Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Obscure Religious Cults as Background of Bengali Literature c28: Appendix (D): General Informations about the Dharma Literature of Bengal

Obscure Religious Cults as Background of Bengali Literature c28

Language
English

Appendix (D): General Informations about the Dharma Literature of Bengal

c28.2

In giving an idea of the literature belonging to the Dharma cult we should first of all mention the two liturgical works available on the cult, the *Śūnya-purāṇa*¹ ascribed to Rāmāi Paṇḍit, who is traditionally supposed to be the founder of the cult in the age of Kali, and the other, the *Dharma-pūjā-vidhāna* which is also ascribed to Rāmāi Paṇḍit, as well as to Raghu-nandana. These liturgical texts represent popular literature of a composite nature in a very loosely versified diction, which embody topics on cosmogony, liturgy, legends about Dharma-worship, building of temples, rituals, ceremonies and indigenous practices, all centering round the godhead of Dharma. There is a great deal of controversy over the authenticity of these texts and the time of their composition and their authorship. As our present study is not primarily historical, we do not propose to enter into the details of these controversies; for our purpose it is necessary to state briefly the conclusions, which we have arrived at by a minute study of the data available on the points at issue.

c28.3

¹ Edited by Mr. N. N. Vasu for the first time and published from the Sāhitya Pariṣat and then by Mr. Charu Chandra Banerjee from the Vasumati Office. The name *Śūnya-purāṇa* was used for the book for the first time by the editor Mr. N. N Vasu and the naming seems to be arbitrary, for no such name of the book is found in any manuscript (the original manuscript of Mr. Vasu is not, however, available to the public). In one place of the text the book is called *Āgama-purāṇa*, and it is also traditionally called the *Hākanda-purāṇa*. MM. H. P. Śāstrī named it as *Rāmāi Paṇḍiter Paddhati*. However, as the book became widely known by the name of *Śūnya-purāṇa* the name was retained in the second edition by Mr. Banerjee.

c28.4

As for the *Śūnya-purāṇa*, which is ascribed to Rāmāi Paṇḍit, there are sufficient reasons to believe that the text in its published form does not represent the contents of a single book composed at any particular point of time by any particular author. On the other hand the text seems to be a collection of versified accounts of the Dharma cult which grew during the thirteenth and the fifteenth centuries among the adherents of this cult. It will be observed that the same topics under the same heading have been introduced thrice or even four times within the text with slightly different readings. There is no order in the arrangement,—cosmogonical, liturgical, ceremonial and legendary accounts have been introduced here and there pell-mell. Linguistic differences are also noticeable in different chapters. All these go to prove that the text is more of the nature of a compilation than the authentic version from a single hand. With the pseudo-archaic forms introduced late in the composition of the verses the language of the *Śūnya-purāṇa* in general presents no archaic character which might justify its claim to have been composed sometime during the fourteenth or the fifteenth century. From the heaps of traditional accounts that have gathered round the figure of Rāmāi Paṇḍit we are loathe to explain away the personality of Rāmāi as purely fictitious. We may not, and we should not, accept all the mythical and semi-mythical accounts given in the *Śrī-dharma-purāṇa* ascribed to Mayūra-bhaṭṭa,¹ or in the *Yātrā-siddha-rāyer Paddhati*²; but nevertheless Rāmāi seems to have been a historical personage.

c28.5

¹ Edited by Mr. Basanta Kumar Chatterjee and published by the Sāhitya Pariṣat.

c28.6

² Portions of the work containing the account of Rāmāi Paṇḍit are quoted in the introduction to the *Śūnya-purāṇa* (Pariṣat edition) by Mr. N. N. Vasu.

c28.7

Rāmāi was held in all Dharma-maṅgala literature to have been the founder of the Dharma cult. The fact may historically be explained in the following manner. A mass of crude local religious ideas and practices of purely indigenous origin got mixed up with some crypto-Buddhist ideas and practices and with these again were incorporated many Hindu ideas and practices in course of time. This curiously composite whole, which could neither be recognised as any form of Buddhism, nor any form of Hinduism, was perhaps modified and loosely codified into a popular religious system by Rāmāi Paṇḍit and henceforth Rāmāi Paṇḍit has been enjoying the credit of being the founder of the cult. Attempts have been made by scholars to determine the time of Rāmāi Paṇḍit, but it appears to us that no such convincing data are available as may warrant the fixing up of the date historically. One way of forming some idea about the time of Rāmāi is to trace the history of later Buddhism in Bengal, from which evolved this mixed religion among the ordinary people, and from a consideration of the course of evolution of later Buddhism it appears that Rāmāi Paṇḍit might have appeared in or about the twelfth century A.D. As we have said, detailed accounts of Rāmāi Paṇḍit and his heirs are given in the *Śrī-dharma-maṅgala* of Mayūra-bhaṭṭa, edited by Mr. B. K. Chatterjee as well as in the *Paddhati* of Yātrāsiddha Rāya;¹ but for various reasons we are not prepared to believe in the historicity of these accounts. The accounts given there are all of an extremely legendary nature.² It may cursorily be mentioned here that in the ritualistic texts as well as in the Dharma-maṅgalas we find occasional references to Mārkaṇḍeya Muni in connection with the worship of Dharma, and sometimes he is depicted as the instructor of Rāmāi in the matter of Dharma-worship. This seems to be nothing but an attempt somehow to connect the Dharma cult with the Purāṇic Hindu legends. Attempts have also been made by scholars to connect the legends of the Dharma cult with those of the Nāth literature and to determine the time of Rāmāi Paṇḍit with the help of the personages of the Nāth literature.¹ In the Śūnya-purāṇa we find that king Haricandra erected a temple of Dharma and with his chief queen Madanā worshipped Dharma with pomp and pageantry avowedly with the purpose of having a son born to them. This Haricandra has been identified with king Hariścandra of Sābhār in the district of Dacca. Two daughters of Hariścandra, *viz.*, Adunā and Padunā were given in marriage to the renowned king Gopi-candra or Govinda-candra, who flourished in the eleventh century.² The Tibetan historian Lama Tāranāth has also mentioned the name of Haricandra, who was, a king in Bengal in the eleventh century. But the story of Haricandra (or rather Hariścandra), found in the Dharma-maṅgala literature, seems to be purely mythical, and like the story of the sage Mārkaṇḍeya and the fragments of many other Purāṇic stories, this well-known story of Haricandra or Hariścandra

c28.8

¹ Vide B. S. P. P., B. S. 1313, No. 2.

c28.9

² Thus, for instance, it has been said that at the end of the Dvāpara age Viśvanātha, a Brahmin of the city of Dvārikā, with his wife Kamalā, worshipped Viṣṇu desirous of a child; long time passed without any issue and then the couple went out on pilgrimage and observed austere penances in sacred places with the purpose of having a son born to them,—but all was in vain; being thus sadly disappointed they were one day about to commit suicide, but were saved by sage Mārkaṇḍeya who taught them the right method of worshipping Viṣṇu who is here plainly identified with Dharma-rāja. They followed his advice, propitiated Viṣṇu or Dharma and had a son born to them,—and as the son was born in the Rāma Tīrtha, the son was called Rāmāi, It has been said in this connection that the child was born in the white Pañcamī of the month of Vaiśākha on Sunday and

c28.10

¹ See an article on Rāmāi Paṇḍit by Dr. Binay Kumar Sen, M.A., Ph.D., in the *Calcutta Review*, August, 1924.

c28.11

² *Vide supra.*

c28.12

the Star was *Bharaṇi* (*vaiśākhi sita-pañcami nakṣatra bharaṇi | rabivār śubha yoge prasave brāhmaṇi* || p. 13). The same account is found in the *Paddhati* of *Yātrāsiddha-rāya* (See introduction to the *Śūnya-purāṇa*, edited by Mr. N. N. Vasu). But it has been pointed out by Dr. Shahidullah that there cannot be any Sunday in the month of Vaiśākha with white Pañcami and the star *Bharaṇi* (see introductory article of Dr. Shahidullah in the *Śūnya-purāṇa*, edited by Mr. C. C. Banerjee, p. 35) and this speaks of the imaginary nature of the whole account.

c28.13

has been interwoven with the main story of the Dharma-mangala literature. This story of Hariścandra was current in India as a very popular story from the time of the Vedas. This story is found in the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, *Kauṣitakī Brāhmaṇa* and in many other places of the Vedic literature.¹ The same story is told in the *Mahābhārata* in a slightly different form as the story of Karṇa's offering the flesh of his son to Lord Viṣṇu, disguised as a Brahmin guest. In the Vedic literature the story of Hariścandra begins with the question of having a son by propitiating God Varuṇa; it is therefore, very likely that the same story was told in connection with Rañjāvatī's having a son born to her 'by propitiating Lord Dharma. We may point out here that, not only king Hariścandra, but even Lord Nārāyaṇa has in some versions of the Dharma-mangalas been held to have been the first worshipper of Dharma.² Moreover, it has rightly been pointed out that no stone-image of Dharma-ṭhākura or any trace of the Dharma-worship is found in any locality of Dacca, or East Bengal as a whole,—whereas stone-images of Dharma-ṭhākura and various traces of Dharma-worship are found abundantly in West Bengal; under the circumstances it is unwarranted to place king Haricandra, the first worshipper of Dharma, in the village Sābhār of the Dacca district.¹

c28.14

¹ *Vide*, *A History of Indian Literature* by Winternitz. pp. 211-216; also introduction to the *Śrī dharma-purāṇa* of Mayūrabhaṭṭa by B. K. Chatterjee, pp. 44-45.

c28.15

² In the Dharma-mangalas we often find a chronology of the twelve worshippers of Dharma According to the chronology given by Māṇik Gānguli the first worshipper was Lord Nārāyaṇa on the shore of the Kṣiroda sea; the second was the King of the gods (Indra?); the third was king Mahisura, the fourth was Kuvadatta of Cāpāya; the fifth Haricandra, who sacrificed his son to Lord Dharma; the sixth was Kāśī of the Rāja-vaṃśa, the seventh was Rañjāvatī, who laid herself on spikes in order to have a son; the eighth was Lāusen; the ninth was Jayasiṃha, who worshipped Dharma on the bank of the Lake Tāra; the tenth worship was in Kañura and the twelfth worship was in connection with the death of Ichāi-ghoṣ (*Śrī-dharma-maṅgala*, p. 225). According to Ghana-rām the first worshipper of Dharma was Mahārāja Bhoja; the second was Dhūpadatta, who erected a temple of Dharma in Māṇik-dvīpa; the third was Mathura-ghoṣ and the fourth the Brahmin Mahīmukha; the fifth was Kālu-ghoṣ who was born from the sweat of Dharma; the sixth was king Hariścandra the seventh was the son of Sadā Ḍoma; the eighth was Āsāi Caṇḍāla; the ninth the Brahmin Mahīpāla; the tenth was Śivadatta of the Bārui caste (*i.e.*, people dealing in betel-leaves); the eleventh was Harihara Bāiti and the twelfth was Lāusen (*Śrī-dharma-maṅgala* of Ghana-rām, p. 272) According to Rūp-rām again, the first worship was offered by the Brahmin Harihara, to whom Dharma appeared in the form of a Brahmacārin; the second was made by the son of a cowherd (*goāl koṅār*) who built a golden house for Dharma in Sonārapura; the third was made by Isāi Caṇḍāla, who offered Dharma a tank of wine and a dam of cakes (*mader pukur dila piṭhār jāṅgal*); the fourth worship was made by the son of a merchant, the fifth by Puradatta and the sixth by king Hariścandra with

c28.16

¹ Introduction to the Śrī-dharma-maṅgala of Mayūra-bhaṭṭa by Mr. B. K. Chatterjee, p. 45.

c28.17

his wife Madanā (and the author confesses in this connection that the story of Hariścandra is famous in the Purāṇa, named Kāśi-khaṇḍa); the seventh was by Sadā Ḍoma who offered wine and meat to Dharma; the eighth was by Ananta Vāsuki, ninth by Kharjjura-nandana (?),—and the tenth by the Bāiti of Gauḍa; the eleventh worship was by Rañjāvatī and the twelfth and the last by Lāusen. [See MS. C. U. 3279, pp. 85 (A)—85 (B)]. The list according to the Anādi-maṅgala of Rāmdās Adak is as follows:—Dvija Harihara, Urvaśī Muni, Sadā-śiva in the form of Sadā-ḍoma, on the bank of the river Bullukā (by whom?), Māndhātā, Yudhiṣṭhira, Hariścandra, worship in Gauḍa (by whom?) etc., the twelfth being Lāusen (see p. 245). Such a chronology of the twelve worshippers of Dharma in the Kaliyuga are found in many of the Dharma-maṅgalas by other poets with some alterations. It is needless to repeat here that no historical importance should be attached to these chronologies which are purely legendary and mythical in nature. It is also to be noted that the number of worshippers of Dharma-ṭhākura in the Kaliyug is twelve only because of the fact that twelve is the mystic number of the Dharma cult, and the worship of Dharma is called Bārmati. The ceremonies of the worship take place in twelve consecutive days beginning from the third Tithi of the light half of the month of Vaiśākha. In the Dharma-pūjā twelve flowers, twelve items of all ritualistic articles are required; the male devotees required are twelve and the number of the female devotees is also twelve; even the chapters in the Dharma-maṅgalas are twelve. Mr. B. K. Chatterjee likes to connect this custom of the Dharma cult with the Vedic custom of Twelve days' sacrifice (vide Introduction to Śrī-dharma-maṅgala of Mayūra-bhaṭṭa, p. 245). In the Dharma-pūjā-Vidhāna we find that in every age there are seven devotees (bhakta) of Dharma. In the Satya age the devotees are,—Brahmā, Ulūka, Nārada, Vasumati, Durgā, Indra and Gaṅgā; in the Treta age Vali, Māndhātā, Sāgara, Kārttika, Kālughoṣa, Venupura, and Bhaṭṭa-dharādhara; in the Dvāpara age Rāvaṇa, Indra-kumāra, Śaṅkha, Śrī-rāma, Gāndhārī, Bhagīratha, Bhāskara and Pakṣirāja (i.e., Garuḍa); in the Kali age Kapilā, Nārāyaṇa, Manirāja Bhaṭṭa, Muṇḍira Ghoṣa, Pūrvadatta, Bhīṣmaka, Kauntaka, , Bighneśvara, Asāya, Caṇḍāla, Varuṇa, , Magara, Manoratha Paṇḍita, Pakṣasāreṅga, Sādhupura Datta and Dhanakuvera (p. 8). The number in the Kaliyuga evidently exceeds seven and becomes fifteen.

c28.18

Rāmāi Paṇḍit was in later times transformed into a purely mythical figure by being associated with the other four exponents of the cult, *viz.*, Śetai, Nilāi, Kaṃsāi and Goṃsāi.¹ In the Dharma-maṅgalas of the later period Rāmāi Paṇḍit is found to be the instructor of Queen Rañjāvatī, mother of Lāusen, the hero of the Dharma-maṅgalas. This Rañjāvatī is said to have been the sister-in-law of the emperor of Gauḍa. In no one of the Dharma-maṅgalas do we find mention of the name of this emperor of Gauḍa; but it is said that he was, the son of Dharma-pāla.² Dharma-pāla is a famous king of the Pāla dynasty of Bengal, who ascended the throne in 815 A. D. He had two sons of whom Tribhuvana-pāla, the elder of the two, died prematurely during the lifetime of his father; consequently Devapāla, the younger son, became the emperor of Gauḍa after Dharma-pāla. If we are to accept the account given by Ghana-rām, Rañjāvatī was the sister-in-law of king Devapāla, who flourished in the ninth century A.D., and Rāmāi Paṇḍit being the instructor of Rañjāvatī flourished at or about that time. But in a copper-plate inscription of Devapāla, discovered in Munghyr it is found that some Raṇṇadevī was the wife of Dharma-pāla and Raṇṇadevī was the daughter of Govinda III. According to Ghana-rām, however, the chief queen of Dharma-pāla was Ballabhā. To us the account given by Ghana-rām does not seem to be historically correct; he seems to have given rather a traditional account of his hero Lāusen, who must have been a tribal chief at the time of some Pāla king named Dharma-pāla. The association of Rāmāi Paṇḍit with the Dharma-worship by Rañjāvatī and by Lāusen in later time seems to be merely traditional. Whenever there was the worship of Dharma the help of a Paṇḍit (i.e., a priest versed in Dharma-worship) was required, and Rāmāi being the most famous of the Paṇḍits, it is very likely that his name should be associated with the Dharma-worship of different times. On all occasions of Dharma-worship the priest or the Paṇḍit, who is generally said to be Rāmāi Paṇḍit himself, gave instruction consulting a scritptural text which is called Dharma-purāṇa or Hākanda-purāṇa or simply the Purāṇa¹. Hanūmān, who has in many occasions given instruction of Dharma-worship, is described as well-versed in the Hākanda-purāṇa (which, we have seen, is another name for the text of Śūnya-purāṇa). This fact leads to the conclusion that among the poets of the later times there was the tradition of some liturgical text containing all the details of Dharma-worship and the text of the Śūnya-purāṇa in its modern form may represent some confusedly collected portions of the aforesaid text.

c28.19

¹ *Vide* Supra Ch. xiii.

c28.20

² Many scholars have committed a great mistake by assuming that Rāmāi Paṇḍit was contemporaneous with king Dharma-pāla of Gauḍa, of whom Rañjāvatī, the mother of Lāusen was the sister-in-law. (See *Vaṅga-bhāsā O Sāhitya* by Dr. D. C. Sen, D. Litt., chapter on *Bauddha-yuga*; Introduction to the *Śūnya-purāṇa* by Mr. C. C. Banerjee, p. 89). Nowhere in the Dharma-maṅgalas do we find Rañjāvatī described as the sister-in-law of Dharma-pāla; she was the sister-in-law of the son of Dharma-pāla. Cf. *dharma-pāl nāme chila gauḍer ṭhākur | prasaṅge prasave puṇya pāp yāy dūr || pṛthivī pāliyā svarga bhuñje nṛpavar | bīrya-vanta putra tār rājā gāuḍeśvar* || Śrī-dharma-maṅgala of Ghana-rām, (Baṅgavāsī edition), p. 12. It was this last Gauḍeśvara, son of Dharma-pāla, of whom Rañjāvatī is said to have been the sister-in-law. The same account is also found in the *Anādi-maṅgala* of Rām-dās Adak, see p. 13 (Sāhitya-pariṣat edition)

c28.21

¹ See, Śrī-dharma-maṅgala of Ghana-rām, p. 40; Ibid., p. 41, p. 216.

c28.22

As for the other ritualistic text, *viz.*, the Dharma-pūjā-vidhāna, we are definitely of opinion that it is a compilation of much later times. The followers of the Dharma cult, however, speak of the Śūnya-purāṇa and the Dharma-pūjā-vidhāna as the fifth Veda embodying the new religion of

c28.23

dharma-purāṇer mata pūjā jathocita |
Dharmāyaṇa of Narasimha Vasu, Vol. I.
MS. C. U. No. 3224, p. 68(B).
paṇḍit pustak hāte balān vacan |
Ibid., Vol. II., MS. C. U. No. 3224, p. 32(A).
Cf. also p. 18(B).
Śrī-dharma-maṅgala of Ghana-rām, p. 8.

c28.24

Dharma, which was first revealed to Rāmāi Paṇḍit. The vernacular verses in the latter text are very few in comparison with the Sanskritic and the pseudo-Sanskritic Mantras and other injunctions regarding the worship not only of Dharma-ṭhākura, but of almost all the gods and goddesses of the popular Hindu pantheon, of esoteric Buddhism as well as of purely local deities of indigenous origin. Beginning with the worship of Gaṇeśa (as the custom in popular Hindu worship is) we find here injunctions and Mantras for the worship of the Sun, Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Śiva, Durgā, Lakṣmī, Viṣahari, Bhairava, Vāsulī, Sarasvatī, Kuvera, Ṣaṣṭhī, Bhagavatī, Vasumatī, Viśālākṣī, Baṭukanātha, Kṣetrapāla, Brahmāṇī, Māheśvarī, Vaiṣṇavī, Bārāhī, Nārasimhī, Indrāṇī, Cāmuṇḍā, Garuḍa, Viśvakarmā, Nandī, Kāmadeva, Vāṇeśvara, Paṇḍāsura, the ten Dik-pālas, the gate-keepers (Dvāra-pāla), and a host of others. In the colophon of the vernacular verses we find the name of Rāmāi Paṇḍit as the author, whereas the text as a whole is ascribed to Raghu-nandana. It is very easy to detect that many of the Bengali verses of the Dharma-pūjā-vidhāna are nothing but different version of the verses found in the Śūnya-purāṇa; and the Sanskrit Mantras regarding the meditation and the salutation of the Hindu gods and goddesses are nothing but the corrupted forms of them found in the Hindu texts on worship; the portions composed by our Raghu-nandana, are the peculiarly funny pseudo-Sanskritic portions introduced here and there in the text. Whoever the author of these pseudo-Sanskritic portions might have been, it is apparent that the text as a whole has been ascribed to Raghu-nandana only to bestow on it the dignity and importance of being composed by Raghu-nandana, the great authority on Smṛti.

c28.25

Besides these liturgical texts there are the Dharma-maṅgalas which represent in many places a type of really good literature in the art of plot-construction as well as in characterisation. Though Rāmāi Paṇḍit appears to have flourished some time before the twelfth century, Dharma-maṅgala literature did not flourish before the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries. Mayūra-bhaṭṭa has been unanimously credited by other poets of the cult to have been the first poet of the Dharma-maṅgala literature and all poets have saluted him (Mayūra-bhaṭṭa) as the pioneer in the field. But the work of Mayūra-bhaṭṭa has not yet been discovered and the Śrī-dharma-purāṇa of Mayūra-bhaṭṭa discovered and edited by Mr. B. K. Chatterjee (and published by the Sāhitya Pariṣat) seems to us to be spurious for various reasons, and this had rightly been the opinion also of many other scholars after it was first published.¹ Moreover, even in its spurious form the text published is incomplete, the Lāusen-story being missing. After Mayūra-bhaṭṭa the poetical works of about twenty poets have been discovered, many in the complete form and some in parts. As we have already pointed out, almost all of these poets flourished during the period of a century from the last half of the seventeenth century to the last half of the eighteenth century.²

c28.26

¹ Vide B. S. P. P., B. S. 1338, No. 2.

c28.27

² Dr. D. C. Sen in his Typical Selections from Bengali Literature, Part 1, says that the manuscript of the Dharma-maṅgala of Govindarām Bandyopādhyāy is dated 1071 B. S. (i.e., 1665 A.D.), and from this he assumes that Govindarām flourished in the fifteenth century. But Mr. B. K. Chatterjee holds that the date of the MS. is not of B.S., but of the Malla Era, (1071 Malla Era,—1766 A.D.) and thinks that the poet flourished in the first half of the eighteenth century. (Vide Introduction to the Śrī-dharma-maṅgala of Mayūra-bhaṭṭa, p. 6).

c28.28

The reasons, why this text seems to us to be purely spurious may briefly be noted below. In the first place the manuscript of the text, as the editor himself admits, is almost brand new (written in 1310 B. S., i.e., 36 years old), and secondly the language is hopelessly modern. Thirdly, Mayūra-bhaṭṭa being the pioneer in the field, the later poets should have followed him in their works; but that has not been the case. Again, the later poets do not attach so much importance to the stone-image of Dharma (i.e., Dharma-śilā) as the neo-Mayūra-bhaṭṭa does. Moreover, we find here innumerable legends of purely Purāṇic character very cleverly interwoven in the text to explain all the peculiar customs and factors found in connection with Dharma-worship. Again it is very curious to note that though Mayūra-bhaṭṭa is the earliest poet of the Dharma-maṅgala literature, flourishing in or about the fourteenth century A.D., the Dharma-ṭhākura depicted in this work bears not even the faintest trace of any Buddhistic character whatsoever and has flatly identified himself with Lord Viṣṇu !

c28.29

Of these poets, however, Rūpa-rām, Khelā-rām, Māṇik Gāṅgulī, Sītā-rām, Rām-dās Ādak, Ghana-rām Cakravartī, Sahadev Cakravartī, Narasimha Vasu, Rām Candra Bandyopādhyāy seem to be more important. Excepting the work of Sahadev Cakravartī, in whom we find a mixture of the legends of the Dharma literature and of the Nāth literature, all the other works are almost the same so far as the theme is concerned. The main theme of all the Dharma-maṅgalas is the story of Lāusen, and there is a striking unanimity among the poets not only in the description of the main story, but also in the minute description of the incidents.

c28.30

The Dharma-maṅgala literature as a whole, like all other Maṅgala literatures of Bengal, represents, as we have already explained in the introduction,¹ the continuation of the spirit of the Purāṇic literature in the vernacular. It is some sort of a propaganda literature to glorify the god or the goddess in question with reference to innumerable incidents on which occasions he or she had the opportunity of displaying his or her sovereign power. The stories are introduced to popularise the worship of the deity pointing out the celestial benefit which the previous worshippers did obtain. The Dharma-maṅgalas relate the eventful life-sketch of the hero Lāusen, who owed his birth to the grace of Dharma and in all the adventures throughout his eventful life was saved from all sorts of calamities through the gracious intervention of Lord Dharma. We have already pointed out that in the delineation of the plot there is a general agreement among all the poets; let us therefore take the version of Ghana-rām Cakravartī to be the representative version of the story and give a summary of the whole story in the following pages.

c28.31

¹ Supra.

c28.32

After creating the universe Lord Dharma was in a fix as to how to introduce his worship in the world. Hanūmān, the sole agent and the main advisor of the Lord, advised him to make device to have Ambuvatī, a dancer-girl in the court of Indra, brought down on earth through some curse. The advice was promptly carried out and Ambuvatī took her human birth with Benu-rāy and Mantharā as her parents and wicked Mahāmad Pātra as her brother, she herself was named Rañjāvatī.

c28.33

The son of Dharma-pāla (i.e., Deva-pāla) was at that time the emperor of Gauḍa, and he married the elder daughter of Benu-rāy. Mahāmad Pātra (called by Ghanarām generally as Pātra or Mahāpātra), who was the brother-in-law of the emperor, eventually became the minister. Once the emperor went a-hunting and chanced to meet Soma-ghoṣ who had been arrested, on the order of the minister for non-payment of tax. The emperor took pity on him, ordered his release and placed him as a superintendent over Karṇa-sen, the chief of the fort of Triṣaṣṭi, situated on the bank of the river Ajaya. But ere long Ichāi-ghoṣ became very powerful, drove Karṇa-sen away, established a new fort of the name of Dhekur and defied the supremacy even of the emperor himself. The emperor went to subdue the rebellion with nine lacs of soldiers, but was sadly defeated. The six sons of Karṇa-sen were killed in the battle and his wife was shocked to death. The emperor then took pity on Karṇa-sen and gave his sister-in-law, Rañjāvatī, in marriage to him. This, however, was strongly resented by Mahāpātra for various reasons. Unfortunately Rañjā proved barren and all rituals, ceremonies and worship of gods and goddesses came to be of no avail. Once, by chance, she came across a religious procession on the occasion of Dharma's Gājana,¹ and from among the processionists Rāmai Paṇḍit explained to Rañjā and her husband the glory of Dharma and assured them that they also might have a son born to them by worshipping Dharma. With the instructions from Rāmāi Rañjāvatī laid herself on pikes before Dharma; and the lord was propitiated and granted her a son, whose name was Lāusen. When Mahāmad Pātra came to know of the birth of a son to Rañjā by Karṇa-sen he engaged a rogue, Indāmeṭe by name, to steal away the child, but the child was saved through the grace of Dharma. Dharma vouchsafed Lāusen a brother, Karpūra by name, as a playmate to him. When the two brothers grew in age Dharma sent Hanūmān from Vaikuṇṭha to teach them duel-fighting and archery. When his education was finished Lāusen, accompanied by his brother, started for Gauḍa to meet the emperor. They had thrilling encounters on the way,—Lāusen had to kill the pet tiger of Pārvatī, kill another crocodile, pass through the land of wicked women,—and Lāusen always came out victorious through the grace of Dharma, which was bestowed mainly through the agency of Hanūmān. After Lāusen reached Gauḍa his maternal uncle Mahāmad Pātra left no stone unturned to harass and insult Lāusen; but Lāusen got the upper hand through the grace of Dharma and returned home safe. Mahāmad Pātra then made another device against Lāusen; he instructed the emperor to send Lāusen to Kāmarūpa with some sturdy followers. This time also Lāusen had to encounter many difficulties; but the grace of Dharma through the agency of Hanūmān made him victorious throughout. He captured Kāmarūpa very easily and married Kaliṅgā, the princess. When he was returning home in glory, he married on his way Amalā, the daughter of Gajapati of Maṅgala-koṭa, and also Vimalā, daughter of the king of Burdwan.

c28.34

¹ Gājana (=skt. garjana=roaring) means the ceremonies that take place in honour of Dharma-ṭhākura. It is perhaps the tumultuous nature of the ceremonies which are responsible for the name Gājana.

c28.35

After returning home Lāusen was passing his happy time in the company of his wives; but Dharma realised that if Lāusen were thus allowed to pass his time in peace the worship of Dharma would not be introduced in the world.

c28.36

He then held conference with Hanūmān and made another device. Through his magical power the emperor of Gauḍa became mad after Kānaḍā, the young beautiful daughter of Haripāla, king of Simulā. The emperor made proposal of marriage and it was sternly refused by Kānaḍā. The emperor got excited and attacked Simulā with nine lacs of soldiers. Kānaḍā then made a promise that, whoever would be able to break a particular iron rod, would be selected as her husband. The emperor failed ludicrously and the man who succeeded was Lāusen. After several other developments in the story, in which gods and goddesses played important parts, Kānaḍā was married by Lāusen.

c28.37

Mahāmad Pātra was not the man to be cowed down, Lāusen must be crushed by hook or by crook. A fresh intrigue came to his mind and he proposed to the emperor that Lāusen should be sent to Dhekur to collect tax from Ichāi-ghoṣ. In spite of all remonstrance from his parents, who could not forget the death of their six sons at the hands of Ichāi-ghoṣ, Lāusen started for Dhekur and after a great fight killed Ichāi-ghoṣ, of course, through the grace and device of Dharma. Mahāmad Pātra was then convinced that Lāusen had the blessings of Dharma upon him,—and that to get the victory over Lāusen he should propitiate Dharma and obtain a boon from Him. Accordingly he advised the emperor of Gauḍa to worship Dharma, and his advice was followed. Dharma came to know of the evil intention of Mahāmad Pātra and through the agency of Hanūmān sent storm and rain below. The emperor got frightened and on the advice of the minister sent for Lāusen, who alone could save them from the direful wrath of the Lord. Lāusen came instantly, but the Pātra made an absurd proposal. The Pātra said that the divinely decreed evil of the whole country could be remedied only if Lāusen could make the sun rise in the west at the dead of night on the new moon. Lāusen agreed and did make the sun rise in the west by his austere penances and thus the almighty power and the divine glory of Lord Dharma was finally established. Mahāmad Pātra was, however, punished with leprosy for his wickedness and afterwards relieved at the request of Lāusen; and Lāusen had heaven as his reward. Thus was the worship of Dharma introduced and popularised by Lāusen all over the world.

c28.38

The struggle of Lāusen is virtually the struggle of Dharma himself to be introduced to the people of the world and to be recognised and worshipped by them as the Lord Supreme. It appears from the incidents of the Dharma-maṅgalas that Dharma-ṭhākura had to establish his supremacy against the Supremacy of the śakti (i.e., the female deity) in the form of Durgā or Vāśulī or Kāli. The opponents of Lāusen were all worshippers of śakti and were protected by her. Goddess Durgā even stooped so low as to assume the form of a charming damsel to allure Lāusen and to convert him to the śakti cult; but all her attempts were frustrated by the strength of character of Lāusen and also by his sincere devotion towards Lord Dharma. The severest fight, virtually between Dharma and śakti, in the person of Lāusen and Ichāi-ghoṣ respectively, took place in the battle of Dhekur. Ichāi was protected by the goddess herself and Lāusen with his backing in Lord Dharma could do no harm to him. As many times as Lāusen cut the head of Ichāi-ghoṣ, the head of Ichāi, separated from the body, muttered the name of Durgā and the separated head was joined with the body by the grace of the goddess. Lord Dharma found himself in a fix and Hanūmān was helpless there. Immediately, however, an assembly of the gods was invited and advice from them solicited. It was then finally decided that the sage Nārada must be sent forth to devise some means whereby the attention of the goddess might be diverted from Ichāi. Nārada, the reputed quarrelmonger, went to goddess Durgā and informed her that, taking advantage of her long absence from Kailāsa (she being long in Dhekur to protect her devotee Ichāi-ghoṣ), old Śiva had left home and was visiting the quarters of the Kotch (a hilly tribe) and having dalliances with Kotch-women; Kārttika and Gaṇeśa (the two sons of Durgā) had left home and went away, Jayā and Vijayā (the daughters) were starving to death, the condition of the whole family was topsy-turvy. Hearing these words from Nārada Durgā at once left Dhekur for Kailāsa and found all the informations, supplied by Nārada, to be totally false; but taking advantage of her absence from Dhekur Dharma, through the agency of Hanūmān, instructed Lāusen to attack and kill Ichāi-ghoṣ which Lāusen easily succeeded in executing. By the time Durgā hurried up to Dhekur, Hanūmān carried the head of Ichāi to the netherland and she found, it was too late to give her devotee any help. Thus the honour of Lord Dharma was somehow saved through the cunning device of Nārada, against whom, we are not told, what step was taken by the enraged goddess.

Linked texts (5)