Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Epics and Puranas c8: Chapter I: Purāṇic Cosmogony

Studies in the Epics and Purāṇas c8

Language
English

Chapter I: Purāṇic Cosmogony

c8.2

It is a sign of good times that of late there seems to have been some revival of interest in Purāṇic Studies, as would appear from references to the importance of the Purāṇas in the Presidential Addresses of scholars, whose views are entitled to command respect. At the Ninth All-India Oriental Conference at Trivandrum, Dr. G. S. Ghurye, as the President of the Ethnology Section, drew pointed attention to Pargiter's observations on different racial "stocks" in India, and ably controverted the views of the veteran Purāṇic scholar.¹ Pargiter and Purāṇas again figured prominently in the Presidential Address of Dr. A. S. Altekar at the Archaic Section of the Third Indian History Congress at Calcutta, where pre-Bhārata war history was considered and the Purāṇas evaluated.² Later on, the late Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, the General President of the Tenth All-India Oriental Conference at Tirupati, stressed the importance of the Purāṇas and made a strong plea for starting afresh their critical study.³ In the same session, Dr. B. L. Atreya, as the President of the Religion and Philosophy Section, rightly observed: "We have still no authentic work dealing with the religion and philosophy of the Purāṇas."⁴ Indian scholars have recognised the importance of the Purāṇas in their writings on historical subjects, and quite recently the University of Madras has published two volumes of *Purāṇa Index*.

c8.3

¹ POC, IX, pp. 911-954.

c8.4

² JBHU, IV, pp. 183-223.

c8.5

³ POC, X, pp. lxxv-lxxvi.

c8.6

⁴ POC, X, p. 234.

c8.7

Taking advantage of the interest thus created about the Purāṇas by the above speeches, I naturally decided to deal with the important subject of Purāṇic Cosmogony which forms the first topic, *viz.* sarga, in the definition of *Purāṇa-Pañcalakṣaṇa*, which runs:

c8.8

सर्गश्च प्रतिसर्गश्च वंशो मन्वन्तराणि च ।
वंशानुचरितं चेति पुराणं पञ्चलक्षणम् ॥⁵

c8.9

⁵ Cf. Kūrma, I. 1. 12; Varāha, 2. 4; Matsya, 53. 65; Vāyu, 4. 10-11; Bhaviṣya, I. 2, 4-5. Some texts read वंशानुचरित for वंशानुचरित.

c8.10

In order, however, to fully appreciate the evolution of cosmogonic ideas in India, it is better to begin our investigation from the oldest period in India, the period of the *Ṛgveda*, and consider in their chronological order, as far as possible, the views subsequently expressed down to the period of the Purāṇas so that we can easily understand how far the Purāṇas are indebted to the past and what is their contribution in the field of cosmogony. I may mention here that I have followed the generally accepted scheme of chronology in this chapter.

c8.11

As is well known to all students of Ancient Culture and to anthropologists, primitive people all the world over think and act alike; hence naturally enough, certain basic principles run through all ideas regarding cosmogony. But cosmogonic legends of different countries tend to harmonize only after a time. These myths generally look up for the creation of the world from the fewest possible elements. Cosmogonical speculations in the Vedic period do not present any generally accepted theory as to the origin of the world: widely differing ideas about this problem appear to have existed, which were developed and harmonized by the poet-philosophers of the *Ṛgveda*. There is, no doubt, certain progress from crude and unconnected notions to more refined ideas and broader views.

c8.12

The cosmogony of the *Ṛgveda* may be viewed from two aspects, the mythological and the philosophical. The mythological aspect has in general two currents, as observed by Dr. Macdonell: "The one regards the universe as the result of mechanical production, the work of carpenter's and joiner's skill; the other represents it as the result of natural generation."⁶ The world, according to Vedic notions, consists of three parts—earth, air and sky or heaven. But when the idea of "universe" is to be expressed, the most commonly used phrase is "heaven and earth." Both heaven and earth are regarded as gods and as the parents of gods, even though they are said to have been generated by gods. This involves a downright self-contradiction; but it seems to have only enhanced the mystery of this conception without lessening its value, since it recurs even in advanced speculation. Aditi is said to have brought forth Dakṣa, and Dakṣa is said to have generated Aditi, where Aditi stands for the female principle in creation and Dakṣa for the male principle. To Puruṣa or the primeval male is dedicated the famous Puruṣa-Sūkta, Ṛgveda, X. 90, which recurs with variations in the Atharvaveda, Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā and Taittiriya Araṇyaka,⁷ and which generally influenced later theosophical speculation. No apology is needed, I think, for giving the relevant portion of the hymn in translation. I have similarly quoted hereafter the passages in translation.

c8.13

⁶ Vedic Mythology, p. 11.

c8.14

⁷ Atharvaveda, XIX. 6. 6; Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā, XXXI. 11; Taittiriya Araṇyaka, III. 12. 5.

c8.15

"The Puruṣa with thousand heads,
With thousand eyes and thousand feet,
Surrounds the earth on every side,
And goes ten digits beyond.
Puruṣa, aye, is all this world,
The world that was and that will be.
He even rules th' immortal world
Which must sustain itself by food.

c8.16

Thus great is this majesty—
Yet even beyond in strength he goes.
A quarter of him all beings are.
Three quarters are immortal beyond."⁸

c8.17

⁸ Bloomfield Religion of the Veda, pp. 242-243.

c8.18

The unity of the Godhead as the cause of the world, which is recognized in the above hymn, is directly expressed in others where he is called the One, the Unborn, and placed above all gods. In two hymns, Ṛgveda, X. 81 and 82, he is invoked under the name Viśvakarman, "All-Creator," who, in later mythology, became the architect of the gods. In another remarkable hymn, Ṛgveda, X. 121, the poet inquires who is the first-born god that created the world and upholds it, and in the last verse he is invoked as "Prajāpati", "Lord of the Creatures." Prajāpati later became the current designation of the Creator, and synonymous with Brahmā. The Supreme Being is said to have originated in the primeval waters as the Golden Germ (Hiraṇya-garbha) which contained all the gods and the world, or became the Creator. The idea was afterwards developed to that of the world-egg and of Brahmā.

c8.19

An entirely different treatment of the cosmological problem is contained in the philosophical hymn, Ṛgveda, X. 129, which, for depth of speculation is one of the most admirable poems of the Ṛgveda; it has passed over into the general literature of religion and philosophy. Prof. W. D. Whitney remarked anent it in 1882, that the unlimited praises which had been bestowed upon it as philosophy and as poetry were well-nigh nauseating.⁹ And yet, twelve years later, Dr. Paul Deussen, who according to Dr. Maurice Bloomfield, was not trying to contradict Whitney, broke out into new praise, more ecstatic than ever:

c8.20

⁹ Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, Vol. XI, p. exi.

c8.21

"In its noble simplicity, in the loftiness of its philosophic vision, it is possibly the most admirable bit of philosophy of olden times." And again, "No translation can ever do justice to the beauty of the original."¹⁰ Instead of the view of creation by an external agency, this hymn propounds the view that the sensible world is the spontaneous unfolding of the supra-sensible first cause. The conception is wholly impersonal and free from all mythological elements. It contains the quintessence of monistic thought anticipating Upaniṣadic monism.

c8.22

¹⁰ Allgemeine Geschichte der Philosophie, Vol. I, Part I, pp. 119, 126; Bloomfield, op. cit., p. 234.

c8.23

These philosophical hymns of the Ṛgveda form, according to Dr. Winternitz, a bridge to the philosophical speculations of the Upaniṣads.¹¹

c8.24

¹¹ Winternitz, HIL, I, p. 100.

c8.25

In the Atharvaveda we come across some cosmological hymns mostly of the Prajāpati type, in which the highest god and creator is conceived under other forms, and invoked under various names such as Rohita, Anaḍvan, Vaśā, Kāla, Kāma, Mahādeva, Iśāna, etc. The philosophical hymns of the Atharvaveda, no doubt, presuppose a fairly high development of metaphysical thought; but it should be noted that the productive thoughts of the truly philosophical hymns of the Ṛgveda have attained their further development only in the Upaniṣads. The Atharvaveda hymns stand, as Dr. Deussen says, "not so much inside the great course of development, as, rather, by its side."¹²

c8.26

¹² Allgemeine Geschichte der Philosophie, Vol. I, Part I, p. 209.

c8.27

The Brāhmaṇas contain many legends about Prajāpati having created the world. They usually open with some statement like the following: "In the beginning was Prajāpati, nothing but Prajāpati; he desired, 'may I become many'; he performed austerities and thereby created these worlds." Besides Prajāpati other names of the Creator are met with, viz: Svayambhū Nārāyaṇa, Svayambhū Brahman, and even Not-Being. The authors of the Brāhmaṇas being wholly engrossed with liturgy and ceremonial introduce these legends in order to explain some detail of ritual or the like; and therefore after a few general remarks on the creation of the world, they plunge again into ritualistic discussions. But the little information they give sufficiently shows the contemporary popular opinions about the origin of the world. Besides the usual statement about Prajāpati being at the beginning of things, there are others, according to which, the waters seem to have been believed to be coeval with him or to have preceded him. Full development of the conception of the world-egg theory is found in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa:¹³

c8.28

¹³ XI, 1. 6. 1-11.

c8.29

"In the beginning there existed here nothing but water, a sea of water. These waters desired to propagate their kind. They tortured themselves, they mortified themselves. And when they had mortified themselves a golden egg originated in them. ...... About a year a man arose out of it; that was Prajāpati. ......He broke the golden egg open. But at that time there did not exist any standing place. .... After a year he tried to speak, and he said "bhūḥ", and this (word) became this earth; (he said) "Bhuvaḥ", and this became yonder atmosphere; (he said) "suvar" and this became the sky yonder. .... He placed reproductive energy into himself, and with his mouth he created the gods ..... After he had created the gods, he made the day out of that which was light, and after he had created the Asuras he made the night out of that which was dark. So there now existed day and night."

c8.30

Another creation legend is still more remarkable, though also much less clear, which begins with the words,¹⁴ "In the beginning there was here only the non-existent (Asat)". But it is at once added that this non-existent was really the Ṛṣis, for these, by means of self-torture and self-mortification, have brought forth everything. These Ṛṣis, however, were the Prāṇas or life-spirits, and these created first seven Puruṣas or persons, and then united these to a single Puruṣa, to Prajāpati.

c8.31

¹⁴ ŚB, VI. 1. 1.

c8.32

The Brahman, originally signifying prayer or magic spell, then sacred knowledge or Veda, was in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa already made the foundation of all existence. From this only a step remained to the doctrine of the Brahman itself as a creative principle. This doctrine too is found in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, where it says:¹⁵

c8.33

¹⁵ XI. 2. 3. 1.

c8.34

"In the beginning there was here only the Brahman. This created the gods, and after it had created the gods, it gave them these worlds as dwellings, (namely), this earth-world to Agni, the atmosphere to Vāyu and the heaven to Sūrya."

c8.35

Thus we find that all those ideas were in the making in the Brāhmaṇas, which were fully developed only in the Āraṇyakas and the Upaniṣads. It is also remarkable that there is no ONE creation legend in the Vedas and the Brāhmaṇas, which has won general acceptance in India. There are a great number of creation legends containing the most diversified ideas and speculations which can never be made to harmonize with one another.

c8.36

While the authors of the Brāhmaṇas treated cosmogonic myths from their liturgical point of view, the authors of the Upaniṣads viewed them from the philosophical standpoint and utilized them to illustrate the oneness of Brahman and its presence in all created things. Accordingly such philosophical abstractions as Brahman, Ātman, Not-Being or Being are frequently substituted for Prajāpati, and from this first principle are derived the worlds or the Vedas, or other cosmical and psychical agencies. These notions have been developed and combined in various ways; but it is always stated that the first principle, after having created things, entered them, so that it is present in them, and in a way, is identical with, and yet different from, them. "It is impossible," as has rightly been observed by Dr. Jacobi, "to reduce the variety of opinion on the origin of the world contained in the Upaniṣads, to one general idea underlying them."16

c8.37

In the following pages an attempt has been made to do full justice to and to illustrate Upaniṣadic cosmogony from original sources as it forms the basis and groundwork of all subsequent speculation. Following Prof. Ranade, we may divide Upaniṣadic theories into impersonalistic and personalistic, and start our investigation with the impersonalistic theories.¹⁷

c8.38

¹⁷ Constructive Survey of Upaniṣadic Philosophy, pp. 73 ff.

c8.39

Beginning with grosser elements, we find that the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad regards water as the origin of all things. "....from the waters was born Satya or Truth; Satya produced Brahman, Brahman gave birth to Prajāpati, and from Prajāpati were born the gods;...."18 Not Brahman but Satya is the ultimate 'concrete' existence here.

c8.40

The Chāndogya maintains the theory of "Air" as the final absorbent of things, especially of water and fire, which, according to the other contemporary philosophers, were regarded as constituting the origin of all things whatsoever.¹⁹

c8.41

¹⁶ ERE, IV, p. 157.

c8.42

¹⁸ Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, V. 5. 1:

c8.43

¹⁹ Chāndogya Upaniṣad, IV. 3. 1-2.

c8.44

आप एवेदमग्र आसुस्ता आपः सत्यमसृजन्त, सत्यं ब्रह्म, ब्रह्म प्रजापतिं, प्रजापतिर्देवान् । ते देवाः सत्यमेवोपासते ।

c8.45

The *Kaṭhopaniṣad* tells that fire having entered the universe assumed all forms.²⁰ The *Chāndogya*, however, maintains that the fire was the first to evolve from the primeval Being, and that from fire came water, and from water the earth.²¹ Fire cannot in reality be regarded as the origin of things as it burns up all.

c8.46

²⁰ *Kaṭhaka Upaniṣad*, II. 5: अग्निर्यथैको भुवनं प्रविष्टो रूपं रूपं प्रतिरूपो बभूव ।

c8.47

²¹ *Chāndogya Upaniṣad*, VI. 8. 4.

c8.48

The *Chāndogya*, again, marks a further advance stating space to be the arche of things.²² Space is said to be the final habitat. In yet another passage, the same *Upaniṣad* maintains that space is really higher than fire, the sun and the moon, the lightning and the stars, and advises to meditate upon space as the highest reality.

c8.49

²² *Chāndogya Upaniṣad*, I. 9. 1; VII. 12. 1.

c8.50

That Not-Being was regarded as the primary existent is seen from the *Taittirīya Upaniṣad*,²³ where we find the natural development of the idea expressed in the famous *Nāsadīya Sūkta*. The *Bṛhadāraṇyaka* also expresses itself similarly.²⁴ Such passages show that human thought at some period reaches a stage when it is required to take recourse to privative logical conception like Not-Being.

c8.51

²³ *Taittiriya Upaniṣad*, II. 7: असद्वा इदमग्र आसीत् । ततो वै सदजायत । तदात्मानं स्वयमकुरुत । तस्मात्तत्सुकृतमुच्यत इति ।

c8.52

²⁴ *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad*, I. 2. 1-2.

c8.53

The philosophy of Not-Being has been connected by the *Chāndogya* with the myth of the Universal Egg²⁵ to which some reference has already been made. The *Upaniṣad* passage mentions two parts of the Egg, viz. of gold and silver, out of which came mountains, clouds, rivers, oceans, and the sun. Similar to the idea of regarding the universe as a huge egg was the view that the universe was a "huge chest with the earth as its bottom and the heaven as its upper lid, the sky as its inside and the quarters as its corners, containing in its inside a rich treasure."26

c8.54

²⁵ *Chāndogya Upaniṣad*, III. 19. 1-3.

c8.55

The conception of Being as the arche of things follows that of Not-Being; and the *Chāndogya* directly tells us that Being alone existed at the beginning of things.²⁷ It criticizes those who regard the primeval existent as Not-Being, and Being as produced therefrom. It further tells us that there are three different colours belonging to the three different elements, *viz.* the red, the white and the black, which were later borrowed by the Sāṅkhya philosophy and made to constitute the three different qualities of the Sāṅkhya Prakṛti. In short, the *Chāndogya* maintains a sort of a philosophical trinitarian monism.

c8.56

²⁷ *Chāndogya Upaniṣad*, VI. 2. 1-4.

c8.57

The *Chāndogya* and *Kauṣītaki* supply us with an advance over the previous theory maintaining that Prāṇa or life-force or cosmic force is the ultimate substratum of things.²⁸ The *Kauṣītaki*, however, presents Prāṇa with certain features which are not met with in the *Chāndogya* or *Praśna*.29 Prāṇa is directly identified with life, with *prajñā* (consciousness), with Ātman itself, the ultimate reality which is ageless and immortal. It thus comes about that Prāṇa is life from biological point of view, consciousness from psychological and Ātman from the metaphysical point of view.

c8.58

²⁶ *Chāndogya Upaniṣad*, III. 15. 1.

c8.59

²⁸ *Chāndogya Upaniṣad*, I. 11. 5; IV. 33; *Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad*, II. 1: प्राणो ब्रह्मेति ह स्माह कौषीतकिः ।
29. *Praśna Upaniṣad*, II, 1-12; *Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad*, III. 2-9: आयुः प्राणः प्राणो वा आयुः ।...यो वै प्राणः सा प्रज्ञा, या वा प्रज्ञा स प्राणः । . . ।

c8.60

Hitherto theories which regard elements or primitive conceptions or metaphysical or bio-psychometaphysical conception as the origin of things were considered. Now we come to the personalistic theories of creation. The Praśna³⁰ tells that at the beginning of creation the creator became desirous of creating and with that end in view practised penance, and first created a pair, namely Rayi and Prāṇa, corresponding respectively to matter and spirit, with the intention of creating all the existence whatsoever from them. Similarly does the Taittirīya,³¹ where the mythological duality of the Praśna is replaced by the philosophical duality.

c8.61

³⁰ Praśna Upaniṣad, I. 3-13.

c8.62

³¹ Taittirīya Upaniṣad, II. 6.

c8.63

Yet another explanation of the duality of existence, of the duality of sex, is given by the Bṛhadāraṇyaka,³² which relates to the generation of the duality of sex from the Ātman in the organic world. The Aitareya³³ gives a much more elaborate explanation of the generation of all objects in the universe, which contains the fullest account of the fact of creation in the Upaniṣads.

c8.64

³² Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, I. 4. 1-4.

c8.65

³³ Aitareya Upaniṣad, I. 1-3: आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीन्नान्यत्किंचन मिषत् । स ईक्षत लोकान्नु सृजा इति । . . .

c8.66

"In the beginning the Ātman alone existed, and that there was no other blinking thing whatsoever. The Ātman thought to himself, let me create the worlds; whereupon he created the four worlds..... After these worlds were created the Ātman proceeded to create first a World-Person....whom he fashioned out of waters, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The Ātman then brooded upon this World- Person, and as a result of his brooding created first his various organs of sense, then the functions corresponding to them, and lastly the deities or the world-governors corresponding to such functions in the cosmos."

c8.67

Thus, according to the *Aitareya*, the function always follows the structure in the microcosm of the intermediary Person but always precedes it in the macrocosm of the universe. After creating worlds in this fashion, the Cosmic Person, the World-governors, and Hunger and Thirst, the Ātman next proceeded to create the Soul in the human body, which he entered by the "door of division", also called the "place of rejoicing". After the Ātman was born as the individual soul, he began to be subject, according to the *Aitareya*, to the three states of consciousness, viz. the waking, the dreaming and the deep-sleep state of consciousness. We thus see how the individual soul was the last object to be created by the Ātman and how ultimately there is a metaphysical identity between the individual soul and the supreme soul.

c8.68

So far mythological explanations of the creation of objects from the primeval Ātman have been considered. The *Taittirīya* supplies us with an emanatory theory of cosmogony where we are told that "from Ātman in the first instance proceeded space, from space air, from air fire, from fire water, and from water the earth."[34] This passage has served as a standing crux to all absolutistic interpreters of Upaniṣadic philosophy who tried to reduce everything except the Ātman to an illusion.

c8.69

The connecting link between the emanatory theory just told and the theistic theory of the *Śvetā-* śvatara is supplied by the Muṇḍaka by its personal-impersonal theory of the universe, which states:³⁵

c8.70

³⁴ Taittirīya Upaniṣad, II. 1: तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशः संभूतः । आकाशाद्वायुः, वायोरग्निः, अग्नेरापः, अद्भ्यः पृथिवी ।

c8.71

³⁵ Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad, II. 1. 2-9.

c8.72

"At the beginning of creation there existed a heavenly Formless Person who was unborn, without a mind, lustrous, and super-immutable. From him were born life, mind, senses, space, air, light, water and earth, which last is the basis of the universe....."

c8.73

Though mythological considerations peep in, this account marks an advance over the previously described theories and approaches the truly theistic theory of creation which accounts for the creation of all sorts of existences by the primeval person.

c8.74

The Śvetāśvatara no doubt was written in the interests of a Śaivite theory of theism; but it equates the god Śiva with the supreme godhead.³⁶ It tries philosophically to account for the creation of the world by the godhead by criticizing the extant opinions, which hold Time, Nature, Necessity, Chance, Elements, Person, their Combination, or the Ātman as the cause of all things. After controverting the different theories, it concludes that Rudra alone rules the world by his powers;....(he) can be regarded as the creator of all things that exist. He is the supreme godhead. Thus the Śvetāśvatara advances a truly philosophic theory of creation in which all power is ultimately due to a personal godhead who causes the whole universe to move round his finger.

c8.75

³⁶ Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, I. 2.

c8.76

The Upaniṣads are the backbone of the philosophical speculations of Hindus. Every subsequent thinker has drawn liberally on the Upaniṣads, and it has been the endeavour of all, somehow or other, to bring in their system under the banner of the Upaniṣads by twisting the meaning, if necessary. The Upaniṣads stand as the basis of the famous Ṣaḍ-Darśanas, and the Sāṅkhya ideas are found in more or less developed form in the Śvetāśvatara and some later Upaniṣads, which form the connecting link between the Upaniṣadic period and that of the epics and the Purāṇas. The genesis of the evolutionary theory of Sāṅkhya can be traced to these Upaniṣads.

c8.77

As subsequent writers have laid under contribution the conceptions propounded by the Sāṅkhya philosophy of which the germs are found in the Upaniṣads, it would be useful to append here a short sketch of the system about cosmogony. According to Sāṅkhya philosophy there are two principles entirely independent of each other: the Puruṣa and Prakṛti or Pradhāna. Prakṛti is made up of the three guṇas—sattva, rajas, and tamas—in the state of equipoise. Mahān or Buddhi is developed from Prakṛti when this equilibrium is disturbed through the presence of the Puruṣa. From Buddhi, which chiefly consists of sattva, is evolved Ahaṃkāra, whose function is to produce ego, which in its turn, produces the manas, the five buddhindriyas, the five karmendriyas, and the five tanmātras. Mutual combination of the last forms the five mahābhūtas,—pṛthvī, āp, tejas, vāyu and ākāśa. These in all are the twenty-five tattvas of Sāṅkhya.³⁷

c8.78

³⁷ Cf. Max Müller, *Six Systems of Indian Philosophy*, pp. 320 ff.

c8.79

Next we come to the Great Epic, which betrays distinct influence of the Upaniṣads both in its thought and in its expression, and monism is a prominent feature of its teaching. The Mahābhārata being an encyclopaedia, the product of different periods and authors, naturally enough, there are to be found contradictions in it; both cosmic and acosmic conceptions are to be met with, and often, an account which begins with the one easily drifts into the other. The cosmic egg theory is found only in the popular accounts in the first verses of the epic; but at places this theory is refuted.³⁸ The Mahābhārata makes both Puruṣa and Prakṛti, aspects of the one Brahman. It accepts the Sāṅkhya enumeration of the elements; but it adds Īśvara as the twenty-sixth.³⁹ There is an attempt by the authors of the epic at producing some order and reconciliation in the variety of views as to cosmogony propounded in Vedic and Sāṅkhya sources by introducing some changes, by combining different notions, by inventing intermediate creators, successive creations and destructions, etc. Thus the epic Sāṅkhya reveals some important changes from the original Sāṅkhya philosophy; Dahlmann and Deussen, however, state that epic Sāṅkhya represents a preliminary state of speculation from which systematic Sāṅkhya was developed.⁴⁰

c8.80

³⁸ Cf. Hopkins, GEI, p. 187.

c8.81

³⁹ Mahābhārata, XII. 309. 7 ff (Chitrashala Edn.); cf. Hopkins, op. cit., pp. 133 ff.

c8.82

⁴⁰ Mahābhārata Studies, ii, "Die Sāṅkhya Philosophie," Berlin 1902, Deussen, op. cit., Vol. I, Part 3, p. 18.

c8.83

Cosmological speculations in the Great Epic do not seem to have ever won general acceptance as authoritative expositions of the subject. The cosmogonic accounts in the Manusmṛti, however, appear to have gained firm footing, as parts of them are quoted in a great number of medieval works. In order, therefore, to illustrate the state of views on cosmogony prevailing before the time when the Purāṇas took their present shape, the Manusmṛti may serve as a guide. The following is a brief sketch from the Manusmṛti: "This (universe) existed in the shape of darkness unperceived, destitute of distinctive marks, unattainable by reasoning, unknowable, wholly immersed as it were in deep sleep.....He, desiring to produce beings of many kinds from his own body, first with a thought created the waters and placed his seed in them. That seed became a golden egg equal to the sun in brilliancy; in that egg he himself was born as Brahmā, the progenitor of the whole world....that divine one who resided in the egg divided it into two halves, from which he formed heaven and earth, and between them the middle sphere, the eight points of the horizon and the eternal abode of the waters....Thence he drew forth the mind, the self-sense, and then the great principal soul and all products affected by the three qualities, and in their order the five organs which perceive the objects of sensation.⁴¹ To the waters was given the name "Nārā", because they were the off-spring of Nara; and because they were his first dwelling place, Brahmā is called Nārāyaṇa, which in later times was applied to Viṣṇu.⁴² There is yet another version of creation in the *Manusmṛti*.⁴³ Brahmā divided his own body into two: one half male and the other half female. With the female portion he produced Virāj. Manu is referred to as the Creator of the universe and as produced by Virāj. Once produced, Manu performed austerities, and thereby brought into being the ten Prajāpatis,⁴⁴ who in their turn, created seven other Manus and also gods and sages of boundless might, demons, etc. Thus it was that the whole creation, mobile and immobile, was brought into existence by the ten Prajāpatis by means of austerities. Bhṛgu supplies us with the third account of creation in the *Manusmṛti*.⁴⁵ He says that when the night of Brahmā is over, god awakes from sleep and once more begins a fresh creation. First of all he creates *manas*. *Manas*, influenced by Brahmā's desire to create, proceeds to create and *ākāśa* is produced. From it comes *vāyu*; from *vāyu*, *jyotiḥ* which dispels darkness; from *jyotiḥ*, *āpaḥ*; and from *āpaḥ*, *bhūmi*; in this way is the universe formed. In conclusion, it may be observed that Colebrooke is certainly right in asserting that we have in Manu the Purāṇik Sāṅkhya mixed up with the Vedānta.⁴⁶

c8.84

⁴¹ *Manusmṛti*, I. 5 ff. The account of creation given in *Manusmṛti*, I. 5-13, bears some resemblance to *ŚB*, XI. 1. 6. 1 ff; cf. also, *Ṛgveda*, X. 129. 3; *Taitt. Brā.*, II. 8. 9. 4.

c8.85

⁴² *Manusmṛti*, I. 10-11: cf. *Viṣṇu Purāṇa*, I. 4. 6; *Mārkaṇḍeya P.*, 47.5; *Varāha P.*, 2. 26.

c8.86

⁴³ *Manusmṛti*, I. 32 ff.

c8.87

⁴⁴ *Manusmṛti*, I. 35; मरीचिमत्र्यङ्गिरसौ पुलस्त्यं पुलहं क्रतुम् । प्रचेतसं वसिष्ठं च भृगुं नारदमेव च ॥

c8.88

⁴⁵ *Manusmṛti*, I. 74 ff.

c8.89

⁴⁶ Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. I, p. 249.

c8.90

Finally we come to the Purāṇas. Notwithstanding the research of nearly a century and a quarter, no substantial results in the domain of Purāṇic studies have so far been reached, nor tangible conclusions arrived at. No doubt fresh vigour is brought to bear on Purāṇic studies by the researches of Prof. V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar of the University of Madras (who, unfortunately, passed away recently) and of Dr. R. C. Hazra of the Dacca University who has now settled in Calcutta, which have thrown valuable light on many a dark corner in the Purāṇas and have helped in the solution of some difficult problems connected with the Purāṇas.⁴⁷ Many misconceptions about the nature and contents of the Purāṇas still exist among the educated and cultured people of the present day, but it is beyond the scope of this paper to refer to or to refute them.

c8.91

⁴⁷ Cf. Matsya Purāṇa—A Study, Some Aspects of the Vāyu Purāṇa and Purāṇa Index, Vols. I-II, by Prof. V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, and Purāṇic Records on Hindu Rites and Customs by Dr. R. C. Hazra, in addition to numerous papers contributed by both to various Oriental Journals.

c8.92

Though not as all-comprehensive and encyclopaedic as the great *Mahābhārata*, the Purāṇas also aim at incorporating anything and everything in their text answering to यदिहास्ति तदन्यत्र यन्नेहास्ति न कुत्रचित् ।⁴⁸ The anxiety of the writers of the Purāṇas to make their texts as all-inclusive as possible would be evident from the definitions of the Purāṇas themselves. Originally described as *Pañcalakṣaṇa*, later on ten characteristics came to be attached to the Purāṇas, and the *Bhāgavata* mentions itself as answering the *Daśalakṣaṇa* definition.⁴⁹ As is natural with such ambitious works like the *Mahābhārata*, which are the products of different periods and the compositions of different authors and whose aim is to include so many things, there are bound to be a number of inconsistencies and contradictions as also want of systematic arrangement.

c8.93

⁴⁸ Mahābhārata, XVIII. 5. 50 (Chitrashala Edn.).

c8.94

⁴⁹ Bhāgavata P., XI. 7. 9-10; cf. also II. 9. 44; 10. 1.

c8.95

In the following pages the scheme of cosmogony as presented by the *Viṣṇu-Purāṇa* will be briefly dealt with, and then reference will be made to the other Purāṇas. There are, it may be observed, no material differences in the cosmogonic accounts given by the Purāṇas. Many verbatim repetitions and echoes of previous teachings will be found in the Purāṇic account, to some of which references have been made in the footnotes.

c8.96

Of the five topics proper to the Purāṇas, the first three, *viz.* *sarga*, *pratisarga* and *vaṃśa*, concern early religion and mythology, and the other two, *viz.* *manvantara* and *vaṃśānucarita*, deal with traditional history. In both groups are to be found later amplification, co-ordination and restatement. The first three being the general product of speculative thought were naturally shaped out and transmitted by religious teachers for general instruction.

c8.97

सर्गश्चाथ विसर्गश्च वृत्ती रक्षान्तराणि च ।
वंशो वंशानुचरितं संस्था हेतुरपाश्रयः ।। ११-७-९ ।।
दशभिलक्षणैर्युक्तं पुराणं तद्विदो विदुः ।
केचित्पञ्चविधं ब्रह्मन् महदल्पव्यवस्थया ।। १० ।।

c8.98

According to the Viṣṇu-Purāṇa, the self-existent Brahman is Vāsudeva;⁵⁰ he is originally and essentially but one, still he exists in three successively proceeding forms, Puruṣa, Pradhāna and Kāla the last acting as the connecting bond for the former two. Pradhāna produces Mahān or Buddhi when the Supreme Deity enters Puruṣa and Pradhāna. Buddhi produces Ahaṃkāra; and so are produced the five subtle elements, the gross elements and the eleven organs much in the same way as is taught in the Sāṅkhya philosophy. But the Purāṇas teach, in addition to the evolutionary theory, that each generating principle or element envelopes the one generated by it.⁵¹ The gross elements combine into a compact mass, the Brahmāṇḍa, which rests on the waters, and is surrounded by seven envelopes—water, wind, fire, air, ahaṃkāra, buddhi and pradhāna. In the Brahmāṇḍa, the highest deity which is invested with the guṇa activity, appeared in the form of Brahmā, and created all things. The same deity in the guṇa sattva, preserves, as Viṣṇu, the universe till the end of a Kalpa, when the same god in the awful form of Rudra destroys it. Then is described the raising of the earth from beneath the waters by Nārāyaṇa in the form of a boar, and the creation of earth, sky, heaven and maharloka.

c8.99

⁵⁰ Viṣṇu P., I. 2; cf. with Sāṅkhya Philosophy.

c8.100

⁵¹ Cf. Viṣṇu P., I. 2. 37 ff.

c8.101

Another account follows giving a description of nine creations.⁵² To Brahmā, in the beginning of the Kalpas, whilst he was meditating on creation, there appeared a creation beginning with ignorance and consisting of darkness. From that great being there appeared five-fold ignorance, and subsequently he produced animal creation, ūrdhvasrotas and arvāksrotas. This is known as the first creation or the creation of Brahmā, i.e., the evolution of mahat. From this was evolved ahaṃkāra, and from this the five subtle elements (*tanmātras*)—śabda, sparśa, rūpa, rasa and gandha which became manifest respectively as the five *bhūtas*, ākāśa, vāyu, tejas, ambhas and pṛthvī.⁵³ This was the second stage, the Bhūta Sarga. In the next stage, the five karmendriyas, the five jñānendriyas and the mind proceeded from the intellectual principle (*buddhi*). These three stages were Prākṛta Sarga (creation from Prakṛti). All these principles and elements through the influence of Puruṣa combined and formed an egg, Brahmāṇḍa, wherein, assuming the *rajas guṇa*, he became active. Brahmā next brought into existence this world, which represents the fourth creation; and later through meditation originated fifthly, the animal kingdom, sixthly the gods, seventhly mankind, eighthly the intellectual notions called *anugraha*, and ninthly Sanatkumāra and other semi-divine mind-born sons who remained celibate whence this creation is called Kaumāra. In all these, the three *guṇas* existed in different states of predominance. The first three *sargas*, as already stated, were called Prākṛta, the next five were known as Vaikṛta, and the last one, the ninth, was the Kaumāra.⁵⁴

c8.102

⁵² Viṣṇu P., I. 5.

c8.103

⁵³ According to this notion, the elements add their characteristic to the preceding creation; thus, ākāśa has the property of sound, air has those of touch and sound, and so on. Cf. Viṣṇu P., I. 2. 37-44.

c8.104

⁵⁴ Cf. Viṣṇu P., I. 5. 24-25:

c8.105

In general, it may be stated that the scheme of the primary creation is taken from the Sāṅkhya; but other systems such as the theory of illusion of the Vedānta, the doctrine of pantheism, etc., are also found side by side. Viṣṇu is stated to be not only Puruṣa but Pradhāna also, and in addition, Vyakta

c8.106

पञ्चैते वैकृताः सर्गाः प्राकृतास्तु त्रयः स्मृताः ।
प्राकृतो वैकृतश्चैव कौमारो नवमः स्मृतः ॥
इत्येते वै समाख्याता नवसर्गाः प्रजापतेः ।

c8.107

and Kāla.⁵⁵ The Śaiva Purāṇas call the Supreme Being Śiva, and ascribe all these attributes to him. After the world was fit for living creatures it was peopled by the mānasa sons of Brahmā, by Prajāpatis and their posterity.

c8.108

⁵⁵ Viṣṇu P., I. 2. 18: व्यक्तं विष्णुस्तथाव्यक्तं पुरुषः काल एव च।
56. Viṣṇu P., I. 5, 31 ff.

c8.109

In another account it is stated that Brahmā assumed four different forms in succession and from them were produced the demons, the gods, the forefathers and mankind.56 And afterwards assuming another form he produced from his limbs all other living beings, creatures and vegetation. But those beings did not multiply, and he created from his mind sons⁵⁷ known as Ṛṣis and also deities called Rudras. Saptarṣis among these sons hold a unique and permanent position in cosmogony. The Rudras are generally identified with Śiva. Next, Brahmā created the first Manu Svāyambhuva and a woman Śatarūpā. These two had two sons, Priyavrata and Uttānapāda, and a daughter. Dakṣa married her and had twenty-four daughters, of whom thirteen were married to Dharma and bore love and other personified feelings; ten were married to the other mind-born sons, and Agni and the fore-fathers, and one named Satī became Śiva's consort. But this account is all the more complicated by a further story that Dakṣa was reborn in Uttānapāda's lineage as Dakṣa Prācetasa, and then created movable and immovable things, bipeds and quadrupeds, and also begot sixty daughters of whom ten were married to Dharma, thirteen to Marīci's son Kaśyapa, twenty-seven to the moon, and ten to others.

c8.110

⁵⁷ About the names and number of these mind-born sons the Purāṇas do not agree; their number is variously given as 7, 9, 10 or 11. The Mahābhārata contains the original enumeration of 7; the Vāyu P., of 8; Viṣṇu P., Padma P., Bhāgavata P., Liṅga P., Mārkaṇḍeya P., Brahmāṇḍa, have their number as 9; the Matsya P., Bhāgavata P., have 10; cf. KİRFEL, Das Purāṇa Pañcalakṣaṇa. Intr.

c8.111

Then Kaśyapa by his wives begot the gods, good and evil beings, animals, birds and trees; and thenceforward living creatures were engendered sexually.

c8.112

The preceding extracts from the Viṣṇu and other Purāṇas give some idea of the heterogeneous character of the cosmogonic theory which generally prevailed in the succeeding epochs. Mythological and theosophic notions of the Vedic period have been combined with later notions such as the genealogical legends, the evolutionary theory of Sāṅkhya, and the Kalpa theory, in order to show a harmonized scheme. In effect, however, the scheme leaves the impression of disparate parts, ill-combined or only formally united.

c8.113

Without entering into details as to the relative chronology of different Purāṇas, it may be stated here that the Viṣṇu, Brahma, Brahmāṇḍa, Vāyu, Garuḍa, Padma and Varāha Purāṇas represent the earliest account of cosmogony as their primitive egg-theory, Saptarṣis, etc. remind us of the Brāhmaṇa literature, though some of the texts, no doubt, replace the world-egg theory by the Sāṅkhya theory. Saptarṣis are later changed to nine and then to ten in later Purāṇas. The Mārkaṇḍeya and Kūrma form a transitional stage, and portions of the Matsya contain later traces.⁵⁸

c8.114

⁵⁸ Cf. Kirfel, op. cit., pp. xxviii ff.

c8.115

According to the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, the only god Janārdana takes the designation of Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Śiva, according as he creates, preserves or destroys.⁵⁹ This, as has already been observed, is the invariable doctrine of the Purāṇas, the only difference being in styling the creator in accordance with the sectarian zeal. Thus, e.g., whereas the Vaiṣṇava Purāṇas would credit Viṣṇu with creation, the Śaiva Purāṇas would bring in Śiva for the same effect; the Brahmavaivarta calls in the aid of Kṛṣṇa for the same purpose. On the whole there is a general agreement with regard to cosmogonic accounts in the Purāṇas.

c8.116

⁵⁹ Viṣṇu P., I. 2. 63 ff.

c8.117

The Manusmṛti differs from the Sāṅkhya in that it does not hold a duality of First Principles. The Purāṇas, however, are still different, in which, as may already have been noted by readers, the dualistic principles are united in Brahmā and are not evolutions therefrom but so many aspects of some supreme deity. The world is neither an emanation nor an illusion according to the Purāṇas but is regarded as consubstantial with its first cause.

c8.118

Now to give a very short account about cosmogony in the other Purāṇas: The Brāhma deals with the creation of the world, birth of the primeval man Manu and his descendants, origin of gods, demi-gods and other beings. The Saura Purāṇa, which claims to be a khila (supplement) of the Brāhma Purāṇa, takes up an intermediate position between the orthodox systems regarding cosmogony: on the one hand Śiva is explained as the Atman in accordance with the Vedānta, and on the other hand, the creation from Prakṛti is explained as in the Sāṅkhya. The Padma Purāṇa assumes the highest Brahman in the form of the personal god Brahmā as the first cause. The Purāṇa, however, is Vaiṣṇava in character and the chapters dealing with cosmogony mostly follow the Viṣṇu Purāṇa. In the Prakriyā Pāda of the Vāyu Purāṇa the elemental creation and the first evolutions of beings are described to the same purport as the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, but in a more obscure and unmethodical style. The cosmogonic myths of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa agree on the whole with those of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, but in some interesting details are different from it. The cosmogony of the Bhāgavata is more largely intermixed with allegory and mysticism, and derives its tone more from the Vedānta than the Sāṅkhya philosophy. The doctrine of active creation by the Supreme as one with Vāsudeva is more distinctly asserted with a more decided enunciation of the effects being resolved into Māyā or illusion. In the *Bṛhannāradīya Purāṇa* the creation of the world is not touched upon. The *Bhaviṣyat Purāṇa* treats of creation; but it is a transcript of the words of the first chapter of the *Manusmṛti*. To turn to the *Brahmavaivarta Purāṇa*, we find that it describes the creation as by Brahman, the First Being who is none other than the god Kṛṣṇa. In the account as given by the *Liṅga Purāṇa*, Śiva occupies the position which is otherwise ascribed to Viṣṇu, and is described as being praised by Viṣṇu and Brahmā. The *Kūrma Purāṇa* gives the account of creation, of the *avatāras* of Viṣṇu, etc., in a summary manner, but mostly in the words employed in the *Viṣṇu Purāṇa*. The *Varāha*, *Vāmana*, *Garuḍa* and other Purāṇas merely refer in brief to creation generally on the lines of the other Purāṇas.

c8.119

Cosmogony in the Purāṇas in the form in which they have come down to us is on the whole a later development of the systems as presented in the *Mahābhārata* and the *Manusmṛti*, which in their turn draw much upon the previous thinkers. Here too the evolutionary theory of Sāṅkhya has been so modified as to agree with the Vedānta doctrine about the oneness of Brahman by assuming that Puruṣa and Prakṛti are but two forms of the Supreme Deity who is identified with one of the popular gods according to the particular sectarian type of the work.⁶⁰

c8.120

⁶⁰ I have acknowledged my indebtedness and given references in footnotes at proper places. I may, however, record here my indebtedness in general to the articles by Pargiter and Jacobi in the *Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics*, the translation of the *Viṣṇu Purāṇa* by Wilson, *History of Indian Literature* (Eng. Tr.) by Winternitz, and *Histories of Indian Philosophy* by Das Gupta, Hiriyanna, and Radhakrishnan.

Linked texts (37)