1878.] 
F. S. Growse —Mathura Notes . 
• 113 
such an affection for Brindaban that he was most reluctant to leave it, even 
to return to his wife and children. At last, however, he forced himself to 
go, but had not been with them long before he determined that they should 
themselves disown him, and accordingly he one day in their presence took 
and eat some food from a Bhangi’s hand. After this act of social excom¬ 
munication he was allowed to return to Brindaban, where he spent the 
remainder of his life and where his samadh , or tomb, is still to be seen. 
Another disciple, Dhruva Das, was a voluminous writer and composed 
as many as 42 poems, of which the following is a list: 1, Jiv-dasa ; 2, Baid- 
gyan ; 3, Man-siksha ; 4, Brindaban-sat ; 5, Bkakt-namavali; 6, Brihad- 
baman Puran ; 7, Khyal Hulas ; 8, Siddhant Bichar ; 9, Priti-chovani; 10, 
Anandashtak ; 11, Bhajanashtak ; 12, Bhajan-kundaliya; 13, Bhajan-sat; 
14, Sringar-sat ; 15, Man-sringar ; 16, Hit-sringar; 17, Sabha-mandal ; 18, 
Bas-muktavali; 19, Bas-hiravali; 20, Bas-ratnavali; 21. Premavali; 22, 
Sri Priya Ji ki namavali; 23, Bakasya-manjari; 24, Sukhmanjari; 25,. 
Bati-manjari; 26, Neh-manjari; 27, Ban-bihar ; 28, Bas-bihar ; 29, Bang- 
hulas ; 30, Bang-bihar ; 31, Bang-binod; 32, Anand-dasa ; 33, Bahasya- 
lata ; 34, Anand-lata ; 35, Anurag-Iata; 36, Prem-lata ; 37, Bas-anand ; 38, 
Jugal-dhyan ; 39, Nirtya-bilas ; 40, Dan-lila ; 41, Man-lila ; 42, Braj-lila. 
Other poems by different members of the same sect are the Sevak-bani 
and the Ballabk-rasik ki bani; the Guru-pratap, by Damodar Das ; the 
Hari-nam-mahima, by Damodar Svvami ; the Sri Bup LAI Ji ka ashtaka, 
by Hit Ballabh ; and the Hai i-nam-beli, the Sri Lai Ji badkai and the 
Sri Larili Jii ki badkai by Brindaban Das, 
2. The Chliatthi Pdlnd, or Assi Khamha , at Mahahan. 
The description of this building given in my Mathura Memoir, Part 
I, page 149, is not very accurate. The pillars of the colonnade are mostly, 
if not all, anterior in date to Mahmud of Ghazni, and probably belonged to 
a temple, or it may be to several different temples of the Jaini faith, which 
he destroyed when he captured the fort in the year 1017. After they had 
been lying about for centuries, the Muhammadans in the reign of Aurangzib 
roughly put them together and set them up on the site of a modern Hindu 
temple that they had demolished. The building so constructed was used 
as a mosque till quite recent times, and its connection with Krishna, or his 
worship even, at any earlier period is entirely fictitious. That is to say, 
so far as concerns the actual fabric and the materials of which it is con¬ 
structed : the site, as in so many other similar cases, has probably been 
associated with Hindu worship from very remote antiquity. In Sir John 
Strackey’s time I obtained a grant of Bs. 1000 for the repair of the buil¬ 
ding, which had fallen into a very ruinous condition, and in digging the 
