History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c74.t8.16

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.