Part 2 - The commemorative Ananta-Vasudeva temple inscription

( 2 THE COMMEMORATIVE INSCRIPTION OF THE ANANTA - VASUDEVA TEMPLE OF BHUBANESWAR. (Rectification of a century-old mistake ) 1. Introduction The following four stone inscriptions are known to belong to temples of Bhubaneswar which were "carried thence by Major-General Charles Stuart of the Bengal army."1 1. Inscription of Bhatta Bhavadeva now fixed ca the western compound wall of the Ananta-Vasudeva temple. II. Meghesvara inscription of Svapnesvaradeva 3 now fixed on the western compound wall of the Ananta-Vasudeva temple. III. Brahmesvara inscription of Kolavatidevi 4 mother of Maharajadhiraja Udyota Kesari, now lost. IV. Inscription of Chandradevi,5 now preserved in the hall of the Royal Asiatic Society, London 1. E. I., Vol. XIII, p. 159. 2. (a) Prinsep-JAS, B Vol. V 1837, pp. 82-97. (b) Mitra - Antiquities of Orissa, Vol II $30, pp. 85-87 (c) Kielhorn - EF, Vol VI, 1900-01, pp 203-207. (d) N. G. Majumdar Iuscriptions of Bengal, Vol. III, 1920, pp. 25-41. (e) N. N. Vasu - Castes and Sects of Bengal, Vo's. I & II. 3. 'a) Prinsep J. A. S B Vol VI, 1837, pp. 278-283, (b) N. N. Vasu - Ibid Vol. LXII, 1897 gr. 11-23. (c) Kielhorn E. I., Vol. VI, 1900-01, pr 193 23. 4. (a) Prinsep J. A. S. B., Vol, VII, 1838, pr. 557-562. (b) Mitra. Antiquities of Orissa, Vol. II, pp 87-89. 5. Barnett E. I., Vol. XIII, 1915-6, pp. 150-155.

(5) "The The first three inscription-slabs were kept in the Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal from where they were returned to Bhuvaneswar by the orders of the Committee of the Society in 1837 at the suggestion of Major Markham Kittoe 6 From the "List of donors and donations to the Museum of the Asiatic Society from January 1822" published as Appendix III of the Vol. XV (1825) of the Asiatic Researches, it is found that "General Stuart" donated eight Sanskrit stone inscriptions belonging to India out of which there were "two stones from Bhubaneswar in Orissa with Sanskrit inscripion". Indian Museum is the offspring of the Asiatic Society of Bengal which was founded in 1784. The question of the storage and preservation of various curiosities received from its members came up before the Society as early as 1796, but it was not until 1814 that the Society resolved to establish a Museum in the Society's premises to be divided into two sections, viz., (a) archaeological, ethnological and technical and (b) geological and zoological". No list of antiquities presented to the Society before 1814, is available and the first list was published as an appendix to the Asiatic Researches, Vol. XI, (1816) and all the subsequent volumes contain such a list up to the year 1836. No list mentions the name of Col. Mackenzie who visited Bhubaneswar and halted there from 5 th to 11 th of April, 1815 or of any other donor presenting anything from Orissa. Machenzie made several drawings of sculptures belonging to temples of Chandresvara of Bhubaneswar found from his manuscripts and drawings. as Now the doubt naturally arises as to how the committee of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, who only got 'two stones from Bhubaneswar" could identify three stone inscriptions belonging to that place and return them there for restoration to their original places? So it can safely be said that at least one slab containing the Sanskrit inscription does not belong to Bhubaneswar. In the present article I have made an attempt in correctly identifying the commemorative slab which was originally fixed to the 6. J. A. S. B. Vol. VI, p. 319 & Vol. VII, p. 557. 7. Asiatic Researches, Vol. XV, App. p. XXXV. 8. The Museums of India, 1936, p. 1 3. 9. J & P. A. S. B., Vol. IV. 1908. pp. 299-321.

F 1 Ananta-Vasudeva temple of Bhubaneswar. In 1929 I wrote the following in an article entitled "A note on the Bhuvaneswar Inscription of Chandra Devi 10: -- "It is not exactly known from which temple this inscription was removed by 'Colonel Stuart' to whose collection it belongs. The Editor of the Epigraph wrote the following in this connection :- The contents show that it was brought from Bhuvaneswar and it is impossible to discover from which of these temples it came It belongs to a Vaishnava sanctuary ant this fact excludes the Lingaraja and other Siva temples of the place. But it does not exclude the beautiful Rajarani temple and the Anantavasudeva temple, but the latter bears an inscription of Bhaun Bhavadeva. "I am inclined to sugget that this slab containing the inscription was removed from the Rajarami temple which has no cult-image within it. The inscription states that the temple built by Chandra Devi stood on the bank of Vindusagar and so an objection may naturally be raised against the identification proposed above." After writing this I have been informed that there is a tradition at Bhuvaneswar that the Rajarani temple was built by a wealthy prostitute for the God Siva, and the gate-keepers Chanda and Prachanda on the door jambs of this temple prove that it is a Siva temple, As the result of subsequent investigation, I venture now to put in writirg the following accounts which will show that Chandra Devi, and not Bhanu Bhavadeva is the real builder of the Ananta-Vasudeva temple of Bhuvaneswar. II. Criticism of the story of Identific»tion: Inscriptions Nos and 4 contain passages describing the locality, family and person well known in the history of Orissa, On the other hand the inscription No. 1 "mentions the three geographical divisions of old Bengal, Ganda, Radha and Vanga The village Siddhala, the beauty of Radha and the granted village of Hastinibhitta are untraceabie. According to some Siddhala lies in the Kalna sub-division of Burdwan district, it is very curious that the inscription makes no mention of Bhravan. & var where the temple was erected, or 10. J, B, & O. R. S Vol. XV. 1929, p. 282.

7 of the king of this tract" The records of the Asiatic Society of Bengal do not furnish us with any definite information as to how it came to the Museum of the Society. The editor of the Journal notes that "we cannot discover by whom the stone was presented to the Society."2 The slab was "marked No. 2" in the coli-ction of the Society's Museum. James Prinsep's following note published at page 724 of Vol. V, 1836, of the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal clearly gives an idea about this question. "Many of the inscriptions in our Museum bear no record, either of the places whence they came, or of their respe. ctive donors, Unless therefore they contain in themselves such infor_ mation as may supply a clue to their origin, the greater part of this work is lost. Publication in some cases may lead to their recognition, and this is one of my motives for including them in my present series of lithograph The inscription, marked No. 5. in the Museum (Plate XXXIII) is neatly cut on a stone, about 3 feet long by it feet broad " The manner in which its identification as belonging to Ananta- Vasudeva temple has been made, with convince any one that there was nct any datum to identify it with an inscription of a temple of Bhuvans- Swar Lieut. Markham Kittee who was Curator and Librarian to the Asiatic Society at Calcutta until 1938 13 visited Bhuvaneswar and Khandagiri during the cold weather of 1536 for examining the inser.ption published by Stirling in the Asiatic Researches. Vol. XV, p 313 and on that occasion he was fortunate to discover the Dhauli edict of Asoka. In the proceedings of the Society's meeting, dated the ard May, 1837, the following finds mention :- Lieut. Kittoe had met with obstructions in his enquiries from a mistrust of the resident Brahmins, which he found to originate in their temple having been robbed some years ago of slabs containing inscriptions, by some cificers: and he strongly urged the justice of 11. M. M. Chakravarti-J. & P. A. S. B.: N. S. Vol. VIII, 1912. pp. 340-41 12. J. A. S. B.. Vol. VI, 1837, p. 58. 13. A memoir of the Indian Surveys, Indon, 1678, p. 244.

[S] restoring any such that might have come into the Society's possessions. One he suspected, from its dimensions,14 was the identical one published in the Journal for February. "The Secretary stated that on examination he found this to be the case as a second inscription of precisely the same character, now under publication, containing the name of the Raja of Orissa, who founded Bhuvaneswar temple. The meeting resolved unanimously, the slab should be restored and the Lieutenant Kittoe had their warmest thanks for the suggestion."15 The following quotations from the notes of James Prinsep, the then Secretary to the Asiatic Society of Bengal on the inscription of Svapnesvara Deva and 'Brahmesvara inscription, from Cuttack, throw further light on this point. "The subject selected for this month's (April. 1837) illustration is a slab of dark stone marked No. 6 in the Society's Museum. Nothing is there recorded of its origin but the character in which it is cut (as may be seen by the lithographed specimen in pl XVII), from a similar stone of some what smaller size; and which publication has led, in rather a singular manner, to the discovery of the source whence both were derived, "Lieutenant Kittoe, as I have before mentioned was lately requested on the part of the society to re-examine the inscription on the Khandagiri rock, published in Stirling's memoirs on Cuttack (As Res, XV). In doing this he came most unexpectedly upon a number of highly curious ancient temples and inscriptions of wh ch he hastened to make drawings and facsimiles. He found himself impeded and foiled by the Brahmans of the spot, who even went so far 14. "Dimension of the slab.3 feet by 11 feet, marked No. 2" Vide plate VII J.A S.B., Vol. VI. The inscription slab of Chandra Devi is "3 feet 10 inches in width and one foot 81 inches in height." It is not known why Kittoe stressed so much on the dimensions of the slab, but they are not identical as found now. 15. J. A. S. B, Vol. VI, 1837. p. 319, Proceedings dated 3 rd May, 1837.

: as to obstract one of the copies which had cost him the most labour. Upon seeing the cause of so unusual a want of courtesy, the priests told him how their images and relics had been carried off by former antiquaries, and pointed out whence the commemorative slab had been actually cut out from the temples of Ananda-Vasudeva at Bhuvaneswar by late Colonel Saheb. The dimensions of the slab and the subject of invocation tallied so exactly with the inscription translated by Captain Marshall, that Lieutenant Kittoe wrote to me on the subject and on referring to the list of donations at the end of the eleventh volume 16 of Researches, I find General Stewart set down as the door of 'two slabs with inscriptions from Bhuvaneswar in Urisst', "There was nothing in the first of the two whence we could guess its locality; the person noted as the founder of the temple being a private individual, named Bhatta Sti Bhava Deva, but in the slab, now confidently conjectured to be its companion, we have a Raja's name and an estry which ought to afford a better clue.. The date of Raja An: nga Blima (1174 A D.) a'so agrees closely with what was assumed from the style of the alphabet, and the 'Samat 32' of the Basudeva slab, It will hence become a question whether the figures are, in all cases, to be referred to a Cuttack era, or whether the same Devanagiri a'phabet was in use from Shekorati to Benares, Dinajpur and Orissa, in the 12 th century, while each prince had then an era of his own. 6 * I cannot conclude these pre'iminary remarks without animadverting upon ruthless spoliation which is often crrried on by 16 I found the list in the 15 th volume of the Researches That the reference given here is wrong can also be proved from the following note given at page 881 of the Journal, Vol. VI of 1837. "The subject now to be explained is inscribed on an oblong slab of sandstone 4 ft. by which I conjecture to be one of those presented by General Stewart and inserted in the Catalogue of Vol, XV of the Asiatic Pesearches as 'a stone slab from Ajayagarh in Fundelkhand with Sanskrit inscription' or a 'stone bull a from Kabnjar with a Sanskrit inscription."

L 10 soi-disant antiquaries, to the perversion of the true object of research the preservation of ancient monuments, and their employment to elucidate the history of the country. The facts told by these two Bhuvaneswar stones were utterly unintelligible, until accident pointed out whence they had come and the local history of the temples was or would have been equally lost in another generation. It is to be hoped therefore that the Asiatic Society will hasten to restore them to their former positions. Such an aet will contribute ten fold to the true objects of cur institution by the confidence it will inspire in the minds of the people who now watch our explorus with jealousy, and with hold valuable information lest it should only yield to fresh acts of plunder and demolition. "Since writing the above, Iam happy to peceive that the Society has determined on the immediate restitution of the two sl. ba through Lieutenant Kittoe who has been requested to exp'ain that their removal was the act of an individual anjn verh d their sanction,n'ss they had been assured that the objets were going to decay, er held in no estimation where they were. "17 6 Besides the two s'aba of stones identitel last year as belonging to the Chuvaneswart mples, in Cuttack and cons.quentiy returned to the Brahmans after perusal, there was a thid brkn into two pieces, which Mr. Kittoe pointed out as being in the same ch racter and from the same locality Before returning this he kindly took for me a very exact impression, whence I have copied the reduced facsimile in plate XX.V The stone was, as stated above, returred to Bhuvaneswar; but Mr Kittoe did not find as he anticipatel any resulting cordiality or good-will amorg the priesthood of the place, on the contrary, they brought him a long list of purlined ilots, and impetuously urged Lim to procure their return as he had done that of inscriptions "Is Mr. Kittre did not lose any time in giving elkeet to the restoration of the inscription slabs of Bhuvan: var ace rding to the decision of the Asiatic Society arrived at the meeting of the 3 rd May of 1837 quoted above The following from the proceedings 17. JA. S. B. Vol. VII, 1837, gr. 278-10. 18. Ibid, Vol. VII, pp 507-58.

(11) of the Society, dated the 7 th June and 2 nd August, 1837, show that the inscription slabs of Bhuvaneswar were despatched to and arrived at Bhuvaneswar from Calcutta. "Lead a letter from Lieutenant Kittoe, stating that he had dispatched a cart to Tamlook to take down the Bhuvaneswar s'abs, the restoration of which had given the greatest satisfaction to the priests and pesrv." Vide Journal, Vol. VI p 402 Iieutenant Kittoe announced the safe arrival of the Ehuva- Deswar inscripcion sl bs which he was about to return to their resp.crive temples". Videp 617 These extracts red with Prinsep's note no the Brahmesvara inseripin, go to show that the inscription slab was returned along with inscription slabs of the Ananta Vasudeva and Meghesvara temples to Bhuvaneswar from Calcutta in 1837 As the inscription sub of the Brahmasvara temple is not found now, it may be inferred that either it was not despatched from Calcutta at all or it was left at some intern elite station by the cart driver on his way to Bhuvaneswar or it has been subsequently removed from the compound wall of the Ananta-Vasudeva temple and replaced with the Meghesvara slab by some one after the visit of Dr Rajendralal Mitra in 188) who found the slab struck to the wall It is now impossible to discover the truth until the rediscovery of the Brahm svara slab is made. However Lieutenant Kittoe's keen interest in the m tter of rostitution of the inscription sl.bs of Bhuvaneswar has done great barra in its temp'oyments to elucidate the history of the country and has put a ved over the eyes of the scholars for a period of one century and thereby the true object of research has been frustrated. the above quotation leaves enough room for doubting the identication of the inscription slob of Bhatta Bhavadeva ever belonging to the Ananta-Vasudeva temple of Bhuvaneswar. Neither Kittoe nor Prinsep has at ay note to show as to how they identified the slab under reference that at originally was fixed to the said temple: and the inscription itself does not furnish 115 with any independent evidence in this connection Their single evidence was the sim larity of character with another inscription from Bhuvaneswar. The knowledge in palacography, a century ago, was in its infancy

[ 12 ] and even a versatile scholar like Prinsep did not know that the character in north-eastern India or Pengal, Bihar and Orissa was the very same in form in that remote period It is not understood how Major Kittoe 'suspected' the inscription slab of Bhatta Bhavadeva to have originally belonged to the Ananta-Vasudeva temple. He was only informed at Bhuvaneswar "that the commemorative slab had been actualy cut out from the temple of Ananda (Ananta :) Fasudeva of Bhuvaneswar by a tolonel Saheb." Ferhaps the invocation-'Namo Bhagav te Vasudevaya - of the inscription mi-led him Prinsep had also such a notion as he described it as the 'Brasudeva slab'. It has been stated above as to how the register of antiquities of the Society's Museum was maint ined Bhatta Bhavadeva's inscription was 'marked No 2' whereas that of Svarnesvara Deva was 'marked No 6'. It is unfortunate that the number of the Brahmasvara slab was not noted by the editor Its number would be either 5 or 7 as two stone inscriptions from Bhuvaneswar were presented by Stuart in one occasion and therefore the recording of serial numbers would have been made at the time of donation. In the list of donations by "General Stewart" mentioned above, the following stone inscriptions of India are noted :-- 1. "A stone slab from Ajayagerh in Lundelkhand with Sanskrit inseription 2-3. "Two ditto from Burro Pitari near Bhilas with ditto. 4. "Another ditto from Oudipoor near ditto. 5 "Another ditto from Mahoba in Bundelkhand near ditto. 6-7 "Two stones from Bhubaneswar in Orissa with Sanskrit Inscription. 8. "One ditto from Ajayagerh" Two inscriptions from Bhuvaneswar are to be identified with the inscriptions of the Meghesvara and Brahmesvar temple and their numbers were marked 6 and 7 in Stuart's collection. It seems that Prinsep was in doubt about Kittos's identification when he wrote that "there was nothing in the first of the two whence we

( 15 ) could guess its locality." If any one of them would have questioned the propriety of identification of free slabs out of two from Bhuvaneswar, the mistake done would have been detected and verified in 1838 just a century ago. It will not be out of place here to mention two other instances of committing a similar mistake unknowingly like Prinsep and Kittoe, that have been repeated at a later period in connection with these inscriptions of Bhuvaneswar. Since 1837 the inscription slabs have been fixed on the western edmpound wall of the Ananta-Vasudeva temple. In 1880 Dr, Rajendralal Mitra did not write anything about the inscription of Svapnesvara Deva although the inscription slab was stuck to the same wall of the Ananta-Vasudeva temple. He thus writes:- "There are existing two large slabs stuck on the western wall of the courtyard of the famous temple (of Ananta-Vasudeva) learing Sanskrit inscriptions. One of these was originally intended for the temple of Brahmesvara, and the other for that of Ananta and Vasudevs. Both of them had been removed from their proper places by General Stewart, and deposited in the Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal at about the early part of this century. When Major (then Lieutenant) Kittoe visited Bhubaneswar in 1838 the priests complained bitterly of the sacrilege, and he suggested the restitution of the stones. The society readily permitted this, but in replacing them through some mistake or other, the Major selected the outer wall of the temple for both of them, instead of their respective places. Before making the restitution James Prinsep published transcripts and translations of both the records in the journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal".15 Writing on the Meghesvara inscription of Svapnesvara Deva of Orissa Mr. N, N. Vasu quotes the above extract and writes :- "I went personally to inspect those two slabs and made rubbings of both. Both the slabs now lie at the identical place where Dr. Rajendralal saw them. I was assured by the oid Pandas of 19. Antiquities of Orissa, Vol. II, p. 84.

( 14 ) the temple that they remained at the very spot from before the time of the Doctor's inspection, without suffering a change of place or alteration of any kind, 60 It is, indeed, surprising that there is no conformity at all of the Brahmesvara inscription described by the learned Doctor with the inscription I inspected. In fact, there is no Brahmesvara inscription at all in the temple. I am quite at a loss to determine how he identified this with the Brahmesvara slab. "As far as I am aware nobody has yet deciphered this inscrip. tion under notice." 20 Dr. Kielhorn's note on these two inscriptions runs as follows :- "The two inscriptions, of which I give an account here from excellent impressions prepared for Dr. Hultzsch by Mr. Krishna Sastri, are on the slabs of dark stone which are now in the Western wall of the courtyard of the temple of the Ananta-Vasudeva at Bhubaneswar in the Puri District of Orissa, two stones were taken away from Bhubaneswar and presented to the Asiatic Society of Bengal by General Stewart about 1810, but to please the people, they were returned to their original place in 1837. In the latter year the inscriptions were both edited with specimens of facsimiles of the character by Mr. Prinsep in the Jour. Bengal. As. Soc., Vol. VI, p. 89 ff., and p. 280 ff., the one here marked A and the inscription A has been edited again (ibid, Vol. LXVI, Part I, pp. 11.ff,) by Mr. Nagendra Nath Vasu, who was not aware of its having been published sixty years before" 21 In 1912 Mr. M.M. Chakravarti in his article entitled "Bhatta Bhavadeva of Bengal" published a photograph of the inscription of Svapnesvaradeva and wrongly described the same as the inscription of Bhatta Bhavadeva.22 If either Dr. Mitra, Mr. Vasu or Mr. Chakravarti could make a mistake inadvertantly, it is easy to imagine the difficulty of Prinsep and Kittoe. Raghavendra Kavisekhara's genealogical account has been cited as a corroborative evidence in support of the identification of 20. J. A. S. B., Vol. LXVI, 1897, pp. 11-12. 21. E I. Vol. VI, p. 198. 22. J and P. A, S. B., Vol, VIII, pp. 338 and 342 and pt. XIX,

[ 15 ] Bhatta Bhavadeva's inscription belonging to Bhuvaneswar and so I like to discuss below its historical value. Prachyavidyamaharnava N. N. Vasu had first some doubt as to the exact temple from which the inscription of Bhatta Bhavadeva was removed. He wrote :- "When we first read the contents of this eulogium, it struck us as to how a Bengali Brahmin of Radha country could have built this magnificent monument in a foreign country like Utkala."23 But this doubt was removed when he unexpectedly found a passage in the genealogical account composed by Raghavendra Kavisekhara in 1660 AD, which mentions that Harivarmadeva whose valour was proclaimmed in many countries like-Anga, Vanga and Kalinga. 24 (Vangangakalingadyaseshajanapadabahumatadbhutakarma) erected one hundred and eight temples for various gods at Ekamrakshetra. Raghavendra Kavisekhara's account runs thus:- "Sri Ekamra-kanana-pratishthapita Hari-Hara-vaidehi-Raghava Lakshmana manda gandhaprasu prasuna - patalasaundaryadinyakrta Nandanakanana - vaibhava paramamedamayodyana -samalamkrta - surapatha. samsparti.Sundara-mandiramandakini-vimala-kilala kamala-kalharendi- Hanumatadyashtottarasatadbhutavaijayantivibhushita vara-sonaravindavandasamsobhita-suvisala-sarovara-sambatih,"25 On the authority of this account Mr. Vasu came to the conclusion that "when Harivarmadeva erected hundreds of temples at Bhubaneswar, it was no wonder on the part of his chief minister to build the Ananta-Vasudeva temple during his reign "26 At page ix of this book we find that the title 'Gaudodravangadhipa' or the over-lord of Gauda, Odra and Vanga, has been applied to Maharaja Harivarmadeva. On the other hand these titles are not found either in the account of Raghavendra Kavisekhara or in the copper-plate grant of Harivarmadeva which was published by him. Commenting on the copper-plate grant of Harivarmadeva Mr. N.G. Majumdar has written the following:- 23. Castes and Sects of Bengal, Vol. II, pp. 6, XIV-XV in Bengali. 24. Ibid., p. 6 (ii). 25. Ibid., p. 6 ii. 26. Ibid., p. 6 xv,

[ 16 ] am "A very indistinct photograph of only one side of the plate is given by Mr. N. N. Vasu in his Castes and Sects of Bengal Vol. II. frontispiece. On pages 215-17 he also has given an extremely tentative reading of portion of the document, which I afraid, is too conjectural to be utilised for historical purposes: No where in Mr. Vasu's tentative reading of the copper-plate of Hari-varmadeva we find any title like 'Gaudodravangadhipa or any information of erecting temples at Bhuvaneswar as are met with in Raghavendra's account which was composed, it is stated, on the basis of traditions and older genealogical accounts The annual report of the Dacca Museum for 1936-37 mentions that the Samantasar copper plate of Hari varmadeva has been acquired for the Museum and Dr. N. K. Bhattasali remarks that the text of Mr. Vasu "was vitiated by preconceived readings." Mr. M.M. Ganguli took this unreliable account of Raghavendra to bea "copper plate inscription" and wrote thus :- "We learn from a copper-plate inscription composed by Raghavendra Kavisekhara that Harivarma Deva was a king of Bengal, and the seat of his government was Vikramapura,"28 "On going through the inscription of Raghavendra Kavisekhara referred to at page 379, I am convinced that the palace with the temple of Rameswara was built by Harivarma Deva, the king of Bengal, in the beginning of the eleventh century A. D.We learn from the inscription that Harivarmadeva built 108 temples of Hara, Hari, Rama, Sita, Lakshmana and Hanuman in Ekamra Kanana and laid ont flower gardens, etc. The site, now in a ruinous state, was occupied by his garden and garden houses. The temple of Sita, Lakshmana and Hanuman still cluster round the temple of Rameswar."29 " Commenting on the authenticity of genealogical accounts of Bengal which narrate that Adi Sura brought Brahmins of fire gotras to Bengal, Mr. R. P. Chanda is of opinion that on the contradictory evidence that we meet in the eulogium of Bhatta Bhavadeva of Bhuvaneswar against the story of bringing Brahmins belonging to Savarna Gotra, doubts naturally arise in our mind as to the historical truth of the story of Adi Sura. So long as any copper-plate or stone 27. Inscriptions of Bengal, Vol. III, p 168. 28. Orissa and Her Remains, 1919, p. 379. 29. Ibid pp. 390-91,

[ 17 ] inscription dispel this doubt, it is quite useless to make an attempt in compiling the history of Adi Sura on the authority of self-contradictory genealogical accounts."30 So until and unless any genuine and contemporary records of Harivarma Deva showing his supremacy over Orissa is found, it is equally useless to accept the views advanced by some scholars on these points It is quite possible for any Hindu monarch or his minister to erect temples in a place of pilgrimage like Bhuvaneswar and put commemorative inscriptions in them and no one would ever object to doing such religious work even in another kingdom where the question of political supremacy does not arise at all, It may be that Raghavendra Kavisekhara's 'Bhavabhumi vartta' was composed with historical data, but the date of the manuscript has not been clearly established and, moreover, it does not refer directly even to Bhatta Bhavadeva, All these facts lead to the conclusion that the Ananta Vasudeva temple of Bhuvaneswar was not built by Bhatta Bhavadeva of the village of Siddhala in Radha country, who built the temple of Narayana in his native village. III. Deities of the Ananta-Vasudeva Temple and their reference in the Inscriptions of Bhatta Bhavadeva and Chandradevi The inscription of Bhatta Bhavadeva mentions in verse 3 that the village Siddhala is the ornament of Radha where his forefathers dwelt. In verses 4 to 25, the poet describes the versatile qualifications and fortunes of Bhatta Bhavadeva and then in verse 26 Radha country is again described where, on the outskirts of a village, he excavated a tank for the supply of water to the public. Inverses 27, 28 and 29 mention is made of his installing a stone image of Narayana (V.27) and of building a temple for him (V 28) and of building the images of Narayana, Ananta and Nrsimha in the niches of the said temple (V, 29). The strain of description lends support to the suggestion that all these works were done in the Siddhala village mentioned in verse 31 Mr. N. G. Majumdar rightly remarks:- "The name of the village is not mentioned. 20. Gaudarajawala. 1915, r. 59.

[ 18 ] It was evidently Siddhala, the home of Bhavadeva."31 He again notes at p 192 "some writers identify Siddhala with the present village of Siddhala near Ahmadpur in Birbhum district' (Vide Birbhum Vivarana by Harekrishna Mukherji) In the J. R.AS, 1935. pp 97-99, Dr N.K Bhattasali notes this stating that it 'may be correct." Verse 28 describes the temple erected by Bhatta Bhava Deva. The poet compares this edifice which surpasses the charms of the abode of Indra, with Siva's abode Kailasa for its height, Hari's for its beauty, ornamentation and flashing discus Beholding its attractiveness even Siva is desirous of abandoning Kailasa, his abode. a The above description suits well to a temple standing in solitary place, but such description of one in the vicinity of earlier temples, such as the Great Lingaraja and Brahmesvara, is beyond the conception of any poet Had the Ananta-Vasudeva temple been loftier than the Lingaraja temple, there was no difficulty in accepting the truth in the fancy of the poet The following suggestion of Mr. N.G Majumdar would have been quite correct if the date of the Ananta-Vasudeva temple would have been earlier than that of Lingaraja or Brahmesvara:----- "It is rather tempting to suggest that the poet here is reminded of the existence of Tribhuvanesvara (Lingaraja) close to Ananta- Vasudeva. According to Vaishnavite tradition Siva asked the permission of Vasudeva to stay in Ekamrakshetra (i.e Bhuvaneswar) and the latter granted it."32 This tradition has got nothing to do with the construction of the temples at Bhuvaneswar, It only establishes the supremacy of Vaishnavism over Saivism. The images known as Narayana, Ananta and Nrsimha by name (Narayanananta-nrsimha murtti), were installed (v. 29) in the niches of the temple of Narayara built by Bhatta Bhavadeva. Due to mistake in identifying the images of the niches of this temple with the cult images of the Ananta-Vasudeva temple, all writers have been misled in expressing their views, The views of previous writers on this point are quoted below :- 31. Inscriptions of Bengal Vol. III, p. 28 and Note No. 1. 32. Ibid., p. 40, Note No, 6,

( 19 ) Dr. Rajendralal Mitra writes as follows about the images of the Ananta-Vasudeva temple : "The presiding divinities of the temple are two brothers Balarama and Krishna under the names of Ananta, 'the eternal' and Vasudeva The images are of very coarse make and about 5 ft high The figure of Ananta has over its head a canopy formed by the expanded hood of a many headed cobra. Though the temple is occupied by two images, it is held to belong exclusicely to Vishnu... 33 Mr. M M Ganguly mentions that "the temple of Ananta- Vasudeva is a Vaishnavite one dedicated to Ananta and Vasudeva or Balarama and Krishna, a dual image of whom is enshrined in the vimana."31 Dr. Mitra's two images have been represented in a single image in the account of Mr Ganguly who perkaps did not see the images at all. His conception of the single image of Ananta-Vasudeva is perhaps due to the idea of the image of Harihara, Mr. M.M. Chakravarti has written the following:- "From the inscription one learns that Bhavadeva built a high wheel-crested temple, placed in its inner sanctum the images of Vasudeva, Ananta and Nrsimha.." "..... Within the inner sanctum may be seen the three images (not two as Dr. Mitra says) "35 Mr. Gurudas Sarkar alse supports the views of Mr. M. M. Chakravarti.36 The verse 29 has been translated by various scholars. (1) Captain G.T. Marshall translated it as follows:- 33. Antiquities of Orissa Vol. II, p. 84. 34. Orissa and Her Remains, P. 369 35. J. and P. S. B.. Vol, VIII, p. 33 S, 36. 'Mandirer Katha. (Bengali)

[ 20 ] "He (Bhavadeva) placed in that house of Vishnu, in the innermost sanctuaries, the images of Narayana, Ananta and Nrsimha, as the Vedas in the mouths of Bramhs "37 (2) Dr Rajendralal Mitra published this translation in his Antiquities of Orissa, Vol. II, p. 86. (3) Dr. Kielhorn summarised the contents of the verses as follows:- "This Bhavadeva, then, had a reservoir of water constructed in the country of Radha (V 26) Moreover, at the place, where the inscription is, he set up a stone image of Narayana (Vishnu) (V 27) and founded a temple of God (V.28) in which he placed images of his in the forms of Narayana, Ananta and Nrsimha (V 29).38 Like Captain Marshall and Dr Mitra, Mr. N. N. Vasn interpreted the verse to mean that three images were placed in the Garbhagriha of the temple 39 Mr. N. G. Majumdar also translated this verse 29 in the same way as follows :- "(Verse 29) There, in Vishnu's temple in the respective sanctums (Garbhagrihas) be ardently placed images of the god in the form of Narayana, Ananta and Nrsimha like the (three) Vedas in the mouths of the creator (i e., Bramha)."40 None of the above scholars, excepting Dr. Kielhorn, has been able to fully interprete the verse in its real sense. Mr. Majumdar's reading is not grammatically correct as he has put 'i' in place of 'i' in the werd murttih which is murttah, the plural form of murtti in the objective declension unless it is a printing mistake. Garbhagriha is an achitectural term signifying a single room with one door. But in the inscription we find the plural form in the locative of the word 'Garbhagrihantara' situated in the 'Vesma' erected 37. J. A. S. B., Vol. VI. p. 97, 38. E. I. Vol. VI, p. 204. 39. Castes and Sects of Ben ral, Vol. I, p. 349. 40. Inscriptions of Bengal, Vol. III, p. 49.

[ [ for the god I consider it to be a technical term of the archit eture sigui fying the places exterior or attached to the sanctum, that is, the three niches of the temple, wherein Parsvadevatas are placed. If it is taken in this sense, 1.2., antara means bahirbhaga (out side) and not inside, the translation of verse 29 will stand as follows :- There in the Visho's temple, in three respective niches out. side the sanctum, he ardently placed the images of gods. Narayana, Ananta and Nesimha like the three Vedas in the mouths of Bramca. It may be said here that only three faces out of four of Bramha are represented in sculpture and three parsvadevatas of this temple have been compared here with three faces of Bramha reptesantine three Vedas (Vedatrayi). However none of these images with the exception of Nrsimha which occupied the eastern niche but is now missing are found to occupy the temple and the priests of the temple do not know any existence of Narayana, Ananta and Nesimha in the Garbhagriha. They perform the daily worship of Ananta (Balarama) Vasudeva (Jagannatha) and Subbadra, and while doing so they recite the following dhyana of each god :- 1. Dhyana of Vasudeva: kalabhranjanapunjasundaramukha ' padmabhilasammita sakradyamarabanditapadyugah sankharava hudvayam anandaplutabaridhi prabhajata saukhaikahetu tribhu samsararnavatarana ' trijagatamnatha bhaje kesabama || 2. Dhyana of Ananta or Balarama: dobhyarthi sobhitalangala ' sampanna kadamvaricancala ratnairascitakundala ' mujabalairakrantabhumandalama bajrabham guruvamagandayugalam nagendracudojjvala ' samgrame capala sasangadhabala ' srikamapala bhane || 3. Dhyana of Subhadra : nanabhusanabhusitam sumanasa manandakallolinim phulendivaranilalolanayanam sriramakrsnanutrama

[ 22 ] sarvabhistaphalapradananiratam trailokyasammohinim devesim bhabaduhkhadahasamanim devim subhadram bhaje || The description of three images, which are worshipped in the Ananta-Vasudeva temple, is given below :- 1 The standing image of Ananta measures 55" x 18" It has a seven-hooded snake canopy and two hands. The right hand holds the Hala (Plough) and left hand Mushala. There is a head-dress (Mukuta) which is very indistinct The outer garment bangs from the left shoulder with a knot near the right knee A similar image of Ananta is fixed to the raised wall at the bathing ghat of Bindusagara in front of the Ananta-Vasudeva temple. 2. The standing image of Subhadra measures 40" X 17". A temple - decoration is carved on its back slab and there are two fullblown lotuses above the head of the image. The image itself stands on a lotus pedestal. Two palms are broken. The image is decorated with a Vanama'a and other ornaments Two female attendants are found standing on her each side 3. The standing image of Vasudeva measures 58" X 18" It has a semicircular halo. There is the mukuta on its head and it wears a sacred thread. The image has four hands, the left upper hand holds a conch or Sankha and the lower hand a discus or Chakra; the right upper hand holds a Gada and the lower hand holds a Lotus-bud. The image has two silver eyes which perhaps have been put by the priests. This piece of sculpture is similar in design to that of the Bindusagara tank in front of the Ananta Vasudeva temple. All the three images stand on one stone platform facing to the west and have been fixed at the back with the masonary construction. The images of Matangi Mahalakshmi measuring 34" X 211" is kept in the south-west corner of the sanctum and a stone pillar known as Sudarsana is also kept at her side. If we take the above images of Vasudeva to be the very same with Narayana of Bhatta Bhavadeva's inscription, we get the image of Vasudeva and Ananta in place of "Narayana and Ananta" of the said inscription.. But how does a female image come in to occupy the place of Nrsimha ? On enquiry, I learnt that the priests do not know

[23] anything about the image of Nrsimha and their old palm-leaf manuscript which are read in the procedure of worship of these gods, are silent about Nrsimha, The priests informed me that there are only two Nrsimha images at Bhuvanes war, one the Ugra Nrsimha in the Uttaresvara temple and another the Lakshmi Nrsimha in a temple facing west on the scuthern side of the compound of the Lingaraja temple. The image of Nrsimha of the Uttaresvara temple does not originally belong to that temple as it is kept now in the Natamandira, It measures 46"x 23". The width of space occupied by the image of Subhadra is only 17" and so an image of 23" wide cannot be put in there. But the dimensions of the image of Nasimha are exactly similar to the eastern niche the of temple which is generally in all Vaishnava temples occupied by the image of Nrsimha and the carvings and dimensions of this image are identical with that of the images of Vamana in the northern niche and Veraha in the southern niche of the temple. So the image of Nrsimha of the Uttaresvara temple can be identified with the image of the eastern niche and not of the sanctum of the Ananta-Vasudeva temple. It seems that it was removed along with the commemorative inscription by Major Stuart from the temple and left at his camp for some reason or other. The image of Lakshmi-Nisimha of the Lingaraja temple compound measuring 64" x 32" is in a temple occupying an independent position and for it there is no space at all on the stone pedestal of the cult images of the Ananta-Vasudeva temple. There is also another temple known 49 Anantesvara facing north on the southern side of the Lingaraja temple compound. The workmanship of these images is different from that of the images of the Ananta-Vasudeva temple which are no doubt earlier, These images are also called Ananta, Vasudeva and Subhadra and their description is given below. The image of Ananta measures 47"x 10". The back slab has a trifoliate arch with a Makara design at each end. The canopy consists of seven snake-hoods and there are two Vidyadharis on back slab beyond the hood. The 5 th and 6 th hoods from left are broken. Both the hands are broken from the elbow. The image stands on two other lotuses at the extremity of each side and two devotees sit on the intermediate lotuses. All these five lotuses are carved on a single lotus pedestal. The image bas mukuta, sacred thread, necklace and garland of wild flowers (Vanamala).

[ 34 1 The image of Subhadra measures 32 X 14', There fa a trifoliate arch on the back slab. At both ends of the arch there are two Vidyadharis holding garlands. Her right hand is broken and she holds the petals of a full-blown lotns which emerges from the lotus pedestal with her left hand. The image stands on the middle one of the three lotuses and the remaining two are virant The image of Jagannatha or Vasudeva measures 43" X 19". In the middle of the trifoliate arch a Rahumukha is carved and on each side of the Rahumukha, there is one female riding on a flying male Vidhyadhara. At the two Makara (crocodile) bases of the arch there are two images of Garuda. It has two hands and not four like the images of the Ananta-Vasudeva tempie. As the hands are broken at the elbow no weapons are found now. The image possesses necklace of Kaustubha, secred thread and garland of wild flowers The image stands on the middle lotus out of five and on the right there is the image of Lakshmi holding a lotus and standing on the lotus flower at the side, and on the left there is the image of Sarasvati playing on the Vi song. There are two devotees, now broken, on two lotus seats on each side between the middle one and the two end ones. All the three images stand on a common pedestal which has been divided into three compartments by insertion of four pilasters lending support to a projection. One pilaster to the right of Ananta is missing and so also a portion of the projection. 49 The images of the Ananta-Vasudeva temple and that of the Ananteswar temple are found to be made according to the texts of the Hayasirsha Pancharatra, Matsya purana and Pratistha-prasanga quoted in the Haribhakti-Vilasa. Mention of Purusottama, Balarama Srikrsna and Subhadra in the epigraph of Chandradevi also indicates that the texts of Pratisthaprasanya was very farmiliar im Orissa in the 13 th century A. D. The name of the Ananta-Vasudeva temple is very significant, Rai Bahadur KP. Chanda writes the following in this connection :- "In all available exposition of the Pancharatra system, Vasudeva is mentioned first and is followed by Samkarsana. But in both of our inscriptions (of second century B. C.) the order is changed Samkarsana is named first and vasudeva comes as the second. The mention of Samkarsana first and Vasudeva afterwards in two records

25 ] of such two distant places as Ghasundi in Rajputana and Nanaghat in the Deccan, shows that in those days Samkarsaba was popularly recognised as a divinity equalling Vasudeva in rank" 41 The names of Jagannatha, Balabhadra and Subhadra of Puri on this analogy seem to be of remoter antiquity and "may perhaps be the last remnants of the primitive un Vedic Pancharatra 1 al 12 When the images of the inscription of Bhana Bhavadera cannot be identified with those of the Ananta-Vasudeva temple, it can safely be said that Bhatta Bhavadeva, the minister of Harivarmadeva, did not build the temple of Ananta-Vasudeva at Bhuvaneswar The Inscription slab, which is fixed now on its compourd wall, was identified by mistake to be its commemorative slab Then where is the inscription slab of this temple which was removed from it by Major Stuart ? According to the text of inscription No. 4, it can be said with certainty that Chandradevi built the present Ananta-Vasudeva temple The deities namely Balarama, Krsna and Subhadra (Bala-Kispa- Subhdramcha) mentioned in the inscription are even now worshipped in the temple The locality and the position of the temple at Bhuvaneswar remain the same according to the description given in the inscription of Chandradevi Mention is made in the inscription of Bhatta Bhavadeva that in the front of the temple he excavated a tank ( verse 31 ) and outside the temple laid out a garden (verso 32). This vapi or tank of the inscription of Bhatta Bhavadera has been identified with Vindu-sagara of Bhuvaneswar. Mr. N. G. Majumdar writes that "the tank referred to in the inscription is no longer traceable and some scholars are of opinion that it has been probably absorbed in the tank of Vindusagara;".43 The poet Vachaspati of Bhatta Bhavadeva's inscription does not give any religious importance to the tank, but the poet Umapati of the inscription of Chandradevi written in 1278 A D puts it saying that these holy places do not attain the divine rank of even a drop thereof 1'44 and this statement of Umapati seems to have been based on the authenticity of the Garuda purana which mentions the surevity of the Vindusagara. The date of 41. Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 5, p.121. 42. Indo-Aryan Races, p. 121. 43, Inscriptions of Bengal, Vol. III., p. 32. 44. E. 1. Vol. XIII. p. 154.

(26) Bhatti Bhavadeva's inscription according to the calculation of Mr Majumdar has been estimated as be onging to the "first quarter of the 12 th century and even the last quarter of the 11 th century A. D.," 45 and if Mr. M. M Chakravarti's sugestion about the absorption of the tank dug by Bhatta Bhavadeva in the Vinduwagara at a subsequert period to that of the first quarter of the 12 th century A. D. is aceptes, the attainment of the divine rank of Vindusagara is to be attributed to a period of less than 100 years from the time of the poet Umapati which is perhaps untenable The descriptions given in the Ekamra.chandrika, Kapilasamhita, Svarpadrimahodaya and kamra purans go to show that in the Avanta-Vasudeva temp'e are enshrined the stone images of Jagannath. Balabhadra and Subhadra which are known as 'Silabrahma' whereas such images at Furi are known as Carubrahma'. to The above four Upapuranas faithfully record the religious traditions sacred the Ananta-Va-udeva temple and the Vindusagara taak of Bhuvaneswar and it will be observed from the books that no- where rames of 'Narayanananta-Arsimha' Gr Narayanan-nta' from the inscription of Bhatta Bhavadeva, occur; and this goes, to some extent, against the identification of the tempe of Ananta Vasudeva with that built by Bhatta Bhavadeva. whereas, on the other hand, the inscription of Chandradevi, daughter of a Caiga King of Orisca, makes distinct mention of gods Srikr-na, Balarama, Subhadia, and of Purusottama in verses 13, 21 and 23 which are found in the above-named Upapuranas. There are also two temples stili standing in a dilapidated condition in the compound of the Ananta-Vasudeva temple dedicated to goddesses Lakshmi and Sarasvati These temples were built in imitation of such temples in the compound of the Jagannatha temple at Puri. From all these points ore is arrived at a definite conclusion that the inscription slab of Bhetta Bhavadeva identifieed as the inse iption of the Ananta. Vasudeva temple and subs quen ly returned to Bhuvaneswar and fixed in its present po-ition, does not belong to Bhuvaneswar, it originally belonged to the temple of Marayana or Ananta-parayana erected at the village Siddhala in Badha or Uttara Radha (according to the Belava copperplate of Bhoja Varman) from where it was brought to the collection of 45. Inscriptions of Bengal Vol. III. p. 32

[ 27 ] the Asiatic Society of Benga'; Calcutta, by some antiquarian whose name was not recorded in the list of donors of the Asiatic Society. Had it not belonged to the collection of the Asiatic Society of Calcutta, there would have been left a chance of its being considered as an inscription from Phuvaneswar, but its return from the collection of the Asiatic Society of Ca is unquestionable and so there is no doubt about the fact that the inscription of Chandradevi, now preserved by the Royal Asiatic Society of London, is the original slab of the Ananta-Vasudeva temple of Bhuvaneswar. It is als) desirable that if the original slab cannot be brought back from London, a plaster cast of it may be put at the place of Bhatta Bhavadeva's inscription which may be removed from Bhuvaneswar and preserved in the Indian Museum in Calcutta or in the Museum at Bhubaneswar. Stone images of Ananta or Balarama, Vasudeva or Krana and Subhadra were identified in his article on 'Ekanamsa and Subhadra' first by my friend late Mr Jogendra Chandra Ghosh to whom I owe many suggestions; it was published in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Letters, Vol. II, 1933, No 1, pp 41-46, together with a plate showing a set of images preserved in the Lucknow Museum It will appear from what I have narrated above that there are three such sets or sculptures at Bhuvaneswar. The catalogue of antiquities of the Cwalior Museum contains a photograph of images of Balarama and it is expected that such sculptures are scattered in other parts of India A proper Survey of these three Vaishnava images will enable ns to locate the where the Pancharatra system of worship was prevalent and popular in ancient and mediaeval periods of Indian History. area In conclusion I acknowledge with thanks various suggestions which I received from 'r Kedarnath Mahapatra of Bhuvanes war Thanks are dne also to my friends Pandit Binayak Mishra and Pand Bhagavan Panda for helping me in preparing the correct reading of the text of the inscription of Chandradevi from a photograph which, was collected for the Baripada Museum of the Mayurbhanj state through the kind permission of the Secretary of the Royal Asiatic Society of London * A plaster cast of Chandra Devi's inscription is now preserved in the Orissa State Museum, Bhubaneswar.

1 1 Rao Bahadur K. N. Diklat M. A, Duertor General of Archaeology in India, visited Bhuvaneswar in early January, 1939, and I had the privilege of showing him the images of the Ananta- Vasudeva and Ananteswar temples and on examination he was pleased to agree with my identification. I had the opportunity of discussing this with Dr. R. C. Majumdar who expressed his appreciation a promised me to make arrangements for its early publication in the 'Journal of the Royal Asiati Society of Bengal', the General Secretary of which kept it pending for publication since June, 1937. and returned the same at my request in March, 1989. Out of three inscription slabs removed from the temples of Brahmesvara, Meghesvara and Ananta-Vasudeva of Bhuvaneswar by Major Stuart, popularly called "Hindoo Stuart", two slabs belonging to the temples of Brahmesvara and Meghesvara were presented by him to the Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, and the slab belonging to the Ananta- Vasudeva temple found its way to the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, London, in a manner quite unknown now. The published text of the Meghesvara inscription is found to be satis-factory, but the texts of the other two inscriptions, and particularly the text of the Brahmesvara inscription, have been improved to some extent and I intend to re-edit them shortly.