History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c74.t8.27

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.