Some Intercultural Roots of Purāṇic Mythological Cycle around Nārāyaṇa

ABSTRACT In this paper, I use the structural analysis of myth proposed by C. Lévi-Strauss to show that there is a structural similarity between two mythological cycles of dying(sleeping)-and-rising god: around Ba’al and around Nārāyaṇa. On the one hand, the West Semitic myth of Ba’al and the Purāṇic myth of Nārāyaṇa have different descriptions and assume different cults. On the other hand, we can detect a homotopy equivalence among mythemes of both cycles – i.e., a functional similarity in their characters and subordinations. As we know, the earliest Purāṇic texts are dated from the second century AD. The myth about Ba’al appeared not later than the fifteenth century among West Semitic peoples and was popular among the Hittites, too. From the structural similarity between Ba’al and Nārāyaṇa myths it follows that the Purāṇic myth of Nārāyaṇa is much older than it is dated now.


Introduction
It is possible to find many similarities between some Indo-Aryan and Mesopotamian mythological cycles, e.g., see Hopkins; Sinha. Nevertheless, an appropriate comparative study might seem to be quite speculative, considering such different Indo-Aryan and Mesopotamian cultures and religious practices. But we can ignore a content of myths and cults and just focus on a similarity between structures in both mythological narratives.
The idea of analyzing similarities not between content, but between structures of different myths came first to the mind of Vladimir IAkovlevich; Propp. He has introduced the notion of narratemes as simple units of mythological stories. A recombination of narratemes with different structures gives different myths. Propp's idea to consider structures of myths and their similarities was developed later by Claude; Lévi-Strauss who has introduced mythemes instead of narratemes to emphasize a function of elementary description in different mythological stories. But the meaning of narratemes and mythemes is quite close. According to, Lévi-Strauss; there are syntagmatic as well as paradigmatic relations among the mythemes. Let M 11 , M 12 , M 21 , . . . M ij be mythemes. Then i is their paradigmatic order and j is their syntagmatic order. Hence, we obtain a matrix to explicate the structure of myth M by distinguishing its mythemes with various paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations. Let us notice that at some places of this matrix there can be zeros. It means that at an appropriate place there is no mytheme.
Let O and O' be two mythological cycles belonging to different cultures (e.g., belonging to the Mesopotamian and Indian religions, respectively): In this paper, I will show that a structural similarity is observed between the Hindu (Purān Or as the following matrix: where f is a bijection from O into O.' Additionally, as for the structuralistic approach established by Propp; Lévi-Strauss; we can introduce a stronger requirement to structural similarities among myths. In the new approach proposed first in this paper, to show a similarity between two different myths with the same motif, we will appeal to the notion of homotopy equivalence between mythological spaces. The notion of homotopy equivalence is taken from topology. Two spaces (figures) X and Y are considered homotopy equivalent if there is a structural similarity between them: one can be obtained from another through its continuous transformations. For example, a cup with a handle is continuously transformed into a ring, but a cup with a handle cannot be continuously transformed into the cup without a handle, see Figure 1.
The intuitive meaning of applying the idea of homotopy equivalence to comparing two different mythological cycles is as follows. We can observe a structural similarity between two myths, but their detalization can be so different -in one myth some mythemes can be given in greater details, in another myth the same mythemes can become less detailed. Hence, the detalization of the same mythemes can be different. Nevertheless, we can assume that there are continuous transformations from one detailed part to other details as in Figure 1. The issue is that in different cultures we deal with different social and even climatic contexts. For example, we find a flood myth in Mesopotamia as well as in India, but the climatic context of the same myth is different. In India, there is a rainy season (summer monsoon), lasting from June to September. In Mesopotamia, the flood of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers begins in the spring (March-April), when the snow in the mountains starts to melt. So, the two floods (in India and Mesopotamia) are periodic, but in India it is connected to the summer monsoon and seems to be more natural, because the cause of the flood (rain) is more evident. As a result, the flood myth in India is related to the idea of pralaya, a periodic destruction of the world. In Mesopotamia, it is rather a random act of destruction because of the divine will.
In finding a homotopy equivalence between two myths X and Y, there are the following requirements: (i) the number of characters/actors of both mythological cycles must be the same (e.g., in the Nārāyan  'Anat, 'El, Leviathan); (ii) in myth X, for the main actors there are the following properties: F X (function), L X (location), A X (attributes), R X (relations among the actors); in myth Y, for the main actors there are the following properties: F Y (function), L Y (location), A Y (attributes), R Y (relations among the actors); and there are the following continuous transformations from the properties of X into the properties of Y giving their homotopy equivalence: It means that there can be differences in details of properties, but structurally (topologically) they are the same.
In this paper, I will show that between the Nārāyan _ a cycle and the Ba'al cycle, there is a homotopy equivalence. It is a much stronger structural similarity of both myths than a similarity proposed by Propp; Lévi-Strauss which can be applied there, too. What does the structural similarity between both myths mean? According to the research program Phylogenetics of Myths and Folktales proposed by Yuri Berezkin (Thuillard et al.), any structural similarity between myths means that between the possessors of both myths there was a deep cultural contact in the past that caused borrowing of the mythological cycle and adopting it to the own cultural context implying differences in detail. These differences are called mutations by Berezkin. The more mutations, the earlier the contact was. Consequently, it is possible to present the different myths on a phylogenetic tree, according to the following assumptions (Thuillard et al. 409): (i) mythological motifs are transmitted unchanged over time and space except for minor transformations that are called mutations; (ii) a new mythological motif appears only once, therefore its appearance in other cultures means borrowing. Thus, by Berezkin's research program, the homotopy equivalence between the Nārāyan _ a myth and the Ba'al myth should be interpreted as a fact of deep intercultural contacts of Indo-Aryans and West Semites in the past. The mythological cycle around Ba'al is dated to the second millennium and it is well traced in the Ugaritic, Luwian, and Hittite texts -in the cuneiform texts of Syria and Anatolia of that time, e.g., see about mentioning Ba'al in the Hittite texts in (Laroche). Nevertheless, the Nārāyan _ a cycle can be textually dated only since the second century AD -since the time of early Purān _ as, i.e., much later. But in the Nārāyan _ a myth, we observe many mutations (many differences in details) which are avoided only by continuous transformations. So, the homotopy equivalence is a direct proof that the Nārāyan _ a cycle is much older than the second century AD. It is difficult to date this cycle precisely. There are two possibilities: (i) to date the contact of the Indo-Aryans with the West Semites to the Bronze Age (i.e., to ca. the second millennium BC) that can have taken place during the Mitanni state in northern Syria and southeast Anatolia, where the political elite had some "Indo-Aryan" roots; (ii) to date it to the Achaemenid conquest of North India (ca. 518 BC-327 BC), when Aramaic (the West Semitic language) became one of the official languages of North India. In any case, the Nārāyan _ a myth must be dated firmly as BC.

_ a and Ba'al cycles
Let us remark that Nārāyan _ a is mentioned as the Creator of the Universe and the Supreme Lord in the Mahābhārata: Nārāyan _ a of immeasurable energy, the Infinite, the Immaterial, the Uncreate, the Old, the Eternal, and the Spirit of these universes without limits. Nārāyan It is ruled over by Vāsuki, the king of the nāgas. That Śes _ a dwelleth here, who, in consequence of his ascetic austerities of the foremost order, is able to support this earth with all her vastness. His body is like that of a white mountain. He is decked in celestial ornaments. He hath a thousand heads. His tongues are blazing like flames of fire, and he is endued with great strength ( It is difficult to date the Mahābhārata as a whole text, since its different motifs and parts were composed surely at different times, BC as well as AD. So, sometimes some phenomena appearing only at the time of the Gupta Empire (i.e., from the fourth century AD to the sixth century AD) are mentioned. In the Mahābhārata the cities of Antioch (antākhi), Roma (roma) and Alexandria in Egypt (yavanapura) are mentioned: II: 28,49) In any case, the first images of Nārāyan proving that they are homotopy equivalent:

Structural similarity between functions of main actors of two myths: F N ≡ F B
In the narration of Nārāyan _ a as well as the narration of Ba'al (another possible way of spelling in Ugaritic: Ba'lu) we deal with the act of creation and further destruction of the world in the context of the same water, i.e., the first and last possible narration. This homotopy equivalent property F N ≡ F B describes the function of the West Semitic myth about Ba'al as well as the function of the Hindu myth about Nārāyan _ a. Let us notice that while Ba'al as the Creator is manifested as 'El, 'Il, 'Ilu (Hebrew: 'Ělohīm), Nārāyan _ a as the Creator is manifested as Brahmā. In both narratives (i) at the beginning, the Supreme Lord is resting on waters (He sleeps or is dead); (ii) He controls the celestial motions and takes care on his race; (iii) at the end, He destroys the earth by flood. See Table 1.

Structural similarity between locations of main actors of two myths: L N ≡ L B
Both supreme lords are associated with the highest top among the waters. See Table 2.

Structural similarity between attributes of main actors of two myths: A N ≡ A B
Both supreme lords are associated with the divine waters. See Table 3.

Structural similarity between relationships of main actors of two myths: R N ≡ R B
The following main characters were introduced in the mythological space of Nārāyan _ a to accompany him: (i) Śes _ a, also known as Śes _ anāga or Ādi Śes _ a, the king of all snakes, the many-headed serpent usually pictured with five or seven heads; (ii) Laks _ mī, the wife and female form (śakti) of Nārāyan _ a; (iii) Brahmā, the creator of the world. In the Ugaritic Ba'al cycle, Ba'al (Ba'lu) is accompanied by the following three characters: (i) Leviathan, Litan, Litanu (Ugaritic: ltn), e.g., "I smote the twisting (/twisted) serpent (ltn), the dominant one who has seven heads" (Rahmouni 144); (ii) 'Anat, 'Anatu (Ugaritic: 'nt) a virgin (btlt 'nt) who is the sister and the "cow of Ba'al"; (iii) 'El, 'Il, 'Ilu (Ugaritic: 'il), the creator of the world. The Ugaritic myth was transmitted in the Bible, too. For instance, in the text there are several occurrences of Leviathan struck down by YHWH (the Jewish analogue of Ba'al) and we see the two aspects of the Lord originally appeared as 'El and Ba'al in the West Semitic mythology. Notice that the character of Leviathan is known as Hydra in Greek mythology. The Biblical Leviathan is many-headed, also: "the heads of dragon(s)" (Hebrew: "In the beginning God ['Ělohīm] created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" (Genesis 1: 1-2). Ba'al is a dying and rising fertility god giving water, his main epithet: rkb 'rpt "rider of the clouds" (Rahmouni 288).
Nārāyan _ a having commanded the heaven and the earth YHWH (Ba'al) having commanded the heaven and the earth "And Nārada knew that the exalted and holy Nārāyan _ a, also called Śambhu the lord of the universe, having commanded all the celestials thus, had taken his birth in the race of yadus and that foremost of all perpetuator of races, having sprung from the line of the andhakavr _ s _ n _ is on earth was graced with great good fortune and was shining like the moon herself among stars" (Mahābhārata II: 35; Ganguli II: 75).

At the end the earth becoming flooded with water and Nārāyan
_ a resting on the waters At the end the earth becoming flooded with water and YHWH (Ba'al) moving upon the waters "When at the close of four thousand yugas the Earth thus became flooded with water, like one vast sea, and all mobile creatures were hushed in death, and the sun and the moon and the winds were all destroyed, and the Universe was devoid of planets and stars, the Supreme Being called Nārāyan _ a, unknowable by the senses, adorned with a thousand heads and as many eyes and legs, became desirous of rest" (Mahābhārata III: 270; Ganguli III: 531).
"And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth" (Genesis 9: 11).
Nārāyan _ a is described as a sleeping-and-rising god giving waters.
Ba'al is described as a sleeping(dying)-and-rising god: b'l mt my l'im "Ba'al is dead, what (shall become of) the peoples" (Rahmouni   'El is seated in his watery abode when 'Anat and 'Aṯirat approach him (Smith 11). 'El's abode is described: "amidst the channels of the Double Deeps." It means that 'El's abode is at the meeting place of the two cosmic oceans, the upper waters, and the lower waters (Smith 225).
"Nārāyan _ a, the primeval existent, and eternally enduring, seated in the heart of the stellar sphere, is the supporter of all beings" (Vis  "Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils" (Psalms 18: 15). "The voice of the Lord is upon the waters: the God of glory thundereth: the Lord is upon many waters" (Psalms 29: 3). "Thou visitest the earth, and waterest it: thou greatly enrichest it with the river of God, which is full of water: thou preparest them corn, when thou hast so provided for it" (Psalms 65: 9). "Save me, O God; for the waters are come in unto my soul" (Psalms 69:1). Leviathan as many-headed serpent subordinated to Ba'al (YHWY) "And the serpent Śes _ a, looking terrible with his thousand hoods, and shining with the splendour of ten thousand suns, and white as the Kunda flower or the moon or a string of pearls, or the white lotus, or milk, or the fibres of a lotus stalk, served for his conch" (Mahābhārata III: 270; Ganguli III: 531-532).

YHWH strikes Leviathan:
"Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters" (Psalms 74: 13). Ba'al strikes Leviathan: "Though you smote Leviathan the wriggling serpent, finished off the writhing serpent, Encircler-with-sevenheads, the skies will be hot, they will shine" (Wyatt 87). "He who is the Source and Creator of the Universe, viz., the Eternal and unfading Vis _ n _ u, He who is called by munis crowned with ascetic success as the Supreme Lord of the Universe, that Being of great holiness, then lay in yoga sleep on the wide hood of the Snake Śes _ a of immeasurable energy, and the Creator of the Universe, that highly-blessed and holy Hari, knowing no deterioration, lay on the hood of that Snake encircling the whole Earth and as the Deity lay asleep on that bed, a lotus, endued with great beauty and effulgence equal unto that of the Sun, sprang from his navel" (Mahābhārata III: 202; Ganguli III: 419).

YHWH strikes Leviathan:
"In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea. In that day sing ye unto her, A vineyard of red wine" (Isaiah 27: 1-2). "Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness" (Psalms 74: 14). Ba'al strikes Leviathan: "When you struck down Leviathan, the fleeing snake, annihilated the twisting snake, the powerful one with seven head" (Smith and Pitard 252). "The adorable god, the lord Nārāyan _ a, pervading all things, lives, О brāhman _ a, in a quadruple form: he is possessed as well as devoid of attributes. His first form is inscrutable, the wise behold it bright, it is covered with garlands of flame; it is the acme of perfection to devotees; it is both far and it is near, it is to be understood as transcending attributes; when called Vasudeva, it is seen devoid of egoism; its shape, colour, etc., are not real but imaginary; it is indeed always pure, it is the sole form of pre-eminence. His second form, called Śes _ a, supports the earth below with its head; it is described as being characterized by the quality of darkness; it belongs to the brute creation. His third form is active, and devoted to the preservation of creatures, it is to be considered as consisting chiefly of the quality of goodness, it is the fashioner of virtue. His fourth form abides in water; it lies on a serpent as its bed; its attribute is passion; and it is always indeed active. The third form of Vis _ n _ u, which is assiduously intent on the preservation of creatures, always maintains righteousness on the earth. It destroys the haughty Asuras, the exterminators of righteousness; it protects the gods, and holy men, who are devoted to the preservation of righteousness" (Mārkan "Canst thou draw out Leviathan with an hook? Or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?" (Job 41: 1). "O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches. So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts. There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein. These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season. That thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good" (Psalms 104: 24-28).   ; by it the world is completely deluded. Verily she, the adorable goddess, Great Illusion, forcibly drawing the minds even of those who know, presents them to delusion. By her is created this whole universal both moveable and immoveable; she it is who when propitious bestows boons on men with a view to their final emancipation, She is Knowledge supreme; she is the eternal cause of final emancipation, and the cause of the bondage of worldly existence; she indeed is the queen over all lords. The king spoke: Adorable Sir! Who then is that goddess whom you style Mahā-māyā? How was she born, and what is her sphere of action, О brāhmana? And what is her disposition, and what is her nature, and whence did she originate, the goddess-all that I wish to hear from you, О you most learned in sacred knowledge! The r _ s _ i spoke: She exists eternally, embodied as the world. By her this universe was stretched forth. Nevertheless, her origin is in many ways; hear it from me. When she reveals herself in order to accomplish the purposes of the gods, it is then said in the world that she is born; she is also named the Eternal One. "Brahmā the Prajāpati stood on the lotus that grew from Vis _ n _ u's navel; and seeing those two fierce Asuras and sleeping Janārdana, and standing with heart solely thereon intent, in order to awaken Hari, extolled that Sleep of contemplation which had made its dwelling in Hari's eyes-the lord of splendour extolled Vis _ n _ u's Sleep, which is Queen of the universe, the supporter of the world, the cause of permanence and dissolution, full of reverence, incomparable" (Mārkan [She] came to the territory, the tent of the creator" (Wyatt 84). Then she defeated him. "Brahmā, the creator of the universe, who sprang from the lotus that grew from the navel of Nārāyan 'El ('Ilu) is named 'ab šnm "father of years." This epithet occurs eight times in the Ugaritic corpus. It corresponds to the Biblical Aramaic 'tyq ywmyn "Ancient of Days" (Daniel 7:9) and to the Arabic divine epithet qadīmun "Ancient One" (Rahmouni 19).

Laks
"The parent and guide of me and of all spheres is the supreme Nārāyan _ a, who is Brahmā, the lord of the lord of patriarchs; the eldest of the eldest born; one with minutes and hours; one with time; having form, though indiscrete" (Vis rš'y tnynym) (Psalms 74: 13) and "the heads of Leviathan" (Hebrew: rš'y lwytn) (Psalms 74: 14). In the Ugaritic texts the epithet of Leviathan (Litan) is as follows: "who has seven heads" (Ugaritic: d šb't r'ašm). This epithet of the serpent occurs in the Akkadian omens, too: "a seven-headed snake" (Akkadian: s