Revering the Relic Manuscript in Contemporary Hinduism

Introduction

Visual veneration practices (darśana) within Hindu temples have traditionally been associated with the images of deities (mūrtis) enshrined in the inner sanctum (garbhagṛha), often overlooking the diverse range of objects, materials, and spaces that also facilitate darśana. In the Svāminārāyaṇa tradition, a well-established global Hindu devotional community, one contemporary form of veneration involves the prasādī maṇḍap,1 or reliquary space, which houses glass cabinet displays of objects that deceased and living gurus touched, used, wore, or were gifted. Dried flower garlands, rice grains from a significant ritual event (for example, commemorating a particular temple inauguration), texts, utensils, clothing items, and pens—among other domestic objects—are displayed, each providing visual and physical caches for memory and recollection (smṛti) for devotees to access historical memories and feelings they and others experienced in the presence of their guru. These objects have far more value than they did before their encounter with the guru, when they were simply a flower, a pen, or a piece of paper. Now, they serve as powerful loci of historical memory and tangible expressions of the divine. Once mundane and expendable, they have been transformed into cherished sacred relics, revered and protected by the community.

This essay will first parse the meanings and uses of relics in Hinduism, an otherwise underdeveloped field in Hindu studies.2 I analyze how objects—such as ritual remnants or particular versions of texts—serve as legitimate repositories for engaging with Hindu religious experience and accessing historical memory, concentrating on themes of physical, symbolic, and curated imagined presence attached to relics. Focusing on the Śikṣāpatrī manuscript in the Oxford Bodleian Libraries, this study theorizes the concept of the “relic manuscript” by exploring how the manuscript has been received as a relic by both the religious community and the library institution. The analysis concludes with a concise codicological examination of the Śikṣāpatrī, offering insights into its treatment as a sacred artifact. Finally, some long-term outcomes for the research are proposed.

Relics in Hindu Traditions

Before examining the relic manuscript, it is necessary to consider the concept of relics and their broader significance across material, functional, and religious dimensions. Relics are categorized by their ontology, use, and proximity to the revered person or event. Nicole Hermann-Mascard (1975) identifies three types of Christian relics: corporeal relics (human remains), non-corporeal relics (objects used, worn, or touched by the revered individual), and representative relics (objects that had contact with the deceased’s tomb, bones, or ashes). In Hindu traditions, Tulasi Srinivas categorizes relics associated with modern guru Sathya Sai Baba into sacra and ephemera (2010, 2012). Sacra combine corporeal relics with cherished objects touched by the guru, akin to Hermann-Mascard’s first and second types. Ephemera are secondary objects imbued with the revered person’s presence through indirect contact, similar to representative relics. This study focuses on sacra—non-corporeal artifacts—which remain underexplored in South Asian religious studies, where scholarship has primarily concentrated on corporeal remains, tombs, and shrines.3

The phenomenon of relic veneration is relatively uncommon in Hinduism compared to Buddhism, Christianity, or Sufism. Several factors contribute to this. First, Hindu ritual worship emphasizes images as embodiments of divine or guru presence, rather than sanctified but perishable objects. Second, the guru-disciple relationship prioritizes the presence of a living guru, who ensures the continuity of the tradition without reliance on relics (Aymard 2014). Third, Hinduism’s puritanical practices regard the deceased body as impure, necessitating prompt cremation (Aymard 2014, 69; Malamoud 1982, 441).4 Finally, the Hindu concept of saṃsāra, emphasizing rebirth over death, views the body as a temporary vessel for the soul’s karmic journey. The impermanence of the physical body renders its preservation or veneration unnecessary.

In spite of Hindu anxieties concerning the pollution associated with death, relics do play an important role in the Svāminārāyaṇa, Satya Sai Baba, and Mā Ānandmayī communities and in their respective devotional spaces (for an example, see fig. 1).5 Aymard notes that the concept of impurity associated with the body does not apply to “realized beings” (2014, 70). In the Mā community she studies, the bodies of enlightened individuals are regarded as eternally pure, sacred, and divine. Objects that come into contact with such individuals, either during their lifetime or with their remains, undergo an ontological transformation, acquiring divine status and becoming sacred artifacts.

The term “relic” is derived from the Latin reliquiae, meaning “remains,” itself derived from the Latin verb relinquere, to “leave behind or relinquish.” In Buddhist archaeological studies and related social, political, and religious contexts, the equivalent term dhātu emphasizes the material element in which the significant person’s energy and presence resides within his or her remains on earth, conferring favor and prosperity on those who are affected by the person’s memory. In Hinduism, there is no directly equivalent Sanskrit term for “relic.” Oftentimes objects and remnants associated with a religious figure are referred to using more general and performative terms that are related to the effect they generate upon contact or viewing (darśana) in the devotee’s ritual world—recollection or historical memorialization (smṛti), the remnants of items presented to an image or religious figure (prasāda)—or as ideas surrounding material piety and devotion (bhakti), such as the experience of proximity to a religious being or figure (sannidhi), or the popularized devotional concept referring to the contemplation of a divine figure’s acts of play as he or she interfaces with the cosmic otherworld and relatable human life (līlā). Related adjectival terms include samādhi (shrine or memorial) and ucchiṣṭa (physical remains).

Since I am focusing on relic practices within primarily Gujarati-speaking religious traditions, this essay adopts the Gujarati term prasādī vastu, from the Sanskrit prasādika, the adjectival form of prasāda with a possessive suffix, meaning “grace” or “favor.” In contemporary Gujarati devotional communities, this term is used in the ritual and devotional worlds to refer to items (vastu) that have been sanctified by a religious figure or guru (prasādī). Relics or items touched by a revered guru are considered remnants imbued with sacred significance, akin to offerings made to a deity or guru (prasāda),6 and stored or kept by devotees as mediums to access a particular memory with their guru (smṛti). Today, enshrined prasāda items or prasādī vastu are also obtained from living gurus (see for example fig. 2), who have sanctified objects and made them prasādī by their touch. The sanctity of the guru’s relics is not contingent upon their death; they are regarded as prasādī while the guru is still alive.

Reliquaries, special rooms or sanctums (maṇḍaps), small alcoves (as in fig. 3 below), and even multi-acre museums are dedicated to items used, worn, touched, and/or owned by a respective guru, deity, or leader of the religious community, each enshrined and protected in glass cabinets or cases.

Relic Manuscripts

Inside such rooms are display cases of texts, particularly prasādī manuscripts of pivotal texts written by important monks or gifted by the guru (see the bundles of paper wrapped in red cloth in fig 1. and the codices displayed in fig. 4). Recalling the concept of relics defined by Srinivas and theorized by Aymard, these manuscripts can be conceived of as “relic manuscripts,” because they primarily function in an iconic dimension.7 They remain unopened, unread, and untouched; they are exclusively viewed behind glass, as sacred objects or as icons. On rare occasions, relic manuscripts similar to these are worshipped as part of a ritual ceremony or carried in a procession. Evidence of the repeated pūjās (structured ritual worship) performed to such manuscript texts, such as the one in figure 5 below, can be observed in the material residue left from offerings like kuṅkuma (a red powder used ceremonially and in ritual).

The idea of a “relic manuscript,” a term derived from James Watts’s “relic text” in his project on the iconicity of books, denotes particular scriptures or copies of texts that are rarely opened, and instead worshipped or enshrined in a way that distinguishes them from other texts (2012). They become relic texts because of a significant associated memory, be it the moment of composition or the moment when the text was written, held, read, or gifted by a revered individual. Once texts and documents become relic texts, they no longer need to be opened, read, or studied. Instead, they are revered as extensions of, or mediums for accessing, the presence and grace of a significant individual or the memory associated with them. Regardless of their form—printed books, manuscripts, short documents, or tracts—relic texts are prasādī vastu, objects imbued with residual divine energy and the presence of the individuals they are associated with. Consequently, they become entwined with specific historical narratives or ideologies, often remaining unopened, unexplored, and unchallenged. The Śikṣāpatrī, a short Sanskrit index of customs from the Svāminārāyaṇa tradition, is one potent example of such a relic text.8

The Oxford Śikṣāpatrī Relic Manuscript

This copy of the Śikṣāpatrī (see fig. 9 below) belongs to the Bodleian Libraries’ original Indian Institute collection, which was founded by Monier Monier-Williams (1819–1899), the nineteenth-century British Indologist and second Boden Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford. This small paper codex, containing the 212-verse Sanskrit text of the Śikṣāpatrī with a commentary and various other hymns, is thought to be an original document from a significant early encounter between Svāminārāyaṇa (1781–1830), the founder and deity of the Svāminārāyaṇa tradition, and Sir John Malcolm (1769–1833), Governor of the Bombay Presidency (1827–1830) (Williams 1981).

The text was first identified by Raymond Brady Williams in the 1970s based on two key factors, including (1) the popularized story repeatedly recounted in the tradition’s biographical literature on Svāminārāyaṇa,9 in which the leader gifts a copy of the Śikṣāpatrī to the governor, and (2) two particular markers in the codex (figs. 6 & 7). Williams published his findings in an article titled “Presentation of the Śikṣāpatrī to Sir John Malcolm” in a set of proceedings from one of the first international conferences on the Svāminārāyaṇa tradition, entitled “New Dimensions of Vedānta Philosophy,” published in 1981. In his study, he sets out the distinctive features of the codex that associate it with the 1830 meeting, starting with an inscription penciled on the first folio.

The second marker for Williams is a bookplate with the name of the manuscript benefactor, T. L. Blane (fig. 8).

Williams contextualizes the text within the framework of the meeting between the two leaders, drawing on these two aspects of the manuscript. He writes, “T. Blane was the younger brother of David Anderson Blane, the acting political agent of Kathiawar from 1828 to 1830, and the host of the meeting between the two leaders in Rajkot . . . it seems likely that he [David Blane] preserved the manuscript. After his death in 1879, it was donated to the library at Oxford by his brother” (1981). For Williams, the manuscript is “one of the oldest copies of the text preserved and one of the few presented by Sahajānanda Svāmīanand (Svāminārāyaṇa) himself . . . Professor Monier-Williams, along with Sir John Malcolm and Bishop Reginald Heber, expressed appreciation for the highly moral character of the precepts of the Shikshapatri as taught by Sahajanand Swami. It is appropriate that the copy of the text presented to Governor Malcolm found its way into the research library founded by Monier-Williams” (1981).

The publication of Williams’ essay was a crucial moment that elevated this manuscript from a simple document to an object of veneration for thousands of Hindus across the world, not only Svāminārāyaṇas. Following his discovery, Svāminārāyaṇa devotees began seeking opportunities to visit, venerate, and have darśana of the text. Their acts of darśana were essential religious experiences through which they connected with Svāminārāyaṇa, their chosen deity (iṣṭadeva). While the historical moment at which this text was presented is significant to the Svāminārāyaṇa devotee, it is the residual energy left by Svāminārāyaṇa, their beloved iṣṭadeva, that rendered this text exceptional. Devotees describe experiencing vibrations of his presence within the text, venerating it as prasādi—literally his consecrated remnants or favors (prasāda)—as though they had achieved a form of posthumous communion with him.

Since the 1980s, prior to the restoration of the Weston Library, the library has made accommodations for darśana of the manuscript. Small study rooms were booked for leaders, monks, and others to view the text, until eventually the text and its viewing requests outgrew the available library spaces. Library staff digitized the text, at great expense, to make it accessible online, but requests to view the physical artifact in person remained undiminished.10 When the newly renovated Weston Library opened in 2014, the text was displayed in a special gallery space called the “Treasury.” The gallery rotates seminal treasures from the library collection annually and has included various themed displays with significant artifacts and books. The Śikṣāpatrī manuscript lasted two exhibition cycles before it outgrew the space and was moved to a temporary glass display case in the large entrance Blackwell Hall atrium. Now it resides in the Gaffer’s Library, in a permanent display cabinet in the Hall’s Transept (fig. 10), a short corridor leading to the library’s lecture theater.

Devotees are free to visit the text when it is convenient for them, and are seen to quietly have darśana without disturbing other visitors, students, or staff occupying the library.

Occasionally, staff have accommodated requests for large group viewings, particularly on significant dates, such as when the text was thought to have been authored or gifted. Devotees arrive in large numbers as part of organized coach tours, proceeding through the large doors of the Blackwell Hall entrance atrium in an orderly line to have darśana of the manuscript. For these large viewings, staff take the manuscript out of its display case and place it in a temporary protective glass case in the large hall.

In 2016, I observed how some devotees focus quietly as they wait their turn to view the manuscript, while others whisper with excitement, sharing their observations and sentiments with those standing next to them in line. Those who have had their turn viewing the manuscript take a seat on the floor in front of the glass case, reflecting on their experience or continuing their darśana practice. Some offer donations and flower garlands to the text and the accompanying image (mūrti) of Svāminārāyaṇa, as in figure 12, while others prostrate themselves on the floor in front of the glass case.

Once the line of devotees has cleared, together the devotees partake in a light-waving ritual with artificial tea lights, accompanied by a laudatory hymn (āratī).11 The leaders of the group who are present offer a short address, highlighting the significance of the text and reflecting on the history of visits to the relic manuscript by gurus and other religious leaders.

The visit is over almost as soon as it has begun. The devotees exit the premises, returning to their coaches or other modes of transportation. The manuscript is left in the glass case in the large, now empty and quiet hall, almost as if nothing has happened. Onlookers and visitors casually pass by, reading the caption text as they do with other texts and artifacts on display in the main hall and connecting galleries.

A Codicological and Visual Analysis of this Manuscript

After a particular Śikṣāpatrī darśana event in July 2016, I had the opportunity to study the manuscript in the library’s conservation laboratory. While Williams was correct to make the connections he did based on his readings of the penciled inscription and bookplate, as a non-specialist in Sanskrit or Devanagari, he failed to consider the copy date(s) of the texts in the colophons.

The text itself is a small codex consisting of two units, each formulated at different times. The first codicological unit, or kernel, contains the 212-verse Śikṣāpatrī text with a commentary in Nāgarī-Gujarātī by Nityānanda (1793–1847), an ascetic disciple of Svāminārāyaṇa. This unit has a separate colophon with details of when it was copied. The date of completion of this unit is given as Āśāḍha śukla 11, Saṃvat 1887 (Thursday, July 1, 1830). The second codicological unit, comprising fewer folios than the first, contains a set of Svāminārāyaṇa devotional hymns, including Dinānāṭh Bhatṭ’s Nārāyaṇamunistotra and Śatānanda’s Rādhākrṣṇāṣṭaka in Sanskrit, as well as Muktānandamuni’s Prārthanāṣṭaka in Brajbhāṣā. The unit’s bifolia are wrapped around the unit containing the Śikṣāpatrī folios and are separately dated to Saṃvat 1880 nā phāgaṇa vadi 6 śanivāsare (Saturday, March 20, 1824).

The presence of multiple dates indicates that the manuscript is a composite, bound together after July 1830, following the completion of the later codicological unit, the Śikṣāpatrī kernel. While the exact date of its compilation remains uncertain, it is evident that this manuscript could not have been part of the meeting between Svāminārāyaṇa and Governor Malcolm, contrary to Williams’s assertion. The meeting between the two leaders occurred on February 28, 1830, approximately four months before the Śikṣāpatrī unit of the manuscript was produced.12

In the laboratory, the composite nature of the manuscript has been confirmed by other means. The codicological unit comprising the Śikṣāpatrī kernel was trimmed to fit inside the unit containing the hymns, the folios of which are wrapped around it. The margins are narrower and corresponding margin lines are sometimes missing after trimming, as seen in figure 14.

Two further blank bifolia have additionally been inserted between the two units in the process of compiling the composite manuscript. The manuscript consists of three distinct types of paper, as revealed under lighting. This is evident from the differing paper lines running in various directions, as shown in figures 15 and 16 below.

Different scribal hands and different layouts of the text on the folios between the first and second units, as seen in figures 17 and 18 below, also confirm its composite nature.

Furthermore, the foliation of the Śikṣāpatrī kernel unit starts again from 1, as if it were originally created to be a standalone manuscript (the second codicological unit containing the hymns is otherwise foliated with penciled English numerals, probably by an early librarian or cataloguer). One plausible hypothesis is that the unit with the hymns was originally part of a different codex produced in 1824. The unit may have similarly encased a different text before being removed and attached to this one, or it may have existed alone. Though we cannot confirm either scenario for certain, further research undertaken in India between 2014 and 2017 has led me to an alternative recension of the Śikṣāpatrī which, as I suggest in detail elsewhere, may have been the version of the Śikṣāpatrī presented to Governor Malcolm in some form, perhaps as part of this 1824 manuscript codicological unit containing the miscellaneous hymns (Chag 2019).

Williams’s historicization of the Oxford Śikṣāpatrī manuscript catalyzed something deep-rooted and intrinsically meaningful to Svāminārāyaṇa followers, despite the manuscript’s incoherent dating. Devotees continue to organize pilgrimages for the text’s darśana, looking to experience the presence of its “gifter,” i.e. Svāminārāyaṇa, through it. The library institution itself has recognized this significance and routinely accommodates devotees’ requests for viewing, in both small and large organizational numbers, indicating a level of institutional sensitivity toward the manuscript’s role as a religious relic.

In the last ten years, I have shared my observations on the dating of the manuscripts in various forums, prompting discussions on the implications of historical inaccuracies. As of today, organized visits to the library are still ongoing. Moreover, enthusiasm for the manuscript has only grown, as plans for large-scale events and celebrations are currently underway to coincide with the date of the text’s authoring and the historic interaction between Svāminārāyaṇa and the manuscript’s recipient.

Conclusion

We are thus left with several questions regarding the relic manuscript. What are the possible outcomes when new data become available? Religious groups sometimes quote historians to justify or verify their religious beliefs, but what happens if historians present contrary findings? Does the process of verification and justification function symmetrically?

Since the 1970s, a tradition surrounding this relic has evolved within the library institution. With the introduction of new information, it is uncertain how these traditions—or the institution itself—might develop in the future. Will the status of the relic change? Will the community alter the practices developed over the past fifty years, or will they construct new narratives to sustain the object’s significance? How will the Bodleian Libraries respond? Answers to these questions remain open-ended and will likely vary depending on context. For the Oxford Śikṣāpatrī manuscript, it is still too early to predict the long-term effects of these findings. For now, the Śikṣāpatrī continues to be revered as a relic manuscript.

References

Websites

• Digital Bodleian Collections website: https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk
• Digital Shikshapatri websites: www.shikshapatri.org.uk. The website resource is no longer available due to outdated technological platforms, though an archived version remains accessible via https://wayback.archive-it.org/org-467/20191016104916/http://www.shikshapatri.org.uk

Websites dedicated to sanctified items and memorials:

• https://www.sksst.org/prasadi-ni-vastu
• https://www.swaminarayan.nu/sampraday/prasadi.shtml
• https://www.skandavale.org/sacred-sites/the-samadhi-of-guru-sri-subramanium/
• https://www.swaminarayanvadtalgadi.org/photo-gallery/chhapiaya-dham-prasadi-ni-vastu-na-divya-darshan/
• The architect of the Treasury: https://apt.london/project/the-treasury#:~:text=The%20Treasury%20is%20a%20new,time%20in%20the%20library’s%20history