Abstract
The Brahmanical monastic institution called maṭha was an important element of the religious landscape of early medieval Bengal. Its history from the mid-sixth century onwards can be traced in fragmentary inscriptional references. The Paschimbhag copperplate inscription and the Bangarh stone slab inscription give exceptionally rich information on the organisation of the maṭha and activities around it. The maṭhas in both inscriptions were complexes established by royal patronage and functioned as centres of worship and learning. They do, however, show some differences closely related to their different locational and social contexts. The maṭha in the Paschimbhag plate functioned as the centre of a newly-settled brāhmaṇa community in a rural area, while that in the Bangarh inscription functioned as the semi-urban residence of a lineage of Śaiva ascetics connected with a wider monastic network. This difference had implications for the later histories of their respective constituencies.
Introduction
Maṭhas, Brahmanical monastic institutions which may have been established as a counterpart to Buddhist and Jain vihāras,1 have been an important element of the religious landscape of South Asia since their emergence in the early medieval period. Their presence in early medieval Bengal can be inferred from inscriptional evidence in this region and beyond.2 Nevertheless, we have so far no ruins of maṭhas assignable to the early medieval period in Bengal, which would have given us a clue to their structure, in contrast to Central India, where the ruins of Śaiva maṭhas still remain and are studied thoroughly.3 Descriptions of maṭhas in the inscriptions, mostly prepared in connection with the foundation of these institutions or endowments to them by kings or other agents, are rather simple and stereotypical. There are, however, a few inscriptions which provide us with substantial information on the organisation of maṭhas and activities around them. In the present article, I will present two such inscriptions, namely, the Paschimbhag copperplate inscription of Śrīcandra and the Bangarh stone slab inscription of the time of Nayapāla, respectively datable to the first half of the tenth century and the second quarter of the eleventh century, and discuss the organisational character of maṭhas in early medieval Bengal and the religious and other activities surrounding them through the analysis of these inscriptions.
Before the main body of the discussion, I would like to present an overview of the inscriptional references to maṭhas in early medieval Bengal.
Epigraphic References to Maṭhas in Early Medieval Bengal: An Overview
So far, the earliest inscriptional reference to a maṭha in Bengal is found in the Jayarampur copperplate inscription of the time of Gopacandra dated year 1, assignable to the second half of the sixth century, pertaining to Daṇḍa bhukti, the area adjacent to present Odisha. In it, mahāsāmanta mahārāja Acyuta, a petitioner for the purchase and donation of a village, mentions deities, brāhmaṇas, maṭhas, vihāras, and dwellings, presumably of ascetics, as entities for which many good people had purchased and donated villages, land plots and homesteads in an administrative unit called Śvetavālikā vīthī.4 This sentence shows that maṭhas had been recognised as religious institutions comparable with Buddhist or Jain vihāras by that time.5
The presence of a maṭha and its landholdings in eastern Bengal in the following period is attested by the Uriswar plate of Śrīdhāraṇarāta, assignable to the second half of the seventh century, which mentions a land plot of Yogeśvara maṭha and a plot of donated land of the master (īśvara) of the same maṭha as boundary markers of the donated tracts.6 The “master” could denote the head of the institution, indicating some form of hierarchy or organisation among members of the maṭha.
Two copperplate inscriptions of eastern Bengal from the seventh century, close to the aforementioned plate of Śrīdhāraṇarāta both in place and time, record the foundation of maṭhas as abodes of deities, and the donation of land tracts for the deities and groups of brāhmaṇas. In the Tippera plate of Lokanātha, datable to the second half of the seventh century, mahāsāmanta Pradoṣaśarman, a subordinate ruler, announces his establishment of the deity Anantanārāyaṇa in a forest tract after building an abode of the deity (devāvasatha),7 and asks Lokanātha, his overlord, to bestow this forest tract for the regular practice of offerings of eight flowers (aṣṭapuṣpikā), food (bali), milk rice (caru) and charitable feeding (sattra) for the deity, and to noble brāhmaṇas knowing the four Vedas who formed a community at the locality.8 Approving his petition, Lokanātha donates the tract for the deity and a large number of brāhmaṇas with their service providers,9 and states the accomplishment of the manner of worship of the deity Anantanārāyaṇa at the maṭha belonging to him as one of the purposes of the endowment.10 The Kalapur plate of Maruṇḍanātha, pertaining to northeast Bengal in the seventh century, also refers to the establishment of a deity named Anantanārāyaṇa by the brāhmaṇa Jayasvāmin after building a maṭha on a donated land plot, and to his request for the donation of land for the practice of offerings of food and milk rice, and charitable feeding for the deity and to noble brāhmaṇas knowing the three Vedas, who formed a community at the locality.11 Though the corrosion of the plate does not allow us to fully comprehend its contents, the donor, sāmanta Maruṇḍanātha or his son, seems to have donated “the land tract of water and forest” (jalāṭavī-bhū-khaṇḍa) to “the deity and brāhmaṇas of the maṭha” (maṭha-deva-dvijebhyaḥ).12
The services for the deity Anantanārāyaṇa listed in these two inscriptions are almost the same as those rendered to deities installed at their shrines (devakula/āyatana),13 indicating that the function of a maṭha was somewhat comparable with that of a shrine. This interpretation is strengthened by the synonymous use of maṭha and “abode of deity” (devāvasatha) in the Tippera plate of Lokanātha mentioned above. On the other hand, the land endowment to brāhmaṇas, who were to be settled in the forest tracts where a maṭha was established, suggests their newly-made association with the institution, with which they shared interest in the granted land tract. Brāhmaṇas belonging to pañcamaṭha,14 who were the recipients of a land donation together with the Buddhist saṅgha of the Dharmasabha vihāra in the Bangladesh National Museum metal vase inscription of Devātideva, assignable to the area around Chittagong in the early eighth century, could also be such brāhmaṇas associated with maṭha organisation(s). The Ashmolean Museum metal vase inscription of Attākaradeva pertaining to the same area, assignable to the early tenth century, on the other hand, mentions a maṭhikā as a facility where the Buddha was installed and worshipped, buttressing the observation that the function of a maṭha was close to that of a shrine,15 even among Buddhists in this particular case.
The reference to a maṭha in connection with ascetics is found in the Nimgachi stone slab inscription of Pāhila, a subordinate ruler of the Pāla king Devapāla, which belongs to the first half of the ninth century. The inscription records the donation of a maṭha by Pāhila to Vaiṣṇava mendicants (pravrajita) presumably for their residence.16 Another inscription of a Pāla subordinate ruler, on the other hand, mentions his foundation of maṭhas. The Bhaturiya stone slab inscription of Yaśodāsa, a subordinate of Rājyapāla, assignable to the mid-tenth century, records the establishment of a Śaiva temple complex (a Śiva liṅga installed at a temple surrounded by eight shrines) by Yaśodāsa, and the donation of the village Madhusrava to the deity by king Rājyapāla, with some amount of tax retained by the latter.17 The verses recording these donative acts are preceded by a eulogy of Yaśodāsa, in which he is credited with the construction of maṭhas, in addition to other meritorious deeds, including the establishment of shrines and other buildings, lakes/reservoirs and embankments, sacrifices and charitable feedings.18 Among the buildings established by him, maṭhas and shrines (deva-geha) are said to have been made of stones that were black like clouds.
The active involvement of the Pāla kings with the foundation of maṭhas is glimpsed from the Siyan stone slab inscription of the time of Nayapāla, datable to the second quarter of the eleventh century. The inscription seems to contain the eulogy of the Pāla kings mentioning their establishment of temples and other religious facilities in various places of Bengal and Bihar, though the full picture is unavailable due to the mutilated condition of the stone slab. The inscription still gives some fragmentary information which includes the following references to maṭhas founded by some Pāla kings or members of the royal household at unidentifiable locations: 1) a maṭha of two stories as a residence for an unknown category of people,19 2) a maṭha, a lake, and a house of Śambhu (Śiva) called Varākeśvara,20 3) a maṭha for the residence of ascetics and a pond at the king’s own city,21 and 4) a maṭha where one cakravartin, presumably a Pāla king, established Vaikuṇṭha (Viṣṇu) after constructing it.22
The inscriptions reviewed above show that the characteristics of maṭhas differed in particular periods and areas. Maṭhas in eastern Bengal in the seventh and eighth centuries were hardly differentiated from shrines of Brahmanical and Buddhist deities in their function as venues of worship. They were also characterised by their association with newly-settled brāhmaṇas. On the other hand, maṭhas in the period from the ninth century onwards, mostly in northern and western Bengal, were residences of ascetics of both Vaiṣṇava and Śaiva affiliations, though they also retain their function as venues of worship.
While the above-mentioned inscriptional references enable us to discern the two characteristics of maṭhas in early medieval Bengal, they do not provide much information on the structure and organisation of maṭhas. The Paschimbhag plate of Śrīcandra and the Bangarh stone slab inscription of the time of Nayapāla are exceptions which give detailed information on these aspects of maṭhas. I now proceed to the analysis of these inscriptions.
Paschimbhag Plate of Śrīcandra: Maṭha Complex in a Brahmāpura
Śrīcandra, the issuer of the Paschimbhag copperplate inscription, was the fourth in the line of the Candras who started their career as subordinate rulers in Rohitagiri and then in Candradvīpa under the kings of Harikela, the area around present-day Chittagong. During the reigns of Trailokyacandra and his son Śrīcandra, the Candras grew to become the sovereign rulers of the whole of eastern Bengal, except Harikela.23 The Paschimbhag plate, dated year 5 of his reign and assignable to the first half of the tenth century, is so far the earliest of the copperplate charters of Śrīcandra, of which eight have been published in one way or another to date,24 and the only one pertaining to Śrīhaṭṭa, the northeastern sub-region of Bengal.
The Paschimbhag plate records the royal donation of a large tract of land to nine maṭhas and 6,000 brāhmaṇas. It is issued from a military camp pitched at Vikramapura, the capital of the Candras, and is addressed to several groups of people, including officials and the local residents in the three viṣayas (districts) of Garalā, Pogāra and Candrapura, accompanied by the land called Aveḍikā, which belonged to Tāla varga of Śrīhaṭṭa maṇḍala in Pauṇḍravardhana bhukti.25
The announcement by the king to the addressees is given as his statement in first person. It first says that the king made those three viṣayas, for which boundary markers for the four cardinal directions are given, into a brahmāpura, which seems to denote a special area assigned to brāhmaṇas, named Śrīcandrapura.26 Then the maṭhas in Śrīcandrapura are mentioned with their personnel and purposes to which land plots of particular size, computed in a unit of pāṭaka equalling 10 droṇas,27 are allotted. The first is Brahmā and his maṭha, for which 81 people are listed and 120 pāṭakas of land are allotted in total. The details are given as follows:
- 1)1 teacher (upādhyāya) of the Candravyākhyāna: 10 pāṭakas.
- 2)10 pupils (chātra), for stipulated meals (pāli) and woollen clothes (phuṭṭaka): 10 pāṭakas (1 pāṭaka each).
- 3)5 guest (apūrva) brāhmaṇas, to be provided food every day: 5 pātakas (1 pāṭaka each).
- 4)1 brāhmaṇa executive who supervised this (arrangement): 1 pāṭaka.
- 5)1 astrologer (gaṇaka): 1 pāṭaka.
- 6)1 scribe (kāyastha): 2½ pāṭakas.
- 7)4 garland-makers (mālākāra): ½ pāṭaka each (2 pātakas).
- 8)2 oil-pressers (tailika): ½ pāṭaka each (1 pāṭaka).
- 9)2 potters (kumbhakāra): ½ pāṭaka each (1 pāṭaka).
- 10)5 kāhala players: ½ pāṭaka each (2½ pāṭakas).
- 11)2 conch shell blowers (śaṅkha-vādaka): ½ pāṭaka each (1 pāṭaka).
- 12)2 ḍhakkā drum players (ḍhakkā-vāda): ½ pāṭaka each (1 pāṭaka).
- 13)8 kettle-drummers (drāgaḍika): ½ pāṭaka each (4 pāṭakas).
- 14)22 workers and leatherworkers (karmmakara-carmmakāra): ½ pāṭaka each (11 pāṭakas).
- 15)1 dancer (naṭa): 2 pāṭakas.
- 16)2 carpenters (sūtradhāra): 2 pāṭakas each (4 pāṭakas).
- 17)2 architects (sthapati): 2 pāṭakas each (4 pāṭakas).
- 18)2 blacksmiths (karmmakāra): 2 pāṭakas each (4 pāṭakas).
- 19)8 courtesans (beṭikā): ¾ pāṭakas each (6 pāṭakas).
- 20)Repairs (navakarmma): 47 pāṭakas.28
Then two groups of four maṭhas, namely, the foreign (deśāntarīya) and Vaṅgāla maṭhas of Vaiśvānara (Agni), Yogeśvara, Jaimani (Jaimini) and Mahākāla, are mentioned with their personnel, purposes and land allotment, which amount to 170 people and 280 pāṭakas in total. The first detailed among them is:
- 1)8 teachers of R̥g, Yajus, Sāma and Atharva (Vedas) belonging to both groups of maṭhas: 10 pāṭakas each (80 pāṭakas).
Following them are the personnel and so on of each maṭha:
- 2)5 pupils: 5 pāṭakas (1 pāṭaka each) / 40 heads: 40 pāṭakas in sum.
- 3)1 garland maker: ½ pāṭaka / 8 heads: 4 pāṭakas in sum.
- 4)1 barber (nāpita): ½ pāṭaka / 8 heads: 4 pāṭakas in sum.
- 5)1 oil-presser: ½ pāṭaka / 8 heads: 4 pāṭakas in sum.
- 6)1 washerman (rajaka): ½ pāṭaka / 8 heads: 4 pāṭakas in sum.
- 7)8 workers and leatherworkers: ½ pāṭaka each (4 pāṭakas) / 64 heads: 32 pāṭakas in sum.
- 8)2 courtesans: ¾ pāṭaka each (1½ pāṭakas) / 16 heads: 12 pāṭakas in sum.
- 9)Repairs: 10 pāṭakas / 80 pāṭakas in sum.
Then personnel of each group of 4 maṭhas and land allotted to them are given as follows:
- 10)1 mahattara brāhmaṇa: 2 pāṭakas / 2 heads: 4 pāṭakas in sum.
- 11)1 manager (vārika): 1½ pāṭakas / 2 heads: 3 pāṭakas in sum.
- 12)1 scribe: 2½ pāṭakas / 2 heads: 5 pāṭakas in sum.
- 13)1 astrologer: 1 pāṭaka / 2 heads: 2 pāṭakas in sum.
- 14)1 physician (vaidya): 3 pāṭakas / 2 heads: 6 pāṭakas in sum.29
The remaining land is divided into equal portions among 6,000 brāhmaṇas of diverse gotras and pravaras, leaned in various schools of the four Vedas, of whom 37 are named.30 And all the viṣayas, or rather their land tracts organised as Śrīcandrapura, are given to the deities of the maṭhas and to the 6,000 brāhmaṇas with a usual set of privileges covering an extensive range of local resources and some level of judicial power, with the exception of an unspecified size of land belonging to the Three Jewels (a Buddhist establishment) and 52 pāṭakas of land attached to the boat landing of Indreśvara.31
The description of the maṭhas as presented above shows some aspects of their organisation. Noteworthy is first of all the superiority of the maṭha of Brahmā to the other maṭhas. It must have had a larger building that was to be maintained by the bigger size of land plots allotted to its repairs, 47 pāṭakas against 10 pāṭakas for each of the other maṭhas, close to five times as much. The larger space can also be presumed by the accommodation of ten pupils and five guest brāhmaṇas against five pupils each at the other maṭhas. The number of personnel attached to the maṭha, 81, is also much larger than the 20 belonging to each of the eight maṭhas.32 As for the personnel common to all the maṭhas, their numbers in the maṭha of Brahmā surpass their numbers in any of the other maṭhas by a factor of two (pupils and oil-pressers), two and three quarters (workers and leatherworkers) or four (garland-makers and courtesans).
The personnel exclusive to the maṭha of Brahmā attests to its centrality in this maṭha complex. Apart from eight courtesans, this maṭha has four kinds of musicians and a dancer as performers, while the other maṭhas have only courtesans. The dancer seems to be charged with choreography and other directorial duties in view of the relatively large size of land allotted to him: the courtesans may perform dances under his guidance. His and the musicians’ services are indispensable for the dedication of dance and music to the deities of all the maṭhas. The maṭha of Brahmā also has carpenters, architects, potters and blacksmiths, artisans in charge of the construction of buildings and production of special objects, both necessary for all the maṭhas. Thus, the personnel and their services indispensable for the other maṭhas point to the centrality of this maṭha.
The other maṭhas in turn have barbers and washermen among the service providers. Together with physicians attached to each group of the four maṭhas, they are charged with duties catering to bodily needs, which are not met by the personnel of the maṭha of Brahmā. The difference in personnel could have accrued from a division of roles between the last maṭha and others.
The allocation of management-related personnel also has implications for the administration of the maṭhas. The maṭha of Brahmā has its own astrologer and scribe, apart from a brāhmaṇa supervising the provisions for guest brāhmaṇas.33 In contrast, the eight other maṭhas do not have such functionaries on their own, and the personnel fulfilling administrative duties, like mahattara brāhmaṇa, who seems to be a brāhmaṇa chief, vārika (manager), astrologer and scribe, are attached to each group of the four maṭhas. This means that a collective of the four maṭhas, not each maṭha, functions as a unit of administration, while the maṭha of Brahmā is managed on its own. As noted above, physicians are also attached to each group of maṭhas.
“Foreign” (deśāntarīya) and Vaṅgāla prefixed to the respective groups of maṭhas indicates the division based on the regional identities, presumably of the people who would be served by those maṭhas among the 6,000 brāhmaṇas settled in Śrīcandrapura. Vaṅgāla originally denoted the coastal area of southeastern Bengal co-extensive with Candradvīpa, the early stronghold of the Candras, and came to mean almost all the parts of eastern Bengal following the expansion of Candra territory.34 The binary of deśāntarīya and Vaṅgāla strongly suggests that the latter connotes the whole territory of the Candras encompassing Śrīhaṭṭa, contrasting with “another country/region” (deśāntara). The division of the same set of maṭhas into these two groups may have accrued from rivalry between the brāhmaṇas from eastern Bengal and those from other areas,35 which seems to be irreconcilable.
The description of the maṭhas also has implications for activities centred on them, which in turn suggest their functions. The most notable is the function of those maṭhas as centres of learning. Pupils, ten at the maṭha of Brahmā and five each at the eight other maṭhas, are accommodated with provisions of food and clothing. These pupils, fifty in total, are taught by a teacher specialised in grammar or lexicography of Sanskrit posted at the maṭha of Brahmā,36 and teachers of the four Vedas assigned to the two maṭha groups. Five guest brāhmaṇas accommodated at the maṭha of Brahmā with daily provisions of food may also participate in the educational activities.
The maṭhas also functioned as venues for worshipping the deities installed at each of them. Materials required for offerings, including garlands, oil for lamps and earthenware, are produced by artisans belonging to the maṭhas. Services of dance and music to deities are performed by musicians, a dancer and courtesans, of whom those belonging to the maṭha of Brahmā fulfil the central roles, as discussed above. In addition, astrologers are present to suggest the proper time for rituals and other religious activities surrounding the maṭhas.
The two functions of the maṭhas delineated above point to their centrality for brāhmaṇas newly settled in Śrīcandrapura. As centres of learning, the maṭhas contribute to the supply of members of the brāhmaṇa community properly equipped with knowledge of Sanskrit and the Vedas. As venues of worship, the maṭhas provide brāhmaṇas and their families with both places and opportunities for gatherings and interaction. The choice of Brahmā as the main deity may reveal the intention of the founder of the maṭhas, presumably the king Śrīcandra, to make them the centre of the new Brahmanical settlement. The installation of Agni, symbolising sacrificial fire, and Jaimini, the founder of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā School, at the other maṭhas supports this possibility. On the other hand, the remaining deities of the maṭhas, Yogeśvara and Mahākāla, instead show an inclination towards the Śaiva faith. The inclusion of the last two deities may address the diverse orientations of migrant brāhmaṇas. The sectarian diversity is also shown in the other part of the grant. Towards the end of the document, a person named Vināyaka, born in Kāṭṭīgrāma, is mentioned as the one who settled the 6,000 brāhmaṇas.37 He is called a Vaiṣṇava, attesting to the presence of Vaiṣṇavas in this locality.
The maṭhas functioning as centres of a newly-established Brahmanical settlement reminds us of the maṭhas of Anatanārāyaṇa in seventh-century eastern Bengal, which were established in the middle of forests settled by a group of brāhmaṇas, mostly as venues of worship. The maṭhas of Śrīcandrapura may have inherited this tradition with organisational refinement and functional development as their descriptions in the Paschimbhag plate show.
Bangarh Stone Slab Inscription: A Lineage of Śaiva Ascetics and Their Maṭha
The Bangarh stone slab inscription of the time of Nayapāla, assignable to the second quarter of the eleventh century, contains the eulogy (praśasti) of the Śaiva ascetic Mūrtiśiva, which Rūpaśiva, his co-disciple as well as friend, commissioned with his image.38 The inscription was discovered from Shibbari, the area to the east of the site of Bangarh in the South Dinajpur district of West Bengal.39 Images of a Śaiva ascetic and the goddess Carcikā were also recovered from the same area, suggesting its connection with a Śaiva institution together with the name Shibbari denoting the house/palace of Śiva.40 The inscribed slab must have been embedded in the wall of a building belonging to the Śaiva maṭha complex mentioned in the inscription.
Preceded by a preamble consisting of verses of invocation,41 the eulogy gives a genealogy of Śaiva ascetics beginning with Durvāsas, the mythical progenitor, to whose lineage was “born” the great maṭha of Golagī.42 Vidyāśiva was an ascetic from this maṭha, and his disciple Dharmaśiva established a lofty temple of Śiva at Vārāṇasī.43
The history of the maṭha at Bangarh started with Indraśiva, the disciple of Dharmaśiva, to whom Mahīpāla I donated the maṭha with a lofty palace/temple.44 Indraśiva is said to have performed the sixteen great gifts (mahādāna).45 His disciple Sarvaśiva became the preceptor of king Nayapāla.46
Sarvaśiva conferred the preceptorship of the Gauḍa king, Nayapāla, on Mūrtiśiva, his brother and disciple, and left for the forest.47 Mūrtiśiva excavated oblong ponds to the cardinal and semi-cardinal directions and established a hundred gardens (ārāma).48 His seat/abode (āśaya), namely the maṭha, and religious monuments (kīrti) established there are eulogised with poetic expression.49 His fame is acclaimed in reference to his victory in scholarly discussions and performance of the donation of gold weighed against himself (tulāpuruṣa).50 Mūrtiśiva constructed a vaḍabhī temple enshrining the goddess Bhavānī.51
The genealogy of the ascetics ends with Rūpaśiva, another disciple of Sarvaśiva and a friend of Mūrtiśiva.52 The last portion of the inscription mentions Rūpaśiva as the commissioner of the eulogy and image of Mūrtiśiva; Lakṣmīdhara, the son of Gaṇapati, as the organiser (āyojaka) of the construction of an edifice, presumably a monument in the maṭha; and Śrīkaṇṭha as the composer of the eulogy.53 Following a stanza wishing the edifice of Mūrtiśambhu (Mūrtiśiva) to remain forever,54 the last verse mentions another Lakṣmīdhara as the engraver of the eulogy.55
The genealogy given in the inscription, especially the reference to the maṭha of Golagī identifiable with the present site of Gurgī in Rewa district of Madhya Pradesh,56 suggests that the ascetics of the maṭha of Bangarh belonged to the lineage of Saiddhāntika Śaiva ascetics called the Mattamayūras. Originating from Gopakṣetra, the area around Gwalior, it expanded towards east in Central India, especially in Ḍāhaladeśa by the patronage of the Kalacuri kings of Tripurī.57 In the process of its expansion, this ascetic lineage saw the development of their maṭhas from forest hermitages to semi-urban mansions and temple complexes well-connected with kingship.58 This process of expansion and development was accompanied by the formation of a network connecting maṭhas within the Kalacuri territory and beyond.59 The extension of this network through Vārāṇasī resulted in the emergence of the maṭha of Bangarh, as shown by the activities of Dharmaśiva and his disciple Indraśiva.60
Corresponding to the developed form witnessed in Central India, the maṭha of Bangarh is depicted in the inscription as a complex centred on the main temple and furnished with diverse buildings and other facilities. The maṭha donated to Indraśiva is compared to Mount Kailāsa, glittering like Meru with a lofty palace/temple (prāsāda) and constructed beautifully with a mass of gold.61 With diverse shrines (surālaya) and oblong ponds (dīrghikā), it resembled the world with the seven oceans and the eight mountain ranges.62 Such a depiction is rather conventional and the poet may have composed it even without visiting the actual site.63 Still, it conveys the shared notion on what a maṭha was supposed to be. Mūrtiśiva excavated oblong ponds to the cardinal and semi-cardinal directions and established a hundred gardens (ārāma), presumably around the main temple of the maṭha.64 His religious monuments (kīrti), which are compared to the continental mountain ranges and the oceans,65 may also connote facilities constructed within the maṭha compound. He further constructed a vaḍabhī temple, which was decorated with a pot (kalaśa) on the top, banners and lamps.66 These construction projects commissioned by Mūrtiśiva indicate the character of the maṭha as a complex expanded by a series of such undertakings. The description that his seat (āśaya), namely the maṭha, is not full, compared with the world which is filled with his fame, indicates the ongoing state of the projects.67
Due to the character of the inscription as a eulogy of a Śaiva ascetic and his lineage, the activities around the maṭha depicted in it are mostly limited to those of the eminent members of the lineage. The most prominent element of their activities is the connection with kingship. The dependence of the maṭha and its ascetics on royal patronage is duly acknowledged in the donation by Mahīpāla I mentioned as the cause of the establishment of the maṭha.68 The complementarity of their relation, on the other hand, is obvious in Sarvaśiva and Mūrtiśiva acting as the royal preceptors (rājaguru) of Nayapāla in succession.69
The other activity of ascetics prominent in the inscription is generosity. While Sarvaśiva and Mūrtiśiva are vaguely praised for their munificence, which would shame or anger the Rohaṇa Mountain,70 and also for donations,71 Indraśiva is credited with the sixteen great gifts (mahādāna) prescribed in the Purāṇas.72 Mūrtiśiva may also have performed the donation of gold weighed against himself (tulāpuruṣa), one of the so-called great gifts, as suggested in a stanza.73 Their munificence and donative acts must have been supported by accumulated wealth, either personal or institutional, stored at the maṭha, though the inscription gives no information on its origin. The accumulated wealth enabled them to behave like their royal patrons,74 as succinctly shown by the performance of the great gifts, which are prescribed for kings and royal aspirants, and would later be performed by the Pāla and Sena kings in Bengal.75
Ascetic practices and learning surely constituted a part of the activities around the maṭha, though the former is mentioned rather vaguely, as in Dharmaśiva being called a storehouse of asceticism (tapo-nidhi),76 or in Sarvaśiva having incandescent asceticism (dīpta-tapas).77 In contrast, the learning of the ascetics is described with specificity. Mūrtiśiva acquired fame surpassing that of the teachers of Bhr̥gu and Bhāskara by “drinking up”, namely defeating, Jains (digambara) and refuting the theory of the Kr̥ṣṇādvaita School.78 Rūpaśiva is praised for his learning which uplifted the Śaiva doctrine in decline.79 He travelled extensively and defeated other logicians in all the quarters, and this feat is compared to the world conquest (āśā-vijaya). Bhoja, presumably the famous Paramāra king, praised him for winning over many theorists versed in the six logics.80 His inference, wisdom and skill of narration in discussions against heretic scholars (pāṣaṇḍi-paṇḍita) are also extolled.81 In these descriptions, the victory over logicians of the other schools in discussions through the skill of debate looms large. It suggests the character of the maṭha as a centre of learning where the training on debate constituted a part of its curriculum. On the other hand, the itinerary of Rūpaśiva, which could stretch as far as Dhārā in Malwa, the capital of Bhoja whom we may identify with his namesake mentioned in the inscription, shows the wide geographical range covered by the network constructed by the Mattamayūra Śaiva ascetics and their activities.
Though sidelined by the deeds of eminent ascetics, the other activities around the maṭha can also be glimpsed from the inscription. The temple of the goddess Bhavānī, which must be the main temple of the maṭha complex, is said to have “a thousand playful nubile damsels.”82 They seem to have been courtesans who offered dance performances to the deity, and their presence hints at the regular worship of deities undertaken at temples and shrines within the maṭha complex. Apart from that, Lakṣmīdhara, a brāhmaṇa, is mentioned as an organiser (āyojaka) in charge of an edifice (kīrti), which seems to denote a monument in the maṭha to which the inscribed stone slab was attached.83 It is remarkable that Lakṣmīdhara worked as the organiser of the construction of the monument at the order of Mūrtiśiva. We may detect here the power wielded by the ascetic, who was probably the head of the maṭha, being in charge for all the matters of the entire complex.
In spite of its limited scope as a eulogy, the Bangarh stone slab inscription still gives us some insights on the maṭha of the Mattamayūra Śaiva ascetics. It was a complex consisting of a main temple and other shrines where regular worship was offered, and which was embellished with oblong ponds and gardens. It was also a centre of learning, where ascetic teachers taught their pupils several disciplines which were not limited to the Śaiva doctrine. Its foundation depended on royal patronage, and perhaps so did its maintenance, though nothing is clearly said about the latter in the inscription. The relation with kingship was complementary, with the ascetics serving as royal preceptors. The maṭha, or rather its ascetics, accumulated enormous wealth with which they were able to fund construction projects and great donations with royal dignity. The origin of this wealth, and its management, is unclear from the inscription.
Concluding Remarks
Though belonging to different traditions, one being local and the other trans-local, the maṭhas depicted in the Paschimbhag copperplate inscription and the Bangarh stone slab inscription shared some characteristics. Both were highly developed maṭha complexes consisting of multiple buildings and other facilities, and functioned as centres of worship and learning. Both depended on royal patronage for their foundation, and possibly for their economic base, to which the Paschimbhag plate gives a clear answer in the form of the endowment of land tracts. The Bangarh inscription provides no information on the economic base of the maṭha, though its affluence is duly expressed by the deeds of its ascetics. The maintenance of the maṭhas also required personnel and administrative organisation, for which the Paschimbhag plate contains detailed information and the Bangarh inscription only a little.
The difference between the two maṭha complexes, on the other hand, is detectable in the divergent character of the education in each institution. The maṭha of Śrīcandrapura offered Sanskrit and Vedic education to the accommodated disciples, who seem to have come from a community of newly-settled brāhmaṇas. The maṭha of Bangarh, conversely, taught the Śaiva doctrine and other disciplines, including debate, presumably to members, both already initiated and to be initiated, of the ascetic lineage. While the former contributed to the maintenance of the local community consisting of an enormous number of brāhmaṇas, the latter aimed at the continuation of the lineage of Śaiva ascetics with limited membership. This difference was closely connected with the different locational and social contexts in which both maṭha complexes lay. The maṭha of Śrīcandrapura was established in a new Brahmanical settlement in rural space and functioned as the centre of a brāhmaṇa settler community. The maṭha of Bangarh was located in a semi-urban area adjacent to the city of Koṭīvarṣa and accommodated a closely-knit circle of ascetics who were segregated from ordinary social interactions but connected with the wider Śaiva monastic network. Thus, the former had a local but open constituency, while the latter had a trans-local but closed constituency. In addition, the Śaiva sectarian background and the semi-urban location of the latter gave its ascetics an opportunity to form close ties with kingship as royal preceptors, which the rural brāhmaṇas of Śrīcandrapura could not aspire to.
The two inscriptions of early medieval Bengal analysed in the present study allow us to delineate the two different types of maṭhas with regard to their similarities and differences. Both disappeared with little trace, but their constituencies saw different trajectories in later history: no Brahmanical centres arose in the eastern part of Bengal,84 while the lineage of the Mattamayūras and their maṭhas spread to western Bengal and the Andhra country.85
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Annette Schmiedchen, Dániel Balogh and Zachary Chitwood for their insightful comments which saved me from many errors and rendered my sentences more readable. The research culminating in the present article has been supported by the erc dharma Project (erc N° 809994), as well as the jsps Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (19K01014).
Primary Sources
Ashmolean Museum metal vase inscription of Attākaradeva: https://dharmalekha.info/texts/INSBengalCharters00123.
Bangarh stone slab inscription of the time of Nayapāla: https://dharmalekha.info/texts/INSBengalCharters00113.
Bangladesh National Museum metal vase inscription of Devātideva, year 77. Reading by Arlo Griffiths and the author from digital photographs taken by Adeline Levivier and himself. Cf. Bhattacharya 1996.
Bhaturiya stone slab inscription of Yaśodāsa: https://dharmalekha.info/texts/INSBengalCharters00061.
Jagadishpur plate of the time of Kumāragupta I, year 128 Gupta Era: https://dharmalekha.info/texts/INSBengalCharters00034.
Jayarampur plate of the time of Gopacandra, year 1: https://dharmalekha.info/texts/INSBengalCharters00076.
Kalapur plate of Maruṇḍanātha. Gupta 1967: 68–80.
Nimgachi stone slab inscription of Pāhila: https://dharmalekha.info/texts/INSBengalCharters00044.
Paschimbhag plate of Śrīcandra, year 5: https://dharmalekha.info/texts/INSBengalCharters00008.
Plate of Vainyagupta, year 184 Gupta Era. Furui 2016.
Siyan stone slab inscription of the time of Nayapāla. Sircar 1971.
Tippera plate of Lokanātha, year 44. Sircar 1983: 28–35.
Uriswar plate of Śrīdhāraṇarāta. My own reading from the digital photographs taken by Adeline Levivier. Cf. Islam 2012.
Secondary Literature
Aufrecht 1859 = Theodor Aufrecht. Ujjvaladatta’s Commentary on the Uṇādisūtras: Edited from a Manuscript in the Library of the East India House. Bonn.
Bhattacharya 1996 = Gouriswar Bhattacharya. “A Preliminary Report on the Inscribed Metal Vase from the National Museum of Bangladesh.” Ed. Debala Mitra. Explorations in Art and Archaeology of South Asia: Essays Dedicated to N.G. Majumdar. Calcutta: 237–247.
Bhattacharyya 2004 = Amitabha Bhattacharyya. “The Maṭhas of Eastern India in the Early Medieval Period.” Amitabha Bhattacharyya. Selected Essays, Kolkata: 13–22.
Chowdhury 1967 = Abdul Momin Chowdhury. Dynastic History of Bengal (c. 750–1200 A. D.). Dacca.
Furui 2013 = Ryosuke Furui. “Brāhmaṇas in Early Medieval Bengal: Construction of their Identity, Networks and Authority.” Indian Historical Review 40 (2): 223–248.
Furui 2016 = Ryosuke Furui. “Ājīvikas, Maṇibhadra and Early History of Eastern Bengal: A New Copperplate Inscription of Vainyagupta and its Implications.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 26 (4): 657–681.
Furui 2017 = Ryosuke Furui. “Brāhmaṇas in Early Medieval Bengal: Data of Inscriptional References.” Ed. Nobuhiro Ota. Zen-kindai Minami-Ajia Shakai Ni Okeru Matomari To Tsunagari (Clustering and Connections in Pre-Modern South Asian Society). Tokyo: 181–215.
Furui 2020 = Ryosuke Furui. Land and Society in Early South Asia: Eastern India 400–1250ad. London and New York.
Ghosh 2010 = Ranjusri Ghosh. “Image of a Śaiva Teacher and an Inscription on Pedestal: New Evidence for Bangarh Śaivism.” Pratna Samiksha: A Journal of Archaeology, New Series 1: 135–139.
Goswami 1996 = Niranjan Goswami. “A Note on an Inscribed Portrait-Statue of Mūrtiśiva from West Bengal.” Ed. Debala Mitra. Explorations in Art and Archaeology of South Asia: Essays Dedicated to N.G. Majumdar. Calcutta: 267–275.
Griffiths 2018 = Arlo Griffiths. “Four More Gupta-period Copperplate Grants from Bengal.” Pratna Samiksha: A Journal of Archaeology, New Series 9: 15–57.
Gupta 1967 = Kamalakanta Gupta. Copper-Plates of Sylhet, vol. 1: 7th–11th Century A. D. Sylhet.
Islam 2012 = Shariful Islam. “Uḍiśvara Copper Plate of Śrīdhāraṇarāta.” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Humanities 57 (1): 61–72.
Islam 2018 = Shariful Islam. “Emerging Political Entities in South-East Bengal (Vaṅga-Samataṭa-Harikela).” Ed. Abdul Momin Chowdhury and Ranabir Chakravarti. History of Bangladesh: Early Bengal in Regional Perspectives (up to c. 1200ce), vol. 1: Archaeology, Political History, Polity. Dhaka: 551–690.
Kane 1974 = P.V. Kane. History of Dharmaśāstra: Ancient and Medieval Religious and Civil Law, vol. 2. Poona.
Nandi 1973 = Ramendra Nath Nandi, Religious Institutions and Cults in the Deccan. Delhi.
Sanderson 2009 = Alexis Sanderson. “The Śaiva Age—The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism During the Early Medieval Period.” Ed. Shingo Einoo. Genesis and Development of Tantrism. Tokyo: 41–349.
Schmiedchen 2006 = Annette Schmiedchen. “The Ceremony of Tulāpuruṣa: The Purāṇic Concept and the Epigraphical Evidence.” Ed. Adalbert J. Gail, Gerd J.R. Mevissen and Richard Salomon. Script and Image: Papers on Art and Epigraphy. Delhi: 145–184.
Sears 2014 = Tamara I. Sears. Worldly Gurus and Spiritual Kings: Architecture and Asceticism in Medieval India. New Haven and London.
Sircar 1967–68 = D.C. Sircar. “Paschimbhag Plate of Srichandra, Year 5.” Epigraphia Indica 37 (7): 289–304.
Sircar 1971 = D.C. Sircar. “Siyan Stone Slab Inscription of Nayapala.” Epigraphia Indica 39 (2): 39–56.
Sircar 1973 = D.C. Sircar. Epigraphic Discoveries in East Pakistan. Calcutta.
Sircar 1973–74 = D.C. Sircar. “Bāṇgaḍh Stone Inscription of the Time of Nayapāla.” Journal of Ancient Indian History 7: 135–158.
Sircar 1983 = D.C. Sircar. Select Inscriptions Bearing on Indian History and Civilization, vol. 2: From the Sixth to the Eighteenth Century A. D. Delhi.
For the evolution of Śaiva monasticism in relation to the development of Jain institutions in the Deccan and other regions, see Nandi 1973: 76–81.
Jayarampur plate of the time of Gopacandra, year 1, ll. 13–16: prārthitā (14) vayaṁ śrī-mahāsāmanta-mahārājācyutena yuṣmad-vīthyāṁ sādhubhir anekair ācandrārkka-kālīna-tāmra-paṭṭa-paṭa-śāsana-sthityā satā-mūlyena (15) grāma-kṣettra-vāstūni yuṣmat(·) krītv¿a?kr̥tvā deva-dvija-maṭha-vihārāvasathebhyo ’tisr̥ṣṭā¿t?⟨n⟩y atisr̥jyamānāni (ta)th(ai)va samyak prati(16)pālyamānā¿ny eti?⟨nīti⟩. For transcriptions of inscriptional texts, I follow the editorial conventions of the dharma Project (erc n°809994), available at https://dharmalekha.info/editorial-conventions, through the present article.
Some copperplate inscriptions of Bengal belonging to the fifth and sixth centuries mention Jain vihāras; Griffiths 2018: 45–50.
Uriswar plate of Śrīdhāraṇarāta, l. 27: yogeśvara-maṭha-kṣettre; l. 26: pūrvveṇa yogeśvara-maṭheśvara-tāmra-kṣett(r)a. Cf. Islam 2012: 66.
Tippera plate of Lokanātha, ll. 21–22: mahāsāmanta-pradoṣaśarmaṇā vijñāpitā vayaṁ su(vvu)ṅga-viṣaye mr̥ga-mahiṣa-varāha-vyāghra-sar¿i?⟨ī⟩sr̥pādibhir yatheccham anubhūyamāna-gr̥(ha?)-(22)sambhoga-gahana-gulma-latā-vitāne kr̥tākr̥tāviruddhāṭavī-bhū-khaṇḍ¿o?⟨e⟩ ma(yā?) devāvasatha{ṁ}ṅ kārayitvā bhagavān aviditānto ⟨’⟩nanta-nārāyaṇa⟨ḥ⟩ sthāpayita … ; Sircar 1983: 31.
Tippera plate, ll. 24–26: ⟨’⟩nanta-nārāyaṇasya satatam aṣṭa-puṣpikā-vali-caru-satra-pravr̥ttaye tatra kr̥ta-sāmānyānāñ ca cātur-vidya-vrāhmaṇā(ryā)ṇāṁ … (25) [kr̥tākr̥]tāviruddhāṭavī-bhū-khaṇḍa[ḥ] tāmre ’bhilikhya mātā-pitror mama ca puṇya-pravr̥(ddhaye) sarvato bhogenā(gra)hāra … (26) … (loka?)nāthe¿ṇ?⟨n⟩a … pratipā(ditaḥ?); Sircar 1983: 31.
For the names of 192 brāhmaṇas and six service providers, see Furui 2017: 213–215.
Tippera plate, l. 32: Etadīya-maṭhe bhagavato ⟨’⟩nanta-nārāyaṇasya pūjā-vidhi-sampattaye; Sircar 1983: 32.
Kalapur plate of Maruṇḍanātha, obverse, ll. 18–19: jayasvāminā vayam eva jñāpitā viṣaye samvaddha … jalā … śrītandreṇā … sthalīḥ khaṇḍa-dattaka-kṣetra-pāṭake mayā maṭhaṅ kārayitvā bha(19)gavān anantanārāyaṇa⟨ḥ⟩ sthāpita-pādas (tatra kr̥ta)-sāmānyāṇāñ ca trai-vidya-vrāhmaṇāryāṇām; Gupta 1967: 70.
Kalapur plate, obverse, ll. 21, 23; Gupta 1967: 70.
Jagadishpur plate of the time of Kumāragupta I, year 128 Gupta Era, ll. 10–11: bhagavatas sahasra-raśmeḥ kāritaka-devakule ca bali-caru-sa[ttra]-(11)pravartta¿ṇ?⟨n⟩āya; Plate of Vainyagupta, year 184 Gupta Era, ll. 12–13: jayanāṭane bhagavataś catur-mmukha-mūrtter mmaṇibhadrasya nāthameṭāyatanaṁ kāritan tasya bhagavataḥ s(uma)no-gandha-dhūpa-va(13)li-caru-sattra-pravarttanāya; Furui 2016: 660.
Bangladesh National Museum metal vase inscription of Devātideva, year 77, l. 10: pañca-maṭhīya-brāhmaṇānāṁ dattaḥ. Whether pañca-maṭha denotes the proper name of a maṭha or five maṭhas cannot be ascertained from the context.
Ashmolean Museum metal vase inscription of Attākaradeva, ll. 6–8: tena prāpta-pañcamahāśavdena mahāpratihāra-śrī-sa(ha)devena mātā-pitror ātmanaḥ sakalasya ca (7) satva-rāśer anuttarāyāḥ samyak-samvodher adhigamaika-hetoḥ puṇyasyābhivr̥ddhyai bhagavantaṁ sakala-surāsurendra-vr̥nda{ṁ}-vandita{ṁ}-caraṇāravinda-yugalaṁ munīndra-bhaṭṭārakam uddiśya maṭhikā kāritā| ta(8)syāṁ sthāpitasya tathāgata-bhaṭṭārakasya yathā-vidhi pūjā-pravarttanāya.
Nimgachi stone slab inscription of Pāhila, ll. 12–14, verse 11: tenāsmin kali-kā(13)la-kalmaṣa-muṣā kīrttiṁ sthirāṁ ta¿t?⟨n⟩vatā lakṣmī-nātha-samarppitācala-dhiyā tad-bhaktimadbhyaḥ sadā| sampaj-jīvita-yauvanāni capalāny ālocya dharmmaṁ (14) sthiraṁ dattaḥ pravrajitebhya Eṣa vivudha-sthānānukārī maṭhaḥ||.
Bhaturiya stone slab inscription of Yaśodāsa, ll. 14–17, verses 11–12: Aṣṭābhiḥ sura-mandiraiḥ parivr̥taṁ (15) prāsādam abhraṁ-lihaṁ sampādyendu-marīci-jāla-dhavalair lliptaṁ sudhā-karddamaiḥ| tenāyaṁ naya-śālinā śuci-śilā-vinyasta-liṅgākr̥tir bhaktyā (16) dharma-parāyaṇena bhagavān āropitaś śaṅkaraḥ|| Asmai yaśodāsa-niveśitāya śrī-rājyapālo vr̥ṣabha-dhvajāya| śataṁ purāṇān nikaraṁ niyamya (17) madhusravam grāmam adāt kṣitīśaḥ||.
Bhaturiya stone slab, ll. 12–14, verses 9–10: toyādhārair amr̥ta-śiśirair ājya-dhārā-vinidrair agny-āgārair upahita-sudhair yajvanām mandiraiś ca| vidyā-sattrair ghana-śiti-śilair deva-(13)gehair mmaṭhair vvā naika-dvārā diśi diśi guṇair yasya jāgartti kīrttiḥ|| Ārāma-s(e)tu-maṭha-maṇḍapa-sattra-dāna-prāsāda-saṅkrama-jalāśaya-(14)sanniveśaiḥ| tair ebhir ātma-caritokti-padaiḥ praśastair yaḥ svaṁ praśasti-pr̥thu-pīṭham ivākr̥torvvīṁ||.
Siyan stone slab inscription of the time of Nayapāla, l. 16, verse 24: …-vāsāya maṭho dvi-bhūmaḥ||; Sircar 1971: 53.
Siyan stone slab, ll. 19–20, verse 32: … yayā maṭhañ ca sara(20)sīñ ca| dhāma varākeśvara Iti śambhor api śailam uttālaṁ||; Sircar 1971: 53.
Siyan stone slab, l. 32, verse 59: maṭhañ ca tāpasa-sthityai nije tu nagare saraḥ||; Sircar 1971: 55.
Siyan stone slab, l. 33, verse 61: … (33) taran tac cakravarttīha saḥ| kr̥tvāmuṁ maṭham etam atra nidadhe vaikuṇṭham asminn ayan devo raivata-bhūbhr̥tīva rucire …; Sircar 1971: 55.
For the political history of the Candras, see Chowdhury 1967: 150–189. For an updated description, with the addition of rather untenable interpretations, see Islam 2018: 610–637.
For the list of these plates, see Furui 2020: 261–262, nos. 54–61. Apart from these, two more unpublished plates are known: one kept at the Bangladesh National Museum with Acc. No. 77. 1477 (Islam 2018: 611) and another held by a private collector (personal communication by late Gouriswar Bhattacharya).
Paschimbhag plate of Śrīcandra, year 5, ll. 25–34. For the list of addressees, see Furui 2020: 138, Table 5.2 a.
Paschimbhag plate, ll. 34–36: viṣayān etāN pūrvveṇa vr̥hat-koṭṭāli sīmā| dakṣiṇena maṇi-nadī sīmā| paści(me)(35)na jujjū-khātaka kāṣṭhaparṇṇī-khātaka vetraghaṭī-nadī sīmā| Uttareṇa kosiyāra-nadī sīmā| Ity evaṁ catus-sīmā-paryantāN śrī-śrī(36)candrapurābhidhānaṁ vrahmāpuram parikalpya|.
A pāṭaka is said to be daśa-droṇika; Paschimbhag plate, ll. 36–37, 54.
Paschimbhag plate, ll. 36–42: vrahmaṇe| Etan-maṭha-prativaddha-candra-vyākhyānopādhyāyasya da(37)śa-droṇika-daśa-pāṭakāḥ| daśa-cchātrāṇāṁ pāli-phuṭṭakārthaṁ daśa-pāṭakāḥ Apūrvva-pañca-vrāhmaṇānāṁ praty-aham bhaktan dātum pañca-pā(38)ṭakāḥ| Etad adhiṣṭhāya kārayitur vrāhmaṇasya pāṭakaḥ| gaṇakasya pāṭakaḥ| kāyasthasya sārddha-pāṭaka-dvayaṁ| mālākāra-catuṣṭa(39)yasya| tailika-dvayasya| kumbhakāra-dvayasya| pañca-kāhalikānāṁ| śaṅkha-vādaka-dvayasya| ḍhakkā-vāda-dvayasya| Aṣṭa-drāgaḍikā(40)nāṁ| dvāviṅśati-karmmakara-carmmakārāṇāñ ca| pratyekaṁ| Arddha-pāṭakaḥ| naṭasya pāṭaka-dvayaṁ| sūtradhāra-dvayasya| sthapati-dvayasya| karmmakā(41)ra-dvayasya ca| pratyekaṁ pāṭaka-dvayaṁ| Aṣṭa-veṭṭikānāṁ pratyekaṁ pādona-pāṭakaḥ| navakarmma-nimittañ ca sapta-catvāriṅśat-pāṭakāḥ| E(42)vam anena niyamena viṅśaty-adhika-pāṭaka-śataṁ|.
Paschimbhag plate, ll. 42–47: tathā deśāntarīya-maṭha-catuṣṭaye| vaṅgāla-maṭha-catuṣṭaye ca| vaiśvānara-yogeśvara-(43)jaimani-mahākālebhyaś ca| Eṣām ubhayeṣāṁ maṭha-prativaddha-r̥g-yajus-sāmātharvvopādhyāyānām aṣṭānāṁ pratyekaṁ daśa-pāṭakāḥ| pra(44)ti-maṭha-pañca-cchātrāṇāṁ pañca-pāṭakāḥ| mālākāra-nāpita-tailika-rajakānāṁ| (A)ṣṭa-karmmakara-carmmakārāṇāñ ca| pratyekaṁ| Ardha-(45)pāṭakaḥ| veṭṭikā-dvayasya pratyekaṃ pādona-pāṭakaḥ| prati-maṭhan navakarmma-nimittañ ca daśa-pāṭakāḥ| prati-maṭha-catuṣṭaye ca| ma(46)hattara-vrāhmaṇasya| pāṭaka-dvayaṁ| vārikasya sārddha-pāṭakaḥ kāyasthasya sārddha-pāṭaka-dvayaṁ| gaṇakasya pāṭakaḥ| v{y}aidyasya pāṭa(47)ka-trayaṁ| Evam anena niyamena| Aśīty-uttara-pāṭaka-śata-dvayaṁ|.
Paschimbhag plate, ll. 50–51: ṣaḍ-vrāhmaṇa-sahasrebhyaś ca| nānā-gotra-pravarebhyaḥ| catuś-caraṇa-nānā-śākhādhyāyibhyaḥ (51) sama-vibhāgena śeṣa-bhūmiḥ|. For the names of the brāhmaṇas listed in the preceding section (ll. 47–50), see Furui 2020: 161, Table 5.4.
Paschimbhag plate, ll. 51–56.
Apart from those 20, one of the 8 teachers of the Vedas may have also been attached to each maṭha.
Emending adhiṣṭhāya to adhiṣṭhāna, Sircar interprets the last as “the Brāhmaṇa who built the temple” (Sircar 1973: 32) or “the Brāhmaṇa who built (or supervised the building of) the temple” (Sircar 1967–68: 195). However, the land plot of 1 pāṭaka assigned to him is rather small for such an important position.
Furui 2020: 29.
Sircar 1973: 33.
The Candravyākhyāna is cited in the commentary on the Uṇādisūtras, 3. 141 by Ujjvaladatta, who lived in the period earlier than the mid-thirteenth century (Aufrecht 1859: xiv, 91). Aufrecht listed Candra as one of the lexicographers consulted by Ujjvaladatta (Aufrecht 1859: xvii). D. C. Sircar interprets candravyākhyāna in this inscription as the Cāndravyākaraṇa, the grammar of Candragomin; Sircar 1967–68: 195. In the other edition of the plate, in which he misreads the relevant characters as candravyākaraṇopādhyāyasya (Sircar 1973: 67), Sircar refers to the tradition of Candragomin living in Candradvīpa, the original territory of the Candras (Sircar 1973: 33).
Paschimbhag plate, l. 64, verse 22: kāṭṭīgrāma-bhavo vaiṣṇavaḥ samāropayāṁ vabhūva kr̥tī⟨|⟩ śrīmāN vināyakākhyo viprāṇāṁ ṣa¿ḍ?⟨ṭ⟩-sahasrāṇi||.
Bangarh stone slab inscription of the time of Nayapāla, l. 31, verse 31.
Sircar 1973–74: 135.
Ghosh 2010: 136. The image could be that of Mūrtiśiva commissioned by Rūpaśiva, though a fragmentary inscription on a pedestal possibly detached from the image is not legible enough to establish its identity; Ghosh 2010: 137–138. Another inscribed image of a Śaiva ascetic, clearly labelled as Mūrtiśiva, was found at Dogachia in Nadia district of West Bengal, around 200 km to the south of Bangarh; Goswami 1996: 269–270. Debala Mitra, the editor of the volume in which Goswami’s article is published, gives a better interpretation of the carelessly engraved inscription in a note of the article; Goswami 1996: 274, note 18.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 1–4, verses 1–4.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 4–6, verses 5 (Durvāsas) and 6 (maṭha of Golagī).
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 6–8, verses 7 (Vidyāśiva) and 8 (Dharmaśiva).
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 8–9, verse 9.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 10–11, verse 11.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 11–12, verse 12.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 13–14, verse 14.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 16–18, verses 17 (oblong ponds) and 18 (gardens).
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 18–20, verses 19–20.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 21–23, verses 22 (learning) and 23 (tulāpuruṣa). For the textual description of the ritual of tulāpuruṣa and the cases of its performance recorded in an extensive range of inscriptions, see Schmiedchen 2006.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 24–25, verse 25.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 28–29, verse 28.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 31–33, verses 31 (Rūpaśiva), 32 (Lakṣmīdhara) and 33 (Śrīkaṇṭha).
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 33–34, verse 34.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 34–35, verse 35. He was the son of Śrīdhara and the grandson of Jīvadhara.
Bangarh stone slab, l. 5, verse 6ab: vaṁśe tasya vabhūva bhūṣaṇa-maṇir bhū-gola Evākhile golagyās sa mahā-maṭhaḥ sughaṭitaḥ kailāsa Evāparaḥ|. For the name of Golagī and its identification with Gurgi, see Sanderson 2009: 264, note 620.
Sears 2014: 28–34.
Sears 2014: 78–116, 131–185.
Sears 2014: 189–229.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 7–9, verses 8–9.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 8–9, verse 9: śrīmān indraśivaḥ sphuṭaṁ hari-hara-prāyāṁ śivendrākr̥tim vibhrad vaṁ(9)śa-vibhūṣaṇaṁ samabhavac chiṣyo ⟨’⟩sya puṇyātmanaḥ| yasmai kāñcana-puñja-mañju-racita-prāsāda-meru-sphurat-kailāsābha-maṭhan dadāv iha mahīpālo nr̥pas tattva-vit·||.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 9–10, verse 10: yadi jala-dhayaḥ saptāpy ete tathāṣṭa-kulācalāḥ pra(10)ti-diśam amī kāya-vyūhaṁ vidhāya milanty api| bhavati sadr̥śair etan nānā-surālaya-dīrghikopamitir api cen manye devaḥ kaviś caturānanaḥ||.
Sears 2014: 55.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 16–18, verses 17–18: mlāya(17)(d-v)ismita-viśvakarmma-sa-śiraḥ-kampekṣitā nirmmitāś citran dikṣu vidikṣu yena pr̥thivī-hāra-śriyā dīrghikāḥ| yā dūrād avalokya vāridhi-milad-velā-bhramād bhāsvato vāhā vihvalayanty anū(18)(rddhva)m adhara-grīvā vahanto ⟨’⟩nv-aham·|| yasyārāma-śatair bhāti pulakāṅkura-danturā| bhūr iyan tādr̥śāsīma-purāṇa-puruṣāgamat·||.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 19–20, verse 20: bhavati bhavitā bhūto vā kiṁ kṣitau kvacid īdr̥śo vadata maruto yūyaṁ sākṣāt-kr̥tākhila-vastavaḥ| ya Iha vidadhe dhātr̥-(20)sparddhā-vivarddhita-kautukaḥ kula-giri-payo-rāśi-cchannaṁ jagan nija-kīrttibhiḥ||.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 24–27, verses 25–26: teneyaṁ hima-kāñcanāca(25)la-mahā-kautūhalāveśita-svīyārddhārddha-vapuṣmatīva vaḍabhī puṇyātmanā nirmmitā| yat-siṁha-prativimvam amvara-dhunī-toyeṣu manye ’dbhutaṁ dr̥ṣṭvā saṁkucad-aṅghrir adya na jalāny airāvataḥ pāsyati|| yan-mau(26)lau kalaśena kiṁ sa bhagavān· bhānuḥ śiro-bhūṣaṇaṁ kiñ citra-dhvaja-ḍamvaraiḥ sura-saril-lekhā⟨ḥ⟩ patākāvaliḥ| kin dīpa-prakareṇa ratna-vahala-jyotiṣmatīyaṁ sadā yat satyaṁ svayam udbhavanti vividhāḥ si(27)ddhāśrame sampadaḥ||.
Bangarh stone slab, ll, 18–19, verse 19: mahīyasīyan na tathā mahī yathā tapasvinas tasya mahān ihāśayaḥ| ta(19)thā hi bhūmiḥ kila kīrttibhir bhr̥tā (bhr̥)to na tasyāśaya Eṣa vismayaḥ||.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 8–9, verse 9.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 11–12, verse 12: rājñaḥ śrī-nayapālasya gurus tattva-vi(12)dām varaḥ| śrīmān· sarvvaśivas tasya śiṣyo ⟨’⟩bhūd bhūṣaṇam bhuvaḥ||; ll. 13–14, verse 14: yenāvarjjita-gauḍa-rāja-gurutā-lakṣmīn nija-bhrātari śrīman-mūrttiśive niveśya vipināvāsaṁ sva(14)yam vaṅchatā| kṣīrodārṇṇava-manthanotthita-milal-lakṣmīṁ sva-śiṣye harāv āropyāharato viṣaṁ paśupater vvr̥ttāntam udghāṭitam·||.
Bangarh stone slab inscription, ll. 12–13, verse 13: yad-dānāmvu-sarit-pravāha-laharī-nirvvāpitārthi-sphurad-dāridrya-jvalane milanty api janair ggauḥ kāma-dhr̥g vāritā| prodbhūtojjvala-ratna-(13)jāla-vahala-jyotiḥ-paṭācchādita-svāṅgo lajjitavat sa rohaṇa-girir mmanye ⟨’⟩dhunā sthāsyati||; ll. 20–21, verse 21: yasmāt pūrṇṇa-manorathe ’rthini phalair bhū-bhāga-lagnātmanaḥ śākhābhir vviśatīva tad-vali-gr̥haṁ kalpa-drumo vrīḍitaḥ| nirllajja(21)s tu sa kopi-rohaṇa-girir yad-vañcito ⟨’⟩py arthināṁ sārthair artha-kr̥taika-gaurava-bharair aṅgair mmudhā varddhate||.
Bangarh stone slab, l. 15, verse 15cd: bhrātā mūrttiśivaḥ sa mānya-mahim(ā) dānāmvu-sekair jjagat pūtaṁ yaḥ kr̥tavān nirasta-nikhila-kleśañ ca yaḥ sarvvataḥ||.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 10–11, verse 11: pr̥thvī-meru-sa-viśva-cakra-jaladhi-vrahmāṇḍa-kalpadruma-śrī-(11)nandīśvara-kāmadhenu-bhavana-grāmām̐ś ca gāḥ parvvatān·| yo ⟨’⟩dād bhadra-ghaṭañ ca kalpa-latayā sārddhañ ca kalpa-drumaṁ hemāś¿r?⟨v⟩ebha-hiraṇya-garvbha-turaga-vyūhān·tulā-pūruṣam·||. For the sixteen mahādānas prescribed in the Purāṇas, see Kane 1974: 870–877. For the correspondence of the objects listed in this verse and those of mahādāna, see Sircar 1973–74: 139–141.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 22–23, verse 23ab: vidvadbhiḥ sa-suvarṇṇakāra-nivahaiḥ kāmaṁ tulāropitā yat-kīrttir nna parīkṣi(23)tā na hi samī-bhāvaṁ gatā kair api|.
Sanderson 2009: 268.
For the inscriptional references to mahādānas by the Pāla and Sena kings, see Furui 2020: 202.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 7–8, verse 8ab: śiṣyo dharmmaśivas tapo-nidhir abhūt tasya vyadhād yo ’dbhutaṁ prāsādaṁ bhagavat-trilo(8)cana-guror vvārāṇasī-bhūṣaṇaṁ|.
Bangarh stone slab, l. 28, verse 28ab: śiṣyaḥ sarvvaśivasya dīpta-tapasaḥ sarvvārthi-cintāmanir jīvo mūrttiśivasya yo ⟨’⟩para Iva prakhyāta-tīvra-vrataḥ|.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 21–22, verse 22: śaśvat-pīta-digamvarā ’rtha-viraha-bhrāntiṁ tiras-kurvvatī kr̥ṣṇādvaita-kathān nirasya vahuśo vr̥ddher abhāvaṁ (22) guṇe| Ācchādyaiva bhr̥gu-prabhākara-gurūn·yat-kīrttir ujjr̥mbhiṇī yat-prajñeva visāriṇī sumanasāṁ vr̥ndair mmudā gīyate||.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 28–29, verse 28cd: śrīmān rūpaśivo vabhūva ya Idan devasya caṇḍī-guror mmagnan darśanam uddadhāra (29) dharaṇīṁ krīḍā-varāho yathā||.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 29–30, verse 29: yenāśā-vijayodyatena jaladhi-śrīman-milan-mekhala-kṣmā-cakram (bhr)amatā na ke diśi diśi khyātā jitā vādinaḥ| yasyāsāv api bhojadeva-nr̥patiḥ stauti sma dr̥ṣtvā(30)dbhutaṁ ṣaṭ-tarkka-priya-vādi-vr̥nda-dalana-vyāpāra-lavdhaṁ yaśaḥ||.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 30–31, verse 30: nānānumāna-(śa)ra-pūrṇṇa-tamori-tūnaḥ prajñā-dhanur ddr̥ḍha-kathā-guṇa-karṇṇa-pūraḥ| pāṣaṇdi-paṇdita-mr̥geṣu gato niṣiddha-mārggānusāri-mr̥ga-hantr̥-(31)hara-śriyaṁ yaḥ||.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 27–28, verse 27: hima-girim iva śubhraṁ ramya-ratnāṁśu-jāla-pratiphalita-sakeli-prauḍha-rāmā-sahasram·| bhavanam idam avetyāsanna-śambhur bhavānyāḥ smaratu nija-vivāhāgāra-lakṣmīñ cire(28)ṇa||.
Bangarh stone slab, ll. 31–32, verse 32ab: kīrttau vāṭaka-bhūsaṇaṁ gaṇapateḥ sūnuḥ sa lakṣmīdharaḥ śrīman-mūrttiśivājñayā ha(32)rir abhūt sākṣād ihāyojakaḥ|.
Furui 2013: 236.
