Product Code Database
The text glorifies the (identified as Sarasvatas), and slanders their traditional rivals, such as the Chitpavans and the Karhade Brahmin. Historically, the text's authenticity was a matter of debate among Brahmins, with some using it to assert the Brahmin status of the Shenvis, while others - especially Chitpavans - denouncing it as a fabricated Puranic text.
German academic Alexander Henn, citing Stephan Hillyer Levitt and João Manuel Pacheco de Figueiredo, describes the Sahyadri-khanda as an "apparently recently organized and somewhat deficient edition of disaparate texts". Based on Levitt's work, he states that the earliest of these texts dates to the 5th century, and the latest to the 13th century. According to Rosalind O'Hanlon, the core of the text was likely written "before or around the end of the first millennium": it contains stories about Brahmin village settlements that have fallen from virtue. The remaining text appears to have been written later, as it describes the Pancha Gauda and Pancha Dravida classification of Brahmins, which became popular during the 13th-14th centuries.
The text characterizes the Shenvi Brahmins (whom it calls Sarasvatas) as heroes, while ascribing ignoble origins to their rivals such as the Chitpavans and the Karhades. In 1631, a Brahman judicial assembly ( dharma-sabha) at Varanasi, the most authoritative of such assemblies, cited the Sahyadri-khanda to assert the Brahmin status of the Shenvis. In 1564, the Portuguese India had destroyed an Advaita monastery at Cortalim, and its spiritual leaders had migrated to Varanasi. When the Hindu residents of Kusasthal revived the monastery, a Shenvi named Vitthal wanted to become its leader. However, Brahmins from other communities opposed him, disputing the Brahmin status of Shenvis. The opponents argued that unlike the traditionally vegetarian Brahmins, the Shenvis customarily ate fish. The assembly at Varanasi cited the Sahyadri-khanda to rule that Parshurama had allowed different Brahmin communities to follow different customs, and eating fish did not affect the Brahmin status of the Shenvis. As a result, Vitthal became the leader of the revived monastery, adopting the name Sacchidananda Sarasvati.
Madhav's Sata-prashna-kalpa-lata (1577 CE), which is sympathetic to the Karhades, characterizes the Sahyadri-khanda as a fabricated Puranic text. Raghoba Mahadevrao, a famous Chitpavan performer, recited stories from the Sahyadri-khanda, as recorded by Arthur Crawford, who served as an assistant magistrate in Konkan during 1859-1862. Raghoba dismissed the text's founding myth of Chitpavans as a "malicious invention" by Shenvi slanderers, and narrated another founding myth glorifying the Chitpavans.
Bajirao II (r. 1796-1818), the last Peshwa of the Maratha Confederacy and a Chitpavan, systematically attempted to censor the performances that narrated stories ascribing an ignoble origin to the Chitpavans. He sent agents with Maratha armies to destroy the manuscripts containing such stories. According to East India Company administrator Mark Wilks, the illiterate Maratha troops indiscriminately destroyed a large number of manuscripts as a result of this order. James Grant Duff, in his History of the Mahrattas (1826), states that the Maratha state officials "carefully suppress or destroy all copies" of the Sahyadri-khanda. Duff also writes that the Peshwa disgraced a Brahmin from Wai for possessing a copy of the text. Arthur Crawford, in his Legends of Konkan, writes that the Peshwa ordered the burning of all the copies of the text. He then decreed anyone subsequently found in the possession of a copy to be hanged; a Deshastha Brahmin was hanged as a result. It is not clear how successful Peshwa's censorship attempts were, but there is some evidence that by the end of the 18th century, it was difficult to find a copy of the text in the Bombay region. For example, in 1787, when some people in Bombay decided to consult the Sahyadri-khanda to resolve a dispute over ritual entitlements, they had to request a copy from the Sringeri monastery in present-day Karnataka.
The debates over the text's authenticity continued after José Gerson da Cunha published a critical edition in 1877. Ramchandra Bhikaji Gunjikar (1843-1901), who wrote on the history of Brahmin communities of Maharashtra, noted that the copies of the Sahyadri-khanda then available in Mumbai, did not mention the founding myth of the Chitpavans. He concluded that the original text contained the story, which was removed as a result of Peshwa's censorship.
The original core of the text, comprising 30 chapters, contains stories about Brahmin village settlements that have suffered because their residents engaged in sexual misconduct, degrading work, or neglect of rituals.
The second part, composed in the later centuries and narrated as a conversation between Shiva and his son Kartikeya, contains stories about various social groups of the Brahmins. In this part, Shiva tells his son Skanda that ancient sages established the ten divisions of Brahmins (Pancha Gauda and Pancha Dravida). He describes the different customs of various Brahmin communities, stating that each of them have their own shortcomings, which are forgivable. He justifies the existence of these differences, and emphasizes that a Brahmin must only follow the customs of his own community. He also refers to practices common to all Brahmins, such as the chanting of the gayatri mantra.
Next, the text narrates the of various Brahmin communities, glorifying the Shenvis (identified as ) at the expense of their rivals such as the Chitpavans and the Karhades. In the text, Shiva narrates the following founding myths to Skanda:
The text goes on to describe the smaller Brahmin communities of south-western India, including their customs and history. While the text attempts to express a cohesive Brahmin identity, such stories express the social tensions among the Brahmin communities.
A Kannada language-language text with the same title contains the chapter Grāmapaddhati, which describes Brahmin family names and villages. Y. C. Bhanumati notes that the Kannada version has no similarities with Sanskrit text, and theorizes that the original Sahyadri-khanda must have been a different, now-lost work.
Cunha notes that there are several differences between these copies, which are results of incorrect copying as well as deliberate interpolations.
|
|
