Pilgrimage is a popular Hindu religious practice that became a central subject in the Dharmaśāstra literature at the time of the Dharmaśāstra digests (Nibandhas) from the twelfth century ce . Pilgrimage was not a Vedic ritual practice but it came to be part of the Hindu tradition gradually, probably during the first centuries ce , although it seems to have been opposed by sections of the Brahmanical communities for a long time after that. It took many centuries for pilgrimage to become a dominant feature of the Hindu tradition, and even longer for it to become a main subject in the Dharmaśāstra literature. Since pilgrimage places and pilgrimage are not included as subjects in most of the Dharmaśāstra texts until the genre of Dharmanibandha (digests) (twelfth c. ce ) P. V. Kane’s observation in his History of Dharmaśāstra that “The literature on tīrthas is probably far more extensive than on any single topic of Dharmaśāstra” (IV: 581) may appear puzzling. In line with this observation by Kane, the section on pilgrimage places (tīrthas ) and pilgrimage (tīrthayātrā ) in the History of Dharmaśāstra is also one of the most extensive in the volumes. 1 However, most of the main texts on pilgrimage places and pilgrimage are found in the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas and in numerous Māhātmyas . The number of Māhātmya s on specific tīrtha places “are almost beyond counting” (Salomon 1985 : xx), while the number of available Dharmaśāstra texts that treat pilgrimage places and pilgrimage travel as a general subject is quite small. In the Nibandhas, the convention is that the first part covers the topic of rules and regulations of pilgrimage, while the subsequent parts cover a number of individual places. These parts about individual places are by far the longest parts. The Nibandhas on pilgrimage places and pilgrimage are lengthy. The first of the Nibandha texts, Lakṣmīdhara’s multivolume Kṛtyakalpataru included a large volume on pilgrimage places and pilgrimage, the Tīrthavivecanakāṇḍa , and this book probably became a model for later Nibandha authors on pilgrimage. In the centuries after the Tīrthavivecanakāṇḍa , several long Dharmanibandha volumes on pilgrimage places and pilgrimage travel were produced. The section on general rules and regulation of pilgrimage in Tīrthavivecanakāṇḍa comprises only eleven pages. In these Nibandhas, the Purāṇas, Mahābhārata , and Māhātmyas are probably more often quoted as authoritative, and commented on by their authors, than are any particular Dharmaśāstra text.
There seems to be a tension in the treatment of pilgrimage in the Dharmanibandha texts on tīrtha . On the one hand, it serves to propagate the exaggerated salvific rewards described in the promotion texts of the different pilgrimage sites, and on the other hand, there is the attempt to infuse rationality, rules, and regulations into the pilgrimage tradition, by attempting to limit the salvific power of the places and make the rewards dependent on rules and restraint. The authors searched the texts to be able to construct a dharma of pilgrimage. The promotion of particular places may reflect the situation of the authors and be a function of the interest of the patrons of the authors. Economic interests seem to have been a dominating feature in the Hindu pilgrimage phenomenon right from the beginning and up to the contemporary situation, and to have had a role in the promotion of the exaggerated salvific rewards described in the texts.
There was no pilgrimage in the Vedas (Angot 2009 ), and pilgrimage to particular places is not recommended in any texts earlier than the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas (Bharati 1963 ). It is significant that Yāska’s Nirukta (c. 250 bce ), a book on etymological explanations did not list pilgrimage as a synonym of travel (yātrā ). The earliest descriptions of pilgrimage places and pilgrimage travel and their benefits are found in the Mahābhārata , in its later parts, dated probably from the third to fifth centuries ce . Pilgrimage is an important feature of the Mahābhārata and some verses on pilgrimage are found in almost every one of Mahābhārata’s eighteen books (Vassilkov 2002 ), most significant are the lengthy Tīrthayātrāparvan of the Āraṇyakaparvan (Book Three, Chapters 78–148), and the chapters in Śalyaparvan (Book Nine, Chapters 35–54) and Anuśāśanaparvan (Book Thirteen, Chapters 25–26 ). Pilgrimage subsequently became a central feature of the Purāṇas, which contains numerous Māhātmyas of pilgrimage places. The growth of Hindu pilgrimage is probably grounded in the same development that gave rise to the worship (pūjā ) of divinities embodied in statues (mūrti s) in Hindu temples, that is, the religious ritual that partly replaced the sacrifice (yajñā ). 2 Worship of Hindu mūrti s has a strong economic dimension and its origin may perhaps be sought in the competition with Buddhists for the economic resources of ritual clients (Jacobsen 2013 ). The contrast of the Vedic sacrifice with the Hindu temple is striking. In the Vedic sacrifice, the gods traveled to where the ritual of sacrifice took place. With the Hindu temples, the divine was thought to be permanently present at particular sites and humans had to travel to those sites to get their blessings (see Angot 2009 ; Jacobsen 2013 : 65–70). This gave rise to a geography of statues, shrines, and temples. Images of gods could also be worshiped in the home, but assumedly some particular powerful presences of the gods were in the shrines and temples located at a distance. To meet these particular powerful presences of the gods it was necessary to go on a pilgrimage.
Tīrthayātrāparvan of the Mahābhārata gives economic arguments when it introduces the ritual of pilgrimage. The Tīrthayātrāparvan presents pilgrimage as a ritual as orthodox as the Vedic sacrifice, but especially available to poor persons who were not able to pay for the sacrifice. It is significant that the authors of Nibandhas such as the Tīrthavivecanakāṇḍa , the Tīrthacintāmaṇi , and the Tristhalīsetu 3 at the outset of their texts, also give the economic argument for pilgrimage by quoting the verses from the Tīrthayātrāparvan that pilgrimage is a ritual for poor persons and that it is even more meritorious than is sacrifice:
na te śakyā daridreṇa yajñāḥ prāptum mahīpate,
bahūpakaraṇā yajñā nānāsaṃbhāravistarāḥ.
prāpyante pārthivair etaiḥ 4 samṛddhair vā naraiḥ kvacit,
nārthanyūnair avagaṇair ekātmabhir asaṃhitaiḥ. 5
yo daridrair api vidhiḥ śakyaḥ prāptum sureśvara, 6
tulyo yajñaphalaiḥ puṇyais taṃ nibodha yudhiṣṭhira. 7
ṛṣīṇāṃ paramaṃ guhyam idaṃ bharatasattama,
tīrthābhigamanaṃ puṇyaṃ yajñair api viśiṣyate . (Mahābhārata 3.80.35–3.80.38, as quoted on page one, line 3–10 of Tīrthavivecanakāṇḍa )
A poor person is not able to perform these sacrifices, Oh King, they require much equipment and materials. These sacrifices are performed by kings and sometimes by rich persons, but they cannot be performed by poor persons, or without assistance by others or by one person alone. Oh Naresvara, but note the ritual that can be performed even by the poor person, which gives the same merit as sacrifices, Oh Yudhiṣṭhira. This is the greatest secret of the sages, Oh most noble of the Bharatas: visiting tīrtha s gives such religious merit and is superior even to the sacrifices.
By starting the text with this quotation, which states that pilgrimage is a ritual for poor people and superior to the sacrifices, the author of these verses of the Mahābhārata explains why pilgrimage should be accepted as proper and meritorious. For poor people, pilgrimage corresponds to the Vedic ritual. The agenda of the Nibandha authors quoting them seems to be the same, to legitimate pilgrimage ritual as Vedic. The Brahmanical tradition had competed for economic support with the Buddhists, whose pilgrimage had begun with religious travel to the stūpa s with the relics of the Buddha and places associated with the main events of his life, and Hindu pilgrimage probably evolved in competition with this ritual tradition (Falk 2006 ; Jacobsen 2013 ). The Hindu tīrtha s were promoted by Brahmans who had moved away from the “placelessness” of the Vedic gods and the rituals of sacrifice to the worship of divinities present permanently at particular sites. The goal of the priests at the shrines was to lead as many people as possible to the presence of a god (Stietencron 1977 ), and this continues to be the basic ideology of pilgrimage places: it is open to everyone; there is no ritual pollution from others at pilgrimage places; and it gives great rewards for very little. Fairs and festivals are organized in order to attract more people, and the success of a pilgrimage festival is typically measured in the number of people participating and visiting. The places compete for visitors by outbidding each other in promising exaggerated rewards. This ideology is to some degree opposite to the Vedic sacrificial ideology. There seems to have been a conflict between Vedic Brahmans, who were against the concept of a permanent presence of the divine at specific sites, and other Brahmans, who had started to function as priests at the temple sites (Olivelle 2010a ; Stietencron 1977 ). This conflict is detectable in the quote from the Tīrthayātrāparvan that compares pilgrimage to sacrifice and concludes that pilgrimage is even more meritorious than sacrifice is. That there is an almost total absence of the temple in the early Dharmaśāstra literature (Olivelle 2010a ) seems to point to this Brahmanical opposition. The Dharmaśāstra literature follows the path of the Vedic ritual life in which no public structure of worship or ritual played any role (Olivelle 2010a : 193). None of the principal Gṛhya- and Dharmasūtras contains any procedures of consecration of images in a temple, argues Patrick Olivelle, and he states that, “in the religious life of a good Brahmin…the temple or anything resembling it plays no significant or even a secondary role” (Olivelle, 2010a : 193). Further, there is “no archaeological evidence for temples in what could be termed the mainstream Brahmanical tradition, as opposed to the Buddhist and Jain, until at least the time of the Kushana, that is, the second century ce ” (Olivelle, 2010a : 194). The functionaries of the temples, the devalaka , were despised by the Dharmaśāstra tradition, and were, argues Olivelle, “ostracized by the Brahman community” (2010a : 202). Stietencron (1977 ) thinks that the first custodians of images, the devalaka s, were Śūdras, but some Brahmans started to perform services for the shrines, and the Vedic Brahmans considered them fallen Brahmans. The statements in the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas about the rewards of visiting tīrtha s being compared with the sacrifices, which the visit was supposed to supersede, is probably a function of the conflict between the two groups of Brahmans and the need to devaluate the Vedic sacrifice for the priests who took care of images. The comparison of the rewards by implication ridicules the ritual of sacrifice as pointless. The escalation of the conflict was, argues Stietencron (1977 ), to a large degree, economic and it concerned the gifts to the Brahmans. The result of the conflict was that the priests of the shrines, statues, and tīrtha s accumulated great wealth, whereas the priests of the sacrifices lost out. The shrines and tīrtha s were open to a much larger part of the population than the sacrifices were, so the number of donors increased. The priests then could use the wealth to arrange festivals that attracted more pilgrims (Stietencron 1977 ). The donations of the pilgrims more than covered the expenses of the festivals. With growing wealth, the temples were expanded, and the fame of the place increased. Temples that accumulated wealth probably also became more important centers of pilgrimage as their powers were also thought to increase.
The ritual specialist connected to the temple, the devalaka , is mentioned in Manusmṛti and was here condemned. “Doctors, priests of shrines, people who sell meat, and people who support themselves by trade are to be excluded from offerings to the gods and ancestors” (3. 152). The Manvartha-Muktāvalī commentary by Kullūka Bhaṭṭa explains that the devalakas serve the shrine not for the sake of dharma but for their own profit (vartanārthatvenaitat karma kurvato ’yaṃ niṣedho na tu dharmārtham ). In classical Dharmaśāstra texts such as Manusmṛti, tīrtha is not a topic of discussion, but the condemnation of the devalaka s could perhaps be interpreted to include shrines at tīrtha s. Some Dharmaśāstra texts show awareness of the existence of the phenomenon of tīrtha as bathing place, but do not make it a topic of discussion. Tīrtha is mentioned, but without naming any particular site, which probably means that some particular pilgrimage place is not the intended meaning of tīrtha here. In a verse found with some variation in the Gautama (19.14), Baudhāyana (3.10.12), and Vasiṣṭha Dharmasūtra (22.12), bathing places (tīrtha s) are stated to be places for expiation of sin (sarve śiloccayāḥ sarvāḥ sravantyaḥ puṇyā hradās tīrthāny ṛṣiniketanāni goṣṭhakṣetrapariskandhā iti deśāḥ ). 8 Tīrtha here does not seem to refer to some particular pilgrimage places, which later becomes the meaning of the term, but perhaps just to places (deśa ) for purificatory baths. In Manusmṛti religious travel for purification is mentioned (as something one does not need to do in a particular case if you have no quarrel with the god of death Yama) (Manusmṛti 8.92):
yamo vaivasvato devo yastavaiṣa hṛdi sthitaḥ,
tena ced avivādas te mā gaṅgā mā kurūn gamaḥ .
This god, Yama the son of Vivasvat, dwells in your heart. If you have no quarrel with him, then you do not have to go to the Ganges or the Kuru land. (trans. Olivelle 2005a)
The mentioning of Gaṅgā and the Kuru land indicates religious travel for purification, but Gaṅgā and the Kuru Land refer to large areas and not to one particular pilgrimage site. Interestingly, Baudhāyana (3.5.7) and Vasiṣṭha Dharmasūtra (29.11) use the concept “all tīrthas .” Baudhāyana 3.5.7 says that if a person performs aghamaṣaṇa ritual of recitation and bathing for twenty-one days at a bathing place (tīrtha ), “he becomes a man who has bathed in all the bathing places (sarveṣu tīrtheṣu snāto bhavati )” (Baudhāyana 3.5.7). It is unclear what exactly is meant by “a man who has bathed in all the bathing places.” The same phrase is used in Vasiṣṭha Dharmasūtra 29.11 about giving gifts. By allowing others to use his cows, he gets “the same reward as by bathing in all sacred bathing places” (sarvatīrthopasparśanam ). The idea of all sacred bathing places might point to the emerging ideology of pilgrimage, although here, as well, no specific place names are mentioned, unless sarvatīrtha refers to a specific place such as Prayāg. 9 It is the mentioning of specific place names and the narratives of the places and their meritoriousness that is the distinguishing mark of a textual tradition of tīrtha as “pilgrimage place” in the Mahābhārata . The first emergence of the listing of names of tīrtha in any of the law books is in Viṣṇusmṛti , which devotes a whole chapter (Chapter 85) on mentioning names of different tīrthas , which are recommended for performance of śrāddha . This text is quite late, it was written between 700 and 1000 ce (Olivelle 2007 ), and by that time, pilgrimage had become a widespread Brahmanical institution. 10 It is probably close in time to the date when we get the first digests on pilgrimage, Lakṣmīdhara’s Tīrthavivecanakāṇḍa . A geographical expansion of the Hindu pilgrimage tradition, which is witnessed in the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas , happened probably especially from the fourth century ce . Urban decay and a feudalization of the economy seem to have been important processes for the extreme success of the tradition of tīrthayātrā (Jacobsen 2013 ; Nandi, 1979 /80; Nandi 1986 ; Nath 2001 ; Nath 2007 ; Sharma 1987 ). Hindu pilgrimage is primarily a medieval and modern tradition and came about “due to the Brahmin revival, and to the ruralization of religion in the Hindu Middle Ages through its partial absorption into local, non-Brahmanic cults” (Bharati 1963: 137). The historian R. S. Sharma suggested that urban decay led to agricultural expansion and a feudalization of the economy, and that several cities that decayed as centers of trade were recreated as sacred centers to benefit from the new pilgrimage economy (Sharma 1987 ). The transformation of cities from centers of trade to centers of pilgrimage thus had economic reasons. The Dharmanibandhas on tīrthas primarily promoted these pilgrimage cities, and their authors were probably also based in these cities. 11
The topic of pilgrimage places and pilgrimage enter the Dharmaśāstra textual tradition fully only with the Dharmanibandhas. The Nibandhas on tīrtha attempted to superimpose a logical coherence on a diverse popular tradition and attempted to make pilgrimage subject to rules and regulations. The inclusion of pilgrimage in the Dharmanibandhas was perhaps attempts to infuse orthodoxy into a tradition that was to some degree driven by the economic benefits of the tīrtha priests, and this indicates that pilgrimage had become central to the economy of certain cities. Geographical integration was probably also a factor. Perhaps another purpose was to give approval of Brahmans to travel to tīrthas .
The first Nibandha to incorporate the subject of pilgrimage was Lakṣmīdhara’s Kṛtyakalpataru (twelfth c. ce ), which was also the first of the Nibandhas (Olivelle 2010b : 55). One of Kṛtyakalpataru ’s fourteen parts is devoted to tīrthas , the Tīrthavivecanakāṇḍa , of extensive length. The printed edition of the Sanskrit text is 264 pages. It set the standard for the later Nibandhas on tīrthas . The next significant Nibandha text on tīrthas was the Tīrthacintāmaṇi of Vācaspatimiśra (fifteenth c. ce ), the printed Sanskrit edition of which is 271 pages. The first part of the Tristhalīsetu of Nārayaṇabhaṭṭa (sixteenth c. ce ), the most authoritative Sanskrit text on the subject (Salomon 1985), the Sāmānyapraghaṭṭaka , which alone is 178 pages. Several Sanskrit digests of Tristhalīsetu exist: Tristhalīsetusārasaṃgraha by Bhaṭṭoj Dīkṣita, Tīrthakamalākara by Kamalākarabhaṭṭa, and Tīrthenduśekhara by Nāgeśabhaṭṭa. The printed edition of the “most authoritative of the later texts on tīrtha ” (Salomon 1985 : xix), the Tīrthaprakāśa of Vīramitrodaya (seventeenth c. ce ) is 510 pages. These are the most important dharma texts for treatment of the details of pilgrimage travel and pilgrimage places. The dharma texts on tīrthas contain long quotations mainly from the Mahābhārata , Purāṇas, and Smṛti texts, describing the places and instructions relating to the performance of pilgrimage rituals. However, in contrast with Tīrthavivecanakṇḍa , later texts included some lengthy technical discussions on a number of specific topics pertaining to pilgrimage and the pilgrimage rituals.
Lakṣmīdhara composed the Kṛtyakalpataru under the patronage of King Govindachandra, who ruled in Kāśī and Kanoj. Olivelle has suggested that Lakṣmīdhara “was probably the editor who supervised the work of pandits working under him” and that “many of the digest writers of medieval India were closely associated with rulers and probably worked under their patronage” (2010b : 55). Pilgrimage probably played an important role for the economy of several cities. However, S. Pollock has suggested that Kṛtyakalpataru was written in an environment in which the Turkish invasion was believed to threaten society and that the production of the digests followed the path of the advance of the Delhi Sultanate (Pollock, 1993 : 106). For the pilgrimage tradition, this would mean that the need to consolidate power led to the final inclusion of the pilgrimage ritual into the Dharmaśāstric tradition, in spite of the earlier opposition to it. The pilgrimage tradition sanctified geographical space, and with a threatening “other,” it became strategically important to define space as having salvific value common to all Hindus within a geographically unified area. That the Dharmanibandhas do not seem to distinguish between rewards attained at places devoted to Śiva and Viṣṇu and other gods and goddesses, in that all places were thought to have power to give merit and mokṣa , also points in that direction.
Tristhalīsetu is one of the most authoritative of the Sanskrit texts on tīrthas and pilgrimage travel (Salomon 1985 ). The subject of its general section (Sāmānyapraghaṭṭaka ) is rules and regulations of pilgrimage. One purpose may perhaps have been to establish rules and regulations in order to promote pilgrimage as a practice appropriate for Brahmans. The titles of the chapters of its general section (Sāmānyapraghaṭṭaka ) is indicative of the topics that was considered central for the attempt to create rules of the pilgrimage ritual in the Dharmaśāstra tradition: the puruṣārtha s; praise of the ability of tīrtha s to destroy moral impurity (pāpa ); the nature of tīrthas ; secondary tīrthas such as truthfulness, self-control, and the inability of tīrthas to purify persons who have not abandoned moral impurities; those authorized to make pilgrimages; causes for varying degrees of benefit (phala ) from tīrtha s; varying degrees of benefit based on particular vehicles (yāna ); tīrthas and equivalent substitutes; purity of times for pilgrimage; the way of going to tīrthas ; observances on a pilgrimage; duties on the day of arrival at a tīrtha ; fasting; shaving (a long chapter); bathing; tarpaṇa ; defilement of rivers, śrāddha , prohibited elements in tīrthaśrāddha (a long chapter); discussion of śrāddha ; discussion of the coincidence of the tīrthaśrāddha and other śrāddhas ; persons authorized to perform tīrthaśrāddha ; exception to persons authorized to perform tīrthaśrāddha ; beneficiaries of tīrthaśrāddha ; guide for procedure; and miscellaneous rules of tīrthas .
One interesting way the Tristhalīsetu tried to bring order and orthodoxy into the pilgrimage tradition, and perhaps unity to it, was to attempt to measure exactly the salvific power of the various pilgrimage places. The chapter on tīrthas and equivalent substitutes starts by quoting the Ādityapurāṇa , which says that the Pāṇḍavas together with a number of other sages took on twenty-four years of penance and “carried them out by means of tīrthas.” This quotation is meant to legitimate that the salvific power of the tīrthas can be calculated in terms of penance equivalents. The number of yojana s 12 traveled is then calculated in terms of penances (kṛcchra 13 and prājapatya ). This merit varies according not only to distance traveled but also to the power of the place. Tristhalīsetu does not quote any texts as precedence for the exact calculation. So “bathing in Bhagirathī (Ganges) after coming sixty yojanas on foot, with a declaration of intent made beforehand according to the rule for penances, is equal to six years of kṛcchra penance” (p. 229). For each yojana , an increase of one half kṛcchra penance is added. At Prayāg, Vārāṇasī, Gāṅgādvāra, and Gāṅgāsāgara, it is equal to twice of that. Bathing in Yamunā after coming twenty yojana s is equal to two years of kṛcchras; at Mathurā twice of that; and so on. The calculation builds on the principle that salvific power is stronger at some places and weaker at others, but such calculations are completely contradicted by the promotion texts of the individual places, in which each place celebrates its absolute power, and the normative calculations of Tristhalīsetu seem to have had a limited effect on the actual behavior of pilgrims. In the Māhātmyas, the promotion texts of particular pilgrimage places such as in the Narmadāmāhātmya of Tīrthavivecanakāṇḍa , quoting Matsyapurāṇa it is said that the river Yamunā purifies a person after bathing for seven days, Sarasvatī for three days, or Gaṅgā on bathing once, but Narmadā purifies on the mere sight of seeing it (darśanād eva ) (Tīrthavivecanakāṇḍa , p. 198). In the promotion text of Naimiṣāraṇya, it is claimed that walking thirteen kilometers along the Gaṅgā gives a reward equal to the aśvamedha sacrifice; the same result is attained by walking four miles in Vārāṇasī or two miles in Kurukṣetra, but by walking in Naimiṣāraṇya, one attains the reward of an aśvamedha sacrifice for every step. Such computations of the Māhātmyas included in the tīrthanibandhas and the attempts of calculations of the general section of the Tristhalīsetu contradict each other completely. The way of calculation of the Tristhalīsetu probably never attracted much interest from the pilgrims, 14 but it is an example of the scholastic attempts to incorporate pilgrimage into the Dharmaśāstra tradition and infuse some sort of rationality into it.
The Nibandhas encourage giving of large amounts of wealth to the paṇḍās and salvific awards are calculated on the basis of the gifts. Such calculations are often overstatements, such as the statement “for each pore on the skin of the cow and its calf” the gift giver “will enjoy heaven for thousands of years” in the Tīrthacintāmaṇī :
He who offers a kapilā cow in Prayāg, giving plenty of milk, with gold horns, silver hooves, and white neck, should properly engage a learned and holy Brahman, clad in white garment, who is calm, knowledgeable in dharma , and accomplished in the Veda, and should give him the cow, beautiful clothes and many gems. For each pore on the skin of the cow and its calf he will enjoy heaven for thousands of years. (313–16)
And, when not following the prescribed rules, such as buying the service of having oneself shaved when arriving at a pilgrimage place, punishment in hell follows:
If one arrives at the Gaṅgā, best of rivers, and does not have oneself shaved, he and tens of millions of others go to the Raurava hell until the end of the eon.
(Tristhalīsetu 256, trans. R. Salomon, p. 284)
Given the stress on giving to Brahmans at tīrthas , it is interesting that the Nibandhas also contain statements that condemn Brahmans who accept gifts at tīrthas . Tristhalīsetu says, quoting Padmapurāṇa:
One must not accept gifts at a tīrtha, even with his dying breaths. Even a creature mad with desire protects at least his mother; but acceptance of gifts at a tīrtha is the same as selling the tīrtha. When the Gaṅgā is sold, then Janārdana (Viṣṇu) is sold; when Janārdana is sold, the three worlds are sold. If a brāhmaṇa out of greed wishes to accept gifts in a sacred place, there is no world beyond for that evil one, nor even this world. Brāhmaṇas weak in wisdom who accept great gifts (there)— those Brahma-demons are born as trees with a brāhmaṇa’s form. One must not desire to accept gifts, relying on the strength of the Veda…one should not sell the Veda: the lowest of twice born men should rather kill a cow and eat its flesh. (Tristhalīsetu, Sāmānya-praghaṭṭaka 651–2, trans. Richard Salomon, 1985 : 437–8)
The author of the Tristhalīsetu instead of commenting himself on this, quotes from the Tīrthavivecanakāṇḍa :
As long as a man enjoys the wealth accepted as a gift (at a tīrtha), as long as a man who has accepted gifts at the tīrtha continues to keep possession of that wealth obtained there, for so long he cannot generate the benefit of donations etc. at a tīrtha, which benefit is characterized by such qualities as being multiplied by ten million. But by discarding that wealth he does generate that proper benefit for himself. (Trans. Richard Salomon p. 439)
And quoting again Padmapurāṇa :
Accepting gifts (pratigraha ) at a tīrtha is to be avoided, as is selling of the Dharma. A sin committed at a tīrtha is hard to atone for, and so is acceptance of gifts (pratigraha ) (there). (656; trans. Richard Salomon p. 439) 15
Such condemnations of Brahmans who accept gifts at tīrthas might be difficult to understand, and such statements were perhaps directed at Brahman pilgrims. The Nibandha text addresses, one would assume, primarily Brahman pilgrims and it states the proper behavior of Brahmans on pilgrimage. They might perhaps also echo the old condemnation of devalakas in earlier Dharmaśāstra literature and the tension between Vedic priest and devalakas , a tension also confirmed in contemporary ethnographic observations. The verses reflect perhaps that while pilgrimage had become a Brahmanical practice the author still had a negative view of the pilgrimage priests (paṇḍā s). Maria Heim in her study on dāna comments that “Several studies show that, far from being idealized as virtuous, brahman recipients of dāna are despised for their status as dependents” (2004 : 58).
In the general section of the Dharmanibandhas, human virtues are said to be more important than tīrtha s are, and it is stated that there are no rewards from visiting tīrtha s if the mind is not pure. That the fruits of being present at a tīrtha depended on possession of high moral qualities goes against the promotion texts of the places, which are quoted again and again in other sections in the Nibandhas. Tirthavivecanakāṇḍa argues that virtue is the highest tīrtha and that the rewards for visiting tīrthas are dependent on ascetic values and correct ritual performance at the sites. In these parts on rules for pilgrimage, moral purity is presented as a necessity to gain the fruits of pilgrimage. These sections of the texts attempt to put limitations on the salvific power of place. But at other places, the texts argue that just by being present at the tīrtha or having the sight of it, by the thought of it, or even just by having the desire to visit the place, all wishes will come true. Just being touched by the dust of Kurukṣetra blowing in the wind is enough to remove all moral impurity and attain mokṣa , according to promotion verses of Kurukṣetra quoted frequently. The salvific power of place is absolute. This power of place of Kurukṣetra contradicts the teaching of the dharma of Kṛṣṇa to Arjuna, narrated in the Bhagavadgītā , which took place at the same Kurukṣetra. However, the Nibandhas include both views. The authors of the Dharmanibandhas on tīrthas supply the well-known argument that if mere physical presence were enough, all the fishes in Gaṅgā would attain mokṣa . But how do we really know that they don’t? The popular view of the salvific power of place contradicts the idea of salvation as a gradual attainment of purity dependent upon ritual performance and the cultivation of human virtues. However, as in other dimensions of the Hindu tradition, these two points of view, power and purity, flourish side by side.
Given the great popularity and influence of the Hindu pilgrimage tradition, the number of texts that treat tīrtha and tīrthayātrā as a subject of Dharmaśāstra is surprisingly small. In addition, many discussions in the Nibandhas of rules of pilgrimage have probably had a very limited influence on the pilgrims. These texts should be used with care as sources for descriptions of actual Hindu pilgrim behavior. Many of the rules were probably never followed by the great majority and they were perhaps never meant for them but rather for a few Sanskrit-knowing Brahmans. However, they did give opportunities for persons fascinated by rules and regulations to feel at home in the pilgrimage ritual.