203 
1883.] Rajendralala Mitra —On the Temples of Deoghar. 
Dee or of the Liffey ? There is no reason why it should be elsewhere and not 
here. A pious man builds a temple and endows it richly, and its grandeur 
soon secures it notoriety; or a hermit sets up an image and effects miracu¬ 
lous cures, and they suffice to make the place famous, to attract pilgrims, and 
to promote the construction of costly buildings. When I was at school, I learnt 
Lourdes to be a very small town, or rather a large village, of no importance 
whatever, and not worth knowing, though ancient; but the cures lately effec¬ 
ted there have made it so famous that not to know it now would imply gross 
ignorance of passing events. If the cures continue, it will in time become a 
large town, and a place of great consequence. Vaidyanatha is noted prin¬ 
cipally for the cures effected there, and it is but reasonable to suppose that 
it rose into importance from the time when the cures were first effected. 
Tarakesvara, in the Hooghly district, is known by every pilgrim to be a 
modern place, not quite two hundred years old, and not noticed in any 
authentic Sanskrit work; but the cures effected there makes it a powerful 
rival of Vaidyanatha. In the case of miraculous cures there is no necessity 
whatever for any anterior sanctity or fame, so long the cures are satis¬ 
factory. 
Nor does the presence of the Buddhist statues in any way militate 
against spontaneous fame. The temples in which the statues occur are of 
very recent dates. Anandabhairava’s temple dates from A. D. 1823, that of 
Siirya from 1790, and that of Savitri from 1692, and we have nothing 
to justify the belief that Buddhist sanctuaries existed at the place till such 
recent dates side by side with Vaidyanatha. I feel certain that even Mr. 
Beglar would not admit that there was a Buddhist temple at Deoghar in 
the third decade of this century, from the sanctuary of which the image of 
Anandabhairava was removed in 1823. The temples of Lakshmx-narayana, 
Parvati, and Annapurna have images which, I have shown above, have been 
brought from old temples elsewhere ; if we accept the local theory we 
must believe, by parity of reasoning, that they too thrived side by side 
with Buddhism. This would be absurd, and the most obvious conclusion 
would be to assume that the Buddhist, as well as the Hindu, images have 
been brought from elsewhere, and set up from time to time according to 
circumstances. Nor is it necessary to assume that they have been brought 
from one place, and a near place. They are of such a character as to 
admit of their being easily conveyed from very distant places. The inscrip¬ 
tion No. 3 is from Mandar, and some of the images may have likewise 
come from that place. 
The speculations regarding the identity of Uttaniya with Deoghar 
are exceedingly imaginative, and cannot by any means serve as data of 
sufficient importance to justify their being accepted as majors in an argu¬ 
ment of this kind. To put the speculations into logical forms:—1. Utta¬ 
niya lay within a forest of the Vindhya mountain; the Santal Pargannahs 
