Ayodhya Revisited
Page 15
If the V.H.P. failed to produce any document beyond the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Skanda Purāna; I am not here to defend the inadequate research on their part. But I can claim with full authenticity and certainty that there are at least four texts of the standing of several centuries which contain the Rāma-janmasthāna māhātmya i.e. the religious merit of the birthplace of Lord Rāma. They are:
(i) Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Skanda-Purāna.
(ii) Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Rudra-yāmala
(iii) Satyopākhyāna and
(iv) Avadha-vilāsa of Lal Das
In addition, there are independent Ayodhyā-mahatmyas which contain several interpolations. But one striking feature of all the māhātmyas is that while depicting the merits of the Janma-sthāna, there are no glaring contradictions in their description of the birthplace of Lord Rāma. Even the content on the birthplace of Rāma mentioned in the “Epitome of the Ajudhia mahatama”, an abstract prepared by J. Woodburn, Assistant Settlement Officer from P. Carnegy’s book is not at variance with the published edition of the Skanda Purāna.
(1) Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Skanda Purāna
Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Skanda Purāna is the most important source of the birthplace of Lord Rāma at Ayodhyā. The Skanda Purāna is one of 18 Mahapurānas and is mentioned so even by Alberuni, almost one thousand years ago. In the ‘Kitab-ul Hind’ Abu Raihan Alberuni thus writes:
“The Puranas are of human origin, composed by the so-called Rishis. In the following I have a list of their names, as I have heard them, and committed them to writing from dictation. (Chapter XII of the 1st volume)
Then he gives the names of 18 Puranas from Ādi Purāna to the Bhavishya Purāna. In the middle at serial no.9 he writes “Skanda Purāna, i.e. a son of Mahadeva.”
Then in another paragraph he writes:
“Another somewhat different list of the Puranas has been read to me from the Vishnu-Purãna. I give it here in extension, as in all questions resting on tradition it is the duty of an author to give those traditions as completely as possible.”
Then he narrates the names of 18 Purānas from Brahmā to Brahmānd+a and the Skanda Purāna is seen at the 13th position in the list. Since this list is found in the present Vishnu Purāna which is supposed to have been composed in the Gupta age. It is natural to presume that the Skanda-Purāna existed in the late, if not early, Gupta age.
The Dānasāgara of Vallālasen contains 48 ślokas from the Skanda Purāna. Vallālasena, the father of Lakshmanasena, is a name famous in Bengali legend as the reputed founder of Kulinism, i.e. a system of nobility. Dānasāgara was composed in Śaka 1091, i.e. 1169 A.D. While mentioning the reference-texts studied for the writing his book he describes Skanda Purāna as follows:
प्रचरद्रूपतः स्कन्दपुराणैकांशतोऽधिकम्।
यत्खण्डत्रितयं पौण्ड्ररेवावन्तिकमाश्रवम्।।
(दानसागर, उपक्रमणिका, )
Apart from the prevalent form of the Skanda Purāna, three more chapters of Paund+ra, Revā and Avantikā have been heard (read) by me.
The Skanda-Purāna is quoted in the Mitākshara, a celebrated commentary on the Yājñavalkya-smriti. On the śloka 2/290 of the Yājñavalkya-smriti it refers to the Skanda-Purāna:
स्मर्यते हि स्कन्दपुराणे- ‘पञ्चचूडा नाम काश्चनाप्सरसः तत्सन्ततिर्वेश्याख्या पञ्चमी जातिः’ इति।
It is stated in the Skanda Purāna – “There were certain ‘apsaras’ whose descendants were prostitutes and called the fifth caste.”
Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasad Sastri had found manuscripts of Purānas in Gupta character in Nepal Raj Durbar Library. It included the manuscript of some portions of the Skanda-Purāna. It was examined by Hara Prasad Sastri as well as Professor Cecil Bendall, who was Professor of Sanskrit in the University of Cambridge. “Catalogue of Palm Leaf and Selected Paper Mss. Belonging to the Durbar Library, Nepal” was published in 1905 from Calcutta. On the palaeographic examination these two great scholars found that the script of this manuscript had the Gupta character and it was copied before 659 A.D. In the Preface Hara Prasad Sastri wrote thus:
“Skandapurana pp. 8 and 141, No. 229, is in Gupta character. Professor and myself carefully examined the palaeography of the MS. at the Durbar Library, and we came to the conclusion that the work must have been copied at least two hundred years before the ‘Paramesvara tantra’ in transitional Gupta character, described by Prof. Bendall in his Cam. Cat. So the MS. must have been copied before 659 A.D. as the Paramesvaratantra was copied in Harsa era 252=859 A.D.” (p. 52)
From the scant portion of the Skanda Purāna available in the Durbar Library, Nepal it is difficult to make any concrete presumption except that the Skanda Purāna existed in the first half of the seventh century A.D. But his assertion that the manuscript of the Skanda Purāna had the Gupta character gets further support from Benjamin Walker who assigns the date of this Purāna in 550 A.D.
Benjamin Walker in “Hindu World – An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism’, first published in 1968 by George Allen & Unwin, London and the first Indian Edition published in 1983 by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. has given some information about the Puranas and dated them also., About Skanda Purāna he writes:
“Purãna (C. A.D. 550), related by Skanda, god of war. The longest of the Puranas is said to consist of over 80,000 stanzas, although it does not exist in composite form, but only fragments. Such, for example, is the Kashi Khanda, describing Benaras and the Saivite temples there, and the Utkala Khanda, giving an account of Orissa.”
Thus, Benjamin Walker considers the Skanda Purāna as one of the earliest Puranas but our established historians arbitrarily take it to late 18th or early 19th century. But it is far from the actual position.
There is Dvārkā-māhātmya in the Prabhāsa Khand+a of the Skand Purāna. It has been quoted in the Dvārakā-pattalam+ which was written by Bīnābaī. She was the daughter of Mānd+alika and wife of King Hari Singh of Chauhān clan at Pātalipur in Kathiawad. She is a historical figure of the fifteenth century. Dvārakā-pattalam was published in 1941 A.D. in the third volume of ‘The Contribution of Women to Sanskrit Literature’ at Kolkata. Its editor was Jatindra Vimal Chaudhari who had the manuscript dated 1518 A.D. for its publication. In this book she has quoted many vases from the Dvārkā-māhātmya of the Prabhasa Khand+a of the Skanda-purana. According to it, Mathurā, Dvārakā and Ayodhyā are the three sacred places in the Kali era which are very dear to Hari and provide Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha:
मथुरा द्वारकायोध्या कलिकाले पुरीत्रयम्।
धर्मार्थकामदं भूप मोक्षदं हरिवल्लभम्।। (२५.२)
O King! Ayodhyā, Mathurā, and Dvārakā are three cities which provide Dharma, Artha, Kāma and Moksha and are dear to Hari.
द्वारवत्यामयोध्यायां कृष्णं रामं शुभप्रदम्।
मथुरायां हरिं विष्णुं स्मृत्वा मुक्तिमवाप्नुयात्।। (२५.४)
One gets salvation by remembering Kr+ishna at Dvārakā, Rāma at Ayodhyā and Hari at Mathurā.
धन्यानामपि सा पूज्या अयोध्या सर्वकामदा।
या स्वयं रामदेवेन पालिता धर्मबुद्धिना।। (२५.६)
Ayodhyā fulfils all desires and is revered among glorified cities. It is protected by Rāma himself, the embodiment of wisdom.
प्रभासे च कुरुक्षेत
्रे यत्फलं वत्सरै शतै।
वसतां निमिषार्द्धह्यन ह्ययोध्यायां च तद् भवेत्।। (२५.९)
Whatever merit one gets by dwelling at Prabhasa and Kurukshetra for hundreds of years is obtained by living at Ayodhyā for half nimish (1/3 second).
अयोध्याधिपतिं रामं मथुरायां तु केशवम्।
द्वारकावासिनं कृष्णं कीर्तनं चापि दुर्लभम्।। (२५.१०)
It is difficult to recite the names of Rāma, the Lord of Ayodhyā, Keśava of Mathurā and Krishna, the resident of Dvārakā.
मथुराकीर्तनेनापि श्रवणाद् द्वारकापुरः।
अयोध्यादर्शनेनापि त्रिशुं च पदं व्रजेत्।। (२५.११)
One gets the most sacred post by reciting the name at Mathurā, hearing the names of Dvārakā and by a glimpse of Ayodhyā.
Such is the tremendous merit of Ayodhyā.
(Skanda Purāna: Prabhāsa Khand+a: Dvārakā-māhātmya Adhyāya25)
Skanda Purāna may contain several interpolations but we have to examine the date and authenticity of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya; particularly the Janma-sthāna-māhātmya.
Skanda Purāna contains the Māhātmya of a number of pilgrim places (sthalas). Earlier the sthala-māhātmyas were denigrated by the established historians. But a number of foreign scholars took the lead in reconstructing religious history of the area. The Dutch Indologist Jan Gonda was pioneer in the field. He wrote the book ‘Medieval Religious Literature in Sanskrit’ (Wiesbaden, 1977) and suggested that the literature on holy places of special sanctity is in all probability far more extensive than any other single topic of Dharama Sastra (p. 276). He further added:
“This genre of literature is not only very useful for deepening our knowledge of the cultural and religious history of India in general but also most valuable for those who want to reconstruct the development of regional history and local cults or to gain a deeper insight into various religious institutions” (p. 278).
The “Gayā māhātmya” was highlighted by C. Jacques in 1962 and “Kāñchī Māhātmya” by a team of scholars led by R. Dessigne in 1964. The Indradyumana legend was discussed threadbare by R. Geib in 1975, the “Purushottama (Jagannātha-purī) māhātmya” by a team of scholars led by A. Eichmann in 1978, “Chidambaram Māhātmya” by Hermann Kulke in 1970 and “Prayāga Māhātmya” by S.G. Kantawala in 1967 and G. Spera in 1977 A.D. In this tradition another Dutch scholar Hans Bakker made a detailed study of Ayodhyā-māhātmya which was published in 1986 before the eruption of the fierce controversy between the two communities.
A wrong impression has been deliberately created by the established historians that the religious importance of the birthplace of Lord Rāma is of recent origin. In the aforementioned booklet the four historians arbitrarily wrote thus:
“The various versions of the Ayodhya mãhãtmya seem to have been prepared towards the end of the eighteenth century or the beginning of the nineteenth; even as late as that the birth place was not considered to be important. It is significant that Janma-sthãna is not mentioned even once in any itinerary of pilgrimage in the mãhãtmya.”
This conclusion is contrary to the historical facts and analytical study of the wide literature on the sacrosanct status of the birthplace of Lord Rāma. The established historians, who have otherwise quoted profusely the content of Hans Bakker’s book ‘Ayodhyā’, have deliberately suppressed the findings of the Dutch scholar who has fixed the date of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya in the 13th or 14th century in the following words:
“In view of the above considerations we are inclined to accept the close of the 13th or the 14th century as the most plausible date for the redaction of a type of text and its insertion in the Vaishnavakhand+a (S)”: (pp. 129-30)
In the footnote, Bakker further adds:
“This date seems to corroborate the assumption that the Vaisnavakhand+a of the Skandapurana was the work of one editor who collated his materials in the 14th century. The other (tirtha-) māhātmyas in this Kãnd+a are the Venkatachala mãhãtmya, the Badrikãśrama-mãhãtmya, and the Purus+ottamaks+etra-mãhatmya. The date of the former two mãhãtmyas is unknown, but the Purus+ottama-ks+etra-mãhãtmya was composed about AD 1300 (see COJ 36, 54, 170).”
Though Bakker’s is an extensive research on Ayodhyā-māhātmya, yet some of his conclusions can still be improved; e.g. he has dated the composition of the Purushottama-kshetra-māhātmya around 1300 A.D. but from an analytical study of this māhātmya it is clear that it was composed long before 1042 A.D. because it does not mention the construction of the present magnificent Jagannātha temple built by Chod+aganaga in 1042 A.D.
Let us now see how these four historians have dated the Ayodhyā-māhātmya. They have claimed that they have used the printed version of the Skanda-Purāna and two other versions found in the Vrindāvan Research Institute, Vrindāvan, and the Bodleian Library, Oxford. These three texts are utilized in Bakker’s book by the references S, B and OA respectively. How much deep study of the Skanda Purāna has been made by these great historians is best reflected in their following observation:
“The internal contents of the Skanda Purãna, including the mention of Vidyapati, who passed away in the first half of the sixteenth century, show that the core of this Purãna itsef was not compiled earlier than the sixteenth century.”
Readers should know that Vidyāpati described in the Skanda Purāna is not the famous Maithil poet but a legendary figure who has been described as the younger brother of the priest of the legendary king Indradyumana of Ujjain. He was deputed by the king to trace the Nīla Mādhava deity being worshipped by the Śabara tribe of the Utkal country. There is a long story of this legendary Vidyāpati and king Indradyumana of Ujjain in the Skanda Purāna. Had these historians really read the content of the Skanda Purāna they would have come to know that this Vidyāpati was different from the Vidyāpati of Mithilā who was born in c.1350 A.D. This date is decided on the basis of the historical fact that Śivasimaha ascended the throne in 1402 A.D. at the age of 50 and Vidyāpati was elder to him by two years. His one work ‘Likhanāvalī ’, a treatise on drafting official letters is dated L.S. 299 i.e. 1408 A.D. He copied the entire Bhāgavata Purāna in Mithilākshara which was dated by the poet L.S. 309 i.e. 1418 A.D. The following colophon written in the poet’s own handwriting confirms it:
Colophon of the Bhāgavata scribed by Vidyāpati.
The Mithilākshara script is transliterated into the Devanāgarī for the convenience of readers:
लसं ३०९ श्रावण सुदि १५ कुजे रजा वनौली ग्रामे श्रीविद्यापतेर्ल्लिपिरियमिति।।
It is a well known fact that Vidyāpati copied the entire Bhāgavata in Nepal in his old age after the defeat and non-appearance of King Śivasimaha. Therefore Vidyāpati could have never lived in the first half of the 16th century.
The Durgābhakti-taranaginī was written by Vidyāpati on the request of Mahārāja Bhairava Simaha whose definite date 1375 Saka or 1453 A.D. is mentioned in an inscription of the Sun-temple at Kandāhā near Saharsa in Bihar. Thus, the famous Maithila poet might have lived upto c. 1460 A.D. But our great historians keep him alive till the first half of the 16th century A.D.
If these historians did really read the manuscripts of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Vrindavan Research Institute, they could have come across the following four manuscripts kept therein:
(a) Acc. No. 7141 in Devanāgarī script; referred to as Ayodhyā-khand+a; material- hand-made paper; date of scribe- V.S. 1883, Chaitra; place of scribe- Ayodhyā; paper size-32×14 cm.; scribed portion- 27×10.5cm.; total folios-57; complete;
fair.
(b) Acc. No. 13289 in Devanāgarī script, material- hand-made paper; date of scribe- not mentioned but seems to be 50 year older than ‘a’, Chaitra; place of scribe- not mentioned; paper size-29.5×14.2 cm.; scribed portion- 26×12cm.; total folios available 48; incomplete; fair; only two folios f.2v. and f.4v. are illegible.
(c) Acc. No. 2173 in Bengali script material- hand-made paper; date of scribe- not mentioned; place of scribe- not mentioned; paper size-8×33.3 cm.; scribed portion- 5.5×26cm.; total folios 33; complete; fair; 5 lines per page, 52-55 characters per line.
(d) Acc. No. 14078 in Devanāgarī script material- factory-made paper; date of scribe-VS. 1942; place of scribe- not mentioned; paper size-34.5×16-5 cm.; scribed portion- 28×11cm.; total folios 20; incomplete; damaged; 14 lines per page, 35 characters per line.
Whereas the first two manuscripts are parts of the Skanda Purāna, the last two are parts of the Rudra-yāmala Samahitā according to the colophon of the manuscripts. Had these historians really read these manuscripts, they could have not claimed that the Janma-sthāna māhātmya is mentioned only in the Skanda-Purāna. They could have come to know that it is mentioned in the Rudra-yāmala also.
In addition to the previously mentioned manuscripts related to the Ayodhyā māhātmya in the Vrindavan Research Institute, there is a book-list prepared by great Saint Jīva Gosvāmī who was a nephew of Rupa Gosvāmī and who lived from 1523 to 1608 A.D. He built the famous Radha Damodar temple at Vrindavan and established a library in the temple premises. In his own hand-writing he prepared the list of books available in his library. This book-list is now preserved at Vrindavan Research Institute and its accession no. is 5425. This manuscript is divided into four parts A, B, C, and D. The manuscripts of A category were listed in 1654 V.S. i.e. 1597 A.D. In this catalogue (26 × 12 cms.) of books in the Devanāgārī script is the folio no. 9 which has a list of books in bundle no. 20: