the origin of vitthala --a new interpretation

8/9/2019 The Origin of Vitthala --A New Interpretation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-origin-of-vitthala-a-new-interpretation 1/8

handarkar Oriental Research Institute

THE ORIGIN OF VITTHALA : A NEW INTERPRETATIONAuthor(s): S. G. TulpuleSource: Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. 58/59, Diamond JubileeVolume (1977-1978), pp. 1009-1015Published by: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41691767 .

Accessed: 22/10/2014 01:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 01:11:29 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bori

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41691767?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/41691767?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bori



THE

ORIGIN OF

VITTHALA :

A

NEW

INTERPRETATION

By

S.

G.

TULPULE

Various theories

have come

forth

about the

origin

of

god

Vitthala

of

Pandharpur.

They

are

generally

based on

two different

my

ho

ogica'

legends,

one of

Pundalîka

to honour whose

devotion for his

parents

Lord

Krsnastood ( and is stillstanding on thebricktossed

by

him towardsHim,

and

the other

according

to

which

Vitthala,

said to be

identicalwith

Krsna-

Gopãla,

actually

ame

from

Dvãrakã

to

Pandharpur

s a

wandering

owherd,

followed

by

his

companions,

the

Gopas,

and

his

cows,

in search of

his

consort

Rukminx

ho had

left

him n

anger

because of his

amorous

dealings

with

Rãdhã.1

Now

if

thisaccount s to

agree

with

he

first

ne,

the reunion

of

the two could not

have

taken

place

before

Vitthala,

alias

Krsna,

had

revealed himself o Pundalîka and

taken his stand on

the brick As

Vaudeville

ays,

the

Rukminl

tory

tself would

be sufficiento

explain

how

Vitthala-Krsna ame to

Pandharpur.2

Yet the tradition s unanimous n

asserting

hat t

was Pundalika's

holiness and not

Rukmini's

waywardness

that

actually

brought

Vitthala to

that

place.

She, therefore,

akes

the

Rukminï

pisode

as an

attempt

to

explain

why

Vitthala

tands lone in the

great

emple

t

Pandharpur

without

is

consort

y

his

side. This

hypothesis,

however,

does

not

resolve

satisfactorily

the basic

difference

between

the

two

egends

mentioned bove.

Attempts

ere,

herefore,

ade

to

seek the

origin

of

god

Vitthala elsewhere

and,

as

expected,

the

Lilãcaritra,

the

earliestMarãthí work

belonging

to the

Mahãnubhãva sect c. 1278 A.D. )

giving

necdotes

of

Cakradhara,

the

founder

of

that

sect,

came in

handy

for

this

purpose.

This work

contains a

l'ila,

bearing

the

title

Vithalavîru-

kathana which

ives

an

account

of the

origin

f

god

Vitthala

so

provoking

as

to be

by

itself

sufficienteason

of hatred

between he

Mahãnubhãva and

Vãrkaries. 3

The

story

s

narrated

y

Cakradhara

n

reply

o

a

query

from

his

inquisitive

emale

discipleMahdãisã,

runs

thus

Vitthala,

a

Brahmin,

was a

robber,

who,

together

with

two

others,

Nemadeva

a fisherman

nd

Mhãyã

a

gurava,

ooted

and

murdered ravellers.

1.

Vide

rindurafiga-mShãlmyafárídhara,

h.

and I

( Bombay,

903

.

2.

Charlotte

audeville,

andharpur,

he

ity

f

Saints.

Structuralism

n

South

ndia

Ed. Yocum

nd

Buck,

Chamberbury,enn.,

p.

146-147

.

3.

N.

Kalelkar,

a

secte

ahanubhao,

.

7.

127

Annnlí

D.J.]







1010

ÀBORI

:

Diamond Jubilee Volume

All three

belonged

to

Mangalvedhe

(

near

Pandharpur .

One

day,

they

attackedone Mãidaranã and triedto take away his cows byforce. In the

fight

hat

ensued,

Nemadeva and

following

im Vitthala

died on

the

village

land.

(

On

bearing

his

,

the

sons of Vitthala

came

there nd

they

rected

a

bhadakhambã

r memorial

illar

n

his

memory.

Their mother stablished

a

liriga

there. A

deity

identified

tself

with

this

pillar

which,

therefore,

began fulfilling

he wishes of the

people

who

worshipped

t.

The name

of

the wifeof

Vitthala was

Lãkhãi or

Lakhamãi. His

sons

used

to

compose

songs

and mention heir

arents,

Vitho-Rukminî,

n

the mudrikã.

In

this

way

Vitthala

came

to

fame.

4

If this

account

s

true,

which t

is

not,

t raises

a

number f

problems.

Cakradhara,

its

narrator,

id not of course nvent t.

At

the mosthe

might

have

given

n

old

legend

twist

o as

to

fit t

n

his

apologetic

aim.

But t

s

difficulto

believe

hat

there

was such

rivalry

nd

animosity

etween hese wo

cults

-

of

Vitthala

nd of Cakradhara

-

at

their

very beginning. Secondly,

the

story

onnectsVitthala

not with hero

who

died

an

honourable

death

on the

battlefiled ut

with robber who died

in

the

despicable

act of

way-

laying.

It

is

not

probable

that hero-stonewould

be erected n the

memory

of such a vilepersonwho was laterdeified ntogod Vitthala. Thirdly, here

is

a

suggestion

towards

the

close

of

the

story

that the sons of this

thief

Vitthala,

who must

be

no other

han

he celebrated

oet-saint

JSãnadeva nd

his

brothers,

omposed

devotional

songs

using

the names of

their

parents»

namely,

Vitho and

Rukminî,

s

theirmudrikã

Now it

is

well known

that

JSãnadeva

often

makes

use of

the

phrase bãpa

rakhumãdevivara

itthala as

his

mudrikã

n

his

abhaňgas,

and

the above

suggestion

s, therefore,

ot

only

of a

condemning

ature

but

also anachronous.

For we know that JSãnadeva

was

born after he

passingaway

of Cakradhara

n 1272

or

1274 A.D. and

any

referenceo himbythe atters thereforeistoricallympossible. Andfinally,

Cakradhara

was tolerant as

can

be

seen

from his various anecdotes and

utterances

ontained

n

the Lilãcaritra.

On

one

occasion,

for

example,

while

commenting pon

the nhibition f

the

ãcãryas

in

the

Vedic

tradition

egard-

ing

the attitude

f a Brahmin owards

Buddhism,

Cakradhara

frankly ays

^Rqi-ťfl

snw

3ft

«PI?

^Tt

rçfëPTT

meaning,

hould

one

break

the

image

of

a

deity

even

if t

belongs

to

the

enemy?5

It is therefore

ighly

improbable

that

he would

thus

vilify

ny

other cult

or

its

deity.

These

discrepancies

n

the

account

given

n

the Lilãcaritra

naturally

make

scholars

likeDeleuryand Dhere question its authenticity.There is no doubt that

the

fila

s a

highly

manipulated

ne.

4.

Lilãcaritra

ttarardha,

art

I,

No.

411

(

Ed.

S. G.

Tulpule,

oona,

967

.

5.

Ll¡ücqritra

Pürvärdha,

art

,

p.

90,

^o.

185,







TulpULE

:

The

Origin of

Vitthala

1011

But

so

far we had

before

us

only

the

Nene-text

f the Lilãcaritra

whichwas used

by

the

present

writer n his editionofthis work

published

ü

five

partsduring

1964-1967.

Fortunately

olte,

a

recognized uthority

n

the

Mahãnubhãva

iterature,

as obtained

n

authentic

ersion

of

this

ijä

which

he has

included

n his about-to-be

ublished

ritical

dition f

the

Lilãcaritra.

The source of

this

version s

the text f the Lilãcaritra

known

as the Pidhï-

pãtha

which s the

oldest

and

the

most

reliable.

Kolte's text

of this

lila

is

naturally

much shorter

han

the mutilated

one

which has been before s

all

these

years.

It

is

as follows

¿tarrifo#

Ř&

:

^

5ft

ÇSuft

TT

à

5ft

çrâf

noftči§

šfíf

|T

^

;

čj?TT

ïN

sffël

ïPTfcft ïtt

fT

lïïf%55T

TS#IT

ct*T

RTT

ěj^T

:

àt

^

*FÏrô

^tl

3#:

Il

The

above lila

or

anecdote

contains

he

following

acts

(1)

Mahãdãisã,

a

disciple

of

Cakradhara,

requests

him to

explain

thereasonbehind henadanäca or festival f bhakti oing on in Pandharpur.

(The

stone-inscription

f

Saka

year

1111

[

1189

A.D.

]>

edited

by

the

present

writer,

ells

us that

the

temple

of Vitthala

there

was founded

n

its

original

unicellular

form

n that

year.

It

is, therefore,

atural hat

the festival

f

bhakti

going

on

there hould

become

well knownall over

Mahãrãstra

about

a

hundred

years

ater. Here

it is

just curiosity

n the

part

of the

questioner,

Mahãdãisã,

while

in

the Nene-text

of the same

fila

she

wishes

to

know

whether

he

popular

belief

hat Vitthala

s an incarnation

f

Šrikrsna

s

true

or

not.

(

2

)

Cakradhara

replies

o

the above

question

saying

that

a

hero

named

Vitthala died while

protecting

he cows

and

a

memorial

n the form

of

a

bhadakhambä

>Sk.

bhataskambha

was

erected

in

his

memory.

(

The

very

word

bhadakhambä

mplies

hat

t was a

memorialto

a

hero and

to

none else.

(3)

This

bhadakhambä

was

accepted

as its

own

by

a

deity,

or,

in

other

words,

the

deity

identified

tself with

it,

and the

result

was that

the

memorial

stone,

having

thus obtained

supernaturalpowers,

began

to

fulfilhewishesof those who worshippedt. ( This last event suggests he

deification

f the

hero-stone.

The above

account does

away

with

the

need for

presupposing

ny

rivalry

between

the

Mahãnubhãva

and

the

Vârkarï

cults

at

least

in

thç







1012

ÂBORI : Diamond Jubilee

Volume

beginning,,

or it

does not even

suggest

any

vilification

f

god

Vitthala.

This account also does not raise the problemof a thiefbeing glorified,

nor does

it make

any

ndirect eference o

Jñanadeva

vitiating

hronological

sequence.

This

text

of

the above lila also shows Cakradhara

as

a well

informed

person

and

nothing

more.

It does not tarnish

his

image

by

making

himthe

author f some fictitiousnd intolerant

ales. The

appearance

of the

devatãor the

deity

n both of these

versions

an

best

be

explained

by

the

metaphysics

f Cakradhara which

accepts

the devatãs

as one

of

the

foureternal

principles

of this

universe,

occupying

a

position

lower

than

that of the

Supreme

God. These devatãs

identify

hemselves

with some

objects

ike

stone,

metalor water and exhibit heir

powers

through

hem.

Here one of the local deities of

Pandharpur

dentifies

tself

with

the

hero-

stone

commemorating

he

cow-protector

Vitthala and

starts

meeting

he

wishes of the

people

who

worship

it. In

short,

the

god

Vitthala

of

Pandharpur

s,

according

o

Cakradhara,

a deified

hero-stone. It

is

typical

of

Indian

religious processes

hat often

gruesome

or

primitive

cults

get

superseded

by

new

religious ayers.

Thus,

at the

root,

historically

een,

this

hero-cult

may

have been in

worship.

It

became

jãgrta

and

people

started

worshipping

t. Its

characterwas

changed

from Šaivite

hero-cult

to the Vaisnava Vitthala cult of the vãrkaris.

It

became,

so

to

say,

a

quite

different

od.

This

theory

f

the

origin

of Vitthala

s

supportedby

a

unique

find

of Sontheimer

n the form of a

hero-stone t

Pandharpur

the

ocation

of

which

is

exactly

pposite

to

the mahãdvãra

or

the main entrance

of

the

temple

f Vitthala.6 It

shows

cows,

indicative

f

a

cattle-raid,

lso

horse-

men

fighting

nd

the

usual

apsarãs carrying

he

hero

towardsheaven.

The

top panel

is

apparently

missing,

ut it must

have

presented

he usual

depiction

of the hero worshippinghe liňgam. The fact thatthis s the onlyhero-

stone

found t

Pandharpur

nd its ituation

rovide

mple proof

or he

heory

of hero-stone-based

Vitthala. The

change-over

from

the

worship

of the

original

hero-stone o

that of

the

present

Vitthala must

have taken

place

later when

the hero-stonewas

given

human

form n

the

present

mage

of

Vitthala.

As

pointed

out

by

Deleury,

its akimbo

position

bears

striking

similarity

with

the

images

of Blr

Kuar,

the

cattle-god

of the

Ãhirs

of Western

Bihar,

who

is most

probably

the deification

f

an

Ãhir

hero,

killed in

protecting

his herd

of

buffaloes

gainst

cattle-thieves

r

tigers.7

6.

Dr.

Güntherontheimer

f heSüdasien

nstitut,eidelberg,

s

a

keen tudent

of hero-

aíí- tones

nd

his work n

Memorialtones

f

ndia,ointly

onewith

Dr. Settarf

heKarnatak

niversity,

harwar,

s

n

press.

7.

G. A.

Deleury,

heCult

f

Vithoba,oona,

960,

p.

165-166

nd

183.







Vïragala

(Pandharpur)

( By

courtesy

fDr.

G.

Sontheimer







1ÓÍ4

ABO RI

:

Diamond

Jubilee Voîumê

And,

significantly

nough,

Bír Kuar

is

also identifiedwith

Krsna who

him-

selfwas a cattle-god.8 The festiveparty f kãlã inPandharpur, escribed y

poet-saints

ike Nãmadeva and

others,

s a

typical

remnant f the

pastoral

origin

f

the cult of

Vitthala.9

Kãlã

is

a

kind

of

gruel

nd has

its

origin

n

the

Rgvedic

karambha described

by

Dandekar as the

pastoral

food of

the

Yedic

god

Püsan,

the

god

of

a

nomadic

pastoral

tribe.10

This automati-

cally

negates

he

theory

f a self-immolated ain

saint

as

being

the

origin

f

Vitthala

nd

establishes

n

stead the hero-cultwhich

developed

later

into

the

cult of Vitthala.11 This

origin

f

the

ruling

deity

of

Pandharpur

need

not disturb

ts

devotees,

for all

gods,

as

Rãmdãs

says,

have

grown

out

ofstones, nd god Vatthala s no exception o this.

The above

theory rings

ut

the

following

alient

points

(

1

)

The

origin

f Vitthala

s in a

hero-stone

rected n the

memory

of a hero

named

Vitthalawho died in

bravery.

(

2

)

This hero-stone

was

originally

bhadakhambã

and

it was

only

ater hat

t

took the

form f Vitthala n

his

present

kimbo

position.

If

the

original

hero-stone was deified

nto

god

Vitthala,

the

atterwas

in his

turnhumanised

nto his

present

form.

Thus,

the

processes

of

deification

nd humanisation

seem

to

have alternated.

(

3

)

Pandharpur

was

resounding

with

bhakii

at the

time

of the

narration

f the I'M

under

reference,.e.,

in

about

1

190-92,

as

is seen

from the

use of the word nadamca

(

>

Sk. nata-

nrtya

whichoccurs

n

the

JMnešvari lso.12

This

meansthat

Pandharpur

was

already

a centre

f

bhakii even beforeJããna-

deva and Nãmadeva came on the scene.

(4)

Naturally

here

was no

question

of

any

rivalry

between he two

cults

and theMahãnubhãva

sect did not

come

up

as

a

challenge

to

the

Bhägavata

cult or vice versa.

8.

W.

G.

Archer,

heVertical

an,

lates,

, 9, 11, 15,

etc.

9. Nãme

e

a

Gãlhã,

d.

T. H.

Avate,

oona,

924,

Nos.

23,

24.

10.R. N.Dandekar,Pïïsan,he Pastoral od ftheVeda , New ndianntiquary,

5,

49 1942

.

11.

G.

A.

Deleury,

p. it.,

.

190

ndff.

12.

E.g. Jñ

ne

ari,

ovt.

d.,

Ch.

X,

No.

196

I

Rjwr

i 3

ïiTfi

mrt

i ̂

n







TULPULE

:

The

Origin of

Vitihaìa

Ì015

(

I

have

to

thankDr. Günther Sontheimerfor

kindly providing

me

with

photo-copy

f the

Pandharpur

ero-stone

long

with ts

critique

and

inspiring

me to write

this

paper.

I am also

indebted

to

Dr. V. B.

Kolte,

retiredVice-Chancellor f

the

Nagpur

University,

or

making

vailable

to me

the relevant ilã from his

edition

of

the Lllãcaritra even

before

ts

publi-

cation.

This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 01:11:29 AM


the origin of vitthala --a new interpretation

Documents