KAILASA — THE STYLISTIC DEVELOPMENT AND CHRONOLOGY

Author(s): M. K. Dhavalikar
Source: Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute , 1982, Vol.
41 (1982), pp. 33-45
Published by: Vice Chancellor, Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute
(Deemed University), Pune

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42931407

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the Deccan
College Post-Graduate and Research Institute

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 33

KAILÀSA - THE STYLISTIC DEVELOPMENT

AND CHRONOLOGY

M. K. Dhavalikar

The Kailasa, cave No. 16 at Eilora, israte their triumph over the Buddhists, the
undoubtedly the finest of its class and Kailasa must always remain a miracle of
represents the verv acme of that architec-patient industry applied to well defined
tural idiom- the rock cut tradition- whichpurpose. It far exceeds, both in extent and
flourished in Western India. Although in
a elaboration, any other rock cut temples in
cave temple, it is a copy of structuralIndia, and is and must always be considered
monument, and thus marks a departure one of the most {remarkable monuments that
from the rock-cut tradition. It is the largestadorn a land so fertile in examples of patient
and the most complex edifice, having aindustry and of the pious devotedness of the
number of subsidiary shrines in its precincts,people to the service of their gods."2
and hence an enquiry into its various phases
of architectural growth. Surprisingly enough,This was also the presumption with which
«o serious attempts so far seem to have beenHerman Goetz commenced his study. He
made in this direction save the solitarystated : "The Kailasa is generally dated into
exception of that by Hermann Goetz.1 the middle of the 8th century approximately,
Although there is definitive epigraphicalon the evidence of reference in inscriptions
evidence to show that Kailasa was executed of the Rashtrakuta dynasty which attribute
under the patronage of the Rashtrakuta its erection to Krishnaraja I (757-72).
monarch Krishna I (757-72 A.D.), there However, on a closer inspection the
appears to be the general view-that such a problem appears not so simple. The Kailasa
gigantic edifice could not have been is not a homogenous building erected under
conceived and completed during the short one ruler. Its very size alone excludes the
region of a single monarch, and consequen- possibility of its having been excavated and
tly it is thought that the architectural sculptured within the fifteen years of
activity at the site was going on for a number Krishnaraja's reign. For the narrowness of
of years. Fergusson and Burgess, the leading space and the technical resources then
. authorities on the cave temples of India, available had to keep in bounds even the
were the first to observe : ambitions of such a strong ruler."3

"It is indeed difficult to understand how Goeti in his masterly analysis of the
so vast a work as the Kailasa, with its various components of Kailasa, has traced
surroundings, could have been completed inits development through eight distinctive
less time with limited mechanical means architectural phases, spanning -the reigns of
available at that age. Even allowing all theseven Rashtrakuta and one Pratihara kings,
time this would imply, and granting that ranging
all in time from eighth to thirteenth
the superflous wealth of the Rathor centuries A.D. It is nearly a quarter century
(Rashtrakuta) prince was placed at thesince Goetz published his exhaustive study,
disposal of the Brahmanas, to commemmo- but no dissident voice has so far been heard,

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 34 M. K. DHAV ALIKAR

The temple has the typical

and we may therefore safelyDravida c
sikhara and is
his verdict has generally beenalmost an imitation of the
final.4 However,
Virupakshaa careful
temple an
at Pattadkal. The edifice
stands on an inordinately
different architectural high plinth on a
motifs
which are
styles would lead one carved life
to sizequestio
elephants and
reaching conclusions.
lions. On either side The
of the tempie prese
proper
an attempt to study
steps have beenthe stylistic
provided for going ,up in the
Kailasa and to construct
shrine. Around the garbhagriha is achr
small
framework for it.
antarala to which is joined a large sabha -
maņdapa which can be described as the
Temple (Figs. 1 & 2)
nayaranga maņdapa because of the four sets
of four pillars which divide it into nine
Before analysing architectural
squarish compartments. It has ardha -
mandapa on sides and the agra-maņ4apa at
sculpture styles it is better to
the front. The nandi-maņdapa is carved in
temple first. The temple prope
between the gopura and the agra-maņ4apa
imposing front which consists
of the shrine, and all the three parts are
entrance gateway of the gopura
joined by a sort of, rock cut bridge. On either
enclosure wall having niches
side of the nandi-maņdapa are huge
pilasters. They contain image
divinities and monolithic pillars, about
among them 17 m. high. are
They i
afe similar to the pilasters inside the
asta-dikpalas , Siva Nataraja,
Trivikrama, sabhamandapa and were
Vishnu asonce crowned fey
varãha,
tridents. The entire edifice is of the tritala -
Garuda, Brahma, etc., all of gig
three storied variety of the Dravidian order.
tions. The entrance doorway is
Ganga & Yamuna. It would beNearby
clear from the above are
and his queen description'
and that atthe the base
edifice was carefu
planned
elephants, lions and in allvyãlas.
respects and then execu
accordingly. There should be little do
On entering through the
that the subsidiary shrines gatew
in the scar
rooms on either
eitherside,
side and theslightly
gallery at the ba
level. The front door is flanked by resembling a cloister are decidedly l
Sankhanidhi and Padmanidhi, the guardians additions and we -shall discuss later how la
of wealth. Facing the entrance is a huge they are. So far as the main temple (Pl.I
panel of Gajalakshmi, who is shown sitting concerned, its planning and even execu
on a lotus and is being bathed by elephants. need not have taken an inordinately
In the open court on either side are free period, for the shrine, as is known to ev
standing life size elephants carved in the student of Indian art, is an almost exact
living rock. On the left wall of the gopura replica of the Virupaksha ' temple at
are carved panels showing Mahi§amardini, Pattadkal which, in its turn, is constructed
Krishna lifting Gòvardhana, and Käma, the with the Kailasanath temple at Conjeevaram
- god of love and his consort, Rati. Of theseas its prototype/ As a matter of fact, the
the Mahisamardini panel (Pl.V) is note- three shrine? built by different kings and
worthy because the buffalo demon is shown situated so distantly from each other, share
in it in the human form and recalls to the so many elements in common that there are
mind that at Mahabalipuram. hardly any other structures which are so

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 •KAILAS A - THE STYLISTIC DEVELOPMENT AND CHRONOLOGY 35

identical with each other. But at the same labourers can be said to have taken about
time they also have significant differences in five and half years to dig these trenches and
the matter of details for Kailasa is more than isolate the mass of rock in the middle where
twice the size of Virupaksha. All the same, the artists did the carving.8 Of course the
in the case of Kailasa the artists were carving began right from the beginning
when sufficient rock surface was available
translating a structural temple into living
rock. One is simply amazed at the massive
for the purpose, "or each portion of the
volume of the shrine. But once conceived,
carved detail appears to have been
the task may not have been as difficult as
completely finished as the work progressed
downwards,
one might, think considering the expertise in thus, avoiding any need for
rock cutting available in those days. Rock
scaffolding."9 Of the temple proper, the
cut art hás been a distinguishing quality ofwas the first to be* completed and
iikhara
the artisans of Maharashtra for centuries not the gateway as Goetz would have us
and Walter M. Spink has discribed how theybelieve.10 After this the work would
were moving from one site to the othercommence from top to bottom, from the
wherever and whenever the patronage was upper storey to the lower storčy and from
available.6 They could accomplish the task the front to the interior, and even within the
without much difficulty or delay with theshrine proper from the ceiling to the floor.
assistance of those very artists who had just
Simultaneously the work of carving pilasters,
then constructed the Virupaksha temple atdecoration on pillars and other areas was
Pattadkaļ. In this connection Benjamin also undertaken. The whole work therefore
Rowland Jr's observations are pertinent. Hemust not have taken more than ten to twelve
states : "Although we may marvel at theyears to complete. This is of course
amount of labour that went into such ahypothetical, but is nonetheless plausible,
gigantic carving, it should be pointedand
out
the main purpose here is to demonstrate
that there was probably less expenditure of it was not impossible for the artists to
that
work in literally quarrying the entire execute the Kailasa temple within the short
complex from mountainside than would duration of the reign of Krishna I. It now
have been required for transporting the cut
remains to be seen whether the artist really
achieved it.
stones necessary to build it."7 Here the stone
masons had to start from the top and for this
they selected a spot in the rocky hill with The entire monolithic temple with its
proper configuration. First, they had to dig
entrance gateway, the nandi-maņdapa , the
three large trenches measuring approxi- couris, the elephants in the courts and also
mately two each of (270 X 50 X 100ft) the andvictory pillars (dhvaja-stambhas) (Pl.I)
one of (150 X 30 X 100ft) respectively, inno doubt planned originally and none
were
the hill in order to isolate a rectangular of mass
them appears to be an afterthought,
of rock in the middle. But consideringalthoughthe Goetz thinks that some of these
configuration of the rock mass, it is only inadded later.11 We shall therefore
were
half the area that the trenches would be so examine the architectural evidence to find
deep. On a fair calculation we can estimate out whether it was at all possible to make
that roughly one and half to two million eft such additions once the main temple was
of rock was excavated. If one person is carved out or at least its upper storey was
taken to cut about 4 eft of rock per day, 250 executed. First and foremost among these

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 36 M. K. DHAV ALIKAR

are the victory pillars

basement ( dhvaja
after the elephant-lion frieze was
which, according to
carved. On Goetz,
the outer were
wall of the temple on
in the second architectural north where some scenes from the phas
appears to be MahSbhSrata impossible have been carved on the lof
for t
reason that they basement,are we can verynot clearly stru
see that t
monolithic, and artists,
hencewhile carving these episodes,
could not did n
added later but disturb on the the left paw of the lion han
other (sãrdãla)
long trenches on the corner
the andnorth
the figures near andthe creats
main temple were being dug out, are unfinished. In fact the entire figure
these monoliths must have been left out. this standing SSrdūla is seen protruding o
They must therefore have been in the On the south side too we find that the
original plan or else they could not have Rāmāyaņa scenes in the lower register, end
been executed later. Once the rock mass for near the tail of the sārdūla. It is necessary to
the monoliths was isolated on both sides, the state in this connection that, according to
carving on them was undertaken. Stylistically Goetz, the Rāmāyaņa and the Mahabhārata
these victory pillars are akin to the pillaste» panels were executed during the reign of
carved on the exterior of the temple. Krishna I.M Consequently the lion-and-
elephant frieze has also to be dated to the
In Goetz's scheme of architectural phases time of Krishna I. Moreover, the epic panels
of Kailasa, the lion and elephant frieze on must also have been originally planned
the lower plinth of the temple (P1.II) was because they can certainly be said to have
carved under the Paramara king Bhoja of been inspired by those in the Virupaksha
Dhara (1000-1065 A.D.).'2 Although we temple. The manner and style of carving
agree that the temple was carved from the these panels at both the sites is so similar
top downwards, and hence the plinth must that they can bè taken to be the work of the
naturally be the last to be carved, this is same artists." The inordinately high plinth
indeed a bold statement. It implies that the on which Kailasa stands is not found in the
temple plinth was plain and undecorated for Virupaksha temple. In Kailasa it was more
two hundred years from the middle of 8th of an expedient because it was necessary to
century.13 But the massive plinth with a release the whole temple out of the pit in
number of offsets appears to have been which it would have otherwise sunk, and
reserved for carving the elephant lion frieze only elephants would have served the
in the original plan of the temple and it purpose. The Rashtrakuta artists were
would not have been possible to execute it certainly not ignorant of the gajathara
after two centuries. The frieze seen motif, and the nearest one at hand was that
sideways shows that the animals haveat been
Pitalkhora which, however, was already a
thousand years old.16 And for the Chalukyan
carved in bold relief, nay they are almost
artists it was simply a matter of magnification
free standing and project out considerably.
Unless this was originally intended, for the
even in the Virupaksha temple elephants
plinth would not project out to such lions
and án have been carved, but on a much
extent. Moreover, there is convincing scale.17 Similarly the free standing
smaller
elephant
evidence to show that the episodes from the statues in the front corts on either
RâmByaita and the MahSbhSrata were side of the entrance were also in the original
carved on the exterior of the temple plan and Goetz is of the opinion that they

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 •KAILAS A - THE STYLISTIC DEVELOPMENT AND CHRONOLOGY 37

Obviously,
were carved in the first phase which hetherefore, it was also executed
assigns to the reign of Dantidurga.18along with its upper part. We are therefore
of the opinion that this entrance gateway
Entrance gateway with its upper and lower storeys was
completed under Krishna I. Goetz too is of
There should be little doubt that the the same opinion, but according to him the
work under Krishnaraja constitutes the
entrance gateway to the Kailasa was being
carved out when the work on the principal
second phase of activity at Kailasa since the
shrine was underway. It is not an isolated
carving had begun first under Dantidurga.20
structure but forms a part of the edifice to
which it is connected by the nandi-mançlapa
The foregoing analysis of the architectural
(P1.I) Since its upper storey is in line with peculiarities
the of Kailasa, that is, the main
upper storey of the nandi-maņdapa which shrine with its plinth, the entrance gateway,
further leads to the agra-maņdapa of the thenandi-maņdapa, the interior courts and
shrine, Goetz thought that only this part the- elephants and the victory pillars, leads
that is, the upper storey of the gateway - us
wasto infer safely that the temple and all its
architectural adjuncts were planned as a
first completed along with the upper stories
of nandi-maņdapa and the agra-maņdapacoherentof whole and were also executed
accordingly in all probability under the
the temple.19 But it should be borne in mind
that the entire edifice virtually does patronage
not of Krishna I of the Rashtrakuta
have an upper storey as such; it appearsdynasty.
to We have also seen that the temple,
be so because of the high massive plinththough stupendous and most extensive of its
which was a necessity or else the templekind, could have been carved out during the
should have sunk down considerably short
and span of about ten years. We will
consequently could not have been visible
therefore be justified if we credit to Krishna
from a distance. This in itself would show I as the Baroda copper plate grant, though
that such a high plinth was already thoughtof a later date, tells us.21 It is bard to believe-
of in the original plan of the temple. that Dantidurga had any share in it for he
Moreover, the upper storey of the gopura was fighting battles with his hostile contem-
has a kaksāsana at the front and no entrance poraries all his life ; he did not even have
is provided. It is therefore hard to agree with enough time at his disposal to incise the
Goetz that the so-called upper storey was inscription on the nandi-maņdapa of the
completed first. Dasavatãra cave (No. 15) at Ellora. On the
Other hand, Krishna was a mature man of 45
The upper storey of the entrance gateway when he succeeded his nephew in 756 or 757
was thus an expedient for the sake of A.D., and the final defeat of Kirtivarman,
alignment. Although it was intended as an the Chalukyan monarch of Badami, was the
entrance, we do not think that it was quite achievement of Krishna notwithstanding the
common even in ancient times. Since the fact that the expedition was planned and
lower courts with the elephants and the even carried out by Dantidurga.22 After the
victory pillars were also completely carved final victory only Krishna, who must have
along with the principal shrine, there is very been impressed by the newly constructed
likelihood of die entrance being provided Virupaksha temple in the Chalukyan
from the 'lower storey' of the gateway. territory, could have brought the Chalukyan

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 38 M. K. DHAV ALIKAR

architects and sculptors

They share air the characteristic traits of as
the w
Ellora and entrusted the work to them. Rashtrakuta style.
Among these artists there must have been
some from the Paliava court because, as the Some of the sculptures, however, are
stylistically of a different category. Thus the
Virupaksha temple inscription records,they
Mãrkandeyãnugraha-murti of Siva carved
were brought there by Kirtivarman himself
pn the west face of the north staircase in
after his conquest of the Paliavas of Kanchi.23
Kailasa, is interesting from stylistic point of
Sculpture view. It has an exact parallel in the
Dasãvatãra Cave.25 Superficially at least
The stylistic evidence of sculptures in the both of them have many points of similarity,
Kailasa also furnishes corroborative evi- but the one in the Dasãvatãra, which is
dence. The enormous wealth of sculpture much larger, is characterised by tremendous
that is carved on the exterior of the temple force and vitality, a distinguishing feature of
and its adjuncts is divisible, at least the Rashtrakuta sculpture. It shows Siva
stylistically, into the following two broad springing out of the linga to the rescue of his
categories : worshipper - Märkandeya - for Yama.
The representation in Kailasa, however, is
i) Sculptures which were carved in the static and almost lifeless; even the god of
area especially reserved for them, death, Yama, is shown in a supplicant's
as for example the Gajalakshmi attitude. The relatively slendour human
forms and the tall conical headdress of Siva
panel at the entrance.
ii) Sculptures carved in order to fill in are rather in the Chalukyan tradition. One
the vacant spaces. somehow feels that we have here a
Chalukyan sculptor who was asked to
There are, however, a few sculptures in an earlier Rashtrakuta panel. The sa
the former category. They are vast holds good in case of the standing Lak
compositions which must have been thought on the south wall of Kailasa which has its
of when the entire complex was conceived counterpart in the Mallikarjuna temple at
and obviously they are contemporary with Pattadkal.
the temple proper. Among these .are the
panels depicting Gajalakshmi flanked by
elephants bathing her which is carved near There are a number of panels in the
the entrance, the Gajasuravadhamurtj Kailasa complex which do not stylistically
(Pl.III) and Siva as Mahayogi in the Nandi- conform to the Rashtrakuta style, but
maņdapa. These compositions are gigantic belong more to the Chalukyan school. This
in size and are closely related to those in the obviously is due to the presence of
upper floor of the Dasavatāra cave 15 at Chalukyan artists at Ellora since the edifice
Ellora.24 They are characterised by massive itself, as is known, was being carved out on a
forms and tremendous vitality and, because Chalukyan prototype. In fact some of the
of their outburst of energy, they almost themes from the latter are to be met with in

appear to be stepping out of their frames. Kailasa. The narrative sculptures depicting
Their powerful representations on such a episodes from the epics are present at both
colossal scale have no parallels in Indian art. the places; they are carved in narrow

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ♦KAILASA - THE STYLISTIC DEVELOPMENT AND CHRONOLOGY 39

running bands.?6 But there are larger panels

shown in an anthropomorphic form as .is
evident from the famous panel at
such as those depicting the fight between
Vali and Sugriva, Jatayu attacking Ravana
Mahabalipuram.32 The two panels depicting
for abducting Sita, both of which the
havegoddess subjugating the demon are
been carved on the south wall at both related closely to that from Mahabalipuram,
the places.21 Similarly the Varaha incar-
and it is therefore highly likely that the artist
nation of Vishnu in Kailasa and that in who carved these two panels in Kailasa may
thé Virupaksha temple have many common also have hailed from the Paliava country.
features.28 Also comparable is the Lingod-He might have been brought by Kirtivarman
to Badami and hence to* Eilora by Krishna.
bhava- murti at both the sites.29 The figures
of Kamadeva and Rati from Kailasa are not All this is no doubt hypothetical but is
far removed from a couple in the Papanatha certainly plausible.
temple at Pattadkal.30 The Narasimha panel
(Pl.IV) has been carved on the south face at Perhaps the most important and the most
both the places. The similarities between artistic of the sculptures in Kailasa is the
these sculptures from Kailasa and Pattadkal panel on the south which depicts Ravana
show that thfcy were the handiwork of Chalu- shaking the Kailasa mountain (PI. VI). This
kyan sculptors. It must not have therefore colossal sculpture is carved in the
been very difficult, but on the contrary easy, Rashtrakuta tradition because it is full of
for the Chalukyan artists to repeat their vitality and is marked by tremendòu»
performance at Eilora. movement and energy. But the figures of
Ravana, Siva, Parvati and others are not
inordinately heavy as those in the
Paliava influence is also discernible in the Rashtrakuta panels in the Dasavatãra cave
sculptures in Kailasa, though not as strong and a few ones in the Kailasa itself. In fact
as the Chalukyan. There are two panels, there is every possibility of the temple being
both depicting the Mahija-mardini Durga,named Kailasa after this panel as first
one on the north wall of the entrance suggested by D. R. Bhandarkar." This is one
of the finest sculptures in the whole range of
gopura (P1IV) and the other on the south
wall of the entrance corridor. AccordingIndian
to art and we can do no better than
Goetz, these are imitations of Chalukyan Sherman E.Lee, a renowned authority
quote
on oriental art. He states : "The composition
reliefs. He observes that "This is especially
evident e.g. in the Mahisamardini onisthetreated not only in terms of light and
shade
north wall of the entrance gopura which is a in depth, but also sculpturally and
variation oí a Mahisa-mardini in the representationally in depth - The result is
a-massive, large scale composition unique in
Mallikarjuna of Pattadkal, which latter
again is an elaboration of the famous Indian art and worthy of any great tradition
Paliava relief in the Mahisāsura-maņdapa at at its peak."34
Mamallapura."31 But it is necessary to
emphasize that among the various forms of The crucial question is the date of this
the goddess we find that Mahisāsura, the sculpture. It has been carved on the south
buffalo-headed demon, was usually depicted face, cutting the moulded plinth of the
in his zoomorphic form in the Chalukyan temple, and has been deeply inset in such a
sculpture whereas in the Paliava art he was manner that the maximum effect of light

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 40 M. K. DHAV ALIKAR

and shade can beGaneta, Durga, Kala and Kali

obtained. (PI, VII) and
Stylisti
certainly later on the the
than east are amain
queen flanked by chāmara
edifice
late is the problem.
dhārinis and aIts location b
dwarf (gana).
rock bridge joining the temple and
storey in the Paralanka would sugg
may not have beenAll these carved
figures have shedwhen
the heavinesst
was existing, forwhich marks the
the sculpture in thereason
simple DasSvat£ra
panel under the and have consequently
deep shadow gained elegance,
ofbutth
would have been atconstantly
the same time they have nothing,
in of thethe
hence would have attenuated
lost forms
allof its dramatic
the Chalukyan sculpture
in thetherefore,
In all probability, Virupaksha temple. They itare,wo
been carved after however,
the related to the representations
collapse of of t
Ganga and
as a result of which the Yamuna on the doorway
spot wasof wel the
garbha-griha
As we shall see later theof Kailasa itself. Although
panel in q
stylistically akinmany
to of the
that statues ininthe YajiTasälä
the Lan are
portraying the tāņdava
badly multilated, they dance of S
exhibit the refinement
rock bridge can in the female form achieved by
therefore bethe sai
collapsed some three
Rashtrakuta artist.
of"Theyfourare amongstdecad
the
Kailasa was completed.
most glorious works of Indian sculpture of
an overwhelming might, vivacity and
Paralanka and beauty" observes Goetz, who further adds
YajÄa-sälä
that here "vitality and refinement meet in a
The rock bridgepoised exuberance."35
joining There is no evidence
the Kai
Paralanka to suggest that the yajnasãlã
is a convincing proof was in theof
original plan and
being in the original planit therefore
of appears
the to be ed
even contemporaryan afterthought.
with But muchit.time The
must not ku
on the kapota moulding of Kailasa is have elapsed between the two, and the
repeated on the facade of Paralanka; the Y ajfta&lá can be dated to the last quarter of
pillars with ghata-pallava capital in Kailasa the 8th century. Goetz also dates it to the
are present in the first floor verandah of the period of Govinda III (793-814), but on
Paralanka; and the Andhakasura-vadha- different grounds. He found certain
murti on the northern face of Kailasa has an Pratihara influence on the art of the time of
almost exact parallel on the southern face of Govinda III, but the prototypes cited by him
Paralanka. The idea of excavating storied such as the sculptures from the temple at
cave temples was not new to the Rashtrakuta Osian in Rajasthan have hardly anything to
artists; Do Thai (No. 12) Tin Thai (No. 13) compare with those in the Yajnasalã.31 The
and Dasāvatāra are a clear enough proof of Pratihara sculpture, though elegant and
that tradition. Paralanka first floor thus vivacious, displays far too slender forms and
appears to be contemporary with Kailasa. we can feel that a certain degree of
stylization, which marks the early mediaeval
The Yajnasãlã, which is on the same levelsculpture, has already set in.38 The sculpture
with the first floor of Paralanka, has some in the YajHasãlá is free from such stylization
exquisite sculpture. Among them are a and may not therefore be later than Circa
800 A.D.
group of Sapta-mātrikās (actually eight) with

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Fig- 1 : Kailasa, El lora , plan of ground floor.

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Fig. 2 : Kailasa, Ellora, plan of upper floor.

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 $
-

i> -

«o

d)
c
0)
O

(O
(O

J0
CO

0)
•M

0.

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 sz

E
0)
-C
H

(0
v>
jO
(D

4)
•W

jfl
IL

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 i
5
Tl

§
S
t5
e
(O
Z

o
>»
®

o
W

0)

£
0

<D
.C

C
3

S
1
(D
SZ
73
CD
>
(O

3
CO
<0

(O

O
t

(O
CO

JO
rö
SC

O
-M

J2
E

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Plate IV ; Kailasa - Narsimha-Killing Hiranykasypa

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Plate V : Kailasa - Mahisa-Mardim Durga

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Plate VI ; Kailasa - Ravana shaking Kailas

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Plate VII : Kailasa - Durga, Kali and Kala in Y ajna-sala

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Plate VIII : Kailasa - Siva dancing tandava in Lankeshwar

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 •KAILASA - THE STYLISTIC DEVELOPMENT AND CHRONOLOGY 41

Lankeshwar There is neither epigraphic nor much

stylistic evidence to securely date lhe
The Lankeshwar cave, carved in the Lankeshwar but the beginning of 9th
northern escarpment of Kailasa, is a unique century may not be far off the mark in view
edifice in many respects. Stylistically it of the similarity of pillar types in Indra
marks a further stage of development of Sabha, which is dated to the close of 8th or
the Rashtrakuta art nay it is the very acme the beginning of 9th century.39
of the early mediaeval art of Maharashtra.
Its plan is similar to that of Kailasa, a large The Shrine of the River Goddesses
hall supported by four sets of four pillars
each and the rectangular garbha-griha at the In the northern face of the rock on the
back around which a pradaksiņā-patha is left and to the west of Lankeshwar is the
provided. The pillars are remarkable in that shrine of the river goddesses which contains
they are squat or stumpy and more massive images of Ganga in the middle and Yamuna
than those in Kailasa, and their decoration- is and Saraswati on her left and right respectif
more florid too. They must have served as vely. Although the river goddesses are soror-
prototypes for those in the Indra Sabha and what worn out and have lost some ©fcťheir
Jagannath Sabha of the Jain group. The relief features, they are all extremeķ$elegant,
figure sculpture in Lankeshwar has and mark a further advance of thè Rashtra-
undergone a noticeable change which is kuta art. They each stándina highly orna-
best illustrated by the famous panel showing mental arch issuing out of the mouths of cro-
the tāņdava dance of Siva. (PI VIII) It is no codiles- makara-torana- which is distantly
doubt conceived after the Daáavatâra related to the Chalukyan prototype whereas
prototypes but has none of their heaviness. the elongated female fingures are remini-
Here the supreme Lord is at once elegant scent of the Chalukyan tradition. Their
and agile and has electrifying energy. The slender forms with attenuated waists have %

twisted body in the tribhanga posture as if in close parallels in the female attendants of
a somersault has a solitary parallel at Ellora Matanga and Siddhayika in the Jaina group
where in the scene showing Ravana shaking at Ellora,40 which, however, lack the delicate
Kailasa on the southern face of the principal and sensitive modelling of the river
shrine, one of the female attendants of goddesses. Only Indrāni from the Indra
Parvati is seen running in panic with her Sabha approaches Ganga to some extent, so
body squirmed in a similar fashion. This far as the sensous form is concerned.41 It is
betrays the stylistic relationship between the quite likely that this shrine was carved by
two panels, but the similarity cannot be Govinda III in order to commemmorate his
stretched beyond this. Although the figure is victories in north India, where the three
badly mutilated below the waist, this mightly rivers meet at Prayag. The shrine
Nataraja is perhaps the one of the finest of may therefore be assigned to the first half òf
its class. The massive pillars, though akin to 9th century.
those in Kailasa, have a facted and ghata-
pallava shaft and cushion capital and also Gallery at the back
sometimes have female figures on brackets
which are reminiscent of much earlier On level with the ground floor of the main
Chalukyan brakcet figures at Badami.
temple is carved a gallery which surrounds

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
42 M. K. DHAV ALIKAR

the entire back half of the court. The back during the reign of Krishna I (757-72). We
wall of the gallery is divided into have also seen how it was possible to carve
compartments by means of pilasters each such a stupendous edifice - of the size of
containing a sculptured panel. There are Parthenon in Athens - during a short span
forty -three such panels, all of gigantic of 12 to 15 years. Its architect was therefore
proportions reminiscent of those in the justified in singing he praise of its divine
DaÜvatära.They represent several forms of character as described in the Baroda copper
Siva, Vishnu and Sakti and are of great plate grant of Karka II.
iconographical interest. They are all
characterised by overelongated forms, Knfl«« in mediaeval times
extremely slender bodies and tall conical
headdresses which are to be noticed in the Although the rock temple is commonly
late Paliava and early Chola art. They can known as Kailasa, it seems that in the
therefore be dated to late 9th century. mediaeval times it was popularly known as
Goetz has assigned them to late 12th*l3th Manikeshwar and perhaps earlier still as
century A.D. because he is of the opinion Ghrishneshwar, and was regarded as one of
that they are comparable with the late Chola the twelve jyotirlingas. The Baroda copper
sculptures. This would be patently absurd plate grant refers to the edifice as Kailasa
because if such a late date is accepted, we and compares it with the Himalayan abode
should be able to find in them those traits of Siva, and describes it as svayambhu
which are met with the Yadava temple implying thereby its divine character
sculpture. But that not being the case, the Consequently it came to be worshipped as a
late date has to be rejected. We are of the jyotirlinga. But the present temple known as
Ghrishneshwar is a late mediaeval structure
opinion that the artistic activity at Ellora
comes to a grinding halt by the middle of 9th built by Ahilyabai Holkar (1765-95), a pious
century or precisely with the death of princess of Indore state. It is worshipped
Krishna III (839-868) who was the last great even today by Hindus who believe that it is a
monarch of the Rashtrakuta dynasty. The jyotirlinga. But the present temple known as
considerable southern influence on the and there are ao traces of any earlier
remains, it is hard to believe that it is the
sculptures in the back gallery was
undoubtedly due to the southern conquests original jyotirlinga and was named m
of Govinda III (793-814); he had overthrown Ghrishneshwar because the shrine was
chiselled out of living rock.43 The original
the Cholas, captured Tanjore and marched
down south to Rameshwar and had in fact lingam was destroyed by Muslims in
mediaeval times and hence a new temple was
annexed the northern portions of the Chola
territories to his empire.42 by Ahilyabai.

The foraging analysis of the architectural There is considerable literary evidence of

and the sculptural peculiarities of the the mediaeval period which refers to this
Kailasa complex shows that the principal rock temple as the Manikeshwar cave
shrine Kailasa with its gateway, nandi- temple, because it was built by a certain
mandapa, the so-called lower storey, the queen Manikavati of the King of Elapura.44
elephant-lion frieze, elephants in the courts The story goes that a certain king of
and the victory pillars were all executed Alajapura (modern Ellichpur in Amaravati

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 •KAILASA- THE STYLISTIC DEVELOPMENT AND CHRONOLOGY 43

District, Maharashtra) had committed a
certain sin in his previous birth, and as a
result, was suffering from some incurable
disease. Curiously enough, the king suffered
from the disease only during the night
whereas during day time he was his normal
healthy self Once the king went on a
hunting expedition to Mahisamala (Mhai-
samala near Ellora) and bathed in the tank
at that place. After bath he found that he
was cured of the disease probably
because the sin which he had committed in
his previous birth was washed off. The
queen, who had accompnied the king,
worshipped the god Ghrishneshwar at
Elapura (Ellora) and took a religious vow
that if the king was cured, she would build a
temple in the honour of Siva. Naturally
therefore when the king was cured, she
requested the king to build the temple
immediately. She decided to observe fast
until she saw the sikhara of the temple. The
king agreed, but no architect on earth would
have been able to build the temple is such a
short time. The king summoned many
artists, but they all said that it would take at
least sixteen months to build a temple
complete with its sikhara. There was,
however, one šilpi who would do the job; he
was one Kokasa, a resident of Paithan near
Aurangabad (ancient Pratishthan), but he
would not start his day without a bath in the
Godavari. He was summoned and the king
told him his predicament. Kokasa accepted
the challenge and assured the king that the
queen could have the daiSana of the iikhara
within a week's time. Kokasa then began to
carve, out the rock temple which naturally
had to begin from the top. He completely
carved out the sikhara within a week and
saved the royal couple from their
predicament. The temple was then named successors of Kokasa later shifted their
after the queen as Manikeshwar and the activity to central India where they found
king established a settlement at the site work.
which was named after him as Elapura
(modern Ellora).
The Master Artist Kokasa
Although the Baroda copper plate grant
refers in glowing terms to the achievement
of the master artist of Kailasa, it does not
record his name. It has generally been
thought, because of the striking similarity
between Kailasa and the Virupaksha temple
at Pattadkal, that in all probability the very
same artists who built the latter edifice were
responsible in the carving of the former. But
the Virupaksha temple inscription, as
already seen, does make a mention of its
architect, one Sutradhārī Gunda, who has
been described as the greatest silpi of South
India. If he had been entrusted with the
work at Kailasa, his name certainly would
have occurred in some inscription in the
temple. That not being the case, we can be
certain that Gunda was not the Silpin of
Kailasa. The mediaeval Marathi literature,
as shown above, mentions the name of one
Kokasa, a vãdhiya i.e. a carpenter
( Vardhakin Sk. badhai Hindi vãdhiya
Marathi) who has been described as an
incarnation of Visvakarma.45 He was an
inhabitant of Paithan but at one place he is
said to have been living at Puntambe (Taluq
Rahuri, Ahmednagar District, Mahara-
shtra).46 This indicates that the name of the"
master artist of Kailasa traditionally did
survive even after five ôr six centuries. It
should also be mentioned in this connection
that there are some inscriptional records in
Central India datable to 11th to 13th
century A.D. which mention the names of
some sculptors who were born in the
illustraious family of Kokasa.47 It is
therefore not unlikely that the family or the

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 44 M. K. DHAV ALIKAR
1. 'The Kailasa
trakuta Art,"
pp. 84-107.
2. Cave Temples of India, (Delhi, 1969), p. 462.
3. Op.cit., p. 86.
8. Even Shri M.N. Deshpande is of the opinion that
the cave must have taken two and a half centuries to
complete. See his Marathi article "Verul Leni"
Marathwada, Divali Ño. (1958), pp. 32-33.
5. An inscription in the Virupaksha temple records
that it was built by Sutradhari Gunda, the greatest
silpin of the southern country, for Lokamahadevi,
the queen of the Chalukyan king Vikramaditya II in
commemmoration of his conquest of Kanchi {I A, X,
p. 162) whereas a copper plate grant of Kirtivarman
II, son of Vikramaditya II, mentions that the latter
was highly impressed with the sculptures in the
Rajasimheshwar temple. He therefore made lavish
gifts to the temple and overlaid some sculptures with
gold. He was thus struck by the temple at Kanchi
(South Indian Inscriptions, I, p. 147).
6. Ajanta to Ellora , (Ann Arbor, Michigan), pp. 1-10,
year not given.
7. The Art and Architecture of India, Buddhist, Hindu-
Jain, (Harmondsworth, 1967), p. 186.
8. Walter M. Spink has given an excellent account of
the entire process of the excavation of a cave
temple, basing his observations on Cave 24 at Ajanta
which, being an unfinished excavation, furnishes
interesting chies. See his 'The Splendours of India's
Crown : Study of Mahayana Developments at
Ajanta", Jr. of the Royal Soc. of Arts. Vol. CXXII,
No. 5219 (Oct. 1974), pp. 751-53.
9. Percy Brown, Indian Architecture (Buddhist and
Hindu), (Bombay, 1971), p.74.
10. Op.cit. p.. 107.
11. Ibid, p.98.
12. Ibid, p. 107.
13. It should be noted that the Baroda copper plate
grant which so vividly describes the grandeur of the
Kailasa rock temple, was issued in 812-13 A.D. This
would imply that the entire temple complex except
the shrines in the northern and southern escarpments
and the gallery at the back was completed long before
the close of 8th century. For the description in the
copper plates, see IA, XII (1883), pp. 228-30.
14. Op.cit p. 95 &Ü07
This content downloaded from
3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
References
of 15.
Ellora
Henry Cousens, The and the Chro
Chalukyan Architecture, (Cal-
Artibuscutta, 1926), p.63 Asiae, Vol. XV
16. M.N. Deshpande, "Rock-cut Caves of Pitalkhora in
the Deccan, "Ancient India, No. 15 (1959), p/>4, P1.L-A
17. 1. Cousens, Op.cit, p. 62, Pl.XLV. The near total
absence of lion in the Virupaksha temple was due,
according to Cousens, to its being the royal emblem
of the Paliavas who were the enemies of the Cha-
lukyds. See Ibid, p.63.
18. Op.cit. p.92
19. Ibid. p. 107.
20. Op.cit., p.92
21. IA, 40, pp.237 ff; 12, p.228 ff; EI IV, 337 ff.
22. A.S. Altekar, The Rashtrakutas and Their Times,
(Poona, 1934), pp. 29-41. Kirtivarman was ruling as
late as 757 A.D., that is, three years after the last known
after the last known date of Dantidurga and one
year before the first known date of Krishna I and
hence the final defeat of the Chalukyan king was
obviously the achievement of Krishan I.
23. IA, X, p. 162; South Indian Inscriptions, 1, 147.
24. The Datívatãra cave temple has been attributed to
Dantidurga because of a fragmentary inscription
on the nandi-maridapa, a monolithic shrine which has
been carved out in the courtyard of that cave. The
record itself is incomplete and would suggest that
it was incised when probably the mantfapa only was
carved out while the work on the cave proper was
underway. We have already seen that Dantidurga's
campaigns would have left him very little leisure
to devote time to arts and hence we would like to
suggest that even the Da&vatára cave which may
have begun under Dantidurga, was completed under
Krishna I. This would explain the similarity between
the sculptures in the Daéivatâra and Kailasa; in fact
Sometimes we come across the same motifs executed
in an almost identical manner. Thus the nidhis on
the sikaara of the nandi-mantfapa of DasfivatSra at
the four cardinal points have exact parallels in the
iikhara of the front porch of Kailasa. See Jas.
Burgess, Report on the Elura Cave Temples and
the Brahmanical and the Jaina Caves in Western
India, ^Varanasi, 1970), Arch. Sur. of Western India,
Vol. V, pp. 87-89.
25. For a comparison of both panels see Ibid, PI. XXIV,
1-2.
26. Cousens, op.cit., Pl.XLVI.
 ♦KAILASA - THE STYLISTIC DEVELOPMENT AND CHRONOLOGY 45

27. Ibid, Pl.XLVII; Burgess, op. cit, Pl. XXV, 3. of some of its sculptures," IHQ, Vol XXXVI (I960),
28. Burgess, op.cit. P. XXIX, 3; Cousens op. cit., pp.
Pl.58-67.
XLVII. 37. Ibid.

29. Cousens, op.cit. Pl.XLVII; Burgess, op.cit. 38. Ibid, figs. 76-81.
P1.XXVI,2.
39. See K.R. Srinivasan in A.Ghosh (ed .),Jaina Art and
30. Cousens, op.cit., fig.20.
Architecture , Vol. I. (New Delhi, 1974). p.188.
?:X. Op.cit. p.94
40. H. Zimmern, The Art of Indian Asia, Vol. II, (New
ol. K.R. Srinivasan 'The Paliava Architecture of South
York, 1955), PI 24243.
India", Ancient India, No. 14 (1958), P1.LI- B.
41. Ibid. Pis. 219, 243 and 246.
33. I A. Vo.40. (1911), p.238. But Benjamin Rowland
42. Altekar, op.cit., pp. 118-19.
Jr. 's explanations is equally interesting. According to
43. "Kailasa - A Jyotirlinga at Ellora," IHQ, Vol.
him, "the profile of the building, with its central
XXXVI (1961), p. 80 ff.
spires, somewhat above the summits of the roof of
the mandapa, and Nandi porch, seems to follow the 44. R.C. Dhere, ' ' Prachin Marathi Vagmayatil
actual counter of the real Mount Kailasa in the Kailas Lene, " Jnaneshwar , Vol. 7, No. 4, (Nov. 1975)

Himalayas.", op.cit., p. 186. pp. 1-10.

34. A History of Far Eastern Art, (New York, year not 45. Ibid.

given) p. 199, fig. 239. 46. Ibid.

35. op.cit. p.99 47. V.V. Mirashi, Inscriptions of the Kalachuri-Chedi

36. For corroborative evidence see R. Sengupta, 'The Era, (CII, Vol. IV), Vol. II, (Ootacamund, 1955), pp.
Yajnasala of Kailasa at Ellora and the identification 555, 557, 561 and 563.

This content downloaded from

3.7.228.102 on Sun, 04 Sep 2022 06:08:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms