Puranic Antediluvian Dynasty of Svayambhuva Manu

Puranic Antediluvian Dynasty of Svayambhuva Manu [jalapralayatprakkalinah svayambhuvamanu-vamsah] / By Prof. D. R. Mankad, Gangajala, Aliabada (Saurastra) / 40-52

[ vaivasvatamanoh samaye jalapralayo babhuveti puranesu sruyate | vaivasvatabhanoh prakkalina svayambhuvamanu- rajavamsavali puranesupalabhyate | svayambhuvamanuvamse ca svayambhuvamarabhya daksaparyantam pancadasa astadasa va nrna babhuvuriti puranebhyah pratiyate | svayambhuvamanovamsasyanantaram vaivasvata manovamsasya rajyam babhuva | parantu vaivasvatamanovamsasya pravarttanam puranesu matrpaksad (daksakanyaya aditeh ) eva proktam | iranadesiya- pracinarajavamsavali sahayyena tu vaivasvatamanoh pitrpaksiyah purvavamso'pi jnatum sakyate ityasmin lekhe pratipaditam | iraniya rajavamsavalisu sumeriya rajavamsavalisu saimetikarajavamsavalisu ca sarvatraiva jalapralayat prakutana asta dasa va rajano nirdistah | puranesu punah svayambhuva manuvamse caksusamanuvamsiya rajano'pyantarbhavitah, atastesam samkhya pancadasa srastadasa va samjata | ] There is a wide-spread tradition found in almost all the Puranas that at the end of Brahma's day, there comes a huge deluge, when the whole world is destroyed. Usually, it is believed that there are fourteen Manvantaras in a day of Brahma and at the end of his day, the Manus with the world are destroyed. Shorn of mythology, this would mean that there was a huge flood, which caused enormous devastations, at the end of the fourteenth Manvantara. Now apart from later stories, our early literature knows of only one such vast flood, that of Vaivasvata Manu's. The purpose of this paper is to discuss certain matters about this Indian ante-diluvian Dynasty. The only dynasty usually taken to have ruled before Vaivasvata Manu is what the Puranas call the Svayambhuava vansa. On collating the king-lists of this dynasty, as given in various Puranas, we get the following Table: Jan., 1964] ANTE-DILUVIAN DYNASTY OF SVAYAMBHUVA MANU 41 Bg Bd Ag Km Vn Adh. 62nd, 74 ff Purva-Bhaga 36th 10th 14th 7th Vy 6 XXX I * 1 X X X X \ \ \ Vrddhi S 1 Svayambhuva 3 Uttanapada Dhruva 5 Pusti 6 Pracinagarbha 7 Udaradhi 8 Divamjaya 234 Kuru Ruru X # # * \ XX 6 0 2 0 1 0 0 x Ripu(njaya) 9 10 CakSus x Antardhana 11 Caksusa 12 Uru Anga 15 Prthu Vena 16 17 18 Havirdhana * 16 20 Pracinabarhis Pracetas Daksa (d's son Vaivasvata Manu) 19

42 puranam -- PURANA [Vol. VI. No. 1 Let us Study this table. Vy and Bd give 19 names from Svayambhuva to Daksa (with whom the line closed, as it passed on to a daughter's son). Bg and Gd give 18, Hr. and Br give 17 Ag. gives 16, and Vn, Km and Mt give 15. Thus the number varies from 15 to 19. Out of these names, Vira of Br and Hr is clearly an interpolation, as he is not supported by any other Purana. Thus Br and Hr will have 16 names. Again Bg. is alone in inserting Vijitasva and Barhisad and they may, therefore, be eliminated. Thus Bg. total will be 16. Km and Mt. have 15 and they take Havirdhana and Antardhana as two brothers. And, as we, very often, find the Puranas rendering two brothers into two generations, we may take it that Km and Mt are correct here. Thus taking out one of these two, from all the Puranas, we get 15 in Ag, Br, Hr, Vn, Bg, Km, and Mt. Bg has two kings named Puspaparna and Vyusti, but they take the place of Ripu and Caksus of the other Puranas. Thus Bg total will remain 15. In Gd, there will be 17 and in Vy and Bd there will be 18, but omission of Caksus in Gd is not warranted and, therefore, Gd will have 16. In fact, Gd seems to follow Vy-Bd for this dynasty. Thus we get either 15 or 18 names for this dynasty. The difference is caused by the three names Pracingarbha, Udaradhi and Divamjaya. They are supported only by Vy, Bd and Gd. Thus for the present, we take it that some Puranas give 15 names and others give 18 names for this dynasty. Now, about this dynasty, I want to point out that it is very curious that our Puranas should give the dynasty which traces Manu Vaivasvata's line from his maternal side, and not the one which traces his line from his paternal side. Nowhere in the Puranas, do we find his full paternal line, except the bare mention that he was the son of Vivasvat, who was the son of Kasyapa and Aditi (d. of Daksa). Therefore, if we can get his paternal line, it may throw quite a flood of light on the problem of antediluvian dynasty. And here the Iranians come to our help. Jan., 1964] ANTE-DILUVIAN DYNASTY OF SVAYAMBHUVA MANU 43 We know that according to our Puranas, Manu and Yama were brothers. Even in Rgveda, we find Manu and Yama both described by the patronymic Vaivasvata. So, let us see, if we can, Yama's paternal line. Yama in the Iranian books is called Yim. In Bundahis, a Pahelvi text, we find Yim's genealogy given at one place. I shall quote from the Sacred Books of the East Series. Fifth chapter of Bundahis is 'On the race and genealogy of Kayans.' In 1-3, the following is found :Hoshyang was son of Fravak, son of Siyakmak, son of Masya, son of Gayomard (Takhmorup was son of Vivanghan, son of Yanghad, son of Hoshyang, 3 Yim), Takhmorup, Spitur and Narsih, whom they called Rashnu of Chino, were all brothers." But a foot-note on 141 notes that the genealogy somewhat differs in Vajarkard-i-Dineh (pp 28-29) as published in Bombay, by Dastur Peshtonji Behramji Saujana in 1848. I shall tabulate the above genealogy, as found in both these sources :Bundahis 1. Gayomard 2. Mashya 3. Siyakmak 4. Fravak 5. Hoshyang 6. Yanghad 7. Vivanghan 8. Yim Vajarkard-i-Dinch 1. Gayokmard 2. Mashyo 3. Siyakmak 4. Fravak 5. Hoshyang (the peshdad, lord of severegions) 6. Takhmorup 7. Ananghad 8. Ayanghad 9. Vivanghan 10. Yim Here we get 8 or 10 steps upward from Yim, i. e. the Iranians had a tradition of 8 or 10 generations for the ante-diluvian genealogy, because according to the Iranian tradition, flood came in the days of Yim.

44 puranam - PURANA [Vol. VI. No. 1 This genealogy does not show Manu's name, though it does show Yim and his three brothers. We do not know why Manu's name is not mentioned. Of course, Manu is not the proper name of that person, but only his generic title of king-ship and, we do not know what his proper name was. Sometimes, he is called In Bg, Sraddhadeva, but that can hardly be his proper name. he is called Satyavrata, but that whole story of Bg, is of late origin and Bg has changed the names of the localities of the flood and taken the scene of the flood from North India to South India. Therefore, we cannot be sure about the name Satyavrata. Thus, though this Iranian genealogy does not mention Manu as such and though we do not know if we can identify one of the three brothers of Yim with Manu, there can be hardly any doubt about the genealogy being that of Manu. This is Yim's genealogy. Both Yim and Manu are known to be Vivasvat's sons, and Yim is, here, described as the son of Vivanghan, which phonetically equates with Vivasvan. But it may be objected that in this genealogy, Vivasvan's or Vivanghan's father's name is not given as Kasyapa; for Yanghad or Ananghad can never phonetically equate with Kasyapa. To this objection, I have to say this. It is true that the Puranas call Kasyapa to be the father of Vivasvat, but it is also true that the same Puranas describe Kasyapa as the son of Marici, who was Brahma's manasa son, and the same Puranas put Manu Vaivasvata at the 15th or 18th step from Brahma, who is Svayambhuva Manu. Kasyapa is 3rd from Brahma, Manu 15th or 17th from Brahma. How can this be? This can be explained by saying that Vivasvan was not actually the son of Kasyapa but was a descendent of his. If so, Kasyapa must be shown at one or the other step amongst the ancestors of Vivasvat. Let us consider. This Iranian list begins with Gayomard. Is Gayomard the same as Brahma? I do not think so. I equate Gayomard, who is also spelt as Gaya Maretan, Gaya Maratan, with Gaya Martanda. We know that Kasyapa, by Aditi, had a son, who was called Martanda and who was identified with the Sun. I think that above Maretan or Maratan Jan., 1964] ANTE-DILUVIAN DYNASTY OF SVAYAMBHUVA MANU 45 or Mard is the same as Martanda. I would, therefore, say that Kasyapa's son's name was Gaya, who was also called Martanda and accordingly I would re-arrange the genealogy thus:Brahma 1. Kasyapa 2. Gayomard or Gaya Martanda 3. Mashya 4. Siyakmak 5. Fravak 6. Hoshyang¹ 7. Ananghad 8. Ayanghad 9. Vivanghan 10. Yim 10 Manu Thus taking from Kasyapa and dropping Takhmorup, who is expressly called Yim's brother, we get Yim's number to be 10th. We have one more genealogy preserved in Bundahis. It is said that Dahak with Spitur cut up Yim. Now Dahak's genealogy from the father's and father-in-law's side is given as under:Father-in-law's Paternal 1. Siyakmak 2. Fravak 3. 4. Taz Virafsang 1. Evil spirit 2. Drujaskan 3. Gadwithwi 4. Pairi-urvaesm 1. I may say that it is possible to equate Hoshyang with Kasyapa. Hoshyang is also spelt as Haoshyangh. Now s is represented by h in the Iranian (ep. Sind-Hind). Therefore, Hosh yang can be soshyang. Again s and k interchange (The palatal law) and so this can be Koshyangh. Now angh=asva=aspa is Kashyangh Kashyapa and thus we may get Kasyapa out of Hoshyang.

[Vol. VI. No. 1 5. Gwokhm or Gwyikh 46 puranam - PURANA 5. Zainigan 6. 7. Khrustasp Dahak (Azi) 6. Tambayak 7. Bayak 8. Udai 9. Daughter Jan., 1964] ANTE-DILUVIAN DYNASTY OF SVAYAMBHUVA MANU 47 4. Pairi-Uravaesam 5. Gwvikh or Gwokhm 6. Tambayak 4. Puru-ravas 5. Ayus 6. Nahus 7. Bayak 8. Udai 7. Yayati 8. Yadu m. to Dahak Now, on father's side Dahaks genealogy is the same as Yim's upto Fravak. I, therefore, reconstruct these genealogies as under :- 5. Hoshang 6. Ananghad 7. Ayanghad 8. Vivanghad 9. Yim Kabuara 1. Gayomard 2. Mashya 3. Siyakmak 4. Fravak 5. Taz 6. Virafsang 7. Zainigan 8. Khrustasp 9. Dahak (Azi) Adding Kasyapa, we get the number of Yim and Dahak to be 10th. Here, I would suggest that the line of Dahak's father-in-law seems to be the same as Indian Lunar line. I am putting these names together. 1. Evil spirit 2. Drugaskan 3. Gadhwithwi 1, Atri 2. Soma 3. Budha d. m. to Dahak I want to point out that the phonetic equations in, at least, three names of both the lists, are very clear and their steps also correspond in both the lists. Pairi-Uravaesam is very clearly Pururavas. Ayus, which in Yajurveda will be pronounced as Ayukham can equate with Gwokhm. Yadu can equate with Udai. Thus when three out of eight names tally in both the lists, I think, we are justified in identifying the two lists. This, if true, will throw quite a flood of light on Indian Lunar line. and also will raise certain problems. This tradition of the flood is found in other nations also. Let us see, therefore, the ante-diluvian genealogies of other races. The Bible says that the flood came in Noah's days and both the old and new Testaments agree in giving the following genealogy of Noah:- 1. Adam 2. Seth 3. Enosh 4. Kenan 5. Mehalalel 6. Jared 7. Enoch 8. Methuselah 9. Lamech 10. Noah Thus here we get 10 names for the ante-diluvian period. For the Sumerians, we have three lists preserved. (I) that given by the Chaldean priest Brosos. (2) and (3) as given in the prism found at Isin. There are two versions of this. I give all the three Tables:

48 Isin Prism (I) puranam- PURANA Isin Prism (II) 1. Alum 2. Alal 3. Enu [Vol. VI. No. 1 Brosos 1. ......ki-udu-in 1. Aloros 2. ......ama 2. Alaparos 3. Unmush 3. Amelon 4. En-men-gal-as-na 4. (Udu) Uk (?) 4. Ammenon 5. Dumuzi 6. Sibazi 7. Unush 8. Bar-dudu (Ziushdu) The Flood period. 5. Dumuzi 6. En 7. Shibazi 8. Rish-mama 9. Sumaddi 5. Megalanos 6. Dasnes or Daos 7. Enedorachos 8. Amempon 9. Opertes 10. Bar-rad-du 10. Xisonthoos The Flood The Flood Thus we have here also 8 or 10 names for the ante-diluvian Thus we get two Iranian lists-one leading to Yim and another to Dahak, and we have found that both stop at the 10th step. The Semitic list stops at Noah, whose number is also 10th. Out of the three Sumerian lists that we have noted, two give 10 names. Thus it seems that the tradition in various races of the world took 10 generations to have flourished before the flood. Then why do the Indian Puranas give 15 or 18 generations upto Manu Vaivasvata i.e. up to the Flood? The reason is that this dynasty, as it is now found, is a mixed up dynasty. I shall show how. In the collative list from the different Puranas that I have given in the beginning, we get two lines mixed up. The list starts with Svayambhuva Manu and Caksusa Manu's line is incorporated in it and yet the whole is called Svayambhuva vansa. This is hardly proper. As both Svayambhuva and Caksusa are distinct Manvantaras-the first and the sixth-their lines must be shown separately. But we do not find so. We find the whole line named as Svayambhuva line. I, therefore, think that the SvaJan., 1964] ANTE-DILUVIAN DYNASTY OF SVAYAMBHUVA MANU 49 yambhuva dynasty, as is given in most of the Puranas, is not what it should be. Let us see how the matter stands in the Puranas. In Ag, 18th adhyaya is Svayambhuva-vansa-varnana and describes Sva-Uttanapada Caksusa-Daksa line, as is given in the beginning of this paper. Ag 107th is entitled Svayambhuvasarga kathanam and describes Sva-Priyavrata line. Thus first describes Uttanapada's line and the second Priyavrata's line. In Br, 2nd is entitled srsti-katbana and gives Uttanapada line. In Mt, the 4th is entitled adisarga and gives the same line. These do not give Priyavrata-line; But in Vy, 32nd, which is entitled Svayambhuva-vansa, gives Priyavrata-line and then 61st, which is entitled Prajapati-vansa gives Uttanapada-line, which is continued in 62nd and 63rd. Thus we find that Vy distinctly puts Priyavrata line only under Svayambhuva-vansa and Uttanapada-line, under, which Caksusa line is included, is put separately. And this is as it should be. The Puranas are very clear that though Uttanapada was Svayambhuva's son, for some reason, he was given over to Atri, who had adopted him. I shall quote the texts :- (1) uttanapadam jagraha putramatrih prajapatih || Br. 2nd, 7. (2) uttanapadam jagraha putramatrih prajapatih || Vy. 62nd, 72. dattakah sa tu putro'sya raja hyasitprajapateh | svayambhuvena manuna datto'treh karanam prati || 173. So, it is clear that according to the Puranas, Uttanapada was Atri's adopted son. Therefore Vy is correct when it puts Priyavrata line alone under Svayambhuva-vansa. In fact when it starts giving Uttanapada line, it says (62nd)- caksusasya nisargam tu samasacchrotumarhatha | tasyanvavaye sambhutah prthurvenyah pratapavan || 71. prajanam patayascanye daksah pracetasastatha | uttanapadam jagraha putramatrih prajapatih || 72. 7

50 puranam- PURANA [Vol. VI. No. 1 dattakah sa tu putro'sya raja hyasitprajapateh | svayambhuvena manuna datto'treh karanam prati 1173. manvantaramathasadya bhavisyam caksusasya hi | sastham tadanuvaksyami upodghatena vai dvinah || 174. Here Vy, very clearly declares that it would describe Caksusa line with an introduction (upodghatena) i.e. by prefixing his lineage from Uttanapada. In fact, kings from Uttana pada to Caksusa have nothing to do with Caksusa line, as they were Caksusa Manu's ancestors, not his descendents. But they are given here by way of introducing (Upodghatena) the Caksusa line. Therefore, we should remember that when we talk about Sva-Manvantara, we should talk of Priyavrata line only and not of Uttanapada line, and when we talk of Caksusa Manvantara, we should talk of Uttanapada line running upto Caksusa Manu and further. that as Manu Vaivasvata is But then also, it may be said put as Daksa's daughter's son and as the flood came in his days, the ante-diluvian line will be the same and will show 15 or 18 names. But it is not so. Vy 63rd, 19 (Bd II, 37,20) is this: caksusasyantare'tite prapte vaivasvate punah | vainyeneyam mahi dugdha yatha te kirttitam maya || 17. Again Bd III, 72, 12 says: yajnam pravartayamasa vainyo vaivasvatantare || This clearly says that Vainya Prthu lived when Caksusa Manvantara had been over and Vaivasvata Manvantara had been reached (prapte). How can this be? In the usual line, Prthu is given as 5th from Caksusa Manu and after him are given five more names in the same line and then is given Vaivasvata Manu, Jun., 1964] ANTE-DILUVIAN DYNASTY OF SVAYAMBHUVA MANU 51 How, then, can Prthu be at the point when Vaivasvata Manvantara was reached? I shall explain my view. Let us compare this line with that of Yim's descent. Atri the father of Uttanpada should be at the same step as Marici, because both of these are taken as Brahma's manasa sons. And Prthu, if he lived when Vaivasvata Manvantara was reached, i.e. at the start of Vaivasvata manvantara, should be at the same step as Manu Vaivasvata or one step lower. Therefore putting Atri at the same step as Marici and Prthu at the same level as Manu Vaivasvata, I reconstruct this line thus :- 1. Marici 2. Kasyapa 3. Gayomard 4. Mashya 5. Siyakmak 6. Fravak 7. Hoshyang 8. Ananghad 9. Ayanghad 10. Vivanghan 11. Yim, Manu V. 1. Atri 2. Uttanapada 3. Dhruva 4. Pusti 5. Ripu 1. Pracinagarbha 2. Udaradhi (3. Divanjaya 6. Caksus 7. Caksusa Manu 8. Uru 9. Anga 10. Vena 11. Prthu It will thus be seen that Manu Vaivasvata's period started with the fall of Vena and as with Manu Vaivasvata, a new manvantara started, it may be said that Caksusa Manvantara was over with Vena and thus Prthu came when Vaivasvata Manvantara was reached. Therefore, from the usual table, on the one hand, three kings-Pracinagarbha, Udaradhi and Divanjaya-are to be taken out, and on the other hand, the five kings upto Daksa, who follow Prthu are also to be taken out. Thus Yim, Manu and Prthu are at the same step, i.e. are 10th from Kasyapa and 11th from Marici and Atri respectively. Therefore, all these three are ante-diluvain kings. Thus we find

52 puranam- PURANA [Vol. VI. No. 1 that as in all the other races, so even in Indian tradition, the flood came at the tenth step from the beginning. This shows that all these different ante-diluvian dynasties noted here, have 10 king-names. This feature is peculiar to Puranic genealogies. I have shown in my 'Puranic Chronology' that all the Puranic Kali dynasties upto the Nandas had 25 king-names and all the dynasties for the four yugas had 100 king-names. This uniformity of number for these names, shows that these dynasties are artificially made up. I have shown that the purpose for this artificial method is to link up the names with chronological computations and thus each king-name, in this context, will represent a time-unit. This is true for this dynasty also. I shall not pursue this matter further here, but shall mention that in these Fists each king-name is likely to stand for 10 years. If so, the real descent of Manu and Yim will not be what is given in the Iranian dynasty, but what is given in the Puranas, i.c. BrahmaMarici--- Kasyapa-Vivasvan Manu (Yim). But this I shall discuss in another paper.