Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Puranic Records on Hindu Rites and Customs c7: Part I

Studies in the Purāṇic Records on Hindu Rites and Customs c7

Language
English

Contents

Part I

c7.1

The *fraternities* of the Middle Ages, which were so numerous and so varied in their objects, were not all of the same origin. Some were religious, some social, some charitable, and some industrial. The religious guilds, or *gilds*, as they were often called, were associations of laymen for the purpose of performing religious duties, such as the maintenance of a chaplain, the celebration of masses, or the support of a hospital. The social guilds were formed for the purpose of mutual aid and good fellowship, and often included in their objects the relief of the poor, the sick, and the aged. The charitable guilds were established for the purpose of supporting hospitals, almshouses, and other institutions of mercy. The industrial guilds, or *craft guilds*, were associations of men engaged in the same trade or industry, and were formed for the purpose of regulating the trade, protecting the interests of the members, and maintaining the quality of their work.

c7.2

The craft guilds, which became so powerful in the later Middle Ages, were the successors of the earlier *collegia* of the Roman Empire. The *collegia* were associations of artisans and tradesmen, which were recognized by the state and had a legal existence. When the Roman Empire fell, these associations were largely destroyed, but the idea of association for mutual protection and the regulation of trade survived. In the early Middle Ages, the *gilds* began to reappear, and by the twelfth century they were firmly established in many of the cities of Europe.

c7.3

The craft guilds were organized on a democratic basis, and every member had a voice in the management of the guild's affairs. The officers were elected by the members, and the rules and regulations were made by the guild as a whole. The guilds had the power to fix prices, to regulate the hours of labor, and to determine the conditions of apprenticeship. They also had the power to punish members who violated the rules, and to expel those who were guilty of serious offenses. The guilds were thus a powerful force in the economic life of the Middle Ages, and they played an important part in the development of the modern industrial system.

c7.4

The decline of the craft guilds began in the sixteenth century, when the rise of the factory system and the growth of international trade made it difficult for the small, local guilds to compete with the larger and more efficient industrial organizations. The guilds were also weakened by the growth of the power of the state, which began to regulate trade and industry directly, and by the rise of the capitalist class, which sought to break the power of the guilds and to establish a system of free competition. By the end of the eighteenth century, the craft guilds had largely disappeared, but their influence lived on in the trade unions and other labor organizations of the modern world.

c7.5

CHAPTER I

c7.6

THE MAHĀPURĀṆAS

c7.7

The only species of Indian literature, which can claim, next to the Vedas, to reach back to great antiquity, is the ‘Purāṇa’¹. It is mentioned, mostly in connection with Itihāsa, in such early works as the Atharva-veda², Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa³, Gopatha-brāhmaṇa⁴, Jaiminīya-upaniṣad-brāhmaṇa⁵, Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad⁶, Chāndogya-upaniṣad⁷, Taittirīya-āraṇyaka⁸, Sāṅkhyāyana-śrautasūtra⁹ and Gautama-dharmasūtra¹⁰.

c7.8

¹ For the antiquity of the ‘Purāṇa’, see Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee Silver Jubilee Volumes (Calcutta), III, Part 2, pp. 7 f.

c7.9

² XI, 7, 24 and XV, 6, 4.

c7.10

³ XIII, 4, 3, 13; XI, 5, 6, 8 and 7, 9.

c7.11

⁴ I, 10.

c7.12

⁵ I, 53.

c7.13

⁶ II, 4, 10; IV, 1, 2 and 5, 11.

c7.14

⁷ III, 4, 1 and 2; VII, 1, 2 and 4; VII, 2, 1 and 7, 1.

c7.15

⁸ II, 9.

c7.16

⁹ XVI, 2, 27.

c7.17

¹⁰ VIII, 6 and XI, 19.

c7.18

According to the Brahmanical traditions as recorded in the Atharva-veda and the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad, the ‘Purāṇa’ has as much a sacred origin as the Vedas. The former says that the Ṛcs, the Samans, the Metres and the Purāṇa originated from the residue of the sacrifice together with the Yajus¹¹. The latter, on the other hand, ascribes the origin of the four Vedas, Itihāsa, Purāṇa etc. to the breath of Mahābhūta¹². These traditions, though fundamentally different, are unanimous in their recognition of the sacredness of the ‘Purāṇa’. In many of the works of the Vedic literature, the ‘Purāṇa’ is even called the fifth Veda¹³ This traditionally sacred character has been retained by the literature even to the present day; but it and on the strength of this mention scholars have sometimes tried to assign the canon to a very early date²¹. But an examination of the text of the Svargārohaṇa-parvan as occurring in the Bengal Mss as well as in the printed editions of the Mahābhārata, shows that the portions in which ‘eighteen Purāṇas’ have been mentioned are in all probability later additions. Svargārohaṇa-parvan 5, 46 (Vaṅga. ed.), which corresponds to the same verse in the Bombay ed., is found neither in the ASB ed. nor in any one of about a dozen Bengal Mss which we have consulted in this connection in the Dacca University Library. Svargārohaṇa-parvan, chap. 6 also, though found both in the ASB and Bombay editions, does not occur in the Bengal Mss. At the close of the Vaṅgavāsī ed. of the Mahābhārata the commentator Nīlakaṇṭha says that this chapter, which begins with the verse ‘bhagavan kena vidhinā’ and in which the merits of listening to the Mahābhārata and the gifts to be made to the reader of its Parvans have been described, was transferred from the Harivaṃśa to the Mahābhārata for the encouragement of the audience of the latter²². The validity of this information supplied by Nīlakaṇṭha is fully realised when we see that Svargārohaṇa-parvan, chap. 6 is the same as Hv III, 132, 1-97 and 135, 2b to the end, and that in this chapter of the Svargārohaṇa-parvan the gifts to be made to the reader of the Harivaṃśa also are described along with those of the other Parvans of the Mahābhārata. This is certainly against the proper order of things, for if, as the enumeration of the Parvans in this chapter shows, the Harivaṃśa constitutes the eighteenth book of the Mahābhārata, then the results of listening to the whole epic cannot be described in the book previous to the eighteenth. Hence there can scarcely be any doubt regarding the spuriousness of Svargārohaṇa-parvan, chap. 6.

c7.19

¹¹ ṛcaḥ sāmāni chandāṃsi purāṇam yajuṣā saha| ucchiṣṭāj jajñire......|| Atharva-veda, XI, 7, 24.

c7.20

¹² .....mahato bhūtasya niśvasitam etad yad ṛgvedo yajur-vedaḥ sāmavedo 'tharvāṅgirasa itihāsaḥ purāṇam..........| Bṛhadāraṇyaka, II, 4, 10.

c7.21

¹³ Cf: Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa, Chāndogya-upaniṣad, Sāṅkhyāyana-śrautasūtra, etc.

c7.22

²¹ Macdonell, Skt. Lit., p. 289. Pargiter, op. cit., p. 22. IHQ, Vol. VIII, p. 761.

c7.23

²² bhagavannityādiḥ phalādhyayo vyāsena harivaṃśānte uktaḥ, atra śroṭṛ-prarocanārtham ukta iti jñeyam

c7.24

The second mention of ‘eighteen Purāṇas’ is found in verse 3 of Hv III, 135. Though this chapter is found to be one of the two sources of chap. 6 of the Svargārohaṇa-parvan, it is very doubtful whether it can be placed as early as about 400 A.D., the probable date of the Harivaṃśa. This chapter is not found in many of the Bengal Mss of the Harivaṃśa²³.

c7.25

²³ For instance, cf. Mss No. 508 (dated 1549 Śaka), No. 514A (dated 1765 Śaka), No. 1041 and No. 1718 in the Dacca University Mss Library.

c7.26

Mārk 137 (on Purāṇa-māhātmya) does not occur in all the editions. Hence its authenticity is extremely doubtful.

c7.27

Vā 104 also contains a list of the Purāṇas, but we shall see later (under Vāmana-purāṇa) that this chapter was added very late to the Vāyu.

c7.28

For the date of Mat 58 which also contains a list, see under Matsya-purāṇa.

c7.29

Inspite of the little value which can be attached to the mention of ‘eighteen Purāṇas’ in the Mahābhārata and the Harivaṃśa, it can hardly be doubted that the canon originated not later than the first quarter of the seventh century A.D. In Mat 53 the eighteen Purāṇas have been named, and it will be seen afterwards that the date of this chapter (especially except verses 59-63) is to be placed between 550 and 650 A.D. Gauḍapāda, in his Sāṃkhyakārikā-bhāṣya, uses the word ‘purāṇa’ in the plural number to mean distinct Purāṇic works²⁴, and, in his Uttaragītā-bhāṣya, explains the word (purāṇa) occurring in chap. 2 of the Gītā, as ‘purāṇāni brahmāṇḍādīni’²⁵. This word ‘brahmāṇḍādīni’ betrays Gauḍapāda’s acquaintance with the eighteen Purāṇas. That the word brahmāṇḍādīni was used, as much as brahmādīni, to mean the group of the eighteen Purāṇas, is evidenced by Sāyaṇācārya who explains the word purāṇa, occurring in the Taittirīya-āraṇyaka (II, 9), as ‘purāṇāni brahmāṇḍādīni’ in his Bhāṣya on the same. Sāyaṇa’s knowledge of the group of the eighteen Purāṇas can by no means be denied.

c7.30

²⁴ tatra bāhyaṃ nāma vedāḥ śikṣā-kalpa-vyākaraṇa-nirukta-cchando-jyotiṣākhya-ṣaḍaṅga-sahitāḥ purāṇāni nyāya-mīmāṃsā-dharmaśāstrāṇi ceti. —Sāṃkhya-kārikā with Gauḍapāda-bhāṣya (ed. Pandit Bechanarāma Tripāṭhī, Benares Sanskrit Series, No. 9, Benares 1905), p. 16.

c7.31

²⁵ Uttaragītā, p. 52. In the Bombay edition of the Uttaragītā with Gauḍapāda-bhāṣya (ed. Mahādeva Śarman and published by the Gujarati Printing Press, Bombay 1912) the reading is ‘purāṇāni bra(ā?)hmādīni’. In the D. U. Mss Lib. there are two Mss, Nos. 4504 and K558E, of the Uttaragītā-bhāṣya. Of these, the former, which is concise and is written in a terse style smacking of an early date, reads ‘purāṇāni brahmādīni’. The latter Ms, on the other hand, says in its post-colophon statement that it was copied at Benares and brought from there by post. It is comparatively elaborate, agrees more with the printed editions than with the other Ms, and reads ‘purāṇāni brahmāṇḍādīni’. Regarding Gauḍapāda’s authorship of the Bhāṣya, S. K. Belvalkar says: “We can, for the present, only assert that there is nothing, so far discovered, in these two commentaries (i.e., the Sāṃkhyakārikā-vṛtti and the Uttaragītā-vṛtti) that necessarily militates against the traditional identification of their author with the author of the Māṇḍukya Kārikās”. See, Belvalkar, Basu Mallik Lectures on Vedānta, 1925, p. 189.

c7.32

It is not known definitely of what the Purāṇas in their earliest form treated. A very old definition, contained in the famous lexicon Amarakoṣa and in most of the extant Purāṇas, says that a Purāṇa is to have five characteristics: (1) creation (Sarga), (2) re-creation (Pratisarga), (3) genealogy (Vaṃśa, of gods and sages), (4) cosmic cycles (Manvantara), and (5) accounts of royal dynasties (Vaṃśānucarita). All these characteristics have their roots in the materials, viz., Ākhyānas (tales), Upākhyānas (anecdotes), Gāthās (songs) and Kalpajoktis (lore that had come down through ages), which, as the Brahmāṇḍa, Vāyu and Viṣṇu say, were used by Vyāsa in compiling the original Purāṇa²⁶. These characteristics, therefore, indicate the real nature of the Purāṇas in their early, if not the earliest, form. In most of the present Purāṇas, on the other hand, the five characteristics have been neglected partially or totally and great importance has been given to matters religious and social. In those few Purāṇas also, in which the five topics have been dealt with, there are to be found chapters on social customs and glories of gods. Thus, the present Purāṇas have practically turned into Smṛti-codes. This new form the Purāṇas do not seem to have attained before the beginning of the Christian era. The few passages quoted in the Āpastamba-dharmasūtra from a Purāṇa and a Bhaviṣyat-purāṇa cannot be made the basis of the statement that Smṛti-matter began to be imported into the Purāṇas in Āpastamba's time. These passages are most probably Gāthās, or summaries thereof, which were current among the people in ancient times and received admission into the Purāṇas especially in connection with the patriarchs. That at least some of the ancient Gāthās were concerned with Smṛti-matter is evidenced not only by the Purāṇas²⁷ and the Mahābhārata but also by the Manu-smṛti which refers to one sung by Vāyu²⁸. The fact that Manu incorporates the verses found in Āpas I, 19, 13 without calling them Gāthās is not very important, because in several other cases also Manu is found to insert verses, not of his own composition, without naming the sources. For instance, Manu II, 94 (na jātu kāmaḥ kāmānām) occurs in the Purāṇas as spoken by Yayāti who became tired of worldly enjoyment²⁹, and Manu III, 274a (api naḥ sa kule jāyāt) is found in some Purāṇas as a part of a Gāthā sung by the patriarchs³⁰. There are also numerous other references to the Purāṇa literature in the works of the pre-Christian era, but nowhere there is any reference to its Smṛti-contents.

c7.33

²⁶ ākhyānais cāpyupākhyānair gāthābhiḥ kalpajoktibhiḥ purāṇa-saṃhitām cakre purāṇārtha-viśāradaḥ Bḍ II, 34, 21; Vā 60, 21; and Viṣ III, 6, 16. The last two Purāṇas differ slightly in readings from the first. Also cf. Vā 103, 51; 104, 20

c7.34

²⁷ See, for example, Mārk 29, 43-46.

c7.35

²⁸ Manu IX, 42—atra gāthā vāyu-gītaḥ etc.

c7.36

²⁹ Viz., Mat 34, 10; Viṣ IV, 10, 9; Hv I, 30, 38; and so on.

c7.37

³⁰ Cf. Bḍ III, 19, 9 f.

c7.38

On the other hand, there are evidences to show that the Purāṇas began to incorporate matters on Hindu rites and customs from a period earlier than the sixth century A.D. Medhātithi quotes in his Bhāṣya on the Manu-smṛti a number of verses from the Purāṇas. Though the majority of these verses are concerned with creation, philosophy etc., a few of them relate definitely to Smṛti. These latter verses testify to the fact that the Purāṇas in Medhātithi's time contained chapters on holy places, funeral sacrifices, etc³¹. Kumārilabhaṭṭa, in his Tantravārttika, looks upon the Purāṇas as authoritative works on Dharma and names them along with the Dharmaśāstras³². The Hārīta-saṃhitā³³ says that the Anadhyāya days should be known from the Smṛti works as well as the Purāṇas³⁴. An old Ms of the Skanda-purāṇa, discovered in Nepal by Haraprasad Shastri, contains several sections on hells and one on the method of worshipping the god (Śiva)³⁵. Vijñāneśvara tells us of Hārīta's reference to the opinion of the Purāṇas in prescribing penance, in normal circumstances, to those who eat up the food dedicated to the patriarchs³⁶. The date of the Hārīta-smṛti used by Vijñāneśvara cannot be later than the sixth century A.D.³⁷. The above evidences are perhaps sufficient to show that topics on Hindu rites and customs began to be dealt with in the Purāṇas from a period not later than the middle of the fourth century A.D. As a result, the Purāṇas came gradually to lose their original character and turn into important codes of Hindu rites and customs by including chapters on Varṇāśramadharma, Ācāra, Śrāddha, Prāyaścitta, Dāna, Pūjā, Vrata, Tīrtha, Pratiṣṭhā, Dīkṣā, Utsarga, etc.

c7.39

³¹ Cf. Medhātithi on Manu II, 24; III, 124 & 262 ;etc. As Medhātithi does not expressly name any Purāṇa, the Purāṇic verses quoted by him should not be used in determining the dates of the extant Purāṇas even in those cases where they are traceable. Cf. footnote 31 (under Viṣṇu-p.).

c7.40

³² Kane, JBBRAS, Vol. I, 1925, p. 102. Tantravārttika, p. 179—purāṇa-mānavetihāsa-vyatirikta-gautama-vasiṣṭha . . . . . baudhāyanādi-praṇīta-dharmaśāstrāṇām..........etc.

c7.41

³³ Uṇaviṃśati Saṃhitā, pp. 127-139. It is called Laghuhārīta-smṛti in Jivānanda Vidyāsāgara's collection of Dharmaśāstras, Vol. I, pp. 177-193.

c7.42

³⁴ Hārīta-saṃhitā IV, 70

c7.43

³⁵ H. P. Shastri, Catalogue of Palm Leaf and Selected Paper Mss belonging to the Durbar Library, Nepal, Calcutta, 1905, pp. lii, 141 f. The Ms, which is written in old Gupta script, has been assigned to the seventh century A. D. by Shastri and C. Bendall.

c7.44

³⁶ Vijñāneśvara on Yāj. III, 289.

c7.45

³⁷ Kane, Hist. of Dhs., Vol. I, pp. 75 and 246.

c7.46

But in the great majority of cases the Purāṇas have not come down to us with their early incorporations, because tradition demanded that they should be re-edited with the changes in society so that their importance as works of authority might not decrease³⁸. Now, the work of re-editing could be done in three ways: viz., (i) by adding fresh chapters to the already existing ones, (ii) by substituting the latter by the former, and (iii) by writing new works bearing old titles. All these processes being equally practised with respect to the Purāṇas, some retained their earlier materials, some lost many of the earlier chapters which were replaced by others of later dates, and some became totally new works. But they had a common feature in that all of them came to have units belonging to different ages. It should be mentioned here that the fresh additions to the Purāṇas were not always fresh compositions, but chapters and verses were often transferred from one Purāṇa to another or from the Smṛti and other works to the Purāṇas, obviously to enrich the latter. That this practice of transference began much earlier than 1100 A.D. is evidenced by Ballālasena who says that the Liṅga-p. took its chapters on the big donations (Mahādāna) from the Matsya, and that the Viṣṇu-rahasya and Śiva-rahasya were mere compilations³⁹.

c7.47

³⁸ Cf. Mat 53, 8-9 wherein the Fish says to Manu : kālenāgrahaṇaṃ dṛṣṭvā purāṇasya tato nṛpa| vyāsa-rūpam ahaṃ kṛtvā saṃharāmi yuge yuge|| Cf. also Pd (Sṛṣṭi-khaṇḍa) 1, 49-50; Dbh I, 3, 20; Sk V, iii, 1, 26-28; and so on.

c7.48

³⁹ ‘bṛhad api liṅga-purāṇam matsya-purāṇoditair mahādānaiḥ’ and ‘loke prasiddham etad viṣṇu-rahasyam ca śiva-rahasyam ca| dvayam iha na parigṛhitam samgraha-rūpatvam avadhārya||’ Dānasāgara, fol. 3b.

c7.49

The great importance given to the Purāṇas as authoritative works on Hindu rites and customs perverted the idea of the people of later ages as to the real contents of these works. It was thought that the five characteristics—creation, re-creation etc.—were meant for the Upapurāṇas, whereas the Mahāpurāṇas were to have not less than ten characteristics relating to cosmogony, religion and society⁴⁰. Consequently, the accounts of the genealogies of kings and sages were little cared for, and often fabricated⁴¹; and sections on holy places etc. were composed by different people at different times and freely attached to the Purāṇas as their integral parts, so that the extents of these works varied⁴². People also took absolute liberty in making changes in the texts of the Purāṇas. Consequently, textual corruptions increased hopelessly. Of such corruptions, the Vāyu is the best example.

c7.50

⁴⁰ Cf. Bv IV, 131, 6-10. Also, Bhāg II, 9, 43; II, 10, 1; and XII, 7, 8 f.

c7.51

⁴¹ Cf. ‘mṛṣāvaṃśānucaritaiḥ * * * ’—Dānasāgara, fol. 4a.

c7.52

⁴² For instance, according to the Matsya, the Kūrma-p. consisted of 18,000 verses; according to the Agni, of 8,000 verses; and according to the Nāradīya, of 17,000 verses. According to the Matsya and Skanda, the Varāha-p. contained 24,000 verses, whereas the Agni gives its extent as consisting of 14,000 verses only.

c7.53

An examination of the quotations made by the commentators and Nibandhakāras from the Purāṇas shows that even at a particular period of time the extent and contents of a particular Purāṇa were more or less different in different parts of India.

c7.54

CHAPTER II

c7.55

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PURĀṆIC CHAPTERS ON HINDU RITES AND CUSTOMS

c7.56

THE MAJOR PURĀṆAS

c7.57

It has been said in the previous chapter that from an early date the Purāṇas grew up into important codes of Hindu rites and customs, and that they came to contain chapters or groups of chapters which often belonged to different dates. Hence the chronology of these chapters is of immense importance for tracing the course of the changes that took place in Hindu society earlier than the time of the Smṛti-Nibandhas.

c7.58

Any attempt at determining the chronology of the Smṛti-chapters means a detailed study of all the eighteen Purāṇas, and this has been done as far as possible in this and the following two chapters. Of these, the present chapter includes the major Purāṇas, viz., Mārkaṇḍeya, Vāyu, Brahmāṇḍa, Viṣṇu, Matsya, Bhāgavata and Kūrma, which are of earlier dates and have preserved much of their older materials; chapter III comprises the minor Purāṇas, *i.e.*, those which, being subjected to the interfering hands of the later redactors, have lost their earlier forms and contents; and chapter IV embodies the results arrived at in chapters II and III.

c7.59

We shall now proceed to analyse the Purāṇas.

1 The Mārkaṇḍeya-Purāṇa

c7.s1.1

This is one of the oldest and most important of the extant Purāṇas. It commences with Jaimini, a pupil of Vyāsa, who approaches the sage Mārkaṇḍeya for the solution of some doubts raised in his mind by the study of the Mahābhārata. For want of sufficient time Mārkaṇḍeya does not answer the questions put to him by Jaimini but refers the latter to the four wise birds living on the Vindhyas. This beginning of the Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa agrees with its description given in the Matsya, which says: "That Purāṇa in which, in reply to the Muni, the duties and non-duties have been explained by the holy sages in connection with the birds and which, again, is narrated fully by Mārkaṇḍeya is called the Mārkaṇḍeya (-purāṇa), containing 9,000 verses”¹.

c7.s1.2

¹ yatrādhikṛtya śakunīn dharmādharma-vicāraṇā| vyākhyātā vai muni-praśne munibhir dharmāribhiḥ|| mārkaṇḍeyena kathitam tat sarvam vistareṇa tu| purāṇam nava-sahasram mārkaṇḍeyam ihochyate|| Mat 53, 25-26.

c7.s1.3

Though this Purāṇa is generally true to the old definition of the Purāṇa of five characteristics, it contains a few chapters on topics which come within the description of Dharma; viz., chaps. 12 and 14 dealing with hells (Naraka), chap. 15 with the results of actions done (Karma-vipāka), chaps. 28-29 with the duties of the castes and Āśramas, chaps. 30-33 with funeral sacrifices, chap. 34 with customs in general (Ācāra), and chap. 35 with eatables and non-eatables².

c7.s1.4

² These chapters correspond to chaps. 12, 14, 15 and 28-35 in the editions of Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara and the Bibl. Ind. Ser., and to chaps. 12, 14, 15 and 25-32 in the Veṅk. ed. Though there are variations in readings and numbers of verses in the corresponding chapters of the different editions, they are not many and important for our purpose.

c7.s1.5

Mārk 28-35 form parts of the story of Alarka and Madālasā which is interwoven in the story of Sumati (also called Jaḍa) and his father Mahāmati (in Mārk 10-44). This story of Sumati and his father is a lengthy amplification of the dialogue between Medhāvin and his father found in one of the latest books of the Mahābhārata (viz., XII, 175 and 276). Hence it can be supposed that the story of Sumati (or Jaḍa) was put into the Mārkaṇḍeya-p. after the Mahābhārata had attained its final form. This supposition is strengthened by the information, regarding the nature of the contents of the Mahābhārata, that is supplied by the Mārkaṇḍeya-p. in chap. 1, wherein Jaimini approaches the sage Mārkaṇḍeya for the solution of the doubts. Before giving expression to these, Jaimini praises the Mahābhārata as:

c7.s1.6

....sarva-śāstrāṇām mahābhāratam uttamam||
atrārthas caiva dharmas ca kāmo mokṣaś ca varṇyate|
parasparānubandhas ca sānubandhas ca te pṛthak||
dharmaśāstram idam. śreṣṭham arthasāstram idam param|
kāmasāstram idam cāgryam mokṣasāstram tathottamam||
caturāśrama-dharmāṇām ācāra-sthiti-sādhanam|
(Mārk 1, 5b-8a).

c7.s1.7

From this it is clear that at the time of composition of at least Mārk 1, 1-22 the Mahābhārata came to be regarded as the best Dharmaśāstra, the greatest Arthaśāstra, the foremost Kāmaśāstra and the highest Mokṣaśāstra. A comparison between Mārk 34 (dealing with customs in general) and Mbh XIII, 104 also shows that the former has the latter as its prototype³. Mbh XIII, 104 has many lines borrowed from the Code of Manu; the style is often defective and elaborate; and the contents are not arranged properly. In Mārk 34, on the other hand, plagiarism has been avoided as far as practicable, and the subject-matter, though changed at places, has been dealt with in an improved and terse style. The few lines of Manu, which have been retained, have not escaped changes more or less. The readings of these lines, when compared with those occurring in Mbh XIII, 104 and the Code of Manu, show that the Mahābhārata approaches more the Code of Manu than the Mārkaṇḍeya-p. does.

c7.s1.8

³ Cf. Mbh XIII, 104, verses 16, 20b-21, 23, 37, 41, 48a, 51b-52a, 59a etc with Mārk 34, verses 17, 61b, 62b-63a, 21, 47b, 48b, 50b, 52b-53a, 24b etc.

c7.s1.9

From what has been said above it seems highly probable that the story of Sumati was inserted into the Mārkaṇḍeya-p. after the great epic had attained its present extent, content and character. Regarding the approximate dates of the different strata in the Mahābhārata Hopkins says: "We may tentatively assume as approximate dates of the whole work in its different stages. Bhārata (Kuru) lays, perhaps combined into one, but with no evidence of an epic before 400 B.C. A Mahābhārata tale with Pāṇḍu heroes, lays and legends combined by the Purāṇic diaskeuasts, Kṛṣṇa as a demi-god (no evidence of didactic form or of Kṛṣṇa's divine supremacy), 400-200 B.C. Remaking of the epic with Kṛṣṇa as all-god, intrusion of masses of didactic matter, addition of Purāṇic material old and new, multiplication of exploits, 200 B.C. to 100-200 A.D. The later books added with the introduction to the first book, the swollen Anuśāsana separated from Śānti and recognised as a separate book, 200 to 400 A.D.; and finally 400 A.D. + occasional amplifications"⁴. On the strength of this tentative chronological scheme, which is the most acceptable of all that have been put forth, we may hold in the present state of our knowledge that the story of Sumati as found in the Mārkaṇḍeya-p. cannot possibly be earlier than 200 A.D.

c7.s1.10

⁴ Hopkins, The Great Epic of India, pp. 397-398 and 398-402.

c7.s1.11

The story of Sumati, including that of Alarka, extends over Mārk 10-44, and at the beginning of chapter 45 Jaimini praises the birds saying:

c7.s1.12

samyag etan mamākhyātaṃ bhavadbhir dvija-sattamāḥ|
pravṛttiś ca nivṛttiś ca dvividhaṃ karma vaidikam||
* * * * *
pravṛtte ca nivṛtte ca bhavatāṃ jñāna-karmaṇi|
matim asta-malāṃ manye yathā nānyasya kasyacit||

c7.s1.13

These references to Pravṛtti- and Nivṛtti-dharma certainly point to chapters 27-35 dealing with Pravṛtti-dharma and to chapters 39-43 dealing with Nivṛtti-dharma or Yoga. Now, chap. 45, which glorifies Brahmā as unborn, imperishable, changeless, incomparable (anaupamya) etc. and thus identifies him with the supreme Brahma of the Upaniṣads, certainly belongs to the Brahmā-sect. The opinion of scholars that the sect of Brahmā became prominent during the period ranging from 200 to 600 A.D. and that the five-gods of the Sārtas threw Brahmā into the back-ground towards the beginning of the seventh century⁵, tends to show that the chapters dealing with Pravṛtti- and Nivṛtti-dharma cannot possibly be later than the seventh century A.D.

c7.s1.14

⁵ Farquhar, Outline, pp. 148 and 179-180. Cf. also Bṛhat-saṃhitā, chapters 58 (pratimā-lakṣaṇam nāma) and 60 (pratimā-sthāpanam nāma), wherein there are rules for the construction and erection of the image of Brahmā, thus proving the wide spread of the worship of the god in Varāhamihira's time.

c7.s1.15

In relation to the effect of performing funeral sacrifices under different Tithis and Nakṣatras, the latter are mentioned in the order from Kṛttikā to Bharaṇī in Mārk 33, 8 ff. This order of the Nakṣatras is important. We know from the evidence of the Yājñavalkya-smṛti⁶ and the latest books of the Mahābhārata⁷ that the old arrangement of the Nakṣatras from Kṛttikā to Bharaṇī was in vogue at least some time after the beginning of the third century A.D. When this order of the Nakṣatras was changed we do not know definitely. It is only as late as about 550 A.D. that we find in the Bṛhat-saṃhitā of Varāhamihira the order of the Nakṣatras from Aśvinī to Revatī to be an established fact in all parts of India. So it can be held, and not quite unreasonably, that the old order of the Nakṣatras held ground at best down to the latter half of the fifth century A.D. Hence those chapters of the Mārkaṇḍeya-p., which treat of Hindu customs and Yoga, cannot possibly be later than the latter half of the fifth century A.D.

c7.s1.16

⁶ I, 268—kṛttikādi-bharaṇyantam. In Kane's opinion the Yājñavalkya-smṛti was composed between the first century B.C. and the third century A.D. See Kane, Hist. of Dhs., Vol. I, p. 184.

c7.s1.17

⁷ Viz., XIII, 64 wherein the Nakṣatras are mentioned in connection with the effect of making gifts under these; XIII, 89 which describes the results of performing the Kāmya-śrāddha under different Nakṣatras; and XIII, 110.

c7.s1.18

Mārk 33, 8 ff., which describe the results of performing sacrifices under different Nakṣatras, seem to have been added later than the other chapters on Hindu customs, because in Mārk 32, 38 (kāmyānāṃ śrūyatāṃ vatsa śrāddhānāṃ tithi-kīrtanam), which points to the subject-matter of the chapter to follow, there is no mention of the Nakṣatras. If a gap of at least fifty years be allowed between this portion of Mārk 33 and the other chapters, then the lower limit of the date of composition of these chapters (28-35, except 33, 8 ff.) should be pushed up to the beginning of the fifth century A.D.

c7.s1.19

Here a question may arise as to whether all the Smṛti-chapters (except 33, 8 ff.) of the Mārkaṇḍeya-p. were inserted simultaneously. Such a doubt is removed by the fact that when, in Mārk 26, Madālasā is about to give instructions on self-knowledge (Ātma-jñāna) to the new-born Alarka, king Ṛtadhvaja forbids her saying, "Why dost thou deal thus, O foolish one, with the temperament of my child, by giving him a mischievous education as thou didst before to my other sons. If thou shouldest do what pleases me, if my word should be accepted, then restrain this son within the path of activity (mārge pravṛtteḥ). So the path of action will not lead to utter destruction, O lady; and so the Piṇḍa offering to the Pitṛs will not cease, O virtuous one. The Pitṛs dwell in the Deva-loka, they are also born as brutes, they become men likewise, and they reside within the class of elements. By offering the Piṇḍa and water a man, busied in the ceremonies, ever nourishes them, O fine-browed one, both the righteous and the unrighteous, those worn out with hunger, those harassed by thirst; he nourishes the gods likewise and guests. The gods, mankind, the Pitṛs, departed spirits, goblins, and Guhyakas, birds, worms and insects live upon man indeed. Therefore, O slender-limbed, cause my son to acquire thoroughly the whole duty of Kṣatriyas, as regards this life and life in the next world". This request of the king to his wife Madālasā to give instructions to Alarka about the duties of Kṣatriyas and to train him in the Pravṛtti-mārga so that the Pitṛs may not be deprived of the offerings of water and rice-balls and the gods, men and lower animals may get their respective shares, presupposes the instructions on the duties of kings, on the duties of the castes and Āśramas, and on funeral sacrifices given by Madālasā to Alarka in chaps. 27-35.

c7.s1.20

From the above discussion it appears that Mārk 28-35 (except 33, 8 to the end) were inserted some time about the third and fourth centuries A.D. It is highly probable that these chapters were added in the third century.

c7.s1.21

Chapters 12, 14 and 15 also, forming parts of the story of Sumati, should be assigned to the above date.

c7.s1.22

The above conclusion about the date of the chapters under discussion agrees remarkably with the view of Pargiter, who says : "The Devī-māhātmya, the latest part, was certainly complete in the 9th century and very probably in the 5th or 6th century A.D. The third and fifth parts (i.e., chaps. 45-81 and 93-136 respectively), which constituted the original Purāṇa, were very probably in existence in the third century, and perhaps even earlier; and the first and second parts (i.e., chaps. 1-9 and 10-44 respectively) were composed between those two periods⁸.

c7.s1.23

⁸ Pargiter, Mārkaṇḍeya-Purāṇa (English translation), Introduction, p. XX.

c7.s1.24

The Smṛti-chapters of the Mārkaṇḍeya-p. have been frequently drawn upon by the commentators and the Nibandhakāras. For instance, Aparārka quotes numerous verses from chaps. 11, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 39 and 40 in his commentary on Yāj.; Ballālasena from chaps. 43 and 58 in his Adbhutasāgara and from chaps. 10 and 16 in his Dānasāgara; Devaṇabhaṭṭa from chaps. 29-35 in his Smṛticandrikā; Hemādri from chaps. 15-16, 29-35, 46, 49, 57, 88 and 95-97 in his Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi; and so forth (see App.).

c7.s1.25

There are lines in the Smṛti-chapters of the Mārkaṇḍeya-p. which have their parallels in the Code of Manu. For example, Mārk 29, 29a; 29, 33a; 34, 8; and 34, 17 and 24 may be compared to Manu III, 102b and 82a; and IV, 156b-157a, 92, 56a and 78a.

2. The Vāyu-Purāṇa

c7.s2.1

The Vāyu is perhaps the oldest of the extant Purāṇas⁹. The Mahābhārata (III, 191, 16) speaks of a ‘Purāṇa proclaimed by Vāyu;’ the Harivaṃśa (I, 7, 13 and 25) refers to ‘Vāyu’ as an authority; Bāṇabhaṭṭa says in his Harṣa-carita that he attended the reading of the Vāyu-p. in his native village¹⁰; and Alberūnī repeatedly quotes and names a Vāyu-p. in his account of India¹¹.

c7.s2.2

⁹ The word ‘oldest’ is applicable only to the main skeleton of the work, because this Purāṇa also, like the others, was subjected to later additions and alterations. As an example, chap. 104 may be cited. This chapter mentions Rādhā, the Tantras, and the Śākta philosophy. Mr. Dikshitar rightly says that ‘the Purāṇa compilation extended over a number of centuries’.

c7.s2.3

¹⁰ Harṣa-carita, chap. III, (pavamāna-proktaṃ purāṇaṃ papāṭha).

c7.s2.4

¹¹ Sachau, Alberūnī’s India, I, pp. 41-42, 130, 168, 194 247, 287 etc.

c7.s2.5

The character of the Vāyu as a Mahāpurāṇa has sometimes been called in question¹². The cause of this doubt is the use of the title ‘Śiva’ or ‘Śaiva’ for ‘Vāyavīya’ in the majority of the lists of the ‘eighteen Mahāpurāṇas’¹³. But this substitution, which has been taken wrongly in favour of the comparatively late sectarian Upapurāṇa called ‘Śiva-purāṇa’, is based on the Śaiva character of the Vāyu. The Skanda says: “The fourth (Purāṇa), declared by Vāyu, is known as Vāyavīya. It is also called Śaiva on account of its connection with (i.e., treatment of) Śiva-bhakti . . . . . It contains 24,000 Ślokas”¹⁴. The description of the fourth Mahā-purāṇa, as given in the Matsya, Nāradīya and Agni, also agrees with the contents of the present Vāyu-p¹⁵. None of the Nibandha-writers, who have drawn upon the Vāyu and the Śiva-purāṇa, has been found to make any confusion between the two; because the verses quoted from the ‘Vāyavīya’ or ‘Vāyu-purāṇa’ are, in the majority of cases, found only in the present Vāyu but not in the Śiva, and those quoted from the ‘Śaiva’ or ‘Śiva-purāṇa’ are sometimes traceable in the present Śiva but never in the Vāyu. That the Vāyu was more important in the eyes of at least the Nibandha-kāras is shown by the fact that almost all of them quote verses from it, whereas the Śiva-p. is drawn upon by a very few of them. Hence it seems that the attempt to raise the Śiva-p. to the status

c7.s2.6

¹² Narasimha Vājapeyin includes the ‘Vāyu-p.’ among the Upapurāṇas.—See Nityācārapradīpa, p. 19. In his com. on the Bhāgavata-purāṇa Śrīdhara Svāmin explains the word śaivaka as ‘Śiva-purāṇa’.—See his com. on Bhāg XII, 13, 4. Mitra Miśra recognises the Śaiva as a Mahāpurāṇa and says: ‘ya’pi viṣṇupurāṇe brahmāṇḍam ādāya vāyavīya-tyāgena, ya ca brahmavaivarte vāyavīyam upādāya brahmāṇḍapurāṇa-parityāyena aṣṭādaśa-saṃkhyā uktā sā kalpa-bhedena vyavasthāpanīy’—See Vīramitrodaya, Paribhāṣā-prakāśa (ed. Parvatīya Nityānanda Śarmā, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Benares 1906), p. 13.

c7.s2.7

¹³ See Viṣ III, 6, 21 ff.; Bhāg XII, 7, 23 ff. and XII, 13, 4 ff.; Kūr I, 1, 13 ff.; Pd I, 62, 2 ff., IV, 111, 90 ff., VI, 219, 25 ff., and VI, 263, 77 ff.; Var 112, 69 ff.; Mārk 137, 8 ff.; Lg I, 39, 61 ff.; Śiv V (Vāyavīya-saṃhitā), i, 1, 38 ff.; Śiva

c7.s2.8

¹⁵ See Mat 53, 18, Nār I, 95, and Ag 272, 4b-5.

c7.s2.9

māhātmya-khaṇḍa of the Sūta-saṃhitā commented on by Mādhavācārya (Eggeling, Ind. off. Cat., Part VI, p 1377); Saura-saṃhitā of the Skanda-p. (Eggeling, op. cit., Part VI, p. 1382); Sambhava-kāṇḍa of the Śivarahasya-khaṇḍa of the Śaṃkara-saṃhitā of the Skanda-p. (Eggeling, op. cit., Part VI, p. 1363); and so forth.

c7.s2.10

caturtham vāyunā proktam vāyavīyam iti smṛtam|
śiva-bhakti-samāyogāc chaivam tac cāparākhyayā||
caturviṃśati-saṃkhyātam sahasrāṇi tu śaunaka|
Sk V, iii (Revā-kh.), 1, 33-34a.

c7.s2.11

These verses are also found in the Revā-māhātmya which claims to be a part of the Vāyu-purāṇa.—See, Aufrecht, Bodleian Catalogue, p. 65.

c7.s2.12

The mention of the Śveta-kalpa as connected with the declaration of the ‘Vāyavīya’ Purāṇa should not create any difficulty, for the Vāyu-p. seems to connect itself with the Varāha-kalpa (Vā 6, 11 and 13; 7, 5; 21, 12 and 23) and to identify this Kalpa with the Śveta-kalpa (Vā 6, 13; 23, 63 ff. and 114 ff.). Moreover, the Nāradīya-p., whose list of contents of the ‘Vāyavīya’ Purāṇa agrees much with those of our Vāyu but not even partially with those of the Śiva, also speaks of the connection of the ‘Vāyavīya’ with the Śveta-kalpa. The word bhāgadvaya-samanvita used by the Nāradīya-p. with respect to the ‘Vāyavīya’ should not be taken to point to the Vāyavīya-saṃhitā (of the Śiva-p.) which also consists of two Bhāgas (parts). Eggeling, in his Ind. Off. Cat., Part VI, pp. 1299-1301, describes a few Mss of a Purāṇa which is called vāyuprokta-purāṇa or vāyu-purāṇa in the colophons of chapters, is generally the same as our present Vāyu, and is divided into two Khaṇḍas (or Kāṇḍas) or four Pādas. The ASB edition of the Vāyu also is divided into two Bhāgas.

c7.s2.13

Of the twelve Saṃhitās of the Śiva-p. the Vāyavīya-saṃhitā only is declared by Vāyu. So, how could the words vāyavīya, vāyu-prokta etc. be applicable to the entire Śiva-p. which begins with a Saṃhitā other than the Vāyavīya?

c7.s2.14

of a Mahāpurāṇa¹⁶ was due to a comparatively late sectarian zeal¹⁷. The Devibhāgavata (I, 3, 14) and the ‘Padma-p.’ referred to by Gaṅgādhara in his com. on the Dharma-saṃhitā of the Śiva-p.¹⁸, include the Śiva among the Upapurāṇas.

c7.s2.15

¹⁶ In its Vāyaviya-saṃhitā, the Śiva-p. lays claim to the position of a Mahāpurāṇa saying that the fourth Mahāpurāṇa is the Śaiva which consists of twelve Saṃhitās. See Śiv V, 1, 41.

c7.s2.16

¹⁷ The verse ‘........vāyaviyam anuttamam| aṣṭādaśam samuddiṣṭam brahmāṇḍam iti saṃjñitam||’ in Kūr I, 1, which includes the ‘Śaiva’ among the Mahāpurāṇas, should not be taken strongly in support of the early date of the Śiva-p. and its character as a Mahāpurāṇa. This verse most probably means, “That excellent (Purāṇa) proclaimed by Vāyu is enumerated as the eighteenth and is known as Brahmāṇḍa”, because the Brahmāṇḍa-p. also is proclaimed by Vāyu and is called ‘vāyu-prokta brahmāṇḍa’ in the colophons of its chapters.

c7.s2.17

¹⁸ Shastri, Cat. of Sans. Mss, ASB, Vol. V, p. 289.

c7.s2.18

The Vāyu consists of four Pādas—(1) Prakriyā, comprising chaps. 1-6, (2) Anuṣaṅga, chaps. 7-64, (3) Upodghāta, chaps. 65-99, and (4) Upasaṃhāra, chaps. 100 to the end. It deals with all the five topics characteristic of the old Purāṇas. Over and above these, there are a few chapters on Smṛti-matter; viz.,

c7.s2.19

chaps. 16-17 .. on the duties of the castes and Āśramas, chap. 18 .. on the penances for Yatis, chaps. 57-59 .. on Yuga-dharma, ” 73-83 .. on funeral sacrifices (including impurity due to births and deaths, and purification of things), chap. 101 .. on hells and the results of actions done, and chaps. 105-112 .. on the glories of Gayā.

c7.s2.20

These chapters do not seem to have belonged to the present Vāyu in its earliest form. They are in all likelihood later additions. Of these, chaps. 16-18 are comprised in the section on Pāśupata Yoga which betrays the influence of chaps. 39-43 of the Mārkaṇḍeya-p. In this section, which extends from chap. 10 (verses 68 ff.) to 20, the Vāyu has not only a good number of verses in common with the Mārkaṇḍeya¹⁹ but has also improved upon the latter with fresh additions of chapters and verses. Now, we have seen that Mār 39-43 cannot possibly be dated earlier than 200 A.D. Therefore chaps. 16-18 of the Vāyu-p. should be dated later still. The fact that the section on Pāśupata Yoga is not found in the Brahmāṇḍa-p. tends to show that it was interpolated after 400 A.D., because, we shall see presently, the Vāyu and Brahmāṇḍa could not have been separated earlier than 400 A.D. Consequently, Vā 16-18 also are to be dated later than that period. As Śūlapāṇi quotes a verse from chap. 18 in his Prāyaścitta-viveka, they are certainly earlier than 1300 A.D. None of the earlier Nibandhakāras being found to draw upon them, it is difficult to place the lower limit of the date at a still earlier period.

c7.s2.21

¹⁹ Cf. Vā 16 with Mārk 41, 3 ff.; Vā 17 with Mārk 41, 18 ff.; Vā 19 with Mārk 43; and Vā 20 with Mārk 42, 5 ff.

c7.s2.22

Chaps. 57-59, dealing with Yuga-dharma, give an account of the period ranging from the reign of the Nandas to the end of the Āndhra rule in western India (see Part II, chap. I). Therefore these chapters should not be dated earlier than 200 A.D. They were, however, written earlier than 275 A.D., because the Matsya-p. borrowed from the Vāyu a good number of chapters, including the three mentioned above, in the last quarter of the third or the first quarter of the fourth century A.D. (see below, under Matsya-p.). Of these three chapters, chap. 59 has been drawn upon by Devaṇa-bhaṭṭa in his Smṛti-candrikā (see App.).

c7.s2.23

Chaps. 73-83, on Śrāddha, are included in the section Śrāddha-kalpa (covering chaps. 71-85), the greater part of which is given as an interlocution between Bṛhaspati and his son Śamyu. In these chapters Yogins have been given remarkable prominence as invited guests²⁰. It is said: "Śrāddhas should be carefully offered to Yogins.....What is eaten by an adept in Yoga saves one from great fear. A Yogin is superior to a thousand house-holders, a hundred forest-hermits and a thousand students". Such prominence given to Yogins is not traceable in the Codes of Manu and Yāj., who do not seem to have held Yogins in high esteem. On the other hand, Yogins are given great prominence in the existing Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās which are certainly later in date than the above mentioned Codes. It is, therefore, highly probable that the chapters on Śrāddha in the Vāyu-p. come from a date not earlier than 200 A.D. This date seems also to be supported by the hatred with which the Nagnas (the naked) have been mentioned in chaps. 78 and 79²¹. The word nagna is said to mean those people who are stripped of the garments consisting metaphorically of the Vedas. Such people are clearly the Jains and the Buddhists, because the terms 'Nirgrantha' and 'Pāṣaṇḍa' also have been used in these chapters of the Vāyu. The contempt shown to these religious sects could be possible only when their religions were in a decadent state. Buddhism, which found its strongest upholders in Aśoka Maurya and Kaniṣka, was probably in a flourishing condition to the end of the second century A.D. So the chapters of the Vāyu cannot possibly be earlier than that time. The mention of the Nakṣatras from Kṛttikā to Bharaṇī in Vā 82 points to a date earlier than 500 A.D. It is probable that the chapters under discussion were added to the Vāyu about the middle of the third century A.D.

c7.s2.24

²⁰ Vā 71, 50 ff.

c7.s2.25

²¹ Vā 78, 24, and 79, 25.

c7.s2.26

Most of the above mentioned chapters on Śrāddha have been drawn upon by the commentators and Nibandha-writers early and late; viz., Śūlapāṇi has quoted verses from chaps. 78 and 79 in his Prāyaścitta-viveka; Vācaspati-miśra from chaps. 77 and 82 in his Tīrtha-cintāmaṇi; Kullūkabhaṭṭa from chap. 78 in his com. on the Manu-smṛti; Mādhavācārya from chaps. 75 and 76 in his Bhāṣya on the Parāśara-smṛti; Madanapāla from chaps. 75 and 79-81 in his Madana-pārijāta; Śrīdatta Upādhyāya from chaps. 78 and 79 in his Kṛtyācāra; Caṇḍeśvara from chap. 81 in his Kṛtya-ratnākara; Hemādri from chaps. 73-76, 78-81 and 83 (as also from chaps. 30-31 and 71) in his Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi; Devaṇabhaṭṭa from chaps. 75 and 78-80 in his Smṛti-candrikā; Ballālasena from chap. 80 in his Dānasāgara, and from chap. 19 in his Adbhutasāgara; and Aparārka from chaps. 74-82 in his com. on Yāj. (see App.).

c7.s2.27

All of the verses in Vā 73-83 do not seem to have come from the same date. Verses 14-42 of Vā 82 are most probably spurious. They do not occur in the great majority of Mss, nor are they to be found in the corresponding chapter of the Brahmāṇḍa-p. Besides these verses, there are certainly others which were interpolated later. But it is very difficult to separate them. The fact that many of the quoted verses, especially on Śrāddha, are not found in the present Vāyu, proves that the Purāṇa has undergone serious losses also. A perusal of the Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi shows that the ‘Vāyu-p.,’ used by Hemādri, contained a good number of chapters on big donations such as those of golden cows, silver bulls, gold, lotuses made of gold or sesamum, the image of Sarasvatī made of gold or silver, and the like, all these being meant for removing sins or curing diseases. This ‘Vāyu-p.’ dealt with Ekādaśī also.

c7.s2.28

Chap. 101, on hells and results of actions, probably comes from the same date as chaps. 57-59. As there is no evidence sufficient for the determination of its date, it is impossible to say anything definitely.

c7.s2.29

Chaps. 105-112, on Gayā-māhātmya, did not really belong to the Vāyu. In many Mss of the Purāṇa this Māhātmya has been omitted²². On the other hand, it is often found to appear as an independent text in Mss as well as in printed editions. That this appendage was attached to the Vāyu earlier than 1,400 A.D., is certain, for Vācaspatimiśra quotes numerous verses from chaps. 105 and 111-112 (see App.).

c7.s2.30

²² See Vāyu-p., p. 426, footnote.

3. The Brahmāṇḍa-Purāṇa

c7.s3.1

The Brahmāṇḍa²³, though one of the oldest of the extant Purāṇas, is assigned the eighteenth place in almost all the lists of Mahāpurāṇas. From the facts that it has sometimes been called ‘Vāyavīya Brahmāṇḍa’, that it also, like the Vāyu-p., is said to have been proclaimed by Vāyu, and that its chapters often agree almost literally with those of the Vāyu, F. E. Pargiter has rightly said that originally these two Purāṇas were not separate²⁴. This view of Pargiter seems to be supported by some of the verses quoted in the Nibandhas from the ‘Vāyu-p.’ or ‘Vāyavīya’ but found only in the present Brahmāṇḍa. In a few cases, verses quoted by Ballālasena, Devaṇabhaṭṭa and Hemādri from the ‘Brahmāṇḍa-p’. are found not in the present Brahmāṇḍa but in the Vāyu (see App.). This proves the original unity of the texts of the two Purāṇas.

c7.s3.2

²³ The text of the Vaṅga. ed. of the Brahmāṇḍa is almost the same as the

c7.s3.3

²⁴ Pargiter, AIHT, pp. 23 and 77.

c7.s3.4

It is not known definitely when and why the same original Purāṇa, which was named most probably after Vāyu²⁵, came to have a second version with a different title. A comparison between the dynastic accounts given in the Vāyu and Brahmāṇḍa, shows that the separation took place after 325 A.D., and most probably not earlier than 400 A.D., for the Brahmāṇḍa has not only the extended portion of the Vāyu’s account of the dynasties of the Kali age but agrees very closely with the text of the present Vāyu (also see under Matsya-p.). The cause of separation may be sectarian, because in the Brahmāṇḍa there are a few chapters (viz., III, 21 ff.) which smack of Vaiṣṇavism. Or, it may be that some people gave the title ‘Brahmāṇḍa’ to a version of ‘the great Purāṇa proclaimed by Vāyu’²⁶, on account of the latter’s giving information about the cosmic egg.

c7.s3.5

²⁵ Cf. Mbh III, 191, 16; Hv I, 7, 13 and 25; and Harṣacarita, chap. III. No early non-Purāṇic work, except the Uttaragītā-bhāṣya of Gauḍapāda, has been found to name the Brahmāṇḍa-p. In the Bhāṣya even, the reading brahmāṇḍādīni is dubious.

c7.s3.6

²⁶ This is the title given to the Vāyu in the colophons of its chapters.

c7.s3.7

The Brahmāṇḍa-p. contains a few chapters on Smṛti-topics. All these chapters have their parallels in the Vāyu-p.; viz., Bd II, 29-32 (on Yuga-dharma) = Vā 57-59; ,, III, 10, 52 to III, 23 (on Śrāddha) = ,, 73-83 (except 82, 14-42); and ,, IV, 2 (on Naraka and Karma-vipāka) . . . . = ,, 101. So their dates are not different from those of the corresponding chapters of the Vāyu.

c7.s3.8

Prakriyā and Anuṣaṅga Pādas of the Vāyu of the AnSS ed., the main differences being that Bd 35 (verses 78-87), 36 (verses 1-16a), and 70 are not found in the Vāyu, and Vā 25 is not found in the Brahmāṇḍa. Besides these, there are variations in readings and numbers of verses in the corresponding chapters, as one may expect in any two Mss of the same Purāṇa.

c7.s3.9

Some of the above mentioned chapters of the Brahmāṇḍa have been drawn upon by the commentators and Nibandhakāras. For instance, Jīmūtavāhana quotes verses from Bḍ II, 21, 24 and 28 and III, 19 in his Kālaviveka; Aparārka from Bḍ III, 9, 11-12, 14-16 and 19 in his com. on Yāj.; Devaṇabhaṭṭa from Bḍ III, 9, 11, 14 and 15 in his Smṛti-candrikā; Hemādri from Bḍ III, 9-12, 14-17 and 19 in his Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi; and so forth (see App.).

c7.s3.10

The numerous large extracts and isolated verses, quoted from the ‘Brahmāṇḍa-p.’ in the Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi on various big donations (such as those of Jambu-dvīpa, Sapta-dvīpa, Pṛthivī-padma, Dhānya-parvata, Trimūrti, Caturmūrti, Pañca-mūrti, and the like) and vows (Vrata, viz., Ṛṣi-pañcamī, Daśāditya, Karaṇa, Ardha-śrāvaṇikā, etc.) but not found in the present Brahmāṇḍa, show that the text of the ‘Brahmāṇḍa’, used by Hemādri, was in many respects different from that of our present edition as well as from that of the Brahmāṇḍa known to Ballālasena (cf. ‘....purāṇam brahmāṇḍam....dāna-vidhi-śūnyam....’ —Dānasāgara, fol. 3b).

4. The Viṣṇu-Purāṇa

c7.s4.1

This is one of the most important of the extant Purāṇas. It belongs to the Pāñcarātra sect and ‘is the best representative of the whole class of sectarian Purāṇas, since it is purely Vaiṣṇava in its teaching from beginning to end and yet retains with considerable faithfulness the character of the old unsectarian Purāṇas’. Inspite of this distinctive character, it contains, like the other Purāṇas, several chapters on Smṛti-matter; viz., II, 6 (on hells), III, 8-16 (on the duties of the castes and Āśramas, general customs, impurity and funeral sacrifices), and VI, 1-2 (on Yuga-dharma and Karma-vipāka) and 5 (on hells).

c7.s4.2

The problem of the date of this Purāṇa is a very difficult one, and scholars hold different opinions about it. Pargiter says: “It is a late Purāṇa composed as a single whole upon a consistent plan, and not a collection of materials of various times, as we find in the Vāyu, Brahma and Matsya. From its account of Buddhism and Jainism it appears to have been composed after Brahmanism had recovered its supremacy, so that it cannot be earlier than the fifth century A.D., and it is Brahmanical”²⁷. Farquhar opines: “The Harivaṃśa clearly cannot be dated later than A.D. 400, and the Viṣṇu-purāṇa is so like it in most of its features that it is probable that it belongs to the same general date”²⁸. Winternitz says: “Pargiter may be right in thinking that it cannot be earlier than the fifth century A.D. However, I do not think that it is much later”²⁹.

First 126 of 1,173 passages. Read on

Cites (78)