Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Purana Index v1: Volume 1

The Purāṇa Index v1

Language
English

Contents

Volume 1

Front matter

v1.c1.1

Students can retain library books only for two weeks at the most.

v1.c1.2

| BORROWER S No | DUE DATE | SIGNATURE |
| | | |
| | | |

The Purana Index, Volume I

v1.c2.2

(From A to N)

v1.c2.3

BY

v1.c2.4

V. R. RAMACHANDRA DIKSHITAR Professor of Indian History and Archaeology University of Madras

v1.c2.6

UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS

Introduction

v1.c3.1

Some years back I delivered a lecture under the auspices of the University of Madras on the Purāṇas and it has been published in the *Indian Historical Quarterly*, Vol. VIII, No. 4. Ever since I have been pursuing the study of the subject and the result has been a feeling that a comprehensive index of the Purāṇas is a desideratum. We have an index of Vedic literature by Prof. Macdonell and A. B. Keith; we have also the index to the Mahābhārata by Dr. Sorenson. I felt that the most important branch of Indian literature, viz., the Purāṇas should similarly have an index for all the eighteen major Mahāpurāṇas. But due to want of time I have confined myself to five of them, viz., the Vāyu, the Brahmāṇḍa, the Viṣṇu, the Matsya and the Bhāgavata. Though the other Purāṇas are of equal historical importance and cultural value, I have selected these five because they are in my opinion the most ancient compositions among the eighteen Purāṇas. Their antiquity will be examined in the following pages in the section on the date of the Purāṇas.

v1.c3.2

As early as the thirties of the last century Mr. H. H. Wilson did some pioneer work in Purāṇa literature. From the Purāṇas available to him in print and manuscript he came to the hasty conclusion that they are a special kind of literature ‘compiled for the evident purpose of promoting the preferential or in some cases the sole worship of Viṣṇu or Śiva’. He was also of the view that Purāṇas as a class of literature must have come into existence not later than the 10th century A.D. and not earlier than the 7th and 8th centuries of the Christian era, when Śaivism and Vaiṣṇavism had become firmly established in the land. In other words, Wilson took the view that the Purāṇas were sectarian in character. The erroneous position which Wilson took in regard to the Purāṇa literature did not go unrefuted by his own contemporaries. In this connection the name of Colonel Vans Kennedy may be prominently mentioned. He protested against the views of Wilson in the form of letters to the London Asiatic Journal, (1840-41) and these have been reprinted by the late Editor of Wilson's Vishnu Purāṇa as an appendix to that Purāṇa. He put up an eloquent defence to the effect that the Purāṇas as a whole were as much a sacred work of the Hindus as the Vedic literature, and that Wilson misunderstood the preferential worship inculcated in this branch of literature as the exclusive worship of a particular deity and the votaries to be sectaries of either Viṣṇu or Śiva He strongly upheld that the Purāṇas must be deemed as a class of ancient literature and that there was no proof satisfactory enough to show that the Purāṇas were late compositions We have next a set of scholars who took an abiding interest in the study of the Purāṇas and these were E. Bournouf who has translated and edited the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Colonel Wilfred, and the compilers of catalogues of manuscripts like Thomas Aufrecht and Julius Eggeling.

v1.c3.3

A considerable time elapsed when F E. Pargiter by his learned publications Ancient Historical Tradition and Dynasties of the Kali Age showed to the world what amount of historical material and genuine historical tradition can be gathered from this mass of literature which goes by the name Purāṇas. His was a real attempt to obtain definite results to reconstruct the dynasties of the Kali age. He also endeavoured to study the chronology and genealogy of well-known Indian sages, seers and kings in pre-historic India. These two works of his evoked a revival of interest in a closer study of Purāṇic literature by Orientalists. Thus we have from Prof. Winternitz a sound and scholarly chapter on the Purāṇas in his History of Indian Literature No less learned is Prof. E. J Rapson's contribution on Purāṇas to the first volume of the Cambridge History of India. We must also mention Willibald Kirfel, a German Orientalist who has written the Purāṇa Pañchalakṣaṇa; it is another successful attempt to prove that the five topics dealt with in a Purāṇa are not born of fictitious imagination but a representation of the evolution of the universe treated earlier in Vedic literature. In this volume (Das Purana Pañcalakshana, 1927) all relevant common passages are collected together.

v1.c3.4

Among the early Indologists it was Lassen who critically examined the application of the epithet Pañchalakṣaṇa to the extant Purāṇas (Indische Alterthumskunde, Vol. I, p. 499). No doubt the five topics of a Purāṇa are not to be found in all the Purāṇas; but that they deal with these topics in one way or other is a fact beyond dispute. Ancient lexicographers like Amarasimha attribute the five characteristics to a Purāṇa treatise. These five characteristics are: (1) Sarga or primary creation, (2) Pratisarga, secondary creation, (3) Vamśa or genealogy of gods and patriarchs, (4) Manvantara or epocs of Manu, (5) Vamśānucharita, or history of kings of solar and lunar races and their descendants. A close study of Purāṇa literature shows that the Purāṇas as a whole deal with the evolution of the Universe, recreation of the Universe from the constituent elements, genealogies of gods and seers, groups of great ages included in aeons (Kalpa) and the history of royal families of the Kali age.

v1.c3.5

Recently, Indian scholars in the different Universities have been taking a keen interest in Purāṇic literature and reconstructing the history of ancient India and the chronology of its kings with Purāṇic data. In fact the Purāṇas have now come to stay as one of the principal sources of information for ancient Indian history. The growing interest in the study of Purāṇic literature points to the need for a critical edition of all the eighteen Mahāpurāṇas which should form the basis for an authoritative index of all the Purāṇas.

The Term Purana and Its Origin

v1.c3.s1.1

The etymology of the term Purāṇa is furnished by the Vāyu Purāṇa, (verse 203, Chap I) which runs thus:

v1.c3.s1.2

Yasmāt purā hi anati idam purāṇam

v1.c3.s1.3

I.e. that which lives from very remote times. In other words it means some very ancient account or very old narrative. It also shows that the term was in use long before the Purāṇas were reduced to writing. This may be read with another stanza in the Vāyu Purāṇa itself which runs as follows:—

v1.c3.s1.4

Prathamam sarvaśāstrāṇām purāṇam brahmaṇā smṛtam |
Anantaram cha vaktrebhyo vedāstasya vinisṛtāḥ ||
(Vāyu I. 60)

v1.c3.s1.5

As if to confirm this statement, in the Matsya Purāṇa it is also said that it was Brahmā who first remembered the Purāṇa and then revealed the Vedas. This means that originally there was only one Purāṇa, and according to one authority it consisted of a hundred crore of verses. The stanza in the Vāyu Purāṇa together with that in the Matsya Purāṇa gives then the clue that even long before the age of the Vedas, the Purāṇa was thought of and was in existence. This is borne out by the fact that the Vedic literature, as we understand to-day, contains mythological and mythical lore, which must have been traditionally remembered, and when the Vedas were reduced to writing, these floating legends were referred to here and there. Thus there is the justification for the statement of the Matsya and Vāyu Purāṇas that Brahmā thought of the Purāṇa before he thought of the Vedas. This need not mean and certainly did not mean that the Purāṇa as an independent literature grew up before the Vedic composition. It undoubtedly means that mythological and legendary lore existed from remote times and was handed down to posterity without interruption. If we can rightly understand these significant statements made by two ancient Purāṇas, we have to infer that the Purāṇa or old tales existed, but not Purāṇa literature as such.

v1.c3.s1.6

There is also another account as to the origin of the Purāṇas as told by the Viṣṇu Purāṇa. In fact we have to look for their origins in the Vedic literature itself. The myths and legends to which allusion is made therein as well as the particular forms of prayer and worship inculcated, afforded ample material for the later compiler of the Purāṇa especially the sarga and pratisarga portions. These portions are intimately connected with the origin of the world. It is not difficult to believe that cosmogonic hymns of the Ṛg Veda Saṃhitā afforded a convenient material to build up a literary superstructure. There is therefore much justification for the remark of Prof. Macdonell that " those ' cosmogonic ' hymns of the Ṛg Veda were not only the precursors of Indian Philosophy but also of the Purāṇas " (History of Indian Literature, p. 138).

v1.c3.s1.7

Not only the sarga and pratisarga portions of the Purāṇas are indebted to the Vedic literature but also the numerous ancient legends which are scattered in the Brāhmaṇas (also included as a branch in the Vedic literature). The Brāhmaṇas mainly deal with the sacrifices and different rites and ceremonies and also contain special spells and prayers. In these particular forms of worship and prayer which are associated with the legends of yore, we are led to think that the foundations of the later Purāṇa literature were laid. According to Weber (History of Indian Literature, 1914. p. 24) the miscellaneous topics and subjects in the Purāṇas had their sources in these Vedic legends which were elaborated in content and character. Thus arose a distinct class of literature which goes by the name of Purāṇas by the commencement of the epoch of the Upanishads.

v1.c3.s1.8

Though we have been dealing with the Vedic origin of the Purāṇa there are informing stanzas in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa which deal with their origin and evolution. According to this testimony, Vyāsa, the sage, originally compiled what is known as the Purāṇa Samhitā and taught it to his disciple Lomaharṣaṇa. He was the Sūta or the professional chronicler. Because he was a Sūta we must not misunderstand that he held an inferior position Lomaharṣaṇa was, on the other hand, a great sage. He had under him six disciples. These were Agnivarcha, Maitreya, Sāṁśapāyana, Kāśyapa and Sāvarṇi. To them he imparted the Purāṇa Samhitā as he heard it from his guru Vyāsa. He and his disciples were then the famous chroniclers of ancient India and their versions were respectfully heard in different learned assemblies, specially called for on the occasion of the performance of great yajñas by the reigning monarch of the realm.

v1.c3.s1.9

In the Agni Purāṇa (Ch. II, 70, vv. 10-13) the same version is told but with a slight variation. This Purāṇa makes Vyāsa imparting the Purāṇa Samhitā to his own six disciples. If we compare the names given here with the names mentioned in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (Bk. III, ch. 6, vv. 17-19) four names are common. The names given in the Brahmāṇḍa and Vāyu Purāṇas as the disciples of Lomaharṣaṇa, also spelt Romaharṣaṇa, though slightly different, are common. Among these sages the names of Kāśyapa, Sāvarṇi and Sāṁśapāyana are mentioned as the authors of an independent Purāṇa Samhitā and these three together with Romaharṣaṇa composed what is known as the Mūla Samhitā (sometimes Pūrva Samhitā) of the Purāṇa literature. This would demonstrate that this was the first Samhitā or the original Samhitā from which the later Purāṇas developed, adding more information to what already existed. Among these again priority is given to Lomaharṣaṇa Samhitā; then came Kāśyapa's, then Sāvarṇi's and lastly, Sāṁśapāyana's Unfortunately these Purāṇas have been lost to us; but it is said that they contained four pādas or divisions which were named prakriya, anushanga, upodghāta and upasamhāra. But these chatushpādas are preserved to us in the existing versions of the Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa.

v1.c3.s1.10

The Purāṇa writers who had an insight into these original versions spread far and wide the traditions contained in the Purāṇas. Though they did not merely repeat verbatim what they heard from their master, they did not tamper with the accounts narrated to them. They added something more here and there and thus enlarged the scope and contents of the Purāṇas. The expressions like anuśusruma, smṛtaḥ, iti naḥ śrutam or iti śrutam are enough to point out that they carried on the tradition of the land faithfully. In some of the later Purāṇas also, the terms like Purāvit, Purāṇajña, Paurāṇika Jana, Vamśavit show the author's intimate acquaintance with the extant Purāṇas and their indebtedness to them.

v1.c3.s1.11

This indirectly shows that ancient India was not devoid of historians and historical literature. Vamśavit and Vamśavittama are epithets which can be translated generally as ‘historians of the ordinary type’ and ‘historians of authority’. Even among them were a few specialists as is evidenced by the expression, Somavamśavit, an authority on the history of the lunar race. Those who went about preaching and teaching the Purāṇas not only on the occasion of sacrifices but also in other places were known as Sūtas. The term Sūta has three distinct meanings (1) a great rishi and ayonija, (2) a charioteer, (3) a citizen of the Anūpa country. This Anūpa country is said to be on the east of Magadha. In addition to this there was in later times the Sūta of the mixed caste (pratiloma), i.e., a person born of a Kshatriya father and Brahmaṇa mother, was a Sūta by caste. This occurs both in the Mānava Dharma Śāstra and the Mahābhārata.

v1.c3.s1.12

Mr. F. E. Pargiter who has made a special study of the Purāṇas has been confused with this term Sūta as an ordinary human being belonging to a pratiloma caste, being the narrator of the Purāṇas. Pargiter is undoubtedly wrong in his thesis. The mythical Sūta sprang out of the sacrificial fire of the first king of the earth, Pṛthu. He was therefore a venerable sage and ayoni-ja. He first chronicled the story of Pṛthu. The Sūtas who were the narrators of the Purāṇas and chroniclers of the kings, belonged to this family of the sage and were sages themselves. Thus it can be asserted without any fear of contradiction that the Purāṇas were narrated in different places by the sages who were known as Sūtas, being themselves versed in Vedic literature.

v1.c3.s1.13

Based on this untenable theory Pargiter had built up another theory styling these Purāṇas as belonging to a distinct Kshatriya tradition. On this western scholars began to speak of the Kshatriya literature, a Parivrājaka literature as distinct from Brahmanic literature. Surely these are imaginary theories, which have no legs to stand on. According to the Hindu tradition the Purāṇas are the fifth Veda, and those who follow it are followers of the Vedic school. Even in the Vedic literature there are Kshatriya sages and families to whom hymns are addressed. Taking the Ṛgveda, for example, nine families are mentioned of which the three, viz., Vaivasvata, Aila, and Cākṣuṣa are Kshatriyas. There are again hymns in the Veda whose authorship is assigned to Vivasvān, Manu, Purūravas, Yayāti, Māndhātṛ, Viśvāmitra, etc., names which are ever the pride of not only the Kshatriya community but of all communities. From these several references is it proper to term this portion of Vedic literature as Kshatriya literature? So there is no justification either taking the Sūta to be an ordinary man, or the classification of Sanskrit literature as Brahmanical or Kshatriya.

v1.c3.s1.14

From this digression we shall revert to the topic under discussion. By the time of the Atharvaveda Samhitā (v. 19.9; 11.7.24), the Purāṇas had assumed some independent form and their compositions were generally familiar with the literary people of the land, though not with the masses. It took some more time before they were familiarised among the masses, and the latter took any interest in them. A reference in the Atharvaveda Samhitā from the verse addressed to the sage Nārada is evidently taken from some Purāṇa. But we cannot determine the name of the Purāṇa which was given to Nārada. But we can confidently assert that some Purāṇas were in existence.

v1.c3.s1.15

The same inference can be drawn from the use of the term in the Upanishads. That a definite work is meant is seen from the seventh book of the Chāndogya Upanishad where Nārada explicitly says that he had mastered the Itihāsa and Purāṇa (VII.1.2 and 4). When we come to the epoch of Sūtra literature we find reference to the contents of the Purāṇas profusely quoted. The Āpastamba Dharma Sūtra for example, definitely mentions that the quotation was taken from the Bhavishyat Purāṇa. The Purāṇas are again mentioned by name in the Mahābhārata (I.5.55 ff.) both in their special and general sense. In a later book of the epic (Bk. XVIII) there is a definite mention of the Purāṇic literature as a class, and the names of eighteen Purāṇas as handed down by tradition.

v1.c3.s1.16

Further among the particular class of literature prescribed for a prince as an important branch of study, Kauṭalya, who belongs to the fourth century B.C., mentions the Purāṇa in his epoch-making book, the Arthaśāstra. If we go further and examine literature by Amarasimha, one of the ancient lexicographers, he mentions Purāṇas and gives pañchalakṣaṇa as the attributes to a Purāṇa treatise. Thus it is evident that the Purāṇas have become popular even in times before Amarasimha. It was honestly felt that it will take more than a life time to study the Vedic literature and as a result this Vedic literature was the monopoly of the few. But the masses hankered after some religious literature which would give them the old legends and tales and which would give them mental peace So the Itihāsa-Purāṇa literature became popular with the masses. As they contained many interesting and valuable information, arrangements were made to expound them for the benefit of the public in the common hall of the village or town. It formed a useful course of general and adult education for which we are crying to-day.

v1.c3.s1.17

It would appear that even men of letters went to hear the expositions of these Purāṇas. An instance in point is as furnished by the Harṣacharita, that Bāṇa himself went to hear the Vāyu Purāṇa in his village. In general the Purāṇas contain many forms of worship and prayer, superstitions, a crude knowledge of geography and history, legendary descriptions of places of pilgrimage and rituals, some knowledge of astronomy and astrology, different schools of philosophy, easy methods of attaining salvation and others. These and other topics of a common place interest would cater largely to the taste of the common person. In this way the Purāṇic literature contributed largely to general culture.

v1.c3.s1.18

Tradition has unanimously accepted the existence of eighteen Mahāpurāṇas and eighteen Upapurāṇas. The Upapurāṇas are very late productions and are much more of a sectarian character while they are of purely local interest. Their value to the student of history and even religion, is very little and therefore we may dismiss them for the time being. Confining them to the Mahāpurāṇas, one classification is according to the preferential worship of deities like Śiva, Viṣṇu, Devī. From the nature of the subjects dealt with, it is wrong to assume that the ancient Purāṇa literature was divided into few water-tight compartments like the Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava. On this unfounded assumption, these works of value are looked upon as sectarian in character and extent. Whatever classification any Purāṇa may come under, the fact is that every Purāṇa speaks of almost of all deities. For example, in the so-called Śaiva Purāṇa, we come across legends of Viṣṇu, Brahmā and other gods together with their heroic exploits. This can be seen from the Vāyu Purāṇa itself. In the same way, in the so-called Vaiṣṇava Purāṇa, the legends of Śiva and other deities largely figure. Some Purāṇas extol the legendary exploits of a particular deity, and thus seem to inculcate preferential worship to that deity. From this we cannot rush to the conclusion that that Purāṇa is exclusively Śaiva or Vaiṣṇava. Though a particular deity is extolled, it cannot be said that the other deities were ignored or condemned. One interesting point about these Purāṇas is that every Purāṇa specifies the number eighteen together with their names. If it is really sectarian, it will not make mention of other sectarian Purāṇas.

v1.c3.s1.19

It is difficult to ascertain the time and the occasion when these eighteen Purāṇas were moulded into their present shape. It does not stand to reason that all the Purāṇas were composed at one and same time and afforded the occasion to the compiler of each Purāṇa to mention the names of the eighteen. The eighteen versions seem to have been the result of their version in different parts of the land. We would be lacking in historical sense, if we say, that all these Purāṇas were confined to a certain locality like the Naimiśāraṇya. At the most the then busy centres of religious activity were perhaps the locale of the Purāṇa compilations. The chief places of pilgrimage were often thronged by a large number of people from all parts of India, and were the best venue for the propogation of this literature. From the detailed glorification of certain places, we may venture to conjecture that the particular version of the Purāṇa sprang up in that centre. A Purāṇa that deals with the Gayā māhātmya in extenso may be reasonably taken to have been compiled in the city of Gayā or its environs. In that way we must look for the compilation of this or that version of a particular Purāṇa in one locality or other.

The Age of the Puranas

v1.c3.s2.1

No question is more intriguing and more difficult of solution than the determination of the age of the Purāṇas. It has been admitted on all hands that there are eighteen Mahāpurāṇas and these are mentioned in the epic Mahābhārata, by hearing which, it is said, that one gets the same spiritual glory as he would get otherwise. This may mislead a superficial reader that the Purāṇas were generally compositions preceding the Mahābhārata. But if we examine the contents of the Purāṇas we are driven to the conclusion that several Purāṇas are to be placed after the composition of the Mahābhārata It may be that some of the Purāṇas were prior to the epic. But in dealing with the royal dynasties the Purāṇa or Purāṇas added to the already existing material. Hence, the composition of the Purāṇas is to be spread over a long time covering several centuries from the epoch of the Brāhmaṇas and the Upaniṣads to the age of the Guptas and after. Further a close study of the Purāṇas shows that some were composed in the period prior to Mahāvīra and Gautama Buddha, while most of them came into existence in the epoch following them.

v1.c3.s2.2

From the terms occurring in the older Purāṇas arhata, budhyate, budhāya it has been pointed out by some writers that these terms refer to the Jaina and the Bauddha and must therefore be later in composition. But the fact is that nothing of the kind is mentioned and from the circumstances in which these terms occur, one has to understand them in their literal sense, viz., ‘one who is honoured’, ‘one possessing wisdom’. These are epithets which are addressed to Śiva as one of his names and they have nothing to do whatsoever with Jainism or Buddhism. In the Viṣṇu Purāṇa it is said that in the dispute between the Gods and Asuras, Viṣṇu created Māyāmoha whose followers were designated as arhats. The scene of this occurrence is laid on the banks of the Narmada away from the birth-place of these so-called heretical sects which was in the Magadha kingdom. In propounding a theory we must take into account the circumstances in which an incident took place and also the place of its occurrence.

v1.c3.s2.3

The Purāṇas then constitute a work of various periods in succession. For example, one and the same Purāṇa may have spread over a long period of some centuries. The kernel of the Purāṇa may have been born in the earlier times, and its contents could be amplified in the course of the following centuries. Thus we have the Purāṇas belonging to the epoch of the Upanishads, to the Sūtra treatises, to the epics, and to the post-epic periods. Therefore every Purāṇa must be judged by its contents, by its external and internal evidence, and its chronology fixed accordingly. We shall not attempt here at an examination of the date of all the Mahāpurāṇas but we shall confine ourselves to the five Purāṇas indexed in these volumes.

The Vayu Purana

v1.c3.s3.1

We know it as a matter of fact that every Purāṇa furnishes us with a list of the eighteen Mahāpurāṇas. But all such lists are not identical; they vary slightly from one another. The Vāyu Purāṇa, for example, is omitted in the lists of the Padma Purāṇa, the Vishṇu Purāṇa, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa. The lists in the other Purāṇas do not fail to include the Vāyu Purāṇa as a Mahāpurāṇa. Sometimes the Vāyu Purāṇa is identified with Śiva Purāṇa and sometimes with Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa. As many as six Purāṇas have the name of Śivapurāṇa in their lists. But a close examination of the contents of these two Purāṇas shows that Vāyu and Śiva are not identical.

v1.c3.s3.2

The apparent confusion may be due to the Vāyavīya Saṃhitā tacked on to the end of the extant Śivapurāṇa. But again there is no similarity between the Vāyavīya Saṃhitā and the Vāyu Purāṇa. It is reasonable to assume therefore that the Vāyu Purāṇa is an independent Purāṇa and has nothing common whatsoever with the Śiva Purāṇa or its section.

v1.c3.s3.3

We have already examined the contents and the date of composition of this Purāṇa in a separate booklet entitled Some Aspects of the Vāyu Purāṇa published by the University of Madras, (in 1933) We shall for our present purpose touch upon the problem of its date.

v1.c3.s3.4

As we shall show presently, some portions of the Purāṇa can go back to the fifth century B.C. and earlier, while other portions must have been added or revised at the end of the third or fourth centuries of the Christian era. We are told in the Harṣacarita that Bāṇa attended the exposition of the Vāyu Purāṇa in his village. Bāṇa could not have lived later than 625 A.D and therefore the Purāṇa was very much earlier The epic Mahābhārata and its supplement Harivaṃśa definitely make mention of the Vāyu Purāṇa (III, 194, 15), and therefore it is reasonable to take that this Purāṇa is much anterior to the didactic epic. In its recommendation of particular modes of dancing accompanied by music to the ascetics as a means of attaining salvation, the Purāṇa is on a par with the Yājñavalkya Smṛti where similar descriptions are found (III, 1, 13) According to the late Ganapati Sastri, the Law-book of Yājñavalkya is much earlier than the Kauṭalya, for which the generally accepted date is the 4th century B.C.

v1.c3.s3.5

In the same way the Purāṇa nowhere makes mention of religious sects like Buddhism and Jainism which came to stay in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. The Purāṇa is further an ardent advocate of the ancient Yoga theory. In as much as its injunctions regarding the practice of Yoga can be traced to Chalcolithic period of Indian history, as evidenced by the statues of the proto-historic and pre-historic Indus valley sculptures, we can say that it is the oldest of the Purāṇas, though we cannot say that it is as ancient as the Indus valley culture.

v1.c3.s3.6

A study of the religion and philosophy of the Purāṇa shows that the Purāṇa is a typical representative of the transformation of the old Yoga school incorporating into it the salient features of both Yoga and Sānkhya. This metamorphosis took place perhaps in the period of the Upanishads, and therefore may be dated roughly in the fifth century B.C. It is interesting to know that the Purāṇa prescribes feeding of Yogis and ascetics for the Śrāddha, a practice which has long fallen into disuse. The fact that the Purāṇa harps on this is itself an eloquent testimony to its antiquity. It may be noted in passing that this Purāṇa does not preach exclusive worship of a particular deity.

v1.c3.s3.7

We can add to these the artificial style of the Purāṇa which recalls the language of the plays of the famous dramatist, Bhāsa. The late Ganapti Sastri has assigned on substantial grounds that these plays belonged to the sixth century B.C. The common features of the plays and the Purāṇa is the use of a large number of archaic (arsha) words and a large number of grammatical irregularities which suggest a period when the canons of grammatical treatise were still in the making. The references to Vyākaraṇa, Bhāshya and Dharmaśāstra in a single line does not help us much in our enquiry. Again there is no reference in this Purāṇa to the Tantric system of worship, which consists of Devī conceived as Śakti, though we do not dispute the fact that Śaktism as a form of religion was already in existence. But it is almost certain that this form of worship was not quite popular during the age of the Vāyu Purāṇa.

v1.c3.s3.8

According to its own version in the later chapters dealing with royal dynasties, the scene of the Purāṇa is laid in the reign of the Paurava king Adhisīmakṛṣṇa, who is said to have lived before the commencement of the Kali age. But his contemporaries were Senājit of Magadha and Divākara of the Ikshvāku dynasty. According to Prof. Rapson the genealogy assigned indicates a more definite date; for ‘of his immediate forbears, Aśvamedhatta, Śatānīka, Janamejaya, Parīkshit, all but the first, his father Aśvamedhatta, are no doubt to be identified with kings of the same names who appear in the Brāhmaṇas’. Therefore we have to look for a date prior to 1110 B C for Adhisimakrishna. From this we cannot imagine that the Purana was composed as early as 1110 B C It may be that a particular teacher narrated the ancient Purana when Adhisimakrishna was ruling. The same version was more or less continued orally when it was reduced to writing perhaps in the 5th century B C. But there are portions in dealing with dynasties of the Kali age, where reference is made to the reign of Chandragupta I of the Gupta dynasty and also to the Huns who invaded India some time after. And this portion according to us was added to the verse already existing.

v1.c3.s3.9

According to astronomical data furnished by this Purana it may be placed at a period between B C. 204 and A.D 44. In as much as almost verbatim quotations from the Upanishads are made in this Purana, we would not be far wrong in assigning this Purana to the epoch of the early Upanishads From the 5th century B C the Purana was enlarged, and this went on growing till 500 A.D. We therefore conclude that most of the portions were reduced in writing about the 4th and 5th centuries before Christ and the other portions were added now and then until it reached its present form somewhere between 350 B C. and 500 A.D.

The Brahmanda Purana

v1.c3.s4.1

Already the suggestion has been made that the Vayu Purana is sometimes identified with the Brahmanda Purana. There is still a further suggestion that the Vayu Purana and the Brahmanda Purana were originally one Purana and later on became separate into two Puranas. No doubt passages there are common to both the Puranas. It is reasonable to conjecture therefore that one is indebted to the other by borrowing many a passage from several sections. But tradition persists and includes Brahmanda Purana as a Mahapurana in the lists of all the eighteen Puranas. It is only the Vayu Purana that is omitted in some but this is not the case with Brahmanda. It may be that the Vayu Purana was composed later than the Brahmanda and vice versa.

v1.c3.s4.2

But the Brahmāṇḍa has been reckoned as also the Vāyu as the oldest Purāṇas now available. Perhaps the Brahmāṇḍa was a contemporary of the Vāyu Purāṇa.

v1.c3.s4.3

The Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa contains almost the same accounts as given in the Vāyu Purāṇa. It is divided into four books and furnishes the impression that it is one of the oldest Purāṇas. But what interests us is the Lalitopakhyānam portion of the Purāṇa which forms the fourth book and consists of more then forty chapters. At this time the popular practices and beliefs about the Śakti cult were crude and strictly local. In introducing the Lalitopakhyāna portion in the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa, the compiler of the Purāṇa must have felt that what may be regarded as the most debased side of Hinduism must be put an end to, and literature dealing with Her immanence was a crying necessity. The term Lalitā means lovely, elegant, or charming.*

v1.c3.s4.4

The Devī worship in India can be traced to remote antiquity, and in Vedic literature the Devī who is named Umā is no other than Brahmavidyā. In other words Devī has pleasing aspects and evokes not awe or dread, but lofty spiritualism and philosophic calm. In this book of the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa the Devī is elevated to a very high place, a place even worshipped by Trimūrtis. In this section we have a description of the origin of the goddess, of the construction of Śrīpuram on which was modelled the Śrichakra, the war with Bhaṇḍāsura and the final triumph of Lalitā. The Lalitā worship or Devī worship is not anything new but one accepted and approved by the Vedas. The Devī for one purpose or other manifested herself in different ways and with different names, and the manifestation of Lalitā was to get rid of Bhaṇḍāsura who was even a match for gods like Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Śiva. Her glory and greatness are celebrated in the extant work entitled the Lalitā Sahasranāmam but this seems to be a composition later than the celebrated Śankara, who is commonly placed in the early years of the eighth century.

v1.c3.s4.5

∗ Valmiki speaks of apsaras Rambhā as Lalitā and the commentator comments the term as Sundarī i.e. charming. But this has nothing to do with the cult. Rāmā 1.64.8.

v1.c3.s4.6

There is a well-known tradition that the great Śankarācārya wrote a commentary on the Lalitā-Triśatī. He thus attached a special significance to the worship of Lalitā by addressing her with three hundred names of the Triśatī. It has since then become a recognised mode of worship of the Devī by the orthodox Hindus for the advancement of their moral and material welfare It would thus seem that the Lalitā cult was popular in the days of Śankarācārya himself Even Kālidāsa who perhaps lived in the 1st century B C. refers to the worship of Devī and though he mentions her by the name Caṇḍikā, still he lays emphasis upon the saumya form of Devī worship This is perhaps due to the Lalitā Upākhyānam of the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa. So we have to conclude that whatever be the purpose of the manifestation of Lalitā, the Devī worship or worship of the world mother (Jagatām Mātā) was prevalent from Vedic times, and the Purāṇa compiler was particularly interested in narrating the story of Lalitā and thus laid stress upon its importance.

v1.c3.s4.7

According to the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa the Lalitā cult was the most efficacious. The principal centres of Śakti worship as referred to in this Purāṇa are Śrīnagar, perhaps in the present Kashmir and Kāñcī in South India. From the foregoing study the conclusion is inevitable that the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa can come under the category of some of the oldest Purāṇas. As the major portions of the Purāṇa are indebted to the Vāyu Purāṇa, we may safely venture the guess that the Brahmāṇḍa may be the immediate successor to the Vāyu Purāṇa, and the date for the Brahmāṇḍa would almost be the same as that for Vāyu. In other words, the composition of this Purāṇa may be roughly assigned to about the 4th century B.C. though we cannot be positive that the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa in its present form came into existence even then.

The Matsya Purana

v1.c3.s5.1

As in the case of the Vāyu Purāṇa the scene of this Purāṇa is laid in the sacred forest of Naimisha where many of the great sages of India assembled to witness the sacrifice of Adhisīmakrishna, the Paurava king of much celebrity. Here too the list of ‘future kings’ is continued till the last of the kings of Āndhra dynasty. The Guptas are not mentioned. And this gives the certain clue that the last redaction of the Matsya Purāṇa must have taken place not later than the commencement of the Gupta epoch and immediately after the dismemberment of the Āndhra empire. The latest date for the Purāṇa must be found somewhere towards the close of the third century as the Guptas commenced their rule from about 320 A.D. But this does not solve the problem. The real difficulty lies in fixing the upper limit of the Purāṇa. Though the Purāṇa definitely says that Adhisīmakrishna was the reigning king by the use of the expression, Sāmpratam we cannot assign such an early date to this Purāṇa. Perhaps some portions of the Purāṇa must have been in existence then. Subsequently additions were made from time to time until the beginning of the Gupta era.

v1.c3.s5.2

As it refers to the flood legends it must be posterior to the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, forming part of the Yajurveda and anterior to the Gṛhyasūtras. From the latter he differs in point of injunctions such as Ekoddiṣṭam, Āmaśrāddham, Piṇḍanirvapanam, etc. The Purāṇa mentions the names of Vyāghrapāda, Patañjali and Kātyāyana, and also refers to the Arthaśāstra and Bābhravya Pāñchāla. It also refers to the Nātyaśāstra of Bharata. From these references the Matsya Purāṇa must be undoubtedly post-Pāṇinīan.

v1.c3.s5.3

But in speaking of the style of architecture it refers to the śikhara style which undoubtedly originated with the Mauryas It is familiar with the twin epics the Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa. In some places it seems to refer to the sections in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. Perhaps the Bhāgavata Purāṇa supplemented what was actually wanting in that Purāṇa.

v1.c3.s5.4

There is also an interesting reference to Vaikhānasa. It presupposes an elaborate form of image worship and furnishes details as to the architecture of the temples. The Vaikhānasa sūtra is referred to by the Baudhāyana Dharma Śāstra. In the epoch of the Matsya Purāṇa and very much earlier, the Vaikhānasa school had come to stay and the Pāñcharātra was yet a thing of the future Further the Purāṇa mentions the worship of the moon as an independent deity It is only from the days of Varāhamihira that the worship of the moon came to be merged as it were in that of the sun. Though we have no temples extant solely dedicated to the moon, traces of ancient modes of worship of that deity still linger in the Tamil land, for instance, the Piraiṭoludal or seeing the moon on the third day after the New Moon. There is also an interesting reference to the use of betel leaves. We need not go into other references but we may safely say that the date of the Matsya Purāṇa is probably to be spread over a number of centuries commencing with the 4th century B.C. and ending with the 3rd century A.D.

v1.c3.s5.5

Though there are certain data which may bespeak of a higher antiquity, still the language and style of the Purāṇa preclude us from being guided by mere references, some of which might have been accidental. There are no archaic expressions and the Purāṇa indicates that it is far ahead of the Sūtra form of style employed by the authors of the Arthaśāstra and Kāmasūtras. The stanzas are couched in elegant literary style in conformity to the Pāṇinian standard. Though we cannot definitely fix a period for the upper limit of the age of this Purāṇa, still we would not be far wrong if we fix it at the 3rd century B.C. It is quite plausible that some of the Purāṇa texts are older; but we are actually concerned with the probable period during which the Matsya Purāṇa as we know to-day, took its shape.

v1.c3.s5.6

According to Pargiter "there is an apparent indication that a compilation was begun in the later part of the second century in the Āndhra king, Yajñaśrī's reign, for, five manuscripts of the Matsya Purāṇa speak of him as reigning in his ninth or tenth year". As against this theory two objections can be raised. One is that the reading in one manuscript militates against another. Even granting for the sake of argument, the reading is correct, what answer have we to give for the continuance of the list to the very end of the Āndhra dynasty? If we have to take as Pargiter would have it, the Purāṇic list must come to an end with Yajñaśrī; but it is not so. The kings who succeeded Yajñaśrī are correctly and precisely mentioned. It appears more logical and more reasonable that in that century the dynastic portion was brought up-to-date, for, other portions of the Purāṇa bear an air of antiquity about them. On this account we can very well assign to this Purāṇa a place among the oldest of the Purāṇas. If by the term 'oldest' is meant only second century A.D., we are not only prepared to grant it but also to go further back by three or four centuries (See, for details, the Matsya Purāṇa, a study, published by the University of Madras, 1935).

The Vishnu Purana

v1.c3.s6.1

This Purāṇa has been credited with a certain amount of antiquity, as being the best conserved of all. According to tradition, it is narrated by sage Parāśara in the reign of Parikshit, king of the Kurus. From Parikshit to Adhisīma-Kṛṣṇa, there may be an intervening period of four generations. If tradition can be believed then we have to take it that the Vishnu Purāṇa was composed four or five generations before the other Purāṇas came into existence. Pargiter would assign to this Purāṇa a period not earlier than the 5th century A.D. The version in this Purāṇa and the Harivamśa bears correspondence and similarity in some cases, and it has been said that the Vishnu Purāṇa must be indebted to the Harivamśa giving a late date arbitrarily to the latter. Whatever be the similarity between the Harivamśa and the Vishnu Purāṇa, it need not deter us from determining the date of the Vishnu Purāṇa. The remarkable fact about this Purāṇa is that it is the work of a single hand, for it presents a single whole with a well prepared plan. In its historical portion the account of the Gupta dynasty is given, but this does not mean that the Purāṇa was composed then, but more material was added at that time

v1.c3.s6.2

Though the various Purāṇas existed, the late H. H. Wilson selected the Vishnu Purāṇa for translation into English as it treats of the five specific topics or pañcalakṣṇa, and as it was not sectarian in character The Purāṇa itself is divided into six books, the first devoted to the primary and secondary creation, the second to the legend of Bharata, the third to a description of the leading institutions of the Hindus, the fourth to the kings of lunar and solar dynasties of India, the fifth to the life of Krishna, and the sixth to the dissolution of the world in both its major and minor cataclysms We have been rather at length upon the material contained in each book of this Purāṇa to disillusion a section of the people who regard it as a Vaishnava Purāṇa and consequently sectarian in character. But the fact is otherwise. Its teachings were not intended solely for the Vaishnavas but appeal to all classes of people who regard the work as a sacred one expounding Vedic literature and Philosophy.

v1.c3.s6.3

Another factor of much importance is that a student of this Purāṇa fails to notice the fasts and feasts, the ceremonials and ceremonies, festivities and sacrifices, all connected with the deity called Vishnu. From the absence of these rituals one may infer that this Purāṇa was not intended for the propagation of only the Vaishnava religion. What is more remarkable is even the sacred places, the places of pilgrimage dedicated to Viṣṇu, and his worship are not mentioned. From this we have to conclude that these special rituals had not yet come into existence at the time when the Purāṇa was reduced to writing. This fact compels us to rank it among ancient Purāṇas, perhaps as the oldest among them.

v1.c3.s6.4

In this connection we can once again point out that a sort of homogeneity pervades the whole of this Purāṇa and it hardly indulges in Māhatmyas and the like which are found in the other literature of this class. These facts force us to conclude that this Purāṇa perhaps belonged to the age of the Upanishads when there was wide speculation about the philosophy of religion, and when there was no glorification of this god or that, and when there was faith only in one God who pervaded the whole universe and manifested himself in different ways for specific purposes. If we take these things into consideration, the Viṣṇu Purāṇa must be contemporaneous with the Atharva Veda Samhitā but it can be safely placed in the 6th or 5th century B.C. Though orthodox tradition would assign a much higher antiquity to this Purāṇa, a critical student of history would place its composition in the epoch of the Upanishads which may be roughly said to extend from the seventh to the fourth century B.C.

v1.c3.s6.5

A word might be said about reference to it in ancient Tamil literature. In the Tamil epic Maṇimekhalai, roughly of the second century after Christ, in the course of a discussion of the various religious activities in the Tamil land at a gathering at Vañji, the renowned capital of ancient Cheras, there is a significant phrase Kaḍal Vaṇan Purāṇam ōḍinan (Canto 27. 11·98-99). This means that the Purāṇa dedicated to Kaḍal Vaṇan which is simply an epithet of Viṣṇu, (the God who had the colour of the sea) is mentioned. Then it is reasonable to take the view that this reference in the Maṇimekhalai is distinctly to the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, and that the Viṣṇu Purāṇa was known to the author of the Maṇimekhalai. For a Purāṇa to be popularised and expounded, and that too in the Tamil land, it must have taken a considerable time after its composition was made. Therefore, this evidence of Tamil literature may possibly point to a much higher antiquity than the second century A.D. And we are inclined to put it down to a date much earlier than the fourth century B.C which has been even suggested to some Purāṇas by the late scholar V A. Smith. (V A. Smith. *Early History of India*, 4th Edn. pp. 22-24 , V. R. R. Dikshitar, IHQ, 1931, the Age of the Vishnu Purāṇa ; V. R. R. Dikshitar, the Age of the Vishnu Purāṇa being a paper read at the Indian History Congress, Cuttack, 1949) There are at least four or five Purāṇas which existed some centuries before the Christian era and we have no doubt that one such Purāṇa is the Vishnu Purāṇa.

The Bhagavata Purana

v1.c3.s7.1

Scholars, European and Indian, have now come to believe that the Muktāphala was after all a work much dependant upon the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, and in his Harilila, Bopadeva has simply indexed the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. It has been admirably pointed by Prof. Winternitz that the Bopadeva theory cannot stand critical examination (History of Indian Literature, Vol. I, p 558). The Śrimad Bhāgavatām which is undoubtedly a Mahāpurāṇa is commonly regarded as Vaiṣṇava Purāṇa. No doubt it deals with the avatārs of Vishnu, particularly with the avatār of Krishna. Be it noted that Krishna is a common god even to-day much worshipped by the people. The Śrimad Bhāgavatām conceives Krishna as a Vedic god, and in the Bhāgavata there is also the glorification of Śiva and there is no sectarian animosity towards Śaiva worship.

v1.c3.s7.2

Most vital to our point is the cult of Sankarshana-Vāsudeva which prevailed from the 6th century B C. to about the 3rd century A.D. In the religious system of India, Pāṇini and Patañjali referred to Vāsudeva as a divine being glorified by the Sātvatas, one of the Yādava tribes when Śri Krishna was flourishing. The Bhāgavata says that Vāsudeva and Baladeva were regarded as gods by Sātvatas, corroborated by the Nārāyaṇīya section of the Mahābhārata. Even the Tamil country was familiar with this cult as could be seen from the Śilappadikāram, a Tamil classic of the second century A.D. The cult of Balarāma was slowly given up and in the new system of religion that arose, only Vāsudeva remained as the supreme God who was identified with Nārāyaṇa. We are at some length on this question because the Bhāgavata Purāṇa does not mention in so many words the Sankarṣaṇa-Vāsudeva cult. It would appear then that the Bhāgavata Purāṇa was composed after the Vāsudeva-Sankarṣaṇa cult disappeared, and when the Vāsudeva cult was all in all. This must have been the time when the imperial Guptas were rising into prominence.

v1.c3.s7.3

We have therefore to dismiss the theory of R. G. Bhandarkar and Pargiter as to the date of this Purāṇa, and there should be no hesitation in putting it down as a work of the 3rd century A.D. The reference to Viṣṇu Purāṇa in the Tamil classic of 2nd century A.D. must show, as has been already said, that it must have been composed some two or three centuries before. The Bhāgavata which follows the Viṣṇu Purāṇa in its major details, must be more or less in the neighbourhood of the date of the composition of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa. It would not be then unreasonable to say that the Bhāgavatam was a work of the third century A.D.

v1.c3.s7.4

When we are examining this question two things strike a student of history. One is the prominence given in the religion of the Guptas to the worship of Varāha, the third incarnation of Viṣṇu and the other is that the imperial Guptas styled themselves as Paramabhāgavatas meaning that they were wedded to the cult of the Bhāgavata. The Bhāgavata school was characterised by the system of Bhakti or devotion. The Śrimad Bhāgavatam deals with Varāha Avatār in extenso and the term Bhagavān as understood in those days was applicable to any god or sage who had all the six attributes connoted by the term *Bhaga*. In these circumstances we are obliged to think that the imperial Guptas, Smārtas as they were, held as sacred the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam as its tenets appealed to them most. We conclude therefore with Sir Charles Eliot that the Śrīmad Bhāgavata could not belong to the latest class of Purāṇas, for "it seems to contemplate the performance of Smārta rights, not temple ceremonial" (For details, see my article in the Journal of the Madras University, January and July 1949, pp 87 to 95 on the *Date of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa*.)

Their Historical Value

v1.c3.s8.1

To the historian of ancient India, the Purāṇas are an unfailing source of information. They help us to reconstruct the history of Indian culture and civilization. By culture and civilization we mean the history of Indian polity, of Indian society, the history of religion and philosophy, legal history, the history of arts and crafts, architecture and iconography besides royal dynasties and the period of their rule. With regard to the Indian political institutions in the past, there are some valuable chapters in several Purāṇas and particularly in the Matsya Purāṇa. The elective and hereditary character of monarchy, the king's rights and duties, the qualifications of councillors and ministers, systems of taxation, and administration of justice are all found described with a wealth of detail. Some Purāṇas like the Agni Purāṇa furnish material for the construction of fortifications, rules of warfare methods and weapons of war, diplomacy, etc. (See also V. R. R. Dikshitar, on the *Polity of the Purāṇas* in the "Indian Review", 1935, No. 6, Madras).

First 65 of 9,290 passages. Read on

Linked texts (28)