Page:A Handbook of Indian Art.djvu/159

Rh have many ideas in common. Both adhered to the doctrine of the Trimūrti, the Hindu Trinity. Siva to the Saivas was Brahmā, Vishnu, and Siva. Vishnu to the Vaishnavas was the same. It is therefore very usual to find an image of Vishnu in a temple of the Saiva type and vice versa. Though the victorious warlord built his royal chapel in honour of the deity he worshipped, the design of the temple-builders reflected the religious movements of the times, rather than the fortunes of rival dynasties. One might therefore expect that the attempts made by religious reformers to reconcile points of controversy would find expression in the development of temple architecture. The early Vaishnava movement in Northern India is recorded architecturally in the sikharas of the so-called "Indo-Aryan style," and the early Saiva movement in Southern India is the stūpa-tower of the "Dravidian style." Similarly the Vaishnava movement of mediæval times, of which Rāmanūja was the most prominent exponent, left its mark upon the temple architecture of the Dekhan and Southern India, which were the chief fields of his mission. The "Chalukyan" is a style in which the symbolism of the sikhara and stūpa are joined in one temple tower. The stūpa-dome of the Dravidian type crowns it, often carved as if to simulate the lotus-fruit cup which distinguishes the sikhara temple spire. The tower itself resembles the Vaishnava sikhara—the "bell" of the lotus with turned-down petals. It seems that the builders would make the temple stones declare that Siva is Vishnu and Vishnu Siva. In the temple plan also the trefoil form of the holy of holies emphasised the doctrine of the Three Aspects of the One.

The other characteristics of the style specified by Fergusson are mere variations in technique dictated