Tarangana Arhat Ajitnath Na Mahaprasadno Karapak Kon

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text in English, focusing on the central debate about the builder of the Ajitnath temple at Taranga:

The article, "Who is the Builder of the Great Temple of Arhat Ajitnath at Taranga?" by Madhusudan Dhaky, critically examines a recent scholarly article that challenges the traditional belief that the Chalukya king Kumarpal built the Ajitnath temple at Taranga. The traditional view, held within the Shvetambara Nirgrantha tradition and supported by ancient texts, attributes the temple's construction to Kumarpal. However, the new article by Mehta and Kothari suggests that the Dandanayak (commander) Abhayad was the builder.

Dhaky's article aims to review the arguments presented by Mehta and Kothari and offer his own critical analysis. He breaks down their claims and responds point by point.

Key Arguments and Dhaky's Observations:

1. Traditional Belief and "Prabhavakcharitra": Mehta and Kothari acknowledge the strong tradition attributing the temple to Kumarpal, citing "Prabhavakcharitra" which notes this in Vikrama Samvat 1334 (CE 1278). Dhaky supports this tradition by referencing a "Vividha Tirthastuti" by Muni Jinchandra, which also credits Kumarpal. Dhaky dates Jinchandra's work to after CE 1232 and likely before the Muslim invasion of CE 1304, suggesting the tradition was well-established by then. He also points to Merutunga in "Prabandhachintamani" (CE 1305) as another source attributing the temple to Kumarpal, implying the tradition was based on established historical knowledge. Dhaky argues that if the temple was not built by Kumarpal, an inscription from that time would have contradicted such an attribution.

2. Temple's Simplicity and Economic Strain: Mehta and Kothari raise doubts about the traditional attribution based on the "relatively simple jagati (plinth) and kamad-piece (base molding) of the Ajitnath temple," suggesting a possible economic constraint. They also note the absence of contemporary inscriptions within the temple itself. Dhaky counters by stating that while the temple's plinth is indeed simple, the overall temple structure is massive and of the "sandhara and meru" type. He elaborates on the detailed carvings, decorated plinths, and intricate latticework on the shikhar (spire), citing its dimensions as comparable to Kumarpal's Somnath temple. He argues that the grandeur of the temple contradicts the idea of economic hardship for the builder. Dhaky also draws a parallel with the temple built by Minister Vagbhatta on Shatrunjaya, which also omits the elaborate elephant, horse, and human pedestal layers. He suggests that the reduction in plinth height and layers at both Taranga and Shatrunjaya might be due to other reasons, not necessarily financial.

3. Somaprabhacharya's "Kumarapala Prathibodha": Mehta and Kothari highlight that "Prabhavakcharitra's" tradition might have emerged about a century after Kumarpal's death. They cite Somaprabhacharya's "Kumarapala Prathibodha" (CE 1185) as presenting a different tradition, attributing the temple's construction to Dandanayak Abhayadeva. Dhaky clarifies that the name in Somaprabhacharya's text is "Abhayad," not "Abhayadeva," and explains that the slight variation was likely to maintain metrical accuracy in the poetry. He provides evidence from "Brihad-gachchha-gurvali" (CE 1249) and an inscription at Girnar, which support "Abhayad" as the correct name and its prevalence in the 12th century.

   Dhaky then delves into Somaprabhacharya's "Aryakhputacharya Katha," where King Kumarpal states, "At that place, by my command, the temple of Ajit Jinendra was built by the commander Abhayad, son of Jasdev." Dhaky interprets "command" (आदेश - 'adesh') as indicating that Abhayad built the temple for the king, using royal funds, rather than on his own initiative. He supports this by referencing the "Kumara Vihar" built by Minister Vaghbhatta in Patan at the king's command, which Hemachandra also attributes to Kumarpal. Dhaky asserts that large "meru" type temples were typically built by major kings, citing examples like Siddhpur's Rudramahalaya by Siddharaja and Kumarpal's Somnath temple. He finds no evidence of wealthy ministers or officials building such grand structures on their own.

4. Abhad Vasaha and Abhayad: Mehta and Kothari attempt to link Abhad Vasaha, mentioned in "Laghupurabandha," with Abhayad, suggesting they might be the same person. They note that Abhad Vasaha is identified as a merchant in some texts, and a commander in others, and propose that this commander's influence increased during Kumarpal's reign. Dhaky refutes this by stating that "Abhad Vasaha" is consistently identified as a merchant in prominent texts and his father's name is not Yashodeva. He cites "Puratan-Prabandh-Sangraha" and "Harshapuriyagachchha's Rajshekharasuri's Prabandh-Kosh," which identify Abhad Vasaha as the son of Nagraj or Panag, respectively, prominent merchants. Dhaky also suggests that Abhay Kumar, appointed by Kumarpal to oversee a charitable feeding house, might be Abhad Vasaha, but clarifies that Abhad Vasaha was the son of Neminaag or Nrupnaag, not Yashodeva, and was never referred to as a commander in older texts. Thus, Dhaky concludes that Abhayad the Dandanayak and Abhad Vasaha the merchant are distinct individuals.

5. Economic Arrangements and Royal Authority: Mehta and Kothari speculate that Abhayad consulted with Jain monks and the Shri Sangh (Jain community) and obtained Kumarpal's permission for the temple construction. They suggest the simpler plinth and base molding indicate economic arrangements handled by Abhayad and the Shri Sangh. Dhaky reiterates his earlier point that the temple was a royal construction, with Abhayad likely overseeing the execution. He finds no evidence to support the idea of consultations with monks or financial contributions from the Shri Sangh. He maintains that the command for construction came directly from Kumarpal.

6. Astrological and Name Association: Mehta and Kothari suggest that Abhayad, as a Jain, would naturally seek the patronage of a Tirthankar whose life details (father Jitashatru, mother Vijaya, birthplace Ayodhya) aligned with his own. They also point to a phonetic similarity between "Abhayad" and "Ajitnath" (both starting with "A") as a possible astrological connection for choosing Ajitnath. Dhaky dismisses this as baseless speculation. He argues that Abhayad was a commander appointed by the king, not a sovereign ruler responsible for regional defense. He states that the temple was built by King Kumarpal, leaving no room for such conjectures. He further questions why Vimmal Shah, also a commander in the Abu region, built the Adinath temple there and not one dedicated to Ajitnath or "Vimalnath" based on his initial. He reiterates that the explanation in Hemachandra Suri's biography within "Prabhavakcharitra," which links the temple's construction to Kumarpal's vow after conquering Arnoraj, is more reliable.

7. Misidentification of Yashodeva and Yashodhaval: Mehta and Kothari equate "Jasdev" (father of Abhayad) with "Yashodhaval," a Mahamatya in an inscription from Malwa-Udaipur (CE 1162). Dhaky states that this equation lacks any literary or epigraphic evidence and calls it an unacceptable historical conjecture. He also points out that the authors even go so far as to make Yashodeva the brother of Dandanayak Abhayad.

Concluding Remarks:

Dhaky concludes by presenting a stone carving (Figure 5) found in the Taranga temple, depicting a horseback-riding royal figure. While Mehta and Kothari might interpret this as Abhayad, Dhaky believes it represents King Kumarpal himself, given the presence of a parasol bearer and attendants. He also notes the style aligns with Kumarpal's era (around CE 1165).

Dhaky speculates that the underlying aim of Mehta and Kothari's article might be to educate young students about the difference between sound research and speculative conclusions. He acknowledges their effort in contributing to the study of Gujarat's medieval history and architecture. Dhaky ends with a poignant note about the passing of Mehta, suggesting that Mehta would have likely accepted his conclusions with a smile.

In essence, Dhaky strongly defends the traditional attribution of the Taranga Ajitnath temple to King Kumarpal, presenting counter-arguments and evidence against the theory that Dandanayak Abhayad was the primary builder. He emphasizes the scale of the temple, the historical context of royal patronage for such structures, and the inaccuracies in the proposed alternative attribution.