DIVISION OF THE PADMAPURANA .

 

The Padmapurana, in its present extant form, is a voluminous work consisting of extensive parts called khandas, which are five in number in the Bengal recension, viz. Shrishtikhanda, Bhumikhancla, Svargakhanda, Patalakhanda and Uttarakhan^a. In the South Indian or Devanagarl recension which has been published by the Anandasrama Press, Vehkatesvara Press, Vahgavasi Press and by one called Kedaranatha Bhaktivinoda, this work contains six khandas in which the Svargakhancla of the Bengal recension has been replaced by the Adikhanda (called ‘Svargakhanda 5 in the Vehkatesvara Press edition) and the Brahmakhanda. The titles of the khandas in the Anandasrama and Vehkatesvara editions do not agree with those in the Bengal recension and the arrangement of the khandas in the Anandasrama edition is entirely different.

Yet in these two printed editions as well as in Bengal mss. there are verses which entitle the khandas exactly in the way and in the order identical to those in the Bengal recension.

In addition to the khandas already mentioned, there are numerous treatises which, though originally independent, claim to be parts of the Padmapurana. It is on account of this stupendous bulk of the Purana, which must have begun to grow in extent from a fairly early date, that the Matsya, Vayu and some other Puranas state that the Padma consisted of 55000 siokas. 1 Even the Padmapurana claims this voluminous shape for itself.

A careful examination of the present Padmapurana shows that originally this work has neither this bulk nor the distinct parts called khandlas. As to the titles of the different parts of the Padmapurana and the topics dealt with in them, the Shrishtikhanda has a few interesting verses, in which Suta says:

paiicabhih parvabhih proktam samksepad vyasakaranat /

pauskaram prathamarp. parva yatrotpannah svayam virat //

dvitlyam tlrthaparva syat sarvagrahaganasrayam /

trtlyaparvagrahana rajano bhuridaksinah //

Vamshanucaritam caiva caturthe parikxrtitam /

pancamo moksatattvam ca sarvatattvam nigadyate //

pauskare navadha Shrishtih sarvesam brahmakarita /

devatanam munlnam ca pitrvargas tathaparah //

dvitiye parvatas caiva dvlpah sapta ca sagarab /

trtiye rudrasargas tu daksasapas tathaiva ca //

caturthe sambhavo rajnam sarvaVamshanukirtanam /

antye’pavargasamsthanam moksasastranuklrtanam // x

 

From Suta’s statement in these verses as well as in another 1 2 which describes a part of the Padmapurana as a parvan, the following details about the Padmapurana in its earlier form can be gathered: For Vyasa’s sake this Purana was spoken out briefly in five parts called parvans.

Of these five parvans, (a) the first, viz,, Pauskaraparvan, dwelt on the origin of Viraj, Brahma’s ninefold creation, and the Pitrs of the gods, sages and men (b) the second, called Tirthaparvan, dealt with all the planets (in the sky) and the mountains, continents and seven oceans (on the surface of the earth); (c) the third, i. e., Svargaparva contained the accounts of those kings, who paid large sums of money as priestly fees, and described the creation by Rudra and the curse of Daksa; (d) the fourth dealt with the origin of kings and the history of all the royal families; and (e) the fifth discusses the nature of final liberation and the way of attaining it.

That the Padmapurana, in its earlier form with the parva division, was a much shorter work, is shown not only by one of the verses quoted above but also by the spurious Agnipurana, and the Bhumikhanda of the present Padma.

Of these two works, the former suggests the extent of the Padma as consisting of twelve thousand shlokas 1 and the latter says that the Padmapurana consisted of twelve thousand shlokas in the Kali age. 2

dvadaShaiva sahasranam padmakhyam ca susamhitam/

kalau yuge pathisyanti manusa Vishnutatparah//

The Bengal mss. of the Uttarakhanda also refer to these statements 3.

It is thus evident that the Padmapurana in its earlier form, was much shorter, and that the present voluminous work of the same title is practically a new one having little in common with its earlier prototype, and that originally it was divided into several parvans.

1. AgnipurSija. 272.2

vaiiiakhyarn paunjamasySrn ca svargSrthl jaladhenumat/

pSdmam dvada^asahasram jyaisthe dadyac ca dhenumat//

2. Padmapurana, Bhumikhanda, 125. 43.

3. dvada^Stha sahasrSni pa§andapahrt3ni vai//

kalau na^arn prayasyanti prathamarn dvijasattamah/

vina dvadasasahasrapadmany api mahaphalam/

kalau yuge pathisyanti puranam padmasamjnakam/

Cf. Padmapurana, Uttarakhanda, Asiatic Society (Calcutta) ms. No. G 4116 foi. 365 b.

These verses of the Uttarakhanda occur in the Bengal ms. of the Bhumikhanda also. See Asiatic Society (Calcutta) ms.

4423, fol. 233 b. It is to be noted that the writer of these versesf^as not denied the loss of the 12000 ilokas belonging to 26

It has already been indicated that the ms. A contains less number of verses and is familiar with the parva division of the Padmapurana. It refers to ‘trtlye parvani’ and from the contents of this Svargakhanda it is clear, that earlier, in its smaller version, it was known as the Svargaparva or trtlyaparva. We are not, however, in a position to assert categorically when and how this parvan came to be known as khanda. This change occured when the whole of the Padmapurana came to be divided into parts called khandas. The Bengal mss. and the Anandasrama edition of the Shrishtikhanda do not show the division of this work into khandas although they have verses on its parva division; and the nine lines of the Venkatesvara and the VangavasI editions 1 which immediately precede the verses on the parva division of the Padmapurana and name the five khandas of this work, occur neither in the Anandasrama edition nor in the Bengal mss. So, it is evident that the division of the Padmapurana into khandas and the title Svargakhanda are later developments. The evidence of the Venkatesvara, VangavasI editions that the entire Padmapurana of five khandas and 55000 shlokas was sanctified by the glorification of Vishnu (VishnumahatmyanirmaJam) and that Hari recited this Purana to Brahma (devadevo harir yad vai brahmane proktavan pura) appears to indicate that it was the Vishnu worshippers who increased the extent of the Padmapurana with frequent additions and modifications and divided it into five distinct khandas. So, the khanda division of this work seems to be intimately connected with the composition of its longer version and in all probability, the Svargakhanda was earlier known as the Trtlyaparva or Svargaparva.

 

I. I. 54-58a THE SVARGAKHAMPA—STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT.

The interest of Indologists in the Svargakhanda was indicated by one Viharilal Sarkar, who tried to establish that the treatment of the Sakuntala story in this khanda may have provided the inspiration to Kalidasa’s famous drama Abhijnanasakuntala. A few years later Prof. Winternitz expressed his agreement to the same view., but indicated in a note:

“It will not be possible to decide the question of the source of the Sakuntala drama finally, as long as we do not possess a reliable text of the Padmapurana, and as long as it is not possible to make a thorough comparision of the two texts, in which one would have to consider also the question whether the author of the Purana may not have made use of Kalidasa’s drama”. 1

In pursuance to Prof. Winternitz’s suggestions, Prof. Hardatta Sarma began, in 1923, his critical study of the stories of Sakuntala and Rama Dasarathi as they occur in Kalidasa’s Abhijnanasakuntala and RaghuVamsha on the one hand and the Svargakhanda of the Padmapurana on the other. In 1925 he brought out his booklet entitled ‘Padmapurana and Kalidasa’. There he critically compared the relevant texts of the Svarga and Patalakhandia with some portions of Abhijhanasakuntala and RaghuVamsha respectively and concluded that Kalidasa utilized these puranas as his source. H. H. Wilson, however, does not agree to this conclusion. He opines “the first five chapters of the work (i. e. Svargakhanda) which the drama of Kalidasa is evidently the authority that has been followed.”

1, M, Winternitz, Geschichte der Indischen Literatur, Vol. Ill, p. 215. (English translaton)

2. H. H. Wilson, Essays—Analytical, Critical and Philological, Vol. Ill, p. 40.

Dr. S. K. De supports the view of Mr. Wilson and remarks—

“The Padmapurana version is perhaps a recast of Kalidasa story, and there is no reason to think that Kalidasa derived his material from the Parana or from some earlier version of it. 1 ”Unfortunately, these opinions of Wilson and De are mere suggestions and they have not been able to furnish any conclusive evidence in support of their contention.

The view of Prof. Winternitz has received a wide publicity and has shrouded the Svargakhancla with considerable antiquity. It has, however to be seen whether this view is tenable or not.

Neglected and unidentified in the Devanagari recension of the Padmapurana, the present Svargakhanda is a distinct text of considerable interest. It begins with a few introductory verses, which state that terrestrial geography (bhugolam, bhumefi samsthanam) was dealt with in the immediately preceding khanda, (viz., Bhumikhanda), that this subject was originally spoken out by Sheshanaga to the sage Vatsyayana, and that the interlocution between Shesha and Vatsyayana was reported by Vyasa to Suta’s father, who must have transmitted it to Suta. The mention of Sheshanaga and Vatsyayana as interlocutors in the Patalakhanda as preserved in Bengal mss. and in all the printed editions (which represent the Devanagari version), Vatsyayana’s reference to the contents of the preceding khandas in which Shesha is said to have spoken to him on the creation and destruction of the universe, terrestrial and celestial geograpy, details of luminaries etc. and the absence of any mention of Sheshanaga and Vatsyayana in the present texts of the Shrishti and the Bhumikhanda (as found in the Devanagari mss. and the printed editions) suggest that our Svargakhanda of the Bengal recension of the Padmapurana preserves an earlier tradition about the interlocutors of the Padmapurana which has been removed from the present Shrishti and Bhumikhanda. It can, therefore, be assumed that in the Svargakhanda, which preserves the older sets of interlocutors, there are chapters from an older redaction of the work. As a matter of fact, a careful study of the Svargakhanda shows two main stages through which the text of this khanda has come down to us. In the first stage it was a non-Vaishnava work belonging probably to the Agnihotrins of the Yajurveda who praised Surya and Agni and identified the latter with Rudra- It is remarkable that in chapter S 9 which describes the region (loka) of Bhanumat (i.e. the sun), Mahendra and Agni, the muttering of Gayatri and the performance of sacrifices have been praised and special attention has been given to the Fire god. A story of Rudra's birth as Agni Vaisvanara has been narrated there; but Vishnu is mentioned only in a single line towards the end, in the advice tendered by Brahma to Rudra on the worship of Vishnu (tapasa Vishnum aradhya viharasva yathasukham). Even in the description of the sun and the praise of Gayatri in this chapter, the name f Aditya’ (and not ‘Vishnu’) occurs. This shows the earlier immunity of this khanda from Vaishnava influence. The absence of Vaishnava influence can also be traced in some of the other chapters ( such as chapter 11). In chapter 8, there is a story that in a previous kalpa, Brahma practised severe austerities, repeating the Rudrasukta for many thousands of years with the object of having Mahadeva as his son and he fulfilled his wishes in the Varaha kalpa. There is little doubt that this story seeks to accord to Mahadeva a position superior to that of Brahma from whom Rudra, as mentioned in the Vayu and the Vispupurana, was born in the Varaha kalpa.

It is remarkable that even in its earlier form the Svargakhanda is not found to have been utilized by any writer, early or late, although numerous verses have been quoted by Smriti writers and others from the Shrishti, Patala and Uttarakhanda. This phenomenon may be explained by the fact that the Svargakhanda originally dealt only with terrestrial geography and myths and legends and did not contain any chapter on Smriti matter.

In the second stage of the Svargakhanda were related the activities of the Bhagavata Vaishnavas, who introduced the story of Bharata and described him as a Mahabhagavata (i. e. a great devotee of the Bhagavat). According to this story, Bharata, son of Dusyanta and Sakuntala, ruled his kingdom with great success and performed many sacrifices in honour of various gods. He practised severe austerities for the pleasure of Hari, and at last the latter deigned to send an attendant, Sunanda by name, to fetch Bharata to Vaikuntha. No sooner had Sunanda came to Bharata, than arrived messengers from Indra, Surya, Candra, Kuvera, Shiva, Varuna, Yama and others to take Bharata to their own regions. He was repeatedly requested by these messengers to accompany them to their respective places, Bharata did not comply with the request, sent away all of them except Sunanda, whom he requested to dilate on the heavenly regions—their position, extent, inhabitants, etc. Consequently Sunanda spoke, in chapters 6-14, about the position and dimension of the planets, the names, position, distance and inhabitants of the different Lokas (viz., Bhurloka, Bhuvarloka, etc., as well as Vaikuntha, Shivaloka, Guhyakaloka, Gandharvaloka, Vidyadharaloka, Apsaroloka and many others), and so forth.

Besides the chapters mentioned above, there are also many others which were added to the Svargakhanda during its Vaishnava recast. These are specially the chapters or sections dealing with Smriti matters, which bear unmistakable signs of revamping by the later age. On the other hand, a few chapters of the earlier Svargakhanda must have been left out during this recast This is evidenced by certain references contained in the Svarga and the Patalakhanda. For instance, in chapter 24, verse 3 of the Svargakhanda, Shesha says to Vatsyayana:

yayater nahusasyapi caritam klrtitam tava C

I have described to you the conduct of Yayati and Nahusa also, 5 and in Patalakhanda, chapter I, verses 6-7, Vatsyayana refers to the contents of the Svargakhanda saying:

tatranekamahapapahara ramakatha krta //

tasya virasya ramasya hayamedhakatha sruta /

samksepato maya tvattah.//

‘There (i. e. in the Svargakhanda) you have narrated the Rama story which destroys manifold great sins. I have heard from you in brief the story of the horSheshacrifice of that hero, Rama. 5

But it is worth noting that the Svargakhanda contains no chapter or section on any of these topics.

The Sakuntala episode in Svargakhanda 1 2 3 has already been referred to. This episode is a part of the story of Bharata, which was introduced in the Svargakhanda at the time of its revision by the Vaishnavas. So, it is not correct to say that Kalidasa borrowed this episode from the Svargakhanda. It is the Svargakhanda which is the borrower.

It became almost a habit with the Puranic writers to utilize the contents of, or plagiarise the extracts or verses from, the writings of great poets of old. For instance, the compiler of the Vishnudharmottara has used Kalidasa’s Vikramorvaslya; the Shivapurana has taken over the ideas and the language of Kalidasa’s Kumarasambhava and RaghuVamsha; and the «shivapurana as preserved in the Bengal mss., has, in its Uttarakhanda (chapters 13-18) incorporated the story of the birth of Skanda, which is manifestly based on the story in Kalidasa’s Kumarasambhava. There are also evidences to show that the authors of many other Puranas borrowed ideas and expressions even from Bharavi’s Kiratarjunlya, 1 2 Magha’s Sisupalavadha 3 and so forth. It is not probable that powerful writers like Kalidasa, Bharavi and Magha used the Puranas as their sources; on the other hand, it can be safely admitted that these Puranas found the writings of the established poets very helpful.

This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that all these Puranas are works of later periods and could not have been utilized by the above mentioned writers. An investigation into the date of the present Svargakhancla and the various sources utilized in it, shows, that this work also is no exception to the general practice of the Puranas and that it derived materials from Kalidasa’s works and not vice versa.

1. Cf. aivapur5pa, JfiSnasarphita, 63. 21 ff, with Kiratarjunlya 3.6 ff.

2. For instance, the present Kalikapurapa has derived many of its ideas and expressions from Kalidasa’s Kumarasambhava and Magha’s Sisupalavadha. For full treatment of this subject see V. Raghavan in Woolner Commemoration Volume, pp.

191-195. See also Raghvan in Journal of Oriental Research.

Vol. XII. 1938 pp. 332 and 337, also his Gleanings from the Matsya PurSija, PurSpa Bulletin Vol. I. No. 1, pp. 88 ff. and Further Gleanings from the MatsyaPurana, PurSpa Bulletin, Vol. Ill, No, 2, pp. 321 ff.

 

THE SVARGAKHAI^33A— ITS DATE.

That the Svargakhanda in its present form is a very late work can be proved by various evidences, internal and external. It mentions the Samaveda 1 2, Atharvasiras 3, Aranyakasastras 8, Itihasa, i. e., Mahabharata, Bhasya, i. e., Patanjali’s Mahabhasya 4, etc. and seems to refer to the ManuSmriti 5, the Natyasastra of Bharata, 6 and the Vaikhanasadharmasutra. 7 It knows and mentions the twelve zodiacal signs (rasi), b which do not appear to have been known in India down to the time of the YajnavalkyaSmriti. 9

On several occasions it refers to the new order of Naksatras from Asvini to Revatl 10, an order which was unknown to the YajnavalkyaSmriti and the latest books of the Mahabharata but which came to be accepted as an established fact in all parts of India during the time of Varahamihira, the famous astronomer of the sixth century A. D. By its use of the word ‘vara’ (meaning ‘week day’) in VII. 10a, this khanda demonstrates its knowledge of the names of week days, the earliest mention of which was traced byJ. F. Fleet in the Eran Inscription of 484 A.D. 1

TulasI, whose mention in Sanskrit literature as a sacred plant associated with Vaishnavism is rather recent, has been glorified in this khanda on two occasions; on one occasion this plant has been deified and placed in the rank same as that of the prominent goddesses like Savitrl; Durga, MahaLakshml and Sarasvati 2 and on the other, it has been called a form of Vishnu. 3 4 5 6 Radha has been mentioned once 7 as dearer to Krishna than his own life.

 

1. Svargakhapda, XXIX. 32c.

2. Ibid., XXXV. 25 a.

3. Ibid., XXVII. 14c.

4. Ibid., XXXV. 29.

5. Ibid., 1. 20b dharmatantre yatha manuh6. Ibid,, VII. 17d. The word nEtyaiastravi^EradEb most probably means proficient in the dramatic science.

7. Ibid., XXVI. 58, XXXV. 41; P. V. Kane is of opinion that Vaikhanasa was a very ancient writer—see Kane, History of DharmasSstra, Vol. I, p. 105.

8. Ibid,, XIV. 26d, 32b.

9. According to P. V. Kane, the date of composition of the YajnavalkyaSmriti is to be placed between the first century B. Gand the third cenrury A. D, See Kane, History ofDharma^astra, Vol. I. pp. XXVIII and 184.

10. Svargakhapda, XI. 40a, 54a and XIV. 27 a—asviny adikatarapSm, It should be mentioned here that the old order of Nakjatras prevalent in India from the Vedic times, was from KrttikS to Bharapl.

 

The Salagrama stone has been praised on several occasions as a medium of Vishnu worship and once described as identical with Vishnu himself. Further, by its reference to the view that Vasudeva was born to Devahuti as Kapila 5 9, this khanda seems to anticipate the Bhagavatapurana 0 in which the story of Vishnu’s birth to Devahuti as Kapila has been narrated at length. It acknowledges the performance ofTantric rites and ceremonies even by the brahmins 7, prescribes the Tantric method in Vishnu worship 3, includes the Tantric Yantra (diagram) among the mediums of worship', introduces Tantric elements (such as bhutasuddhi, nyasa, etc.) into the method of Vishnu worship 10 11 and knows the Pasandi (or Aganiic Shaivas who are said to have initiated people to Tantric Shaivism, to have transgressed all bounds of the Vedic Dharma, and to have drunk wine) 1. By its mention of Shiva’s curse that His abode (puri) at Varanasi would be replaced by a new one in the Kali age 2 3, this khanda seems to suggest the knowledge of the destruction of Shiva temple of Varanasi by Muslim invaders. In one place it appears that the writer or compiler of the Svargakhanda was acquainted with the Hindu temples like that of Jagannatha at Puri in Orissah With regard to the date of the construction of Jagannatha temple, Percy Brown remarks: “The other notable example of the middle period is famous temple of Jagannatha at Puri, an appreciably larger building than the Lingaraja and the principal parts of it erected about a century later. There are records that it was originally built as a pillar of victory by Chora Ganga, the conqueror of Kalinga in 1030 A.D., but that it was not consecrated until A.D. 1118. The probability is that on this site the ruler raised a commemorative column on the occasion of his conquest, but about 1100 A.D. its place was taken by the present structure.” 4 Moreover, in chapter XVI, it gives the story of Bhaglratha’s birth with certain innovations which we know from the testimony of other works to be undoubtedly of late origin. Thus the extant Svargakhanda cannot be dated earlier than the fourteenth century A.D. The dating of this part of the Padmapurana is supported by the fact that not a single Smriti writer, early or late, is found to refer to or draw upon this khanda although it contains a number of chapters on Smriti topics.

The lack of Magian influence in the story of Samjna as contained in chapter XI (verses 81 fF.) need not be taken as going against the above dating of this khanda, because this story has been taken verbatim from the Skandapurana (Kailkhanda, I. 17.68 ff.)

The later date, assigned by us to the present Svargakhancia, does not, however, mean that no part of the Padmapurana entitled ‘Svargakhanda’ existed before that date. It has already been pointed out that the present Svargakhanda has passed through two main stages, that some extracts and verses and the interlocution between Sheshanaga and Vatsyayana have been related in the present Svargakhanda from the earlier form of this work. In its second stage, we see the hands of the Bhagavata Vaishnavas, who subjected this khanda to a destructive recast resulting in its present form and character. The conclusion that there were hands more than one which redacted and recast it can further be strengthened if proper attention is given to the verse 76b of the chapter XXVII and also to the verse 46c of the chapter XVIIf. In the former only two manuscripts D and H read ‘nrpa 5 (which is the proper term of address) but all others read ‘priye’ instead of ‘nrpa’.

Similarly in verse 46c of the chapter XVIII although all other manuscripts read ‘vipra’ (which is the correct term of address), one manuscript D reads ‘devi’ instead of ‘vipra’.

It can be safely concluded from these variants of vocative cases that there were subsequent changes of some portions and these changes may have been made by some sects or sectaries who might have copied some verses from the Puranas of their own interest and have tried to incorporate these into it. We know that in both the recensions of the Padmapurana, the Patalakhanda begins with an interlocution between aesa and Vatsyayana and refers to the interlocutors and contents of the preceding khandas including the Svargakhanda. Now the present Patalakhaii^a has been repeatedly drawn upon by Gopalabhatt; a in his Haribhaktivilasa. 1 So, there is no doubt that a Svargakhanda existed much earlier than the fourteenth century A. D. (after which, as we have stated above, this khanda passed on to its second stage).

 

1. Gf. Haribhaktivilasa, p. 22, 38, 118, 139, 150, 165, 166, 357, 359, 367, 464, 499 with Pat5lakhauda, 93 26; 84, 48 and 52-53; 92. 11; 89. 12-16a and 20b-23; 87.29 and 32; 94.7-8a; 89.17b19, a; 94.4a and 5b; 6-7a; 9b-lla; 4b-5a and 8b-9a; 88.8 respectively. There are many more cases of this type but it is needless to multiply.

 

⇐ Предыдущая440441442443444445446447448449Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: