Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c74.t8: Pandharpur

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c74.t8

Language
English

Pandharpur

v5.c74.t8.1

This is one of the most popular places of pilgrimage in the Bombay State. Hundreds of thousands of pilgrims visit it every year. The Bombay Gazetteer vol. 20 (for Sholapur District) devotes pp. 415-482 to Pandharpur. This sacred place cannot claim very great antiquity. On the materials so far available it is difficult to decide when the shrine of Vithobā was established, but there is sufficient evidence to enable one to say that it was certainly in existence in the middle of the thirteenth century A. D.¹⁶²⁶ The Padmapurāṇa (Uttara-khaṇḍa 176. 56-58) mentions the image of Vitthala Viṣṇu on the bank of the Bhīmarathī which has only two arms and is called Bindu-mādhava. The difficulty is about the date of this part of the Padmapurāṇa. In my opinion it is a late addition and cannot be placed earlier than about 1000 A. D. The modern town of Pandharpur lies along the right bank of the Bhīmā river. The chief temple in Pandharpur is that of Vithobā in the centre of that part of the town which is considered holy. The Bombay Gazetteer vol. 20 describes at some length (pp. 417-424) the main temple of Vithobā and its adjoining parts. Behind the temple of Vithobā is the temple of Rakhumāī, the consort of Vithobā. There is a large staff of priests and attendants in the temple of Viṭhobā, the chief of whom are those called Badves (who are the most numerous body of the staff and who once claimed to be owners of the temple, but who are now held to be the trustees and guardians of the temple property and of the god's jewels under a scheme of management framed by the High Court of Bombay).¹⁶²⁷ Except the Badves all other attendants are called *sevādhārīs* and they are of various grades, viz. the *pujārīs* (who take the principal part in the worship of the God), *Benarīs*¹⁶²⁸ (who repeat mantras and hymns at different services), *paricārakas* (who bring in a large silver dish the water with which the pujārī washes the image of the God and brings the lamp for waving it before the image at the evening and night services), *haridās* (who sings generally five verses in honour of the god at the morning, evening and night services), the *dingres* (who hold a mirror before the God at the early morning service after the god has been dressed and before the lights are waved), the *divtes* (the torch-bearers) who hold a lighted torch when the last night ceremonies are over and carry the slippers of the god in torch-light processions three times a year on the Full Moon days of Āṣāḍha and Kārtika and on the *Daśarā* night), the *dange* (who stands with a silver or gold-plated mace outside the ante-chamber at the morning, evening and night services). The goddess Rakhumāī has only one set of priests known as *Utpāts*, of whom there are over a hundred families.

v5.c74.t8.2

¹⁶²⁶ Vide Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar's 'Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism' pp. 87-89.

v5.c74.t8.3

¹⁶²⁷ In *Gangaram Babaji Badve v. Baji Shankar and others*, Printed Judgments of the Bombay High Court for 1891 p 182 at p. 186 the High Court declared that the Badwes are not owners of the temple, idol and property and that they are the chief priests, managers, overseers and guardians of the idol, the temple and the property belonging thereto and that they are bound to keep order and to bid the Sevādhārīs perform the duties which belong hereditarily to those priests. In *Sakharam Bhimaji Benare and others versus Gangaram Babaji Badve and others*, Printed Judgments of the Bombay High Court for 1896 p. 644, the position set out above was accepted by both sides and a scheme of management was framed by the High Court (pp. 649-651) which provided for the creation of a Vithobā Fund, for the appointment of a committee of management consisting of five Badves to be elected every year, for the keeping of accounts by the Badves, and for the auditing of these accounts by a Devasthan committee and declared that any cash offering exceeding Rs. 500 was not to be appropriated by the Badves for their own use, but was to be expended for ornaments for the image and to be added to the Vithobā fund, if not so required.

v5.c74.t8.4

¹⁶²⁸ In *Gangaram Babaji and others v Narayan Annaji*, Printed Judgments of the Bombay High Court for 1891 p. 148 the High Court laid down with minuteness the rights, privileges and duties of the Benaris (the hymnists).

v5.c74.t8.5

The Bombay Gazetteer describes at length (pp. 427-430) the ordinary and special services in the temple of Viṭhobā which are passed over here. Their essence is that the god is treated as if he were some high human person requiring bath, dress, songs, sleep against fatigue and so on. One thing, however, may be noticed that no women singers or dancers are connected with this temple of Viṭhobā in contradistinction to many temples in the Deccan and South India.

v5.c74.t8.6

The image of Vitthal or Viṭhobā in the temple is about three feet and nine inches high and together with its base seems to be cut out of 'one block of trap. Its rough appearance is probably due to the effect of time. The image is standing with its arms akimbo and hands resting on the hips; the left hand holds a conch and the right a *cakra* (discus). On the image are carved but so slightly as to be hardly noticeable except on close examination a waist cloth and round the waist a waist-band the end of which hangs on the right thigh. The ornaments consist of a necklace and in the long ears are ear-rings which touch the shoulders. On the head is a long round-topped cap. Mr.

v5.c74.t8.7

Kantak, the writer of the note on Pandharpur in the Bombay Gazetteer vol. 20, remarks (p. 424): "The dress and ornament of the image belong to a (time) little later than the Guptas, probably not later than the 5th or 6th century after Christ. As far as is known no other existing Vaisnava temple in India has an image of Visnu like the Pandharpur image, but there are two similar images of the third century after Christ in the Udayagiri brahmanical caves near Bhīlsā .... Like the Pandharpur image these are both standing figures with arms akimbo and hands resting on the hips and a conch and discus in the hands". Formerly pilgrims used to embrace the image and also touched the feet of the image. But since about 1873 the feet alone are allowed to be touched.

v5.c74.t8.8

The Bombay Gazetteer (vol. 20 p. 431, note 2) states that the image of Vithobā was removed to various places at different times to save it from sacrilege by fanatic Moslem invaders and rulers. About 500 yards east of Vithobā's temple in the bed of the Bhīmā river is the temple of Puṇḍlīk, one of the most favourite places of worship in Pandharpur. This last temple is not that of a god. It only marks the spot where Puṇḍlīk, a great devotee of Vitthal, spent his last days and died. Puṇḍlīk was probably a brāhmaṇa from Pandharpur, originally an undutiful son who ill-treated his parents, but who later repented on seeing the dutiful cobbler Rohidās, changed his ways and became a very dutiful son, so much so that tradition says that god Viṭhobā came to visit him. Vithobā and Puṇḍlīk have become so much coupled together that all pilgrims before beginning to dine and on other occasions shout the cry 'Puṇḍalīka varade Hari Vitthal'¹⁶²⁹. The Bom. G. vol 20 (pp. 432-434) describes the temple of Puṇḍlīk and narrates the traditional story about him Pages 434-468 of Bom. G. vol. 20 describe the several temples and shrines at Pandharpur such as those of Viṣṇupāda, Trimbakeśvara, Candrabhāgā, Janābai's cell, which are all passed over here. The river Bhīmā is styled Candrabhāgā within Pandharpur limits and its water is believed to possess sin-purifying power.

v5.c74.t8.9

¹⁶²⁹ The writer in Bom G. vol 20 translates the words पुण्डलीकवरदे हरि विठ्ठल as 'O! Pundalīka, grant us a boon, Hari Vitbal!'. This translation does not appear to me to be correct. The cry is also in the form 'पुण्डलीकवरदा हरि विठ्ठल' (which is the correct one). In my opinion हरि विठ्ठल is only a vocative and the correct form is पुण्डलीकवरदा (for वरद) and the whole cry means 'O Hari Vitthal' that didst grant a boon to Puṇḍalīka'. Mr A K. Priyolkar kindly pointed out to me an *abhanga* from श्री ज्ञानेश्वरमहाराजांची गाथा (ed. by Śrī Vināyakbuwā Sākhare, 1927) which runs as follows 'रखुमादेवीवरु तो। पुण्डलीकवरद तो गे बाई॥' (p 48) and another of Kānhopātrā (from 'Śrī-santa-gāthā' edited by Śrī Nānāmahārāja Sākhare, śake 1831) 'अगा पुण्डलीकवरदा । अगा विष्णू तूं गोविंदा॥' (p. 142)

v5.c74.t8.10

Several important and controversial questions arise in relation to Vithobā's temple at Pandharpur; viz. the date when the image of Vithobā was installed in the temple at Pandharpur, whether the present image is an old one or a substitute, what the ancient name of Pandharpur was, the derivation of the word 'Viṭṭhal'. As regards the first question it may be stated that there is not enough evidence to establish with certainty the time when the image was established¹⁶³⁰ But some of the items of evidence may be briefly set out here. In I A. vol. 14 pp. 68-75 Prof. K. B. Pathak published an inscription on a copperplate found at Bendigere (about eleven miles south-east from Belgaum), the inscription being dated in śake 1171 (1249 A. D), in which Pandharpur is called Pauṇḍarīkakṣetra on the Bhīmarathī (at p. 74) and Vithobā is called Viṣṇu and which records the grant of a village in Veṇugrāma district (Belgaum) to a number of brāhmaṇas by a minister of Yādava king Kṛṣṇa (or Kanhara in the inscription) in the presence of god Viṣṇu (p. 74) i. e. before the image of Viṣṇu or Viṭṭhala. Dr. R. G Bhandarkar in 'Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism &c', (p. 88) and in 'History of the Deccan' (2nd ed. p. 115-6) refers to an inscription on stone dated śake 1192 (1270 A. D.) in Pandharpur itself, in which Bhānu, son of Keśava, is represented as having performed the Āptoryāma sacrifice in Pāṇḍuraṅgapura 'on account of which crowds and Vitthala were greatly pleased'. There is another earlier inscription in the temple of Vithobā on three sides of a stone beam in a sopā beyond the maṇḍapa (porch) of 16 pillars, the script being Devanāgarī and the language being partly Sanskrit and partly Canarese. It was issued in śake 1159 (1237 A. D) by Hoysala king Someśvara and records the grant of an agrahāra to God Viṭṭhaladeva who resides in a great village called Pandarage situated on the Bhīmarathī river and who made the heart of sage (*muni*) Puṇḍarīka expand (with devotion). Vide Bom. G. vol. 20 pp. 419-420 and pp. 4-6 of Mr Khare's monograph (on medieval references). The Mysore Archaeological Survey Report for 1929 (pp. 197-210) publishes a copper-plate inscription issued by the Rāṣṭrakūta king Avidheya which records a grant of Pāṇḍaraṅga-palli and four other villages situated to the east of Mahādeva hill to a brāhmaṇa named Jayad-vittha. This grant was confirmed about 820 A. D. by Rāṣṭrakūta king Śarvarasa (i. e. Amoghavarṣa I). The editor Dr. Krishna is of opinion that the date of the inscription must be 516 A D. (*ibid.* p 203). Therefore the important conclusion follows that Pandharpur was known to Canarese people as Pandarage and was also called Pāṇḍaraṅgapalli. This inscription does not expressly refer to god Viṭṭhala, but the donee's name Jayad-vittha contains the part Vittha which is most probably an early form of Viṭṭhala.

v5.c74.t8.11

¹⁶³⁰ Besides the Sholapur Gazetteer (Bom. G vol. 20) the following may be consulted. I. H. Q. vol. 11 pp. 771-778 (paper by Prof. B. A. Saletore on 'the Antiquity of Pandharpur'), Mr. G. H. Khare's monograph in Marāṭhi on 'श्रीविठ्ठल आणि पंढरपूर'), and Dr. Krishna's Archaeological Survey Reports of Mysore for 1929 pp. 197-210

v5.c74.t8.12

In a work called 'Viṭṭhalabhūṣaṇa'¹⁶³¹ by one Gopālācārya about eleven verses are quoted from Hemādri on Tīrtha which are quoted below¹⁶³². Briefly they state an excellent tīrtha exists on the southern bank of the river Bhaimī and there is also a rare but fine image there; it is called Pauṇḍarīka-kṣetra and the greatest of gods viz. Pāṇḍuraṅga worshipped by the whole kṣetra resides there. It is three times holier than Puṣkara, six and ten times holier than Kedāra and Vārāṇasī respectively. Puṇḍarīka practised severe austerities at the end of Dvāparayuga in the 28th Kalpa and always devotedly attended upon his parents. God Kṛṣṇa who was making a herd of cows graze on Govardhana hill became pleased with him for his devotion to his parents, Kṛṣṇa who wields a stick for driving cows, who has bracelets rendered bright by (the colour) of the umbrella¹⁶³³ (shade), who is adorned with a head-gear (*mukuṭa*) and a *śikya* (a loop) scintillating with the lustre of many jewels, who was very charming and had armlets studded with jewels, who does not (appear to) wear any *dhotī*, but has his loins covered with nickers, who is set off by a girdle of three strings tied on his waist and who stands with arms akimbo and appears possessed of three lines on his belly. Though a ms. of the Tīrtha portion of Hemādri's work has not yet been recovered, there is no reason to doubt that the verses were taken by Gopālācārya from Hemādri's work, particularly when almost all those verses are quoted by the T. S. (about 1500 A. D.) from the Skandapurāṇa and Kūrmapurāṇa. As Hemādri composed his work about 1260 to 1270 A. D. and as the verses quoted by him are cited from the Skandapurāṇa, it follows that several centuries before 1260 A. D. Pandharpur was known as a tīrtha, that the devotee and saint Puṇḍarīka (Marāṭhī 'Puṇḍlīk') also was so known then and that the image of Viṭhobā was essentially the same in appearance as it is now. That Pandharpur had risen in sanctity and importance in the 15th century follows from the fact that both the great Vaiṣṇava saints, Caitanya and Vallabha, visited it Vide Prof. S. K. De's 'Vaiṣṇava faith and movement in Bengal' p. 71 for Caitanya's visit and '*Śrī Vallabhāchārya*' by Manilal C. Parekh (pp. 56–59) for Vallabhācārya's visit.

v5.c74.t8.13

¹⁶³¹ This was printed in Śake 1808 (1886-87 A D.) at the Bombay City Press. For Pundlik's story, vide Bom. G vol. 20 p. 433.

v5.c74.t8.14

¹⁶³² तीर्थहेमाद्रौ—भैम्याश्चैव तटे देवि दक्षिणे तीर्थमुत्तमम्। अस्ति क्षेत्रं दैवतं च सर्वोत्कृष्टं सुदुर्लभम्। पौण्डरीकमिति ख्यातं तत्तीर्थं क्षेत्रपूजितः। पाण्डुरङ्गश्च तत्रास्ते मूर्तिमान् देवतोत्तमः। पुष्करात्त्रिगुणं पुण्यं केदारात् षड्गुणं भवेत्। वाराणस्या दशगुणमनन्तं श्रीगिरेरपि। षष्टिवर्षसहस्राणि दिव्यदैवतदर्शनात्। यत्फलं लभते मर्त्य सकृदेव हि तत्फलम्। अष्टाविंशतिमे कल्पे द्वापरान्ते च षण्मुख। पुण्डरीक इति ख्यातस्तपस्तेपे सुदारुणम्। भक्त्या पित्रोश्च शुश्रूषां कुर्वन्मुनिवरः सदा। तदर्थं कुर्वत पूजा पित्रोरहरहः प्रिये। परितुष्टोऽभवद्देवो गोपीजनमनःप्रियः। गोवर्धनगिरौ रम्ये चारयन् गोगणं विभुः। गोयष्टिं धारयन्हस्ताच्छत्रोज्ज्वलितकङ्कणम्। नानारत्नमभोद्भासि-शिक्यमौलि विराजितः। अतीव सुन्दरः सौम्यो रत्नाङ्कितमहाङ्गदः। दिग्वासाश्चातिसौम्येन गुह्यसूत्रेण वेष्टितः। त्रिद्वृतेनाङ्गुकालेन कटिबन्धेन (कटिबन्धेन?) राजित । कटिमालम्ब्य तिष्ठन्तै विवृद्धल्या च संयुतः। तत्रैव कूर्मपुराणे। पुण्डरीके महातीर्थे ब्राह्मणेरुपसेवितम्। तत्राभिगम्य युक्तात्मा पुण्डरीकफलं लभेत्॥ I am highly obliged to Pandit Balacharya Khuperkar of Kolhapur for sending to me these verses from the copy in his possession In the T S p 7 the verse पुण्डरीकं महातीर्थ is quoted from the Kūrmapurāna, on p 9 of T S. verses भैम्याश्चैव.. तत्फलम् are quoted from the Skandapurāna, as also verses अष्टाविंशतिमे... संयुत occur on pp 12-13 of the Tīrthasāra with a few variant readings such as षेत्रोद्वेलितकङ्कण (which is a very good variant, for छत्रो.. कङ्कणम् and शक्तिमौलि विराजित for शिक्य० and दिव्यस्रग्वीति सौम्येन for दिग्वासाश्चातिसौम्येन. In a ms. of पौण्डरीकमाहात्म्य kindly lent to me by Pandit Laksmanasāstrī of Wai 'अन्तःसूत्रेण वेष्टित कटिबन्धेन राजित' and क्षुद्रकाशिक्यनद्वाभ्यामूरुभ्यां चारुशोभितः are the readings. In a ms of पाण्डुरङ्गमाहात्म्य in the possession of Pandit Khuperkar, the same verses occur with a few additions. That ms (*Continued on the next page*) (*Continued from the last page*) reads अन्त:सूत्रेण for गुह्यसूत्रेण, त्रिवृद्वल्लीकृतेनेशः कटिबन्धेन राजितः and क्षुल्लकाशिषय-जङ्घाम्यामूरुभ्यां चातिशोभितः. विवृतेनाञ्जकालेन—makes no sense. It has to be noted that गुह्यसूत्रेण or अन्त:सूत्रेण is mentioned separately from कटिबन्धेन and there-fore गुह्यसूत्र or अन्त:सूत्र was something different from कटिबन्ध (waist-band). Probably the original reading was दिग्वासाश्चातिसूक्ष्मेण गुह्यसूत्रेण for दिग्वासा-श्चातिसौम्येन, where सौम्य conveys very little sense.

v5.c74.t8.15

¹⁶³³ This probably is a reference to the silver shade under which the image of Viṭhobā stood (Bom. G vol. 20 p 423).

v5.c74.t8.16

It has been already shown from the Bombay Gazetteer that there is a tradition about the image having been removed several times and brought back. On pp. 16–25 of his work Mr. Khare cites various passages from medieval writers in Sanskrit, Marathi and Canarese and comes to the conclusion that the present image is not only not the ancient one but that it was not there in the 17th century, since the characteristics of the present image do not tally with the description contained in the poems of saint Tukārām. I do not agree with his conclusions. He has overlooked several weighty considerations. He has relied upon inferences drawn from the presence of Afzulkhan and the bigoted emperor Aurangzeb in the Deccan. I have cited above (pp. 632, 692) references to the demolition of North Indian temples and images on the orders of Aurangzeb, but Mr. Khare has been unable to show any direct reference to the demolition of the temple or the image of Vithobā on the orders of any Moslem king or officer.¹⁶³⁴ We cannot rely on mere inferences or not properly authenticated letters or verses. Besides, the present image is so much worn that unless one very carefully scrutinizes, it would be difficult to pronounce what articles it holds or what dress it wears. Therefore, there is great scope for differences of opinion on the characteristic features of the present image. Conceding for argument that the tradition about the removal of the idol is true, that does not establish that the present image is different from the one that existed in the 13th century or before. The present image has an elongated head dress which some may construe as a simple *mukuṭa* (crown) with a rim: but the pujāris and common people regard it as a Śivaliṅga and the rim as the rope of the *śilya* that is carried on the back (by cowherds) The present image has ear-rings (as Mr. Khare admits) but they are so long that they rest on the shoulders The present image has *aṅgadas* (armlets) on the upper arms (and that is the description in the Skanda-purāṇa quoted by Hemādri) The present image has ornaments on the wrists (which the passage from the Skandapurāṇa also mentions). There is a girdle with three strings on the waist of the present image (in Sk. also we have 'trivṛtenānukālena kaṭibaddhena or kaṭibandhena rājitaḥ'). The present image ¹⁶³⁵ does not clearly show that a *dhotī* was worn (and therefore one reading of the Skanda says that it is 'digvāsāḥ') but the Skanda adds that the image has arms akimbo. In my opinion the description in the Skanda-purāṇa (which must be held to be at least not later than about 1000 A. D.) tallies in essential particulars with the present image; therefore it follows that sufficient evidence has not been adduced to show that it is comparatively a new image and the proposition of Mr. Khare that it is a different one from the original should be held not *proved*. In the descriptions given by Tukārām and others (p 22 of Mr. Khare's book) actual, legendary and ideal elements are mixed up For example, Tukārām states that the god has 16000 wives (Mr. Khare's book p. 22 'Bailā soḷā hajāra' &c.). But Tukārām does mention the facts that the arms are akimbo, that there is no dhoti (*digambara*), and mentions the existence of a *śikya*, a stick, also a girdle and ornaments. Lastly, Mr. Khare does not attach sufficient importance to two facts, one being that about 1873 two Gosavis damaged the image which was later re-installed and pilgrims were forbidden from embracing it. It is quite possible that some of the features already indistinct were lost in these happenings (vide Bom. G. vol. 20 p. 430). Besides, for hundreds of years the image has been washed with pañcāmṛta (milk, curds, ghee, honey and sugar) and water at least once every day and sometimes several times a day. It is not difficult to imagine that the characteristic marks became blurred by these continual baths.

v5.c74.t8.17

¹⁶³⁴ It may, however, be stated that there is some evidence that efforts were made to demolish the temple of Vithobā by some Moslem king of Bīdar and that the Badves (the guardians of the Pandharī temple) fearing destruction of the image removed it and concealed it somewhere else. In a Marāthī work called ‘महाराङ्गमहोदयाचा पूर्वरङ्ग’ by Mr. Narayan Krishna Gadre (1905) p 168 verses are cited from a life (completed in śake 1667 i e 1745 A D) of one Chāṅgā Mudheśa (who died in śake 1427 i e 1505 A.D.) written by his descendant Shamji Gosāvī Vañjarkhede (who was 11th in descent from Chāṅga Mudheśa) The Marāthī verses are: बेदरीचा राजा बामणी पातशहा । ब्राह्मणासी बहु छळियेलें ॥ हिंदुधर्म जितुके तितके वर्जियेलें ॥ राऊळ विध्वंसिले पंढरीचे ॥ केलीसे मशीद महाद्वार मोडून ! सातमास पूर्ण झाले यासी ॥ मूर्ती सिंहासनाहूनि आच्छादिली । गुप्त हो ठेविली बडव्यानी ॥ verses 52–55 of the 7th chapter of the life. This was written two hundred and forty years after the alleged vandalism. Besides the same work mentions in verse 94 (chap 7) that Chāṅgadeva thought that the mosque should be demolished and a new temple (a complete replica of the old one) should be built Similarly, in शिवचरित्रसाहित्य part 1 p 68 (published by the Bhārata-itihāsa-samśodhaka-maṇḍala of Poona) there is a letter dated in 1581 śake (i e 1659–60 A D.) in Marāthī which states that Shivaji killed Afzalakhan who had removed the image of Vitthal at Pandharpur and that at Tuljāpur. The letter is not properly authenticated and is not a reliable piece of evidence. I am obliged to Mr G H Khare of Poona for drawing my attention to these two pieces of evidence.

v5.c74.t8.18

¹⁶³⁵ Persons not familiar with ancient images or statues in stone might think that an image or statue is naked (digvāsāḥ) when as a matter of fact the sculpture itself shows that the image wears a *dhotī* and waist band and yet its private parts are shown as visible, probably because it was the intention of the sculptor to indicate that the garment was made of the finest texture and was transparent. For example, in 'History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon' by Vincent Smith, there is a figure of a Bodhisattva (on p. 143 No. 94) which is clearly draped in a dhotī and waistband and the private parts of which are yet visible. The Viṣṇu image from Mathurā (Plate VI) in a paper on Gupta Art in Journal of U. P Historical Society, vol. 18 pp 101-134 shows similar characteristics

v5.c74.t8.19

Some other matters require to be dealt with. The image is variously called viz. Pāṇḍuraṅga, Paṇḍhari, Vitthal, Vitthalanātha and Vithobā.

v5.c74.t8.20

Viṣṇu assumes in Prakrit the forms Vinhu, Vinnu, Venhu, Vetha and others. In Canarese Viṣṇu becomes Bitti, Bittiga, Vitta &c. The changes in names do not necessarily follow the rules laid down in Prakrit or Canarese grammars, which rules themselves are often based on meagre data and Mr. A. K. Priyolkar in his learned paper on 'Bhagat Namdeo of the Sikhs' in the Journal of the University of Bombay vol. VII part 2 (1938) points out (p. 24) that in the Ādi Granth of the Sikhs, in the hymns of Namdeo, God is addressed as 'Bīthal' or 'Bīṭhalu' (p. 24), that, in the Gujarati poems of Narsinh Mehta and Mirabai, God is addressed as Vitthala (p 35) and Viṭṭhala is employed by these saints meaning only Viṣṇu and not the deity at Pandharpur. The learned Kāśīnātha Upādhyāya, author of Vitthala-ṛṇ-mantrasāra-bhāṣya, derives the word Viṭṭhala as (*Vit*+*tha*+*la*) ¹⁶³⁶.

v5.c74.t8.21

¹⁶³⁶ 'वित् वेदनं ज्ञानं तेन ठाः शून्याः तान् लाति स्वीकरोति'. Vide विठ्ठलऋङ्मन्त्रसारभाष्य, D. C. ms. No 100 of 1869-70 dated śake 1731 (1809 A. D.) quoted in H. of Dh. vol. I p. 464 n. 1161.

v5.c74.t8.22

As regards the name of the kṣetra it appears that originally it was called in Canarese Pandarage, of which Pāṇḍuraṅga is a sanskritized form. When Puṇḍlik, the devotee of Vitthal, became famous the sacred place came to be called Puṇḍarīkapura (as in Kūrma) and Pāuṇḍarīkapura (as in Skanda). Vide note 1632 above The pilgrims to Pandharpūr may be divided into two classes, regular visitors and occasional visitors. The first class comprise those called *Vārkarīs* (lit those who keep the fixed times). The Vārkarīs are of two sorts viz those who attend every month and those who attend twice a year (on the 11th of Āṣāḍha-śukla and Kārtika-śukla). This cult of vārkarīs has been a great leveller. In theory and to a large extent in practice it ignores caste exclusiveness A brāhmaṇa vārkarī falls at the feet of a śūdra vārkarī. There are certain observances binding on all vārkarīs (for which, vide Bom. G. vol. 20 p. 471). The vārkarī carries a rosary of Tulasī (basil) beads, foregoes flesh-eating, observes a fast on *ekādaśī*, carries an ochre-coloured *patākā* (swallow-tailed banner) and is to speak the truth (and not to cheat) when engaged in his daily occupations.

v5.c74.t8.23

Some people think that the image of Vithobā is really Buddhist or Jain. There is hardly any evidence for this. When such Marāthi poets and saints as Ekanātha, and Tukārām speak of Vithobā as Bauddhāvatāra they have Viṣṇu in mind,¹⁶³⁷ whose 9th avatāra was Buddha according to the Purāṇas and medieval writers.

v5.c74.t8.24

¹⁶³⁷ One of एकनाथ's अभंग is 'नववा वैसे स्थिररूप। तया नाम बौद्धरूप॥ सन्त कृपा क्षती। तिष्ठताति निरन्तरी। पुण्डलीकासाठीं उभा। धन्य धन्य विठ्ठलशोभा॥' in एकनाथमहाराजांच्या अभंगाची गाथा (published by Rajaram Tukaram, Bombay, 1903) p. 344 No 1048. 'बौद्ध अवतार माझिया अदृष्टा। मौन्यमुखें निष्ठा धरियेली॥' No. 4160 of the तुकारामबाबांच्या अभंगाची गाथा p. 522 (published by Bombay Govt., 1950). Vide H. of Dh. vol. II pp 720-723 for discussion about the time when Buddha came to be looked upon as an avatāra of Viṣṇu.

v5.c74.t8.25

The question of the attitude that modern Hindus should adopt towards holy places and pilgrimages will be briefly dealt with at the end of the next chapter on the list of *tīrthas*.

v5.c74.t8.26

LIST OF TĪRTHAS

v5.c74.t8.27

This is merely a list of tīrthas from the point of view of Dharmaśāstra and *not* a treatise on the Ancient Geography of India. The result is that many countries and towns that have no importance or claims as tīrthas have been altogether omitted. Bauddha and Jain works on tīrthas have only rarely been referred to. Many of the Purāṇas enumerate the mountains and rivers of *dvīpas* and *varṣas* other than those of Jambudvīpa and Bhārata-varṣa such as Harivarṣa, Ramyakavarṣa, Krauñcadvīpa, Śālmalidvīpa, but they have been excluded from this list. The Brahmapurāṇa (chap. 26 verses 8-83) contains a string of over 520 tīrthas without hardly any certain indication of their location and the Bhīṣmaparva in chap. 9 mentions about 160 rivers with practically no indication about their location in most cases. Similarly, the Garuḍa (I. 81. 1-31) enumerates about 200 and Padma (VI. 129) contains 108 tīrtha names. In Banaras alone I have listed about 350 subtīrthas. But there are about 1500 shrines and temples in Banaras alone. These have not been included. Each great tīrtha has numerous sub-tīrthas as in the Varāha-purāṇa under Mathurā, in Brahma-purāṇa under Gautamī, in Vāyu-purāṇa under Gayā. Through sheer weariness or inadvertence some of these must have been left out by me and some were left out purposely on account of the absence of any importance. Besides, several tīrthas that are regarded as sacred by modern people are not so treated in the Epics or purāṇas and are not even mentioned in them; many of these have been omitted in this list. Our authorities are often very vague about the location or extent of tīrthas. Moreover, a number of tīrthas scattered in different parts of India bear the same name (e.g. vide under Agnitīrtha, Koṭitīrtha, Cakratīrtha, Varāhatīrtha, Somatīrtha). I am under great obligations to Cunningham's 'Ancient Geography of India' (ed. of 1872) and to Nundo Lal Dey's 'The Geographical Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval India' (1927). I have had occasions to differ from both, particularly from the latter. But, the space at my disposal being very limited, I could not enter into even brief discussions in support of my views. It would look ungrateful to find fault with the work of Dey; but it must be said that he relies too much on rather old and antiquated authorities and has not cast his net over a wide area. Often times he mentions no original authorities (vide, for example, Cakratīrtha on p. 43). He is very vague in his references. He hardly ever cites the number of the verse on which he relies and often omits to specify even the part or section of the work relied upon. For example, at p. 13 as regards Avanti he mentions Pāṇini IV. 176, which should be IV. 1. 176. Further, he has omitted several well-known tīrthas (e. g. Daśāśvamedhika). He is sometimes wrong in what he says. On p. 54 he states that Kiṣkindhākāṇḍa 43 refers to Devadāruvana as a proper name, but there the context ('lodhrapadmaka-saṇḍeṣu devadāruvaneṣu ca' in verse 15) shows that what is meant is 'forests of Deodar trees'). On p. 73 he says Bhāratavarṣa was 'first' called Haimavatavarṣa, but the passage of the Liṅgapurāṇa (I. 49. 7) on which he relies (idam haimavataṁ varṣaṁ Bhārataṁ nāma viśrutam) does not bear that out. There is no reference to a prior account here and all that is meant is that Bhāratavarṣa is connected with Himavat, as a previous passage (I. 47. 23 Himādrerdakṣiṇaṁ varṣaṁ Bharatāya nyavedayat) expressly states that Bhāratāvarṣa is to the south of Himālaya. In Śalya 44. 52 Sarasvatī is called Haimavatī, but that does'not mean that Haimavatī was the name of Sarasvatī in far-off ages. It simply means that it 'rises in Himavat range.' Only a comparison of the list prepared by me with Dey's work will show the difference in details between the two. I should not undertake that task and leave it to scholarly readers.

v5.c74.t8.28

I have carefully read the two Epics and most of the Purāṇas. But I do not cite exhaustive references to all the texts where a particular tīrtha is mentioned. I feel satisfied with mentioning two or three. Owing to the several restrictions imposed upon myself this list cannot claim to be thoroughly exhaustive. But I hope that it is comprehensive enough and far larger and more informative than any list of *tīrthas* presented by any scholar so far. There is ample scope for industrious scholars to improve upon and to add to this list. I have included important tīrthas from Kashmir and given copious references to the Nīlamata-purāṇa, the Rāja-taraṅgiṇī and the Hara-carita-cintāmaṇi. I am highly obliged to the Kashmir Report of Dr. Buhler (published as a special number for 1877 by the B B R A S), to Stein's notes in his translation of the Rāja-taraṅgiṇī and his memoir on the Ancient Geography of Kashmir published separately (and also embodied in the 2nd volume of the translation of Kalhaṇa's work). All the names of tīrthas are transliterated into the English alphabet and arranged according to the English mode of spelling. For the Mahābhārata references are given to the oblong Bombay edition and by citing names of *parvans*, but in the case of the Rāmāyaṇa Roman figures I to VII are employed for the Bāla, Ayodhyā, Araṇya, Kiṣkindhā, Sundara, Yuddha and Uttara kāṇḍas respectively. For the Rāmāyaṇa I have used the edition brought out by the Madras Law Journal Press in 1933. Among Purāṇas the Ānandāśrama editions of the Agni, Brahma, Brahmavaivarta, Matsya, Vāyu and Padma have been relied upon and as to the rest of the Mahāpurāṇas the Veṅkaṭeśvara Press editions have been used (except in the case of the Nṛsiṁhapurāṇa of which the edition of Messrs. Gopal Narayan & Co. and the Bhāgavatapurāṇa, of which the Nirṇayasāgara edition of the bare text have been referred to). The Skandapurāṇa has been a source of great trouble and labour. Owing to the limited time at my disposal I have not been able to digest thoroughly the ninety thousand and odd verses of that purāṇa, though I have very carefully gone into the Kāśīkhaṇḍa and some other khaṇḍas. Besides, there are two separate recensions of the Skanda and large portions of it appear to be apocryphal and later additions. The seven big sections of the Skanda viz Maheśvarakhaṇḍa, Vaiṣṇava, Brāhma, Kāśī, Āvantya, Nāgara, Prabhāsa are indicated by Roman figures from I to VII and the sub-sections by Arabic figures. Some of these sub-sections have further sub-divisions into Pūrvārdha and Uttarārdha.

v5.c74.t8.29

I have made endeavours to locate the tīrthas as far as possible. Inscriptions have been drawn upon in several cases for locating the tīrthas and for their antiquities and history. The principal Sanskrit authorities (except Kalhaṇa) are often very vague as compared with even foreign writers like Hiouen Thsang, Alberuni and Abul Fazal. Where I was not myself sure I have given references to the texts alone, and in some cases to the views of Cunningham, Dey, Pargiter and others If the same name happens to be given to different tīrthas located at different places, I have indicated the several different places bearing the same name by employing the capital letters A, B, C and so on. I may state that I have hardly ever remained content by borrowing references to Sanskrit authorities given by my predecessors, but have seen personally each reference to Sanskrit works except where I expressly state from whom I borrow a particular reference Sorensen's Index of the Mahābhārata and the Vedic Index of Macdonell and Keith have been used in several places I have also derived material help from the volumes of the Imperial Gazetteer and from the several volumes of the Bombay Gazetteer. The same may be said about Wilson's translation of Visnupurāna (ed. by Hall, 1864-1877), Pargiter's notes to his translation of the Mārkandeyapurāṇa, Dr. B. C. Law's paper on the 'mountains and rivers of India' in the Journal of the Department of Letters, Calcutta University, vol. 28 and Dr. Hemchandra Raychaudhuri's 'Studies in Indian Antiquities' (1932), and the paper on 'Ancient towns and cities in Gujarat and Kathiawad' in I.A. vol. 54. I have consulted only a few Māhātmyas of tirthas. Recently, Prof. V. R. Ramchandra Dikshitar of Madras has published a useful work 'The Purāṇa Index' (volumes I and II covering over 1400 pages) which collects material from five Purānas only viz. the Bhāgavata, Brahmāṇḍa, Matsya, Vāyu and Viṣṇu. The two volumes reach up to the Sanskrit letter 'ma' only. I, for my part, do not agree with much that he says about the age of the Purāṇas in general and of the five Purāṇas (which he has digested) in particular, but this is not the place to go into that question Besides, his work has to be used with some caution. In several places the work is misleading. To take only a few examples. On p. 547 he lists 'Godhūma', makes the remark 'fit for śrāddha' and cites four references from the Visnupurāna alone. One may *prima facie* think that Godhūma is here some place fit for śrāddha. As a matter of fact in all the references from the Viṣṇupurāṇa 'Godhūma' means 'wheat' and nothing more, which no doubt is fit food for śrāddha But other fit things such as 'ikṣu' (declared to be fit for śrāddha by Vāyu 78. 7-8) are not included at all. On p 123 Aśokavana is not a proper name, but only a forest of Asoka trees, as the preceding word 'drākṣāvana' (in Vāyu 38 68) indicates So also Kamala-prabhava (not 'prabhava' as printed on p. 316 of vol. I) is not a river (in Matsya 163. 62, Ānandāśrama ed) but is only an adjective of the word Soṇa that follows. On p. 316 of vol. II he states that the river Pārā rises from Ṛsyavān, but the Matsya 114. 24 on which he relies says it springs from Pāriyātra. On the same page he gives the entry 'Pārāvārataṭa sacred to Matā’. This makes no sense. Pārāvārataṭa would mean ‘the shore of the sea’. What is really meant is that Devī is styled or worshipped as Pārā on the bank of the Pārā river (Pārā Pārātaṭe matā). He does not compare the readings of the several printed editions of the five purāṇas. Besides, the information furnished is very meagre. If the whole had been printed in a compact form far more information could have been given in the same number of pages.

v5.c74.t8.30

In some places I have indicated the rewards promised for bathing in the tīrthas; but I have not done so in every case. The purāṇas promise one or more of the following rewards viz. the same merit as the performance of Aśvamedha or Vājapeya or other solemn Vedic sacrifices or reaching the highest worlds such as those of Brahmā, Viṣṇu or Śiva, the destruction of the gravest sins such as brāhmaṇa murder, the same merit as arises from gifts of a thousand cows &c.

v5.c74.t8.31

Many of the doubts and difficulties about the identification of several tīrthas can, if at all, be solved only by means of actual journeys to various places and investigations on the spot. That is a task which would require for its proper accomplishment a team of workers. A single individual can hardly attempt such a task with his own resources.

v5.c74.t8.32

This list will, it is hoped, be of some use in elucidating several problems such as the questions about the relative antiquity of the purāṇas, the dates of several Sanskrit works which mention the tīrthas and the questions about borrowing on the part of purāṇas among themselves and from the Mahābhārata.

Linked texts (15)