Immediately behind the temple of Neminatha is a triple one erected by the brothers Tejpala and Vastupala, who also erected one of the principal temples in Abu. From inscriptions upon its walls it seems to have been erected in A.D. 1177. The plan is that of three temples joined together, an arrangement not unfrequently found in the south, but rare in the north, which is to be regretted, as it is capable of great variety of effect, and of light and shade to a greater extent than plainer forms. In this instance there is an image of Mallinatha, the 19th Tirthankar, in the central cell, but the lateral ones each contain a remarkable solid pile of masonry called a Samosan, that on the north side named Mera or Sumera—a fabled mountain of the Jains and Hindus—having a square base ([Woodcut No. 127]); that on the south, called Samet Sikhara—Parisnath, in Bengal—with a nearly circular base. Each rises in four tiers of diminishing width, nearly to the roof, and is surmounted by a small square canopy over the images.[268] From this it would appear that with the Jains, the Mounts Girnar, Sutrunjya, Abu, &c., were not only holy places, but holy things, and that with them—as with the Syrians—the worship of high places was really a part of their religion.
127. Plan of Temple of Tejpala and Vastupala. (From a Plan by Mr. Burgess.) Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.
Some of the other temples at Girnar are interesting from their history, and remarkable from fragments of an ancient date that have survived the too constant repairs; but without illustrating them it would only be tedious to recapitulate their names, or to attempt to describe by words objects which only the practised eye of the Indian antiquary can appreciate. Not far from the hill, however, on the sea-shore, stands the temple of Somnath, historically perhaps the most celebrated in India, from the campaign which Mahmood of Gazni undertook for its destruction in 1025, and the momentous results that campaign had eventually on the fate of India.
128. Plan of Temple at Somnath. (From a Plan by Mr. Burgess.) Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.
As will be seen from the annexed plan ([Woodcut No. 128]) the temple itself never could have been remarkable for its dimensions, probably it never exceeded about 130 ft. over all, but the dome of its porch, which measures 33 ft. across, is as large as any we know of its age. From the accounts, however, which we have of the siege, it is evident that it was enclosed like the temple of Neminatha ([Woodcut No. 126]) in a courtyard, and that may have been of surpassing magnificence. Though very similar in plan, it is nearly twice the dimensions of that of Neminatha, and if its court was proportionately large, it may really have justified all that has been said regarding its splendour. From what fragments of its sculptured decorations remain, they too must have been of great beauty, quite equal to anything we know of this class, or of their age. It has not yet been determined, however, whether what we now see are fragments of the temple attacked by Mahmood, and consequently whether they belong to the 10th or even the 9th century, or whether they may be due to a repair which was effected in the 12th. As the story is now told, after Mahmood’s departure it was restored by Bhima Deva of Anhilwarra Puttun, who reigned 1021-1073, and adorned by Siddha Raja, 1093-1143, and lastly by Kumara Pala in 1168. Generally it is thought that what we now see belongs to the last-named king. Any one on the spot, thoroughly acquainted with the subject, might discriminate among these and tell us its story. In so far as photographs enable us to judge, it would appear that a considerable portion of what we now see belongs to the original fane, though very much altered and knocked about by subsequent restorers.
Another point of dispute is the name of the god to whom the temple was dedicated when the Moslem marched against it. From the name Someswara, it is generally assumed to have been Siva. If, however, that had been the case, the image in the sanctuary would almost certainly have been a lingam. The Mahomedan historians, however, represent it distinctly as having a head with eyes, arms, and a belly.[269] In that case it must either have been Vishnu or one of the Tirthankars. I can find no trace of Vishnuism in Gujerat at this period, but what seems to me to settle the case is, that all the kings above mentioned, who took part in the repairs after the departure of Mahmood, were undoubtedly Jains, and they would hardly have repaired or rebuilt a temple belonging to another sect.