1. Characteristic is John Strong's (1987: 275) description: “Though Hindus commonly honor the memories of great saints and teachers and visit sites of pilgrimage associated with them, they do not generally venerate their bodily remains. On the one hand, the doctrine of reincarnation and the belief in the ultimately illusory nature of things of this world simply do not promote relic worship. On the other hand, and probably more importantly, death and things associated with it are, in Hinduism, thought to be highly polluting.” Note that the “doctrine of reincarnation and the belief in the ultimately illusory nature of things” are shared by Buddhists as well.
2. It is not my intention here to bracket off Śaivism from some perceived mainstream Hinduism or to argue for treating Śaivism as an exception, like Buddhism. Rather, what we here see of Śaivism is consistent with Granoff's broader findings. Further work is needed to explore the specific links to discussions of Vainava, Śākta, and other traditions.
3. In a Christian context, “relics” are commonly defined as “the material remains of a saint after his death and … sacred objects which have been in contact with his body” (Livingstone 2006: 490), and in a Buddhist context, as “the material remains of a holy person or a sacred object” (Keown 2003: 205).
4. The cycle of death and sanctification is similar in practice to what Strong (2004: 170–5) shows to be characteristic of sacred centers focused on the bodies of Buddhist figures.
5. Schopen (1997: 172) suggests that, despite the plethora of archaeological and iconographic evidence in Mathurā, little is known of its structure, context, and intent, and knowledge of its social setting remains incomplete.