Chapter XXVI. Pratishthā and Utsarga

Volume II: Part II pp. 889–916

Chapter XXVI. Pratishthā and Utsarga

PRATIṢṬHA AND UTSARGA

Pratiṣṭhā and Utsarga (foundation of temples and dedication of wells, tanks, parks &c. for the benefit of the public).

The subject of gifts naturally leads on to the topics of pratiṣṭhā and utsarga. We saw above (p. 157 f. ṇ 370) how the construction of temples, wells and similar religious and charitable foundations and institutions was included under pūrtadharma and how śūdras were entitled to perform such dharma. The Mit. on Yāj. II. 114 points¹ out that women (and widows) were entitled to spend on pūrta objects, though they were not authorized to perform iṣṭa dharma (i. e. vedic sacrifices &c.). Modern decisions have gone so far that a Hindu widow whose powers of alienating for secular purposes property inherited from her husband are very limited has been held to possess greater powers of alienation if the alienation be made for the spiritual benefit of her deceased husband and dedications by her of a small fraction of the property for the continuous benefit of the soul of the deceased owner have been uphelḍ² Such works of public utility have been highly recommended from very ancient timeṣ Śabara³ on Jaimini I. 3. 2 refers to the smṛti rules about charitable objects which are based on such śruti passages as 'O Agni, who art ancient and a king, thou art to the man who desires to offer a sacrifice like prapā (shed where water is distributed to travellers) in a desert'. In Rg. X. 107. 10 a puṣkariṇī ( a tank ) is mentioneḍ The Viṣṇu Dh. S. (chap. 91. 1–2) states ‘one who digs a well (for the public) has (the consequences of) half his sins destroyed when the water has begun to flow forth; one who dedicates a pond is forever happy (free from thirst) and attains the world of Varuṇa.’ Bāṇa in his Kādambarī (para 44) ⁴ mentions that smṛtis enjoined upon men the foundation (for public use) of halls, shelters, wells, prapās, gardens, temples, embankments, water wheels &c. Some sages went so far as to say that the reward of sacrifices is only heaven, but by pūrta (consecration of temples, tanks and gardens) one secures release from saṃsāra ⁵. This shows that charitable works for the use of the public or large sections of the public came to be regarded as more meritorious than sacrifices the gifts in which benefited only brāhmaṇaṣ

From very ancient times the procedure of dedicating a well or tank to the public has been settleḍ Among the earliest is the one in the Sāṅkhyāyana gr. V. 2 (S. B. E. vol. 29 pp.134-135) which is as follows: Now about the consecration of ponds, wells and tankṣ In the bright fortnight or on an auspicious tithi (day) having cooked a caru (boiled food) of barley in milk he (the donor) should sacrifice with the two verses ‘ tvam no agne ’ (Rg. IV. 1. 4-5) and with the verses ‘ ava te help ’ (Rg. I. 24. 14), ‘ imam me varuṇa ’ (Rg. I. 25. 19), ‘ uduttamam Varuṇa ’ (Rg. I. 24. 15), ‘ imām dhiyam ’ (Rg. VIII. 42. 3) and with the words ‘ the domestic one, he who goes away from the house, the refreshing one, he who goes into the kennel, he who dwells in the kennel, he who comes out of it, the greedy one, the destroyer of enemies ’ to the different directions beginning with the west (Vāruṇī, one over which Varuṇa presided) from left to right. In the centre he makes oblations with milk with the verses ‘ viśvatas cakṣuruta ’ (Rg. X. 81. 3), ‘ idam Viṣṇur ’ (Rg. I. 22. 17); he plunges into the water with the verse ‘ yat kim cedam Varuṇa ’ (Rg. VII. 89. 5). ⁶ A cow and a pair of clothes are the fee for this sacrifice. Then follows the feeding of brāhmaṇaṣ The Āśv. gr. pariśiṣṭa IV. 9, Pār. gr. pariśiṣṭa, Matsyapurāṇa chap. 58, Agnipurāṇa chap. 64 contain a more extensive procedure about the dedication of wells and reservoirs of water. That in the Pār. gr. pariśiṣṭa is briefly as ⁷ follows: "In the northward passage of the sun, in the bright half, on an auspicious day, tithi, vāra (week day ), nakṣatra and karaṇa the donor should cook caru sacred to Varuṇa of barley, offer the two ājyabhāgas and sacrifice in fire ten oblations of clarified butter with the mantras, Rg. IV. 1. 4, IV. 1. 5, I. 25. 19, I. 24. 11, Kāt. śr. 25. 1. 11 (ye te śatam Varuņa), ayāśoāgne ( Kāt. śr. 25. 1. 11), Rg. I. 24. 15, Rg. I. 24. 8, Vāj. S. VIII. 24.⁸ He then sacrifices (ten oblations) of the mess of cooked food to Agni, Soma, Varuṇa, Yajña, Ugra, Bhima, Śatakratu (Indra), Vyuṣṭi (prosperity), Svarga (Heaven) and lastly to Agni Sviṣṭakṛt (with svāhā at the end of each as in 'agnaye svāhā'). After partaking of the remains of the cooked food he should introduce aquatic animals (like fishes and tortoises in the pond &c.) and having bathed and decked a cow he should make the cow enter the reservoir, repeat the Puruṣasūkta (Rg. X. 90. 1-16) and donate that cow to the ācārya and should also make presents to him of two ear-rings, clothes and of another cow as fee and give a dinner to brāhmaṇaṣ" Aparārka (p. 413-414), the Nirṇayasindhu and others add from the Bahvṛca gr. pariśiṣṭa that when the cow enters the water, he should repeat a mantra 'may you make this water holy: may the water always be pure, holy and ambrosia-like; while saving me (from sin ) may you bathe in sacred water; she crosses from region to region and also saves (me and others)'; and that the donor holds the end of the cow's tail, enters the water and brings her out in the north-east corner (of the reservoir). This procedure does not apply to the consecration of a well. In that case a cow is only made to go round the well. Gradually the procedure prescribed in the purāṇas came to have the upper hand so much so that Aparārka (p. 15) says that in pratiṣṭhā the procedure prescribed in the purāṇas has to be followed and no other.⁹ Aparārka (pp. 409-414), Hemādri (Dāna pp. 997-1029), Dānakriyākaumudī (pp. 160-181), Jalāśayotsarga-tattva of Raghunandana, the Pratiṣṭhāmayūkha and Utsargamayūkha of Nīlakaṇṭha, Rājadharmakaustubha (pp. 171-223) and several other works give a very comprehensive procedure of the consecration of wells, ponds and tanks, based upon the gṛhya-pariśiṣṭas, the purāṇas such as the Matsya chap. 58, the Tantras, Pāñcarātra and other workṣ This procedure is passed over here. The idea¹⁰ was that unless the reservoir was consecrated in the way prescribed its water was not holy and when consecrated it became holy. Pratiṣṭhā generally means dedicating to the public with prescribed¹¹ riteṣ Utsarga means 'divesting oneself of ownership over a thing and dedicating it for the use of all.' There were four principal stages in the procedure of pratiṣṭhā; first the saṅkalpa,¹² then the homa, then the utsarga (i. e. declaration that the thing has been dedicated) and lastly the dakṣiṇā and feeding of brāhmaṇaṣ In Deosaran Bharthi v. Deoki Bharthi 3 Patna 842 it was said (at p. 850) 'the essential ingredient that constitutes a gift whether of movable or of immovable property in the Hindu Law is the Saṅkalpa and the Samarpaṇa whereby the property is completely given away and the owner completely divests himself of the ownership in the property. In the case of temples, the proper word to use is pratiṣṭhā and not utsarga.

There is a difference in the technical meaning of dāna and utsarga. In the former the donor gives up his ownership over a thing, makes another the owner of it and cannot thereafter use it nor has he any control over it. When a man makes an utsarga, he no doubt gives up his ownership, but he gives up the benefit of all (as in the formula above he uses the word ‘sarvabhūtebhyaḥ’) and so the opinion of most writers is that he can as a member of the public make use of the thing dedicated by him, though there were a few authors who recommended that he should not do so.¹³

Reservoirs of water that are dug out by man are of four kinds, kūpa, vāpī, puṣkariṇī and taḍāga.¹⁴ Some of the works define kūpa as a well that is from five to fifty cubits in length (if rectangular) or in diameter (if it is circular). It has generally no flight of steps to reach the water. Vāpī is a well with a flight of steps on all sides or on three or two sides or one side only and its mouth may be from 50 to 100 cubits; a puṣkariṇī is from 100 to 200 cubits in length or diameter and a taḍāga (a tank) is from 200 to 800 cubitṣ The Matsyapurāṇa 154. 512 states that a vāpī is equal to ten kūpas (in merit) and a hrada (deep reservoir) is equal to ten vāpīs; a son is equal to ten hradas and a tree is equal to ten sonṣ According to the Vasiṣṭha-saṃhitā quoted by Raghunandana a puṣkariṇī is up to 400 cubits and a taḍāga is five times as much. At certain auspicious times only the consecration of wells and tanks is to take place.¹⁵

Trees have been highly prized in India at all timeṣ They were useful in sacrifices for making the yūpa (the post to which the sacrificial animal was tied), for idhma (samidhs which were thrown into fire), for the several ladles like sruva, juhū etc. The Tai. Br. I. 1. 3 speaks of seven holy treeṣ The Tai. S. III. 4. 8. 4 states that idhma (samidhs) should be of the nyagrodha, udumbara, aśvattha and plakṣa trees, as they are the abodes of Gandharvas and Apsaraseṣ¹⁶ Besides trees with their verdant foliage looked beautiful and the leaves of some of them (such as the mango tree) are hung up even now in pandals and at entrances of houses as auspicious in marriage and other ceremonieṣ Hemādri cites a passage from the Brahmapurāṇa that the twigs and leaves of the Aśvattha (the pipal tree), udumbara, plakṣa, cūta (mango) and nya- grodha are styled pañcabhaṅga¹⁷ and are auspicious in all riteṣ The palāśa tree was held to be so sacred that one was not to make seats, sandals or tooth brush from it or its branches and twigs (Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 3. 25). Trees gave shelter against heat and also yielded flowers and fruits (for worship of gods and pitṛs). When felled their wood was useful in building houses, for making implements of husbandry and for producing heat and warmth. In his 7th Pillar Edict (of Delhi-Topra) Aśoka mentions the construction of wells at a distance of 8 krośas and the planting of banyan trees and mango groves (C. I. I. vol. I pp. 134-135 ). The Mahābhāṣya (vol. I. p. 14) quotes a portion of an ancient verse which conveys that if a person waters and tends mango trees, his pitṛs feel extremely pleaseḍ¹⁸ Manu IV. 39 and Yāj. I. 133 require the snātaka to circumambulate well-known trees (like aśvattha) if he meets them on the way. The Kādambarī also refers to this practice of worshipping trees, particularly by women desiring to have a soṇ¹⁹ The Mahābhārata (Anuśāsanaparva 58. 23-32) highly eulogizes plant life and divides plants into six kinds viz. vṛkṣa (tree), latā (creepers that cling to trees), vallī (creepers that spread on the ground), gulma (bushes), tvaksāra ( trees whose bark is strong, while the inside is hollow, like bamboos ) and grass and adds that he who plants trees is saved (in a future existence) by them just as sons do and that they should be tended like sonṣ²⁰ The Viṣṇu Dh.S.91.4 says the same thing. Hemādri (Dāna pp. 1030-31) cites a long passage from the Padmapurāṇa how by planting different trees and plants like aśvattha, aśoka, tamarind, pomegranate and others a man secures such rewards (respectively) as wealth, removal of sorrow, long life, a wife, &c. Vṛddha-Gautama (Jīv., part 2. p. 625) identifies the Aśvattha tree with Śrī Kṛṣṇa. The Mahābhārata (Śānti 69. 42) forbids even the felling of the leaves of trees like the aśvattha that have a platform²¹ built for them (caitya). Śāntiparva 184. 1-17 graphically describes how trees have life since they feel pain and pleasure and grow though cut. The Bhaviṣyapurāṇa quoted in the Utsarga-mayūkha (p. 16) states ‘he who plants either one aśvattha or one picumarda or one nyagrodha or ten tamarind trees, or the three trees i. e. kapittha, bilva and āmalaka or plants five mango trees would not see hell (i. e. would not be condemned to hell for his sins).²² The Matsyapurāṇa (chap. 270. 28-29) requires that to the east of the maṇḍapa of a temple fruit-bearing trees should be planted, to the south trees that contain milky sap, to the west a reservoir of water with lotuses therein should be constructed and to the north a flower garden and sarala and tāla treeṣ Vaṣ Dh.S. 19.11-12 prescribes that no one should injure (i. e. cut) trees that yield fruits and flowers except only for purposes of cultivating the land²³ (and for sacrificial purposes, as laid down in Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51. 63 ). The Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 55. 59 prescribes that the king should award the highest fine, the middling fine, or a fine of 100 kārṣāpanas or of one kārṣāpana respectively against those who wrongfully cut a tree bearing fruit or a tree that bears flowers, or who cut creepers and shrubs or grasṣ Hemādri (Dāna. pp. 1029-1055) deals at length with the planting of trees, the dedication of a garden and the merit acquired by making gifts of various treeṣ The procedure of dedicating a garden is prescribed in Śāṇ gr. V. 3, Aśv. gr. pariśiṣṭa IV. 10, the Matsyapurāṇa 59, Agnipurāṇa 70 and in many other workṣ It is modelled on the dedication of wells and tankṣ The Matsyapurāṇa expressly states that the procedure of the consecration of a tank is extended to the consecration of everything, such as a prāsāda (a large house or hall for public use), a garden &c., the only difference being that the mantras are different.²⁴ The procedure in Śāṇ gr.²⁵ (V. 3) is : Having established the sacred fire in that garden and having cooked a mess of food, the donor should sacrifice with the words (Viṣṇave svāhā, Indrāgnibhyām svāhā, Viśva-karmaṇe svāhā) and with verses Rg. III. 8. 6 ff. (yān vo naro ), verse by verse. Then he recites over the garden the verse Rg. III. 8. 11 ' vanaspate śatavalśo vi roha.' The fee for the sacri-fice is golḍ

Devatā-pratiṣṭhā—(Consecration of an image in a temple).

Though the dharmasūtras speak as shown above of images and temples, it strikes one as somewhat strange that none of the principal gṛhya and dharma-sūtras contains any procedure of consecrating an image in a temple, while in the purāṇas and some of the digests much space is devoted to the topic of devatā-pratiṣṭhā. The Matsyapurāṇa in chap. 264 and the Agnipurāṇa in chap. 60 and 66 deal with devatāpratiṣṭhā in general. There are special chapters in the purāṇas on the consecration of the image of Viṣṇu or of Śiva or the Liṅga. It would be impossible to deal in any detail with all this matter. The worship of god can be done in two ways, viz. without any outward symbol and with a symbol. The first is achieved by a prayer and offering oblations into fire; the second by means of imageṣ But even image worshippers are quite conscious that god is pure consciousness (cit ), is one without a second, is without parts and without a physical body, and that the various images in which he is thought as in-dwelling are so imagined for the benefit of worshipperṣ²⁶

The worship of god through the medium of images is again two-fold, viz. done in one's house and in a public temple. The latter is, according to many works, the best and the completest, since it allows of the celebration of festivals and the performance of the varied items or modes of worship (upacāra). Private worship of idols in one's house has already been dealt with above (pp. 726-736) under Devapūjā. Now the worship of images in temples remains to be dealt with. The establishment of images in temples is again of two kinds viz. calārcā (where the image can be lifted up, moved to another place) and sthirārcā (where the image is fixed on a pedestal or is not meant to be lifted up or moved). The consecration of these two differs in certain detailṣ

Here numerous matters have to be considereḍ The principal matters to be attended to according to the Matsyapurāṇa (264-66) are: the auspicious time for the consecration of an image, the erection of a maṇḍapa to the east or north of the temple, the erection of a vedi therein, erection of four toraṇas (arched gates) for the maṇḍapa, placing two auspicious jars at each of mango leaves and white cloth, raising of banners all round the maṇḍapa, worship of lokapālas (guardian deities of quarters), erecting another maṇḍapa for bathing the image in, bringing the image and honouring the artizans, drawing lines on the image or liṅga with a golden needle to represent the lustre of eyes, the selection of a qualified sthāpaka or ācārya and of from eight to 32 other priests (called mūrtipa); taking the image or liṅga to the maṇḍapa meant for bathing the image, bathing the image to the accompaniment of music with pañcagavya mixture, with mṛttikā (loose earth), with holy ashes and water; rendering it pure by repeating four mantras (viz. samudrajyeṣṭhāḥ, āpo divyāḥ, yāsām rājā and āpo hi sthā, which are respectively Ṛg. VII. 49. 1–3 and X. 9. 1); offering worship after the bath to the image with sandalwood paste and covering it with a garment (with the verse 'abhi vastrā' Ṛg. IX. 97. 50), placing the image in a standing position with the mantra 'uttiṣṭha' (Ṛg. I. 40. 1); placing the image in a chariot with the verses ‘a mūraja’ and ‘rathe tiṣṭhan’ (Ṛg. VI. 47. 31 and VI. 75. 6) and entering it in the maṇḍapa with the verse ‘ā kṛṣṇena’ (Ṛg. L 35. 2); placing the image on a bed on which kuśa grass and flowers are strewn with the face (of the image) towards the east; placing a water jar (called nidrakalaśa) having gold in it and a piece of cloth at the mouth towards the head of the image with the mantras ‘āpo devīr’ (Tai: S. VII. 3. 13. 1) and ‘āpo asmān’ (Ṛg. X. 17. 10); placing under the head of the image silken pillows, sprinkling honey and clarified butter, and worshipping with mustard with the verse ‘āpyāyasva’ (Ṛg. I. 91. 16 or IX. 31. 4) and ‘yā te rudra’ (Tai. S. IV. 5. 1. 1); offering worship with sandalwood paste and flowers and tying a band (pratisara) on the right hand (of the image) with ‘bārhaspatya’ mantra; placing a parasol, chowrie, mirror, jewels, auspicious herbs, household utensils, fine vessels and seats by the side of the image with the verse ‘abhi tvā’ (Ṛg. VII. 32. 22); honouring the image with the presentation of various foods and condiments with the verse ‘tryambakam yajāmahe’ (Ṛg. VII. 59. 12); placing four priests and four doorkeepers in the four directions viz. a priest knowing Ṛgveda in the east and so on and each of the four priests is to repeat from his own Veda several hymns and verses e. g. the Ṛgvedin priest should recite Śrīsūkta (Ṛg. I.165), Pavamāna hymn (from Ṛg. IX. 1), Śāntikādhyāya (Ṛg. X. 16 ), then a hymn to Indra. Then the ācārya is to perform homa towards the head of the image with Śāntika mantras and offer into the fire 1000 samidhs (fuel sticks ) each of palāśa, udumbara, aśvattha, apāmārga and śāmī trees and then touch the feet of the god; preparing nine kuṇḍas each one cubit square and offering into them one thousand samidhs each time on touching the navel, the chest and the head of the image; remembering the eight forms (mūrti) of god viz. the earth, fire, the sacrifice, the sun, the water, wind, moon and ākāśa and offering homa to these with vaidika mantras; placing auspicious jars near each kuṇḍa; bathing the image at every watch and offering incense, food (naivedya) sandalwood paste; offering bali to all beings, and dinner to brāhmaṇas and persons of other castes at one’s desire; celebrating a festival at night with dances, song and music; this may go on from one day to seven days (it is called adhivāsana); then the temple building is to be sprinkled over; finding out a place for the image either to the north or slightly to the north-east in the temple; a stone in the form of a tortoise is to be placed on the temple floor; preparing a piṇḍikā and bathing it with pañcagavya with mantras; then raising the image with the mantra 'uttiṣṭha' (Rg. I. 40. 1), bringing it in the inmost chamber of the temple and placing it on the pīṭha (pedestal), offering it arghya water, pādya water, madhuparka; then the nyāsa (depositing) of eight kinds of jewels viz. diamond, pearl, lapis luzuli, conch, crystal, puṣparāga, indranīla and nīla in the eight directions from the east, also of eight kinds of grains viz. wheat, barley, sesame, mudga, nīvara, śyāmāka, mustard and rice and also eight fragrant things such as white and red sandal-wood, agaru, uśīra &c. Nyāsa of all these is to be made after repeating om and the paurāṇika mantras ( with 'namo namaḥ' at end) of the eight guardians (lokapālas) viz. Indra, Agni, Yama, Nirṛti, Varuṇa, Vāyu, Soma, Īśāna and also of Brahmā (9th) and Ananta (10th); raising the image and fixing it in the scooped up portion of the pedestal with the mantra 'dhruvā dyaur' (Rg. X. 173. 4); placing one's hand on the head of the image and contemplating on the well-known form of the deity that is established, whether Viṣṇu, Śiva, Brahmā, the Sun; repeating appropriate mantras (viz. those of Rudra, Viṣṇu, Brahmā, the Sun in the case of the respective gods whose image is establi- shed); establishing deities near the principal image of the god's dependants (such as Nandi in the case of Śiva); invoca- tion (āvāhana) of the principal deity with its attendants with paurāṇika mantras; bathing the image with curds, milk, clarified butter, honey and sugar and then with water in which flowers and scents are mixed up; repeating the following mantras again and again viz. 'yaj-jāgrato dūram-upaiti' (Vāj. S. 34. 1), 'tato virāḍ- ajāyata' (Vāj. S. 31. 5), 'sahasraśīrṣā' (Rg. X. 90. 1), 'yenedam bhūtam' (Vāj. S. 34. 4), 'na tvā vām' (Rg. VII. 32. 23); touch- ing four times with water the feet, the waist and head ( of the image); giving gifts of clothes, ornaments &c. to the ācārya and to the poor, the blind and the distressed and to others that may be gathered to see; filling with sand any aperture in any direction in which the image appears to be unstable and performing propitiatory rites for the guardian of that quarter and making gifts suitable to each lokapāla; celebrating a festival for three, five or seven dayṣ

The general procedure of consecrating an image has been given above at some length from the Matsyapurāṇa in order to convey some idea how in the first centuries of the Christian era the consecration of images was done. It will be noticed that mostly vedic mantras were employed though a few pau-rāṇika mantras also occur. In medieval digests like the Deva-pratiṣṭhātattva other elements were added from Tantra workṣ Special attention may be drawn to the fact that in the above procedure the word prāṇapratiṣṭhā does not occur in the Matsya. Raghunandana (in Devapratiṣṭhātattva) quotes Devīpurāṇa to the effect that prāṇapratiṣṭhā is done after touching the cheeks of the image with the right hand and that without this vivifica-tion a mere image does not attain to the position of a deity worthy of worship. In the Devapratiṣṭhātattva, the Nirṇaya-sindhu, the Rājadharma-kaustubha and other works the prāṇa-pratiṣṭhā is based on the 23rd chapter (patala) of the Śāradā-tilaka (verses 72-76). The mantra is given below.²⁷

The Devapratiṣṭhātattva (p. 505) quotes the Hayāśīrṣapañ-carātra to the effect that generally a brāhmaṇa should officiate at the consecration of an image of Viṣṇu, but a kṣatriya can officiate for a vaiśya or a śūdra yajamāna and a vaiśya may do for a śūdra yajamāna, but a śūdra cannot officiate.

In the Matsyapurāṇa, the Agnipurāṇa, the Nṛsiṁhapurāṇa, the Nirṇayasindhu and many other works there are descriptions of the consecration of the images of Vāsudeva, of a liṅga and other deities, which are all passed over here for want of space. In these works following Tantric practices three kinds of nyāsas viz. Mātṛkānyāsa, Tattvanyāsa and Mantranyāsa are referred to. The Mātṛkānyāsa consists in repeating the letters of the alphabet from a (including 'am' and 'ah') to l̥ (in the form of akārādya namaḥ svāhā) and offering an oblation in fire. The Tattva-nyāsa consists in repeating ‘Ātmatattvāya namaḥ, svāhā’ and the same formula as to Ātmattvādhipati, Kriyāśakti, Śivatattva (or Viṣṇutattva), Śivatattvādhipati, Icchāśakti, Vidyātattva, Vidyātattvādhipati, Adharāśakti. The Mantranyāsa is as follows: taking a mantra of certain letters for a god (e. g. one of 12 letters as in ‘om namo bhagavate Vāsudevāya’) one has to repeat each letter in the formula ‘om omkārāya namaḥ svāhā’.

The Dharmasindhu III (pūrvārdha) sets forth a brief procedure of the consecration of images in which only one priest is required (vide pp. 333-34 ). In modern times also the procedure of devatāpratiṣṭhā contains numerous elements and is extremely long.

The Vaikhānasa Smārtasūtra (IV. 10-11) contains perhaps the earliest extant detailed description of the consecration of the image of Viṣṇu. But it appears to have been mainly concerned with an image installed in private houses or with the worship of an image by one individual. It is briefly as follows:²⁸ After the daily homa comes the daily worship of Viṣṇu, which (worship) comprehends in itself the worship of all godṣ A brāhmaṇa passage (Ait. Br. I. 1) says ‘Agni is indeed the nethermost ( or the lowest ) among gods and Viṣṇu the highest; between these two stand all the other deities’. Therefore hav-ing established in one’s house the highest god Viṣṇu the house-holder worships him at the end of the evening and morning homa. He should make an image of Viṣṇu in length not more than six fingers; he should perform its consecration in the bright half ( of a month ) on an auspicious nakṣatra. Three days before he should prepare the space ( kuṇḍa ) of the gṛhya fire and perform the several rites of prokṣaṇa, drawing lines as described (in Vaik. I. 9). Then he is to perform homa up to āghāras ( as described above pp. 210-11). Then he performs the sacrifices to the limbs in the words ‘to the teeth, svāhā: to the jaws, svāhā’, and other oblations with the six mantras beginning with ‘ato devā’ (Rg. I. 22. 16-21). Then he performs while repeating audibly the hymn to Puruṣa (Rg. X. 90. 1-16) the opening of the eyes ( of the god Viṣṇu ) with a golden needle. Having spread in a river or a pond or in a vessel filled with water cloth and kuśa grass with the mantras beginning ‘ye te śatam’ (mentioned in Vaik. III. 17) he lays down ( the image of ) the god on these with the head turned to the east and leaves the image there. On the second day after he bathes, he offers at night the āghāra in the usual way; he brings eight jars, fills them successively with pañcagavya, ghee, curds, milk, water mixed with whole rice, water with fruits, water with kuśa grass, water with jewels (pearls &c.) ; worships the god, bathes the image with the (contents of) the (eight) jars successively with the following mantras : ' vasoḥ pavitram' (Vāj. S. I. 31), ' agna āyāhi', ' iṣe tvorje tvā,' ' śam no devīr,' ²⁹ ' catvāri śṛṅgā' (Ṛg. IV. 58. 3), ' somo dhenum' (Ṛg. I. 91. 26), ' catvāri vāk' (Ṛg. I. 164. 45), ' idaṁ viṣṇur' (Ṛg. I. 22. 17); he further bathes the image with perfumed waters to the accompaniment of the mantras ' āpo' (Ṛg. X. 9. 1), ' hiraṇya- varṇāḥ' (Tai. S. V. 6. 1. 1) and the pavamāna sectioṇ He then makes to the north of the fire a vedi (altar) with rice, places a seat on it, spreads cloth on it, places the god thereon and having decked (the image) with clothes &c. worships the image. He has the benediction pronounced (by the brāhmaṇas), he touches the pratisara (a band or ribbon) with the svasti hymn³⁰ and ties it (on the right hand of the image) with the mantra ' svastidā viśaspatir' (Ṛg. X. 152. 2). He then lays the god down as before. After filling with purified clear water a jar that is not dark-coloured, he places it by the (right) side of the image, touches it with the syllable 'om' and throws into it a bunch of kuśa grass, whole rice, a piece of gold and a jewel (pearl). Having meditated on the god who is really without parts as residing in his own heart and also in the clear water, as golden in splendour, as having red face, eyes, hands and feet, as wearing the śrīvatsa mark and a yellow garment, as having (in his hands) the conch and the disc, as of benign countenance and as possessed of all parts (i. e. complete) he should bow before hiṃ Having sprinkled water round the fire and having lauded the work of the hotṛ, he invokes the god by name in the southern praṇidhi vessel in the words ' oṁ bhūḥ puruṣam' (āvāhayāmi) and performs invocations in the same way with vyāhṛtis separately and together and of Nārāyaṇa, Viṣṇu, Puruṣa, Satya, Acyuta, Aniruddha, Śrī, Mahi. Having poured out the rice (for the sacrificial offering) he sacrifices four times with ghee and with a hymn to Viṣṇu, with the Puruṣasūkta (Rg. X. 90), with the mantras beginning with ‘ato devāḥ ’ (Rg. I. 22. 16–21) and with the mantra ‘medinī devī’; he should then offer the mess of boiled rice sprinkled over with clarified butter after invoking the god’s names (Keśava and 11 others mentioned in Vaik. III. 13). On the following morning he bathes, placing the god in the standing position after uttering ‘om’; carries the image with the jar while muttering the śākuna hymn (Rg. II. 42. 1–3 and II. 43. 1–3) in the north-western direction into his house or in a temple or in the agnihotra-shed; placing down on the pedestal meant for the image jewels and gold he installs the image of Viṣṇu saying ‘I install Viṣṇu’ while repeating a hymn to Viṣṇu and the hymn to Puruṣa (Rg. X. 90). He makes a nyāsa on the head, on the navel, on the feet and the chest of the image of the syllables svaḥ, bhuvaḥ and bhūḥ and om; fixing his mind on the god with the mantra ‘idam Viṣṇur’ (Rg. I. 22. 17) and taking with a bunch of kuśa grass the clear water that has been already poured in the jar and that has already the śakti (power personi- fied) in it, he makes (the water) flow on the head of the image and performs the invocation with the words ‘I Invoke Viṣṇu’. Having propitiated by worship as laid down in the śāstric rules he presents the sacrificial food (to the image).

In Vaik. IV. 12 the daily worship of Viṣṇu is set out.

The practice of attaching dancing girls to temples is of respectable antiquity. The origin of this practice appears to be analogous to the institution of Vestal virgins in Rome. The Rājatarangiṇī (IV. 269) speaks of two dancing girls attached to a temple ( devagr̥hāśrite nartakyau ) who danced and sang at a place as it was the custom of their family, though the temple itself was buried undergrounḍ In the Vaghli (Khandesh District) stone Inscription dated śake 991 (1069–70 A. D.) there is a grant of Govindarāja making provision for dancing and singing by damsels³¹ (vilāsinī). In the Inscription of the Cāhamāna king Jojaladeva dated saṁvat 1147 (1090–91 A. D.) the courtezans of all temples are said to have been ordered to come in their best dress and celebrate a festival with music (E. I. vol. XI. 26 and 27 ) and the king records an imprecation against all who might stop that practice. The Iṭṭagi ( 20 miles east of Gadag ) inscription dated 1112 A. D. records ( E. I. vol. XIII. p. 58 ) that a brāhmaṇa named Mahādeva donated houses for the retinue of dancing girls and other attendants of the gods at Iṭṭagi. This practice of devadāsis ( minor girls dedicated to the service of temples ) or bhāvins ( which term is known in the southern parts of the Ratnāgiri district ) was held by the modern Indian Courts to be immoral and whoever disposes of any person under the age of 18 years ( or obtains possession of any person ) with intent that such person shall at any age be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or with knowledge that the person is likely to be employed or used for any such purpose at any age is liable to be prosecuted under Sec. 372 and 373 of the Indian Penal Code ( as amended by Act 18 of 1924 ).³² In Bombay there is the Bombay Devadasis Protection Act ( Bombay Act X. of 1934 ) which declares the performance of ceremonies for dedicating an unmarried woman to an idol or temple illegal and renders the dedicator or abettor thereof liable to punishment ( one year's imprisonment or fine or both ).

Punah-pratisthā:—( Re-consecration of images in temples ). The Brahmapurāṇa quoted by the Devapratisthātattva and the Nirṇayasindhu says ‘ when an image is broken into two or is reduced to particles, is burnt, is removed from its pedestal, is insulted, has ceased to be worshipped, is touched by beasts like donkeys or falls on impure ground or is worshipped with mantras of other deities or is rendered impure by the touch of outcasts and the like—in these ten contingencies, god ceases to indwell thereiṇ' When an image is polluted by ( contact with ) the blood of a brāhmaṇa or by the touch of a corpse or the touch of a patita it should be re-consecrateḍ If an image is broken in parts or reduced to particles it should be removed according to śāstric rules and another should be installed in its place. When an image is broken or stolen a fast should be observeḍ If images of metal such as of copper are touched by thieves or caṇḍālas they should be purified in the same way in which polluted vessels of those metals are purified and then they should be re-consecrateḍ If an image properly consecrated has had no worship performed without pre-meditation (i.e. owing to forgetfulness or neglect) for one night or a month or two months or the image is touched by a śūdra or a woman in her monthly illness, then the image should have water adhivāsa (placing in water) performed on it and it should be bathed with water from jars, then with pañcagavya, then it should be bathed with pure water from jars to the accompaniment of the hymn to Puruṣa (Rg. X. 90) repeated 8000 times, 800 times or 28 times, worship should be offered with sandal-wood paste and flowers, naivedya (food) of rice cooked with jaggery should be offereḍ This is the way in which the re-consecration is effecteḍ

Jirņoddhāra (rehabilitating old or dilapidated temples &c.). This subject is closely connected with the preceding topic and is dealt with in the Agnipurāṇa, chap. 67 and 103 (about liṅgas); the Nirṇayasindhu (III. pūrvārdha p. 353), the Dharmasindhu (III. pūrvārdha p. 335) give an extensive procedure following the Agnipurāṇa. This is done when the image in a temple or a liṅga is burnt, or reduced to particles or is removed to another place. The Agnipurāṇa (103. 4) says that if an image or liṅga is carried off by the strong current of a river, it may be re-consecrated elsewhere according to the rites prescribed in the śāstra. According to the Agnipurāṇa ³³ (103. 21) a liṅga that is reputed to have been established by the asuras (like Bāṇā-sura) or famous sages or by gods or by those who were expert in Tantra should not be removed to another place, whether it be worn out or broken, even after the performance of prescribed riteṣ The Agnipurāṇa prescribes (chap. 67. 3-6) that an image of wood when extremely worn out may be burnt, one of stone may be thrown into water, one made of metal or of a jewel (pearl &c.) should be thrown into very deep water or the sea after carrying it covered with cloth in a cart to the accompaniment of music and on the same day another of the same dimensions and substance should be installed after the purification of the image is effecteḍ When the daily worship of an image had been stopped of set purpose or when it is touched by śūdras and the like, purification can be effected only by re-consecratioṇ Re-consecration can be done even in intercalary months or when Venus is too near the sun to be visible. When a temple or a well or a tank is breached or when a garden embankment or a public hall is injured, one should offer four oblations of clarified butter with the four verses 'idam Viṣṇur' (Rg. I. 22.17 ), ‘mā nastoke’ (Rg. I. 114. 8), ‘Viṣṇoḥ karmāṇi’ (Rg. I. 22. 19), ‘pādosya’ (Rg. X. 90. 3), and then a dinner may be given to brāhmaṇaṣ

The procedure of jīrṇoddhāra is given at length in the Niraṇayasindhu, the Dharmasindhu and other workṣ Vṛddha- Hārita IX. 409-415 also deals with re-consecratioṇ Śāṅkha- Likhita quoted in the Vivāda-ratnākara and other works say that when an image, a garden, a well, a bridge (over a moat or river), a flagstaff, a dam, a reservoir of water are breached, they should be repaired ( or raised ), re-consecrated and the person guilty of breach should be fined 800 paṇaṣ³⁴ When worship was stopped, some authors prescribed re-consecration, while others prescribed only prokṣaṇa as laid down in the Devapratiṣṭhā- tattva (p. 512) or Dharmasindhu ( III pūrvārdha p. 334 ).

The Kirāḍu (Jodhpur) Inscription of the time of king Bhīmadeva of Aṇahillapāṭaka records that in place of an image broken by Turuṣkas (Moslems) a new one was installed in saṃvat 1235 (1178-79 A. D. ) by the wife of Tejahpāla, a sub- ordinate officer of the feudatory Cāhamāna Mahārājāputra Madanabrahma (vide E. I. vol. XX, Appendix p. 56 No. 381 ).

Mathapratiṣṭhā:—(the founding of a monastery or a college for teachers and pupilṣ)

The founding of maṭhas appears to have been not very ancient. The Bauḍ Dh. S. (III. 1. 16) in speaking of a householder who is an agnihotrin remarks ‘after departing from his house he (the householder) stops at the extremity of the village, builds there a hut (kuṭī), or a cottage hall (maṭha) and enters it’. Here maṭha does not appear to have any technical sense. In the lexicon of Amara a maṭha is defined as 'a place where pupils (and their teacher) reside'. A temple Ch. XXVI ] and a matha were both established from the same religious motive or sentiment, but they served different purposeṣ A temple was built principally for the purpose of prayer and worship. It also often provided for religious instruction, for the recitation of the Mahābhārata, the Rāmāyaṇa and the purāṇas, for kīrtans to the accompaniment of music. But these latter were only secondary purposeṣ In the case of the mathas they were primarily intended for the instruction of pupils or the laity by some great teacher in the tenets of a sect or in the doctrines of some philosophy or in some branch of learning such as grammar, mīmāṁsā, astronomy and the like. In many cases shrines or temples are associated with or affiliated to the mathas, but the worship of a particular deity is not the primary object of mathaṣ Mathas among the followers of the Vedic religion probably owed their origin to the example of Buddhist monasteries (vihāras)³⁵. The foundation of mathas received a great fillip after the times of the celebrated Advaita teacher, the great Śaṅkarācārya, whom tradition credits with having established for the propagation of his system of Vedānta four mathas at Śṛiṅgeri, Purī (Govardhanamatha), Dvārakā (Śāradāmatha) and Badarī (Jyotirmaṭha). Vide E. C. vol. VI Sg. No. 11 (an inscription dated 1652 A. D.) where reference is made to a grant in Śṛiṅgapura, the dharmapīṭha established by Śaṅkarācārya, to the famous matha at Śṛiṅgeri for the worship of Mallikārjuna, Vidyā-śaṅkara-svāmī and Śāradāmbā. Other ācāryas like Rāmānuja and Madhva established their own mathas and the number of mathas is now legioṇ Originally a matha started by a sannyāsin like the great Śaṅkarācārya must have had no property, as ascetics were prohibited by the śāstras from possessing property, except such articles of personal use as clothes, sandals, religious books on palm leaf or paper &c. Besides sannyāsins were required not to stay long in one place. So people built shelters for them, in order to accommodate them when they visited their town or village and these were probably originally called matha, which in its narrow sense means a place where an ascetic resideṣ In its wider sense it means an institution where a teacher presides and instructs several disciples in religious and analogous tenets, practices and dogmaṣ But gradually the zeal and devotion of the disciples and followers of the great teachers endowed the maṭhas with considerable moveable and immovable propertieṣ The origin of maṭhas (spoken of as maṭṭams in South India) has been lucidly set forth as follows in Sammantha Pandara v. Sellappa Chetti 2 Maḍ 175 at p. 179 'a preceptor of religious doctrine gathers around him a number of disciples whom he initiates into the parti- cular mysteries of the order and instructs in its religious tenetṣ Such of these disciples as intend to become religious teachers renounce their connection with their family and all claims to the family wealth and as it were affiliate themselves to the spiritual teacher whose school they have entereḍ Pious persons endow the schools with property which is vested in the preceptor for the time being and a home for the school is created and a maṭṭam constituteḍ The property of the maṭṭam does not descend to the disciples or elders in common; the preceptor, the head of the institution, selects from among the affiliated disciples him whom he deems the most competent and in his own life-time instals the disciple so settled as his successor, not uncommonly with some ceremonieṣ After the death of the preceptor the disciple so chosen is installed in the gaddi and takes by succession the property which has been held by his predecessor. The property is in fact attached to the office and passes by inheritance to no one who does not fill that office. It is in a certain sense trust property ; it is devoted to the maintenance of the establishment, but the superior has a large domain over it, and is not accountable for its management nor for the expenditure of the income, provided he does not apply it to any purpose other than what may fairly be regarded as in furtherance of the object of the institutioṇ Acting for the whole institution he may contract debts for purposes connected with his maṭṭam and debts so contracted might be recovered from the maṭṭam property and would devolve as a liability on his successor to the extent of the assets received by him'. Vide also Giyana Sambandha Pandar Sannadhi v. Kandasami Tambiran 10 Maḍ375, pp.384-389; Vidyapurna tīrtha Swami v. Vidyanidhi tīrtha Swami 27 Maḍ 435 at pp. 438-439, 451, 453-55, Kailasam Pillai v. Nataraja, 33 Maḍ 265 (F. B. ) at pp. 267, 273-277 for further remarks on the origin, growth and objects of maṭhaṣ¹⁰⁰ The head of a `matha` is called `svami`, `mathadhipati` or `mahanta` (usually written as `mohunt` in the Law Reports). The head of the `matha` is usually appointed according to the custom and practice of each `matha`, generally in one of three ways, viz. (1) the head for the time selects from among his disciples a fit one to succeed him, (2) the disciples elect one from among themselves to succeed on the demise of the head, (3) the ruling power or the original founder or his heirs appoint the head when there is a vacancy.

That temples and `mathas` have throughout the centuries been supplementary to each other, both ministering to the religious and spiritual wants of the people can be shown by a few exampleṣ It has been seen how `Bana` (in the seventh century) refers to the recitation of the `Mahābhārata` in the temple of `Mahakala` at `Ujjayini`. The `Rajatarangini` (V. 29) states how king `Avantivarman` of Kashmir appointed one `Ramata Upa-dhyaya` to the post of expounder (`vyakhyatrapadaka`) of grammar in a temple (about 900 A. D.). The `Agnipurāṇa`³⁷ enjoins that in a temple of `Siva` or `Viṣṇu` or the Sun if any one reads a book he may thereby acquire (the merit of) the imparting of all knowledge. Some `mathas` on the other hand provided for instruction not only in spiritual knowledge but also in secular knowledge. In the `Patna` Inscription of the time of the `Yadava` king `Singhapa`, we read that `Gangadeva`, the court astronomer and astrologer, established in `sake` 1128 (1207 A. D.) a `matha` for the study of the `Siddhanta-siromani` (an astronomical work) of `Bhaskaracarya`, the grandfather of `Gangadeva` (E. I. vol. I. p. 338), the `matha` being endowed with lands and other sources of income by two feudatories of `Singhapa`. `Vide` also E. O. vol. VI. Sg. No. 11, referred to above (p. 907) where in endowing the `matha` at `Sringeri` provision was made for the worship of `Mallikarjuna` and `Saradamba`.

A passage quoted in the `Danacandrika` from the `Skanda-purāṇa` states that a `matha` should be provided with cots and seats, should be thatched with grass and provided with platforms and should be donated to `brāhmaṇas` or ascetics at some auspi-cious time; by so doing a man secures all his desires and if he has no worldly desires he secures release (from `samsara`).³⁸ The word matha was sometimes used in the sense of a dharmasālā, a place provided for the temporary residence of travellers from distant partṣ For example, the Rājataraṅgiṇī VI. 300 states that queen Diddā constructed (about 972 A. D.) a matha for the residence of the people from Madhyadesa, Lāṭa and Saurāṣṭra.

Throughout India for many centuries there have been well-endowed temples and mathaṣ But how the rulers or the ancient and medieval courts of justice regulated the administration of these institutions or their funds or how they prevented or stop-ped maladministration or misappropriation is not dealt with exhaustively anywhere.

In Girijanund Datta Jha v. Sailajanund Datta Jha 23 Cal. 645 it is observed as follows (at p. 653) 'notwithstanding the existence of numerous richly endowed Hindu shrines all over India from the earliest times, the Hindu Law strictly so called is, as Sir T. Strange complains (see his Hindu Law, Eḍ of 1839, vol. 1, p. 32) meagre in its provisions relating to religious endowments, a fact which may perhaps be accounted for on the supposition that the high reputation for piety and purity of character justly enjoyed for the most part by the priestly classes of ancient India who had the management of the shrines was deemed a sufficient safeguard against breach of duty, so as to render detailed rules of law to regulate their conduct unnecessary'. In the following some of the meagre material that can be gathered from dharmaśāstra works and analogous writings is set out. Manu ( XI. 26 ) first appeals to the religious senti-ments of people by declaring that the wicked man who from greed seizes the property of gods or of brāhmaṇas feeds in the leavings of the food of vultureṣ Śabara remarks (on Jaimini³⁹ IX. 1.9) that when it is said that a village or field belongs to a god, that is not a literal expression but used only in a secondary sense. That is said to be owned by a person which one can use as one likes; a field or a village can-not be used by a deity; but the attendants on the god (or temple) are maintained out of what is donated to a temple or goḍ From this it follows that all those rules that apply to a gift to a human being do not apply to a property dedicated to an idol. Medhātithi⁴⁰ (on Manu XI. 26 and II. 189) points out that images cannot be said to be owners in the literal sense, but only in a secondary or ideal sense, since the idol in a shrine cannot use the property at its will nor can it safeguard it and ownership consists in being able to use the thing owned as one desires and in being able to preserve it. In modern times courts in India have laid down that an idol is a juridical person capable of holding property, though from the vary nature of the case the possession and management of the property rests with a manager or a trustee. A matha is in the same position as an idol. The rights of the idol or of the matha can be safeguarded and vindicated in a court of law only by the manager or trustee of the temple or by the head ( called mohunt ) of the matha.⁴¹ Vide Bhupati Nath v. Ram Lal 37 Cal. 128 (F. B.) at pp. 145-153 where Mr. Justice Mukerji examines at length passages of Śabara, Medhātithi, the Dāyabhāga and its commentators to explain what is meant by a gift to an idol according to the notions of the Hindu writerṣ Manu and other smṛtikāras lay down that it is part of the king's duty to prosecute and fine persons interfering with or destroying the property of templeṣ Yāj. II. 228 prescribes a fine of 40, 80 or 160 paṇas respectively for cutting off the twigs, principal branches of trees or the entire trees themselves that grow on built up platforms or in cemeteries or on boundaries or in holy places or near templeṣ Yāj. (II. 240 and 295 ) prescribes the highest ammercement for fabricating a false edict or for tampering with royal edicts by inserting more or less than what is intended to be granted by the king. The Mit. on Yāj. II. 186 says that the king should sedulously safeguard all rules made about the pastures for cows ( in a village ) or about the preservation of tanks and templeṣ Manu IX. 280 requires the king to pronounce the death sentence on those who break into a royal storehouse or an armoury or a temple and prescribes that the breaker of an image shall repair the whole damage and also pay a fine of five hundred paṇaṣ Kaut. III. 9 prescribes punishment for encroachment on templeṣ From the Kauṭiliya ²¹⁰⁶ we know that kings appointed an officer called 'devatādhyakṣa' (Superintendent of temples) and that when the king's treasury became empty it was part of the duty of that officer to bring together all the wealth of the temples in the forts and other parts of the country and the king could in an emergency use that wealth (and probably used to return it later when financial stringency ceased). Among matters called prakīrṇaka (miscellaneous) of which the king was to take cognisance suo motu without anybody's complaint, Nārada includes (in verse 3) ‘abstraction of gifts’ and ‘gifts of villages and towns to brāhmaṇas’ (verse 2). According to the Sṃ C. among the topics called chalas ²¹⁰⁷ were two viz. the destruction of a reservoir of drinking water and of a temple. Kātyāyana states that mere wrongful possession for any length of time of women, of state property and of temple property would not confer ownership on anybody. These texts indicated that the Government of the day protected temple properties, tanks, wells and the like that were dedicated to the public and exercised powers of superintendence and correction in matters affecting theṃ Yāj. II. 191 says that those who look after the business of guilds etc. in which many are interested should be students of the Veda, men of rectitude and free from greeḍ They are styled kārya-cintaka by hiṃ Bṛhaspati ²¹⁰⁸ quoted by Aparārka says (p. 796) that these kāryacintakas (committee) should consist of two, three or five persons and that if there be disagreement between the larger bodies and the committee the king should decide that dispute and should bring round to the proper path whoever might be in the wrong. It appears from very ancient times (3rd or 2nd century B. C.) the committee in charge of religious foundations was called goṣṭhī and the members goṣṭhika⁴². In some inscriptions the superintendent of a temple is called sthānapati (vide Śrīraṅgam plates of Deva- rāya II dated śake 1356 in E. I. vol. 18, p. 138). In the Sirpur Stone Inscription of Mahāśivagupta (about 8th or 9th century A. D.) of Mahākosala provision is made for a portion of the property granted being heritable by the sons and grandsons of the donees only if they were worthy, kept up agnihotra, studied the six āṅgas and had clean mouths and did not engage in service and further that if the heir did not possess these qualities or died without leaving a son &c., then another person, a relative with the requisite qualifications, could be made the recipient of that share, and he was to be elderly and learned and was to be chosen by mutual agree- ment and the king's express order was not to be necessary for his selectioṇ⁴³ Paithīnasi quoted by Aparārka p. 746 ordains that the king should not deprive temples and corpo- rations of their propertieṣ A record from Malabar of the 11th century A. D. gives the details of temple administration in Kerala, that was in the hands of Yogam (corporation) wielding independent power (E. I. vol. 18 p. 340). The Peshwa's Government at Poona often interfered when disputes arose about properties dedicated to shrines and tombs of saints between the managers of the temples or among the heirs of the saint to whom lands had been originally donateḍ For example, the Peshwa made an award in 1744 A. D. about the principal religious and charitable institution in the Deccan, viz. the Chinchvad Samsthan, whereby he set apart one half of all pro- parties bestowed on the shrine at that place for purely religious and charitable purposes and distributed the other half between the manager and his kinsmen who were all descendants of the original founder, Shri Moraya Gosavi (vide Chintaman v. Dhondo 15 Boṃ 612 at p. 615). A similar award was made by the Peshwa in 1777-78 A. D. about the Brahmanal Samsthan in the Satara District (vide Annaji v. Narayana 21 Boṃ 536). This privilege of ancient rulers to redress grievances and correct abuses in the management of religious and charitable endowments devolved upon the British Government as laid down by the Privy Council in Rajah Muthu Ramlinga v. Perianayagum Pillai, L. R. 1 I. A. 209 at p. 232 ‘It is evident...that the British Government, by virtue of its sovereign power, asserted as the former rulers of the country had done, the right to visit endowments of this kind and to prevent and redress abuses in their management’. The Indian Central and Provincial Legislatures have placed on the Statute book many Acts regulating religious and charitable endowmentṣ A list of the most important of these enactments is given below.²¹¹¹

Property dedicated to a god is called ‘devottara’ (the word being written as debutter in the Law Reports, particularly from Bengal). Vide Sham Charan Nandi v. Abhiram Goswami, 33 Cal. 511 at p. 523. A good deal of litigation comes up to the courts about the rights and liabilities of the trustees and the sevakas (called Shebait in Bengal), about their mismanagement of the temple properties and their removal and so forth.

Among impartible things Manu (IX. 219) included yoga-kṣema. The Mit. on Yaj. II. 118–119 shows that several meanings were attached to that expression by various writers, but that relying upon a verse of Laugākṣi it prefers the meaning of iṣṭa and pūrta. Therefore the Mit.²¹¹² declares that gifts dedicated by a person to the public by expending ancestral wealth such as tanks, gardens, and temples could not be partitioned by the sons and grandsonṣ In modern times also the same is the rule. Besides properties dedicated to temples and other religious and charitable purposes are generally inalienable, according to legislative enactments and judicial decisions, ⁴⁶ except where an alienation is absolutely necessary for the upkeep of the religious worship or for the benefit and preservation of the institutioṇ

A question arises whether, when a work of public utility is dedicated, the founder possesses any control over the thing dedicated and if so to what extent. The Viramitrodaya (on Vyavahāra ⁴⁷) furnishes an answer to this questioṇ The follow- ing is the gist of its argument keeping as close to the original as possible. When a man throws an oblation into fire, his owner- ship over the oblation comes to an end; but the oblation belongs to nobody. No human being has accepted it. Yet the sacrificer can prevent any one who wants to desecrate the offering by bringing it into contact with something impure from doing so and can see to it that the offering is reduced to ashes in the fire undisturbeḍ Similarly when a tank or a garden is dedicated to the public, the ownership of the founder in the thing is gone, but there is no other individual owner and no new ownership arises in any single person; yet the founder can prevent a third person making himself owner of the thing dedicated to the public and it cannot be argued that the founder cannot interfere for protecting the thing and that there is no blame if he does not safeguard the assumption of ownership by a third persoṇ The practice of respectable people viz. the exercise of the right of preservation in the case of both (i. e. in the case of what is offered into the fire and what is dedicated to the public) is based on this consideratioṇ The śāstric injunc- tion about utsarga does not merely contemplate the divesting [ Ch. XXVI

of one's ownership and dedication to the public, but also that the thing dedicated be enjoyed by the public without inter- ference or encroachment, just as in homa also one does not merely desire to throw an oblation into fire (and rest content with that) but one desires to see that the oblation is reduced to ashes and is not rendered impure. This shows that the founder of a temple or the builder of a tank or garden would always retain a power to preserve the thing dedicateḍ

Questions as to whether a new image can be substituted by the trustee or the shebait of a temple or whether he can remove the image to another place do come before the courtṣ Vide Kali Kanta Chatterji v. Surendra 41 C. L. J. 128 ; Pra- matha Natha v. Pradyumna Kumar 30 C. W. N. 25 ( P. C. ) where the P. C. laid down ( p. 33 ) that family idols are not merely movable chattels and that their destruction, degradation and injury are not within the power of the founder or other custo- dian for the time being; vide Hari Raghunath v. Anant Bhikaji 44 Boṃ 466, where it was held that the manager of a public temple has no right to remove the image from the old temple and instal it in another new building, especially when the removal is objected to by a majority of the worshipperṣ