Fort as well as on the congregational mosque in Burhanpur. On a pillar inside
the mosque within Asirgarh fort, Nāmī writes:

The world-subduing and world bestowing Sovereign, Akbar Bādshāh, con-
quered Asīr(garh) by dint of his youthful good fortune. When Nāmī sought
the date of its conquest, wisdom said [the chronogram] “He took the hill of
Asīr.”<fnref n="24" />

Similarly, a rock outside of the main gate of the fortress also bears an inscription completed by Nāmī, commemorating the event. Another similar verse, also executed by Nāmī, is found on the base of the southern minaret of the Jamī‘ mosque built by ʿĀdil Shāh IV Fārūqī in Burhanpur. Nāmī again writes:

> His majesty the emperor with the audience hall of the sky, the shadow of God,
> made Burhānpur the camping ground of the victorious standards, and
> Bahādur Khān, having presented himself, was granted the favour of paying
> obeisance (and) the emperor pardoned his as well as his dependants' lives.
> And the fort of Asīr was taken.<fnref n="25" />

These two inscriptions, set at two of the most important sites of the Fārūqī Sultans' power, mark the end of their two-hundred-year rule in Khandesh<fnref n="26" /> at their two most important sites of power. The annexation into the Mughal imperium is marked by a new epigraphical language of power, Persian, literally inscribed over ʿĀdil Shāh IV's creative marshalling of Sanskrit and Arabic.

In the end then, ʿĀdil Shāh IV’s project was a failure; however, attention to
his epigraphical texts in material and historical contexts provides perhaps a
small window into the dynamic cultural history of Sanskrit beyond cosmopolit-
anism. As one final note, in his edition of the Sanskrit inscription Hira Lal
(1907–08, 306) writes the following note: “I have seen some Sanskrit manu-
scripts in Persian character in the possession of some Maulvīs of Burhânpûr,
preserved as heirlooms from their ancestors, who apparently studied them un-
der State encouragement. Unfortunately, most of these valuable records have
been destroyed by the fires of 1897 and 1906 which caused damage to the extent
of about 57 lakhs besides loss of life.” While in all likelihood the Sanskrit texts of
the maulvīs are all irrevocably lost (and their families are most likely long gone
from Burhanpur), such a comment reminds the modern scholar to look for
traces of the vibrant and creative multilingualism of the sultanates, and to read

<footnote n="24">24 Translation from Kuraishī (1926, 4).</footnote>

<footnote n="25">25 Translation from Rahim (1962, 73).</footnote>

<footnote n="26">26 The dating is slightly problematic. The dating of the *Burhanpur mosque inscription* seems to be more accurate. See the discussion by Rahim (1961, 72–74).</footnote>
inscriptional texts like those of ʿĀdil Shāh IV as hints toward the dynamic poli-
tics of language and self-presentation in sultanate South Asia. To this end, the
bilingual inscriptions of the Fārūqīs of Khandesh remain as a testament to the
creative deployment of Sanskrit in Islamicate or perhaps even Islamic contexts.

Primary sources

See page xvi about references to primary sources.

ʿAin-i Akbari by Abū’l-Fażl-i ʿĀllamī: translation, Jarrett and Sarkar (1949).

*Asirgarh mosque inscription of ʿĀdil Shāh IV: Sanskrit and Arabic parts, Kuraiṣhī*
(1926, 1–9).

*Burhanpur mosque inscription of ʿĀdil Shāh IV: Sanskrit part, Salomon (1998, 305–7), also edited by Hira Lal (1907–08, 306–10); Arabic part, Rahim (1961, 49–58).*

*Sunan Ibn Mājah by Ibn Mājah: translation, Khattab (2007).*

*Tārikh-i Firishta by Muḥammad Qāsim Firishta: Briggs (1829).*<fnref n="27" />

<footnote n="27">27 Briggs’s spellings have been updated and standardised.</footnote>
DOI: 10.13173/9783447122306.207

This is an open access file distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.
# A Tale of Two Courts: Records of Kachavāhā *mahārājas*
in Digambara Jaina memorials

Tillo Detige

Ruhr-Universität Bochum,
CERES

## 1. Introduction

Throughout most of the second millennium, the Digambara Jaina mendicant traditions were led by lineages of *bhaṭṭārakas*. The *bhaṭṭārakas* of Western India were venerated as ideal, paramount renouncers by ascetic and lay Digambara communities, but also carried important socio-political functions. They developed and maintained links with rulers on behalf of merchant communities, often setting up their own seats in royal and imperial capitals. In this chapter, I focus on the inscriptions of ten mid-17th-to-19th-century Digambara memorial stones commemorating *bhaṭṭārakas* and lay *paṇḍitas* related to what I call the *Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā*, the Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa ascetic lineage which was active in the *Dhūṇḍhāḍa* region of present-day Rajasthan (Figure 1 in section 5 below). These inscriptions consistently and elegantly defer to the reigning Kachavāhā dynasty *mahārājas* of Amer (Āmera) and Jaipur (Jayapura). A mere few other examples are found of such references to local rulers in Digambara memorial inscriptions from other parts of Western India. This idiosyncratic epigraphic practice in *Dhūṇḍhāḍa* speaks of a particularly close alignment between the local *bhaṭṭāraka* lineage and the Kachavāhā court. Ritualised legitimisation and economic transactions between both polities are also evident from other aspects of *Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā* commemoration practices.

## 2. *Bhaṭṭārakas*: Digambara renouncers

From the latter half of the Sultanate period (1206–1526), throughout the Mughal era (1526–1857), and up to the early 20th century, Digambara Jaina mendicant lineages were led by renouncers with the *bhaṭṭāraka* rank. While the Digambara
ascetic ideal is that of the naked, itinerant and possessionless, male *muni*, *bhaṭṭārakas* from at least the 16–17th centuries onwards were clothed and mostly sedentary. *Bhaṭṭāraka* seats (*gaddī*) continue to function and flourish in South India today, but the *bhaṭṭāraka* lineages of Western and Central India were all discontinued by the 19th and 20th centuries. As *munis* reappeared in increasing numbers in the first half of the 20th century, they came to stand at the centre of Digambara devotion. At the same time, the autocratic, courtly style of leadership which characterised the *bhaṭṭāraka* traditions fell from grace as lay communities came to prefer representative and bureaucratised modes of governance and administration, and modern organisations and institutes. When lay-people retracted their support for the *bhaṭṭārakas*, the “old regime” *bhaṭṭāraka* polities collapsed.

Scholarship long conceived of the pre-20th-century Digambara *bhaṭṭārakas* as administrators, “clerics”, ritual specialists, or at most “semi-renouncers”. Digambara *munis* were often taken to have disappeared all at once in the Sultanate period due to the harassment of naked renouncers by Islamic rulers and to have been replaced by clothed *bhaṭṭārakas*. *Bhaṭṭārakas* were thought to have had only celibate but not fully-initiated renouncers (*brahmacārin*) and lay scholars and ritual specialists (*paṇḍita*) among their pupils. It is now clear, however, (1) that in the medieval period (8th-13th cent.) the *bhaṭṭāraka* rank was inserted on top of the prior Digambara ascetic hierarchy, above the *muni* and the *ācārya* ranks; (2) that in the early modern period (c. 14th-18th cent.) the *bhaṭṭārakas* of Western and Central India were regarded and venerated as ideal renouncers by the lay and ascetic communities which supported them (Detige 2019a);<fnref n="1" /> and (3) that *bhaṭṭārakas'* ascetic communities (*saṅgha*) included *munis* up to the 17th century and *ācāryas* up to the 18th century (Detige 2020). Prosopographical studies of manuscript colophons (Detige 2018) and memorials (Detige *forthcoming*) allow us to reconstruct the evolution of the *bhaṭṭāraka* circles. Up to the 17th century, these were sometimes substantial *saṅghas* including renouncers of a broad spectrum of lower ascetic ranks, both male (*maṇḍalācārya*, *ācārya*, *muni*, *brahmacārin*) and female (*āryikā*, *brahmacāriṇī*, *kṣullikā*). In the 18th century we see constellations of *bhaṭṭārakas*, *ācāryas*, and *paṇḍitas*, and from the late 18th to the early 20th century, *bhaṭṭārakas* operated with networks of associated *paṇḍitas*.

<footnote n="1">1 The rituals for the veneration of living pre-20th-century *bhaṭṭārakas* (*pūjā*, *āratī*) are also performed for contemporary Digambara renouncers (Detige 2024).</footnote>
### 3. Bhaṭṭārakas: Digambara lords

One of the *bhaṭṭārakas*' functions which scholarship has always stressed, yet never fully explored, is their interaction with rulers on behalf of lay communities. While regarded as venerable renouncers, the *bhaṭṭārakas* of Western India also carried considerable political and socio-economic clout, functioning as the kingpin of devotional and financial networks constituted by ascetic and lay communities. Digambara communities consisted of wealthy merchant castes whose elites included chief donors (*saṅghapati*) and, at least in the Dhūṇḍhāḍa region, ministers (*dīvān*) and courtiers at the royal court, lower-level officials, and financiers. Following ideas of Inden (1990, 22–33), as recently applied by Hatcher (2020, esp. 73–100), I conceive of the *bhaṭṭāraka* circles as renuncer-centred polities operating within a hierarchical, poly-centric “scale of forms”. Polities can be conceived of as partially self-governing groups with a collective identity constituting an identifiable political entity, organised through institutionalised social relations, capable of mobilising resources, and led by a sovereign lord (after Ferguson and Mansbach 1996, 33–40). The scale of forms refers to a range of polities with overlapping realms of authority and graduated power. This model captures worldly rulers and religious leaders within a single analysis, highlighting forms of governance and ritual practices common to both.

The 17th-to-19th-century Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭāraka polity specifically inscribed itself into that of the regional rulers (*mahārāja*) of the Kachavāhā dynasty, and these were in turn subordinated to and closely allied to the paramount polity of the Mughal emperors.<fnref n="2" /> Local Digambara caste councils (*pañca*), in the Dhūṇḍhāḍa region predominantly of the Khaṇḍelavāla caste, family patriarchs, and possibly paṇḍitas operating in mandiras and towns away from the bhaṭṭāraka seat can be seen as standing at the centres of polities subservient to the bhaṭṭāraka seat. Other regional religious traditions constituted polities parallel to that of the Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, regularly standing in conflict or competition. Among these were both Hindu and other Jaina traditions, and the latter included both the Śvetāmbara tradition and the Digambara Terāpantha which opposed the bhaṭṭārakas of the Bīsapantha tradition and introduced ritual reforms.

<footnote n="2">2 The connections between the three polities go back to the early 16th century, as shown by a large consecration festival held in Mauzamabad in VS 1664, at which the Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti consecrated a mandira and thousands of temple icons (subsequently distributed throughout northern India), with some, possibly nominal co-operation by the Mughal emperor Akbar and the Kachavāhā Mahārāja Māna Siṅha (Kāsalīvāla 1989, 151).</footnote>
Lordship was articulated in largely similar ways in *bhaṭṭāraka* polities and at
royal courts, with an epistemic continuity in conceptions of authority, legiti-
macy, and governance. The *bhaṭṭārakas* styled themselves in royal fashion, sur-
rounded with regal paraphernalia like parasols, sitting on thrones, travelling in
palanquins, and installed on the seat with an appointment rituals parallel to royal
consecrations (Detige 2019b). The practice of erecting *bhaṭṭārakas’* memorial pa-
vilions, ‘stone umbrellas’ (*chatrī*, see next), was itself also shared with the Kacha-
vāhā and other Rajput courts, whose commemorative practices constituted a
performance of kingship, political authority, and legitimacy and in turn re-
ferred to the Indo-Islamic tomb tradition (Belli Bose 2015, esp. 9–14, 33–92). The
ethical virtues, intellectual qualities, and literary practices embodied and
claimed by the *bhaṭṭārakas* and the rituals of their glorification also matched
with elements of the courtly culture of royal and imperial polities (Ali 2006, esp.
69–96). Such alignments formed a lingua franca which facilitated ritualised in-
teraction between hierarchically differentiated but structurally similar polities.
Religious lords like the *bhaṭṭārakas* drew authority from their association with
rulers. And in ceremonially honouring the mastery of such gurus, *mahārājas*
acknowledged the wealthy lay communities associated with them and inte-
grated them into their realms. In the present chapter, I begin to study the inter-
actions of *bhaṭṭāraka* lineages with secular courts based on evidence from the
inscriptions of Digambara memorials.<fnref n="3" />

4. Digambara memorial inscriptions

Digambara memorials are typically pavilions (*chatrī*), often erected on hilltops,
sheltering a foot icon (*pādukā*) representing the commemorated individual or a
pillar with carvings depicting him (far less frequently, her). Often referred to as
*nasiyā* (*nasiyām*, *nasiyā*, and other variants), commemoration sites sometimes
grew into necropolises with a substantial number of memorials. In a survey
mostly conducted in Western India but also including a smaller number of find-
spots in Central India, I documented some two hundred Digambara memorials

<footnote n="3">3 The close interaction between Jaina mendicant leaders and Indian rulers long predates the current case. Famous examples from the Śvetāmbara tradition are the association of Ācārya Hemacandra with the Caulukya rulers in 12th-century Gujarat (Cort 1998, esp. 96–97, see also p. 105) and the Kharataragaccha Jinaprabhasūri’s (c. 1261–1333) close association with Sultan Muhammed bin Tughluq (r. 1325–51) (Vose 2022, esp. 4–6).</footnote>
of the 11th to 20th centuries, the majority from the 16th to the 19th centuries.<fnref n="4" /> These memorials commemorate *bhaṭṭārakas*, lower-ranking male and female renouncers, and lay *paṇḍitas*. As the paramount renouncers, *bhaṭṭārakas* were often commemorated with the grandest monuments. These memorials are important sources to study the early modern *bhaṭṭārakas'* venerability, the composition of their *saṅghas*, the geographic distribution of the various lineages, and the frequent shifts of their seats within specific regions. The inscriptions of the small number of late medieval memorials discovered are short, recording but sparse information, a date, and the name of the commemorated renuncier. In the early modern period and into the 19th and 20th centuries, when the Digambara mendicant lineages themselves had also become more formalised, their memorial inscriptions became longer and somewhat standardised. A memorial inscription's date can either be that of the commemorated individual's death or that of the memorial's consecration, and mostly we do not know which type of date is recorded. Only rarely do the inscriptions explicate this or include both dates (e.g. 5.1), although sometimes other sources help us to interpret the dates.

The memorial inscriptions of the *bhaṭṭāraka* traditions are almost entirely composed of information on the commemorated individuals and their lineage, featuring little eulogy other than honorific markers. Typically included are the name of the commemorated individual, the appellations of the ascetic tradition (*saṅgha, gaṇa, gaccha*) to which he or she was affiliated (in the inscriptions discussed here, the Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa), and the names of a few successive lineage incumbents (*bhaṭṭārakas, maṇḍalācāryas*, sometimes *ācāryas*) leading up to the incumbent flourishing at the time of the memorial's consecration, who often performed the consecration. These successions help us determine the specific lineage attested (here, the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, my nomenclature). *Bhaṭṭārakas* consecrated the memorials of their direct predecessor (5.1) or of earlier predecessors (5.2) and of lower-ranking renouncers, who are often though not always explicitly identified as their pupils. In the 19th and 20th centuries, *paṇḍitas* also consecrated memorials of their *paṇḍita gurus* (5.3). Occasionally, further renouncers, *paṇḍitas*, or other laypeople are mentioned as pupils or devotees of the commemorated or commemorating individual or as involved in the memorial's erection. The inscriptions usually conclude with the consecrating agent(s) offering eternal salutations to the commemorated

<footnote n="4">4 Detige (2023; forthcoming). I did not survey memorials of renouncers of the 20th-to-21st-century *muni saṅghas*, which developed independent from the *bhaṭṭāraka* traditions.</footnote>
individual<fnref n="5" /> and a blessing for prosperity.<fnref n="6" /> As such, and although many specimens do not include all these categories of information, the structure and contents of Digambara memorial inscriptions largely overlap with those of the inscriptions of Digambara temple icons (mūrtilekha) and Digambara manuscript colophons.<fnref n="7" /> However, names and genealogies of lay donors are commonly included in the latter two kinds of sources while rarely appearing in memorial inscriptions. Likewise, references to rulers are fairly standard in colophons but exceptional in memorial inscriptions and mūrtilekhas.

## 5. ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorial inscriptions attesting Kachavāhā rulers

Within a corpus of some two hundred Digambara memorial inscriptions, only thirteen contain a reference to a ruler (in two cases incomplete). Ten of these inscriptions, dating from the mid-17th to the second half of the 19th century, defer to the Kachavāhā mahārāja reigning at the time of the memorial's consecration. These belong to memorials of bhaṭṭārakas (Figure 1) and paṇḍitas related to the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, and are found in Jaipur and towns in its immediate surrounding. A late-19th-century memorial of a paṇḍita related to the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā but deferring to a ruler of Ajmer is found in Bundī, further south in the Hāḍautī region. Two examples stem from the Vāgāḍā region on the Rajasthan-Gujarat borderland. They relate to one of the Balātkāragaṇa lineages operating there and date to the early 16th century and the first half of the 19th century (6). The preponderance of such attestations from the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and the ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region and the elegant deference<fnref n="8" /> given suggest a close association between this bhaṭṭāraka lineage and the Kachavāhā court. The relative silence about the Jainas in the documents of the royal court<fnref n="9" /> would indicate that this may mostly express a desire of the Digambaras to present themselves as closely allied to the Kachavāhās. Other elements of the bhaṭṭāraka tradition's consecration, commemoration, and building practices, however, confirm actual interactions between both polities, including Kachavāhā recognition and legitimisation of the bhaṭṭārakas, and land grants to them (5.1, 5.2).

<footnote n="5">5 E.g. nityaṁ praṇamati, nityaṁ praṇamanti, “he/they bow eternally.”</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 E.g. śrīr astu, śubhaṁ bhavatu, kalyāṇam astu, etc., “may there be prosperity.”</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7 On Digambara manuscript colophons, see Detige (2018).</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 mahārājādhirāja-mahārāja-śrī-savāī-[X]-siṁha-rājya-pravarttamāne, and variations.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 As pointed out to me by John Cort, with reference to the work of Monika Horstmann (2009; 2013).</footnote>
An early example found in a mid-17th-century *bhaṭṭāraka* memorial in Amer dates from the time when the connection between the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and the Kachavāhā polities was being forged (5.1). The ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā practice of deferring to the reigning Kachavāhā monarch in memorial inscriptions became standardised from the late 18th century onwards. The chronologically next specimen is a collective *bhaṭṭāraka* memorial found at the same site in Amer as the latter memorial. This VS 1845 pillar stood as the axis around which Kachavāhā legitimisation of ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents was ritually enacted (5.1). At the very end of the 18th century, a new ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā commemoration site was inaugurated in Jaipur at a plot of land donated by the Kachavāhā court. Late-18th-to-early-19th-century ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā *bhaṭṭāraka* memorials at this site (VS 1853 [3] and VS 1881) and in the nearby town of Cākasū (VS 1886) uniformly and relatively lengthily defer to the reigning Kachavāhā mahārājas (5.2). Similar references are also included in the inscriptions of memorials of three 19th-century paṇḍitas related to the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, found in Jaipur (VS 1880) and in two nearby towns, Caurū (VS 1888) and Phāgī (VS 1924) (5.3). In the following subsections, I discuss these ten ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials attesting Kachavāhā rulers and their inscriptions one by one. An edition of the inscriptions is given in the concluding section (8).<fnref n="10" />

<footnote n="10">10 I occasionally refer to other memorial inscriptions, both from the same findspots and from elsewhere. I do not, however, offer a full edition of these, nor of the three memorials attesting local rulers found in other regions.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_34.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Succession of Kachavāhā rulers (right) and Dhūṇḍhādaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas (left) with discovered memorials, incl. indication of year of consecration (VS), town of provenience, and consecrating bhaṭṭāraka (dashed arrows)</figcaption></figure>
5.1. Amer (VS 1691–1722, VS 1845)

The earliest memorial from the Dhūṇḍhāḍa region to record the ruling Kacha-
vāhā mahārāja is found at the Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṁ, a Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā com-
memoration site in Amer named after a communal memorial pillar
(kīrtistambha) from VS 1845 discussed below (this section). Here, a single raised
platform supports four caraṇa-chatrīs with pādukās installed in small shrines
(Figure 2, Figure 3). The latter set-up is almost entirely unique to this site; the
only other example found in Western India is a single chatrī in Bundī (Figure 10
L). The oldest memorial at the site in Amer commemorates Bhaṭṭāraka
Devendrakīrti and was consecrated by his successor Narendrakīrti (Figure 2).
The pādukā inscription records the reign of Mahārāja Savāī Jaya Siṅha (I)<fnref n="11" /> (r.
1621-67) and, calling for long-lasting veneration, informs that the memorial
was built by the brahmacārin Keśava out of guru-bhakti. The date in the inscrip-
tion is effaced, but internal and external evidence places the memorial in the
mid-17th century. Devendrakīrti was on the seat from VS 1662 to VS 1691, his
successor Narendrakīrti from VS 1691 to VS 1722 (Hoernle 1891, 355; 1892, 83).
Devendrakīrti's death in 1634 (VS 1691), as recorded in the inscription of an-
other pādukā of his found in Sāṅgānera (see next), is a terminus post quem for his
memorial in Amer. The roughly coterminous end of Narendrakīrti's incum-
bency in 1665 (VS 1722) and of Jaya Siṅha's rule in August 1667 (VS 1724) a
terminus ante quem. It is most probable that Narendrakīrti consecrated the me-
morial earlier in his incumbency, especially since he also consecrated another
memorial of Devendrakīrti in Sāṅgānera in VS 1696.

<footnote n="11">11 8.1: *mahārājādhirāja-jayasiṁha-rājya-pravarttamāne.*</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_35.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2. Caraṇa-chatrī of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (TL, Hindu chatrī in the background) with pādukā (BL) installed in small shrine (R), no legible date, mid-17th century. Kīrtistambha Nasiyām, Amer, February 2013.</figcaption></figure>

At the Nasiyā in Sāṅgānera, a town south of Amer and Jaipur, a second memorial stone of Devendrakīrti was found. The pādukā was stored in a small, modern-day shrine, but its inscription refers to Narendrakīrti building a chatrī in VS 1696. This original chatrī may have become ruined, or removed to make space for a big temple building project underway at the site at the time of my visit (February 2013). The Sāṅgānera pādukā’s inscription does not feature a reference to the Kachavāhā ruler, but includes other information rarely found on early modern Digambara memorial stones, concerning Devendrakīrti’s death and succession and the consecration of his memorial. Devendrakīrti accordingly passed on the bhaṭṭāraka seat (patṭa dīyā) to Narendrakīrti on the 15th day of the dark half of the month of Kārttika in VS 1691 (22nd October 1634).<fnref n="12" /> Devendra-

<footnote n="12">12 The inscription on Narendrakīrti's own pādukā in Amer records his ascension to the seat in Sāṅgānera a day earlier, on the 14th day of the dark half of the month of Kārttika VS 1691. Paṭṭāvalīs (lineage succession texts) situate it a few days earlier again, on the 8th</footnote>
kīrti died a few days later, on the 5th day of the bright half of the month of Kārtika (27th October 1634), and Narendrakīrti built his *chatrī* and consecrated his *pādukā* five years later, in VS 1696, possibly on the 3rd day of the bright half of Phālguna (25th February 1640). Devendrakīrti was consecrated to the seat in Cākasū (A. Nyāyatīrtha 1985, 421) but is also said to have spent his incumbency in Sāṅgānera (Hoernle 1892, 83), and the memorial found here thus likely represents his actual place of residence, demise, and cremation. Narendrakīrti on the other hand was consecrated in Sāṅgānera (A. Nyāyatīrtha 1985, 421) but probably moved the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat to the flourishing Kachavāhā capital Amer, and may have erected a secondary memorial of his predecessor Devendrakīrti there in an attempt to formally moor his lineage in its new hometown. The then uncommon, explicit reference to Mahārāja Savāī Jaya Siṅha (I) may well express Narendrakīrti's intent to insert his polity into that of the Kachavāhās. Narendrakīrti no doubt anticipated the larger platform on which he built Devendrakīrti's *caraṇa-chatrī* to be used for the erection of further memorials. This indicates that he had good hopes for the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat to flourish in the Kachavāhā hub.

Three further Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā *bhaṭṭārakas* were commemorated at the Kīrtistambha Nasiyām (Figure 3): Narendrakīrti himself, and his successors Surendrakīrti and Jagatkīrti, all of whom are known to have resided in Amer (Hoernle 1892, 83). Their *pādukās'* inscriptions follow the example of Devendrakīrti's Sāṅgānera *pādukā* in recording dates for the successions. According to these, Narendrakīrti was, as we already saw, consecrated in VS 1691, and died in Amer in VS 1722. Surendrakīrti both passed the seat to his successor Jagatkīrti and died in Śrāvaṇa VS 1733. The inscriptions of these two memorial stones do not record when they were consecrated, but they are installed under a twin *chatrī*, a combined memorial for both (Figure 3 right), and the inscription of Narendrakīrti's *pādukā* explicitly records that it was consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Jagatkīrti, who occupied the seat from VS 1733 to 1770. The inscription on Jagatkīrti's own *pādukā*, installed in a separate *chatrī*, records that Jagatkīrti died on the 5th day of the dark half of the month of Māgha in VS 1770, that his successor was consecrated six days later (*badi* 11), and that the memorial was consecrated some ten months later, in Mārgaśīrṣa (*sudi* 2) VS 1771. The latter inscription also

<footnote>(Hoernle 1891, 355; 1892, 83) or the 11th (Hoernle 1892, 83). Further cases are known of *bhaṭṭārakas* abdicating from the seat and consecrating their own successors while still alive. Yet it was probably more common for new incumbents to be consecrated by the community after the demise of the previous *bhaṭṭāraka*. Sometimes a gap of a few months or years fell before a new incumbent was consecrated, possibly indicating that it took time for a suitable candidate to be identified or agreed upon.</footnote>
records the name of the artisan (karigāra) who built the chatrī, and probably its
donor, information which is only very infrequently found on Digambara memo-
rial stones. Neither of the inscriptions of these three further bhaṭṭāraka memo-
rials at the Kīrtistambha Nasiyām take up the practice of referring to the reign-
ing Kachavāhā mahārāja. This became common practice only from the end of
the 18th century, in one further memorial at this site (see next), and at other
bhaṭṭāraka memorials in Jaipur and Cākasū (5.2).

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3. Platform with caraṇa-chatrīs commemorating the bhaṭṭārakas Devendrakīrti (mid-17th cent., left on picture), Narendrakīrti and Surendrakīrti (probably late 17th cent., double chatrī, right), and Jagatkīrti (VS 1771, extreme right). Kīrtistambha Nasiyām, Amer, February 2013.</figcaption></figure>

The Kīrtistambha Nasiyām in Amer is also home to a communal memorial pillar
(kīrtistambha) consecrated by another ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Surendra-
kīrti in May or June 1788 (VS 1845) (Figure 4 L). I found about half a dozen of
such “pillars of glory” in Western India, related to various Mūlasaṅgha Balāt-
kāragaṇa and Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha lineages (Detige forthcoming).
Kīrtistambhas are an iconographic format for the commemoration and glorifica-
tion of an entire mendicant lineage rather than an individual bhaṭṭāraka. They
feature a large number of small, generic depictions of renouncers (Figure 4 R),
identified as the consecutive incumbents of a specific lineage with inscribed
captions giving their names and often dates of consecration. <fnref n="13" /> At approximately four metres, the Amer pillar is taller than other discovered *kīrtistambhas*. It was erected in a dedicated *chatrī*, which is provided with stone lattices (*jālī*) between the pillars and as such appears a rather enclosed structure. A longer inscription near the base of the pillar chronicles its consecration but remained unfinished. Space was left blank for the day of the fortnight and the name of the reigning Kachavāhā monarch. Perhaps the missing data were meant to be inscribed as part of the consecration rituals of the *kīrtistambha*. Or, more pragmatically and maybe more likely, they were perhaps originally left open in consideration that the date of consecration might change and the ruler might pass before that time — and ultimately never got added. Yet Mahārāja Savāī Pratāpa Siṅha (r. 1778–1803), who had been on the throne in Jaipur for ten years at the time of the memorial’s consecration, flourished and reigned for another decade and a half.

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4. Ḫūṇḍhāḍaśākhā kīrtistambha installed in a chatrī (L., VS 1845) with depictions of bhaṭṭārakas (R., left Surendrakīrti, paṭṭa VS 1822; middle Kṣemendrakīrti, paṭṭa VS 1815; right undedicated). Kīrtistambha Nasiyām, Amer, February 2013.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="13">13 I here forego an edition of these inscriptions on the Amer pillar, which record the Mūla-
saṅgha and Balātkāragaṇa succession from the first century BCE onwards roughly as
known from paṭṭāvalīs (Hoernle 1891; 1892).</footnote>
The inscription also refers to the *darśana* and veneration of the icons of the gu-
rus,<fnref n="14" /> and to the rituals and great festivities held for the consecration of the pil-
lar, for which Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti reportedly gathered masses of laypeo-
ple. A part of the proceedings was apparently held in Cākasū (caṃpāvatī), a town
40 km south of Jaipur where the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seems to have been estab-
lished briefly in the early 17th century, before it relocated to Sāṅgānera and
Amer.<fnref n="15" /> Involving the community of Cākasū in the erection of this important
ritual object probably served to reconfirm the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā’s ties to this
town. In a section which is difficult to read (8.2, lines 2–3), the inscription seems
to record the involvement of “all the munis” (*sakala-munibhi*). The latter presum-
ably is a shorthand uncommonly used here to refer to lower-ranking, not fully
initiated renouncers like *brahmacārins*, since *munis* are rarely if ever attested in
this period.

The Amer kīrtistambha seems to have had a double function of both com-
memorating prior incumbents and legitimising new incumbents. In the original
design, a number of additional, generic depictions of renouncers had been
carved into the pillar, left void of any inscription (Figure 4 R). Three of these
were marked as further ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents after the pillar’s conse-
cration by Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti (paṭṭa VS 1822–52): Sukhendrakīrti (paṭṭa
VS 1852), Narendrakīrti (paṭṭa VS 1880), and Devendrakīrti (paṭṭa VS 1883).<fnref n="16" /> The
names of new incumbents were inscribed on the pillar not upon their passing
but at the time of their consecration to the seat. At these events, the Kachavāhā
court sent a shawl of honour, and a procession took place with much pomp (A.
Nyāyatīrtha 1997, 9; Varmā 1998, 20, 28).<fnref n="17" /> The kīrtistambha thus functioned as a
medium of expression for Kachavāhā legitimation of the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā
bhaṭṭārakas and for ritualised interaction between both polities. Bhaṭṭāraka
Surendrakīrti (paṭṭa VS 1822–52), who erected the pillar, was generally particu-
larly active in icon consecrations and temple building and renovation projects,

<footnote n="14">14 8.2: śrī guruṇām pratimā-darśanārcana-vaṁdanā-vidhāṇām.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">15 Anūpacanda Nyāyatīrtha (1985, 421) ascribed the consecration (*paṭṭābīṣeka*) of four consecutive, 16th-century incumbents, up to Devendrakīrti, to Cākasū, but these instead seem to have been associated to Cittauṛagarha and the Mevāḍa region.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16 8.2: śrāvaka-śrāvikā-saṁdoha-krṭa-paramotsava-yuktābhiḥ.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">17 The names of yet two further ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents, Mahendrakīrti (paṭṭa VS 1939, d. VS 1974) and Candrakīrti (paṭṭa VS 1975, d. VS 2026), were not added on the kīrtistambha, perhaps because these later-day bhaṭṭārakas had shifted their activities to Mahāvīrajī, or because the type of ritual pomp connected to the inscription of new incumbents' names on the pillar no longer found sufficient support. Nineteen of the generic images which had been carved on the pillar in anticipation of a longer continued lineage remained unmarked.</footnote>
travelling widely throughout the region to perform pratiṣṭhās (Varmā 1998, 14–15; Cort 2002, 59–60). When he consecrated the kīrtistambha, Surendrakīrti had been on the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat for over two decades, being succeeded by Sukhendrakīrti seven years later. In the decades before the erection of the Amer kīrtistambha, debates had raged in Jaipur between bhaṭṭāraka-supporting Bīsapantha Digambaras and anti-bhaṭṭāraka “reformist” Terāpanthīs. The important Terāpantha author Paṇḍita Ṭoḍaramala was murdered in VS 1822, possibly in anti-Jaina riots. After this, the Bīsapantha-Terāpantha animosity in Jaipur is said to have decreased. Yet by the time of the pillar’s consecration two decades later, Ṭoḍaramala’s son Gumānīrāma was attempting to resuscitate the Terāpantha fervour by starting an even stricter reform movement, the Gumānapantha, also known as Śuddha Terāpantha Āmnāya (Cort 2002, 61–62). It seems almost impossible then not to see Surendrakīrti’s conception of the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā “pillar of glory” as part of an effort to defy Terāpantha influence and materially re-establish the glory of the Bīsapantha polity, setting up the pillar as an axis for the ritual enactment of the connection between the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bīsapanthī polity and the Kachavāhā court.

## 5.2. Jaipur (VS 1853, VS 1881) and Cākasū (VS 1886)

In 1727, Mahārāja Savāī Jaya Siṅha (II) (r. 1688–1743) founded the city of Jaipur as the new Kachavāhā capital. The city quickly flourished as a crucial trade post for long-distance trade routes. Jaina merchants, administrators, intellectuals, and litterateurs migrated to Jaipur, and among Jaya Siṅha’s (II) courtiers were many Digambaras. In 1725 and 1735 respectively, the Pāṭodī Mandira and the Baṛhā Terāpantha Mandira were constructed close to the royal palace as central temples for the Bīsapantha and the Terāpantha traditions, expressing the insertion of both separate Digambara polities within the city (Cort 2002, 55), and their proximity to the royal court. Still, in 1735 (VS 1792) the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbent Mahendrakīrti was consecrated in a Digambara mandira in Jayasiṅhapurā (A. Nyāyatīrtha 1985, 421). This neighbourhood of Śāhjahānābād, close to Connaught Circle in today’s New Delhi, had also been founded by Jaya Siṅha (II). Mahendrakīrti also seems to have spent part of his incumbency in Delhi, during the rule of the Mughal Emperor Muḥammad Shāh (r. 1719–48). Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti probably turned towards Delhi thanks to the Kachavāhā connection to the Mughal empire. We here see the lords of three polities in a hierarchical scale setting up court in proximity to each other, the Digambara bhaṭṭāraka, the Kachavāhā mahārāja, and the Mughal emperor. The respective connections between the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas and the Kachavāhā rulers, and between the latter and the Mughals, opened up avenues to the imperial capital
for Digambara lay communities. Mahendrakīrti soon left Delhi, no doubt after the Persian Afsharid dynasty ruler of Persia, Nādir Shāh (r. 1736–47), invaded the Mughal Empire and defeated Muḥammad Shāh in battle in 1739. He took control over Delhi but after an uprising sacked the city and took huge booty back to Persia. Mahendrakīrti is subsequently attested firstly in some other, smaller towns in Rajasthan, but ultimately seems to have settled, unsurprisingly, in Jaipur (Detige 2018, 289–92).

The consecration of Mahendrakīrti's successor Kṣemendrakīrti (paṭṭa VS 1815–22) was organised at the Pāṭodī Mandira in Jaipur. His successor Surendrakīrti (paṭṭa VS 1822–52) was not only consecrated in the Pāṭodī temple but shortly after also moved the Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat there.<fnref n="18" /> At the very end of the 18th century, less than a decade after Surendrakīrti had erected the Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā kīrtistambha in Amer, his successor Sukhendrakīrti initiated a new commemoration site south of Jaipur, still referred to as the Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyām (Figure 5). The plot of land on which it was built had been donated to Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti by the royal court in 1744 (VS 1801) (Varmā 1998, 13–14), early in the reign of Mahārāja Savāī Iśvarī Siṅha (r. 1743–50). In the 18th and early 19th century, the Rāmabhāga royal palace was developed on an adjacent plot of land. Mandiras found at early modern Digambara commemoration sites often postdate the memorials. At the Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyām however, a mandira was built under Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti in 1769 (VS 1826), predating four memorials later consecrated at the site. Among these are three particularly elegant bhaṭṭāraka caraṇa-chatrīs raised on a shared, pillared platform. The octagonal, eight-pillared chatrīs are richly decorated with floral and geometric motives on the plinths, pillars, and lintels, inside the domes, and on the drums of the cupolas. The pādukās installed in them (Figure 6 R) are intricately carved, octagonal stones with plentiful floral decorations and large depictions of the ascetics' paraphernalia: kamaṇḍalu (water pitcher), picchī (whisk), and mālā (rosary). The stylistic development of the Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials parallels that of Kachavāhā memorial architecture, from its earlier specimens in Amer, erected in local, grey stone, and with smooth domes and plain pillars, to the Makrana marble, more sumptuous ornamentation, and more bulbous, externally segmented domes of the chatrīs at Geṭora, the new royal commemoration site in Jaipur (Belli Bose 2015, 52).

<footnote n="18">18 Joharāpurakara (1958, 111–12); Joharāpurakara and Kāsalīvāla (1975, 261); Jaina (1978, 44); Cort (2002, 59).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_38.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5. Platform with three bhaṭṭāraka caraṇa-chatrīs, VS 1853 (right and middle) and VS 1881 (left), Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyām, Jaipur, February 2013.</figcaption></figure>

Two of the *chatrīs* at the Jaipur Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyām commemorate the consecutive bhaṭṭārakas Mahendrakīrti (*patta* VS 1792, Figure 6 R) and Kṣemendrakīrti (*patta* VS 1815), who as we saw were the first Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents to be active in Jaipur. Their names had already been inscribed on the Amer kīrtistambha, presumably at the time of their consecration (5.1). Their dedicated *chatrīs*, however, were consecrated only in early February 1797 (Māgha *śukla* 5 VS 1853) by Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti, their successor to the second and third degree, a little more than a year after his own consecration to the seat in early January 1796 (Mārgaśīrṣa kṛṣṇa 9 VS 1852) (Hoernle 1892, 83). The delay in the erection of these memorials may have been related to the Terāpantha polemics raging at the time. Like Narendrakīrti at the Kīrtistambha Nasiyām in Amer about a century and a half earlier, Sukhendrakīrti may also have undertaken a grand commemoration project to establish his lineage in his new hometown, the new Kachavāhā capital, similarly erecting these memorials on a larger *chatrī* platform. A third *pādukā* is installed on a waist-high pillar in open air next to the platform. According to its inscription, it was consecrated by Sukhendrakīrti on the same day as the two *chatrīs'* *pādukās*, the 1st of February 1797. The inscription, oddly, does not name whom the memorial commemorates. Carvings of ascetic paraphernalia next to the feet indicate that it was intended as a announcer's memorial. The *pādukā* is more weathered than those installed in the *chatrīs* and is of a different, somewhat less refined design, and its inscription
also differs in phrasing and orthography. The idea comes to mind that the pādukā may have been a prototype that was disapproved but later nonetheless installed on a simple pedestal. Perhaps it was used as a generic memorial for all earlier Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents like the kīrtistambha in Amer. The inscriptions of these three VS 1853 memorial stones record the continued rule of Mahārāja Savāī Pratāpa Siṅha (r. 1778–1803),<fnref n="19" /> who was already on the throne at the time of the erection of the Amer kīrtistambha.

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6. Bhaṭṭāraka caraṇa-chatrīs (L) and pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti (VS 1853, R). Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṁ, Jaipur, February 2013.</figcaption></figure>

Perhaps Sukhendrakīrti devised the larger platform in the hope that his own memorial would be erected on it, but his caraṇa-chatrī is found in Cākasū (see next). His successor Narendrakīrti instead used the remaining space for a caraṇa-chatrī of Sukhendrakīrti's predecessor Surendrakīrti. Narendrakīrti, the commemorated bhaṭṭāraka's successor to the second degree, consecrated the pādukā on the 24th of January 1825 (Māgha śukla 5 VS 1881), doing so – like Sukhendrakīrti three decades earlier – very soon after his ascension to the bhaṭṭāraka seat, which took place in VS 1879 (Hoernle 1891, 355) or VS 1880 (Joharāpurakara 1958, 113). It probably was not a coincidence that Narendra-

<footnote n="19">19 8.3: mahārājādhirāja-mahārāja-śrī-savāī-pratāpasiṁha-jid-rājya-pravarttamāne; 8.4: mahārājādhirāja-mahārāja-śrī-savāī-pratāpasiṁha-jid-rājya-pravattamāne; 8.5: mahārājādhirāja-śrī-savāī-pratāpasiṁha-jid-rājye.</footnote>
kīrti consecrated the third *caraṇa-chatrī* at the Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṁ on the same calendar date as when Sukhendrakīrti had consecrated the first two memorials at the site, the 5th day of the bright half of the month of Māgha. Narendrakīrti also followed the by then standardised practice of deferring to the Kachavāhā monarch in recording the reign of Mahārāja Savāī Jaya Siṅha (III) (r. 1819–35).<fnref n="20" /> The three *caraṇa-chatrī* inscriptions also record that the pādukās were installed and consecrated with great festivities,<fnref n="21" /> and call for the continued performance of pūjās at the memorials.<fnref n="22" />

Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti, who developed the Jaipur commemoration site, probably died in Cākasū during a visit to this town with long-standing relations to his lineage (5.1). His *caraṇa-chatrī* (Figure 7) is found at a site outside of the town centre, which was formerly also referred to as the Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṁ but has recently been developed under another name (Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra Akṣayanidhi Ādiśvara Dhāma). Sukhendrakīrti’s *chatrī* is the latest Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭāraka memorial found, and probably the last to have been erected. It was consecrated on the 28th of November 1829 (Mārgaśīrṣa śukla 2 VS 1886) by Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (*paṭṭa* VS 1883), once more the commemorated bhaṭṭāraka’s predecessor to the second degree, and once more within the first few years after his ascension to the seat. As we saw, Sukhendrakīrti’s direct successor Narendrakīrti (*paṭṭa* VS 1880–83) did consecrate a memorial for his earlier predecessor Surendrakīrti in Jaipur. It may have taken more time for the Cākasū community to gather funds for the erection of a grand memorial. Or for some reason the pattern of memorials consecrated not by direct successors, as was more common elsewhere, but by successors to the second degree, may have come to be seen as the expected practice. The design of the Cākasū *chatrī* is similar to that of those at the Jaipur Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṁ, being particularly close to the latest pavilion there, from just five years before (VS 1881). It also stands on a pillared platform, a feature unique to these two sites. The pādukā’s inscription records the continued rule of Mahārāja Savāī Jaya Siṅha (III).<fnref n="23" />

<footnote n="20">20 8.6: śrīman-mahārājādhirāja-mahārāja-śrī-savāī-jayasimha-jid-rājya-pravarttamāne.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">21 8.3 and 8.4 (VS 1853): mahotsavena; outdone by Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti in 8.5 (VS 1881): mahā-mahotsavaṁ kṛtvā.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">22 8.3 and 8.4: pūjakānāṁ kalyāṇāvalīṁ karotu; 8.5: pūjakānāṁ kalyāṇa-paraṁparāṁ karotu.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">23 8.7: śrīman-mahārājādhirāja-mahārāja-śrī-savāī-jayasimha-jid-rājya-pravarttamāne.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_40.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7. Caraṇa-chatrī of Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti (VS 1886) raised on pillared platform with recently renewed balustrade, next to recent constructions (right on R). Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyām, Cākasū, December 2014.</figcaption></figure>

### 5.3. Paṇḍita memorials: Jaipur (VS 1880), Caurū (VS 1888), Phāgī (VS 1924)

By the 19th century, lower-ranking renouncers had disappeared from the bhaṭṭāraka saṅghas, and the bhaṭṭārakas operated within networks of lay paṇḍitas. The latter probably served as adjuncts to the bhaṭṭārakas, as satellites of their polity. Memorials and manuscript colophons attest pupillary lineages of paṇḍitas connected to the Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā bhaṭṭārakas based both in Jaipur and in smaller towns in the broader region. Memorials of paṇḍitas were commonly erected from the late 18th to the early 20th century and were often substantial structures. According to Bhaṁvaralā Nyāyatīrtha (1986), the 19th-and-20th-century paṇḍitas of Jaipur were celibate. In the inscription of a memorial of paṇḍitas related to the Ajmer Balātkāragaṇa lineage, two paṇḍitas are recorded with honorifics of venerability otherwise reserved for Digambara renouncers (pūjya, 108) (Detige forthcoming). Paṇḍitas probably took up additional activities and a higher standing in the absence of broader circles of renouncers. Within their own localities, they may have acted as the lords of their own small-town polities as masters of Jaina doctrine and philosophy, as ritual specialist, teachers, preachers, storytellers, astrologists, or experts in yet further associated arts. The inscriptions of the memorials of three paṇḍitas related to the Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā refer to the Kachavāhā rulers flourishing at the time of their consecration. Two of these date to the same period as the latest of the Jaipur and the Cākasū bhaṭṭāraka memorials, the second and third decades of the 19th
century. The third dates to almost half a century later. One is found in Jaipur,
the others in two nearby towns some fifty kilometres further southwest.

At the Śyojī Godhā Nasiyāṁ to the north of Jaipur, a VS 1880 pādukā of Paṇḍita Kesarīsiṅha is found in a spacious modern building, at the time an unusual, innovative commemorative structure. The structure is a type of tibārā, a simple block building with three open arched doorways which now have been provided with metal lattices (Figure 8). Another three arched doorways against the back wall create a garbhagṛha-like structure. Paṇḍita Kesarīsiṅha’s pādukā in the middle section is the only cult object in an otherwise bare room. The pādukā is an octagonal drum-shaped stone installed waist-high on a pillar, possibly meant to provide easy ritual access.<fnref n="24" /> The finely carved, hexagonal pādukā slab with a large lotus flower below the feet is akin to the coeval bhaṭṭāraka pādukās at the Jaipur and Cākasū Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṁs and may well have been commissioned from the same artisans. The inscription refers to the incumbent Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti (paṭṭa VS 1880–83) and to the reign of Mahārāja Savī Jaya Siṅha (III) (r. 1819–35).<fnref n="25" /> The pādukā was consecrated by Paṇḍita Lālacandra on the 7th of March 1824 (Phālguna śukla 7 VS 1880) “in eternal memory and praise” (niraṁtarasmaraṇārthaṁ vandanārthaṁ ca) of Paṇḍita Kesarīsiṅha. Lālacandra was the pupil (tadaṁtevāsi) of Kesarīsiṅha, the crest-jewel among paṇḍitas (paṁḍita-śiromaṇi-paṁḍita), and the latter is recorded as himself a pupil of the foremost paṇḍita (paṁḍita-pradhāna-paṁḍita) Sukharāma. The inscription also records Lālacandra’s own pupil Paṇḍita Jhāñjhūrāma and two pupils of the latter for whom no title is indicated, Devālāla and Bhairūlāla. In total, the inscription thus records five pupillary generations: Paṇḍita Sukharāma > Paṇḍita Kesarīsiṅha > Paṇḍita Lālacandra > Paṇḍita Jhāñjhūrāma > Devālāla + Bhairūlāla. The whole paṇḍita succession is recorded as standing in the tradition (-āmnāye) of Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti,<fnref n="26" /> who was on the Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat at the time of the memorial’s consecration, but is cited here without the usual mention of his predecessors, next to the longer-running paṇḍita pupillary succession and without an explicit indication of his relation to

<footnote n="24">24 The socle seems to be more recent than the pādukā, and the whole is sunk deeper into the ground than the rest of the shrine room. Some renovations seem to have been performed, perhaps in view of ritual practice. I thank Brian Hatcher for raising my attention to these material aspects of the memorial.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">25 8.8: śrī-mahārājādhirāja-mahārāja-śrī-savāī-jayasiṁha-jid-rājya-pravarttamāne.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">26 Joharāpurakara and Kāsalīvāla (1975, 248) give a pupillary pedigree of up to eight generations of paṇḍitas as stemming from the 17th century Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti. They do not give the source of this information, but it seems likely these are instead paṇḍitas who traced their descent from the 19th-century namesake bhaṭṭāraka.</footnote>
them. It is remarkable that Paṇḍita Lālacandra himself consecrated the memorial stone, rather than calling upon the *bhaṭṭāraka* who was present nearby and is deferred to in the memorial's inscription. Apparently Paṇḍita Lālacandra had sufficient autonomy to undertake such a project and the ritual authority to consecrate the pādukā.

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Kesarīsiṅha (VS 1880) waist-high on a pedestal sunk into the ground (R) in the back section of the shrine room separated off with arches (L) Pārśvanātha Digambara Jaina Mandira Nasiyāṁ Śyojī Godhā, Jaipur, December 2014.</figcaption></figure>

A caraṇa-chatrī at the nasīyā in Caurū (Figure 9 L & R), a town some 60 km southwest of Jaipur, is a memorial of Paṇḍita Dhanarāja established in November 1831 (Mārgaśīrṣa kṛṣṇa 5 VS 1888). The inscription records the continued rule of Mahārāja Savāī Jaya Siṅha (III),<fnref n="27" /> but the incumbency by then of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti (paṭṭa VS 1883–1939; Varmā 1998, 31). Paṇḍita Dhanarāja’s memorial was built (kārayitvā) and consecrated (prasthāpitam) by his pupil (tad-aṁtevāsinā) Paṇḍita Ratanasukha, “for eternal remembrance and praise” (niraṁtaraṁ smaraṇārthaṁ baṁdanārthaṁ ca). Paṇḍita Dhanarāja is remembered as a pupil of the “foremost paṇḍita” (paṁḍita-pradhāna-paṁḍita-jicchrī) Başatara-ma (= Bakhatarāma). This pupillary succession of paṇḍitas is recorded as standing in the tradition (-āmnāye) of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, who ascended the seat some five years before. The inscription runs closely parallel to that of Paṇḍita Kesarīsiṅha’s pādukā in Jaipur from less than a decade earlier, and is clearly modelled after it or after another common source. Although different

<footnote n="27">27 8.9: śrīman-mahārājādhirāja-mahārājya-śrī-savāī-jayasiṁha-jid-rājya-pravarttamāne.</footnote>
pupillary successions of *paṇḍitas* are attested at both sites, this indicates a relation between both.

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9. Caraṇa-chatrīs, Nasīyā, Caurū, February 2016. L: pādukā of Paṇḍita Dhanarāja (VS 1888). R: From right to left: caraṇa-chatrīs commemorating Paṇḍita Dhanarāja, an unidentified individual, and Muni Puṣpadantasāgara (VS 2048, repurposed). Inset: unmarked pādukā.</figcaption></figure>

Two further caraṇa-chatrīs at the Caurū nasīyā (Figure 9 R) are roughly contemporary to, and of similar design and size as, that of Paṇḍita Dhanarāja. These are fairly typical examples of the 19th-century Digambara *chatrīs* of Central Rajasthan, medium-sized, elegant, and well proportioned, standing on an octagonal plinth and featuring bulbous, ribbed domes with a stone maṭaka kalaśa, angular eaves, and arched openings between the eight, graceful pillars. One of the other two *chatrīs* at the Caurū nasīyā (central in Figure 9 R) shares a platform with that of Paṇḍita Dhanarāja, another indication that it is near contemporary to it. It houses a pādukā without inscription (Figure 9 inset), which has a somewhat more rudimentary design than that of Paṇḍita Dhanarāja and therefore seems to be slightly older. The third *chatrī* (left in Figure 9 R) is raised on its own, spacious platform, slightly higher than the other. It may be slightly more recent than the other two *chatrīs*, but architectural elements clearly show it to be of comparable antiquity. It has, however, been repurposed as a memorial for a local, contemporary Digambara *muni*. It was whitewashed more recently than the other *chatrīs*, and decorative patterns and verses of poetry were painted on its pillars and lintels and inside the cupola. Furthermore, it features a pādukā of Muni Puṣpadantasāgara, a pupil of Ācārya Dharmasāgara, according to the inscription born in nearby Mauzamabad in VS 1969 and deceased in Caurū in VS 2046 (1989), his memorial having been erected in VS 2048 by brahmacāriṇī Pyārībāī under the inspiration of Āryikā Pārśvamatī Mātājī. Given the similar
size of all three *chatrīs* on site, the repurposed *chatrī* and the *chatrī* with the un-
marked *pādukā* likely also commemorated *paṇḍitas*.

At the Candraprabhū Digambara Jaina Nasiyāṁ in Phāgī, another town 50 km
southwest of Jaipur, ten kilometres east of Caurū, stands a memorial of Paṇḍita
Jayacanda consecrated in July 1867 (Āṣāḍha śukla 2 VS 1924). The memorial is a
simple platform with a pādukā installed in open air (caraṇa-cabūtarā). The in-
scription on the pādukā again follows the same structure as those of the Jaipur
and Caurū paṇḍita pādukās discussed before. It records the continued incum-
bency of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti and the reign by then of Mahārāja Savāī
Rāma Siṅha (r. 1835–80).<fnref n="28" /> The memorial was built (caraṇālayaṁ kārayitvā) in
eternal remembrance and praise of Jayacanda (niraṁtaraṁ smaraṇārthaṁ
vaṁdanārthaṁ) by his pupil Paṇḍita Śivalāla. Jayacanda is commemorated as a
pupil of Paṇḍita Amaracanda, who in turn is recorded as a pupil of Paṇḍita
Vaṣatarāma (= Bakhatarāma), most probably the same paṇḍita as attested in the
Caurū inscription. As in Caurū, this paṇḍita pupillary succession is recorded as
standing in the tradition (-āmnāye) of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti. The design of
the pādukā is similar to that of Caurū, though slightly less refined. Some em-
blems are also depicted which are not found on the earlier Caurū pādukā, two
flowers, a mālā, and a simple rectangular shape probably representing a scrip-
ture or manuscript (śāstra). Paṇḍita Jayacanda’s caraṇa-cabūtarā is of course a far
more modest memorial than Paṇḍita Dhanarāja’s caraṇa-chatrīs in Caurū and
Paṇḍita Kesarīsiṅha’s memorial building in Jaipur. Paṇḍita Jayacanda’s name
was still remembered in the town by elderly Jainas at the time of my visit
(February 2016).

As attested by these memorials, related pupillary lineages of paṇḍitas were
active in the nearby towns of Caurū (Paṇḍita Bakhatarāma > Paṇḍita Dhanarāja
> Paṇḍita Ratanasukha) and Phāgī (Paṇḍita Bakhatarāma > Paṇḍita Amaracanda
> Paṇḍita Jayacanda > Paṇḍita Śivalāla). No memorials have been found of the
other paṇḍitas of these lineages, although they may be among the unidentified
memorials of Caurū or at other sites in the region. The inscriptions of these
three Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā paṇḍita memorials all defer to the flourishing bhaṭṭāraka,
which expresses their allegiance to the Jaipur bhaṭṭāraka polity. The inscriptions
do not, however, explicate the specific link of the commemorated or consecrat-
ing paṇḍitas to the bhaṭṭārakas. Instead, the pupillary paṇḍita successions are rec-
orded at great length and generically said to have stood in the incumbent bhaṭṭā-
raka’s tradition (āmnāye). Given the geographic location of Phāgī and Caurū,
within the zone of influence of the Jaipur bhaṭṭāraka seat and at the same time

<footnote n="28">28 8.10: śrīman-mahārājādhirāja-māhārājya-śrī-savāī-rāmasiṁha-jid-rājya-pravarttamāne.</footnote>
at some distance from it, local *paṇḍitas* here may have had some additional agency, more autonomy, and a higher, more strongly profiled standing in their local communities. Yet even the *paṇḍita* memorial inscription from Jaipur shares this stronger focus on the *paṇḍitas'* internal relations than on their relation to the incumbent, and in this case nearby, *bhaṭṭāraka*. While these successes of several pupillary generations of *paṇḍitas* flourishing in Jaipur and in outlaying towns thus seem to have operated with some self-determination, they were undoubtedly still subordinate to the *bhaṭṭārakas*, whose polity was itself inscribed within that of the Kachavāhās.

## 6. Other Digambara memorials attesting rulers

Only a few further examples are found of Digambara memorials from Western India deferring to local rulers. One of these is a *paṇḍita* memorial found in Bundī in the Hāḍautī region, on the border with Mevāḍa. At the nasīyā outside of this town almost 200 km south of Jaipur stands an elegant ensemble of four *caraṇa-chatrīs* commemorating local *paṇḍitas* with links to the Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā (Figure 10 L). The oldest memorial has the mid-19th-century (VS 1911) pādukā of Paṇḍita Duṅgarasidāsa installed in a small shrine under the *chatrī*, like the much earlier examples from Amer (5.1). Around the turn of the 20th century, the smaller *chatrīs* of three *paṇḍitas* in Duṅgarasidāsa's pupillary lineage were erected in a nicely laid out, symmetrical plan around the memorial of their predecessor. Among these are two direct *paṇḍita* pupils of Duṅgarasidāsa, Rāmasukha (VS 1949) and Śivalāla (VS 1949), and a pupil of again the latter, Paṇḍita Ratnalāla (prob. VS 1956). The inscription on Paṇḍita Śivalāla's pādukā also records a ruler of Ajmer, Rāvā Rapudīra Siṅga. The two VS 1949 pādukās were consecrated along with a grand festival by Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti. The latter is described as "the leader of the Mūlasaṅgha" (mūla-saṁgha-nāyaka) and "the leader of the whole śrāvaka community" (samasta-śravaga-saṁgha-nāyaka). No further indications of his lineage are recorded, but this is no doubt the Mahendrakīrti who had then occupied the Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat for a decade.
<figure><img src="image_43.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10. L: Chatrī of Paṇḍita Śivalāla (VS 1949, left in front) next to other paṇḍita memorials, Digambara Jaina Mandira Nasyājī, Bundī, February 2014. M: Bṛhadvāgaḍāśākhā kīrtistambha (VS 1571), Nasīyājī, Naugāmā, January 2014. R: Memorial of Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti (VS 1887), Sambhavanātha Mandira, Īḍara, January 2014.</figcaption></figure>

The last two memorial inscriptions referring to local rulers stem from the Vāgaḍā region on the Rajasthan-Gujarat borderland and relate to one of the Balātkāragaṇa lineages which were active there. They are separated by over three centuries, dating to the second decade of the 16th century and the third decade of the 19th century. In both cases we can discern specific circumstances which may have motivated the inclusion of this uncommon reference in the inscription. The first is a VS 1571 Bṛhadvāgaḍāśākhā kīrtistambha found at the Nasīyājī in Naugāmā (Figure 10 M). The pillar’s long foundation inscription also includes an extensive family pedigree of its Hūmbaḍa caste lay patrons. Through this feature, rarely encountered on early modern Digambara memorials, the inscription conforms more to the template of manuscript colophons. This also renders less unexpected the short, seemingly defective reference to the reign in the Vāgaḍā land of an unnamed ruler, whose name is possibly missing by mere oversight of the carver.<fnref n="29" /> Yet the intended reference to the regional monarch could be seen as specifically appropriate for this communal memorial, mooring the bhaṭṭāraka lineage in the royal polity just like the later Amer kīrtistambha (5.1). At the time, Naugāmā was administered by ācāryas of the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā, who were subordinated to the Bṛhadvāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭārakas settled in nearby Sāgavāḍā. The Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā later became an independent bhaṭṭāraka lineage, but at the time of its consecration, the Naugāmā

<footnote n="29">29 vāgavara-deśe rājādhirājye. The phrasing rājādhirājye seems to be an erring contraction of the common mahārājādhirāja-māhārāja-[X]-rājya.</footnote>
kīrtistambha stood as an axis connecting three hierarchically differentiated polities, namely those of the Naugāmā ācāryas, the bhaṭṭārakas of their mother lineage, and the royal court.

The last memorial to be noted here is a VS 1887 Bṛhadvāgaḍāśākhā bhaṭṭārakka memorial found at the Sambhavanātha Mandira in Īḍara (Figure 10 R). The memorial consists of a heavy, hourglass-shaped base with separate niṣedhikā and pādukā stones installed in a spacious, no doubt purpose-built chatrī annexed to the temple. According to the pādukā inscription, in an entirely unique attestation, Bhaṭṭāraka Yaśakīrti installed his own memorial. A separate inscription on the back of the niṣedhikā records the victorious rule of Māhārāja Gambhīra Sinha over the fortress of Īḍara. Yaśakīrti seems to have been the first Bṛhadvāgaḍāśākhā incumbent to have established his seat in Īḍara, at the Pārśvanātha Mandira, one of the other Digambara temples in town. Yaśakīrti’s deference to the local ruler in his own memorial may well be seen as expressing efforts to insert his own polity in the local kingdom. This would be similar to the case of the Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Narendrakīrti two centuries earlier, who initiated the Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā practice of referring to Kachavāhā mahārājas in memorial inscriptions when moving into their capital Amer (5.1). That the record of the ruler in Īḍara was added in a separate inscription confirms its intentionality.

## 7. Conclusions

After the early, 17th-century example (5.1), nine late-18th-to-19th-century Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorial stones are found deferring to the ruling Kachavāhā monarchs. Four of these commemorate consecutive bhaṭṭārakas, one is a collective bhaṭṭāraka memorial, and one is an unspecified renouncer’s memorial (5.2). Three other memorials commemorate paṇḍitas (5.3). No individual memorials have been retrieved of four further Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā incumbents from the 19th and 20th centuries, and they probably were never erected. The waning of the Kachavāhā court’s autonomy in the colonial period probably also reflected on the Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā. A number of further memorials found in Jaipur and other small towns in the area possibly commemorated paṇḍitas related to the Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā, but either the pādukās do not feature inscriptions or the memorial stones are missing altogether. In other words, not a single Dhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorial contemporary to those recording the Kachavāhā rulers has been found which does not follow this practice. On the other hand, references to rulers are particularly uncommon in Digambara memorials elsewhere, being represented by only three further examples in my corpus of some 200 Western
and Central Indian Digambara memorials predating the contemporary *muni saṅghas*.

In several cases from both the ḍhūṇḍhāḍa region and elsewhere we can identify circumstantial factors which potentially prompted the Digambara agents erecting and inscribing memorials to defer to the local ruler. They may have sought to establish associations to the royal court after newly settling in its territory, to formally record and acknowledge established relations with or favours received from the court, like land donations and royal legitimation of the *bhaṭṭāraka* lineage, or simply to portray themselves as closely linked to the Kachavāhā court. We also see connections between three, hierarchically differentiated polities. The pupillary lineages of *paṇḍitas* in the Jaipur region formed semi-autonomous, satellite polities under the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā *bhaṭṭārakas*, themselves subordinated to the Kachavāhā throne. In the Vāgaḍā region, the Laghuvāgaḍāśākhā *ācāryas* of Naugāmā worked under the Bṛhadvāgaḍāśākhā *bhaṭṭārakas*, who at various points also seem to have sought to connect their polity to local kings. And the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā *bhaṭṭāraka* Mahendrakīrti capitalised on the Kachavāhā ties to the Mughal court in turning to Delhi.

Connections to local rulers were no doubt initiated and cultivated by *bhaṭṭārakas* throughout Western and Central India on behalf of the lay constitution of their polities. The uncommon but consistent, relatively elaborate, and elegant deference given to the Kachavāhā rulers in the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā memorials from the late 18th and 19th century seems to express a particularly close alignment between the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and the Kachavāhā court. Beyond a purely symbolic claim to a connection to the court on the part of the Digambaras, an actual link between both polities had already been established in the 17th century, when Narendrakīrti settled in Amer, and is also confirmed by the Jaipur *mahārājas’* engagement with the Amer *kīrtistambha* and their donation of the plot of land in Jaipur which became an important ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā commemoration site. The structural alignment of the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā with various royal and imperial courts on the longer run also becomes clear when mapping the repeated shifts of its seat onto political history. From the early 16th all the way up to the 20th century, each relocation of the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā seat can be connected to the revolving fortunes of imperial and royal polities and attendant socio-economic conditions (Detige *forthcoming*).
## 8. Inscriptions

The following editions conform to the DHARMA transliteration scheme (Balogh and Griffiths 2020), an extension of ISO-15919. In this system, full (initial) vowel signs of the original script are rendered as uppercase Roman vowels (e.g. *mahotsava-Arcakaṁ* corresponding to Devanagari महोत्सवअर्चक), and *virāma* marks attached to consonant characters are rendered with a · (median dot) sign after the transliterated consonant (e.g. *saṁvat* corresponding to Devanagari संवत्). The following editorial markup is used in these editions:

<1> line numbering

_3_ space left blank in original, with size in approximate number of akṣaras

[...] lacuna in original, extent indefinite

[x] lacuna in original, number of × marks indicating approximate number of akṣaras lost

[a?] lacuna in original, tentatively restored

(a) unclear or ambiguous characters in the original, confidently legible in context

(a/b) ambiguous characters in the original, alternative readings

(a?) unclear or ambiguous characters in the original, tentative reading

<<a>> scribal insertion in original

[[x]] deletion in original, number of × marks indicating approximate number of akṣaras deleted and now illegible

### 8.1. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti

Consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, built by Brahma Keśava, date unknown, Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṁ, Amer.

<1> [...] varṣe (dvi?)tīya śrāvaṇa vadī 8 ma(ṁ?)galavā(re?) A(ṁ?)vāvatī-nagar(e?) mahārājādhirāja-jayasiṁha-rājya-pravarttamāne kuṇḍakumuṇḍācāryyānvaye bhaṭṭāraka śrī-deve(ṁ?)dra [xxxxxxxx] <2>v(a/e/ai)(dy/ch)ā(r?)takāra bhaṭṭāraka-śrīman-nareṁdrakīrtti-jī tasya pādukā (sthā)(ppa?)taṁ|| sevaka vra keśava karāpya ta guru-bhakti nimita cira(ṁ?) va(ṁ)datu ṣubhaṁ bhavatu||

### 8.2. Kīrtistambha of the ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā

Consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti, VS 1845, Kīrtistambha Nasiyāṁ, Amer.

<1> saṁbat: 1845 madhye jyeṣṭa-māse kṛṣna-pakṣe _3_ tithau Aṁbāvatī ka[rvvaṭe?] mahārājādhirāja-śrī-savāī _3_ siṁha-rājye śrī-mūla-<2> saṁghe naṁdy-āmnāye
balātkāra-gaṇe kuṃdakuṃdācāryyānvaye bhaṭṭāraka śrī-sureṃdrakīrtinā sakala-
munibhi dāka-gaṇi-nī<sup>3</sup> dhi-pūjjana-śrāvaka-śrāvikā-saṃdoha-kr̥ta-paramotsava-
yuktābhi(h?) campāvatī-Arca-sṭhāpanā-vivaddanānaṃtaraṃm atra niveśitam
<sup>4</sup> mahotsava-Arcakam|| śrī-gurūṇām pratimā-darśanārvana-varṇdanā-
vidhā(tṛ?)ṇām sarvadā maṃgalāvalī saṃgh(obhayādanārate?) ||śrī||

8.3. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti

Consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti, VS 1853, Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyām, Jai-
pur.

<sup>1</sup> saṃvat 1853 māgha-māse śukla-pakṣe paṃcamī guru-vāsare ḥuṁḍhāhaḍa-deśe savāī-jaya-nagare mahārājādhirāja-mahārāja-śrī-savāī-pratāpasiṁha-jid-rājya- pravarttamāne śrī-mūla-saṃghe naṁdy-āmnāye valākāra-gaṇe sarasvatī- gacche kuṁdakuṁdācāryānvaye Aṁvāvatī-paṭṭodayādri-dinamaṇi-tulya- bhaṭṭārakemḍra-bhaṭṭāraka-jic-chrī-deveṁdrakīrttis tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-jic-chrī- mahemdrakīrttis tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-jic-chrī-kṣemeemdrakīrttis tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭā- raka-jic-chrī-sureṁdrakīrtti-ji-deva-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-jic-chrī-su <sup>3</sup> kheṁdrakīrttinā Iyam śrī-mahemdrakīrtti-guroḥ pādukā prasthāpya mahotsavena pratiṣṭāpitā pūjakānām kalyāṇāvalīm karotu śrīr astu śubham bhavatu||

8.4. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Kṣemendrakīrti

Consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti, VS 1853, Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyām, Jai-
pur.

<sup>1</sup>|| saṃvata 1853 māgha-māse śukla-pakṣe paṃcamī guru-vāsare ḥuṁḍhāhaḍa-
deśe savāī-jaya-nagare mahārājādhirāja-mahārāja-śrī-savāī-pratāpasiṁha-jid-
rājya-pravattamāne śrī-mūla-saṃghe naṁdy-āmnāye valātkāra-gaṇe sarasvatī-
gacche kuṁdakuṁdācāryānvaye Aṁvāvatī-paṭṭodayādri-dinamaṇi-tulya-
bhaṭṭā-<sup>2</sup>rakemḍra-bhaṭṭāraka-jī(c-ch?)rī-mahemdrakīrttis tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-
jic-chrī-kṣemeemdrakīrttis tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-jic-chrī-sureemdrakīrttis tat-paṭṭe
bhaṭṭāraka-jic-chrī-sukhemdrakīrttis-te<<neyaṁ>> śrī-kṣemeemdrakīrtti-guroḥ
pādukā prasthāpya mahotsavena pratiṣṭitā|| pūjakānām kalyāṇāvalīm karotu|| śrīr
astu||

8.5. Pādukā of unspecified renuncer

Consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti, VS 1853, Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyām, Jai-
pur.

<sup>1</sup> savat 1853 kā māgha śukla paṃcamyām guru-vāre savāī-jaya-nagare mahārājādhirāja-śrī-savāī-pratāpasiṁha[××××]drājye śrī-mūla-saṃghe naṁdy-āmnāye valātkāra-gaṇe sarasvatī-gache kuṁdakuṁdācāryyānvaye Aṁbavatī-paṭṭe bhaṭṭārakemḍra-bhaṭṭārakaḥ <sup>2</sup>śrī-deveṁdrakīrttis tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-mahemdrakīrtti-jitkasya bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-surendrakīrati-deva-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-
sukheṁdrakīrttinā Iyaṁ pādukā <sup>3<sup>+</sup></sup>pratiṣ(ṭ/ṭh)āpitā

## 8.6. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Surendrakīrti

Consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti, VS 1881, Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṁ, Jaipur.

<sup>1<sup>+</sup></sup>|| saṁvat 1881 māgha-māse śukla-pakṣe paṁcamī soma-vāsare ḥuṁḍhāhaḍa-deṣe savāĪ-jaya-nagare śrīman-mahārājādhirāja-mahārāja-śrī-savāĪ-jayasiṁha-jid-rājya-pravarttamāne śrī-mūla-saṁghe naṁdy-āmnāye valātkāra-gaṇe sarasvatī-gacche kuṁdakuṁdācāryānvaye bhaṭṭārakeṁdra-bhaṭṭāraka-jic-chrī-maheṁdrakīrtis tat-pa(ṭṭe?) bha<sup>2<sup>+</sup></sup>ṭṭāraka-śrī-kṣemeṁdrakīrttis tatpaṭe bhaṭṭāra-ka-śrī-sureṁdrakīrttis tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sukheṁdrakīrttis tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-jic-chrī-nareṁdrakīrtti-jika Eteṣāṁ madhye bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-nareṁdrakīrttinā mahā-mahotsavaṁ kṛtvā bhadra-bhāvena śrī-sureṁdrakīrtti-guroś caraṇa-yugalaṁ prasthāpya pratiṣṭhitam pūjakānāṁ kalyāṇa-paramparāṁ karotu|| śrīr astu|| śrīḥ||

## 8.7. Pādukā of Bhaṭṭāraka Sukhendrakīrti

Consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, VS 1886, Bhaṭṭārakīya Nasiyāṁ, Cākasū.

<sup>1<sup>+</sup></sup>|| śrī-gurave namaḥ|| saṁvatsare rasa-basu-siddhīmdu-yute 1886 mṛga[×]]sira sudi 2 śani-vāsare ḥuṁḍhāha-deṣe campāvatī-nagare śrīman-mahārājādhirāja-mahārāja-śrī-savāĪ-jayasiṁha-jid-rājya-pravarttamāne śrī-mūla-saṁghe naṁdy-āmnāye balātkāra-gaṇe sarasvatī-gacche kuṁdakuṁdācāryānvaye bhaṭṭāraka-śiroṣekhara-bhaṭṭā<sup>2<sup>+</sup></sup>raka-jic-chrī-sureṁdrakīrttis tat-paṭṭodayādri-dinamaṇi-bhaṭṭāraka-śrī-sukheṁdrakīrttis tat-paṭṭe bhaṭṭāraka-nareṁdrakīttis tat-paṭṭa-śaila-dinamaṇi-sama-vinayavatā bhaṭṭāraka-deveṁdrakīrttinā śrī-bhaṭṭāraka-sukheṁdrakīrtter guror mahā-mahotsavaṁ kṛtvā caraṇa-yugalaṁ prasthāpya pratiṣṭitaṁ|| jagatāṁ śam astu||

## 8.8. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Kesarīsiṁha

Consecrated by Paṇḍita Lālacandra, VS 1880, Śyojī Godhā Nasiyāṁ, Jaipur.

<sup>1<sup>+</sup></sup>|| śrī-paramātmane namaḥ|| saṁvata 1880 phālguṇa śukla saptamī ravi-vāsare savāĪ-jaya-nagare śrī-mahārājādhirāja-mahārāja-śrī-savāĪ-jayasiṁha-jid-rājya-pravarttamāne śrī-mūla-saṁghe naṁdy-āmnāye balātkāra-gaṇe sarasvatī-gacche kuṁdakuṁdācāryānvaye bhaṭṭāraka-ji-śrī-narendrakī<<rtti>>jid-āmnāye paṁḍita-pradhāna-paṁḍita-jic-chrī-sukharāma-jitkas tac-chiṣya-paṁḍita-śiromaṇi-paṁḍita-ji-chrī-kesarīsiṁha-jitkas tad-aṁtevāsī paṁḍita-lālacaṁdras tac-chiṣya-vara-paṁḍita-<sup>2<sup>+</sup></sup>jhāṁjhūrāmas tac-chiṣyau dvau prathamaḥ devālālah dvitīyaḥ bhairūlālah Eteṣāṁ madhye paṁḍita-lālacandreṇa caraṇālayaṁ kāriyitvā sva-guroḥ śrī-kesarīsiṁha-jitkasya caraṇa-kamala-yugam niraṁtara-
### smaraṇārthaṁ vandanārthaṁ ca prasthāpitaṁ॥ śrīr astu॥

## 8.9. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Dhanarāja

Consecrated by Paṇḍita Ratanasukha, VS 1888, Nasīyā, Caurū.

<1>॥ śrī-paramātmane namaḥ॥ saṁbat: 1888 kā māsottama-māse mṛgasira kṛṣṇa paṁcamī gura-vāsare ḥuṁḍhāhaḍākaye deśe corū-nāmni nagare śrīman-mahārājādhirāja-mahārājya-śrī-savāī-jayasiṁha-jid-rājya-pravarttamāne śrī-mūla-saṁghe naṁdy-āmnāye balātkāra-gaṇe sarasvatī-gacche kuṁdakuṁdācāryyānvaye bhaṭṭārakeṁdra-bhaṭṭāraka-jīc-chrī-deveṁdrakīrtti-jid-āmnāye paṁḍita-pradhāna-paṁḍita-jic-chrī-baṣatarāma-jitkas tac-chiṣya vidyadhara-paṁḍita-dhanarāja-ji<2>tkas tad-amṭevāsinā paṁḍita ratanasukhena caraṇālayaṁ kārayitvā sva-guro śrī-dhanarāja-jitkasya caraṇa-yuga(m?) niraṁtaraṁ smaraṇārthaṁ baṁdanārthaṁ ca pras(th)āpitam॥ śrīr astu॥

## 8.10. Pādukā of Paṇḍita Jayacanda

Consecrated by Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, VS 1924, Candraprabhū Digambara Jaina Nasiyām, Phāgī.

<1>॥ śrī-paramātmane namaḥ saṁvata 1924 kā māsottama-māse Asāḍha-māse śukla-pakṣe doyaja vudha-vāsare ḥuṁḍhāhaḍakaye deśe phāgaī-nag(are) śrīman-mahārā(j)ādhirāja-māhārājya-śrī-savāī-rāmasiṁha-jid-rājya-pravarttamāne śrī-mūla-saṁghe naṁdy-āmnāye valātkāra-gaṇe sarasvatī-gacche

<2>kuṁdakuṁdācāryyānvaye bhaṭṭārakendra-bhaṭṭāraka-jī-śrī-deveṁdrakīrti-jīd-āmnāye paṁḍita-ji-śrī-vaṣatarāma-jitkas ta-siṣya-vidyadhara-paṁḍita-ji-śrī-Amaracāṁda-jitkas ta-siṣya paṁḍita-(vidyadhara)-jayacāṁda-jitkas tad-amṭevāsinā paṁḍita-śivalālena caraṇālayaṁ kārayitvā sva-guro śrī-jayacāṁda-jitkasya caraṇa-yuga niraṁtaraṁ smaraṇārthaṁ vaṁdanārthaṁ pras(th?)pit॥
Jaina Ideologies of Kingship:
Perceptions from Early Medieval Śvetāmbara Narratives

Christine Chojnacki

Université de Lyon

1. Introduction

Studies on the Jaina ideologies of kingship in medieval India are still few and far
between. Some of them have focused on the Digambara movement in the 9th
century, mainly based on one work, Jinasena's *Ādipurāņa*, and point to a model
of the renouncing king.<fnref n="1" /> The others were devoted to the Śvetāmbara movement
between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries, based on a play, the *Moharāja-
parājaya* of Yaśaḥpāla, evoking the conduct of King Kumārapāla,<fnref n="2" /> and narrative
works, including Merutuṅga's *Prabandhacintāmaṇi*, dealing in part with the rul-
ers of the Caulukya dynasty and highlighting an evolving model of the secular
king.<fnref n="3" /> However, given the wide chronological gap in the texts analysed, it is
questionable whether there is a model of royal Digambara ideology opposed to

<footnote n="1">1 Dundas (1991) examined the practical and theoretical models for the conduct of a king that appear in Jinasena's *Ādipurāņa* (9th century). More recently, Taylor (2021) has argued that in this same work, worldly kingship and spiritual kingship were intertwined into a system presenting renunciation not only as superior to temporal power, but also as being a politically feasible option.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 Leclère (2013, 285-302) has suggested how plays could contribute to the legitimisation of royal power at the same time as they offered a model for political conduct.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 Taking into account various narrative sources from the 12th to the 14th century (Hemacandra's *Dvyāśrayakāvya*, mid-twelfth century; Hemacandra's *Triṣaṣṭiśalākāpuruṣacarita*, 1160-1172; Somaprabha's *Kumārapālapratibodha*, 1184; Arisiṁha's *Sukṛtasaṁkīrtana*, c. 1229; Prabhācandra's *Prabhāvakacarita*, 1278; Merutuṅga's *Prabandhacintāmaṇi*, 1305; Jinarabha's *Vividhatīrthakalpa*, 1333; Rājaśekhara's *Prabandhakośa*, 1349), Cort (1998) has shown how the portraits of four historical (Mūlarāja, Jayasiṁha Siddharāja, Kumārapāla) or semi-legendary (Vaṇarāja) rulers reflect a variety of royal ideologies ranging from a lack of support for Jaina monks to a conversion to Jainism.</footnote>
a Śvetāmbara model during the medieval period,<fnref n="4" /> or whether the positions of the two Jaina groups rather depend on different socio-political contexts.<fnref n="5" /> I therefore propose to examine whether Śvetāmbara works composed between the 8th and 10th centuries in Northwest India reveal an ideology of kingship distinct from the Digambara model analysed by Paul Dundas and Sarah Pierce Taylor in Jinasena's *Ādipurāṇa*. To this end, I shall analyse data from four lengthy narrative Śvetāmbara works: Haribhadra's *Samarāiccakahā* (8th century), Ud-dyotana's *Kuvalayamālā* (779), Śīlāṅka's *Caüppannamahāpurisacaria* (868) and Vijayasiṁhasūri's *Bhuvaṇasuṁdarī*. These works have been chosen because several characteristics make them likely to provide information about a royal ideology. Thus, like the *Purāṇas* or “Universal Histories,”<fnref n="6" /> they propose a vision of the world in its entirety through the journey of specific souls from birth to deliverance. Moreover, while they do not use historical figures as heroes, as the *Prabandhas* do,<fnref n="7" /> they do include stories about the lives of royal characters.<fnref n="8" /> Finally, they use the refined style of *kāvya* to address an aristocratic elite, and their inclusion of themes of love and war, and of technical passages, for example on horses, alchemy, and subsoils, are also indicative of an audience beyond the scholarly monks.<fnref n="9" />

<footnote n="4">4 Cf. Taylor (2020, 487).</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 I thank here Prof. von Hinüber for drawing my attention to a talk given by John Strong in Seoul in 2017, and I thank Prof. Strong for providing me with a copy of his unpublished paper. Strong shows that the Aśoka legends reflect several understandings of kingship. They do not only exemplify a model of an ideal Buddhist ruler, but they also warn about the potential dangers of kings who do not act in Buddhist ways. Besides, although they generally show Aśoka as a righteous ruler, they also show him acting in a ruthless manner. In addition, at times Aśoka appears as a reformer of the community, and at times as responsible for the spread of the *dharma* out of India. Thus, there is more ambiguity about kingship than is often admitted (Strong 2017, 4–5).</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 On the *Purāṇas* and the insertion of a royal ideology, see Inden (1990, 228–44; 2000b). On the composition and development of the Jaina universal history, see Bruhn (1954, 114–31).</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7 On the *Prabandha* genre, see Deleu (1981).</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 In the *Kuvalayamālā*, the hero is Prince Kuvalayacandra; in the *Samarāiccakahā*, the main soul incarnates as a prince in six of nine existences: Guṇasena (1), Siṁha (2), Jaya (5), Sena (7), Guṇacandra (8), Samarāditya (9). In the *Bhuvaṇasuṁdarī*, the two main heroes are the princes Harivikrama and Vīrasena.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 See for instance Lienhard (1984, 31–34); Smith (1985, 55–102).</footnote>
## 2. The Jinasena model

In his study, Dundas (1991) first points out how Jinasena's work is relevant for studying the Jaina perception of kingship insofar as it is probably addressed to King Rāṣṭrakūṭa Amoghavarṣa, who seems to have favoured Jainism while remaining in the Hindu-Brahmanical tradition. Dundas then demonstrates the existence of three essential characteristics of the royal ideology presented by Jinasena. The first is the model of a Jainised king, exemplified by Bharata presented as a righteous king who conquers the four directions for the most part through his qualities of energy and calmness, without using violence. The second characteristic is the superiority of the model of spiritual kingship represented by Bāhubali over the model of temporal kingship represented by Bharata. Indeed, despite his qualities, Bharata reveals his imperfection when he is confronted with his half-brother Bāhubali. Twice he manifests the flaw of anger and its fatal consequences. The first time, anger leads Bharata into battle when Bāhubali refuses to acknowledge Bharata's authority on the sole ground that Bharata is the elder; the second time, fury leads Bharata to break his promise not to use weapons and to throw his magic discus against Bāhubali. Conversely, Bāhubali masters his passions, renounces the world, and becomes the first being in this world to attain deliverance. Thus, a hierarchy is clearly established between the two characters: while Bharata illustrates a temporal kingship that remains imperfect, Bāhubali manifests the triumph of spiritual kingship.<fnref n="10" /> The third characteristic is the presence of an exposition of royal dharma marked by Jaina values in chapter 42 of the *Ādipurāṇa*. According to this, the doctrine for distinguishing the true from the false is that enunciated by the Tīrthaṅkaras; the king is encouraged to renounce the world to protect his soul whereas in Hinduism kings are not required to renounce; and the subjects to be protected are not the Brāhmaṇas who rejoice in violence and meat-eating, but the Jainas, who are worthy of honour on account of their qualities rather than their birth.

## 3. Praising the path of royal renunciation

Against the theoretical and practical royal ideology contained in Jinasena's *Ādipurāṇa* for the Digambaras, what do we find in the contemporary or slightly later Śvetāmbara works composed by Haribhadra, Uddyotana, Śīlāṅka and

<footnote n="10">10 Bharata is a perfectible being since a year later he pays homage to Bāhubali. Nevertheless, a hierarchy is clearly established between the two characters (in a manner reminiscent of the opposition between Kṛṣṇa and Nemi in the universal history).</footnote>
Vijayasiṁha? In the long narrative works selected, renunciation is — for kings as well as for other members of society — the successful outcome of a spiritual path of a being who experiences the upheaval provoked by the discourse of a master (saṁvegin), or of one who is provoked to awakening by the sight of an external event (pratyekabuddha).<fnref n="11" /> Thus, in the Samarāiccakahā, when King Sena<fnref n="12" /> and the merchant Bandhudeva go to pay homage to a superior nun who has just obtained omniscience,<fnref n="13" /> they are so impressed by the venerable nun’s speech that they become monks:

> Immediately afterwards, the assembly was distressed. The king and Bandhu-
> deva spoke up, "Venerable one, it is as you have indicated. By abandoning
> the refuge of our house, we shall adopt the dharma taught by the Tīrthaṁ-
> karas." The Venerable One replied, "It is at your pleasure, Majesty (beloved
> of the gods), do not delay."<fnref n="14" />

In the same work, as King Siṁha<fnref n="15" /> prepares to do battle with an enemy king, he
is awakened by a scene that leads him to adopt the monastic path:

As the king walked in that direction, what did he not see! An osprey was de-
vouring an old snake with a large body, very black skin, which was dazzling
with the flames of poison shooting from its protruding eyes. The snake itself
was swallowing a bullfrog, whose head was frightening to see, so distorted
was it by terror, and whose body was shaking with accelerated convulsions.
And the osprey itself was being swallowed by a python with a body as wide
as the trunk of a celestial elephant and terrifying red eyes. As the python
devoured the osprey, the osprey swallowed the old snake, which in turn de-
voured the bullfrog.<fnref n="16" />

<footnote n="11">11 In the progression of a soul towards deliverance, the two types of awakening can occur alternately during the existences.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12 King Sena is the seventh existence of the main protagonist soul, of which nine existences are narrated in detail in the *Samarāiccakahā*.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">13 She is called either *pravartiṇī* or *gaṇinī*.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">14 *Samarāiccakahā* p. 574, ll. 8–10: *etthaṁtarammi saṁviggā sabhā. bhaṇiyaṁ rāya-bandhu-
devehiṁ: bhayavai evam eyaṁ jaṁ tae āṇattaṁ ti. paḍivajjāmo amhe gihāsama-pariccāena
titthayara-bhāsiyaṁ dhammaṁ. bhayavaie bhaṇiyaṁ: ahāsuhaṁ devāṇuppiyā, mā paḍi-
baṁdhaṁ kareha.*</footnote>

<footnote n="15">15 He is the second existence of the main soul.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16 *Samarāiccakahā* p. 145, ll. 6–10: *gao taṁ ceva bhūmi-bhāgaṁ rāyā jāva diṭṭho teṇa mahā-kāo aṅkasiṇa-deha-chavī viṇiṁta-nayaṇa-visa-jālā-bhāsuro gahiya-rasaṁta-maṁdukka-gāso bhayā-ṇaya-viyariyāṇaṇa-duppeccho duyayara-pavelliraṁgo mahayā kurareṇa gasijjamāno junṇa-bhuyaṁgamo, kuraro vi dig-gaya-karoru-kāeṇa rattaccha-bībhcachaeṇa ayagareṇa. jahā jahā ya*</footnote>
Finally, King Guṇacandra<fnref n="17" /> contemplates a scene that made him think about the difference between life in the world where all expansion (of territory and wealth), even if aimed at service, leads to violence, and the life of a renunciant who abandons all violent action and possession:

> He saw a river filled with water mixed with pieces of wood and blades of grass, which overflowed on all sides. It washed away the banks, destroyed the shelters, dirtied itself, teemed with cruel water creatures, lacked (pure) water suitable for wise people, was beset by eddies, knew no boundaries, and frightened people, starting with children, with all its frightening whirlpools. After watching this spectacle for a while, the king entered the city. Some time elapsed. In the autumn, as he went to the racetrack to run the horses, the king saw the same river. It was again in its natural state, filled with pure water, devoid of the cruel water creatures, and could serve for the consumption of the most refined beings. Seeing it thus, the king remembered his past experience and, by virtue of the maturation of the karman of this nature, he was very distressed. [...]

> Even if this (conduct) allows one to provide for some people, it is no less cruel; indeed, it is not possible to achieve this highest goal without causing torment to others. What is more, the essential thing is the service rendered to the being. And this service cannot happen at all without abandoning all aggression and possession. In human life, this must be given. What good is something else that has no purpose?<fnref n="18" />

> ayagaro kuraraṁ gasaṁī tahā tahā so vi juṇṇa-bhuyaṁgaraṁ, juṇṇa-bhuyaṁgamo vi ya rasaṁta-
> maṁḍukkayaṁ ti.

<footnote n="17">17 The 8th existence of the main soul.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 Samarāiccakahā p. 773, l. 11 – p. 775, l. 11: diṭṭhā sariyā kaṭṭha-taṇa-kalileṇa pūriyā jaloheṇa vittharaṇtī savvao, nivāḍayaṇtī kūlāṇi, viṇāsayaṇtī ārāme, kalasayaṇtī appāṇayaṇ, saṃgayā kūra-jalayarehiṁ, rahiyā buha-jaṇa-sevaṇijjeṇa jaleṇa, ahiṭṭhiyā kallolehiṁ, vajjiyā majjāyāe, accaṇta-bhīsaṇeṇaṁ mahāvatta-saṃghāeṇaṁ bālāi-bhaya-jaṇaṇi tti. taṁ ca kaṁci velaṁ pula-iya paviṭṭho nayariṁ rāyā. aṅkkaṇtā kaīi diyahā. saraya-samae āsa-parivāhaṇa-nimittaṁ vāhiyāliṁ gacchamāṇeṇa puṇo payai-bhāva-ṭṭhiyā, saṃgayā sacchodaeṇa, vajjiyā kūra-jalayarehiṁ, visiṭṭha-jaṇovabhoya-saṃpāyaṇa-samatthā sa cceva diṭṭha tti. taṁ ca daṭṭhūṇa sumariya-puvva-vuttaṇtassa rāiṇo tahā-kamma-pariṇaï-vaseṇa samuppanno saṁveo. [...] tahā jaï vi kesiṁci davvovayāra-saṃpāyaṇa-samattham eyaṁ, tahāvittaro; tao na anna-piḍāe viṇā paramatthao so vi saṁbhavaï. pahāno ya bhāvovayāro na yāparicattāraṁbha-pariggaho savvahā taṁ saṃpādei. juttaṁ ca maṇuya-bhāve tassa saṃpāyaṇaṁ kim anneṇa niratthaeṇaṁ ti.</footnote>
This example clearly shows the hierarchy established by the monk-writer between the monastic path and the worldly path, in accordance with the parable of the two roads in the canonical tradition and repeated in the *Samarāiccakahā*.<fnref n="19" />

Several other indications suggest that the secular path is an intermediate stage of spiritual evolution. First, the hero himself, like King Purandaradatta in the *Kuvalayamālā*, recognises that he does not yet have the strength to take the monk's vows, and wishes to first abide by the vows of the Jaina layman:

> The Venerable One said, “Then, Great King Purandaradatta, has some decision imposed itself on your heart?” At this, the king thought to himself, “The Venerable One surely knows then that I was here before.” As he thought, he said, “Venerable One, everything is surely as you taught, but I am not yet ready to abandon the kākoḍumbarī figs of Kuḍaṅga Island.<fnref n="20" /> Therefore, I ask you, Venerable One, to prescribe for me some form of embarkation more appropriate to myself by which I might cross this ocean that is the cycle of existences.” The Venerable One said, “If such be your will, take, then, those five jewels that are the Lesser Vows, and the three Reinforcing Vows as well as the four Disciplinary Vows and observe thereby that dharma of the lay follower made of these twelve vows and founded in right belief.”<fnref n="21" />

On the other hand, the master refuses ordination when a prince does not yet fulfil the conditions for adopting the monastic way of life, for example in the exchange of words between Prince Kuvalayacandra and the master Sāgaradatta:

> “O you who have affection for all the souls of the universe, you granted me a great favour by arranging to have me carried away and by giving to me right

<footnote n="19">19 The parable of the two roads is referred to in the *Āvaśyakaniruykti* vv. 904–906, and subsequently developed in the exegetical commentaries (Āvaśyakacūrṇi of Jinadāsa, Āvaśyakavṛtti of Haribhadra, Āvaśyakavṛtti of Malayagiri) and in the *Samarāiccakahā* p. 442, l. 1 – p. 445, l. 9; see Mette (2010, 127–30, translation; 334–36, commentary). Two roads can lead to deliverance: a road that is full of pitfalls (the monastic path), but straight and fast, and a comfortable road (the secular path), but with detours and therefore much longer.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">20 This is an allusion to the parable dealt with elsewhere in the *Kuvalayamālā* (p. 88, l. 26 – p. 90, l. 20): see Chojnacki (2008, 282–86).</footnote>

<footnote n="21">21 *Kuvalayamālā* p. 91, ll. 18–22: *bhaṇiyaṁ ca bhagavayā, “bho bho mahārāya puraṁdaradatta, kiṁ tuha valaggaṁ kiṁci hiyayammi?”* tao rāiṇā ciṁtiyaṁ, “ṇissaṁsayaṁ jānio bhagavayā ihāgao” ti. ciṁtayaṁteṇa bhaṇiyaṁ ca ṇeṇa, “bhagavaṁ, jārisaṁ tae samāiṭṭhaṁ tārisaṁ savvaṁ paḍivaṇṇaṁ. kiṁtu ime kuḍaṅga-kāumbarī-phalāṇi mottuṁ na cāemi. tā iha-ṭṭhiyassa ceya desu bhagavaṁ, kiṁci saṁsāra-sāgara-taraṁḍayaṁ” ti. bhagavayā bhaṇiyaṁ, “jaï evaṁ, tā geṇha imāiṁ paṁcāṇuvvaya-rayaṇāiṁ, tiṇṇi guṇa-vvayāiṁ, cattāri sikkhā-vayāiṁ, sammatta-mūlaṁ ca imaṁ duvālasa-vihaṁ sāvaya-dhammaṁ aṇupālesu” tti.</footnote>
belief. Grant me, I pray you, one further favour and allow to me that embar-
kation across the great ocean that is the cycle of existences, I mean ordina-
tion according to the *dharma* of the Jinas.” The monk replied, “Prince, do not
try to hurry matters so! For the present, what you must do is experience with
happiness a *karman* whose fruit is pleasure. Once you have worn away this
*karman*, you will be able to take ordination and lead the homeless life of a
monk. But for the present, you must follow rather the *dharma* of the lay fol-
lower.”<fnref n="22" />

Finally, the texts suggest that the only true kingship is spiritual kingship, inso-
far as the acquisition of *dharma* by a king or prince does not segue into the de-
scription of a temporal Jaina kingship, but rather into that of the progress of a
Jaina layman who controls his passions in all the occasions of existence. Thus,
in the *Bhuvaṇasuṁdarī*, Prince Vīrasena goes to a temple to pay homage to the
Jina before meeting the princess with whom he had fallen in love and from
whom he had been separated when he set out to fight against King Narasiṁha,
who had killed his father:

With his body quivering after the praise of the qualities of the goddess and
intense contemplation, and with his face bathed in tears of joy, Vīrasena
prostrated himself again. Then he said to his friend, “Bandhudatta, let me see
Candraśrī! Would you be troubled by mistakenly believing that I am very un-
happy?”<fnref n="23" />

Much later in the romance, a courtesan falls in love with Prince Vīrasena, whom she sees in the temple of Vāsupūjya. Consequently, she decides to give a dance show in the temple in order to attract the prince. But, while Vīrasena praises her performance, he is not sensible to her charms, for that is not proper:

<footnote n="22">22 Kuvalayamālā p. 111, ll. 1–4: “bhayavaṁ savva-jaga-jīva-vacchala, mahaṁto esa me aṇuggaho kao, jeṇa avahārāviūṇa sammattaṁ maha diṇṇaṁ ti. tā desu me mahā-saṁsāra-sāyara-taraṁḍayaṁ jina-dhamma-dikkhāṇuggahaṁ” ti. muṇiṇā bhaṇiyaṁ, “kumāra, mā tāva tūrasu. ajja vi tuha atthi muha-veyaṇijyaṁ bhoya-phalaṁ kammaṁ. to taṁ nijjariya aṇagāriyaṁ dikkhaṁ geṇhahiha tti. saṁpayaṁ puṇa sāvaya-dhammaṁ parivālesu” tti.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">23 Bhuvaṇasuṁdarī vv. 2160–2161: iya devi guṇatthuī-mahattha-paribhāvanā-pulaīyaṁgo| āṇaṁda-bāha-pakkhāliyāṇaṇo paṇavaī puṇo vi|| to bhaṇaī vīrseṇo “dāvasu maha baṁdhudatta caṁdasiriṁ| aīdukkhio tti kāuṁ muhāe kiṁ mitta velavasi?||.</footnote>
The association of respectable beings with venal women is not suitable. My handsome friend, even when they feel love, courtesans are devoid of the fragrance of qualities.<fnref n="24" />

A second time, after his marriage to Candraśrī, Vīrasena is separated from her because of royal matters he has to settle, and when he comes back, he does not indulge in the pleasure of reunion with his wife, whom he has not seen for a long time (vv. 6410–6415), and, on the advice of his friend Bandhudatta, does not delay in acting according to his duty:

> There, after paying homage to the Jina, he applied the rule of self-control and fell asleep on the ground keeping the vow of chastity.<fnref n="25" />

In contrast, kingship without the virtues of Jainism is prone to excesses. In the *Samarāiccakahā*, before his awakening by a Jaina monk, Prince Guṇasena (the hero’s first birth) mocks the ugliness of the chaplain’s son, Agniśarman, and torments him in various ways, driving him to despair and triggering his decision to leave the world:

> To amuse himself, Prince Guṇasena made him dance among the townspeople to the sound of a great number of instruments — various drums, flutes, and cymbals — while the prince laughed and clapped his hands; he also made him ride a donkey at full speed many times up and down the royal road to a great fanfare accompanied by rousing drumbeat, carrying lotuses made of rags and being hailed with the titles of a great king while surrounded by a flock of jeering children. While being humiliated in this way every day by the prince as if by Yama incarnate, Agniśarman became detached.<fnref n="26" />

<footnote n="24">24 Bhuvaṇasuṁdarī vv. 5370cd-5371ab: *pannaṁgaṇāi-saṁgo* garuyāṇaṁ aṇucio hoīṃ *aṇurattāu* vi suṁdara guṇa-gaṁdha-vivajjiyāo vesāo[.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">25 Bhuvaṇasuṁdarī v. 6419: *tattha* vi jiṇa-pūyā-puvvam eva nivattiūṇa niyama-vihiṁ[ so baṁbacera-dhārī pāsutto bhūmi-sayaṇaṁmi[.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">26 Samarāiccakahā p. 11, l. 11 – p. 12, l. 4: taṁ ca kouhalleṇa kumāra-guṇaseño pahaya-paḍu-paḍaha-muiṁga-vaiṇsa-kaṁsālaya-ppahāṇeṇa mahayā tūreṇa nayara-jaṇa-majjhe sahattha-tālaṁ hasaṁto naccāvei, rāsahammi āroviyaṁ, pahaṭṭha-bahu-diṁbha-viṁda-parivāriyaṁ, chittaramaya-dhariya-poṁḍarīyaṁ, maṇaharuttāla-vajjaṁta-diṁḍimaṁ, āroviya-mahārāya-saddaṁ, bahuso rāya-magge su-turiya-turiyaṁ hiṁḍāvei evaṁ ca paīdiṇaṁ kayaṁteṇeva teṇa kayatthijjaṁtassa tassa veragga-bhāvaṇā jāyā.</footnote>
In the same work, Haribhadra describes at length a prison, which appears, as in the Buddhist sources,<fnref n="27" /> to symbolise the violent rule of King Ānanda who had cast his father Sīmha there:

> The prison was full of an overwhelming smell of excrement, with reptiles sleeping on its dilapidated walls; with swarms of buzzing flies and mosquitoes; with a quantity of rats issuing from the openings of cavities and holes, with creepers of serpents hanging from above; with a canopy formed of cobwebs; it was like the abode of the age of evil, the pleasure ground of a lack of piety, the brother of the Sīmantaka hell, the assembly hall of the multitude of all miseries, the paternal home of all torments, the resting place of death, and the field of success of the god of death.<fnref n="28" />

Other works also give various examples of bad kings who were violent, proud, and immoral. In the *Bhuvaṇasuṁdarī*, in an attempt to expand his kingdom, King Narasiṁha kills Śūrasena, the King of Campā, and usurps his place:

> In time, the child was born (to Śūrasena), and only three days after his birth, the city of Campā was surrounded by kings in all directions. Śūra(sena) gave the name Vīrasena to his son and engaged in battle. Then, in spite of his victory in battle, he was killed dishonestly.

> Then Narasiṃha became the king of the city of Campā, whose territory Śūra himself had rendered free from insurgency.<fnref n="29" />

The text implies the unworthiness of this king in several ways: he did not respect the ten-day period allowed for the giving of the name; he killed his enemy dishonourably and replaced a king who had been able to get rid of potential enemies.

<footnote n="27">27 See Strong (2017, 4).</footnote>

<footnote n="28">28 Samarāiccakahā p. 151, ll. 1-4: taṇ ca accaṁta-nimmahamāṇa-purīsa-kalamala-gaṁdhaṁ phaḍiya-bhitti-pasutta-sīrīsivaṁ, bhiṇibhiṇāyamāṇa-masaya-makkhiyā-jālaṁ dari-vivara-muha-viṇiggaya-mūsa-ukkeraṁ uvari-vilaṁbamāṇoraya-nimmoyaṁ lūya-taṁtu-viraṅya-viyāṇayaṁ vāsaharaṁ piva dussamāe, līlā-bhūmiṁ piva adhammassa, sahoyaraṁ piva sīmaṁtayassa, sahā viva savva-dukkhā-samudayāṇaṁ, kulaharaṁ piva savva-jāyaṇāṇaṁ, vissāma-bhūmiṁ piva maccoṇo, siddhi-khettān piva kayaṁtassa tti.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">29 Bhuvaṇasuṁdarī vv. 1788-1790: jāo kāla-kameṇaṁ taṅya-diṇe tammi jāya-mettammi| nīsesa-ḍisārāehiṁ vedhiyā caṁpā-vara-nayarī|| siri-vīrasenā-nāmaṁ kāuṁ puttassa kuṇaī saṁgāmaṁ| vijie vi hu saṁgāme akkhatteṇaṁ hao sūro|| to sūreṇa sayaṁ ciya nikkaṁṭī-kaya-dharā-yalucchaṁge| narasiho saṁjāo rāyā caṁpāe nayarīe||.</footnote>
In the same work, King Narasiṁha is angry with his astrologer who an-
nounces the arrival of his enemy in the city instead of indicating to him the
right moment for the departure of his army:

Then not trusting the word of his astrologer and full of pride, King Nara-
siṁha, in anger and with forehead red with fury, cried out:

"Ah, you astrologer, you know nothing, how could this being cause me harm?
How could the mightiest of fireflies suppress the splendour of the sun? Its
arrival is not possible! In short, you were wrong in your prediction. How
could an inhabitant of the earth have arrived here since he does not fly?"<fnref n="30" />

In each case, remorse and the adoption of the monastic path begins to redeem
the faults of the hero as he progresses through his subsequent existences.

Among the faults associated with the royal dharma, a delicate point is the use
of violence, which has been reflected in various ways in literary works. Thus, as
Peterson (2003, 136) has observed, in the early centuries CE, Aśvaghoṣa’s
Buddhacarita presents Siddhārtha rejecting the warrior dharma and adopting the
dharma of Buddhist renunciation leading to deliverance, while later works echo
the debates over royal dharma and offer alternative points of view, such as
Bhāravi’s Kirātārjunīya (c. 5th cent.), which reflects diverse religious attitudes.
While Indra in the Kirātārjunīya presents the ideal of the renunciant and the
dharma of the cessation of all action (and thus condemns the warrior dharma in
terms reminiscent of the Buddhist and Jaina positions), Arjuna gives him a re-
sponse that represents the solution of the Brahmanic social system and aims to
show the legitimacy of the violence of the royal dharma (Peterson 2003, 133). In
the Kappphiṇābhyudaya (9th century),<fnref n="31" /> as noted by Hahn (2019, 121–22), Śiva-
svāmin insists that the violence of war must only be a last resort and imagines
a miracle of the Buddha averting deaths on the battlefield.<fnref n="32" />

<footnote n="30">30 Bhuvaṇasuṁdarī vv. 5210–5212: to bhaṇaï sa-kova-maṇo narasīho rosa-taṁbira-niḍālo| nemittiyassa vayaṇaṁ asaddahaṁto sa-qavvo ya|| re joisiya ayāṇaya! teṇa vi maha kaha ņu kiraï aṇattho?| balio vi hu khajjoo kaha teo haṇaï sūrassa?|| saṁbhavaï na āgamaṇaṁ gaṇamāṇo savvahā tumaṁ bhullo| kaham ettha so pahutto bhūcārī jaṁ na so khayaro||.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">31 For an edition of the text and a partial translation, see Hahn (2007; 2013).</footnote>

<footnote n="32">32 See also Hahn (2019, 124), “The remarkable thing is the fact that the poem is entitled King Kapphiṇa’s Triumph, that a military defeat is declared a success. This makes the message of the poem clear: More important than success or failure or what has been undertaken is what one has gained from it spiritually. King Kapphiṇa’s triumph is the fact that he met the Buddha and that he understood and internalized his doctrine.”</footnote>
In the eight-to-tenth-century narrative works under consideration, the Śvetāmbara monk-writers clearly reject the use of violence. Indeed, kings who provoke fierce battles and kill human beings suffer the consequences in a miserable fate. Thus, in the *Caüppannamahāpurisacariya*, which gives one of the versions of the universal history of the Śvetāmbara tradition, several kings go to hell for cutting off the heads of their enemies, such as the *cakravartin* Subhūma:

> Once Subhūma had killed Paraśurāma because of his anger towards him, he deprived the land of Brāhmaṇas twenty-one times.

> Then, after ruling the land of Bharata consisting of six parts and increasing his prestige, Subhūma came to the end of his life and obtained an infernal destiny.<fnref n="33" />

In addition, the authors devise various narrative stratagems for the avoidance of violence. To begin with, fight scenes are few and far between in the *Samarāiccakahā*, as well as in the *Kuvalayamālā* and the *Caüppannamahāpurisacaria*.<fnref n="34" /> Second, when further developing the battle scenes, the writer-monks are careful to circumscribe them in several ways. In the one developed scene of the *Samarāiccakahā*, the description of the march of a majestic army is longer than that of the fight.<fnref n="35" /> In the *Bhuvaṇasuṁdarī*, the sometimes lengthy war scenes depict single combat that mostly ends without violence (except a rogue Vidyādhara).<fnref n="36" /> Thirdly, in the struggle between two kings, several devices are used to

<footnote n="33">33 Caüppannamahāpurisacaria p. 167, ll. 21–22: *paḍiyammi parasurāmammi to subhūmeṇa tassa roseṇa| vārāo ekka-vīsaṁ kayā mahī bambhana-vihūṇa|| bhottūṇa bharaha-vāsaṁ cha-kkhainḍaṁ vaḍdhiūṇa ya payāvan| āuya-khayammi patto aho-gaiṁ taha subhūmo ttī|*.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">34 There are three such passages in the *Samarāiccakahā*: a battle between King Sanatkumāra and King Vidyādhara Anaṅgarati (p. 427, ll. 1–5), Anaṅgarati’s troops (p. 431, ll. 1–5), and the clash of the armies of Sena and Muktāpīṭha (pp. 636–642, vv. 604–644); in the *Kuvalayamālā* three passages: the battle fought by General Suṣeṇa (p. 10, ll. 3–11), a duel between Prince Kuvalayacandra and Prince Darpaparigha (p. 136, ll. 8–29), and the fight between Prince Vajragupta and a Vidyāsiddha (p. 252, ll. 1–30); in the *Caüppannamahāpurisacaria* several battle scenes: between the kings Puruṣasiṁha and Niśumbha (p. 136, ll. 8–24); between the kings Kṛṣṇa and Jarāsandha (p. 188, l. 8 – p. 189, l. 2); between the kings Brahmadatta and Dīrgha (p. 241, l. 23 – p. 242, l. 12); and the battle in the imagination of the royal ascetic Prasannacandra against his ministers plotting to usurp the throne he had left to his young son (p. 308, ll. 1–10).</footnote>

<footnote n="35">35 The advance of the armies is described in verses 592 to 622, the battle in verses 623 to 644.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">36 The *Bhuvaṇasuṁdarī* describes the fights between Harivikrama and the *kṣetrapāla* Khaṁḍakapāla (vv. 264–268, 296–310), between Vīrasena and King Narasiṁha (vv. 1998–2005, 5655–5668, 5678–5690, 5704–5714), between Vīrasena and the Rākṣasa (vv. 2775–2783), between Vīrasena and the Vidyādhara Aśoka (vv. 3240–3283), between Vīrasena</footnote>
emphasise non-violence. A recurring motif is the hero's compassion for his en-
emy. In the *Caüppannamahāpurisacaria*, Prince Brahmadatta fights against
Dīrgha — a king who is a friend of Brahmadatta's late father and has become his
mother's lover to ensure that Brahmadatta will no longer be a threat to the ex-
tension of his power — but when Brahmadatta triumphs, he forgives Dīrgha for
his sinful action in the name of his father's friendship with him.<fnref n="37" /> In the
*Bhuvaṇasuṁdarī*, the hero-king Vīrasimha saves the lives of several of his ene-
mies, including King Narasimha (v. 2019) and the Vidyādhara Aśoka (v. 3216).
Another motif is the enemy's recognition of the heroic king's merit. For exam-
ple, in the *Samarāiccakahā* of Haribhadra, King Muktāpītha attacks the territory
of King Sena. The latter defeats him in single combat but spares his life. Muktā-
pītha then acknowledges Sena's victory, while Sena in turn dismisses Muktā-
pītha back to his own kingdom without taking advantage of his position. (p. 642,
l. 11 – p. 643, l. 3). An even more frequent motif is the enemy's utterance of the
formula of homage to the five supreme entities, which makes the hero-king rec-
ognise a co-religionist. Thus, in the *Kuvalayamālā*, the prince confronts the
leader of the Bhillas who have assailed the caravan, but at the decisive moment
when he is about to triumph, he hears the Bhilla chieftain pronounce the for-
mula of homage. Thereupon, the enemy becomes a friend, and the irreparable
action is not committed.<fnref n="38" /> In the *Bhuvaṇasuṁdarī*, the author presents a long
battle scene between Prince Aśoka and a Vidyādhara, ending with a climactic
moment when Aśoka pronounces homage to the five supreme entities
(vv. 3240–3283). Similarly, at the apogee of a long battle between Bandhudatta
and the Vidyādharas (vv. 3668–3831), the situation turns around and violence
gives way to forgiveness when the Vidyādhara king Śekhara pronounces the
formula of homage (vv. 3832–3833).

Thus, the long narrative works of the 8th-10th centuries clearly show the
supremacy of royal renunciation and the rejection of violence from the dharma
of a ruler in a Śvetāmbara context before the turn of the first millennium. More
over, as will now be seen, they are even more conservative than the Digambara
Ādipurāṇa of Jinasena, since they do not know of a secular royal dharma, and in
the biography of Bharata and Bāhubali they give each of the heroes traits that

<footnote>and some Rākṣasī sent by King Narasimha (vv. 5473–5491), between Vīrasena and the yogin (vv. 5740–5746), between Vīrasena, the goddess and the yogin (vv. 5766–5795), between Vīrasena and a Vidyādhara (vv. 7202–7207), between Harivikrama and King Mahābala (vv. 8282–8289).</footnote>

<footnote n="37">37 *Caüppannamahāpurisacaria* p. 242, ll. 15–17.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">38 *Kuvalayamālā* p. 137, ll. 8–9.</footnote>
illustrate the primacy of the path of renunciation more clearly than in the Dig-
ambara version.

4. The conservatism of the Śvetāmbara sources

In the *Kuvalayamālā* there is, in addition to the examples in the narrative, a long
dialogical passage which clearly shows royal renunciation as the goal of king-
ship and the non-existence of a secular royal *dharma*.<fnref n="39" /> Indeed, while referring
to a *dharma* passed on by rulers from generation to generation and mentioning
the medium of a copper tablet on which royal edicts are inscribed, Uddyotana
does not seek to define a royal *dharma* marked by Jaina values, but unequivocally
substitutes it with the monastic *dharma*, as both the context and the content
show. The context presents an ageing king, Dṛdhavarman. He tells his son
*Kuvalayacandra* that he now wishes to live religiously but does not know which
*dharma* to adopt to proceed towards deliverance. The prince's stratagem is not
to impose on his father the Jaina path that he himself has adopted, but to invite
him to consult their tutelary deity so that she can give him the *dharma* that has
been in force in their family for generations. The king could thus adopt it confi-
dently since many kings of the Ikṣvāku dynasty (to which the Jina Rṣabha and
other holy figures of Jainism belong) have obtained deliverance through it. The
king complies and prays to the family goddess Lakṣmī to grant him this favour.
On the second watch of the second night, the goddess gives him a golden tablet
with the family *dharma* that was once the Ikṣvākus'.

Moreover, the content of the *dharma* presented in the *Kuvalayamālā* has fea-
tures similar in part to that enunciated in the *Ādipurāṇa* of Jinasena.<fnref n="40" /> Indeed, in
the royal *dharma* which King Dṛdhavarman receives, Uddyotana mentions three
of the five areas in which a king's protection must be exercised: the three jewels
of the doctrine —

<footnote n="39">39 *Kuvalayamālā* pp. 201, l. 32–202, l. 30.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">40 See Dundas (1991, 182): “According to the Ādipurāṇa (42.3–4), the kṣatriyas were enjoined by Rṣabha to protect and the objects of their protection are five: religious community (kula) (i.e. those who are suitable for ordination), doctrine, self, subjects and equality.”</footnote>
The purity of faith, the acquisition of right knowledge and the support of
right conduct are the agents of deliverance and the source of all forms of
happiness.<fnref n="41" />

the king's subjects —

When such is the supreme reality, how is it that one can fight against the soul
in the body? Only beings prey to delusion would fight against a soul which is,
in fact, no different from their own selves.<fnref n="42" />

and the ātman —

Show benevolence towards souls, show respect towards those who possess
good qualities, o you who are firm of character, show charity towards the
unfortunate, and show indifference to the prideful.<fnref n="43" />

Nonetheless, the royal dharma of the Kuvalayamālā is essentially about the king renouncing the world and adopting the monastic life to undertake a spiritual conquest leading to deliverance. Thus, the imperfection of temporal power is explicitly denounced:

> Know you, o king, that every soul that you see in this world has made itself drunk with the intoxicating liquor of power and of glory, and this fate too was my own.<fnref n="44" />

Moreover, the five vows to be adopted are clearly those of the monk and not of
the layman, since they include the rejection of the world —

> O king, it is this dharma that you must adopt, which involves the detachment of the world.<fnref n="45" />

Finally, the conduct of discipline recommended for the king is unequivocally characteristic of the renunciant's way of life. Not only must the king achieve a spiritual conquest by becoming a monk and dominating his senses —

<footnote n="41">41 Kuvalayamālā p. 201, l. 33: daṁsaņa-visuddhi-ηāṇassa saṁpayā caraņa-dhāraņaṁ ceya| mokkhassa sādhayāiṁ sayala-suhāņaṁ ca mūlāiṁ||.</footnote>

<footnote n="42">42 Kuvalayamālā p. 202, l. 9: iya evaṁ paramatthe kaha paharijjaü jiyassa dehammi| attāņa-ṇīvvisese mūḍhā paharaṁti jīyammi||.</footnote>

<footnote n="43">43 Kuvalayamālā p. 202, l. 12: jīesu kuṇasu mettiṁ guṇavaṁte kuṇasu āyaraṁ dhīra| kuṇasu dayaṁ dīṇa-maṇe kuṇasu uvekkhaṁ ca gavviyāe||.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">44 Kuvalayamālā p. 202, l. 11: jaṁ jaṁ jayammi jīvaṁ pecchasi siri-vihavamaya-maummattaṁ| taṁ taṁ maṇṇasu ṣaravara erisao āsi ahayaṁ pi||.</footnote>

<footnote n="45">45 Kuvalayamālā p. 202, l. 3: taṁ ṣaravara geṇha tumaṁ dhammaṁ aha hoi jattha veraggo|.</footnote>
Practice austerity in such a manner as to be completely pure! Cause to cease,
without fear, that enemy that the senses represent! When angry, pacify your-
self! Be mindful that, in love, there is always lust as well!
Against pride be humble! When there is an opportunity for deception, dis-
play uprightness! Vanquish greed through disinterestedness and delusion
with the weapon of knowledge!<fnref n="46" />

but he must also wander in search of one's alms and eat according to the mo-
nastic rule —

Do not cook your food! Seek your alms and eat according to the rule! Do not
act unreflectingly and immerse yourself in study!<fnref n="47" />

Moreover, in the treatment of the biography of Bharata and Bāhubali, unlike the Ādipurāṇa's exposition of two royal paths — that of the lay king protecting the Jaina devotees, and that of the renouncing king whose asceticism leads him to deliverance — the Caüppannamahāpurisacaria advocates a Śvetāmbara path by which Bharata achieves a limited exercise of power and Bāhubali an unsuccessful royal renouncement. Indeed, unlike the Digambara version of Jinasena, the Caüppannamahāpurisacaria gives little importance to Bharata's role as representing temporal royalty. Thus, once he has been consecrated in the royal function by his father Ṛṣabha, who had renounced the world (40.8), Bharata is involved in only two episodes. The first is the famous one in which he fights a battle to enlarge his territory and uses a magical discus to ensure his triumph against Bāhubali, and the second is one in which, while leading the life of a king, he realises the futility of the beautiful appearance conferred on him by his royal finery. While the former illustrates the violence associated with royal dharma and the perfidy involved in the appetite for conquest,<fnref n="48" /> the latter only briefly alludes to his activity as a ruling king:

Bharata suitably protected the royal fortune, enjoyed pleasures, had shrines
built with the likenesses of all the Tīrthaṅkaras on the Aṣṭāpada, had eight

<footnote n="46">46 Kuvalayamālā p. 202, l. 15–16: kuṇasu tavaṁ su-visuddho iṁdiya-sattuṁ ṛiruṁbha bhaya-rahio| kovammi kuṇaha khaṁtiṁ asuiṁ ciṁtesu kāmammi|| māṇammi hosu paṇao māyā-ṭhāṇammi ajjavaṁ kuṇasu| lohaṁ ca aloheṇaṁ jiṇa mohaṁ nāṇa-paharāhim||.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">47 Kuvalayamālā p. 202, l. 18: mā kuṇasu pāga-kiriyaṁ bhikkhaṁ bhamiūṇa bhuṁjasu vihīe| mā acchasu ṛicciṁto sajjhāe hosu vakkhitto||.</footnote>

<footnote n="48">48 Similarly, Strong (2017, 14) observes that the ambiguity of Aśoka's kingship is inherent in his character and not erased with his conversion to Buddhism in one version of the story of the queen Tiṣyarakṣitā.</footnote>
paces cut into Mount Aṣṭāpada, and instituted a great festival for Indra's thumb.<fnref n="49" />

This clearly attests to the fact that temporal kingship is of no interest to the monastic author Śīlāṅka, especially when viewed in contrast with the way he develops in two stages the defects of the royal life, which prevent renunciation and hinder the spiritual progress leading to deliverance. First, he presents Bharata's reaction to the news of the deliverance of his father — the first Jina Rṣabha — not as that of a devout king, but of a frivolous king seeking oblivion from grief in the pleasures of royal life. Secondly, he emphasises Bharata's realisation that without his royal ornaments his body looks poor:

> One day, to entertain his heart, upset because he had learned of the Lord Rṣabha's deliverance, he went to bathe in the company of the women of his harem. Having played various games in the water, he left the vicinity of the pool, entered the hall of mirrors to examine all his limbs, and then began to inspect them. As he was slowly examining himself, he noticed that the jewel on his toe had slipped off. Seeing that toe without its gleam, he asked himself, "Why does it not shine like the other limb?" After this thought, he understood that it was because it had no ornament. Immediately afterwards, the darkness of delusion disappeared and the cloud of *karman* dissipated. Then he said to himself, "We must think of a purification for this cursed body filled with defilements such as flesh, blood, marrow, faecal matter, urine, and excrement, which naturally feeds on all sorts of essentially impure things; it shines when enhanced by the beauty of adventitious and artificial ornaments, and not otherwise.<fnref n="50" />

Śīlāṅka expands on the above narrative with a group of eight verses (p. 50, ll. 9–16) presenting Bharata’s reflections condemning the body and the trappings of

<footnote n="49">49 Caüpppannamahāpurisacaria p. 50, ll. 1–2: io ya bharaho pāliūņa jahociyaṁ rāya-sirim, bhuṁjiūņa bhoe, kāūņa aṭṭhāvae savva-titthayara-sa-rūva-saṇṇihāim ceiyāim, ṭimmaviūņa aṭṭhapaya-paricchiṇṇaṁ aṭṭhāvayaṁ, parūviya-sakkaṁguli-mahiṁdūsavo.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">50 Caüpppannamahāpurisacaria p. 50, ll. 2–8: aṇṇayā usabha-sāmi-nivvāņa-gamaṇāyanṇa-jāya-saṁvega-hiyaya-viṇoyaṇatthaṁ saha aṁteuriyā-jāneṇaṁ majjiuṁ payatto. tao majjiūņa viviha-kīlāhiṁ, mottūņa sara-varucchaṁgaṁ, savvāvayava-ṇirūvaṇatthaṁ āyaṁsa-haraṁ paviṭṭho saṁano ṭirūvium ādhatto sarīrāvayave. saṇiyaṁ ca ṭirūvaṇtassa viyaliyaṁgutthala-rayaṇo samavaloio aṁguṭṭhao. tao taṁ asobhamāṇaṁ pecchiūņa ciṁtiyaṁ: "kim esa avarāvayavo va ṇa sohaī?" tti. ciṁtayaṁteṇa vavagayāharaṇo tti viṇṇāyaṁ, tayānaṁtaranaṁ ca viyaliyaṁ mohaṁdhayāraṁ, vihaḍiyaṁ kamma-vaḍalaṁ. tao ciṁtium āḍhatto "eyassa haya-sarīrassa payatīe savvāsui-pahāṇāhārassa maṁsa-soṇiya-majjāmejjha-mutta-purisāi-mala-bhariyassa ciṁtijjaṁtaṁ kiṁci sohaṇaṁ ti, āgaṁtuga-kiittimāharaṇa-sohālaṁkio esa chajjaï, ṇa aṇṇaha" tti.</footnote>
royal fortune. The passage concludes with the effects of awareness, which quickly lead to his successful royal renunciation:

> At these thoughts he experienced detachment, reviled the body, renounced royal glory, and began to slowly remove all his other adornments. Seeing that the more he removed the ornaments from the limbs of his body, the less he shone, he became ever more detached. As awareness grew in him, he gradually acquired supernatural knowledge, his remaining *karman* became reduced to the auspicious maturation of what he had accumulated during other existences, and thus he reached the stage of unprecedented purity, the scale of the annihilation of *karman*, and then omniscience.<fnref n="51" />

The way Śīlāṅka treats Bharata’s temporal kingship makes it clear that at best it is a stepping stone to the monastic path, but not a political path as it is for Jinasena.

As for Bāhubali, he is not the glorified hero that he is in the Ādipurāṇa. To be sure, both Jinasena and Śīlāṅka present Bāhubali as a king who prefers royal renunciation culminating in an ascetic life and deliverance to the victory of the king-warrior. But while their treatment of the battle and its outcome is similar,<fnref n="52" /> that of the ascetic life is very different. In the Ādipurāṇa, Jinasena praises in 70 verses the practice of difficult asceticism and self-control that gives Bāhubali supernatural powers.<fnref n="53" /> On the other hand, the faults that prevent Bāhubali from

<footnote n="51">51 Caüppannamahāpurisacaria p. 50, ll. 17–21: evam-āi veragga-bhāviya-maṇo niṁdiūṇa sarīraṁ, parihariūṇa rāya-siriṁ, saṇiyam sesālaṁkāraṁ moium āḍhatto. jao jao sarīrāvayavāo avaṇei bhūsaṇaṁ so so na tahā chajjaï tti suṭṭhuyaraṁ veraggam oinṇo. tao pavaḍḍhamāṇa-saṁvegassa paï-samayaṁ uttarottarāsāiya-jjhāṇāisayassa bhavantarabbhāsāsāiya-suha-pariṇāmāvasesiya-kamma-rāsiṇo apuvva-karaṇaṁ, khavaga-seḍhī, samuppaṇṇaṁ kevala-ṇānaṁ. From the eighth stage (apūrva-karaṇa), two scales are possible, that of the appeasement of *karman* (upaśama-śreṇi) and that of the annihilation of *karman* (*kṣapaka-śreṇi*). While the former enables a being to go up to the eleventh stage of spiritual qualification, the latter enables him to climb all fourteen stages and attain omniscience and deliverance (von Glasenapp 1984, 195–99; 1942, 72–74).</footnote>

<footnote n="52">52 Contrast Ādipurāṇa 36.1–104 (from battle to renunciation), v. 102 (Bharata’s remorse) with Caüppannamahāpurisacaria p. 47, l. 21 – p. 48, l. 8 (from battle to renunciation), p. 48, ll. 8–17 (Bharata’s remorse) and p. 48, ll. 18–19 (Bharata’s rule).</footnote>

<footnote n="53">53 Thus, the royal monk has his body emaciated by his harsh asceticism (vv. 112, 150–151); he is equanimous and suffers all sorrows (vv. 115–116); he is not influenced by the senses (v. 117); he keeps away from women (v. 120); he is indifferent (v. 121) and silent (v. 122); he controls all his passions (vv. 129–131), he is pure (vv. 137, 147); he gains extraordinary powers (vv. 146, 153, 155), he practices pure meditation and contemplations (vv. 159–160, 184) and has a calming influence on all animals and other creatures (vv. 164–183).</footnote>
attaining omniscience are his conduct towards his elder brother Bharata (whose
deceit in their battle had been prompted by Bāhubali’s refusal to relinquish his
part of their territory), and the fact that they have not reconciled since. But in
this case only Bharata, and not Bāhubali, was responsible for the lack of recon-
ciliation, and for this reason Bāhubali suffered only from a small impediment to
the rise of his omniscience.

In contrast, in the *Caüppannamahāpurisacaria*, Śīlāṅka devotes very few lines
to asceticism and, what is more, he mentions this asceticism not to praise Bāhu-
bali’s patience, but to give his sisters Brāhmī and Sundarī an opportunity to ex-
press surprise that he had not attained omniscience earlier.

Elsewhere, while Bāhubali had spent a year practising difficult mortification
of the body, Brāhmī and Sundarī, very much affected, said to the Venerable
Rṣabha, friend of the three worlds and progenitor of the universe, when they
had the opportunity to speak: “Venerable One, Bāhubali has spent many days
practising difficult asceticism, yet because of the destruction coming from
the darkness of delusion and because of the formation of obscuring and ob-
structive *karman*, omniscience does not occur for him. So, Venerable One,
please tell us, what is the cause of this obstructive *karman* even today?<fnref n="54" />

Moreover, the defect obstructing Bāhubali’s omniscience is not his relationship
with Bharata, but his own pride, which prevented him from coming to prostrate
before Rṣabha and his brothers younger than him. Ultimately, he is unable to
remedy this himself, he must be awakened by his sisters, which is a way of em-
phasising an important impediment to omniscience.

The Venerable One said, Bāhubali has destroyed many *karmans*, but he is un-
der the influence of a fraction of the *karman* of delusion, and while he is under
its influence, omniscience does not occur; he is under the influence of pride,
which is a fraction of the *karman* of delusion, and immediately after your
words he will experience the appeasement of that *karman*, so go quickly to
Bāhubali. At the behest of the Venerable One (Rṣabha), the two sisters went
to Bāhubali and said to him, “Venerable One, for you who have understood
the true nature of the cycle of existences, who consider equally blades of
grass and jewels or clay and gold, who have given up all attachments, it is not

<footnote n="54">54 Caüppannamahāpurisacaria p. 48, ll. 20–22: *io ya saṁvaccharaṁ jāva dukkaraṁ kāya-kilesam aṇuhavaṁtassa bāhubaliṇo taccaṁta-pīdiyāhiṁ baṁbhi-sumḍarīhiṁ bhaṇio kahāvasare telokka-baṁdhū jaga-piyāmaho bhagavaṁ usabha-sāṁi jahā: bhayavaṁ bahūṇi divasāṇi bāhubaliṇo dukkaraṁ tava-caraṇaṁ caraṁtassa, ṇa ya se mohaṁdhayāra-khaeṇam āvaraṇaṁtarāya-vihaḍaṇeṇaṁ kevala-ṇāṇaṁ samuppajjaï, tā sāheu bhayavaṁ kim ajja vi puṇam aṁtarāya-kāraṇaṁ? ti.</footnote>
appropriate to ride on the beautiful elephant. Representing this to yourself, please get off the elephant!<fnref n="55" />

This hindrance takes on special significance when we compare the biographies of Bāhubali. Indeed, while in the Śvetāmbara version of Śīlāṅka, pride appears at the time of asceticism, in Jinasena's work it appears as a recurrent trait of the royal character before ordination,<fnref n="56" /> which causes him to wage war against Bharata and provoke that hero's misconduct. But there, this defect disappears, and only his good qualities remain, once Bāhubali has adopted royal renunciation. By insisting on the persistence of Bāhubali's defect into monastic life, the Śvetāmbara sources suggest not only that temporal kingship is a source of heavy impediments to liberation, but that it is all the more necessary to adopt the Jaina virtues for the royal dharma even before becoming a monk. Moreover, in Śīlāṅka's work (Caüppannamahāpurisacaria p. 48, l. 20 – p. 49, l. 13), the very structure of the episode emphasises that the mention of pride in the ascetic life is not an anecdotal detail. Indeed, the reflections on the evils of pride occupy more than half of the passage, and so they contrast even more with the brevity of the narrative that follows once the hero remedies this defect:

> After these reflections, he again said to himself, “What is the use of following this path taken by unwise beings? I will go to the Venerable One (Rṣabha), I will see my brothers who have obtained pure eminent knowledge.<fnref n="57" /> I have long had a great desire to speak to these eternal beings.” So, as the towering mountain of pride disappeared and the cloud of delusion dissipated, Bāhubali pushed back a multitude of creepers<fnref n="58" /> along with the creeper of deceit and went to the Venerable One (Rṣabha). Thereupon – as the net of his misguidance due to heavy karman was unravelling and as he had only been prevented from supernatural knowledge by pride – he gradually attained on the scale

<footnote n="55">55 Caüppannamahāpurisacaria p. 48, ll. 23–27: bhayavayā bhaṇiyam: khīṇa-bahu-kammo bāhubali, kiṃtu mohaṇiyāvayavodae vaṭṭaï, na ya tassodaye vaṭṭamāṇassa kevala-ṇānam uppajjaï, tassa mohaṇiyāvayavamāṇodao vaṭṭaï, so ya tumha vayaṇaṇaṁtaram evovasamaṁ gacchaï tti, tā sigghaṁ vaccaha bāhubali-samīvaṁ. tao tāo bhagavayāeseṇaṁ gayāo bāhubali-samīvaṁ. bhaṇio ya tāhiṁ bāhubali: bhayavaṁ, viya-saṁsāra-sahāvassa sama-taṇa-maṇi-leṭṭhu-kaṁcaṇassa catta-sayala-saṁgassa na juttaṁ gaya-varārohaṇaṁ ti, tā sayam eva viyappiūna hatthiō oyaraha tubbhe.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">56 35, v. 1 dodarpa; v. 4 durgarvita; v. 8 mānadhana; v. 9 mānoddhata; v. 10 durmadin.</footnote>

<footnote n="57">57 The expressions ‘eminent knowledge’ (jñānātiśaya) and ‘supernatural knowledge’ (divya-jñāna) may refer more generally to the three types of suprasensory knowledge (atīndriya-jñāna) including clairvoyance and telepathy, but the author uses them here in the restricted sense of omniscience.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">58 While Bāhubali has meditated, immobile, for one year, vines have grown around him, as is also represented in the gigantic statue at Śravaṇa Bełgoła.</footnote>
of karman annihilation the divine omniscience which enables one to recognise the categories of the past, future and present. Having arrived at the Lord (Rṣabha), he sat in the assembly of the omniscient.<fnref n="59" />

## 5. Conclusion

While the fourteenth-century Prabandhas make it clear that the Śvetāmbaras did adopt the model of a secular king by the middle of the twelfth century, the long Śvetāmbara narrative works composed before the end of the first millennium are far from showing the figure of a Jaina king as opposed to a Digambara model of a royal renunciant. As a matter of fact, they are more conservative than the Digambara sources, insofar as they do not present a Jainised lay king like the Bharata of the ninth-century Ādipurāṇa and, what is more, they disparage the royal figure even after he has undertaken the monastic path. Thus, they reveal a Śvetāmbara path that retains a clear opposition between a temporal kingship associated with vices and passions, and a spiritual kingship that noble souls embrace as soon as possible. In this regard the Śvetāmbara sources of the 8th to 10th centuries are also more conservative than the Buddhist Kapphiṇābhyudaya of Śivasvāmin (9th century). Indeed, like the Śvetāmbara sources, the Kapphiṇābhyudaya does not present an image of a temporal kingship; but unlike them, and like the Digambara sources, it valorises the figure of the royal ascetic. In the story of the Kapphiṇābhyudaya, King Praseṇajit attains worldly victory through the power of a miracle of the Buddha. The real triumph, however, goes to the eponymous Kapphiṇa, who suffers a worldly defeat but wins the spiritual battle. As a matter of fact, the Buddha manifests himself to him, recognises him as an arhant and as capable of adopting the monastic path once he has carried out his royal duties. The respective positions of each religious school would be in accordance with the political situation, where Śvetāmbaras and Buddhists lacked royal support in the North, while Digambaras were in favour with kings in Karnataka.

<footnote n="59">59 Caüppannamahāpurisacaria p. 49, ll. 9–13: evaṁ ciṁtiūṇa puṇar avi ciṁtiyaṁ: “kim aṇeṇābuha-
jaṇāiṇṇeṇa maggena? tti tā gacchāmi bhagavao samīvaṁ, pecchāmi ya vimaluppaṇṇa-nāṇāisae
ṇiyaya-bhāuṇo, aṇāi-ṇihāṇān jaṁtūṇaṁ kāla-bhūya-mahallaya-vivakkha” tti. vibhāviūṇa
viyaliya-guru-māṇa-pavvaeṇa vavagaya-moha-paḍaleṇam avaṇiūṇa māya-vallie saha valli-
viyāṇaṁ samucclio bhagavao samīvaṁ. etthaṁtarammi viyaliya-mahā-kamma-moha-jālassa
māṇa-mettāvariya-divva-ṇāṇassa khavaga-seḍhie kameṇuppaṇṇaṁ tīyāṇāgaya-saṁpaya-
payatthubbhāsagaṁ divvaṁ kevalaṁ nāṇaṁ. gaṁtūṇa sāmi-samīve kevali-parisāe āsīno tti.</footnote>
Primary sources

See page xvi about references to primary sources.

*Bhuvaṇasuṁdarī of Vijayasiṁha: Vijayaśīlacandrasūri (2000).*

*Caüppannamahāpurisacaria of Śīlāṅka: Bhojak (1961).*

*Kuvalayamālā of Uddyotana: edition, Upadhye (1959); translation, Chojnacki (2008).*

*Samarāiccakahā of Haribhadra: Jain (1963).*
DOI: 10.13173/9783447122306.261

This is an open access file distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.
# Bibliography

## References

Acharya, Subrata Kumar. 2013. 'Ruchida Plates of Mahābhavagupta, Year 8'. *Journal of the Epigraphical Society of India* 39: 26–42.

—. 2014. *Copper-Plate Inscriptions of Odisha: A Descriptive Catalogue (circa Fourth Century to Sixteenth Century CE)*. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld.

Agresti, Alan. 2018. *Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences*. Fifth edition. Harlow: Pearson.

Ahmad, S. Maqbul. 1989. *Arabic Classical Accounts of India and China*. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study in association with Rddhi-India, Calcutta.

Ali, Daud. 2000. 'Royal Eulogy as World History: Rethinking Copper-Plate Inscriptions in Cōla India'. In *Querying the Medieval: Texts and the History of Practices in South Asia*, by Ronald B. Inden, Jonathan S. Walters, and Daud Ali, 165–229. New York: Oxford University Press.

—. 2006. *Courtly Culture and Political Life in Early Medieval India*. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.

Ali, Daud, and Diana Shuheng Zhang. 2022. 'A New Inscription of the Pāṇḍuvaṃśins of Dakṣiṇa Kosala: Philadelphia Museum of Art Copper-Plates of Nannarāja I, Year 7'. *Indo-Iranian Journal* 65: 305–39.

Altekar, Anant Sadashiv. 1960. 'The Yādavas of Seunadeśa'. In *The Early History of the Deccan*, edited by Ghulam Yazdani, 513–74. London: Oxford University Press.

Bakker, Hans T. 2014. *The World of the Skandapurāṇa: Northern India in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries*. Supplement to Groningen Oriental Studies. Leiden: Brill.

Balogh, Dániel. 2023a. 'A háborús borzalmak gyönyöre? Saiva és buddhista retorika kelet-dekkáni földadományozó táblákon (Delighting in the Horrors of Warfare? Šaiva and Buddhist Rhetoric in Copperplate Land Grants of the Eastern Deccan)'. *Keletkutatás* 2022: 21–49.

—. 2023b. 'The Portrayal of Underlings in Eastern Cālukya Copper Plates: Textual Analysis Data'. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7900312.

—. *forthcoming* a. 'Can We Discern a Šaiva and a Buddhist Rhetoric in Royal Eulogies?' In *Šaiva-Buddhist Encounters in Early Medieval East India*, edited by Lucas den Boer and Florinda De Simini. Studies on the History of Šaivism. Naples: UniorPress.

—. *forthcoming* b. 'Textual Analysis Methodology and Royal Representation in Copperplate Grants'. In *Bhūtārthakathane ... Sarasvatī: Reading Poetry as a History*
Book, edited by Marco Franceschini, Chiara Livio, and Lidia Wojtczak. Studies on the History of Śaivism. Naples: UniorPress.

—. *in preparation*. 'Textual Analysis of Sanskrit Copperplate Grants: A Preliminary Implementation'.

Balogh, Dániel, and Arlo Griffiths. 2020. *DHARMA Transliteration Guide*. Project documentation. Paris; Berlin: Centre d'Études de l'Inde et de l'Asie du Sud; École française d'Extrême-Orient; Humboldt-Universität. https://hal.science/halshs-02272407v3.

Banerji, Rakhal Das. 1911-12. 'Parikud Plates of Madhyamarajadeva'. *Epigraphia Indica* 11: 281-87.

—. 1915. *The Pālas of Bengal*. Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 5.3. Calcutta: Asiatic Society.

—. 1917-18. 'The Bangarh Grant of Mahi-Pala I: The 9th Year'. *Epigraphia Indica* 14: 324-30.

—. 1919-20. 'The Amgachhi Grant of Vigraha-Pala III: The 12th Year'. *Epigraphia Indica* 15: 293-301.

Barnett, Lionel David. 1915-16. 'Thana Plates of the Time of the Yadava King Ramacandra: Saka 1194'. *Epigraphia Indica* 13: 198-206.

Basak, Radhagovinda. 1913-14a. 'Belava Copper-Plate of Bhojavarmadeva: The Fifth Year'. *Epigraphia Indica* 12: 37-43.

—. 1913-14b. 'Rampal Copper-Plate Grant of Srichandradeva'. *Epigraphia Indica* 12: 136-42.

—. 1949-50. 'Madanapur Plate of Srichandra, Year 44'. *Epigraphia Indica* 28: 51-58.

—. 1959. *Aśokan Inscriptions*. Calcutta: Progressive Publishers.

Belli Bose, Melia. 2015. *Royal Umbrellas of Stone: Memory, Politics, and Public Identity in Rajput Funerary Art*. Leiden: Brill.

Bhandarkar, Devadatta Ramakrishna. 1913-14. 'Chatsu Inscription of Baladitya'. *Epigraphia Indica* 12: 10-17.

—. 1925-26. 'Sanjan Plates of Amoghavarsha I: Saka-Samvat 793'. *Epigraphia Indica* 18: 235-57.

Bhandarkar, Ramakrishna Gopal. 1927 (Reprint 1983). *Early History of the Dekkan and Miscellaneous Historical Essays*. Government Oriental Series 3. Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Bhattacharya, A. K. 1964. 'Bilingual Coins of Mahmud of Ghazni'. *Journal of the Numismatic Society of India* 26: 53-56.

Bhattacharya, Gourishwar, and M. Sivayya. 1961-62. 'Mallar Plates of Jayaraja, Year 9'. *Epigraphia Indica* 34: 28-31.

Bhattacharya, Suresh Chandra. 1983. 'Mainamati Copper Plate of Vīradharadeva'. *Journal of Ancient Indian History* 14: 17-28.

—. 2005-06. 'The Jagjibanpur Plate of Mahendrapāla Comprehensively Re-Edited'. *Journal of Ancient Indian History* 23: 61-125.
Bhattasali, Nalinikanta. 1923-24. 'Kedarpur Copper Plate of Sri-Chandra-Deva'. *Epigraphia Indica* 17: 188-92.

Bhoir, Ramakant R. 2002. 'Latest Inscription of Ramchandra Yadava'. *Proceedings of the Indian History Congress* 63: 247-50.

Bhojak, Amritlal Mohanlal. 1961. *Cauppannamahāpurisacariam by Ācārya Śri Śīlāṅka*. Prakrit Text Society Series 3. Ahmedabad: Prakrit Text Society.

Bodard, Gabriel. 2010. 'EpiDoc: Epigraphic Documents in XML for Publication and Interchange'. In *Latin on Stone: Epigraphic Research and Electronic Archives*, edited by Francisca Feraudi-Gruénais, 101-18. Lanham: Lexington Books.

Bosma, Natasja. 2013. 'The Bāleśvara Temple Complex of Śivagupta: Epigraphical Evidence for the Śaiva Siddhānta and Soma Siddhānta Traditions in Dakṣiṇa Kosala'. *Indo-Iranian Journal* 56 (3-4): 245-61.

—. 2018. *Dakṣiṇa Kosala: A Rich Centre of Early Śaivism*. Groningen: Barkhuis.

Briggs, John. 1829 (Reprint 1977). *History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India till the Year A.D. 1612*. Lahore: Sang-e Meel Publications.

Bruhn, Klaus. 1954. *Śīlāṅka's Caupannamahāpurisacariya: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Jaina-Universalgeschichte*. Hamburg: De Gruyter.

Bryant, Antony. 2017. *Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in Research Practice*. New York: Oxford University Press.

Butterworth, Alan, and V. Venugopaul Chetty. 1905. *A Collection of the Inscriptions on Copper-Plates and Stones in the Nellore District: Part II*. Madras: Superintendent, Government Press.

Chakravarti, Ranabir. 2014. 'From the Araṇyacaras to the Antyavasāyins: Inequality, Marginalization and the Lower Social Order in the Arthaśāstra'. In *Papers from the Aligarh Historians' Society*, edited by Irfan Habib, 180-85. Aligarh: Indian History Congress.

—. 2022. 'Trade and the Making of State Society in Early India (600-1300CE)'. In *The Routledge Handbook of the State in Premodern India*, edited by Hermann Kulke and Bhairabi Prasad Sahu, 127-55. Abingdon; New York: Routledge.

Chanda, Rama Prasad. 1911. 'Dinājpur Pillar Inscription'. *Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal New Series* 7: 615-19.

Charmaz, Kathy. 2014. *Constructing Grounded Theory*. Second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Chattopadhyaya, Brajadulal. 1994. *The Making of Early Medieval India*. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

—. 1998. *Representing the Other? Sanskrit Sources and the Muslims (Eighth to Fourteenth Century)*. New Delhi.

—. 2017. 'The State's Perception of the "Forest" and the "Forest" as State in Early India'. In *The Concept of Bharatavarsha and Other Essays, 56-74*. Ranikhet: Permanent Black.

Chhabra, Bahadur Chand. 1935-36. 'Sonepur Plates of Maha-bhavagupta(II)-Janamejaya; the year 17'. *Epigraphia Indica* 23: 248-55.
—. 1962. *Diplomatic of Sanskrit Copper-Plate Grants*. Delhi: National Archives of India.

Chojnacki, Christine. 2008. *Kuvalayamālā: Roman jaina de 779 composé par Uddyotanasūri*. 2 vols. Marburg: Indica et Tibetica.

—. 2011. 'Shifting Communities in Early Jain Prabandha Literature: Sectarian Attitudes and Emergent Identities'. *Studies in History* 27: 197–219.

Choudhury, Pratap Chandra. 1988. *Assam-Bengal Relations: From the Earliest Times to the Twelfth Century A. D*. Delhi: Spectrum Publications.

Chowdhury, Abdul Momin. 1967. *Dynastic History of Bengal* (c. 750-1200 A. D.). Dacca: The Asiatic Society of Pakistan.

—. 1978. 'Vaṅga-Kāmarūpa Relationship during the Rule of the Candras'. *Bangladesh Historical Studies* 3: 33–39.

—. 2018. 'Pāla Realm: Making of a Regional Political Power'. In *History of Bangladesh: Early Bengal in Regional Perspectives* (up to c. 1200 CE), edited by Abdul Momin Chowdhury and Ranabir Chakravarti, 1: 691–832. Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.

Coelho, William. 1950. *The Hoysaļa Vaṁśa*. Bombay: Indian Historical Research Institute, St. Xavier's College.

Colebrooke, Henry Thomas. 1891. *Kosha or Dictionary of the Sanskrit Language by Umura Singha with an English Interpretation and Annotations*. Calcutta: Nundo Mohon Banerjee.

Cort, John E. 1998. 'Who Is a King? Jain Narratives of Kingship in Medieval Western India'. In *Open Boundaries: Jain Communities and Culture in Indian History*, edited by John E. Cort, 85–110. Albany: State University of New York Press.

—. 2002. 'A Tale of Two Cities: On the Origins of Digambara Sectarianism in North India'. In *Multiple Histories: Culture and Society in the Study of Rajasthan*, edited by Lawrence A. Babb, Varsha Joshi, and Michael W. Meister, 39–83. Jaipur & New Delhi: Rawat Publications.

Cowell, Edward Byles. 1897. *The Jātaka, or, Stories of the Buddha's Former Births*. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cowell, Edward Byles, and Frederick William Thomas. 1897. *The Harṣa-Carita of Bāṇa*. London: Royal Asiatic Society.

Dani, Ahmad Hasan. 1960. 'Chandras of East Bengal: In the Light of the Newly-Discovered Inscriptions'. *Proceedings of the Indian History Congress* 23: 36–44.

—. 1966. 'Mainamati Plates of the Chandras'. *Pakistan Archaeology* 3: 22–55.

Davidson, Ronald M. 2002. *Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement*. New York: Columbia University Press.

De Simini, Florinda. 2016. *Of Gods and Books: Ritual and Knowledge Transmission in the Manuscript Cultures of Premodern India. Of Gods and Books*. Studies in Manuscript Cultures 8. Berlin: De Gruyter.
De, Sushil Kumar. 1940. *The Mahābhārata. Volume 6: The Udyogaparvan, Being the Fifth Book of the Mahābhārata, the Great Epic of India*. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Deleu, Josef. 1981. 'A Note on the Jain Prabandhas'. In *Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus: Gedenkschrift für Ludwig Alsdorf*, edited by Klaus Bruhn and Albrecht Wezler, 61–73. Alt- und Neuindische Studien 23. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.

Derrett, J. Duncan M. 1957. *The Hoysalas: A Medieval Indian Royal Family*. Madras: Oxford University Press.

Desai, P. B. 1949–50. 'Methi Inscription of Yadava Krishna; Saka 1176'. *Epigraphia Indica* 28: 312–20.

Detige, Tillo. 2018. 'Satpātrāya Samarpittam: Manuscript Copies and the Early Modern Digambara Saṅgha'. In *The Gift of Knowledge: Patterns of Patronage in Jainism*, edited by Christine Chojnacki and Basile Leclère, 274–370. Bengaluru: Sapna Book House.

—. 2019a. "'Guṇa Kahūm Śrī Guru': Bhaṭṭāraka Gītas and the Early Modern Digambara Jaina Saṅgha'. In *Early Modern India: Literature and Images, Texts and Languages*, edited by Maya Burger and Nadia Cattoni, 271–85. Heidelberg; Berlin: CrossAsia-eBooks.

—. 2019b. "'Tataḥ Śrī-Gurus Tasmai Sūrimantraṃ Dadyāt", "Then the Venerable Guru Ought to Give Him the Sūrimantra": Early Modern Digambara Jaina Bhaṭṭāraka Consecrations'. *Religions* 10, 369: 1–31.

—. 2020. 'Digambara Renouncers in Western and Central India, c. 1100–1800'. In *Encyclopedia of Jainism*, edited by John E. Cort, Paul Dundas, and Kristi L. Wiley, 182–215. Leiden: Brill.

—. 2023. 'Digambara Memorials from Western India Pre-20th Century CE'. In *Pure Soul: The Jaina Spiritual Traditions*, edited by Renate Söhnen-Thieme, Peter Flügel, and Heleen De Jonckheere, 70–79. London: Centre of Jaina Studies.

—. 2024. 'The Ritual Veneration of Living Digambara Jaina Renouncers'. In *Contemplative Studies and Jainism: Meditation, Prayer, and Veneration*, edited by Purushottama Bilimoria, Cogen Bohanec, and Rita D. Sherma, 107–20. Abingdon; New York: Routledge.

—. forthcoming. *Eternal Salutations: Monuments of Digambara Jaina Ascetic Lineages from Western India*. Doctoral dissertation, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Center for Religious Studies.

Devadhar, C. R. 1985. *Raghuvamśa of Kālidāsa*. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Dikshit, Kashinath. 1931–32. 'Navagrama Grant of the Maharaja Hastin (G.E. [1]98)'. *Epigraphia Indica* 21: 124–26.

Dikshit, Moreshwar G. 1947. महाराष्ट्रांतील कांहीं प्राचीन ताम्रपट व शिलालेख (इ० स० पांचव्या ते वाराव्या शतकांतले) (Selected Inscriptions from Maharashtra [5th to 12th Century A.D.]). Pune.

Dirks, Nicholas B. 1976. 'Political Authority and Structural Change in Early South Indian History'. *Indian Economic and Social History Review* 13: 125–57.
Dundas, Paul. 1991. 'The Digambara Jain Warrior'. In *The Assembly of Listeners: Jains in Society*, edited by Michael Carrithers and Caroline Humphrey, 169–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eaton, Richard Maxwell, and Phillip B. Wagoner. 2014. *Power, Memory, Architecture: Contested Sites on India's Deccan Plateau, 1300-1600*. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Estienne-Monod, Perrine. 2008. *Les inscriptions sanskrites des Calukya orientaux: caractéristiques et fonctions d'une littérature épigraphique*. PhD thesis, Université de Provence Aix-Marseille I. http://www.theses.fr/2008AIX10038.

Ferguson, Yale, and Richard W. Mansbach. 1996. *Polities: Authority, Identities, and Change*. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Ferrier, Cédric, and Judit Törzsök. 2008. 'Meditating on the King's Feet? Some Remarks on the Expression Pādānudhyāta'. *Indo-Iranian Journal* 51: 93–113.

Fleet, John Faithfull. 1878. 'Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions: No. XLIX'. *Indian Antiquary* 7: 303–8.

—. 1882. *The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Muhammadan Conquests of A.D. 1318*. Bombay: Government Central Press.

—. 1883a. 'Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions: No. CXXVII'. *Indian Antiquary* 12: 156–65.

—. 1883b. 'Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions: No. CXXVIII'. *Indian Antiquary* 12: 215–20.

—. 1885. 'Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions: No. CLIX. Paithan Plates of Ramacandra. - Saka 1193'. *Indian Antiquary* 14: 314–19.

—. 1888. *Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings and Their Successors*. First edition. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum 3. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing.

—. 1891a. 'Sanskrit and Old-Kanarese Inscriptions: No. 193. Chipurupalle Copper-Plate Grant of Vishnuvardhana I. — Dated in His Eighteenth Year'. *Indian Antiquary* 20: 15–18.

—. 1891b. 'The Chronology of the Eastern Chalukya Kings'. *Indian Antiquary* 20: 1–15, 93–104, 266–85.

—. 1894–95. 'Records of the Somavamsi Kings of Katak'. *Epigraphia Indica* 3: 323–59.

—. 1900–01. 'Nilgund Inscription of the Time of Amoghavarsha I.; A.D. 866'. *Epigraphia Indica* 6: 98–108.

Fleming, Benjamin. 2010. 'New Copperplate Grant of Śrīcandra (No. 8) from Bangladesh'. *Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies* 73: 223–44.

Flood, Finbarr Barry. 2018. *Objects of Translation: Material Culture and Medieval 'Hindu-Muslim' Encounter*. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Francis, Emmanuel. 2018. 'Indian Copper-Plate Grants: Inscriptions or Documents?' In *Manuscripts and Archives*, edited by Alessandro Bausi, Christian Brockmann, Michael Friedrich, and Sabine Kienitz, 387–418. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Furui, Ryosuke. 2008. 'A New Copper Plate Inscription of Gopala II'. *South Asian Studies* 24: 67–75.

—. 2009. 'Re-Reading Two Copper Plate Inscriptions of Gopāla II, Year 4'. In *Prajñādhara: Essays on Asian Art History, Epigraphy and Culture in Honour of Gouriswar Bhattacharya*, edited by Gerd J.R. Mevissen and Arundhati Banerji, 319–30. New Delhi: Kaveri Books.

—. 2010. 'Biyala Copperplate Inscription of Mahīpāla I'. *Pratna Samiksha: A Journal of Archaeology* New Series 1: 99–106.

—. 2011a. 'Rangpur Copper Plate Inscription of Mahīpāla I, Year 5'. *Journal of Ancient Indian History* 27: 232–45.

—. 2011b. 'Indian Museum Copper Plate Inscription of Dharmapala, Year 26: Tentative Reading and Study'. *South Asian Studies* 27: 145–56.

—. 2013. 'Merchant Groups in Early Medieval Bengal: With Special Reference to the Rajbhita Stone Inscription of the Time of Mahīpāla I, Year 33'. *Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies* 76: 391–412.

—. 2016. 'Bharat Kala Bhavan Copper Plate Inscription of Rājyapāla, Year 2: Re-Edition and Reinterpretation'. *Puravritta (Journal of the Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Government of West Bengal)* 1: 41–56.

—. 2017. 'Subordinate Rulers under the Pālas: Their Diverse Origins and Shifting Power Relation with the King'. *The Indian Economic & Social History Review* 54: 339–59.

—. 2020. *Land and Society in Early South Asia: Eastern India 400-1250*. Abingdon; New York: Routledge.

Gaur, Albertine. 1975. *Indian Charters on Copper Plates in the Department of Oriental Manuscripts and Printed Books*. London: British Museum Publications.

Ghosh, Suchandra. 2010–11. 'Kamarupa and Early Bengal: Understanding Their Political Relationship'. *Proceedings of the Indian History Congress* 71: 110–18.

Gius, Evelyn, Jan Christoph Meister, Malte Meister, Marco Petris, Christian Bruck, Janina Jacke, Mareike Schumacher, Dominik Gerstorfer, Marie Flüh, and Jan Horstmann. 2022. 'CATMA'. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6419805.

Glasenapp, Helmuth von. 1942. *The Doctrine of Karman in Jain Philosophy*. Translated by G. Barry Gifford. Bombay: Bai Vijibai Jivanlal Panalal Charity Fund.

—. 1984. *Der Jainismus: Eine indische Erlösungsreligion*. Kultur und Weltanschauung 1. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.

Gopal, K. K. 1964. 'The Assembly of Samantas in Early Mediaeval India'. *Journal of Indian History* 42: 241–50.

Gopal, Lallanji. 1963. 'Sāmanta - Its Varying Significance in Ancient India'. *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society* New Series 95: 21–37.

Goron, Stan, and J. P. Goenka. 2001. *The Coins of the Indian Sultanates: Covering the Area of Present-Day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh*. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

Guest, Greg, Kathleen M. MacQueen, and Emily E. Namey. 2012. *Applied Thematic Analysis*. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Gupta, P. L. 1961-62. 'Nesarika Grant of Govinda III, Saka 727'. *Epigraphia Indica* 34: 123-34.

Gupte, Y. R. 1926. 'Yādavas Mentioned in the Religious Books of the Mahānubhāvas'. *Journal of Indian History* 5: 198-203.

Hahn, Michael. 2007. *Kapphiṇābhyudaya, or, King Kapphiṇa's Triumph: A Ninth Century Kashmiri Buddhist Poem*. Ryukoku University Studies in Buddhist Culture 18. Kyoto: Ryukoku University.

—. 2013. *Śivasvāmin's Kapphiṇābhyudaya*. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.

—. 2019. 'War Council in Śivasvāmin's Kapphiṇābhyudaya: The Justification for an Expansionist War as Given in Śivasvāmin's Kapphiṇābhyudaya'. In *War and Peace in Indian Literature and Culture*, edited by Danuta Stasik and Anna Trynkowska, 115-25. Warsaw: Dom Wydawniczy Elipsa.

Hatcher, Brian A. 2020. *Hinduism before Reform*. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press.

Haug, Martin. 1863. *The Aitareya Brahmanam of the Rigveda, Containing the Earliest Speculations of the Brahmans on the Meaning of the Sacrificial Prayers, and on the Origin, Performance and Sense of the Rites of the Vedic Religion*. Volume II. *Translation, with Notes*. Bombay; London: Government Central Book Depôt; Trübner & Co.

Hawkes, Jason, and Riza Abbas. 2016. 'Copperplates in Context: A Preliminary Investigation of the Study and Archaeological Settings of Land Grant Inscriptions'. *Pratnatattva* 22: 41-71.

Heitzman, James. 1997. *Gifts of Power: Lordship in an Early Indian State*. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Henige, David P. 1975. 'Some Phantom Dynasties of Early and Medieval India: Epigraphic Evidence and the Abhorrence of a Vacuum'. *Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies* 38: 525-49.

Hira Lal. 1905-06. 'Betul Plates of Samkshobha, the Gupta Year 199'. *Epigraphia Indica* 8: 284-90.

—. 1907-08. 'Burhanpur Sanskrit Inscription of Adil Shah. Samvat 1646'. *Epigraphia Indica* 9: 306-10.

Hoernle, Augustus Frederic Rudolf. 1891. 'Two Pattavalis of the Sarasvati Gachchha of the Digambara Jains'. *Indian Antiquary* 20: 341-61.

—. 1892. 'Three Further Pattavalis of the Digambaras'. *Indian Antiquary* 21: 57-84.

Horstmann, Jan. 2020. 'Undogmatic Literary Annotation with CATMA'. In *Annotations in Scholarly Editions and Research: Functions, Differentiation, Systematization*, edited by Julia Nantke and Frederik Schlupkothen, 157-76. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Horstmann, Monika. 2009. *Der Zusammenhalt der Welt: religiöse Herrschaftslegitimation und Religionspolitik Maharaja Savai Jaisinghs (1700-1743)*. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

—. 2013. *Jaipur 1778: The Making of a King*. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Hultzsch, Eugen Julius Theodor. 1894-95. 'Chicacole Plates of Gunarnava's son Devendravarman'. *Epigraphia Indica* 3: 130-34.
—. 1895. *South-Indian Inscriptions: Tamil Inscriptions of Rajaraja, Rajendra-Chola, and Others in the Rajarajesvara Temple at Tanjavur. Volume II, Part III: Supplement to the First and Second Volumes.* South Indian Inscriptions, 2.3. Madras: Government Press.

—. 1905-06. 'Nagpur Museum plates of Mahabhavagupta I. Janamejaya'. *Epigraphia Indica* 8: 138-42.

Hunter, William Wilson, and Nabin K. Sahu. 1956. *A History of Orissa*. First edition. Vol. 2. Calcutta: Susil Gupta.

Inden, Ronald B. 1990 (2000 second impression). *Imagining India*. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

—. 2000a. 'Introduction: From Philological to Dialogical Texts'. In *Querying the Medieval: Texts and the History of Practices in South Asia*, by Ronald B. Inden, Jonathan S. Walters, and Daud Ali, 3–28. New York: Oxford University Press.

—. 2000b. 'Imperial Purāṇas: Kashmir as Vaiṣṇava Center of the World'. In *Querying the Medieval: Texts and the History of Practice in South India*, edited by Daud Ali, Ronald B. Inden, and Jonathan S. Walters, 29–98. New York: Oxford University Press.

Inden, Ronald, Jonathan Walters, and Daud Ali, eds. 2000. *Querying the Medieval: Texts and the History of Practices in South Asia*. New York: Oxford University Press.

Insoll, Timothy. 1999. *The Archaeology of Islam*. Oxford: Blackwell.

Islam, Shariful. 2018. 'Emerging Political Entities in Southeast Bengal (Vaṅga-Samataṭa-Harikela)'. In *History of Bangladesh: Early Bengal in Regional Perspectives (up to c. 1200 CE)*, edited by Abdul Momin Chowdhury and Ranabir Chakravarti, 1: 551–690. Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.

ISO. 2001. *International Standard ISO 15919: Information and Documentation, Transliteration of Devanagari and Related Indic Scripts into Latin Characters = Information et documentation, translittération du Devanagari et des écritures indiennes liées en caractères latins*. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

Jain, Ramesh Chandra. 1963. *Samaraichchakaha of Acharya Haribhadra Suri: Prakrit Text with Sanskrit Chhaya and Hindi Translation*. 2 vols. New Delhi: Bharatiya Jnanpith.

Jaina, Balabhadra. 1978. भारत के दिगम्बर जैन तर्थ. चतुर्थ भागः राजस्थान-गुजरात-महाराष्ट्र (Bhārata ke Digambara Jaina tīrtha. Caturtha bhāga: Rājasthāna-Gujarāta-Mahārāṣṭra). Bambai: Bhāratavarṣīya Digambara Jaina Tīrthakṣetra Kameṭī.

Jarrett, H. S., and Jadu-nath Sarkar. 1949 (Reprint 1993). 'Ain-i-Ākbari of Abul Fazl-i-Allami. Calcutta: Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal.

Joharāpurakara, Vidyādhara. 1958. भट्टारक सम्प्रदाय (Bhaṭṭāraka Sampradāya). Solāpura: Jaina Saṁskṛiti Saṁrakṣaka Saṅgha.

Joharāpurakara, Vidyādhara, and Kastūracanda Kāsalivāla. 1975. वीर शासन के प्रभावक आचार्य (Vīra śāsana ke prabhāvaka ācārYA). Nayī Dilli: Bhāratīya Jñānapīṭha.

Joshi, B. R. 1946. 'A Study of the Dynastic Name Hoysala'. *Indian Historical Quarterly* 22: 172–79.

Joshi, P. M. 1966. "Ala-Ud-Din Khalji's First Campaign against Devagiri'. In *Studies in Indian Culture*. Dr. Ghulam Yazdani Commemoration Volume, edited by Haroon Khan
Sherwani, 203–11. Hyderabad: Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Oriental Research Institute.

Kane, Pandurang Vaman. 1930. *History of Dharmaśāstra* (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law). Volume 1. Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Kangle, R. P. 1960. *The Kautilīya Arthaśāstra. Part I, A Critical Edition with Glossary*. University of Bombay Studies, Sanskrit, Prakrit and Pali 1. Bombay: University of Bombay.

Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. 1989. *खण्डलवाल जैन समाज का वृहद् इतिहास (Khandelavāla Jaina samāja kā vrhad itihāsa)*. Jayapura: Jaina Itihāsa Prakāśana Samsthāna.

Khattab, Nasiruddin. 2007. *English Translation of Sunan Ibn Mājah*. Edited by Huda Khattab. Vol. 1. Riyadh: Darussalam.

Kielhorn, Lorenz Franz. 1892a. 'Inscriptions from Khajuraho'. *Epigraphia Indica* 1: 121–53.

———. 1892b. 'Patna Inscription of the Time of the Yadava Simghana and His Feudatories Soideva and Hemadideva'. *Epigraphia Indica* 1: 338–46.

———. 1892c. 'The Dinājpur Copper-Plate Inscription of Mahīpāla'. *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal* 61: 77–87.

———. 1894. 'Badal Pillar Inscription of the Time of Narayanapala'. *Epigraphia Indica* 2: 160–67.

———. 1896–97a. 'Khalimpur Plate of Dharmapaladeva'. *Epigraphia Indica* 4: 243–54.

———. 1896–97b. 'Kudopali Plates of the Time of Mahabhavagupta II'. *Epigraphia Indica* 4: 254–59.

———. 1902–03. 'A List of Inscriptions of Southern India from about A.D. 500'. *Epigraphia Indica* 7, Appendix.

Koparkar, D. G. 1957–58. 'Kalegaon Plates of Yadava Mahadeva'. *Epigraphia Indica* 32: 31–44.

Kraska-Miller, Marie. 2014. *Nonparametric Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences*. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Krippendorff, Klaus. 2004. *Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology*. Second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Krishna Rao, Bhavaraju Venkata. 1934–35. 'Revised Chronology of the Eastern Chalukya Kings'. *Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society* 9: 1–32.

———. 1973. *History of the Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi*. 610–1210 A.D. Hyderabad: Andhra Pradesh Sahitya Akademi.

Kulke, Hermann. 1996. 'Periodization of Pre-Modern Historical Processes in India and Europe. Some Reflections'. *The Indian Historical Review* 19: 21–36.

———. 1997. 'Some Observations on the Political Functions of Copper-Plate Grants in Early Medieval India'. In *Recht, Staat und Verwaltung im klassischen Indien / The State, the Law, and Administration in Classical India*, edited by Bernhard Kölver, 237–44. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag.
Kumar, Ashish. 2015. *Kings, Merchants and Forest Societies in the Mālava-Dāhala Region* (c. AD 400–800). Doctoral Thesis, New Delhi: Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

Kuraishī, Muḥammad Ḥamid. 1926. ‘Some Persian, Arabic, and Sanskrit Inscriptions from Asirgarh in Nimār District, Central Provinces’. *Epigraphia Indica, Arabic and Persian Supplement* 1925–26: 1–9.

Lakshmana Rao, Komarraju Venkata. 1927–28. ‘The Addanki Stone Inscription of Pandaranga’. *Epigraphia Indica* 19: 271–75.

Lal, Kishori Saran. 1967. *History of the Khaljis*. A.D. 1290–1320. London: Asia Publishing House.

Laskar, Ganga Mohan. 1905. ‘Four New Copper-Plate Charters of the Somavámśi Kings of Kośala (and Kaṭaka?)’. *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal* 1: 1–26.

Leclère, Basile. 2013. *Le théâtre de l’Inde médiévale entre tradition et innovation: le Moharājaparājaya de Yaśaḥpāla*. Marburg: Indica et Tibetica.

Lienhard, Siegfried. 1984. *A History of Classical Poetry: Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit*. History of Indian Literature 3.1. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Mahalingam, T. V. 1992. ‘The Sēuṇas of Devagiri’. In *A Comprehensive History of India*, edited by Ram Sharan Sharma and Krishna Mohan Shrimali, 4.1: 137–55. New Delhi: People’s Publishing House.

Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra. 1925–26a. ‘Jodhpur Inscription of Pratihara Bauka; V. S. 894’. *Epigraphia Indica* 18: 87–99.

—. 1925–26b. ‘The Gwalior Prasasti of the Gurjara-Pratihara King Bhoja’. *Epigraphia Indica* 18: 99–114.

Malamoud, Charles. 1998. *Cooking the World: Ritual and Thought in Ancient India*. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Mazumdar, B. C. 1911–12. ‘Three Copper-Plate Records of Sonpur’. *Epigraphia Indica* 11: 93–104.

Mette, Adelheid. 2010. *Die Erlösungslehre der Jaina. Legenden, Parabeln, Erzählungen*. Berlin: Verlag der Weltreligionen.

Mills, E. M. 1993. ‘A Copper Plate from the Reign of Śrīcandra (Bangladesh National Museum Accession Number 77.1478)’. *South Asian Studies* 9: 77–86.

Mirashi, Vasudev Vishnu. 1939–40. ‘Purshottampuri Plates of Ramachandra: Saka 1232’. *Epigraphia Indica* 25: 199–225.

—. 1959. ‘An Odd Copper-Plate Grant of the Yādava King Rāmacandra’. *Proceedings of the Indian History Congress* 22: 196–200.

Misra, Pramatha Nath, and Ramesh Chandra Majumdar. 1951. ‘The Jājilpārā Grant of Gopāla II, Year 6’. *Journal of the Asiatic Society (Letters)* 17: 137–44.

Moore, David S., George P. McCabe, and Bruce A. Craig. 2021. *Introduction to the Practice of Statistics*. Tenth edition. New York: Macmillan.

Nayak, P. K. 2012. ‘A Vigraha Grant Discovered from Baragaon’. In *Pratnakirti: Recent Studies in Indian Epigraphy History Archaeology and Art. Essays in Honour of Prof. Shrinivas Ritti*, edited by Shrinivas V. Padigar and V. Shivananda, 1: 72–78. Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan.
Nilakanta Sastri, K. A., and N. Venkataramanayya. 1960. 'The Eastern Chālukyas'. In *The Early History of the Deccan*, edited by Ghulam Yazdani, 471–503. London: Oxford University Press.

Novetzke, Christian Lee. 2020. 'The Political Field of Bhakti at the Emergence of Marathi Literature in Premodern India'. In *Regional Communities of Devotion in South Asia: Insiders, Outsiders, and Interlopers*, edited by Gil Ben-Herut, Jon Keune, and Anne E. Monius, 122–36. Routledge South Asian Religion Series 13. London: Routledge.

Nyāyatīrtha, Anūpacanda. 1985. 'आमेर गद्दी के भट्टारक महेन्द्रकीर्ति का दिल्ली में पट्टाभिपेक (Āmera gaddī ke Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti kā Dillī meṃ paṭṭābhiṣeka)'. Vīra-vāṇī 37 (15): 421–23.

—, ed. 1997. *दिगम्बर जैन मन्दिर परिचय जिला जयपुर (ग्रामीण अञ्चल)* (Digambara Jaina mandira paricaya jilā jayapura [grāmīṇa añcala]). Jayapura: Digambara Jaina Mandira Mahāsaṅgha.

Nyāyatīrtha, Bhaṁvaralāla. 1986. 'जयपुर में भट्टारक परंपरा के संस्थान नहीं रहे (Jayapura meṃ bhaṭṭāraka paraṁparā ke saṁsthāna nahīṃ rahe)'. Vīra-vāṇī 38 (9): 357–58.

Obrock, Luther. 2022. 'Uddhara's World: Geographies of Piety and Trade in Sultanate South Asia'. *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society* 32: 59–81.

Olivelle, Patrick. 2013. *King, Governance, and Law in Ancient India: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra. A New Annotated Translation*. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pal, Sayantani. 2008. 'Matsyanyaya of Khalimpur Inscription: Revisiting Its Geo-Historical Significance'. *Journal of the Asiatic Society* 50: 21–36.

Panda, S. C., D. Chopdar, and P. K. Nayak. 2002. 'Ruchida Copperplate Grant of Mahābhavaguptarājadeva'. *Journal of New Aspects of History of Orissa* 11: 72–76.

Panigrahi, Krishna Chandra. 1981. *History of Orissa: Hindu Period*. Cuttack: Kitab Mahal.

Parabrahma Sastry, P. V. 1978. *The Kakatiyas of Warangal*. Hyderabad: Government of Andhra Pradesh.

Parasher-Sen, Aloka. 1991. *Mlecchas in Early India: A Study in Attitudes towards Outsiders Upto AD 600*. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

—. 2006. 'Naming and Social Exclusion: The Outcaste and the Outsider'. In *Between the Empires: Society in India 300 BCE to 400 CE*, edited by Patrick Olivelle, 425–55. South Asia Research. New York: Oxford University Press.

—. 2019. 'Habitation, Woods and the Wild: Differentiating Forest in Early India'. In *Questioning Paradigms Constructing Histories: A Festschrift for Romila Thapar*, edited by Kumkum Roy and Naina Dayal, 124–41. New Delhi: Aleph.

Patel, Alka. 2008. 'Transcending Religion: Socio-Linguistic Evidence from the Somanātha-Verāval Inscription'. In *Ancient India in Its Wider World*, edited by Grant Parker and Carla Sinopoli, 143–64. Ann Arbor: Centers for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan.

Pathak, Kashinath Babu. 1885. 'A Copper-Plate Grant of the Yadava King Krishna'. *Indian Antiquary* 14: 68–75.
Peterson, Indira Viswanathan. 2003. *Design and Rhetoric in a Sanskrit Court Epic: The Kirātarjunīya of Bhāravi*. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Pollock, Sheldon. 1996. 'The Sanskrit Cosmopolis. 300-1300: Transculturation, Vernacularization, and the Question of Ideology'. In *Ideology and Status of Sanskrit: Contributions to the History of the Sanskrit Language*, edited by Jan E. M. Houben, 197-247. Brill's Indological Library 13. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2006. *The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India*. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press.

Rahim, S. A. 1961. 'Inscriptions of the Faruqi Kings from Burhanpur'. *Epigraphia Indica, Arabic and Persian Supplement* 1961: 49-58.

———. 1962. 'Some More Inscriptions from Khandesh'. *Epigraphia Indica, Arabic and Persian Supplement* 1962: 72-76.

Rajaguru, Satyanarayan. 1966. *Inscriptions of Orissa, Vol. 4*. Bhubaneswar: Sri Sarada Press.

Rajaguru, Satyanarayana. 2011. 'Appendix 1: A New Copperplate of the Time of Mahasivagupta Yayati-II'. In *In Inscriptions of Orissa: With Special Reference to Subarnapur*, edited by Pabitra Mohana Nayak, 98-105. New Delhi: Readworthy Publications.

Ramesh, K. V., and S. P. Tewari. 1975-76. 'An Inscription of Pratihāra Vatsarāja, Śaka 717'. *Epigraphia Indica* 41: 49-57.

Ramsay, W., and John Pollen. 1880. *Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency Volume XII: Khandesh*. Edited by James M. Campbell. Bombay: Government Central Press.

Rao, Ajay K. 2016. 'From Fear to Hostility: Responses to the Conquests of Madurai'. *South Asian Studies* 32: 68-79.

Ravishankar, T. S., ed. 2011. *Annual Report on Indian Epigraphy for 1997-98*. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.

Rice, Benjamin Lewis. 1894. *Inscriptions in the Mysore District (Part I)*. *Epigraphia Carnatica* 3. Bangalore: Mysore Government Press.

———. 1898. *Inscriptions in the Mysore District (Part II)*. *Epigraphia Carnatica* 4. Bangalore: Mysore Government Press.

———. 1901. *Inscriptions in the Kadur District*. *Epigraphia Carnatica* 6. Bangalore: Mysore Government Press.

———. 1902a. *Inscriptions in the Hassan District*. *Epigraphia Carnatica*, 5.1. Mangalore: Basel Mission Press.

———. 1902b. *Inscriptions in the Shimoga District (Part I)*. *Epigraphia Carnatica* 7. Bangalore: Mysore Government Central Press.

———. 1904a. *Inscriptions in the Shimoga District (Part II)*. *Epigraphia Carnatica* 8. Bangalore: Mysore Government Central Press.

———. 1904b. *Inscriptions in the Tumkur District*. *Epigraphia Carnatica* 12. Bangalore: Mysore Government Central Press.

———. 1914. *Coorg Inscriptions (Revised Edition)*. *Epigraphia Carnatica* 1. Madras: Superintendent, Government Press.
Rice, Benjamin Lewis, and R. Narasimhachar. 1923. *Inscriptions at Sravana Belgola (Revised Edition)*. Epigraphia Carnatica 2. Bangalore: Mysore Government Central Press.

Ridding, Caroline Mary. 1896. *The Kādambarī of Bāṇa*. London: Royal Asiatic Society.

Sahu, B. P. 1985. 'Ancient Orissa, the Dynamics of Internal Transformation of the Tribal Society'. *Proceedings of the Indian History Congress* 54: 148–60.

Sahu, J. K. 1979. 'Identification of Mahabhavagupta of Mahakosala Historical Society Plates'. *Proceedings of the Indian History Congress* 40: 1117–21.

Saldaña, Johnny. 2016. *The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers*. Third edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Salomon, Richard. 1998. *Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sanderson, Alexis. 2009. 'The Śaiva Age: The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism during the Early Medieval Period'. In *Genesis and Development of Tantrism*, edited by Shingo Einoo, 41–349. Special Series, 23. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo.

Sankaranarayanan, S. 1977. *The Vishṇukūṇḍis and Their Times: An Epigraphical Study*. Delhi: Agam Prakashan.

Sanyal, Rajat. 2014. 'The Pala-Sena and Others'. In *Political History and Administration* (c. AD 750–1300), edited by Dilip K. Chakrabarti and Makkhan Lal, 165–213. History of Ancient India 5. New Delhi: Vivekananda International Foundation and Aryan Books International.

Schmiedchen, Annette. 2014. *Herrschergenealogie und religiöses Patronat: die Inschriftenkultur der Rāṣtrakūṭas, Śilāhāras und Yādavas* (8. bis 13. Jahrhundert). Gonda Indological Studies 17. Leiden: Brill.

Schreier, Margrit. 2012. *Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice*. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shafi‘, Muhammad. 2012. ‘Burhān Al-Dīn Gharīb’. In *Encyclopaedia of Islam*. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islamSIM_1544.

Sharma, Mukunda Madhava. 1978. *Inscriptions of Ancient Assam*. Gauhati: Gauhati University.

Sharma, Ram Sharan. 1961. 'Land Grants to Vassals and Officials in Northern India (c. A. D. 1000-1200)'. *Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient* 4: 70–105.

———. 2001. *Early Medieval Indian Society. A Study in Feudalisation*. Kolkata: Orient Longman.

Shastri, Ajay Mitra. 1972. *Yādava Inscriptions from Ambe Jogai*. Vishveshvaranand Indological Series 56. Hoshiarpur.

———. 1995a. *Inscriptions of the Śarabhapurīyas, Pāṇḍuvaṁśins, and Somavaṁśins, Part I: Introduction*. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research; Motilal Banarsidass.
—. 1995b. *Inscriptions of the Śarabhapurīyas, Pāṇḍuvaṁśins and Somavaṁśins, Part II: Inscriptions*. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research; Motilal Bandarsidass.

Shastri, Ajay Mitra, and Snigdha Tripathy. 2011-12. 'Charters of Mahabhavagupta I Janamejaya from Gopalpur, Year 1, 10 and 12'. *Epigraphia Indica* 43: 91-137.

Shastri, Biswanarayan. 1991-92. *The Kālikāpurāṇa: Text, Introduction & English Translation with Shloka Index*. Delhi: Nag Publishers.

Shin, Jae-Eun. 2022a. 'From Bhauma to Vārāha: The Shifting Lineage Identity of the Kāmarūpa Rulers in Northeast India, 7th-12th Century'. *Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient* 65: 583-617.

—. 2022b. 'The Moon with Two Stories: Reconsidering the “Buddhist” Candras in East India, 10th-11th Centuries'. *India Humanities Focus* 11: 1-8.

Sircar, Dines Chandra. 1949-50. 'Two Inscriptions from Kelga'. *Epigraphia Indica* 28: 321-28.

—. 1951-52. 'Two Pala Plates from Belwa'. *Epigraphia Indica* 29: 1-13.

—. 1955. 'The Deccan'. In *The Age of Imperial Kanauj*, edited by Ramesh Chandra Majumdar, 132-49. The History and Culture of the Indian People 4. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.

—. 1955-56. 'Note on Kurud Plates of Narendra, Year 24'. *Epigraphia Indica* 31: 267-68.

—. 1959-60a. 'Bhaturiya Inscription of Rajyapala'. *Epigraphia Indica* 33: 150-54.

—. 1959-60b. 'Dhulla Plate of Sricandra'. *Epigraphia Indica* 33: 134-40.

—. 1961-62a. 'Note on Nesarika Grant of Govinda III, Saka 727'. *Epigraphia Indica* 34: 135-40.

—. 1961-62b. 'Pandiapathar Plates of Bhimasena, Year 89'. *Epigraphia Indica* 34: 233-38.

—. 1963-64. 'Three Pala Inscriptions'. *Epigraphia Indica* 35: 225-38.

—. 1965. *Indian Epigraphy*. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

—. 1966. *Indian Epigraphical Glossary*. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

—. 1967-68. 'Paschimbhag Plate of Srichandra, Year 5'. *Epigraphia Indica* 37: 289-304.

—. 1969-70. 'Mainamati Plates of the Candra Kings (3 Plates)'. *Epigraphia Indica* 38: 197-214.

—. 1973. *Epigraphic Discoveries In East Pakistan*. Calcutta: Sanskrit College.

—. 1973-74. 'Three Copper-Plate Grants from Assam'. *Epigraphia India* 40: 55-76.

—. 1983. *Select Inscriptions Bearing on Indian History and Civilization. Volume II: From the Sixth to the Eighteenth Century A.D*. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

—. 1985. *The Kānyakubja-Gauḍa Struggle, from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century A.D*. Dr. Bimanbehari Majumdar Memorial Lecture. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society.

—. 2007. 'Political History'. In *Comprehensive History of Assam*, edited by H. K. Barpujari, 1: 140-71. Guwahati: Publication Board Assam.
Sitapati, G. V. 1926. 'The Korni Copper Plate Grants of Anantavarma Chodaganga: Second Set, Saka Samvat 1034'. *Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society* 1: 106-24.

Slaje, Walter. 2019. 'Buddhism and Islam in Kashmir as Represented by Rājataraṅgiṇī Authors'. In *Encountering Buddhism and Islam in Premodern Central and South Asia*, edited by Blain Auer and Ingo Strauch, 128–60. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Smith, David. 1985. *Ratnākara's Haravijaya: An Introduction to the Sanskrit Court Epic*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smith, Walter. 1991. 'Images of Divine Kings from the Mukteśvara Temple, Bhubaneswar'. *Artibus Asiae* 51: 90–106.

Sontheimer, Günther-Dietz. 1994. 'The Vana and the Kṣetra: Tribal Background of Some Famous Cults'. In *Religion and Society in Eastern India: Eschmann Memorial Lectures*, edited by Hermann Kulke and Gaya Charan Tripathi, 117–64. Delhi: Manohar.

Spencer, George W. 1984. 'Heirs Apparent: Fiction and Function in Chola Mythical Genealogies'. *The Indian Economic & Social History Review* 21: 415–32.

Srinivasan, P. R. 1967–68. 'Mahulpara Plates of Mahasivagupta-Dharmaratha, Year 11'. *Epigraphia Indica* 37: 225–32.

———. 1969–70. 'A Grant of Mahasivagupta I-Yayati, Year 4'. *Epigraphia Indica* 38: 186–91.

Stein, Burton. 1977. 'The Segmentary State in South Indian History'. In *Realm and Region in Traditional India*, edited by Richard Gabriel Fox, 3–51. Monograph and Occasional Papers Series 14. Durham: Duke University.

———. 1980. *Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India*. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

———. 1998. 'All the King's Mana: Perspectives on Kingship in Medieval India'. In *Kingship and Authority in South Asia*, edited by J. F. Richards, 133–88. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Strauch, Ingo. 2002. *Die Lekhapaddhati-Lekhapañcāśikā: Briefe und Urkunden im mittelalterlichen Gujarat*. Monographien zur indischen Archäologie, Kunst und Philologie 16. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.

Strong, John S. 2017. 'The Legends of King Aśoka and the Many Faces of Buddhist Kingship'. Unpublished paper; references are given to the pages of the manuscript. *Lee & Won Foundation Lecture Series on New Horizons in the Study of Buddhism and Buddhist Art, No. 2*. Seoul: National Museum of Korea.

Sūri, P. 1961. *Mahāmātya-Vastupāla-kīrtikīrtana-svarūpa-kāvyadvaya*. Singhi Jaina Series 32. Bombay.

Suryanarayana, Kolluru. 1987. *Feudatories under Eastern Chālukyas (History and Culture of Andhras)*. Delhi: Gian.

Tagare, Ganesh Vasudeo. 1950 (Reprint 1999). *The Bhāgavata-Purāṇa*. Edited by J. L. Shastri. 5 vols. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Talbot, Cynthia. 1995. 'Inscribing the Other, Inscribing the Self: Hindu-Muslim Identities in Pre-Colonial India'. *Comparative Studies in Society and History* 37: 692-722.

—. 2001. *Precolonial India in Practice: Society, Region, and Identity in Medieval Andhra*. Oxford.

Tawney, Charles Henry. 1880. *The Ocean of Story, Being C. H. Tawney's Translation of Somadeva's Kathā Sarit Sāgara (or Ocean of Streams of Story)*. Volume 1. Edited by Norman Mosley Penzer. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press.

—. 1884. *The Ocean of Story, Being C. H. Tawney's Translation of Somadeva's Kathā Sarit Sāgara (or Ocean of Streams of Story)*. Volume 2. Edited by Norman Mosley Penzer. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press.

Taylor, Sarah Pierce. 2020. 'Jains, Kings, and Kingship in Medieval India'. In *Brill's Encyclopedia of Jainism*, edited by John E. Cort, Paul Dundas, Knut A. Jacobsen, and Kristi L. Wiley, 486-98. Leiden: Brill.

—. 2021. 'The King Never Dies: Royal Renunciation and the Fiction of Jain Sovereignty'. *Religions* 12: 1-19.

Thapar, Romila. 2001. 'Perceiving the Forest: Early India'. *Studies in History* 17: 1-16.
Tieken, Herman. 2023. *The Aśoka Inscriptions: Analysing a Corpus*. Delhi: Primus Books.

Tripathy, Snigdha. 2000. *Inscriptions of Orissa, Vol. 2: Inscriptions of the Bhauma-Karas*. Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan.

—. 2010. *Descriptive Topographical Catalogue of Orissan Inscriptions*. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers & Distributors.

Upadhye, Adinath Neminath. 1959. *Uddyotana-Sūri's Kuvalayamālā (a Unique Campū in Prākrit) Critically Edited from Rare Mss. Material for the First Time with Various Readings, Notes Etc. and Ratnaprabhā-Sūri's Kuvalayamālā-Kathā (a Stylistic Digest of the above in Sanskrit) Critically Edited with Various Readings Etc. Part I: Kuvalayamālā, Prākrit-Text & Various Readings*. First edition. Singhi Jain Series 45. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.

Varmā, Gopīcandra. 1998. *दिगम्बर जैन अतिशय क्षेत्र श्री महावीरजी का संक्षिप्त इतिहास एवं कारय-विवरण (Digambara Jaina Atiśaya Kṣetra Śrī Mahāvīrajī kā saṁkṣipta itihāsa evaṁ kārya-vivaraṇa)*. Jayapura: Rāmā Prakāśana.

Vasu, N. N. 1900. 'Copper-Plate Inscription of Madanapala'. *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal* 69: 66-73.

Verma, Onkar Prasad. 1970. *The Yadavas and Their Times*. Nagpur: Vidarbha Samshodhan Mandal.

Vijayaśilacandrasūri. 2000. *Siri Bhuyanāsūmdarīkāhā*. 2 vols. Prakrit Text Series 39. Ahmedabad: Prakrit Text Society.

Vose, Steven M. 2022. 'Jain Memory of the Tughluq Sultans: Alternative Sources for the Historiography of Sultanate India'. *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society* 32: 115-39.

Wathen, W. H. 1839. 'Mr. Wathen's Translation of Ancient Inscriptions'. *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society* 5: 173-188.
Wattelier-Bricout, Amandine. 2023. ‘Scribes’, Engravers’ and Ministers’ Lineages, an Indication (among Others) of the Royal Donor’s Identity’. Paper presented in Pondicherry, January 30. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04032553.

Yadava, B. N. S. 1966. 'Secular Landgrants of the Post-Gupta Period and Some Aspects of the Growth of Feudal Complex in North India'. In *Land System and Feudalism in Ancient India*, edited by Ram Sharan Sharma, 72–94. Calcutta.