more stately abode, or the deity might be honoured by building a series of enclosures, each one grander and more sumptuous than the last, whereby the builder could demonstrate the manifold aspects in which the divinity declared itself, and provide accommodation for the priests and pilgrims who worshipped there. But the shrine itself could only be preserved for posterity by enclosing it in imperishable materials. Both the stūpa and the sikhara were sacrosanct symbols which could not be lightly changed to make them more pleasing to the eye.
As Hindu ritual is individualistic and not congregational, the temple service does not necessarily require more than a fitting shrine for the deity and a verandah or porch for the custodian of it. Many thousands of Hindu temples are of this simple type, either with the sikhara steeple, as in Pl. XV, or with the stūpa dome, which can be seen in the Buddhist stūpa-houses at Ajantā (Pl. XI). But the elaborate ritual of the royal court, the attraction of a venerated shrine as a resort for pilgrims or the numerous civic purposes to which a temple was devoted, often made it necessary to provide a suitable shelter for large congregations. The temple was the durbar hall of kings, the meeting-house for the Assembly of the village community; it was a parliament-house and a debating-hall where philosophical or religious discussions took place. It was at the temple, also, that the people listened to recitations of the great epics, to the stories told by the village kathaks, the singing of sacred songs, or watched the temple nautch. Many of the great temples built by royal dynasties or by wealthy devotees have therefore a series of spacious mandapams, or assembly-halls, dedicated to such uses, upon the construction of which the highest skill of the Indian master-builder was
