Chapter XVI. List of Tīrthas

Volume IV pp. 723–727

LIST OF tīrthas

This is merely a list of tīrthas from the point of view of dharmaśāstra and not a treatise on the Ancient Geography of India. The result is that many countries and towns that have no importance or claims as tīrthas have been altogether omitteḍ Bauddha and Jain works on tīrthas have only rarely been referred to. Many of the Purāṇas enumerate the mountains and rivers of dīpas and varsas other than those of Jambudvīpa and Bhārata-varsa such as Harivarsa, Ramyaka-varsa, Krauñcadīpa, Śālmalidīpa, but they have been excluded from this list. The Brahmāpurāṇa (chap. 26 verses 8-83) contains a string of over 520 tīrthas without hardly any certain indication of their location and the Bhīṣmaparva in chap. 9 mentions about 160 rivers with practically no indication about their location in most caseṣ Similarly, the Garuḍa (I. 81. 1-31) enumerates about 200 and Padma (VI. 129) contains 108 tīrtha nameṣ In Banaras alone I have listed about 350 sub-tirthaṣ But there are about 1500 shrines and temples in Banaras alone. These have not been includeḍ Each great tīrtha has numerous sub-tīrthas as in the Varāha-purāṇa under Mathurā, in Brahma-purāṇa under Gautamī, in Vāyu-purāṇa under Gayā. Through sheer weariness or inadvertence some of these must have been left out by me and some were left out purposely on account of the absence of any importance. Besides, several tīrthas that are regarded as sacred by modern people are not so treated in the Epics or purāṇas and are not even mentioned in them; many of these have been omitted in this list. Our authorities are often very vague about the location or extent of tirthaṣ Moreover, a number of tīrthas scattered in different parts of India bear the same name (e. g. vide under Agnitīrtha, Kotitīrtha, Cakratīrtha, Varāhatīrtha, Somatīrtha). I am under great obligations to Cunningham's ‘Ancient Geography of India’ (eḍ of 1872) and to Nundo Lal Dey's ‘The Geographical Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval India’ (1927). I have had occasions to differ from both, particularly from the latter. But, the space at my disposal being very limited, I could not enter into even brief discussionṣ in support of my viewṣ It would look ungrateful to find fault with the work of Dey; but it must be said that he relies too much on rather old and antiquated authorities and has not cast his net over a wide area. Often times he mentions no original authorities (vide, for example, Cakratīrtha on p. 43). He is very vague in his referenceṣ He hardly ever cites the number of the verse on which he relies and often omits to specify even the part or section of the work relied upoṇ For example, at p. 13 as regards Avanti he mentions Pāṇini IV. 176, which should be IV. 1.176. Further, he has omitted several well-known tīrthas (e. g. Daśāśvamedhikā). He is sometimes wrong in what he sayṣ On p. 54 he states that Kiskindhā-kāṇḍa 43 refers to Devadāruvana as a proper name, but there the context ('lodhrapadmaka-sandeśu devadāruvanesu ca''in verse 15) shows that what is meant is 'forests of Deodar trees'). On p. 73 he says Bharatavarṣa was' first' called Haimavata-varṣa, but the passage of the Liṅgapurāṇa (I. 49. 7) on which he relies (idam haimavatam varṣam Bharatam nāma viśrutam) does not bear that out. There is no reference to a prior account here and all that is meant is that Bhāratavarṣa is connected with Himavat, as a previous passage (I. 47. 23 Himādrer-dakṣiṇam varṣam Bhāratāya nyavedayat) expressly states that Bhāratavarṣa is to the south of Himālaya. In Śalya 44. 52 Sarasvatī is called Haimavatī, but that does not mean that Haimavatī was the name of Sarasvatī in far-off ages It simply means that it 'rises in Himavat range.' Only a comparison of the list prepared by me with Dey's work will show the differ-ence in details between the two. I should not undertake that task and leave it to scholarly readerṣ

I have carefully read the two Epics and most of the Purāṇaṣ But I do not cite exhaustive references to all the texts where a particular tīrtha is mentioneḍ I feel satisfied with mentioning two or three. Owing to the several restric-tions imposed upon myself this list cannot claim to be thoroughly exhaustive. But I hope that it is comprehensive enough and far larger and more informative than any list of tīrthas presented by any scholar so far. There is ample scope for industrious scholars to improve upon and to add to this list. I have included important tīrthas from Kashmir and given copious references to the Nīlamata-purāṇa, the RāJa-taraṅgiṇī and the Hara-carita-cintāmaṇi. I am highly obliged to the Kashmir Report of Dr. Buhler (published as a special number for 1877 IV] by the B B R A S), to Stein's notes in his translation of the Rājataraṅgiṇī and his memoir on the Ancient Geography of Kashmir published separately (and also embodied in the 2nd volume of the translation of Kalhaṇa's work). All the names of tīrthas are transliterated into the English alphabet and arranged according to the English mode of spelling. For the Mahābhārata references are given to the oblong Bombay edition and by citing names of parvans, but in the case of the Rāmāyaṇa Roman figures I to VII are employed for the Bāla, Ayodhyā, Āraṇya, Kiṣkindhā, Sundara, Yuddha and Uttara kāṇḍas respectively. For the Rāmāyaṇa I have used the edition brought out by the Madras Law Journal Press in 1933. Among Purāṇas the Ānandāśrama editions of the Agni, Brahmā, Brahmavaivarta, Matsya, Vāyu and Padma have been relied upon and as to the rest of the Mahāpurāṇas the Veṅkaṭeśvara Press editions have been used (except in the case of the Nṛsimhapurāṇa of which the edition of Messrṣ Gopāl Nārāyaṇ & Co. and the Bhāgavatapurāṇa, of which the Nirṇayasāgara edition of the bare text have been referred to). The Skandapurāṇa has been a source of great trouble and labour. Owing to the limited time at my disposal I have not been able to digest thoroughly the ninety thousand and odd verses of that purāṇa, though I have very carefully gone into the Kāśikhaṇḍa and some other khaṇḍaṣ Besides, there are two separate recensions of the Skanda and large portions of it appear to be apocryphal and later additionṣ The seven big sections of the Skanda viz Māheśvarakhaṇḍa, Vaiṣṇava, Brahmā, Kāśī, Āvantya, Nāgara, Prabhāsa are indicated by Roman figures from I to VII and the sub-sections by Arabic figureṣ Some of these sub-sections have further sub-divisions into Pūrvārdha and Uttarārdha.

I have made endeavours to locate the tīrthas as far as possible. Inscriptions have been drawn upon in several cases for locating the tīrthas and for their antiquities and history. The principal Sanskrit authorities (except Kalhaṇa) are often very vague as compared with even foreign writers like Hiouen Thsang, Alberuni and Abul Fazal. Where I was not myself sure I have given references to the texts alone, and in some cases to the views of Cunningham, Dey, Pargiter and others If the same name happens to be given to different tīrthas located at different places, I have indicated the several different places bearing the same name by employing the capital letters A, B, C and so oṇ I may state that I have hardly ever remained content by borrowing references to Sanskrit authorities given by my predecessors, but have seen personally each reference to Sanskrit works except where I expressly state from whom I borrow a particular reference Sorensen's Index of the Mahābhārata and the Vedic Index of Macdonell and Keith have been used in several places I have also derived material help from the volumes of the Imperial Gazetteer and from the several volumes of the Bombay Gazetteer. The same may be said about Wilson's translation of Viṣṇupurāṇa (eḍ by Hall, 1864-1877), Pargiter's notes to his translation of the Mārkan- ḍeyapurāṇa, Dr. B. G. Law's paper on the ‘mountains and rivers of India' in the Journal of the Department of Letters, Calcutta University, vol. 28 and Dr. Hemchandra Raychaud- huri's ‘Studies in Indian Antiquities' (1932), and the paper on ‘Ancient towns and cities in Gujarat and Kathiawad' in I.A. vol. 54. I have consulted only a few Māhātmyas of tīrthaṣ Recently, Prof. V. R. Ramchandra Dikshitar of Madras has published a useful work ‘The Purāṇa Index' (volumes I and II covering over 1400 pages) which collects material from five Purāṇas only viz. the Bhāgavata, Brahmāṇḍa, Matsya, Vāyu and Viṣṇu The two volumes reach up to the Sanskrit letter 'ma' only. I, for my part, do not agree with much that he says about the age of the Purāṇas in general and of the five Purāṇas (which he has digested) in particular, but this is not the place to go into that question Besides, his work has to be used with some cautioṇ In several places the work is misleading. To take only a few exampleṣ On p. 547 he lists 'Godhūma', makes the remark 'fit for śrāddha' and cites four references from the Viṣṇupurāṇa alone. One may prima facie think that Godhūma is here some place fit for śrāddha. As a matter of fact in all the references from the Viṣṇupurāṇa 'Godhūma' means 'wheat' and nothing more, which no doubt is fit food for śrāddha But other fit things such as 'ikṣu' (declared to be be fit for śrāddha by Vāyu 78. 7-8) are not included at all. On p 123 Aśokavana is 'not a proper name, but only a forest of Asoka trees, as the preceding word 'drākṣāvana' (in Vāyu 38 68) indicates So also Kamala- prabhava (not 'prabhava' as printed on p. 316 of vol. I) is not a river (in Matsya 163. 62, Ānandāśrama ed ) but is only an adjective of the word Sona that followṣ On p. 316 of vol. II he states that the river Pārā rises from Rṣyavān, but the Matsya on 114. 24 on which he relies says it springs from Pāriyātra. On the same page he gives the entry 'Pārāvāratata sacred to Mata'. This makes no sense. Pārāvāratata would mean 'the shore of the sea'. What is really meant is that Devī is styled or worshipped as Pārā on the bank of the Pārā river (Pārā Pārātate mata). He does not compare the readings of the several printed editions of the five purānaṣ Besides, the information furnished is very meagre. If the whole had been printed in a compact form far more information could have been given in the same number of pageṣ

In some places I have indicated the rewards promised for bathing in the tīrthas; but I have not done so in every case. The purāṇas promise one or more of the following rewards viz, the same merit as the performance of Aśvamedha or Vājapeya or other solemn Vedic sacrifices or reaching the highest worlds such as those of Brahmā, Viṣṇu or Śiva, the destruction of the gravest sins such as brāhmaṇa murder, the same merit as arises from gifts of a thousand cows &c.

Many of the doubts and difficulties about the identification of several tīrthas can, if at all, be solved only by means of actual journeys to various places and investigations on the spot. That is a task which would require for its proper accomplishment a team of workerṣ A single individual can hardly attempt such a task with his own resourceṣ

This list will, it is hoped, be of some use in elucidating several problems such as the questions about the relative antiquity of the purāṇas, the dates of several Sanskrit works which mention the tīrthas and the questions about borrowing on the part of purāṇas among themselves and from the Mahābhārata.