365bet娱乐

Here is Mahipati鈥檚 magnum opus, The Bhakta-Vijaya (Victory of the devotees of the Lord), so excellently rendered into English as Stories of Indian Saints by Abbot and Godbole. Since its last edition in 1933, a great deal of research has been done both about the Bhakti-movement and the works and biographies of the saints described by Mahipati. Although Mahipati had a second-hand knowledge of Nabhaji鈥檚 叠丑补办迟补尘腻濒 [叠丑补办迟补尘腻濒膩], (a work in dialectal Braj) in depicting the legends about saints in northern India, he had painstakingly studied the works of the saints of Maharashtra, visited their places, contacted their descendants and culled together the legendary stories from different sources before presenting them poetically in his work. Mahipati is not a historian in the strict sense of the term, as his motivation was spiritual. He believed in the Advaita (non-difference) between God and His devotees and thought that glorification of the saints or devotees of God is equally meritorious like singing the glories of the Lord. His passion for describing the spiritual exploits of saints was so strong that even at the fag-end of his life he undertook another work Santa-尝颈濒腻尘峁泃补.

It is now generally accepted that the Bhakti movement in mediaeval India was a powerful integrating force which brought together Hindus (including Harijans) and Muslims as brothers on the same spiritual platform, engendered esprit de corps among the masses irrespective of castes and communities and inspired hope and confidence in the hearts of the downtrodden and the sufferers from foreign invasions as well as from intolerant orthodoxism. A reference to this work will show how Mahipati treats with equal veneration Muslim saints like Kabir, Kamal, Shaikh Mohammad, Harijan saints like Chokh膩 惭别濒腻, Bank膩, Rohid膩s and 厂别苍腻, non-Brahmin saints like 狈腻尘补诲别惫补, Tuk膩r膩ma and Brahmin saints like 闯帽腻苍补诲别惫补, 贰办补苍腻迟丑补 and 搁腻尘补诲腻蝉补. Mahipati was aware that under the physical, mental and temperamental differences of these saints, there is absolutely no distinction among the saints in the quality of their mystical or intuitive realization of God. And this awareness of the internal oneness of all saints is the sine qua non of the 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 cult. 鈥淭hough saints appear different (outwardly), they are one (internally) due to their oneness with God,鈥� remarks 搁腻尘补诲腻蝉补. And 搁腻尘补诲腻蝉补 does not belong to the 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 cult technically. In chapter 47 of this work, Mahipati records the legend that when 搁腻尘补诲腻蝉补, the staunch devotee of 搁腻尘补, visited Pandharpur. god Vi峁�峁環al manifested himself as 搁腻尘补 to him. There had been no conflicts between 艢aivites and Vai峁ａ箛avites in Maharashtra as in the South and there were no distinct currents (顿丑腻谤腻蝉) of the devotees of 搁腻尘补 and of 碍峁涐梗峁嘺 as in the North India. 狈腻尘补诲别惫补, Ekn膩tha, Tuk膩r膩ma鈥攊n fact all saints who followed the 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 cult鈥攇lorified the importance of the name of Rama along with that of 碍峁涐梗峁嘺 or 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补.

This synthesis of 痴补颈峁ａ箛补惫颈蝉尘 and 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 is symbolised in the idol of 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补. Though regarded as 痴颈峁ａ箛耻, the icon is not a four-handed deity but pastoral 碍峁涐梗峁嘺 with his two arms placed on his waist and a 艢颈惫补濒颈峁単补 on its head as its crest. Ico-nographically this icon is still a puzzle. Though saints in Maharashtra regard Vitthal [痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补] as the Buddha, the ninth incarnation of 痴颈峁ａ箛耻. the image is positively not that of the Buddha or of Avalokitesvara as is believed by some. Curiously enough its erect pose with both of its hands on the waist resembles 叠颈谤办耻腻谤, the god-let of Ah墨rs (膧产丑墨谤补蝉) of western Bihar. The Ah墨rs regard 叠颈谤办耻腻谤 as a form of 碍峁涐梗峁嘺 as we do in the case of 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补. 叠颈谤办耻腻谤-type idols are found in some parts of Maharashtra and Karnataka. Ah墨rs or 膧产丑墨谤补蝉 settled in ancient Maharashtra and their speech Ahir膩峁嚹�, a dialect of Marathi, is still current in northern Maharashtra. 鈥�膧产丑墨谤补鈥�, according to Sanskrit lexicons, means a cow-herd. It means that the majority of 膧产丑墨谤补蝉 followed that pastoral profession in ancient times. According to the X Skandha of the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补 笔耻谤峁嘺, 碍峁涐梗峁嘺, in his boyhood, was brought up in a cowherd community and all saints of the 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 cult sing of this part of 碍峁涐梗峁嘺鈥檚 life prominently. This 碍峁涐梗峁嘺 opposed the tradition of offering a sacrifice to the Brahmanical god Indra then in vogue in his cow-herd community. He advocated instead the worship of cows and Govardhana hill that offered fodder to the cows (叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补 笔耻谤腻峁嘺 X.34. 13-30).

Pandharpur, the centre of the 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 cult, devoutly revered as 叠丑奴-痴补颈办耻峁囜弓丑补 (the residence of god 痴颈峁ａ箛耻 on the earth), is in the Sholapur district of Maharashtra. It is, however, mentioned as 鈥淧andarige鈥� in the famous 鈥淐auryaimsica Silalekha鈥� [Caurya峁兣浤玞膩 艢颈濒腻濒别办丑补]鈥攁 stone-inscription dated 艢补办补 1195 (A.D. 1223) in the 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 Temple at Pandharpur and as 鈥�笔腻峁囜笉耻谤补峁単补-辫补濒濒墨鈥� (a small village called 笔腻峁囜笉耻谤补峁単补) in the Copperplate of 搁腻峁ａ弓谤补办奴峁璦 Avidheya of A.D. 516. Both the names show Dravidian influence in the area. The names however, do not shed any light on this cult. The fact that the most important 驰腻迟谤腻 of this cult is on the eleventh day of the bright half of 膧峁Ｄ佱笉丑补 (July-August)鈥攁 period of rainy season in this part of the country when farmers should be busy with their farming operations suggests that this traditional 惭别濒腻 should be dated to the era of food-gathering economy. It has survived down to the period of food-growing economy just as pagan festivals survived in Christian Europe. But this information merely shows that Pandharpur was a place where the mass-尘别濒腻 of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers traditionally met on that occasion since times immemorial.

The traditional founder of the deity is Pu峁囜笉al墨ka who is said to be a 碍辞岣纺�, a descendent of pre-Aryan Kolla settlers of Maharashtra. This traditional founder is reported to have been visited by god 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 not due to his merits of Brahmanical rituals but due to his devotional service to his parents. Pun峁囜笉l墨ka is credited to have thrown a brick to the God to stand upon as he was then busy serving his parents. And the God stood waiting, with both of his hands on his waist.

Such is the popular etymology of the name 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 which is traced to 惫墨峁璦 鈥渁 brick鈥� in Marathi. As a matter of fact, 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补, Vi峁環u, Vi峁�峁環u鈥敵站贬梗峁嚦� is due to the tendency of pronouncing Sk.鈥斸耿峁団�攁s-峁�峁環鈥攃urrent in Karnataka and Maharashtra at least since the 8th Century A.D. The other name of the deity, next in popularity to Vi峁環u or 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 is 笔腻峁囜笉耻谤补峁単补 (white-complexioned one). The name is most inappropriate to the idol of 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补, which is made of black stone. But as Hemacandra (12th Cent. A.D.) records in the 顿别艣颈苍腻尘补-尘腻濒腻 (6.23) 笔腻峁囜笉耻谤补峁単补 is the epithet of 艢颈惫补. The application of the names of 痴颈峁ａ箛耻 and 艢颈惫补 to one and the same deity is not surprising as iconographically the image represents both the deities as seen above. The prevalence of the Hari-Hara cult and images representing both the gods (though in a different way than in the 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 idol) were found in other parts of India also.

Though the period of Pu峁囜笉al墨ka is not certain, the saint who gave a philosophical basis to this cult and is regarded as the founder^[1] was 闯帽腻苍补诲别惫补, (A.D. 1275?鈥�1296) the victim of the intolerant centrifugal Hindu society which excommunicates its followers on the flimsiest pretext. 闯帽腻苍补诲别惫补 was, however, salvaged by a 艢aivite sect which retained the catholicity and 碍补谤耻峁嚹� of its Buddhistic predecessor. It is, however, noteworthy that J帽膩ndeva does not mention the name of 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 or 笔腻峁囜笉耻谤补峁単补 in his philosophical treatises鈥攖he 叠丑腻惫腻谤迟丑补-顿墨辫颈办腻, a commentary on the 叠丑补驳补惫补诲-骋墨迟腻 now popularly known as 闯帽腻苍别艣惫补谤墨 and his mystic poem 础苍耻产丑补惫腻尘峁泃补. It is only in 础产丑补峁単补蝉 attributed to him that we find him teaching the 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 cult. The real credit of popularising the devotion to 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 should rather be given to saints from the masses contemporaneous with 闯帽腻苍补诲别惫补 like 狈腻尘补诲别惫补 and others. These saints from practically all castes and communities preached a simple religion鈥攆aith and devotion unto God, Japa of His Name, and fast on the eleventh day of each fortnight and an annual pilgrimage to 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 at Pandharpur

The personalities who are draped in miraculous and fascinating legends by Mahipati in this work, were historically outstanding philosophers, social and religious reformers and eminent litterateurs of their age. All of them were 鈥榤ystics鈥� (as R. D. Ranade designates them) who unanimously advocated the Bhakti cult and carried on a sustained struggle against discrimination between man and man and mal-practices in the name of religion.

Jayadeva (circa 1150-1250 A.D.) is the author of that supremely musical poem Gita Govinda which became the source of inspiration to Fine Arts in medieval India. On the spiritual side, he was the exponent of 惭补诲丑耻谤腻 Bhakti long before the birth of Caitanya 惭补丑腻辫谤补产丑耻. 闯帽腻苍补诲别惫补 (A.D. 1271 or 1275鈥�1296) was a revolutionary genius in more than one ways. When sacred works like the 叠丑补驳补惫补诲驳墨迟腻 (B.G.) were scrupulously protected from the 鈥減ollution鈥� of the language of the masses, 闯帽腻苍补诲别惫补 wrote his Bh膩峁�ya, Bhav膩rtha-d墨pik膩, in Marathi. His interpretation of the B.G. supplied a sound philosophic base to the 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 cult.

Though he propagated his Yogic tradition separately and also entertained disciples of all caste to the Bhakti samprad膩ya, his selection of 狈腻尘补诲别惫补 to lead the 厂补尘辫谤补诲腻测补 and requisitioning his association in his (闯帽腻苍补诲别惫补鈥檚) pilgrimage to sacred places in North India, showed his farsightedness. Yogic back-ground, scholarship, 碍补谤耻峁嚹� for the dumb, and the downtrodden masses so deeply impressed his contemporaries that they and the later followers of the 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 cult regard 闯帽腻苍补诲别惫补 as an incarnation of 痴颈峁ａ箛耻.

Mahipati devoted the highest number of chapters to 狈腻尘补诲别惫补 (A.D. 1279-1350). Though elder to 闯帽腻苍补诲别惫补, he was the disciple of 闯帽腻苍补诲别惫补鈥檚 disciple Visob膩 Khechar and is called the 鈥�servant鈥� (碍颈峁僰补谤补) of 闯帽腻苍补诲别惫补 by Bahin膩-b膩墨. But long before he met 闯帽腻苍补诲别惫补, he was an ardent devotee of 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补. As recorded by non-Maharashtrian saints like Narsi Mehta (Gujarat) and Kabir (U.P.), it was reported that god 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 drank the milk from the hands of child 狈腻尘补诲别惫补, repaired the roof of his house and made the temple of god (膧va岣峢y膩 狈腻驳补苍腻迟丑补) turn round to enable the deity to have 狈腻尘补诲别惫补 in front of him. (Narsi Mehta鈥�H膩ra尘腻濒腻 vv. 53, 82; also in 狈腻尘补诲别惫补鈥檚 惭耻办丑补产腻苍墨 in 膧诲颈-骋谤补苍迟丑补 what is not known to Mahipati and to a large number of people in Maharashtra is 狈腻尘补诲别惫补鈥檚 work in the Punjab. We owe it to Sikh Guru Arjan Singh (A.D. 1561-1606) who, while compiling the 膧di grantha (Granth Sahib) of Sikhs, included 61 poetic compositions of 狈腻尘补诲别惫补 in a mixed Braj-like dialect, as his 尘耻办丑补产腻苍颈. Hindi scholars like Vinay Mohan Sharma^[2], Bhagirath Mishra and others call it 鈥淗indi鈥�. After a prolonged dispute, it has now been established that 狈腻尘补诲别惫补, the contemporary of 闯帽腻苍补诲别惫补 in Maharashtra is the same person who went to the Punjab probably in Circa A.D. 1325 and stayed there for 20 years. He had his headquarters at Ghoman in Gurudaspur Dist., though he spent most of his time in touring from place to place, preaching the efficacy of the name of the Lord.

Textual similarity between 狈腻尘补诲别惫补鈥檚 惭耻办丑补产腻苍墨 in the 膧诲颈-驳谤补苍迟丑补 and his Marathi 础产丑补峁単补蝉 (poems), identity in their teachings and glorification of god鈥檚 name, sometimes of Rama and at other places of B墨峁環alu [V墨峁環alu]鈥�(the latter is a loan-word from Marathi, the Panjabi form would have been Bi艣an), to lives or spiritual exploits of both 狈腻尘补诲别惫补鈥檚 are the same viz.: 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 idol drinking milk from 狈腻尘补诲别惫补鈥檚 hand, repairing of the roof of his house by 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补, bringing back to life a dead cow in the Durbar of a Sultan. These and other factors have led to establish the identity of these two 狈腻尘补诲别惫补s鈥�.

This identity makes 狈腻尘补诲别惫补 the first exponent of Santa-mata as Ramananda, Kabir, Nanak seem to have got inspiration from his work. He is probably the second Nirgunia after 闯帽腻苍补诲别惫补 who synthesized both the 厂补驳耻峁嘺 and 狈颈谤驳耻峁嘺 types of Bhakti. His associates and disciples included Brahmins, as well as men from goldsmith, potter, barber, Harijans communities.

Bahin膩b膩墨 rightly gives the credit of extending the temple of Bhakti to this 鈥渟ervant鈥� of 闯帽腻苍补诲别惫补.^[3]

Though Mahipati did not observe a chronological sequence in the arrangement of chapters, the next important saint is 贰办补苍腻迟丑补 (A.D. 1533?鈥�1599). He was the greatest scholarphilosopher-saint-poet cum social reformer of the 16th Century Maharashtra. But as we have already written in details about him^[4], we may pass on to the towering personalities of the 17th Century (Maharashtra) viz. Tuk膩r膩ma and 搁腻尘补诲腻蝉补.

Next to 狈腻尘补诲别惫补, Tuk膩r膩ma is respected by 痴腻谤补办补谤墨蝉 (followers of the 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 cult). As stated above, Mahipati studied his literature, visited this native place Dehu and based his chapters on Tuk膩r膩ma on the legends he got from 骋辞辫腻濒补 B膩b膩, the great-grandson of Tuk膩r膩ma. Being a product of a credulous age (as many of us are even today), 骋辞辫腻濒补 B膩b膩 thought that it is not his literature and piety but attribution of miracles that would enhance the greatness of Tuk膩r膩ma, and Mahipati believing in them as historical facts depicted them in a highly poetic way. Modem researchers, however, have established that Tuk膩r膩ma was not a destitute nor a simpleton. Though he discontinued his hereditory 惭补丑腻箩补苍补-ship and money-lending profession, he owned a big house, had his private 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 temple with a land-grant of 15 Bighas, had sufficient landed property other than this landgrant. Hence he could condemn begging in the strongest terms.^[5]

Bahin膩b膩墨, his spiritually advanced disciple who stayed at Dehu to the end of Tuk膩r膩ma鈥檚 life, does not record him to be a 痴腻谤补办补谤墨 but notes that he spent most his time in 厂腻诲丑补苍补 in his private 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 Temple. She does not record the formation of 峁�膩l办补谤墨蝉 at the time of his 碍墨谤迟补苍补 and hints that Tuk膩r膩ma wrote his 础产丑补峁単补蝉 himself, the manuscript of which due to the absence of Tuk膩r膩ma鈥檚 wife and children from Dehu for 25 years after his death, is now irrecoverably lost. As a miracle, she records that God preserved the 础产丑补峁単补-books of Tuk膩r膩ma dry in water, for 13 days. People still believe that Tuk膩r膩ma went to Vaiku峁囜弓ha physically (in his mortal body). Bahin膩b膩墨 states that Tuk膩r膩ma suddenly passed away in the presence of all.^[6]

The epithet Caitanya in the names of the two spiritual predecessors of Tuk膩r膩ma misled many to link up Tuk膩r膩ma to the Caitanya Sampradava of Bengal.^[7] It is true that Nim膩墨 or Gaur膩峁単a Prabhu came to Pandharpur where he was initiated in 碍峁涐梗峁嘺 cult by 莫艣惫补谤补 Puri and he spent some six years in the Deccan before he went to Orissa. But philosophically, (if we are to believe Baladeva, the Commentator of the Brahma 厂奴迟谤补蝉 as per Caitanya鈥檚 Cult), Caitanya was a 顿惫补颈迟墨, a follower of Madhva. In his Prameya Ratn膩val墨 which Baladeva regards as the summary of the nine Prameyas (proved propositions) of Caitanya, the world is regarded as real and that difference (of souls etc.) is real. This is against the teachings of Tuk膩r膩ma鈥攊n fact against the teachings of all saints of the 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 cult (and of 搁腻尘补诲腻蝉补 as well). A reference to any standard catalogue of Sk. MSS. will show a number of authors bearing the epithet Caitanya but having absolutely no relation with Gaur膩峁単a Prabhu.

Mahipati bases 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补鈥檚 manifestation as 搁腻尘补 to 搁腻尘补诲腻蝉补 on the basis of his own 础产丑补峁単补 at the sight of 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补. It shows his realization of oneness of 搁腻尘补 and 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补, if not an attempt to mobilise the followers of 痴颈峁�峁�丑补濒补 to the cause of Shivaji.

A lot of research has been carried out on Hindi and Gujarati saints like Kabir, Tulas墨d膩s [Tulsidas], S奴rd膩s, Nars墨 Mehta. But Mahipati had only a second-hand knowledge about them through the works of N膩bh膩j墨 and Uddhava Cidghana. In fact our knowledge about many Maharashtrian saints described by him is still very limited. We owe gratitude to him for preserving for us their names and legends for further research.

This is not a critique of Mahipati, but an attempt to present succinctly the research on these saints since 1933. Mahipati deserves our gratitude for presenting these legends in a fascinating, poetic style. The very fact that he devoutly describes the legends of all saints irrespective of caste, language, state or community shows that he had imbibed the fundamental tenet of philosophy of Bhakti:

ekam sad, vipr膩 bahudh膩 vadanti /

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

j帽膩ba deve峁� gh膩tal膩 p膩y膩 |
raciyele峁� dev膩lay膩 ||

[2]:

i) Vinay Mohan Sharma鈥�丑颈峁僤墨 ko 尘补谤腻峁环墨 sa峁僼o峁� k墨 dena
ii) S. P. Joshi鈥�pa峁僯膩b膩t墨la 苍腻尘补诲别惫补
iii) Bhagirath Mishra and Rajnarayan Maurya鈥�蝉补峁僼补 苍腻尘补诲别惫补 k墨 丑颈峁僤墨 pad膩val墨 (Poona University 1964).
iv) 苍腻尘补诲别惫补 诲补谤艣补苍补鈥摈耻产. Namadeva Samajonnali parishad, Kolhapur 1976.

[3]:

n膩m膩 ty膩c膩 ki峁僰ara |
迟测腻苍别峁� 办别濒腻 ho vist膩ra鈥擝ahin膩 B膩墨

[4]:

Introduction to J. E. Abbot鈥檚 The life of Ekanath (Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1980)

[5]:

bhik峁Ｄ乸膩tna avala峁僢a峁噀 |
jako ji峁噀峁� l膩jirav膩峁噀 ||

[6]:

tuk膩r膩m膩 ta峁僾a dekhat膩峁� dekhata |
le akasm膩ta m峁泃yur奴pa (础产丑补峁単补 No. 74)
V. S. Bendra鈥攖uk膩r膩ma 尘补丑腻谤腻箩补 y膩峁僣e s膩峁僩膩t墨 pp. 83-108. The whole book is worth perusal (Mauj Pub. Bombay 1958)

[7]:

For example M. T. Kennedy鈥�The Chaitanya Movement, p. 42 Pub. Y. M. C. A., Calcutta