Dhere R - Vitthal of Pandharpur

Introduction
Rise of a Folk God: Vitthal of Pandharpur

Ramchandra Chintaman Dhere
Print publication date: 2011

Print ISBN-13: 9780199777594
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2012
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.001.0001
Introduction
Viṭṭhal Beckons
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.003.0001
Abstract and Keywords

The Introduction establishes the significance of the god Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur
for the religious history of Maharashtra from the eleventh or twelfth century
onwards, pointing out that for the Vārkarī saint-poets, he is identical with the
cowherd Kṛṣṇa. However, Viṭṭhal is not mentioned in the Vedas, the Epics, or the
major Purāṇas, nor is he included in any list of the incarnations or names of
Viṣṇu. Viṭṭhal must be a folk deity who gradually became famous. Who was this
folk deity? What was he originally? What special characteristics enabled his
transformation into Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa? After pointing out the difference between the
religious study of a god and scholarly research into people's ideas about the god,
the Introduction gives an account of the process of preparation of the book,
acknowledges people who assisted in its completion, and discusses the
opposition that some of the book's ideas had already aroused before its
publication.
Keywords: Maharashtra, Vedas, Epics, folk deities, fame
for the past eight centuries, Lord Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur has ruled with love over
hundreds of thousands of Marathi minds. At the same time as he calls to his
faithful devotees, he also beckons to scholars. In the thirteenth century,
Jn͂āneśvar experienced him through the beauty of the universe and Nāmdev
considered him the essence of love; in the seventeenth century, Tukārām
Page 1 of 14
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All
Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.
Subscriber: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 04 July 2020
Introduction
accepted him as the friend of weary beings. All the saints believed that Kṛṣṇa
himself, the friend of the world, resides in Pandharpur in the form of Viṭṭhal.
“Brahman Is Gathered at the Foot of the Wish-Granting Tree”

The saints believe that the same “very dark Absolute” who settled at the foot of
the wish-granting tree in the Dvāpara Age stands playing his flute in Gopalpur,
just outside Pandharpur, in the dark Kali Age. Jn͂āneśvar, for example, sings (Jn͂ā.
Gā. 6):
Taking the thrice-bent stance, O Mother,

he plays the flute at the foot of the wish-granting tree.
O Mother, Govinda Gopāl
is completely supreme bliss, inside and out.
Seeing the dark, excellent life of all living beings,
the solid embodiment of bliss, my mind was lost.
(p.4) Pervading the universe, moving and still, he remained
imperceptible.
My father is the husband of Rakhumādevī; Viṭṭhal is everything.
The Marathi saints were fascinated by this child form of the Lord. As soon as
that cloud-dark flute-player (Muralīdhar) who plays on Yaśodā's hips and
shoulders, who crawls around in Nanda's yard,1 who steals yoghurt and milk
from cowherd women's houses, who takes a stick in his hand and a blanket over
his shoulder and watches cows with the cowherds on the bank of the Yamunā,
and who drives the cowherd men and women mad with his sweet presence—as
soon as he stands on one foot, his other bent at the knee, and begins playing his
flute beneath the kadamba tree,2 the saints regard him with fond delight through
the eyes of Yaśodā, and they give their all for him. Even as they experience his
this-worldly play, the Vārkarī saints remain aware of his other-worldly nature.
Thus, even as they sing of his childhood games, they exclaim (Nām. Gā. 2271):
This one in the cowherds’ home is the supreme Absolute without

desires.
Armlets, anklets, a chain to keep him in place—Kṛṣṇa steals butter.
Despite being filled with all kinds of intense desires, the child becomes a symbol
of the supreme Absolute (Brahman), which is without desires. The jangling of his
armlets, anklets, and chain awakens the “sound of ‘I am He,’ ”3 and butter
becomes the essence of worldly life.
All the Vārkarī saints were firmly convinced that, allured by the happiness of
devotion (bhakti), the same Kṛṣṇa who in Gokul (Gokuḷ) guards the cows in the
form of a cowherd had settled on the bank of the Bhīmā River for the sake of
Puṇḍalīk (Nām. Gā. 2254):
The blanket on his shoulder reaches down to his feet.

My Mother Kṛṣṇa wraps a woolen blanket around herself.
She follows the cows; she runs but does not get tired.
Page 2 of 14
Introduction
My Mother Kṛṣṇa is a good mother-sister.

With her hands on her hips, standing on the bank of the Bhīvarā,
my Mother Kṛṣṇa takes Nāmā's side.
From all of Vārkarī devotional literature, there bursts forth the idea that the
cloud-dark Kṛṣṇa, who was allured by the joy of devotion to play and frolic in
Gokul and who later paraded majestically as the king of Dvārakā, takes on the
splendid form of Viṭṭhal.
(p.5) The Path of Inquiry

How did Viṭṭhal come to be identified with the cowherd Kṛṣṇa? Might Viṭṭhal,
too, be originally a cowherd or a cowherds’ god? Might the secret of his image
“with his hands on his hips” be connected to his original form?4 Might the
Yādava dynasties who increased his prestige have some fundamental connection
with his original worshipers?5 Does the Diṇḍīra Forest he came to in order to
pacify the angry Rukmiṇī have any special significance in his original story?6 For
the sake of Puṇḍalīk, Viṭṭhal has stood silently on a brick for twenty-eight yugas.
Can this Puṇḍalīk, who evades history, be found in the sanctuary of religious
faith?7 Many such questions arise.
Lord Viṭṭhal is the great deity of Maharashtra. All the great Vārkarī saints, from
Jn͂āneśvar in the thirteenth century to Niḷobā in the eighteenth, find their
fulfillment in contemplating his feet. Their voices delight in singing his praises.
They regard him as “Śiva with Viṣṇu”; they bestow on him the title “Enlightened
One” (bauddha); they call him Buddha, the “son of the Jina,” and establish him
as the ninth incarnation of Viṣṇu; they address him as “Kānaḍā Karnāṭaku.”
From their generous and exalted point of view, the saints have accomplished in
Viṭṭhal a gentle confluence of contending religious streams: Śaiva, Vaiṣṇava,
Buddhist, Jain, and more. Although numerous sects have arisen, flourished, and
died out in Maharashtra, the current of devotion to Viṭṭhal has continued to flow,
watering the whole religious landscape.
The Search for the Original Form

All the saints repeatedly say that in attempting to comprehend Lord Viṭṭhal, the
Vedas were silenced, the Śāstras lost consciousness, and the Purāṇas were
immobilized with amazement.8 To be sure, neither the Vedas, nor the Smṛtis,9
nor the Purāṇas mention this deity who continually proclaims his sovereignty
over Marathi minds. Although the saints’ faith tells them that Viṭṭhal is a form of
Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa, they are also aware that he is “different from the twenty-four
[incarnations]” and “separate from the thousand [names].” That is, he is not
included in any list of the incarnations or names of Viṣṇu. Viṭṭhal, who attained
extraordinary status as a Vaiṣṇava deity from the eleventh or twelfth century
onward and who brings about a great confluence of many religious streams,
must be a folk deity who gradually became famous.
Page 3 of 14
Introduction
This inescapable inference continues to arouse scholars’ curiosity. Just who was
this folk deity who achieved such rich Vaiṣṇava status? What was he originally?
(p.6) What special characteristics did he have that transformed him into Viṣṇu-
Kṛṣṇa? The urge to know this has been present continually, from the time of the
renowned historian Rajvade10 to this day, and in the past few years, it has begun
to manifest itself more intensely. Recently, drawing on a chapter in the
thirteenth-century Mahānubhāv text Līḷācaritra, the scholar of Old Marathi
literature S. G. Tulpule has argued that Lord Viṭṭhal must have originated in a
memorial to a cowherd hero (Tuḷpuḷe 1977, 1978).11 Naturally, Tulpule's view
aroused widespread interest among Vārkarīs and in the general public.
Newspapers and other periodicals have published scholars’ responses to his
article, both favorable and unfavorable, and plentiful new sources for research
on this subject have begun to come to light.
In order to explain the name “Viṭṭhal,” it is said that the god stands on a brick
(vīṭ). Scholars of religious studies know that the stories in Māhātmyas are
composed out of popular materials; the story of Viṭṭhal standing on the brick
that Puṇḍalīk tossed to him developed in this manner as well. We can
demonstrate the later stages of Viṭṭhal's development, but we have not yet
discovered his original form. To find that form, we must investigate thoroughly
the Dhangar shepherds’ cult of Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā. We must consider the fact that
Viṭṭhal is a god of Gavḷī cowherds and Dhangar shepherds, and that he is the
husband of a cowherd woman named Padūbāī. A “Padmā” who becomes “naked”
and “loose-haired” appears in a Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya; we must investigate
whether or not there is any special significance to her appearance in the story of
Viṭṭhal. In our search, we must also make use of the similarities between Viṭṭhal
and Veṅkaṭeś:12 both are forms of Viṣṇu, both are “Bālājī” (the child Kṛṣṇa), both
are husbands of Padmā, and both live separately from their wives. “Bīr
Kuar” (Vīr Kumār), a god of Ahirs in western Bihar who is considered to be a
form of Kṛṣṇa and who stands with his hands on his hips, is similar to Viṭṭhal; we
must seriously consider whether this similarity is significant. Only after we have
assiduously followed all these possible lines of research will we be able to make
reliable claims about Viṭṭhal's original form.
No one has yet given a satisfying etymology of the name Viṭṭhal. Another
traditional etymology, besides the one based on the story of Puṇḍalīk and the
brick, gives each syllable in “Viṭṭhal” a philosophical meaning: vidā (through
knowledge), ṭhān (ignorant people), lāti (grasp)—that is, “Viṭṭhal is the one who
accepts ignorant people through knowledge.” Recently, V. K. Shrotriya, relying
on “Sārasvat grammar,”13 proffered a new etymology: vidi (in knowledge),
sthalaḥ (steady, settled)—that is, “the one who is located in knowledge is
Viṭṭhal” (Śrotriya 1978). Many scholarly attempts to give an etymology for
“Viṭṭhal” have been made, both in the distant past and more recently; they
include those proffered by Rajvade (Rājvāḍe 1922: 96–97) and Mehendale
(Mehendaḷe 1952). Many scholars accept the (p.7) view that “Viṭṭhal” comes
Page 4 of 14
Introduction
from “Viṣṇu” (Viṣṇu ®Viṣṭu ®Viṭṭhal), and the Vaiṣṇava character of Viṭṭhal
devotion continues to nourish this view.
Most of these etymologies, however, seem to have been attempted under the
influence of the developed form of devotion to Viṭṭhal. Besides the places of
Viṭṭhal in Maharashtra, there are also many places of a goddess named
“Viṭhalāī.” Her worship is still primitive, untouched by high devotional thought.
If the name “Viṭṭhal” is to be derived from Viṣṇu, how can the name Viṭhalāī be
explained? Viṣṇu did not simply become Viṭṭhal; Viṭṭhal has been made into a
form of Viṣṇu. In other words, the name “Viṭṭhal” is not a corrupt form of
“Viṣṇu”; rather, “Viṣṇu” is a hypercorrect, Sanskritized form of “Viṭṭhal” (or
“Viṭhū”). A clear explanation of the name “Viṭṭhal” has yet to be found, and
perhaps the original form of Viṭṭhal will emerge from that explanation.
Source Materials
If we want to discern not just the original nature of Lord Viṭṭhal but also the
remarkable process of his development, scholars of Viṭṭhal must assiduously
follow up on all these lines of research. Unfortunately, we do not even have a
precise idea of how plentiful are the provisions for our search. Books about
Viṭṭhal and Pandharpur cite only a few Sanskrit verses from traditional
Māhātmya stories about the god, while the complete Māhātmya texts have not
yet been made available. The Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya attributed to the Padma
Purāṇa was published in the nineteenth century, but today copies of its published
edition are as rare as manuscripts; the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya considered to
belong to the Skanda Purāṇa has not been published at all. There is also another
Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya, one claiming to belong to the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, that almost
no one has even heard of. All these Sanskrit Māhātmyas ought to be published in
good editions with Marathi prose translations and a thorough discussion of the
stories of Viṭṭhal in Old Marathi (and also Kannada and Telugu) literature.
The many briefer texts praising Lord Viṭṭhal and Pandharpur in the voices of the
Vārkarī saints should also be brought together and published, as an anthology of
praises of Puṇḍalīk has already been published under the title Puṇḍalīkastava
(“Praises of Puṇḍalīk,” Abhaṅgarāv 1911). The saints’ independent expressions
about Viṭṭhal can shed great light on the process of his development and the
synthesis involved in it.
Someone must edit all the inscriptions about Lord Viṭṭhal and Pandharpur that
have been found in Viṭṭhal temples in Pandharpur and elsewhere, as well as
additional ones that could be discovered in the course of research. Through the
efforts (p.8) of S. G. Tulpule and Shobhana Gokhale (Tuḷpuḷe 1963; Gokhale
1970), five Marathi and Sanskrit inscriptions in Pandharpur have been well
edited. Pandurang Desai has elucidated similar materials in other places (Desāī
1957a, 1957b). And V. L. Manjul, with the cooperation of Baḍve priests in
Pandharpur, has publicized the discovery of three new inscriptions in the Viṭṭhal
Page 5 of 14
Introduction
temple there (Man͂jūḷ 1978). Editing all of these inscriptions and bringing them
together would give us a precise idea of the light that epigraphical materials can
shed upon the history of Viṭṭhal.
The situation is the same with respect to documents. The papers of all the
temple servants who hold traditional rights in Viṭṭhal's worship must be gone
through, and each document that pertains to this subject must be edited with
great care. Finally, there is another type of material that we must not ignore.
This is the material found in folk traditions. We must examine in detail the songs
and collections of stories that live orally in the minds and voices of all Marathi
people, especially such pastoralist groups as the Dhangar shepherds, and we
must compare these oral traditions with religious texts that members of the elite
have composed in Sanskrit.
Because all this material will bring into view the delightful, glorious story of
Lord Viṭṭhal, not only scholars but also the faithful can provide enthusiastic help.
A scholar who sets out with these rich provisions will surely get a full view not
only of Lord Viṭṭhal, but also of other, similar deities with comparable
biographies. Viṭṭhal has stood “silently” for twenty-eight eons, posing riddles to
the faithful and to scholars alike. I am confident that he will break his protracted
silence and manifest to us in radiant form the secret of both his original form
and the great process of synthesis through which he developed.
Scholarship and Devotion

In Marathi, there is a well-known saying that one should not look for the source
of a river or the ancestry of a sage.14 Devotees of a great deity do not like to look
for his origins either. Still, when we see the tiny beginnings of a broad river that
flows along, “absorbing people's sins and sufferings, nourishing the trees on its
banks,”15 we never fail to feel respect for it, nor does our faith in its holiness
diminish. In fact, when we realize what an abundance of water that small trickle
gradually grows into, a profound respect captivates our minds. When we hear
from the great sage Vyāsa16 himself that he was born of a fisherwoman, that
does not at all diminish for us the universality of his experience or the purity of
his knowledge. So why should we fear that searching for the original form of a
great deity will (p.9) erode people's faith in him? Historians of religion are
continually learning of gods who, arising from a primitive level of folk belief,
have grown in popularity, as great religious leaders, thinkers, and mystics have
molded an elevated nature for them.
We must also clearly realize that study of a god is different from research into
people's ideas about the god. The goals of the two kinds of study are different,
their paths are different, and their tools are different as well. The one is an
interior journey, the other an external one. One way is that of faith, the other
that of minute examination. The one kind of study works primarily with
emotions, while the other relies principally on intellectual tools. Someone who
Page 6 of 14
Introduction
does not consider it important to conduct research into people's ideas about
gods will not understand the difference between Mhasobā and Viṭhobā, for
example. Such a person will not comprehend how devotees of the one god can
please him by cutting off the heads of goats, while devotees of the other tread so
gently that not even a worm or an ant dies under their feet. The highest
conceptions of gods are manifested in worship performed by those intent on the
spiritual, and it is such people whose lives and thought the scholar of ideas
about gods studies.
In December 1976, I wrote my lectures on “The Shrine of

Maharashtra” (“Mahārāṣṭrācā Devhārā”) for the N. C. Kelkar Memorial Lecture
Series sponsored by Pune University. At that time, I decided to examine and
experience the majesty of Lord Viṭṭhal in all its aspects. True, ever since I
reached the age of understanding, Lord Viṭṭhal had been the object of my love,
enjoyment, and attraction. The village and house in which I passed my childhood
were captivated by devotion for Lord Viṭṭhal, enjoyed the sounds of devotional
songs to him, and took part every year in the pilgrimages during the months of
Āṣāḍh (June–July) and Kārtik (October–November). Later, when I was fourteen, I
moved to Pune. I grew up in the city, took pleasure in acquiring new kinds of
knowledge, and came face to face with a new attitude toward life. Still, the love
of Viṭṭhal that was so deeply rooted in me was not at all effaced.
History of Religion and The Study of Society

For the past eight centuries, Viṭṭhal has proclaimed his sovereignty over the
minds of Marathi people; many holy men who have reached the highest stage of
spiritual life have experienced him in all beings. I realize clearly that I am not
worthy to approach these holy men, not even to touch their feet. I know that
someone whose life is pervaded by desires and doubts has no right to tread on
the pathways of holy men who have reached this highest stage. Thus, even
though my love for Viṭṭhal has gradually become more and more intense, I
continue to take a worldly route in (p.10) my search for him; I continue to
follow in the footsteps of social scientists and historians of religion.
To understand the stages of development of gods is in a sense to understand the

stages of development of the society that has faith in them: analyzing the
development of the gods is extremely useful for social history. As I have realized
this, I have come to see that the sources for research about gods are closely tied
to all the rest of social and cultural life. In order to reach a true understanding
of the secrets of the gods, we must explore all the written, oral, and ritual
expressions of elite and folk traditions that are based, whether independently or
through mutual influence, on faith in those gods. In working on this book, I have
continually kept this rule in mind.
Starting on 1 June 1979, ten months after my lectures were published as

Mahārāṣṭrācā Devhārā (Ḍhere 1978b), I became a Research Associate at Pune
Page 7 of 14
Introduction
University and took up a major research project entitled “Lord Viṭṭhal: The God,
the Sect, and the Literature.” For the past four and a half years, I have worked
unremittingly on this one topic. I have undertaken numerous field trips in order
to make new discoveries in religious history, I have collected literally hundreds
of items of source material, and I have continued to search for Viṭṭhal along
paths that would previously have seemed inconceivable even to me.
I have great love for the saints’ experience of Viṭṭhal. Because of that all-
encompassing experience, I believe, Viṭṭhal has become a god who uplifts
society not only yesterday and today but also tomorrow. However, because my
point of view is different from that of mystics, my ideas about Viṭṭhal also differ
from theirs. My limited goal here is simply to tell, in all its dramatic details, the
extraordinary, thrilling story of how, as he became increasingly popular, a god of
southern pastoralists became Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa and created a great synthesis through
the saints’ all-encompassing faith. I set forth this story here by combining, as far
as I can, the disciplines of history of religion and the study of society. To make
my effort comprehensive, including both broad strokes and attention to detail, I
study the stories of the gods from a very contemporary, independent point of
view; moreover, even though my aim is limited to research on Viṭṭhal, I keep in
view all the major gods of south India. My goal in this study of Viṭṭhal has been
to analyze sthalapurāṇas17 so powerfully that discerning, unbaised readers will
realize fully the major importance of such texts both for theology and for
religious history.
In a sense, this book expands the thesis of my earlier work Santasāhitya āṇi
Loksāhitya (“The Saints’ Literature and Folk Literature,” Ḍhere 1978d)—or
rather, it expands it with respect to the saints’ principal object of worship. The
present book is only the first stage in a broader project. In the second stage, I
will focus on analyzing the whole sacred complex at Pandharpur, and on
studying the Marathi (p.11) and Kannada sects of Viṭṭhal devotion, the Vārkarīs
and Haridāsas. In the third stage, I plan to present a comparison of how the
three folk deities Viṭṭhal, Veṅkaṭeś, and Jagannāth fashioned the regional
cultures of Maharashtra, Andhra, and Orissa, respectively. In the final stage, I
will show how the saints, making Lord Viṭṭhal the supreme center of their faith,
created a world of lofty ideas that transcended their sect.18
Acknowledgments
In presenting this book to readers, I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of
many friends, well-wishers, and lovers of knowledge. The University Grants
Commission gave me a Research Associateship for this project, allowing me to
work in peace for five years. Dr. R. G. Takavale, the Vice-Chancellor of Pune
University, wholeheartedly took the lead in enabling the fellowship to be
administered. Dr. Madhavrav Bhide, a senior, well-known professor of Pune
University, and Dr. Bhalcandra Phadke, a close friend of mine who was a
reviewer for the project, stood behind me like elder brothers. In addition, many
Page 8 of 14
Introduction
officials and staff members of the university office helped me with affection.
Because Mr. P. G. (“Bhausaheb”) Bakare generously gave me his vehicle to use, I
was able twice (in November 1981 and 1983) to make extensive field trips into
Andhra and Karnataka, traveling comfortably for eight or nine thousand
kilometers. Mr. V. L. Manjul, the librarian of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute and my great friend, assists innumerable researchers in finding
references. Considering this project his own work, he helped me from its
conception to its completion, in many different ways; the value of his assistance
is beyond words.
I must also mention many friends and well-wishers who took the trouble to get
important research materials for me and to facilitate my work: Acarya V. P.
Limaye, Dr. Rajeshvar Gosvami, Mr. Kapil Paradkar, Mr. Vasantrav Sangolkar,
Mr. A. R. Tikekar, Mr. Rambhau Kolhatkar, Professor Krishna Gurav, Dr. Günther
D. Sontheimer, Mr. Shripatrav Nehare, Mr. Anandrav Kumbhar, Mr. Baburav
Katre, Professor Manikrav Dhanpalvar, Dr. Tara Bhavalkar, Professor S. V. Kher,
Mr. Adinathrav Yadav, Mr. Vasudevrav Shahane, Dr. N. R. Inamdar, Professor P.
K. Ghanekar, Ms. Shashitai Dikshit, Mr. Vasantrav Agashe, Mr. B. P. Bahirat, Mr.
Prasannakumar Aklujkar, Mr. K. Gundacar (from Shimoga), and others. My
friend and constant companion Moreshvar Valimbe, who is familiar with my
research needs, continually provides me with useful references that he comes
across.
As soon as I formed the intention of undertaking this project, my publisher and

friend Madhukaka Kulkarni began proclaiming repeatedly that his press,
Shrividya, would publish the book. If Madhukaka had not continually dunned
me, I might (p.12) not have finished writing quite as soon as I did. I was
continually finding new information on this subject, and new ideas kept
occurring to me. During this period, my health was constantly poor, and I was
depressed at the sudden deaths of one after another of my friends. All the
unnamed people who took care of me in this strange condition and helped me
recover also stand behind the completion of this book. There are so many
friends, institutions, librarians, and booksellers who have helped me so eagerly,
in so many ways, that this limited introduction will not suffice to list all their
names. It is a joy for me to remain forever in the debt of those whose names I
have mentioned, and also of those whose names I acknowledge mentally without
writing them here.
Research and Sectarianism

If the people who fear that this book will cause harm to their religious lives join
in opposing me with those who fear that the book's new point of view will cause
them harm in the world of scholarship, this will be no surprise. In January 1981,
after completing my second research trip to Pandharpur, I wrote two articles on
“The Quest for the Original Image of Lord Viṭṭhal” that appeared in the
newspaper Kesarī (Ḍhere 1981e and 1981c). Marathi readers remember the
Page 9 of 14
Introduction
storm that arose throughout Maharashtra in response to those articles. A flurry

of letters, articles, and notes was published not only in Kesarī but elsewhere as
well. Some publications sought to increase their circulation by printing
sensational “features” on this subject. In some cases, special numbers of
periodicals were published, with the pilgrimage priests of Pandharpur taking the
lead. What is more, some people, not motivated by a pure search for knowledge,
convened assemblies opposing me on platforms erected in memory of M. G.
Ranade19 and V. K. Rajvade. Some people cursed me rudely, and others
threatened violence. The campaign of critical writings and speeches has
continued until very recent times.
Loyal to my scholarly point of view, I wrote two more articles in Kesarī (Ḍhere
1981b and 1981a) responding to the critiques that had been published in the
first three weeks and publicly promising that “if evidence to the contrary is
found tomorrow, I myself will correct myself.” I did not want to argue for the
sake of argument. I wanted to follow my passion, to search for the truth. So I
kept up my research and found a good deal more evidence about the
characteristics of the original image of Viṭṭhal. In chapter 6 of this book, I
present fearlessly and honestly, based on new evidence, some corrections to my
theory about the image at Māḍhe (Solapur District).20 Genuine seekers after
truth must always be ready to argue against their own earlier positions.
(p.13) Myths are the foundation-stone of ritual and of the faith that inspires
people to perform rituals. To attempt to unravel the secrets of myths is to
dissolve the myths. Priests of pilgrimage places and heads of monasteries can
never tolerate such demythologization. For that reason, such people sharply
oppose demythologizing scholars and seekers of truth. Revolutionary poets are
fond of myths, as are compassionate philosophers, Mahātmās, and heroes. But
such people go beneath the surface and accept myths as symbolic;
demythologization never frightens them. Those engaged in defending the
livelihood of priests and abbots can never even imagine the heights of those
Mahātmās: a man who earns his living as a priest can never become a prophet.
The saints had no fear that the dissolution of myths would destroy the faith that
rests on them. Without contradicting their own pure views, the saints would be
open to investigating the development of folk conceptions of the symbol in which
they experienced the Absolute. They would also be willing to learn how those
conceptions have differed in different levels of society, and how some people,
while outwardly accepting the developed form of the symbol, have attempted to
use it to accomplish their own goals.
Sectarians and those with interests in a holy place (especially those among them
who are recently educated) want research, but only order to use it for the
tenacious protection of their sectarianism and their interests. Such people are
always stepping forward with generous sponsorship and “support” for so-called
“scholars” who seem useful to them in fulfilling this primary goal. They then
Page 10 of 14
Introduction
very easily use such tamed “scholars” to incite simple believers against any
independent-minded researcher who considers their goals inferior to the search
for truth. What happens in social and political spheres also takes place in the
realm of religion and knowledge.
Satisfaction and Disappointment

What I had studied and learned in the three decades before I took up this project
was already with me as provisions for the journey; after I actually started my
research, I made several more field trips in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and
Andhra Pradesh, and I looked at many more materials. However, despite all I
have done, I am still dissatisfied. There are many places left to see; there is
much material left to obtain. In this limited number of pages I am not able to
give full justice to all that I have seen and learned. Some related subjects have
been left out; I have had to cover in one chapter topics that could be the subject
of a whole book, and in one section or one paragraph—or even sometimes one
sentence—topics that could be the subject of a whole chapter. If conditions
permit, I intend to write a number of (p.14) additional articles expanding on
topics in this book, and to present the articles to Marathi readers in the form of
an anthology. Right now I cannot say when and how this further project will be
accomplished.21
I have traveled in person to Pandharpur, Māḍhe, Kolhapur (Kolhāpūr),

Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī, Nandvāḷ, Vāśī, A¯re, Bīḍ (Kolhapur District), Bhaṭṭiprolu,
Cintakuṇṭā, Koīlkuṇṭlā, Lepākṣī (Andhra Pradesh), Baḷaṃbīḍ, Sogāne, Hebbaḷḷī,
Hampī, Belgaum, Cin͂clī (Karnataka), and other places. My friend since
childhood, G. K. (“Nānā”) Joshi, accompanied me throughout this whole ten-
thousand-kilometer journey. I must also mention once more that my two field
trips to Pandharpur were extremely successful, and that at that time (because of
the affectionate collegiality of V. L. Manjul) I benefited from the cooperation of
D. B. (“Bhāūsāheb”) Badve, V. V. Badve, and S. D. Badve.
Despite my honest difference of opinion with Professor Manikrav Dhanpalvar of

Hyderabad, I acknowledge with gratitude the great inspiration that I received
from his important writings on this subject. Based on materials from Andhra
Pradesh, his articles have caused many scholars in Andhra to begin to think
carefully about the history of Viṭṭhal. I took a long field trip in Andhra and
Karnataka in order to investigate seriously, for myself, the new materials he
presents and the thesis he bases on them; this trip proved extremely fruitful.
After I began to consider the history of Viṭṭhal from a new point of view, it came
to be widely and seriously discussed in Maharashtra. Professor Ramesh
Tendulkar made a point of obtaining articles on the subject from Maharashtrian
scholars and publishing them in several issues of the Marāṭhī Saṃśodhan
Patrikā.22 The volume Mahārāṣṭrācī Sattvadhārā,23 edited by my supporter and
father-figure V. T. (“Dadasaheb”) Shete and the renowned Marathi critic G. M.
Page 11 of 14
Introduction
Kulkarni, brings together articles by well-known Indian and foreign scholars

about Pandharpur, Lord Viṭṭhal, and the sect of devotees of Viṭṭhal (Kulkarṇī and
Śeṭe 1981). This volume provides an excellent overview of the current state of
research on the subject.
The present book includes many articles that I have written on this subject since
the beginning of my research project (and in some cases beforehand as well). I
have polished, expanded, and edited the articles as necessary. Although I have
tried to rework the articles as consistently as possible, some repetitions,
wordiness, inconsistency, and ambiguity may remain. I trust that discerning
readers will keep their sights steady on my main train of thought, and will use
their intelligence generously to “fill in the blanks” and make allowances for any
excesses.
R. C. Dhere
15 January 1984
Notes:
(1.) Translator's note: In this passage, Dhere is referring to Kṛṣṇa's life in the
cowherd settlement at Gokul. Yaśodā was Kṛṣṇa's foster mother, Nanda his
father, the Yamunā the local river, the flute Kṛṣṇa's favorite musical instrument,
stealing butter and other milk products his favorite game, and so on.
(2.) Translator's note: The kadamba tree is Nauclea cadamba. This too is a
reference to Kṛṣṇa's childhood in Gokul.
(3.) Translator's note: “I am he” (so ’ham) is one of the Upaniṣadic sentences
taken in Vedānta philosophy to refer to the unity of the individual Self (ātman)
with the Absolute.
(4.) Translator's note: See chapter 7.
(7.) Translator's note: See chapters 7–8.
(8.) Translator's note: Vedas, Śāstras, and Purāṇas are three types of Sanskrit
scriptural texts.
(9.) Translator's note: “Smṛti,” used here as a synonym for “Śāstra,” is usually
more narrow in its connotation, referring to legal literature (dharmaśāstra), or
to legal literature and the Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata epics.
(10.) Translator's note: Viśvanāth Kāśīnāth Rājvāḍe, 1863–1926, an eminent

Marathi historian.
Page 12 of 14
Introduction
(12.) Translator's note: See chapters 3 and 4.
(13.) Translator's note: According to Professor Madhav Deshpande (personal

communication, 14 March 2010), this probably refers to Anubhutisvarūpācārya's
grammatical system, which is called Sārasvata-Vyākaraṇa.
(14.) Translator's note: Because both tend to be rather complicated, and not
especially impressive.
(15.) Translator's note: I have not been able to locate the source of this
quotation.
(16.) Translator's note: Vyāsa is the name of the sage credited with compiling
the Vedas and composing the Mahābhārata and many other Sanskrit texts.
(18.) Translator's note: As far as I know, Dr. Dhere has not yet completed this full
project as spelled out here. He has, however, completed several major projects,
as well as a number of minor ones, since Śrīviṭṭhal: Ek Mahāsamanvay appeared.
In the introduction to the Marathi version of the book, Dhere goes on to say:
How can I promise that I will carry out this whole project? Somehow I have
completed the journey thus far, facing all kinds of adversity. I cannot say
today what will happen in the future, but I am confident that, if I cannot
complete this enormous research project, some shining genius will come
along and complete it with even greater skill. It is in order to welcome that
fortunate future person that I approach him on the road of research in the
form of this book. So that other scholars can get an idea of the materials I
have consulted, I will very soon prepare a major, independent bibliography
of materials for research on Viṭṭhal, and I will attach an extensive
introduction stating how and why I think the materials are important. I am
making these efforts so that, if I am unable to complete this work myself, it
will be easier for other scholars to proceed in that direction.
(19.) Translator's note: Justice Mahādev Govind Rānaḍe, 1842–1901, was an

eminent historian and an important public figure.
(20.) Translator's note: Dhere's earlier claim was that the image of Viṭṭhal in a
temple at Māḍhe was the original image from Pandharpur. In chapter 6 of the
present book, he presents a modified version of that view.
(21.) Translator's note: As far as I am aware, Dhere has not yet carried out this
particular plan, although he has published several major scholarly books and
numerous articles subsequent to the book translated here.
Page 13 of 14
Introduction
(22.) “Marathi Research Journal”; for example, Ḍhere 1979d, Ākalekar 1979,
Khare 1979.
(23.) Translator's note: A Festschrift in honor of Dhere.
Access brought to you by:
Page 14 of 14
Purāṇic Sources for the Study of Viṭṭhal


Print ISBN-13: 9780199777594
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.001.0001

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.003.0002

This chapter discusses the value of folklore and Purāṇas (“ancient” compendia of
mythological stories) in uncovering religious history. The chapter introduces
three Sanskrit Māhātmyas (“Glorifications”) of Pandharpur, each claiming to
belong to a different Purāṇa. It argues in detail that the oldest of these
Māhātmyas was composed before the thirteenth century, thus predating the
earliest Marathi poet-saints devoted to Viṭṭhal, as well as the inscriptions in
Pandharpur. After a brief discussion of the process of Vaiṣṇavization of Viṭṭhal in
the Māhātmyas, the chapter closes with an explication of the name Pāṇḍuraṅga
(“White-colored”), which began as a name of the place, Pandharpur, and is now
used more frequently as another name of the god, Viṭṭhal.
Keywords: Pandharpur, folklore, religious history, mythological stories
research mired in chronologies, genealogies, and mere lists of sequentially

arranged facts cannot contribute productively to the history of religion or to the
comprehension of religious faith. “Traditional” scholars denigrate as “full of
nonsense,” and do not even bother to open, texts that preserve old myths and
stories. Such texts are in fact treasure troves that can be extremely helpful for
discovering the universe of belief of traditional society. Whether you like the
beliefs or not is not the issue. The fact is that the traditional collective mind was,
and is, filled with a variety of beliefs. Collections of old myths and stories are the
gateway to this traditional collective mind: to realize this, one need only look at
the work of psychologists like Freud, Jung, and Neumann; anthropologists like
Page 1 of 14
Frazer and Malinowski; folklorists like Raglan, Hocart, and Cassirer; or

historians of religion such as Eliade and Shulman.
Without the help of Purāṇic texts about particular holy places (sthalapurāṇas,
also called Māhātmyas or sthalamāhātmyas), one cannot understand the origin
and stages of development of the gods at important holy places. What was the
original form of the beliefs centering on a particular local god? What individuals
and powerful groups took the lead in developing those original beliefs, and what
were their intentions in doing so? In the process of development, why did the
gods take on the particular new forms that the myths gave them? Only by
analyzing sthalapurāṇas can we answer these and many other questions, and
thus shed light on the condition of the collective mind as revealed through the
medium of deities.
(p.16) Here is one example. Mhāḷsā, the Maharashtrian folk deity who is the
god Khaṇḍobā's wife, resides in Nevāse in a different, Vaiṣṇava form (though
preserving a weak connection with Khaṇḍobā). Any knowledgeable person will
agree that her places in Maharashtra and Karnataka and the evidence that can
be gathered about her from copper and stone inscriptions are not sufficient to
gain insight into that Vaiṣṇava form. To trace the origin of Bahirā Jātaveda's
word picture of his family goddess in his commentary on the tenth book of the
Bhāgavata Purāṇa, or to understand why Jn͂āndev, in his “Anubhavāmṛt,”
bestows on her the form of a divine element, the “thread of the life of the world,”
when he discusses the mutual inclusion of Śiva and Śakti in each other, it is
necessary to study the Mahālasā Māhātmya. Mere strings of historical facts are
of no help in understanding the Vaiṣṇava form that Mhāḷsā has only in Nevāse,
or the sacred complex that has grown up around that form (Ḍhere 1978b: 29–
37).
Those who disregard sthalapurāṇas ought to take a look at the extraordinary

insights into the universe of human faith that Shulman has gained by delving
into Tamil sthalapurāṇas (Shulman 1980). Several other well-known scholars
with a broad knowledge of the source materials for the cultural history of India
have also realized the importance of sthalapurāṇas and have made explicit use of
them in their research. Along with Dineshchandra Sircar, Hemcandra
Raychaudhari, L. P. Vidyarthi, and Sunitikumar Chatopadhyay, these scholars
include Jan Gonda. In his important work Medieval Religious Literature in
Sanskrit, Gonda discusses Māhātmyas as follows (1977: 277–78):
I focus special attention on the so-called tīrthamāhātmyas. They are often

composed in Sanskrit and profess to be part of a purāṇa—in some cases
they were actually included in a work of that genre. Their number is very
large because every holy place of some importance possesses such a
“glorification” in which the legends and eulogies upon the holiness of the
tīrtha have been brought together. In accordance with their name these
Page 2 of 14
decidedly popular “glorifications of holy places,” mostly compiled by the

resident priests, are primarily meant to inform the innumerable pilgrims of
the holiness of the tīrtha and the rules and customs obtaining there.
In stressing the importance of such texts for the study of cultural history, Gonda
states clearly (1977: 278): “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
(p.17) institutions…, into beliefs and practices…, and into the significance of
holy places, local variants of myths and legends and so on.”
For the past twenty years,1 I too have worked extensively not simply to assert
but to demonstrate the importance of sthalamāhātmyas and sthalapurāṇas in the
study of cultural history. In Khaṇḍobā (1961), I analyzed the “Mallāri
Māhātmya,” a sthalapurāṇa of the holy place Pember; this enabled me to trace
the original form of the popular deity Khaṇḍobā (Ḍhere 1961: 1–10). In
Cakrapāṇi (1977a) I analyzed the Tryambak-Kṣetra Māhātmya in the light of
other materials, and thus was able to carry out an extensive investigation of the
cultural history of the Śaivas’ Tryambak Maṭhikā (Ḍhere 1977a: 287–304). In this
context, I made the following statement (1977a: 289–90):
In the field of cultural history, we have overlooked sthalapurāṇas or

Māhātmyas of places. We understand sthalapurāṇas to be storehouses of
dried-out, made-up stories, and so we never think of using them as source
materials for writing cultural history. But if we begin to study
sthalapurāṇas without pre-conceptions and with a view to discovering their
secrets, we will realize that they reflect, either directly or indirectly,
numerous important events, changes, actions, and reactions that have
occurred in relation to the various holy places. From the stories collected
in sthalapurāṇas a perceptive scholar can divine how the fame of the
places’ deities grew, what the original form of each deity was, how the
original form grew in prestige, what interactions developed in the course
of that growth between the god's original worshipers and their opponents,
how different streams of faith clashed and rose and fell, at what point in its
development the place finally came to rest, and many other important
facts.
Even though sthalapurāṇas are created within the aura of the Purāṇas,
their authors nevertheless make skilful use of cultural history and
geography. A scholar who has understood the Māhātmya authors’ method
of building an aura around factual materials can grasp many hidden
moments of history from sthalapurāṇas and can discover many unknown
chapters of the cultural tradition of India. In my experience, in cases where
Page 3 of 14
we are stymied by a lack of primary sources, sthalapurāṇas cannot but

facilitate the study of cultural history.
In Lajjāgaurī (1978a), a book that deals with mother goddesses, I primarily relied
on sthalapurāṇas in disentangling the history of the mother goddesses of
numerous places and the status that the goddesses have given the places. The
present book (p.18) will demonstrate how sthalapurāṇas of Pandharpur can be
used to illuminate the history and nature of the god Viṭṭhal.
Ma¯ha¯tmyas of Pandharpur and the Literature of the Marathi Saint-Poets

There are three extant Purāṇic-style Sanskrit texts about Pandharpur, all entitled
“Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya.” One of them claims to be part of the Skanda Purāṇa;2
another claims to be part of the Padma Purāṇa;3 and the third, the only known
copy of which is in my own collection, claims to belong to the Viṣṇu Purāṇa. The
first two of these texts are exceptionally important for the study of Pandharpur
and Viṭṭhal.
I have listed the texts in what I judge to be their chronological order. I believe
that the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa dates from before the
thirteenth century. I will present strong evidence that it was composed before
the time of Hemādri Paṇḍit, who lived in the thirteenth century, and that it was
this text that firmly established the sacred complex of Pandharpur with Viṭṭhal
as its chief deity. Once we have reliably determined the date of this text, we will
have the basis for the faith of all the saints from Nivṛttināth in the thirteenth
century to Niḷobā in the eighteenth.
From the very beginning, the Marathi saints sang the stories of their supreme
Lord Viṭṭhal and the glory of Pandharpur, the site of his deeds. Over and over the
first Marathi poet-saints in this series—the thirteenth-century saints Nivṛttināth,
Jn͂āneśvar, and Nāmdev—sang of Viṭṭhal's deeds in their fully developed form.
Jn͂āneśvar's abhaṅgas refer to Puṇḍalīk, the devotee for whom Kṛṣṇa came to
Pandharpur as Viṭṭhal; to Hari—that is, Kṛṣṇa—in the garb of a cowherd; to the
place at Pandharpur called Veṇunād (“the sound of the flute”); to the brick
Viṭṭhal stands on; to the idea of Pandharpur being built on Viṣṇu's Sudarśan
discus; and to the idea that all the gods became trees and stayed in that form in
Pandharpur. Jn͂āneśvar also testifies that the god has been standing in
Pandharpur for “twenty-eight yugas.”4 The “Paṇḍharī Māhātmya” included
among Nāmdev's poems begins as follows (Nām. Gā. 973.1–2):
Skanda was teaching the 88,000 sages.

One of their questions he couldn’t answer.
“Now let's go to Kailās5 and ask Maheś everything.”
So they set out into the sky and reached the land of the Fathers.
Page 4 of 14
Nāmdev (or, rather, another author, who identifies himself as “Viṣṇudās Nāmā”)
introduces the subject of the Purāṇic glory of Paṇḍharī through one conversation
(p.19) between the sages and Skanda and another between Skanda and Śiva—
in other words, the author uses the frame story of the Skanda Purāṇa. The
Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya ascribed to the Skanda Purāṇa is thus the basis for what
Tukārām called the “Purāṇic history” of the god whom the saints wholeheartedly
accepted; this text must predate Jn͂āneśvar and Nāmdev.
The Date of the Pa¯n․ḍuraṅga Ma¯ha¯tmya from the Skanda pura¯n․a

The Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya ascribed to the Skanda Purāṇa is the oldest extant
Māhātmya of Pandharpur; it predates the thirteenth-century saints Nivṛttināth
and Jn͂āneśvar. Although I firmly believe this, I am fully aware that I will need to
convince my readers of the antiquity of this text. I have identified the Māhātmya
as “ascribed to the Skanda Purāṇa.” That is, although it is an independent text,
in order to enhance its sanctity and prestige, its authors claim that it belongs to
the Skanda Purāṇa. Of course, to find the Māhātmya there is no need to leaf
through the whole Skanda Purāṇa, a copy of which will reach up to your knees.
Following the method of dating propounded by Dr. P. K. Gode,6 who holds that
texts of this kind can be dated only by examining their contents or determining
the date of later works that refer to them, I will show that the Māhātmya from
the Skanda Purāṇa predates Hemādri, the thirteenth-century author of the vast
legal compendium Caturvargacintāmaṇi.
The encyclopedic Tīrthakhaṇḍa (“Section on Holy Places”) of Hemādri's text is

no longer extant. Of the five sections (khaṇḍas) of his Caturvargacintāmaṇi, this
one and the Mokṣakhaṇḍa (“Section on Liberation”) are not available to present-
day scholars. However, the verses glorifying Pandharpur that are quoted in later
texts as coming from the Tīrthakhaṇḍa of Hemādri's Caturvargacintāmaṇi are
taken from the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya that belongs to the Skanda Purāṇa. One
text that gives quotations of this sort from Hemādri's Tīrthakhaṇḍa is
Gopāḷācārya Karhāḍkar's work “Viṭṭhalabhuṣaṇa” (1886).
“Viṭṭhalabhuṣaṇa” is a six-folio pamphlet published at the end of the nineteenth

century that gives a compendium of Sanskrit references to Viṭṭhal. Its author,
Mahāmahopādhyāya Gopāḷācārya Aṇṇā Ghaḷsāsī Karhāḍkar (1817–97), quotes
ten verses, beginning with the words “bhaimyāścaiva taṭe devi…,” that he states
are found “in Hemādri's Tīrtha[khaṇḍa] (tīrthahemādrau), folio 112.”
Gopāḷācārya also states clearly exactly where he saw the Tīrthakhaṇḍa: “This
Tīrthakhaṇḍa of Hemādri's is in the Raṅgamandir in Vṛndāraṇya. There are 600
pages of it there. The rest of it can be seen elsewhere, in the royal capitals
Aḷavara, Jambū, and so on.” The Tīrthakhaṇḍa of the Caturvargacintāmaṇi is no
longer extant, but the verses that Gopāḷācārya quotes as coming from the
Tīrthakhaṇḍa are in fact found (p.20) in the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the
Skanda Purāṇa.7 There is thus no reason to doubt that the Pāṇḍuraṅga
Māhātmya ascribed to the Skanda Purāṇa was composed before the time of
Page 5 of 14
Hemādri, and that it had become sufficiently well-known for Hemādri to quote it
in writing about Pandharpur.8
Gopāḷācārya was a renowned Sanskrit pandit of the second half of the

nineteenth century. He was a grammarian and a leader in his field. He held the
posts of vice-principal and principal of the traditional Sanskrit school Viśrāmbāg
Pāṭhśāḷā in Pune. He was an eminent exponent of legal traditions about
marriage between kin, remarriage, travel abroad, and other topics. As a source,
he is completely reliable. In his later life, he left Pune and settled in Gwalior at
the insistence of the ruler there, Bāyajābāī Śinde. Gopāḷācārya's motto was,
“Nothing is written with no basis” (nāmūlaṃ likhyate kiṃ̣cit). He composed a
large number of works in addition to “Viṭṭhalabhūṣaṇa”: eleven other “-bhūṣaṇa”
works, including “Śekharabhūṣaṇa,” “Bhāgavatabhūṣaṇa,”
“Kuladevatābhūṣaṇa,” and so on, and also “Sadācāra Candrikā.” In each case,
Gopāḷācārya was quite rigorous in naming the location of the texts he used and
the owners of the collections in which they were found. For each quotation in
“Viṭṭhalabhūṣaṇa,” he himself examined the original source, and he meticulously
cites where each text is located.9 Checking these references against extant texts
leaves absolutely no doubt about Gopāḷācārya's reliability.
The Testimony of Professor Kane

It is clear from Hemādri's own description (Kane, vol. I, 1975: 749n) that there
was a “Tīrtha” section to his Caturvargacintāmaṇi: “The sections of this book
are, in order, Vrata (vows), Dāna (almsgiving), Tīrtha (holy places), and Mokṣa
(liberation). The fifth section is named Pariśeṣa (“Appendix”). In these five
sections taken together, dharma is elucidated in its entirety.…” Or, “The fourfold
subject of Vrata, Dāna, Tīrtha, and Mokṣa is discussed in the four respective
parts, and the Appendix discusses what has been left out of them.” Because the
“Tīrtha” and “Mokṣa” sections are not found in extant manuscripts of the
Caturvargacintāmaṇi, however, some scholars doubt that these two sections
were ever written. In the first volume of his History of Dharmaśāstra, for
example, Kane states (1975: 749–50): “That portion of the Caturvargacintāmaṇi
which was intended to treat of tīrtha and mokṣa has not yet come to light. It is
extremely doubtful whether the author was able to carry out his gigantic
scheme.” On the other hand, in the fourth volume of Kane's work, in a discussion
of Pandharpur that forms part of the section on tīrthas, the same author asserts
quite positively (1973: 718):
(p.21) Though a ms. of the Tīrtha portion of Hemādri's work has not yet
been recovered, there is no reason to doubt that the verses were taken by
Gopālācārya from Hemādri's work particularly when almost all those
verses are quoted by the T. S. [Tīrthasāra] (about 1500 A.D.) from the
Skandapurāṇa and Kūrmapurāṇa. As Hemādri composed his work about
1260 to 1270 A.D. and as the verses quoted by him are cited by the
Skandapurāṇa, it follows that several centuries before 1260 A.D.
Page 6 of 14
Pandharpur was known as a tīrtha, that the devotee and the saint
Puṇḍarīka (Marāthi ‘Puṇḍlik’) also was so known then and that the image
of Viṭhobā was essentially the same in appearance as it is now.
It is consistent with Kane's intellectual honesty that in the first volume of his
work he expressed doubts that the Tīrthakhaṇḍa had been written, because he
found no evidence of its existence, and that by the time he wrote the fourth
volume his doubts had been removed by the strong evidence provided by
Gopāḷācārya. Kane also understood that, in connection with Pandharpur,
“Skanda Purāṇa” refers to the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa;
he realized this when he saw manuscripts of the Māhātmya text (Kane, vol. IV,
1973: 717n).
The Existence of the Ti¯rthakhaṇḍa

It was at the end of the nineteenth century that Gopāḷācārya quoted a passage
from Hemādri's Tīrthakhaṇḍa and specified in what collection in what town he
had seen a manuscript of the text. The fact that Gopāḷācārya made this
statement a full six hundred years after Hemādri does not make it any less
trustworthy. Lest there be any doubts, though, additional convincing evidence of
the existence of the Tīrthakhaṇḍa is found in dharmaśāstra literature composed
during the long period between Hemādri and Gopāḷācārya.
For example, the legal scholar Mitramiśra composed his massive work Vīra-
mitrodaya after the time of Hemādri. This text, which is as long as the Catur-
varga- cintāmaṇi, provides strong evidence of the existence of Hemādri's
Tīrthakhaṇḍa. A contemporary of King Vīrasiṃha of Orcha (1605–1627),
Mitramiśra wrote the Vīramitrodaya in the first quarter of the seventeenth
century. The text is divided into numerous chapters called prakāśas. In the
chapter on holy places, entitled “Tīrthaprakāśa” (Mitramiśra 1917), Mitramiśra
brings together passages on holy places and their Māhātmyas from various
earlier texts, and combines the passages in an orderly fashion. Besides taking
such materials from independent texts, Mitramiśra also often draws from earlier
compendia. For example, he repeats some (p.22) passages word for word from
the Tīrthakhaṇḍa of Kṛtyakalpataru, a text composed by the legal scholar
Lakṣmīdharabhaṭṭa (1100–50). Mitramiśra also repeats passages from Purāṇas
and other texts as they are quoted in Hemādri's Caturvargacintāmaṇi.
Mitramiśra gives these passages in the course of his discussion of holy places,
and so the passages must come from Hemādri's Tīrthakhaṇḍa.10 Thus, in the
first quarter of the seventeenth century, Mitramiśra repeated many quotations
that are given in the Tīrthakhaṇḍa of Hemādri's Caturvargacintāmaṇi, making
clear references to that work. This demonstrates that Hemādri did indeed
compose the Tīrthakhaṇḍa and illustrates the fact that numerous reputable legal
scholars after him used it in their works, giving him full credit.
Page 7 of 14
Many other authors who wrote after the time of Mitramiśra's Vīramitrodaya and
before that of Gopāḷācārya's Viṭṭhalabhūṣaṇa accept the Māhātmya from the
Skanda Purāṇa and use it to establish the renown of the sacred complex of
Pandharpur. Several of these authors themselves lived in Pandharpur and were
devotees of Viṭṭhal. For example, Pandharpur's great saintly poet Śrīdharsvāmī
Nājharekar (Śrīdhar, 1658–1729) recommends the Māhātmya from the Skanda
Purāṇa in his own thirty-two-chapter Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya, which itself is
based on the Māhātmya in the Padma Purāṇa (Nājharekar 1981: verse 26.26).
Pralhādmahārāj Baḍve (d. 1718), the eldest of three saintly poets in the Baḍve
family of Pandharpur, testifies that his brief Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya (181 ovī
verses) follows the Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa (Baḍve 1929: verse 181).
Pralhādmahārāj's work was published (in 1929), and there is also a manuscript
of it in the collection of the Bhārat Itihās Saṃśodhak Maṇḍaḷ in Pune.11 Another
Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya, one in five chapters composed by Gopāḷbodh Maḷgāvkar
(1660–1740), a disciple of Māṇkojī Bodhale, is also based on the Māhātmya from
the Skanda Purāṇa. In numerous places in his unpublished work Viṭṭhala-ṛṅ-
mantra-sāra-bhāṣya, the great Vedic pandit and legal scholar Bābā Pādhye of
Pandharpur (d. 1805) uses passages from the Māhātmya from the Skanda
Purāṇa in the same form in which they occur in manuscripts of the Māhātmya
(Upādhyāy n.d.). And in his 1903 book Paṇḍharī Māhātmya, Dājīśāstrī Dhārūrkar
of Pandharpur cites numerous verses from Māhātmyas in the Skanda and Padma
Purāṇas in the course of his description of holy places, tīrthas, and deities in
Pandharpur. In addition, works about the glory of Pāṇḍuraṅga by
Avadhūtavarada Viṭṭhala, Anantadeva, and many other authors help to
demonstrate the renown, antiquity, and popularity of the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya
from the Skanda Purāṇa.
All this shows that many authors who lived in Pandharpur and were devotees of
Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur unequivocally accepted this Māhātmya and used it as a
basis for the prestige of the sacred complex of Pandharpur. (p.23)
The Authority of the Ma¯ha¯tmya from the Skanda pura¯ṇa

The earliest author to quote at length from the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the
Skanda Purāṇa was the fifteenth-century legal scholar Dalapatirāja. In the
“Tīrthasāra” section of his work Nṛsiṃhaprasāda, Dalapatirāja quotes the first
four chapters of the Skanda Purāṇa's Māhātmya to express the glory of
Pandharpur. This “Tīrthasāra” has been published (1936a: 7–21), and G. H.
Khare refers to it in his Śrīviṭṭhal āṇi Paṇḍharpūr (“Lord Viṭṭhal and
Pandharpur,” 1963). Since Dalapatirāja himself gives the dates of his own term
of office as finance minister under the Nizām as 1490–1508, his Nṛsiṃhaprasāda
is dated to approximately 1500. In the part of “Tīrthasāra” entitled
“Puṇḍarīkakṣetra Māhātmyam,” he first quotes one verse from the Kūrma
Purāṇa; all the other quotations after that one he ascribes to the Skanda Purāṇa.
According to Khare (1963:33), “Because this part was printed on the basis of a
single manuscript, there are strange errors in it.” Dalapatirāja states that the
Page 8 of 14
“Puṇḍarīkakṣetra Māhātmya” that he used for his “Tīrthasāra” is the one from
the Skanda Purāṇa; the manuscripts of the Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa
fully confirm his statement.12
At the end of the fifteenth century, then, Dalapatirāja accepted that the
Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa sings the praises of Pandharpur
and of the sacred complex that grew up around Viṭṭhal there; this is why
Dalapatirāja included the text in his book. We can deduce that the Māhātmya
had had a position of respect in the religious world for at least fifty or a hundred
years before this, and that it was considered the principal source of information
about the sacred complex of Pandharpur. Thus, Dalapatirāja's “Tīrthasāra”
enables us to trace the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa back to
the end of the fourteenth century or the beginning of the fifteenth.
Hemādri died sometime around 1285 or 1290, in the last quarter of the
thirteenth century. Only a century or so remains between the death of Hemādri
and the period to which Dalapatirāja helps us trace the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya.
Thus, it is completely reasonable to think that Gopāḷācārya, the author of the
Viṭṭhalabhūṣaṇa, saw a manuscript of the Tīrthakhaṇḍa of Hemādri's
Caturvargacintāmaṇi; that he noted the number of folios of the copy and the
place where it was located; that he very assiduously extracted verses from the
Tīrthakhaṇḍa; and that those verses come from the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from
the Skanda Purāṇa. The verses that Gopāḷācārya quotes as drawn from the
Tīrthakhaṇḍa can also be found in Dalapatirāja's “Tīrthasāra” (1936a: 9), and
they occur in the nearly complete manuscript of the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from
the Skanda Purāṇa in the Bhārat Itihās Saṃśodhak Maṇḍaḷ, beginning with the
first folio (number 2, chapter 1, verses 30–31). There should be no further
doubts about the antiquity of the Pāṇḍuraṅga (p.24) Māhātmya from the
Skanda Purāṇa or about its authority on the subject of the sacred complex of
Pandharpur.
The Dates of the Other Two Sanskrit Pa¯ṇḍuraṅga Ma¯ha¯tmyas

The second Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya, the one that claims to belong to the Padma
Purāṇa, was composed two or two-and-a-half centuries later than the Māhātmya
from the Skanda Purāṇa. The Māhātmya from the Padma Purāṇa was composed
in order to popularize the sacred complex of Pandharpur and to Vaiṣṇavize some
other local deities and bring them into the family of Viṭṭhal. In the “Tīrthasāra”
section of Nṛsiṃhaprasāda, Dalapatirāja quotes from the first four chapters of
the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa and adds one verse from the
Kūrma Purāṇa, but he does not mention the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the
Padma Purāṇa. This indicates that this Māhātmya must have been composed
after his time. The Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya in Marathi ovī verses composed by the
popular poet-devotee Śrīdharsvāmī Nājharekar of Pandharpur, the Māhātmya
that has become the authoritative source of Viṭṭhal stories for innumerable
ordinary devotees in Maharashtra, primarily follows the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya
Page 9 of 14
from the Padma Purāṇa. Eknāth (1533–1600) narrates these same stories in his
“Paṇḍharī Māhātmya” abhaṅgas. Thus, the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the
Padma Purāṇa must have been composed between the time of Dalapatirāja and
that of Eknāth—that is, sometime in the sixteenth century.
There is reason to believe that the third Sanskrit Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya, the
one from the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, must also have been composed during this same
period. However, it did not become very popular. Aside from some variant stories
about Puṇḍalīk, it has no other detailed local information at all, and so we do not
need to take it into special consideration here.
Evidence of Vaiṣṇavization in the Pa¯ṇḍuraṅga Ma¯ha¯tmya

In this chapter, I have repeated some of my previous statements about the role
of sthalapurāṇas in the study of deities. I have also presented convincing
evidence that the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa dates from
before the time of Hemādri and that it established the importance of the sacred
complex of Pandharpur. In addition, I have pointed out that this Māhātmya is the
first significant source for the study of the god Viṭṭhal and Pandharpur,
predating Nivṛtti, Jn͂āndev, and the other saints. The Māhātmya from the Skanda
Purāṇa also predates the oldest inscriptions in Pandharpur. Perceptive readers
will easily see (p.25) that the facts that emerge from a close analysis of this
Māhātmya are the original ones, and that they shed decisive light on the
Vaiṣṇavized form of Lord Viṭṭhal, on the characteristics of his image, on his
retinue, and on the glory of the holy place over which he rules.
The Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa13 was composed before
Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur had become completely Vaiṣṇavized. As it constructs the
sacred complex of that holy place, the Māhātmya also Vaiṣṇavizes all the local
deities under Viṭṭhal's power, attempting to bring them into his extended family.
As this Māhātmya provides details about the special characteristics of many holy
places, about images, and even about the distinguishing marks of the Viṭṭhal
image itself, and as it narrates stories glorifying those places, tīrthas, and
images, it asserts again and again that a certain characteristic, image, or place
is still to be found. The claim “This can still be seen today!” (adyāpi dṛṣyate)
bears witness to the “sacred reality” in Pandharpur as the author could see it
when he composed the Māhātmya. In order to strengthen popular faith in that
“sacred reality,” the Māhātmya's author collected local stories that were already
in circulation and wrote them down in an ornate and “perfected” form. He also
used his astonishingly powerful imagination to create many new stories.
The point of all these stories, new and old, is the same: they place the sacred
complex of Pandharpur on a firm foundation of faith, and they Vaiṣṇavize Viṭṭhal
and all the other deities upon whom that complex rests. Where the Māhātmya's
author realized that the original worshipers of the various deities were fully
vigilant about preserving or increasing the distinctiveness of their gods, he paid
Page 10 of 14
respect to that basic distinctiveness and simply added an overlay of the

excellence of Viṭṭhal. Of course, when I say that the author of the Māhātmya or
sthalapurāṇa did all this, what I mean is that he was an important agent of the
spread of Vaiṣṇavism, that he was an active representative of the movement for
Vaiṣṇavization. When a whole community of believers unhesitatingly accepts a
particular Māhātmya as determining the sacrality of a holy place, that
Māhātmya is no longer the work of a single individual, but becomes the work of
that whole community; it attains the status of folk literature.
“Pa¯ṇḍuraṅga” as a Place Name

Why does the Māhātmya of Pandharpur bear the name “Pāṇḍuraṅga”? Even
though this name does appear as another name of Viṭṭhal, even in the Pāṇḍu-
raṅga Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa, it was originally the name of a place.
“Pāṇḍuraṅga Viṭṭhal” was once a name like “Kāśī Viśvanāth.” “Kāśī Viśvanāth”
(p.26) means “the god Viśvanāth in the place Kāśī.” Similarly, “Pāṇḍuraṅga
Viṭṭhal” meant “Viṭṭhal at a place named Pāṇḍuraṅga.” In the phrase “Tirumalai
Veṅkaṭeś,” “Tirumalai” at first named the god Veṅkaṭeś's place, but then it
became, for his devotees, another name of Veṅkaṭeś himself. Where devotion to
Veṅkaṭeś was prominent, the name “Tirumal” (for example, Tirumal Nāyak),
Trimal, and so on was frequently used as a proper name for individuals.
Similarly, the “Pāṇḍuraṅga” in the phrase “Pāṇḍuraṅga Viṭṭhal” originally
referred to a place, but later became an extremely popular name of the god, of
Viṭṭhal.
Place names like “Pāṇḍuraṅgakṣetra,” “Puṇḍarīkakṣetra,” and

“Pauṇḍarīkakṣetra” occur in both the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the Skanda
Purāṇa and the one from the Padma Purāṇa. The Māhātmya from the Padma
Purāṇa (chapters 1 and 2) also uses the names “Ḍiṇḍīravana,” “Lohadaṇḍa
Kṣetra,” “Lakṣmītīrtha,” and “Mallikārjunavana.” These names indicate the
importance of some of the places, areas, and deities in the neighborhood of
Pandharpur. (In the appropriate contexts, I will explicate these names and the
stories connected with them.) For Pandharpur as a whole, these texts use only
two names, “Pāṇḍuraṅgakṣetra” and “Puṇḍarīkakṣetra” (or “Pauṇḍarīkakṣetra”).
Although most inscriptions in and related to Pandharpur use such names as
“Pāṇḍuraṅgapūra,” “Pauṇḍarīkakṣetra,” “Pāṇḍarī,” and “Pāṇḍarīpūra” for this
place, the Śake 1159 (A.D. 1237) Sanskrit and Kannada inscription of the
Hoysaḷa king Vīra Someśvara Yādava on a beam of the “Sixteen-
column” (soḷkhāmbī) temple hall uses “Paṇḍarage” or “Paṇḍaraṅge” in both
languages (Gokhale 1981: 79–81).14 Undoubtedly, this is the original name of
this place. In its similarity to other Kannada village names—Hipparge,
Sonnalige, Kaḷbarge, and so on—it demonstrates clearly the “Kānnaḍa
character” of Pandharpur. Such inscriptional evidence shows that “Pāṇḍuraṅga,”
“Pāṇḍuraṅgakṣetra,” “Pāṇḍuraṅgapūra,” “Pauṇḍarīkakṣetra,” and (as we will
see in chapter 8) even “Puṇḍarīka” are all derived from “Paṇḍarage.”
Page 11 of 14
Thus, although today we consider “Pāṇḍuraṅga” another name of Viṭṭhal, it was

at first, for at least some time, a Sanskritized form of the place-name
“Paṇḍarage.” Not “Pāṇḍuraṅgakṣetra” or “Pāṇḍuraṅgapūra,” simply
“Pāṇḍuraṅga” was used to designate Pandharpur. This was a natural
development, because “Pāṇḍuraṅga” was close to the original name
“Paṇḍarage” and had been created by Sanskritizing that name.
The collection of Nāmdev's poems includes an abhaṅga that sings the praises of
Pandharpur by comparing it with Varanasi (Vārāṇasī). In this abhaṅga, Nāmdev
uses the word “Pāṇḍuraṅga” numerous times to refer to Pandharpur (Nām. Gā.
991):
4. In Varanasi there is the Bhāgīrathī, in Pāṇḍuraṅga the Bhīmarathī.

5. In Varanasi there is the Pan͂cagaṅgā, in Pāṇḍuraṅga the Puṣpāvatī.…
(p.27) 7. In Varanasi is Bindu Mādhav; in Pāṇḍuraṅga, Veṇunād.…
9. In Varanasi is Candramauḷī; in Pāṇḍuraṅga, Vanamāḷī.15
Because the name “Pāṇḍuraṅga” indicates whiteness,16 it ought naturally to

refer to Śiva, who is as white as camphor. In his Deśīnāmamālā, Hemacandra
states that Pāṇḍuraṅga is identical with Rudra (paṇḍaraṅgo ruddammi).
However, none of the Marathi saints takes the name “Pāṇḍuraṅga” as referring
to Śiva. This is remarkable, given that the Marathi saints generally propound the
unity of Hari and Hara.17 In the view of the saints, Viṭṭhal is Gopāl Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa
the cowherd, and he has the name “Pāṇḍuraṅga” because he became dusty all
over from the dust raised by the hooves of the cows. The Māhātmyas’ authors
also see Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur as Gopāl Kṛṣṇa; he is “Hari in the garb of a
cowherd” and “the naked child Gopāl.”
Who was this god originally? He bears the name Viṭṭhal, which does not appear
among the thousand names of Viṣṇu, and he stands with his “hands on his hips,”
a pose not included among the twenty-four images of Viṣṇu. How did he become
Gopāl Kṛṣṇa and take on the form in which the saints experienced the soul of the
universe? This is the amazing story that we are about to experience.
Notes:
(1.) Translator's note: The book translated here was originally published in 1984;
Dhere has continued this type of research ever since. Thus, if he were to write
this sentence now, he would have to say “forty-five years.”
(2.) Manuscripts of the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa are
available in the collections of many institutions: the Bhārat Itihās Saṃśodhak
Maṇḍaḷ (Pune), the Bhāṇḍārkar Oriental Research Institute (Pune), the library of
Bombay University, the historical museum of Ahmadnagar District
(Ahmadnagar), the Prajn͂ā Pāṭhśāḷā (Wai), and so on. Although this Māhātmya
has not been published, it is the one of which the greatest number of
manuscripts are available. In the Bhārat Itihās Saṃśodhak Maṇḍaḷ in Pune there
Page 12 of 14
are two incomplete manuscripts of this Māhātmya (number 47, 161 and number
59, 199); the second of these is missing only its first folio (with the first fifteen
verses of the text).
(3.) A lithographed version of this text was published by Indraji Narayan Bhatti
in Śake 1791 (Bhaṭṭī 1869).
(4.) See the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa 1.34: “O Skanda, in
the current, twenty-eighth kalpa, and at the end of the Dvāpara Yuga, a man
known as Puṇḍarīka practiced very difficult asceticism.” (adya kalpe ’ṣṭaviṃśati
dvāparānte ca ṣaṇmukha, puṇḍarīka iti khyātas tapas tepe suduṣkaram.)
(5.) Translator's note: Kailās is Śiva's heaven. Maheś is a name of Śiva.
(6.) Translator's note: See, for example, Gode 1954–1956.
(7.) Translator's note: See note 2, above.
(8.) We agree that Megasthenes’ Indica existed at one time, and we do not
hesitate to quote the Indica, even though the passages are taken from later
authors’ quotations from the text. This is also the case with many other texts
that are no longer extant.
(9.) In an article entitled “Śrīviṭṭhalabhūṣaṇa: Ek Paricay” (Ḍhere 1979e), I give

all the quotations in this book, along with their meanings and a discussion of
their significance.
(10.) To indicate that he is discussing tīrthas, Mitramiśra gives the reference “in
Hemādri” (hemādrau; 1917: 121) and then introduces his topic as follows:
The Ganges, the Narmadā, the Sindhu, the Sarasvatī,

and other such rivers are for providing liberation of creatures.
Then immediately, in connection with the same subject, he states, “in Hemādri,
in the Kālikā Purāṇa” (hemādrau kālikāpurāṇe; 1917: 122), and quotes a verse
from the Kālikā Purāṇa, citing as his source Hemādri's work (the Tīrthakhaṇḍa,
of course: śoṇo nairan͂jano ghoṇo ghargharo ’tha marīcakaḥ, maṇipuṣpo
mahāvarto nadāstvete maheṣvarāt). Later, in the same context, Mitramiśra
quotes some Purāṇic passages, citing them as “in Hemādri, in the Skanda
Purāṇa” (hemādrau skandapurāṇe; 1917: 122) and “in Hemādri, in the Bhaviṣya
Purāṇa” (hemādrau bhaviṣyapurāṇe; 1917: 123). In expressing the glories of
Gaṅgādvār, Mitramiśra gives the citation “in Hemādri, in the Kūrma
Purāṇa” (hemādrau kūrmapurāṇe), and quotes two verses from the Kūrma
Purāṇa taken from Hemādri's work (1917: 377); in expounding the “Sarasvatī
Māhātmya” that is part of the “Kurukṣetra Māhātmya,” Mitramiśra gives the
completely unambiguous reference “in the Tīrtha[khaṇḍa] in
Page 13 of 14
Hemādri” (tīrthahemādrau; 1917: 478) and then quotes a number of verses

(prācī sarasvatī yatra tataḥ kiṃ mṛgyate ’param etc.).
(11.) Manuscript number 39, 558.
(12.) For example, the section quoted in the “Tīrthasāra” to express the glory of
Puṇḍarīkakṣetra (Pandharpur) is found in the nearly complete manuscript of the
Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa in the collection of the Bhārat
Itihās Saṃśodhak Maṇḍaḷ, Pune (see note 2, above). The manuscript is
sufficiently free from errors that it could be used to correct mistakes in the
verses quoted in the “Tīrthasāra.”
(13.) And also to some extent the one from the Padma Purāṇa.
(14.) The term “Phāganipūr,” which many scholars have taken as a name of
Pandharpur in the “Eighty-four” inscription there, comes from a scribal error.
This is discussed in detail in the Appendix “Inscriptions in Pandharpur” in the
Marathi version of this book (Ḍhere 1984: 407–9).
(15.) Translator's note: Bhāgīrathī, Bhīmarathī, Pan͂cagaṅgā, and Puṣpāvatī are

all rivers; Bindu Mādhav is a Viṣṇu temple; Veṇunād (“the sound of the flute”) is
a place. Candramauḷī is a name of the god Śiva and Vanamāḷī a name of Kṛṣṇa.
(16.) Translator's note: The name is generally analyzed into pāṇḍu, which means
“white,” and raṅga, meaning “color.”
(17.) Translator's note: Viṣṇu and Śiva.
Page 14 of 14
Hari in Cowherd's Garb


Print ISBN-13: 9780199777594
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.001.0001

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.003.0003

This chapter discusses the saint-poets' belief that Viṭṭhal is the god Kṛṣṇa, who
came to Pandharpur to meet the devotee Puṇḍalīk. According to a well-known
story, Puṇḍalīk was busy attending to his elderly parents, so he threw Kṛṣṇa a
brick to stand on, and the god has been waiting there patiently, his hands on his
hips, for 28 Yugas (eons). The iconography of the Viṭṭhal image does not conform
to any standard Vaiṣṇava or Kṛṣṇaite iconography, and the saint-poets repeatedly
declare Viṭṭhal to be “beyond the twenty-four” incarnations of Viṣṇu. Certain
elements of the cult indicate Viṭṭhal's similarity to the Vedic deity Pūṣan. For his
devotees, however, Viṭṭhal is preeminently the cowherd child Kṛṣṇa, and it is this
form that they see in his image in the temple at Pandharpur.
Keywords: Pandharpur, Vedic deities, cowherd child
from an historical point of view, we can ask when Viṭṭhal originated. For his
devotees, however, such a question will never arise. Their faith holds that this
being who is the essence of beauty has been standing on a brick, his hands on
his hips, for twenty-eight yugas, waiting for Puṇḍalīk. Nivṛttināth (Nivṛ. Gā. 230)
says, “Hṛṣikeś1 has stood for twenty-eight yugas, / providing full pleasure to
Puṇḍalīk.” Jn͂āneśvar (Jn͂ā. Gā. 68) asserts, “This is not something new. / This is
twenty-eight yugas old.” Nāmdev too, who calls the supreme Absolute that came
to meet Puṇḍalīk the “primordial god” (Nām. Gā. 1063), also states that this god
has been “standing on a brick for twenty-eight yugas,” displaying his “heavenly
beauty” (Nām. Gā. 2319). Eknāth holds that “this old, ancient coin,” which was
revealed through the divinatory power of Puṇḍalīk, stands on a brick, and that
“for the past twenty-eight yugas / he has been living on the bank of the Bhīvarā
Page 1 of 17
[the Bhīmā River]” (Ek. Gā. 664). And, finally, Tukārām pretends to be angry
with Puṇḍalīk over this condition of Viṭṭhal's. Tukārām asks Puṇḍalīk (Tukā. Gā.
1731):
Hey, Puṇḍyā! Why are you so proud

as to make Viṭṭhal stand there?
(p.29) Why are you so bold
as to toss a brick to him?
Twenty-eight yugas have passed.
Why have you not yet told him, “Sit down”?
To see your faith close up,
God left behind his heaven, Vaikuṇṭha.
Says Tukā, “O Puṇḍalīk,
you’re the really strong one.”
The literature of the saints is full of admiration for this daring of Puṇḍalīk's. It
was because of Puṇḍalīk that the god came from Vaikuṇṭha and stands
motionless, his hands on his hips, on the brick that was tossed to him: all the
saints from Jn͂āneśvar on down accept with complete faith this story of Viṣṇu's
descent in the form of Viṭṭhal. Along with Jn͂āneśvar, they all express their
gratitude over and over again (Jn͂ā. Gā. 71):
The devotee Puṇḍalīk saved all people.

He brought the image of Vaikuṇṭha to the town of Pandharpur.
It was Puṇḍalīk's “daring” that caused Viṭṭhal's original folk-religious form to

become hidden and that revealed his new, spiritualized Vaiṣṇava form. Viṭṭhal's
new divine life is based on Puṇḍalīk and on the brick that he tossed. Jn͂āneśvar
expresses an ardent desire to become the brick under Viṭṭhal's feet (Jn͂ā. Gā. 75),
and the eighteenth-century poet Moropant (d. 1806) composed a hymn of praise
addressed to the brick: “Iṣṭakāprārthanā,” the “Prayer to the Brick” (Moropant
1961a). Previous scholars have searched for Puṇḍalīk in history, and have tried
to date Viṭṭhal's incarnation on the basis of the dates they have found for
Puṇḍalīk. In my view, however, the story of Puṇḍalīk, which was popularly
accepted even before the time of Jn͂āneśvar, is not historical; rather, it is purely
Purāṇic. As I noted at the end of the previous chapter, the place-name
Paṇḍarage gave the dark Viṭṭhal not only his paradoxical alternative name
Pāṇḍuraṅga (the “white-colored” one), but also his devotee Puṇḍarīk or
Puṇḍalīk.2 In addition, as I mentioned in the Introduction, it was a story invented
to explain the name “Viṭṭhal,” a name for which no proper etymology has yet
been found, that gave birth to the brick (viṭ).
The unambiguous acceptance of the identity of Viṭṭhal and Kṛṣṇa on the part of
all the saints in this tradition is based on an idea that was firmly established
before the time of Jn͂āneśvar. Jn͂āneśvar was a worshiper of Kṛṣṇa for whom
Page 2 of 17
Kṛṣṇa was fully identical with Viṭṭhal. Jn͂āneśvar testifies to this identity in
unambiguous terms (Jn͂ā. Gā. 289):
For the sake of Puṇḍalīk's faith, he came from Gokul.

He says to his devotees, “Take, take now my loving devotion.”
(p.30) This “dark supreme Absolute,” who was “looking different because of his
cowherd garb” (Jn͂ā. Gā. 592), became the subject of all of Jn͂āneśvar's profound
experiences. Sometimes in the role of a cowherd companion, at other times as a
lovelorn milkmaid, Jn͂āneśvar experienced “bodiless” union with this Viṭṭhal who
stands on the brick of experiential knowledge on the bank of the Bhīmā of
devotion. And that is why Jn͂āneśvar calls him both Viṭṭhal and Mādhav (that is,
Kṛṣṇa; Jn͂ā. Gā. 1): “He is this fine Viṭṭhal; / He is this fine Mādhav.”
Since the time of Jn͂āneśvar, the saints and hundreds of thousands of other
faithful devotees have reverently believed the story of Viṭṭhal's connection with
Pandharpur; they have sung of it with full devotion. This story was first written
down in full in the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya ascribed to the Skanda Purāṇa. The
manifestation of Lord Viṭṭhal as narrated in the very first chapter of this text
establishes that he is a form of Kṛṣṇa. In the twenty-eighth eon,3 at the end of
the Dvāpara Yuga, Puṇḍarīk established an āśram on the bank of the Puṣkariṇī (a
river near Pandharpur), and he was serving his mother and father as a form of
asceticism. The god was pleased with Puṇḍarīk's service to his parents. Who was
this god, and what form did he appear in? “The god whom the cowherds love
was very pleased, / the powerful one who grazes a herd of cows on lovely
Govardhan Mountain. / Having heard of that seer, the Lord of Gods went to give
him boons” (PMSP 1.37–38). In later passages (PMSP 1.39–47; 7.42–43), the
Māhātmya describes in detail that “naked cowherd form.”
Although the saints appear unanimous in believing, along with the Māhātmya's
author, that it was Puṇḍalīk who caused Viṭṭhal to become incarnated, their
statements differ about whether Viṭṭhal came from Vaikuṇṭha, Dvārakā, or
Gokul.4 In one passage, Nāmdev declares (Nām. Gā. 1052):
The lovely son of Yaśodā5 stands beautifully,

his feet side by side on the brick,
and he identifies the place Viṭṭhal came from by saying (Nām. Gā. 974), “God
came to Pandharpur from Gokul.” Elsewhere, however, Nāmdev states (Nām. Gā.
1111):
Leaving forever his home in Vaikuṇṭha,

he stands at Puṇḍalīk's door
with his hands on his hips.
Page 3 of 17
In other passages, the saints refer to Lord Viṭṭhal as “an item from Dvārakā”—
the place where Kṛṣṇa went to spend his adult life. Although Eknāth (Ek. Gā.
617, 638) and Tukārām (Tukā. Gā. 1724, 1725) call Pāṇḍuraṅga a baby, they also
express a (p.31) belief that he came from Vaikuṇṭha or from Dvārakā.
Tukārām's disciple Niḷobā refers to the infant form in the words, “Pāṇḍuraṅga's
image as a baby / is full of virtues and beauty” (Niḷ. Gā. 325), and states that the
baby is Lord Kṛṣṇa from Gokul and Vṛndāvan (Niḷ. Gā. 350): “The same one who
played in the Yamunā6 / stands here in Pandharpur.” In another context,
however, Niḷobā says (Niḷ. Gā. 377):
Lactating for the sake of his devotee,

he runs quickly from Vaikuṇṭha.
He stands at the door with his hands on his hips.
When the Vārkarī saints think of Viṭṭhal as the lord of Vaikuṇṭha, they call him
the “husband of Lakṣmī”; when they consider him as the lord of Dvārakā, they
refer to him as the “husband of Rukmiṇī”; and when they think of him as a
resident of Gokul, they portray him playing with the cowherd boys and girls.
From the point of view of his faithful devotees, Viṭṭhal's image depicts him as the
baby Kṛṣṇa; in the opinion of experts in iconography, however, the
characteristics of Viṭṭhal's image do not correspond exactly with those of any
Purāṇic incarnation.
What this means is that the Vaiṣṇavization of Viṭṭhal in the tradition of the
Vārkarī saints is general rather than specific. The saints have not only made
Viṭṭhal into Viṣṇu, nor have they only made him into Kṛṣṇa. From their spiritual
point of view, he is the “heap of all the incarnations,” but he is different from all
of them as well. From my scholarly standpoint, even though Viṭṭhal accepts the
forms of Viṣṇu, Kṛṣṇa, Śiva, Buddha, and the Jina, at root he is really “the Viṭṭhal
in the minds of the people,” the folk deity Viṭṭhal.
Four Reasons for the Manifestation

In addition to the story of Kṛṣṇa's appearance to Puṇḍalīk, the Pāṇḍuraṅga
Māhātmyas from the Skanda and Padma Purāṇas cite three other reasons why
Lord Viṭṭhal manifested himself. Indeed, what these Māhātmyas’ story of Viṭṭhal
consists of is the narrative of his appearance in Pandharpur for these four
reasons. The reasons are as follows:
1. Pleased with the way that Puṇḍarīk (or Puṇḍalīk) served his mother
and father, Kṛṣṇa came to his āśram in the form of a cowherd in order to
give him a boon or a chance to have his darśan (PMSP, chapters 1 and 7).
This is the reason I have discussed so far.
(p.32) 2. Because Kṛṣṇa allowed Rādhā to be close to him even in
Dvārākā,7 Rukmiṇī got angry with him and came sulking to the Diṇḍīra
Forest (Diṇḍīravan) on the bank of the Bhīmā. In order to assuage her
anger, Kṛṣṇa came first to Gopalpur along with the cows and cowherds.
Page 4 of 17
Then, leaving his whole retinue there, he went alone in the garb of a
cowherd to see Rukmiṇī (PMPP, chapter 1).
3. In order to kill a demon named Ḍiṇḍīrava, who had become swollen
with arrogance in the Ḍiṇḍīrava (or Diṇḍīra) forest, Viṣṇu took the form of
Mallikārjun Śiva. He killed the demon with an iron rod (PMPP, chapter 2).
4. When a beautiful young woman named Padmā had undertaken
asceticism in order to get a good husband, God took a form even more
beautiful than hers and manifested himself before her.8 She became
infatuated when she saw the god's beauty; her clothes fell away and her
hair came loose. By the god's boon, a tīrtha came into being. It was
named Muktakeśī (“Loose-haired”) in honor of her (PMSP, 3.40f.; 12.32;
PMPP, 27.14).
All four of these reasons for the god's appearance are extremely important from
the point of view of the cultural history of Pandharpur. We can understand why
the Māhātmya states that Mallikārjun, who killed the demon Ḍiṇḍīrava with an
iron rod (a lohadaṇḍa,9 reason 3), was really Hari (Viṣṇu), who had taken the
form of Mallikārjun. The Māhātmya tells this story to Vaiṣṇavize Mallikārjun and
to give a sacralized explanation of the name of a village (one named Lohān,
perhaps?), presided over by Mallikārjun, that later became part of an expanded
Pandharpur. Still today, in the ancient temple of Mallikārjun in Pandharpur, the
god has the form of Śiva. His Vaiṣṇavization remains restricted to this Māhātmya
story, while, in other respects, the Liṅgāyats and Koḷīs, his original and current
worshipers, have successfully preserved his identity as Śiva.10
Something similar happened in the case of Padmā (reason 4). Both of the
adjectives used for her, “naked” and “loose-haired,” are applied to the goddess
Koṭarā, a goddess of creation.11 Still today Padmā is found in Pandharpur as
Padmāvatī, and there is a tīrtha, a holy water-place (now dried up), called
Padmālaya (figure 2–1). Nowadays we cannot make out Padmāvatī's original
form underneath the thick coat of red lead that covers her (figure 2–2). As for
Rukmiṇī, the name that people use for her to this day as she sits sulking in the
Diṇḍīra Forest is “Lakhūbāī.” Her original form is a shapeless stone covered with
red lead, and her iconic image looks like Gajalakṣmī (Lakṣmī with elephants)
rather than Rukmiṇī (figure 2–3).12 Although from the point of view of faith, her
Vaiṣṇavization is complete, iconographically she has not given up her basic
nature: we can see this at any time with (p.33)
Page 5 of 17
Figure 2–1 The Padmāvatī temple in

Padmālaya, Pandharpur. Photo by Anne
Feldhaus.
Page 6 of 17
(p.34)
Figure 2–2 The goddess Padmāvatī,

Pandharpur. Photo by Anne Feldhaus.
Page 7 of 17
our own eyes. The rights of

worship of both Padmāvatī and
Lakhūbāī have now been assigned
to Viṭṭhal's priests.
Our principal interest here is in
the god who came in the garb of
a cowherd for the sake of
Rukmiṇī and Puṇḍalīk (reasons
1 and 2). In both of these
contexts, the Māhātmyas
portray Kṛṣṇa in the garb of a
cowherd. But Puṇḍalīk was
serving his mother and father,
not the god. He had not been
expecting a vision of any form
of god. For Rukmiṇī, the
cowherd form that was involved
in Kṛṣṇa's liaison with his
cowherd lover Rādhā was an
object of scorn and anger. Far
from helping to allay Rukmiṇī's
Figure 2–3 Lakhūbāī (Rukmiṇī) in her
anger, that form could only
temple in the Diṇḍīra Forest, Pandharpur.
exacerbate it. Given the context
The uncarved stone of the goddess is in
in both these stories, why does
the foreground; on the pedestal is the
the Māhātmya insist on Kṛṣṇa's
image representing her as Gajalakṣmī
cowherd garb? Why does it
(Lakṣmī with elephants). Photo by Anne
stress his naked cowherd-boy
Feldhaus.
form? Since the text does this
even at the expense of the
internal coherence of the story,
and since it insists that “this is the form in which Kṛṣṇa appeared in
Pandharpur,” must not this be the original form of the Viṭṭhal who became
Kṛṣṇa? Some clues can be found in the saints’ statements, repeated again and
again, that Viṭṭhal is “different from the twenty-four” and that he is “Kānaḍa.”
(p.35) Viṭṭhal, Different from the Twenty-Four

In praising Viṭṭhal, the Marathi saints repeatedly say that he is “different from
the twenty-four.” From Jn͂āneśvar in the thirteenth century to Tukārām in the
seventeenth, numerous saints used this terminology. Proclaiming Viṭṭhal's
uniqueness—” He is the salvation of the twenty-four images, / inaccessible to the
thousand names [of Viṣṇu]”—Jn͂āneśvar calls him “the twenty-fifth, different
from the twenty-four images” (Jn͂ā. Gā. 68). Jn͂āneśvar's friend and companion
Nāmdev also characterizes Viṭṭhal as “the one who is not seen among the
thousand, who does not appear among the twenty-four” (Nām. Gā. 1028), and
calls him a “heap of incarnations” (Nām. Gā. 1063). In the sixteenth century,
Page 8 of 17
Eknāth makes this one who is “different from the twenty-four” the subject of his
constant thoughts, and keeps watching with delight “his play, which is different
from [that of] the twenty-four” (Ek. Gā. 507).
Thus, even though the Vārkarī saints consider Viṭṭhal to be a form of Viṣṇu, they
say again and again that he is “different from the twenty-four,” meaning, “this
Viṭṭhal of ours is different from the twenty-four incarnations of Viṣṇu.” Twenty-
four is the highest number of Viṣṇu incarnations in the Purāṇas. We are familiar
with ten incarnations of Viṣṇu, which have been fixed in the minds of people in
India for centuries: Fish, Tortoise, Boar, Dwarf, Man-lion, Paraśurām, Rām,
Kṛṣṇa, Buddha, and Kalkī. But we are less familiar with twenty-four incarnations
of Viṣṇu. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa (2.7) lists fourteen more in addition to the basic
ten: Suyajña, Kapila, Datta, Dhanvantarī, Sanaka, Sanātana, Sanandana,
Sanatkumāra, Nara, Nārāyaṇa, Venaputra, Ṛṣabha, Hayagrīva, and Haṃsa.
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa is the text the Marathi saints love best. Their favorite
religious practice is to “listen to the Gītā and the Bhāgavata”: in the Gītā the
Lord appears as Truth, while the Bhāgavata displays his playful (līlā) form. When
the saints say, “different from the twenty-four,” they are envisioning the twenty-
four incarnations of Viṣṇu enumerated in the Bhāgavata. Their Viṭṭhal is not
among these twenty-four—he is not identical with any of them. That he is
“inaccessible to the thousand names” or “not to be seen among the thousand”
means that “Viṭṭhal” is not one of the thousand names of Viṣṇu. As Nāmdev puts
it, because “this is an unqualified, separate, pure, enlightened” (Nām. Gā. 1027)
deity, he is naturally “different from the twenty-four, distinct from the thousand.”
This proclamation of the saints can be interpreted spiritually, but it is also

undoubtedly true that they did not find their supreme object of worship among
the twenty-four incarnations or thousand names of Viṣṇu. For this reason, along
with considering Viṭṭhal “different from the twenty-four” and “distinct from the
thousand,” they also saw him as the “heap of all the incarnations.” Although he
is (p.36) different from all the incarnations and beyond all names, all the
incarnations are included in him. The deeds of any of Viṣṇu's incarnations can be
ascribed to him, and he can be endowed with any of Viṣṇu's names. This is why,
just as it is proper to say that Viṭṭhal came from Vaikuṇṭha, so it is completely
appropriate to call him “an item from Dvārakā.” From this point of view, the
contradictions in describing him can easily be resolved. Tukārām's declaration
(Tukā. Gā. 2914), “Whatever you say / is fitting for Viṭṭhal,” appropriately
expresses the infinitude of his form, name, and qualities.
Viṭṭhal as Kānaḍa
If the saints’ Viṭṭhal, who is “different from the twenty-four” and “distinct from
the thousand,” is not to be found in the Vedic scriptures or in the epics or
Purāṇas, where did he come from? The saints call him “Kānaḍa”—that is, they
say he comes from Karnataka—despite the fact that he is the most beloved god
Page 9 of 17
of Maharashtra. In one line (Jn͂ā. Gā. 7), Jn͂āneśvar refers to him with two
geographical adjectives, “Kānaḍa” and “Karnāt․aku”: “Viṭṭhal, who has attracted
me, is Kāṇada, [of] Karnataka.” Eknāth devotes three abhaṅgas (Ek. Gā. 631–33)
to proclaiming Viṭṭhal's Kānaḍa character. Calling him “Kānaḍa Viṭṭhal,” Eknāth
declares (Ek. Gā. 632): “I think of none but the Kānaḍa one; / that Kānaḍa one
lives in my thoughts.” In Eknāth's view, not only Viṭṭhal but (Ek. Gā. 633):
The tīrtha13 is Kānaḍa, the god is Kānaḍa,

the kṣetra14 Paṇḍharī is Kānaḍa.
Viṭṭhal is Kānaḍa, the devotees are Kānaḍa….
Earlier, Nāmdev too saw Viṭṭhal as Kānaḍa (Nām. Gā. 1031): “Kānaḍa Viṭṭhal
stands on the bank of the Bhīvarā, / his heart burdened with longing for his
devotees.” Besides indicating the region that Viṭṭhal came from, Nāmdev also
points out his linguistic identity (Nām. Gā. 1085):
Viṭṭhal knows how to speak Kannada;

Puṇḍalīk doesn’t understand his language.
Some people explain that the adjective “Kānaḍa,” which the saints apply to
Viṭṭhal, indicates the incomprehensibility of his nature.15 I am aware that many
of the saints’ verses, like Nāmdev's “The Vedas fall silent; it is Kannada to
scripture” (Nām. Gā. 1027), lend support to this explanation. Nevertheless, we
must not forget that the metaphorical meaning of “Kānaḍa/Kannada,”
“incomprehensible,” (p.37) is in fact based on the literal meaning, “from
Karnataka.” By using both terms, “Kānaḍa” and “Karnāt․aku¯,” Jn͂āneśvar has
completely resolved the ambiguity. The adjective “Kānaḍa” is used for Viṭṭhal in
the same way as it is used in “Kānaḍa Khaṇḍerāya” to refer to the god Khaṇḍobā
and in “Kānaḍa Rāmrājā” to refer to King Rāmrājā of Vijayanagar: it indicates an
origin in Karnataka.
Numerous Marathi scholars have repeatedly attempted to deny that Viṭṭhal is

Kānaḍa, that he comes from Karnataka, by saying not only that “Kannada“
means “incomprehensible” but also that “Karnāṭaku” means karanāṭaku,
“playfully clever.” However, no matter how proud and happy this attempt makes
the regionalists, the facts are otherwise. Even today, Pandharpur, the place
where Viṭṭhal received his new Vaiṣṇava identity, lies on the border of
Maharashtra and Karnataka. Maṅgaḷveḍhe, near Pandharpur, was the original
domain of Basaveśvar, the founder of the Vīraśaiva sect of Karnataka (Ḍhere
1977a: 97). Pandharpur's old name, Paṇḍarage, is pure Kannada. Many of
Viṭṭhal's hereditary servants come from Karnataka, and their original family
deities are from there as well.16 In addition, numerous other details
unambiguously proclaim Viṭṭhal's Kānaḍa character.
Page 10 of 17
“Standing sky-Clad”
The saints described and experienced Viṭṭhal principally in the form of Viṣṇu.
Nevertheless, they repeatedly call him “sky-clad”—that is, “naked.” According to
Nāmdev, when Viṣṇu came to Paṇḍharī to stand on the brick, he first took off his
silk dhoti: “He has taken off his silk dhoti and stands naked, / his hands on his
hips, on the beach” (Nām. Gā. 1106). Nāmdev saw that the one whom the four
Vedas continually praise, whose enormous fame cannot be comprehended,
“stands naked on the bank of the Bhīmā. / He places his hands on his hips for his
devotees” (Nām. Gā. 1179). Eknāth's experience is the same; in one verse (Ek.
Gā. 491) he uses the terms “naked” and “sky-clad” to reinforce his point: “I see
the naked, sky-clad one, / his hands placed firmly on his hips.” In another verse,
Eknāth echoes Nāmdev17 (Ek. Gā. 636):
The form that is untouched by words,

incomprehensible (kānaḍeṃ) to language,
is naked in Pandharpur.
In experiencing the joy of looking at that naked form (Ek. Gā. 651)—” Viṭṭhal
stands naked on the brick. / It is a sight of incomparable beauty”—Eknāth's eyes
overflow with happiness. “And,” he prays, the words falling spontaneously from
his mouth, “may that abode of mine stay firm in my heart” (Ek. Gā. 651).
According (p.38) to the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa as
well, Gopāl Kṛṣṇa, who appeared in Pandharpur for Puṇḍalīk and for Rukmiṇī,
was naked (digvāsā, 1.42; digambar, 7.64), and this idea is also found in other
texts.18
The question is how to explain this “sky-cladness,” this nakedness, of Viṭṭhal's.

Why, as he stands on the brick, should Viṣṇu give up his silk dhoti and go naked?
This is a puzzle. In their own way, following their own inclinations and nature,
the saints have tried to answer this question. In their view, Viṭṭhal is neither a
naked youth nor a naked adult, but a “naked baby, / [who] is a kinsman of the
Supreme” (Ek. Gā. 638). For the saints, of course, the naked baby is Kṛṣṇa, the
cowherd son of Nanda and Yaśodā.
When the Marathi saints view their god as the “compassionate Viṭṭhal” who has
shed his clothing and stands continually on the bank of the Bhīmā for the sake of
his devotees (Ek. Gā. 322), this vision provides new food for reflection. The
saints also hold that this naked form, the maternal home of the Vedas (Ek. Gā.
327), is the Absolute devoid of qualifications. From this point of view, the saints
again and again express their conviction that their god is the inner ruler
(antaryāmī) of everything: “He looks naked; he abides in all places” (Ek. Gā.
521). But this is a case of glorifying reality, a spiritualization of the basic
imagery. The fact that the saints offer multiple explanations of Viṭṭhal's sky-clad
state, of his nakedness—that he “has the garb of a naked child” (Ek. Gā. 617),
Page 11 of 17
and then that “he looks naked; he abides in all places” (Ek. Gā. 521), and then
again that (Ek. Gā. 594),
Beyond the highest form of speech, incomprehensible to language,

Viṭṭhal is naked on the bank of the Bhīmā—
clearly indicates that the secret of his nakedness is to be found somewhere else.
The god's nakedness points to Gopāl Kṛṣṇa, to the baby Kṛṣṇa, and perhaps also
to the nakedness of some supremely dispassionate person in Indian traditions.19
“The Child Cowherd”

All the saints, from Jn͂āneśvar and Nāmdev on, also express another idea
established by the Māhātmya: that the god who manifested himself in
Pandharpur for the sake of Puṇḍalīk wears the garb of a cowherd.20 Although, in
the broad universe of their experience, they perceive Kṛṣṇa, the supreme object
of their worship, in many forms and many colors, and although they describe all
his incarnations and their respective forms, still, whenever the subject of Kṛṣṇa's
manifestation in Pandharpur arises, they never fail to refer to his cowherd garb.
Jn͂āneśvar, for (p.39) example, delights in Kṛṣṇa's beauty as a cowherd:21
“Looking at his lovely form, / looking at his beautiful cowherd garb.…” Nāmdev,
who says (Nām. Gā. 1052), “Yaśodā's lovely child / has his feet placed side by
side on the brick,” has no doubt at all that “God reached Pandharpur from
Gokul” (Nām. Gā. 974). Nāmdev's voice takes a tender tone in describing Gopāl
Kṛṣṇa's skilful play (līḷā): he came to Gopalpur with “nine hundred thousand
cattle and five hundred companions” (Nām. Gā. 974), and for Puṇḍalīk's sake he
has settled down on the brick with his hands on his hips.
In telling how the god became manifest, Eknāth (Ek. Gā. 319) adheres closely to
the second of the four Māhātmya stories listed above:
Because of Rādhā, God came to Paṇḍharī.

Rukmiṇī was sulking; she came to the Diṇḍīra Forest.
The giver of mokṣa followed her to the Diṇḍīra Forest.
He left the company of cows and cowherds in Gopalpur.
[Says] Ekā Janārdan, “Lord Hari himself wore the garb of a
cowherd.”
In Eknāth's view, the compassionate Viṭṭhal lives in a “naked” form on the bank
of the Bhīmā (Ek. Gā. 322); he “came from Gokul with the cows and
cowherds” (Ek. Gā. 323). The one on whom Śiva meditates in the cemetery, “this
naked form,” lives in Paṇḍharī (Ek. Gā. 327); Nāth invites everyone to “look at
him, standing on the brick in the form of a child” (Ek. Gā. 408). Eknāth also says
that “Viṭṭhal has the form of a child” (Ek. Gā. 439) and happily plays cowherd
games in Pandharpur, in “the company of cows and cowherds” (Ek. Gā. 441).
Eknāth portrays Viṭṭhal not only, as we have seen, as “sky-clad” and “naked” (Ek.
Gā. 491), but also as wearing “a lovely bonnet of babyhood” (Ek. Gā. 508) as he
enjoys happiness along with the saints on the sandy bank of the river. Eknāth
Page 12 of 17
states again and again that it was in the garb of a cowherd that Viṭṭhal came to
Pandharpur to look after his devotees: the one who held up Mount Govardhan,
who subdued Kāliya,22 “God Viṭṭhal has come to Pandharpur in the garb of a
cowherd / to attend to his devotees” (Ek. Gā. 601).
Tukārām, who enriched Eknāth's legacy, describes Viṭṭhal's appearance in

Pandharpur in strikingly similar words (Tukā. Gā. 1724):
The urbane, sweet child-form…

came with cows and cowherds for the sake of Puṇḍalīk.
He displays this naked image with his hands on his hips.
Tukārām states again and again that, for Puṇḍalīk's sake, Pāṇḍuraṅga came to
Paṇḍharī “in the image of a child,” bringing along the cows and cowherds (Tukā.
(p.40) Gā. 1725). The Viṭṭhal whom Puṇḍalīk brought home “has with him a
huge number of cows / and his cowherd companions” (Niḷ. Gā. 264), says Niḷobā.
From his own experience, Niḷobā states that “Pāṇḍuraṅga in the image of a
child” (Niḷ. Gā. 325), coming “along with cows and cowherds” (Niḷ. Gā. 306), has
left the pleasures of the banks of the Yamunā and is experiencing an abundance
of curds and milk in the form of the kālā (a mixture of yoghurt and flour) at the
Kārtikī festival23 in Pandharpur (Niḷ. Gā. 350).
Childhood Play, the Kālā, and Bhāruḍs

Not only does the literature of the saints who worship Viṭṭhal take over the
Māhātmya's idea of his appearance in the form of a cowherd; when the saints
see him as Gopāl Kṛṣṇa, they themselves take on the role of cowherds in his
retinue. They take part in his “childhood play”; they become nearly ecstatic
eating the “kālā” he serves them; they bring their herds of cattle into the
precincts of the village and sing cowherd game-songs (bhāruḍs) with him. In the
literature of the Vārkarī saints, there is a rich collection of “childhood-play”
songs, kālā abhaṅgas, and bhāruḍs. These compositions provide unambiguous
witness to the saints’ pastoralist basis and to the cowherd form of their object of
worship, Gopāl Kṛṣṇa.
Some scholars connect the cowherd kālā ( gopāḷkālā) and the Vedic karambha in
a way that seems significant in this context (Deleury 1960: 183; Tuḷpuḷe 1977;
etc.). In the Vedas, karambha is the favorite food of the deity Pūṣan. Pūṣan, who
holds a staff with a bull's head, wears a thick woolen blanket, protects herds of
cattle, and shows cowherds the way, is the god of Vedic cowherds. There is
reason to believe that karambha, which Pūṣan likes because he is toothless (i.e.,
harmless), is the predecessor of kālā (Dandekar 1979: 117). Vedic scholars have
glossed this food as karaṃbhaḥ dadhisaktavaḥ, curds and barley (Ketkar 1921:
281). Considering that this karambha is prepared by mixing barley flour and
yoghurt, we naturally recall Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur, who enjoys eating buttermilk
and flour. A reminder of his love for buttermilk and flour can still today be seen
in the form of Tākpiṭhyā Viṭhobā, “Viṭhobā who eats buttermilk and flour” (figure
Page 13 of 17
2–4; Bahiraṭ 1981a: 61).24 Kālā is an extremely important ritual in the worship of
Viṭṭhal. Celebrating kālā makes everyone, from the holiest saints to simple
Vārkarīs, a cowherd companion of Gopāl Kṛṣṇa.
Ṛddhipurvarṇan (Tuḷpuḷe, ed. 1967c: 31), one of the Mahānubhāvs’ “Seven

Books,” uses the word bhāruḍ as follows: “Bhāruḍs decorate their sheep with
love of the earth” (ratnaprabheceni koḍeṃ / meṇḍhiyā śruṅgarītiṃ bhāruḍeṃ.
335). Traditional commentators give the meaning of this term as
“shepherd” (dhangar); it is used (p.41)
here in the neuter plural to make

it a pejorative. If the word bhāruḍ
refers to pastoralists, we can
agree that bhāruḍs are the play-
songs of cowherds at the resting
places of cattle. Perhaps the
original devotees in Lord Viṭṭhal's
retinue were cowherds. Outside
the village in the shade of a tree
or at the resting place of the
cattle, they may have amused
themselves by taking the roles of
various characters in village
society and by singing play songs.
If so, then the attempt the saints
made to adopt these pastoralists’
point of view and to give society
the highest spiritual thoughts in
their style of singing must be
strong evidence of the saints’
favorable disposition toward the
people, of their skill in using folk
media for instruction. No
Figure 2–4 Tākpiṭhyā Viṭhobā, with
satisfactory etymology has yet
Rukmiṇī, Pandharpur. Photo by Anne
been found for the term bhāruḍ;
the best place to look for one, it Feldhaus.
seems to me, would be in
pastoralist culture. For example,
the name “Bharvāḍ,” for a pastoralist community that is still found in Gujarat today, is
close to the term bhāruḍ. Just as the Gondhaḷīs’ songs are known by the name
“Gondhaḷ-singing” or simply “Gondhaḷ,” so it is quite natural for Bhāruḍs’—that is,
Dhangars’—songs to be called “bhāruḍ-songs” or, for short, “bhāruḍs.”
(p.42) Pūṣan, Kṛṣṇa, and Viṭṭhal
Pandharpur's loving Viṭṭhal holds a staff and a sling. He resembles the Vedic god
Pūṣan and has been completely identified with the Purāṇic Kṛṣṇa. Although for
some time he may have worn a “blanket of pearls” in order to satisfy the whims
of his wealthy devotees, the blanket has now become old and torn. What he likes
best is the blanket that local Dhangar shepherds weave for him. The priests put
Page 14 of 17
a golden crown on him during festivals, but he prefers the turban that adorns
the heads of the local Dhangars. Tākpiṭhyā Viṭhobā, who lives nearby, always
proudly displays such a turban on his head. The Māhātmya states that donating
blankets is especially important at Pandharpur (PMSP 2.15).
This Viṭṭhal, who has preserved his cowherd nature in his form, his garb, his life-
story, and even his devotees’ points of view, who is “different from the twenty-
four” and “distinct from the thousand,” may be even older than Kṛṣṇa. Perhaps
he is a contemporary of the Vedic Pūṣan, or even his predecessor. The saints
considered him the undivided Absolute, “ancient, from the beginning of the
yuga,” but even in historical terms it could be that he dates from pre-Vedic
times. Kṛṣṇa was the friend of the people and the leader of the people; in
opposing the idea of performing a sacrifice to Indra, he proudly explained the
religious duties of pastoralists to his cowherd companions (Bhāgavata Purāṇa
10.24.19–30). Viṭṭhal's identity with Kṛṣṇa came about precisely because of the
popular Viṭṭhal's cowherd nature. The saints who took initiation in his love
continually and successfully attempted to free him from the increasing
dominance of the elites and to cause him to meet openly with men and women of
any and every caste.
Notes:
(1.) Translator's note: Hṛṣikeś is a name of Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa.
(2.) Translator's note: See also chapter 8.
(3.) Translator's note: The term used is kalpa, meaning a period of a thousand
cycles of the four yugas. Each set of four yugas is said to last 4,320,000,000
years.
(4.) Translator's note: Vaikuṇṭha is the heaven of Viṣṇu; Gokul is the cowherd
settlement where Kṛṣṇa spent his childhood; Dvārakā is the place where he went
to rule as a king.
(5.) Translator's note: Yaśodā was the cowherd woman who became the child
Kṛṣṇa's foster mother in Gokul.
(6.) Translator's note: The Yamunā is the river at Gokul, in Vṛndāvan.
(7.) Translator's note: For many traditions of Kṛṣṇa devotion, Rādhā was Kṛṣṇa's
principal beloved in his life with the cowherds in Gokul, before he left to rule in
Dvārakā.
(8.) According to the Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa, she was an anonymous
milkmaid, while, according to the Māhātmya from the Padma Purāṇa, she was
the daughter of King Candrasena.
Page 15 of 17
(9.) Translator's note: Giving rise to the place name Lohadaṇḍa Tīrtha. See
chapters 3 and 8, below.
(10.) As we will see in chapter 8, what has happened to Puṇḍalīk is not much
different from what has happened to Mallikārjun.
(11.) Translator's note: For more on this goddess, see Ḍhere 1978a: 186–88.
(12.) Unfortunately, no one has taken notice of this in connection with the
cultural history of Pandharpur.
(13.) Translator's note: A tīrtha is a holy water-place.
(14.) Translator's note: A kṣetra is a holy place.
(15.) Translator's note: The Kannada language has the same metaphorical value
in Marathi that Greek does in English, as when an English speaker says, “That's
Greek to me.”
(16.) See, for example, Gaurīśaṅkar Śāstrī Anantaśāstrī's statement (1884: 10):
“Since this place [the Māruti of Nimbargī] is the chief object of worship of the
priests [Baḍves] of Lord Pāṇḍuraṅga of Paṇḍharpūr, people come here for the
first visit of the bride and groom after marriage.”
(17.) Translator's note: See Nām. Gā. 1027 (“The Vedas fall silent; it is Kannada
to scripture.”), quoted in the previous section of this chapter.
(18.) In his praise-poem “Śrīkṛṣṇakarṇāmṛtam,” for example, the Kṛṣṇa devotee

and poet Līlāśuka or Vilvamaṅgala (twelfth–thirteenth century, from Kerala)
proclaims Kṛṣṇa's “nakedness” in a touching way as he describes Viṭṭhal on the
bank of the Bhīmā. Līlāśuka gives directions to travelers on the road of devotion
(2.34):
O Wayfarers, do not take the road along the bank of the

Bhīmarathī.
There is a man standing there who is naked and dark blue.
Even though he holds both his hands at his waist,
that rogue steals your wealth in the form of your mind.
(19.) See chapter 11, below.
Page 16 of 17
(20.) This idea too is not confined to the poet-saints specifically devoted to
Viṭṭhal. The famous Mādhva pandit Vādirājatīrtha, for example, praises Viṭṭhal
on the bank of the Bhīmarathī in four verses of his poem
“Tīrthaprabandha” (composed in 1571, Śake 1493). In two of the verses,
Vādirājatīrtha refers to Viṭṭhal's “cowherd-child” form (Vādirājatīrtha 1990):
(7.) May the cowherd child Lord Pāṇḍuraṅga mercifully be pleased

with us.…
(8.) I have taken refuge in the water that washed the feet of the
cowherd child, which calms the three fevers and is of the color of the
rising sun.
(21.) Translator's note: I have been unable to locate the correct number of this
verse. Dhere identifies it as Jn͂ā. Gā. 10, but it does not occur in abhaṅga 10 in
the edition that otherwise fits the verse numbers Dhere gives.
(22.) Translator's note: Holding up the Govardhan mountain and subduing the
serpent Kāliya are two of the most famous exploits of the god Kṛṣṇa in his
cowherd-child form.
(23.) Translator's note: This festival is named for the month in which it occurs,
Kārtik (October–November).
(24.) Translator's note: This is the name of Viṭṭhal in one of his temples in
Pandharpur.
Page 17 of 17
The Secret of the Diṇḍīra Forest


Print ISBN-13: 9780199777594
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.001.0001

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.003.0004

This chapter examines another story explaining Kṛṣṇa's presence in Pandharpur,
the story that one time, when Kṛṣṇa's wife Rukmiṇī was angry with him, she
came to the Diṇḍīra Forest in Pandharpur to sulk, and Krishna came here
searching for her. Dhere shows that the name “Diṇḍīra Forest” (diṇḍīravana) is
etymologically related to Sanskrit and Tamil words for “tamarind grove,” and
that the story of Rukmiṇī sulking in the Diṇḍīra Forest is connected with a
particular area of present-day Pandharpur where until recently a number of
large tamarind trees grew and where Rukmiṇī is still to be found, under the
name “Lakhūbāī.” The chapter also introduces the thesis of Manik Dhanpalvar
that Viṭṭhal was a form of the god Śiva before becoming a form of Viṣṇu/Kṛṣṇa,
and points out the close analogies between Pandharpur and other major South
Indian holy places where tamarind trees or groves are important.
Keywords: Pandharpur, etymology, Sanskrit, Tamil, tamarind grove, Manik Dhanpalvar
the diṇḍīra forest to which Viṭṭhal came in search of his sulking wife Rukmiṇī is
of great significance in the study of Lord Viṭṭhal. In the past few years, Manik
Dhanpalvar has contributed a number of important articles and notes pointing
toward an explanation of the secret of the Diṇḍīra Forest, and thereby also
toward the origin of Viṭṭhal (Dhanpalvār 1972a, 1972c, 1981a, 1981b, 1981c,
and 1981d). Whenever Dhanpalvar finds new source materials on this subject, or
a new meaning in old source materials, he publishes his findings. Although he
has not presented this research in a comprehensive book,1 his articles and notes
Page 1 of 13
point out numerous previously unnoticed materials and contain many perceptive
suggestions for scholars of Viṭṭhal.
Dhanpalvar's article “Viṭṭhal Mhaṇje Śiv” (“Viṭṭhal Is Śiva”; Dhanpalvār 1981d),

for example, is revolutionary from a number of points of view. In the course of
his argument in this article, Dhanpalvar makes an important suggestion about
the Diṇḍīra Forest. He writes (1981d: 30):
It is well known that Pandharpur's ancient name was “Pauṇḍarīkakṣetra.”

“Pauṇḍarīkakṣetra” means “a holy place (kṣetra) of Śiva.” In Maharashtra,
Pandharpur became transformed into a Viṣṇu kṣetra after Śake 1000 [A.D.
1078], but in the South, Tiruvārūr, which is widely known as
“Pauṇḍarīkakṣetra,” is still a place of Śiva. The deity of Tiruvārūr (in Tamil
Nadu) is Tyāgarāja. This Tyāgeśvar or Śiva was the family deity first of the
Chola dynasty and later of (p.44) the Marathi kings of Tanjāvūr. In the
Tyāgarāja Māhātmya [Bhīmrāv 1976], Tiruvārūr is clearly referred to as
“Puṇḍarīkpur” (3.3):
Staying in Puṇḍarīkpur, the enemy of Vṛtra2

constantly worships Tyāgeśa,
whom I have worshiped day and night.
(Cidambaram, a place of Śiva that has become famous because of the deity
Naṭarāja, is also close to Tiruvārūr, and it too is called “Puṇḍarīkpur.”)
Near this Śiva place [at Tiruvārūr] is an area called the Diṇḍīra Forest
(diṇḍīravan), which is referred to by the village name “Diṇḍivan.” This
village (called “Tiṇḍivanam” in Tamil) lies on the Madras-Tanjāvūr railway
line. This makes it clear that the deity of Pandharpur, which is in the
Diṇḍīra Forest, was Śiva. The only difference between the two is that
Tiruvārūr's Śiva place remained completely unchanged, while the deity of
Pandharpur lost his form as Śiva, and a Vaiṣṇava image was established
there.
Everything in this statement of Dhanpalvar's, both the assertions he makes and

the assumptions he accepts, must be closely investigated and tested. For
example, his argument that “Pandharpur” is “Puṇḍarīkpur,” that “Puṇḍarīkpur”
is also another name for the two well-known southern holy places Tiruvārūr and
Cidambaram, that these two places were and still are today Śiva places, and that
therefore Pandharpur was formerly a Śiva place—this argument cannot be
accepted simply at face value. There are, however, other means by which we can
easily establish that Pandharpur was previously a place of Śiva. Dhanpalvar
himself presented some of these earlier, in his article “Vaiṣṇavāṃcyā Paṇḍharīcī
Śaiv Paramparā” (“The Śaiva Tradition of the Vaiṣṇavas’ Pandharpur”;
Dhanpalvar 1972c).
Page 2 of 13
The name “Puṇḍarīkpur” does indicate the predominance of Śiva at Pandharpur,

but not because Puṇḍarīkpur is an alternative name of Tiruvārūr and
Cidambaram. Although Professor Dhanpalvar did not realize it, the name
“Puṇḍarīkpur” itself indicates the predominance of Śiva at Pandharpur: Puṇḍarīk
or Puṇḍalīk was originally Puṇḍarīkeśvar, the original presiding deity of the town
Paṇḍarage. The Vaiṣṇava priests of Pandharpur, who promulgated Lord Viṭṭhal
under the new form of Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa, also Vaiṣṇavized a number of other popular
deities of the place and brought them into Viṭṭhal's retinue; one of them,
Puṇḍarīkeśvar, became a “servant of Viṣṇu,” with the new Vaiṣṇava biography of
Puṇḍarīk, the king of devotees, and the privilege of being viewed first by visitors
to Viṭṭhal's temple. But there is no proof that Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur was himself
at first Śiva and was then made into Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa.
(p.45) The proximity of the Diṇḍīra Forest is problematic in the same way as
the shared name “Puṇḍarīkpur.” The argument that there is a Diṇḍīra Forest
near the Śiva places Tiruvārūr and Cidambaram, that there is a Diṇḍīra Forest
near Pandharpur, and that therefore Pandharpur is a Śiva place is just like the
argument based on the name “Puṇḍarīkpur.” Until we can show clearly that the
name “Puṇḍarīkpur” has exactly the same cultural significance in the cases of
Tiruvārūr, Cidambaram, and Pandharpur, and until we can demonstrate that the
meaning of the name of the Diṇḍīra Forest near each of the three places, or the
fact of its being near them, shows their presiding deities to be identical, scholars
should not put too much weight on these two similarities. For this reason, not
only Professor Dhanpalvar but anyone interested in studying this subject must
look more deeply into the cultural traditions of these three places.
Diṇḍīvan/tiṇḍīvan and the Diṇḍīra Forest

One of the facts that Professor Dhanpalvar presents, that in the neighborhood of
the Śiva places Tiruvārūr and Cidambaram there is a village with the Tamil name
Tiṇḍivan (Tiṇḍivanam), turns out to be important for another reason, and it helps
to throw light on Pandharpur and Lord Viṭṭhal. Taking into consideration that
Tamil makes no distinction between t and d,3 we realize that “Tiṇḍīvan” and
“Diṇḍīvan” are identical in Tamil. The village with this name is located in South
Arcot District in Tamil Nadu, eighteen miles from Jinjī (Gingee). As Dhanpalvar
indicates, Tiṇḍivan is a station on the Southern Railway, and so it can easily be
found on a tourist map of Tamil Nadu.
A Hindi book written by a Jain pilgrim that describes Tiṇḍivanam begins by

explaining the place's name. In the view of the pilgrim, Ṭhākurdās Bhagavāndās
Jauharī (1915: 313), “Tiṇḍivanam” is a corrupted (apabhraṃśa) form of the
Sanskrit name “Tiṃtriṇīvanam,” and it means “tamarind grove.” In Sanskrit, the
tamarind tree is called tintiḍa, tintila, tittiḍī, tintilī, tintiḍī, tintiṇī, and tintriṇī, as
well as ciñcāvṛkṣa. Except for ciñcāvṛkṣa, all these Sanskrit names of the
tamarind are various forms of a single word pronounced in different ways. The
variety of pronunciations probably derives from an artificial attempt at
Page 3 of 13
Sanskritizing some original South Indian word. If we take the versions tintiḍa
and tintila and remember that there is no difference among t, d, and ḍ or
between l and r, we can see that tiṇḍiravan, diṇḍīvan, and diṇḍīravan are formed
from this word, and that they all mean “a grove (ban, van, vana) of tamarind
trees.”
Thus, as Jauharī shows, in Tamil Nadu the place-name Tiṇḍivanam means “a

grove of tamarind trees.” Now if, upon careful examination, we find the same
(p.46) meaning to apply to the Diṇḍīra Forest at Pandharpur, that will
automatically confirm the essential idea. The Diṇḍīra Forest at Pandharpur is
located outside of town, on the riverbank, near Lakṣmītīrtha. This is where
“Lakhūbāī's” temple is found. The original form of the goddess Lakhūbāī is an
uncarved, shapeless, rounded stone covered with red lead; behind this stone, on
a high pedestal, is her sculpted image, which portrays her as Gajalakṣmī (Lakṣmī
with elephants; see figure 2–3). As we saw in the previous chapter, Lakhūbāī is
understood to be Rukmiṇī, who came to stay in the Diṇḍīra Forest when she was
angry with Kṛṣṇa. All around her is a settlement of former Untouchables, but the
Brāhmaṇ Baḍves hold the rights to her worship. Near the temple of Lakhūbāī
there is also a temple of the Koḷīs’ goddess Mhasādevī. As is obvious to anyone
who goes there, the Diṇḍīra Forest in which this “sulking Rukmiṇī” (alias
Lakhūbāī) still resides is a grove of tamarind trees (figure 3–1). Until very
recently, the grove included seven large tamarind trees that were understood to
be the “Seven Sages.” The trunk of one of the trees is said to have been so
massive that if a tunnel had been carved in it, a bullock cart could have passed
through. Recently, though, four of the large tamarind trees, including the biggest
one, were cut down by the municipal government of Pandharpur in an urban-
development scheme, so only three of them remain to bear witness to the secret
of the Diṇḍīra Forest's name.4
The Etymological Story in the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya

The very beginning of the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the Padma Purāṇa (PMPP,
chapters 1 and 2) explains the name of the Diṇḍīra Forest in relation to the third
reason for Viṭṭhal's manifestation.5 According to this passage, the grove was
given the name “Diṇḍīra Forest” (diṇḍīravan) because a demon named Diṇḍīrava
lived in it. In order to kill the demon, Viṣṇu took the form of Mallikārjun Śiva and
killed Diṇḍīrava by striking him with an iron rod. The story ends by saying that,
because Viṣṇu took the form of Śiva and killed Diṇḍīrava with an iron rod (a
lohadaṇḍa), the place came to be known as “Lohadaṇḍakṣetra.” This
etymological story artificially Sanskritizes the two original place names—
Diṇḍīravan as Diṇḍīrava-vana and Lohān as Lohadaṇḍakṣetra—and gives these
Sanskritized names a mythological explanation. At the same time, it tries to
Vaiṣṇavize Mallikārjun Śiva, the presiding deity of Lohān (Lohadaṇḍakṣetra).6
Page 4 of 13
A tendency to give etymologies of place names in the form of stories is especially

typical of local folk literature, sthalapurāṇas, and universally recognized Purāṇas
and Upapurāṇas.7 However strange and obscure these narrative explanations
may be, careful scholarship can nevertheless perceive the original form of (p.
47)
the places and their local

traditions hidden beneath the
artificial stories, and can form a
clear image of the reasons why the
original form was improved upon
or transformed.
Veṅkaṭeś and Vit․t․hal
We must also investigate
whether the connection of a
Diṇḍīra Forest—that is, a
tamarind grove—with the
principal holy place of Viṭṭhal is
merely a coincidence, or if there
Figure 3–1 The Diṇḍīra Forest at
is some special connection
Pandharpur: temples of Lakhūbāī
between the tamarind tree and
(Rukmiṇī) on the right and Mhasādevī on
the original tradition of worship
the left, in a grove of tamarind trees.
of Viṭṭhal. As we embark on
Photo by Anne Feldhaus.
such an investigation, we must
first look at another popular
South Indian god, Veṅkaṭeś.
Veṅkaṭeś is similar to Viṭṭhal in a number of respects. Both are identified as

Viṣṇu, but neither has any connection with Viṣṇu's well-known Purāṇic
incarnations or forms. Throughout South India, Viṭṭhal and Veṅkaṭeś are both
more popular than the older forms of Viṣṇu. Viṭṭhal is considered “Bāḷkṛṣṇa,” the
child Kṛṣṇa, while Veṅkaṭeś goes by the name “Bālājī,” “the Child.” Viṭṭhal's wife
settled sulking in the Diṇḍīra Forest because of Rādhā, while Veṅkaṭeś's wife,
upset that (p.48) her husband had tolerated Bhṛgu's insult,8 lived first at Karvīr
(Kolhapur) and later in Tirucānūr, three miles east of Tirumalai. Veṅkaṭeś's wife
is Padmāvatī, while Viṭṭhal's beloved is Padmā. In the traditions of the Gavḷīs and
Dhangars, Viṭṭhal-Birappā's wife is Padūbāī. She too gets angry with her
husband, and she ends up becoming manifest in Pandharpur as Rukmiṇī
(Bhāgavat 1956: 406–7, 438–44).
But the similarities between Viṭṭhal and Veṅkaṭeś do not end here. The more
deeply we probe, the closer we come to the conclusion that, although these two
gods now live in different places, under different names, in different forms, and
with different life stories, they are basically two elevated forms of a single folk
deity that have become differentiated in the course of their development in
separate places. Just like Viṭṭhal, Veṅkaṭeś has no weapons and is silent; he
Page 5 of 13
holds his (lower) left hand on his waist and with his right hand he bestows a
boon on his devotees. At two places in Maharashtra there are four-armed images
of Viṭṭhal,9 and Viṭṭhal images with a right hand in the boon-granting gesture
(varadamudrā) and a left hand resting on his hip can be found in South India.
There are numerous Sanskrit Māhātmyas of Veṅkaṭeś and of Tirumalai, the place
where Veṅkaṭeś resides. Just like the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya, these Māhātmyas
claim to be related to established Purāṇas. Two Veṅkaṭācala Mahātmyas are
especially important:10 one from the Varāha Purāṇa and the other from the
Bhaviṣyottara Purāṇa. The second of these, which is more popular among the
devotees, states that one of Veṅkaṭeś's hands (the lower left one) “rests on his
buttock” (nitambastha; 15.103).
Especially striking is the fact that this text delights in describing the “hand on
hip” (kaṭinyasta kara) pose in terms that are also used in the tradition of
devotion to Viṭṭhal. The Māhātmya from the Bhaviṣyottara Purāṇa states,
“Veṅkaṭeś, who shows people who come to take refuge at his lotus feet that the
ocean of existence is only waist-deep,11 shines with majesty” (VMBP, 13.84–85).
Exactly the same spiritualized interpretation is found in the “Pāṇḍuraṅgāṣṭaka”
attributed to Śaṅkarācārya (A¯ṭhavale 1974: 23): “I worship Pāṇḍuraṅga, who
has the form of the supreme Absolute, who has placed his hands on his hips in
order to show that for his devotees this ocean of existence is only so deep, and
who has donned a navel in order to provide a place for the Creator to stay.”12
The literature of the Marathi saints repeats this idea again and again. This is the
same image that Jn͂āneśvar, for instance, puts before our eyes in his beautiful
song “Nabh Nabhāceni Saḷe” (Jn͂ā. Gā. 15):
Placing his hands on his hips, he gives people a sign

That the ocean of the waters of existence is only so high.
(p.49) Veṅkaṭeś and the Tamarind Tree

I have intentionally pointed out the similarities between Viṭṭhal and Veṅkaṭeś
first, before discussing the extraordinary importance of the tamarind tree in the
cult of Veṅkaṭeś. My reason for doing this is that, if we realize that Viṭṭhal and
Veṅkaṭeś are similar, and if, against that background, we learn that the tamarind
tree has from the beginning been accorded special sanctity in the cult of
Veṅkaṭeś, then we must agree that the connection between Viṭṭhal and the
Diṇḍīra Forest is not simply coincidental but rather of fundamental significance.
Indeed, both of the principal Sanskrit Māhātmyas of Tirumalai or Veṅkaṭācal,
Veṅkaṭeś's abode, proclaim in absolutely unambiguous terms the importance of
the tamarind tree.
According to the Veṅkaṭācala Māhātmya from the Bhaviṣyottara Purāṇa, when

Veṅkaṭeś first appeared on Veṅkaṭācal, he emerged from a termite mound under
a tamarind tree. According to the Veṅkaṭācala Māhātmya from the Varāha
Purāṇa, the tamarind tree, the termite mound beneath it, the fact of the god
Page 6 of 13
living there, and the manifestation of the god from within the termite mound all
relate to Lord Varāhasvāmī. Varāhasvāmī, like Veṅkaṭeś, is a local god of
Tirumalai. The Māhātmya in the Bhaviṣyottara Purāṇa also tells that
Varāhasvāmī was already living at Tirumalai when Veṅkaṭeś became manifest
there, and that Veṅkaṭeś asked Varāhasvāmī for a place to live and gave him the
privilege of having worshipers take his darśan first, before they go for darśan of
Veṅkaṭeś. The point of these stories of the gods’ appearance, and what they tell
us about the gods’ original nature, is a different topic. Here our only concern is
how the tamarind tree became important in relation to the holy place of
Veṅkaṭeś.
According to the Māhātmya from the Varāha Purāṇa, when Lord Viṣṇu told King
Toṇḍamān to construct a temple at the site of the termite mound, he made a
special point of telling the king to protect the tamarind tree (VMVP, Uttarārdha
10.44–46): “Then the god of gods himself commanded the king, ‘Protect the
tamarind and champak trees. The tamarind is my abode, and the champak is
Lakṣmī's. Therefore kings, sages, gods, and ordinary human beings should
always revere these two trees. O excellent king, spare these two trees, but cut
down all the other trees and construct for me an enclosure with gates and gate-
towers.’ ” Thus, the Māhātmya from the Varāha Purāṇa has the god himself say
that the tamarind tree is his abode and that everyone, considering it a supreme
object of faith, should protect and worship it.
The Māhātmya from the Bhaviṣyottara Purāṇa narrates how Veṅkaṭeś became
manifest for the first time in the Kali Age from a termite mound at the foot of a
tamarind tree. Even after Bhṛgu kicked Lord Viṣṇu on the chest, the god did not
get angry with him. This infuriated Lakṣmī. Upset with the god, she went off to
(p.50) Karvīrpur (Kolhapur) and stayed there. Distressed at his separation from
Lakṣmī, Śrīnivās came to Veṅkaṭācal, but he could find no place to hide. At that
(VMBP 3.13–15), “As he was thinking this way, the Lord, the ruler of the world,
saw on the south bank of the Svāmīpuṣkariṇī Lake a pure and heavenly termite
mound at the foot of a tamarind tree. Deciding, ‘This is my supreme abode,’ Hari
merged into the termite mound. Innumerable years passed with the god hidden
this way in the termite mound.”
Like the Māhātmya from the Varāha Purāṇa, the one from the Bhaviṣyottara
Purāṇa also expresses the importance of the tamarind tree. This Māhātmya uses
two separate extended metaphors to convey the similarity of the play (krīḍā) of
Lord Śrīnivās of Veṅkaṭācal with that of the two incarnations Rām and Kṛṣṇa
(VMBP 4.17–18 and 4.19–21). In making the analogy to Rām's play, the
Māhātmya states that the termite mound is Kausalyā, the tamarind tree is
Daśarath, Veṅkaṭācal is Lakṣmaṇ, and the whole valley is Ayodhyā.13 With
respect to Kṛṣṇa, the Māhātmya identifies the termite mound as Devakī, the
tamarind tree as Vasudev, Śeṣācal (that is, Veṅkaṭācal) as Balabhadra, the whole
valley as the town of Mathurā, the Svāmīpuṣkariṇī as the Yamunā, the animals
Page 7 of 13
roaming about in the mountain forest as the Yādavas, and the birds as cowherd
men and women.14 In both of these extended analogies, the Māhātmya declares
the tamarind tree to be Lord Śrīnivās's father and the termite mound under it to
be his mother.
Thus, these two Māhātmyas describe at length the sacred bond between the
tamarind tree and Veṅkaṭeś. In addition, another Māhātmya of Veṅkaṭācal, this
one from the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa, expresses equally great faith in this bond. God
says (VMBrP 7.20–24):
In the past, O Brāhmaṇ, Viṣṇu's temple, which was created by the conch,
was destroyed in the cosmic dissolution at the end of the Kṛta Age. The
auspicious, pure image of Viṣṇu that the conch also created is inside a
termite mound. This image, which takes away all sins, is buried up to its
knees at the foot of a tamarind tree. Two bows’ lengths (dhanuṣyas) from
there is the auspicious Bhūtīrtha, which the earth goddess (Bhūmi) once
created in order to cook for the god of gods. At that place is the cow
named Gautamī, who sprinkles the god with milk. Bhūtīrtha is northwest of
the tamarind tree. At the cosmic dissolution at the end of the yuga, that
cow worshiped the god.
The tamarind tree, the termite mound beneath it, the fact that Śrīnivās (Viṣṇu)
resides in the termite mound, the cow who lets a stream of milk from her udder
pour out over the termite mound, and the devotees’ search for the god based on
the discovery of the cow's behavior—all these elements of the story of Veṅkaṭeś's
(p.51) manifestation reveal his original, folk-religious form. Given Veṅkaṭeś's
similarity to Viṭṭhal, all these elements of the story, including the tamarind tree,
tell us indirectly about the original form of Viṭṭhal as well.
References in other types of literature reinforce the connection between

Veṅkaṭeś and tamarind trees by indicating that tamarind is used in food that is
offered to the god. For example, in “Girīcyā Veṅkaṭeśāvarīl Lāvaṇī” (“A Lāvaṇī
[erotic song] about Veṅkaṭeś of the Mountain”), the folk poet Rām Jośī (1973: 12)
praises the tamarind offering as follows:
The food offering is spicy, oily tamarind,

but the gods scramble to get it.
It puts nectar to shame.
And in a poem of praise entitled “Prayer to Veṅkaṭeś” (“Veṅkaṭeśprārthanā”), the

great eighteenth-century poet Moropant refers clearly to the importance of the
tamarind in the food offered to Veṅkaṭeś (1961b: 36, verse 19):
They offer you food with full love: tamarind, spicy and oily.
They enter Vaikuṇṭha by integrity, hovering close to the door.
Page 8 of 13
Cidambaram as Puṇḍari¯kpur
It was information provided by Professor Dhanpalvar—that Puṇḍarīkpur is an
alternative name of Cidambaram as well, and that Cidambaram too has a Diṇḍīra
Forest (Diṇḍīvan/Tiṇḍīvan) nearby—that allowed us to make this attempt at
unraveling the original secret of the Diṇḍīra Forest. Puṇḍarīkpur is indeed an
alternative name of Cidambaram, but Cidambaram is known by the names
Tilvavana and Vyāghrapūra as well (Somasundaram Pillai 1957: 36). Sanskrit
sthalapurāṇas of the place are named “Tilvavana Māhātmya,” “Vyāghrapura
Māhātmya,” “Puṇḍarīkapura Māhātmya,” and “Cidambara
Māhātmya” (Somasundaram Pillai 1957: 66). “Tilvavana” is an artificial
Sanskritization of the Tamil name “Tillaivana,” based on phonological similarity.
This name is explained by a story that Śiva first became manifest in a thicket of
tillai, a kind of cactus.
“Vyāghrapūra” is a Sanskrit translation of the Tamil name Puliyūr. The Tamil

word puli means “tiger” (vyāghra in Sanskrit), and ūr means pura, town. Thus,
Puliyūr is “Vyāghrapūra” (“Tiger-town”) in Sanskrit. However, the sthalapurāṇa's
explanation connects this name not with tigers but with the sage Vyāghrapāda,
who persuaded Śiva to give him claws like a tiger's on his hands and feet. (p.
52) Vyāghrapāda was the first person to come to the Tilvavana; he discovered
the “original place” of the god there and engrossed himself in worshiping Śiva in
order to experience Śiva's dance (the ānandatāṇḍava). Patañjalī, who was an
incarnation of the primordial serpent Śeṣa (Ādiśeṣa), came and stayed with
Vyāghrapāda in the Tilvavana for the same purpose. Vyāghrapāda is said to have
asked Śiva for claws like those of a tiger so that his hands and feet would not get
tired gathering flowers and leaves for Śiva's daily worship. After Vyāghrapāda
received this boon, he was called “Tiger-foot” (Vyāghrapāda), and, because of his
name, this place of Śiva was called Vyāghrapūra (Somasundaram Pillai 1957: 68–
70).
This story is obviously an explanatory narrative for the Sanskrit name “Vyāghra-
pūra,” which came from a Sanskrit translation of “Puliyūr.” However cleverly it
has been composed, there remain some inconsistencies that show its artificiality.
To start with, the sage Vyāghrapāda was engrossed in worshiping Śiva here even
before he was given the name Vyāghrapāda. The sthalapurāṇa does not tell us
what his name was before he came to be called Vyāghrapāda. What is more, if he
already had the name Vyāghrapāda and the place was named for him, the story
does not explain why the name became “Vyāghrapūra” and not “Vyāghrapāda-
pūra.”
In fact, by translating the name Puliyūr into Sanskrit as Vyāghrapūr, the author
of the sthalapurāṇa intentionally tried to conceal the secret of the true, original
name. In Tamil (and also in Kannada), besides the word puli, which means
“tiger,” there is a word puḷi, which means “tamarind.” Tamil does not
differentiate phonetically between ḷa and la. One original name of the holy place
Page 9 of 13
Cidambaram (or of one important part of it) must have been “Puḷiyūr” (that is,
Ciñcpūr, “Tamarindville”); the author of the sthalapurāṇa must have intentionally
taken the name as “Puliyūr” (“Tigerville”) and translated it into Sanskrit as
“Vyāghrapūra.”
In my study of the goddess Lajjāgaurī (Ḍhere 1978a: 128–29), I provided another

example of the tendency to Sanskritize homonyms by disregarding the expected,
relevant meaning and intentionally highlighting a different one. Near Hospeṭ
there is a place called Vyāghreśvarī dedicated to the lotus-headed goddess
Lajjāgaurī, who has the form of female genitals or of female genitals and
breasts. In fact Vyāghreśvarī—“the goddess whose vehicle is a tiger”—is Durgā.
There is no connection whatsoever between this form of the goddess and the
Lajjāgaurī form, and so it is not appropriate to call Lajjāgaurī “Vyāghreśvarī.”
When we ask how this contradiction arose, we realize that the Kannada word
bagga has two meanings: “lotus” and “tiger.” As an original Kannada word,
bagga means “lotus,” and when it occurs as a Kannada derivative from the
Sanskrit word vyāghra, it means (p.53) “tiger.” “Baggeśvarī” means
“Kamaleśvarī,” the goddess in the form of a lotus, the goddess in the form of
female genitals. But this “Baggeśvarī” has been transformed into
“Vyāghreśvarī.”
Against this background, “Puṇḍarīkpur” as an alternative name of the two

neighboring Śiva places Cidambaram and Tiruvārūr begins to seem worthy of
notice. Tiruvārūr is a place of Śiva as Tyāgarāja, and Cidambaram is a place of
Śiva as Naṭarāja. Another name of Tiruvārūr is “Kamalālayakṣetra” (“the holy
place that is an abode of lotuses”), a name that is similar in meaning to
Puṇḍarīkpur. Since the word puṇḍarīk in the name Puṇḍarīkpur is not the proper
name of any person or god connected with Tiruvārūr, it clearly must simply
mean “lotus” (Bhīmrāv 1976: 26–27).
Before the rise of Tyāgarāja, the Māhātmya stories tell us, a Śivaliṅga named
Valmīknāth or Valmīkeśvar was worshiped at Tiruvārūr. In the Māhātmya,
Valmīkeśvar is also called Valmīkasambhava (“Born in a Termite Mound”). The
Māhātmya highlights a story that Viṣṇu worshiped Śiva and Pārvatī in order to
get offspring, and that as a reward for that worship he obtained Madan, the god
of love, as his son (Bhīmrāv 1976: verses 1.40–93; 2.10; 6.4, 8, 10). Thus,
Tiruvārūr must have been the place of a goddess who gave offspring, who was
originally worshiped in the form of a termite mound, and who was sculpted in
the form of a lotus-headed figure with female genitals and breasts. This goddess
must be the reason that Tiruvārūr was called Puṇḍarīkpur or Kamalālayakṣetra.
Thus, the traditions of Pandharpur and Tiruvārūr reveal that the two places are
named Puṇḍarīkpur for different reasons.
Page 10 of 13
Cidambaram is also called Puṇḍarīkpur, and here the name receives extensive
philosophical explanations on a lofty level of bhakti: puṇḍarīk means hṛtpuṇḍarīk,
“heart-lotus.” Experiencing Naṭarāja dancing the ānandatāṇḍav at Cidambaram
is said to be the highest good for a devotee (Somasundaram Pillai 1957: 36–37).
But many South Indian pandits assert that “Puṇḍarīkpur” is a Sanskritization of
the Tamil place name “Puliyūr” (Somasundaram Pillai 1957: 36n). We have seen
how “Puliyūr,” which may mean “Ciñcpūr” (“Tamarindville”), could become
“Vyāghrapūr,” but I for one do not see how “Puliyūr” could be transformed into
“Puṇḍarīkpur.” I suspect that even “Cidambaram,” the universally known name,
has its roots in a local Tamil name. Such questions can be answered definitively
only by scholars who have a good command of both Tamil and Sanskrit and the
ability to discern the secrets of the cult's development. My suggestion is meant
to create favorable conditions for this research. My focus here is not
Cidambaram, but Pandharpur, and it is only in order to understand Pandharpur
better that I have undertaken this comparison.
(p.54) Viṭṭhal-bi¯rappa¯'s Connection with Tamarind Trees

Professor Dhanpalvar has drawn our attention to the similarity to Pandharpur's
Diṇḍīra Forest of the Diṇḍīvanam or Tiṇḍīvanam near each of the two Tamil Śiva
places Cidambaram and Tiruvārūr, and to the fact that Cidambaram, Tiruvārūr,
and Pandharpur all have “Puṇḍarīkpur” as an alternative name. Dhanpalvar's
work has led us to delve more deeply and systematically into the similarity, and
to discover that a Diṇḍīravan is a grove of tamarind trees, a type of tree that had
special sanctity in the original worship of gods like Viṭṭhal and Veṅkaṭeś. Even
before the Marathi saints made Viṭṭhal into a universal religious symbol,
numerous myths in the sthalapurāṇas established him as Gopāl Kṛṣṇa. In the
pastoralist traditions of Gavḷīs and Dhangars, the god can still be found in many
places in his original form. Pastoralists in Karnataka and Maharashtra address
him with the double name Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā; they place two piṇḍīs (liṅgas) in a
temple and worship them; they go into trance and sing songs about Viṭṭhal and
Bīrappā's life together. We will examine the Dhangars’ cult of Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā in
detail in chapter 14; here I will provide only a brief introduction.
Bīrappā or Birobā is the Dhangars’ principal god. He lives on his own and is the
subject of independent stories. Viṭṭhal, however, appears in numerous stories as
the god who is Bīrappā's closest companion, or as his younger or elder brother,
and he is linked with Birobā in ritual worship as well. The principal center of
Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā worship in Maharashtra is in the south, near the Karnataka
border, at the village of Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī (Hātkaṇaṅgale Taluka, Kolhapur District).
In the Dhangars’ old songs, the name of this village is Iṅgaḷkoḍolī. These
Dhangar songs narrate at length how Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā came to this village, where
he came from, and how he first clashed and later made peace with the
Liṅgāyats’ Kalleśvar. Clearly, these stories of the god's migrations also delineate
the migrations of the Dhangars.
Page 11 of 13
According to Dhangar traditions, when the god Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā first came to the
Toraṇmāḷ at Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī, he settled under a tamarind tree (Sontheimer 1981:
107). Still today, a number of tamarind trees stand before the main gate of
Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā's great temple on the Toraṇmāḷ at Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī, giving shade to
pilgrims. Before he came here, Bīrappā stayed for twelve years in the form of a
snake in a termite mound on the bank of the Vāraṇā (?) River. For twelve years,
Viṭṭhal served him, watching his sheep and feeding him milk every day in the
termite mound. Pleased by this service, Bīrappā emerged from the termite
mound, hugged Viṭṭhal, and made him his brother. This is how, according to the
Dhangars, Viṭṭhal and Bīrappā came to live together. Dhangars also recount that
Viṭṭhal's wife Padūbāī got angry, went into the forest, stuck her face in the mud
at the base of a tamarind tree, and died (Bhāgavat 1956: 407).
(p.55) In this chapter we have seen that this constellation of ideas—that the
god lives in a termite mound, that someone regularly feeds him milk, and that he
settles down under a tamarind tree—is found with only slight variations in the
story of the manifestation of Veṅkaṭeś, and we have examined other aspects of
Veṅkaṭeś's similarity to Viṭṭhal as well.15 My aim here has been simply to unravel
the secret of the Diṇḍīra Forest, and I believe I have done that. However, on the
basis of the common threads between the story of Viṭṭhal and that of Veṅkaṭeś,
we can also investigate the identical origins of these gods and the different ways
that they developed in their respective places. This is the investigation that we
will undertake in the next chapter.
Notes:
(1.) Translator's note: Dhanpalvar's articles on Viṭṭhal and Pandharpur have
subsequently been published together in a single volume (Dhanpalvār 1987).
(2.) Translator's note: The “enemy of Vṛtra” is Indra.
(3.) The Sanskrit rule expressing this fact is tadayor abhedaḥ, “absence of
difference between ‘ta’ and ‘da.’ ”
(4.) Although I have stated on the basis of my own observations that the grove
where the sulking Rukmiṇī—that is, originally Lakhūbāī—resides is a tamarind
grove, my observations are supported by details given by two scholars from
Pandharpur, V. L. Manjul and B. P. Bahirat (personal communications).
(5.) Translator's note: The third reason listed in the previous chapter, above.
(6.) The Pandharpur of today has been created by merging a number of

independent hamlets. Evidence that a village named “Lohān” was one of the
hamlets that have been incorporated into Pandharpur is found in an unpublished
manuscript entitled “Lohadaṇḍakṣetrācī Kaiphiyat” (Government Oriental
Page 12 of 13
Manuscript Library, Madras, manuscript number Marathi-801. See Kshirasagar

1961, 1962).
Translator's note: For Mallikārjun and Lohadaṇḍa, see also chapter 8.
(7.) For example, Dange (Ḍāṅge 1980) shows that the village “Lohāṇā” in the
Dharmāraṇya was Sanskritized as “Lohayaṣṭi” (yaṣṭi = daṇḍa = rod, stick), and
that, in order to explain the name, a story was made up that a demon named
“Loh” had been killed there.
(8.) Translator's note: Bhṛgu insulted Viṣṇu by kicking him on the chest. See
below.
(9.) One of these four-armed Viṭṭhal images is found at T.ākḷībhān near

Śrīrāmpūr in Ahmadnagar District (see figure 6–1), and the other at Lāṭe, near
Phalṭaṇ.
(10.) A compendium of all the Sanskrit Māhātmyas connected with Veṅkaṭeś,

along with Hindi translations, was published in two volumes by the Tirumalai
Tirupati temple trust (Śrīveṅkaṭācalamāhātmyam 1959–1960). All the Māhātmya
references cited in the present chapter have been taken from this compendium.
(11.) Translator's note: That is, that it can easily be crossed.
(12.) Translator's note: A well-known narrative, often depicted iconographically,

portrays the creator god, Brahmā, sitting on a lotus that emerges from Viṣṇu's
navel.
(13.) Translator's note: Kausalyā was Rām's mother, Daśarath his father,
Lakṣmaṇ his brother, and Ayodhyā his royal city.
(14.) Translator's note: Devakī was Kṛṣṇa's foster mother, Vasudev his foster
father, Balabhadra his brother, Mathurā the town near Gokul, the Yamunā the
river there, and the Yādavas Kṛṣṇa's people.
(15.) In addition, one of my predecessors, G. H. Khare, noted the existence, and

also provided a photograph (Khare 1963: opposite page 57), of an old image of
Viṭṭhal at Tirumalai, the principal place of Veṅkaṭeś.
Page 13 of 13
Viṭṭhal, Veṅkaṭeś, and Vīrabhadra


Print ISBN-13: 9780199777594
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.001.0001

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.003.0005

This chapter presents in detail the historical dispute between Śaivas and
Vaiṣṇavas over whether the god Veṅkaṭeś is a form of Śiva or of Viṣṇu, a dispute
finally resolved in favor of the Vaiṣṇava view by the Viśiṣṭādvaita philosopher
Rāmānuja in the twelfth century. Dhere argues that Veṅkaṭeś of Tirupati and
Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur both ultimately derive from a process of Vaiṣṇavization of
the Viṭṭhal who is a pastoralist deity generally found paired with Birappā
(Birobā). Similarly, Dhere argues, the Śaiva god Vīrabhadra, most prominent in
Karnataka, derives from a process of Śaivization of Birappā carried out primarily
by the Vīraśaivas. The chapter also includes a discussion of Vireśvar-Viṭṭhaleśvar
of Lepākṣī in Andhra Pradesh, and the role of the Vijayanagara emperor in
Śaivizing Viṭṭhal-Birappā there.
Keywords: Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayanagara emperor
in the previous chapter, I pointed out a number of similarities between the two
extremely popular gods Viṭṭhal in Maharashtra and Venkaṭeś in Andhra Pradesh.
Here I will discuss the further discoveries on this subject that I referred to in
concluding that chapter.
Vit․t․hal and Veṅkaṭeś

Veṅkaṭeś resembles Viṭṭhal in having his hands on his hips, in being silent, and
in carrying no weapons. Padmāvatī, Veṅkaṭeś's wife, became angry with him and
went to stay far away at Tirucānūr, and Rukmiṇī, who was angry with Viṭṭhal,
settled in the distant Diṇḍīra Forest. My suggestion is that the original source of
both Viṭṭhal and Veṅkaṭeś is Viṭṭhal-Birappā, the dual god of Gavḷī, Dhangar, and
Page 1 of 25
Kuruba pastoralists. As we have seen, the wife of the shepherds’ Viṭṭhal is

named Padūbāī. This same Padūbāī, who comes into Viṭṭhal's life story as Padmā,
appears as Padmāvatī in the story of Veṅkaṭeś's life. In claiming that their Viṭṭhal
is identical with the higher status Viṭṭhal, the Gavḷīs and Dhangars of
Maharashtra say that Padūbāī, whom their tradition's Viṭṭhal left in anger and
who died abandoned in the woods, was reborn from a lotus in the water of a
tīrtha in Pandharpur—as Rukmiṇī, the wife of Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur (Bhāgavat
1956: 406–7). There is a similar account in a Māhātmya of Tirumalai: when the
sage Bhṛgu kicked Viṣṇu in the (p.57) chest and insulted him, Viṣṇu did not
punish him, but instead proudly wore the “mark of the heel” on his chest. This
angered Lakṣmī, who went sulking to Kolhapur and stayed there. Tortured by
her absence, Viṣṇu came to Tirumalai and began searching for her. Finally he
dug the Padmatīrtha there, and Padmāvatī emerged from its water (VMPP
11.28–37). These similar stories about Pandharpur and Tirumalai demonstrate
the original unity of Viṭṭhal and Veṅkaṭeś. Another significant idea that appears
again and again in the sthalapurāṇas of both Pandharpur and Tirumalai is that
the arcāvatārs (the “self-formed” stone images for the devotees to worship in the
temples) of Viṭṭhal, who came to Pandharpur to find Rukmiṇī when she was
sulking, and Veṅkaṭeś, who came to Tirumalai to find Lakṣmī when she was
sulking, both came into being in the twenty-eighth yuga after the Dvāpara Yuga.
Yet another similarity seems minor but indicates the two gods’ basic nature. This
is the fact that both Viṭṭhal and Veṅkaṭeś are extremely fond of their blankets.
Still today one can see among Viṭṭhal's garments in Pandharpur the worn “pearl
blanket” that some devotees once wove and offered to him. Very recently,
Dhangars living in Pandharpur offered the god an expensive blanket that they
had had woven in Surat expressly for him. The Māhātmya of Pandharpur
attributed to the Skanda Purāṇa expresses the importance of the blanket
(ghoṅgaḍī or kāmbaḷā). In listing the meritorious acts that are to be carried out
in Pandharpur, this text states (PMSP 2.15):
A man who makes an offering of a blanket there during the rainy

season
receives long life, good health, sovereignty, and fame.
There is reason to believe that Veṅkaṭeś too likes blankets, just as Viṭṭhal does.
In the Veṅkat․ācala Māhātmya considered to belong to the Bhaviṣyottara Purāṇa,
blankets are specifically included in the list of gifts that King Ākāś, the father-in-
law of Veṅkat․eśvar Śrīnivās, gave to the god at the time of his marriage (VMPB
11.350):
Along with small pots, the most excellent king gave

a large water vessel and sixty-four blankets.
Page 2 of 25
Today Veṅkaṭeśvar Śrīnivās of Tirumalai is wealthy. He belongs to the rich, while

Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur belongs to the poor. From the beginning to this day, Viṭṭhal
has been faithful to his pastoralist nature, and his extraordinary devotees have
sung with great pride about each characteristic of that nature. In the case of
Veṅkaṭeś, although his Purāṇic life story can be seen to manifest many aspects
of his original folk-religious nature, the present-day majesty of his temple and
(p.58) worship conceals those folk qualities. Still, families who consider
Veṅkaṭeś their family deity maintain one traditional practice that reveals his
pastoralist nature. The practice, called gopāḷ māgaṇeṃ (Sādhudās 1937: 34–35),
is for small children to go begging from house to house, crying
“Vyaṅkaṭaramaṇa Govinda!” (“O Cowherd Who Plays at Vyaṅkaṭa!”). This
indicates that Veṅkaṭeś was originally a cowherd or the friend of cowherds.
If we are to understand the many similarities between Viṭṭhal and Veṅkaṭeś, we

must investigate all the stages of Veṅkaṭeś's rise in status. We must at least be
able to determine that he is a popular god who, starting as the same folk deity
who is the source of Viṭṭhal, subsequently rose in status to become Viṣṇu. But we
must also learn all the steps of this development. Only then can we realize why
Veṅkaṭeś is similar to Viṭṭhal.
Plentiful materials are available for understanding the history of the mountain
Veṅkaṭācal, the god who resides on it, and the temple and worship of that god.1
Inscriptions from as early as the beginning of the tenth century refer to this
place and its god. Even earlier sources are the Jain Tamil work Śilappadikāram
and the Tamil bhakti songs by the Al̠vār saints, who had intense devotion for the
god of Veṅgaḍam or Veṅkaṭācal. These literary sources from the eighth and
ninth centuries refer to the lord of the holy place Veṅgaḍam primarily as a
Vaiṣṇava deity. For example, the Śilappadikāram states directly that the god of
Veṅgaḍam is Viṣṇu. However, even though the Al̠vārs were faithful devotees of
Viṣṇu, they also often call Veṅkaṭeśvar a combined form of Hari and Hara (Viṣṇu
and Śiva), or of Hari, Hara, and Brahmā. Not a single Al̠vār refers to the god's
temple at Tirupati or to the characteristics of the image. They consider the god
to be Viṣṇu, they consider him to be Kṛṣṇa, and they refer with devotion to his
many playful deeds (līlās) and to the forms that correspond to those deeds. The
devotional songs of the Al̠vārs do not refer to the numerous Sanskrit Veṅkaṭācala
Māhātmyas that were composed after the time of Rāmānuja (A.D. 1017–1137),2
or even to the local popular stories and song collections that these texts present
in Sanskritized form. The Al̠vārs sing only about the greatness of the holy
mountain-place Veṅgaḍam and about their supreme object of devotion, who
dwells there out in the open. They give no realistic descriptions of him at all.
However, the Al̠vārs’ devotional songs do show that they knew of Veṅgaḍam as a
place frequented by members of the Kuruba caste. The Al̠vārs’ songs contain
many references to Kurubas or Kurubars as living in this area, hunting
elephants, and also farming when they can. Could it not be that the god who is
Page 3 of 25
the lord of Veṅgaḍam—that is, Veṅkaṭeśvar—is originally the god of these

Kurubas, a god whom, in the higher status realm of bhakti, people sometimes
consider to be Viṣṇu and other times to be Śiva, depending on their sectarian
affiliation?
(p.59) Because the Al̠vārs were Vaiṣṇavas, it was natural that they would
enhance Veṅkaṭeśvar's prestige by making him into Viṣṇu; indeed, inscriptions at
Tirupati show that this did occur, under royal patronage, from the tenth century
onward. But we must also realize that a dispute about whether the god of
Tirupati is Śiva or Viṣṇu was already underway in the eleventh or twelfth
century, at the time of Rāmānuja. The Śaivas claimed that the distinctive
features of the image that Rāmānuja showed to be Vaiṣṇava are in fact Śaiva.
The local Vaiṣṇava tradition holds that Rāmānuja disproved that claim. However,
it has never been clearly determined exactly what the original characteristics of
the image were. Its basic features are now mostly Śaiva; the Vaiṣṇava attributes
are not original, and they appear artificial. Even Vaiṣṇava pandits have had to
agree that the image has characteristics that go beyond those that the Vaiṣṇava
āgama-scriptures approve for a Viṣṇu image (Sitapati 1989: 24).
The Ma¯ha¯tmyas’ Explanations of the Artificial Attributes

According to the Vaiṣṇavas’ ideas, Śrīnivās, the lord of Veṅkaṭācal, carries no
weapons or other attributes. The removable gold weapons that he holds in the
stone image in his temple are there only to please his devotees in the Kali Yuga.
The sthalapurāṇas attempt repeatedly to give narrative explanations of the fact
that Veṅkaṭeś has no weapons. The popular Veṅkaṭācala Māhātmya attributed to
the Bhaviṣyottara Purāṇa, for example, narrates a long explanatory story: after
the death of Śrīnivās's father-in-law—that is, Padmāvatī's father, King Ākāś—a
conflict arose between his younger brother, Toṇḍamān, and Ākāś's son, Vasudān
or Viṣvaksen, over the right to inherit the throne. Both men came to ask Śrīnivās
for assistance. Toṇḍamān was the brother of the god's father-in-law, and Vasudān
was the god's brother-in-law. The god had to decide which one to help and which
one to refuse to help. After consulting with his wife, Padmāvatī, he decided to
give his weapons to Toṇḍamān, but himself to fight on the battlefield on the side
of Vasudān (VMBhP 12.37–38):
Listening to Padmāvatī, Hari (Viṣṇu) helped his brother-in-law

himself,
and gave King Toṇḍamān his conch and discus.
Mounting a horse like Uccaiḥśravas,3 the one with the eagle on his
flag,4
the skillful warrior went with his brother-in-law.
Later a terrible battle took place between the uncle and nephew Toṇḍamān and
Vasudān. Much blood fell. Śrīnivās himself brought about a truce; he gave
Toṇḍamān the kingdom of Toṇḍ and Vasudān the kingdom of Nārāyaṇpūr. With a
sense of (p.60) devotion, Toṇḍamān built a grand temple for the god, and he
Page 4 of 25
prayed to the god to enter it and abide there. Pleased by this prayer, Śrīnivās
took the form of an image and entered the temple built by the king. How?
“Without his discus and conch” (13.82). Of the god's two lower hands, the left
one was placed at his waist, and his right hand pointed at his lotus feet, which
are his devotees’ supreme goal (13.83).5
The Veṅkaṭācala Māhātmya in the Brahmā Purāṇa also recounts that Śrīnivās
gave King Toṇḍamān his conch and discus so that Toṇḍamān could defend
himself from his enemies’ attacks; this is why, according to this text as well,
Śrīnivās's image has no weapons. This Māhātmya states (VMBP 7.7–8): “Because
the great-souled one, in order to display his love for his devotees, gave the
auspicious conch and discus that were in his hands to the best of kings, known
as Cakravartī, the two hands of his stone form established for worship appear
without the discus and conch.” Having defeated his enemies with the weapons
given by the god, the king approached the god and bowed to him with devotion.
Pleased by the king's devotion, Veṅkaṭeś said to him, “Choose a boon.” Then the
king asked the god (VMBP 7.65–66): “ ‘O Lord, best of gods, so that it be widely
known that you have given me weapons, do not hold the discus and conch in the
stone image in which you are worshiped.’ After this request had been made, the
god no longer held these weapons.”
The Veṅkaṭācala Māhātmya in the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa gives a quite different

story about why Veṅkaṭeś has no weapons: about ten miles (one and a half
yojanas) to the north of Pāpanāśī tīrtha, a demon named Siṃhād practiced fierce
asceticism in order to obtain the mercy of the god Brahmā. Pleased by Siṃhād's
asceticism, Brahmā conferred upon him lordship over gods, demons, and
humans. Intoxicated by Brahmā's boon, Siṃhād wreaked havoc everywhere. To
destroy him, Śrīnivās brought about Siṃhād's defeat at the hands of an
extremely valorous Chola emperor. This emperor dwelt on the west bank of the
Suvarnamukharī River, near Kālahasti. Śrīnivās gave the emperor his weapons.
When the emperor came to the lord to ask him how to kill Siṃhād, the lord
promised him (VMBrP 11.44–45):
“I will give you my conch and discus as a sign of future union with
me.
And I will also, great-minded one, give you my Kaumodakī mace,
Śārṅga bow, and Nandak sword.6
Armed with these five weapons, kill the evil enemy of the gods, along
with his ministers and all his relatives.”
After saying this, he gave the weapons to that pure emperor.
With these weapons, the Chola emperor killed Siṃhād and his retinue.
Returning to Veṅkaṭeś, the emperor told him everything that had happened, and
humbly returned all the weapons.
Page 5 of 25
(p.61) Significantly, after the king gave Veṅkaṭeś's weapons back to him,
Veṅkaṭeś did not take hold of them again. Instead, he put them into tīrthas
named for them, and told them to save the people who would bathe in the
tīrthas. Going one step further, the Māhātmya puts into the god's own mouth an
extremely eloquent explanation of the fact that he really has no weapons and
that the ones he does hold are artificial (VMBrP 11.92–94):
For now, [O weapons,] stay in my mind. I will appear without

weapons,
remaining that way for some time for a particular purpose.
In the Kali Age, when a certain great man has made
a fabricated conch and discus and has built me a temple complex,
then, held captive by his devotion, I will abide until the end of the
kalpa,
visible to all, my hands making the gestures of boon-giving and
reassurance.
And in my other two, upper hands, I will hold an extremely beautiful
fabricated conch and discus, in order to satisfy people.
From these narrative explanations in three different Veṅkaṭācala Māhātmyas, we

can easily see that, although the texts consider the ancient (p.62) image of
Veṅkaṭeś in the temple on Veṅkaṭācal to be one of Śrīnivās (that is, Viṣṇu), the
image does not have Vaiṣṇava attributes. Even though Veṅkaṭeś was
Vaiṣṇavized, and despite the fact that many Māhātmyas were composed in order
to reinforce that Vaiṣṇavization, the image of Veṅkaṭeś did not change. There is
room to believe that this original image must have been one of a Śaiva deity. We
must therefore investigate the Śaivas’ claim.
The Vi¯raśaivas’ Claim: Veṅkaṭeś's Image is an Image of Vi¯rabhadra

Although Veṅkaṭeś has been worshiped as Śrīnivās (Viṣṇu) in the temple on
Tirumalai for the past 350 years, Vīraśaivas claim that he was formerly
worshiped not as Śrīnivās but as Vīrabhadra. That is, the Vīraśaivas argue that
the image that is now worshiped as Viṣṇu is one of Vīrabhadra, not Viṣṇu. The
learned Vīraśaiva pandit Kashinathshastri states the case as follows
(Kāśīnāthśāstrī 1952: 32):
From books and also from direct observation, one can see that, with royal
support, Rāmānujācārya even took control of some Śiva temples and
established Viṣṇu images in them, and that in some places he made Śiva
images into Viṣṇu images. The temple of Veṅkaṭaramaṇ at Tirupati
provides evidence of this. In the Śrīkarabhāṣya, Śrīpatipaṇḍit states clearly
that the image of Veṅkaṭaramaṇ is not a Viṣṇu image but one of
Vīrabhadra, and that Rāmānujācārya changed it from Vīrabhadra into
Viṣṇu.
Page 6 of 25
The Śrīkarabhāṣya (Śrīpatipaṇḍit 1936) that Kashinathshastri refers to is a

commentary on the Vedānta Sūtras written from a Vīraśaiva point of view. Its
author, Śrīpatipaṇḍit, was a learned Vīraśaiva who lived in the twelfth century. S.
Srikantha Sastri has demonstrated that the Śrīkarabhāṣya available today is an
expanded and revised form of Śrīpatipaṇḍit's original commentary, and that the
expansion and revision were completed in the last quarter of the thirteenth
century by some unknown author (Srikantha Sastri 1938–39). Kashinathshastri
cites the following important passage from the Śrīkarabhāṣya (Kāśīnāthśāstrī
1952: 241):
If someone would argue, “In a place of Veṅkaṭeśvar-Viṭṭhaleśvar, Viṣṇu is

called ‘Īśvar’ [a title of Śiva], just as in the Paraśurām incarnation he is
called a Kṣatriya even though he is known to have been born in a Brāhmaṇ
family,” that person would be wrong. Veṅkateśvar's identity as Viṣṇu is
illusory. Because there appear on his body such characteristics as a snake
ornament, and because the attributes of conch, discus, and so on are not to
be seen on the original image, we know that Vīreśvar's identity as
Veṅkaṭeśvar was created by Rāmānuja, like the illusion of a snake
superimposed on a rope. In addition, because a Śivaliṅga can be seen
below his hand, he is referred to as “Īśvar” [that is, Śiva].
Explaining Śrīpatipaṇḍit's argument, Kashinathshastri adds (Kāśīnāthśāstrī

1952: 33):
Taking this into consideration, it appears that the image at Tirupati is one
of Vīrabhadra. It does not have the conch, the discus, or the other marks of
a Viṣṇu image. It is adorned with a serpent ornament. There is a Śivaliṅga
beneath the image's hand. It would be worthwhile to look directly and
check whether these statements of the commentator are true or false. One
can even check by what pilgrims say. Pilgrims say that there are serpents
wound around the image's arms; that in its hands there are not a conch
and discus made of stone like the stone out of which the image is made,
but rather iron [gold?]7 ones that have been fashioned and placed there;
and that every year until the end of Saggitarius (Dhanurmās) the image is
worshiped with bilva leaves [which are typically offered to Śiva]. Clearly,
Śrīpatipaṇḍit wrote what he says in his commentary only after personally
inspecting the image. There are Viṣṇu images in many places. However,
nowhere is there one that is (p.63) adorned with snakes, devoid of a
conch and discus, worshiped with bilva, etc. The image of Veṅkaṭaramaṇ in
Tirupati is adorned with snakes, has the mark of a Śivaliṅga, is worshiped
with bilva, and so on. Therefore, it is obvious that this image can only be
one of Vīrabhadrasvāmī.
Kashinathshastri's claim, which he puts forward on the basis of textual

references and direct observation, cannot easily be ignored.
Page 7 of 25
More than a century ago (in 1902), a man named Hanmant Bapurav Atre
returned from a pilgrimage to Tirupati and published a lengthy article entitled
“Tirupatīcā Bālājī” (“Bālājī of Tirupati”) in the periodical Granthamālā. The
article was based on direct observation, on local oral traditions, and on the
published materials that were available at that time. Atre too states clearly
(1902: 12):
People say that this image was previously worshiped with the
understanding that it was one of Śiva. Everyone agrees on this. There is
also a widely accepted story on the basis of which one can deduce that the
image must be one of Śiva. The story goes like this: Once Rāmānujācārya
said, “This is an image of Viṣṇu, and people who think it is one of Śiva are
mistaken.” He brought a gold conch and discus, placed them in front of the
image, and closed the doors. Early the next morning when the doors were
opened, people could see that the god had taken the conch and the discus
in his hands. Because of this, they began to say that the image is one of
Viṣṇu.
The method that Atre uses to sort out the varying views and stories is worth
considering (Atre 1902: 12): “The conch and discus in the god's hands are not
part of the stone image; they are made of gold. On the god's head is a knot of
hair like a topknot (matted hair?), Śeṣa8 is carved on the body of the image, and
there are some other marks of this sort. Therefore there is room to suppose that
this image is originally one of Śiva (of a Śaiva deity?). Even though the priests
there, who are called ‘Dīkṣit,’ wear the three-line vertical [Vaiṣṇava] mark on
their foreheads, still they are Śaiva.”
The details Atre provides lend strong support to Kashinathshastri's view.

However, based on the relationship between Veṅkaṭeśvar and Padmāvatī and on
the fact that there is still no good understanding of why Padmāvatī is not near
Veṅkaṭeś, Atre reached his own conclusion: “People also suppose that, because
the god's wife is not on the hill near the god, the image must be one of
Subrahmaṇya Svāmī,9 who is unmarried.” Atre's words “People also suppose…”
make it clear that he based his conclusion on discussions about Veṅkaṭeś that
had taken place in Andhra up to then.
(p.64) At the very beginning of the crucial passage from Śrīpatipaṇḍit's

Śrīkara-bhāṣya quoted by Kashinathshastri is the phrase, “in a place of
Viṭṭhaleśvar-Veṅkaṭeśvar.” We must give further thought to these words. It could
be that the word “Viṭṭhal” in this phrase indicates an independent deity named
“Viṭṭhal,” perhaps Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur. However, because the word “in a place
(sthāne)” is connected in the compound with both “Viṭṭhaleśvar” and
“Veṅkaṭeśvar,” it should have been used in the locative dual (sthānayoḥ) instead
of the locative singular (sthāne). Since the locative singular, sthāne, is used, it
seems that Śrīpatipaṇḍit intended to refer not to separate places of Viṭṭhaleśvar
Page 8 of 25
and Veṅkaṭeśvar, but rather to a single or joint place. From Śrīpatipaṇḍit's point
of view, Veṅkaṭeśvar is Vīrabhadra, or Vīreśvar. The reference in the singular to
“a place of Viṭṭhaleśvar-Veṅkaṭeśvar” also indicates that the place is one where
the two gods Viṭṭhaleśvar and Veṅkaṭeśvar live together as a pair, or as the
single, conjoint god Viṭṭhaleśvar-Veṅkaṭeśvar.
“Veṅkaṭeśvar” is composed of “Veṅgaḍam” and “Īśvar.” “Veṅgaḍam” (Veṅkaṭ) is

used everywhere in old Tamil literature as the name of the Tirumalai mountain.
Because he is the lord, or “Īśvar,” of Veṅgaḍam (Veṅkaṭ), this god came to be
known by the name “Veṅkaṭeśvar.” Śrīpatipaṇḍit states that Veṅkaṭeśvar is
“Vīreśvar.” Rāmānujācārya gave the god a Vaiṣṇava form and considered him to
be “Śrīnivās,” and the authors of sthalapurāṇas in this tradition promoted his
Vaiṣṇava character by means of new biographies and worship.
The reader may suspect that I am playing with words in order to impose my own
view on Śrīpatipaṇḍit. However, in the passage cited above, the next thing that
Śrīpatipaṇḍit states is: “Because Viṭṭhaleśvar Viṣṇu can be seen to wear a
Śivaliṅga on his head, the word ‘Īśvar’ is used in a genitive tatpuruṣa
compound10 [the Īśvar, or Lord, of Viṭṭhala]” (Śrīpatipaṇḍit 1936: 241).
Śrīpatipaṇḍit intends here to refer to Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur; he calls him
“Viṭṭhaleśvar Viṣṇu.” In yet another passage, Śrīpatipaṇḍit cites two verses from
the Śaṅkar Saṃhitā of the Skanda Purāṇa. These verses praise the Śivaliṅga,
which is respected by the gods (Śrīpatipaṇḍit 1936: 13):
Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and the other gods, and Gautama and the other
sages
always wear a liṅga, especially on the upper part of their body.
Viṣṇu carries the liṅga on his chest; Brahmā, on his head.
They obtained their respective positions after worshiping me [Śiva],
who am in the liṅga.
Śrīpatipaṇḍit presents iconographic evidence to support this statement in the

Śaṅkar Saṃhitā: “There can be no doubt of this, because, in many holy places of
(p.65) Padmanābh,11 Viṭṭhaleśvar, and so on, even Nārāyaṇ is seen to hold a
Śivaliṅga in his hand or on his head.”
The grammatical and semantic coherence of this statement inspire confidence in

Śrīpatipaṇḍit's unambiguous argument. When Śrīpatipaṇḍit states that one can
see a Śivaliṅga in the hand of the Nārāyaṇ image at Anantapadmanābh's12 place
and on the head of the Nārāyaṇ image at Viṭṭhaleśvar's place, he is clearly
proclaiming that Viṭṭhaleśvar of Pandharpur is Nārāyaṇ (Viṣṇu) and that people
universally understand there to be a Śivaliṅga on his head.13 Kashinathshastri
(Kāśīnāthśāstrī 1952: 47) also cites a Purāṇic verse that makes the same point as
Śrīpatipaṇḍit's with respect to Anantapadmanābh and Viṭṭhal:
Anantapadmanābh carries a liṅga in his hand,
Page 9 of 25
and, in Pāṇḍuraṅga, Viṣṇu wears a liṅga on his head.
Here Viṭṭhal is called “Viṣṇu” and his place is referred to as “Pāṇḍuraṅga.”14 In

explaining this verse, Kashinathshastri writes, “It is powerful testimony that
there is a Śivaliṅga on the head of the world-famous Viṭhobā [Viṭṭhal] in
Pandharpur, on the head of Bhagavanta in Bārśī, and in the hand of the famous
Viṣṇu image named Anantapadmanābh, the family god of the king in
Anantaśayanpaṭṭaṇ, the principal capital of the Tiruvāṅkūr kingdom.”
All these explanations make it exceedingly clear that Śrīpatipaṇḍit means to

refer to the god Viṭṭhal or Viṭṭhaleśvar of Pandharpur, who wears a liṅga on his
head, as none other than Viṣṇu, and to the god of Tirumalai, who is known by the
joint name Veṅkaṭeśvar-Viṭṭhaleśvar or Viṭṭhaleśvar-Veṅkaṭeśvar, as Vīrabhadra
or Vīreśvar. Of course, in Śrīpatipaṇḍit's view, the Veṅkaṭeśvar in this joint name
or joint divinity is Vīreśvar. Thus, the god of Tirumalai is Viṭṭhaleśvar-Vīreśvar.
The Vaiṣṇavas’ Rebuttal with Respect to the Image of Veṅkaṭeśvar

A dispute took place between the Śaivas and Rāmānuja about whether the image
of Veṅkaṭeśvar is one of Śiva (or a Śaiva deity) or Viṣṇu. The dispute is described
in Veṅkaṭācala-Itihāsa-Mālā (Anantārya 1888), a Sanskrit text composed by
Anantārya, a direct disciple of Rāmānuja, in the twelfth century. The first three
chapters of the text give a detailed description of the learned discussion about
Veṅkaṭeś. The next chapter sets forth extremely strictly the rules for the
Vaiṣṇava worship of Veṅkaṭeś.
The public debate about the image of Veṅkaṭeśvar took place in the presence of
the local Yādava king. Rāmānuja defeated the Śaivas in the debate. The king was
(p.66) convinced of the accuracy of Rāmānuja's analysis, but Rāmānuja called
on Veṅkaṭeś himself to render a decision about his own form. Rāmānuja used an
unusual method to do this: at night he placed Śaiva as well as Vaiṣṇava
attributes in front of the image of Veṅkaṭeś and closed the sanctuary door.
Rāmānuja's intention was that everyone should accept that Veṅkaṭeśvar had the
identity corresponding to the attributes he would pick up. Still, the powerful
Vaiṣṇava teacher did not have the patience to wait until the next morning. At
night, he took his original form as the serpent Śeṣa15 and, entering the closed
sanctuary through a crevice, pleaded with the god, “Please support me by
picking up the Vaiṣṇava attributes, the conch and the discus.” The god agreed to
the great devotee's plea, and, accordingly, the next day, as soon as the door of
the sanctuary was opened, all the Śaivas had to agree that Veṅkaṭeśvar—that is,
Veṅkaṭeśvar with the artificial conch and discus—was a form of Viṣṇu!
It is surprising that Rāmānuja had to perform a “miracle,” even after he had

already defeated the Śaivas in debate. Even as he proved that Veṅkaṭeśvar was
Vaiṣṇava, not Śaiva, Rāmānuja did not deny the apparently Śaiva characteristics
of Veṅkaṭeśvar's image and its worship. Rather, he tried to explain those
characteristics from a Vaiṣṇava point of view. In an English book entitled Sri
Page 10 of 25
Venkateswara, Pidatala Sitapati, a devotee of Veṅkaṭeś, sets forth these

arguments and counterarguments (1989: 19–34). He lists the following
characteristics of the image, the temple, and the worship that everyone agrees
about and that appear to be Śaiva:
1. There is a crescent moon on the crown of the image.16

2. There is matted hair on the head of the image: the can be seen falling
down onto the shoulders.17
3. The image is adorned with snakes, and there is a coiled snake on the
right arm.18
4. Bilva leaves are especially prominent among the materials used in
worshiping the image.19
5. The temple has Śākta symbols20 on it.
6. The Garuḍ shrine and the image of Garuḍ in it are of relatively recent
creation, dating from 1500–1512. (In the sthalapurāṇa, this god loves
hunting, and his vehicle is a horse.)21
7. The Vaiṣṇava attributes that the god carries, the conch and the discus,
are not carved into the stone image itself, but are golden ones that have
been affixed externally.
On the basis of Veṅkaṭācala-Itihāsa-Mālā, Sitapati attempts to give a Vaiṣṇava

explanation of four of these facts: the matted hair, the serpent ornaments, the
(p.67) removable Vaiṣṇava attributes, and the fact that bilva leaves are
included in the materials used in worship. He explains that:
1. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa shows that not only Śiva has matted hair; this
can be a characteristic of Viṣṇu as well.
2. The fact that Viṣṇu too wears serpent ornaments can be seen from a
passage in the Padma Purāṇa. Besides, there is also a story that
Veṅkaṭeś's father-in-law gave him serpent ornaments on the occasion of
his wedding.
3. Because Veṅkaṭeśvar Śrīnivās gave Emperor Toṇḍamān his conch,
discus, and other weapons so that he could win victory in battle, they are
not carved in the stone image. That is why they have to be affixed
externally.
4. The bilva tree is the Śrīvṛkṣa, beloved by Lakṣmī; so what objection is
there to Lakṣmī's husband22 liking its leaves?
When we see this attempt to give a Vaiṣṇava interpretation to the Śaiva

characteristics of the image of Veṅkaṭeś, we can understand why Rāmānuja must
have had to go into the sanctuary at night and make another attempt. There is
also an honest question whether the thick smear of camphor that always covers
Veṅkaṭeś's forehead down to his nose might have the purpose of covering up
Page 11 of 25
some other distinguishing mark of the original image. This smear is explained by
a story in one Veṅkaṭācala Māhātmya (VMBhP 3–4):
Śrīnivās used to live in a termite mound. Every day a cow used to satisfy
him with milk from her udders. When the cowherd struck at the cow with
his axe, the god saved the cow by taking the blow on his forehead.
Bṛhaspati, the guru of the gods, dipped cotton in audumbar23 sap and
applied it to the wound on the god's head. Later, when the god took on a
stone form for worship, Rāmānuja started the practice of applying a thick
coating of camphor to the “wound.”
It seems obvious that this “wound” on the image's forehead is the deep cavity of
Śiva's third eye.
In the twelfth century, Śrīpatipaṇḍit argued that the image of Veṅkaṭeś is one of
Vīrabhadra. Surprisingly, however, the Śaiva claim that the Vaiṣṇava tradition
has continued to refute is not this one, but rather the claim that the image is one
of Subrahmaṇya (Kārttikeya) or a goddess. But, in fact, if the image has one face
and four arms, it cannot represent Subrahmaṇya, who has six heads, and there
is no reason at all to discuss this claim any further. As for the claim that the
image represents a goddess, this is based not on visual evidence but on the fact
that (p.68) Fridays and festivals like the Brahmotsav are important in its
worship. Thus, there is no point in saying that this image, which looks male, in
fact represents a goddess.
Vīrabhadra, however, has four arms, three eyes, and serpent ornaments. The two
lower hands of the image of Veṅkaṭeś, the left one resting on his hip and the
right one open and pointing down in the boon-granting gesture, are just like
those in two-armed Viṭṭhal images found in many places in South India. Is there
some significant reason why even Śaivas had to preserve in Vīrabhadra the two
hands of the Viṭṭhal image, one resting on the hips and the other pointing down
in the boon-giving gesture?
The Transformation of Bi¯rappa¯ into Vi¯rabhadra

In many places, Birobā or Bīrappā, the famous god of the Kurubas and
Dhangars, has been transformed into Vīrabhadra (Sontheimer 1974, 1976; Murty
and Sontheimer 1980). As the insightful scholar of pastoralist culture Günther D.
Sontheimer notes, “Bīrappā/Birobā has been exclusively a god of the Kurubas
and Dhangars. According to some legends, he is said to be Vīrabhadra” (Murty
and Sontheimer 1980; reprint 2004: 174–5). Elsewhere Sontheimer ([1974]
2004: 74) states: “Wherever any Dhangars or especially Kurubars are settled we
find that the identification with Vīrabhadra has made some progress. For
instance in Dhotre, Taluka Puṇtāmbe, in the Ahmednagar District we find Birobā
identical with Vīrabhadra. Perhaps the identification of Birobā with Vīrabhadra
Page 12 of 25
emanates from Liṅgāyat quarters which had considerable influence in

Maharashtra.”
On the basis of a Kannada book about pastoralists, the Hālumatacaritra,

Sontheimer narrates at length a story demonstrating the identity of Birobā and
Vīrabhadra. According to this story, Vīrabhadra was born of Brahmā's wife
Sarasvatī in the form of Vīreśvar or Vīrliṅga, and it is he who became the
original god (ādidev) or family god (kula-devatā) of the Dhangars and Kurubas
(Sontheimer [1974] 2004: 74–75):
The demon called Hiraṇyakaśipu received a boon from Brahmā and he won
the three worlds. His over-bearing attitude caused the gods to approach
Viṣṇu, and he in the form of Narasiṃha killed him. However, Narasiṃha's
appearance was so dreadful that the people in the world could not bear it.
The gods headed by Brahmā came to Śaṅkar and sought Śaṅkar's advice.
Śaṅkar sent Vīrabhadra and his gaṇa in order to pacify Narasiṃha or, if
necessary, to kill him. Ultimately Narasiṃha was killed and his head was
brought to Śaṅkar, (p.69) who tied it to his neck. As a consequence
Mahāviṣṇu was enraged with Vīrabhadra. When Pārvatī and Śaṅkar were
sitting on Kailās, Vīrabhadra approached them and told them that he had
the desire to visit the earth. They granted him his wish. Vīrabhadra took
birth in the womb of Sarasvatī, the wife of Brahmā. But Mahāviṣṇu took
the form of an old Brahman and appeared before Sarasvatī telling her that
the child would have a very bad character and that she should not look at
his face. When the child was born Sarasvatī took the child and left it in a
burial ground (smaśān). There the birds and animals forgot their animosity
and looked after it supplying water and shelter. The deities of the forest
pitied the child. Even Agni, Jala, Vāyu, Bhūmi, Ākāś, and Candra24 felt pity.
A woman named Māyammā came to the smaśān, rescued the child and
called it Vīrliṅg. Afterwards, a demon of the Kaśyapa-Gotra, by name
Koṇāsūr, molested the 700 Kurubars. They approached Vīrliṅg and asked
him to save them. He killed Koṇāsūr at Koṇṇūr. The Kurubars became his
worshippers and he became their ādidev or kula-devatā.
According to Sontheimer, it is in an environment influenced by Liṅgāyats that

pastoralists have adopted the firm belief that Birobā is an incarnation taken on
by Vīrabhadra for the sake of the Dhangars and Kurubas; thus, it is in this
environment that the Kuruba-Dhangar god Birobā/Bīrappā/Vīreśvar/Vīrliṅga has
been transformed into Vīrabhadra. This information is significant. Along with
Śiva and Nandī, Vīrabhadra is extremely important to the Liṅgāyat or Vīraśaiva
community of Andhra, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. In no other Śaiva
environment in India is the worship of Vīrabhadra as prevalent. In Karnataka
even today, large numbers of devotees visit the temples of Vīrabhadra that are
found in many villages and Vīraśaiva monasteries.
Page 13 of 25
Why should Vīrabhadra become increasingly important in the Śaiva traditions of

this particular area? This is an important question, to which an answer can be
found in the distinctive social conditions of the area. Since very ancient times,
Gavḷī, Golla, Kuruba, and Dhangar pastoralists have been living and moving
about in this part of South India. When Vīraśaivism was prominent and these
pastoralists converted en masse to it, they needed to elevate and establish their
original, most popular god in the world of their newly adopted faith. The “Bīr” in
Birobā or Bīrappā sounds very much like the first two syllables of Vīrabhadra's
name. Besides, the gods Bīrappā and Vīrabhadra are also similar in their
ferocity. The phonetic similarity and the similarity of their characters made it
very easy to turn Bīrappā into Vīrabhadra. In many places where Bīrappā was
worshiped, the Vīraśaivas made him into Vīrabhadra in order to elevate, and also
accommodate, (p.70) the previous beliefs of the newly converted pastoralists.
This is the social background of the special importance of Vīrabhadra worship in
the Vīraśaivas’ sphere of influence in Andhra, Karnataka, and Maharashtra.
Such an accommodation of the previous beliefs of new converts has occurred in

many religious traditions in India. For example, the huge number of Yakṣas and
Yakṣiṇīs in the Jain pantheon is powerful evidence of this process. Stories in the
Jains’ ancient scriptures show that many merchants and traders converted to
Jainism when it first became influential. Gods in the Yakṣa category were
principally merchants’ gods. Worship of them as gods who give wealth and
protect treasure had become popular among the commercial class. When this
class converted to Jainism, it was not easy for the leaders of the Jain religion to
hold that their followers’ original gods should be discarded. The leaders wanted
to accommodate the previous beliefs of these new converts and to root them
firmly in Jainism by including their previous objects of worship in the Jain
pantheon—albeit in an inferior position. Therefore the leaders gave the Yakṣas
and Yakṣiṇīs a position as attendants of the Tīrthaṅkaras. The importance of
Vīrabhadra in Vīraśaivism can be explained in a similar way.
Vīrabhadra of Yaḍūr: Originally Bīrappā

An excellent example of the way that Bīrappā must have been, and is still being,
transformed into Vīrabhadra in the Vīraśaivas’ sphere of influence can be found
at Yaḍūr in Karnataka. Yaḍūr is a place in Cikoḍī Taluka, Belgaum District. A
small village on the left bank of the Kṛṣṇā River, it is an important holy place of
the Liṅgāyats in northern Karnataka. The Vīraśaivas’ Kāḍdevarū monastery is
found here, and the Paṭṭacaramūrtī Svāmī of this monastery is the official priest
of the Vīrabhadra temple in the village. Yaḍūr has two parts, “Kṣetra Yaḍūr” and
“Village Yaḍūr,” which are a mile away from each other. Kṣetra Yaḍūr is the site
of an extremely large temple of Vīrabhadra, surrounded by a settlement
inhabited principally by Jaṅgams25 and mendicants. The original seat of the
Kāḍdevarū monastery at Yaḍūr is in the village of Kaṇerī on the Siddhagiri near
Kolhapur, and there is also a branch in the village of Konūr. During the period of
Brāhmaṇ dominance under the Peśvās, control of this area passed for some time
Page 14 of 25
into the hands of Brāhmaṇ leaders. At that time, Liṅgāyats knowledgeable about
their tradition recorded in detail that the rights to perform ritual worship went
from the Liṅgāyats to the Brāhmaṇs because the Brāhmaṇs were in power
(Chapre 1927). Brāhmaṇ-Liṅgāyat conflict over the rights to the worship of
Vīrabhadra continued for a long time; eventually the Liṅgāyats were successful
in regaining their previous rights.
(p.71) Vīrabhadra's enormous (150 foot x 100 foot) temple stands in a

compound that resembles a huge fortress. Notably, “among all these beautiful
things, Mother Nature has also created a huge grove of tamarind trees here,
providing an extraordinary complement to her own natural beauty. In this grove
there are many extremely tall trees that have attracted pilgrims’ hearts with
their cool shade and their lovely looks, which delight the eyes. Nowhere else
around here are there such tall and broad tamarind trees on the bank of a river.
This holy place is extremely beautiful because of this delightful grove and
because of the beautiful and holy temple of god Vīrabhadra that is in it” (Chapre
1927: 7). In such words have the faithful expressed their deep feelings about the
special qualities of this place.
The deity that is the principal object of worship in this Vīrabhadra temple is not
an iconic one but a Śivaliṅga set in a śāḷunkā stone. The portable form of
Vīrabhadra used for festivals (the form carried in a palanquin during
processions) is an image made of an alloy of five metals, with a body and
weapons. This seven- or eight-inch-tall, four-armed festival image of Vīrabhadra
is set in the center of a decorated brass arch. Under the same arch are an image
of Bhadrakālī on the left and one of Dakṣa Prajāpati on the right. Metal sandals
(pādukas) lie in the center, near the feet of the Vīrabhadra image, and on either
side of them stands a small, trim Nandī.
It is clear, then, that the original representation of Vīrabhadra in this temple is

an aniconic liṅga. Local tradition relates that the Vīrabhadra liṅga here, which
has been famous for more than five centuries, was “re-established” by a
Vīraśaiva Siddhapuruṣ named “the original Kāḍdevarū.” The reason for saying
“re-established” is that, according to Vīraśaiva belief, this is the very place
where Dakṣa's sacrifice26 was destroyed, and where the god Vīrabhadra rested
after his divine victory. Later, however, in the Kali Age, people began to neglect
the ancient, famous Vīrabhadra liṅga. As a result it got buried in the earth, and
the “ignorant” Dhangars and Gavḷīs living in this area, in accordance with their
supposedly weak memory and caste faith, established their “Bīrdev” on top of
that same Vīrabhadra place!
It is worth looking at a Vīraśaiva description of the condition of this place before

the original Kāḍdevarū Siddha established—or rather, “re-established”—the
liṅga of Vīrabhadra (Chapre 1927: 337):
Page 15 of 25
At this time the liṅga of Lord Vīrabhadra was not especially famous. Mud
had fallen from all four sides into the huge, old sacrificial-fire pit, and
grass and bushes had grown in it. Of course, the liṅga of Lord Vīrabhadra
had also sunk into the ground and disappeared. And right over it, in the
sacrificial-fire pit, Dhangars and cowherds who grazed their cattle and
sheep in these woods had installed their god named “Bīr” [Bīrappā], and
they had also build a small (p.72) temple to him. When ardent devotees of
Lord Vīrabhadra from nearby or far away came to this place to have darśan
of the god, they would take this Bīr as “Vīr” [the god Vīrabhadra]. They
would do pūjā to him, worship him with bdellium (gugguḷ), fire, and so on,
and go home satisfied. If that is the condition of even the liṅga of Lord
Vīrabhadra, who would care about Nandī, Rudrapad, or the other gods?
The jungle had overgrown all the gods and not even a trace of them
remained.
This was the situation at Yaḍūr when Siddhagiri's original Kāḍdevarū or

Kāḍsiddheśvar Svāmī arrived there in the course of a pilgrimage. He liked the
place. He built a leaf hut in the forest to the north of the Bīrdev temple and
decided to stay right there. As soon as he had settled there, “he remembered the
work of his incarnation and was inspired to renovate the liṅga of Lord
Vīrabhadra and the holy place (kṣetra)” (Chapre 1927: 340). He told the people
around him about the divine experience that he had had. He revealed that the
deep, built-up wall, filled with mud and dried leaves, surrounding the Bīrdev
temple was none other than the ancient, huge sacrificial-fire pit of Dakṣa
Prajāpati, and he had people clean it up. Afterwards he commanded them to tear
down the small Bīrdev temple that was in the middle of it. When he saw that
their faith made them reluctant to do this, he himself took a hoe and stepped
forward: as they looked on, he leveled the temple to the ground. After that he
lifted Bīrdev's liṅga (piṇḍ) to the side, and told them to dig deep where that piṇḍ
had been. By his spiritual authority, he told the people that the arm's-length-tall
piṇḍ-like stone that the excavation revealed was the ancient liṅga-stone of
Vīrabhadra. “At that time he installed nearby, on the right side, the Bīrdev who
had accepted worship for many years in the name of this god
Vīrabhadra” (Chapre 1927: 342).
After that, the glory of Kāḍsiddheśvar attracted devotees to this place, and kings
as well. A magnificent temple was built. A new Vīrabhadra liṅga was installed
above the “self-formed” piṇḍ that had been found in the excavation. A monastery
was founded. A collection of attendant deities was formed. Land-grants (ināms)
and annual stipends were granted. The rituals for festivals and regular and
occasional worship were fixed. Altogether, Śrīkṣetra Yaḍūr was made into a
famous place of Vīrabhadra!
Page 16 of 25
The process of legitimizing this religious transformation continued. Two hundred

or two hundred fifty years ago, a learned Brāhmaṇ named Moreśvar from the
village of “Citrakuṭ” (Cikoḍī) composed a lengthy sthalapurāṇa with fifty-two
chapters and made great efforts to Sanskritize the local oral traditions of Yaḍūr.
The transformation is also presented in the Kāḍdevarū monastery's Marathi
chronicle (bakhar), which is written in Modi script. On the basis of these two
sources and his (p.73) own direct observations, Chapre, the author who
presents the traditional history of Yaḍūr, refers again and again to this
transformation. He states (Chapre 1927: 339):
Before Śrī Kāḍdevarū Svāmī came here, the principal place in this kṣetra
was a huge sacrificial-fire pit and a small, misshapen temple that had been
built in it, and all that was inside the temple was an image [an aniconic
piṇḍī ?] of Bīrdev. On important festival days, many people from the village
of Yaḍūr would go for darśan and would make food offerings and so on to
Lord Vīrabhadra and return home. Who was the priest of this god at the
time? And what was the regular pūjā like? Only Dhangars and cowherds
would come there to graze their sheep and cattle, and they would leave
before evening.
The chronicle of Śrī Kāḍdevarū, which is written in a corrupt Marathi influenced

by Kannada, contains the following description (Chapre 1926: 373–74): “Śrī
Svāmī, showing his own importance, moved Bīrdev aside and established a
Vīrabhadra liṅga in Dakṣa's fire-sacrifice pit in a most excellent manner.”
As soon as we listen carefully to this Vīraśaiva story of the rise of the holy place
Yaḍūr, we realize the true nature of the religious transformation that occurred
here:
1. This was originally a holy place of the Gavḷīs’ and Dhangars’ god Bīrdev
or Bīrappā.
2. They were the original worshipers at this place, worshiping their gods
according to their own customs.
3. Under the leadership of the original Kāḍdevarū Svāmī, and using his
spiritual authority, the Vīraśaivas transformed this place of Bīrappā into
one of Vīrabhadra.
4. If the previous worshipers were to accept this transformation, they
naturally had to become Vīraśaivas.
5. The syllable “Bīr” or “Vīr” in the original name “Bīrdev” or “Bīrappā”
made it easy to change the name into “Vīrabhadra.”
6. Even though Bīrappā had become Vīrabhadra, it was wrong, even from
the converts’ point of view, to oust his original form, and so they gave him
“room” in a shrine to Vīrabhadra's right.
7. The principal day of Bīrappā's festival was the full-moon day of Caitra,
and this date was preserved in the new arrangements for worship. The
Page 17 of 25
explanation that became current is that the ceremony of establishing the

Vīrabhadra liṅga took place on the full-moon day of Caitra.
(p.74) 8. Although the new arrangements for worship brought an end to
the Dhangar devotees’ divinatory practices of huīk or bhakaṇūk,27
nonetheless the converts could not avoid practicing a “higher”
alternative. Still today, during the palanquin procession in many of the
festivals and in the regular worship of Vīrabhadra, people invariably sing
Kannada “future-telling songs” composed by the original Kāḍdevarū. The
only way to understand these songs’ use in the worship of Vīrabhadra is
to agree that they are a “refined” alternative to huīk (Chapre 1927: 37,
40, 44, 50).
9. Although the current festival image of Vīrabhadra has the prescribed
limbs and weapons, it is a recent one. The festival image that was in use
until three hundred years ago or so is still preserved. It is named “Old
Malāppā.” Mallikārjun, Mallaṇṇā, Mallāppā, and Mailār are well-known
as alternative names of a god of pastoralists.
10. The grove in which Vīrabhadra's temple is still found today is a grove
of large tamarind trees. This also points to the importance of tamarinds in
the worship of Bīrappā. Even the Liṅgāyats who worship Vīrabhadra
agree that this grove of tamarind trees is extraordinary in this area.
11. A cattle fair takes place during Vīrabhadra's festival. The cattle fair
indicates the original pastoralist nature of the god who is now worshiped
as Vīrabhadra.
12. Two famous holy places of the Dhangars—Bīrappā's foster sister
Māyākkā's holy place Ciñclī, which is located in a tamarind grove, and the
holy place Konūr, which is named for the fact that Bīrappā killed the
demon Konāsur there—are not far from Yaḍūr. There is even a branch of
the Kāḍdevarū monastery at Konūr.
This analysis of the religious features of Yaḍūr reveals once again the lost story
of Bīrappā's transformation into Vīrabhadra.
Vīrabhadra of Lepākṣī: Viṭṭhaleśvar-Vīreśvar

In deciphering the “secret of the Dindīra Forest” (chapter 3), we saw many
striking similarities between Viṭṭhal and Veṅkaṭeś. In the present chapter,
proceeding further on the basis of those similarities, we have established that
the two folk deities Viṭṭhal and Veṅkaṭeś, who have both become Viṣṇu, are
elevated forms of the pastoralists’ deity Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā. As the Dhangars’ paired
god Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā was Sanskritized and Vaiṣṇavized with Viṭṭhal preeminent,
Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur, the beloved god of the Marathi saints, attained
sovereignty in (p.75) Maharashtra's universe of faith. In Veṅgaḍam or
Tirumalai, the Al̠vārs experienced Viṭṭhal and Bīrappā sometimes in the form of
Viṣṇu, sometimes in the form of Kṛṣṇa, sometimes in the form of Viṣṇu and Śiva
together (Hari-Hara), and sometimes in the form of the three gods Brahmā,
Viṣṇu, and Śiva. Probably at a time when Śaivas or Vīraśaivas were in power,
Page 18 of 25
this god of the Kurubas became Śaivized with Bīrappā preeminent and was given
the form of Vīrabhadra; soon after that, Rāmānuja gave primacy, between Viṭṭhal
and Bīrappā, to Viṭṭhal, but kept Vīrabhadra's temple image as it was and
transformed it into Veṅkaṭeśvar Śrīnivās. Vīreśvar in the Viṭṭhaleśvar-Vīreśvar
place that Śrīpatipaṇḍit refers to was forgotten, and Viṭṭhaleśvar came to the
fore there as a form of Viṣṇu. Then his popular story from the oral tradition,
along with all its folk-religious features, was presented in the Vaiṣṇava colors of
the sthalapurāṇa. This is why there are such amazing similarities in the
biographies, forms, characteristics, and many other aspects of Viṭṭhal of
Pandharpur and Veṅkaṭeś of Tirumalai.
Another holy place referred to in sixteenth-century inscriptions under the paired

names Viṭṭhaleśvar-Vīreśvar is Lepākṣī, in Andhra Pradesh. The Vīrabhadra
temple here is well known among art lovers the world over for its beautiful
display of architecture, sculpture, and painting from the late Vijayanagar period.
In his article “Viṭṭhal Is Śiva,” Manik Dhanpalvar refers to Vīrabhadra of Lepākṣī
as an example of the Śaivization of Viṭṭhal. Dhanpalvar writes (1981d: 29):
“Viṭṭhal is also worshiped in some places in the form of Vīrabhadra. In the
Vīrabhadra temple in Lepākṣī (Anantapūr District), Vīrabhadra is called
‘Viṭṭhaleśvar.’ People also call him ‘Virupakṣa-Viṭṭhal.’ There is no doubt that this
is a temple of Śiva.”
Dhanpalvar's transitory reference to Lepākṣī is extremely important. However,

he paid no further attention to the process of elevation that took place there.
The reasons that Dhanpalvar did not take more care with Vīrabhadra in Lepākṣī
are, first, that his principal concern with respect to the elevation of Viṭṭhal was
to trace his development from hero stone to Vetāḷ to Viṭṭhaleśvar (Śaiva) to
Viṭṭhal (Vaiṣṇava); and, second, that he ignored the fact that still today in many
places the pastoralists’ Viṭṭhal abides with Bīrappā in his original form.
Otherwise, from the marvelous materials that Dhanpalvar obtained, he himself
could have created a precise and clear description of the process of Śaivization.
Lepākṣī lies on the southern border of Andhra Pradesh (to the northeast of
Bangalore), in Hindupūr Taluka of Anantapūr District, nine miles east of
Hindupūr (Gopala Rao 1969, Gopalakrishnamurthy 1960, Swamiji 1971). Today
Lepākṣī is an ordinary village. To its south is a huge, hill-like boulder known
since ancient times as “Tortoise Mountain.” There are temples here of the gods
Pāpanāśeśvar, Raghunātheśvar, and Vīrabhadra. Pāpanāśeśvar is the ancient god
of this place, referred to as “Pāpanāśana in Lepākṣī” in the Skanda Purāṇa's list
of sixty-eight (p.76) Śaiva holy places. For the last four or four-and-a-half
centuries, however, Lepākṣī has been better known as a holy place of
Vīrabhadra.
Page 19 of 25
Lepākṣī was the village of Virūpaṇṇā, the powerful ruler of the Penukoṇḍā
division of the Vijayanagar kingdom of Acyutadevarāya (1530–42). Virūpaṇṇā
was the son of Nandī Lakkīśeṭṭī and Muddamāmbā. His two brothers, Vīraṇṇā
and Hiriya Mallappāṇṇā, were both as capable as he was. Vīraṇṇā was the ruler
of Lakhaṇāpūr division, and Mallappāṇṇā ruled the Bāgūrjājū division (Citradurg
District). Vīraṇṇā built a Mahālakṣmī temple (Lakkammāguḍī) at Gor Banahaḷḷī,
near Lepākṣī, and he made arrangements to pay for its regular worship and its
worship on special occasions. Vīreśvar of Lepākṣī was these brothers’ family
deity, and Virūpaṇṇā and Vīraṇṇā were given their names out of devotion for this
god. The name of the third brother, Mallappāṇṇā, expresses a relationship with
the Andhra pastoralists’ god Mallaṇṇā.
With the help of Vīraṇṇā, under the generous protection of the Vijayanagar
emperor, giving primacy to his own god and maintaining the honor of the gods
that had been installed there before, Virūpaṇṇā built on the Tortoise Mountain at
Lepākṣī a magnificent cluster of stunningly beautiful temples that would amaze
the minds and eyes of many generations to come. The assembly hall that is
common to all of the temples makes them into one single, continuous structure.
With its grand but incomplete wedding pavilion (really a dancing hall) and the
enormous sculpture of a serpent carved out of a single rock behind the temple,
this work is magnificent as architecture, beautiful as sculpture, and, taking into
account the paintings on the walls and ceiling, extremely attractive to the mind.
The sanctuary of Vīrabhadra, which has the central position in this complex of
temples, is adorned with a five-foot-tall anthropomorphic image of Vīrabhadra
complete with weapons. To the left of this image stands a tapered, uncarved
stone which is given even more respect than Vīrabhadra's image. This uncarved
stone, which devotees consider to be the original form of the presiding deity of
the place, is named Vīrliṅgeśvar. Local inscriptions call this temple complex and
its surrounding settlement “Lepākṣī's Vīreśvarpur,” and refer to the principal
god in the temple by the two names Viṭṭhaleśvar and Vīreśvar.
Virūpaṇṇā and his two brothers were Vīraśaivas. Their names are reminiscent of
gods of Kurubas, Gollas, and other pastoralist communities. Although the
brothers promoted their favorite god's unlimited splendor, and although his
developed form is that of an incarnation of Śiva named Vīrabhadra or Vīreśvar,
still he continues to this day to accept worship in the temple sanctuary in his
original form under the name “Vīrliṅgeśvar.” After the decorative suffix “ īśvar”
is removed from this name, what is left is simply “Vīrliṅga,” an alternative name
for the popular pastoralists’ god Bīrappā. Similarly, because this god is referred
to in stone (p.77) inscriptions as “Viṭṭhaleśvar” and “Vīreśvar,” the god who
became Vīrabhadra in this place must have been not just Bīrappā but the paired
god Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā. Of these two gods, it was Bīrappā who achieved
Page 20 of 25
preeminence and was elevated here: the fact that the god is Vīrabhadra or
Vīreśvar provides unequivocal evidence of this.
It is possible that Virūppaṇṇā and his brothers were pastoralists, and that, after
achieving sovereignty, they gave their original god the form of Vīrabhadra and
prospered by increasing his glory. There is suggestive evidence in favor of this
hypothesis. One bit of evidence that might seem minor but that must not be
overlooked is marked on two columns in the temple at Lepākṣī. The many
sculptures carved on the columns and walls of this temple portray gods and
goddesses, sages and seers, and episodes from the Purāṇas, but there are
almost no secular subjects at all. The exception to this is spirited sculptures of
“cowherds” carved on two of the columns.28 These sculptures depict a shepherd
or cowherd with a blanket around his shoulders, standing on one foot with his
other bent. His chin rests on his staff, which in turn rests on the ground, and
both his hands are placed on the upper end of the staff. I keep wondering if this
shepherd or cowherd might not be faithfully keeping alive the memory of
Virūppaṇṇā's previous life. Otherwise, Virūppaṇṇā's sculptors, who gave a place
in this complex of sculptures only to divine subjects, would not have made an
exception and carved this “cowherd” twice.
I will not be overly concerned if what I am saying about this sculpture is

dismissed as something I imagined in order to support my own views. Other,
stronger evidence of how Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā was transformed into Vīrabhadra at
Lepākṣī is inscribed on the walls of the temple there. Against the clear
background of the connection of Bīrappā and Vīrabhadra that I have portrayed
here in detail, this evidence is extremely convincing.
Pandharpur, Tirumalai, and Vijayanagar

The oldest inscription in the Vīrabhadra temple at Lepākṣī dates from A.D. 1538.
By then, in the second quarter of the sixteenth century, devotion for Viṭṭhal in
the form of Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa had spread across the entire border region between
Maharashtra and Karnataka. The Vārkarīs in Maharashtra and the Haridāsas in
Karnataka had made the god's divine fame resound in South India through their
innumerable poignant bhakti songs. Viruppaṇṇā and his brother, the two men
who erected the Vīrabhadra temple of Lepākṣī on the site of a center of worship
of Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā, were officers of Acyutadevarāya, the king of Vijayanagar. The
place also had generous support from Acyutadevarāya. The Vīrabhadra temple
of Lepākṣī was built with the (p.78) cooperation or consent of the kings of
Vijayanagar, which itself was already a famous center of worship of the Vaiṣṇava
Viṭṭhal. Of the nine stone inscriptions in the temple of Viṭṭhalsvāmī at
Vijayanagar, three date from the reign of Kṛṣṇadevarāya, one is from the time of
Acyutadevarāya, and five are from the time of Sadāśivarāya. All three of
Kṛṣṇadevarāya's inscriptions were carved in the same year, 1513 (Śake 1435).
One of them records that the king himself donated land to the god in the name
of his parents at the time of an eclipse of the sun, and the other two record that
Page 21 of 25
the two queens Cinnādevī and Tirumaldevī each donated land for the god and
built one gate tower. This makes it clear, of course, that the Viṭṭhalsvāmī temple
of Vijayanagar was built even before the reign of Kṛṣṇadevarāya.
Thus, at a time when devotion for Viṭṭhal as Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa was at its height in
Maharashtra and Karnataka, and when Vijayanagar was renowned as a great
center of that devotion, the king of Vijayanagar himself cooperated and
consented as three of his officials raised the status of Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā at Lepākṣī
by making him into Vīrabhadra and bringing about his Śaivization. This
Śaivization occurred after Viṭṭhal had already attained Vaiṣṇava status at
Pandharpur and while his fame continued to be proclaimed through his
magnificent temple at Vijayanagar. Moreover, the Śaivization took place with the
assistance and consent of the king of Vijayanagar. Thus, it is historically
inaccurate to claim that Śaivization is older and Vaiṣṇavization comes later.
What determines whether Śaivization or Vaiṣṇavization is to occur in a given
place is the social, religious, and political conditions of that place. It is
impossible to formulate a general rule.
There is another important piece of evidence about the center of Viṭṭhal worship
at Vijayanagar that makes a somewhat different point. I am referring to a song
of devotion to Viṭṭhal by the famous Telugu Vaiṣṇava poet Tāllapākam
Annamācārya. Annamācārya had deep devotion for Veṅkaṭeś. He lived from 1408
to 1503, dying just six years before Kṛṣṇadevarāya ascended the throne. Some of
his devotional songs (saṃkīrtans) are about Viṭṭhal, and in one of them he
mentions the temple of Viṭṭhal at Vijayanagar, the god's great bathing festival,
the great chariot festival, and the festival of eating in the wilderness. In another
noteworthy passage, Annamācārya states, “Viṭṭhal and Rukmiṇī, who came from
Veṅkaṭācal, are living in the temple of Vijayanagar.” He does not say that the god
came from Paṇḍhapūr. Does this not corroborate the identity of Veṅkaṭeś and
Viṭṭhal?
Application of the “Two Forms” Verse

As soon as I realized that Vīrūppaṇṇā's god Vīrabhadra, whose name is recorded
in inscriptions in the Vīrabhadra temple of Lepākṣī as both “Viṭṭhaleśvar” and
(p.79) “Vīreśvar,” arose from the pastoralists’ paired god Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā with
Bīrappā preeminent, I remembered a device that was used in the Vedicization of
Viṭṭhal.29 As I have stated, in the tradition of the Gavḷī cowherds and Dhangar
shepherds, Bīrappā can be found living independently, but Viṭṭhal appears only
with Bīrappā as his brother or companion. What this means is that Viṭṭhal-Bīrdev
is a paired god. When Bīrappā is with Viṭṭhal, he is in a sense “doubled Bīrappā”:
he has “two forms.” Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā is sometimes elevated with Viṭṭhal
preeminent, and at other times with Bīrappā preeminent. Why this happens one
way sometimes and the other way other times can be understood only by
examining the social and religious conditions in each place. What cannot be
Page 22 of 25
shown, though, is that in the process of elevation Viṭṭhal is everywhere first

Śaivized and only later Vaiṣṇavized.
The process is multilinear, not unilinear. Elevation proceeds differently in each

place of Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā where it has occurred. This fact is not confined to
Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā, but it is also clear with respect to such southern folk deities as
Murugan, Ayyappan, and Ayyanār, or with respect to goddesses like Lajjāgaurī.
When the “two-formed,” twin god Bīrappā-paired-with-Viṭṭhal became Viṣṇu-
Kṛṣṇa at Pandharpur with Viṭṭhal preeminent, the pilgrimage priests and
traditional pandits, unable to deny his importance, made a pervasive effort to
Vedicize him. In the course of this effort, the god's “two-formed” nature easily
reminded them of the Ṛg Vedic hymn “Having two forms.…” Then, using their
ingenuity, they interpreted the hymn as referring to Viṭṭhal, and proclaimed that
Viṭṭhal is a god described in the Vedas.
In order to understand this whole process of the Vedicization of Viṭṭhal, we will

need to devote a full chapter to it. This we will do in chapter 13. By
understanding the success or failure of this process of Vedicization, we can gain
an awareness of the social friction in the area of influence of this most popular
folk deity.
Notes:
(1.) Viraraghavacharya (1953) presents a comprehensive history of the
Tirumalai-Tirupati temple based on inscriptions and literary materials.
(2.) Śrīveṅkaṭācalamāhātmyam 1959–1960. All the references to Māhātmyas in

this chapter are drawn from this anthology.
(3.) Translator's note: Ucchaiḥśravas, the horse of Indra, was among the
treasures obtained when the gods and demons churned the ocean of milk.
(4.) Translator's note: Viṣṇu's banner has an image of the eagle Garuḍ on it.
(5.) Translator's note: Viṣṇu is generally depicted with four arms, and his four
hands hold weapons or flowers or make certain specific gestures (called
mudrās). The point here is that the two lower hands hold none of the attributes
typical of Viṣṇu (though one of the hands is held in a mudrā).
(6.) Translator's note: These are all weapons specific to Viṣṇu.
(7.) Translator's note: This suggested emendation is Dhere's.
(8.) Translator's note: Śeṣa is the cosmic serpent upon whom Viṣṇu rests in the
sea of milk.
(9.) Translator's note: Subrahmaṇya Svāmī is Skanda, a son of Śiva.
Page 23 of 25
(10.) Translator's note: That is, as a compound in which the first member is in a
dependent, genitive-case (possessive) relationship with the second member.
(11.) Translator's note: “Padmanābh” means “the one with a lotus navel.” It is a
name of Viṣṇu.
(12.) Translator's note: “Anantapadmanābh” means either “the infinite one with
a lotus navel” or “the one with a lotus navel [who lies] on [the serpent] Ananta
[= Śeṣa].” In either case, this is another name of Viṣṇu.
(13.) We must not forget, though, that Viṭṭhal, who is a form of Viṣṇu and who
wears a Śiva liṅga on his head, is distinct from the Viṭṭhaleśvar referred to in the
phrase, “in a place of Viṭṭhaleśvar-Veṅkaṭeśvar.”
(14.) This is another piece of evidence that “Pāṇḍuraṅga” was originally not the
name of a god but the name of a place—and that it was a Sanskritized form of
the Kannada place-name “Paṇḍarage.” See above, end of chapter 1.
(15.) Because Rāmānujācārya is named “Rāma's younger brother” (rāma-anuja,

that is, Lakṣmaṇ), he is understood to be an incarnation of Śeṣa. Of course,
because of that his secret entry into the sanctuary becomes a matter of “divine
power.”
Translator's note: There is a traditional understanding that Lakṣmaṇ is an

incarnation of Śeṣa.
(16.) Translator's note: Śiva is commonly portrayed with a crescent moon on his
head.
(17.) Translator's note: Matted locks of hair are also part of the usual
iconography of Śiva.
(18.) Translator's note: Snakes are typical ornaments of Śiva.
(19.) Translator's note: These leaves are commonly used in the ritual worship of
Śiva.
(20.) Translator's note: Images, that is, used in the cult of Śakti, the goddess (or
female power) who is generally paired with Śiva.
(21.) Translator's note: The fact that the shrine of Garuḍ, Viṣṇu's eagle vehicle,
is relatively new makes it likely that Garuḍ was not the original vehicle of the
god at the temple, and therefore that the god was not originally Viṣṇu.
(22.) Translator's note: The husband of Lakṣmī is Viṣṇu.
(23.) Translator's note: This is the glomerous fig tree, Ficus glomerata, which is
generally associated with the god Dattātreya.
Page 24 of 25
(24.) Translator's note: Fire, Water, Wind, Earth, Space, and the Moon.
(25.) Translator's note: Jaṅgams are Liṅgāyat/Vīraśaiva holy men.
(26.) Translator's note: Dakṣa was Śiva's father-in-law. He sponsored a large

sacrifice to which he invited all the other gods, but not Śiva or his wife (Dakṣa's
daughter, Satī). Vīrabhadra (or Bhairava), a fierce form of Śiva, came into being
to destroy the sacrifice.
(27.) See the section of chapter 14 entitled “For the Sake of Bhakta Kuṇḍalik.”
(28.) Gopala Rao (1969), plate XXVIII: “A shepherd: on a pillar in the ranga
mantapa.”
(29.) Translator's note: See the section of chapter 13 entitled “Viṭṭhal and the
Veda.” The reference is to a Vedic hymn (Ṛg Veda 1.95) that begins with the
words dve virūpe (“having two forms”).
Page 25 of 25
Viṭṭhaleśvar


Print ISBN-13: 9780199777594
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.001.0001
Viṭṭhaleśvar
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.003.0006

This chapter takes on another of Manik Dhanpalvar's arguments in favor of the
position that the Vaiṣṇavization of the folk deity Viṭṭhal was preceded by a period
in which he was seen as a form of Śiva. This is the argument that the
Viṭṭhaleshvar temple at Bhaṭṭiprolu (in Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh) must be
the oldest Viṭṭhal temple, and that in it Viṭṭhal was originally Śiva. Besides
meaning “Viṭṭhal as Iśvar (= Śiva),” the name Viṭṭhaleśvar can also mean “Iśvar
(= Śiva) established by (a man named) Viṭṭhal.” The god Viṭṭhaleśvar at
Bhaṭṭiprolu has been Śiva from the beginning, and an image of Viṭṭhaleśvar at
Śrīśaila is also Śiva, but both of these Viṭṭhaleśvars were named for the ruler
who had them installed, and not for a folk deity Viṭṭhal. There are no cases in
which the folk deity Viṭṭhal has become Śiva.
Keywords: Manik Dhanpalvar, folk deities
in pandharpur, on the border between Maharashtra and Karnataka, Viṭṭhal

obtained the form of Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa, a Vaiṣṇava life-story, and the corresponding
sacred complex. From extant inscriptions in Pandharpur, from references in the
literature of the thirteenth-century Marathi saints, and from the Pāṇḍuraṅga
Māhātmya in the Skanda Purāṇa (which, as I showed in chapter 1, predates
Hemādri), we know that the Vaiṣṇavization of Viṭṭhal in Pandharpur had been
completed well before the thirteenth century. But what was Viṭṭhal like
originally, before he was completely Vaiṣṇavized? And did other sects besides the
Vaiṣṇavas also elevate his original form, in different ways? For several decades
now, scholars have been searching for answers to these questions.
Page 1 of 15
Viṭṭhaleśvar
Śaivization of Viṭṭhal?
As we have seen, Manik Dhanpalvar has published a substantial body of work on
the development of Viṭṭhal.1 In the light of new materials obtained in Andhra
Pradesh, Dhanpalvar puts forth the view that Viṭṭhal was Śaivized, too, as well as
being Vaiṣṇavized; that he was Śaivized first, before he was Vaiṣṇavized; and
that, even in Pandharpur, Viṭṭhal had already become Śiva before he attained the
form of Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa (Dhanpalvār 1981d).
(p.81) In order to support this view, Professor Dhanpalvar presents the

following important evidence:
1. The Viṭṭhal temple at Bhaṭṭiprolu (Guṇṭūr District) must be the oldest

extant temple of Viṭṭhal. The god in this temple was originally Śiva.
2. In some places, Viṭṭhal is also worshiped as Vīrabhadra.2 In a stone
inscription dated Śake 1459 (A.D. 1537) in the famous Vīrabhadra temple
at Lepākṣī (Anantapūr District), Vīrabhadra is called “Viṭṭhaleśvar.”
3. The names “Viṭṭhal” and “Śiva” are found in close proximity in some
other stone inscriptions in Andhra. “Viṭṭhal” does not appear alone in any
old inscriptions in Andhra, only in conjunction with the name “Śiva” or
“Pāṇḍuraṅga.” This fact alone is sufficient to establish that Viṭṭhal is a
form of Śiva. The ancient temples of Viṭṭhal are not Vaiṣṇava temples but
temples of Śiva. Thus, Viṭṭhal and Pāṇḍuraṅga are forms of Śiva.
4. Another name of the two Śiva places Tiruvārūr and Cidambaram is
“Puṇḍarīkpur.” There is a Diṇḍīvan or Diṇḍīravan near each of them.
“Puṇḍarīkpur” is another name of Pandharpur as well, and there is also a
Diṇḍīravan near it. Therefore, before Pandharpur became a place of Viṣṇu
it was a place of Śiva, with Viṭṭhal, in the form of Śiva, as its presiding
deity.
In chapter 3, I discussed Dhanpalvar's argument about the Diṇḍīravan and

Puṇḍarīkpur (point 4). In chapter 4, I examined the basis of Vīrabhadra's high
status at Lepākṣī and discussed why inscriptions there call him by the
alternative name Viṭṭhaleśvar (point 2). At the end of chapter 1, as well as
previously (D.here 1982b), I expressed the idea that the name “Pāṇḍuraṅga”
first referred to a place, that it was a Sanskritized form of the village name
“Paṇḍarage,” and that it later became a name for Viṭṭhal (point 3). Because
Dhanpalvar does not give precise references for his statements about the “close
proximity” of the names “Viṭṭhal” and “Śiva” in “some other stone inscriptions in
Andhra” or about “ancient temples of Viṭṭhal” (point 3 again), it is not possible to
examine either the contents of the inscriptions or the temples to which he is
referring.
This leaves only one point that must be seriously considered: the Viṭṭhaleśvar
temple at Bhaṭṭiprolu (point 1). Before entering into a discussion of this temple,
however, it is necessary to make one thing very clear. Professor Dhanpalvar's
Page 2 of 15
Viṭṭhaleśvar
scholarly articles have extended the range of research on Viṭṭhal to all of

southern India. Although sometimes his views cannot be accepted in their
entirety, and although on occasion they have been completely disproven, we
nevertheless must not forget the significance of his scholarly contribution. I do
not deny the primary importance of accuracy in scholarly research; however, I
value great leaps of insight (p.82) as especially important for uncovering
truths. Although such penetrating scholarly insight often gets tricked or
deceived, even its blunders can be inspiring and instructive. Some seekers of
knowledge have such an intense desire to penetrate the truth that even when a
field of research is completely unknown, when it is covered by a forest of
ignorance, they walk barefoot in that forest in order to forge new paths. Their
bloody footprints enable others to avoid the pitfalls and to pave a highway. Thus,
Professor Dhanpalvar's contribution is important not because of the accuracy of
his views, but rather because of the inspirational quality of his scholarly efforts.
It is from this standpoint that I critically review his writings about Viṭṭhal in
several chapters of this book.
Even if the plentiful evidence that Dhanpalvar has so precisely presented does
not suffice to establish with certainty that Viṭṭhal is Śiva, still, after full
reflection, I am convinced of the possibility that Viṭṭhal did become Śiva in some
places. The worshipers of Bīrappā (and his companion Viṭṭhal) are pastoralists—
Dhangars, Gavl.īs, Kurubas, Gollas, and so on—who became Vīraśaivas in the
first period of expansion of Vīraśaivism. Just as their most beloved god, Bīrappā,
became Śaivized as Vīrabhadra in many places, it would not be at all surprising
if there were places where his inseparable companion Viṭṭhal lived on as
Viṭṭhaleśvar Śiva. However, although this possibility arises naturally from the
social and religious context as a whole, no strong evidence has yet been found to
confirm it.
When Dhanpalvar put forward what he saw as confirmatory evidence, my first

reaction was one of intense joy. Later, however, when I had again slowly and
carefully examined and tested the evidence he presents and the materials he
refers to, when I had twice made long field trips to Andhra and Karnataka for
this purpose, I realized that Viṭṭhal in the form of Śiva, after giving a glimpse of
himself or waving from far away, has once again gone to rest in the cave of the
unknown. In order to discover him fully, everyone interested in knowing about
Viṭṭhal must come forward to assist Professor Dhanpalvar.
Viṭṭhaleśvar in the form of Viṣṇu and Kṛṣṇa

At first glance, at least, the name Viṭṭhaleśvar seems to refer to Śiva. Places of
Śiva with names ending in “-īśvar” and “-nāth” are literally innumerable in India.
Kāśīnāth, Vaidyanāth, Nāgnāth, Somnāth, and other Śiva places with names
ending in “-nāth” are well known, as are Kedāreśvar, Viśveśvar, Tryambakeśvar,
Ghṛṣṇeśvar, Rāmeśvar, and other Śiva places with names ending in “-īśvar.” All
over Andhra and Karnataka, places of Śiva are referred to not as “Śiva temples”
Page 3 of 15
Viṭṭhaleśvar
but as “Īśvar temples.” However, there are also exceptions to this rule. For
example, (p.83) Badrīnārāyaṇ is also referred to as “Badrīnāth,” and Viṭṭhal of
Paṇḍharī, who is a form of Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa, is often called “Paṇḍarīnāth.” There is
plentiful evidence that the famous, ancient god Devdeveśvar at Māhūr was,
before the Mahānubhāvs took control of him, a form of Viṣṇu. Similarly, as we
have seen, Veṅkaṭeśvar, the lord of the holy place Veṅgaḍam (Tirumalai), who is
best known by this name ending in “-īśvar,” has been Śrīnivās, a form of Viṣṇu,
for at least seven or eight hundred years. Thus, the fact that a god called
Viṭṭhaleśvar has a name ending in “-īśvar” is not sufficient evidence to determine
that he is Śiva.
Furthermore, just because a place of Śiva has the name “Viṭṭhaleśvar,” its
presiding deity is not necessarily a Śaivized form of the folk god Viṭṭhal. The
name “Viṭṭhaleśvar” can mean either “a Lord (Īśvar) named Viṭṭhal” or “a Lord
established by Viṭṭhal (that is, by a person named Viṭṭhal).” If Śiva is called
Viṭṭhaleśvar somewhere because he was established by a person named Viṭṭhal,
the temple of Śiva in that place cannot be used as evidence of the Śaivization of
a folk deity named Viṭṭhal. However, if a Lord (Īśvar) named Viṭṭhal has not just
the name Īśvar but also the form of Śiva, he should receive serious consideration
in the history of the worship of Viṭṭhal. Only through a careful examination of
each Viṭṭhaleśvar can it be determined if a particular one is an Īśvar named
Viṭṭhal or an Īśvar established by a person named Viṭṭhal.
Medieval inscriptions at many places in Andhra and Karnataka use the name
“Viṭṭhaleśvar” time and again. In order to determine if the Viṭṭhaleśvar in each
place is a form of Śiva or a form of Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa, we will have to carry out
extensive, collaborative field work on a transregional level. Unfortunately,
Marathi scholars are not yet prepared to go beyond certain limits in considering
materials from Andhra and Karnataka, and Kannada and Telugu scholars do not
yet find this subject sufficiently important to dedicate the necessary time,
energy, and resources to it.
To the small extent that I have been physically and financially able to carry out
this work, my research supports the conclusion that Viṭṭhaleśvar is most often a
form of Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa. There are many places where Viṭṭhal bears the name
Viṭṭhaleśvar (that is, a name ending in -īśvar), but is nevertheless a form of
Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa and not of Śiva. Some inscriptions referring to places of Viṭṭhaleśvar
identify him clearly as Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa. For example, a stone inscription near the
Keśav temple in the village Haraṇahal.l.ī in Arsikere Taluka, Karnataka, includes
the words, “in the liberating presence of Viṣṇu [named] Śrīviṭṭhaleś.”3 This
indicates clearly and directly that Viṭṭhaleś or Viṭṭhaleśvar is Viṣṇu. Another
example is found in the village of Sogāne (Śimogā Taluka, Śimogā District), also
in Karnataka. Here there is a donation inscription of the Hoysal.a king
Vīraballāl.rāya dated A.D. 1216 that states:4 “Three niṣkas of land have been
given for the village god Cakrin (p.84) named Viṭṭhaleś, whose praises are sung
Page 4 of 15
Viṭṭhaleśvar
by enlightened people, and three niṣkas of land for the village god named
Dhūrjaṭi Śaṅkar, whose praises are sung by seers.” This makes it perfectly clear
that even though Viṭṭhal's name Viṭṭhaleś (= Viṭṭhaleśvar) has been used, the
god is “Cakrin” (that is, Viṣṇu).5 Numerous references to Viṭṭhal residing as
“Viṭṭhaleśvar” on the banks of the Tuṅgabhadrā are scattered throughout the
many volumes of Epigraphia Carnatica, and we know from a great deal of other
evidence that Viṭṭhaleśvar of Hampī on the bank of the Tuṅgabhadrā was a form
of Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa.6
Here I will summarize my direct observations at Sogāne and Cintakuṇṭā, two of

the places whose god is referred to as Viṭṭhaleśvar in inscriptions. I want to
show that we should not rely simply on references in inscriptions, but should
investigate in person, and that, by doing so, we can find many new, important
materials for understanding our subject of research.
Vit․t․haleśvar at Soga¯ne
First let us look at the old temple of Viṭṭhaleśvar in the village of Sogāne in
Śimogā District, Karnataka. Sogāne is a small village five miles east of Śimogā.
There is a large Brāhmaṇ community here, and the village leadership is in the
hands of Brāhmaṇs. The Viṭṭhaleśvar temple referred to in inscriptions has by
now been fully destroyed. The villagers point out only the temple's ruined
platform, which is overgrown with a thicket of trees and bushes. To the left of
this “temple” is a temple of Īśvar (Śiva) that is like a house with a tile roof. A
Śiva liṅga stands in the center of the sanctuary, and the image of Viṭṭhal from the
ruined Viṭṭhaleśvar temple has been placed to Śiva's left. Every day for many
years, the priest has worshiped both Viṭṭhal and Śiva in this temple. The priest
considers the Viṭṭhal image to be “Śrīnivās” (Veṅkaṭeś). A sculpted decorative
arch frames it. The god's right hand is held in the boon-granting gesture; his left
hand holds a conch and rests on his waist. The pedestal has the shape of the
stone base (śāl.uṅkā) for a Śiva liṅga, and there is a channel to the god's right to
let out water that has been ritually poured over him. The god's pendant earrings
rest on his shoulders. There are carvings all over the middle parts of his arms,
his shoulders, and both sides of his crown. Around his neck are several
necklaces, with the Kaustubh gem hanging from the most prominent one. A
sacred thread is carved right onto the god's body. The goddesses Śrī and Bhū
stand on either side; both are quite short, reaching only slightly below the god's
waist. The god stands on his base with his feet next to each other.
The new Īśvar temple, a short distance to the right of the Viṭṭhal temple
platform, is constructed of concrete. This new temple has been built on the site
of an old (p.85) temple of Īśvar. The Śiva liṅga has a square śāl.uṅkā-base; the
liṅga and the Nandī are both quite old. Resting against the inner side of the right
front pillar of the outer hall is a beautiful, old image of Vīrabhadra, and a Gaṇeś
image has been placed against a pillar on the left-hand side. A stone inscription
Page 5 of 15
Viṭṭhaleśvar
leans against the wall on the left side as one enters the central hall. This is the
inscription that refers to “Cakrin Viṭṭhaleś” and “Dhūrjaṭi Śaṅkar.”
Pa¯ṇḍuraṅga Sva¯mi¯ at Cintakuṇṭa¯

Dhanpalvar has also drawn scholars’ attention to inscriptions at Cintakuṇṭā
(Koīlkuṇṭlā Taluka, Kurnūl District, Andhra Pradesh) that refer to Viṭṭhaleśvar.
He writes (Dhanpalvār 1981a: 89):
A Śake 1493 [A.D. 1571] inscription in the Viṭṭhaleśvar temple here

records that Narsiṅgrāj gave the village as a grant to “Pāṇḍuraṅga
Viṭṭhaleśvar Perumal.” This inscription dates from the reign of
Tirumaladeva Mahārāya of the Candragiri lineage at Penukoṇḍā. In this
same temple there is another inscription, dated Śake 1495 [A.D. 1573],
recording a grant made by Nandayāl Narsiṅgrāy.…In addition, a Śake 1509
[A.D. 1587] inscription in front of the Īśvara temple at Koīlkuṇṭlā, dating
from the reign of Vīraraṅgarāya (A.D. 1578–86) [sic], records that Veṅkaṭeś
Mahārāj (the one later called Veṅkaṭ I?) gave permission for tax to be
collected from various villages for the sake of Viṭṭhal at Koīlkuṇṭlā.
It is difficult for an outsider to find this village of Cintakuṇṭā, because it has

been completely swallowed up by the taluka headquarters, Koīlkuṇṭlā. There are
two other villages named Cintakuṇṭā in Kurnūl District: Pedda Cintakuṇṭā and
M. Cintakuṇṭā. Both of these villages are located in A¯lgaḍ Taluka, on the road
from Nandyāl. to Koīlkuṇṭlā. M. Cintakuṇṭā, which was destroyed by Mallappā
Nāyaḍū, has an ancient temple of Nāgeśvar, with many images and shards of
images strewn near it and elsewhere in the village. Images of four-armed Viṣṇu,
dancing Śiva, Nāgas and Nāgiṇīs, Mahiṣamardinī, Nandālammā, and other gods
and goddesses attract the attention of pilgrims.
Viṭṭhaleśvar's Cintakuṇṭā (today part of greater Koīlkuṇṭlā) lies seventeen miles

from M. Cintakuṇṭā. The Viṭṭhaleśvar temple here is now known as the
Pāṇḍuraṅga Svāmī temple. The main gate of its courtyard is very tall and
imposing. Opposite the main gate is a huge man-made pool, with many separate
platforms, a neem-tree platform, and many old sculptures, some free-standing
and others installed (p.86) on the tree platform. Outside, in a huge, tall shed,
stands the god's gigantic chariot. Entering the magnificent main gate, one sees
sculptures carved all over the tall pillars of the porches on both sides, and on the
beams above as well. Inside the gate, there is a Śake 1506 (A.D. 1684)
inscription on the right, facing the temple. The courtyard is enormous; in it a
Garuḍ stands opposite the front hall. Next to the courtyard wall, to the left, is a
newly built wedding hall where presently the classes of Koīlkuṇṭlā's junior
college are held.
On the outer side of the front hall, to the left as one climbs the stairs, two stone
inscriptions rest against the plinth. Inside the front hall are images of twelve
Vaiṣṇava devotees. Beyond that is the assembly hall, and, further along, the
Page 6 of 15
Viṭṭhaleśvar
middle hall. Outside the sanctuary, standing the full height of the two pillars, are
two four-armed doorway guardians, each holding a conch, a discus, a mace, and
a lotus. In the middle hall, two brass festival images rest on a platform to the
right. Both are of Viṭṭhal (Pāṇḍuraṅga), who stands with the goddesses Bhū and
Śrī, his right hand in a gesture of boon-granting and his left hand placed on his
hip, holding a conch.
Surprisingly, even though both festival images are of Viṭṭhal, the principal image
in the sanctuary is not the familiar Viṭṭhal, but rather a four-armed Viṣṇu, seated
on a throne with his left leg bent at the knee and his right leg hanging down.
The upper right hand of the image holds a conch and the upper left hand a
discus, while the lower right hand is held in the boon-granting gesture and the
lower left hand holds a mace. An image of a tortoise faces this “Pāṇḍuraṅga in
the form of Viṣṇu” on his pedestal. Not even the priest can explain why this
tortoise image is installed in front of Viṣṇu's. Inside the courtyard, to the left of
Pāṇḍuraṅga Svāmī, is a separate temple of Lakṣmī. The Lakṣmī in this temple
stands on her pedestal in the same posture as Viṣṇu does on his.
At Haraṇahal.l.ī, Songāne, Hampī, and Cintakuṇṭā, even though Viṭṭhal is

referred to by the name “Viṭṭhaleśvar,” he is Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa, not Śiva. The name
ending in “-īśvar” clearly refers not to Śiva but to lordship: it proclaims his
lordship of the world. There may well be some place in South India where Viṭṭhal
lives as Śiva, under the name Viṭṭhaleśvar or some other name that expresses
the same identity. However, none of the places of Viṭṭhaleśvar we have studied
so far has turned out to be unambiguously Śaiva. In the previous chapter, I
examined the true relationship to Viṭṭhal of the Vīrabhadra who resides in the
majestic temple of Lepākṣī under the alternative name Viṭṭhaleśvar. The single
remaining case is Bhaṭṭiprolu, and we must decide whether the Viṭṭhaleśvar
there is a Śaivized form of the folk deity Viṭṭhal. For that purpose, just as I made
direct observations of Viṭṭhaleśvar at Sogāne, Cintakuṇṭā, Hampī, and Lepākṣī, I
also did so at Bhaṭṭiprolu.
(p.87) Viṭṭhaleśvar of Bhaṭṭiprolu

The village of Bhaṭṭiprolu (Repalle Taluka, Guntur District) lies on the eastern
border of Andhra Pradesh, very close to the sea. Despite preserving 2500 years
of cultural tradition, Bhaṭṭiprolu, located nine miles from Repalle on the Guntur-
Repalle road, is today like a simple village. Historians are familiar with the name
Bhaṭṭiprolu because Buddhist remains and inscriptions in Brāhmī script have
been found on a hill outside the village (Nilakanta Sastri 1955: 14, 85, 427).
Inside the village are temples of Malleśvar, Veṇugopāl., Kanyakā Parameśvarī,
and other deities, while the ancient temple of Lord Viṭṭhaleśvar lies outside.
Because Śiva lives with Bhramarāmbā in the Malleśvar temple in the village,
there is no doubt that he is Mallikārjun, the lord of Śrīparvat or Śrīśaila, whose
wife is named Bhramarāmbā. The temples of Malleśvar and Viṭṭhaleśvar are
Page 7 of 15
Viṭṭhaleśvar
separated by a distance of two furlongs. Malleśvar cannot possibly be an

alternative name of Viṭṭhaleśvar.7
Viṭṭhaleśvar's temple is majestic. It faces east, in a courtyard surrounded by high

walls. The main gate to the courtyard is on the eastern side. There is also a gate
to the south, with a well outside it. Of two raised seats built into the inner side of
the main, eastern gate, the one on the left as one enters has sculptures of the
Mātṛkās8 with their vehicles and the one on the right has a sculpture of a
buffalo. In the northeast corner of the courtyard is a small marriage pavilion.
Inside the entrance to the courtyard are a flagpole and then, in front of it (facing
the temple), a pavilion for Śiva's bull, Nandī, that has lost its roof. All four pillars
of this pavilion have inscriptions carved on them. The Nandī is magnificent, but
his tail and his left ear are missing, having been broken off by an insane
itinerant holy man.
After the Nandī pavilion comes the assembly hall. A sculpture of Lakṣmī with
elephants (Gajalakṣmī) adorns a frieze above the doorway of this hall, and
guardian figures flank the door on both sides. Each of the doorway guardians
has four arms, like Viṣṇu, and each also has two women, one on either side, the
way Viṣṇu has the goddesses Śrī and Bhū. Four pillars support the roof of the
hall. In the middle of the assembly hall is a Nandī, and to the right (the north), in
a small, separate pavilion, Subrahmaṇya reigns in the form of a hooded cobra
with a Śiva liṅga carved on its hood. Outside the shrine of Subrahmaṇya is an
image of Gaṇeś that faces east. This is the image in front of which people ritually
announce their intention to perform an ablution ceremony (abhiṣek) to
Viṭṭhaleśvar.
Next comes a passage between the assembly hall and the middle hall on the
near side of the sanctuary. Inside the passage, on the north side, is a small
shrine of Pārvatī. The original representation of Pārvatī in this shrine (probably
a self-formed, (p.88) shapeless rock) is covered by an anthropomorphic metal
image of a goddess with special markings. The doors opposite Subrahmaṇya and
Pārvatī, which face south, are arranged so that natural light falls on the faces of
the two deities. An inscription on the pilaster in the northern wall of the middle
hall reads from bottom to top.
The lower part of the outer side of the sanctuary is carved with a garland of
elephants and serpents. Inside the main sanctuary is a huge Śiva liṅga in a brass
frame, with a square śāl.uṅkā-base. This is Viṭṭhaleśvar. Although his name
includes the word “Viṭṭhal,” which elicits affection in Marathi minds, he is not
represented as Gopāl Kṛṣṇa, with “his hands on his hips, standing on a brick,”
holding a conch and a lotus. Rather, he is a Śiva liṅga resting in a śāl.uṅkā-base.
He lives in this ancient, magnificent temple along with his favorite companions,
Pārvatī, Subrahmaṇya, and Gaṇeś.9 In order to proclaim his supremacy as Śiva,
he has positioned four-armed Viṣṇu with the goddesses Śrī and Bhū as a kind of
Page 8 of 15
Viṭṭhaleśvar
guardian on both sides of the doorway to his hall. The Subrahmaṇya in

Viṭṭhaleśvar's retinue does not have his six-faced form but that of a cobra, and
he is also worshiped in the form of living cobras in termite mounds in the temple
courtyard, next to the western and northern walls. During the festival of “Nāgul
Cauthī,” which is celebrated annually during the bright half of the month of
Kārtik,10 hundreds of devotees worship these termite mounds to please
Subrahmaṇya inside them. In order to get children and protect them, women
worship and make vows to the Subrahmaṇya who lives in the termite mounds.
This description should make it clear that the Viṭṭhaleśvar temple at Bhaṭṭiprolu,
the principal deity in the temple, his retinue, and the worship there are all
completely Śaiva.
The Testimony of Inscriptions

There are five inscriptions at Bhaṭṭiprolu, one on each of the four pillars of the
front hall of the Viṭṭhaleśvar temple and one on the pilaster on the north side of
the middle hall. Dhanpalvar refers to three of these inscriptions (Dhanpalvār
1981a and 1981b; cf. Dhanpalvār 1987: 51–71). Two of them come from
Kulottuṅga Coḍ Gāṅgeya Goṅkārājā II of the Velanāṇṭi lineage, a powerful
feudatory prince of the Eastern Cālukyas of Veṅgī, who reigned from Śake 1059
to 1082 [A.D. 1137–60]. One of this prince's inscriptions, from Śake 1064 [A.D.
1142], records the establishment of a perpetual lamp (nandādīp) in front of
Viṭṭhaleśvar. The second is dated Śake 1066 [A.D. 1144], and refers to land
being donated to Viṭṭhaleśvar. The third inscription Dhanpalvar refers to is from
the “11th(?) century Śaka” [eleventh–twelfth century A.D.] and “refers to the
fact that a certain Vuppalpāṭi Nimnanā renovated the (p.89) temple.”
Especially significant is the use of “Mahādev” (“Great God,” a title of Śiva)
directly after “Viṭṭhaleśvar” in this inscription. This provides indubitable
evidence that the Viṭṭhaleśvar at this place has been Śiva from the beginning.
Viṭṭhaleśvar: I¯śvar Established by Viṭṭhal?

Close examination of Viṭṭhaleśvar's temple at Bhaṭṭiprolu and the regular and
special worship there does not, however, support the view that Viṭṭhaleśvar is an
elevated Śaiva form of a folk deity named Viṭṭhal. Although the priests say that
tulśī leaves (which are more typically offered to Viṣṇu/Kṛṣṇa than to Śiva) may
be offered to Viṭṭhaleśvar, and although members of Yādava cowherd castes like
the Gollas and Kurubas are included among the innumerable devotees who
crowd into Bhaṭṭiprolu at major festivals such as Mahāśivarātrī and Nāgul
Cauth, these facts alone cannot be used to demonstrate that this Viṭṭhaleśvar
has arisen from a folk deity named Viṭṭhal.
So what is the key to the name of Viṭṭhaleśvar of Bhaṭṭiprolu? Why should the
word “Viṭṭhal” form the first part of his name? We can see with our own eyes
that this Viṭṭhaleśvar is Īśvar, that he is Śiva, that he has the form of a Śiva liṅga.
But was there a folk deity named Viṭṭhal who dwelt here in his own original form
Page 9 of 15
Viṭṭhaleśvar
before becoming Śiva, or was Viṭṭhaleśvar a form of Śiva from the beginning, as
he is today? We need to search for the answer to this question. If Viṭṭhaleśvar
arose from a folk deity named Viṭṭhal, then he would be of unique importance in
the cultural history of Maharashtra and South India, as he would provide
striking evidence of the Śaivization of Viṭṭhal. However, if Viṭṭhaleśvar was a
form of Śiva from the beginning, his importance for the study of Viṭṭhal would
remain only “nominal”—although, of course, even such “nominal” importance is
worth taking seriously.
Dhanpalvar states that Viṭṭhaleśvar's prominence in inscriptions at Bhaṭṭiprolu

proves that he is a Śaivized form of a folk deity named Viṭṭhal, and that this
Śaivization took place before the eleventh century of the Śaka era. However, the
only basis for this in the Śiva temple at Bhaṭṭiprolu is the first part of
Viṭṭhaleśvar's name. What, then, is the meaning of “Viṭṭhal” in “Viṭṭhaleśvar”? If
not “an Īśvar (Śiva) named Viṭṭhal,” is Viṭṭhaleśvar “an Īśvar (Śiva) established
by someone named Viṭṭhal”?
Viṭṭhaleśvar on Śrīśaila
Before attempting to answer to this question, let us clear up one line of inquiry
by considering another Viṭṭhaleśvar that Professor Dhanpalvar discusses. (p.90)
In examining the antiquity of devotion to Viṭṭhal in Andhra, Dhanpalvar states
that “the Śake 1318 stone inscription from Śrīśaila comes next,” after the
inscriptions in the Viṭṭhaleśvar temple at Bhaṭṭiprolu. “[The Śrīśailam]
inscription (in Sanskrit, in Devanāgarī script) is carved on a stone near the steps
on the way from the Mallikārjun temple to the Pātāl.gaṅgā.11 It records that
Viṭṭhalāmbā, the wife of Harihar (II?) of the Kadamba dynasty, installed an image
of Viṭṭhaleśvar here” (Dhanpalvār 1981a: 89). By mistake, Dhanpalvar identifies
Harihar as being “of the Kadamba dynasty,” whereas, in fact, this Harihar (II)
was a member of the royal family of Vijayanagar who was extremely devoted to
the Mallikārjun on Śrīśaila. Harihar's wife, Viṭṭhalāmbā, was a Kadamba
princess. She built the steps on the path down to the Pātāl.gaṅgā, and she
installed an “image” of Viṭṭhaleśvar along those steps.12
These steps going down from Śrīśaila to the Pātālgaṅgā were partly built by the
famous Reḍḍī king Prolaya Vemā Reḍḍī of Koṇḍviḍu and partly by Viṭṭhalāmbā.
The statement that Viṭṭhalāmbā installed an “image” of Viṭṭhaleśvar along these
steps does not necessarily mean that she installed a Śiva liṅga named
Viṭṭhaleśvar. So what was this image like? Was it an image of Śiva, or was it one
of Viṭṭhal in the form of Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa? Generally in a Śiva temple there is just a
Śiva liṅga, not an image of Śiva, although some Śiva temples have an image and
not a liṅga. One world-famous example is the splendid image of Śiva as the Lord
of the Dance (Naṭarāja) in the Śiva temple at Cidambaram.
Rama Rao (1967: 28–29) describes four temples along the steps that go down to
the Pātāl.gaṅgā at Śrīśaila: (1) a small temple of a four-armed goddess who
Page 10 of 15
Viṭṭhaleśvar
holds an hourglass drum (ḍamarū) and a trident and wears a crown marked with
a skull; (2) a temple of a male deity who holds a shield and a sword; (3) a temple
of a Śiva liṅga with a śāl.uṅkā-base; nearby is an image of Bhairava standing
naked, holding a trident, a cobra, a skull, and so on; and (4) a temple of
Umāmaheśvar in the style of the late Vijayanagar period. The hall and sanctuary
of this temple, beautiful for both its architecture and its sculptures, stand on
four superbly carved pillars. The temple holds many beautiful Śaiva images—
Śiva and Pārvatī, Pinākpāṇī, Candraśekhar, Vṛṣavāhan, Naṭarāja, Somāskanda,
Liṅgodbhav, Ardhanārīśvar, Bhairava, Vīrabhadra, Durgā, Mahiṣamardinī, and
others—in addition to the exquisite image of Umāmaheśvar in the sanctuary.
That is, this Śiva temple has an iconic image of Śiva rather than a Śiva liṅga.
Not a single one of these temples that Rama Rao describes is Vaiṣṇava. Of the
four temples, the Umāmāheśvar temple is from the Vijayanagar period, and it
has an image of Śiva rather than a Śiva liṅga. The Viṭṭhaleśvar referred to in the
stone inscription near the steps is Śiva in the form of an image established by a
queen of Vijayanagar. This suggests strongly that Umāmaheśvar is Viṭṭhaleśvar,
and that he (p.91) was named Viṭṭhaleśvar because Queen Viṭṭhalāmbā
established him. No connection can be made between this Viṭṭhaleśvar and a
deity named Viṭṭhal.
Of course, even though this Viṭṭhaleśvar is not connected with a deity named
Viṭṭhal, still Viṭṭhalāmbā's name must have to do with devotion to such a deity.
Whether Viṭṭhalāmbā received her name from her mother and father, who
belonged to the Kadamba lineage, or whether her husband, a member of the
Vijayanagar lineage, gave her the name after her wedding, in either case she
must have been named out of faith in the deity Viṭṭhal. Now we must find out
whether, in a similar way, there was a king named Viṭṭhal in the Eastern Cālukya
dynasty of Veṅgī, which controlled Bhaṭṭiprolu, and whether that Viṭṭhal
established the Viṭṭhaleśvar there.
Viṣṇuvardhan Ca¯lukya of Veṅgi¯

As we have seen, the two important inscriptions in the Viṭṭhaleśvar temple at
Bhaṭṭiprolu dated Śaka 1064 and 1066 are from Kulottuṅga Coḍ Gāṅgeya
Goṅkārājā (II). This Goṅkārājā is renowned in the history of Veṅgī as a
courageous hero and a powerful ruler. He was originally a feudatory prince of
the Cālukyas of Veṅgī. Later, after the Cālukya dynasty moved from Veṅgī (in
West Godāvarī District, Andhra) to Kān↑cī in Tamil Nadu and began to be known
as the Chola Cālukyas, Goṅkārājā had himself anointed as an independent king.
Even after this, however, he remained loyal to the Cālukyas, and he always
claimed to rule only as their representative. Even in the Śake 1064 inscription in
the Bhaṭṭiprolu Viṭṭhaleśvar temple, he proclaims the power of his lord,
Viṣṇuvardhan-Vijayāditya (VIII) Cālukya, when he refers to the site of the
Page 11 of 15
Viṭṭhaleśvar
donation as “the village of Bhaṭṭiprolu, illuminated by merit, under the rule of

Viṣṇuvardhan.”
The Eastern Cālukyas of Veṅgī were a branch of the Cālukya dynasty of Badāmī.
For administrative purposes, after Pulakeśī II of this dynasty extended his
kingdom to the eastern border of Andhra, he appointed his younger brother,
Kubja Viṣṇuvardhan, to rule the eastern part of Andhra with Veṅgī as his capital.
At first a “crown prince” in Pulakeśī's kingdom, Kubja Viṣṇuvardhan eventually
became the founder of the Eastern Cālukya dynasty. The kings of this dynasty,
who are known as the architects of Andhra identity, ruled for a full six centuries,
from A.D. 610–1210, achieving a unique position as the most powerful dynasty in
the history of Andhra.
Kubja Viṣṇuvardhan, or Viṣṇuvardhan I, ruled in Veṅgī from A.D. 624–42. This

Viṣṇuvardhan's original name was “Biṭṭarasa”; this is the name carved on the
seal of his Satara grant inscription. The great Andhra historian B.
Venkatakrishna Rao (p.92) (1973: 84) explains the name as follows: “The
prakrit and perhaps the original form of name given to him at the time of his
birth seems to be Bitta, as it appears on the seal of his Satara Grant as Bittarasa
which became expanded into the Sanskrit form of Vishnuvardhana in later days.”
This information—that the birth name of this younger brother of Pulakeśī II of
Badāmī in Northern Karnataka was Biṭṭa or Biṭṭarasa (Biṭṭarāja), and that his
Prakrit (Deśī) name was Sanskritized as Viṣṇuvardhan—is important for our
purposes. Because of the influence of this powerful founder, another ten
members of this dynasty, one in almost every second generation, took the name
Viṣṇuvardhan. Not all of them had Biṭṭa or Biṭṭarasa as their original name. But
the fifth Viṣṇuvardhan in this Cālukya lineage of Veṅgī, Kalī Viṣṇuvardhan, had
the same original name as Kubja Viṣṇuvardhan.
Kalī Viṣṇuvardhan ruled for only eighteen months, from A.D. 847 to 848.
According to one view, the epithet kalī preceding his name means
“hero” (Venkata Ramanayya 1950: 90); however, Venkatakrishna Rao (1953: 176)
believes that it is a short form of the epithet “Kalivallabha,” “Fond of
Quarreling.” As Venkatakrishna Rao (1973: 176) informs us, “Kali
Vishnuvardhana, whose name appears as Kali Vittarasa…in Prakrit form, was
indeed a powerful prince.…”
Thus, there were two kings in the dynasty of the Cālukyas of Veṅgī whose
original name was Biṭṭa/Biṭṭarasa or Viṭṭa/Viṭṭarasa. This is the original Deśī13
name that was Sanskritized as “Viṣṇuvardhan.” The syllable rasa in Biṭṭarasa or
Viṭṭarasa is a short, more easily pronounceable form of the Kannada term aras
(“king”), leaving as the original name just Biṭṭa or Viṭṭa. “Viṭṭar” or “Kalī Viṭhar”
also occurs as an alternative name of Kalī Viṭṭaras. If we remember that the
Page 12 of 15
Viṭṭhaleśvar
consonants r and l are interchangeable,14 it is clear that this name is the same as
“Viṭṭhal.”
These two Viṣṇuvardhans and their original Deśī name Biṭṭa/Biṭṭarasa bring to
mind Viṣṇuvardhan of the Hoysal.a Yādava dynasty of Dvārasamudram.
Viṣṇuvardhan Hoysal.a accepted Vaiṣṇavism in the sphere of influence of
Rāmānujācārya. Inscriptions record his original name as Biṭṭiga, Biṭṭidev, or
Viṭṭhal.15 This Hoysal.a Viṭṭhal-Viṣṇuvardhan lived in the twelfth century (A.D.
1104–41), and the two Viṭṭhal-Viṣṇuvardhans of the Cālukya family of Veṅgī lived
in the seventh and ninth centuries A.D., respectively.
From the names of these three kings we learn that the tendency to Sanskritize
the Deśī names Biṭṭa, Biṭṭiga, Viṭṭa, Viṭṭar, and Viṭṭhal as Viṣṇuvardhan dates
back to the seventh century A.D., and that since that time there have been
people with sufficient devotion for the folk deity Viṭṭhal to name a child of theirs
“Viṭṭhal.” The Viṭṭhaleśvar in Bhaṭṭiprolu, a village that was ruled by the
Cālukyas of Veṅgī, must have been established by either the first or the fifth
Viṣṇuvardhan in the dynasty, and that place of Śiva must have been named
Viṭṭhaleśvar after its (p.93) founder, Viṭṭhal. It is an Īśvar established by a king
named Viṭṭhal, and therefore it is Viṭṭhaleśvar. If the deity Viṭṭhal is involved at
all, his connection is with the name of the king who established the god, not with
the Śiva that the king established. The Cālukya kings of Veṅgī were great
devotees of Śiva, and they built innumerable Śiva temples in Andhra Pradesh.
Vijayāditya Narendramṛgarāj of this dynasty, for example, built 108 Śiva temples
to commemorate his 108 tours of victory, expressing in this magnificent way his
gratitude for Śiva's grace (Venkata-krishna Rao 1973: “Foreword,” p. i). This
gives us a clear idea of the Eastern Cālukyas’ devotion to Śiva as well as of the
large number of Śiva temples they erected.
Thus, the Viṭṭhaleśvar of Bhaṭṭiprolu does not provide evidence of a Śaiva

elevation of Viṭṭhal. However this Viṭṭhaleśvar might provide evidence of faith in
Viṭṭhal, indicated by the birth name of the temple's founder. This allows us to
date the name Viṭṭhal and, in turn, the folk deity Viṭṭhal, to before the seventh
century.
Conclusion
These observations about Viṭṭhaleśvar expand the field of study of Viṭṭhal.
Examining places like Lepākṣī gives us a different understanding of the process
of elevation of folk deities. The fact that Viṭṭhaleśvar took different forms in
Hampī and Lepākṣī, even though these two places developed under the same
political power, encourages scholarly caution. In particular, because Pandharpur
was developed first, then Hampī, and finally Lepākṣī, it is noteworthy that the
Viṭṭhaleśvar of Lepākṣī should reject the process of elevation that occurred in
Pandharpur and Hampī. We cannot assume, then, that the process of elevation of
a single folk deity will take place in the same way everywhere. The process will
Page 13 of 15
Viṭṭhaleśvar
be determined differently in different places, depending on the relative strength

of the social and religious influences at work in each place. I for one realized this
fact earlier in connection with Lajjāgaurī and Mhāl.sā (D.here 1978a, 1978b),
and now Viṭṭhal has brought it home to me once again.
Notes:
(1.) Translator's note: See chapter 3, n. 1, above.
(2.) Translator's note: See chapter 4, above.
(3.) Viṣṇoḥ śrīviṭṭhaleśasya sannidhau muktidāyini. Epigraphia Carnatica 5, Ak.

126.
(4.) vibudhair gīyamānasya cakriṇaḥ / triniṣkasaṅkhyakā bhūmir viṭṭhaleśasya

kalpitā // ṛṣibhi stūyamānasya grāmadevasya dhūrjaṭe / triniṣkasaṅkhyakā
bhūmiḥ śaṅkarasya ca kalpitā. Epigraphia Carnatica, 7, Sh. 54.
(5.) Translator's note: “Cakrin” is a name of Viṣṇu that refers to his holding a
discus (cakra).
(6.) In Mūḷbāgal, a holy place in Karnataka, Viṭṭhal has dwelt in glory for the
past four centuries under the clearly Vaiṣṇava title “Viṭṭhal Nārāyaṇ Svāmī.”
(7.) Dhanpalvar states, “Even the temple in Bhaṭṭiprolu is not named only for
Viṭṭhal, but it is well known today by the joint name Viṭṭhaleśvar-
Malleśvar” (Dhanpalvār 1981d). This statement does not fit with the facts on the
ground today.
(8.) Translator's note: The Mātṛkās are a group of “mother goddesses,” usually
eight in number, who are depicted as a row of sculpted figures in many temples
in South India.
(9.) Translator's note: Pārvatī is Śiva's wife, Gaṇeś and Subrahmaṇya their sons.
(10.) Translator's note: November–December.
(11.) Translator's note: Mallikārjun is the name of Śiva in the principal temple at
Śrīśaila. Pātālgaṅgā is the main bathing place there, far downhill from the main
temple, on the steep bank of the Kṛṣṇā River.
(12.) In a scholarly work about the temples at Śrīśaila, M. Rama Rao (1967: 16)
states: “Harihara II of Vijayanagara was a great devotee of god Mallikarjuna of
Srisailam. This monarch built the mukha-mantapa before the Mallikarjuna
temple and enlarged the mantapa of the southern gopura. This king's wife
Vithalamba a Kadamba princess, constructed steps leading to the Patalaganga
and set up an image of Vithalesvara.”
(13.) Translator's note: That is, derived from the local language, not Sanskrit.
Page 14 of 15
Viṭṭhaleśvar
(14.) The Sanskrit phonological rule expressing this is “ralayor abhedaḥ.”
(15.) Derrett 1957. A general of Viṣṇuvardhan Hoysaḷa was known by the Deśī
name “Viṭṭiyaṇṇā” or the Sanskrit name “Viṣṇu Daṇḍādhipa.” See Coelho 1950:
98.
Page 15 of 15
In Search of the Original Image of Viṭṭhal


Print ISBN-13: 9780199777594
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.001.0001

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.003.0007

This chapter argues that the image of Viṭṭhal described in the Māhātmyas is
most closely replicated by that in the Viṭṭhal temple at Māḍhe (Madhe Taluka,
Solapur District). Dhere shows that the obscure mantra carved on the chest of
that image is the mantra referred to in the oldest Māhātmya of Pandharpur. He
then discusses the numerous occasions on which the image of Viṭṭhal was moved
from Pandharpur, including one time (in a.d. 1659) when it was moved to Māḍhe.
He argues that the image presently at Māḍhe is, in other ways too, much closer
to the descriptions in literary sources than is the image presently installed in the
Viṭṭhal temple at Pandharpur. Dhere concludes that the original image was
returned to Pandharpur from Māḍhe, and the image presently in Māḍhe is a
replica made to commemorate the original one from Pandharpur that stayed
there temporarily.
Keywords: Madhe Taluka, Pandharpur, literary sources
pandharpur is the religious heart of Maharashtra, and Lord Viṭṭhal, who lives
there, is the favorite god of the Marathi saints. Numerous saints and holy men,
from Jn͂āndev to Tukārām and Niḷobā, have sung freely of his beauty and virtues.
In the eyes of their faith, his beauty radiates the “light of millions of moons.” His
profoundly mysterious blueness, which puts the sky to shame, adorns their
vision. Repeating again and again that “[s]eeing his beauty makes me happy, my
friend,” the saints express their great joy in the sight of that beauty.
Page 1 of 28
What was the image that was established even before Jn͂āndev, before the
Yādava period, the image in which the Marathi saints experienced this “core of
the life-force” (caitanyācā gābhā)? Does that same image reside in Viṭṭhal's
temple today? Must not another image have been substituted for the original
when various natural and political calamities caused it to be moved to another
place? Many such questions continue to be asked, and scholars continue to
answer the questions based on available sources. But no evidence has yet been
found that can provide definitively satisfying answers. Part of the reason for this
is a fact that I pointed out in chapter 1: most scholars conducting research on
Pandharpur and Lord Viṭṭhal have neglected the Māhātmyas of Pandharpur.1 (p.
95)
The Extraordinary Feature of the Image in the Māhātmyas

Both the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya attributed to the Padma Purāṇa and the one
attributed to the Skanda Purāṇa tell of a unique feature of the image of Lord
Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur, a feature so exceptional that it is the only way to identify
the original image. This is the fact that the mantra of Lord Viṭṭhal is carved
directly over the image's heart. In the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the Padma
Purāṇa, the six syllables of the mantra are compared to a beautiful string of
pearls (3.42): “wearing the Śrīvatsa2 on his chest, [and] a string of pearls
consisting of six syllables.…” Another reference in the same text to this “row of
syllables,” or line of letters, is found in a list of ornaments on the god's chest
(26.51): “the Vaijayantī,3 the row of syllables, the Śrīvatsa, the forest garland.…”
Later in this same Māhātmya, the sage Vaiśampāyana describes the six-syllable
mantra to Lord Viṭṭhal's beloved, Padmā: “The anuṣṭubh is its meter, Vyāsa is its
sage, the Lord of Śrī is its deity; this mantra (manuḥ) is Vaiṣṇava; it gave yogic
power to Nārada through its six syllables4” (PMPP 27.10). In the next two
verses, Vaiśampāyana gives an enigmatic description of this six-syllable Vaiṣṇava
mantra.
Like the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the Padma Purāṇa, the one from the
Skanda Purāṇa also describes Lord Viṭṭhal as “possessing a great
mantra” (7.32). This Māhātmya states clearly, “O divine sage, the syllables of a
mantra are visible on his chest” (11.37). Portraying Śaṅkar (Śiva) himself
teaching the secret mantra to the great sage Nārada, this text too refers to it in
enigmatic words:
sparśādyaṃ satyanāmādyaṃ pṛṣṭaṣaṣṭaṃ sadīrghakam

ṣaṇaṃ ṣaṣṭānityantaṃ samāraṃ taṃ vidur abudhāḥ (11.73).
This is the reading in a manuscript that was copied in Śake 1688. Another,
incomplete manuscript has the corrupt readings ṣaṣṭaṃ ṣaṣṭaṃ instead of
pṛṣṭaṣaṣṭaṃ, ṣaṣṭādinatyantaṃ instead of ṣaṣṭānityantaṃ, and samādaṃ instead
of samāraṃ.5 The intentionally obfuscatory language and the corruptions that
were probably introduced by scribes make it difficult to give a clear
Page 2 of 28
interpretation of the cryptic mantra. However, in order to identify the image, it is

not necessary to interpret the mantra. At present all we need to know is that
Lord Viṭṭhal's mantra is carved over the heart of his image, and that it contains
(with some variant readings) the cryptic words cited here.
Support From other Sources

Other sources also attest to these unusual features of the image. The “Viṭṭhala-
sahasranāmastotra” (verse 65) describes Viṭṭhal as “composed of six syllables”;
(p.96) the “Viṭṭhalāṣṭottaraśatanāmastotra” (verse 20) calls him “one on whose
heart there is a line of mantra syllables.”6 Śrīdharsvāmī Nājharekar was
extremely well acquainted with the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmyas ascribed to the
Padma Purāṇa and the Skanda Purāṇa; his Marathi Paṇḍharī Māhātmya, the
most popular Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya in Maharashtra, mentions several times
the six-syllable mantra on the god's heart (2.83, 3.70–74, 6.42, 7.39). Of course,
we cannot be certain whether Śrīdharsvāmī saw the image himself, or whether
he was simply translating a Sanskrit text into Marathi. But it seems likely that he
would have seen the mantra, as he regularly went to the temple for darśan of the
god.
Cāṅgā Keśavdās was a holy man from Puṇatāmbe in the lineage of Cāṅgā
Vaṭeśvar. His descendant Śyāmjī Gosāvī Marudgaṇ wrote a biography of Cāṅgā
Keśavdās in ovī verses, stating that Pāṇḍuraṅga himself initiated Cāṅgā
Keśavdās into the six-syllable mantra at Pandharpur (Marudgaṇ 1904: 13, verses
5.120, 123; 6.1). This same Cāṅgā Keśavdās is said to have rebuilt the Viṭṭhal
temple after it was destroyed by Muslims. It is undoubtedly significant that his
biography refers to the “six-syllable mantra.”
Where Is the Image with the Syllables of the Mantra?

The image in the temple at Pandharpur today has no letters carved over its
heart. However, an exceptional image of this sort does exist. It is found in
Maharashtra, in Solapur District, the same district in which Pandharpur is
located. Moreover, the image is not in a state of neglect, but is well established
and regularly worshiped in a temple that has been built expressly for it (figures
6–1 and 66–2). This is a matter of delight to Marathi devotees: we are able to see
an image just like the one on whose feet all the great saints from Jn͂āndev to
Tukobā placed their heads, whose chest they hugged in the fullness of love. The
image is found in the Viṭṭhal temple in the village of Māḍhe in Māḍhe Taluka.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the great historian Rajvade published
an article entitled “Māḍhe yethīl Viṭhobācyā Hṛdayāvarīl Lekh” (“The Inscription
on Viṭhobā's Heart in Māḍhe”; Rājvāḍe 1905b). Rajvade wrote:
Māḍhe is a Taluka headquarters in Solapur District. The following verse is

carved on the image in the temple of Viṭhobā there:
śrī sparśādyaṃ satyanāmādyaṃ
Page 3 of 28
ṣaṇaṣaṭū sadīrghakaṃ // ṣa
ṭūṣaṭū dinaṃtyaṃtaṃ sa
sāraṃ taṃ vidurbu (p.97)
dhāḥ // śrī
vatsa
The following lines are

carved on the step
with the kīrtimukh7 on
it, at the temple
threshold:
rāva māhādājī
niṃbā
ḷakara
śeraṇāṃgata
pāṇḍuraṅga
ceraṇīṃ
In other words,
Māhādājī Nimbāḷkar
built this temple.
The Nimbāḷkars were the

jagirdar8 family of
Māḍhe. The old mansion Figure 6–1 The Viṭṭhal temple at Māḍhe.
that Rambhājī Nimbāḷkar Photo by Anne Feldhaus.
built in Māḍhe is still
there. No one can doubt
that the inscription on the heart of the image in this Viṭṭhal temple built by
Māhādājī Nimbāḷkar is identical with the cryptic verse in the Pāṇḍuraṅga
Māhātmya from the Skanda (p.98)
Page 4 of 28
Purāṇa. Any differences are due

simply to the fact that the
inscription contains some variant
readings, just as there are variants
between the two manuscripts of
the Māhātmya. If Rajvade had had
a chance to study the Māhātmya
from the Skanda Purāṇa, he would
have come to this conclusion
three-quarters of a century ago.
Solving The Enigma of the
Mantra
At first I thought that the six-
syllable mantra of Śrī Viṭṭhal
must be vi-ṭṭha-lā-ya na-maḥ.
Indeed, there is an incomplete
manuscript about the mantra of
the name of Viṭṭhal that gives a
spiritual explanation of oṃ
viṭṭhalāya namaḥ.9 However,
the six-syllable mantra in the
cryptic verse that occurs both in
the Māhātmya in the Skanda
Purāṇa and over the heart of
the image at Māḍhe is not Figure 6–2 An interior view of the Viṭṭhal
viṭṭhalāya namaḥ but rather śrī temple at Māḍhe. Photo by Anne
kṛṣṇāya namaḥ. Feldhaus.
(p.99) For guidance in

explicating this cryptic verse, I wrote to Acharya V. P. Limaye, an eminent pandit
who specializes in the Vedas and Sanskrit grammar. He replied immediately, in
his usual extremely concise style, giving the solution to the puzzle. Here I will
use my own words to expand his thoroughly convincing explanation:
Even though scribal errors have caused some small differences in spelling
between the similar readings in the two manuscripts of the Māhātmya from
the Skanda Purāṇa and the inscription over the heart of the image at
Māḍhe, the intended meaning is undoubtedly the same. Taking the scribal
errors into account, it seems that the last foot of the verse is saṃsāraṃ
taṃ vidur budhāḥ (“Knowledgeable people know that mantra along with its
secret meaning”). When we set this fourth foot aside, it becomes clear that
the secret of the mantra is contained in the first three feet of the verse.
In the first foot, the word śrī in the inscription expresses auspiciousness; it
indicates god's sovereignty, his worthiness to be worshiped. It is the first
syllable in the basic mantra. After the word śrī, the first foot has the two
Page 5 of 28
words sparśādyaṃ satyanāmādyaṃ. Sparśādyaṃ means the first of the

“touching” letters (consonants). According to the Pāṇinian rule, kādayo
māntāḥ sparśāḥ (“The touching letters are those from k to m”), “the first of
the touching letters” means k, the first consonant of the alphabet. Next,
satyanāmādyaṃ means the first letter of (another) word for satya (truth).
The other word for satya is ṛta. The synonymity of ṛta and satya is
expressed in Vedic passages like Ṛg Veda 10.190.1: ṛtaṃ ca satyaṃ
cābhīddhāttapaso ’dhyajāyata (“Cosmic order [ṛta] and truth [satya] were
born from inflamed ascetic heat.”). Thus, “the first letter of the word for
satya” means the first letter, ṛ, in the word ṛta. Now, combining “the first of
the consonants” (k) and “the first letter of the word for satya” (ṛ) gives us
the first syllable of the god's name in the mantra, kṛ.
The second and third feet of the verse contain words like ṣaṇ or ṣaṭ, as well
as the adjective sadīrghakaṃ, indicating that the intended syllable is long.
Even though there are spelling mistakes in these words, still, on reflection,
we can see that they refer to the Pāṇinian sūtra ṣṇāntāḥ ṣaṭ (1.1.24). The
technical term ṣaṭ is used for the number words ṣaṣ (six), which ends in -ṣ,
and pañcan (five), saptan (seven), navan (nine), and daśan (ten), which end
in -n. The word ṣṇāntāḥ refers to these two kinds of numerical words, those
ending in ṣ and those ending in n. Of course, what is intended is the ṣṇa in
this word, and it is once again characterized as “long” (sadīrghaka). Thus,
the syllable ṣṇā comes after kṛ in the mantra. Because the mantra ends, as
we will (p.100) see, with the final word namaḥ (homage), the dative case
must necessarily be used for the one to whom homage is to be paid. This
produces kṛ + ṣṇā + ya, the dative form, “Kṛṣṇāya,” of the name “Kṛṣṇa.”
We deduce the word namaḥ by considering the different corrupt readings

of the end of the third foot and deciding that the author of the verse must
have meant the word natyaṃtaṃ. Natyaṃtaṃ means “[the mantra] with
nati at its end.” Nati means “homage,” and that means the word namaḥ,
which expresses homage. In this way, along with the initial śrī, the mantra
śrī kṛṣṇāya namaḥ (“Homage to Lord Kṛṣṇa”) emerges from the cryptic
syllables in the first three feet.
This mantra is completely fitting for the image itself. The image is one of Kṛṣṇa—
of the child Kṛṣṇa—and the mantra too is one of homage to Kṛṣṇa.
The Cryptic Mantra in the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya in the Padma purāṇa

As we have seen, the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya in the Padma Purāṇa also mentions
more than once the six-syllable mantra on the heart of the image of Viṭṭhal. The
text refers to this mantra in two places in different cryptic ways (PMPP 8.4–7
and 27.10–12).10 It is unclear how to interpret this mantra puzzle. If tradition
told the author of this Māhātmya that the mantra in the Māhātmya from the
Skanda Purāṇa is śrī kṛṣṇāya namaḥ, perhaps he created a different puzzle in
Page 6 of 28
order to say the same thing in his own way. On the other hand, if he did not
know about this mantra, perhaps he created a different one. So far no skilled
interpreter has solved this mantra puzzle as skillfully as Acharya Limaye solved
the one in the Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa.11 Until someone does so,
there is nothing more to say about it.
Even if the mantra indicated in the Padma Purāṇa proves to be different from the
one in the Skanda Purāṇa, that would not invalidate the description of the image
in the Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa. This is because the Māhātmya from
the Padma Purāṇa was composed after the one from the Skanda Purāṇa. As I
showed in the first chapter, the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the Padma Purāṇa
dates from the fifteenth or sixteenth century, whereas the one from the Skanda
Purāṇa predates Hemādri, who lived in the thirteenth century. This means that
the original features of the Viṭṭhal image in Pandharpur must be the
extraordinary ones that the Skanda Purāṇa's Māhātmya describes, not any
different features described in a later text.
(p.101) Sa¯vata¯ Maha¯ra¯j's Description of Vit․t․hal

The saints looked at their object of worship with the eyes of faith. In their world
of faith, Viṭṭhal is Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa, and so they saw him in the form of all of Viṣṇu's
incarnations and in the context of all his divine deeds (līlās). In particular, the
literature of the saints is full of descriptions of Viṭṭhal as Kṛṣṇa and in terms of
Kṛṣṇa's līlās. Of course, not all of these descriptions are directly useful for
determining what the image of Lord Viṭ#x1e6d;hal in Pandharpur looked like.
Nevertheless, detailed examination of the saints’ descriptions in the light of
other kinds of evidence can provide a general idea of the saints’ testimony about
the features of the actual, visible image of Viṭṭhal in his temple.
The most obvious features of the description of Viṭṭhal in the saints’ literature
are that, as we saw in chapter 2, he is the “naked child” Gopāl Kṛṣṇa, and that,
even as he carries the Vaiṣṇava marks appropriate to that form, he places both
his hands at his waist. This insistence on keeping “both hands at the waist,” seen
in the Māhātmya, in the literature of the saints, and in all sculptural
representations of Viṭṭhal everywhere, clearly indicates that this is an original,
unique feature of the god.
Page 7 of 28
It would be inconsistent with the saints’ faith-based point of view to expect that
their descriptions would note the details as accurately as the Māhātmya from
the Skanda Purāṇa does, or to expect them to include all the iconographic
features of the image. Nevertheless, if any medieval saint were found to have
mentioned the “six-syllable Kṛṣṇa mantra” on the chest of the original image of
Viṭṭhal, our sorrow that we are lacking the testimony of the saints would be done
away with. Luckily, a leading devotee from the time of Jn͂āndev has given us such
testimony. In an unpublished abhaṅga, Sāvatā Māḷī describes “the form of
Viṭṭhal” after contemplating it intently with great care:12
The form of Viṭṭhal is inestimably broad.

His heart-lotus is marked with a mantra.
His image is naked, delicate, dark;
he has anklets on his legs and bracelets on his wrists.
His hands are on his hips; in the hands are a lotus and a conch.
He holds the stem of the bud with his thumb.
Sāvatā Māḷī says, “The true Word-Brahman
in the Kali Age is the name of Viṭṭhal.”
“The form of Viṭṭhal” is “inestimable” and “broad.” Making himself and the
world aware of that at the outset, Sāvatā Mahārāj describes the god's visible
form (p.102) in very few words. The description makes the image stand before
our eyes. The Viṭṭhal that Sāvatā Mahārāj has “seen” is a naked child; his color
is dark, his luster is delicate, he wears anklets and bracelets on his ankles and
wrists. His two hands, resting on his waist, hold Vaiṣṇava attributes: a lotus in
the right hand and a conch in the left. The lotus is not a full-blown flower, but a
bud, and he clasps the stem of the bud between his right thumb and forefinger.
Although this description is the familiar one, still the “nakedness” is worth
noting, as it is an important characteristic of the original image of Viṭṭhal. But
the unique feature, which Sāvatā Mahārāj describes in the very first verse, is the
“heart-lotus…marked with a mantra.”
The purpose of the abhaṅga is to describe what Viṭṭhal looks like to the human
eye. In this context, the term “heart-lotus” undoubtedly indicates the chest, the
breast. Sāvatā Mahārāj uses the term “heart-lotus,” analogous to “lotus eyes” or
“lotus feet,” to refer lovingly to the chest of the object of his worship. Rajvade
calls the inscription on the chest of the image in Māḍhe “the inscription on the
heart.” Similarly, in his unpublished Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya, Bālamukunda
Kesarī describes the mantra-syllables on the chest by saying, “the heart is
carved with the syllables of a mantra.”13
What is this heart-lotus—that is, the chest—of the god like? It is “marked by a
mantra”! This direct testimony by a Yādava-period Viṭṭhal devotee like Sāvatā
Mahārāj confirms the Māhātmya's statement that a mantra is carved on the
chest of the original image of Viṭṭhal.
Page 8 of 28
The Image Delightful to the Eyes

The image of Viṭṭhal at Māḍhe is extremely beautiful (figure 6–3). This image is
not the least bit rough; it is smooth and polished. It portrays a completely naked
child Kṛṣṇa. On his head is a carved crown like a cowherd's cap. Conch-shaped
earrings hang down to his shoulders on both sides. Draped over his left shoulder
and under his right arm is a sacred thread consisting of three strings. Around
his neck are two necklaces, one at his throat and the other hanging down over
his heart; the Kaustubh gem adorns the lower of these two. On his chest, the
mysterious name-mantra is carved in the triangle formed by the two necklaces
(figure 6–4). The letters śrī-va-tsa at the end of the mantra indicate the Śrīvatsa
mark. Around the waist of the image there is a broad band with small bells
attached to it. The left hand holds a conch, and the palm of the right hand rests
on a stick and holds a lotus bud in its fingers. Both hands, the one holding the
conch and the one holding the lotus, rest on the waist of the image. There are
armbands on the upper arms, bracelets at the wrists, and small toe-rings on the
feet. A third eye is visible on the (p.103)
Figure 6–3 The image of Viṭṭhal at

Māḍhe. Photo by Anne Feldhaus.
Page 9 of 28
(p.104) forehead, and strings

tied on the top of the head can be
seen clearly extending back along
the forehead on both sides. The
string on the right side comes
down along the back of the right
arm, but the string on the left side
is not visible below the head.
Beneath the stand (a brick) on
which both feet rest next to each
other is a square platform like a
shallow pool. Its left side has a
long channel. It is clear that this is
the arrangement to allow water
used in bathing the image to flow
off. Here too, as in Pandharpur,
Lord Viṭṭhal is alone, without his
wife.
The Description in the
Māhātmya from The Skanda
purāṇa
Even if we allow that there are
mistakes in some respects in my
Figure 6–4 The inscription on the heart
observation and description of
of the Viṭṭhal image at Māḍhe. Photo by
the image of Viṭṭhal at Māḍhe,
Anne Feldhaus.
the mantra carved over the
image's heart and the
nakedness that indicates the image's form as a cowherd boy are both clear
enough for anyone to observe and confirm. These are two of the three
exceptional features of the original image of Viṭṭhal as described in the
Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya attributed to the Skanda Purāṇa: (1) the god's name-
mantra is carved in a cryptic verse over his heart; (2) he is portrayed as a naked
cowherd boy; and (3) there is a third eye on his forehead. None of these features
characterizes the image of Viṭṭhal in his temple at Pandharpur, and all three are
clearly visible in the image at Māḍhe. In addition to these three features, the
cowherd's staff grasped in the god's right hand is also significant. The image at
Pandharpur is not completely naked: Viṭṭhal wears a loincloth, and the end of the
loincloth hangs between his legs. This loincloth-end is customarily taken to be
his cowherd staff.
Two passages in the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa describe
the Lord Kṛṣṇa who came to Pandharpur for the sake of Puṇḍalīk (1.38–47 and
6.58–72). These descriptions bear such a natural, lively similarity to the image at
Māḍhe that the author of the Māhātmya must have had before his eyes an image
just like it as he wrote. In addition, the second chapter of the Māhātmya refers
(in verse 42) to the image as “having letters” and to the “heavenly mantra” that
Page 10 of 28
is woven in those letters. The Māhātmya describes the nakedness of this five-
year-old-boy Kṛṣṇa with adjectives like “sky-clad” (digvāsā, 1.42; digambara,
6.64). It describes his two lovely, lotus-like eyes and the beautiful third eye that
adorns his forehead (cārupadmekṣaṇaḥ śrīmān lalāṭekṣaṇaśobhitaḥ, 1.40). Both
descriptions (1.47 and 6.71) mention the “cowherd's staff” ( goyaṣṭī). Clearly, the
god who holds a cowherd's staff, leaning it at his feet (6.71), is Gopāl, the god
who herds cows.
The Māhātmya gives a narrative explanation of the fact that the string on the left
side of Viṭṭhal's image is not visible below the head: when a certain demon
named Tridaṃṣṭra was out hunting, he came to Pandharpur. As soon as (p.105)
he realized that his enemy was living there, he struck the god with a mace.
Then the god hit Tridaṃṣṭra with his left hand, made him vomit blood, and killed
him. However, the blow of Tridaṃṣṭra's mace had broken the string on the god's
left side. This mark can be seen on the god's image to this day! In this way, the
Māhātmya bears witness to the broken string that is found on the image at
Māḍhe and not on the one at Pandharpur. I see no need of further evidence that
the original image worshiped by the great saint-devotees of Lord Viṭṭhal was just
like the one at Māḍhe.
Relocation of the Image

Thus, although the name-mantra is not to be found on the image in the temple of
Viṭṭhal in Pandharpur today, the mantra is carved, in the exact words indicated in
the Māhātmya, over the heart of the image in Māḍhe. This fact is revealing, as
are the other ways in which the image at Māḍhe fits the description in the
Māhātmya better than the image at Pandharpur does. Could it be that the old
image of Viṭṭhal from Pandharpur was moved at some time to Māḍhe?
We know that during the period of the Sultanates (fifteenth–seventeenth

centuries) there were several crises during which the image of Viṭṭhal from
Pandharpur had to be moved elsewhere. Numerous texts about the Marathi
saints relate that a Hindu king at the time of Saint Bhānudās took the image to
his own capital, and that Bhānudās brought the image back. However, there is
no evidence to help us ascertain whether or not this story is true, or, if it is true,
when it took place. The image in Bhānudās's family home, in the shrine of his
descendant Eknāth's courtyard house in Paiṭhaṇ, is named “Vijay Viṭṭhal”; this
name is connected with Vijayanagar's Viṭṭhal, and the image is carved in the
style of a southern Viṭṭhal image from the Vijayanagar period. Moreover, the
image is small, a fact that coheres well with the story that “god became small
enough to fit into Bhānudās's saddle bag” as they returned to Maharashtra from
Vijayanagar. However, the southern tradition holds that Viṭṭhal came to
Vijayanagar not from Pandharpur but from Veṅkaṭagiri (Venkata Ramanayya
1946).
Page 11 of 28
There is a great deal of evidence about occasions when the image of Viṭṭhal was
taken out of Pandharpur for safekeeping, mostly because of Muslim
encroachments. Pandharpur was threatened during Afjhal Khān's campaign in
1659. There are also references to Pandharpur and the god being in danger
when Auraṅgzeb camped at Brahmapuri near Pandharpur for four or five years,
beginning in 1695. In between these two events, many other crises of this sort
occurred, and the god's image was moved to Ciñcolī, Guḷsare, Degāv, and other
nearby villages. There was (p.106) even one occasion when a Baḍve priest
carried off the image and hid it for his own benefit, in order to blackmail
devotees who were eager for its darśan (Khare 1963: 18–23)!
In editing the lengthy Marathi inscription in Pandharpur called the “Eighty-four”

inscription, Rajvade provided important information about the occasions when
the image of Viṭṭhal was moved (Rājvāḍe 1905d):
After Śake 1465 [A.D. 1543], the next major inauspicious period for the
image of Viṭhobā of Pandharpur was about to occur at the hands of Afjhal
Khān in Śake 1581 [A.D. 1659]. However, the Baḍves are said to have
removed the image in the nick of time and to have placed it in the village of
Māḍhe, twenty miles from Pandharpur. Later, after Afjhal Khān had been
killed, they brought the image back, and an independent temple and image
of Viṭhobā were installed in Māḍhe in memory of this inauspicious period.
This clearly means that the image of Viṭṭhal was moved to Māḍhe at the time of
Afjhal Khān's campaign in A.D. 1659, and that people from Māḍhe built a temple
of Viṭṭhal in their village as a memorial to their connection with Lord Viṭṭhal.
This oral tradition, along with the fact that still today the unique features of the
ancient image of Viṭṭhal are found only in the image at Māḍhe, provides strong
evidence that what was installed in the new temple at Māḍhe must have been
either the original image or one exactly like it.
What did happen in Pandharpur during Afjhal Khān's campaign? How was the
image moved, and who moved it? Which Nimbāḷkar was in Māḍhe at the time?
Was a new temple built in Māḍhe on that occasion, or was the image simply
installed in an old temple that was already there? If a new temple was built,
where and how was the image kept until the new temple was ready? All these
questions need to be investigated.
Aside from Rajvade's oral sources, there are a number of historical texts that
support to various degrees the view that the image of Viṭṭhal was moved out of
Pandharpur on the occasion of Afjhal Khān's campaign. Ajn͂āndās's ballad
(povāḍā) refers to the image getting broken and to Puṇḍalīk being thrown into
the water, but this reference seems to have been made only in order to stir up
emotions in Ajn͂āndās's audience. The author of the Sabhāsad Bakhar refers
vaguely to the god having been “assaulted.” One of the documents from
Page 12 of 28
Pandharpur that Rajvade published says only that “Afjhal Khān's trouble (tasvīs)
affected the holy place” (Rājvāḍe 1915: 232); according to Dattopant A¯pṭe, in
his introduction to the Śivabhārata, the date of the document that states this is
Māgh vadya 1, Śake 1589 (nearly a decade after A.D. 1659. Divekar 1927: 164).
(p.107) Other documents and texts give stronger evidence. One document
states that “while Alipātśāy was in Vijāpur,” in Śake 1581 (A.D. 1659), “the
image of Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur was removed” (Purandare 1926: 68). Yet another
important reference is found in a Sanskrit Śivājī poem by Saṅkarṣaṇa
Sakaḷakaḷā. Rajeshvar Gosvami, a student of G. H. Khare, edited this text under
Khare's guidance and demonstrated that the author of the poem was a
contemporary of Śivājī. The poem states that Afjhal Khān gave Pāṇḍuraṅga, who
loved Puṇḍarīk, digaṃta viśrānta-gati. The word digaṃta indicates that the
image was moved, and the words viśrānta-gati assert that those who desired
darśan of the god were cheated out of it. In other words, this poet informs us
that during the time of Śivājī the image was taken and hidden somewhere as a
precaution (Gosvāmī 1974: 41). Thus, even if strong evidence is found that in
1659 the image was moved not to Māḍhe but somewhere else, we would still
have to locate the image that the Māhātmya describes as looking exactly like the
one that is now to be seen in Māḍhe.
The Devotees’ Point of View

A senior, careful pandit from Pandharpur who is also an excellent historian of the
Vārkarī sect, B. P. (“Baburav”) Bahirat, disagrees that the image of Viṭṭhal was
moved at the time of Afjhal Khān's campaign (Bahiraṭ 1981b: 2). He wants to
know why I should allow oral information that Baḍves gave Rajvade seventy-five
years ago14 to convince me that the image was moved to Māḍhe. To investigate
further, Bahirat questioned a number of older people in Pandharpur and learned
a different version, that during Afjhal Khān's campaign the sanctuary was walled
in. That is, Bahirat simply uses another, “correct” oral tradition to disprove the
“incorrect” oral tradition that Rajvade found.
Bahirat also asks whether the hundreds of thousands of devotees who come to
take darśan of the image would not have realized that it had changed. My
answer is that indeed they would not have realized this, and that they still do not
know it. On 25 January 1981, Bahirat himself said, in his own house, in the
presence of four people, that thirty or thirty-five years earlier, when the image of
another of the principal gods of Pandharpur was broken, a new image was
installed without the fact being revealed to the devotees. For thirty or thirty-five
years not a single devotee who came for darśan of the god had said a word.
Among the subsidiary deities in the Viṭṭhal temple today, there are two friezes of
the Aṣṭamātṛka and Gaṇeś that are worshiped as the Nine Planets. One of these
friezes is in the Śani temple but was previously in the temple of Rukmiṇī. In
November 1982, in a meeting in the Hoḷkar mansion in Pandharpur, one of the
Page 13 of 28
(p.108) Baḍves told me that, in the course of the conflict between the Baḍves
and the Utpāts, it was decided to move the frieze out of the Rukmiṇī temple; the
Baḍve asserted that he broke the frieze as he was digging it out, and that the
two broken pieces were joined with cement. No one who has taken darśan of or
worshiped this broken Aṣṭamātṛkā-Nine Planets image since then has shown any
dissatisfaction with it.
The world of faith is different. A person who takes darśan of a god with the eyes
of faith does not remain conscious of external things. Baburav Bahirat must also
realize this.
The Continuity of the Importance of the Holy Place

The discussion thus far can be summarized as follows: the Sanskrit Pāṇḍuraṅga
Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa is the best source for a study of Pandharpur
and Lord Viṭṭhal. This text states that the unique feature of Viṭṭhal's image is
that there are the syllables of a mantra over its heart. The only extant image
with this feature is found in the temple of Viṭṭhal in Māḍhe. According to
traditional information, in A.D. 1659, at the time of Afjhal Khān's campaign, the
image of Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur was moved to Māḍhe. The Nimbāḷkars built the
Viṭṭhal temple at Māḍhe specifically in order to memorialize this event.15 This
means that the image of Viṭṭhal with the letters of a mantra on it was in the
Yādava-period temple in Pandharpur at least until A.D. 1659—that is, until a
decade after Tukārām's death.
Thus, to see what the original image in the temple at Pandharpur looked like, the
image that was worshiped by the great saints from Jn͂āndev to Tukārām and
Niḷobā, we need only take darśan of the image that has been safely preserved
and worshiped in the temple at Māḍhe. This conclusion does not at all lessen
Pandhar-pur's importance. An image is made of materials that are breakable and
moveable, but the changes it might undergo never diminish the divinity of the
god or the importance of the place where he resides. Many events in Indian
religious history show that a place does not become less important just because
its image changes or is endangered.
The stories of Viśvanāth of Varanasi and Somnāth in Saurashtra are good

examples. During the Mughal period, the temple of Viśvanāth was turned into a
mosque; still today, the Nandī in the Jn͂ānvāpī pavilion faces in the direction of
the original temple. But all Hindus in India believe that the same ancient
Viśvanāth resides right next to the mosque, in the new Viśvanāth temple built by
Ahilyādevī Hoḷkar during the Peśvā period. To this day, Varanasi is still
proclaimed to be the religious (p.109) heart of India. The liṅga of Somnāth was
broken again and again by invaders’ blows, and again and again a new Śiva liṅga
was installed in the same place. However, even though the Śiva liṅga was
replaced, our faith tells us that the same ageless Somnāth resides in each new
liṅga. The religious history of India as a whole contains example after example
Page 14 of 28
not only of such disasters befalling the images of gods, but also of faith that has
remained unbroken nonetheless.
The Lack of Standardization of Images of Vit․t․hal

Suresh Joshi, the curator and head of the historical museum at Ahmadnagar,
makes a significant contribution to the iconography of Viṭṭhal in his article
entitled “The Four-Armed Viṭṭhal of Ṭākḷībhān” (Jośī 1981). Ṭākḷībhān, located
twelve miles from Nevāse in Ahmadnagar District, is a place of Lord Viṭṭhal. It
was the capital of a local king named Bhān, and Joshi reports “a folktale that the
four-armed Lord Viṭṭhal in the temple” on a hill in the center of the village here
“was the family deity of King Bhān.” In addition, Joshi states that the Viṭṭhal
temple, which was renovated in 1977, “is from the Yādava period, and many
fragments of temple carvings from pre-Yādava times are to be found in
Ṭākḷībhān.” If Ṭākḷībhān and its Viṭṭhal temple are this old, study of the four-
armed image could be important not only in relation to the iconography of
Viṭṭhal but also in relation to the formation of Viṭṭhal himself.
The village name Ṭākḷībhān is like “Taḷegāv Dābhāḍe” and “A¯mbe

Jogāī” (Dābhāḍes’ Taḷegāv, Jogāī's Āmbe). In order to differentiate it from a Ṭākḷī
somewhere else (for instance, Bāḷamṭākḷī in Ahmadnagar District), an identifying
marker was placed after “Ṭākḷī,” and the village's name became “Ṭākḷībhān.”
The marker was the name of the local king, Bhān. “Bhān” is a euphonic Marathi
form of the name “Bhānu.” The local tradition has continuously maintained the
memory of this Bhānu; his name has been linked forever with Ṭākḷī; and,
according to Joshi, Lord Viṭṭhal was his family god. Could this King Bhānu have
lived in the Yādava period?
An important inscription in Pandharpur mentions a king named Bhānu who lived

in the Yādava period and was enthusiastically involved in the movement of
devotion to Viṭṭhal. The police station on the left as one goes along the
Mahādvār road from the Viṭṭhal temple to the river in Pandharpur is in an old
temple that has been renovated. Outside this building, at the right rear corner, is
an inscribed stone that has been turned sideways and whose inscription has
been damaged to some extent. The inscription, dated Jyeṣṭha Śuddha 11, Śake
1192 (Sunday, June 1, A.D. 1270), comes from the reign of Mahādevrāv Yādava
of the lineage of the Yādavas (p.110) of Devgiri. It records that Bhānu, the son
of Keśav, in the Kāśyap lineage, in the Sitavāḍak family, carried out an
āptoryāma sacrifice on the bank of the Bhīmā at Pandharpur.16
This Bhānu, who came from a Brāhmaṇ family, was a feudatory king under the
Yādavas. Twenty years before the composition of the Jn͂āneśvarī, he carried out
an āptoryāma sacrifice on the auspicious occasion of a Nirjaḷā Ekādaśī.17 The
inscription about this sacrifice mentions the Bhīmarathī (Bhīmā) River, the holy
place Pāṇḍuraṅgapur (Pandharpur), and Lord Viṭṭhal, the reigning god of the
place. Might not this Bhānu be the same as the King Bhān who was a worshiper
Page 15 of 28
of Viṭṭhal and whose memory the local tradition of Ṭākḷībhān has preserved
without interruption? We can investigate this question further by examining
carefully all the remains at Ṭākḷībhān.
A photograph of the image at Ṭākḷībhān shows that Joshi is correct in concluding

that it is distinguished by local sculptural traits rather than by the style of any
particular school (figure 6–5). It is an image of Viṭṭhal as a form of Viṣṇu, but it
has a carved moustache and inset silver eyes. It is an excellent example of
simple, folk craftsmanship rather than of elite, classical sculpture.
(p.111)
Figure 6–5 The four-armed image of

Viṭṭhal at Ṭākḷībhān. Photo by Megha
Budruk.
Page 16 of 28
At present at least, it is not

possible to say whether, as a
whole, the image expresses the
original character of the god or
the local sculptor's folk-religious
artistic style. However, Joshi's
discussion based on this image is
extremely suggestive. More
important than its beauty are two
unique features of the image: its
four arms and the Śiva liṅga with a
śāḷuṅkā-base that can be clearly
seen on its head (figure 6–6).
Lord Viṭṭhal has never been the
subject of a traditional
iconographic text. If we
consider the known images of
Viṭṭhal, old and new, including
this four-armed one at
Ṭākḷībhān, we see that devotees
portray Viṭṭhal alternatively as a
two-armed Viṣṇu, a four-armed
Viṣṇu, or the cowherd Kṛṣṇa
(Gopāl Kṛṣṇa). There is also
variety with respect to his Figure 6–6 The Śiva liṅga on the head of
attributes and marks. the image of Viṭṭhal at Ṭākḷībhān. Photo
Sometimes Viṭṭhal holds a by temple priest at Ṭākḷībhān.
conch and a discus, sometimes
a conch and a lotus. Sometimes
he holds a conch in one hand and makes the boon-granting gesture18 with the
other, and sometimes he holds a conch in one hand while his other hand makes
the reassurance gesture.19 There are numerous images in which the god stands
with his feet next to each other on a pedestal, and there are also some in which
his feet are hidden in a lotus that reaches above his ankles. What this means is
that, except for the indispens (p.112) able sign of “Viṭṭhalness,” the “standing
with the hands on the hips,” Viṭṭhal images were not yet completely
standardized in the Yādava period. Ṭākḷībhān's Viṭṭhal testifies convincingly that
liberal, inclusivistic tendencies were more influential than orthodox sectarianism
in identifying this local southern god with Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa.20
The Testimony of Baba Padhye

Kashinath Upadhyaya, also known as Baba Padhye, a renowned scholar of
dharmaśāstra and the author of Dharmasindhu,21 refers clearly in one of his
works to the six-syllable mantra on the chest of the Viṭṭhal image at Pandharpur.
Baba Padhye was a well-known resident of Pandharpur. He was a supreme
devotee of Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur, an accomplished author of Sanskrit texts, and
Page 17 of 28
the father-in-law of the poet Moropant's son. Recently Moropant's descendants

who reside in Pandharpur donated his manuscript collection to Bombay
University. Usha Bhise found in the collection three unpublished, unknown
Sanskrit Viṭṭhal hymns (stotras) by Baba Padhye, and she published them in the
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay along with an introductory note in
English (Bhise 1981). The three hymns are “Bodhadviradapadyālī” (65 verses),
“Viṭṭhaladhyānamānasa-pūjā” (119 verses), and “Śayanotsavakrama” (36
verses). Bhise believes that the manuscripts of all three hymns were written by
the same hand (probably that of the author himself). At the end of the third one,
the year when the manuscript was written is noted as Śake 1727 (A.D. 1805).
This is the year that Baba Padhye died. Baba composed these three hymns, it
seems, as he passed the evening of his life in the contemplation of Viṭṭhal.
In “Viṭṭhaladhyānamānasapūjā,” Baba Padhye first describes Viṭṭhal's image

from its toenails to the top of its head, and then describes in order the way to
worship it mentally—because mental worship is impossible unless the whole
image stands before the devotee's inner eye. The Viṭṭhal that Baba mentally
worshiped holds a cowherd's staff between his legs (verse 6). He is naked (verse
9), and he has a six-syllable mantra on his chest (verse 12). In describing the
chest of the god, Baba says in completely unambiguous terms, “Think of the six-
syllable Kṛṣṇa mantra carved on the chest.”
Baba Padhye lived continually in the presence of the image of Viṭṭhal. He took
part in the regular ritual worship of the god. Every evening the god used to
accept Baba's “sugar-water,”22 and it was Baba himself who established the
rituals for regular and special worship that are still in effect in Viṭṭhal's temple
in Pandharpur today. It is of crucial importance in the present context that
someone who saw the (p.113) image directly every day mentions the “six-
syllable Kṛṣṇa mantra” on its chest. There was a mantra carved on the chest of
the god's image; the mantra had six syllables, and it was a mantra of Kṛṣṇa
(śrīkṛṣṇāya namaḥ): we must take seriously the fact that Baba Padhye, who is
respected both by Pandharpur's Baḍve priests and by the god's devotees,
proclaimed this truth unambiguously in approximately 1805. This means that the
original image of Lord Viṭṭhal, the image with the mantra on it, the one
described in the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya in the Skanda Purāṇa, stood with its
unique features in the Viṭṭhal temple of Pandharpur at least until 1805.
This unambiguous testimony from Baba Padhye also means that after the image
of Viṭṭhal was taken to Māḍhe from Pandharpur at the time of Afjhal Khān's
campaign, it must have been brought back safely and established in Pandharpur
when security had been restored. Thus, Rajvade's account of the relocation of
the image is not only half true (that is, to the extent that the image was
relocated to Māḍhe); rather, it is completely true (in that the original image was
Page 18 of 28
also brought back to Pandharpur after security was restored). There remains no
basis for rejecting Rajvade's account.
As for the image that is presently in the temple in Māḍhe, we can clarify matters
by saying that although in A.D. 1659 the image from Pandharpur was moved to
Māḍhe for safe-keeping, it was brought back to Pandharpur after security had
been restored. In order to preserve the memory of the god's stay, the citizens of
Māḍhe must have made an image exactly like the one from Pandharpur and
established it in their village; this is now the only known image that corresponds
with the features of the original.
What Happened in the Nineteenth Century?

This leaves only one point to be clarified: when, where, and why was this
original image of Viṭṭhal destroyed, the one that resided until at least A.D. 1805
in the temple in Pandharpur? In A.D. 1873 a madman threw a rock at the image
and broke one of its legs. This story was published in the newspapers, and there
was much open discussion of the event at the time. The Baḍves now say that,
because the image of Viṭṭhal is svayaṃbhū, even though it was broken they
propped up the leg from the back and continued to worship that same image.
The image, they claim, was not replaced.
According to Hindu legal texts, when an image has been broken it should be
immersed in water; a new image should be fashioned and its life-breath installed
ritually in a ceremony called prāṇapratiṣṭhā. A broken image cannot be the
object of worship. Moreover an image of a god with limbs and attributes cannot
possibly be svayaṃbhū (“self-formed”): it must have been intentionally sculpted.
Svayaṃbhū (p.114) images of Gaṇeś, goddesses, or Śiva liṅgas are uncarved,
shapeless stones; they are not sculpted images. Tukārām's declaration about
Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur, “He was not sculpted, he was not established,” expressed
Tukārām's steadfast devotion, which was fixedly absorbed in Brahman—the
same faith that led him to believe that “our svayaṃbhū one stands on a brick.”
We can understand if spiritual adepts like Tukārām manifest a tendency to deny
the visible reality of the image. If Baḍve priests and so-called scholars begin to
use these declarations as a basis for proclaiming that the image of Viṭṭhal is
svayambhū, then this must be a device for protecting their own interests.
Thus, the original image of Lord Viṭṭhal was in the temple in Pandharpur until at
least A.D. 1805. It was probably replaced after the attack of A.D. 1873. The only
extant means of learning what the original image looked like stands in full view
to this day in the form of the Viṭṭhal image at Māḍhe.
The Practice of Asserting the Presence of Nonexistent Features

I have good grounds for stating that the priests who have the right to conduct
the regular worship of the temple image of Viṭṭhal at Pandharpur are also aware
that the original image was exactly like the one described in the Pāṇḍuraṅga
Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa, and that the image in the temple today is
Page 19 of 28
different. As we know, the present image is not naked; it does not hold a
cowherd's staff between its legs; it does not have a string coming down from its
head; and there is no mantra carved on its chest. Even so, when those who want
to have darśan of the image get to see it uncovered at the time of the principal
worship service (mahāpūjā), the priests state that the ends of the garment that
hang down between the legs are the cowherd's staff, and that the crown's
ornamental cordon, which can be seen on the forehead, is the string.
There is also evidence that the memory of a mantra on the image's chest
survived until very recently, especially among the Baḍve priests, the other
temple servants, and Pandharpur's traditional pandits. In his book
Paṇḍharītattvavivek (1882), Vitthal Kashinath (Dajishastri) Dharurkar describes
an old tradition about the temple of Nārada at Pandharpur. Dharurkar writes
(Dhārūrkar 1882: 44):
The Skanda Purāṇa states that the reason that Nārada came and stayed
here is that he once asked Śaṅkar a question: “Hey, Śaṅkar! Tell me a
place where all three things—holy water (a tīrtha), a holy place (a kṣetra),
and the god—are found together.” Then Śaṅkar said that Pandharpur is
such a place, and he (p.115) explained the glory of this place to him in
full. Later, because of Nārada's insistence, Śaṅkar told him the mantra that
is on Lord Pāṇḍuraṅga's chest, the mantra that Balarām, Rukmiṇī, and
Pradyumna continually repeat. Then Nārada came to Pandharpur; he
settled near Viṣṇupad, and still today he continually repeats the mantra.
In taking this story from the Māhātmya in the Skanda Purāṇa, Dharurkar
expresses no doubts. If the original image with the mantra on it was in the
temple until the attack in A.D. 1873, then Dharurkar, who wrote and published
his Paṇḍharītattvavivek in 1882, may have seen the mantra himself.
In his thesis on the “Vārkarī Sampradāy” (Manmāḍkar 1977), Dadamaharaj

Manmadkar describes the present-day image of Viṭṭhal, referring to the string
and other features. He also mentions the syllables of the mantra on the chest:
“People believe that there are the syllables of a mantra in the area of the heart.”
Moreover, in order to support this claim, he points out that one of the 108 names
of Viṭṭhal in the “Viṭṭhalāṣṭottaraśatanāmastotra” is “The One with a Line of
Mantra Syllables on His Heart” (mantrākṣarāvalīhṛtsthaḥ). Manmadkar states,
“Even though the mantra syllables may not be visible, it seems from such
Purāṇic references that there is such a mark” (Manmāḍkar 1977: 147). More
important is another, more detailed point that he makes in a separate context
(1977: 219–20):
It is customary in the temple of Lord Viṭṭhal to point out to the faithful,

when they look reverently at Viṭṭhal's whole body, the marks referred to in
two Purāṇic stories that express the excellence of the deity Viṭṭhal and his
Page 20 of 28
self-luminescence. The first story is that Indra, the king of the gods,
became a brick by Vṛtra's curse and fell near Lohadaṇḍa tīrtha [in
Pandharpur]. In order to allow Puṇḍalīk to see him, the Lord came here
from Dvārakā in his Kṛṣṇa incarnation; when he stood on the brick, Indra
was freed from the curse. To this day it is pointed out that Indra lies in the
form of a brick beneath the god's feet, which stand next to each other.…
Another story is about the god's self-illumination. Balarām came on

pilgrimage to Lohadaṇḍa tīrtha. After bathing there, he wanted to have
darśan of Pāṇḍuraṅga, and so Balarām went up to the main entrance of the
temple. When he looked from there, the god's unbearable divine brilliance
made it impossible for him to approach the god and take his darśan.
Mentally Balarām pled for the Lord's mercy. He prayed that all the faithful
could have the god's darśan. Giving Baḷabhadra [Balarām] a mantra, the
Lord said to write it on his chest. As soon as Baḷabhadra did that, the
divine brilliance subsided, and from then on everyone began to be able to
take the god's darśan.
(p.116) Manmadkar lives in Pandharpur. He is the head of a Vārkarī monastery

(maṭh). He put this information in his thesis after interviewing local Vārkarīs and
experts and discussing it with them. When he writes that “It is customary…to
point out to the faithful, when they look reverently at Viṭṭhal's whole body,” the
marks indicated in the two Purāṇic stories, he has heard this directly. On the
other hand, with respect to the syllables of the mantra, after noting the story
about them he says, “I was not able to find where, in which Purāṇa, this account
occurs.” Manmadkar notes that the account finds support in the names “The
One with a Line of Mantra Syllables on His Heart” (verse 20) and “The Guru of
Baladeva” (verse 22) in the “Viṭṭhalāṣṭottaraśatanāmastotra.” He does not
realize that in fact the names in the hymn come from Māhātmya stories.
The information that Manmadkar gives us with respect to the original image of
Viṭṭhal is quite significant. Still today, when devotees have “darśan of Viṭṭhal's
whole body,” they are informed that there is a mantra on his chest, and they are
told a Purāṇic story about it. Clearly, the story explains a mantra that could be
seen on the image's chest, and impresses the importance of the mantra on the
minds of the faithful. Now we can understand why those who come for darśan of
the image of Viṭṭhal today are told that there is a mantra carved on its chest,
even though no such mantra is there. Clearly, the features that are absent from
the present-day image of Viṭṭhal, and that the priests attempt to convince people
are present, are those of the original image. The Baḍves and other priests were
not able to suppress the memory of those features. The original image did have a
mantra carved on it; there were strings on it; it did hold a cowherd's stick
between its legs: the priests’ contrived explanations imply these facts in a
striking manner.
Page 21 of 28
Thus, because the image in Māḍhe is an exact replica of the original, we will
have to keep it in mind as we search for the original Viṭṭhal image that was
removed from the temple in Pandharpur sometime after A.D. 1805. We know
nothing about how and where the Baḍves immerse broken images that they have
the right to worship, or even whether they do in fact publicly immerse such
broken images and ritually establish new ones. Therefore, without the Baḍves’
assent, not even Viṭṭhal will be able to tell us the secret of the disappearance of
his original image.
Some Objections, Some Answers

When I first presented my ideas and evidence about the original image of
Viṭṭhal, some critics raised the following objections:
(p.117) 1. The image in Māḍhe does not have a Śiva liṅga on its head
the way the one in Pandharpur does.
2. The mantra on the chest of the image is an affront to the Vedic
tradition.
3. Janābāī describes the feet of the image in Pandharpur as touching each
other, while those of the image in Māḍhe do not.
4. The image in Māḍhe holds a staff in its hand; this was not true of the
original one at Pandharpur.
5. There are many interpolations in the Skanda Purāṇa.
6. There is a brick beneath the feet of the image in Pandharpur, but no
one has mentioned a brick beneath the feet of the image in Māḍhe.
7. The image in Pandharpur dates back to the sixth century; is the one in
Māḍhe that old?
Let us see in order how each of these points ignores my analysis and has been
raised in order to lead readers astray.
1. I know that many reputable devotees of Viṭṭhal say that there is a Śiva
liṅga on the head of the image in Pandharpur. I have referred to all of
those statements in my books, in discussing the union of Hari and Hara
that the Marathi saints brought about. In fact, however, there is no Śiva
liṅga on the head of the image in Pandharpur. By convention the crown on
the image's head is considered to be a Śiva liṅga. In accordance with
Kṛṣṇa's words in the Jn͂āneśvarī, “I make him the crown on my head,” this
convention is fully correct. “Making someone the crown on one's head”
means “taking him on one's head,” paying him the highest respect. Śiva is
Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa's greatest devotee, and so Kṛṣṇa wears him on his head in
the form of a crown. In this sense, there is a Śiva liṅga not only on the
head of the Viṭṭhal image at Māḍhe, but also on the heads of all the
Viṭṭhal images in each and every village.
2. The Māhātmya in the Skanda Purāṇa is specifically about Pandharpur.
This is the text that promoted the sacred complex at Pandharpur. It was
Page 22 of 28
composed by adherents of the Vedic tradition, and later pandits in that

same tradition have repeatedly used it with respect. Therefore, if the
mantra that it says exists is an affront to the Vedic tradition, it is
adherents of the Vedic tradition who have caused the affront themselves,
not those who revere the tradition of the saints.
3. To compare the distance between the two feet on the basis of a poem of
Janābāī's is simply ridiculous.
(p.118) 4. I have shown that the staff in the hand of the image at Māḍhe
accords with the features mentioned in the Māhātmya. A brief
Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya composed by Pralhād Mahārāj of Pandharpur
(based on the Māhātmya in the Skanda Purāṇa) also mentions the
cowherd's staff ( goyaṣṭikā).
5. Those who want to use as evidence the possibility that the mantra in
the Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa is an interpolation should get
manuscripts of the Māhātmya out of the niches in the wells, the granaries
in the walls of houses, the lofts, the cellars, and the other places where
people have stowed them, and have the text critically edited using
universally recognized philological methods. If it is ever shown that the
oldest manuscripts of the Māhātmya do not mention the mantra, then I
will publicly retract my statements.
6. What does it mean to say that there is a brick under the feet of the
image in Pandharpur? A brick means a stand for the feet, does it not? The
critics should themselves think clearly about what it is that they want to
say.
7. Those who are certain that the Viṭṭhal image in the temple at Māḍhe,
which has a mantra on it, is not an old one can find some evidence in
support of their view in Baba Padhye's hymn
“Viṭṭhaladhyānamānasapūjā,” which shows that the original image of
Viṭṭhal was in Pandharpur in 1805. However, as for the image that is
presently at Pandharpur, my critics should take into consideration that
“experts” differ by a thousand or 1200 years about its antiquity. G. H.
Khare, for instance, thinks that the present image does not predate the
sixteenth century.
One major question remains: even if the image of Viṭṭhal at Māḍhe corresponds
to the description in the Māhātmya, how do we know that the image was not
fashioned in recent times? Even if the image is recent, however, the Māhātmya
is old, and it refers to Pandharpur. If my critics cannot disprove this, they will be
obliged to explain why the image presently in Pandharpur does not correspond
to the description in the Māhātmya, and they will have to find out what
happened to the old image in Pandharpur that resembled exactly the one in
Māḍhe.23
Page 23 of 28
Additional Criticisms, Additional Responses

Some responsible, senior scholars say that the search for the original image of
Viṭṭhal in Pandharpur must be carried out on the basis of iconographic treatises
and comparative study of old South Indian images of Viṭṭhal.24 When they say
this, they should clarify what iconographic texts they mean. As I stated earlier,
there (p.119) are no iconographic texts about Viṭṭhal. The old images of Viṭṭhal
in many places in South India match in most respects the features mentioned in
the Māhātmya from the Skanda Purāṇa. But what we are looking for is the
original image from Pandharpur, which the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya from the
Skanda Purāṇa describes in an “eyewitness” account.
If a god is not dealt with in iconographic texts, and if the god's image has not
been standardized, then the Māhātmya of the god's holy place is the most
important source for determining the features of the image. Given the unusual
features described in the Māhātmya, especially the reference to a mantra being
visible on the image's chest, when we know of the existence of an image that has
all these unusual features, it is contrary to reason to continue perversely raising
the question, “Can it be so?” Even for a god who is the subject of iconographic
texts, when an image of that god is found that deviates from the normal features,
scholars discuss the atypical image with greater seriousness, and they are happy
to know more about the god's iconography. In this case, when a text that
predates Hemādri describes the original image at Pandharpur, and when there
exists to this day an image that was intentionally sculpted as an exact replica of
it, not even Viṭṭhal himself would be able to satisfy those who have lost the
fortitude to face the truth.
One of my critics, a former professor, has called my articles on the image of

Viṭṭhal “cheap belletristic writings.”25 I accept with pleasure the word
“belletristic,” and return to him the words “cheap writings” with thanks.
Beautiful writing is connected to creativity. Scholarship too, like literary writing,
can be enriched by ever-new insights of the imagination. There is an extremely
close connection between scholarship and creativity. Those who deny the role of
creativity in scholarship have embraced as scholarship only the preliminaries:
collecting material and editing it. Research does not end there. It begins there,
and creativity has a special role in it. Anyone reading the books of
Vasudevsharan Agraval, Damodar Dharmanand Kosambi, or Durga Bhagavat
cannot fail to realize that the pleasure of reading scholarship influenced by
creativity is as delightful as that of reading creative literature. A collection of
creative writing such as Bhagavat's Pais (1970a) also provides inspiration to
researchers. Bhagavat's “Paṇḍharīcā Viṭhobā” (1970b), for example, an
extremely beautiful creative article that was published in Pais, inspired Günther
Sontheimer in his research.
Page 24 of 28
My critics also state that my discussion of the original image of Viṭṭhal slights
my predecessors’ scholarship. The critics remind me of previous work by
Bhandarkar, Deleury, Tulpule, and Khare, and accuse me not only of not
respecting these predecessors but of positively disrespecting them.26 I would
have preferred for the critics to inform me precisely where and how I should
have paid respect to (p.120) these scholars in this context. Some might think
that to break up and live off of the property that one has rightfully inherited
from one's ancestors is the proper way to pay respect to them; they are welcome
to continue to act this way. I will be satisfied only if I can use the small capacity
of my intelligence to add to what I have inherited from my predecessors.
Otherwise I will not hesitate in the least to declare myself destitute.
Finally, critics argue that the saints’ descriptions of Viṭṭhal are based on faith,
not reality, and that the saints opposed cryptic mantras. Although the critics are
not aware of the fact, this point actually supports my argument. I am grateful to
them that, in setting out to refute my view, they have, however inadvertently,
supported it. I humbly request that, if their thirst for knowledge is deeper than
their desire for argument, they look at the saints’ view of mantras as I have
presented it in my book Santasāhitya āṇi Loksāhitya (Saints’ Literature and Folk
Literature, Ḍhere 1978d).
The God Worshiped by the Saints

The features of the original image of Lord Viṭṭhal make it clear that he had fully
attained the form of Gopāl Kṛṣṇa before the time of Hemādri. “Gopāl in
cowherd's garb” (Nām. Gā. 1201), whom Nāmdev saw as “naked, sky-clad,
having taken off his yellow silk dhoti” (Nām. Gā. 1106) and Eknāth described as
having “the form of a naked child” (Ek. Gā. 617), is the supreme object of
worship of all the Marathi saints. They are cowherds in the retinue of that Gopāl;
they play cowherd games with him in the cows’ resting place; they find
blessedness in his “child's play” songs; and he celebrates gopāḷkālā27 with them.
Viṭṭhal was originally a pastoralists’ god. The Yādavas of Dvārasamudram or

Devgiri themselves arose from pastoralist groups. Probably it was they, along
with the elites under their protection, who gave him the form of the child
Kṛṣṇa.28 They increased his glory and bestowed on him Kṛṣṇa's other attributes
and divine deeds (līlās)—except that he kept on “standing with his hands on his
hips.” The “esoteric mantra” over Viṭṭhal's heart belongs to the elite. The saints,
who were in touch with the masses, promoted a “public mantra.” The
confrontation between the “esoteric mantra” and the “public mantra” has
continued for as long as people have worshiped Lord Viṭṭhal. The saints,
representing the universalistic attitude, emerged victorious, and this is
Maharashtra's good fortune.
Page 25 of 28
Notes:
(1.) An important exception was the late Vitthalshastri Dharurkar of Pandharpur,
a traditional pandit who prepared his Paṇḍharīmāhātmya (Dhārūrkar 1903) “on
the basis of the Skandapurāṇa and the Padmapurāṇa.” See below.
(2.) Translator's note: The Śrīvatsa is a distinctive curl of hair that marks the
chest of Viṣṇu/Kṛṣṇa.
(3.) Translator's note: The Vaijayantī is Viṣṇu's necklace.
(4.) Translator's note: The anuṣṭubh is a common Sanskrit meter with thirty-two
syllables and four feet. Vyāsa is the sage who is credited with compiling the
Vedas, the Purāṇas, the Mahābhārata, and other major Sanskrit texts. The Lord
of Śrī is Viṣṇu. Nārad is a sage who moves easily between the worlds of gods and
men.
(5.) For information on manuscripts of this text, see chapter 1, n. 2.
(6.) Ṭhakkar 1888. This anthology includes five hymns of praise of Viṭṭhal:
“Kavaca,” “Sahasranāma,” “Hṛdaya,” “Aṣṭottaraśatanāma,” and “Stavarāj.”
(7.) Translator's note: A kīrtimukh is a stylized face that is often found carved
upon the threshold of a temple doorway.
(8.) Translator's note: A jagirdar ( jahāgirdār) is the holder of a jagir ( jahāgir),

that is, of government-assigned rights to land or revenues from land.
(9.) Translator's note: This appears to be the second manuscript listed under
Śrīpāṇḍuraṅgamantrajapa (n.d.) in the bibliography. Dhere discusses the
manuscript in more detail in chapter 13 of the original Marathi version of this
book (Ḍhere 1984: 294–95).
(10.) Both passages are extremely difficult to translate:
(1) caturṇāṃ tu layo yeṣu teṣāṃ yeṣu layas tathā /

teṣāṃ sāraṃ samuddhṛtya varṇarūpaṃ dhṛtaṃ hṛdi //
devi someśvarāt ṣaṣṭhas tasmāt ṣaṣṭho dvitīyakaḥ /
śakyaṃtaś ca surendrāṃta ādyo dīrgho ’ntasaṃyutaḥ //
ramayādir manur devi ṣaḍvarṇākhyo mayā tava /
muktāmālābhidho datto na deyo yasya kasyacit //
muktāmālāsupadmāni rephair yuktāni pārvati /
muktair yuktā visaṃyuktā sayuktatvāt ṣaḍakṣarā //
(PMPP 8.4–7)
(2) sadaṃḍavāmanetraś ca kāṃtāṃtaḥ kāṃtasaṃyutaḥ /
salāṃtaś caiva kāṃtāṃtaḥ kāṃtāto dīrghatāṃtadhṛk //
caturthyāṃ ca sanatyaṃto maṃtrarājaḥ prakīrtitaḥ /
om ity uktvā tato devi bhaimyās tīre tapaścaran //
(PMPP 27.10–12)
Page 26 of 28
(11.) Coincidentally, his solution finds support in a Sanskrit Viṭṭhal hymn (stotra)
by Baba Padhye. See below and Bhise 1981.
(12.) This abhaṅga is found among other unpublished abhaṅgas of Sāvatā Māḷī in
the collection of the late Nārāyaṇ Gaṇapatī Jhoḍge. I am grateful to Mr. D. S.
Jhoḍge for providing it.
(13.) V. L. Manjul examined a manuscript of this poem in the manuscript

collection of the Oriental Institute at Baroda, and published this reference in the
daily Sakāḷ (Man͂jūḷ 1978).
(14.) Translator's note: Now a hundred years ago.
(15.) The stone temple at Māḍhe looks like a mosque from the outside (see
figure 6–1). In light of the adverse conditions of those times, the same spirit of
precaution that caused the image to be moved from Pandharpur to Māḍhe may
also have made its mark on the construction of this temple.
(16.) Shobhana Gokhale (1970) has edited this stone inscription at Pandharpur.
(17.) Translator's note: The ekādaśı̄ is the eleventh lunar day of a fortnight, a day
of fasting and other special observances for devotees of Viṭṭhal. A Nirjaḷā
Ekādaśī is an ekādaśīon which, besides fasting, one also does not even drink
water.
(18.) Translator's note: The varadamudrā, an open hand held horizontally, with
the palm facing downward and the fingers pointing outward.
(19.) Translator's note: The abhayamudrā, an open hand held vertically, with the
palm facing forward and the fingers pointing upward.
(20.) In his Telugu Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya, the famous Vijayanagar-period

Telugu poet Tenāli Rāmakṛṣṇa describes Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur as
nirvrīḍajaghanadeśu, “one whose loins are shameless” (Tenāli Rāmakṛṣṇa 1952:
222). This makes it clear that in Tenālī Rāmakṛṣṇa's time the image of Viṭṭhal of
Pandharpur was that of a naked Gopāl Kṛṣṇa. In a book about Vijayanagar,
Vasundhara Filliozat (Michel and Filliozat 1981: 131) states the following:
“Pandurangamahatmya, though a contemporary literary work in Telugu by
Tennali Ramakrishna, makes no mention of the Vitthala temple at Hampi. It
deals with Vitthala at Pandharpura. Ramakrishna describes the idol of Vitthala at
Pandharpura as naked. However, Vadiraja, a Madhva saint, who lived in the
latter half of the sixteenth century, refers to the Vitthala at Hampi as anyakritih
(different in form) in his work ‘Tirthaprabandha’. Since an epigraph in the
Vitthala temple at Hampi is of the early fifteenth century, it is likely that the
image corresponding to the style of the period was carved fully clothed.”
(21.) See also n. 12 above.
Page 27 of 28
(22.) Translator's note: See chapter 13, below.
(23.) In the course of this discussion, my attention has been drawn to the
“Pāṇḍuraṅga Stotra” attributed to Śaṅkarācārya, and to the question of whether
its description of Viṭṭhal is relevant in the present context. Scholarship on Viṭṭhal
has referred to this hymn from the beginning, and experts have thoughtfully
concluded that it cannot have been composed by the original Śaṅkarācārya. If
Śaṅkarācārya had composed the hymn in the eighth century, we would have
certainly seen a reflection of its mature, imposing worship of Viṭṭhal in the
Sanskrit and Prakrit literature of the next two or two-and-a-half centuries.
Besides, the hymn emphasizes Viṭṭhal's form as Kṛṣṇa and takes the faithful
attitude of a devotee. The description in this hymn, just like the descriptions of
Viṭṭhal in the saints’ literature, is an expression of faith, and it is quite important
in that context. If we can determine its date, we can use it as clear evidence that
Lord Viṭṭhal had attained the form of Kṛṣṇa by that time. Because Baba Padhye,
the nineteenth-century author of the Dharmasindhu, refers to this hymn in his
Śrīviṭṭhala-Ṛṅmantrasārabhāṣya, it must predate him, but we have not yet been
able to determine precisely how old it is.
(24.) Translator's note: Dhere is probably referring here to a meeting held in

1981 at the Bharat Itihas Samshodhak Mandal at which the participants
included G. H. Khare, R. S. Valimbe, and Gopal Benare. Dhere is also referring to
some of the numerous articles on the subject that appeared in the Marathi press
(especially in the newspapers Sakāḷ and Kesarī) in 1981 and 1982.
(25.) Translator's note: I have been unable to trace the source of this comment.
(26.) Translator's note: Again, I have not been able to find examples of this
criticism.
(27.) See the section of chapter 2 entitled “Childhood Play, the Kālā, and
Bhāruḍs.”
(28.) See chapter 14.
Page 28 of 28
Viṭṭhal and Hero-Stones


Print ISBN-13: 9780199777594
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.001.0001

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.003.0008

This chapter enters into the controversy occasioned by the unusual stance of
Viṭṭhal's images, in which the god is almost always depicted standing with his
feet parallel to each other and his hands on his hips. The chapter takes on the
thesis of Deleury, Sontheimer, and Tulpule that Viṭṭhal was originally a deified
pastoralist hero. Dhere discusses in detail the meaning and variant readings of a
chapter of the thirteenth-century Mahānubhav text Līḷācaritra in which the
Mahānubhavs' founder asserts that Viṭṭhal was originally a cattle thief who died
in the course of a cattle raid and was commemorated in a hero-stone erected by
his sons. Dhere concludes that neither this story, which is an obvious sectarian
attempt to discredit Viṭṭhal and his cult, nor the other evidence that has been
presented so far suffices to establish that the image of Viṭṭhal was originally one
of a pastoralist hero-god.
Keywords: Deleury, Sontheimer, Tulpule, pastoralist hero, deification
viṭṭhal, originally a god of pastoralists, kept his hands on his hips even after he
became Gopāl Kṛṣṇa, even while holding the Vaiṣṇava conch and lotus. Why is
this? Is this stance connected to his original form? Did his original pastoralist
image have its hands on its hips, and did this original, unique characteristic
survive in his elevated, Vaiṣṇava form as well? In searching for answers to these
questions, scholars have raised even more issues about Viṭṭhal.
Page 1 of 18
The Image Connected with the Name “Viṭṭhal”

Not only in Pandharpur, but also at almost all centers of Viṭṭhal devotion in
Maharashtra and Karnataka, images of Viṭṭhal, both old and new, hold their
hands on their hips. In the literature of devotion to Viṭṭhal, he is everywhere
described as “standing on a brick with his hands on his hips.” Taking into
account village pronunciations of Viṭṭhal's name as Iṭu, Iṭhu, Iṭubā, Iṭhubā and so
on, Vishvanath Khaire once pointed out to me that the word iṭu in Tamil has the
meaning “having his hands placed on his hips,” “arms akimbo.” If that is so,
Viṭṭhal's name originally simply indicated his form: this is the god with both
hands placed at his waist. The etymology “Viṭṭhal is the one who stands on a
brick” is artificial, and the story that Viṭṭhal stood on the brick tossed by
Puṇḍalīk is narrative support for this artificial etymology.
(p.122) Khaire's suggestion is based on his profound acquaintance with the

Tamil language. One piece of evidence that supports his view cannot be ignored,
even though it is relatively recent, because it is closely tied with the tradition in
Tamil Nadu. In the Colonel Mackenzie Collection of the Government Manuscript
Library in Chennai, there is a Marathi prose work (written in Moḍī script) named
“Lohadaṇḍa urpha Pandharpur Kṣetra Kaifiyat” (Kshirasagar 1961, 1962).
According to Mackenzie's index, the two “authors” or “scribes” (lekhak),
Malhārbhaṭ and Lakṣmaṇbhaṭ, completed the work of translating and
transcribing this text on 27 August 1807. Although the manuscript does not
indicate what original materials they translated, there is no doubt that the text is
important for the study of Lord Viṭṭhal and Pandharpur. Written in Tanjore
Marathi, the text explains the name “Viṭṭhal” as follows: “How did Lord Kṛṣṇa
get the name Viṭhobā? Because he stood on a brick and stood with both hands
placed on his hips, he got the name Viṭhobā.” That is, in addition to the
etymology “He stands on a brick (viṭ), therefore he is Viṭṭhal,” this text also gives
the specifically Southern etymology “He stands with both hands placed on his
hips, therefore he is Viṭṭhal.” The latter etymology supports Khaire's suggestion
about the origin of the name Viṭṭhal.
Hero-Gods with their Hands on their Hips

If “Viṭṭhal” is a name that simply indicates the form of the god, and if its sole
meaning is “having his hands placed on his hips,” it is inevitable that we connect
Viṭṭhal with traditional folk deities whose images are similar to his. There is no
doubt whatsoever that Viṭṭhal is originally a folk deity, that he is a god of South-
Indian pastoralists.1 If this is so, he must have an extremely close relationship to
other folk gods who are portrayed with their hands on their hips, especially
those in pastoralists’ traditions. In tracing the rise of Viṭṭhal's image, we will
have to take images of this kind of folk deity into consideration.
In folk traditions, above all in pastoralist contexts, innumerable images of this

kind can be found in village after village in Maharashtra and Karnataka. These
images are hero-gods (vīrdevs), memorials of dead heroes who have become
Page 2 of 18
objects of worship. In the village of Paṭṭaṇ Koḍolī (Kolhapur District), the

principal center of worship of the Dhangars’ Viṭṭhal, numerous memorial stones
of Dhangar ancestors are found on a high pasture near the temple of Viṭṭhal and
Bīrappā; many of these images have their hands on their hips.2 In the old center
of the village of Eraṇḍavaṇe, now part of the city of Pune, several images of this
sort, memorial stones of heroes, stand near an embankment around a tree. One
of them is a (p.123) bas-relief with a woman on each side and a male hero in
the middle who looks just like Viṭṭhal with Rāhī and Rukmiṇī. In Bihār, there is a
famous hero-god named Bīr Kuar (Vīr Kumār), a god of the Āhirs (Abhīra
pastoralists) who has been transformed into Kṛṣṇa; many of his images have
their hands on their hips (Archer 1947; Roy Chaudhury 1968: 77–80). Bīr Kuar is
a divinized Āhir who died defending his herd from an attack by cattle rustlers.
He is a cowherd (a “Gopāl”); he is certainly a hero; but he is also a boy. Thus it is
natural that he be elevated into Gopāl Kṛṣṇa.
Might Viṭṭhal Too Have Been a Hero-God?

If we consider seriously the new facts that have been discovered about Viṭṭhal's
name and image, the question arises whether he too might have originally been
a pastoralist hero-god. Might some man from a southern pastoralist group like
the Gavḷīs or Dhangars have died a heroic death while trying to protect his
cattle? Might his memorial, in which he stands with his hands on his hips, his
arms akimbo, have become an object of worship and eventually been elevated
into a form of Gopāl Kṛṣṇa? Deleury, Sontheimer, and Tulpule have argued for
this thesis, and recently Manik Dhanpalvar has also enthusiastically supported
this view, presenting some examples of hero-gods in Andhra Pradesh.
Before examining what these scholars have to say, we should first understand
what a hero-stone is. Vīragaḷ (“hero-stone”) is a Marathi form of the Kannada
word vīrakkaḷ (vīr, hero + kaḷ, stone), which refers to a stone memorializing a
hero. Since ancient times it has been a custom in India to establish a stone in
memory of someone who dies a hero's death. In some cases, hero memorials are
created by smearing red lead over a completely uncarved stone, while in other
cases people install carved images of heroes rising up in arms, their weapons
raised, seated on horses. The term vīragaḷ, however, refers to a particular kind of
sculpture. Generally, in a vīragaḷ, episodes in the life of a man who died a hero's
death are carved in relief, from bottom to top, in three or four rectangular
panels on a tall, columnar stone (see figures 7–1 and 7–2). The battle is carved in
the lowest panel; the panel above it portrays the hero's death. In the third panel,
divine courtesans reverently convey the dead hero to a higher world, and on the
highest panel is carved a scene of the hero worshiping the deity (usually a Śiva
liṅga) whose presence he has attained (Settar and Sontheimer 1982).
Guy Deleury was the first to present clearly the idea of a connection between
Viṭṭhal and hero-stones. In discussing the origin of the cult of Viṭṭhal, Deleury
(p.124)
Page 3 of 18
(p.125)
Figure 7–1 Vīragaḷ at Loṇī-Bhāpkar

(Bārāmatī Taluka, Pune District), with
cattle in the lowest panel. Photo by
Henning Stegmüller.
Page 4 of 18
stated that the god must have

arisen from a memorial to a hero
who protected cattle (Deleury
1960: 181–84). The evidence that
Deleury gave for this view is as
follows:
1. In the Mahānubhāvs’ text
Līḷācaritra there is a story
that Viṭṭhal was originally a
cattle thief, and that he died
in a counterattack by cattle
protectors.
2. Even though this is
obviously an interpolation, it
must nevertheless be an old,
traditional story that has
been transformed by an
attitude of sectarian hatred.
3. No one would erect a
memorial to a cattle thief.
Therefore, some hero must
have been killed as he was Figure 7–2 Vīragaḷ at Bāvḍe (Māḷśīras
protecting cattle, and people Taluka, Solapur District). Photo by
from his family and village Henning Stegmüller.
must have erected a
memorial to him and begun
to worship it.
4. There are innumerable such memorial stones in Maharashtra and
Karnataka. In Kannada they are not called vīragaḷ, as in Marathi, but
biṭṭiga. The name “Viṭṭhal” comes from biṭṭiga, biṭṭidev.
5. There is an extraordinary similarity between the iconography of these
biṭṭigas and the iconography of Viṭṭhal: both kinds of images have their
hands on their hips.
(p.126) 6. There is a folk god in Bihar who is a god of the Āhir
cowherds; this god developed out of a memorial of a hero who gave his
life defending cattle. Most of his images also have their hands on their
hips.
7. Viṭṭhal is one of the gods of Dhangar shepherds in Maharashtra and
Karnataka.
8. There is a great deal of evidence that even in fully developed places of
worship of Viṭṭhal, his original form as a protector of cows has been
preserved.
9. There is an amazing similarity between the beloved karambhā food of
the Vedic pastoralist god Pūṣan and the kālā food that Kṛṣṇa-Viṭṭhal loves.
Page 5 of 18
I have summarized here in my own words the evidence that Deleury presented in
support of his hypothesis, so that readers may get an idea of what that evidence
is. However, Deleury was aware that, aside from the story in the Mahānubhāv
text, there is no truly decisive evidence that the god Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur arose
from the deification of a hero-stone.
Professor Günther Sontheimer of the University of Heidelberg endorsed

Deleury's views.3 Sontheimer carried out specialized research on memorial
stones in India. In the course of his field trips, he found a hero-stone opposite
the main door of the Viṭṭhal temple in Pandharpur. This stone reminded him of
the chapter (līḷā) in the Mahānubhāvs’ Līḷācaritra entitled “He Tells about Viṭṭhal
Vīr” (“Viṭṭhalavīrukathana”). Sontheimer drew S. G. Tulpule's attention to the
hero-stone and the līḷā. Tulpule, deciding that this find provided decisive support
for Deleury's hypothesis, wrote an article entitled “Viṭṭhal Mūḷcā
Vīragaḷac” (“Viṭṭhal Was Originally a Hero-Stone”; Tuḷpuḷe 1977) that attempts
to prove this view conclusively.
Tulpule had obtained only one additional piece of evidence: the hero-stone that
Sontheimer had found opposite the main door of the temple in Pandharpur. In
fact, that hero-stone had not been intentionally installed there; rather, just as old
remains are often used anywhere in any way in constructing new buildings, this
hero-stone had been used in the corner of a building across the street, to the left
of the main door of the temple. There is nothing besides the chapter in the
Līḷācaritra to support the theory that the hero-stone opposite the main door of
the temple in Pandharpur is the original form of Viṭṭhal.
Manik Dhanpalvar, also writing in support of Deleury's view, has presented

materials he obtained about hero-deities in Andhra Pradesh (Dhanpalvār 1981c,
1982a). Palnāḍu (Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh) is a treasure-house of hero-
stones, and also an important Vaiṣṇava center. In this area, many hero
memorials have been Vaiṣṇavized. We must realize, though, that the Vaiṣṇavized
hero-gods (p.127) that Dhanpalvar found do not include a single one that
acquired the name “Viṭṭhal.” Even though the new materials Dhanpalvar
presents with respect to hero-gods and their Vaiṣṇavization are extremely
important, they are nevertheless not directly useful for the study of Viṭṭhal. If in
the future some decisive piece of evidence is found that proves that Viṭṭhal was
originally a hero-stone, then Dhanpalvar's materials can be put to good use in an
ancillary manner, to explicate the process by which a hero-stone could become
Viṭṭhal in the form of Gopāl Kṛṣṇa.
The Līḷā “He Tells about Viṭṭhal Vīr”

The Old Marathi prose work Līḷācaritra is an anthology of recollections about
Cakradhar Svāmī, the founder of the Mahānubhāv sect. One of the līḷās
(recollected episodes) in this text is entitled “He Tells about Viṭṭhal Vīr” (Tuḷpuḷe
1967a: 101, “Uttarārdha” 411). Scholars of Mahānubhāv literature are
Page 6 of 18
acquainted with this līḷā, which records a bizarre view about the rise of Lord
Viṭṭhal. To this day, however, the līḷā has not been properly discussed. Because of
its multifaceted importance, I will quote the līḷā here in its entirety and then
present my ideas about its significance.
He Tells about Viṭṭhal Vīr

Mahādāϯsā asked, “Lord, Lord, why do they say that Vīr Viṭṭhal is an
incarnation of Śrī Kṛṣṇa Cakravartī?”
The Omniscient One said, “My woman, Viṭṭhal was the son of an old lady.
He was a Brāhmaṇ. And Nemdev was a Koḷī. Those two and Mhāyā, a
Gurav, were all three robbers. They used to rob people. They would steal
horses. They would commit highway robbery as a band.4 One would take
the spoils and run off; the other two would take care of the hand-to-hand
fighting. They were from Maṅgaḷveḍhe.
“They carried out a robbery at a certain place. Māϯṃdaraṇā took the cows
and went. There was hand-to-hand fighting. Nemdev was wounded and
killed. Afterwards Viṭṭhal fell at Pāṇḍharī. His sons came. They erected a
memorial pillar there. They established a liṅga on its head. A god identified
himself with it. He began to fulfil people's wishes.
“His wife's name was Lākhāϯ (some say: Lakhamāϯ). His sons would go
there; they composed pada-verses. They put Viṭho and Rukmīṇi into (p.
128) abhaṅga-poems. Then he obtained prestige in the world. That is this
Viṭṭhal, my woman. (Some say: he knows the art of making pills
empowered by mantras;5 he flies over walls and roofs; he chews pan and
spits it out. Such is that Viṭṭhal.)”
The līḷā is structured as a dialogue in which Mahādāϯsā asks a question and “the
Omniscient One,” Lord Cakradhar Svāmī, answers her. Mahādāϯsā's question is,
“People understand Viṭṭhal to be an incarnation of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Is that true?” The
point of this question is that the Mahānubhāvs worship Śrī Kṛṣṇa, so that, if
Viṭṭhal is an incarnation of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Mahānubhāvs must accept him too as
an object of worship. Obviously, the question will receive an answer that fits this
implicit point: Viṭṭhal is not an incarnation of Śrī Kṛṣṇa (as people think). On the
contrary, the intention is clearly for the one asking the question (and all the
members of the sect who read the answer) to become intensely aware of
Viṭṭhal's inferiority. And this fully corresponds with the sect's beliefs.
Analysis of the Līḷā: an Attempt at Double Dishonor

A detailed analysis of the līḷā reveals the following important points:
1. Mahādāϯsā asks a question about a Viṭṭhal whom people understand to

be “an incarnation of Śrī Kṛṣṇa Cakravartī.” There is no doubt that the
question put into her mouth is about Lord Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur.
Page 7 of 18
2. Viṭṭhal is known as “Viṭṭhal Vīr.” This name indicates that someone who
was originally a “Vīr” (hero) has been divinized in the form of Viṭṭhal.
3. Viṭṭhal was a robber from a Brāhmaṇ family, and Nemdev the Koḷī and
Mhāyā Gurav were his two associates.6
4. All three of them were from Maṅgaḷveḍhe.
5. They were practicing highway robbery, waylaying people. One of the
three would go away with the loot, and the other two would hold off
pursuers.
6. When Māϯdaraṇā was going along with his cows, the three thieves
attacked him and tried to carry off the cows. However, the cowherds
chased them. First, on the way back, Nemdev Koḷī fell from the cowherds’
blows, and later Viṭṭhal fell, at “Pāṇḍharī” (at the residential part of some
village? Or at Paṇḍharī—that is, Pandharpur?).
7. As soon as Viṭṭhal's sons learned of his death, they came to the place,
and they erected a hero column (bhaḍkhambā) there.
(p.129) 8. They established a liṅga on the top of the column.
9. A god came to identify himself with the hero column. (That is, an active
[jāgṛt] god came to reside in the memorial.)
10. Viṭṭhal began to fulfill the wishes of those who worshiped the
memorial.
11. Viṭṭhal's wife's name was “Lākhāϯ” or “Lakhamāϯ.”7 Later the name of
the couple is given as “Viṭho and Rukmiṇī.”
12. After Viṭṭhal had achieved the status of a deity, his sons composed
poems of devotion to him. The names “Viṭho and Rukmiṇī” are woven into
the abhaṅga (the closing, signature line) of the poems.
13. In this way Viṭṭhal achieved fame (as a god).
This līḷā, then, expresses the view that Viṭṭhal was originally a vīr (hero), and
that his status is that of a hero-stone. The līḷā uses the term bhaḍkhambā
(Sanskrit, bhaṭastambha = a column in memory of a hero) to refer to the kind of
memorial that we call a hero-stone (vīragaḷ). Still today thousands of hero-stones
are worshiped all over India, and a Śiva liṅga is carved on the upper part of
many of them. Many of these hero-stones memorialize heroes who protected
cattle, and portray the conflicts in which they did so. However, there are no
hero-stones memorializing cattle thieves.
The Viṭṭhal described in this līḷā was not a hero who protected cattle, but one
who stole them. Hero-gods belong to the lowest class of gods, and cow-stealing
heroes must be the lowest of the low. Since Viṭṭhal is a “cow-thief” hero, he
cannot be an incarnation of “cow-herd” Kṛṣṇa: this is the conclusion that
emerges from the līḷā. However, for the author of the līḷā this did not suffice.
Demonstrating that Viṭṭhal was the lowest of the low was not enough; besides
this, the author took great pains to show that Viṭṭhal's famous worshipers were
reprehensible as well. The līḷā says that, after Viṭṭhal's sons had given him the
status of a deity, they composed devotional verses, weaving the names of their
Page 8 of 18
parents, Viṭṭhal and Rukmiṇī, into the signature line at the end. The name “He
whose father is the husband of the goddess Rakhumā” is woven into the
signature line of many abhaṅgas attributed to Jn͂āneśvar. If we take this into
account, along with the fact that Jn͂āneśvar's father and mother were named
“Viṭṭhal” and “Rukmiṇī,” it becomes clear that the līḷā is referring to Jn͂āneśvar
and his siblings. In the view of the līḷā's author, Viṭṭhal was originally a cattle-
thief hero; he was killed at “Pāṇḍharī” (Paṇḍharī?), and his children gave him
the status of a deity. This Viṭṭhal was Jn͂āneśvar's father (Viṭṭhalpant, Rukmiṇī's
husband); Jn͂āneśvar's devotional works, to which he affixed the signature “He
whose father is the husband of the goddess Rakhumā,” were about the divinized
form of his own “robber” father!
(p.130) Thus, this līḷā was composed just in order to awaken, in Mahānubhāv
readers’ minds, negative feelings about Lord Viṭṭhal, the supreme object of
worship of the Vārkarī sect, and about Jn͂āneśvar, who built the sect's
foundation.8
An Interpolated Līḷā
Now an important question arises: Did Cakradhar himself express the ideas in
this līḷā? Cakradhar did not consider any god other than the “Five Kṛṣṇas”—that
is, himself; his guru, Guṇḍam Rāūḷ; his guru's guru, Cāṅgdev Rāūḷ; Dattātreya;
and Kṛṣṇa—to be an incarnation of Parameśvar. He also did not consider Kṛṣṇa
to be an incarnation of Viṣṇu. Cakradhar counted all other gods and goddesses
as belonging to the category of “deities” (devatā). From his point of view,
because “deities” do not bring about final liberation (mokṣa), worshiping them
does not benefit those who aspire to that goal. From this point of view, Viṣṇu, his
incarnations, and gods like Viṭṭhal and Vyaṅkaṭeś who are considered to be
forms of Viṣṇu all belong to the “deity” category, which is inferior to the
incarnations of Parameśvar.
In Cakradhar's thinking, it is completely impossible to accept Viṭṭhal as an

incarnation of Kṛṣṇa. Despite this, considering Cakradhar Svāmī's overall
behavior as it is manifested in many places in the Līḷācaritra, it does not seem
likely that he would speak such words of disdain for Viṭṭhal. When Ḍakhaḷ put
his finger in the navel of the goddess Koḷāī at Tryambakeśvar, Cakradhar
upbraided him with harsh words, and he also upbraided Sādhe when she derided
the form of Mhāḷsā at Nevāse.9 So it seems unlikely that Cakradhar would tell
such an insulting story about a deity whom others love. Even toward a god who
had become “the god of the enemy,” this kind of insult appears inconsistent with
Cakradhar's usual behavior.
Besides, this līḷā refers to abhaṅgas in the name of Jn͂āneśvar that have the
signature line, “He whose father is the husband of the goddess Rakhumā.”
Jn͂āneśvar was born one year after Cakradhar's great departure. Cakradhar's
great departure (he is understood not to have died) took place in Śake 1196
Page 9 of 18
(A.D. 1274), and Jn͂āneśvar's birth took place in Śake 1197 (A.D. 1275). This
chronological contradiction makes it very clear that the līḷā in question is an
interpolation. Moreover, the līḷā is not included in the Sanskrit version of the līḷās
of Cakradhar, the “Ratnamālāstotra” composed by Kesobās (who died in Śake
1238, A.D. 1316).
Thus, Cakradhar's followers must have put into his mouth this abusive chapter
belittling Lord Viṭṭhal and Jn͂āneśvar. When I spoke with the prominent Mahānu
(p.131) bhāv scholar Mahant Murlīdharśāstrī Ārādhya about this, he stated
frankly, “This līḷā is interpolated, and I deeply regret that it sullies the name of
the Mahānubhāv sect.”
Reviling Viṭṭhal
The Vārkarīs are the most popular sect in Maharashtra, and most people in
Maharashtra have unbounded devotion for the Vārkarīs’ god, Viṭṭhal. It is
fundamentally impossible for the Mahānubhāvs to have a favorable attitude
toward this popular Maharashtrian deity. In the words of Pandit Balkrishna
Shastri Mahanubhav (B. Mahānubhāv 1934: 46–48):
More than other sects, the Vārkarīs are very closely related to the
Mahānubhāvs. Like the Mahānubhāvs, the Vārkarīs worship Lord Kṛṣṇa;
they revere and continually read the Gītā, which pours out the nectar of
knowledge; they promote non-violence; and they prohibit alcohol and meat.
Moreover, the Vārkarīs and the Mahānubhāvs share a common love of the
path of devotion! Despite the fact that they have so much in common, there
is one Vārkarī idea that prevents the Mahānubhāvs and the Vārkarīs from
mixing. This is the idea that Viṭṭhal is Lord Kṛṣṇa. There is no scriptural
proof that Viṭṭhal is Lord Kṛṣṇa. If one relies on a story in Śrīdhar's
Harivijay to say that Viṭṭhal is Lord Kṛṣṇa, still the story Śrīdhar tells does
not appear in any ancient Sanskrit text—not even in the Padma Purāṇa,
which Śrīdhar cites in the following verse (Harivijay 36.153):
This most excellent story is in the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya in the

Padma Purāṇa.
The audience should listen lovingly, with extremely great respect.
Who knows where Śrīdhar found this story! It does not exist anywhere in
the extant Padma Purāṇa. There is, however, a verse that states that, when
the charioteer of King Jn͂ānaśruti of Paiṭhaṇ was on his way to Kashmir at
the king's command to search for the muni Raikva, after he took darśan of
Mallināth,
He returned from there, seeing on the bank of the Bhīmarathi

[Bhīmā]
the two-armed Viṭṭhal Viṣṇu, who gives enjoyment and release.
(Padma Purāṇa, Uttara Khaṇḍa 176.56–57)
Page 10 of 18
(p.132) However, the same Padma Purāṇa also clearly states that the
Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa went to his own home.…
In short, there is no trick that can prove that Viṭṭhal is Lord Kṛṣṇa.
Skillfully presenting the background of the close relationship between the two
sects, Balkrishna Shastri states that only one idea stands in the way of their
“mixing.” Clearly, though, because that one idea has to do with the object of
worship, the closeness in other respects is merely a formality. The principal
impediment he proffers is, “There is no scriptural proof that Viṭṭhal is Śrī
Kṛṣṇa.” But even if it were proven that Viṭṭhal is Kṛṣṇa, Mahānubhāvs would
never accept him: their Kṛṣṇa is a direct incarnation of Parameśvar, the supreme
God, while the Kṛṣṇa of the Vārkarīs and other Vaiṣṇava sects is an incarnation
of Viṣṇu. Mahānubhāvs consider Viṣṇu to belong to a category inferior to
Parameśvar, the category of deities (devatās). It is therefore in principle
impossible for Mahānubhāvs to have much affection for the Vārkarīs’ Kṛṣṇa, who
is the eighth incarnation of Viṣṇu. Balkrishna Shastri himself cites the Padma
Purāṇa's acceptance of Viṭṭhal as the two-armed Viṣṇu. The idea that Kṛṣṇa is an
incarnation of Viṣṇu is expressed clearly in Vārkarī texts, as well as in the
Bhāgavata Purāṇa (which Mahānubhāvs esteem). But the Mahānubhāvs will
have nothing to do with this idea.
It is impossible to convince the Mahānubhāvs of anything from a “scriptural”

point of view. For them, only the aphorisms spoken by Cakradhar are scriptures
(śāstra). Whatever cannot fit with those aphorisms is “non-scriptural.” Therefore
there is no point in discussing the scriptures of other sects, and there is no point
either in Mahānubhāv mahants, scholars, or their supporters from outside the
sect insisting, “Prove such-and-such from the point of view of the scriptures.” We
will have to accept that “there is no scriptural proof that Viṭṭhal is Lord Kṛṣṇa.”
Nowhere in Mahānubhāv scripture—that is, in Cakradhar's aphorisms—is Viṭṭhal

acknowledged in this way. However, Cakradhar himself and his guru and guru's
guru are incarnations of Lord Kṛṣṇa. Why? Because Cakradhar himself said so,
again and again! From the Mahānubhāvs’ scriptural point of view, the fact that
Cakradhar did not recognize Viṭṭhal as Lord Kṛṣṇa means that Lord Kṛṣṇa
himself proclaimed, “I have no connection at all with this Viṭṭhal.”
Besides this chapter in the Līḷācaritra, there are some other passages in
Mahānubhāv literature that express an illiberal attitude with respect to Viṭṭhal.
For example, one of the “Ajn͂āt Smṛti” chapters in Smṛtisthaḷ reads as follows
(Deśpāṇḍe 1960: 105, “Ajn͂āt Smṛti,” 116): “Once when Mahādāϯ Āϯse had gone
to a place for performing sacrifices, a certain Brāhmaṇ was singing ‘Rukmiṇī
Svayaṃvar’ there. He used a signature line about Viṭṭhal. And Mahādāϯ Āϯse
punished him.” That is, when Mahādāϯse found a Brāhmaṇ singing “Rukmiṇī
Svayaṃ (p.133) var,” she “punished” him because the name of Viṭṭhal appeared
Page 11 of 18
in the concluding, signature line of the poem that he sang. Another example is
found in the text Ātmatīrthaprakāś (K. Mahānubhāv 1964). Here the
Mahānubhāv poet Kṛṣṇamunī Virāṭdeśe expresses in completely unvarnished
language the idea of the līḷā “He Tells about Viṭṭhal Vīr.” Listing various kinds of
practitioners who have gone astray, Kṛṣṇamunī says (K. Mahānubhāv 1964:
4.140):
Some wake up ghosts in shrines in the cremation ground

and say, “This Viṭṭhal is Lord Kṛṣṇa. Worship him with ardent faith.”
This proclamation of Kṛṣṇamunī's—“The god Viṭṭhal is a ghost whom some

people awakened in the cremation ground”—is the essence of the story that
Cakradhar tells in the Līḷācaritra.
Viṭṭhal, Cowherds, and Hero-Stones

If we set aside the sectarian enmity manifested in the līḷā under discussion, we
can see that it provides very important insights into the creation of hero-stones
and their divine status. The līḷā tells us whom society endows with the title
“hero,” how memorials to heroes come to be erected, how hero memorials get
transformed into deities, and how characteristics completely opposed to the
activities and inclinations of the hero's original nature come to be ascribed to
him. Perhaps this līḷā, which today seems insulting, will tomorrow, after we
obtain legitimate historical evidence, be found to shed light on the original form
of Viṭṭhal. However, even if this happens, it will not diminish the influence of
either the refined devotional faith or the lofty ideas that the elevated form of
Viṭṭhal has fashioned in Marathi hearts and minds. And no one will be able to
deny that the author of the līḷā intended not to tell a historical truth realistically
but to revile someone else's god.
Although the Marathi saints sometimes address their songs to Lord Viṭṭhal as
Viṣṇu the lord of Vaikuṇṭha or as Kṛṣṇa the King of Dvārakā, though they use
stories of Viṣṇu and Kṛṣṇa to sing the praises of Viṭṭhal, we can see that their
most prevalent idea is that Viṭṭhal is the child Kṛṣṇa. Sectarian explanations of
the image of Viṭṭhal understand it to portray him as the cowherd child Kṛṣṇa
(Khare 1963: 61). Taking this traditional idea into consideration, scholars can
easily deduce Viṭṭhal's connection with the culture of cattle-herders. Bhagavat
(Bhāgavat 1956: 406–7, 439) and Deleury (1960: 182) have both expressed the
view that Viṭṭhal is a god of cowherds, and the Dhangar shepherds (and Gavḷī
cowherds) of Maharashtra and Karnataka consider him their god. The līḷā “He
Tells about Viṭṭhal Vīr” certainly (p.134) connects Viṭṭhal with cows and cattle;
however, it connects him not as a cowherd or a protector of cattle but rather as
a cattle thief. If we decide to accept that Viṭṭhal was divinized in the way
indicated in this līḷā, we will have to agree that his original form was the
opposite of his divinized form. Clearly, such a process of divinization would be
completely contradictory.
Page 12 of 18
An Older Version of the Līḷā

As Tulpule was searching for a way out of the awkward conclusion that the god
Viṭṭhal originated as a hero-stone, V. B. Kolte provided him with an older version
of the līḷā in question. The version is as follows (Kolte 1982: 659, “Uttarārdha”
519): “One day Mahādāϯse asked the Gosāvī, ‘Lord, Lord, why is there so much
dancing in Pāṇḍharī? What is this, Lord? Why are there such pretensions
(upādhi)?’ The Omniscient one said, ‘My woman, this hero fell for the sake of
cattle. His name was Viṭṭhal. This hero-stone was erected in his name. A deity
identified himself with it. He fulfills people's wishes.’ ”
Although this does not have the sharp critique or the malice of the longer
version of the līḷā, still the point is clearly that Viṭṭhal is the divinized memorial
of a hero who protected cattle, that his origin was low. There can be no doubt
about this, nor about the fact that this idea was expressed at a time when
devotion to Viṭṭhal was flourishing.
The testimony of the founder of the Mahānubhāv sect will not suffice to satisfy
us that we have sorted out the question of the original form of Lord Viṭṭhal,
because Cakradhar included among the inferior deities not just the Vārkarīs’
Viṭṭhal but also their Kṛṣṇa (the eighth incarnation of Viṣṇu), the Kṛṣṇa with
whom Viṭṭhal is identified. From Cakradhar's point of view, Śiva, Viṣṇu, and all of
Viṣṇu's incarnations belong to the category of deities (devatās), a category
inferior to Parameśvar, and Cakradhar's Kṛṣṇa, along with his Dattātreya, has no
connection whatsoever with Viṣṇu. This is the case despite the fact that
Cakradhar considered the Bhāgavata Purāṇa a holy scripture. Thus, it is
completely inappropriate to use Mahānubhāv sources in searching for Viṭṭhal's
original form, as they preach the contrary doctrine: “The deity Viṭṭhal is a ghost
that some people have brought to life from the cremation ground and have made
into a form of Kṛṣṇa.”
The Divinization of Heroes

From the beginnings of human history, sacrifice, suicide, and voluntary death for
a particular purpose have been extraordinarily important. People consider a man
(p.135) who has accepted such a death to be equal to a god, to himself be a
god. Such men hold a community together, and because of them new life is
continually created. This strange impulse to embrace death in order to obtain
immortality is more or less universal, and it is completely natural for humans to
sense that men whose lives manifest this impulse are like gods. The human mind
cannot endure the idea of vigorous youth ending in death, so it always tries to
make death itself the stimulus for creation, minimizing the importance of
biological death and magnifying enormously the importance of voluntary death
for higher purposes.
Page 13 of 18
In India, the glorification of heroic death is seen, for example, in the following
verse from an inscription in Karnataka:10
There are two kinds of men in the world who break through the orb
of the sun:
The renouncer disciplined by yoga and a man slain on the battlefield.
Kṛṣṇa, who said to Arjun, “If you are killed you will attain
heaven” (Bhagavadgītā 2.37), sings over and over again the praises of a heroic
death. In the cult of Khaṇḍobā in Maharashtra and Karnataka, devotees who
intentionally show their mastery over bodily pain are given the epithet
“hero” (vīr). There is also decisive evidence of cases in which hero-stones have
become divinized, including details like the place and time of the divinization.
One good example of this is found in a text about Guhāgar.
In order to sing the glory of Śrīvāḍeśvar (Vyāḍeśvar), a Śiva temple at Guhāgar

(in the Koṅkaṇ, on the shore of the Arabian Sea), and, by association, of Guhāgar
and its region, a local poet named Viśvanāth Mahādev Pitre composed a long
Sanskrit poem in fourteen chapters entitled “Śrīvāḍeśvarodaya” (Parāḍkar
1981). This verse composition, which is a kind of place Māhātmya, was
completed in Śake 1559 (A.D. 1637). Its thorough description of Guhāgar
includes three verses (13.47–49) that give remarkable, extremely clear details
about some hero memorials in the middle of the town. The poet says:
Between the two parts of the village one can see stone statues in the
road.
They are heroes of the lineage of the kings who lived here.
Images of those heroic men, who died on the batttlefield and became
famous,
are carved on stones in the middle of the village.
Because they respond favorably to prayers for desired objects,
they have attained divinity and some people worship them as gods.
These verses present a clear picture of the whole process: the deep respect for
heroes who have lost their lives on the battlefield, the stone memorials erected
for (p.136) them out of that respect, the vows that are made to them from an
obscure faith in the stone memorials, and the divinity bestowed on them because
of people's experience of their favorable response to vows. This evidence from
the first half of the seventeenth century is undoubtedly important for showing
the process whereby hero memorials become divinized.
Śūdra Heroes and Hero-Stones

The hero in the older version of the līḷā in the Līḷācaritra (the one in Kolte's
edition) was a hero who protected cattle. So was the divinized hero in the hero-
stone at Pandharpur that has been presented as confirming the līḷā. They were
heroes because they gave up their life defending cows. To this day, there are
many hero-stones that memorialize heroes who died protecting cattle. In
Page 14 of 18
traditional Indian society, cows and Brāhmaṇs were considered pre-eminently

holy, cow-murder and Brāhmaṇ-murder were counted among the greatest of
sins, and therefore protecting cows and Brāhmaṇs was the duty of Kṣatriyas and
heroes. Many kings proudly took the title “Protector of Cows and Brāhmaṇs.”
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa has Kṛṣṇa say, “honoring Brāhmaṇs and protecting cows
is worship of me” (11.11.43). Eknāth elaborates these words of Kṛṣṇa's (Eknāthī
Bhāgavat 11.1390–91) further:
Know that therefore cows and Brāhmaṇs are my life-breath.

Know that these two are a readily available way to worship me.
Know that one who protects cows in times of crisis pleases me.
I myself protect cows along with him.
The Lord loves a man who protects cows in times of danger, but traditional
society also believes firmly that such a man becomes one with Kṛṣṇa, who
“protects cows in Gokuḷ.”
The cow-protector heroes commemorated in hero-stones are for the most part
Śūdras. “Śuṣrūṣaṇaṃ dvijagavāṃ”—serving cows and Brāhmaṇs—is seen as an
important part of “Śūdra nature” in the traditional Hindu social order
(Bhāgavata Purāṇa 11.17.19). In interpreting the verse from the Bhāgavata
Purāṇa that proclaims this idea, Eknāth writes (Eknāthī Bhāgavat 17.188),
Know that one who has given up his life protecting cattle attains an
excellent fate.
I, Śrīkṛṣṇa, always help a person who has deep compassion for cows.
(p.137) This idea, that those who give up their lives to protect cows obtain
Kṛṣṇa's help and his presence, fits well with ideas in the Manusmṛti (10.62): “A
man who, without expectation of reward, gives up his body to protect Brāhmaṇs
or cows, or a man who protects women and children, attains the highest reward,
even if he is outside the social order of the four varṇas.” Small engraved plaques
(ṭāks) of “outsiders” (bāhyas) who gave up their lives protecting members of a
Brāhmaṇ family are still worshiped in the home shrines of many such families. In
some cases, the protectors have been established on the embankments between
the Brāhmaṇs’ fields, where they still receive food offerings that include meat.
However disturbing this social background of hero-stones may be to our present

consciousness, it is impossible to avoid it as we try to understand the rise and
development of certain gods.
Viṭṭhal is not Originally a Hero-Stone

When we consider this background of the creation of hero-stones, as well as
people's faith in them, we must agree that it is possible for a hero-stone to reach
the status of a high god. However, even if we suddenly find strong evidence
establishing conclusively that Viṭṭhal was originally a hero-stone, that will not
reduce in the least his greatness, which has brightened the life of Maharashtra
Page 15 of 18
for centuries. Moreover, if we are going to claim that Viṭṭhal developed from a
hero-stone into a high god, we must accept the responsibility of providing
trustworthy evidence. Until we can present more evidence than the reference in
the Līḷācaritra, which arose out of sectarian enmity, Tulpule's view cannot be
proven. Besides, there is more than one hero-stone in Pandharpur, and therefore
the one in question does not really provide material evidence corroborating the
Mahānubhāv līḷā. V. L. Manjul has pointed out, for example, a hero-stone of the
same sort in the Baḍves’ Ekvīrā Devī temple in Kāsār Lane in Pandharpur
(Man͂jūḷ 1979).
When a god gradually attains superior status, those who elevate him generally
manage to give symbolic ritual priority to his original form, if it is retained in his
cult. If the hero-stone found opposite the main door of the temple in Pandharpur
were the original Viṭṭhal, it would certainly have been given symbolic ritual
priority, and some story explaining that priority would have been cleverly
composed and included in the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya. Some rule would have
become current, such as that a person taking darśan of the high-status Viṭṭhal
inside the temple does not get the merit of the darśan without also taking darśan
of the original form. On the hill-fort at Jejurī, the demon Maṇi has such ritual
priority, and Lajjāgaurī has this same sort of honorary right in the temple of
Mahākūṭeśvar at Badāmī. In addition, stories explaining these rights are told at
the two places. (p.138) However, there is no evidence that the cult of Viṭṭhal
includes any such story about that particular hero-stone at Pandharpur. The local
folk mind does not seem to have taken any special notice of it at all.
Though the saints may sing to the image of Viṭṭhal as Viṣṇu and Kṛṣṇa, the
image still does not have the characteristic attributes of either Viṣṇu or Kṛṣṇa.
Instead, it is an image of a folk deity with his hands on his hips. If a hero-stone
had been elevated and made into Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa, the image fashioned to be placed
in the temple would not have been another one of a folk deity resembling a hero-
stone; instead, it would have had all the traditional, well-known characteristics
of Viṣṇu or Kṛṣṇa.
Taking all these arguments into consideration, it is clear that, so far at least,
there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that Lord Viṭṭhal was originally a
hero-stone.
“The Valiant Ones of the Hero Viṭṭhal”

Because Tulpule did not find trustworthy evidence to support the theory that
Viṭṭhal was originally a hero-stone, and because he could not resist the
temptation of making a new discovery, he had to give a conflicting meaning to a
well-known saying by a saint. In order to support his new discovery, Tulpule
states (Tuḷpuḷe 1977: 7), “The realization that Viṭṭhal was originally a hero-stone
can also be seen in such words of the saints as ‘the valiant ones of the hero
Viṭṭhal’ (vīr viṭṭhalāce gāḍhe).”
Page 16 of 18
The well-known poem of Tukārām's that Tulpule is citing as evidence reads as

follows (Tukā. Gā., no. 1981):
The valiant ones of the hero Viṭṭhal: the Kali Yuga falls at their feet.
They shout out cries of victory; they burn up a mountain of faults.
Compassion, patience, and peace are the unbroken arrows in their
hands.
Tukā says, they are the only strong ones on earth.
If we look at this poem without bias, we can easily see that it describes the
saints’ heroism. The “valiant ones of the hero Viṭṭhal” are Viṭṭhal's valiantly
heroic saints. When these strong, valiant heroes of Viṭṭhal, who hold in their
hands the unbroken arrows of compassion, patience, and peace, began going
throughout the world with their extraordinary brilliance, shouting out the name
of God and making the praises of his virtues resound, the Kali Yuga became
frightened as it saw them, and it took refuge at their feet: this is what Tukārām
says, with justified pride and with a sharp realization of the strength of devotion.
The term “hero” is not applied to Viṭṭhal here; rather, the saints themselves are
“Viṭṭhal's valiant heroes.” The saints’ words cannot be used to prove that Viṭṭhal
was originally a hero-stone.
Notes:
(1.) In chapter 14, we will see numerous, indisputable pieces of evidence that
cast light on Viṭṭhal's original pastoralist form.
(2.) Translator's note: For a more detailed description of Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī, see

chapter 14.
(3.) Sontheimer 1981. In his book and numerous independent articles, Dr.
Sontheimer presents abundant research throwing light on the Viṭṭhal of the
Dhangar tradition. For references to these works, see the bibliography at the
end of the present volume.
(4.) Translator's note: Reading vorape for voraṇe in voraṇe : daravaḍe : gheti.
(5.) Translator's note: Reading ghuṭikāsiddhi, as in Kolte 1982, “Uttarārdha”

519, for ghaṭikāsiddhi.
(6.) In a note on this līḷā, Tulpule connects it with Nāmdev the tailor and
inattentively gives a completely false interpretation (Tuḷpuḷe 1967b: 158): “The
information that the sons of Nemdev the Koḷī, who had died in hand-to-hand
combat, composed verses and put the poet's signature ‘Viṭho-Rukmiṇī’ on them
is also unprecedented.”
(7.) In his book Śrīviṭṭhal āṇi Paṇḍharpūr (1963: 54), G. H. Khare affirms that the
wife of Viṭṭhal as Viṣṇu must be “Lakumā.”
Page 17 of 18
(8.) Translator's note: In referring to Jn͂āneśvar as having built the “foundation”

of the tradition of devotion to Viṭṭhal, Dhere is echoing a verse by the
seventeenth-century poet-saint Bahiṇābāī in which she compares the tradition to
a temple. Jāvaḍekar 1979: 69–70, abhaṅga 143.
(9.) Tuḷpuḷe 1966a: 53, “Pūrvārdha” 104; Tuḷpuḷe 1967a: 118, “Uttarārdha” 185.
(10.) Translator's note: Sontheimer (1989: 203) also quotes this verse as
occurring on hero-stones in Karnataka. It can be found in the critical edition of
the Mahābhārata, in the apparatus at 5.33.52.
Page 18 of 18
Puṇḍalīk and Puṇḍarīkeśvar


Print ISBN-13: 9780199777594
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.001.0001

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.003.0009

This chapter and the next take up the question of the historicity and meaning of
Puṇḍalīk, the devotee on account of whom Kṛṣṇa is understood to have settled as
Viṭṭhal in Pandharpur. Dhere argues that Puṇḍalīk was not a historical person,
despite the fact that he is referred to in inscriptions as well as in literary texts.
Rather, Puṇḍalīk was the presiding deity of Pandharpur. Although the story of
Puṇḍalīk makes him a devotee of Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa-Viṭṭhal, in Puṇḍalīk's temple at
Pandharpur he is represented by a Śiva liṅga. Dhere cites textual evidence that
the Puṇḍalīk who was in Pandharpur before Viṭṭhal arrived there was in fact
Puṇḍarīkeś or Puṇḍarīkeśvar, a form of Śiva, represented by a liṅga. As Vaiṣṇava
devotees gradually Vaiṣṇavized Viṭṭhal, making him into Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa,
“Puṇḍarīkeśvar” was shortened to “Puṇḍalīk” and Puṇḍalīk came to be identified
with various Vaiṣṇava devotees of that name who appear in the Purāṇas.
Keywords: historicity, meaning, Pandharpur, inscriptions, Pandharpur, literary texts
all worshipers of Viṭṭhal see him as a form of Gopāl Kṛṣṇa. It is Gopāl Kṛṣṇa
himself who lives in Pandharpur under the name “Vịṭṭhal.” This means that
Viṭṭhal is a deity of Vaiṣṇavas. The sthalapurāṇas of Pandharpur bring together
stories about the greatness of this deity and his retinue, stories that for many
centuries innumerable devotees and pilgrims have accepted with unquestioning
faith. According to these sthalapurāṇas and the faith that they support, the four
bases of the sacred complex of Pandharpur are the holy place (kṣetra)
Pandharpur, the holy river (tīrtha) Candrabhāgā, the deity Viṭṭhal, and the most
excellent devotee (bhakta) Puṇḍalīk. In addition, the sthalapurāṇas sing the
glory of Lakhūbāī in the Diṇḍīra Forest, of Padmāvatī near Padmālaya tīrtha, of
Page 1 of 12
Mallikārjun on the Mahādvār road, and of Veṇunād or Viṣṇupad in Gopalpur. On

the basis of the stories in the sthalapurāṇas, faithful devotees revere these gods
and places as well.
The sthalapurāṇas include stories that aim to bring into Viṭṭhal's retinue the
famous, popular deities who lived in Pandharpur before the Vaiṣṇava deity
Viṭṭhal “arrived”—that is, before Viṭṭhal grew in importance there in his
Vaiṣṇavized form. These stories also aim, as far as possible, to Vaiṣṇavize these
other deities. Despite this pervasive effort at Vaiṣṇavization, Mallikārjun and
Padmāvatī have retained their original, independent form. By contrast, Lakhūbāī
in the Diṇḍīra Forest and Puṇḍalīk in the bed of the Bhīmā River, although
surviving iconographically in their independent, original forms, have acquired
fully Vaiṣṇava life stories. (p.140) Lakhūbāī, as we have seen, took on the story
of the sulking Rukmiṇī, and Puṇḍalīk is well-known as a consummate Vaiṣṇava
devotee. The present chapter will examine Puṇḍalīk's original form and
summarize the astonishing process of his Vaiṣṇavization.
Inscriptions Referring to Puṇḍalīk

The story of Viṭṭhal's manifestation in Pandharpur appears in the Pāṇḍuraṅga
Māhātmya that predates Hemādri: God himself, pleased with Puṇḍalīk's devotion
to his mother and father, comes and stands before Puṇḍalīk in the form of Gopāl
Kṛṣṇa. After this Māhātmya became popular, all the saints devoted to Viṭṭhal
accepted this story wholeheartedly. In addition, a Yādava-period (Śake 1159 =
A.D. 1237) stone inscription found at Pandharpur refers to Viṭṭhal in terms of his
relationship to Puṇḍalīk: “the moon that causes the lotus of Puṇḍalīk muni's
mind to blossom.”1
Some scholars think that because stone inscriptions refer to Puṇḍalīk he must be
historical; this idea cannot be accepted. True, another stone inscription, dated
Śake 1233 (A.D. 1311) and located behind the samādhi of Cokhāmeḷā, describes
Viṭṭhal as puṇḍarīkavarada (“the one who gives a boon to Puṇḍalīk”).2 However,
this and the other inscription tell us only that the story of Viṭṭhal's connection
with Puṇḍalīk had already been fully established before Śake 1159 (A.D. 1237).
In other words, by 1237 Viṭṭhal's “Māhātmya” had been not only composed but
also universally accepted by his devotees. In the second inscription, right after
the adjective puṇḍarīkavarada, Viṭṭhal is called “the protector of the Pāṇḍavas.”
By no means does this reference to the Pāṇḍavas establish the historicity of the
Pāṇḍavas or their connection with Viṭṭhal. These words mean only that, because
Viṭṭhal is considered to be Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa, all the deeds of Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa apply to
Viṭṭhal.3
Inscriptions are more reliable than literary references only in the sense that they
are dated and their readings cannot be changed. The mere fact that a stone
inscription mentions something does not make that thing historical or factual. It
is not as if everyone who wrote texts was fantasizing and everyone who made
Page 2 of 12
inscriptions was factually accurate. For example, in numerous copper-plate and

stone inscriptions, kings record that their lineage arose from a god, a super-
human being, or a non-human being. Epigraphers are fully aware of this. At
Unakdev, near Māhūr, a stone inscription from the time of Rāmcandra Yādava
(Śake 1201 = A.D. 1279) records the glory of Unakdev as follows (Tuḷpuḷe 1963:
203, lines 4–5 of the inscription): “In the Tretā Yuga, while he was banished to
the forest, Rām came to Śarabhaṅga's āśram and made this water warm for
Śarabhaṅga's sake. From that (p.141) time on, this has been a divinely created
holy water-place (tīrtha).” On the basis of the dated evidence of this inscription,
we can say only that the Purāṇic story of the origin of the warm water at
Unakdev was fully known before A.D. 1279. The inscription does not prove the
historicity of Rām, of the sage Śarabhaṅga, or of their connection with Unakdev.
Inscriptions contain Purāṇic stories, fantasies, and folk beliefs as well as
historical facts. Thus, references to Puṇḍalīk in inscriptions do not prove that he
was a historical figure.
For the past seven or eight centuries, Viṭṭhal has proclaimed his sovereignty
over the history and geography of Maharashtra. From the early days of the
tradition of Marathi saints, the story that Viṭṭhal is Viṣṇu or Kṛṣṇa, that a certain
Puṇḍalīk's devotion to his parents pleased him, and that he therefore settled in
Pandharpur has been accepted with faith. However, for all the efforts that
scholars have made, they have not yet been able to find Puṇḍalīk in history.
Paṇḍaraṅge and Puṇḍalīk

The earliest Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya, the one in the Skanda Purāṇa, sketches the
story as follows: Puṇḍalīk, who is devoted to his parents, is continually
engrossed in serving them; the god, pleased with his devotion to his parents,
comes to stand in his presence in the form of Gopāl Kṛṣṇa with his hands on his
hips. According to this story, Puṇḍalīk was in Pandharpur before the god arrived;
he was not a worshiper of Viṭṭhal or Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa, but rather a devotee of his
mother and father; he did not invite the god, but the god came to see him of his
own accord.
In this context, one noteworthy “request” that Puṇḍalīk makes in the Māhātmya
in the Skanda Purāṇa is significant. Puṇḍalīk says to the god:
“Stay here, Lord, in this beautiful form.

Through my name may this place be famous, may gods worship it.”
Puṇḍalīk says, “Through my name may this place be famous.” And the god
himself promises Puṇḍalīk, “Oh, Brāhmaṇ, I will always live in this place that
bears your name.” This means that the name “Pandharpur” is connected with
“Puṇḍalīk.” What the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya intends to say is that the name of
the place derives from the name of Puṇḍalīk. By putting this request in
Puṇḍalīk's mouth, the Māhātmya gives a narrative explanation of the original
name of the place and reinterprets its sacrality from a Vaiṣṇava point of view.
Page 3 of 12
The story is quite obviously an etiological myth explaining the place-name

“Pandharpur.”
We can lay out as follows the facts that this story allows us to understand:
(p.142) 1. Viṭṭhal has become manifest in Pandharpur with his feet next
to each other and his hands on his hips.
2. Puṇḍalīk was famous enough in Pandharpur before Viṭṭhal's arrival to
become the principal cause of his manifestation.
3. Viṭṭhal came to visit Puṇḍalīk of his own accord; Puṇḍalīk did not invite
him.
4. The names of Pandharpur and Puṇḍalīk are closely connected.
We must search for Puṇḍalīk in the light of these facts. As I showed in chapter 1,
there is a Yādava-period inscription in which Pandharpur is called “Paṇḍarage”
or “Paṇḍaraṅge,”4 a name that clearly resembles the Kannada place-names
Kaḷbarge, Hipparge, and Sonnalige. “Pāṇḍuraṅga,” a Sanskritized form of
“Paṇḍaraṅge” that is now used to refer to Viṭṭhal, appears frequently as a place
name in Sanskrit and Marathi literature; only later did the name of the place
also became a name of the god.5 If there is a close connection between
Paṇḍaraṅge and Puṇḍalīk (or Puṇḍarīk), it must be that Puṇḍalīk presided over
Paṇḍaraṅge before Viṭṭhal arrived there. In order to do this, Puṇḍalīk must have
been not a human being but a god.
Puṇḍarīkeśvar, Not Puṇḍarīk

Fortunately, there exists unambiguous textual evidence of an awareness that
Puṇḍalīk or Puṇḍarīk is Śiva. Both Gopāḷācārya's Śrīviṭṭhalabhūṣaṇa (Karhāḍkar
1886) and the Śrīviṭṭhala-Ṛṅmantrasārabhāṣya by Pandharpur's famous pandit
Kashinath Upadhyay (Upādhyāy n.d.) cite verses about Pandharpur and Lord
Viṭṭhal from a Sanskrit text entitled Candalādevī Māhātmya. This text states that
Lord Viṭṭhal resides “on the bank of the Candrabhāgā, near Puṇḍarīkeś.” The
term “Puṇḍarīkeś” clearly refers to Śiva: the Candalādevī Māhātmya retains the
memory that Puṇḍarīk is “Puṇḍarīkeś,” that is, “Puṇḍarīkeśvar.” Just as the
abbreviation “Tryambak” is used for “Tryambakeśvar,” or “Kedār” for
“Kedāreśvar,” in the same way “Puṇḍarīk” is an abbreviated form of
“Puṇḍarīkeśvar.”
The Śiva who is the presiding god of the village of Vāśī, near Kolhapur, is named
“Vasudeveśvar,” and this is how the Karvīr Māhātmya refers to his temple.
However, when I went to Vāśī and asked for a god named “Vasudeveśvar,” I did
not easily get a response from the local people. Finally a gentleman asked me,
“Do you want to see Vasudev?” and he led me to the ruins of the Śiva temple.
“Vasudev,” clearly, is a natural, short, more easily pronounceable form of
“Vasudeveśvar.” Paṇḍaraṅgeśvar or Puṇḍarīkeśvar of Paṇḍaraṅge is like this
Vasudeveśvar of Vāśī, or like Puṇyeśvar of Pune. In Nellore District in Andhra
Pradesh there is a place (p.143) named “Paṇḍaraṅgam,” whose presiding deity
Page 4 of 12
is named Śiva Paṇḍaraṅgeśvar (Venkata Ramanayya 1950: 99–100n), that has

been famous since the time of the Cālukyas of Veṅgī and is mentioned in
numerous inscriptions. At Pandharpur, Viṭṭhal's worshipers Vaiṣṇavized the
Puṇḍarīkeśvar of Paṇḍaraṅge and gave him the life story of a great Vaiṣṇava
devotee. The literature of the saints shows this, and we can also see it by looking
at Puṇḍalīk in his temple in Pandharpur today.
“In Between is the Beautiful Puṇḍalīk Liṅga”

In the saints’ universe of faith, Puṇḍalīk is an ascetic sage (muni), a king of
devotees, a great Vaiṣṇava. The saints accept with unquestioning faith his
Purāṇic life story, which the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya describes as the cause of
Viṭṭhal's manifestation. The saints also say again and again that one should have
darśan of this king of devotees before going for darśan of Viṭṭhal in Pandharpur.
However, despite the fact that the saints repeatedly proclaim the excellence of
Puṇḍalīk's devotion and are eager to take his darśan before taking that of
Viṭṭhal, they do not usually mention what Puṇḍalīk looks like.6 The saints
emphasize what can be seen with the eyes of faith, and so we should not expect
them to describe externally visible forms. We are told that the form of Puṇḍalīk
that we see today in his temple is his samādhi,7 and we refer to it that way over
and over again. However, we must realize that the saints do not ever call his
visible form a samādhi.
The two great saints who do mention Puṇḍalīk's visible form call it a liṅga rather
than a samādhi. Eknāth, who sings of the unsurpassed glory of Puṇḍalīk, states
(Ek. Gā. 329):
1. Blessed is the southern part of the earth, where Pāṇḍuraṅga

stands.
In between is the beautiful Puṇḍalīk liṅga, in front is the lovely
Bhīmarathī River.
2. How can I praise that glory, as soon as I see the Bhīmā River?
On the far shore is the Supreme Soul, whom Śiva cannot
comprehend.
3. Holding both hands on his hips, Cakrapāṇī waits,
eager for his devotees. Ekā takes refuge in Janārdana.
Eknāth's description of Pandharpur states clearly that the beautiful “Puṇḍalīk

liṅga” is between Pāṇḍuraṅga and the Bhīmarathī River. No samādhi of a holy
man is referred to as a liṅga. Even though there is often a smallish Śiva liṅga on
the vṛndāvan or base of a samādhi, we do not call the samādhi a liṅga. On the
other hand, we freely refer to the images worshiped in Śiva temples as
“Rāmeśvar liṅga,” (p.144) “Somnāth liṅga,” “Viśvanāth liṅga,” “Kedār liṅga,”
“Rām liṅga,” and so on. Thus, even though Eknāth may have completely
accepted Puṇḍalīk as a great Vaiṣṇava in terms of his biography, Eknāth's words
Page 5 of 12
testify categorically that when he looked at Puṇḍalīk with his own eyes, what he
saw was a Śiva liṅga.
Tukārām, Eknāth's spiritual heir, gives strong support to this testimony. In

singing the glory of Paṇḍharī, he states, just like Eknāth (Tukā. Gā. 1748):
1. I love Paṇḍharī: the Bhīmā, Pāṇḍuraṅga,

the Candrabhāgā, the liṅga Puṇḍalīk.
2. The Wish-granting Cow (kāmadhenu), the Wish-granting Tree
(kalpataru), and the Wish-granting Gem (cintāmaṇi)
fulfill my desires.
3. Tukā says, my soul is extremely happy.
I forget all this hunger and thirst.
The reason that Tukārām loves Paṇḍharī is that the Bhīmā, the Candrabhāgā
Lake, Pāṇḍuraṅga, and the Puṇḍalīk liṅga are there. By taking darśan of all of
these, which fulfill wishes the way the kāmadhenu, the kalpataru, and the
cintāmaṇi do, Tukārām's soul gets great happiness, and his hunger and thirst
disappear. Tukārām refers to Puṇḍalīk as the “Puṇḍalīk liṅga.”
These abhaṅgas on Paṇḍharī by Eknāth and Tukārām show us Puṇḍalīk in the

form of a liṅga. What Eknāth and Tukārām saw in Puṇḍalīk's temple was not a
vṛndāvan, not a samādhi stone, not a memorial platform, but a Śiva liṅga. Why
would Puṇḍalīk have the form of Śiva and the biography of a great Vaiṣṇava? Is
this a contradiction, or does it reveal a greater consistency that has always been
present in the Marathi devotional tradition? We need to search for an answer to
this question.
Puṇḍalīk's Temple: a Śiva Temple

Still today, three or four hundred years later, we can experience the “visible
reality” of what Eknāth and Tukārām said so clearly about the Śiva liṅga in the
Puṇḍalīk temple. The hundreds of thousands of Vārkarīs and other faithful
devotees who go to Pandharpur bathe in the holy water of the Bhīmā. Then,
before taking darśan of Viṭṭhal, they bring to mind the deeds of Puṇḍalīk, the
king of devotees, for whom the god became manifest in Pandharpur, and they
take darśan of Puṇḍalīk in his temple in the river bed. Even though they think of
Puṇḍalīk as a Vaiṣṇava devotee, still the form in which he stands before their
eyes is that of a Śiva liṅga.
(p.145) In 1924, Narayan Ramcandra Gokhale published his Sacitra

Paṇḍharīvarṇan, a book that describes in detail most of the principal holy places,
tīrthas, and temples that are found in Pandharpur today. Gokhale's book was
based on the long article about Pandharpur in the Solapur District Gazeteer
(GBP 1884: 415–85), and G. H. Khare drew on the book for his own description
of Pandharpur (Khare 1963). Gokhale writes as follows about Puṇḍalīk's temple
(Gokhale 1924: 40):
Page 6 of 12
On the beach of the Candrabhāgā River, about 500 yards east of the temple
of Viṭhobā, is Puṇḍalīk's temple. Puṇḍalīk's temple has two parts: one is
the place where the image resides and the other is the hall.…The pinnacle
of this temple is higher than those of the other temples. Inside the temple,
a brass mask is installed over the śāḷuṅkā-base8 and the liṅga. This is what
is called Puṇḍalīk. They put clothes on this mask, they place a crown on its
head, and they put earrings in its ears. Near the śāḷuṅkā on both sides are
brass reliefs of Jay and Vijay. The Koḷīs do pūjā to [the mask] every
morning, bathing it in the five nectars and offering it bel leaves and
flowers. At mid-day a Brāhmaṇ sends a food-offering (naivedya). In the
evening there is āratī9 with incense. Each year at Mahāśivarātrī a festival
takes place here for five days, beginning on the tenth day of the dark half
of the month of Māgh. At that time the Koḷīs serve a meal to beggars, blind
people, and lame people. They apply sandalwood paste in the hot season.
When we analyze Gokhale's information about the holy place of Puṇḍalīk and the
ritual worship there, we gain important insights about Puṇḍalīk's original form:
1. The god who is the object of regular pūjā in the sanctuary of the
Puṇḍalīk temple is a Śiva liṅga with a śāḷuṅkā-base.
2. The Śiva liṅga is covered with a brass mask, which gets decorated with
clothes and jewelry.
3. The rule is for this Śiva liṅga to be offered bel leaves and flowers at its
regular worship.
4. The principal annual festival here is Mahāśivarātrī; it takes place for
five days beginning with the tenth day of the dark fortnight of Māgh
(January–February).
5. Koḷīs have the ritual rights at this temple.
The impressive brass mask that is placed over the Puṇḍalīk liṅga is just like the
masks on the Śiva liṅgas at many other Śiva temples. With a full mustache, a
horizontal mark of sandalwood paste on the forehead, and the protective shade
of (p.146) a five-hooded cobra, the mask is just like the well-known ones of
Śiva (figure 8–1). The Śiva liṅga over which it is installed is not a small one;
rather, it too is impressive (figure 8–2).
In any Śiva temple, the god's vehicle, Nandī, faces him in an area opposite the
sanctuary or outside the temple. There is a Nandī for this temple too, but he has
been displaced (figure 8–3). Sometime or other when the Bhīmā River was
flooded, a wave dislodged him from his place facing Śiva. The folk imagination
has even created a story that explains how he came to be out of place:
One night a young man who was wandering slept in this temple along with
his mother. While asleep, he unconsciously committed the sin of incest with
his mother; he realized this when he woke up in the morning. He was
Page 7 of 12
saddened by the realization of this sin and went to one of the learned legal
experts in the holy place and reported the whole incident to him. The legal
expert said to the young man, “Take a bundle of fodder into Puṇḍalīk's
temple. Toss the bundle behind Nandī and say to him, ‘If I am innocent,
turn
(p.147)
Figure 8–1 The Puṇḍalīk liṅga, covered

with a mask, Pandharpur. Photo by Anne
Feldhaus.
Page 8 of 12
(p.148) around and eat Figure 8–2 The Śiva liṅga in the Puṇḍalīk
this bundle.’ If this test
temple without its mask, during morning
proves you innocent, you
pūjā, Pandharpur. Photo by Anne
have no reason to be
anxious.” The young man Feldhaus.
did what the legal expert
advised, and Nandī turned
around and ate the bundle
of fodder!
This is the folk imagination's

supernatural explanation for
the fact that the Nandī in the
Puṇḍalīk temple is not in the
proper position.
In the Puṇḍalīk temples in

the village of Nandvāḷ near
Kolhapur and at Viṭṭhal-vāḍī
in Pune, we find Figure 8–3 Nandī in a shrine near the
corroborative evidence that door of the Puṇḍalīk temple, Pandharpur.
the Puṇḍalīk temple in Photo by Anne Feldhaus.
Pandhar-pur is a Śiva temple
with Nandī facing it. The
Puṇḍalīk temples in these other places were built in conformity with the one at
Pandharpur. The Nandī in each of them is directly opposite the Śiva liṅga. This
makes it clear that the Nandī in the Puṇḍalīk temple in Pandharpur must have
previously been directly opposite its Śiva liṅga as well.
The huge liṅga with a śāḷuṅkā-base in the Puṇḍalīk temple; the presence of
Nandī, Śiva's vehicle; the use of bel leaves along with flowers in worship; the
fact that the principal annual festival takes place at Mahāśivarātrī; and the fact
that the Koḷīs have the right to perform the ritual worship—all of this establishes
incontrovertibly that Puṇḍalīk is Śiva, who dwells here with the life story of a
preeminent Vaiṣṇava devotee.
A book entitled Śrīkṣetra Paṇḍharpūr Darśan was written in 1960 by Ganesh

Vaman (Baburav) Joshi, a famous social activist of Pandharpur; Ramakantbuva
Jnanoba Mauli; and P. J. Bhalerav Guruji (Jośī, Māülī, and Bhālerāv 1960). This
book provides a number of details that support Gokhale's description and the
other information he gives. These informed locals state, “There is a śāḷuṅkā-base
in the sanctuary of the Puṇḍalīk temple. In it is a liṅga. Over that is a hollow bust
with a five-hooded cobra (Nāgobā). Puṇḍalīk's priests are Koḷīs, as are all the
priests of Mahādev in the holy place.” Another book describing Pandharpur
gives the exact same information (Cendavaṇkar 1965: 75):
Page 9 of 12
In the temple is an enormous piṇḍī (liṅga) of Śiva. A brass cover has been
placed on it, with an attractive mask of Puṇḍalīk on the front of the piṇḍī.
This mask has a five-hooded Nāgobā (cobra). Puṇḍalīk's priests and all the
priests of Mahādev in this holy place are Koḷīs. Moreover, Koḷīs have
complete control of this temple. In the early history of Pandharpur, the four
families Abhaṅgrāv, Andhṛṭrāv (Adhaṭrāv?), Nehatrarāv (Nehatrāv?), and
Jhun͂jhārrāv came here at the command of a king, under the leadership of
the general Pān͂cāḷ. Their lineages have ownership rights to all the Śiva
temples here, the principal one being the Puṇḍalīk temple.
(p.149) Not just evidence in books, but personal observation and inquiry will
readily convince any researcher, or any faithful worshiper of Viṭṭhal, that
“Puṇḍalīk,” the object of worship in the Puṇḍalīk temple in Pandharpur, is a Śiva
liṅga with a śāḷuṅkā-base; that Nandī, the vehicle of Śiva, is present there; that
bel leaves, which are used in the worship of Śiva, are included among the
materials for the regular ritual worship in the temple; that the principal annual
festival there is Mahāśivarātrī; and that the priests who have the traditional
rights of worship in the temple are Koḷīs, the kind of priests who have authority
over all the principal Śiva temples in Pandharpur. What this means is that, even
though the Marathi Bhāgavat religion has given Puṇḍalīk the biography of a
great Vaiṣṇava, he nevertheless looks like Śiva and receives the kind of worship
that Śiva does.
Mallikārjun and Puṇḍarīk

As worshipers of Viṭṭhal gradually promoted Viṭṭhal's Gopāl Kṛṣṇa form in
Pandharpur or Paṇḍaraṅge kṣetra, where Śiva was the principal deity, they also
attempted to Vaiṣṇavize two Śiva places that were already established there.
These were the temples of Puṇḍarīkeśvar, the presiding deity of the settlement
called Paṇḍaraṅge, and Mallikārjun, the presiding deity of the settlement named
Lohān. “Paṇḍaraṅge” was Sanskritized as “Pāṇḍuraṅga,” and “Lohān” was
Sanskritized as “Lohadaṇḍa.”10 The name Puṇḍarīkeśvar was abbreviated as
Puṇḍarīk or Puṇḍalīk. The biography of Puṇḍalīk in the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya
and in the other texts of that tradition was fashioned under the combined
influence of the stories of an eminent Vaiṣṇava devotee named Puṇḍalīk in the
Mahābhārata (Anuśāsanaparva), the Skanda Purāṇa (the Puruṣottamakṣetra
Māhātmya in the Vaiṣṇava Khaṇḍa), the Padma Purāṇa (the Kālindī Māhātmya in
the Uttarakhaṇḍa), the Nṛsiṃha Purāṇa, and other Purāṇic texts. We will
examine this process in detail in the next chapter.
The Vaiṣṇavization of Mallikārjun occurred quite differently from that of

Puṇḍalīk. The story about Mallikārjun, which I discussed in chapter 3 in the
context of the Diṇḍīra Forest, is as follows (PMPP, chapters 1 and 2):
Where Pandharpur now is, there was formerly a forest (van). In that forest
there lived an extremely terrible demon named Diṇḍīrava. Because he lived
Page 10 of 12
there, the forest was known as the Diṇḍīrava Forest (Diṇḍīra Forest). In
order to kill him, Viṣṇu himself took the form of Mallikārjun Śiva and killed
Ḍiṇḍīrava with an iron rod (lohadaṇḍa). Because Viṣṇu killed Ḍiṇḍīrava
with a lohadaṇḍa, this place came to be known as Lohadaṇḍakṣetra.
(p.150) Besides presenting narrative explanations of two Sanskritized place

names, Ḍiṇḍīravan and Lohadaṇḍakṣetra, this story also makes the point that,
even though Mallikārjun in Lohadaṇḍakṣetra appears to be Śiva, he is in fact
Viṣṇu: Viṣṇu himself took the form of Mallikārjun Śiva in order to kill the demon.
The two ancient gods Mallikārjun and Puṇḍarīk (Puṇḍarīkeśvar) are the
principal architects of the Śaiva status of Pandharpur. The Vaiṣṇava worshipers
of Viṭṭhal attempted to Vaiṣṇavize both these deities, each in a different way. The
claim that Mallikārjun is Śiva, but that Viṣṇu took on his form, presupposes the
idea of the unity of Śiva and Viṣṇu, a unity implying their equal status. With
respect to Puṇḍalīk, the process of Vaiṣṇavization was different. Puṇḍalīk was
identified as a great devotee of Viṣṇu: in this kind of Vaiṣṇavization, Viṭṭhal's
primacy as Viṣṇu was preserved, and Puṇḍalīk was brought into his retinue in
the humble role of a devotee. Otherwise too in the Vaiṣṇava tradition, Śiva has
been considered a consummate devotee: this can be seen in the Jn͂āneśvarī as
well.
Puṇḍalīk/Puṇḍarīk/Puṇḍarīkeśvar was the original presiding god of the large

village of Paṇḍaraṅge. He was Vaiṣṇavized as an outstanding devotee and given
the biography of a “Servant of Viṣṇu” (Viṣṇu-dās). Then, in order to assuage the
feelings of Puṇḍalīk's original Śaiva worshipers, Viṭṭhal's followers carefully
preserved the custom of taking Puṇḍalīk's darśan first, before going for darśan of
Viṭṭhal. Such symbolic priority is not only found in the field of religion; it
provides a key for understanding many of our mysterious social customs, rules,
and laws as well. For perceptive, insightful scholars, these mysteries are a
constant invitation. The honorary right of Puṇḍalīk to have worshipers take his
darśan first, before they have that of Viṭṭhal, is one such mystery, one that brings
to light the hidden history of the social-cultural connection between Koḷīs and
cowherds in Pandharpur. Puṇḍarīkeśvar is a great witness to that history.
Notes:
(1.) Puṇḍarīkamunimanaḥkumudavikāsasudhākara. In Gokhale 1981: 81, lines
78–80 (western part) of the inscription.
(2.) Tuḷpuḷe 1963: 260, lines 2–3 of the inscription.
(3.) Translator's note: Including Kṛṣṇa's role in the Mahābhārata story.
(4.) See Gokhale 1981: 79 and 81, lines 20 (eastern part), 87 (eastern part), and
77 (western part) of the inscription.
Page 11 of 12
(5.) In the same way, the name of the holy place Tirumalai (in Andhra Pradesh)
occurs even in Maharashtra in forms like “Tirmal” and “Trimal” that refer to the
god of the place as well.
(6.) They also, with the exception of a few general characteristics, give no details
about the external appearance of Viṭṭhal, the supreme object of their devotion.
(7.) Translator's note: A samādhī is the place, or a special kind of stone marking
the place, where a yogi or ascetic entered a terminal state of trance. The trance
state itself is also called samādhi.
(8.) Translator's note: This is the platform on which the liṅga rests and which is
sometimes said to represent the female element. A channel carved into the top
of it encircles the liṅga and leads off to one side, allowing the water and other
liquids poured onto the liṅga to flow off.
(9.) Translator's note: This is a ritual in which a rhythmic song is sung,

accompanied by clapping of hands and sometimes by percussion instruments,
while an officiant waves burning camphor, small oil lamps, or incense in a
circular motion in front of a deity.
(10.) Kshirasagar 1961: 104. “Lohadaṇḍa urpha Paṇḍharpūr Kṣetra Kaifiyat,” a

prose text in Moḍī script in the Government Oriental Manuscript Library of
Madras, mentions that “there is a village Lohān on the bank of the Candrabhāgā.
There someone named Puṇḍarīk set up a thatched hut, and his mother and
father and his family as well were living there.” See also chapter 3.
Page 12 of 12
The Sources of the Story of Puṇḍalīk


Print ISBN-13: 9780199777594
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.001.0001

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.003.0010

This chapter presents several Purāṇic and Purāṇic-style stories of Vaiṣṇava
devotees named Puṇḍalīk, and shows that many of these stories were used in
creating the Māhātmyas of Pandharpur and in piecing together the story of
Puṇḍalīk, the filial devotee on account of whom Kṛṣṇa came to Pandharpur and
became Viṭṭhal. Dhere also reviews the history of scholarship on Puṇḍalīk and
considers the reasons why scholars would ignore the obvious fact that Puṇḍalīk's
image is one of Śiva. Finally, Dhere discusses the Śaiva (Nāth) background of the
earliest of the poet-saints devoted to Viṭṭhal, and the liberal Maharashtrian
tradition of the unity of Viṣṇu and Śiva (Hari and Hara). Dhere traces this
tradition ultimately to the ancient Pāśupata sect, which was once spread over all
of India and later merged into new sects (Mahānubhāvs, Vīraśaivas, Nāths) that
arose in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and became influential in
Maharashtra and Karnataka.
Keywords: Maharashtra, Karnataka, Pandharpur, liberal Maharashtrian tradition, India
in the śrīvaiṣṇava holy place Melkoṭā, a carved statue of Puṇḍalīk stands next to
statues of other well-known Purāṇic Vaiṣṇavas such as Pralhād, Nārad, and
Parāśar.1 Those who proclaim that they have found the “Puṇḍalīk connected with
Viṭṭhal” at Melkoṭā are simply deluded: they ignore (and cause others to forget)
that the statue at Melkoṭā is found in the context of a group of devotees of Viṣṇu.
Page 1 of 21
The name “Puṇḍarīk” or “Puṇḍalīk” occurs frequently in lists of Viṣṇu devotees

in the Purāṇas. For example, one popular Purāṇic list of well-known Vaiṣṇavas
reads as follows (Pāṇḍava Gītā 1):
I call to mind Prarhād,2 Nārad, Parāśar, Puṇḍarīk,

Vyās, Aṃbarīṣ, Śuk, Śaunak, Bhīṣma, Dālbhya,
Rukmāṅgad, Arjun, Vasiṣṭha, Bibhīṣaṇ, and other
meritorious, most excellent Bhāgavats.
The “Puṇḍarīk” in this list is not the Puṇḍalīk of Pandharpur, the one for whose
sake Lord Kṛṣṇa placed his hands on his hips and stood on a brick, the Puṇḍalīk
in the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya. Rather, this is a Puṇḍalīk who was well known in
the Purāṇas before the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya was composed.
When we compare the stories in the Purāṇas with those in the Māhātmyas of
Pandharpur, we can tell that the Māhātmyas’ authors had many different Purāṇic
(p.152) Viṣṇu-devotee Puṇḍalīks and Puṇḍarīks before their eyes as they
“composed” the biography of Puṇḍalīk of Pandharpur. In this chapter we will
examine those stories, and several others as well. This will give us an idea of the
materials that have been reworked to fashion the life story of the Puṇḍalīk of
Pandharpur.
Puṇḍarīk in the Padma and Nṛsiṃha Purāṇas

In order to “praise the glory of Viṣṇu,” the Uttarakhaṇḍa of the Padma Purāṇa
(Book 6) narrates in 168 verses a detailed version of the story of Puṇḍarīk
(Padmapurāṇa 1958: 282–92). The same story is also found in the Nṛsiṃha
Purāṇa, a minor Purāṇa that is included among the Vaiṣṇava Purāṇas because its
subject, Nṛsiṃha, is considered an incarnation of Viṣṇu. My discussion here will
follow the story in the Nṛsiṃha Purāṇa (Aināpure 1911: 231–39). The story of
Puṇḍarīk the devotee of Viṣṇu is told in the penultimate chapter of this Purāṇa
(chapter 64), in 124 verses of a conversation between Bharadvāj and Sūt.
Bharadvāj begins by referring to knowledgeable men's praise of various means
of achieving liberation from rebirth, and he makes the following request of Sūt
(verse 7): “Please tell me, omniscient one, which of these the Mahātmās approve
as the best practice, the one that will achieve all my goals.” Then Sūt tells
Bharadvāj, as an example of a good practice, the “ancient history of Puṇḍarīk,
which brings about liberation from the cycle of existence”:
There was a great ascetic sage named Puṇḍarīk, who came from a
Brāhmaṇ family and was richly learned in the scriptures. He was a celibate
ascetic, expert in the Vedas and Vedāṅgas, skilled in all fields of
knowledge, completely adept at sacrificial ritual, engrossed in asceticism
and study, learned in the science of the Absolute, and, most especially,
devoted to serving his mother and father. However, because his mind was
perfectly detached from this-worldly pleasures, he renounced his parents,
Page 2 of 21
his siblings, and all his relatives as if they were but straw, and, thinking of
the whole world as a clod of dirt, he set out on a pilgrimage.
In the course of his pilgrimage, Puṇḍarīk came to Śāligrām kṣetra; there, in

an atmosphere made holy by many ascetics, he became engrossed in
devotion to Viṣṇu. Once, when Puṇḍarīk had been practicing devotion to
Viṣṇu this way for a long time, the great seer Nārad came to Śāligrām
kṣetra in the course of his wanderings. Hearing people praise Puṇḍarīk's
asceticism, Nārad became very eager to meet him, and he went to
Puṇḍarīk's hermitage. As soon as Puṇḍarīk saw that a great ascetic had
come to his place, he worshiped Nārad properly and asked humbly,
(p.153) 43. Who are you, most lustrous Sir, and where have you come
from?
The sight of you is generally quite difficult for earthlings without merit to
obtain.
Nārad said, “I am a servant of Vāsudev, the god of gods. I learned that you
are a supreme devotee of Hari, and so I have come out of curiosity to see
you” (verses 46–47).
Hearing Nārad's words, Puṇḍarīk realized how effective his asceticism had
been, and he continued listening with the greatest faith to what Nārad
said. Nārad told Puṇḍarīk in pithy words the spiritual secret that brings
about liberation from the cycle of existence, and lovingly related to him the
greatness of Nārāyaṇ that Brahmā had previously told him about:
60. The Puruṣa who is beyond Prakṛti, who is known as the

twenty-fifth,3
He alone is called the “Nara” (“Male”) of all beings.
61. The principles that are born from Nara are therefore
known as “Nāras.”
Because they are his movement (ayana), he is known as
Nārāyaṇ.
62. At the time of the creation, the whole world is born from
Nārāyaṇ,
and it devolves into him again at the final destruction.
Hearing from the great sage Nārad the glory of Nārāyaṇ and of the
mantra “Homage to Nārāyaṇ,” Puṇḍarīk was pleased, and he began
to practice recollection of Viṣṇu, repeating again and again, “Homage
to Keśav” (verse 98). Staying for a long time in Śāligrām kṣetra,
engrossed in Viṣṇu this way, Puṇḍarīk obtained the “ultimate Vaiṣṇavī
power (siddhī).” The forest animals gave up their hostility and began
to stay close to him. Lord Viṣṇu, pleased with this paramount
devotion of Puṇḍarīk's, finally appeared before him. Viṣṇu said to that
Page 3 of 21
excellent devotee, whose eyes were drinking up the brilliance of his

beauty:
112. “I am pleased, my child; may things go well for you, great-

minded Puṇḍarīk.
113. Choose a boon. I will give you whatever you have in mind.
…”
However, Puṇḍarīk humbly said, “How can someone with as small an

intellect as mine know what is good for me? You decide yourself, O Lord,
where my welfare lies, and accordingly tell me what to do” (verses 114–
15).
(p.154) This humble, devoted attitude of Puṇḍarīk's pleased Viṣṇu even

further, and he lovingly commanded him:
116–17. Come. Be well. Stay just with me, you whose vows are
good,
bearing my form, the eternal self, as my own attendant.
Close examination of this story of Puṇḍarīk from the Nṛsiṃha Purāṇa reveals
some significant features:
1. Puṇḍarīk was supremely devoted to Viṣṇu, and he practiced asceticism

in Śāligrām kṣetra, which Viṣṇu had established. He is called “twice-
born” (that is, he was a Brāhmaṇ) and “a great ascetic sage” (a
mahāmuni).
2. Puṇḍarīk was a celibate ascetic (a brahmacārī). At first he was
engrossed in serving his mother and father, and later he renounced all his
relatives and came to Śāligrām kṣetra in order to practice the asceticism
of devotion to Viṣṇu.
3. Realizing the excellence of Puṇḍarīk's asceticism, first the great sage
Nārad came to meet him, and after that Lord Viṣṇu appeared to him and
took him along to his heaven.
4. Nārad instructed Puṇḍarīk by singing the limitless praises of Nārāyaṇ,
of the mantra “Homage to Nārāyaṇ,” and of devotees of Nārāyaṇ. In
praising Vaiṣṇavas, Nārad not only said, of course, that those who have
fallen are saved by devotion to Viṣṇu, but also distinctly claimed that a
Vaiṣṇava devotee born in a family considered lowly can purify others:
45. Oh excellent Brahman, if people think of a devotee of the Lord,

converse with him, or worship him, even if that devotee is a Cāṇḍāla,
he will spontaneously purify them.
.…
93. If even malicious, evil-souled men who continually delight in
doing wrong take refuge in Nārāyaṇ, they too can attain the highest
place.
Page 4 of 21
5. The adjective “twenty-fifth” that Nārad uses for Viṣṇu in verse 60 is worth
noting in relation to the Marathi saints’ praise of Viṭṭhal. As we saw in chapter 2,
the Marathi saints frequently refer to Lord Viṭṭhal as “other than the twenty-
four” and as the “twenty-fifth.” What they generally mean is that Viṭṭhal is not
one of the twenty-four incarnations of Viṣṇu. In this story of Puṇḍarīk the
meaning of “twenty-fifth” is different. Here the meaning is that Viṣṇu is “beyond
the twenty-four principles” of Sāṅkhya (p.155) philosophy. The fact that the
verse also refers to Viṣṇu (or Nārāyaṇ) as being “beyond Prakṛti” reinforces this
interpretation. When the saints call Viṣṇu the “twenty-fifth,” then, they could
also be referring to this other, philosophical meaning of “twenty-fifth.”
Puṇḍarīk and Ambarīṣ

The Skanda Purāṇa (1960: 162–72) includes the story of how the two friends
Puṇḍarīk and Ambarīṣ were saved. The sixty chapters at the very beginning of
the Utkala Khaṇḍa, the second of many sub-sections in the Vaiṣṇava Khaṇḍa of
the Skanda Purāṇa, comprise the Puruṣottama Kṣetra Māhātmya, the Māhātmya
of Jagannāth Purī in Orissa. The story of Puṇḍarīk and Ambarīṣ is found in the
fourth and fifth chapters of this Māhātmya:
Puṇḍarīk was a Brāhmaṇ and Ambarīṣ was a Kṣatriya. Both were born in
Kurukṣetra. They would “eat together and move around together,” and
they were also equally prone to all kinds of sinful behavior (VKSP 2.4.86):
From the point of view of dharma, they were unworthy; they were
ruined by great sins;
They indulged in alcohol and meat, and they took pleasure in
cohabiting with concubines.
Once, as the two of them were wandering around, they happened to go to a

place where a sacrifice was being performed. Amazingly, as they listened
from a distance to the hymns of praise and the discussion of scripture, and
as they watched the ritual that was being performed by Brāhmaṇs well-
versed in the Vedas, religious faith arose in their minds. They felt remorse
for their deeds, and their minds were pervaded by the anxious thought,
“How are we going to cross this ocean of evil deeds?” They asked the
Brāhmaṇs at the sacrificial ground how to get saved, but no one could tell
them anything about how to get rid of their sins. However, the leader of
the assembly of Brāhmaṇs was a Vaiṣṇava. He said to them, “O Brāhmaṇ
and Kṣatriya friends, if you want to get liberated from your terrible heap of
sins, go to Puruṣottama kṣetra” (VKSP 2.4.100).
Following this Vaiṣṇava's instructions, the two men gave up all evil
behavior (consorting with prostitutes and so on) and came to Puruṣottama
kṣetra. There they ate pure food and became engrossed in thinking about
Viṣṇu. (p.156) Absorbed in singing the name of the Lord, they received a
direct vision of Lord Viṣṇu; they sang hymns of praise of his majesty and
Page 5 of 21
then of the power of his name. Finally, continually reciting the name of
Nārāyaṇ, they attained liberation (VKSP 2.5.74).
In this story, both Puṇḍarīk and Ambarīṣ are at first evil-doers; they consort with
prostitutes, drink alcohol, and eat meat; in their remorseful later lives they
achieve liberation in the Viṣṇu kṣetra Jagannāth Purī on the strength of their
devotion to Viṣṇu. No matter how far someone has fallen, even if he is a
malicious, evil person or a sinner whom not even the scriptures can purify, still
he can be saved just by repeating the name of Viṣṇu: this is the truth that the
Māhātmya reveals through this story of the salvation of Puṇḍarīk and Ambarīṣ.
The central proclamation of the story is: “Oh god! All powers (siddhis) are
obtained just through praise of your name!” (VKSP 2.5.41).
Puṇḍarīk in Indraprastha
The story of a Vaiṣṇava Puṇḍarīk in Indraprastha appears in chapters 218 and
219 of the Uttara Khaṇḍa of the Padma Purāṇa (Padmapurāṇa 1959: 744–50).
The story is intended to impress on the listeners’ minds the glory of Puṣkar
tīrtha in Indraprastha.
This Puṇḍarīk was the nephew of Mālav, a learned Brāhmaṇ in the town of
Vidarbha who was devoted to Viṣṇu. Mālav went to take a bath in the
Godāvarī River on the occasion of the Siṃhastha pilgrimage,4 and there he
presented half his wealth to his virtuous nephew, whom he had invited for
this purpose, and ritually donated the rest of his wealth to learned
Brāhmaṇs.
Puṇḍarīk was indeed extremely virtuous. He took the opportunity of

bathing in the Godāvarī, gave alms according to his ability, and returned to
Indraprastha. When he arrived there, he saw that his younger brother
Bharat, rotting, wasting away, and nearly dead because of his many evil
deeds, had fallen down at Puṣkar tīrtha. The moment Puṇḍarīk saw
Bharat's condition, a divine chariot descended from the sky and the troops
in the chariot seated Bharat in it, releasing him from his torment. This
happened because of the power of the presence of that holy water-place
(tīrthasyāsya prasādataḥ).
As Puṇḍarīk watched all this with amazement, Bharat told him in detail
about all his sins and the torments he had had to suffer as a result of them.
(p.157) He also told Puṇḍarīk about how, once, on his way home after
winning money at dice, he had picked up a dead orphan child he found on
the road; he had adorned the child with clothes and jewelry and cremated
him on the bank of the Ganges. Just because of this one meritorious deed
that he had done so naturally, Bharat obtained proximity to Puṣkar tīrtha;
as a result of his contact with the tīrtha, the heavenly chariot came to take
him away.
Page 6 of 21
Puṇḍarīk thought that he too should get the merit of a bath at the tīrtha
that had saved his evil brother. Inspired by the virtuous desire that Viṣṇu
himself should reside in his house for a month, Puṇḍarīk bathed in Puṣkar
tīrtha. After the bath he came home and prepared to welcome the Lord,
then sat waiting. Amazingly, Lord Viṣṇu himself came to Puṇḍarīk's house
to respond to his wish. Puṇḍarīk said to the god, “We have heard from
good people that Hari lives in the homes of those who have your name on
their tongue and your beautiful form in their heart” (PPUK 219.25).
Pleased by Puṇḍarīk's devotion, the Lord told him to take his Māgh bath5
in Puṣkar tīrtha. As a result of the merit from that, he had the good fortune
to worship the lotus-eyed (puṇḍarīkākṣa) Viṣṇu himself. Viṣṇu stayed in his
home for a month.
Although this Puṇḍarīk was a devotee of Viṣṇu, he lived in Indraprastha and the
story of his devotion is told in the context of emphasizing the glory of Puṣkar
tīrtha, a holy place of Brahmā. In the story the word viṣṭara, meaning “seat,” is
used for the seat that Puṇḍarīk gave Viṣṇu to sit on (215.21).6
Kuṇḍal's Son Sukarmā, Engrossed in Devotion to His Parents

In Kānho Trimaladās's “Puṇḍalīkcaritra” (Dhanpalvār 1972), Puṇḍalīk's father's
name is given as Kuṇḍalīk. The “Venopākhyān” in the Bhūmi Khaṇḍa of the
Padma Purāṇa, chapters 61–63 (Padmapurāṇa 1957: 193–203) tells the story of a
man named Sukarmā who was devoted to his mother and father, and whose
father's name closely resembles that of Puṇḍalīk's father.
Sukarmā's father, who lived in Kurukṣetra, was a Brāhmaṇ who bore the
name Kuṇḍal (BKPP 61.3–4):
[Sukarmā's] parents were very old, they were knowledgeable about

religion (dharma), they followed the scripture.
They were both very wise, and they were tormented by old age.
(p.158) He knew about dharma; he had faith;
he took care of them with the highest devotion day and night.
At this same time, a Brāhmaṇ named Pippal from the Kapil lineage went to
the Daśāraṇya and began to practice asceticism there. Because of the
power of Pippal's asceticism, the animals in the forest abandoned their
natural ferociousness and began to live together lovingly like brothers and
sisters. After some time, a termite mound grew up over Pippal's body as he
practiced asceticism. A black serpent that lived in the termite mound
curled itself around his body and began biting him. Even this did not affect
him at all. Instead, the black serpent turned peaceful. A heavenly light
began to shine from Pippal's body. Seeing his fierce asceticism, the gods
were pleased, and they showered flowers on him and promised, “Whatever
Page 7 of 21
wishes you have will be fulfilled.” He made the following request of them
(BKPP 61.32–33):
O gods, may I become such a powerful Vidyādhar7
that this whole world may be subject to me.
Through the mercy of the gods, Pippal became a Vidyādhar. Immediately

he became proud, and he thought, “Now I can do whatever I want, get
whatever I want.” A crane from a nearby lake, realizing his state of mind,
immediately came to the shore and said to him, “Hey, Pippal, you are
stupid to be so proud. I don’t think the power you have gotten can control
everything. You have only the ‘nearer’ power (arvācīn); you know nothing
of the ‘farther’ power (parācīn). You fool! You have practiced asceticism for
three thousand years, and you are simply puffed up with pride. If you want
to see the kind of ascetic who truly has the whole world in his power, then
listen to me. The whole world is in the power of the Brāhmaṇ Kuṇḍal's son
Sukarmā. No one in the world knows as much as he does. He knows the
‘farther’ power as well as the ‘nearer.’ And the wonder is that (BKPP
61.49–53):
“He has not given donations, he has not practiced meditation,

he has never done a sacrificial rite.
He has not gone on pilgrimages, he has not served a guru,
nor has he ever done an act of religious service, O Brāhmaṇ.
Well-grounded in the study of the Vedas, knowing the meaning of all
scriptures,
he does whatever he wants, has knowledge as his soul, and is always
kind to his mother and father.
(p.159) You do not have the kind of knowledge that Sukarmā does,
although
he is but a child; you are stupid to be proud.”
Disquieted by this speech of the crane's, Pippal went to Kuṇḍal's forest

retreat to meet Sukarmā. He saw Sukarmā there, sitting at his parents’
feet and serving them. Sukarmā welcomed him properly and asked why he
had come. After Pippal told Sukarmā everything the crane had said, for
Pippal's satisfaction Sukarmā summoned all the gods. Sukarmā told them
clearly why he had invited them and then asked them to go home. The gods
said that even if he had summoned them without wanting anything in
particular, still the sight of them would not be fruitless, and they told him
to ask for a boon. Bowing to the gods with devotion, Sukarmā humbly said
(BKPP 62.22–23),
O gods of gods, give me unwavering devotion combined with loving

faith
for my parents always. This is the highest boon I can ask for.
Page 8 of 21
Give me the excellent boon that my father may go to the heaven of

Viṣṇu,
and also my mother, O lords of gods. I ask for no other boon.
When he saw the excellent Sukarmā, who was so devoted to his parents
that he put aside all desire for individual happiness even when the gods
themselves stood before him ready to give him whatever he wanted,
Pippala's pride fell away. Sukarmā said to him, “What you have
experienced just now is only the ‘nearer’ power (arvācīn). The universal
soul that yogis are eagerly impatient to attain is ‘farther’ (parācīn). Service
of one's mother and father is the only way to reach the supreme Brahman
in the form of liberation from rebirth.” After this, Sukarmā described in
detail his exceptional devotion to his mother and father (BKPP 62.57–78;
63.1–27).
This Sukarmā, son of Kuṇḍal, was a supreme devotee of his mother and father;
he wanted them to attain the heaven of Viṣṇu, and he completely disdained any
practices other than devotion to his parents.
Kṛṣṇadās Dāmā's Story of Puṇḍalīk

A somewhat different version of the story of Puṇḍalīk is found in Kṛṣṇadās
Dāmā's “Ādiparva,” a long Marathi poem in ovī verse (12 sections, 148 ovīs)
dating from before the time of the sixteenth-century saint-poet Eknāth
(Deśpāṇḍe and Pāṭīl 1979). The subject of this text is the Ādiparva of the
Mahābhārata, in which the (p.160) story of Puṇḍalīk does not occur at all.
However, because (like the poet Combhā8) Kṛṣṇadās Dāmā is folk-religious by
temperament, he continually makes up excuses to introduce into the
Mahābhārata narrative the many stories and verses that he knows from the folk
tradition. As an excuse for including the story of Puṇḍalīk, he creates the
following story:
Droṇ came to the town of Mahitlī (Mithilā). When he tried to enter Janak's
mansion, the guards stopped him. How? As they had Śukendra. Why did
the guards obstruct Śukendra's path? Because he had become proud like
Puṇḍalīk.
7. Then the king asked the sage, “What kind of pride did Puṇḍalīk
have?
Tell me this quickly.…”
And so Vaiśampāyan told Janamejay the whole story of Puṇḍalīk: Puṇḍalīk

was born a Brāhmaṇ. He was a great treasure of asceticism. In order to
acquire merit, he left behind his mother and father, performed religious
rituals on the bank of the Revā9 River, and gained unlimited merit. After he
had gained merit, he heard the wondrous information that Datta and
Gorakṣa had begun to argue about the strength of their respective yogic
Page 9 of 21
powers (siddhis), and that the argument had established Datta's status as a
powerful yogi. To test Gorakṣa, Datta struck him with a discus, but
Gorakṣa's thunderbolt body was not harmed at all, and the discus simply
bounced back. Datta said, “You still have not attained true siddhi.” Then
Gorakṣa struck Dattātreya with a discus:
17. That discus entered him the way a weapon penetrates water:
The weapon goes through, but the water does not get broken.
Puṇḍalīk, the meritorious ascetic, set out to meet that most excellent, powerful
yogi Dattātreya. As he went along, Puṇḍalīk found that a celibate ascetic had
defecated on the road. Outraged, Puṇḍalīk looked angrily at him, and
immediately the ascetic fell to the ground, dead. Proud of his stupendous ascetic
power, Puṇḍalīk went to the Siṃhādri Mountain to have darśan of Dattātreya.
The sun was at its height. The ground under his feet was very hot. Realizing that
it was time for his ascetic meal, he came to Anasūyā's10 door and cried out,
“Please give me alms.” At that moment Anasūyā was engrossed in washing the
(p.161) feet of her husband, the sage Atri. Even though she realized that there
was a guest at her door, it would have broken her vows if she had gone outside
before completing her service to her husband. After she had properly finished
serving him, she dished out food on a plate and brought it to the door. Puṇḍalīk
was still standing there. “Please take this, sir,” she said to him.
Infatuated with his own asceticism, Puṇḍalīk was furious that she had taken so
long even though a “great treasure of asceticism” like himself had cried out at
her door. He began glaring angrily at Anasūyā from foot to head. His feet were
so hot that he was placing them one on top of the other, but he was not willing to
accept the food that the woman humbly offered him. To Puṇḍalīk, standing there
sunken in anger, Anasūyā said, “My child, why are you suffering for no purpose?
Take this meager meal. I am not some ascetic that you have met on the road,
who falls to the ground the minute you toss an angry glance at him!” This
remark of Anasūyā's made Puṇḍalīk's pride fall away, and he took hold of her
feet. Then she instructed him as follows:
35. A son should practice devotion to his parents, a disciple to his

guru,
a servant to his master.
36. God becomes subject to one who practices one of these.
So what anxiety can such a person have about liberation from
rebirth?
37. Still, here is what you should do now: your parents are at home.
Serve them wholeheartedly.
38. Then, out of respect for your devotion, Ruṣikeśi11 will come to see
your deeds.
When you ask for a promise from god, he will give himself to you
completely.
Page 10 of 21
After that Puṇḍalīk came straight to Varanasi. Someone was reading a Purāṇa in
the Mukti Maṇḍap in the Viśveśvar temple12 there. The Purāṇa-reader was
saying,
In the south is the Daṇḍak Forest. In it there is a holy place (kṣetra) called
Lohadaṇḍa. In that kṣetra is a god named Amṛteśvar. To his west is a holy
water-place (tīrtha) named Padmāl.e. Golden leaves glimmer on a pipal
tree there. Near Lohadaṇḍa kṣetra is Candrabhāgā Lake. It is the maternal
home of all tīrthas, and they all descend there at noon. So gods always
come to the Candrabhāgā Lake to bathe. Another marvel is that there are
gold bricks in that lake.
Among those listening to the Purāṇa was a poor Brāhmaṇ named Trimbak. He
asked the Purāṇa-reader, “Is this story of the gold bricks just an enter (p.162)
taining myth, or is it true?” The Purāṇa-reader patted himself on the chest and
said, “Bābā, this is what the Lord says. If I say anything false, anything I thought
up for myself, my tongue will fall out.” Hearing this, the Brāhmaṇ was very
happy. Greedily he thought, “Rather than struggling here in torment with
nothing to eat, why not go there and get the gold treasure?” And immediately he
set out for the south. Traveling all the way from Varanasi, he reached Āl.andi.
There the god himself appeared to him in the guise of a Brāhmaṇ and said, “The
Lohadaṇḍa kṣetra you are searching for is twenty villages13 to the east.”
Then Trimbak set off toward the east. As he traveled through the Daṇḍak Forest,
he suffered great torments. After walking for fourteen days without food or
water, he reached Maṅgal.veḍhe, and there he saw human beings. He began to
ask people again and again, “Have you heard of a Lohadaṇḍa kṣetra somewhere
around here? Do you know Candrabhāgā Lake, the god Amṛteśvar, Padmāl.e, or
a golden pipal tree?” Hearing these questions, the elders there said to him,
68. There is no Candrabhāgā Lake here, nor is there a Lohadaṇḍa

kṣetra or Amṛteśvar.
We have not heard of Padmāl.e or of a golden pipal tree.
As soon as he heard this disheartening answer, Trimbak fell down in a faint.

People brought him back to consciousness. They found out the reason for his
despair, took him home, gave him food and a meal, and handed him some money.
Somewhat revived by the help given him by the residents of Maṅgal.veḍhe,
Trimbak returned the same way he had come, heading for Varanasi. As he
walked along, he became thirsty, and he began to look for water. It worried the
god to think that, if Trimbak simply returned to Varanasi, he would begin to tell
people there that the Purāṇa was false. God Hari took on “the guise of a
cowherd,” and, pretending to graze cows, appeared in Trimbak's path playing a
flute. Trimbak asked the cowherd, “Hey, cowherd, where can I get water here?”
Page 11 of 21
He replied, “Go over there and drink water in the Candrabhāgā.” When Trimbak
heard the name “Candrabhāgā,” he was astonished. He had found one of the
Purāṇic signs that he had heard about in Varanasi. Going in the direction the
cowherd had indicated, he reached Candrabhāgā Lake. There, next to a
cowshed, he saw a small puddle with putrid water in it and many worms playing
in the water. When Trimbak saw them, he felt revulsion, and, (p.163) even
though he was tormented by thirst, he turned back without drinking the water.
The god was watching from afar. As soon as he saw that Trimbak had turned
back, he took on the form of an old Brāhmaṇ and again stood in Trimbak's path.
The god asked, “Who are you? Where are you from?” and Trimbak, exhausted
and thirsty, answered, “First tell me where there is water to drink. Then I will
answer your questions.” The god again showed him Candrabhāgā Lake and
explained, “This Candrabhāgā Lake is the maternal home of 108 tīrthas. Every
day at noon, all those tīrthas come to join it. Gods land their sky chariots here to
take a bath. Your mind is not pure, so you see worms in it instead of gods. If you
get into it and bathe with a pure mind, you will find gold bricks as bright as ten
million suns. The water of this tīrtha is as pure as the autumn moon (candra),
and so it is named ‘Candrabhāgā.’ That is why I come here every day, take a
bath, and circumambulate Lohadaṇḍa kṣetra.
12.101. Look at the birds, trees, and rocks here: every one of them
has the form of four-armed Hari.
What wonder is it if humans become like him?
102. Look at another marvel I will tell you about:
In all three worlds there is no other tīrtha as precious as this one.
103. Sins committed in other holy places get destroyed at a
meritorious holy place (puṇyakṣetra).
Sins committed in a meritorious holy place get destroyed at this
tīrtha.
104. Sins committed at this tīrtha get destroyed right here.
There is no other tīrtha anywhere in the three worlds14 that equals
this one.
105. Listen to another marvel I will tell you about.
My soul feels amazement as I talk about it.
106. Look at that cowherd over there where the cow is grazing. The
name of that place is Veṇunād.
107. Listen: there are many footprints on the rocky bank there.
It has fourteen times as much glory as Gayā.
108. When one pronounces ancestors’ names and offers rice-balls at
Gayā, one's ancestors get the reward of Gayā.
Here, without their name being taken, forty-two [generations of
ancestors] are saved.
(p.164) 109. Look at this tīrtha: it gives both pleasure and release.
Its name is Vaikuṇṭha on earth, most excellent Brāhmaṇ.
Page 12 of 21
“That is why I come here every day; I perform the whole ritual that is to be done
at the tīrtha, I circumambulate the golden pipal tree over there, and then I go
home.”
Trimbak recognized all the signs from the Purāṇa. Then he took off his clothes
and bathed in the Candrabhāgā. As he took his bath, he saw innumerable gold
bricks in the water. He hugged many of them to his chest and came out. But
when he came out and examined them, the bricks did not seem to be gold. So he
tossed most of them back into the water, and took along one brick to show to the
Purāṇa-reader in Varanasi. Then Trimbak circumambulated Lohadaṇḍa kṣetra,
bowed to Amṛteśvar, went to Veṇunād, and looked at the pipal tree—but it did
not appear gold to him either. So, extremely agitated, he took along two leaves
of the pipal tree and made the difficult journey back to Varanasi.
Arriving in Varanasi, he returned to the Purāṇa-reader and told him to open the
book to the Māhātmya of Lohadaṇḍa kṣetra. After the Purāṇa-reader read it to
him, Trimbak burst out angrily, “The Purāṇa is false!” As proof, he took the piece
of brick and the two pipal leaves out of his bag and displayed them. But—
surprise!—as soon as Trimbak took them out and placed them before the
audience, everyone saw that they were made of gold. The whole gathering
shouted the praises of the Purāṇa's truth.
Puṇḍalīk was present in the gathering, and he saw this happen right before his
eyes. As soon as he realized the marvelous glory of Lohadaṇḍa kṣetra, Puṇḍalīk
put his father, the sage Pauṇḍ, at one end of a carrying pole and carried him to
Candrabhāgā Lake. Puṇḍalīk stayed there, serving his father. When Nārad heard
of Puṇḍalīk's devoted service, he went to Lord Kṛṣṇa and said, “You must test
Puṇḍalīk's integrity.” Lord Kṛṣṇa commanded the Bhīmā River, “Flow swiftly
alongside Puṇḍalīk's forest retreat and distract him from his ascetic service.”
Accordingly, the Bhīmā went along rapidly; but it was frightened by Puṇḍalīk's
fortitude. Then, realizing that the Bhīmā too had been defeated (“turning south,
it flowed toward the east”), the god himself immediately came from Dvārakā to
Puṇḍalīk and said lovingly to him, “Get up, king of devotees! Embrace me!”
Puṇḍalīk did not even turn to look at Kṛṣṇa.
139. Then Hari said respectfully, “Come on, I will give you sovereignty
over Vaikuṇṭha.”
Puṇḍalīk replied, “I must repay my debts to many people here.
(p.165) 140. Don’t you leave here; know that I will not come to
Vaikuṇṭha.”
Saying this, he tossed a brick with his left hand.
141. Then, placing both his hands on his hips, [Kṛṣṇa] stood nicely on the
brick (īṭ [vīṭ]) with his feet next to each other.
Therefore he is named Viṭṭhal there.
Page 13 of 21
142. He waits for his devotees; he liberates beings from rebirth just by
glancing at them.
In this way he settled Puṇḍalīk's debt.
143. See, O King, twenty-eight yugas have passed this way,
but to this day the two of them have not yet met.
144. O King, nowhere else is there such a holy water-place (tīrtha), holy
place (kṣetra), god, or devotee.
The tīrtha is called Bhīmā; the kṣetra is Pandharpur;
145. the god is Viṭṭhal; Puṇḍalīk is the devotee.
Paṇḍharī has great glory because of Puṇḍalīk.
Kṛṣṇadās Dāmā finishes this story of Puṇḍalīk by singing in these words the
profound glory of Paṇḍharī.
There are three parts to this story of Puṇḍalīk as Kṛṣṇadās Dāmā narrates it: the
story of Puṇḍalīk's earlier life, the story of Trimbak experiencing the glory of
Lohadaṇḍa kṣetra as described in the Purāṇa, and the story of Puṇḍalīk's later
life. Whereas the first two of these stories are otherwise completely unknown,
the third corresponds fully to the well-known life story of Puṇḍalīk. The purpose
of the story of Trimbak is to demonstrate the Purāṇic glory of Pandharpur before
Puṇḍalīk arrived there. The text uses the name “Lohadaṇḍa kṣetra” for
Pandharpur, and it refers to places in and around Pandharpur: Gopalpur,
Veṇunād (with its footprints of cows and cowherds), Candrabhāgā Lake,
Padmāl.e, Amṛteśvar Śiva, and a holy pipal tree. Amṛteśvar, which Kṛṣṇadās
mentions instead of the ancient Śiva place Mallikārjun, is still found in Cāṭe Lane
in Pandharpur.
The story of Puṇḍalīk's earlier life is another matter. There is a reference to the
siddhi-contest of Datta and Gorakṣa in the Vīraśaiva text
“Prabhuliṅgalīlā” (Ḍhere 1977a: 101–4). The story of Puṇḍalīk's asceticism, the
powers he obtained, his pride in those powers, and the destruction of that pride
conforms to the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa. This is the only life
story of Puṇḍalīk in this third Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya (see chapter 1, above); its
source is the story of the Brāhmaṇ Kauśik and the conversation between Kauśik
and Dharmavyādh in the Mahābhārata (“Vanaparvan,” chapters 205–16).
(p.166) Puṇḍalīk's “Change of Form”?

Dr. Ian Raeside and Professor Manik Dhanpalvar understood clearly that the
origins of the story of Puṇḍalīk are to be found in the Purāṇas (Raeside 1965;
Dhanpalvār 1972a). They referred to some of the original sources and discussed
them. However, because they were not clearly aware of the existence of the
original Sanskrit sthalapurāṇas, because they did not study the process by which
sthalapurāṇas are composed, and especially because the idea of the historicity of
Puṇḍalīk was so fixedly set in their minds, they came extremely close to the
mystery of Puṇḍalīk but then veered far away. If they had not so firmly believed
Page 14 of 21
that Puṇḍalīk was a particular historical person and that the god had manifested
himself in Pandharpur after becoming fascinated by Puṇḍalīk's devotion to his
mother and father, Raeside and Dhanpalvar would not have had to turn back
from the truth after approaching it so closely.
In the same way as these two scholars searched for Puṇḍalīk by looking for the
origins of his life story, Professor S. M. Mate fearlessly noted many years earlier,
in an article entitled “Pāṇḍuraṅga's Change of Place and Puṇḍalīk's Change of
Form” (Māṭe 1957a), that Puṇḍalīk's visible form does not look like the samādhi
of a holy man, but rather like Śiva. Mate wrote (1957a: 13):
Another thing is worth taking into account. In Puṇḍalīk's temple there is

not an image of Puṇḍalīk. A liṅga of Śiva is there, and the priests place a
brass mask over the liṅga. If this is Puṇḍalīk's samādhi, then according to
traditional usage pādukās15 should have been placed on it. And if there had
been pādukās there, it seems, the priests would not have put a brass mask
over them. There is also, however, the custom of placing a liṅga of
Mahādev [Śiva] on samādhis. And whoever built Puṇḍalīk's samādhi might
have established a Śiva liṅga according to that custom. At this point,
however, a doubt arises. The priests in this temple of Puṇḍalīk are Kol.īs. In
many places, Kol.īs have the right to perform the ritual worship of
Mahādev. The custom is for Kol.īs or Jaṅgams to have the first right to
perform ritual worship, and for Brāhmaṇs to worship after them. But I do
not think that this custom would apply to a Śiva liṅga established on a
samādhi. So, if this is only Puṇḍalīk's samādhi, and not originally a place of
Mahādev, then we will have to investigate how the Kol.īs came to have the
right to perform the ritual worship.
These questions—or, to use his word, “doubts”—that Mate raised after looking
directly at Puṇḍalīk are extremely useful for uncovering the truth about
Puṇḍalīk. In religious life doubts may be harmful, but in research they are what
show the (p.167) way: all scholars who search for the truth realize this. If no
one asked questions or experienced doubt, it would not be possible even to clear
the paths along which to search. I must note with gratitude that it is precisely
because of Mate's doubts that the paths to revealing Puṇḍalīk's extremely
important place in the cultural and religious history of Pandharpur could be
opened out. Mate did not ignore the fact that Puṇḍalīk's temple contains a Śiva
liṅga rather than pādukās, or the fact that Kol.īs have the right to worship the
Śiva liṅga there, as in many other Śiva temples. It is crucial proof of Mate's
scholarly rectitude that he did not ignore these facts, even though they
contradicted his ideas about Puṇḍalīk. His conclusion—“If this is only Puṇḍalīk's
samādhi, and not originally a place of Mahādev, then we will have to investigate
how the Kol.īs came to have the right to perform the ritual worship”—provides
great inspiration for research into the truth about Puṇḍalīk. This truth is that
Puṇḍalīk's temple is basically not a samādhi but a place of Mahādev, and the
Page 15 of 21
obstacle to seeing this truth is the fixed belief that Puṇḍalīk was an historical
person. If we remove the burden of this belief, Puṇḍalīk shines forth as Śiva, and
we can also realize that the “change of form” of Puṇḍalīk has taken place (or,
more precisely, has been brought about) in terms of his story, not in terms of the
image worshiped in his temple.
In the fullness of their devotion, the Marathi saints uttered many statements
about Puṇḍalīk—including ones like “The supreme Absolute came to ‘meet’
Puṇḍalīk,” or “He embraced Puṇḍalīk's feet.” Such statements led Mate to
believe that Puṇḍalīk's temple must have once held a beautiful standing image of
Puṇḍalīk, and that at some time a Śiva liṅga must have been installed instead of
the image. However, Mate himself had doubts about his own view. He too had
found, before me, the statements of Eknāth and Tukārām about the “Puṇḍalīk
liṅga” that I cited in the previous chapter. Quite properly, Mate wrote, “I do not
feel as much certainty about the change in Puṇḍalīk's form as I do about the
change in place of Pāṇḍuraṅga's image” (Māṭe 1957a: 13). Later, Raeside and
Dhanpalvar realized that the origins of the story of Puṇḍalīk are to be found in
the Purāṇas. If Mate had known this, he would have revealed the whole truth
about Puṇḍalīk. Nevertheless, it is only the “doubts” about Puṇḍalīk that Mate,
Raeside, and Dhanpalvar raised from two different directions that have enabled
me to search out and find the Puṇḍarīkeśvar who preceded Puṇḍalīk.
Puṇḍalīk Temple: a Śiva Temple

Even though we can see that Puṇḍalīk's temple is a Śiva temple, traditional ideas
about Puṇḍalīk have prevented us from facing this truth; rather, blindfolded by
(p.168) these ideas, we have continued to look at Puṇḍalīk's image as a
memorial to a Vaiṣṇava devotee. Scholars not burdened by such traditional ideas
can easily realize the truth. In an article published in 1974, Charlotte Vaudeville,
a prominent French scholar of Indian devotional literature, presents the view
that Pandharpur was a Śaiva place before Viṭṭhal became preeminent. Vaudeville
provides as evidence the numerous new and old Śaiva deities’ places in
Pandharpur. She includes Puṇḍalīk's temple as well, calling it “a Śaiva shrine.”
In this context, Vaudeville writes (1974: 145):
This Puṇḍalīka-samādhi…is nothing but a Śaiva shrine. It contains only a

Śiva-liṅga covered with a brass mask in the Mahārāṣṭrian fashion. It is said
to have originally been built by Cāṅgadeva or Vaṭeśvara, a well-known
great Yogī or “Siddha,” a Śaiva by faith said to have been converted to
Vaishnavism by Jnaneśvar, who himself was a disciple of the Śaiva Guru
Gorakhnāth. The Śaiva shrine known as Puṇḍalīk-samādhi on the river bed
is the first place to be visited by pilgrims, as they come to perform the
yātrā of the Paṇḍharī-kṣetra.
Vaudeville also expressly refers to the fact that this temple did not fall into the
hands of the (Brāhmaṇ) Baḍve priests, but to this day remains under the control
Page 16 of 21
of the Kol.īs, who have long been priests of Śiva. She concludes that these
Mahādev Kol.īs had an important place in the cultural history of Pandharpur
before Viṭṭhal attained supremacy there.
Pāṇḍuraṅga and Puṇḍarīk

Ramkrishna Gopal Bhandarkar (1929: 125) was the first to draw attention, albeit
indirectly, to this way to Puṇḍalīk that Mate, Raeside, Dhanpalvar, and
Vaudeville opened up. Based on the name “Pāṇḍuraṅga,” on the many Śiva
temples in Pandharpur, and on the priority of darśan of Puṇḍalīk, who is
worshiped in the form of Śiva, Bhandarkar presented the view that Pandharpur
was first a Śaiva holy place. Subsequently, Pandurang Desai (Desāī 1957a: 12–
14) also provided powerful evidence in support of this view, in the form of newly
discovered stone inscriptions. Inscriptions at Bāl.aṃbīḍ near Hirekerūr in
Dhārvāḍ District, an ancient place of Śiva, call that place Pāṇḍuraṅgeśvar.
Finally, Dhanpalvar (1981d: 26–34) called attention to Paṇḍaraṅgam, a temple
place in Nellore District in Andhra, and to Paṇḍaraṅgeśvar, the god of that place.
The Śiva temple there, which was renowned during the reign of the Cālukyas of
Veṅgī, was associated with a (p.169) general named Paṇḍaraṅga. In connection
with Pandharpur, at least, I have shown that the two names “Pāṇḍuraṅga” and
“Puṇḍarīk” were both created by Sanskritizing the village name “Paṇḍaraṅge”;16
thus, in my view, scholars who express the Śaiva significance of Pandharpur on
the basis of the name “Pāṇḍuraṅga” also point indirectly to Puṇḍarīk.
Śiva with Viṣṇu

In the process of reaching the pinnacle of popularity, this Kannada folk deity,
Viṭṭhal, became attractive to religious leaders, and then his place, Paṇḍarage,
became Pāṇḍuraṅga kṣetra, Pauṇḍarīk kṣetra, or Puṇḍarīkpūr. The original
devotee, Puṇḍarīk or Puṇḍalīk, arose from the Vaiṣṇavization of Puṇḍarīkeśvar,
the presiding deity of Puṇḍarīkpūr, and this Puṇḍarīk of Puṇḍarīkpūr tossed to
Viṭṭhal the brick (vīṭ) obtained from a folk etymology of the name “Viṭṭhal.” For
the sake of Puṇḍarīk, who arose from the folk mind, Viṭṭhal became Viṣṇu of
Vaikuṇṭha; he became Kṛṣṇa of Gokul; he became Kṛṣṇa the King of Dvārakā.
Gradually, these new Vaiṣṇava forms of his settled into the folk mind. Devotees
who had been traveling on regular pilgrimages to fulfill vows17 now began to
make the “pilgrimage (vārī) of Hari's day” with unselfish devotion. And then, in
the second half of the thirteenth century, great Vaiṣṇavas like Jn͂āndev and
Nāmdev, who had been initiated in the Śaiva tradition, wholeheartedly accepted
this Viṭṭhal.
Both Nivṛtti and Jn͂āndev were initiated into the Nāth sect. They served in the
tradition of the original guru, Śaṅkar (Śiva). They also drew into their tradition
Nāmdev, who lived in Pandharpur and had become engrossed in devotion to
Viṭṭhal. Despite these men's Nāth background, Viṭṭhal of Paṇḍharī came to have
extraordinary power over their spiritual life. They considered Viṭṭhal alone the
Page 17 of 21
supreme object of their devotion, and they even harmonized their tradition's
Śiva with Viṭṭhal's popularly accepted Viṣṇu form.
We also need to discover where Nivṛtti and Jn͂āndev found the liberal idea of the
unity of Hari and Hara. In Nivṛttināth's abhaṅgas, he states clearly again and
again that he obtained his Kṛṣṇa mantra from Gorakṣa through Gahinī. That
leads us to ask: were the seeds of this liberality found in the Nāth tradition
itself? The answer to this question is to be found in the context of the rise of the
Nāth, Mahānubhāv, and Vīraśaiva sects in Maharashtra.18 The Pāśupatas
prepared the way for all three of these sects. Spread throughout India from the
beginning of the Christian era until the twelfth or thirteenth century, the
Pāśupatas merged into the new sects that arose at the end of that period. The
Nāthpanthī Bharāḍīs and Rāūl.s in Maharashtra, for example, were originally
Pāśupatas. Cakradhar's guru, Guṇḍam (p.170) Rāūl., and his guru, Cāṅgdev
Rāūl., were both followers of the Lākula branch of the Pāśupatas, which had
merged into the Nāth sect. The Vīraśaivas’ first leaders, Allama Prabhu and
Basaveśvar, were also initiates of the Pāśupata sect.
Like Smārtas, who worship five gods, the “mixed Pāśupatas” maintained a
liberal point of view about religious practice:
Those who worship the Sun, Śambhu [Śiva], Śakti, Vighneś [Gaṇeś],
and Janārdan [Viṣṇu]
with equal faith are mixed Pāśupatas.19
The Vāmana Purāṇa, which calls these liberals “Mahāpāśupatas,” has Śiva
himself proclaim the model of their harmonious synthesis (Vāmana Purāṇa
67.28):
I am Lord Viṣṇu, and he is unchangingly me.

There is no difference between us: one image in two places.
Mukundarāj and others in the tradition of Harināth also kept alive the
inheritance of the Pāśupatas. Their original guru, Harināth, practiced the
Pāśupata vows. As a result, even though Mukundarāj himself was a Śaiva, he
effusively taught devotion to Viṣṇu (Viveksindhu 2.95):
There, next to the heart, worship Lord Hari [Viṣṇu]

with exclusive faith, with the sixteen mental rites of worship.
This is the context within which Jn͂āndev saw the unity of Hari and Hara in
Viṭṭhal. Describing Puṇḍalīk's good fortune, Jn͂āndev's guru, Nivṛttināth, says
(Nivṛ. Gā. 214):
He brought to Paṇḍharī Śiva along with Viṣṇu.

He made them wait on the bank of the Bhīmā.
Page 18 of 21
Nivṛttināth was so taken with the unity of Hari and Hara that he says (Nivṛ. Gā.
156):
Hari and Hara alone are enough

for all my action and all my thought.
In all respects, through his universal feeling of love, Jn͂āndev enriched this
harmonious synthesis that he inherited from his line of gurus. With nectar as a
potion, (p.171) he wiped out distinctions introduced by technical jargon, and
he proclaimed untiringly the supreme truth that differences of name and form in
the object of worship cannot divide the unity of experience. On the pedestal of
his experience, Hari and Hara embrace each other with the fullness of love.
Because the Vaiṣṇava Nāmdev had accepted Śaiva initiation, he too finally
became convinced that “Śiva and Viṣṇu are one” (Nām. Gā. 1720). He declares
(Nām. Gā. 1721):
Nāmā says, there should be no sense of duality here.

Viṣṇu is Śiva; Śiva is Viṣṇu.
This is his final word. Eknāth wiped away the “obstacle of one i” between Hari
and Hara20 (Ek. Gā. 1059) and dissolved all his emotions at the feet of
Pāṇḍuraṅga-Viṭṭhal of Paṇḍharī, “where the one white as camphor [Śiva] stands
always with Viṣṇu” (Ek. Gā. 367). Tukārām too, following Eknāth's turn of
phrase, says that, despite “the obstacle of one i,”
There is no difference between Hari and Hara;

you should not argue about this (Tukā. Gā. 3044).
And Tukārām's disciple Nil.obā saw the king of Paṇḍharī as taking the form of
Hari-Hara (Nil.. Gā. 294).
Many statements of the saints declare the unity of Hari and Hara in Viṭṭhal.
There is a difference, though, between this view of unity and the understanding
that “there is a Śiva liṅga on Viṭṭhal's head.” The idea that “Viṭho carried the
king of gods on his head” expresses not the unity of Hari and Hara but the idea
that Śiva is Viṣṇu's best devotee. Although this idea too is found in the literature
of the saints, their feeling for the unity of Hari and Hara seems to be even
stronger.
Vaikuṇṭha on Earth and Kailās on Earth

Many leading scholars accept the fact that Pandharpur was originally under the
influence of Śiva. Śiva remains important in Pandharpur to this day, even after
the pastoralists’ god Viṭṭhal has been elevated into a form of Kṛṣṇa. Vaiṣṇavas
see Pandharpur as their heaven, Vaikuṇṭha, on earth, whereas Śaivas see it as
their heaven, Kailās, on earth. The atmosphere of harmonious synthesis
precluded conflict between the apparently different viewpoints of Śaivas and
Page 19 of 21
Vaiṣṇavas. Śivadās, a (p.172) Vīraśaiva Marathi saint, gives an attractive

description of this harmony (Pasārkar 1983: 83):
Pāṇḍuraṅga stands, a Śiva liṅga on his head;

the joy of that place is priceless.
Śivadās says, the true Kailās on earth
is the place where Puṇḍalīk lived.
Whatever Śivadās may have meant, it is because Puṇḍalīk (that is,

Puṇḍarīkeśvar) lived there that Pandharpur is Kailās on earth! The very fact that
a devotee like Śivadās, exclusively devoted to Śiva, could maintain this
harmonious, unifying view gives us a tantalizing insight into the great synthesis
that the Marathi saints experienced in Viṭṭhal. “There is no duality between Hari
and Hara,” Śivadās proclaims, and he calls them mother and father (Pasārkar
1983: 83):
There is no duality between Hari and Hara;

those who argue against this view are wrong.
It's like the Absolute (brahma) and Cosmic Illusion (māyā),
like the shadow in a man's body.
The seat of the mother (māy) is Pāṇḍuraṅga;
above him is the Absolute, a Śiva liṅga.
Śivadās says, look!
One is the father and the other is the mother.
Because Puṇḍalīk took on a Vaiṣṇava life story, the path to the unity of Hari and
Hara has been lit up for all eternity, and we have learned to trust that virtues
like service, renunciation, good behavior, and love can bring the divine into our
lives.
Notes:
(1.) Prahlād is the devotee for whom Viṣṇu took on the Man-lion (Narasiṃha)
incarnation. Nārad is a sage who moves easily between the worlds of gods and
men. Parāśar is a Vedic sage and the father of Vyāsa (for Vyāsa, see chapter 6, n.
4).
(2.) Translator's note: Prarhād is a variant spelling of Pralhād.
(3.) Translator's note: The twenty-fifth principle in the Sāṅkhya system of

ontology is called Puruṣa. In this dualistic system, Prakṛti, primordial matter
(feminine), is the unconscious but active source that evolves into twenty-three
other categories, while Puruṣa (masculine) is the conscious, inactive observer of
the process. See Dhere's explanation, in point 5 of his analysis, below.
(4.) Translator's note: This is a pilgrimage to the Godāvarī River made during the
thirteen-month period every twelve years when the planet Jupiter is in the
constellation Leo (Siṃha).
Page 20 of 21
(5.) Translator's note: This is a ritual bath taken in the early morning during the
winter month Māgh (January–February).
(6.) Translator's note: The point here is that the Sanskrit word viṣṭara could be
linked to Marathi vīṭ, “brick,” and could be a source of the “brick” that Puṇḍalīk
is understood to have tossed to Viṭṭhal. See the Introduction and chapter 2.
(7.) Translator's note: A type of semi-divine being.
(8.) Translator's note: Combhā was a fourteenth- or fifteenth-century Marathi

poet whose best-known work is “Ukhāharaṇ.”
(9.) Translator's note: Revā is another name for the Narmadā.
(10.) Translator's note: Anasūyā was the mother of Datta or Dattātreya.
(11.) Translator's note: Ruṣikeśi is a variant spelling of Hṛṣīkeś, another name

for Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa.
(12.) Translator's note: Viśveśvar is the principal Śiva temple in Varanasi

(Banaras). “Mukti Maṇḍap” means “Liberation Hall.”
(13.) Translator's note: A village (gāv) is a measure of distance. According to

Molesworth (1857: 234), it is equal to between four and nine miles, so twenty
gāv would be between eighty and 180 miles, or between about 130 and 290
kilometers. Pandharpur lies approximately 230 kilometers east-southeast of
Āḷandī.
(14.) Translator's note: The three worlds are heaven, earth, and underworld, or
earth, atmosphere, and sky (heaven).
(15.) Translator's note: Pādukās are images of the footwear of a saintly person.
(16.) Translator's note: Or “Paṇḍarage.” See chapters 1 and 8.
(17.) Translator's note: This refers to people whose pilgrimages were less than
unselfish, as they performed the pilgrimage in order to fulfill vows in which they
had promised the god, “If you give me x, I will do y.”
(18.) Translator's note: For a fuller discussion of this history, see Ḍhere 1977a.
(19.) Translator's note: I have not been able to trace the source of this Sanskrit
verse, which is also quoted in Ḍhere 1977a: 224 and Ḍhere 1972: 3.
(20.) Translator's note: Hari is a name of Viṣṇu, and Hara a name of Śiva.

Page 21 of 21
Viṭṭhal and the Buddha


Print ISBN-13: 9780199777594
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.001.0001

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.003.0011

This chapter examines the most extreme example of the synthesis accomplished
by the poet-saints devoted to Viṭṭhal: the fact that he is also identified with the
Buddha. The basis for this identification is primarily Viṭṭhal's silence as he
stands on the brick and his nakedness (as the child Kṛṣṇa), but it also has to do
with the fact that the Buddha is counted as the ninth of the ten best-known
incarnations of Viṣṇu, whom Viṭṭhal also embodies. The chapter presents
iconographic and literary evidence for the explicit identification of Viṭṭhal as the
compassionate ninth incarnation of Viṣṇu. Dhere expresses regret for the story
that the Buddha incarnation is the incarnation of “delusion.” The chapter
concludes by suggesting that the cult of Vitṭṭhal is an important way in which
Maharashtra has preserved the liberal Buddhist tradition that was once so
widespread there.
Keywords: Buddha, incarnations, iconographic evidence, literary evidence, delusion, Buddhist

tradition
what is he like, this enchanting god Viṭṭhal who has filled the shrine of
Maharashtra with his boundless glory? What is the secret of his name and
appearance? From what family of gods did he come? And how did he obtain his
unique position? These are the questions we have been trying to answer,
rummaging through the words of the saints who loved him and searching for
evidence in a variety of other sources as well. Asking advice from the great
mystics, from Jn͂āneśvar to Niḷobā, who were engrossed in contemplating his
feet, we have come to understand the secret of Viṭṭhal's cowherd form.
Page 1 of 18
Even though the “auspicious image in the hearts” of the saints was in fact the
Absolute, who had descended to earth “cloaked in the guise of Viṭṭhal” (Jn͂ā. Ga.
15), the saints did not abandon Viṭṭhal's popular appearance and qualities.
Sometimes they named their supreme experience “Viṭṭhal” and gave it his
shape, providing an acceptable meaning for their highest philosophical thoughts.
Sometimes they made the gods of previous, conflicting sects absorb his name
and appearance. Their attempt to establish the unity of Hari and Hara (Viṣṇu
and Śiva) is but one example of this.
The Garb of Silence

A few more examples will serve to clarify the alchemy of faith that the saints
accomplished. One especially mysterious example is the Buddha form of Viṭṭhal.
(p.174) By repeatedly referring to Viṭṭhal as “silent” and
“enlightened” (bauddha), the saints pushed this mystery to its limits. Tukārām,
for example, proclaims that his object of worship is enlightened (buddha) and
silent (Tukā. Gā. 4083): “My Buddha incarnation silently fixed his attention on
the invisible.” Eknāth too speaks again and again about Viṭṭhal's silence:
Ek. Gā. 499. He did not communicate: he kept silent.

How Puṇḍalīk made him move!
509. Such a supreme relative stands behind Puṇḍalīk,
keeping his mouth shut, O Mother!
585. Taking on the garb of silence
he stands calmly on a brick.
605. He has stood on a brick for twenty-eight yugas.
He does not speak, he does not sit, he does not cross the limits.
624. Driven mad, driven mad, he stood there in silence.
Viṭṭhal is a god who forms an intensely close relationship with his devotees. He
delights in their company, and he forgets himself as he converses with them in
loving faith. Why should such an experienced devotee as Eknāth say time and
again that this Viṭṭhal has kept silent for twenty-eight yugas? Besides these
scattered utterances, Eknāth also composed a whole abhaṅga proclaiming
Viṭṭhal's silence (617):
Silence has come, Silence has come.

Silence is standing on a brick.
Silence is a tender, sweet image.
Silence rests on a brick with its feet side by side.
Silence holds Śiva on his head.
The image of Silence has the form of a naked child.
Silence—Eknāth takes refuge in Janārdana.
I embrace the feet of Silence.
In this song, Eknāth mentions at the same time Viṭṭhal's silent image and his
form as a naked child. We know that the naked child whose play the saints sing
about does not keep silent. So why do they praise Viṭṭhal in such contradictory
Page 2 of 18
terms?1 Although the saints generally connect Viṭṭhal's nakedness with the fact
that he is the baby Kṛṣṇa, they cannot use that fact to explain his silence. Rather,
Viṭṭhal's silence must have to do with the fact that he is also the Buddha.
(p.175) The saints themselves call this silent Viṭṭhal “Buddha.” When they do
this, we realize that Viṭṭhal has witnessed a sea change in the cultural history of
Maharashtra, and also that it is he who brought the change about. This
revolutionary act of Viṭṭhal's is what we need to understand.
Viṭṭhal as the Buddha

In her description of the ten incarnations of Viṣṇu, Nāmdev's disciple Janābāī
refers to the Buddha after Kṛṣṇa (Janā. Gā. 344): “Becoming Kṛṣṇa, he killed
Kaṃsa; now my friend became the Buddha.” This reference to the Buddha
incarnation is significant. “Now” (that is, in the current yuga) ”my friend” (that
is, Viṭṭhal) has descended as the Buddha: Janābāī's faith led her to experience
the Buddha and Viṭṭhal as one. This idea finds support in many other
descriptions of the ten incarnations in the literature of the Marathi saints. The
saints consider the Buddha to be Viṣṇu's ninth incarnation; they include him
among the ten incarnations and apply to him too, just as to Viṭṭhal, the
adjectives “silent” and “naked.” For another example, look at these statements
of Nāmdev's about the ninth incarnation:
Nām. Gā. 1053. The incarnation in Gokul was husband to 16,000

women.
As the Buddha he was a lord of yoga.
1096. In order to break vows, the Buddha incarnation
became naked on earth.
1098. Suffering this way, you remained bauddha.
2105. Then he became silent; the god was meditating on the Self.
He was to be enlightened (bauddhya), therefore he was named
Buddha.
Besides the mysterious statement that the purpose of the Buddha incarnation is
“to break vows,” Nāmdev applies to the Buddha some of the same terms that are
used for Viṭṭhal: “silent” and “naked.” When Nāmdev says, “suffering this way,
you remained bauddha,” he clearly intends bauddha to mean “one who maintains
silence.”
In addition, there is another passage in which Nāmdev calls the ninth

incarnation of Viṣṇu “naked.” Without clearly naming the incarnations, one of his
abhaṅgas describes them by referring to their characteristics or their deeds
(Nām. Gā. 1057):
The mother-killer; the one who wanders crying in the forest;

the thief, the paramour, the killer of evil ones.
(p.176) The naked one; the one mounted on a horse, bearing a
sword,
Page 3 of 18
who swallows the earth in one gulp.
Nāmdev uses the term “mother-killer” to refer to Paraśurām.2 The words

“wanders crying in the forest” describe Rām bereft of Sītā.3 The incarnation who
is a thief, a paramour, and a killer of evil ones is of course Kṛṣṇa.4 Nāmdev
describes the Buddha incarnation, who comes after this, as “naked,” and the
next incarnation, Kalkī,5 as mounted on a horse, carrying a sword, and
swallowing the earth in one gulp.
In yet another abhaṅga, one in which Nāmdev summarizes the stories of the ten
incarnations, he says the following about the Buddha incarnation (Nām. Gā.
1097):
The Buddha was born in Śrīvatsa's house, in the womb of Śāmbhavī.

The king remained continually in [this] form in the city of Kāntī.
Son of Śrīvatsa and Śāmbhavī and king of the city of Kāntī, this Buddha certainly
does not fit the biography of the Buddha in Buddhist literature, nor does it mesh
with the story of the Buddha in the Hindu Purāṇas. Moreover, this abhaṅga too,
like the others, fails to explain the idea of the Buddha incarnation having taken
place in order to break vows.
Like Nāmdev, Eknāth too includes the Buddha as the ninth of the ten
incarnations of Viṣṇu and identifies him as Viṭṭhal. One of Eknāth's “Gondhaḷ”
poems6 invokes the Supreme Lord (Parameśvar) as the Mother of the World
(Jagadambā) and describes her ten incarnations; Eknāth too places the Buddha
incarnation immediately after that of Kṛṣṇa (Ek. Gā. 3911):
Taking incarnation as the Buddha, placing his feet side by side on a

brick,
Looking at the torch that is Puṇḍalīk, he has set up a Gondhaḷ at his
door.
Close the door, my woman! My woman, Mother Buddha, close the
door!
Here Eknāth expresses the idea that Viṭṭhal, who stands at Puṇḍalīk's door with
his feet placed side by side on a brick, is the Buddha incarnation.7 Another
“Gondhaḷ” poem of Eknāth's that describes the ten incarnations refers as follows
to Viṣṇu's incarnation as the Buddha (Ek. Gā. 3920.10):
Enlightening all the worlds, you took away the three kinds of
suffering through your teachings.
You live in the form of Buddha, speaking without speech.
You enlighten equally…the pious and the infidels.
Say, “Udo! Bodhāī Māūlī's Udo!”
Page 4 of 18
(p.177) This Mother-in-the-form-of-Buddha (3914.10) of Eknāth's has become

incarnated bearing the name “Buddha” or “Bauddha” because her task is
enlightenment. Eknāth states that the Buddha gives enlightenment to all people
and removes their suffering. But he also says that this enlightenment granted by
the Enlightened One is “without enlightenment,” and his speech is “without
words.” That is, Eknāth's Buddha remains silent even as he enlightens people. In
some other verses as well, Eknāth indicates that Viṣṇu's ninth incarnation, as
the Buddha, is in fact Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur. Twice Eknāth describes Viṭṭhal after
the Kṛṣṇa incarnation, without using the name “Buddha” (3727 and 3910).
None of these references in Eknāth's collected abhaṅgas explains Nāmdev's

statement that the purpose of the Buddha incarnation was “to break vows.”
However, his description of that incarnation in the Eknāthī Bhāgavat begins to
give us an idea:
4.272. Know that later, in the form of the Buddha, he will keep
strictly silent.
At that time, no one will be able to decide between good and evil.
273. He will always, by his silence, cause people to argue fiercely.
Under the pretext of argument, he will increase intoxication and
great delusion (moh).
274. He will give rise to unconquerable delusion; he will cause some
people to be ritualistically involved in ceremonies;
some will fall away from karma; they will not understand the pure
welfare of their own soul.
4.277. When delusion thus prevails, the inclination to conflict will
grow strong.
Then those kings will become low; they will rob their subjects like
thieves.
The fact that through his silence this Buddha creates fierce arguments and
profound delusion seems to clarify what is meant by saying that the purpose of
the Buddha incarnation was to break vows.8 We will return to this question later
in this chapter.
The Story of Puṇḍalīk in Svānubhav Dinakar

The best example in Marathi saint literature of the idea of Viṭṭhal's identity with
Viṣṇu's ninth, Buddha incarnation—the idea that Viṭṭhal himself is the Buddha—
is found in Svānubhav Dinakar, a text composed by Dinakar Svāmī (p.178)
Tisgāvkar, a disciple of Rāmdās (Dev 1911). Dinakar Svāmī's family was
originally from Bhiṅgār, near Ahmadnagar. Their original surname was Muḷe,
and the name indicating their profession was Pāṭhak (“Reciter”). His original
personal name was Bahiṇājī. Dinakar is the name Rāmdās gave him when he was
initiated as Rāmdās's disciple. Dinakar practiced asceticism on the hill of
Vṛddheśvar. There Rāmdās initiated him, first in a dream and then, exactly one
year later (on Phālgun Śuddha 15, Śake 1576),9 in person. Dinakar Svāmī must
have been born in approximately A.D. 1628 (Śake 1550), and he must have taken
Page 5 of 18
samādhi10 sometime between 1684 and 1687 (Śake 1616 and 1619). His
monastery and the vṛndāvan11 memorial of his samādhi are at Tisgāv, also in
Ahmadnagar District. S. S. Dev, a Rāmdās devotee from Dhule, obtained Dinakar
Svāmī's huge collection of manuscripts, edited his works, and published them in
two volumes (Dev 1911 and 1917).
In Svānubhav Dinakar, the Puṇḍalīk Caritra (“Life of Puṇḍalīk”) or Pāṇḍuraṅga

Māhātmya is told as a parable illustrating the importance of serving one's
parents. This brief Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya, thirty or thirty-five ovī verses in all, is
important from many points of view. Throughout the text, Dinakar Svāmī refers
to Puṇḍalīk as “Puṇḍarīk.” Hearing that Puṇḍarīk continually served his parents
“with inborn faith” (nijabhāveṃ), the Lord of the World, overcome with emotion,
arrived suddenly in Paṇḍharī to see him. In order to observe his devoted service
of his mother and father, the Lord came in person to the place “where there is a
tīrtha like the Candrabhāgā” and “an extremely meritorious kṣetra like
Paṇḍharī.” However,
[Puṇḍarīk] was aware of nothing at all other than serving his

parents.
He considered the Lord unimportant; he was engrossed in the joy of
serving his parents. (SD 3.3.27).
Seeing that Puṇḍarīk was engrossed in serving his mother and father and paid
no attention at all to his arrival, the Lord of the World “took on the garb of a
cowherd and played the flute beautifully.” But even so Puṇḍarīk did not stop his
service. All he did was to “toss over a brick” for the god to sit on. This posed a
great “dilemma” for the god. The god remembered, “I made a wager with Indra
that I would disrupt Puṇḍalīk's ascetic service of his parents, and that is why I
came.” The realization that this man had “made it futile to come here” distressed
the god. He now had no alternative but to admit defeat and retreat from
Puṇḍarīk's presence (SD 3.3.31):
Then the god was flustered; overcome with emotion, he spoke:

“Puṇḍarīk, ask for something, ask for something! I am completely
pleased with you today.”
(p.179) Even when the god showed such readiness to give him a boon,
Puṇḍarīk did not waver in the least: he felt no awe at all at the offer. On the
contrary, he asked the god, “What do I lack that the power of my parents cannot
give me?” and he pointed out the god's deficiencies (SD 3.3.32): “You are a
perpetual beggar, dependent on others, wandering from door to door.” In order
to support this verdict and to convince the god of his many other “offenses,”
Puṇḍarīk presented as evidence, one after the other, numerous stories from the
lives of Viṣṇu's incarnations. The god became a “Brāhmaṇ's child” and begged
from Bali; he pushed him into hell and guarded the door.12 He created the globe
out of the flesh of Madhu and Kaiṭabh.13 He remained constantly mounted on
Page 6 of 18
Garuḍ's back, as a boon to him.14 Pleased with Pralhād, he cut open Pralhād's
father's stomach.15 He throttled Mahī Rāvaṇ and got Hanumān to kill him.16 He
deceitfully destroyed Purocan's house and, becoming his wife, killed him.17 Born
to Vasudev and Devakī, he tormented them in prison.18 He caused innocent
monkeys to die in battle.19 And he caused his father to suffer terrible torments in
hell, installing universally destructive goblins in their proper place.20 Puṇḍarīk
audaciously asked what this “criminal” god could possibly give him. He also
spoke fearlessly to the god about many of his other “crimes,” from cutting off the
head of his mother (Reṇukā)21 to breaking the vow of marital devotion of a
faithful wife (Vṛndā: SD 3.3.3–45).22 And, to make matters even worse, Puṇḍarīk
challenged the god (SD 3.3.46),
“You came to harass me with Indra's connivance.

So how can you help me, Merciful One?
“However, if you have now had a change of heart and if you have come here out
of love for me, first promise to do whatever I say; only then will I speak further!”
Hearing these words of Puṇḍarīk's, the god right away said, “So be it.”
Puṇḍarīk immediately cried out, “My first request is that I never have to look at
a ‘leftover’ image, and my second is that you must appear before me whenever I
want to look at you. If you agree to this, wait here; otherwise feel free to go
home.” God agreed immediately to both these conditions. Then Puṇḍarīk began
to ask himself which image of god he should hope for (SD 3.3.51–53):
51. In the Kṛṣṇa incarnation he displayed the erotic sentiment (ras),

the heroic sentiment in the image of Lord Rāmcandra, the sentiment
of fierceness as Paraśurām,
52. the sentiment of humor in the Dwarf incarnation. The Man-Lion
exhibits the sentiment of disgust;
(p.180) the Boar incarnation, the sentiment of amazement; the
Tortoise incarnation, the sentiment of peace;
53. the Fish incarnation, the sentiment of terror. These have used up
all eight sentiments.
So Pāṇḍuraṅga should embrace the sentiment of compassion.
Puṇḍarīk did not want a “leftover” image of god. The eight incarnations had
embodied eight of the sentiments in the following order: Fish (terror), Tortoise
(peace), Boar (amazement), Narasiṃha (disgust), Dwarf (humor), Paraśurām
(fierceness), Rāmcandra (heroism), and Kṛṣṇa (eros). Puṇḍarīk wanted
something different. So the god took on the form of the incarnation after the
eighth—that is, the ninth—as Pāṇḍuraṅga, and embodied in this incarnation the
sentiment of compassion (SD 3.3.54–55):
54. Tossing aside his conch, discus, mace, and lotus, the one free
from error placed his hands on his hips.
Page 7 of 18
When he put aside his magnificent crown, the liṅga looked beautiful
on his forehead.
55. Splendid, with his feet side by side on a brick, he took on the
spotless image of Pāṇḍuraṅga.
“Turn around now and look, Puṇḍarīk, at my image that is not a
leftover.”
Standing continually on the brick tossed by Puṇḍarīk, this image is that of

Viṣṇu's ninth incarnation; it is not a leftover (that means, it has never been
polluted); it displays the sentiment of compassion; and it brings together Hari
and Hara in a harmonious synthesis. There is no doubt that these ideas of
Dinakar Svāmī's about Pāṇḍuraṅga are significant. Dinakar Svāmī concludes by
expressing happiness that, though he had set out to present a parable about
serving one's parents, he received the unexpected joy of the story of the
Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya.23
The Later Form of the Kṛṣṇa avatār: Buddha

In analyzing this brief Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya of Dinakar Svāmī's, we must note
the following features:
1. Dinakar Svāmī calls the god “Pāṇḍuraṅga.” Even though his

independent devotional compositions repeatedly use the name “Viṭṭhal,”
here Dinakar Svāmī does not mention that name even once.
(p.181) 2. Pāṇḍuraṅga is Viṣṇu. Dinakar Svāmī firmly believes that the
same god who took the Fish, Tortoise, and other incarnations also came
as Pāṇḍuraṅga.
3. The incarnation of Viṣṇu in the form of Pāṇḍuraṅga took place not for
the purpose of destroying demons, but out of attraction to the sight of a
man intent on serving his mother and father.
4. The god descended to earth only after promising Indra to break
Puṇḍarīk's ascetic service.
5. When he arrived at the site of Puṇḍarīk's asceticism, to attract his
attention the god first took on the “garb of a cowherd” and played a flute.
6. Afterwards, when Puṇḍarīk insisted on an image that was not a
leftover, the god threw aside the conch, discus, and other marks of Viṣṇu.
Removing the crown from his head, he placed his feet side by side on the
brick, put his hands on his hips, and took a Śiva liṅga on his head. This is
what Dinakar Svāmī calls the “image of Pāṇḍuraṅga that is not a
leftover.”
7. Pāṇḍuraṅga is the ninth incarnation of Viṣṇu, the one that comes after
Kṛṣṇa.
8. This incarnation is connected with the sentiment of compassion.
9. The well-known list of incarnations in the Purāṇas gives the ninth
incarnation as the Buddha, and the Buddha is universally known to be
compassionate. Therefore Dinakar Svāmī is indicating that Pāṇḍuraṅga is
the compassionate Buddha.
Page 8 of 18
10. In presenting the idea of the image that is not a leftover, Dinakar
Svāmī also establishes that the iconography of Pāṇḍuraṅga is not
connected with the iconography of Viṣṇu. Dinakar Svāmī states clearly
that God took on the image of Pāṇḍuraṅga only after rejecting all the
iconographic characteristics of Viṣṇu.
11. The two references to the Buddha incarnation that Dinakar Svāmī
makes within this text fit well with the Vārkarī saints’ references to
Viṭṭhal as “silent” (maunastha) and “enlightened” (bauddha):
9.1.18. Seeing the dawn of the Kali Age, he enjoyed union with his
intellect in silence.
Let the Buddha incarnation come happily.
12.2.90. In any case, having seen the dawn of the Kali Age, take the
Buddha incarnation in silence.
(p.182) Thus, the portrayal of Pāṇḍuraṅga as the Buddha in this brief

Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya by Dinakar Svāmī, a member of the Samartha (Rāmdās)
tradition, helps greatly in explaining the distinctive features of Pāṇḍuraṅga's life
story and his characteristic appearance.24
Paintings and Sculptures of Viṭṭhal as the Buddha

The idea that Viṭṭhal is the Buddha can be seen not only in Marathi saint
literature but also in paintings and sculptures in Maharashtra. When litho-
presses in Maharashtra first began to print almanacs (pan͂cāṅgas), for many
years pictures of the nine planets or the ten incarnations were reproduced on
the title pages. In each such set of the ten incarnations, Viṭṭhal (alone or with
Rukmiṇī) always appears in the position of the ninth incarnation, and—to leave
no doubt—the name “Buddha” or “Bauddha” is printed above the picture as well.
Almanacs with this kind of title page are found in my own collection and in that
of my friend V. L. Manjul. Another example can be seen in a recently published
book of hymns (stotras) named Śrīrāmasahasranāma (Rāmacaraṇācārya 1953).
This book has a picture of Viṭṭhal and Rukmiṇī along with Garuḍ and Hanumān,
and it prints Viṭṭhal's name as “Bauddha.”25
In addition, I know of at least two sculptures in which Viṭṭhal has the Buddha's
place among the ten incarnations of Viṣṇu. One is on the gate-tower of a
southern-style Gaṇeś temple built by the Vin͂cūrkars in Tāsgāv (Sāṅglī District,
figures 10–1 and 10–2),
and the other is in an inner porch of the compound wall of the Mahālakṣmī
temple at Kolhapur (figure 10–3; see also Desāī 1963).26
Among the ten incarnations carved in the metal arch over the main image in the
Lakṣmī-Keśav temple in Rājāpūr (Ratnāgiri District), the image of the Buddha
has been worn away, but what is left of its shape shows it to have been an image
of Viṭṭhal.
Page 9 of 18
Buddha, the Incarnation of Illusion and Deception

The Marathi saints’ descriptions of the Buddha incarnation leave us bewildered.
The saints are unanimous in calling him naked and silent. In saying, “The
Buddha form (bauddharūp) does not speak,” they make the very name
“Buddha” (bauddha) mean “silent.” But they also characterize the Buddha in
mutually contradictory ways, as “enlightening people” and “creating fierce
arguments and great delusion.” How can this be? If a god is the very
embodiment of enlightenment, then how can he create fierce arguments and
great delusion? How can he take an incarnation so that people (p.183)
Figure 10–1 The gate-tower of the Gaṇeś

temple in Tāsgāv. Photo by Anne
Feldhaus.
Page 10 of 18
(p.184) will break their vows,

and also in order to break his own
vow of enlightening people? This
contradiction arises, I think, from
the conscious attempt first to
include the Buddha among Viṣṇu's
incarnations, and then to consider
him to be Viṭṭhal.
By the end of the Gupta period
(fourth–sixth centuries), the
Buddha had come to be fully
included among the ten
incarnations of Viṣṇu. It is thus
not at all surprising that the Figure 10–2 Detail of figure 10–1. Viṭṭhal
Buddha appears as Viṣṇu's is on our right. Photo by Anne Feldhaus.
ninth incarnation in Marathi
literature, which began in the
thirteenth century. In fact, what
may well be the first written
songs in Marathi were
composed to pay homage to this
Buddha incarnation.
Mānasollāsa or
Abhilaṣitārthacintāmaṇī, a
Sanskrit text in verse written by
the Cālukya king Someśvar of
Kalyāṇī at the beginning of the
twelfth century (A.D. 1131),
provides indispensable evidence Figure 10–3 Viṭṭhal as the ninth of the
about the origins of Marathi ten incarnations of Viṣṇu in an inner
literature. The fourth section of porch of the compound wall of the
this text is a song in honor of Mahālakṣmī temple at Kolhapur. Viṭṭhal is
the ten incarnations composed the second image from the left. To his
in a number of different local right (our left) is Kalkī, the tenth
languages. The first verse of the incarnation, and to Viṭṭhal's left (our
section pays homage to the Fish right) are Kṛṣṇa and then Rām. Photo by
incarnation, and is written in Anne Feldhaus.
Marathi (Śrīgondekar 1961: 38).
It reads: “The one who brought
the Vedas from the underworld in the form of a fish.…”
Page 11 of 18
(p.185) Many have cited this first verse, but no one has paid much attention to
the fact that the verse honoring the Buddha incarnation is also in Marathi. This
one reads as follows (Śrīgondekar 1961: 39):
The one who, in the form of the Buddha, deceived the demons and
gods (dāṇavasurāṃ),
who found fault with the Vedas:
may that god of illusion and deception (māyāmohiyā deū) bless me.
This first written Marathi song explains Nāmdev's statement that the Buddha
incarnation was for the sake of breaking vows. The Buddha described in this
song is the “god of illusion and deception” who cheated the demons and gods27
and criticized the Vedas. This fits well with the Purāṇas’ description of the
Buddha incarnation.
The description of the Buddha as one of Viṣṇu's ten incarnations appears, in

longer and shorter versions and with some variations, in the Harivaṃśa (1.41),
the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (3.18), the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (1.3.24; 2.7.37; 11.4.23), the
Garuḍa Purāṇa (1.1), the Agni Purāṇa (16), the Nārada Purāṇa (2.72), the Liṅga
Purāṇa (2.71), the Padma Purāṇa (3.252), and others. The Viṣṇu Purāṇa states
that this is the incarnation who converts the demons to heterodox views in order
to deceive them, and the Harivaṃśa states that Viṣṇu took this incarnation in the
Kīkaṭ land in order to delude inferior people who perform sacrifices using Vedic
mantras. The Garuḍa Purāṇa (1.1) calls the Buddha the “son of the Jina,” while
the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (Śāstrī 1965-1975: 1.3.24) refers to him both as the “son
of the Jina” and as being from the Kīkaṭ land:
Then, during the Kali Age, in order to delude the enemies of the
gods,
a son of the Jina named Buddha will come into being among the
Kīkaṭs.
The Kīkaṭ land is Bihar, the land of the historical Buddha. The Purāṇas’
descriptions of the Buddha also include other features connected with the
historical Buddha, such as the use of the term saugata (“well-gone,” liberated)
for him, mention of the places Sārnāth and Mṛgadāv, and use of the term
parivrājikā for one of his female disciples. The Viṣṇu Purāṇa states that he has a
shaven head and is naked. “Illusory and deceptive” (māyamoha) is the special
term used to characterize him—because he deludes the demons by his power of
illusion.28 He became sky-clad29 and taught the Jain religion; he became clad in
red30 and taught the Buddhist religion. It is also he who propagated heterodox
views like those of the Cārvākas.31
(p.186) The Purāṇas’ description of the Buddha incarnation is depressing. It is

terribly unfair to his great teaching to call the Buddha “illusory and deceptive”
and to say that his philosophy was a heterodox view that he intentionally taught
Page 12 of 18
in order to deflect demons from the true path. In calling the Buddha an
incarnation of Viṣṇu, the Purāṇas annihilated Buddhist thought. The Purāṇas
accepted the Buddha, but they completely rejected Buddhist ideas.
In this context, a verse in the “Merutantra” seems to me extremely important

(Phaḍke et al. 1962: 73):
Brāhmaṇs enamored of the left-handed path, Kuṇḍakas, people who

have fallen from caste,
those bereft of Vedic rituals, people who have become Mlecchas
through a mistake they made,
Goḷakas, and also members of the Kāyastha and other castes
take refuge in the Buddha Viṣṇu and reach devotion and liberation.
Jayadeva, the author of the Gītāgovinda, praises the Buddha in similarly

resounding terms (Ācārya 1949: 19):
1.9. Victory to you, O Keśava, O Lord of the World, O Hari, to you who
censure sacrificial rituals and all the Vedic scriptures and show a
compassionate heart with respect to the killing of animals, who have taken
on the body of the Buddha.
This Buddha, who censures sacrificial rites and Vedic scriptures and who shows
a compassionate heart on the subject of killing animals, is a great ocean of
mercy.
The Buddha and Viṭṭhal

Why, despite maintaining their identification with the Vedic tradition, did the
Marathi saints relate Viṭṭhal to the non-Vedic Buddha? What similarity between
Viṭṭhal and the Buddha led the two to be considered identical? Why, even though
the saints knew what the Purāṇic incarnation of the Buddha was like, did they
experience the supreme object of their devotion in his form? In connecting
Viṭṭhal with the Buddha, what position did the saints take with respect to his
religion in the period of its decline? The answers to these questions are to be
found in part in the nature of the land of India, and in part in the saints’
syncretistic point of view.
(p.187) We must not forget that in Indian traditions nothing ever gets
destroyed: it only gets transformed, taking on different names and forms.
Followers of the Buddha were spread throughout Maharashtra continuously for
a thousand or fifteen hundred years, until just before the time of Jn͂āndev and
Nāmdev. There is not a single mountain range in Maharashtra where Buddhists
did not carve out caves. From within these hundreds of caves in the sides of the
Sahyadri Mountains, the cries of Buddhist monks continually resounded:
Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi, “I take refuge in the Buddha.” The great mantra of
non-violence and compassion echoed from each granule of Marathi soil. Still
today, inscriptions show that the whole society, from kings to agricultural
Page 13 of 18
laborers, was prepared to renounce the world in order to serve these

dispassionate monks. Monks (bhikṣus) had become objects of respect, as
indicated by the common use of the name Bhikobā for men and Bhikūbāī for
women in village after village.
It is historically inconsistent to think that a philosopher who took pride in the

Vedic religion32 would have had the power to completely erase ten or fifteen
centuries of this profound influence on the folk mind. Indeed, that influence was
strong enough that such a philosopher was cursed as a “Buddhist in disguise.”
We do not know if traditionalists grumbled when they saw the Buddha praised as
the “emperor of yogis” in this touching hymn attributed to Śaṅkarācārya
(Kulkarṇī 1963: 153):
The emperor of yogis in the Kali Age,

sitting firmly on the ground, his feet set in the lotus position,
his breath controlled, his eyes focused on the tip of his nose:
may he, the Buddha, be awake, his thoughts steady.
It would not be correct to say that, simply because the monks lost their step, or
because powerful new religious sects arose, this influential Buddhist religion
was completely wiped out of the Marathi popular mind. Undoubtedly, the springs
of its influence must have oozed out somewhere, under a different name and in a
different form, in the popular sects that arose in later times. The challenge for
historians is to search for these transformed vestiges. The Indrāyaṇī River,33
from which Jn͂āndev and Tukārām spread a great flood throughout all of
Maharashtra, originated in the land of innumerable monks who took their
inspiration from the compassionate life of the Buddha. This is a fact that we
cannot simply ignore. It means that, even though the Buddhist community had
disappeared under the name “Buddhist” before the time of Jn͂āndev, it must have
merged into other popular sects.
And then another idea naturally suggests itself: that Jn͂āndev and Nāmdev must
have somewhere had an unbroken connection with the Buddha's limitless (p.
188) compassion. We are still searching for the teacher who “rests his soul on
the base of the soul” and “walks along hiding his footsteps in compassion,” of
whom Jn͂āndev asked the way as he passed (Jn͂ā. 13.248–49), but we have not
looked for the source of this man's mercy. Even though nondualism, which on the
level of knowledge sees the Lord in all beings, is not new to this land, still we
can see that it was through the tradition of the saints that nondualism began to
be expressed in compassionate action. Eknāth, who picked up and placed on his
hip an Untouchable child floundering in agony on the beach, and who gave a pot
of Ganges water to a thirsty donkey, served in this tradition of compassionate
action. Tukārām believed that the only true holy man is one who identifies with
the poor and the wretched, and that God abides only with such a man. When
Page 14 of 18
Tukārām held himself to be intimately related to the whole human race, he did
so with the support of this tradition.
I therefore have no hesitation in saying that when the Buddha, after dwelling
happily in Maharashtra for a thousand or fifteen hundred years, left in the
twelfth or thirteenth century, he overturned the water pot of his heart's
compassion, and then, so that the current would keep flowing even more
generously, the saints added many streams of their own loving devotion. In
Maharashtra at least, Buddhism cast off all its Tantric distortions and other
inferior forms and became reincarnated as the Bhāgavat religion. Even in this
new incarnation it continued to indict the Vedas, but it erased the stigma of
being non-Vedic. It agreed completely about the importance of inner purity, but
did not abandon rituals, which mould the senses. It kept its universal
compassion flowing, but also insisted on restraining evil powers that harm the
social order. Without detracting from the greatness of dispassion, it did not hide
the unfading sweetness that religiously moderated passion can give to life.
Without denying a woman's right to become an ascetic, it did not hide the
intensity of the appeal of motherhood. This new, Bhāgavat incarnation of
Buddhism ushered in an intellectual revolution in the cultural life of
Maharashtra.
Notes:
(1.) Occasionally the saints attempt to clarify Viṭṭhal's silence by saying, as
Eknāth does (Ek. Gā. 502),
He stands silent, with love for Puṇḍalīk.

He speaks to no one.
He stands still, O mother.
According to Nāmdev, Puṇḍalīk said to Viṭṭhal (Nām. Gā. 970):
Stay for a moment, keeping silent.

Look with your merciful gaze at those who have come to you.
(2.) Translator's note: This refers to the story of Paraśurām cutting off the head
of his mother, Reṇukā.
(3.) Translator's note: This refers to the period in the Rāmāyaṇa story after
Rāvaṇa has carried off Sītā.
(4.) Translator's note: In stories about Kṛṣṇa, he steals butter, consorts with
cowherd women (gopīs), and kills not only demons in the forest but also his own
wicked relative, Kaṃsa.
(5.) Translator's note: Kalkī is the future incarnation of Viṣṇu.
Page 15 of 18
(6.) Translator's note: A Gondhaḷ is a type of performance in honor of goddesses.

Eknāth has a series of poems with Gondhaḷs as their theme. A Gondhaḷ is
generally performed at night, so that the torch is an essential part of the
arrangements.
(7.) A similar image is found in another verse of Eknāth's (Ek. Gā. 3327):
The ninth one sits still; his name is the Enlightened One (bauddha).
He stands continually at the saint's door.
Blessed, blessed is the beauty of Viṭṭhal, standing for the sake of
Puṇḍalīk.
(8.) Śrīdhar Svāmī sings in detail the glory of Paṇḍharī and Pāṇḍuraṅga; his
compositions also reveal this same Buddha form of Viṭṭhal. Śrīdhar repeatedly
calls him “naked” and refers clearly to his work of enlightenment (Harivijay
32.9; Nājharekar 1970). Śrīdhar addresses the ninth incarnation accurately as
“you who wear the garb of compassion” (Pāṇḍavpratāp 64.6; Nājharekar 1852).
Further evidence of the idea that the Buddha resorted to silence is found in the
Sanskrit poet Paramānanda's Śivabhārata (Divekar, editor 1927: 43):
(5.38.) When, as Kṛṣṇa, the killer of evil demons, he had gone home,
then, in the Buddha incarnation, the Lord relied on silence.
(9.) Translator's note: Tuesday, 21 February, A.D. 1654.
(10.) Translator's note: The term samādhi is used both for a terminal state of
trance and for the grave of a person who has been buried after entering such a
state. It is also used, as here, as a euphemistic term for the death of a saintly
person.
(11.) Translator's note: A vṛndāvan is a stand for a holy basil (tulśī ) plant. It is
one of the forms that a samādhi memorial can take.
(12.) Translator's note: This refers to the story of Viṣṇu's Dwarf (Vāmana)
incarnation.
(13.) Translator's note: Madhu and Kaitabh are two demons that were killed by
Viṣṇu. However, their story is not usually told in connection with any of the
standard list of ten incarnations.
(14.) Translator's note: Garuḍ is the eagle mount of Viṣṇu, but not specifically of
any of his ten incarnations.
(15.) Translator's note: This refers to Viṣṇu's Narasiṃha incarnation.
(16.) Translator's note: This refers to the Rāmāyaṇa story and to Viṣṇu's
incarnation as Rām.
Page 16 of 18
(17.) Translator's note: This story is not generally told about any of the standard
list of ten incarnations of Viṣṇu. In the Mahābhārata, Purocan built the lac house
that was burnt in an attempt to kill the Pāṇḍavas.
(18.) Translator's note: This is a reference to the Kṛṣṇa incarnation, but the idea
of Kṛṣṇa tormenting his own birth parents in prison is not part of the usual
repertoire of stories about Kṛṣṇa.
(19.) Translator's note: This is another reference to the Rām incarnation and the
Rāmāyaṇa story.
(20.) Translator's note: I have not been able to identify this story, nor do I
understand to which incarnation it is meant to refer.
(21.) Translator's note: This refers to the story of Paraśurām.
(22.) Translator's note: This probably refers to the Kṛṣṇa incarnation. Vṛndā is
another name of Kṛṣṇa's beloved Rādhā, who was, according to some traditions,
married to another man.
(23.) After this, Dinakar Svāmī refers separately to another, related story that he
has omitted in the flow of narration (SD 3.3.58):
He is like the Brāhmaṇ Kukuṭa, who served his parents within the
holy precinct (pan͂cakrośī) of Varanasi.
Just thinking of him removes the faults of birth after birth.
(24.) In singing the glory of his god, Pāṇḍuraṅga of Paṇḍharī, the famous
hagiographer Mahīpati Tāharābādkar, Tukārām's dream-initiated disciple, states
(Bhaktavijay 57.90; Tāharābādkar 1980):
In the Kali age, Śrīpati has the form of the Buddha in a visible stone
image.
He showed people various experiential truths and increased the
saints’ fame.
(25.) A copy of this book is found in the collection of Shri Moreshvar Valimbe of
Pune; he drew my attention to the picture of “Buddha Viṭṭhal” in it.
(26.) Photographs of these ten-incarnation sculptures are printed on the back of

the title page of Desāī 1963.
(27.) Or perhaps (reading dānavāsura instead of dānavasura): the asuras, sons of

Danu.
(28.) Translator's note: Dhere is playing here with the compound māyāmoha.
Although it is usually interpreted as a dvandva compound, meaning “illusion and
Page 17 of 18
deception,” Dhere here takes it as a tatpuruṣa compound that means “deception

through illusion.”
(29.) Translator's note: Meaning “naked,” this term (digambar) describes one
type of Jain ascetic, as well as one of the principal divisions of Jainism.
(30.) Translator's note: Buddhist monks in India traditionally wore red robes.
The term Dhere uses here, raktāmbar (“red-clad”), echoes the more common
term digambar (“sky-clad”) that he has just used to refer to Jains.
(31.) Translator's note: The Cārvākas were the “Materialists” of the period when
Buddhism and Jainism were founded.
(32.) Translator's note: In this passage, Dhere is referring to the eighth-century

philosopher Śaṅkarācārya and to the view that he was responsible for the defeat
of Buddhism in India.
(33.) Translator's note: The Indrāyaṇī River, which originates near the Buddhist
caves at Kārle and Bhāje, flows past Dehū and Āḷandī, the villages of Tukārām
and Jn͂āneśvar, respectively.
Page 18 of 18
Viṭṭhal, Jains, and Rāmdāsīs


Print ISBN-13: 9780199777594
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.001.0001

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.003.0012

The poet-saints devoted to Viṭṭhal do not identify him with the Jina as they
identify him with the Buddha. Nonetheless, the claim has been made, at least
until the end of the eighteenth century, that Viṭṭhal is “the Jains' god.” This
chapter investigates the basis of that claim, pointing out similarities in
biography, characteristics, and appearance among Kṛṣṇa, Viṭṭhal, and the Jains'
twenty-fourth Tīrthaṅkar, Nemināth. The chapter concludes with a discussion of
devotion to Viṭṭhal in the Samartha (Rāmdās) sect, a Maharashtrian Vaiṣṇava
group that is generally thought to be opposed to the cult of Viṭṭhal and
exclusively devoted to Rām. The fact that even Jains and members of the
Samartha sect are brought into connection with Viṭṭhal is further evidence of the
all-embracing character of this god and his cult.
Keywords: Jina, Jainism, Samartha sect, devotion, Buddha
the marathi saints considered Viṭṭhal to be Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa, they said that he is

“Śiva with Viṣṇu,” and they even experienced him as the Buddha. The Buddha
came to be included among Viṣṇu's ten incarnations well before the rise of the
saints. It was natural for them to find Viṭṭhal, who had already been completely
Vaiṣṇavized, in any incarnation of Viṣṇu. But when the saints called Viṭṭhal
“Buddha,” they were not just thinking, “one of Viṣṇu's many incarnations.”
Images of Viṣṇu's ten incarnations portraying Viṭṭhal as the Buddha give us an
excellent sense of the faith of the Marathi saints—and of Marathi folk belief,
which has been influenced by the saints—in Viṭṭhal's connection with the
Buddha. This relationship between Viṭṭhal and the Buddha leads us to ask
Page 1 of 18
whether there was also a relationship be-tween Viṭṭhal and the Jina, the founder
of Jainism.
“They Say the God of Paṇḍharī Belongs to the Jains”

Until the end of the eighteenth century, it seems, some Jains claimed that Viṭṭhal
of Paṇḍharī is “the Jains’ god.” This is the claim that Govindanāth (1721–1811), a
disciple of Gopāḷnāth of Tripuṭī (Satara District), refuted in extremely harsh
words (Gholap 1981:15):1
They say the god of Paṇḍharī belongs to the Jains.

Those donkeys’ lives are worthless.
(p.190) He is a naked child; no one understands his glory.
What can one say to those low ones?
The saints look in the Padma Purāṇa
at the marvelous glory of Viṭhobā.
Some who hold intoxicated views insult Viṭṭhal:
those donkeys get to live in hell.
Govindanāth says, the image of Hari and Hara
stands on a brick for the sake of his devotees.
Govindanāth was initiated into the tradition of disciples of Eknāth. Extremely

devoted to Viṭṭhal, he wrote an enormous book entitled Viṭṭhalvijay as a
comprehensive expression of his devotion (Govindanāth n.d.). Out of faith that
Viṭṭhal is Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa, the book narrates at length the stories of the ten
incarnations of Viṣṇu. At the end of the book, Govindanāth expresses the Purāṇic
belief that Lord Viṣṇu himself came to the Diṇḍīra Forest in his eighth
incarnation—that is, as Kṛṣṇa—and that it is he who is Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur.
Though born in the lineage of Morayā Gosāvī of Cin͂cvaḍ, Govindanāth harshly
criticizes high-caste people who are devoid of spirituality.
Govindanāth does not believe in a hierarchy in the field of spirituality. He values

equally all righteous people intent on a spiritual goal. It is thus remarkable that
he is so sharply opposed to Jains. So angry is he with Jains and with their claim
to Viṭṭhal that he does not even hesitate to hurl abuse at those who say that the
god of Paṇḍharī “belongs to the Jains.” He curses such people to be reborn as
donkeys. Govindanāth sees this harsh language as necessary for refuting
heretics. He goes on to say:
Some who hold intoxicated views insult Viṭṭhal:

those donkeys get to live in hell.
Here Govindanāth does not stop at simply calling people who insult Viṭṭhal—that
is, heretics who consider him the Jains’ god—donkeys. He also curses them to go
to hell. Govindanāth asks harshly what he should call those inferior people who
do not realize the glory of Viṭṭhal as the embodiment of Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa.
Page 2 of 18
From Govindanāth's point of view, people who are saints experience Viṭṭhal's
“marvelous glory” through the testimony of the Padma Purāṇa, which states that
Viṭṭhal is a naked child and that he stands on a brick in the form of Hari and
Hara for the sake of his devotees. Govindanāth considers the Padma Purāṇa an
authoritative source of knowledge about the glory of Viṭṭhal, and states that all
the saints consider it authoritative too. Anything else that anyone says about
Viṭṭhal is unacceptable to Govindanāth's firm faith.
(p.191) Of course, the testimony that Govindanāth accepts so unequivocally is

that of the extensive Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya that claims to belong to the Padma
Purāṇa. Govindanāth makes it clear that this is the text he is referring to when
he says, in the first chapter of the Viṭṭhalvijay (1.309), “Now, anyone who feels
that this is just guesswork should look at the Padma Purāṇa. He should take out
the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya in the Padma Purāṇa and look at the glory of
Paṇḍharī.” On the authority of the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya's story of Viṭṭhal,
Govindanāth calls him a “naked child” and “the image of Hari and Hara.”
Govindanāth believes that Viṭṭhal is naked, but that the reason he is naked is
that he is a “naked child,” the baby Kṛṣṇa or Gopāl Kṛṣṇa. Still, Govindanāth
finds no contradiction in reconciling Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava beliefs by holding that
this Hari who is a “naked child” also includes Hara (Śiva) within himself.
Govindanāth must have known that Eknāth, the first teacher in his lineage, calls
Viṭṭhal “Buddha” not just once or twice but several times. For him, considering
Viṭṭhal the Buddha is not contradictory. As we have just seen, Vaiṣṇavas who
maintained a connection with the Vedic tradition had considered the Buddha the
ninth incarnation of Viṣṇu for many centuries, since even before the time of
Eknāth. Thus, it was easy for Govindanāth to accept that Viṭṭhal is Viṣṇu, Śiva,
or the Buddha. Remarkably, though, as soon as Viṭṭhal was said to be the “Jains’
god,” the Jina, Govindanāth's heart blazed with fury, and he began cursing those
who said such things.
Understanding why a respectable religious figure like Govindanāth would

undergo a bitter transformation of this sort is a topic for another context. For
now, Govindanāth's exclamations show us that until the end of the eighteenth
century, Jains laid claims to Viṭṭhal, and that some devotees of Viṭṭhal bitterly
opposed those claims.
Action and Reaction

The Marathi saints repeatedly address Viṭṭhal as “Buddha,” but they do not call
him “Jina.” Although both the Buddha and the Jina promoted the non-violence
and generous compassion that were dear to the saints, it was the Buddha that
the saints saw in Viṭṭhal, not the Jina. This is because the Buddhist community
had disappeared from Maharashtra, while the Jain community remained in
existence—not only at the time of the saints, but to this day. Long before the rise
of the Marathi saints, the Buddha had already come to be included in the ten
Page 3 of 18
incarnations of Viṣṇu, and the Buddha's followers had again begun to worship
Śiva or Viṣṇu. If the non-Vedic Buddhist community, understood to be heretical,
had been (p.192) in existence in the saints’ time, they might not have had such
fervor for the Buddha form of Viṭṭhal.
Marathi literature provides some hints of conflict between Jains and Hindus in
Maharashtra. Like the contempt of Viṭṭhal devotees like Govindanāth for those
who call Viṭṭhal “the Jains’ god,” there are passages in Jain Marathi literature
that reject Viṭṭhal. In order to convince Jains that “there is no other god but the
Arhant god,” for example, Guṇakīrti's late-fifteenth-century Marathi prose text
Dharmāmṛt (Joharāpūrkar 1960) lists the names of “deities” to be rejected.
Viṭṭhal appears in this list among the “ten-incarnation gods.” Guṇakīrti sees
“Viṭṭhal” as one of twenty-four alternative names of Kṛṣṇa. Even so, Guṇakīrti
includes Viṭṭhal in the category of “deities,” includes Pandharpur in the list of
evil holy places (kutīrthas), and states explicitly that by attending “Hari vigils
and kīrtans” one commits the sin of listening to evil (Joharāpūrkar 1960: 14, 16,
46, 47, 71).
In Maharashtra, however, the conflict between Jains and Hindus did not become
as devastatingly destructive as it did in other parts of India. The verbal echoes of
the conflict are also very scattered, and they are relatively mild compared to
those heard in other regions. What is remarkable is that, even as these actions
and reactions were going on in some places, there were also some Jains who
attempted to make Viṭṭhal their own.
Jejurī's Jain Yakṣa

The attempt of some Jains to co-opt the pastoralists’ god Viṭṭhal is similar to
their attempt to co-opt another popular god, Mailār or Khaṇḍobā. There are
several references to the latter attempt in literary sources from Andhra and
Karnataka, and an inscription that hints at the attempt is found at Jejurī in
Maharashtra. G. H. Khare (1958: 91–92) gives the following information about
the inscription: “There are many inscriptions in Jejurī. With the exception of one
Jain inscription, they usually give the god's name as Mārtaṇḍa or Mārtaṇḍa
Bhairava. The very first inscription here is from Samvat 1303 (Śake 1168, A.D.
1246); it states, ‘Dhaüllaka made an image of Kaparddi Yakṣa for the good of his
soul.’ Because this is the Yakṣa of the nineteenth Jain Tīrthaṅkar, Mallināth, this
image is in no way connected with Khaṇḍobā.”
Unfortunately, Khare did not realize the significance of the fact that a pious Jain
in the thirteenth century had an image made of the Yakṣa Kapardī, an attendant
of the Tīrthaṅkara Mallināth, and established it in Jejurī. Khare wrote off this
fact with the comment, “This image is in no way connected with Khaṇḍobā.”
From the point of view of the Jain devotee who established the image, must not
his object (p.193) of worship, the Tīrthaṅkara Mallināth, have been identical
with Mailār-Mallāri-Mallaṇṇā, who lives on the hill-fort at Jejurī? If Mailār's
Page 4 of 18
Muslim devotees can call him by the Muslim name “Malū Khān,” why should
Jains not call him “Mallināth” in order to make him their own?
Khaṇḍobā's names Mailār, Mallāri, and Mallaṇṇā are only partially similar to
“Mallināth.” But Khaṇḍobā or Mailār was also called Mallināth. Sontheimer's
fieldwork reveals that Khaṇḍobā is called Malleś, Mallayyā, Mallaṇṇā, Mallināth,
and so on.2 According to Sontheimer, Mallikārjun at Śrīśaila3 and Mailār at
various places are both frequently called Mallināth. In the Mahānubhāv text
Līḷācaritra, the holy place Śrīśaila is referred to as “Mallināth” (Tuḷpuḷe 1967a:
74, “Uttarārdha” 348). Among Akka Mahādevī's poems (vacanas) is one in which
she calls Mallikārjun “Mallināth.” In addition, the Śaṅkaradāsimayyā Purāṇa
calls Mailār “Mallidev.”4 This text states that Mailār was a Jain ascetic, and
Brahmaśiva's Samayaparīkṣā calls him a Jain hero who died in battle. This means
that, at least in Karnataka, in the context of conflict between Vīraśaivas and
Jains the Vīraśaivas abused Mailār time and again by calling him a Jain. Even
though Mailār was closely connected with Śaivas, and considered extremely
inferior by Jains, perhaps the Jains intentionally took him as Mallināth and drew
him toward themselves.
Viṭṭhal and Nemināth

Just as the Jains considered Khaṇḍobā to be Mallināth and tried to adopt him as
their own on the basis of a similarity in name, so they attempted—unsuccessfully
—to identify Lord Viṭṭhal, the most popular god of Maharashtra, with their own
Nemināth. They based their attempt on similarities in appearance,
characteristics, and life story between Viṭṭhal and Nemināth.
The note about Puṇḍalīk that Raghunāth Bhāskar Goḍbole wrote in the
Bhāratkhaṇḍācā Arvācīn Koś (“Dictionary of Modern India”) gives us an idea of
exactly how the Jains asserted their claim to Viṭṭhal. Goḍbole states (1881: 287–
88):
Page 5 of 18
Puṇḍarīk was a Brāhmaṇ by caste, and he was very learned. Jains say that
in Yudhiṣṭhir Śaka 1724 [A.D. 1802], Puṇḍarīk had a dispute with a Jain
pandit named Vidyāratnākar; Puṇḍarīk lost the dispute, then adopted
Jainism and began to practice the religion of non-violence. The dispute
took place at Lohadaṇḍa kṣetra on the bank of the Bhīmarathī—that is, on
the bank of the Bhīmā River. At that time Candragupta's son and King
Aśok's father Vārisār was ruling. If this is true, then today, in the 4980th
year of the Kali Yuga, it (p.194) must have been 3156 years since the
dispute happened. However, we need to find additional evidence of this;
only if we find such evidence can we decide about the matter. The reason I
have written so much here is that the image that the Jain pandit
established on Wednesday, Āṣāḍh Śuddha 11, in Śaka 1725 [A.D. 1803], in
the Virodhakṛt Saṃvatsar year, is described as follows in a Jain text:
1. The great-souled one established an image, famous in all three

worlds, of Nemināth with his hands on his hips,
2. and that image stands, worshiped fully by great Jains,
and he established the religion in which non-violence is supreme.
3. In 17245 Dharmarāj Śaka,
4. he established it on the great Eleventh day of the bright half of the
month of Āṣāḍh,
on a Wednesday, in the Virodhakṛti year.
This description matches the image of Viṭṭhal that is in Paṇḍharī today.

However, the time frame does not fit. Because an āratī written by Nāmdev
states that this god is 28 yugas old, and the Jain text says he is
approximately 3250 years old. Therefore we must get some other, stronger
evidence for this, or else the question cannot be decided. In short, we
cannot immediately say that the pandit Puṇḍarīk is the same one written
about in the verse “Pralhād, Nārad, Parāśar, Puṇḍarīk.…”6
It is not possible to tell what Jain text Goḍbole cited this information and these
verses from when he compiled his dictionary at the end of the nineteenth
century. The eleventh day of the bright half of the month of Āṣāḍh, a Wednesday,
the religion of non-violence, the hands on the hips: all these fit well with the
worship and image of Viṭṭhal. There is of course no point in trying to decide
whether they are historically true or false. We need only realize that the
information and verses are extremely important for understanding how the Jain
tradition attempted to adopt Viṭṭhal as Nemināth.
Lord Kṛṣṇa and Nemināth

The Vaiṣṇavas considered Viṭṭhal, who was originally a pastoralists’ god, to be
Gopāl Kṛṣṇa; they raised his status by making him into Kṛṣṇa. Because both
Kṛṣṇa and Viṭṭhal are pastoralists’ gods, the elevation was easy to accomplish;
the (p.195) Vaiṣṇavas could preserve many of Viṭṭhal's original features as they
elevated him. When, like the Vaiṣṇavas, the Jains attempted to make Viṭṭhal their
Page 6 of 18
own, did they have any such coherent basis for their effort? We must examine
what support there was for considering Viṭṭhal to be Nemināth, the way
Khaṇḍobā's names Mailār, Mallayyā, Mallaṇṇā, Mallidev, and Mallināth provide a
basis for the idea that he is Mallināth. I have said that there is some similarity
between Viṭṭhal and Nemināth in terms of their appearance, characteristics, and
life stories. In order to comprehend this similarity fully, we must first briefly
familiarize ourselves with the story of Nemināth.
Nemināth is the twenty-fourth Jain Tīrthaṅkara. Not only is Nemināth similar to

Kṛṣṇa. He is also, according to Jain tradition, closely connected with him
(Saṅghvī 1953: 32–36):
Both were born in the Yadu lineage. Nemināth and Kṛṣṇa were cousins.
Kṛṣṇa was Vasudev's son, and Nemināth was the son of Vasudev's brother
Samudravijay. In the Jain tradition, Kṛṣṇa appears a great deal in the story
of Nemināth.
The rise of the Yadu lineage took place around Mathurā. When Kṛṣṇa was
in difficulties in Mathurā, he moved his capital to Dvārakā. Nemināth
appears to have spent his childhood and youth in Dvārakā. He had no
desire to get married; however, because of other people's insistence, he
prepared himself for marriage. However, when he saw the animals that had
been brought together to be slaughtered on the occasion of the wedding
(for the feast), compassion arose in his mind, and he began to tremble.
Because of the distressing awareness that animals would be slaughtered,
he cancelled his wedding and set out with a dispassionate mind to practice
asceticism on Mount Girnār.
Nemināth's intended bride, Rājīmatī, was Kaṃsa's sister and Ugrasena's

daughter. When Rājīmatī saw that Nemināth had lost his desire for sense
pleasure, she too left home and followed the path of asceticism. While she
was living an ascetic life, Nemināth's brother Rathanemī became lustful for
her beauty, despite the fact that he too was an ascetic. Rājīmatī, however,
instructed him and made him firm in the practice of asceticism. After that,
Rājīmatī and Nemināth both continued to wander around teaching. The
two of them passed their lives in complete conformity to the rules for male
and female ascetics in the Jain tradition. Nemināth and Rājīmatī may or
may not have been historical persons, but they have gained a place in
Jains’ hearts like the place that Rām and Sītā have in the heart of each and
every Hindu.
(p.196) This traditional Jain story of Nemināth reveals many similarities

between him and Kṛṣṇa:
1. Both belong to the Yadu lineage. They are first cousins on their father's
side. Therefore they are contemporaries. By birth they are cowherds.
Page 7 of 18
2. Kṛṣṇa herded cows and cattle in his childhood. In order to protect the
cattle when they were suffering from excessively hard rain, he lifted
Mount Govardhan and held it over them. Hindu tradition continues to
portray Kṛṣṇa as a model for the work of herding and protecting cows.
Nemināth too was a herdsman by birth; that is why the prospect of
violence against animals disturbed him deeply, so that he abandoned his
own wedding and set out to practice asceticism.
3. Kṛṣṇa and Nemināth are both well-known teachers in their respective
traditions.
The renowned pandit Sukhlalji Sanghavi, whose version of the story of Nemināth
I have quoted from here, draws attention to these similarities in an insightful
work that presents a detailed comparison of Nemināth and Kṛṣṇa. In his
conclusion, Sanghvi states (1953: 35): “To be sure, other regions had
arrangements for protecting cows, but only Gujarat has elaborate arrangements
for protecting other animals as well. It will be no surprise if I state that the
cause of this is the influence of the life-story of Nemināth. So we can call Kṛṣṇa a
protector of cows and Nemināth a protector of animals more generally. Kṛṣṇa
has to do with cow-protection and cattle-raising, while Nemināth's connection is
with keeping and protecting a variety of animals. Proof of this can be seen in the
area of Girnār-Kāṭhevāḍ.”
Besides their similarity in terms of their life stories and characteristics, Kṛṣṇa
and Nemināth also resemble each other in appearance. According to Jain
iconography, Nemināth is black, just like Kṛṣṇa. Moreover, Nemināth's only
distinguishing mark is a conch, which is depicted on his throne in order to
identify him. The conch is also a distinguishing mark in images of Kṛṣṇa, who is
inseparable from his conch named Pān͂cajanya.
Kṛṣṇa, Viṭṭhal, and Nemināth

Now that we have seen how close a connection there is between Kṛṣṇa and
Nemināth, the Jains’ attempt to identify Viṭṭhal with Nemināth begins to seem
natural. Viṭṭhal is a god of pastoralists; he is a protector of cows. That is why he
takes the form of Kṛṣṇa. As Kṛṣṇa's cousin, Nemināth too is a cowherd, a
herdsman, (p.197) so in the Jain context it does not seem far-fetched for Viṭṭhal
to become Nemināth. Like Nemināth, Viṭṭhal is black, and he holds in his left
hand the conch that is Nemināth's distinguishing mark; many places in South
India have images of Viṭṭhal with his right hand in a boon-granting gesture and
his left hand carrying a conch as his only distinguishing mark. In the Vaiṣṇava
tradition, Viṭṭhal is seen as a cowherd child, and so he is naked (“sky-clad”),
while Nemināth is “sky-clad” in accordance with the Jain tradition of
detachment. Similarly, despite having become Kṛṣṇa,7 Viṭṭhal promotes non-
violence, while Nemināth is an ancient exemplar of the tradition that esteems
non-violence above all else.
Page 8 of 18
Jain Rights and Viṭṭhal?

We have seen references to Jains’ attempt to co-opt Viṭṭhal by claiming that he is
Nemināth, and we have also seen how this attempt was consistent with Jain
tradition. However, we cannot confirm the statement of a traditional Hindu text
that, for some period of time, at some point in the past, the Jains’ attempt was
successful and Lord Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur was under their control. This
statement is found in “Mālūtāraṇ,” an unpublished text by Dhuṇḍīsut Narharī
Mālū, who lived at the beginning of the nineteenth century and belonged to the
Goldsmith (Sonār) caste.8 This text attempts to convince its readers of the
important role that Goldsmiths and Koḷīs played in the sanctification of
Pandharpur as a holy place. Koḷīs, as we have seen, remain dominant to this day,
but all we know of the history of Goldsmiths in Pandharpur is the story about
Narharī Sonār converting from the worship of Śiva to devotion for Viṣṇu.
According to Mālū's text, Rāmcandra Sadāśiv Sonār (a Goldsmith), the prime

minister of King Śālivāhan, took the lead in setting up Pandharpur as a holy
place. Taking along four Koḷīs with the surnames Adhaṭrāv, Abhaṅgrāv, Nihatrāv,
and Parcaṇḍe, he cut down trees and created the first settlement, in the
neighborhood of the Mallikārjun temple. From then on, the administration of the
Viṭṭhal temple was under his family's control. Some time later, a Jain king named
Jayatpāḷ had darśan of Viṭṭhal; seeing that the god was naked, the king
determined, “This is our god.” King Jayatpāḷ withdrew the rights of worship from
the Goldsmiths and gave them to the Viṭṭhaldās family, who were Jains. The Jains
retained their rights until the rise of the Sultanate of Bidar, when the Brāhmaṇs
of Pandharpur made the following petition to the Sultan: “This god belongs to
the Brāhmaṇs, but King Jayatpāḷ gave him to the Jains; therefore your lordship
should investigate the matter, take the rights of worship away from the Jains,
and give them to the Brāhmaṇs.” The investigation was carried out, and the
rights to the worship of (p.198) Viṭṭhal went to Kuḷlkarṇīs9 named Kuṇṭa from
Mauje Puḷun͂j. Afterwards the rights went from the Kuṇṭa Kuḷkarṇīs to the
current Baḍve lineage, who belong to the Kaṇva branch of the Vedic tradition
(Thatte n.d.: 11–16).10
It is not possible to identify the evidence on which Narharī Mālū based this
narrative. Bhāve and other historians of literature doubted Mālū's
trustworthiness. None of the available literary or inscriptional evidence provides
any basis for thinking that the orders of a Jain ruler ever had any influence on
worship in the Viṭṭhal temple, from the Yādava period to this day. There is,
however, historical evidence that until quite recently a Jain family named
Viṭṭhaldās who lived in Pandharpur had a special role in the worship of Viṭṭhal,
and that for playing that role they received an annual stipend, a land-grant, and
other benefits from each successive government. No member of that family lives
in Pandharpur anymore; reliable sources there told me that the current
descendant of this lineage now lives in Mumbai. For the present, at least, we
Page 9 of 18
cannot tell if this family's role in the worship of Viṭṭhal should be considered
evidence of Jains’ influence over Viṭṭhal, or of Viṭṭhal's influence over Jains.
Rumor and Belief

It is worth looking at G. H. Khare's statement on the relationship that the Jains
of Maharashtra tried to forge with Viṭṭhal. Khare writes (1963: 76–77):
There is another rumor about the image from Pandharpur. The rumor was
referred to in the tenth volume of the Indian Antiquary [p. 149]. A
missionary wrote the article with the intent to ridicule. It makes
statements like, “This place formerly belonged to the Buddhists; now it has
become Hindu; presently there are 75 Jains here, and they say that the
image of Viṭhobā is their god.” What this statement implies is, “This image
belongs to the Jains.” In addition, the Jains here are said to receive some
honors and titles from Viṭhobā's temple administration. Moreover, we learn
from Goḍbole's dictionary (p. 288) that there is even a Jain text that
teaches that the image is of the Jain Tīrthaṅkara Nemināth.
After this, Khare quotes the verses from the “Goḍbole's dictionary” that I have
cited earlier in this chapter (Goḍbole 1881: 288); then he states: “Now, there is
no indication who composed these verses, what their subject is, or in what text
they are found. There are no images anywhere of Tīrthaṅkaras whose hands rest
on their hips and who carry weapons. Even if we agree that Viṭhobā's image is
naked, (p.199) as some people believe, still no one could through ignorance
call it Buddhist or Jain, because no such image exists in Buddhist or Jain
iconography. Therefore there is absolutely no truth in this rumor.”
In writing this, Khare fails to consider the difference between rumor and faith.
Such gross generalizations as “absolutely no truth” are an inappropriate way to
dismiss ideas that bring about the elevation of gods, their rise and fall in
prestige, and the establishment and decline of folk beliefs about them. If
scholars of the history of religion begin to refer to such ideas as “ignorance,” we
will never learn the secrets of the gods—the study of gods in the field of
religious history will never yield results. On the contrary, the burden of
“ignorance” will land on our own heads. When Jains call Viṭṭhal Nemināth, can
they possibly be unaware of the iconography of Nemināth, whom they
themselves worship?11 They are aware of it. When, despite this fact, they begin
to believe or say, “Viṭṭhal is our Nemināth,” they do so because they want to
elevate Viṭṭhal in the form of Nemināth and make him their own. From Jn͂āndev
in the thirteenth century to Niḷobā in the eighteenth, all the way down to
Dāsagaṇū in the twentieth, hundreds of Marathi saints and holy men have called
Viṭhobā the Buddha. This is not due to ignorance. They do not in the least want
to say that the Buddha's iconography is identical with Viṭṭhal's, or that the
Buddha had the same life story as Viṭṭhal. What they want to do is to include the
Buddha in Viṭṭhal.
Page 10 of 18
If we scholars begin to think that the saints are practicing “ignorance” when
they say that Viṭṭhal's vertical headdress is a Śiva liṅga that Viṭṭhal carries on his
head, we will be excising the very heart of an idea that is basic to Marathi
devotional literature: the unity of Hari and Hara. If a sectarian Vaiṣṇava
composes a verse exclaiming with disdain, “It is contemptible that the Śaivas say
there is a Śiva liṅga on Lord Pāṇḍuraṅga's head!” (Karhāḍkar 1886: folio 4/2),
then we should see this as illustrating his intolerant sectarian nature. However,
as we know, the idea that there is a Śiva liṅga on Lord Pāṇḍuraṅga's head
belongs not to the Śaivas but to Marathi Vaiṣṇavas, who consider Viṣṇu and Śiva
identical. Even when the Marathi saints said, “There is no duality between Hari
and Hara,” and when they experienced the unity of Hari and Hara in Viṭṭhal,
they knew quite well that the image of the god they worshiped portrays Gopāl
Kṛṣṇa standing with his hands on his hips, not Hari and Hara combined.
This reminds me of a touching āryā verse from a Sanskrit hymn named “Āryās to
Viṭṭhal.”12 Indicating Viṣṇu's, Śrīkṛṣṇa's, form as Viṭṭhal, the poet says:
88. Hara held the Ganges of your feet13 on his head;

you held Śambhu on yours.
You are [only] returning the favor, Viṭṭhal, so it seems to me;
You are not one to give something for free.
(p.200) This verse manifests in an extremely beautiful way the same loving
accusation that the Marathi saints make toward Viṭṭhal when they say, teasing
him, “You take away, then you give.” In his form as Viṭṭhal, Hari holds Hara on
his head: the verse emerges directly from this idea. What the verse supports is
not ignorance but the great religious idea of the unity of Hari and Hara.
Because they have failed to use folk ideas about deities as essential sources for
their study of those deities, scholars have become disoriented. They have also
forgotten that setting aside the source materials makes it impossible to see
clearly the object of study.
Rāmdās and His Followers: Heirs of the Liberal Bhāgavat Dharma

Thus, Lord Viṭṭhal intentionally became identical with the Buddha, and made
approaches to the Jina as well. This Viṭṭhal was loved equally by Jn͂āndev, who
belonged to the Nāth sect; by Eknāth, who belonged to the Datta sect; and by
Tukārām, who belonged to the Caitanya sect. The stream of devotion to Viṭṭhal
also flowed beyond the boundaries of the Vārkarī sect, watering devotees’ faith
in the Nāth, Datta, Caitanya, Ānanda, and Samartha sects as well. Because of
the new kinds of awareness of difference that the British rulers deliberately
planted among people in India, for the past century or century and a quarter,14
we have perversely enacted a conflict between Vārkarīs on the one hand and
“Dhārkarīs,” followers of Rāmdās, on the other. Nonetheless, there is not the
Page 11 of 18
least bit of doubt that Samartha Rāmdās himself and many of his leading
disciples loved Lord Viṭṭhal as much as they loved Lord Rām.
Aside from the two lines, “Why are you standing here, Rām?” (Rām. Gā. 48) and
“Viṭho carried the king of gods on his head” (Manāce Ślok 84), we have
neglected other statements by Rāmdās expressing his devotion for Viṭṭhal. We
think that it was because he could not tolerate the sight of any image but Rām's
that Rāmdās asked Pāṇḍuraṅga of Paṇḍharī, “Why are you standing here, Rām?”
But this is not the case. True, Samartha Rāmdās was extremely devoted to Lord
Rām; but his worship of Rām was fully based on nondualism, and so there was
no room in it for any perverted exclusivism. Those who nevertheless repeatedly
accuse Rāmdās of having been exclusivistic in his worship of Rām confuse
exclusivism with single-minded devotion. Through the life and deeds of Rāmdās,
another stream of the same Bhāgavat religion that was home to Jn͂āneśvar and
the other saints flowed as the worship of Rām in the “Svarūp” sect. From the
point of view of the Vārkarī saints, just as Lord Viṭṭhal is a manifestation of (p.
201) Viṣṇu's Kṛṣṇa (or Buddha) incarnation that is well known in Maharashtra,
so Lord Rām is an incarnation of Viṣṇu who is revered throughout India. Besides,
in considering the unity of these two traditions, we must also realize that
Rāmdās's worship of Rām was nourished by the Bhāvārtha Rāmāyaṇ of Eknāth, a
great revivalist of the Vārkarī tradition. In the Vārkarīs’ mantra, “Rām, Kṛṣṇa,
Hari,” Rām comes first!
Rāmdās's Experience of Non-Difference

Because Rāmdās was heir to the liberal Bhāgavat religion, he could not have
held that God had manifested himself with absolutely no other name or form
than Lord Rāmcandra's. The collected works of Rāmdās include hundreds of
utterances that express his liberal and harmonious point of view.15 He fervently
sang hymns of praise to other gods besides Rām and Rām's servant Māruti. He
sang to the Śaiva deities Śiva, Śakti, and Bhairava; to the Viṣṇu incarnations
Kṛṣṇa and Narasiṃha; and to Sūrya, Gaṇeś, Śāradā (Sarasvatī), Khaṇḍobā, and
other popular deities as well. In the same way, Rāmdās also became engrossed
in singing devotional songs to the famous Viṣṇu manifestations Vyaṅkaṭeś and
Viṭṭhal. And still, even as Rāmdās sang songs of devotion to such a wide variety
of deities, his heart was completely “colored in the color of Rām.”
Readers familiar with the literature of the saints will realize that, from the point
of view of nondualism, this apparent miracle is quite natural. The form of non-
difference that Rāmdās experienced was the idea that “Rām is a resident of
Ayodhyā; he also lives happily in Dvārakā”16 (Rām. Gā. 42). This experience led
Rāmdās to proclaim (Rām. Gā. 43):
Rām is the embodiment of the compassionate Viṭṭhal:

both have the same formless form.
They live continually in my house;
they abide in a single form in my heart.
Page 12 of 18
Rāmdās says, hold to devotion and loving faith:

Rāghav17 Pāṇḍuraṅga is merciful.
Experiencing non-difference this way, Rāmdās could invoke Viṭṭhal as well as

Rām (Rām. Gā. 59):
Viṭhobā, you are my family deity; I take refuge in you alone.

My mind is on your feet; my soul longs to meet you.
(p.202) Sometimes Rāmdās, too, like Tukārām, picks a “love quarrel”: “Say
something, Viṭṭhal! Why have you taken on this cloak of silence?” (Rām. Gā. 52).
Such talk of the “cloak of silence” is appropriate for the Viṭṭhal of the Vārkarī
saints, who, as we have seen, is “silent” and “has the form of the Buddha.”
Rāmdās also claims that this Viṭṭhal, who stands on the beach because of his
greed for devotion, is “Rāmdās's mother (māūlī)” (Rām. Gā. 51).18 Rāmdās sings
with great love of the glory of Paṇḍharī, the holy place where there dwells the
“molten Life (caitanya) that has been poured out onto a brick” (Rām. Gā. 46).
Rāmdās states, “there is no other holy place like Paṇḍharī, on all three levels of
the world” (Rām. Gā. 39), and also, “Paṇḍharī is not in just one place. Viṭṭhal
abides everywhere” (Rām. Gā. 40). Because he concludes from direct experience
that “all the bodies on earth are houses of the Lord,” Rāmdās quite naturally
speaks of the realization that “The body is Paṇḍharī, the soul is the king of
Paṇḍharī; the great pilgrimage festival takes place all the time.”19 In one
passage, Rāmdās expresses as follows the heavenly experience of the darśan of
Viṭṭhal (Rām. Gā. 55):
Through good fortune I saw Paṇḍharī; my gaze was fixed on Viṭṭhal.

It was completely allured; it turned into Viṭṭhal himself.
To show the marvel directly, dawn broke without restraint.
The hero Viṭṭhal filled up everything; earth and sky were lost.
Today, knowledge of the Self turned to gold; setting and rising set.
Rāmdās bowed to Rām; all three worlds were filled with joy.
As soon as Rāmdās's gaze became fixed on Viṭṭhal, it was allured by his dark
form; looking at Viṭṭhal, the gaze even took on Viṭṭhal's form. The triad visible
object, eye, and seeing disappeared; earth and sky were lost; even sunrise and
sunset came to an end. In the form of Viṭṭhal, Rāmdās experienced the “golden
knowledge of the Self” that fills all three worlds with joy: this state destroys all
errors.
Disciples Preserving a Liberal Tradition

There is a great deal of evidence that Rāmdās's followers also maintained this
liberal tradition. Giridhar Svāmī, an illustrious author in the Samartha sect,
prostrated himself in a set of five verses to “delightful Pāṇḍuraṅga, who stands
on a brick” (Dev 1938: 88–89). Some members of the Samartha sect, such as
Haribovā Bhoṇḍve of Pārner, were also Vārkarīs who went on pilgrimage to
Pandharpur. Dinakar Svāmī Tisgāvkar followed Rāmdās in this respect as well.
Page 13 of 18
Dinakar Svāmī, in whose heart the “Sun of the Experience of the

Self” (svānubhavācā dinakar)20 always burned brightly, is the eminent disciple of
Rāmdās whose Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya I cited at length in the previous chapter.
(p.203) Dinakar Svāmī proclaims as follows the incomparable glory of

Paṇḍharī: “What could be compared with Paṇḍharī? There is nothing that can
stand up to the comparison.”21 He himself, having experienced the satisfaction
of Viṭṭhal's darśan, exclaimed joyfully:
He stands on a brick out of hunger for loving faith:

look at Pāṇḍuraṅga on the bank of the Bhīmā!
Those engrossed in Pāṇḍuraṅga come running;
they cry out the name of Hari.
The cry of the name in the fullness of happiness
satisfied Dinakar, O God.
Experiencing thus the intoxication of the sight of Viṭṭhal, Dinakar Svāmī cries
like a child to Mother Viṭṭhal, “Mother, my darling, come to me, Pāṇḍuraṅga.”22
He also whines pitifully for the sight of Viṭṭhal: “My goal is tied up in Paṇḍharī;
someone tell me of Viṭhobā's wondrous feat.” Dinakar Svāmī's vision of Viṭṭhal
corresponds exactly with Rāmdās's:
The body is Paṇḍharī on the bank of the Bhīmā of devotion.

Hari resides there as the Self.
The Self is Pāṇḍuraṅga, the companion of those without
attachments;
he stands unbroken (abhaṅga) in all.
Loving faith is Puṇḍarīk; the god faces him.
He looks at him again and again.
Knowledge is Garuḍ,23 standing at the main gate.
He beholds the self-formed Pāṇḍuraṅga.
The saints are continually immersed in Pāṇḍuraṅga.
The fallacious root of Illusion has been smashed.
Based on nondualism, these utterances of Dinakar Svāmī's are fully capable of

refuting any “fallacy.”
Among the texts in the literary tradition of the Samartha sect, Dinakar Svāmī's
Svānubhav Dinakar is second in importance only to the Dāsbodh. As we have
seen in chapter 10, the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya in Dinakar Svāmī's Svānubhav
Dinakar (Dev 1911) takes the form of a parable (Svānubhav Dinakar 3.4.1):
The story of the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya is full of merit.

I have suddenly introduced it as a parable.
May the listeners forgive poor, orphaned me
And not too readily get angry.
Page 14 of 18
(p.204) Even though he apologizes in this way for the digression, there is no
doubt at all that it was Dinakar Svāmī's love of Pāṇḍuraṅga that brought about
the change of topic. Dinakar Svāmī uses the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya to expound
on the theme that it is not right for a young man to become subject to a woman
and to neglect his mother and father (Svānubhav Dinakar 3.3.24):
Śrāvaṇ made a carrying pole, seated his mother and father on the
two ends,
and served them by carrying them on his shoulder.
Puṇḍarīk served his mother and father
even to the point of being negligent to Pāṇḍuraṅga.
Dinakar Svāmī cites these two examples one right after the other; and then, not
content with such a brief reference to the story of Puṇḍalīk, he expands on it in
another thirty-four ovī verses. This is the story that we examined in detail in the
previous chapter.
Viṭṭhal, Who Plays Many Roles

Thus, Viṭṭhal plays many roles. He resides happily in Maharashtra in the form of
Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa. The saints proclaim again and again his role as “Hari in the garb of
a cowherd.” But Maharashtra is not where he danced the circle dance (rās- līlā);
it is not where he made the Vṛndāvan woods bloom. In Maharashtra,
“Rāhī” (Rādhā) appears in songs about Kṛṣṇa's līḷās only as a “queen” who
accompanies Rukmiṇī, not as an adulterous lover. Once, after Kṛṣṇa became the
Lord of Dvārakā and was living in grand style as a householder, Rukmiṇī saw
him conversing in private with Rādhā. This made Rukmiṇī angry. She came
straight to the Diṇḍīravan in Maharashtra, and stayed there. Kṛṣṇa came to
appease her. Pleading with her, he said, “I will not do that again,” and he stayed
right here (Nājharekar 1959: chapter 1).
This story, which we have examined in chapter 3, illustrates the Marathi saints’
point of view. They saved even their god from attraction to extramarital
relations, and they increased the prestige of the householder stage of life. All the
benefits of the failure of erotic devotion to sink into the Marathi mind can be
credited to the high status that Viṭṭhal gave to legally sanctioned unions. If it
were not for this, Maharashtra would not have ignored Muktāphal and other
texts by Bopdev. Bopdev, the first commentator to expound the erotic sentiment,
lived right at the beginning of the tradition of Marathi devotion. He lived in
Maharashtra, in the home of Marathi, in the royal council of the Yādavas of
Devgiri. It was with (p.205) Bopdev's book before them that Bengali Vaiṣṇava
teachers like Jīva Gosvāmī and Rūpa Gosvāmī wrote their treatises on erotic
devotion. Bopdev is especially prestigious in the Caitanya tradition of Bengal and
Vṛndāvan, and Bengali Vaiṣṇavas distribute his texts in their monasteries to this
day. But the tradition of the Marathi saints does not even mention him. What this
Page 15 of 18
means is that, even though Viṭṭhal had become Kṛṣṇa, the Marathi saints saved
him from extramarital relationships.24
For this reason, Viṭṭhal was able to include in himself a kingly householder yogi
like Śiva as well as such sovereigns of dispassion as the Buddha and the Jina.
Even though Viṭṭhal carefully preserved his original iconographic form as a folk
deity, his inner nature was colored by Viṣṇu, Kṛṣṇa, the Buddha, and the Jina. He
mediated disputes between Hari and Hara, Vedic and non-Vedic, high and low,
and kings and beggars, and he attempted to uplift Marathi folk life in a cosmic
conversation. Through his cry, “Here bhakti alone suffices; caste is not the
measure” (Jn͂ā. 9.448), low-caste people betrayed by the Vedas received the
promise of liberation. Devotees of Viṭṭhal like Tukārām began to roar
confidently:25
The Veda got angry with us and went away.

We held its “Father” in our throat.
Experiencing this inclusive power of Lord Viṭṭhal makes it natural for us to

proclaim that he truly is a “great synthesis”!26
Viṭṭhal summons everyone lovingly. He says, “Come on, come on, everyone.” He
purifies those who have fallen; he becomes a sea of compassion for Dalits.27 For
at least seven or eight centuries, Viṭṭhal has held onto all these claims to fame.
He embodies the saints’ experience of divine life; on his brow there shine ten
million moons. This god will let simple, faithful devotees hold him in the palms of
their hands, but he will not tolerate even the touch of destitute ritualists who
have fallen away from the religion of the heart. When he meets a devotee
“before whom the inauspicious becomes auspicious” (Tukā. Gā. 2092), this Lord,
who causes happiness and is crazy about devotion, displays his universal form
even though he has passed beyond the universe. Jn͂āneśvar sings of his glory in
these words (Jn͂ā. Gā. 15):
The king of Paṇḍharī stands, marked by his feet placed side by side.
People are pleased with him; he is rare and precious, O Mother.
The core of the Absolute, the lover of the science of Brahman,
how he stands there, out of a desire for closeness!
(p.206) While hard to obtain through yoga or ritual sacrifices, Viṭṭhal is easily
accessible to devotion. Despite being the core of the Absolute and the lover of
the science of Brahman, he took on qualities and form out of a desire to
experience closeness to his devotees. In this world filled with inequality, he
displays “the sign of his feet placed side by side.” In the life of the Marathi
saints, this Lord who is mad for devotion is more tender than even a mother.
Page 16 of 18
Notes:
(1.) In Gholap 1981, ninety-three of Govindanāth's abhaṅgas are printed along
with an introductory article. This is abhaṅga 63.
(2.) A note that Dr. Günther D. Sontheimer wrote expressly for me.
(3.) Perhaps, before achieving the status of Śiva, Mallikārjun too was himself
Mailār.
(4.) Translator's note: Akka Mahādevī's vacanas and the Śaṅkaradāsimayyā

Purāṇa are Vīraśaiva texts.
(5.) Translator's note: Yuga = 4, manuja akṣī (human eyes) = 2, vipra bhūmi
(lands of sages) = 7, dāvā hāt (left hand) = 1. Reading backwards, this gives
1724. I am grateful for the help I received in interpreting this verse.
(6.) Translator's note: This is the first line of the verse that Dhere cites at the
beginning of chapter 9.
(7.) Translator's note: As the teacher of the Bhagavadgītā, Kṛṣṇa himself is not
easily seen as promoting non-violence. This is why Dhere uses the wording I
have translated with “despite.”
(8.) A manuscript of this text is in the collection of Shri Vasudevrav Shahane

(Pandharpur); through his generosity I was able to see it.
(9.) Translator's note: Kulkarṇīs are Brāhmaṇs.
(10.) See also Copaḍe 1930, which states bitterly: “Paṇḍharpūr was originally a
Jain holy place. Before Viṭṭhal, there was a temple of Nemināth there. Even after
non-Jain Hindus had elevated and transformed Nemināth and established Viṭṭhal
there, the Jains still held the rights to worship, and some evidence of those
rights remains to this day.”
(11.) Joharāpūrkar 1960: 70: “22. Now the twenty-second, Śrī Nemināth. His city
was Suripuri Pāṭaṇ, his father was King Samudravijay, his mother was Śivādevi,
there is a conch on his throne: recognize Śrī Nemināth by these marks.”
(12.) A manuscript of the poem “Viṭṭhalāryā” is in my personal collection. It was

written in Śake 1690 (A.D. 1768) by Niran͂jan Mādhav, a famous Marathi poet
and accountant of the Peśvā period.
(13.) Translator's note: This metaphor refers to the image and story of the river
(goddess) Ganges (Gaṅgā) residing in Śiva's matted locks of hair. Śambhu is
another name of Hara or Śiva.
(14.) Translator's note: Now this would be a century and a quarter or a century
and a half.
Page 17 of 18
(15.) The quotations from Rāmdās in this section come from Rāmdāsī 1928: 25–
29, 344 and Dev 1938: 388–89.
(16.) Translator's note: That is, Rām, whose capital city was Ayodhyā, is identical
with Kṛṣṇa, who ruled in Dvārakā.
(17.) Translator's note: Rāghav is a name of Rām. It is a patronymic, meaning

“descendent of Raghu.”
(18.) Translator's note: For this theme in the literature of the Vārkarī saints, see
chapter 12.
(19.) Translator's note: I have been unable to trace the source of these
quotations from Rāmdās.
(20.) Translator's note: This is a play on the title of Dinakar Svāmī's major work,
Svānubhav Dinakar.
(21.) This and the next four quotations from Dinakar Svāmī are found in Dev
1917: 64, 116, 143, 156–67, and 181.
(22.) Translator's note: Again, see chapter 12 for a discussion of this theme in
the Vārkarī tradition.
(23.) Translator's note: The eagle Garuḍ is the vehicle of Viṣṇu and hence also of
Viṭṭhal.
(24.) Translator's note: This is in contrast with the Caitanya tradition, which
places a good deal of emphasis on Kṛṣṇa's extramarital love relationship with
Rādhā.
(25.) Translator's note: I have been unable to trace the source of this verse.
(26.) Translator's note: “Great synthesis” (mahāsamanvay) echoes the original

Marathi title of this book, Viṭṭhal: Ek Mahāsamanvay.
(27.) Translator's note: The term “Dalit” (literally “downtrodden,” “crushed,” or

“broken”) is now used to refer to India's former Untouchable groups.
Page 18 of 18
Mother Viṭhāī


Print ISBN-13: 9780199777594
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.001.0001
Mother Viṭhāī
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.003.0013

This chapter considers the way that the saints devoted to Viṭṭhal use the imagery
of motherhood to express his love for them. After a lengthy exposition of the
maternal imagery used by the two most famous and prolific thirteenth-century
Marathi poet-saints, Jñāneśvar and Nāmdev, the chapter briefly illustrates the
continuation of this imagery in the works of the sixteenth-century poet Eknāth
and the seventeenth-century poet Tukārām. Dhere then contrasts the maternal
imagery of these poet-saints with Śakta goddess cults, village goddess cults, and
the treatment of evil female beings in the life stories of the Buddha and Kṛṣṇa.
The chapter concludes by presenting a typology of mother-imagery and pointing
out the “androgynous primordial motherhood” of the saints' experience of
Viṭṭhal.
Keywords: saints, devotion, motherhood, maternal imagery, village goddess cults, evil female beings
some people regard the god they worship as their father. Others consider him
their husband, their master, their friend, their lover, or a king. The Vārkarī
saints, however, saw their god as their mother. They addressed him as a mother
and experienced him as the embodiment of pure maternal love. Over and over
again, from Jn͂āneśvar in the thirteenth century to Niḷobā in the eighteenth, all
the Vārkarī saints sang with great intensity of such feelings toward Viṭṭhal.
Page 1 of 14
Mother Viṭhāī
In his commentary on the Bhagavadgītā, Jn͂āneśvar, who provided the

philosophical basis for Bhāgavat religion in Maharashtra, regards the soul-
principle as being most beloved in its maternal form (Jn͂ā. 16.440):
There, at the limit of what one loves, one meets the mother soul.
In her embrace the clamor of worldly life comes to an end.
In Jn͂āneśvar's experience, when one meets the “soul-mother” who is the

ultimate beloved being, the “clamor of worldly life” comes to an end. Jn͂āneśvar
also deems a true mother the guru who has become one with the Absolute and
who causes one to attain the Absolute. He sings the glory of this guru-mother
many times over (Jn͂ā. 13.394, 409, 444; 18.26). Like the guru, the knowledge of
the Absolute is also a mother for Jn͂āneśvar. The scriptures that contain the
knowledge of the Absolute—the Upaniṣads—draw one away from what is
detrimental to one's welfare and promote one's growth in beneficial ways. The
Upaniṣads are so motherly (p.208) that Jn͂āneśvar can say, “There is no better
mother in the world than the scripture” (Jn͂ā. 16.459). Jn͂āneśvar fondly refers to
the Bhagavadgītā too as a “mother”: the Lord milked the Upaniṣads and then
gave the world the Gītā as nectar. Because the Gītā is a “mother without
falsehood” (Jn͂ā. 18.1761) she does not discriminate between her
“knowledgeable” and “ignorant” children when she dispenses the truth (Jn͂ā.
18.1518). In this way, Jn͂āneśvar takes the role of a child in all respects. Soul-
mother, guru-mother, scripture-mother, Gītā-mother—steeping his mind in
motherly love, Jn͂āneśvar even calls his saintly audience “Mother” (Jn͂ā. 18.1745):
Out of motherliness you must tolerate

whatever I have said because I was appointed, whether it was
enough or too little.
The relationship between Kṛṣṇa and Arjun that gave rise to the Bhagavadgītā
was a friendship, the closeness between male friends (sakhya-bhāv).
Nevertheless, Jn͂āneśvar has Arjun call Lord Kṛṣṇa “Mother” again and again,
singing of the sweetness of that mother's love for her children. “You are shade
for those tired out by worldly existence, the mother of the orphaned; truly, your
mercy gave birth to us” (Jn͂ā. 4.33): consistently we realize that Jn͂āneśvar's
Arjun, who speaks this way, is not the Lord's male friend but his child. After
having a vision of the universal form, Arjun pleads with the Lord to show his
beloved, familiar, “lovely, beautiful” form once again. At the very beginning of his
plea, Arjun refers ardently to the Lord as the universal mother (Jn͂ā. 11.569–74):
569. Then, acting overly familiar with god, I insisted on seeing the
universal form.
You, my mother-and-father, lovingly fulfilled my wish.
570. You plant wish-fulfilling trees in my courtyard.
You give me calves of the wish-granting cow to play with.
571. I wanted to play dice with the constellations, then asked for the
moon for a ball.
Page 2 of 14
Mother Viṭhāī
You made all these wishes come true, O mother!

572. It takes hard work to get a drop of nectar; you made a four-
month monsoon rain of it.
You plowed the earth and planted wish-fulfilling gems.
573. You fulfilled my wishes, Lord. You pampered me fondly.
You showed me what even Śiva and Brahmā have never heard of.1
(p.209) 574. In order to show me this amazing thing that even the
Upaniṣads have never met,
you untied for me the knot of the essence of existence.
Here Jn͂āneśvar's words reach their highest significance. Arjun calls the Lord
“mother,” and expresses supreme joy that that mother has untied “the knot of
the essence of existence” for him. Each and every mother loosens the “knot of
the essence of existence” and gives her child the nectar of her heart to drink.2
Similarly, Arjun's mother loosened the knot of the essence of existence and
nourished him with the Absolute. And Jn͂āneśvar's guru-mother loosened the
knot of the essence of existence and nursed him with the breast-milk of nectar.
Jn͂āneśvar saw the soul, the Vedas, the Gītā, the guru, and the saintly audience
all as mothers, because from his point of view the whole universe is enchanted
by motherhood. That is why, using gentle words, he creates a heart-rending
picture of motherly love. The female tortoise, who nurses her young ones just by
her loving glance, is to him an exemplary image of the maternal principle (Jn͂ā.
18.1334). In the same way, the cow who scrambles up in a frenzy when she sees
her calf, and irrepressibly pours milk into his mouth when it touches her breast,
wordlessly tells Jn͂āneśvar of the glory of a mother (Jn͂ā. 11.40):
Moved by love, a cow scrambles to her feet when she sees her calf;
then, when mouth and udder touch, can she hold back her milk?
A mother's love is so unconditional that she does not think about whether her
infant is kindly disposed toward her or not. The pull of her heart makes her
anxious for her infant. Even if he is angry, she continues to pour over him an
unrestrained stream of motherly love. In speaking from his own experience of
this special character of a mother's love, Jn͂āneśvar exclaims with wonder (Jn͂ā.
9.18):
When her infant hits her, her breasts give all the more milk.
The loved one's anger doubles one's love.
If the baby beats angrily at her breast, the mother gives more milk: her love is of
a kind that even the anger of the loved one makes it twice as strong.
Page 3 of 14
Mother Viṭhāī
Not only does the devotee Jn͂āneśvar call out to the Self as a mother; the Self
itself, having taken on the qualities and form of Kṛṣṇa, manifests itself as a
mother in Jn͂āneśvar's work (Jn͂ā. 10.118–119):
118. Arjun, just as a mother covers her beloved baby with her glance
of love,
(p.210) and follows him with her eyes as he plays—
119. whatever plaything he points to, she makes a gold one and
places it before him—
so I go along nourishing the qualifications for worship.
Mother Kṛṣṇa says to Arjun, “Just as, when an innocent baby begins to play, his
mother follows close behind him, watching over him carefully with her loving
glance, so do I continually nourish a novice's aptitude at religious practice.”
Jn͂āneśvar uses the relationship between devotee and Lord to bring to life
extraordinarily fresh images of a mother's love. Even though his supreme god
became embodied as a male, Jn͂āneśvar considers him, and experiences him, as
his mother. Deprived too early of his own mother's love, Jn͂āneśvar experiences
the whole universe as his mother.
The Voice of a Yakṣiṇī

Nāmdev, too, a simple devotee of Pāṇḍuraṅga, was captivated by motherly love.
Nāmdev's principal devotional stance is as god's child. The fragrant tenderness
of his poetry develops naturally from this. Sometimes Nāmdev becomes a
companion, playing ball with Kṛṣṇa's friends; sometimes he becomes a gopī who
experiences the shadows and light of separation and union. But he takes these
roles only briefly, just long enough to experience the variety of devotional
flavors. At a very young age, Nāmdev became Mother Viṭhāī's child. He began
asking to take shelter under the end of Mother Viṭhāī's sari, which provides
liberation from birth and death, rather than the end of the sari of the mother
who gave birth to him.
Nāmdev's devotional stance as a child is so well defined, so intense, that the

voice expressing his feelings could affect even the Lord. This stance of Nāmdev's
conquered the unknowable supreme principle, which is “difficult for yogis to
attain,” which not even meditation can reach, and which renders futile the
“proclamations of ascetic practices and holy places.” Banishing all harshness,
that principle became a mother and rushed to Nāmdev's side. Although Viṭṭhal
was resting in silence in the form of the Buddha, Nāmdev, a true magician of
devotion, made him into Mother Viṭhāī. Nāmdev's voice, which brought about
such a tender relationship with the profoundly secret supreme principle, causing
it to take such an accessible form and to reside happily in the temple of Marathi
—that voice is truly a Yakṣiṇī (Nām. Gā. 280):
Standing at the main gate, cymbals and a stringed instrument in his

hands,
Page 4 of 14
Mother Viṭhāī
Nāmā sings God's glory in Paṇḍharī.

(p.211) With the joy of affection, overflowing with love,
he sings with all his heart of the virtues of Hari.
This is the effect of Nāmdev's poetry. When the heart is completely full of the joy
of affection, when love for the Lord gushes forth, song cannot be restrained.
Nāmdev does not falter over musical notes, he does not stumble over words. He
sings passionately, catching the tender songs in his cupped hands. In Nāmdev's
heartfelt cry, notes find their maternal home, meaning strives for words. He
sings (Nām. Gā. 270):
You are my mother, I am your infant child.

Feed me the milk of love, O Pāṇḍuraṅga.
Circles of Maternal Love

One after the other, Nāmdev presents many different but essentially similar
forms of this relationship of maternal love. Along with the human mother and
her infant, there is the mother cow and her calf, the doe and her fawn, the
mother bird and her baby: Nāmdev sets a garland of mother-child relationships
before our eyes. Along with the infant who thirsts to meet his mother, we see the
calf tied in the cowshed, waiting anxiously until evening to meet the cow; the
piteous chirping of the baby birds in the nest, longing for the warmth of their
mother's wings and the food in her beak; the helpless agitation of the fawn who
has lost the doe's tracks in the woods—all these images create many circles of
maternal love in the audience's minds, and from the midpoint of those circles
there blossoms like a dark lotus Nāmdev's sense of separation from his mother.
Nāmdev's words easily follow his emotions. He makes the mother into a
“motherlet” and the cow into a “cowlet.” Then this cowlet-motherlet becomes as
soft as the cream on top of milk. As he calls to her, tenderness enters his voice.
As soon as he says, “I am your infant child,” his thirst becomes intense, and the
sharp pain of that intensity springs up in the mother's breast.
The stance of a child with which Nāmdev began his practice of devotion
pervades all his Marathi poetry, to the point where the expression of that
emotion often seems repetitious. The same images, the same examples, occur
again and again. Nevertheless, the audience does not get bored, because each
repetition allows us to experience Nāmdev's intensity anew. Nāmdev says to
Viṭhāī, “You are my mother bird, I am your chick” (Nām. Gā. 270), and he recalls
that same relationship on another occasion (Nām. Gā. 326):
(p.212) In the early morning the mother bird goes out for food.
Her baby waits for her, hungry.
O, in that way my mind keeps hoping for you,
thinking night and day of your feet.
Page 5 of 14
Mother Viṭhāī
Again we are presented with the same relationship between the mother bird and
her young one. But this time how intense is the emotional image! The mother
bird has gone away at dawn, and the little one in the nest waits for her all day
long. She is a full-grown bird and can fly through the sky, but he has no wings,
so he is tied down in one place. He cannot go looking for her. Because he draws
her to him, she must return. She has gone to get food, and he is hungry. She is
the one who must attend to his hunger. Evoking the helplessness of this hungry
young bird who waits all day in the nest, Nāmdev says to God,
O, in that way my mind keeps hoping for you,

thinking night and day of your feet.
The word taiseṃ (“in that way”) captures all the intense agitation of the young
bird, and the vocative particle attempts to draw Mother Viṭhāī's attention to the
agitation. Although the young bird waits all day long, Nāmdev thinks about
God's feet both day and night. Although a baby longs for the sight of its mother's
face, Nāmdev waits only for the feet. Devotion is intent on embracing the feet;
Nāmdev realizes that the pure Ganges of supreme bliss flows from those feet,
and he trusts that by holding onto them he can remove separation.
Once again reminding Mother Viṭhāī of all those relationships, Nāmdev calls to
her (Nām. Gā. 267):
My eyelets get tired watching the roadlet for you.

My heart is filled with anxiety.
You are my mother; come along as my companion.
O Viṭṭhalā,3 come running and give me comfort.
The eyes that store up the tender experience of attraction to the mother become,
for Nāmdev, “eyelets.” The road sanctified by the footsteps of the mother
becomes a “roadlet.” The pain of separation fills his heart. All his limbs ache for
his mother's touch. From that ache springs the cry, “O Viṭṭhalā, come running
and give me comfort.” Without that comfort, life is very difficult: Nāmdev strikes
this despondent note again and again. Over and over again there is the same
mother, the same infant, the same mother cow, the same calf—but each time the
pain is fresh and new.
(p.213) In one poem Nāmdev, harassed by the torments of the in-laws’ house of
worldly life, longs for his maternal home; at the village well of existence, he tells
his saints-as-neighbor-women about his suffering (Nām. Gā. 463):
My eyes have become hollow as I think of my maternal home.

When will I get to go there forever, my women?
When will I see the four-armed Viṭṭhal?
Devotees’ intense love is my life.
This grief has withered my body.
I think of Hari; what can I say?
Page 6 of 14
Mother Viṭhāī
He will pick me up in his four arms and comfort me.

When will he take me to Pandharpur?
Nāmdev's eyes grow hollow waiting to be taken back to his maternal home; his
body withers; but he cannot bring his maternal home close to him. The torments
of his in-laws’ house are so terrible that he continually wants to go to his
maternal home. So intensely does he feel this that Mother Viṭhāī grows two
more arms on top of her first two. And then his heart conceives a strong desire
to constantly experience the joy of his mother's four-armed embrace. His chest
bursts with remembering.…
In his maternal home, his mother realizes what Nāmdev is suffering. She comes
running. She lifts him up with her four arms and she comforts him. The comfort
cools his whole body. With the border of her yellow silk dhoti, the mother wipes
his face, dabs at his eyes, and keeps looking with love-filled eyes at her devotee's
beautiful features.
Filled with such images of motherly love, Nāmdev's poetry bestows on the
supreme principle not just lively affection but also the tender yearnings of a
mother.
Mother Viṭṭhal, Mother Jñānrāj

In this way, Jn͂āneśvar and Nāmdev conferred motherhood upon Viṭṭhal. That
mother, standing on the two feet of knowledge and devotion, continues to
provide a maternal home to all living beings exhausted by worldly life. Jn͂āneśvar
calls his god “mother” not only in his commentary on the Bhagavadgītā, but also
in his devotional songs. He says with pride, “Viṭhobā is my maternal home” (Jn͂ā.
Gā. 209), and, “with a heart moistened with emotion” (Jn͂ā. Gā. 206), he
expresses anxious longing (Jn͂ā. Gā. 208):
(p.214) I will go, O mother, to that Pandharpur.

I will meet you at my maternal home.
Nāmdev's disciple Janābāī was deprived in her early childhood of the joy of
having parents. Quite naturally she calls out (Janā. Gā. 61):
My mother is gone, my father is dead.

Now you must take care of me, Viṭṭhal.
Deprived of the sheltering wings of the mother and father who gave birth to her,
she whines piteously to Viṭṭhal, “I am your child; don’t ignore me” (Janā. Gā. 61),
and “Come, O come, Viṭhābāī, my mother in Paṇḍharī” (Janā. Gā. 74). This has
become the life of Janābāī's voice. She places her hand on her forehead and
waits continually for her mother, who is also the mother of the universe (Janā.
Gā. 36). She cries (Janā. Gā. 55):
I am a calf. My cow hasn’t come. Now what am I to do?
Page 7 of 14
Mother Viṭhāī
You, at least, must say something. In the end I plead with you,
Viṭhābāī.
Come, my doe. Your fawn, the servant Janī, is lost.
Thus, Janābāī too uses Nāmdev's metaphors of a mother cow and her calf. Also
like Nāmdev, who considered Jn͂āneśvar as much a mother as Viṭṭhal, Janābāī
uses a feminine form of Jn͂āneśvar's name as she cries out desolately to him as
her mother (Janā. Gā. 63):
O, my friend, Jn͂ānābāī the doe,

a mother to me, the fawn; a cow to the bhakta calf.
Why are you late? In your absence I have gotten tired.
Sitting to grind the grain, I call to you for help, says Janī.
Viṭhāī-Bauddhāī
Eknāth, who followed Jn͂āneśvar and Nāmdev, addressed as “Mother” not only
Viṭṭhal but also all the Vaiṣṇava incarnations of the Absolute. In Eknāth's view of
the Absolute as mother, the Fish and Tortoise incarnations become Fish-mother
and Tortoise-mother, the Boar and Man-Lion become Boar-mother and Man-Lion-
mother, the Dwarf becomes tiny Dwarf-mother, Paraśurām and Rām become
Parasāī and Rāmāī, and Lord Kṛṣṇa becomes Kṛṣṇāī. Bodhāī, too, who (p.215)
encompasses Viṭṭhal as well as the Buddha, constantly provides the cool shade
of her motherly love to devotees in the Kali Yuga who are burning in the fire of
worldly life (Ek. Gā. 3910, 3911, 3912, 3920, 3971, and 3976).
Eknāth's heir Tukārām was unsurpassed in his focus on discerning the truth.
When we see him too cry out with the feminine vocatives “Pāṇḍuraṅge Viṭṭhale,”
we can be assured that the tradition of the Vārkarī saints has put its final seal on
the motherhood of Viṭṭhal. Tukobā says to his loving mother Viṭhāī (Tukā. Gā.
874):
We who love you must make a request of you:

We must tell you the secret in our heart.
You will care with affection for your poor calves,
O merciful mother Viṭṭhalā.
We have placed at your feet our lives and our loving faith.
You alone are the one for us in all places.
We hold ourselves aloof from relationships with others;
We do not go to other people's houses.
All power is yours alone.
I know you will give what I ask for.
So Tukā begs you persistently,
crying and rubbing his eyes.
Thus, the Vārkarī saints from Jn͂āneśvar to Tukārām proclaimed Viṭṭhal's

motherhood. They received spiritual nourishment from the milk of this
Page 8 of 14
Mother Viṭhāī
compassionate mother. And, strengthened by that nourishment, they continued

to challenge Death.
The Image of Pure Motherly Love

This relationship that the Vārkarī saints forged with Viṭṭhal is indeed unique.
Although these saints are not Śāktas—in fact, they are opposed to the Śāktas—
their object of worship is nevertheless a mother. Their god is male, but they have
conferred motherhood on him. The relationship between the Vārkarī saints and
Viṭṭhal thus has a double uniqueness, and we need to discover its secret. As we
search for the secret of that uniqueness, we must keep in mind that it cannot be
accidental; it must be propelled by some deep-seated collective psychological
need. The way a worshiper looks at his object of worship always arises from the
reason for worshiping it. And so, it seems to me, our search will point to the
essential vivifying principle of the movement of the Vārkarī saints.
(p.216) There is a huge difference between the Mother of the Marathi saints
and the Mother of the Śāktas. The Śāktas’ Mother accepts offerings of liquor and
meat; she is the companion of Bhairava, who eats grain cooked with lentils
served in a human skull; she is pleased by mantras, tantras, and yantras;4 and
she punishes her worshipers if their worship is not ritually correct. The saints’
Mother, on the other hand, is the image of pure maternal love. She holds her
errant children close to her, she picks up the ones who are downtrodden and
fallen, and she forgives and restores the ones who are intent on evil.
Of course, many mothers, great and small, have established themselves in

shrines in Marathi homes as well as on outdoor platforms and pedestals and at
places where people fetch water. Some mothers reign splendidly in temples as
well. But instead of taking one of these hundreds of mothers and giving her
some higher form, the Vārkarī saints considered Viṭṭhal, a male deity, their
mother. Although they made a comprehensive effort to elevate some of these
hundreds of mothers, the saints did not establish any of them as the supreme
object of worship. We should consider why this was so.
The reason that the saints kept these innumerable mothers at a distance and
instead considered Viṭṭhal their mother is that there are limits to these mothers’
love. Some of them are even cruel: they cause miscarriages, they eat newborn
children. Some cause newlyweds to go crazy, others seize and overpower
pregnant women. Some ask for food offerings of chickens and goats, and others
expect human sacrifice. It is no surprise that the saints would not want such
terrifying, carnivorous mothers. But neither did they make into their supreme
object of worship mothers who are recognized in the Purāṇas, who serve as
traditional lineage deities, and who are commonly worshiped not only by the
masses but also by members of the elite. Why? Because the Purāṇic stories of
these goddesses also reverberate with acts of destruction. One of them killed
Mahiṣāsura, while another cut off the heads of Caṇḍa and Muṇḍa. True, the
Page 9 of 14
Mother Viṭhāī
saints made Mhāḷsā into Viṣṇu's form as Mohinī so that they could experience
the identity of Śiva and Śakti, but this was not because Mhāḷsā-Mohinī had an
inspiring Purāṇic story.5 She took the gods’ side, giving nectar to them and
liquor to the demons. She cut off the head of Rāhū, who had snuck into the gods’
row to eat, and she tricked the demons by intoxicating them with her beauty.
Thus, even this elevated Mhāḷsā-Mohiṇī does not hesitate to engage in trickery
or murder. And therefore she was not completely worthy to become the saints’
mother.
A mother who exhibits bias, differential treatment, a lack of involvement, or

discrimination with respect to her children, or who opposes them in destructive
ways, does not embody the great, auspicious form of motherhood. It was this
form that the Marathi saints longed for; pure motherly love was what they
wanted. And (p.217) so they kept such mothers at a distance and embraced the
evenly spaced feet of Viṭṭhal. It was natural not only for women saints like
Muktābāī, Janābāī, Kānhopātrā, and Bahiṇābāī to call Viṭṭhal “Mother Viṭhāī”
and to experience him as their maternal home, but it was also equally natural for
male saints to do so. From Jn͂āneśvar to Tukārām and Niḷobā, male Vārkarī saints
thought of life's harsh realities as their in-laws’ house and found their maternal
home in Viṭṭhal. Viṭṭhal is a god who cannot crush anyone or beat anyone. He
stands on his two evenly spaced feet, accepting all equally. In the cool shade of
his motherly love, he goes on giving shelter to everyone, good and evil alike.
The Point of View Toward Evil Beings

Because Viṭṭhal claims the heritage of both Kṛṣṇa and the Buddha, it is worth
looking at their very different points of view with respect to evil beings (Agravāl
1963). In this context, a story from the life of the Buddha is exceptionally
revealing:
In Rājagṛha there was a goddess named Hārītī who used to kill babies. She
was extremely cruel. She had five hundred children of her own, but still
she would eat babies from the city. Her destructive sacrifice of children
tormented the people.
Once when the Buddha came to Rājagṛha, the people told him in piteous
tones about the destruction that Hārītī was wreaking. The Buddha hid one
of Hārītī's 500 children. As soon as she realized that one of her children
had disappeared, Hārītī was distressed, and when she learned that the
Buddha had hidden the child, she became agitated and began begging him
for mercy. The Buddha said to her, “As soon as one of your 500 children
was out of sight, you got so upset! Have you ever considered the anguish in
the hearts of the mothers whose children you eat every day?”
The Buddha's words made Hārītī look inside herself. She became
remorseful. She identified with the pain of the hundreds of mothers who
were suffering from prolonged separation from their beloved children, and
Page 10 of 14
Mother Viṭhāī
she resolved from then on to protect people's children instead of eating

them. That is what she promised the Buddha. Seeing her change of heart,
the Buddha returned her child to her, but he also arranged that the people
of Rājagṛha should offer her heart-felt worship in order to protect their
children.
The goddess who is known as Hārītī in the Buddhist pantheon is called Jātahāriṇī
in Purāṇic literature. “Hārītī” means “one who carries off” and (p.218)
“Jātahāriṇī” means “one who carries off newborn children.” These are two
names for the same goddess. The class of deities to which this goddess belongs
is known as “Bālagraha,” deities who eat or torment children. Pūtanā, who
appears in the story of Kṛṣṇa, also belongs to this class (Bhāgavata Purāṇa 10.6).
Pūtanā kills babies with her breast milk. She approached the baby Kṛṣṇa with
evil intent; she took him on her lap and began nursing him with a false display of
motherhood. But Kṛṣṇa saw through her ruse, and, as he drank her poison milk,
he sucked out her life as well.
Hārītī and Pūtanā were both child-killers. Both had broken many mothers’
hearts. The Buddha and Kṛṣṇa dealt with them in entirely different ways. Kṛṣṇa's
specialty was to eradicate thorns, while the Buddha's was to give thorns the
tenderness of flowers. In the end, the Buddha's approach to evil beings was
more successful. Whereas the Buddha awakened Hārītī's motherly love and
thereby protected all mothers’ love, Kṛṣṇa sucked out the life of Pūtanā, who had
made a mockery of motherhood.
Because of the Buddha's attitude, the destroyer of lives (jīva-antikā) became a

protector of lives ( jīvantikā): she became Jivatī, and came to grace the necks of
children in every household. This Jivatī adorns the necklaces of Kṛṣṇas in house
after house and accepts the offerings of thousands of Yaśodās in the month of
Śrāvaṇ.6 Clearly, she is not Pūtanā, whom Kṛṣṇa sucked to death, but rather
Hārītī, whom the Buddha transformed.
These episodes from the life stories of Kṛṣṇa and the Buddha present a
significant contrast. Kṛṣṇa's approach is to kill the mother who displays false
motherhood. The Buddha's is to transform false motherhood, awakening instead
in abundance the love that comes naturally to a mother. The goddesses Pūtanā
and Hārītī both belong to the child-killing family of Yakṣas and demons. They are
goblins (khecar), twisted, evil goddesses. The Buddha broke the hostility of the
evil goddess Hārītī; he made the breast-milk of goodness flow from her goblin
heart.
Three Forms of Motherhood

The relationship with the mother is the first that a person experiences. It is the
original connection through which each living being is created and nourished.
Naturally, from the very beginning this relationship constitutes a special bond in
a person's heart. This must be counted among the primal bonds, like the bond
Page 11 of 14
Mother Viṭhāī
with a husband or wife or lover, or the bond of rebirth. But the bond with one's
mother is even more primal than these. The mother in one's personal life
becomes the Great Mother in the life of the universe.
(p.219) Here she not only manifests herself in creation and nourishment; she
also delights in destruction and dessication. The same soil that becomes a
mother and celebrates a huge festival of creation in the fullness of each
monsoon also becomes death, pouring in torrents over the lush world that she
herself has created, rotting it in her destructive womb. From the experience of
this ambivalence of the mother, people have conceived of the two goddesses
Aditi and Nirṛtī. Aditi gives birth to the universe and causes it to grow, while
Nirṛtī destroys all of creation. Aditi provides auspiciousness, fecundity, and
plenty, while Nirṛtī brings inauspiciousness and misfortune. One is Lakṣmī, and
the other is Alakṣmī. They are two forms of one motherhood: auspicious and
apocalyptic, creative and destructive, nourishing and dessicating, protective and
devouring.
The Mother archetype (Jung 1976: 9–44; Neumann 1970: 21, 149–50) is
connected not only with these two contradictory figures, but also with their
combination. The creator also becomes a destroyer; the one who nurtures can
also suck dry; the protector can also devour. Thus, there are three forms of the
primordial mother: the loving mother, the cruel mother, and the mother who can
become harsh when the occasion demands. What the Vārkarī saints found in the
pantheon of Maharashtra was principally the cruel mother and the loving-harsh
mother. There was not a single example of pure motherly love.
Complete Primordial Motherhood

Most of the Vārkarī saints came from the class of people who suffer from social
inequality, or they were the kind of exceptional individuals in whom the sting of
that inequality brings about a tendency to reflection. Society's leaders had
distanced themselves from the masses, bestowing labels—“He is a Śūdra,” “He
is a fallen one,” “He is Untouchable”—and robbing most people of the self-
confidence to uplift themselves. For a society thus afflicted by inequality, the
psychological attraction of such a universal mother was quite strong: the
collective mind developed a need for a mother who would take all to herself
equally, who would not indulge anyone for being high or scorn anyone for being
low, who would not cast anyone out as evil, who would accept everyone, who
would give everyone equally the shade of her motherly love, who would comfort
everyone, and who would save everyone.
The saints created Viṭṭhal's story out of this psychological attraction to the
loving mother. The Viṭṭhal of the saints, who maintains a general connection with
the Vedic tradition and appears to have no connection at all with non-Vedic
traditions, has a heart filled with the Buddha's compassion. Even while
continuing to (p.220) accomplish a great synthesis of many streams of religious
Page 12 of 14
Mother Viṭhāī
practice, this one popular folk god whom the saints embraced has increased the
extraordinary prestige of truth, has eliminated violence, and is an ocean of
compassion. His heart, which resembles the Buddha's, is like a loving mother's;
for this reason, even though he is male, the saints considered him their mother
and experienced in him the fullness of androgynous primordial motherhood.
Androgynous primordial motherhood transcends the distinction between female

and male. Despite having given birth to “such children as the world,” it is so
extraordinary that it “cannot be known as a woman or a man.” In Nevāse, it lives
in female form under the surprisingly masculine name Mohinīrāj, while in
Pandharpur, it is established in male form under the surprisingly feminine name
Mother Viṭhāī. Although the saints revealed in both Nevāse and Pandharpur the
duality of the basic secret of life, and although the philosophical basis
underlying the gods of these two places is identical, still Nevāse's Mhāḷsā-Mohinī
was unable to provide Maharashtra the same kind of emotional nourishment that
Mother Viṭhāī gave.
In Nevāse, the process of duality was exactly the opposite of that in Pandharpur:
even though Mhāḷsā was originally a female deity and is considered be a female
form of the male deity Viṣṇu, still in the end faith has made her a male. The
image in Nevāse is female, but it is felt to be male. Mhāḷsā-Mohinī receives the
male name Mohinīrāj. In Pandharpur the situation is entirely different. There a
form that was originally male became hungry for motherhood and continues to
shower down motherly love. Or perhaps, because Viṭṭhal is Viṣṇu and Viṣṇu's
navel-lotus is the maternal home of creation, his original inclination is toward
motherhood. The Vārkarī saints fashioned in the mold of tender emotions this
mother who descended to create and nourish the universe, and they caused her
to stand perpetually, her feet side by side, on the bank of the Candrabhāgā. In
the words of Mircea Eliade (1960: 174–75), “Androgyny symbolises the
perfection of a primordial, non-conditioned state…and every beginning is made
in the wholeness of the being.” The duality of life points to the fullness of the
primordial principle. It is from that fullness that the whole of creation arose.
Notes:
(1.) Translator's note: This refers to Kṛṣṇa's universal form, which he displayed
to Arjun earlier in the Bhagavadgītā.
(2.) Translator's note: The reference here is to a mother nursing her baby. She
first unties the knot beneath her breasts that holds her blouse closed.
(3.) Translator's note: The form used is “Viṭṭhale.” This is the vocative of
“Viṭṭhalā,” a feminine form of “Viṭṭhal.”
(4.) Translator's note: Mantras, tantras, and yantras are magical formulas and
meditational devices.
Page 13 of 14
Mother Viṭhāī
(5.) Translator's note: See Ḍhere 1978b: 29–37 for a more extensive discussion
of Mhāḷsā-Mohinī.
(6.) Translator's note: Here Dhere is referring to the custom of tying an image of
the protective goddess Jivatī around the neck of small children. Mothers worship
this goddess for their children's welfare during the month of Śrāvaṇ (July–
August). Yaśodā was Kṛṣṇa's (foster) mother.
Page 14 of 14
The Vedicization of Viṭṭhal


Print ISBN-13: 9780199777594
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.001.0001

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.003.0014

This chapter, which has been abridged from the Marathi original, presents a
variety of attempts that Brāhmaṇ pandits and Vedic scholars have made to
induct Viṭṭhal and his cult into more Brāhmaṇical-orthodox, Sanskritic, and even
Vedic traditions. The chapter discusses a ritual that was performed until very
recently to purify Viṭṭhal from the pollution arising from repeated contact with
his many devotees of various castes; the life story of an extremely orthoprax
worshipper of Viṭṭhal, who was so insistent on purity that he deprived the god of
a water-offering and left him thirsty; a scholarly attempt to interpret a particular
Vedic hymn as referring to Viṭṭhal; the performance of Vedic sacrifices in
Pandharpur; and the proliferation of Sanskrit and Marathi manuals giving
instructions for performing Brāhmaṇical pilgrimage rituals there.
Keywords: Sanskritic traditions, Vedic traditions, orthoprax worship, Sanskrit manuals, Marathi
manuals, purity
at first, traditional scholars and pandits rejected Viṭṭhal or were indifferent to

him. Eventually, overcome by his boundless popularity, they were forced to
accept him and to give him an “appropriate” scriptural status. In order to enter
into conversation on their own terms with mystical saints and simple believers,
and thereby to preserve their own prestige, scholars and pandits composed a
variety of texts. They wrote Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmyas in Sanskrit, giving Purāṇic
form to stories that had grown up and flowered in the popular mind. They
created liturgical texts: hymns of praise (stotras), apotropaic texts (kavacas),
and litanies (sahasranāmas). They wrote out Sanskrit instructions for many
kinds of rituals connected (or brought into connection) with the holy place (the
Page 1 of 14
kṣetra), the holy water (the tīrtha), and the god. Someone composed a Sanskrit
Viṭṭhalagītā spoken by Viṭṭhal to Tukārām,1 analogous to the Bhagavadgītā that
Lord Kṛṣṇa spoke to Arjun in the Mahābhārata and the Uddhavagītā that he
spoke to Uddhav in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. Pandits put into Sanskrit some texts
(such as Anubhavāmṛt, Cāṅgdev Pāsaṣṭī, and Viveksindhu) that the saints had
chosen to compose in the vernacular and that had become authoritative
scriptures in the religion of the saints. Some scholars assiduously collected all
the references to Pandharpur and Viṭṭhal scattered throughout the Purāṇas and
other Sanskrit texts. Some even managed to interpret certain Ṛg Vedic verses as
referring to Viṭṭhal. By magically giving Viṭṭhal Vedic status, they tried to remove
their disdain for him. Although this reaction of traditional scholars and pandits
to Viṭṭhal's boundless popularity (p.222) might superficially appear to illustrate
the saints’ great influence, still we must seriously consider whether, from a
social point of view, this reaction advanced the saints’ work or hindered it.
The efforts of scholars, pandits, pilgrimage priests, and religious teachers to

Sanskritize the Prakrit Viṭṭhal and Vedicize the folk Viṭṭhal started before the
rise of the saints, and such efforts continue unaltered even in today's changing
social circumstances. We must now get a rough idea of the processes that
brought about this Vedicization and Sanskritization, as well as of the inspiration
that lay behind them.
The Pure (Sovaḷe) and the Less Pure (Ovaḷe) Absolute

From the beginning, everyone except the former Untouchables had the right to
take darśan of Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur, and since 1948 they too have had that
right. Until 1873,2 all (non-Dalit) devotees could embrace the god, and since
then they can all still put their heads on the god's feet. Because of this custom of
openness, some people hold that the god's state of purity is merely
“normal” (ovaḷe),3 and there is evidence that this idea continues to rankle with
those who practice strict purity (sovaḷe).
A custom that connects Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur with the god Nārāyaṇ of Vālāval
(Kuḍāḷ Taluka, Sindhudurg District), a famous Vaiṣṇava holy place in the Konkan,
reveals some people's distress at the idea of Viṭṭhal's merely “normal” state of
purity. From their point of view, Nārāyaṇ of Vālāval is “Vedonārāyaṇ,” Nārāyaṇ
of the Vedas. He is the “pure Absolute” (sovaḷe brahman), while Viṭṭhal of
Pandharpur is “the normal-pure Absolute” (ovaḷe brahman; Kuṇṭe 1980):
The reason for this is that Viṭṭhal's image is available to all devotees for
darśan. Devotees embrace his feet. They touch him. This compromises his
divinity; his holiness gets diminished. Vedonārāyaṇ's image is in a state of
purity (sovaḷe). It is worshiped by people in a state of purity. Its darśan
must be taken from a distance. But because Vedonārāyaṇ and Viṭṭhal are
identical, if Vedonārāyaṇ's holy-basil (tuḷś ī) necklace is placed on
Pāṇḍuraṅga, his relative impurity is broken and he becomes pure again.
Page 2 of 14
One of the two holy-basil necklaces that Vedonārāyaṇ wears is to be taken

to Pandharpur every year on the eleventh day of the month of Māgh
[January–February]. As soon as it is put around Viṭhobā's neck, Viṭhobā's
clothes are taken off and handed to the priests, and new clothes are put on
him. For twenty-four hours, no one can touch the god. (Recently the
number of hours has been reduced.) (p.223) Nowadays the necklace is
sent by post. The traditional right to perform this task is held by the
Karmaḷkar Prabhū family in Vālāval. Until the last generation, a man from
this family used to carry the necklace. Five years ago this man died. The
Karmaḷkar family received a land-grant for this task.
This information, which Professor Narendra Kuṇṭe went to Vālāval to get, gives
us a very clear idea of the “purity point of view” about Viṭṭhal. The last man in
the Karmaḷkar Prabhū family who performed the task of removing Viṭṭhal's
impurity died around 1975, and after that the custom probably came to an end—
at least, I have found no confirmation that it is still followed. Other pieces of
evidence, though, suggest that Kuṇṭe's information must be accurate. G. P.
Ājgāvkar, who first brought scholars’ attention to Vālāval, also referred to this
custom (Ājgāvkar 1958: 15): “Every year Lord God Nārāyaṇ's holy-basil necklace
is sent to Lord Viṭṭhal, and in return, Lord Viṭṭhal's black powder (bukkā) comes
to Lord Nārāyaṇ. This tradition is very old. Among the records relating to the
god there is a reference to carrying the necklace, and for doing so ‘Jitavaṇe’
Karmaḷīkar Prabhudesāī receives the proceeds of some land in Vālāval. The
temple of Viṭhobā in Pandharpur is understood to date from approximately the
twelfth century. The custom of the holy-basil necklace going first to Lord Viṭṭhal
makes it clear that Lord Viṭṭhal was established before Lord Nārāyaṇ.”
The “Vedo Nārāyaṇ” of Vālāval is able to maintain his purity, but the “People's
Nārāyaṇ” of Pandharpur continually accepts a less pure state. One of his
preeminent devotees, Sopāndev, cries out to the partisans of purity (Sopān Gā.
38):
The Earth is pure (sovaḷī), the sky is pure (sovaḷe).

The heart of those without devotion is not so pure (ovaḷe).
The Pure Devotee and the Less Pure Absolute

Despite the fact that innumerable devotees like Sopāndev proclaimed the pure
and purificatory nature of their god, still today that god's orthoprax devotees
strictly maintain their purity. A remarkable story illustrates the astonishing love
between a strictly pure devotee and the less pure Absolute, and shows the purity
of the strictly pure devotee causing trouble for the less pure Absolute. The story
was told to praise the strict purity of orthoprax devotees. It is found in
Sādhuvilās, a hagiographical text composed in 1838 by an author named
Rāmsut. The story relates an event in the life of the legal scholar Kashinath
Upadhyay, also known as Baba Padhye, a famous worshiper of Viṭṭhal from
Page 3 of 14
Pandharpur (Kulkarṇī 1964: 143–50 (p.224) [chapter 18]). Baba Padhye is

renowned as the author of Dharmasindhu. He passed away in 1805. In the
second half of the eighteenth century, Baba Padhye organized the regular rituals
of worship in the temple of Viṭṭhal at Pandharpur. He did so from his
“scripturally pure” point of view. He also had his own role in the regular worship
of the god. Rāmsut writes (Kulkarṇī 1964: chapter 18.37–40, 53):
37. The Baḍves would always carry [Baba Padhye's] food offerings
to the temple at the noon mealtime and offer them to Vanamāḷī
[Kṛṣṇa].
38. In the evening he had his disciples take Pāṇḍuraṅga
sugar and water with extremely great devotional love.
39. He would take most excellent cool water, mix numerous fragrant
substances into it, and make it a proper small meal
40. of the most excellent kind. And, placing sugar on top of that cool
water,
he would immediately send it to Cakrapāṇī….
53. That was always his regular practice: when evening came, he
would send most excellent water to the temple; God would drink it.
Once, though, when the huge crowd of the Āṣāḍhī (June–July) pilgrimage festival
had gathered, the evening sugar-water that Baba had sent with one of his
disciples could not reach the god. “The river, the temple, and the bazaar are all
full of crowds!” Because of the crowd of pilgrims, Baba's disciple who had taken
the sugar-water simply came back. The biographer reports a significant
conversation about this between the disciple and Baba (Kuḷkarṇī 1964: chapter
18.59–62):
59. “There's no getting into the temple today,

so I came back quickly, bringing the water.
60. I was worried that the water might get touched,
So I came back quickly,” he said to Baba.
61. Baba said, “You did the best possible thing by bringing back the
water.
If you had offered the water anyway, it would not have been good for
us.
62. We’ll send the water after the washing ritual (prakṣāḷ pūjā) has
been done. At present there's a huge crowd; the pure water can’t get
in.”
Because he was worried that the “pure water” sent to the god would get
polluted by the touch of impure people, the disciple simply brought it back. Baba
praised him, saying, “You did the best possible thing by bringing back the
water.” And Baba decided to send the sugar water only after the washing ritual
had taken place—that is, after the god had been purified.
Page 4 of 14
(p.225) This went on for three days in a row. God became thirsty. Appearing in
a dream to a Baḍve priest and two Brāhmaṇs who had come to Pandharpur for
the pilgrimage festival, he told them to mention his thirst to Baba. After Baba
heard the same report of the god's thirst from all three of them, he was indeed
sad. But Baba's sadness took a very surprising form. Baba was sad that “The
Ganges and other holy rivers daily bow their heads over my Pāṇḍuraṅga's lotus
feet; in front of him Śūḷapāṇi and Vajrapāṇi stand humbly, with water they have
brought from the Mandākinī;4 Varuṇ stands before him with folded hands, with
water he has brought from the Yamunā.5 But Pāṇḍuraṅga does not take the
water that he could easily get from them; instead he keeps thirsting for my
sugar-water.” This made Baba “proudly sad.” Because this was the kind of
sadness he felt, he simply could not realize that it was his own insistence on
purity that was causing the god to be tormented by thirst. Baba's biographer
writes further (Kulkarṇī 1964: chapter 18.91–92):
91. Feeling this sorrow, he sobbed and cried. Then he asked the
Baḍve, “Are you sure you can take the water without polluting it?”
92. He replied, “I will offer your water to Hari unpolluted.”
So [Baba] prepared fragrant water and sent it to Cakrapāṇī.
Even though he knew that the god had gone thirsty for three days, waiting for
his sugar-water, Baba asked the Baḍve, “You’ll take my water to the god
‘unpolluted,’ won’t you?” and only after the Baḍve had promised that he would
do so did Baba let him give the god the water. Baba, who was too fastidious and
dispassionate to accept anything from a Śūdra (Kulkarṇī 1964: chapter 18.29),
was also, as this story shows, not willing to give up his orthopraxy even for
devotion to God. The saints’ question about the Absolute—”What kind of purity is
this? When you touch it, it becomes less pure”6—could not even remotely enter
Baba's strictly ritualistic, legalistic mind. And we should not expect otherwise.
Someone who would not give up ritual purity even to assuage God's thirst could
not possibly do so for the sake of his faithful devotees.
Viṭṭhal and the Veda

Despite the fact that the Viṭṭhal of the saints was a friend of the people and
considered himself blessed in embracing “women and men of any caste at all,”7
some scholars and pandits have made determined efforts to preserve his purity.
In order to do this, they have had to reject Viṭṭhal's Prakrit features and give him
Sanskrit (p.226) status; they have had to do away with his popular character
and endow him with Vedic dignity. A firm foundation for this tendency already
existed, having been laid by Purāṇic-style texts like the Sanskrit Pāṇḍuraṅga
Māhātmyas that claim to belong to the Skanda, Padma, and Viṣṇu Purāṇas, and
the “Pauṇḍarīkakṣetravarṇana”8 in the Bhīmā Māhātmya. In a wide-ranging
effort to provide an elaborate scriptural basis for devotion to Viṭṭhal, the
Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya in the Padma Purāṇa had diagrammed the complex of
temples at Pandharpur in the form of a yantra. Because these texts had already
Page 5 of 14
implicitly demonstrated the Vedas’ support, all that remained was to present it
properly.
Baba Padhye was the first scholar to respond to this call, and he applied the
whole of his magnificent intellect to the challenge of showing that the twelve
verses of Ṛg Veda 1.95, “dve virūpe…,” refer to Viṭṭhal. In doing this, Baba
manifested his own greatness as a scholar. Baba's Viṭṭhal-Ṛṅmantrasārabhāṣya9
presents numerous texts that agree in supporting this “unusual” thesis. Many
are Sanskrit texts that make brief references to Viṭṭhal. Later, Gopāḷācārya's
concise Sanskrit text Viṭṭhalabhūṣaṇa (Karhāḍkar 1886) and Vitthalshastri
Dharurkar's Marathi Paṇḍharītattvavivek (Dhārūrkar 1882: 4–14) brought
together all the references to Viṭṭhal in Baba Padhye's work.
Dharurkar relies on Baba Padhye in interpreting five verses of the “dve virūpe”
hymn as referring to Viṭṭhal. Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā is a pastoralists’ paired god who is
worshiped in the form of two stone lumps (piṇḍs).10 With Viṭṭhal preeminent, the
god developed into a form of Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa. The paired god also lives
independently as Bīrappā or Birobā, and his name is found in the form “Virūpā-
Virūppaṇṇā” (like “Birubā” in Marathi). When Bīrappā is with Viṭṭhal, he is “two
Virūpās” (dvī virūpā); so those who wanted to provide him with Vedic status
naturally thought of the “dve virūpe” hymn in the Ṛg Veda.
Before Baba wrote his commentary on the “dve virūpe” hymn, relating it to
Viṭṭhal—in fact, ever since the composition of the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya
attributed to the Skanda Purāṇa—traditional scholars and pandits who
worshiped Viṭṭhal (or local priests in Pandharpur) very likely had an oral
tradition interpreting this Vedic hymn as referring to Viṭṭhal. The idea that Hari
lives in two forms (“dvirūpeṇa” or “dvidhārūpeṇa”) in Pandharpur is clear in the
Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya attributed to the Skanda Purāṇa, and Baba Padhye and
Dharurkar both rely on that idea in interpreting “dve virūpe,” the first two words
of the hymn.
Baba Padhye's extensive, erudite commentary with respect to Viṭṭhal needs to be

published in a good edition. Manuscripts of the commentary are available in the
collections of Mumbai University and the Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute, Pune. Here, instead of drawing from Padhye's extremely learned
Sanskrit commentary, I will cite Dharurkar's Sanskrit-and-Marathi explanation of
Padhye's (p.227) treatment of the first verse. Dharurkar's introductory
statement expresses clearly the point of view of his tradition:
Pāṇḍuraṅga is none other than the Supreme God (Parameśvar) who resides
in the heaven Vaikuṇṭha. The Vedas, treatises (śāstras), and other texts
conclude that he lives here [in Pandharpur] because of the boon given to
Puṇḍarīk for the salvation of this whole sinful world. Nevertheless, some
people, out of overfamiliarity or imitation, say whatever they want.…Some
Page 6 of 14
people say that the Vedas do not refer to this god at all, and that the
Vārkarīs have inflated the importance of some upstart. But to say this is
mindless, because there are many references to this god in the Vedas and
other texts….
Although the image of Pāṇḍuraṅga has always, without beginning, been a

form of the supreme Brahman, some people say that there is no reference
to it in the Purāṇas or other scriptures; they thereby pointlessly cause
dissension. Now, at least, when they see these references in the Vedas and
other scriptures, they will change their minds—I fold my hands and pray to
Pāṇḍuraṅga that this may happen.
After this introduction, Dharurkar presents his commentary showing that five Ṛg
Vedic verses refer to Viṭṭhal, then cites some references to Viṭṭhal in other
Sanskrit texts. His source is the Viṭṭhala-Ṛṅmantrasārabhāṣya by Baba Padhye:
Vedic passage—Ṛgveda Saṃhitā, Aṣṭaka 1, chapter 7, verse 1:
dve virūpe carataḥ svarthe anyānyā vatsamupadhāpayete //

hariranyasyāṃ bhavati svadhāvāṃcchukro anyasyāṃ dadṛśe
suvarcāḥ //1//
The words: dve / virūpe / carataḥ / svarthe / anyā anyā / vatsaṃ /

upadhāpayete / hariḥ / anyasyāṃ / bhavati / svadhāvān / śukraḥ /
anyasyāṃ / dadṛśe / suvarcāḥ // 1 //
The meaning of the verse: virūpe (a special form = the two in which there
is beauty), svarthe (the two in which there is beautiful meaning, the goal of
men called liberation, known through being given to a devotee; or the two
in which there is the beautiful goal, liberation, a purpose), dve (the two
images of the Lord), carataḥ (moving around in, or arrived at, the
hermitage of Lord Puṇḍarīk), anyā anyā (having come to face each other),
vatsaṃ (the devotee Puṇḍarīk), upadhāpayete (drinking = looking
respectfully).
After presenting in this way the words in the Ṛg Vedic verse and their respective
meanings in relation to Viṭṭhal, Dharurkar gives his commentary on it in
Sanskrit, and then its meaning in Marathi:
(p.228) Two such beautiful images of the Lord come to Puṇḍarīk's

hermitage in order to give liberation to their devotees, and, facing each
other, look respectfully at their child (Puṇḍarīk). Now, of the two images,
Hari exists in the form of a tīrtha that destroys the devotees’ bondage to
existence (Accordingly, Tukārām says in an abhaṅga-verse: “Tukā says, the
Candrabhāgā [River] is a form of yours, O Pāṇḍuraṅga”), and the other
stays in the form of Śukra (Pāṇḍuraṅga), which everyone looks at.
Page 7 of 14
There are some verses in the “Uttara Saṃhitā” of the Skanda Purāṇa that
fit well with what the Vedic text says here:
1. From then on Hari stands there in two forms, O Nārada,

always wearing peacock [feathers] and a garland, with his two hands
placed on his hips.
2. The killer of demons is there in two forms in the holy place
(kṣetra) and in the holy waters (tīrtha).
The Lord faces west in the tīrtha and east in the kṣetra.
Meaning: Afterward, O Nārada, Hari lived there in two forms. In the

original Vedic verse, Hari = the Lord in the form of a tīrtha, becoming
manifest by being generally available; the other, which is accessible to
everyone, wears a diadem of peacock feathers and a garland, and places
both his hands on his hips: this is stated with special clarity. The Lord is
there in two forms, in the tīrtha and in the kṣetra: in the tīrtha he faces
west and in the kṣetra he faces east.
The text that Dharurkar follows in making this analysis is Baba Padhye's
Viṭṭhala-Ṛṅmantrasārabhā̄ṣya, which illustrates richly this tendency to Vedicize.
Although a detailed study of this text would be extremely useful, in an indirect
way, for our inquiries about Viṭṭhal, constraints of space preclude us from
pursuing such a study, at least in the present context.11
Viṭṭhal and Vedic Sacrifice

A Sanskrit text entitled Pāṇḍuraṅgamantrajapa (“Recitation of the Mantra of
Pāṇḍuraṅga”) calls Viṭṭhal “the one with the form of a sacrifice” and “the enjoyer
of sacrifices.” This ascribes to Viṭṭhal an extremely close connection with the
institution of sacrifice. Not only ordinary, traditional religious people but
extraordinary rulers as well saw sacrifices as conferring social status; to this
day, traditional society remains convinced of the importance of this practice.
Dynasties that arose (p.229) from families ranked as Śūdra took special
interest in performing sacrifices. By sponsoring more and ever bigger sacrifices,
a king could come to be highly esteemed. Because initiation to perform a
sacrifice was considered to provide “twice-born” status and to raise one to a
divine level, rulers naturally vied with one another to perform them.
All of Viṭṭhal's “Sanskrit” worshipers considered him to “have the form of a

sacrifice” and to be “the enjoyer of the sacrifice.” This indicates that sacrifices
must have been performed at Pandharpur from the time when rulers first took
notice of Viṭṭhal. A sacrifice performed as early the Yādava period is recorded in
a stone inscription in Pandharpur (Gokhale 1970): in Śake 1192 (A.D. 1270), on
the eleventh day of the bright fortnight of the month of Jyeṣṭha, in the reign of
Mahādeva Yādava, Bhānu, the son of a feudatory prince (māṇḍalik) of the
Yādavas named Keśava, performed a great āptoryāma sacrifice on the bank of
the Bhīmarathī in the town (pura) named Pāṇḍuraṅga, in order to get Lord
Page 8 of 14
Viṭṭhal's grace. From that time on, under the leadership of Viṭṭhal's “Sanskrit”
worshipers, sacrifices have continued to be performed in Pandharpur, albeit in
small numbers. Because Viṭṭhal was considered a form of Viṣṇu, sacrifices to
Viṣṇu kept being performed; even followers of a great opponent of Vedic
ritualism like Gadge Baba continued to perform sacrifices there. For people who
were more attracted to gaining social status than to practicing pure spirituality,
or more interested in gaining merit through external rituals than in achieving
interior purification, sacrifices were indispensable.
In the second half of the twentieth century, Baburav Parkhe of Pune, who
founded the “New Sacrifice Sect” in order to revive the institution of sacrifice,
wanted to establish a tradition that “Parabrahmaliṅga Pāṇḍuraṅga” “has the
form of a sacrifice” and is “the enjoyer of the sacrifice” (Pārkhe n.d.). Pārkhe,
who assiduously promoted Lord Paraśurām and the Tantric sect associated with
him, tried many different proofs that “Viṭṭhal is the sacrifice.” He conveyed the
news that “We understand that the Baḍves have begun to consider whether to
institute an agnihotra sacrifice in the assembly hall in front of Viṭṭhal” (Pārkhe
n.d.: 17). In addition, Pārkhe went on to state (Pārkhe n.d.: 17): “There is
nothing against saying that the recitation of the divine Name will develop into
perpetual Vedic chants, accompanied by rituals, in the temple. Because of the
vow (saṃkalpa) that Śrī (that is, Gajānan Mahārāj of Akkalkoṭ) made on the holy
feet of Lord Paraśurām, ‘I will bring the Vedic scriptures back to life,’ and
because of his midnight pilgrimage to Paṇḍharī, innumerable groups of devotees
not only in India but throughout the world realize that the True Vikram Saṃvat
era started 36 years ago.…”
Unsurprisingly, because these New Sacrificers attempt to forge an intimate

connection of Viṭṭhal and Pandharpur with the ritual, sacrificial part of the
Vedas, they find the primarily Tantric point of view of the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya
in the (p.230) Padma Purāṇa congenial. This Māhātmya takes great pains to
reconstruct the whole religious geography of Pandharpur on a Tantric model.
Taking this reconstruction together with the fact that the “Pāṇḍuraṅga Stotra”
ascribed to the original Śaṅkarācārya describes Pandharpur as a “great seat for
yoga” (a mahāyogapīṭha), it is extremely easy for partisans of sacrifice to make
Pandharpur into a sacrificial ground. They realize that this will not suffice to
convince all Viṭṭhal devotees, and so they claim that the words of the saints also
support them. They say that Saint Nāmdev's abhaṅga “The Ātmaliṅga of the
Twelve Liṅgas” is a description of Viṭṭhal as “having the form of the sacrifice.”
But should the fact that Viṭṭhal's “Sanskrit” worshipers need to claim the
support of “Prakrit” devotees be counted a success for the “Prakrit” devotees, or
a failure? The saints thought that “Yoga, sacrifices, and rituals…are useless
obstacles” (Jn͂ā. Gā. 757). What would these saints say to people who use them
to argue in support of sacrifices?
Page 9 of 14
Construction of Place-Based Rituals

Often, when a temple has begun to become popular, its priests gradually expand
it into a complex of temples. Then, in order to further strengthen the devotees’
faith in the temple complex, the priests must create new myths and rituals, and
they must link the myths and the rituals to each other. In order to implant in the
minds of the faithful a permanent faith in the sacrality of the pilgrimage place,
the priests must invent rituals that leave an indelible impression, and they must
create myths that convince people that the rituals are obligatory. Priests’ income
depends on rituals, and the prestige of rituals depends on myths. That is why
sthalapurāṇas are filled with myths, and why the myths are filled with place-
specific rituals that the myths were composed to justify. Later, for their own
convenience, the priests draw on the sthalapurāṇas to compose independent
compendia of rules for performing the rituals. According to “need,” they also
create more new rituals as well as new texts about them.
Many manuscripts of such texts as Pāṇḍuraṅgakṣetrakṛtyamīmāṃsā

(“Investigation of Rites to be Done at Pāṇḍuraṅga kṣetra”), Gayāśrāddhavidhī
Pāṇḍuraṅgakṣetrācā (“Funeral Offerings [as Performed at] Gayā Belonging to
Pāṇḍuraṅga kṣetra”), and Tridinātmaka Gayāśrāddhavidhī (“The Three-day
Funeral Offerings [as Performed] at Gayā”) in Sanskrit and Marathi can be found
in the homes of Pandharpur's pilgrimage priests.12 The following is an example,
translated from Sanskrit, of the kind of instructions such texts contain:
Then, after washing the Lord's feet, washing him with milk, worshiping
him with the sixteen articles of worship, pleasing the gods of the earth
[that is, (p.231) Brāhmaṇs] as before with gifts of cows and so on in order
to complete the ritual of Gayā śrāddha, one should pray, “Let Gopāl [Kṛṣṇa]
be pleased,” and serve a meal to Brāhmaṇs of various lineages. One should
give them generous honoraria, and get them to declare that one has done
the Gayā śrāddha properly and meritoriously.…
This type of text, giving the details of rituals to be done in specific places, has in
fact developed from instructions in the Purāṇas for performing place-based
rituals. Vitthalshastri Dharurkar (Dhārūrkar 1903: 67–68, cf. 88–90) cites a
“Māhātmya” in describing how to perform “worship of the three images of Lord
Pāṇḍuraṅga”:
Because Lord Viṭṭhal promised Puṇḍarīk that he himself would stay here in
three forms, he stays in this holy place in three forms:
The indestructible Hari is known as three-fold: the holy place

(kṣetra), the holy waters (tīrtha), and the image (mūrti). He is to be
worshiped in the holy place, the holy waters, and the image.
Know how he is to be worshiped in the splendid holy place: The Lord
is worshiped by earthly gods [Brāhmaṇs] who live in the holy place,
who are themselves worshiped, O goddess.
Page 10 of 14
Therefore it will be proper for the gods [Brāhmaṇs] to be worshiped

with food and so on in the holy place. Therefore a wise one should
make all efforts to worship [the priests] who stay in a holy place.
If they are worshiped, they can undoubtedly worship the image in
the holy place. When the earthly gods have been worshiped, the god
is pleased.
The Supreme Soul stays in this holy place in these three forms: in the form
of the holy place itself; in the form of holy waters—that is, in the form of
the Candrabhāgā River—and in the form of an image. When one worships
the Brāhmaṇs who live in the holy place, that pleases the Supreme Soul.
Therefore one should give food to the Brāhmaṇs who live in the holy place,
and that pleases the image in the holy place.
After propounding this rule about taking darśan of Lord Viṭṭhal, Dharurkar sets
forth his “thoughts about the pilgrimage ritual at the holy kṣetra of Pandharpur”
in accordance with the scriptures. These “thoughts” illuminate the priests’
position with respect to place rituals. After paying homage to the Candrabhāgā
and bathing in it, after stating one's intention in a ritually correct manner, one
should give (p.232) Brāhmaṇs the clothes one wore while bathing. Dharurkar
continues: “One should donate a cow at Puṇḍarīk tīrtha. One should also donate
a water buffalo, gold, land, one's daughter, sesame seeds and leaves, sesame
seeds and a cow, an elephant, and other items according to one's ability. Women
should present the offerings of auspicious married womanhood. They should
offer winnowing fans.”13 The “pilgrimage rites” that Dharurkar then summarizes
clarify fully the pilgrimage priests’ point of view on the holiness of the place. In
concluding this subject, he writes:
You should observe the regular worship of Lord Viṭṭhal; you should
circumambulate the holy precinct (the kṣetra); you should worship the god
according to your ability with jewelry, with the five nectars, and with items
prescribed for Pāṇḍuraṅga's worship according to the season. You should
take darśan of and worship all the gods in the place. You should bathe in all
the tīrthas there, and worship Brāhmaṇ couples. You should serve cooked
food to all the Brāhmaṇs in the kṣetra. If you do not have the wherewithal
to do all this, you should feed Brāhmaṇ couples according to your ability.
You should give clothes and other donations to Brāhmaṇs.
Those who have no children should offer a gold [image of a] baby along
with a silver cradle here.…They should sponsor Brāhmaṇs’ weddings. They
should pay Brāhmaṇs to read the Vedas. In addition, people who are
infertile or whose children do not survive should perform the Nārāyaṇbalī
and Nāgbalī14 rites here. Then their children will be long-lived, as the
harm from ghosts that afflict offspring will have been prevented.
Page 11 of 14
You should perform the year-and-a-half penance and other penances. You
should fast at the tīrtha. Those who wish for their ancestors to be saved
should perform Gayāvarjan15 here. Then their ancestors’ ghosts will
receive the best fate and those in torment will no longer be tormented. You
should go on pilgrimage to the three holy places Kāśī, Gayā, and Prayāg [at
their replicas in Pandharpur]. You should perform tonsure and the other
rites that form part of that [pilgrimage]. You should donate houses and
fields to Brāhmaṇ householders.
If you do all these things according to your ability, then Lord Viṭṭhal, the
witness of all, the omniscient Supreme Soul, the wish tree for his devotees’
desires, the ocean of mercy, will be pleased. He will provide you with all
forms of worldly happiness and in the end will lead you to his heaven.
This pilgrimage ritual of Pandharpur, which Vitthalshastri Dharurkar

summarizes here, adheres to traditional practice. It fully follows religious law
(dharmaśāstra) with respect to pilgrimage. This is the typical point of view of reli
(p.233) gious law toward all holy places. Creating myths makes it possible to
impress on the minds of the faithful how supremely holy is each grain of soil in
the kṣetra and each drop of water in the tīrtha; it is then easy to convince people
that rites and rituals performed at these holy waters and holy places bestow
merit. Once convinced of this, the faithful are eager to treat “properly” the
priests who narrate the stories to them and guide them in performing the rituals.
Clearly, all of this flies in the face of the ideas of the saints. The saints proclaim
emphatically, “In tīrthas there are rocks and water; god is readily available in
good people” (Tukā. Gā. 2050). They bitterly oppose pilgrimage-place rituals,
saying “The Siṃhastha16 time is here; barbers and priests have gotten
rich” (Tukā. Gā. 2755).
The Viṭṭhal of the Saints and the Viṭṭhal of the Pandits

Not only the Vaiṣṇavization of Viṭṭhal but also his Vedicization began before the
rise of the saints, and both processes continue to this very day. Along with the
pilgrimage priests who, at the instigation of the Yādava royal families, took the
lead in Vaiṣṇavizing and Vedicizing Viṭṭhal, traditional scholars and pandits have
also played a leading role. It was not convenient for the pilgrimage priests to
accept this popular god without providing a scriptural tradition—Vedas and
Smṛtis, epics and Purāṇas—to support him. As long as a folk deity remains in the
control of the people, his popularity cannot be undermined. Pandits’ concern for
their own status makes them loath to become too close to the people, so they
distance the god from the people. The saints never have this problem. Both
pandits and saints attempt to elevate folk deities, but they do so in very different
ways.
The Viṭṭhal of the pandits delights in the comforts and entertainment found in
magnificent temples patronized by kings, while the saints’ Viṭṭhal takes pleasure
Page 12 of 14
in the joyful songs of simple devotees on the sandy bank of the Candrabhāgā
River. The Viṭṭhal of the pandits is eager for the support of Vedas, Smṛtis, epics,
and Purāṇas, while the saints’ Viṭṭhal is a trickster who eludes even the Vedas.
The Viṭṭhal of the pandits brings happiness through sacrifices accompanied by
loud chanting of Vedic mantras, while the saints’ Viṭṭhal disdains sacrifices,
mantras, and tantras; all he wants is for people to recite the divine Name. The
pandits’ Viṭṭhal enjoys abstruse discussions in Sanskrit, while the saints’ Viṭṭhal
delights in emotions expressed in the vernacular, the language that puts even
nectar to shame. Although pandits continually attempted to tie him down in
high-caste rituals, the wealth of the Marathi saints’ universal experience has
kept Lord Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur constantly available to his devotees. He
continually, naturally delights in living with saints of all social levels—from
Jn͂āneśvar, who was put out of his caste, to Cokhāmeḷā, who was an outcaste
from the start.
Notes:
(1.) Translator's note: This is listed in the bibliography as Śrīviṭṭhalagītā 1893.
(2.) Translator's note: See chapter 6, “What Happened in the Nineteenth

Century?”
(3.) Translator's note: That is, neither pure nor polluted.
(4.) Translator's note: Śūḷapāṇi (“the one with a spear in his hand”) is a name of
the god Śiva, and Vajrapāṇi (“the one with a thunderbolt in his hand”) is a name
of the god Indra. The Mandākinī is a river that flows in the Himālayas near the
major Śiva temple at Kedārnāth.
(5.) Translator's note: Varuṇ is the god of the ocean and of water; the Yamunā is
a North Indian river that flows through Kṛṣṇa's land of Braj.
(6.) Translator's note: I have been unable to locate this verse in the literature of
the Vārkarī saints.
(7.) Translator's note: I have been unable to locate this phrase in the literature
of the Vārkarī saints.
(8.) Śrīpadmapurāṇāntargataṃ Bhīmāmāhātmyam n.d., chapter 34.
(9.) There is a manuscript of this text in the collection of the Bhandarkar

Oriental Research Institute (Upādhyāy n.d.). The manuscript was completed on
Pauṣ Kṛṣṇa 13, Friday, Śake 1731 (A.D. 1808). A second manuscript of the text
belongs to the collection donated to Mumbai University by Moropant's
descendants in Pandharpur, and is being edited by Dr. Usha Bhise.
Page 13 of 14
(11.) Translator's note: This translation omits Dhere's subsequent extensive

discussion of several Sanskrit texts related to Viṭṭhal, including Gopāḷācārya's
Viṭṭhalabhūṣaṇa (Karhāḍkar 1886), the Śrīviṭṭhalagītā published by Nārāyaṇ
Khaṇḍo Māṇḍavgaṇe (Śrīviṭṭhalagītā 1893), Śrīviṭṭhalapratiṣṭhā (in the
manuscript collection of Bhārat Itihās Saṃśodhak Maṇḍaḷ, Pune, R. K. Thiṭe
collection, no. 86/38), Śrīviṭṭhalapan͂caratna (1888) and other Sanskrit stotras
(hymns of praise), and Śrīpāṇḍuraṅgamantrajapa (n.d.).
(12.) The first two of these three texts are named in the lists of manuscripts in
the collection of Advocate Vitthalrav Dingre of Pandharpur (now deceased), and
an incomplete manuscript of the third is found in the collection of V. L. Manjul,
Pune.
(13.) Dharurkar indicates the mantra that contains the details about these
“donations of winnowing fans”:
vaṃśapātram idaṃ puṇyaṃ saubhāgyādisamanvitam /

sakaṃcukīṃ satāṃbūlaṃ sahiraṇyaṃ dadāmyaham //
(“I donate this holy vessel of bamboo [that is, the winnowing fan], along with the
materials of auspicious married womanhood, a blouse, a betel leaf, and gold.”)
(14.) Translator's note: Nārāyaṇbalī and Nāgbalī are two closely related
Brahmanical rites that infertile couples perform at certain holy places along
rivers. According to Kane (1968–75: 2:823–24 and 4:302–5), the Nāgbalī is a
fertility rite, while the Nārāyaṇbalī is performed for someone who has
committed suicide.
(15.) Translator's note: Gayāvarjan is presumably the ancestral offerings,

generally termed śrāddha, for which Gayā is understood to be the optimal
location.
(16.) Translator's note: The Siṃhastha is the thirteen-month period, recurring

every twelve years, when the planet Jupiter is in Leo (siṃha). This is a period of
especially intense pilgrimage activity. Priests earn money from fees or honoraria
for performing rituals, while barbers are paid for tonsuring pilgrims.
Page 14 of 14
The Yādavas’ God


Print ISBN-13: 9780199777594
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.001.0001
The Yādavas’ God

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.003.0015

This chapter describes the living forms of the pastoralist cults that lie behind the
cult of Viṭṭhal. The chapter discusses the predominance of pastoralists in the
population, ecology, and cultural traditions of Maharashtra, Karnataka, and
Andhra Pradesh, and the large number of kings and dynasties called “Yādavas”
who contributed to the rise to prominence of the cult of Viṭṭhal. Most of these
dynasties arose from pastoralist groups and took the name Yādava in order to
raise their status by connecting themselves with Kṛṣṇa's clan. Finally, the
chapter presents narratives, rituals, and holy places connected with the
pastoralists' Viṭṭhal, who is paired with his brother Birappā. Dhere uses the fact
that the Dhangar's Viṭṭhal-Birappā coexists with the Viṭṭhal of the Marathi poet-
saints to illustrate how Hindu traditions are able to develop and change, while at
the same time preserving intact each stage along the course of their
development.
Keywords: pastoralist cults, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, narratives, rituals, holy places
the previous chapter showed that the process of Vedicization and Sanskritization
of Lord Viṭṭhal has been going on since the period when the Māhātmyas were
composed, and that this process started because of Viṭṭhal's immense popularity.
In his original image, the “naked-child” cowherd form predominates, and the
saints’ innumerable hymns to him praise in profusion the pranks of “Hari in the
form of a cowherd.” Gopāl Kṛṣṇa's childhood games have a special place in
Viṭṭhal's pilgrimage, festivals, and other celebrations, as do the meal that the
cowherds eat together and their bhārūḍs, songs originally sung at the cows’
resting place. The tamarind grove or Diṇḍīravan where pastoralists’ gods always
Page 1 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
rest is extraordinarily important in the incarnation story of Viṭṭhal and as the

site of his deeds. Veṅkaṭeś and Vīrabhadra, gods well established in the south
who are forms of Viṣṇu and Śiva respectively, maintain a close relationship with
Viṭṭhal through their common pastoralist nature. In interpreting all of this, I
have indicated repeatedly that Lord Viṭṭhal is originally a god of pastoralists—a
god of nomadic or semi-nomadic communities of South Indian cattle- or goat-
and-sheep-herders such as Gavḷīs, Dhangars, Gollas, and Kurubas. There is
plentiful evidence that this is the case.
Finding Viṭṭhal Among Pastoralists

Scholars searching for the origins of Viṭṭhal have not paid much attention to the
traditions of pastoralists. This god, who enriches the cultural life of not just all of
(p.235) Maharashtra, but much of Andhra and Karnataka as well, became a
form of Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa in the twelfth or thirteenth century. But scholars had no
clear direction in which to search for what Viṭṭhal was like before that, and what
people, at what level of society, worshiped him. Puṣpadanta's Prakrit
Harivaṃśapurāṇa (Alsdorf 1936: 134–36) uses “Viṭhū” as a form of “Viṣṇu”
several times, and that form is found in Kannada as well; thus, the idea that
“Viṣṇu” developed into “Viṭhū” survived among scholars until the third edition of
G. H. Khare's Śrīviṭṭhal āṇi Paṇḍharpūr was published (1963: 50–54). Still today,
as I indicated in the Introduction, many of the “faithful” in the field of
scholarship continue to search for Viṭṭhal along these lines.
This confused state of research on Viṭṭhal cannot be justified. It has survived

because those scholars who are inclined to write on the subject have ignored the
valuable source materials that are available. For example, in the proceedings for
1914 and 1915 (Śake 1836 and 1837) of the Bhārat Itihās Saṃśodhak Maṇḍaḷ,
the same institution that Khare headed for many years, V. D. Mundale published
some Dhangar shepherds’ songs (Muṇḍale 1914, 1915). Two of these songs
record the Dhangar story of Viṭṭhal, refer to an important Maharashtrian place
of Viṭṭhal in Dhangar traditions, and indicate the timing of the principal annual
pilgrimage festival there. Unfortunately, these pastoralist materials about Viṭṭhal
published nearly a century ago1 failed to attract scholars’ attention.
Almost forty years later, in her well-researched book Lokasāhityācī Rūparekhā (A

Sketch of Folk Literature, Bhāgavat 1956: 406–7), the talented scholar of folk
culture Durga Bhagavat pointed out Viṭṭhal's original pastoralist nature on the
basis of materials she had obtained through her own field work. Three years
later (1959) she presented a complete version of a Dhangar story that she had
summarized in Lokasāhityācī Rūparekhā. Her beautiful essay “Paṇḍharīcā
Viṭhobā” (“Viṭhobā of Pandharpur,” Bhāgavat 1969, 1970b) expresses powerfully
the idea that the roots of Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur are to be found in pastoralist
traditions. This essay inspired reputable European scholars such as Guy Deleury
(1960: 181–202) and Günther Sontheimer (1981)2 to study Viṭṭhal along the lines
that Bhagavat had opened up. Indian scholars have completely ignored the facts
Page 2 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
about Viṭṭhal that Bhagavat3 laid before them not once or twice but three times;
to this day, they continue along the same false paths as before. Meanwhile, the
abundant, vivid materials that Sontheimer has gathered in his numerous field
trips throughout South India illuminate Viṭṭhal's original form in its entirety.
In the light of Dhangar stories, Bhagavat states (1970b: 37–38):
Viṭhobā of Paṇḍharī is a perfect instance of the unified culture of not only

Karnataka and Maharashtra but also Andhra. Although these three regions
(p.236) differ in language, their culture is one. This is a wonder of the
world of culture. This cultural unity has blossomed in the pastoralist
culture of the hilly rural areas of these three regions. Viṭṭhal is Kānaḍa. He
is a Gavḷī cowherd. He wears a black blanket over his shoulder. Rāhī and
Rukmiṇī are his two wives. Elsewhere Rāhī or Rādhā is Kṛṣṇa's beloved; in
Maharashtra she has become his wife. Viṭṭhal's true wife is Rukmiṇī, but
he is not the kind of husband who is overly involved with her. The couple
have separate temples in Pandharpur. The ovīs4 say, Rāhī has arrived, and
so Rukmiṇī is sulking. The Paṇḍharī Māhātmya says the same thing. But a
story that Dhangars told me gives a delightful reason for this couple's
strange, extended separation.…
Later we will see a number of variants of the story that Bhagavat proceeds to
tell. After presenting this story and another, equally beautiful one about the
relationship between Tuḷas5 and Viṭhobā, Bhagavat continues (1970b: 43):
The stories are probably not even true. But the poetic truth behind them is
unchanging. That is what gripped me. Viṭhobā began to seem more and
more human to me. And one day I suddenly got the chance to go to
Pandharpur. I stayed there for just half an hour. I looked reverently at
Pāṇḍuraṅga on the brick.…We returned from Pandharpur.…We reached the
edge of the village. Coming toward us was a dark, adult Dhangar man
wearing a turban on his head.…He had four goats with him. He was the
color of a black rock, a lively black. His neck was short. His shoulders and
chest were broad. His arms were muscular. His moustache could hardly be
seen on his dark face. His eyes were small, but reddish and shining. His
build was short. His legs were thick, like columns, but fully alive. Wherever
they landed, it seemed, they would get planted in the ground, and
wherever they were planted they would sprout. Straight from the brick, the
human image of Viṭhobā was walking through this world. Until that day I
had not understood why Tukārām calls this truly ugly mūrti “that beautiful
image.” Now, though, I began to understand. I realized that only something
living can be truly natural, and only something natural can be truly
beautiful. And to understand that beauty, one needs to have a simple,
innocent, poetic heart like Tukārām's. I saw that image, and my anxious
heart relaxed. A black rock ruling over black soil6 had come to life. He had
Page 3 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
become a human image. He had become an image of a god. My spiritual

relationship with Viṭhobā of Paṇḍharī, generations old, shone with renewed
brightness.
(p.237) Viṭṭhal and the Yādavas

These original worshipers of Viṭṭhal—the Gollas and Kurubas of Andhra and
Karnataka and the Gavḷīs and Dhangars of Maharashtra, especially southern
Maharashtra—are still called “Yādavas” in Andhra and Karnataka. We know
them as pastoral tribes. When we travel through Andhra, Karnataka, and
southern Maharashtra, we see these tribal pastoralists walking for miles and
miles with their herds of sheep, goats, and cattle. We notice village names like
“Gollapallī” and “Kurubanahaḷḷī.” Places of pastoralist gods like Birobā,
Mhaskobā, and Mailār are found in many settlements. Throughout this region
we frequently see dark-skinned Dhangar men with thick sandals, a triangular
loincloth, a blanket over their shoulder, a staff, and a colored turban. Gradually,
those who have settled permanently and begun to practice agriculture, or who
have taken up weapons and distinguished themselves in battle, have come to be
included in the upper levels of society. But true pastoralists still constitute nearly
one-sixth of the population in Karnataka,7 and anyone who travels in southern
Maharashtra can see that Dhangars constitute the majority of the population in
many villages there. The area surrounding Pandharpur, the original center of the
developed Vaiṣṇava worship of Lord Viṭṭhal, is still characterized by many
Dhangar settlements and innumerable marks of previous Kannada influence.
Like Viṭṭhal's original Gavḷī, Dhangar, Golla, and Kuruba worshipers, several
royal families who enhanced the magnificence of Viṭṭhal's worship are also
called “Yādavas.” Among the kings with extant inscriptions connected with
Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur,8 Kṛṣṇa, Mahādev, and Rāmcandra of Devgiri were all from
the Yādava dynasty, while the Hoysaḷa king Vīr Someśvar was from a family that
claimed to be Yādava. As we will see, history glorifies as “Yādavarāya” the kings
of Toṇḍaimaṇḍal who confirmed Rāmānuja's Vaiṣṇavization of Veṅkaṭeś—the god
of Tirumalai who resembles Viṭṭhal in many respects9—and brought opulence to
his worship. And the first emperors of Vijayanagar, who built the extraordinarily
beautiful temple of Vijayviṭṭhal and revived Vaiṣṇava Viṭṭhal devotion in Andhra
and Karnataka, proudly claimed to be “of the clan of Yadu.”
Is it merely a coincidence that these “Yādava” dynasties should expend so much

faith and wealth to give extraordinary prestige to Viṭṭhal, who was originally a
god of “Yādava” people? Or did these “Yādava” dynasties themselves derive
from “Yādava” people, from pastoralists? The Hoḷkars, who were Dhangars,
became kings during the Peśvā period and, with great faith, increased the
splendor of the worship of their original god, Mailār-Khaṇḍobā. Could there not
be a similar connection between Viṭṭhal and the Yādava dynasties? It cannot be
merely a coincidence that (p.238) many Yādava dynasties in Andhra,
Karnataka, and Maharashtra participated enthusiastically in developing the
Page 4 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
worship of Viṭṭhal. We must assume it to be possible that all these dynasties

arose from Yādava people, from pastoralists. If this is the case, then we can
determine that those “Yādavas” who succeeded in establishing kingdoms and
empires elevated their traditional pastoralist god into a form of Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa and
accorded high prestige to his worship.
Gopāḷs and Tiramals

The ancient roots of the relationship of both Viṭṭhal and Veṅkaṭeś with
pastoralists can be seen from the traditions of two other nomadic pastoral tribes,
the Gopāḷs and the Tiramals. I have shown at some length not only that Viṭṭhal
and Veṅkaṭeś are similar, but that both evolved, in different places and
somewhat different forms, from the same god:10 the Dhangars’, Gavḷīs’, and
Kurubas’ god Viṭṭhal-Birappā. Just as Viṭṭhal is Pāṇḍuraṅgeś (Paṇḍaraṅgeś),
Paṇḍharīś, the lord of the place named Pāṇḍuraṅga or Paṇḍarage, Veṅkaṭeś is
Veṅgaḍeś or Veṅkaṭeś because he is the lord of Veṅgaḍam. Viṭṭhal is connected
with the Gopāḷs, and Veṅkaṭeś with the Tiramals.
Today Gopāḷs live in great numbers in Dhule, Aurangabad, and Ahmadnagar

districts, and scattered elsewhere throughout Maharashtra. Since ancient times,
their profession has been herding and trading in cows and water buffaloes. The
subgroups of Gopāḷs are Gavḷī Gopāḷs, Bhorpī Gopāḷs, Vīr Gopāḷs, and Bhilla
Gopāḷs. The Gopāḷs must previously have been connected with the Golla
(cowherd) community in Andhra and Karnataka: there is a hamlet named
Golvāḍī (Gollavāḍī/Gollahaḷḷī) in the part of Aurangabad District that has
cowherd settlements, and the Vīr Gopāḷs of Maharashtra still speak Telugu at
home. Besides trading in cows and buffaloes, Gopāḷs make the rounds of
villages, begging and performing as acrobats. “The Gavḷī Gopāḷs consider
themselves superior to all the others. They say that Śrīkṛṣṇa is their principal
deity, and that they belong to his lineage” (Māṇḍe 1983: 72). According to a
traditional story that Gopāḷs tell to explain the origin of their subgroups and
surnames, the Gopāḷs once lived in Gopalpur at Pandharpur. They worshiped
Kṛṣṇa and Viṭṭhal and sold cow- and water-buffalo-milk in the market; people
used to call them Gavḷīs. At one point, the Gopāḷs went from Pandharpur to
Pañcmaḍhī; there an event occurred that caused them to scatter in different
directions and brought their various families into being (Māṇḍe 1983: 74).11
Just as the Gopāḷs see themselves as related to Kṛṣṇa-Viṭṭhal, the Tiramals or

Tiramāḷīs claim a connection to Veṅkaṭeś. We know the Tiramals as “Nandī-bull-
walas,” people who travel from village to village begging and making a Nandī-
bull (p.239) perform tricks. Originally Telugu speakers, they have lived for
years in many villages in Maharashtra. They keep water buffaloes, bulls, mules,
and dogs. They take barren cows and water-buffaloes, get them to give birth,
and then sell them. But the Tiramals’ principal occupation is traveling around
with a Nandī-bull. As they display their bull's tricks, they play the wind
instruments sūr and sanaī and small ḍholkī drums. They make most of their male
Page 5 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
calves into Nandī-bulls, performing a special ritual to do this. When Tiramals

enter a village, they go first to the Māṅgs to beg, then to the Mahārs, and finally
to the other castes in the village. This custom preserves the symbolic honorary
right of the original settlers of Maharashtra.12 The Tiramals worship Śiva, but
also Veṅkaṭeś, whose name accords with that of their caste: they are called
“Tiramal” or “Tiramāḷī” because of their original connection with
“Tirumalai” (Veṅkaṭagirī). Tiramals used to put a mask of Veṅkaṭeś over their
faces and do a dance called “Vyaṅkobā's Play” in front of people's houses
(Māṇḍe 1983: 205–11).
The Yādava Kings of Toṇḍaimaṇḍal

The relationship of the Gopāḷ and Tiramal cattle-herding communities with
Viṭṭhal and Veṅkaṭeś, and the relationship that communities like the Gopāḷs
forge with the Yādava Kṛṣṇa on the basis of their traditional occupation of cattle-
herding, bring to mind the many southern dynasties who proudly call themselves
“Yādava.” The royal family of Toṇḍaimaṇḍal, for example, who took the lead in
enhancing the splendor of the worship of Veṅkaṭeś of Tirumalai and confirmed
his Vaiṣṇavization under the leadership of Rāmānuja, is known in history by the
prestigious name “Yādavarāya.”
The old name of the area around Veṅkaṭeś's principal holy place, Tirumalai, is
Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam. This region extends into North Arcot, South Arcot, Cingleput,
Cittur, and Nellore districts of present-day Andhra Pradesh. The Yādavarāyas,
who ruled here as representatives of the Cholas for about two hundred years,
from the beginning of the twelfth century to the middle of the fourteenth, were
paramount devotees of both Śiva of Kālahasti and Veṅkaṭeś of Tirumalai—in a
sense, they united Viṣṇu and Śiva. These rulers proudly gave themselves titles
like “Worshiper of the Feet of the Lord of Śrī Kālahasti,” “Bee at the Lotus Feet
of the Lord of Śrī Kālahasti,” and “He Whose Crown Lies at the Lotus Feet of Śrī
Veṅkaṭeś.” In their inscriptions, many of which record donations made to the
temple of Śiva at Kālahasti and Veṅkaṭeś at Tirumalai, the Yādavarāyas
frequently describe themselves in terms of their family: “best of the family of the
lineage of Yadu,” “light of the Yādava family,” or “light of the Śālukkī [Cālukya]
lineage of the family of the (p.240) Moon.” This makes it clear that they
understood themselves to be Yādavas, Soma (Moon)-lineage Kṣatriyas, and
members of the Cālukya lineage. They claimed to be heirs of the Eastern
Cālukyas, the Cālukyas of Veṅgī. In chapter 5, we saw that the founder of this
dynasty was named Biṭṭa or Biṭṭarasa, a name that was Sanskritized as
“Viṣṇuvardhan,” and that after him the dynasty included another ten kings
named “Viṣṇuvardhan.” To say that a dynasty fond of such names must have
arisen from Golla and Kuruba pastoralist groups who worshiped Viṭṭhal will
accord well with the social history of South India.
Page 6 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
Against this background, we can imagine the origins of the Yādavarāya family. V.
Vridhagirisan(1938: 39) correctly states: “The term Yādava generally denotes a
cowherd, and these chiefs had assumed the title of Yādavarāyas probably
because of their occupation of the pastoral regions on the slopes of the
Vēnkaḍam Hills. The reference to Piṭaridēvi, a female deity as their Kuladēvata
in their inscriptions (Piṭaridēvi-labḍa-varaprasādaha) only confirms the view that
they must have been the inhabitants of those pastoral regions and were not of a
high origin.”
Anantārya's twelfth-century Sanskrit text Veṅkaṭācala-itihāsa-mālā (Anantārya

1888) shows clearly that it was under the king of Toṇḍaimaṇḍal, with the
support of Yādavarāya, that Rāmānuja discredited the Śaivas’ claim to Veṅkaṭeś
and in a sense forced the god to hold Vaiṣṇava weapons.13 Even though the
Yādavarāya dynasty worshiped Viṣṇu and Śiva as a unity, the king from this
dynasty who confirmed the Vaiṣṇavization of Veṅkaṭeś apparently could not
ignore the power of Rāmānuja's personality. As we have seen, Veṅkaṭeś arose
out of Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā with Viṭṭhal predominant, and Bīrappā has developed in
many places into Vīrabhadra or Śiva.14 It was therefore completely natural for
people who originally worshiped Viṭṭhal-Birappā to promote the unity of Viṣṇu
and Śiva. If the Yādavarāya kings of Toṇḍaimaṇḍal promoted the unity of Viṣṇu
and Śiva despite being worshipers of Veṅkaṭeś, the cause of this can be found in
the process of development of their original god.
Kāḍu and Yāḍu

The history of South India also includes a dynasty named “Kāḍavarāya” that was
contemporary with the Yādavarāya dynasty of Toṇḍaimaṇḍal. “Kāḍavarāya”
means “Kāḍavarāja,” kings with the surname Kāḍava. “Kāḍava,” which comes
from kāḍu (forest), means “those who live off the forest” (hunters and
gatherers). Kāḍavas are different from Kuruba Yādavas, who live off sheep (kurī )
and pastures (kuraṇ). Kuruba, Kurumba, Kurubar, and other terms for shepherds
are derived from kurī (sheep). If “Kuruba” comes from kurī, “Yādavarāya” too,
just like the family (p.241) name “Kāḍavarāya,” might easily have been formed
from some local southern word. Indeed, “Yādavarāya” is connected with the
sheep-herding occupation of the Yādavarāya family. In Tamil, yāḍu means
“sheep” or “goat.” As Kuruba comes from kurī, “Yāḍava” is formed from yāḍu,
and both “Kuruba” and “Yāḍava” mean “shepherd.” The current Marathi word is
“Dhangar.” If “Yāḍava” means “Dhangar,” we can easily see why and how the
Yādava and Yādavarāya dynasties were closely related to pastoralist
communities. “Yādava” is a more easily pronounceable, Sanskritized form of
“Yāḍava,” formed on the basis of phonetic similarity.
Two factors made it easy for medieval South Indian pastoralist groups to attach
themselves to the famous Yadu family from the Purāṇas, the family that gave
birth to the cowherd Kṛṣṇa and other extraordinary heroes. First, by occupation
these South Indian groups were herdsmen, cattle herders, just like the famous
Page 7 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
Yādavas in the Purāṇas. Secondly, the Purāṇic family were Yādavas and the
South Indian pastoralists were Yāḍavas. Linguistically the difference between
“ḍ” and “d” can easily be erased, and so “Yāḍavas” became “Yādavas.”
Virūpākṣa-Viṭṭhal: Lepākṣī and Hampī

In chapter 4, we examined at length the story of the derivation of Lepākṣī's
Vīrabhadra from Viṭṭhal-Bīrdev with Bīrappā predominant. Virūppaṇṇā and
Vīraṇṇā, two brothers who skillfully administered the Penukoṇḍa part of the
Vijayanagar empire, both came from Lepākṣī, and their original god was
Lepākṣī's Viṭṭhal-Bīrdev or Viṭṭhal-Vīrliṅga. They gave Bīrdev or Vīrliṅga the
status of Vīrabhadra and erected for him a grand temple rich in works of art.
Although they installed a magnificent iconic image of Vīrabhadra in the temple,
they also preserved Vīrliṅga's original, self-formed image (an uncarved stone) as
the “original image” (mūlvigraha) at Vīrabhadra's side. Inscriptions in this
temple refer to the god with the double name “Vīreśvar-Viṭṭhaleśvar.” In chapter
5, I referred to Manik Dhanpalvar's statement on this subject (Dhanpalvār
1981d: 29): “In a stone inscription from Śake 1459 [A.D. 1537] in the Vīrabhadra
temple at Lepākṣī, Vīrabhadra is called ‘Viṭṭhaleśvar.’ People also call him
‘Virūpākṣa-Viṭṭhal.’ ”
It is significant that in Lepākṣī, Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā's Kuruba devotees Virūppaṇṇā

and Vīraṇṇā gave their god the form of Vīrabhadra but called him “Vīreśvar-
Viṭṭhaleśvar.” It is also significant that Vīrabhadra of Lepākṣī is known by the
name “Virūpākṣa-Viṭṭhal.” If “Viṭṭhal” is removed from the double name
“Virūpākṣa-Viṭṭhal,” then Virūpākṣa emerges as an alternative name of
Vīrabhadra—that is, of the god who was originally Virūpa or Bīrappā. Virūpākṣa
is a Sanskritized form of “Virūpa” based on phonetic similarity. In Maharashtra
we call the Dhangars’ Bīrdev (p.242) “Birobā” or “Birūbā,” because in Marathi
the suffix “bā” indicates seniority, honorability, or fatherhood—as in Khaṇḍobā/
Khaṇḍūbā and Viṭhobā/Viṭhūbā. In Andhra, “Bīrdev-Bīrliṅga” is pronounced
“Vīrdev-Vīrliṅga.” This form of pronunciation can be seen in the names of
Virūppaṇṇā and Vīraṇṇā, the brothers who built the Vīrabhadra temple at
Lepākṣī. In Andhra and Karnataka, -appā and -aṇṇā are honorific suffixes that
resemble Marathi “-bā.” In “Virūppaṇṇā,” both -appā and -aṇṇā are added to
“Vīr.” If only one suffix is added, the name “Vīr” produces the form
“Virūpā” (like “Birubā”) or “Vīraṇṇā.” We can now see that the name “Virūpā” is
the root of not only “Vīreśvar” but also “Virūpākṣa.”
Virūpākṣa is an alternative name for Śiva. It can be analyzed into virūpa

(“strange-looking, ugly”) + akṣa (“eyes”). Having two eyes is normal, but Śiva
has three eyes, so with respect to eyes he is strange-looking or ugly, and his
name is Virūpākṣa. In Lepākṣī, Virūpa became Vīrabhadra, but, because he is
indeed a form of Śiva, the name Virūpākṣa, which refers to Śiva, also seems
appropriate for him. Thus, as the god Vīr/Vīrdev/Vīrliṅga/Virūpā rose in status,
the phonetic similarity of his name gave him the form of Vīrabhadra and the
Page 8 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
name “Virūpākṣa,” a name of Śiva. This provides us with additional guidance,

pointing from Lepākṣī to Hampī and inspiring us to consider the gods worshiped
by the Vijayanagar kings that Virūppāṇṇā and Vīraṇṇā served.
The capital of the Vijayanagar empire was named Vidyānagar, Vijayanagar, or

Hampī (Hampe-Pampānagarī). Ten miles east of Hospeṭ in Bellārī District,
Karnataka, at a place that is still today known as Hampī, innumerable remains of
that capital city are spread over several square miles. There are countless
temples in Hampī, but the Virūpākṣa temple and the Vijayviṭṭhal temple are
especially prominent. Both of these temples are renowned as foci of the
Vijayanagar emperors’ faith. That is, the emperors of Vijayanagar were devoted
to both Virūpākṣa and Viṭṭhal. The magnificent temples of these two gods, with
their beautiful sculptures, can still be seen today, albeit partially in ruins.
Virūpākṣa is still a popular, living god, an object of regular worship in Hampī,
while Viṭṭhal disappeared several centuries ago from his exquisite temple there.
We tend to take Hampī's Vijayviṭṭhal temple into consideration when we conduct
research on the history of the worship of Viṭṭhal, but it does not usually even
occur to us that Virūpākṣa could also be connected with this subject.
At Lepākṣī, Virūpākṣa and Viṭṭhal were originally Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā. Could this be

the case at Hampī as well? Virūppaṇṇā and Vīraṇṇā, the rulers who made
Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā into Vīrabhadra, were originally of a Kuruba lineage. Could the
Virūpākṣa and Viṭṭhal who came to live in different temples in Hampī also be
intimately connected? Could they have originally lived together as Viṭṭhal-
Bīrappā? Could the founders of the Vijayanagar empire, who erected majestic
temples to these (p.243) gods and enhanced their worship so greatly, have
originally belonged to a Kuruba lineage? If so, the Virūpākṣa and Viṭṭhal temples
at Hampī should be studied as an extraordinary form of the worship of Viṭṭhal-
Bīrappā. The question of whether the founders of the Vijayanagar empire
originally belonged to a Kuruba lineage is especially crucial. If that question is
answered in the affirmative, the answers to the two previous questions will
automatically follow.
The founders of the Vijayanagar empire were two brothers named Hakka and
Bukka. Hakka later ruled under the Sanskritized name Harihara. Because the
father of Hakka and Bukka was named Saṅgam, historians refer to this lineage
as the “Saṅgam dynasty.” Many stone inscriptions of the kings of Vijayanagar
state that the dynasty's founder, Saṅgam, was a Yādava of the lineage of the
Moon. For example, a donative inscription of Harihara II states (Upādhyāy 1945:
23–24), “Śrī Saṅgameśvara was in the laudable Yadu family known as Yādavas,
who are praiseworthy because of being born in the lineage of the Moon (Soma).”
Another inscription affirms, “Lord Viṣṇu himself descended in the form of
Saṅgam with the purpose of being born in the Moon (Candra) lineage.”
Elsewhere Saṅgam was praised by saying that he adorned the Yadu lineage with
his virtues the way the arrival of spring increases the beauty of all the seasons.
Page 9 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
Such claims make it clear that the founder of the Vijayanagar empire considered
himself a Yādava. He was a resident of Karnataka from the beginning, and not
one of the Soma-lineage Yādavas from northwestern India who had had Kṣatriya
status for some time. We can deduce that Saṅgam must have become a Yādava
through his pastoralist, cowherd occupation.
The history of South India shows clearly that all the southern royal dynasties
who arose from pastoralist, cowherd groups gained Kṣatriya status by claiming
to be Moon-lineage Kṣatriyas, by taking Yadu as their ancestor, and by
continually keeping alive their pride in being “Yādavas.” Many dynasties in
South India, from the Pallavas to the Yādavarāyas, were originally members of
pastoralist, cowherd groups and belonged to Kuruba lineages (Atre 1902: 12–
13).
Traditional sources record that the family in which the founder of the
Vijayanagar empire was born belonged to a Kuruba (shepherd) community
(Sewell 1919: 13). Even though some historians, dazzled by the Vijayanagar
empire's majestic beauty and the extraordinary, wide-ranging capability of its
founders, do not take this traditional information seriously,15 it ought not to be
ignored. It is consistent with the Sanskritized name of the dynasty, “Yādava,”
and with the gods that were the supreme objects of worship for the rulers in the
dynasty. Vijayanagar's kings were Yādavas; therefore they were Kurubas; and
therefore Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā must have been their original god: the inference
unfolds in this order.
In this context, Harihara, the Sanskritized name of the powerful ruler Hakka, the
first of the two brothers who founded the Vijayanagar empire, is noteworthy. (p.
244) Vijayanagar was established in 1335. For 100 or 150 years before that,
Viṭṭhal had been basking in the love of people and rulers in the form of Viṣṇu-
Kṛṣṇa at Pandharpur on the border of Karnataka and Maharashtra, and Bīrappā
had become Vīrabhadra in many places in Andhra, Karnataka, and Maharashtra
that were under the sway of the Vīraśaivas. What this means is that, even before
Hakka became king, his beloved god Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā had become Hari (Viṣṇu) in
some places and Hara (Śiva) in others. This is probably why Hakka took the
more prestigious Sanskrit name “Harihara” instead of “Hakka.” It must have
been this Harihara who raised the status of Viṭṭhal and Bīrappā and created two
separate places for them in his capital. He must have built one small temple for
the original Bīrappā or Virūpa, making him into Virūpākṣa, a form of Śiva, and
another for the original Viṭṭhal, making him into the Viṭṭhal who is Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa.
Later, inscriptions show, one after the other, many of Harihara's successors
increased the size and grandeur of the two temples.
My point is that the Śiva liṅga in the Virūpākṣa temple at Hampī was not set up
under the special name “Virūpākṣa” in order to create a new center for
preexisting worship of Śiva there, but rather in order to give the status of Śiva to
Page 10 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
Bīrappā or Virūpa. Otherwise, it makes no sense for the unusual name

“Virūpākṣa” to be used for the Śiva liṅga in the temple at Hampī. If there were
an iconic image of Śiva in that temple instead of the liṅga, and if that image had
a noticeable third eye on its forehead that prominently identified it as an image
of Śiva, the name “Virūpākṣa” would make some sense. But the temple has only
a Śiva liṅga, not an iconic image of Śiva. If the liṅga was established by
Harihara, it should have become Harihareśvar. If Harihara established it in
memory of his father, it should have become Saṅgameśvar. But instead it became
Virūpākṣa—just in order to preserve the memory of its original form. Similarly,
the Viṭṭhal temple at Hampī, which is equally majestic and has equally beautiful
sculptures, was created not in order to spread the worship of Viṭṭhal of
Pandharpur, but to raise the status of the local Viṭṭhal of the paired gods Viṭṭhal-
Bīrappā by imitating the process by which his status was raised at Pandharpur.
Two Popular Motifs

Profound faith in Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā underlies the creation of the sacred complex of
Vijayanagar. There is even an image of Viṭṭhal right inside the Virūpākṣa temple,
in addition to a wealth of other evidence that the rulers of Vijayanagar must
have held intense love for Viṭṭhal. Setting out from Hospeṭ to examine the
sculptural remains of Vijayanagar, one travels toward Kamalāpur, the hamlet
closest to the (p.245) ruins. Upon leaving Hospeṭ, one begins seeing Viṭṭhal as
he reveals himself in Vijayanagar-period temples. The temple of Anantaśayana
(Viṣṇu) in Anantaśayanaguḍī, a village near Hospeṭ, has numerous pillars
adorned with bas-relief sculptures, eight of which depict a clothed form of
Viṭṭhal. After that comes a village named Mallappanaguḍī, with a temple of
Mallikārjun; there is a broken image of Viṭṭhal in a shrine to Mallikārjun's left. In
Hampī itself, bas-reliefs of Viṭṭhal are sculpted on pillars not only in the Viṭṭhal
temple, but also in a Kṛṣṇa temple and another old temple that has been made
into a Public Works Department resthouse.
Besides these carved images of Viṭṭhal, another important motif here, as at

Lepākṣī, is sculptures of Dhangars. The bas-reliefs of Dhangars in the Viṭṭhal
temple at Hampī are very touching. The Dhangar stands with a blanket draped
over his head, his arm resting on his staff, and his chin resting on his arm. He
must be there as a reminder of the family that built the temples. There is no
other reason for a human being to be carved here, when almost every other
carving on the numerous pillars of these temples depicts a god or a mythological
event.
These two popular motifs, Dhangars and Viṭṭhal, present a clear image of the
family background of the founders of Vijayanagar and the roots of their faith.
The Seūṇa Yādavas and the Hoysaḷa Yādavas

Inscriptions in Pandharpur and a few other places indicate that both the Seūṇa
Yādavas, who ruled from Candrādityapūr, Sinnar, and then Devgiri, and the
Page 11 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
Hoysaḷa Yādavas, who ruled from Dvārasamudram (Haḷebīḍ), were closely

connected with Pandharpur and the worship of Viṭṭhal there. During the same
period as these two dynasties, many others named “Yādava” ruled in northern
Karnataka as māṇḍaliks (subordinate princes) of the Rāṣṭrakuṭas. Even the
Rāṣṭrakūṭas themselves claimed to belong to the lineage of Yadu.
Both the Seūṇa Yādavas and the Hoysaḷa Yādavas were originally from
Karnataka (Narasimha Murthy 1971; Ritti 1973; Coelho 1950; Derrett 1957;
Sheik Ali 1972). The names of most of the kings in the Seūṇa Yādava dynasty,
their queens, and the majority of their highly placed administrative officers are
indisputably Kannada. Although the kings of both dynasties proudly used such
titles as “Nārāyaṇ of the Yādavas,” “Born in the Yādava Lineage,” “Born in the
Lineage of Viṣṇu,” and “Supreme Chief, Lord of Dvārāvatī,” still they were fully
local Karnataka dynasties, surnamed Seūṇa and Hoysaḷa, who had no real
connection with Kṛṣṇa's Dvārāvatī (Dvārakā) or Mathurā. Asserting a connection
with Dvārāvatī and the Yādava lineage was simply an easy way for them to
acquire prestige, one that fit well with (p.246) their family's original
occupation. The historian A. V. Narasimha Murthy explains (1971: 25):
The claim to “Yaduvamsha” was very popular in ancient and medieval

India. Many dynasties were eager to associate themselves with the
Yaduvamsha in which was born the great hero Yadu. This may not be
altogether without any specific reason. It is difficult to find undisputably
Brahmin and Kshatriya dynasties, particularly after the Pallavas. Most of
the dynasties belonged to the Shudra caste. But most of them had become
powerful ruling families of importance. Their political power and their
lowly origin had to be reconciled by assuming a higher status for
themselves. In such cases Yaduvamsha came in very handy and hence most
of the dynasties professed to belong to Yaduvamsha. This claim gave them
a higher status they very much liked to have.
The Yadu lineage or Yādava clan was a clan of pastoralists or cattleherders. The
political, social, and religious history of the medieval period allows us to
conclude that most of the royal families who connected themselves with that
clan, and who connected their god with Kṛṣṇa, arose from pastoralist groups. It
is in this comprehensive sense that Lord Viṭṭhal is the “Yādavas’ god”!
The Origin Stories of Yādava Dynasties

The origin stories of the two Yādava dynasties that inscriptions connect with
Lord Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur are revealing. The founder of the Seūṇa Yādavas was
named Dṛḍhaprahāra (c. A.D. 860–880). This name must be a Sanskritized form
of the Kannada name “Dhāḍiyappā.” After Dṛḍhaprahāra, two more kings in the
dynasty took this name in its Kannada form. The first Dhāḍiyappā (that is,
Dṛḍhaprahāra) was extremely brave and valiant. The “Nāsikkyapurakalpa” of
Jinaprabhasūri's Vividhatīrthakalpa (Jinaprabhasūri 1934: 53–54) tells the
Page 12 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
following story about Dhāḍiyappā's rise to power: Once when the town's cows
had been carried off by cattle thieves, Dhāḍiyappā single-handedly fought off the
thieves and got back the cows. To honor him, the Brāhmaṇs and other
townspeople conferred on him the title “Talārapaya” (talārapada = pada of tarāḷa
= the office of protector of the village).
According to this story, the Seūṇa Yādava dynasty arose out of the valorous
deeds of a hero who protected cattle. The idea that the Seūṇas were a Gavḷī
dynasty survives to this day in folk traditions of the Nāsik-Khāndeś area, where
the Seūṇa (p.247) Yādavas are traditionally called “Gavḷī Kings.” Until
Bhillama V (A. D. 1185–93), their capital was at Sinnar (from “Sindanagara,”
“Śrīnagara”), near Nāsik. Bhillama moved the capital to Devgiri. At Sinnar there
are still many temples, reliefs, and sculptures dating from Yādava times. The old
Śiva temples here—Gondeśvar (from “Govindeśvar”), Aiśvaryeśvar, Citaḷeśvar,
Nāgeśvar, Brahmeśvar, Pātāḷeśvar, Viṭṭhaleśvar, and so on—are remarkable for
both their architecture and their sculpture. Innumerable shards are scattered all
over the area. The sculptures and shards in and around these Śiva temples
include many images of Vaiṣṇava deities, making it clear that this dynasty
maintained from the very beginning the liberal tradition of the unity of Hari and
Hara.
One of the Śiva temples in the complex at Sinnar is named Viṭṭhaleśvar. Perhaps
this Viṭṭhaleśvar was established by a man named Viṭṭhal who was a member of
the Seūṇa Yādava family or one of the families subordinate to it. The term for a
heroic man who protects cattle was “Biṭṭiga,” “Biṭṭidev,” or “Biṭṭarasa,” a Deśī
term that could also take the form “Viṭṭhal”; thus, it could also be that some
later king in this dynasty created the Viṭṭhaleśvar temple in memory of his
founding ancestor, the cow-protector Dhāḍiyappā/Dṛḍhaprahāra.
At Sinnar today a deity named “Gauḷībovā” is still worshiped. Y. R. Gupte states

(1948: 25; see also Gupte 1930): “There is a famous temple at Sinnar called
‘Gauḷībovā.’…In Khāndeś and Nāsik districts, the Yādavas are called ‘Gauḷī
Kings.’ So ‘Gauḷībovā’ refers to an extremely famous Yādava king who was as
powerful as a god in this town. Gauḷībovā's image is a huge boulder. Hundreds of
coconuts are broken here. There has been no other king at Sinnar as famous as
Bhillama V. He was a great emperor, and during his time the Yādavas’ capital
moved to Devgiri. So it is quite likely that this enormous Gauḷībovā represents
him.” This supports my theory that the Seūṇa Yādavas who rose to power in
Seūṇa Deś (the area around Ahmadnagar and Nāsik) were pastoralists.
Like the Seūṇa Yādavas, the Hoysaḷa Yādavas were also originally pastoralists.
The story about the founding ancestor of the Hoysaḷa Yādavas also explains their
family name, Hoysaḷa:16 Once a Jain disciple named Saḷ was taking religious
instruction from a Jain teacher named Sudatta Vardhamān in the temple of the
goddess Vāsantikā at Sosevūru (Mundgere Taluka, Kaḍūr District, Karnataka).
Page 13 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
Suddenly a tiger attacked the teacher. The teacher immediately pointed to Saḷ
and shouted, “Poy, Saḷ!” (“Hey, Saḷ, kill!” That is, “Kill this tiger!”). Saḷ
immediately slew the tiger with a single blow of his weapon. In Kannada, “p”
tends to become “h,” so the cry “Poy Saḷ!” in this story gave Saḷ's family the
name “Hoysaḷa.”
Later the image of Saḷ killing the tiger became a kind of royal emblem of this
family: it is carved on many temples built by the Hoysaḷas. Under the influence
of Rāmānuja, Biṭṭidev, a capable king who was a member of this dynasty,
renounced (p.248) Jainism, converted to Hinduism, and took the Sanskrit name
Viṣṇuvardhan. In chapter 5, we saw the story of two Biṭṭarasas or Biṭṭidevas in
the Eastern Cālukya dynasty who took the name Viṣṇuvardhan even earlier. The
names Biṭṭa, Biṭṭarasa, Biṭṭiga, and Biṭṭidev are extremely popular among
pastoralists. These names (rather, these different forms of one name) derive
from the pastoralists’ faith in their cowherd god Viṭṭa, Biṭṭa, or Viṭṭhal.
Viṭṭhal's Higher form and His Original Form

This Viṭṭhal, the “god of the Yādavas,” still resides in Maharashtra in his original
pastoralist form. In many Dhangar centers of worship, he continues his
relationship with the Dhangars’ renowned, popular god Birobā. Viṭṭhal forgets
himself in the thunder of the drums and cymbals. He loves the Dhangars’ gajā
dance. He delights in listening night after night to his own wondrous folk stories
woven into ovī-songs. When turmeric powder (bhaṇḍār) flies into the air, he
turns yellow from his toenails to the top of his head. But he is also fascinated by
his Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa form in Pandharpur, and he keeps trying in one way after
another to forge a relationship with that form.
The history of our tradition17 is amazing. It preserves all the stages of the rise of
each of its conceptions. Even after a conception has risen from a primitive stage
to a very high one, the primitive form is not destroyed; it is preserved almost
completely intact. In addition, all the stages from that primitive form to the
highest one also remain intact, allowing us to understand the process of
transformation. For example, there are places in Karnataka where the goddess
Māḷcī or Mhāḷsā can still be found in the form of a primitive mother goddess. In
many other places, in Karnataka and Maharashtra, she has become the consort
of Khaṇḍobā-Mailār. As he has developed into Śiva or Bhairava, she has attained
the status of the wife of Śiva or Bhairava. In certain places, such as Nevāse, we
also see her elevated into Mohinī, the primordial Śakti who inspired Jn͂āneśvar's
lofty meditation on the mutual passion of Śiva and Śakti in the Anubhavāmṛt. If a
scholar decided to delineate the stages of the goddess's development from Māḷcī
to Mohinī, each of them could be observed in Karnataka and Maharashtra.
The situation is precisely the same with respect to Viṭṭhal. After he had fully
developed into Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa at Pandharpur, and even after devotion for this
higher form had watered the soil of Andhra, Maharashtra, and Karnataka, the
Page 14 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
primitive Viṭṭhal of the pastoralists did not disappear. He lives on in his original
form in many places, contentedly remaining true to his fundamental nature.
Both in his primitive form, which has been preserved in a pastoralist
environment, and in his (p.249) fully developed, Vaiṣṇava form, in Pandharpur
and other places, we can see traces of the two forms’ connection with each
other. We can also see the ongoing process by which that connection continues
to be forged.
Places Of The Original Form

Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī (Hātkaṇaṅgale Taluka, Kolhapur District), a village eighteen
kilometers east of Kolhapur on the Kolhapur-Huparī road, provides a rich
example of both the primitive form of the pastoralist Viṭṭhal and the process by
which his connection with the higher form is maintained. There are also places
of Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā at Pokharāpūr (Solapur District) and Siddheśvar Kurolī
(Satara District).More than four thousand Dhangars live in Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī. The
temple of Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā lies on a high pasture—the Toraṇ Pasture—next to the
village (figure 14–1). The temple has recently been renovated, so that there is
now a tall, spacious pavilion in front of the old stone temple (figure 14–2). Many
tamarind trees line the road that leads to the main gate of this temple.18 On
one's right as one approaches the temple from the village are numerous
memorials of Dhangar ancestors (figure 14–3).
These include the three sons of the first priest of the temple,
(p.250)
Figure 14–1 The temple of Viṭṭhal-

Bīrappā at Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī. Photo by Anne
Feldhaus.
Page 15 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
(p.251) Nārāyaṇ Gāvḍā. The

memorial of each of these three
men is an image carved in relief
on a low, flat stone. Two depict a
man standing with both hands
resting on his hips, and the third
shows a man with one hand on his
hip and the other hanging straight
down. The descendants of
Nārāyaṇ Gāvḍā now number five
hundred households in all; the
rights to conduct the ritual
worship in the temple have been
apportioned among them, so that Figure 14–2 The new temple pavilion,
each household now has the rights
Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī. Photo by Anne Feldhaus.
for one week at a time, in a
continuing cycle.
As one enters Viṭṭhal-Bīrdev's
temple, one comes first to the
new pavilion. Crossing this, one
passes through the old hall to
the front of the sanctuary. There
one sees two sanctuaries next
to each other. In the one on the
right, under a three-part arch,
are the self-formed stone piṇḍs
(also called guṇḍī or liṅga) of
Bīrdev and Viṭṭhal (figure 14–4).
The larger piṇḍ, on the left, is
Bīrdev's, and the smaller one, Figure 14–3 Memorials of Dhangar
on the right, is Viṭṭhal's. ancestors outside the temple of Viṭṭhal-
Garaṭlimb19 leaves and Bīrappā at Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī. Photo by Anne
marigold flowers are offered to Feldhaus.
these two piṇḍs, as well as
vegetarian food offerings:
yoghurt-and-rice, millet bread (bhākrī), and cooked eggplant. Non-vegetarian
food offerings are not brought into the temple, but are offered outside. On the
eleventh day of the fortnight (the ekādaśī day) there is a food-offering of
varī-rice.20 The most important day of the week here is Sunday. On Sundays each
house in the village sends food offerings. On their way home with their food
offerings after presenting them to the god, people present the same offerings to
the “ancestors” on the pasture land near the temple.
Page 16 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
(p.252) At festivals, liṅgas like

the ones Liṅgāyats wear around
their necks are put on the piṇḍs
of Viṭṭhal and Bīrdev. Large
numbers of brass horses, as
well as the masks that serve as
the gods’ festival images, stand
on raised surfaces behind the
piṇḍs. There are numerous
wooden snakes in the sanctuary,
and a shepherd's blanket
(ghoṅgaḍī) is draped over the
brass arch. Two staffs are also Figure 14–4 The piṇḍs of Bīrdev (on our
kept in the sanctuary, one on left) and Viṭṭhal (on our right), decorated
each side of the gods. To ward with garaṭlimb leaves and marigold
off evil, the temple priests dip flowers, Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī. Photo by Anne
the staffs in holy water (tīrtha) Feldhaus.
kept in a large pot and touch
them to the heads of people
who have come for darśan.
The sanctuary on the left is that of Viṭṭhal's daughter Bhāgīrathī or Bhāgūlek. In

it is a stone shaped like a Muslim grave (figure 14–5), with, behind it, a large,
rounded, uncarved stone that is Viṭṭhal. The sanctuary holds two cots, one on
each side of Bhāgūlek and Viṭṭhal; on the cots, and elsewhere in the sanctuary as
well, are numerous wooden snakes that devotees have offered. In a niche on the
right-hand side of the back wall is an image of Viṭṭhal with Rāhī and Rakhmāī.21
An uncarved stone of Padūbāī, covered with red lead, is found in a niche in the
outer wall of the temple, outside Bhāgūlek's sanctuary (figure 14–6).
Page 17 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
(p.253)
Figure 14–5 The shrine of Viṭṭhal's

daughter, Bhāgūlek, at Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī.
Bhāgūlek is represented by the stone
shaped like a Muslim grave, covered with
leaves and flowers. Photo by Anne
Feldhaus.
Page 18 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
(p.254) Brass festival images of

the gods, along with numerous
brass horses to be carried in
procession during the festival, are
stored in the village, in the home
of a Dhangar who has the ritual
right to keep them (figure 14–7).
Bīrdev's festival image shows him
mounted on a horse. Viṭṭhal's
image portrays him mounted on
Garuḍ, but not as Viṣṇu riding
Garuḍ: Viṭṭhal has two arms, not
four, and he holds a sword in his
right hand.
Each year after Bhombī (Bhaum
or Kojāgarī) Purṇimā, in the
month of Āśvin (September–
October), a huge pilgrimage
festival takes place here at the
time of the Mṛga nakṣatra.22
Viṭṭhal-Birobā of Siddheśvar
Kurolī Figure 14–6 Padūbāī, in a niche in the
Another famous place of Viṭṭhal- outer wall of the temple of Viṭṭhal-
Birobā is in the village of Bīrappā at Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī. Photo by Anne
Siddheśvar Kurolī in Khaṭāv Feldhaus.
Taluka, Satara District (figure
14–8). This village has a Śiva
temple named Siddheśvar.
Because Siddheśvar's piṇḍ is
renowned for the sound of a
lion's roar that frequently
comes from it, it attracts not
only locals but also pilgrims
from far away. The village is
called “Siddheśvar Kurolī”
because of Siddheśvar's roar
(kurolī).
Figure 14–7 Brass festival images and
The story of the manifestation horses, Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī. Photo by Anne
of Siddheśvar is told in a Feldhaus.
Marathi book in ovī verse that
was composed in 1964 by N. G.
Deshpande, a devotee of Siddheśvar who lives in Mumbai (Deśpāṇḍe 1964).
Deshpande describes in detail the village of Kurolī, its
Page 19 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
(p.255) surroundings, the temple

of Siddheśvar, the subsidiary
deities, and many other temples
inside and outside the village. His
description is based on his own
observations and experience, but
it is not clear whether the story he
narrates about Siddheśvar's
manifestation is based on oral
traditions or on a Sanskrit
sthalapurāṇa.
The story is important for our
Figure 14–8 The temple of Viṭṭhal-Birobā
topic: Āryans ruled this area,
at Siddheśvar Kurolī. Photo by Anne
but, by a quirk of fortune,
Feldhaus.
enemies conquered the
kingdom and destroyed the
whole royal family. One sixteen-year-old prince named Kurubāḷ survived the
slaughter. He went and hid in the forest, built a leaf hut, and, in the garb of a
Bairāgī, began to worship Śiva. Śiva, pleased with his asceticism, appeared in a
dream and said to him (Deśpāṇḍe 1964: 1.73–79):
Attracted by your devotion, I have come running here.

I’ll tell you the signs of this:
Tomorrow local cowherd children will bring cows.
Look at the kapilā cow23 as she grazes, my child.
She will go to the place I have in mind and give forth milk.
Dig two or three arms’-lengths deep at that spot.
I will appear there automatically, self-formed.
That is my śāḷuṅkā24 form, an extremely beautiful Śiva liṅga.
Worship it with good will in your heart.
In time I will be pleased, my dear child.
Your time of hardship will be over, you will regain the lost kingdom,
and you will reach old age, by my mercy.
Because of your name, O Kurubāḷ, everyone
will call this hamlet Kurolī.
The next day everything happened in accordance with what Śiva had said in the
dream. Kurubāḷ made a roof of leaves over the self-formed Śiva piṇḍ. The
cowherd boys who had seen all this told about it in the village, and the villagers
hurried here for darśan. When they had seen for themselves, they built a
beautiful two-by-four-section (don-cār-khaṇī) temple of dressed stones at the
place (Deśpāṇḍe 1964: 1.104–5):
The people were delighted by Kurubāḷ's devotion.

To honor the village, they named it Kuruvaṭī.
The name became corrupted, and they called the place Kurolī.
Because it is god Siddheśvar's place, people say, “Siddheśvar Kurolī.”
Page 20 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
This story about Siddheśvar's manifestation and the village name Kurolī tells us
a great deal. The Māhātmya's author calls the original devotee of Siddheśvar
“Kurū” (p.256) or “Kurubāḷ.” The idea that he was an Āryan prince serves to
enhance the place's honor. The name Kurū or Kurubāḷ is very obviously derived
from the South Indian pastoralist (shepherd) community Kuruba/Kurubār. Gavḷīs,
Dhangars, and other pastoralist groups regularly use the honorific
“Sīd” (Siddha) to refer to an ascetic with divine powers who causes a god to
appear. Such groups’ traditional repertoire includes many marvelous songs and
stories about the divine powers of these “Siddhas.” The present story suggests
that Kurū or Kurubāḷ, the original devotee, was an anonymous Siddha from the
Kuruba community, and that in Kurolī Śiva was called “Siddheśvar” because he
appeared there when that Siddha's asceticism had pleased him. The place name
“Kurolī,” too, which the Māhātmya's author connects with the name of the
original Siddha (who was a Kuruba), must be related to kurī (sheep) or Kuruba
(shepherd).
The Māhātmya's suggestion of a connection between Kurolī and Kurubas is

supported by the fact that Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā resides there in splendor to this day.
The Māhātmya refers to the place as follows:
Now Viṭṭhal-Birobā's temple is one mile from Kurolī.

It is the jewel of this area, very lovely and beautiful.
When I learned that there is a temple of Viṭṭhal-Birobā at Siddheśvar Kurolī, I

immediately wrote to my learned friend Baburav Katre in Koregāv (Satara
District) and asked him to go to Kurolī. Following my written instructions, he
made observations there, and, on 6 October 1982, he wrote me a long letter
reporting on his observations.25 The most important points that emerge from the
Māhātmya and from Baburav Katre's report are as follows:
1. A merchant of the Vāṇī caste was in difficulties, and Viṭṭhal-Birobā

helped him: that is why this place first became famous. (If this Vāṇī
devotee was a Liṅgāyat Vāṇī, then here too, as at Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī, there may
have been conflict and reconciliation between Liṅgāyats and Dhangars.)
2. Here too Viṭṭhal-Birobā is a paired deity. Besides the piṇḍs of the two
gods, there is also one of Kāmūbāī and, due to the tendency to form
connections with the higher Viṭṭhal, a temple of Viṭṭhal-Rukmiṇī as well.
3. Another name of Viṭṭhal here is “Tākpiṭhyā Viṭhobā.” Near the main
Viṭṭhal temple in Pandharpur is a “Tākpiṭhyā Viṭhobā” temple controlled
by Baḍve priests. As we have seen,26 the term “Tākpiṭhyā” (“buttermilk-
and-flour”) is reminiscent of the karambha that the Vedic god Pūṣan liked.
4. The ritual in which the palanquins of Siddheśvar and Viṭṭhal-Birobā
come together during the Śivarātra festival keeps alive the memory of a
close (p.257) original bond between the two gods. It suggests that
Siddheśvar too, who has become Śiva, arose from a Dhangar cult.
Page 21 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
5. Śrī Vāgdev Mahārāj of Vāṭhār, who recently enhanced the splendor of

this god, was a Dhangar. He was an itinerant Vāghya, wandering around
in traditional Vāghya garb and begging in the name of Khaṇḍobā. People
considered him a perfected yogi (a siddhapuruṣ).27 The Siddheśvar
Māhātmya describes him as follows (Deśpāṇḍe 1964: 2.260):
This holy, spiritually experienced Siddha, an embodiment of

ŚivaKhaṇḍerāyā himself,
is omnipresent. He appears in two places at once.
Dhanjī Viṭhobā of Pokharā̄pūr

At Pokharāpūr (Mohoḷ Taluka, Solapur District) there is a place of Viṭṭhal-Bīrdev
known as “Dhanjī Viṭhobā.” I asked my friend Ananda Kumbhar, a scholar from
Solapur, to get information about this place. Shri Kumbhar immediately made
the journey to Pokharāpūr, and on 26 July 1979, he wrote a detailed letter giving
me his eyewitness account. Here I will summarize in my own words what he
relayed to me about Dhanjī Viṭṭhal of Pokharāpūr.
There are two temples of Viṭṭhal-Bīrdev, an old one and a new one. The older
place is to the south of Pokharāpūr, in a pasture known as “Daṇḍī's pasture” a
mile and a half or two miles from the village, where the boundaries of
Pokharāpūr and three other villages meet (figure 14–9). Some years ago, the
residents of these four villages had a quarrel, and after that the villagers of
Pokharāpūr built a new temple of Viṭṭhal-Bīrdev inside their village. The temple
on Daṇḍī's pasture must be 200 or 250 years old. The uncarved stone of the god
inside the temple has silver eyes, and placed on it is the kind of Śiva liṅga that
Liṅgāyats wear around their necks (figure 14–10). Sunday is considered the
special day here. Only vegetarian food offerings are allowed in the temple, but
outside, at an uncarved stone called Daityāsur (“Demon”), goat sacrifices and
non-vegetarian food offerings are permitted. The Dhangar priests in this temple
stated, “Our god is older than Viṭhobā of Pandharpur. The worship here belongs
to the Dhangars; the god belongs to the Vāṇīs.” The priests’ claim makes clear
the power of Vīraśaivas/Liṅgāyats/Vāṇīs here.
The new temple inside the village of Pokharāpūr also has an uncarved stone of
the god with silver eyes set into it and a Śiva liṅga on top. A blanket, which the
Dhangars here call a jāḍī, is draped over the stone. Two brass masks rest on a
throne-cushion near the stone, below it. One of these is Viṭṭhal and the other is
(p.258)
Page 22 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
(p.259) Bīrdev. The two masks

came from the old temple; the
people who built the new temple
brought them and installed them
here. In both temples, only
Dhangars can serve as priests, but
devotion and worship are open to
all.
The Arrival of Viṭṭhal and
Bīrappā̄ in Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī
One of the two Dhangar songs
about Viṭṭhal and Bīrappā
collected by V. D. Mundale28 Figure 14–9 The temple of Viṭṭhal-Bīrdev
tells the story of how the two at “Daṇḍī's pasture,” south of
gods came to Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī. The Pokharāpūr. Photo by Anne Feldhaus.
song uses Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī's old
name, “Iṅgaḷkoḍolī.” It begins
with “recollection” (sumbarāṇ,
smaraṇ)—of the “Lord of the
pasture” (Viṭṭhal and Bīrappā,
who are settled on the Toraṇ
Pasture at Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī),
Mother Earth, “King Cloud” the
father, the Lord of the lineage of
gurus, and Sāmba of Kailās. By
considering Earth the mother
and Cloud the father, this
tradition touches on the most
primitive cultural motifs; and
paying homage to Sāmba of
Kailās opens up a natural path
to a close relationship with the
great tradition. I call this path
“natural” because Sāmba (that
is, Śiva with his wife, Ambā) of
Kailās takes into his orbit and Figure 14–10 The image of Viṭṭhal-Bīrdev
raises the prestige of a great in the temple on Dāṇḍī's pasture, near
many primitive cultural motifs. Pokarāpūr. Photo by Megha Budruk.
By nature, Sāmba Śiva is close
to the people and loves the
primitive. Because the Dhangars’ Bīrappā or Bīrdev is also Bīrliṅga, he is
sometimes transformed into Vīrabhadra, who is a form of Śiva,29 and sometimes
directly into a Śiva liṅga.
Page 23 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
After this sumbarāṇ, the singer immediately begins to tell the story: At that time,
the two brothers Iṭal and Bramal (Baramal Birobā) began to say to each other,
“We need a third one to be with us. We can give him tasks to do.” So the gods
Iṭal and Bramal took scurf from their bodies and made a statue of it, and they
sprinkled nectar on it to bring it to life. Then they summoned a Brāhmaṇ
astrologer, told him to look in the almanac, and named the child Somā: Somā
Māldār.
Day by day and month by month, Somā grew up until he was twelve years old.
When Somā had grown up, the gods decided to look for a new place for
themselves. Searching and searching, they went to the pasture at Kuṇḍal, but
that place did not appeal to them. They dug a pool (kuṇḍ) there, which gave the
village the name Kuṇḍalgāv. Leaving Kuṇḍalgāv, the gods next came to the
pasture at Iṅgaḷkoḍolī. As soon as they saw the enormous rocky plain there, they
were completely satisfied with the place. By the time they had found the place,
night had fallen. So god Bramal planted a flag there and the two of them and
Somā pulled their blankets over themselves and went to sleep.
As soon as Kallayyā Dev (Kalleśvar), the god of the village, learned of this, he
quickly summoned the leaders of the village—Liṅgūśā Pāṭīl, Dattobā Kulkarṇī,
and a Caugule named Jagtāp—and made a complaint (cahāḍī):
(p.260) The Dhangars’ gods are plenty tricky.

They’ll play drums and cymbals, they’ll make me deaf.
The Dhangars’ gods are plenty tricky.
They’ll sacrifice sheep. I’m a Liṅgāyat.30
A stream of blood will flow before me.
I won’t be able to stand it.
The leaders of the village heard what God Kallayyā said, and they promised him,
“We will not give the Dhangars’ god any space.”
The next day Iṭal and Bramal sent Somā Māldār into the village. They told him to
find out whether people would welcome them, whether people would have
questions about them. Somā went into the village. He wandered from lane to
lane, but no one asked, “Who are you? Where are you from?” He simply came
back, and he told the two brothers what had happened. They were angry. After
midnight, following the two brothers’ instructions, he took a large metal bowl of
bhaṇḍār and entered the village again. He stood in the middle of the village and
tossed bhaṇḍār all over it.
When he returned to the village the next morning, everyone had gone blind,
except for the three leaders. When he turned back, he saw the three leaders
sitting worrying in the village meeting hall. They called to Somā and asked,
“Who are you? Where are you from?” He replied, “I am a Dhangar from
Khānmān Deś.” Then they asked, “Do you know any magical remedies?” He
Page 24 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
replied, “I don’t know any; but my two brothers know some. If you need help, go
to them.”
The three leaders went to Iṭal and Bramal for help, and agreed to make a place
for the gods. Then the gods gave the people their sight back by once again
having Somā toss bhaṇḍār over the village. The village leaders marked out a
place and gave it to the gods. But they needed wood to build a shelter on it.
Liṅgūśā Pāṭīl cleverly used the gods’ power to make his barren cow give milk,
and they also fulfilled his wish for the dried-out banyan and pipaḷ trees on the
platform near the village meeting place to sprout new foliage. Then the gods
received permission to cut down trees in a grove of palms. There a Jakhiṇī
named Yeḍ Maṅgaḷ Tāī resisted, but the gods persuaded her to surrender; they
gave her sweets, filled a large cart with wood, and brought it to the pasture.
They built themselves a temple there and began to reside in it.
The purpose of this story is to explain the origin of Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā's temple in

Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī. It is, in a sense, the Dhangars’ migration myth, telling in an
entertaining manner how Dhangars came to live in this area, who opposed them
and in what way, and how they overcame the opposition and settled down here
on a permanent basis. It is a story about the conflict and eventual reconciliation
between (p.261) the original Liṅgāyat residents and the Dhangar immigrants.
The singer uses the names “Iṭal” and “Bramal” (Baramal) for the gods Viṭṭhal
and Bīrappā. “Bramal” (Baramal), which clearly refers to Birobā, is a corrupt
form of the name “Bīrmal” (Vīrmalla). It reminds me of the term bīrmāl, which
occurs in Agnidāsa's povāḍā with the meaning “heroic song” (povāḍā). “Iṭal”
appears to have been formed similarly, from “Iṭu” or “Iṭobā” (Viṭhū, Viṭhobā).
The song makes abundantly clear the belief that Iṭal and Bramal are brothers
whose hearts cannot be separated.
The Pilgrimage Festival at the Full Moon of ā̄śvin

Another song that Mundale collected is about the pilgrimage festival of Viṭṭhal
and Bīrappā at Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī during the month of Āśvin (September–October).
The story in this song is as follows:
Once it occurred to Iṭal and Bramal that they should hold a large
pilgrimage festival on the pasture at the Pūrṇimā of Bhombī (the full-moon
day of Āśvin). So they summoned Somā Māldār and said, “Tell my wife that
there is a festival at the Pūrṇimā of Bhombī. Pharāṇḍe's party (the
company of pilgrims who accompany a devotee named Pharāṇḍe) will come
then. Māḷiṅgrāy (Mhāḷiṅgrāy, Mahā-liṅga-rāya) will come with gunny sacks
full of turmeric powder (bhaṇḍār). Make expensive arrangements for
them.”
Somā Māldār went and gave this message to Padūbāī (Viṭṭhal's wife). When
she heard the message, she got angry and said, “To hell with the
pilgrimage festival! My head will go bald from carrying water to fill the
Page 25 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
huge cooking pots, and my hands will blister from serving the piles of
food!” Somā told the god exactly what Padū Gavḷaṇ had said. The god was
enraged. He cursed his wife, saying, “You will go mad. You will wander
around throwing stones at people. Then village boys will toss cowdung at
you.”
As a result of the curse, Padū Gavḷaṇ went mad and began to wander
around throwing stones at people. Village boys started tossing cowdung at
her. Then she left the village. As she went along, her sari got caught on a
kārī bush, her blouse got caught on a jujube bush, her hair got caught in a
clump of bamboo, and she fell to the ground right there. Children who had
come to play in the shade in the bamboo grove saw this sight, and they told
her parents. The parents came there crying and screaming; but when they
saw a five-headed cobra swaying over her body, they could do nothing. The
people who had gathered there began to say, “She is the god's wife. She
cannot die. She is no longer yours. You should go away.” Hearing this, the
two of them lost hope and turned back.
(p.262) Meanwhile Iṭal and Bramal had made the preparations for the
pilgrimage festival. Iṭal summoned Somā and said, “Go on our bull (Nandī)
and bring my daughter Bhāgū from her in-laws’ house.” Somā obeyed the
order, but he could not accomplish the task in one trip. First her father-in-
law, then her mother-in-law, and finally her brother-in-law refused to allow
her to return home. As soon as the god learned of this, he cursed each of
them in turn, and they died. Then, finally, her husband allowed Bhāgūlek to
go home with Somā.
On the way home, Bhāgūlek asked Somā about her mother (Padūbāī), but
he answered evasively and somehow managed to keep her moving. As they
approached her natal village, though, many people from there came and
told her the piteous story of Padūbāī's ruin. Overcome with grief, Bhāgū
immediately jumped down from the bull and refused to proceed any
further. When Somā was unable to comfort her, the god himself had to
come to his daughter. He embraced her and tried to appease her in various
ways. He gave her the privilege of sitting on his right side and arranged
that she should have a grand procession each day for seven days during
the festival. He also went to Pharāṇḍe and Māḷiṅgrāy, who were leaving in
anger because of all the turmoil, and brought them back for the festival.
The Vārī-Diṇḍī of Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī

Dhangar traditions also include a story about how Viṭṭhal and Bīrdev became
inseparable before they arrived in Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī. The god Bīrdev combines the
essences of the Fifty-two Vīrs. He was born of Gaṅgā Suravantī by the grace of
Śiva. Māyavvā or Māyākkā and the other goddesses who are with her took care
of baby Bīrdev the way the six Mātṛkās or Kṛttikās cared for baby Skanda after
Page 26 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
he landed in the Śara Forest. Māyākkā reigns as Bīrdev's sister in a magnificent

temple in Ciñclī (Rāybāg Taluka, Belgaum District). Each year, faithful devotees
bring palanquins of many Dhangar gods and goddesses to Ciñclī to meet her
during the month of Kārtik (October–November).31
After being lovingly brought up by Māyākkā, Bīrdev stayed for twelve years at
Murguṇṭhī (Athaṇī Taluka, Belgaum District), practicing asceticism in the form
of a cobra in a termite mound. At that time, the Gavḷīs’ Viṭṭhal came there,
attracted to Bīrdev. Viṭṭhal herded Bīrdev's sheep faithfully for twelve years,
lived on sheep's milk, and fed Bīrdev milk every day in the termite mound. After
twelve years, pleased by Viṭṭhal's love, Bīrdev emerged from the termite mound,
manifested (p.263) himself in his own form, and embraced Viṭṭhal with
overflowing love. From that moment on, Dhangars believe, the two gods have
never been separated.
Like Mhāḷīṅgrāy, Khelū Vāghmoḍe of Añjangāv (Solapur District) is another

faithful devotee of Viṭṭhal-Bīrdev. He and his retinue walked to Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī from
Añjangāv for the god's pilgrimage in the month of Āśvin (September–October).
Tormented with longing because the god did not come to greet him, he struck
himself in the stomach with a sword. A descendant of this Khelū Vāghmoḍe
known as Pharāṇḍe comes every year to the Āśvin festival, where he plays the
role of a perfected yogi (siddha puruṣ): he strikes himself on the stomach with a
sword just as Khelū legendarily did. People toss bhaṇḍār over Pharāṇḍe, and
during the pilgrimage festival he performs a bhākaṇūk (“telling the future”)
called “Pharāṇḍe's bhākaṇuk.”
Like these descendants of Mhālīṅgrāy or Khelū who have become connected

with Viṭṭhal-Bīrdev's life story, many other devotees come on pilgrimage to
Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī as their families have done for generations. Near Rāybag and
Saṅkeśvar in Belgaum District, for example, there is a ritual called the “milk
pilgrimage” (dūdh-diṇḍī ): Dhangars collect milk from each flock of sheep, and at
the full moon of the months of Bhādrapad and Āśvin (August–October), some
devotees have the honorary right (mān) to offer the milk to the god at
Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī. These devotees come on foot, walking seventy or eighty miles
along with their retinues to the resounding beat of ḍhol drums. Each of these
pilgrimages has a story about how it began.
Thus, there are palanquins in the worship of the Dhangars’ Viṭṭhal too, as in the
Vārkarī pilgrimage to Pandharpur, and there is a pilgrimage, with groups of
pilgrims who form a procession, an honorary order of precedence among them,
set routes for them, and a story about an influential devotee who began each
pilgrimage tradition.32
Page 27 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
Relationship With the Vaiṣṇava Tradition

Bīrappā or Bīrdev is the Dhangars’ most popular god. He lives independently in
numerous places. The Dhangars’ Viṭṭhal, by contrast, has Bīrappā as his
inseparable companion everywhere he lives. Wherever the Dhangar Viṭṭhal is
found, he has Bīrappā with him; this Viṭṭhal is not independent. In Sontheimer's
view (1981: 105), “If Viṭhobā represents the Gavḷīs or Gollas, whose wealth is
based on cattle, Birobā or Bīrāppā represents the Dhangars, who consider their
wealth (dhan) to be goats and sheep.” Sontheimer presents strong evidence for
this view. Viṭṭhal's character as a Gavḷī survives in Dhangar mythology too,
where, as we have just seen, his wife Padūbāī is also known as “Padū Gavḷaṇ.”
(p.264) The story of the quarrel between Viṭṭhal and Padūbāī that Durga
Bhagavat obtained from Dhangars is set not in Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī but in Māḷśīras, a
place near Pandharpur (Bhāgavat 1956: 406–7). According to this version,
Viṭṭhal lived in Māḷśīras before settling in Pandharpur. Some other ways that
Bhagavat's version differs from Mundale's are worth noting as well: After
Padūbāī died beneath a tamarind tree because of Viṭhobā's curse, the people
from her maternal home gathered there. But Viṭhobā took the form of a hissing
cobra at that place, so no one could touch her body. Then Viṭhobā hacked off her
hair and tied it to the tamarind tree, gave her flesh to vultures, and commanded
a cloud, “Carry off her bones to the ocean.” The cloud obeyed the command, and
so no one could get Padūbāī's remains33 either. When Viṭhobā's devotee Māḷīrāyā
(that is, Māḷiṅgrāy or Mhāḷiṅgrāy) heard this, he felt remorse. Tormented by the
realization that it was because of him that his “mother's” life had been ruined,
he undertook asceticism in order to get her remains back from the ocean. In
twelve days, dried up by his asceticism, the ocean surrendered Padūbāī's
remains to Māḷiṅgrāy. He put them into the Candrabhāgā River at Pandharpur,
where they turned into a lotus. When Viṭhobā picked the lotus, Padūbāī
appeared again from within it. Dhangar tradition holds that Rukmiṇī is this re-
manifested Padūbāī.
In Pandharpur today, the folk goddess Padūbāī (Padmāvatī) is worshiped in the

form of an uncarved stone painted with red lead, and Rakhmāī/Rukmiṇī, as we
have seen in chapter 3, is worshiped in the form of an uncarved stone under her
original name, Lakhūbāī. Rukmiṇī/Lakhūbāī lives, as we know, in a tamarind
grove (the Diṇḍīravan), and Masādevī or Mhasādevī, the beloved goddess of the
Koḷī and Gavḷī communities, resides in a separate temple next door. “Mhasā or
Mhasāī is a goddess of the Gavḷīs and of their cattle.… Lakṣmī or Lakhūbāī is
universally known as the goddess of wealth, which for Dhangars consists of
sheep and cattle. This goddess lives inside the sheep pen, and so she is offended
if one wears sandals into it” (Sontheimer 1981: 105). This information, which
Sontheimer provided from direct observation, is significant. Still today, former
Untouchables—that is, the people who originally settled this land and who refer
to themselves with pride as “sons of the Earth”—worship the primitive mother-
goddess Marī under the euphemistic name “Lakṣmīāī.” Marī is well-known all
Page 28 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
over South India as the goddess of rain (vṛṣṭī) and therefore of “creation” (sṛṣṭī);
Lakṣmī-with-Elephants (Gajalakṣmī) is her more prestigious iconic form. To this
day, the tamarind grove in Pandharpur that is the site of the temple of “angry
Rukmiṇī”— originally Lakhūbāī—is surrounded by a settlement of former
Untouchables.
The many independent settlements that continued to be included in Pandharpur

gradually grew together into a “large village” (mahāgrām). According to revenue
records, however, Gopalpur is still an independent village, even though the
sacred (p.265) complex of Pandharpur had its origins here. The Pāṇḍuraṅga
Māhātmya states explicitly that this is where Gopāl Kṛṣṇa first came with his
herds of cattle and his “company of cowherds”; all the Vārkarī saints say this
too, and their devotion tells them that they are cowherd companions of Viṭṭhal as
Gopāl Kṛṣṇa. In addition, people of the “Cowherd” (“Gopāḷ”) caste preserve in
narrative form a tradition that they originally came from Gopalpur near
Pandharpur. Taking all these facts together, we can clearly realize that in
Pandharpur the pastoralists’ original place of Viṭṭhal must have been Gopalpur.
The stories about Viṭṭhal's coming from there to the town of Paṇḍarage for the
sake of Puṇḍalīk or to the Diṇḍīravan in order to pacify Rukmiṇī arose after
Viṭṭhal's new, Vaiṣṇavized holy place had been created in Pandharpur. These
stories were part of the process that brought Lakhūbāī and Puṇḍalīk
(Puṇḍarīkeśvar) into Viṭṭhal's Vaiṣṇava entourage. In the Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya,
Lakhūbāī becomes Viṭṭhal's wife, the angry Rukmiṇī, while Padūbāī or Padmāvatī
becomes his beloved.
Still today there remain many such indications of the identity of the Dhangar
Viṭṭhal, who lives as Bīrappā's companion, with the Viṭṭhal who has attained an
elevated, Vaiṣṇava form in Pandharpur. Given the state of scholarship at the
beginning of the twentieth century, neither Mundale nor other scholars could
have realized the significance of the two Dhangar Viṭṭhal songs he published
(Muṇḍale 1914, 1915). Durga Bhagavat, whose observations should have
awakened Marathi scholars earlier, has provided my inspiration in writing on
this subject; the materials from the Dhangar tradition that Günther Sontheimer
has brought to light support my approach to sorting out the whole process of
development of Lord Viṭṭhal. Bhagavat stated clearly that Viṭṭhal is originally a
pastoralists’ god, Deleury picked up on what she had said, and Sontheimer,
showing fully how the original, pastoralist Viṭṭhal is manifested in numerous
stories, pointed out again and again that Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur arose from the
pastoralist Viṭṭhal. These are my three predecessors in the study of Viṭṭhal. My
debt to Bhagavat and Sontheimer is especially great. The thesis that the saints’
Viṭṭhal is originally a god of pastoralists is Bhagavat's and Sontheimer's; what I
have shown in detail, examining with care each and every step along the way, is
how Viṭṭhal moved from being a god of pastoralists to being a god of the
universalistic Vārkarī saints.
Page 29 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
“For the Sake of Bhakta Kuṇḍalīk”

Although numerous indications of Viṭṭhal's original form are retained in his
developed, Vaiṣṇava form, they are not easy to recognize because they also fit
his identity as Kṛṣṇa. Nonetheless, from time to time, at places in Maharashtra
where (p.266) Viṭṭhal's original form survives, stories and songs claim that it is
identical with his higher form. Prabhakar Mande observed in detail the
Dhangars’ huīk (“predicting the future”) performance as it is celebrated around
the time of Dasarā in the village of Sāvkheḍ in Aurangabad District in
Marāṭhvāḍā (Māṇḍe 1962). His extensive article on this subject presents a
collection of vānācyā vahīs (a special kind of Dhangar ovī-songs, connected with
stories) that are sung before the huīk. These vānācyā vahīs refer with great love
and faith to Pandharpur, to Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur, and to Śambhū Mahādev of
Śikhar Śiṅgṇāpūr. The vahīs express Dhangars’ sense that Viṭṭhal of Pandharpur
and Śambhū Mahādev are Dhangars’ own gods. Textual corruptions introduced
through oral transmission, combined with the unfamiliarity of Dhangar speech,
make it difficult in some places to understand what the vahīs are saying. Still, we
can understand roughly what their author wanted to say, and we can also realize
its importance in the context of this chapter.
One of the vahīs that Mande presents (no. 6) refers clearly to the śikhar (the
mountaintop, Śikhar Śiṅgṇāpūr), to Muṅgī Ghāṭ (the steep path up the hill to
Śiṅgṇāpūr), and to Mahādev of Śiṅgṇāpūr. This vahī also describes the pavāḍās
(marvelous deeds) of the Dhangar devotees who gather there. Immediately after
this, the vahī refers to Viṭṭhal, to his standing on a brick for twenty-eight yugas,
to his having divided the Bhivarā (Bhīmā) River as a “test of faith,” and to
“devotee Kuṇḍalīk” (that is, Puṇḍalīk). Then immediately the text refers to the
god's Dhangar devotees, naming “Ghoḍgirī,” the place of the devotees Yelhobā,
Rājobā, and Mhāḷobā. Mhāḷobā can be recognized as the famous Viṭṭhal devotee
Mhāḷiṅgrāy (Mahāliṅgarāya) of Huljantī.
Sāvkheḍ cannot be a place of just Birobā, as Mande states. According to

information that he himself gives, on the day after the huīk, “Bhagats take
Birobā's pole (kāṭhī) to Māṅgegāv village, which is close to Sāvkheḍ. Bhāgūbāī
enters the body of a local Bhagat next to Bhāgūbāī's temple” (Māṇḍe 1962: 61).
As we know, Bhāgūbāī or Bhāgūlek is Viṭṭhal's daughter in the Dhangar
tradition. So the temple at Sāvkheḍ must be a place of Viṭṭhal and Bīrappā. That
is why Viṭṭhal is mentioned in the vānācyā vahīs in the huīk festival there.
Another vahī (no. 10) tells that when the Koḷīs arrogantly refused to carry “the
two avatārs” across the Bhīvarā River, they spread a blanket ( jāḍī) over the
water, sprinkled turmeric powder (bhaṇḍār) on it, sat on the blanket, and
crossed the river on it. The “two avatārs” are Viṭṭhal and Bīrdev. This vahī also
refers to the “Śikhar” (Śiṅgṇāpūr), to the Muṅgī Ghāṭ there, and to Bhute Telī,
who carries water-pots on a carrying-pole (kāvaḍ) to the Śikhar through Muṅgī
Ghāṭ.
Page 30 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
When we see that these Dhangar singers, who weave together stories about
Pandharpur and Śikhar Śiṅgṇāpūr with equal faith in both, also place the
“devotee (p.267) Kuṇḍalīk” in the same category with the god's Dhangar
devotees Rājobā, Mhāḷobā, and Yelhobā, no doubt remains that these Dhangars
retain a memory that Viṭṭhal, who has attained an elevated Vaiṣṇava form in
Pandharpur, is originally their own god. If we examine carefully the details that
Mande gives about the huīk at Sāvkheḍ (1962: 58–66), we can become aware of
some more commonalities between Viṭṭhal's original form and his elevated,
Vaiṣṇava form. For example, the food offerings of rice-and-yoghurt, millet flour,
and buttermilk that are so important in Viṭṭhal-Bīrdev's Dhangar worship remind
us of the kālā in the worship of Kṛṣṇa Viṭṭhal.34 These Dhangars believe that the
same Viṭṭhal who was driven mad by the devotion of Māḷiṅgrāy of Huljantī has
been standing on a brick for twenty-eight yugas for the sake of “devotee
Kuṇḍalīk.”
Gavḷīs, Dhangars, and Nāmā̄ the Tailor

In Pandharpur's Gopalpur, Viṭṭhal-Bīrdev became Gopāl Kṛṣṇa. The previous
chapter demonstrated how Māhātmyas preserve the memory of his two images
or double form, and how this double form (dvirūpa or dvi virūpa) has led pandits
to interpret the Vedic hymn “Dve Virūpe” as referring to Viṭṭhal and thereby
bestowing Vedic prestige on him. It is important to ask what happened to
Viṭṭhal's original devotees in Pandharpur after he had been Vaiṣṇavized and
Vedicized there. The Koḷīs, who have cared for the Śiva temples in Pandharpur
since before Viṭṭhal's Vaiṣṇavization, tenaciously preserve their “Śaiva
disposition” to this day. They proudly say that their neighborhood in Pandharpur
is on “permanent” (dharīv) lands—that is, that they were among the first settlers
here. The Dhangars who live in Pandharpur today claim to have come later,
attracted there by Viṭṭhal. The Gavḷīs in Pandharpur are Liṅgāyats (Śaivas), but
they have built temples of Nanda, Yaśodā, and Bāḷkṛṣṇa, and they celebrate the
Govardhan festival to make rain fall. That means that, despite being Śaivas, they
rely on Vaiṣṇava deities and rituals—or, rather, despite being Śaivas they
preserve the original religion of pastoralists.
But the situation in Pandharpur is similar in an important respect to that in

Śikhar Śiṅgṇāpūr. The god Śambhū Mahādev of Śiṅgṇāpūr first arose out of the
harmonious cultural and social relationships between Koḷīs and Gavḷīs
(Deśpāṇḍe and Pāṭīl 1979: 345–50); nevertheless, it is now only Baḍves
(Brāhmaṇs) who have the right to serve as priests there. Similarly, even though
Koḷīs and Gavḷīs were involved in the creation of the sacred complex of
Pandharpur, Gavḷīs and Dhangars now have no special connection with the
worship of Viṭṭhal there. When Dhangar stories about Viṭṭhal mention his place
at Pandharpur, we can hear echoes of a vague recollection that Nāmā Śimpī
(Nāmdev the Tailor) was Viṭṭhal's favorite devotee (Sontheimer 1981 (p.268) :
105). No other great saint is mentioned. This means that Nāmdev was Viṭṭhal's
first famous devotee after the god took on an advanced Vaiṣṇava form in
Page 31 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
Pandharpur. It also means that in Nāmdev's time, Gavḷīs and Dhangars must
have still preserved the proud belief that Viṭṭhal was “their” god. Subsequently
their special relationship with him was completely erased from memory.
Once Again Toward Sanskritization

A sympathetic, perceptive analysis of the worship of Viṭṭhal and Bīrdev in
Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī, the great center of the pastoralist Viṭṭhal, can illustrate well the
kind of circulation that takes place between the elite and the masses. When the
gods of the masses, their beliefs, and their cultural conceptions become
extremely popular, the leaders of the elite think of ways to embrace those
deities, that faith, and those conceptions, and to raise them to their own cultural
level. A sect that wants to include a particular social class, caste, or community
in its orbit has to use this same method—as the Vīraśaivas did in making Bīrdev
into Vīrabhadra, or as the Jains did in giving the merchants’ Yakṣas a place
among the divine attendants of the Tīrthaṅkaras.
Conversely as well, there is a tendency among the masses to imitate or follow

the culture of the elite in the hope of gaining higher status. This means that the
masses must continually elaborate or transform their own practices, ideas, faith,
worship, and theological conceptions in the light of those of the elite. Because
the elite seem to be on a higher level, we must call this a process of “elevation.”
In the context of traditional India, it is generally a process of Vedicization or
Sanskritization.
In Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī the Dhangars have faithfully preserved the pastoralist mythology

of Viṭṭhal and Bīrdev. During the Āśvin pilgrimage festival, which attracts larger
and larger crowds each year, this mythology is presented night after night in
Dhangar ovīs accompanied by barrel drums (ḍhols) and cymbals. However, even
while preserving their gods’ traditional stories and method of worship, the
Dhangars of this place think somewhat differently nowadays. They have become
settled, and new kinds of education, new means of transport, and new media of
communication unavoidably place them in continuous contact with the broader
society around them. This makes them feel a great attraction for the advanced,
Vaiṣṇava form of Viṭṭhal—for the theological ideas of the class of people whose
specialty it is to interpret Viṭṭhal.
Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī's Dhangars wanted their god to have a birthday celebration

(jayantī) just like the ones for Rām and Kṛṣṇa, and so they declared the fourth
day (p.269) of the dark fortnight of Vaiśākh (April–May) Bīrdev Jayantī; since
1957, they have celebrated Bīrdev's birthday on that day. Because Viṭṭhal lives
with Bīrdev, the eleventh day (ekādaśī) of each fortnight35 has recently been
given a place in the regular worship of Viṭṭhal and Bīrdev, along with Sunday. On
the ekādaśı̄ day, cooked varī-grain is considered indispensable, instead of the
regular food offerings of yoghurt, rice, millet bread, and eggplant. Nowadays a
good deal of attention is paid to excluding alcohol and meat from the pilgrimage
Page 32 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
festival.36 In 1979, N. K. Mothe, a Dhangar, organized a seven-day recitation of

the Jn͂āneśvarī during the Bīrdev Jayantī festival. Liquor stores were closed for
the seven days of the recitation, and the non-vegetarian food offerings that are
otherwise always allowed outside the temple were banned.
Especially noteworthy is the fact that, besides continuing to sing their traditional
ovīs, some Dhangars have now composed new liturgical texts as well. Two
priests, Nārāyaṇ Viṭṭhal Pujārī and Śrīpatī Viṭṭhal Nehare, have published an
anthology of this new liturgical literature (Pujārī and Nehare 1980). The
anthology contains ritual songs (āratīs) for and other songs (padas) about
Viṭṭhal, Bīrdev, Bhāgīrathī (Viṭṭhal's daughter), Gaṅgā Suravantī (Bīrdev's
mother), and other deities. Many of the compositions are “made by Nārāyaṇ”—
that is, composed by Nārāyaṇ Viṭṭhal Pujārī, one of the editors. At the very
beginning of an āratī for Viṭṭhal, Nārāyaṇ Pujārī inadvertently mixes up two
traditions of worship: he mentions the turmeric-powder (bhaṇḍār) adornment,
the blanket, the flag, the companionship of Bīrappā, the place in Koḍolī
(Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī), and the festival in the month of Āśvin, all from the Dhangar
tradition, and yet he also imagines Viṭṭhal as identical with Hari in Dvārakā and
with Śrīkṛṣṇa Murārī:
(p.270) Refrain: Victory, O god; victory, O god; victory, King Viṭhū.

Turmeric powder as adornment; a blanket as a flag giving shade.
Hari of Dvārakā, Śrīkṛṣṇa Murārī.
Chowries wave over Viṭṭhal-Bīrāp[p]ā.
Great is the glory in the town of Koḍolī.
In the month of Āśvin they prepare for the festival.
In a devotional song (pad) by this same poet, Viṭṭhal is with Bīrdev, and yet,
because Bīrdev has primacy, the goal that the poet expresses is to attain Śiva's
heaven, Kailās—“through firm devotion one attains a place in Kailās.” He does
not think of Vaikuṇṭha, Viṣṇu's heaven. Using “Kauṇḍiṇya” as a Sanskritized
form of Koḍolī, he says that “Kauṇḍiṇya” is the home of liberation and that “the
greatness of Kauṇḍiṇya is incomparable”:
Refrain: Meditate on Viṭṭhal and Bīrdev.

Through firm devotion one attains a place in Kailās.
Kauṇḍiṇya is the home of liberation (mukti).
O Bīrdev, give me a boon.
I put my faith in you.
Protect your devotees, O father.
What is it that leads Dhangars in Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī to think that Koḍolī is

“Kauṇḍiṇyapūr”? It is the imperative of Sanskritization, the dormant awareness
of Sanskritization as a means of ascent, the cultural conditioning that it is
through Sanskritization that one attains high social status. Some years ago, this
awareness led some Dhangars to commission a Brāhmaṇ, Narahari Joshi, to
compose a “Bīrdev Māhātmya” in ovī verse based on narrative materials about
Page 33 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
Viṭṭhal and Bīrdev that they provided. This “Bīrdev Māhātmya” is the
sthalapurāṇa of Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī.37 It is the source of the Sanskritized form
“Kauṇḍiṇyapūr” for Koḍolī, and it provided the inspiration for the authors of the
āratīs. In the introduction to the āratī anthology (Pujārī and Nehare 1980) the
editors state, “Shri Narahari Joshi, a learned man from Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī, composed
the ‘Bīrdev Māhātmya.’ For the past twenty years we have been researching
stories in order to complete the text, in which a small part of the story is
missing. It has taken us a long time to obtain that story. We have supplemented
the twenty-one-chapter text that Narahari wrote, so that it is now thirty-one
chapters long, and we will publish the longer version very soon.”
While, on the one hand, religious faith is on the decline, on the other hand, the
original beliefs are being elaborated and their status enhanced in this way.
History shows that when a traditional social group struggles to raise its status,
prestigious religious conceptions are the means by which it must obtain its new
identity. When the Dhangars of Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī use their faith in Viṭṭhal-Bīrdev to
forge a path to a new identity, the next generations will see what new forms they
give to their primitive god. The Viṭṭhal of Viṭṭhal-Bīrdev is a trustworthy guide in
this. In pre-Vedic times, he showed cowherds the way in the form of the god
Pūṣan. In the Dvāpara Yuga, as Kṛṣṇa, he formed a long-standing friendship with
all pastoralists. Seven or eight centuries ago, in the same form but now with the
name Viṭṭhal, he called out to the lowest and most oppressed castes of all.
Because of his tradition of friendship with the people, he must nowadays seem a
“supreme friend” not only to pastoralists but to all the oppressed.
Notes:
(1.) Translator's note: Dhere's original wording is “almost seven decades ago.”
(2.) See also the other writings of Sontheimer listed in the bibliography of this
book.
(3.) Translator's note: Dhere refers to Durga Bhagavat here affectionately as

Durgātāī, “elder sister Durga.”
(4.) Translator's note: Ovī is a term used for several types of traditional oral (and
some written) Marathi literature. Here, I believe, Bhagvat is referring to
women's grinding songs. Later in this chapter, Dhere will use the same term to
refer to shepherds’ longer story-songs. Both these forms are called ovī in
Marathi.
(5.) Translator's note: Tuḷas is the holy basil plant, tulśī, often seen as the
beloved of Kṛṣṇa.
(6.) Translator's note: The soil of Maharashtra is generally black, in contrast to

the red earth typical of Karnataka.
Page 34 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
(7.) Shri B. R. Sunthankar has told me, “Communities like Gavḷīs and Dhangars
constitute approximately 18 percent of the population of Karnataka.”
(8.) See the appendix “Paṇḍharpurātīl Korīv Lekh” (“Inscriptions in

Paṇḍharpūr”), in the original Marathi version of this book.
(10.) Translator's note: In chapters 3 and 4.
(11.) The Pāṇḍuraṅga Māhātmya also considers Gopalpur the original place
where Viṭṭhal played his games (līḷās) in the form of Kṛṣṇa. According to the
Māhātmya story, Kṛṣṇa first came to Gopalpur along with his cattle and his
cowherd companions. The Māhātmya confirms the belief that what made this
place holy was the impression on the ground of Kṛṣṇa's, the cows’, and the
cowherds’ footprints.
(12.) Translator's note: Here Dhere is referring to the idea that the Mahārs are
the original residents of Maharashtra, and that Maharashtra (Mahā[r]-rāṣṭra) is
named for them.
(15.) Karmarkar and Otūrkar 1936–37: 40.
(16.) Derrett 1957: 15; Sheik Ali 1972: 39–40; Saletore 1938: 62–63.
(17.) Translator's note: Dhere's Marathi text uses the inclusive form of “our”
here, including his intended readers with himself as sharing the tradition.
(18.) Translator's note: Cf. chapter 3.
(19.) Translator's note: Garaṭlimb is a type of neem tree, Melia azedarach.
(20.) Translator's note: Varī is a small grain that can be cooked like rice.
(21.) Translator's note: Rāhī and Rakhmāī are Rādhā and Rukmiṇī.
(22.) Translator's note: That is, when the moon enters the Mṛga nakṣatra (lunar
mansion).
(23.) Translator's note: A kapilā cow is a special one, tawny-colored all over.
(24.) Translator's note: A śāluṅkā is the stand upon which a Śiva liṅga rests.
(25.) Translator's note: The lengthy description is found in Dhere's original

Marathi book (1984: 324–26). I have omitted it here.
Page 35 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
(26.) Translator's note: In chapter 2.
(27.) The holy man who first proclaimed this Vāghya a Siddha was Śrīkākā
Purāṇik of Dhūtpāpeśvar. Because of his proclamation, the “Vāghya” became
Vāgdev Mahārāj—“Vāghyadev” was Sanskritized as “Vāgdev,” a name that
points to the power of his voice (vāc). Śrīkākā Purāṇik attracted two
industrialists from Mumbai—Sāṇḍū, a pharmaceuticals manufacturer; and
Keḷkar, an inkmaker—to Vāgdev Mahārāj, and they spent a great deal of money
increasing the splendor of Viṭṭhal-Birobā. Keḷkar still manages the worship of
Vāgdev Mahārāj's samādhi at Vāṭhār and the annual celebration of his death
anniversary.
(28.) Translator's note: Dhere gives a complete text of these two songs in an
appendix to the original Marathi version of this book (Ḍhere 1984: 387–401).
(30.) Translator's note: And therefore a vegetarian.
(31.) When I went to see Māyākkā in Cin͂clī on 10 November 1983 (during the
month of Kārtik), I saw many such palanquins in the temple courtyard. Among
them was the palanquin of Mhāḷiṅgrāy of Huljantī, a great devotee of the
Dhangars’ Viṭṭhal. Huljantī, Mhāḷiṅgrāy's place, is near Maṅgaḷveḍhe (Solapur
District). The Koḷīs of Pandharpur, who are worshipers of Śiva, consider this
Mhāḷiṅgrāy one of their family deities, and they take newly married couples to
Huljantī for their nuptial pilgrimage (ohar-yātrā). For the sake of this great
devotee, Viṭṭhal and Bīrdev created a place for themselves in Huljantī as well.
(32.) In recent years, the priests of Viṭṭhal and Bīrdev at Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī have
published a number of articles on the occasion of the pilgrimage festival in local
newspapers and magazines. See Bhānse 1980; Mullā 1978; Nehare 1979, 1981,
1982, 1983, and 1984; and “Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī yethīl Jāgṛt Devasthān—Śrīviṭṭhal-
Bīrdev” 1982.
(33.) Translator's note: Her bones/ashes (asthī). Without her asthī, no one could
carry out her funeral rites.
(35.) Translator's note: In the Vārkarī tradition, the eleventh day (ekādaśī) of
each fortnight is dedicated to Viṭṭhal.
(36.) Translator's note: Abstinence from meat and alcohol are important aspects
of the Vārkarīs’ code of conduct.
Page 36 of 37
The Yādavas’ God
(37.) Tara Bhavalkar (of Sāṅglī) went to Paṭṭaṇkoḍolī for me and obtained a
Xerox copy of the manuscript of the “Bīrdev Māhātmya,” with the cooperation of
S. V. Nehare. However, because of constraints of space, I have not been able to
provide an introduction to that text here.
Page 37 of 37
The Body Is Paṇḍharī


Print ISBN-13: 9780199777594
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.001.0001

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777594.003.0016

This final chapter presents a culminating stage in the evolution of the cult of
Viṭṭhal: its interpretation in spiritual terms. The chapter discusses, in turn,
spiritual interpretations that the Marathi poet-saints have given of the river at
Pandharpur, of Pandharpur itself, of the temple of Viṭṭhal there, and of the god
himself. The chapter discusses analogies in bhakti literature between the human
body and temples, and analogies between various moral categories, such as
remorse or a good person, on the one hand, and holy water-places (tīrthas), on
the other. The chapter also examines the extensive image Jñāneśvar uses in
comparing the Bhagavadgītā to the “Kailās” cave-temple at Ellora.
Keywords: spiritual interpretations, Pandharpur, bhakti literature, human bodies, temples, moral
categories, Ellora
to conclude this book, we will examine the most lofty form that the Marathi
saints gave to Pandharpur, to the Candrabhāgā River, to Viṭṭhal, and to Viṭṭhal's
temple on the Candrabhāgā in Pandharpur.
From very ancient times, people have proclaimed the importance of holy waters,
holy places, and temples. Of course, human life has always been affected by
ideas of holiness and pollution, but the holiness of particular waters, places, and
temples pervades the entire land and society of India. From Kashmir to
Kanyakumari, from Kacch and Kathiawar to Kamarup, all of India from north to
south and east to west is watered by innumerable pools and streams that are
considered holy. India teems with holy places, and the temples in these
innumerable holy places stretch up to the sky. This water is sacred, that water is
Page 1 of 21
profane; this place is sacred, that one is profane; this animal is sacred, that one
is profane; this object is sacred, that one is profane; this moment is sacred, that
one is profane: our collective mind continually passes through the alternation
between sacred and profane. Life is basically profane, and the traditional
collective mind wants to transform that life and make it sacred. The urge to
make the profane sacred is what moves us to make use of holy waters, holy
places, temples, vows, and rituals. We burn with the hope of bringing a symbolic
—or, on occasion, real—end to our profane, non-sacred life. In order to obtain
divine rebirth, a new sacred life, we continually create tīrthas, erect temples in
one holy place after another, delight in pilgrimages and in rituals performed at
pilgrimage places, and wear ourselves out making and fulfilling vows. (p.272)
In the presence of the sacred, our profane character, our lack of sacrality, is
eclipsed, and we too become sacred: this is part of the concept “sacred.”1
Waters That Transform

From ancient times, holy water and holy water-places (tīrthas) have been among
the things that people have revered the most. Because water gives life, it is
revered as life itself. As the cause of creation, it is also seen as a mother. We
continually experience water's power to remove dirt and to provide physical and
mental tranquility, and so people believe that water also removes sins and
produces merit. Entering its womb and coming back out is like being reborn—
hence the traditional conception that a bath in a holy water-place transforms
one's life. Purāṇic literature and traditional folk narratives include many stories
of people whose form was changed when they were immersed in water. Symbolic
transformation through water is especially significant, as it indicates the end of
one's earlier life and the beginning of a new, heavenly life. This symbolism also
clarifies our traditional point of view toward tīrthas (Ḍhere 1978a: 119–30).
Traditional Imagery and Social Development

A tīrtha is a place through which one can be saved (tarūn jāṇe). Originally it was
a ford in a river or stream. As people experienced the two faces of creation—
fierce and terrible on the one hand, gentle and beautiful on the other—and as
they experienced the dual powers to create and destroy, to save and kill, to
cause happiness and suffering, many profound beliefs came to pervade human
consciousness. Ever since people first understood that their own capacities were
limited in the face of those infinite powers, people have striven to find the means
to control them—to conceal their frightfulness, their destructive character, their
ability to cause suffering—and to forge a congenial relationship with them. Thus,
people decided that water itself compassionately provides a ford in the roiling
current, and that impassable mountain roads surrounded by thick forests and
frequented by violent animals are the abode of forest deities.
Even the way (mārg) that leads to beasts of prey (mṛg) fixed a special emotional
tie in the human mind. The term mārg (“way, path, road”), which is derived from
mṛg, indicates the way to mṛg—that is, the way to go out hunting. Later, as our
Page 2 of 21
culture developed, we carried the concept of mārg to great spiritual heights. The
mārg about which Jn͂āneśvar says, “The mārg on which Maheś [Śiva] is still a
pilgrim” (Jn͂ā. 6.153) penetrates the essence of the universe. Something similar
has (p.273) happened with tīrtha. Its original meaning is “a place to cross a
river or stream,” but now we see a tīrtha as a means of purifying our lives.
The concept of sacrifice (yajn͂a) also has an enlightening history. A sacrifice is a

ritual in which an animal is killed to ward off evil from a village or caste
community, to bring about its welfare, and to enhance the fertility of women and
the earth. At root, then, sacrifice involves killing. However, the concept of
sacrifice has developed to a point where we now use the term for any
renunciation, small or large, made for the sake of fulfillment, nourishment, or
creativity. Even in very recent times, all of Vinobā Bhāve's language was
pervaded with sacrificial imagery. If leaders understand the human mind and do
not deride traditional thought, they can raise the level of a society's thinking by
filling hallowed traditional concepts with new, rich meanings appropriate to the
age.
Centers of Social Life

The saints took this same point of view toward tīrthas, holy places (kṣetras), and
temples. Meritorious acts are traditionally classified as iṣṭa and pūrta. Sacrifices
and other Vedic rituals are iṣṭa acts, and pūrta acts include building wells, tanks,
lakes, stairways at tīrthas, temples, and rest houses for pilgrims. At some point,
the right to do iṣṭa acts came to belong exclusively to Brāhmaṇs—or, at least, not
to castes ranked as Śūdra. At that point, people began to compete at performing
pūrta acts in order to obtain merit. Most of the old cave temples and free-
standing temples in India were completed during the time after the Kuṣāṇa and
Gupta periods and before the Islamic incursions, a period when the urge to carry
out such projects was especially intense. These temples became centers for the
development of architecture, sculpture, dance, and music. Even today, in a
dilapidated state, they are architectural and sculptural wonders. All of village
life is still built around them, and traditional education is closely tied to them as
well. Considering the economic importance of the festivals, pilgrimages, and
pilgrimage festivals at such temples, one can imagine what an all-pervasive
influence temples had on traditional life.
But this salutory influence of tīrthas, kṣetras, and temples was not without its
dark side. Temples with royal support that became wealthy through land grants
from kings and nobles nourished social parasites who sucked society dry. Temple
dancers (devadāsīs) employed for the god's entertainment and pleasure
worshiped him with dance and music, but they also made temples of the gods
into temples of pleasure for their own wealthy patrons. Temple priests, who
were maintained so that they could conduct the god's worship, began greedily
devouring both one another and those who came for darśan of the god. The
saints were aware of all (p.274) these good and bad sides of pilgrimage places.
Page 3 of 21
The saints saw that the masses believe that “the merit from going to tīrthas is
even better than sacrifices,” and that through pilgrimages people experience the
special satisfaction of contact with the divine. In accord with the tradition that2
At tīrthas, at weddings, on pilgrimages, when the whole land is in

crisis,
or when a town or village is on fire, there is no touchability or
untouchability,
the saints also recognized that tīrthas are important as places where one gets (to
some extent by necessity) a brief reprieve from the insulting ideas of touchability
and untouchability.
That is why the saints did not uproot the idea of tīrthas, did not loathe kṣetras,
did not deny the holiness of temples; rather, they accepted the prestige of these
conceptions and by alchemy filled them all with superior, lofty meaning. Merely
accepting this new meaning, the saints claimed, would sweep away the defects
of tīrthas, holy places, and temples, allowing their holiness to remain and
increasing their power to sanctify the human mind. Let us now come to
understand in the saints’ own words how this purificatory process works.
“The Body is a Temple, the Legs are its Columns”

Basaveśvar, a famous Kannada Śiva devotee who predated Jn͂āneśvar, fiercely
attacked external ritual devoid of emotion. He clamored loudly that religious life
should be purified in all respects, and that irreligion masquerading as religion
should be overthrown. Majestic, tall temples, elaborate divine images residing in
the temples, magnificent gold and jewels adorning the images, festivals and
rituals of worship, a class of priests appointed by kings to conduct the worship
and the festivals, huge donations of land and money for the expenses of the
priests and their rituals, and the injustice that pervades this whole array of
rituals and jewels and gold—Basaveśvar saw all this with open eyes. There were
magnificent temples of Śiva in both Bāgevāḍī, his birthplace, and Kūḍalasaṅgam,
the abode of his god. It disturbed Basaveśvar to realize that this external
magnificence was suffocating the magnificence of the heart and leaving no place
for ordinary, simple devotees. To express this tormenting worry, he called out to
his god:3
A rich man will build temples for you.

I am poor, so what am I to do?
(p.275) My body itself is a temple, my legs are its columns,
this head a golden dome.
O Kūḍalsaṅgamdev, whatever is stationary
will fall down with time.
But what moves (jaṅgam), what has life,
will undoubtedly live forever.
Page 4 of 21
What Basaveśvar self-confidently told his god is a great truth. His exclamations
touch the primordial secret of devotion. Setting up before our eyes such
oppositions as rich and poor, stationary and moving, destructible and
indestructible, Basaveśvar proclaims unhesitatingly that the tall, handsome
temples that the wealthy build to display their own grandeur will sometime or
another fall down under the blows of terrifying time; at one time or another they
will break apart and disappear, they will be abandoned. Human life, quickened
by consciousness, has the boon of permanence. When divinized, the
magnificence of this life outstrips that of any temple. Thus, if a faithful devotee
does not become ensnared by the delusory net of dry ritualism, and if he values
above all else the religion of the heart, he brings the god into himself, making
his whole life a gorgeous temple. Basaveśvar's sect (the Vīraśaivas or Liṅgāyats)
refers to such a devotee as a Jaṅgam. Jaṅgam means “moving,” not stationary.
Basaveśvar understands the Jaṅgam to be Śiva's walking, talking temple, where
Śiva resides happily in the sanctuary of the heart. Indeed, this is what all the
saints believe.
The Use of Symbols

The temple is originally a symbol of the body, of life. Traditional architectural
theory sometimes considers the temple a tree and sees the parts of the temple
as the limbs of the tree; at other times it sees the temple as a human body and
names the parts of the temple for the parts of the body. The tree and the human
body have long been seen as identical, and so there is no difference between
seeing a temple as standing for a tree and seeing it as standing for the body. The
idea of the tree of life is found all over the world. In speaking in Marathi about
possession by gods or other superhuman powers, we call a human body a
“tree” ( jhāḍ ): we speak of “taking hold of the tree” and “letting go of the tree.”
From the earliest times to the present, there has been a tradition in India of
installing gods at the foot of trees—that is, of causing a god to live in the temple
of the body. Such is the conceptual unity between considering a temple a symbol
of a tree and considering it a symbol of the human body. When ancient sages
saw the moving (jaṅgam) form (p.276) of the human body, they called it a
chariot, and so temples, too, which stand for the body, were often carved in the
form of a chariot. The Upaniṣadic idea that the body is a chariot and the soul
that resides in it is the charioteer, the driver of the chariot, clarifies the
relationship among body, chariot, and temple.
This idea of the temple as a symbol of the body means that seeing a temple
should turn pilgrims’ eyes inward; when they enter the sanctuary of the temple
and see the image of god before them, they should immediately become aware of
the divinity that resides in the sanctuary of their heart. If the temple is a symbol,
it should bring about a realization of what it symbolizes. A symbol indicates a
basic truth; it reminds us of that truth; it is a way of enlivening the external
world by means of internal glory. But when, in the course of time, the power of
symbols decreases and fades, when symbols become mere external rituals, then
Page 5 of 21
the creative use of those dead symbols is severely restricted. Under their shelter,
fakes, opportunistic holy men, and selfish people devour society, corrupt its life,
and keep on achieving their demonic, selfish ends in the anarchy of that
corrupted life. In such adverse conditions, vigilant minds rise up, take a stand,
and put an end to the situation. They fiercely attack the dead symbols, and they
use all available means to make people aware of the original truth. Symbols are
born in the first place in order to provide easy access to truth; when the symbols
instead begin to conceal the truth, it is necessary to oppose them and to insist on
the truth itself. This is the position that the saints took with respect to temples,
opposing the way they nourished materialism devoid of faith.
In the words of A. K. Ramanujan (1973: 20–21), this conflict of the saints is one
of “flesh and blood against stone,” “a social upheaveal by and for the poor, the
low-caste and the outcaste against the rich and the privileged,” a struggle of
“being” in the presence of the universal spirit, faithful to one's internal instincts,
against “making” something externally showy with material wealth. The saints
do not want to make anything external; rather, they want to become something,
blossoming more and more from within. They do not want to practice verbal
punditry about the relationship of the soul, the world, and the lord, but rather to
experience in their own lives the unity in that relationship. The saints want
temples, but only in order to sustain the urge to install divinity in their own lives.
They want kṣetras, but only in order to keep their entire lives pure; and they
want tīrthas, but only in order to wash their dirty minds and to preserve the
purity of their hearts. If tīrthas, kṣetras, and temples prevent these things from
happening, the tīrthas, kṣetras, and temples are worth no more than “rocks and
water”! This is what Tukārām, the “pinnacle” of Bhāgavat religion in
Maharashtra,4 stated with utter clarity (Tukā. Gā. 2050): “In tīrthas there are
rocks and water; god is right there in good people.”
(p.277) “He is a Tīrtha, He is a Kṣetra”

Jn͂āneśvar illustrates well the saints’ position with respect to tīrthas, kṣetras, and
temples. He acknowledges their importance, and he believes that their holiness,
accepted and nourished by tradition, is useful for perfecting people's inner life.
Jn͂āneśvar sings many words glorifying the water of the Ganges, which flows
along “nourishing the trees on its banks and absorbing people's sins and
sufferings” (cf. Jn͂ā. 16.197). He also proclaims the glory of bathing in the ocean,
saying that such a bath “brings about the benefits of the tīrthas in all three
worlds” (Jn͂ā. 1.26). But when he thinks of a pure-gold pot filled with Ganges
water, what he sees is the heart of a good man, overflowing with purity (Jn͂ā.
16.195):
Now, it is pure like a water-pot

made of pure gold filled with nectar from the Ganges.
Page 6 of 21
Describing the purity of a good man this way, Jn͂āneśvar wonders for a moment,
and then decides that he gets many times more joy from experiencing the pure
heart of a good man than an ordinary, traditional, faithful person gets from
seeing a golden pot full of Ganges water. The presence of a good man—even just
his glance—allows one to experience infinitely greater powers than those of
tīrthas to take away sins and to transform a person (Jn͂ā. 5.74):
Wherever his glance falls there is a shower of joy.

He says, stay there, great enlightenment.
A good man with such powers makes tīrthas themselves holy. Jn͂āneśvar praises
this sort of man repeatedly, calling him a “king of tīrthas” (Jn͂ā. 6.102):
The one whose name is “king of tīrthas,” the sight of whom is

beneficial,
connection with whom gives someone who is in error the experience
of
the Absolute.…
In one verse, Jn͂āneśvar goes even farther, proclaiming that such men are
themselves tīrthas, that they are temples, and that they are the very holiness of
tīrthas (Jn͂ā. 4.61):
They have the form of tīrthas, are heaps of the brilliance of

asceticism,
or a one-shrined temple to knowledge; they are the holiness of
tīrthas.
(p.278) Therefore Jn͂āneśvar gives this advice to lost souls who wander around
trying in one tīrtha after another to wash away their sins and obtain merit (Jn͂ā.
3.89):
Do not practice vows or follow rules, do not torture your body, never
go
far away to a tīrtha.
When one plunges into tīrthas, the dirt of one's mind does not get washed away.
If one goes into the water of a tīrtha thinking that the bath will wash away one's
sins and that one's life will be filled with merit, one's false pride in obtaining
merit will grow, but one will get nothing else. If one enters the water of a tīrtha
without a deep realization of one's sins and without intense remorse for them,
and if being close to a tīrtha makes one forget the exemplary lives of meritorious
people, only one's body will be cleansed, not one's mind. Filled with mental dirt,
that vessel of life will allow nothing holy to enter (Jn͂ā. 13.466–67):
Otherwise, then, Arjun, if one is not pure inside,

external acts are truly a disgrace.
As if death put on jewelry, or a donkey bathed in a tīrtha;
Page 7 of 21
as if sour milk were smeared with jaggery.
Without inner purification, external acts are only a disgrace. Bathing in a tīrtha
without an intense desire to rid oneself of mental dirt is like bathing a donkey in
a tīrtha: with these sharp words Jn͂āneśvar rejects the external ritual of bathing
in tīrthas. Again and again, in various ways, Jn͂āneśvar tells us what a true tīrtha
is and what a true bath in a tīrtha is like.
A Bath in the Tīrtha of Remorse

Jn͂āneśvar uses the joyful experience of bathing in a tīrtha to speak of serving
one's mother and father, one's guru, and saintly people. So profound is his faith
in the good guru (Jn͂ā. 13.447) that he says that water that has been sanctified
by the touch of the guru's feet invites all tīrthas to come to it on pilgrimage in
order to perfect their own holiness. Because mothers and fathers are “the best
tīrthas of all,” what makes life meaningful is to serve them by ritually waving
one's body before them and then throwing it away:5 this precept of Jn͂āneśvar's
fits well with the example of Puṇḍalīk (Jn͂ā. 17.206).
(p.279) Jn͂āneśvar feels that saintly people's character as tīrthas is beyond

description. In paying homage to the meritorious man whose inner purity has
made him the refuge even of tīrthas, who has banished all his mental dirt,
Jn͂āneśvar continues to feel that all moments are appropriate times for the rite of
sandhyā.6 Again and again he proclaims about such a man, “He is a tīrtha, he is
a kṣetra; he alone is holy” (Jn͂ā. 12.232). This exclamation of Jn͂āneśvar's is
entirely consistent with the statement by Nārada, the great sage who first
proclaimed the science of devotion: “The devotee makes tīrthas
holy” (tīrthīkurvanti tīrthāṇi; Nārada Bhaktisūtre 69, Pāṅgārkar 1927: 80).
Other agreeable sentiments too color Jn͂āneśvar's conception of tīrtha. Using

metaphors like “tīrtha of virtues,” “tīrtha of remorse,” “tīrtha of discrimination,”
and “tīrtha of liberation,” he considerably extends the semantic range of the
term. Jn͂āneśvar—or rather, Lord Kṛṣṇa himself, Jn͂āneśvar's god—promises that
people who begin to feel heartfelt shame about their sins, their despicable evil
deeds, will certainly, through this mental bath in the tīrtha of remorse, get the
power to transform their life (Jn͂ā. 9.416–17):
If someone afflicted by sin bathes in the tīrtha of remorse

and, after his bath, enters me with all his heart,
his family is now holy; they are high-born and pure.
It has been fruitful for him to be born.
“The tīrtha of remorse”—the sentiment of remorse, of repentence, is itself a

tīrtha! A human being must change from within. For this change to come about,
it is necessary to become dissatisfied with one's previous condition, to be
disgusted with it. It is to this disgust with the behavior that arises from one's
habits and tendencies that Jn͂āneśvar applies the poignant term “tīrtha of
Page 8 of 21
remorse.” To bathe in the tīrtha of remorse is to bring about an interior change

through the process of repentance. It is to obtain the capacity to change one's
inner form, the center that inspires one's whole way of life.
Bathing in the tīrtha of remorse is so unfailingly powerful that afterward one's

mind comes to be fully under the control of discriminating insight (vivek)—the
mind starts leaping toward the bank of the tīrtha of such insight. Another of
Jn͂āneśvar's tīrtha terms, “the tīrtha of discriminating insight,” is also
extraordinarily significant. Even just to arrive on the bank of the tīrtha of
discriminating insight inspires one to wash away all the dirt from one's intellect;
one then begins to enjoy unending pleasure in the tīrtha of happiness (or, in
Jn͂āneśvar's terms, in the tīrtha of final liberation).
The Glory of the Tīrtha of Good Company

(p.280) Just as tīrthas are understood to have the power of transformation or of
changing people's lives, the reiterated testimony of Jn͂āneśvar and all the other
Vārkarī saints is that good company too has the power to change people's lives.
Jn͂āneśvar believed firmly that if everyone bathed in the tīrtha of good company,
society would be transformed for the good, and so he prayed at the feet of the
divine soul of the world that “the company of those intent on the Lord” might
continually meet beings on earth. If these “walking wish-trees” or “human wish-
gems” began to move around on earth, “whoever wants anything” would
undoubtedly get it. Like the Ganges River, which nourishes the trees on its banks
and cleanses the sins and sufferings of people, these human tīrthas will simply
demolish the “crookedness” of the wicked, causing even evil goblins to lactate
with goodness.
Jn͂āneśvar's language here points to the power of transformation. An evil person

is not to be struck with a weapon, but to be embraced with love—it is only his
evil that is to be washed away. The goblin, the evil member of the family of
godlings and demons, should be made to lactate with the milk of goodness. Only
the demonic quality of the goblin or demon is to be done away with, and he is to
be filled with divine prosperity. The inner transformation that not even
innumerable baths in tīrthas can bring about is accomplished through the
company of saints and good men, by bathing in the tīrtha of good company. In
Jn͂āneśvar's world, just a glance from such a man can bring about a shower of
bliss—this marvelous power of transformation is stored up in the tīrtha of his
compassionate glance. Tukārām, who enriches Jn͂āneśvar's heritage in all
respects, uses a breathtaking image to make this point: “Tukā says, before your
eyes, we’ll turn a donkey into a horse.”7
In commenting on Bhagavadgītā 9.14, “They praise me constantly,” Jn͂āneśvar

sketches an enchanting picture of the mystical acumen of people whose
alchemical presence transforms society inwardly. When great-souled ones begin
to get engrossed in the Lord's kīrtan,8 rituals of expiation are no longer needed,
Page 9 of 21
because, in the company of these people, not even the name of sin remains.
Restraint goes into decline, because there is nothing left to control; austerities
also deteriorate, because they do not know what to subdue; and tīrthas lose their
place, because they do not find a single fault to wash away. The whole world
resounds with great joy (Jn͂ā. 9.196–99):
The singing and dancing of the kīrtan put penances out of work.
Sin lost even its name.
Restraints and austerities went into decline; tīrthas were displaced;
all the workings of the world of Death were brought to a standstill.
(p.281) Restraint says, “What should I restrain?” Austerity says,
“Whom should I subdue?”
Tīrthas say, “What should we eat?9 There is no sin to cure.”
By calling my name this way, one does away with the sufferings of
the universe.
The whole world resounds with great happiness.
It is not proper to hold that these words of a great man like Jn͂āneśvar are mere
embellishment. We have experienced very recently how some small bit of this
power gleaming in a great man's life can cause his actions, his voice, even a
signal of his little finger—even just his being ill—to seem to fill, at least for some
time, the life of our whole society.10 Then, because what Jn͂āneśvar says is based
on experience, we must acknowledge without any hesitation its complete,
glistening truth.
The Significance of The Jn͂āneśvarī

But how can people like us continually meet large numbers of great human
beings of the caliber of Jn͂āneśvar and Tukārām? The companionship of great
men is not easy to obtain. Still, great men like Jn͂āneśvar have made
arrangements for us. Although he does not stand before us in person, Jn͂āneśvar
has given us his “literary auspicious form” for all time. The thousand-petaled
lotus11 of his spiritual, universal personality continues to diffuse its perfume in
verse after verse of the Jn͂āneśvarī (Jn͂ā. 10.111):
When the lotus bud opens, it cannot keep its perfume to itself,
but spreads its joy to both the king and the pauper.
What he says here applies to himself as well, and we can experience it in the
Jn͂āneśvarī, which gives us the tīrtha of Jn͂āneśvar's company. By bathing
wholeheartedly in this tīrtha, we can experience inner transformation. Jn͂āneśvar
himself says this quite clearly (Jn͂ā. 18.1654):
The amazing Gītā Ganges came into the tīrtha of verses that
combines all tīrthas,
And therefore Arjun became the Siṃhastha period.12
Page 10 of 21
The Gītā itself is the Ganges, which destroys sin and nourishes merit. Arjun's
curiosity is the auspicious Siṃhastha period, and this Ganges that has sprung
(p.282) from the mouth of Kṛṣṇa during this auspicious time has become
incarnate in the seven-hundred-verse sarvatīrtha, the tīrtha that combines all
tīrthas (the Gītā). What Jn͂āneśvar means is that, for powerless people who
cannot easily enter the great current of the Ganges and bathe there, the Ganges
has descended in this sarvatīrtha in the form of verses.
Of course, although it is the Gītā that Jn͂āneśvar praises as the Ganges, for
Marathi speakers what he says applies to the Marathi form of the Gītā. For
Marathi speakers the sarvatīrtha into which the great river has descended is not
the seven hundred verses of the Bhagavadgītā but the nine thousand verses of
the Jn͂āneśvarī. Ordinary Marathi people could not—and still today cannot—
descend the steep banks of Sanskrit into the great current of the Gītā Ganges, to
be purified by the touch of its water. This is why Jn͂āneśvar, giving all the credit
for his creativity to the compassion of his guru, says (Jn͂ā. 11.8–10):
Here, entering easily into the tīrtha by means of the ears,

Jn͂āneśvar says, my efforts made it generous.
Breaking the steep banks of Sanskrit,
Nivṛtti made ladders of Marathi words and created religious
treasures.
Therefore anyone can bathe here, can look at the universal form in
the confluence that is Kṛṣṇa;
By doing so one can make funeral offerings13 to the cycle of birth
and death.
Ordinary Marathi people could not enter the current because of the steep banks
of Sanskrit, so Nivṛtti, the guru, used Marathi to break down those banks; he
built a staircase of Marathi down into the water and created religious treasures
in the current—that is, he made pools of religious meaning. This made it easy for
anyone at all to enter into this tīrtha by listening. Now everyone can come and
get the joy of a bath in this confluence of the white Ganges and the dark-blue
Yamunā; through that bath, they can bid farewell to sin and anguish, to the
whole cycle of suffering; they can transform their whole inner life and make life
luminous (Ḍhere 1977b: 36–42).
This promise of Jn͂āneśvar's also makes clear the greatness of the tīrtha of good
company. Jn͂āneśvar himself embodies the model of living that he has set up, and
his words give longevity to that embodiment. Therefore, to experience a bath in
the tīrtha of Jn͂āneśvar's company is to descend by the easy ladder of Marathi
words into the tīrtha in the river of speech that emerged from Jn͂āneśvar's mouth
and has flowed unabated for the past seven hundred years. The bliss to be found
in the depths of that tīrtha cannot be expressed in words!
Page 11 of 21
(p.283) Jn͂āneśvar's “Deśī Cave”

Just as he did for tīrtha, Jn͂āneśvar created a lofty, spiritual conception of kṣetra
(holy place) as well. We have seen that he describes the good man as a tīrtha and
a kṣetra, saying, “He is a tīrtha, he is a kṣetra.” In the presence of a good man
there is transformative power like that in a tīrtha, the power to change one's life;
there is also the power, like that in a kṣetra, to bring one face to face with god.
The good man is not just the kṣetra but also the temple that stands in the kṣetra,
making it a holy place and serving as its most majestic adornment. Jn͂āneśvar
calls this temple a “devotee-abode.” What he means is that the devotee is
himself the abode: the devotee's body, his whole life, is a temple for the god.
Look at the god that Jn͂āneśvar insists on establishing in this devotee-temple
(Jn͂ā. 18.1499):
In the pure devotee-abode this Lord of Jewels of the Gītā is thus

established.
Then you weigh him against me in the world.
Jn͂āneśvar's use of the Śaiva name “Lord of Jewels of the Gītā” (gītāratneśvar) to
describe the “Lord Hari derived from the Self” who resides in splendor in the
jeweled palace of the Gītā certainly fits well with Jn͂āneśvar's Śaiva tradition, but
the name is also reminiscent of the Māṇikeśvar (“Lord of Gems”) cave at Ellora,
which Jn͂āneśvar had seen. For hundreds of years, until the end of the eighteenth
century, the Kailās cave at Ellora was known as the Māṇikeśvar cave. “Kailās” is
modern scholars’ name for it, supported by a metaphor used in an inscription. It
is not the original name. The original name derives from the fact that the Śiva
established in this cave was named Māṇikeśvar. Unlike the other cave-temples at
Ellora, the Kailās cave is a free-standing temple carved out of the rock, made
from a whole block of stone. The majesty, height, and beauty of this temple are
without parallel. When Jn͂āneśvar saw this temple, it inspired him to fashion a
similar cave-temple in the world of speech as well. Because the speech-medium
of this cave was the vernacular (Deśī), he called it the “Deśī Cave,” and he
named it the “Palace of the Jewel of the Gītā.” Although he gave that name to the
original Gītā, it is his poetry in Marathi that is as beautiful as the Kailās/
Māṇikeśvar cave-temple at Ellora.14
When Jn͂āneśvar compares the Deśī cave to the Māṇikeśvar cave, when he calls
it the “jeweled temple of the Gītā,” and when he calls the soul-principle—the
“Lord Hari derived from the Self” who resides in splendor in this cave-temple—
the “Lord of Jewels,” Jn͂āneśvar takes full account of the process of construction
of the cave. Look at how he describes the creation of this cave made of speech
(Jn͂ā. 18.35–37):
(p.284) Vyāsa was a powerful sculptor. He dug a plateau of the

Upaniṣads
in the jeweled mountain of the scriptures.
There he took the many particles of the three goals of life that he
Page 12 of 21
came upon
and made them into the Mahābhārata compound wall surrounding it.
Inside, sweeping it completely clean,
He fashioned the beauty of the conversation between Arjun and
Kṛṣṇa.
When Vyāsa cut into the hill-like rock of the Upaniṣads in the very middle of the
jeweled mountain that was the Vedas, the huge rock had to be cut “from above
to below.” After the rock was cut and cleared away to a certain depth, the
mountain was made into a natural, three-sided compound.
Those who have seen the Kailās cave at Ellora can easily recognize how the Deśī
cave was fashioned. The Vedas demonstrate the way to all four goals of human
life: religious duty (dharma), wealth and power (artha), pleasure (kāma), and
liberation (mokṣa). The Upaniṣads, however, which are after all part of the Vedas
but for which knowledge is primary, bring about only mokṣa. In the same way,
the Mahābhārata, which is a reflection of the Vedas, brings about all four goals,
and the Gītā, which is part of the Mahābhārata and was nourished by the
Upaniṣads, brings about mokṣa. After the boulder of the Upaniṣads was cut out
of the Vedas and set aside, the Mahābhārata, which brings about dharma, artha,
and kāma, was naturally created on three sides of it, and in the middle the
“jeweled temple of the Gītā” was sculpted from the boulder of the Upaniṣads
(Ḍhere 1977b: 43–51).
Looking at this temple imagery, one gets an idea of how Jn͂āneśvar and the other
saints attempted to set people's gaze on truth, thought, and introspection, and
how they brought people step by step to a realization of the inner meaning of
external symbols and rituals. This unbroken, unitary temple of jewels, which the
great wisdom of Vyāsa saw first, which the grace of Nivṛttināth caused to be
manifested in Deśī, and which we have received under the name Jn͂āneśvarī, is
many times better than the innumerable stone temples that humans have built.
It comes with the boon of perpetuity. The Māṇikeśvar temple fashioned under
Kṛṣṇarāj Rāṣṭrakūṭ survives today only as a tourist sight, but the Deśī cave-
temple that Jn͂āneśvar fashioned has remained for ages, preserving in its
sanctuary the embodied life of the universal soul.
At the end of his work, Jn͂āneśvar also differentiates the various ways in which
people worship the “Lord Hari derived from the Self” who reigns in the
magnificent temple of the Jn͂āneśvarī (Jn͂ā. 18.45–48):
(p.285) Some circumambulate it from the outside by reciting it.

Some stay in its shade by listening.
Some give the betel roll and coin of their attention on the inside
and enter the sanctuary of knowledge of the meaning.
Through knowledge of the Self they come face to face with the Lord
Hari derived from the Self.
But there is room for everyone in the temple of mokṣa.
Page 13 of 21
The eighteenth chapter is thus the vast pinnacle of the Vaiṣṇava

temple that is the Gītā.
I have spoken of this difference knowingly.
Even though there are thus many different types of worshipers, everyone has a
place in this temple of mokṣa. This is the infinitely valuable lesson that Jn͂āneśvar
teaches us: what a true temple is, how to enter it, and how to come face to face
with the god inside.
Thus, Jn͂āneśvar erected his “literary divine image” in the form of a handsome,
artistically rich temple for perpetuity, and promised that in it everyone will get
the sight of his own supreme good. Jn͂āneśvar was so intensely aware of the
beauty and artistry of this temple that he also once referred to it as a mahāmeru
(Jn͂ā. 18.1760):
Creating the soft and delicate mahāmeru of the meaning of the Gītā, along
with its pinnacle,
I worship the auspicious guru-liṅga within it.
Mahā-meru (“Great Meru”) is an architectural term referring to the most

excellent type of temple. Jn͂āneśvar created a beautiful mahāmeru of the
meaning of the Gītā, along with its pinnacle, and he worshiped the auspicious
guru-liṅga within it (Ḍhere 1978c: 36–39). Because Jn͂āneśvar believed that god
and guru are identical, “the Lord of Jewels of the Gītā” and “the auspicious
guru-liṅga” both refer to the same soul-principle.
The Body is a Śaktipīṭh

Jn͂āneśvar was a spiritual adept who grew up in the tradition of Siddhas and
Nāths. As a result, the idea that “what is in the body is in the universe” and
“what is in the universe is in the body” was very familiar to him. The body is a
microcosm of the whole universe: he continually repeats this refrain from the
tradition of Siddhas (p.286) and Nāths. The tradition of Siddha Yogis and
nirguṇa worshipers repeatedly proclaims, “there are sixty-four tīrthas in the
pot”: the pot, our human body, is composed of tīrthas. Because Jn͂āneśvar was
raised in that tradition, he was fully acquainted with the symbolic universe of
Siddhas, even Tantric Siddhas.
Śākta Tantrics considered the various goddess places throughout India to be

forms of the one primordial Śakti; they created the explanatory story of Satī
jumping into Dakṣa's sacrificial fire and her limbs falling to the ground,15 and
they established the places as Śakti pīṭhs. These Śakti pīṭhs, which number from
four to 108, continue to attract the faithful throughout India. Śākta Tantrics, who
have special reverence for these Śakti pīṭhs, find them in the body as well, and
they experience an interior pilgrimage to them in the journey of Kuṇḍalinī
through the cakras.16 Jn͂āneśvar accepted this Śākta Tantric imagery. Analyzing
Page 14 of 21
the process of yoga, he referred in clear terms to the pīṭhs in the body (Jn͂ā.
18.1029–30, 1034):
Thus, the one who desires liberation became proficient in knowing

the Self,
but [only] after putting the practice of yoga first.
O Dhananjay,17 pushing his heel between the two lower apertures of
the body,
on the kāṃvarūmūḷa,18…
serving a mixture of mind and breath
in the clay bowl of the Bhairava19 of consciousness, on the dancing
puṇyagiri.20…
Kāṃvarū is a Prakrit form of “Kāmarūp,” and puṇyagiri is an alternative form of

“Pūrṇagiri.” Kāmarūp and Pūrṇagiri are two famous Śākta Tantric places
(pīṭhs).21 In describing the Pūrṇagiri pīṭh in relation to the process of yoga,
Jn͂āneśvar uses as a metaphor Śākta Tantrics’ practice in their pīṭhs: in the
wavering Puṇyagiri pīṭh, the yogi prepares a mixture of mind and wind and
serves it in the clay bowl of the Bhairava who is consciousness. The presiding
goddess of the Śākta Tantrics’ pīṭhs is Śakti, and her companion is Bhairava.
Tantrics’ highest goal is to experience within themselves the balance of Śakti
and Bhairava. By referring to the pīṭhs in the body, Jn͂āneśvar points to this goal.
Once again, in a different context, he is emphasizing that the body is a tīrtha and
a kṣetra (Ḍhere 1978b: 50–52).
“The Body is Paṇḍharī”

Jn͂āneśvar's gurus, his companions, and all the later saints have faithfully held to
this model with respect to holy waters, holy places, and temples. Nivṛttināth's
Viṭṭhal āratī “In the Company of the Good Guru” is addressed to the soul-Viṭṭhal
(p.287) who lives on “Trikūṭa” (mountain), after the guru has taken him by the
hand and led him along the western22 path (Koṭṇīs 1926: 256–57):23
The three-guṇa guṇa,24 my lady, the wicks are fully burned.

The marvel is indestructible; its light does not go away.
Placing my attention there, I forgot to blink my eyes.
My mind cannot reach it, I cannot distinguish day and night.
The āratī of Viṭṭhal burns fully in my heart.
The light has grown great; the sky cannot contain it.
Sun and moon set in the heated brilliance.
Heavenly musical instruments play, while the unstruck sound25
resounds.
Tukārām looked at the holy place Paṇḍharī through this same experience of
yoga. That is why, relying with reverence on the proclamations of saints and
perfected yogis, he tells us (Koṭṇīs 1926: 258):26
Look! The tenth aperture in your body is Paṇḍharī.

Look for that good “I am the Absolute” on a brick in your heart.
Page 15 of 21
After adopting this point of view, Tukārām was continually on pilgrimage to

Paṇḍharī, “with each breath, with each blink of the eyes” (Koṭṇīs 1926: 257). He
took up the flag27 of the sweat and trembling that comes into the body when it is
filled with love. Having ceremonially entered the palace of the thousand-
petaled,28 he stands on the raised circle29 and experiences the blessedness of
seeing the Viṭṭhal who is the Self (Koṭṇīs 1926: 257).
Eknāth too, whose heritage Tukārām maintained, also expressed this point of
view (Koṭṇīs 1926: 257):
Why should I go far away? My Pandharpur is right here.

Viṭṭhal completely pervades atoms and grains of sand. How can you
say that he is far away?
The very fact that Eknāth asks this question proves his confidence. Puṇḍalīk
lives as faith on the bank of the Bhīmā of devotion, and the Viṭṭhal of the Self
rules in the Paṇḍharī of the body. If this is so, what need is there to exert oneself
externally in order to see Viṭṭhal? (Koṭṇīs 1926: 257)
The body is Paṇḍharī, the soul is Viṭṭhal;

Pāṇḍuraṅga resides there all alone.
(p.288) The water flows in the Bhīmā of faith and devotion;
Pāṇḍuraṅga looks beautiful.
Compassion, endurance, and peace make up the sandy beach;
the company of Vaiṣṇavas has gathered.
Knowledge, meditation, worship, discrimination, and joy
are the lovely sound of the flute.
The ten senses have gathered in a single group:
this is their cowherds’ meal (gopāḷkālā).
I have seen Paṇḍharī in body, people, forest:
Ekā Janārdan is a Vārkarī.
In saying that the body is Paṇḍharī and that Viṭṭhal resides there in the form of
the Self, Eknāth equates the concepts of kṣetra and temple. On the bank of the
flowing Bhīmā of faith and devotion, Viṭṭhal “looks beautiful,” and the company
of Vaiṣṇavas that has gathered to see Pāṇḍuraṅga stands on the beach of
compassion, endurance, and peace. When this Paṇḍharī, which is spread out
everywhere, inside and out, “in the body, among people, in the forest,” pervades
Eknāth's sight, his “state of being a Vārkarī” is fulfilled.
Page 16 of 21
Like Eknāth, Keśavsvāmī Bhāgānagarkar too, one of five saints associated with
Rāmdās, erected a temple of peace in the “Pandharpur of the body.” Perfecting
an immoveable throne of love in it, he too became engrossed in the “Viṭṭhal who
is consciousness and bliss,” who stands on the brick of devotion (Koṭṇīs 1926:
258). Raṅganāthsvāmī Nigaḍīkar, a saintly companion of Keśavsvāmī, states
(Koṭṇīs 1926: 259):30
I have truly made you stand well on my brick called firm faith.
The Puṇḍarīk of my consciousness has successfully brought you here.
Jayarāmsvāmī Vaḍgāvkar also had a similar vision of Viṭṭhal. By the grace of his
guru, he continually saw Lord Hari standing on the brick of meditation on the
Self, in the presence of the Puṇḍalīk of good feelings, on the bank of the Bhīmā
of love (Koṭṇīs 1926: 259–61).
Śivakalyāṇ Svāmī, a great saint-poet in the tradition of Muktābāī and a

commentator who had his own spiritual experience and was drenched in the
“Nectar of Experience” (Anubhavāmṛt) of Jn͂āneśvar, lived with his guru,
Nityānanda Svāmī, in Pandharpur, in the presence of Lord Viṭṭhal. But
Śivakalyāṇ was not satisfied by the closeness to Viṭṭhal that a lack of
geographical distance afforded him. After becoming attracted to Viṭṭhal,
Śivakalyāṇ thought constantly of Viṭṭhal's feet standing side by side and “his
hips encompassed by his lotus hands,” and that (p.289) made Śivakalyāṇ most
intensely aware of the greatness of the experience of Viṭṭhal's presence
(Śivakalyāṇ 1904: chapter 3, verses 1029–31):
That very attraction to the Self reminds me of the feet placed side
by side
of the one whose hand-lotuses have encompassed his waist.
By the joy of the knowledge of the Self, placing his feet evenly,
he stands on the bank of the Bhīmā enjoying the praise of his own
virtues.
It is in devotion, and not at the Bhīmā, that one comes closest to the
Lord of Śrī.
Everyone obtains his own welfare.
When the Bhīmā is no longer the Bhīmā, but visible, flowing devotion that begins
to stream from the heart, then all of life becomes Pandharpur, and one can easily
and continuously experience the sight of the god: “One comes close to the Lord
of Śrī.” Then that Pāṇḍuraṅga (Śivakalyāṇ 1904: chapter 4, verse 626),
who, placing both hands on his hips,

looks especially beautiful on the bank of the Bhīmā of devotion,
Page 17 of 21
who is solidified consciousness, stands on the brick of experience, and fortunate

pilgrims like Śivakalyāṇ, crying out their joy at the sight of him, begin to say
(Śivakalyāṇ 1904: chapter 1, verse 27):
I saw Lord Hari standing with his feet side by side

on the brick of experience on the bank of the Bhīmā of devotion.
Vision Conforming to an Ideal

In this chapter we have been exploring, in the saints’ own words, their ideas
about tīrthas, kṣetras, and temples. The saints lived, spoke, and entered
samādhi31 with the sense that their life itself should become a tīrtha, should
have the status of a kṣetra, should even become a visible temple into which
divinity descends. The saints did not discard the material form of tīrthas, kṣetras,
and temples, but struggled to make those forms useful for inner purity, helpful in
burnishing a person's mind and life. After all, that was the original purpose of
tīrthas, kṣetras, and temples. If the atmosphere in tīrthas, kṣetras, and temples
becomes contradictory to (p.290) the purpose of their existence; if, instead of
being useful for purifying life, they begin to make it murky and perverse, then
the saints felt obliged to oppose them.
The saints felt it necessary to expose the irreligion that shelters in the name of
religion in tīrthas, kṣetras, and temples, to expose the injustice that
masquerades as good behavior, and to expose the sin that passes itself off as
merit. Staying with the people in order to protect the social order, the saints also
made a pervasive effort to raise society's mentality, even as they seriously took
into consideration the signs of people's faith. The Maharashtrian Bhāgavat saints
treasured as much as their lives the tīrtha Candrabhāgā, the kṣetra Pandharpur,
and the prestige of their favorite god, Lord Viṭṭhal, who lives in the temple there;
but they warned people again and again that the Candrabhāgā of devotion must
continue to flow from within one's heart, that one's whole life must become
Pandharpur, that one's body must become a temple, and that the dark supreme
Absolute must descend into it. Unless this happens, a bath in the Candrabhāgā,
a stay at Pandharpur, and the sight of Viṭṭhal are meaningless; they only nourish
fraud.
From the point of view of ordinary people, ideals are always high. They are far
away, and it seems it will never be possible to reach them. This is certainly true
—no one's ideals can ever be completely attained. However, one's eyes should
always be on the ideals. As one walks north with one's eyes fixed steadily on that
North Star, one's life should be understood to have been meaningful, to have
been blessed, whatever the milestone at which it ends. May you and I, remaining
conscious of the saints’ ideals, become inspired to move our lives in that
direction: this is my prayer at the feet of Lord Viṭṭhal, the god beloved by the
saints.
Page 18 of 21
Notes:
(1.) Eliade 1959: 5–36. For the symbolism of temples, see pp. 5, 7, 12–18, 36, and
109.
(2.) Translator's note: Patrick Olivelle (personal communication) has identified

this verse as “cited in Lakṣmīdhara's Kṛtyakalpataru, Śuddhikāṇḍa, p. 169,
where it is ascribed to Bṛhaspati. It is given in the re-constituted Bṛhaspati Smṛti
of Aiyengar (GOS), Saṃskāra Kāṇḍa, 27 (p. 235).”
(3.) Translator's note: See Ramanujan, translator 1973: 88.
(4.) Translator's note: Dhere is referring here to a well-known poem by the

seventeenth-century poet-saint Bahiṇābāī in which she says that Jn͂āneśvar laid
the foundation of a temple of which Tukārām was the pinnacle.
(5.) Translator's note: That is, to perform the apotropaic ritual of niṃbaloṇ to
them.
(6.) Translator's note: Here again Dhere is using ritual imagery and vocabulary.
He is pointing to Jn͂āneśvar's belief that the ritual of sandhyā can be performed
at any time, if it is being done, not in honor of the sun, but in honor of the kind of
meritorious man described in this passage. Sandhyā is a Brāhmaṇical ritual in
which a man stands in water (preferably at a tīrtha), recites a mantra, and offers
water to the rising, setting, or mid-day sun. The word translated as “paying
homage,” arghya, refers to the gesture of offering water (etc.) this way.
(7.) Translator's note: I have been unable to find this verse in the SSG.
(8.) Translator's note: A kīrtan is a type of song-sermon performance.
(9.) Translator's note: This refers to the idea that holy places do away with a
visitor's sins by consuming them.
(10.) Translator's note: It is likely that Dhere is referring here to Bābā Āmte.
(11.) Translator's note: The thousand-petaled lotus is one of the cakras in yogic
physiology.
(12.) Translator's note: During the Siṃhastha period, when Jupiter is in Leo, the
Ganges enters other tīrthas.
(13.) Translator's note: Literally, give sesame seeds and water.
Page 19 of 21
(14.) At the beginning of the last chapter of his commentary on the Gītā,
Jn͂āneśvar uses a particularly grand image to describe that chapter. The Gītā is a
jeweled temple and the eighteenth chapter is the pinnacle that gleams atop it
(Jn͂ā. 18.30–33):
It is the pinnacle of the jeweled temple of the Gītā, the wish-gem of

goals,
the benefit of the sight of the whole Gītā.
In the world, when you see the pinnacle of a temple from afar, you
have indeed met the god.
The same is true here: just this one chapter displays the whole Gītā.
That is why I call the eighteenth chapter the pinnacle:
Bādārāyaṇ offered it to the temple of the Gītā.
Translator's note: Bādārāyaṇ, the author of the Vedānta Sūtras, is sometimes

identified with Vyāsa, the “author” of the Mahābhārata and hence of the Gītā,
which is included within the Mahābhārata.
(15.) Translator's note: The story is that Dakṣa's daughter, Satī, was infuriated
when she and her husband, Śiva, were not invited to a sacrifice sponsored by
her father. She killed herself by jumping into the sacrificial fire. Grief-stricken,
Śiva wandered around India carrying her dead body. The parts of her body fell at
various places throughout India, each place becoming a Satī pīṭh or Śakti pīṭh.
(16.) Translator's note: Kuṇḍalinī is the female power, Śakti, that Tantric yogis
attempt to move up through various centers, called cakras, in their bodies.
(17.) Translator's note: Dhananjay is a name of Arjun, to whom Kṛṣṇa's words in

the Bhagavadgītā (and hence in the Jn͂āneśvarī) are addressed.
(18.) Translator's note: In yogic physiology, the kāvaramūla is the seam between
the anus and the penis (the two “lower apertures” of the male body).
(19.) Translator's note: Bhairava is a fearsome, awe-inspiring form of Śiva.
(20.) Translator's note: The literal meaning of this term, which also refers to a
place in the body, is “holy mountain” or “mountain of virtue.”
(21.) Translator's note: Kāmarūp is Kāmākhyā, in Assam; the geographical

location of Pūrṇagiri has not yet been reliably identified. See Ḍhere 1978b: 50–
51.
(22.) Translator's note: Or left-handed, i.e., Tantric.
(23.) Translator's note: This āratī song is full of yogic images and terms. Some of
them are identified in the notes that follow.
Page 20 of 21
(24.) Translator's note: Guṇas are qualities or characteristics. According to

Sāṅkhya philosophy, the material and psychic world is characterized by the
interaction of three guṇas, which qualify everything except the primordial Spirit.
(25.) Translator's note: The “unstruck sound” is what a perfected yogi hears.
(26.) Translator's note: Again, this is yogic language. The tenth aperture of a
(male) body is the one through which the Kuṇḍalinī rises beyond the body
through the head. “I am the Absolute” (so ’haṃ brahma) is a famous sentence
from the Upaniṣads that is taken to refer to the identity of the individual soul or
ātman with the universal Absolute (Brahman).
(27.) Translator's note: The flag is part of the extended analogy in this
paragraph. Many Vārkarī pilgrims carry an ochre-colored flag on their way to
and from Pandharpur.
(28.) Translator's note: See note 11, above.
(29.) Translator's note: The raised circle (raṅgśiḷā) refers to the slightly raised
area in a temple (especially in the temple of Viṭṭhal at Pandharpur) where a
kīrtan performer stands and devotees dance. In the temple at Pandharpur the
raṅgśiḷā is the Sixteen-pillared (Soḷākhāmbī) Hall, near the Eagle Pillar
(Garuḍastambha).
(30.) In Koṭṇīs's anthology, nine passages in all are collected on pages 256–61
under the heading “Adhyātmik Paṇḍharīvarṇan” (“Spiritual Interpretation of
Pandharpur”).
(31.) Translator's note: That is, they went into a final, terminal state of trance.
Page 21 of 21

Dhere R - Vitthal of Pandharpur

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dhere R - Vitthal of Pandharpur

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction

Rise of a Folk God: Vitthal of Pandharpur

Print publication date: 2011

Ramchandra Chintaman Dhere

Abstract and Keywords

Keywords: Maharashtra, Vedas, Epics, folk deities, fame

“Brahman Is Gathered at the Foot of the Wish-Granting Tree”

Taking the thrice-bent stance, O Mother,

This one in the cowherds’ home is the supreme Absolute without

The blanket on his shoulder reaches down to his feet.

My Mother Kṛṣṇa is a good mother-sister.

(p.5) The Path of Inquiry

The Search for the Original Form

Scholarship and Devotion

In December 1976, I wrote my lectures on “The Shrine of

History of Religion and The Study of Society

To understand the stages of development of gods is in a sense to understand the

Starting on 1 June 1979, ten months after my lectures were published as

As soon as I formed the intention of undertaking this project, my publisher and

Research and Sectarianism

storm that arose throughout Maharashtra in response to those articles. A flurry

Satisfaction and Disappointment

I have traveled in person to Pandharpur, Māḍhe, Kolhapur (Kolhāpūr),

Despite my honest difference of opinion with Professor Manikrav Dhanpalvar of

Kulkarni, brings together articles by well-known Indian and foreign scholars

(4.) Translator's note: See chapter 7.

(5.) Translator's note: See chapter 14.

(6.) Translator's note: See chapter 3.

(7.) Translator's note: See chapters 7–8.

(10.) Translator's note: Viśvanāth Kāśīnāth Rājvāḍe, 1863–1926, an eminent

(11.) Translator's note: See chapter 7.

(12.) Translator's note: See chapters 3 and 4.

(13.) Translator's note: According to Professor Madhav Deshpande (personal

(17.) Translator's note: See chapter 1.

(19.) Translator's note: Justice Mahādev Govind Rānaḍe, 1842–1901, was an

(23.) Translator's note: A Festschrift in honor of Dhere.

Access brought to you by:

Rise of a Folk God: Vitthal of Pandharpur

Print publication date: 2011

Purāṇic Sources for the Study of Viṭṭhal

Abstract and Keywords

Keywords: Pandharpur, folklore, religious history, mythological stories

research mired in chronologies, genealogies, and mere lists of sequentially

Frazer and Malinowski; folklorists like Raglan, Hocart, and Cassirer; or

Those who disregard sthalapurāṇas ought to take a look at the extraordinary

I focus special attention on the so-called tīrthamāhātmyas. They are often

decidedly popular “glorifications of holy places,” mostly compiled by the

In the field of cultural history, we have overlooked sthalapurāṇas or

we are stymied by a lack of primary sources, sthalapurāṇas cannot but

Ma¯ha¯tmyas of Pandharpur and the Literature of the Marathi Saint-Poets

Skanda was teaching the 88,000 sages.

The Date of the Pa¯n․ḍuraṅga Ma¯ha¯tmya from the Skanda pura¯n․a

The encyclopedic Tīrthakhaṇḍa (“Section on Holy Places”) of Hemādri's text is

“Viṭṭhalabhuṣaṇa” is a six-folio pamphlet published at the end of the nineteenth

Gopāḷācārya was a renowned Sanskrit pandit of the second half of the

The Testimony of Professor Kane

The Existence of the Ti¯rthakhaṇḍa

The Authority of the Ma¯ha¯tmya from the Skanda pura¯ṇa

The Dates of the Other Two Sanskrit Pa¯ṇḍuraṅga Ma¯ha¯tmyas

Evidence of Vaiṣṇavization in the Pa¯ṇḍuraṅga Ma¯ha¯tmya

respect to that basic distinctiveness and simply added an overlay of the

“Pa¯ṇḍuraṅga” as a Place Name

Place names like “Pāṇḍuraṅgakṣetra,” “Puṇḍarīkakṣetra,” and