Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Epics and Puranas c7: Introduction

Studies in the Epics and Purāṇas c7

Language
English

Contents

Introduction

c7.1

The epic literature in India consists of Itihāsa and Purāṇa, which convey the sense of the epic and the Pañcalakṣaṇa, the former comprising the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa and the latter the Mahāpurāṇas and Upa-purāṇas. The study of Itihāsa and Purāṇa has been rightly stressed as necessary for the correct interpretation of the Vedas.¹ The epics and the Purāṇas constitute an important source of the cultural history of India as they throw a flood of light on the various aspects of the life of the time. They occupy an intermediate position, broadly speaking, between the Vedic age and the period of classical literature. They have been influencing the life of the people throughout the centuries and are valuable as supplying materials for the critical study of such diverse subjects as religion and philosophy, folklore and ethnology, literature and sciences, history and geography, politics and sociology. Classical poets and dramatists are indebted to these for the themes and plots of their works. The Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas are regarded and style themselves as "the fifth Veda"² while the Rāmāyaṇa is the "Ādi-Kāvya". The hold of the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas on the everyday life of the Hindus even at the present time may be seen from the occurrence of the word श्रुतिस्मृतिपुराणोक्त in the Saṃkalpa of almost every ritual, where स्मृति includes the Mahābhārata.

c7.2

¹ Mbh (Cr. Ed.) I,1. 204; (B), I.1.267-8:

c7.3

² Cf. Chāndogya Up, vii.1.24: इतिहासपुराणः पञ्चमो वेदानाम् । Mbh (Cr. Ed.), I.57.74: (B), I.63.69: also "Kārṣṇaveda" (Mbh, Cr. Ed., I.1.205; B, I.1.268); also भारतं पञ्चमो वेदः ।

c7.4

इतिहासपुराणाभ्यां वेदं समुपबृंहयेत् ।
बिभेत्यल्पश्रुताद्वेदो मामयं प्रहरिष्यति ॥

c7.5

In the following pages we shall offer critical remarks by way of introduction to the Mahābhārata, the Rāmāyaṇa and the Purāṇas.

c7.6

Before dealing with the epics, let us first consider their origin.

c7.7

Like everything Indian the origin of the epics has been sought to be traced to the Vedas. But scholars hold different views with regard to the portion of the Ṛgveda which is looked upon as the origin of the epics. Oldenberg styled the dialogue (saṃvāda) hymns in the Ṛgveda as ākhyānas and started a theory that the oldest form of epic poetry in India consisted of prose and verse, of which the latter containing speeches was fixed and committed to memory. The saṃvādas are the remnants containing dialogues, the prose portions being lost.³

c7.8

³ Oldenberg, "Das altindische Ākhyāna", ZDMG, 37(1883), pp. 54 ff; "Ākhyānahymnen im Ṛgveda", ZDMG, 39(1885), pp. 52 ff; Die Literatur des alten Indien, p. 46.

c7.9

The theory, however, was opposed by Max Müller and Lévi, who maintained that these hymns might be a kind of drama, and by Hertel and von Schröder who worked out a theory that the saṃvāda hymns were but the speeches belonging to some dramatic performance connected with the religious cult.⁴ Winternitz has found a via media in that he calls them "ancient ballads" and holds them to be the source both of the epic and the drama—the epic having developed from the narrative and the drama from the dramatic elements of the "ancient ballad."⁵

c7.10

⁴ Lévi, Le Théâtre Indien, pp. 301 ff. Hertel, Indische Marchen, pp. 344,367 f. L. von Schröder, Mysterium und Mimus im Ṛgveda, Leipzig, 1908.

c7.11

⁵ HIL, I, pp. 102-3.

c7.12

The Gāthā-Nārāśaṃsīs, Ākhyānas, Itihāsa, Purāṇa, etc. of the Brāhmaṇas, whose recital formed part of the religious ceremonies at the sacrificial and domestic festivals, however, supplied real parallelisms with epic poetry approaching it both in language and metre. These terms are variously used to designate different kinds of narrative or used synonymously. The *Mahābhārata* calls itself alternately as *Itihāsa*, *Purāṇa*, *Kāvya* and *Ākhyāna* in the introductory portion.⁶

c7.13

⁶ Cf. Mbh (Cr. Ed.), I.1.15-19; (B), I.1.17-21,61, etc.

I. Mahābhārata

c7.s1.1

“Bhārata”, according to Pāṇini, signifies “the battle of the Bharatas”, so that the *Mahābhārata* means “the great narrative of the battle of the Bharatas” as stated by Winternitz.⁷ The epic itself explains the name as महत्वद् भारतत्वाच्च महाभारतमुच्यते⁸—the work is called *Mahābhārata* on account of its greatness, enormity in size and weightiness, suggesting that it outweighs the Veda and other sacred literature of India. The reading for the stanza in some MSS as also in Kumārila is महत्वद भारतत्वात (for महत्वद् भारतत्वात्) meaning on account of its greatness and Indianness, it is called *Mahābhārata*. Sastri prefers the following stanza explaining the name *Mahābhārata*:

c7.s1.2

⁷ HIL, I, p. 317.

c7.s1.3

⁸ Mbh (Cr. Ed.), I.1.209; (B), I.1.274.

c7.s1.4

भारतानां महत्जन्म महाभारतमित्युत ।
निरुक्तमस्य यो वेद सर्वपापैः प्रमुच्यते ॥⁹

c7.s1.5

⁹ Mbh (Cr. Ed.), I.56.31; (B), I.62.39-40.

c7.s1.6

“It is called *Mahābhārata* because in it is narrated the great life-history of the Bhāratas”.

c7.s1.7

The Bhāratas, forming the subject of the Mbh, are mentioned as a warrior-tribe in the *Ṛgveda* with their habitat between the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā. The old heroic poem, dealing with the bloody family feud resulting in the overthrow of the Kauravas by the Pāṇḍavas, forms the nucleus of the Mbh.

c7.s1.8

This nucleus assumed the present form of the Mbh by periodical additions of matter of different kinds including (i) legendary matter from the bardic repertoire having but a casual connection (or no connection) with the epic heroes; (ii) myths and legends of Brahmanical origin and didactic sections pertaining to Brahmanical philosophy, ethics and law stressing the superiority of the Brāhmaṇas; (iii) cosmological, genealogical and geographical matter in the nature of Purāṇas and local myths; (iv) myths of Viṣṇu and, later, of Śiva; (v) fables, parables, fairy tales and moral stories; (vi) ascetic poetry; and (vii) prose pieces and Brahmanical legends and moral tales, entirely or partly in prose. In contrast to Oldenberg who takes the prose matter as the earlier stages of the epic, Winternitz holds it to pertain to a later period.¹⁰

c7.s1.9

¹⁰ Winternitz, HIL, I, p. 321 n1; Oldenberg, Das Mahābhārata, pp. 21 ff; cf. also infra, p. 83.

c7.s1.10

Of the additional matter in the nature of heroic legends may be mentioned the episodes of Śakuntalā, of Yayāti and of Nahuṣa, as also those of Nala and Damayantī, and of Rāma. The Brahmanical myths and legends are illustrated in the stories of Kadrū and Vinatā in the Sarpa-satra, of Cyavana, of Manu, of Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra, the Flood legend, the Sāvitrī episode, etc. The Śānti and Anuśāsana are a veritable thesaurus of religion and philosophy. It may be observed with regard to the additions to the original material that some of these may be as old as the original or even older. This, however, does not indicate that the epic was originally didactic.

c7.s1.11

The inclusion of this diverse matter, which has made the Mbh at once a Kāvya, Śāstra, Śruti, law, philosophy, etc. indicates the uniform popularity of the Great Epic through the ages and the anxiety of the compilers to make the Mbh an encyclopaedia for all time. The statement in the epic that whatever is (incorporated) here may be found elsewhere; (but) what is not (found) here cannot be got anywhere else, यदिहास्ति तदन्यत्र यन्नेहास्ति न तत्क्वचित्¹¹ is no exaggeration, nor can the saying व्यासोच्छिष्टं जगत्सर्वम् (Vyāsa has touched every subject under the sun) be challenged.

c7.s1.12

¹¹ Mbh (Cr. Ed.), I.56.33; (B), I.62.53.

c7.s1.13

Winternitz interprets the introduction in the epic referring to three redactions of the epic as showing that the *Mbh* is not the work of any one author nor was it written down at one time. The *Mbh*, he says, is not a single book but a whole literature stretching in time along a vast period.¹²

c7.s1.14

¹² HIL, I, pp. 316, 326 f.

c7.s1.15

Now let us consider the orthodox view as to the origin, authorship and growth of the *Mbh*.

c7.s1.16

According to the traditional view as represented in the *Mbh* itself Kṛṣṇa (also known as Dvaipāyana and Vyāsa), son of Parāśara and Satyavatī, was the author of the *Mbh*. Better known as Vyāsa, he is represented as a close relative of the heroes of the epic, being the procreator of the sons Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Pāṇḍu on Vicitravīrya's childless widows Ambikā and Ambālikā by *niyoga*. After performing penance Vyāsa composed a *Bhārata* of 24,000 verses which, according to the learned, is the extent of the *Bhārata* excluding the *upākhyānas*. Then was appended a chapter comprising the contents of the various Parvans of the poem. Vyāsa taught this poem to his son Śuka and to other deserving and promising students.

c7.s1.17

Vyāsa produced another poem consisting of six million stanzas of which three million are sung among the Gods, a million and a half among the manes, one million and four lakhs among the Gandharvas, and one lakh among mankind. Nārada recited the poem to the Gods, Devala to the manes, Śuka to the Gandharvas and demons, and Vaiśampāyana, pupil of Vyāsa, to the land of mortals.¹³

c7.s1.18

¹³ Mbh (Cr. Ed.), 29,* p. 12; (B), I.1.105-6. This appears as an interpolation in the Critical Edition.

c7.s1.19

While Vyāsa was contemplating as to the best means of transmitting the poem to his disciples, Brahmā appeared and in response to Vyāsa's prayer, suggested Gaṇeśa as the scribe. Gaṇeśa agreed on condition that his pen did not cease writing for a moment. He further agreed to Vyāsa's request to cease to continue writing whenever he failed to comprehend anything. By way of diversion Vyāsa knit in the epic a number of Kūṭaślokas (riddles) to puzzle the divine scribe. The number of such ślokas is said to be 8800.¹⁴

c7.s1.20

¹⁴ Brahmā-Gaṇeśa episode occurs as an interpolation in the Critical Edition. It is given in Appendix I, 1 (p. 884 f). अष्टौ श्लोकसहस्राणि अष्टौ श्लोकशतानि च । अहं वेद्मि शुको वेत्ति सञ्जयो वेत्ति वा न वा ॥ occurs as an interpolation in a passage which itself is an interpolation (p. 884, 11. 15-16).

c7.s1.21

Sūta (Sauti or Ugraśravas) heard the narration related by Vaiśampāyana to Janamejaya at the Sarpasatra, and gave it out as the Mahābhārata to the sages assembled in the Naimiṣa forest during Śaunaka's sacrifice. The epic itself speaks of its three different beginnings in the following stanza:—

c7.s1.22

मन्वादि भारतं केचिदास्तीकादि तथापरे ।
तथोपरिचरादन्ये विप्राः सम्यगधीयते ॥ ¹⁵

c7.s1.23

¹⁵ Mbh (Cr. Ed. and B), I.1.50.

c7.s1.24

Thus there are these three beginnings of the Mbh:—

c7.s1.25

(i) Manvādi, i.e., from the very beginning of the extant Mbh, after the maṅgala-śloka नारायणं नमस्कृत्य etc. according to the Critical Edition, followed by the conversation between Sauti (or Sūta, etc.) and the sages at Śaunaka’s hermitage;¹⁶

c7.s1.26

¹⁶ Mbh (Cr. Ed. and B), I.1-12.

c7.s1.27

(ii) *Astikādi*, i.e., from the description of Janamejaya’s *Sarpasatra*, where begins the *Āstikaparvan*;¹⁷ and

c7.s1.28

¹⁷ Mbh. (Cr. Ed.), I.13-53: (B), I.13-59.

c7.s1.29

(iii) *Uparicarādi*, i.e., from the commencement of the actual narration of the history of the Bharatas, where begins the *Aṃśāvatāraparvan*.¹⁸

c7.s1.30

¹⁸ Mbh (Cr. Ed.), I.54: (B), I.60.

c7.s1.31

These are the different beginnings of the *Mbh* as recited respectively by Sūta, Vaiśampāyana and Vyāsa. Thus, Sūta’s narration begins from the first *adhyāya* itself, that of Vaiśampāyana from *adhyāya* 13, and that of Vyāsa from *adhyāya* 54 of the Critical Edition. These three are said to be the beginnings respectively of *Mahābhārata*, *Bhārata* and *Jaya*, and the extent of the *Bhārata* and the *Mahābhārata* is said to be 24,000 and 100,000. Macdonell and others take the extent of Vyāsa’s work to be 8800.

c7.s1.32

European and American orientalists and many Indian scholars including M. Krishnamachariar, advocating the orthodox view, support the above account. C. V. Vaidya, however, regards 8800 as the number of Kūṭaślokas (riddles) introduced by Sauti. He puts the date of the composition of Vyāsa’s work soon after the Bhārata war in 3102 B.C. (according to his view), of Vaiśampāyana’s redaction to about 1400-1200 B.C., and of Sūta’s narration to about 250 B.C., and states that Vaiśampāyana and Sūta are “fictions....invented for magnifying the importance of the work.”¹⁹

c7.s1.33

¹⁹ HSL, I, iv, pp. 12-13.

c7.s1.34

P. P. S. Sastri, however, does not agree with the above in some particulars. According to him, “We would rather accept the existing tradition which makes Vaiśampāyana a direct pupil of Vyāsa, and Sūta, a son of Vaiśampāyana's contemporary Roma-harṣaṇa, than indulge in super-criticism which tries to set at naught the internal evidence of the epic and the current tradition."20 Whereas the Mbh of a lakh stanzas is taken to be the work of Sūta, Sastri emphatically states that "the whole work as we have it now in 18 Parvans is the work of a single author, Vyāsa, though....some preliminary chapters are....by Vaiśampāyana and Sūta."21 He offers quite a different interpretation of the stanza

c7.s1.35

चतुर्विंशतिसाहस्रीं चक्रे भारतसंहिताम् ।
उपाख्यानैर्विना तावद् भारतं प्रोच्यते बुधैः ॥ 22

c7.s1.36

which is taken as the basis for the view that the original Bhārata comprising 24,000 ślokas has been expanded to one of 100,000 ślokas by the addition of episodes, etc. According to Sastri, the above stanza simply states that the computation of the Mbh is 100,000 ślokas if counted along with minor narratives, and only 24,000 if these are excluded.²³ He states that whereas three kinds of beginnings of the Mbh are referred to by Sūta, both Sūta and Vaiśampāyana are quite agreed that the conclusion of the Mbh is with the Svargārohaṇaparvan.

c7.s1.37

²³ Mahābhārata (Southern Recension), I, Intr., pp. x-xi.

c7.s1.38

Reference may be made here to quite a different explanation of the stanza मन्वादि भारतं केचिद् (quoted above), given by Madhva in his Tātparyanirṇaya, which M. Krishnamachariar calls "traditional". The explanation runs: "The meaning of the Bhārata, in so far as it is a relation of the facts and events of which Śrī Kṛṣṇa and the Pāṇḍavas are connected, is called Āstikādi (historical). That interpretation by which we find lessons on Dharma, Bhakti and other Gods is called Manvādi (religious and moral). Thirdly, the interpretation by which every sentence, word or syllable is shown to be the significant name, or to be the declaration of the glories of the Almighty Ruler of the Universe is called Auparicara (transcendental).²⁴

c7.s1.39

²⁰ Mahābhārata (Southern Recension), II, Intr., p. xxi.

c7.s1.40

²¹ loc. cit.

c7.s1.41

²² Mbh (Cr. Ed.), I.1.61; (B), I.1.103.

c7.s1.42

²⁴ HCSL, pp. 29-30.

c7.s1.43

This traditional account of the growth of the Mbh is not accepted by most of the foreign scholars. Western scholars were interested in the Mahābhārata studies for more than the last hundred and fifty years. Reference has been made to the views of several scholars which were published after 1917 on pp. 109-113, 126-143 of the present work. In order to understand properly the contribution of European scholars to the Mahābhārata studies it would be better if a chronological account is given, and in the following paragraphs an attempt is made in that direction.

c7.s1.44

The Mahābhārata was chiefly known to the Western scholars because of its connection with the Bhagavadgītā and the Śakuntalā episode, both of which were translated into English in 1758 and 1795 by Charles Wilkins. The text of the Nala-Damayantī Ākhyāna, another episode from the Mbh, was published with a Latin translation in 1819 by Bopp, the father of the science of comparative philology. The history of the critical study of the Mbh, however, may be said to have begun with C. Lassen, who commenced his researches in 1837.²⁵ He considers the epic as recited by Śaunaka as a second recension of the poem. Assigning Āśvalāyana to 350 B.C. and assuming the identity of his Guru Śaunaka with the reciter of the epic, Lassen takes the date of the second recension of the epic to be 400-450 B.C. According to him the original epic was augmented thereafter by interpolations of a Kṛṣṇite nature alone; and the epic, excluding such accretions, may be regarded as pre-Buddhist.

c7.s1.45

²⁵ Ind. Alt., I. pp. 576 ff, 733 ff; II, pp. 101 ff.

c7.s1.46

A. Weber in 1852 and A. Ludwig in 1884 attempted to establish organic connection between the Vedic sources and the epic material.²⁶ Ludwig pressed into service the nature-myth, then universally in vogue, and stated that though the *Mbh* has the feeble historical germ, it is primarily an allegorical poem on the struggle between the sun and the darkness of the night. The capture of the Kurukṣetra by the Bharatas, the confederation of the five tribes, etc., constitute the historical kernel of the epic, on which the epic-poet constructed a superstructure embodying a seasonal myth. Sören Sörensen, who made the *Mahābhārata* his life's work and study, attempted a reconstruction of the epic in 1883.²⁷ According to him, the epic, in its oldest form, was a saga, and the creation of a single mind, which had no contradiction, repetition, digression. By eliminating additional matter Sörensen declared the original genuine epic to contain seven or eight thousand ślokas.

c7.s1.47

²⁶ Weber, *Indische Literaturgeschichte*, pp. 179ff: Ludwig, *Abhandlungen der kgl. böhmischen Ges. der Wiss.*, VI, 12, pp. 1 ff: Sitzungber. BGW, IX, pp. 15 ff.

c7.s1.48

²⁷ *Om Mahābhārata's Stilling i den Indiske literatur*. Kjobenhavn, 1893.

c7.s1.49

In order to explain the contradictions (such as the victory of the Pāṇḍavas through deceits or frauds, disregarding the rules of dharma-yuddha, deceits practised by Kṛṣṇa, etc.) found in the *Mbh*, Adolf Holtzmann started in 1884 the ingenious theory, later styled the inversion theory by Hopkins,—a theory which is more ingenious than convincing—according to which the Kauravas were the heroes of the original poem.²⁸ Changed circumstances resulted in representing Kauravas as the villains and glorifying Pāṇḍavas as the heroes. According to this theory all that exalts Kauravas at the expense of the Pāṇḍavas is old. Holtzmann offers the following historical reconstruction of his theory: of the original epic in honour of the Kauravas, of which Karṇa was the hero, a talented poet made a poem in praise of a great Buddhist ruler, perhaps Aśoka. The epic began with Sabhā-parvan and ended with the death of Duryodhana. The Śaivite elements are explained by the close relation of Śaivism with Buddhism of the period. Later, with the growth of Brahminism, the Brāhmaṇas subjected this Buddhistic Mahābhārata to a religious revision, used it as a weapon against the Buddhists, and reversed its original purpose. Pāṇḍavas are now lauded, Kṛṣṇa identified with Viṣṇu, and the Vaiṣṇava elements added. The third revision was of a Purāṇic type. Here Buddhism is eliminated altogether, Viṣṇu and Kṛṣṇa occupy the foreground, several elements of ancient Purāṇic material are incorporated and didactic material is interpolated. This revised and totally changed recension of the epic was non-existent until the twelfth century A.D.

c7.s1.50

²⁸ *Über das alte indische Epos*. 1881; *Das Mahābhārata und seine Theile*. Kiel, 1892-1895.

c7.s1.51

L. von Schröder and Grierson have enunciated theories analogous to the "inversion" theory.²⁹ Schröder states that the original poem which belongs to a period between the seventh and the fourth centuries B.C. was composed by the bards of the Kurus who eulogised their tribal god Brahmā and deprecated Kṛṣṇa, the tribal hero of the neighbouring tribes. The downfall of the Kurus resulted in the supersession of the cult of Brahmā by the cult of Kṛṣṇa and the inversion of the original epic-poem. Grierson mentions the struggle for supremacy between the Brāhmaṇas and the Kṣatriyas as the principal motive of some kind of inversion of the original epic. The Kauravas of Madhyadeśa, who supported the Brāhmaṇas, came into conflict with the unorthodox Pañcāla-Pāṇḍavas.

c7.s1.52

²⁹ Schröder, Indiens Literatur und Cultur. Leipzig, 1887; Grierson, JRAS, 1908, pp. 837-44.

c7.s1.53

Curiously enough, Holtzmann, Schröder and Grierson suggest different—and mutually contradictory—motives for the inversion of the epic, and this is a serious objection against the soundness of the hypothesis. There is, again, no external evidence in its support, the inferences being based on the epic itself. Bühler and Bhandarkar refuted Holtzmann's theory on the ground that inscriptional evidence conclusively proves the existence of the epic in its extant form centuries before A.D. 400. With regard to Schröder's theory Dandekar observes that a conflict between the cult of Brahmā and the cult of Kṛṣṇa is almost unknown in the religious history of India.³⁰ Keith has rightly assailed Grierson's theory by stating that Kuru-Pañcālas were friendly in the past and there is no proof of the conflict between the Brāhmaṇas and the Kṣatriyas in the period of the Brāhmaṇas. In connection with the inversion theory, Held rightly concludes that "the entire inversion theory is simply an ingenious hypothesis that must be a proof of itself."³¹ Hopkins tries to account for the deceptive or contradictory elements in the epic, for which inversion theory is propounded, by stating that two different stages of culture are represented in the epic; the earlier age allowed what was condemned in the later age.³² J. Hertel resolves the contradiction on the ground that manuals about the conduct of princes permitted the use of artifice in cases of emergency.³³

c7.s1.54

³⁰ UCR, XII, p. 73.

c7.s1.55

³¹ Mahābhārata, An Ethnological Study, pp. 10-11.

c7.s1.56

³² JAOS, XIII, pp. 57-372.

c7.s1.57

³³ WZKM, XXIV, p. 421.

c7.s1.58

Just about the time when Holtzmann's last volume was published, there appeared an important work by Joseph Dahlmann, champion of the synthetic school.³⁴ He holds that the *Mahābhārata* was the work of a single inspired poet who welded together the pre-existing narrative and didactic elements artistically with a view to popularising Dharmaśāstra among the masses. The feud between the Kauravas and the Pāṇḍavas is not authentic but the contending parties represent personifications of Dharma and Adharma. This is, indeed, exaggerating an undoubtedly later aspect of the work. Its date, according to him, is not later than the fifth century B.C., i.e., pre-Buddhistic. He synchronises the whole epic with the state of culture represented by the Jātakas. Fick, however, disputes this and states that centuries must have elapsed between the culture as represented in the Jātakas and in the *Mahābhārata* and *Manusmṛti*.³⁵ After critically considering the views of several scholars about the *Mbh*, A. Barth concludes that the *Mbh* is an unmistakably uniform work. With regard to the unifying factor of the epic and didactive elements in the *Mbh*, S. Lévi seeks in some didactic teaching, a Kṣatriya manual based upon the moral code of the Brāhmaṇas, such as is found in the *Bhagavad-gītā*.³⁶ The central purpose of the poem being to rally together the Kṣatriyas in the service of Lord Kṛṣṇa, a Bhāgavata poet wove round the *Bhg* the epic tale of the Kauravas and Pāṇḍavas in order to glorify Kṛṣṇa and to convince the Kṣatriyas of the infallibility of the service of Kṛṣṇa.

c7.s1.59

³⁴ *Das Mahābhārata als Epos und Rechtsbuch*. Berlin, 1895; *Genesis des Mahābhārata*. Berlin, 1899.

c7.s1.60

³⁵ *Die Soziale Gliederung im Nord-Ostlichen Indien zu Buddha's Zeit*, pp. 173, 4.

c7.s1.61

³⁶ BCV, pp. 99-106; Eng. trans., ABORI, I, pp. 13-20.

c7.s1.62

H. Jacobi mainly treats the *Mbh* from a synthetical point of view, and regards that a team of diaskuasts or Paurāṇikas appended the didactic matter all at one time to the older epical stuff, preserved by the Sūtas. He lays down four different periods of the work: (1) the development of the story, (2) the origin of the epical poem, (3) the fixing of the epical corpus by the Sūtas, and (4) the incorporation of didactic parts.³⁷ He would assign the contents of the *Mbh* to a pre-Achaemedian period, though its present form, according to him, cannot possibly be later than the second or third century B.C.³⁸

c7.s1.63

³⁷ GGA, 1899, p. 832.

c7.s1.64

³⁸ NGGW, 1896, p. 13 n2.

c7.s1.65

The most detailed elaboration of the analytical method is to be found in Hopkins' *The Great Epic of India*, and as his views have found general acceptance among scholars, we shall briefly summarise them with regard to its origin, development and date. According to Hopkins, the origin of the Epic lay in the priestly hymns accompanying the annual cycle and in the songs in praise of the liberality of princes, the *nārāśaṃsi-gāthā*. The development of the Epic in its present shape is thus shown by Hopkins:

c7.s1.66

400 B.C. There is a collection of Bhārata lays, in which the Pāṇḍavas are yet unknown.
400-200 B.C. There springs up Mahābhārata tale, in which the Pāṇḍavas are the heroes, Kṛṣṇa is a demi-god.
300 B.C. to 100 or 200 A.D. Kṛṣṇa now becomes the all-God; Interpolations of a didactic nature: New Episodes added.
200-400 A.D. The introduction and later books are added."

c7.s1.67

Hopkins vouches for the absolute certainty of the following points:—"That the epic in its present form or even free from its didactic matter was composed or compiled after the invasion of Alexander; that all this didactic matter was inserted later on; that the *Mahābhārata* was not essentially a book of Kṛṣṇaite belief until somewhere near the first century B.C.; that the epic was practically completed about 200 A.D.; that no date can be found to cover the entire Epic, although, broadly speaking, it can be said to have existed in the second century B.C.³⁹ He is at great pains to distinguish the different metrical strata preserved in the Epic and the metrical considerations occupy quite a preponderating part of his work. His conclusion is that on metrical ground it is "impossible to believe that the epic in its present form is older than the second century B.C."⁴⁰ Hopkins' conclusions are are based on the vulgate, and in the light of the Critical Edition many of his conclusions, statistics, etc., will have to be revised and corrected.⁴¹

c7.s1.68

³⁹ GEI, pp. 397-8.

c7.s1.69

⁴⁰ GEI, p. 239.

c7.s1.70

⁴¹ Cf. infra, p. 83.

c7.s1.71

The story of the Mahābhārata is too well known to need any reference here.

c7.s1.72

With regard to the date of the Mbh, Winternitz concludes that "the Mahābhārata cannot have received its present form earlier than the 4th century B.C. and later than the 4th century A.D."⁴² There are numerous references to Buddhism and to the Yavanas in the present form of the epic which supply us with the upper limit, and the fact that classical authors like Bāṇa and Kumārila as also epigraphic records of the fifth century and after testify to the epic having assumed the form of a religious code gives us the lower limit.

c7.s1.73

⁴² HIL, I, p. 465.

c7.s1.74

Though diverse opinions are held as to the historicity of the Bhārata war, there appears to be no doubt as to the actual occurrence of the event. Various views as to the date of the Bhārata war have been referred to later on. The personal view of the present writer is that the Bhārata war was fought in c. 1400 B.C.⁴³

c7.s1.75

⁴³ Vedic Age, p. 269; also infra, p. 79.

c7.s1.76

The views of Oldenberg, Pisani, Sukthankar, Dandekar, Held and others about the *Mahābhārata* have been referred to below (pp. 103-104, 109-113, 137-143). The most important theory about the growth of the *Mahābhārata* during the last twenty-five years is that by Sukthankar which shows the great rôle played by the Bhārgavas in the formative stages of the epic. Shende and Dandekar have further elaborated the theory.⁴⁴ It may be mentioned as a personal observation that the Bhārgava family appear in the heroic epic, apart from some episodal or didactic portions, more as humiliated opponents than as triumphant heroes. Pisani has made a critical and aesthetic study of the epic, and, according to Sukthankar, his views carried great weight.⁴⁵

c7.s1.77

⁴⁴ ABORI, XXIV, pp. 67-82; UCR, XII, pp. 84-85.

c7.s1.78

⁴⁵ *Festschrift Thomas*, pp. 166-176. Sukthankar in personal conversation as well as in a note to me had particularly asked me to go through Pisani's article carefully.

c7.s1.79

Our examination of the critical enquiry of scholars about the different aspects of the *Mahābhārata* shows great diversity of views and differences on fundamental points. About Kṛṣṇa, the pivotal figure in the epic, Dahlmann considers him as belonging to the older portions of the poem, while according to Lévi Kṛṣṇa is the *persona sine qua non* of the entire epic. On the contrary, according to Winternitz, Kṛṣṇa did not figure at all in the original epic, but was introduced only later. Oldenberg, Jacobi, Eliot and others regard Kṛṣṇa as an intrusion on the original story.⁴⁶ Winternitz decides in favour of Śaivite features as old, whereas Holtzmann would eliminate both Śaivite and Vaiṣṇavite portions as interpolations of a purely sectarian character.

c7.s1.80

⁴⁶ Winternitz, HIL, I, p. 457; Oldenberg, *Das Mahābhārata*, pp. 37, 43.

c7.s1.81

As will be seen from the different views stated on pp. 144-171 it is quite apparent that great divergence of opinion prevails among scholars with regard to the *Bhagavad-gītā*. Scholars are naturally influenced by their view of Kṛṣṇa in this matter. While Lévi takes the *Bhagavad-gītā* as an integral part of the epic, Hopkins calls it an interpolation and goes to the length of stating that it is even "unnecessary to prove it."⁴⁷

c7.s1.82

⁴⁷ JAOS, XIII, p. 204.

c7.s1.83

In concluding this critical note on the *Mahābhārata* I cannot but agree with the view of Pisani that the approach to the *Mbh* should be with open eyes and with the mind used to Indian thought and without being hypercritical.⁴⁸ The observations of foreign scholars, including Winternitz and Hopkins, are vitiated by their applying alien canons and aesthetic standards to the *Mahābhārata*. A creative genius need not always be expected to be fettered by aesthetic standards. The didactic matter, to which exception has been taken on aesthetic grounds, is intended to fill temporal hiatuses in the *Āraṇyaka*, *Śānti* and *Anuśāsana*, and considered from this angle one feels admiration for the redactor of the *Mahābhārata* who found suitable places for the insertion of didactic material. This distribution does not disturb the course of narration. The entire *Mahābhārata*, considered in this light, appears an organic whole, executed according to a well-conceived plan.

c7.s1.84

⁴⁸ Fest. Thomas, p. 170.

c7.s1.85

Finally, it is worth noting that the credit of publishing the first translation of the Critical Edition in any language goes to Russia, the Russian Academy having recently published the translation of the *Ādiparvan*.⁴⁹

c7.s1.86

⁴⁹ Prospectus of the Mbh, BORI, Poona, 1951, p. 20.

II. Rāmāyaṇa

c7.s2.1

The *Rām*, like the *Mbh*, has been deeply influencing the religious and moral thought of India as well as the literary production for over two thousand years, and has moulded the lives of countless generations in India. Both exhibit several features of similarity and difference. Being handed down orally from the earliest times both epics have undergone tremendous changes throughout their long career, and cannot lay claim to any definitive text. The same phenomena operated in the text-transmission of both, so that the method followed for the constitution of the critical text of the *Mbh* can be applied with but minor changes for the preparation of the Critical Edition of the *Rām*. Like the *Mbh*, the *Rām* is the property of the whole Indian people and the daily recitation of a śloka, a line, or even a quarter from either is said to confer religious merit on the reciter. Both epics abound in numerous Brahmanical myths and legends which frequently interrupt the thread of the narrative. There is a close resemblance not only in style, expression and descriptions as exemplified by parallel passages, identical similes and descriptions, but also in the mythology and philosophy of the epics. The economic conditions and social usages represented in the two epics are sufficiently alike, showing but few discordant elements.⁵⁰ Neither was recognised as epic before the late period of the Gṛhyasūtras, and neither was developed quite independently of the other. The Uttarakāṇḍa, which constitutes the latest part of the *Rām*, contains many tales of the Gangetic plains, and later didactic portions of the *Mbh* are generally laid in Kosala and Magadha, so that in their later development the epics grew up in the same locality.

c7.s2.2

⁵⁰ Cf. Hopkins, *CHI*, I, p. 259.

c7.s2.3

While the *Mbh* represents a mixture of popular epic and theological didactic poetry, the *Rām* is a popular epic and ornate poetry at the same time. The *Rām* is much shorter, having the extent of nearly a quarter of the present *Mbh*, and is still a fairly unified epic poem in its extant form. Unlike the *Mbh*, which speaks of its three editions, the *Rām* has no statement about its amplifications or revisions. Whereas the authorship of the *Mbh* is in dispute, it being ascribed to several authors, Vālmīki is practically accepted as the author of the *Rām*. What the *Mbh* is for the Aryan kingdoms of the West, the *Rām* is for those of the East. In the *Rām* is reflected a greater simplicity of life among the Aryans, and it shows absence of acquaintance with the Mlecchas, meagreness of reference to advanced states, absence of elaborate military tactics in the form of the vyūhas, existence of small kingdoms, abundance of forests and forest life in the country. The *Mbh*, though showing considerable advance in civilisation over the Rāmāyaṇic period in war, diplomacy, and in various phases of society, displays some archaic features such as polyandry and *niyoga*, and belongs to a ruder, more warlike age. The nucleus of the *Mbh* creates a much more archaic impression than the *Rām*. If the *Mbh* emphasises the practical aspects of life, the *Rām* preaches the highest ideals of it. The *Mbh* owes its sacred character not so much to its heroes as to the didactic sections added to it later, while it is the inherent purity of its hero and heroine that give sanctity to the *Rām*. The characters in the former strike us as human beings while those in the latter appear to be idealised.

c7.s2.4

With these prefatory remarks about the common and contrasting features of the two epics, let us turn to the study of the *Rām*. Macdonell rightly remarks that probably no work of world literature, secular in its origin, has ever produced so profound an influence on the life and thought of the people as the *Rām*.⁵¹ Tradition ascribes the authorship of the *Rām* to Vālmīki, the *ādikavi*, also known as Bhārgava and Prācetasa, who had his hermitage on the banks of the Gaṅgā. Tenth in descent from Pracetas, he is also represented as Cyavanaputra. Originally known as Ratnākara, Vālmīki has narrated his past history in the *Adhyātma-Rāmāyaṇa*, describing how he was transformed into a devotee from a robber. According to the Uttarakāṇḍa of the *Rām*, Vālmīki wrote the main story and Bhārgava added the episodes at a subsequent period.⁵² The story of how the poet's lament (*śoka*) on seeing a hunter killing the male krauñca bird was turned into a stanza (*śloka*) is graphically described in the introductory part of the *Rām*. Vālmīki is highly praised for his excellence of thought and expression, and throughout the length and breadth of India, from the peasant's hut to the lord's parlour the story of Rāma is familiar and is listened to with devotion and pleasure. Truly prophetic were the words of Brahmā who assured Vālmīki that

c7.s2.5

⁵¹ ERE, X, p. 574.

c7.s2.6

⁵² Rām (NSP), VII.94.25. H. P. Sastri, Des. Cat. of Skt MSS, A.S.B. V, Intr, p. xii.

c7.s2.7

As long as in this firm-set land
The streams shall flow, the mountains stand,
So long throughout the world, be sure,
The great Rāmāyaṇ shall endure.⁵³

c7.s2.8

⁵³ Rām (NSP), I.2.36-7. Trans. by R. T. H. Griffith.

c7.s2.9

There is hardly any devout Hindu who doubts Vālmīki's words

c7.s2.10

Whoe'er this noble poem reads
That tells the tale of Rāma's deeds,
Good as the scriptures, he shall be
From evey sin and blemish free.
Whoever reads the saving strain,
With all his kin the heavens shall gain.⁵⁴

c7.s2.11

⁵⁴ Rām (NSP), I.1.98-99. Trans. by R. T. H. Griffith.

c7.s2.12

According to tradition the number of verses in the Rām is 24000 divided into 500 sargas or chapters, each thousand verses beginning with a letter of the Gāyatrī-mantra. In its present form, the Rām comprises seven books. Like the Mbh, the Rām has not come down to us in its original form, Book VII and most of Book I being later additions to the main epic in Books II-VI. The later portion not only displays difference in language and style, but contains matter which has but very slight connection with the main story; shows Rāma as an incarnation of Viṣṇu whereas he is a mortal hero in the genuine epic; and gives premier position to Viṣṇu in place of the Vedic Indra who occupies the place of honour in the genuine sections.

c7.s2.13

Interpolations, alterations, etc. account for the different versions of the Rām, which has come down to us in three recensions, (i) northern and southern, (ii) north-western, and (iii) eastern, which differ very widely among themselves to the extent that about a third of the verses contained in each do not occur in the other two. It is thus very difficult to speak of the original text of the Rām. These variations are no doubt due to the divergent forms the popular tradition had assumed in different regions of India by the time the three recensions came to be written down. The Vishveshwarananda Vedic Research Institute of Hoshiarpur has brought out the critical edition of the North-Western recension, and the M. S. University of Baroda has undertaken the preparation of the critical edition of the Rāmāyaṇa on the lines of the critical edition of the Mahābhārata. Gorrossio had brought out the Eastern or Bengal recension, but from the Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Asiatic Society of Bengal it appears that there were several versions of the Bengal recension.⁵⁵

c7.s2.14

⁵⁵ Vol. V, preface, pp. ix-x.

c7.s2.15

The story of the Rāmāyaṇa is too well known to need any reference here.

c7.s2.16

Several scholars who made valuable contributions to the Mbh studies, such as Jacobi, Ludwig, Dahlmann, Hopkins, Lévi, Vaidya, Sukthankar, etc. have enriched the field of studies in the other epic as well. The Rām studies may be said to have been inaugurated by Lassen who discussed the problems of the Rām and pointed to the development of the Rāma story into four stages, suggesting that the Rām was an allegorical representation of the Aryan conquest of the south. According to Lassen, the first construction of the poem did not carry the narrative beyond the banishment of Rāma to the Himālaya and the circumstances which caused his wife Sītā and his brother Lakṣmaṇa to follow him into exile. The second changed the place of banishment to the Godāvari, and described the protection afforded to the hermits against the attacks of the aborigines. The third embraced the account of the first attempts to subdue the inhabitants of the Deccan. The fourth amplification, which resulted from the knowledge gained by the Hindus of the island of Ceylon, included the description of Rāma’s expedition against Laṅkā.⁵⁶ Lassen was followed by Weber, Muir, Freiderich and Monier Williams. Weber was the first to discuss in a comprehensive manner all the problems of the Rām, though his work has suffered oblivion on account of his unpopular and wrong theory of Vālmīki’s indebtedness to Homer, which was rightly refuted by Telang, Jacobi, Hopkins, Vaidya and others. Weber regards the Rām to have been composed to account for the spread of the Aryan culture to the south and to Ceylon.⁵⁷ His critical remarks on the Rām MSS will be of help to critical editors of the epic.⁵⁸ Jacobi’s Das Rāmāyaṇa,⁵⁹ however, contains the most systematic treatment of the subject. It discusses several problems such as the genesis of the different recensions of the Rām and their relation to one another; interpolations; origin and development of the Rām; Buddhistic and Greek influence; and the age, language, poetic art and the saga of the Rām. There is also a summary of the contents of the Bombay edition (Southern recension) and the concordance of the Bombay and Bengal editions. According to Jacobi, the Rām originally comprised only five books (II-VI), the seventh book is a later addition at the end, and the first book is similarly added at the beginning. Though the interpolations are but loosely connected with the original body they are pervaded by the same spirit as the old part and hence Jacobi does not regard them as due to a Brāhmaṇa revision intended to transform the original Kṣatriya epic. Though these additions were effected before the different recensions arose, the transformation of the original tribal hero into the national hero and his identification with God Viṣṇu indicate the passage of a considerable time between the composition of the original poem and that of the additional matter.

c7.s2.17

⁵⁶ Ind. Alt., I, p. 505.

c7.s2.18

⁵⁷ Über das Rāmāyaṇa, ABA, 1870.

c7.s2.19

⁵⁸ Verzeichnis der Sanskrit und Prakrit Handschriften der Koniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, I, pp. 118-123.

c7.s2.20

⁵⁹ Bonn, 1893.

c7.s2.21

In Die Westliche Rezension des Rāmāyaṇa,⁶⁰ H. Wirtz, the pupil of Jacobi, pointed out the peculiarities of the western recension on the basis of a Gujarat MS written during the reign of Visaladeva. In the same year (1894), was published Alexander Baumgartner's Das Rāmāyaṇa und die Rāma Literatur der inder⁶¹ discussing the development of the Rāma story and the Rāma literature in several Indian languages, in addition to the problems of the Rām. Next came the discussion of the problem of the inter-relation of the two epics by Ludwig and Dahlmann, whose contributions to the Great Epic have already been referred to above.

c7.s2.22

⁶⁰ Bonn, 1894.

c7.s2.23

⁶¹ Freiburg, 1894.

c7.s2.24

The turn of the century saw the appearance of Hopkins' magnum opus, *The Great Epic of India*,⁶² which deals, inter alia, with the relation of the Rām and the Mbh, and other problems connected with the Rām. *The Riddle of the Rāmāyaṇa*63 written by Bhāratācārya C. V. Vaidya is a very valuable contribution to the Rām studies. In a learned article on the history of the Rām where the various works which copy the Digvarṇana of the Rām (IV.41 ff) are critically studied, Lévi shows that the North-Western recension, as distinct from the Bengal recension, was in existence already in the sixth century A.D.⁶⁴ Books and articles on the Rām published subsequent to 1917 have been dealt with in the following pages (174-195), and particular reference, in connection with the Rām studies, may be made to D. C. Sen, Oldenberg, Winternitz, Maharastriya, Ruben, Sluszkiewicz, Sukthankar and Bulcke.

c7.s2.25

⁶² New York, 1901.

c7.s2.26

⁶⁴ JA, 1918, pp. 1-160.

c7.s2.27

In connection with the age of the Rām, we can do nothing better than quote Winternitz who thus summarises the results of his investigations:—

c7.s2.28

1. The later parts of the Rāmāyaṇa, especially Books I and VII, are separated from the genuine Rāmāyaṇa of Books II to VI by a long interval of time.
2. The whole Rāmāyaṇa, including the later portions, was already an old and famous work when the Mahābhārata had not yet attained its present form.
3. It is probable that the Rāmāyaṇa had its present extent and contents as early as towards the close of the second century A.D.

c7.s2.29

⁶³ Bombay, 1906.

c7.s2.30

4. The older nucleus of the Mahābhārata, however, is probably older than the ancient Rāmāyaṇa.

c7.s2.31

5. In the Veda we find no trace of the Rāma epic and only very faint traces of the Rāma legend.

c7.s2.32

6. The ancient Buddhist texts of the Tipiṭaka betray no knowledge of the Rāmāyaṇa, but contain traces of ballads in which the Rāma legend was sung.

c7.s2.33

7. There are no obvious traces of Buddhism to be seen in the Rāmāyaṇa but the characterisation of Rāma may possibly be traceable to remote Buddhist influence.

c7.s2.34

8. There can be no question of Greek influence in the Rāmāyaṇa, and the genuine Rāmāyaṇa betrays no acquaintance with the Greeks.

c7.s2.35

9. It is probable that the original Rāmāyaṇa was composed in the third century B.C. by Vālmīki on the basis of ancient ballads.⁶⁵

c7.s2.36

⁶⁵ HIL, I, pp. 474-5.

c7.s2.37

The Rām, in its historical setting, represents the expansion of the Aryan culture over the Deccan and South India. It shows that there was a very close co-operation and harmony, and not discord, between the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya in effecting the Aryo-Dravidian cultural synthesis. The spread of the Aryo-Dravidian culture into the south originated from Kosala and Ayodhyā under the leadership of Rāma. The Aryan conquerors, being few, would have been speedily absorbed had the Brāhmaṇas not come. The Brāhmaṇa brought with him the Aryan civilisation and traditions and introduced the caste system. Brāhmaṇa missionaries paved the way; they accompanied the conquerors; converted Dravidian potentates and enabled them to intermarry with high-born Aryans. The Aryan spirit was kept alive by the Brāhmaṇa. With all this, however, without the protection of the Kṣatriya the Brāhmaṇa was powerless; and it was not Brāhmaṇa's "peaceful penetration" but the military exploits of the Kṣatriya that enthralled the popular imagination.⁶⁶

c7.s2.38

⁶⁶ Cf. J. Kennedy, JRAS, 1915, p. 516.

c7.s2.39

That the Dravidians or non-Aryans enjoyed a high state of material civilisation is evident from the Rām. It throws light on the methods employed by the Aryans against their rivals. They set up one non-Aryan chief against another, and were not always scrupulous in their methods of warfare.

c7.s2.40

The Rām brings out the strength and weakness of the Aryan character. The superiority of the Aryans lay in the sternness of their character, their spirit of sacrifice, supreme regard for truth, love of adventure, and perseverance. Rāma is the embodiment of the high ideals of Aryan life. In him is presented the strange combination of a faithful and dutiful son, an affectionate brother, a loving husband, a stern relentless hero and an ideal king. Lakṣmaṇa and Bharata represent ideal brothers, while Sītā is a dutiful wife. In Daśaratha is brought out the weakness of the male for feminine grace which resulted in great disaster to him and to the kingdom. Prevalence of polygamy, and certain superstitious practices, evil effects of the caste system are some of the weak spots of Aryan life hinted at in the Rām.

III. Purāṇas

1. Introduction

c7.s3.t1.1

The Purāṇas occupy a unique position in the sacred and secular literature of the Hindus, being regarded as next in importance only to the Vedas. In fact, they are said to be, like the Mahābhārata, the fifth Veda, the Veda of the laity. They claim for themselves an equal antiquity and sanctity with the Vedas. They are closely akin to the Epics and the Smṛtis both in form and substance. The Purāṇas are of inestimable value for the history of philosophy and religion, and are a veritable store-house for getting insight into all aspects and phases of Hinduism. Not a single Purāṇa can be found to contain all these particulars; however, "taken collectively, they may be described as a popular encyclopaedia of ancient and medieval Hinduism, religious, philosophical, historical, personal, social and political".67

2. Purāṇa: meaning, definition and characteristics

c7.s3.t2.1

The term Purāṇa, according to its etymology as given in the Vāyu Purāṇa, means "that which lives from ancient times";68 the Matsya also describes the Purāṇas as "containing records of past events".⁶⁹ Originally, therefore, the term signified "ancient tale" or "old narrative" in the Brāhmaṇa literature, as compared with Itihāsa and Nārāśaṃsī, before it became associated with Purāṇa as a class of literature. Purāṇas in the form of legendary lore existed from times of antiquity, even prior to the revelation of the Vedas, and this was handed down to posterity. There was no Purāṇa literature as such in those days of yore.

c7.s3.t2.2

⁶⁹ Matsya, 53.63: पुरातनस्य कल्पस्य पुराणानि विदुर्बुधाः ॥

c7.s3.t2.3

Though references in the Atharvaveda imply that the Purāṇa had assumed some independent form of composition, it is not definite whether Purāṇas meant actual books at the time of the Atharvaveda.⁷⁰ The Chāndogya Upaniṣad shows that a definite work was

c7.s3.t2.4

⁷⁰ Atharvaveda, XI.7.24: ऋचः सामानि छन्दांसि पुराणं यजुषा सह । उच्छिष्टाज्जज्ञिरे सर्वे दिवि देवा दिविश्रितः ॥

c7.s3.t2.5

67. Pargiter, ERE, X, p. 448.

c7.s3.t2.6

68. Vāyu, I.203: यस्मात्पुरा ह्यनतीदं पुराणं तेन हि स्मृतम् । निरुक्तमस्य यो वेद सर्वपापैः प्रमुच्यते ॥ intended by the term.⁷¹ It is in the Sūtras, however, that we find reference to the existence of real Purāṇas.

c7.s3.t2.7

⁷¹ *Chāndogya Up.*, VII.1.2: स होवाच ऋग्वेदं भगवोऽध्येमि यजुर्वेदं सामवेदमाथर्वणम् । चतुर्थमितिहासपुराणं पञ्चमं वेदानां वेदमिति ।

c7.s3.t2.8

Both *Itihāsa* and *Purāṇa* denoted history and both are mentioned together in Vedic literature, sometimes as separate words and sometimes as one compound word, but almost always associated with *Gāthās*, *Nārāśaṃsis*, *Vākovākyas*, etc., which were all subjects of study in ancient times. In the later Vedic Age, *Itihāsa* preponderated over *Purāṇa*, but gradually the latter asserted itself. The characteristics of the Purāṇas have been mentioned in the classical definition of the term by Amarasiṃha (fifth century A.D.), which is also found in some Purāṇas, as *Pañcalakṣaṇa*, i.e., having five characteristics, which are, *sarga* (creation), *pratisarga* (dissolution and re-creation), *vaṃśa* (divine genealogies), *manvantara* (ages of Manus) and *vaṃśyānucarita* (genealogies of kings).⁷² A variant reading has *bhūmyādeḥ saṃsthāna* (world geography) in place of *viṃśyānucarita*.

c7.s3.t2.9

⁷² सर्गश्च प्रतिसर्गश्च वंशो मन्वन्तराणि च । वंशानुचरितं चैव पुराणं पञ्चलक्षणम् ।।

c7.s3.t2.10

None of the existing Purāṇas is in complete agreement with this definition; some contain much more than these, while others scarcely touch these and deal with other topics. It is further found that *Pañcalakṣaṇa* occupies but an insignificant part (about 1/40) of the extant Purāṇas. Thus it appears that religious instruction was not one of their primary aims, nor were they originally composed for sectarian purposes. These and other later additions such as *dāna* (gifts), *vratas* (religious observances), *tīrthas* (sacred places), *śrāddha* (rites in honour of the manes), etc., which form the bulk of the contents of the extant Purāṇas and which are not covered by the definition, render the Pañcalakṣaṇa definition merely a theoretical thing, not an actual fact. In order to get over this difficulty the Purāṇas themselves stated that the Pañcalakṣaṇa definition was intended merely for the Upa-Purāṇa (minor Purāṇa) and the Mahā-Purāṇa (major Purāṇa) has to satisfy the Daśalakṣaṇa (having ten characteristics) definition, which includes these additional topics: vṛtti (means of livelihood), rakṣā (incarnations of gods), mukti (final emancipation), hetu (jīva, unmanifest), and apāśraya (Brahman).⁷³ These characteristics also leave out of account several of the features of the extant Purāṇas. Haraprasad Sastri has found in the Matsya, an advance over this definition, which may be said to be the nearest approach to the description of the Purāṇas. It says that besides the ten characteristics, the Purāṇas deal with the glorification of Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Sūrya and Rudra, as also with the dissolution and preservation of the world, and with dharma (righteous conduct), artha (economics and polity), kāma (erotics) and mokṣa (emancipation).⁷⁴

First 150 of 256 passages. Read on

Linked texts (41)