In the popular imagination, reincarnation is part and parcel of Hinduism, but the strong association between the idea of rebirth and Hinduism belies an ancient tradition of ancestor worship with deep Vedic roots. This chapter outlines the Vedic antecedents for ancestor worship, briefly describes the ancestral rites, and it highlights the construction of the enduring model of ritual ancestral offerings, the śrāddha .
Since the primary focus of the Ṛgveda is the sacrificial offering of Soma, it is unsurprising that it says little about the fate of the dead—most often the destination is a dark underworld and the performance of sacrifice most often brings the reward of long life not an afterlife (Bodewitz 1994 ). However, the funeral hymns—which belong to the youngest layer of the Ṛgveda (Witzel 1987 ; 1989 )—mention the oldest ritual offerings to the pitṛs , the ancestors (literally fathers). The funeral is conceived of as a sacrifice, in which Agni, the Fire God, is asked to “cook” the deceased and, thereby, transport him to the next world. “Don’t burn him through, Agni; don’t scorch him; don’t singe his skin, nor his body. When you make him cooked to readiness, Jātavedas, then impel him forth to the forefathers” (ṚV 10.16.1, Jamison and Brereton 2014 ). The subsequent verses accompany the transformation of the deceased into an ancestor by the ritual fire through cremation. Then Agni is praised, and the funeral climaxes in the performance of the pitṛyajña , the sacrifice to the ancestors. It is the first offering to the recently deceased as a pitṛ , that is, as an ancestor (see Sayers 2013 and compare Caland 1893 : 152 and Kane IV: 201). While there is no evidence for ancestral worship in the Ṛgveda outside the funeral hymns, the later tradition is quite robust.
Later Vedic ritual literature—the Brāhmaṇas, commentarial compendia of Vedic ritual, and the later Śrautasūtras, ritual manuals describing the solemn rites—describe three ancestral rites: the pitṛyajña , the sacrifice to the ancestors; the piṇḍapitṛyajña , the rice-ball sacrifice to the ancestors; and the piṇḍadāna , the giving of rice balls. All three rituals are performed as a part of the regular Vedic ritual calendar, not merely as a part of the funeral as in the Ṛgveda . The pitṛyajña is a part of the Sākamedha and belongs to the cāturmāsya , the Four-Monthly Sacrifices, seasonal rites performed in the fall. The piṇḍapitṛyajña is performed monthly in the afternoon of the new moon during the New Moon Sacrifice. The piṇḍadāna is performed as a part of the third pressing of Soma in the Agniṣṭoma ritual and is an abbreviated version of the piṇḍapitṛyajña . So I will not address it here (see Caland and Henry 1906–7: 350–2).
Each of these rites follow the paradigmatic Vedic ritual described in the darśapūrṇamāseṣṭi , the New and Full Moon Sacrifices, and each is understood by reference to these rituals. To contextualize the ancestral rites, I briefly describe these rituals here. While the yajamāna , the sacrificer, accompanied by his wife, sponsors the rite and reaps the benefits therefrom, the sacrifice is performed by the four Vedic priests. Participants sit facing the east on an antelope skin laid out to the west of the main fire. The priest grinds the grains for flour to be used in the offerings. From that flour are made the puroḍāśa , the flour cakes; they are cooked and the sacred space is demarcated. The priest makes several preliminary offerings, the fore offering, and two offerings of butter to Agni and Soma, each accompanied by a mantra . The principal offerings are a cake to Agni and to Soma and Agni on the full moon and a cake to Agni and to Agni and Indra on the new moon. These offerings are consumed by the priests and the sacrificer, followed by several after offerings.
While the ancestral rites follow this ritual pattern, specific changes are introduced that orient the ritual toward the ancestors rather than toward the gods. These are often simple reversals. Whereas in the divine rites the sacrificer sits facing the east, toward the gods, and wears his sacrificial thread over his left shoulder and under his right arm, in the rituals oriented toward the ancestors he sits facing the south, the direction associated with the ancestors, and wears his sacrificial thread over his right shoulder and under his left arm. Additionally, circumambulations and stirring of oblations, performed in a clockwise direction in divine rites, are done counterclockwise in the ancestral rites. Finally, rice used in the offerings to gods is threshed three times, but in ancestral rites, it is threshed only once.
The monthly offerings made in the piṇḍapitṛyajña are the model for Vedic ancestral rites and they strongly influenced the pitṛyajña , as well as later ancestor rituals. The primary offering made in the piṇḍapitṛyajña is the piṇḍas , balls of rice. Priests also make offerings of collyrium, ointment, and a tuft of wool, each of which is a gesture of hospitality, the hallmark of Vedic ritual. Once the guests of the rite, the ancestors, have consumed the offerings, the priests and sacrificer smell the rice balls, symbolically partaking in them as well. At the conclusion of the ritual, the rice balls are disposed of in water or, as is more common later, are eaten by Brahmins, and the priest disposes of the ritual implements.
The seasonal ancestral rite, the pitṛyajña , follows the pattern established in the piṇḍapitṛyajña , focusing on the offering of rice balls, but it differs in other ways. The sacrificer’s wife does not participate in this rite, nor are offerings of collyrium, ointment, and cloth made. When offerings to the gods are made as a part of this ritual, those present switch their sacred threads to the divine mode and then switch them back. These adjustments to the paradigmatic Vedic ancestral rite function to integrate further the ancestral offerings into the divine model of religious ritual (Shastri 1963 : 99, 103–4). I argue that a comparison of these two rites illustrates the gradual incorporation of the originally domestic religious obligation to feed the dead into the solemn Vedic ritual tradition, first as the piṇḍapitṛyajña and later, more fully, as the pitṛyajña (Sayers 2013 ; compare Caland 1893 : 153). There is evidence of older domestic rituals within the solemn ritual tradition, but domestic ritual activity are not explicitly addressed in the textual tradition until the composition of the Gṛhyasūtras, domestic ritual manuals, composed over the last few centuries before the Common Era (Oldenberg 1886 –92: xv–xxii; Gonda 1977 : 547).
The authors of the Gṛhyasūtras synthesize the previously untextualized domestic ritual practices and the Vedic ritual tradition in describing the domestic rites—including many samskāras , rites of passage, (see Chapter 6 )—in order to define, codify, and legitimate the domestic ritual tradition (Sayers 2013 ). There are two primary differences between the solemn rites and the domestic rites: participants and purposes. The primary ritual actors in the solemn rites are professional priests, but in the domestic rites, the householder performs most of the rites. The solemn rites are often large-scale rituals aimed at attaining heaven and they serve broad social functions. The domestic rites are smaller in scale, primarily rites of passage, which serve to demarcate the life of the religiously active householder (see Chapter 9 ). Solemn rites require all three ritual fires, considerable expense, and at least four priests, whereas domestic rites require only the domestic fire, less material expense, and often involve only the husband and his wife.
Domestic ritual manuals describe two forms of ancestor worship, the anvaṣṭakya , the ninth-day ancestral offering, and the śrāddha . The anvaṣṭakya follows both the celebration of the aṣṭakā , the eighth-day offerings, seasonal rites occurring on the eighth day following the new moon in the winter and cold seasons (Gonda 1980 : 450–1) and the paradigm of the piṇḍapitṛyajña of the Vedic ritual cycle. The śrāddha is a product of the construction of domestic ritual evident in the Gṛhyasūtras.
The ritual tradition surrounding the anvaṣṭakya is quite conservative in that it follows the piṇḍapitṛyajña . In fact, the authors of the domestic ritual manuals often simply refer to the older rite to explain the anvaṣṭakya (e.g., ŚāṅkhGṛ 2.13.7). While this reveals a conservative trend in the ritual tradition, we also see innovation in the texts.
The domestic ritual does not merely follow the piṇḍapitṛyajña ; it shows the influence of the pitṛyajña as well. Whereas the solemn piṇḍapitṛyajña is a monthly rite, the domestic version of it is a seasonal rite, like the pitṛyajña in the Śrautasūtras. Additionally, the anvaṣṭakya requires participants to switch their sacred cord when making offerings to the gods in the domestic ancestral rite, as they do in the solemn pitṛyajña .
In addition to drawing upon the solemn ritual tradition, the authors integrated elements that must come from untextualized traditions of domestic ritual. There are minor procedural additions, such as offerings of sesame and perfume, and, in a significant departure from older ancestral rites, the introduction of meat offerings. Though absent in the solemn ancestral ritual, they become central to the ancestral offerings throughout the dharma literature. The inclusion of meat and fish among the offerings seems to correlate to the conception of ritual as a rite of hospitality and it is intended to make the meal complete. This is suggested at least by the longstanding tradition within Brahmanical texts to connect śrāddha to śraddhā , confidence in the efficacy of the sacrifice (See Jamison 1996a : 176–84).
Another significant innovation is the representation of the ancestor at the ritual. In the domestic ritual feeding of a Brahmin becomes a part of the basic ritual paradigm for domestic rites (e.g., ŚāṅkhGṛ 1.2.1). However, in the ancestral rites, these Brahmins represent the ancestors. “He should invite an uneven number of Brahmins, at least three, conversant in the Vedas, as the ancestors” (ŚāṅkhGṛ 4.1.2). The authors of the Gṛhyasūtras have created a new ritual role for the Brahmin. Whereas in the solemn rites Agni mediated the exchange between the ritualist and the ancestors, in the domestic rite it is the Brahmin. The later tradition is more explicit. Manu says that the ancestors stand by the Brahmins and follow them like a wind (MDh 3.189). The Vāyu Purāṇa goes so far as to say that the ancestor enter the Brahmins as a “wind-being” to accept the offerings (VāPu 75.13).
In addition to accepting the offerings of water and food intended for the ancestors (ĀśGṛ 4.7.7–4.7.9; 4.7.20–4.7.21), the Brahmins who take on this role grant permission to the householder to make the offerings (ĀśGṛ 4.2.38–4.2.39; ĀśGṛ 4.7.18–4.7.19) and, at the conclusion of the ritual, pronounce it a success (HirGṛ 2.7.17.13). Whereas in the solemn tradition priests conducted the ritual, in the domestic tradition the Brahmin guest legitimates the householder’s ritual actions.
However, this new role raised new concerns. While no one can question Agni’s authority to convey offerings to the gods or ancestors worshiped in ritual, the character of the human intermediary is not beyond question. The Gṛhyasūtras insist upon inviting only learned Brahmins, and Manu says, “One who knows dharma would not investigate (the qualities of) a Brahmin at a divine ritual, but when he completes an ancestral ritual he should investigate diligently” (MDh 3.149). Since an improper guest is unable to transfer the offerings to the ancestors (ĀpDh 2.17.8) or, worse, turns the offerings into excrement (MDh 3.180), householders must be diligent in inviting only learned Brahmins, otherwise they will fail, or pervert their obligation to their ancestors. As early as the Law Codes of Manu , the lists of who is qualified, and disqualified, to act as guest at a śrāddha are quite extensive (MDh 3.150–3.182) and this trend continues in the Māhabhārata and the Purāṇas.
The other domestic ancestral rite, the śrāddha , shows these changes and more. The śrāddha takes four forms, specialized for different ritual needs The pārvaṇa śrāddha is the paradigm for all other types of śrāddha . It is the monthly offering of rice balls, through the Brahmin guests, to the three immediate ancestors of the householder—his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. The ancestors beyond the three honored in the śrāddha , the Viśvadevas, are fed with the rice that is wiped off one’s hands after making the rice balls (see MatsPu 18.29). The perpetual performance of this rite by each generation honors and sustains all of one’s ancestors in heaven.
Like the solemn rites, these domestic rites reverse associations made in the god-oriented domestic rites to mark them as being aimed at the ancestors. For example, in the ancestral rites the left hand is used in making offerings, uneven numbers of Brahmins are invited, circumambulation is done in a counterclockwise direction, and the time of day, the afternoon, is associated specifically with the ancestors.
The ekoddiṣṭa śrāddha , that is, the śrāddha directed toward one person, is performed monthly for one year after a person’s death, usually by the eldest son, and it sustains the deceased from his death to his integration into pitṛloka , the world of the ancestors. Later literature explains that the ritual offerings feed the preta , literally “departed,” for that year and in doing so, builds him a body for the next world.
The sapiṇḍīkaraṇa śrṛāddha , that is, the śrāddha that builds the bond of kinship, is performed at the end of the first year after death. As the central act of this rite, the son makes four rice balls, three representing his father’s three immediate ancestors and one representing his father. He ritually merges the fourth, his father’s, into the other three, thereby integrating his father into the ancestors. The son then honors his three immediate ancestors—his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather—for the first time. The eldest, his great-great-grandfather, is advanced to the realm of the Viśvadevas (see Knipe 1977 ).
The ābhyudayika śrāddha , that is, the prosperity śrāddha —also called the vṛddhi śrāddha , the śrāddha of increase—is performed prior to auspicious occasions like weddings and births. In this rite, the householder invokes his ancestors as benefactors of his lineage. In order to emphasize the benevolent aspects of the ancestors, to call upon them to contribute to the success of their descendants, and to minimize their association with death, the ritual procedure reverses several elements that distinguish ancestral rites from the divine. For example, in this rite, one is to invite an even number of Brahmins, move in clockwise directions, and make offerings at times not normally associated with the ancestors.
These four types of śrāddha are a product of the construction of a domestic ritual tradition over time, and different texts capture different phases of this development. That is, most dimensions of the domestic ancestral rites—for example, terminology, form, and recognition of types—are either contested or under construction during the composition of the Gṛhyasūtras. The word śrāddha itself is a product of the development of ancestral rites seen in the Gṛhyasūtras. We know this because two early Gṛhyasūtras, those of Śāṅkhāyana and Āśvalāyana, do not use the term śrāddha in their primary description of the rite, though they do so elsewhere. Some authors describe four types; others do not. Āśvalāyana describes two types of the rite in one place (2.5) and three in another place (4.7). These authors are in the process of creating this ritual tradition. Each of the Gṛhyasūtras is a snapshot of one moment in the discursive construction of the tradition of ancestral rites (Sayers 2013 : 78–85). Among the changes seen in this development is a redefinition of ritual priorities.
Several Gṛhyasūtras describe the anvaṣṭakya by referring to the solemn piṇḍapitṛyajña ; it was the paradigmatic ancestral rite for them. However, Āpastamba conceives of the śrāddha as the paradigmatic rite and uses it, instead of the piṇḍapitṛyajña , to describe the anvaṣṭakya , “Some prescribe the offering of the rice-balls on the day after the Eighth-day Offerings…The procedure for this is explained in detail by the (section on) the monthly śrāddha ” (ĀpGṛ 8.22.9, 12). The authors of the Gṛhyasūtras drew on both solemn and domestic ritual traditions to define the domestic ritual obligations of a Brahmin, but the śrāddha becomes the paradigm for all future forms of ancestor worship (Sayers 2013 : 77f).
The dharma tradition laid a heavier emphasis on the ancestral rites, though they have less concern about the procedures, about which authors largely agree. Discussions of the ancestral rites reveal other concerns. I have organized three major concerns of theirs under a rubric of resolution. The first is resolution both in the sense of detail and in the sense of resolving differences. The second two are primarily about resolving differences not details. First, the legal tradition’s treatment of the ancestral offerings is characterized by an increasingly zealous concern about both attaining as fine a resolution as possible on every detail of the ancestral rites and resolving differences of opinion on those details. Second, the legal tradition’s treatment of the ancestral rites is the primary ground for the resolution of a tension between a heaven-oriented soteriology central to the ritual tradition and a liberation-oriented soteriology of the renunciate tradition. Third, the legal tradition becomes the site for the resolution of the ritual traditions expressed in the textual productions of the ritual experts and the previously untextualized practices that come to be central to the self-conception of the Hindu tradition: for example, pilgrimage (see Chapter 26 ), temple worship, creation of divine imagery (see Chapter 27 ), and the composition of mythical narratives about the gods, as we see in the Purāṇas. Primary among these, for our discussion of ancestral rites, is pilgrimage. I address each of these attempts at resolution in turn.
The dharma literature largely agrees on the procedure of the śrāddha , since well before Manu, whose work becomes the model for later treatments of the śrāddha . Less than half of the verses Manu employs speak to the procedural detail; the majority address meta-issues of ritual performance: number and quality of invitees (MDh 3.125–3.182), procedure for invitation (MDh 3.187–3.191), descriptions of the food used as an offering and the duration of its benefit for the ancestors (MDh 3.266–3.272), and the appropriate times for śrāddhas (MDh 3.273–3.284). The later tradition exhibits more interest in the location of the ritual performance and the benefit to be derived by those performing the rite, although the order, priority, and space dedicated to each topic vary greatly from author to author.
Later Smṛtis in general seem content with discussions that are brief in comparison to Manu’s, but the Māhabhārata devotes six chapters of the Anuśāsanaparvan to the śrāddha , the benefits won by performing the rite on different days (MBh 13.87), the food offered and its duration for the ancestors (13.88), the benefit for performing the śrāddha under different constellations (13.89), the benefits of offering to the right Brahmins and the dangers of offering to the wrong people (13.90), and the mythical origins of the śrāddha (13.91–13.92; see also VidhPu 1.139.6–1.139.16). Most Purāṇas include similar discourses on the śrāddha , sometimes borrowed directly from the epic (e.g., see Vaidya 1941 ).
The material available to us on śrāddha increases exponentially as we move forward in time: from treatments proportionate to other ritual concerns in the Gṛhyasūtras and Dharmasūtras to varying degrees of inflation in the Dharmaśāstras to chapter after chapter found in the Māhabhārata and the Purāṇas. The discussion of śrāddha in the legal digests (Nibandhas) increase exponentially; Kane says the “digests on śrāddha are legion,” then lists eighteen to which he restricts his investigation, each of which vastly outweigh earlier texts, largely because they quote multiple sources at length (Kane IV: 363). The primary intent of these later reflections, accomplished through vast stores of quotations, is to resolve the disagreements with the tradition of one detail or another.
Additionally, while the ritual literature successfully ignored the renunciation tradition and its liberation-oriented soteriology (Bronkhorst 2007 : 137–59), the dharma tradition gradually works to resolve the two soteriologies developed within the Vedic tradition, the heaven-oriented soteriology of the Vedic ritual tradition and the mokṣa -oriented soteriology developed in the Upaniṣads.
In the Dharmasūtras we find only passing comments that recognize the soteriology of the renunciate tradition (e.g., BDh 2.2.26). The authors, accepting the doctrine of the triple debt (the debts to the gods, the seers, and the ancestors, see TS 6.3.10.5, ŚB 1.7.2.1–1.7.2.6, and Olivelle 1993 : 46–53) instead prescribe the ancestral rites and, through them, the attainment of an eternal stay in heaven (e.g., VaDh 17.1–17.5; BDh 2.16.3–2.16.9). However, in this period, the ascetic becomes a symbol of religious power that rivals that of traditional ritual performance (Thapar 1982 : 294). Additionally, the Brahmins clearly felt displaced from their privileged place in society by heterodox religious groups like Buddhists (Olivelle 2005a : 37–41; Bronkhorst 2007 : 97). The concern about who was invited to a śrāddha , described above, is an expression of this pressure from both the renunciate tradition within Brahmanical circles and heterodox traditions. At stake is not only the defense of the soteriological worldview of the ritual tradition but also their livelihood, that is, their role as ritual experts.
The defense of the ritualist soteriology and the gradual integration of both soteriologies can also be seen in the development of the descriptions of the rewards of performing a śrāddha . I argue (Sayers 2013 : 100f) that ancestral rites are the primary ground for the synthesis of the renunciate and ritualist soteriologies. The older Dharmasūtras, those of Āpastamba and Gautama, delineate lists of foods that feed the ancestors for various periods of time, form one month, up to food that will feed the ancestors without end (anantya ). This strategy is, in part, a response to the renunciate claims that there is no unending stay in heaven (Sayers 2013 : 108). The younger Dharmasūtras, those of Baudhāyana and Vasiṣṭha, simply draw on the older Vedic conception of heaven and assert the undecaying (akṣaya ) nature of heaven; that is, they ignore the critique of the ritualist soteriology made within the renunciate tradition. The term akṣaya and its cognates become a common part of the descriptions of the śrāddha and its benefits throughout the later tradition.
Manu, as he does with other aspects of the Brahmanical ideology (Smith 1989 : 196–9), draws on both of these strategies in his efforts to synthesize the older literature into a cohesive statement about the ancestral rites. Manu not only includes the most extensive list of meats to be offered and their benefits in the earlier literature and describe those offerings using the word anantya (MDh 3.266–3.272), but also asserts the eternality of heaven using the word akṣaya (MDh 3.122, 3.202, 3.273, 3.275). He joins these strategies explicitly in at least one verse, “Whatever a man endowed with faith gives according to the rules, that becomes eternal (anantya ) and undecaying (akṣaya ) for the ancestors in the next world” (MDh 3.273–3.275).
Manu not only synthesizes these two ritualist strategies, but also addresses reincarnation, including eighty verses on actions conducive to a good rebirth (MDh 12.1–12.80). He accepts the notion of reincarnation, but holds onto the soteriology associated with ancestor worship. In fact, he dedicates more than twice the space to ancestral rites than to reincarnation (MDh 3.122–3.286). Yājñavalkya similarly expends more energy talking about śrāddha than about rebirth. Both authors legitimate the renunciate soteriology by including it, but they expend greater effort in endorsing the ritualist soteriology and describing how to fulfill the ritual obligation of a Brahmin.
An explicit resolution of the soteriological tension appears first in the Yājñavalkya Smṛti . The author tells us that when the ancestors are gratified by the ancestral rites they grant long life, descendants, wealth, knowledge, heaven (svarga ), liberation (mokṣa ), comforts, and sovereignty (YDh 1.270). As the Purāṇas often do later, Yājñavalkya combines the material rewards of Vedic ritual and heaven associated with the ritualist ideology with the goal of liberation associated with the renunciate ideology.
The contestation of these two soteriologies can also be seen in the Māhabhārata . In some narratives, young ascetics who fail to marry and have children see their ancestors hanging in a tree or a cave about to drop into hell because they have no descendants to perform śrāddhas for them (MBh 3.94–3.97). In others, an ascetic dies after a life of successful asceticism, only to find the worlds won through ascetic practice closed to him because he had no children (MBh 1.220.5–11.220.7, 1.224.1–1.224.32; see also O’Flaherty 1973 : 53–54, 69). The authors of these narratives deny that asceticism allows a person to avoid their ritual obligations, that is, while the heaven of the ritualist soteriology has been integrated into the renunciate soteriology, the ritual obligations to one’s ancestors endure. These narratives—like the saṃnyāsin within the āśrama system (see Chapters 5 and 18 )—are a part of the broader effort to synthesize the conflicting soteriologies and add to the burgeoning interest in the ancestral rites seen in the dharma literature.
The older ritual and dharma literature is an educated discourse among religious experts steeped in an intellectual tradition, but the dharma literature of the Common Era incorporates ritual practices outside the solemn and domestic models of Vedic heritage. The texts become appropriative and synthetic; they seek to resolve the tension between the two traditions, just as the Gṛhyasūtras synthesized the solemn and domestic ritual traditions. The legal literature of the Common Era gradually become encyclopedic in nature and address such things as pilgrimage, temples, religious art, and myth. Most relevant to our discussion of ancestral rites is pilgrimage.
Pilgrimage is integral to the conception of religious practice in the Māhabhārata and the Purāṇas, but in the early dharma literature, it is nearly absent. Ritual performance at tīrthas is very infrequent prior to the Māhabhārata , and those few references focus on two rituals: bathing for purification and the śrāddha . Bathing as a part of a penance or a means purify oneself has Vedic precedents and is mentioned in several early dharma texts. The first ritual practice prescribed at a tīrtha aside from bathing is śrāddha .
In a collection of verses addressing different elements of the ancestral rites, Vasiṣṭḥa includes this verse. “The ancestors rejoice in a son, as farmers do in fields that have received abundant rain, for fathers only truly have a son when one gives food standing at Gayā” (VaDh 11.42). From the context, we can infer that giving food here refers to the śrāddha; this form of reference goes back at least to the Gṛhyasūtras (e.g., ŚāṅkhGṛ 4.1.1). Additionally, the brevity of the reference suggests that Gayā was already a place known for the performance of śrāddhas . Other texts composed early in the first millennium ce —the Rāmāyaṇa (2.99.13), and the Yājñavalkya Smṛti (1.261)—also refer to performing the śrāddha at Gayā. I suggest that these passages are the earliest references to performing the śrāddha at a tīrtha ; they predate, or are contemporaneous with, the tradition of tīrthaśrāddha , and tīrthayātra more generally seen in the Māhabhārata .
The association between śrāddha and tīrtha can be found throughout the epic. While Vaidya (1941 ) argues that the Tīrthayātrāparvan belongs to the latest layers of the text and that much of that material is “purāṇic” (533), difficulties in dating any one part of the text prevent us from uncovering the development of the tradition of tīrthaśrāddha in greater detail. We do know that by the fourth century at the latest (van Buitenen 1973–8, xxv; Fitzgerald 2004a, xvi n2) there existed a version of the Māhabhārata that praises the performance of śrāddha at any and all the tīrthas . Lists of tīrthas conducive to a successful śrāddha become commonplace in the later dharma literature (e.g., ViDh 85; VāPu 77; MatsPu 22).
The rising importance of śrāddha can be seen in two other features of the later tradition. For want of space, I mention them only briefly. In the Purāṇas we find that a tīrthaśrāddha can relieve you of your debt to the ancestors permanently, “The man who bathes and performs the śrāddha shines in all the worlds of the gods, indulging his pleasures…His duty is done and he is free from debt to his ancestors; therefore the śrāddha need not be performed for his ancestors” (Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa 1.144.7–1.144.10; see also GPu 1.83.5–1.83.6). The performance of a śrāddha aimed at benefiting those beyond the immediate ancestors is common in the Epic and Purāṇas, as well, including long passages for any number of people for whom no śrāddha was or could be done (e.g., GM 6.25–6.52). Finally, in the Purāṇas we also find a synthesis of śrāddha and devotional theism. The piṇḍas given in the śrāddha are given to a god, who gives them to the deceased. The Gayā Māhātmya includes this mantra , “O Janārdana, I have given this piṇḍa in your hand. O god, please give it for him at Gayāśirṣa” (GM 4.43).
The ancestral rites are the site of multiple contestations throughout the history of Indian religions. The centrality of ancestor worship to the conception of a householder’s ritual obligations certainly plays some role in this, and the authors of multiple genres of religious text have accepted the ancestral rites as central to accomplishing the goals of a religious life, even after the eternal stay in heaven is decentered theologically and displaced by liberation from rebirth. Despite this fact, śrāddha remains a central part of religious practice for many people in India today.