365betÓéÀÖ

Birth and Early Influences

Mahipati’s father Dadopant is said to have been in the service of the Mughals, but where, when and in what capacity is not known. At the age of forty he retired from service, and came to live in Taharabad, his native place in the Ahmednagar District. He was a regular warkari pilgrim of Pandharpur and the hereditary village accountant of Taharabad. This state of things continued until he was sixty-four years old, but being without an issue he felt naturally anxious lest the regular visits to Pandharpur would be discontinued after his own death. He therefore prayed to God to grant him a son, and a son was born to him in 1715 A. D. (Shaka era 1637). This son he named Mahipati, who was destined to become the biographer of saints. Mahipati was handsome and of a sharp intellect. In his very boyhood he was devoted to God and he went as a pilgrim to Pandharpur at the age of sixteen. It seems Mahipati was well educated. His handwriting was good. That he had a good knowledge of Sanskrit is proved by his translations into Marathi Besides Marathi, his mother tongue, he knew Hindi. At the age of sixteen Mahipati’s father died and the burden of supporting the family fell on him at that early age. Aside from his household responsibilities, he had to work as village accountant, an office hereditary in the family. Taharabad was then a part of a jaghir of a Muhammadan to whose court Mahipati had to go in his official capacity. Well substantiated is the story to which Dr. Abbott has alluded in his Preface, that once after bathing Mahipati was performing the worship of his household gods when a messenger from the Muhammadan came to summon him to court on business Mahipati sent word in return that he would be at his service after he was through his daily devotion. Nevertheless there was another and a very peremptory call to appear in court at once. Reluctantly he went, but on his return he took his pen from behind his ear and laying it before the god he vowed never to use it again in any official capacity. This vow was adhered to rigidly by his descendents and is to continue until the seventh generation.

Mahipati’s Literary Sources and Methods

Mahipati had two sons, Vitthal and Narayan. Mahipati’s guru was Tukaram from whom he received the mystic mantra in a dream. It is said Tukaram at the same time commanded Mahipati to write the lives of saints. Like most of the great writers, Mahipati is very modest, quotes some of his sources, and admits without reserve that he derived information from Nabhaji of North India and Uddhav Chidghan of Mandesh, both biographers of the saints. In Chapter 1.37-39 of the present work Mahipati says: 37. ‘Perhaps you may say that I myself have composed this book, founding it on my own imagination and according to my own fancy, but sirs, that is truly not so. Have no doubts regarding this. 38. In the country to the North there was one by the name of Nabhaji, an avatar of Brahmadev. He wrote a great book containing the stories of saints. He wrote it in the Gwalior language. 39. And in Mandesh there was one Uddhavchidghan. He also wrote the stories of the saints. Uniting the stories of both, I have begun this book, the Bhaktavijaya.�

Mahipati wrote the following biographical works: The Santalilamrit [Santalilamrita] in 1757, the Bhaktavijaya in 1762, the Rathasaramrita in 1765, the Bhaktalilamrit [Bhaktalilamrita] in 1774, and finally the Santavijaya. Until recently the Santavijaya was supposed to have been incomplete with 26 chapters only but it is now-found in a complete form (27 chapters) and is in the possession of the Bharat Itihas Sanshodhak Mandal, Poona. Besides his biographical works Mahipati also wrote several minor works. He died in 1790 at the age of seventy-five

Mahipati An Honest Author

Writing under this heading in his own Life and Teaching of Tukaram (pp. 70-72) in 1921, the editor of this present work (the Rev. J. F. Edwards) quoted the following statement which Dr. Abbott had drawn up at his request regarding Mahipati’s trustworthiness. Dr. Abbott stated:—‘Is Mahipati’s account true to facts? Tukaram died in 1649 (traditional date) and Mahipati wrote his account in 1774, or 125 years after Tukaram’s death. Not very long, but long enough for legends to grow. I regard Mahipati as an honest writer, that he used honestly the material at his disposal. He was not a “higher critic�, but used as truth whatever came to him in the form of MSS or oral traditions. I think I can produce convincing evidence of this honesty. He had evidently a good library of manuscripts. I have the names of some he possessed? or was more or less familiar with. I find this list in his own writings. But as a poet he avows the principle of expanding the facts at his disposal, “as a seed expands into a tree.� This is indeed a habit of Indian poets. What MSS or what oral tradition did Mahipati use? This is as yet an unsolved problem, with this exception, that a few sources are known. Among the MSS he uses are the Abhangs by Tukaram’s brother Kanhoba (see Bhaktalilamrita ch. 40.198 and following) and Abhangs of Rameshwar (Bhaktalilamrita ch. 40.209). There is also now published Niloba’s Gatha. Niloba was a (posthumous) disciple of Tukaram’s. He gives some account of Tukaram, and Mahipati knew of Niloba, so probably knew of his Abhangs (Bhaktalilamrita, ch. 40.238.) The last part of Mahipati’s chapter 40, which describes Tukaram’s “ascension,� mentions many individuals who must have passed on to the next generation their knowledge of Tukaram. It still remains true that all modern accounts of Tukaram’s life are to be traced to Mahipati as the practically sole source of information. Perhaps some time Mahipati’s sources will be better known. This being so we cannot now know what are facts and what are fiction in Mahipati’s account. It will not do merely to deduct the manifestly legendary, and call the balance facts, as seems to be the general practice. The only honest way for any modern writer is to give Mahipati credit for the account the writer gives, and give it as Mahipati gives it, legend and all, leaving it to the future, for possible discoveries to settle what are the real facts. Much of Mahipati’s account may be facts, but I think events in Tukaram’s life should not be recorded as facts, until they can be substantiated from other and clear sources.�

Mahipati’s Historical Material

(b) ‘As I have before remarked I regard Mahipati as an honest historian. He wrote from books before him, and from oral tradition. He anticipated the charge that he drew from his own imagination and says in Santalilamrita (1.67-69): “You will raise this doubt in your mind and say: You have drawn on your own imagination. This is not so. Listen. Great poet-saints have written books in many languages. It is on their authority that I write this Santalilamrita. If I wrote on my own authority my statements would not be respected. The Husband of Rukmini is witness to this, who knows all hearts.� In Bhaktavijaya (1.37) he says: “You will say I have compiled this book on my own authority. This indeed is not so. Hold no doubts in your minds.�

He then quotes Nabhaji and Uddhav Chidghan as authorities: “Joining these two together, Bhaktavijaya was begun� (1.39).

For a list of saints with whose names and books Mahipati was familiar see Bhaktavijaya (1.19), Bhaktavijaya (57.169-201) and Bhaktalilamrita, chap. 51, where there are 127 saints mentioned by name. His story of Dnyaneshwar in Bhaktavijaya (chap. 8) he took from Dnyandevachi Adi (Dnyandev’s Origin) by Namdev. His story of Mirabai in Bhaktavijaya (chap. 38) he took from Mirabaiche Charitra (Life of Mirabai) by Naradev. His story of Gora Kumbhar in Bhaktavijaya (chap. 17) he took from Goroba Kumbharache Charitra (Life of Goroba Kumbhar) by Namdev. So far as evidence goes he conscientiously used his sources, as an honest recorder of what he believed to be true. If he expanded meagre statements into fuller detail it was not to add facts but to give a fuller understanding of them. To use his own words he expanded facts just as a tree is the expansion of a seed.â€� By this I understand that he embellished but did not add imaginary accounts, that what he wrote he felt he had good authority for. The faithfulness of Mahipati in recording the traditions received by him, either through books or oral sources, does not ensure the truth of these traditions, which must be established on other grounds, but it is satisfaction that one can depend with good assurance on his honesty as a writer, and that he did not draw on his imagination more than he felt necessary for poetic °ù±ð²¹²õ´Ç²Ô²õ.â€�

Mahipati’s Trustworthiness

(c) Following on the above, Mr. Edwards concludes as follows in page 72 of The Life and Teaching of Tukaram:—‘In addition to the above from Dr. Abbott on the honesty and trustworthiness of our chief authority, Mahipati, we shall do well to note a striking illustration of Mahipatis� candour as provided by his faithful account of the attitude adopted towards caste by one of his Brahman saints. Dr. Sir R. G. Bhandarkar has pointed out that Mahipati makes “one of his Brahman saints declare that there is no caste among devotees of God and represents him to have drunk the holy water given to him by a chambhar or leatherworker.� That Mahipati, a “Rigvedi Vasistha Gotri Deshasth Brahman,� should have faithfully recorded that another Brahman winked at caste in relation to religious matters and should have portrayed him as receiving water at the bands of one of the lowest of India’s out-castes is a remarkable illustration of Mahipati’s honesty as an author. He sometimes even revises an earlier account of his own.� An interesting example of this is found in Mahipati’s story in his earlier Bhaktavijaya that a poor old Brahman woman came to Tukaram and begged of him some clothes, whereas in telling the same story in his later Bhaktalilamrit Mahipati corrects himself by saying it was Rukhumai the goddess who came in the guise of a Maharani.