आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

THE STHĀNIKAS AND THEIR HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE

1. ANTIQUITY AND IMPORTANCE OF THE OFFICE OF STHĀNIKA

The earliest historical mention of the importance of the Sthānikas is in the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭalya.¹ Whatever may be the use to which the root sthā (denoting place, position, station, etc.), from which is derived the word sthānika, is put by classical writers, it is only when we come to the time of Kauṭalya (321-300 B.C.)² that we have definite evidence of the important position held by the Sthānikas in the civil administration of the State. Kauṭalya uses the words sthāna, sthānīya, and sthānika in different contexts, but generally in connection with an office or place. The word sthāna is used by him while explaining the question of war and peace and neutrality, thus:— “Sthāna (keeping quiet), āsana (withdrawal from hostility), and upekṣaṇa (negligence) are synonymous with the word āsana (neutrality).”³

This, however, is not the primary meaning of the words sthāna and sthānika. Kauṭalya speaks of a sthānīya in the sense of a fortress. “There shall be set up a sthānīya (a fortress of that name) in the centre of eight hundred villages, a droṇāmukha in the centre of four hundred villages, a khārvāṭika in the centre of two hundred villages, and a saṅgrahaṇa in the midst of a collection of ten villages.”

[[P30]] Perhaps Kauṭalya uses the word sthānīya here in the sense it was used by Manu, who tells us that the word sthānaka means the pickets of soldiers commanded by a trusted officer placed in the midst of two, three, five, or hundred villages.⁴ Both Manu and Kauṭalya, therefore, are inclined to associate the words sthānaka, sthānīya, with an important office, but attached to the military department.

Indeed, Kauṭalya further associates the word sthānīya with a prominent civil office as well, as is shown in the following context: “In the cities of saṅgrahaṇa, droṇāmukha, and sthānīya, and at places where districts meet, three members acquainted with Sacred Law (dharmasthas) and three ministers of the king (amātyas) shall carry on the administration of justice.”⁵

This is not all. The most conclusive proof of the official status of a Sthānika is seen in those passages in the Arthaśāstra in which a Sthānika is always classed together with a Gopa, both being endowed with definite civil and criminal duties. Thus, for instance, while dealing with the formation of villages, Kauṭalya states the following:— “Superintendents, accountants, Gopas, Sthānikas, veterinary surgeons (anīkasthas), physicians, horse-trainers, and messengers shall also be endowed with lands, which they shall have no right to alienate by sale or mortgage.”⁶

The duties of the officials called Gopa and Sthānika are enumerated thus in the Arthaśāstra: “It is the duty of gopa, village accountant, to attend to the accountant of five or ten villages, as ordered by the Collector-General”.⁷ This does not end the work of the Gopa. He was to set up the boundaries of villages, number plots of grounds as cultivated, uncultivated, plains, wet lands, gardens, vegetable gardens, fences, forests, altars, pasture grounds, roads, register gifts, sales, charities, remission of taxes, and he was to number houses as tax-paying and non-tax-paying, and do quite a lot of work pertaining to the sphere of the Revenue Collectors.⁸

Turning to the Sthānikas we find the following in the Arthaśāstra: “Likewise (i. e., like a Gopa) Sthānika, district officer, shall attend to the accounts of one-quarter of the kingdom.”⁹

[[P31]] Then, again, in a later context Kauṭalya classifies the Gopas and the Sthānikas thus: “A Gopa shall keep the accounts of ten households, twenty households, or forty households. He shall not only know the caste, gotra, the name, and occupation of both men and women in those households, but also ascertain their income and expenditure”.¹⁰

The Sthānikas and the Gopas were to be in direct touch with the Manager of Charitable Institutions. “The Managers of Charitable Institutions shall send information (to Gopa or Sthānika) as to any heretics (pāṣaṇḍa) and travellers arriving to reside therein.”¹¹

But the State did not give unlimited authority to the Gopas and the Sthānikas; nor did it completely trust them in financial matters. This accounts for the fact that supervisors and spies were placed over the Gopas and the Sthānikas. In one context while dwelling on the duties of the Revenue Collectors, such as the Gopas and the Sthānikas essentially were, Kauṭalya lays down the following:— “In those places which are under the jurisdiction of Gopa and Sthānika, Commissioners (pradeṣṭāraḥ) specially deputed by the Collector-General shall not only inspect the work done and means employed by the village (Gopa) and district (Sthānika) officers, but also collect the special religious tax as bali (baliṁ pragrahaṁ kuryuḥ).”¹²

Then immediately afterwards Kauṭalya says that “Spies, under the guise of householders (gṛhapatika, cultivators), who shall be deputed by the Collector-General for espionage, shall ascertain the validity of the accounts (of the village Gopa and district [Sthānika] officers) regarding the fields, houses, and families of each village, the area and output of produce regarding fields, right of ownership and remission of taxes with regard to houses and the caste and profession regarding families.”¹³

Under the pradeṣṭāraḥ or Commissioners, the Gopas and the Sthānikas had to do the policing of the country as well. For Kauṭalya informs us that “A Commissioner with his retinue of Gopas and Sthānikas shall take steps to find out external thieves; and the officer in charge of a city (nāgaraka) shall, under the circumstances sketched above, try to detect internal thieves inside fortified towns.”¹⁴

The conclusion deducible from the above statements in the Arthaśāstra are the following:—

That a Sthānika, like his colleague Gopa, was always entrusted with an important office in the civil administration;
That he was generally a District Officer;¹⁵
That his duties were generally those pertaining to the collection of revenue;
That sometimes in the capacity of a District Officer he had to do the work of a police officer as well; and
That Commissioners were most often placed over both the Gopas and the Sthānikas.

While, therefore, the official status of a Sthānika is thus proved beyond doubt in the Arthaśāstra, nowhere is the word Sthānika ever associated with community or a caste. What is more important is that Kauṭalya does not make Sthānikas exclusive managers and trustees of temples and temple lands. Moreover, there is another detail mentioned above to which attention may be drawn. Kauṭalya explicitly states that, as we have seen just now, the Sthānikas and the Gopas, were to be endowed with lands, but that these lands could not be alienated or mortgaged by them.

In these two details, viz., that pertaining to the alienation of endowed lands by sale or mortgage, and that relating to the exclusively revenue character of the Sthānikas, later historical practice completely transgressed earlier legal precept. The association of a Sthānika with an important office continued to exist ages after Kauṭalya; but whereas formerly a Sthānika was connected with the collection of revenue, in later historical times, a Sthānika was entrusted more with the managership of the lands around temples and with similar duties of trustees which were not entirely devoid of a financial tinge. This was inevitable in the course of the evolution of the Hindu State. For both the Hindu State and society had considerably altered since the days of Kauṭalya; and with the ever-growing demands of the State, need was naturally felt for appointing separate officials to look after the revenue (and police) work, while the Sthānikas were charged with the duty of controlling temples, temple lands, and the like. But whether in the age [[P33]] of Kauṭalya or in later times, the Sthānikas never formed a caste or community by themselves. Indeed, Kauṭalya does not tell us anywhere to which community the Sthānikas belonged. For to him they were merely officials recruited evidently from the highest classes of society. It seems to us that it was only in our own times that the Sthānikas were classified under the denomination of a caste, more by the machinations of those who were divided from the Sthānikas by religious tenets, rather than by any conscious and deliberate attempt on the part of the Sthānikas to style themselves as a caste. To understand the validity of our statement, we shall review the position of the Sthānikas in later times, basing our remarks mostly on the innumerable stone and copper-plate inscriptions, the value of which can never be overestimated, supplemented to some extent by notices of Sthānikas in literature.

2. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STHĀNIKAS AND OTHERS CONNECTED WITH TEMPLES

But before we proceed to cite epigraphic and literary evidence in regard to the position of the Sthānikas, it is desirable that we should differentiate the Sthānikas from others who held similar positions but without the powers and privileges of the former. These others were the Goravas, the Tammaḍigaḷ, the Śaiva temple servants, the Nambis, and others about whose duties and inferior position in Hindu society we have ample evidence in epigraphs.

(a) THE GORAVAS WERE NOT THE SAME AS STHĀNIKAS

The word Gurava or Gorava is a tadbhava of the Skt. guru+ādi meaning the Foot used in the honorific sense like pāda in Sanskrit.¹⁶ The idea underlying the word Gorava, therefore, seems to be the following—That a Gorava was one who was “at the feet of the Guru or Lord” in a temple. This meaning is by no means identical with that of the word Sthānika which, as we have seen, connotes dignity, office, place, etc. However, the position held by Goravars and Sthānikas sometimes coincided. The earliest reference to the Goravar is in one of the Sambhukallu temple stone inscriptions found at Udayāvara, the ancient capital of the Ālupas in Tuḷuva (mod. South Kanara). We have fully described the importance of this record while delineating the history of the Tuḷuva country. The last two lines of this record [[P34]] end thus—Sakala-Śrī-āḷgal Goravar. These Goravars, therefore, who were at the feet of the Lord (Śrī-āḷgal) of the temple of Udayāvara, had already become well known in the reign of the Ālupa king Māramma Āḷvārasar, who reigned in A. D. 575.¹⁷

The Goravars are also mentioned in inscriptions found at Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa. These records have been assigned to A.D. 700. One inscription relates that Tīrthada Goravaḍigaḷ (or the Goravar, guru of the tīrtha or holy place), having observed the vow (ended his life).¹⁸ Another records the same fact concerning Ullikkal-goravaḍigaḷ of the same date.¹⁹ A third epigraph also of the same date relates that Guṇasena Guravar of Koṭṭāra, the disciple of Moṇi (Mauṇi?) Guravar of Āgali died in the orthodox manner.²⁰ And a fourth one assigned also to the same date records the death of Dhaṇṇakuttārevi Guravi, the female disciple of Perumāḷu Guravaḍigaḷ.[^35_21]

From the above records the following conclusions may be drawn: First, the word Goravar was connected with a tīrtha or a holy place. Secondly, females obviously “at the feet of the Lord” in such holy places, were called Guravis. And, finally, the term Goravar, or Guravar, was applied to Jainas as well, as the name Guṇasena Guravar clearly proves.

Of these the first conclusion concerning the association of a tīrtha with a Goravar is borne out by later records, one of which (dated Śaka 872=A. D. 949-950) asserts that the Goravars managed the sthāna.²¹

This is further substantiated by another inscription dated A. D. 814 which makes a Gorava ruler of a sthāna.²² In an inscription dated A. D. 950 a Goravar is made the manager of a temple.²³ These facts, it may be presumed, are sufficient to justify the identity of the Goravars with the Sthānikas.

But on a closer examination this identity vanishes. It is true that so far “ruling a sthāna” was concerned, both the Goravars and the Sthānikas held an identical office. Both were priests (attached mostly to Śaiva temples), and both were concerned with [[P35]] duties pertaining to temples. But throughout Karnataka history the Goravas have never been confounded with the Sthānikas. In the first place, these latter, as we shall prove later on in the course of this paper, had definite social status which was denied to the Goravars. Secondly, while the Goravars no doubt were, like the Sthānikas, sometimes said to “rule a sthāna”, they were never entrusted with elaborate duties concerning the ownership of lands which were associated only with the Sthānikas. And, finally, the State in Karnataka, especially in the fourteenth century and after, invariably assigned to the Sthānikas a place in the civil administration of the country which was never given to the Goravars. These considerations, therefore, make it impossible for us to identify the Goravars with the Sthānikas.²⁴

As to how the Goravars came to claim the lordship of sthānas, it is not possible to say at the present stage of historical research. We can only suggest, however, that in the early days of struggle between Brahmanism and its rival creeds like Buddhism and Jainism—the leaders and priests of which were certainly not always drawn from the Brahman community—, those associated with the ownership of holy places, on the decline of the non-Brahmanic religions in the early centuries of the Christian era, naturally became “the rulers of the sthānas ”, when these latter passed into the hands of the Hindus. Such transference of office is not unknown to the history of southern and western India. We shall see later on in the course of this paper, that the Sthānikas themselves in comparatively recent times were dispossessed of their rights, privileges, and lands by their rivals the Vaiṣṇavites in certain parts of southern India. And we have shown elsewhere that the Jainas were driven from the predominant position they had held in western India, their basadis having been converted into Hindu temples, and in some instances, the pedestals of Jaina images being used for Hindu gods! ²⁵ It is not improbable, therefore, that in the early ages when Hinduism succeeded in ousting rival religions, the priests of the latter, on their promising allegiance to the Hindu gods, were permitted to continue as “rulers of sthānas”, which had definitely passed into the hands of the Hindus. These are no doubt conjectures; but what appears certain is that, notwithstanding the identity of the office of “rulers of the sthānas” which the Goravars and the Sthānikas held, these [[P36]] latter were never considered to be the former, especially in Karnataka and the Tamil land where, as numerous epigraphs amply prove, the Sthānikas had definite duties, privileges, and powers which were never given to the Goravars.²⁶

(b) THE STHĀNIKAS WERE NOT THE SAME AS THE TAMMAḌIGAḶ

There is another class of minor temple servants whose position outwardly resembled that of the Sthānikas. These were the Tammaḍigaḷ or attendants on the temple images. The term Tammaḍigaḷ, like the term Gorava, is of some antiquity. Two stone records found at Kammārahalli, Guṇḍlupēṭ tāluka, Mysore State, and assigned by Rice to A.D. 750, speak of Guṇasāgara Tammaḍi of Aralūr-gaṇāvalī, to whom the Twelve (representatives) of Ariūr made over certain grants of villages (named).²⁷

It seems as if we are to infer from the above example that a Tammaḍigaḷ, like a Gorava and a Sthānika, was a ruler of the sthāna”. But there is definite evidence to prove that the Tammaḍigaḷ were not the same as the Sthānikas. The Māgēnahalli stone inscription, Cennapaṭṭaṇa tāluka, Mysore State, dated A.D. 1318, is of particular importance in this connection. It falls within the reign of the last great Hoysaḷa ruler Vīra Ballāḷa III. His House-minister (maneya pradhāna) the Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Somarasa granted Muguvanahaḷḷi in Kelavalanāḍ to Ciṭṭāri Bāla Seṭṭi and Māsana Seṭṭi by means of a stone śāsana. The śāsana was as follows:—That in Mugulanahaḷḷi (evidently the same as that mentioned above) if there is a Tammaḍi, the elder brother’s property will go to the younger brother, and the younger brother’s property to the elder brother. If there is no elder or younger brother, the nearest relatives and children by the female servants will have the chief claim. If there are none such, the childless one’s cattle will be given to the temple. If there is no provision (required) for a Tammaḍi, without payments (specified) or any others, free of all imposts, a fair will be established in that Mugulanahaḷḷi as a city for the Nānādeśis”, to continue in perpetuity.²⁸

[[P37]] Although it is not clear what precisely is meant by the last statement relating to the establishment of a city for the merchant-guilds called the Nānādeśis, yet it is evident from the above regulations pertaining to the law of inheritance among the Tammaḍigaḷ, that these were classed among the (female) servants of a temple a position which was never given to the Sthānikas in any period of Indian history. There is one more consideration which may be noted here. The above order was passed during the reign of king Vīra Ballāḷa III. Now as we shall show in a later context, that monarch as well as his great officers knew very well the importance of the Sthānikas in the Hoysaḷa Empire. The fact that in the Māgēnahalli stone inscription the Tammaḍigaḷ are not confounded with the Sthānikas is very significant. It shows that in the fourteenth century A.D. the Sthānikas enjoyed powers and privileges which the Tammaḍigaḷ were denied. For the Tammaḍigaḷ were of the same inferior position in a temple as the Pāḍiyilār, Devaraḍiyār, and Īṣabhattaḷiyār, who were to be found, for instance, in the southern temples like those at Tiruvoiriyūr.²⁹

(c) THE STHĀNIKAS WERE NOT TEMPLE SERVANTS

There were other temple servants called variously Śiva Brāhmans, Jīyas, or Jiyaṅgulu, Pūjāris, Nambis, and quite a number of others. The Sthānikas cannot be classed with any of these servants of an inferior position. The numerous temple servants are mentioned in stone inscriptions concerning the State regulations of the southern Cōḷa monarchs. One such record dated about A.D. 1071 of the reign of the king Rāja Rāja, contains allotments of allowances to an army of temple servants among whom the Sthānikas do not figure.³⁰

The Śiva Brāhmans were distinct from the Sthānikas. We have many epigraphs which contain details about the status and duties of the Śiva Brāhmans. The Mādivāḷa Pārvatī temple stone inscription, Bowringpēṭ tāluka, Mysore State, dated A.D. 1228, deals with the Śiva Brāhmans. It is related in this inscription that three Śiva Brāhmans (who are named, their gotras being Gautama and Bhāradvāja), having received six pon, pledged themselves to provide a daily offering of one nāḷi of rice in [[P38]] perpetuity, from the interest of the above sum (viz., six pon), granted by Tantripālan, one of the king’s servants, for the goddess Pārvatī. This was in the reign of the king Jayangoṇḍa Śōḷa Ilavañjiya Rāyan.³¹

Another record also found in the same place and falling within the reign of the same Tamil ruler, but dated A. D. 1231, contains the following:— That the same royal servant Tantripālan (descent stated) granted one perpetual lamp to be burnt at the tiruppurakkūḍai within the temple of Svayambhū-Nāyanār, and as a fund for maintaining it gave nine pon. And the Śiva Brāhmans (three named with their gotras) of the temple, having received the above sum, pledged themselves to burn the lamp in perpetuity.³²

One more stone record refers to the same temple of Svayambhū-Nāyanār, who is called in this inscription Seyambhū Nāyakar. This epigraph is dated A. D. 1261. In it we are told that Seyambhū Nāyakan (descent stated) granted certain specified lands to provide for the daily offerings of rice (specified) and for two twilight lamps in the same temple. This charity was made over to three Śiva Brāhmans (named) of the temple who pledged themselves to conduct the charity.³³

In the reign of the same Tamil monarch, Seṭṭalvai, the daughter of Brahmādhirāja Selvānḍai and consort of Śiruvasudēvar, who was the son of the king Jayangoṇḍa Śōḷa Ilavañjiya Rāyan, granted one perpetual lamp for the god Svayambhū Nāyanār, and gave ten pon for its perpetual maintenance. Three Śiva Brāhmans (named with their gotras Gautama and Bhāradvāja) received the ten pon, and pledged themselves to maintain the perpetual lamp, from the interest on the sum at the rate of one pagam (cf. hāga in Kannaḍa) on each pon.³⁴

[[P39]] What precisely was the position which the Śiva Brāhmans held in the temple organization of those days is shown by another stone inscription also of the reign of the same Tamil king Jayangoṇḍa Śōḷa Ilavañjiya Rāyan. It is dated about A. D. 1280. This ruler had built the temple of Jayambhū-Nāyakar (Svayambhū Nāyanār?), which he had richly endowed with gifts of lands together with provison for the maintenance of the following fifty-two families of temple servants, who had to perform various duties in the temple. The fifty-two families were as follows:— four Śiva Brāhmans including the Śaivācāriyin, five drummers including the dancing master, twenty-four dancing girls, one singer of the Tiruppadiyam (Tamil hymns in praise of Śiva), one stage manager to have the sacred drama acted, twelve families of Brahmans for repeating prayers… and for conducting services, one gardener for the temple gardens, two families of potters, and one temple accountant.³⁵

A few more instances will enable us to determine the position of the Śiva Brāhmans in society. Vettumappara Bāṇan, the son of Uttama Śōḷa Gaṅgan Vīra Gaṅgan, the supreme lord of the city of Kuvāḷāla, and a descendant of the Gaṅga family, (with other titles), granted in about A.D. 1280 certain specified lands to provide for the offerings (named) in the temple of Tōrīśvaram-Uḍaiya-Nāyanār at Porkuṇḍam in Kuvāḷālanāḍu. He also granted some taxes (named) to the Śiva Brāhmans and the other servants of the temple (īkkōyilil Śiva Brāhmaṇaṛkum nimandakāṛaṛkum etc.)³⁶ It may be observed here that the Sthānikas are not classed among the temple servants in the above inscriptions.

Five years later (A. D. 1285) three Śiva Brāhmans (named with their gotras which were Gautama and Bhāradvāja) of the same Svayambhū Nāyanār pledged themselves to supply perpetually a specified quantity of rice for the offerings of the god, out of the interest on the sum of four pon given by Vayiraṇḍai, the son of one of the Veḷḷāḷa residents of Pudavūr in Ilavañjināḍ, at the rate of one pagam per month on each pon.³⁷ In the same year (A. D. 1285) the Śiva Brāhmans of the same temple pledged themselves to burn a perpetual lamp from the interest on four paṇam which had been given as a gift by Śiru-nāyan, the son of Vāṇakkirai Uḍaiyār Śokka Nāyan, the lord of the city of Kāñci.³⁸

The Śiva Brāhmans had, therefore, the following duties to perform:— They provided for daily offerings in a temple; they pledged themselves to burn perpetual lamps, to conduct charities given by princes and peoples; and to supply specified offerings of rice for gods in temples. There is one fact in the above [[P40]] epigraphs which stamps the Śiva Brāhmans as temple servants of an inferior nature. In one of the records cited above they are classed together with the dancing master, dancing girls, potters, and the like, thereby proving that they were of the same low social rank as these latter temple servants. The Sthānikas, as we shall see, were decidedly of higher and more respectable status.

We may add here that the term Jiya, which was one of respect, was applied to the Sthānikas as well as to other higher priests in temples, as in about A.D. 1216.³⁹ But the name Nambi used in the Tamil land and in the Āndhradeśa,⁴⁰ and the term Pūjāri which was common in Karnataka as well,⁴¹ were not applied to the Sthānikas, who, in their capacity of worshippers in temples, no doubt performed the duties of priests. The term Arcaka was distinct from the term Sthānika, as is proved by a record dated A.D. 1564. This inscription relates that Cikka Rāya Tamma Gauḍarayya, a nobleman, granted three villages (specified) to the Arcaka Nīlakaṇṭhayya and his posterity. This was granted in connection with the gift of the village Mugubāḷu which Cikka Rāya had made for the offerings of his gods Someśvara and Vīrabhadra.⁴² Since in the sixteenth century, as we shall amply prove in a later context, the people as well as rulers were well aware of the existence of Sthānikas, and since in the above record the latter term is not applied to Nīlakaṇṭhayya, we are to suppose that the people never confounded a Sthānika, who was essentially a high official, with an Arcaka, who was merely an ordinary priest conducting the worship in a temple.

Indeed, the Cennakeśava temple stone inscription found at Hiri-Kadalūr, Hassan tāluka, and dated about A.D. 1443, clearly proves that the temple servants had separate names, and that the people never identified the Sthānikas with them. This record relates the following:—That Govanna, and Ballanna the sons of Śrīraṅgadeva of Āraṇipura in Kadalūr, along with the Sthānikas Keśava Piḷḷe and others (named), made a gift of specified land for the offerings of the god Cennakeśava. The various temple servants mentioned in the record are the following:—The Nambi, who was to get six gadyāṇa; the paricāraka, who was to get three gadyāṇa; the bearers, who were to receive five gadyāṇa; the gardener, who was to get three gadyāṇa and the cook who was to receive five gadyāṇa. These and other details were written with the approval [[P41]] of both parties (one party being the donor, the other being the Sthānikas) by the Senabova of the town, Siṅgaṇṇa, who was also the Sthānika priest of the Malasthāna god. The Sthānikas were to continue in perpetuity and undisturbed the worship in the temple. (ā Keśava devarige adhikāriyāgidda Liṅgarasara Mādaṇṇa muntāgi yī Sthānikarige ācandrārka pariyanta naḍavant-āgi koṭṭa-śāsana.)⁴³

3. WHO, THEN, WERE THE STHĀNIKAS?

We have now to enquire who were called Sthānikas. The Sthānikas were known by various names in historical records. They were called Sthānācāryas,⁴⁴ Sthānapatis, Sthānattar, or Tāṇattar, Sthānādhipatis, or merely Saṁsthānakulu. In the reign of the Cōḷa monarch Rāja Rāja III (A.D. 1216-?), the Sthānikas were called Tāṇattar. A stone record dated only in the cyclic year Piṅgaḷa and found in the temple of Tiruvoṟṟiyūr in the Saidapet tāluka, Chingleput district, registers an order of Tāṇattar of the same temple assigning the quarters called Nārppatteṇṇāyirapperunderuvu for the exclusive dwelling of sculptors and artisans.⁴⁵ The Sthānikas were the priests and trustees of the Śrīsundarapāṇḍya-Īśvaram-Uḍaiya temple in the Pudukōṭṭai State.⁴⁶ The temple trustees of the Viṣṇu temples in the Tamil land were called Sthāṇattar.⁴⁷

In the Āndhradeśa the Sthānikas were called Sthānādhipatis, or Sthānapaṇtulu, or Saṁsthānakulu. Thus, the Rāmaliṅga temple stone inscription found at Mannūru (or Maḍanūra) in the Nellore district, and dated Śaka 1033 (A.D. 1111-2), affirms that on the specified date Gosanayya, the son of Vireḍḍi, presented five gadyāṇa for a perpetual lamp in the temple of Rāmeśvaradeva at Itamukkala. This charity was entrusted to the charge of Simā Bhaṭṭa, the Sthānādhipati of the same temple; and it was declared that he and his descendants should burn the [[P42]] perpetual lamp in succession.⁴⁸ In Śaka 1077 (A.D. 1155-6), according to the stone inscription found at Bollavarapāḍu, Nellore district, all the mahājanas (i. e., Brahman burgesses) of the illustrious Duyyālareyūru gave ten puṭṭis of land in the field of the god Rāmeśvara to Mādajiya, who was the Sthānapati of the temple of Śiva, for providing worship, offerings, lighting, enjoyment, and decorations of the god Rāmeśvara, in perpetuity.⁴⁹ The Sthānapaṇtulu of the Malleśvara temple at Nāgaluppalapāḍu, Nellore district, were Māra Jiyyalu and his younger brother Bhaira Jiyyalu. These two sthānikas received the endowment of specified lands presented by Mādhava Nāyaka when he had consecrated the temple mentioned above in Śaka 1161 (A. D. 1239-1240). They were to carry on the work of providing oblations, offerings, and worship of the above god from the revenue of the lands entrusted to their charge, in perpetuity.⁵⁰ There are many such instances of Sthānikas or Sthānapaṇtulu, or Sthānādhipatis, or Sthānapatis, who, in the middle and latter part of the thirteenth century A. D., were the custodians of the lands which were given as gifts to temples, and from the revenues of which they were to provide for the daily offerings, worship, etc., of the gods in the temples.⁵¹

We may now proceed to give a few examples of Sthānapatis or Sthānapatigaḷu in Karnataka. The Saṅgameśvara temple stone inscription found at Sindhaghaṭṭa, Kṛṣṇarājapēṭe tāluka, Mysore State, and assigned to A. D. 1179, relates how the Sthānikas co-operated with the Brahmans in the matter of selling endowed lands. The Brahmans, who are called Mahājanas, belonged to the immemorial agrahāra of Saṅgameśvarapura alias Sindhaghaṭṭa, while the Sthānapatis belonged to Mācanakaṭṭe alias Bijjaleśvarapura. The Sthānikas and the Brahmans together sold to Maḷe Nāyaka for eighty-five gadyāṇas certain specified land belonging to the gods Saṅgameśvara and Janneśvara in Sindhaghaṭṭa, reserving [[P43]] for themselves the amount payable for the offering to the god Saṅgameśvara.⁵²

Although the above is one more instance of the flagrant breach of the injunction of Kauṭalya pertaining to the sale of endowed lands, yet it affords another example of the Sthānikas being of the same status as the Brahmans.

Tripurāntakadeva, the son of the king Iruṅgōḷa Cōḍa Mahārāja, was ruling from Haniyadurga in A. D. 1262. The Āmarāpura stone inscription Sīra tāluka, Mysore State, which contains the above detail, relates that Tripurāntakadeva granted in that year certain lands to Rudraśakti, the son of Uttava Jiya, and the Sthānapati of the temples of the gods Govindeśvara and Rāmanātha Mūlasthāna of Tāyilangere in the Sirenāḍ, evidently for performing the worship and decorations in the above temples.⁵³

The Kōyil-sthānaptikkal of the Rāmeśvara temple of the Durgā agrahāra in Yelaṇḍūr Jāgīr, Mysore State, was Āḷvān Bhaṭṭa, the son of … Bhaṭṭa, of the Gautama gotra. Both he and Ummai Ammai, Periyakka, and another lady, all of whom were the wives of Śivabalam Uḍaiyār,—with their sons, grandsons, and grand-daughters, together with the pañca-sthānāpatikkal Rāja Rāja Bhaṭṭa, made a grant of land to Kuññiñcca Piḷḷai. This damaged stone inscription found in the Lakṣmī Narasiṃha temple at Agara, Yelaṇḍūr Jāgīr, tells us that Rāja Rāja Bhaṭṭa was the Sthānapati of the seven towns and five temples of Rājarājapura alias Taḷaikāṭu (Talakāḍu) in Vaḍakaraināḍu.⁵⁴

In about A. D. 1425 Bijjaleśvarapura alias Mācanakaṭṭe figures again in a sale deed effected by Rēvaḷa Malleya, the son of the Sthānapati Cikka Malleya Nāyaka of Bijjaleśvarapura, to Cakravarti Bhaṭṭopādhyāya, the son of Rājarājaguru Viṣṇu Bhaṭṭaiyaṅga. This sale deed concerned about fifteen houses, certain specified cocoanut and arecanut plantations, and specified lands which were the private property of the Sthānapati, as is evident from the last lines of the epigraph which dwell on the consent of the wife, sons, relations, and heirs of the donor being taken before the sale deed was effected.⁵⁵

The Office of the Sthānika was common to the Jainas, the Śrīvaiṣṇavites, the Kāḷāmukhas, and the Śaivites.

One of the most important considerations in regard to the Sthānikas, is that the office of the Sthānika was common among the Jainas, the Śrīvaiṣṇavites, the Kāḷāmukhas, and the Śaivites. In this detail the Sthānikas and the Goravas bear comparison. For from the examples given above, it must have been evident to the reader that the name Gorava was applied also to the Jainas. But in the [[P44]] history of the Jainas and the Hindus, the office of a Sthānika carried much respect and many privileges along with it. Among the Jainas there were the Sthāniya or Thāniyakula Jainas, as is mentioned in some Mathurā inscriptions of about the 1st century A. D.⁵⁶ The office of the priests of the Dhuṇḍiya sect of Jainas, is still called Sthānaka.⁵⁷ We have to surmise that the use of the words Sthāniya and Sthānaka in the above contexts, referred obviously to the office and dignity of a sthāna. Our surmise is proved by the Īśvara temple stone inscription found at Bāḷa, Āvaṇi hōbḷi, Mūḷbāgal tāluka, Mysore State, and dated about A.D. 970. In this stone inscription of the reign of the Pallava-Noḷamba king Dilīpayya, we are told that Tribhuvanakartta was ruling the sthāna (Tribhuvanakarttāra sthānamam āḷutt ire),⁵⁸ Now we know from another stone inscription also in the same place but dated A. D. 1007 that this Tribhuvankarttara was a Bhaṭāra, i. e., a Bhaṭṭāraka, a title which was generally applied to a Jaina priest. In this record he is styled as one ruling the Āvaṇiya sthāna, thereby showing that he was the high priest of the whole Āvaṇināḍ.⁵⁹ We shall have to refer to this great figure presently in some detail.

More definite evidence than the above concerning the existence of Sthānikas among the Jainas is afforded in other records, one of which was that found in the Taṭṭekere Rāmeśvara temple, Shimoga, and dated about A. D. 1085. This inscription contains the interesting information that a certain official named Perggaḍe Nokkaya, who was the disciple of Prabhācandra Siddhāntadeva of the Mūla saṅgha, Krāṇūr gaṇa, and Meṣapāṣāṇa gaccha, erected four basadis (evidently at Taṭṭekere), and made specified grants of land for the Sthānāpatis of the Gaṇa-gaccha.⁶⁰

[[P45]] Another stone inscription found at Śabanūr, Dāvanagere tāluka, Mysore State, and dated A. D. 1128 illustrates better our statement. In this record it is related that the Senior Daṇḍanāyakiti Kāḷiyavve granted specified land in the orthodox manner to Śāntiśayana Paṇḍita, the Sthānācārya of Sembanūr (śrīmat-Sembanūr-sthānācārya-Śāntiśayana-paṇḍitara kayyalu śrīmat-piriya-daṇḍanāyakiti Kāḷikavve etc.). This grant was made for the company of Pārśvadeva and the service of the god, and the livelihood of the pūjāri. The distinction made here between the Pūjāri and the Sthānācārya is very significant. For it shows that even among the Jainas the Sthānikas were never confounded with the ordinary priests.⁶¹

The diginity of the office of a Sthānācārya is further borne out by the Barmma temple stone inscription found at Huruḷi, Sohrāb tāluka, Mysore State, and dated A. D. 1237. It is narrated in this inscription that Eḷambaḷḷi Deki Seṭṭi made specified gifts of land for the repairs of the Śāntinātha basadi constructed by him as well as for the gifts of food to the Jiyas and the four castes of Śramaṇas. This gift was made to the Śāntinātha-ghaṭikā-sthāna-maṇḍalācārya Bhānukīrti Siddhāntadeva in the prescribed orthodox manner (after washing the latter’s feet). And the same record continues to narrate that Bhānukīrti Siddhāntadeva made over that sthāna (office) to his disciple Mantravādi Makaradhvaja.⁶²

In about A. D. 1255, as is related in one of the Malleśvara temple stone inscriptions at Hirehaḷḷi, Bēlūr tāluka, the Sthānika of the basadi of Ādiguṇḍanahaḷḷi along with Māca Gauṇḍa, Māra Gauṇḍa, Cikka Gauṇḍa, Cikka Māceya, and the Sthānika Kalla Jiya of that place (alliya Sthānika Kalla Jiya), constructed a basadi and gave it to Mādayya, the son of Mācayya. This latter person Mācayya was the disciple of Perumāḷu-kanti. One interesting detail in this connection is that the Jaina gurus Vajranandi and Malliṣeṇadeva joined the donors on this occasion.⁶³

Ruling a sthāna was not the only privilege of the Sthānikas among the Jainas. The Caturmukha basadi stone inscription of Kārkaḷa, South Kanara, dated Śaka 1508 (A. D. 1586) is of special importance in this connection. This record informs us that bathing, worship, and the other ceremonies of the Tīrthaṅkaras Ara, Malli, and Nemiśvara on the four sides and of the twenty-four Tīrthaṅkaras, on the western side of the same Caturmukha [[P46]] basadi, were to be performed by the fourteen families of Sthānikas living in the four directions of the same basadi. King Bhairarasa Oḍeyar of Kārkaḷa gave specified grants of land for the above mentioned ceremonies as well as for the aṅga-raṅga-bhoga ceremonies, etc., of the images.⁶⁴ The fact that in the famous Tribhuvanatilaka caityālaya of Kārkaḷa the daily worship was performed by the fourteen families of the Sthānikas who lived around that basadi, proves beyond doubt that as “rulers of the sthāna”, the Sthānikas were entrusted with the duty of conducting the daily worship in a Jaina temple.

In this connection it may not be out of place to observe that Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa, the most famous Jaina centre in the south, also possessed Sthānikas. This is proved by epigraphic as well as literary evidence. One of the many inscriptions at Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa is a damaged record dated A. D. 1455. In it we are told that Cārukīrti Paṇḍitadeva, the disciple of Abhinava Paṇḍitadeva, the Gavuḍagaḷs of Beḷgulanāḍu, many of the jewel merchants, the Paṇḍita-Sthānikas, and physicians, did some useful work which is unfortunately effaced in the record.⁶⁵ The evidence of an inscription dated A. D. 1634 will be cited in a later context. This epigraph also proves that the Sthānikas managed the shrines of Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa.

The literary evidence concerns Pañcabāṇa, the author of the Kannaḍa poem Bhujabalacarite written in the saṅgatya metre in A. D. 1612. He tells us that he was the son of the Sthānika Cennappa of Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa.⁶⁶

That the office of a Sthānika was to be found among the Śrīvaiṣṇavites is proved by the following epigraph discovered in the Narasiṃha temple at Belūr. It is dated A. D. 1174. It registers a royal gift by the Hoysaḷa monarch Ballāḷa Deva of the petty taxes (specified in detail) from twelve villages (named), to the god Vijayanārāyaṇa in that nāḍu of Belūr. And for the performance of prayers, sacrifices, daily service, and recitations of the Vedas, the Hoysaḷa king gave further grants of villages (specified) to the 120 Bhaṭṭas of Keśavapura (i. e., Belūr), the twenty-one (priests) of Śubhapura, and the thirty Śrīvaiṣṇava Sthānikas of that place (ī-sthaḷada-sthānika-Śrīvaiṣṇavaru mūvattakkum). The Śrīvaiṣṇavas mentioned here were Brahmans, [[P47]] as is proved by another stone inscription found in the same place but dated A. D. 1117.⁶⁷

The existence of a Sthānapati among the Kāḷāmukhas referred to elsewhere by us, is further corroborated by the Gaṇapati temple stone inscription found at Kaṇikaṭṭe, Arasīkere tāluka, Mysore State, and dated A. D. 1152. It informs us that Śivaśakti Paṇḍita was the Sthānapati of the Jagateśvara temple of Kaḷikaṭṭe (Jagateśvarada sthānapati Śivaśakti Paṇḍitarige). He received specified gifts of money and land from the Mahāpradhāna Baḷḷama, during the reign of the Hoysaḷa king Narasiṅga Deva.⁶⁸

These epigraphs establish clearly the claims of Sthānikas to Brahmanhood. Nevertheless, there is one detail which requires elucidation here. In the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭalya no reference is made to the community to which the Sthānikas belonged. For, as we have already seen, to him they were essentially officials. Such was also the position which the Sthānikas enjoyed in historical times. And in this capacity as officials in charge of temples and temple lands, the Sthānikas, as is proved by the following record, carefully distinguished themselves from the ordinary Brahmans. The inscription in question was discovered near the same Gaṇapati temple mentioned just above. It has been assigned to A. D. 1215 by Rice. The distinction between ordinary Brahmans and the officials called Sthānikas is very well illustrated in this inscription which narrates the following—That five Sthānikas of the immemorial agrahāra of Vijayanārasiṁhapura alias Kaḷikaṭṭi, by name Bitti-guru, the son of the Sthānācārya Devarāśi guru, Jagat-jiya, Canda Jiya, Śaṅkha Jiya, and Lakha Jiya, the last being the son of Nāga guru, after agreeing among themselves, gave the following sale deed (vole) to all the Brahmans of the same agrahāra of Vijayanārasiṁhapura in the presence of the great senior merchant Ponnaccha Seṭṭi and others (named) as follows—A dispute having arisen as to some gain or loss in the land of the god Kāmaṭeśvara, the people of the place, Ponnaccha Seṭṭi, the Jiyas, the Gavuṇḍas, and Cavugaveyas, having assembled, inspected the place, and said to those (five priests) (ā Sthānikarige hēḷalu),—“It is not right for you to dispute about this”. On which the Sthānikas agreeing said “We will make no dispute. From this day forth the land of all the temples which we have been enjoying is ours; the land which the Brahmans have been enjoying since the agrahāra was established is theirs. When the [[P48]] land was distributed to us and the Brahmans there was no watchman for Haḷḷi Hiriyūr”. Such was the vole given by the Sthānikas to the Brahmans. We may observe here that this deed in writing was duly attested by quite a number of witnesses and written on stone by an approved stone mason (named).⁶⁹

But it is not to be inferred from the above record that the Sthānikas were not Brahmans themselves. Epigraphic evidence conclusively proves that the Sthānikas were, indeed, Brahmans. The Mūleśvara temple stone inscription found at Mādivāḷa, Kōlār tāluka, Mysore State, and dated A. D. 1394 is very useful in this connection. It registers the sale of land in that year by the following Sthāṇattār (which is the Tamil equivalent for Sthānikas) of the temple of Śrī Mūlasthāna Uḍaiyār at Teṇḍaṭṭumāḍavilagam—Mādhava Bhaṭṭa, the son of Mādhava Bhaṭṭa of the Kāśyapa gotra, Nacchiyappa, Kāmanan, and Ponnipiḷḷai, to Sirucchomaṇa, the son of Sāmanta Bhaṭṭa of the Hāriti gotra, and a Sthānika of the Sōmīśuram Uḍaiyār temple at Surūr. The land sold is called kṣetra. The four Sthānikas of the Śrī Mūlasthāna Uḍaiyār temple having received full payment, made over to Sirucchomaṇa the full possession of the tract of land in that place which had formed their portion of the devadāna of the Śrī Mūlasthāna Uḍaiyār temple, including the houses, the gardens attached thereto, the gōmāḷa lands, the wet and dry lands, the wells under ground, the trees over ground and the surrounding hamlets, together with all kinds of rights (specified).”⁷⁰

While the above stone inscription undoubtedly proves that the Sthānikas were Brahmans, and that they possessed devadāna lands attached to temples, it also enables us to assert that in one particular respect they had completely violated an important injunction of Kauṭalya. For we saw in the above pages that Kauṭalya specifically laid it down as a rule that Sthānikas who were endowed with lands, shall have no right to alienate them by sale or mortgage.⁷¹ In the above Mūleśvara temple record a sale deed of a portion of the devadāna property belonging to the Sthānikas of the Śrī Mūlasthāna Uḍaiyār temple has been registered. We shall see that there were other instances as well of the sale of endowed land by the Sthānikas.

[[P49]] But to continue with the question of the Brahmanhood of the Sthānikas. The Goṅgāḍipura stone inscription (Bangalore tāluka) dated A. D. 1495 affirms that the Sthānikas were, indeed, Brahmans. This epigraph registers the gift of the Gaṅgāḍihaḷḷi (village) in Kukkaḷanāḍu, within the jurisdiction of his nāyakaship, by the Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Goḍe Rāya, to the sons of Timmarasa, the Sthānika priest of Vakkejallimaṅgala and to others (named.) The reason why such a gift was made is unknown. But it is clear from the record that Timmarasa was a Brahman. For it narrates that he belonged to the Kāśyapa gotra and Āpasthamba sūtra (Kāśyapa gōtrada Āpasthamba sūtrada Vakkejallimaṅgala Sthānapati Timmarasa).⁷²

Further proof may be adduced to show that the Sthānikas were Brahmans. This is gathered from the Triyambaka temple stone inscription discovered at Triyambaka, Terakaṇāmbi hōbḷi, Guṇḍlupēṭ tāluka, Mysore State. Dated in A. D. 1535 this record like the above is one more proof to show that the Sthānikas had transgressed the injunction of Kauṭalya in the matter of selling their devadāna lands. But it contains the fact that during the pārupatya of Bhāskrayya, Agent for the Affairs of Rāma Bhaṭṭayya, Āyappa was the Sthānika of the god Triyambaka. Āyappa is called the son of Nañjanātha Jōyisa, of the Vasiṣṭha gotra, Drāhyāyaṇa sūtra, and Sāma śākhā. Sthānika Āyappa gave a sale deed of lands (bhūdāna kraya śāsana) to the treasury of the god Triyambaka. This sale deed was in regard to the share (specified in detail) which had come to him rent free by a śāsana, the share (also specified in detail) which had come to him as a gift, and the share which he had purchased from one Gōpana. These lands were sold in order to pay off the debts of his uncle Triyambakadeva.⁷³

The above record no doubt demonstrates that Sthānika Āyappa had violated Kauṭalya’s injunction mentioned above; but it establishes beyond doubt the priestly class to which the Sthānikas belonged.⁷⁴

4. THE POSITION, PRIVILEGES, AND POWERS OF THE STHĀNIKAS IN HISTORICAL TIMES

In order to understand the duties and rights enjoyed by the Sthānikas in historical times, it is necessary that we should review epigraphs ranging from the ninth century A.D. onwards till the [[P50]] eighteenth century A.D. The evidence of these numerous epigraphs, we may repeat, is of first-rate importance, in as much as they not only cover ten long centuries, but also the three important regions of the south and the west—Karnataka, the Tamil land, and the Āndhradeśa.

NINTH CENTURY A.D.

The Madhukeśvara temple damaged stone inscription found at Cikka Madhure, Challakere tāluka, Mysore State, and dated about A.D. 815, of the reign of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa monarch Prabhūtavarṣa Śrīvallabha (i.e., Govinda III, A.D. 794-A.D. 814), contains an unusual variant of the name Sthānika. It is the word Sāndeva Śāntiga used in connection with the temple priest Parameśvara of Kōlūr Nakhareśvara, the disciple of Vinītātmācārya. The Sthānika evidently received the grant of land (specified) made by Gavaṇabbe, the consort of the prince Pallavamalla, who ruled over Madarikal and other (specified) territories.⁷⁵

A clearer use of the word Sthānika is in A.D. 828 when Sthānika [[Madhuravajha|Madhuravajra]] is mentioned as the engraver of a copper plate grant of the Gaṅga king Rācamalla (Satyavākya I). [[Madhuravajha|Madhuravajra]] was of the Viśvāmitra gotra and a native of the town of Karuvar.⁷⁶

TENTH CENTURY A.D.

A great name among the Sthānikas in the last quarter of the tenth and the first quarter of the eleventh century A.D. is that of the Sthānika Tribhuvanakarttāra Bhaṭāra, who has already been referred to in this treatise. Nine records refer to the powerful influence wielded by this Sthānācārya in the Āvaṇideśa during the reign of the Noḷamba king Dilīpayya Iriva Noḷamba. In some inscriptions Tribhuvanakarttāra, who had also the biruda of Paṇḍitadeva, is said to have been merely governing the spiritual kingdom (tapa rājyaṁ geyve), when the king Dilīpayya was ruling the earth.⁷⁷ In other records Tribhuvanakarttāra is represented as ruling the Āvaniya sthāna (Āvanyada sthānamam āḷutta ire), or merely ruling the sthāna, obviously of the Āvaṇināḍ. These later records are dated about A.D. 970 and A.D. 1007.⁷⁸

[[P51]] But both these records are posthumous, since the date of the death of Tribhuvanakarttāra is given in the Ginditīrtha stone inscription dated A.D. 931. This record says that having ruled the Āvaniya sthāna for fifty years, constructed fifty temples, and built two big tanks, on that date Tribhuvanakarttāra, entitled the Kāliyuga Rudra, departed this life.⁷⁹ Hence this remarkable Sthānācārya exercised his powerful sway from A.D. 891 till A.D. 931.

To about the tenth century A.D. may be assigned the stone inscription found in Saṅgasandra in the hōbḷi of Duggasandra, Kōlār district, and dated only in the cyclic year Krodhi, Caitra Su. 3. It informs us that Rācayya, the son of Timmayya, of Kuruḍamale, gave the gift of the village of Karapanahaḷḷi in Kuruḍamalesīme to the Sthānika Kaṇṇappa, who was the manager of the temple of the god Saṅgeśvara, as a hereditary grant. This gift was made for the service of offering food and lights to the god.⁸⁰

ELEVENTH CENTURY A.D.

A more powerful and famous name than that of Tribhuvanakarttāra mentioned above is that of the Rājaguru Ekkōṭi-samaya-cakravarti-saptāhattari-sthānācārya Sarveśvaraśaktideva, the great Kāḷāmukha priest who was in charge of seventy-seven temples in and around Kuppaṭūr. Sarveśvaraśaktideva is also said to be ruling in peace the kingdom of penance (taporājya) in the Kaiṭabheśvara temple stone record (Sohrāb tāluka) dated A.D. 1070. This learned man received many grants at the hands of Udayāditya Daṇḍanāyaka, who had received them from the Western Cālukya monarch Someśvaradeva.⁸¹

The priests of the well known Kuppaṭūr Kōṭīśvara Mūlasthāna temple and of all the eighteen temples there were called Kōṭīśvara-mūlasthāna-pramukha-padineṇṭu-sthānad-ācāryyarum, in a stone inscription dated A.D. 1077 and found in the Jaina basadi in Cikka Cāvutagrāma in the Sohrāb tāluka.⁸²

TWELFTH CENTURY A.D.

The importance of the Sthānikas in public matters not pertaining to temples but to public grants is seen in a stone inscription found in the Aundh State, Bombay Presidency. This [[P52]] record dated A.D. 1107 relates the following—That in the reign of the Western Cālukya king Vikramāditya IV, his officer Prabhu Sonnane Nāyaka, who was placed over Kollāpura (mod. Kolhapur), along with his wife, daughter and son (all named) granted a village (location specified) for the services of the goddess Mahālakṣmī, and at the same time granted other lands (to the priest ?) Bairanāyaka. To these charities the Sthānikas were cited as witnesses, and the latter had to guard the gift against obstructors (sarva-bādhā-parihāram-āgi sakala-sthānigaruṁ gaṇḍa maḍadavara hadana variyalu [?] bitta dharma).⁸³

There are other instances to illustrate the importance of the Sthānikas in the twelfth century A.D. The damaged Rāmeśvara temple inscription found at Haḷe Sohrāb, and dated about A.D. 1129, registers a gift of land to the god Kāḷi. This gift was engraved on a stone by the Sthānika Boppaya Jiya with the approval of the Senabova Bittimayya.⁸⁴ In about A.D. 1139, as the Malledevaraguḍi stone inscription found at Bīkanahaḷḷi, Cikkamagaḷūr tāluka, Mysore State, relates, during the reign of the Hoysaḷa monarch Tribhuvanamalla Viṣṇuvardhanadeva, Ereyama Seṭṭi, the son of the head merchant (vaḍḍa-vyavahāri) Dōri Seṭṭi, made over a grant (of land) for his god to the Sthānika Tatvapatha Paṇḍita.⁸⁵ In about A.D. 1153 the Sthānapatis of Kedāram-koṇḍeśvara temple at Talakāḍu alias Rājarājapuram, having placed before them the Sthānapatis of the seven towns and five maṭhas made an agreement with certain Gauḍas (named) in regard to the kāntikāra share which they had sold. This was during the reign of the Hoysaḷa king Narasiṃha I.⁸⁶ An undated inscription, assignable to the same year A.D. 1153, styles Padmadevaṇṇa Gaṅgaṇṇa as the Sthānapati of the seven towns and the five maṭhas of Talakāḍu-Rājarājapuram.⁸⁷

To the middle of the twelfth century must be assigned the stone inscription found in the Rāmanandīśvaram-Uḍaiyār temple at Tirukaṇṇapuram in the Tanjore district. It falls within the reign of the Cōḷa monarch Kulōttuṅga Cōḷadeva II (?-A.D. 1143); and it relates the following—That the Māheśvaras and the Tāṇattar (Sthānikas) of the temple of Uḍaiyār Tirāmanandīccuram-uḍaiya-Nāyanār set up a Paurāyiṇadevar (?) at Tirukaṇṇapuram, and approaching the temple authorities at [[P53]] Cidambaram in their assembly hall, represented to them how they (the Māheśvaras and the Sthānikas) were in need of corn and coin. Arrangements were at once made to help the temple in distress. And the Sthānikas and the Māheśvaras who collected the various donations, were each entitled to recieve (a remuneration?) from the temples owning more than ten vēli of devadāna land, one kalam of rice, and from others one tūṇi and one podakku. The Devakanmis (menial temple servants) and the accountants were to co-operate with the Māheśvaras and the Sthānikas in the collection of the amount.⁸⁸

The above record is doubly important: Firstly, it ranks the Māheśvaras with the Sthānikas, entrusting both with the work of collecting money and corn for temples. And, secondly, it clearly distinguishes the Devakanmis from the Sthānikas, thereby proving once again that in the history of southern India the Sthānikas were never confounded with the lower temple servants.

That the original meaning of the word sthāna (an office) was retained in the twelfth century is proved by the Keśava temple stone inscription found at Bēlūr, Hassan district, Mysore State. In this record dated A.D. 1174 it is related that Biṭṭibova constructed the shrine of Biṭṭeśvara within the courtyard of the famous Keśava temple at Bēlūr. For the offerings in this shrine as well as in that of Jagatīśvara, the Hoysaḷa king granted the village of Kōnēril situated in Tagarenāḍ. And Biṭṭibova granted the trusteeship (sthāna) of the two shrines to a Śaiva priest called Tejonidhi Paṇḍita (Tejonidhi-paṇḍitargg-ī sthānamam dhārāpūrvvakaṁ Biṭṭibōvaṁ koṭṭa).⁸⁹

Tejonidhi Paṇḍita’s disciple Devendra Paṇḍita, we may incidentally note, is called in a record dated A. D. 1159, and found in the Mādeśvara temple at Sūḷekere, Arasīkere tāluka, Mysore State, Sthānapati Devendra Paṇḍita. He received a grant of land made by Bhāva Heggade on behalf of the god Mūlasthāna of Sūḷeyakere in that year.⁹⁰

Tejonidhi Paṇḍita was himself a Kāḷāmukha teacher. In A. D. 1161 he is mentioned as the disciple of Vāmaśakti Paṇḍita, and his co-student was Kalyāṇaśakti Paṇḍita. To Tejonidhi Paṇḍita was granted specified land by Senāpati Daṇḍanāyaka’s wife Mahādevī Daṇḍanāyakiti, along with a house for the Jiya.⁹¹ Tejonidhi was [[P54]] also the recipient of another grant of land at the hands of the Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Vijaya Pāṇḍya Deva in A. D. 1177.⁹²

Another instance may be given to show that managership of a temple and the office of a sthāna were one and the same. This refers to the reign of the Hoysaḷa king Vīra Ballāḷa II, when in about A. D. 1185 in the village of Antarpaḷḷi, Candramūliyanna appointed Mahādeva, the son of Vinnayāṇḍār, as the Sthānapati and manager of the temple in that village.⁹³

The famous guru Vāmaśaktideva, of the great temple of Kedāra in Balligāme, Tālguṇḍa hōbḷi, Shikārpur tāluka, Mysore State, is called in a record dated A. D. 1193 the Sthānācārya of that temple.⁹⁴

THIRTEENTH CENTURY A.D.

In the thirteenth century the Sthānikas continued to be powerful as well as popular. The Mahāprabhu Nāgarasa set up the god Nāgeśvara in the Honnāḷi tāluka in A. D. 1203. And for the god Nāgeśvara he granted specified land to the learned Sthānācārya Sovācārya Bhairavayati. This was in the reign of the Hoysaḷa king Vīra Ballāḷa II, as is related in a stone inscription found in the same temple at Ārakere.⁹⁵

The importance of the Sthānikas is proved by the Basavanaguḍi stone inscription at Huruḷi, Sohrāb tāluka, and dated A. D. 1216. This falls within the reign of the Yādava king Siṅghaṇa Deva, when Droṇapāla, a native of Prabhāsakṣetra (i. e., evidently the well known Prabhās Paṭṭan) in Saurāṣṭra, and an official under that Yādava monarch, presented the village of Eḷeballi and Sirivūr for the permanent worship of the god Sōmanātha in Baṇḍaṇike in Nāgarakhaṇḍa Eighteen Kampaṇa. This grant was made with the knowledge of the following Sthānapatis—Bhairama Jiya, the Sthānapati of the Sōmanātha temple at Baṇḍanike; Nākeya Jiya, the Sthānapati of the god Nakhareśvara; Sarveśvara Deva, the Sthānapati of the god Kōṭīśvara at Kuppaṭūr; and Rudradhvaja, the Sthānapati of the god Rāmeśvara of the Yammanūr village. Along with these were all the other Bhaṭṭārakas (unnamed) and the Brahmans residents who were the following the Sarvajña Brahmans, Suśvari Brahmans, and Bhāla-Sarasvatī Brahmans. There were other individual Brahmans who were present. These [[P55]] were Kāmaṇa Bhaṭṭa, Cakriya Deva of Cikka Kerevūru agrahāra, Basavarasa of Tiḷivalli agrahāra, Bhīmaya of Kuppaṭūr agrahāra, and other Brahmans (named). Various district officials and citizen representatives are also mentioned in the epigraph, as those whose consent was sought by Droṇapāla Deva before making the grant. It is interesting to note that among the other witnesses mentioned in the epigraph were the following—Ketaya Jiya, the Tammaḍi of the Lakṣmaṇeśvara temple, Malleyadeva, the Tammaḍi of the Kāḷideva temple, and the Jaina guru Hemakīrti of the Śāntinātha basadi of Baṇḍanike.⁹⁶

We have cited above the evidence of an inscription to prove that the Sthānācāryas were sometimes endowed with authority over seventy-seven temples. This is further corroborated by another stone inscription found also in the Kaiṭabheśvara temple in the Sohrāb tāluka, and dated A.D. 1231. In this inscription Rudraśakti Paṇḍitadeva, the learned Kāḷāmukha priest of the Kōṭīśvara temple at Kuppaṭūr, is called the Cakravarti of the Ekkōṭi-samaya and master of the seventy-seven temples (saptahattari sthānācārya).⁹⁷

The high status occupied by the Sthānikas in Hindu society is also responsible for their having been included on committees of enquiry set up by the State, or for their being cited as witnesses to public grants. One of the Śivapurīśvara temple stone inscriptions found at Śivāyam (Kulittalai tāluka, Trichinopoly district), and dated only in the fourth regnal year of the king Rājendra Cōḷa Deva III (i. e., in A. D. 1250) [1246-1267], contains the following interesting details:— That the monarch appointed a committee to enquire into the affairs of the temples of Tirumāṇikkamalai-Uḍaiya-Nāyanār in Kurukkaināḍu, a subdivision of Rājagambhīravaḷanāḍu. The committee of enquiry included the Mahāpradhāna Māṇḍalika Murāri Āḷiya Sōmaya Daṇḍanāyaka, Sevayya Daṇḍanāyaka, Sōmanātha Viṭṭayya, the Māheśvaras, the Sthānikas, and the merchants.⁹⁸

As regards the Sthānikas being cited as witnesses to public grants, the evidence of three inscriptions all dated in the same year [[P56]] A. D. 1288 may be cited. These records were found near the Rāmeśvara temple at Mosale, Arasīkere tāluka, Mysore State. In the first we are told that the Rājaguru Rudraśaktideva’s sons (disciples) Sāigaṇṇa and Candrabhūṣaṇadeva, and Ballanna’s son Candaguru, granted specified land for the offerings of the god Gaureśvara which the Vaidya Devapiḷḷeyanna had set up in the Malleyanahaḷḷi. This grant was engraved on stone in the temple enclosure, in the presence of the 120 Sthānikas of Mosale. In the second record dated in the same year (A. D. 1288), the great minister Bīreya Daṇṇāyaka made a grant of specified lands, which he had acquired in Malleyanahaḷḷi, for the offerings of the god Gaureśvara, in the presence of the 120 Sthānikas of Mosale, making them over to the Vaidya Devapiḷḷeyanna. In the third inscription the same donor, on account of the work of the temple of Gaureśvara which was erected in Malleyanahaḷḷi by Vaidya Devapilleyanna, in the name of the Mahāpradhāna’s mother, bought lands and made them over to Devapilleyanna, along with the temple, in the presence of the Rājaguru Rudraśaktideva and the 120 Sthānikas of Mosale.⁹⁹

The great influence wielded by the Sthānikas in Karnataka is seen in the Rāmeśvara temple stone inscription found at Rāmanāthapura, Basavapaṭṭaṇa hōbḷi, Arkalgūḍ tāluka, Mysore State. This inscription is dated A.D. 1252, and it belongs to the reign of the Hoysaḷa monarch Someśvara Deva, when his viceroys Sōmadevarasa and Boppadevarasa were in their royal residence Śrīraṅgapaṭṭaṇa. In that year the Sthānapatis of the god Rāmanātha, by name Kailāsa Śiva Jiya, Māda Jiya, Kāḷa Jiya, Appa Jiya, Arasa Jiya, and Gōvaṇṇa, taking with them the consecrated food of the god Rāmanātha went into the presence of the viceroys Sōmadevarasa and Boppadevarasa, and blessing the latter with long life, prosperity, and victory, petitioned thus—“For the affairs of the god Rāmanātha, for the offerings…perpetual lamp, water vessels, cloths, and drummers, we have given 72 she-buffaloes and he-buffaloes, whose milk produces 200 gadyāṇa. For service, from the interest on the 200 gadyāṇa, we have been providing…” The damaged portion of the record contained probably a clause to the effect that the endowment from which the Sthānikas carried on the worship and offerings to the god in the temple, was insufficient, and that, therefore, they begged the rulers not only to renew the original grant but also to make fresh endowments. This supposition of ours is proved by the statement in the epigraph that the rulers Sōmadeva and Boppadeva coming to the town of [[P57]] the petitioners (evidently to see personally the state of affairs there), caused the original award to be renewed by Baicaya and Kaṇṇaya, and added the village of Māvanūr on the bank of the Kāverī to the earlier grant. We are told in the same epigraph that as soon as orders were given for setting up the grant in Māvanūr, the Hoysaḷa monarch Someśvara Deva along with his royal children (rāyasa kusugaḷ) and his viceroys Sōmadeva and Boppadeva, personally visited Māvanūr, and setting up a Nandi pillar in that village, caused the stone śāsana to be set up in the temple of the god Rāmanātha.¹⁰⁰

The importance of the above epigraph lies in the fact that the Sthānikas in the thirteenth century A.D., could appeal directly to the State in matters concerning the welfare of the temples in their charge, and that the rulers atonce took prompt action to satisfy their needs. We shall see that this direct contact between the Sthānikas and the State continued to be a special feature in the religious history of Karnataka.

How the Sthānikas co-operated with the other prominent citizens in the matter of awarding distinction upon worthy persons is shown in the Kuñjeśvara temple stone inscription dated A. D. 1255 and discovered at Hiriyūr, Arasīkere tāluka. The object of this inscription is to commemorate the building of the Kuñjeśvara temple in that year by a rich Jaṅgama merchant named Kandanambi Seṭṭi, in the name of his son Kuñja who had just died. Kandanambi Seṭṭi, who was greatly honoured in the Hoysaḷa kingdom, richly endowed the temple with many lands (specified); and to his grants was added that made by the Brahmans of the Dāmōdara agrahāra alias Nāgarahaḷḷi.

Kandanambi had a daughter who was called Candavve. He made her the proprietress (oḍeyalu) of the Kuñjeśvara temple, for carrying out the ceremonies. And for her maintenance he granted specified umbaḷi lands. This gift of rent-free land was made in the presence of the Rājaguru of Dorasamudra, Rudraśakti Deva, and of the Kampaṇācārya of the Sthānikas of the 120 temples of Arasiyakere and quite a number of mahāgaṇas subjects, farmers and the Sthānikas of the two towns called Muttana Hosavūru.

Candavve proved worthy of the office bestowed upon her by her father. And it is interesting to observe that the Rājaguru Rudraśakti Deva together with the Kampaṇācārya of the Sthānikas of the 120 temples and of the Sthānikas of the two Muttana Hosavūru and the other respectable citizens, along with the [[P58]] mahā-gaṇas and others, bestowed upon her the rank and dignity of a Gaṇa-kumāri (Princess of the Gaṇas or followers of Śiva), granting her at the same time the maṭṭa dues and all other dues payable to the Kuñjeśvara temple, free of all imposts, in perpetuity.¹⁰¹

Let us proceed with the history of the Sthānikas in the thirteenth century A.D. The Malleśvaraguḍi stone inscription found at Belatūr, Heggaḍedēvanakōṭe tāluka, Mysore State, and assigned by Rice to A.D. 1256, relates a curious instance of the impartiality with which the Sthānikas conducted public charities entrusted to their charge. These events fall within the reign of the Hoysaḷa monarch Someśvara Deva, when his officials Cikka Māci Deva, Gōpaṇa, and Raṅgaṇa were governing “a settled kingdom”. The Sthānapati of Belatūr in Nuguṇāḍu was Mārāda Mallōḍeya, the son of the Ekoṭi-paṇḍita Cekoḍeya. The inscription relates that the joint-managers of the fund belonging to the temple which Ekoṭi-paṇḍita Cekoḍeya had erected, caused hindrance to Mārāda Mallōḍeya. At this Mārāda Mallōḍeya deposited twenty gadyāṇa in the temple from his own hand, and obtaining the. approval of the three (named), in order that there might be no hindrance or dispute from any one, divided it equally between the gods Mallikārjuna and Bāṇeśvara in Ketanahaḷḷi.¹⁰²

Four years later we have an instance of the high position which the Sthānikas held in Hindu society. The following details are gathered from the Sōmanātha temple stone inscription found at Sōmapura, Tārīkere tāluka, Mysore State. It is dated A. D. 1260, and it informs us that during the reign of the Hoysaḷa king Narasiṃha, the Brahmans of Haḷasūr bought certain lands through the Mahāpradhāna Perumāḷe Daṇḍanāyaka for the services of the god Sōmanātha at Haḷasūr. They then granted it free of all taxes, making it over to the Sthānika Śaṅkamayya.¹⁰³

In the Pāṇḍya country, too, the, Sthānikas exercised their sway. The Kaṭṭemānuganahaḷḷi stone inscription found in the Heggaḍedēvanakōṭe tāluka and dated A. D. 1264, affirms that Nāga Deva. the son of Haripi Jīya, was the Sthānika of Ma…ja…la in the Pāṇḍya country. In order to provide for the ceremonies and perpetual lamp of the god Rāmanātha of Maṇigehaḷḷi in Nevalenāḍ, he had a stone oil-mill made, during the government of Malleya Daṇḍanāyaka.¹⁰⁴

[[P59]] Conducting daily ceremonies including the burning of the perpetual lamps in temples was an ordinary function of the Sthānikas. Their importance is seen in records which inform us that temples were made over to them by members of the nobility. For instance, in the Īśvara temple stone inscription found at Bōrāpura, Kṛṣṇarājapēṭe tāluka, Mysore State, and dated A.D. 1267, it is said that the Mahāpradhāna of the Hoysaḷa king Narasiṅga was Sōma Daṇṇāyaka. This great minister’s elder sister was Revakka Daṇḍanāyakiti. She made over to the Sthānika of Mācanakaṭṭa alias Bijjaleśvara, by name Meṇḍayyada Mārayya Nāyaka of the treasury of Tammaliyācārya (Mācanakaṭṭada Sthānika Tammaliyācāryabhaṇḍurada Meṇḍayyada Mārayya), and to his wife and daughter and granddaughter, “a grant of affection ”, namely, the Śiva temple of Bhairaveśvara which Revakka Daṇḍanāyakiti had caused to be erected to the north east of Bommeyanāyakanahaḷḷi alias agrahāra Hosavāḍa Bhairavapura. Of course this lady Revakka had richly endowed it with gifts of rent free lands.¹⁰⁵

The above is not the only instance of the Sthānikas receiving gifts of land from members of the nobility. From the following stone inscription found at Hirekōgilūru, Cannagiri tāluka, Mysore State, and dated A.D. 1268, we learn in what reverence the Sthānikas were held by the nobility. The events narrated in the record belong to the reign of the Yādava king Mādhava Rāya. His great ministers were two brothers, Caṭṭarasa and Kūcarasa, the sons of Nimbi Rāja. These two were placed over the city of Bētūr in the Aravattarubāḍa (sixty-six villages) in the Noḷambavāḍi 32,000 Province. Caṭṭarasa’s crowned eldest son was Cauṇḍarasa. This prince granted specified land measured by the Tiguḷa (i.e., Tamil) pole, for the incense, lights, offerings, and all temple affairs of the god Billeśvara of the immemorial agrahāra Dakṣiṇādityavoḷalu alias Kōgilūr, at the time of the eclipse of the sun (on the date specified). The grant was made after washing the feet of the Sthānika Daṇḍapāṇiguru, in the presence of the representatives of the village and the worthies of the place.¹⁰⁶

One more instance may be given to show the respect in which the Sthānikas were held in Karnataka. In A.D. 1285 during the reign of the Hoysaḷa king Narasiṃha Deva, Hiriya Haḷḷi Lāḷamadeva and his younger brother Haḍivara Sevaṇṇa constructed a Śivaliṅga in Gottaganakere. This was done in the name of their mother Mañcavve. And Lāḷamadeva and his brother granted lands (effaced in the record) for the daily worship, decorations, etc., of [[P60]] the god Mañceśvara, and for the temple repairs, gifts of food to the heads of the maṭhas and ascetics, to the Sthānika of that Mañceśvara temple after washing the latter’s feet.¹⁰⁷

We have cited above many instances of the Sthānikas violating the injunction laid down by Kauṭalya concerning endowed lands. A stone inscription in the Bēlūr temple assigned to A.D. 1273 adds to the testimony already given about this point. For it relates that a bond was executed by the Sthānikas of the Bobbeśvara temple and the temple situated to the north-west of the fort of Dorasamudra, in favour of the Ārādhya Rāmakṛṣṇa Prabhu’s son Devanna Prabhu.¹⁰⁸

One reason why the Sthānikas in comparatively recent times thus infringed the ancient precept regarding endowed lands was perhaps because they were sole masters of temples and of the lands around them. That they were, indeed, managers of temples is further proved by a damaged stone inscription found in the Siddheśvara temple at Niruguṇḍa, Holalakere tāluka. This record has been assigned to about A.D. 1268. It informs us that on the death of the Sthānika priest of the god Siddhanātha of Niruguṇḍa, Nalla Jiya’s son Siddha Jiya, the temple became vacant. Since the names of Siddha Jiya and of other priests (Sthānikas) had been “inscribed on the back of the stone-śāsana of the god Siddhanātha”, the question arose whether the vṛtti of the temple belonged to Siddha Jiya’s son Viśvanātha or to the State. It is not clear from the record as to who had sold the vṛtti for thirty-two gadyāṇa which was the price of the day. But this sale seems to have been effected, and evidently a petition on behalf of Viśvanātha had been made to the crowned queen’s son Cōḷayya and to the Brahmans, by the king’s servants Mādayya and Ballayya. Unfortunately the record is effaced here, and we are in the dark as to what transpired as a result of the petition.¹⁰⁹ But one thing seems clear from the above record that the Sthānikas were, indeed, masters of temples in the thirteenth century A. D.

This is also evident from an inscription on a beam in the Raṅganātha temple at Haḷebīḍ, dated A. D. 1245, which relates the following That on the death of (the Sthānika) Sōma Jiya of the Boceśvara temple (at Dorasamudra), the Rājaguru Candrabhūṣaṇa Deva and the 120 Sthānikas of the capital Dorasamudra divided his lands among his wife, son-in-law, and one another.¹¹⁰ Now we [[P61]] know from both the legal as well as lithic records that the right of dividing the property of a deceased person rested soley with the State, or when such right was delegated by the State, with corporate bodies or officials. Since we cannot conceive of the Sthānikas of Dorasamudra led by the Rājaguru of that capital of the Hoysaḷas, dividing the property of a deceased Sthānika among the latter’s relatives without the sanction of the State, and, we may presume, that of the Society as well, we have to assume that they must have received the permission of the Government before dividing the said property. Our supposition in regard to the sanction of the society is proved by the concluding lines of the same epigraph. which run thus—That he who violated the arrangment was looked upon as having disregarded the Rājaguru and the samaya. The latter term obviously refers to the society.

And as regards the sanction of the State being obtained for partitioning or selling lands by the Sthānikas, the following Hōliyanakere (Bangalore tāluka) inscription dated A.D. 1294 will be of particular interest. It tells us that in the 40th regnal year of the Hoysaḷa king Rāmanātha Deva, Rājarāja Karkaṭa Mahārājan Tamattamavar granted as a charitable gift two villages named Anumaśamuttiram and Unaṅgimaran-kaṭṭai (location specified) together with other lands, for feeding Brahmans, to the twenty-eight men (named) of that village of Hōliyanakere, “who should conduct the duties of the Tāṇāpatis (Sthānikas).” It is clearly stated in the record that “I, Tamttamavar, made the above grant with the pouring of water, as a charitable gift, to the twenty-eight men, with the right to sell or give away (the lands) for the benefit of the king’s sacred body and of myself.”¹¹¹

Such latitude may explain the sale of lands made, for instance, in A. D. 1296 by the Sthānika Gurappa, the son of Bāca Jiya, to Gurucittadeva Oḍeyar’s son Gaṅgideva. This Sthānika seems to have made over even the god Rāmayyadeva to Gaṅgideva Oḍeyar, as the Rāmeśvara temple inscription found near Vīrāpura, Māgaḍi tāluka, Mysore State, seems to imply.¹¹²

Epigraphs of the last quarter of the thirteenth century A. D. only reiterate the statement we have already made concerning the position and duties of the Sthānikas. During the reign of the Hoysaḷa king Narasiṃha Deva III in A. D. 1279, when Tāreyaṇa Daṇṇāyaka was the governor of Dāsanūr and its neighbourhood, various Gauḍas (named) of Dāsanūr agreeing among themselves, made a specified grant of land to provide for the perpetual lamp and [[P62]] an upper storey for the temple of the god Viśvanātha. This charity was entrusted to the charge of Sthānika Jiyaṇḍi Harpāṇḍi.¹¹³ Similar grants of land were made to the Sthānapatis Māyi Jiya, the son of Sūri Jiya, and Malla Jīya, in A. D. 1299, by the Malayāḷa chief Vāsudeva Nāyaka’s son and a number of others (named), for the god Svayambhū Aṅkanātha of Niṭṭūr.¹¹⁴

FOURTEENTH CENTURY A.D.

The fourteenth century did not see any diminution either in the status or powers of the Sthānikas. On the other hand, in this century they became uncommonly prominent because of the direct appeals and orders made to them by the State. They continued, of course, to rule over the sthānas and maṭhas of the land, to receive lands on behalf of the gods in temples, to contract deeds of agreement and partition, and to confer honours, along with others, upon worthy persons who had done signal service to the country.

A few examples will suffice to prove that they were still masters of the temples and the maṭhas. An inscription dated A.D. 1334 and found on the roadside at Māḷavaḷḷi grāma, Māḷavaḷḷi tāluka, Mysore State, tells us that the Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Someya Daṇṇāyaka’s son Ballappa Daṇṇāyaka, along with Somayanna Oḍeyanna, the Sthānapati of the seven towns and five maṭhas of Talakāḍu, and Saragūr Seṭṭi’s son Mādi Gauḍa, made a grant of land at Hāhanavāḍi.¹¹⁵ Mallappa, the son of Nāga Paṇḍita, is called the Sthānapati of the seven towns and five maṭhas of Talakāḍu in A. D. 1338, during the reign of king Vīra Ballāḷa III.¹¹⁶ A stone inscription found at Kāntavara, Kārkaḷa tāluka, South Kanara district, and dated Śaka 1271 (A. D. 1349) affirms that the Sthānikas ruled the Kāntavara temple. These Sthānikas numbered three hundred and possessed a grāma (village) of their own. (Kāntārada devalayada Sthānikaraṁ munnūrvaruṁ). Together with the Horayinavaru (i.e., representatives from outside their grāma), Bārya Sēnakava, and others (named), they caused a śilā śāsana to be written (with details enumerated). This was in the reign of the Vijayanagara king Śrīmatu Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Hariyappa Oḍeyar, when his minister (pradhāna) Haḍapada Gautarasa was placed as viceroy over the Maṅgalūru-rājya.¹¹⁷

[[P63]] Instances may now be given of the grants of land received by the Sthānikas on behalf of temples in order to conduct worship, festivals, etc., in them. The Sampige-siddheśvara temple stone inscription discovered on the top of the Citradurga (Chitaldroog) (hill) and dated A.D. 1328, relates that Ballappa Daṇḍanāyaka and Siṅgeya Daṇṇāyaka set up a liṅga in Bemmatrakallu in the name of their father Bēba Daṇṇāyaka, and received from their royal master king Ballāḷa Deva III the village of Bennedōne which they granted in perpetuity as a free gift to the temple. The management of this charity was entrusted to the care of Hiriyaṇṇa Daṇṇāyaka. But to Gōbur Narahari Deva, the Sthalācārya of that god Bēbanātha, they gave four parts of the land, while to the Purāṇika (unnamed) only one part.¹¹⁸

The Sthānikas received land on behalf of temples from princes as well. Thus in A.D. 1336, as is related in one of the Varadarājasvāmi temple stone inscriptions found at Tēkal, Sittanādar alias Sōlappa Perumāl, the son of the Cōḷa ruler Rājendra Cōḷa Cakravarti, Gaṅgaikoṇḍa, Sōlapperumāl, granted the village of Pulikkurucci (location specified), as a sarvamānya gift to provide for the offerings of rice, sandal, lamps, and temple repairs, for the god Aruḷālanādar at Tēkal. A deed of gift to the above effect was given to the temple authorities (Tāṇattarkum) and to Śokkappa-perumāl Tādar, permitting them to have the same engraved on stone and copper.¹¹⁹

Three years later (A.D. 1339) Kōnaiya Pemme Nāyakan, one of the officers under the Mahāpradhāna Dāṭi Siṅgeya Daṇṇāyaka, granted the village of Puttūr (location given) to provide for the offerings mentioned in the above record, for the same god. This gift was also given to the same donees with the same permission.¹²⁰

The Cikkapura stone inscription (Hiregaṇṭanūru hōbḷi, Chitaldroog tāluka) dated A.D. 1355 illustrates our point better. This epigraph registers the gift of the village of Cikkapura itself to the Sthānika Sōmaṇṇa, the son of the Sthānika priest Hiriya Siddhaṇṇa, by Mallinātha Oḍeyar, the son of the Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Someya Nāyaka. The grant was made on behalf of the god Siddhanātha of Bemmattanakaḷḷu (i.e., Chitaldroog itself).¹²¹

Another record found in the Īśvara temple at Kōḍūru, Nagar tāluka, also in the Mysore State, corroborates the statement we have made that public charities pertaining to temples were left in the [[P64]] charge of the Sthānikas who managed such temples. This inscription is dated A.D. 1367, and it falls within the reign of the Vijayanagara king Bukka Rāya’s son Virūpākṣa Rāya, when the latter’s minister Talakāḍ Māvarasa was placed over the province of the Āraga Eighteen Kampaṇa. In order that “Virūpa Rāya might have a firm kingdom ”, the representatives of the Fifty nāḍs made a specified grant of land for the decorations and offerings of the god Śaṅkara in the Baṇḍiganāli village. And the inscription relates that “The god’s Sthānika (name effaced in the record) and the Senabova (name effaced), to their children’s children, will maintain this (charity) without fail.”¹²²

As in the previous centuries, the Sthānikas in the fourteenth century continued to grant lands to worthy citizens along with the other respectable persons of the locality. In this matter the Sthānapatis of Talakāḍ became very conspicuous. Thus, for instance, in A.D. 1312 when king Ballāḷa Deva III was ruling, Veṇṇakuma, the son of Gaṅgādharadeva, and the Sthānapati of the seven towns and the five maṭhas of Talakāḍ alias Rājarājapuram, granted certain specified lands to Mallappa Nāyaga.¹²³ In A.D. 1313, according to the Husagūr stone inscription found at Māḷavalli, the Sthānapatis of the seven puras (towns) and the five maṭhas of the same city of Talakāḍ, and Ādidevarasa of Ānebasadi and others made a grant of land to certain Gauḍas (named) for having conducted the repairs of Ānebasadi.¹²⁴ Another Tamil inscription of the same date and found in the same place, records that Ariyapiḷḷai alias Senāpati, the Sthānapati of Ānaivāśadi (i.e., Ānebasadi) at Talakāḍ, and Śivaṇa Gāmuṇḍan of Puśukūr in the southern division of Kīlaināḍu, granted specified lands to Kōmali, the accountant of Puśukūr, to be enjoyed by him in perpetuity.¹²⁵ Māraḷi Pemmaṇṇa, the Sthānapati of the seven towns and five maṭhas of Talakāḍu, granted, land (to some one) in A. D. 1321 during the reign of the same Hoysaḷa king Ballāḷa Deva III.¹²⁶

From a stone inscription found at Tigaḍahaḷḷi, [[P65]] Māḷavaḷḷi tāluka, dated A. D. 1337, we learn that Mallappa, the son of Nāga Paṇḍita, the Sthānapati of the five maṭhas of Talakāḍu, granted a village as a pura to Mārabhakta and others (named), the share of each being specified. The conditions of the grant, we may note by the way, were that the grantees should pay a small sum of money till A. D. 1339, a slightly increased sum till A. D. 1342, and thenceforward a consolidated sum.

The interest of the above record from Tigaḍahaḷḷi lies not only in the granting of a village by a Sthānika to a worthy individual, but also in the fact that he himself was a Jaina by persuasion ! We prove that Mallappa was a Jaina by the stipulation in the epigraph that the grantees were to make an annual payment of one gadyāṇa for the god Candranāthasvāmi. This god was evidently a Jaina deity. The second reason which makes us assert that Mallappa was a Jaina is his signature at the end of the epigraph, thus—“Śrī Vītarāga”.¹²⁷

In A. D. 1320 Mādhava, the son of …va-Rāya, obtained sixty honnu, which were the dues levied fron the road to the town of Kūḍali, from the minister Bembeya Daṇṇāyaka. With this money Mādhava bought land which in that year, along with the sixty farmers (of the locality), the 120 Sthānikas and others (nūrippattu Sthānamam muntāgi), he presented for the decoration of the god Rāma of Kūḍali. This is related in the stone inscription found in the Rāmeśvara temple at Kūḍali, Shimoga tāluka.¹²⁸

The Sthānikas of Tēkal, Veppūr, and Śrīpati (Sihaṭi) also granted lands in the manner indicated above to deserving recipients. One of the Varadarājasvāmi temple stone inscriptions of Tēkal dated A. D. 1355, informs us that the Sthānapatis of the Aruḷālanādan temple at Tēkaḷ along with Sokkkaperumāl Dāsar granted (in that year) in the orthodox manner certain specified lands and a daily allowance of specified rice to Komaṅgalam-uḍaiyār Sūriyadēvar alias Tiruvāymoḷi-dāsar, the husband of Varadakkan, in perpetuity. Rice conjectures that the grantee was probably the reciter of the Draviḍaprabhandam in the temple.¹²⁹ The same Sthāṇattar and Śokkaperumāl Dāsar again in A. D. 1356 gave specified daily allowance of cooked rice to a grantee whose incomplete name in the epigraph…raja-mannikkan alias Varadi, suggests that she may have been Varadakkan mentioned just above.¹³⁰

[[P66]] The Sthānattar of Veppūr likewise did not hesitate to co-operate with other citizens in this direction. Veppūr lay in the Rājendracōḷavaḷanāḍu which formed a part of the Nigarili-cōḷa-maṇḍalam. Its well known temple was that of Sembīśvaram Uḍaiyār of Tāmarai-karai. Here in this temple assembled the Śrī Rudra-śrī-Māheśvara of Citramēli Peruttalan Diruttavaṇam, the temple manager (danma-karttar, i. e., dharma-karttar) Sembaṇḍai-dēva’s son Tambaṇa (and another whose name is effaced in the record), and other Brahmans (named) in A. D. 1365, and gave a grant (not specified) to Sōmana Dēvar of the Kauśika-gotra. And the Sthānapati Tambaṇa Jiya, evidently one of the sons of dharma-karttar Sembaṇḍai-dēvar mentioned above, having received full payment in gold, gave with pouring of water, full possession of one-third of the lands (specified in detail) which he had purchased from one Mudali, to Sōmana Dēvar. The assembly which had met “on the seat of justice” in the Sembīśvaram-Uḍaiyār temple, obviously ratified the gift made by the Sthānika Tambaṇa Jiya.¹³¹

The Śrī-Rudra-śrī-Māheśvara of Citramēli Perukkāḷan Dirukavan (the Diruttavaṇam of the previous record) himself was the recipient of a specified quantity of paddy and certain specified taxes in the next year A. D. 1366. He was given the above gifts by the assembly of the mahājanas, the heads of the maṭhas and the sthānas (maṭa-patigal-tāna-patigalum ), the reciter of the Vedas, the temple manager (dharma-karttar) Sembaṇḍi, the Pūjāris Vaitti-bhaṭṭar, Mādeva bhaṭṭar and their sons, Māra-bhaṭṭar and his sons, the Kaikkōḷars (weavers) of the temple of Kavarippiṇā, the Mālaccedi-śrī-Vīra-bhattira and the servants performing various duties, “from the pūjāri at the top the scavenger at the bottom”.¹³²

The spirit of co-operation with which the Sthānikas in their capacity as managers of temples worked along with others, is illustrated in the Bhaira temple stone inscription from Sitibeṭṭa, Kōlār tāluka, and dated A. D. 1393. Periya Perumāl Seṭṭi, the son of Poyyangilar Pammi Seṭṭi, a leading Vaiśya merchant, built a big tank in Śrīpati which was the tiruviḍaiyāṭṭam of the god of Śrīpati. Periya Perumāl Seṭṭi also endowed the temple with a gift of two khaṇḍugas of dry land near the southern outlet of the big tank. His services had to be duly appreciated. The damaged stone record states that this was done by a huge assembly of representatives of the nāḍu (palaru uḷḷitta nāṭṭavarum), including the minister Nāgaṇṇa Oḍeyar of Kaivāranāḍu in Nigarili-śōḷa- [[P67]] vaḷanāḍu, Rājarasar, the son of Brahmarasar, and the manager of the temple of Śrīpati (Śrīpatiyār sthānattār). This huge assembly approved of the charity of Periya Perumāl by affirming that no tax was to be levied on the new land cultivated, that it was to be treated as a sarvamānya land for a period of eight years (from that date), and that thenceforward the wet land below the tank should be kuḍaṅgai land.¹³³

From the inscriptions we learn how disputes between the Sthānikas themselves concerning division of lands were settled. The Bannahalli (Māḷavaḷḷi tāluka) stone inscription dated A. D. 1313 contains an account of how such disputes between the Sthānikas were settled. There was a dispute between Malliyanna’s son Mallappanāga Paṇḍita, the Sthānapati of…ṅganvāsaḍi, and Senāpati Paṭṭanḍail’s son Vaṇavan, the Sthānapati of Ānaivāśadi (Ānebasadi), in respect of some villages and a sum of 1,320 gadyāṇas received on various occasions, some during the time of the Hoysaḷa king Narasiṃha III, some during the time of Rāyappa, and some at other times (specified). The arbitrators were the Mahāpradhāna Daḍiya Someya Daṇṇāyaka’s son Kālañji Gummaya, the heads of the seven puras (towns), the Sthānapatis of the five maṭhas of Talakāḍu, and several others (named). This assembly of arbitrators sent for both the parties and brought about a reconciliation by an equal division of the villages and the sum of money. Further, it is interesting to note, it was decided that since Ānaivāśadi-Āḷvār and Vēlaikarīśvaram-Uḍaiyār were not on good terms, the villages should be amicably divided; that Ānaivāśadi should receive interior villages, gardens, trees over ground, wells underground, and a proper share of the houses in the Aḍaippāri street in exchange for the houses already taken possession of by Kuḷandac-Cenāpati; and that an equal division should be made of Malipaḷḷi situated near Takkūr in Teṅkarai which had been granted for the worship of the god. Thus did the arbitrators grant a stone śāsana to the Sthānapati Mallappanāga Paṇḍita.¹³⁴

Important as the above record certainly is from the point of view of the method by which arbitration in civil matters was conducted with the aid of the people, it is also interesting from the standpoint of the Sthānikas themselves whose disputes, especially those pertaining to their lands around temples, had to be settled with the sanction, and in the presence of, an official of the State, who was to work in conjunction with the representatives of the people. In other words, since the Sthānikas were officials in charge of public [[P68]] charities, disputes concerning their lands had to be settled by public bodies.

The close contact between the Sthānikas and the representatives of public bodies and of the State is seen further in one of the Kōlāramma temple stone inscriptions dated A. D. 1379 and found at Kōlār itself. Dēvappa Jiya, the head of the Dēvī temple (ā deviyara sthānakka mukhyarāda) had somehow or other distinguished himself. He had, therefore, to be honoured; and this was done by an assembly of the Mahantas of all the world, others (named), all the farmers, subjects, and all the Sthānikas of the temple of Kōlāla, led by the Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Nāgaṇṇa Oḍeyar’s son Dēpaṇṇa Oḍeyar, the viceroy of the Vijayanagara monarch Harihara Rāya II. This assembly having bound on Dēvappa Jiya the badge of Jiya of the Dēvī temple, granted to him all the the lands and dues belonging to Aṇḍiganahari village in Kōlālanāḍ, free of all imposts in perpetuity. Moreover it was said that whatever lands of Jiyas of the various temples were attached to that Jiya badge would also belong to Dēvappa of that temple.¹³⁵

The above instances, no doubt, show in what honour the Sthānikas were held by the people in the fourteenth century A. D. But their high status is revealed better in the following epigraphs in which the monarch himself addressed them directly concerning the welfare of the religion and the State. All these instances belong to the reign of the last great Hoysaḷa monarch Vīra Ballāḷa III, and are dated A.D. 1301. We have elsewhere shown what a critical age it was in which this gallant monarch lived.¹³⁶ The great enemy with whom this ruler waged continuous battles were the Muhammadans. In the year A.D. 1301 things appeared rather dark for the Hoysaḷa monarch. For the clouds of foreign invasion were gathering ominously on the political horizon;¹³⁷ and the Hoysaḷa king naturally looked to the protection of the most sacred trust the people had given him—the preservation of the dharma and of the honour of the state.

In order to realize the former object he had to take into his confidence the heads of all the religious institutions in the land. And in A.D. 1301 he did this by a most liberal policy unparallelled in the history of southern and western India. Quite a number of stone inscriptions, all of them dated in A.D. 1301, reveal the policy [[P69]] of co-operation and liberality which king Ballāḷa Deva III inaugurated. The Someśvara temple stone inscription found at Guñjūru, Bangalore tāluka, informs us that that monarch intimated the following to the heads of the maṭhas and the Sthānikas situated in the Hesara-Kuṇḍāṇi kingdom, Viriviāḍu, Māsandināḍu Murusunāḍu, Śokkanāyanparru, Pennaiyaṇḍārmaḍanāḍu, Aimbulugurnāḍu, Elavūrnāḍu, Kuvāḷalanāḍu, Kaivāranāḍu, Ilaippakkanāḍu, and “all the other nāḍus”, thus—“[On the date specified], we have remitted all kinds of taxes, including the tax on looms, the tax on goldsmiths, tribute and tolls, hitherto paid in the gifts to the temples etc., (named) of our kingdom and granted the same, with pouring of water, for certain gods, to provide for worship, offerings of rice, enjoyments and temple repairs.

Accordingly, be pleased to take possession of the villages of Surikkuṭṭai, Siṅgamaṅkuṭṭai, Kōvaśamuttiram, and others which are the tax-free temple property of the god Sōmanāthadevar of Kuñjiyūr, make adequate provision for worship, offerings of rice, enjoyments and temple repairs, and live happily, praying for the prosperity of ourselves and our kingdom.”¹³⁸

Again in the same year king Vīra Ballāḷa III addressed to all the heads of the maṭhas and the sthānas of all the temples situated in the eleven nāḍus mentioned above and “in all other nāḍus”, as the Māḍivāḷa Someśvara temple inscription found at Hūḍi, Bangalore tāluka, relates, and remitted likewise all kinds of taxes (enumerated in detail), ordering the Sthānikas and heads of the maṭhas to take possession of four villages (named) and of separate pieces of land which were the devadāna property of the god Sembīśvaram-uḍaiya-nāyanār of Tāmarāikkarai in Vepparuparru. The main object of this royal bounty was, as in the previous instance,” the prosperity of ourselves and of our kingdom.”¹³⁹

An identical royal order was passed in the same year, as is mentioned in the Dharmeśvara temple stone inscription found at Āyigaṇḍapura, Nelamaṅgala tāluka, Mysore state. This too was addressed to the heads of all the maṭhas and the sthānas in the temples situated in the eleven nāḍus spoken of above. The taxes remitted were the same, and the main object of the grant was like that of the two previous records. But the name of the temple to which provision was made is missing in the defaced portion of record. And unlike the two previous records, this royal order hailing from Nelamaṅgala ends thus—That the royal grant was [[P70]] “under the protection of the kingdom, of the inhabitants of the nāḍu and of the Māheśvaras.”¹⁴⁰

A copy of the same royal order dated in the same year was published in a stone inscription in the Gaṅgādhareśvara temple at Māḍivāḷa, Mālūr tāluka, Mysore State. It was likewise addressed to the Sthānikas and heads of the maṭhas in the eleven nāḍus mentioned above.¹⁴¹ Another copy of the royal order dated in the same year was engraved on the basement of the Someśvara temple at Lakkūr also in the same tāluka.¹⁴² These royal orders end in an identical manner which reveals the earnestness of the monarch, thus:— “For the benefit of ourselves and our kingdom, be pleased to see that the worship, offerings of rice, enjoyments and temple repairs are adequately provided for, and pray for our prosperity”.

That there were Sthānikas also in other nāḍus is proved by another similar royal order passed also in the same year (A. D. 1301), but engraved on stone near the Kāmateśvara temple at Nandi, Cikka Baḷḷāpura tāluka. In this royal order in addition to the eleven nāḍus mentioned above, the following eleven are also said to have contained Sthānikas and heads of the maṭhas Veppūr, Erumarai, Kaḷavāranāḍu, Ambaḍakki, Noṇḍaṅguḷi, Tekkalnāḍu, Eyilnāḍu, Tagaḍaināḍu, Puramalaināḍu (alias Ādigaimānāḍu), Payyūraparru, and Puḷḷiyūrnāḍu. The taxes remitted in this instance were similar to those mentioned in the previous order. Only the heads of the maṭhas and sthānas in the temple of the god Tirunandi alias southern Kailāsa, were ordered to enjoy the wet and dry lands as a sarvamānya gift. The object of this royal edict was similar to that of the previous ones; and this charity was placed, as in the two instances mentioned above, under the protection of the king, of the inhabitants of the nāḍu, and of the Māheśvaras.¹⁴³

Two inscriptions found in the Cokkanātha and Someśvara temples at Domlūr, both dated also in A.D. 1301, are similar forms of royal circulars addressed by the same Hoysaḷa monarch to all the heads of maṭhas and sthānas in the eleven nāḍus beginning with the Hesara-Kuṇḍāṇi kingdom spoken of above. One of these registers the grant of remission of specified taxes. and of lands in Dombalūr, to the god Sokkaperumāl of Dombalūr in Iḷaipakka- [[P71]] nāḍu; while the other mentions a similar gift to the god Sōmanātha at Dombalūr, the lands given as gifts being situated at Dombalūr, and Paḷaśūr.¹⁴⁴ As in other records registering royal remissions, the object of these grants was the same, viz., “the prosperity of ourselves and our kingdom”.

From the standpoint of the Sthānikas, these royal orders mark the highest limit to which the Sthānikas reached in the course of their history. For not only have we the fact of the Sthānikas having been spread over the length and breadth of Hoysaḷa Empire, but also the fact that the monarch himself directly addressed them, remitting many taxes to them, and in all instances requested them to look after the religious prosperity of the country and to pray for the safety of the monarch and the welfare of the land. Such royal orders are unique in the history of southern and western India; and they reveal the deep trust which the Hoysaḷa monarch reposed in, and the high regard which he had for, the Sthānikas of his wide Empire, whose co-operation with the State was of such great importance to the religious stability of the country. These records alone embodying the orders passed by king Ballāḷa III are enough to demonstrate the universal influence which the Sthānikas wielded in southern India in the first quarter of the fourteenth century A.D.

FIFTEENTH CENTURY A.D.

Coming to the fifteenth century A.D., we find that the Sthānikas, while maintaining their ancient position and dignity, continued to do much good to the country in their capacity as priests and managers of temples. Their public work earned for them adequate reward at the hands of the State. Before we narrate this interesting side of their history, it is desirable that we should give a few instances to show that in the fifteenth century, as in the previous ages, the Sthānikas were managers and priests of temples, that they granted lands to worthy people, along with others, that they were cited as witnesses to deeds of public charity, and that they enjoyed special privileges at the hands of the State. But their real importance is seen in those inscriptions which mention their public work.

A few examples may suffice to show how in addition to the very many places which the Sthānikas controlled mentioned in the previous pages, they were also the custodians of temples in other [[P72]] parts of the land. For instance, the Sthānikas were the priests and managers of the Ten Kēris of Bārakāru, one of the Āḷupa capitals of South Kanara, and of the Śiva temple (now converted into a Vaiṣṇava shrine) at Phaḷamāru, also in the Uḍipi tāluka of the same district. One of the stone inscriptions in the former place, calls Cikkaṇṇa as the Sthānapati of the Ten Kēris (i.e., ten streets) of Bārakūru (Bārakūru hattu kēriya sthānapati Cikkaṇṇa). He made a request (binnahaṁ) to the State in Śaka 1329 (A.D. 1407-8) when the monarch was Bukka Rāya II.¹⁴⁵ That the original Śiva temple of Phaḷamāru was once ruled by a Sthānika is proved by a damaged stone record found there, and dated Śaka 1323 (A.D. 1401-2), which mentions the Sthānapati (name effaced) of that temple.¹⁴⁶

In the Telugu land as well we come across Sthānapatis managing temples. The Bhīmeśvara temple stone inscription at Peṭlūru, Nellore district, informs us that in A.D. 1406-7 the Sthānapati of that temple was Malla Jiyyaru. This temple being in ruins, was reconstructed in that year by Anna Reḍḍi Sigi Reḍḍi at the request of all classes of devotees of Peṭlūru.¹⁴⁷

According to one of the stone inscriptions found at Baṅkipura, Shimoga tāluka, the head of the Vaṅkāpura (Baṅkiyāpura) temple (tat-sthāna-saṁrakṣakarttā) was Cennapācārya, the son Puruṣottamāryya, a Vaikhānasa of the Kāśyapa gotra. The temple which he managed was that of the god Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa for which many specified dues had been given by the order of the Vijayanagara ruler Harihara Rāya II. It is interesting to observe that this temple was caused to be erected “by that Mahārāya’s order”, as the inscription dated about A.D. 1413 relates.¹⁴⁸ No other evidence is required to prove that the Sthānikas were servants of the State in Vijayanagara times; and that they were the priests and managers of temples which were constructed by the rulers themselves.

The damaged Kuravaḷḷi stone inscription (Tīrthahaḷḷi tāluka) dated about A.D. 1424, affirms that the son of the Āḷvaprabhu Bommiyakka’s son, whose name is effaced in the record, on account of his marriage, sold certain specified lands to the Sthānika Bōvaṇṇa Āyya, the son of Dēvaṇṇa Āyya. Although the name of the temple is not mentioned in the inscription, we suppose it was the same Viśveśvara temple near which the record was found.¹⁴⁹

[[P73]] One of the Siṭibeṭṭa stone inscriptions dated about A.D. 1468 relates that Apparasar, the household officer of Rāmarasar of the Mari palace, and Basavaṇṇa, granted to the Sthānika priest Bayirayya of the temple of the god Bhairava of Sihaṭi, three honnu and three paṇa from the revenue of Turuvaḷahaḷḷi in Pulināḍu. This endowment was for the god Bhairava of Sihaṭi.¹⁵⁰ On the basis of this inscription it may be asserted that the Sthānikas as priests of temples, received grants of money on behalf of temples which they managed.

In Kallūru hōbḷi of the Gubbi tāluka, Mysore State, is the Kapule Siddha Mallikārjuna temple. The Sthānika priest of this temple in A.D. 1470, during the reign of the Vijayanagara king Virūpākṣa Mahārāya, was Somayya Deva. His younger sister Honni Dēvi is also mentioned in the same record, but the context cannot be determined because the inscription is damaged. It may be noted, however, that the temple of Mallikārjuna had been restored by Kallarasiyamma, the wife of the Mahāsāmanta whose name, too, is effaced in the record. She had richly endowed the temple with specified lands.¹⁵¹

Of the famous Vaiṣṇava temple of Ahobalam, Nandyāl tāluka, Kurnool district, the Sthānikas were the trutees in the reign of Kṛṣṇa Deva Rāya the Great.¹⁵² The Panikeśvara temple in the same tāluka, was also under the Sthānikas. This is proved by a stone record found in that temple and dated A. D. 1503 which informs us that during the reign of the Vijayanagara monarch Immaḍi Narasiṅga Mahārāya, a grant of specified land was made for the merit of the king and of Narasa Nāyaka, evidently by the ruler himself, to the four Sthānikas of the Panikeśvara temple, for building a village and conducting the services in the same temple.¹⁵³

There is the well known temple of Mañjunātha at Kadri, a suburb of Mangalore in South Kanara. The trustees and priests of this temple were Sthānikas. This is proved by a stone inscription found in that temple and dated Śaka 1397 (A. D. 1475) in which the following is narrated: That during the reign of the Vijayanagara monarch Virūpākṣa Deva, when his Mahāpradhāna Siṅgaṇṇa Daṇṇāyaka was carrying on the administration of the Empire, by the order of the latter Viṭṭharasa Oḍeyar was governing the Bārakūru-rājya in Tuḷuva. The local chieftains who carried on the work of administration in Tuḷuva were the Cauṭars and the [[P74]] Baṅgars. Attached to the Maṅgalūru-rājya was the Kadariya temple of which the four Sthānikas by name Ravaḷapāli, Gaṇapanna Aḷuva, Rāyara Senabova, and Gomma Senabova, agreeing among themselves gave a sale deed written in stone, and specified in detail, to Maṅgalanātha Oḍeyar.¹⁵⁴

But the Sthānikas could also co-operate with the representatives of the people in bestowing honours upon worthy citizens. We have seen that this was one of their public functions in the pre-Vijayanagara days. Maṅgarasa, the son of Mahādeva of the Gautama gotra, had built a tank in Vāṇiyarahaḷḷi in Hoḍenāḍ, and constructed the Hirī-Maṅgasamudra. The stone inscription found below the Mullukuṇṭe tank at Vāṇiganahaḷḷi in the Mūlbāgal tāluka, and dated A. D. 1407, continues to relate that on the completion of this work of public utility, the Sthānikas of the goddess Gaurī of Uttanūr Māḍavāḷa, the mortgagees (?) and the citizens gave Maṅgarasa a śāsana for rent free rice land as a kaṭṭu goḍage for the tank, as follows:— Two parts (in ten) of the rice land below and within that tank were given as kaṭṭu goḍage; and two parts (in ten) were given to Maṅgarasa’s children, free of all taxes, in perpetuity.¹⁵⁵

A more interesting example of Sthānikas rewarding not ordinary citizens but Brahmans themselves for having done some public work is afforded in the stone inscription found in the Nācaramma temple at Mūlbāgal itself. This inscription is dated A.D. 1416, and it refers to the reign of king Pratāpa Deva Rāya (i. e., Deva Rāya II) when his Mahāpradhāna Nāgaṇṇa Oḍeyar was placed over the Mūlbāgal kingdom. The officer under this viceroy was Annanadāni Oḍeyar, who “was maintaining the proper dharmas, and firmly protecting the Mūlbāgal kingdom. The inscription continues to relate that “by order of the original goddess of Mūlbāgal, Muḷuvāyi Nācidevi”, her Sthānikas Bālipa, Māniya, and Mārapa, the sons of Keśava Perumāḷe, and the latter’s younger brother Avambaḷa, agreeing among themselves, gave to Śivarātri Viṭṭhaṇṇa, Mallaṇṇa, and other Brahmans a śāsana as follows— “The Āraḷi dam in the Pālāru river in the Kāṭariyahaḷḷi sīme belonging to our Muḷuvāyi Nācidevi, having been breached from time immemorial and ruined down to the level of the ground, in order that you may expend much money and restore the dam so as, to form a tank, and build there a village named Muḷuvāyi-Nācipura, we grant to you the tract of land bounded as follows (boundaries enumerated in detail)—, in which you may cut down the jungle and form fields. And the rice lands under and in the [[P75]] area of the tank which you construct, dividing them into four parts one part will belong to the treasury of our Muḷuvāyi Nācidevi, and in consideration of your having expended much money of your own, and constructed the tank, the remaining three parts we grant, with the land (before mentioned), to your Brahmans as an agrahāra, free of all imposts, from our Muḷuvāyi Nācidevī. All the usual rights of the villages named Muḷuvāyi Nācipura which you build, we also grant. If any damage arises to your tank, it belongs to your Brahmans to repair it.” This agreement was inscribed on stone “in front of our Muḷuvāyi Nācidevī” (temple).¹⁵⁶

About sixty-six years later (circa A.D. 1482) the Sthānikas of the temple of the god Bhairava (in Sihaṭi in Kōlār?) gave similar expression to their public spirit when they bestowed an agreement (śādana) on the Ceñji hill Gavuṇḍa Cimi Jiya and his sons Bayiraṇṇa and Cōku Bayica. The Keśavavināyakanahaḷḷi stone inscription (Kōlār tāluka) which contains these details is dated A.D. 1482. It relates that to the father and two sons who had built a new the Baicakere (tank) below the old breached one at Sihaṭi (Śrīpati), and made a sluice, and fixed the money payment for the land under it, the Sthānikas of the god Bhairava gave the revenue of the rice fields so formed two shares to be divided among themselves and to be enjoyed by them and their posterity, while one share was reserved for the Sthānikas themselves as “dharma to the god’s treasury”. The tank was the inalienable property of the donees, who could sow and raise any crops on the rice fields.¹⁵⁷

The evidence of the above inscription, in addition to that concerning the award of honours to worthy citizens which we have cited above, proves that the lands enjoyed by the Sthānikas around the temples which they managed, were not their private property, but were considered as “dharma to the god’s treasury”. That is to say, in all instances the Sthānikas, as the reader must have realized from the numerous instances we have already given above, were trustees on behalf of the god or goddesses in temples.

One more instance may be adduced to show that the Sthānikas, who rewarded worthy citizens with grants of land, did so in their capacity as trustees of the property of the deity in the temple. The Rāyaguṇḍahaḷḷi stone inscription, Mūlbāgal tāluka, dated A.D. 1496, tells us that Devappa, the son of Koṇḍappa-Timmaṇṇa, and the Sthānika of the temple of the god Narasiṃha, [[P76]] granted a kaṭṭu-goḍage to Ālapa’s son Narasiṃhadeva. The reason why the Sthānika priest granted a kaṭṭu-goḍage gift to Narasiṃhadeva was because the latter had expended money and caused a virgin tank to be constructed in the Māvinahaḷḷi village to the west of the old tank of Guṇḍalanahaḷḷi, forming an embankment with plenty of earth, building it with stone, fixing a stone sluice and making it secure with bricks and mortar, thoroughly completing the tank in every detail. For this work of public utility the Sthānika Devappa “by the order of the god Narasiṃha” (i.e., Kadiri, Lakṣmī Narasiṃha of the village of Guṇḍalanahaḷḷi alias Narasiṁhapura in Hoḍenāḍ) gave four parts of the rice raised on the lands under the tank to the donee, along with very many privileges enumerated in detail.¹⁵⁸

Another aspect of the public character of the Sthānikas is given in the interesting record found in the Īśvara temple at Doḍḍa Belahāḷu, Hunsūr tāluka, and dated A.D. 1423. This stone epigraph tells us that the Sthānikas were called as witnesses to a deed of public charity. Tippe Seṭṭi of the Vijayanagara treasury, was a very pious and superstitious soul. He dedicated to the god Tirumala the tank which he had constructed in order that merit might accrue to his parents. But this consecration had to be done publicly, according to the usage of the day. And Tippe Seṭṭi did it in A.D. 1423 in the presence of the chief and holy meritorious Brahmans, the Sthānikas, the Nambis, the body-servants of the god Tirumala, and Vīraṇṇa-aya of Kariyamaranahaḷḷi. And to these witnesses were added others—the Fish, the Tortoise, the Boar, the eight Regents of the Compass, the snake charmers, the tellers of omens by lizards, and such other “sacred persons,” of an unusally strange category.¹⁵⁹

But as in the previous ages, the Sthānikas were prominent not only because they were called as witnesses to deeds of public charity, but also because they possessed privileges and were entitled to special exemptions. This is proved by the following epigraphs one of which was found in the Kaṇveśvara temple at Bellūr, Narsāpura hōbḷi, Kōlār tāluka. In this inscription dated A. D. 1406, it is related that by order of the Vijayanagara monarch Deva Rāya (I), the Mahāpradhāna Bommaṇṇa Daṇṇāyaka’s son (unnamed) granted the villages of Bayilanakuṇṭe and Tujilahaḷḷi, the former of which was given by the Kannara Deva Rāya, and the latter by the Vijayanagara Emperor himself, for the god Soma of Bellūr alias Viṣṇuvardhana-caturvedimaṅgalam, together with all [[P77]] the lands and rights (specified) pertaining thereto. The concluding portion of the grant affirms that by that order of the Vijayanagara Emperor, Mālidevī Rāṇī, the daughter of Dulinīḍava Rāṇī, remitted the taxes (given in detail) payable for the houses of the Sthānikas in that country and the other sacred buildings. How the office of the Sthānikas was connected with the sthāna attached to a temple is proved in the text of the inscription which recounts the exemption thus—ī nirūpadiṁ Duli-Nīḍava Rāṇiyara maga (magaḷu?) Mālidevī Rāṇiyaru ā sīmeya dēvara Sthānikadalu Sthānikara mane-modalāda māḍavaḷike salu…rāya-kāṇika suṅka teravāḷike saha sarvamā…ā devara…gaḷu…teruva vibhūti…¹⁶⁰

The Someśvara temple inscription found at Cidaravaḷḷi, Mysore district, corroborates the statement made above concerning the office of the Sthānikas. This inscription which is dated A. D. 1420 of the reign of the Vijayanagara ruler Deva Rāya II, informs us that lands were given for the office (sthāna) of the temple. Such lands were called sthāna bhūmi. The inscription registers the remission of taxes on houses, gardens, and tanks belonging to the sthāna-bhūmi of the temple (yī dēvara sthāna-bhūmi oḷagāda maṇṭōtā kere mānyaveṁdu koṭṭu), including the land belonging to the Sthānikas Rāyaḍe, Sōmayaḍe, and Kētaḍe of the temple of Sōmayyadeva at Cidaravaḷḷi. The donors were the Purubōvas Guḍḍayanna Vāyicanna of Mallināthapura, who was the chief of the forty-two puras of Taḷakāḍunāḍ, Mādayya Sōmayya of Sindeyapura, Dēma of Kāmagōṇḍanapura, and Sambudeva of Cidaravaḷḷipura. Certain Gauḍas (named) also joined in making the grant which the donors inscribed on stone.¹⁶¹

There were two reasons why the houses of the Sthānikas were exempted from taxation. Firstly, the Sthānikas being [[P78]] managers and custodians of temples were public servants, and as such were entitled to some special consideration at the hands of the State. And, secondly, the Sthānikas, especially in the fifteenth century A. D., had given ample evidence of their zeal to promote public weal. There are many examples of the public benefactions of the Sthānikas. The Ujenigrāma stone inscription found at Bēdarapura, Kuṇigal tāluka, Mysore State, is one of them. This record dated A. D. 1429 refers to the reign of the Vijayanagara Emperor Pratāpa Rāya (i. e., Deva Rāya II), when Bayicarasa, the son of Ujeni Rāma Gauḍa, Muttu Gauḍa, the son of Masana Gauḍa, and all the older Gauḍas and subjects of Ujeni granted by a śāsana a koḍage gift to Cāmarasa, the son of Ujeni Bayicarasa. The reason why such a gift was given was that Cāmarasa and the Sthānikas had provided the funds and entered into an agreement for the construction of the tank to the east of the town. On the completion of the tank, the donors mentioned above granted specified lands as free gift to the Sthānikas and Cāmarasa.¹⁶²

The Sthānikas could add to public welfare in other directions as well. For instance, when a need arose in a town to have the calendar-makers or pañcāṅgadavaru, they applied directly to the State and had those useful functionaries established in a town. In A. D. 1472 in the reign of the Vijayanagara king Virūpākṣa Rāya, as is related in the Svayambhuveśvara temple stone inscription found at Māḍivāḷa, Bowringpēṭ tāluka, Siṅgarasa, one of the two officials under the Bēṭamaṅgala officer Liṅga Rāja, came to Bēṭamaṅgala. He came to Bēṭamaṅgala because the Sthānikas of the locality had petitioned to him to establish pañcāṅgadavaru (or calendar-makers) in that country, and grant them a dharma śāsana for the exaltation of the god (sthāṇadavaru bandu yi sīmege………..la-sthapanavanu māḍi dēvara satiyali pañcāṅgadavara dharma-śāsanavanu barasi koḍabēku endu koraḷagi). On which Siṅgarasa marked out the four boundaries, had them stamped with the seal, and evidently had the calendar-makers established in that town (for the record stops here).¹⁶³

The Sthānikas of the god Bhairava Sihaṭi (Śrīpati) had once paid twenty-eight gadyānas for the wages of the watchmen. This was, indeed, a work of much public good. Therefore, Narasaya Deva Mahārāya, the son of Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Timmaya Deva Mahā-arasu, in the reign of the Vijayanagara monarch Immaḍi Narasiṅga Rāya, in A.D. 1495, as is related in one of the stone inscriptions found in the Sīṭibeṭṭa, Kōlār tāluka, gave to Guḷiya and [[P79]] the other Sthānikas of the god Bhairava of Sihaṭi a śāsana by which he granted the alms and tribute to the Kōlālaśime within the jurisdiction of his nāyakaship, for the offerings of the god Bhairava for a new car festival to be held for nine days, and for the expenses of extra sacrifices, lamps, and offerings, in the same temple.¹⁶⁴

SIXTEENTH CENTURY A.D.

In the sixteenth century the Sthānikas maintained their traditional high dignity and importance of their office. They were still priests and managers of temples. As trustees of temples which were public institutions, they granted lands and rewards to worthy recipients; and in the same capacity they approached directly the State in connection with important public matters. The epigraphs of the previous centuries enabled us to affirm that there was a very close contact between the State and the Sthānikas. The records of the sixteenth century A.D. help us to assert that the Sthānikas were appointed by the State, and as such were servants of the State.

In about A.D. 1500 the priest of the Bhīmeśvara temple in the Cintāmaṇi tāluka, Mysore State, was the Sthānika Nāḍaṇḍa Jiya. Along with some other Sthānikas whose names are effaced in this record found at Guṭṭahaḷḷi, he made a grant for the same god.¹⁶⁵ The temple priest of the god Śrīdeva of the Tēkalśime was the Sthānika Nayanārayya, who, as is related in the damaged stone record discovered at Timmanāyakanahaḷḷi, Tēkal hōbḷi, and dated A.D. 1508, received a grant in connection with the construction of the Tippasamudra. The donor was evidently Sāḷuva Gopa Rāja.¹⁶⁶

The same Nayanārayya, called Nāyinārayya in the inscription found in the Kāmatheśvara temple at Tēkal, was the recipient of a gift of the village of Huladēvanahaḷḷi at the hands of Yārapa Nāyaka, the son of Pareyada Rāma Nāyaka, and the lord of the village of Huladēvanahaḷḷi belonging to the Tēkalsīme which was included in the eighteen nāḍus. The grant was made in A.D. 1542 when the Emperor Acyuta Rāya was ruling, to Nāyinārayya, who is called the Sthānika of the gods Sōmaya and Rāmayaliṅga of Tēkal. The Sthānika was to provide for offerings of rice to the gods, and the object of the grant is stated thus:— “As a charity of Acyuta Rāya.” This last clause enables us to affirm that the gift was made at the royal bidding.¹⁶⁷

[[P80]] In A.D. 1539 when the same Vijayanagara Emperor was ruling, Kerega Timmarasa was assigned the village of Śāntigrāma for his office of amara-nāyaka. This noble was presented the village of Vogarahaḷḷi for the daily offerings of the god Dharmeśvara and of the processional image Candraśekhara, and for feeding ten Brahmans. The entire endowment was made over to the Sthānika priest Dēvarubhaṭṭa. This is related in the stone inscription found in the Dharmeśvara temple at Grāma, Hassan tāluka, Mysore State.¹⁶⁸

That the Sthānikas were, indeed, the priests in a temple is further proved by one of the Basavapura stone records (Cāmarājanagara tāluka), assigned by Rice to A.D. 1552. In this inscription it is said that by order of the god Anīleśvara (śrī-Anīleśvara-nirūpadiṁ) Timmarasayya, together with the Sthānika and the Senabova (neither being named), made a gift of koḍagi free of all imposts, for the celestial liṅga.¹⁶⁹

The managers and priests of the Someśvara temple in Mūlbāgal were Sthānikas. This is related in the Padmatīrtha stone inscription dated only in the cyclic year Paridhāvi but of the reign of the Vijayanagara Emperor Sadāśiva Rāya (A.D. 1542-A.D. 1567). According to this inscription some land in the Muḷuvāyināḍu was granted, free of all imposts, as bhaṭavṛtti to the Sthānikas of the temple of the god Someśvara of Mūlbāgal. This fragmentary record does not unfortunately give the name of the donor. But the fact that the land granted was meant as bhaṭavṛtti (subsistence grant to priests) is enough to prove that the Sthānikas were Bhaṭṭas or Brahmans.¹⁷⁰

Why were such lands granted to the Sthānikas, and what precisely were the duties that were expected of them? These questions are answered in the Vīrabhadra temple stone inscription found at Hassan. It is dated A.D. 1562, and it mentions also the same Vijayanagara Emperor. In this year a grant of specified taxes was made in the village of Kuḍuriguṇḍi (mod. Kudureguṇḍi, Dudda hōbḷi, Hassan tāluka), by Bukkappa Nāyaka, a subordinate of Era Kṛṣṇappa Nāyaka. The donees were the Sthānikas (unnamed) of the same Vīrabhadra temple. The object of the grant was “that prosperity and merit might accrue to Bayappa Nāyaka’s son Kṛṣṇappa Nāyaka.” The duties of the Sthānikas are mentioned thus in the same record :—“We, Bukkappa Nāyaka, younger [[P81]] brother of Tammappa Nāyaka, the son of Kācappa Nāyaka, have, while granting the above with pouring of water, ordered that food offerings might be made to the god Vīrabhadra of Kuḍuriguṇḍi, both during the day and in the evening, and granted this charter of gift (dharmaśāsana) for carrying on the service of offering incense, lights, and food to the said god in order that Bayappa Nāyaka’s son Kṛṣṇapa Nāyaka-ayya might rule over many more kingdoms.”¹⁷¹

One of the features we noted concerning the Sthānikas in the previous pages in the pre-Vijayanagara age was that pertaining to their public spirit which prompted them to award distinctions to persons who had done some service to the people. This singular feature still marked the Sthānikas in the sixteenth century A.D. An inscription on a boulder near the Veṅkaṭaramaṇasvāmi temple at Rājaguṇḍahaḷḷi, Mūlbāgal tāluka, dated A.D. 1503, illustrates our statement. A citizen named Kadiri Marasiṁhadeva had in that year constructed a new tank in Guṇḍlahaḷḷi which village belonged to the offerings of the god Kadiri Narasiṃha of Mūlbāgal. On his completing this work of public utility, the Sthānikas of the god Kadiri Narasiṃha, by name Viṭṭhayya and Kuppaya, the latter being the nephew (aḷiya) of Anantapa, granted to Kadiri Narasiṁhadeva a sāgubaliya vole (or cultivation roll) of the rice land below the tank. In this deed of reward the Sthānikas said that deducting his daśavanda rice fields under the tank which he had caused to be constructed, they had granted him according to the rule for cultivation of the rice lands of the temple, by measurement eight khaṇḍugas for seven khaṇḍugas of koḍage. How considerate the Sthānikas were is seen in the next two clauses of the deed of reward:—If the water in the tank failed and the crop was lost, the Sthānikas would share equally (the loss). If the water in the tank was insufficient, and had to be lifted, the Sthānikas would reduce the contract in the same proportion as those in the neighbourhood.¹⁷²

Some such reason as the above might have induced the Saṁsthānakulu (i.e., the Sthānikas) of the temple of Kailāsanātha and Bhīma in Chilamakūru, Nellore district, when in A.D. 1518-19, as is narrated in a stone record found at that place, they granted in perpetuity one kuccala of dry land on the boundary and [[P82]] ten kuṇṭas of wet land as sarvamānya gift to Meḍārameṭṭa Siṅgiriyanāyuḍu.¹⁷³

Indeed, we have valid reasons to maintain that in the sixteenth century A.D. the Sthānikas, in their capacity as trustees of temples, were not slow in recognizing the worth of deserving citizens. They even co-operated with the officials of the State in granting rewards to such people. For instance, in A.D. 1530, as is told in an inscription found near Eḷavāguḷi, Mālūr tāluka, Mysore State, during the reign of the Emperor Acyuta Rāya, the Sthānikas (not named) of Tekalnāḍu, included in the eighteen nāḍus, and Varadapa, the Agent for the Affairs of the Vijayanagara viceroy, whose name is effaced in the record, granted land to the Senabova Timmarasa for having built a tank.¹⁷⁴

The precise reason which made the Sthānikas of the god Dharmeśvara at Hosahaḷḷigrāma, Hosakōṭe tāluka, by name Hariyapa, Cikana. the son of Caina Jiya, Mārasaya Annapāya, the son of Cikapa Caiṇa Jiya, and Hiriyaṇa, the son of Mañcigāya, give a śāsana to Kappayyapuruṣa, cannot be made out in the effaced record dated about A.D. 1562 and found in the same Dharmeśvara temple.¹⁷⁵ We can only assume that the gift was made in recognition of some work of public utility.

Nothing illustrates the importance and power of the Sthānikas in the sixteenth century as the following record found in the Karivaradarājaperumāl temple in Āragaḷūr, Salem district. This epigraph is dated Śaka 1441, Pramāthin, Mithuna, Su. di. 13 Friday, which works out correctly to A.D. 1519, June the 10th Friday. On this day three Sthānikas of the temple of Perumāḷ Karayivar went on a deputation to the Emperor at Vijayanagara, and complained of the injustice done by the authorities (rājagāraṁ) stationed at Dēviyakurucci, a village belonging to the temple. The chief amaram Timmarasa introduced them to the king, got their grievances redressed, presented them each with a garland, a head dress, a horse, and an umbrella, and granted 900 kuḷi of wet land at Ponparappi and at Dēviyakurucci as a sarvamānya gift. The ruler who is referred to in this record could only have been Kṛṣṇa Deva Rāya the Great (A.D. 1519-A.D. 1529).¹⁷⁶

It was a singular privilege, indeed, which the Sthānikas possessed of going on a deputation directly to the monarch, and of [[P83]] levelling a charge of high-handedness against officials of the State. Ordinary priests and citizens under the Vijayanagara Government had, no doubt, as we have amply shown elsewhere,¹⁷⁷ the right of direct appeal to the State; but in no instance were the plaintiffs pacified and sent home loaded with presents as in this case!

We have now to enquire into the causes which made the Sthānikas bold enough to go on a deputation to the monarch at Vijayanagara. The fact is that the Sthānikas in the Vijayanagara Empire, especially in those public temples owned and controlled by the State, were servants of the State, and as such were entitled to privileges which were denied to ordinary priests and citizens.

Proof is not wanting to show that the Sthānikas were directly controlled by the Vijayanagara Government. Indeed, the Vijayanagara Government even regulated minute details of worship in temples always, of course, with the co-operation of the representatives of the nāḍu or district, and according to the constitutional usage of the country (pūrvada maryyāde). We have shown elsewhere how in the reign of king Harihara Rāya II (A.D. 1377-A.D. 1404), Tirumalli Nāyaka, an officer of the Government, settled a dispute between the Sthānikas themselves of the Kāmeśvara temple at Āragaḷūr. The most equitable judgment given by this Vijayanagara judge reveals, among other things, the fact that the Sthānikas were completely at the mercy of the Vijayanagara Government.¹⁷⁸

More direct evidence is supplied by the following epigraph which affirms in unmistakable terms that the Sthānikas were subordinate to the State. The damaged Koṇḍipaḷḷi stone inscription dated A.D. 1521 found in the Mūlbāgal tāluka, tells us that the temple of the god Some (Someśvara?) on the rock of the Koṅgajanaradinne was in ruins (?), and that the Āres and others (names effaced) re-set up that god, granting for his worship and ceremonies the village of Upukuṇṭhe. And for the same purpose, viz., for performing worship and ceremonies of the god Someya, the Āres and others appointed Dāduga, the son of Candrapāya of the Kauśika gotra, as the Sthānika of the god. The appointment of the Sthānika and the re-setting up of the god was done by the Āres and others with the permission of the Vijayanagara viceroy Annadāna Oḍeyar (Annadāna Oḍeyara nirūpa-viḍidu).¹⁷⁹ This last clause shows that the State controlled the appointment of the Sthānikas in temples.

[[P84]] The Vīrabhadra temple stone inscription found at Hāralukōṭe, Cāmarājanagara tāluka, also illustrates our point. In the record dated A.D. 1523 we are informed that during the reign of the monarch Kṛṣṇa Deva Rāya, Jaḍeyaru Modaliyār, the son of Tiruvaṅgaḍa of Turumuḍipāka, was the Agent for the māgani of the Minister Sāḷuva Govinda Rāya Oḍeyar. Jaḍeyaru Modaliyār set up the god Vīrabhadra in the village of Haṭṭalakōṭe, granting certain lands for his worship. The record says the following:— “All these, and whatever other grants may be made by kings or any one else, will belong to the Sthānika Allappa, the agent for the temple of the god. He will take possession of them, and appointing such temple servants as he wishes, will continue the temple services from time to time (enunṭāda sarvasvāmyake arasugaḷu matt-ārādaru dharmmakke koṭṭantā sīmegaḷu yenunṭāda sarva-svāmyada vellakku Dēvara-sthānakke karṭṭanāda Allappage salu-udu Dēvara-sīme ellavannu anubhavisikoṇḍu Dēvara śrī-kārakke [kāryakke] takkantā tamma manasu bandalli arcakarannu irisikoṇḍu śrī-kāra[[k]]avanu vēḷe-vēḷe naḍisikoṇḍu bahanu). Further the epigraph continues thus:—“The pārupatyagāra (i. e., the Executive Official appointed by the Vijayanagara State over temples) has no authority to inquire into the affairs of this god, and no one else has any connection with it. Allappa will be the agent of the temple, and no one else has any connection with it. Thus has the charter been given.”¹⁸⁰

No better evidence than the above is needed to prove that not only was there clear distinction between temple arcakas and other temple servants on the one hand, and the Sthānikas on the other, as we have demonstrated in an earlier context, but that the Sthānikas as trustees of the properties of the gods in temples were independent even of the Pārupatyagāra, who was also a high official of the State. This was specially true of the Vijayanagara age.

Further epigraphic evidence may be cited to substantiate our statement concerning the official status of the Sthānikas. A Tamil epigraph at the entrance of the Vyāsarāya maṭha at Tirupati, dated A. D. 1523, states that by the order of Kṛṣṇa Deva Rāya the Great and his subordinate official Narasiṃha Rāya Mahārāya, the Sthānika (Sthānattār) of the temple of Tirupati granted a house and certain honours to the Breaker of the pride of False disputants, Vyāsatīrtha Śrīpāda.¹⁸¹

The donee was one of the most celebrated Vaiṣṇava [[P85]] teachers of the age.¹⁸² According to a damaged Telugu record found in the Īśvara temple at Goranṭla, Anantapur district, and dated A. D. 1533-4, when the Emperor Acyuta Rāya was ruling, Timmappa Nāyuḍu, the son of Vakiṭi Mallappa Nāyaḍu, ordered the Sthānikas, citizens, and the temple cooks to revive the processions in the Perumāl temple at Goranṭla, which had been neglected till then¹⁸³.

That the Kauṭalyan conception of the Sthānika being an official and of the sthāna being the office which he held, survived even till the sixteenth century (and after) is proved by the Malaleśvara temple record found at Kōḍambaḷḷi, Cennapaṭṭaṇa tāluka, Mysore State. This inscription dated A. D. 1534 of the time of the same Vijayanagara monarch, relates that Mādarasa, the son of Penugoṇḍe Ādayada Vārāṇasi Surappa, gave a dharma sādhana (or a gift of land) for the god Malaleśvara of Kōḍambaḷḷi in the Cennapaṭṭaṇa sīme. The dharma sādhana deed ran as follows:— That the Saragūr village (location specified in detail) which belonged to the nāyakaship of Mādarasa’s lord (oḍeyar), the Treasurer (bhaṇḍārada) Timmappaya, was granted for the god Malaleśvara. The object of the grant was patriotic—that dharma may be to the Emperor Acyuta Rāya. And the last clause is of particular importance for our purpose. It states that Mādarasa granted specified land to Candraśekhara for the office of the temple trustee of Saragūr (yī Saragūrina Sthānikatanakke Candraśekharage gadde hattu koḷaga hola khaṇḍuga salahudu).¹⁸⁴ This last statement sufficiently establishes our contention that a Sthānika was essentially the holder of an office in historical times, at the hands of the monarch himself or of the latter’s officials.

The Malleśvara temple stone inscription found at Nandaguḍi, Hosakōṭe tāluka, Mysore State, is another record which substantiates our statement. In this epigraph dated A. D. 1559 we are told that when the Emperor Sadāśiva Rāya was ruling, the Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Rāma Rāya Tirumala Rāya Mahā-arasu’s Agent was Sugatūr Timmana Gauḍa-ayya. This last named official in order that merit might accrue to his own parents and his guru, presented as a gift the village of Sīmasandra (location given) in his own Sugatūrsīme, for the offerings to the god Mallikārjuna at Nañjiguḷi. The concluding statement in the epigraph affirms that the above village was made over [[P86]] to Sthānika Appāji, directing him to continue the worship (..dharma vāgabekendu Sthānika Apājige pūjeyanu samarpisikoṇḍu yireṇḍu koṭṭa dharma sādhana).¹⁸⁵

SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES A.D.

Instances may be multiplied to show that the Sthānikas, who as public officials had wielded great authority in the sixteenth century, continued to exercise equally powerful influence in the seventeenth century and after. As long as the government of the land remained in the hands of one or the other of the Hindu royal families, so long was no attempt made either by the State or its officials to dispossess the Sthānikas of their ancient privileges and powers which Hindu Governments, as the above epigraphs ranging over many centuries undoubtedly prove, consistently recognized, and in some instances deliberately enhanced. So that our survey of the topic under discussion may be complete, we may give just a few instances of the power and status of the Sthānikas in the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries A.D. During these two centuries they continued to be trustees and priests of temples; and they co-operated with the other respectable citizens in conferring honours upon worthy people, or in making beneficial regulations on behalf of communities other than their own. And epigraphs likewise prove, as in the earlier ages, that in these two centuries, the Sthānikas were essentially State servants.

We know that Sthānika Liṅgaṇṇa Oḍeyar’s son Candraśekhara Oḍeyar performed worship of the god Kalleśvara in Kalyāgrāma, Māgaḍi tāluka, Mysore State, in A.D. 1621, during the regime of the Yalahankanāḍ Prabhu Immaḍi Kempa Gauḍa, from a damaged stone inscription found in that temple.¹⁸⁶

Another damaged stone record in the Cennakeśava temple at Cēzerla, Nellore district, dated about A.D. 1697-98 informs us that that temple, too, possessed a Sthānapati whose name is effaced in the epigraph. It is not unlikely that he was called Nāganāthan Timmāvojhulu of the Yajus śākhā and the Kauṇḍinya gotra, who along with the god Cennakeśava received a village (name lost) as a perpetual gift at the hands of Śrīmat Maradattaṁgāru.¹⁸⁷

We may mention in this connection that practically in our own century the trustee of the Viṣṇu temple at Sinnamanūr, [[P87]] Periyakulam tāluka Madura district, was a Sthānika. His name was Bhairava Ayyar.¹⁸⁸

An instance may be given of a Sthānika who co-operated with other persons in conferring honours upon deserving citizens. A defaced inscription from Uttanūr, Mūlbāgal tāluka, and dated about A. D. 1636, relates that the Sthānika Nāyaka Pallavoḍari Nāyinār, the temple priest of the goddess Kavabba of Uttanūr Māḍavāḷa,, together with the farmers and citizens (a-ūra samastha gauḍa prajegaḷu) granted specified land to Sūryappa under the Iḍagere tank, evidently for having built that tank.¹⁸⁹

The Sthānikas aided social legislation as well. One of the Cennakeśava temple stone inscriptions of Belūr dated about A.D. 1700, informs us that the merchants, the town-mayor, and the Sthānikas (seṭṭi-paṭṭaṇa-svāmigaḷu Belūru sthāṇadavaru) established certain social regulations concerning the washermen caste of the fifty-six countries. Among these regulations was one to the following effect:—That the tax for the washermen caste was 1 varaha for a virgin woman and four varaha for one whose husband was dead.¹⁹⁰

As regards the control exercised by the State over the Sthānikas, the following epigraphs not only prove that the Sthānikas were servants of the State, but that the latter also held them in high esteem. A remarkable instance of the solicitude which the State felt for the welfare of the Sthānikas is given in one of the Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa inscriptions dated A.D. 1634. This epigraph refers itself to the reign of the ruler of Mysore, Cāma Rāja Oḍeyar. It informs us that the Sthāṇadavaru (i.e., Sthānikas) of Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa, owing to their troubles had mortgaged the endowments made for the worship of Gummaṭanāthasvāmi of Dēvara Beḷgula to merchant-householders (varttaka gurustarige), and that the latter, as mortgage holders, had enjoyed the same for a long time. This state of affairs reached the ears of the ruler of Mysore, who held immediately an enquiry; and sending for the merchant-householders spoke to them as follows:—“We will discharge the debt granted by you to the Sthānikas.” Thereupon the merchant-householders spoke as follows:—“We have for the spiritual welfare of our parents, made a gift, with pouring of water, of the debt granted by us to the Sthānikas.” All having spoken thus, the king caused this grant to be made by the merchant-householders to the Sthānikas. The grant was made in the orthodox manner with [[P88]] the pouring of water in the presence of Gummaṭanāthasvāmi, the god, and the guru (Cārukīrti Paṇḍitadeva) being the witnesses. And the ruler ordered thus:—“The Sthānikas shall as long as the moon and sun endure perform the worship of the god and live happily.”

But in order to prevent the Sthānikas of Beḷgoḷa from mortgaging in future the endowments of the temple, the ruler further enacted thus:—“In future any of the Sthānikas of Beḷgoḷa who mortgages the endowments, or any one who grants as mortgage thereon, shall be an outcaste, and will have no claim to the sthāna or office”. And in the event of any one violating this injunction, it was further orderd that: “Should any one, in violation of this either give or receive in mortgage, the kings who happen to rule over this kingdom (shall deal with them properly) and carry on the charity of this god as before.”¹⁹¹

Another inscription of the same date is identical in its contents but is interesting because it corroborates the evidence of the poet Pañcabāṇa mentioned in an earlier context. We have seen that, according to Pañcabāṇa, he was the son of the Sthānika Cennappa of Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa. Now this poet’s son figures in the record under review dated also A.D. 1634. It is related in this inscription that the king of Mysore, Cāma Rāja Oḍeyar, on hearing that the lands of the temple managers of Beḷgoḷa had for a long time been mortgaged (Beḷgula sthāṇadavara kṣetravu bahudina aḍau āgiralāgi), sent for Cennanna, the son of Kempappa of Hosavoḷalu, and other mortgage-holders (two of them being named), and said :—“I shall pay off the debt on your mortgage,” At this Cennanna and the other merchants and Gauḍas (nineteen named, including poet Pañcabāṇa’s son Bomyappa and poet Bommaṇṇa), in order that merit might accrue to their parents, gave up to the mortgagee temple managers, with pouring of water, the mortgage bonds (aḍahina patra) in the presence of the god Gummaṭasvāmi and the priest Cārukīrti Paṇḍitadeva. They wrote this stone inscription recording the release of the mortgage, and stated that whoever claimed the debt that had thus been quitted, would incur the sin of having slaughtered one thousand tawny cows and Brahmans at Kāśi and Rāmeśvaram.¹⁹²

From both the above stone inscriptions it is evident that the ruler not only came to the rescue of the Sthānikas in times of distress, but personally intervened on their behalf in order to save [[P89]] the lands of a temple. But it is not to be imagined that the Sthānikas could have their own way in matters of worship and in regard to the question of mortgaging the lands of the gods under their charge. The Government made it sufficiently clear that in case the Sthānikas, as servants of the State, failed to abide by the decision of the ruler, the latter could authorize the conduct of the worship and charity of the god instead, and independent, of the Sthānikas.

Sometime after the flight of the last Vijayanagara ruler Śrī Raṅga Rāya, it is mentioned in a copper-plate grant dated A.D. 1669 that the Yalahaṅkanāḍ Prabhu Immaḍi Kempa Gauḍa, granted to Namaśśivāya Śikhāmaṇi Dīkṣita, with the approval of the Sthānika Liṅgamayya of the temple of Vīreśvara (now Someśvara), remission of certain custom duties and dues to the palace¹⁹³. This copper-plate mentions the king Śrī Raṅga Rāya as seated on the jewelled throne of Ghanagiri (Penugoṇḍa). It is not possible to accept this statement except on the supposition that the Yalahaṅkanāḍ Prabhu still acknowledged the titular soveriegnty of the Vijayanagara monarch, who had by this time fled to the court of the Kēḷadi ruler.¹⁹⁴ Nevertheless, the evidence of the above copper plate substantiates the statement we have often made in this treatise that the Sthānikas, as trustees and managers of temples, were high dignitaries under the State.

Before we conclude we may cite the evidence of one more royal order to prove that the Sthānikas were controlled by the State. A sanad dated A.D. 1759 of the reign of the king of Mysore, Kṛṣṇa Rāja Oḍeyar III, is of much interest in this connection. It was addressed to Cinnayya, and it intimated the appointment by the king of Bhagavānu Śāstri as the Sthānika in the temple of Nañjanagūḍu in the place of Śaṅkara Dīkṣita, and it directed him to see that all privileges pertaining to his office were duly granted to the new man. The Sthānikas were entitled to some wet and dry lands, a house or house site, a portion of the cakes prepared in the temple and some money payment on festive occasions.¹⁹⁵

5. CONCLUSION

From the review of the above stone and copper-plate records and literature ranging over ten centuries (ninth century A. D. till [[P90]] the eighteenth century A. D.), we are able to deduce the following in regard to the importance of the Sthānikas in Indian history:—

First seen in the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭalya, the word Sthānika generally was applied to an official in the civil administration of the State. This official nature of the Sthānika is seen throughout the long course of Indian history. And what is equally noteworthy is that the office of Sthānika was common to the Jainas, the Śrīvaiṣṇavas, and the Śaivas. Themselves Brahmans and as orthodox as any section of the priestly class, the Sthānikas never formed any separate caste of their own. They have figured in all walks of life—as managers of temples, trustees of the properties of the deities in them, priests, engravers, oḍeyars, and literary men. But they have always been important as rulers of a sthāna (i, e., the office in a temple) and as trustees of the properties of the deities in temples. This trust, it may be noted here, was held by the Sthānikas not in their own name but in that of the gods in temples. It is for this reason that, in the numerous inscriptions we have examined, they are called Sthānikas of particular gods, and not merely Sthānikas of temples. Worship in temples was invariably regulated by them. They were also empowered to appoint servants to conduct the daily worship in temples. In no period of Indian history were the Sthānikas ever identified with any one of the menial temple servants who in Karnataka, Tamil, and Telugu lands were always known by separate names, and who never possessed the powers and privileges of the Sthānikas.

As trustees of the temple properties and of the deities in temples, the Sthānikas received hereditary grants of land from rulers, princes, and the people among whom were Brahmans themselves. Sometimes princes worshipped the feet of the Sthānikas before making grants of land to temples. These grants and endowments in the early days of Kauṭalya were inalienable. But in some periods of later history, because of altered conditions, the Sthānikas were sometimes permitted by their donors to part with their endowments, although in the seventeenth century the Hindu State itself forbade such a practice.

In their official capacity as trustees of the properties of the gods in temples, the Sthānikas were called as witnesses to public grants. They were equal in social rank to the Māheśvaras and the Mahājanas, along with whom they received coins and corn for temples. Together with these and other respectable citizens like the representatives of the nāḍu and of the farmers (gavuḍagaḷ), the Sthānikas conferred honours upon worthy persons in the shape of kaṭṭu-goḍage and dharma-śāsana. In this connection it is [[P91]] noteworthy that the Sthānikas granted land as reward to Brahmans as well, for meritorious work done, and sometimes even executed deeds in favour of the Brahmans themselves. Such was the importance attached to the office of a Sthānika that in some periods of the history of Karnataka and southern India, as in the Vijayanagara age, the Sthānikas were independent even of the Executive Officials called Pārupatyagāras placed over temples by the Vijayanagara monarchs.

The Sthānikas of the temples owned by the State were appointed by the rulers themselves. As high officials in the civil administration, the Sthānikas were privileged to petition directly to the monarchs. They could go on a deputation to the rulers, who addressed them directly, and not as in the case of ordinary citizens, through the Secretaries of the Government. When the Sthānikas failed to do their duty as public servants, they were dismissed by the State and replaced by other Sthānikas. The rulers of their own accord came to the rescue of the Sthānikas, who in times of distress had mortgaged their endowments, and released the mortgage deeds made by the temple trustees.¹⁹⁶

B. A. SALETORE

Mr. N. S. Shiva Rao of Puttur (S. K.), whose interesting paper in Kannaḍa, entitled Sthānika-prajñāna, a copy of which is with me, gives some examples of the use of the root sthā (which with the tense lyuṭ and the suffix ṭhan gives us the word sthānika) from early times, e. g., Ṛg Veda (maṇḍala 1, ad. 2, sūtra 7), Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (pr. 1, va. 1) Pāṇini, Amarasiṃha, Halāyudha, etc. While these examples no doubt establish beyond doubt the use of the word sthāna in contexts denoting position, place, dignity, etc., they do not help us to elucidate the position held by the Sthānikas in the Hindu State. This part of Mr. Shiva Rao’s paper shows signs of much industry, but the latter part is devoid of any historical value. B.A.S. ↩︎
I am aware of the fact that some scholars would place Kauṭalya’s work anywhere between the second and sixth century A.D.—B.A.S. ↩︎
Kauṭalya, Arthaśāstra, Bk. II. Ch. I. 46, p. 44. (Shama Sastry’s ed. 1924) ↩︎
Manu, VII. 114, p. 234. (S.B.E.) ↩︎
Kauṭalya, ibid, Bk. III. Ch. I. 148, p. 167. ↩︎
Ibid, Bk. II. Ch. I. 47, p. 46. ↩︎
Kauṭalya, op. cit, Bk. II. Ch. XXXV. 142, p. 158. ↩︎
Ibid, pp. 158-159. ↩︎
Ibid, p. 159. ↩︎
Ibid, Bk. II. Ch. XXXVI. p. 160. ↩︎
Kauṭalya, op. cit, p. 161. ↩︎
Ibid, p. 159. ↩︎
Ibid, p. 159. ↩︎
Ibid, Bk. IV. Ch. VI. 217, pp. 244-245. It is in this sense of a protector that the word Goptṛ is used in the Junagadh inscription of [[P32]] Skandagupta (5th century A.D.)—"sarveṣu deśeṣu vidhāya goptṝn saṁcintayāmāsa." Fleet, Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Gupta Ins., pp. 59, 62. ↩︎
The Sthānika or District Officer is to be distinguished from the Chief of a District (rāṣṭramukhya) mentioned by Kauṭalya in a later context Ibid Bk. IX. Ch. III. 347, p. 375. ↩︎
Epigraphia Carnatica, II. No. 5, p. 3, and ibid, p. n. (1) ↩︎
Saletore, Ancient Karnataka I. pp. 82, 176, 385. ↩︎
E. C. II. p. 3. ↩︎
Ibid, No. 6, p. 3. ↩︎
& 21. E. C. II. nos. 7-8, p. 3. ↩︎
Epigraphia Indica, VI. p. 56, and ibid, n. (7) ↩︎
Ibid, VII. p. 200 seq. ↩︎
E. C. III. Md. 41, p. 42. For other examples, see E. I., XII. p. 290; Indian Antiquary, XIX, p. 271; E. I., XIX, p. 150; E. C. IX. Ht. 110, p. 112. ↩︎
In view of these facts, my identification of the Goravas with the Sthānikas (A. K. I.pp., 80, 90, n (1), 385) is to be rectified.—B.A.S. ↩︎
Read my Medieval Jainism, Bombay. ↩︎
The Goravars are commonly supposed to be Śūdra priests. Banerjee, Prehistoric and Ancient India, p. 37: History of Orissa, I. p. 239. Havell connects Gharapuri (and the name for Elephanta) with the Guravas. Ancient and Mediaeval Architecture, p. 157. I found Goravas in and around the well known temple at Āḷandi, near Poona, still claiming that they were the original masters of that temple.—B. A. S. ↩︎
E. C. IV. Gu. 88, 89, p. 50 ↩︎
Ibid, IX. Cp. 73, p. 146. ↩︎
Read Epigraphical Report of the Southern Circle for 1913, p. 127, for the specific duties of this class of temple servants. In an undated inscription found in the Rāmeśvara temple at Hebbasūr, Yeḍatore tāluka, Mysore State, Kava Tammaḍi of Marala (descent stated) is mentioned in connection with the building a temple by the Elkōṭi Dasa. E.C. IV. Yd. 44, p. 58). ↩︎
E.C. X. Kl. 106 (d), p. 33; See also Kl. 108, of A.D. 1071, pp. 36-37. ↩︎
E. C. X. Bp. 37 (a), p. 145. ↩︎
Ibid, Bp. 35 (a), p. 144. ↩︎
Ibid, Bp. 38 (b), pp. 146-147. ↩︎
Ibid, Bp. 32, p. 143. ↩︎
E. C. X. Bp. 38 (a), p. 146. ↩︎
Ibid, Bp. 55, p. 149. Cf. ibid, IV. Ng. 38 dated A. D. 1284 where the Sthānikas are not included among the temple servants. P. 123. ↩︎
Ibid, X. Bp. 29, p. 142. ↩︎
Ibid, Bp. 30, p. 142. ↩︎
E. C. VI. Kd. 137, p 26. ↩︎
Butterworth Chetty, Nellore Inscriptions, III. p. 1064. ↩︎
Ibid, II. p. 622 ↩︎
E. C. IX. Ht. 94 p. 98. ↩︎
E. C. V. Hn. 82, pp. 25-26. ↩︎
Ep. Rep. of the S. Circle for 1928, p. 107 ↩︎
204 of 1912; Rangacharya, A Topographical List of Inscriptions in the Madras Presidency, I. p. 451. It is difficult to verify this date. See 55 of 1908; 381 of 1902; 81 of 1909 for references to the temple of Nārpatteṇṇāyira Viṇṇagar. ↩︎
Burgess-Natesa Sastri, Tamil & Sanskrit Inscriptions, I. p. 51, n. (5) ↩︎
Ep. Rep. of S. Circle for 1918, p. 85; Nilakanta Sastri, The Pandyan Kingdom, p. 9. As managers of temples, the Sthānikas may be compared to the kōyilkeḷvis for whom see 880 of 1912 dated Śaka 1437 (A.D. 1515-16) ↩︎
Butterworth-Chetty, Nellore Ins., III, p. 1045. These editors always wrongly translate Sthānādhipatis as temple servants. Rangacharya copies this blunder. Ibid, III, pp. 1991 and passim. Obviously these writers must have been led to commit this mistake by the erroneous nature of the interpretation of the word Sthānika given in Government Publications to which reference will be made at the end of this paper.—B.A.S. ↩︎
Butterworth-Chetty, Nellore Inscriptions, II, p. 926. The editors wrongly interpret Mahājanas as elders.—B. A. S. ↩︎
Ibid, III, p. 1059. ↩︎
Ibid, III, pp. 1009, 1030, 1046, 1047, 1082, 1083, 1148, 1157, 1163, 1168, & 1323, ↩︎
E. C. IV. Kr. 70, p. 110. This sale deed is repeated elsewhere. E. C. III. Ml. 83, p. 64. ↩︎
E. C. XII. Si. 34, p. 94. ↩︎
Ibid, IV. Yl. 56, p. 32. ↩︎
Ibid, Ng. 106, p. 141. The Sthānācārya of the south may be compared with the Sthānāntarika mentioned as an officer in one of the Orissan inscriptions. E. I. XV. p. 2. ↩︎
E. I. I. pp. 378, 383, 386, 392, 393. ↩︎
Burgess-Indraji, Cave Temples of Western India, p. 68. ↩︎
E. C. X. Mb. 93, p. 99. ↩︎
Ibid, Int. p. xxii, Mb. 91, p. 99. ↩︎
Ibid, VII. Sh. 10, p. 12. ↩︎
E. C. XI. Dg. 90, p. 67. ↩︎
Ibid, VIII. Sb. 384, p. 68. ↩︎
Ibid, V. Bl, 139, p. 92. ↩︎
E. I., VIII. pp. 132-136. ↩︎
E. C. II. No. 257, p.116. ↩︎
Mysore Archaeological Report for 1912, p. 68. ↩︎
Ibid, Bl. 58, p. 58. ↩︎
Ibid, Ak, 52, p. 129. For other examples, see E. I. VI. pp. 93, 135 and ibid, n. ↩︎
E. C. V., Ak. 49, p. 128, ↩︎
Ibid, X. Kl. 81, pp. 22-23. ↩︎
Kauṭalya, op. cit., p. 46. ↩︎
E. C., IX. Bn. 123, p. 24. ↩︎
Ibid, IV. Gu, 4, p. 36. ↩︎
In view of this clear evidence it seems that Mr. H. Vasudeva Rao’s contention that the Sthānikas are, and have been, Brahmans, is quite correct, Read Rāṣṭrabandhu of July 16th 1928, p. 11 (Mangalore) ↩︎
E.C. XI. Cl. 34, p. 101, text, pp. 277-278. ↩︎
M. A. R. for 1909, p. 25. ↩︎
M. A. R. for 1927, p. 90; E. C. X. Mb. 94 & Mb. 264 both dated circa A. D. 970, pp. 100, 133; M.A.R. for 1923, p. 54. ↩︎
E. C. X. Mb. 91 dated A.D. 1007; Mb. 93 dated circa A.D. 970, p. 99; M.A.R. for 1923, p. 54; ibid, for 1927, pp. 91, 92. ↩︎
E.C.X. Mb. 65, p. 95. ↩︎
M.A.R. for 1927, p. 89. ↩︎
E.C. VIII. Sb. 276, p. 47. ↩︎
E. C. VIII. Sb. 262, p. 42. ↩︎
M. A. R. for 1927, pp. 147-148. ↩︎
E. C. VIII. Sb. 49, p. 9. ↩︎
Ibid. VI. Cm. 144, p. 55. ↩︎
E. C. III. Ml. 60, p. 62. ↩︎
Ibid, III. Ml. 57, p. 62. ↩︎
Ep. Rep. of the S. Circle for 1923, p. 107. ↩︎
M. A. R. for 1934, pp. 80, 82. ↩︎
E. C. V. Ak. 119, p. 165. ↩︎
Ibid, XI. Dg. 84, p. 67. ↩︎
Ibid, XI. Dg. 86, p. 68. These three inscriptions Ak. 119, Dg. 84, and Dg. 86 are referred to by Dr. Krishna. M. A. R. for 1934. p. 83. ↩︎
E. C. III. Ml. 54, p. 61. ↩︎
Ibid, VII. Sk. 105, p. 77. ↩︎
Ibid, Hn. 108, p. 177. ↩︎
E. C. VIII, Sb. 391, pp. 70-71. ↩︎
E. C. VIII. Sb. 275, p. 46. ↩︎
49 of 1913; Rangacharya, Top List III., p. 1525. An inscription in the Śaṅkaranāyinārkōyil in the tāluka of the same name (Tinnevely district) affirms that a gift of land was made to the Sthānikas of the temple by the ruler Vikramapāṇḍya in his sixth regnal year. Rangacharya, ibid, III. p. 1476.) The date of this record cannot be determined. ↩︎
E. C. V. Ak. 11-13, p. 116. See also Ak. 10, p. 115. ↩︎
E. C. VI. Ak. 53, pp. 253-254. ↩︎
E. C. V. Ak. 108, pp. 158-159. ↩︎
E. C. IV. Hg. 10, p. 66. ↩︎
Ibid, VI. Tk. 48, p. 103. ↩︎
Ibid, IV. Hg. 102, p. 79. ↩︎
E. C. IV. Kr. 12, p. 102. ↩︎
Ibid, VII. Ci. 21, pp. 181–182. ↩︎
E. C. XII. Tp. 12, pp. 44-45. ↩︎
M. A. R. for 1911, p. 49. ↩︎
E. C. XI. Hk. 122, p. 134. ↩︎
M. A. R. for 1911, p. 48. ↩︎
E. C. IX. Bn. 100, p. 20. ↩︎
M. A. R. for 1914-1915, p. 56. ↩︎
E. C. III. Nj. 180, p. 113. In about A. D. 1280 Tiruvalar is called the Sthānapati of the temple of Vidyeśvara. Ibid, TN. 12, p. 70. ↩︎
Ibid, IX. Kn. 76, p. 130. ↩︎
Ibid, III. Ml. 99, 104, p. 66. ↩︎
Ibid, Ml. 109, p. 67. ↩︎
57 of 1901; South Indian Inscriptions, VII. p. 231. ↩︎
E. C. XI. Cd. 4, p. 3. ↩︎
Ibid, X. Mr. 7, p. 157. ↩︎
Ibid, Mr. 8, pp. 157-158. ↩︎
E. C. XI, Ca. 55, p. 14. ↩︎
Ibid, VIII. Nr. 34, p. 133. There is a record assigned to A.D. 1371 and found in the Sōmeśvara temple at Gaṅgavara, Dēvanahaḷḷi tāluka, Mysore State, which seems to register some regulations pertaining to the different castes and even to the ruler of the Nallūr nāḍ himself! These regulations were caused to be written by the three Sthānikas (not named) of the same Sōmeśvara temple. But the sense of the inscription is by no means clear. Ibid, IX. Dv. 73, p. 83. ↩︎
Ibid, III. Ml. 122. p. 68. ↩︎
M. A. R. for 1920, pp. 34-35. ↩︎
M. A. R. for 1920, p. 35. ↩︎
E. C. III. Ml. 107, p. 67. ↩︎
M. A. R. for 1920, p. 35. ↩︎
E. C. VII. Sh. 69, p. 27. ↩︎
Ibid, X. Mr. 17, p. 160. ↩︎
E. C. X. Mr. 21, p. 161. ↩︎
Ibid, IX. Bn. 67, p. 14. ↩︎
Ibid, Bn. 66, p. 14. ↩︎
E. C. X. Kl. 39, p. 9. ↩︎
M. A. R. for 1920, p. 35. ↩︎
E. C. X. Kl. 113, p. 44. ↩︎
Saletore, Social & Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire, I, pp. 2, seq. ↩︎
Saletore, ibid, I. p. 14. ↩︎
E. C. IX. Bn. 51, p. 11. On its date, See ibid page, n. (2) ↩︎
Ibid, Bn. 65, p. 14. ↩︎
Ibid. Nl. 38, p. 35. ↩︎
E. C, X, Mr. 100, pp. 176-77. ↩︎
Ibid, Mr, 71, pp. 170-71. ↩︎
Ibid, CB. 20, pp. 201-202. See ibid, p. n. (1) for a remark on the date of this record. ↩︎
M.A.R. for 1911, p. 50, ↩︎
154 B. of 1901; S. I. I., VII. 346, p. 206. ↩︎
87 of 1901; S. I. I. VII, 267, p. 137. ↩︎
Butterworth-Chetty, Nellore Inscriptions, II. p. 608. ↩︎
E. C. VII. Sh. 30, pp. 15-16. ↩︎
Ibid, VIII. Tl. 175., p. 199. ↩︎
Ibid, X. Kl. 36, p. 9 ↩︎
Ibid, XII. Gb. 30, p. 23. ↩︎
For further details, refer to Ep. Rep. S. Circle for 1915, pp. 94-95, ↩︎
166 of 1913; Rangacharya, Top List, II, p. 967. ↩︎
27 E. of 1901; S. I. I. VII. 194, p. 88. ↩︎
E. C. X. Mb. 131, p. 109. ↩︎
E. C. X. Mb. 7, pp. 72-73. ↩︎
E. C. X. Kl. 15, p. 4. ↩︎
E. C. X. Mb. 172, p. 116. ↩︎
Ibid, IV. Hs. 27, p. 86. ↩︎
E. C. X. Kl. 94, p. 29 the text clearly says Duli-nīḍi varāṇiyara maga, etc. Now both Nīḍivarāṇī and Mālidevīrāṇī were princesses. How the latter could be termed maga (son) is not intelligible, except on the supposition that Mālidevī Rāṇī assumed the dignity of a male ruler as queen Rudrāmba had done in the Telugu country. As regards exemptions, cf. Kl. 100, p. 30 where the Nambis seem to get a similar privilege. ↩︎
M. A. R. for 1933, pp. 268-269. Dr. Krishna takes the name Rāyade Sōmeyade Kētade to be the name of one person. (Ibid, p. 269) But it is doubtful if this were so ; for the plural ending yivara maṇṇugoḷa, etc., suggests that the names belonged to three different persons. Dr. Krishna also makes. Guḍḍayanna and others donees. I would make them donors. Otherwise the record makes no sense, and we cannot understand the significance of the statement purabōvagaḷuṁ…… mānyaveṁdu koṭṭu.—B. A. S. ↩︎
E. C. XII. Kg. 18, p. 35. ↩︎
E. C. X. Bp. 19, p. 139. ↩︎
Ibid, Kl. 34, p. 8. ↩︎
E. C. X. Ct. 134, p. 268. ↩︎
Ibid, Mr. 46, p. 167. ↩︎
M. A. R. for 1912-1913, p. 48. ↩︎
E. C. V. Hn. 115, p. 33. ↩︎
E. C. IV. Ch. 140, p. 19. ↩︎
M. A. R. for 1924, p. 60. ↩︎
M. A. R. for 1935, p. 82. An undated and damaged record found in the Rāmeśvara temple of Heggōṭha, Bēdapura, Cāmarājanagara tāluka, registers a gift of land to the Sthānika Niṅgayya of the temple of Rāmeśvara. E.C. IV. Ch. 106, text, p. 40. ↩︎
E. C. X. Mb. 173, p. 117. ↩︎
Butterworth-Chetty, Nellore Inscriptions, III. p. 1157. ↩︎
M. A. R. for 1912-1913, p. 48. ↩︎
E. C. IX. Ht. 35, p. 91. ↩︎
449 of 1913; Rangacharya, Top List, II, pp. 1205-1206. ↩︎
Saletore. Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire, I, p. 367. Seq. ↩︎
Saletore S. P. Life, I. pp. 375-376. ↩︎
E. C. X. Mb. 153, p. 110. ↩︎
E. C. IV. ch. 99, pp. 13-4. ↩︎
M. A. R. for 1920, p. 37. ↩︎
On this renowned personage, read Saletore, S. P. Life, I. pp. 260-1, 263, 450 n. (i) II. 5, 126, 142, 226, 267 (n). ↩︎
183 of 1913; Rangacharya, Top List, I, p. 9. ↩︎
E. C. IX. Cp. 53, p. 143. ↩︎
E. C. IX. Ht, 1 p. 88. It is said that the Sthānikas of the Guṇḍa Brahmayya temple (at ?) were Goḷḷa Sthānikas. Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society, XX, Suppl. p 4 ( 1929, Oct.) ↩︎
E. C. IX, Ma. 25, p. 54 ↩︎
Butterworth-Chetty, Nellore Inscriptions, I. p. 229. ↩︎
Ep. Rep. S. Circle for 1907 p. 63. ↩︎
E. C., X. Mb. 115, p. 106. ↩︎
Ibid, V. Bl. 6, p. 46. ↩︎
E. C. II. 352, pp. 155-156. ↩︎
E. C. II. 250, p. 106. ↩︎
Ibid, IX. Ma. 2, p. 50. ↩︎
Read Saletore, S. P. Life, I, p. 142. ↩︎
M. A. R. for 1918, p. 59, on the degradation of the Sānis, read Ep. Rep. S. Circle for 1921, p. 92. ↩︎
In the light of the irrefutable evidence of the above documents, assertions like the following made in the Government District Gazetteers may be summarily dismissed as unhistorical. “The Sthānikas are said to be the descendants of Brahmins by Brahmin widows and outcaste Brahmin women corresponding with Manu’s golaka. They however now claim to be Śaiva Brahmins forcibly dispossessed of authority by the Mādhvas, and state that the name Sthānika is not that of a separate caste, but indcates their profession as managers of temples, with the title of Deva Sthānika. This claim is not generally conceded and as a matter of fact the duties in which the Sthānikas are employed are clearly those of temple servants, namely, collecting flowers, sweeping of the interior of temples, looking after the lamps, cleaning the temple vessels, ringing the bells, and the like. They are generally Śaivites and wear the sacred thread. Their special deities are Veṅkaṭaramaṇa and Gaṇapati. (Sturrock, South Canara Manual, I. p. 154. Cf. Thruston, Castes and Tribes of Southern India, under Sthānika, Māja, Māli, etc. where equally absurd statements are made.)
I do not know whether the earlier part of the above statements, which forms a libel on a body of officials that has had a brilliant record of public service behind it, has been rectified in the long-promised revised edition of the South Canara Gazetteer to which I have myself contributed a chapter on the political history of South Kanara. It is highly desirable that Government, when compiling historical or [[P92]] quasi-historical accounts of communities, should entrust the work to capable and unbiassed scholars and not to officials who, whatever their ability as Government servants, are not qualified to pass judgment on the antiquity and importance of communities.
Sturrock seems to imply that the claim put forward by the Sthānikas over temples is imaginary, and that they were not dispossessed of their rights by the Vaiṣṇavites. Sturrock’s work refers itself to the South Kanara district; and it is best to examine his statement in the light of the religious history of that district.
The truth seems to be that the Sthānikas, at least so far as South Kanara is concerned, were, indeed, forcibly dispossessed of their rights and even of their temples by their religious rivals, who were mostly the followers of the great Mādhva. From my personal investigations in Tuḷuva conducted in the Uḍipi tāluka between the years 1922 and 1925, I am able to give the following details which indicate the priority of the claims of the Sthānikas over those of the Vaiṣṇavites, in the matter of the control over temples. That a change in the possession of temples did not take place peacefully but was characterized by force is evident when we notice one singular point concerning the images in temples. Most of the images of the temples which once belonged to the Sthānikas are now either mutilated or thrown near the precints of temples which have passed into the custody of the Vaiṣṇavites. (This could never have been the work of Muhammadans, since the South Kanara district never suffered from the depradations of the followers of Islam, not even during the reign of Tipu Sultan.) A few examples may suffice to illustrate this point. In Malpe, which has the other name of Kroḍagrāma, the original image of Mallikārjuna has been thrown into the tank near the temple, and the image of Śaṅkaranārāyaṇa now is seen in the same temple. The famous Ananteśvara temple of Uḍipi proper was another stronghold of the Sthānikas. I have elsewhere shown that there is much proof to maintain that the Ananteśvara temple was originally a Śaivite stronghold (Ancient Karnataka, Volume I. p. 449, n. 2.) The Ananteśvara temple, we may note by the way, bears strong resemblance to the famous Sōmaliṅga temple at Niṭṭūru, also in the Uḍipi tāluka. And the Niṭṭūru Sōmaliṅga temple itself is another example of forcible dispossession. For the Sōmaliṅgeśvara image of the Niṭṭūru has been thrown out, and an image of Venkaṭramaṇa installed in its place. In Udayāvara, the ancient capital of the Ālupas the image of Mahādeva was thrown out in order to give room to the image of Gaṇapati. And this latter god has replaced Īśvara also at Uppūru in the same Uḍipi tāluka. I here abstain from citing the example of at least twenty maṭhas. in the neighbourhood of the town of Uḍipi, which were originally owned by the Sthānikas but which have now passed into the hands of the Vaiṣṇavites. In addition to the above examples of temples which had originally belonged to the Sthānikas, we may give a few more [[P93]] centres of theirs which have now become the property of the Vaiṣṇavites. These are the Triśūleśvara and Sarabheśvara temples at Mangalore, the Someśvara temple at Ullāḷa. the famous Subrahmaṇya temple at Subrahmaṇya, and the temple at Kabbināre, at Hēbri.
The enmity between the Sthānikas and the Mādhvas seems to have come to a head, according to tradition that is available. at Uḍipi, in the time of the famous guru Vādirāja (A.D. 1614). It centred round the question of building the famous Kṛṣṇa maṭha and the tank near it. The land on which the Kṛṣṇa maṭha stands and on which the tank was constructed, belonged to the Sthānikas. Indeed, the Sthānikas claim that the land on which the eight maṭhas of Uḍipi were built, formed the property of the Sthānikas whose most powerful spokesmen then were the Niṭṭūru people. It is interesting to note in this connection that in this quarrel between the Mādhvas led by the redoubtable Vādirāja on the one hand, and the Niṭṭūru people on the other, the Pañcamas (or the Harijans, as we now would call them) took the side of the Niṭṭūru people against the orthodox sections. And when the Vaiṣṇavites who had installed the Veṅkaṭaramaṇa image in the place of Sōmaliṅgeśvara at Niṭṭūru, jeered at the latter deity thus in Tuḷu—Niṭṭūru Sōmaliṅga bōna Taṅkara tañjana Taṅkara, the Pañcamas retorted with an equally poignant line in Tuḷu, thus—Ciṭṭupāḍi Ballāḷera bente koryerō Niḍambūru Ballāḷera diḍambu gudverō, obviously against the Ciṭṭupāḍi and the Niḍambūru Ballāḷs who had espoused the cause of the Mādhva guru. The success of Vaiṣṇavites, who were numerically superior, over the Niṭṭūru people was complete. These latter had now really no chance against the former, for these were the days of the supremacy of the Vaiṣṇavites all over southern India and Karnataka. Indeed, the Emperors of Vijayanagara themselves were now Vaiṣṇavites by persuasion. And there was no one who could espouse the cause of the Niṭṭūru people. If this tradition of the great quarrel between the Niṭṭūru people and the Mādhvas, which is current in Tuḷuva, is substantiated by other evidence, the downfall of the Sthānikas in Tuḷuva could be dated to the first quarter of the seventeenth century A.D., when Vādirāja’s powerful influence undoubtedly reigned supreme in Tuḷuva.
That the Vaiṣṇavites in Tuḷuva now own temples which were the property of the Sthānikas there can be no doubt. Nor should we be surprised at it: some of the temples which were for a long time under the Śaivites, seem to have been once Buddhist places of worship, as I have shown elsewhere (Ancient Karnataka I. pp. 379, n. 1, 384.) I have also shown in another work of mine that many of the temples which are in the possesion of the Hindus were once Jaina holy places. (Read my Medieval Jainism, Chs. II, III., and V.)—B. A. S. ↩︎