{"id":374,"date":"2012-08-14T03:27:18","date_gmt":"2012-08-14T01:27:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/?p=374"},"modified":"2012-12-26T19:59:22","modified_gmt":"2012-12-26T18:59:22","slug":"creation-stories-the-cosmogony-account-from-the-pura%e1%b9%87as","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/creation-stories-the-cosmogony-account-from-the-pura%e1%b9%87as\/","title":{"rendered":"Creation Stories: The Cosmogony Account from the Pur\u0101\u1e47as"},"content":{"rendered":"

Part 1. On the Original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em><\/p>\n

The first place that one would look when seeking knowledge of cosmogony from Indian sources is the pur\u0101\u1e47as. The pur\u0101\u1e47as are traditionally supposed to teach five subjects, the first of which is creation or emanation (sarga). There are reckoned to be eighteen major pur\u0101\u1e47as in the Hindu tradition, and some extend over multiple volumes. These sourcebooks of India\u2019s creation stories are among the texts said by H. P. Blavatsky to be derived from the \u201cBook of the Secret Wisdom of the World\u201d that the \u201cBook of Dzyan\u201d is a secret commentary on: \u201cthe Pur\u0101\u1e47as<\/em> in India . . . are all derived from that one small parent volume\u201d (The Secret Doctrine<\/em>, vol. 1, p. xliii). In fact, there is a tradition given in the pur\u0101\u1e47as themselves that they come from a single now lost source. This source is described as the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em>. It consisted of 4,000 verses, less than in any of the eighteen pur\u0101\u1e47as now extant, but not a small book. It would therefore have been an intermediate stage in the derivation \u201cfrom that one small parent volume\u201d described by Blavatsky, like the \u201cBook of Dzyan\u201d is also said to be.<\/p>\n

The idea that all the pur\u0101\u1e47as come from a single now lost source, an original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em>, was also arrived at by Western scholars, independently of Indian tradition. Ludo Rocher writes in his 1986 book, The Pur\u0101\u1e47as<\/em> (part of the series, A History of Indian Literature<\/em>), p. 45: \u201cThe Western concept of a single, original pur\u0101\u1e47a, from which all existing pur\u0101\u1e47as ultimately derive their origin, resulted from a strict application of the rules of textual criticism, which were the backbone of European, especially German, classical philology. Scholars extended to pur\u0101\u1e47as the same rules and principles they would have applied had they been editing Greek or Latin texts. Others, however, came to the same conclusion via a totally different route: the Indian tradition itself suggests that originally there was but one pur\u0101\u1e47a.\u201d<\/p>\n

This one pur\u0101\u1e47a is claimed by the pur\u0101\u1e47as to be older than the vedas: \u201cFirst, of all the scriptures the pur\u0101\u1e47a was remembered by Brahm\u0101; and afterwards, the vedas issued forth from his mouths\u201d (V\u0101yu-pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> 1.1.54, Matsya-pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> 53.3, etc.). The Secret Doctrine also claims that its teachings are older than the Vedas: \u201cFor in the twentieth century of our era scholars will begin to recognize that the Secret Doctrine<\/em> has neither been invented nor exaggerated, but, on the contrary, simply outlined; and finally, that its teachings antedate the Vedas\u201d (The Secret Doctrine<\/em>, vol. 1, p. xxxvii).<\/p>\n

It would seem that the pur\u0101\u1e47as follow what was described by Blavatsky as the \u201cBook of the Secret Wisdom of the World\u201d much more closely than do the other texts that are said to be derived from it. Blavatsky goes on to say there (The Secret Doctrine<\/em>, vol. 1, p. xliii): \u201cThe old book, having described Cosmic Evolution and explained the origin of everything on earth, including physical man, after giving the true history of the races from the First<\/em> down to the Fifth (our) race, goes no further. It stops short at the beginning of the Kali Yuga<\/em> just 4989 years ago at the death of Krishna, . . .\u201d Likewise, the pur\u0101\u1e47as end their accounts, purporting to give history, at the beginning of the current kali-yuga. Blavatsky continues: \u201cBut there exists another book. None of its possessors regard it as very ancient, as it was born with, and is only as old as the Black Age, namely, about 5,000 years. In about nine years hence, the first cycle of the first five millenniums, that began with the great cycle of the Kali-Yuga, will end. And then the last prophecy contained in that book (the first volume of the prophetic record for the Black Age) will be accomplished.\u201d Similarly, in seven of the pur\u0101\u1e47as there is an added supplement on the dynasties of the kali-yuga, put in the form of prophecies. This account was carefully edited in Sanskrit by F. E. Pargiter and translated into English in his 1913 book, The Pur\u0101\u1e47a Text of the Dynasties of the Kali Age<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Unlike the vedas, which had to be preserved unchanged, the pur\u0101\u1e47as were expected to evolve and expand and be augmented (upab\u1e5b\u1e43ha\u1e47a) with new material. The five subjects that a pur\u0101\u1e47a is traditionally supposed to teach are: (1) sarga, creation or emanation; (2) pratisarga, dissolution and re-creation; (3) va\u1e43\u015ba, lineage or race, the genealogies or dynasties of kings, sages, and gods; (4) manvantara, the time period of a manu or humanity; (5) va\u1e43\u015b\u0101nucarita, accounts of the individual kings, sages, and gods that comprise the genealogical listings. However, some of the pur\u0101\u1e47as as we now have them include very little of these five subjects, and instead consist almost entirely of stories, praises of gods and goddesses, instructions for worship, descriptions or glorifications of sacred places, and various other subjects. As new material was added and old material was left out, the pur\u0101\u1e47as evolved until in some cases there was almost nothing left in them of the one original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em>. How far is it possible to recover the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em> from the extant pur\u0101\u1e47as, we must wonder.<\/p>\n

Pargiter\u2019s in-depth work on the dynasties of the kali-yuga, the first ever critical edition of a pur\u0101\u1e47a text, brought out some important facts. He established his text on the basis of the several printed editions then available plus sixty-three manuscripts. Of the seven pur\u0101\u1e47as that have this account, he noted (op. cit., p. vi): \u201cThe versions of the Matsya, V\u0101yu, and Brahm\u0101nda present a remarkable similarity.\u201d The Vi\u1e63\u1e47u<\/em> and Bh\u0101gavata<\/em> are condensations of this account, and the Garu\u1e0da<\/em> is a further condensation. The Bhavi\u1e63ya<\/em> as we now have it \u201cshows all the ancient matter utterly corrupted\u201d (p. xxviii), even though the original Bhavi\u1e63ya<\/em> is the source from which the Matsya<\/em>, V\u0101yu<\/em>, and Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em> say they took their account. Pargiter also found that (p. x): \u201cThere are clear indications that the Sanskrit account as it exists in the Matsya, V\u0101yu, and Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da was originally in Prakrit, or, more accurately, that it is a Sanskritized version of older Prakrit \u015blokas. . . . The above conclusion holds good for the whole of the text of the Matsya, V\u0101yu, and Brahm\u0101nda; their verses are older Prakrit \u015blokas Sanskritized. It also holds good for such portions of the Vi\u1e63\u1e47u and Bh\u0101gavata as have preserved the old verses; but the main portions of these two Pur\u0101\u1e47as are condensed redactions composed directly in Sanskrit.\u201d So according to this, the Matsya<\/em>, V\u0101yu<\/em>, and Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em> are the oldest of the extant pur\u0101\u1e47as.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, in 1910 S. P. L. Narasimhaswami had begun a comparative study of the pur\u0101\u1e47as that would eventually lead to his reconstruction of the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em> in 4,000 verses, unfortunately never published. He independently also concluded that the Matsya<\/em>, V\u0101yu<\/em>, and Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em> are the oldest of the extant pur\u0101\u1e47as, and added to these the Hariva\u1e43\u015ba<\/em>, a pur\u0101\u1e47a-like supplement to the Mah\u0101bh\u0101rata<\/em>. In his article, \u201c<\/span>Purana Samhita<\/span><\/a><\/span>\u201d (Journal of Sri Venkatesvara Oriental Institute<\/em>, Tirupati, vol. 6, 1945, pp. 54-71, attached), he writes (p. 59): \u201cKeeping these facts in mind, I began to examine the \u015blokas which were repeated in different Pur\u0101\u1e47as. Staunch sectarian Pur\u0101\u1e47as, like Padma<\/em>, K\u016brma<\/em>, Li\u1e45ga<\/em>, etc. do not contain these stanzas. Those like Vish\u1e47u<\/em>, M\u0101rka\u1e47\u1e0deya<\/em>, etc. contain very few of them. Matsya<\/em> and Hariva\u1e43\u015ba<\/em> (although the latter is not a Pur\u0101\u1e47a) contain hundreds of stanzas in common with V\u0101yu<\/em> and Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em>, while these last Pur\u0101\u1e47as have thousands of stanzas in common though they are not in a continuous line.\u201d After preparing a parallel text of the account of the Y\u0101dava dynasty in the Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em>, V\u0101yu<\/em>, Matsya<\/em>, and Hariva\u1e43\u015ba<\/em>, he concluded: \u201cWhen I made sufficient progress in the formation of the parallel text, I was convinced that the common portion was the Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Of these texts, we see that the V\u0101yu<\/em> and Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em> pur\u0101\u1e47as have thousands of these old verses in common. As now extant, the V\u0101yu Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> has 10,714 verses in the Bibliotheca Indica edition, or 10,991 verses in the \u0100nand\u0101\u015brama edition, while the Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> has 14,286 verses in the Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6de\u015bvara edition (the only one published). According to Narasimhaswami (ibid.), they have 7,557 verses in common, and there are two lacunae in the Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> that would add 826 verses to this. So the total of 8,383 verses would have to be reduced by about half to get to the 4,000 verse extent of the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em>. Because the extant V\u0101yu Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> is shorter than the extant Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em>, most researchers regard the V\u0101yu Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> as being the oldest pur\u0101\u1e47a we have, and the closest to the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em>.<\/p>\n

S. P. L. Narasimhaswami concluded that the V\u0101yu Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> is the oldest pur\u0101\u1e47a in another statement, naming additional pur\u0101\u1e47as, in his only other published article that I know of, \u201cAik\u1e63v\u0101ku Dynasty<\/span><\/a><\/span>\u201d (Bh\u0101rat\u012bya Vidy\u0101<\/em>, vol. 4, 1943, pp. 217-220, attached), where he writes (p. 219): \u201cIn the light of the Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em>, the value of the different Pur\u0101\u1e47as<\/em> has to be assessed differently. Some Pur\u0101\u1e47as<\/em>, like the Agni<\/em>, the Garu\u1e0da<\/em>, the Bhavi\u1e63ya<\/em> and the Brahmavaivarta<\/em>, have no historical matter in them and are only Pur\u0101\u1e47as<\/em> in name. . . . Others like the Vi\u1e63\u1e47u<\/em>, the Bh\u0101gavata<\/em>, the M\u0101rka\u1e47\u1e0deya<\/em>, and the V\u0101mana<\/em> are cognizant of the Sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em> and incorporate it partly in them. The rest which are very old, like the V\u0101yu<\/em>, the Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em>, and the Matsya<\/em> contain the Sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em> in them, either wholly or partially. It is these Pur\u0101\u1e47as<\/em> that helped me in the task of recovering the Sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em>. Of these the V\u0101yu-pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> is the oldest and most valuable.\u201d<\/p>\n

Despite regarding the account of the dynasties of the kali-yuga found in the Matsya Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> as slightly older in his 1913 book (p. xiv), F. E. Pargiter had come to the conclusion that the V\u0101yu<\/em> and Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em> were the oldest pur\u0101\u1e47as we have in his 1922 book, Ancient Indian Historical Tradition<\/em> (p. 78): \u201cThese two appear to be the oldest of the Puranas that we possess now, and are on the whole the most valuable in all matters of traditional history.\u201d He had then come to regard them as originally one pur\u0101\u1e47a (p. 77): \u201cThe V\u0101yu and Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da have the best text of the genealogies. Their accounts agree closely, so that they are really only two versions of the same text. They have a great part of their contents in common, generally almost verbatim, and it appears they were originally one Purana.\u201d That they were originally one, incidentally, is also the conclusion that I had reached before seeing his book, and for the very same reason that he there gives (pp. 77-78). This is as follows:<\/p>\n

The lists of the eighteen pur\u0101\u1e47as given in the majority of the pur\u0101\u1e47as omit the V\u0101yu Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em>. In a minority of the lists, the V\u0101yu Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> is given in place of the \u015aiva Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em>. But both of these are major pur\u0101\u1e47as, and we cannot have nineteen. Pargiter notes that only two of the lists have both the V\u0101yu<\/em> and the Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em>, and one of these two lists is from the V\u0101yu<\/em> itself as we now have it (the other is from the Garu\u1e0da<\/em>). The obvious implication is that the V\u0101yu<\/em> was not separate from the Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em> until quite late. They are the same pur\u0101\u1e47a. The majority of the lists, which omit the V\u0101yu<\/em>, are correct, since the V\u0101yu<\/em> is there as the Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em>.<\/p>\n

To demonstrate that the two are one, the close parallel contents of the extant V\u0101yu<\/em> and Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em> pur\u0101\u1e47as were laid out in detail in a chart prepared by Willibald Kirfel. He did this at the beginning of his introduction to his major 1927 study, Das Pur\u0101\u1e47a Pa\u00f1calak\u1e63a\u1e47a<\/em>. In this 598-page book, Kirfel gathered together from the various pur\u0101\u1e47as all the passages on the five subjects that a pur\u0101\u1e47a is traditionally supposed to teach, the pur\u0101\u1e47a-pa\u00f1ca-lak\u1e63a\u1e47a<\/em>, the \u201cfive defining characteristics of a pur\u0101\u1e47a.\u201d So the book is entirely in Sanskrit. It is prefaced by a 40-page introduction in German. Kirfel\u2019s German introduction was translated into English by P. V. Ramanujasvami, at the request of his brother, S. P. L. Narasimhaswami, and published in Journal of Sri Venkatesvara Oriental Institute<\/em>, Tirupati, vol. 7, 1946, pp. 81-101; vol. 8, 1947, pp. 9-33 (attached as Pur\u0101\u1e47a Pa\u00f1calak\u1e63a\u1e47a Introduction<\/span><\/a><\/span>). Ludo Rocher notes that this translation \u201cshould be used with extreme caution\u201d (The Pur\u0101\u1e47as<\/em>, p. 44, fn. 12). Nonetheless, it affords us some access to Kirfel\u2019s German in English. About the Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em> and V\u0101yu<\/em> pur\u0101\u1e47as, Kirfel writes (English translation, p. 83): \u201cThe first result of the Pur\u0101\u1e47ic text-comparison is the perception that the B\u1e0d. [Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em>] and V\u0101. [V\u0101yu<\/em>] must have originally formed a single Pur\u0101\u1e47a.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, Kirfel did not regard the Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da\/V\u0101yu Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> as the oldest, as did Pargiter and Narasimhaswami. Kirfel\u2019s approach was to gather together the passages from the various pur\u0101\u1e47as on each of the five subjects of a pur\u0101\u1e47a (although he took the first two closely related subjects together, sarga and pratisarga, creation and dissolution), then to place them into text groups having matching accounts, and lastly to arrange these text groups as much as possible into what he regarded as their chronological order. Thus, on the subject of creation or emanation and dissolution followed by re-creation, his first text group consists of the Brahma Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em>, the Hariva\u1e43\u015ba<\/em>, and the \u015aiva Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em>, with partial support from the Agni Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em>. His second text group was divided into two sub-groups. Group 2A consists of the Padma Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> and the Vi\u1e63\u1e47u<\/em> Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em>, with a little support from the Garu\u1e0da Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em>. Group 2B consists of the Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em>, the V\u0101yu Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em>, the K\u016brma<\/em> Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em>, the Li\u1e45ga<\/em> Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em>, and the M\u0101rka\u1e47\u1e0deya<\/em> Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em>. His third text group consists solely of the Matsya Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em>. (He did not use the N\u0101rada<\/em>, Brahma-vaivarta<\/em>, Skanda<\/em>, or V\u0101mana<\/em> pur\u0101\u1e47as in his book, and for this subject he did not find or give anything from the Bh\u0101gavata<\/em>, Bhavi\u1e63ya<\/em>, or Var\u0101ha<\/em> pur\u0101\u1e47as.) As may be seen from this, he regarded the account of creation and dissolution from the four pur\u0101\u1e47as in the first text group to be older than that from the Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da\/V\u0101yu Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em>, found in his text group 2B.<\/p>\n

Part of Kirfel\u2019s reasoning for this is that the account from the first text group is much briefer, and hence presumably less expanded. By contrast, on the subject of the dynasties of the kali-yuga, Pargiter saw the briefer accounts in the Vi\u1e63\u1e47u<\/em>, Bh\u0101gavata<\/em>, and Garu\u1e0da<\/em> pur\u0101\u1e47as as condensations of the accounts in the V\u0101yu<\/em>, Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em>, and Matsya<\/em> pur\u0101\u1e47as. Kirfel also used the criterion of whether the accounts contained S\u0101\u1e43khya ideas. This is based on the assumption that S\u0101\u1e43khya philosophy is a later development, and thus was added to the pur\u0101\u1e47as later. By contrast, Indian tradition regards S\u0101\u1e43khya as the oldest philosophy, so that it would naturally be in the pur\u0101\u1e47as from early on. Narasimhaswami disregarded both of these criteria used by Kirfel, and focused instead on parallel old verses. Kirfel perceived the hand of a reviser in the Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da\/V\u0101yu<\/em> verses by comparing similar material from other pur\u0101\u1e47as. But how do we know which direction this revising went in? What was convincing evidence to Kirfel was not convincing to others. Of course, the usefulness of Kirfel\u2019s book is not dependent on accepting his chronological views. The value of his compilation for comparing the accounts of the various pur\u0101\u1e47as on the five subjects is very great indeed. He concluded (English translation, pp. 28-29): \u201cApart from the abridgement in A. [Agni<\/em>] and Ga. [Garu\u1e0da<\/em>] as well as the prose paraphrase of Vi. [Vi\u1e63\u1e47u<\/em>], we find in the Pur\u0101\u1e47as only three complete compositions of this text [the pa\u00f1ca-lak\u1e63a\u1e47a], namely that of the Br. [Brahma<\/em>] and H. [Hariva\u1e43\u015ba<\/em>], that of the B\u1e0d.-V\u0101. [Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da-V\u0101yu<\/em>] and that of the Mt. [Matsya<\/em>]; all others contain only smaller or greater parts of the same.\u201d He, too, was trying to ascertain the contents of an original or \u201cUr-pur\u0101\u1e47a.\u201d<\/p>\n

The “Original Pur\u0101\u1e47a Sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/span><\/a><\/span>,\u201d by V. S. Agrawala (Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em>, vol. 8, 1966, pp. 232-245, attached), summarizes the information we have on this, and accepts the extant V\u0101yu Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> as the oldest and closest to the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em>. As we have seen, the extant V\u0101yu Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> has about 11,000 verses, while the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em> is reported to have had 4,000 verses. So Agrawala here (pp. 242-244) provides a listing of what portions of the extant V\u0101yu Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> making up about 7,000 verses should be discarded, and what portions making up about 4,000 verses should be retained as constituting the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em>. This may be compared to Narasimhaswami\u2019s detailed listing of what chapters, and how many verses in each, made up the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em> that he reconstructed (\u201cPurana Samhita,\u201d pp. 63-69). While Narasimhaswami and Pargiter were interested in recovering history from the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em>, Agrawala was interested in recovering the ancient knowledge called Pur\u0101\u1e47a-Vidy\u0101.<\/p>\n

In the Preface to his 1963 book, Matsya Pur\u0101\u1e47a\u2014A Study (An Exposition of the Ancient Pur\u0101\u1e47a-Vidy\u0101)<\/em>, Agrawala explains (p. ix): \u201cPur\u0101\u1e47a-Vidy\u0101\u2014The point of view which has inspired the present study of the Matsya Pur\u0101\u1e47a is an investigation not of chronology or of canons of authorship but of the real secrets of what once was known as the Pur\u0101\u1e47a-Vidy\u0101<\/em>. Like other Vidy\u0101s as Vy\u0101kara\u1e47a [grammar], Jyotisha [astronomy\/astrology], Nirukta [etymology] etc., Pur\u0101\u1e47a also was a subject of intensive purposive study in which serious teachers and pupils were engaged. What that purpose was is often stated in the Pur\u0101\u1e47as themselves. The objective was to present, amplify and preserve the meaning of the Vedic S\u1e5bish\u1e6di-Vidy\u0101<\/em> or the science of cosmogony.\u201d The ancient Pur\u0101\u1e47a-Vidy\u0101 is apparently the key that Blavatsky refers to in this statement from The Secret Doctrine<\/em> (vol. 1, p. 423): \u201cBut there was a time when the Puranas were esoteric works, and so they are still for the Initiates who can read them with the key that is in their possession.\u201d<\/p>\n

Pargiter had found that, for the account of the dynasties of the kali-yuga he edited, the verses from the Matsya<\/em>, V\u0101yu<\/em>, and Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em> pur\u0101\u1e47as were originally in Prakrit, being Sanskritized versions of older Prakrit \u015blokas. At that time, the so-called \u201cBuddhist Hybrid Sanskrit\u201d had not yet been identified or studied. In Buddhist texts, old verses are found that use Prakrit-type words and inflections, words and inflections that could not be changed into classical Sanskrit without spoiling the meter. Even a few old prose texts were found written in this dialect, dubbed \u201cBuddhist Hybrid Sanskrit\u201d by Franklin Edgerton, who published a grammar and dictionary of it in 1953. We can now see that these old pur\u0101\u1e47a verses in Sanskritized Prakrit are like the \u201cBuddhist Hybrid Sanskrit\u201d verses in Buddhist texts, where the process of changing them into classical Sanskrit is more visible. While it is possible to regard these old verses as going back to a vernacular Prakrit form of these early writings, it is also possible to regard them as remnants of an older pre-classical form of sacred Sanskrit, closer to the esoteric Senzar. Senzar is the name given to the language of \u201cthat one small parent volume\u201d from which the pur\u0101\u1e47as are said to be derived.<\/p>\n

In summary, Indian tradition speaks of an original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em>, no longer available, that is the source of the eighteen pur\u0101\u1e47as now known. The idea that the pur\u0101\u1e47as come from a single now lost source was arrived at independently by Western scholars through their own researches. The idea that the pur\u0101\u1e47as come from a single now lost source was also stated by H. P. Blavatsky in The Secret Doctrine<\/em>, and this source is the book that the \u201cBook of Dzyan\u201d is a commentary on. This source is said to describe cosmic evolution up to the beginning of the present kali-yuga. The pur\u0101\u1e47as also describe cosmic evolution and end with the beginning of the present kali-yuga. The Secret Doctrine<\/em> speaks of another book that gives the prophecies of the kali-yuga. Seven of the pur\u0101\u1e47as also have a supplement that gives in the form of prophecies an account of the dynasties of the kali-yuga. The original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em> is said to consist of 4,000 verses. This would be an intermediate text between the \u201cone small parent volume\u201d and the eighteen known pur\u0101\u1e47as. Attempts to recover the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em> indicate that many, if not most, of its 4,000 verses may be found in the extant V\u0101yu Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> and its twin Brahm\u0101\u1e47\u1e0da<\/em> Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em>, supplemented by the Matsya Pur\u0101\u1e47a<\/em> and the Hariva\u1e43\u015ba<\/em>. Research showed that these verses were Sanskritized from an earlier language, a language that may have been intermediate between Senzar and classical Sanskrit. Attempts have also been made to recover the ancient knowledge called Pur\u0101\u1e47a-Vidy\u0101, which would provide the key to the meaning of the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Part 1. On the Original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101 The first place that one would look when seeking knowledge of cosmogony from Indian sources is the pur\u0101\u1e47as. The pur\u0101\u1e47as are traditionally supposed to teach five subjects, the first of which is creation or emanation (sarga). There are reckoned to be eighteen major pur\u0101\u1e47as in the Hindu tradition, and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-374","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-creation-stories"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/374","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=374"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/374\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":421,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/374\/revisions\/421"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=374"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=374"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=374"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}