History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c90.170
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c90.170
- Language
- English
v7.c90.170.1
Prof Hazra deals with the Narasiṃha-purāṇa on pp 219–266 of his ‘Studies’ vol I The only printed edition is that published in 1911 by Gopal Narayan and Co. (Bombay) in 68 chapters based on three mss about which no information is given. This Purāṇa appears to have been composed solely for the glorification of Narasiṃha identified with Nārāyaṇa. Prof Hazra has used several mss., two, the oldest, being dated in saka 1567 (i e 1645 A. D ), some of the others are not dated and a few are dated so late as 1798 A. D. and 1810 A D; and some are written in Bengali script On p 322 Prof. Hazra says about one ms. in Eggeling’s cat of India Office mss that it was copied about 1500–1600 A D and its last five folios were supplied in 1789 A D. No reasons are given why this ms. should be regarded as being copied between 1500–1600. This is probably a guess, so all the mss consulted are not earlier than the 17th and following centuries Most mss. do not agree with the printed edition in the number of chapters and also lack certain chapters of the printed edition. Prof. Hazra holds (p. 242) on various grounds, all of which cannot be examined here, that the ‘present Narasimhapurāṇa is to be placed between 400-500 A D.’ One or two of his characteristic arguments will be noticed here In chap 36. 9 (kalau prāpte yathā Buddho bhaven-Nārāyaṇah prabhuḥ) Buddha is mentioned;
v7.c90.170.2
Mārkaṇḍeya promises in chap 36 to narrate stories about eleven avatāras (among whom Balarāma, Kṛṣṇa and Buddha are included) and in chapters 37–54, the stories of all avatāras except Buddha are given and it is added¹⁴¹² in chap. 54 that ‘I have spoken of the ten incarnations of Viṣṇu. The devotee of Nṛsiṁha who always listens to these attains Viṣṇu’. It may be noted that Balabhadra is mentioned in a half verse (36. 8) which is found only in ms. ‘ga’ of the three mss. of the printed edition. In chap. 53 a few exploits of Balarāma and Kṛṣṇa are narrated in the same chapter and so the half line was inserted later. As the story of Buddha is not given Prof Hazra holds that the verse in 36 9 is undoubtedly spurious (pp 230 and 249). It never occurred to Prof Hazra that the sectarian zeal of a bigoted Vaiṣṇava might have never cared to give the life of Buddha who was not concerned with (but was antagonistic to) the varṇa system and the Vedas or might have omitted the story of the life of Buddha even if it occurred in the ms from which he copied The present author thinks that 36.9 is a genuine verse and enumerates Buddha as an avatāra following the universal belief held in India at least from the 9th or 10th century A. D. that Buddha was an avatāra, but probably bigotry led to the omission of the details of Buddha’s life. Besides, the verse is capable of another interpretation. It is only the stories of ten avatāras (excluding Buddha) that lead a devotee to Viṣṇu.
v7.c90.170.3
A devotee may worship any one of Nṛsiṁha, Rāma or Kṛṣṇa, and reach Viṣṇu, but hardly any orthodox work has ever stated that worship of Buddha alone (an avatāra) will lead to attainment of Viṣṇu. Therefore, it is proper to hold that the story of Buddha’s life might not have been given at all or was purposely omitted. On. p. 239 Prof. Hazra puts forward a peculiar argument. According to the Narasimha-purāṇa chap. 53 31, says Prof. Hazra, Kṛṣṇa embodies only a part of Viṣṇu’s śakti¹⁴¹³ and therefore ‘the Narasimha is to be dated earlier than the present Bhāgavata in which Kṛṣṇa is called *bhagavān* himself (Bhāgavata I. 3 28). As the present Bhāgavata is to be dated in the 6th century A. D the Narasimha is to be placed not later than 500 A. D.' Great controversies have raged over the date of the Bhāgavata. The present author holds that the Bhāgavata-purāṇa does not belong to the 6th century A. D. It will be shown below that while Rāmānuja quotes more than a hundred verses from the Viṣṇupurāṇa, which he regarded as one of supreme authority over other Purāṇas (in Vedārthasaṅgraha pp. 141-142 of D C. edition) he does not quote the Bhāgavata at all in his bhāṣya on the Vedāntasūtra. A bigoted devotee of Narasiṃha may say that Narasiṃha avatāra is the perfect avatāra of Viṣṇu, while Kṛṣṇa is only a partial one. But surely that cannot determine the dates of the respective purāṇas. What bigoted devotees are capable of saying may be seen from Brahmāṇḍa III 36.
v7.c90.170.4
18-20 quoted later in this section, where it is asserted that the reward of repeating thrice the thousand names of Viṣṇu is yielded by repeating one name of Kṛṣṇa once. The strongest argument against the authenticity and early date of the present Narasimhapurāṇa has not been properly and adequately emphasized or appreciated by Prof. Hazra The Matsya (53. 60-63) gives meagre details about the four Upapurāṇas expressly named by it, but about the Narasiṃha it makes one definite statement that it contained 18000 verses (53 60) The present Narasiṃha contains only about 3400 verses¹⁴¹⁴ Therefore, the old Narasiṃhapurāṇa exists no more and in its place a new one has been substituted, probably containing some of the topics and chapters contained in the old one. We do not know the extent of the Narasimha mentioned by Alberuni For ought we know he might have referred to the old extensive purāṇa or the new stripling substituted in its place. Even some of the mss copied in comparatively recent times drop several chapters of the printed purāṇa; on p. 249 Prof Hazra holds that chapters 34 verses 43-55, and chapters 61, 65 (on 68 holy places for Vaisnavas), 66, 67 are genuine parts, though dropped in some mss. Prof. Hazra’s judgments on various matters are most liable to be challenged; but considerations of space prevent any detailed treatment. On p. 252 he holds that in chap.
v7.c90.170.5
6 the story of the birth of Vasiṣṭha and Agastya as the sons of Mitra and Varuṇa, the story of Yama and Yamī are comparatively late additions. The story of the birth of Vasiṣṭha from Urvaśī and Mitra and Varuṇa is alluded to even in the Ṛgveda (VII 33. 11) and in the previous verse (10) of the same hymn Vasiṣṭha, Agastya and Mitrāvaruṇau are brought together. The story of Yama and Yamī occurs in Ṛg. X. 10. The Narasiṁha itself states (in chap. 14 1) that the story of Yama and Yamī is Vaidikī. The Purāṇa may have added some fringes and embellishments, but the main theme is the same in both. On p. 254-255 and note 330 Prof. Hazra was constrained to admit that the Narasiṁhapurāṇa had been revised more than once, remarks that Hemādri had a more extensive purāṇa before him than the printed one and that a comparison of the verses quoted from the Narasiṁhapurāṇa by the Madanapārijāta pp. 301-302, Smṛtītattva on āhnika (vol. I. p. 411) and Nityācārapradīpa (vol. I p. 617) show that the text of the Narasiṁha used by Raghunandana and Narasiṁha-vājapeyin agrees more with the printed text than the text used by Madanapāla (about 1375 A. D.), less than 200 years before Raghunandana.