1883.] Rajendralala Mitra —On the Temples of Deoghar. 201 
dating from the 7th century, and seven other equally old and renowned 
lingams, and it could not have all along remained neglected and with¬ 
out a temple. The inference, therefore, is inevitable that there must 
have been a temple of some kind or other. This leads to the second 
question as to the present temple having replaced an old one. That 
might at first sight appear probable; but the belief of the Hindus is that 
it is a sacrilege to pull down a S'iva temple and rebuild it, and the denuncia¬ 
tions in the Smritis are dire against such sacrilege. Rebuilding of temples is 
permitted in all cases where movable images are concerned ; but in the 
case of lingams which are fixed to the earth, the pulling down of the temple is 
equal to the desecration of the lingam itself, which from that moment ceases 
to be adorable, and must at once be cast into a river. I cannot, therefore, 
believe that Purana Malla knocked down an old temple, and erected a new 
one in its place. No Hindu remaining a Hindu and claiming religious 
merit by the act could have done such a thing. Repairs, additions and 
extensions are allowed—nay commended; but a marked distinction is made 
between them and pulling down. The latter is not permissable under any 
circumstance, not even for the purpose of rebuilding. It is true that 
when Aurangzebe desecrated the temple of Visvesvara at Benares, the 
lingam there was removed, and subsequently provided with a new temple 
in its neighbourhood, but the act was not in accord with the canons 
of the Smritis which prohibit the removal of lingams, and only tolerated 
in the case of a very renowned lingam, as in the case of Somanatha at 
Gujarat, but it would be no precedent for a Hindu to follow as a voluntary 
act of piety. It is obvious to me, therefore, that the tradition which holds 
the temple to be old, and ascribes to Purana Malla only the lobby is correct, 
and that having defrayed the cost of the lobby which became a part, 
and an integral part, of the temple, he, by a figure of synecdoche, 
claimed credit for the whole. In fact he does not use any equivalent 
for the word “ whole,” but only by implication suggests the idea. The 
inscription, moreover, is placed within the lobby, and its purview need 
not extend beyond the boundary of that apartment. The same may be 
said of the inscription of Raghunatha. That worthy defrayed the cost 
of the porch which put to shade the work of an oppressive superior 
and conqueror, and by a figure of speech took to himself the credit 
of building the whole of the temple and a great many other things which 
probably never existed. The rivalry of the priest and the potentate can be 
best explained by-accepting the truth of this tradition. 
Mr. Beglar is of opinion that Deoghar was formerly the seat of a large 
Buddhist establishment; but the arguments on which he has come to it, 
do not appear to me by any means satisfactory. He says, “ It now 
remains to ascertain, if possible, why these temples were built here, and 
D D 
