillary relation to him. Būndī is now a stronghold of the Terāpantha. Mahendrakīrti’s activity at the nasīyā in relation to the local paṇḍita tradition shows that at least a part of the local Digambara community was Bīsapanthī up to the late 19th century CE. Still to be examined more closely, this is also substantiated by many mūrtis in the Digambara mandiras of Būndī. Some older, dilapidated, and unidentiﬁable memorials also found at the nasīyā might then well have commemorated earlier renouncers of the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas. A niṣedhikā which no longer bears an inscription is installed near the entrance of the nasīyā’s mandira. It is either half sunk into new ﬂoorings or only half preserved. Since niṣedhikās entirely disappeared from Western India after the 18th century CE, and from the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā already after the 16th century CE, this memorial stone must long predate the site’s paṇḍita memorials. Elsewhere inside the walled compound of the nasīyā lie some ruinous structures which also must be at least somewhat older than the paṇḍita memorials. With a few steps, some of these cubical platforms might have been the plinths of former, now collapsed chatrīs rather than caraṇa-cabūtarās. The only memorial stones I could detect amongst the rubble and thickets was a single stele with a carving of a couple in a devotional pose which I could not further study but probably is not Jaina. A few newer cabūtarās without pādukās also found at the site however likely commemorated Digambara individuals. (front on Fig. 4.27) 4.3.18. Bārāṃ, Nasiyāṃjī (s. 1525, s. 155[1?], thrice no legible date) Five primitive niṣedhikās probably aﬃliated to the Balātkāragaṇa Uttaraśākhā, Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, or Vāgaḍāśākhā have been discovered at the Nasiyāṃjī (Śāntinātha Khaṇḍelavāla Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra) in Bārāṃ, a town 70 kilometres east of Koṭā. (Fig. 4.30 bottom L.) The niṣedhikās were found installed against a wall of the compound’s courtyard. Two chatrīs also stand in the courtyard of the current temple compound, and two former chatrīs have been integrated into the new building, their cupolas protruding from its roof. (Fig. 4.30 top M.) The domes of two of the chatrīs clearly postdate the niṣedhikās (see below), and although this seems likely it is not conﬁrmed that the pillars were ever installed in them. The two still freestanding chatrīs have been repurposed and now shelter mūrtis which although old were probably installed in them in recent times. Some basic carvings of renouncers in the lintels of these two chatrīs indicate that they were originally memorials of renouncers. In one case, a chatrī with an elaborately decorated dome (right on Fig. 4.30 top M.), this is a single, naked standing ﬁgure, possibly with ascetic paraphernalia in his hands (Fig. 4.30 top R.). In the other, a chatrī with a smooth dome in which walls and glass doors have been ﬁtted between the pillars (left on Fig. 4.30 top M.), a small carving shows a pādukā and three standing ﬁgures, with a kamaṇḍalu placed near the feet of one and an indication of a picchī clasped under the arm of another (Fig. 4.30 top L., not fully visible on photo). A small, loose carving of a muni with picchī and kamaṇḍalu in hand kept next to the niṣedhikās at the time of my visit (December 2014) is a rare object and possibly also belonged to one of the chatrīs. (Fig. 4.30 Below 281 R, and left on Below L) An unmarked, basic pādukā which I ﬁnd diﬃcult to date is also preserved elsewhere inside the temple compound. Figure 4.30. Nasiyāṃjī, Bārāṃ. (December 2014) Top M.: Courtyard of the compound with two preserved chatrīs, the cupolas of presumably two other earlier chatrīs and a new śikhara protruding from the roof of the new building. Top L. & R.: Small anthropomorphic depictions of renouncers and pādukās carved inside the dome of the cupolas of the two fully preserved chatrīs. Bottom L: Five niṣedhikā cemented against the wall along with disposed mūrtis. Bottom R.: Small anthropomorphic statue of a renouncer. The niṣedhikās were found cemented against the wall and against each other. Inscriptions on the single visible side of the niṣedhikās (unpublished) are heavily weathered. Inscriptions may also be present on the sides now covered. Two niṣedhikās show long inscriptions of which only some snippets remain legible. A third niṣedhikā features no inscription at all on its visible side. Two only show a short inscription with the name of the commemorated renouncer, and in one case also a date, his date of death. Niṣedhikās often repeat the latter basic information on multiple sides, and these thus may have had further, longer inscriptions on other sides. One of the latter niṣedhikās has a line carving of a renouncer with kamaṇḍalū in right hand and an inscription recording a name ending in -kīrti, perhaps an ācārya. The second bears the name of Muni Hemakīrti and a date in the 282 year s. 155(1?).328 One of the niṣedhikās with longer inscriptions also features a line carving of a single naked renouncer with kamaṇḍalū or mālā in the right hand, is possibly dated s. 1525, and seems to commemorate a bhaṭṭāraka with a name ending in -kīrti. Around this time, no Uttaraśākhā incumbents ﬂourished with such a name. My reading of s. 1525 could ﬁt the second undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti, who is known to have been active until at least s. 1527 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 139, lekha 343). The second niṣedhikā with a longer but barely legible inscription features a line carving of single renouncer with mālā or kamaṇḍalū in right hand and a bookstand (ṭhūṇī). A possible reading of ‘Dharmacandra’ might be an attestation of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā maṇḍalācārya of that name from the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE (p. 1581-1603), which would put the memorial in chronological proximity to the two datable memorials. The last niṣedhikā bears no inscriptions at all on its visible side, but features a rudimentary line carving of two standing, naked renouncers with a kamaṇḍalū in their left hand and a bookstand between them. All ﬁve niṣedhikās seem to be of comparable and considerable antiquity, probably all belonging to the later 15th or the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE. One of the independently preserved chatrīs and one of the those built into the new compound have smooth domes and could date to the 16th or 17th century CE. The other two chatrīs have intricately decorated, ribbed domes which rather seem to belong to the late 18th or 19th century CE, one fully visible central on Fig. 4.30 (top M). The pillars and other parts of the latter freestanding chatrī, including the lintels with the aforementioned carving, seem to be earlier. The domes of this chatrī may thus have been renovated. Since only a single, unidentiﬁed pādukā is found at the site, it seems probable that the niṣedhikās belonged to the chatrīs. The presence of several, at least roughly coeval niṣedhikās suggests that a Digambara ascetic saṅgha and perhaps a bhaṭṭāraka seat was frequenting the town of Bārāṃ and perhaps residing there. Although no clear indications are found among the remaining inscriptional evidence, it seems probable that the commemorated renouncers related to the Balātkāragaṇa. As we saw, one undatable niṣedhikā might feature an attestation of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra. The dated, earlier niṣedhikās may have commemorated renouncers aﬃliated to the Uttaraśākhā or the Vāgaḍāśākhā. The former is well possible given the ﬁnding of memorials of two lower-ranking Uttaraśākhā renouncers from the ﬁrst half of the 15th century CE (s. 1465, s. 1483) in Bijauliyāṃ, right in the geographic centre between Bārāṃ, Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha, and Cittauḍagaṛha. (4.3.1.) Vāgaḍāśākhā presence in Bārāṃ is also possible, given an account of the Vāgaḍāśākhā founder Sakalakīrti travelling to Naiṇavāṃ (Nainwa), 125 km north-west of Bārāṃ, to become a pupil of the Uttaraśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi. (5.1.1.) If my hypothetical reading of the date of Muni Hemakīrti’s memorial as s. 1551 is correct, the unranked Uttaraśākhā renouncer Hemakīrti commemorated in Bijauliyāṃ in s. 1465 stands too early to be the same individual. (4.3.1.) Another Muni Hemakīrti who is attested as related to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra ﬂourished too late, receiving a manuscript in s. 1582 (Kāsalīvālā 1950: 167; Kāsalīvālā 1989: 145; Detige 2018: 364). 328 283 4.3.19. Ṭoṅka (seven n.d.) A number of unidentiﬁed chatrīs are found at Digambara sites in Ṭoṅka, ca. a hundred kilometres south of Jayapura. Two four-pillared chatrīs and one eight-pillared chatrī stand at the (Ādinātha) Nasīyāṃjī in Amīragañja, a site now engulfed by sprawling new neighbourhoods but at some distance south of the historical town centre. (Fig. 4.31 L. & M.) The three chatrīs stand inside the courtyard of a modern dharmaśālā, which has been erected around them. The eight-pillared chatrī could belong to the later 18th or 19th century CE. The two four-pillared chatrīs seem younger, given the shape of their ﬁnials and their seemingly more recent stones. I estimate these to belong to the 19th or even early 20th century CE. A pādukā in one of the square chatrīs commemorates Muni Śītalasāgara, who is recorded as a pupil of Ācārya Dharmasāgara, and was consecrated in Ṭoṅka by Brahma Surajamalla in vīra nirvāṇa saṃvat 2497 (1970/1 CE, unpublished inscription). A pādukā in the other four-pillared chatrī has no inscription but is clearly similarly recent. It features carvings of picchī and kamaṇḍalu, and incomplete lettering painted on the chatrī calls it the ‘place of the last rites (samādhi-sthala) of muni 108 śrī’. Both are thus earlier chatrīs repurposed as memorials of recent Digambara munis. I do not have complete documentation of the octagonal chatrī, but it also seems to feature a recent memorial stone, and has been renovated with new marble ﬂooring and a metal railing added to the plinth. (Fig. 4.31 R.) Figure 4.31. Ṭoṅka. (December 2014) Two repurposed four-pillared chatrīs (L.) and an unidentiﬁed, eightpillared chatrī (M.) in the open courtyard of a modern dharmaśālā, Nasīyāṃjī. Unidentiﬁed chatrīs, Pārśvanātha Nasiyāṃ Śyāma Bābā (R.). A few Digambara nasīyās are located near the Caturbhuja Talāba lake north of the town of Ṭoṅka, in an area where some Hindu chatrīs are also found. No memorial stones remain in three chatrīs at the Pārśvanātha Nasiyāṃ Śyāma Bābā. A four-pillared and an eight-pillared chatrī on low platforms close to the site’s mandira have been renovated and brightly painted. (Fig. 4.31 R.) No memorial stones remain, and recent marble ﬂooring obscures all signs of their former presence. With its baluster pillars and foliated arches, the eight-pillared chatrī can be dated to ca. the 18th century CE. The four-pillared chatrī has older features with its Sultanate era style pillars and straight architraves. Another four-pillared chatrī on a plinth with a few steps stands at the backside of the large plot of land of the Pārśvanātha Nasiyāṃ (not depicted). It also has the more primitive type of pillars and architraves, but its superstructure seems to be a recent renovation. On a square platform near the site’s mandira stands has what looks like a Hindu hero worship stone. A pādukā installed inside the mandira is recent. According to its inscription it commemorates Ācārya 284 Vīrasāgara and was consecrated by Brahma Sūrajamala in Śāntivīranagara in vīra nirvāṇa saṃvat 2495 (1968/9 CE, unpublished inscription). Brahmacārī Sūrajamala was also active in consecrating a memorial at the (Ādinātha) Nasīyāṃjī in Ṭoṅka (see above, the recorded as Surajamalla), and his own anthropomorphic mūrti was erected in a chatrī in Śāntivīranagara, a site in Mahāvīrajī. (Fig. 3.20 R.) The mūlanāyaka of the mandira at the Pārśvanātha Nasiyāṃ is dated s. 1861, which is presumably also the date of its construction. The mūrtilekha does not indicate by whom the icon was consecrated. An atypical, heavy, eight-pillared chatrī on a high, square, open platform and with a long ﬂight of stairs across the street from the Pārśvanātha Nasiyāṃ seems to belong to the Hindu Bālājī Nasiyā next to it. No memorials seemed to be present at two more Digambara nasīyās nearby, the Agravāla Nasiyā and the Terāpanthī Candraprabhu Nasiyā (= Baṛī Nasīyā?). An octagonal chatrī is also present near a deserted mandira which I did not visit some two kilometres further to the east, on a ridge near the Kabīra āśrama.329 Both the chatrī and the mandira seem to be older than the structures near the Caturbhuja Talāba, the former possibly as old as the 17th century CE. A study of the inscriptions of ﬁve Digambara mandiras in the old centre of Ṭoṅka (Purānī Ṭoṅka) could shed more lights on the aﬃliation or even identity of the renouncers commemorated in memorials of the town’s nasīyās. The Balātkāragaṇa seems to have been active in Ṭoṅka from early on. Kāsalīvāla (1989: 175-7) has records, possibly in need of checking, of mūrtis found in Ṭoṅka consecrated by the Uttaraśākhā incumbents Padmanandi in s. 1470 (too late a date for Padmanandi) and Jinacandra in s. 1510, and by the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents Dharmacandra in s. 1518 (too early for Dharmacandra) and Jagatkīrti in s. 1751. At least some of the chatrīs located at the nasīyās of Ṭoṅka are thus likely to have been memorials of individuals related to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. While we cannot exclude the possibility that bhaṭṭārakas were among them too, it is more likely these were lower-ranking renouncers from the 17th century CE bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas, 18th century CE ācāryas, or 19th century CE paṇḍitas. 329 Google Maps photos, accessed January 2022. 285 286 CHAPTER 5. VĀGAḌĀŚĀKHĀ Chapter contents The discovered Vāgaḍāśākhā memorials illustrate several of my main ﬁndings concerning the history of the pre-20th century CE Western and Central Indian Digambara ascetic lineages. The Vāgaḍāśākhā necropoles in Naugāmā (5.3.) and Sāgavāṛā (5.4.), ﬁrstly, form some of the most concentrated evidence of the ﬂourishing of munis and ācāryas in the 16th and 17th century CE Digambara bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas. The Vāgaḍāśākhā bifurcation, secondly, was not an immediate duplication of bhaṭṭāraka seats but a gradual process. Ācāryas of the undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā who were in charge at a secondary centre of the Brhatśākhā in Naugāmā came to carry the ̥ maṇḍalācārya rank, and after a few maṇḍalācāryas these in turn claimed or were granted bhaṭṭāraka-hood. (5.1.3.) Both Vāgaḍāśākhās, thirdly, were continued considerably long, the Laghuśākhā up to the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE and the Brhatśākhā up to the early 20th century CE. And ﬁnally, throughout ̥ the ﬁve centuries of their existence, the Vāgaḍāśākhā seats regularly shifted between places in the Vāgaḍā region and outside of it. While the Laghuśākhā originated in Naugāmā, it seems to have ﬁlled the vacuum in Sāgavāṛā after in the 17th century CE the Brhatśākhā ̥ moved away from there, and into the Mevāṛa and Lāṭā regions. (5.1.4.) The available memorials and textual sources allow us to reconstruct the history and spread of both Vāgaḍāśākhās reasonably well. A mid-18th century CE document is also particularly helpful in recording the places of the paṭṭābhiṣekas and other details on Laghuśākhā incumbents until then. (5.1.5.) Chart 5.1. Vāgaḍāśākhā, with bifurcation into Brh̥ atśākhā (left) and Laghuśākhā (right), and incumbents with the ranks of bhaṭṭāraka (orange), maṇḍalācārya (maroon), and ācārya (red), with recorded years of consecration, incumbency, or other available datings. 287 5.1. The Vāgaḍāśākhās As indicated before (2.2.3.2., 2.2.3.6.), I refer to the two Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa lineages which Joharāpurakara (1958) termed the Īḍaraśākhā (Ibid.: 136-58) and the Bhānapuraśākhā (Ibid.: 159-68) as respectively the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā (or in short, Brhatśākhā) and the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ ̥ (Laghuśākhā). I refer to both lineages in sum as the Vāgaḍāśākhās, and to the single, 15th century CE lineage predating their bifurcation as the undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā. (Chart 5.1) The Vāgaḍā region on the Rajasthan-Gujarat borderland was the main sphere of activity of the Laghuśākhā until its demise in the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE, and of the Brhatśākhā until it expanded its sphere of ̥ activity to include Mevāṛa and Lāṭa (Gujarat) in the 17th century CE. Īḍara is known to have been the seat of the last Brhatśākhā (‘Īḍaraśākhā’) incumbents, but probably ̥ did not serve this purpose until the early 19th century CE. (5.6.5.) The Laghuśākhā (‘Bhānapuraśākhā’) seems to have had some connection to Bhānapura, but during a short visit I could not trace any conclusive proof of a bhaṭṭāraka seat ever having been established in that (major) and laghu (minor) which I employ instead to distinguish town. (5.5.3.) The preﬁxes brhat ̥ between both Vāgaḍāśākhās reﬂect the Laghuśākha’s origins as subordinate to the Brhatśākhā ̥ (5.1.3.), and also follow primary sources’ references to diﬀerent Hūmaṛa caste groups supporting both lineages as ‘major’ (‘vrhad’ , ‘baḍe’) and minor (‘laghu’) (5.1.2.). ̥ A considerable corpus of memorials of renouncers of both Vāgaḍāśākhās has been found. (5.2.) Important 16th-17th century CE necropoles of these lineages are found at the nearby towns of memorials from the 18th and 19th century Naugāmā330 (5.3.) and Sāgavāṛā (5.4.). Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ CE are located at other sites in Sāgavāṛā and in Udayapura, Sūrata, R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī, Īḍara, and Surapura (near Ḍūṅgarapura). (5.6.) A few Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā memorials from the second half of the 18th and ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE are located at two sites in Sāgavāṛā, a single, unidentiﬁed Laghuśākhā memorial from the turn of the 18th century CE was found in Ankleśvara (Gujarat), and an unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā in Bhānapura331 seemingly dated to the early 18th century CE could also belong to the Laghuśākhā. (5.5.) Another important place for the undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā and the Brhatśākhā was Ḍūṅgarapura, ̥ which was founded in 1358 CE and became the capital of Vāgaḍā region (K. C. Jain 1972: 357). A paṭṭāvalī records an initiation ceremony (possibly the bhaṭṭāraka-dīkṣā) of the Vāgaḍāśākhā founder Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti held in Ḍūṅgarapura in the ﬁrst half of the 15th century CE (K. C. Jain 1972: 360, 5.1.1.). In the second half of the 16th century CE, the muni dīkṣā and perhaps other initiations of the ﬁfth Brhatśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇakīrti are also recorded to have taken ̥ incumbent place in Ḍūṅgarapura (Kāsalīvāla 1969: 453, see 2.3.4.). And the tenth Brhatśākhā ̥ Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti spent three cāturmāsas in the town in the second half of the 17th century CE (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 221, see 5.6.2.). Naugāmā = Naugama, some 25 km south-west of Banswara, 40 km south-east of Sāgavāṛā, 75 km southeast of Ḍūṅgarapura. (Map 5.1) 330 Bhānapura = Bhanpura, some 45 km west of Jhālarāpāṭana, ca. 100 km south of Koṭā, ca. 250 km north-east of Sāgavāṛā, across the contemporary state border in Madhya Pradesh, Mandasaura district. (Map 5.1) 331 288 Map 5.1. Main towns related to the Vāgaḍāśākhās in and around the Vāgaḍā region (indicated in green). 5.1.1. The undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā (15th century CE) The undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā was one of the lineages originating from the trifurcation of the Balātkāragaṇa Uttaraśākhā after the 14th century CE Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi. Information on Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti, the illustrious founder of the Vāgaḍāśākhā, is available through a biographical composition by Brahma Guṇarāja, the Sakalakīrti Rāsa (“The Story of Sakalakīrti”).332 According to this narrative, Sakalakīrti was a native of Aṇahilapura Paṭṭaṇa (Patan, Gujarat), born in s. 1443 with the lay name Pūnasiṅha (Pūrṇasiṅha). He renounced at 16, and at 18 travelled to Naiṇavāṃ333 in Central Rajasthan to become a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi. He studied with Padmanandi for 8 years. At 34 (= s. 1477), he obtained the rank of ācārya. He then returned to the Vāgaḍā region and lived there as a naked renouncer. K. C. Jain (1972: 360) reports a paṭṭāvalī See Kāsalīvāla 1967a: 1-8; Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 132-4; Rāṃvakā 1980; Clines 2018: 9-10; P. Śāstrī n.d.: 491-2. 332 333 Naiṇavā, Nainwa, between Ṭoṅka and Koṭā. (Map 5.1) Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 133) call Naiṇavāṃ Padmanandi’s main centre of activity (‘mukhya kendra’) at the time, but it more likely was his abode for only a short period, or merely one of the many places on his route. I have not visited Naiṇavāṃ, but the town still seems to feature Digambara mandiras and a nasīyā (Google maps, accessed 14th November 2022). 289 recording an initiation ceremony (unspeciﬁed which rank) of Sakalakīrti held in Ḍūṅgarapura in 1425 CE, no doubt the same event reported by P. Śāstrī (n.d.: 491) as occurring in the corresponding s. 1482. Without specifying his source, P. Śāstrī (Ibid.) held that in s. 1492 a bhaṭṭāraka seat was established in Galiyākoṭa (Galiakot, ca. 20 km south of Sāgavāṛā) where Sakalakīrti declared himself a bhaṭṭāraka. Apparently taking this information from a paṭṭāvalī, P. Śāstrī (Ibid.) knew Sakalakīrti to have died in s. 1499 in Mahasānā (Mahesāṇā, Mehsana, Gujarat), some 200 km west of Sāgavāṛā and some 70 km north of Ahamadābāda, and reports his niṣedhikā from there. In a mūrtilekha from s. 1490, Sakalakīrti is recorded as a muni (Joharāpurakara 1958: 136, lekha 331), in a mūrtilekha from s. 1492 without a rank (Ibid.: lekha 332), and in a śilālekha from s. 1494 as a bhaṭṭāraka (Ibid.: 137, lekha 333). Sakalakīrti reportedly consecrated temples in Sāgavāṛā in s. 1499 (Ibid.: 136, lekha 330; Somani 1982: 187) and in s. 1494 further to the north-west in Ābū (Mount Abu, Joharāpurakara 1958: 137, lekha 333). Sakalakīrti was a proliﬁc author (Kāsalīvāla 1967a: 1-21), as were several of his successors especially in the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā, and clusters of litterateurs ̥ around them included lower-ranking ascetics and lay paṇḍitas. A notable example is Sakalakīrti’s younger brother Brahma Jinadāsa (Kāsalīvāla 1967a: 22-39; Clines 2018: 9-28). Later accounts of the Vāgaḍāśākhās uniformly record the succession of Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti by Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti. However, a number of attestations are found of two incumbents between them, Dharmakīrti and Vimalendrakīrti. A document from the mid-18th century (5.1.5.) records that Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti consecrated Dharmakīrti in Sāgavāṛā by giving him the sūri-mantra, and that Dharmakīrti stayed on the seat for 24 years (Joharāpurakara 1958: 136, lekha 330; see also Dośī e.a. 2000: 261, Gough 2017: 296 n. 94). Kāsalīvāla (1967a: 175) has vernacular paṭṭāvalīs from R̥ ṣabhadeva and Ḍūṅgarapura including Dharmakīrti and Vimalendrakīrti in the succession of the undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā, and as incumbent for respectively 24 and 18 years.334 Without indicating their source, Dośī e.a. (2000: 261) gave full paṭṭa dates for Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmakīrti (s. 1471-1495) and Vimalendrakīrti (no rank, s. 1495-1508). Still according to Dośī e.a. (Ibid.), Vimalendrakīrti was consecrated or seated in Nautanapura (= Naugāmā). Presumably the same Vimalendrakīrti is recorded in relation to Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti when consecrating an icon of Śreyāṃsanātha in 1456 CE (= s. 1512/3).335 According to Kāsalīvāla (1967a: 49) and Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 163-4), the ﬁrst incumbent of the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā, Bhuvanakīrti’s successor Jñānabhūṣaṇa (p. s. ̥ 1531-57/8, ﬂ. s. 1560, Ibid.: 162), had been a pupil of Vimalendrakīrti at ﬁrst and later accepted Bhuvanakīrti as his guru.336 The inscription of a s. 1534 mūrti consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmakīrti found in Kārañjā is edited as recording the succession Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti > Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti > Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmakīrti (P. C. Śāstrī 1992: 128). Perhaps an editorial mistake is involved in the reversed sequence of Dharmakīrti succeeding Bhuvanakīrti (and maybe also then, Kāsalīvāla (1967a: 175) subsequently calculates the incumbency of Dharmakīrti and Vimalendrakīrti as totalling 33 years. Some editorial mistake in one of the years seems to be involved. 334 Clines 2018: 14, citing as his source Yatīndrasūrijī (1951) Śrī-jaina-pratimā-lekha-saṅgraha, ed. by Daulatasiṅgha Loḍhā, Ghāmaṇiya: Śrī-Yatīcandra-Sāhitya-Sadana, p. 245-46, n. 174. 335 The source for this information seems to be a paṭṭāvalī from a manuscript collection in R̥ ṣabhadevaKesariyājī, the Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśaḥkīrti Digambara Jaina Sarasvatī Bhavana (Kāsalīvāla 1967a: 49, Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 163 n. 1). 336 290 the omission of Vimalendrakīrti?). The inscription also includes a list of renouncers, Muni Deśabhūṣaṇa, Muni Guṇakīrti, Brahmacārī Jinadāsa, probably Āryikā Dhana (‘ā. dhana’), Brahmacārī Nyānadāsa, Kṣullaka Sumati, and Paṇḍita Nāku. Their relation to the aforementioned bhaṭṭārakas is not indicated, but probably they were the pupils of Dharmakīrti or Bhuvanakīrti. Thus far, no further attestations of Dharmakīrti and Vimalendrakīrti have been found. Numerous mūrtilekhas and manuscript colophons instead record Sakalakīrti’s succession by Bhuvanakīrti. Attestations of Bhuvanakīrti are found from the s. 1510-20s (Kāsalīvāla 1967a: 179-80), so it seems possible that he came to the seat only after the recorded incumbencies of Dharmakīrti and Vimalendrakīrti. As a pupil of Sakalakīrti, Bhuvanakīrti may have chosen to stress his direct descent from this illustrious predecessor, later tradition following this account and soon forgetting about Dharmakīrti and Vimalendrakīrti.337 Dośī e.a. (2000: 261) seem to indicate that Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti was consecrated in Naugāmā and also performed an icon consecration there. Kāsalīvāla (1975: 173) has two vernacular paṭṭāvalī fragments from R̥ ṣabhadeva and Ḍūṅgarapura instead recording his consecration in an unknown town called Āntarī. Bhuvanakīrti was a muni before his promotion to the bhaṭṭāraka rank, and his ideal asceticism was eulogised in the literary compositions of later Vāgaḍāśākhā renouncers like ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ Jñānakīrti and Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra, probably the ﬁrst and seventh Laghuśākhā incumbents, and one ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ Sakalabhūṣaṇa (?) (Kāsalīvāla 1967a: 178). 5.1.2. The Vāgaḍāśākhā bifurcation According to the standard account, the Vāgaḍāśākhā bifurcated after Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti. A narrative in a paṭṭāvalī attributes the bifurcation to an occasion in s. 1535 when two pratiṣṭhās had been planned on the same day in the nearby towns of Sāgavāṛā and Naugāmā.338 Because a pratiṣṭhācārya was required for both events, two pupils of Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti were sent to Sāgavāṛā and Naugāmā, the full brothers Jñānabhūṣaṇa and Jñānakīrti respectively, who then became the incumbents of separate lineages. Attestations of renunciant siblings in the early modern bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas of Western India are found with some frequency, so it is possible that Jñānabhūṣaṇa and Jñānakīrti were real brothers. Yet this probably later narrative reporting them as full brothers may also stem from a corruption of their relation as guru-bhrātrs, ̥ guru-brothers or pupils of the same teacher. Jñānabhūṣaṇa and Jñānakīrti are explicitly attested as guru-bhrātrs̥ in a niṣedhikā inscription from s. 1638 (#5.7), and possibly also in an incomplete niṣedhikā inscription from s. 16(1/2)8 (#5.3), both Laghuśākhā memorials from Naugāmā. Kāsalīvāla (1967a: 175-6) also thinks that Dharmakīrti and Vimalendrakīrti were not accepted by later tradition and therefore not included in later records. 337 Kāsalīvāla 1967a: 49; Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 162-3. Kāsalīvāla (1967a: 49 n. 1) and Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 163) refer to the paṭṭāvalī as retrieved from R̥ ṣabhadeva-Kesariyājī but do not provide a date or further information about the manuscript. 338 291 Kāsalīvāla (1967a: 50, and n. 2) has an inscription recording a consecration performed by Bhaṭṭāraka Jñānabhūṣaṇa in Ḍūṅgarapura (Giripura) by s. 1531,339 a few years prior to the narrated Vāgaḍāśākhā bifurcation in s. 1535. The transmitted narrative of the Vāgaḍāśākhā bifurcation more structurally fails in light of the ﬁnding that the early Laghuśākhā incumbents were not bhaṭṭārakas, but ācāryas and later maṇḍalācāryas who were subordinate to the Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭāraka lineage ̥ which continued from Jñānabhūṣaṇa. (5.1.3.) Later sources ascribe the bhaṭṭāraka-rank to the Laghuśākhā incumbents right from Jñānakīrti onwards. Memorial stones’ inscriptions however clarify that the ﬁrst three Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā incumbents Jñānakīrti, Ratnakīrti, and Yaśakīrti340 were ācāryas and the next three incumbents Guṇacandra, Jinacandra, and Sakalacandra maṇḍalācāryas. The Laghuśākhā was thus originally subsidiary to the Brhatśākhā, and became an ̥ independent bhaṭṭāraka lineage only in the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE. Although it is more correct to say that what I call the Laghuśākhā was a part of the undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā saṅgha, led by ācāryas and later maṇḍalācāryas, I follow later tradition and its more numerous sources in discussing it as a lineage. From the time of the Laghuśākhā maṇḍalācāryas in the last quarter of the 16th and ﬁrst quarter of the 17th century CE, primary sources record the incumbents as succeeding (tatpaṭṭe) each other. (5.1.3.) The account of the Vāgaḍāśākhā bifurcation is not unlike the better known narrative of the earlier origins of the Lāṭaśākhā, when Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra could not attend a pratiṣṭhā planned in Gujarat in s. 1375, and his pupil Ācārya Padmanandi was promoted to enable him to perform the consecration. (2.2.3.8.) Such anecdotal narratives may well be latter-day, post facto justiﬁcations or retellings of developments with diﬀerent, actual causes, whether a dispute about successions, the availability of suﬃcient support to maintain two seats and thus extend the tradition’s inﬂuence, or a more gradual process of lineage formation, as is the case with the Vāgaḍāśākhā. The narrative on Jñānabhūṣaṇa and Jñānakīrti does accurately represent the presence of the Brhatśākhā and Laghuśākhā saṅghas in respectively Sāgavāṛā and Naugāmā as we can ̥ reconstruct it from the late 15th to 17th century CE memorials retrieved at necropoles in both towns (5.4.), and in fact probably developed a posteriori in explanation of, or given this distribution. The Laghuśākhā’s original association with Naugāmā is clear from the memorials found in this town. Fourteen renouncers’ memorial stones have been found in Naugāmā, thirteen niṣedhikās in a communal chatrī at the Nasiyājī, and a single niṣedhikā at another site at a small remove. None of the renouncers commemorated in Naugāmā are unambiguously and solely recorded as aﬃliated to the Brhatśākhā. Six or seven can be related to the Laghuśākhā.341 Among these are four of the ̥ Somani (1982: 188), probably refers to the same consecration festival when also noting a consecration by Jñānabhūṣaṇa in Ḍūṅgarapura in s. 1531. In the year before, Sultan Gayasuddin of Malwa had invaded Ḍūṅgarapura (K. C. Jain 1972: 358; Somani 1982: 188, n. 16). Kāsalīvāla (1967a: 51) situates the incumbency of Jñānabhūṣaṇa as running from at least s. 1531 to s. 1557 or s. 1558. Jñānabhūṣaṇa still ﬂourished in s. 1560, but then, in the colophon of his Tattva-jñāna-taraṅgiṇī, used the generic renunciant title ‘mumukṣu’ rather than the bhaṭṭāraka rank in front of his name. Kāsalīvāla (Ibid.) takes this as indicating that he had abdicated from the seat. Probably the same Jñānabhūṣaṇa is attested as a maṇḍalācārya in an undated (prior to s. 1531?) textual fragment edited by Joharāpurakara (1958: 143, lekha 360). 339 I follow the memorial inscriptions in using the spelling Yaśakīrti rather than Yaśaḥkīrti. Similarly so for the late 18th-19th century CE Brhatśākhā incumbent of this name. ̥ 340 341 #5.1, #5.2, #5.3, #5.4, #5.6, #5.7; prob. #5.10. 292 ﬁrst ﬁve Laghuśākhā incumbents. (5.3.2.) The inscriptions on one s. 1594 niṣedhikā possibly refer to both lineages, recording the Brhatśākhā succession, but probably referring to the commemorated ̥ ācārya as the pupil of a Laghuśākhā incumbent. (#5.5, 5.3.3.) The incomplete inscription of an undatable niṣedhikā also records the Brhatśākhā succession, but breaks down in the latter section ̥ where it may similarly have related the commemorated muni to the Laghuśākhā. (#5.8, 5.3.3.) No information was recorded with regards to the lineage aﬃliation of three out of probably four, probably all 17th century CE brahmacārīs commemorated in the Naugāmā communal chatrī (#5.9, #5.11, #5.12 [prob. brahmacārī]), but these most likely formed part of the local Laghuśākhā saṅgha. The incomplete inscriptions on the memorial of the fourth probably refer to a Laghuśākhā incumbent. (#5.10, 5.3.4.) The inscription of the early 16th century CE niṣedhikā commemorating a muni at another site nearby the Naugāmā necropolis is incomplete. (#5.13, 5.3.3.) An important textual document from the mid-18th century, a letter dated to s. 1805, also records crucial events in the ascetic careers of several early Laghuśākhā incumbents to have passed in Naugāmā. (5.1.5.) Accordingly, Ratnakīrti was initiated (dīkṣā) in Naugāmā in s. 1535 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 159, lekha 399). The text does not specify which rank he was initiated into, but this reference should probably be taken as echoing the possibly post facto narrative of the Vāgaḍāśākhā bifurcation. Still according to the s. 1805 letter, the paṭṭābhiṣekas of Ratnakīrti’s successor Yaśakīrti (Ibid.: 160, lekha 402) and of the lineage’s sixth incumbent Sakalacandra (Ibid.: 162, lekha 409) also took place in Naugāmā (no dates given), and Sakalacandra’s successor Ratnacandra died in Naugāmā in s. 1707 (Ibid.: 163, lekha 414). In contrast to the exclusive Laghuśākhā aﬃliation of all suﬃciently identiﬁed renouncers commemorated in Naugāmā, memorials of renouncers related to both lineages are found at the Choṭī Nasīyājī in Sāgavāṛā. At ﬁrst sight this speaks of a certain geographical overlap and coexistence. And we can easily imagine that renouncers of the secondary saṅgha in Naugāmā indeed visited the seat in nearby Sāgavāṛā. Yet a closer analysis of the 16th to early 18th century CE niṣedhikās at the Sāgavāṛā necropolis reveals a relatively well-deﬁned temporal split between the memorials of both lineages. (5.4.1.) An analysis of the full corpus of Vāgaḍāśākhā memorials also reveals a pattern of shifting spheres of inﬂuence of both lineages over a longer period. The Laghuśākhā memorials of Naugāmā and Sāgavāṛā indicate that this lineage shifted from Naugāmā to Sāgavāṛā in the 17th century CE. The Laghuśākhā replaced its former mother lineage in Sāgavāṛā, and remained centred in that town until its demise in the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE. (5.1.5., 5.4.1., 5.5.2.) The Brhatśākhā vice-versa moved out of Sāgavāṛā in the 17th century CE, ̥ expanding its sphere of inﬂuence northwards to Udayapura and other places in Mevāṛa, eastwards to Īḍara, and southwards into the Lāṭā region. (5.6.) We do not have any sources explicitly indicating whether it was the Laghuśākhā’s incursion into Sāgavāṛā which pushed the Brhatśākhā out of ̥ town, or vice-versa the Brhatśākhā’s move away from Sāgavāṛā which allowed for the ̥ Laghuśākhā’s expansion into town. The latter however is clearly the most likely option, that the Laghuśākhā ﬁlled the gap in Sāgavāṛā after the formerly superordinate and likely still better patronised Brhatśākhā started to explore new horizons, no doubt itself in pursuit of opportunities ̥ to serve and be served by lay communities thriving elsewhere. 293 As mentioned, the preﬁxes brhat (major) and laghu (minor) in my designations Brhatśākhā and ̥ ̥ Laghuśākhā reﬂect the latter lineage’s original subordination to the former. This nomenclature follows epigraphic and textual sources from the 18th and 19th century CE and possibly earlier. Both lineages seem to have come to be connected to diﬀerent groups of Hūmaṛa caste laypeople, which in several sources are referred as the brhat (major) and laghu (minor) śākhās (branches) or ̥ sājanas ([communities of] noble people). A s. 1863 mūrtilekha from R̥ ṣabhadeva-Kesariyājī consecrated by the Brhatśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti records its donor as belonging to the ̥ Kamaleśvara gotra of the ‘vrhad śākhā’ of the Hūmaṛa caste (jāti) (Ś. J. Jaina 2011: 45, n. 50). The ̥ inscription of a pādukā of Neminātha at the Jūnā Mandira in Pratāpagaṛha consecrated in s. 1895 by the Laghuśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Hemacandra (p. s. 1884-90) in turn records its lay donor as belonging to the laghuśākhā of the Hūmaṛa caste (‘humaṛa jñātī laghuśaṣāyā’, unpublished inscription, see also 5.1.5.). The inscription of an Ādinātha mūrti consecrated by the same Laghuśākhā bhaṭṭāraka found at the Junā Mandira in Sāgavāṛā also records its patron as belonging to the laghuśākhā (‘laghusāṣā[yā?]’, unpublished inscription).342 According to Kāsalīvāla (1967a: 49), the paṭṭāvalī containing the narrative of the Vāgaḍāśākhā bifurcation refers to Jñānabhūṣaṇa as the bhaṭṭāraka of the Baḍasājanas (‘baḍasājanoṃ ke bhaṭṭāraka’) and to Jñānakīrti as the guru of the Lohaṛasājanas.343 In Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla’s (1975: 162-3) account of the same text, the references are to the ‘brhad śākhā’ and ‘laghu śākhā’. And a letter ̥ from s. 1805 recording information on the Laghuśākhā incumbents also explicitly connects the two caste groups to the two Vāgaḍāśākhās. (5.1.4.) It refers to what I call the Laghuśākhā as the ‘laghu sājanāmo saṅgha’ (Joharāpurakara 1958: 162, lekha 409), and elsewhere to the Brhatśākhā ̥ renouncers and their lay supporters as the ‘baṛe sājane jatī tathā śrāvake’ (Ibid.: 163, lekha 414). 5.1.3. Laghuśākhā incumbents: ācāryas to maṇḍalācāryas to bhaṭṭārakas In this section I discus the gradual development of the early Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā. Although later sources often ascribe higher ranks to them, the ﬁrst three incumbents Jñānakīrti, Ratnakīrti, and Yaśakīrti were ācāryas, the fourth incumbent Guṇacandra of the second half of the 16th century CE made promotion from ācārya to maṇḍalācārya, his successors Jinacandra and Sakalacandra were also maṇḍalācāryas, and the seventh incumbent Ratnacandra was the ﬁrst to obtain the bhaṭṭāraka rank, in the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE. Whereas early sources attest pupillary links between the Laghuśākhā ācārya-rank incumbents (tacchiṣya, and variations), institutional succession (tatpaṭṭe) came to be recorded for the Laghuśākhā maṇḍalācāryas. This also indicates a developing sense of the Laghuśākhā as a separate lineage. At a time when the Laghuśākhā incumbents still had the ācārya rank, further, non-incumbent ācāryas were also present in the No date is recorded in the otherwise seemingly complete inscription on the front side of the mūrti, but it may be inscribed on the backside, of which I do not have documentation. 342 According to Kāsalīvāla (1967a: 49), Jñānabhūṣaṇa and Jñānakīrti themselves belonged to the Pūrvī Golālāre caste. 343 294 saṅgha in Naugāmā. Perhaps the sthavīrācārya title attested for Jñānakīrti, Ratnakīrti, and Yaśakīrti in several sources, and rarely found used elsewhere, served to distinguish them as incumbents.344 The ﬁrst three Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā incumbents Jñānakīrti, Ratnakīrti, and Yaśakīrti are referred to as bhaṭṭārakas in later sources. On their memorial stones at the Naugāmā necropolis however they are attested as ācāryas. (#5.1, #5.2, #5.3) Later-day textual and epigraphic sources on other lineages also regularly attribute higher ranks to prior incumbents than those which they actually carried. Standing closer to the commemorated incumbents in time, the memorial stones can be taken to give a more accurate record of their actual ranks. The inscriptions of a s. 1601 niṣedhikā at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī commemorating one Ācārya Haribhūṣaṇa. (see next, 5.3.2., #5.6) also refers to the second and third Laghuśākhā incumbents Ratnakīrti and Yaśakīrti as ācāryas. Jñānakīrti, Ratnakīrti, and Yaśakīrti then were ācāryas who no doubt were subordinate to the bhaṭṭārakas of the Brhatśākhā or, more correctly, of the undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā. ̥ The ﬁrst two Laghuśākhā ācārya incumbents seem to have had pupillary relations to the bhaṭṭārakas of the undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā. In a paṭṭāvalī extract presented by Joharāpurakara (1958: 159 lekha 398) as dealing with Jñānakīrti, the latter (not mentioned by name in the edited fragment) seems to be recorded as having been initiated by Bhuvanakīrti (‘bhuvanakīrti-guru-priyadīkṣitaḥ’). On the s. 1655 niṣedhikā of the fourth Laghuśākhā incumbent Maṇḍalācārya Guṇacandra at the Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyājī, the second Laghuśākhā incumbent Ratnakīrti is also recorded a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti. (#5.18) In the inscriptions of a s. 1601 niṣedhikā from Naugāmā (#5.6) and a s. 1699 niṣedhikā from Sāgavāṛā (#5.33), however, Ratnakīrti is remembered as the guru-brother (guru-bhrātr)̥ of Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti, which indicates that, like Bhuvanakīrti, Ratnakīrti had been a pupil of the Vāgaḍāśākhā founder Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti. The former inscription next also refers to the third Laghuśākhā incumbent Yaśakīrti as a pupil of the second, Ratnakīrti. (#5.6) Yaśakīrti is similarly recorded as a pupil of Ratnakīrti in the inscription of another, s. 1638 niṣedhikā at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī, which as we saw recorded the ﬁrst incumbent Brhatśākhā ̥ Bhaṭṭāraka Jñānabhūṣaṇa and the ﬁrst Laghuśākhā incumbent Ācārya Jñānakīrti as guru-bhrātrs, ̥ meaning that both were pupils of Bhuvanakīrti. (#5.7) Pupillary relations had thus already developed between the ﬁrst, ācārya rank Laghuśākhā incumbents mutually, rather than only between them and the superordinate Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭārakas. These developed further into a ̥ sense of succession among the later maṇḍalācārya rank incumbents, recorded in the inscriptions by the ‘tatpaṭṭe’ terminology of succession (see below, this section). Further ācāryas seem to have been present in the Laghuśākhā saṅgha at a time when its incumbents also still had the ācārya rank. Two or three such non-incumbent ācāryas were commemorated at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī, and one more is attested in one of their memorial inscriptions. (5.3.3.) The inscription of Ācārya Vinayacandra’s s. 1594 niṣedhikā records the Brhatśākhā succession, but also possibly calls Vinayacandra a pupil of a Laghuśākhā incumbent. ̥ (#5.5) The inscriptions on the s. 1601 memorial of Ācārya Haribhūṣaṇa refer to the Laghuśākhā incumbent ācāryas, but also record Haribhūṣaṇa as a pupil of one Ācārya Jñānakīrti. (#5.6) The 344 To indicate their incumbency, I record the names of the Laghuśākhā ācāryas Jñānakīrti, Ratnakīrti, and Yaśakīrti in maroon red font, otherwise reserved for maṇḍalācāryas. 295 latter is likely not the early Laghuśākhā incumbent from three quarters of a century earlier, but yet another non-incumbent Laghuśākhā ācārya. And an unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā at the Naugāmā necropolis from s. 1638 probably commemorates an ācārya with name in -kīrti, possibly Guṇakīrti. (#5.7) We don’t have explicit discussions of the practical aspects distinguishing the early Laghuśākhā incumbent ācārya from the other, ‘common’ ācāryas of the Naugāmā saṅgha, but the former presumably held additional responsibilities in overseeing the local ascetic saṅgha and perhaps also the ritual proceedings of the lay community. Another title found applied in various sources to the ﬁrst three Laghuśākhā incumbents is that of sthavīrācārya (venerable ācārya, elder-ācārya). The ﬁrst incumbent Jñānakīrti is attested with this title in a source dating from prior to the narrated Vāgaḍāśākhā bifurcation, the colophon of a manuscript donated to Jñānakīrti’s pupil Brahma Devadāsa in s. 1534,345 and still in another source from almost a century later, the inscription of an unidentiﬁed, s. 1619 niṣedhikā at the Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyājī.346 The inscription of Ācārya Vinayacandra’s s. 1594 niṣedhikā in Naugāmā records the same title for the commemorated ācārya’s guru.347 And Ratnakīrti is still recorded as a sthavīrācārya in the inscription of an unidentiﬁed memorial stone in Sāgavāṛā dating to a century later. (s. 1699, #5.33) The third Laghuśākhā incumbent Yaśakīrti is also attested as a sthavīrācārya in the inscriptions of two niṣedhikās in Naugāmā, his own memorial stone which is probably dated s. 1618 (#5.3), and a later, unidentiﬁed s. 1638 niṣedhikā (#5.7). Based on a smaller number of attestations, I had put forward the hypothesis that the sthavīrācārya title was awarded to incumbents after they had abdicated from the seat (Detige 2018: 329). These further attestations, all of the ﬁrst Laghuśākhā incumbents, instead indicate it may have marked the special status of Jñānakīrti, Ratnakīrti, and Yaśakīrti, setting them apart from the common ācāryas of their saṅgha. One Brhatśākhā renouncer is also found attested as a sthavirācārya. A s. 1691 manuscript colophon ̥ records that the manuscript was donated to a Brahmacārī Kāmarāja, a pupil of Brahmacārī Lāḍyakā, in turn a pupil of Sthavirācārya Narendrakīrti (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 13, n. 10b). In a praśasti to a composition of his own, found in a manuscript copy from s. 1690 (Ibid.: 232), presumably the same Narendrakīrti refers to himself without rank as devoted to the Brhatśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Sumatikīrti, ̥ for whom we have references from s. 1622 to s. 1627 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 156, #5.25). As around this time there was no Brhatśākhā incumbent with this name, Sthavirācārya Narendrakīrti seems to ̥ have been a common, non-incumbent ācārya who nevertheless received some special recognition. A single attestation is also found of a title vasundharācārya, which again seems to indicate a honoriﬁc title extended to a former lineage incumbent upon his abdication or retirement from the seat. The Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra, who is known to have been succeeded by Maṇḍalācārya Lalitakīrti in s. 1603, is referred to as Vasundharācārya Dharmacandra in a colophon dated s. 1611 (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 128, n. 22). ‘sthivarācārya-śrī-jñānakīrtis-tad-aṃtenivāsī brahma-devadāsasya paṭhan-ārthaṃ’ (Joharāpurakara 1958: 159, lekha 396, ‘sthi’ probably an editorial mistake for ‘stha’). 345 346 ‘(...) (stha?)virācārya-jñānakīrti (...)’ (#5.31). 347 ‘(...) stavirācārya-śrī-[1×?](āna?)kīrtti (...)’ (#5.5). 296 The fourth Laghuśākhā incumbent Guṇacandra of the second half of the 16th century CE is the ﬁrst found referred to as a maṇḍalācārya. In early attestations, Guṇacandra is still recorded as an ācārya. On the niṣedhikā of his predecessor Yaśakīrti, probably dated to s. 1618, which Guṇacandra consecrated in Naugāmā, both incumbents are recorded as ācāryas. (5.3.2., #5.3) In the inscription of an unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā from s. 1619 at the Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyājī, Ratnakīrti and Yaśakīrti are similarly referred to as ācāryas, and the earlier Jñānakīrti as a sthavīrācārya. The inscription becomes illegible to me in the subsequent portion, where Guṇacandra could have been mentioned, but if he is, there probably is no record of the rank maṇḍalācārya in the short missing fragment. (#5.31, see 5.4.1.) In one of the inscriptions of an unidentiﬁed, s. 1638 niṣedhikā at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī consecrated by Guṇacandra, both Ratnakīrti and Guṇacandra are recorded as ācāryas, and Yaśakīrti is mentioned as a sthavīrācārya. (#5.7) Yet in another inscription on the same niṣedhikā, Jñānakīrti, Ratnakīrti, and Yaśakīrti are all referred to as maṇḍalācāryas. Guṇacandra himself is solely recorded as an ācārya in the preserved and documented portions of the niṣedhikā’s several inscriptions. Ratnakīrti, Yaśakīrti, and Guṇacandra are all recorded as maṇḍalācāryas (‘maṃ.’) on Guṇacandra’s own, s. 1655 niṣedhikā at the Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyājī. (#5.18, 5.4.2.) That the ﬁrst Laghuśākhā maṇḍalācārya Guṇacandra was commemorated in Sāgavāṛā and thus probably died there can probably be seen as an indication of the close links between the bhaṭṭāraka seat in Sāgavāṛā and the subordinate saṅgha in Naugāmā. In the inscription of the s. 1658 niṣedhikā of the ﬁfth Laghuśākhā incumbent Jinacandra at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī, his successor Sakalacandra who consecrated the memorial is recorded as a maṇḍalācārya, and so may Jinacandra have been in the now lost part of the inscription. (#5.4) In the captions under his anthropomorphic carvings however, Jinacandra is referred to as an ācārya. (‘ā.’, #5.4) Sakalacandra is also recorded as a maṇḍalācārya on his own, s. 1673 memorial at the Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyājī (#5.19), and probably also on another niṣedhikā at that site consecrated by his successor Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra possibly commemorating a brahmacārī (#5.29). While these ﬁndings indicate some ﬂuidity in the usage of the ācārya and maṇḍalācārya ranks or titles, the Laghuśākhā incumbents thus seem to have become maṇḍalācāryas under the incumbency of Guṇacandra. The maṇḍalācārya title would have been bestowed on Guṇacandra by the Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭārakas, and indicates that he was still subordinate to them. The inscriptions ̥ of s. 1638 and s. 1655 memorials ascribe the maṇḍalācārya title to Jñānakīrti, Ratnakīrti, and Yaśakīrti post facto. The same would occur with the bhaṭṭāraka rank in yet later sources, after the Laghuśākhā incumbents had also adopted that rank. In both successions recorded in the inscriptions of the unidentiﬁed s. 1638 niṣedhikā at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī, pupillary links (‘tat-siṣya’) and not institutional succession (‘tat-paṭṭe’) are recorded between Jñānakīrti, Ratnakīrti, Yaśakīrti, and Guṇacandra.348 This might indicate that the Laghuśākhā incumbent ācāryas were at that point not yet regarded as constituting a lineage. Less than two decades later, however, on Guṇacandra’s own niṣedhikā in Sāgavāṛā dated to s. 1655, Ratnakīrti, Yaśakīrti, and Guṇacandra are linked as ‘(...) ā.-śrī-ratnakīrtti tat-siṣya (stha?)virācārya-śrī-yaśakīrtti tat-siṣyācārya-śrī-gu[1×](caṃdr?)opadeśat (...)’; (...) maṇḍalācārya-śrī-jñānakīrtti-devā ta(t?)-s(i?)ṣya maṃḍalācārya-śrī-ratnakīrti-devā tat-siṣya ma[1×]lācārya-śrīyaśakīrtti-devā (...)’ (#5.7). 348 297 consecutive successors.349 As noted, in the inscription of an unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā found in Sāgavāṛā dated to s. 1699, the Laghuśākhā lineage is similarly recorded with institutional successions, from that from Ratnakīrti to Yaśakīrti onwards, and up to Ratnacandra. (#5.33) It is perhaps telling that in both latter inscriptions this occurs somewhat clumsily, in a for this period oddly corrupted Sanskrit, the typical phrasing tat-paṭṭe altered in several cases to the senseless ‘tat-pa(d/ṭ?)e’, ‘[ta]t-pede’, (#5.18), and ‘tat-pade’ (#5.33, four times). The seventh incumbent Ratnacandra seems to have been the ﬁrst Laghuśākhā bhaṭṭāraka, promoted from maṇḍalācārya to bhaṭṭāraka in the ﬁrst third of the 17th century CE. In an incomplete niṣedhikā inscription from the Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyājī from s. 1673, Ratnacandra may still referred to as a maṇḍalācārya, as are his predecessors Jinacandra and Sakalacandra.350 The incomplete inscription of Brahmacārī Satā’s s. 1691 memorial at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī however seems to refer to Ratnacandra as a bhaṭṭāraka.351 A lineage account in the inscription of an unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā from s. 1699 in Sāgavāṛā records the incumbents from Yaśakīrti up to Sakalacandra as maṇḍalācāryas, and the earlier Ratnakīrti as a sthavīrācārya, but Sakalacandra’s successor Ratnacandra as a bhaṭṭāraka.352 Ratnacandra is also attested as a bhaṭṭāraka in the otherwise barely deciphered and undatable (s. 1[6?][??]) inscription of a niṣedhikā he installed at the Choṭī Nasīyā in Sāgavāṛā, probably commemorating a brahmacārī who might have been recorded as a pupil of his predecessor, maṇḍalācārya Sakalacandra.353 Textual sources conﬁrm that Ratnacandra promoted from (maṇḍal)ācārya to bhaṭṭāraka. A letter from s. 1805 giving information on the late 15th to mid-18th century CE Laghuśākhā incumbents refers to Ratnacandra as an ācārya (prob. maṇḍalācārya) at the time of his consecration in s. 1670, but as a bhaṭṭāraka by the time of his abdication in s. 1699. (5.1.5.) A paṭṭāvalī also refers to Ratnakīrti, Yaśakīrti, Guṇacandra, Sakalacandra as ācāryas or sūris (= ācāryas), while Ratnacandra and his successor Harṣacandra are recorded as bhaṭṭārakas (Joharāpurakara 1958: 159-63, lekhas 400, 401, 403, 407, 415, 416). The s. 1739 niṣedhikā of Ācārya Jagatkīrti at the Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyājī similarly records Ratnacandra and his successor Harṣacandra as bhaṭṭārakas. (#5.22) In the inscription of the s. 1726 niṣedhikā of Ratnacandra’s successor Harṣacandra from the Choṭī Nasīyājī, Sakalacandra, Ratnacandra, and Harṣacandra are all referred to as bhaṭṭārakas. (#5.15) The bhaṭṭāraka rank thus stayed in vogue for Ratnacandra’s successor Harṣacandra, and in the further Laghuśākhā. In the latter inscription, it was already ascribed a posteriori to Sakalacandra, as it would be henceforth in most accounts of the lineage. Ratnacandra’s adoption of the bhaṭṭāraka rank in the ﬁrst half of the 17th century signiﬁes that at this point the lineage gained autonomy from the Brhatśākhā. We do not have sources explicitly ̥ ‘(...) bha. bhuvanakī[1+] || tat· śiṣya-maṃḍalāc(ā) || śrī-ratnakīrtti tatpa(d/ṭ?)e || maṃ. śrī-yaśaḥkī(r?)tti [1+] || tpede maṃ. śrī-guṇacaṃ[1+?] || sya niṣedhikā (...)’ (#5.18). 349 350 ‘(...) ma. śrī-[1×]i[4×] ma. śrī-(sa?)kalacaṃdra ta[ca. 5×]-śrī-ratna(caṃ?)dra (...)’ (#5.19, 5.4.2.). 351 ‘(...) bhaṭ(ā?)raka-śrī-ratana’ [further inscription unavailable] (#5.11, 5.3.4.). ‘(...) maṃḍalacāryya-śrī-yaśakīrtti-devās-tat-pade maṃ. śrī-guṇacandra-devās-tat-paṭṭe maṃ. śrījinacaṃdra-devās-tat-pade (m?)aṃ. śrī-sakalacaṃdra-devās-tat-pade bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-ratnacaṃdrā (...)’ (#5.33). 352 ‘(...) bha. śrī-ra[1×?]na(caṃdra?)-guru-upadeśāt(·?) [4×] [2×] (maṃ.?) śrī-sakalacaṃdra [2×] (brahma?) [3×] brahma-(śrī?)-ja[1×](ke?)(na?) (...)’ (#5.29, 5.4.4.). 353 298 indicating whether Ratnacandra was granted bhaṭṭāraka-hood by the Brhatśākhā, or claimed and ̥ adopted it himself, in deﬁance of the Brhatśākhā’s authority. Yet the latter option is clearly more ̥ likely, as conﬁrmed by a later-day record of strife between both lineages concerning the authority over Sāgavāṛā surrounding the maṇḍalācārya consecration of Ratnacandra held there in the early 17th century CE. (5.1.4.) 5.1.4. Laghuśākhā-Brhatśākhā interrelations (early 16th to early 18th century CE) ̥ Three kīrtistambhas (3.1.4.) of the Brhatśākhā have been found, at the necropoles of Naugāmā (s. ̥ 1571) and Sāgavāṛā (s. 1769), and in a mandira in Sāgavāṛā (s. 1610). Erected over a period of almost exactly two centuries, these kīrtistambhas can be seen as paradigmatic of diﬀerent episodes of the interrelations between the two Vāgaḍāśākhās. A Brhatśākhā kīrtistambha at the Nasiyājī in Naugāmā is a particularly heavy and tall, black marble ̥ pillar. (5.3.5., Fig. 5.5 R.) It was erected by Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (I) in s. 1571, some three and a half decades after the narrated bifurcation in s. 1535. The pillar features depictions and inscriptions of the Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭārakas and their Balātkāragaṇa predecessors and was no doubt meant for ̥ their ritual veneration. The Laghuśākhā maṇḍalācāryas, the late Jñānakīrti and his successor Ratnakīrti who was ﬂourishing at the time, do not even receive mention in the inscriptions. As such, the pillar clearly expresses the superordinate status of the Brhatśākhā. Its erection right in the ̥ home base of the Laghuśākhā saṅgha may have been a conscious design of the Brhatśākhā to ̥ formally express its authority over its secondary centre Naugāmā. The Laghuśākhā renouncers in Naugāmā from their side may well have welcomed the presence of a ritual object connecting them to their Brhatśākhā superiors and gurus, since there are no indications that the Laghuśākhā ̥ ācāryas in Naugāmā had by this time already developed any tendency towards independence from the Brhatśākhā. ̥ In s. 1610, four decades after the Naugāmā kīrtistambha, the Brhatśākhā proceeded to erect a very ̥ similar kīrtistambha in its hometown Sāgavāṛā. The memorial is found installed under an open, pillared gallery in the courtyard behind the Junā Mandira, one of the Digambara mandiras in the town centre. (Fig. 5.1) Although executed in sand-coloured stone and somewhat more slender and taller, its design is very similar to the black marble Brhatśākhā kīrtistambha of Naugāmā, a grand, ̥ bulky, and beautifully decorated pillar with a mandira design (3.1.3.), covered on all sides with rudimentary line carvings of khaḍgāsana and padmāsana ﬁgures. A single, larger padmāsana ﬁgure near the top is identiﬁed through an inscription as a siddha. (5.2.3.) The middle section of the pillar is decorated with a single larger and 24 smaller padmāsana ﬁgures on each side, probably representing jinas. The lowest section features carvings of a single large khaḍgāsana ﬁgure, smaller khaḍgāsana ﬁgures, and a similarly small depiction of the goddess Sarasvatī (‘sāradā’). The siddha and Sarasvatī depictions are idiosyncratic features shared with the Naugāmā kīrtistambha. The larger khaḍgāsana ﬁgure is depicted with picchī under the arm and a kamaṇḍalu and basic outline of a ṭhūnī near his feet. Many of the smaller khaḍgāsana ﬁgures also carry a picchī under the arm and have a kamaṇḍalu placed near their feet. This indicates that they depict renouncers 299 rather than siddhas or jinas. I don’t have documentation of inscribed captions under these smaller khaḍgāsana ﬁgures, but they probably identify these as earlier Balātkāragaṇa and Brh̥ advāgaḍāśākhā incumbents. My documentation of an inscription around the base of the s. 1610 Sāgavāṛā kīrtistambha may be incomplete. (#5.34) Only a few passages remain legible in the sections which I photographed. Next to the year s. 1610, a reference to the Mūlasaṅgha, and the snippet ‘samsta [sic.] śrī-guru-niṣedhikāḥ’, I could read a fragment which probably records the Br h ̥ atśākhā succession Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (I) > Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra.354 The ﬁrst attestation of Śubhacandra as a bhaṭṭāraka known to Joharāpurakara (1958: 145, lekha 368) dates to s. 1607. With the consecration of this kīrtistambha, Figure 5.1. Brhatśākhā kīrtistambha (s. 1610), Junā Mandira, ̥ Sāgavāṛā. (January 2014) Śubhacandra seems to have followed up on the proliﬁc commemorative activity of his predecessor Vijayakīrti (I). The latter had erected the Naugāmā Nasīyājī kīrtistambha in s. 1571, and probably also the communal chatrī at the Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyājī in the years after that, and may have been the ﬁrst Vāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭāraka to centre his activities in Sāgavāṛā. (5.4.1.) The inscriptions of memorial stones of 18th and early 19th century CE Laghuśākhā bhaṭṭārakas also found in the Junā Mandira indicate they were formerly installed in chatrīs. (5.5.1.) No such reference is found in the read passages of the s. 1610 memorial, and new marble ﬂooring seems to have been ﬁtted around it, which indicates that the kīrtistambha may be found here at its original location. Around the time of its consecration, the necropolis at the Choṭī Nasīyājī was under full development. We could nevertheless understand it to have been a conscious decision to install it at a more easily accessible and more frequented site, to facilitate regular ritual veneration of the Brhatśākhā lineage. ̥ A century and a half later, the Brhatśākhā proceeded to erect yet another kīrtistambha in Sāgavāṛā, ̥ this time on the hillside necropolis. A round chatrī at the Choṭī Nasīyājī houses a niṣedhikā and a pādukā of the Brhatśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, consecrated by his successor Vijayakīrti (II) in s. ̥ 1769, the niṣedhikā doubling as a kīrtistambha. (5.4.5., Fig. 5.9) By this time, the Laghuśākhā had matured from a mere secondary presence of the Brhatśākhā in Naugāmā into, since almost a ̥ century, an independent bhaṭṭāraka lineage, and it had come to at least partly replace its former 354 ‘(...) śrī-vi _[4?]_ jayakīrtti-devās-tat-paṭṭe (bha?) [ca. 3×?] śubhacaṃdra (...)’ (#5.34). 300 mother lineage in Sāgavāṛā and the Vāgaḍā region more broadly. The Brhatśākhā Vijayakīrti (II) ̥ consecrated another memorial of his predecessor Narendrakīrti in Āyaṛa, near Udayapura. This memorial is similarly a set of separate niṣedhikā and pādukā stones, but the former lacks the additional kīrtistambha function. (5.6.2.) Epigraphic, iconographic, and contextual aspects indicate that the memorial in Udayapura is more likely to stand at Narendrakīrti’s actual place of demise. Doubling as a kīrtistambha, the memorial in Sāgavāṛā on the other hand may have been an attempt to reestablish the authority of the Brhatśākhā in the town, after the Laghuśākhā had ̥ moved in. It may however also have stood in conversation with the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha, which seems to have had a more short-lived presence in Sāgavāṛā but built a considerable memorial chatrī on an opposing hillock a decade before. Architectural aspects of the temples of both traditions in town also indicate competition between them. (5.4.6.) Further research on the mūrti and yantra inscriptions of the Sāgavāṛā Balātkāragaṇa mandiras could shed more light on the evolution of Brhatśākhā and Laghuśākhā activity in town. Yet on the ̥ basis of the memorials alone, we can already establish the Laghuśākhā’s arrival in Sāgavāṛā as well as the Brhatśākhā’s shift away, and its attempted reestablishment around the time of the s. 1769 ̥ kīrtistambha. (5.4.1.) A dozen and a half, early 16th to early 18th century CE memorials are found at the Chotī Nasīyājī, the Balātkāragaṇa necropolis located on a hillock just outside of the old town of Sāgavāṛā. 17 niṣedhikās stand in a communal, square chatrī, and the combined kīrtistambhaniṣedhikā in a round chatrī next to it. Nine of these can be identiﬁed as related to the Brhatśākhā, ̥ and seven to the Laghuśākhā. (5.4.1.) As mentioned, the Sāgavāṛā memorials at ﬁrst sight thus seem to indicate a geographical overlap and a simultaneous presence of both Vāgaḍāśākhās. This diﬀers from the exclusive Laghuśākhā saṅgha present in Naugāmā. (5.3.) A further analysis of the dates and aﬃliation of the corpus of Balātkāragaṇa memorials at the Choṭī Nasīyājī and at other sites in town however shows a relatively distinct chronological separation of memorials of both lineages, and allows insights concerning the history of both Vāgaḍāśākhās. The large majority of Brhatśākhā niṣedhikās at the Chotī Nasīyājī belong to the 16th century CE. Two ̥ only date to the second half of 17th century CE, and one to the early 18th century CE. Memorial stones of the Laghuśākhā at the site on the other hand are more numerous from the 17th century CE, with four specimens, versus only two from the second half of 16th cent. CE. There is furthermore a gap of a full century in the corpus of Brhatśākhā memorials in Sāgavāṛā, separating ̥ the 16th century CE memorials, which were all erected in the relatively short time span of half a century (s. 157[5?]-1620/30s, 5.4.), from a smaller number of memorials from the second half of the 17th century CE and the early 18th century CE. (5.5.2.) It is notably during this period, in the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE, that Laghuśākhā memorials appear at the Choṭī Nasīyājī in meaningful numbers. The appearance of Laghuśākhā renouncers’ memorials in Sāgavāṛā from the 17th century CE onwards furthermore falls in line with their disappearance from the Naugāmā nasīyā, where the last added memorial dates to the 1630s CE. The change from a predominance of Brhatśākhā to Laghuśākhā memorials in 17th century CE ̥ Sāgavāṛā seems to indicate a shift in the presence of the saṅghas of both lineages, and presumably also of their authority over the town. These observations from the memorial corpus 301 corresponds well with a textual source reporting tension between the two Vāgaḍāśākhās in Sāgavāṛā in the early 17th century CE. A ‘historical letter’ (‘etihāsika patra’) from s. 1805 partly reproduced by Joharāpurakara (1958) mentions a controversy surrounding the (maṇḍal)ācārya consecration of the Laghuśākhā incumbent and later bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra in Sāgavāṛā in s. 1670. (5.1.5.) The letter records that Ratnacandra’s consecration in the town’s Junā Mandira (‘deharā junā madhye’) was opposed by renouncers and laypeople (‘jatī tathā śrāvaka’) of the ‘baḍe sājane’, who claimed it as the seat of their own ācārya(s) and not the others’ country.355 The party opposing the consecration of a new Laghuśākhā incumbent in Sāgavāṛā was undoubtedly the Brhatśākhā ̥ and the lay faction supporting it.356 The controversy surrounding Ratnacandra’s paṭṭābhiṣeka in the early 17th century CE was apparently of suﬃcient importance for it to still be remembered and mentioned by Laghuśākhā lay supporters in Sāgavāṛā close to a century and a half later. The appearance of a pādukā of the Brhatśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Rāmakīrti (I) at the Vidyānandi ̥ Kṣetra necropolis in Sūrata, in coastal Gujarat, dated to s. 1703, close in time to Ratnacandra’s consecration and the dissent between the two Vāgaḍāśākhās in Sāgavāṛā, may indicate that the Brhatśākhā had turned to the Lāṭa region around this time. (5.6.3.) ̥ It is noteworthy that Ratnacandra’s predecessor Maṇḍalācārya Sakalacandra died in Sāgavāṛā in s. 1670 (Ibid.: 162, lekha 409). This might be an indication of his close connection to the town already. Ratnacandra on the other hand reportedly died in Naugāmā in s. 1707, almost a decade after apparently abdicating and consecrating his successor Harṣacandra in yet another nearby town in s. 1699. (5.1.5.) Although Harṣacandra in turn is commemorated at the Choṭī Nasīyājī, with a memorial dated to s. 1726 (#5.15), perhaps the Laghuśākhā had not yet fully shifted to Sāgavāṛā in the 17th to 17th century CE, as it certainly came to do by the 18th century CE. (5.1.5.) The late 17th to early 18th century CE Brhatśākhā memorials in Sāgavāṛā instead seem to testify of a short-lived Brhatśākhā ̥ ̥ revival in town. As mentioned, the erection of a Brhatśākhā kīrtistambha at Choṭī Nasīyājī by ̥ Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II) in s. 1769 may have been an attempt to reestablish his lineage’s authority in Sāgavāṛā. Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti, Vijayakīrti (II)’s predecessor to the second degree, is also attested as spending his cāturmāsa rainy season retreat in Sāgavāṛā in s. 1736 and s. 1737, and ācāryas found commemorated at the Chotī Nasīyājī again in s. 1744 and s. 1754. (5.6.2.) Brhatśākhā ̥ in s. 1725 (Ācārya Kalyāṇakīrti, #5.21) and s. 1749 (unidentiﬁed ācārya, #5.23) may in fact well have operated as the local Brhatśākhā representatives in town while the lineage’s bhaṭṭārakas were ̥ active elsewhere.357 Despite the Brhatśākhā’s resistance to the growing Laghuśākhā inﬂuence in Sāgavāṛā in the early ̥ 17th century CE, and its seeming eﬀorts to re-establish its authority over the town in the late 17th ‘tyāra puṭhe saṃ. 1670 vaiśākha sudi 5 divase śrīsāgavāḍe samasta saṃgha malīne pāṭa ācāryanu āpatā hatā deharā junā madhye teṇe same baḍe sājane jatī tathā śrāvake rājavaṭa karī je have ācāryano pāṭa āpavā deśuṃ nahī […]’ (Joharāpurakara 1958: 163, lekha 414, cf. p. 167) 355 Joharāpurakara (1958: 167) paraphrases the term ‘baḍe sājane’ as ‘the other branch’ (‘anya śākhā’). In an earlier section, the s. 1805 letter refers to Maṇḍalācārya Sakalacandra being installed on the seat by the ‘laghu sājanāmo-saṅgha’ (Ibid.: 162, lekha 409). 356 A Laghuśākhā ācārya was also commemorated at the Chotī Nasīyājī around the same time (Jagatkīrti, s. 1739, #5.22). An unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā with a barely legible inscription might commemorate yet another 17th century CE ācārya of unknown aﬃliation (#5.32, 5.4.1.). 357 302 and early 18th century CE, its former daughter lineage apparently did develop its presence in Sāgavāṛā, and remained in town until its demise. This is evident from the memorials of several 18th and 19th century CE Laghuśākhā bhaṭṭārakas found at other sites in town. (5.5.2.) Some evidence is also found of Laghuśākhā activity in Lāṭā around the turn of the 18th century CE. (5.5.1.) Yet the Brhatśākhā was far more engaged in developing activities in other regions. This is obvious from the ̥ absence of further Brhatśākhā memorials in Sāgavāṛā, and from the discovery of several in ̥ western Vāgaḍā, Mevāṛa, and Lāṭa. (5.6.) 5.1.5. The Laghuśākhā (late 15th to mid-19th century CE) Valuable information on 15th to mid-18th century CE Laghuśākhā bhaṭṭārakas is available from the aforementioned letter from s. 1805, discussed in more detail further below in this section.358 The document is a unique source for their dates and places of consecration (paṭṭābhiṣeka) and death, and other information. The letter was written by laymen shortly after the Laghuśākhā seat had fallen empty after the demise of Bhaṭṭāraka Devacandra, and would probably have been dispatched in multiple copies to local Digambara communities in the broader region. The available sections of the letter discuss the successive Laghuśākhā bhaṭṭārakas from the second incumbent Ratnakīrti up to Devacandra: Ratnakīrti > Yaśakīrti > Guṇacandra > Jinacandra > Sakalacandra > Ratnacandra > Harṣacandra > Śubhacandra > Amaracandra > Ratnacandra > Devacandra. Bhaṭṭāraka Devacandra was also the last Laghuśākhā incumbent known to Joharāpurakara (1958), solely from this source. Yet, the call to quickly get the seat occupied again with which the authors concluded their letter (Ibid.: 165, lekha 424) ultimately does seem to have been fulﬁlled. With additional information, we can now reconstruct the continued Laghuśākhā as follows: (Devacandra >) Dharmacandra > Mahīcandra > Nemicandra > Ratnacandra > Guṇacandra > Hemacandra. Unfortunately not indicating any source, Dośī et. al. (2000: 263-4) gave the names, dates, and again much information of interest of ﬁve further, mid-18th to mid-19th century CE Laghuśākhā bhaṭṭārakas succeeding Devacandra: Dharmacandra (p. s. 1811-1856), Mahīcandra (p. s. 1856-56), Nemicandra (Nemīcandra, p. s. 1858-73), Guṇacandra (p. s. 1877-84), and Hemacandra (p. s. 1884-1890). A few independent sources attest yet another incumbent Ratnacandra in between Nemicandra and Guṇacandra. The unpublished inscription of a pādukā of the jina Neminātha I found at the Jūnā Mandira in Pratāpagaṛha, consecrated in s. 1895 by Bhaṭṭāraka Hemacandra, attests Ratnacandra as a successor to Bhaṭṭāraka Nemicandra (‘nīmacaṃdra’) and predecessor to Guṇacandra. A s. 1905 double pādukā at the Pagelejī Nasīyā in Sāgavāṛā commemorating Guṇacandra and Hemacandra also records Ratnacandra as the predecessor to Guṇacandra (#5.41). And Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra is also found attested in a manuscript colophon, although Kāsalīvāla’s (1950: 205) edition of it as dated to s. 1856 probably contains an error.359 Joharāpurakara (1958: 159-65, lekhas 399, 402, 405, 409, 414, 417, 420, 423, 424; p. 166-7). Joharāpurakara edited the latter in part. According to his reference, the text was already published in the journal Jaina Siddhānta Bhāskara 13, p. 113. I have not been able to consult this edition. 358 The manuscript was copied in Maitavāla (probably Metwala, some 20 km east north-east of Sāgavāṛā, Map 5.2) by Brahma Premacanda, who records himself as a pupil of Dharmacandra’s successor Mahīcandra, but the manuscript was ordered (‘likhāpitaṃ’) by Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra. 359 303 According to Dośī et. al. (2000: 264), Nemicandra died in s. 1873 and Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra was consecrated in s. 1877, so Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra would have been on the seat for at least a part of the period between s. 1873 to s. 1877. The brevity of his incumbency may have been the reason for the exclusion of Ratnacandra in some accounts, or he may have been contested by later tradition. Dośī et. al. (2000: 264) also add a further unexplained entry ‘Rājendra Bhūṣaṇa’ to their list of later Laghuśākhā incumbents, after Hemacandra. This probably refers to the Cambalaśākhā (Aṭeraśākhā) incumbent attested in s. 1920 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 131, lekha 328, 2.2.3.10.), whom we indeed ﬁnd attested to have been active in the region. The unpublished inscription of a metal siddha icon I found at the Jūnā Mandira in Sāgavāṛā records that it was consecrated by the Mūlasaṅgha Bhaṭṭāraka Rājendrabhūṣaṇa of the Sāgalapura-paṭṭa (?) in s. 1934. The inscription does not record the names of Rājendrabhūṣaṇa’s predecessors, but we can take it he is the attested Cambalaśākhā incumbent, included by Dośī et. al. (2000: 264) in their reconstruction of the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā because of his activities in the region. Complicating the picture however, and conﬁrming that Rājendrabhūṣaṇa did play a substantial role in the Vāgaḍā region, a considerable bronze jina icon with a conspicuous bald head at the Jūnā Mandira in Pratāpagaṛha consecrated by the Brhatśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Kanakakīrti in probably s. 1951 also records Kanakakīrti ̥ as the successor of Bhaṭṭāraka Rājendrabhūṣaṇa (unpublished inscription). Map 5.2. Towns with recorded Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā activity in the core Vāgaḍā region (indicated it green). 304 Many of the later Laghuśākhā incumbents are also found commemorated at various mandiras in Sāgavāṛā. (5.5.2.) A set of niṣedhikā and pādukā stones of Devacandra preserved in the Junā Mandira in s. 1822 were consecrated by his successor Dharmacandra. And an undatable and unidentiﬁed caraṇa-chatrī behind the Nayā Mandira (aka Gāndhī Mandira) could have been a memorial of Dharmacandra himself. A double pādukā consecrated by Guṇacandra in s. 1822 preserved at the Junā Mandira commemorates Mahīcandra and possibly Nemicandra. And a caraṇa-chatrī housing the s. 1905 double pādukā of Guṇacandra and Hemacandra, with an inscription also attesting Ratnacandra, is found at the Pagelejī Nasīyā. It was consecrated along with two other pādukās by one Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti, probably a Balātkāragaṇa Lāṭaśākhā incumbent. This considerable amount of memorials of later incumbents in Sāgavāṛā indicates that the Laghuśākhā seat got established there in the mid-18th century CE and probably remained there up to its discontinuation in the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE after Bhaṭṭāraka Hemacandra. After the demise of their own local bhaṭṭāraka lineage, the lay community of Sāgavāṛā and perhaps the broader Vāgaḍā region seem to have called on Balātkāragaṇa bhaṭṭārakas from both Sūrata (the Lāṭaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti) and Gvāliyara (the Cambalaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Rājendrabhūṣaṇa) to serve as pratiṣṭhācāryas and probably also in fulﬁlment of other ritual and social needs. Map 5.3. Towns with recorded Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā activity beyond the core Vāgaḍā region (indicated in green). 305 In the remainder of this section, I ﬁrstly review the information on the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā incumbents in chronological order as available through from the s. 1805 letter and Dośī et. al. (2000: 263-4). In the ﬁnal part, I collate the information on speciﬁcally the places of consecration and death provided in these sources with the discovered memorial stones. The available sources show that the Laghuśākhā was active in various towns both in the close vicinity of Sāgavāṛā (Map 5.2) and further oﬀ, including some places across the contemporary state borders in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh (Map 5.3). The s. 1805 letter ﬁrstly locates Ratnakīrti’s dīkṣā and bhaṭṭāraka consecration at Naugāmā in s. 1535 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 159, lekha 399). As we saw, Ratnakīrti was actually an ācārya (5.1.3.), and s. 1535 is the narrated year of the Vāgaḍāśākhā bifurcation (5.1.2.). While this seems to indicate that the narrative of the bifurcation was in place by the mid-18th century CE, the letter is aware of the actual development of the early Laghuśākhā in recording a number of further incumbents as ācāryas, including the maṇḍalācāryas. The paṭṭābhiṣeka of Ācārya Yaśakīrti is recorded to have taken place at Naugāmā, and his death in s. 1613 in Bhīloḍā360 (Ibid.: 160, lekha 402). The text then contains an interesting account of how 63 individuals (apparently all renouncers) including one Anantakīrti were instructed by their guru (prob. Yaśakīrti) to go south on vihāra, one of them coming to be an incumbent (‘pāṭadhara’) in the southern country and upholding a tradition (seat, ‘pāṭa’) of pure nudity until the time of the letter’s composition (Ibid.: 160, lekha 402; Ibid: 166).361 The next incumbent Ācārya Guṇacandra is recorded as having been consecrated at Sāvalā village (?) by the whole saṅgha (no date given), and as having died in Sāgavāṛā in s. 1653 (Ibid.: 161, lekha 405). The document apparently has no information on the next incumbent, Jinacandra. The two diﬀerent years uncommonly inscribed on his niṣedhikā in Naugāmā, s. 1654 and s. 1658, might indicate that he was on the seat only for those few years. (5.3.2.) His successor Ācārya Sakalacandra is said to have been consecrated to the seat by the ‘laghu sājanāmo saṅgha’ congregation in Naugāmā (see 5.1.4.), but died in Sāgavāṛā in s. 1670 (Ibid.: 162, lekha 409). Still according to the s. 1805 letter, Ratnacandra was consecrated in Sāgavāṛā in s. 1670 (Ibid.: 163, lekha 414). We should probably understand this as referring to an event where Ratnacandra was installed as a maṇḍalācārya, since epigraphic sources indicated that he became a bhaṭṭāraka only between s. 1673 and s. 1691. (5.1.3.) Conﬁrming the latter ﬁnding, the letter explicitly refers to Ratnacandra as a bhaṭṭāraka in recording his abdication in s. 1699 and his death in Naugāmā in s. 1707. Almost a decade before his death, Ratnacandra had consecrated his successor Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣacandra in ‘Paratāpora’362 (Ibid.). Harṣacandra’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra was consecrated in s. 1723 in Ghāṇṭola,363 and died in s. 1749 (Āśvina krṣṇa 13, 8th October 1692 CE) in ̥ Bhiloḍā = prob. Bhiloḍā, Bhiloda (Gujarat), ca. 100 km west of Sāgavāṛā (Map 5.3), rather than Bhīlūḍā, Bhiluda, ca. 7 km south-east of Sāgavāṛā. (Map 5.2) 360 361 It is not clear whether this section of the letter stems from its entry on Yaśakīrti, or on his predecessor Ratnakīrti. Joharāpurakara (1958: 166) discusses it as relating to the latter, but in the edition of the text it is included in the section of the former (Ibid.: 160, lekha 402). Prob. Paratāpura, Partapur, less than 20 km south-west of Sāgavāṛā, on the other side of the Mahī river. (Map 5.2) 362 363 Ghāṭola, Ghatol, some 30 km north of Bāṃsvāṛā. (Map 5.2) 306 Meluḍā (?) (Ibid.: 163, lekha 417). The letter’s entry (or its edition) on the next incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Amaracandra is somewhat ambiguous, but his consecration in s. 1748 (Māgha śukla 10, 28th January 1692 CE) is probably recorded to have taken place in Meluḍā at the hands of his predecessor Śubhacandra who as we just saw is recorded to have died in this place some eight months later (Ibid.: 164, lekha 420).364 According to a second sentence in the letter’s section on Amaracandra edited by Dośī et. al. (2000: 263) but not included in Joharāpurakara’s edition of the same, Amaracandra performed a pratiṣṭhā in Jhābuā365 in s. 1758 and died in Sāgavāṛā, possibly in the same year (ambiguous). On the next incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra, we only learn that he died in s. 1786 in Koṭā (Joharāpurakara 1958: 165, lekha 423). Again the next bhaṭṭāraka, Devacandra, is reported as having been consecrated in Bhāṇapura (Bhānapura) in s. 1787, and having died in s. 1805 in Jāṃbūcare (?) (Ibid.: 165, lekha 424). As mentioned, Bhaṭṭāraka Devacandra was the last Laghuśākhā incumbent known to Joharāpurakara (1958). The letter’s reference to his consecration in Bhānapura presumably provided his ground to refer to this lineage as the Bhānapuraśākhā. Drafted and dispatched shortly after Devacandra’s demise (in the same year at least), the letter as mentioned concluded with a wish of the representatives of the lay community for the seat to be occupied again. Although they were ultimately successful in their intents, the letter does not seem to have had an immediate eﬀect, as the seat seems to have remained empty for half a decade longer. This much is clear from the information collected by Dośī et. al. (2000: 263-4) on the further Laghuśākhā bhaṭṭārakas. Devacandra’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmacandra (p. s. 1811-56) was consecrated only in s. 1811, in Jhāḍola366. Dharmacandra performed many pratiṣṭhās at various places in seemingly a rather wide range, in s. 1813 in Galiyākoṭa, in s. 1822 in Udayapura, in s. 1829 in Susanera, in Garoṛha, Mālapura, and (probably in the same year) Sīṃgolī.367 Dharmacandra was murdered (‘by a greedy Rājapūta’) during his cāturmāsa in Jeṭhāṇā368 in s. 1856, on the bank of the Mahī river. A paṇḍita (‘Pa. Mīṭhājī’) then seems to have been put on the seat in Sāgavāṛā as Mahīcandra. He was consecrated in s. 1856, and performed a pratiṣṭhā in Udayagaṛha,369 but seems to have died (or been taken oﬀ the seat?) in the same year still. A short gap again seems to have fallen before the next incumbent was consecrated. Bhaṭṭāraka Nemicandra (p. s. 1858-73) It is not clear then why another, unconﬁrmed town Ghāṭayolā is named in the same phrase. A hamlet Ghaṭiyā, Ghatiya, ca. 45 km south of Sāgavāṛā, ca. 20 km south-west of Naugāmā? Or another Ghaṭiyā, Ghatiya, ca. 55 km south-east of Sāgavāṛā, ca. 20 km south of Naugāmā? 364 Jhābuā, Jhabua (Madhya Pradesh), ca. 100 km south-east of Naugāmā, ca. 150 km west of Indaura. (Map 5.3) 365 366 Jhāḍola, Jhadol, 120 km north-west of Sāgavāṛā and 40 km south-west of Udayapura. (Map 5.3) Galiyākoṭa = Galiakot, ca. 20 km south of Sāgavāṛā (Map 5.2); Susanera = Susner (Madhya Pradesh), ca. 250 east of Sāgavāṛā, ca. 100 km north-east of Ujjain (Map 5.3); Garoṛha = Garoṭha, Garoth, (Madhya Pradesh), ca. 220 km north-east of Sāgavāṛā, ca. 25 km south south-west of Bhānapura? (Map 5.3); Mālapura = Mālapurā, Malpura, some 80 south-west of Jayapura?; Sīṃgolī, given the presence of Digambara mandiras there currently, perhaps Siṅgolī, Singoli (Madhya Pradesh), ca. 80 km east of Cittauḍagaṛha (Map 5.3), rather than Siṅgolī, ca. 50 km north-east of Cittauḍagaṛha. 367 Jethana, ca. 5 km south-east of Sāgavāṛā. The Mahī river actually runs another 5 km further east and south of Jeṭhāṇā. (Map 5.2) 368 369 Poss. Uḍiyā, Udaiya, ca. 15 km south of Sāgavāṛā, ca. 3.5 km north of Galiyākoṭa. (Map 5.2) 307 held a cāturmāsa in Garoṛha, led a pilgrimage from there to Sammedaśikharajī, and died in Jhālarāpāṭana. Still according to the information of Dośī et. al. (2000: 264), the seat again remained empty for four years until the consecration of Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra in s. 1877. Yet as we saw Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra, who was unknown to them, must have been incumbent during these years. Again according to Dośī et. al. (Ibid.), it seems to have been a brahmacārī (‘Ba. [Bra.?] Gulābacandra’) who was consecrated as Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra in s. 1877. Guṇacandra (p. s. 1877-84) performed pratiṣṭhās in Bhiloḍā and Paratāpura, spent a cāturmāsa in Sāgavāṛā in s. 1879, built a chatrī on the Luhoriyā lake there (in the same year?), and died in s. 1884 in Dhariyāvāda.370 No further information is provided for Bhaṭṭāraka Hemacandra apart from the dates of his incumbency, s. 1884 to s. 1890 (the latter corrected from s. 1990). According to the s. 1805 letter and the unreferenced information collated by Dośī et. al. (2000), the 15th to mid-18th century CE Laghuśākhā incumbents were consecrated and died in various localities in the Vāgaḍā region, in Sāgavāṛā, Naugāmā, and a number of other nearby towns. This probably does not mean they remained itinerant, nor even that the Laghuśākhā seat shifted so often. Its incumbents were no doubt active in serving the Digambara communities in these various places in the region, and it may have been solely the consecration festivals which were organised in these towns recorded, while the seat remained elsewhere. All the time from the inception of the Laghuśākhā in the later 15th century CE up to its demise in the mid-19th century CE, its seat may well have been located solely in ﬁrstly Naugāmā and then Sāgavāṛā. As we saw, Ratnakīrti is recorded to have been consecrated as an ācārya (probably maṇḍalācārya) in Naugāmā in s. 1535 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 159, lekha 399), and his successor Ācārya Yaśakīrti is also recorded to have been consecrated in Naugāmā (‘pāṭe … thāpyā’, Ibid.: 160, lekha 402). Ācārya Guṇacandra is reported to have been consecrated at the unidentiﬁed village of Sāvalā (Ibid.: 161, lekha 405). No information is known concerning the consecration of the next incumbent Ācārya Jinacandra, but his successor Ācārya Sakalacandra was again consecrated in Naugāmā (Ibid.: 162, lekha 409). Ratnacandra was installed as probably a maṇḍalācārya in Sāgavāṛā in s. 1670 (Ibid.: 163, lekha 414, 5.1.3.), and consecrated his own successor Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣacandra in a town only some 20 km away (Paratāpura, Ibid.). The next incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra was consecrated in a town some 30 km north of Banswara in s. 1723 (Ghāṇṭola, Ibid.: 163, lekha 417). Bhaṭṭāraka Amaracandra was probably consecrated in the unknown place Meluḍā in s. 1748, probably at the hands of his predecessor who is recorded to have died in this place shortly after. No information is recorded for Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra’s consecration (Ibid.: 165, lekha 423), but his successor Bhaṭṭāraka Devacandra is reported to have been consecrated in Bhāṇapura (probably Bhānapura, Bhanpura, Madhya Pradesh, 250 north-east of Sāgavāṛā) in s. 1787 (Ibid.: 165, lekha 424). Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmacandra (p. s. 1811-56) was consecrated in Jhāḍola, 120 km north of Sāgavāṛā, in s. 1811, and his successor Mahīcandra is reported to have been consecrated in Sāgavāṛā itself (Dośī et. al. 2000: 263-4). No information is available on the place of consecration of the last incumbents, Bhiloḍā = probably Bhiloḍā, Bhiloda (Gujarat), ca. km 100 west of Sāgavāṛā (Map 5.3), rather than Bhīlūḍā, Bhiluda, ca. 8 km south-east of Sāgavāṛā (Map 5.2); Paratāpura = Partapur, ca. 20 km south-west of Sāgavāṛā (Map 5.2); Dhariyāvāda = Dhariyawad, ca. 40 km west of Pratāpagaṛha, ca. 70 km north-east of Sāgavāṛā (Map 5.3). See 5.5.2. on a site with Laghuśākhā chatrīs on the bank of the Luhoriyā lake in Sāgavāṛā. 370 308 Nemicandra (p. s. 1858-73), Ratnacandra, Guṇacandra (p. s. 1877-84), and Hemacandra (p. s. 1884-90). As announced, I conclude this section by bringing the information on the Laghuśākhā incumbents’ places of death as recorded in the s. 1805 letter and as reported by Dośī et. al. (2000: 263-4) in dialogue with the discovered memorials. The various places of death recorded for the Laghuśākhā incumbents explain why memorials of some of them have not been found at the necropoles in Sāgavāṛā or Naugāmā, although some others came to be commemorated there despite being reported to have died elsewhere. As we saw, the letter locates important moments in the ascetic career of Ācārya Ratnakīrti in Naugāmā (Joharāpurakara 1958: 159, lekha 399). This matches the location of his memorial there. (#5.2; 5.3.2.) The letter records Ācārya Yaśakīrti’s death in s. 1613 in Bhīlūḍā (Ibid.: 160, lekha 402), a town 8 km south-east of Sāgavāṛā and some 30 km north-west of Naugāmā, but his niṣedhikā is nevertheless found in Naugāmā, probably dated to s. 1618 (#5.3; 5.3.2.). The letter’s record of Ācārya [Maṇḍalācārya] Guṇacandra’s death in Sāgavāṛā in s. 1653 (Ibid.: 161, lekha 405) matches his s. 1655 niṣedhikā retrieved at the Choṭī Nasīyājī there. (#5.18; 5.4.2.) The s. 1805 letter has no information on Ācārya [Maṇḍalācārya] Jinacandra, but his niṣedhikā is found in Naugāmā, dated s. 1658 (#5.4, 5.3.2.). The letter records Ācārya [Maṇḍalācārya] Sakalacandra’s death in Sāgavāṛā in s. 1670 (Ibid.: 162, lekha 409), which again matches his s. 1673 niṣedhikā at the Choṭī Nasīyājī (#5.19; 5.4.2.). The s. 1805 letter records Ratnacandra’s death in Naugāmā in s. 1707 (Ibid.: 163, lekha 414), but no memorial of his has been discovered. Being of paramount importance for the Laghuśākhā as the ﬁrst incumbent to claim the bhaṭṭāraka rank (5.1.3.), Ratnacandra would normally have received a proper memorial. It should therefore probably be considered lost, or located elsewhere but thus far undiscovered. The letter gives no information on the place of death of his successor Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣacandra (Ibid.), but his niṣedhikā is retrieved in Sāgavāṛā dated s. 1726 (#5.15; 5.4.2.). No memorials have been found of the lineage’s next three bhaṭṭārakas. This ﬁts the s. 1805 letter’s record of the death of Harṣacandra’s successor Śubhacandra in s. 1749 in the unknown place Meluḍā (Ibid.: 163, lekha 417). The next incumbent Amaracandra is recorded to have died in Sāgavāṛā (Dośī et. al. 2000: 263), but no memorial of his has been discovered there. His successor Ratnacandra is reported to have died in Koṭā in s. 1786 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 165, lekha 423), a town where I have not visited Digambara sites, and no memorial of his has been found. As the s. 1805 letter was written following the death of the next incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Devacandra in that year, it can probably be trusted in recording his death in the unknown place Jāṃbūcare (Ibid.: 165, lekha 424). Still, a memorial of Devacandra has been retrieved in the Jūnā Mandira in Sāgavāṛā, a set of niṣedhikā and pādukā dated to s. 1822 featuring inscriptions indicating they were originally installed in a chatrī. (#5.37-38; 5.5.2.) Devacandra’s successor Dharmacandra was murdered in s. 1856 during his cāturmāsa in Jeṭhāṇā, a handful of kilometres south-east of Sāgavāṛā (Dośī et. al. 2000: 264). An unidentiﬁed memorial in Sāgavāṛā could be his memorial. (#5.36; 5.5.2.) No information is available on the place of death of the short-term incumbent Mahīcandra, but his successor Nemicandra (p. s. 1858-73) is reported to have died in Jhālarāpāṭana (Ibid.) Yet, as we saw, a double pādukā dated s. 1881 preserved in the Sāgavāṛā Jūnā Mandira again indicating it originally belonged in a chatrī commemorates 309 Mahīcandra and probably Nemicandra. (#5.39) No memorial nor information about the place of death of the again short-term incumbent Ratnacandra has been found. Guṇacandra (p. s. 1877-84) died in s. 1884 in Dhariyāvāda, 70 km north-east of Sāgavāṛā. I have not visited this town, but Guṇacandra is commemorated in Sāgavāṛā along with his successor, the last Laghuśākhā incumbent Hemacandra (p. s. 1884-90). (#5.41; 5.5.2.) I have no further information on the latter’s place of death. 5.1.6. The later Brhatśākhā (17th - early 20th century CE) ̥ As always, the study of further manuscript and epigraphic sources (particularly mūrtilekhas) would add much to our knowledge of the history and spread of the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā. In anticipation of ̥ that, the picture as I can present it here on the basis of its memorials and augmented by other sources already suﬃces to develop a relatively clear picture of the Brhatśākhā’s geographic ̥ expansion from the 17th century CE onwards. The lineage developed activities in the Lāṭa region of Gujarat further south seemingly already in the mid-17th century CE and certainly by the last quarter of the 17th century CE, northwards in Mevāṛa by the second half of the 17th century CE, and in Īḍara, further westwards within the Vāgaḍā region, in the late 18th to the early 20th century CE. (5.6.) I have found Brhatśākhā memorials in Udayapura (Mevāṛa) from the early 18th century CE and probably ̥ the later 17th century CE (5.6.2.), in Sūrata (Lāṭa) from the mid 17th century CE and particularly the second half of the 18th century CE and the ﬁrst quarter of the 19th century CE (5.6.3.), in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī from the early 19th century CE (5.6.4.), in Īḍara from the turn of and the ﬁrst quarter of the 19th century CE (5.6.5.), and in Surapura, near Ḍūṅgarapura, from the late 19th century memorials retrieved elsewhere falls in line with CE (5.6.6.). The substantial number of Brhatśākhā ̥ their declining numbers and ultimately disappearance in Sāgavāṛā. (5.6.1.) As we saw, the Laghuśākhā, which hitherto had developed in Naugāmā, became active in had already begun to Sāgavāṛā in the course of the 17th century CE. (5.1.4.) While the Brhatśākhā ̥ explore new horizons around this time, it also continued at least some activities in Sāgavāṛā until at least the mid-18th century CE. This is evident from the later Brhatśākhā memorials at the Choṭī ̥ Nasīyājī. At least two Brhatśākhā ācāryas were commemorated in the communal chatrī at the ̥ Choṭī Nasīyā in the second half of the 17th century CE (s. 1725, #5.21; s. 1749, #5.23, 5.4.3.), an unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā possibly commemorating yet another 17th century CE Brhatśākhā ācārya ̥ representatives in town while the (#5.32, 5.4.1.). They may well have been the local Brhatśākhā ̥ lineage’s bhaṭṭārakas were active elsewhere. The considerable numbers of pupils of theirs attested in the inscriptions of their niṣedhikās, although by now mostly brahmacārīs and paṇḍitas (also one late muni), also conﬁrm the presence of some Brhatśākhā group in Sāgavāṛā at the time. ̥ (5.2.4.; 5.4.3.) And as discussed, with its secondary function as a kīrtistambha, Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti’s 1769 niṣedhikā in a separate chatrī on the Choṭī Nasīyājī looks like an attempt of the Brhatśākhā to re-establish its authority over Sāgavāṛā, vis-à-vis the Laghuśākhā, the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha, ̥ or both. (5.4.5.) A chatrī behind the Nayā Mandira (aka Gāndhī Mandira) in the centre of town also has an unidentiﬁed memorial (combined pādukā and niṣedhikā) installed by Bhaṭṭāraka 310 Nemicandra in s. 1802, again attesting continued Brhatśākhā presence in Sāgavāṛā in the mid-18th ̥ century CE. (5.6.1.) There is a gap in the corpus of Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā memorials discovered in the late 16th and ﬁrst ̥ half of the 17th century CE. Mid-17th to early 18th century CE Brhatśākhā memorials retrieved in the ̥ Mevāṛa and Lāṭā regions however show that the lineage had by then started its shift away from Sāgavāṛā. A pādukā of the Brhatśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Rāmakīrti (I) from the mid-17th century CE (s. ̥ 1703) is found at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra, the large necropolis in Sūrata. (3.4.3., 5.6.3.) This Brhatśākhā ̥ attestation in Sūrata sits close to the (maṇḍal)ācārya consecration of the Laghuśākhā incumbent Ratnacandra in Sāgavāṛā in s. 1670 and his subsequent promotion to the bhaṭṭāraka rank in the had turned to decades after. (5.1.3.) It seems enticing therefore to conjecture that the Brhatśākhā ̥ the Lāṭa region around this time, and that the Laghuśākhā ﬁlled the vacuum in Sāgavāṛā or the Vāgaḍā region more broadly, using the absence of its former parent lineage to claim independence as a full bhaṭṭāraka lineage. Early 18th century CE (s. 1759, 1769) Brhatśākhā memorials in Udayapura indicate that the lineage ̥ may well have had its seat in Udayapura in this period. Complete information on the locations of the rainy season retreats (cāturmāsa) of Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti in the last quarter of the 17th century CE, a rare ﬁnd, also shows a close connection to Udayapura, and to various other towns in Gujarat (especially Ahamadābāda and Sūrata) and Rajasthan and elsewhere in Western and Central India. Speciﬁc information in the inscriptions of the early 18th century CE memorials retrieved at sites outside of Udayapura also indicates that at this time the Brhatśākhā saṅgha was probably based ̥ here. (5.4.5., 5.6.2.) Further Brhatśākhā memorials at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra indicate substantial activity in Sūrata in the ̥ second half of the 18th century CE and the ﬁrst quarter of the 19th century CE, a century and a half after the ﬁrst attestation of the lineage at the site. Three unidentiﬁed Brhatśākhā pādukās from the ̥ site are reported as dating to s. 1825, and three further pādukās as commemorating consecutive Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭārakas. Yaśakīrti consecrated pādukās of his predecessors Candrakīrti and ̥ Rāmakīrti (II) in s. 1863, and his own pādukā at the site is dated to s. 1887. (5.6.3.) These latter constitute considerable indications of Brhatśākhā activity in Sūrata in the early 19th century CE, and ̥ could be read as an attempt to establish the lineage in town. Yet a few years after the Sūrata pādukā, in s. 186(6?), Yaśakīrti also erected a more considerable memorial of Candrakīrti in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī. The latter seems more likely to indicate his actual place of demise, although it probably indicates Candrakīrti’s activity in this pilgrimage place rather than necessarily also the location of the lineage’s seat under him. (5.6.4.) Brahmacārī Śītalaprasāda (1919: 32) reports that he had heard of a link between the Balātkāragaṇa gādīs in Sūrata (Lāṭaśākhā) and Īḍara (Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā), presumably around the time of his writing. Such connections probably also ̥ existed between the various Balātkāragaṇa seats in prior centuries, and are easily conceivable given the activities of the Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭārakas in Sūrata and elsewhere both in Lāṭa and Central ̥ Gujarat (5.6.2.). 311 Brhatśākhā memorials appear in Īḍara around the turn of the 19th century CE, probably marking the ̥ establishment, ﬁnally, of the ‘Īḍaraśākhā’ in this town, still under Yaśakīrti. Yaśakīrti was particularly active in consecrations in Īḍara in the very late 18th century CE and, uniquely, seems to have consecrated his own memorial here in s. 1887. A s. 1855 multi-pādukā slab consecrated by Yaśakīrti in one of the town’s mandiras commemorates and attests a pupillary succession of a Brhatśākhā ̥ incumbent from a century before, an ācārya, three brahmacārīs, and two paṇḍitas. They may have been consecutive, local caretakers at the mandira or in Īḍara more broadly up to the settling of Yaśakīrti and by extension the Brhatśākhā in town. Their respective, consecutive ranks also ̥ illustrate the fates of the various Digambara ranks, to wit the disappearance of ﬁrstly ācāryas and later even brahmacārīs, and the rise of paṇḍitas in the 19th century CE. (5.6.5.) Yaśakīrti was succeeded on the Brhatśākhā seat by Surendrakīrti, Rāmacandrakīrti, Kanakakīrti, and ̥ Vijayakīrti (III) (Śītalaprasāda 1919: 33; Joharāpurakara 1958: 157, n. 66). And the Brhatśākhā seat ̥ seems to have remained in Īḍara until its demise in the early 20th century CE. Yet only one further Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭāraka memorial has been retrieved, that too elsewhere. A location of the caraṇḁ chatrī of Bhaṭṭāraka Rāmacandrakīrti at a necropolis near Ḍūṅgarapura should probably be taken as indicating that Rāmacandrakīrti died here on a visit, rather than that he was seated in this town. incumbent. Yet another Many accounts cite his successor Kanakakīrti as the last Brhatśākhā ̥ bhaṭṭāraka seems to have been consecrated and put on the Brhatśākhā seat for a short period. ̥ The Vijayakīrti (III) attested by Joharāpurakara (1958: 157, n. 66) and Śītalaprasāda (1919: 33) is no doubt the candidate for the Īḍara bhaṭṭāraka seat whom Nāthurāma Premī (n.d.), writing in the early 20th century CE, after the death of Kanakakīrti, and as part of his anti-bhaṭṭāraka propaganda, decried as incompetent, calling for local laypeople not to go ahead with their plan to install him. Vijayakīrti (III) nevertheless seems to have been placed on the seat a few years after the death of Kanakakīrti, but ultimately removed for incompetency. In a list of Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭārakas painted ̥ on a wall at the Pārśvanātha Mandira in Īḍara (which contains several mistakes in successions and dates), Kanakakīrti is recorded as the last incumbent (from 1883 to 1899 CE), indicating that the Vijayakīrti (III) episode was deemed best forgotten altogether. 5.2. Vāgaḍāśākhā memorials: overview 5.2.1. Sites As is clear from the foregoing discussion, a good number of memorials of renouncers of both Vāgaḍāśākhās has been found at sites in Rajasthan and Gujarat. (Map 5.4) Vāgaḍāśākhās necropoles in Naugāmā and Sāgavāṛā are the most diverse early modern Digambara memorial sites discovered to date in terms of the ranks of the renouncers commemorated. At both sites, a single, square chatrī functions as a communal memorial structure in which niṣedhikās were added over a certain period of time. Thirteen niṣedhikās in Naugāmā date from the second half of the 15th to the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE, and 17 niṣedhikās in Sāgavāṛā range from the ﬁrst half of the 16th to the early 18th century CE. Square, multi-storeyed chatrīs are only found in Vāgaḍā and neighbouring areas (3.1.1., Figs. 3.11 L., 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 5.10 L.) Similar practices of continued, cumulative 312 commemoration within a single structure are also not attested elsewhere. Separate chatrīs were mostly erected for a single memorial stone, commemorating a single individual or, as also found with some frequency, several individuals. Occasionally we ﬁnd later memorial stones added to the original memorial stones of prior chatrīs. The planned, gradual addition of memorial stones to a structure designed large enough for this is however unique to the necropoles of Naugāmā and Sāgavāṛā. Verandas on two sides were also added to the structure in Sāgavāṛā to add further niṣedhikās after the original, square chatrī had ﬁlled up. Map 5.4. Towns with ﬁnding spots of Vāgaḍāśākhā memorials (indicated in green). 313 Chart 5.2. Vāgaḍāśākhā successions (Brhatśākhā left, Laghuśākhā right) with all discovered ̥ Vāgaḍāśākhā memorials. (purple = kīrtistambha) 314 Further Brhatśākhā and Laghuśākhā bhaṭṭāraka memorials are found at other sites in Sāgavāṛā. Of ̥ two chatrīs behind the Nayā Mandira, one memorial commemorating an unidentiﬁed Brhatśākhā ̥ renouncer belongs to the mid-18th century CE, and one seemingly Laghuśākhā memorial is unidentiﬁed and undatable. (5.5.2., 5.6.1.) One earlier Brhatśākhā pillar, seemingly a kīrtistambha, is ̥ found in the Jūnā Mandira, dating to the mid-16th century CE. (5.4.2.) The inscriptions of two Laghuśākhā memorials also preserved in this mandira indicate they were formerly installed in chatrīs. A combination of separate niṣedhikā and pādukā stones dates to the second half of the 18th century CE, and a double pādukā to the early 19th century CE. (5.5.2.) The last Laghuśākhā memorials discovered are two mid-19th century CE pādukās installed in chatrīs at the Pagelejī Mandira, a site on the bank of a lake at a stone’s throw from the Jūnā Mandira. (5.5.2.) An unidentiﬁed Laghuśākhā pādukā from the turn of the 18th century CE is preserved in a mandira in Aṅkleśvara (Gujarat). (5.5.1.) A few unidentiﬁed memorials are found in Bhānapura. (5.5.3.) At two sites near Udayapura and Āyaṛa, Brhatśākhā memorials are found from the second half of ̥ the 17th and early 18th century CE, including two sets of combined niṣedhikā and pādukā. (5.6.2.) Seven pādukās have been identiﬁed commemorating individuals related to the Brhatśākhā at the ̥ Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata, one from the mid-17th century CE, three from a single year in the second half of the 18th century CE, and three from the early 19th century CE. (5.6.3.) A chatrī with a unique memorial at the R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī from the early 19th century CE commemorates a Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭāraka. A repurposed chatrī next to it now featuring a pādukā of a 20th century CE ̥ Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha bhaṭṭāraka may also have been a Vāgaḍāśākhā memorial originally. (5.6.4.) Interesting memorials are found in two mandiras in Īḍara, the ultimate home base of the Brhatśākhā or ‘Īḍaraśākhā’. A single pādukā slab in the Pārśvanātha Mandira from the very end of ̥ the 19th century CE commemorated ﬁve individuals of various ranks (one bhaṭṭāraka, one ācārya, three brahmacārīs) who may have been in charge at the town before the Brhatśākhā was ̥ established here. A chatrī from two decades later annexed to the Saṃbhavanātha Mandira is unique in that its inscriptions indicate that the memorials stones were consecrated by the commemorated bhaṭṭāraka himself. (5.6.5.) A caraṇa-chatrī of the penultimate Brhatśākhā ̥ bhaṭṭāraka was erected in Surapura near Ḍūṅgarapura in the late 19th century CE. (5.6.6.) 5.2.2. Commemorated individuals Among a total of 59 individual Vāgaḍāśākhā memorials (excluding two kīrtistambhas but including one further kīrtistambha doubling as an individual bhaṭṭāraka's memorial), ten were solely reported in earlier scholarship, the others documented by me. These memorials commemorate 55 identiﬁed individuals, including at least 14, most probably 15, and possibly up to 17 bhaṭṭārakas (including four or perhaps ﬁve commemorated by two diﬀerent memorials, see below), three maṇḍalācāryas, three incumbent ācāryas, eight or probably nine non-incumbent ācāryas, four munis, possibly up to eleven brahmacārīs, and probably one paṇḍita. Eight memorial stones remain entirely unidentiﬁed. (Chart 5.2, Table 5.1) 315 Memorial stones of nine out of the twenty Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭārakas and probably twelve out of 18 ̥ Laghuśākhā incumbents (ācārya, maṇḍalācārya, bhaṭṭāraka) have been discovered or reported. Among the latter are the memorials of the ﬁrst six incumbents of the Laghuśākhā, three ācāryas and three maṇḍalācāryas. Memorials have also been found of 21 to 25 lower-ranking renouncers of both Vāgaḍāśākhās, at least eight or probably nine common ācāryas (s. 1579-1855), four munis (s. 1564-1627), and up to eleven brahmacārīs (s. 157[5?]-1855). A single memorial in the Vāgaḍāśākhā corpus probably commemorates a paṇḍita, related to the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā. (Chart 5.2) Two undated niṣedhikās of Laghuśākhā incumbents in Naugāmā which probably belong to the last quarter of the 15th century CE are the oldest identiﬁed Vāgaḍāśākhā memorials found. The oldest discovered Brhatśākhā memorials date to the ﬁrst quarter of the 16th century CE. A pādukā ̥ possibly commemorating the Vāgaḍāśākhā founder Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti at the large necropolis in Sūrata is dated to more than three centuries later (5.6.3.), but an original niṣedhikā of his is reported from Maheṣāṇā (Gujarat, 5.1.1.). No other memorials of the undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā have been discovered. Nine pre-20th century CE memorial stones with inscriptions linking them to the Vāgaḍāśākhās or found on the Vāgaḍāśākhā necropoles and taken to relate to this Balātkāragaṇa branch remain unidentiﬁed in terms of the names and ranks of the commemorated renouncers. Among these are four niṣedhikās at the Choṭī Nasīyā in Sāgavāṛā (#5.30-33), and one at the Nasīyājī in Naugāmā (5.3.1.), an early 18th century CE pādukā preserved in a mandira in Aṅkleśvara (Gujarat, #5.35, 5.5.1.), two caraṇa-chatrīs in Sāgavāṛā, probably both mid-18th century CE (#5.36, #5.42-43; 5.6.1.), and a pādukā from the second half of the 17th century CE in Āyaṛa (possibly not a memorial of a historical renouncer, #5.47; 5.6.2.). Identiﬁed niṣedhikās at the Nasiyājī in Naugāmā commemorate four early Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā incumbents (ācārya, maṇḍalācārya), and up to eight lower-ranking renouncers (two or three ‘common’ ācāryas, one muni, and three or four brahmacārīs). (5.3.) The incomplete inscription of the memorial of the muni refers only to the Brhatśākhā, the inscriptions of one of the ācāryas’ ̥ memorial seem to refer to both the Brhatśākhā and the Laghuśākhā. All other renouncers ̥ commemorated at the site of whom a lineage aﬃliation was recorded and is still available in their memorial inscriptions were related to the Laghuśākhā. A small chatrī with an early 16th century CE niṣedhikā commemorating a muni related to one of the Vāgaḍāśākhās is found at another site nearby. (5.3.3.) Amongst the dozen and a half pre-20th century CE memorials at the Choṭī Nasīyājī in Sāgavāṛā, 17 niṣedhikās in the communal chatrī, a separate, smaller chatrī, and a caraṇa-cabūtarā, memorials can be identiﬁed of renouncers of both Vāgaḍāśākhās, ﬁve incumbents (two maṇḍalācāryas, three bhaṭṭārakas), four ācāryas, two munis, and three or four brahmacārīs. (5.4.) At the other sites in Sāgavāṛā we ﬁnd memorials of further Vāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭārakas, both of the Brhatśākhā (s. 1610, 5.4.2.; s. 1802, 5.6.1.) and the Laghuśākhā (s. 1822, s. 1881, s. 1905; 5.5.2.). Further ̥ 17th to 19th century CE Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭāraka memorials are found near Udayapura (s. 1759, s. ̥ 1769; 5.6.2.) and in Sūrata (s. 1703, n.d. [prob., then prob. early 18th cent. CE], s. 1863 [2x], s. 1887 [3 s. 1825 Brhatśākhā memorials also found at the same site] 5.6.3.), R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī (s. 186[6?], ̥ 316 5.6.4.), Īḍara (s. 1855, s. 1887; 5.6.5.), and Surapura (s. 1939, 5.6.6.). An unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā dated to s. 1780 found in Bhānapura may also relate to the Laghuśākhā. (5.5.3.) A few 18th and early 19th century CE Vāgaḍāśākhā incumbents are found commemorated at two diﬀerent towns. Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti was commemorated in Udayapura in s. 1759 (5.6.2.), and a pādukā of his also seems to be found at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra, the necropolis in Sūrata (5.6.3.). Memorials of his successor Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti found at both the Choṭī Nasīyājī in Sāgavāṛā and in Āyaṛa (Udayapura) were consecrated by his own successor Vijayakīrti (II) on the same day in s. 1769. (5.4.5., 5.6.2.) Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II) himself is commemorated on a later, s. 1855 multipādukā slab at the Pārśvanātha Jinālaya in Īḍara (5.6.5.), but an unidentiﬁed, s. 1802 memorial in Sāgavāṛā may have been his original memorial (5.6.1.). Vijayakīrti (II)’s successor to the second degree Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti was commemorated both at the Sūrata Vidyānandi Kṣetra, in s. 1863 (5.6.3.), and in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī, in s. 186(6?) (5.6.4.), both memorials consecrated by Yaśakīrti, again his successor to the second degree. And memorials of Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti himself are found both at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra (5.6.3.) and in the Saṃbhavanātha Mandira in Īḍara (5.6.5.), both dated to s. 1887. All dated memorials of Vāgaḍāśākhā munis retrieved belong to the 16th century CE. Two Brhatśākhā munis were commemorated in Sāgavāṛā in the mid-16th century CE. (5.4.3.) The ̥ inscriptions of the niṣedhikās of two Vāgaḍāśākhā munis commemorated in Naugāmā are incomplete, one is dated to the early 16th century CE, the second most probably also belongs to the 16th century CE. (5.3.3.) As mentioned, I have found memorials of at least eight or nine ‘common’ Vāgaḍāśākhā ācāryas (non-incumbent, thus barring the early Laghuśākhā ācārya-rank incumbents). These range from the early 16th century CE to the start of the 18th century CE. Four Vāgaḍāśākhā ācārya memorials belong to the 16th century CE. The earliest is related to the Brhatśākhā and found in Sāgavāṛā. ̥ (#5.20, 5.4.3.) The other three are located in Naugāmā, two relating to the Laghuśākhā (#5.6, #5.7), one possibly to both Vāgaḍāśākhās (#5.5). (5.3.3.) At least three Vāgaḍāśākhā ācāryas were commemorated in the last third of the 17th century CE at the necropolis in Sāgavāṛā, two Brhatśākhā (#5.20, #5.21) and one Laghuśākhā (#5.22). (5.4.3.) An unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā with a ̥ barely legible inscription at the site might commemorate yet another 17th century CE ācārya of ācārya memorial from the very early 18th century unknown aﬃliation (#5.32, 5.4.1.). One Brhatśākhā ̥ ācārya was commemorated in Īḍara at CE is found in Udayapura. (#5.45, 5.6.2.) A last Brhatśākhā ̥ the very end of the 18th century CE, but probably ﬂourished mid-way the second half of the 18th century CE. (#5.51, 5.6.5.) Among the brahmacārīs aﬃliated to the Vāgaḍāśākhās found commemorated (certainly nine, possibly eleven), the oldest is a memorial of a Brhatśākhā brahmacārī at the Sāgavāṛā necropolis ̥ from the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE (#5.25). An unidentiﬁed memorial from the same site probably commemorating another brahmacārī dates to the second half of the 16th century CE. (#5.27, 5.4.4.) Three or probably four brahmacārīs are commemorated at the Naugāmā necropolis, two probably erected together in the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE (#5.9, #5.10), a memorial probably commemorating a brahmacārī also dated to the early 17th century CE (#5.12), and another 317 brahmacārī memorial presumably also dating to the 17th century CE (#5.11). These brahmacārīs likely all were aﬃliated to the Laghuśākhā. (5.3.4.) Probably another Laghuśākhā brahmacārī was commemorated at the Sāgavāṛā necropolis in the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE. (#5.29, 5.4.4.). This rise of brahmacārīs in the Vāgaḍāśākhā memorial corpus in the 17th century CE could be related to the disappearance of Digambara munis by then. A single memorial stone in Īḍara from the very end of the 18th century CE commemorates three later brahmacārīs, recorded in a pupillary succession stemming from a Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭāraka, along with a bhaṭṭāraka and an ācārya. ̥ (#5.51, 5.6.5.) A probably 19th century CE pādukā at the Choṭī Nasīyā commemorated an unidentiﬁed brahmacārī. (5.4.1., #5.28) The inscription of a mid-19th century CE pādukā installed in a modest chatrī at a small nasīyā in Sāgavāṛā refers probably commemorates a paṇḍita operating in relation to the Vāgaḍāśākhā. (#5.40, 5.5.2.) The lack of further Vāgaḍāśākhā paṇḍita memorials is remarkable, compared to the considerable number of paṇḍita memorials of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā (4.2.4.) and particularly the Śākambharīśākhā (6.2.6., 6.3.). Rank Name Year Town Site Linea ge Secti Inscri on ption Bhaṭṭāraka+ Sakalakīrti+ ?+ Mahesāṇā ? undivi -ded 5.1.1. / s. 1825 [prob.]+ Sūrata Vidyānandi Kṣetra 5.6.3. / Naugāmā Nasiyājī Ācārya Jñānakīrti n.d. Ācārya Ratnakīrti n.d. Muni Prabhācandra s. 1564 kīrtistambha Laghu 5.3.2. #5.1 Laghu 5.3.2. #5.2 Kalyāṇa Ṭhākura Mandira Vāgaḍā spec. 5.3.3. #5.13 5.3.5. / s. 1571 Naugāmā Nasiyājī Brhat ̥ Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā 5.4.4. Brhat ̥ & Laghu #5.26 Brhat ̥ 5.4.3. #5.20 Brhat ̥ 5.3.3. #5.5 5.3.3. Brhat? ̥ #5.8 #5.6 Brahmacārī Ratnasāgara s. 157(5?) Ācārya Dharmakīrti s. 1579 Ācārya Vinayacandra s. 1594 Naugāmā Nasiyājī (& Laghu?) Muni Devanandi illegible (poss. ca. s. 1594) Ācārya Haribhūṣaṇa s. 1601 Naugāmā Nasiyājī Laghu 5.3.3. Muni Jayakīrti s. 1602 Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā Brhat ̥ 5.4.3. #5.24 Brhat ̥ 5.4.1. #5.30 Brhat ̥ 5.1.4. #5.34 unidentiﬁed s. 1608 kīrtistambha s. 1610 Junā Mandira 318 Rank Name Year Town Site Linea ge Ācārya Yaśakīrti s. 16(1/2)8 Naugāmā Nasiyājī Laghu 5.3.2. #5.3 s. 1619 Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā Laghu 5.4.1. #5.31 unidentiﬁed Secti Inscri on ption Muni Siṅhanandi s. 1627 5.4.3. Brhat? ̥ #5.25 Brahmacārī ? s. 162(?) Brhat ̥ 5.4.4. #5.27 Bhaṭṭāraka Sumatikīrti s. 1620-30 s Brhat ̥ 5.4.2. #5.14 prob. Ācārya (Guṇa?)kīrti unidentiﬁed s. 1638 Naugāmā Nasiyājī ? Laghu 5.3.3. #5.7 ? - 5.3.1. Maṇḍalācārya Guṇacandra s. 1655 Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā Laghu 5.4.2. #5.18 (Maṇḍal)ācārya s. 1658 Naugāmā Nasiyājī Laghu 5.3.2. #5.4 s. 16(63?) - 5.3.4. #5.12 - (poss. post s. 1691) - 5.3.4. #5.11 Laghu 5.4.4. #5.29 Laghu 5.4.2. #5.19 Laghu 5.3.4. (prob.) #5.10 - #5.9 Jinacandra brahmacārī? Brahmacārī Gakarasā brahmacārī? s. 1(6) (??) Maṇḍalācārya Sakalacandra s. 1673 Brahmacārī Satā s. 1691 Brahmacārī Laṣamaṇa s. 169(1?) unidentiﬁed Sāgavāṛā Naugāmā Choṭī Nasīyā Nasiyājī 5.3.4. s. 1699 Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā Laghu 5.4.1. #5.33 Bhaṭṭāraka Rāmakīrti (I)+ s. 1703 Sūrata Vidyānandi Kṣetra Brhat ̥ 5.6.3. / Ācārya Kalyāṇakīrti s. 1725 Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā Brhat ̥ 5.4.3. #5.21 Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣacandra s. 1726 Brhat ̥ 5.4.2. #5.15 Ācārya Jagatkīrti s. 1739 Laghu 5.4.3. #5.22 Ācārya ? s. 1749 Brhat ̥ 5.4.3. #5.23 ? poss. Brhat ̥ 5.4.1. #5.32 #5.35 unidentiﬁed (ācārya?) unidentiﬁed Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti?+ Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā s. 1756 Ankleśvara Cintāmaṇi Pārśvanātha Mandira Laghu 5.5.1. n.d.+ Sūrata Vidyānandi Kṣetra Brhat ̥ 319 5.6.3. / Rank Name Year Town Site Linea ge Secti Inscri on ption Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti s. 1759 Udayapura Śantinātha Mandira Brhat ̥ 5.6.2. #5.4445 Ācārya Viśvabhūṣaṇa s. 1759 Brhat ̥ 5.6.2. #5.46 Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti & kīrtistambha s. 1769 Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā Brhat ̥ 5.4.5. #5.1617 Bhaṭṭāraka s. 1769 Āyaṛa Candraprabhu Brhat ̥ Caityālaya 5.6.2. #5.4849 Narendrakīrti (Udayapura) unidentiﬁed s. 1780 Bhānapura Digambara Baḍā Mandira Laghu 5.5.3. ? unidentiﬁed (hypothetically, Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti [II]?) s. 1802 Sāgavāṛā Nayā Mandira Brhat ̥ 5.6.1. #5.4243 s. 1822 Sāgavāṛā Junā Mandira Laghu 5.5.2. #5.3738 s. 1825 Sūrata Vidyānandi Kṣetra Brhat ̥ Bhaṭṭāraka Devacandra Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti?+ ? Nandīvijaya?+ ?+ Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II) Brahmacārī Lahu Ācārya Devacanda Brahmacārī Lakṣmīcanda Brahmacārī Dalīcanda unidentiﬁed (hypothetically, Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmacandra?) / 5.6.3. / s. 1825 / s. 1825 / s. 1855 Īḍara Pārśvanātha Jinālaya Brhat ̥ ? Sāgavāṛā Nayā Mandira Laghu 5.5.2. ? 5.6.5. #5.5152 #5.36 Bhaṭṭāraka Rāmakīrti (II)+ s. 1863 Sūrata Vidyānandi Kṣetra Brhat ̥ 5.6.3. / Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti+ s. 1863 Sūrata Vidyānandi Kṣetra Brhat ̥ 5.6.3. / s. 186(6?) R̥ ṣabhadevaKeśarīyājī Candragiri Brhat ̥ 5.6.4. #5.50 ? (re- R̥ ṣabhadevaKeśarīyājī Candragiri 5.6.4. / Brhat? ̥ s. 1881 Sāgavāṛā Junā Mandira Laghu 5.5.2. #5.39 #5.28 unidentiﬁed purposed s. 2034) Bhaṭṭāraka Mahīcandra Bhaṭṭāraka? Nemicandra? Brahmacārī ? ? Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā Laghu 5.4.1. ? Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti+ s. 1887 Sūrata Vidyānandi Kṣetra Brhat ̥ 320 5.6.3. / Rank Name Year Town Site Yaśakīrti s. 1887 Īḍara SaṃbhavaBrhat ̥ nātha Mandira s. 1905 Sāgavāṛā Pagelejī Nasīyā prob. paṇḍita Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra Bhaṭṭāraka Hemacandra Bhaṭṭāraka Rāmacandrakīrti s. 1905 s. 1939 Surapura nasīyā Linea ge Secti Inscri on ption 5.6.5. #5.5354 Laghu 5.5.2. #5.40 Laghu #5.41 Brhat ̥ 5.6.6. #5.57 Table 5.1. Chronological list of discovered and reported (+) Vāgaḍāśākhā memorials (15th-19th century CE). 5.2.3. Material features All the memorial stones in the communal chatrīs in Naugāmā (later 15th to ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE) and Sāgavāṛā (ﬁrst half of 16th to early 18th century CE) are niṣedhikās. The size of the niṣedhikās at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī is roughly proportional to the rank of the renouncers they commemorate. (5.3.1.) This feature is not found to the same degree in Sāgavāṛā. (5.4.1.) Two unidentiﬁed caraṇa-cabūtarās found in front of the communal chatrī at the Choṭī Nasīyājī in Sāgavāṛā are estimated to belong to the early 20th century CE and the 18th or 19th century CE respectively. (5.4.1.) The latter was probably the ﬁrst independent pādukā to appear on the Choṭī Nasīyājī. An early 18th century CE (s. 1769) memorial at the same site is a combination of separate niṣedhikā and pādukā stones installed in their own chatrī. (Fig. 5.9) This is a commemorative format which was unique to the Vāgaḍāśākhā, and was also used for other memorials in Sāgavāṛā (s. 1802, Fig. 5.17 L.; s. 1822, Laghuśākhā, Fig. 5.13 L.) and Udayapura (s. 1759 and s. 1769, Brhatśākhā, ̥ Brhatśākhā). The latter is a memorial of a bhaṭṭāraka in a twin chatrī also housing a niṣedhikā of an ̥ ācārya. (Fig. 5.18 R.) The ācārya’s subordinate status is indicated by the lack of an additional pādukā and by its installation under a smaller pavilion. The combination of loose niṣedhikā and pādukā memorial stones developed further into a hybrid format, evinced by memorials from half a century later in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī (s. 186[6?], Fig. 5.21-22) and Īḍara (s. 1877, Fig. 5.25). In these chatrīs, a heavy, hourglass plinth is installed centrally under the dome, with a niṣedhikā and one or more pādukās on its table. Apart from the latter two memorials, all 19th century CE Vāgaḍāśākhā memorials are pādukās. Two double pādukās commemorating two Laghuśākhā bhaṭṭārakas each are found in Sāgavāṛā, dated to s. 1881 (Fig. 5.13) and s. 1905 (Fig. 5.14 R.). (5.5.2.) A s. 1855 multi-pādukā slab in Īḍara commemorates a Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭāraka, an ācārya, and three brahmacārīs, all recorded as ̥ forming part of a single pupillary lineage. (Fig. 5.24, 5.6.5.) A mid-17th century CE (s. 1703) Brhatśākhā ̥ pādukā at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata is a very early Vāgaḍāśākhā usage of this commemorative iconography. (5.6.3.) In Rajasthan, niṣedhikās were still the staple commemorative iconography of the Vāgaḍāśākhās around this time. Pādukās on the other hand were the sole 321 commemorative iconography used at the Sūrata necropolis, so local custom seems to have been followed here. An unidentiﬁed Laghuśākhā memorial dating to the turn of the 18th century (s. 1756) found in Aṅkleśvara, also in coastal Gujarat and close to Sūrata, is another early Vāgaḍāśākhā pādukā, perhaps also inﬂuenced by regional commemorative fashion. (Fig. 5.12 L., 5.5.1.) The Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā installed more kīrtistambhas (3.1.4.) than any other Digambara ascetic ̥ lineage of early modern Western India. (5.1.4.) The earliest dates to the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE (s. 1571) and was erected in Naugāmā, which at the time was home to the subordinate, developing Laghuśākhā. (Fig. 5.5) It probably served to connect the satellite Vāgaḍāśākhā saṅgha in Naugāmā to the main saṅgha under the Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭārakas. In the second half of the 16th ̥ century CE, less than half a century later (s. 1610), the Brhatśākhā erected another kīrtistambha ̥ with a design very similar to that of the Naugāmā specimen in a mandira in its own probable hometown Sāgavāṛā. (Fig. 5.1) And a century and a half later again, in the early 18th century CE, the niṣedhikā of the s. 1769 memorial at the Sāgavāṛā necropolis consisting of a chatrī with a set of niṣedhikā and pādukā stones also served a secondary purpose as a Brhatśākhā kīrtistambha. (Fig. ̥ in antagonism to both the by 5.9) The latter memorial possibly served to glorify the Brhatśākhā ̥ now independent and locally dominant Laghuśākhā (5.1.4.) and the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha, which was also active in Sāgavāṛā around this time (5.4.6.). As is common for early modern Digambara niṣedhikās, Vāgaḍāśākhā specimens typically feature a carving of a single padmāsana ﬁgure near the top of the pillar, and below that of a single khaḍgāsana renunciant, both executed either in line carving or in deeper relief, mostly on all four sides of the pillar. (3.1.3., 5.1.5.) They are sometimes depicted recognisably naked, but on some niṣedhikās the rudimentary line carvings might suggest a loincloth (laṅgoṭa).371 They often carry kamaṇḍalu and picchī, and a mālā is also regularly depicted. The kamaṇḍalu is also frequently depicted on the ground near their feet. The khaḍgāsana ﬁgures are taken to generally depict the commemorated renouncers, as sometimes conﬁrmed by inscribed captions (5.2.4.). Yet niṣedhikās commemorating brahmacārīs also feature carvings of renouncers with ascetic paraphernalia. These presumably depict their ascetic superiors, most likely the paramount bhaṭṭārakas. Bhaṭṭāraka Sumatikīrti without legible date but A niṣedhikā commemorating the Brhatśākhā ̥ probably belonging to the late s. 1620s or 1630, found in the communal chatrī of the Choṭī Nasīyājī in Sāgavāṛā (#5.14, 5.4.2.), features additional small line carvings of 32 padmāsana and ca. 42 khaḍgāsana ﬁgures on each side (Fig. 3.7 top L.). This exceptional niṣedhikā design is probably inspired by that of the Brhatśākhā kīrtistambha in town which sits close to it in time (s. 1610, Fig. 5.1). ̥ Another niṣedhikā at the Choṭī Nasīyājī dating to the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE and possibly commemorating a brahmacārī (#5.29, 5.4.4.), also features additional, mid-sized khaḍgāsana ﬁgures on the more narrow sides of the octagonal middle section of the pillar, which thus features eight instead of four such carvings. Padmāsana ﬁgures on a number of 16th century CE Vāgaḍāśākhā pillars are identiﬁed by inscribed captions as siddhas (‘siddha-pratimā’ etc.). The identiﬁcation of these ﬁgures as siddhas is 371 E.g., an unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā from s. 1699 at the Choṭī Nasīyā in Sāgavāṛā (#5.33, 5.4.1.). 322 sometimes further conﬁrmed by inscriptions also naming the abode of liberated souls. The latter is found on the kīrtistambhas of Naugāmā (‘muktiśalā’, unpublished inscription) and Sāgavāṛā (‘[1×?] (kta?)(salā?)’, #5.34), and on a niṣedhikā at the Choṭī Nasīyājī in Sāgavāṛā taken to date to the s. 1620-30s (‘pratimā sūgati-sīlā’, #5.14). On two niṣedhikās at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī from s. 16(1/2)8 (#5.3) and s. 1638 (#5.7), it is the regular padmāsana ﬁgures below the top of niṣedhikās, above the khaḍgāsana ﬁgures, which are identiﬁed as siddhas. On the s. 1571 and s. 1610 kīrtistambhas from Naugāmā and Sāgavāṛā (5.1.4., 5.3.5.) and on the s. 1620-30s niṣedhikā in Sāgavāṛā (#5.14) however, additional padmāsana ﬁgures on the top segment of the pillars are labelled as siddhas. These are further identiﬁed as such by their depiction within a crescent, which also symbolises the siddhasīlā. On the latter niṣedhikā from Sāgavāṛā, these ﬁgures and their captions are applied on the rounded top of the pillar, which usually does not carry inscriptions nor carvings. On the kīrtistambhas, they appear in the śikhara (spire) of the mandira design. Captions on the early 18th century CE (s. 1769) niṣedhikā-kīrtistambha at the Choṭī Nasīyājī however identify the regular padmāsana ﬁgures not as siddhas but as speciﬁc jinas. R̥ ṣabhadeva (= Ādinātha), Candraprabha, Śāntinātha, and Mahāvīra are named, and their serial numbers (1, 8, 18, 24) are also added. (#5.17) Some traces of possible carved lāñchanas remain under the ﬁgures identiﬁed as the former three. A rough depiction of what appears like a cobra hood (nāga-phaṇa) behind the head of the padmāsana ﬁgures on the s. 1602 niṣedhikā of Muni Jayakīrti at the Choṭī Nasīyā in Sāgavāṛā (#5.24) also seems to identify these ﬁgures as jinas rather than siddhas. On several niṣedhikās at the Naugāmā necropolis, this rudimentarily carved element is added instead to the depictions of the khaḍgāsana renunciants.372 This theme may reﬂect a connection of these sites to the jina Pārśvanātha. 5.2.4. Inscriptions As elsewhere, the longer inscriptions of the Vāgaḍāśākhā niṣedhikās are typically inscribed near the base of the pillars. They are most often found on a single side, but sometimes a single inscription continues over multiple sides, or independent longer inscriptions are found on more sides. Sometimes the name of the commemorated renouncer is repeated in short captions inscribed near the base of the niṣedhikā (#5.8) or higher up on the pillar (e.g., #5.21, #5.22, #5.23). Many of the Vāgaḍāśākhā memorials feature substantially long inscriptions, especially when compared to the short inscriptions of the Śākambharīśākhā at the Ajamera necropolis. At the Naugāmā Nasiyājī however new marble ﬂooring obscures the latter parts of many niṣedhikās. And at the hilltop site of the Choṭī Nasīyājī in Sāgavāṛā, many inscriptions are more weathered. I am not aware of publications of any of the Vāgaḍāśākhā inscriptions, although remainders of chalk on the inscriptions of many niṣedhikās at the Naugāmā necropolis indicated that rubbings had been produced of them at some point. E.g., the undated niṣedhikās of Muni Devanandi (#5.8) and Ācārya Ratnakīrti (#5.2), the s. 1594 niṣedhikā of Ācārya Vinayacandra (#5.5), the s. 1658 niṣedhikā of Ācārya (Maṇḍalācārya?) Jinacandra (#5.4). 372 323 As mentioned, a memorial in the Saṃbhavanātha Mandira in Īḍara is unique in that its inscriptions indicate that it was consecrated by the commemorated bhaṭṭāraka himself. Only a few of the Vāgaḍāśākhā memorial inscriptions refer to local rulers. Two niṣedhikās at the Nasīyājī in Naugāmā record the rule of Rājādhirāja Pratāpa over the Vāgaḍā country (s. 16[1/2]8, #5.3; s. 1638, #5.7). One of the inscriptions of the s. 1571 kīrtistambha at the same site presumably by oversight of the carver omits the actual name of a local ruler in a phrase designed to contain it.373 The inscription on the niṣedhikā which is part of the s. 1887 memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti at the Saṃbhavanātha Mandira in Īḍara records the rule of Mahārāja Gambhīra Siṅha over the fort of Illādurga or Īḍara. (#5.53) Several Vāgaḍāśākhā memorial inscriptions record further lower-ranking renouncers or paṇḍitas as pupils of the commemorated renouncers, as bowing to their late gurus, or as having built their memorials. The s. 16(1/2)8 niṣedhikā of the Laghuśākhā incumbent Ācārya Yaśakīrti at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī was built and established by Pavana and other brahmacārīs.374 The inscription of an unidentiﬁed s. 1638 niṣedhikā at the same site, probably commemorating a (non-incumbent) ācārya, also records an unidentiﬁed brahmacārī in the same roles.375 The inscriptions of the niṣedhikās of two ācāryas commemorated in the second half of the 17th century CE at the Choṭī Nasīyā in Sāgavāṛā record considerable numbers of their pupils paying their respects (praṇamanti) to their late gurus. (5.4.3.) Ācārya Kalyāṇakīrti, who on his s. 1725 memorial is himself recorded in a pupillary succession after two generations of munis, had a muni, four brahmacārīs, and two paṇḍitas as his pupils, Muni Tribhuvanacandra, Brahma Saṅgha, Brahma Lāla, Brahmā Prema, Brahma Nā(y?)(...), Paṇḍita Rāghava, and Paṇḍita Haridāsa. (#5.21) And Ācārya Jagatkīrti in the inscription of his s. 1739 memorial is also revered by his pupils, the brahmacārīs Rājasī, Ratna, and Pāvanā, and Paṇḍita Manora (Manorāma?). (#5.22) The inscription of the s. 1822 pādukā of the Laghuśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devacandra, preserved at the Jūnā Mandira in Sāgavāṛā and built (and probably consecrated) by Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmacandra, records four other individuals, Brahmacārī Gokala, another individual with name ending in -dāsa recorded without rank (possibly also a brahmacārī), Paṇḍita Jyotīcanda, and Paṇḍita Gulābacanda. (#5.37) Their role is not speciﬁed but probably they were pupils of the commemorated or commemorating bhaṭṭāraka, and/or active in the memorial’s construction. 5.3. Naugāmā necropolis (late 15th - early 17th cent. CE) 5.3.1. Introduction About a kilometre south of the town of Naugāmā lies the Digambara Nasiyājī. By the time of my visit (January 2014), the site had been redeveloped as the Vāgvara Sammedaśikhara Atiśaya Kṣetra. Among several additions made were an approximately eight foot tall Mahāvīra mūrti in open air, a Sammedaśikharajī model featuring jina pādukās in small shrines on miniature hilltops, 373 ‘(...) vāgavaradeśe rājādhirājye nugāmāvāstavya-(...)’ (unpublished inscription). 374 ‘(...) śiṣya vra pavanādyena kārāpitaṃ pratiṣṭāpita (...)’ (#5.3). 375 ‘(...) brahma-(navakṣe?) (nasīka?) [ca. 4×] karāpita(ṃ?) pratiṣṭāpita(ṃ?) (...)’ (#5.7). 324 and a pādukā shrine of a contemporary muni installed on a natural rock. Meanwhile a new large mandira has also come under construction at the site under the aegis of Muni Sudhāsāgara and with the project name Śrī Digambara Sukhodaya Tīrtha Kṣetra. The early modern memorial chatrīs discussed here seem to have been preserved.376 One square, multi-storeyed chatrī houses thirteen niṣedhikāsa (5.3.5.), and another a kīrtistambha dated to s. 1571. At the time of my visit, the former structure had been renovated, brightly painted, and partly repurposed as part of the site’s recent developments. (Fig. 5.2) One section of the pillared galleries in the back of the chatrī had been walled in, and the niṣedhikā installed in this segment crowned with a small vedi (altar) with a consecrated jina mūrti. (Fig. 5.4 L.) A narrow moat has been constructed around the chatrī and it was referred to as a ‘jala mandira’ (water temple). A water tank on the roof may have replaced an earlier top structure similar to that of the kīrtistambha chatrī and the square chatrīs in Sāgavāṛā (5.4.) and Aḍindā (3.1.4.). The chatrī’s sixteen, heavy and multi-sided pillars and their cross-shaped capitals are similar to those found in many early modern Digambara mandiras in the region and especially those of temple maṇḍapas are also regularly found brightly painted. Figure 5.2. Niṣedhikās installed between the brightly painted pillars of a communal memorial chatrī, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā (January 2014). 376 Google maps satellite images and photos, accessed 1st August 2023. 325 The thirteen niṣedhikās installed in the chatrī feature carvings of khaḍgāsana ﬁgures depicted with a s c e t i c ’ s paraphernalia. (Fig. 5.4 R.) Many of their inscriptions are preserved relatively well, but recent marble ﬂooring covers the ﬁnal portions of many i n s c r i p t i o n s . Te n niṣedhikās can be identiﬁed. These commemorate four early Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā incumbents (one maṇḍalācārya, s. 1658; three ācāryas, two undated, one s. 1 6 [ 1 /2 ] 8 ) , t w o o r Figure 5.3. Sketch of the ground plan of the communal memorial chatrī at the Nasīyājī in Naugāmā, indicating the location of the niṣedhikās and (if available) their date, and the rank and name of the individual commemorated. N.d. = no date inscribed. (Not to scale.) probably three ‘common’ (non-incumbent) ācāryas (s. 1594, s. 1601, s. 1638), one muni (s. [???][6?]), and three brahmacārīs (s. 16[63?], s. 1[6?]91, s. 169[1?]). Of two unidentiﬁed niṣedhikās, found without any inscriptions, one likely commemorated another brahmacārī, given its small size. The niṣedhikās of the ﬁrst two Laghuśākhā incumbents Jñānakīrti (#5.1) and Ratnakīrti (#5.2) are not dated. The former is most probably the oldest memorial in the chatrī, installed in the central cell377 in the back of the structure, on the east side. The latter stands to the right of it, in the south-east corner. (Fig. 5.3) The next niṣedhikās were added in a clockwise succession, as they were in the communal chatrī in Sāgavāṛā (5.4.1.). A s. 1594 niṣedhikā (#5.5) stands together with an undatable niṣedhikā ([???][6?], #5.8) in the central cell on the south side, a s. 1601 niṣedhikā stands on the south-west corner (#5.6), and a niṣedhikā from probably s. 1618 (or 1628) central on the west side (#5.3). The next memorial was installed on the north-east corner, to the left of the oldest memorial. It is a niṣedhikā from s. 1638 (#5.7) found installed together with an undated niṣedhikā without any I use the term cell to refer to the space between four engaged columns of the multi-pillared chatrīs. In the communal memorial chatrīs in Naugāmā and Sāgavāṛā, a single niṣedhikā is typically installed in the centre of such a space, occasionally two or three niṣedhikās. 377 326 inscriptions. A niṣedhikā from s. 1658 (#5.4) is installed together with an undated niṣedhikā (#5.11) on the north-west corner. Three niṣedhikās in the central cell on the north side were erected in possibly s. 1663 (#5.12), in s. 1691 (#5.10), and probably again in s. 1691 (#5.9). These may have been the latest additions, although the two niṣedhikās without inscriptions in the north-eastern and north-western cells may have been added there still later, although these spaces were already occupied with earlier niṣedhikās. The size of most of the niṣedhikās at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī is roughly proportionate to the rank of the renouncers they commemorate. This iconographical feature is not found or at least not maintained as strictly at the necropolis in Sāgavāṛā. (5.4.1.) In Naugāmā, identiﬁed niṣedhikās of (a) brahmacārīs, (b) munis and common ācāryas, and (c) lineage incumbents (ācāryas, maṇḍalācāryas, bhaṭṭārakas) measure respectively an approximate two, three, and four feet. (Fig. 5.4 M.) The niṣedhikās of brahmacārīs are notably lighter than the taller and more bulky niṣedhikās of fully initiated renouncers. Niṣedhikās of lineage incumbents, including the ﬁrst three of ācārya rank, are of comparable weight as those of munis and common ācāryas, but are provided with a larger top section. (Fig. 5.4 M.) The niṣedhikās of common ācāryas and of the single commemorated muni are of equal size. (Fig. 5.4 M.) Figure 5.4. Niṣedhikās in the communal chatrī at the Nasīyājī in Naugāmā. (January 2014) L: Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Jñānakīrti (n.d., lineage incumbent) repurposed as pedestal for a recent jina icon. M: From left to right: niṣedhikās of Ācārya Ratnakīrti (n.d., lineage incumbent), Ācārya Vinayacandra (s. 1594), Muni Devanandi (n.d.), and Ācārya Haribhūṣaṇa (s. 1601). R: Niṣedhikā of Muni Devanandi with line carvings of a padmāsana siddha or jina (above) and a khaḍgāsana renouncer (below). These aspects conﬁrm the diﬀerence between incumbent ācāryas and common ācāryas, the former distinguished through larger memorial pillars, the latter put more on a par with munis given the similar proportions of their niṣedhikās. This ﬁnding of the proportional relationship between the size of the niṣedhikās and the rank of the renouncers they commemorated in the identiﬁed memorials also assist in speculating about the rank of the renouncers commemorated by the unidentiﬁed niṣedhikās. Given its small size and its location next to memorial stones of other 327 brahmacārīs, the niṣedhikā possibly dated s. 1663 probably also commemorated a brahmacārī. (#5.12, 5.3.4.) A relatively slender but tall niṣedhikā which no longer bears any inscriptions but features carvings of renouncer with ascetic paraphernalia most probably commemorated a fully initiated renouncer. The proportions of the bulky s. 1638 niṣedhikā next to the latter align with its probable identiﬁcation as commemorating an ācārya.([Guṇa?]kīrti, #5.7, 5.3.3.) All the lower-ranking fully initiated renouncers attested in Naugāmā belong to the 16th century CE. Muni Prabhācandra was commemorated in s. 1564 (#5.13), Ācārya Vinayacandra in s. 1594 (#5.5), Muni Devanandi possibly also around this time (#5.8), Ācārya Haribhūṣaṇa in s. 1601 (#5.6), probably one Ācārya (Guṇa?)kīrti commemorated in s. 1638 (#5.7), and seemingly a further common ācārya, Jñānakīrti, attested in the inscription of Ācārya Haribhūṣaṇa’s s. 1601 niṣedhikā (#5.6). (5.3.3.) And all those whose lineage aﬃliation can be determined relate to the Laghuśākhā, none directly or solely to the Brhatśākhā. Beyond conﬁrming that the Laghuśākhā was based in ̥ Naugāmā in the 16th century CE (5.1.2.), this also indicates that it possibly constituted a considerably large saṅgha of lower-ranking renouncers, with more members than those who were commemorated at the local necropolis, led by the Laghuśākhā ācāryas and later maṇḍalācāryas. Memorials of lower-ranking, fully initiated renouncers (munis, common ācāryas) and brahmacārīs at the Naugāmā necropolis are themselves clearly diﬀerentiated in time. As mentioned, fully initiated renouncers are attested from s. 1564 to certainly s. 1601, and probably s. 1638. (5.3.3.) The brahmacārīs’ niṣedhikās all seem to be later, respectively dated to s. 1691 (Satā), s. 169(1?) (Laṣamaṇa), possibly after s. 1691 (Gakarasā), and s. 16(63?) (unidentiﬁed, but possibly brahmacārī). (5.3.4.) The shift from the erection of memorials of munis and ācāryas to those of brahmacārīs with the turn of the 17th century CE is probably indicative of generally plummeting numbers of fully initiated Laghuśākhā renouncers around this period. No later Laghuśākhā munis are attested, and only a single further Laghuśākhā ācārya is found commemorated, in Sāgavāṛā in s. 1739 (#5.22, 5.4.3.). Brahmacārīs in turn were no doubt also present in the earlier Laghuśākhā saṅgha, but only began to receive memorial commemoration after the more venerable munis had disappeared and ācāryas became less numerous. The subsequent, complete disappearance of Laghuśākhā memorials from Naugāmā after the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE indicates that the seat and saṅgha of this lineage moved out of town, which dovetails with its memorials becoming more numerous in Sāgavāṛā in the 17th century CE. (5.4.) A slab with ﬁve pādukās, also featuring carvings of two ﬂowers and an outlet, is found installed in a small new chatrī shrine close to the communal chatrī. Its inscription has largely weathered away, but some snippets still remain legible. The slab seems to have been consecrated by the early 17th century CE Laghuśākhā incumbent Maṇḍalācārya Sakalacandra, was probably commissioned by a brahmacārī (name illegible), and possibly represented jinas (unpublished inscription). Another single pādukā which seems to date to the 19th or early 20th century CE and features a carving of what may be a picchī between the feet sits installed at ground level with a new shrine with glass casing built over it. It does not feature any inscription, but around the feet carving the damaged slab seemed to have been polished oﬀ recently. 328 5.3.2. Lineage incumbents (ācārya, maṇḍalācārya) Four of the ﬁrst ﬁve Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā incumbents are found commemorated at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī, the ﬁrst three, Jñānakīrti (n.d., Fig. 5.4 L.), Ratnakīrti (n.d., Fig. 5.4 M.), and Yaśakīrti (s. 16[1/2]8, Fig. 3.7 bottom R.), and the ﬁfth, Jinacandra (s. 1658, Fig. 3.7 bottom L.). As discussed, Jñānakīrti, Ratnakīrti, and Yaśakīrti are referred to as ācāryas in the inscriptions on their memorial stones. (5.1.3.) The inscription on the niṣedhikā of Jñānakīrti only mentions his name and rank (#5.1), and that of Ratnakīrti’s memorial does no more than adding salutations to him (#5.2). The niṣedhikā of Jñānakīrti has been repurposed as a pedestal for a recent jina icon (v.n.s. 2525, 1999 CE), and the cell of the chatrī in which it stands has been separated oﬀ by a waist-high wall with grills above them and a door which can be locked to secure the mūrti. (Fig. 5.4 L.) Yaśakīrti is actually recorded to have died in Bhīloḍā, 35 km to the north-west of Naugāmā (Joharāpurakara 1958: 160, lekha 402, 5.1.5.). That his memorial was nevertheless erected in Naugāmā can probably be taken as an indication that by then the Nasiyājī necropolis was considered the dedicated place of commemoration of the Laghuśākhā, and more generally a conﬁrmation that the town was its main seat. S. 1618 seems the more probable reading of the date of Yaśakīrti’s niṣedhikā (rather than s. 1628), closer to his reported passing in s. 1613 (Ibid.). His niṣedhikā was built by Pavana and other brahmacārīs, and consecrated by the Laghuśākhā incumbent Guṇacandra, here still recorded as an ācārya, but later promoted to maṇḍalācārya (5.1.3.). (#5.3) The inscriptions on Jinacandra’s s. 1658 niṣedhikā are incompletely preserved, but the available reading records that the pillar was erected upon the instruction of Jinacandra’s successor Sakalacandra. (#5.4) A second, earlier year inscribed on the pillar, s. 1654, is likely that of Jinacandra’s consecration to the seat. As we saw, Jinacandra’s predecessor Guṇacandra was the ﬁrst Laghuśākhā incumbent to carry the maṇḍalācārya rank (5.1.3.), and he is reported to have died in Sāgavāṛā in s. 1653 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 161, lekha 405). His niṣedhikā is indeed found at the Choṭī Nasīyājī there, dated s. 1655 and recording Guṇacandra as a maṇḍalācārya. (#5.18, 6.4.2.) Small captions under the carvings on Jinacandra’s niṣedhikā in Naugāmā record him as an ācārya (‘ā.’), but he may also have been referred to as a maṇḍalācārya in the pillar’s incompletely preserved longer inscription, since his successor Sakalacandra is. 5.3.3. Munis and ācāryas Next to the four early Laghuśākhā incumbents, six or seven other renouncers commemorated in the Naugāmā nasīyā’s collective memorial chatrī can be identiﬁed, three brahmacārīs and three or probably four fully initiated renouncers (muni, ācārya). The date in the badly damaged longer inscription on the niṣedhikā of Muni Devanandi is illegible (#5.8, Fig. 5.4 R.), that of Ācārya Vinayacandra is dated s. 1594 (#5.5), and that of Ācārya Haribhūṣaṇa s. 1601 (#5.6). A small, ruined, four-pillared chatrī with a niṣedhikā of another, early 16th century CE Digambara muni was found at a Hindu temple at a stone’s throw from the Naugāmā Nasiyājī, the the Kalyāṇa Ṭhākura Mandira. (Fig. 3.27 L. & second of left) Part of the inscriptions on the niṣedhikā were covered by recent 329 renovations, but the pillar could still be read as dated to s. 1564 and as commemorating Muni Prabhācandra, who was related to one of the Vāgaḍāśākhās. (#5.13) Sandalwood marks on the niṣedhikā indicated it was ritually used by visitors to the mandira. The s. 1594 niṣedhikā of Ācārya Vinayacandra at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī carries two incomplete inscriptions. (#5.5) A ﬁrst records the Brhatśākhā succession up to the then incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka ̥ Vijayakīrti (I). A second inscription however calls Ācārya Vinayacandra the pupil of a sthavīrācārya whose name was not fully legible to me, possibly a Laghuśākhā incumbent.378 The most likely option would be second Laghuśākhā incumbent Ācārya Ratnakīrti, who seems to have been on the seat for a very long period, possibly up to the time of the memorial consecration, and who is also recorded with the title of sthavīrācārya in other inscriptions (5.1.3.), but my reading rather seems to indicate his predecessor Ācārya Jñānakīrti. Next to the location of the memorial, a pupillary aﬃliation of Ācārya Vinayacandra to a Laghuśākhā incumbent conﬁrms that he belonged to this Naugāmā based saṅgha. At the same time, the parties commemorating Vinayacandra apparently also thought it imperative to defer to the superordinate Brhatśākhā in his memorial’s ̥ inscriptions. Muni Devanandi may similarly have been a part of the Naugāmā based Laghuśākhā saṅgha, although the preserved fragments of the inscription only record the Brhatśākhā ̥ succession, probably attesting Bhaṭṭāraka Jñānabhūṣaṇa and Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (I).379 Muni Devanandi’s niṣedhikā is installed next to that of Ācārya Vinayacandra, and may therefore also be close to it in time. The inscriptions on the s. 1601 niṣedhikā of Ācārya Haribhūṣaṇa record the Laghuśākhā incumbents up to at least Yaśakīrti, who was probably on the seat when this memorial was consecrated. They also record Ācārya Haribhūṣaṇa as a pupil of one Ācārya Jñānakīrti.380 The ﬁrst Laghuśākhā incumbent of that name ﬂourished Ācārya Jñānakīrti three quarters of a century earlier. Although inscriptions and colophons typically relate lower-ranking renouncers to their lineage’s incumbent ﬂourishing at the time, attestations of renouncers related to earlier incumbents are occasionally also found, presumably recording actual pupillary linkages. Yet Ācārya Haribhūṣaṇa comes rather late to have been a direct pupil of the incumbent Jñānakīrti, who was already succeeded by Ratnakīrti in s. 1535. The Ācārya Jñānakīrti attested in this inscription may thus be another ‘common’ ācārya of the Laghuśākhā. Another niṣedhikā at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī dated to s. 1638 also seems to commemorate an ācārya. (#5.7) Next to inscribed captions identifying the padmāsana ﬁgures carved near the top of the niṣedhikā as siddhas (5.2.3.), the pillar features lengthy inscriptions on the broader frontside and backside and shorter inscriptions on the narrow sides. The former could not be fully deciphered, and I don’t have proper photo documentation of the short inscription on one side. The niṣedhikā was however consecrated by the then incumbent (Maṇḍalācārya) Guṇacandra,381 and one of the 378 ‘(...) stavirācārya-śrī-[1×?](āna?)kīrtti tat-siṣyā ā-śrī-vinayacaṃdrasya niṣedhikā (...)’ (#5.5). 379 ‘(...) bha. śrī-bhuvana(k)īrtti(sta?) [ca. 4+] jñ(ā)(na?)bhūṣa[ca. 5+] (śrī-vi?) (...)’ (#5.8). 380 ‘(...) ācārya-śrī-jñ(ā)nakīrti tat-siṣya ācārya-śrī-(ha?)ribhūṣaṇa’ (#5.6). 381 ‘(…)ācārya-śrī-gu[1×](caṃdr?)opadeśat (…)’, ‘ācārya-śrī-(gu?) | ṇacaṃdropadeś(ā?) || t’ (#5.7) 330 longer inscriptions mentions a further ācārya with a name ending in -kīrti, possibly Guṇakīrti, in a position within the inscription where we would typically ﬁnd the name of the commemorated individual.382 As it does not seem possible to identify this ācārya with any Vāgaḍāśākhā incumbent around this time, this might be yet another common ācārya of the Laghuśākhā. As mentioned, the inscription also records a brahmacārī who build the memorial. 5.3.4. Brahmacārīs Three or probably four brahmacārīs were commemorated in the communal Naugāmā chatrī.383 (Fig. 3.7 bottom L.) As mentioned, the size of the renouncers’ niṣedhikās at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī stands in relation to their rank. The three identiﬁed brahmacārī niṣedhikās are clearly smaller and lighter than those of the muni, the common ācāryas, and the lineage incumbents commemorated at the site. Apart from the names of Gakarasā (#5.11), Satā (#5.10), and Laṣamaṇa (#5.9), and the dates of the memorials of the latter two, nearly all information is lacking. The niṣedhikā of Gakarasā never seems to have featured any further inscriptions other than a single record oh his name. Longer inscriptions present near the basis of the other two niṣedhikās are partly covered by new ﬂooring. Brahmacārī Satā’s memorial is probably dated to s. 1691 (s. 1[6?]91). Further legible fragments of its inscription include a Mūlasaṅgha aﬃliation and a reference to a bhaṭṭāraka with a name starting with ratna-.384 This is most likely a reference to Ratnacandra who was then on the Laghuśākhā seat (rather than to the much earlier, second Laghuśākhā incumbent Ratnakīrti). As discussed, this would make it the earliest attestation of Ratnacandra as a bhaṭṭāraka. (5.1.3.) The legible part of one inscription of Brahmacārī Laṣamaṇa’s memorial might refer to Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti of the undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā,385 though presumably only as part of a longer lineage genealogy. The other side has a short inscription with probably the same date in s. 1691 (s. 169[1?]) as that of Brahmacārī Satā’s niṣedhikā (Caitra sudi 5). This common date would then be that of the memorials’ consecration, rather than the commemorated brahmacārīs’ dates of death. And if both memorials were consecrated together, Brahmacārī Laṣamaṇa, like Brahmacārī Satā, probably also had a Laghuśākhā aﬃliation. The niṣedhikās of the brahmacārīs Satā and Laṣamaṇa are installed in a single cell of the chatrī together with a third, unidentiﬁed pillar of similarly small size. Given its modest dimensions and its location next to the niṣedhikās of two brahmacārīs, it probably also commemorated a brahmacārī, the fourth then to be commemorated in the Naugāmā chatrī. Its inscription is almost entirely illegible apart from a possible date of s. 1663 (s. 16[63?]) and a Mūlasaṅgha aﬃliation. The memorial of Brahmacārī Gakarasā is installed in the cel on the north-west corner, next to the s. 1658 ‘(…) ma[1×]lācārya-śrī-yaśakīrtti-devā ta(thā?) śrī-saṃghā [1×][ca. 4×]guropadeśāt ācārya-śrī-(guṇa?)k(ī?)rti [3×] (śra?)[ca. 5×] karāpita [ca. 2-3×][ca. 4×] pratiṣṭhāpita [ca. 8×] (...?)’ (#5.7) 382 383 The inscriptions feature the abbreviation ‘bra.’ (#5.9, #5.11) or ‘vra.’ (#5.9, #5.10) for brahmacārī. 384 ‘mūla-saṃghe bhaṭ(ā?)raka-śrī-ratana (…)’ (#5.10). 385 ‘bhaṭāraka-śrī-(bhu?) (…)’ (#5.9). 331 niṣedhikā of the Laghuśākhā incumbent Maṇḍalācārya Jinacandra (#5.4), which occupies the centre of the cell and thus seems to have been erected there ﬁrst. Brahmacārī Gakarasā’s niṣedhikā could be taken to have been installed there after the cell next to it had ﬁlled up with three niṣedhikās, and would then postdate s. 1691. Diﬀering from all other niṣedhikās at the site, the pillar is of a black stone, and also has diﬀerent proportions, smaller and more slender even than the niṣedhikās in the cel next to it. This could conﬁrm a later date. Interestingly, the (probably) four brahmacārī niṣedhikās all depict a khaḍgāsana ﬁgure with mālā and kamaṇḍalu in hand and picchī under the arm. These emblems indicate that these carvings do not represent the commemorated brahmacārīs, but fully initiated renouncers, probably their ascetic gurus or superiors, and more speciﬁcally the Laghuśākhā incumbents (maṇḍalācārya or bhaṭṭāraka). As discussed, the inscriptions of the niṣedhikās of some fully initiated renouncers at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī record further brahmacārīs. The s. 16(1/2)8 memorial of Yaśakīrti was commissioned by Pavana and other brahmacārīs (#5.3), and the s. 1638 niṣedhikā probably commemorating Ācārya (Guṇa?)kīrti by an unidentiﬁed brahmacārī (Navakṣe?, #5.7). 5.3.5. Kīrtistambha (s. 1571) Close to the communal chatrī at the Naugāmā Nasiyājī stands a second early modern chatrī. (Fig. 5.5 L.) It houses a particularly heavy, black marble kīrtistambha of at least seven foot high. (Fig. 5.5 R., unpublished inscription, see already 3.1.4., 5.1.4.) The kīrtistambha is still in ritual usage and was consecrated in s. 1571 by the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (I). Joharāpurakara (1958: ̥ 154-5) had references for Vijayakīrti (I) from s. 1557 to s. 1568 only, and attestations of his successor Śubhacandra from s. 1573, s. 1607, and onwards (Ibid.: 244-5, lekha 367). However, the s. 1573 attestation, from a composition by Śubhacandra, does not indicate his rank, and probably predates his ascendancy to the bhaṭṭāraka seat, since Vijayakīrti (I) was active at the Sāgavāṛā nasīyā even later, probably in s. 157(5?) and certainly in s. 1579. (5.4.1.) The pillar features carvings of padmāsana and khaḍgāsana ﬁgures on each side. (Fig. 5.5 R.) Carvings of a single, larger padmāsana ﬁgure near the top of the pillar are identiﬁed by inscribed captions as siddhas. (5.2.3.) Single, larger khaḍgāsana ﬁgures near the base of the pillar are identiﬁed as the consecutive Vāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭārakas Sakalakīrti, Bhuvanakīrti, Jñānabhūṣaṇa, and Vijayakīrti (I), the former two the longer remembered incumbents of the undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā (5.1.1.), and the latter two the ﬁrst incumbents of the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā. Interestingly, ̥ Vijayakīrti (I) was depicted on the kīrtistambha while still alive. The larger number of smaller khaḍgāsana carvings higher up on the pillar are identiﬁed as prior Mūlasaṅgha and Balātkāragaṇa incumbents. The Laghuśākhā ācāryas of Naugāmā do not receive mention on the kīrtistambha. The kīrtistambha thus not only indicates that the Brhatśākhā was still operational in Naugāmā ̥ some three and a half decades after the Vāgaḍāśākhā bifurcation, narrated to have occurred in s. 1535, but, as already discussed, also expressed the Brhatśākhā’s continued authority over ̥ Naugāmā and the Laghuśākhā. (5.1.4.) Among the smaller khaḍgāsana depictions of the Mūlasaṅgha and Balātkāragaṇa incumbents on the middle section of the pillar is also a single, 332 similarly basic line carving of a female deity identiﬁed through a caption a Sarasvatī (‘sāradā’). This is one of the many features also found on the s. 1610 Brhatśākhā kīrtistambha in the Junā Mandira ̥ in Sāgavāṛā, which was clearly modelled after the Naugāmā kīrtistambha. (5.4.5.) The inscriptions of the Naugāmā kīrtistambha also include a long genealogy of the Humbaḍa caste donors and a reference to the rule of an unnamed king, both unusual on memorial inscriptions. The former may indicate that the formation of the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā was closely related to Humbaḍa sub-caste group dynamics. (5.1.2.) The latter may have been intended to relate the Brhatśākhā and ̥ Laghuśākhā polities to the local royal court. (3.2.6.) Figure 5.5. Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā kīrtistambha (s. 1571, R.) in a two-storied chatrī (L.), Nasīyājī, Naugāmā. (January ̥ 2014) The kīrtistambha stands in a two-storied building raised on a high, square platform, partly build over natural rocks. (Fig. 5.5 L.) The structure is a ﬁfth square, multi-storeyed memorial chatrī, next to the communal memorial chatrīs of the Vāgaḍāśākhā at this site (Fig. 5.2) and in Sāgavāṛā (Fig. 5.6.), and two examples erected by the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha, in Sāgavāṛā (Fig. 5.10. L.) and Aḍindā (Fig. 3.11 L.). The kīrtistambha only just ﬁts under the ceiling of the structure’s ground ﬂoor, and clearly stands in its the original place of installation. (Fig. 5.5 R.) I did not have access to the building’s top ﬂoor, which originally was an open chatrī, now closed oﬀ by walls added between its pillars. Recent tiling inside and outside the walls of the main shrine room on the ground ﬂoor obscure whether these were also added to an originally open structure. The later, late 18th century CE Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā kīrtistambha in Āmera is also screened oﬀ with stone lattices (jālī) added between the pillars of its chatrī, which in that case seem to be part of the original design. (Fig. 4.14) 333 5.4. Sāgavāṛā necropolis (16th - early 18th cent. CE) 5.4.1. Introduction Just north-west of Sāgavāṛā’s old town stand two lone, steep hillocks, choice locations for Digambara memorials. On the hill farthest removed from the town centre stand two early modern memorials relating to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha. A large, square, four-storied and sixteen-pillared chatrī features a single, particularly heavy niṣedhikā dated to s. 1757 and commemorating Bhaṭṭāraka Indrabhūṣaṇa. The inscription of a pādukā in smaller, round chatrī next to it allows for only a very fragmentary reading. (Fig. 5.10, 5.4.6.) This former ‘Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha’ hill is now developed as the Yogīndragiri Atiśaya Kṣetra, named after Ācārya Yogīndrasāgara who died in Sāgavāṛā in 2012 CE. His memorial, dubbed a guru-mandira or samādhi-mandira, was under construction on the hill at the time of my visit but meanwhile seems to have been completed. The early modern chatrīs have now been renovated, painted white, and clad with marble ﬂooring, and further new buildings have been erected.386 Figure 5.6. Niṣedhikās in the square chatrī on the Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā (view from the west, from the path leading up the hill). On the right, one of two porches added to the original, square structure, and to the right of that again a separate, round chatrī. (January 2014) 386 Photos of the site on google maps, accessed May 14th 2021. 334 The Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha monuments on the Yogīndragiri seem to have developed in conversation with Balātkāragaṇa memorials on the hillock closer to the town centre, which is referred to as the Choṭī Nasīyājī. (5.4.6.) On the very top of this hill stands a large, three-storied, square chatrī which functioned as a communal memorial structure like that in Naugāmā. (Fig. 5.6) It outdoes the latter structure by adding a full, sixteen-pillared second storey, and a smaller, four-pillared third storey on top of that. It houses 17387 niṣedhikās all predating the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha niṣedhikā in the large chatrī at the Yogīndragiri from the very early 18th century CE. (Fig. 5.7) Behind it, a smaller, round chatrī clinging to the ridge of the hillock features a single memorial dating to the early 18th century CE. It is a set of separate pādukā and niṣedhikā stones, of which the latter also doubles as a kīrtistambha of the Balātkāragaṇa Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā. (right on Fig. 5.6, 5.4.5.) ̥ Figure 5.7. Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. (January 2014) L: Niṣedhikās amongst the pillars of the square chatrī. R: Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Kalyāṇakīrti (s. 1725, detail). The Choṭī Nasīyājī also features a growing number of memorials of contemporary Digambara renouncers. Most notable is the memorial of Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Chāṇī’, who self-initiated as a muni in Sāgavāṛā’s Junā Mandira in 1923 CE and also died in town, in 1944 CE. At the time of my visit (January 2014), it was a largish but simple cabūtarā without a pādukā, but a larger structure meanwhile erected on the same place may be a new, grander memorial for the illustrious ācārya.388 A few more cabūtaras and a small, closed chatrī commemorating more recent, 20th century CE Digambara renouncers were found on the ﬂank of the hill. About half a dozen small The damaged, upper part of a niṣedhikā installed separately on the north-eastern corner of the extended chatrī is probably the other half of a niṣedhikā base found close to it carrying an inscription dated to s. 1627 (#5.25). 387 388 Google maps, accessed May 14th 2021. 335 shrines or chatrīs which have been added nearby since may also memorials of Digambara ascetics.389 The two Balātkāragaṇa memorial chatrīs which form the focus of this section stand at the very top of the hillock. (Fig. 5.6) Two caraṇa-cabūtarās are found in front of and just below these chatrīs. No inscriptions were preserved on the pādukā of one of these, but it is estimated to belong to the early 20th century CE. The pre-20th century CE (prob. 18th-19th century CE) pādukā of the second had a weathered inscription commemorating an unidentiﬁed brahmacārī pupil of a Balātkāragaṇa bhaṭṭāraka. (#5.28) This was the ﬁrst independent pādukā to appear on the Choṭī Nasīyājī, and the ﬁrst pādukā at the site apart from that of a s. 1769 memorial consisting of combined pādukā and niṣedhikā stones (5.4.5.). Yet the Laghuśākhā had already opted to use pādukās solely in Gujarat at the turn of the 18th century CE (5.5.1.), and 19th century CE memorials at other sites down in the town of Sāgavāṛā (5.5.2.) might also predate this unidentiﬁed caraṇa-cabūtarā. A concrete column added under one of the beams inside the square chatrī indicated preservation works executed at some time in the 20th century CE. Beyond this, the whole Choṭī Nasīyājī looked relatively neglected and little visited at the time of my visit. A number of further early modern Balātkāragaṇa memorials relating to both Vāgaḍāśākhās are found at several sites down in the town of Sāgavāṛā. (5.4.2., 5.5.2., 5.6.1.) All identiﬁed memorial stones among the dozen and a half specimens found in the two chatrīs at the top of the Choṭī Nasīyājī range from the 16th to early 18th century CE and commemorate Vāgaḍāśākhā renouncers. Memorials can be identiﬁed of ﬁve lineage incumbents, two of the Brhatśākhā and three of the Laghuśākhā, four ācāryas, two munis, and three or possibly four ̥ brahmacārīs. Among the lineage incumbents commemorated are two Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭārakas ̥ (#5.14, s. 1620-30s; #5.16-17, s. 1769), two Laghuśākhā maṇḍalācāryas (#5.18, s. 1655; #5.19, s. 1673), and one Laghuśākhā bhaṭṭāraka (#5.15, s. 1726). (5.4.2.) Niṣedhikās of at least nine lower-ranking renouncers related to either of the two Vāgaḍāśākhās have been found in the communal chatrī. Among these are six fully initiated renouncers, four ācāryas (one unidentiﬁed), and two munis. (5.4.3.) Both munis relate to the Brhatśākhā, their memorials dated s. 1602 (#5.24) and s. 1627 ̥ their memorials dated s. 1579 (#5.25). Three of the ācāryas were also aﬃliated with the Brhatśākhā, ̥ (#5.20), s. 1725 (#5.21, Fig. 5.7 R.), and s. 1749 (#5.23). The niṣedhikā of a single Laghuśākhā ācārya is dated s. 1739. (#5.22) One of three or four brahmacārīs commemorated in the communal chatrī at the Choṭī Nasīyājī was associated to the Brhatśākhā, his memorial dated to s. 162(?) (#5.27). Another ̥ Laghuśākhā niṣedhikā from the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE probably also commemorated a brahmacārī. (#5.29) The inscriptions of presumably the oldest niṣedhikā in the communal chatrī, dated to s. 157(5?), relate the commemorated brahmacārī to both the Laghuśākhā and the Brhatśākhā. (#5.26) As mentioned above, a caraṇa-cabūtarā just in front of the square chatrī, ̥ possibly dating to the 19th century CE, is a memorial of an unidentiﬁed brahmacārī, probably also aﬃliated to one of the Vāgaḍāśākhās, most likely the Laghuśākhā. (#5.28) (5.4.4.) 389 Google maps, accessed May 14th 2021. 336 The inscriptions of four niṣedhikās in the communal chatrī no longer allowed a reading of the commemorated renouncers’ ranks. One of these can still be identiﬁed as related to the Brhatśākhā ̥ (s. 1608) and two to the Laghuśākhā (s. 1619; s. 1699). The lineage aﬃliation of an undatable niṣedhikā could not be unidentiﬁed. The inscription of a s. 1608 niṣedhikā breaks down after the record of the Brhatśākhā founder Bhaṭṭāraka Jñānabhūṣaṇa. (#5.30) The rest of the inscription is ̥ covered by ﬂoor stones, presumably ever since the installation of the niṣedhikā, since no new ﬂooring has been added in this chatrī. The inscription of a s. 1619 niṣedhikā records pupillary successions between the ﬁrst three Laghuśākhā incumbents (Jñānakīrti, Ratnakīrti, Yaśakīrti), but the later section which probably recorded the commemorated individual is illegible. (#5.31) The memorial dates to six years after the death of Yaśakīrti, but a memorial of his is found in Naugāmā, probably dated s. 1618. (#5.3) The s. 1619 niṣedhikā at the Choṭī Nasīyājī more likely commemorated a lower-ranking renouncer. The inscription of a s. 1699 niṣedhikā is preserved in entirety, recording the Laghuśākhā succession down to Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra. (#5.33) The inscription fails to indicate clearly who the memorial commemorates, concluding with the standard phrase ‘they (pl.) eternally bow in salutation’ (‘nityāṃ praṇamaṃti’) immediately after the Laghuśākhā succession and the single record of Ratnacandra. This is ambiguous and could be taken to indicate that Ratnacandra consecrated the memorial or that instead it commemorates him, or as not necessarily indicating either. The smaller inscribed captions found on some niṣedhikās identifying the carved khaḍgāsana ﬁgures as the commemorated renouncer also do not seem to have been present. Ratnacandra is recorded to have consecrated his successor Harṣacandra in the very year recorded on the niṣedhikā (s. 1699), but as having died in Naugāmā only in s. 1707 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 163, lekha 414). No memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra has been found, but it would be untypical for a memorial inscription to record the year of the abdication of a commemorated incumbent. This s. 1699 niṣedhikā might then instead rather have been consecrated by Ratnacandra. Hardly anything of the inscription on a fourth unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā remains legible, one snippet possibly reads ‘ā. śrī’ (ācārya, #5.32). This could refer to the incumbent ācāryas of the early Laghuśākhā, but the location of the niṣedhikā under the eastern porch rather suggests it belongs to the 17th century CE and to the Brhatśākhā (see below, this ̥ section on the dating and lineage aﬃliation of the two porches added to the communal chatrī). This might then be a memorial of yet another ācārya, next to those commemorated in s. 1725 (Brhatśākhā, #5.21), s. 1739 (Laghuśākhā, #5.22), and s. 1749 (Brhatśākhā, #5.23). ̥ ̥ The large chatrī at the Choṭī Nasīyājī consists of a square core with sixteen pillars with veranda-like porches added on two sides. (Fig. 5.8) The latter stand on an extension of the original chatrī’s plinth, and are a single storey high, their ﬂat roofs roof extending the ﬂoor of the second storey of the core chatrī. Architectural features of the porches and the generally later dates of the niṣedhikās installed under them indicate they were later additions to the original square structure. All niṣedhikās in the core of the chatrī belong the 16th century CE,390 whereas all but one of the s. 157(5?) (#5.26), s. 1579 (#5.20), s. 1602 (#5.24), s. 1608 (#5.30), s. 1619 (#5.31), s. 162(?) (#5.27), s. 1627 (#5.25), s. 1655 (#5.18). 390 337 datable niṣedhikās installed under the porches belong to the 17th century CE.391 The extension on the eastern side (partly visible on Fig. 5.9 L. & R.) adds two aisles to the original, square chatrī (of 3 × 3 cells), that on the southern side is a single aisle consisting of three cells (visible on Fig. 5.6). One of these extends beyond the original chatrī, and also forms one of the four cells of the ﬁrst aisle of the southern porch. The second aisle on this side is only two cells wide, centred in the middle of the ﬁrst aisle. The very south-eastern corner of the extension of the plinth supporting both porches was left uncovered, although a niṣedhikā has been installed in this segment too (visible on Fig. 5.9 L. & R.). It is not certain whether the extensions on both sides were built together (see below). Figure 5.8. Sketch of the ground plan of the communal memorial chatrī at the Chotī Nasīyājī in Sāgavāṛā, indicating the location of the niṣedhikās and (if available) their date, and the rank and name of the individual commemorated. N.d. = date not legible. (Not to scale.) s. 1673 (#5.19), s. 1699 (#5.33), s. 1725 (#5.21), s. 1726 (#5.15), s. 1739 (#5.22), s. 1749 (#5.23). The dates of three niṣedhikās in the porches are illegible. One was consecrated by the Laghuśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra (p. s. 1670-99) and thus dates to the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE. (#5.29) Another is a memorial of the Brhatśākhā ̥ Bhaṭṭāraka Sumatikīrti and hence probably dates to the last third of the 16th century CE, s. 1620s or 1630s. (#5.14) No information is available for the dating of the third, apart from a possible reading of a record of the ācārya rank in its barely legible inscription, which may situate it in the 17th century CE, when several ācāryas were commemorated in the communal chatrī. (#5.32, 5.4.1) 391 338 The two oldest datable memorial stones in the communal chatrī (s. 157[5?] and s. 1579) were erected during the incumbency of the Brhatśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (I). The s. 1579 niṣedhikā of ̥ Ācārya Dharmakīrti was erected under the instruction of Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (I) (#5.20). Although the inscription does not record his predecessors, there is little doubt he is the Brhatśākhā ̥ incumbent of that name for whom Joharāpurakara (1958: 154-5) only had references from s. 1557 to s. 1568. As mentioned before (5.3.5.), a reference to Vijayakīrti (I)’s successor Śubhacandra from s. 1573 Joharāpurakara (Ibid.: 244-5, lekha 367) probably predates his ascendance to the bhaṭṭāraka seat. Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (I) is also the last incumbent recorded in a recognisably Brhatśākhā ̥ aﬃliation in the inscription on the niṣedhikā of Brahmacārī Ratnasāgara dated s. 157(5?). (#5.26) Given Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (I)’s association with the oldest retrieved memorials in the square chatrī, he probably also oversaw its construction, shortly after erecting the kīrtistambha at the Naugāmā Nasīyājī in s. 1571. Vijayakīrti (I) may have been the ﬁrst Vāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭāraka to centre his activities in Sāgavāṛā. The niṣedhikā of Brahmacārī Ratnasāgara from s. 157(5?) was built by an unranked renouncer (Vijaya?)bhūṣaṇa, who is recorded as a pupil of the Brhatśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (I), and ̥ consecrated by one Ācārya Ratnakīrti. (#5.26, see 5.4.4.) The latter presumably was the Laghuśākhā incumbent who may then still have been ﬂourishing. The niṣedhikā commemorating Brahmacārī Ratnasāgara is broken in two. The upper half is installed under the eastern porch, on the northeastern corner of the extended structure, where it was probably reinstalled after it broke oﬀ. The lower half carrying the inscription is installed in the central cell on the north side, which I take to be the original place of installation of the memorial pillar. (Fig. 5.8) Its location here, as probably the oldest niṣedhikā in the chatrī, aligns with the coeval square chatrīs of Naugāmā (5.3.) and Aḍindā (3.1.4.), in which respectively the presumably oldest niṣedhikā and the single memorial pillar are installed in the middle segment of the back row. The single niṣedhikā of the later Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha chatrī at the Yogīndragiri in Sāgavāṛā however is installed in the centre of the structure. (5.4.6.) In the Sāgavāṛā chatrī, niṣedhikās were ﬁrstly added in the central, north-south aisle. The s. 1579 memorial of Ācārya Dharmakīrti was installed in the centre of the structure’s sixteen-pillared nucleus. (#5.20). The next memorial was added on the southern end of the north-south aisle, the s. 1602 niṣedhikā of Muni Jayakīrti, who is recorded as a pupil of Vijayakīrti (I)’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra (refs. s. 1607-1613, Joharāpurakara 1958: 255). (#5.24) It might seem remarkable that the ﬁrst renouncers to be commemorated in such a grand monument are not bhaṭṭārakas, but a brahmacārī, an ācārya, and a muni. This can probably also be taken as an indication that from its conception onwards the large chatrī was intended to serve as a collective memorial, rather than having been purposed for the commemoration of these ﬁrst commemorated individuals. A niṣedhikā of s. 162(?) was consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra’s successor Sumatikīrti, in incumbents commemoration of a brahmacārī pupil of his. (#5.27) Three consecutive Brhatśākhā ̥ (Vijayakīrti [I], Śubhacandra, Sumatikīrti) were thus involved with the installation of niṣedhikās in the original square chatrī. The next niṣedhikās were added in the corners of the original square chatrī, probably in a clockwise progression starting on the south-eastern corner (s. 1608, #5.30 > s. 1619, #5.31 > s. 339 162(?), #5.27 > s. 1627, #5.25). (Fig. 5.8) For some reason, no memorial stones are found in the other two cells on the central, east-west colonnade, nor any indications that they were formerly present. A s. 1655 niṣedhikā was instead installed in the central cell on the north side, next to the s. 157(5?) niṣedhikā. (#5.18) This is the only cell in the chatrī’s original nucleus with two niṣedhikās, a separate cell otherwise allotted to each single niṣedhikā. The ranks of the commemorated renouncers do not seem to have been a factor in the place of installation of their memorials. This is similar to the ﬁndings in the communal chatrī at the Naugāmā Nasīyājī. The oldest two niṣedhikās there, memorials of the ﬁrst two Laghuśākhā incumbents, were located in the back row, but further memorials were chronologically added regardless of rank. Unlike at the Naugāmā Nasīyājī (5.3.1.), the dimensions of the niṣedhikās at the Choṭī Nasīyājī are less proportioned to the ranks of the renouncers they commemorate, or such distinctions were maintained less strictly during the almost two centuries that new niṣedhikās were erected, perhaps in relation to the strife between the two Vāgaḍāśākhās. The s. 162(?) niṣedhikā commemorating an unidentiﬁed brahmacārī (#5.27), for example, is relatively small but just as bulky as all others on site. And the s. 1673 niṣedhikā of Maṇḍalācārya Sakalacandra (#5.19) has the same proportions and even stands slightly less tall than the coeval niṣedhikā with which it shares a cell and which probably commemorates an unidentiﬁed brahmacārī (#5.29). Inside the original square chatrī, the aﬃliation of commemorated renouncers does not seem to have eﬀected the place of installation of their memorials. While Brhatśākhā memorials are ̥ predominant, a s. 1619 Laghuśākhā niṣedhikā was ﬁtted into the chronological, clockwise progression, and the s. 1655 Laghuśākhā niṣedhikā was erected next to the s. 157(5?) Brhatśākhā ̥ niṣedhikā. Under the porches on the other hand, there is a notable spatial separation of Laghuśākhā and Brhatśākhā memorials. Only Laghuśākhā niṣedhikās are found under the ̥ southern extension, dated s. 1673 (#5.19), s. 1726 (#5.15), and s. 1739 (#5.22). Another Laghuśākhā memorial from s. 1699 stands in open air on the south-eastern corner of the extended plinth, which is not covered by either porch. (#5.33) Apart from one unidentiﬁed and undatable niṣedhikā (#5.32), the eastern annex shelters only Brhatśākhā niṣedhikās, Bhaṭṭāraka Sumatikīrti’s s. 1620-30s ̥ niṣedhikā (#5.14), and two later memorial stones dated s. 1725 (#5.21) and s. 1749 (#5.23). Contrary to the practice inside the original, square chatrī, both lineages thus seem to have had their own, dedicated commemorative spaces under the later porches. The oldest datable niṣedhikā in the eastern, Brhatśākhā porch stems from s. 1673. (#5.19) A ̥ Bhaṭṭāraka Sumatikīrti also found niṣedhikā with an illegible date commemorating the Brhatśākhā ̥ there probably dates to the s. 1620-30s. (#5.14, 5.4.2.) This would form a terminus ante quem for the construction of the eastern porch, but the niṣedhikā may also have been reinstalled under the eastern porch later on. The s. 1655 niṣedhikā commemorating the Laghuśākhā Maṇḍalācārya Guṇacandra installed the core of the chatrī (#5.18) could be a terminus post quem for the construction of the southern, Laghuśākhā porch. The construction of separate, dedicated commemoration spaces for the two Vāgaḍāśākhās added to the pre-existing, originally shared commemorative structure around the turn of the 17th century CE falls in line with the controversy surrounding the (maṇḍal)ācārya consecration of the Laghuśākhā incumbent Ratnacandra in 340 Sāgavāṛā in the early 17th century CE and his later adoption of the bhaṭṭāraka rank, and thus the completed diﬀerentiation of the two lineages. (5.1.4., 5.1.5.) Among the dozen and a half early modern memorials in the chatrīs on top of Sāgavāṛā’s Chotī Nasīyājī, 17 niṣedhikās in the square chatrī and Narendrakīrti’s memorial in the round chatrī next to 392 and seven to the Laghuśākhā.393 The inscription of one it, nine can be related to the Brhatśākhā ̥ niṣedhikā refers to both lineages. (#5.26) The inscription of one niṣedhikā no longer allows identiﬁcation of its aﬃliation. (#5.32) The brahmacārī caraṇa-cabūtarā in front of the chatrīs can also not be assigned to a speciﬁc lineage. (#5.28) Brhatśākhā niṣedhikās are on the average clearly older than those of the Laghuśākhā. Six ̥ Brhatśākhā niṣedhikās belong to the 16th century CE, and two to the second half of 17th century CE ̥ and one to the early 18th century CE.394 Whereas only two Laghuśākhā niṣedhikās date to the second half of 16th century CE, but ﬁve to the 17th century CE.395 Niṣedhikās connected to the Brhatśākhā are also predominant in the older, square nucleus of the square chatrī, whereas they ̥ are outnumbered by Laghuśākhā memorials in the side-porches. In the original core of the chatrī stand ﬁve Brhatśākhā niṣedhikās396 versus only two Laghuśākhā397 niṣedhikās, in the side-porches ̥ 399 niṣedhikās. (One niṣedhikā in the eastern, ‘Brhatśākhā’ ﬁve Laghuśākhā398 and three Brhatśākhā ̥ ̥ porch cannot be attributed to any lineage.) There is a notable time gap in the corpus of Brhatśākhā memorials in Sāgavāṛā. A full century ̥ separates the last Brhatśākhā memorials at the Chotī Nasīyājī, from the second half of the 16th ̥ century CE,400 from the later Brhatśākhā memorials at the necropolis401 and another Brhatśākhā ̥ ̥ memorial found elsewhere in Sāgavāṛā,402 which all date from the second half of the 17th century CE and the early to mid 18th century CE. It is notably during this period that Laghuśākhā memorials 392 Brhatśākhā niṣedhikās on the Choṭī Nasīyājī: #5.14, #5.16-17, #5.20, #5.21, #5.23, #5.24, #5.25, #5.27, #5.30. ̥ 393 Laghuśākhā niṣedhikās on the Choṭī Nasīyājī: #5.15, #5.18, #5.19, #5.22, #5.29, #5.31, #5.33. Brhatśākhā niṣedhikās on the Choṭī Nasīyājī in chronological order: s. 1579 (#5.20), s. 1602 (#5.24), s. 1608 ̥ (#5.30), s. 1627 (#5.25), s. 162(?) (#5.27), s. 1620s-30s (#5.14), s. 1725 (#5.21), s. 1749 (#5.23), s. 1769 (#5.16-17). 394 Laghuśākhā niṣedhikās on the Choṭī Nasīyājī in chronological order: s. 1619 (#5.31), s. 1655 (#5.18), s. 1673 (#5.19), s. 1[6?][??] (s. 1670-99, #5.29), s. 1699 (#5.33), s. 1726 (#5.15), s. 1739 (#5.22). 395 Brhatśākhā niṣedhikās in the original core of the chatrī: s. 1579 (#5.20), s. 1602 (#5.24), s. 1608 (#5.30), s. ̥ 162(?) (#5.27), s. 1627 (#5.25). 396 397 Laghuśākhā niṣedhikās in the original core of the chatrī: s. 1619 (#5.31), s. 1655 (#5.18). Laghuśākhā niṣedhikās in the side-porches: 1673 (#5.19), s. 1 [6?][??] (s. 1670-99, #5.29), s. 1699 (#5.33), s. 1726 (#5.15), s. 1739 (#5.22). 398 399 Brhatśākhā niṣedhikās in the side-porches: s. 1620-30s (#5.14), s. 1725 (#5.21), s. 1749 (#5.23). ̥ 16th century CE Brhatśākhā niṣedhikās on the Choṭī Nasīyājī: s. 1627 (#5.25), s. 162(?) (#5.27), s. 1620-30s ̥ (#5.14). 400 17th and 18th century CE Brhatśākhā niṣedhikās on the Choṭī Nasīyājī: s. 1725 (#5.20), s. 1749 (#5.22), s. 1769 ̥ (#5.16-17). 401 402 Mid-18th century CE Brhatśākhā memorial elsewhere in Sāgavāṛā: s. 1802 (#5.42-43, 5.6.1.). ̥ 341 appear at the Choṭī Nasīyājī.403 The Brhatśākhā memorials from the 17th and ﬁrst half of the 18th ̥ century CE, the presence of 18th century CE Brhatśākhā ācāryas, and the design of the s. 1769 ̥ niṣedhikā as a kīrtistambha all testify to a later Brhatśākhā representation and perhaps revival in ̥ Sāgavāṛā. (5.1.6.) No Brhatśākhā memorials are found in Sāgavāṛā after the mid-18th century CE, ̥ while a good number of 18th and 19th century CE Brhatśākhā memorials have been discovered ̥ elsewhere. (5.6.) This indicates that the lineage had then more fully moved out of Sāgavāṛā. The Laghuśākhā on the other hand seems to have remained in this town until its demise, as is evinced by a good number of memorials of its 18th and 19th century CE incumbents at others sites in Sāgavāṛā. (5.5.2.) 5.4.2. Lineage incumbents (bhaṭṭāraka, maṇḍalācārya) Five Vāgaḍāśākhā incumbents were commemorated at the Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyājī, two Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭārakas, in the second half of the 16th and the early 18th century CE, two ̥ Laghuśākhā maṇḍalācāryas in the late 16th and early 17th century CE and one Laghuśākhā bhaṭṭāraka in the second half of the 17th century CE. A niṣedhikā of which the inscription is incomplete and the date is no longer legible can still be determined to commemorate the Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭāraka Sumatikīrti given a repeated phrase of veneration.404 (Fig. 3.7 top L.) The ̥ memorial seems to have been installed by his successor Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇakīrti. Given the known dates of Sumatikīrti (ﬂ. s. 1622-7, Joharāpurakara 1958: 156, #5.25) and Guṇakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1631-9, Ibid.), the niṣedhikā can be assigned to the s. 1620-30s (ca. 1565-75 CE). As noted (5.2.3.), it features a large number of additional, small line carvings of padmāsana and khaḍgāsana ﬁgures, possibly following the design of the Brhatśākhā kīrtistambha in the Jūnā Mandira down in town from shortly ̥ before (s. 1610). The smaller, round chatrī erected just behind the square chatrī houses a pādukā and a niṣedhikā of the later Brhatśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, both installed by his successor Vijayakīrti (II) on the ̥ same day in s. 1769.405 (Fig. 5.9, #5.16-17) Further, later examples of such combinations of loose pādukā and niṣedhikā stones installed next to each are found at other sites in Sāgavāṛā (5.5.2., 5.6.1.) and elsewhere (3.1.3.). Peculiar to this memorial, however, is that the niṣedhikā also doubles as a Balātkāragaṇa kīrtistambha. (5.4.5.) Niṣedhikās in the communal chatrī at the Choṭī Nasīyājī commemorate the fourth, sixth, and eighth Laghuśākhā incumbents, Maṇḍalācārya Guṇacandra (s. 1655, #5.18), Maṇḍalācārya Sakalacandra (s. 1673, #5.19) and Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣacandra (s. 1726, #5.15). They are respectively the ﬁrst and third maṇḍalācārya, and the second bhaṭṭāraka of the Laghuśākhā. (5.1.3.) Maṇḍalācārya Sakalacandra is indeed reported to have died in Sāgavāṛā in s. 1670 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 162, lekha 409). The Once more, Laghuśākhā niṣedhikās on the Choṭī Nasīyājī in chronological order: s. 1619 (#5.31), s. 1655 (#5.18), s. 1673 (#5.19), s. 1[6?][??] (s. 1670-99, #5.29), s. 1699 (#5.33), s. 1726 (#5.15), s. 1739 (#5.22). 403 404 ‘[?+?] śrī-sumatik[1+]-(guru?)bhyo namaḥ (...)’, ‘[1+?](bha.?) sumatikī[1+][?+?] namaḥ (...)’ (#5.14). 405 The niṣedhikā inscription’s s. 176(4?) is to be amended to s. 1769. 342 inscription of the s. 1673 niṣedhikā identiﬁed as Sakalacandra’s records the Laghuśākhā genealogy up to his successor Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra. (#5.19) Although my reading of the inscription does not explicitly identify the identify of the commemorated renouncer, a second mention of Sakalacandra later in the incomplete inscription indicates that it is his memorial. An unidentiﬁed brahmacārī recorded after that again is probably mentioned as his pupil or as the donor of the memorial. The niṣedhikā’s date of s. 1673 also ﬁts the reported death of Sakalacandra in s. 1670. (5.1.5.) Sakalacandra’s niṣedhikā is installed next to that of an unidentiﬁed individual, probably a brahmacārī and possibly a pupil of his, consecrated by his successor Ratnacandra (#5.29, 5.4.4.), both pillars sharing a cell of the chatrī. Presumably, Ratnacandra also consecrated Sakalacandra’s niṣedhikā. The inscription of the niṣedhikā of the earlier Laghuśākhā incumbent Maṇḍalācārya Guṇacandra does not record who consecrated the memorial, only that is it was built by the saṅgha. (#5.18) The s. 1726 date of the niṣedhikā identiﬁed as commemorating the later Laghuśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣacandra (#5.15) ﬁts his recorded succession by Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra in s. 1723 (5.1.5.). 5.4.3. Munis and ācāryas Both muni memorials at the Choṭī Nasīyā chatrī date to the mid-16th century CE. Ācāryas were commemorated at the site from the early 16th to the late 17th century CE. The niṣedhikā of Ācārya Dharmakīrti is dated s. 1579 (#5.20), that of Muni Jayakīrti s. 1602 (#5.24), Muni Siṅhanandi’s s. 1627 (#5.25), Ācārya Kalyāṇakīrti’s s. 1725 (#5.21), Ācārya Jagatkīrti’s s. 1739 (#5.22), and an unidentiﬁed ācārya’s niṣedhikā is dated s. 1749 (#5.23).406 Only one of the ācāryas was aﬃliated to the Laghuśākhā, the other three ācāryas and both munis are commemorated as aﬃliated to the Brhatśākhā. In another, textual source, one of the munis is attested in connection to the ̥ Laghuśākhā. The fully initiated renouncers commemorated at the Choṭī Nasīyā in the 16th century CE memorials were related to consecutive Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭārakas. The memorial of Ācārya Dharmakīrti was ̥ installed by Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (I) (s. 1579, #5.20). Muni Jayakīrti was a pupil of the latter’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra (s. 1602, #5.24). And Muni Siṅhanandi (s. 1627, #5.25) was commemorated by again Śubhacandra’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Sumatikīrti. No doubt the same individual (Siṅhanandī) is also attested in a Laghuśākhā paṭṭāvalī edited by Joharāpurakara (1958: 160 lekha 403). Here, he is generically referred to as a renouncer (‘yatīndra’), without a speciﬁc rank, and as the guru of Sūri [= Ācārya] Guṇacandra, the ﬁfth Laghuśākhā incumbent. Based on this source, Joharāpurakara (Ibid.: 166) shortly mentions Siṅhanandi as an incumbent between Yaṣaḥkīrti and Guṇacandra in the discussion of his ‘Bhānapuraśākhā’ sources, although he ultimately does not include him in his chart of lineage incumbents (Ibid.: 168). The recorded pupillary relation between Siṅhanandi and Guṇacandra does not necessarily mean the former was also a lineage incumbent, and the lack of other attestations probably indicates he wasn’t. The attestations linking (Muni) Siṅhanandi to both the Brhatśākhā and the Laghuśākhā may be taken to ̥ An unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā with a barely legible inscription might commemorate another 17th century CE ācārya of unknown aﬃliation (#5.32, 5.4.1.). 406 343 indicate that at this moment the boundary between the two Vāgaḍāśākhās was porous, or that in fact the Laghuśākhā at this time was still an inherent part of the Brhatśākhā. The available sources ̥ given that his memorial include a stronger indication for Siṅhanandi’s aﬃliation to the Brhatśākhā, ̥ in Sāgavāṛā was consecrated by an incumbent of this latter lineage. Guṇacandra may have been promoted to his position within the Laghuśākhā after his study with Siṅhanandi. The incomplete inscription on the s. 157(5?) niṣedhikā of Brahma Ratnasāgara probably records at least one further fully initiated, lower-ranking Vāgaḍāśākhā renouncer. (#5.26) Accordingly, the memorial was built by the whole saṅgha and by an unranked individual with a name probably ending in -bhūṣaṇa, possibly Vijayabhūṣaṇa, and consecrated by one Ācārya Ratnakīrti.407 (Vijaya?)bhūṣaṇa is recorded as the pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (I), who is known to have been on the Brhatśākhā seat at the time of the memorial’s consecration. The suﬃx -bhūṣaṇa suggests a ̥ fully initiated renouncer. Since no Vāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭāraka of such a name is known, (Vijaya?)bhūṣaṇa seems to have been a muni or ācārya. The consecrating Ācārya Ratnakīrti could also have been another ‘common’ (Brhad)vāgaḍāśākhā ācārya, which would fall in line with the ̥ inscription’s record of the Brhatśākhā lineage up to Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (I). It seems perhaps more ̥ likely however that this is an attestation of the Laghuśākhā incumbent Ratnakīrti who then may still have been on the seat. In that case, this is another memorial inscription referring to both Vāgaḍāśākhās, similar to that of the s. 1594 niṣedhikā of Ācārya Vinayacandra at the Naugāmā Nasīyājī. (#5.5, 5.3.3.). In this case, the memorial was even erected by both lineages together. Three ācāryas were commemorated at the Choṭī Nasīyā in the second half of the 17th century CE, two related to the Brhatśākhā and one to the Laghuśākhā. The inscriptions of their niṣedhikās ̥ record considerable numbers of their pupils. The s. 1725 niṣedhikā of Ācārya Kalyāṇakīrti (#5.21, Fig. 5.7 R.) was installed under the instruction of the Br h ̥ atśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti. Its inscription is particularly rich. Ācārya Kalyāṇakīrti is commemorated as a pupil of Muni Devakīrti, who in turn was a pupil of Muni Śrutakīrti. And seven pupils of Kalyāṇakīrti are recorded as saluting their late guru, Muni Tribhuvanacandra, the brahmacārīs Saṅgha, Lāla, Prema, and Nā(y)(…), and the paṇḍitas Rāghava and Haridāsa. Manuscript colophons from s. 1713 and s. 1725 attest the same pupillary succession Muni Śrutakīrti > Muni Devakīrti > Ācārya Kalyāṇakīrti > Muni Tribhuvanacandra, as well as yet another Chart 5.3. Pupillary successions around Ācārya Kalyāṇakīrti (Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā). ̥ brahmacārī pupil of Kalyāṇakīrti, Brahma ‘(...) bhaṭṭā. śrī-vijayakīrti tac-chiṣya (śrī?)-(vijaya?)bhūṣaṇena tathā samasta-saṃghena brahma-śrīratnasāgara(sya?) niṣ(e?)dhikā kārāpita(ṃ?) ācārya-śrī-ratnakīrttinā prati(sth?)itā(ṃ?) || (...)’ (#5.26). 407 344 Tejapāla. Brahma Tejapāla copied the s. 1713 manuscript in Sāgavāṛā (Joharāpurakara 1958: 151, lekha 390). The s. 1725 manuscript was copied by Muni Tribhuvanacandra (Ibid.: lekha 391). The former manuscript was produced in the tradition of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (‘tadāmnāye’), the latter upon his instruction (‘-gurūpadeśāt’). In a colophon from s. 1690, apparently before his promotion to the ācārya rank, Kalyāṇakīrti appears as a muni, already having a pupil in the copyist Brahma Siṅha (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 232, n. 38; Detige 2018: 341-3). In these various sources, six brahmacārīs, two paṇḍitas, and a single muni are attested as Kalyāṇakīrti’s pupils. (Chart 5.3) Textual sources regularly conﬁrm that early modern ācāryas and munis had other renouncers and laypeople as pupils (Ibid., 2.3.1.). The record of the particularly broad pupillary circle around Kalyāṇakīrti is however rare. Similar information is found in the inscription of the s. 1739 niṣedhikā of Ācārya Jagatkīrti, the only identiﬁed fully initiated, lower-ranking Laghuśākhā renouncer commemorated at the Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyājī. (#5.22) Ācārya Jagatkīrti is recorded as a pupil of the Laghuśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣacandra, and four of his own pupils are recorded as eternally saluting him, the brahmacārīs, Rāja[sī?], Ratna, Pāvanā?, and Paṇḍita Manora (Manorāma?) Although both memorials stand apart just a decade and a half, the absence of munis and the smaller recorded pupillary circle on the s. 1725 niṣedhikā of Ācārya Kalyāṇakīrti, as against the s. 1739 niṣedhikā of Ācārya Jagatkīrti, could be taken as indicative of the changing composition and width of the ascetic saṅghas in the second half of the 17th century CE. A muni might however also be attested in the inscription of a s. 1749 niṣedhikā at the Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyājī commemorating an unidentiﬁed ācārya. (#5.23) Small captions above the carvings of the khaḍgāsana ﬁgures depicting the commemorated renouncer allow an identiﬁcation of the memorial as commemorating an ācārya, seemingly with name ending in -candra. The longer inscription near the base of the pillar seems to mention a muni (Muni Kanakā?) and perhaps two brahmacārīs in a longer section which has become largely illegible and may have included the name of the commemorated ācārya and perhaps more pupils of his.408 The niṣedhikā was consecrated by the Brhatśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti (p. s. 1734, succeeded in s. 1762), ̥ who was incumbent at the time. The inscription includes a long Brhatśākhā genealogy, which ̥ presumably by oversight after Rāmakīrti (I) from the early 17th century CE skips Kṣemakīrti’s two direct predecessors Padmanandi and Devendrakīrti. The two Brhatśākhā ācāryas commemorated ̥ at the Choṭī Nasīyājī in the second half of the 17th century CE, Kalyāṇakīrti and the unidentiﬁed ācārya, may have been the Brhatśākhā representatives in Sāgavāṛā, of which the bhaṭṭārakas were ̥ active elsewhere by this time, while otherwise by this time Laghuśākhā bhaṭṭārakas held sway over the town. (5.1.6., 5.2.4.) The record of lower-ranking renouncers in their memorial inscriptions shows that there still was some Brhatśākhā saṅgha in Sāgavāṛā at the time. ̥ ‘(...) mu(ni?) śrī (kanakā?) (brahma?) [ca. 34×] (bha.?) [1×] (śrī-brahma?) [ca. 8×] (siṣya?) [ca. 17×] nityaṃ praṇamat(ī?)’ (#5.23). 408 345 5.4.4. Brahmacārīs Between the early 16th and the early 17th century CE, at least two, possibly three brahmacārīs seem to have been commemorated in the communal chatrī at the Choṭī Nasīyā. The name of only one of these is known. A broken niṣedhikā dated s. 157(5?) and commemorating Brahmacārī Ratnasāgara is possibly the earliest memorial at the Sāgavāṛā necropolis. (5.4.1., #5.26) As discussed in the previous section (5.4.3.), his memorial was constructed by an unranked ascetic pupil of a Brh̥ atśākhā bhaṭṭāraka, (Vijaya?)bhūṣaṇa, but presumably consecrated by a Laghuśākhā incumbent ācārya. A bulky but small niṣedhikā with an incomplete inscription is dated s. 162(?) and was consecrated by the Brhatśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Sumatikīrti in commemoration of a brahmacārī ̥ pupil of his whose name is no longer legible. (#5.27) Parts of this inscription are unavailable because the corners of the pillar are chipped oﬀ. A niṣedhikā consecrated by the ﬁrst Laghuśākhā bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra (here recorded with this rank) seems to commemorate a brahmacārī whose name could not be read but is possibly recorded as a pupil of Maṇḍalācārya Sakalacandra.409 (#5.29) The inscription is damaged and weathered, and only very partly legible, and the date of the memorial can no longer be read (s.1[6][??]]), but its consecration by Ratnacandra places it in the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE. Another, again unidentiﬁed brahmacārī (Ja[1×]ka?) may be recorded as instrumental to the memorial’s construction. This memorial shares a cell in the southern porch with the s. 1673 niṣedhikā of Maṇḍalācārya Sakalacandra, which as discussed also records an unidentiﬁed brahmacārī. (#5.19, 5.4.2.) As discussed (5.4.3.), and in line with what we saw in Naugāmā (5.2.4.), the inscriptions of niṣedhikās of lower-ranking, fully initiated renouncers at the Choṭī Nasīyā attest further brahmacārīs as pupils of the commemorated renouncers or as active in the erection of their niṣedhikās. An unidentiﬁed brahmacārī was also commemorated with a caraṇa-cabūtarā built in front of the Choṭī Nasīyā chatrīs probably in the 18th or 19th century CE. (5.4.1., #5.28) 5.4.5. Kīrtistambha (s. 1769) As mentioned (5.4.2.), the round, eight-pillared chatrī next to the square, communal chatrī on the Choṭī Nasīyājī houses a s. 1769 memorial of the Brhatśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti of which the ̥ niṣedhikā doubles as a kīrtistambha. (Fig. 5.9, #5.16-17) Some fragments of mural painting with ﬂoral motifs remained inside the dome of the chatrī. The pillar is covered on all four sides with carvings of small ﬁgures, in padmāsana and khaḍgāsana postures on two sides each. Inscribed captions name and number these as the consecutive incumbents of this Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa lineage, from Bhadrabāhu onwards as usual.410 A larger khaḍgāsana ﬁgure on all four sides is identiﬁed as representing the commemorated Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti. Large padmāsana ﬁgures near the top of the pillar are identiﬁed by inscriptions as speciﬁc jinas, diﬀering from the identiﬁcation of these ﬁgures as siddhas on other Vāgaḍāśākhā memorials. (#5.17, 5.2.3.) ‘(...) bha. śrī-ra[1×?]na(caṃdra?)-guru-upadeśāt(·?) [6×] (maṃ.?) śrī-sakalacaṃdra [2×] (brahma?) [3×] brahma(śrī?)-ja[1×](ke?)(na?) (...)’ (#5.29). 409 410 I omit a transcription of these inscriptions in my edition of the niṣedhikā’s inscriptions. 346 Figure 5.9. Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti’s pādukā and niṣedhikā (s. 1769), the latter doubling as a kīrtistambha, covered with carvings of small padmāsana (front side) and khaḍgāsana (right side) ﬁgures representing lineage incumbents (R.), installed in a round chatrī (L.) next to the square, communal chatrī (eastern side with added porch visible) (right on L., and back on R.), Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. (January 2014) A second memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti is found near Udayapura, at the Candraprabhu Caityālaya in Āyaṛa. (5.6.2.) Like the memorial in Sāgavāṛā, it is a set of niṣedhikā and pādukā stones, but the former lacks the additional kīrtistambha function. Both memorials of Narendrakīrti were consecrated by his successor Vijayakīrti (II) and feature the same date, the fourth day of the dark half of the month Phālguṇa in s. 1769 (15th March 1713). In Āyaṛa, however, this date was recorded as a Thursday (#5.48-49), whereas in Sāgavāṛā it was correctly noted as a Wednesday (#5.16-17). Vijayakīrti (II) could have consecrated the memorial stones for both sites on a single day at either of the two places, one set was then transported to the other location some 120 km away. The noted diﬀerence in the inscriptions’ dates and the diﬀering design of both sets however indicates diﬀerently. Apart from the multiple, small padmāsana and khaḍgāsana carvings added to the Sāgavāṛā memorial because of its secondary function as a kīrtistambha, the design of the larger padmāsana and khaḍgāsana ﬁgures on both niṣedhikās diﬀers and the Udayapura niṣedhikā is more ornamented than its Sāgavāṛā pendant. (Comp. Figs. 6.9 R. & 6.19 L.) The pādukās also have a diﬀerent design. The memorials thus seem to have been produced separately, probably each in the town of its respective ﬁnding spot. Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II) could have consecrated both memorials in situ on diﬀerent occasions, the recorded date on both memorials then representing that of Narendrakīrti’s death. The Devanagari characters of the inscriptions at both sites also diﬀers. One striking similarity however is that both occasionally use the old Nagari characters for the vowels e, o, and au, which otherwise are rarely if ever used in inscriptions in this period. Both inscriptions also use the more common manner of writing these vowels and apply the older style in diﬀerent places. Yet it seems someone involved in the memorials’ creation had a predilection for it, probably the person who spelled out the inscription to be applied for the carvers. In fact, old Devanagari complex vowel signs are also found in the inscriptions of the s. 1725 niṣedhikā of Ācārya Kalyāṇakīrti consecrated 347 by Devendrakīrti at the Sāgavāṛā Choṭī (5.4.3.), and on the s. 1759 memorial stones of Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti and Ācārya Viśvabhūṣaṇa in the twin chatrī at the Śantinātha Mandira in Udayapura consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti (5.6.2.). This old writing style thus seems to have been in vogue for some time in the later 17th and early 18th century CE Brhatśākhā, under its various ̥ bhaṭṭārakas Devendrakīrti, Narendrakīrti, and Vijayakīrti (II). Apart from the diﬀerent weekday recorded, another, probably more meaningful diﬀerence between the inscriptions of Narendrakīrti’s memorials at both sites is found. The inscription on the Sāgavāṛā niṣedhikā breaks down towards the end (#5.17), but the pādukā next to it still carries a complete and otherwise identical inscription recording Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II) as eternally revering his predecessor (#5.16). In Āyaṛa on the other hand, the pādukā and niṣedhikā inscriptions record both Vijayakīrti (II) and the saṅgha as eternally bowing to Narendrakīrti.411 Although in many traditional usages the concept of saṅgha also includes laypeople, in this segment of the memorial stone’s inscription it probably refers to the renouncer saṅgha. The inclusion of this reference in the inscriptions of Narendrakīrti’s memorial in Udayapura and its absence from the memorial inscriptions of Sāgavāṛā might indicate that in the early 18th century CE the Brhatśākhā saṅgha ̥ dwelled in Udayapura, and perhaps by extension that the Brhatśākhā seat had shifted there. A ̥ reference to the saṅgha similarly appears in the inscriptions of the memorial of Kṣemakīrti and Ācārya Viśvabhūṣaṇa which Narendrakīrti had himself consecrated ten years earlier in Aśoka Nagara, Udayapura. (#5.44-46, 5.6.2.) A few niṣedhikās at the Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā are also recorded to have been built by the saṅgha, the s. 1602 niṣedhikā of Muni Jayakīrti consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra,412 the s. 157(5?) niṣedhikā of Bramha Ratnasāgara by the Brhatśākhā ̥ Ācārya Ratnakīrti and (Vijaya?)bhūṣaṇa,413 and the s. 1655 niṣedhikā of the Laghuśākhā Maṇḍalācārya Guṇacandra.414 Narendrakīrti’s consecration of the Aśoka Nagara memorial a decade earlier forms another attestation of his presence in Udayapura, and his predecessor Kṣemakīrti who was commemorated there is attested as having spent several cāturmāsas in Udayapura in a valuable textual source. (5.6.2.) The Udayapura niṣedhikā furthermore has a more typical memorial design, with carvings of a padmāsana siddha and a khaḍgāsana renouncer on an all four sides. These are all indications that Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti most likely passed away in Udayapura, a decade after consecrating the memorial of his predecessor. The additional kīrtistambha function of the Sāgavāṛā niṣedhikā might similarly conﬁrm that this is a secondary monument. Apart from erecting a memorial chatrī in Āyaṛa indicating Narendrakīrti’s actual place of death, and regardless of his own place of residence, Vijayakīrti (II) might have wanted to erect a memorial for his predecessor at the already rich necropolis in Sāgavāṛā. ‘(...) bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-(5?)-vijayakīrttis-tathā śrī-saṃghe | nityaṃ praṇamati (...)’ (#5.48); ‘(...) bha. śrī-vijayakīrttistathā saṃgha praṇa(ma?)’ (#5.49). 411 412 ‘(...) niṣedhik(ā) samasta-śrī-saṃghena kārāpitā’ (#5.24). ‘(...) -(vijaya?)bhūṣaṇena tathā samasta-saṃghena brahma-śrī-ratnasāgara(sya?) niṣ(e?)dhikā kārāpita(ṃ?) (...)’ (#5.26). 413 414 ‘(...) niṣedhikā śrī-saṃ || ghena kārāpitā ||’ (#5.18). 348 Vijayakīrti (II) would have been well aware of the importance of Sāgavāṛā in his lineage’s history, and through its kīrtistambha function, the memorial may well have been an attempt to reaﬃrm his lineage’s authority there. (5.1.4.) We are unsure about the dynamics between the Hūmaṛa caste groups supporting both Vāgaḍāśākhās, but for the lay community supporting the Brhatśākhā, the ̥ kīrtistambha function of the monument may also have been a way to express their claimed predominance in Sāgavāṛā as against the Laghuśākhā’s developing presence in town. As shown by Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti’s multiple cāturmāsas in Sāgavāṛā (5.6.2.), the Brhatśākhā incumbents no ̥ doubt still visited Sāgavāṛā regularly. Local laypeople’s probable acquaintance with Narendrakīrti would have motivated them to ﬁnance a grand monument for him. 5.4.6. Balātkāragaṇa and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha in Sāgavāṛā The square, multi-storied and sixteen-pillared, Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha chatrī near the top of the Sāgavāṛā Yogīndragiri closely resembles the Balātkāragaṇa structures at the Naugāmā Nasīyājī and especially at the adjacent Choṭī Nasīyājī. (Fig. 5.10 L.) While the latter are respectively two- and three-tiered, the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha chatrī in Sāgavāṛā has four storeys. As elsewhere, the superstructure is merely decorative, no ritual objects are installed on the higher storeys, nor is access provided to them. A single, particularly heavy niṣedhikā with mandira design (3.1.3.) stands central on the ground ﬂoor. (Fig. 5.10 M.) Its (unpublished) inscription is partly damaged, but the memorial is dated to s. 1757, commemorates the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Indrabhūṣaṇa (refs. s. 1715-36, Joharāpurakara 1958: 299), and was probably consecrated by his successor Surendrakīrti (refs. s. 1744-73, Ibid.).415 Figure 5.10. Square chatrī (L.) with s. 1757 niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Indrabhūṣaṇa (M.), and chatrī with unidentiﬁed pādukā (R. and behind square chatrī on L.), Yogīndragiri, Sāgavāṛā. (January 2014) An undated pādukā of Surendrakīrti consecrated by his successor Lakṣmīsena is reported from the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata (Kāpaḍiyā 1964: 202 lekha 69). 415 349 A smaller, four-pillared chatrī behind the large, square chatrī on the Yogīndragiri features a pādukā with some decoration. (Fig. 5.10 R.) Its (unpublished) inscription is heavily weathered and allows only a very fragmentary reading, including records of two bhaṭṭārakas with a name ending in -kīrti, one Dharmasena, and another individual with name ending in -sena. The latter two are probably also bhaṭṭārakas included in the succession list, and Dharmasena is probably the founder of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha lineage to which belonged Indrabhūṣaṇa and Surendrakīrti, attested in the inscription of the s. 1757 niṣedhikā in the larger chatrī. Many incumbents of this lineage had names ending in -sena and -bhūṣaṇa, and it is possible therefore that the bhaṭṭāraka names ending in -kīrti attest Candrakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1654-81, Joharāpurakara 1958: 299) or Rājakīrti, the immediate predecessors of Lakṣmīsena (ﬂ. s. 1696 [ś. 1561] - s. 1703, Ibid.), the predecessor of Indrabhūṣaṇa and Surendrakīrti. Material aspects indicate that the larger, square chatrī and the smaller round chatrī on the Yogīndragiri are roughly coeval. They have a very similar style, featuring the same type of pillars, small ribbed cupola, and crenelated border around the drum. (Comp. Fig. 5.10 L. & R.) Two identical structures near the new entrance gate to the site again feature similar cupolas and parapets, and may also be former memorial chatrīs, now walled up and refashioned as shrines with recent Kṣetrapāla and Ghaṇṭākarṇa mūrtis. I cannot at present oﬀer a reading of the weathered inscription of a pre-20th century CE pādukā preserved in one of them. The niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Indrabhūṣaṇa and the unidentiﬁed pādukā atop the Yogīndragiri, and possibly the latter two shrines at the foot of the hill, are the only Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha (Nandītaṭagaccha) memorials discovered in Sāgavāṛā. They are far outnumbered by the Balātkāragaṇa memorials found in the town, up to 20 memorials on the Choṭī Nasīyājī (17 niṣedhikās in the collective chatrī, Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti’s memorial in the smaller chatrī, and presumably also the two unidentiﬁed caraṇa-cabūtarās nearby), and a number of memorials of 18th and 19th century CE bhaṭṭārakas of both Vāgaḍāśākhās found at mandiras in town (5.5.2., 5.6.1.). If we take the s. 157(5?) and s. 1579 niṣedhikās to be the ﬁrst memorial stones to have been installed in the Choṭī Nasīyājī’s communal chatrī (5.4.1.), the multi-storeyed chatrī of the Balātkāragaṇa predates its Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha pendant from s. 1757 by almost two centuries. As we saw, the eight niṣedhikās in the central, older part of the Choṭī Nasīyājī collective chatrī all belong to the 16th century CE, and the seven datable niṣedhikās in the annexed porches also all predate the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha niṣedhikā. Only Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti’s s. 1769 memorial is later. With a new chatrī erected for it, and with its additional function as a kīrtistambha commemorating the entire Balātkāragaṇa lineage, this memorial may have been a reaction to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha as much as to the expanding Laghuśākhā inﬂuence and presence in Sāgavāṛā (5.1.4.). The Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha copied the Balātkāragaṇa in erecting a square chatrī on its pre-existing but hitherto more humble commemoration site, expressing its presence and perhaps its intention to stay in Sāgavāṛā. The remarkably heavy niṣedhikā installed in it may have been a reply to the earlier, s. 1610 Brhatśākhā kīrtistambha in the Junā Mandira in town (5.1.4.). ̥ A decade later, the Balātkāragaṇa in turn may have copied the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha site by adding a round chatrī next to its own square chatrī on the Choṭī Nasīyājī. The older, square Balātkāragaṇa chatrī on the Choṭī Nasīyājī has three storeys. The more recent square Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha chatrī at the Yogīndragiri has four storeys. A striking parallel can be observed 350 in the design of the mandiras of both lineages erected right next to each other in the central bazar of Sāgavāṛā. (Fig. 5.11) Both mandiras have very similar facades with extensive, ﬁne ﬁgurative carvings. Yet, while the Balātkāragaṇa Nayā Mandira (aka Gāndhī Mandira) sports a three-storied, pillared entrance porch, the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Seṭhoṃ kā Mandira adds a fourth level and sideporches on the ground ﬂoor and ﬁrst and second ﬂoors. While further research on the epigraphic corpus of both mandiras could conﬁrm their relative antiquity, it seems clear that the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha chatrī and mandira were both consciously designed to symbolically outdo their Balātkāragaṇa counterparts. These material aspects of both traditions’ memorials and mandiras seem to express competition and perhaps a strife for prestige or authority. While the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha seems to have had hopes of a long and successful future in Sāgavāṛā, these do not seem to have come true, at least not in the form of maintaining a seat in town. Figure 5.11. The Balātkāragaṇa Nayā Mandira or Gāndhī Mandira (right), and the Seṭhoṃ kā Mandira of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha (left), Sāgavāṛā. (January 2014) The Balātkāragaṇa seems to have been present in Sāgavāṛā earlier than the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha, as is indicated by its older memorials stones, its Nayā Mandira (‘New Temple’) probably predating the adjacent Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Seṭhoṃ kā Mandira, and its Junā Mandira (‘Old Temple’) a short distance further. The presence of a very substantial number of memorials of both Vāgaḍāśākhā incumbents 351 and lower-ranking Vāgaḍāśākhā renouncers furthermore indicates that the town was home to Balātkāragaṇa seats and saṅghas. While the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha does not seem to have stuck around in Sāgavāṛā very long, the Balātkāragaṇa remained active in the town. In the 17th century CE, the Brhatśākhā was replaced by the formerly subordinate Laghuśākhā (5.1.4.), which remained in town ̥ until its discontinuation in the mid-19th century CE (5.5.). 5.5. Memorials of the later Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā (18th - 19th cent. CE) As discussed (5.1.4.), the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā presence in Sāgavāṛā from the 17th century CE onwards suits its disappearance from the epigraphic corpus of the Naugāmā nasīyā around the same time. In Naugāmā, the last identiﬁed Laghuśākhā memorial is dated to s. 1658 (#5.4) and the latest dated memorial to s. 1691 (#5.10, prob. #5.9). As indicated by the memorials of several laterday Laghuśākhā bhaṭṭārakas found in Sāgavāṛā, the town remained an important centre and probably home to the Laghuśākhā seat until its demise around the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE. (5.5.2.) An unidentiﬁed Laghuśākhā pādukā from s. 1756 retrieved in Aṅkleśvara (Gujarat) does indicate that like the Brhatśākhā (5.6.3.), the Laghuśākhā also developed some activity in the Lāṭa ̥ region. (5.5.1.) Joharāpurakara’s (1958) designation Bhānapuraśākhā was probably based on a record of the consecration in Bhānapura of the last incumbent known to him, from the 18th century CE. Yet no Laghuśākhā memorials have been identiﬁed in the town. (5.5.3.) 5.5.1. Aṅkleśvara (s. 1756) A single Laghuśākhā pādukā from s. 1756 is preserved in the Cintāmaṇi Pārśvanātha Mandira in Aṅkleśvara (Gujarat, Fig. 5.12 L.), installed on a vedi together with a muni mūrti from s. 1465 (3.1.5., Fig. 3.16 M.). The last part of the pādukā inscription was illegible to me, but it attests the Laghuśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra and his successor Amaracandra. (#5.35) Amaracandra is reported to have been consecrated in s. 1748, probably in the Vāgaḍā region. (5.1.5.) His successor Ratnacandra consecrated a mandira in Devagaṛha in s. 1774 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 164, lekha 422) and died in Koṭā in s. 1786 (Ibid.: 165, lekha 423). Given its date of s. 1756, the Ankleśvara pādukā could be a memorial of Amaracandra, although it is also possible that it commemorated a renouncer of a lower rank connected to the Laghuśākhā. Either way, it indicates that the Laghuśākhā also made some connections and possibly inroads into the Lāṭa region of coastal Gujarat, just like the Brhatśākhā did more extensively. (5.6.3.) Both the Mūlasaṅgha and the ̥ Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha had a connection to Aṅkleśvara, and Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 196) reported bhaṭṭāraka seats from the mandiras of the town. A wooden throne preserved at the Cintāmaṇi Pārśvanātha Mandira carried a portrait of the late 19th century CE spiritual teacher Śrīmad Rājacandra at the time of my visit (January 2014), but may have originally been a bhaṭṭāraka throne. (Fig. 5.12 M.) 352 Figure 5.12. Aṅkleśvara (Gujarat). (January 2014) Pādukā (s. 1756) and muni mūrti (s. 1465) (L.), and possibly bhaṭṭāraka seat (M.) at the Cintāmaṇi Pārśvanātha Mandira. R.: Chatrīs and shrines with pādukās in a zone of habitation. Two chatrīs and a lower structure consisting of four smaller shrines are found at a plot of land elsewhere in Ankleśvara.416 (Fig. 5.12 R.) At least the larger structures can be identiﬁed as Jain, but they may also be Śvetāmbara memorials. The smaller shrines each have a similar, possibly early 20th century CE pādukā without inscription installed on ground level. The two larger, block-shaped chatrīs are structurally similar to Digambara chatrīs in Maharashtra, like those of Kārañjā (Fig. 3.41 L., Detige 2015: 176, Photo 7). Both feature a pādukā with a brief, undated inscription in Gujarati script installed waist-high within the structures. Parts of the inscription of the pādukā in the largest of these two chatrīs seem to have been chiselled away on purpose. In particular the name of the commemorated renouncer has been eﬀaced, but the pādukā seems to have commemorated an ācārya.417 The inscription of the pādukā of the second, slightly smaller shrine refers to the structure as a mandira devoted to the jina Neminātha.418 Both pādukās and their inscriptions look recent, ca. late 20th century CE, but the shrines most certainly predate them and thus seem to have been repurposed. 5.5.2. Sāgavāṛā (n.d. [poss.], s. 1822, s. 1881, s. 1905 [3]) An undatable and unidentiﬁed, possibly Laghuśākhā memorial is found in a closed oﬀ, abandoned area behind the Nayā Mandira (aka Gāndhī Mandira) in Sāgavāṛā. (Fig. 5.17 R. and right on M.) An unidentiﬁed Brhatśākhā chatrī with memorial stones from s. 1802 is found in the same space. (5.6.1.) ̥ The possible Laghuśākhā chatrī’s four pillars seem to have been reinforced with concrete, but the original, older architraves are still visible. The style of the cupola also indicates it is of comparable antiquity as the Brhatśākhā chatrī next to it. The pādukā looks younger than the s. 1802 Brhatśākhā ̥ ̥ pādukā in the chatrī next to it (Fig. 5.17 L.). An unmarked, marble-clad block of uncertain function has been added next to the pādukā inside the chatrī. (Fig. 5.17 M.) The pādukā features a large area which seems to have been meant for the collection of ablution liquids. (Fig. 5.17 R.) I found much of the pādukā’s inscription legible, but a possible reading of the name of Devacandra would indicate I am unable to retrace the exact location of this site which I visited within the habited area of Ankleśvara. A record of a Jaina muni caraṇa near the Hindu Rāmakuṇḍa temple by Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 198) might refer to this site. 416 417 ‘śrī-pādukā ācā⟦ca. 2⟧ī-⟦ca. 2-3⟧rti-⟦1⟧-mahārāja nī’ (unpublished inscription). 418 ‘śrī-nemīnātha-svāmī-mandira’ (unpublished inscription). 353 the memorial relates to the Laghuśākhā, and the inscription may also record a brahmacārī, possibly as a pupil of his. (#5.36) Memorials of Vāgaḍāśākhā brahmacārīs from the time of Bhaṭṭāraka Devacandra are rarely found, so the memorial could, hypothetically, rather have commemorated Devacandra’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmacandra. As we saw, Dharmacandra (p. s. 1811-56) was murdered some 10 km further south-east in Jeṭhāṇā (5.1.5., Dośī et. al. 2000: 263). It would not need to surprise us that his memorial is nevertheless found in Sāgavāṛā, where he likely had his seat. These adjacent memorials of the mid-18th century CE Brhatśākhā and possibly the ̥ early 19th century CE Laghuśākhā may well symbolise the ﬁnal passing of the authority over Sāgavāṛā in this period from the former to the latter lineage. Figure 5.13. Pādukā and niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Devacandra, s. 1822 (left on L.), and double pādukā commemorating Bhaṭṭāraka Mahicandra and possibly Bhaṭṭāraka Nemicandra, s. 1881 (right on L. and R.). Junā Mandira, Sāgavāṛā. (January 2014) Two Laghuśākhā bhaṭṭāraka memorials from the second half of the 18th and the ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE are found installed in a side room of another Digambara mandira in Sāgavāṛā, the Junā Mandira. This is the mandira where a s. 1610 Brhatśākhā kīrtistambha is also found. (5.1.4.) The later ̥ Laghuśākhā memorials thus indicate the passing of authority from the Brhatśākhā to the ̥ Laghuśākhā. A combined set of pādukā and niṣedhikā is dated to s. 1822 and a double pādukā to s. 1881. The inscriptions of each of the three memorial stones refer to a chatrī. (#5.37, #5.38, #5.39) The memorial stones were probably preserved inside the temple after their chatrīs had become dilapidated or were cleared. The pādukā and niṣedhikā set commemorate Bhaṭṭāraka Devacandra and were consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmacandra in s. 1822. (Fig. 5.13 L.) The inscriptions explicitly record Dharmacandra as the successor and pupil of Devacandra. (#5.37-38) The pādukā’s inscription also records a Brahmacārī Gokala, one Sātadāsa (prob., possibly also a brahmacārī), and 354 two paṇḍitas, Jyotīcanda and probably Gulābacanda.419 They seem to be recorded as pupils of the commemorated Bhaṭṭāraka Devacandra, and possibly also were donors of his memorial. Devacandra’s memorial was built with a delay of more than a decade and a half after his demise in s. 1805 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 165, lekha 424). At least part of this delay can be accounted to the fact that the seat remained empty for a few years after Devacandra’s demise, until Dharmacandra was consecrated in s. 1811 (Dośī et. al. 2000: 264). The inscription of the double pādukā slab in the Junā Mandira, normally a combined memorial for two renouncers, has two dates, s. 1858420 and s. 1881, but only mentions that it commemorates Bhaṭṭāraka Mahicandra and was built by Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra. (Fig. 5.13, right on L. and R.; #5.39) Although the inscription altogether fails to mention the tradition to which they were aﬃliated, Mahicandra (Mahīcandra) and Guṇacandra are clearly the Laghuśākhā incumbents documented by Dośī et. al. (2000: 264). (5.1.5.) The inscription’s later date falls within the reported period of Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra’s incumbency (s. 1877-84, Ibid.), and probably is that of the memorial’s consecration. Mahīcandra is reported to have died in s. 1856 and his successor Nemicandra (p. s. 1858-73) to have been consecrated in s. 1858 (Ibid.), the second year recorded on the double pādukā. It seems imaginable that the inscription was meant to record Mahīcandra’s date of death but that 25 years down the line it was confused with the year of his successor’s consecration to seat. As the direct predecessor of the consecrating Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra, it is a very plausible that Nemicandra was the second individual commemorated through the double pādukā. Guṇacandra himself is found commemorated on another double pādukā, along with his own successor Hemacandra. Their memorial chatrī stands at the Pagelejī Nasīyā, another Digambara site in Sāgavāṛā, a mere few hundred metres north of the Junā Mandira, on the bank of the Lowariya lake (Luhoriyā Tālāba). (Fig. 5.14 R.) The double pādukā was consecrated by one Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti in s. 1905. (#5.41) Candrakīrti consecrated three memorials at the Pagelejī Nasīyā on the same day (Jyeṣṭha sudi 13 =14th June 1848 CE), the combined memorial for Guṇacandra and Hemacandra, a memorial for a probably local, Laghuśākhā paṇḍita (#5.40, see below), and one for the itinerant, naked Muni Rīṣabhasena (7.1.). The inscriptions give no further indications of Candrakīrti’s lineage, apart from a general Balātkāragaṇa aﬃliation recorded on the pādukās of the two bhaṭṭārakas and of Muni Rīṣabhasena. No further attestations of a Laghuśākhā incumbent by the name of Candrakīrti are found, and they instead had received names ending in -candra since three centuries. Hemacandra was the last Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā incumbent known to Dośī et. al. (2000: 264), apart from the probably erroneously included Rājendrabhūṣaṇa. (5.1.5.) It seems plausible that Candrakīrti was the Lāṭaśākhā incumbent known to have ﬂourished around this time as successor to Dharmacandra, attested in s. 1899 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 191, lekha 512) and reported to have died in Naroḍā (Ahamadābāda, Gujarat) in s. 1928 (Śītalaprasāda 1919: 38). Candrakīrti seems to have been summoned from his probable residence in Gujarat to consecrate ‘(...) bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-108-devacadra-jī tat-paṭe bhaṭṭaraka-śrī-108-dharmaca(ṃdra?)-jī chatrī [3×] karāpītaṃḥ* śrī-vrahma-siṣya-gokala-jī guru-(bhrā?)(gu?) sātadāsa-jī paṃḍita-jotīcaṃda-jī paṃḍita-śrī-galāvacade-jī [1×] ||’ (#5.37). 419 420 The inscription has s. 1958, which clearly needs to be corrected to s. 1858. 355 memorials of these various individuals, who had probably all passed away in Sāgavāṛā in recent years. The double pādukā of the bhaṭṭārakas Guṇacandra and Hemacandra is installed in a relatively large twin chatrī consisting of a conjoined hexagonal, eight-pillared pavilion and a smaller, square pavilion. (Fig. 5.14 L.) This structure is itself annexed to the half-open maṇḍapa of the site’s mandira, which probably post-dates the chatrī. The double pādukā slab is installed centrally under the larger of the two domes. (Fig. 5.14 R.) The phrasing of the memorial stone’s short inscription is somewhat ambiguous. Only Guṇacandra is explicitly recorded as a bhaṭṭāraka (‘bha’), and no relation is indicated to ‘Hemīcandra’. There is no doubt however that the latter is Guṇacandra’s recorded successor Bhatṭṭāraka Hemacandra (Dośī et. al. 2000: 264). Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra (p. s. 1877-84) is actually reported to have died in Dhariyāvāda (Dhariawad), some 70 km north-east of Sāgavāṛā (Ibid.). That he was nevertheless commemorated in Sāgavāṛā can probably be taken as a conﬁrmation that his seat was located here. As discussed, the inscription is also one of two attestations of Guṇacandra’s direct predecessor Ratnacandra. (5.1.5.) Figure 5.14. Double pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra and Bhaṭṭāraka Hemacandra (R.) installed in a double chatrī (right on L.) annexed to a mandira (left and back on L.), Pagelejī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. (January 2014) The third s. 1905 pādukā at the Sāgavāṛā Pagelejī Nasīyā is a small, unremarkable and undecorated stone installed in a small chatrī on the other side of the site’s mandira. (Fig. 5.15) Its inscription is partly illegible in some crucial passages. (#5.40) It does not include any lineage aﬃliation, but records the bhaṭṭārakas Mahicandra and Candrakīrti, one Paṇḍita Sukharāma, and the latter’s pupil (cela), also a paṇḍita, his name no longer legible. The record of Mahicandra must refer to the earlier Laghuśākhā incumbent Mahīcandra who was on the seat very shortly half a century earlier, in s. 1856 (5.1.5.). As we have seen, paṇḍitas are sometimes recorded on the memorial stones of renouncers, as their pupils or as having been instrumental in the erection of their memorials. In this case however, the recorded unidentiﬁed paṇḍita seems to have been the individual commemorated. Other factors conﬁrm the caraṇa-chatrī is a paṇḍita memorial. The structure is rather modest, especially as compared to the coeval and considerably large twin bhaṭṭāraka chatrī at the site. The vernacular conjunction ‘and’ (‘ora’) between both bhaṭṭārakas’ names is uncommon, and may signify that the deceased paṇḍita or his guru Sukharāma had been 356 a pupil of both Mahīcandra and Candrakīrti, if so probably considerably long-lived. If my hypothesis is correct, this would make this caraṇa-chatrī the sole Vāgaḍāśākhā paṇḍita memorial retrieved. An even smaller chatrī with a śaiva liṅga next to it may originally also have been a Digambara memorial but is younger than the other three. (left on Fig. 5.15 R.) It is certainly too recent to be the chatrī which Dośī et. al. (2000: 264) record to have been erected by Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra at the Luhoriyā lake, possibly in s. 1879, which then has not been found. Figure 5.15. S. 1905 pādukā, probably commemorating a paṇḍita (L.) in a chatrī (right on R.), and smaller chatrī with Śaiva mūrtis (left on R.), Pagelejī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. (January 2014) 5.5.3. Bhānapura (poss., s. 1780) As mentioned, Joharāpurakara (1958) probably devised the name Bhānapuraśākhā for what I term the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā on the basis of the recorded consecration of Devacandra, the last incumbent known to him, in Bhānapura (Madhya Pradesh) in s. 1787 (Ibid.: 165, lekha 424). While further research, as always, may be of interest, during a short visit to Bhānapura I did not ﬁnd any traces nor heard any local memory of a bhaṭṭāraka seat having been established in the town. I did not visit a nasīyā outside of town centre, but it was reported to me that no niṣedhikās are found there. A small pillar unobtrusively installed in the courtyard of the Digambara Baḍā Mandira in Bhānapura looks like a niṣedhikā. (Fig. 5.16 L.) An inscription on one side is barely legible, but it seems to bear a date of s. 1780 (unpublished inscription). Its date sets it close to the recorded consecration of Devacandra in Bhānapura a few years later, in s. 1787. The memorial might also relate to the Laghuśākhā and as such form a further conﬁrmation of the activity of this lineage in Bhānapura in the ﬁrst half of the 18th century CE. A Jaina caraṇa-chatrī with a double pādukā with a substantial but now mostly illegible inscription, date to s. 1901 (s. 1[9?]01), found on the bank of a lake outside of Bhānapura seems to be a Śvetāmbara memorial. (Fig. 5.16 second and third from left, unpublished inscription) Another site nearby features a three-tiered caraṇa-cabūtarā commemorating a contemporary female Digambara renouncer. Āryikā Ādimatī is recorded in the inscription on her pādukā (dated 14th 357 January 2013 CE) as having died on 12th December 2012 CE, and as a pupil of Muni Śubhasāgara, in turn a pupil of Ācārya Sanmatisāgara, the third incumbent in lineage of Ācārya Ādisāgara ‘Aṅkalīkara’. Next to her cabūtarā stand a few earlier structures. An empty chatrī, the remainder of another small structure, and a larger, unidentiﬁed, veranda-like pillared building stylistically all seem to belong to ca. the 19th century CE. (Fig. 5.16 R.) Figure 5.16. Bhānapura (Madhya Pradesh). (December 2014) From left to right: unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā installed outside of the Baḍā Mandira; probably Śvetāmbara caraṇa-chatrī on the bank of a lake outside of the town centre with a double pādukā (prob. s. 1901); cabūtarā, chatrī, and pillared building. 5.6. Memorials of the later Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā (mid-17th - early 20th cent. CE) ̥ Memorials of the later Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā give some insights into the spread of this lineage from ̥ the middle of the 17th century CE until its demise in the early 20th century CE. The Brhatśākhā ̥ maintained connections to Sāgavāṛā, and perhaps attempted to re-establish its authority there in the early 18th century CE. (5.1.4., 5.6.1.) Yet, parallel to the shift of the formerly Naugāmā based Laghuśākhā to Sāgavāṛā in the course of the 17th century CE, the Brhatśākhā became more active ̥ in the regions of Mevāṛa and Lāṭā, and elsewhere in Vāgaḍā. In this section, I discuss mid-17th and 19th century CE Brhatśākhā memorials found in Sāgavāṛā (s. 1802; 5.6.1.), Udayapura (s. 1759, s. ̥ 1769, and probably s. 1726; 5.6.2.), Sūrata (s. 1703, s. 1825, s. 1863, s. 1887; 5.6.3.), R̥ ṣabhadevaKeśarīyājī (s. 186[6?]; 5.6.4.), Īḍara (s. 1855, s. 1887; 5.6.5.), and Surapura, near Ḍūṅgarapura (s. 1939; 5.6.6.). The appearance of the Brhatśākhā in Īḍara around the turn of the 19th century CE probably ̥ marks the establishment, ultimately, of the so-called ‘Īḍaraśākhā’ (Joharāpurakara 1958) in this town. 5.6.1. Sāgavāṛā (s. 1802) Despite the arrival of the Laghuśākhā in Sāgavāṛā (5.1.4.) and the Brhatśākhā’s probable shift to ̥ Mevāṛa in the late 17th and early 18th century CE (5.6.2.), the Brhatśākhā did maintain at least some ̥ presence in Sāgavāṛā until the mid-18th century CE. This is evident from the later Brhatśākhā ̥ memorials at the Choṭī Nasīyājī, the niṣedhikās from s. 1725 (#5.21) and 1749 (#5.23) found inside the communal chatrī, and the smaller s. 1769 chatrī next to it. As discussed, the former commemorated ācāryas who may have acted as local caretakers (5.4.3.), and the latter, a memorial for Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti doubling as a kīrtistambha, may well have been an attempt of the 358 Brhatśākhā to re-establish its authority over Sāgavāṛā, vis-à-vis the Laghuśākhā, the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha, ̥ or both. (5.4.5.) One further, mid-18th century CE Brhatśākhā memorial is found in Sāgavāṛā, next to the ̥ unidentiﬁed, possibly Laghuśākhā chatrī behind the Nayā Mandira (Gāndhī Mandira). (5.5.2.) The 8pillared chatrī shelters a set of pādukā and niṣedhikā, both with now partly illegible inscriptions. (Fig. 5.17 L. and left on M.) The pādukā’s inscription can still be read as recording that it was installed by Bhaṭṭāraka Nemicandra (#5.43), and the better preserved niṣedhikā inscription still features a legible date of s. 1802 and also records Nemicandra’s pupil Paṇḍita Premacanda. (#5.42) Yet the available readings of neither memorial stone allow identiﬁcation of the commemorated individual. The usual depictions of a naked khaḍgāsana renouncer, depicted with picchī and kamaṇḍalu in hand on some sides and executed in deep relief, indicate the niṣedhikā commemorated a renouncer. A plausible hypothesis is that the memorial commemorated Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II), Nemicandra’s immediate predecessor who was active in Sāgavāṛā in s. 1769 in commemorating his own predecessor Narendrakīrti and his lineage through the kīrtistambha-niṣedhikā at the Choṭī Nasīyājī. Figure 5.17. Chatrīs with a set of separate pādukā and niṣedhikā stones (unidentiﬁed, s. 1802, L. and left on M.) and with an unidentiﬁed pādukā (n.d., R. and right on M.) behind the Nayā Mandira aka Gāndhī Mandira, Sāgavāṛā. (January 2014) 5.6.2. Udayapura (s. 1759 [2], s. 1769) An attractive and well-preserved chatrī stands next to the Śāntinātha Mandira in Aśoka Nagara, a recent residential area on the outskirts of Udayapura. (Fig. 5.18 L.) The site is now engulfed by sprawling suburbs, and the wings of a Jain school have been built around the chatrī on three sides. Originally however, the site probably lay outside of the earlier zones of habitation, and the site’s mandira probably postdates the chatrī. The structure can variously be interpreted as a single, sixpillared chatrī with a front porch with its own smaller cupola added on two additional pillars, or as a double chatrī consisting of a larger, hexagonal pavilion and a smaller, four-pillared pavilion. Under both cupolas stand respectively a niṣedhikā and a pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti (#5.45, #5.44, Fig. 5.18 R.) and a niṣedhikā of Ācārya Viśvabhūṣaṇa (#5.46), both aﬃliated to the 359 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā. The memorial stones of both renouncers were consecrated on the same day ̥ in s. 1759. The inscriptions on the niṣedhikā and pādukā of Kṣemakīrti indicate they were installed by his successor Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti. The same no doubt applies to the niṣedhikā of Ācārya Viśvabhūṣaṇa, even though the inscription only refers to the saṅgha oﬀering eternal salutations (#5.46). Kṣemakīrti is reported to have died in s. 1757 (see below). An undated pādukā commemorating possibly the same Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti is also found at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata. (5.6.3.) The more elaborate memorial in Udayapura, erected at a site without further memorials, probably indicate Kṣemakīrti’s actual place of demise and cremation. The pādukā added to the large necropolis in Sūrata is more likely to be a secondary memorial. Ācārya Viśvabhūṣaṇa is recorded as belonging to Narendrakīrti’s lineage (‘-āmnāye’), and presumably dwelled in his saṅgha. His passing presumably occurred within a short timespan of that of Kṣemakīrti, leading the new incumbent Narendrakīrti and the lay community to erect a combined memorial for both. The memorial’s design explicitly indicates the hierarchy of both renouncers. Their niṣedhikās are of similar size, but only the bhaṭṭāraka received an additional pādukā. His memorial is also installed under a large cupola, that of the ācārya under a smaller, bulbous cupola. Figure 5.18. Śāntinātha Mandira, Aśoka Nagara, Udayapura. (March 2013) L: Double chatrī with memorials of Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti (under large cupola) and Ācārya Viśvabhūṣaṇa (under smaller cupola), s. 1759, R: niṣedhikā and pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti, s. 1759. Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 220-2) report much valuable biographical data on the commemorated Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti from a paṭṭāvalī manuscript they found in an unspeciﬁed mandira in Udayapura. Accordingly, Kṣemakīrti was born in s. 1697 in Bhīloḍā, in the Vāgaḍā region, some 60 km west of Ḍūṅgarapura. At seven, he started to live with Ācārya Devendrakīrti. This is no doubt the later Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti for whom Joharāpurakara (1958: 151, lekha ̥ 390-1) had references from s. 1713 and s. 1725, and who also erected a niṣedhikā at the Sāgavāṛā 360 Choṭī Nasīyājī in s. 1725 (5.4.3.). Joharāpurakara (Ibid.: 150, lekha 387-9) had attestations of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti’s predecessor Padmanandi from s. 1683 to s. 1702, so it is well possible that Devendrakīrti was still an ācārya when the later Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti became his child-pupil in or around s. 1704. Again according to the paṭṭāvalī, at age 16 the later Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti took the anuvratas at a pañcakalyāṇaka pratiṣṭhā festival, becoming Brahmacārī Kṣema. He lived and studied for 14 years with Devendrakīrti, who by now certainly was a bhaṭṭāraka. During this period, Devendrakīrti announced Kṣema to be his main pupil and chosen successor. Devendrakīrti died on the second day of the bright half of the month Māgha of s. 1730, and reportedly Brahmacārī Kṣema was consecrated as Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti on the same day still. According to Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 220-2), the paṭṭāvalī also records Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti as having travelled widely and led more than 400 pūjās and vidhānas in towns in Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh. In the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region he also met with Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti, then incumbent on the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. An entirely unique part of the paṭṭāvalī’s hagiography of Kṣemakīrti is a complete overview of the places where he held his annual rainy season retreats (cāturmāsa), from his paṭṭābhiṣeka in s. 1730 to his death in s. 1757 (Ibid.: 221). Kṣemakīrti spent the largest number of cāturmāsas in Udayapura (six times, s. 1731, 1745-7, 1750-1), Ahamadābāda (ﬁve times, s. 1734, 1741, 1743, 1752, 1757), Sāgavāṛā (four times, s. 1736-7, 1744, 1754), and Ḍūṅgarapura (thrice, s. 1738-9, 1753), next to two cāturmāsas each in Sūrata (s. 1733, 1742) and Koṭā (s. 1735, 1755), and single cāturmāsas in yet other, often quite far oﬀ places, Sāvalī (Savli, Gujarat, s. 1756), Maheśvara (?, s. 1732) and Rājanagara (Madhya Pradesh, s. 1740), Dārānagara (Uttar Pradesh?, s. 1749), and Āgarā (s. 1748), the latter during a pilgrimage to Sammedaśikharajī. This indicates the Vāgaḍāśākhā’s manifold connections in Vāgaḍā and Mevāṛa, but also in Lāṭa and further oﬀ. It also shows Digambara activity in late 17th century CE Ahamadābāda, the city founded and developed by the Muzaﬀarid rulers of the Sultanate of Gujarat in the 15th century CE. The paṭṭāvalī does not seem to record where Kṣemakīrti’s paṭṭābhiṣeka took place, but Udayapura is reported as the destination of his ﬁrst trip after his consecration to the seat and the location of his ﬁrst cāturmāsa in s. 1731, during which he preached and held rituals (Ibid.: 220). He also spent his rainy season retreat in the city in three consecutive years in s. 1745-7, and again twice in s. 1750-1. That Kṣemakīrti spent so many cāturmāsas in Udayapura and as shown indicated by his s. 1759 memorial also passed away there indicates that the city must have been a main centre of his activities, and likely the location of his seat.421 That the manuscript containing so much biographical information on Kṣemakīrti was retrieved in Udayapura also points in this direction. Founded in the mid-16th century CE and rising to prominence after Akbar’s sack of Cittauḍagaṛha in 1568 CE, by Kṣemakīrti’s time Udayapura undoubtedly had a large and ﬂourishing Digambara lay community, which in turn attracted ascetic saṅghas. This is conﬁrmed by the ﬁnding of further Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā memorials nearby. ̥ Bhaṭṭārakas are occasionally recorded as having held cāturmāsa in the very city where they had their seat (e.g., Detige 2015a: 160). 421 361 Figure 5.19. Chatrī (M.) with anthropomorphic mūrti of the 20th century CE Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’ (R.) and early modern memorial stones (L.), a s. 1769 niṣedhikā and pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, and in between the latter an unidentiﬁed pādukā from s. 1726 (poss. jina). Candraprabhu Caityālaya, Āyaṛa, Udayapura. (March 2013) As discussed, Kṣemakīrti’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, who consecrated the double memorial in Aśoka Nagara, was himself commemorated both at the Choṭī Nasīyājī in Sāgavāṛā and at the Candraprabhu Caityālaya in Āyaṛa, near Udayapura. (5.4.5.) At both sites, a niṣedhikā and a pādukā of Narendrakīrti was consecrated by his successor Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II) in s. 1769. Material and epigraphic aspects of both memorials indicate that Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti is more likely to have dwelled in Udayapura with his saṅgha and to have passed away there. (5.4.5.) The ﬁnding spot in Āyaṛa is situated a kilometre east of the site in Aśoka Nagara, on the other bank of the Ayad or Ahar river. Now engulfed by Udayapura, Āyaṛa (Āhaṛa, Ahar, Ayada) was the capital of the Mevāṛa region in the 10-12th century CE. Close to the Candraprabhu Caityālaya is a site with royal funerary chatrīs of the later Sisodiyā dynasty of Udayapura (Belli Bose 2015: 248-80). Just in front of the Digambara Candraprabhu Caityālaya stands a chatrī which preserves three early modern memorials stones, Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti’s pādukā and niṣedhikā (#5.48, #5.49) and an unidentiﬁed pādukā from s. 1726 (#5.47). (Fig. 5.19 M. & L.) These memorial stones are found installed to the side, leaving the space centrally under the dome of the chatrī to a life-size, anthropomorphic mūrti of the 20th century CE Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’. (Fig. 5.19 R.) Given the considerable energy that Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II) dedicated to commemorating his predecessor, it seems most probable that the chatrī originally featured the memorial stones of Narendrakīrti. This would mean that the memorial shared its design with that which Vijayakīrti (II) erected for Narendrakīrti in Sāgavāṛā, a chatrī with combined pādukā and niṣedhikā. This is also the same format which Narendrakīrti had followed to commemorated his own predecessor in Aśoka Nagara. An inscription on the front of the earlier, unidentiﬁable pādukā only bears a date in s. 1726. Another inscription on top of the slab has become almost entirely illegible, but seems to include two references to a jina.422 The pādukā may represent a jina rather than a Vāgaḍāśākhā or other renouncer. It may originally have been installed in another chatrī or on a cabūtarā which was ruined or cleared. 422 ‘(...) jīṇa (...) śrī jīṇa (...)’ (#5.47). 362 5.6.3. Sūrata (s. 1703, n.d. [prob.], s. 1825 [3], s. 1863 [2], s. 1887) Substantial evidence of Brhatśākhā activity in Sūrata is found in the form of seven or eight ̥ memorials at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra. This site is the largest Digambara necropolis of Western India, boasting eighty plus pādukās of bhaṭṭārakas of various Balātkāragaṇa and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha lineages and of contemporary renouncers. (Fig. 5.20, 3.4.3.). Among the inscriptions edited by Kāpaḍiyā (1964) are three unidentiﬁed Brhatśākhā pādukās of s. 1825 (Ibid.: 198-201, lekhas 41, 42, 62) and ̥ pādukās of four, possibly ﬁve Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭārakas. The earliest is a s. 1703 pādukā of Rāmakīrti ̥ (I) (Ibid.: 195, lekha 10). A pādukā of one Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti reported without date or further inscription may well commemorate the late 17th-early 18th century CE Brhatśākhā incumbent of ̥ that name (Ibid.: n. 84), who was also commemorated at the Śāntinātha Mandira in Aśoka Nagara, Udayapura in s. 1759 (5.6.2.). Over a century later again, Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti consecrated pādukās of his predecessors Candrakīrti (Ibid.: 198, lekha 39) and Rāmakīrti (II) (Ibid.: 201, lekha 61) on the same day in s. 1863. A memorial of Yaśakīrti himself is also found at the site, dated to s. 1887 (Ibid.: 195, lekha 11). Figure 5.20. Pādukās lined up in individual shrines at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata (Gujarat). (January 2014) We don’t have memorials of the immediate predecessors of Rāmakīrti (I) (ﬂ. s. 1670, Joharāpurakara 1958: 158), Guṇakīrti (ﬂ. s. 1631-9, Ibid.) and Vādibhūṣaṇa (ﬂ. s. 1652-6 [Ibid.], but also s. 1651-60, 5.1.4.), nor of his successor Padmanandi (p. s. 1683-1702, Ibid.), and are generally uncertain about the location of the Brhatśākhā around this time. Rāmakīrti (I) could have died in Sūrata during a ̥ shorter visit, but it is also possible that the Brhatśākhā had turned to the Lāṭa region around this ̥ time, which beﬁts the reported dissent between the two Vāgaḍāśākhās surrounding the 363 consecration of the Laghuśākhā Ratnacandra in Sāgavāṛā around this time. (5.1.4.) Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti spent two cāturmāsas in Sūrata in the last quarter of the 17th century CE, and a larger number in Ahamadābāda, but was probably more active further north, in the Mevāṛa and Vāgaḍā regions. (5.6.2.) Next to the s. 1863 pādukā at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra, Yaśakīrti also consecrated a more substantial memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī which more likely indicates his actual place of passing. (5.6.4.) By Yaśakīrti’s time, the Vidyānandi Kṣetra was undoubtedly seen as an important necropolis by the local Balātkāragaṇa Lāṭaṣākhā, as well as by Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha (3.4.3.). By adding memorials of his predecessors Candrakīrti and Rāmakīrti (II) to the commemoration site, even though at least the former probably died elsewhere, Yaśakīrti might have attempted to moor his lineage in Sūrata. Yet, although a s. 1887 pādukā of Yaśakīrti is also found at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra, he was probably not primarily based in Sūrata. Yaśakīrti is known to have been active in icon consecrations in Īḍara in the s. 1850s, 60s, and 70s, especially a memorial of a number of individuals standing in a pupillary succession in s. 1855, and a second, grander memorial of his is also found at one of the Digambara mandiras in Īḍara, similarly dated s. 1887. (5.6.5.) The latter bears the same date as the pādukā in Sūrata, and its inscriptions uniquely record that it was consecrated by Yaśakīrti himself. The date on the Īḍara and Sūrata memorials must thus be that of their consecration rather than of Yaśakīrti’s death. This is further conﬁrmed by the inscription of a multi-pādukā slab representing the pañca-parameṣṭhins ﬁtted onto Yaśakīrti’s memorial in Īḍara, again bearing the same date and also consecrated by Yaśakīrti. (#5.55, 5.6.5.) Yaśakīrti presumably consecrated the pādukā of the Vidyānandi Kṣetra along with the more substantial memorial in Īḍara, the former then dispatched to Sūrata. As is clear from the foregoing discussion, it is all but certain that all the Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭārakas ̥ commemorated at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra actually died in Sūrata. Their memorials at the site however do point to considerable Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā activity in Sūrata in the ﬁrst half of the 19th ̥ century CE. The three s. 1825 Brhatśākhā pādukās at the necropolis would point out the same for ̥ the second half of the 18th century CE already, although their inscriptions as edited by Kāpaḍiyā (1964) present further problems of interpretation. Despite some diﬀerences in Kāpaḍiyā’s edition, all three seem to carry the same date of consecration. A ﬁrst inscription features the Balātkāragaṇa Uttaraśākhā genealogy up to the Vāgaḍāśākhā founder Sakalakīrti, and it seems it was his memorial (Ibid.: 198-9, lekha 42). The memorial was consecrated by an unspeciﬁed Yaśakīrti, possibly again the Brhatśākhā incumbent, although the date comes too early for him. The second ̥ s. 1825 pādukā carries a long Brhatśākhā genealogy but breaks down towards the end. It is not ̥ clear from Kāpaḍiyā’s (Ibid.: 198, lekha 41) edition how much text is missing before his reading of the commemorated renouncer as one (unknown) Nandīvijaya. This is an otherwise unattested and odd name for an early modern Digambara renouncer, whose names never use the aﬃx -vijaya, and might be a misreading. The seemingly incomplete inscription of the third s. 1825 pādukā merely records the succession Sakalakīrti > Ratnakīrti before breaking down (Ibid.: 201, lekha 62). A misreading might be involved here once more, for if taken to again refer to the Vāgaḍāśākhā founder Sakalakīrti, this would be an unknown succession. Not much is known about Bhaṭṭāraka Nemicandra, who was on the Brhatśākhā seat at the time of the s. 1825 pādukās, but he installed a ̥ 364 memorial in Sāgavāṛā in s. 1802. (5.6.1.) The three s. 1825 pādukās could also have resulted from one of the repeated renovation projects which the site witnessed in the past centuries, during which earlier pādukās were replaced with new specimens. Especially the memorial of the illustrious Vāgaḍāśākhā founder Sakalakīrti, whether consecrated by Nemicandra or by the later Yaśakīrti, would point in the direction of a planned project, since the erection of a memorial of an incumbent from three or three and a half centuries earlier is highly uncommon. 5.6.4. R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī (s. 186[6?], n.d. [prob.]) Some Digambara memorials are found in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī, a Jain pilgrimage town some 70 kilometres south of Udayapura. On top of the hillock just outside of the town referred to as Candragiri stand two early modern chatrīs. (Fig. 5.21) Lower on the slopes at least ﬁve recent, cubical cabūtarās were found at the time of my visit (March 2013), and near the base of the hill also stood a Hindu chatrī. A pādukā was present on only one of the cabūtarās, with an inscription identifying it as commemorating the unranked but probably fully initiated male renouncer Kīrtisāgara and dated to 19[8?]9 CE. Indications were found on the other cabūtarās that they formerly also featured pādukās. I saw a plan for the development of the site in town, and some light renovation works have meanwhile taken place.423 A wall has been built around the two chatrīs, and the chatrīs have been painted white. Similar metal lattices as already found attached between the pillars of the smaller chatrī at the time of my visit had been installed in the larger chatrī. Some lettering had also been painted on the latter chatrī, among others generically announcing it as the cremation site of Jain saint (‘jaina santa samādhi sthala’). The Candragiri hillock probably takes its name from the largest chatrī, which houses a unique memorial most probably dated s. 1866 (186[6?]). (Fig. 5.21, #5.50) The memorial commemorates the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti and was consecrated by Candrakīrti’s second successor ̥ in line Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti, who as we saw also consecrated a s. 1863 pādukā of Candrakīrti found at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata. (5.6.3.) The six-pillared chatrī is particularly attractive, with a beautiful ribbed dome with an ornamented drum, nicely worked out pillars, and corbels decorated with carvings of elephants. (Fig. 5.22 M.) A unique memorial is preserved inside the chatrī. (Fig. 5.22 L.) A heavy, waist-high and hourglass-shaped plinth stands central under the dome of the chatrī. A square niṣedhikā protruding from the middle features the typical, here deeply carved depictions on all sides, a padmāsana siddha or jina and below it a khaḍgāsana renouncer carrying picchī and kamaṇḍalu. A pādukā is carved into the plinth’s table on all sides of the niṣedhikā. Inscribed captions identify all four pādukās as representing Candrakīrti. Only one comparable memorial has been found, Yaśakīrti’s own memorial erected two decades later in Īḍara (s. 1887). The latter however features only a single, separate pādukā slab installed next to a niṣedhikā on the table of its similar hourglass-shaped plinth. (5.6.5.) The multiple pādukās on the R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī memorial may have been designed to facilitate simultaneous ritual veneration by several 423 Google Maps photos, accessed 5th August 2023. 365 devotees. (3.5.1.) This unparalleled iconographic form might then indicate that a popular cult developed around Candrakīrti. Figure 5.21. Chatrī of Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti in s. 186(6?) (left) and roughly coeval chatrī repurposed as memorial for the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti with pādukā consecrated in s. 2034 (right), Candragiri, R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī. (March 2013) Figure 5.22. Decorative carvings of elephants (M.) above the corbels of a chatrī with an hourglass shaped plinth with niṣedhikā and four pādukās commemorating Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti (s. 186[6?]) (L.). Pādukā of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti (s. 2034) installed on older plinth (R.). Candragiri, R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī. (March 2013) 366 A long inscription running all along the edges of the plinth’s table contains the date in s. 186(6?), indicates that Candrakīrti’s memorial was consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti, and also records at least two other individuals, one Somacanda and one with name in -nadāsa. (#5.50) The latter were no doubt pupils of the commemorated bhaṭṭāraka or involved in the memorial’s construction. No ranks are legible, but by this time they most likely were paṇḍitas or brahmacārīs, as is indicated by the suﬃxes of their names. Inscriptions on a protruding edge between the carvings of the padmāsana and khaḍgāsana renouncers on three sides of the niṣedhikā (this element lost on one side) are no longer fully legible, but repeat basic information about the memorial and seem to call the niṣedhikā a caturmukha. (#5.50) If my hypothetical reading of the memorial’s date as s. 1866 is correct, his chatrī in R̥ ṣabhadevaKeśarīyājī postdates Candrakīrti’s pādukā at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra by three years. While the earlier of two memorials of a single renouncer might otherwise perhaps be taken as most likely indicating the place of death, the grander type and the more outlaying location of the chatrī in R̥ ṣabhadevaKeśarīyājī would rather point to the opposite. It would have been an easy and quicker step to add a generic pādukā to the Sūrata necropolis, and the enshrinement of a secondary memorial at such a recognised site of mass commemoration would also be less surprising, especially since Yaśakīrti also consecrated a pādukā of his immediate predecessor Rāmakīrti (II) along with it. (5.6.3.) And it might on the other hand have taken a few years to gather funds for the erection of the grander chatrī in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī, or it may have been devised after a cult of Candrakīrti had developed in the years after his demise. Candrakīrti consecrated a slab with pādukās of the 24 jinas at the R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī mandira in s. 1832 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 152, lekha 394). In s. 1863, Yaśakīrti also consecrated a jina mūrti there (Ś. J. Jaina 2011: 45, n. 50) and was instrumental in renovation works in the temple involvement with (Joharāpurakara 1958: 152, lekha 395). While this evinces substantial Brhatśākhā ̥ this important pilgrimage temple, it does not necessarily indicate its seat was located there. Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti was also active in Sūrata (5.6.3.) and rather seems to have come to base himself in Īḍara (5.6.5.). The second, smaller and four-pillared chatrī on the Candragiri hillock features a pādukā of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti, who is known to have been active in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī, consecrated in s. 2034. (Figs. 5.21, 5.22 R., unpublished inscription) Judging from the style of the pillars and the cupola, the chatrī seems to be somewhat younger than Candrakīrti’s memorial. But stylistic features indicate it certainly long predates the 20th century memorial stone now installed in it. The Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha was also active in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī in the early modern period.424 In the centre of town, near the Nadī Ke Daravāza, stands a memorial referred to as the Bhīma Pagalyā and reported to commemorate the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Both Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha bhaṭṭārakas were active in icon consecrations as the R̥ ṣabhadeva Mandira (Ś. J. Jaina 2011: 103-9). According to Vāṇāvata e.a. (n.d.: 11-2), these two traditions had authority over the northern and southern parts of the mandira respectively, and seats of both traditions were formerly present (no longer found at the time of my visit in March 2013). Vāṇāvata e.a. (Ibid.: 12) also interpreted another structure in the mandira as formerly having been a seat of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha. 424 367 Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Bhīmasena, who was active in consecrating icons in the R̥ ṣabhadevaKeśarīyājī mandira in the second half of the 17th century CE (Ś. J. 2011: 106; also B. Jaina 1978: 120). The structure is a twin chatrī with two cupolas on six pillars, and stylistically could indeed belong to the 17th century CE. It preserves a single, large pādukā slab without inscriptions which, entirely uniquely, has a larger than life feet carving of ca. half a metre long. This could be a reference to the name of the bhaṭṭāraka reportedly commemorated, and his naming after the giant Pāṇḍava brother Bhīma. A second, much smaller pādukā, about the size of the toes of the large feet, seems to have been carved on the slab, so perhaps the chatrī was a combined memorial, as is also ﬂagged by its two cupolas.425 Despite the reported, substantial activity of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha in early modern R̥ ṣabhadevaKeśarīyājī in general (Ś. J. Jaina 2011: esp. 42-5, 103-9), and the repurposing of the second chatrī at the Candragiri as a Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha memorial in the 20th century CE, it is more likely to have originally commemorated an individual related to the Balātkāragaṇa, and most likely the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā. The two chatrīs stand on a single, continued platform, hexagonal around the ̥ larger, six-pillared chatrī, and square around the smaller, four-pillared chatrī. It is possible that the original platform of a ﬁrst chatrī erected at the site (presumably the larger) was extended at the time of the construction of the second. Such a conscious alignment to a prior structure would also most likely have been designed by the same tradition which had built the original structure. The modern pādukā in the smaller chatrī sits on an older, hourglass-shaped plinth which is smaller than but stylistically very similar to that of Candrakīrti’s memorial. (Fig. 5.22 R.) As this form is not attested in any other tradition, this too is an indication that the chatrī originally was a Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā memorial. The smaller chatrī may have been repurposed after the demise of ̥ the Brhatśākhā, when the longer-lived Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha was the only bhaṭṭāraka ̥ tradition still active in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī. Its original memorial stone might have been lost by then, rather than necessarily having being removed at the moment of the repurposing of the chatrī. 5.6.5. Īḍara (s. 1855, s. 1887) The Pārśvanātha Mandira (aka Pārśvanātha Prācīna Jinālaya) in Īḍara (Gujarat) was home to the last incumbents of the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā or ‘Īḍaraśākhā’. Two bhaṭṭāraka gaddīs and a palanquin ̥ bearing the name of Bhaṭṭāraka Kanakakīrti and a date of [s.] 1950 are still preserved in the temple, which also houses the extensive manuscript collection of the Brhatśākhā bhaṭṭārakas. (Fig. 5.23 ̥ Ś. J. Jaina (2011: 106) reports a hearsay of the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti having been ̥ murdered in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī by local treasurers (bhaṇḍārī) attempting to gain control over the locality (kṣetra). Yet Ś. J. Jaina (Ibid.) here wrongly discusses Candrakīrti as belonging to the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha (Nandītaṭagaccha), and this story might then also relate instead to the other bhaṭṭāraka commemorated in town, the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Bhaṭṭāraka Bhīmasena. In the same passage, Ś. J. Jaina (Ibid.) also gives a wrong date of s. 1737 for the memorial of Candrakīrti (actually dated s. 186[6?], see above), which may instead be a date of the Bhīma Pagalyā, and an inscription no longer available at the time of my visit. The story of the murdered bhaṭṭāraka may also need to be contextualised in the modern-day dispute between Digambaras and Śvetāmbaras over the main mandira of R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī (on which, see B. Jaina 1978: 117-8; Ś. J. Jaina 2011: 17-35; Vāṇāvata e.a. n.d.). 425 368 below L. & R.) A multi-storeyed building with a separate entrance next to the entrance porch of the mandira is identiﬁed by contemporary lettering as a bhaṭṭāraka residence (‘bhaṭṭāraka bhavana’). (Fig. 5.23 above L.) The caption dates the building to s. 1591, just like the date of the mandira itself given in an inscription above the entrance gate to the complex. Yet the residential building has clearly been added to the original temple compound and stylistically is clearly later, ca. 18th or 19th century CE. Some rooms on its higher ﬂoors are ﬁtted with balconies which may have served for the bhaṭṭāraka to give darśana to his devotees (2.4.), and a small caityālaya is also annexed to the rooms. (Fig. 5.23 above R. & M.) Figure 5.23. Pārśvanātha Jinālaya, Īḍara (Gujarat). (January 2014) Top: Probably living quarters of the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭāraka (R.) with balconies (M.) in a residential building (right on L.) adjacent to the ̥ entrance porch of the mandira (left on L.). Bottom: Bhaṭṭāraka seats and cupboards with manuscript collection (L.) and palanquin with the name of Bhaṭṭāraka Kanakakīrti and a date of [s.] 1950 (R.) in a room on the ground ﬂoor of the mandira. Two Brhatśākhā memorials from s. 1855 and s. 1887 are found in Īḍara. The former is a multi̥ pādukā slab with an inscription conﬁrming that it is found at its original location inside the Pārśvanātha Jinālaya. (Fig. 5.24) The latter is a chatrī annexed to the Saṃbhavanātha Mandira, and a particularly interesting memorial. (Fig. 5.25) The inscriptions of the s. 1822 and s. 1881 Laghuśākhā bhaṭṭāraka memorial stones now found in the Junā Mandira in Sāgavāṛā indicate they were formerly installed in chatrīs. (5.5.2.) These chatrīs may originally have been located right next to the mandira, like the s. 1802 Brhatśākhā chatrī (5.6.1.) and the unidentiﬁed, probably Laghuśākhā chatrī ̥ (5.5.2.) remaining just behind Sāgavāṛā’s Nayā Mandira. This represented an outspoken change 369 from the earlier practice in Sāgavāṛā of commemorating memorials of Vāgaḍāśākhā renouncers at the necropolis on the Choṭī Nasīyājī hill. Judging from the s. 1855 and s. 1887 memorials in Īḍara, the tradition of installing renouncers’ memorials in mandiras seems to have become formalised in the Vāgaḍā region. Figure 5.24. Multi-pādukā slab consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti in s. 1855 with pādukās of Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II) (central), Ācārya Devacanda (top right), and three brahmacārīs. (L.), installed in a recent shrine and still in ritual use, with an accompanying śilālekha on the wall (black stone left of shrine) (R.). Pārśvanātha Jinālaya, Īḍara (Gujarat). (January 2014) Visitors making their way through the Pārśvanātha Jinālaya still oﬀer rice at a square, white marble slab with ﬁve pādukās. (#5.51; Fig. 5.24) A recent epigraph in Gujarati script informs them that the memorial commemorates ‘bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-vijayakīrtijī-mahārāja’. The pādukā slab is installed in a small shrine which itself is clearly recent. Yet the inscription conﬁrms that the temple is the memorial stone’s original location.426 The pādukā was consecrated by the Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti, who also Brhatśākhā ̥ built the chatrī in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī. (5.6.4.) Captions below each of the ﬁve pādukās identify them as the much earlier B r ̥h a t ś ā k h ā i n c u m b e n t B h a ṭ ṭ ā r a k a Vijayakīrti (II), one Ācārya Devacanda, and 426 Chart 5.4. Pupillary successions recorded on a s. 1855 memorial stone at the Pārśvanātha Mandira in Īḍara, consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti, with Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭāraka succession (right). ̥ ‘(...) śrī-iḍara-nagare śrī-pārśvanātha-caityāle karāpītaṃ ||’ (#5.51). 370 three brahmacārīs, Lakṣmīcanda, Dalīcanda, and Lahu. The memorial stone’s longer inscription running along the edges of the slab indicates a pupillary relation between them, and also adds as a further pupillary generation the paṇḍitas Rāghava and Hemacanda, who seem to be recorded as having had the memorial built.427 A śilālekha on the wall next to the memorial repeats the same information, adding a record of the consecration of a small caitya (‘laghu-caita pratīṣṭātaṃ’, #5.52). The pādukā and śilālekha inscriptions are slightly ambiguous but seem to attest a pupillary aﬃliation of ﬁve consecutive generations starting from Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II) (rather than recording the ācārya, the three brahmacārīs, and the two paṇḍitas as all similarly pupils of Vijayakīrti). The full pupillary descent recorded runs: Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti [II] > Brahmacārī Lahu > Ācārya Devacanda > Brahmacārī Lakṣmīcanda + Brahmacārī Dalīcanda > Paṇḍita Rāghava + Paṇḍita Hemacanda. (Chart 5.4) The śilālekha records Brahmacārī Lahu as the pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti [II], a relationship probably by mere oversight not included in the pādukā inscription. Both inscriptions then similarly record that Brahmacārī Lahu had a pupil in Ācārya Devacanda, and the latter in turn two pupils in Brahmacārī Lakṣmīcanda and Brahmacārī Dalīcanda.428 Both inscriptions explicitly record Dalīcanda as Lakṣmīcanda’s guru-bhrātr ̥ (guru brother), which means that they had the same teacher. The inscriptions then seem to continue in recording Paṇḍita Rāghava and Paṇḍita Hemacanda as pupils of the last mentioned Brahmacārī Dalīcanda. The śilālekha once more records both paṇḍitas as guru-bhrātrs. ̥ Although familial ties between renouncers or paṇḍitas are also attested with suﬃcient frequency, the pādukā inscription’s record of Rāghava and Hemacanda as full brothers (‘bhrātā’) rather than guru brothers is probably a mere lapse of the stonecutter. The epigraph’s record of some individuals as guru-bhrātrs̥ (Brahmacārī Lakṣmīcanda and Brahmacārī Dalīcanda; Paṇḍita Rāghava and Paṇḍita Hemacanda) shows that what we have at hand is a pupillary succession of multiple generations rather than a peer group of all pupils of Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II). A Pārśvanātha mūrti also found in the Pārśvanātha Jinālaya, consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti on the same day in s. 1855 as the multi-pādukā slab, also records the whole pupillary succession from Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II) down to the two paṇḍitas (unpublished inscription). This type of information is rarely found in mūrtilekhas. Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti is known as the fourth incumbent in line after Vijayakīrti (II). The longer inscription of the s. 1855 multi-pādukā slab records the bhaṭṭāraka succession Vijayakīrti [II] (‘vijekīrtti’) > Candrakīrti > Rāmakīrti (II) > Yaśakīrti. It probably by mere oversight omits Nemicandra, the direct successor of Vijayakīrti (II) who is well-attested in other sources (Joharāpurakara 1958: 158). The adjoining śilālekha only lists Candrakīrti to Yaśakīrti. The commemorated Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II) consecrated memorial stones of his predecessor Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti in s. 1769 in both Āyaṛa (5.6.2.) and Sāgavāṛā (5.4.5.). A chatrī with a pādukā and a niṣedhikā next to Sāgavāṛā’s Nayā Mandira installed by Nemicandra in s. 1802 may be a memorial of Vijayakīrti (II). (5.6.1.) If so, the latter memorial more probably indicates Vijayakīrti (II)’s actual place of passing and locates his death more than half a century prior to the s. 1855 pādukā commemorating him in Īḍara. We ﬁnd 427 ‘(...) paṃḍīta-rāghava-jī tata-bhrātā paṃ. hemacaṃda nītaṃ praṇamaṃtī (...) karāpītaṃ ||’ (#5.51). 428 ‘laṣamīcaṃda’ (#5.51, #5.52), ‘lakṣmīcaṃda’ (#5.51), ‘dalicaṃda’ (#5.51, #5.52), ‘dalīcaṃda’, (#5.51). 371 bhaṭṭārakas installing memorials of their predecessors to the second or even third degree with some frequency. (3.2.5.) Yet this mostly concerns their original memorial, at their actual place of passing and cremation, erected belatedly. Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti would therefore seem to have had speciﬁc motives to commemorate his relatively distant predecessor Vijayakīrti (II) half a century after his death and at another place. Judging from the memorials he consecrated in Āyaṛa and Sāgavāṛā, the latter doubling as a kīrtistambha for his lineage, Vijayakīrti (II) seems to have been an active and inﬂuential incumbent. This could have been a factor leading him to be remembered and commemorated this much later still. Another, more speciﬁc hypothesis is that the pupillary succession of individuals of various ranks attested at the Pārśvanātha Mandira, running from Vijayakīrti (II) onwards, may have been consecutive caretakers at the Pārśvanātha Mandira or local ﬁgures of authority in Īḍara more broadly. In honouring them, Yaśakīrti, who as we already saw had a predilection for commemoration projects (5.6.3-4.), perhaps conceived of or wanted to represent himself as continuing their lineage. Considerable attestations are available of Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti’s activities in Īḍara (unpublished inscriptions). On the same day in s. 1855 as the multi-pādukā slab, Yaśakīrti consecrated large Pārśvanātha and Ādinātha mūrtis found in the Pārśvanātha Jinālaya, and a śilālekha in the mandira records the erection of a shrine by Yaśakīrti on the same day. A slab with pādukās of the twenty present jinas429 found in the same temple was also consecrated by Yaśakīrti, but the date in its inscription was covered with plastering at the time of my visit. Yaśakīrti also consecrated a black marble Ādinātha mūrti found at the Pārśvanātha Jinālaya in s. 1864, and in s. 1865 the large bronze Pārśvanātha which is now the mandira’s mūlanāyaka. Yaśakīrti’s own s. 1887 memorial is also found in the Sambhavanātha Mandira in Īḍara (see next). It seems plausible therefore that Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti, despite his recorded activities in Sūrata (s. 1863, 5.6.3.) and in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī (s. 1863, prob. s. 1866, 5.6.4.), established his seat in Īḍara. He possibly was the ﬁrst Brhatśākhā ̥ incumbent to do so, no earlier than the ﬁrst decades of the 19th century CE.430 The Bhaṭṭāraka Bhavana annexed to the Pārśvanātha Jinālaya may well have been built at this time. (Fig. 5.23 above) Devacanda, the single ācārya included in the pupillary succession, was a pupil of the lowerranking Brahmacārī Lahu. Similar attestations of pupils holding higher ranks than their recorded gurus are not uncommon.431 Such lower-ranking gurus were probably their practical teachers (śikṣāguru) rather than also the preceptors who initiated them (dīkṣāgurus). In this case, the 429 On the twenty jinas of the present time, see Balbir 2020: 138-40. An earlier bout of sustained Brhatśākhā activity in Īḍara seems to have occurred under Bhaṭṭāraka ̥ Vādibhūṣaṇa around the turn of the 17th century CE. Smaller jina mūrtis installed by Vādibhūṣaṇa are found both at the Saṃbhavanātha Mandira and at the Pārśvanātha Jinālaya. Next to several s. 1651 padmāsana mūrtis, two black marble khaḍgāsana icons consecrated by Vādibhūṣaṇa found at both mandiras and dated to respectively s. 1660 and s. 1655 attest his pupil Brahmacārī Devadāsa and the latter’s pupil Brahmacārī Vacharāja (unpublished inscriptions). Another pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Vādibhūṣaṇa, Ācārya Jñānakīrti, composed a Sanskrit Yaśodhara-carita (B. Jaina 1978: 62). 430 E.g., Ācārya Kalyāṇakīrti, recorded as a pupil of Muni Devakīrti in multiple sources in the second half of the 17th century CE. (5.4.3.) 431 372 pupillary relation may also refer to these individuals’ relationship as consecutive local caretakers or local ﬁgures of authority, entirely regardless of their ranks. Ācārya Devacanda represents the second pupillary generation after Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II) (ﬂ. s. 1769, poss. commemorated s. 1802, 5.6.1.), and similarly stands two generations before the paṇḍitas who commissioned the s. 1855 memorial stone. Ācārya Devacanda can therefore tentatively be situated in the s. 1810s to 1830s (third quarter of the 18th century CE). This sets him close to the last Balātkāragaṇa ācāryas found commemorated in Ajamera (s. 1813, s. 1814, s. 1821; 6.2.4.) and Bassī (s. 1828; 4.3.8.), related to respectively the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa and the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. Within his own region and lineage however, Devacanda seems to sit somewhat isolated in time, following half a century or more after Ācārya Viśvabhūṣaṇa, commemorated in Udayapura in s. 1759 as the last but one Vāgaḍāśākhā ācārya attested. (#5.46, 5.6.2.) These later Brhatśākhā ācāryas can also be situated in relation to the postulated shift in the ̥ signiﬁcation of the ācārya rank. (2.3.5.) Ācāryas from the 15th and 16th, and ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE probably led groups of renouncers, including munis. While the ācāryas commemorated in the second half of the 17th century may rather have functioned as Brhatśākhā ̥ representatives in Sāgavāṛā, Ācārya Viśvabhūṣaṇa seems to have moved in the company of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti. Yet later ācāryas like Devacanda may have been fully domesticated, though presumably still celibate ritual specialists, leading pupillary circles consisting of lay paṇḍitas and more rarely brahmacārīs. That Ācārya Devacanda was succeeded by brahmacārīs conﬁrms to the general disappearance of ācāryas in the second half of the 18th century CE.432 (2.3.5.) Brahmacārīs are themselves poorly attested in the 18th century CE, their numbers seemingly having plummeted along with the disappearance of munis in the preceding centuries. (2.3.5.) And Brahmacārī Lakṣmīcanda and Brahmacārī Dalīcanda’s succession by paṇḍitas closer to the memorial’s consecration at the very end of the 18th century CE can be seen as falling in line with the rise of paṇḍitas in the 19th century CE. (2.3.7.) A spacious chatrī annexed to the Sambhavanātha Mandira in Īḍara features a heavy, hourglassshaped plinth with a niṣedhikā and four pādukās on its table. (#5.53-56, Fig. 5.25) Some of these pādukās were added later, but the original memorial commemorates the Brhatśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka ̥ Yaśakīrti. It is similar to that which Yaśakīrti himself erected for Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti at R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī ca. two decades earlier (5.6.4.), and is clearly modelled after it or, less likely, after an undiscovered, common source. The memorial in Īḍara is better preserved than the hilltop chatrī of R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī. It is closed oﬀ on the sides and with that better protected from the elements, and is an integrated part of an oft-visited mandira rather than an isolated monument. In the middle of the table stands a beautifully carved white marble niṣedhikā. (Fig. 5.25 M.) On each side, it features elegant, deep carvings of the usual padmāsana jina/siddha ﬁgure and a male renouncer with picchī and kamaṇḍalu standing inside temple architecture. Four loose pādukā slabs are installed around the niṣedhikā, but only a single white marble pādukā belongs to the same memorial, as conﬁrmed by its location on the side of the niṣedhikā’s inscription. (Fig. 5.25 R.) A late exception is the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa aﬃliated Ācārya Jagatkīrti, who is attested in a memorial in Sākhūna dated to s. 1887 and must have ﬂourished in the 1820s CE (s. 1880s). (6.3.) 432 373 This diﬀers from the R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī memorial where four pādukās carved directly into the table commemorated the same individual as the niṣedhikā. Also lacking in the earlier R̥ ṣabhadevaKeśarīyājī memorial is a contrasting black marble strip inserted in the white marble plinth featuring carvings of elephants, mythological animals, and protective deities. Depictions of dancers and musicians are found above the architraves of the chatrī. (Fig. 5.25 L., 3.1.1.) Figure 5.25. Memorial (L.) of Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti, with s. 1887 niṣedhikā (M.) and pādukā (R.), and other, coeval and contemporary pādukās. Sambhavanātha Mandira, Īḍara (Gujarat). (January 2014) The crucial last section of the inscription on the niṣedhikā (#5.53) is covered by new marbling with śilālekhas commemorating mid-20th century patronage. The inscription on the pādukā installed on the front side of the niṣedhikā (#5.54) runs identical to that on the pillar and completes our reading Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti. Entirely uniquely, the of the latter as commemorating the Brhatśākhā ̥ inscription records that the memorial was consecrated by Yaśakīrti himself, through an uncommon expression saying that it was ‘consecrated with (his) own hand’.433 The memorial’s date should then be read as referring to its consecration rather than to the death of Yaśakīrti. As we saw, Yaśakīrti was active in installing pādukās at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata (5.6.3.) and devised a grand, original memorial for his predecessor to the second degree in R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī (5.6.4.). It seems he also designed his own memorial, perhaps instating his own cult antemortem. A second pādukā of Yaśakīrti at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata is dated to the same day in s. 1887. (5.6.3.) Its inscription does not indicate who consecrated the pādukā, but it is very likely that Yaśakīrti also consecrated the Sūrata pādukā. Perhaps he consecrated it along with the larger memorial in Īḍara, then having it dispatched to Sūrata to be installed in the necropolis where he had already been active before. Also possible is that Yaśakīrti only consecrated the pādukās himself, the chatrī in Īḍara with plinth and additional niṣedhikā erected and consecrated after his death. A second of the four pādukā slabs ﬁtted onto the memorial’s table is a square, white marble slab featuring ﬁve pairs of feet, identiﬁed in the inscription as representing the pañca-parameṣṭhins. It 433 ‘(...) bha. śrī-yaśakīrti-jitkasyeyaṃ pādukā sva-hastena pratiṣṭitaṃ || (...)’ (#5.54). 374 was consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti on the same day as his own memorial.434 (#5.55) A third, black marble pādukā on the plinth represents R̥ ṣabhadeva (Ādinātha, R̥ ṣabhanātha) and was consecrated by Yaśakīrti’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti a decade later, added to the preexisting memorial in s. 1898. (#5.56) The fourth slab is undated but recent, commemorating ﬁve 20th century CE renouncers, Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’, Acārya Śāntisāgara ‘Chāṇī’, Ācārya Kunthusāgara, Muni Dharmasāgara, and Muni Sudharmasāgara (unpublished inscription). Its design is clearly modelled after the s. 1887 pañca-parameṣṭhin slab and the s. 1855 multi-pādukā slab in the Pārśvanātha Jinālaya. 5.6.6. Surapura (s. 1939) As discussed above (5.1.6.), Yaśakīrti was succeeded by Surendrakīrti, Rāmacandrakīrti, Kanakakīrti, and Vijayakīrti (III). Of only one of these last Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā incumbents a memorial has been ̥ found. A caraṇa-chatrī with a s. 1939 pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Rāmacandrakīrti consecrated by his successor Bhaṭṭāraka Kanakakīrti is found at a nasīyā in Surapura, near Ḍūṅgarapura. (#5.57, Fig. 5.26) The site is a small necropolis which also holds Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha and Śvetāmbara memorials. (3.4.4., Fig. 3.23 L.) Ḍūṅgarapura had been an important place for the Brhatśākhā and in fact the undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā since its inception (see chapter introduction). ̥ Yet, as we saw, the seat of the Brhatśākhā seems to have been established in Īḍara from the turn ̥ of the 19th century CE until its demise in the early 20th century CE. (5.6.5.) The absence of other Brhatśākhā memorials in Surapura also indicates that Rāmacandrakīrti probably died in or near ̥ Ḍūṅgarapura on a visit, rather than that he held his seat there. Figure 5.26. Pādukā (L.) of Bhaṭṭāraka Rāmacandrakīrti (s. 1939) in a chatrī (second from right central on M.) in Surapura, near Ḍūṅgarapura. (March 2013) 434 ‘(...) bha | śrī-yaśakīrttibhiḥ pratiṣṭitaṃ | śrī paṃca-prameṣṭina pādukābhyāṃ namaḥ || (...)’ (#5.55). 375 376 CHAPTER 6. ŚĀKAMBHARĪŚĀKHĀ Chapter contents Like that of the Vāgaḍāśākhās discussed in the previous chapter, the history of the Śākambharīśākhās oﬀers good examples of several new ﬁndings concerning the Digambara ascetic lineages of pre-20th century CE Western India. The most notable aspects are the gradual formation of autonomous bhaṭṭāraka lineages from in this case particularly long successions of lower ranking maṇḍalācāryas, the frequent relocation of seats between various towns within a relatively clearly demarcated region, and the bhaṭṭāraka seats’ continuation up to the 20th century CE. 6.1. The Śākambharīśākhās As discussed (2.2.3.2., 2.2.3.7.), I refer to the set of Balātkāragaṇa lineages which Joharāpurakara (1958: 114-25) termed in the singular the Nāgauraśākhā as the Śākambharīśākhās. My denomination refers to the Śākambharī region in Central Rajasthan where this bifurcating lineage ﬂourished from the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE up to the mid-20th century CE.435 The cities of Ajamera and Nāgaura ultimately became the hometown of two Śākambharīśākhā lineages, but their sphere of inﬂuence also included Rūpanagaṛha436 and Sākhūna,437 and several towns closer to Jayapura like Māroṭha,438 Jobanera,439 Kālāḍerā,440 and Revāsā441 also served as their home base at some point. (Map 6.1) At least the Ajamera-paṭṭa also was active in Jayapura itself. (6.1.3.) The Śākambharīśākhās were predominantly connected to the Khaṇḍelavāla caste, and their incumbents are also typically recorded as belonging to this caste (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 156-60). The undivided Śākambharīśākhā was initiated in the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE by Ratnakīrti (I). It seems to have been a maṇḍalācārya lineage throughout its existence, up to its split in the early 18th century CE after Ratnakīrti (II). (6.1.1.) I refer to two long-lasting lineages which developed from this split and continued up to respectively the ﬁrst and the second half of the 20th century CE as Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 227) and, following them, Seṭhī (2010) also framed their discussion of these lineages with explicit reference to the Śākambharī region. 435 436 Roopangarh, also Rūpanagara, ca. 50 km to the north north=west of Ajamera. 437 Sakhun, ca. 80 km to the south-west, midway between Ajamera and Jayapura. 438 Maroth, also Maharoṭha, ca. 80 km to the west north-west of Jayapura. 439 Jobner, also Jovanera, ca. 50 km to the west of Jayapura. 440 Kaladera, also Kālā Ḍaharā, ca. 40 km to the north north-west of Jayapura. 441 Raiwasa, also Revā, 12 km south-east of Sikar, ca. 100 km north-west of Jayapura. 377 the (Śākambharīśākhā) Nāgaura-paṭṭa (6.1.2.) and the (Śākambharīśākhā) Ajamera-paṭṭa (6.1.3.). There is also some evidence for an apparently shorter-lived ācārya lineage which arose from the undivided Śākambharīśākhā at the same time as the Nāgaura-paṭṭa and the Ajamera-paṭṭa. (6.1.4.) My nomenclature for the former lineages repeats Joharāpurakara’s (1958) practice of naming lineages after their ultimate site of residence, but there is suﬃcient grounds to justify it. Ajamera was home to up to seven incumbents of the Ajamera-paṭṭa, and the last incumbent of the Nāgaura-paṭṭa and probably several of his predecessors had their seat in Nāgaura. Map 6.1. Main towns related to the Śākambharīśākhās between the 16th and the 20th century CE. (indicated in red). Relatively few Śākambharīśākhā commemoration sites have been surveyed. (6.1.5.) Two of them however are particularly rich. The Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera is the largest Digambara necropolis retrieved in Rajasthan and an important source of information on the history of the Ajamera-paṭṭa, developed as a necropolis for the lineage in the mid-18th century CE. (6.2.) The Nasīyā in Sākhūna is second only to the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in terms of the number of paṇḍitas commemorated. The memorials at this site attest a pupillary succession of several generations of local paṇḍitas who seem to have had shifting lines of allegiance to the Ajamera-paṭṭa. (6.3.) Only two Nāgaura-paṭṭa memorials have been found so far. An early 19th century CE pādukā of a Nāgaura-paṭṭa bhaṭṭāraka is preserved in the mandira in Nāgaura which was the seat of the lineage. (6.4.1.) And an early 20th century CE memorial of a Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbent has been found in Gvāliyara (M.P.). (6.4.2.) 378 I have not yet visited Māroṭha, Jobanera, Kālāḍerā, Revāsā, and Rūpanagaṛha, where further Śākambharīśākhā memorials may be found. Relatively little work has been done on Śākambharīśākhā icon inscriptions (mūrtilekha), which could undoubtedly still add much to our understanding of the history of these lineages. And while I shortly consulted the manuscript collection at the former seat of the Ajamera-paṭṭa, the Bābājī kā Mandira in Ajamera, I could not access the Nāgaura-paṭṭa śāstra-bhaṇḍāra, the largest Digambara manuscript collection of Rajasthan preserved at the Bīsapantha Baṛā Mandira in Nāgaura (Detige 2017: 37). 6.1.1. Undivided Śākambharīśākhā According to the account narrated by paṭṭāvalīs, the Śākambharīśākhā was initiated in the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE by Ratnakīrti (I), a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra who ﬂourished in the second half of the 15th and early 16th century CE. According to the paṭṭāvalī extracts edited by Joharāpurakara (1958),442 Ratnakīrti (I) (p. s. 1572?) was succeeded by Bhuvanakīrti (p. s. 1586), Dharmakīrti (p. s. 1590), Viśālakīrti (p. s. 1601), Lakṣmīcandra (p. s. 1611), Sahasrakīrti (p. s. 1631), Nemicandra (p. s. 1650), Yaśaḥkīrti (p. s. 1672), Bhānukīrti (p. s. 1690), Śrībhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1705), Dharmacandra (p. s. 1712), Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1727), Surendrakīrti (p. s. 1738),443 and Ratnakīrti (II) (p. s. 1745).444 (Chart 6.1) After this later Ratnakīrti (II), around the turn of the 18th century CE, the lineage bi- or in fact trifurcated. (6.1.2-4.) According to the paṭṭāvalī available to Kāsalīvāla (1989: 158-60), all incumbents of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā came from the Khaṇḍelavāla caste. Later sources often record the incumbents of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā as Chart 6.1. Incumbents of the Śākambharīśākhā up to its trifurcation, bhaṭṭārakas (orange), maṇḍalācāryas (maroon), ācāryas (red), and unknown rank (grey), with recorded date of consecration. 442 Joharāpurakara 1958: 114-9, lekhas 277-8, 280, 282-5, 288-9, 291-2, 294-5, 297. Amarendrakīrti is found as an alternative name for Surendrakīrti (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 41, n. 29; Joharāpurakara 1958: 118, lekha 295; Kāsalīvāla 1989: 159). 443 Some variant accounts found in later sources may depend on historical confusion developed by then, or on scribal or editorial mistakes. A colophon from s. 1654 records the well-known Uttaraśākhā to Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā succession Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra > Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra > Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra > Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti (skipping the maṇḍalācāryas Dharmacandra and Lalitakīrti, as is commonly done), and then in Candrakīrti’s lineage (‘tadāmnāye’) the succession (‘tatpaṭṭe’) of the maṇḍalācāryas Bhuvanakīrti, Dharmakīrti, Viśālakīrti (Joharāpurakara 1958: 116, lekha 286). Omitting Ratnakīrti (I), this account mistakingly traces the Śākambharīśākhā not to the Uttaraśākhā Jinacandra (second half of the 15th century CE to early 16th century CE) but to the much later Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Candrakīrti (second half of the 16th century CE and early 17th century CE). A later colophon from s. 1822 refers to Maṇḍalācārya Ratnakīrti (I) not as succeeding Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra but as a second pupil of and as succeeding the 14th century CE Uttaraśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi (‘saṃvat 1822 varṣe (…) bhaṭṭāraka śrī padmanandi-devās-tat-paṭṭe dvitīya-śiṣya-maṇḍalācārya śrī ratnakīrtti-devās […]’, Kāsalīvāla 1950: 41, n. 29). Here, an editorial mistake in the text of the colophon as published is possible. 444 379 bhaṭṭārakas, and scholarship has taken such references for granted.445 Yet a suﬃcient number of coeval and even some later sources show that the incumbents of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā were all (ācāryas or) maṇḍalācāryas. Ratnakīrti (I) is recorded as a bhaṭṭāraka on his s. 1572 pādukā at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā necropolis in Ajamera (#6.1). Architectural and epigraphic evidence indicates that the caraṇa-chatrī is of suﬃcient antiquity to date to Ratnakīrti (I)’s period. (6.2.2.) I therefore take its reference to him as a bhaṭṭāraka as a witness of his actual rank.446 Although further research would be of interest, the available sources indicate that his successors in the undivided Śākambharīśākhā were maṇḍalācāryas. While later sources often record them as bhaṭṭārakas, sources contemporary to them typically attest them as maṇḍalācāryas. The probably mid-18th century CE Śākambharīśākhā paṭṭāvalī edited by Joharāpurakara (1958: 114-20) gives no ranks for the incumbents of the undivided lineage, nor for the Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents it includes, except for Ratnakīrti (I) (Ibid.: 114, lekha 277) and Dharmakīrti (Ibid.: 114, lekha 280), who accordingly are recorded as bhaṭṭārakas, with the abbreviation ‘bha.’ The latter could however also be a scribal or editorial mistake for the resembling ‘ma[ṃ].’, the abbreviation for the lower rank of the maṇḍalācārya. In the other attestations collected by Joharāpurakara (1958), the incumbents of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā are indeed recorded with various ranks and titles like ācārya, sūri (= ācārya), maṇḍalācārya, gaṇādhipo (ruler of the gaṇa), gaccheśa (lord of the gaccha), and kadambakādhipati (leader of the assembly), and muni (munīndra, munivara),447 but never as bhaṭṭārakas.448 Song compositions on a number of early 16th to early 17th century CE incumbents (Ratnakīrti [I] to Viśālakīrti, Sahasrakīrti, and Yaśaḥkīrti) also refer to them as munis, ācāryas, or maṇḍalācāryas, never as bhaṭṭārakas.449 A colophon from s. 1636 attests the ﬁrst ﬁve incumbents (Ratnakīrti [I] to Lakṣmīcandra) as maṇḍalācāryas (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 108, n. 16). A colophon from s. 1666 attesting the second to eight incumbent (Bhuvanakīrti to Yaśaḥkīrti, Sahasrakīrti omitted) similarly records them as maṇḍalācāryas (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 20, n. 18b). A colophon from as late as s. 1822 lists all the 445 Possibly also based on a mere presumption rather than on any sources. Kāsalīvāla (1989: 158) refers to Ratnakīrti (I), Bhuvanakīrti, and Dharmakīrti as bhaṭṭārakas, giving no rank for any further incumbents of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā. A colophon from s. 1595 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 113, lekha 279, discussed further below, this section) however records Ratnakīrti (I) as a maṇḍalācārya, perhaps - uniquely, if so - relegating him to the lower rank of his Śākambharīśākhā successors. 446 maṇḍalācārya (Joharāpurakara 1958: lekhas 279, 286, 287), ācārya (Ibid.: lekha 281, notably a mūrtilekha), sūri-gaṇādhipa (Ibid.: lekha 293), gaccheśa (Ibid.: lekha 293), sūri-kadaṃbakādhipati (Ibid.: lekha 293), muni (Ibid.: lekha 293), munīndra (Ibid.: lekha 296), muni-vara (Ibid.: lekha 290). 447 The edition of the undated colophon of a Pāṇḍava-purāṇa manuscript as recording the consecutive incumbents Viśālakīrti, Lakṣmīcandra, and Sahasrakīrti as bhaṭṭārakas (‘bha.’) is probably an editorial (or scribal) mistake to be corrected to ‘ma.’ (for maṇḍalācārya), as their predecessor Dharmakīrti and successor Nemicandra are recorded without abbreviation as maṇḍalācāryas (Joharāpurakara 1958: 116, lekha 287). 448 449 This corrects my earlier reference to these compositions (Detige 2019a: 276). 380 incumbents from Ratnakīrti (I) to Ratnakīrti (II) as maṇḍalācāryas (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 41, n. 29).450 Only the last incumbent of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā Ratnakīrti (II) is found recorded variously as a bhaṭṭāraka or as a maṇḍalācārya in a number of memorial inscriptions at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera, which seems to indicate confusion about his status and rank. He is named a bhaṭṭāraka in the inscription of his own memorial erected at least some 35 years after his probable death in s. 1766, in the mid-18th century CE, when Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti also commemorated other predecessors as bhaṭṭārakas (#6.3, 6.2.3.). In the incompletely dated inscription of the memorial stone of his pupil Paṇḍita Hemarāja (s. 17--, #6.16, 6.2.2.), Ratnakīrti (II) is also referred to as a bhaṭṭāraka. In the inscription of Paṇḍita Rāmacandra’s later pādukā from s. 1827 however, he is remembered as a maṇḍalācārya. (#6.19). While Ratnakīrti (I) is attested as a bhaṭṭāraka, his successors in the undivided Śākambharīśākhā thus seem to have been maṇḍalācāryas. As discussed (2.2.3.4.), Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra’s ﬁrst successors in the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, Dharmacandra and Lalitakīrti, were also maṇḍalācāryas, and it therefore seems to have been the Cambalaśākhā (Aṭeraśākhā) which formed the continued bhaṭṭāraka lineage, to which the Śākambharīśākhā and the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā were originally subordinated as maṇḍalācārya lineages. From the late 16th century CE onwards, the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents were bhaṭṭārakas (4.1.2.), but the Śākambharīśākhās remained maṇḍalācārya and ācārya lineages until possibly the middle of the 18th century CE (6.1.2., 6.1.3., 6.1.4.). While in the 16th century CE the Śākambharīśākhā and the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā were peers as maṇḍalācārya lineages, throughout the 17th century CE the Śākambharīśākhā thus would have been of lower standing and technically subordinate to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. Ratnakīrti (I) is recorded to have been consecrated in Dillī in s. 1581 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 114, lekha 277; Kāsalīvāla 1989: 158), but his successors Bhuvanakīrti and Dharmakīrti were seated or at least consecrated in Ajamera (Joharāpurakara 1958: 119-20, lekhas 278, 280). Ratnakīrti (I) may already have shifted his seat to Ajamera, and his caraṇa-chatrī at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera could therefore well indicate his actual place of death and cremation. (6.2.2.) The memorial’s inscribed date of s. 1572 does not however accord with his recorded consecration in s. 1581. Balātkāragaṇa paṭṭāvalīs report that in the very year s. 1572, during the time of Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra, the ‘gaccha’ bifurcated, one part being related to Cittauḍagaṛha and the other to Nāgaura.451 Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra, like Ratnakīrti (I) a successor of Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra, stood at the origins of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā which remained connected to Cittauḍagaṛha under two maṇḍalācārya-rank successors to Prabhācandra. (4.1.1.) The faction related to Nāgaura in the paṭṭāvalīs likely was the early Śākambharīśākhā, and may well have been led by Ratnakīrti (I). Ratnakīrti (I) is indeed also said to have consecrated the Ādinātha Mandira in Nāgaura in s. 1581, on behalf of Parvataśāha Pāṭanī, the dīvāna of Nāgaura’s ruler Nāgaurī Khāṃ (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 158, no source given). Rather than his date of death or the consecration of the memorial, the s. 1572 date The omission of Ratnakīrti (I)’s ﬁrst two successors Bhuvanakīrti and Dharmakīrti could easily be a mere scribal or editorial error, of a type occurring regularly. The reference to the late 16th century CE Sahasrakīrti as a bhaṭṭāraka, amidst maṇḍalācārya predecessors and successors, is probably also an editorial mistake. See 6.1.4. for more on this colophon. 450 451 ‘ekai vāra gacha doya huvā cītoḍa ara nāgora-kā saṃ. 1572 kā aṣvāla’ (Joharāpurakara 1958: 104 lekha 265). 381 on Ratnakīrti (I)’s memorial could thus record the start of his incumbency after the recorded split of the saṅgha in that year.452 A few sources from the last quarter of the 15th and the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE allow us to reﬁne our understanding of the origins and early history of the Śākambharīśākhā. Two (unpublished) inscriptions on pillars of the Baḍā Mandira in Nāgaura dated to s. 1532 and s. 1543, prior to the time of Ratnakīrti (I), record one Ācārya Sakalabhūṣaṇa, a pupil of the Uttaraśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi, instructing the construction of a maṇḍapa. This indicates that the Balātkāragaṇa was active in Nāgaura already prior to the split of the gaccha narrated in the paṭṭāvalī. The faction of the saṅgha related to Nāgaura in s. 1572 would thus, unsurprisingly, have opted for a town with a prior connection to its lineage. A further conﬁrmation of the early Śākambharīśākhā’s connection to the Śākambharī region is found in an attestation of towns like Nāgaura, Meḍatā, Māroṭha, Khaṇḍelā, Jobanera, Kālāḍerā, Sāmoda (?), and Mahalāṃ (?) being assigned to the gaccha of Ratnakīrti (I)’s successor Maṇḍalācārya Bhuvanakīrti (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 158, no source given). A colophon from s. 1595 attests two pupils of ‘Maṇḍalācārya’ Ratnakīrti with the double rank of muni maṇḍalācārya (Joharāpurakara 1958: 113, lekha 279). The colophon ﬁrst records the traditional succession Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi > Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra > Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra. Possibly due to a scribal or editorial lapse, the subsequent relationship between Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra and ‘Maṇḍalācārya’ Ratnakīrti is missing. The composition then names Muni Maṇḍalācārya Hemacandra and Muni Maṇḍalācārya Bhuvanakīrti as both pupils of Ratnakīrti.453 The manuscript was produced in Meḍatā by Bhuvanakīrti’s pupil Muni Puṇyakīrti. Attestations of renouncers recorded as muni maṇḍalācāryas are found elsewhere too (Detige 2018: 320), and I consider them to have been maṇḍalācāryas. As discussed (2.2.4.2.), it seems maṇḍalācārya-hood was not an initiatory rank but a title indicating speciﬁc functions. This might explain the appearance of the otherwise somewhat odd double term muni maṇḍalācārya. Hemacandra and Bhuvanakīrti are not referred to as each other’s successors, and thus seem to have ﬂourished simultaneously. Bhuvanakīrti can most probably be recognised as Ratnakīrti (I)’s later recorded direct successor of that name. The scribe Muni Puṇyakīrti’s pupillary relation to Bhuvanakīrti indicates that the latter had led an ascetic saṅgha. According to the Śākambharīśākhā paṭṭāvalī, Bhuvanakīrti had already been succeeded by Dharmakīrti (paṭṭa s. 1590) by the time of the colophon. Muni Puṇyakīrti then seems to have preferred to highlight his pupillary association to the by then deceased or retired Bhuvanakīrti more than recording any connection to the incumbent Dharmakīrti. No further attestations are found of Muni Maṇḍalācārya Hemacandra, or of a separate lineage arising from 452 This would only partly solve some confusion in the paṭṭāvalīs about the dating of Ratnakīrti (I). They accord Ratnakīrti (I) 21 years on the seat after his consecration in s. 1581 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 114, lekha 277; Kāsalīvāla 1989: 158), but already have his successors Bhuvanakīrti, Dharmakīrti, and Viśālakīrti ascending the seat meanwhile, in respectively s. 1586, s. 1590, and s. 1601 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 114-5, lekhas 278, 280, 282). If instead Ratnakīrti (I) was indeed on the seat for 21 years after being consecrated to it in s. 1572, so up to ca. s. 1593, the period of his incumbency still overlaps with the former two successors. If on the other hand we take the reported duration of Ratnakīrti (I)’s incumbency of 21 years and his succession in s. 1586 at face value, his consecration should instead have occurred in approximately s. 1565, still during the recorded period of his guru Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra, who is thought to have been seated in Dillī (2.2.3.4.). ‘maṇḍalācārya śrīratnakīrti deva tatsikṣa muni maṇḍalācārya śrīhemacandradeva dvitīya sikṣa muni maṇḍalācārya śrībhuvanakīrti deva’ (Joharāpurakara 1958: 113, lekha 279). 453 382 him. Hemacandra presumably looked after another, designated part of the inﬂuence sphere of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā or led a part of its saṅgha next to Maṇḍalācārya Bhuvanakīrti, the latter later coming to be recognised and canonised as the sole lineage incumbent. A reading of later paṭṭāvalīs and the records of successions in colophons and inscriptions might lead to the impression that the split of the Śākambharīśākhā and the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā was a sudden and streamlined event. As witnesses to their own times, the s. 1532 and s. 1543 pillar inscriptions of the Nāgaura mandira and the s. 1595 colophon attesting the two muni maṇḍalācāryas indicate that the genesis of the Śākambharīśākhā was instead a longer and gradual process, probably largely guided by opportunities of patronage in diﬀerent localities. The Balātkāragaṇa developed a basis in Nāgaura already in the second of the 15th century CE, prior to the recorded establishment of the Śākambharīśākhā. Possibly it had a permanent presence in the town through ācāryas like Sakalabhūṣaṇa. In the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE, a larger faction of the saṅgha built upon this prior association to the Śākambharī region and came to centre its activities there, leading to the formation of one or more (Hemacandra and Bhuvanakīrti) separate maṇḍalācāryas lineage serving the area. They would have developed their activities and networks throughout the region during the 17th century CE, even while theoretically ranking below the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas. Only in the mid-18th century, after the splintering of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā, the time was ripe for the incumbents of the Nāgaura-paṭṭa and Ajamera-paṭṭa to obtain bhaṭṭāraka-hood. (6.1.2., 6.1.3.) Paṭṭāvalīs not only provide the date of consecration of the incumbents of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā, but also associate each incumbent to a town. With this information added, the successions of the full, undivided Śākambharīśākhā run as follows: Ratnakīrti (I) (s. 1572?, Dillī) > Bhuvanakīrti (p. s. 1586, Ajamera) > Dharmakīrti (p. s. 1590, Ajamera) > Viśālakīrti (p. s. 1601, Jobanera) > Lakṣmīcandra (p. s. 1611, Jobanera) > Sahasrakīrti (p. s. 1631, Jobanera), Nemicandra (p. s. 1650, Jobanera) > Yaśakīrti (p. s. 1672, Revāsā454) > Bhānukīrti (p. s. 1690, Nāgaura) > Śrībhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1705, Nāgaura) > Dharmacandra (p. s. 1712, Māroṭha) > Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1727, Māroṭha; Kāsalīvāla 1989: 159 has s. 1729]) > Surendrakīrti (aka Amarendrakīrti, p. s. 1738, Māroṭha) > Ratnakīrti (II) (p. s. 1745, Kālāḍerā). Joharāpurakara (1958: 121-3) takes it that the Śākambharīśākhā incumbents were residents (nivāsī) of the respective towns recorded for them. Kāsalīvāla (1989: 158-60) on the other hand interprets this information as referring uniquely to the place of their consecration to the seat (paṭṭābhiṣeka).455 K. C. Jain (1972: 341) interprets such data as indicating the incumbents’ native towns, which is less likely given the paṭṭāvalīs’ indication ‘paṭṭa’. Consecutive successors are often recorded as associated to the same place, which indicates that these records (also) refer to the There is however an attestation of Yaśakīrti consecrating the Ādinātha Mandira in Revāsā already in s. 1661, more than a decade before his reported paṭṭābhiṣeka (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 159; K. C. Jain 1972: 340 reports this information as coming from an inscription dated to the corresponding 1604 CE). 454 Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 233, n. 1) reproduce an interesting inscription recording the donation of a throne (siṅhāsana) by the pañca (of Revāsā) to Yaśakīrti in s. 1672, the year paṭṭāvalīs report him to have been consecrated in that town. While the seat was probably manufactured for Yaśakīrti’s paṭṭābhiṣeka, it would also have been used longer and frequently to enthrone the lineage incumbent during functions and preachings. 455 383 location of their seats. In the second quarter of the 16th century CE, Ratnakīrti (I)’s two immediate successors Bhuvanakīrti and Dharmakīrti are related to Ajamera, and the next four incumbents in the second half of the 16th and early 17th century CE to Jobanera. A single incumbent is then related to Revāsā, two mid-17th century CE incumbents to Nāgaura, and three consecutive incumbents in the second half of the 17th century CE to Maroṭha.456 During the more than a century and a half of its existence, the undivided Śākambharīśākhā thus seems to have shifted frequently between various towns in the Śākambharī region. The paṭṭāvalī relates Ratnakīrti (II) (p. s. 1745), the last incumbent of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā, to Kālāḍerā, some 40 kilometres north, north-west of Jayapura (Joharāpurakara 1958: 119, lekha 297). Without indicating their source for this information, Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 229, 230, 234) knew Ratnakīrti (II) to have relocated his seat from Nāgaura to Ajamera in s. 1751, adding that he was consecrated anew on this occasion.457 According to the paṭṭāvalīs, Ratnakīrti (II) remained on the seat for 21 years. Kāsalīvāla (1989: 160) cites the age of Ratnakīrti (II) at the time of his consecration in s. 1745 as 99, probably an editorial mistake to be corrected to 77, given the record of his total age after his 21 years on the seat as 98. A pādukā of Ratnakīrti (II) at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera bears a date in s. 1766, the third day of the bright half of the moon in the month of Māgha (2nd February 1710 CE). (#6.3, 6.2.3.) The inscription records that the memorial was built by the later Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti, who ascended the Ajamera-paṭṭa seat in s. 1802. (6.1.3.) The s. 1766 date recorded on Ratnakīrti (II)’s pādukā seems to be his date of death, as it ﬁts very well his succession by Vidyānandi, the ﬁrst incumbent of the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa, recorded to have passed two weeks later, on the fourth day of the dark half of the moon in the month of Phālguṇa s. 1766 (17th February 1710 CE; Joharāpurakara 1958: 119, lekha 298). After Ratnakīrti (II), a trifurcation occurred within the Śākambharīśākhā. Given the chronological congruency just noted between Ratnakīrti (II)’s death and Vidyānandi’s consecration, the Ajamerapaṭṭa lineage seems to have been a continuation of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā. (6.1.3.) The two other lineages may have branched oﬀ during the incumbency of Ratnakīrti (II) already, or after his death, in dissent from Vidyānandi. Although there is an incongruity in the sparse information available on the paṭṭābhiṣeka dates of the ﬁrst Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbents, this lineage possibly started only two decades after the death of Ratnakīrti (II). (6.1.2.) A short-lived ācārya lineage was a third Śākambharīśākhā oﬀshoot. (6.1.4.) The Nāgaura-paṭṭa and the Ajamera-paṭṭa in the course of time developed into full-ﬂedged bhaṭṭāraka lineages, came to settle in Nāgaura and Ajamera, and were continued up to the second half and the ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE respectively. Yet three out of the ﬁrst four Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents are recorded in other towns, and thus far title is known about the location of the early Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbents. Information is also lacking on how the two or originally perhaps even all three lineages divided the Śākambharī region among 456 Joharāpurakara 1958: 114-19 lekhas 277-8, 280, 282-5, 288-89, 291-2, 294-5, 297, information collated in Ibid.: 121-2 and Kāsalīvāla 1989: 158 ﬀ. Seṭhī (2010: 70) repeats the same information on Ratnakīrti (II)’s shift from Nāgaura to Ajamera, probably taking it from Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975). 457 384 themselves. Further research on the epigraphic corpus and manuscript collections of mandiras in various towns in the region could ﬁll this lacuna. 6.1.2. Śākambharīśākhā Nāgaura-paṭṭa Joharāpurakara (1958: 123 n. 53) only included the names of the incumbents of what I term the Śākambharīśākhā Nāgaura-paṭṭa, without dates of consecration or associated places: [Ratnakīrti (II) (s. 1745) >] Jñānabhūṣaṇa > Candrakīrti > Padmanandi > Sakalabhūṣaṇa > Sahasrakīrti > Anantakīrti > Harṣakīrti > Vidyābhūṣaṇa > Hemakīrti > Kṣemendrakīrti > Munīndrakīrti > Kanakakīrti, also noting that a Devendrakīrti was on the seat at his time of his writing. From another source,458 Kāsalīvāla (1989: 160) gives the same succession, connecting Kanakakīrti and Devendrakīrti through two further incumbents, Harṣakīrti and Mahendrakīrti. Importantly, he also gives the year of consecration of all incumbents: [Ratnakīrti (II) (p. s. 1745) >] Jñānabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1792) > Candrakīrti (p. s. 1786 [sic.]) > Padmanandi (p. s. 1822) > Sakalabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1843) > Sahasrakīrti459 (p. s. 1863) > Anantakīrti (p. s. 1866) > Harṣakīrti (p. s. 1896) > Vidyābhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1909) > Hemakīrti (p. s. 1910) > Kṣemendrakīrti (p. s. 1936) > Munīndrakīrti (p. s. 1943) > Kanakakīrti (p. s. 1960) > Harṣakīrti (p. s. 1966) > Mahendrakīrti (p. s. 1980) > Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1995). (Chart 6.2) The origins and development of the Nāgaura-paṭṭa are not yet fully understood. As we saw, the last incumbent of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā Ratnakīrti (II) is reported to have been consecrated in Kālāḍerā in s. 1745 and to have stayed on the seat for 21 years, relocated to Ajamera in s. 1751 and died in s. 1766. (6.1.1.) Kāsalīvāla (1989: 160) gives s. 1792 and s. 1786 as the respective dates of the consecration of Ratnakīrti (II)’s ﬁrst two successors on the Nāgaurapaṭṭa, Jñānabhūṣaṇa and Candrakīrti. Clearly there is an editorial mistake in at least one of the two years, or perhaps they should be exchanged. The latter would mean that there was a gap of two decades after Ratnakīrti (II)’s probable demise in s. 1766 and the consecration of the ﬁrst Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbent Jñānabhūṣaṇa in s. 1786. A later manuscript colophon from s. 1824 attests Candrakīrti as a bhaṭṭāraka (6.1.4.), but we do not at present have coeval witnesses to the ranks of Jñānabhūṣaṇa and Candrakīrti. I follow a s. 1863 pādukā of the fourth Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbent Sakalabhūṣaṇa attesting him as a bhaṭṭāraka, and take it that all Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbents henceforth were bhaṭṭārakas. (6.4.1., #6.29) As we saw, the undivided Śākambharīśākhā remained a maṇḍalācārya lineage throughout (6.1.1.), and the early incumbents of the Ajamera-paṭṭa were also maṇḍalācāryas. Here, the ﬁfth incumbent Chart 6.2. Śākambharīśākhā Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbents with recorded date of consecration, bhaṭṭārakas (orange), and unknown rank (grey). 458 Kāsalīvāla (1989: 159, n. 1&2) names a poṭhī manuscript of one Ratanalāla Bhāṭa as his source. 459 Correcting ‘Sahasakīrti’ (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 160), probably an editorial mistake. 385 Vijayakīrti was probably the ﬁrst to become a bhaṭṭāraka in the third quarter of the 18th century CE. (6.1.3.) Regardless of its seemingly later origins, the Nāgaura-paṭṭa may have gone through a parallel evolution, with the second or third incumbent, Candrakīrti or Padmanandi, claiming bhaṭṭāraka-hood around the same time as the Ajamera-paṭṭa Vijayakīrti.460 We also have little information on the places of the seat of especially the 18th and 19th century CE Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbents. Nāgaura is recorded as having been the seat of two incumbents of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā, Bhānukīrti (paṭṭa s. 1690) and his successor Śrībhūṣaṇa (paṭṭa s. 1705) (Joharāpurakara 1958: 116-7, lekhas 289 & 291, 6.1.1.). According to Kāsalīvāla (1989: 160), the second Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbent Candrakīrti (p. s. 1792?), who is also said to have been wellversed in ‘mantra-tantra’, obtained a farmān of the mahārāja of Jodhpur to take custody of the Nāgaura seat (gaddī). Kāsalīvāla does not indicate whether this information also comes from the paṭṭāvalī he uses for his outline of the Nāgaura-paṭṭa or from another source. It is also not entirely clear whether the reference to the ‘Nāgaura seat’ is merely Kāsalīvāla’s phrasing, or the source literally indicated that Candrakīrti’s seat was located in Nāgaura. The pādukā of the fourth Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalabhūṣaṇa dated to the early 19th century CE (s. 1863) is preserved on an altar in the Bīsapantha Baṛā Mandira in Nāgaura. (6.4.1., #6.29) This memorial can probably be taken as an indication of Nāgaura-paṭṭa presence in Nāgaura around this time. At the time of my visit, a portrait and the toe-knob sandals of the last Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (d. 1967/8 CE, see below) were still preserved on a throne in the same mandira. (Fig. 6.1 lower L. & R.) In an epigraph above the entrance to the extensive manuscript repository of the Bīsapantha Baṛā Mandira, the building is memorialised as having been built by Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti in s. 2010 (1953 CE), and the library (sarasvatī-bhavana) is named after the late 19th to early 20th century CE Bhaṭṭāraka Munīndrakīrti (p. s. 1943-60). (Fig. 6.1 top L.) Important source materials on the history of the Nāgaura-paṭṭa and perhaps also the undivided Śākambharīśākhā is no doubt found in this vast manuscript collection. I could not get access to the collection, but catalogues are available (P. C. Jain 1979, 1981, 1985, 2009). Although the Nāgaura Bīsapantha Baṛā Mandira must have been the seat of a number of Nāgaurapaṭṭa incumbents, it is not yet clear when Nāgaura became the permanent abode of this lineage. The Ajamera-paṭṭa is known to have maintained connections to Rūpanagaṛha, Kālāḍerā, and Māroṭha. (6.1.3.) Yet, the Nāgaura-paṭṭa may also have remained associations to these and other earlier regional centres of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā, like Revāsā and Jobanera. Such towns may also have attracted the Nāgaura-paṭṭa seat before it got established in Nāgaura. I did not yet have a chance to visit Māroṭha, Kālāḍerā, Revāsā, Jobanera, Sāmbhara, and other towns in the region where memorials of the Nāgaura-paṭṭa or manuscript materials documenting the lineage may be found. According to Kāsalīvāla (1989: 160), the Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbent Jñānabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1786, succeeded by s. 1792?) even built a mandira related to the Nāgaura lineage (‘nāgauri Kāsalīvāla (1989: 160) refers to the early Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbents Candrakīrti and Padmanandi and to the last four incumbents (Kanakakīrti to Devendrakīrti) as bhaṭṭārakas, but gives no rank for any other incumbents. The record of the bhaṭṭāraka rank for some may well merely be Kāsalīvāla’s own editorial choice, guided by the presumption that all incumbents had this rank, rather than being based on any actual attestations in a paṭṭāvalī or other sources. There is little doubt that the latter four, 20th century CE incumbents were bhaṭṭārakas, but this is far less self-evident for the 18th century CE incumbents Candrakīrti and Padmanandi. 460 386 āmnāya’) in Ajamera. This would indicate considerable and perhaps longer lasting overlap in the zones of inﬂuence of the Nāgaura-paṭṭa and the Ajamera-paṭṭa. Figure 6.1. Bīsapantha Baṛā Mandira, Nāgaura. (February 2013) Vedi (top R.), seat with portrait and sandals of the last Śākambharīśākhā Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (bottom R. & right on bottom L.), and entrance to the manuscript repository (top L.). The late Nāgaura-paṭṭa bhaṭṭārakas seem to have travelled widely, and to have maintained relations with migrant communities in Central India. Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 230) note that the Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbents in an unspeciﬁed period maintained good relations to Nāgapura, Amarāvatī, and other cities in the Vidarbha region and wider Maharashtra where Rajasthani ('Māravāṛī') traders lived. According to Kāsalīvāla (1989: 160), the paṭṭābhiṣeka of Munīndrakīrti (p. s. 1943) took place in the pilgrimage place Gajapantha in Nāśika (Maharashtra), where he also held a pañcakalyāṇaka festival. A pādukā of Munīndrakīrti’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Kanakakīrti in Gvāliyara probably indicates his place of death, and was installed in s. 1972 by the Ajamera-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti. (6.4.2.) And the last Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbent Devendrakīrti is known to have often travelled to Vidarbha (Joharāpurakara 1958: 123 n. 53), and is said to have died in Haidarābāda in s. 2024 (1967/8 CE), where Kāsalīvāla (1990: 228) saw his chatrī in late 1989 CE. 387 6.1.3. Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa We know more about Ratnakīrti (II)’s successors on the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa than about the Nāgaura-paṭṭa. Including information from various sources to be discussed below, the complete Ajamera-paṭṭa succession runs as follows, including the year of consecration and place of consecration and/or seat of each incumbent: [Ratnakīrti (II) (p. s. 1745) >] Vidyānandi (p. s. 1766, Rūpanagara [= Rūpanagaṛha]) > Mahendrakīrti (p. s. 1769, Kālāḍerā) > Anantakīrti (p. s. 1773, Ajamera) > Bhavanabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1797, Kālāḍerā) > Vijayakīrti (s. 1802, Ajamera) > Trilokendrakīrti (prob. s. 1830, prob. Ajamera) > Bhuvanakīrti (p. s. 1840, prob. Ajamera) > Ratnabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1880, prob. Ajamera) > Lalitakīrti aka Padmanandi (p. s. 1922, Ajamera) > Harṣakīrti. (ﬂ. 1972. d. s. 1999, Ajamera). (Chart 6.3) The paṭṭāvalī from which Joharāpurakara extracted entries on the undivided Śākambharīśākhā also includes ﬁve Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents (Joharāpurakara 1958: 119-20, lekhas 298-302, p. 123, 125). The paṭṭāvalī does not record their rank but relates them to various places in the Śākambharī region (place of seat or consecration): Vidyānanda (p. s. 1766, Rūpanagara = Rūpanagaṛha [= Vidyānandi]) > Mahendrakīrti (p. s. 1769, Kālāḍerā) > Anantakīrti (p. s. 1773, Ajamera) > Bhavanabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1797, Kālāḍerā) > Vijayakīrti (p. s. 1802, Ajamera).461 An incomplete paṭṭāvalī of the lineage available to Hoernle (1891: 355) already included two further incumbents, Lokendrakīrti (p. s. 1830) and Bhuvanakīrti (p. s. 1840). Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 230) added, after Vijayakīrti, the bhaṭṭārakas Trailokendrakīrti [= Trilokendrakīrti], Bhuvanakīrti, Ratanabhūṣaṇa (Ratnabhūṣaṇa), and Padmanandi, regarding the latter as the last incumbent of this lineage. Kāsalīvāla (1989: 158) lists Lalitakīrti instead of Padmanandi, and adds one more incumbent, Harṣakīrti. Kāsalīvāla (Ibid.) also gives the caste, Khaṇḍelavāla caste gotra, and date (no place) of consecration Chart 6.3. Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa maṇḍalācāryas (maroon) and bhaṭṭārakas (orange), with recorded year of consecration or other available dating. of Trailokyakīrti (p. s. 1822 [= Trilokendrakīrti]), Bhavanakīrti (p. s. 1840 [= Bhuvanakīrti]), Ratnabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1880), Lalitakīrti (p. s. 1922), and Harṣakīrti (p. s. 2012 [but see below on this date, which should be corrected]). All these Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents are also attested in the inscriptions of the Ānteḍa Nasīyā, a rich necropolis on the outskirts of Ajamera which probably once featured memorials of all Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents except for Harṣakīrti. (6.1.5., 6.2.) Joharāpurakara’s (1958: 119, lekha 298) paṭṭāvalī records the ﬁrst Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent as Vidyānanda. His memorial at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā commemorates him under the variant Vidyānandi. (#6.4) I settle for the latter. Kāsalīvāla’s (1989: 158) record of Bhavanakīrti as the name of the seventh Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent is probably an editorial mistake rather than an attested variant for Bhuvanakīrti (p. s. 1840), the latter also recorded in his memorial inscription at the Ānteḍa Kāsalīvāla’s (1989: 157-8) later and longer-continued paṭṭāvalī (see next) includes the same information on these ﬁve incumbents. 461 388 Nasīyā (#6.8). Padmanandi seems to be an alternative name for Lalitakīrti. He is also recorded as Padmananda in the inscription of a s. 1928 paṇḍita pādukā at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā (#6.25, 6.2.6.), but commemorated as Lalitakīrti at the same necropolis (#6.9) and also named as such in the caption to his portrait preserved in the Bābājī kā Mandira in Ajamera (Figure 6.2. top and bottom L.). Attestations of Lokendrakīrti (Hoernle 1891: 355), Trilokendrakīrti (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975: 230), and Trailokyakīrti (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 158) clearly refer to the same incumbent. In the inscription on his pādukā at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā he is recorded as Tīlokendrakīrti (‘tīlokeṃdrakīrtta’. #6.7) In what follows, I will use the variant Trilokendrakīrti. Two diﬀerent years are reported for his ascendency to the seat, s. 1822 (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 158) and s. 1830 (Hoernle 1891: 355). The latter seems most likely in light of attestations of his predecessor Vijayakīrti still ﬂourishing in the late s. 1820s. (6.2.3.) According to Kāsalīvāla’s (1989: 157-8) paṭṭāvalī, all Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents belonged to the Khaṇḍelavāla caste, just like all of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā incumbents (Ibid.: 158-60) and the few Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbents for whom that information is available (Ibid.: 160-1). The Śākambharīśākhā paṭṭāvalīs edited by Joharāpurakara (1958: 114-20) and cited by Kāsalīvāla (1989: 157-8) record no ranks for any of the Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents they attest. In a colophon from s. 1812, the ﬁrst three Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents from the ﬁrst half of the 18th century CE, Vidyānandi, Mahendrakīrti, and Anantakīrti are referred to as maṇḍalācāryas (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 18, n. 16).462 The pādukā of Mahendrakīrti at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā bears a somewhat problematic date in s. 1765 and has an uncertain reading ‘bha.’ (bhaṭṭāraka) or ‘ma.’ (maṇḍalācārya). (6.2.2., #6.2) Ratnakīrti (II),463 Vidyānandi,464 Anantakīrti,465 and Bhavanabhūṣaṇa466 are all recorded as bhaṭṭārakas on their memorial stones at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā, but these memorials were all consecrated post facto in the mid-18th century CE, by Vijayakīrti and an ācārya connected to him. (6.2.3.) Vijayakīrti may well have been the ﬁrst Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent to claim the bhaṭṭāraka rank himself, being attested as a bhaṭṭāraka in an inscription recording his cāturmāsa in Māroṭha in s. 1824 (K. C. Jain 1972: 611-2, n. 46). Trilokendrakīrti is recorded as a bhaṭṭāraka in the inscription on his probably s. 1838 pādukā at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā (#6.7), and there is little doubt that the 19th and 20th century CE Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents were all bhaṭṭārakas. Captions to framed portraits of the last two preserved in mandiras in Ajamera identify both Lalitakīrti and Harṣakīrti as bhaṭṭārakas, and also explicitly record the former as having been seated in Ajamera. (Fig. 6.2) It is probably also from Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti onwards that Ajamera became the permanent abode of the Ajamera-paṭṭa, until its discontinuation in the mid-20th century CE. In the undivided Śākambharīśākhā, between its founder Ratnakīrti (I) and his namesake Ratnakīrti (II) a century and a half later, only the former’s two immediate successors (Bhuvanakīrti, p. s. 1586; Dharmakīrti, p. s. By the time of the colophon, Bhavanabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1797) and Vijayakīrti (p. s. 1802) had also ascended the Ajamera-paṭṭa seat. It is not be uncommon however that the manuscript's recipient Paṇḍita Udayarāma still chose to be recorded as a pupil of the earlier Anantakīrti, probably his actual guru. 462 463 ‘bha. śrī-ratnakīrtti-jī’ (#6.3). 464 ‘bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-vidyānaṃdi’ (#6.4). 465 ‘(?)ka-jī-śrī-anantakīrtti-jī’, prob. ‘[bhaṭṭāra]ka’ (#6.6). 466 ‘bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-bhavanabhūṣaṇa-jī’ (#6.5). 389 1590) are recorded as having been consecrated and probably also seated in Ajamera. (6.1.1.) Of the ﬁrst four Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents, only the third, Anantakīrti (p. s. 1773), is recorded from Ajamera. The ﬁrst incumbent Vidyānandi (p. s. 1766) is instead associated to Rūpanagara, and his successor Mahendrakīrti (p. s. 1769) as well as Anantakīrti’s successor Bhavanabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1797) to Kālāḍerā. Through erecting memorials of his predecessors who seem to have been seated elsewhere, and memorials of probably more recent and locally deceased ācāryas and paṇḍitas, Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti seems to have meant to develop the Ānteḍa Nasīyā into a necropolis of his lineage. Recording his maṇḍalācārya-predecessors as bhaṭṭārakas in the inscriptions on their memorials may have been part and parcel of his eﬀorts in establishing his lineage in Ajamera, presenting it as a longer-standing, higher-regarded bhaṭṭāraka tradition. (6.2.4.) Nyāyatīrtha (1990: 33-4) knew six main mandiras outside of Ajamera as related to the bhaṭṭārakas of Ajamera, the Digambara Mandira in Kālāḍerā, the Kālāḍerā (Mahāvīra) Mandira and the Mandira Bāījī Kuśalamatijī in Jayapura, the Nemināthajī Bāharalī Mandira in Āmera, the Muralīdharajī Rāṇā Nasiyāṃ in Khānyā (Khaniyā, just East of Jayapura), and the Jagannāthajī Ciramolyā Mandira in Purānāghāṭa (?). Nyāyatīrtha (1997: 6) did not know when the Nemināthajī Bāharalī Mandira in Āmera was constructed, but reported it to be 'very old', so the Ajamera-paṭṭa seems to have been active in the Kachavāhā polity already before the shift of its capital to Jayapura. The Kālāḍerā Mandira in Jayapura was constructed in s. 1867 by laypeople from Kālāḍerā (Ibid.: 32), who thus retained their aﬃliation to the Ajamera-paṭṭa when migrating into the new Kachavāhā capital.467 Along with the activity of the Ajamer- and Nāgaura-paṭṭa bhaṭṭārakas among Māravāṛī migrant communities in Madhya Pradesh and further South in Maharashtra and perhaps Haiderābād (Telangana) (6.1.2., 6.4.2.), this shows that the inﬂuence spheres of the diﬀerent Balātkāragaṇa lineages and branches interpenetrated, and that the connection between ascetic lineages and caste or sub-caste groups was maintained despite migrations into new territories. The Ajamera-paṭṭa also seems to have maintained close ties to Māroṭha, a town about a hundred kilometres north-east of Ajamera. Anantakīrti consecrated the Sāhoṃ kā Mandira and icons there in s. 1794 (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 157; K. C. Jain 1972: 340, the latter giving the corresponding 1737 CE). Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti spent his rainy season retreat (cāturmāsa) in the town in s. 1824, as attested in a pillar inscription in the same temple (K. C. Jain 1972: 611-2, n. 46). K. C. Jain (1963: 86 n. 2) also edits an inscription from this mandira attesting a visit of Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti and one Paṇḍita Kālūrāma to Māroṭha in s. 1862. K. C. Jain (1972: 341) also reports memorials (chatrīs, cabūtarās, pādukās) of unspeciﬁed bhaṭṭārakas and paṇḍitas from Māroṭha. Memorials of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā could also be expected to be found in Māroṭha. Yet, if K. C. Jain’s identiﬁcation of some of these memorials as commemorating bhaṭṭārakas (rather than maṇḍalācāryas) is accurate, these would probably post-date the mid-18th century CE. The same counts for any paṇḍitas memorials, which are generally only found from the mid-18th century CE onwards. (3.2.4.5.) Given the other records of Ajamera-paṭṭa activity in Māroṭha, the memorials are most likely The Bīsapanthī Jobanera Mandira in Jayapura was constructed in s. 1800, shortly after the foundation of Jayapura (Nyāyatīrtha 1990: 63). No information is available on its construction or its aﬃliation to any bhaṭṭāraka lineage, but it may similarly have been built by migrants from Jobanera. They may also have maintained the attested connection of this town to the Śākambharīśākhā. 467 390 to relate to this Śākambharīśākhā lineage. Memorials and other evidence of the Ajamera-paṭṭa can probably also found in other towns in the region. Figure 6.2. Bhaṭṭāraka seats with framed portraits of the successive Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents Lalitakīrti (p. s. 1922, top & bottom L.) and Harṣakīrti (d. s. 1999, top & bottom M.) at the Bābājī kā Mandira, Ajamera, and again of Harṣakīrti (top & bottom R. ) at the Baṛe Dhaṛe kī Nasiyāṃ, Ajamera, preserved even during construction works. (February 2013) Kāsalīvāla (1989: 158) notes the last Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti as having come to the seat in s. 2012, ninety years after his predecessor Lalitakīrti (s. 1922). This is probably an editorial error, since Harṣakīrti already consecrated pādukās in Gvāliyara in s. 1972 (6.3.2.), and in Ajamera (6.2.5-6.) and Sākhūna in s. 1992. The date for his paṭṭābhiṣeka should thus be moved backwards at least four decades (s. 2012 to predating s. 1972). Still it is possible that the seat had fallen empty for some time before his incumbency, as had happened in the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā in ̥ Īḍara in the same period. (5.1.6.) Harṣakīrti is mentioned to have died in s. 1999 in the caption of a 391 framed portrait preserved at the Bābājī kā Mandira, the bhaṭṭāraka seat in the old town of Ajamera. (Fig. 6.2 L.) A wall painting of Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti is also found in the Bābājī kā Mandira. (Fig. 6.17 L.) At the time of my visit, portraits of both Harṣakīrti and Lalitakīrti were still kept on ceremonial thrones at the Bābājī kā Mandira, and a similar set-up honouring Harṣakīrti was maintained at the Baṛe Dhaṛe kī Nasiyāṃ just outside of the historical town centre even during a complete makeover of the mandira. (Fig. 6.2) That these were still kept in honour close to three quarters of a century after the probable passing of Harṣakīrti in s. 1999 seems to indicate that these late Ajamera bhaṭṭārakas were widely supported and inﬂuential. The same speaks from the large pādukā slabs which Harṣakīrti consecrated at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā, found in a large building probably erected at that time. (Figs. 6.13, 6.16, 6.2.5-6.) 6.1.4. Śākambharīśākhā ācārya lineage From a single attestation from the second half of the 18th century CE, we know a lineage of four successive ācāryas which branched oﬀ from the undivided Śākambharīśākhā around the time of its bifurcation into the Ajamera- and Nāgaura-paṭṭas. The record is found in the two colophons of a manuscript copy of Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti’s Purāṇa-sāra-saṅgraha. According to a ﬁrst colophon, the manuscript was completed in s. 1822 by Paṇḍita Jodharāja and Paṇḍita Īsara, who record themselves as pupils of Ācārya Kṣemakīrti.468 The second colophon records the donation of the manuscript to Ācārya Kṣemakīrti in s. 1824, during the rule of Mahārāja Vijaya Siṅha,469 and its commissioning by the Khaṇḍelavāla caste layman Sāha R̥ ṣabhadāsa (‘Riṣabhadāsa’), who is honoured with a long genealogy and relatively long eulogy.470 The second colophon refers to the lineage of Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti (‘tad-āmnāye’). Although the manuscript does not record any predecessors readily conﬁrming his identiﬁcation, this is undoubtedly the second Nāgaura-paṭṭā incumbent Candrakīrti (p. s. 1792?) who possibly came to the seat in s. 1792 and was in fact succeeded shortly before, in s. 1822. As we saw, this is the earliest available attestation of a Nāgaura-paṭṭā incumbent as a bhaṭṭāraka. (6.1.2.) The scribes’ original colophon lists the incumbents of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā as maṇḍalācāryas, from Ratnakīrti (I), the founder of the lineage in the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE, right up to the last incumbent, his namesake Ratnakīrti (II) in the late 17th century CE. (See already 6.1.1.) The same colophon then records a lineage of four successive ācāryas, said to have stood in ‘saṃvat 1822 varṣe […] maṇḍalācārya śrī ratnakīrtti jī tadāmnāye trayodaśaprakāracāritrapratipālaka ācārya śrī 108 lakṣmīcandrajī tatpaṭṭe ācārya 108 narendrakīrttistatpaṭṭe p[a]ramapūjya sakalaguṇagaṇālaṅkrtācārya ̥ 108 śrī sakalakīrttijī tatpaṭṭe paṃcamahābratadhārakaḥ paṃcasamitidhārakaḥ trayaguptisādhakaḥ aṣṭāviṃśamūlaguṇayuktaḥ dvāviṃśapariṣahasahanadhīraḥ saptadaśasaṃyamabhedanityācāran ācāryavarpyadhairyaḥ sakalaśiromaṇi ācārya jī śrī 108 śrī kṣemakīrtti jī tacchiṣya likhitaṃ paṃḍita jodharāja dvitīya śiṣya paṃ. īsara svahastena |’ (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 41, n. 29 [1/2]). 468 The production and donation of the manuscript in s. 1822 and s. 1824 actually occurred during the period when the ruler of Māravāṛā Mahārāja Vijaya Siṅha (r. 1752-3 CE, 1772-93 CE) had been ousted by his cousin Mahārāja Rāma Siṅha (r. 1749-51 CE, 1753-72 CE). 469 ‘[…] saṃvat 1824 varṣe […] bhaṭṭāraka jī śrī candrakīrtti jī tadāmnāye khāṇḍelavālānvaye nāgapuravāstavye mahārājādhirāja rājarājeśvara mahārājā śrī vijayasiṅha jī rājyapravarttemāne pāṭaṇī gotre sāhajī śrī hīrānaṃdajī tasya bhāryā hīrāde […] eteṣām madhye […] sāhajī śrī riṣabhadāsajī idaṃ śāstraṃ sakalapurāṇākhyaṃ likhāpya […] satpātrā ācāryavarya śrī 108 śrī kṣemakīrttaye pradattaṃ |’ (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 41-2, n. 29 [2/2]). 470 392 the tradition of Maṇḍalācārya Ratnakīrti [II]. The paṇḍitas’ guru Kṣemakīrti is recorded as the successor of (‘tat-paṭṭe’) Ācārya Sakalakīrti, who in turn had been the successor of (‘tat-paṭṭe’) Ācārya Narendrakīrti, the successor of (‘tat-paṭṭe’) Ācārya Lakṣmīcandra, who stood in the tradition of (‘tad-āmnāye’) Maṇḍalācārya Ratnakīrti (II). We occasionally ﬁnd scribal error or confusion in colophons concerning the appropriate terminology of either succession (tat-paṭṭe, ‘on his seat’) or aﬃliation (tad-āmnāye, ‘in his lineage’). This does not however seem very likely here. The paṇḍitas who produced the manuscript were direct pupils of Ācārya Kṣemakīrti, and thus familiar with his background, and paṇḍitas can generally can be expected to be in the know about the usage and signiﬁcation of the various terminologies. The indication that the ācāryas’ succeeded each other (tat-paṭṭe) therefore seems deliberate and a conscious diﬀerentiation from both Ācārya Lakṣmīcandra’s aﬃliation to the tradition of (‘tad-āmnāye’) Maṇḍalācārya Ratnakīrti (II) and the mere pupillary descent (‘tac-chiṣya … dvitīya śiṣya’) which the paṇḍitas indicate for their own relation to Kṣemakīrti. Ratnakīrti (II)’s time had passed by more than half a century when the manuscript was produced. Five incumbents had been consecrated on the Ajamera-paṭṭa seat by then, Vidyānandi (p. s. 1766), Mahendrakīrti (p. s. 1769), Anantakīrti (p. s. 1773), Bhavanabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1797), and Vijayakīrti (p. s. 1802). And Padmanandi ascended the Nāgaura-paṭṭa in s. 1822 as the third incumbent after Jñānabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1786?) and Candrakīrti (p. s. 1792?, see 6.1.2. on these dates). Ācārya Kṣemakīrti or his paṇḍita pupils thus seem to have deliberately related the succession of ācāryas to the relatively distant Ratnakīrti (II) rather than to a ﬂourishing incumbent of either of those two lineages. All of this can probably be read as indicating Ācārya Lakṣmīcandra’s actual connection to Ratnakīrti (II) as well as the identity of the ācārya succession as constituting an independent, third Śākambharīśākhā lineage stemming from Ratnakīrti (II), distinct from both the Ajamera-paṭṭa and the Nāgaura-paṭṭa. Added at the time of the manuscript’s belated donation to Ācārya Kṣemakīrti in s. 1824, the second colophon does not record his predecessor ācāryas. As mentioned, it does situate the lay sponsor or the manuscript recipient in the āmnāya of the Nāgaura-paṭṭā Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti. In s. 1822, through recording their pupillary relation to Ācārya Kṣemakīrti, and the latter’s institutional aﬃliation to the ācārya lineage, the paṇḍita scribes distanced themselves from both the Nāgaurapaṭṭa and the Ajamera-paṭṭa. For the Khaṇḍelavāla donor of the manuscript who had his family pedigree documented at length in the second colophon from s. 1824 on the other hand, it might have been imperative to defer not only to the ācārya recipient but also to the higher-ranking, late Nāgaura-paṭṭa bhaṭṭāraka. The lack of a record of Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti’s predecessors is nevertheless rather unusual for a similarly long and otherwise complete colophon. Similarly remarkable is the failure to note Padmanandi, Candrakīrti’s successor since s. 1822 (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 160). And although this is not to be expected by default, there is also no indication of a pupillary aﬃliation to Candrakīrti. All of this might express a poor acquaintance with Candrakīrti and the Nāgaura-paṭṭa, or some institutional or aﬀectional distance on the part of the patron, the colophon’s scribe, or others involved in the manuscript donation. It is noteworthy that the parting of Ācārya Lakṣmīcandra occurred at the very time when the Śākambharīśākhā lineage itself also bifurcated into the Ajamera-paṭṭa and the Nāgaura-paṭṭa, the 393 ācārya succession thus becoming a third lineage descending from Ratnakīrti (II). (Chart 6.4) This moment of proliferation of new lineages and seats may have positively depended on increased support or new opportunities, or negatively on discord or competition between multiple individuals claiming succession rights or autonomy. The two bhaṭṭāraka lineages and the ācārya lineage may have catered to lay needs in various towns, lay communities, or temples within the Śākambharī region. It is also possible that rather than immediately establishing themselves Chart 6.4. Trifurcation of the Śākambharīśākhā into the Nāgaura-paṭṭa, Ajamera-paṭṭa, and ācārya lineage. as a separate lineage, the ācāryas originally acted as subordinate, local representatives of the Ajamera-paṭṭa or Nāgaura-paṭṭa mandalācāryas or bhaṭṭārakas, in a town at some remove from their seats, and only gradually (by the time of the s. 1822 record) came to claim more autonomy and mutual succession. This would be similar to the situation we found contemporaneously in Bassī (4.3.8.), and not unlike the gradual development of the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā over the ācārya, maṇḍalācārya, and ﬁnally bhaṭṭāraka ranks, an evolution spun out from the late 15th to the ﬁrst half of the 17th century CE (5.1.3.). Either way, the lineage of the four ācāryas is ultimately traced back to Ratnakīrti (II) and the undivided Śākambharīśākhā. Although forming a lineage of their own, the ācāryas thus clearly did not intend to dissociate themselves from the maṇḍalācārya lineage altogether, and were not opposed to the bhaṭṭāraka tradition in se. In their scribal colophon, Jodharāja and Īsara unfortunately did not indicate where they produced the manuscript. The second colophon also does not record where the manuscript donation took place. It does refer to its Khaṇḍelavāla patron Sāha R̥ ṣabhadāsa (or, less likely, only his predecessors) as a resident of Nāgapura (Nāgaura). As discussed, the Śākambharīśākhā Nāgaurapaṭṭa may well have been established in other towns in the Śākambharī region before coming to be permanently established in Nāgaura. (6.1.2.) It remains to be conﬁrmed therefore whether Candrakīrti or other incumbents of his lineage around the middle of the 18th century CE would have resided in Nāgaura. It may just as well have been Kṣemakīrti’s ācārya lineage which formed the continued Śākambharīśākhā presence in Nāgaura at this time. Nāgaura may also have been a shared territory of both the ācārya lineage and the Nāgaura-paṭṭa, with their seats located at diﬀerent temples in town. Or the town may instead have been a contested dominion between both lineages, reminiscent of the dispute between the Vāgaḍāśākhā lineages regarding the authority over Sāgavāṛā in the early 17th century CE (5.1.4.). 6.1.5. Śākambharīśākhā memorials: overview 31 Śākambharīśākhā memorials have been retrieved. These commemorate in total 12 lineage incumbents (maṇdalācāryas and bhaṭṭārakas, one s. 1572, others s. 1765-1992), 5 ācāryas (s. 394 1782-1821), and 26 or probably 27 paṇḍitas (s. 17??-1992). (Table 6.1, Map 6.2) The absence of muni memorials from the Śākambharīśākhā corpus falls in line with the almost total lack of Śākambharīśākhā memorials predating the 17th century CE. Only two Nāgaura-paṭṭa memorials have been found (both lineage incumbents, see below), as against a very representative number of memorials of incumbents, ācāryas, and paṇḍitas of the Ajamera-paṭṭa (Chart 6.5). Map 6.2. Towns with ﬁndings spots of Śākambharīśākhā memorials in Rajasthan (indicated in red). Chart 6.5. Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa succession with memorials. The Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera is the most important ﬁnding spot of Śākambharīśākhā memorials and also the largest Digambara necropolis retrieved in Rajasthan. (6.2.) The site features 11 chatrīs (incl. one repurposed), 18 cabūtarās, and one larger shrine room. At the time of my visit (February 2013), these preserved 23 pādukās, one from the early 16th century CE, the others from the 18th to 20th century CE. They could be identiﬁed as commemorating two incumbents of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā, the ﬁrst (Ratnakīrti [I], 6.2.2.) and last (Ratnakīrti [II], 6.2.3.), eight Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents (maṇdalācāryas and bhaṭṭārakas, s. 1765-1992, 6.2.3. and 6.2.5.), ﬁve ācāryas (s. 1782-1821, 6.2.4.), and 19 or probably 20 paṇḍitas (s. 17??-1992, 6.2.6.). 395 The epigraphic corpus of the Ānteḍa Nasīyā shows the evolution of the Ajamera-paṭṭa community as evolving from a constellation of ācāryas and paṇḍitas around a bhaṭṭāraka in the mid-18th century CE to circles of paṇḍitas surrounding bhaṭṭārakas in the 19th and early 20th century CE. The inscriptions also give some indications that it was probably in the mid-18th century CE that the Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents came to obtain the bhaṭṭāraka rank. (6.1.3.) Around this time, Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti turned the Ānteḍa Nasīyā into a necropolis of the Ajamera-paṭṭa by erecting memorials of predecessors who seem to have been seated elsewhere, probably an attempt to moor his lineage in his new hometown. (6.2.3.) Especially from this time onwards a clear material distinction was maintained to indicate the hierarchy of commemorated individuals, bhaṭṭārakas being honoured with chatrīs, and the lower-ranking ācāryas and lay paṇḍitas with simple caraṇacabūtarās. The chatrīs at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā evolve from four-pillared (early 16th to early 18th century CE, Fig. 6.9 L.) to six- and eight-pillared (mid-18th century CE, Fig. 6.5 L.), and ﬁnally more complex and ornately decorated pavilions (late 18th and ﬁrst half of the 19th century CE, Figs. 6.8 L., 6.11 L.). The domes of later chatrīs are more bulbous than the earlier structures, and ribbed in the case of the latest specimens. (Fig. 6.11 L.) The youngest chatrī is decorated with bas-reliefs of dancers inside its larger dome. (Fig. 6.11 M.) Compared to the evolution of the chatrīs, the pādukās at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā show a remarkable iconographic continuity over two and a half centuries, from a single, early 16th century CE specimen (Fig. 6.7 L.) to the many mid-18th century CE pādukās at the site (Figs. 6.7 R., 6.10). While the latter pādukās add an elevated edge on the border of the slabs, they still share with the early memorial stones the same, very basic carving and similarly short inscriptions. This contrasts the later, much faster stylistic development of pādukās in the Jayapura region, which in a period of less than a century changed from rather basic (Āmera, s. 1722-71) to particularly reﬁned (Jayapura, s. 1853-81). (4.2.5.) The latest memorials at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā are two pādukā slabs from s. 1992 consecrated by the last Ajamera-paṭṭa bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti. (Figs. 6.13, 6.16) These are large memorial stones on waist-high plinths, commemorating his two predecessors Ratnabhūṣaṇa and Lalitakīrti along with respectively eight and two paṇḍitas. Both memorial stones are found in a tibārā like structure which forms the top ﬂoor of a building occupying a large part of the hillock, presumably built by Harṣakīrti. (Fig. 6.12 R.) A second memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa, a chatrī built by his successor Lalitakīrti in s. 1939, is reported to have been situated at the Baṛe Dhaṛe kī Nasiyāṃ, close to the old town of Ajamera (see 6.2.5.). The memorial was no longer found at the time of my visit, but if this information is correct, Ratnabhūṣaṇa is the only Śākambharīśākhā aﬃliated individual of whom more than one memorial is known to have been erected. At the Nasīyā in Sākhūna, a town midway between Jayapura and Ajamera, three caraṇa-chatrīs house 19th and 20th century CE memorial stones commemorating in total seven paṇḍitas (s. 1887, s. 1918, s. 1992). (Figs. 6.18, 6.19) This makes it the second largest ﬁnding spot of identiﬁed paṇḍita memorials in Western India after the Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā. The style of all three chatrīs is comparable and predates the 20th century CE. The latest, s. 1992 pādukā thus seems to have been installed in a pre-existing, repurposed chatrī. The well-preserved inscriptions of the pādukās attest yet further paṇḍitas and allow us to piece together a local paṇḍita tradition of multiple 396 generations, with seemingly ﬂuctuating relations to the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa. The chatrīs are ﬁne pavilions of considerable size preserving well-preserved murals with ﬂoral and geometrical patterns inside their domes and on the inside and outside of the pillars. (Fig. 6.3) In Sākhūna, at some distance from the bhaṭṭāraka seat and at a site where no bhaṭṭārakas were commemorated, memorials of paṇḍitas could apparently take on more substantial dimensions. The memorial inscriptions also give some indications of an enhanced status of some of the attested paṇḍitas. (6.3.) Figure 6.3. Mural painting inside the domes of caraṇa-chatrīs with pādukās commemorating four paṇḍitas (s. 1992, L.) and Paṇḍita Vimanarāma (s. 1887, R.). Nasīyā, Sākhūna. (February 2016) A loose pādukā of the Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalabhūṣaṇa (s. 1863) found preserved on a vedi in the Bīsapantha Baṛā Mandira in Nāgaura is an important indication of this lineage’s presence in this city. The absence of further Nāgaura-paṭṭa memorials from Nāgaura is remarkable. They may have been present before at the town’s nasīyā where new buildings have now been erected. (6.4.1.) A star-shaped caraṇa-cabūtarā of Bhaṭṭāraka Kanakakīrti (p. s. 1960, succeeded in s. 1966) found in Gvāliyara was installed by the last Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti in s. 1972. (6.4.2.) I have not visited other towns in the Śākambharī region like Māroṭha, Kālāḍerā, Revāsā, Jobanera, or Sāmbhara, where further Nāgaura-paṭṭa memorials can be expected to be found. K. C. Jain (1972: 341) reported chatrīs, cabūtarās, and pādukās of unspeciﬁed bhaṭṭārakas and paṇḍitas from Māroṭha. These possibly related to the Ajamera-paṭṭa. Rank Name Year Town Site Lineage Secti on Inscri ption Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnakīrti (I) s. 1572 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Śākambharīśā khā (undivided) 6.2.2. #6.1 (Bhaṭṭāraka/ Maṇḍalācārya) Mahendrakīrti s. 1765 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.2. #6.2 397 Rank Name Year Town Site Lineage Secti on Inscri ption Paṇḍita Hemarāja s. 17?? Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.6. #6.16 Ācārya Viśālakīrti s. 1782 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā prob. Ajamerapaṭṭa 6.2.4. #6.11 Ācārya Bhānukīrti s. 1801 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā prob. Ajamerapaṭṭa 6.2.4. #6.12 s. 18[0?]3 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā prob. Ajamerapaṭṭa 6.2.6. #6.17 s. 1802-30 (inscr. s. 1766) Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.3. #6.3 Bhaṭṭāraka Vidyānandi [Maṇḍalācārya] s. 1810 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.3. #6.4 (Bhaṭṭāraka?) Anantakīrti [Maṇḍalācārya] prob. s. 1810 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.3. #6.6 Bhaṭṭāraka Bhavana[Maṇḍalācārya] bhūṣaṇa s. 1810 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.3. #6.5 Paṇḍita Vakasarāma s. 1812? Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā prob. Ajamerapaṭṭa 6.2.6. #6.18 Ācārya Ratnabhūṣaṇa s. 1813 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā prob. Ajamerapaṭṭa 6.2.4. #6.13 Ācārya Devendrakīrti s. 1814 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā prob. Ajamerapaṭṭa 6.2.4. #6.14 Ācārya Tilakabhūṣaṇa s. 1821 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā prob. Ajamerapaṭṭa 6.2.4. #6.15 Paṇḍita Rāmacandra s. 1827 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.6. #6.19 Paṇḍita Tulasīdāsa s. 1828 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.6. #6.23 Paṇḍita Rūpacanda s. 1828 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.6. #6.20 Paṇḍita Malūkacanda s. 1828 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.6. #6.21 Paṇḍita Akṣayarāma s. 1828 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.6. #6.22 Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti+ s. 1831? Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.3. - Bhaṭṭāraka Trilokendrakīrti s. 1838 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.5. #6.7 Paṇḍita Viradhīcanda s. [18]55 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā prob. Ajamerapaṭṭa 6.2.6. #6.24 Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalabhūṣaṇa s. 1863 Nāgaura Bīsapantha Baṛe Mandira Nāgaura-paṭṭa 6.4.1. #6.29 Paṇḍita Vimanarāma s. 1887 Sākhūna Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.3. #6.26 Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti s. 1892 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.5. #6.8 Paṇḍita Varddhamāna s. 1918 Sākhūna Nasīyā 6.3. #6.27 Paṇḍita Devakaraṇa ? (Possibly independent from Ajamerapaṭṭa) Unidentiﬁed (prob. paṇḍita) Bhaṭṭāraka [Maṇḍalācārya ?] Ratnakīrti (II) 398 Rank Name Year Town Site Lineage Secti on Inscri ption Paṇḍita Navanidhirāma s. 1928 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.6. #6.25 Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa s. 1939+ Ajamera Baṛe Dhaṛe kī Nasiyāṃ Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.5. - Bhaṭṭāraka Kanakakīrti s. 1972 Gvāliyara Nasīhājī Nāgaura-paṭṭa 6.4.2. #6.30 Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti s. 1992 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.5., 6.2.6. #6.9 Paṇḍita Viradhīcanda Paṇḍita Mahipāla Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa s. 1992 Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Ajamera-paṭṭa 6.2.5., 6.2.6. #6.10 Paṇḍita Govindalāla Paṇḍita Caturbhuja Paṇḍita Sadāsukha Paṇḍita [?]nānandarāma Paṇḍita Motī[lāla?] Paṇḍita Ajītamala Paṇḍita [Mohana?]lāla Paṇḍita Nemicandra Paṇḍita Pannālāla s. 1992 Sākhūna Nasīyā 6.3. #6.28 Paṇḍita Amīcandra ? (consecrated by Ajamerapaṭṭa incumbent) Paṇḍita Phatelāla Paṇḍita Yugarāja Table 6.1. Chronological list of discovered and reported (+) Śākambharīśākhā memorials (16th-20th century CE). 6.2. Ajamera, Ānteḍa Nasīyā (s. 1572, s. 1765-1992) 6.2.1. Introduction The Ānteḍa Nasīyā (aka Ānteḍa Chatariyāṃjī) in Ajamera is the largest pre-20th century CE Digambara necropolis discovered to date in Rajasthan. (Fig. 6.4) The site is located a few kilometres north of the old city, but is now engulfed by sprawling suburbs. In recent decades, the area has been developed as an up-market residential neighbourhood called the ‘Chatri Yojana Colony’ after the nasīyā. New Digambara and Śvetāmbara mandiras nearby indicate a strong Jain population. The nasīyā itself occupies a small, elongated hillock isolated from the higher hills north of the city and east of the Ānāsāgara lake. The site is in the hands of a committee that also manages the Baṛe Dhaṛe kī Nasiyāṃ in Daulata Bhāga, closer to the town centre, and the Bābājī kā 399 Mandira in the Sarāvagī Mohallā neighbourhood in the old town of Ajamera, where the seat of the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa was formerly established.471 The continued connection between these sites indicates that the Ānteḍa Nasīyā was originally developed by the Ajamera bhaṭṭārakas. The site has seen substantial development since my visits in February 2013.472 A Sammedaśikharajī miniature model with pādukās of jinas in small shrines was created on the Western slope, and on the eastern slope now stands a structure referred to as Pāvāpurī Jala Mandira. Large buildings were constructed south of the hillock, and the site is renamed the Ācārya Vidyāsāgara Tapovana after the well-known, contemporary Digambara renouncer Ācārya Vidyāsāgara (d. 2024 CE). Figure 6.4. Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera, view from the west. (February 2013) At the time of my visits, the Ānteḍa Nasīyā featured 11 chatrīs (incl. one repurposed), 18 cabūtarās, and one larger shrine room, preserving in total 23 pādukās. (Fig. 6.4) Three chatrīs and three cabūtarās no longer featured pādukās or had their pādukās covered in recent layers of cement and plaster, and hence could not be identiﬁed. A small building on the north-western corner of the ridge in use as a small mandira incorporates a chatrī, with the space between the pillars walled in. Its superstructure is very similar to that of the site’s latest, 19th century CE chatrīs. (Figs. 6.4, extreme 471 See Detige 2017: 37 on the manuscript collection of the Bābājī kā Mandira. 472 Google Maps, accessed March 2021. 400 left; 6.8 R., 6.9 R.) The other two unidentiﬁed chatrīs are a large, ornate pavilion which I take to have been a memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (6.2.3.), and a small square chatrī on the east side which could, hypothetically, have commemorated an ācārya. (6.2.4.) It stands between two groups of four caraṇa-cabūtarās of which ﬁve are identiﬁed as commemorating paṇḍitas. The pādukās of the three other cabūtarās seemed to be cemented away, but most likely also commemorated paṇḍitas from the second half of the 18th century CE or the early 19th century CE. (6.2.6.) Pādukās could be identiﬁed commemorating ten lineage incumbents (maṇḍalācāryas, bhaṭṭārakas, s. 1572-1992, Fig. 6.5, 6.7), ﬁve ācāryas (s. 1782-1821, 6.2.4., Fig. 6.10), and 19, probably 20 paṇḍitas (s. 17??-1992, 6.2.6., Figs. 6.13, 6.15, 6.16). (Table 6.1.) The memorial stones of one further bhaṭṭāraka (6.2.3.) and one more ācārya (6.2.4.) have been reported by earlier scholars, but were missing by the time of my visit. K. C. Jain (1963: 86-7), Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 54), and Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 230) have reported some inscriptions from the Ānteḍa Nasīyā, although the latter two publications do not specify their location any further than saying they belong to memorials located in Ajamera. None of these earlier scholars oﬀer a complete study of the site’s memorials, nor editions or analyses of the full contents of the inscriptions they do refer to, and their readings contain some mistakes. I will refer to their accounts when opportune, for example regarding inscriptions no longer available at the time of my visit reported by K. C. Jain (1963: 86-7) and Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 54). Figure 6.5. Memorials of Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. (February 2013) L.: Caraṇa-chatrīs of Vidyānandi (partly visible, extreme left, s. 1810), Anantakīrti (second from left, prob. s. 1810), Ratnakīrti (I) (partly visible, extreme right, s. 1572), Bhavanabhūṣaṇa (second from right, s. 1810), and probably Vijayakīrti (back). R.: Caraṇa-chatrīs of Bhuvanakīrti (left, s. 1892), Trilokendrakīrti (second from left, s. 1838), and probably Vijayakīrti (third from left); unmarked chatrī and hexagonal caraṇa-cabūtarās of paṇḍitas also visible on the right. Rice and almond kernels which I saw on some pādukās indicated that some ritual veneration still takes place at the memorials of the Ānteḍa Nasīyā, especially on the pādukās closest to the chatrī 401 repurposed to mandira, which is frequented daily. However, as the memory of both individual incumbents and the local bhaṭṭāraka tradition in toto have now receded even among Bīsapanthī Jains, many of today’s visitors probably have rather limited knowledge of who exactly the memorials commemorated. As elsewhere, visitors might instead take them as generic Digambara sites of veneration or as memorials of unknown, idealised renouncers of unspeciﬁed, distant times. The Ānteḍa Nasīyā ﬂaunts memorials of the ﬁrst and last incumbents of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā, Ratnakīrti (I) (s. 1572, #6.1) and Ratnakīrti (II) (inscription dated s. 1766, but memorial dating to the second half of the 18th century CE, #6.3), and of all the incumbents of the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa save the last (Harṣakīrti): Vidyānandi (s. 1810, #6.4), Mahendrakīrti (s. 1765, #6.2), Anantakīrti (prob. s. 1810, #6.6), Bhavanabhūṣaṇa (s. 1810, #6.5), Vijayakīrti (probably; reported by B. Jaina [1978: 54] as dated s. 1811, but perhaps rather s. 1831, see 6.2.4.), Trilokendrakīrti (s. 1838, #6.7), Bhuvanakīrti (s. 1892, #6.8), Lalitakīrti (s. 1992, #6.9), and Ratnabhūṣaṇa (s. 1992, #6.10). Most of the bhaṭṭāraka memorials are caraṇa-chatrīs. Only that of Ratnakīrti (II) is a caraṇacabūtarā, and those of Lalitakīrti and Ratnabhūṣaṇa are large slabs which also feature the pādukās of respectively two and eight paṇḍitas, installed on waist-high plinths (Figs. 6.13, 6.16) inside a tibārā like structure which forms the top ﬂoor of a multi-storeyed building occupying the southern tip of the hill (Fig. 6.4, on the right). The erection of this considerable building may have necessitated the destruction or replacement of earlier memorials. Barring Ratnakīrti (I)’s s. 1572 pādukā, and possibly a paṇḍita pādukā with an incomplete date (s. 17--, possibly late 17th century CE, more likely ﬁrst half 18th century CE) all of site’s memorial stones postdate the 17th century CE. The majority belongs to the 18th century CE. One bhaṭṭāraka pādukā (s. 1892) and one paṇḍita pādukā (s. 1928) belong to the 19th century CE. The two combined, multi pādukā slabs commemorating bhaṭṭārakas and paṇḍitas date to the 20th century CE (both s. 1992). No munis are found commemorated at the site nor otherwise attested in the site’s epigraphic corpus. This conﬁrms the disappearance of the muni rank by the 18th century CE. As we saw, many early modern Digambara necropoles feature memorials of renouncers belonging to multiple lineages. In Sāgavāṛā this concerned only the two closely connected Vāgaḍāśākhās. (3.4.1., 5.4.) At the Vidyānandi Kṣetra in Sūrata pādukās are found related to both the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha and various Balātkāragaṇa lineages. (3.4.3.) And at a smaller site in Surapura, Balātkāragaṇa, Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha, as well as Śvetāmbara renouncers are commemorated. (3.4.4.) At the Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā on the other hand, all identiﬁed memorials relate to the Balātkāragaṇa Śākambharīśākhā, and apart from Ratnakīrti (I) and Ratnakīrti (II) of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā, all commemorated individuals with known lineage aﬃliation were connected to the Ajamera-paṭṭa, none to the Nāgaura-paṭṭa. The inscriptions on most of the paṇḍita memorials at the Ānteḍa Nasīyāṃ connect them to the Ajamera-paṭṭa bhaṭṭārakas, in a few cases indirectly so through attesting the involvement of a local ācārya. (6.2.6.) One ācārya pādukā at the site was installed by a local bhaṭṭāraka and two others by a paṇḍita, no doubt also a local ﬁgure associated to the Ajamera bhaṭṭāraka seat. The other ācārya pādukās’ inscriptions do not include any indications about their aﬃliation, but their grouping close in time (s. 1782, s. 1801, s. 1813, s. 1814, s. 1821; another reported from s. 1813 no longer available at the time of my visit) seems suﬃcient indication that there was a ﬂourishing 402 ācārya tradition in Ajamera around the mid-18th century CE. (6.2.4.) The memorials on site also show a considerable material and inscriptional homogeneity. It is most probable then that the ācāryas and paṇḍitas whose memorial inscriptions do not or no longer record their aﬃliation were also connected to the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa. The site in fact seems to have been consciously developed into a memorial site of the local Balātkāragaṇa lineage by Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti and Ācārya Rājakīrti in the mid-18th century CE (6.2.3.), which also helps explain the site’s clearly deﬁned aﬃliation. We know that niṣedhikās were popular in the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region up to the 16th century CE (4.2.5.), and in Vāgaḍā they are found as late as the early 19th century CE (5.2.3.). Pādukās were the preferred, sole form of commemoration at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā from the earliest, 16th century CE memorials onwards. Similar to the indication of the commemorated renouncers’ ranks by the size of their niṣedhikās at the Naugāmā necropolis, the relative esteem of the ﬁgures commemorated at the Ānteḍa Nasiyā is expressed through the type of memorial structure. (3.1.6.) While most of the site’s bhaṭṭāraka memorials are caraṇa-chatrīs, the ācārya and paṇḍita memorials are typically more modest caraṇa-cabūtarās. The only exception to the latter is the chatrī of Paṇḍita Hemarāja which has an incomplete date of s. 17-- inscribed on the pādukā. Probably at this time the diﬀerentiation between types of memorials depending on the rank of the individual commemorated was not yet systematised. Most bhaṭṭāraka memorials are medium-sized pavilions. The s. 1765 pādukā of one early 18th century CE incumbent, Mahendrakīrti, sits in a smaller chatrī, but architectural features indicate this is a 19th century CE renovation. (6.2.2.) Only the pādukā of Ratnakīrti (II) dated to s. 1766 (Fig. 6.7 R.) is installed on a simple cabūtarā (Fig. 6.9 L.). The modern structure housing Ratnabhūṣaṇa and Lalitakīrti’s s. 1992 large memorial slabs should probably not be considered a less prestigious memorial. As mentioned (6.1.5.), the chatrīs at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā show a gradual stylistic development from square, four-pillared pavilions to hexagonal, six-pillared and octagonal, eight-pillared chatrīs, and more complex structures. Among the former type are the chatrīs of Ratnakīrti (I) (s. 1572) and Paṇḍita Hemarāja (s. 17??). (6.2.2.) The chatrī of Mahendrakīrti seems to be a 19th century CE replacement of the original chatrī which is mentioned in the inscription of the s. 1765 pādukā. (6.2.2.) An unmarked four-pillared chatrī also seems to be later, possibly dating to the 18th century CE. (6.2.3.) Bhavanabhūṣaṇa’s s. 1810 chatrī is hexagonal, and those of Vidyānandi (s. 1810), Anantakīrti (prob. s. 1810), and Trilokendrakīrti (s. 1838) are octagonal (6.2.4-5.). The chatrī identiﬁed as most probably commemorating Vijayakīrti (probably s. 1811, 6.2.4.) and that of Bhuvanakīrti (s. 1892, 6.2.5.) have a further developed design with multiple pillars and added porches. The latter as the only chatrī on site features bas-relief decorations inside the cupola. (Fig. 6.11 M. & R.) The site’s eleven chatrīs (including the probably repurposed chatrī) and eighteen cabūtarās are all found closely clustered together on top of the hillock. (Fig. 6.6) The north side was possibly slightly more elevated naturally, but the rest of the ridge is almost levelled out by the terraces on which the chatrīs stand. The eight larger chatrīs and the probably repurposed pavilion stand central on the ridge. Cabūtarās are built surrounding them on three sides. Two groups of four cabūtarās and a single, smaller chatrī stand slightly lower on the eastern ﬂank. (Fig. 6.14 R.) Four cabūtarās and two smaller chatrīs (one bhaṭṭāraka, one paṇḍita) are lined up along the last section of the steps 403 leading up the hill on the western side. (Fig. 6.14 L.) Cramped on the northern edge of the ridge is a row of six cabūtarās with pādukās of Ratnakīrti (II) and ﬁve ācāryas. (Fig. 6.9 L. & R.) The site’s cabūtarās all have a characteristic octagonal shape not encountered at any other ﬁnding spot. The pādukās of Paṇḍita Hemarāja (s. 17??), probably Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (s. 1831?, Fig. 6.8 L.), and Trilokendrakīrti (s. 1838, Fig. 6.5 R.) were installed on a similar, smaller and lower octagonal basis inside their chatrīs. 1. Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnakīrti (I) (s. 1572) 2. (Bha./Maṇ.) Mahendrakīrti (s. 1765) 3. Bha. [Maṇ.?] Ratnakīrti (II) (s. 1802-30) 4. Bha. [Maṇ.] Vidyānandi (s. 1810) 5. Bha. [Maṇ.] Bhavanabhūṣaṇa (s. 1810) 6.(Bha.?) [Maṇ.] Anantakīrti (prob. s. 1810) 7. Bhaṭṭāraka Trilokendrakīrti (s. 1838) 8. Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti (s. 1892) 9. Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti & two paṇḍitas (s. 1992) 10. Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa & eight paṇḍitas (s. 1992) 16. Paṇḍita Hemarāja (s. 17--) 17. unidentiﬁed., prob. paṇḍita (s. 18[0?]3) 18. Paṇḍita Vakasarāma (s. 1812?) 19. Paṇḍita Rāmacandra (s. 1827) 20. Paṇḍita Rūpacanda (s. 1828) 21. Paṇḍita Malūkacanda (s. 1828) 22. Paṇḍita Akṣayarāma (s. 1828) 23. Paṇḍita Tulasīdāsa (s. 1828) 24. Paṇḍita Viradhīcanda (s. [18]55) 25. Paṇḍita Navanidhirāma (s. 1928) without inscription / memorial stone: A. prob. Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (s. 1831?) B. repurposed chatrī (19th cent. CE) C. unidentiﬁed chatrī (hypothetically, ācārya) D. unidentiﬁed cabūtarā (paṇḍita?) E. unidentiﬁed cabūtarā (paṇḍita?) F. unidentiﬁed cabūtarā (paṇḍita?) 11. Ācārya Viśālakīrti (s. 1782) 12. Ācārya Bhānukīrti (s. 1801) 13. Ācārya Ratnabhūṣaṇa (s. 1813) 14. Ācārya Devendrakīrti (s. 1814) 15. Ācārya Tilakabhūṣaṇa (s. 1821) Figure 6.6. Sketch of the memorials at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera (as found in February 2013). (not to scale) The earliest memorials at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā were built dispersed over the ridge. (6.2.2.) The s. 1765 memorial of the second Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent Mahendrakīrti for example stands below the top of the hill. The memorials of the other Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents however stand arranged over the hillock’s ridge from north to south in chronological order: Ratnakīrti (II) (dated s. 1766, but dating to s. 1802-30) > Vidyānandi (s. 1810) > Anantakīrti (prob. s. 1810) > Bhavanabhūṣaṇa (s. 1810) > Vijayakīrti (probably, undatable) > Trilokendrakīrti (s. 1838) > Bhuvanakīrti (s. 1892) > Ratnabhūṣaṇa (s. 1992) > Lalitakīrti (s. 1992). Partly, this spatio-chronological sequence may be a mere 404 consequence of a logical usage of the natural environment, ﬁrstly using the slightly more elevated space on the northern side of the ridge, and then continuing to add new structures working southwards. Yet the arrangement of memorials of earlier incumbents at the time of the systematic development of the necropolis in the mid-18th century CE may also have been a conscious design, with further bhaṭṭārakas’ memorials later gradually added in continued order. Today, most visitors to the Ānteḍa Nasīyā are probably not aware of the identity of the individuals commemorated at the site. For later 18th, 19th and even early 20th century CE visitors, however, the activities of the local bhaṭṭārakas were a daily reality and an important aspect of their lives, and the memory of recently deceased bhaṭṭārakas would still have been stronger. They might very well have understood the Ānteḍa Nasīyā as a memorial site of the whole Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa lineage, as it was obviously intended when substantially developed in the mid-18th century CE. (6.2.3.) And at least on speciﬁc occasions, devotees may also have experienced and organised their visit to the hillock as an homage to the full lineage, performing ritual veneration of all respective incumbents in chronological order. From the northern side, where the steps ﬁrst lead up to, they would have made their way over the ridge to the south, where the most recent memorials were to be found, their visit culminating with veneration of the most strongly remembered bhaṭṭārakas. This may also explain why no kīrtistambhas are found of the Śākambharīśākhā, even though several were created by the Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā (s. 1571, 5.3.5.; s. 1610, 5.4.2.; s. 1769, 5.4.5.), and by ̥ the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā in s. 1843 in Āmera, the latter particularly close both in time and place to the Ajamera necropolis and its major development in the mid-18th century CE (4.3.9.). Possibly there was no need for such a memorial in Ajamera because the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in toto was developed and functioned as a complete necropolis for the Ajamera-paṭṭa. 6.2.2. Early memorials The consecutive, 13th and 14th century CE Balātkāragaṇa Uttaraśākhā incumbents Vasantakīrti, Viśālakīrti, Śubhacandra, Dharmacandra, Ratnakīrti, and Prabhācandra are thought to have been seated in Ajamera (2.2.3.4.), but I have not found memorials of them at the Ānteḍa Nasīyāṃ or elsewhere in town. Digambara memorials of similar antiquity are generally rare in Western India. Dated to s. 1572, the oldest memorial at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā is that of Ratnakīrti (I), the founder of the Balātkāragaṇa Śākambharīśākhā. (#6.1, Figs. 6.5 L., 6.7 L.) As Ratnakīrti (I) is also associated with Ajamera in textual sources, this memorial might very well indicate his actual place of death and cremation. (6.1.1.) The chatrī is four-pillared and of a more primitive, older type than the 18th and 19th century CE chatrīs on site which have six, eight, or more pillars and foliated arches between the pillars. Epigraphic and iconographic features of the pādukā also indicate the memorial’s antiquity. The inscription is notably brief, recording only a date and Ratnakīrti (I)’s name and bhaṭṭāraka rank (on which, see 6.1.1.). It doesn’t include further, otherwise fairly common data like the names of the commemorated renouncer’s tradition, his predecessors, or the renouncer who consecrated the memorial. The carving of the pādukā stone is basic and rather crude. (Fig. 6.7 L) Although the pādukās at the Ānteḍa Nasīyāṃ show a remarkable iconographic continuity over 405 almost two and a half centuries (6.1.5.), 18th century CE pādukā slabs add elevated edges. (Compare Fig. 6.7 L. to Figs. 6.7 M. & R., 6.10, 6.15 L. & R.) Figure 6.7. Pādukās, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. (February 2013) L.: Ratnakīrti (I) (s. 1572). M.: Mahendrakīrti (s. 1765). R.: Ratnakīrti (II) (dated s. 1766, but at least 35 years younger). A gap of nearly two hundred years separates the caraṇa-chatrī of Ratnakīrti (I) from the next memorials erected at the Ajamera nasīyā, the pādukās of Mahendrakīrti (s. 1765, #6.2) and Paṇḍita Hemarāja (s. 17??, #6.16). Ratnakīrti (I)’s immediate successors Bhuvanakīrti (p. s. 1586) and Dharmakīrti (p. s. 1590) are related to Ajamera. (6.1.1.) The absence of their memorials at the Ajamera necropolis therefore is notable. An unidentiﬁed four-pillared chatrī on the eastern side of the ridge is stylistically too young to have been theirs. (6.2.3.) That the site features no memorials of yet further incumbents of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā on the other hand aligns well with paṭṭāvalīs, which as we saw locate them in other towns in the region, in Jobanera, Revāsā, Nāgaura, and Maroṭha (6.1.1.). Ratnakīrti (II), the last incumbent of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā, is sometimes recorded as having shifted his seat to Ajamera in s. 1751. (6.1.1.) His caraṇa-cabūtarā is indeed found at the Ānteḍa Nasīyāṃ. The pādukā is dated to s. 1766, but the inscription records that the memorial was built by Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti, who came to the seat in s. 1802, some 35 years later. (6.2.3., #6.3, Fig. 6.7 R.) The inscription of pādukā installed in a small, four-pillared chatrī on the western ﬂank of the Ānteḍa Nasīyā hillock dated to s. 1765 records that it commemorates one Mahendrakīrti, and (#6.2, Fig. 6.7 M.) refers to a his chatrī being built by the layman Sāha Hiradairāma (Hrdayarāma). ̥ According to a paṭṭāvalī, the ﬁrst Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent Vidyānandi (p. s. 1766) was succeeded by Mahendrakīrti in s. 1769, who was in turn succeeded by Anantakīrti in s. 1773 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 119, lekhas 299-300). Despite the incongruence of the dates, it seems rather certain that the Mahendrakīrti commemorated by the s. 1765 pādukā is the second Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent. The reading of the abbreviated rank recorded for Mahendrakīrti in the pādukā inscription is unclear, 406 either ‘bha.’ (bhaṭṭāraka) or ‘ma.’ (maṇḍalācārya). The paṭṭāvalī records Kālāḍerā as the location of Mahendrakīrti’s seat or consecration, but Ajamera as that of his successor Anantakīrti. It is very well possible therefore that Mahendrakīrti had already shifted his seat to Ajamera, and died and was commemorated here. There is little doubt about the pādukā’s antiquity, given its simple design and the brevity of its inscription. Structural features of the small chatrī in which it is installed however clearly indicate it is later. Notable later elements are its embellished, ribbed cupola, abstract bas-relief decorations on the friezes on the drum of the dome, and decorative corbels. (Fig. 6.14 L.) Ribbed domes are only found at the site in the s. 1892 chatrī of Bhuvanakīrti, and in the chatrī repurposed and extended into a small mandira, the former also featuring reliefs with ﬂoral motifs on the friezes. (Fig. 6.11) The small chatrī now shielding Mahendrakīrti’s pādukā thus dates to the 19th century CE. The original chatrī mentioned in the pādukā inscription presumably collapsed or needed to be replaced. Right next to Mahendrakīrti’s chatrī stands another four-pillared chatrī with a pādukā installed on a cabūtarā. (6.2.6., #6.16, Fig. 6.14 L.) The inscription on the pādukā records that is commemorates Paṇḍita Hemarāja, but the year in the inscription was not completed, a blank space following ‘saṃ. 17’ In contrast to Mahendrakīrti’s chatrī, the plumper shape of its simple, undecorated cupola, its undecorated corbels and lack of decorations on the friezes show that this is clearly an earlier structure, probably the original chatrī of the early paṇḍita pādukā preserved in it. On the eastern side of the ridge stand another small four-pillared chatrī. (Fig. 6.14 R.) It no longer features a pādukā but structural features indicate it belongs to a later period, the mid-18th century CE at the earliest. (6.2.3.) The pādukās of Ratnakīrti (I) (s. 1572), Paṇḍita Hemarāja (s. 17??), and Mahendrakīrti (s. 1765) are thus the only datable memorials at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā which predate the mid-18th century CE. If we take the latter to have been rebuilt on the original spot, these three memorials were built dispersed over the ridge. Ratnakīrti (I)’s memorial stands at the highest point of the hillock, near its northern tip, which we imagine to have appeared the choicest location for probably the ﬁrst memorial to be erected on the site. The other two stand on the western side, along the stairs leading up the hill. From the mid-18th century CE onwards, as the Ajamera-paṭṭa came to be permanently established in Ajamera and the Ānteḍa Nasīyā was more intensively used as a cremation site. Especially bhaṭṭāraka memorials were systematically added in a spatiochronological order, ﬁlling the space on the ridge from north to south. It seems to have been Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti and Ācārya Rājakīrti who conceived a plan to develop the site as a necropolis of their lineage. Among themselves, they erected memorials of several earlier incumbents and of perhaps more recently deceased ācāryas and paṇḍitas. (6.2.3.) All further incumbent bhaṭṭārakas save the last also came to be commemorated at the site (6.2.3., 6.2.5.), as were more paṇḍitas (6.2.6.), ācāryas soon disappearing from the corpus here as much as elsewhere (6.2.4.). 6.2.3. Mid-18th century CE development of the site Of the six octagonal caraṇa-cabūtarās lined up on the northern tip of Ānteḍa Nasiyāṃ’s ridge, ﬁve commemorate ācāryas. (6.2.4.) The inscription on the last bears the date s. 1766 and records that it 407 commemorates Ratnakīrti (II) and was consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti. (#6.3, Fig. 6.7 R) As discussed (6.1.1.), the recorded date is probably that of Ratnakīrti (II)’s death, and the inscription’s record of Ratnakīrti (II) as a bhaṭṭāraka is probably an a posteriori ascription. Vijayakīrti came to the seat only several decades later, as the ﬁfth occupant of the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa from s. 1802 to probably s. 1830 (see below). Vijayakīrti also erected caraṇa-chatrīs for his two immediate predecessors Anantakīrti (#6.6) and Bhavanabhūṣaṇa (#6.5) at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā. Anantakīrti and Bhavanabhūṣaṇa ascended the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa as the third and fourth incumbent in respectively s. 1773 and s. 1797, their seat or consecration recorded from respectively Ajamera and Kālāḍerā (Joharāpurakara 1958: 119-20, lekhas 300-1). Vijayakīrti consecrated the memorials of Anantakīrti and Bhavanabhūṣaṇa on the same day in s. 1810 (Māgha sudi 1, = 24th January 1754).473 On the same day, Ācārya Rājakīrti had a chatrī made for Vidyānandi,474 the ﬁrst Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent who succeeded Ratnakīrti (II) in s. 1766 and was himself succeeded by Mahendrakīrti in s. 1769 (Joharāpurakara 1958: 119, lekhas 298-99). Together, Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti and Ācārya Rājakīrti thus constructed memorials at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā of all the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents till then, next to that of Mahendrakīrti which probably was already present, erected closer to his death and on his actual place of cremation (6.2.2.).475 Anantakīrti and Bhavanabhūṣaṇa were succeeded in respectively s. 1797 (by Bhavanabhūṣaṇa) and s. 1802 (by Vijayakīrti). Presuming these years of succession to also at least roughly reﬂecting the years of their death, Vijayakīrti erected their memorials in s. 1810 still relatively close to their passing, a decade and a half later in the case of Anantakīrti, and less than a decade in the case of Bhavanabhūṣaṇa. The memorials for the earlier incumbents Ratnakīrti (II) and Vidyānandi, however, were erected several decades after their passing. We don’t know when Vijayakīrti consecrated the memorial of Ratnakīrti (II), but Vijayakīrti’s incumbency did not start until 35 years after Ratnakīrti (II)’s death. And since Vidyānandi was succeeded by s. 1769, his s. 1810 caraṇa-chatrī presumably also postdates his death by four decades. After the mid-16th century CE Viśālakīrti, all incumbents of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā seem to have had their seat away from Ajamera. (6.1.1.) The place of the consecration or the seat of Ratnakīrti (II) (6.1.1.) and several of the ﬁrst Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents (Vidyānandi, Mahendrakīrti, Bhavanabhūṣaṇa, 6.1.3.) are also reported instead from Kālāḍerā and Rūpanagara. It is not very probable therefore that they all passed away in Ajamera. It is very likely however that the undivided Śākambharīśākhā and the Ajamera-paṭṭa lineage retained a connection to Ajamera and kept visiting the city throughout the two centuries prior to the mid-18th century CE. At least the latest Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents could then also still have been fresh in the memory of the local Digambara community. But still, although bhaṭṭārakas are regularly found commemorated a few 473 The year inscribed on Anantakīrti’s memorial stone had become almost illegible by the time of my visit, but K. C. Jain (1963: 86) reports 1753 CE, which the corresponds to 1810 CE. Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 54) misread s. 1760, which comes too early for Anantakīrti (p. s. 1773). ‘(...) bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-vidyānaṃdi-jī kī chatrī ācāryya-śrī-rājakīrtti-(j?)ī karāī (...)’. (#6.4) K. C. Jain (1963: 86) misread an ornate ja as in Ācārya Rājakīrti’ name as jya (‘Āchārya Rājyakīrti’). 474 Unique among the s. 1810 pādukās, the inscription of the pādukā of Vidyānandi, built by Ācārya Rājakīrti, also records a paṇḍita, possibly Paṇḍita Rāmacandra (‘(...) pa(ṃ?)ḍita-(rāma?)[poss. ca. 2*]’, #6.4), and possibly then the same Paṇḍita Rāmacandra who was commemorated at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in s. 1827 (#6.19, 6.2.6.). 475 408 or several years after their passing, sometimes also by their successors to the second or even third degree (3.2.5., e.g. 4.3.10-11.), the systematic post facto erection of memorials of earlier incumbents at what possibly is not their place of passing and cremation, as found performed at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā, is not a commonly attested practice. The only parallel are the niṣedhikās of the three consecutive Uttaraśākhā and Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas Śubhacandra, Jinacandra, and Prabhācandra in Āṃvā, erected together in s. 1593. (4.3.2.) Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti and Ācārya Rājakīrti then seem to have consciously developed the Ānteḍa Nasīyā into a site of commemoration of their full lineage. By constructing memorials of all previous incumbents at the Ānteḍa Nasiyāṃ, they materially established the Ajamera-paṭṭa in their new home base Ajamera. As discussed, Vijayakīrti was probably the ﬁrst Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent who claimed the bhaṭṭāraka rank. (6.1.3.) Erecting memorials of his predecessors and ascribing the bhaṭṭāraka rank to them in the memorial inscriptions would have served to legitimise himself as a bhaṭṭāraka and to augment the authority of his lineage. A considerable number of ācārya (6.2.4.) and paṇḍita (6.2.5.) memorials at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā were also constructed around the mid-18th century CE. Next to the chatrī of Vidyānandi (s. 1810), Ācārya Rājakīrti also installed pādukās of three paṇḍitas on a single day in s. 1828. (6.2.6.) Probably Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti and Ācārya Rājakīrti were involved in the erection and consecration of yet other memorial stones at the site too, although their involvement is not recorded in the inscriptions. Vijayakīrti and Rājakīrti thus not only developed the Ānteḍa Nasīyā as a commemoration site for the historical lineage, but also as representative of the broader community of religious specialists, both renouncers and lay paṇḍitas. As such, their commemorative activities created a good sample of the constellation of the bhaṭṭāraka communities from the 18th century CE. As mentioned, Ratnakīrti (II)’s pādukā is found installed on a simple cabūtarā lined up with those of the ācāryas on the northern edge of the ridge. (Figs. 6.7 R., 6.9 L.) This constitutes a far more modest memorial than those erected by Vijayakīrti for his direct predecessors on the Ajamerapaṭṭa. In some sense, the latter would indeed have been of greater important to Vijayakīrti because they stood closer to him in time or because he had a direct, personal relation to them. Still, Ratnakīrti (II) stood at the fount of Vijayakīrti’s lineage and was apparently the ﬁrst Śākambharīśākhā incumbent in a century and a half to make Ajamera his main base. It seems somewhat odd therefore that although engaged in a project to moor the Śākambharīśākhā in Ajamera, Vijayakīrti honoured Ratnakīrti (II) with just a very modest memorial. It is possible that Ratnakīrti (II)’s pādukā came to be reinstalled on a cabūtarā after its original chatrī collapsed. Or perhaps more likely even, Vijayakīrti may have installed Ratnakīrti (II)’s memorial stone on a cabūtarā before his grand lineage commemoration project was conceptualised or ﬁnanced. Vijayakīrti may also have constructed the caraṇa-cabūtarā of Ācārya Bhānukīrti at the site, the s. 1801 date in the pādukā inscription probably referring to the death of Bhānukīrti. (#6.12, 6.2.4.) If so, this may be a conﬁrmation that Vijayakīrti ﬁrst started using the Ānteḍa Nasīyā as an actual cremation site, and only later initiated his project of adding earlier bhaṭṭārakas’ memorials. I could not retrieve a memorial stone of Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti himself. K. C. Jain (1963) also does not record it. Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 54) however reported Vijayakīrti’s caraṇa-pādukā from the 409 Ānteḍa Nasīyā as dated to s. 1811, without providing further information on the inscription or the precise location of the memorial at the site. This date would imply that Vijayakīrti died very shortly after his substantial eﬀorts in developing the Ānteḍa Nasīyā the preceding year. More importantly, it would imply that the seat of the Ajamera-paṭṭa subsequently remained empty for one or two decades. According to the data provided by Kāsalīvāla (1989: 158), Vijayakīrti (p. s. 1802) was on the seat for 20 years and his successor Trilokendrakīrti ascended the seat in s. 1822. According to the paṭṭāvalī consulted by Hoernle (1891: 355) however, Vijayakīrti remained on the seat for 27 years and his successor Trilokendrakīrti ascended the seat in s. 1830. Judging from the development of the Ānteḍa Nasīyā under Vijayakīrti and from the breadth of the bhaṭṭāraka community found commemorated there, the tradition was obviously ﬂourishing at the time. It does not seem very likely then that the seat stayed empty for one or two decades, from s. 1811 to s. 1822 or s. 1830. Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla (1975: 230) furthermore cite evidence that Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti was still producing literature in the late s. 1820s.476 They edit authorial praśastis of a few compositions completed by Vijayakīrti in s. 1826 in Rūpanagara, in s. 1827 (two, no place), and in s. 1829 in Ajamera. We do know of other cases of bhaṭṭārakas abdicating, so it is also possible that Vijayakīrti pursued his literary activities after his retirement from the bhaṭṭāraka seat. Yet the more likely option is still that he was incumbent up to and succeeded in s. 1830. Vijayakīrti is certainly recorded as a bhaṭṭāraka in an inscription from Māroṭha recording his cāturmāsa in the town in s. 1824, when a chariot procession (‘śrīrathayātra ucchava’) went out in his honour (K. C. Jain 1972: 611-2, n. 46). All this evidence renders Balabhadra Jaina’s reported date of s. 1811 for a pādukā of Vijayakīrti very unlikely. Based on its design and its place in the spatio-chronological succession of memorials, an unidentiﬁed memorial at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā can however with near certainty be identiﬁed as Vijayakīrti’s. (Fig. 6.8 L.) It is a particularly elaborate chatrī from which the pādukā was missing or covered by plastering at the time of my visit. The structure consist of a large cupola supported by twelve pillars, with porches added on all four sides, each topped with a smaller cupola resting on two additional pillars. This makes it the largest and most complex chatrī at the site, which would echo Vijayakīrti’s own proliﬁc activity at the site, and the considerable inﬂuence he therefore seems to have had in the local lay community. The location of the unidentiﬁed chatrī also renders it logically very probable that it is Vijayakīrti’s. To its north stands a group of four earlier chatrīs, that of Ratnakīrti (I) from s. 1572, and the three s. 1810 pavilions of Vijayakīrti’s immediate predecessors erected by Vijayakīrti himself and by Ācārya Rājakīrti. To its south ﬁrst comes the chatrī of Vijayakīrti’s immediate successor Trilokendrakīrti (s. 1838), and then that of again the latter’s successor Bhuvanakīrti (s. 1892). The unidentiﬁed, ornate chatrī thus stands in between those of Vijayakīrti’s predecessors and successors, and exactly between those of his direct predecessor Bhavanabhūṣaṇa and his immediate successor Trilokendrakīrti. Trilokendrakīrti is also the most likely candidate to have built and consecrated the memorial of Vijayakīrti. Given Trilokendrakīrti’s probable ascendency to the Ajamera-paṭṭa seat in s. 1830, Balabhadra Jaina’s (1978: 54) date of s. 1811 could be a misreading for s. 1831. Vijayakīrti’s memorial would then have been consecrated shortly upon his passing, which would beﬁt his own extensive activity at the site. 476 Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla’s (1975: 230) information is repeated without reference by Seṭhī (2010: 69-70). 410 Figure 6.8. L.: Probably chatrī of Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (centre), and caraṇa-chatrīs of Trilokendrakīrti (s. 1838, partly visible on the left) and Anantakīrti (prob. s. 1810, partly visible on the right). R.: View over the ﬂat roof of part of a small mandira integrating a repurposed chatrī (not visible) (front) onto the cupolas of the caraṇachatrīs of Ratnakīrti (I) (s. 1572, extreme left, square), Bhavanabhūṣaṇa (s. 1810, second from left, hexagonal), probably Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (large cupola with smaller subsidiary cupolas topping entrance porches), and Bhuvanakīrti (s. 1892, extreme right, partly visible, with ribbed cupolas). 6.2.4. Ācāryas Ācāryas are commemorated by ﬁve of the six octagonal caraṇa-cabūtarās lined up at the northern tip of the ridge of the Ānteḍa Nasiyāṃ, next that of Ratnakīrti (I). (Fig. 6.9) Their memorials were added in a steady succession in the middle of the 18th century CE, when the site saw its major development. The commemorated ācāryas are Viśālakīrti (s. 1782),477 Bhānukīrti (s. 1801),478 Ratnabhūṣaṇa (s. 1813),479 Devendrakīrti (s. 1814),480 and Tilakabhūṣaṇa (s. 1821).481 Balabhadra Jaina (1978: 54) reports a memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrabhūṣaṇa from the Ānteḍa Nasīyā dated s. 1813. No bhaṭṭāraka of that name is known from the Śākambharīśākhās. As in some other cases in which Jaina (1978) wrongly reports inscriptions from the site as recording bhaṭṭārakas while they actually refer to ācāryas,482 this might instead have been a memorial of one Ācārya 477 ‘śrī-biśālakīrtyācārya’ (#6.11). 478 ‘ācārya-jī-śrī-bhāṃnuṃkīrtti-jī’ (#6.12). 479 ‘ratnabhūṣaṇācārya’ (#6.13). 480 ‘devendrakīrtyācārya’ (#6.14). ‘tilakabhūṣaṇācārya’ (#6.15). K. C. Jain (1963: 87) miscalculates 1754 CE (correct conversion 1764 or 1765 CE; no month given in inscription). 481 B. Jaina (1978: 54) also reports pādukās of Bhaṭṭāraka Viśālakīrti, dated s. 1782, no doubt that of Ācārya Viśālakīrti of that year (#6.11) rather than a memorial of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Viśālakīrti who ﬂourished more than a century and a half earlier; Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, dated s. 1810, probably Ācārya Devendrakīrti’s pādukā although that is actually dated s. 1814 (#6.14); and Bhaṭṭāraka Rājakīrti dated s. 1810, probably Bhaṭṭāraka Vidyānandi’s pādukā built by Ācārya Rājakīrti in that year (#6.4, see 6.2.3.). While textual sources occasionally refer to bhaṭṭārakas as ācāryas, inscriptions always record their higher bhaṭṭāraka rank. Jaina’s (Ibid.) presumption that the commemorated ācāryas were bhaṭṭārakas is indicative of the diﬃculties contemporary scholarship has had in acknowledging the existence of early modern ācāryas (and munis). 482 411 Surendrabhūṣaṇa.483 This would then be a memorial stone or an inscription which had become unavailable at the time of my visit, and a sixth ācārya once commemorated at the site. The pādukā of Ācārya Devendrakīrti either had an extension to the side, or a smaller, separate stone installed next to it, which was mostly covered with cement at the time of my visit and did not show any iconographic or inscriptional features other than perhaps a heightened border. (Fig. 6.10 M.) Despite its diminutive size, it could be a separate pādukā. Figure 6.9. Caraṇa-cabūtarās, caraṇa-chatrīs, and mandira integrating repurposed chatrī, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. (February 2013) L.: Caraṇa-cabūtarās of Ratnakīrti (II) (front, dated s. 1766) and ﬁve ācāryas, lined up next to caraṇa-chatrīs of Vidyānandi (partly visible, extreme left, s. 1810) and Ratnakīrti (I) (second from left, with banners attached between the pillars, s. 1572), and mandira (centre back). R.: Caraṇa-cabūtarā of Ācārya Tilakabhūṣaṇa (front, s. 1821), mandira (partly visible, centre), and chatrī cupolas (back). The ācārya pādukās are of modest size and simple carving, some quite small. (Fig. 6.10) Coeval pādukās of lineage incumbents at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā are similarly modest. The material diﬀerentiation in the commemoration of ācāryas and bhaṭṭārakas is thus solely made by installing their pādukās on cabūtarās and in chatrīs respectively. Although the caraṇa-cabūtarās of ācāryas are grouped together, they are formally identical to those of paṇḍitas. (6.2.6., Fig. 6.14 R.) Beyond merely highlighting the paramountcy of the bhaṭṭārakas, the materially articulated diﬀerentiation between bhaṭṭārakas on the one hand and ācāryas and paṇḍitas on the other sets the ācāryas closer to the paṇḍitas. Perhaps this could be taken as an indication that the 18th century CE ācāryas had a lay rather than an ascetic identity. (2.3.6.) While paṇḍitas were also directly connected to the bhaṭṭārakas, there seem to have existed close links in the 18th century CE between the Ajamera-paṭṭa ācāryas and the attested paṇḍita circles. Ācārya Rājakīrti built the memorials of three paṇḍitas at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā, and Paṇḍita Basanta(rāma) vice-versa built those of two ācāryas. A colophon attests a circle of learned laymen connected to Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti’s pupil Ācārya Devendrabhūṣaṇa, and memorials retrieved in Sākhūna attests a pupillary 483 A misreading of the inscription of Ācārya Ratnabhūṣaṇa’s pādukā dated to that year seems less likely. 412 succession of several generations of paṇḍitas descending from the later, early 19th century CE Ācārya Jagatkīrti, who himself stood in the lineage (‘tadāmnāye’) of the third last Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa. (See below in this section for more on all these references.) The inscriptions of the ācārya pādukās are mostly brief, oﬀering only scant information. The inscriptions on the pādukās of Devendrakīrti (#6.14) and Viśālakīrti (#6.11) only record their names and a date.484 The inscriptions on the memorial stones of the ācāryas Ratnabhūṣaṇa (#6.13) and Tilakabhūṣaṇa (#6.15) add that they were built by Paṇḍita Basantarāma and Paṇḍita Basanta respectively, most probably the same individual. The pādukā inscriptions of Viśālakīrti (#6.11) and Tilakabhūṣaṇa (#6.15) clarify that their dates are those of the commemorated ācāryas’ death by the uncommon addition ‘śānta’ ([become] tranquil = deceased) immediately after the date, #6.11, #6.15). Only the pādukā of Ācārya Bhānukīrti features a longer inscription including more information. (#6.12, Fig. 6.10, second from left) It records that the ācārya’s caraṇa-cabūtarā was built by Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti, but does not specify the relation between both renouncers.485 The inscription also notes that Ācārya Bhānukīrti died in Dāntā.486 The date is inserted just before the explicit record of his death, midway in the text rather than at the very beginning as is more usual, and thus also seems to refer to Bhānukīrti’s passing rather than to the installation of the memorial. The date of Phālguṇa s. 1801 (4th March 1745 CE) indeed comes almost four months before the consecration of Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti, which is recorded to have passed in Āṣāḍha s. 1802 (30th June 1745 CE, Joharāpurakara 1958: 120, lekha 302). Since not a single memorial is found at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā which can be related to any lineage other than the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamerapaṭṭa, we can probably take it that the other ācāryas commemorated at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā were also associated with the local lineage, even in the absence of explicit epigraphic conﬁrmations thereof. Judging from their memorials’ dates, the ācāryas Ratnabhūṣaṇa (s. 1813), Devendrakīrti (s. 1814), and Tilakabhūṣaṇa (s. 1821) had probably been pupils or otherwise subordinate associates of Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti, who was on the seat from s. 1802 until probably s. 1830. (6.2.3.) Figure 6.10. Ācārya pādukās, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. (February 2013) From left to right: Ācārya Viśālakīrti (s. 1782), Ācārya Bhānukīrti (s. 1801), Ācārya Devendrakīrti (s. 1814), Ācārya Ratnabhūṣaṇa (s. 1813), and Ācārya Tilakabhūṣaṇa (s. 1821). K. C. Jain (1963: 87) reports Ācārya Devendrakīrti’s cabūtarā from 1757 CE as built by Ganeśīmala. I found no such information in the inscription. I instead read ‘kuṃthū(ṇi?)m(ā?)[1×](e?)’ (#6.14). 484 485 ‘(...) śrīmad-bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-bijayakīrtti-jī ācārya-jī-śrī-bhāṃnuṃkīrtti-jī kā pādikā-cautaro karāyo (...)’ (#6.12). ‘(…) saṃ. 1801 phāguṇa-sudi-11 dāṃtā-madhye deva-loka huvā (…)’, ‘[…] he passed to the realm of devas in Dāntā on the eleventh day of the bright half of the month of Phālguṇa of the year vikrama samvat 1801 […]’ (#6.12). 486 413 K. C. Jain (1963: 87) identiﬁed the place of Ācārya Bhānukīrti’s death as Dāntā in the Śekhāvāṭī region, a town 30 km north north-east of Māroṭha and 50 km north north-west of Jobanera. The undivided Śākambharīśākhā is indeed known to have been connected to Jobanera and Māroṭha in the 16th and 17th century CE. (6.1.1.) However, another place with the name Dāntā seems a more likely candidate, south-west of Ajamera, halfway between Ajamera and Nasīrābāda, and at only some 17 km from the Ānteḍa Nasīyā. Ācārya Bhānukīrti may have died in Dāntā when merely passing through the town, during a short-term visit, or even while based there. Other 18th century CE ācāryas like those commemorated in Bassī (4.3.8.) seem to have permanently resided in towns away from the seat of the lineage to which they were aﬃliated. (2.3.5.) The presence of a good number of ācārya memorials at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā on the other hand could perhaps be seen to indicate that in mid-18th century CE Ajamera multiple ācāryas dwelled near the bhaṭṭāraka seat. Yet it is also possible that while they had been active elsewhere, the choice was made to commemorate them at the necropolis of the lineage. And even ācāryas who chieﬂy residing at the bhaṭṭāraka seats may well have travelled to other towns to visit and serve local Digambara communities connected to their lineage, perhaps dispatched there as adjuncts to the incumbent bhaṭṭārakas. Given the proximity of this town, Bhānukīrti’s body may have been brought to Ajamera for cremation. The ācārya could also have come to be commemorated at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā although not having been cremated here. Neither may have been a very common practice, but either would preﬁgure the importance given to the Ānteḍa Nasiyāṃ in subsequent decades as a comprehensive memorial site for Ajamera-paṭṭa renouncers and paṇḍitas. Another mid-18th century CE ācārya attested at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā is Ācārya Rājakīrti, who given his cooperation with Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti in developing the site was clearly related to the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa. As noted (6.2.3.), Rājakīrti was active along with Vijayakīrti in erecting a memorial of Vidyānandi in s. 1810. (#6.4) And Ācārya Rājakīrti is also related to the memorials of three paṇḍitas built on the same day in s. 1828. (6.2.6.) As we saw, Vijayakīrti probably ﬂourished until the end of the s. 1820s. Perhaps Vijayakīrti was away from Ajamera at the time, or the commemoration of paṇḍitas may have been deemed a particularly suitable activity for an ācārya. In each of the four inscriptions recording his agency, Ācārya Rājakīrti is recorded as having had the memorials made, rather than having consecrated them.487 It is also possible then that the pādukās recording Ācārya Rājakīrti’s agency were consecrated by Vijayakīrti, despite the lack of a record thereof in the inscriptions. This is especially likely in the case of the Vidyānandi memorial, which is dated to the same day when Vijayakīrti consecrated the memorials of two other predecessors of his. (6.2.3.) Rājakīrti’s seeming limited agency in overseeing the creation of ritual objects but not their consecration can perhaps be taken as indicative of the range of the activities and the extent of the authority of 18th century CE Digambara ācāryas. It is striking that, like Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti, Ācārya Rājakīrti is himself not found commemorated at the site which he helped develop and which otherwise did continue to be used in the following 487 ‘chatrī (...) karāī’, #6.4; ‘cyautaro karāy(au/o)’, #6.20; ‘cyautaro karāyo’, #6.21, #6.22. 414 decades.488 It seems unlikely that by the time of his death it was no longer deemed appropriate to commemorate an ācārya, given the continued erection of paṇḍitas’ memorial at the site up to the ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE (6.2.6.). Rājakīrti may have died elsewhere, or his memorial stone may have been lost. It is also possible that Ācārya Rājakīrti proceeded to bhaṭṭāraka-hood, and changed his name at the time of his promotion. Ācārya Rājakīrti’s collaboration with Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti in the development of the Ānteḍa Nasīyā would certainly indicate that he was the bhaṭṭāraka’s protégé. Ācārya Rājakīrti could then be the same individual as Vijayakīrti’s successor Bhaṭṭāraka Trilokendrakīrti. Yet such changes of ascetic name at the time of ascetic promotion do not seem to have been a common practice in early modern Digambara ascetic traditions. And given the similarity of the names, one Trilokacandra, probably a paṇḍita who appears as a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti in a manuscript colophon (Kāsalīvāla 1950: 35, n. 25) is also a potential candidate to be the later Bhaṭṭāraka Trilokendrakīrti, perhaps listed ﬁrst among a series of Vijayakīrti’s pupils because of his foremost position amongst them. An unidentiﬁed memorial on the eastern side of the Ānteḍa Nasīyā’s ridge could very well have commemorated Ācārya Rājakīrti. It is a four-pillared chatrī from which the pādukā was missing at the time of my visit, standing between two groups of four caraṇa-cabūtarās. Pādukās remaining on three of these eight cabūtarās could still be identiﬁed as paṇḍita memorials, and the most likely option is that the other cabūtarās, of similar dimensions, also commemorated paṇḍitas. (Fig. 6.14 R.) The unidentiﬁed chatrī features decorated arches between the pillars which are absent in the two certainly older four-pillared chatrīs (6.2.2.) and appear instead only in the s. 1810 chatrīs. Although the chatrī is rather modest and light, it still seems too substantial for a mid-18th century CE paṇḍita memorial. And taking the large, unidentiﬁed chatrī to have commemorated Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti, memorials of all Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents have been identiﬁed at the site. The mid-18th century CE builders at the site seem to have followed a reasonably welldeﬁned hierarchical, architectural logic, allocating caraṇa-chatrīs to bhaṭṭārakas and caraṇacabūtarās to ācāryas and paṇḍitas. Still, it is tempting to see the chatrī as a perhaps later 18th century CE memorial of an ācārya. As a grander medium of commemoration than the paṇḍita cabūtarās, it could parallel the ācāryas’ superordinate position over the paṇḍitas. At the same time it is much lighter and more modest, and built slightly lower on the ridge than the bhaṭṭāraka chatrīs, parallel to the ācāryas’ subordinate position vis-a-vis the bhaṭṭārakas. The arrangement of the memorials, with the paṇḍita cabūtarās arranged around the chatrī of the leading ācārya, could be a material expression of the paṇḍita-ācārya networks attested through the inscriptions and other, textual sources. This would form a parallel to the iconographic expression of the bhaṭṭārakapaṇḍita constellations from the later 18th and 19th century CE found in two multi-pādukā slabs commemorating bhaṭṭārakas and paṇḍitas later added to the Ānteḍa Nasīyā. (6.2.5., 6.2.6.) And it may then well have been Ācārya Rājakīrti who was commemorated by the unidentiﬁed chatrī, given his own commemorative activity at the site and his connections to paṇḍitas attested in the inscriptions of several paṇḍita pādukās. B. Jaina (1978: 54) notes a memorial of one Bhaṭṭāraka Rājakīrti (unknown) from s. 1810, which is probably a misreading of the inscription of ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ Vidyānandi’s s. 1810 memorial which as discussed records that the memorial was built by Ācārya Rājakīrti (#6.4). 488 415 In sum, the materials at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā oﬀer some of the thickest available evidence for the usage of the ācārya title in 18th century CE Digambara saṅghas, uniquely attesting such a considerable number of ācāryas ﬂourishing within a single lineage at a given time. The data from the Ajamera necropolis can be augmented by further epigraphic and textual attestations of Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa ācāryas. The manuscript colophon mentioned before as recording Trilokacandra also attests another ācārya-rank pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti, Ācārya Devendrabhūṣaṇa, who seems to be recorded as the teacher of ten laymen. (2.3.5.) A particularly late Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa ācārya is found attested in the inscription of a s. 1887 paṇḍita pādukā found at the nasīyā of Sākhūna, some 60 kilometres north north-east of Ajamera. The commemorated paṇḍita is recorded as a pupil of Ācārya Jagatkīrti, who stood in the lineage of the third last Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1880, succeeded by s. 1922), and must have ﬂourished in the s. 1880s (1820s CE), half a century later than any other known ācārya from any of the Western India bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas. (6.3.) 6.2.5. Later bhaṭṭāraka memorials As we saw, Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti and Ācārya Rājakīrti turned the Ānteḍa Nasīyā into a necropolis of the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa by erecting memorials of earlier incumbents who probably did not die in Ajamera nor were cremated at the site. From their time onwards, with the Ajamerapaṭṭa remaining stable ﬁxed in Ajamera, it became a common practice for each new incumbent of the lineage to commemorate his successor at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā. Memorials of further bhaṭṭārakas are chronologically laid out over the hillock’s ridge from north to south. Memorials of paṇḍitas were also added for a century and a half longer after Vijayakīrti and Rājakīrti’s eﬀorts, their inscriptions attesting considerable groups of paṇḍitas and pupillary successions among them. (6.2.6.) Ācāryas however were no longer commemorated at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā nor otherwise attested in the site’s inscriptions after the mid-18th century CE. The ācārya tradition ﬂourishing in the mid-18th century CE Ajamera around the time of Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti thus may have ended rather quickly afterwards, as it did elsewhere, barring rare examples like Ācārya Jagatkīrti attested in Sākhūna (6.3.1.). A pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Trilokendrakīrti (‘bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-tīlokeṃdrakīrtta-jī’, #6.7) was partly plastered over at the time of my visit. (Fig. 6.11 L.) It is installed in an octagonal, eight-pillared chatrī, more modest than the memorial pavilion presumed to be that of his predecessor Vijayakīrti, which has a more complex ground plan. My reading of its pādukā’s date as s. 18[3?]8 is conﬁrmed by K. C. Jain’s (1963: 86) report of it as stemming from the corresponding 1781 CE, and as consecrated by his successor Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti. According to paṭṭāvalīs (Hoernle 1891: 355), Bhuvanakīrti came to the seat in s. 1840. The s. 1838 date inscribed on Trilokendrakīrti’s memorial stone would thus be that of his death rather than of the memorial’s construction. A short gap then seems to have fallen in the occupancy of the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa seat between Trilokendrakīrti’s death in s. 1838 and Bhuvanakīrti’s ascent to the seat in s. 1840. According to the paṭṭāvalī available to Hoernle (1891: 355), Trilokendrakīrti (here referred to as Lokendrakīrti) died in 416 ‘Malakāpur’. This could be one of the two nearby villages Mālikapurā489 and Mālikapura,490 over a hundred km north-east of Ajamera, and nearer to the other Śākambharīśākhā associated towns Jobanera and Kālāḍerā. If the paṭṭāvalī’s record is accurate in situating Trilokendrakīrti’s death away from and perhaps at considerable distance from Ajamera, this indicates that Bhuvanakīrti was nevertheless keen on continuing the tradition of erecting memorials of Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā. Figure 6.11. Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. (February 2013) L.: Caraṇa-chatrī of Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti (left, s. 1892) and Bhaṭṭāraka Trilokendrakīrti (right, s. 1838). M. & R.: Caraṇa-chatrī of Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti with bas-reliefs of dancers inside the dome (s. 1892). Bhuvanakīrti’s own chatrī was again constructed by his direct successor Ratnabhūṣaṇa in s. 1892. (#6.8, Fig. 6.11 M. & R.) It is an eight-pillared pavilion with a porch added on one side, consisting of a small cupola resting on two additional pillars. The chatrī’s domes are ribbed on the outside, a feature which it only shares with the chatrī housing the pādukā of Mahendrakīrti (s. 1765, 6.2.3.) and the former chatrī converted into a mandira (6.2.1.), an indication for the recent dating of those structures. Bas-reliefs of dancers decorate the inside of the larger dome of Bhuvanakīrti’s chatrī. (Fig. 6.11 M.) This pattern is frequently found inside the domes of Digambara mandiras. In my corpus of Western Indian memorials however it is found in only one other memorial. A chatrī commemorating a Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭāraka annexed to the Sambhavanātha Mandira in ̥ Īḍara dated to a few years earlier (s. 1887) has similar reliefs of dancers and musicians above each corbel, painted in bright colours. (5.6.5.) Bhuvanakīrti’s pādukā is also the ﬁrst at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā to feature carvings of ascetic paraphernalia, a picchī and ceremonial kamaṇḍalū. (Fig. 6.12 L.) The inscription explicitly indicates that its date of s. 1892 refers to Ratnabhūṣaṇa’s construction of the chatrī rather than Bhuvanakīrti’s demise. Ratnabhūṣaṇa is reported to have ascended the seat in s. 1880, more than a decade earlier (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 158). In this case, the available dates thus indicate a not entirely uncommon delay in the erection of the memorial of the previous incumbent, rather than in his installation. Malikpura, ca. 130 km north-east of Ajamera, ca. 30 km north of Jobanera, ca. 60 km north-west of Jayapura. 489 Malikpur, ca. 150 km north-east of Ajamera, ca. 45 km north-east of Jobanera, ca. 40 km north north-west of Jayapura, ca. 6 km north-east of Kālāḍerā. 490 417 Figure 6.12. L.: Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti (s. 1982). R.: Tibārā as top ﬂoor of a modern building preserving two s. 1992 memorial stones commemorating the bhaṭṭārakas Ratnabhūṣaṇa and Lalitakīrti along with a number of paṇḍitas. Three arched doorways giving on to the terrace have been closed oﬀ. Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. (February 2013) After Ratnabhūṣaṇa’s construction of the chatrī of his predecessor Bhuvanakīrti, the tradition of erecting memorials of Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā was halted for a longer time. Ratnabhūṣaṇa was succeeded by Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti in s. 1922. Kāsalīvāla (1989: 165) reports a beautiful and artistic chatrī of Ratnabhūṣaṇa built by Lalitakīrti in s. 1939 (Vaiśākha sudi 3) from the Baṛe Dhaṛe kī Nasiyāṃ, a nasīyā close to the old town of Ajamera. The memorial was no longer found at that site at the time of my visit (February 2013). It may have been removed for newer building projects, as a new, larger mandira was under construction at the site at the time of my visit. If Kāsalīvāla’s report of a memorial of Ratnabhūṣaṇa at the Baṛe Dhaṛe kī Nasiyāṃ is correct, Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti may have chosen to construct his predecessor’s memorial here in order to have it available closer at hand in the city than at the longstanding but more outlying commemoration site at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā. Another memorial stone of Ratnabhūṣaṇa and one of Lalitakīrti himself are found back at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā, consecrated on the same day (Vaiśākha śukla 8) in s. 1992 by Lalitakīrti’s successor Harṣakīrti, the last Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent. (#6.9, #6.10) These memorials are large slabs installed on waist-high plinths. (Figs. 6.13, 6.16) They are presumably found on their original location in separate rooms on the top ﬂoor of the modern building occupying the southern part of the hillock. With the three arched doorways in the larger room, the building resembles a tibārā. This type of structure also became connected to memorial sites in the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā region. (3.1.1.) The arched entry was closed oﬀ at the time of my visit, but otherwise opened up onto a terrace on the south. (Fig. 6.12 R.) Lalitakīrti’s memorial is installed in the main room, close to the arched doorways, that of his predecessor Ratnabhūṣaṇa in a smaller side room in the back. Ratnabhūṣaṇa and Lalitakīrti are commemorated together with respectively eight and two paṇḍitas. The paṇḍitas’ pādukās are executed slightly smaller than those of the bhaṭṭārakas, 418 materially expressing the hierarchical diﬀerence. The paṇḍitas commemorated along with Lalitakīrti are explicitly identiﬁed as his pupils. (6.2.6.) In s. 1972, Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti had already consecrated a memorial of the early 20th century CE Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbent Kanakakīrti in Gvāliyara. (6.4.2., #6.30) And in Māgha s. 1992, nine months after consecrating the two multipādukā slabs at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā, he also consecrated a pādukā commemorating four paṇḍitas in Sākhūna. (6.3., #6.28) A memorial of Harṣakīrti himself is not found at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā or elsewhere. The absence of a memorial of the last incumbent of the Western and Central Indian bhaṭṭāraka lineages is a recurrent feature, indicative of their inglorious endings. Figure 6.13. Memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti and two paṇḍitas (s. 1992) in a tibārā (closed oﬀ arched doorways visible on the right on L.). Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. (February 2013) 6.2.6. Paṇḍitas The Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā boasts both the largest number of paṇḍita pādukās found at any given site and the oldest specimens discovered to date. One paṇḍita pādukā could belong to the 17th century CE, six specimens belong to the 18th century, one dates to the 19th century CE, and two pādukā slabs installed in the ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE commemorate ten in total paṇḍitas. A tradition of lay paṇḍitas and of their commemoration thus seems to have been in vogue in Ajamera since the very foundation of the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa after Ratnakīrti (II) in the early 18th century CE, and lasted until the tradition’s last incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti or at least his immediate predecessors. The commemoration of paṇḍitas in Ajamera started early, with probably two paṇḍita pādukās at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā predating the major development of the site in the mid-18th century CE (Paṇḍita Hemarāja, s. 17??, #6.16; prob., unidentiﬁed, s. 18[0?]3, #6.17). The Ānteḍa Nasīyā is the only site where paṇḍita memorials were erected contemporary to those of ācāryas, where in other words paṇḍitas already began to be commemorated at a time when ācāryas still ﬂourished. At sites where no bhaṭṭārakas were commemorated contemporaneously, paṇḍitas were sometimes commemorated with substantial chatrīs. (3.2.4.5., 6.3.) At the Ānteḍa Nasīyā on the other hand, where bhaṭṭāraka memorials were still being erected as well, most paṇḍita memorials are 419 simple caraṇa-cabūtarās, the inscriptions of some of the pādukās conﬁrming that this was their original design by explicitly referring to cabūtarās (cyautarā, etc.).491 The modesty of the paṇḍita memorials at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā thus indicates the paṇḍitas’ subordinate position vis-à-vis the bhaṭṭārakas, who were typically commemorated with caraṇa-chatrīs. At the same time, it sets the paṇḍitas closer to the ācāryas who were commemorated with similar caraṇa-cabūtarās. (6.2.5.) Only a pādukā of Paṇḍita Hemarāja (s. 17??, see next) is sheltered by a small, four-pillared chatrī. Its inscription conﬁrms that this is also the original set-up.492 This memorial predates the systematic development of the site in the mid 18th century CE. It is possible that at this early time the material expression of the ranks of the commemorated renouncers had not yet been systematised. In the otherwise well-preserved and easily legible inscription of the pādukā of Paṇḍita Hemarāja, the latter half of the year is eﬀaced or rather seems never to have been inscribed. (s. 17[--], #6.16) Technically, the memorial stone could therefore belong to the 17th century CE, as the only paṇḍita pādukā at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā and the only one in the corpus of discovered Śākambharīśākhā memorials. It is more probable however that like six other paṇḍita pādukās on the site it belongs to the 18th century CE. The inscription on the pādukā records Paṇḍita Hemarāja as a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnakīrti, no doubt Ratnakīrti [II], the last incumbent of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā who is recorded to have come to the seat in s. 1745 and who died in s. 1766. The memorial of Paṇḍita Hemarāja is thus probably to be dated in the very late 17th or in the ﬁrst half of the 18th century CE, The pādukā inscription records that Paṇḍita Hemarāja’s chatrī was built by Paṇḍita Tulasīdāsa.493 The relation between both paṇḍitas is not explicated here, but Tulasīdāsa is referred to as a pupil of Hemarāja in his own, s. 1828 memorial stone also found at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā (#6.23, see below). The pādukā of Hemarāja is found on an octagonal cabūtarā under a small, fourpillared chatrī. (Fig. 6.14 L.) The pavilion seems of suﬃcient antiquity to be original, with an unreﬁned, non-bulbous cupola, and primitive pillars and capitals. The memorial is located along the steps leading up the hill on the western slope of the hillock, close to the small chatrī with a s. 1765 pādukā of Mahendrakīrti (6.2.2.). The proximity of Hemarāja’s memorial to the latter could be taken as an indication that it may also date to the late 17th or early 18th century CE. e.g., ‘(...) paṃ. śrī-rūpacaṃda-jī ko cyautaro (...) ’ (#6.20), ‘(...) paṃ. śrī-malūkacaṃda-jī ko cyautaro (...) ’ (#6.21), ‘(...) paṃ. śrī-aṣairāma-jī ko cyautaro (...) ’ (#6.22), ‘(...) paṃdita-tulachīdāsa-jī ko cyautarā (...) ’ (#6.23). 491 492 ‘(...) paṃ. śrī-hemarāja-jī kī chatrī (...)’ (#6.16). K. C. Jain (1963: 87) reports a chatrī of Paṇḍita Hemarāja built by Paṇḍita Tulasīdāsa, calling the former a pupil of Ācārya Rājakīrti. This seems to be a mash-up with information from other inscriptions from the site. 493 420 Figure 6.14. Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. (February 2013) L.: Western ﬂank of the ridge with the chatrīs of Mahendrakīrti (s. 1765) and Paṇḍita Hemarāja (s. 17??), a third cupola visible in the back a former chatrī converted into a mandira. Paṇḍita caraṇa-cabūtarās are partly visible in front of (s. 1928) and behind (thrice s. 1828) both caraṇa-chatrīs. R.: Eastern ﬂank with a caraṇa-chatrī without pādukā and two groups of four octagonal cabūtarās, some preserving pādukās of paṇḍitas. In s. 1827 and s. 1828 pādukās of ﬁve paṇḍitas were consecrated at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā. Three were consecrated on the same day in s. 1828 (Vaiśākha sudi 3, 17th April 1771 CE494). They are found installed next to each other on the western slope of the hillock, past the small chatrīs of Mahendrakīrti and Paṇḍita Hemarāja and just a few metres below its upper ridge. (Fig. 6.14 L.) Short inscriptions on the pādukās identify Chart 6.6. Paṇḍitas related to Ācārya Rājakīrti attested in various inscriptions at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā. the memorials as the caraṇa-cabūtarās (‘cyautaro’) of Paṇḍita Rūpacanda (#6.20), Paṇḍita Malūkacanda (#6.21),495 and Paṇḍita Akṣayarāma (‘aṣairāma’, #6.22, Fig. 6.15 L.).496 Without explicating the relation between the ācārya and the paṇḍitas, all three inscriptions refer to Ācārya Rājakīrti as having built the memorials. It is not certain whether Rājakīrti also consecrated the pādukās. (6.2.4.) The inscriptions on the memorial stones of the paṇḍitas Rūpacanda and Malūkacanda also attest one Paṇḍita Savāīrāma, probably a patron of the memorials and perhaps also a pupil or associate of the commemorated paṇḍitas.497 (Chart 6.6) 494 K. C. Jain (1963: 87) miscalculates 1761 CE. 495 This reading seems to be conﬁrmed by K. C. Jain’s (1963: 87) reading ‘Malukachanda’. 496 K. C. Jain (1963: 87) misread ‘Paṇḍita Abhairāma’. K. C. Jain (1963: 87) attributed all three s. 1828 paṇḍita pādukās to Paṇḍita Savāīrāma, but although otherwise running parallel to the other two, the inscription on Paṇḍita Akṣayarāma’s pādukā does not conclude with the record of Paṇḍita Savāīrāma. 497 421 Figure 6.15. Paṇḍita pādukās, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. (February 2013) L.: Paṇḍita Akṣayarāma, s. 1828. M.: Paṇḍita Tulasīdāsa, s. 1828. R.: Paṇḍita Navanidhirāma, s. 1928. Two groups of four octagonal caraṇa-cabūtarās are found on the eastern ﬂank of the Ānteḍa Nasīyā, behind and slightly lower than the chatrīs of the bhaṭṭārakas Vijayakīrti (prob., s. 1831?), Trilokendrakīrti (s. 1838), and Bhuvanakīrti (s. 1892). The pādukās of a ﬁrst group of four caraṇacabūtarās are dated to s. 18[0?]3, possibly s. 1812, s. 1827, and s. 1828, and three of these can be identiﬁed as commemorating paṇḍitas. Two of these paṇḍita memorials were installed close in time to the three s. 1828 memorials on the other side of the ridge. Dating to respectively almost a year earlier and a month later (Jeṣṭa s. 1827 and Jeṣṭa s. 1828) they commemorate Paṇḍita Rāmacandra (#6.19)498 and Paṇḍita Tulasīdāsa (#6.23, Fig. 6.15 M.) It seems possible to read the inscription of a third pādukā of this group as the pādukā of Paṇḍita Vakasarāma, reported to be commemorated at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā by K. C. Jain (1963: 87).499 My tentative reading s. 1812 (#6.18) roughly corresponds to K. C. Jain’s (Ibid.) dating to 1754 CE (s. 1810-1). The inscription of the fourth pādukā of this group of caraṇa-cabūtarās has a date in s. 18[?]3, possibly s. 1803. The memorial could not be identiﬁed, but the inscription also seems to record one or two paṇḍitas (#6.17), and it probably also is a paṇḍita memorial. This group of four caraṇa-cabūtarās is located immediately behind the chatrī taken to be that of Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti, which was possibly erected in s. 1831 (6.2.3.). The earlier caraṇa-cabūtarās then seem to have been consciously built lower on the slope, leaving place for the chatrī of Vijayakīrti or other lineage incumbents. The inscriptions of the pādukās of Paṇḍita Rāmacandra (#6.19) and Paṇḍita Tulasīdāsa (#6.23) feature pupillary successions of multiple generations, but do not attest Ācārya Rājakīrti. The inscription on Paṇḍita Rāmacandra’s memorial stone records the pupillary succession Maṇḍalācārya Ratnakīrti (II) > Paṇḍita Hemarāja > Paṇḍita Rāmacandra > Dolatarāma. The latter likely was also a paṇḍita. A last line of the inscription could no longer be read but presumably 498 K. C. Jain (1963: 87) miscalculates 1760 CE, to be corrected to 1770 CE. ‘(...) pa(ṃ?)ḍita (vakasarāma?) (kā?) padi(...) sa(ṃ?)vat (1812?) (...)’ (#6.18). A later namesake of Vakasarāma is the Paṇḍita Vagasīrāma recorded as the guru of Paṇḍita Navanidhirāma in the latter’s s. 1928 memorial (see below). 499 422 recorded Dolatarāma and perhaps others as having had the memorial built (‘karāpitā’). The inscription on Paṇḍita Tulasīdāsa’s pādukā records him as a pupil of Paṇḍita Hemarāja. This completes the information from the inscription on Paṇḍita Hemarāja’s memorial which was built by Paṇḍita Tulasīdāsa, but where the relationship between them was not further speciﬁed (see above). Paṇḍita Tulasīdāsa’s own memorial inscription attests two further paṇḍitas as involved in its creation. Paṇḍita Vaṇadāsa seemingly had the memorial built (‘cyautarā karāpitaṃ’), while Paṇḍita Dayācanda, interestingly, is recorded as having consecrated the pādukā (‘pādikā sathāpana kīyā’). Piecing together the individuals and their mutual relations attested in the pādukā inscriptions of the paṇḍitas Hemarāja (s. 17??, #6.16), Rāmacandra (s. 1827, #6.19), and Tulasīdāsa (s. 1828, #6.23), we can reconstruct a broader pupillary pedigree of three generations of paṇḍitas coming down from (Maṇḍalācārya or Bhaṭṭāraka, 6.1.1.) Ratnakīrti (II). (Chart 6.7) He had a pupil in Paṇḍita Hemarāja (#6.16, #6.19, also attested in #6.23), who in turn had two p u p i l s , P a ṇ ḍ i t a Tu l a s ī d ā s a , w h o constructed Hemarāja’s memorial (#6.16), and Paṇḍita Rāmacandra (#6.19).500 Rāmacandra was commemorated by again his pupil Dolatarāma, likely a paṇḍita as well (#6.19), while the memorial of Paṇḍita Tulasīdāsa was built and consecrated by Paṇḍita Vaṇadāsa and Paṇḍita Dayācanda, possibly also his pupils (#6.23). Chart 6.7. Pupillary lineage of paṇḍitas stemming from Paṇḍita Hemarāja attested in various inscriptions at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā. The formation of such pupillary lineages of paṇḍitas need not by itself surprise us, since we can imagine that paṇḍitas presumably learned much of their trade of ritual and textual learning from other paṇḍitas. More noteworthy is that paṇḍitas are also formally recorded and commemorated as pupils of other paṇḍitas, rather than as pupils directly of a lineage incumbent, and that ultimately they trace their pupillary descent to a far earlier incumbent. In this case, this might be related to the absence of the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa seat from Ajamera during this period, or seen as a conﬁrmation thereof. As we saw (6.1.3.), three of the four incumbents between Ratnakīrti (II) (p. s. 1745-66) and Vijayakīrti (p. s. 1802), although later also coming to be commemorated at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā, were consecrated in other towns in the region and probably also had their seat there, Vidyānandi in Rūpanagara (p. s. 1766), Mahendrakīrti in Kālāḍerā (p. s. 1769), Anantakīrti in Ajamera (p. s. 1773), but Bhavanabhūṣaṇa again in Kālāḍerā (p. s. 1797) (Joharāpurakara 1958: 119-20, lekha 298-301; Kāsalīvāla 1989: 157). In this several decades long absence of a resident lineage incumbent (maṇḍalācārya), local paṇḍitas in Ajamera may have The same Paṇḍita Rāmacandra may well be attested, possibly as a patron, in the inscription of the s. 1810 pādukā of Vidyānandi, also recorded to have been erected by Ācārya Rājakīrti (‘pa[ṃ?]ḍita-[rāma?][poss. ca. 2*]’, #6.4). 500 423 developed a stronger internal organisation, and a local tradition of learning or ritual may have formed which was carried solely or more exclusively by paṇḍitas. By the s. 1820s, the Ajamera-paṭṭa had ﬁrmly established itself in Ajamera as a bhaṭṭāraka seat, and was in full vigour under Vijayakīrti and the ācāryas connected to him. And yet, in the inscription of Paṇḍita Rāmacandra’s s. 1827 pādukā, the choice was nevertheless made to express the paṇḍitas’ connection to Ratnakīrti (II). Ratnakīrti (II) ﬂourished more than half a century earlier, but the earliest of the pupillary succession of paṇḍitas may have known him as seated in Ajamera. They may have felt and remembered their link to Ratnakīrti (II) to be stronger than that to his successors meanwhile on the Ajamera-paṭṭa. That these paṇḍitas trace their pupillary lineage back to the somewhat distant Ratnakīrti (II) is also reminiscent of the Śākambharīśākhā ācārya lineage, which did the same in the single source attesting it. (6.1.4.) And yet, that the connection to Ratnakīrti (II) was apparently particularly salient for these paṇḍitas should probably not be taken as indicating a complete lack of loyalty to the ﬂourishing Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents. The pādukās of three of the cabūtarās of the second cluster of four on the eastern ﬂank of the Ānteḍa Nasīyā seemed to be plastered over. The fourth featured a paṇḍita pādukā dating to the very end of the 18th century CE, slightly younger than the previous paṇḍita memorials discussed. Its inscription was partly covered with plastering, but I could still read it as indicating that the memorial commemorated one Paṇḍita Viradhīcanda (‘(b/v)iradhīcaṃda-jī’, #6.24). My reading of the year s. ??55 also accords with K. C. Jain’s (1963: 87) conversion to 1798 CE (s. 1855) for a memorial he reports of Paṇḍita Viradhīchanda.501 The memorial thus follows some three decades after those of Rūpacanda, Malūkacanda, Akṣayarāma, Rāmacandra, and Tulasīdāsa. The missing part of the inscription may have included information on Paṇḍita Viradhīcanda’s pupillary descent or his own pupillary oﬀspring. K. C. Jain (1963: 87) also reports a 1844 CE (s. 1900-1) pādukā from the Ānteḍa Nasīyā commemorating ‘Pandita Pannalal’, a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti (p. s. 1840 - ca. 1880). This would be another paṇḍita pādukā no longer available by the time of my visit to the site, and may very well have been found among the second cluster of four caraṇa-cabūtarās on the eastern ﬂank of the hillock. The two remaining caraṇa-cabūtarās of this group likely also commemorated paṇḍitas from the later 18th or early 19th century CE. After the substantial development of the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in the second half of the 18th century CE, the 19th century CE saw a signiﬁcant lull in the addition of further pādukās to the site. Only two pādukās from the 19th century CE are found at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā, that of Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti (6.2.5.), and that of another paṇḍita. Paṇḍita Navanidhirāma’s memorial is dated to s. 1928 and the corresponding ś. 1793. (#6.25, Fig. 6.15 R.) It is installed on an octagonal cabūtarā on the eastern slope of the hillock. (Fig. 6.14 L.) The long, primary inscription above the feet carving again records a pupillary generation of multiple generations. Paṇḍita Navanidhirāma’s memorial was built and consecrated by his pupil Paṇḍita [Ṭhoga?]lāla. Navanidhirāma is himself recorded as a pupil of A later Paṇḍita Viradhīcanda is commemorated as a pupil of and along with Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti (paṭṭa s. 1922) in a memorial at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā consecrated in s. 1992 (see below). And apparently yet another, only slightly later Paṇḍita Viradhīcanda is attested as having built, along with two other paṇḍitas, a s. 1887 paṇḍita memorial in Sākhūna (6.3.). 501 424 Paṇḍita Vagasīrāma, who in turn was a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Padmananda.502 Padmananda or Padmanandi is an alternative name for Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti, who ascended the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa seat in s. 1922. (6.1.3.) More than half a century later, in s. 1992, the last Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti commemorated Lalitakīrti and two other paṇḍita pupils of his at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā (see next). The inscription thus attests the pupillary succession: Bhaṭṭāraka Padmananda (Lalitakīrti) > Paṇḍita Vagasīrāma > Paṇḍita Navanidhirāma > Paṇḍita [Ṭhoga?]lāla. (Chart 6.8) A second inscription to the left of and below the feet carving, of poorer quality and possibly later, has not yet been deciphered. We do not know when Lalitakīrti was succeeded by Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti, who was ﬂourishing in s. 1972 (6.1.3.), but Lalitakīrti had come to the seat just a few years before the time of Paṇḍita Navanidhirāma’s s. 1928 memorial. And if Kāsalīvāla’s (1989: 165) record of a now no longer found, s. Chart 6.8. Pupillary lineage of paṇḍitas attested in the inscription of the s. 1928 memorial of Paṇḍita Navanidhirāma at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā. 1939 chatrī of Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa erected by Lalitakīrti at the Baṛe Dhaṛe kī Nasiyāṃ in Ajamera is correct, Lalitakīrti was still ﬂourishing in s. 1928. It is notable then that not Lalitakīrti but Paṇḍita [Ṭhoga?]lāla both built and consecrated his guru’s pādukā.503 Navanidhirāma’s memorial is recorded to have been consecrated almost day by day a century after that of Paṇḍita Tulasīdāsa. Paṇḍita Navanidhirāma’s memorial was consecrated on the sixth day of the bright half of the month of Jyeṣṭha s. 1928 (25th May 1871 CE, #6.25), that of Tulasīdāsa on the ﬁfth day of the bright half of the month of Jyeṣṭha in s. 1828 (19th May 1771 CE, #6.23). While this could also be a coincidence, it might also be an indication that at this time local actors were still well aware of the identity of the earlier memorials at the site, saw themselves as continuing the earlier paṇḍita tradition, and tried to keep the tradition of commemoration going. It wasn’t until more than half a century after Paṇḍita Navanidhirāma’s s. 1928 pādukā, already isolated in time, that further memorials were added to the Ānteḍa Nasīyā. In s. 1992, Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti consecrated two pādukā slabs in commemoration of his two direct predecessors and ten paṇḍitas. The large memorial stones are installed on waist-high plinths in a probably purposefully built, two-room tibārā-like structure topping the modern structure on the southern tip of the ridge. (See already 6.2.5.) A slab in commemoration of Harṣakīrti’s direct predecessor Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti (p. s. 1922) also has the pādukās of Lalitakīrti’s pupils Paṇḍita Viradhīcanda and Paṇḍita Mahipāla. (#6.9, Fig. 6.13) The memorial stone of Lalitakīrti’s predecessor ‘pūjya’ Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1880) is combined with those of the paṇḍitas Govindalāla (‘gobiṃdalāla’), Caturbhuja (‘caturabhuja’), Sadāsukha (‘sadāsuṣa’), [?]nānandarāma (‘[1*?]nānaṃdarāma’), Motī(lālā?) (‘motī’), Ajītamala, [Mohana?]lāla, and Nemicandra (‘nemīcaṃda’). (#6.10, Fig. 6.16) K. C. Jaina (1963: 87) probably misread this inscription in reporting a chatrī of Bhaṭṭāraka Padmanandi from the corresponding 1871 CE. 502 503 ‘(...) karāpitā (...) sva-guroś-caraṇa-pādukā pratiṣṭitā (...)’, (#6.25). 425 Figure 6.16. Memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa and eight paṇḍitas (s. 1992) on a plinth (M.). Ratnabhūṣaṇa’s feet are depicted larger in the centre (M.) with a caption reading ‘pūjya. bha. śrī ratnabhūṣaṇajī’ (R.). Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. (February 2013) The inscription of Paṇḍita Navanidhirāma’s s. 1928 pādukā at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā recorded his guru Paṇḍita Vagasīrāma as a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti (see above). The paṇḍitas Viradhīcanda and Mahipāla are also explicitly recorded as pupils of Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti. The inscriptions on the multi-pādukā slab of Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa and the eight paṇḍitas however do not indicate their mutual relationship. Yet, it seems likely that the paṇḍitas were associated with Ratnabhūṣaṇa or at least dated to his time rather than to that of the consecrating Harṣakīrti, otherwise they would perhaps rather have been depicted on the slab with the later Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti. More paṇḍitas indirectly linked to the mid-19th century CE Ratnabhūṣaṇa are attested in the inscriptions of three paṇḍita pādukās (s. 1887, s. 1918, s. 1992) retrieved in Sākhūna. These attest nine paṇḍitas, of whom at least six ﬂourished in the 19th century CE, in a pupillary succession of three generations stemming from an ācārya recorded as standing in the lineage of Ratnabhūṣaṇa. (6.3.) Harṣakīrti seems to have reconnected with the older tradition of honouring paṇḍitas at the site, and to have caught up in commemorating those who had not received a memorial from his predecessors. Perhaps this was an ultimate, and ultimately in vain, attempt to express the authority of and invigorate the Ajamera bhaṭṭāraka tradition. It is also possible that Harṣakīrti commemorated paṇḍitas who were connected to the Ajamera seat but were active in other towns. The pādukās installed by Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti in Ajamera and Sākhūna (6.3.) are the last retrieved paṇḍita memorials, coming three and a half decade later than the previous known specimens from Western India, relating to the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. (4.3.17.) On the slab featuring the pādukās of Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa and the eight paṇḍitas, the latter are executed smaller and arranged all around the larger foot carving of the bhaṭṭāraka. This iconographical choice could be seen as representing the pupillary circles (maṇḍala) of paṇḍitas surrounding the 19th century CE bhaṭṭārakas. The memorial stone commemorating Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti and his two paṇḍita pupils bears carvings of whisk (picchī), pitcher (kamaṇḍalū), rosary (mālā), and a cross of unidentiﬁed signiﬁcation. (Fig. 6.13) All four objects are carved around the bhaṭṭāraka’s pādukā, and it is clear that the ascetic paraphernalia refer uniquely to the commemorated bhaṭṭāraka, not to the paṇḍitas. This is even clearer on the other slab, where picchī, kamaṇḍalū, and mālā are carved around the pādukā of Ratnabhūṣaṇa, and a mālā close to each of the eight paṇḍitas’ pādukā. (Fig. 6.16 M.) 426 Figure 6.17. Undated portraits of Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti (L.) and Paṇḍita Panālāla (R.), Bābājī kā Mandira, Ajamera. (February 2013) At the Bābājī kā Mandira, the former Ajamera-paṭṭa bhaṭṭāraka seat in the old town in Ajamera, a wall painting is found with a portrait of one Paṇḍita Panālāla. (Fig. 6.17 R.) In another niche close to it is a similar painting of Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti. (Fig. 6.17 L.) The caption to the latter also gives an alternative name Harṣacandra (Harakacanda) for Harṣakīrti, also attested by Kāsalīvāla (1990: 227). The caption to the portrait of Paṇḍita Panālāla also adds the title mahārāja ('māhārāja', great king), otherwise reserved for initiated renouncers. The two paintings diﬀer in their details, and do not seem to have been executed together. It is diﬃcult to say which is older, although the seemingly more lifelike portrait quality of Harṣakīrti seems to indicate its younger age. If Panālāla on the other hand came later, he might have been a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti, or even have succeeded the last Ajamera-paṭṭa Harṣakīrti in some capacity, similar to the yatis which are found to have succeeded the last bhaṭṭārakas of other discontinued Balātkāragaṇa lineages, or to paṇḍitas recorded to have held a seat at mandiras in Jayapura. (2.3.7.) Kāsalīvāla (1990: 227) indeed mentions that an (unnamed) pāṇḍyā lived and operated at the former bhaṭṭāraka seat in Ajamera for some time after the death of Harṣakīrti. By the recorded time of death of Harṣakīrti (s. 1999), Digambara munis had reappeared in Northern India, but paṇḍitas no doubt continued to play a role for local communities. A Paṇḍita Panālāla commemorated with three other paṇḍitas in another s. 1992 pādukā consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti in Sākhūna could be the same individual depicted in the Ajamera mandira. If so, the presence of his memorial in Sākhūna could also explain why 427 Paṇḍita Panālāla is not found commemorated at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā despite having been quite prominent in Ajamera, judging from his portrait at the Bābājī kā Mandira. His attestations in Ajamera and Sākhūna would also speak of relations between both towns. The same would count for probably an earlier namesake, a Paṇḍita Panālāla who commemorated his paṇḍita guru in Sākhūna in s. 1887 along with two other paṇḍitas and was perhaps commemorated himself in Ajamera in s. 1900-1 (1844 CE). (6.3.) 6.3. Sākhūna, Nasīyā (s. 1887, s. 1918, s. 1992) At the nasīyā in Sākhūna, a town midway between Jayapura and Ajamera, three caraṇa-chatrīs with pādukās dated to s. 1887 (#6.26), s. 1918 (#6.27), and s. 1992 (#6.28) commemorate in total seven paṇḍitas. This makes it the second largest ﬁnding spot of identiﬁed paṇḍita memorials in Western India after the Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā, and the memorials’ inscriptions also indicate seemingly alternating links between the local paṇḍitas and the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa. The chatrīs are erected on two raised platforms of about a metre high and feature well-preserved murals inside the domes. (Figs. 6.3, 6.18, 6.19) Although dated three quarters of a century apart, the s. 1918 and s. 1992 pādukās are installed in chatrīs of identical design sharing a single, rectangular plinth. (Fig. 6.19 M.) The style of the chatrīs clearly predate the 20th century CE. The s. 1992 pādukā thus seems to have been installed in a pre-existing, repurposed chatrī. The oldest pādukā at the Sākhūna Nasīyā, dated to s. 1887, commemorates a single paṇḍita. The s. 1918 pādukā commemorates two paṇḍitas. And the youngest memorial stone at the site, dating to just over a century after the ﬁrst (s. 1992), commemorates four paṇḍitas. The three pādukā inscriptions are well preserved and attest yet further paṇḍitas as pupils and teachers of the commemorated individuals, or as having built their memorials. Piecing together the data from the individual inscriptions allows us to trace a paṇḍita pupillary succession of four generations, stemming from an ācārya who is in turn related to the third last Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa. The s. 1992 pādukā was consecrated by the last Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti. The s. 1918 pādukā inscription makes no mention of any bhaṭṭāraka tradition. The Ajamera bhaṭṭārakas were likely active in Sākhūna more generally too. Yet the sparse and rather distant references to them in the memorial inscriptions as well as some other elements present in the inscriptions seem to indicate that the local paṇḍita tradition may at times have operated with a relative degree of independence. The s. 1887 pādukā sits in a chatrī erected on an individual, square platform. (Fig. 6.18) It commemorates Paṇḍita Vimanarāma and was built (‘kāritā’) and probably also consecrated (‘(prāṣṭapya?)’) by his three paṇḍita pupils Viradhīcanda, Devakarṇa, and Panālāla.504 (#6.26) The commemorated Vimanarāma is recorded as a pupil of Ācārya Jagatkīrti, who stood in the lineage (‘tad-āmnāye’) of Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa. Ratnabhūṣaṇa came to the Ajamera-paṭṭa seat in s. The inscription has an abbreviation ‘vi.’ before the names of Devakarṇa, and Panālāla. This could stand for vidyādhara, as found used (in full) for Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā paṇḍitas recorded in pādukā inscriptions in Caurū (#4.22, 4.3.14.) and Phāgī (#4.23, 4.3.15.). (In the names of the paṇḍitas Vimanarāma and Viradhīcanda, the syllable vi- is connected to the rest of their names.) 504 428 1880 and was succeeded by s. 1922 (Kāsalīvāla 1989: 158). While Ratnabhūṣaṇa thus probably was on the seat in s. 1887, the inscription does not indicate that he was involved in the creation of the memorial. The paṇḍitas Vimanarāma and Devakarṇa are also attested in the s. 1918 pādukā inscription. One of the other recorded pupils of Vimanarāma, Paṇḍita Panālāla, could be the same individual as the ‘Pandita Pannalal’ whom K. C. Jain (1963: 86-7) reported to have been commemorated at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā with a pādukā dated to 1844 CE (s. 1900-1), and as a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti. A Paṇḍita Panālāla commemorated a century later in the s. 1992 pādukā at the Sākhūna Nasīyā (see below) is probably a later namesake. Figure 6.18. Caraṇa-chatrī of Paṇḍita Vimanarāma (M.), with s. 1887 pādukā (L.) and murals (R.), Nasīyā, Sākhūna. (February 2016) The style of the two chatrīs sharing a platform may correspond in antiquity to the s. 1918 slab installed in one of them. It is a rectangular slab with two pādukās identiﬁed by short inscriptions below the feet carvings as representing the paṇḍitas Varddhamāna and Devakaraṇa. (Figs. 6.19 R., 6.20 L.; #6.27) A longer inscription fails to mention Devakaraṇa, but records Varddhamāna in a longer pupillary succession. Accordingly, Paṇḍita Varddhamāna was a pupil of Vimanarāma. Although recorded without rank or title here, the latter is no doubt the Paṇḍita Vimanarāma commemorated by the s. 1887 memorial stone at the site, which already attested Devakaraṇa as his pupil, recorded there with the orthographic variant Devakarṇa. The s. 1918 double pādukā was consecrated (‘praṭhisthāpitā’) by Varddhamāna’s devoted pupil (‘bhakta-śiṣya’) Paṇḍita Amīcandra and again the latter’s pupil Phatelāla, presumably also a paṇḍita. This seems to be conﬁrmed by the s. 1992 pādukā at the site, which commemorates four paṇḍitas, including Amīcandra and Phatelāla, probably the same two individuals. The s. 1918 inscription also seems to indicate a family relationship (‘(purvv?)agraja’, ﬁrst born older sibling) between some of the recorded individuals, possibly Varddhamāna having been an older brother of Paṇḍita Amīcandra. 429 Figure 6.19. Chatrī with quadruple, s. 1992 pādukā of the paṇḍitas Pannālāla, Amīcandra, Phatelāla, and Yugarāja (L. and left on M.), and chatrī with double, s. 1918 pādukā of the paṇḍitas Varddhamāna and Devakaraṇa (R. and right on M.). Nasīyā, Sākhūna. (February 2016) A square, quadruple pādukā in the second chatrī on the shared platform commemorates the paṇḍitas Pannālāla, Amīcandra, Phatelāla, and Yugarāja. (Figs. 6.19 L., 6.20 R.; #6.28) It was consecrated on the 13th day of the bright half of the month of Māgha of the year s. 1992 (Wednesday 5th May 1936 CE) by the last Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti.505 The inscription does not indicate any pupillary or other relation between Harṣakīrti and the commemorated paṇḍitas. It also does not follow the standard formulation. Instead of ﬁrstly naming the ascetic lineage, then the bhaṭṭāraka consecrating the memorial stone, and ﬁnally the commemorated individual(s), it ﬁrstly locates the four commemorated paṇḍitas in the Mūlasaṅgha Sarasvatīgaccha Balātkāragaṇa, and only at the end names Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti as having performed the memorial’s consecration, explicitly recording him as seated in Ajamera (‘śrīajamera-paṭṭa(ṃ?)-stha’, #6.28). This could be taken as merely an example of the frequently observed less standardised phrasing of later-day memorial inscriptions.506 It might however also indicate a certain distance in time or aﬃliation between the consecrating bhaṭṭāraka and the commemorated paṇḍitas. I take it Amīcandra and Phatelāla are the same two individuals who ﬂourished almost 75 years earlier, consecrating the s. 1918 pādukā at the site. They may have passed away decades before their memorial was consecrated by Harṣakīrti. This is particularly reminiscent of what we observed in Ajamera, where Harṣakīrti similarly commemorated paṇḍitas from earlier decades who had been connected to his own predecessors. (6.2.6.) The Paṇḍita Pannālāla commemorated on the s. 1992 pādukā comes too late to be the same individual who helped in building the s. 1887 memorial at the site, but he may be the same individual portrayed in a wall painting at the bhaṭṭāraka seat in Ajamera. (6.2.6., Fig. 6.17.) Apart from a distance in time, the weak connection to Harṣakīrti seemingly indicated by the inscription may also indicate that the paṇḍitas operated with a considerable degree of autonomy from the Ajamera bhaṭṭāraka. Regardless of his actual relation to the commemorated paṇḍitas and ‘māgha-māse śukla-pakṣe-13-tithau budha-vāsare’ (#6.28). The reading of the last digit of the year is somewhat unclear, 1 or 2. It can be established as the latter based on the record of the day of the week as a Wednesday, which does not match the given calendrical date in s. 1991 but does in s. 1992. 505 The inscriptions of the two multi-pādukā slabs consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera earlier in the same year do not include any reference to his lineage (#6.9, #6.10, 6.2.5-6.). 506 430 to the local paṇḍita tradition, the lay community of Sākhūna may have called upon Harṣakīrti to install the paṇḍitas’ memorial in his traditional role as a consecration specialist (pratiṣṭhācārya), or more speciﬁcally because of his considerable prior activity in installing memorials. Some twenty years before, in s. 1972, he had already consecrated a pādukā of the Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Kanakakīrti in Gvāliyara. (6.4.2.) And just nine months before, in Vaiśākha s. 1992, Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti had consecrated the two multi-pādukā slabs at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā. (6.2.5-6.) Especially the latter, recent, nearby, and perhaps grand consecration of memorials also commemorating paṇḍitas in Ajamera may have fed inspiration among the Digambara laypeople of Sākhūna to commemorate local paṇḍitas who had passed away recently or were remembered from past decades. The commemoration project may very well have been inspired by Harṣakīrti in the ﬁrst place, given his similar eﬀorts to commemorate paṇḍitas who had passed away before his own time in his hometown Ajamera. The quadruple Sākhūna slab is also very similar in design to especially the s. 1992 memorial stone commemorating Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa and the eight paṇḍitas at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā. (comp. Figs. 6.16 M., 6.20 R.) The ﬂower motifs carved under the feet are alike and both slabs have similar captions identifying each of the paṇḍitas’ pādukās. Only the carvings of mālās are missing in Sākhūna. Probably it was modelled after the Ajamera precursor, or came from the same workshop. As noted, the chatrī in which the s. 1992 pādukā is installed clearly predates the memorial stone and seems to have been repurposed for it. The pādukā inscription actually seems to indicate this much through an uncommon phrase noting that Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti consecrated the pādukā ‘in the chatrī’.507 Figure 6.20. Paṇḍita pādukās, Nasīyā, Sākhūna. (February 2016) L.: Varddhamāna and Devakaraṇa (s. 1918). R.: Pannālāla, Amīcandra, Phatelāla, and Yugarāja (s. 1992). From the three pādukā inscriptions of Sākhūna, we can cull a genealogy of at least six generations spanning a period of about a century and including a bhaṭṭāraka, an ācārya, and four generations of paṇḍitas: the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1880, succeeded by s. 1922) ~ in his tradition Ācārya Jagatkīrti > Paṇḍita Vimanarāma (comm. s. 1887) > Paṇḍita Viradhīcanda (ﬂ. s. 1887) + Paṇḍita Devakaraṇa (ﬂ. s. 1887, comm. s. 1918) + Paṇḍita Panālāla (ﬂ. s. 507 ‘(...) śrī-sākhūṇa-nagaran tana-chatrī-madhye (...)’ (#6.28) 431 1887) + Paṇḍita Varddhamāna (comm. s. 1918) > Paṇḍita Pannālāla (comm. s. 1992) / Paṇḍita Yugarāja (id.) / Paṇḍita Amīcandra (ﬂ. s. 1918, comm. s. 1992) > (Paṇḍita) Phatelāla (ﬂ. s. 1918, comm. s. 1992). (Chart 6.9) The continuity and number of paṇḍitas attested by the Sākhūna memorials seems to point to a vibrant culture of learning or ritual specialisation carried by circles of paṇḍitas over successive generations. Chart 6.9. Pupillary lineage of paṇḍitas attested in various inscriptions at the Nasīyā in Sākhūna, and their recorded relations to Ajamera-paṭṭa bhaṭṭārakas. In s. 1887, the paṇḍitas of Sākhūna recorded their pupillary descent as standing in the tradition of the then ﬂourishing Ajamera-paṭṭa bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1880), although they seem to have created the memorial without his participation. In s. 1992 they were recorded as having ﬂourished within the Balātkāragaṇa, and the then incumbent Ajamera-paṭṭa bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti consecrated the memorial stone. The s. 1918 inscription altogether fails to refer to the Ajamera bhaṭṭārakas or any ascetic lineage. It is possible that at that time Ratnabhūṣaṇa had passed away and a gap fell before his successor Lalitakīrti (p. s. 1922) was consecrated to the seat, as elsewhere in the later bhaṭṭāraka traditions. Yet the remarkable, complete silence of the s. 1918 inscription with regard to the bhaṭṭāraka traditions may also indicate that the connection to the Ajamera seat had slacked oﬀ and that around this time the Sākhūna paṇḍitas operated with considerable autonomy. At the same time, there is no reason to doubt the continued Bīsapantha orientation of the Sākhūna paṇḍitas. It is little likely that a shift from Bīsapantha to Terāpantha or yet other orientations (and back) would have occurred in between consecutive generations of what seems to have been a tight, continuous paṇḍita pupillary lineage. Yet in the memorial inscriptions we can glance some further indications that the local paṇḍita tradition of Sākhūna garnered an enhanced status during this period. In the inscription on his s. 1887 memorial, Vimanarāma is recorded as a paṇḍita. The s. 1918 inscription however does not record the paṇḍita title but refers to him with the honoriﬁc terms 432 pūjya and 108, usually reserved for renouncers (2.1.2.).508 In the latter inscription, Vimanarāma’s pupil Varddhamāna is also recorded as pūjya.509 The consecrating Amīcandra and Phatelāla are not referred to as such, neither here nor on the s. 1992 memorial which commemorates them. Paṇḍita Pannālāla, one of the other two paṇḍitas commemorated by the latter pādukā is recorded with the honoriﬁc 105.510 Prior to the 20th century CE as much as now, only renouncers (in the former case including bhaṭṭārakas) were deemed venerable (pūjya) and addressed as such. The numeral 108 which similarly indicates venerability, although found used far less frequently than nowadays, was similarly used only for renouncers. It is remarkable therefore that Vimanarāma and Varddhamāna are referred to with these markers. They seem to have claimed or been accorded with a degree of venerability otherwise strictly reserved for renouncers, a practice again discontinued in the later local paṇḍita tradition of Sākhūna. It does not seem very likely that Vimanarāma and his pupil Varddhamāna received some higher ascetic initiation late in life but the inscription still recorded him by their lay name and rank.511 The absence of markers of venerability on Vimanarāma’s own memorial and their appearance instead in a later attestation point towards another hypothesis concerning the venerability ascribed to him in the latter source. Vimanarāma and Varddhamāna seem to have ﬂourished and died as paṇḍitas, but to have become exalted post mortem by later paṇḍitas working in a pupillary descent from them. Apart from the charisma of the remembered individuals, the blooming paṇḍita tradition of Sākhūna and its seeming independence from the Ajamera bhaṭṭārakas at the time may have been a fertile environment for such an increased status to develop. It may have been a slacking connection with the bhaṭṭāraka seat which allowed local actors to develop more autonomy and become more venerable cult ﬁgures. If a stronger connection to the Ajamera bhaṭṭārakas had been maintained, with the paṇḍitas operating as their satellite agents, the bhaṭṭārakas might have wanted to keep such developments in check. And the availability of bhaṭṭārakas as objects of veneration and as lords of the Digambara polities might have rendered such developments less called for. Viceversa, it may also have been the success of local ﬁgures, like perhaps Ācārya Jagatkīrti, which led to a distance from and tensions with the Ajamera bhaṭṭāraka seat in the ﬁrst place. As we saw, Ācārya Jagatkīrti is recorded as standing in the lineage of (‘tad-āmnāye’) the Ajamerapaṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa (p. s. 1880, succeeded by s. 1922). Through his pupil Vimanarāma, Jagatkīrti stood at the fount of the Sākhūna paṇḍita tradition. He may have been a ﬁgure comparable to the ācāryas of Bassī who seem to have developed autonomy from the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas in the mid-18th century CE. (4.3.8.) With Ratnabhūṣaṇa’s paṭṭābhiṣeka in s. 1880 as a terminus post quem and the s. 1887 date of the pādukā as a terminus ante quem, we can determine Jagatkīrti as having ﬂourished in the 1820s CE. This makes him a very late 508 ‘pūjya-10- śrī-śrī-vimanarāma-jī’ (#6.27). ‘tat śiṣya pūjya-vā(-?)vā-jī-śrī-śrī-varddhamāna-jī’ (#6.27). It is not clear to me what ‘vāvā’ or repeated ‘vā’ stands for. 509 510 ‘paṃḍita-jī-śrī-105-śrī-pannālāla-jī’ (#6.28). Today, kṣullakas, brahmacārīs, or even laypeople occasionally receive muni dīkṣā on their deathbed, reportedly in some cases even when only half conscious, for them to reap the karmic beneﬁt of dying as a muni, and memorials are also erected for such ‘last second’ munis. 511 433 Śākambharīśākhā ācārya, standing half a century to three quarters of a century after the otherwise last known ācāryas of his lineage, commemorated at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā (s. 1801-1821, 6.2.4.), and in fact similarly long after other known ācārya from the Western Indian bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas (2.3.5.). There would hence no longer have been much scope for an ācārya lineage to develop from Jagatkīrti at this time. And half a century or less after the time of the memorial recording the venerability of Vimanarāma and Varddhamāna, naked, itinerant munis and ācāryas had reappeared in Northern India. (1.1.1.) In this new ascetic landscape, the status of lay paṇḍitas no longer stood any chance of growing to such proportions as that apparently held by Vimanarāma and Varddhamāna, and paṇḍitas even ceased to ﬁgure as objects of commemoration altogether. Instead, from degree programs at modern educational institutions like the Jaipur Sanskrit College, a new type of lay scholar emerged, distinguished with ranks like śāstrī and nyāyatīrtha.512 6.4. Nāgaura-paṭṭa memorials 6.4.1. Nāgaura, Bīsapantha Baṛā Mandira (s. 1863) As we saw, not much information is available on the whereabouts of the Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbents. (6.1.2.) This could be remedied by research on manuscript sources and mūrtilekhas, as well as visits to towns in the Śākambharī region which have not yet been surveyed for memorials. A loose pādukā of the Nāgaura-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalabhūṣaṇa dated to s. 1863 is an important indication of the early presence of this lineage in Nāgaura. (Fig. 6.21, #6.29) The short inscription also notes the name of the artisan who carved the inscription, one Umedarāja (‘li. paṃ. umedarājaśrī’). The pādukā is found on a vedi in the town’s Bīsapantha Baṛā Mandira, known to have been the seat of the Nāgaura-paṭṭa in later times. I did not retrieve any further Digambara memorials in Nāgaura, and was told there was no memorial site in town, although the latter could also indicate that any possible such site was deemed insigniﬁcant by my informants. Kāsalīvāla (1989: 160) notes that a ‘naśiyāṃ’ was constructed in Nāgaura during the incumbency of Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti (p. s. 1980, succeeded in s. 1995). The only nasīyā in Nāgaura is a site referred to as the Digambara Jaina Nasiyāṃ, situated a kilometre to the west of the Nāgaura fort, on the northern bank of a small lake (Jaṛāṃ Talāba). A site with royal cenotaphs is found nearby. The Digambara site’s name suggests it was originally a cremation site. The plot is now almost completely occupied by modern buildings.513 It is possible that memorials formerly present were removed for the construction works. This could even have been how the pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalabhūṣaṇa ended up in the Bīsapantha Baṛā Mandira. 512 I thank John Cort (personal communication, 17th May 2024) for the latter comparison. 513 Google maps, accessed 13th August 2023. 434 Figure 6.21. Pādukā of the Nāgaura-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalabhūṣaṇa (s. 1863) preserved on a vedi and with markings of current ritual usage. Bīsapantha Baṛā Mandira, Nāgaura. (February 2013) 6.4.2. Gvāliyara, Nasīhājī (s. 1972) A few Digambara memorials are found at the nasīyā in Gvāliyara (Madhya Pradesh), referred to as the Nasīhājī or Vīrāsantha Nasiyā. One of these is an original, cross-shaped, concrete caraṇacabūtarā with a s. 1972 pādukā featuring carvings of a kamaṇḍalu, probably a picchī, and a third unidentiﬁed object. (Fig. 6.22, #6.30) The structure is memorial of the Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Kanakakīrti, found commemorated here far outside of the Śākambharī region. The pādukā was established (‘sthāpitaṃ’) by Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti of the Ajamera-paṭṭa, the sister lineage of the commemorated bhaṭṭāraka. In s. 1972, when the memorial was consecrated, the Nāgaura-paṭṭa was still functional, with Harṣakīrti (p. s. 1966, a namesake of the consecrating Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent) supposedly still alive, being succeeded by Mahendrakīrti in s. 1980. That the Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent Harṣakīrti consecrated a memorial of a Nāgaura-paṭṭa bhaṭṭāraka can probably be taken to indicate that there existed a good liaison between both seats. Nāgaura-paṭṭa bhaṭṭārakas are known to have maintained relations with communities of migrant Māravāṛī merchants in Maharashtra. (6.1.2.) It may similarly have been immigrated Rajasthani Digambara Jains in or around Gvāliyara who had called upon the Nāgaura-paṭṭa Kanakakīrti and later the Ajamera-paṭṭa Harṣakīrti for ritual or other services, although much closer at hand, the Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa was also still ﬂourishing (2.2.3.10.). Perhaps these Śākambharīśākhā Nāgaura-paṭṭa and Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents also had contact and collaborated with their Sonāgiri-paṭṭa peers. Figure 6.22. Cabūtarā (L.) with s. 1972 pādukā (M.) of Bhaṭṭāraka Kanakakīrti of the Nāgaura-paṭṭa, and s. 1938 pādukā of the Cambalaśākhā Gvāliyara-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Śīlendrabhūṣaṇa (R.), Nasīhājī (aka Vīrāsantha Nasiyā), Gvāliyara (Madhya Pradesh). (December 2013) 435 Three further memorial structures were present in the garden of the Gvāliyara nasīyā garden at the time of my visit (December 2013). One of these may be of similar antiquity as the memorial of Kanakakīrti or slightly older. This cubical cabūtarā had a heavily corroded, square, ﬂat pādukā slab with small feet carvings but without remaining inscriptions. A small chatrī with a pādukā of Āryikā Cāritramatī, a pupil of Ācārya Sanmatisāgara, was dated 1999 CE. And another unﬁnished cubical brick construction was probably to be developed into a similar chatrī for Āryikā Jayaśrī, whose framed portrait photo was hung nearby giving 2012 CE as her date of death. In a locked side room to the left of the main vedi of the nasīyā’s mandira I found two older, loose pādukās. One could be identiﬁed as a memorial stone of the Balātkāragaṇa Bhaṭṭāraka Śīlendrabhūṣaṇa established (‘sthāpitau’) in Gopācalanagara (Gvāliyara) by his pupil (‘celā’) Gorelāla, perhaps a paṇḍita, in s. 1939514. (Fig. 6.22 R.) The inscription records Śīlendrabhūṣaṇa as the successor to Bhaṭṭāraka Rājendrabhūṣaṇa. Through an attestation from s. 1920, the latter was the last incumbent known to Joharāpurakara (1958: 135, 136) of his Aṭeraśākhā, which I refer to as the Cambalaśākhā Gvāliyarapaṭṭa. (2.2.3.10.) Elsewhere, Joharāpurakara (1971: 115) already had attestations of Śīlendrabhūṣaṇa from 1873 CE (s. 1929-30 CE) and 1878 CE (s. 1934-5), shortly before the memorial’s date. The second pādukā did not bear any inscriptions but seemed to be of similar antiquity, belonging to the late 19th or early 20th century CE. 514 The second digit looks like 8 but should be read as or corrected to 9. 436 CHAPTER 7. COMMEMORATION AND CONTINUITY 7.1. 19th century CE Digambara munis and the reversal of the ascetic hierarchy I begin this ﬁnal chapter by introducing the memorials of two 19th century CE Digambara munis discovered in Rajasthan during my survey of memorial sites of the bhaṭṭāraka traditions.515 A pādukā of Muni R̥ ṣabhasena (in the inscription Rīṣabhasena) consecrated in the mid-19th century CE (s. 1905) is found in a shrine at a nasīyā in Sāgavāṛā. (Fig. 7.1) And an ornate and large caraṇachatrī commemorating Muni Siddhasena (in the inscription Siddhaseṇa) from the late 19th century CE (s. 1948) stands at a nasīyā in Jhālarāpāṭana. (Fig. 7.2) As discussed next, a textual source describes R̥ ṣabhasena and two muni-associates of his as naked and itinerant renouncers. R̥ ṣabhasena came from south India, and hence probably was a Bīsapanthī (see next). And a textual attestation may also be found of the second commemorated muni, Siddhasena, be it recorded with the bhaṭṭāraka rank (see next). He may have been a Terāpanthī and possibly developed a more sedentary presence in Jhālarāpāṭana. Both R̥ ṣabhasena and Siddhasena clearly stand apart from the earlier munis and ācāryas of the early modern bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas, and neither seems to have been connected to the bhaṭṭārakas still ﬂourishing in the region then. R̥ ṣabhasena and his associates were pioneers of digambartva (nudity) in the modern era, poorly known precursors to the illustrious ācāryas of the ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE. We know less about the conduct of Siddhasena, but he seems to have administered the kṣullaka novice rank to a pupil, which would also have formed an important precedent for the contemporary muni saṅghas. Figure 7.1. Pādukā of Muni R̥ ṣabhasena (s. 1905, R.) in a shrine raised on a platform (L.), Pagelejī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. (January 2014) See Detige in preparation for a full discussion of these memorials, textual attestations of these two munis, and attestations of other 19th century CE munis. 515 437 The s. 1905 pādukā of Muni R̥ ṣabhasena at the Pagelejī Nasīyā in Sāgavāṛā was consecrated by the Balātkāragaṇa Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti, probably the Lāṭaśākhā incumbent of that name ﬂourishing around this time. (Fig. 7.1) On the same day, Candrakīrti consecrated two further memorials at the site. One commemorates two local Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭārakas, the other possibly commemorates a paṇḍita. (5.5.2.) Candrakīrti probably had no direct relation to R̥ ṣabhasena, but was invited to act as a pratiṣṭhācārya in consecrating memorials for renouncers who had passed away in Sāgavāṛā, in the ﬁrst place perhaps his Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā peers. A Ḍhūṇḍhāḍī language composition from s. 1889 reported by Nyāyatīrtha (2002) from an incomplete manuscript of s. 1890 contains much valuable information on one Muni Vrṣabhasena, whom I take ̥ to be the same renouncer as the one commemorated in Sāgavāṛā. The composition gives an and two other munis associated account of the wanderings of Muni R̥ ṣabhasena (Vrṣabhasena) ̥ with him, Bāhubalī and Balabhadra, through Rajasthan and up to Mathurā (Uttar Pradesh), Sammedaśikharajī (Jharkand), and Giranāra (Gujarat). They are described as naked and itinerant renouncers observing practices closely resembling those of the contemporary muni saṅghas, for example in terms of their way of eating (āhāra). R̥ ṣabhasena and Bāhubalī seem to have been of South Indian origins, having come north on a pilgrimage. Balabhadra was a layman from near Mathurā who was inspired by them to take initiation. Figure 7.2. Pādukā of Muni Siddhasena (s. 1948, R.) in an ornate caraṇa-chatrī (L.), Choṭī Nasīyā, Jhālarāpāṭana. (December 2014) The s. 1948 memorial of Muni Siddhasena at the Choṭī Nasīyā in Jhālarāpāṭana is an ornate caraṇachatrī raised on a high plinth. (Fig. 7.2) The site also features four more modest chatrīs. Two of them feature pādukās commemorating paṇḍitas. (Fig. 7.3) One of these has an (unpublished) inscription recording that the memorial stone commemorates Paṇḍita Dhanalāla and was consecrated by his pupil Paṇḍita (Rīṣabha?)canda in s. 1951. A second, roughly coeval chatrī next to the latter memorial is raised on a larger and higher platform. Its pādukā does not feature an inscription. It can nevertheless be identiﬁed as commemorating a paṇḍita through the emblems carved onto it, a 438 mālā or ﬂower, (probably) a book, a pitcher or water pot (a ritual object), and an unidentiﬁed square. Two further, comparable chatrīs at the site can stylistically also be assigned to the late 19th or early 20th century CE and may originally also have commemorated paṇḍitas. They have been repurposed and now house pādukās from the late 20th and early 21st century CE, commemorating Muni Nemisāgara (s. 2035, pupil of Ācārya Mahāvīrakīrti) and Āryikā Bhaktimatī (s. 2056, pupil of Āryikā Gaṇinī Supārśvamatī). Figure 7.3. Caraṇa-chatrī of Paṇḍita Dhanalāla, s. 1951 (L. & left on M.), and chatrī with unidentiﬁed pādukā (R. & right on M.), Choṭī Nasīyā, Jhālarāpāṭana. (December 2014) A composition by one Kṣullaka Dharmadāsa (Cavare 2010: 19) seems to contain an attestation of Muni Siddhasena with the bhaṭṭāraka rank. Dharmadāsa later in life became a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (p. s. 1879-1936, d. s. 1941) and his successors in the Balātkāragaṇa Kārañjāśākhā in Maharashtra, but originally was a native of Jhālarāpāṭana and probably a Terāpanthī (Cavare 2010: 19-20). In one of his compositions, Dharmadāsa refers to ‘Devendrakīrti, the paṭṭādhikārī (incumbent) of Kārañjāpura’ as his śikṣā-guru (teacher), but also names one Bhaṭṭāraka Siddhasena as his dīkṣā-guru (ritual preceptor). This attestation does not match with any known bhaṭṭāraka, and I take it to refer instead to Muni Siddhasena, who was commemorated in Dharmadāsa’s hometown Jhālarāpāṭana. I presume Dharmadāsa owed his kṣullaka rank to Siddhasena and was his pupil in Jhālarāpāṭana before going to Maharashtra and becoming a pupil of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti. The latter association may have led Dharmadāsa to refer to his former guru Siddhasena as a bhaṭṭāraka, adopting the pre-20th century CE Bīsapanthī perspective in which the bhatṭāraka rank topped the ascetic hierarchy. Siddhasena, then, may have been a Terāpanthī who developed a sedentary presence in Jhālarāpāṭana and experimented with reintroducing the muni and kṣullaka ranks in Western India in the second half of the 19th century CE, perhaps inspired by Digambara munis from South India travelling north, like Muni R̥ ṣabhasena, who was commemorated in Sāgavāṛā half a century before Siddhasena. We do not have indications that Siddhasena also practiced nudity like R̥ ṣabhasena. The paṇḍitas commemorated in Jhālarāpāṭana may have been associates of Siddhasena or have followed up on his activities in the town after his demise. As we saw at the onset of this dissertation, Digambara munis are commonly thought to have disappeared in the Sultanate period and to have reappeared only in the 20th century CE ‘muni 439 revival’, spearheaded by the ācāryas Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’, Śāntisāgara ‘Chāṇī’, and Ādisāgara ‘Aṅkalīkara’. (1.1.1.) Yet, next to the munis and ācāryas commonly attested in the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas up to respectively the 17th and the 18th century CE and the commemorated munis Siddhasena and R̥ ṣabhasena, we also have reports and attestations of further Digambara munis in 19th century CE Northern India (Detige in preparation). They are usually considered to have been so-called nirvāṇa svāmīs, solitary renouncers from South India who came north to visit pilgrimage shrines. Yet, when puzzled together, the available information shows that they developed considerable activities in Western and Central India, taking (self-)initiation there, roaming with pupils, teaching, copying manuscripts, studying, and dying. Although such 19th century CE ﬁgures were perhaps isolated ﬁgures, their activities must have formed important precedents to the developments of the early 20th century CE under Ādisāgara and both Śāntisāgaras. The ﬂourishing of 19th century CE Digambara munis probably also played a role in the shifting conceptions of Digambara asceticism and ascetic hierarchies from the bhaṭṭārakas traditions to the contemporary muni saṅghas. As is now clear, early modern Western and Central Indian bhaṭṭārakas were fully initiated and highly venerated renouncers, and the bhaṭṭāraka rank topped the ascetic hierarchy, above those of the muni and the ācārya. Bhaṭṭārakas were themselves munis and ācāryas with a further, higher initiation, higher distinctions, and additional ritual prerogatives. Today, few if any Digambara Jains would dispute that the contemporary, clothed and sedentary bhaṭṭārakas are subordinate to the naked and itinerant munis. Already before the early 20th century CE ācāryas, the peregrination of naked munis and the administration of the kṣullaka rank in 19th century CE Western India may have stirred the ﬁrst challenges to the prevalent ascetic hierarchy, ultimately leading to its reversal, and to the conception of the bhaṭṭāraka rank as that of a semirenouncer, far below the naked munis soon ﬂourishing in gradually growing numbers. As we saw, Muni Siddhasena may have been a Terāpanthī. At least in Nyāyatīrtha’s (2002) reading of an incomplete manuscript, the narrative on the munis R̥ ṣabhasena, Bāhubalī, and Balabhadra remains entirely and conspicuously silent about the bhaṭṭārakas who were still active in the Jayapura region, where much of the narrative is centred, and in Western India more broadly. Muni Balabhadra is instead reported to have associated with a Terāpanthī dīvāna in Jayapura and to have visited a mandira built by him (Nyāyatīrtha 2002: 33). Yet none of this necessarily means that the latter trio of munis were opposed to the bhaṭṭārakas. Contrary to what is sometimes presumed, even nowadays there is no all-round antagonism against the bhaṭṭārakas across the various muni saṅghas.516 The stances on the bhaṭṭārakas of individual renouncers, or at least those of individual, leading ācāryas, are dependent on their personal ritual orientation. While famous Terāpantha munis oppose the bhaṭṭārakas of past and present, Bīsapantha munis often readily associate with the contemporary South Indian bhaṭṭārakas. It might not have been R̥ ṣabhasena’s choice to be commemorated by a bhaṭṭāraka, but there is no reason to think it necessarily would have been his last wish not to be. Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’ had a former bhaṭṭāraka as a preceptor (Carrithers 1990: 154; Divākara 2000a: 48; Dundas 2002: 185; Cort 2020: 233), and two bhaṭṭārakas tended to him at his deathbed during his last days, at which occasion Śāntisāgara is said to have encouraged them to work for the protection of the dharma, the society, and the renouncers (Divākara 2000b: 35). 516 440 7.2. Conclusions, caveats, further research I began this study with a vignette on six Digambara renouncers. (1.1.1.) Three of these ﬂourished as bhaṭṭārakas between the early 13th and the late 14th century CE. The ascetic careers of the other three played out in the ﬁrst half of the 20th century CE, and eventually led to their nomination as ācāryas. These two triplets of renouncers stand at both ends of what is often seen as a period of decline for the Digambara tradition as a whole, sometimes explicitly named, and more often implicitly conceptualised as the ‘bhaṭṭāraka era’. This historiography of the Digambara tradition from the 13th to the 19th century CE is based on tropes and epistemic structures and strictures commonly found in popular understandings of South Asian history more generally. Colonial-era, British historians’ presentation of ‘medieval' India as a dark and inauspicious period for the subcontinent and its native traditions functioned as a counterfoil to the enlightened rule of the colonial state. Post-independence Indian scholars similarly present the late medieval and the early modern period as a corruption of the imagined golden times of classical and early medieval India. The rulers of the Indo-Muslim states (the Delhi Sultanate, the regional Sultanates, and the Mughal empire) are depicted as fanatical bigots pursuing a theologically motivated policy of temple destruction and oppression, persecution, and heavy taxation of non-Muslim populations and conﬁscation of their properties. In the case of the Digambara tradition, this epistemic framework takes shape in the idea of a ‘bhaṭṭāraka era’, during which naked and itinerant Digambara munis came to be replaced by clothed and sedentarised bhaṭṭārakas because of persecutions and harassments. The bhaṭṭārakas are conceived of as mere administrators and ritual practitioners. They are credited with the safeguarding of the tradition during the inauspicious period of ‘Muslim rule’, through the preservation of scriptures, performance of rituals, and negotiations with rulers on behalf of their communities. As renouncers however, they are understood to have been lax, deﬁcient in terms of conduct, and overly ritualistic. Keeping properties, managing temple complexes, and distinguishing themselves with royal insignia, they unfavourably compare to the ideal of the possessionless Digambara muni. Bhaṭṭārakas are presented as devoid of the ‘charisma’ of renouncers, not understood as venerable ascetics. This dissertation has advanced multiple arguments and adduced much evidence to counter such ideas. Digambara lay and ascetic communities ﬂourished in the Indo-Muslim states. Bhaṭṭārakas often ﬂocked to the capitals and other centre cities of the Sultanates and the Mughal empire, like Maṇḍapagaṛha, Dillī, and Āgarā. They followed in the wake of Jain merchants migrating there in pursuit of newly arisen mercantile and other economic and professional opportunities. This explains a repeatedly observed pattern in which the seats of the ascetic lineages move to such cities a few decades after their foundation or renewed importance. The frequent records of bhaṭṭārakas being honoured at Sultanate courts indicate that such events were a matter of great pride for Digambara communities at the time. Temple destructions and desecrations represented a pre-Islamic political expediency and generally occurred selectively, in frontier zones or in retaliation for subordination. 441 The bhaṭṭāraka was not an innovative ‘institution’ prompted by adverse socio-political circumstances in the Delhi Sultanate, but a high ascetic rank which was already used in the late ﬁrst millennium CE and standardised in the Sultanate period as topping the Digambara ascetic hierarchy. Memorials of bhaṭṭārakas and various other, material, textual, and epigraphic sources remain to testify to the deep devotion of bhaṭṭārakas as full-ﬂedged, high-ranking renouncers. Far from being conceived of as semi-renouncers or clerics, early modern and colonial-era bhaṭṭārakas were venerated and eulogised with all the vows, virtues, and practices proper to ideal Digambara renouncers, with various skills and extraordinary powers ascribed to them. Both while alive and after their death, bhaṭṭārakas were the objects of vibrant practices of ritual veneration (pūjā, āratī) also performed in relation to the renouncers of the contemporary muni saṅghas. Contemporary Digambara initiation practices also closely resemble those of the bhaṭṭāraka traditions, and were clearly taken over from the early modern precedents. Like commemorative practices, these form a clear ﬁeld of continuity of Digambara asceticism from the early modern to the contemporary period. While conceived of as renouncers, the bhaṭṭārakas were also enthroned as the lords of Digambara polities modelled after those of South Asian rulers. Instead of merely indicating a faltering renunciation, their royal bearing and self-representation reﬂected prevailing models of power, authority, and legitimacy. Munis did not disappear early in the Sultanate period, and bhaṭṭārakas did not all of a sudden come to replace them. Bhaṭṭārakas instead led ascetic communities and pupillary circles composed of sometimes substantial numbers of male and female renouncers as well as lay paṇḍitas. Munis ﬂourished in the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas up to early Mughal times, and early modern bhaṭṭāraka initiands had typically gone through an earlier ascetic career raising over the consecutive, lower initiatory ranks. The sheer multiplicity of narratives on bhaṭṭārakas taking to clothing in the Sultanate era already indicates that these at most represent memories of speciﬁc events, rather than evidence of a singular, sudden, and irreversible sea change. Attestations are found of early modern Digambara renouncers practicing part-time or full-time nudity. Western Indian Digambara renouncers may have been itinerant until the 17th century CE, and even later the leaders of the ascetic lineages remained highly mobile and travelled widely. The introduction of the bhaṭṭāraka rank, the taking to clothing of Digambara renouncers, and their full sedentarisation are thus developments which occurred at widely disparate times. In the absence of conclusive evidence, we can tentatively assign the full development of the sedentarised and almost permanently clothed bhaṭṭāraka managing temple properties to the 18th century CE. By this time, Digambara circles were constellations of bhaṭṭārakas, ācāryas, and paṇḍitas. In the 19th century CE, networks of paṇḍitas associated to the bhaṭṭārakas operated in various towns throughout their regions of inﬂuence. Most Western and Central Indian Balātkāragaṇa lineages continued up to the 19th and even into the 20th century CE. Many did not directly arise as new bhaṭṭāraka seats, but through a gradual process in which lineages of ācāryas or maṇḍalācāryas came to claim bhaṭṭāraka-hood and full autonomy after decades or even centuries of subordination to a parent bhaṭṭāraka lineage. The spread of Digambara ascetic lineages was generally tied to political developments and attendant socio-economic conditions. Up to the 18th century CE, the seats of the lineages 442 frequently shifted between various towns within a relatively clearly demarcated region. Occasionally, they also relocated to entirely diﬀerent regions. The former type of moves, best documented for the undivided Śākambharīśākhā, the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa and Nāgaura-paṭṭa, and the Vāgaḍāśākhās, was probably mostly a means to maintain contacts with local lay communities. Speciﬁc push and pull factors can often be discerned in the longer distance movements of bhaṭṭāraka seats within the Sultanate and Mughal empires and the Rajput kingdoms of Rajasthan. The motives for the relocations of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā throughout the Mughal era can be reconstructed particularly well, and the development of the earlier Balātkāragaṇa can also be connected to the fates of the Sultanates. The vast territorial expansion of the Delhi Sultanate under the Tughluq dynasty facilitated its activities over a larger realm, while the disintegration of the Delhi Sultanate and the ﬂourishing of the regional Sultanates of Gujarat and Malwa stimulated the formation of new, independent Balātkāragaṇa lineages. A fuller appreciation of the bhaṭṭārakas long seems to have been hampered by an interplay of speciﬁc Digambara opinions and Indological preconceptions. Although the dynamics, media, and agents of this process still need to be analysed further, emic Digambara and etic Orientalist discourses reinforced each other into a long-standing, quasi unsurmountable a priori. The stereotype of the corrupt, degraded, and ritualistic bhaṭṭāraka arose as a crossbreed of the antibhaṭṭāraka discourse of the Digambara Terāpantha and Orientalist tropes regarding the inevitable temporal decline of religious traditions at the hands of sacerdotal oppressors. Among contemporary Bīsapanthīs as much as Terāpanthīs, the conception of the early modern bhaṭṭārakas also serves as a rhetorical foil for the idealisation of today’s naked and peripatetic munis. Followers of both sectarian and ritual orientations also frequently share the perspective on the ‘Muslim era’ as a wholly and singularly cataclysmic period, and the idea of clothed, clerical bhaṭṭārakas replacing naked, ascetic munis perfectly ﬁts this mould. The demonisation of Muslim rulers and the narratives on the persecution and taking to clothing of naked munis seem to have led to a selective blindness to the presence of munis and ācāryas in the early modern Digambara saṅghas, of which there is otherwise ample evidence. An unwarranted, and itself limited extrapolation of the practices and the position of the contemporary South Indian bhaṭṭārakas seems to have been another factor framing the perceptions of the bhaṭṭārakas of Western and Central India. A number of caveats of this study should be indicated, and some aspects open for further research outlined. My focus in this dissertation on the three branches and ﬁve lineages of the Balātkāragaṇa allowed me to sketch a relatively coherent picture of the historic development of Digambara asceticism in the concerned regions throughout the early modern period and beyond. The available sources, especially the corpora of discovered memorials when looked at in isolation from other sources, do highlight diﬀerent aspects in the history of each of these Balātkāragaṇa branches. The ﬂourishing of munis and ācāryas in the 16th and 17th century CE Vāgaḍāśākhā saṅghas evident from the necropoles of this branch is not corroborated by similar memorials of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and the Śākambharīśākhās, but textual sources conﬁrm a parallel development there. The 18th century CE constellations of bhaṭṭārakas, ācāryas, and paṇḍitas clearly attested in the Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa thanks to the Ajamera necropolis have not 443 yet been reconstructed elsewhere. And the important role of paṇḍitas in the 19th century CE Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and Ajamera-paṭṭa is not conﬁrmed for the Vāgaḍāśākhās. Further research should clarify whether such dissimilarity between the ﬁndings on the various Balātkāragaṇa branches merely depends on contingent factors like the preservation of memorial sites and the availability of other sources (like manuscript catalogues) or my consultation thereof, or instead reﬂects diﬀerences in commemoration practices or even in the development of the constitution of their respective circles of religious specialists. Generally, we can expect parallel developments to have taken place in the Balātkāragaṇa lineages, which belonged to a single ascetic tradition, developed in close proximity to each other, and often continued to cooperate. The attestations of early modern munis and ācāryas I found in the course of my study constitute only fragmentary evidence from a limited corpus of memorial inscriptions and manuscript colophons. Amassing further records through a continued survey of a broader range of sources would allow for a more representative data set and would serve various prosopographical interests. Here, especially the more numerously available colophons oﬀer themselves as particularly rich resources. The evolution of the composition of early modern Digambara saṅghas as sketched in this dissertation, including the disappearance of the muni and the ācārya ranks and the rise of paṇḍitas, can be expected to be conﬁrmed by the study and inclusion of further attestations. Other developments like the shifting signiﬁcation of the bhaṭṭāraka and the ācārya rank still need to be studied further, both diachronically within speciﬁc bhaṭṭāraka lineages and synchronically across the various lineages and traditions. Also needed is an investigation into the history and development of the male brahmacārī, varṇī, kṣullaka, and ailaka ascetic ranks, and the female brahmacāriṇī and kṣullikā ranks in the early modern period and before, and into the roles and position of lay paṇḍitas in the medieval period and prior to their rise in the 18th century CE. Preciously little is known indeed about the conduct and observances of early modern Digambara renouncers, bhaṭṭārakas as well as lower-ranking munis and ācāryas. The crucial element is nudity, the deﬁning marker of ideal Digambara asceticism. Further attestations of bhaṭṭārakas or lowerranking renouncers practicing part-time or full-time nudity can be expected to be found in textual sources. It is not clear however up to which period early modern Digambara renouncers remained continuously naked, and perhaps this varied between diﬀerent regions. A study of the relevant contents of bhaṭṭāraka manuscript collections in terms of scriptures on ascetic conduct still needs to be initiated. Pratikramaṇa (repentance of faults) and similar texts sometimes found in guṭakās for example could give us clues about the daily practices expected of early modern Digambara renouncers. A massive, further archive remains in unpublished inscriptions and manuscript colophons, and much work could be done on their edition and study. Average-sized towns with Digambara populations often feature multiple mandiras, and especially older temples are often populated with large numbers of mūrtis, yantras, and other ritual objects added throughout the centuries. Their inscriptions constitute an immense treasury of historical information on the ascetic lineages, and, through their frequent record of lay donors, also on the lay communities. At many former bhaṭṭāraka seats large manuscript collections (bhaṇḍāra) remain, and smaller collections are often present in mandiras of suﬃcient antiquity. Among the three Balātkāragaṇa branches which this 444 dissertation focused, relatively few sources have been studied of the Śākambharīśākhā. I did not visit a number of smaller towns in the region known to have been related to the Śākambharīśākhās, little work has been done on Śākambharīśākhā icon inscriptions, and the Nāgaura-paṭṭa śāstra-bhaṇḍāra, the largest Digambara manuscript collection of Rajasthan, has been locked up since long. Even the fully accessible manuscript collection of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, hosted at an active research institution in Jayapura, remains an inexhaustible source. At many other places, like Sonāgiri (Madhya Pradesh), I found manuscripts preserved in precarious conditions. Generally, the paucity of published Digambara inscriptions and colophons contrasts the more extensive availability of similar materials from the Śvetāmbara traditions. Even in terms of published materials, and although I have analysed in detail the corpus of colophons and other manuscript materials collected by Kāsalīvāla (1950), more valuable information on the Balātkāragaṇa lineages studied in this dissertation can be expected to be found in the catalogues of the Digambara manuscript collections of Rajasthan which Kāsalīvāla published along with Nyāyatīrtha (Kāsalīvāla 1949; 1954; 1972; Kāsalīvāla & Nyāyatīrtha 1957; 1962), which I have not yet fully explored. While I have used only limited numbers of inscriptions and colophons, my hypotheses and conclusions are in fact validated by their easy and frequent conﬁrmation in these sources rather than ﬂawed by the lack, and in fact impossibility, of an exhaustive study of all the available material. The digital publication of sources like inscriptions and colophons would allow automated searches and other research methods from the digital humanities. Although I also visited sites in Central India, my survey of memorials was focused on Western India, and I visited a far greater density of sites in Rajasthan. This probably goes a long way in explaining why all but one of the memorials commemorating early modern munis and ācāryas have been found in Rajasthan (a single memorial from the Vāgaḍā region across the border in the contemporary state of Gujarat). All paṇḍita memorials discovered similarly stem from Rajasthan. Field trips in Rajasthan were also made particularly productive thanks to the availability of more earlier, published work on the Digambara ascetic lineages, temples, manuscript libraries, and memorials of this region than is the case elsewhere. Even though a similar geographical caveat applies to my study of textual sources, these show that munis and ācāryas also ﬂourished in the bhaṭṭāraka lineages of other parts of Western and Central India. A continued survey of memorials outside of Rajasthan should conﬁrm whether memorials of ācāryas, munis, and paṇḍitas were similarly erected elsewhere. Generally, more research needs to be done in Mālavā, Bundelkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Maharashtra, and the Digambara presence in Saurashtra remains entirely unexplored. The spread of the Terāpantha from the Jayapura region to Central India also needs to be studied, and its current dominance in the Bundelkhand region there may be as recent as the 19th century CE.517 In fact, ethnographic scholarship on Digambara communities would be welcomed, both reviewing the spread of the various Digambara castes and studying Digambara ritual practice. 517 The latter as hypothesised by John Cort (personal communication, 17th May 2024). 445 Similarly, although textual sources also attest munis from the Western and Central Indian Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha lineages, no memorials of lower-ranking Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha and Mūlasaṅgha Senagaṇa renouncers have been found thus far. Our understanding of the history of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha generally remains less well developed than that of the Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa. The study of further textual and epigraphic sources would help to ﬁll out the picture of the lineage bifurcations and distribution of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha traditions and the composition of its saṅghas, and, importantly, would also form an interesting comparison with the Balātkāragaṇa. A dedicated search for the memorials of the earliest renouncers of the 20th century CE ‘muni revival’ could serve to complete the present argument of the continuity of Digambara commemoration practices. I have elsewhere studied the gradual epistemic shifts in the Digambara perspectives on the bhaṭṭārakas from the early modern period up to the early 21st century (Detige 2020a: 204-10), but further research could be done on the impact of colonial and indological discourses, law, modern educational institutions, and the formation of legal trusts on the formation of the long-standing perception of the bhaṭṭārakas, on shifting conceptions of power and legitimacy underlying notions of asceticism, on the formation of contemporary Digambara paṇḍitas and scholars, and even on the development of the contemporary muni saṅghas. Perhaps one of the main desiderata is a comparison of the ﬁndings of this study of the Digambara ascetic traditions of Western and Central India with those of medieval and early modern South India. The earliest available attestations of the Balātkāragaṇa stem from Karnataka and indicate a southern origin of this tradition, which diﬀers from its own origin stories as recorded in paṭṭāvalīs. The continued connections of the northern bhaṭṭāraka lineages to those of South India also stand in need of further study. And a comparative study of the composition of the ascetic saṅghas of early modern South India would also be of much interest. There has been comparatively much scholarly attention to South Indian Digambara memorials, but a full analysis of the history of the lineages attested in their inscriptions and undoubtedly in many other epigraphic and textual sources comparable to that already available for Western and Central India ever since Vidyādhara Joharāpurakara’s 1958 Bhaṭṭāraka Sampradāya seems to be lacking. Limitations in language skills barred me from studying the inscriptions and other primary sources of Karnataka and south Maharashtra. Recent scholarship in Kannada or Marathi may be available, but similarly has not been consulted. Relatedly, it remains to be seen to which degree the formation of the North and West Indian bhaṭṭāraka traditions and lineages related to a focus on speciﬁc non-liberated deities, especially goddesses, similarly as those of South India.518 A second and similarly important major ﬁeld of research yet to be broached is that of the early and late medieval Digambara ascetic lineages and communities, prior to the proliferation of the Balātkāragaṇa and the formalisation of the bhaṭṭāraka rank as the highest ascetic rank. The paucity of sources from the centuries prior to 1400 CE however contrasts the relatively ample availability of sources from the early modern period. We hardly ﬁnd any references to renouncers predating the 15th century CE other than the incumbents of the ascetic lineages. And even for the 518 I thank John Cort for this suggestion (personal communication, 17th May 2024). 446 latter, except for famous litterateurs and philosophers, there is often little or no epigraphic or textual support apart from the much later paṭṭāvalīs. No manuscripts have been preserved from this period, fewer memorials survive (if they were erected in the ﬁrst place), and inscriptions are short and contain little information compared to the longer, relatively standardised early modern memorial inscriptions which include references to the commemorated and consecrating renouncers and their lineages. For aspects like the interactions of bhaṭṭārakas and Digambara merchants and dīvānās with rulers, entirely other archives than those studied in the present dissertation remain to be explored. The manuscript collections of the Rajasthan Oriental Research Institution (RORI) could yield materials of interest from the princely states of Rajasthan as they have been used in the work of Horstmann (2009, 2013) and Cherian (2022). Persian language sources could also contain traces of interactions between Indo-Muslim polities and the bhaṭṭāraka seats. 7.3. Commemoration and liberation My study of Digambara memorials originally aimed at reconstructing the bifurcations and geographical spread of the ascetic lineages. Even the insights about the composition of the early modern ascetic saṅghas developed through it were somewhat unexpected. Ultimately, my ﬁndings went a long way in refuting prevalent ideas about a distinct and in important ways deﬁcient ‘bhaṭṭāraka era’ as a period of decline and discontinuity occasioned by the ‘Muslim rule’ of South Asia. My reﬂections on Jaina commemorative practices and ritual praxis more broadly in the current section pertain to what I believe is the deepest ﬁeld of continuity of the Digambara tradition across the early modern period. I refer to the devotional and ritual praise of asceticism which lies at the heart of Jaina praxis as a core soteriological pathway which underlies commemorative practices as well as temple rituals. To show this commonality, I ﬁrst review the functions of memorials, and then the characteristics of Jaina devotion (bhakti) and ritual veneration (pūjā) more broadly. Presenting a view on the jinas as a kind of ‘special dead’ and Jaina temples as their memorials, Granoﬀ (1992: 194) has proﬀered “the hypothesis that all worship in Jainism […] is in some essential way worship of the dead.” This connects the longstanding but little-known practices of veneration of deceased historical renouncers (and by further extension also living renouncers) with the betterknown ritual veneration of the jinas, relates the otherwise seemingly marginal memorials of renouncers to the mandiras, the central sites of ritual practice, and shows the parallel function of historical renouncers and jinas as exemplary ﬁgures. As we have seen, the veneration of living and deceased early modern and contemporary bhaṭṭārakas (3.5.1-2.) and contemporary Digambara munis (3.5.3.) is indeed performed through the same ritual formats as used in daily Digambara temple rites in relation to jina mūrtis and other ritual objects, namely aṣṭadravya pūjā, āratī, and darśana.519 Both also share a related iconography of pādukās and anthropomorphic depictions. 519 Kāsalīvāla (1979: 106) edits a song of praise from the ﬁrst half of the 16th century CE on the Vāgaḍāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti (Bhuvanakīrti Gīta) in which the poet Brahma Vūcarāja holds that the mere viewing (darśana) of Bhuvanakīrti removes the suﬀering of existence. 447 Death, in the Jain traditions, is a vital issue, since one’s state of mind at the moment of death is regarded as determining the next birth. It is also deemed auspicious to venerate the place of death of ascetics. Rock inscriptions at the Candragiri hill in Śravaṇa Belagolā (Karnataka) claim to indicate the precise spot where the commemorated renouncers and laypeople died the preeminent death of self-willed starvation to death (sallekhanā, santhāra, paṇḍita-maraṇa). According to the long inscription of an early 14th century CE memorial pillar of Sūri Śrutamuni in Śravaṇa Belagola, venerating the places where those whose conduct was free of blemish left for the other world equals venerating those very saints.520 Yet as became clear with many of the sites studied in this dissertation, renouncers’ memorials were typically erected at their cremation sites, not their place of death, and it is these places which became the sites of ritual commemoration. One aspect undergirding Jaina commemorative practices could be the karmic eﬃcacy of relic veneration. Yet, as discussed (3.5.4.), the inclusion of bone relics in early modern Digambara memorials is unconﬁrmed, and Jains rarely express their concerns with it. Flügel (2010b: 472, 475-6) analysed another function of memorials in advancing a network approach to relic worship which can be extended to the veneration of deceased renouncers more broadly. Accordingly, relics and memorials are media of communication and interaction within social systems, and memorials function as nods in devotional and ritual as well as economic and ﬁnancial networks of lay and ascetic devotees and sponsors. They replace the void left after the death of renouncers and allow networks of practice and patronage to persist for some time after his demise by facilitating continued devotion and veneration. This represents what Flügel (2010b: 390) called “the ritual role of the materiality of the dead in contemporary Jaina culture”. These networks ultimately dissolve as devotees and pupils build networks around new, living gurus, and the memory of deceased renouncers fades. The dilapidation of their memorials is an index of this process. With reference to Laqueur (2015), Hatcher e.a. (2021: 4) relatedly observed that the dead continue to work among the living in shaping and structuring history, community, politics, economy, and notions of time and space. Memorials are also symbols of sovereignty (2.4.4.) and serve to bolster the prestige of mendicant lineages. Yet the aspect of early modern Digambara commemorative practices that concerns me most in this section relates to ritual and devotional praxis. Until recently, Jaina ritual and devotion (bhakti) received limited attention in scholarship and were not integrated into the core of scholarly models of the tradition. Rooted in Orientalist descriptions, the latter were instead characterised by conceptions of Jainism as essentially a sober, stern ascetic tradition with little or only secondary place for devotion and ritual (Cort 2010b). Early Western studies of South Asian traditions presented bhakti as a distinct religious movement, notably as a development of Indian monotheism (Sharma 1987; Prentiss 1999: 34) or as a Hindu reform movement (Hazarika 2013; Hawley 2015). Based on a misinterpreted textual source, bhakti was furthermore seen as having originating in South India and only subsequently spread to the north (Prentiss 1999: 31-4). This hampered the understanding of bhakti as a generic element present in various Indian traditions (Werner 1993a, 1993b). Bhakti was instead seen as a path mutually exclusive to that of knowledge (jñāna) and of asceticism, and as a practice singularly associated ‘yatra prayānti paralokamanindyavrttās-sthānasya tasya paripūjanameva teṣāṃ’ (H. Jaina 2006: 282). N. ̥ Śāstrī (1974: 410-424) reproduces the long inscription with a Hindi translation naming it ‘Śrutamuni-paṭṭāvali’. Settar (1989: 145-154) also paraphrases and discusses the inscription. 520 448 with the laity. Bhakti in Jainism, then, could not but be seen as a later, lay accretion to the tradition arisen under the inﬂuence of Hinduism, and ‘original’ Jainism presumed to have been a matter of renouncers exclusively. Hermann Jacobi (1884, cited in Cort 2002b: 63), for example, one of the founding fathers of the Western study of Jainism, believed that “worship had nothing to do with original Buddhism or Jainism, that it did not originate with the monks, but with the lay community […] when the religious development of India found in Bhakti the supreme means of salvation.” Note how closely this pejorative account of bhakti, its corrupting inﬂuence and its juxtaposition to asceticism, is still echoed by an author as recently as Paniker (2010: 262): “historically India opted for bhakti, love and the transpersonal surrender to the Divinity as the way, and the attraction of the ascetic gradually waned.” (emphasis in original) When carrying these presumptions into the ﬁeld, one is quickly struck by the centrality of vivid devotional and ritual practices in the lives of many Jains and perhaps puzzled by the strong involvement of renouncers. And research of the past decades has indeed unseated such conceptions of bhakti as a later, ‘popular’, exclusively lay accretion to the originally purely ascetic ‘core’ of Jainism, and advanced an analysis of the mechanisms through which devotional and ritual practices function as transformative practices.521 John Cort has convincingly argued that bhakti has been an integral part of both laypeople’s and renouncers’ practices since the early Jaina tradition, and that instead of constituting “radically diﬀerent spheres of religious activity” (Cort 2002c: 70), bhakti and asceticism are in many ways related and intertwined, mutually reinforcing practices (Cort 2002b: 719). Devotional practices often focus on asceticism, and ascetic practices (tapas) are in turn often performed in the spirit of bhakti to jinas and gurus (Cort 2002c: 66). Both laypeople and renouncers are encouraged or even required to perform practices of devotion and veneration of renouncers and ascetic teachers. Venerating the guru (guru-vandana) is one of the āvaśyakas, the six daily, obligatory rites for renouncers, and the visiting and venerating of mendicant teachers (guru-upāsti) is one of the six karmans which can be considered as a lay version of the āvaśyakas. “Bhakti,” Cort (2002c: 81) concludes, “is not extraneous to some ascetic core of the Jain tradition but is clearly and unambiguously integrated into central areas of both Jain practice and Jain doctrine”. Jaina theoretical treatises as old as the 2nd century CE Mūlācāra, Ācārya Umāsvati’s Tattvārthasūtra, Mānatuṅga’s 7th century CE Bhaktāmara Stotra, the Āvaśyaka Niryukti, and the Prakrit and Sanskrit Ācārya-bhaktis indeed present bhakti as an essential part of the Jaina path of liberation (mokṣa-mārga) and a salviﬁc practice which is equally valid as asceticism and equanimity and similarly eﬃcacious in the destruction of previously acquired karma, leading to the development of right knowledge (samyag-jñāna) and the inﬂux (āsrava) of tīrthaṅkara-nāma-karma, a type of karma which leads to future existence and deliverance as a jina (P. Jaina 1964: 97; Cort 2002c: 76; Varṇī 2012 (Vol. 3): 197). This applies to devotion of historic renouncers (and ascetic lineages and saṅghas) as much as to liberated jinas (Cort 2002c: 77). Ritual (āratī, pūjā, vidhāna) and devotional (vandana, bhajana, etc.) compositions on contemporary Digambara renouncers commonly mention the worldly as well as and soteriological beneﬁts to be expected from the performance of the practices they accompany. Such compositions use the same metaphorical connotations 521 Babb 1988, 1996; Shāntā 1997; Kelting 2001, 2007; Cort 2002b, 2002c; Johnson 2003; Vallely 2013, 2020; Mundra 2024. 449 associated to the material substances (dravya) used in jina pūjās. A lamp for example is oﬀered to dispel the darkness of ignorance, incense to burn the eight types of karma, and fruit to obtain the fruit of liberation (mokṣa). Jains have thus for long understood devotional practices focused on historical renouncers to be as conducive to liberation as rituals centred on the jinas. Lawrence A. Babb developed a deservedly well-known analysis of the reﬂexive and contemplative nature of Jaina pūjā. Mental veneration (bhāva-pūjā) entails the contemplation of the jina and the qualities and virtues he represents (Babb 1988: 72). And the act of ‘oﬀering’ in material veneration (dravya-pūjā) is a preparatory exercise in renunciation or relinquishment (tyāga), enacting the aspiration of the giver to emulate the jina, a giving up rather than giving to the ‘absent’ jina (Babb 1988: 67; 1996: 174 ﬀ.) Dwelling in eternal bliss at the top of the universe, the liberated jinas are thought to be beyond any desire to act, and are technically unable to intervene on behalf of their devotees. As such, they are ontologically ‘absent’, transactionally nonexistent, and ritually unresponsive. They do not respond to prayers or petitions and dispense no saving grace (Babb 1996: 92). The role of the jina in the ritual process is purely exemplary. He is ﬁxed before the worshipper’s eyes as representing the ideal state of existence which the practitioner aspires to (Ibid.: 75, 92). Pūjā is a ‘self-reﬂexive’ or emulative practice which serves to induce speciﬁc dispositions in the practitioners (Ibid.: 81, 92). At the same time, Jains hold various, often seemingly contradictory but co-existing opinions on the presence or absence of the jina in his mūrtis (Cort 2006b), and pūjās and stotras to the ‘absent’, unresponsive jinas frequently feature expressions of languishing separation (virāha), entreaty (vinati), and petitioning (vinaya). Theoretical Jain sources consider making requests from the liberated jinas a sign of incorrect belief (nidana). In devotional contexts however, such sentiments are not considered inappropriate (Kelting 2007: 130-1), and in fact carry an important function. The liberated jinas may not respond to petitions but still, in the words of Babb (1996: 92), “[the jina] exists as an “other” in the relationship constructed by the rite.” The emotions and mental states which arise in the practitioner in pining for and directly addressing the jinas are as real as those in relation to present dialogical partners. Speciﬁc knowledge and mental dispositions can therefore also be cultivated through poetic, rhetorical registers such as those of the longing and petitioning of ritual praxis. Cort (2002b, 2002c) has furthermore pointed out the importance of the concept of anumodana for understanding the soteriological function of Jain devotional and ritual practices in general, and of the devotion of ascetics and asceticism in speciﬁc. Anumodana (anumati, anumodita) is one of three levels of acting, and as such one of three ways through which positive (puṇya) or negative (pāpa) karma is accumulated. These include one’s own actions (karaṇa), instructions to others to perform certain actions (kāraṇa), and attitudes towards the actions of others expressed through praising (anumodana) or denouncing (nindā) them.522 Anumodana can be glossed as mental approving, participatory seconding, applauding, and sympathetic joy. Given this triple karmic pathway, it is possible to accrue the beneﬁts of asceticism not only though practicing it oneself by See also Zydenbos 1999: 302 n. 9. Theravāda Buddhism also distinguishes between these three levels of acting, and explicitly moors devotion in the path to liberation by listing anumodita as one of the four divine abidings or brahma-vihāras (Patel 2013). 522 450 also by supporting and praising others’ asceticism or asceticism itself (Cort 2002b: 731). The frequent ardor of Jaina devotional practices and their inclusion of song and dance can be seen as applications of this principle and as practices of the praise of asceticism (Ibid.: 733-4). The more zealously one praises asceticism, it is sometimes said, the more karma one can destroy. This also renders unnecessary Shāntā’s (1997: 81) apologetic, sanitised characterisation of mūrti-pūjā as “sober, digniﬁed and characterized by recollectedness”. Beyond this speciﬁc karmic mechanism, ritual practice should also be understood as an embodied and aﬀective learning activity. It takes place in a purposefully designed environment where spatial and architectural arrangements create a multi-sensorial experience with visual, sonic, olfactory, and tactile dimensions. Within this environment, and possibly wearing ritual clothing after having bathed, devotees recite textual compositions by heart or from reading. These contain devotional expressions but often simultaneously constitute repositories of soteriological, doctrinal, philosophical, ethical, mythological, and historical contents. Ritual and devotional texts often deploy mnemonic techniques like numerical lists, rhyme, and reoccurring metaphors. Along with narrative (Vallely 2013, Detige 2020c), ritual is the prime medium through which Jains learn, memorise, meditate on, and come to embody the teachings of their tradition. Such devotional, ritual, and narrative learning strongly diﬀers from the abstract, theoretical learning of doctrines and metaphysics. In fact, philosophical and doctrinal learning in Jaina milieus like evening study groups at mandiras also takes place within an explicitly devotional setting, and is framed by devotional or ritualised practices. Ritual performance, then, functions all at once as a contemplative praxis, an act of renunciation, a learning event, and, through the principle of anumodana, as a karmic participation in the virtues, states of mind, and practices of asceticism praised. This fuller understanding of ritual and devotional practice should help us avoid reducing them to belief. Scholarly accounts are often biased towards prioritising belief as the central and primordial dimension of any religious practice (the so-called 'Protestant bias'), conceiving of rituals as secondary expressions of beliefs. Needham (1972) however problematised belief as a supposedly universal cognitive activity, questioning of “[t]he tacit assumption […] that [belief] denotes a common human capacity which can immediately be ascribed to all men.” (Needham 1972: 3) Babb (1996: 16) indeed already felt that the common descriptions and analyses of religious traditions as systems of belief often carry an unstated but foundational premise of ritual constituting a kind of behaviour that is deductively related to beliefs. The unquestioned scholarly ‘belief’ in the validity of belief as a central category of religious practice and as the single and suﬃcient deﬁning, explanatory touchstone often constrains our understanding of rituals to that of ‘worship’, and the expression and acting out of beliefs which somehow preﬁgure actual practice and whose formation remains under-theorised. Babb (1988, 1996) formulated his observations on the reﬂexivity of Jaina pūjā in the context of a study of the popular Śvetāmbara cult of the Dādāgurus. The Dādāgurus are four sūris of the Kharataragaccha, Jinadatta (1075-1154 CE), Jinacandra ‘Maṇidhārī’ (1140-1166 CE), Jinakuśala (1280-1332 CE), and second, later Jinacandra (1541-1613 CE). They are believed to have been reborn as deities, and to remain active as powerful miracle workers (camatkārī) who can be propitiated for worldly goals through ritual veneration. The Dādāgurus’ popularity is ascribed to their agency as 451 powerful beings to whom one can directly appeal for assistance in one’s worldly aﬀairs (Babb 1996: 126). This agency aligns them with Jaina goddesses and protective, male deities. And it sets them apart from the liberated jinas, who as we saw are ontologically ‘absent’ and unable to intervene on behalf of their devotees.523 Babb (1996: 108) also presented a case study of the puṇyatithi celebrations at the chatrī of the Śvetāmbara Kharataragaccha Muni Chaganasāgara, and through this seemed to drive for an extrapolation of his perspective on the Dādāguru cult to the veneration of deceased Jain renouncers more generally. I have not encountered explicit references to the agency of early modern or contemporary Digambara renouncers believed to be reborn as miracle-working deities.524 Flügel (2011: 8) does describe beliefs in the wish-fulﬁlling properties of relic stūpas of renouncers of the aniconic Śvetāmbara traditions. Their necropoles become pilgrimage sites visited with the intended goal of puriﬁcation, forgiveness of mistakes, and requests for the fulﬁlment of wishes through the grace (krpā) of the deceased ascetics. The practices involved in ̥ this case include donations, meditation, requests for assistance in return for the promise of service, and return visits during which further cash or other oﬀerings are made if the wish is fulﬁlled. Practices focused on the wish-fulﬁlling properties of deceased Jain renouncers thus do seem to be more widely spread than the cult of the Dādāgurus. The agency of renouncers reborn in heavenly realms who can actively intervene on behalf of their devotees to assist in worldly aﬀairs when called upon ritually is not only contrasted to the jinas’ unresponsiveness, but sometimes also presented as ﬁlling a perceived ‘gap’ in Jaina ritual practice and a necessary complement to the ‘diﬃcult’ practice of Jainism. Babb (1996: 130-1) noted the formal similarities between the cults of the Dādāgurus and the jinas, and observed that “[i]f we focus solely on the worshipers, there is hardly any diﬀerence at all between the worship of the Dādāgurus and the Tīrthankars” (Ibid.: 130). In the ﬁnal analysis however, he saw both practices as diﬀerent in content and spirit, because the former is not reﬂexive. Observing that Dādāguru pūjās include introductory sthāpanā mantras which invoke and establish the object of veneration and which are absent in Śvetāmbara jina pūjās, Babb (1996: 71, 129, 131) argued that this indicates the diﬀerence of the ontological status of the Dādāgurus, who can be summoned, to that of the absent jinas. In the Digambara tradition, however, sthāpanā mantras appear both in jina pūjās and in pūjās on historical renouncers. Pūjās of inanimate or abstract concepts are furthermore also performed, focusing on virtues, knowledge (jñāna), scripture (śāstra), speciﬁc jina icons, famous temples, pilgrimage places (tīrthas, for example nirvāṇa-bhūmīs, siddha-kṣetras, atiśaya-kṣetras), or elements of sacred geography (Pañcameru, Nandīśvaradvīpa, etc.; Cort 2003: 282). The same ritual format, including the invocation, is thus deployed independent of the ontological status of its object. Digambara Jains rarely seem to Babb (1996: 206, n. 22) noted the cult of Mahāvīra’s disciple Gautama Svāmī as a possible early precedent for the cult of the Dādāgurus. As discussed, in manuscripts, bhaṭṭāraka pūjās are often found along with ritual texts related to the veneration of the gaṇadharas, which indicates a connection between the veneration of bhaṭṭārakas and gaṇadharas. (2.1.2.) On the Śvetāmbara veneration of Gautama, see also Cort 1995: 88-94. 523 In a eulogistic composition by a pupil of his, the late eighteenth century CE Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti of the Balātkāragaṇa Kārañjāśākhā is said to have been reborn as a deity (Joharāpurakara 1958: 69-70, lekha 190). As we saw, the iconography of an early 19th century CE Vāgaḍāśākhā memorial may also indicate a popular cult of the commemorated bhaṭṭāraka. (5.6.4.) 524 452 venerate deceased ascetics because of their agency as miracle workers. Nor do they brood much over the unresponsiveness of the jinas. The question of the responsiveness of both then turns into a non-issue, and longing (virāha) and petitioning (vinaya) can instead be understood as constituting a mental register for engineering the self. Babb (1996: 133) also noted that the Dādāgurus are depicted and remembered as the human renouncers they were in their previous existence, not as the deities they have now become, and indicated that this ascetic identity may serve to legitimise their veneration. I similarly propose to focus on the practical commonalities of the veneration of deceased renouncers and jinas, rather than starting oﬀ from an a priori diﬀerentiation between ritual practices based on the diﬀering ontological status of the objects of veneration. The miracles performed by the Dādāgurus and the wishes they fulﬁl carry a key signiﬁcance in their cult, and indeed appear as a plausible and seemingly suﬃcient explanation for the success of the cult. Yet I feel a singular focus on the aspect of agency and miracle working of deceased Jaina renouncers may occlude a full account of the ritual veneration of historical renouncers, placing the interpretative attention squarely on issues of belief. A singular focus on the ‘absence’ of the jinas similarly constrains the appreciation of their ritual veneration to ‘worship’ of a transcendent entity. Reducing ritual practice to underlying beliefs in the ontological status of the ‘worshipped’ entities constrains a fuller understanding of the epistemic functions of ritual and its inherent and irreducible transformative eﬀects, which are coded in immanence and embodiment. The veneration of deceased and living renouncers and ‘absent’ jinas have a shared focus on the virtues and ideals of exemplary asceticism. As such, I argue, they operate as a similar, contemplative and potentially transformative process. Next to their employment of the same devotional and ritual formats (pūjā, āratī, darśana, abhiṣeka) and iconographies (mūrti, pādukā), the practices of veneration of jinas, munis (Digambara or Śvetāmbara), dādāgurus, and bhaṭṭārakas all focus on praising ideal or idealised ascetics and ascetic ideals. Ritual texts performed during the veneration of jinas and deceased renunciants alike abound with references to ascetic virtues like detachment and equanimity. As such, their recitation and performance constitutes not the ‘worship’ of transcendental objects but a decidedly performative and embodied way of learning, a meditation on renunciation, and a self-reﬂexive, distinctly liberation-oriented praxis. The ritualised eulogy serves to deepen the aspiration to emulate the liberated and non-liberated renouncers and to share in their accomplishments through the practice of anumodana. While appearing as fundamentally diﬀerent practices when approached from a doctrinal perspective, the veneration of liberated, unresponsive jinas and non-liberated, deceased and living renouncers can thus also be seen as constitute a single ‘technology of the self’. Foucault ([1982] 1997: 225) famously described the latter as “permit[ting] individuals to eﬀect by their own means, or with the help of others, a certain number of operations on their own bodies and souls, thoughts, conduct, and way of being, so as to transform themselves in order to attain a certain state of happiness, purity, wisdom, perfection, or immortality.” The various Jaina rituals discussed constitute an embodied contemplative practice, a mental culture constructing practical knowledge and facilitating self-transformation and liberation. Long demoted as lay accretions to Jainism’s presumed ascetic core, the perspective developed here restores ritual and devotional 453 practices to their position as idiosyncratic, operational tools in the construction of the self. They are foundational to the Jaina traditions as one of the main pathways through which Jains learn about their tradition, irreducible to other forms of learning. In approaching ritual veneration as an epistemic technology and a contemplative as well as constructive practice, we end up with an appreciation of the ritual veneration of deceased Jaina renouncers and of Jain ritual more broadly, moving beyond the narrow attempt to deduce static, pre-deﬁned, theological convictions from their expressions in ritual texts. The veneration of both deceased, historical renouncers and of jinas similarly spark oﬀ a potentially transformative, knowledge-generating process. In this understanding, pūjā is an epistemic tool deployed in similar terms and similarly operative in the veneration of absent jinas, deceased renouncers, objects, places, and abstract concepts. While this does not deny the element of the miracle working agency of deceased renouncers, so obvious in the case of the Dādāgurus, it does not fail to highlight other, at least as important aspects like the ascetic identity of the venerated individuals, jinas and historic renouncers alike, the deemed karmic beneﬁts of the supportive praise of renunciation (anumodana), and the function of these practices in the maintenance of networks of devotion. That living and deceased historical Jaina renouncers can stand as the object of veneration as much as jinas, and that by extension devotion to them can be deemed similarly salviﬁc, need not surprise us by itself, since fully initiated renouncers are also counted among the pañcaparameṣṭhins, the ﬁve categories of venerable beings. Yet, from the Mughal period onwards, the Western and Central Indian Digambara bhaṭṭārakas were often and probably increasingly clothed and sedentary, and as such do not count as the Digambara tradition’s ideal, naked, itinerant, and possessionless ascetics. Still, as became suﬃciently clear in this dissertation, the former eulogy and veneration of bhaṭṭārakas as ideal ascetics is suﬃciently well-attested, and in need of further analysis. The rigid distinction which Carrithers (1991: 285) drew between munis and bhaṭṭārakas as respectively charismatic leaders and routine leaders long epitomised scholarly perceptions of the bhaṭṭārakas. Yet Carrithers (1989: 225) elsewhere also provided a key to understanding the devotion to bhaṭṭārakas as ideal renouncers, remarking that among contemporary munis, “[e]ven those of the most modest accomplishments exemplify extraordinary asceticism and selfmortiﬁcation, and are accorded respect by most laity on those grounds alone.” Silber (1981: 174) similarly observed that Buddhist monks have potency as symbols of renunciation and high values, and need to conﬁrm to a stylised, idealised image rather than necessarily practice full renunciation. Silber (Ibid.) adds that it is the diﬀerentiation between monk and layman which is crucial and which needs to be maintained, constructed by the former’s renunciation, initiation, and ascetic career. Renouncers thus carry a symbolic function as representatives of general ideals, and may be respected and venerated as exempliﬁcations of ideal ascetics and incarnations of ascetic ideals, irrespective of the degree to which they follow all rules and regulations. In their own historic setting, the Western and Central Indian bhaṭṭārakas could represent ascetic ideals although not ideal ascetics, and stand as the object of veneration and devotion for both laity and lower-ranking renouncers. The bhaṭṭārakas carried a clout of prestige and authority in the eyes of their devotees 454 as the highest ranking renouncers of their day and as leaders of the ascetic lineages (charisma ex oﬃcio), in individual cases no doubt also thanks to their virtues, learnedness, etc. (charisma ex gratio), and because projecting it onto them served to continue the central, salviﬁc practice of devotion to living renouncers. Another element in the veneration of Jaina renouncers, overlapping with the focus on their renunciation, is the devotion to them as teachers, preceptors, and guides on the spiritual path (guru-bhakti).525 Be it against a background of puzzlement over their veneration as ideal renouncers or otherwise, the veneration of bhaṭṭārakas points out the importance of bhakti and more speciﬁcally of devotion of ascetic ideals as an essential part of the Jain tradition. This much comes out more clearly when the tradition is described not as a system of doctrines but as a set of deeply engrained, cultural mechanisms and attitudes persisting in varying situations. The classical, textbased approach to Jainism, and to Indian traditions more broadly, has tended to sort out doctrines as the foundation of the tradition and their transmission as forming the identity of its ‘followers’. Understanding the importance of bhakti and the epistemic functioning of commemorative and other rituals sensitises us to what Jainism and being or rather becoming Jain is really about. Although pervasively present in the archive and the ﬁeld, this dimension is blotted out in descriptions which present isolated and reiﬁed doctrines as constituting the core of the traditions, relegating devotion, as presumably an exclusively lay praxis, to the marginal sphere of later accretions, and leaving the bhaṭṭārakas of Western and Central India no other room than the niche of the ‘cleric’ or ‘priest’. 7.4. The continuity of the Digambara tradition across the early modern period Commemorative practices have often been neglected as a seemingly marginal phenomenon in the Jaina traditions. Much of my study of Digambara memorials was also geared towards mining their epigraphic contents for historiographical purposes. Yet memorials also turned out to be a perfect medium to grasp the continuity of the Digambara tradition throughout the second millennium CE. Digambara commemoration practices show a remarkable continuity in terms of the architectural and iconographic forms of the memorials, the ritual formats used, and the epistemic function of this ritual practice. There is suﬃcient evidence to speak of a continuum of Digambara memorials in Western India from the late medieval to the contemporary period, and sometimes single spots have served as Digambara commemoration sites for ﬁve centuries and more. The iconographic continuity is but an external marker of the continuity of ritual practice and its intended karmic and salviﬁc beneﬁts. Despite, undoubtedly, deeper epistemic shifts among ritual practitioners in ﬁelds like ascetic legitimacy and religious identity, the continuity of ritual formats and forms used is striking. The erection of memorials of lay paṇḍitas in the 19th century CE is also an index of the signiﬁcance of commemoration practices in the Digambara tradition, continued even in the absence of renouncers to be commemorated. As an ubiquitous feature within the various Jaina traditions, memorials of renouncers and other important individuals Cort (2002c: 82) has suggested that the veneration of living gurus as practiced in the mendicant traditions might even have been an important factor in the development of bhakti. 525 455 deserve to be highlighted within the broader architectural and ritual Digambara Jaina landscape. Probably one of the generic functions they carry for Jains is showing Jainism to be a continued, living tradition. Commemorative practices appear as an indispensable Jaina practice. In the previous section, I have referred to various elements underlying the ritual veneration of deceased renouncers, including the continuation of social networks, possibly relic veneration and wish-fulﬁlment, devotion to teachers (guru-bhakti) and ascetic leaders (ācārya-bhakti), embodied, contemplative ritual learning, and especially the praise of asceticism as a secondary way to practice it (anumodana), arguably the most widespread Jaina technology of the self. The veneration of living and deceased renouncers is a pervasive element of the Digambara tradition from the early medieval to the contemporary period, right across the early modern era. During the latter period, bhaṭṭārakas were the logical object of devotional and ritual practices as the highest-ranking renouncers. In the relationship their devotees constructed to them, the bhaṭṭārakas stood as representations of the same ideal as the contemporary munis for Digambara Jains nowadays. Through this, the veneration of the ascetic ideal continued unabated even when ideal, naked and peripatetic renouncers were hard to come by. Focusing on the continued practices of commemoration and praise of asceticism in the ‘bhaṭṭāraka era’ shows the Digambara tradition as forming a continuous stream across the early modern period, instead of barely and seemingly against all odds surviving the supposedly purely disruptive Islamic period, as it appears from a historiography framed by a contemporary epistemic framework of antagonistic religious identities and the demonisation of muslims. This goes a long way in answering the questions which Carrithers (1990: 152) asked about “the spectacle of an ascetic religion [the Digambara tradition] that has got along very well without the ascetics”: “[H]ow can we account for large stretches of the Digambara world for perhaps centuries before Santisagar [Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’], when munis were unknown outside isolated pockets, and the preservation of Jain texts and teaching lay in the hands of bhaṭṭāraks, upādhyes [South Indian lay ritual specialists], and the laity, none of whom observed the original project or reproduced themselves by muni dīkṣā? […] One could start at the beginning and unravel events and their causes until we knew how […] bhaṭṭāraks and upādhyes became the custodians of Jain practices and attitudes. But is it possible to point to some more general principles which would be true of both decline and revival, which would point to some continuity and therefore make more compelling the image of a stream?” (Carrithers 1990: 156) I diﬀer from several of the elements underlying Carrithers’ questions, like the juxtaposition of munis to bhaṭṭārakas, the tropes of decline and revival, the premise of an ‘original project’, and the underlying, strict periodisation. The bhaṭṭārakas did reproduce themselves by muni dīkṣā and by what at that time was a still higher initiation, their devotees venerated them as ideal renouncers carrying forward the tradition, and, as I discuss next, today’s munis are ultimately not all that diﬀerent from them. Yet I ﬁnd much of value in the inkling of an answer which Carrithers provided to his own questions about the conundrum of the continuation of the Digambara tradition. Carrithers (1990: 159) observed that “the minimal continuity of historical streams is discernible in 456 [a.o.] a bundle of speciﬁc automatisms […]”, and that “[e]ven when the original project was no longer embodied in actual practice, it lived on at one remove.” Although the Digambara ascetic ideal may for a long time not have been embodied in living, naked, and itinerant renouncers, it continued to be constructed in the devotional practices and ritual veneration by the laity and the lower-ranking renouncers of the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas. These ritual technologies, I aver, formed the crucial strand in that ‘bundle of automatisms’, and as such both constituted and occasioned a deep, selfreproducing continuity or ‘stream’ across the early modern period. The presumed dichotomy of bhaṭṭārakas and munis, or rather the rhetorically constructed gap between the early modern bhaṭṭārakas and the contemporary munis, can also be problematised by revisiting the activities of the latter. Digambara laypeople and renouncers often cultivate an idealised depiction of today’s munis as jungle-dwelling ascetics without ties to the world. Yet, especially the leading ācāryas are closely involved with various aspects of lay society, playing active roles in the lives of local communities and holding considerable responsibilities. They consecrate icons, direct temple construction and renovation projects, visit mandiras on a daily basis, and typically reside at temple complexes where local devotees come to meet and consult with them. They oﬃciate at functions and festivals, appear on television channels and provide social media feeds for their devotees. And they stand, or sit, as the objects of material veneration themselves (3.5.3.). For their preaching and during other public events, contemporary Digambara munis, especially ācāryas, are seated on thrones which themselves are typically lower than the bhaṭṭāraka seats but which are in turn are raised on high stages. Terms of royal imagery only seem to have intensiﬁed in relation to the contemporary munis, for whom the most common term of address is mahārāja (great king). Prior to his cremation, the body of Ācārya Vidyāsāgara (d. 18th February 2024 CE) was kept on display seated on a wooden throne with the political map of India carved into the high backrest. In several senses, the ‘oﬃce’ of the contemporary munis is thus not fundamentally diﬀerent from that of the former bhaṭṭārakas of Western and Central India. Gough (2020) similarly showed the likeness between the activities of a succession of 18th-19th century CE Śvetāmbara yatis in Varanasi and a 19th-20th century CE Śvetāmbara muni. As we saw, bhaṭṭārakas are often remembered as having been miracle workers while alive, both in historical sources and in living memory. (2.1.3., 2.4.3.) While this may be found contrasted to contemporary Digambara munis, who supposedly solely engage in asceticism, some the latter too are known as mantra specialists or as having performed miraculous feats. One recurrent narrative template concerns renouncers retrieving buried or hidden mūrtis. Muni Sudhāsāgara reportedly procured icons carved from semi-precious stones from underground chambers of mandiras in among others Sāṅgānera and Cāndakheḍī, where they were guarded by giant snakes or mythic creatures who could only be subdued by a hardened ascetic. Ācārya Yogīndrasāgara is similarly said to have discovered hidden mūrtis in Sāgavāṛā through his superhuman cognition. Far from detracting from their prestige as ascetics, the performance of such miraculous feats only adds to it, and in fact proves their ascetic prowess and the powers (siddhi) they developed through their asceticism (tapas). Somewhat similar to what Cort famously argued for worldly wellbeing and renunciation (Cort 2001), and for asceticism and devotion (Cort 2002b, 2002c; see 7.3.), asceticism and miracle working do not constitute irreconcilable domains, today as little as in the early 457 modern period. This helps to further dissolve all too sharp rhetorical oppositions between ‘clerical’ or ‘ritualistic’ bhaṭṭārakas and ‘ascetic’, ‘spiritual’ munis, and in transcending the conceptual cleavage wrought by historiographical narratives between the ‘bhaṭṭāraka era’ and the ‘muni revival’. Rather than representing a novelty ex nihilo, a return to an imagined golden age, or a revival after a supposedly purely disruptive Islamic period, contemporary Digambara asceticism, then, clearly stands in deep continuity to the bhaṭṭāraka lineages. And the commemoration of bhaṭṭārakas is ultimately 'merely' an instance of the veneration of deceased Jaina renouncers, itself a continuation of the devotion to living historical renouncers, which is in turn a form of the praising and applauding (anumodana) of asceticism, better-known as practiced focused on jinas. In the ﬁnal analysis, these are all similarly instances of a single but multi-faceted, fundamental, longstanding, and still continued Jaina technology of the self. 458 APPENDIX I. ḌHŪṆḌHĀḌA-, VĀGAḌĀ-, AND ŚĀKAMBHARĪŚĀKHĀ MEMORIALS Town Site Commemorated Year individuals Lineage Type of memorial Inscri ption Secti on Ajamera Ānteḍa Nasīyā Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnakīrti (I) s. 1572 Śākambharīśākhā (undivided) pādukā on cabūtarā #6.1 6.2.2. (Bhaṭṭāraka/ Maṇḍalācārya) Mahendrakīrti s. 1765 Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇachatrī #6.2 6.2.2. Paṇḍita Hemarāja s. 17?? Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇachatrī #6.16 6.2.6. Ācārya Viśālakīrti s. 1782 prob. Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇacabūtarā #6.11 6.2.4. Ācārya Bhānukīrti s. 1801 most prob. Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇacabūtarā #6.12 6.2.4. Unidentiﬁed (prob. paṇḍita) s. prob. Ajamera-paṭṭa 18[0?]3 caraṇacabūtarā #6.17 6.2.6. Bhaṭṭāraka [Maṇḍalācārya?] Ratnakīrti (II) s. 1802-3 0 (inscr. s. 1766) Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇachatrī #6.3 6.2.3. Bhaṭṭāraka [Maṇḍalācārya] Vidyānandi s. 1810 Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇachatrī #6.4 6.2.3. (Bhaṭṭāraka?) [Maṇḍalācārya] Anantakīrti prob. s. 1810 Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇachatrī #6.6 6.2.3. Bhaṭṭāraka [Maṇḍalācārya] Bhavanabhūṣaṇ a s. 1810 Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇachatrī #6.5 6.2.3. Paṇḍita Vakasarāma s. 1812? prob. Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇacabūtarā #6.18 6.2.6. Ācārya Ratnabhūṣaṇa s. 1813 prob. Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇacabūtarā #6.13 6.2.4. Ācārya Devendrakīrti s. 1814 prob. Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇacabūtarā #6.14 6.2.4. Ācārya Tilakabhūṣaṇa s. 1821 prob. Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇacabūtarā #6.15 6.2.4. Paṇḍita Rāmacandra s. 1827 Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇacabūtarā #6.19 6.2.6. Paṇḍita Rūpacanda s. 1828 Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇacabūtarā #6.20 6.2.6. Paṇḍita Malūkacanda s. 1828 Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇacabūtarā #6.21 459 6.2.6. Town Āmera Aṅkleśvara (Gujarat) Site Commemorated Year individuals Lineage Type of memorial Inscri ption Secti on Paṇḍita Akṣayarāma s. 1828 Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇacabūtarā #6.22 6.2.6. Paṇḍita Tulasīdāsa s. 1828 Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇacabūtarā #6.23 6.2.6. Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti+ [memorial probably discovered] s. 1831? (s. 1811+) Ajamera-paṭṭa chatrī - 6.2.3. Bhaṭṭāraka Trilokendrakīrti s. 1838 Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇachatrī #6.7 6.2.5. Paṇḍita Viradhīcanda s. [18]55 prob. Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇacabūtarā #6.24 6.2.6. Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti s. 1892 Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇachatrī #6.8 6.2.5. Paṇḍita Navanidhirāma s. 1928 Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇacabūtarā #6.25 6.2.6. Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti + Paṇḍita Viradhīcanda + Paṇḍita Mahipāla s. 1992 Ajamera-paṭṭa multi#6.9 pādukā slab in modern building 6.2.6. Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhuṣaṇa + paṇḍitas Goviṃdalāla, Caturabhuja, Sadāsukha, [?]nānandarāma, Motī, Ajītamala, [Mohana?]lāla, Nemicandra s. 1992 Ajamera-paṭṭa multi#6.10 pādukā slab in modern building 6.2.6. Baṛe Dhaṛe kī Nasiyā Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa s. 1939+ Ajamera-paṭṭa chatrī / 6.2.5. Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti ? [s. 1691-1 722] Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā caraṇachatrī #4.7 4.3.6. Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti n.d. [s. 1733-7 0] Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā caraṇachatrī #4.8 Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti n.d. [s. 1733-7 0] Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā caraṇachatrī #4.9 Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti s. 1771 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā caraṇachatrī #4.10 lineage s. 1845 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā kīrtistambha #4.15 in chatrī 4.3.9. ? s. 1756 Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā pādukā 5.5.1. Cintāmaṇi Pārśvanātha Mandira 460 #5.35 Town Site Commemorated Year individuals Lineage Type of memorial Inscri ption Secti on Āvāṃ Nasīyā (Śāntinātha Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra) Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra s. 1593 Uttaraśākhā niṣedhikā #4.1 4.3.2. Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra s. 1593 Uttaraśākhā niṣedhikā #4.2 Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra s. 1593 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā niṣedhikā #4.3 Bagarū Bassī Nasiyāṃ Pārśvanātha Nasiyāṃjī two unidentiﬁed, undated caraṇa-chatrīs, prob. ācārya or paṇḍita, prob. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā - two unidentiﬁed, undated caraṇa-chatrīs, prob. paṇḍita, prob. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā - Ācārya Kanakakīrti s. 1750 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā (pāduk ā), s. 1781 (chatrī) caraṇachatrī #4.12 unidentiﬁed (prob. ācārya) ? [prob. betwe en s. 1781 and s. 1828] prob. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā chatrī - Ācārya Mahīcandra s. 1828 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā caraṇachatrī #4.13 unidentiﬁed (prob. ācārya or paṇḍita) ? [prob. after s. 1828] prob. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā chatrī - 4.3.1 6. 4.3.8. Bhānapura Digambara Baḍā Mandira ? s. 1780 poss. Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā niṣedhikā / 5.5.3. Bijauliyāṃ Pārśvanātha Atiśaya Kṣetra Hemakīrti (no rank) s. 1456 Uttaraśākhā niṣedhikā / 4.3.1. Bāī Āgamasiri s. 1483 Uttaraśākhā niṣedhikā / Paṇḍita Ḍuṅgarasidāsa s. 1911 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā caraṇachatrī #4.24 Paṇḍita Śivalāla s. 1949 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā caraṇachatrī #4.25 Paṇḍita Sadāsevārāmasukha s. 1949 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā caraṇachatrī #4.26 Paṇḍita Ratnalāla s. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā 19[5?]6 caraṇachatrī #4.27 ? ? ? niṣedhikā - ? ? ? cabūtarā - Paṇḍita Dhanarāja s. 1888 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā caraṇachatrī #4.22 Unidentiﬁed (paṇḍita) ? caraṇachatrī - Būndī Caurū Nasyājī Nasīyā prob. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā 461 4.3.17 . 4.3.14 . Town Cākasū Site Commemorated Year individuals Lineage Type of memorial Inscri ption Unidentiﬁed (repurposed) ? prob. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā chatrī - Bhaṭṭāraka Nasiyāṃjī Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti s. 1886 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā caraṇachatrī #4.20 4.3.11 . Śiva Ḍūṅgarī Unidentiﬁed s. 1593+ niṣedhikā+ / 4.3.4. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā+ four unidentiﬁed chatrīs, ca. mid-17th cent. CE, prob. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Secti on - near Śiva Ḍūṅgarī Unidentiﬁed ? Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā? chatrī - Gvāliyara Nasīhājī Bhaṭṭāraka Kanakakīrti s. 1972 Nāgaura-paṭṭa caraṇacabūtarā #6.30 6.4.2. Īḍara Saṃbhavanāt ha Mandira Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti s. 1887 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ caraṇachatrī #5.53 5.6.5. Pārśvanātha Jinālaya Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II) + Brahmacārī Lahu + Ācārya Devacanda + Brahmacārī Lakṣmīcanda + Brahmacārī Dalīcanda s. 1855 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ multi#5.51 pādukā slab -52 5.6.5. Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti s. 1853 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā caraṇachatrī #4.16 4.3.1 0. Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemendrakīrti s. 1853 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā caraṇachatrī #4.17 Unidentiﬁed s. 1853 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā pādukā on pillar #4.18 Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti s. 1881 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā caraṇachatrī #4.19 Nasiyāṃ Śyojī Godhā Paṇḍita Kesarī Siṅha s. 1880 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā pādukā in tibārā #4.21 4.3.12 . Bijairāma jī Pāṇḍyā Mandira Paṇḍita n.d. (> Amolakacanda?+ s. 1890? +) Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā+ pādukā in shrine - 4.3.13 . Unidentiﬁed (probably paṇḍita) ? prob. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā pādukā in shrine - Jayapura 4.3.4. Maheṣāṇā (Gujarat) ? Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti+ ? undivided Vāgaḍāśākhā niṣedhikā / 5.1.1. Nāgaura Bīsapantha Baṛe Mandira Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalabhūṣaṇa s. 1863 Nāgaura-paṭṭa pādukā #6.29 6.4.1. Naugāmā Kalyāṇa Ṭhākura Mandira Muni Prabhācandra s. 1564 Vāgaḍāśākhā spec. niṣedhikā in chatrī #5.13 5.3.3. Nasiyājī lineage s. 1571 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ kīrtistambha / in chatrī 462 5.3.5. Town Site Commemorated Year individuals Lineage Type of memorial Inscri ption Secti on Ācārya Jñānakīrti n.d. Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā #5.1 5.3.2. Ācārya Ratnakīrti n.d. Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā niṣedhikās in communal chatrī #5.2 5.3.2. Ācārya Vinayacandra s. 1594 #5.5 5.3.3. Muni Devanandi illegibl e (ca. 1594?) Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ #5.8 5.3.3. Ācārya Haribhūṣaṇa s. 1601 Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā #5.6 5.3.3. Ācārya Yaśakīrti s. 16[1/2] 8 Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā #5.3 5.3.2. poss. Ācārya (Guṇa?)kīrti s. 1638 Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā #5.7 5.3.3. unidentiﬁed n.d. ? - 5.3.1. (Maṇḍal)ācārya Jinacandra s. 1658 Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā #5.4 5.3.2. brahmacārī? 16(63?) - #5.12 5.3.4. Brahmacārī Gakarasā (poss. post s. 1691) Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā ? #5.11 5.3.4. Brahmacārī Laṣamaṇa s. 169(1?) - #5.9 5.3.4. Brahmacārī Satā s. 1691 Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā (prob.) #5.10 5.3.4. Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā (& Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā?) ̥ Phāgī Candraprabhū Paṇḍita Nasiyāṃ Jayacanda s. 1924 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā caraṇacabūtarā #4.23 4.3.15 . R̥ ṣabhadevaKeśarīyājī Candragiri Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti s. 186(6? ) Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ caraṇachatrī #5.50 5.6.4. ? ? prob. Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ repurposed chatrī - Brahmacārī Ratnasāgara s. 157[5?] Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ #5.26 5.4.4. Ācārya Dharmakīrti s. 1579 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ niṣedhikās in communal chatrī #5.20 5.4.3. Muni Jayakīrti s. 1602 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ #5.24 5.4.3. unidentiﬁed s. 1608 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ #5.30 5.4.1. unidentiﬁed s. 1619 Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā #5.31 5.4.1. Muni Siṅhanandi s. 1627 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā? ̥ #5.25 5.4.3. unidentiﬁed brahmacārī Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ #5.27 5.4.4. Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyājī s. 162(?) 463 Town Site Jūnā Mandira Nayā Mandira Pagelejī Nasīyā Commemorated Year individuals Lineage Bhaṭṭāraka Sumatikīrti s. 1620-3 0s Maṇḍalācārya Guṇacandra Inscri ption Secti on Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ #5.14 5.4.2. s. 1655 Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā #5.18 5.4.2. unidentiﬁed brahmacārī s. 1(6) (??) Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā #5.29 5.4.4. Maṇḍalācārya Sakalacandra s. 1673 Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā #5.19 5.4.2. unidentiﬁed s. 1699 Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā #5.33 5.4.1. Ācārya Kalyāṇakīrti s. 1725 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā? ̥ #5.21 5.4.3. Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣacandra s. 1726 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ #5.15 5.4.2. Ācārya Jagatkīrti s. 1739 Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā #5.22 5.4.3. unidentiﬁed ācārya s. 1749 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ #5.23 5.4.3. unidentiﬁed (poss. ācārya) ? poss. Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ #5.32 5.4.3. Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti + lineage s. 1769 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ pādukā + #5.16 niśedhikā-17 kīrtistambha in chatrī 5.4.5. unidentiﬁed brahmacārī ? ? caraṇacabūtarā #5.28 5.4.4. unidentiﬁed ? ? caraṇacabūtarā - 5.4.1. lineage s. 1610 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ kīrtistambha #5.34 5.1.4. Bhaṭṭāraka Devacandra s. 1822 Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā pādukā + niṣedhikā #5.37 -38 5.5.2. Bhaṭṭāraka Mahicandra + prob. Bhaṭṭāraka Nemicandra s. 1881 Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā double pādukā #5.39 unidentiﬁed (hypothetically, Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti [II]?) s. 1802 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ pādukā + niṣedhikā #5.42 -43 5.6.1. unidentiﬁed (hypothetically, Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmacandra?) n.d. Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā ? caraṇachatrī #5.36 5.5.2. Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra + Bhaṭṭāraka Hemacandra s. 1905 Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā caraṇachatrī (double pādukā) #5.41 5.5.2. prob. paṇḍita s. 1905 Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā chatrī #5.40 464 Type of memorial Town Site Commemorated Year individuals Lineage Type of memorial Inscri ption Sākhūna Nasīyā Paṇḍita Vimanarāma s. 1887 Ajamera-paṭṭa caraṇachatrī #6.26 6.3. paṇḍitas Varddhamāna + Devakaraṇa s. 1918 ? (possibly operating independent from Ajamera-paṭṭa) chatrī with double pādukā #6.27 paṇḍitas Pannālāla + Amīcandra + Phatelāla + Yugarāja s. 1992 ? (consecrated by Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbent) chatrī with multipādukā slab #6.28 Nasiyā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti s. 1696 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā pādukā #4.6 4.3.5. Saṅghijī Mandira Unidentiﬁed s. 1783 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā niṣedhikā #4.11 4.3.7. Surapura ? Bhaṭṭāraka Rāmacandrakīrti s. 1939 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ caraṇachatrī #5.57 5.6.6. Sūrata (Gujarat) Vidyānandi Kṣetra Bhaṭṭāraka Rāmakīrti (I)+ s. 1703+ Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ / 5.6.3. Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti?+ n.d.+ pādukās on vedi in open air Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti?+ s. 1825+ / Nandīvijaya?+ s. 1825+ / ?+ s. 1825+ / Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti+ s. 1863+ / Bhaṭṭāraka Rāmakīrti (II)+ s. 1863+ / Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti+ s. 1887+ / Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra+ s. 1589+ Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā niṣedhikā+ / Ācārya Harṣakīrti s. 1681 Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā caraṇachatrī #4.4 Candraprabhu ? (jina?) Caityālaya, Āyaṛa Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti s. 1726 - pādukā #5.47 5.6.2. s. 1769 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ pādukā + niśedhikā in chatrī #5.48 -49 5.6.2. Śantinātha Mandira, Aśoka Nagara s. 1759 Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā ̥ twin chatrī with pādukā + niśedhikā and niśedhikā #5.44 -46 5.6.2. Sāṅgānera Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha Udayapura Nasiyā Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti + Ācārya Viśvabhūṣaṇa 465 Secti on / 4.3.3. 466 APPENDIX II. INSCRIPTIONS This appendix oﬀers an edition of memorial inscriptions and a few selected other inscriptions related to the Balātkāragaṇa Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā (4.), Vāgaḍāśākhā (5.),526 and Śākambharīśākhā (6.).527 For each of these branches, the inscriptions appear per ﬁnding spot, in the order in which the sites are discussed in the respective Chapters 4-6. Per site, the inscriptions are ﬁrstly ordered according to the rank of the commemorated individuals (bhaṭṭāraka > maṇḍalācārya > ācārya > muni > brahmacārī > paṇḍita), and then according to antiquity. The ﬁrst three sections of this appendix (1., 2., 3.) are registers of the inscriptions included for each branch, with name of commemorated individual(s) and type of memorial (or other type of inscription), recorded year, and location. My editions follow an adapted version of the transliteration and editorial conventions of the DHARMA project.528 Compounds are optionally hyphenated. Established short compounds are not hyphenated (e.g., mahārāja). Vowel sandhi is never resolved (e.g., rājādhirāja). The following markup is applied: ⟨1⟩, ⟨2⟩, ⟨3⟩, etc. line n. 1, 2, 3, etc. of the inscription (x?) tentatively read text (x) unclear but conﬁdently read text (?), (??) (kā/kī), (a/e/ai) […] [1*], [2*] [ca. 1*], [ca. 2*] one, two unrecognised character(s) two or more possible readings of a single character lacuna of indeﬁnite length lacuna with length of one, two character(s) lacuna with estimated length of one, two character(s) [1×], [2×] lacuna of one, two illegible character(s) [1+], [2+] lacuna of one, two character(s) with writing altogether lost _ blank space 526 For each, speciﬁed whether Brhatśākhā or Laghuśākhā. ̥ 527 Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa unless when speciﬁed diﬀerently (only #6.29 and #6.30). See Balogh & Griﬃths 2020. Elements of the DHARMA project conventions which I do not follow are the usage of uppercase vowels to represent full vowel akṣaras, and the edition of visarga by h·. My _[1]_ replaces the DHARMA project’s _1_. Additions of my own are x*, {xxxx?}, and ¶. See Bhattacharya 1995 on the latter symbol. 528 467 _[1]_, _[3]_ ⟦x⟧ blank space of approximately one, three character(s) wide scribal deletion ⟦[1×]⟧ scribal deletion of one, now illegible character ⟨⟨rtti⟩⟩ scribal insertion above the locus · (centredot) virāma x* sic., spelling mistake in original, not a typo in the edition ¶ siddham (incl. variations) {xxxx?} problematic passage, best possible, but non-sensical reading 1. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā inscriptions #4.1. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra, s. 1593, Nasiyā, Āṃvā #4.2. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra, s. 1593, Nasiyā, Āṃvā #4.3. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra, s. 1593, Nasiyā, Āṃvā #4.4. Chatrī of Ācārya Harṣakīrti, s. 1681, Nasiyā, Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha #4.5. Śilālekha, s. 1687, Nasiyā, Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha #4.6. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, s. 1696, Nasiyā, Sāṅgānera #4.7. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, date illegible [s. 1691-1722], Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera #4.8. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, n.d. [s.1733-70], Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera #4.9. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti, n.d. [s.1733-70], Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera #4.10. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti, s. 1771, Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera #4.11. Niṣedhikā, unidentiﬁed, s. 1783, Saṅghījī Mandira, Sāṅgānera #4.12. Pādukā of Ācārya Kanakakīrti, s. 1750 (chatrī s. 1781), Nasiyāṃjī, Bassī #4.13. Pādukā of Ācārya Mahīcandra, s. 1828, Nasiyāṃjī, Bassī #4.14. Śilālekha, s. 17(5)0, Nasiyāṃjī, Bassī #4.15. Kīrtistambha of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, s. 1845, Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera #4.16. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti, s. 1853, Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura #4.17. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemendrakīrti, s. 1853, Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura #4.18. Pādukā, unspeciﬁed renouncer, s. 1853, Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura #4.19. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti, s. 1881, Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura #4.20. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti, s. 1886, Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Cākasū #4.21. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Kesarī Siṃha, s. 1880, Śyojī Godhā Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura #4.22. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Dhanarāja, s. 1888, Nasīyā, Caurū #4.23. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Jayacanda, s. 1924, Candraprabhū Digambara Jaina Nasiyāṃ, Phāgī #4.24. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Ḍuṅgarasīdāsa, s. 1911, Nasiyāṃ, Būndī #4.25. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Śivalāla, s. 1949, Nasiyāṃ, Būndī #4.26. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Sadāsevārāmasukha, s. 1949, Nasiyāṃ, Būndī #4.27. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Ratnalāla, s. 19(5?)6, Nasiyāṃ, Būndī 468 2. Vāgaḍāśākhās inscriptions #5.1. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Jñānakīrti, n.d., Laghuśākhā, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā #5.2. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Ratnakīrti, n.d., Laghuśākhā, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā #5.3. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Yaśakīrti, s. 16(1/2)8, Laghuśākhā, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā #5.4. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya (Maṇḍalācārya?) Jinacandra, s. 1658, Laghuśākhā, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā #5.5. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Vinayacandra, s. 1594, Brhatśākhā (& Laghuśākhā?), Nasīyājī, Naugāmā ̥ #5.6. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Haribhūṣaṇa, s. 1601, Laghuśākhā, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā #5.7. Niṣedhikā , prob. of Ācārya (Guṇa?)kīrti, s. 1638, Laghuśākhā, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā Nasīyājī, Naugāmā #5.8. Niṣedhikā of Muni Devanandi, s. (???)(6?), Brhatśākhā?, ̥ #5.9. Niṣedhikā of Brahmacārī Lakṣmaṇa, s. 169(1?) no legible lineage aﬃliation, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā #5.10. Niṣedhikā of Brahmacārī Satā, s. 1691, prob. Laghuśākhā, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā #5.11. Niṣedhikā of Brahmacārī Gakarasā, n.d., no lineage aﬃliation recorded, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā #5.12. Niṣedhikā, unidentiﬁed, poss. brahmacārī, s. 16(63?) no legible lineage aﬃliation, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā #5.13. Niṣedhikā of Muni Prabhācandra, s. 1564, Vāgaḍāśākhā (spec.), Kalyāṇa Ṭhākura Mandira, Naugāmā Choṭī #5.14. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Sumatikīrti, no legible date (prob. s. 1620-30s), Brhatśākhā, ̥ Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā #5.15. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣacandra, s. 1726, Laghuśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā #5.16. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, s. 1769, Brhatśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā ̥ #5.17. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, also Brhatśākhā kīrtistambha, s. 176[9], Brhatśākhā, ̥ ̥ Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā #5.18. Niṣedhikā of Maṇḍalācārya Guṇacandra, s. 1655, Laghuśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā #5.19. Niṣedhikā of Maṇḍalācārya Sakalacandra, s. 1673, Laghuśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā #5.20. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Dharmakīrti, s. 1579, Brhatśākhā, ̥ Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā #5.21. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Kalyāṇakīrti, s. 1725, Brhatśākhā, ̥ #5.22. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Jagatkīrti, s. 1739, Laghuśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā #5.23. Niṣedhikā of unidentiﬁed ācārya, s. 1749, Brhatśākhā, ̥ #5.24. Niṣedhikā of Muni Jayakīrti, s. 1602, Brhatśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā ̥ Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā #5.25. Niṣedhikā of Muni Siṅhanandi, s. 1627, Brhatśākhā, ̥ #5.26. Niṣedhikā of Brahmacārī Ratnasāgara, s. 157(5?), Brhat& Laghuśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, ̥ Sāgavāṛā Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā #5.27. Niṣedhikā of unidentiﬁed brahmacārī, s. 162(?), Brhatśākhā, ̥ #5.28. Pādukā of unidentiﬁed brahmacārī, no legible date, no lineage aﬃliation, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā #5.29. Niṣedhikā, unidentiﬁed (poss. brahmacārī), s. 1(6)(??), Laghuśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā #5.30. Niṣedhikā, unidentiﬁed, s. 1608, Brhatśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā ̥ #5.31. Niṣedhikā, unidentiﬁed, s. 1619, Laghuśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā #5.32. Niṣedhikā, unidentiﬁed (poss. ācārya), no legible date (poss. 17th cent. CE), no lineage aﬃliation (poss. Brhatśākhā), Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā ̥ #5.33. Niṣedhikā, unidentiﬁed, s. 1699, Laghuśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā #5.34. Kīrtistambha of the Brhatśākhā, s. 1610, Brhatśākhā, Jūnā Mandira, Sāgavāṛā ̥ ̥ #5.35. Pādukā, unidentiﬁed, s. 1756, Laghuśākhā, Cintāmaṇi Parśvanātha Mandira, Aṅkleśvara #5.36. Pādukā, unidentiﬁed, no legible date, Laghuśākhā?, Nayā Mandira/Gāndhī Mandira, Sāgavāṛā 469 #5.37. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Devacandra, s. 1822, Laghuśākhā, Jūnā Mandira, Sāgavāṛā #5.38. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Devacandra, s. 1822, Laghuśākhā, Jūnā Mandira, Sāgavāṛā #5.39. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Mahicandra and possibly Bhaṭṭāraka Nemicandra, s. 1881, Laghuśākhā, Jūnā Mandira, Sāgavāṛā #5.40. Pādukā, unidentiﬁed, prob. paṇḍita, s. 1905, Laghuśākhā, Pagelejī Mandira, Sāgavāṛā #5.41. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra and Bhaṭṭāraka Hemacandra, s. 1905, Laghuśākhā, Pagelejī Mandira, Sāgavāṛā #5.42. Niṣedhikā (Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti [II]?), s. 1802, Brhatśākhā, Nayā Mandira/Gāndhī Mandira, ̥ Sāgavāṛā Nayā Mandira/ #5.43. Pādukā (Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti [II]?), no legible date [s. 1802], Brhatśākhā, ̥ Gāndhī Mandira, Sāgavāṛā Śantinātha Mandira, Udayapura #5.44. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti, s. 175(9), Brhatśākhā, ̥ #5.45. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti, s. 1759, Brhatśākhā, Śantinātha Mandira, Aśoka Nagara, ̥ Udayapura #5.46. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Viśvabhūṣaṇa, s. 1759, Brhatśākhā, Śantinātha Mandira, Aśoka Nagara, ̥ Udayapura #5.47. Pādukā, unidentiﬁed (jina?), s. 1726, no legible lineage aﬃliation, Candraprabhu Caityālaya, Āyaṛa (Udayapura) Candraprabhu Caityālaya, Āyaṛa #5.48. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, s. 1769, Brhatśākhā, ̥ (Udayapura) Candraprabhu Caityālaya, Āyaṛa #5.49. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, s. 1769, Brhatśākhā, ̥ (Udayapura) Candragiri, R̥ ṣabhadeva#5.50. Memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti, s. 186(6?), Brhatśākhā, ̥ Keśarīyājī #5.51. Multi-pādukā slab of Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II), Bramacārī Lahu, Ācārya Devacandra, Bramacārī Dalicanda, and Bramacārī Lakṣmīcandra, s. 1855, Brhatśākhā, Pārśvanātha ̥ Mandira, Īḍara #5.52. Śīlālekha (adjoining pādukā), s. 1855, Brhatśākhā, Pārśvanātha Mandira, Īḍara ̥ #5.53. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti, s. 1887, Brhatśākhā, Saṃbhavanātha Mandira, Īḍara ̥ Saṃbhavanātha Mandira, Īḍara #5.54. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti, s. 1887, Brhatśākhā, ̥ #5.55. Pādukā of the pañca-parameṣṭhins, s. 1887, Brhatśākhā, Saṃbhavanātha Mandira, Īḍara ̥ #5.56. Pādukā of R̥ ṣabhadeva, s. 1898, Brhatśākhā, Saṃbhavanātha Mandira, Īḍara ̥ #5.57. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Rāmacandrakīrti, s. 1939, Brhatśākhā, Surapura ̥ 3. Śākambharīśākhā inscriptions #6.1. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnakīrti (I), s. 1572, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.2. Pādukā of (Bhaṭṭāraka/Maṇḍalācārya) Mahendrakīrti, s. 1765, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.3. Pādukā of ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ [Maṇḍalācārya?] Ratnakīrti (II), inscr. s. 1766, but dating to s. 1802-30, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.4. Pādukā of ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ [Maṇḍalācārya] Vidyānandi, s. 1810, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.5. Pādukā of ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ [Maṇḍalācārya] Bhavanabhūṣaṇa, s. 1810, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.6. Pādukā of (‘Bhaṭṭāraka’?) [Maṇḍalācārya] Anantakīrti, prob. s. 1810, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.7. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Trilokendrakīrti, s. 1838, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.8. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti, s. 1892, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.9. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti and paṇḍitas Viradhīcanda and Mahipāla, s. 1992, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera 470 #6.10. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa and paṇḍitas Caturbhuja, [?]nānandarāma, Ajītamala, Govindalāla, [Mohana?]lāla, Sadāsukha, Motī[lāla?], and Nemicanda s. 1992, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.11. Pādukā of Ācārya Viśālakīrti, s. 1782, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.12. Pādukā of Ācārya Bhānukīrti, s. 1801, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.13. Pādukā of Ācārya Ratnabhūṣaṇa, s. 1813, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.14. Pādukā of Ācārya Devendrakīrti, s. 1814, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.15. Pādukā of Ācārya Tilakabhūṣaṇa, s. 1821, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.16. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Hemarāja, s. 17--, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.17. Pādukā, unidentiﬁed, prob. paṇḍita, s. 18(0?)3, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.18. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Vakasarāma, s. 1812?, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.19. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Rāmacandra, s. 1827, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.20. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Rūpacanda, s. 1828, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.21. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Malūkacanda, s. 1828, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.22. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Akṣayarāma, s. 1828, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.23. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Tulasīdāsa, s. 1828, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.24. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Viradhīcanda, s. [18]55, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.25. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Navanidhirāma, s. 1928, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera #6.26. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Vimanarāma, s. 1887, Sākhūna, Nasīyā #6.27. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Varddhamāna and Paṇḍita Devakaraṇa, s. 1918, Sākhūna, Nasīyā #6.28. Pādukā of paṇḍitas Pannālāla, Amīcanda, Phatelāla, and Yugarāja, s. 1992, Sākhūna, Nasīyā #6.29. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalabhūṣaṇa, s. 1863, Bīsapantha Baṛā Mandira, Nāgaura (Nāgaurapaṭṭa) #6.30. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Kanakakīrti, s. 1972, Nasīhājī, Gvāliyara (Nāgaura-paṭṭa) 4. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā #4.1. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra s. 1593, in the lineage of Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra, preserved in mandira, Nasiyā, Āṃvā. <1>bha. śrī-śubhacaṃdrasya niṣedhikā <2>saṃ. 1593 varṣe jyeṣṭa-sudi-3-some śrī-mūla-saṃghe naṃdyāmnāy(e?) _[2]_ balā<3>tkāra-gaṇe sarasvatī-gacche śrī-kuṃdakuṃdācāryānvaye | bha. śrī-padmanaṃdi-devā(ḥ?) <4>tat-paṭṭe bha. śrīśubhacaṃdra-devāḥ tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-jinacaṃdra-devaḥ tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-<5>prabhācaṃdradevās-tac-chiṣya ma. śrī-(dha?)r(maca?)ṃdrāmnāye | khaṇḍelavālānvaye [1×]<6>baḍā-gotre saṃ. kāl[ū?] bhā kamalāde | tat-putrāḥ sa{raṇamalate?} [ca. 5*] <7>(la?)(bha?)rācāṃda tat-putrau saṃ (śrī?) (tāveṇā?) gajā. k(a?)ga (ma/sa)(dhīvata?) <8>(bhāryā?) mahāgede putrāḥ [ca. 7*] dharmadāsā | sā (te?) tai [1×] <9>de[1×]i [1×]ya[1×] (bh/l)āda (gatī bha śrī?)(g/m)(ā/e)rāde (k)ū(ga?) bhāryā lā(dī?) (|?) <10>teja[1×](ī?) putra udā bhāryā utpaude putra śrīvaṃta ete nityaṃ praṇ #4.2. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra s. 1593, in the lineage of Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra, preserved in mandira, Nasiyā, Āṃvā. <1>bha. śrī jinācaṃdras[y?]a niṣedhikā 1(593?) varṣe jyeṣṭa-śudi-[1+]-some śrī-mūla-saṃghe naṃdyāmnā<3>[2-3+]lātkā[1+]-gaṇe | sarasv [ca. 4*] śrī-?u?kuṃdācāryānvaye | bha(.?) <4>[1+] (dm?)anaṃdi-devās-tat-paṭṭe bha. śrīśubhacaṃdra-devās-tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-jina<5>ca(ṃ)dra-[2+]tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī … …caṃdra-de… …cchi[ṣ?]… ma?lācārya-śrī -<6>[dha?]rmacaṃdrāmnāye | khaṇḍelavālānvaye [2×][ḍā?]-gotre s[1×] kāl(ū?) <2>saṃ. 471 bhā. <7>kamalāde tat-putrau saṃ [...529] <11>[1×]laulāde (gajā?) bhā gaurāde ?ūgā bhā[r?]yā ? jī saṃ [ta?] jī bhārya … <11>śrī-putra udā [2×] utpaude [1×] putra śrīvaṃta ete ni[2×]ṇāmati #4.3. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Prabhācandra s. 1593, in the lineage of Maṇḍalācārya Dharmacandra, preserved in mandira, Nasiyā, Āṃvā. <1>bha. śrī prabhācandrasya niṣedhikā | <2>saṃ. 1593 [1×]ṣ(e?) jyeṣṭa-sudi-3-?me śrī-mūla-saṃghe naṃdyāmnāye ba<3>lātkāra-gaṇe sarasvatī-ga[ca. 1+] śrī-[2+]kuṃd[1+]ryānvaye | bha. śrī-śrī-<4>padmanaṃdi-devās-tat-paṭṭe bha. śrīśubha[1×]ṃdra[1×]vās-tat-paṭṭe bha(ṭṭā?)[1+]-<5>śrī-jinacaṃdra [ca 15×] s-ta?iṣya maṇḍalā<6>(c?)āryaśrī-dharmaca [ca. 11×] baḍā [ca. 3×] <7> kālū bhā (kamala?) […530] <8-12> #4.4. Chatrī of Ācārya Harṣakīrti s. 1681, on lintel of chatrī, Nasiyā, Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha. [left and right of one jina and two khadgāsaṇa ﬁgures carved into lintel 1:] <1> || saṃvat· 1681 caitra-sudi-2-gurau chatrī prabhācaṃdra bha-śrī-caṃdrakīrtti bha-śrīdeve(ṃ)d(r?)akīrtti (śiṣya?)[2×](kāri?)[5×]ācārya-śrī-harṣakīrtteḥ ni(tya?)m hī takṣaka-samastamahājanāḥ <2>|| pa. netasī paṃ. reṣā nityaṃ praṇamaṃti || || jinaśāsan(a/e) śrī-mūlasa(ṃ?)gha ci(raṃ?) bhavatu || 1 || [left and right of pādukā carved into lintel 2:] <1>(||?) saṃ. 1681 kāśilīvāla-gotre ācārya śrī harṣakī[1×](ḥ?) pādukā #4.5. Śilālekha s. 1687, above entrance to mandira, Nasiyā, Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha. [line by line:] <1>śrī-ṣemacaṃ || saṃ. 1687 śrī-takṣaka-mahād(ur?)g(e?) śrī-mūla-saṃgh(e?) śrī-śaṃti-jinā || harṣakī || laye śrī-prabhācaṃdra śrī-caṃdrakā*rtyānvaye [1×] śrī-deveṃdrakīrtti śrī-harśakī <3>r(t)er-nisahī || rti nema*ca*da ⟨⟨(pra?)[2×]rttik)⟩⟩ dharmacaṃdra pāṃḍe-[bhojā?]vīra samasta-śrīpaṃca-mahājana yeḍākā nisahī praṇamaṃti <2>(dra?) [two inscriptions separated:] saṃ. 1687 śrī-takṣaka-mahād(ur?)g(e?) śrī-mūla-saṃgh(e?) śrī-śaṃti-jinālaye śrī-prabhācaṃdra śrīcaṃdrakā*rtyānvaye [1×] śrī-deveṃdrakīrtti śrī-harśakīrti nema*ca*da ⟨⟨(pra?)[2×]rttik)⟩⟩ dharmacaṃdra pāṃḍe-[bhojā?]vīra samasta-śrī-paṃca-mahājana yeḍākā nisahī praṇamaṃti śrī-ṣemacaṃ(dra?) harṣakīr(t)er-nisahī #4.6. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti s. 1696, consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, preserved in recent, small Kṣetrapāla shrine (inscription referring to chatrī), Nasiyā, Sāṅgānera. <1>|| saṃvat· 1691 varṣe kārttika vadi 15 bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-d[ca. 4*]jī bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-nareṃdra<2>kīrtti-jī [3×]ti paṭṭa dīyā [4×]ka(tt?)i deva-l(o)k(i) hūvā pāchai nareṃdrakīrtti<3>jī kārttika sudi 5 k(a/e?) dini chatrī karāi vāmāṃ(dr?)ī saṃ. 1696 varṣe phā(lguṇa?) s(ud?)i <4> 3 (pūtr?)ī karāi bha. d(e?)v(e?)ṃdrakī(r?)ttijī kā pādukā sthāpyā || mūlasaṃghe (yā?)[ca. 4*]<5>pāduka {tan(a/u)tāṃ(d/ r?)āta?} sarvv(a/e)ṣāṃ śuddhacetas(ā?)[1*](mrṇāṃ?) sur(eṃ?)drakīrtteśca sachātrāṇāṃ {viśaṣaṣata?} ̥ #4.7. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti Date illegible [s. 1691-1722], consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, built by Brahmacārī Keśava, Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera. 529 No transliteration attempted of rest of line 7 and lines 8 to 10. 530 No transliteration attempted of rest of line 7 and lines 8 to 12. 472 varṣe (dvi?)tīya śrāvaṇa vadī 8 ma(ṃ?)galavā(re?) a(ṃ?)vāvatī-nagar(e?) mahārājādhirājajayasiṃha-rājya-pravarttamāne kuṃdakuṃdācāryyānvaye bhaṭṭāraka śrī-deve(ṃ?)dra [ca. 10*] <2>v(a/e/ai)(dy/ch)ā(r?)takāra bhaṭṭāraka-śrīman-nareṃdrakīrtti-jī tasya pādukā (sthā?)p(i?)taṃ || sevaka vra keśava karāpya ta guru-bhakti nimita cira(ṃ?) va(ṃ)datu śubhaṃ bhavatu || <1>[…] #4.8. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti n.d. [s. 1733-70], built by Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti, in small shrine under twin chatrī, Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera. siddhiḥ || saṃbatsare 1691 varṣe kārttika krṣṇa-pakṣa* catur-dd*aśyāṃ tithau sāṃgānayarḁ nagar(e?) || <2>|| śrī mūla-saṃghe naṃdyāmnāye balātkāra-gaṇe sarasvatī-gacche śrīkuṃdakuṃdācāryānvaye bhaṭṭāraka-śrī || <3>|| deveṃdrakīrtteḥ paṭṭodayādri-bhāskarā-bhaṭṭārakaśrī-nareṃdrakīrttayo bhavya-śrāvakebhyaḥ sad-upadeśaṃ da || <4>|| dati sma tatāś-ciraṃ bi(hr?)tya ̥ saṃbatsare 1722 varṣe śrāvaṇa krṣṇāṣṭamyāṃ 8 prātareva aṃvāvatī-na || <5>|| gare bha. śrī̥ nareṃdrakīrttayo deva-lokaṃ prāpus-teṣāṃ caraṇa-kamala-yugalam-idaṃ sthāpitaṃ śubha [ca. 2*]tu || <6>|| bha. śrī nareṃdrakīrttijī kā pādukā || bha. śrī jagatkīrtti-jī karā(pya?) || <1>|| #4.9. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti n.d. [s. 1733-70], prob. built (and consecrated) by Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti, in small shrine under twin chatrī, Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera. saṃ. 1733 varṣe śrāvaṇa vadi 5 bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sureṃdrakīrtti-jī bhaṭṭārakajī śrī-<2>|| jagatkīrtti-jī naiṃ paṭṭa dīyo pāchaiṃ śrāvaṇa badi 4 dini prabhāta hī bhaṭṭāraka-<3>śrī-sureṃdra(⟦[1×]⟧?)kīrttijī devaloki hūvā || śrī mūla-saṃghe naṃdyāmnāye balā[poss. ca. 3*]<4>ragaṇe sarasvatī-ga[ca. 2*]e kuṃdakuṃdācāryānva(y)e bha. śrī-surendra(k)īr(t/tt)i [poss. ca. 3*]531 <1>|| #4.10. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti s. 1771, in small shrine under chatrī, Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera. <1>|| saṃvat· 1770 varṣe mā[ha?] badi 5 bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-jagatkīrtti-jī deva-loka hūvā (ara?) bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-d(e?)v(eṃ?) || <2>|| drakīrtti-jī nai māha badi 11 pāchai prabhāta hi paṭṭa dīyo śrīmūla-saṃghe naṃdyāmnāye balātkāra-gaṇe sarasva || <3>||tī-ga(c?)che kundākundācāryyānvaye bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-jagatkīrtti-jī kā pādukā saṃvat· 1771 mārgasīrṣa sudī || <4>|| 2 sthā[pyā?] || _[2]_ || kārīgara rāma-jī chatrī karī hararāma kai pota jaisā keledai karī || śubhaṃ bhavatu || śrī || [pha?] || #4.11. Niṣedhikā, unidentiﬁed s. 1783, Saṅghījī Mandira, Sāṅgānera. [side 1 (backside) top:] <1>saṃvat 1783 vaisāṣa-māsa [2×] <2>(ṣa?) [2×] ṣa mī [3×] (ma/sa?) <3>kī chatrī (ko?) (jaṃdā?)(bhā ta?) [side 2 (left) top:] <1>(ṣ?)(ā/o?)(ha/da/dra?)-nagare śrī-mūla-saṃghe <2>bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-devendra <3>prātimā [1×] || [side 3 (front) top:] <1>kā (re?) jī sadā kā <2>(sa/ya) tu hā dā [gātrī?] [side 4 (right) top:] <1>[?] yā bhaṭṭāra(ka jī śrī?) [1×] (daya?) <2> || {ga ja ta ta ba ba gra?} [1×] <3> [3+?]ā ta [2×](ga?)[2×] [side 1 (backside) lower:] <1>paṃd*ita-gīradharadasa natya pra<2>ṇamata <3>saṃvat 1777 bara(sa?) [ca. 4* (not documented)] [side 2 (left) lower:] <1>{tatparī karo?} na*tya[ṃ?] praṇa<2>mā*ta [side 3 (front) lower:] 531 Varma (1997: 30) adds: ‘huā |’, stone covered by plastering at time of my reading. 473 <1>paṃḍa*ta l(ā?)lacaṃda na*tya paṇa<2>mata(ṃ?) [side 4 (right) lower:] <1>paṃḍa*ta lāṣamīdara nitya pra<2>ṇamati #4.12. Pādukā of Ācārya Kanakakīrti s. 1750, in s. 1781 chatrī, by Paṇḍita Sadārāma, Nasiyāṃjī, Bassī. [on pādukā:] saṃvat· 1750 varṣe āsauja-māse śukla-pakṣe vijaya-daśamī-divase śrī pārśvanātha-jī <2>kī nisiyāṃ-jī ācārya-kanakakīrtti-jī vasaī-nagare saṃ. nāthūrāma-jī kā vāga mai <3>karāī li(.?) <4>(ta)tsiṣya paṃ. <5>?[1×]dārāmena <5>|| ācārya kanakakīrtter-idaṃ pada-kamalaṃ || śubhaṃ bhavatu || <1>|| [on pādukā plinth:] <1>|| saṃvat· 1781 titī* māha sudi pa*camī śukravāra-dine ā<2>cāryā-jī-śrī-kanakakīrtti-jī kī chatarī siṣya sadārā<3>mena kārāpya vasaṃta pa*camī-dine sakala-paṃca mi(l?)i?(cāsṭa |?)<4>(m?)itaṃ || leṣaka vācakānāṃ śubhaṃ bhavatu || _[2]_ śrī _[2]_ || #4.13. Pādukā of Ācārya Mahīcandra s. 1828, in chatrī, by Paṇḍita Gumānīrāma, Nasiyāṃjī, Bassī. 1828 kā miti prathama asāḍha va. 6 ācāryya-jī-śrī-mahīcaṃ[1+]-jī devaloka (huvā?) tatsiṣya paṃḍita-gumānīrāmeṇa chatrī kārāpya (mā?)[3+](rā)pitā || <1>saṃvat· #4.14. Śilālekha s. 17[5]0, in mandira, Nasiyāṃjī, Bassī. <1>[1*]vat· 17(?)0 varṣe ās(au?)ja-māse śukla-pakṣe vija<2>(ya)-daśamī-divase puṣpa-nakṣatre sobhana-yoge vasa <3>[1*]-nāma-nagare śrī-śītalanātha-caityālaye mahā<4>[rā]jādhirāja-mahārājāśrī-vibhana-siṃgha-rājye <5>śrī-mūla-saṃghe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-narendrakīrttis-tatpa<6>ṭṭe bha. śrīs u r e n d r a k ī r t t i s - t a t p a ṭ ṭ e b h a . ś r ī - j a g a t k ī<7>r t t i s - t a d - ā m n ā y e b h a ṭ ṭ ā r a k a - ś r ī narendrakīrttista<8>cchiṣya ācārya-śrī-kanakakīrttis-tacchiṣya <9>paṃ. rāyamalla ke(sau?) sadārāmaṭekacaṃda-mal(a/ū)ka<10>caṃda ? etaiḥ samasta-basaī kā paṃca mahājanī <11>kā upadeśa kari saṃgha (hī?) śrī-[1×](o?)patirāma-jī <12>kā vāga mai śrī-pārśvanātha-jī kau dehurau karā<12>(yau?) || liṣitaṃ ācārya-kana*kīrttinā (ji?) k(a/ā/ī/o) <13>{(ī?)(dā?)(ka?)(ji?)(ha?)(nai?)?} dharmma-vrddhhi (kā/ ̥ vā?)(pyā?) śubhaṃ bhavatu | #4.15. Kīrtistambha of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā s. 1845, in chatrī, consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti, Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera. 1845 madhye jyeṣṭa-māse krṣna-pakṣe _[3]_ tithau aṃbāvatī-karvaṭṭe mahārājādhirājḁ ś r ī - s avā ī _ [ 3 ] _ s i ṃ h a - r ā j ye ś r ī - m ū l a - < 2 > s a ṃ g h e n a ṃ d y- ā m n āye b a l ā t k ā r a - g a ṇ e kuṃdakuṃdācāryyānvaye bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sureṃdrakīrtinā sakala-munibhi dāka-gaṇi-nī<3>dhipūjjana-śrāvaka-śrāvikā-saṃdoha-krt̥ a-paramotsava-yuktābhi(ḥ?) caṃpāvatī-arca-sṭhāpanāvivaddanānaṃtaraṃm atra niveśitaṃ <4> mahotsava-arcakaṃ || śrī-gurūṇāṃ pratimādarśanārv*ana-vaṃdanā-vidhā(tr?)ṇāṃ sarvadā maṃgalāvalī saṃgh{obhayādanārate?} || śrī || ̥ <1>saṃbat· #4.16. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti s. 1853, in chatrī, consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti, Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura. <1>saṃvat· 1853 māgha-māse śukla-pakṣe paṃcamī guru-vāsare ḍhuṃḍhāhaḍa-deśe savāī-jayanagare mahārājādhirāja-mahārāja-śrī-savāī-pratāpasiṃha-jid-rājya-pravarttamāne śrī-mūlasaṃghe naṃdy-āmnāye valā<2>tkāra-gaṇe sarasvatī-gacche kuṃdakuṃdācāryānvaye aṃvāvatīpaṭṭodayādri-dinamaṇi-tulya-bhaṭṭārakeṃdra-bhaṭṭāraka-jīc-chrī-deveṃdrakīrttis tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-jic-chrī-maheṃdrakīrttis tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-jic-chrī-kṣemeṃdrakīrttis tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-jic-chrī-sureṃdrakīrtti-ji-deva-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-jic-chrī-su<3>kheṃdrakīrttinā iyaṃ śrī- 474 maheṃdrakīrtti-guroḥ pādukā prasthāpya mahotsavena pratiṣṭāpitā pūjakānāṃ kalyāṇāvalīṃ karotu śrīr-astu śubhaṃ bhavatu || #4.17. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemendrakīrti s. 1853, in chatrī, consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti, Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura. <1>|| saṃvata 1853 māgha-māse śukla-pakṣe paṃcamī guru-vāsare ḍhuṃḍhāhaḍa-deśe savāījaya-nagare mahārājādhirāja-mahārāja-śrī-savāī-pratāpasiṃha-jid-rājya-prava*ttamāne śrī-mūlasaṃghe naṃdy-āmnāye valātkāra-gaṇe sarasvatī-gacche kuṃdakuṃdācāryānvaye aṃvāvatīpaṭṭodayādri-dinamaṇi-tulya-bhaṭṭā<2>rakeṃdra-bhaṭṭāraka-jī(c-ch?)rī-maheṃdrakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-jic-chrī-kṣemeṃdrakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-jic-chrī-sureṃdrakīrttis-tat· paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-jic-chrī-sukheṃdrakīrttis-te⟨⟨neyaṃ⟩⟩ śrī-kṣemeṃdrakīrtti-guroḥ pādukā prasthāpya mahotsavena pratiṣṭitā || pūjakānāṃ kalyāṇāvalīṃ karotu || śrīr-astu || #4.18. Pādukā, unspeciﬁed renouncer s. 1853, consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti, Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura. <1>|| sa*vat· 1853 kā māgha śukla paṃcamyāṃ guru-vāre savāī-jaya-nagare mahārājādhirāja śrīsavāī-pratāpasiṃha _[4]_drājye śrī-mūla-saṃghe naṃdy-āmnāye valātkāra-gaṇe sarasvatī-gache kuṃdakuṃdācāryyānvaye aṃbavatī-paṭṭe bhaṭṭārakeṃḍra-bhaṭṭārakaḥ <2>śrī-deveṃdrakīrttis-tatpaṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-maheṃdrakīrtti-jitkasya bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-surendrakīrati-deva-paṭṭe bhaṭṭārakaśrī-sukheṃdrakīrttinā iyaṃ pādukā <3>pratiṣ(ṭ/ṭh)āpitā #4.19. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti s. 1881, in chatrī, consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura. saṃvat· 1881 māgha-māse śukla-pakṣe paṃcamī soma-vāsare ḍhuṃḍhāhaḍa-deśe savāījaya-nagare śrīman-mahārājādhirāja-mahārāja-śrī-savāī-jayasiṃha-jid-rājya-pravarttamāne śrīmūla-saṃghe naṃdy-āmnāye valātkāra-gaṇe sarasvatī-gacche kuṃdakuṃdācāryānvaye bhaṭṭārakeṃdra-bhaṭṭāraka-jīc-chrī-maheṃdrakīrtis-tat-pa(ṭṭe?) bha <2> ṭṭāraka-śrīkṣemeṃdrakīrttis-tat-paṭ*e bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sureṃdrakīrttis tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrīsukheṃdrakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-jic-chrī-nareṃdrakīrtti-jika eteṣāṃ madhye bhaṭṭāraka-śrīnareṃdrakīrttinā mahā-mahotsavaṃ krt̥ vā bhadra-bhāvena śrī-sureṃdrakīrtti-guroś-caraṇayugalaṃ prasthāpya pratiṣṭhitaṃ pūjakānāṃ kalyāṇa-paraṃparāṃ karotu || śrīr-astu || śrīḥ || <1>|| #4.20. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti s. 1886, in chatrī, consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Cākasū. śrī-gurave namaḥ || saṃvatsare rasa-basu-siddhīṃdu-yute 1886 mrga⟦?⟧sira sudi 2 śani-vāsare ̥ ḍhuṃḍhāha-deśe caṃpāvatī-nagare śrīman-mahārājādhirāja-mahārāja-śrī-savāī-jayasiṃha-jidrājya-pravarttamāne śrī-mūla-saṃghe naṃdy-āmnāye balātkāra-gaṇe sarasvatī-gacche kuṃdakuṃdācāryānvaye bhaṭṭāraka-śirośekhara-bhaṭṭā <2>raka-jic-chrī-sureṃdrakīrttis-tatpaṭṭodayādri-dinamaṇi-bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sukheṃdrakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-nareṃdrakī*ttis-tatpaṭṭa-śaila-dinamaṇi-sama-vinayavatā bhaṭṭāraka-deveṃdrakīrttinā śrī-bhaṭṭārakasukheṃdrakīrtter-guror-mahā-mahotsavaṃ krt̥ vā caraṇa-yugalaṃ prasthāpya pratiṣṭitaṃ || jagatāṃ śam-astu || <1>|| #4.21. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Kesarī Siṅha s. 1880, in tibārā, consecrated by Paṇḍita Lālacandra, Śyojī Godhā Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura. śrī-paramātmane namaḥ || saṃvata* 1880 phālguṇa śukla saptamī ravi-vāsare savāī-jayanagare śrī-mahārājādhirāja-mahārāja-śrī-savāī-jayasiṃha-jid-rājya-pravarttamāne śrī-mūlasaṃghe naṃdy-āmnāye balātkāra-gaṇe sarasvatī-gacche kuṃdakuṃdācāryānvaye bhaṭṭāraka-jiśrī-narendrakī⟨⟨rtti⟩⟩jid-āmnāye paṃḍita-pradhāna-paṃḍita-jic-chrī-sukharāma-jitkas-tac-chiṣyapaṃḍita-śiromaṇi-paṃḍita-ji-chrī-kesarīsiṃha-jitkas-tad-aṃtevāsī paṃḍita-lālacaṃdras tacchiṣya-vara-paṃḍita-<2>jhāṃjhūrāmas-tac-chiṣyau dvau prathamaḥ devālālaḥ dvitīyaḥ bhairūlālaḥ eteṣāṃ madhye paṇḍita-lālacandreṇa caraṇālayaṃ kāriyitvā sva-guroḥ śrī-kesarīsiṃha-jitkasya caraṇa-kamala-yugaṃ niraṃtara-smaraṇārthaṃ vandanārthaṃ ca prasthāpitaṃ || śrīr astu || <1>|| 475 #4.22. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Dhanarāja s. 1888, in chatrī, consecrated by Paṇḍita Ratanasukha, Caurū, Nasīyā. śrī-paramātmane namaḥ || saṃbat· 1888 kā māsottama-māse mrgasira krṣṇa paṃcamī gurḁ ̥ vāsare ḍhuṃḍhāhaḍākaye deśe corū-nāmni nagare śrīman-mahārājādhirāja-mahārājy*a-śrī-savāījayasiṃha-jid-rājya-pravarttamāne śrī-mūla-saṃghe naṃdy-āmnāye balātkāra-gaṇe sarasvatīgacche kuṃdakuṃdācāryyānvaye bhaṭṭārakeṃdra-bhaṭṭāraka-jīc-chrī-deveṃdrakīrtti-jīd-āmnāye paṃḍita-pradhāna-paṃḍita-jic-chrī-baṣatarāma-jitkas-tac-chiṣya vidyadhara-paṃḍita-dhanarājaji<2>tkas-tad-aṃtevāsinā paṃḍita-ratanasukhena caraṇālayaṃ kārayitvā sva-guro śrī-dhanarājajitkasya caraṇa-yuga(ṃ?) niraṃtaraṃ smaraṇārthaṃ baṃdanārthaṃ ca pras(th)āpitam || śrīr astu || <1>|| #4.23. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Jayacanda s. 1924, on cabūtarā, consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, Candraprabhū Digambara Jaina Nasiyāṃ, Phāgī. <1>|| śrī-paramātmane namaḥ saṃvata* 1924 kā māsottama-māse asāḍha-māse śukla-pakṣe doyaja vudha-vāsare ḍhūṃḍhāhaḍakaye deśe phāgaī-nag(are) śrīman-mahārā(j)ādhirāja-māhārājya-śrīsavāī-rāmasiṃha-jid-rājya-pravarttamāne śrī-mūla-saṃghe naṃdy-āmnāye valātkāra-gaṇe sarasvatī-gacche <2>kuṃdakuṃdācāryyānvaye bhaṭṭārakendra-bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-deveṃdrakīrti-jīdāmnāye paṃḍita-ji-śrī-vaṣatarāma-jitkas-ta-siṣya-vi(dya?)dhara-paṃḍita-ji-śrī-amaracaṃda-jitkasta-siṣya paṃḍita-vi(dya?)dhara-jayacaṃda-jitkas-tad-aṃtevāsinā paṃḍita-śivalālena caraṇālayaṃ kārayitvā sva-guro śrī-jayacaṃda-jitkasya caraṇa-yuga niraṃtaraṃ smaraṇārthaṃ vaṃdanārthaṃ pras(thā?)pit· || #4.24. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Ḍuṅgarasīdāsa s. 1911, in shrine in chatrī, Nasiyāṃ, Būndī. <1>|| saṃ. 1911 kā śake 1776 pravarttamāne jaiṭha śukla 4 dine ca(ṃ?)dravāre śubha nakṣatra yogakaraṇa yukta (dadīnagapyā?) kuṃdakuṃdācāryānvaye jaina-dharmopadeśa-dātā paṃḍi<2>taḍuṃgarasīdāsasya śib(au/ere?) maṃdira-sahita vārā(dh/dv?)ārā kārāpya mahotsavena tasyāṃ pūrvokta-svaguroḥ caraṇau sthāpitau śubhaṃ bha. kalyāṇam-astu || #4.25. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Śivalāla s. 1949, in small chatrī, consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti, by Nemīcandra (and Paṇḍita Ratnalāla?), Nasiyāṃ, Būndī. ka śiṣya <2>paṃ. śivalāla-jī kā caraṇa-pā<3>dukā śiṣya paṃ. ratanalāla ci. nemīcaṃdreṇa (karā)pita <5>saṃvat· 1949 kā mitī āsoja suda* 10[1×](.?) ravivāra {mahātavebhatvā?}(sevaka?)[1×]śrī-[2×]-ajamerā-śrī-108-rā(b?)ā-rāvā-śrī-raghuvīra-siṃga-jī (kā rājya?) sa[3×] kārīgara-{gyāratā?}rāmena liṣitāḥ mūla-saṃgha-nāyaka-bhaṭ*āraka-śrīmaheṃdrakīrti-upades*āt śubhaṃ <1>paṇḍita-ḍuṃgaras(ī/a?)-jī <4>(po?)tra <1>śrī-pustaka cāritra kī #4.26. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Sadāsevārāmasukha s. 1949, in small chatrī, consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti, established by Nemīcandra (and Paṇḍita Ratnalāla?), Nasiyāṃ, Būndī. śrī buṃdāvatī nagare mh*āta*mā paṃḍita jī śrī ḍu*garasī jī kā celā <2> paṇḍitasadāsevārāmasukha-jī kā caraṇa-pādukā paṃ. ratana<3>lāla ci. nemīcandreṇa sthāpitāḥ mh*āmahotsavena mitī āsoja suda 10 ravivāre saṃvat· 1949 {guṇacāsakā?} śubha śrī sm*astaśrāvaga-saṃgha-nāyaka-bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-maheṃdrakīrti-jī kā upades*āt· kārīgara-narasighāna liṣitāḥ śubha <1> || <1>śrī-pustaka cāritra kī #4.27. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Ratnalāla s. 19(5?)6, in small chatrī, by Nemicanda (and?) Hīrālāla, Nasiyāṃ, Būndī. 476 <1>paṃ. ḍuṃgarasīdāsa jī kā sī sivalāla jī tat· sisya <2>paṃ ratnalālasya caraṇai caraṃ nemicanda hīrālālena <3>sthāpitaṃ śubhaṃ bhavatu jeṣṭa śukla 4 saṃ. 19[5?]6 <1>śrī-pustaka cāritra kā 5. Vāgaḍāśākhās #5.1. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Jñānakīrti n.d., in communal chatrī, repurposed, Laghuśākhā, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā. [Side 1:] <1> ācārya-śrī-jñānakīrti(ḥ?) [Side 2:] <1> ācārya-śrī-jñānakīrtiḥ [Side 3:] <1> ācārya-śrī-[2×]kīrttiḥ [Side 4:] <1> ācārya-śrī-[4×] #5.2. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Ratnakīrti n.d., in communal chatrī, Laghuśākhā, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā. [Side 1:] <1>ā. śrī-ratnakīrttibhyo namaḥ || [Side 2:] <1>ā. śrī-ratnakīrttibhyo namaḥ [Side 3:] <1>ā. śrī-ratnakīrtti-gurubhyo namaḥ [Side 4:] <1>ā. śrī-ratnakīrtti-gurubhyo na[1×] || #5.3. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Yaśakīrti s. 16(1/2)8, in communal chatrī, consecrated by Ācārya [later Maṇḍalācārya] Guṇacandra, built by Brahma Pāvana and others (prob. brahmacārīs), Laghuśākhā, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā. [near top of niṣedhikā on side A:] <1>siddha-pratimā <2>ā. śrī-5-yaśakīrtti-gurubhyo na<3>ma || [near top of niṣedhikā on side B:] <1>siddha-pratimā <2>ācārya-śrī-yaśakīrtti-guru<3>bhyoḥ namaḥ [near top of niṣedhikā on side C:] <1>ā. śrī-yaśakīrti-gurubhyo nama [near top of niṣedhikā on side D:] <1> [short inscription not documented] [near base of niṣedhikā on side A:] 16[1/2?]8 varṣe jeṣṭ(h?)a-śudi-13 <2>some śrī-mūla-saṃghe sarasva(ti?)-<3>balātkāra-gaṇe śrī-kuṃdakuṃdā<4>cāryānvaye bha. śrī-padmanaṃdi-devā<5>s-tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-sakalakīrtidev(ā?)<6>statpaṭṭe bha. śrī-bhuvanakīrti<7>-devās-tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-(jñ?)[2×]?<8>ṣaṇa(-deva?)[ca. 5×] maṇda[1×] <9>(ā)cārya-śrī-jñānakīrti-dev(a/ā)<10>[ca. 7×][ca. 5+] [inscription possibly continued covered by new ﬂoor tiling] <1>saṃvat· [near base of niṣedhikā on side B:] <1>vāgaḍa-deśe rā(jādhi?)<2>rāja-śrī-pratāpa-jī-vi<3>jaya-rājya sthavirācā<4>rya-śrī-yaśakīrtti ni<5>[3×] kī(ya?) śiṣya <6>vra pavanādyena kārā<7>pitaṃ pratiṣṭāpita śrī || <8>(śrīr-astu?) śubhaṃ bhavatu <9>[inscription seemingly continued covered by new ﬂoor tiling] [near base of niṣedhikā on side C:] <1>ā. śrī-guṇacaṃdropadeśā<2>t· [near base of niṣedhikā on side D:] <1>ā. śrī-guṇacaṃdropade<2>śāt· || 477 #5.4. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya (Maṇḍalācārya?) Jinacandra s. 1658, in communal chatrī, consecrated by Maṇḍalācārya Sakalacandra, Laghuśākhā, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā. [Side 1:] <1> a. śrī-jinaca[1+] <2> || saṃvat· 1658 varṣe kārttika śudi <3> || (śukre?) śrī-mūla-saṃghe kuṃdakuṃ<4>dācāryānvāye maṃḍalācā <5>[ca. 10+] [inscription covered by new ﬂoor tiling from here] [Side 2:] <1?>saṃvat· 1654 varṣe <2>|| ā. śrī-jinacaṃdra | [Side 3:] <1>|| [ca. 3×]naca(ṃ?)dra | <2>[1×] ta. śrī-jinacaṃdra ta. maṃḍalā<3>cārya-śrī-sakalacāṃdra gurū<4>(ū?)padeśāt· [3×](ka?)(vra?) <5?> [inscription possibly continued covered by new ﬂoor tiling] [Side 4:] <1>|| ā. śrī-ji[2×] #5.5. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Vinayacandra s. 1594, in communal chatrī, Brhatśākhā (& Laghuśākhā?), Nasīyājī, Naugāmā. ̥ [near base of niṣedhikā on side A:] <1>saṃvata 1594 varṣe śrī-mūla-<2>saṃghe sarasvatī-gacche śrī-kuṃdakuṃ<3>dācāryā(nvi?)ye bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sa<4>kalakīrtti-devās-tat-paṭe bha. śrī-<5>bhuvanakīrtti-devās-tat-paṭṭe bha. <6>śrījñānabhūṣaṇa-devās-tat-paṭe <7>bha. śrī-vijayakīrtti-devās-tat· <8>[ca. 8+][ca. 4×]<?> [inscription possibly further continued under new ﬂooring] [near base of niṣedhikā on side B:] 1594 varṣe māgha sudi [1+] <2>ravau stavirācārya-śrī-<3>[1×?](āna?)kīrtti tat-siṣyā ā-<4>śrīvinayacaṃdrasya <5>niṣedhikā || (sāṃs?) [1×] <6>{bhātarārī ādīditā a?} <7>[ca. 9+] <?> [inscription possibly further continued under new ﬂooring] <1>sa(ṃ?). [near base of niṣedhikā on side C:] <1>yacaṃdra ni[mi?]sa?i <2-8> [I cannot at present oﬀer a further reading of this this inscription] #5.6. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Haribhūṣaṇa s. 1601, in communal chatrī, Laghuśākhā, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā. [near base of niṣedhikā on side A:] <1>saṃvata 1601. varṣe poṣa-vadi-12-<2>saume śrī-mūla-saṃghe ācārya-śrī-jñ(ā)<3>nakīrti tat-siṣya ācārya-śrī-<4>(ha?)ribhūṣaṇa [near base of niṣedhikā on side B:] <1>ācārya-śrī-ha || <1>ribh(ū?)ṣaṇa [near base of niṣedhikā on side C:] <1> saṃvata 1601. varṣe śrī mūla-saṃghe | sa <2> rasvatī-gache balātkāra-gaṇe śrīkuṃda<3>kuṃdācāryānvaye | bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sa<4>kalakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī bhuvana(kī)<5>rtti [2×]ru-bhrātā ācārya-śrī-(ra?)<6>tnakīrtis-tat-siṣya ā. śrī-ya<7>[śa?]kīrtti(s-tat-?)siṣya ācārya-śrī-<8>[ca. 12×] [inscription possibly further continued under new ﬂooring] #5.7. Niṣedhikā, prob. of Ācārya (Guṇa?)kīrti s. 1638, in communal chatrī, consecrated by Ācārya Guṇacandra, built by unidentiﬁed brahmacārī, Laghuśākhā, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā. [near top of niṣedhikā on one side] <1>sid(d?)ha nī pratimāḥ || [near top of niṣedhikā on one side] <1>|| siddha-pratimāḥ || [near top of niṣedhikā on one side:] 478 <1>|| siddha nī pratimāḥ || [near top of niṣedhikā on one side:] <1>|| siddha-pratimā || [near base of niṣedhikā on one side:] <1>[1+](1?)6(3?)8 varṣe [ca. 6×] vāgaḍa-deśe rājā<2>[1+]rāja-śrī-pratāpa(-jī?) vijayarā(jye?) [ca. 4×] <3>[ca. 2×](ne?) ā.-śrī-ratnakīrtti tat-siṣya (stha?)virā<4>cārya-śrī-yaśakīrtti tat-siṣyācārya-śrī-gu<5>[1×] (caṃdr?)opadeśat· brahma-(navakṣe?) (nasīka?) <6>[ca. 4×] karāpita(ṃ?) pratiṣṭāpita(ṃ?) <7>… śrī … … … <8>[ca. 9×](śrī?) [near base of niṣedhikā on one side:] <1>| ācārya-śrī-(gu?) <2>| ṇacaṃdropadeś(ā?) <3> || t· || śrīḥ || <4?>[ca. 6-8+?]<5> kā kārāpitā || śrī (||?) [near base of niṣedhikā on one side:] 1638 varṣe jeṣṭa śudi 13 some || <2>śrī-mūla-saṃghe | sarasvatī-gacche balātkā<3>ra-gaṇe śrī-kuṃdakuṃdācāryānvaye | bha.-śrī-<4>sakalakīrti-devās-ta. bha.-śrī-bhuvanakī<5>rti-devās-t. bha.-śrī jñānabhūṣana-dev(ā-tad-gu?)<6>ru-bhrātā maṇḍalācārya-śrī-jñānakīrtti-devā ta(t·?)<7>s(i?)ṣya maṃḍalācārya-śrī-ratnakīrti-devā tat-siṣya ma<8>[1×]lācārya-śrī-yaśakīrtti-devā ta(thā?) śrīsaṃghā [1×] <9>[ca. 4×]guropadeśāt ācārya-śrī-(guṇa?)k(ī?)<10>rti [3×] (śra?)[ca. 5×] karāpita [ca. 2-3×] <11>[ca. 4×] pratiṣṭhāpita [ca. 8×] <?> [inscription possibly further continued under new ﬂooring] <1>saṃvat [near base of niṣedhikā on one side:] <1-3> [no documentation available] #5.8. Niṣedhikā of Muni Devanandi s. (???)(6?), in communal chatrī, Brhatśākhā?, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā. ̥ [near base of niṣedhikā on one side:] <1>mu. śrī-devanaṃdi || [near base of niṣedhikā on one side:] <1>mu. śrī-devanaṃdi || [near base of niṣedhikā on one side:] <1>mu. śrī-devanaṃdi || [near base of niṣedhikā on one side:] 4+](6?) varṣe āṣā-vadi-8-aṣṭamī (bhū?)[1+] <2>[ca. 4+][2×]na[va?]gāmā-śubha-sthāna [2×] <3>[ca. 4-5+]-saṃgh(e?) sarasvatī-gacche balātk(ā)<4>[ca. 6+]cāryānvaye (śrī?) śrī [2×] <5>[ca. 5+] bha. śrībhuvana(k)īrtti(sta?)<6>[ca. 4+] jñ(ā)(na?)bhūṣa[ca. 5+] (śrī-vi?)<7>[ca. 15+] <8>[ca. 15+] [inscription possibly further continued under new ﬂooring] <1>[ca. #5.9. Niṣedhikā of Brahmacārī Lakṣmaṇa s. 169(1?), in communal chatrī, no legible lineage aﬃliation, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā [midway niṣedhikā on side A, under carving of padmāsana ﬁgure:] <1>bra. laṣamaṇa || [near base of niṣedhikā on side A, under carving of khaḍgāsana ﬁgure:] <1>bhaṭ*āraka-śrī-<2>(bhu?) [7×] [inscription possibly continued under new ﬂooring] [midway niṣedhikā on side B, under carving of padmāsana ﬁgure:] <1>vra. śrī-laṣamaṇa [near base of niṣedhikā on side B, under carving of khaḍgāsana ﬁgure:] <1> sa. 169(1?) varaṣe c(ai?)(tra sudi?)[1×?] #5.10. Niṣedhikā of Brahmacārī Satā s. 1691, in communal chatrī, prob. Laghuśākhā, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā. 479 [midway niṣedhikā between carvings of padmāsana and khaḍgāsana ﬁgures on side A:] <1>vra. satā | [midway niṣedhikā between carvings of padmāsana and khaḍgāsana ﬁgures on side B:] <1>vra. satā [midway niṣedhikā between carvings of padmāsana and khaḍgāsana ﬁgures on side C:] <1>vra. satā [midway niṣedhikā between carvings of padmāsana and khaḍgāsana ﬁgures on side D:] <1>vra. satā [near basis of niṣedhikā below carving of khaḍgāsana ﬁgure on side A:] <1>sa(ṃ?)vat· 1(6?)91 varṣe <2>(cā?) [ca. 17×] sudi 5 (dana?)<3>m(a/ū)(la?)[ca. 5×] possibly continued under new ﬂooring] <4-...?> [inscription [near basis of niṣedhikā below carving of khaḍgāsana ﬁgure on side C:] <1>mūla-saṃghe bhaṭ(ā?)<2>raka-śrī-ratana [inscription probably continued covered by new <3-....?> ﬂooring] #5.11. Niṣedhikā of Brahmacārī Gakarasā n.d., in communal chatrī, no lineage aﬃliation recorded, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā. <1>bra. śrī-gaka<2>rasā #5.12. Niṣedhikā, unidentiﬁed, poss. brahmacārī s. 16(63?), in communal chatrī, no lineage aﬃliation legible, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā. [near base of niṣedhikā on one side, under carving of khaḍgāsana ﬁgure:] <1> sa(ṃ)vat (16)(63?) va(r)ṣe śrī-m(ū?) [ca. 6×] continued under new ﬂooring] <2> [ca. 17×] <3> [ca. 17×] <4-...?> [inscription possibly #5.13. Niṣedhikā of Muni Prabhācandra s. 1564, in dilapidated chatrī, Vāgaḍāśākhā (spec.), Kalyāṇa Ṭhākura Mandira, Naugāmā. [inscription near base of pillar under khaḍgāsana ﬁgure on side A:] <1>muni-śrī-prabhācaṃdra || [inscription near base of pillar under khaḍgāsana ﬁgure on side B:] <1>[ca. 1+]n(i?)-śrī-prabhācaṃ(dra?) [inscription near base of pillar under khaḍgāsana ﬁgure on side C:] <1>muni-śrī-prabhācaṃ<2>dra [inscription near base of pillar under khaḍgāsana ﬁgure on side D:] <1>|| saṃvat* 1564 varṣe posa-va<2>di-trayodaśā-śukra-vāre mū<3>la-nakṣatre nugāmā-śubhasthā <4> ne devāgate | śrī-mūlasaṃghe sa <5> rasvatī-gacche balātkāra-gu*ṇa | <6> śrīkuṃdakuṃdācāryānvaye bhaṭṭā<7>raka-śrī-sakalakīrtti tat·pa<8-....?> [further inscription covered by cement pouring] #5.14. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Sumatikīrti no legible date (prob. s. 1620-30s), in communal chatrī, by Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇakīrti, Brhatśākhā, Choṭī ̥ Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. [on rounded top of pillar:] <1>sīdha-pra<2>tima [on rounded top of pillar:] <1>pratimā-<2>sūga<3>ti-sī<4>lā 480 [on rounded top of pillar:] <1>pratimā<2>[1+]gati-(sī?)lā [on rounded top of pillar:] (ma.?) (silā?) kara [2×] [near base of pillar on side A:] śrī-sumatik[1+]-<2>(guru?)bhyo namaḥ || <3>[1+]rṣe phāguṇa śu. 14-gurau śrī-mū(la?)[1+] bālātkāra-gāṇe kuṃdakuṃdācā(r?)yā <5>[1+] śrī-prabhācaṃdra-devās-ta. bha. śrī-padma<6>devās-ta. bha. śrī-sakalakīrtti-devā(s?)[1+?]<7>śrī-bhuvanakīrti-devās-ta. bha. śrījñā<8>ṇa[2+?]ṇa[2-3+] bha. śrī -(vija?)yakīrtti[1+] <9>[inscription covered by cement] <1>[?+?] <4>[1+]t(i?)-gacch(e?) [near base of pillar on side B (continued from side A):] (bha.?) sumatikī[1+] <2>[?+?] namaḥ <3> [ca. 3+][1×]bhacaṃdradevāsta. bha. śrī su<4>[ca. 3+][2×] (ta.?) bha. śrī-guṇakīrtti (nasa?) <5>samasta śrī-[2×](nityaṃ?) [1×] (bhavatu |?) <1>[1+?] #5.15. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣacandra s. 1726, in communal chatrī, Laghuśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. 1726 varṣe [1×?] <2>|| sa*vata* 1726 varṣe mā<3>gasara-sū-13-dī*ne guru-<4>vāsare śrī-mūlasaṃghe <5>sarasvatā*-gacche balātkā<6>ra-gu*ṇe ku(ṃ?)daku(ṃ?)dācāryyā|<7>nvaye śrī-bhaṭṭārakaśrī-sa<8>kalaca(ṃ?)dra tat·-paṭṭe bhaṭṭā<9>raka-śrī-ratnaca[ṃ?]dra tat·-pa[1+?] <10>bhaṭṭāraka-śrīharṣacaṃdra-<11>nasakā karāpītaṃ |(|?) <1>saṃvat· #5.16. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti s. 1769, in chatrī together with niṣedhikā-kīrtistambha (see next), by Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II), Brhatśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. ̥ saṃvat· 1769 varṣe phā*ga*ṇa-vadi-4-budhe śrī mūla-saṃgha* sarasvatī-gacche balātkāragāṇe śrī -kuṃdakuṃdācāryyānvaye bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sakalakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha | bhuvanakīrtti tatpaṭṭe bha. jñānabhūṣaṇa tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-vijayakīrtti-tat-paṭṭ(e) bha. śrī-s*ubhacaṃdra-devā || _[ca. 12]_ <2>[1+]t-paṭṭe bha. sumatikīrtti tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-guṇa[1+]īrtti tat-paṭṭe bha. vādī*bhūṣaṇa tatpaṭṭe bha. śrī-rāmakīrtti tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-padmanaṃdī tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-deveṃdrakīrtti tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-kṣemakīrtti tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-narendrakīrtti <3>tat-paṭṭa bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-5-vijayakī*tti nareṃdrakīrtti-pādukā(m?) nityaṃ praṇamatī || śrī || <1>|| kīrtistambha #5.17. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, also Brhatśākhā ̥ s. 1769 (inscr. mistakenly s. 1764), in chatrī together with pādukā (see previous), by Bhaṭṭāraka Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. Vijayakīrti (II), Brhatśākhā, ̥ [near top of pillar under carving of padmāsana ﬁgure on side A:] <1>śrī vrṣabhadevebhyo namaḥ || 1 || ̥ [near base of pillar under khaḍgāsana ﬁgure on side A:] 1764* varṣe phā*ga*ṇa-va. 4-budhe śrī-mūla-saṃghe sarasvatī-gacche balā<2>tkāra-gāṇa śrī-kuṃdakuṃdācāryyānvaye bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-saka<3>lakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-bhuvanakīrttis-tatpaṭṭe bha. śrī- <4> jñānabhūṣaṇas-tadanvaye bha. śrī-padmanaṃdī tat-paṭṭa bha. <5> śrīdeveṃdrakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-kṣemakīrtti<6>s-tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-(nareṃdra)kīrtti niṣedhikāṃ <7> [ca. 18+] [this line half covered by cementing, inscription possibly continued further] <1>saṃvat· [near top of pillar under carving of padmāsana ﬁgure on side B:] <1>śrī mahāvīrebhyo namaḥ || 24 [near base of pillar under khaḍgāsana ﬁgure on side B:] <1>(bhatā?)raka-śrī-narendrakirte-nishedikā || [near top of pillar under carving of padmāsana ﬁgure on side C:] <1>śrī candrap(r?)abhebhyo namaḥ || 8 [near base of pillar under khaḍgāsana ﬁgure on side C:] 481 <1>bhattāraka-śrī-na[1×]drakirti-nishedikā || [near top of pillar under carving of padmāsana ﬁgure on side D:] <1>(śāna?)tināthebhye* namaḥ || 16 [near base of pillar under khaḍgāsana ﬁgure on side D:] <1>bhattāraka-śrī-narendrakirte-nishedikā || #5.18. Niṣedhikā of Maṇḍalācārya Guṇacandra s. 1655, in communal chatrī, by saṅgha, Laghuśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. saṃvata* 1655 varṣe mā-<2>|| gha-śudi-11-śukle śrī || <3>mūla-saṃghe bha. bhuvanakī[1+] <4>|| tat· śiṣya-maṃḍalāc(ā) <5>|| śrī-ratnakīrtti tat-pa(d/ṭ?)e <6>|| maṃ. śrī-yaśaḥkī(r?)tti [1+] <7>|| t-pede maṃ. śrī-guṇacaṃ[1+?] <8>|| sya niṣedhikā śrī-saṃ<9>|| ghena kārāpitā || <1>|| #5.19. Niṣedhikā of Maṇḍalācārya Sakalacandra s. 1673, in communal chatrī, Laghuśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. <1> || saṃvat· 1673 varṣe phāguṇa-sudi-1[1+?]- <2> guru śrī-mula-saṃghe sarasvatī-ga[1×]e ba[1+?]<3>[1×]kāra-gaṇe kuṃdakuṃd[4×] <4>guṇa[3×](.?) ma. śrī-[1×]i[4×] <5>ma. śrī-(sa?)kalacaṃdra ta[ca. 5×]-<6>śrī-ratna(caṃ?)dra [ca. 8×] <7>maṃ. śrī-sakalacaṃdra[5×][ca. 3+?] <8>(cātā?) vrahma-śrī[ca. 7×] <9>[1×](kā?) śubha(ṃ?) bhavatu [ca. 6×] #5.20. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Dharmakīrti s. 1579, in communal chatrī, consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (I), Brhatśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, ̥ Sāgavāṛā. 1579 mahā vadi 10 some śrī-mū<2>la-saṃghe bhaṭṭaraka-śrī-vijayakīrtti-gurū[1+]<3>deśāt· | ācā*ya-śrī-dharmakīrtti-niṣa*dhi[1+] <1>saṃvat· #5.21. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Kalyāṇakīrti Choṭī Nasīyā, s. 1725, in communal chatrī, consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, Brhatśākhā, ̥ Sāgavāṛā. [near top of pillar above carving of padmāsana ﬁgure on side A:] <1>ācāryya-śrī-kalyāṇakīrtter-niṣ(e?)[ca. 2+] [near top of pillar above carving of padmāsana ﬁgure on side B:] <1>¶ || ācāryya-śrī-kalyāṇakīrtter-niṣe[ca. 2+] [near top of pillar above carving of padmāsana ﬁgure on side C:] <1>[ca. 3+]ya-śrī-kalyāṇakīrtter-niṣedhikā || [near top of pillar above carving of padmāsana ﬁgure on side D:] <1>| ācāryya-śrī-kalyāṇakīrtterniṣe[1+]i[1+] [near base of pillar under carving of khaḍgāsana ﬁgure on side A:] saṃvat· 1725 varśe āso-śudi-11-so[1+] <2>śrī-mūla-saṃghe sarasvatī-gacche balātkāra-ga<3>ṇe śrī-kuṃdakuṃdācāryyānvaye bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-<4>sakalakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-bhuvanakīrtti<5>s-tatpaṭṭe bha. śrī-jñānabhūṣaṇas-tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-<6>vijayakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī śubhacaṃdras[1+]<7>ṭṭe bha. śrī-sumatikīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-[1+]<8>ṇakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bha. vādibhūṣaṇas-[2+]<9>ṭṭe bha. śrī-rāmakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-[1+]- <10> padmanaṃdī tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrīdeveṃdra[1+]<11>rtti-gurūpadeśāt muni-śrī-śrutakī[1+]i<12>s-tac-chiṣya muni-śrī-devakīrttis-tacchiṣyā<13>cāryya śrī-kalyānakīrtter-niṣedhikāṃ <14>ācāryya-śrī-kalyāṇakīrtteḥ śiṣyā mu<15>ni-śrītribhuvanacaṃdra vrahma-saṃgha-jī | vra<16>hma-lāla-jī vrahma-prema-jī vrahma-nā(y?)[1+]<17>[?]jī paṃḍita-rāghava-jī paṃḍita-haridāsa[1-2+] <18>tyaṃ praṇamaṃti || _[1]_ || śubhaṃ bhavatu || cha || śrī || <1>|| #5.22. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Jagatkīrti 482 s. 1739, in communal chatrī, Laghuśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. [near top of pillar above carving of padmāsana ﬁgure on side A:] <1>[1+]cāryya-śrī-(jagata?)kīrtti-niṣedhikā || [near top of pillar above carving of padmāsana ﬁgure on side B:] <1>ā [ca. ?×?] [near top of pillar above carving of padmāsana ﬁgure on side C:] <1>ācārya-śrī-jagatakīrtti-niṣedhikā [near top of pillar above carving of padmāsana ﬁgure on side D:] <1>ācāryā-śrī-jagatakīrtti-niṣe(dh)i[1+?] [near base of pillar under carving of khaḍgāsana ﬁgure on side A:] 1739 varṣe caitra-māse śukla-pakṣe 1(1?)-(sau?)<2>ma-vāsare śrī-mūla-saṃghe sarasvatīgacche balā<3>tkāra-gaṇe śrī-kuṃdakuṃdācāryyānvaye bhaṭṭāra<4>ka-śrī-ratnacaṃdra tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-harṣacaṃdra tat-s(ī?)ṣ<5>ā ācāryya-śrī-jagatakīrttir-niṣedhikā ā<6>cāryya-śrī-jagatakīrtti ta[1×]-sa*ṣya brahma-śrī-<7>rājasī vrahma-śrī-ratna brahma-śrī-pāvanā <8>paṃḍita-manora nitya praṇamati || śrī | <1>saṃvat· #5.23. Niṣedhikā of unidentiﬁed ācārya s. 1749, in communal chatrī, Brhatśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. ̥ [near top of pillar above carving of padmāsana ﬁgure on side A:] <1>[1×?]ācārya śrī-[1×](i?)[ca. 6×]niṣedhik(a/ā) [near top of pillar above carving of padmāsana ﬁgure on side B:] <1> [ca. 9×](caṃdra?)[1+]niṣedhi[1+?] [near top of pillar above carving of padmāsana ﬁgure on side C:] <1>…[carya?] śrī … [near top of pillar above carving of padmāsana ﬁgure on side D:] <1>… (caṃdra?)[1+]-niṣedhika [near base of pillar under carving of khaḍgāsana ﬁgure on side A:] saṃvat· 1749 varṣe [8×] (pakṣe?)[3×]<2>saṃghe sarasvatī-gacche balātakāra-gaṇe śrīku(ṃ?)daku(ṃ?) <3>|| dacāryyānvaye bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sakalakīrtti<4>|| stat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-bhūvanakīrttistat-paṭ*e [ca. 5×] <5>|| nabhūṣaṇas-tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-vijayak[ca. 4×] <6>|| bha. [1×] śubhacaṃdras-tatpaṭṭe bha. śrī-sumat(i?)[ca. 3×] <7>|| t-paṭṭe bha. śrī-guṇaka*rttis-tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-(vā)<8>|| dibhūṣaṇas-tat-paṭṭe bha. rāmakī[ca. 4×] <9>|| [ca. 16×] <10>kīrttis-tat-paṭe bha. śrī kṣema(kīrtti?) [3×] <11>|| padeśāt mu(ni?) śrī (kanakā?) (brahma?) [2×] <12>[ca. 16×] <13>[ca. 16×] <14>(bha.?) [1×] (śrī-brahma?) [ca. 8×] <15>(siṣya?) [ca. 11×] <16>[ca. 6×] nityaṃ praṇamat(ī?) <1>|| #5.24. Niṣedhikā of Muni Jayakīrti s. 1602, in communal chatrī, by saṅgha, Brhatśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. ̥ <1>saṃvata* 1602 varṣe śrī-mūla-<2>saṃghe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-śubha<3>ca*dra-devāḥ tac-chiṣya muniniṣedhik(ā) <5>samasta-śrī-saṃghena kārāpitā <4>śrī-jayakīrttiḥ #5.25. Niṣedhikā of Muni Siṅhanandi Choṭī Nasīyā, s. 1627, in communal chatrī, consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Sumatikīrti, Brhatśākhā, ̥ Sāgavāṛā. 1627 varṣe (jeṣṭa?)[1×?] <2>[2×] vadi 11 baudhe śrī-mūla-<3>saṃghe saravatī-gacche balāt(kāra?)-ga<4>ṇe śrī-kuṃdakuṃdācā[2×]y(e?) bha<5>ṭṭāraka-śrī-sumatikīrtti upa<6>deśāt· munīśrī-siṃhanaṃ<7>di niśīdhikā || (ba?) || śrī || <1>saṃvat #5.26. Niṣedhikā of Brahmacārī Ratnasāgara 483 157(5?), in communal chatrī, consecrated by Ācārya Ratnakīrti, built by (Vijaya?)bhūṣaṇa (no rank) and saṅgha, Brhatśākhā & Laghuśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. ̥ 157(5?) varṣe māgha-<2>sudi-5-budhe śrī-mūla-saṃghe sa<3>rasvatī-gacche balātkāragaṇe <4>śrī-kuṃdakuṃdācāryānvaye <5>bha(ṭṭa*?)raka-śrī-jñānabhūṣaṇa ta<6>tpaṭṭe bhaṭṭā. śrīvijayakī<7>rti tac-chiṣya (śrī?)-(vijaya?)bhū<8>ṣaṇena tathā samasta-saṃghe<9>na brahma-śrīratnasāgara(sya?) <10>niṣ(e?)dhikā kārāpita(ṃ?) <11>ācārya-śrī-ratnakī<12>rttinā prati(sth?)itā(ṃ?) || (śu?)<13>bhaṃ bhavatu || śrī || <1>saṃvat· #5.27. Niṣedhikā of unidentiﬁed brahmacārī Choṭī Nasīyā, s. 162(?), in communal chatrī, consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Sumatikīrti, Brhatśākhā, ̥ Sāgavāṛā. 2+]ta 162(?) varṣe jeṣṭha vadi [ca. 4+] <2> [ca. 2+]la-saṃ[ghe?] bha. śrī śu[ca. 4+] <3> [1-2+]t-paṭṭe bha. śrī-su(ma?)[ca. 4+] <4> [ca. 1+]deśāt· (tat-si?)ṣya brahma [ca. 4+] <5> [ca. 2+] (niṣedhikā?) karāpitaṃ || <1>[ca. #5.28. Pādukā of unidentiﬁed brahmacārī no legible date, on cabūtarā in front of square chatrī, no legible lineage aﬃliation, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. [?+?](rṣe) [ca. 6×] śrī-mūla-saṃghe sarasvatī-[ca. 6×]ga[1×] ku[ṃ?]daku[ṃ?]dācā[ca. 4×] bhaṭṭāraka [ca. 10+]chiṣya-brahma sa [ca. 5+](āduk?)[1+][...+?] <1> #5.29. Niṣedhikā, unidentiﬁed (possibly brahmacārī) s. 1(6)(??), in communal chatrī, consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra, Laghuśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. 1(6?)[2×] varṣe [ca. 7×] <2> [ca. 15×] <3> [ca. 15×] <4> [ca. 15×] <5> [ca. 15×] <6> [ca. 15×] <7>[1×] śrī [ca. 13×] <8>[1×]. śrī [7×] bha. śrī-ra<9>[1×?]na(caṃdra?)-guru-upadeśāt(·?) [4×] <10> [2×] (maṃ.?) śrīsakalacaṃdra [2×] <11>(brahma?) [3×] brahma-(śrī?)-ja[1×](ke?)(na?)<12>[ca. 2+] [ca. 5×] bhavatu(ḥ?) || <13> [ca. 3+]lyāṇa[2×]stu(ḥ?) || [reading could perhaps be improved] <1>[2×]vat· #5.30. Niṣedhikā, unidentiﬁed s. 1608, in communal chatrī, Brhatśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. ̥ 1608 varṣe kārttika- <2> śudi-8-gur(ū?) śrī-mūla-saṃghe <3> sarasvati*-gacche balāta*kā <4> ra-gu*ṇe kuṃdaku(ṃ?)dācārya*nva <5> ye bha. sakala(kī )rti-tat-paṭṭe bha. <6>bha*vanakīrti-tat-paṭṭe bha. jñāna<7>bhūṣaṇa-tat-paṭṭe bha. [ca 6+] <8-...?> [inscription possibly continued under ﬂooring] <1> [1+]vata #5.31. Niṣedhikā, unidentiﬁed s. 1619, in communal chatrī, Laghuśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. saṃvat· 1619 varṣe vaiśākha-sudi-15-śu[1+] <2>śrī mūla-saṃghe sarasvati*-gacche balātkāraga<3>ṇe śrī-kuṃ*kuṃdācāryyānvaye (bha.?) śrī-padmanaṃ<4>di tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-sakalakīrtti tatpaṭṭe bha. śrī-<5>bhuvanakīrtti-tat-siṣya (stha?)virācārya-jñā<6>nakīrti ta siṣyācārya-śrī-ratnakīrtti ta siṣyā<7>cārya-śrī-yaśaḥkīrtti (ta?) [4×] śrī [4×] <8> iyaṃ (nāsedhīke?) [4×]< || śubhaṃ bhavatu || śrī || <1>|| #5.32. Niṣedhikā, unidentiﬁed (poss. ācārya) no legible date (poss. 17th cent. CE), in communal chatrī, no legible lineage aﬃliation (poss. Brhatśākhā), Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. ̥ <1> [1×](sa?) [4×] (ā. śrī?) [1×] <2>[ca. 12×] <3>[ca. 12×]<4> [11×]kā <5> || [1×?] (prati?)[6×?] #5.33. Niṣedhikā, unidentiﬁed s. 1699, in communal chatrī, prob. by Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnacandra, Laghuśākhā, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. 484 <1>|| saṃvat· 1699 varṣe phāguṇa-sudi-<2>12-ravau śrī-mūla-saṃghe sa<3>rasvatī-gacche balātkāragaṇe śrī-kuṃdakudā<4>cāryānvaye bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-padmanaṃdi-devās-tat-pa<5>d*e bha. śrīsakalakīrtti-devās-tat-pad*e bha. bhuvana<6>kīrtti-devās-tad[2×]-guru-(bhr?)a*tr-s(th?)avirācāryyḁ <7>śrī-ratnakīrtti-devās-tat-pad*e maṃḍalacāryya-śrī- <8>yaśakīrtti-devās-tat-pad*e maṃ. śrīguṇacandra-devā <9> s-tat-paṭṭe maṃ. śrī-jinacaṃdra-devās-tat-pad*e (m?)aṃ. <10> śrīsakalacaṃdra-devās-tat-pad*e bhaṭṭāra<11>ka-śrī-ratnacaṃdrā nityāṃ praṇamaṃti || #5.34. Kīrtistambha of the Brhatśākhā ̥ s. 1610, in mandira, inscription incompletely documented (and present readings can probably be improved), Brhatśākhā, Jūnā Mandira, Sāgavāṛā. ̥ [near top of niṣedhikā on one side:] <1>sidha<2>pratimā <3>[1×?](kta?)<4>(salā?) [near base of niṣedhikā on side A:] <1>[ca. 6-10×] (saṃ?)vat· 1610 varṣe _[4]_ (śrī?) mūla-sa(ṃghe?) [ca. 6+] (śrī?) [1×][ca. 6-10+] [near base of niṣedhikā on side B:] <1>[ca. 6-10×][ca. 5×] śrī-vi _[4?]_ jayakīrtti-devās-tat-paṭṭe (bha?) [ca. 3×?] śubhacaṃdra [1+?] [near base of niṣedhikā on side C:] <1> (śrī?) [ca. 4-6×] (tathā?) samsta śrī-guru-niṣedhikāḥ (sa?)[2×] śrī (naṃka?) (nitya?) [2×][ca. 6-10×] 6-10+?]huṃbaḍa sā. a[1+]s(v/r?)a. sā. (adārabaḥ?) praṇamati [ca. 6-10+?] <2>[ca. #5.35. Pādukā, unidentiﬁed s. 1756, preserved in mandira, Laghuśākhā, Cintāmaṇi Parśvanātha Mandira, Aṅkleśvara. 1756 varaṣe [ca. 5×] sudī 12 śrī mū(la?)saṃghe sarasvatī-gacche balāta*kāra-ga[ca. 6×]ā(cārye?) bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-śubhacaṃdra<2>(ta.?)[1×]paṭe bha. (ā?)maracaṃdra [va?] <3>[5×] (śrī?) [4×] <1>saṃvat #5.36. Pādukā, unidentiﬁed no legible date, in chatrī, possibly built by brahmacārī and (hypothetically) commemorating Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmacandra, Laghuśākhā?, Nayā Mandira/Gāndhī Mandira, Sāgavāṛā. 4×]9 [ca. 7×] (dine?)(guruvāra?) śrī-mūla-[1+]ghe [2×][ca. 12×] bhaṭṭaraka-jī-śrī-(sa?)ka(la?)ki*rtti-jī tat-paṭe bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-[2×](ca?)[×?] <2> [ca. 1-2+?] (bhaṭṭāraka?)-jī-śrī-[2×](ki*rtti?)[1×](gū*ru upades*āt?)[2-3×](śrī-devacaṃdra-jī?)(tasya?) [3×] (vrahmacāry?) [6×] pādūkā nityaṃ praṇamaṃ [ca. 4×] <1>[ca. #5.37. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Devacandra s. 1822, preserved in mandira, together with niṣedhikā (see next), lost chatrī built by Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmacandra, Laghuśākhā, Jūnā Mandira, Sāgavāṛā. (saṃ?)vat· 1[8?]22 va(r?)ṣe mā[1×]-sa*d(i?)-12-budha-vāsare śrī-mūla-saṃg*e sarasvatī-ga[ca. 4×] (kāragāṇe?) [ca. 14×] śrī [3×] ratnacaṃdra-jī tat-paṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-harṣacaṃdra-jī tat-paṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-5-[1×](bha?)caṃdra-jī tat-paṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-5-amaracaṃdra-jī tat-paṭe bhaṭṭārakaśrī-5-ratna[2×](j?)ī tat-paṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-108-devaca*dra-jī tat-paṭe bhaṭṭaraka-śrī-108dharmaca(ṃdra?)-jī chatrī [3×] karāpītaṃḥ* śrī-vrahma-siṣya-gokala-jī guru-(bhrā?)(gu?) sātadāsa-jī paṃḍita-jotīcaṃda-jī paṃḍita-śrī-ga*lāvaca*de-jī [1×] || <1>|| #5.38. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Devacandra s. 1822, preserved in mandira, together with pādukā (see previous), lost chatrī built by Bhaṭṭāraka Dharmacandra, Laghuśākhā, Jūnā Mandira, Sāgavāṛā. [side 1:] <1>|| sa*vat· 1822 varṣe mā<2>gha-sudi-12-budhevāsare <3>śrī-mūla-saṃge sarasvatī-<4>gacche balāt·kāra-gaṇe <5>śrī-kuṃdakuṃdācā[1×]<6>nvaye bha.-śrī-ratnaca(ṃ?)dra-<7>jī tat-paṭe bha.-śrīdevacaṃdra-jī <8>chatrī (bha. śrī?-) [ca. 3×]caṃdra ka 485 [side 2:] bha. ratnacaṃdra-<2>jī tat-sī(sya?) deva<3>caṃdra-jī tat-sīkṣa bha. śrī-<4>5-dharmacaṃdra-jī chatrī <5>karāpītaṃ || <1>|| [side 3:] 1822 va(rṣ?)e śrī-mū-lasa[ṃ?]g*e sara <2> svatī-gacche śrī-balātkāra-gane ku[ṃ?]da<3>ku[ṃ?]dācā[3×] bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-<4>ratnaca[ṃ?]dra-jī tat-sī[1×] bhaṭṭāraka-|| <5>śrīdevacaṃdra-jī tat-sā*kṣa darma<6>ca[ṃ?]dra chatrī (kṣayate?) śrīr-astuḥ <1> sa(ṃ?)vat(·?) [side 4:] <1>|| śrī-mūla-sa[ṃ]g*e bhaṭṭāraka-<2>śrī-devaca*dra nitya(ṃ) praṇama<3>tī || #5.39. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Mahicandra and possibly Bhaṭṭāraka Nemicandra s. 1881, double pādukā preserved in mandira, lost chatrī built by Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra, Laghuśākhā, Jūnā Mandira, Sāgavāṛā. <1>|| ¶ || samata 19*58 nā vaiśāṣa-sudī-5 ke dīna bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-108-śrī-mahica*dra-jī devall*oka thayā jaṇāṃ (r?)ī chatrī karāvī bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-guṃ*ṇacaṃdra-jīyaṃ <2>saṃvata 1881 nā śrāvaṇa-vadī-9-budha-vāsare #5.40. Pādukā, unidentiﬁed, prob. paṇḍita s. 1905, pādukā in small chatrī, Laghuśākhā, Pagelejī Mandira, Sāgavāṛā. <1>|| saṃvat· 1905 miti jeṭha-sa*di-13-ravivāre bha. mahicaṃdra-jī ora bha. jī-śrī-caṃdrakī(r?)ti (kārya?) paṃḍita-suṣarāma-jī [1×] cela paṃ(ḍi?)ta [ca. 4-5×](||?) <2>chatrī (pra?) [2×] #5.41. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra and Bhaṭṭāraka Hemacandra s. 1905, double pādukā in chatrī annexed to mandira, Laghuśākhā, Pagelejī Mandira, Sāgavāṛā. <1>saṃvat· 1905 mitī ja*ṭha-sudi-13-ravī*vāre mūla-(sa)<2>ṃg*e sarasvatī-gacche balāt·kāre*-gaṇe bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī ra<3>tnacaṃdra-jī tat·paṭṭe bha-guṇacaṃdra-jī hemī*caṃdra-jī rī pādukā caṃdrakīrtti pratiṣṭataṃ #5.42. Niṣedhikā (Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti [II]?) s. 1802, in chatrī together with to pādukā (see next), chatrī built by Bhaṭṭāraka Nemicandra’s pupil Paṇḍita Premacanda, Brhatśākhā, Nayā Mandira/Gāndhī Mandira, Sāgavāṛā. ̥ saṃvat· 1802 varṣe śāke 1667 prava<2>rt(t?)amāne (u?)tta[1×]yanagate?] śrī-sū(rye?)hemaṃ<3>tametai māhāmāgatya(prade?) māsotta<4>mamāse-śubhakāri-pauṣa-māse kr<5> ̥ sn*apakṣe paṃcamyāṃ tithau budha-vā<6>sare śrī-mūla-saṃghe sarava<7>tī-gacche balātkāra-gaṇe kuṃ<8>dakuṃdācāryānvaye bhaṭṭāra<9>ka-śrī-sakalakīrtti tat-pa<10>ṭṭe bha. śrī-bhuvanakīrtti <11>bha. śrī-jñāṃnabhus*aṇa bha. <12>śrī-vijayakīrttiḥ ta. bha. <13>śrī-śubhacaṃdraḥ bha. śrī-sumati<14>kīrtti bha. śrī-guṇakīrtti bha. śrī-vādibhuṣa<15>ṇa bha. śrī-rāmakīrtti bha. śrī-padmanaṃdī bha. deveṃ<16>drakīrtti [2×]-kṣemakīrtti bha. śrī-narendrakīrttiḥ <17>bha. śrī-vijayakīrtti tat-sīṣya bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-<18>nemicaṃdra-jī tat-sīṣya paṃḍita-premacaṃda (nī?)[1×?]<19>(tyaṃ?) (cha?)trī k(a/ā) [2×]pita [8×]<20>[6+]nagare nītyaṃ (pra?)ṇamatī || <1> || #5.43. Pādukā (Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti [II]?) no legible date [s. 1802], in chatrī together with niṣedikā (see previous), consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Nayā Mandira/Gāndhī Mandira, Sāgavāṛā. Nemicandra, Brhatśākhā, ̥ <1>[ca. 30+]ācāryyānvay[ca. 5+]… sakalakīrtti [ca. 12+] bha. vijayaki*(rt?)ti [ca. 6+]<2>[ca. 4+] bhaṭṭārakaśrī-su…kīrti tat-paṭṭe bha. guṇakīrti ta[ca. 15+]īrtti tat-paṭṭe bha. padmanaṃdī tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-[3+]kī [ca. 12+]rt(t?)i tat-paṭṭe bha. [ca. 8+] tat-paṭṭe bha.<3>śrī-nemica[ṃ?]dra-gurūpadeśāt [ca. 16+] nītyaṃ praṇamaṃti | śrīr-astuḥ || śubha(ṃ?) (bhū?) [+?] #5.44. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti 486 s. 175(9), in chatrī together with niṣedhikās (see next two), by Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, Brhatśākhā, ̥ Śantinātha Mandira, Aśoka Nagara, Udayapura. <1>[ca. 2+]t· 175[1×] varṣe mārgaśīrṣa-śudi-14-śanau | śrī-mūla-saṃghe saravatī-gacche balātkāragaṇe śrī-kuṃdakuṃdācāryyanvaye bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sakalakīrttis-tad-anvaye bhaṭṭāraka-śrīdeveṃdrakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī (kṣeme?)[ca. 3+]tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāra<2>[ca. 2+]ṃdrakīrtti(s-t?) [ca. 4×] bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-kṣemakīrttiḥ pādukāṃ bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-nareṃdrakīrttis-tathā-śrī-saṃgha nityaṃ praṇamaṃti || _[1]_ || śrīr-astu || || śrī || varddhatī śrī-jinaśānaṃ || || śrī || #5.45. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti s. 1759, in chatrī together with pādukā (see previous) and niṣedhikā (see next), by Bhaṭṭāraka Śantinātha Mandira, Aśoka Nagara, Udayapura. Narendrakīrti, Brhatśākhā, ̥ <1>|| saṃvat· 1759 varṣe mārgaśīrṣa-śudi-14-śanau <2>śrī-mūla-saṃghe saravatī-gacche balātkāragaṇe <3>śrī-kuṃdakuṃdācāryyānvaye bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sakalakī<4>rttis-tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrībhuvanakīrtti-tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāra<5>ka-śrī-jñānabhusaṇas-tad-anvaye bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-rāmakīrtti<6>stat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-padmanaṃdī(ḥ) tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-de<7>veṃdrakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-kṣa*makīrtti-tat-pa<8>ṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-nareṃdrakīrttis-tad-āmnāye bhaṭṭāraka<9> śrī-kṣemakīrttir-niṣedhikāṃ bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-nareṃdrakīrtti <10> s-tathā śrī-saṃgha nityaṃ praṇamati || _[1]_ || śrīr-astu || [2×?] #5.46. Niṣedhikā of Ācārya Viśvabhūṣaṇa s. 1759, in chatrī together with pādukā and niṣedhikā (see previous two), by saṅgha, Brhatśākhā, ̥ Śantinātha Mandira, Aśoka Nagara, Udayapura. saṃvat· 1759 varṣe mārgaśīrṣa-śudi-14-śanau <2>śrī-mūla-saṃghe sarasvatī-gacche balātkāragaṇe śrī-<3>kuṃdakuṃdācāryyānvaye bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sakalakī<4>rttis-tad-anvaye bhaṭṭāraka-śrīpadmanaṃdī tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāra<5>ka-śrī-deveṃdrakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-kṣemakī<6>rttistat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-nareṃdrakīrttis-tad-āmnāye ā<7>cāryya-śrī-viśvabhūṣaṇasya niṣedhikāṃ śrī-saṃgha <8>nityaṃ praṇamati || _[1]_ || śrīr-astu || _[1]_ || śubhaṃ bhavatu || <1>|| #5.47. Pādukā, unidentiﬁed (jina?) s. 1726, preserved in chatrī (together with next two), Candraprabhu Caityālaya, Āyaṛa (Udayapura). [top of slab] <1>s(r?)as(r?)i śra (ā?)(ta?)jīṇa [1×](ṇa?)(ma?)(k/v/d?)(ā?)jī śrī jīṇa (ka?) sa(sa?)sa[ca. 9×] (mu.?) (ma/na)(da?)sa(ghe?)(dā)[1×] [reading could probably be improved] [front of slab] <1>saṃbat 1726 varṣe māgasara* <2>suda* 12 budha #5.48. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti s. 1769, in chatrī together with niṣedhikā (see next), by Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II), Brhatśākhā, ̥ Candraprabhu Caityālaya, Āyaṛa (Udayapura). <1>|| saṃvat· 1769 varṣe phāguṇa-vadi-4-gurau śrī mūla-saṃghe sarasvatī-gacche balātkāra-gaṇe śrī-kuṃdakuṃdācāryānvaye bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sakalakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī -bhuvanakīrttis-tadāmnāye bhaṭṭāraka- <2> śrī-deveṃdrakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-kṣemakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-nareṃdrakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-vijayakīrttistadāmnāye bhaṭṭāraka-śrīnareṃdrakīrtteḥ pā<3>dukāṃ bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-(5?)-vijayakīrttis-tathā śrī-saṃghe | nityaṃ praṇamati || śrīr-astu || 1 || #5.49. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti s. 1769, in chatrī together with pādukā (see previous), by Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II), Brhatśākhā, ̥ Candraprabhu Caityālaya, Āyaṛa (Udayapura). <1>saṃvat· 1769 varṣe phāguṇa-vadi-4-<2>gurau śrī-mūla-saṃghe saravatī-ga<3>cche balātkāragaṇe śrī-kuṃdakuṃ<4>dācāryanvaye bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sa<5>kalakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī<6>bhuvanakīrttis-tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-jñā<7>nabhūsaṇas-tad-anvaye bha. śrī-padma<8>naṃdī ta. bha. 487 śrī-deveṃdrakīrttis-ta. <9>bha. kṣemakīrttis-ta. bha. nareṃdrak(ī)r<10>t(ti?)-niṣedhikāṃ bha. nareṃdrakīrtti-(paṭṭa?) <11>bha. śrī-vijayakīrttis-tathā saṃgha praṇa(ma?) #5.50. Memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti s. 186(6?), in chatrī, consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti, Brhatśākhā, Candragiri, R̥ ṣabhadevḁ Keśarīyājī. [near each of four pādukās:] <1>bha. cadrakīrtti-pādikā praṇamatī <1>bha. caṃdrakīrtti-pādukā praṇamatī <1>bha. candrakīrtti-pādukā praṇamatī <1>|| bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-yaśakīrtti-jī pratīṣṭītāṃ || [on edge between padmāsana and khaḍgāsana ﬁgures on three sides of niṣedhikā (edge on fourth side broken oﬀ):] <1>[ca. 2-3+]ka śrī (candra?)kīrtti catu(rmukha?) praṇa… <1>[ca. 2?+]āraka-śrī… rtti … praṇamatī <1>[ca. 4-5+](dra?)kīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. (śrī?) [ca. 2×] [on plinth:] 186[6?] varṣe c[ai]tra-māse ?ukla-pakṣe navam[yāṃ?]? gurū-vāsare śrī-mula-saṃghe sarasvatī-gacche balāt·kāra-gaṇe śrī-kuṃdakuṃd[ca. 4×] śrī-nemīcaṃdra-devā-tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-caṃdrakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭārak-śrī-rāmakī[r?]tti [3×]t-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrīyaśakīrtti-ji pratīṣṭīta(ṃ?) bhaṭṭāraka-caṃdrakīrtti-ka[1×](da?)ṃ pādukāḥ || śrī [ca. 5+][nadāsa?] somaca[ṃ?]da nītya(m*?) praṇamatī [ca. 8×] <1>saṃvat· <2>bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sakalakī[1×](nvaye?) [1×][vi?]?yakīrtti-devā tat-pade #5.51. Multi-pādukā slab of Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II), Bramacārī Lahu, Ācārya Devacandra, Bramacārī Dalicanda, and Bramacārī Lakṣmīcanda s. 1855, slab with ﬁve pādukās in shrine inside mandira, Brhatśākhā, Pārśvanātha Mandira, Īḍara. ̥ [main inscription circular on frame of pādukā slab:] 1855 varṣe māhā*-śudi-13-dinevāra-caṃdra-vāsare śrī mu*la-saṃghe sarasvati-gacche balātkāra-gu*ṇe śrī-kuṃdaku*dācāryānvaye bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-sakalakīrtti-jī tada anukrameṇa bha. vijekīrtti tada a. bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-caṃdrakīrtti ta. bha. rāmakīrtti ta. bha. yaśakīrtti-jī pratīṣṭītaṃ vrahma-śrī-5-lahu-jī tata sīṣya ācārya-śrī-devacaṃda-jī tata-sīṣya vrahma-śrī-dalīcaṃda-jī tadagurū-bhrātā vrahma-śrī-lakṣmīcaṃda-jī tata-sīṣya paṃḍī*ta-rāghava-jī tata-bhrātā paṃ. hemacaṃda nīt*aṃ praṇamaṃtī śrī-iḍara-nagare śrī-pārśvanātha-caityāle karāpītaṃ || <1>saṃvat· [under pādukā left top:] vrahma-śrī-5-lahu-jī nī pāḍukā [under pādukā right top:] ācārya-śrī-5-devaca*da-jī nī pāḍukā [above central pādukā:] || bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-vijayakīrtti-jā* nī pāḍukā karāpītaṃ || [above pādukā left low:] vrahma-śrī-5-dalicaṃda-jī nī pāḍukā [above pādukā right low:] vrahma-śrī-5-laṣamīcaṃda-jī nī pāḍukā #5.52. Śīlālekha (adjoining pādukā) s. 1855, adjoining pādukā (see previous), Brhatśākhā, Pārśvanātha Mandira, Īḍara. ̥ 488 [on top of frame of slab:] [2?+](hā?)rāja śrī ga(ṃ?)bhira-s(iṃ?)gha(-jī?)(vi?)je(ye ||?) [main inscription:] saṃvat· 1855 varṣe māh*ā śudi 13 caṃdra-vāsare śrī-mūla-saṃghe sarasva ||<2>|| tī-gacche balātkāra-gu*ṇe śrī-kuṃdakuṃdācāryanvaye bha. śrī-sakalakīrtti ||<3>|| -jī tada anukrameṇa bha. śrīcaṃdrakīrti tata-paṭṭe bha. śrī rāmakīrti tata*paṭṭe bha. ||<4>|| yaśakīrtti pratiṣṭītaṃ śrī-rāyadeśe iḍaravā[2×]ṃ bha. śrī-vijayakīrtti tata* ||<5>|| -sīṣya vrahma-lahu-jī tata*-sīṣya ācārya-devacaṃda-jī tata*sīṣya vrahma-dalicaṃda ||<6>|| jī tata*-guru-bhrātā vrahma-śrī-laṣamīcaṃda-jī tata*-sīṣya paṃḍitarāgava-jī ta ||<7>||-ta*-guru-bhrātā-paṃḍita-hemacaṃda nītyaṃ praṇaṃmm*atī || praṇamm*aḥ sarvajñaṃ devaṃḥ* ||<8>|| śrī-sarvavī{dhyivitā(jñ/tt)a(n/t?)aṃ?} mu*la-nāyaka vaṃdiruḥ laghu-caita pratīṣṭātaṃ || || <1>|| [on bottom of frame of slab:] || ciṃtāmaṇīpārśva(jī ||?) nītyaṃ praṇamm*a[tī?] || #5.53. Niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti s. 1887, together with pādukās (see next) on hourglass shaped plinth in chatrī annexed to mandira, Brhatśākhā, Saṃbhavanātha Mandira, Īḍara. ̥ [frontside:] savata 1887 varṣe phālguṇa-māse śukla-pakṣe pañcamyāṃ 5 tithau guru-vā<2>sare śrī mūlasaṃghe sarasvatī-gacche balātkāra-gaṇe kuṃdakuṃdācāryyāmnā<3>ye bhaṭṭāraka-śrīpadmanaṃdī-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-sakalakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe <4>bha. śrī-bhuvanakīrtti-devā tatpaṭṭe bha. śrī-jñānabhūṣaṇa-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-<5>vijayakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrīśubhacaṃdra-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-sa*matikīrtti-<6>devā-tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-guṇakīrtti-devā-tatpaṭṭe bha. śrī-vādībhūṣaṇa-devā tat-paṭṭe <7>bha. śrī-rāmakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrīpadmanaṃdī-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-deve*<8>drakīrtti-devā tat-paṭ*e bha. śrī-kṣemakīrtti-devā tatpaṭṭe bha. śrī-nareṃdrakīrtti-<9>devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-vijayakīrtti-devā-tat-paṭṭe bha. śrīnemicaṃdra-devā ta<10>t-paṭṭe bha. śrī-candrakīrti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-rāma-kīrti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. <11> [ca. 28+] [this latter section covered by recent plaque] <1>|| [backside:] <1>śrī-īlvā-durgge māhārāja-śrī-gaṃbhīra-siṃgha-jī-vija<2>ya-rājye || śubhaṃ bhavatu || _[3]_. śrī- iḍara-gaḍhe #5.54. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti s. 1887, together with niṣedhikā (see previous) on hourglass shaped plinth in chatrī annexed to mandira, consecrated by the commemorated Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti himself, Brh̥ atśākhā, Saṃbhavanātha Mandira, Īḍara. <1>|| savata* 1887 varṣe phālguṇa-māse śukla-pakṣe pa*camāṃ* 5 tithau guru-vāsare śrī-mūlasaṃghe sarasvatī-gacche balātkāra-gaṇe kuṃdakuṃdācāryyāmnāye bhaṭṭāraka-śrīpadmanaṃdī-devā tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka śrī-sakalakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-bhuvanakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī jñānabhūṣaṇa-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-vijayakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrīśubhacaṃdra-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. sumatikīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī guṇakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī vādibhūṣaṇa-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-<2>rāmakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī padmanaṃdi-devā tatpaṭṭe bha. śrī deveṃdrakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī kṣemakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī nareṃdrakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-vijayakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī nemica*dra(d)evā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī caṃdrakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī rāmakīrti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-yaśakīrti-jitkasyeyaṃ pādukā sva-hastena pratiṣṭitaṃ || śrī-ilvā-durgge māhārāja-śrī-ga*bhīra-siṃgha-jī-vijaya-<3>rājye || #5.55. Pādukā of the pañca-parameṣṭhins s, 1887, slab with ﬁve pādukās installed on and together with s. 1887 memorial (see previous), Saṃbhavanātha Mandira, Īḍara. consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti, Brhatśākhā, ̥ saṃvata 1887 va(r)ṣ(e) (phā?)lgu[ca. 2*] śu[ca. 7*] tithau guru-vāsare śrī-[ca. 7*] tī-gacche balātkāra-gaṇe kuṃdakuṃdācāryyāmnāye | bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-padmanaṃdī-devā tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sakalakirtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha śrī-bhuvanakīrtti-deva tat-paṭṭe bha śrījñānabhūṣaṇa-devā tata*paṭṭe bha | śrī-vijayakīrtti-devā tata*-paṭṭe bha | śrī-śubhaca*dra-devā tat<1>|| 489 paṭṭe bha | śrī-sumatikīrtti-da*vā tat-paṭṭe bha | śrī guṇakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha śrī | vādibhūṣaṇadevā tat-paṭṭe bha | śrī-rāmakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. | śrī padmanaṃdī-devā tat-paṭṭe bha (|?) śrī deveṃdrakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha | śrī-kṣemakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha | śrī-nareṃdrakīrtti-devā tatpaṭṭe bha. śrī vijayakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī-nemicaṃdra-devā tat-paṭṭe <2>bha | śrīcaṃdrakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭe bha. śrī rāmakīrtti-devā tat-paṭṭa* bha | śrī-yaśakīrttibhiḥ pratiṣṭitaṃ | śrī paṃca-prameṣṭina pādukābhyāṃ namaḥ || śrī īlvā-durgge #5.56. Pādukā of R̥ ṣabhadeva s. 1898, installed on s. 1887 memorial (see earlier), consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti, Brhatśākhā, Saṃbhavanātha Mandira, Īḍara. ̥ ¶ || saṃ. 1898 nā varṣe jyeṣṭa-vadī-6-guru-vāsare śrī-mūla-saṃghe sarasvatī-gacche balātkāra-gaṇe kuṃdakuṃdāya*cāryānvāye bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sakalakīrttidevā tat· anukrame(.?) bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-ca(ṃ)drakīrtti-devā tat-papa*ṭṭe bha. śrī-rāmakīrtti-devā tatpapa*ṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrīyaśaḥkīrtti-devā tat-papa*ṭṭe bha. śrī-sureṃdrakīrtti śrī-īlvā-dūrge śrī-vrṣabhadevaṃ jinaṃ pādukā ̥ pratīṣṭitaṃ || śrīr-astuḥ śrī kalyāṇam-astu || <1>|| #5.57. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Rāmacandrakīrti s. 1939, in chatrī, consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Kanakakīrti, Brhatśākhā, unnamed site, Surapura. ̥ <1>(sa?). 1939 kā māsotā*māsottama-māgha-māse śuka*-pakṣe 13 iṃdu-vāsare śrīmat-mūlasaṃghe sarasvatī-gacche balātkāra-gaṇe śrī-kunda. bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sakalakīrti-jī tadānukrameṇa bha. śrī-yaśakīrtti-jī ta. bha. śrī sureṃdrakīrti-jī ta. bha. śrī-rāmacaṃdrakīrtyasyeyaṃ caraṇa-pādukā bha. śrī-kanakakī[1+]-|| <1>jī pratiṣṭitam· || 6. Śākambarīśākhās #6.1. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnakīrti (I) s. 1572, in chatrī, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. ¶ || saṃbat· 1572 kā <2>phāguṇa-badi-5-ravivā<3>re bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-śrī-<4>ratanakīrtti-jī kī <5>chatrī || śrīr-astu || <1> #6.2. Pādukā of (‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ /Maṇḍalācārya) Mahendrakīrti s. 1765, in chatrī, built by Sāha Hiradairāma, in small chatrī, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. <1>saṃvat· 1765 (vā?) <2>kātī-su.-8 (bha/ma?). śrī-<3>mahendrakīrtti jī |\ pahā<6>m(y?)ā karāpitaṃ <4>kī chatrī sāha- <5>hiradairāma #6.3. Pādukā of ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ [Maṇḍalācārya?] Ratnakīrti (II) dated s. 1766, but dating to s. 1802-30, on cabūtarā, by Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. <1>bha. śrī-ratnakīrtti-jī saṃ 1766 <2>māgha-su-3 pādikā bha. śrī-bija<3>yakīrtti karāpitaṃ ajamera mai #6.4. Pādukā of ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ [Maṇḍalācārya] Vidyānandi s. 1810, in chatrī, by Ācārya Rājakīrti, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. ¶ || saṃvat· 1810 <2>kā māgha-sudi-1 bhaṭṭā<3>raka-jī-śrī-vidyāna<4>ṃdi-jī kī chatrī ācā<5>ryya-śrīrājakīrtti-<6>[(j?)ī karāī ajaya<7>[ca. 5*](dada?)[ca. 2*] <8>[ca. 1*]pa(ṃ?)ḍita-(rāma?)[poss. ca. 2*] <1> #6.5. Pādukā of ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ [Maṇḍalācārya] Bhavanabhūṣaṇa s. 1810, in chatrī, by Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. 490 <1> ¶ || saṃvat· 18<2>10 varṣe māgha-sudi-<3>1-dine bhaṭṭāraka-<4>jī-śrī-bhavanabhū<5>ṣaṇa-jī kī chatrī bha<6>ṭṭāraka-śrī-vijaya<7>|\kīrtti-jī karāpitaṃ #6.6. Pādukā of (‘Bhaṭṭāraka’?) [Maṇḍalācārya] Anantakīrti prob. s. 1810, in chatrī, by Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. <1> ¶ || saṃvat· (1810?)<2>māgha-sudi-1-dine [2×] <3>[1×?]ka-jī-śrī-anantakī<4>rtti-jī kī chatrī bhaṭṭā<5> [2×]-jī-śrī-bijaya<6>kīrtti-jī (ka?)[2×] <7>(a?)jayagaḍha-madhy(e?) || #6.7. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Trilokendrakīrti s. 18(3?)8, in chatrī, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. <1> || śrīmata bhaṭṭārako[1×]-bhaṭṭāraka- <2> jī-śrī-tīlokeṃdrakīrtta*-jī <3> kī (pa?)da-pād(ū?)kā pratiṣṭāpi<4>ta saṃvat(·?) 18(3?)8 [1×][1×]i <5?> [inscription possibly continued under plastering] #6.8. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti s. 1892, in chatrī, by Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. śrī-gurubhyo namaḥ || <2>barṣe mitī māgha-sudi-1[1+?]-rabivāre saṃvat· 1892 <3>kā pūjyaparama-pūjya bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-śrī-108 |\ <4>śrī-bhuvanakīrtti-jī kī chatrī pratiṣṭā kāri ||<5>tā bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-ratnabhūṣaṇena ajamera-madhye |\ <6>|| śrīr-astuḥ || <1>|| #6.9. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti and paṇḍitas Viradhīcanda and Mahipāla s. 1992, large, rectangular slab with three pādukās installed on waste-high plinth in tibārā, by Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrtī, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. [under left pādukā:] <1>paṃḍita-viragh*īcaṃda-jī [under middle pādukā:] <1>bhaṭ*āraka-jī-mhā.-śrī<2>-108-śrī-lalitakīrti-jī [under right pādukā:] <1>paṃḍita-mahīpāla-jī [main inscription on frame of pādukā:] 1992 vaiśākha-śuk(l?)ā-aṣṭamī-(dvitiya)532-śanivāre śrīmat-pu*jv*a-guru-śrī-bhaṭṭāraka-jīśrī-108-lalitakīrtī*-jī ora tat· śiṣya paṃḍita-viradhīcaṃda-jī paṃḍita-mahipāla-<2>jī kī caraṇa-pādukā bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-harṣakīrtī*-jī pratiṣṭhā karāpitā || <1>saṃvat· #6.10. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa and paṇḍitas Caturbhuja, [?]nānandarāma, Ajītamala, Govindalāla, [Mohana?]lāla, Sadāsukha, Motī[lāla?], and Nemicanda s. 1992, large, square slab with nine pādukās installed on waste-high plinth in tibārā, by Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrtī, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. [below individual pādukās:] <1>paṃḍita <1>paṃ. caturabhuja [1*?]nānaṃdarāma <1>paṃḍita ajītamala <1>paṃḍita gobiṃdalāla <1>pu*jya. bha. śrī-ratnabhūṣaṇa-jī <1>paṃḍita (mohana?)lāla <1>paṃḍita sadāsuṣa 532 Parentheses in original. 491 <1>paṃ. motī. <1>paṃ. nemīcaṃda [main inscription on frame of pādukā slab:] saṃvat· 1992 vaisākha-suklā-aṣṭamī-(533dvitīya- | śanivāre śrīmat· pu*jya-bhaṭṭāraka-jīmahārāja-śrī-108-ratanabhusaṇa-jī kī caraṇa-pādukā bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-<2>harṣakīrtī*-jī pratiṣṭā karāpitā || <1>|| #6.11. Pādukā of Ācārya Viśālakīrti s. 1782, on cabūtarā, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. <1>śrī biśālakīrtyācā<2>rya saṃ 1782 asāḍha su. 5 <3>śāṃta #6.12. Pādukā of Ācārya Bhānukīrti s. 1801, on cabūtarā, by Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. ¶ || śrīmad-bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-bijayakīrtti-<2>jī ācārya-jī-śrī-bhāṃnuṃkīrtti-jī kā pā<3>dikā-cautaro karāyo saṃ. 1801 phāgu<4>ṇa-sudi-11 dāṃtā-madhye devaloka huvā <5>{(yā?) ca da ka?} <1> #6.13. Pādukā of Ācārya Ratnabhūṣaṇa s. 1813, on cabūtarā, by Paṇḍita Basantarāma, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. <1>|| ratnabhūṣaṇācārya saṃ. <2>1813 māgisi[1+]-sudi-13 paṃḍita-basaṃtarāma karā(ī?) #6.14. Pādukā of Ācārya Devendrakīrti s. 1814, on cabūtarā, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. <1>deveṃdrakīrtyācārya saṃ. 1814 <2>śāvaṇa-vadi-1 kuṃthū(ṇi?)m(ā?)[1×](e?) #6.15. Pādukā of Ācārya Tilakabhūṣaṇa s. 1821, on cabūtarā, by Paṇḍita Basanta, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. <1>tilakabhūṣaṇācārya saṃ. <2>1821 kā (m?)ī sudi-2 śāṃta <3>pādikā karāpita paṃ. basaṃta #6.16. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Hemarāja s. 17--, in small, four-pillared chatrī, by Paṇḍita Tulasīdāsa, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. <1>bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-ratnakīrtti-<2>jī tulach*īdāsa <6>saṃ. tat· śiṣya paṃ. śrī-<3>hemarāja-jī k(ī?) <4>chatrī karāpit(aṃ?) <5>paṃ. 17_[3]_mi. #6.17. Pādukā, unidentiﬁed, prob. paṇḍita s. 18(0?)3, on cabūtarā, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. <1>[1*]bat· 18(.?)3 kārttika-sudi-(1 ||?)-<1>[2*](ādityābāre?)(pādukā-cyau?) (paṃ.?)[1*](paṃ.?)[1*] <4>[ca. 4×?] <3>[ca. 3*](mai?) karāpitaṃ #6.18. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Vakasarāma s. 1812?, on cabūtarā, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. <1> || pa(ṃ?)ḍita (vakasarāma?)(kā?) padi[1*](||?) <2>[1*] sa(ṃ?)vat· (1812?) [ca. 4*] <3>[ca. 10*] #6.19. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Rāmacandra 533 Single parenthesis in original. 492 s. 1827, on cabūtarā, by Dolatarāma, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. 1827 mitī jai(ṣ?)ṭha-bad(i?)-<2>14-somavāre maṇḍalācārya-jī-śrī-<3>ratnakīrtti-jī tat-siṣya paṃ hemarāja-<4>jī tat-siṣya paṃdita-rāmacandra-jī t(a?)<5> [1×] pādukā śiṣya dolatarāma <5>(mu?) [ca. 4*]534 karāpitā || <1>saṃvat· #6.20. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Rūpacanda s. 1828, pādukā on cabūtarā, built by Ācārya Rājakīrti (and Paṇḍita Savāīrāma?), Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. 1828 kā vaiśāṣa-su. <2>3 ācārya-śrī-rājakīrtti-<3>jī paṃ. śrī-rūpacaṃda-jī ko <4>cyautaro karāy(o/au) | dasa(ka/ma?)<5>ta(ṃ?) paṃ. savāī-rāma kā || <1>saṃ. #6.21. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Malūkacanda s. 1828, on cabūtarā, built by Ācārya Rājakīrti (and Paṇḍita Savāirama?) Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. 1828 kā vai. sudi-3 ācā<2>rya-śrī-rājakīrtti paṃ. śrī-malū<2>kacaṃda-jī ko cyautaro karā<3>yo | da. paṃ. savāī-rāma kā <1>saṃ. #6.22. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Akṣayarāma s. 1828, on cabūtarā, built by Ācārya Rājakīrti, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. <1>|| saṃ. 1828 kā vai. su<2>. 3 ā. śrī-rājakīrtti paṃ. śrī-<3>aṣairāma-jī ko cyautaro karā<4>yo #6.23. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Tulasīdāsa s. 1828, on cabūtarā, cabūtarā built by Paṇḍita Vaṇadāsa and pādukā established by Paṇḍita Dayācanda, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. <1>|| saṃbat· 1828 jeṣṭa-sudi-5-ā<2>dityabāra-dine paṃdita-jī-śrī-hemarā<3>ja-jī tat(·?) śiṣya paṃditatulachī<4>dāsa-jī ko cyautarā karāpitaṃ paṃdi<5>ta-jī-vaṇadāsa pādikā-sathāpana <6>kīyā ajameramadhye da. paṃ. dayāca(ṃ?)da #6.24. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Viradhīcanda s. [18]55, on cabūtarā, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. <1>|| śrīmat· paṃdita-jī-śr(ī)-[poss. ca. 1+]<2>|| (b/v)iradhīcaṃda-jī kī idaṃ [prob. ca. 1+535] <3>|| dūkā pratiṣṭāpitā sa*vat· [prob. ca. 1+] <4>|| 55 mitī [ca. 1+] s(u?)di-5 [poss. ca. 1+]536 #6.25. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Navanidhirāma s. 1928, on cabūtarā, built by Paṇḍita Ṭhogalāla, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera.537 śrī jinaḥ || (2?)[1*] || <2>|| ¶ || śrī-gurubhyo namaḥ || saṃvat· 1928 varṣe śāke | <3>1793 pravartamāne māsottama-jyeṣṭa-masi* śukla-pakṣe ti<4>thau ṣaṣṭyāṃ gurāviṣṭasamayaṃ [2*] śrīmad-bhaṭṭārakajī-śrī-<5>108-padmanaṃda-jī tac-chiṣya pāṃ | vagasīrāma-jī tac-chiṣya <6>paṃḍita-jī-5-śrīnavanidhirāma-jī kasyeyaṃ caraṇa-pādu<7>kā tac-chiṣya pāṃ | [ṭhoga?]lālakena karāpitā ajadurga-madhye <8>sva-guroś-caraṇa-pādukā pratiṣṭitā | yā pādukā koī sthā |\<9>panā kiyā pachai hī (du?)musalamāna {uvyavatohiṃ 6 kuṃgāya?} <10>musalamāna kusūṭa adipurapa{ṭṭasthasyeyam·?} <1>|| 534 Reading could perhaps be improved. 535 Prob.‘pā’. Final characters of each line under plastering, and inscription possibly continued (for one line?) under plastering. 536 I don’t have full documentation of a seemingly separate inscription (with smaller and diﬀerently carved characters) running left and below the pādukā carving (two lines each), but a reading would probably still be possible. 537 493 #6.26. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Vimanarāma s. 1887, in chatrī, built by paṇḍitas Viradhīcanda, Devakarṇa, Panālāla, Sākhūna, Nasīyā. saṃbat(·?) 1887 kā śāke 1752 kā prabarttamāne māsottama-māse <2>mrgasira-māse krṣṇḁ ̥ pakṣe tithau saptamyāṃ rabi-vāsare śrīmad-bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-śrī-108-śrī-śrī-śrī-śrīratna<3>bhūṣaṇa-jī tad-āmnāye ācārya-śrī-jagata*kīrtti-jī tat· śiṣya paṃdita-vimanarāmakasya pā<4>dukā kāritā tat(·/a)-śiṣya paṃḍita-viradhīca*da vi. devakarṇa vi. panālālena (prāṣṭapya?) <5>madho_[27]_śrīr-astu <1>|| #6.27. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Varddhamāna and Paṇḍita Devakaraṇa s. 1918, in chatrī, consecrated by Paṇḍita Amīcandra and Phatelāla, Sākhūna, Nasīyā. [under left pādukā:] <1>|| paṃḍita-varddhamāna-caraṇa-pādukā || [on rectangular object prob. representing śāstra:] <1>|| oṃ namaḥ siddhebhyaḥ | [under right pādukā:] <1>|| paṃdita-devakaraṇa-caraṇa-pādukā || [directly on slab:] <1>|| śrī-saṃvatsare 1918 phālgun*amāse śuklapa[kṣ]e 3 trtīyāyaṃ candra{(v/y)asvetasyāṃ ve(t/ ̥ l)sayāṃ?} pūjya-śrī-śrī-108-śrī-vimanarāma-jī tat· śiṣya pūjya-vā(-?)vā-jī-śrī-śrī- || \ <2>|| varddhamāna-jī tatāda* bhakta-śiṣya-paṃḍita-amīcaṃdreṇa sa-śiṣya-phatelālena (i/2?)(se?) (purvv?)agraja-caraṇa-pāduke praṭhisthāpitā | śreyostu nita(ṇām?) || śrī ||| #6.28. Pādukā of paṇḍitas Pannālāla, Amīcanda, Phatelāla, and Yugarāja s. 1992, in chatrī, by Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti, Sākhūna, Nasīyā. [under pādukā top left:] <1>paṃḍita-pannālāla-jī [under pādukā top right:] <1>paṃḍita-amīcaṃda-jī [under pādukā lower left:] <1>paṃḍita-phatelāla-jī [under pādukā lower right:] <1>paṃḍita-yugarāja-jī [on frame of slab:] saṃbat· 1992 māsottame*māse māgha-māse śukla-pakṣe 13-tithau budha-vāsare śrī mūlasaṃghe sarasvatī-gacche valātkāra-gaṇe paṃḍita-jī-<2>śrī-105-śrī-pannālāla-jī paṃḍita-jī-śrīamīcanda-jī paṃḍita-jī-śrī-phatelāla-jī paṃḍita-jī-śrī-yugarāja-jī <3>śrī-sākhūṇa-nagaran·* tana*chatrī-madhye śrī-ajamera-paṭṭa(ṃ?)-stha-bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-harṣakīrtti-jī pratiṣṭā karāpitā || śrīr-astuḥ || <1>|| #6.29. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalabhūṣaṇa s. 1863, preserved on vedi in mandira, Nāgaura-paṭṭa, Bīsapantha Baṛā Mandira, Nāgaura. 1863 kā mitī āsoj[a]-sudi-6-śukravāre dine bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-<2>śrī-108-śrī-sakalabhūṣaṇa-jī kā pādukā li. paṃ. umedarāja-śrī <1>sa*bat· #6.30. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Kanakakīrti s. 1972, on cabūtarā, by Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti (Ajamera-paṭṭa), Nāgaura-paṭṭa, Nasīhājī, Gvāliyara. [continuous reading:] 494 <1>|| śrīmat· nāgaura-paṭṭasya bhaṭṭāraka-jī-|| <2>śrī-108-śrī-kanakakīrti-jī-kasya ca<3>rṇa-pādukā sthāpitaṃ bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-harṣa-<4>sa* || 1972_[3]_kīrti-jī śrāvaṇa-<5>vadi-12 [ordered information:] || śrīmat· nāgaura-paṭṭasya bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-108-śrī-kanakakīrti-jī-kasya carṇa-pādukā sthāpitaṃ bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-harṣakīrti-jī śrāvaṇa-vadi-12 sa* || 1972 495 496 APPENDIX III. MEMORIALS OF OTHER BALĀTKĀRAGAṆA LINEAGES, OTHER TRADITIONS, & UNKNOWN AFFILIATION 1. Balātkāragaṇa lineages Town Site Commemorated individuals Year Lineage Type Sectio n Sūrata (Gujarat) Digambara Mandira, Gopīpura Kṣullikā Jinamatī s. 1544 Lāṭaśākhā (undivided) mūrti 3.1.5. Vidyānandi Kṣetra ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ Devendrakīrti+ s. 1730 Uttaraśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Jinacandra or Vidyānandi (II)+ s. 1[8]21+ Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa pādukās on 3.4.3. platforms in open air Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti+ s. 1841+ Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Vidyābhūṣaṇa+ s. 1883+ Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti+ s. 1921+ Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra+ s. 1977+ Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti+ s. 1987+ Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa Jinasāgara (no rank, brahmacārī?)+ s. 1882+ Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra+ s. 1862+ Lāṭaśākhā Bāraḍolī-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Vidyānandi s. 2019, 1963 CE Lāṭaśākhā (undivided) mūrti 3.5.2.1. Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti n.d. (prob. second half 19th cent. CE) prob. Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa 2.2.3.8. ? ? ? pādukās preserved in mandira (not inspected from closeby) ? ? ? Bhaṭṭāraka Padmakīrti+ (repurposed) s. 1717+ Mālavāśākhā pādukā+ in chatrī 3.3.3. ? (repurposed) ? Mālavāśākhā? chatrī ? (repurposed) ? Mālavāśākhā? chatrī Mahuvā (Gujarat) Canderī (Madhya Pradesh) Vighnahara Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra Khandārajī 497 Town Site Pārśva Mandira Commemorated individuals Year Lineage Type ? (repurposed) ? Mālavāśākhā? chatrī ? (three repurposed) ca. 19th cent. CE Mālavāśākhā? 7 pādukās (three double) ? ? ? 2 niṣedhikās ? (repurposed) ca. 17th18th cent. CE prob. Mālavāśākhā chatrī prob. Mālavāśākhā chatrī ? s. 1860+ (Mālavāśākhā) Siroña-paṭṭa+ chatrī ? s. 1883+ Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Māthuragaccha? (or Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa?) chatrī Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrabhūṣaṇa ? Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa caraṇachatrī Bhaṭṭāraka Harendrabhūṣaṇa s. 1991 Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa caraṇachatrī Bhaṭṭāraka Jinendrabhūṣaṇa v.n.s. 24[??] Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa caraṇachatrī paṇḍita? ? Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa? triple pādukā, stored in mandira Bhaṭṭāraka Candrabhūṣaṇa s. 2031 Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa pādukā in repurposed chatrī n.d. Cambalaśākhā Sonāgiri-paṭṭa mūrti 3.1.5. ? (repurposed) Cāndakheḍī Sonāgiri (Madhya Pradesh) Atiśaya Kṣetra Ādinātha Jinālaya Bhaṭṭāraka Koṭhī Sectio n 3.3.3. 2.2.3.10. Gvāliyara (Madhya Pradesh) Nasīhājī Bhaṭṭāraka Śīlendrabhūṣaṇa s. 1[9]39 Cambalaśākhā Gvāliyara-paṭṭa pādukā preserved in mandira 6.4.2. ŚaurīpuraBateśvara (Uttar Pradesh) Ajitanātha Mandira Bhaṭṭāraka Viśvabhūṣaṇa s. 1734 Cambalaśākhā (undivided) 2.2.3.10. Ācārya Guṇakīrti s. 1849 Cambalaśākhā Gvāliyara-paṭṭa pādukās preserved in mandira Bhaṭṭāraka ‘Moṭe’ Devendrakīrti ? Kārañjāśākhā caraṇachatrī 3.5.2.2. Bhaṭṭāraka ‘Lahāna’ Devendrakīrti ? Kārañjāśākhā caraṇachatrī Kārañjāśākhā caraṇachatrī Lātūraśākhā ? Kārañjā Balātkāragaṇa (Maharashtra) Nissāī unidentiﬁed chatrīs Narakheḍa ? (Maharashtra) Bhaṭṭāraka Nāgendrakīrti+ ? 498 2. Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Town Site Commemorated individuals Year Tradition Type Sectio n Aḍindā Pārśvanātha Mandira ? (niṣedhikā repurposed as kīrtistambha?) s. 1549 & 16[4?]9 Nandītaṭagaccha pillar in chatrī 3.1.4. Kṣullikā Bāī [Dhū?]nīnī s. 1587 Nandītaṭagaccha niṣedhikā 3.1.5. preserved in mandira ? ? prob. Nandītaṭagaccha niṣedhikā 3.1.4. preserved in mandira Kārañjā (Maharashtra) Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nasīyā unidentiﬁed pādukā in chatrī 3.5.2.2. unidentiﬁed double pādukā on large platform Candranātha Mandira (Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha) Sāgavāṛā Sojitrā (Gujarat ) Yogīndragiri Neminātha Mandira Sūrata (Gujarat) Cintamāṇī Pārśvanātha Mandira Vidyānandi Kṣetra Bhaṭṭāraka Indrabhūṣaṇa s. 1757 Nandītaṭagaccha niṣedhikā in chatrī unidentiﬁed ? prob. Nandītaṭagaccha caraṇachatrī unidentiﬁed ? Nandītaṭagaccha ? pādukā unidentiﬁed s. 1707 Nandītaṭagaccha pādukā 3.3.1. preserved in n. 204 mandira Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti s. 1812 Nandītaṭagaccha pādukā 3.4.3. preserved in mandira Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalakīrti+ s. 1824+ Nandītaṭagaccha s. 1824+ Nandītaṭagaccha pādukās on platforms in open air s. 1861+ Nandītaṭagaccha n.d.+ Nandītaṭagaccha unidentiﬁed ? ? chatrī Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti s. 1883 Nandītaṭagaccha caraṇachatrī Paṇḍita Rāmapāla s. 1927 Nandītaṭagaccha caraṇacabūtarā ? ? Nandītaṭagaccha caraṇacabūtarā ? ? ? pādukā in shrine ? ? ? pādukā in shrine lineage s. 1649 Nandītaṭagaccha kīrtistambha Bhaṭṭāraka Lakṣmīsena+ Surapura ? Jinālaya two unidentiﬁed pādukās inside devalī 499 5.4.6. 3.4.4. 3.1.4. Town Site Commemorated individuals Year Tradition Type Sectio n Pratāpagaṛha Dīpeśvara lake Paṇḍita Kuśala s. 1879 Nandītaṭagaccha pādukā in chatrī 2.2.1. Ratnacanda (prob. s. 18[96?] paṇḍita) Nandītaṭagaccha ? poss. s. 1[8]66 Nandītaṭagaccha pādukā and double pādukā in chatrī near Dīpeśvara lake Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti s. 1981 Nandītaṭagaccha caraṇachatrī Jain Boarding Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti s. 2023 Nandītaṭagaccha mūrti + pādukā 3.1.5. s. 2035 Nandītaṭagaccha pādukā in repurposed chatrī 5.6.4. R̥ ṣabhadevaKeśarīyājī Candragiri Hāṃsī (Haryana) Mahāvīra Mandira Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti s. 1895 Māthuragaccha pādukā 3.3.1. preserved in n. 204 mandira Bairāṭha (= Virāṭanagara) Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Naśiyā unidentiﬁed, prob. bhaṭṭāraka ? [prior to s. 1851] Māthuragaccha? chatrī unidentiﬁed, prob. bhaṭṭāraka ? [prior to s. 1851] prob. Māthuragaccha chatrī prob. Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti s. 1851 Māthuragaccha caraṇachatrī Paṇḍita Sadāsukha s. 1930 Māthuragaccha caraṇachatrī 3.1.6. 3. Other traditions and unknown aﬃliation Town Site Commemorated individuals Year Tradition / lineage Type Āṃvā Nasiyā unidentiﬁed female renouncer no date legible ? niṣedhikā 4.3.2. preserved in mandira Aṅkleśvara (Gujarat) Cintāmaṇi Pārśvanātha Mandira Ācārya Dharasena+ s. 1465 Mūlasaṅgha Senagaṇa mūrti Bārāṃ Nasiyāṃjī prob. Bhaṭṭāraka ...kīrti s. 1525 Uttaraśākhā or Vāgaḍāśākhā? Muni Hemakīrti s. 155[1?] Uttaraśākhā or Vāgaḍāśākhā? niṣedhikās 4.3.18. preserved in mandira (Ācārya?) ...kīrti no legible date prob. Balātkāragaṇa unidentiﬁed (probably male renouncer) ? poss. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā 500 Sectio n 3.1.5., 5.5.1. Town Devagaṛha (Uttar Pradesh) Jhālarāpāṭana Site Atiśaya Kṣetra Choṭī Nasīyā Commemorated individuals Year Tradition / lineage unidentiﬁed (prob. male renouncer) no date legible prob. Balātkāragaṇa Senagaṇa Mandira ? pādukā ? four chatrīs Kṣullikā Kamalī ? ? Āryikā Hemaśrī ? ? Kṣullikā Pal[h?]ikā ? ? Muni Siddhasena s. 1948 Paṇḍita Dhanalāla Sectio n niṣedhikās installed in single chatrī 3.2.4.4. / (Terāpantha?) caraṇachatrī 7.1. s. 1951 / (Terāpantha?) caraṇachatrī unidentiﬁed paṇḍita ? - (Terāpantha?) caraṇachatrī unidentiﬁed (repurposed) ? - chatrī unidentiﬁed (repurposed) ? - chatrī Jūnī Nasīyā Kārañjā (Maharashtra) Type 15 11th-13th cent. CE niṣedhikās preserved in open air, one commemorating a bhaṭṭāraka, three others ācāryas, one of the latter aﬃliated to the Mūlasaṅgha Devasaṅgha Bhaṭṭāraka Lakṣmīsena s. 1922 Mūlasaṅgha Senagaṇa pādukā in chatrī (devalī) 3.2.4.1. 3.5.2.2. six unidentiﬁed pādukās Senagaṇa Nissāī Bhaṭṭāraka Vīrasena s. 1998 Mūlasaṅgha Senagaṇa caraṇachatrī unidentiﬁed caraṇa-cabūtarās (20th century CE) Choṭā Mandira Ācārya Guṇacandra+ s. 1083 - Baḍā Mandira ? ? - Sāgavāṛā Pagelejī Nasīyā Muni R̥ ṣabhasena s. 1905 - pādukā in shrine on platform 7.1. Ṭoṅka (Ādinātha) Nasīyāṃjī ? (repurposed Muni Śītalasāgara) ? ? chatrī 4.3.19. Narainā pādukās 3.2.4.1. preserved in mandiras (repurposed v.n.s. 2497) two unidentiﬁed, repurposed chatrīs Pārśvanātha Nasiyāṃ Śyāma Bābā three unidentiﬁed chatrīs Site near Kabīra āśrama Vidiśā (Madhya Pradesh) Baḍā Mandira Muni Mahākīrti unidentiﬁed chatrī s. 1244 501 ? mūrti 3.1.5. 502 APPENDIX IV. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS AND TABLES INCLUDED 538 1. Tables Table 2.1. Scholarly appellations for the Balātkāragaṇa lineages. Table 3.1. Memorials of ācāryas, munis, and brahmacārīs (chronological, 15th-19th century CE). Table 4.1. Uttaraśākhā and Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials (chronological, 15th-19th century CE). Table 5.1. Vāgaḍāśākhā memorials (chronological, 15th-19th century CE). Table 6.1. Śākambharīśākhā memorials (chronological, 16th-20th century CE). 2. Charts Chart 2.1. Balātkāragaṇa bifurcations. Chart 2.2. Western and Central Indian Balātkāragaṇa lineages. Chart 3.1. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas consecrating predecessors’ memorials. (= Chart 4.3.) Chart 4.1. Later Uttaraśākhā and Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā succession. Chart 4.2. Uttaraśākhā and Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials. Chart 4.3. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas consecrating predecessors’ memorials. (= Chart 3.1.) Chart 4.4. Pupillary lineage of paṇḍitas attested in the inscription of Paṇḍita Kesarī Siṅha’s s. 1880 pādukā. Chart 4.5. Pupillary lineage of paṇḍitas attested in memorial inscriptions in Caurū and Phāgī. Chart 4.6. Pupillary lineage of paṇḍitas attested in memorial inscriptions in Būndī. Chart 5.1. Vāgaḍāśākhā successions. Chart 5.2. Vāgaḍāśākhā memorials. Chart 5.3. Pupillary succession around Ācārya Kalyāṇakīrti (Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā). ̥ Chart 5.4. Pupillary successions recorded on a s. 1855 memorial stone at the Pārśvanātha Mandira, Īḍara (Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā). ̥ Chart 6.1. Successions of the undivided Śākambharīśākhā. Chart 6.2. Śākambharīśākhā Nāgaura-paṭṭa successions. Chart 6.3. Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa successions. Chart 6.4. Śākambharīśākhā trifurcation. Chart 6.5. Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa memorials. Chart 6.6. Paṇḍitas related to Ācārya Rājakīrti attested in various inscriptions at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera. 538 The captions listed here are abridged. 503 Chart 6.7. Pupillary lineage of paṇḍitas stemming from Paṇḍita Hemarāja attested in various inscriptions at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera. Chart 6.8. Pupillary lineage of paṇḍitas attested in the inscription of the s. 1928 memorial of Paṇḍita Navanidhirāma at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā in Ajamera. Chart 6.9. Pupillary lineage of paṇḍitas attested in various inscriptions at the Nasīyā in Sākhūna. 3. Maps Map 4.1. Main bases of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā (16th-20th century CE). Map 4.2. Towns with ﬁndings spots of Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials in north Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa. Map 4.3. Towns with ﬁndings spots of Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and Uttaraśākhā memorials in south Ḍhūṇḍhāḍa. Map 5.1. Main towns related to the Vāgaḍāśākhās in and around the Vāgaḍā region. Map 5.2. Towns with recorded Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā activity in the core Vāgaḍā region. Map 5.3. Towns with recorded Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā activity beyond the core Vāgaḍā region. Map 5.4. Towns with ﬁnding spots of Vāgaḍāśākhā memorials. Map 6.1. Main towns related to the Śākambharīśākhās (16th-20th century CE). Map 6.2. Towns with ﬁndings spots of Śākambharīśākhā memorials in Rajasthan. 4. Figures (Photos and sketches) Figure 0.1. The author with Vidyādhara Joharāpurakara (Nagpur, January 2015; photo Sunil Jain), and bhaṭṭāraka chatrīs, Candragiri, R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī. (March 2013) Figure 2.1. Portraits and seats of the last Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti. Figure 2.2. Portraits of 19th and 20th century CE bhaṭṭārakas preserved in mandiras. Figure 2.3. Cintāmaṇi Pārśvanātha Mandira, Gopīpura, Sūrata (Gujarat), with seat and portrait of the last Lāṭaśākhā Sūrata-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti. Figure 2.4. Sonāgiri (Madhya Pradesh). Bhaṭṭāraka Koṭhī, with bhaṭṭāraka palanquin, and bhaṭṭāraka chatrīs at the Ādinātha Jinālaya. Figure 2.5. Bhaṭṭārakajī Mandira, Gvāliyara (Madhya Pradesh). Photo portrait, wall painting, and seat. Figure 2.6. Portraits of Brahmacārī Gaṅgasahāyajī, Pārśvanātha Mandira, Tijāra. Figure 2.7. Bhaṭṭāraka seats. Figure 2.8. Possibly bhaṭṭāraka residential building with balconies, Pāṭodī Mandira, Jayapura. Figure 3.1. Chatrī of Ācārya Harṣakīrti (s. 1681), Nasiyā, Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha. Figure 3.2. Murals in late 18th and 19th century CE chatrīs. Figure 3.3. Sculptures of dancers and musicians inside the domes of a chatrī and a mandira. Figure 3.4. Carvings of jinas, renouncers, and pādukās on corbels and lintels of chatrīs. Figure 3.5. Caraṇa-pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti (s. 1881), Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura. Figure 3.6. Miniature Sammedaśikharajī model, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā. Figure 3.7. Niṣedhikās in the Vāgaḍāśākhā communal memorial chatrīs in Sāgavāṛā and Naugāmā. 504 Figure 3.8. Carvings of commemorated renouncers on niṣedhikās. Figure 3.9. Kīrtistambhas. Figure 3.10. Details of kīrtistambhas. Figure 3.11. Chatrī with Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha pillar, Pārśvanātha Mandira, Aḍindā. Figure 3.12. Anthropomorphic statues of bhaṭṭārakas. Figure 3.13. Niṣedhikā of Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha kṣullikā with carvings of male renouncers in various postures (s. 1587), Pārśvanātha Mandira, Aḍindā. Figure 3.14. Depictions of bhaṭṭārakas inside caraṇa-chatrīs, Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura. Figure 3.15. Carvings of renouncers seated around a bookstand on niṣedhikās, Bijauliyāṃ. Figure 3.16. Pre-20th century CE mūrtis of renouncers. Figure 3.17. Chatrīs elevated on platforms, Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Naśiyā, Bairāṭha. Figure 3.18. Memorials of contemporary renouncers. Figure 3.19. Memorials of Āryikā Devamati, Bāṃsvāṛā. Figure 3.20. Portrait statues of contemporary renouncers in chatrīs and shrines. Figure 3.21. Portrait statues of contemporary renouncers. Figure 3.22. Bronze icons of contemporary renouncers. Figure 3.23. Shrine with pādukā of Muni Prajñāsāgara, Cintāmaṇi Pārśvanātha Mandira, Bharūca (Gujarat). Figure 3.24. Inscriptions on early modern Digambara memorial stones. Figure 3.25. Late medieval pādukās preserved in mandiras, Narainā. Figure 3.26. Late medieval niṣedhikās, Jūnī Nasīyā, Jhālarāpāṭana. Figure 3.27. Memorials of early modern munis and ācāryas, Naugāmā and Udayapura. Figure 3.28. Depictions of female renouncers on their niṣedhikās. Figure 3.29. Niṣedhikās of female renouncers, Atiśaya Kṣetra, Devagaṛha (Uttar Pradesh). Figure 3.30. Hilltop nasīyās in Sāgavāṛā, Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha, and Cākasū. Figure 3.31. Chatrīs integrated into modern buildings, Atiśaya Kṣetra, Cāndakheḍī. Figure 3.32. Repurposed chatrīs, Khandāragiri, Canderī (Madhya Pradesh). Figure 3.33. Reinstalled and repurposed pādukās, Khandāragiri, Canderī (Madhya Pradesh). Figure 3.34. Probably sections of niṣedhikās, Khandāragiri, Canderī (Madhya Pradesh). Figure 3.35. Repurposed chatrīs and a pillar, Pārśva Mandira, Canderī (Madhya Pradesh). Figure 3.36. Pādukās in shrines on long platforms, Vidyānandi Kṣetra, Sūrata (Gujarat). Figure 3.37. Digambara, Śvetāmbara, and Hindu memorials, Surapura. Figure 3.38. Mūrtis of Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’ and ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ Vidyānandi, Vidyānandi Kṣetra, Sūrata (Gujarat). Figure 3.39. Ārti and eternal lamp for ‘Bhaṭṭāraka’ Vidyānandi, Vidyānandi Kṣetra, Sūrata (Gujarat). Figure 3.40. Photos of the annual fair at the Vidyānandi Kṣetra, Sūrata (Gujarat). Figure 3.41. Chatrīs at the Balātkāragaṇa Nissaī, Kārañjā (Maharashtra). Figure 3.42. Memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Vīrasena (s. 1998), Senagaṇa Nissaī, Kārañjā (Maharashtra). 505 Figure 3.43. Digambara memorials in Śravaṇa Belagolā, Kārkala, and Mūḍabidri (Karnataka). Figure 3.44. Relic shrines of contemporary Digambara renouncers, Aḍindā, Sāgavāṛā, and Hastināpura (Uttar Pradesh). Figure 3.45. Cenotaphs of contemporary Digambara renouncers, Hastināpura (Uttar Pradesh). Figure 4.1. Recent shrines with niṣedhikās of Hemakīrti (s. 1465) and Bāī Āgama Siri (s. 1483), Digambara Jaina Pārśvanātha Atiśaya Kṣetra, Bijauliyāṃ. Figure 4.2. Niṣedhikās of bhaṭṭārakas (s. 1593) and an unidentiﬁed female renouncer (n.d.), Śāntinātha Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra, Āvāṃ. Figure 4.3. Niṣedhikās of an unidentiﬁed female renouncer (n.d.) and bhaṭṭārakas (s. 1593), Śāntinātha Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra, Āvāṃ. Figure 4.4. Nasiyā and Mahārāja Caurāhā, Ṭoḍārāyasiṅha. Figure 4.5. Śiva Ḍūṅgarī, Cākasū. Figure 4.6. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (s. 1696) preserved in a small shrine, Nasiyā, Sāṅgānera. Figure 4.7. Platform with four bhaṭṭāraka caraṇa-chatrīs, Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera. Figure 4.8. Caraṇa-chatrī of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (n.d.), Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera. Figure 4.9. Memorials of the consecutive bhaṭṭārakas Narendrakīrti (d. s. 1722), Surendrakīrti (d. s. 1733), and Jagatkīrti (s. 1771), Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera. Figure 4.10. Unidentiﬁed niṣedhikā (s. 1783), Saṅghijī Mandira, Sāṅgānera. Figure 4.11. Chatrīs (Ācārya Kanakakīrti, s. 1781; Ācārya Mahīcandra, s. 1828; two unidentiﬁed), Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Mandira Nasiyāṃjī, Bassī. Figure 4.12. Pādukās of Ācārya Kanakakīrti (s. 1750) and Ācārya Mahīcandra (s. 1828), and śilālekha (s. 1750), Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Mandira Nasiyāṃjī, Bassī. Figure 4.13. Chatrīs with murals, Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Mandira Nasiyāṃjī, Bassī. Figure 4.14. Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā kīrtistambha (s. 1845), Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṃ, Āmera. Figure 4.15. Platform with three bhaṭṭāraka caraṇa-chatrīs (s. 1853, s. 1881), Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura. Figure 4.16. Pillared platform supporting bhaṭṭāraka caraṇa-chatrīs, Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura. Figure 4.17. Bhaṭṭāraka caraṇa-chatrīs (s. 1853, s. 1881). Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura. Figure 4.18. Unidentiﬁed pādukā installed on a low pillar (s. 1853), Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Jayapura. Figure 4.19. Caraṇa-chatrī of Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti (s. 1886), Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṃ, Cākasū. Figure 4.20. Memorial of Paṇḍita Kesarī Siṅha (s. 1880), Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Mandira Nasiyāṃ Śyojī Godhā, Jayapura. Figure 4.21. Unidentiﬁed paṇḍita memorials, Digambara Jaina Mandira Bijairāmajī Pāṇḍyā, Jayapura. Figure 4.22. Chatrīs and pādukās, a.o. of Paṇḍita Dhanarāja (s. 1888), nasīyā, Caurū. Figure 4.23. Caraṇa-cabūtarā of Paṇḍita Jayacanda (s. 1924), Candraprabhū Digambara Jaina Nasiyāṃ, Phāgī. Figure 4.24. Unidentiﬁed caraṇa-chatrī (possibly of a paṇḍita) with rooms in plinth, Nasiyāṃ, Bagarū. Figure 4.25. Unidentiﬁed caraṇa-chatrī (possibly of a paṇḍita) with rooms in plinth, Nasiyāṃ, Bagarū. 506 Figure 4.26. Unidentiﬁed caraṇa-chatrīs, Digambara Jaina Nasiyāṃ, Bagarū. Figure 4.27. Caraṇa-chatrīs of paṇḍitas (s. 1911, s. 1949, s. 19[5?]6), Nasyājī, Būndī. Figure 4.28. Caraṇa-chatrī with interior shrine with pādukā of Paṇḍita Ḍuṅgarasidāsa (s. 1911), and statue of a devotee in a shrine raised on a pillar, Nasyājī, Būndī. Figure 4.29. Pādukās of paṇḍitas Śivalāla (s. 1949), Sadāsevārāmasukha (s. 1949), and Ratnalāla (s. 19[5?]6), Nasyājī, Būndī. Figure 4.30. Chatrīs, niṣedhikās, small anthropomorphic statue of a renouncer, and carvings of renouncers and pādukās inside the domes of chatrīs, Nasiyāṃjī, Bārāṃ. Figure 4.31. Unidentiﬁed and repurposed chatrīs, Nasīyāṃjī and Pārśvanātha Nasiyāṃ Śyāma Bābā, Ṭoṅka. Figure 5.1. Brhatśākhā kīrtistambha (s. 1610), Junā Mandira, Sāgavāṛā. ̥ Figure 5.2. Communal memorial chatrī, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā. Figure 5.3. Sketched ground plan of communal memorial chatrī, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā, indicating location of niṣedhikās. Figure 5.4. Niṣedhikās in the communal chatrī at the Nasīyājī in Naugāmā. Figure 5.5. Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā kīrtistambha (s. 1571) in chatrī, Nasīyājī, Naugāmā. ̥ Figure 5.6. Communal memorial chatrī and second chatrī, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. Figure 5.7. Niṣedhikās in the communal chatrī at the Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. Figure 5.8. Sketched ground plan of communal memorial chatrī, Chotī Nasīyājī, Sāgavāṛā, indicating location of niṣedhikās. Figure 5.9. Chatrī with pādukā and niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti (s. 1769), the latter doubling as a kīrtistambha, Choṭī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. Figure 5.10. Chatrī with niṣedhikā of Bhaṭṭāraka Indrabhūṣaṇa (s. 1757) and chatrī with unidentiﬁed pādukā, Yogīndragiri, Sāgavāṛā. Figure 5.11. Balātkāragaṇa and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha mandiras, Sāgavāṛā. Figure 5.12. Pādukā (s. 1756), muni mūrti (s. 1465), and possibly bhaṭṭāraka seat at the Cintāmaṇi Pārśvanātha Mandira, and pādukā shrines, Aṅkleśvara (Gujarat). Figure 5.13. Memorials of Bhaṭṭāraka Devacandra (s. 1822), and Bhaṭṭāraka Mahicandra and possibly Bhaṭṭāraka Nemicandra (s. 1881), Junā Mandira, Sāgavāṛā. Figure 5.14. Caraṇa-chatrī of Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇacandra and Bhaṭṭāraka Hemacandra, Pagelejī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. Figure 5.15. Chatrī with probable paṇḍita pādukā (s. 1905), and smaller chatrī with Śaiva mūrtis, Pagelejī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. Figure 5.16. Jaina memorials, Bhānapura (Madhya Pradesh). Figure 5.17. Chatrīs with memorials stones (unidentiﬁed, s. 1802; unidentiﬁed, n.d.), Nayā Mandira (aka Gāndhī Mandira), Sāgavāṛā. Figure 5.18. Double chatrī with memorial stones of Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemakīrti and Ācārya Viśvabhūṣaṇa (s. 1759), Śāntinātha Mandira, Aśoka Nagara, Udayapura. Figure 5.19. Chatrī with anthropomorphic mūrti of the 20th century CE Ācārya Śāntisāgara ‘Dakṣiṇa’, memorial stones of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti (s. 1769), and unidentiﬁed s. 1726 pādukā (poss. jina), Candraprabhu Caityālaya, Āyaṛa, Udayapura. Figure 5.20. Pādukās lined up in individual shrines, Vidyānandi Kṣetra, Sūrata (Gujarat). Figure 5.21. Chatrī of Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti (s. 186[6?]) and roughly coeval chatrī repurposed with pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti (s. 2034), Candragiri, R̥ ṣabhadeva-Keśarīyājī. 507 Figure 5.22. Decorated chatrī with unique memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Candrakīrti (s. 186[6?]), and chatrī with s. 2034 pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti on older plinth, Candragiri, R̥ ṣabhadevaKeśarīyājī. Figure 5.23. Probably residential building of Brhadvāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭārakas, bhaṭṭāraka seats and ̥ palanquin, and manuscript collection, Pārśvanātha Jinālaya, Īḍara (Gujarat). Figure 5.24. Multi-pādukā slab (s. 1855) with pādukās of Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (II), Ācārya Devacanda, and three brahmacārīs, Pārśvanātha Jinālaya, Īḍara (Gujarat). Figure 5.25. Memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti (s. 1887) with additional, coeval as well as contemporary pādukās and śilālekhas. Sambhavanātha Mandira, Īḍara (Gujarat). Figure 5.26. Caraṇa-chatrī of Bhaṭṭāraka Rāmacandrakīrti (s. 1939), and other chatrīs, Surapura. Figure 6.1. Vedi, seat of the last Śākambharīśākhā Nāgaura-paṭṭa incumbent Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, and entrance to the manuscript repository, Bīsapantha Baṛā Mandira, Nāgaura. Figure 6.2. Bhaṭṭāraka seats with portraits of the last Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents Lalitakīrti (p. s. 1922) and Harṣakīrti (d. s. 1999) at mandiras in Ajamera. Figure 6.3. Murals inside the domes of caraṇa-chatrīs of paṇḍitas (s. 1887, s. 1992), Nasīyā, Sākhūna. Figure 6.4. Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. Figure 6.5. Memorials at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. Figure 6.6. Sketch indicating the location of the memorials at the Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. Figure 6.7. Pādukās of Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. Figure 6.8. Caraṇa-chatrīs of Śākambharīśākhā Ajamera-paṭṭa incumbents, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. Figure 6.9. Caraṇa-cabūtarās and mandira integrating repurposed chatrī, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. Figure 6.10. Pādukās of ācāryas (s. 1782-1821), Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. Figure 6.11. Caraṇa-chatrīs of Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti (s. 1892) and Bhaṭṭāraka Trilokendrakīrti (s. 1838), Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. Figure 6.12. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Bhuvanakīrti (s. 1982) and tibārā preserving two s. 1992 memorial stones commemorating the bhaṭṭārakas Ratnabhūṣaṇa and Lalitakīrti along with a number of paṇḍitas, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. Figure 6.13. Memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Lalitakīrti and two paṇḍitas (s. 1992), Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. Figure 6.14. Caraṇa-cabūtarās and small chatrīs, Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. Figure 6.15. Paṇḍita pādukās (s. 1828, s. 1928), Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. Figure 6.16. Memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnabhūṣaṇa and eight paṇḍitas (s. 1992), Ānteḍa Nasīyā, Ajamera. Figure 6.17. Portrait paintings of Bhaṭṭāraka Harṣakīrti and Paṇḍita Panālāla, Bābājī kā Mandira, Ajamera. Figure 6.18. Caraṇa-chatrī of Paṇḍita Vimanarāma (s. 1887), Nasīyā, Sākhūna. Figure 6.19. Caraṇa-chatrīs with pādukās commemorating the paṇḍitas Varddhamāna and Devakaraṇa (s. 1918), and Pannālāla, Amīcandra, Phatelāla, and Yugarāja (s. 1992), Nasīyā, Sākhūna. Figure 6.20. Pādukās commemorating the paṇḍitas Varddhamāna and Devakaraṇa (s. 1918), and Pannālāla, Amīcandra, Phatelāla, and Yugarāja (s. 1992), Nasīyā, Sākhūna. Figure 6.21. Pādukā of the Nāgaura-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Sakalabhūṣaṇa (s. 1863), Bīsapantha Baṛā Mandira, Nāgaura. 508 Figure 6.22. Caraṇa-cabūtarā of the Nāgaura-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Kanakakīrti (s. 1972), and pādukā of the Cambalaśākhā Gvāliyara-paṭṭa Bhaṭṭāraka Śīlendrabhūṣaṇa (s. 1938), Nasīhājī, Gvāliyara (Madhya Pradesh). Figure 7.1. Memorial of Muni R̥ ṣabhasena (s. 1905), Pagelejī Nasīyā, Sāgavāṛā. Figure 7.2. Caraṇa-chatrī of Muni Siddhasena (s. 1948), Choṭī Nasīyā, Jhālarāpāṭana. Figure 7.3. Caraṇa-chatrī of Paṇḍita Dhanalāla (s. 1951), and unidentiﬁed caraṇa-chatrī (n.d.), Choṭī Nasīyā, Jhālarāpāṭana. 509 510 BIBLIOGRAPHY (Ali 2006) Ali, Daud. Courtly Culture & Political Life in Early Medieval India. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 2006. (Anon. 2023) Anon. Samagra Jaina Cāturmāsa Sūcī 24: 9. No place: no publ., 2023. (Anon. 2011) Anon. Nitya pūjā pāṭha saṃgraha. No place: no publ., 2011. (Anon. 2008) Anon. Śrī Jina Pūjana Arcana (Śrī Jinavāṇī Saṃgraha). Ṭhāne: Śrī Digambara Jaina Samāja, 2008. (Anon. 2007) Śrī Pūjana Pāṭha Saṃgraha. No place: no publ., 2007. (Anon. 1941) Anon. [Mantrī, Śrī Digambara Jaina Narasiṃhapurā Navayuvaka Maṇḍala]. Bhaṭṭāraka Carcā. Bhīṃḍara: Śrī Digambara Jaina Narasiṃhapurā Navayuvaka Maṇḍala, 1941. (Anon. n.d. a) Anon. Stuti, pūjana aura āratī. No place: no publ, n.d. (Anon. n.d. b) Anon. Śrī Vidyānaṃdī Svāmī Di. Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra evaṃ Śrī 1008 Ādinātha Digambara Jaina Maṃdira Paricaya, Pūjana evaṃ Āratī. No place: no publisher, n.d. (Asher & Talbot 2006) Asher, C. & C. Talbot. India before Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. (Babb 2004) Babb, Lawrence A. Alchemies of Violence: Myths of Identity and the Life of Trade in Western India. New Delhi, Thousand Oaks, & London: Sage, 2004. (Babb 1996) Babb, Lawrence A. Absent Lord: Ascetics and Kings in a Jain Ritual Culture. Berkeley & London: University of California Press, 1996. (Babb 1988) Babb, Lawrence A. “Giving and Giving Up: The Eightfold Worship among Śvetāmbar Mūrtipūjak Jains.” Journal of Anthropological Research 44: 1 (1988) 67-86. (Bakker 1991) Bakker, Hans T. “The Footprints of the Lord.” In: Diana L. Eck & Francoise Mallison (eds.) Devotion Divine: Bhakti Tradition from the Regions of India. Studies in Honour of Charlotte Vaudeville, 19-37. Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1991. (Balbir 2020) Balbir, Nalini. “Tīrthaṅkaras of the Present and Future.” In: John E. Cort, Paul Dundas, Knut A. Jacobsen, & Kristi L. Wiley (eds.) Encyclopedia of Jainism, 136-40. Leiden: Brill, 2020. (Balcerowicz 2023) Balcerowicz, Piotr. “Kundakunda, a ‘Collective Author’: Deconstruction of a Myth.” In: Peter Flügel, Heleen De Jonckheere, & Renate Söhnen-Thieme (eds.) Pure Soul: The Jaina Spiritual Traditions, 118-25. London: Centre of Jaina Studies, 2023. (Balogh & Griﬃths 2020) Balogh, Dániel, & Arlo Griﬃths. DHARMA Transliteration Guide, 2020. ﬀhalshs-02272407v3f (available on https://shs.hal.science/halshs-02272407) 511 (Banks 1999) Banks, Marcus. “The Body in Jain Art.” In: N. K. Wagle & Olle Qvarnström (eds.) Approaches to Jaina Studies: Philospohy, Logic, Rituals and Symbols, 311-23. Toronto: University of Toronto, Centre for South Asian Studies, 1999. (Belli Bose 2015) Belli Bose, Melia. Royal Umbrellas of Stone: Memory, Politics, and Public Identity in Rajput Funerary Art. Leiden: Brill, 2015. (Bhagavānasāgara 1997) Bhagavānasāgara, Brahmacārī. (Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda., transl.) “Ācārya śāntisāgara chāṇī mahārāja ke muni jīvana ke prārambhika varṣa.” In: Kāsalīvāla et. al. 1997, 184-212. (Bhārilla 1974a) Bhārilla, Hukamacanda. Paṇḍita Ṭoḍarmala: Vyaktitva aur Karttrtva. Jayapura: ̥ Paṃḍita Ṭoḍaramala Smāraka Ṭrasṭa, 1974. (Bhārilla 1974b) Bhārilla, Hukamacanda. Paṇḍita Ṭoḍarmala: Jīvana aur Sāhitya. Jayapura: Paṃḍita Ṭoḍaramala Smāraka Ṭrasṭa, 1974. (Bhattacharya 1995) Bhattacharya, Gouriswar. “The bhale symbol of the Jainas.” Berliner Indologische Studien 8 (1995) 201-228. (Bühler 1878) Bühler, Georg. “The Digambara Jainas.” Indian Antiquary 7 (1878) 28-9. (Candanāmatī [2004] 2007) Candanāmatī, Āryikā. Gaṇinī Jñānamatī Mahāpūjā. Hastināpura: Digambara Jaina Triloka Śodha Saṃsthāna, [2004] 2007. (Candanāmatī 2002) Candanāmatī, Āryikā. Ācārya Śāntisāgara pūjana. Hastināpura: Digambara Jaina Triloka Śodha Saṃsthāna, 2002. (Carrithers 1996) Carrithers, Michael. “Concretely Imagining the Southern Digambar Jain Community, 1899-1920.” Modern Asian Studies 30: 3 (1996) 523-48. (Carrithers 1991) Carrithers, Michael. “The Foundations of Community among Southern Digambar Jains: An Essay on Rhetoric and Experience.” In: M. Carrithers & C. Humphrey (eds.) The Assembly of Listeners, 261-285. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. (Carrithers 1990) Carrithers, Michael. “Jainism and Buddhism as Enduring Historical Streams.” Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford 21: 2 (1990) 141-63. (Carrithers 1989) Carrithers, Michael. “Naked Ascetics in Southern Digambar Jainism.” Man, New Series 24: 2 (1989) 219-35. (Cavare 2010) Cavare, Śrīkānta. “Kārañjā bhaṭṭāraka pīṭha itihāsa (Bālātkāra gaṇapīṭha).” Prācīna Tīrtha Jīrṇoddhāra 8: 1 (2010) 19-22. (Chattopadhyaya 1998) Chattopadhyaya, B. Representing the Other? Sanskrit Sources and the Muslims. New Delhi: Primus Books, 1998. (Cherian 2022) Cherian, Divya. Merchants of Virtue: Hindus, Muslims, and Untouchables in EighteenthCentury South Asia. Oakland: University of California Press, 2022. 512 (Clines 2018) Clines, Gregory M. The Lotus’ New Bloom: Literary Innovation in Early Modern North India. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 2018. (Clines n.d.) Clines, Gregory M. “The Jain Ritual of Sallekhanā: Opportunity in the Face of Crisis.” Unpublished paper, n.d. (Cort 2024) Cort, John E. “When is the 'Early Modern'? North Indian Digambar Jain Literary Culture.” In: Imre Bangha & Danuta Stasik (eds.) Literary Cultures in Early Modern North India: Current Research, 15-61. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2024. (Cort 2022) Cort, John E. “Who is a Yogi? Depictions of the Yogi in Classical and Medieval Digambara Jain Literature.” International Journal Of Jaina Studies 18: 1 (2022) 1-61. (Cort 2020) Cort, John E. “Jain Society: 1800-1947.” John E. Cort, Paul Dundas, Knut A. Jacobsen, & Kristi L. Wiley (eds.) Encyclopedia of Jainism, 216-47. Leiden: Brill, 2020. (Cort 2019) Cort, John E. “‘No One Gives Like the Guru’: Devotion to the True Guru in Digambara Hindi Literature.” Maya Burger & Nadia Cattoni (eds.) Early Modern India: Literature and Images, Texts and Languages, 255-269. Heidelberg & Berlin: CrossAsia-eBooks, 2019. (Cort 2016) Cort, John E. “When Will I Meet Such a Guru? Images of the Yogi in Digambar Hymns.” In: Christopher K. Chapple (ed.) Yoga in Jainism, 191-209. London: Routledge Press, 2016. (Cort 2015) Cort, John E. “Making It Vernacular in Agra: The Practice of Translation by SeventeenthCentury Digambar Jains.” In: Francesca Orsini & Katherine Butler Schoﬁeld (eds.) Tellings Not Texts: Singing, Story-Telling and Performance in North India, 61-105. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 2015. (Cort 2010a) Cort, John E. Framing the Jina: Narratives of Icons and Idols in Jain History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. (Cort 2010b) John E. Cort. “World Renouncing Monks and World Celebrating Temples and Icons: The Ritual Culture of Temples and Icons in Jainism.” In: Himanshu Prabha Ray (ed.) Archaeology and Text: The Temple in South Asia, 268-95. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010. (Cort 2008) Cort, John E. “Constructing a Jain Mendicant Lineage: Jñānsundar and the Upkeś Gacch.” In: Lawrence A. Babb, John E. Cort, & Michael W. Meister (eds.) Desert Temples: Sacred Centers of Rajasthan in Historical, Art-Historical, and Social Contexts, 135-69. Jaipur: Rawat Publication, 2008. (Cort 2006a) Cort, John E. “A Fifteenth-Century Digambar Jain Mystic and His Followers: Tāraṇ Taraṇ Svāmī and the Tāraṇ Svāmī Panth.” In: Peter Flügel (ed.) Studies in Jaina History and Culture: Disputes and Dialogues, 263-311. London: Routledge, 2006. (Cort 2006b) Cort, John E. “Installing Absence? The consecration of a Jina image.” In: Robert Maniura & Rupert Shepherd (eds.) Presence: The Inherence of the Prototype within Images and Other Objects, 71-86. Aldershot & Burlington: Ashgate, 2006. 513 (Cort 2003) Cort, John E. “Dyānatrāy: An Eighteenth Century Digambara Mystical Poet.” In: Piotr Balcerowicz (ed.) Essays in Jaina Philosophy and Religion, 279-95. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2003. (Cort 2002a) Cort, John E. “A Tale of Two Cities: On the Origins of Digambara Sectarianism in North India.” In: Lawrence A. Babb, Varsha Joshi & Michael W. Meister (eds.) Multiple Histories: Culture and Society in the Study of Rajasthan, 39-83. Jaipur & New Delhi: Rawat Publications, 2002. (Cort 2002b) Cort, John E. “Singing the Glory of Asceticism: Devotion of Asceticism in Jainism.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 70: 4 (2002) 719-42. (Cort 2002c) Cort, John E. “Bhakti in the Early Jain Tradition: Understanding Devotional Religion in South Asia.” History of Religions 42: 1 (2002) 59-86. (Cort 2001) Cort, John E. Jains in the World: Religious Values and Ideology in India. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. (Cort 1999) Cort, John E. “The Gift of Food to a Wandering Cow: Lay-Mendicant Interaction Among the Jains.” Journal of Asian and African Studies 34: 1 (1999) 89-110. (Cort 1998) Cort, John E. “Who Is a King? Jain Narratives of Kingship in Medieval Western India.” In: John E. Cort (ed.) Open Boundaries: Jain Communities and Culture in Indian History, 85-110. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998. (Cort 1995) Cort, John E. “Absences and Presences: Ganesh in the Shvetambar Jain Tradition.” In: Pratapaditya Pal (ed.) Ganesh the Benevolent, 81-94. Bombay: Marg Publication, 1995. (Cort 1991) Cort, John E. “The Svetambar Murtipujak Jain Mendicant.” Man New Series 26: 4 (1991) 651-71. (De Clercq 2017) De Clercq, Eva. “Memories of Yoginīpura: Delhi’s Digambara Merchant Community after Timur.” South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 40: 3 (2017) 531-43. (De Clercq 2012) De Clercq, Eva. “North Indian Digambara Jainism (13th-17th Century): The Age of the Bhattarakas.” Unpublished research proposal to the Foundation for Scientiﬁc Research Belgium, 2012. (De Clercq 2011) De Clercq, Eva. “Bhattārakas and Digambara Monastic Lineages of Fifteenth Century Gwalior: Glimpses from Raïdhū’s Writings.” Journal of Asian History 45 (2011) 63-83. (De Clercq 2010) De Clercq, Eva. “On Jaina Apabhraṃśa praśastis.” Acta Orientalia 63: 3 (2010) 275-287. (De Jonckheere 2019) De Jonckheere, Heleen. “The Darśanasāra by Devasena” In: Jayandra Soni & Hampa Nagarajaiah (eds.) Cāruśrī: Essays in Honour of Svastiśrī Cārukīrti Bhaṭṭāraka Paṭṭācārya, 61-7. Bangalore: Sapna, 2019. 514 (Deo 1956) Deo, Shantaram B. History of Jaina Monasticism from Inscriptions and Literature. Poona: Deccan College, 1956. (Detige in preparation) Detige, Tillo. “19th century Digambara Jaina Munis in Western India.” [journal article] (Detige 2024a) Detige, Tillo. “The Ritual Veneration of Living Digambara Jain Renouncers.” In: Purushottama Bilimoria, Cogen Bohanec, & Rita D. Sherma (eds.) Contemplative Studies and Jainism: Meditation, Prayer, and Veneration, 107-20. Abingdon & New York: Routledge, 2024. (Detige 2024b) Detige, Tillo. “A Tale of Two Courts: Records of Kachavāhā mahārājas in Digambara Jaina memorials.” In: Dániel Balogh & Annette Schmiedchen (eds.) SelfRepresentation and Presentation of Others in Indic Epigraphical Writing, 229-60. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2024. (Detige 2023) Detige, Tillo. “Digambara Memorials from Western India pre-20th Century CE.” In: Peter Flügel, Heleen De Jonckheere & Renate Söhnen-Thieme (eds.) Pure Soul: The Jaina Spiritual Traditions, 70-9. London: Centre of Jaina Studies, 2023. (Detige 2020a) Detige, Tillo. “Digambara Renouncers in Western and Central India, c. 1100-1800.” In: John E. Cort, Paul Dundas, Knut A. Jacobsen, & Kristi L. Wiley (eds.) Encyclopedia of Jainism, 182-215. Leiden: Brill, 2020. (Detige 2020b) Detige, Tillo. “Whither the Bhaṭṭāraka Era?” Jaina Studies: Newsletter of the Centre of Jaina Studies 15 (2020) 34-37. (Detige 2020c) Detige, Tillo. “Not just Stories. Jain and Buddhist Narratives as Epistemic Technology.” In: Eric Ottenheijm & Marcel Poorthuis (eds.) Parables in Changing Contexts: Essays on the Study of Parables in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism, 95-126. Leiden: Brill, 2020. (Detige 2019a) Detige, Tillo. “‘Guṇa kahūṃ śrī guru’: Bhaṭṭāraka Gītas and the Early Modern Digambara Jaina Saṅgha.” In: Maya Burger & Nadia Cattoni (eds.) Early Modern India: Literature and Images, Texts and Languages, 271-85. Heidelberg & Berlin: CrossAsia-eBooks, 2019. (Detige 2019b) Detige, Tillo. ‘‘‘Tataḥ Śrī-Gurus-Tasmai Sūrimantraṃ Dadyāt’, ‘Then the Venerable Guru Ought to Give Him the Sūrimantra’: Early Modern Digambara Jaina Bhaṭṭāraka Consecrations.” Religions 10/369 (2019) 1-31. (Detige 2018) Detige, Tillo. “Satpātrāya samarpittaṃ: Manuscript Copies and the Early Modern Digambara Saṅgha.” In: Christine Chojnacki & Basile Leclère (eds.) The Gift of Knowledge: Patterns of Patronage in Jainism, 274-370. Bengaluru: Sapna Book House, 2018. (Detige 2017) Detige, Tillo. “Manuscript Collections of the Western and Central Indian Bhaṭṭārakas.” Jaina Studies: Newsletter of the Centre of Jaina Studies 12 (2017) 36-9. 515 (Detige 2015) Detige, Tillo. “The Bhaṭṭārakas of Kārañjā (Lāḍa): Triveṇī Saṅgama at Jaina Kāśī.” In: Luitgard Soni & Jayandra Soni (eds.) Sanmati: Essays Felicitating Professor Hampa Nagarajaiah on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday, 143-76. Bangalore: Sapna Book House, 2015. (Detige 2014) Detige, Tillo. “Worshipping Bhaṭṭārakas.” Jaina Studies: Newsletter of the Centre of Jaina Studies 9 (2014) 27-30. (Dhaky 2000) Dhaky, M. A. “A Propos of Deva Sūri-Kumudacandra Encounter: Some Views Examined in Retrospect.” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay 75 (2000) 49-59. (Divākara 2000a) Divākara, Sumerucandra. Cāritra Cakravartī. Naī Dillī: Śrī Bhāratavarṣīya Digambara Jaina (Śruta Saṃvarddhanī) Mahāsabhā, 2000 (8th edition). (Divākara 2000b) Divākara, Sumerucandra. Ādhyātmika Jyoti. No place: no publ., 2000. (Dośī e.a. 2000) Dośī, Śāntilāla et. al.. (eds.) Hūmaṛa Jaina Samāja kā Sāṃskrtika Itihāsa (Bhāga 2). ̥ Ahamadābāda: Śrī Akhila Bhāratīya Hūmaṛa Itihāsa Śodha Samiti, 2000. (Dundas 2011) Dundas, Paul. “A Digambara Jain Samskāra in the Early Seventeenth Century: Lay Funerary Ritual according to Somasenabhattāraka's Traivarnikācāra.” Indo-Iranian Journal 52 (2011) 99-147. (Dundas 2009) Dundas, Paul. "How not to install an image of the Jina: An early anti-Paurṇamīyaka diatrebe." International Journal of Jaina Studies 5: 3 (2009) 1-23. (Dundas 2007) Dundas, Paul. History, Scripture, and Controversy in a Medieval Jain Sect. London & New York: Routledge, 2007. (Dundas [1992] 2002) Dundas, Paul. The Jains. New York: Routledge, [1992] ²2002. (Dundas 1999) Dundas, Paul. “Jain Perceptions of Islam in the Early Modern Period.” Indo-Iranian Journal 42: 1 (1999) 35-46. (Dundas 1998) Dundas, Paul. “Becoming Gautama: Mantra and History in Śvetāmbara Jainism.” In: John E. Cort (ed.) Open Boundaries: Jain Communities and Cultures in Indian History, 31-52. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998. (Dundas 1987-88) Dundas, Paul. “The Tenth Wonder: Domestication and Reform in Medieval Śvetāmbara Jainism.” Indologica Taurinensia 14 (1987-88) 181-94. (Eaton 2001) Eaton, Richard M. (2001) “Temple desecration and Indo-Muslim States.” Frontline January 5 (2001) 70-7. (Eaton 2000a) Eaton, Richard. “Temple desecration and Indo-Muslim States.” Journal of Islamic Studies 11: 3 (2000) 283-319. [Also published as: Eaton, Richard. “Temple Desecration and Indo-Muslim States.” In: David Gilmartin & Bruce B. Lawrence (eds.) Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in Islamicate South Asia, 246-81. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2000.] 516 (Eaton 2000b) Eaton, Richard M. (2000) “Temple desecration in pre-modern India.” Frontline December 22 (2000) 62-70. (Elliot & Dowson [1849] n.d.) Elliot, H. M. & John Dowson (transl. & eds.). The History of India as Told by its Own Historians, 8 vols. Allahabad: Kitab Mahal, n.d. (Ferguson & Mansbach 1996) Ferguson, Yale & Richard W. Mansbach. Polities: Authority, Identities, and Change. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996. (Flügel 2017) Flügel, Peter. “Jaina afterlife beliefs and funerary practices.” In: Christopher M. Moreman (ed.) The Routledge Companion to Death and Dying, 119-32. London & New York: Routledge, 2017. (Flügel 2012) Flügel, Peter. “Stūpa as Tīrtha: Jaina Monastic Funerary Monuments.” Jaina Studies: Newsletter of the Centre of Jaina Studies 7 (2012) 25-27. (Flügel 2011) Flügel, Peter. “Burial Ad Sanctos at Jaina Sites In India.” International Journal of Jaina Studies 7: 4 (2011) 1-37. (Flügel 2010a) Flügel, Peter. “New Developments in Aniconic Jaina Iconography.” Jaina Studies: Newsletter of the Centre of Jaina Studies 5 (2010) 24-28. (Flügel 2010b) Flügel, Peter. “The Jaina Cult of Relic Stūpas.” Numen 57 (2010) 389-504. (Flügel 2008) Flügel, Peter. “Jaina Relic Stūpas.” Jaina Studies: Newsletter of the Centre of Jaina Studies 3 (2008) 18-23. (Flügel 2006) Flügel, Peter. “Demographic Trends in Jaina Monasticism.” In: Peter Flügel (ed.) Studies in Jaina, History and Culture: Disputes and Dialogues, 312-398. London: Routledge, 2006. (Foucault [1982] 1997) Foucault, Michel. “Technologies of the Self.” In: Paul Rabinow (ed.) Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984, 223-51. London: Penguin, [1982] 1997. (Gelders 2009) Gelders, Raf. “Genealogy of Colonial Discourse: Hindu Traditions and the Limits of European Representation.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 51: 3 (2009) 563-89. (Gelders & Balagangadhara 2011) Gelders, Raf & S. N. Balagangadhara. “Rethinking Orientalism: Colonialism and the Study of Indian Traditions.” History of Religions 51: 2 (2011) 101-28. (Gough 2020) Gough, Ellen. “Situating Pārśva’s Biography in Varanasi.” Religions 11: 117 (2020) 1-26. (Gough 2019) Gough, Ellen. “Tantric ritual components in the initiation of a Digambara Jain.” In: Nina Mirnig, Marion Rastelli, & Vincent Eltschinger (eds.) Tantric Communities in Context, 233-73. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2019. (Gough 2017) Gough, Ellen. “The Sūrimantra and the Tantricization of Jain Image Consecration.” In: István Keul (ed.) Consecration Rituals in South Asia, 265-308. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2017. 517 (Gough 2015) Gough, Ellen. “The Ṇamokār Mantra’s Forgotten Brother.” Jaina Studies: Newsletter of the Centre of Jaina Studies 10 (2015) 32-4. (Granoﬀ 1992) Granoﬀ, Phyllis. “Worship as commemoration: Pilgrimage, Death and Dying in medieval Jainism.” Bulletin d'Etudes Sanskrites et Indiennes 10 (1992) 181-202. (Granoﬀ 1991) Granoﬀ, Phyllis. “Tales of Broken Limbs and Bleeding Wounds: Responses to Muslim Iconoclasm in Medieval India.” East and West 41: 1/4 (1991) 189-203. (Gupta 1986) Gupta, I. P. Urban Glimpses of Mughal India: Agra: The Imperial Capital (16th and 17th Centuries). Delhi: Discovery Pub. House, 1986. (Hatcher 2020a) Hatcher, Brian A. Hinduism before Reform. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press, 2020a. (Hatcher 2020b) Hatcher, Brian A. “From court to court: Religious polities and the modern south Asian public.” Religion Compass 14: 8 (2020) 1-11. (Hatcher e.a. 2021) Brian A. Hatcher, Abhishek S. Amar and Mark McLaughlin. “Death Matters.” Journal of Hindu Studies 14 (2021) 1-7. (Hawley 2015) Hawley, John Stratton. A Storm of Songs: India and the Idea of the Bhakti Movement. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press, 2015. (Hazarika 2013) Hazarika, Polly. “Reform Discourse and Bhakti Literature.” International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 2: 1 (2013) 50-65. (Hegewald 2020a) Hegewald, Julia A. B. (ed.) In the Footsteps of the Masters: Footprints, Feet and Shoes as Objects of Veneration in Asian, Islamic and Mediterranean Art. Berlin: EB-Verlag, 2020a. (Hegewald 2020b) “Introduction: Footprints, Sculpted Feet and Shoes in the Art of Asia and the Islamic and Mediterranean Worlds.” In: Hegewald 2020a, p. 21-116. (Hegewald 2020c) “Foot Stones and Footprints (Pādukās): Multivariate Symbols in Jaina Religious Practice in India.” In: Hegewald 2020a, p. 357-423. (Hegewald 2020d) “Pādukās: Revered Foot Imprints in the Jaina art of India.” In: Laxshmi Rose Greaves & Adam Hardy (eds.) Bridging Heaven and Earth: Art and Architecture in South Asia, 5th- 21st century CE (Research Presented at the Twenty-third Conference of the European Association for South Asian Archaeology and Art, Cardiﬀ 2016, vol. 2), 163-74. New Delhi: Dev Publications, 2020. (Hegewald 2009) Hegewald, Julia A. B. Jaina Temple Architecture in India: The Development of a Distinct Language in Space and Ritual. Berlin: G+H Verlag, 2009. (Hegewald 2007) Hegewald, Julia A. B. “Domes, Tombs and Minarets: Islamic Inﬂuences on Jaina Architecture.” In: Adam Hardy (ed.) The Temple in South Asia, 179-190. London: British Association for South Asian Studies and the British Academy, 2007. 518 (Hoernle 1892) Hoernle, A. F. Rudolf. “Three Further Pattavalis of the Digambaras.” Indian Antiquary 21 (1892) 57-84. (Hoernle 1891) Hoernle, A. F. Rudolf. “Two Pattavalis of the Sarasvati Gachchha of the Digambara Jains.” Indian Antiquary 20 (1891) 341-61. (Horstmann 2013) Horstmann, Monika. Jaipur 1778: The Making of a King. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013. ( H o r s t m a n n 2 0 0 9 ) H o r s t m a n n , M o n i k a . D e r Z u s a m m e n h a l t d e r We l t : re l i g i ö s e Herrschaftslegitimation und Religionspolitik Maharaja Savai Jaisinghs (1700-1743). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009. (Humphrey & Laidlaw 1994) Humphrey, Caroline & James Laidlaw. The Archetypal Actions of Ritual: A Theory of Ritual Illustrated by the Jain Rite of Worship. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. (Inden [1990] 2000) Inden, Ronald B. Imagining India. London: Hurst & Co, [1990] 2000. (K. C. Jain 2010) Jain, Kailash Chand (ed.). History of Jainism. Vol. 3 Medieval Jainism. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld, 2010. (K. C. Jain 1972) Jain, Kailash Chand. Ancient Cities and Towns of Rajasthan. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1972. (K. C. Jain 1963) Jain, Kailash Chand. Jainism in Rajasthan. Sholapur: Jaina Saṃskrti̥ Saṃrakshaka Sangha, 1963. (M. U. K. Jain 1975) Jain, Muni Uttam Kamal. Jaina Sects and Schools. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, 1975. (P. Jain 2010) Jain, Prakash. “Political History of Medieval Mālwā and Jainism.” In: K. C. Jain 2010, p. 1200-69. (P. C. Jain 1981, 1985, 2009) Jain, Prem Chand. A Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Bhattarkiya Grantha Bhandar Nagaur. Jaipur: Centre for Jain Studies, University of Rajasthan, 1981 (Vol. II); 1985 (Vol. III); 2009 (Vol. IV). (P. C. Jain 1979) Jain, Prem Chand. Jain Granth Bhandars in Jaipur and Nagaur. Jaipur: Centre for Jain Studies, University of Rajasthan, 1979. [also referred to as Vol. I of P. C. Jain 1981, 1985, 2009] (R. K. Jain 1999) Jain, Ravindra K. The Universe as Audience: Metaphor and Community among the Jains of North India. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, 1999. (S. Jain 2017) Jain, Shalin. Identity, Community and State: The Jains under the Mughals. Delhi: Primus Books, 2017. (B. Jaina 1978) Jaina, Balabhadra. Bhārata ke Digambara Jaina Tīrtha (caturtha bhāga: RājasthānaGujarāta-Mahārāṣṭra). Bambaī: Bhāratavarṣīya Digambara Jaina Tīrthakṣetra Kameṭī, 1978. 519 (B. Jaina 1976) Jaina, Balabhadra. Bhārata ke Digambara Jaina Tīrtha (trtīya bhāga): Madhya ̥ Pradeśa. Bambaī: Bhāratavarṣīya Digambara Jaina Tīrthakṣetra Kameṭī, 1976. (B. Jaina 1974) Jaina, Balabhadra. Bhārata ke Digambara Jaina Tīrtha (prathama bhāga): Uttara Pradeśa aura Dillī Rājya. Bambaī: Bhāratavarṣīya Digambara Jaina Tīrthakṣetra Kameṭī, 1974. (B. H. Jaina 2010) Jaina, Bābū Hīrālāla. “Kārañjā, vahāṃ ke gaṇa aura śāstra bhaṇḍāra.” Prācīna Tīrtha Jīrṇoddhāra 8: 1 (2010) 23-4, 29-30. (B. K. Jaina [1932] 2013) Jaina, Bābū Kāmtāprasāda. Digambaratva aura Digambara Muni. Nayī Dillī: Bhāratīya Jñānapīṭha, [1932] 2013. (H. Jaina 2006) Jaina, Hīrālāla. Jaina Śilālekha Saṅgraha: Śravaṇabelagola aura usake āsapāsa ke Śilālekha. Dillī: Bhāratīya Jñānapīṭha, 2006. (J. Jaina 1951) Jaina, [Paṇḍita] Jhammanalāla. Śrī Lavecū Di. Jaina Samāja tathā saṃkṣepameṃ anya jaina samājakā itihāsa. Kalakattā: Sohanalāla Jaina, 1951 [v.n.s. 2478, s. 2008]. (J. Jaina e.a. 1985) Jyotiprasāda Jain et. al. (eds.) Siddhāntācārya Paṇḍita Phūlacandra Śāstrī Abhinandana Grantha. Vārāṇasī: Siddhāntācārya Paṃ. Phūlacandra Śāstrī AbhinandanaGrantha Prakāśana Samiti, 1985. (K. Jaina 1981) Jaina, Kundanalāla. Dillī-Jina-Grantha-Ratnāvalī. Nayī Dillī: Bhāratīya Jñānapīṭha, 1981. (N. Jaina 2004) Jaina, Nīraja. Prathamācārya Śāntisāgarajī aura Bhaṭṭāraka Paramparā. Cennaī: Bhāratavarṣīya Digambara Jaina (Tīrtha Saṃrakṣiṇī) Mahāsabhā Dakṣiṇa Bhārata Śākhā, 2004. (N. Jaina 1997) Jaina, Nīraja. “Savinaya Namostu.” In: Kāsalīvāla et. al. 1997, p. 124-45. (N. K. Jaina 2013) Jaina, Navanīta Kumāra. Sonāgiri. Mumbaī: Bhāratavarṣīya Digambara Jaina Tīrthakṣetra Kameṭī, 2013. (P. Jaina 1964) Jaina, Premasāgara. Hindī Jaina-Bhakti Kāvya aura Kavi. Vārāṇasī: Bhāratīya Jñānapīṭha, 1964. (P. C. Jaina 2010) Jaina, Premacanda (ed.). Bhaṭṭāraka Paramparā. Jayapura: Jaina Anuśīlana Kendra, Rājasthāna Viśvavidyālaya, 2010. (P. C. Jaina 1983) Jain, Premacanda. “Nāgaura tathā usa meṃ sthita Bhaṭṭārakīya Digambara Jaina Grantha Bhaṇḍāra kī Sthāpanā evaṃ Vikāsa kā Saṃkṣipta Itihāsa.” Mahāvīra Jayantī Smārikā 20: 2 (1983) 41-5. (R. Jaina 1997) Jaina, Rameścanda. Digambaratva kī Khoja. Naī Dillī: Āhiṃsā Mandira Prakāśana, 1997. (Ś. J. Jaina 2011) Jaina, Śāntilāla Jāṅgaṛā. R̥ ṣabhadeva-Kesariyājī Mandira evaṃ isakī Paraṃparā. Lakhanaū: Śrī Bhāratavarṣīya Digambara Jaina Tīrtha Saṃrakṣiṇī Mahāsabhā, 2011. 520 (Jaina & Jaina 1965) Jaina, Rāmacandra & Candanalāla Jaina. Śrī Narasiṃhapurā Jāti kī Uttpatti kā Varṇan. Udayapura: Varddhamāna Priṃṭiṃga Presa Dhānamaṇḍī, 1965. (Jaina & Khāga 2012a) Jaina, Kastūracandra & Puṣpalatā ‘Khāga’. Āmera ke Digambara Jaina Mandira Nemināthaji (Sāṃvalājī) ki Pratimāeṃ. Mahāvīrajī: Jaina Vidyā Saṃsthāna, 2012. (Jaina & Khāga 2012b) Jaina, Kastūracandra & Puṣpalatā ‘Khāga’. Āmera ke Digambara Jaina Mandira Sāṃvalājī Neminātha ke Yantralekha. Mahāvīrajī: Jaina Vidyā Saṃsthāna, 2012. (Jaina & Pāṇḍyā 2008) Jaina, Anupama, & Bāhubalī Pāṇḍyā (eds.) Akhila Bhāratīya Digambara Jaina Mandira Nirdeśikā. Indaura: Mahāvīra Ṭrasṭa, 2008. (Jaini 2017) Jaini, P. S. “A Rare Letter of a Bhaṭṭāraka of Malayādri (=Malayakheḍa>Malkhed).” Jaina Studies: Newsletter of the Centre of Jaina Studies 12 (2017) 28-33. (Jaini [1979] 1998) Jaini, Padmanabh S. The Jaina Path of Puriﬁcation. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, [1979] 1998. (Joharāpurakara 2001) Joharāpurakara, Vidyādhara. Bagheravāla jāti kā itihāsa. Koṭā: A. Bhā. Di. Jaina Bagheravāla Saṅgha, 2001. (Joharāpurakara 1971) Joharāpurakara, Vidyādhara. Jain Śilālekha Saṅgraha (Bhāga 5). Dillī: Bhāratīya Jñānapīṭha, 1971. (Joharāpurakara 1965) Joharāpurakara, Vidyādhara. Jaina Śilālekha Saṃgraha (Bhāga cāra). Vārāṇasī: Bhāratīya Jñānapīṭha, 1965 [v.n.s. 2491]. (Joharāpurakara 1964) Joharāpurakara, Vidyādhara. “Jaina Saṅgha ke chaḥ aṃga.” Anekānta 17: 5 (1964) 231-2. (Joharāpurakara 1958) Joharāpurakara, Vidyādhara. Bhaṭṭāraka Sampradāya. Śolāpura: Jaina Saṃskrti̥ Saṃrakṣaka Saṅgha, 1958. (Joharāpurakara & Kāsalīvāla 1975) Joharāpurakara, Vidyādhara & Kastūracanda Kāsalīvāla. Vīra śāsana ke prabhāvaka ācārya. Nayī Dillī: Bhāratīya Jñānapīṭha, 1975. (Johnson 2003) Johnson, William J. “The ‘Jina Experience’: A Diﬀerent Approach to Jaina Image Worship.” In: Olle Qvarnström (ed.) Jainism and Early Buddhism: Essays in Honor of Padmanabh S. Jaini, 217-30. Fremont: Asian Humanities Press, 2003. (Kāpaḍiyā 1964) Kāpaḍiyā, M. Mūrti-lekha Saṃgraha, Sūrata: Kāpaḍiyā Bhavana Gāvīce, 1964. (Karatchkova 2012) Karatchkova, Elena. “The Temple of Saṅghī Jhūṅthārāmjī: ‘Jain on the outside Hindu inside’.” International Journal of Jaina Studies 8: 2 (2012) 1-25. (Kāsalīvāla 1997a) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. “Ācārya śrī śāntisāgara (chāṇī) mahārāja kā prabhāvaka jīvana.” In: Kāsalīvāla et. al. 1997, p. 146-72. (Kāsalīvāla 1997b) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. “Ācārya śrīśāntisāgara (chāṇī) mahārāja kī paramparā ke samartha ācārya.” In: Kāsalīvāla et. al. 1997, p. 173-83. 521 (Kāsalīvāla 1997c) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. “Muslima Yuga ke Jainācārya.” In: Kāsalīvāla et. al. 1997, p. 451-462. (Kāsalīvāla 1990) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. “Uttarī Bhārata meṃ Bhaṭṭāraka Pīṭhoṃ kī Dayanīya Sthiti.” Vīra-vāṇī 42: 11 (1990) 227-8. (Kāsalīvāla 1989) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. Khaṇḍelavāla Jaina Samāja kā Vrhad Itihāsa. Jayapura: ̥ Jaina Itihāsa Prakāśana Saṃsthāna, 1989. (Kāsalīvāla 1984) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. Muni Sabhācanda evam unakā Padmapurāṇa. Jayapura: Śrī Mahāvīra Grantha Akādamī, 1984. (Kāsalīvāla 1982) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. Ācārya Somakīrtti evaṃ Brahma Yaśodhara. Jayapura: Śrī Mahāvīra Grantha Akādamī, 1982. (Kāsalīvāla 1981) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnakīrti evaṃ Kumudacandra, vyaktitva evaṃ krtitva. Jayapura: Śrī Mahāvīra Grantha Akādamī, 1981. ̥ (Kāsalīvāla 1979a) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. Kavivara Būcarāja evaṃ unake samakālīna kavi. Jayapura: Śrī Mahāvīra Grantha Akādamī, 1979a. (Kāsalīvāla 1979b) Kasliwal, Kastoor Chand. “Jain Community of Amer, Sanganer and Jaipur.” In: J. N. Asopa (ed.) Cultural Heritage of Jaipur, 153-9. Jodhpur: United Book Traders, 1979b. (Kāsalīvāla 1978) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. Mahākavi Brahma Rāyamalla evaṃ Bhaṭṭāraka Tribhuvanakīrti: Vyaktitva evam Krtitva. Jayapura: Śrī Mahāvīra Grantha Akādamī, 1978. ̥ (Kāsalīvāla 1973) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. Mahākavi Daulatarāma Kāsalīvāla: vyaktitva evaṃ kṛtitva. Jayapura: Di. Jaina A. Kṣetra Śrīmahāvīrajī, 1973. (Kāsalīvāla 1972) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. Rājasthāna ke Jaina Śāstra Bhaṇḍāroṃ kī Grantha Sūcī (pañcama bhāga). Jayapura: Śrī Di. Jaina A. Kṣetra Śrīmahāvīrajī, 1972. (Kāsalīvāla 1969) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. “Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇakīrtti kā paṭṭābhiṣeka.” Vīra-vāṇī 21: 15 (1969) 453-4. (Kāsalīvāla 1967a) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. Rājasthāna ke Jaina Santa: Vyaktitva evaṃ Krtitva. ̥ Jayapura: Śrī Digambara Jaina A. Kṣetra Śrī Mahāvīrajī, 1967. (Kāsalīvāla 1967b) Kasliwal, Kastoor Chand. Jaina Grantha Bhaṇḍārs in Rājāsthān. Jaipur: Shri Digamber Jain Atishaya Kshetra Shri Mahavirji, Mahavir Bhawan, 1967. (Kāsalīvāla 1954) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. Rājasthāna ke Jaina Śāstra Bhaṇḍāroṃ kī Grantha-Sūcī (bhāga 2). Jayapura: Śrī Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra Śrīmahāvīrajī, 1954. (Kāsalīvāla 1950) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. Praśasti-saṃgraha. Jayapura: Śrī Di. Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra Mahāvīrajī, 1950. (Kāsalīvāla 1949) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. Āmera śāstra-bhaṇḍāra, Jayapura kī Grantha Sūcī. Jayapura: Śrī Di. Jaina Mahāvīra Atiśaya Kṣetra Kameṭī, 1949 [v.n.s. 2475]. 522 (Kāsalīvāla & Nyāyatīrtha 1962) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda & Anūpacanda Nyāyatīrtha. Rājasthāna ke Jaina Śāstra Bhaṇḍāroṃ kī Grantha-Sūcī (caturtha bhāga). Jayapura: Śrī Digambara Jaina A. Kṣetra Śrīmahāvīrajī, 1962. (Kāsalīvāla & Nyāyatīrtha 1957) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda & Anūpacanda Nyāyatīrtha. Rājasthāna ke Jaina Śāstra Bhaṇḍāroṃ kī Grantha-Sūcī (trtīya bhāga). Jayapura: Śrī Digambara Jaina A. ̥ Kṣetra Śrīmahāvīrajī, 1957. (Kāsalīvāla e.a. 1997) Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda, Kapūracanda Jaina, et. al. (eds.) Praśamamūrti Ācārya Śāntisāgara Chāṇī Smrti̥ Grantha. Meraṭha: Ācārya Śāntisāgara Chāṇī Granthamālā, 1997. (Kelting 2007) Kelting, Whitney. “Candanbala’s Tears: Recovering the Emotional Life of Jainism.” Numen 54 (2007) 109-137. (Kelting 2001) Kelting, Whitney. Singing to the Jinas: Jain Laywomen, Mandal Singing, and the Negotiations of Jain devotion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. (Khindukā 1999) Khindukā, Jnānacanda. “Bhaṭṭāraka, taba aura aba.” Mahāvira Jayantī Smārikā 36: 3 (1999) 1-13. (Kragh 2013) Kragh, Ulrich Timme. “Localized Literary History: Sub-text and Cultural Heritage in the Āmer Śāstrabhaṇḍār, A Digambara Manuscript Repository in Jaipur.” In: International Journal of Jaina Studies 9: 3 (2013) 1-53. (Lal 1963) Lal, Kishori Saran. Twilight of the Sultanate: A Political, Social and Cultural History of the Sultanate of Delhi from the Invasion of Timur to the Conquest of Babur, 1398-1526. London: Asia Publishing House, 1963. (Laqueur 2015) Laqueur, Thomas W. 2015. The work of the dead: a cultural history of mortal remains. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015. (Laughlin 2005) Laughlin, Jack C. “The pādukā in Jain art and history.” Jinamañjari 31: 1 (2005) 23-35. (Mackenzie 1807) Mackenzie, Major C. “Account of the Jains, Collected from a Priest of this Sect, at Mudgeri.” Asiatic Researches 9 (1807) 244-56. (Majumdar 1955a) Majumdar, R. C. (ed.). The Age of Imperial Kanauj (History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol. IV). Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1955. (Majumdar 1955b) Majumdar, R. C. “Preface.” In: Majumdar 1955a, p. xxxiii-xxxvii. (Majumdar [1960] 1967a) Majumdar, R. C. (ed.) The Delhi Sultanate (History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol. VI). Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, [1960] ²1967. (Majumdar [1960] ²1967b) Majumdar, R. C. “Preface.” In: Majumdar [1960] ²1967a, p. xxiii-xxxiv. (Malaiyā 2001) Malaiyā, Sudhā. Kuṇḍalagiri. Bhopāla: Vasudhā Pablikeśansa, 2001. 523 (McLaughlin 2021) McLaughlin, Mark. “Tracing the Roots of Samadhi Burial Practice.” Journal of Hindu Studies 14 (2021) 8-26. (Metcalf 1995) Metcalf, Barbara D. “Presidential Address: Too Little and Too Much: Reﬂections on Muslims in the History of India.” Journal of Asian Studies 54: 4 (1995) 951-67. (Miśra 1991) Miśra, Ratanalāla. The Mortuary Monuments in Ancient and Medieval India. Delhi: B. R. Publishing Corporation, 1991. (Mundra 2024) Mundra, Anil. “‘The Fire that Burns the Forest of Karma’: Haribhadrasūri’s Theory of Devotion as Contemplative Practice.” In: Purushottama Bilimoria, Cogen Bohanec, & Rita D. Sherma (eds.) Contemplative Studies and Jainism: Meditation, Prayer, and Veneration, 85-94. Abingdon & New York: Routledge, 2024. (Munshi 1955) Munshi, K. M. “Foreword.” In: Majumdar 1955a, p. vii-xxiii. (Murthy 2014) Murthy, P. N. Narasimha. “Parkaḷa Tablet: A New Find in Brāhmī Script.” Jaina Studies: Newsletter of the Centre of Jaina Studies 9 (2014) 36-7. (Nagarajaiah 2012) Nagarajaiah, Hampa. “Nishidhis and Muḍiñjas: Revisited.” Sambodhi XXXV (2012) 49-56. (Nagarajaiah 2006 [2001]) Nagarajaiah, Hampa. Opulent Candragiri. Shravanabelagola: S.D.J.M. Managing Committee, [2001] 2006. (Needham 1972) Needham, Rodney. Belief, Language, and Experience. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (Nigam 2010) Nigam, S. S. “Jainism in Medieval India.” In: K. C. Jain 2010, p. 1129-99. (B. Nyāyatīrtha 1986) Nyāyatīrtha, Bhaṃvaralāla. “Jayapura meṃ bhaṭṭāraka paraṃparā ke saṃsthāna nahīṃ rahe.” Vīra-vāṇī 38: 9 (1986) 357-8. (Nyāyatīrtha 2002) Nyāyatīrtha, Anūpacanda. “170 varṣa pūrva uttarī bhārata meṃ digambara jaina muniyoṃ kā vihāra.” Anekānta 55: 4 (2002) 25-34. (Nyāyatīrtha 1997) Nyāyatīrtha, Anūpacanda (chief ed.). Digambara Jaina Mandira Paricaya Jilā Jaypur (Grāmīṇ Añcal). Jayapura: Śrī Digambara Jaina Mandira Mahāsaṅgha, 1997. (Nyāyatīrtha 1990) Nyāyatīrtha, Anūpacanda (chief ed.). Digambara Jaina Mandira Jayapura. Jayapura: Śrī Digambara Jaina Mandira Mahāsaṅgha, 1990. (Nyāyatīrtha 1985a) Nyāyatīrtha, Anūpacanda. “Ᾱmera gaddī ke Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti kā Dillī meṃ paṭṭābhiṣeka.” Vīra-vāṇī 37: 15 (1985) 421-3. (Nyāyatīrtha 1985b) Nyāyatīrtha, Anūpacanda. “Ᾱmera meṃ paṭṭastha antima Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti.” Vīra-vāṇī 37: 20 (1985) 34-6. (Padmanandi e.a. 1982) Padmanandi, Muni, Muni Devanandi, & Āryikā Kulabhūṣaṇamatī. HumbujaŚramaṇa-Siddhānta Pāṭhāvali. Jayapura: Śrī Digambara Jaina Kunthu Vijaya Granthamālā Samiti, 1982. 524 (Paniker 2010) Paniker, Agustin. Jainism: History, Society, Philosophy and Practice. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2010. (Parikh & Shelat 1997) Parikh, Praveenchandra C., & Bharati K. Shelat. The Jain Image Inscriptions of Ahmadabad. Ahmadabad: B. J. Institute of Learning of Research, 1997. (Patel 2013) Patel, Deven. “Mettābhāvanā in Traditional and Popular Buddhist Contexts.” Asian Philosophy 23: 4 (2013) 323-40. (Polyākā 1990) Polyākā, Bhaṃvaralāla. “Naśiyāṃ: Eka Vivecana.” In: Nyāyatīrtha 1990, p. 29-31 (trtīya ̥ khaṇḍa). (Premī [1943] 1957) Premī, Nāthūrāma (ed.). Kavivara Banārsīdāsa-viracita Ardha Kathānaka. Bambaī: Hindī-Grantha-Ratnākāra, [1943] ²1957. (Premī 1942) Premī, Nāthūrāma. “Vanvāsī aura Caityavāsī Sampradāya: Panthoṃ-kī Utpatti aura Vikāsa.” In: Nāthūrāma Premī, Jaina Sāhitya aura Itihāsa, 347-69. Bambaī: Di. Hindī-GranthaRatnākāra-Kāryalāya, 1942. (Premī 1915) Premī, Nāthūrāma. “Digambara Samprādaya ke Saṅgha.” Jain Svetambar Conference Herald 11 (1915) 530-539. (Premī 1913) Premī, Nāthūrāma. “Bhaṭṭāraka (4).” Jaina Hitaiṣī 8 (1913) 57-70. [Also published as: Nāthūrāma Premī. Bhaṭṭāraka. No place: no publisher, 1912.] (Premī 1912) Premī, Nāthūrāma. “Bhaṭṭāraka.” Jaina Hitaiṣī 7 (1912) 59-69. (Premī n.d.) Premī, Nāthūrāma. “Īḍara kī Gaddī.” Jaina Hitaiṣī (n.d.) 459-64. (Prentiss 1999) Prentiss, Karen Pechilis. The Embodiment of Bhakti. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. (Rāṃvakā 1980) Rāṃvakā, Premacanda. Mahākavi Brahma Jinadāsa: Vyaktitva evam Krtitva. ̥ Jayapura: Śrī Mahāvīra Grantha Akādamī, 1980. (Roy [1978] 2006) Roy, Ashim Kumar. History of the Jaipur City. New Delhi: Manohar, [1978] 2006. (Sangave 2001) Sangave, Vilas A. Facets of Jainology: Selected Research Papers on Jain Society, Religion and Culture. Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, 2001. (Sangave 1981) Sangave, Vilas. “Bhaṭṭāraka Tradition.” In: T. G. Kalghatgi (ed.) Gommateshvara Commemoration Volume (A.D. 981-1981), 62-70. Sharavanabelagola: Shravanabelagola Digambara Jaina Muzrai Institutions Managing Committee, 1981. (Sangave [1959] 1980) Sangave, Vilas A. Jaina Community: A Social Survey. Bombay: Popular Prakashan, [1959] ²1980. (H. Śāstrī 1967) Śāstrī, Hīrālāla. “Nisīhiyā ya naśiyāṃ.” In: Cainasukhadāsa Nyāyatīrtha et. al. (eds.) Babū Choṭelāla Jaina Smrti̥ Grantha, 393-9. Kalakattā: Babū Choṭelāla Jaina Abhinandana Samiti, 1967. 525 (N. Śāstrī 1974) Śāstrī, Nemicandra. Tīrthaṅkara Mahāvīra Aura Unakī Ācārya Paramparā (Caturtha Khaṇḍa). Sāgara: Śrī Bhāratavarṣīya Digambara Jaina Vidvatpariṣad, 1974. (P. Śāstrī n.d.) Śāstrī, Paramānanda. Jaina Dharma kā Prācīna Itihāsa (Dvitīya Bhāga: Bhagavāna Mahavīra aura unakī Saṅgha-Paramparā). Dharmapurā, Dillī: Gajendra Pablikeśana, n.d. (P. Śāstrī 1963) Śāstrī, Paramānanda. “Māroṭha kā itihāsa aur Jakaḍī.” Anekānta XVI (1963) ?-89-?. (P. C. Śāstrī 1992) Śāstrī, Phūlacandra. Paravāra Jaina Samāja kā Itihāsa. Jabalapura: Śrī Bhāratavarṣīya Digambara Jaina Paravāra Sabhā, 1992. (P. C. Śāstrī 1985a) Śāstrī, Phūlacandra. “Paurapaṭa (Parvāra) Anvaya.” In: J. Jaina et. al. 1985, p. 338-369. (P. C. Śāstrī 1985b) Śāstrī, Phūlacandra. “Mūlasaṅgh Śuddhāmnāy kā dūsarā Nām hī Terāpanth Hai.” In: J. Jaina et. al. 1985, p. 535-40. (Scholz 2011a) Scholz, Sabine. “The Revival of the Digambara Muni Tradition in Karnataka during the Twentieth Century.” In: Julia Hegewald (ed.) The Jaina Heritage: Distinction, Decline and Resilience, 258-79. New Delhi: Saṃskrti, ̥ 2011. (Scholz 2011b) Scholz, Sabine. The Digambara Jainas of South Maharashtra and North Karnataka since the Late 19th Centrury: Towards the Establishment of Collective Religious Identity and a Digambara Jaina Community. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester, 2011. (Scott 2016) Scott, J. Barton. Spiritual Despots: Modern Hinduism and the Genealogies of Self-Rule. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016. (Sethi 2020) Sethi, Manisha. “Jainism in Danger? Temple entry and the rhetoric of religion and reform in post-colonial India.” Modern Asian Studies 55: 5 (2020), 1-37. (Sethi 2009) Sethi, Manisha. “Between Inclusivism and Exclusivism: Jains as Minority”. History and Sociology of South Asia 3: 1 (2009): 155–162. (Ku 2020) Ku, Hawon. “The British Courts and the Rise of a Modern Jain Identity in the Nineteenth Century" In: Andrea Luithle-Hardenberg, John E. Cort, & Leslie C. Orr (eds.) Cooperation, Contribution and Contestation: The Jaina Community, Colonialism and Jainological Scholarship, 1800-1950, 421-40. Berlin: EB-Verlag, 2020. (Ku 2007) Ku Kim, Hawon. Re-formation of Identity: The 19th-century Jain Pilgrimage Site of Shatrunjaya, Gujarat. PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota, 2007 (Seṭhī 2010) Seṭī, Kokilā. “Śākambharī pradeśa ke prabhāvaka ācārya.” In: P. C. Jaina 2010, p. 68-72. (Settar 1990) Settar, Shadakshari. Pursuing Death: Philosophy and Practice of Voluntary Termination of Life. Dharwad: Institute of Indian Art History, Karnatak University, 1990. (Settar 1989) Settar, Shadakshari. Inviting Death: Indian Attitude Towards the Ritual Death. Leiden: Brill, 1989. 526 (Settar & Sontheimer 1982) Settar, Shadakshari. & Gunther D. Sontheimer (eds.) Memorial Stones: A Study of their origin, signiﬁcance and variety. Dharwad: Institute of Indian Art History, Karnatak University, 1982. (Shāntā 1997) Shāntā, N. The Unknown Pilgrims. The Voice of the Sādhvīs: The History, Spirituality and Life of the Jaina Women Ascetics. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1997. (Sharma 1987) Sharma, Krishna. Bhakti and the Bhakti Movement. A New Perspective: A Study in the History of Ideas. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1987. (Shrivastava 2010) Shrivastava, Arvind (ed.). (Kala Kirti, transl.) Legacy of Acharya Aadisagar (Ankalikar). Udgaon-Kunjavan: Brahmanath Kunjavan Puratan Jain Mandir Trust, 2010. (Silber 1981) Silber, Ilana Friedrich. “Dissent through Holiness: The Case of the Radical Renouncer in Theravada Buddhist Countries.” Numen 28: 2 (1981) 164-193. (Singh [1975] 2008) Singh, Ram Bhushan Prasad. Jainism in Early Medieval Karnataka, c. A.D. 500-1200. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, [1975] 2008. (Siṅha & Jaina 2012) Siṅha, Aravinda Kumāra & Navanīta Kumāra Jaina. Jaina Svarṇa Maṃdira Gvāliyara (Śrī Digambara Jaina Baṛā Maṇdira). Meraṭha: Śruta Saṃvarddhana Saṃsthāna, 2012. (Śītalaprasāda 1919) Śītalaprasāda, Brahmacārī. Dānavīra Māṇikacandra. Sūrata: Jainavijaya Priṇṭi[ṃ]ga Presa, 1919. (Somani 1982) Somani, Ram Vallabh. Jain inscriptions of Rajasthan. Jaipur: Rajasthan Prakrit Bharati Sansthan, 1982. (Strong [2004] 2007) Strong, John. Relics of the Buddha. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2007. (Talbot 1995) Talbot, Cynthia. “Inscribing the Other, Inscribing the Self: Hindu-Muslim Identities in Pre-Colonial India.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 37: 4 (1995) 692-722. (Thurston 1909) Thurston, Edgar. Castes and Tribes of Southern India. Vol II - C to J. Madras: Government Press, 1909. (Tod 1839) Tod, James. Travels in Western India: Embracing a Visit to the Sacred Mounts of the Jains, and the Most Celebrated Shrines of Hindu Faith between Rajpootana and the Indus: with an Account of the Ancient City of Nehrwalla. London: W.H. Allen, 1839. (Truschke 2021) Truschke, Audrey. The Language of History: Sanskrit Narratives of Indo-Muslim Rule. New York: Columbia University Press, 2021. (Truschke 2016) Truschke, Audrey. Culture of Encounters: Sanskrit at the Mughal Court. New York: Columbia University Press, 2016. (Tuschen 1997) Tuschen, S. Das Bhaṭṭāraka-Amt bei den Digambara-Jainas in Karṇāṭaka. Master Dissertation, Philipps-Universität Marburg, 1997. 527 (Vallely 2020) Vallely, Anne. “Jain Bhakti.” In: John E. Cort, Paul Dundas, Knut A. Jacobsen, & Kristi L. Wiley (eds.) Encyclopedia of Jainism, 597-610. Leiden: Brill, 2020. (Vallely 2013) Vallely, Anne. “Theories of knowledge and the experience of being: Jainism’s ontology of kinship.” International Journal of Dharma Studies 1: 3 (2013) 1-6. (Vāṇāvata e.a. n.d.) Vāṇāvata, K. et. al. (comp.). Śrī R̥ ṣabhadeva (Keśariyājī) Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra kā Saṃkṣipta Itihāsa. R̥ ṣabhadeva: Śrī R̥ ṣabhadeva Di. Jaina Tīrtha Rakṣā Kametī, n.d. (Varmā 1998) Varmā, Gopīcandra. Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra Śrī Mahāvīrajī kā Saṃkṣipta Itihāsa evaṃ Kārya-vivaraṇa. Jayapura: Rāmā Prakāśana, 1998. (Varṇī 2012) Varṇī, Jinendra Kṣullaka. Jainendra Siddhānta Kośa (5 Volumes). Nayī Dillī: Bhāratīya Jñānapīṭha, 2012. (Villalobos 2023) Villalobos, Eric Daniel. “The Śvetāmbara Mūrtipūjaka Yati Lineages.” In: Peter Flügel, Heleen De Jonckheere, Renate Söhnen-Thieme (eds.) Pure Soul: The Jaina Spiritual Traditions, 86-95. London: Centre of Jaina Studies, 2023. (Villalobos 2021a) Villalobos, Eric Daniel. “Yatis in Contemporary Mūrtipūjaka Śvetāmbara Jainism.” Jaina Studies: Newsletter of the Centre of Jaina Studies 16 (2021) 26-8. (Villalobos 2021b) Villalobos, Eric Daniel. The Beneﬁts of Bending the Rules: The Social Functions of Yatis in Mūrtipūjaka Śvetāmbara Jainism (c.18th Century-Present). MA dissertation, SOAS, University of London, 2021. (Viśadasāgara n.d.) Viśadasāgara, Ācārya. Śrī Vighna Vināśaka Tīrtha Virāṭanagara kā Pūjana, Āratī, Cālīsā evaṃ Kṣetra Paricaya. Virāṭa Nagara, Jayapura: Śrī Digambara Jaina Samāja, no date. (Vose 2022) Vose, S. “Jain Memory of the Tughluq Sultans: Alternative Sources for the Historiography of Sultanate India.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 32: 1 (2022) 115-139. (Vose 2013) Vose, S. The Making of a Medieval Jain Monk: Language, Power, and Authority in the Works of Jinaprabhasūri (c. 1261-1333). Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 2013. (Wiley 2004) Wiley, K. Historical Dictionary of Jainism. Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2004. [Also published as The A-to-Z of Jainism. New Delhi: Vision Books, 2006.] (Werner 1993a) Werner, Karel (ed.). Love Divine: Studies in Bhakti and Devotional Mysticism. Richmond: Curzon Press, 1993. (Werner 1993b) Werner, Karel. “Love and Devotion in Buddhism.” In: Werner 1993a, p. 37-52. (Zydenbos 1999) Zydenbos, Robert J. “The Ritual Giving of Food to a Digambara Renunciant.” In: N. K. Wagle & Olle Qvarnström (eds.) Approaches to Jaina Studies: Philosophy, Logic, Rituals and Symbols, 291-303. Toronto: Centre for South Asian Studies, 1999. 528

Log In

DETIGE (2024) ETERNAL SALUTATIONS

Related papers

Related papers

Related topics