– Dr. B Dutta
The Lalitōpākhyānam is a text containing 40 Chapters and comprising of about 3000 verses. At present, it is found included in the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa. The text of this upākhyāna has nothing to do with the rest of the Purāṇa. It shows the tendency of being more or less an appendix to the Purāṇa. This fact is clearly borne out by an objective analysis of the contents of the upākhyāna and of the facts pointing out the period of its composition.
The date of Lalitōpākhyānam – External Evidences
(a) Lalitōpākhyānam and the different editions of the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa
The Lalitōpākhyānam is neither found in the Vāyu, nor in the Baṅgabāsi edition of the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa, nor in the Javanese version. Insofar as this work is not included in the Vāyu Purāṇa, it could only prove that the same was added to the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa, at a time later than the compilation of the Vāyu text or else its inclusion in it might not even have been considered imperative from the sectarian point of view. The volume of the text of the Baṅgabāsi edition of the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa without the inclusion of either two of the Lalitōpākhyānam or the Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇa or the Bhārgavōpākhyānam, hardly answers the traditional bulk of the Purāṇa, 12000 verses recorded by the lists of as many as four different Purāṇas. Therefore, the text of the Baṅgabāsi edition is definitely deficient in its complete volume, and hence no conclusive remarks regarding the period of adoption or composition of the text of Lalitōpākhyānam on the grounds of its absence in this edition, can be made. Similar is the case with the Javanese edition which, too, has so abruptly ended, leaving even the last chapter and accounts incomplete. In this version, even one complete section, the Vamśānucarita, one of the main five characteristics of a Purāṇa, is totally absent. Therefore hardly any conclusions regarding the period of inclusion of Lalitōpākhyānam can be drawn from its absence in the Javanese edition.
(b) The Lalitōpākhyānam and lists of contents of different Purāṇas
It has been observed that the Lalitōpākhyānam is not mentioned in any of the lists of contents available in the different Purāṇas. The lists of Purāṇas like Agni, Matsya, Skanda and Shiva are very sketchy in recording the contents of the Purāṇas, whereas that of the Nārada Purāṇa is an exhaustive one. Its absence in the Nārada list, too, apparently shows that the Lalitōpākhyānam did not by the time of the compilation of the list, either form a part of, or was added to the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa.
Yet its absence may not finally make us conclude that it was not composed earlier than the compilation of the Nārada list, simply because the Lalitōpākhyānam has always shown a tendency of an independent work hardly giving any positive proof of its knowledge of the text of the rest of the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa, excepting that the colophons of its chapters mention to have belonged to the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa. It has all through shown a tendency to be an appendix to the main work and this has been conclusively proven by the evidence as held by Mahāmahōpādhyāya Haraprasad Shastri. If this characteristic of Lalitōpākhyānam is accepted, then even its absence in the Nārada list may not be taken to prove finally that by the time of this list, it was not appended to the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa.
(c) The Lalitōpākhyānam positively quoted as from Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa
The posterior date of the Lalitōpākhyānam being accepted as belonging to the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa is supplied by the great śākta scholar Bhāskararāya Makhin, who has commented upon the Lalitā Sahasranāman. The author of this commentary, the Saubhāgyabhāskara, quotes a number of times from the Lalitōpākhyānam under the name of Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa. The date of Bhāskararāya according to the vyākulākṣara chronograph recorded in the Saubhāgyabhāskara is 1718 A.D. and in the Setubandha, 1723 A.D. The profuse quotations by him prove that undoubtedly by that date the Lalitōpākhyānam formed an integral part of the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa.
(d) The Lalitōpākhyānam, the Llalitā Sahasranāma and Lalitā Triśatī
The introductory verses (upōdghātakalā) of the Lalitā Triśatī, record the tradition that the Triśatī was narrated after the Llalitā Sahasranāman, which again in its first chapter clearly mentions that the stotra was related subsequent to the Lalitādēvyāḥ caritam, and the latter seems to be identical with the Lalitōpākhyānam, for both of them are said to be belonging to the same source, i.e., the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa. Thus, the three works appear to have been composed in the following order:
1. The Lalitōpākhyānam
2. The Llalitā Sahasranāman
3. The Lalitā Triśatī
The Lalitā Triśatī, too, existed prior to the days of Shaṅkarācārya, because it has been commented upon by him. Thus its composition is to be assigned anterior to Shaṅkarācārya (C. 850 A.D.) and the date of the Llalitā Sahasranāman would, therefore, be earlier than C. 800 A.D. and that of the Lalitōpākhyānam still earlier.
But this early date is possible to be assigned only when we accept that Shaṅkarācārya, the Vedāntin, is the same, who wrote the Bhāṣya on Lalitā Triśatī and in the other words similarly we accept that the Prapañcasāra and Saundaryalaharī to be from the pen of the same śaṅkara, who wrote the śārīraka bhāṣya on the Brahmasūtras and the Upaniṣads. Though the tradition would have us believe that the two were identical, still due to a very great divergence in the treatment of the subject and thought, the two authors appear to be not identical, rather the śākta author being of a later date, which apparently could be assigned to the work like Prapañcasāra, if analyzed in greater details.
Considering this fact, it appears that the conclusions drawn above (C. 800 A.D.) suffer from some fallacy namely basing our argument on the date of an author whose authorship is not distinctly ascertained to be associated with the Bhāṣya of Lalitā Triśatī. Yet it remains an attempt in which at least the order of the three works is by far decided and will help us to date the one provided the date of the other is precisely fixed.
(e) The Lalitōpākhyānam and śaktisūtras
The Lalitōpākhyānam is a dialogue between Hayagrīva and Agastya, both of whom have been assigned a work each, of the śākta school namely the Hayagrīva śākta darśana and Agastya śaktisūtra. Both of these deal in sūtra form with the subjects common to be works written in the same line of tradition. They appear to be later than the Lalitōpākhyānam and seem to record its teaching in a nutshell and also add such philosophic details, which are absolutely wanting in the Lalitōpākhyānam. This may partly be so, because the scope of the Hayagrīva śākta darśana and the Agastya śaktisūtras is much wider, for they seem to be concerned more with the supplying of the precise philosophical basis to the śākta school. but the two appear to be identical insofar as the ritualistic representations of the school are concerned.
According to the tradition, Dattātrēya wrote the Datta Samhitā containing 18,000 verses. Paraśurāma is said to have studied this extensive work and summarized it in a body of 6,000 sūtras called the Paraśurāma Kalpasūtras. Later, his pupil Sumedhas, composed the Tripurā Rahasya while summarizing both the Samhitā and the Sūtras in the form of a dialogue between their authors. Similarly, there could have been a possibility that the necessary tenets of these works were translated into an upākhyāna by a subsequent author while retaining the names of the original authors as the locutors. This, however, does not appear to be true in the case of these Sūtra works because they mention certain late works, including the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. They, rather, on the other hand, seem to contain a summary of the principal tenets of the Lalitōpākhyānam in the sūtra form.
The Hayagrīva śākta darśana is assigned to a time before the 8th Century A.D. by Prof. Abhyankar, but the same date cannot be accepted for it, because though there is really no mention or reference to Shaṅkarācārya in it, the mention of the Bhāgavata among the Purāṇas makes it definitely later than the date of the Bhāgavata, which is generally accepted to be later than Shaṅkarācārya himself. Again, Prof. Abhyankar hesitantly dates the Agastya sūtras to a period within a century or two later than the Hayagrīva śākta darśana, but before Shaṅkarācārya and other master philosophers of India. Now, here again, this remark makes us think that this statement is self-contradictory inasmuch as two centuries later than the 8th Century A.D. would be the 10th Century A.D., but how this later date is supposed to be Pre-Shankara? It appears that the Agastya sūtras are really the forerunners of the Hayagrīva śākta darśana, because the former is more religious and the latter more philosophical in treatment. The philosophical basis of a particular sect is always later than the sect, which is established more after its rituals.
Further, the mention of Hayagrīva as a teacher in the Agastya sūtras should not finally decide its late later than the Hayagrīva śākta darśana, because Hayagrīva in the Agastya sūtras is shown to be a teacher practicing the philosophy of indifferentism (tatsvābhinnō hayānanaśca). It is difficult to identify this Hayagrīva with the author of Hayagrīva śākta darśana, whereas he should be identified with Hayagrīva, the locutor of the Lalitōpākhyānam, who was verily the same, rather of the identical form with Janārdana Viṣṇu, and narrated the Lalitōpākhyānam to Agastya, and it was he, who might have further composed (uktavān) these sūtras. Thus, these two sūtras relate the tradition of the two locutors of the Lalitōpākhyānam, rather than taking Hayagrīva as a philosopher preaching the philosophy of indifferentism.
Thus Agastya sūtras appear to have been written after the narration of the Lalitōpākhyānam, which has been summarized by Agastya in the sūtra from combining rituals and the philosophy. If this postulation is accepted, the date of Lalitōpākhyānam need not be earlier than 10-11th centuries A.D., especially when a later date, in view of the date of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is possible for the Agastya sūtras.
The internal evidences
(a) The epithet Lalitā
Lalitā as also Tripurā occur among the names of Bhadrakālī, who appeared before Rāma Jāmadagnya while he was fighting with Her devotee Suchandra. The mention of the epithet Lalitā in this particular context makes us surmise that the author of the Bhārgavōpākhyānam was familiar with the Lalitōpākhyānam of Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa, or at least, had an acquaintance with the School of Lalitā. The chapter mentioning Lalitā in Bhārgavōpākhyānam was perhaps added to it only after the Lalitōpākhyānam was finally appended to and accepted as an integral part of the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa.
(b) Mention of Chaṇḍī Saptaśatī
The author of the Lalitōpākhyānam refers to the Chaṇḍī Saptaśatī, which may be identified with the Durgā Saptaśatī of Mārkaṇḍēya Purāṇa. This Dēvī Māhātmya is precisely dated to the 5th or 6th century A.D. by Hazra. Thus, if the identification of the two is maintained, this could by far serve as the anterior date for the composition of the Lalitōpākhyānam.
(c) The number of Vidyās referred
The number of Viddyās of Srīvidyā referred to in different texts of Tantras have the tendency of gradual increase in number. If a reference to the less number of vidyās in a particular text is taking as the deciding factor of antiquity, then the Saundaryalaharī of śaṅkarācārya mentioning only two of them, would be dated much earlier than the Nityāṣōḍaśikārṇava, mentioning eight of them. The Nityāṣōḍaśikārṇava mentions eight vidyās, and the Yōginīhr̥daya contains one additional, making the total at nine. In the Jñānārṇava, the number of vidyās rises up to 12. Its commentator Shaṅkarānanda has recounted all of them.
The Lalitōpākhyānam refers to 10 vidyāS and it should, on that score, be supposed to occupy a place between the Yōginīhr̥daya and the Jñānārṇava, but it is difficult again to date these two works.
However, the anterior date of the Yōginīhr̥daya would be fixed by the Nityāṣōḍaśikārṇava, which is generally believed to be the forerunner of the Yōginīhr̥daya, as the former mentions one vidyā less than those mentioned in the latter. The Nityāṣōḍaśikārṇava has been taken to be contemporary with Shaṅkarācārya i.e., the 9th century A.D.
The posterior date for the Yōginīhr̥daya is positively decided by the commentator Amr̥tānandanātha who proudly mentions his commentary to the first for this work. He was the teacher of Jayaratha, the commentator on Tantrālōka and who, according to Dr K. C. Pandey, flourished towards the end of the 12th and beginning of the 13th century A.D. His teacher would be assigned to the middle of the 12th century A.D. The Yōginīhr̥daya is known to Subhagānandanātha, the author of Manoramā, a commentary on the Tantrarāja Tantra, which is mentioned by the Tantrālōka and hence the former existed much before the 9th century A.D. But the date of Subhagānandanātha, again, is shrouded in mystery.
The Yōginīhr̥daya, on the whole, is an ancient work and cannot be dated much later, say about a century, than the Nityāṣōḍaśikārṇava, because both of these have been unanimous in recording six yōginīs whereas the Jñānārṇava mentions seven.
Now, the date of Jñānārṇava is again difficult to fix. It appears to be different from the Jñāna Tantra mentioned in the Nityāṣōḍaśikārṇava, among the 64 Tantras, for the former has on the basis of internal evidence, show a later tendency. The Mahājñānārṇava Tantra supposed by Bhāskararāya to have been quoted in the Yōginīhr̥daya, is again not recognized as a work of that name by its commentator Amr̥tānandanātha, because he explains the term Mahājñānārṇava differently. It could, therefore, be suggested that the Jñānārṇava Tantra was not known to Amr̥tānandanātha and came into existence much before Bhāskararāya, who quotes from it as also its commentator Shaṅkarānanda. The argumentum ex-silentio in this case should not be taken to be conclusive but may tentatively maintained. Thus the date of Jñānārṇava appears to be the 13th century to 15th century A.D.
Hence the date of Lalitōpākhyānam should be somewhere between the 9th and the 12th centuries A.D. Mahāmahōpādhyāya Gopinath Kaviraj, too, assigns the same probable date to this work.
(d) The ten incarnations of Nārāyaṇa
The text of the Lalitōpākhyānam recounts the ten incarnations of Nārāyaṇa, which are said to have come out of a fingernail of Lalitā to fight the demons that were created by Bhaṇḍa. They are as follows:
1 ādikūrma
2 Mahāvarāha
3 Nr̥simha
4 Vāmana
5 Rāma Jāmadagnya
6 Rāma Dāśarathi
7 Tālaṅka
8 Vāsudēva
9 Saṅkarṣaṇa
10 Pradyumna
11 Aniruddha and
12 Kalki
Although they number 12, the poet, somehow, recounts them as ten only, more after tradition. In that case, we have to recount the Vāsudēva vyūha (of four) as two, more so because he adds the words first and second with Vāsudēva and Saṅkarṣaṇa and leaves other two, without numbering them.
Now, this Vyūha theory was actually promulgated by the Pāñcarātra school. The Viṣṇu Purāṇa, one of the early Purāṇas, does not mention the vyūha of Vāsudēva, whereas first of all it is to be traced in the Nārāyaṇōpākhyānam of the Mahābhārata and is also further mentioned in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. The Ahirbudhnya Samhitā clearly mentions the vyūha theory with the sectarian details. According to Dr. K D Pandey, the vyūha theory appears to be a part of the theory of incarnation, promulgated by the Pāñcarātra school and also accepted by the Purāṇas. Sampradāya pradīpa and Bhakramālā evince the later developments of this theory.
Thus we find that this theory was fully developed by the time of the Ahirbudhnya Samhitā (8th century A.D.). It could have been adopted a century or two later by the works of other schools and hence a more or less contemporary date to the above conclusion for our text would not be out of the question.
(e) Stylistic grounds
The descriptions of the Lalitōpākhyānam appear stylistically to be in the wake of the Yogavāsiṣṭha. The long compounds generally covering the complete hemistich and in the stutis of Lalitā are similar to the Niyatinr̥tyavarṇanam and Kālarātrinr̥tyam of the Yogavāsiṣṭha. It is difficult to say which of them is the borrower of this style. The diction of Lalitōpākhyānam appears to be more ornate and chaste.
(f) Reference to bhuśuṇḍī among weapons
Among the different weapons used in battle, our text refers to bhuśuṇḍī. However, a much later date on that score cannot be granted to it because this weapon also occurs in the Durgā Saptaśatī and the Yogavāsiṣṭha. The inevitable conclusions from the above discussions are that our text was written between the 8th and the 11th century A.D.
(g) Addition of Devī shrines to the temples of South India by Rājarāja Chola
Lalitōpākhyānam narrates that the gods prayed Lalitā to stay permanently at Kāñcī. She agreed to the proposal and three shrines were erected for Brahmā and Sarasvatī, Viṣṇu and Lakṣmī to the south and north, central being for Lalitā or Umā and Mahēśvara. If this event is to be taken identical with the erection of a Devī shrine at the site of Kailāsanātha temple at Kāñcī by Rājarāja, the Chola emperor (985-1014 A.D.), then some precise date for the composition of Lalitōpākhyānam can be arrived at, and this also further can successfully explain the purpose of the composition of this work.
The Authorship of Lalitōpākhyānam
The text specifically records that this upākhyāna was related by Hayagrīva to Agastya at Kāñcī. This could perhaps give an inkling that the author was in all probability a permanent native of Kāñcī itself, or else he had settled down there. That he could at most be a local man, is again pointed out by his extraordinarily elegant praise showered on the Kampā river.
It is needless to say that the perfection shown by the author of the upākhyāna, as a poet and as a devotee commands but praise. The descriptions (rather bhāva) of the reality in its various forms are the very sum-total of his lifelike imagination as a poet, a vividly explicit vision of a realized devotee, and above all a detailed exposition of the secrets of the worship of Srī Lalitā while observing fully well the necessary measures imperative for its proper use alone by posterity, speak for him as a master exponent of the Lalitā school, making it all the more possible that the author had received patronage from the Chola king Rājarāja I.
Home of Lalitōpākhyānam
Several arguments can be adduced to show that the Lalitōpākhyānam was written in the South India, more precisely somewhere near Kāñcī. A few important ones are mentioned as follows:
(a) There are many stanzas written to show the importance of the river Kampā.
(b) The śrīpura’s description contains many architectural terms such as gopuram etc., known to be used in the architecture of South India alone.
(c ) Dāśarathi Rāma is known to bear a Jaṭāmukuṭa, which again is evinced mostly by the sculpture and bronzes from South India.
(d) The frequent use of the word kalyāṇam for marriage, which is used there in this sense in the dialects even these days.
(e) The use of coconut, jackfruit, plantains and the pāyasam, too, shows that the author came from South India. All these fruits are of indigenous growth to the South India, and the preparation which is made of rice and milk even today is known by the word pāyasam.