Chapter V - Vishnu as Brahma creates the world

The terms here employed are for qualities, Gunas; which, as we have already noticed, are those of goodness, foulness, and darkness. The characteristics, or Swabhāvas, are the inherent properties of the qualities, by which they act, as, soothing, terrific, or stupifying: and the forms, Svarūpas, are the distinctions of biped, quadruped, brute, bird, fish, and the like.

Or Tamas, Moha, Mahāmoha, Tamisra, Andhatamisra; they are the five kinds of obstruction, viparyyaya, of soul's liberation, according to the Sāṅkhya: they are explained to be, 1. The belief of material substance being the same with spirit; 2. Notion of property or possession, and consequent attachment to objects, as children and the like, as being one's own; 3. Addiction to the enjoyments of sense; 4. Impatience or wrath; and 5. Fear of privation or death. They are called in the Pātañjala philosophy, the five afflictions, Kleśa, but are similarly explained by Avidyā, ‘ignorance;’ Asmitā, ‘selfishness,’ literally ‘I-am-ness;’ Rāga ‘love;’ Dweṣa, ‘hatred;’ and Abhiniveśa, ‘dread of temporal suffering.’ Sāṅkhya Kārikā, p. 148-150. This creation by Brahmā p. 35 in the Vārāha Kalpa begins in the same way, and in the same words, in most of the Purāṇas. The Bhāgavata reverses the order of these five products, and gives them, Andhatamisra, Tamisra, Mahāmoha, Moha, and Tamas; a variation obviously more immethodical than the usual reading of the text, and adopted, no doubt, merely for the sake of giving the passage an air of originality.

This is not to be confounded with elementary creation, although the description would very well apply to that of crude nature, or Pradhāna; but, as will be seen presently, we have here to do with final productions, or the forms in which the previously created elements and faculties are more or less perfectly aggregated. The first class of these forms is here said to be immovable things; that is, the mineral and vegetable kingdoms; for the solid earth, with its mountains and rivers and seas, was already prepared for their reception. The ‘fivefold’ immovable creation is indeed, according to the comment, restricted to vegetables, five orders of which are enumerated, or, 1. trees; 2. shrubs; 3. climbing plants; 4. creepers; and 5. grasses.

Tiryak, ‘crooked;’ and Srotas, ‘a canal.’

Twenty-eight kinds of Badhas, which in the Sāṅkhya system mean disabilities, as defects of the senses, blindness, deafness, &c.; and defects of intellect, discontent, ignorance, and the like. S. Kārikā, p. 148, 151. In place of Badha, however, the more usual reading, as in the Bhāgavata, Vārāha, and Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇas, is Vidha, ‘kind,’ ‘sort,’ as ###, implying twenty-eight sorts of animals. These are thus specified in the Bhāgavata, III. 10: Six kinds have single hoofs, nine have double or cloven hoofs, and thirteen have five claws or nails instead of hoofs. The first are the horse, the mule, the ass, the yak, the sarabha, and the gaura, or white deer. The second are the cow, the goat, the buffalo, the hog, the gayal, the black deer, the antelope, the camel, and the sheep. The last are the dog, shacal, wolf, tiger, cat, hare, porcupine, lion, monkey, elephant, tortoise, lizard, and alligator.

Ūrddha, ‘above,’ and Srotas, as before; their nourishment being derived from the exterior, not from the interior of the body: according to the commentator; ### as a text of the Vedas has it; ‘Through satiety derived from even beholding ambrosia.’

Arvāk, ‘downwards,’ and Srotas, ‘canal.’

This reckoning is not very easily reconciled with the creations described; for, as presently enumerated, the stages of creation are seven. The commentator, however, considers the Ūrddhasrotas creation, or that of the superhuman beings, to be the same with that of the Indriyas, or senses over which they preside; by which the number is reduced to six.

This creation being the work of the supreme spirit, ### according to the commentator; or it might have been understood to mean, that Brahmā was then created, being, as we have seen, identified with Mahat, ‘active intelligence,’ or the operating will of the Supreme. See p. 15, note 23.

The text is, ### which is, as rendered in the text, ‘creation preceded by, or beginning with Buddhi, intelligence.’ The rules of euphony would however admit of a mute negative being inserted, or ‘preceded by ignorance;’ that is, by the chief principle, crude nature or Pradhāna, which is one with ignorance: but this seems to depend on notions of a later date, and more partial adoption, than those generally prevailing in our authority; and the first reading therefore has been preferred. It is also to be observed, that the first unintellectual creation was that of immovable objects (as in p. 35), the original of which is, ### and all ambiguity of construction is avoided. The reading is also established by the text of the Liṅga Purāṇa, which enumerates the different series of creation in the words of the Viṣṇu, except in this passage, which is there transposed, with a slight variation of the reading. Instead of ### it is ### ‘The first creation was that of Mahat: Intellect being the first in manifestation.’ The reading of the Vāyu P. is still more tautological, but confirms that here preferred: See also n. 12.

The Anugraha creation, of which no notice has been found in the Mahābhārata, seems to have been borrowed from the Sāṅkhya philosophy. It is more particularly described in the Padma, Mārkaṇḍeya, Liṅga, and Matsya Purāṇas; as, ‘The fifth is the Anugraha creation, which is subdivided into four kinds; by obstruction, disability, perfectness, and acquiescence.’ This is the Pratyaya sarga, or intellectual creation, of the Sāṅkhyas (S. Kārikā, v. 46. p.146); the creation of which we have a notion, or to which we give assent (Anugraha), in contradistinction to organic creation, or that existence of which we have sensible perception. In its specific subdivisions it is the notion of certain inseparable properties in the four different orders of beings: obstruction or stolidity in inanimate things; inability or imperfection in animals; perfectibility in man; and acquiescence or tranquil enjoyment in gods. So also the Vāyu P.: ###

Or Vaikrita, derived mediately from the first principle, through its Vikritis, ‘productions’ or ‘developements;’ and Prākrita, derived more immediately from the chief principle itself. Mahat and the two forms of Ahaṅkāra, or the rudimental elements and the senses, constitute the latter class; inanimate beings, &c. compose the former: or the latter are considered as the work of p. 38 Brahmā, whilst the three first are evolved from Pradhāna. So the Vāyu: ‘The three creations beginning with Intelligence are elemental; but the six creations which proceed from the series of which Intellect is the first are the work of Brahmā’.

We must have recourse here also to other Purāṇas, for the elucidation of this term. The Kaumāra creation is the creation of Rudra or Nīlalohita, a form of Śiva, by Brahmā, which is subsequently described in our text, and of certain other mind-born sons of Brahmā, of whose birth the Viṣṇu P. gives no further account: they are elsewhere termed Sanatkumāra, Sananda, Sanaka, and Sanātana, with sometimes a fifth, Ribhu, added. These, declining to create progeny, remained, as the name of the first implies, ever boys, kumāras; that is, ever pure and innocent; whence their creation is called the Kaumāra. Thus the Vāyu: ###. And the Liṅga has, ‘Being ever as he was born, he is here called a youth; and hence his name is well known as Sanatkumāra.’ This authority makes Sanatkumāra and Ribhu the two first born of all, whilst the text of the Hari Vaṃśa limits the primogeniture to Sanatkumāra. In another place, however, it enumerates apparently six, or the above four with Sana and either. Ribhu or another Sanātana; for the passage is corrupt. The French translation ascribes a share in creation to Sanatkumāra: ‘Les sept Prajapatis, Roudra, Scanda, et Sanatkaumāra, se mirent a produire les etres repandant partout l’inepuisable energie de dieu.’ The original is, Saṅkṣipya is not ‘repandant,’ but ‘restraining;’ and Tiṣṭhatah being in the dual number, relates of course to only two of the series. The correct rendering is, ‘These seven (Prajāpatis) created progeny, and so did Rudra; but Skanda and Sanatkumāra, restraining their power, abstained (from creation).’ So the commentator: ###. These sages, however, live as long as Brahmā, and they are only created by him in the first Kalpa, although their generation is very commonly, but inconsistently, introduced in the Vārāha or Pādma Kalpas. This creation, says the text, is both primary (Prākrita) and secondary (Vaikrita). It is the latter, according to the commentator, as regards the origin of these saints from Brahmā: it is the former as affects Rudra, who, though proceeding from Brahmā, in a certain form was in essence equally an immediate production of the first principle. These notions, the birth of Rudra and the saints, seem to have been borrowed from the Saivas, and to have been awkwardly engrafted upon the Vaiṣṇava system. Sanatkumāra and his brethren are always described in the Saiva Purāṇas as Yogis: as the Kūrma, after enumerating them, adds, ‘These five, oh Brahmans, were Yogis, p. 39 who acquired entire exemption from passion:’ and the Hari Vaṃśa, although rather Vaiṣṇava than Saiva, observes, that the Yogis celebrate these six, along with Kapila, in Yoga works. The idea seems to have been amplified also in the Saiva works; for the Liṅga P. describes the repeated birth of Śiva, or Vāmadeva, as a Kumāra, or boy, from Brahmā, in each Kalpa, who again becomes four. Thus in the twenty-ninth Kalpa Swetalohita is the Kumāra, and he becomes Sananda, Nandana, Viswananda, Upanandana; all of a white complexion: in the thirtieth the Kumāra becomes Virajas, Vivāhu, Visoka, Vīswabhāvana; all of a red colour: in the thirty-first he becomes four youths of a yellow colour: and in the thirty-second the four Kumāras were black. All these are, no doubt, comparatively recent additions to the original notion of the birth of Rudra and the Kumāras; itself obviously a sectarial innovation upon the primitive doctrine of the birth of the Prajāpatis, or will-born sons of Brahmā.

These reiterated, and not always very congruous accounts of the creation are explained by the Purāṇas as referring to different Kalpas, or renovations of the world, and therefore involving no incompatibility. A better reason for their appearance is the probability that they have been borrowed from different original authorities. The account that follows is evidently modified by the Yogi Saivas, by its general mysticism, and by the expressions with which it begins: ‘Collecting his mind into itself,’ according to the comment, is the performance of the Yoga (Yūyuje). The term Ambhānsi, lit. ‘waters,’ for the four orders of beings, gods, demons, men, and Pitris, is also a peculiar, and probably mystic term. The commentator says it occurs in the Vedas as a synonyme of gods. The Vāyu Purāṇa derives it from ‘to shine,’ p. 40 because the different orders of beings shine or flourish severally by moonlight, night, day, and twilight: &c.

This account is given in several other Purāṇas: in the Kūrma with more simplicity; in the Padma, Liṅga, and Vāyu with more detail. The Bhāgavata, as usual, amplifies still more copiously, and mixes up much absurdity with the account. Thus the person of Sandhyā, ‘evening twilight,’ is thus described: “She appeared with eyes rolling with passion, whilst her lotus-like feet sounded with tinkling ornaments: a muslin vest depended from her waist, secured by a golden zone: her breasts were protuberant, and close together; her nose was elegant; her tongue beautiful; her face was bright with smiles, and she modestly concealed it with the skirts of her robe; whilst the dark curls clustered round her brow.” The Asuras address her, and win her to become their bride. To the four forms of our text, the same work adds, Tandrī, ‘sloth;’ Jrimbhikā, ‘yawning;’ Nidrā, ‘sleep;’ Unmāda, ‘insanity;’ Antarddhāna, ‘disappearance;’ Pratibimba, ‘reflexion;’ which become the property of Pisācas, Kinnaras, Bhūtas, Gandherbas, Vidyādharas, Sādhyas, Pitris, and Menus. The notions of night, day, twilight, and moonlight being derived from Brahmā, seem to have originated with the Vedas. Thus the commentator on the Bhāgavata p. 41 observes, ‘That which was his body, and was left, was darkness: this is the Śruti.’ All the authorities place night before day, and the Asuras or Titans before the gods, in the order of appearance; as did Hesiod and other ancient theogonists.

From Rakṣa, ‘to preserve’

From Yakṣa, ‘to eat’

From Srip, serpo, ‘to creep,’ and from Hā, ‘to abandon.’

Gām dhayantah, ‘drinking speech.’

This and the preceding enumeration p. 42 of the origin of vegetables and animals occurs in several Purāṇas, precisely in the same words. The Liṅga adds a specification of the Aranya, or wild animals, which are said to be the buffalo, gayal, bear, monkey, sarabha, wolf, and lion.

This specification of the parts of the Vedas that proceed from Brahmā occurs, in the same words, in the Vāyu, Liṅga, Kūrma, Padma, and Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇas. The Bhāgavata offers some important varieties: “From his eastern and other mouths he created the Rich, Yajush, Sāma, and Atharvan vedas; the Śastra, or ‘the unuttered incantation;’ Ijyā, ‘oblation;’ Stuti and Stoma, ‘prayers’ and ‘hymns;’ and Prāyaścitta, ‘expiation’ or ‘sacred philosophy’ (Brāhma): also the Vedas of medicine, arms, music, and mechanics; and the Itihāsas and Purāṇas, which are a fifth Veda: also the portions of the Vedas called Sorasi, Uktha, Purīṣi, ‘Agniṣṭut, Āptoryāmā, Atirātra, Vājapeya, Gosava; the four parts of virtue, purity, liberality, piety, and truth; the orders of life, and their institutes and different religious rites and professions; and the sciences of logic, ethics, and polity. The mystic words and monosyllable proceeded from his heart; the metre Ushnih from the hairs of his body; Gayatrī from his skin; Tṛṣṭubh from his flesh; Anuṣṭubh from his tendons; Jagati from his bones; Pankti from his marrow; Vrihati from his breath. The consonants were his life; the vowels his body; the sibilants his senses; the semivowels his vigour.” This mysticism, although perhaps expanded and amplified by the Paurāṇics, appears to originate with the Vedas: as in the text, ’The metre was of the tendons.' The different portions of the Vedas specified in the text are yet, for the most part, uninvestigated.