History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c74.t8.29

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.