<i>Pīr</i> Ratannāth in Devī Pātan: Nāthyogīs, Monastic Networks and Historical Memories Along the Anglo-Gorkha Border
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Through my case study of Devī Pātan, a Śāktīpītha Nāthyogī maṭh and temple on the India–Nepal border subordinate to the Gorakhnāth maṭh, my article demonstrates that Nāthyogī monastic networks are produced through spatial practices. Specifically, it focuses on shrines connected with Pīr Ratannāth, also known as Hājjīrattan, a legendary yogī of the Nāth sampradāy, widely worshipped across religious boundaries, who is said to have built Devī Pātan. Through the elusive figure of Ratannāth, I analyse how robust monastic networks focused on pilgrimage, trade and power, ‘made’ space and borders in the colonial and postcolonial period. Devī Pātan’s relationship with the Caughera maṭh in the Gorkha kingdom of Nepal and the Gorakhnāth maṭh in British India and after 1947 illustrates how competitive Nāthyogī monastic networks were historically produced and transformed through struggles between monastic institutions over space, resources and power across fraught borders. Ratannāth’s hagiographies, which emphasise his mobility, elasticity and importance in the world of saint veneration, reflect this world in which competing Nāthyogī nodes of circulation reworked relationships with each other. Simultaneously, they challenged ‘fixed’ cartographic boundaries between British India and the Gorkha kingdom of Nepal before 1947, and thereafter of new nation states. My essay also illustrates that histories of monasticism, space and place which have been memorialised by these shrines in representations of Ratannāth and Devī Pātan in recent times question the hegemonic narratives relating to Ratannāth authorised by the Gorakhnāth maṭh, known today for its close alignment with the Sangh Parivār, and its exclusionary vision of Hindutvā. Thus, the figure of Ratannāth transcends efforts to subordinate such border-crossing yogis to problematic majoritarian cartographic and political projects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".