ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS ARTICLE 7(23), July - September, 2017

ISSN
2320–6659
EISSN
2320–687X Indian Journal of Arts

Art of Kalcurīs with special reference to

Maharashtra region
Saurabh Pal

Research Scholar, Department of History of Art, National Museum Institute of History of Art, Conservation and Museology, National
Museum, Janpath, New Delhi 110011, India

Article History
Received: 28 May 2017
Accepted: 06 July 2017
Published: July-September 2017

Citation
Saurabh Pal. Art of Kalcurīs with special reference to Maharashtra region. Indian journal of arts, 2017, 7(23), 175-184

Publication License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

General Note
Article is recommended to print as color digital version in recycled paper.

ABSTRACT
Cave art has always been evident in the ancient history of India. Widely it is attributed to Buddhism and Jainism but there are few
which are Hindu caves and in them Ellorā and Elephantā are two. These caves are attributed to the Cālukyas but two caves in Ellorā
and sculptures at Elephantā are not the outcome of Cālukyas. According to some eminent scholars these are the art pieces of
Kalcurīs of Mahiśmati who ruled in Khaṇdeśa region from 535 CE to 610 CE till Pulakesina II Cālukyan king defeated Kalcurīs and
drove Buddharāja to the northern valley of Narmada. Among such art settlements of Kalcurīs of Mahiśmati, cave of Jogeśvarī is one.
This cave is seldom discussed by the scholars but its art suggests the formative period of the art of Cālukyans and early medieval
period. Art of Kalcurīs of Mahiśmati was initiated in Jogeśvarī, developed in Maṇḍapeśvara, established in Elephantā and finallly
matured at Ellorā in Rameśvara (cave 22) and Dhūmārlenā (cave29). (Mishra, 1987, p 68)This art style which was conceived by
Kalcurīs was continued by Cālukyas and later developed as their style. The study is focused on the art of the cave of Jogeśvarī and
175

Maṇḍapeśvara, Elephantā and Ellorā (Rameśvara and Dhūmārlenā).

Page

Keywords: Mahiśmati, Jogeśvarī, Maṇḍapeśvara, Rāmeśvara, Dhūmārlenā, Elephantā, Ellorā.

© 2017 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.com OPEN ACCESS

 ANALYSIS ARTICLE

1. INTRODUCTION
The Kalcurī were descendents of moon, Chan̊ dravansīs the son of Kārtavīrya who vanquished Rāvaṇa (Sharma, 1980, p.1). They
i
established their stronghold in the region of Khaṇdeśa and then Bhagelkh and in Central India. Their rule lasted for over 400 years.
Kalcurīs of Mahiśmati ruled the Khaṇdeśa region in the Deccan from 535 CE to 610 CE. When Pulakesina, the Cālukyan king
displaced Buddharāja, the Kalcurī king, they (Kalcurīs) were forced to transfer their seat of power to the Central part of the country
and established their capital at Tripurī (Sharma, 1980, p.3).
The lineage of Kalcurīs of Mahiśmati starts with Kr̥s̥narāja. He ruled for almost twenty five years probably from c. 535 CE. ‘By the
th
mid of the 6 Century CE they were settled in Western Malawā (around Tripurī) ((Mishra, 1987, p.6). Kr̥s̥narāja was succeeded by his
ii
son Śan̊karagaṇa and both are credited for the extension of their boundaries. On the basis of acquisition of the ‘Kr̥s̥narāja Rūpaka’
it is assumed that their kingdom was extended in the region of Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Gujarat. Same has also been acquired
from Elephantā hence this art center was also under them. In two out of four copper plate inscriptions pertaining to Śan̊karagaṇa of
Kalcurī dynasty, which were issued from Ujjayanī he is referred as master of a region extending from Eastern to the Western ocean
and of other lands. The Sand Sanhedā plate indicates that the central portion of Gujarat was under their control.’(Mishra, 1987, p.6-
7) Śan̊karagaṇa was succeed by Buddharāja and according to inscriptional data Man̊͘galeśa, Cālukyan king defeated Buddharāja in
602 CE but even after that his hold was prevalent in the other parts of his territory till in 610 CE. Pulakesina II successfully drove him
iii
from Maharashtra and Konkan region.
The Kalcurīs were ardent devotees of Śiva so Śaiva theme dominates in their art. The artistic traditions of the Pratihāras,
Paramāras and Vakaṭakas exerted profound influence on the art of the Kalcurīs. They adopted the pluralistic artistic strands of the
aforementioned dynasties and transformed them according to their own aesthetic sensibilities. Their art was informed by variety and
artistic pluralism can also be seen with the change in art centers. The art of the Kalcurīs was the transformation of the earlier idiom
of the Vakaṭakas.( (Mishra, 1987, p.67). It was initiated in the caves of Jogeśvarī, developed in Maṇḍapeśvara, established at
Elephantā and finally matured at Ellorā in Rameśvara (cave 22) and Dhūmārlenā (cave 29), (Mishra, 1987, p.68). The mature artistic
style of the Kalcurīs was followed by the Cālukyas and later became their style. The Kalcurī style, therefore, “soon spread in the
Deccan to influence Cālukyan art centers at Bādāmī and other places” (Mishra, 1987, p.68).
The cave of Rameśvara, Ellorā is also attributed to the Kalcurīs before the acquisition of their kingdom by the early Cālukyas,
th th
proved by the Kalcurī coins and inscribed signet ring with the characters ascribable to the end of the 5 and 6 Century CE
(Soundararajan, 1981, p.19). The early stage of the Kalcurī art is depicted in the Khaṇdeśa region including the caves of Jogeśvarī,
Maṇḍapeśvara, Ellorā and Elephantā.. Likewise, it is accepted that the Cave of Elephantā was constructed by the king Kr̥s̥narāja of the
th
Kalcurī dynasty in the mid 6 Century CE. Widely of Elephantā and Ellorā caves are attributed to Cālukyas and Rāṣtrakūṭas but
according to new studies Cave of Elephantā, Rameśvara and Dhūmārlenā at Ellorā were constructed by the Kalcurīs. Elephanta was
th
constructed by Kr̥s̥narāja in the mid 6 Century is generally accepted (Berkon, 1983, p.5). In addition a pluralistic approach in the
scultural depiction is visible in Elephantā. According to some scholars Maheśamūrti, dancing Śiva and Ardhanārīśvara is the outcome
of Rāṣtrakūṭas rest other sculptures are by Cālukyas. It is better to accept that these sculptures are the outcome of early Kalcurīs
whose style was adopted by Cālukyas and somewhat it also influenced the style of Rāṣtrakūṭas. Artistic pluralism was always evident
in the art of Kalcurīs since beginning which continued even after when they shifted to the Central India.

2. METHODOLOGY
Study of secondary sources has been done followed by translations of primary texts. Field visits to the caves of Jogeśvarī,
Maṇḍapeśvara, Elephantā, Rameśvara and Dhūmārlenā at Ellorā has been done to collect the data. Sculptures and architectural
details have been seen and photographs have been taken for references. Collected data has been observed, reduced and then
interpreted. For the interpretation of sculptures iconographical details have been studied followed by a comparative study to trace
the development in the art and style.

3. RESULT
Art of the early Kalcurīs shows variety of pluralism in architecture and sculpture as well. With refrence to the sculptural art Jogeśvarī
176

is the initaial phase and Ellorā is matured though there are variety of transformation in between from Jogeśvarī to Ellorā.
Architectural wise cave temple of Jogeśvarī appears like a Bramhanical cave while Maṇḍapeśvara a like a Buddhist cave. There may
Page

be the existence of different art schools because the style shown in the caves of Ellorā are different from each other. Because they

© 2017 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.com OPEN ACCESS

 ANALYSIS ARTICLE

were the devotees of Śiva so śaiva themes dominated in there temples. It is also proved by the titles of the kings and their names
which are all related to Śiva.

Pl. 1 Outer wall of the mandapa of Jogeshwari cave, c. 6th-7th Century CE. Jogeshwari, Mumbai.© Archaeological Survey of India

Pl. 2 Frieze, individual panels from left- Kalyansundar, Lakulisha and Aksharkrida, c. 6th-7th Century CE. Jogeshwari,
Mumbai.© Archaeological Survey of India

4. DISCUSSION
177

Architectural art
Cave of Jogeśvarī is located in the main town of Mumbai. As said the art of early Kalcurīs was initiated in Jogeśvarī and developed in
Page

Maṇḍapeśvara, considering the architecture of Jogeśvarī it is well planned and executed. It is similar to the plan of any bramhanical
temple having mukhamandapa, mandapa and garbhagriha. Cave faces east but at present it is open for public from its west side.

© 2017 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.com OPEN ACCESS

 ANALYSIS ARTICLE

Similar with Maṇḍapeśvara, faces east but its architecture is very different. Cave of Maṇḍapeśvara is located in Borivali, Mumbai. It
appears incomplete in its structure and Buddhist in nature. Unlike Jogeśvarī it is not dug out. It is open and wide at front. This cave is
considered among large sized maṇḍapa caves. South part of the architecture appears Buddhist in nature. Later additions were made
during the brief rule of Portuguese when it was temporarily converted into the church. Both these caves are supported by rūcaka
pillars of specific designs. At Jogeśvarī the pillars are plain but at Maṇḍapeśvara pilasters are introduced as an architectural element
which suggest the developed phase of their art. These pilasters are also carved with specific designs and small figures. At Jogeśvarī
pilasters are fused with the design it looks as a decorative element. Looking as whole Maṇḍapeśvara is incomplete but its design
plan is developed as compared to Jogeśvarī. Elephanata is the modified version of Maṇḍapeśvara . Maṇḍapeśvara is small but
Elephantā is on large scale but its simple. On other side Ellorā is more structured. It is not as grand as Elephantā but intricate details
on the corners etc make it the matured phase of their art. Colossal door guardians are depicted in the Jogeśvarī cave while in
Maṇḍapeśvara their size is decreased. Though the cave is grand but guardians’ size is decreased. At Elephantā everything is grand so
the guardians, which suit the whole setting. Ellorā is different at this instead of placing colossal guardians everywhere with the
architecture other figures are also introduced. In Dhūmārlenā at Ellorā door guardians are represented while at Rāmeśvara sundarīs
are shown that too not as guardians but on the corner brackets.

Pl. 3 Dancing Shiv, c. 6th-7th Century CE. Mandapeahwar, Mumbai. © Archaeological Survey of India

Sculptural art
178

Early stage: Rāvaṇānugraha mūrti, Dancing Śiva, Kalyāṇasundara, Umāmaheśvara, Mahisāsuramardinī Gaṇeṣa, Saptamātrikā,
Kārtikeya etc. are represented in the cave of Jogeśvarī. On the outer wall of the maṇḍapa a frieze has been sculpted in three columns
Page

iv
having Lakulīśa in the center flanked with Kalyāṇasundara (marriage of Śiva and Pārvatī) and Akṣarakrīḍā (Pl. 1 and Pl.2). In the

© 2017 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.com OPEN ACCESS

 ANALYSIS ARTICLE
v
Kalyāṇasundara mūrti, Pārvatī is standing to the right of Śiva which suggests that pāṇigrahaṇa sanskāra has not been completed
yet. Brahmā, depicted as four-faced, is seated adjacent to Pārvatī in the garb of a priest. Viṣṇu is depicted as standing towards Śiva.
Śiva is four-armed as usual and Pārvatī is depicted with two arms. The composition is very simple with limited figures, which fill the
whole area.

Pl. 4 Kalyansundar panel, c. 6th-7th Century CE., Elephanta, Mumbai. © Archaeological Survey of India

On the left side of the panel Śiva and Pārvatī are represented playing causara. Śiva is represented on the left side of the
composition while Pārvatī is on the right. Half of the left area of the composition is dominated by Śiva alone. On the right, Pārvatī is
shown with other figures. She is sitting and sulking, spurning Siva’s efforts to pacify her. Śiva’s matted-locks and trident are clearly
visible. In the Lakulīśa panel at the center Śiva is represented in a parabola, occupying the central space with his four disciples. This
parabolic shape has got floral decoration and the shape is flanked with other retinue. In all these sculptures, the composition is
simple; figures are dwarfish with limited ornamentation. They have broad shoulders and are heavily built. Female figures are
vi
voluptuous represented with antarīya . The figures in this composition appear static. Iconographic norms are followed but have not
been evoked emphatically.
“After Jogeśvarī a new idiom came to fill the negative space of the composition with larger and less volatile figures of divine and
semi divine beings.”(Mishra, 1987, p.67) The Dancing Śiva panel at Maṇḍapeśvara suggests a more evolved version of the sculptural
art of Jogeśvarī. The composition is divided into four quarters and central space is occupied by Dancing Śiva. In the lower left corner,
179

three ladies are shown standing, among whom, the middle one seems to be an important personage as her left arm is resting on the
figure on her left and she is partially supported by the figure on her right. This could be Pārvatī who is shown as two-armed. In the
Page

left upper quarter, four-armed Viṣṇu is shown on Garūda with his usual attributes. In the same quarter, flying celestial beings are
also shown in perspective.
© 2017 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.com OPEN ACCESS
 ANALYSIS ARTICLE

180
Page

Pl. 5 Ravananugraha murti, c. 6th-7th Century CE. Elephanta, Mumbai. © Archaeological Survey of India

© 2017 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.com OPEN ACCESS

 ANALYSIS ARTICLE

To the right quadrant, a four-faced and two-armed image of Bramhā is shown. Below him, Gaṇeśa, flanked with gaṇas (dwarfs), is
also depicted. In the lower right quarter, a figure is shown playing the drums. This figure appears larger than the others, which
suggests a sense of perspective in the composition. Śiva in the center is eight-armed with a halo. On the basis of his posture it can
vii
be assumed that his feet are in lalita or catura mode of Tāṇḍava which is suggestive to Sandhyā Tāṇḍava. A dancing figure can be
seen near his left foot. This figure may be Bhr̥ngī imitating Śiva (Pl. 3).

Matured phase: Sculptures from Elephantā show stability and a new kind of convention in their composition. The linear and
rectangular composition changes to a circular one at Elephantā. Three dimensional quality and the expressions have achieved a
stable state. Faces are oval with broad shoulders and columnar feet. Though the sculptures are colossal in size, they still look serene
and beautiful. In the Kalyāṇasundara panel, the divine couple is shown in the centre. The figures on the lower portion are rendered
larger in size. As the gaze travels to the upper part of the composition, the figures appear smaller in size. The placement of these
subsidiary figures is such that they move towards the central figures (Pl. 4). This circular eye movement balances the composition at
the center which was new convention at that time. The same can also be seen in the panel of Rāvaṇānugraha mūrti. Rāvaṇa is shown
as multi-armed occupying the lower space. Śiva and Pārvatī are seated above Rāvaṇa (Pl. 5).
Ellorā

Pl. 6 Dancing Shiv, c. 6th-7th Century CE. Dhumarlena, Ellora. © Archaeological Survey of India

“Rameśvara is likely to be the oldest Bramhanical cave at Ellorā.”(Soundararajan, 1981, p.19) The Kalyāṇasundara panel at
Dhūmārlenā is very different to Elephantā in terms of both composition and style. The hovering composition, which suggests a
centripetal force pushing everything to the centre, has changed into a linear plane. The main figures occupy the central space
vertically while the space on either side is divided into two horizontal planes. To the right side of the composition (towards Śiva)
181

Bramhā is shown seated offering oblations and performing ritual fire sacrifices. On the left side, adjacent to Pārvatī, a couple is
depicted who could probably be Pārvatī’s parents. But due to the presence of nimbus and kirīṭa mukuṭa, they may be identified as
Page

Viṣṇu and Śr̥īdevī. ‘In the whole composition, Viṣṇu is not identified and his presence should be there as per the iconography hence
it is accepted that this couple is Viṣṇu and Śr̥īdevī.’(Soundararajan, 1981, p.19) (Pl.6). To balance the composition, the artist has
© 2017 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.com OPEN ACCESS
 ANALYSIS ARTICLE

placed a male figure, probably a guardian, corresponding Brahmā. These figures on either side are half of the size of main figure. In
the upper panels on either side semi- divine beings are depicted which are much smaller in size, thereby suggesting a sense of
lightness. At the base, composition is heavy and moving upwards it is light that gives stability to the composition. Same can also be
seen in the other panel of Śiva and Pārvatī playing causara. Here Śiva and Pārvatī, seated, occupy the central space. If the
composition is divided horizontally into two planes then the couple is represented in the upper plane occupying the center space,
flanked with guardians. In the same plane, semi divine beings are also shown smaller in size, who balances the composition. To put
weight on the lower part, the artist has depicted the figure of standing Naṇdi which covers the space exactly the divine couple holds.
Naṇdi is flanked with Bramhā and Viṣṇu who are almost the size of guardians. There are figurines to fill up the space and also to
balance the semi divine figures at the top. (Pl.7) Furthermore Kalcurī caves at Ellorā, both Rameśvara and Dhūmārlenā have similar
compositions but differ in style. For instance, Dancing Śiva panel at Rameśvara is entirely different in style. The composition is similar
but the three dimensional quality, ornamentation etc are different. The iconography corresponds with the description of Sandhyā
Tāṇḍava. Pārvatī is seated and Śiva is dancing to amuse her. The figure of Bhr̥ngī is also shown dancing behind the legs of Śiva, also
overlapping his legs at some places. The ornamentation is entirely different from Dhūmārlenā. The neck ornament is elaborate, has
got more tassels and danglers whereas in Dhūmārlenā it was represented simply by twisted pearl strings or a can̊ drahāra. The static
feet and frozen expressions have turned fluid, lyrical and communicative at Rameśvara. (Pl.8).

Pl. 7 Game of dice, c. 6th-7th Century CE. Dhumarlena, Ellora. © Archaeological Survey of India

5. CONCLUSION
Jogeśvarī marks the inauguration of the art of the early Kalcurī period, but it is not so imposing in terms of sculptural depiction.
182

Pillars are simple and pilasters carved out are for decorative purpose and sculptures too. Though there are few exceptions like the
colossal door guardians. Apart from them, sculptures are small and depicted on the lintels. Sculpted panels of Mahisāsuramardinī,
Page

Dakṣa and even Saptamātr̥ikās are not big as compared to other places. Maṇḍapeśvara is more evolved in terms of sculptural art
and artistic skills. In the pillars decorative elements are introduced which includes figural and floral subjects. Dancing Śiva and

© 2017 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.com OPEN ACCESS

 ANALYSIS ARTICLE

Lakulīśa panels depicted here are life size which is distinctively bigger in size as compared to Jogeśvarī. Perspective which was not
known in Jogeśvarī is identified and projected in Maṇḍapeśvara. The composition is more evolved and balanced. Artists have
managed to balance the space here. Ornamentation which was very limited in Jogeśvarī is elaborately fused with figures. However,
the serenity that informs the sculptures at Jogeśvarī is less pronounced in Maṇḍapeśvara because of the mechanical approach
followed by the artists to evolve. The developed art of Maṇḍapeśvara can only be understood when it is compared with the
established art at Elephantā and matured stage in Ellora. At Elephantā, the life size depiction changes to colossal form. The main
figural forms are depicted with broad shoulders, oval faces and attenuated waists. Their feet appear static in nature. As compared to
Maṇḍapeśvara, the ornamentation appears to be evolved, as also the perspective. The composition is comparatively more balanced.
At Ellorā sculptures are smaller as compared to Elephantā. The iconography and style appear to be more evolved. Artists have also
experimented by adding overlapping of figure. Like Maṇḍapeśvara rectangular composition is adopted in Ellorā in its evolved form
by adding more layers to it. In Elephanta rectangular composition was replaced by circular composition and this circular composition
is one the reason behind the beauty of Elephantā sculptures. Both caves at Ellorā, Rameśvara and Dhūmārlenā are different in their
sculptural art suggesting different art schools. Sculptures are heavily influenced by the style of Cālukyas which they later developed.

Pl. 8 Dancing Shiv, c. 6th-7th Century CE. Rameshvaram, Ellora. © Archaeological Survey of India

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH
th
1.Kalcurīs ruled the Khaṇdeśa region in 6 Century and after being displaced by the Cālukyan king Pulakesina II they shifted to the
North valley of the Narmada. They established themselves in the Ḍāhala region with Tripurī as their capital. Later they divided into
four branches but Kalcurīs of Ḍāhala were main and ruled as the parent branch of the dynasty.
2.Their religious affiliation was Śaiva as is also evident from their art. They mainly followed the Paśupata sect of Śaivism after shifting
183

to the Ḍāhala region. Kalcurīs of Mahiśmati/ Khaṇdeśa also made Śaiva caves in Maharashtra region.
3.The style of early Kalcurī was extension of classical art of Vakaṭakas. Later it was modified and adopted with the local art and
Page

artisans. Art of early Kalcurīs of Mahiśmati was initiated in Jogeśvarī, developed in Maṇḍapeśvara, established in Elephantā and
finallly matured at Ellorā in Rameśvara (cave 22) and Dhūmārlenā (cave29). (Mishra, 1987, p 68).

© 2017 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.com OPEN ACCESS

 ANALYSIS ARTICLE

4.Themes are similar at all the places but style varies. There may the existence of different schools as it is confirmed from the two
caves at Ellorā. The composition evolved with the passage of time. From Jogeśvarī to Dhūmārlenā it is rectangular but Elephantā is
an exception. Instead of rectangular composition is circular in movement placing main figures at the centre hovering by the
subsidiary retinues.

FUTURE ISSUES
The topic is open for future research. This paper is an introduction to the art of early Kalcurīs. Not much research has been done on
the art of Kalcurīs so in future the details of patronage and chronology can be traced which may change the perspective of the
research.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No special financial support or funding has been attained for this research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My gratitude to Prof. R N Mishra for his book Sculptures of Dahala and Daksina Kosala and their background which is the base of
this research. I am thankful to Prof. Anupa Pande and Dr Savita Kumari for her support and guidance. Another thanks to Ms Siddhija
Kathe for sharing her time, knowledge and opinion.

REFERENCE
1. Ali, R. Art and Architecture of the Kalcurīs, Delhi, 1980. 6. Mishra, R.N. Sculptures of Dahala and Daksina Kosala and
Sandeep Prakashan. their background, Delhi. 1987. Agam Kala Prakashan. 6-7,67-
2. Berkon, Carmel, Wendy doniger O’Flaherfty,, George 68.
Michell,. Elephanta: the cave of Shiv, Delhi, 1983. Motilal 7. Rao, T. A. Gopinatha. Elements of Hindu Iconography: Vol .I,
Banarasidas.5. Delhi, 1968.Motilal Banarasidas .
3. Deva, Krishna. Temples of India, Vol. I, II, Delhi:. 1995 8. Sharma, R. K. The Kalachuris and Their Times Delhi,
4. Dhaky, M.A (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Indian Temple Architecture, Delhi.1980.Sandeep Prakashan.1-3
North India - Beginnings of Medieval Idiom, Vol. II, Pt. 3, 9. Soundararajan, K.V. (1981). Cave Temples of Deccan, Delhi.
Delhi 1998.American Institute of Indian Studies. 1981. Archeological Survey of India.1
5. Mirashi, V.V. Inscriptions of the Kalchuri Chedi Era, Corpus
Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. IV, Pt. I and II, Delhi, 1955 ASI.

i th th
‘In totality Kalcurīs ruled for a period of around of 1200 years in different parts of the country from 6 to 18 century.’ Sharma R. K.,
(1980) The Kalchuris and Their Times, Delhi: Sandeep Prakashan, p.1.
ii
Silver coins of Kr̥s̥narāja
iii
Mirashi opines that Pulakesin was succeeded in 620 CE and Shastri opines c. 630CE
iv
Game of dice.
v
In this marriage ritual bridegroom seizes the right hand of the bride which suggests that girl is now the responsibility of his man. In
Hindu mythology left side of man’s body is attributed to his consort and in sculptural art female consort is always depicted towards
the left side of male body which suggest that lady belongs to him she is his responsibility.
vi
Lower garment.
vii
When the left arm is as Añcita (rubbing the fingers inside the palm) and the right hand is Catura (second, third and fourth finger
extended, the thumb placed in their centre and the little finger moved upwards) with the right foot as kuṭṭiṭa (hitting the ground
with heel) that is called as Catura mode of tandava. Reverse action of this with left foot kuttita is Lalit mode of tandava.
184
Page

© 2017 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.com OPEN ACCESS