History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c74.t2.192

v5.c74.t2.192

The most important work on Gayā relied upon in such works as the Tristhalī-setu and in modern times is the Gayā-māhātmya that occurs at the end of the Vāyupurāṇa (chapters 105-112 of the Ānandāśrama ed.). Scholars differ about the antiquity of these chapters. Rajendralal Mitra assigned the Gayā-māhātmya to the 3rd or 4th century A. D. O'Malley was inclined to hold that the legend of Gayāsura was invented in the 14th or 15th century, principally on the ground that the Gayāwals profess the Vaiṣṇava faith established by Madhvācārya¹⁴⁶⁸ and acknowledge as their spiritual head the mahant of Hari Narasimhapura; vide J. A. S. B. vol. LXXII (1903) p. 4. To my mind there is hardly anything in this. The Gayāwals are notorious for their indolence, dissoluteness and ignorance and they are a dying race. O'Malley himself notes in the paper mentioned above (at p. 8) that originally the families of Gayāwals were 1484, that in Buchanan Hamilton's time they numbered about 1000, that in 1893 a Gayāwal counted 128 families, that in the census of 1901 there existed only 168 males (as pure Gayāwals) and 153 females. Gayā is a place sacred to Viṣṇu and if the Gayāwals had to turn in medieval times for support to some great ācārya they would naturally choose to align themselves with the Vaiṣṇava ācārya Madhva rather than with Śaṅkara Dr. Barua, after an elaborate examination of the several items of evidence, holds 'that the Gayāmāhātmya is not earlier than the 13th or 14th century A. D. (vol. I. p. 64 of 'Gayā and Buddha Gayā'). From considerations of the space at my disposal I cannot examine in detail his arguments His conclusion is vitiated mainly for two reasons. He relies too much on the dubious and unconvincing argument from silence. He examines the account of Gayā that appears in the Vanaparva and compares it with the fuller account in the Gayāmāhātmya and arrives at the rather startling conclusion 'The Gayā proper as known to the Epic (the Mahābhārata) is essentially a place sacred to Yama Dharmarāja, Brahmā and Śivaśūlin, and Viṣṇu and Vaiṣṇavism has no place in it either as a name or as an idea. Except -Brahmayūpa, Śivaliṅga and Vṛṣabha there is no reference to any structural erection nor any iconic suggestion'. In order to show how this conclusion is not at all justified the references to Gayā in the Epic and other Sanskrit works will have to be set out and compared with each other and with the Gayāmāhātmya. The second reason that vitiates Dr. Barua's conclusion is the wrong interpretation that he puts on verse 12 of the Inscription edited by Kielhorn in I. A. vol 16.