The History of Ayōdhyā and the

Rāma Janmabhūmī Dispute – IV

By Smita Mukerji

भोगस्थानपराऽयोध्या लीलास्थानं त्विदं भु वि ।

भोगलीलापवि रामो वनरं कुशविभु विकः ॥
भोगस्थानावन याित्वि लीलास्थानावन यावन च ।
िावन सार्व्ाा वि िस्यैि पुरो व्याप्यावन सर्व्ाशः ॥

~ वशिसंवििा, पञ्चम् पटल, अध्याय

२

“The Parā Ayōdhyā is the Nitya-bhōgasthāna

(where Śrī Rāma disports), while Ayōdhyā on the
earth is Līlā-sthāna (where Bhagwān does the
earthly līlā). Bhagwān is the supremely
independent lord of both nitya-vibhūti and līlā-
vibhūti. Whatever is present in the Nitya-
bhōgasthāna, those are available in the Ayōdhyā
in this material world.”

~ Śivasaṁhitā, ca. 13th century C.E.

Read the previous section of this series here.

Hinduism is not a ‘religion of the book’ that derives validity from a central text… any
text. The ‘Hindu’ religious texts, so to speak, are compilations of lore comprising the
spiritual beliefs, realisations, historical occurrences, philosophies, traditions, practices,
knowledge, simply each and every apprehended and acquired information accrued
over the conscious course of the Indian people over at least 10 millennia (if not more).
Therefore anything that is recorded in Hindu texts already existed in one or more forms
of these perceivable vehicles of culture. In other words, these manifestations predate
the written word rather than follow from it. It is in fact exactly the opposite of doctrinal
religion and its premises, and consequently problematic to assign a definite terminus
a quo to any belief or practice or the reverence of their physical markers. Yet there are
ample literary references through which we may ascertain at least the earliest point in
antiquity of the tradition of Rāma, more specifically its association with Ayōdhyā.
We continue our exploration of the scriptural sources that attest to the continuous
sanctitude of Ayōdhyā since ancient times as the place of birth of Śrī Rāma, regarded
as the Divine incarnate in the age of Trētā by the Hindus.

II. Ayōdhyā-māhātmya of Satyōpākhyāna

The most pervasive image in popular imagination of the Divine manifest in Dwāpara
age, Srī Kṛṣña, is that of ‘Līlā-puruṣottama’, the paragon of sport and play, the ideal
for sublimation of desire to passionate longing for God, while Srī Rāma was always
‘Maryādā-puruṣottama’, the epitome of restraint, propriety and duteousness, the ideal
of constancy and sacrifice in fulfilment of dharma as householder and a king devoted
to his subjects (prajāvatsalarājanya). Towards the turn of the first millennium C.E.
however Kṛṣña Līlā started making an impression on the narration of Rāmakathā as it
began absorbing elements of ‘madhura bhakti’, which developed into a full-fledged
(but esoteric) cult of erotic devotional mysticism in Rāma bhakti called ‘rasika
sampradāya’. A very important text of this stream is Satyōpākhyāna, a Puranic retelling
of the Rāmāyaña which seems to be the first work in the tradition of Kṛṣña Līlā and
significantly influenced subsequent renderings, notably the Bhuśunḍī Rāmāyaña. As
per some of the manuscripts it is said to be a part of the Brahmāṇdapurāña1. It contains
two parts, the first with 39 chapters and continues in the concluding portion with
another 30 chapters. It has been quoted extensively by Father Camil Bulcke in his
comprehensive dissertation on the tradition of Rāmakathā, ‘रामकथा : उत्पवि और विकास’,
included as an authentic version in the series of Rāmakathā stories.
The narrative opens with a request by the Śaunakādi sages to the mythical bard Sūta
to relate the Rāmakathā, who describes the dialogue between Mārkaṇdēya and
Vālmīki, as narrated by Vyāsa. The word ‘Satyā’ in Satyōpākhyāna means Ayōdhyā,
referred to as the ‘primeval city of Viṣñu’ and describes its significance (‘विष्णोराद्या पुरी
सत्या िस्या मािात्म्यमीदृशम्’ ।) The Vālmīki Rāmāyaña also uses the name ‘Satyā’ for
Ayōdhyā2. It was published by Venkateshwar Press, Mumbai in 1882, in lithograph by
Shri Ganga Vishnu.3 Several manuscripts of Satyōpākhyāna are available in the
country4, but the oldest manuscript can be found in the University of Pennsylvania
Libraries scribed in 1865, copied from a 13th century Puranic version.
Satyōpākhyāna recounts the story of Sītā and Rāma, describing events, their amorous
relationship and place of birth. But most importantly, it expressly mentions the

1
It however does not exist in the present editions of Brahmāṇdapurāña.

2
सा योजने द्वे च भू यः सत्यनामा प्रकाशिे ।
यस्यां दशरथो राजा िसञ्जगदपालयि् ॥२६॥
‘In that Ayōdhyā, known by the name Satyā, ruled the king Daśaratha as Indra.’
िां सत्यनामां दृढिोरिागा लां , गृ िैविा वचत्रै रुपशोवभिां वशिाम् ।
पुरीमयोध्यां नृसिस्रसं कुलां , शशास िै शक्रसमो मिीपविः ॥२८॥ (िाल्मीवक रामायि, बालकाण्ड, VI.)
‘With gorgeous arches, castle door bars and with amazingly built houses, Ayōdhyā is magnificent and
auspicious, flocked by thousands of provincial kings too, and the king Daśaratha, a coequal of Indra, indeed
ruled that city which is true (Satyā) to its name.’ – Vālmīki Rāmāyaña, Bālakāṇda, VI. 28)

3
A more recent publication edited by Dr. Shailja Pandey was produced by the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, by
Ganganath Jha Parisar, Allahabad.

4
Two manuscripts are preserved in Sarasvati Bhandar Library of the Kashi Raj Trust, and another one with
Ganganath Jha Research Institute, Prayag. Many manuscripts of the work feature in the catalogue of Sanskrit
and Prakrit books published by Rajasthan Grantha-mala. One manuscript of Satyōpākhyāna studied by
Mahamahopadhyaya Hara Prasad Sastri and Raja Rajendralala Mitra is mentioned in their work ‘Notices of
Sanskrit Manuscripts’, which however embraced only one portion of the work with the distinct title ‘Rāma-
Rahasya Khaṇda’ and is mentioned as a compilation from one of the Purāñas.
janmabhūmī and the idol present there. It is surprising that this important text does
not feature in Bakker’s otherwise exhaustive work5.

III. Ayōdhyā-māhātmya of the Rudrayāmala

Among the manuscripts that formed the basis of Bakker’s study of Ayōdhyā-māhātmya
was one available in the Vrindavan Research Institute, which however is only one
among four other manuscripts of Ayōdhyā-māhātmya preserved there. Of these, two6
are parts of the Skaṇḋapurāña, and the remaining two7 are parts of another treatise
called Rudrayāmala Saṁhitā. If our eminent, impartial historians of the ‘Report to the
Nation’ fame (EIHs as we shall henceforth call them, and they will remain favourites
for some length in this story of ours) had indeed studied firsthand the
manuscripts/sources they mention, it is peculiar that they would be unaware that
Skaṇḋapurāña is not the only text that contains the Ayōdhyā-māhātmya, and miss the
fact that two of the three manuscripts used by Bakker were in fact from Rudrayāmala
and not the Skaṇḋapurāña.

Ancient Manuscript of Rāmāyaña in Bengali Script

Considering the indeterminate vintage of the Rudrayāmala manuscripts in Vrindavan

Research Institute, another manuscript is more significant for our purpose here, one
that Bakker looked at only fleetingly. Ensconced in the prestigious Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institute in Pune is a manuscript written in Samvat 1858 Aṣāḍa Sudi 14
Bṛguvāsarē (Friday, July 25, 1801), copied from an ancient text, so worn that several
gaps had to be left out by the copier who wrote in their place the word ‘त्रुवट’ (error). The
text titled ‘Ayōdhyā-māhātmya’ is part of the Rudrayāmala Saṁhitā. Rudrayāmala

5
‘Ayodhyā’ by Dutch scholar Hans T. Bakker (published 1986)

6
The first in Devanāgari script (numbered Acc. 7141), dated V.S. 1883 Ćaitra (1826 C.E.), the other (Acc. 13289)
also in Devanāgari script, approximately 50 years older than the first.

7
One (which was used by Bakker) in Bengali script (numbered Acc. 2173), of uncertain age, and the other in
Devanāgari script (Acc. 14078), dated V.S. 1942 (1885 C.E.)
 Tantra finds mention in the Brahmayāmala Tantra, a manuscript copied in 1052 C.E.8
and almost certainly composed considerably earlier than that period9. A passage from
Rudrayāmala is also quoted in the Kulārñva Tantra10. The most striking thing about
Rudrayāmala is that it not only describes the place of birth of Śrī Rāma but also
provides specific mention to the presence of a temple at the site. The 12th chapter
of Ayōdhyā-māhātmya of the Rudrayāmala called ‘दररद्र-भञ्जन’ (‘Daridra Bhaṇjana’
meaning the ‘Annihilation of Privation’) describes the virtue of a pilgrimage to Ayōdhyā.

Verses from the 12th chapter of Ayōdhyā-māhātmya of the Rudrayāmala called ‘दरिद्र-भञ्जन’ (‘Daridra Bhaṅjana’ meaning the
‘Annihilation of Privation’)

The Ayōdhyā-māhātmya of Rudrayāmala is likely the oldest version11 since it is also

the briefest description of the janmasthāna without any mention of the coordinates
which appear in other versions. But the description of janmasthāna in Ayōdhyā-
māhātmya as integral part of Rudrayāmala is apparently a well-established tradition
over a long time, borne out from a famous bhakti era work called ‘Awadha Vilāsa’, by
the Sant Lāl Dāsa, whose verses paint a vivid image of the janmasthāna naming
explicitly the Rudrayāmala as the source of the recital.

8
According to Dineshchandra Sircar in ‘The Śakta Pīthas’

9
At least ~1000 C.E. by the estimate of Benjamin Walker (‘Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism’
– 1968)

10
Compiled ~1150 C.E. (Ibid.)

11
Yāmalas are a different class of texts that supposedly pre-date the Tantras. Most manuscripts of the
Yāmalas seem to have been lost, except as quotations in later works. The first half of Rudrayāmala (pūrvārdha)
is lost and only the second half (uttarārdha) is available, which contains the Rāma-yantra.
 जामल रुद्र कथा इि पाई । लाल दास िवस कवि समुझाई ॥
जामल रुद्र अनंिवि िोई । कल्प कल्प के भेद िै सोई ॥12
The saint not only derived the bulk of his composition from the Rudrayāmala but styled
it along the lines of ‘Hara-Gaurī-saṃvāda’ dialogue of Rudrayāmala.

IV. Tīrthayātrā Vidhāna of Rudrayāmala-sarōddhāra

An ancient manuscript of ‘Tīrthayātrā Vidhāna’, which is part of the text ‘Rudrayāmala-
sarōddhāra’, belongs to the private collection of Pandit Bhavanath Jha. Found in a
fragmented condition, only the first chapter with 79 verses and 17 and a half verses of
the second chapter of the text remains. Written in Mithilākśara on handmade paper by
one Jivanatha of Teghra village (Begusarai District in Bihar) it is dated 1301 of Bengali
Sań (1901 C.E.)
This composition gives an engrossing account of the course of a pilgrimage taken by
the King of Vidēha13, narrated by a guru to his pupil. Seven holy cities are named as
‘mōkśadāyaka’ (bestower of emancipation), among them Ayōdhyā.

In the composition Rāma-janmabhūmī is mentioned synonymously with Ayōdhyā and

described in detail. But most significantly, this text also mentions the temple in the
Janmabhūmī and the image of Śrī Rāma therein.
In the narration, the king is said to have given alms at Svargadwāra at the Sarayū
banks and thereafter visited the temple (Rāmalaya) and worshipped the enshrined
deity, baby Rāma. Among other devotions that included a visit to Lōkanātha Śiva atop
a lonely forested mountain and the Gōpratāra Ghāt, he performed śrādha (offering
oblations) to his ancestors at the ‘ćabūtarā’. This is the most fascinating bit of detail
revealed in the text which we will discuss more subsequently. But what is of immediate
importance for us here is the period when the original work was composed from which
the MS was copied. The text itself holds the clue to this.

12
‘This story is found in Yāmala Rudra, which is expounded upon by Lāl Dāsa. The world undergoes change
from era to era, but the sempiternal Yāmala Rudra is meaningful for all times.’

13
Ancient name of Mithilā
The second chapter describes the Vaidyanātha temple in the words: ‘There is a
Jyōtirlinga established in a cave’ (II. 5.)14 This is an interesting information since this
indicates that the present stone temple built by the king of Giddhaur, Rājā Pūrañmal,
in 1596 C.E. was not in existence at the time the work was composed and clearly
predates it.
But there are more hints within the text that reveal the date of the original composition,
in the following verses:

The verses describe a Turkish raid in the Mithilā region, which witnessed frequent

14
ज्योवित्वलाङ्गमयस्त्रगु िायां सम्प्रविवििः (II. ५.)
incursions by marauding bands of the Delhi Sultanate15 during the rule of the Ōiniwāra
dynasty, more so after the death of the powerful king Śivasiṁha Dēva in battle in 1416
C.E.16 The contemporary poet Vidyāpatī17 left a graphic account of these in his work
‘Kīrttilatā’ that dates to 1430 C.E. The Tīrthayātrā Vidhāna can therefore be placed
roughly in this period and with that the estimated date of composition lies between
1416 to about 1445 C.E.18 The work can however date to a period even earlier than
Śivasiṁha Dēva's time independent of the composition of ‘Kīrttilatā’, but not later than
1445 C.E.
This is the only text which describes the image of Rāma inside the Janmasthāna
temple at Ayōdhya. The interesting thing is that the description of the image matches
that given in the Agasthya Saṁhitā19, an important text which occupies a central
position in the evolution of the cult of Rāma worship, which we shall explore in greater
depth later. At the moment however we are concerned only with the veracity of the
claim of Ayōdhyā as the birthplace of Rāma and ascertaining the location of the
Janmabhūmī.

V. Awadha Vilāsa of Lāl Dāsa

Lāl Dāsa was a 17th century bhakti saint who composed Awadha Vilāsa, an evocative
account of the janmasthāna and the contemporary scene in Ayōdhyā. Dated by the
poet himself to 1675 C.E.20 the original manuscript of this epic is extant.21 Written in
Awadhi dialect and in the style of dohas and chaupais, it is divided in 18 viśrāmas that
tell the story of Rāma from his birth to his exile from Ayōdhyā. This text describes the

15
There are records of battles between the Turkish sultans and the Ōiniwāra kings, and Mithila seems to have
been reduced to a fief of the Sultanate in the time of the early Tughlaqs, as Firozshah Tughlaq bestowed the
rule of Tirhut (or Tirabhukti, another name for Mithilā) to Kāmēśvara Ṭhākura in 1354. Thereafter, during the
rule of the later Tughlaqs they asserted themselves independently again.

16
Rulers of this dynasty continued their control over the Mithilā region until 1526 with a considerably
weakened rule in Delhi following Timur Lane’s sack of 1397-98.

17
Who was also one of the prominent scholars patronised by the Ōiniwāra court.

18
Last of the Sayyids and beginning of the Lodhi dynasty (since Bihar could not be brought under the control of
the Sultanate again until Sikandar Lodhi’s campaign (~1495-6 C.E., after which the kingdom of Mithilā
disintegrated).

19
मिु रङ्कगिं रामवमन्द्रनीलसमप्रभम् ।
कोमलाङ्ग विशालाक्षं विद् यु द्विा समािृ िम् ॥२८.२७॥
(Rāma lies like a blue lotus in the lap of his mother. His limbs are tender and the eyes wide, his body wrapped
in a bright glow as of lightning.)

20
सं िि् सत्रि सय बविस सु दी बै साख सू काल ।
लाल अिध मवध रवि रच्यो अिध विलास रसाल ।।
‘Awadha Vilās, composed by Lal Das while residing in Ayōdhyā in Saṃvat 1732 (1675 C.E.), in the bright
fortnight of the month of Baiśākha.’

21
It was discovered in Tikar in Hardoi (Uttar Pradesh) and is presently in the custody of Chand Das Sahitya
Sodha Sansthan, Banda.
 Rāma Janmabhūmī at several places in precise terms and extols the virtue of a
pilgrimage to Ayōdhyā. A perusal of its contents indicates that after being an itinerant
pilgrim for 12 years he arrived in Kāśi where he spent 15 long years and thereafter
made himself towards Ayōdhyā in 1668, where he stayed for 7 years until 1675, and
this the period during which the Awadha Vilāsa was composed.22

‘Rāma Leaves for Exile’ – From the illustrated manuscript commissioned by Maharana Jagat Singh (1628-1652 C.E.), the ruler of
Mewar. The copying of the text was begun in 1649 by Mahatma Hīrānanda and finished in the first year of the reign of his
successor Maharana Raj Singh (1652-1680 C.E.)

From the lines in this work it becomes apparent that the poet nursed the design of
composing a grand epic on the place of birth of Rāma while in Ayōdhyā and making it

22
िीरथ बारि बरख करर पंद्रि काशी िास ।
साि बरख रवि अिध में िब वकयो अिध वबलास ॥
his permanent abode. But here’s where we come to know of a curious change in the
setting as the poet tells us of an unfortunate turn of events that prompted him to curtail
his work and make a hasty exit from there. He makes oblique reference to upheavals
in the place that were a cause of perpetual pain to him and turned so troublesome that
he barely escaped with his life.
But what events were these so distressing to his heart that the poet pours out in his
lament? We get a whiff in the following lines which appear at another place in the same
work where he mentions the destruction of wells, ponds, brāhmañas’ homes and the
demolition of temples (बापी कूप िडाग िुरािै । विप्र ग्रेि दे िल भिरािै ॥) But we will leave the
import of Lāl Dāsa s’s plaintive verses for another time and return to the centre of our
plot: Rāmkōṭ.
In the next section we take a look at what exactly the above texts say about the spot
of Srī Rāma’s birth.

Cover Picture:
Pilgrims bathing in the Sarayū river (Source: David Clay)

Read the next section of the series here.