A parcā from the Guṭhī Bandobasta Aḍḍā addressing complaints of improper hospitality raised by a group of eight Nātha ascetics led by Pīra Ratannātha (VS 1997)
ID: K_0187_0026
Edited and
translated by Ramhari Timalsina
Created: 2023-07-05;
Last modified: 2025-04-02
For the metadata of the document, click here
The accompanying edition, translation/synopsis and/or commentary are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
.
Abstract
This parcā from the Guṭhī Bandobasta Aḍḍā of Śri 5 Sarkāra addresses complaints raised by a group of eight people, led by Pīra Ratannātha, regarding the refusal of local residents in various regions (Dang, Jumla, Dailekha) to provide food and shelter for traveling pilgrims. The residents demanded a payment of 1 sukā 2 ānās per person, claiming it to have been sanctioned by the prime minister. These issues were reported to the latter (Juddha Śamśera, in power from 1932 to 1945), who had already given an order to provide food and shelter for pilgrims in accordance with local customs. Following this, official instructions (purjīs) were sent to nine relevant offices (ilākās, gaũḍās, gośvarās etc.) to ensure compliance. The document reports that the orders have been implemented.Diplomatic edition
[1r]
श्री\ [Seal of Guṭhī Bandobasta Aḍḍā][Seal of Madhusūdana][Unknown signature][Signature of Tārācandra]1श्री५सर्कारगुठीबन्दोबस्तअडाबाट2गरेकोपर्चा1यस्माथीररतंनाथ•जीकोसाठ्मालागी•सर्कारको•राजदाङचौघराअस्थानमाआउँदासोअ
2स्थानमा•बस्नेमांभाउँ, उँमाशंकर, तेजनाथ, माणीकनाथ•स्मेत्ले•हामी८मुर्तिलाईकेहीचीज•
3षानपीनरबस्नस्मेत्नदीय़स्तोहुकुंसुनायोकी१मुर्तिको।//कोहीसाबलेदेउँअनी
4पाउँछौनत्रपाउँदैनौ•श्री३महाराजकोय़स्तैहुकुंछभंनेकुरागर्यो ताहाबाटहामी
5हरुफलावां•रतंनाथ•सिद्धीभगवंतनाथ•जुमला•चन्दंनाथकोअस्थान्दैलेषकोअस्थां
6स्मेत्सवैअस्थानमापुगेंसबैलेय़हीकुरा सुनाय़ो •भंनेस्मेत्ची.नं. ६५४६/४५कोहालजा
7हेरहुनआयेको•बेहोराश्री३महाराजकाहजुरमाजाहेरहुदा•सव़ालसनद्रीतीथीतीले
8षुव़ाउँनु•पीयाउँनु•स्मेत्जोजोगराउँनु•पर्छगर्नुगर्नलाउँनुभनीईलाका•गौँडागोश्वरा
9स्मेत्जजसलाई•चाहींछजोचाहीनेपुर्जिगरीपठाईदिनु•भनितेसअडालाईलेषीप
10ठाईदिनुभंन्याहुकुंबक्सेकोले•लेषीपठाईदियाकोछहुकुंबक्सेकोलेषीयावमो
11जीमगर्नेकांगरभनी९७।८।७।६माचीठ्ठीजाहेरीनीक्सारीबाटहुकुंबक्सेकोबेहो
12रालेषीआयेकोबाटप्रमांगीबमोजीम•तेस•गौँडामालईलाकाभीत्रकाअस्थान्
13हरुमालेषीयाबमोजीमसव़ालसनद्रीतीथीतीलेषुव़ाउँनुपीय़ाउँनुस्मेत्जोजोग
14राउँनुपर्छगर्नुगर्नलाउँनुभनीइलाका•गौँडागोश्वारास्मेत्रजील्लामाल्स्मेत्९अ
15डाकानाउँमा९७।८।२४।२मालेषीगैसकेकोहुनाले•भैआयेकायसप्रमांगीबा
16रेअरुकेहीगरीरहननपरी•तामेलीमाराषीदीये•हुनेभैतामेलीमाराषनेगरी
17पर्चागरीदीञ्यूंईतिसम्वत्१९९७सालमार्ग२८गतेरोज६शुभम्¯ ¯ ¯
Translation
[1r]
[Seal of Guṭhī Bandobasta Aḍḍā]
[Seal of Madhusūdana]
[Unknown signature]
[Signature of Tārācandra]
A parcā from Guṭhī Bandobasta Aḍḍā of Śri 5 Sarkāra
Regarding the following matter: “When we, a group of eight people, along with Pīra Ratannātha, arrived at the holy site of Caugherā in Dang, the residents Māṃ Bhāũ, Ũmāśaṃkara, Tejanātha and Māṇīkanātha refused to let us stay and did not provide us with anything to eat. They said, ‘If you pay 1 sukā 2 ānās per person, then you will get food and shelter; otherwise not.’ They claimed that this was an order from Śrī 3 Mahārāja. From there we reached all the holy sites, including Phalāvāṃ, the holy sites of Ratannātha [and] Siddha Bhagavantanātha, Candananātha [temple] in Jumla, and the holy sites in Dailekha. All of the people [in these locations who were approached to host us] said the same thing.”
It came to our attention that all these issues were reported to Śrī 3 Mahārāja in letter No. 6546/45. Subsequently an order was issued [by Śrī 3 Mahārāja] instructing that, in accordance with customs and traditions as directed through savālas and sanadas, whatever needs to be done, including providing food [and] drink, should be done [for the pilgrims]. Similarly, it was ordered that the necessary purjīs be written and sent to all relevant offices—ilākā, gaũḍā, gośvarās and others—wherever necessary. Accordingly, purjīs were written and dispatched to these offices.
On Friday, the 7th day of Mārga in the year [19]97 [VS], a letter was dispatched from the Jāherī Niksārī office, containing the order from Śrī 3 Mahārāja instructing us to do whatever needs to be done, including providing food and drink in accordance with customs and traditions as directed through savālas and sanadas, [namely] in accordance with what has been written pertaining to the holy sites within the corresponding gaũḍās, mālas and ilākās. Following this order, [letters to this effect] were written and went out on Monday, the 24th day of Mārga in the year [19]97 [VS], to 9 offices—ilākās [and] gaũḍās along with gośvarās and jillāmālas.
Therefore, no further action being required concerning the issued order, and this task now set to be marked as completed in the record (tāmeli), we have written [this] parcā so that this can be done.
Friday, the 28th day of Mārga in the Vikrama era year 1997 (1940 CE).
Auspiciousness.
Commentary
This document offers a glimpse into the administrative and religious dynamics of mid-20th century Nepal, specifically as regards guṭhī management, hospitality shown to pilgrims, and local governance during the tenure of Juddha Śamśera. There existed a network of offices such as ilākās, gaũḍās, gośvarās, jillā mālas and others responsible for managing different regions. These offices received instructions from higher authorities through official documents called purjīs and savālas, which were sent to implement government decrees at the local level. The guṭhī system, traditionally tied to religious and social institutions, was central to the management of communal land and the provision of services for religious and social purposes. The present communication records an official response to traditional obligations to provide hospitality to pilgrims, highlighting governance, the role of state authority, and the sacred importance of pilgrimage routes. The letter refers to several key religious figures and places, such as Ratannātha, Siddha Bhagavantanātha and Candannātha temple, indicating that the pilgrimage involved visiting important sites associated with the Nātha tradition, a Hindu sect with deep roots in Nepal.
The incident at the heart of the letter took place in 1940 CE (1997 VS), when a group of pilgrims, led by Pīra (abbot) Ratannātha, travelled through various regions in western Nepal, including Dang, Jumla and Dailekh. In each of these locations, the residents refused to provide the group with food and shelter. The demand for a payment of 1 sukā 2 ānās per person was a departure from traditional norms, where hospitality was expected to be freely provided in accordance with religious obligations and local custom.
Ratannātha, a disciple of Gorakhnātha, is recognized as the principal saint of the Kānaphaṭṭā yogis, a sect known for symbolically wearing their sacred earrings in their hearts rather than physically in their earlobes (Briggs 1938: 98). According to legend, Ratnaparīkṣaka, the king of Dang, was initiated by Gorakhnātha in a forested valley, after which he became a famed siddha, Ratannātha, and established a temple. In Balarampur, India, the renowned Devī Pāṭana temple hosts an annual religious fair, traditionally held in early April. This event is ceremoniously opened with the arrival of the pīra from the Kānaphaṭṭā yogis’ Ratannātha monastery, located in Dang Caugherā, Nepal (Ibid: 98). Since Ratannātha was initiated by Gorakhnātha, who lived sometime between the 11th and 14th centuries, the Pīra Ratannātha referenced in this document is likely a successor in the same tradition. In Caugherā is located both the Śrī Gorakṣa Pātradevatā Siddha Ratnanātha monastery and the Gorakṣa Ratnanātha temple.
Siddha Bhagavantanātha, active between 1763 and 1787, was a prominent figure within the Nātha tradition, and was particularly active in the Salyan region. Siddha Bhagavantanātha in the document is the monastery he founded in this area, situated along the travel route connecting Caughera and the Candananātha temple in Jumla, a significant pathway traversed by the eight Nātha yogis referenced in the present document.
The central figure of authority in this matter is Juddha Śamśera (addressed as Śrī 3 Mahārāja in the letter). His direct involvement underscores the hierarchical nature of Nepal’s governance during this period, where even local issues were overseen by the central authority. The fact that an earlier letter (No. 6546/45) had been sent to the prime minister suggests that this was not an isolated incident and that the pilgrims had already made a formal complaint. The prime minister’s response amounted to government intervention to ensure the continuation of traditions. His order instructs local offices to provide the necessary food and shelter for pilgrims in line with customs dictated through savālas and sanadas. This illustrates that the government's roles as an upholder of tradition and protector of religious practices were respected.