Chapter XXXIV. Cosmology

Volume V: Part II pp. 1483–1529

Chapter XXXIV. Cosmology

All writers on Dharmaśāstra are agreed on the existence of Goḍ They rarely enter upon the task of adducing arguments for the existence of Goḍ Christian theologians for hundreds of years put forward various arguments pointing to the existence of Goḍ They are briefly summarised in William James’ ‘Varieties of religious experience’ p. 437 (eḍ of 1920). The cosmological argument reasons from the ordered universe to a First Cause which must be conceived as God who must at least possess whatever perfection the universe itself containṣ The argument from purpose or design (teleological argument) bases itself on the evidence of purpose or design in Nature and concludes that the First Cause (God) must be a creative intellect or minḍ Then there are other arguments also such as the ‘moral argument’ (viz. the moral law presupposes a law-giver), the argument ex consensu gentium (viz. there is widespread belief in God all over the world and it should carry weight).¹ The Upaniṣads speak of the Absolute brahman as the creator, preserver and destroyer of the bhūtas (beings or elements or both). For example, the Tai. Up. III. 1 (Bhṛgu² is instructed by his father Varuṇa) 'desire to know that from which all bhūtas spring, by which, after being created, they live (are sustained) and to which they return and are absorbed therein; that is brahma'. This is the basic text on which V. S. I. 1. 2 (janmādyasya yataḥ) is baseḍ This means 'from which the creation (sustenance and dissolution) of this (world) proceed' (that is brahma). Another passage of the Tai. Up. (II. 1) states that 'from this Ātman Ākāśa sprang, from ākāśa Vāyu, from Vāyu Agni, from Agni waters, from waters the earth, from earth plants, from plants food, from food man'. A passage of the Chāṇ Up. states³ 'all this, indeed, is brahma; a man, cultivating restraint of the mind, should meditate on that (world) as springing from, ending in and breathing on account of that (brahma)'. This is the basis of V. S. I. 2. 1 (sarvatra prasiddho- padeśāt). Here the three attributes of brahma are creator, preserver and destroyer of the universe.

The Vedāntasūtra of Bādarāyaṇa further says that śāstras (sacred canon or texts) are the source of the correct knowledge (Continued from last page) abandoned, since, according to him, these are preposterous absoluteṣ On the other hand Dr, F. W. Jones in his work 'Design and purpose' (London, 1942) puts forward the view that many people are in danger of losing sight of the truth that the Cosmos is an ordered entity and that many have lost belief in the purpose of human life (p. 13). The teleological argument may strengthen the faith of a person who already believes in God, but it appears that it cannot create faith in God in the case of one who does not subscribe to that view. Abel Jones in 'In search of truth' (1945) holds that the three main arguments for the existence of God are cosmological, teleological and ontological. To the objection that the Veda is concerned with rites, that some portions of it are meant for the praise of rites, that the Vedic mantras only remind the performer about the various ingredients of sacrifice, that, therefore, the Vedānta texts either serve no purpose at all or at the most give information about the soul of the sacrificer or the deity to be worshipped in sacrifices, the reply is given by the Vedāntasūtra I. I. 4 (tat-tu samanvayāt), which means that all Vedānta texts are agreed that their purport is to establish that brahma, which has been postulated (in V. S. I. 1. 2) as the creator, preserver and absorber of the world has that character and is omnipotent.⁴

That the argument from design also was present to the minds of the propounders of Vedānta follows from the fact that the Vedāntasūtra (II. 2. 1, racanānupapatteśca nānūmānam) denies that the Pradhāna of the Sāṅkhya (that is postulated as acetana) can be inferred as the cause of the universe.⁵

It may be noted here that, according to Śaṅkarācārya, the detailed⁶ statements on the doctrine about creation contained in the Upaniṣads are not to be taken literally, that no special purpose dependent thereon can be found nor is such a purpose laid down by Śruti (Veda), but all those statements are intended to lead on to the knowledge of brahma and to expound the non-difference of the world from brahma.⁷ From early times most philosophers oscillate between the doctrine of the First Principle as immanent in the universe and the doctrine that God is the creator and is transcendent. The Ṛgveda and Upaniṣads appear to postulate the first doctrine according to which the Absolute enters into it when it creates the Universe (Tai. Up. II. 6 ‘tat sṛṣṭvā tad-evānuprāviśat’), Chāṇ Up. VI. 2. 1, VI. 3. 2, Bṛ. Up. I. 4. 10. They also speak of God as ruling the Universe (antaryāmin) as in Bṛ. Up. III. 7. Kauṣītaki Up. III. 8. At that time there was no atomic theory. Early Greek thought also wavered between the two doctrineṣ Later on came the rival theory of cosmology in which atoms played a great part, that was adumbrated by Democritus (died about 370 B. C. acc. to William James in ‘Some Problems’, and explained by Lucretiuṣ In India also the Vaiśeṣikas put forward the theory that the world is paramāṇus (atoms). Kaṇāda or Kaṇabhuk (lit. one who assumes or subsists on kaṇas, very subtle particles) is the reputed founder of the Vaiśeṣika systeṃ He does not expressly say anything about Goḍ But later mediæval writers on Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika combined the two doctrines of God and atomṣ As the Tarkadīpikā⁸ puts the theory it is as follows: when God desires to create, activity is produced among the atoms, two atoms join, dvyaṇuka (dead) is produced, tryaṇuka is produced from three dvyaṇukas and in the end the great earth is produced; of things created when God desires to bring about dissolution an activity is produced in the atomṣ The atoms are eternal and infinite in number.

Though there was almost universal agreement about the existence of God among the Dharmaśāstra writers, there was (as in the⁹ West) divergence about the names, nature and attributes of Goḍ Most were agreed that God is one without a second, is spiritual (and not physical, though several people worshipped Him in the form of Śiva or Viṣṇu or Devī), immutable, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, creator, holy, good and just &c. Difficult questions arise about belief in Goḍ One or two may be mentioned : Is God omniscient in the completed and strictest sense viz. whether he could do anything whatever as he likes or whether there are certain things which he cannot do. Another question is whether all existing things other than himself have been created by him or whether there are some things whose existence is as ultimate as God'ṣ All religions are faced with difficulties and therefore religion is a matter of faith.

Though the Ṛgveda is full of the deeds of and prayers to individual Gods (such as Agni, Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Soma), the Ṛgveda contains several hymns and verses to the effect that the original Principle is only one, that it creates the world out of itself, enters into it and inspires it. In Ṛg. I. 164. 46 the sage says 'the wise speak of the One existing (principle) under various names, they call it Agni, Yama, Mātarīśvan (wind god)'. This is not a solitary verse. There are similar verses in the Ṛgveda. For example, Ṛgveda VIII. 58. 2 (a verse from the Vālakhilya hymns) says 'The one fire is kindled in many places, the one Sun appears in the whole world, the one Dawn shines over all this world and the One (Principle, Spirit) became all this'. In Ṛg. X. 90. 2, it is declared 'all this universe is (in reality) the Puruṣa alone, (both) what has been and what will come into existence in future'. In Ṛg. II. 1. 3–7 Agni is identified with Indra, Viṣṇu, Brahmā, Varuṇa, Mitra, Aryaman, Tvaṣṭṛ, Rudra, Draviṇodas, Savitṛ and Bhaga. All these verses establish that ultimately all plurality is only a play of words, a mere name ('Vācārambhaṇam vikāro nāmadheyam' as the Chāṇ Up. VI. 1. 4 states) and that unity is the only Reality and that the fundamental teaching of the Upaniṣads appears in germ in the Ṛgveda. In the Ṛgveda there are several hymns about the creation of the world in the 10th Mandala (X. 72, X. 81 and 82, X. 90, X. 121, X. 129). For reasons of space all these cannot be set out at length, but some important texts will be mentioneḍ The main purpose of the hymn (X. 72) is to describe the birth of eight Ādityaṣ Ṛg. X. 72. 2 states¹¹ that Brahmanaspati brought about the (births of) gods like a smith (that works with bellows) and that in the primeval ages of the Gods ' sat ' was produced from asat. In Ṛg. X. 72. 4-5 and 8 it is said that Dakṣa was born from Aditi and Aditi from Dakṣa, that the gods were born after her (Aditi) and that from Aditi eight sons were borṇ The two hymns X. 81 and 82 refer to Viśvakarman who fashioned the worldṣ X. 81. 2 and 4 ask questions ‘what was the base¹² (from where he created the world), what was the material (out of which he fashioned the earth), what was the forest and the tree from which heaven and earth were chiselled out' and the third verse describes the one God as follows 'The one God who sees all round, whose face is turned in all directions, who has hands and feet everywhere, who when creating heaven and earth sends them forth with his (two) hands as with bellows and with wings' (as a bird is propelled). Ṛgveda X. 90 (con- taining 16 verses) is the famous hymn called Purusasūkta and postulates a supreme creator as a Purusa (called Ādipurusa by Sāyana) with a thousand heads, eyes and feet, asserts that all this that has come into being and that is yet to come is Purusa, that from Purusa arose Virāj, from whom arose (what we may call the second) Purusa (Hiranyagarbha) whom the gods offered as havis (oblation or paśu) in a symbolical sacrifice in which the three seasons, Vasanta, Grisma and Śarad were respectively the ghee, the fuel and the havis. This hymn was probably composed at a time when, it appears, there was a firm belief (as in Śat. Br. V. 2. 4. 7, VI. 1. 1. 3 and Tai. S. VII. 4. 2. 1) that nothing great can be accomplished without yajña or tapas. The hymn then proceeds to say that from that primeval yajña all animals (horses, cows &c.), the four varnas, the Sun, the Moon, Agni, Indra, the Veda, heaven and earth were produceḍ In the Atharvaveda XIX. 6 also there are 16 verses of which the first fifteen correspond with the first 15 verses of the Purusasūkta, but the order of verses is different and some of the words also are slightly changeḍ The Vaj. S. 31 has all the 16 verses of the Purusa- sūkta but it contains five more verses and a prose passage at the enḍ Rg. X. 121. 1 declares²⁴⁴⁰ that in the beginning Hiranya- garbha (the Golden Egg) was born; and verse 10 identifies him with Prajāpati and verses 8 and 10 declare that waters were produced by him from which issues forth Hiranyagarbha (the Golden egg), which was Prajāpati Himself. The second verse of Vak (speech), wherein speech is portrayed as a power even beyond the gods and as creative. Three (1, 6, 8) out of the eight verses may be rendered here 'I move along with the Rudras and Vasus, with the Adityas and Viśvedevas; I support both Mitra and Varuṇa, Indra and Agni and the two Aśvinṣ I stretch the bow of Rudra in order to kill the enemy, the hater of brahma (sacred prayer); I cause war for men; I entered heaven and earth. I blow like the wind, producing all the worlds; I am beyond heaven and beyond this earth; by my greatness (power) I have become such a one'. Here one must hold that the sage is not referring to ordinary speech or language but to the conception that word has creative power and that it is one with God or was the thought uttered by brahmaṇ

Rg. X. 129 (called Nāsadīya-sūkta from the opening words) is a unique hymṇ¹⁵ Several passages of his hymn are yet very obscure in spite of the labour bestowed upon it by eminent scho- larṣ In this hymn the First Principle or Creator is not given any name but is simply spoken of as 'tad-ekam', as done in the Upanisads in 'Tat tvam-asi' or 'ekam-evadvitīyam' (Chaṇ Up. VI. 2.1-2.). The important and tolerably clear passages are translated here: "There was then neither 'asat' (what is not, non-being) nor 'sat' (what is); there was no sky nor the heaven which is beyond; what was it that covered all? Where was it and under whose shelter? Was there deep unfathomable abyss of waters?; (2) There was no death, hence nothing immortal; there was no consciousness (distinction) of night and day; that one breathed by its own nature (power) without there being any air, really nothing other than that existed; (4) desire came into being, that was the first flow (seed, offspring) of the mind; (6) who knows directly, who can proclaim it here whence this creation came into being; (7) He from whom arose this crea- tion, whether he made it or did not make it, the Highest seer in the highest heaven, he indeed knows or even he does not know?

It would be noticed that the sage, who was a poet and philosopher, proclaimed that there was that one Being, raised high above all gods, conditions and limitations; he, the sage, gives expression to what he conceived to be the state before the creation of the universe. Night and day, death and immorta- lity are oppositeṣ These exist only when there is manifest- ness or creation and therefore he says 'there was no death, nor anything immortal'. The hymn does not say that there was non-being out of which being grew. What he means is that That One alone breathed, the opposites, being and non-being, did not exist. For translations and remarks on this hymn, vide Max-Müller's 'History of ancient Sanskrit Literature' (1859) pp. 539-566, and 'Six systems of Indian Philosophy' (1919 eḍ) pp. 49-52, Dr. Radhakrishnan's 'Indian Philosophy' (1923), vol. I. pp. 100-104. Prof. Whitney (Proceedings of American Oriental Society Vol. XI p. CXI.), in his characteristic supercilious manner referred to above on p. 512, remarked that the praises bestowed on this hymn were nauseating. Deussen, long after Whitney's diatribe, said 'in its noble simplicity, in the loftiness of its philosophic vision, it is possibly the most admirable bit of the philosophy of olden times' and that ' no translation can ever do justice to the beauty of the original' (vide Bloomfield's 'The religion of the Veda,' p. 234, eḍ of 1908). Vide Keith's 'Reli- gion and philosophy of the Veda and Upanisads,' Vol. II. pp. 435-436. In many other passages of the Ṛgveda, different gods are referred to as creatorṣ God Prajāpati is said to have created heaven and earth, the wide, deep, well formed and to have pushed them by his power without support (IV. 56. 3). Indra is said to have created the Sun and Uṣas (Rg. II. 12. 7) and to have established heaven without any beam to support, supported and spread the earth (Rg. II. 15. 2). The creation hymns refer to a stage when there was no generally accepted theory about the origin of the worlḍ But much is clear that in the most ancient times, at least some of the Vedic sages had arrived at the theory that there was only one Principle or Spirit, though called by various names and that it willed to create the world and created it from itself.

Apart from the above-mentioned hymns that may be called creation hymns, the Ṛgveda contains many references to the creation or the support ¹⁶ of heaven and earth by several gods and also creation of other thingṣ In Ṛg. X. 89. 4 Indra is said to have made from heaven and earth on all sides as the axle does the wheelṣ Ṛg. I. 154. 4 refers to Viṣṇu who single-handed supports the three, viz. the earth, the heaven (and antarikṣa) and all the worldṣ Mitra is said to support heaven and earth (Ṛg. III. 59. 1) and to bear all gods (Ṛg. III. 59. 8) ¹⁷. brāhmaṇas-pati (Lord of Prayer, Bṛhaspati) is said to have sent forth (blazed) the births of gods like a blacksmith and that in the primeval times of the gods sat was born from asat. Soma is said (Ṛg. VI. 47. 4) to have made the width of the earth and the loftiness of the heaven and supported the wide anta-rikṣa (mid regions) and in Ṛg. II. 40 (which is addressed jointly to Soma-Pūṣan) it is said that one of them (Soma) produced all worlds and the other (Pūṣan, the Sun) goes over-seeing or marking, the doings of the whole world (verse 5).

In Ṛg. VII. 78. 3 dawns (plural) are said to have created the Sun, Yajña and Agni. This is metaphorical, since after each dawn the Sun rises, sacrificial fire is kindled into flames and sacrifice is offereḍ In Ṛg. I. 96. 2 Agni is said to be the progenitor of meṇ In Ṛg. II. 35. 2 (apāṁ napāt, grandson of waters i. e. Agni) is said to have created all worldṣ

Heaven and earth (as dual divinities) have six hymns addressed to them in the Ṛg. viz. I. 159-160, 185, IV. 56, VI. 70, VII. 53) and they are called ‘rodasi’ and sisters (Ṛg. I. 185. 5). They are also called parents of the gods (Ṛg. VIII. 97. 8, X. 2. 7). The word 'antariksa' (atmospheric region) occurs at least a hundred times in the Ṛgveda. Sometimes we have phrases like ( tisrah prthivih ) meaning the three worlds including the earth (Rg. I. 34, 8), while in other passages reference is made to lower, middle and highest prthivi as in Rg. I. 108. 9 (yad indrāgni avamasyām prthivyām madhyamasyām uta sthah) meaning thereby the earth, antariksa and heaveṇ Antariksa is often called 'rajas' as the region of dust, mists and clouds in Rg. I. 35. 2 and 9). In Rg. I. 35. 6 it is said 'there are three dyus (i. e. heaven, antariksa and earth), two are on the lap of Savitr (i. e. heaven and earth) and one (antariksa) is in the world of Yama. The sage explains in Rg. X. 88. 15 'I have heard of two paths viz. of the pitrs and of the gods and also of men; the whole world that moves reaches that (region) which is between the father (heaven) and the mother ( the earth )'. Varuṇa is said to have spread antariksa on forests, spread the Sun in heaven and Soma on mountains (Rg. V. 85. 2). Even in the times of the Ṛgveda speculation had begun about the distance between heaven and earth. In Rg. I. 155. 5 the poet says that no one dare soar up to the third step of Viṣṇu (i. e. heaven), not even the birds flying on their wingṣ In the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa the distance between the earth and heaven is put at one thousand days' journey for a horse.¹⁸ In the Taittirīya saṃhitā Prajāpati is frequently mentioned as creating the gods and asuras (III. 3. 7. 1), as creating people (II. 1. 2. 1) and animals (I. 5. 9. 7) and desiring to create prajā and performing tapas for that (III. 1. 1. 1). Tai. S. (V. 6. 4. 2) states that all this in the beginning was water, a sea and that Prajāpati becoming wind floated rapidly on a lotus leaf. The Atharvaveda has some hymns on creatioṇ But they are verbose, repetitive and do not possess the depth, philosophy and terse style of the hymns of the Ṛgveda cited above. In hymns 7 and 8 of the 10th kāṇḍa it puts forward Skambha as the base and as identified with Prajāpati, as the creator and supporter of all worlds and as having all the thirty-three gods in himself; it asks 'by how much did Skambha enter the manifold forms of the highest, lowest and middling type that Prajāpati created; how much is that in which he (Skambha) did not enter'? In Rg. IX. 86. 46 Soma made for sacrifice is spoken of as Skambha. Hymn 8 of kāṇḍa X (of Atharvaveda) is styled 'description of Jyestha-brahma' (the highest or oldest brahma). Two verses from it may be cited 'Obeisance to that Jyestha Brahma that governs all, whether produced or to be produced, and to whom alone heaven pertainṣ These two, heaven and earth, stand supported by Skambha; all this that has Atman, that breathes and blinks is Skambha. Skambha literally means 'support' or 'pillar'. The verbal form 'Skabhṇāti' occurs in Rg. X. 6. 3 and the word 'Skambha' occurs several times in the Rg. but not in the sense of 'creator'. In Atharva X. 8. 2 Skambha is mentioned twice, while in X. 7 ¹⁹ (of 44 verses) it occurs many timeṣ Atharva X. 2 is called Brahmaprakāśana hymn (of 33 verses). Numerous questions are asked in verses one to 19. In verses 20, 22, 24 questions are asked and verses 21, 23, 25 give replies to theṃ One question and answer may be set out 'By whom was this earth made (or arranged), by whom was the high heaven placed, by whom was the sky placed above and crosswise and in various directions'? 'Brahma made the earth, brahma is the heaven placed high, it is brahma that is the sky placed above, cross-wise and in various directionṣ' Verse 27 of Atharva X. 8 is the same as Sv. Up. IV. 3 and identifies the creator with young and old, men and women and boy and girl. In Atharva X. 8 several other deities also are mentioned but they are deemed to be comprehended in the Supreme Entity. In Atharva IX. 2 (25 verses) there is apotheosis of Kāma, in the first eighteen verses of which there are prayers to Kāma for vanquishing and driving away enemies, the last quarter of each of the verses 19 to 24 ends 'tasmai te Kāma nama it kṛṇomi' (I offer obeisance to you, O Kāma'). These six verses declare that Kāma appeared first, that neither the gods, nor pitṛs nor men reached Kāma who is greater than heaven and earth, waters, Agni, the directions, all beings that blink their eyes, the sea; Vāta, Agni, the Sun and the Moon do not reach Kāma. Atharva XIX. 52 is a hymn²⁰ of five verses addressed to Kāma, who is said to have appeared in the beginning and was the first flow of the minḍ

Atharvaveda XI. 4 (26 verses) is addressed to Prāṇa, the first verse being 'obeisance to Prāṇa under whose domination is all this (world); he is the Lord of all and in him everything is centred (or established)' and verse 12 is 'Prāṇa is Virāj, Prāṇa is the directing power, all offer worship to Prāṇa, Prāṇa is indeed the Sun, the Moon and they (the sages) call him Prajāpati'.

In hymns 53 (10 verses) and 54 (5 verses) of Kāṇḍa 19 the Atharvaveda appears to put forward Kāla (time) as the first principle. Three of these are here translateḍ 'Tapas is placed in Kāla, also the Jyeṣṭha Brahma, Kāla is the Lord of all, he was the father of Prajāpati; Kāla created people, in the beginning Kāla created Prajāpati, Svayambhū (Brahmā), Kaśyapa and tapas sprang from Kāla; from Kāla were born waters, brahmā, tapas and directions, sun-rise is due to Kāla and it is merged in Kāla (at night)'.

The Śat. Br. in many places speaks of creatioṇ A few passages only can be referred to here. The Śat. Br. (in VI. 1. 1) starts by saying that 'in the beginning there was here the non-existent' and asserts that the non-existent was the sages, the vital airs and then it postulates Prajāpati (made from seven vital airs) who desired 'May I be more, may I have progeny'. 'He toiled and practised tapas, and being tired, he created first of all the Brahman, the triple lore (the three Vedas), that Prajāpati then created waters from Vāk that is the world; that he entered the waters with the triple lore and that thence an egg arose; he touched it, then earth was produced and so oṇ

In XI. 1. 6. 1 ff. the Śat. Br. states "In the beginning this was water, only a sea. The waters desired 'How shall we have progeny ?' They tolled and practised austerities; while they were doing this a golden egg was produced, which floated for about a year; in about a year's time a Puruṣa, Prajāpati, was born; he broke open the egg; he created the Gods by (the breath of) his mouth; he created Agni, Indra, Soma" &c.

In XI. 2. 3. 1–2 the Śat. Br. says—In the beginning this (universe) was brahma, it created the gods, Agni, Vāyu, Sūrya; then a reference is made to name and form (nāma-rūpe) by which he descends into the worlds and it is said ‘these two (nāmarūpe) are the great manifestations of brahma’.

This myth about a golden egg of the universe is developed from Rg. X. 129. 3 and X. 121. 1 (Hiraṇyagarbhaḥ sama-vartatāgre) in the Ch. Up. III. 19. 1–2 ‘In the beginning this universe was asat (not unfolded), it became sat (began to unfold), it lay (in waters) for the period of a year; then it broke up, the two halves were one of silver and the other of gold; the silver half is this earth and the golden half is heaven’. This is followed in Manusmṛti as will be shown later oṇ

It is stated in the Śat. Br. X. 4. 2. 22-23 that Prajāpati arranged the Ṛgveda in such a way that the number of syllables in the Ṛgveda come to 12000 Bṛhatī metres (each Bṛhatī has 36 syllables).

The Tai. Br. states “Prajāpati created Gods and asuras (II. 2. 3) but he did not create Indra; the Gods said to him ‘create Indra for us’; just as I created you by means of tapas in the same way you create Indra; they practised tapas (abiding) in themselves (i. e. in their hearts) and they saw Indra (‘abiding’) in them; they said to him ‘be born’”. In II. 2. 9. 1 the Tai.²¹ Br. states “this universe was nothing at all in the beginning; there was no heaven nor earth nor mid region; that non-existent created Mind with the thought ‘let me be’”. In II. 6. 2. 3 the same Brāhmaṇa says “Prajāpati created by the help of Veda the two forms ‘sat’ and ‘asat’”. The Tai. Br. in II. 8. 8. 9–10 cites as Puronuvākyā and Yājyā of puroḍāśa and puronuvākyā of ‘havis’ as follows: ‘Brahma produced the Gods and all this world; the kṣatriyas were produced from brahman and brahma trans- formed its form into brāhmaṇas; (yajña) ‘these worlds abide inside brahman, similarly all this world is inside it; brahman is the best among all bhūtas; who vie or compete with it, brahman is thirty-three Gods, and all bhūtas, all placed inside it as in a boat’.

In the Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa there are brief allusions to Prajāpati. In VI. 1 it is stated ‘Prajāpati, desirous of progeny, practised tapas; while he was thus practising tapas five were born, viz. Agni, Vāyu, Āditya, the Moon and Uṣas as fifth;’ in VI. 10 it is said ‘Prajāpati practised tapas; after having practised tapas, he produced this world (the earth) from prāṇa, the mid regions from apāna and the yonder world (heaven) from vyāna; he then created Agni, Vāyu and Āditya respectively from the earth, mid regions and heaven, and he produced ṛk verses from Agni, yajus texts from Vāyu and sāman texts from Āditya; in XIII. 1 it is asserted ‘Prajāpati is indeed yajña, in which all desires, all immortality are centered’; in XXVIII. 1 it is said ‘Prajāpati created yajña, the gods worshipped by means of yajña, when it was created and thereby obtained all desired objectṣ’²²

The chief aim and purpose of the Brāhmaṇas of the Veda are to prescribe the acts and parts of the ritual of various sacrifices, to set out some myths and legends for their origin and to postulate various rewards on the performance of nume- rous sacrificeṣ

Prajāpati, who is mentioned very rarely in the Ṛgveda (IV. 53. 2 where Savitṛ is called Prajāpati, IX. 85. 4 where Soma is called Prajāpati, X. 85. 4 where in the marriage hymn Prajā- pati is prayed to bestow offspring, X. 169. 4 where Prajāpati is invoked to bestow good cows, X. 184. 1 where Prajāpati along with other gods and goddesses is invoked for the blessing of conception in a married woman, X. 121. 10 (already referred to above on p. 1490), becomes the most prominent god in the Brāhmaṇaṣ The Ait. Br. narrates the story that after Indra killed Vṛtra he wanted to be great and honoured in place of Prajāpati, that then Prajāpati said (if you are to be great) 'who am I going to be' (koham-iti) and thereby Prajāpati came to be called ' Ka'.²³

The Ait. Br. states that Prajāpati desiring to propagate and to be many and having practised tapas created the three worlds, earth, mid region and heaven from which arose three lights (jyotis), Agni, Vāyu and Āditya, from which arose the three Vedas &c.

The Vedic Samhitās and Brāhmaṇas show that the popular belief about the individual self was that by good deeds the soul reaches heaven, becomes immortal and enjoys various joys and pleasureṣ Vide Ṛg. IX. 113. 7–11, I. 125. 4–6, Atharva IV. 34. 2 and 5, VI. 120. 3. There was also the idea of retribution and recompense for evil or harmful acts done by one person to another. For example, the Śat Br. says (XII. 9. 1. 1) 'for what-ever food a man eats in this worlḍ, by the very same is he eaten again in the other worlḍ' Vide also Śat. Br. XI. 6. 1. But when we come to the Upaniṣads, the whole intellectual atmosphere is changeḍ The Upaniṣads frequently assert that Ātman is the only reality, that there is nothing else and that the Ātman can only be described as ' not this-not this' i. e. the Ātman is un-knowable. This is the first and foremost aspect of Vedānta. But this lofty metaphysical conception clashed with the ideas of common people who thought that a real universe existed apart from the Creator. The higher philosophic minds had to concede the reality of the universe for common people. They were prepared to say that the universe exists; in truth, however, it is nothing but the Ātman entered into the universe. They said that the world was phenomenal, not false or nothing, but the Vedānta viz. that the universe evolved from the first principle, brahma. They distinguished between saguṇa (quali-fied) brahman that was for prayer and worship (upāsanā), and for practical purposes (vyavahārāvasthā) and nirguṇa (un-qualified) brahma. But the higher thought also insisted that the highest truth (pāramārthikasatya) is that brahman is one, that everything in the world (men, animals, inorganic matter) is brahman (' sarvam khalvidam brahma ' Chāṇ Up. III. 14. 1, ' aham brahmāsmiti tasmat tatsarvam-abhavat ' Br. Up. I. 4. 10). The Ait. Up. quoted below is most emphatic about the identity ²⁴ of the first principle with men, beasts, motionless beings and other passages of the same. As regards the elements the Br. Up. has a long passage ²⁵ (III. 7. 2-23) in which Yājñavalkya propounds to Uddālaka Āruņi the sublime doctrine viz. that the Atman residing in the earth and other elements is inside them, whom they (the elements) do not know, whose body is the earth and other elements, who rules from within the earth and others, that that Atman is the soul of thee (and of mine and others), is the inner ruler and is immortal. The last part of this passage is 'the ruler within is unseen but seeing, unheard but hearing, unperceived but perceiving, unknown but knowing, there is no other seer but he, there is no other hearer but he, but he. This is the Self, the ruler within, the immortal. Everything else is distress'. This whole section called antarayāmī-brāhmaṇa has a parallel in Br. Up. II. 5 (Madhu- vidyā). The ordinary man's conception of brahman as the creator was not, however, entirely given up by the thinkers in the Upaniṣads, though it was said that concept was due to avidyā (ignorance about Reality). Brahman conceived as creator was called Īśvara (a personal God), though the worshipper might know that brahman in essence is above all conditions and limitations of personality. This is theism, which acknowledges three entities viz. a real world, the Paramātman (creative Ātman) and the individual self dependent on Paramātmaṇ But the real thought of the Upaniṣads is centred round the non-difference of brahman and ātman and the physical worlḍ This thought that brahman entered into what are called individual souls and also the material universe is the third aspect of Vedānta. On V. S II. 3. 43 Śaṅkarācārya quotes passages from the Brahma- sūkta belonging to the Atharvaveda²⁶ and from the Śv. Up. expressive of the identity with brahman of fishermen, slaves, gamblers, of men and women, of boys and girls and old men tottering on a staff. The faith that the same Spirit animates the universe, from the stone, worms and beasts to man, is an elevating one, may make one feel that all creatures are brethren seeking the Creator and may, in a world dominated by egoism and urged to activities for individual prosperity and benefit, introduce some sweetness and consolatioṇ Deussen in 'The philosophy of the Upaniṣads' (translated by A. S. Geden, Edinburgh, 1905) pays a glowing tribute to the sages of the Upaniṣads in the following eloquent passage 'It was here that for the first time the original thinkers of the Upaniṣads, to their immortal honour, found it (key) when they recognized our ātman, our inmost individual being, as the Brahman, the inmost being of universal nature and of all her phenomena' (p. 40). Vide also J. Royce in 'The world and the individual', First series of Lectures, particularly pp. 156-175 for the exposition of Chāṇ Up. III. 14 and VI. 2-15 and the Br. Up. dialogue between Yaj. and Maitreyī

The Upaniṣads are full of theories of creation and of the nature of the First Principle. A few passages may first be cited about creatioṇ The Br. Up. I. 4 (in 3–4, 7) has an original and significant passage on creatioṇ Some part of it is set out here ‘In the beginning this was Ātman alone in the form of Puruṣa; He (being alone) found no pleasure; he desired to have a second (a companion); he became of the extent of a male and a female in close embrace; he made this very Ātman fall aside in two parts that became husband and wife; from them were born men and he produced lower animals up to ants; this (universe) was then undeveloped (or not unfolded), it was then developed in names and forms; that (Ātman) entered into this up to the finger tips, just as a razor remains hidden in a sheath or just as the all supporting (fire) is not seen in wood’. In this passage the popular idea of the creation of the world is taken up and related to the one reality, Ātman, and the emphasis appears to be placed on the theory that the sole reality is Ātman, under the phantasmagoria of world phenomena. In Ch. Up. VII. 10. 1 it is said ‘this earth, mid regions, heaven, gods and men, beasts and birdṣ These all nothing but waters in solid forṃ’ The Chāṇ Up. (VI. 2. 3–4 and VI. 3. 2–3) states “in the beginning Sat alone was existent, one without a second; it thought ‘I shall become many, I shall have progeny”; it created heat (tejas); from tejas waters were produced, from water food; that divinity proposed ‘I shall enter into these three divinities (heat, water and food) with this living self and unfold name and form’. Here reference is made to three elements only viz. tejas, water, and earth (anna is produced from plants which spring from the earth). It is not, however, proper to hold that only three were then recognized, these three were the most obvious and the other two Vāyu and Ākāśa mentioned in Ait. and Tai. Up. are elusive. The Ait. Up. (quoted in note ²⁵) begins “In the beginning there was here this Ātman alone, there was nothing else that was active (lit. that opened and closed eyes); He reflected ‘I shall create worlds’. He created these worlds, the ambhas (water above heaven), marīci ‘rays’ (i. e.) atmospheric region, death, waters”. Then the Up. proceeds: He created guardians of worlds and proposed to produce food for theṃ Then he reflected ‘how can this frame subsist apart from me? Then he reflected ‘by what way shall I enter into it?’ Then it is stated that he split open the crown of the head and entered by that door. The Tai. Up. II. 6 says “He (the Ātman) desired ‘May I become many, I shall have progeny’; having practised tapas, he created all this (universe) whatever it is; after having created it he entered into it” and again in II, 7 ‘in the beginning this was asat (not unfolded), then it became sat (developed), it unfolded itself’. This is the basis of V. S. I. 4. 26 (ātmakṛteḥ pariṇāmāt) which establishes that brahman is both kartṛ (agent) and karma (object) of creatioṇ The same Up. in II, 1 speaks of the creation of ākāśa from the Ātman, of Vāyu from ākāśa, of Agni from Vāyu, of waters from Agni and of the earth from waterṣ Here we have five elements instead of three (as in the Chāṇ Up.). The Ait. Up. III. 3 names the five elements and calls them Mahābhūtāni (though the usual order is not followed); so do Prāśna VI. 4, Śv. Up. II. 12, Katha III. 15 (where the five guṇas, śabda, sparśa, rūpa, rasa and gandha, each peculiar to the five elements from ākāśa to prthvī, are mentioned).²⁷ It has already been shown that in the Tai. Up. and the Chāṇ Up. (vide note 2430 ) it is stated that the bhūtas spring from and are absorbed in brahmaṇ The order of dissolution is the reverse of that of creatioṇ This is stated by the Vedāntasūtra II. 3. 14 (' viparyayeņa tu kramo'ta upapadyate ca' ). Śaṅkarācārya in his bhāṣya quotes a verse of the Śāntiparva in support of thiṣ ²⁸

The theory of yugas, mahāyugas, manvantaras and kalpas has already been dealt with in vol. III. pp. 885–896 and above pp. 686–692. The dissolution of the world was called pralaya which was said to be of four kinds (vide above pp. 693–95), two of which are naimittika pralaya (which occurs at the end of a day of Brahmā, that is equal to 1000 mahāyugas) and Prākṛtika (when everything including Prakṛti is dissolved in Paramātman). The Gītā (VIII. 17–18) and Manu I. 73 state that the day of Brahmā is equal to one thousand yugas and the night is also of the same duration, that all manifested things spring from the unmanifested (First Principle) at the beginning of the day (of Brahmā) and at the coming of the night (of Brahmā) they merge in the same unmanifested (Principle). The present author does not like the disagreeable task of comparing Sanskrit cosmology with the theories in other religious scriptures such as the Bible, but will only refer to some Western writers on that subject. About these ideas of creation and dissolution of the universe René Grousset in the work mentioned above observes (p. 96) ‘the same power of synthesis appears in the ancient Indian cosmogonies which transcend in their breadth all that the Ionian philosophers or Lucretius have left uṣ In them the world alternates between periods of creation (which correspond to the activity of the Demiurge) and of dissolution (which correspond to the slumber of the God)'. Similarly, Gerald Heard remarks (in ‘Is God evident’ Faber and Faber, London, 1950) ‘Final and most helpful fact is that Sanskrit cosmology not only gets rid of intellectual difficulties such as the crude Hebrew Geology and Astronomy fossilized in the Christian dogmas, but it gets rid likewise of those more serious moral difficulties such as eternal damnation, pre-destination and that this life is man’s only chance’ (p. 51).

The high metaphysical conception that in reality there is no universe outside brahman (i. e. brahman is one and is unqualified, nirguna) and the popular empirical conception that there is a personal God who creates (saguna brahma) and real universe, often run together in the Upaniṣadṣ The Praśna Up. V. 2 asserts that Om is both para (highest) brahma and apara (other, lower) brahma. Śankarācārya on V. S. I. 1. 12 (ānandamayobhyāsāt) states that in the Upaniṣads brahman is described in two ways, (firstly) as qualified by various adjuncts such as name and form and created objects and meant to be worshipped and (secondly) as devoid of all adjuncts (as meant to be mystically realized). As instances of the 2nd way (nirupādhika or nirguna brahman) he instances several passages viz. Br. Up. IV. 5. 15 ('where there is as it were duality, there one sees the other ...... one touches the other or knows the other, but where one has come to realize that all is only Ātman, whom will one see, with what will one understand the knower himself'), Br. Up. III. 9. 26 = IV. 4. 22 and IV. 5. 15 (this self is to be spoken of as ‘not this, ‘not this’), Br. Up. III. 8. 8 (it is that brāhmaṇas speak about as neither coarse nor small, neither short nor long, neither red nor fluid, neither wind nor ether...neither as having an inside nor outside &c.); Chāṇ Up. (VII. 24. 1 ‘where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else that is the Infinite; where one sees something else, hears something else, understands something else, that is small (finite); the Infinite is immortal, the finite is mortal; the Infinite rests in its own greatness, or does not rest in greatness); Śv. Up. VI. 19 (who is without parts, without activities, tranquil, faultless, without taint, the highest bridge to immortality, like a fire that has consumed its fuel). There are also other passages of the same import e. g. Br. Up. IV. 4. 19 (neha nānāsti kiñcana, there is no diversity in it), Katha Up. IV. 10–11 (mṛtyoh sa mṛtyum-āpnoti ya iha nānēva paśyati!). The 4th aspect of Upaniṣadic thought is concerned with the destiny of the self after the death of the body and the matters that govern it (i. e. Ethics and Eschatology).

These passages emphasize that it is impossible to describe what brahman is and that we can only say what it is not. Śaṅkarācārya²⁹ on V. S. III. 2. 17 refers to the dialogue of Bāṣkali and Bādhva where Bādhva declared the characteristic of brahman by his silence. Bāṣkali said ‘Sir, tell me about brahma’; then Bādhva remained silent; when Bāṣkali asked a second and a third time Bādhva replied ‘we have been telling you indeed; but you don’t understand; this self is still (without any activity)’. J. Royce in ‘The world and the individual’ vol I. p. 148 is just like this episode of Bāṣkali and Bādhva “Believe not those prattlers’ says one often quoted mystical work ‘who boast that they know Goḍ’ Who knows Him is silent”. Śaṅkarācārya puts the distinction between para-brahma and apara-brahma (personal God) as follows: Where texts reject the connection of brahma with names and forms that are the product of avidyā (nescience) and speak of brahma in negative expressions such as ‘asthūla’ (not gross or big), there it is parabrahma (that is meant), but where in such passages as ‘He is mind, has prāṇa or body, the form of light, whose thoughts are true, whose nature is like ākāśa (present everywhere), who creates everything’ &c. brahma is mentioned for worship and it is apara.³⁰ The description of the creation of the universe and its dissolution are valid only on the practical plane. In Advaita Vedānta, Sattā (reality) is said to be of three kinds, viz. Pāramārthiki (the highest, the absolute), vyāvahārikī (of practical life) and prātibhāsikī (apparent or illusory ). The first is the province of parā-vidyā which teaches that only the Ātman exists, that the cosmos exists within the Ātman and nothing else has intrinsic reality apart from it. From this high metaphysical standpoint there is in reality no creation nor dissolution, the individual self is not really in bondage, therefore none is liberateḍ The 2nd kind of reality is empirical and practical and the dogmas of the creation and dissolution of the world, of the individual self, its bondage, transmīgaration and final liberation are valid only for the aparā-vidyā. Most religions postulate three fundamental entities viz God, individual self and the external worlḍ These three are true but only up to a certain limit ( only so long as a man holds his own ego as a separate reality ) but these three are not the ultimate Truth. Even in this lower kind of reality, a man who is in deep sleep becomes (for a time) united with ( or absorbed in) the True. as stated by the Chāṇ Up. VI. 8. 1 (yatraitat puruṣaḥ svapiti nāma satā soma tadā sampanno bhavati). The third kind of reality pertains to dream state. One may have experience of pleasure and pain and misery from what one sees in a dream, which are real as long as the dream lasts, but all this that is seen in a dream vanishes the moment the man is awake. As stated above (p. 1485 and note 2434 ) the descriptions of the creation of the world have only this in view that there is non-difference between cause and effect and that they all lead to a correct understanding about brahmaṇ Śaṅkarācārya on V. S. II. 3. 30 extends the same reasoning to individual selves (to be quoted later on under ‘Karma and transmigration’).

In the Upaniṣads there is apparent discrepancy as regards what was created and the order of the things³¹ createḍ The Br. Up. (V. 5. 1) states 'in the beginning there were only waters; the waters created satya, which is brahma, brahman created Prajāpati, who created the gods'. In Chāṇ Up. VI. 2. 3 the thing expressly mentioned as the first creation is tejas (heat), ākāśa not being mentioned at all, while in the Tai. Up. II. 1 ākāśa is said to have been first created and then Vāyu (was created from ākāśa), then Agni from Vāyu. Similarly, in the Chāṇ Up. IV. 2 where the creation of tejas, waters and food (i. e. the earth) is expressly mentioned, nothing is said about the creation of Vāyu, which is set out in Tai. Up. II. I. This matter about the creation of the elements and their order is discussed in V. S. II. 3. 1–11. The reply of Śaṅkarācārya is that a Śruti passage like the one in Ch. Up. is concerned only with the creation of some elements like tejas and cannot be also interpreted as having a second purpose, viz. showing that the creation of ākāśa in Tai. Up. is wrong and should be discardeḍ³²

On the subject of creation, the question arises whether the individual Self is also a creation like that of the earth, trees and shrubṣ The Upaniṣads have a good deal to say on thiṣ Here also two kinds of texts have to be considereḍ In the first place, some texts seem to state that the individual selves spring from the Supreme Spirit. A few passages that are sometimes relied upon for this last matter may be cited here.³³ The Br. Up. states 'just as tiny sparks spring forth from fire, in the same way from this Ātman spring up all prāṇas, all worlds, all gods and all creatures'. The Muṇḍaka Up. expands this same idea as follows: As from a well-kindled fire sparks of the same nature spring forth in thousands, so from the Imperishable issue and return into it. The Smṛti of Yaj. cites the same illustration of fire and sparkṣ Another and perhaps apter illustration is in the Katha Up. 'just as pure water becomes like it (i. e. not distingui- shable), so the self of the wise sage becomes (indistinguishable from the Supreme Essence). On the other hand, there are numerous Upaniṣad ²⁴⁶⁰ passages which categorically state that the individual self is unborn, undying, is not a product, that the Supreme Spirit enters as individual self, that there is non-difference between the one Supreme Spirit and the individual self. Some of these passages are set out in the note below. All those passages are cited by Śaṅkarācārya on V. S. II. 3. 17, which states two propositions viz. the individual self is unproduced and that it is eternal according to Śruti passages (nātmāśruter-nityatvācca tābhyaḥ). How the one Supreme Spirit expands into and pervades the manifold universe of plurality is a great mystery and can only be explained by illustrationṣ The few passages in which the texts seem to mention the creation or dissolution of individual selves are to be understood as referring to the Upādhis (such as body and mind) by which the self is affecteḍ Yājñavalkya gives this answer in finally winding up his exposition to Maitreyī ²⁴⁶¹ 'this self is imperishable and indestructible; but (when one speaks of death what is meant is) that the self has no longer any contact with material elements'. The Śāntiparva ²⁴⁶² and the Gītā (II. 20, 21, 24, 25) say the same thing.

The highest metaphysical standpoint can be realized by only a few. For millions of men, the empirical standpoint alone remains and it is for them that texts speak of a personal God, ritual and sacrifices; they are only on the first rung of the ladder. to enlightenment and are only dimly aware of God; there is a much smaller class of people other than the preceding, who pray, seek God and come to realize that God is both immanent and transcendent; there is a third class of a very few people, the great sages and masters, the spiritual elite such as Śaṅkarā- cārya, who reach the peak of pure monism, who lose the sense of the ego and who are ripe for entering into union with the One and they cannot and should not say that the individual soul and the physical world are all unreal (or Māyā). Both Bādarāyaṇa (V. S. II. 2. 29 ‘Vaidharmyāc-ca na svapnādivat’) and Śaṅkarācārya are agreed that the ordinary physical world is entirely different from dreams and that the impressions in the waking state are not independent of existing objectṣ Apart from the question whether the word ‘Māyā’ used in V. S. III. 2. 3 (Māyāmātram tu &c.) is used by Bādarāyaṇa in the sense in which Śaṅkarācārya understands it, it cannot be denied that Upaniṣad passages like Kaṭha Up. II. 4. 2, Praśna I,16, Chāṇ Up. VIII. 3. 1-2, the prayer in Br. Up. I. 3. 28 (asato mā sadgamaya &c) could easily suggest the doctrine of Māyā and lead to it as an intelligible development. Hence the proper language for almost all men is not to speak about the world as Māyā (illusion). If the individual soul and the world are unreal, then it may be argued by one who does not subscribe to the doctrine of Māyā as against those who hold it that you are teaching that an unreal soul has to escape from an unreal Saṃsāra and secure what you call mokṣa by means which are themselves unreal (such as Upaniṣad study) and that therefore mokṣa itself is unreal. How the one Reality becomes many and expresses itself in the ever-changing physical world is really an inexplicable mystery, but that does not entitle all of us to say that the world is unreal or a dreaṃ The few highly philosophical men may say that what is real is the one Absolute, that all else is only an appearance of that Absolute. Common men may, however, complain that explanations offered by these philosophers do not satisfy them or are beyond theṃ When one has to emphasize what the Reality behind the world is in itself, one speaks of the Absolute brahman, but when one has to speak about the relation of the one Reality to the individual selves and the physical world one speaks of a personal Goḍ When the Vedāntasūtra (II. 1. 14) states ³⁴ that the world is non-different (ananya) from brahman, what is meant is not that the two are identical, but only this that the selves and the world are not entirely different from brahmaṇ When it is said that Mokṣa results if one realizes brahman, there is no question of the destruction of the world but all that it comes to is that the false idea or outlook in that case is displaced or sublated by a true one. How the finite world arises from the Infinite is a mystery, for which Śaṅkarācārya employs the word ‘Māyā’. But he is positive that till a person realizes the one Ātman all religious and worldly courses of life, real-unreal, go on unobstructeḍ The concept of Māyā as postulated by Śaṅkarācārya (on V. S. II. 1. 14 and other places) is one of the most misunderstood elements of Vedānta. Further, it should not be forgotten that a very large number of philosophically minded Hindus do not advocate the doctrine that the world is an illusion; all that is said by advaitins is that the world is not as real as the Absolute iṣ The passages quoted below from Śaṅkarācārya’s Bhāṣya clarify his position, which is thiṣ There is the physical world with its manifold distinctions, but it must rest on some- thing else; that something is called the absolute brahmaṇ The relation between the two is inexplicable and therefore it is spoken of as Māyā. In that way Śaṅkarācārya is agnostic, while other religious philosophers are not willing to admit the futility of theories or their helplessness to put forward a generally acceptable and reasonable theory of the relation of the universe and the Eternal Spirit behind it.

It should not be forgotten that, according to our śāstras the goals of human life are four, Dharma (an ethical life of doing what is right), Artha (a life of acquisition of wealth i. e. economic life based on justice), Kāma (a life of the enjoyment of innocent pleasures and right desires) and Mokṣa (liberation), this last being the highest goal to be attained only by a few people ( it is called Paramapuruṣārtha). Even in the Ṛgveda (I. 89. 8) the sage prays for physical health, ³⁶ happiness and a life of hundred years in the words “O Gods, may we be able to hear words of welfare (i. e. we may not suffer deafness till our death), may we see with our eyes pleasing sights, may we, engaged in praising you and possessing strong limbs and bodies, enjoy (long) life as fixed by God (I. e. 100, 116 or 120 years)”. Vide also Rg. VII. 66. 16. The Manusmṛti, after referring to several views about the number of the goals of human life, states its own final conclusion (in II. 224) that there are three goals³⁷ (Dharma, Artha and Kāma) for all men and condemns premature resort to sannyāsa in the following words (VI. 36-37) "Having studied the Vedas as laid down in śāstras, having produced sons and having performed sacrifices according to one's ability, one should fix his mind on Mokṣa (liberation); if a man desires Mokṣa without having performed these duties he falls into hell". Manu emphasizes that a man must discharge his duties (i. e. pay off the three debts) as laid down in Tai. S. VI. 3. 10. 5 (quoted in H. of Dh. vol. II, p. 270 ṇ 621) before he can renounce life of sexual life and other pleasures not condemned by Manu and other Śāstras and in the Bhagavadgītā (VII, 11) Lord Kṛṣṇa identifies himself with Kāma that is not in opposition to righteousnesṣ In the three goals³⁸ of ordinary human life there is hardly anything that should cause surprise. The Gītā demands a life dedicated to active work and regards doing one's duty as worship (III. 8, 19, 20, 25, IV. 18, XVIII, 65-66). The 4th goal (mokṣa) is in a way opposed to the first three. But the first three goals enable a man to attain liberation, after he has discharged his dutieṣ It was not meant for everybody but only for a selected few.

The 4th goal can be attained only by a few meṇ The theory in the Upaniṣads is that in order to secure correct knowledge of the Self, Reality behind everything, the study of the Veda, sacrifices, charity, austerities and fasts are necessary. as preparation (Br. Up. IV. 4. 22). Because the Upanisads often employ the words “Brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati” (as in Mundaka III. 2. 9) one should not run away with the idea that mere knowledge of brahma (from books or a teacher) is enough. Though the verb “vid” (to know) is employed, the Upanisads are emphatic that before one attains realization of brahma one must have lived a life of detachment, peace, self-restraint etc. For example, in Br. Up. IV. 4. 23 Yājñavalkya says to Janaka “Therefore, one who knows this (under tarka quoted above p. 1478) evil does not overcome him, he overcomes all evil and hence he becomes free from evil, free from rajas (desires), free from doubts, he becomes a (true) Brāhmaṇa. This is the Brahma-worlḍ O king! you have been made to reach the worlḍ So said Yājñavalkya.” This passage clearly emphasizes three stages, firstly, verbal knowledge about brahma (evam-vid), secondly he becomes śānta, dānta &c., thirdly, he realizes the non-difference of himself and the world from the Supreme Self. In this text the indeclinable past participle ³⁹ (bhūtvā) in “tvā', acc. to Pāṇini III. 4. 21, is used and so clearly conveys that (as Sanskrit grammar and usage require), in order that a person may realize the Self in his own self, he must have been already endowed with all that precedes the word “bhūtvā”.

Similarly, in the Mundakopaniṣad it is provided ⁴⁰ ‘After carefully examining all the worlds that are collected (gained or brought about) by actions, a brāhmaṇa should reach a sense of disgust or disregard with the thought that by actions (which are all impermanent) nothing that is imperishable (lit. unmade) can be attained, he should, for the special understanding of that, approach with fuel in hand a teacher who is learned in the Veda and who solely dwells in brahman, that wise (guru) declared brahma-vidyā to the one who thus properly (respectfully) approaches and whose mind is quiescent (not perturbed by vanity &c.) and whose mind has ceased to hanker after objects of sense, whereby the disciple would realize the immutable Reality, the Puruṣa (Self ).’ Here also the word “parīkṣya” shows that brahmavidyā can be attained only by him who already has become tired of the world of senseṣ It is further provided that⁴¹ when a man becomes freed from all hankerings that cling to the heart of man, he becomes immortal and attains brahma in this very life. The Br. Up. (iv. 4. 6) states that of him who does not desire, who, not desiring, is freed from desires, who feels that he has obtained all desires in that he desires only the Self, the life breaths do not depart towards higher worlds (heaven etc.) as he, being ( in reality ) brahma only, becomes absorbed in brahma.

The Katha Up. (2. 24) remarks ‘He, who had not ceased from evil conduct, whose mind is not serene, who does not practise concentration, would not be able by mere knowledge to find the Ātmaṇ’

The unalloyed Upaniṣad doctrine appears to be that, even when a man does good actions, they produce good results, to enjoy which the soul would have to undergo the bondage of fresh good births and thus liberation will be put off. Therefore, complete renunciation of all actions and their rewards was in culcated for the sannyāsin, who was to give up all desires for wealth, progeny and higher worlds and beg for alms as long as the body lastṣ As no other course of conduct for the sannyāsin is specified here, it would have to be deemed that the Upaniṣad teaches only this mode of life for the sannyāsiṇ This view is further strengthened by other passages of the Upaniṣads, where it is said that the liberated are beyond sukṛta (good deeds and their consequences) and duṣkṛta (evil deeds and their consequences). The Chāndgoya says⁴² “the self is a bank ( a dike or ridge ) so that these worlds are kept asunder and are not confounded, day and night do not pass beyond ( over ) bank, nor old age, death and misery, neither good deeds nor evil deeds; all evil deeds turn away from him, for the world of brahma is free from all evil’. Similarly, the Kauṣītaki Up. says ‘being freed from good actions and from evil ones, this knower of brahma moves towards brahma (i. e., becomes one with or is absorbed in brahma)’. In this way the Upaniṣads appear to inculcate that the sannyāsin should completely give up all actions except living till the body lastṣ The Jabālopaniṣad⁴³ (4) provides that the very day on which a person becomes disgusted (with worldly life) he should become a wandering ascetic (a sannyāsin). This emphasizes that not mere knowledge but disgust with worldly life is necessary before one becomes a sannyāsiṇ Vide Kaṭho-paniṣad (II. 24) quoted above in note 2467a. The Praśnopaniṣad emphasizes 'to them alone comes the pure world of brahman, in whom there is no crookedness, no untruth and no duplicity' (I. 16). The Upaniṣads sometimes do say that 'one who knows brahma becomes brahma itself' (Muṇḍaka III. 2. 9), but the same Upaniṣads (e. g. Muṇḍaka I. 2. 12-13 quoted in ṇ 2467a) require great moral and spiritual attainments besides mere knowlegde of brahma.

It is not necessary to set out more Upaniṣad passages to exhibit the proper relation between mere knowledge of brahma and Realization of brahma.⁴⁴

In classical Sanskrit several words are employed to describe the state of liberatioṇ The Amarakośa regards mukti, kaivalya, nirvāṇa, śreyas, niḥśreyasa, amṛta, mokṣa and apavarga as synonymṣ Mukti, mokṣa, and amṛta (or amṛtatva) are frequently employed in the Upaniṣads and the Gītā. They refer to the state of Salvation or Liberation from different points of view. Man is liable to have hankerings and to birth and death; therefore when the soul becomes free from that cycle and realizes brahma it is said that he becomes immortal or secures immortality. Vide Bṛ. Up. VI. 4. 7 and 14, V. 15–17 (Vidyāyāmṛtam-āśnute), Chāṇ Up. II. 23. 2 (he who is firmly grounded in brahma attains immortality), Katha Up. VI. 2 and 9, Śvet. Up. IV. 17 and 20, III, 1, 10, 13, Gītā 13. 12, 14. 20. Mukti and mokṣa are both derived from the root ‘muc’ (to be free) and the verbal forms of ‘muc’ are frequently used along with ‘immortality’ as in Katha Up. VI. 8 (yam jñātvā mucyate jantur-amṛtatvam ca gacchati) and 14, Br. Up. IV. 4, 7, Śv. Up. I. 8 and IV. 16 (jñātvā devam mucyate sarvapāśaiḥ). The word mokṣa occurs in Śv. Up. IV. 16 and Gītā 5. 28, 7. 29, 18. 30. Nihśreyasa (mokṣa, than which there is nothing better) occurs in Kauṣ. Up. III, 2, Gītā V. 2. Vide p. 1037 n 671 for ‘nihśreyasa’. The word ‘śreyas’ often means ‘better’ in the Upaniṣads (Tai. Up. I. 11 and Chāṇ Up. IV. 6. 5) and Gītā II. 7, 31, III, 35, XVIII. 47 &c., but in Katha Up. II. 1 and 2 śreyas (as opposed to preyas i. e. pleasure) really means ‘nihśreyasa’ (salvation).⁴⁵ Kaivalya does not occur in the principal Upaniṣads, but kevalaḥ (not affected by guṇas or isolated as pure consciousness) occurs in Śv. Up. IV. 18 and VI. 11 (sākṣi cetā kevalo nirguṇaśca). Nirvāṇa occurs in Gītā VI. 15 (the yogin, that has subdued his mind and always practises yoga, secures peace, centred on me that is highest nirvāṇa); in Gītā II. 72 and V. 24–25 we find ‘brahmanirvāṇam’ which means ‘bliss in brahma’. Apavarga occurs only in the Maitrī Upaniṣad VI. 30 and was the goal laid down by the very first sūtra of the Nyāyadarśana.

It should be noted that cosmology whether in the Upaniṣads or later works is based on the geocentric theory and is concerned mostly with the earth, the elements, the Sun, Moon, planets and stars in general (without details).

The Manusmṛti has several theories on creatioṇ In I. 5–19 we have the first theory : this (universe) existed in the form of darkness, was unperceived, destitute of distinctive signs, unknowable, immersed in deep sleep as it were. Then the divine Self-existent appeared with irresistible power, dispelling darkness and making all this including the great elements discernible; he shone forth of his own (will); he, desirous of producing beings of various types from his body, first produced water only after reflecting (over the idea of creating) and planted therein his seed; the seed became a golden egg, equal in brilliance to the sun and in that egg he himself was born as Brahmā, the progenitor of the whole worlḍ He is called Nārāyaṇa,⁴⁶ since waters, designated as nārās (offspring of Nara), were his first place of residence. From that first cause, not yet unfolded, which can neither be called sat nor asat, was produced a puruṣa (a male) who is called by people Brahma. In that egg the divine one resided for one year; he divided the egg into two parts after reflecting on that matter; out of those two halves (of the egg) he created heaven and earth, between these two middle region, the eight directions and the abode of waters (the sea). From himself he drew forth mind which is neither sat nor asat, from mind Ahaṅkāra (self-consciousness), and the mahat-ātman, all products produced by the combinations of three guṇas, the five organs of sense which perceive the objects of sense; He created all beings by joining the subtle particles of the six (ahaṅkāra and tanmātrās) with portions of himself, the five great elements enter the framer of all beingṣ This theory combines the ideas contained in Rg. X. 129 (particularly verses 1-3) with those in the Śat. Br. XI. 1. 6. 1 and Chāṇ Up. III. 19. 1-2 (about the golden egg) and with the Sāṅkhya theory of tattvas and guṇas, though Manu differs from the standard Sāṅkhya of the Kārikā as regards the ahaṅkāra and the five subtle elements arise. In I. 21 Manu states⁴⁷ that Hiranyagarbha in the beginning of creation assigned names, peculiar activities and conditions to all created beings by means of the words of Veda. In this it follows a śruti text (explaining Ṛg. IX. 62. 1) quoted by Śaṅkarācārya (on V. S. I. 3. 28) who quotes a verse in support of the Mahābhārata and another verse also (the source of which is not mentioned but which is found in some purāṇas).

Another theory of creation is stated in Manusmṛti I. 32-41. Brahmā divided his own body into two halves, one half a male and the other a female and from that female he created Virāj, created a male who was no other than Manu (promulgator of Manusmṛti). Manu desirous of produ- cing created beings, first created ten great sages as Prajāpatis, Gods, classes of gods, great sages, yakṣas rākṣasas, gandharvas, apsarases, snakes, birds classes of pitṛs, lightning, clouds, large and small stars, monkeys, fishes, cattle, deer, men, lions, worms, insects, flies, immovable things (trees etc.). This account appears to be inspired by the Puruṣasūkta (Ṛg. X. 90), particularly verses 5, 8-10.

A third theory of creation by Brahmā after he awakes from his sleep is briefly noticed in Manusmṛti I. 74-78, viz. he creates (or appoints) his mind which impelled by Brahmā’s desire to create, produces ākāśa (ether), of which sound is the (peculiar) quality; that ether modifying itself creates Vāyu possessing the quality of touch; from Vāyu arises refulgent light, from which arises water and from water arises the earth of which the special quality is smell. This theory is a modification of the Sāṅkhya doctrine, according to which (kārikā 25) all five ele- ments proceed from ahaṅkāra and God Brahmā is thrown in (who has no place in standard Sāṅkhya). The Manusmṛti is in the habit of stating opposing views on the same topic one after another; e. g. note on the use of flesh in Manu V. 27-46 as compared with V. 48-56, Manu III. 13 as compared with III. 14-19 (on brāhmaṇa having a śūdra wife), Manu IX. 59-62 as opposed to IX. 64-68 on the practice of Niyoga.

Accounts of creation occur frequently in the Mahābhārata, mostly in the Śāntiparva. All cannot be set out here, but a few would be describeḍ Chap. 175. 11-21 (=Ch. eḍ 182. 11-21) states that from God known as Avyakta all beings were born, he first created mahān also called ākāśa, from ākāśa water was produced, from water were produced fire and vāyu, from the combination of these two the earth was produceḍ Then the self-existent created a lotus, from which arose Brahmā, known as Ahaṅkāra and he produced the whole worlḍ In chap. 176 (183 of Ch. eḍ) it is stated that Brahmā first created water, from water arose Vāyu, from the combination of water and Vāyu arose Agni and earth was produced from the combination of Agni, Vāyu and ākāśa. Chap. 177 (=184, Ch. eḍ) explains that the Mahābhūtas (great elements) are five viz. vāyu, ākāśa, agni, water and earth, that all bodies are made of these five, that there are five indriyas, five objects of sense and five qualities, śabda, sparśa (touch), rūpa (colour), rasa (taste) and gandha (smell); subdivisions of each of these five are mentioneḍ Chap. 178 (=189 of Ch. eḍ) speaks of the five prāṇas and the spheres of their activitieṣ Chap. 179-180 (=186-187 of Ch. eḍ) deal with jīva (individual self) and states at the end that the body is perishable, that the self passes from one body to another and that by yoga one can see the self in the Highest Self. Chap. 200 (=207 Ch. eḍ) states that Puruṣottama created the five elements, that he reclined on waters, that from his navel sprang a lotus brilliant like the sun, from which arose Brahmā, who created from his mind seven sons, Dakṣa, Marīci, Atri, Aṅgiras, Pulastya, Pulaha and Kratu. Dakṣa had many daughters (the eldest being Diti), from these daughters Daityas, Ādityas, the other gods, Kāla and its parts, the earth, the four varṇas, all kinds of men, Āndhras, Pulindas, Śabaras and others in Dakṣiṇāpatha and in the Uttarāpatha, Yauna (Yavanas), Kāmbojas, Gāndhāras, Kirātas, Barbaras and others were produceḍ Chap. 224 (=231 Ch. eḍ) starts by saying that in the beginning there was Brahma, beginningless and endless, unknowable and proceeds to divisions of time from nimeṣa to the yugas and their characteristicṣ Herein occur verses that are the same as in Manusmṛti I. 65-67, 69-70, 75-77, 81-83, 85-86. It is difficult to say who borrow as even the Manusmṛti (in X. 44) mentions Pauṇḍrakas, Oḍras, Drāviḍas, Kāmbojas and Yavanas, Śakas, Pāradas, Pahlavas, Cīnas, Kirātas, Daradas and Khaśas, as having been originally sub-divisions or sub-castes of Kṣatriyas (Kṣatriyajātyaḥ) but reduced to the position of śūdras, because of losing all contact with brāhmaṇas (X. 43) and because of the cessation of religious rites (like Upanayana &c.). In Śānti 311 (=cr. eḍ 299) creation is described in Sāṅkhya terms with Brahma thrown iṇ Brahmā (identified with mahān) was born in the golden egg, he remained inside the egg for a year, then he created within the two parts of the egg (heaven and earth), antarikṣa, from ahaṅkāra five elements were produced and their five qualities are mentioneḍ Āśvamedhika (Chap. 40-42 is similar to Śānti 311) states the order of creation as avyakta- mahat-ahaṅkāra-five elements, the only peculiarity being that in verse 2 mahān is identified with Viṣṇu, Śambhu, buddhi and several other words are given as synonyms thereof.

The Smṛti of Yājñavalkya (III. 67-70) states that from the one Self, many individual selves arise just as from a red-hot iron ball sparks go out, that the unborn and imperishable Ātman is said to be born when connected with body, that in the beginning of creation, Paramātman creates the five elements, ether, vāyu, tejas, water and earth, each succeeding one posses- sing a rising series of qualities and when appearing as indivi- dual self, it receives (for body) the same elementṣ Then after pointing out how a human being is conceived, how the foetus grows in the womb and describing the anatomy (with number of bones, veins, arteries, muscles &c.) of the human body, the Smṛti avers that the whole world proceeds from the Paramātman and the individual self appears from the elements (which form the body). The individual self is beginningless⁴⁹ and is not in intimate contact with a body that is due to acts influenced by false ideas, hankerings and aversions (III. 125). From the several parts (mouth, arms, thighs, feet &c.) of the First Principle that assumes numerous forms arise the four varṇas in order, the earth, heaven, prāṇas, directions, Vāyu, Agni, Moon (from mind), the Sun (from His eye), sky and the whole movable and immovable world (III. 126-128). Here the Puruṣasūkta (Ṛg. X. 90.1 and 12-14) is closely followeḍ

The Purāṇas devote thousands of verses to the theories of cosmology and cosmography. Only a very brief summary is all that can be attempted from the contents of a few among the extant Purāṇas that have been shown above to be the earliest, viz. Matsya, Vāyu, Brahmāṇḍa, Viṣṇu and Mārkaṇḍeya. It has been stated above (pp. 838-840) that the topics with which Purāṇas were deemed to be concerned were according to the Amarkośa five and that some of the Purāṇas themselves set out the five topics as creation (sarga), recreation after dissolution (pratisarga), dynasties (vaṁśa), the vast periods of time (called Manvantaras), and history and deeds of the descendants of the solar, lunar and other dynasties (Vamśānuōcarita). Thus, many of the Purāṇas deal with creation at some length. A few striking theories and passages alone can be set out or citeḍ

The Matsyapurāṇa begins the topic of creation in the same way as the Manusmṛti does and some of the verses of the former are identical (or almost identical) with the verses of the Manusmṛti. ⁵⁰ The Matsya (2. 27) states; Nārāyaṇa alone appeared first and being desirous of creating the manifold world, produced from his body waters, cast the seed therein and a golden egg emerged; inside that egg the Sun appeared, he is called Āditya as well as Brahmā, he made the two halves of the egg into heaven and earth and produced all directions and the sky between the two (heaven and earth and other mountains and the seven seas (of salt, sugarcane juice &c.) were produceḍ Nārāyaṇa became Prajāpati who created all this world including gods and asuraṣ The 3rd chap. of the Matsya speaks of the Vedas, Purāṇas and Vidyās as proceeding from his lips and states that he created from his mind ten sages, Marīci, Atri and others (3. 5–8). Then the Matsya launches on the Sānkhya scheme of creation (in 3. 14–29), stating that the three guṇas are sattva, rajas, tamas, and the state of their equilibrium is called Prakrti, that some call it Pradhāna, others call it Avyakta, that this Pradhāna produces creation, that from the three guṇas rose Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśvara; that from Pradhāna arose Mahān, from the latter ahaṅkāra, then five Jñānendriyas and five Karmendriyas and the mind as the 11th sense and the five tanmātras (subtle elements); that ākāśa was produced from the śabda-tanmātra, vāyu from ākāśa, tejas from Vāyu and water from tejas, that the Puruṣa is the 25th tattva. Then the Matsya (3. 30–44) tells a fantastic story that Brahmā produced a woman (called Śatarūpā, Sāvitrī, Sarasvati, Gāyatrī or Brahmāṇī) from himself, felt passion for her and had after a long time a son named Manu (called Svāyambhuva) and also Virāj from her; then Brahmā called upon his sons to create people. The Matsya in chapter four states that Brahmā had from Śatarūpā seven sons, Marīci and others (verses 25–26, contradicting chap. 3. 5–8), mentions two sons of Svāyambhuva Manu and also the descendants of those two sonṣ Some chapters from five onwards describe the descendants of Dakṣa, of Kaśyapa, of Diti, the coronation of Pṛthu, the solar and lunar dynastic and various classes of pitṛṣ

The Vāyupurāṇa devotes five chapters (4–9) to creations of different kinds (in over 600 verses). In Chap. 4 verses 22–61 the Sāṅkhya scheme of Pradhāna, Mahat, Ahaṅkāra, Tanmātrās is set out and is combined with the egg theory (verses 66ff). Chap. 6 appears to refer (verses 2–3) to the Puruṣasūkta (Rg. X. 90. 1–2), explains that Nārāyaṇa is so called because he reclines on waters, refers to the Boar incarnation, to nine kinds of creation, states a (different theory) that Brahmā created in the beginning the mind-born sons and Sanandana and Sanaka (6.65). Chapter 7 refers to re-creation, Chap. 8 (containing 198 verses) refers to the Yugas, their durations, the creation of eight Deva-yonis, of animals, metres &c., and different sons of Brahmā.

The Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa I (chapters 3–5) deal with the appearance of Hiraṇyagarbha and various kinds of creations and chapter 4 refers to Pradhāna, the guṇas and states that creation is due to the uneven mixture of guṇas that constitute Pradhāna but these work under Viṣṇu. Chap. 5 speaks of various kinds of creations, and the mānasa sons of Brahmā. Chapters 6, 11 of the Anuṣaṅgapāda (2nd section of the Purāṇa) deal with the creation of gods, pitṛs, men and of the great sages, Bhṛgu &c.

The first three chapters (containing about 240 verses) of the Brahmapurāṇa deal with creatioṇ Chap. 1 (verses 34 ff) puts forward Brahmā as the creator of all bhūtas (beings) and as devotee of Nārāyaṇa and then states that ahaṅkāra arose from mahat and from ahaṅkāra the elements were produceḍ The Brahmā like the Matsya closely follows (in I. 37–41) Manu I. 5–13. It refers to the creation of the seven sages Marīci, Atri and others who were seven Brahmāṇah, the creation of Sādhyas, gods, the Ṛgveda and other Vedas, birds and all sorts of beings; it also states (I. 53) that Viṣṇu created Virāj, who created Puruṣa (this is based on the Puruṣasūkta (Rg. X. 90. 5) and that Puruṣa created people. Chapter 2 states that Puruṣa married Śatarūpā, that Puruṣa is called Svāyambhuva Manu, that a son Vīra was born to Puruṣa and Śatarūpā and Vīra’s two sons were Priyavrata and Uttānapāda; then their descendants are described, that Dakṣa had 50 daughters 10 of whom were married to Dharma, 13 to Kaśyapa and 27 (the nakṣatras) were married to Soma. married to king Soma. Chapter 3 deals with the creation of gods and asuraṣ⁵²

The Viṣṇupurāṇa in Chapters 2, 4, 5, 7 of the first aṁśa deals with several kinds of creatioṇ Chapter 2 starts with Viṣṇu and asserts that Pradhāna and Puruṣa are his forms and in verses 34-50 proclaims the details of the Sāṅkhya system and verse 54 refers to the production of the egg by Mahat and other tattvaṣ Chap. 3 deals with the question how brahman, which is free from guṇas, inconceivable, pure and untainted, is the author of creation, the reply being that there are natural powers (Śaktis) in all things that are inconceivable and so brahman has the power of creating the universe. Chap. 5 deals with nine kinds of creations viz. of Mahat, Tanmātrās, bhūtas, (elements), Vaikārika (i. e. Aindriyaka), Mukhya (i. e. of immovable objects), of lower animals, of ūrdhvaretas (i. e. divine beings), of human beings, of Kumāras (i. e. Sanatkumāra and others).

The Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa in Chap. 42 speaks of the creation of Pradhāna, Mahat, Ahaṅkāra, Tanmātrās under the aegis of Brahmā. Chap. 44 speaks of the nine kinds of creation as in Viṣṇu. Chapters 45, 46, 47 deal with the creations of Gods, pitṛs, human beings, the four varṇas, beasts, birds, trees and plants &c. Passages from other Purāṇas need not and cannot be quoted as they are in the same strain as above and as limitations of space preclude further elaboratioṇ

In the Upaniṣads the geographical details are very few and are limited to the territory between the Himālayas and Vindhya (the Kauṣitaki Up. II, 13 speaks of two parvatas, the north and south, the Bṛ. Up. 1. 1, 1-2 alludes to the eastern and western seas). Noble steeds were brought from Sindhu country (Bṛ. Up. VI. 1. 13), the country of Gandhāra (Chāṇ Up. VI. 14. 2) appears to have been known and was at some distance from the place where the Upaniṣad was composed; the country Madra is mentioned in Br. Up. III. 3. 1 and III 7. 1. Janaka was a king of Videha at whose court brāhmaṇas from Kurus, Pāñcālya, gather together for argument with Yājñavalkya (Br. Up. III. 1. 1), king Ajātaśatru of Kāśī (Banaras) humbled the vain Bālakī Gārgya (Br. Up. II. 1. 1), and Kauṣitaki IV. 1. 1, which latter mentions also the countries of Vaśa, Uśīnara, Kuru, Pāñcāla and Videha); Kuru country occurs in Chāṇ Up. I. 10. 1. IV. 17. 10. Pāñcāla country by itself in Chāṇ Up. V. 3. 1, Br. Up. VI. 2.1; Aśvapat king of Kekaya (in the extreme North-west) impar- ted knowledge of Vaiśvānara-vidyā to brāhmaṇaṣ

The Purāṇas devote thousands of verses to cosmography ⁵³, i. e. description of the divisions of the earth called dvīpas, varṣas, the mountains, the oceans, the rivers and the countries therein and their extent, the motions of the sun, moon, planets, the yugas, manvantaras, and kalpas ⁵⁴ and Dharmaśāstra works frequently rely on theṃ Jambudvīpa was known at least before 300 B. C. as Aśoka mentions it in his Rūpanātha Rock Inscription, quoted above on p. 1016 n 1649. The word ‘dvīpa’ occurs in the Ṛgveda I. 169. 3 and VII, 20. 4 (vi dvīpāni pāpatan). Pāṇini derives the word from dvī and āpah, (VI. 3. 97). A bare out- line of these from some Purāṇas may be indicated here. The Māt- syapurāṇa starts by saying (in chap. 113. 4-5) that there are thou- sands of dvīpas, but as it is not possible to describe the whole of the world in order it would expound only the seven ⁵⁵ dvīpaṣ Chapters 121-123 of the same Purāṇa mention by name seven dvipas viz. Jambudvipa, Śākadvipa, Kuśa, Krauñca, Śālmala, Gomedaka and Puṣkara, each succeeding one being double of each preceding one and each surrounded by a sea and each having seven varṣas, seven principal mountains, seven main riverṣ The seven oceans surrounding the seven dvipas are stated to be respectively of salt ⁵⁷ water, milk, liquid ghee, curds, liquor, sugar-cane juice, fresh water. The dvipas differ to some extent in different Purāṇas e. g. the Viṣṇu II. 1.12–14, II. 2.5, the Brahmapurāṇa (18.11) mention them as Plakṣa, Śālmala, Kuśa, Krauñca, Śaka and Puṣkara. The Vāyu (33. 11-14), Kūrma I. 45. 3, Mārk. 50, 18-20 mention the same seven in the same order.

The descriptions of Kalpa, Manvantara, Yuga in the Purāṇas have already been dealt with in H. of Dh. Vol. III. p. 890–91 and above pp. 686–693 and pralaya has been treated of in Vol. III pp. 893–895 and pp. 693–695 above. The Purāṇas contain thousands of verses on these topicṣ

The Viṣṇu (II. 2. 13-24) mentions the varṣas as Bhārata (the first among them), Kimpuruṣa, Hari, Ramyaka, Hiraṇmaya, Uttara-Kuru, Ilāvṛta, Bhadrāśva and Ketumālā. The Vāmana (13. 2–5) mentions the same except that it substitutes Campaka for Ramyaka. Viṣṇu II. (I. 16–17) states, however, that Nābhi, Kimpuruṣa, Harivarṣa, Ilāvṛta, Ramya, Hiraṇvat, Kuru, Bhadrāśva, Ketumālā were the names of nine kings, sons of Āgnīdhra, son of Priyavrata, a son of Svayambhuva Manu and that the varṣas given to the nine sons of Āgnīdhra were respectively Himāhva (i. e. Bhārata), Hemakūṭa, Naiṣadha, Ilāvṛta, Nīlācala, Śveta, Śṛngavat, a varṣa to east of Meru, Gandhamādana. Thus there is a confusion of names of kings and names of varṣaṣ Vāyu (30. 38-40) states the same names of sons and in 33, 41-45 mentions the same varṣas except Mālyavat, which was given to Bhadrāśva, ⁵⁷

The Vāyu (45, 75-81) states that Bhāratavarṣa is to the north of the ocean and to the south of Himavat (Himālaya) and Manu was called Bharata because he supported his subjects and therefore this varṣa is called Bhārata. The Brahmāṇḍa (II. 16.7) says the same thing. The same (Vāyu) Purāṇa contradicts itself by stating (in 33. 50-52) that Nābhi’s son was Ṛṣabha, whose son was Bharata after whom Bhāratavarṣa is so calleḍ Brahmāṇḍa (II. 14.60-62) says the same thing; Vāyu also stated (in 99. 134) that from Duṣyanta and Śakuntalā was born Bharata and Bhārata is so called ⁵⁸ after hiṃ The seven principal mountains of Bhāratvarṣa are Mahendra, Malaya, Sahya, Śuktimat, Ṛkṣaparvata, Vindhya and Pāriyātra. The Purāṇas affirm that Bhārata is the best dvīpa (Brahma 19. 23-24, Viṣṇu III. 3. 22, Brahmāṇḍa II. 16. 17). Some of them contain fine eulogies of Bhārata (e. g. Brahma 27. 2,9 and 69-79, Viṣṇu II. 3. 23-26.).

In several Purāṇas nine divisions of Bhāratavarṣa are named viz. Indradvīpa, Kāśeru, Tāmraparṇa, Gabhastimat, Nāgadvīpa, Sahya, Gandharva, Varuṇa and a ninth which is 1000 yojanas long from north to south, on the east of which are Kirātas and on the west Yavanas and the four varṇas in the middle of it.²⁴⁸⁴ It may be noted that though Bhāratavarṣa is only one the divisions of Jambudvīpa, some of themselves called Indradvīpa and Nāgadvīpa. Another important matter is that Matsya 114. 10, Vāyu 45. 81, Vāmana 13. 11, and Brahmāṇḍa appear to call the 9th dvīpa Kumāra or as extending from Kumārikī to the sources of the Gaṅgā. fore, it appears that the 9th division of Bhāratavarṣa was held to be a country like modern India and the other eight divisions seem to be countries and islands lying to the south-east of present India. It is probable that early works identified Bhāratavarṣa with what is now modern India, but when Indian culture spread to South-East Asia, Bhāratavarṣa was used to denote India as well as Greater India.

Śabara (bhāṣya on Jai. X. 1. 35) shows that the language of cultured people from the Himavat to cape Comorin was the same (prasiddhaśca sthalyām caruśabdah ā Himavataḥ ā ca Ku- maribhayah prajujyāmāno dṛṣṭah). Vide also his bhāṣya on Jai. X. 1. 42 for the same wordṣ The snow-capped mountains were known to the sages of the Ṛgveda (vide Ṛ. 121, 4 ‘yas- yeme Himavanto mahitvā yasya samudram rasayā sahāhuh). 'Yasya' in the verse quoted refers to Hiraṇyagarbha. The Atharvaveda (V. 4. 2 and 8) mentions Himavat in the singular. Parvatas (plural) occur several times in Ṛg. III. 33. 1, IV. 54. 5 and also parvata in the singular (Ṛg. I. 37. 7, V. 56. 4). The Mahābhārata, Śabara, Purāṇas and the Bṛhat-saṃhitā show that ancient Indian people identified their culture with Bhārata- varṣa i. e. they identified country and culture, not race with culture.

The Brahmapurāṇa and the Mārkaṇḍeya appear to confine Bhāratavarṣa substantially to what has been known for centuries as India when they describe it as 'to its south, west and east there is the great ocean, to its north is Himavat resembling the string of a bow'.⁶² Vide H. of Dh. Vol. II. pp. 11-16 for discussion as to the limits of Āryāvarta and pp. 17-18 for Bhārata-varṣa.

The Vāyu devotes about 1000 verses (chap. 36-49) to what is called Bhuvanavinyāsa (arrangement of the universe), the Brahma devotes chap. 18-21 to the same viz. Bhuvanakośa, the Matsya chap. 114 deals with Bhuvanakośa, Kūrma I. 40 is called Bhuvanavinyāsa and deals with dvīpas and varṣaṣ

The countries⁶³ of ancient and medieval India are enume- rated in Viṣṇu II, 3. 15-18, Vāyu 45. 109-136, Brahmāṇḍa II. 16. 40-68, Matsya 114. 34-56, Mārkaṇḍeya 54, Padma (Ādi 6. 34-59), Vāmana 13. 36 ff. The Bhīṣmaparva (chap. 9) mentions countries and peopleṣ In the Nakṣatrakūrmādhyāya of the Bṛhatsaṁhitā of Varāhmihira (chap. 14. 1-33) numerous names and countries in the centre of Bhāratavarṣa and in the eight directions of it are set out. Many rivers are named in the Ṛgveda. In Ṛgveda X. 75. 5-6 eighteen or nineteen rivers are mentioned in order from the Ganges towards the west up to Kubhā (Kabul river), Gomati, Krumu (modern Kurram). Twenty-one rivers, seven in three groups, are referred to in Ṛgveda) X. 64. 8 and X. 75.1 and 99, in Ṛgveda I. 32.12 and X. 104.8 seven Sindhus are mentioned and in (Ṛgveda II. 12, IV. 28. 1, X. 43, 3). Rivers are enumerated as flowing from the principal mountains in Matsya 114. 20-33, Kūrma I. 47. 28-39, Brahmāṇḍa II. 16. 24-39, Vāmana 13, 20-35 and 34, 6-8, Brahma 19. 10-14 and 27. 25-40, Padma (Ādīkhaṇḍa 6. 10-32). The Anuśāsanaparva (chap. 165. 19-29) mentions many riverṣ

Pātālas (nether regions) are generally mentioned as seven, but the names slightly vary in the several Purāṇaṣ Vide Vāyu 50. 11-12, Brahma 21. 2-3 and 54. 20-11, Brahmāṇḍa II. 20. 10 ff, Kūrma I. 44. 15-25, Viṣṇu II. 5. 2-3.

The Bhāṣya of Vyāsa on Y. S. III. 25 (26 in some editions) 'bhuvanajñānaṁ sūrye saṁyamāt' contains a concise but remarkably detailed summary of the description of the seven lokas (bhūr, bhuvaḥ, svaḥ, mahaḥ, jana, tapas and satya, ⁶⁵ the seven narakas from Avīci upwards, the seven pātālas, the earth with seven dvīpas, the seven parvatas with Meru in the middle of the earth, varṣas, the seven dvīpas, jambu, śaka, kuśa, krauñca, śālmala, gomedha (not gomedaka as in the printed Purāṇas) and Puṣkara, the seven seas, the parks of the gods, their assembly hall called Sudharmā and city called Sudarśana and palace called Vaijayanta, the groups of gods in Mahendra-loka, Prajāpatya-loka, in Jana, Tapas and Satya lokaṣ Many of these details closely agree with the enumerations and descriptions in the Purāṇaṣ This shows that the Paurāṇika cosmography had been established long before the 4th century A. D.