Original PuraaNa: BrahmaanDa or Vaayu?
R. N. iyengar
There must have been only one Purāṇa in the Vedic period that got multiplied later into 3 and then 18 and even more. In the Vedic texts reference to Purāṇa occurs both in singular and in plural. In any case a Purāṇa was recited in the Vedic Sattra rituals. In the absence of an unbroken tradition of the Vedic-purāṇa now we can only compare and contrast the vulgate texts to arrive at some plausible answers. Pargiter’s view was questioned by Lakshmana Rao in “South Indian Researches” 1919 as quoted by E.W.Clarke in JAOS 1923. (PFA). The JRAS article of Freidriches (1876) available at archive.org makes it abundantly clear that the original Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa (BP) is still preserved in Bali island which still follows Hinduism although, now it is part of Indonesia. From what little I could follow from the JRAS article the priests of (Before Indonesian influence) Bali considered BP (the only purāṇa known in Bali) as nearest to the Vedas.
My own studies of the Purāṇas from the point of view of historical development of astronomy and other physical sciences (Floods, Earthquakes etc) shows that the Ṛgvedic number of Viśvedevas and the concept of Somapāna are coherently described in the BP and BP only, among all the available purāṇa texts. The situation is similar regarding the Vedic North Polar constellation Śiśumāra (modern Draco) of the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka also. BP proposes Dhruva-meru centric astronomy systematically whereas the vulgate Vāyu (Nag Publn.) is not complete, though it remembers the ancient sky picture. Viṣṇu Purāṇa also remembers Śiśumāra but as an embellished legend about Dhruva. But the lunar long count number 3339 of the Ṛgveda which is the science behind the Somapāna and the so called 18-year Saros cycle of eclipses (attributed wrongly to Chaldeans) is either missing (Vāyu) or altered (Viṣṇu) without any basis. This comment is true for the Linga Purāṇa also. Nevertheless the above four Purāṇas and the Skandha, still have quite a bit of ancient historical information. While on the topic I have the following requests to make:
1) Retrieval and reconstruction of Purāṇic astronomy as it existed before the advent of Siddhāntic texts is of interest to us at CAHC. Please let me know if critical edition of Brahmāṇḍa is available or in progress somewhere.
2) South Indian Researches is available at Archive only for 1918. Can someone help me in tracing the article of L. Rao cited above?
3) H. Hinzler, Balinese palm-leaf manuscripts (Manuscripts of Indonesia) 149 (1993), mentions about a manuscript of Brahmāṇḍa No. Or 3730 stored in the Leiden Univ. Library. Is any publication or transcription of this available in the open Indology literature?
Thanks
RN Iyengar
David and Nancy Reigle
Dear Prof. Iyengar,
Thank you for your very informative post. This topic is of much interest to me. What you found in your astronomical researches, that important information is found only in the Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa, is highly significant. Especially so, regarding the information pertaining to the so-called 18-year Saros cycle. That this information is missing in the Vāya-purāṇa (at least in the few editions now available, while we await the publication of the critical edition), puts a different angle on the question of the original Purāṇa-saṃhita. The attempts to reconstruct this original core text so far have based themselves on the 7,557 verses that the two purāṇas have in common. To these, S. P. L. Narasimhaswami added 826 verses from the Vāyu-purāṇa that fill in two gaps in the corresponding Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa accounts. However, he did not take any verses from the Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa that fill in gaps in the corresponding Vāyu-purāṇa accounts. Your research would show that this is necessary. From this core of 8,383 verses he reduced this number to the 4,000 verses that the original Purāṇa-saṃhitā is said to have consisted of. After spending decades of his life reconstructing the Purāṇa-saṃhitā, he died without it being published. This is highly unfortunate. I wonder if anyone might have contact with his family, where his manuscript might still be preserved. I attach his 1945 article, “Purana Samhita.” I also attach the other relevant article on this, “Original Purāṇa Saṃhitā,” by V. S. Agrawala, 1966.
Regarding the Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa, I am not aware of any work being done toward a critical edition. We basically have only the 1906 Veṅkateśvara Press edition. As noted about it by F. E. Pargiter in his 1913 book, The Purāṇa Text of the Dynasties of the Kali Age, p. xxx: “It professes to be based on several MSS, yet gives variant readings only rarely, and leaves on my mind the impression that it has been silently emended at times; . . .” As for the Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa preserved in Bali, the early notices about it are a bit misleading. It is in the Kawi language, not in Sanskrit. The original Sanskrit was loosely translated or paraphrased into Kawi about a thousand years ago. It is also abridged. This Kawi text has been translated into English by I. Gusti Putu Phalgunadi and published in 2000 under the title, The Indonesian Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa (Sundeep Prakashan, New Delhi). It had earlier been edited in Kawi and translated into Dutch by Jan Gonda, Het oud-javaansche Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa, 2 vols., 1932, 1933. Gonda did publish an English article on it, “The Old-Javanese Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa,” in the journal Purāṇa, vol. 2, nos. 1-2, July 1960, pp. 252-267. This Kawi Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa quotes a number of Sanskrit verses throughout. Some of these are found only in the now available Vāyu-purāṇa, not in the now available Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa. Since only the Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa came to Java and Bali, not the Vāyu-purāṇa (or any other purāṇa), this provides additional evidence that a thousand years ago these two purāṇas may have been one.
Your observation that the Viṣṇu-purāṇa has embellished or altered the accounts from the Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa matches the observations made by other researchers. Both Pargiter in his collation of 63 manuscripts for his study of the dynasties of the kali-yuga (p. vi), and Narasimhaswami in his comparative work toward reconstructing the Purāṇa-saṃhitā (p. 56), note that the Vāyu, Brahmāṇḍā, and Matsya purāṇas closely agree with each other and contain the old verses unaltered, while the Viṣṇu and Bhāgavata purāṇas have re-phrased these verses in newer language, often condensing them. Narasimhaswami found that many of the old verses were also found in the Harivaṃśa, which also became an important source for his work in reconstructing the original Purāṇa-saṃhita.
Best regards,
David Reigle
Colorado, U.S.A.
David and Nancy Reigle
Dear Prof. Iyengar,
Thank you for your very informative post. This topic is of much interest to me. What you found in your astronomical researches, that important information is found only in the Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa, is highly significant. Especially so, regarding the information pertaining to the so-called 18-year Saros cycle. That this information is missing in the Vāyu-purāṇa (at least in the few editions now available, while we await the publication of the critical edition), puts a different angle on the question of the original Purāṇa-saṃhita. The attempts to reconstruct this original core text so far have based themselves on the 7,557 verses that the two purāṇas have in common. To these, S. P. L. Narasimhaswami added 826 verses from the Vāyu-purāṇa that fill in two gaps in the corresponding Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa accounts. However, he did not take any verses from the Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa that fill in gaps in the corresponding Vāyu-purāṇa accounts. Your research would show that this is necessary. From this core of 8,383 verses he reduced this number to the 4,000 verses that the original Purāṇa-saṃhitā is said to have consisted of. After spending decades of his life reconstructing the Purāṇa-saṃhitā, he died without it being published. This is highly unfortunate. I wonder if anyone might have contact with his family, where his manuscript might still be preserved. I attach his 1945 article, “Purana Samhita.” I also attach the other relevant article on this, “Original Purāṇa Saṃhitā,” by V. S. Agrawala, 1966.
V Subrahmanian
Gopal Gopinath
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
David and Nancy Reigle
Dear Sri Subrahmanian and all,
Regarding the question of the Vāyu/Śiva purāṇa identity, since no-one has posted any reference to newer studies, it seems that the results of the older studies have been taken as correct by most writers. Now that the BVP has over 2000 members (!), there are probably some who are not familiar with the older studies. So here is some information on these. The unusual length of my reply is partly due to the encouraging words of Sri Gopal Gopinath, whose strong interest in purāṇa matters I share, and who I thank for providing a digital copy of Gonda’s article on the Old-Javanese Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa.
The acknowledged expert on comparative purāṇa studies was Rajendra Chandra Hazra, who published the results of his research in his 1940 book, Studies in the Purānic Records on Hindu Rites and Customs. He compared the contents of the now available purāṇas with the descriptions of the contents of the various purāṇas given in some of them, and he checked the now available purāṇas for a large number of purāṇa quotations that he found in the various smṛti-nibandhas. So he focused on the material on “rites and customs” that now makes up a large percentage of the contents of the purāṇas, rather than on the classical purāṇa pañca-lakṣaṇa-s like his predecessors had (F. E. Pargiter and S. P. L. Narasimhaswami were most interested in vaṃśa).
Hazra found that only seven of the eighteen major purāṇas that are now available more or less fit the early descriptions of their contents, and have in them the passages that are quoted from them by the early smṛti-nibandha writers. These seven are the Mārkaṇḍeya, Vāyu, Brahmāṇḍa, Viṣṇu, Matsya, and Bhāgavata purāṇas, and, with reservations, the Kūrma purāṇa (see pp. 57-75 on this one). The eleven that do not fit the descriptions or do not have matching quotations, and therefore must be regarded as minor purāṇas rather than major purāṇas, are the extant Vāmana, Liṅga, Varāha, Padma, Nāradīya, Agni, Garuḍa, Brahma, Skanda, Brahma-vaivarta, and Bhaviṣya purāṇas. As may be seen, he does not include the Śiva-purāṇa here. This is because he regarded the extant Śiva-purāṇa as only an upapurāṇa, and the Vāyu-purāṇa as the real major purāṇa. He wrote in his 1940 book, pp. 13-15:
“The character of the Vāyu as a Mahāpurāṇa has sometimes been called in question. 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'. 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.”
“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 Siva-p. to the status of a Mahāpurāṇa was due to a comparatively late sectarian zeal.”
We notice that Hazra has taken the references to the Śiva-purāṇa in the majority of the lists of the eighteen mahāpurāṇas as actually referring to the Vāyu-purāṇa under another name. Other writers have taken the Vāyu and Brahmāṇḍa purāṇas as originally being one (so did Hazra, see p. 18), and therefore that the presence of the Brahmāṇḍa purāṇa in the list of eighteen included the Vāyu-purāṇa under another name. This leaves room in the eighteen for a genuine old Śiva-purāṇa, even if the one that is now available can be shown to be a later production.
Some years later, when R. C. Hazra was working on the upapurāṇas (unfortunately the third of his three projected volumes, Studies in the Upapuranas, which would have included the Śaiva upapurāṇas, was never published), he wrote this article: “The Problems Relating to the Śiva-Purāṇa,” Our Heritage, vol. 1, 1953, pp. 46-68; reprint in Dr. R. C. Hazra Commemoration Volume, 1985, pp. 246-281. In the reprint, the Vāyavīya-saṃhitā of the Śiva-purāṇa is summarized on pp. 270-273. About it, Hazra wrote, p. 270: “It is a purely Śaiva work extolling the worship of Rudra in his different forms.” Its contents do not have much in common with the Vāyu-purāṇa.
One of the first writers to deal with this question extensively was Sashibhusan Chaudhuri, in his article: “On the Siva and Vayu Puranas,” Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, vol. 15, 1929, pp. 183-194. He there concluded: “that the Vāyu Purāṇa of the Asiatic society is a genuine Purāṇa, belonging to a very early age, and as such it has got a greater claim than the Śiva Purāṇa to be reckoned as one of the original eighteen mahāpurāṇas.”
Later, in agreement with both Chaudhuri and Hazra, A. D. Pusalker wrote an article: “Vāyu Purāṇa versus Śiva Purāṇa,” Journal of the University of Bombay, vol. 10, 1941, pp. 148-155; revised reprint in his Studies in the Epics and Purāṇas, 1955, pp. 31-41. He concluded (p. 41): “In the present state of our knowledge it seems safe to conclude that the printed Vāyu Purāṇa is a genuine Mahāpurāṇa, and that the Śiva Purāṇa is a late work not fit to be called a Mahāpurāṇa, but is only an Upapurāṇa.”
So there was a consensus that the now available Vāyu-purāṇa rather than the now available Śiva-purāṇa should be counted among the eighteen mahāpurāṇas. Of course, this does take away from the value of the now available Śiva-purāṇa for those who find inspiration in it.
Best regards,
David Reigle
Colorado, U.S.A.
David and Nancy Reigle
Siddharth Wakankar
Krishnamurthy Nagarajan
V Subrahmanian
शिवपुराणम्/संहिता ७ (वायवीयसंहिता)/पूर्व भागः/अध्यायः ३२
The verse is:
रुद्दुःखं दुःखहेतुर्वा तद्रावयति नः प्रभुः ॥ ७.१,३२.३६
रुद्र इत्युच्यते सद्भिः शिवः परमकारणम् ॥ ७.१,३२.३६
Siddharth Wakankar
David and Nancy Reigle
Dear Subbu-ji (if I may),
The verse that Śrī Śaṅkarācārya cites in his Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma-bhāṣya is not found in either the now extant Vāyu-purāṇa or in the now extant Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa, according to the śloka indexes that were added to the Nag Publishers reprints of the Veṅkaṭeśvara Press editions. Śrī Śaṅkarācārya in his bhāṣya attributes it to the Liṅga-purāṇa. It is not found in the now extant Liṅga-purāṇa, Veṅkaṭeśvara Press edition. But it is found in the now extant Śiva-purāṇa, as you said in your post, in its Vāyavīya-saṃhitā, 7.1.32.36. R. C. Hazra in his 1953 article, “The Problems Relating to the Śiva-Purāṇa,” says on p. 269 of its 1985 reprint: “The Vāyavīya-saṃhitā expressly names the Liṅga-purāṇa as its source in some matters.” So it would seem that this verse was found in the Liṅga-purāṇa that was available to Śrī Śaṅkarācārya, and may have been copied from there into the now extant Śiva-purāṇa.
Hazra in that article tells us that the Calcutta Vaṅgavāsī Press edition of the Śiva-purāṇa differs widely from the Bombay Veṇkaṭeśvara Press edition, having in common only three saṃhitās. The Calcutta edition has three more saṃhitās that are not found in the Bombay edition, and the Bombay edition has four more saṃhitās that are not found in the Calcutta edition. The Vāyavīya-saṃhitā is found in both editions of the Śiva-purāṇa. It so happens that the verse in question is also found in the Kailāsa-saṃhitā, at 6.9.14 of the Bombay edition. The Kailāsa-saṃhitā is also found in the Calcutta edition.
Here is some additional information about the Vāyavīya-saṃhitā from Hazra’s article:
p. 272: “A careful study of the Vāyavīya-saṃhitā shows that it is a distinct work written by a person different from the authors of the other Saṃhitās. Hence, its date should be discussed separately.”
p. 273: “Hence the Vāyavīya-saṃhitā cannot possibly be dated earlier than 800 A.D.”
p. 273: “It is remarkable that none of the Smṛti-writers of Bengal is found to refer to or quote verses from the Vāyavīya-saṃhitā. On the other hand, this Saṃhitā was drawn upon by the South Indian scholars first of all, and it was much later that it came to be utilised by the Smṛti-writers of Orissa. So, this Saṃhitā seems to have been written in Southern India.”
I must defer to Hazra's expert knowledge of the purāṇas, but I still think it is quite possible that there was a genuine old Śiva-purāṇa.
Best regards,
David Reigle
Colorado, U.S.A.
V Subrahmanian
David and Nancy Reigle
In support the view that the Brahmāṇḍa and Vāyu purāṇas were originally a single purāṇa, a comparison of their contents was made by Willibald Kirfel and published as charts in the introduction to his 1927 book, Das Purāṇa Pañcalakṣaṇa, pp. xii-xiii and pp. xv-xvi. Even though the book is in German, the charts can be used without knowing German. The first several pages of his introduction were on these two purāṇas, which he regarded as originally being one purāṇa. S. P. L. Narasimhaswami had started his comparative studies of the purāṇas in 1910, which eventually led to his reconstructing the lost original Purāṇa-saṃhitā. This was largely reconstructed from the extant Brahmāṇḍa and Vāyu purāṇas, which he also regarded as originally being one. When he came to know of Kirfel’s book, he wanted to know what Kirfel said in the introduction to that book. So Narasimhaswami asked his brother, P. V. Ramanujasvami, to translate Kirfel’s introduction from German into English. This was published in two installments in Journal of Sri Venkatesvara Oriental Institute, 1946 and 1947. I attach my scans of these here.
As I mentioned in a previous post, Narasimhaswami died without his reconstruction of the Purāṇa-saṃhitā being published, and I wondered if anyone might have contact with his family where his manuscript might still be preserved. The article by his brother gives at the end his full name as S. P. L. Narasimhaswami Ayyavaralugaru, and where he lived as Vizagapatam. Possibly this information may be of some help in locating his descendants today.
V Subrahmanian
rniyengar
Dear Sri David,
You have posted so much of useful information; it takes considerable time to assimilate the material in perspective. The paper by Gonda posted by Sri Gopal has also been helpful. Some of the doubts and confusions I had about Brahmāṇḍa and Vāyu are getting cleared. The letter P in the initials of Narasimhaswami stands for ‘Paravastu’ a well known family title among South Indian Śrī-vaiṣṇavas. He also wrote ‘Cālukya-caritam’ in Sanskrit, (Ref:Archives.org) perhaps the first such work on matter-of-fact history based on reading inscriptions, which was an area of his expertise. Hopefully, scholars from Andhra/Telangana will be in a position to trace his manuscript on the Purāṇa-samhitā.
My interest is not so much on the structural form of the earlier Purāṇas but on the internal consistency of astral theories and sky pictures contained in them.
regards
RN Iyengar
Gopal Gopinath
David and Nancy Reigle
Further to whether the Brahmāṇḍa and Vāyu purāṇas were originally a single purāṇa:
As past scholars have noted, the Veṅkateśvara Press edition of any particular purāṇa is often little more than a printed version of an individual manuscript, with all its unintelligible readings due to scribal errors. The Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa seems to be a representative example of this, even though it alone has preserved some crucially important correct readings, as noted here by Prof. Iyengar. Every edition of the Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa that I have seen since the publication of the Veṅkaṭeśvara Press edition in 1906, whether printed or digital, seems to be copied from this edition. All this gives the impression that what we have in these is THE Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa. Now that some purāṇa manuscripts have become available online, we are able to compare the printed edition(s) with a manuscript.
A manuscript of the Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa from the Raghunath Temple Sanskrit Manuscript Library, Jammu, is now available at:
https://archive.org/details/BrahmandaPuranaSomeAdhyayas5411GhaAlm24Shlf4DevanagariPurana.
Comparing just the first section, the prakriyā-pāda, we find that there are considerable differences in the numbers of verses per adhyāya. The numbers of verses in the manuscript of the Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa tally closer with the numbers of verses in the printed editions of the Vāyu-purāṇa. The Veṅkaṭeśvara Press edition of the Vāyu-purāna, 1895, is apparently based on the Bibliotheca Indica edition of the Vāyu-purāṇa, 1880-1888. The Ānandāśrama edition of the Vāyu-purāṇa, 1905 (apparently copied by the Gurumaṇḍala edition, 1959), differs from these two in its numbers of verses.
Here is a listing of the numbers of verses in each adhyāya of the prakriyā-pāda. First is the number of verses in the manuscript of the Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa, followed by the number of verses in the printed edition of the Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa. These are then followed by the number of verses in the Bibliotheca Indica and Veṅkaṭeśvara editions of the Vāyu-purāṇa, and last the number of verses in the Ānandāśrama edition of the Vāyu-purāṇa.
1. Brahmāṇḍa ms. 211; Brahmāṇḍa printed 174; Vāyu B.I./Veṇk. 185; Vāyu Ān.Āś. 205.
2. Brahmāṇḍa ms. 44; Brahmāṇḍa printed 48; Vāyu B.I./Veṇk. 41; Vāyu Ān.Āś. 45.
3. Brahmāṇḍa ms. 25; Brahmāṇḍa printed 0 (this whole adhyāya is missing in the printed ed.); Vāyu B.I./Veṇk. 22; Vāyu Ān.Āś. 24.
4. Brahmāṇḍa ms. 93; Brahmāṇḍa printed 38; Vāyu B.I./Veṇk. 82; Vāyu Ān.Āś. 92.
5. Brahmāṇḍa ms. 52; Brahmāṇḍa printed 34; Vāyu B.I./Veṇk. 50; Vāyu Ān.Āś. 54.
6. Brahmāṇḍa ms. 104; Brahmāṇḍa printed 141; Vāyu B.I./Veṇk. 73; Vāyu Ān.Āś. 79.
As may be seen, in numbers of verses this manuscript of the Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa, in the prakriyā-pāda, is closer to the printed Vāyu-purāṇa editions than to the printed Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa edition. This, of course, is not surprising if these two purāṇas were in fact originally one, as seems to be the case. We will know a lot more when the forthcoming critical edition of the Vāyu-purāṇa is published.
David and Nancy Reigle
Dear Prof. Iyengar,
Your discovery of how the Vedic number 3339 leads to the 18-year eclipse cycle, with the help of material found in the Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa (“Eclipse Period Number 3339 in the Ṛgveda,” https://insa.nic.in/writereaddata/UpLoadedFiles/IJHS/Vol2_2005_01.pdf), shows the importance of the purāṇas for understanding the Vedic texts. As you say about the purāṇas, “preceding Sāyaṇa by more than 1500 years” (p. 142): “These texts are the prime claimants for having preserved ancient traditions outside the canonical Vedic literature.” The fact that the key verse giving the number 3339 is found only in the published edition of the Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa shows the need for critical editions of the purāṇas. This verse should be in the Vāyu-purāṇa, but as you noted, it is not; that is, it is not in the published Bibliotheca Indica and Veṅkaṭeśvara Press editions and the editions that are based on these two. This verse is found in the Ānandāśrama edition of the Vāyu-purāṇa (chapter 52, verse 63, p. 168), although not correctly.
Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa 1.23.68, Veṅkaṭeśvara Press edition:
trayaś ca triṃśataś caiva
trayastriṃśat tathaiva ca |
trayaś ca trisahasrāś ca devāḥ somaṃ pibanti vai ||
Vāyu-purāṇa 52.63, Ānandāśrama edition:
trayaś ca triśataṃ caiva
trayastriṃśat tathaiva ca |
trayastriṃśat-sahasrāś ca devāḥ somaṃ pibanti vai ||
In the first line, the Vāyu-purāṇa verse from the Ānandāśrama edition gives the better reading triśatam for the reading triṃśataḥ found in the published Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa. But the reading it gives in the second line, trayastriṃśat-sahasrāś ca, instead of trayaś ca trisahasrāś ca, will not result in the Vedic number 3339.
As you wrote, variants of this verse are found in the Viṣṇu-purāṇa and the Liṅga-purāṇa, but they yield the number 36333 rather than 3339. This verse is of much importance, so I have checked the śloka indexes of all the eighteen (or nineteen) major purāṇas for it. It is also found in the Matsya-purāṇa (126.62-63 in the Veṅkaṭeśvara edition, 126.63-64 in the Ānandāśrama edition) and in the Agni-purāṇa (120.34-35, Bibliotheca Indica and Veṅkaṭeśvara editions), but again only yielding the number 36333. Of these purāṇas, we at present have a critical edition of only the Viṣṇu. We would expect some old manuscript of the Viṣṇu-purāṇa to have the needed readings of this verse to yield the number 3339.
Of the nearly 275 Viṣṇu-purāṇa manuscripts listed in the New Catalogus Catalogorum (University of Madras), the editors selected 43 to collate. After collating these 43 manuscripts, it was found that several were merely copies of older manuscripts that were collated. After eliminating these copies, 27 manuscripts remained, from which full variant readings were given. Surprisingly, none of these 27 best manuscripts had any reading for this verse, 2.12.7, giving a different number than 36333.
Interestingly, although the verse in question as found in the Liṅga-purāṇa, 1.56.11-12, yields the number 36333 rather than 3339, there are three other verses in this purāṇa that give the number of devas as 3339, in different contexts. These are 1.72.85, 1.100-21-22, and 1.102.21-22, in the Veṅkaṭeśvara edition. I did not find these verses in any other of the major purāṇas. R. C. Hazra found that the extant Liṅga-purāṇa differed so much from the early descriptions of its contents and the quotations from it found in the old smṛti-nibandhas that he could not regard it as the original Liṅga-purāṇa. Yet we see that it still contains important verses that are now found in no other purāṇa.
Thank you for the further information about S. P. L. Narasimhaswami, that: “The letter P in the initials of Narasimhaswami stands for ‘Paravastu’ a well known family title among South Indian Śrī-vaiṣṇavas.” I hope that his manuscript of the original Purāṇa-saṃhitā that he laboriously reconstructed can be found.
Best regards,
David Reigle
Colorado, U.S.A.
R. N. iyengar
Dear Sri David,
It is heartening to know that half the world away someone is interested in the meaning and origin of the number 3339 on which I have spent considerable time and continue to do so. Your searches and the notes provided are all informative and helpful. Thanks for reading my 2005 IJHS paper. It needs further revision. In my shock and awe of having found the meaning of the RV number in the BP, quite unexpectedly, I quickly wrote up the article. Since then I have consulted several Purāṇa versions. Initially I was under the impression VP, MP etc might have tried for longer periods, but this was not so. I purchased the VP critical edition from Baroda ORI only to find, as you have rightly noted, no variant reading is reported in the foot note. Liṅga Pu is certainly interesting but the variant readings have to be sorted out properly.
I feel in the initial stages of handling large numbers (in the Puranas) transition from an earlier additive approach to a later multiplicative approach is seen. In some places the two are perhaps mixed up causing confusion to later readers and copyists alike. We see a similar confusion in the interval number between the 26-Comets of Parashara (Ref: Brhatsamhita: Ketucara). This wild chase, in my case, was due to the MB. Since Gāndhārī foretells (or curses Kṛṣṇa) the end of Yādavās as after 18 x 2 = 36 years from the War, I was searching whether this was used to predict eclipses, but could not find any direct evidence. Thus, I went back to the Vedic texts and I am still studying them! The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad has a discussion on the number of Devas. This is said to be:
'As many as are mentioned in the Nivid of the hymn of praise addressed to the Visvedevas, viz. three and three hundred, three and three thousand.' (Max Mueller’s Transl.)
If taken literally this turns out to be 303+3003=3306. But we know the Nivid in the RV has 3339. Fortunately the Bṛhaddevatā has preserved the details and explains the Saucīka-agni legend at great length to conclude with the total count of Viśvedevas as the sum of three numbers, namely 3000, 309 and 30.
Hence I took BP to be the closest Purāṇa to Vedas as far as the astral contents are described. The questions that arise further are too many and also too subtle. How was this large number counted? Why the Saucīka hymns (RV X.53-2,4) are prescribed in the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa rites? Is there reference to a lunar eclipse here? I will send you privately some work I have done on such questions.
I share your concern about the necessity of bringing out a critical edition of the Vāyu-prokta Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa, at least the Pūrvārdha.
Best regards
RN Iyengar
David and Nancy Reigle
Dear Prof. Iyengar,
It really is of great importance, your discovery that the enigmatic Vedic number 3339 leads to the 18-year eclipse cycle. As you have noted, the 18-year Saros eclipse cycle has always been regarded as a discovery of the Chaldeans or Babylonians. Until your 2005 article, no one knew that it is also found in the earliest Vedic texts. The number 3339 there is established beyond any doubt, because of the great accuracy with which the Ṛg-veda was preserved, and because the verse giving it is also repeated in other Veda saṃhitās. Glad to see the additional references to it that you gave from the Nivid and the Bṛhad-devatā. The reference to this number found in the Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa was not unknown, but was not understood until you showed how it clearly yields the 18-year eclipse cycle.
There is another published edition of the Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa, in Bengali script, that I have not seen. It was edited by Pañcānana Tarkaratna and published by the Vaṅgavāsī Press, Calcutta, in 1908, titled Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇam. This edition may have been based on a previous Bengali edition, edited by Devandranātha Vasu and published by the Viśvakośa Office, Calcutta, in 1895. The 1908 Tarkaratna edition was apparently reprinted in 1989. These two editions include Bengali translation. I have not found either of these online, but if a digital version exists, Shankara-ji can find it. I would also be glad to buy the 1989 reprint if anyone knows where it is available. The bibliographic data given here is from the 2005 article by Christophe Vielle, “From the Vāyuprokta to the Vāyu and Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇas: Preliminary Remarks towards a Critical Edition of the vāyuprokta Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa,” which I have attached.
The eagerly awaited forthcoming critical edition of the Vāyu-purāṇa has been under preparation at the Oriental Institute, Vadodara. I think that Dr. Sweta Prajapati, Director of the Oriental Institute, is a member of the BVP. Perhaps she can let us know when we might expect this critical edition to be published. It will be so helpful for ascertaining as exactly as we can what is in this very old purāṇa.
shankara
shankara
Sudarshan HS
David and Nancy Reigle
David and Nancy Reigle
R. N. iyengar
David and Nancy Reigle
Vielle, Christophe. “From the Vāyuprokta to the Vāyu and Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇas: Preliminary Remarks towards a Critical Edition of the vāyuprokta Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa,” pp. 535-560 in Epics, Khilas, and Purāṇas: Continuities and Ruptures. Proceedings of the Third Dubrovnik International Conference on the Sanskrit Epics and Purāṇas, September 2002, edited by Petteri Koskikallio. Zagreb: Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, 2005.
Best regards,
David Reigle
Colorado, U.S.A.
Dear Sri David,
Thanks for your encouraging response. I take the copy of the paper by Vielle as a gift from you for the Uttarāyaṇa Puṇyakāla. This article is indeed useful for my work. Please let me know the expansion of DICSEP or the paper citation details.regardsRN Iyengar
ken p
Nagaraj Paturi
--
Bijoy Misra
--