THE MISCONCEPTIONS & GREAT MESS CREATED BY SCHOLARS, ADVOCATES & MEDIA  RE: VISVESVARA JYOTIRLINGA, WUZUKHANA SHIVALINGA, AND THE CORRECT FACTS THEREOF: 

A) THE NANDI: The Nandi was constructed by King of Nepal sometime in 1824-25 AD (or around 1836 AD?) and not ‘350 years ago’ as suggested by a petitioner on Aajtak! When the shivalinga was discovered at the wuzukhana in May 2022 – this petitioner was all over the media for his emotional byte “Baba mil gaye!” When media men asked him to clarify what he meant by “baba” – he said “Wahi Baba jinki Nandi ko 350 saal se prateeksha thi”! Surely, this petitioner meant that the “Baba” was Visvesvara jyotirlinga i.e. Kashi Vishwanath jyotirlinga which, according to him, was at the wuzukhana and he meant  to say that the Nandi was waiting for its master for 350 years! Personally, I may have deep respect for this person and hold him in high esteem for his simplicity and devotion to the cause but, when such callous statements are made in the courts or in media and that too by someone  who ‘represents’ Hindus – it weakens the very cause for which this respected petitioner has  devoted his life. 

The Nandi was constructed by King of Nepal sometime in 1824-25 AD (or around 1836 AD?)  and not ‘350 years ago’! It must be noted that James Prinsep’s 1822 AD survey & maps  thereof published in 1832 AD do not show the Nandi. Whereas a pencil & watercolour  artwork by William Simpson (1823-99 AD) presently housed in Victoria & Albert Museum,  London shows ‘The Bull Nandi in the courtyard of the Golden Temple, Benares’ sketched  during Simpson’s travels in India in 1859-1862 AD. The paper artwork was finished in 1864  AD after his return to London in 1862 AD. Therefore, there is evidence that the Nandi was  installed after 1822 AD and before 1862 AD.

B) HIMALAYAN BLUNDER BY KUBERNATH SUKUL, MEENAKSHI JAIN & ADVOCATES: Kubernath Sukul & Meenakshi Jain has committed a Himalayan blunder by writing that the linga in the present Kashi Vishwanath temple, which was constructed by Ahilyabai in  1777-80 AD, is the original Visvesvara jyotirlinga. The present-day advocates have further  messed up the whole matter by claiming that the wuzukhana shivalinga is the famed  Visvesvara jyotirlinga!  

C) THE HISTORY OF VISVESVARA JYOTIRLINGA: The Visvesvara jyotirlinga was consecrated at the site of its first original temple (where Bibi Razia Mosque exists today) sometime probably in 10-11 century AD and post Aibak’s 1194 AD sacking of Kashi and construction of  a mosque on the original site of Visvesvara temple – the Hindus were compelled to move  the Visvesvara jyotirlinga to the Avimuktesvara complex in the vicinity of Gyanvapi well and  a new temple was constructed here in 1230 AD by a Gujarati merchant (Vastupala?).  The Visvesvara jyotirlinga now occupied the place of Avimuktesvara linga and Avimuktesvara linga was pushed probably to the north-western corner of the complex and this is the arrangement we see in the later constructed Narayan Bhatta’s 1585 AD temple where Visvesvara jyotirlinga occupied the central place in the Garbha-griha  (Nirvana Mandapa) and the Avimuktesvara linga was placed in a smaller shrine in the northwestern corner of the complex (where 3 Muslim graves exist today). The central dome of  the present Gyanvapi mosque was constructed over the Garbha-griha of Narayan Bhatt’s  1585 AD temple.  

NOTE: The Bibi Razia Mosque is located opposite to the erstwhile Carmichael Library & Gate  no. 4 of the Kashi-Vishwanath corridor. The Adi-Visvesvara temple was constructed adjacent  to Bibi Razia Mosque (sharing a common boundary wall) by Maharaj Ji Sawai Jai Singh II  sometime around 1733 AD (or around 1720 AD?) and he named this temple Adi-Visvesvara  temple as marker or indicator that Bibi Razia Mosque is the first & original site of  Visvesvara Jyotirlinga.  

D) WHERE IS THE ORIGINAL VISVESVARA JYOTIRLINGA? : THE ORIGINAL VISVESVARA  JYOTIRLINGA [KASHI-VISHWANATH] WHICH WAS WORSHIPPED IN THE GARBHA GRIHA OF  NARAYANA BHATTA’S 1585 AD TEMPLE WAS THROWN INSIDE THE GYANVAPI WELL IN  1669 AD TO SAVE IT FROM DESTRUCTION & DESECRATION BY AURANGZEB’S ARMY AND  IT STILL RESTS THERE. [Reference: Sherring (1868), Diana L Eck (2015), accounts of 1809 lat  bhairon riots & other references]. Thus, Visvesvara never deserted Kashi and fulfilled His  promise that He would never leave the ‘Avimukta Kshetra’ of Kashi! 

E) THE LINGA IN THE PRESENT KASHI VISHWANATH TEMPLE IS NOT THE ORIGINAL VISVESVARA JYOTIRLINGA I.E. NOT THE ORIGINAL KASHI VISWANATH JYOTIRLINGA! : THE SHIVALINGA ON WHICH AHILYABAI CONSTRUCTED HER TEMPLE IN 1777-80 AD WAS MOST PROBABLY  CONSECRATED BY MAHARAJ BHAO SINGH DEO OF REWA IN 1672 AD. This is the linga in  the present temple and people assume it to be the Kashi Vishwanath jyotirlinga!

It must also be noted that the linga housed in the present Kashi Vishwanath temple  (Ahilyabai) is not in the centre probably because space was left for the original Visvesvara  jyotirlinga which is inside the Gyanvapi well. Further, it is emphasized that if the linga in  present Kashi Vishwanath temple (Ahilyabai) had been the original Visvesvara jyotirlinga – then the Nandi, which was constructed by the King of Nepal would have surely pointed  towards it. 

F) WUZUKHANA OBJECT IS DEFINITELY A SHIVALINGA: The wuzukhana object discovered in May 2022 is definitely a shivalinga having the typical shape of a shivalinga and with tell-tale signs of camouflage by some Islamic bigots to show it as if it is a fountain but, it  has no signs of being a fountain! That the wuzukhana object is a shivalinga and that too an  extremely important & sacred shivalinga is confirmed by the following: 

i) The unusually huge size of the wuzukhana shivalinga and it being the largest shivalinga in this area.

ii) The effort taken by Islamic bigots of Aurangzeb’s army to construct a wuzukhana around the shivalinga in order to demoralize the Hindus and show them their inferior status before the Islamic might. 

iii) The Nandi pointing towards the wuzukhana is a confirmed diagnostic marker that the  object in the wuzukhana is a shivalinga and that too an extremely important one! It must be  noted that in 1824-25 AD (or 1836 AD?) when the Nandi was constructed by the King of  Nepal – there were many important shivalingas in the area that were being worshipped by  the devotees namely: A) a shivalinga in the sanctum-sanctorum of the Ahilyabai’s temple  which was a substitute for Visvesvara jyotirlinga inside the Gyanvapi well. B) A post-1669 AD  version of Avimuktesvara linga towards the north of the Gyanvapi mosque (which was seen  through the window of the panch-pandava dharamshala till recent times) C) A newer  version of Avimuktesvara linga which had been installed in the south-east corner of  Ahilyabai’s temple …..but, the Nandi neither points towards the sanctum-sanctorum of the Ahilyabai’s temple nor towards the later versions of Avimuktesvara linga but, sits close to  the Gyanvapi kupa and silently points to the wuzukhana. Why? Because the wuzukhana  shivalinga was an extremely important & sacred shivalinga. 

G) THE WUZUKHANA SHIVALINGA IS THE ORIGINAL AVIMUKTESVARA LINGA: AS PER ALL MY ANALYSIS – THE WUZUKHANA SHIVALINGA IS MOST PROBABLY THE ORIGINAL AVIMUKTESVARA LINGA! Most probably this is the reason why the Nandi points to it and  not towards any other later versions of the Avimuktesvara linga! The placement of the  Nandi gives tell-tale clues! The Nandi sits as a silent sentinel close to the Gyanvapi kupa  where the Visvesvara jyotirlinga was thrown and since it cannot face the patala-loka  (underground) where the original Visvesvara jyotirlinga is resting – it faces the  second-most-important shivalinga in the entire complex i.e. the original Avimuktesvara linga housed in the wuzukhana!

THE HISTORY OF AVIMUKTESVARA LINGA: The Avimuktesvara linga was consecrated  sometime probably in the 4-5th century AD and was worshipped at its original site near the  Gyanvapi well till its temple was demolished in 1194 AD by Aibak. In the later 1230 AD  temple constructed by the Gujarati merchant (Vastupala?) – Visvesvara jyotirlinga occupied  the place of Avimuktesvara linga and Avimuktesvara linga was pushed probably to the  north-western corner of the complex and this is the arrangement we see in the later  constructed Narayan Bhatta’s 1585 AD temple where Visvesvara jyotirlinga occupied the  central place in the Garbha-griha (Nirvana Mandapa) and the Avimuktesvara linga was  placed in a smaller shrine in the north-western corner of the complex (where 3 Muslim graves exist today). Avimuktesvara’s shrine was the second highest shrine in the entire  complex after the main temple of Visvesvara which was the highest. [Ref. Diagram no. 30 by  Sukul, 1977- 2nd 2008 ed. Red circle over the shrine of Avimuktesvara added by me]. 

When Aurangzeb’s marauders demolished Narayan Bhatta’s temple in 1669 AD –  the Visvesvara jyotirlinga was thrown in the Gyanvapi well and was thus saved from destruction & desecration but, most probably, the Avimuktesvara linga could not be moved  due to its huge size and most probably Aurangzeb’s men removed the Avimuktesvara linga  from its in-situ shrine in the north-western corner of the complex and placed it in front of  the mosque gate and constructed the wuzukhana around it to insult the Hindus.

After Aurangzeb’s 1669 AD demolition of the temple & construction of the mosque in its  place – a second version of the Avimuktesvara linga was established towards the north of  the Gyanvapi mosque. This Avimuktesvara linga (Version 2) was seen through the window of  the panch-pandava dharamshala till recent times and was the larger linga next to the  smaller Apsaresvara linga. As per unconfirmed reports – both Avimuktesvara linga  (Version 2) and Apsaresvara linga were destroyed in 2021 AD during reckless  Kashi-Vishwanath Corridor expansion works.  

The third version of Avimuktesvara linga was consecrated in Ahilyabai’s Kashi-Vishwanath  temple (1777-80 AD) and was placed in the southeast corner of her temple’s courtyard.  The shrine of this newest Avimuktesvara linga (Version 3) was demolished sometime probably in 2020 AD and as per recent reports Avimuktesvara (Version 3) has now been placed in the Tarakesvara mandapa.

H) NEEM KAROLI BABA AT GYANVAPI: When the great saint Maharaj ji Neem Karoli baba visited Kashi, he told Pundit Devakamata Dixit to come with him for the darshan of Lord Shiva. Maharaj ji Neem Karoli Baba walked up to the present Ahilyabai’s  Kashi Vishwanath temple but, did not enter inside the temple and instead stopped near Gyanvapi and became engrossed in conversation with a strangely attired sadhu and thereafter both Baba and the sadhu disappeared! Later, Pt. Dixit saw Baba emerging upwards from the ground! Subsequently, it was known that the strange sadhu was  Lord Shiva Himself! Baba said that the Gyanvapi (complex) is more important than the  (present Ahilyabai’s) Vishwanath temple and that Lord Shiva Himself roams in this Gyanvapi  area in disguise and therefore one should always donate something to every sadhu,  mendicant or beggar in Gyanvapi area. [Ref: ‘Baba Neeb Karori – Alaukik Prasang’ & other  sources as shared by Baba devotees with me]. This anecdote confirms the great importance  of the Gyanvapi complex. But, did Neem Karoli Baba disappear underground for the darshan  of Visvesvara jyotirlinga? I don’t know! Many of Baba’s actions were mysterious but, were  always very meaningful or prophetic. Is there a sign here about the Visvesvara jyotirlinga  resting underground below Gyanvapi kupa? Is it also an indicator of the importance of the  original site of Visvesvara jyotirlinga (presently Bibi Razia Mosque) and its deep connection  with the Gyanvapi complex? Does Lord Shiva roam in the Gyanvapi complex because Visvesvara jyotirlinga is inside the Gyanvapi well and Avimuktesvara linga is inside the wuzukhana?  Only Lord Shiva & Baba knows! 

I) WHY THE WUZUKHANA SHIVALINGA CAN NOT BE THE ORIGINAL VISVESVARA JYOTIRLINGA OR NANDISVARA OR TARAKESVARA OR GANGESVARA AS CLAIMED BY SOME PETITIONERS OR THEIR ADVOCATES OR SOME SCHOLARS OR PUNDITS FROM BHU &  ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY: 

i) Original Visvesvara jyotirlinga was thrown inside the Gyanvapi well in 1669 AD.

ii) The wuzukhana shivalinga cannot be Tarakesvara or Nandisvara because the original site of these shivalingas was near the Gyanvapi well and not at the place of the wuzukhana & the original site of Gangesvara was under a Peepal tree which existed further south-east of  the present site of wuzukhana.  

iii) The shivalingas of Tarakesvara or Nandisvara or Gangesvara are unlikely to be as big as  the wuzukhana shivalinga and this assumption is made on the basis of the smaller size &  height & lesser importance of their shrines in Narayan Bhatta’s 1585 AD temple complex.  In this complex the Visvesvara temple was the highest and the Avimuktesvara shrine in  north-west corner was the second highest.  

iv) It is unlikely that the Nandi would ignore the original Avimuktesvara linga and instead be made to point towards the relatively minor Tarakesvara or Nandisvara or Gangesvara  

v) The original Visvesvara jyotirlinga was not of the huge size as is the size of the wuzukhana The size of the original Visvesvara jyotirlinga was confirmed by Peter Mundy who has visited Kashi in 1632 AD and had seen the Visvesvara jyotirlinga. Peter Mundy described 

“Cassibessuua” [His term for Kashi-Visvesvara jyotirlinga!] as a “stone in forme like a Hatter’s blocke” i.e. it to be of the size of a ‘hat-block’ [block on which hats are molded]. Peter Mundy’s accompanying drawing confirms that Visvesvara jyotirlinga was not of huge size as is the wuzukhana shivalinga.  

vi) In case, anyone has any doubts about the size of the original Visvesvara jyotirlinga –  one may refer to the original argha of the Visvesvara jyotirlinga presently housed at the  Adi-Visvesvara temple to get an exact idea about the size of the original Visvesvara  jyotirlinga. [Reference: Sukul (1977- 2nd ed. 2008); Meenakshi Jain (2019); Monograph No. 2  authored by me in Kashi Vishwanath Blunder Series]. Surely, the wuzukhana shivalinga  cannot be the original Visvesvara jyotirlinga! The description given by Peter Mundy is concordant with the size of the linga that can fit on the argha of the Visvesvara jyotirlinga in Adi-Visvesvara temple.

J) BOTH VISVESVARA JYOTIRLINGA & AVIMUKTESVARA LINGA ARE VERY IMPORTANT:  All the three ancient sites of Visvesvara Jyotirlinga (presently: Bibi Razia Mosque),  Avimuktesvara linga (presently: Gyanvapi mosque) & Gyanvapi Kupa (Gyanvapi well)   both and Visvesvara jyotirlinga & Avimuktesvara linga are extremely important in the sacred tantric kundalini geometry of Kashi. These three sites are in themselves deities and in direct tantric communion with Mt. Kailasha and function synchronously as kundalini-tantra-mandala.  

I hope the authorities will show the wisdom to get the bottom of the Gyanvapi well carefully excavated by an international team of marine archaeologists and thereby recover the Visvesvara jyotirlinga. The original argha of Visvesvara jyotirlinga in the Adi Visvesvara temple can provide the exact size measurements that can be used to confirm the identity of the original Visvesvara jyotirlinga from the bottom of the Gyanvapi well. 

K) SANATANA DHARMA IS IN PERIL: FLAWED PETITIONS AND PRAYERS ARE INVALID There is absolutely no doubt that Hindus (sanatana dharmis) have a legitimate, legally valid & historically proven claim on KASHI VISHWANATH but, unfortunately, the parties, pundits, scholars & advocates spearheading the crusade of this matter are totally ignorant about the correct facts of this matter and as such their flawed court petitions/pleadings & media  statements on this matter are riddled with innumerable factual flaws & Himalayan blunders  from shastriya, historical, archaeological as well as legal perspectives. These fundamental  flaws & misconceptions cast a cloud on the legitimacy of the otherwise legitimate Hindu  claim on Kashi Vishwanath and the grave errors render all flawed court petitions and  prayers void ab initio. It is not only shivadroha (sacrilege against Lord Shiva) but, a body blow to sanatana dharma as well. 

Visvesvara & Avimuktesvara were not the same linga in ancient Kashi. But, due to repeated  Islamic invasions, temple demolitions & mosque constructions in 12th-17th century the true  history got blurred and thus, Visvesvara & Avimuktesvara became one and it was thought  that its ancient original site is where the Gyanvapi mosque stands today. Narayan Bhatta &  his Tristhalisetu contributed to this misconception too. Later on, the likes of Motichand &  Altekar further distorted the history of Kashi Vishwanath & added to the confusion.  Although, Kubernath Sukul’s ‘Varanasi Vaibhav’, first published in 1977, demolished the  wrong views of Motichand & Altekar, but the myths lived on and the advocates of today  seem to be toeing the flawed line of Altekar. 

In another paper, I will thoroughly analyze P B Singh Rana’s claims about the history of Kashi  Vishwanath. Visevesvara,  Avimuktesvara, Devadeva, Mahadeva & Vrsabhadhvaja were not the same linga [as wrongly  inferred by P B Singh Rana of BHU] but, were different shivalingas in ancient Kashi as  confirmed by Pt. Kubernath Sukul.  

It is disheartening & depressing to know that the netas, advocates & scholars who have  foisted themselves as the frontmen of the Kashi Vishwanath crusade and delightfully hog  the media limelight have absolutely no clue about even the basic background of Kashi  Vishwanath and their level of ignorance is worse than all the people named & blamed above.  They have completely mixed up Visvesvara & Avimuktesvara and have garbled everything.  They are publicizing the Gyanvapi complex as the original site of Visvesvara jyotirlinga and  are calling the Wuzukhana shivalinga as Visvesvara jyotirlinga! Even Din Mohammad, a  devout Muslim, who filed a court case on this matter in 1936 is on record stating that  the Bibi Razia Mosque marks the site of the original temple of Visvesvara (Kashi Vishwanath)  but, the present-day Hindu advocates have ignored the original site of Visvesvara  Jyotirlinga. These advocates are fighting for access to the site of Shringar Gauri but, they  ignore the original idol of Shringar Gauri & also Saubhagya Gauri which is presently in the  Adi-Visvesvara temple. The comedy of errors is best seen in the case of the identity of the  wuzukhana shivalinga – from Visvesvara to Nandisvara to Tarakesvara to Gangesvara to  a 100 ft linga – you are spoilt for choice! And if this was not enough – as per media reports,  one advocate claims that the Visvesvara jyotirlinga will be found “100 ft” below the ground  under the central dome and another advocate has suggested demolition below the  wuzukhana in order to recover the 100 ft high Visvesvara jyotirlinga from the wuzukhana  and also its argha! Before bad-mouthing the Muslims, these advocates/petitioners &  scholars of the Hindu side need to sit down and resolve their own difference of opinion re:  the identity of the wuzukhana shivalinga!

I will be analyzing the totally irrational & fatal blunder of the plea for the carbon dating of  the wuzukhana shivalinga in another monograph. Below, I attempt the clear the confusion  about the “100 ft” Visvesvara jyotirlinga misconception. 

L) THE MYTH OF A “100 FEET” HIGH VISVESVARA JYOTIRLINGA SUPPOSEDLY SEEN BY  HIEUN TSANG (XUANZANG) WHEN HE VISITED KASHI IN 635 AD: 

As per media reports, the advocates are citing Altekar and supposedly, Altekar has mentioned that Hieun-Tsang saw a “100 ft” Visvesvara linga in the Gyanvapi complex.  Buoyed by this reference, the advocates are mindlessly looking for 100-ft Shivalinga in wuzukhana and asking to demolish it for ‘evidence’ or are expecting to find the Visvesvara jyotirlinga 100 ft underground beneath the central dome of the Gyanvapi mosque! 

I don’t know which reference they are citing but, nevertheless, it is important to dissect the Hieun-Tsang story and place the facts on record, or else this issue is a potential recipe for disaster and one of the many points that these advocates will not be able to prove in the courts leading to a shameful loss-of-face for Hindus. 

I am writing with reference to P B Singh Rana (2021 AND 2022) who states that the Chinese pilgrim Hieun-Tsang (Xuanzang) had visited “this temple” [the temple of Visvesvara supposedly constructed by Vainya Gupta in 500-508 AD!] in 635 AD and had described this temple as that of “devadeva”. This claim is totally absurd! “Devadeva” is a different linga – at present in dhundiraj gali – as confirmed by Kubernath Sukul. Visvesvara jyotirlinga was consecrated sometime probably in 10-11th century AD and so Hieun-Tsang could not have seen the Visvesvara jyotirlinga when Hieun-Tsang visited Kashi in 7th century AD! 

[Kindly refer to my Monograph No. 1 in the Gyanvapi / Kashi Vishwanath – Himalayan  Blunder Series on Researchgate]. Further, there is no specific mention of Hieun-Tsang visiting Visvesvara jyotirlinga or Avimuktesvara linga or even Devadeva linga in Kashi as is evident from the English translation of his travelogue SI-YU-KI by Samuel Beal (1884).  All that Hieun Tsang has said is that he saw a majestic 100 ft. high life-like STATUE [not linga]  of MAHESVARA (Ta-tseu-tsai) and that it was made of native copper (teou-shih). He did not mention Visvesvara or Avimuktesvara or Devadeva or any linga and did not specify the exact site of this copper statue of Mahesvara. Further, there is no specific inscriptional evidence proving that Vainya Gupta had constructed the temple of “Visvesvara” [or “Visvanatha”] in  6th cent. AD and it is impossible because there was no Visvesvara jyotirlinga / Visvesvara jyotirlinga temple at that time! [Kindly refer to my Monograph No. 1 in the Gyanvapi / Kashi  Vishwanath – Himalayan Blunder Series on Researchgate]. Unfortunately, P B Singh Rana’s misleading statements have been copied by many on social & online media and have created major confusion in the minds of the common man.

The main reason for these misunderstandings is that the various scholars & advocates have mixed up Visvesvara, Avimuktesvara, Devadeva, Mahadeva &  Vrsabhadhvaja lingas and think these are synonyms. Moreover, they are completely clueless about the historical timeline and thus, end up garbling everything and making imaginary &  absurd claims which cannot be proved in the courts. 

V S Agarwala (1984) too has cited Watters and errs by making Avimuktesvara synonymous with Devadeva and interprets the “100ft copper life-like statue of Mahesvara” to be a 100 ft high shivalinga. However, V S Agarwala contradicts himself in the same book and refers to  the life-like and majestic “statue of deva Mahesvara”…“somewhat less than 100 ft high”! 

Bakker-Isaacson (2004) offers the final conclusive answers in this matter. Dr. Hans T Bakker got the original Chinese text checked by his colleague Dr. Harimoto and after very careful analysis Dr. Bakker concluded that Hieun-Tsang’s text cannot be interpreted as “100 ft”,  “copper” and “image” [i.e statue] with certainty. 

SO, MY FINAL CONCLUSION IN THIS MATTER OF ‘100-FT VISVESVARA JYOTIRLINGA  SUPPOSEDLY SEEN BY HIEUN TSANG’ IS AS FOLLOWS: 

i) Hieun-Tsang has not specifically mentioned Visvesvara or Avimuktesvara. ‘Deva  Mahesvara’ may mean anything related to Lord Shiva. 

ii) Statue or linga is not clear. ‘Deva Mahesvara’ may mean statue or linga but, the way  Hieun-Tsang was impressed by it and found it ‘life-like’ suggests that it may be a statue. 

iii) The location of the shrine is not specified. Therefore this reference cannot be used to interpret that Hieun-Tsang visited the Gyanvapi complex. Further, Dr. Bakker points out that  “Hsieun Tsang does not mention or allude to the cremation ground” [Manikarnika] and therefore, it will not be proper to connect Hieun-Tsang’s account with the Gyanvapi complex. 

iv) The material of the image or linga is also not certain. It may or may not be native copper.

v) The height of the deity is also not certain. “100 ft” cannot be said with certainty.  

vi) It is absolutely certain that there was no Visvesvara jyotirlinga in 635 AD when Hieun Tsang visited Kashi but, certainly the Avimuktesvara linga & its shrine were there at that point in time. 

vii) FINAL CONCLUSION: Given the vague nature of Hieun-Tsang’s account, it is not of any use as legal evidence in the Visvesvara/Avimuktesvara matter. The text confirms only one thing Shiva was worshipped on a grand scale in 7th-century Kashi. 

---

The published article is an edited version of the full monograph published here. Copyright and Legal disclaimer: As cited on page no. 14 of the monograph therein applies.)

---