Samāśrayaņa - shrIlatA

Words and Deeds - Hindu and Buddhist Rituals in South Asia
Edited by Jörg Gengnagel, Ute Hüsken and Srilata Raman 2005

This paper evaluates the significance of the concept of samāśrayaņa in the Śrīvaiṣņava ritual and textual tradition of South India.

The first section deals with two descriptions of the contemporary ritual of samāśrayaņa and then proceeds to compare it with a standard textual account of the ritual given in the Parāśaraviśiṣṭaparamadharmaśāstra. These accounts of samāśrayaņa as ritual are then viewed, briefly, against the background of the interpretation of samāśrayaņa in the theological writings of the Śrīvaisņava ācāryas around the same period. Such an evaluation will show that in the period between the 12th-15th centuries there is a sustained reflection in Śrīvaiṣņava literature on how samāśrayaņa is to be understood, yielding a range of not necessarily reconcilable meanings. This section of the paper examines the implications of such a broad definition of the concept against the light of certain recent theories and formal definitions of ritual action and suggests that in a highly self-reflective theological tradition such as that of the Śrīvaișnavas the meaninglessness of ritual activity in a specific sense was not only acknowledged but even endorsed precisely because such meaninglessness can be located within a larger vision of the divine plan for human salvation.

The final section of the paper shows that these theological reflections ultimately had an effect on ritual practice, moulding it and recreating it in such a manner as to make it consistent with doctrine.

Samāśrayana Today

In his 1931 monograph on the Śrīvaiṣņava Brahmins K. Rangachari stated that every Śrīvaiṣņava has to be initiated into the secrets of the Vaisnavite religion by a teacher and that this can only be done after he/she had undergone the initiation of the “five rites” (pañcasamskāra) more commonly called, from perhaps as early as the 12th-13th centuries “resorting [to Viṣnu-Nārāyana]” or samāśrayaņa.¹

5 rites

Simply put, this initiation consists of five rites in the following order: there is the branding of the initiate with certain emblems (more specifically, the weapons) of Viṣnu-Nārāyaņa called tāpasamskāra, the wearing of his insignia on various parts of the body called pundrasamskāra, the taking on of a Vaisnava name called nāmasamskāra, the initiation into certain Vaisnava mantras called mantrasamskāra and, finally, obtaining the idol form (vigraha) of the God for private worship called yāgasamskāra. This initiatory ritual, or certain aspects of it, appears to have been a marker of Vaisnava identity in the Tamil country at least since the 9th century C.E. Thus, we already have a reference to it in a Tamil verse of that period where the poet states that those such as he serve Viṣnu-Nārāyaņa after having been branded with a red-hot discus and conch.²

The initiation was also undoubtedly a conversion or induction ceremony of sorts into the Vaisnava community in the Chola period (when Vaisnavism vied constantly with Śaivism for greater royal patronage) and a means by which anyone—male, female and belonging to any of the four varņas—could become a Vaisnava.³

Samāśrayaņa ceremonies which take place nowadays among the Śrīvaiṣņavas are frequently mass ritual ceremonies with an ācārya fixing an auspicious day and time and doing samāśrayaņa for a group of people simultaneously.⁴

Scope

Both the ceremonies described here, though, were done for individual, female initiates and the account given here is not a detailed description of each of the ceremonies. Hence, a full account of the sub-rites and mantras involved is omitted.

Instead, the paper delineates the broad features of the contemporary ritual of pañcasamskāra as it is performed today and compares this with one standard prescriptive account of the ritual in the Agamic literature. Further, by reflecting on the performances witnessed, the paper demonstrates how the ritual, in practice, has come to be re-defined or reinterpreted on the basis of theological considerations.

The paper therefore concludes by showing that, at least in the case of certain rituals there is a close relationship between theology and ritual of a kind which is sometimes questioned in the anthropological approach to ritual.

Āndavan

Here, I first describe the main features of a typical samāśrayaņa done for an individual instead of a mass ceremony, for a female initiate by the current incumbent ācārya Śrī Ranga Rāmānuja Mahādeśikan of the Śrīrangam Śrīmuṣnam Śrīmad Āndavan Āśrama, which took place in January 2001 in Chennai, India.

The female initiate was told to come to the religious institution, the maṭha, at a specific time in the morning dressed in the traditional clothes (which for women means wearing the saree, which is called maḍicāru, in the traditional way by tucking one end of it in the back). She was told to bring with her a specified amount of milk, clarified butter, betel leaves and areca nuts on a plate (tāmbūla), fruit and an appropriate amount of money which would be the sacrificial fee (gurudakṣiṇā).

The samāśrayaņa is choreographed in such a way that several of the auxiliary rites of which the main one is the offering of oblations into the fire, the homa, is done not by the ācārya himself but by a disciple of his.

The plate with the fruits, betel leaves and areca nuts was placed beside the brick mound (homakuṇḍa) created for lighting a sacrificial fire. A coconut was placed on the plate draped with some yellow threads.
Next to the plate four square-shaped wooden vessels were placed, two of them filled with milk, the other two with clarified butter.

The ritual of samāśrayaņa began with the disciple lighting the fire and pouring into it the oblations of clarified butter doing a Sudarśana homa, followed by further oblations to the accompaniment of the Viṣṇu Gāyatrī and the Puruṣa Sūkta.

While much of the homa was being done the female initiate was sent to have a symbolic bath which involved washing her feet and hands. On returning she was made to stand next to the fire facing east such that she and the disciple stood parallel to each other.

The disciple then made the initiate repeat after him the words: asmat gurubhyo namaḥ. Next, the initiate repeats after him, twice, the salutations in Sanskrit to the teacher-disciple lineage (guruparamparā) of the incumbent ācārya beginning with him and going backwards twelve generations to Rāmānuja himself. Thus, one begins with śrī raṅga rāmānuja mahādeśikāya namaḥ and concludes with śrīmate bhagavate bhāṣyakārāya mahādeśikāya namaḥ.

Then the initiate is made to recite, once, the laudatory verses to the two most important ācāryas of that particular maṭha’s teacher-disciple lineage, Vedānta Deśika and Rāmānuja, and concludes this with salutations to Nārāyaṇa.

The disciple then has the initiate ask to have pañcasamskāra in order to be rid of all defects (doṣa), without remainder and then the first line of the Nārāyaṇa Mantra known as the Dvaya which goes, “I take refuge at the feet of Nārāyaṇa” (śrīman nārāyaṇa caraṇau śaraṇam prapadye).

The initiate follows this up, at the instigation of the disciple, with a recitation of the first śloka of the Viṣṇusahasranāmastotra. This part of the ritual, which also concludes the homa, is wound up with the disciple offering the initiate unbroken rice (akṣata) and receiving a sacrificial fee (dakṣiṇā) in return.

At this juncture, the ācārya appears and facing the initiate, prior to tāpasamskāra, ties the yellow thread around the initiate’s left wrist. Then, facing the initiate, he places the mantras of the twelve names of Viṣņu using hand-gestures (mudrās) on various parts of the initiate’s body.⁵

While this was being done, the disciple heated two copper rods with wooden handles in the sacrificial fire, which had, respectively, a discus and conch affixed to them at one end. The ācārya then made the initiate repeat after him the mantra of Viṣņu’s discus and then fold the arms.

The red-hot rod with the discus on it was pressed on the right shoulder. Then the mantra of the conch, the Pāñcajanya, was recited by both the ācārya and the initiate and the rod with the emblem of the conch pressed on the left shoulder. The copper rods were immediately dipped into two square wooden vessels containing milk by the disciple.

Next, the disciple handed to the ācārya a small wooden bowl containing the white, liquidized mud called Tiruman, used for painting the insignia of Viṣņu called the ūrdhvapuṇḍra on the body.⁶ The ācārya proceeded to paint these on the female initiate—and this is where the samāśrayaņa ritual for a female deviates from that for a male—the female initiate receives only two such signs unlike the twelve received by the male. Thus, the ācārya painted on her forehead the sign with the words: keśavāya namaḥ, then making her turn around, on the nape of her neck: dāmodarāya namaḥ and, finally, making her face east, he recited śriyai namaḥ.

He concluded the puṇḍrasamskāra by tying a yellow thread around the initiate’s right wrist. The ācārya then left after having made the initiate repeat after him, twice, the eight-syllabled Nārāyaṇa Mantra (om namo nārāyaṇāya) with a substitution of “am” for “om”.

This part of the samāśrayaņa is completed with the initiate repeating the salutations to the teacher-disciple lineage with which the ritual commenced, followed by a Tamil verse which recites the lineage from Rāmānuja back to Viṣņu-Nārāyaṇa and concludes with the acknowledgement that she has taken refuge with the ācārya and through him has surrendered herself at the feet of Viṣņu-Nārāyaṇa.

The samāśrayaņa ritual concludes with the initiation into the mantras, the mantrasamskāra. The ācārya returns and makes the initiate repeat after him, thrice, the Dvaya Mantra and then Bhagavadgītā 18.66, also known as the Caramaśloka. After this, the initiate prostrates at the feet of the ācārya, places the fee for the ritual at his feet and receives his blessings. The entire ritual lasts for approximately one-and-a-half hours.

aNNangarArya-kulam

The second ritual of samāśrayaņa was again for a female initiate and took place in Kāñcīpuram on the 13th of April 2003 at the house of the ācārya, who was also a married householder, gṛhastha, aided constantly in the ceremony by his wife. The initiate was the wife of a retired headmaster and former Sanskrit teacher who had himself undergone the samāśrayaņa ceremony sometime previously and was well-versed (as his enthusiastic participation during the course of the ceremony showed) in the mantras and ślokas recited during the ritual. The family has a traditional ācārya-śiṣya relationship with the family of the famous Tenkalai scholar Prativāti Payańkaram Aņņańkarācāriyār Svāmi and the samāśrayaņa ceremony described here was performed by the grandson of the latter, P.B. Rajahamsa Chariyar.⁷

The first and obvious difference between this occasion and the previous one was that it was an initiation for a Tenkalai and not a Vaṭakalai initiate. Secondly, it was performed not by an ascetic head of a maṭha but a married Śrīvaiṣṇava ācārya, in the precincts of his own house, in front of his household altar or pūjā room. Hence, both the Śrīvaiṣṇava lineage as well as the ritual functions of the ācārya were different compared to the previous case and these facts, among others, also led to significant differences in the ritual which only began to emerge as it progressed.

The ceremony approximately lasted two hours, starting at 9 a.m. in the morning. During the first half-hour neither the initiate nor her spouse were present and one was informed that they were worshipping at the Varadarāja Perumāļ temple nearby and would arrive shortly. At the beginning of the ceremony Rajahamsa Chariyar gave me a list of the most important sub-rites (kriyā) which, in his view, were an indispensable part of the samāśrayaņa ceremony: the gathering together of the pañcagavya (pañcagavyasammelana) and the fire-sacrifice, homa, for the Śrīsūkta, the Puruṣasūkta and Aṣṭākṣaramantra and, finally, the śāntihoma.

The ceremony took place in the central hall of the house of the ācārya directly in front of the pūjā room, which was kept open throughout the ceremony and which had the metal rods with the images of Viṣņu’s discus and conch lying before the deities worshipped.

In front of Rajahamsa Chariyar was the unlit homakuṇḍa, to the left of which was the kalaśa, the water-pot filled with water, resting on a bed of rice, decorated at its rim with mango leaves. On the leaves rested a coconut on which was draped the thread, which would eventually be tied around the left wrist of the initiate.

The ceremony began with the ācārya paying his respects to the entire community of Śrīvaiṣṇavas and declaring the formal intention (saṃkalpa) of performing the ceremony of pañcasamskāra.⁸

The next step was the worship of Viṣvaksena, undertaken in order that all the ritual activity to follow thereafter would be successfully concluded.⁹ Hence, Viṣvaksena was invoked and then worshipped with the traditional upacāras.¹⁰

This initial rite concluded again with a formulaic statement of intention (which recurred several times in the course of the ceremony) to do the pañcasamskāras.¹¹
Then there was the proclamation of the auspiciousness of the day—puṇyāham. At this juncture, the initiate entered the hall with her husband and a female relative and seated herself with the relative in a corner of the room, to the right of the ācārya.

There now followed two rites, which concluded with the homa.

The first was the consecration (through the sprinkling of water and the utterance of mantras) of the thread, pavitra. The rite is called rakṣābandhana samprokṣaṇa. The main adjuncts to this rite was the recitation of the Śrī- and Puruṣasūkta, followed by the vyāhṛtis.
Finally, a consecration mantra was recited, which was a Nṛsiṃha Mantra.¹²

The second rite was the “uniting of the five cow-products” (pañcagavya sammelana) involving the summoning of deities onto the pañcagavya with the use of hand gestures, mudrās.

The final rite in this series was the performance of a series of homas which the ācārya announced through reciting the saṃkalpas for each of them, in sequence, as they were done:
the akārādihoma, puruṣasūktahoma, śrīsūktahoma, sudarśanamantrahoma, mūlamantrahoma and the śāntihoma with the offering of oblations, āhutis, in the fire and concluding with a final oblation, the pūrṇāhuti.

On finishing the homa the ācārya stood up and invited the initiate and her husband to first prostrate before the fire altar before seating themselves to his right.
The initiate’s husband sat to the right of his spouse. Once seated the initiate received the pañcagavya from the ācārya.

As she sipped it thrice she was made to recite a śloka which expressed the wish that the vessel of pañcagavya may purify her of the evil deeds (pāpa) present in all ways in her body and soul.¹³

In the next rite, the ācārya tied the consecrated thread, pavitra, around the initiate’s left wrist. Prior to doing so he sprinkled her with water from the kalaśa, removed the coconut with the pavitra from the pot and placing it on her cupped hands recited the first section of the Śrīsūkta yet again, concluding with the Lakṣmīgāyatrī and the Vedic hymn bhadraṃ karṇe after which the husband tied the thread around the left wrist of his wife thrice.

It is after these series of rites that the pañcasamskāra proper is finally done.

tāpasamskāra

The ācārya rose, entered his household shrine and retrieved from it the metal rods with the emblems of the discus (sudaraśana) and the conch (pāñcajanya) on them. He returned and placed them beside him on a small, metal tray—a glass of water was kept nearby. He heated the discus on the weakly smouldering homa fire.

In the meantime the initiate had been readied for the branding—tāpasamskāra—by the female relative and sat facing him with her hands folded.¹⁴ The ācārya then made her recite a Sudarśana Mantra:

O discus, Great light akin to a thousand suns, O Lord show me, ignorant and blind, the path of Viṣṇu.¹⁵

Then holding the initiate’s right arm the ācārya said:

śrīsudarśanāya hetirājāya namaḥ

and branded her on her right arm. The wife of the ācārya assisted and showed her support by holding the initiate at this point.

Next, the conch was heated in the fire and held up in front of the initiate. The Pāñcajanya Mantra was recited first by the ācārya and then the initiate:

O Conch, whose sound is true, who makes fit the lost sinner, Save me, the Sinner, fallen into the Frightful Ocean of Transmigration.¹⁶

Then the metal rod with the emblem of the conch is pressed on the left shoulder of the initiate with the words:

śrīpāñcajanya śaṅkhādhipataye namaḥ

After the branding the ācārya removed the metal tray with the rods and took them back to his household shrine.

puṇḍrasamskāra

When he returned, the second rite—the puṇḍrasamskāra—took place. It was extremely brief and was done by the wife of the ācārya who painted the insignia of Viṣṇu with wet, vermilion powder—the śrīcūrṇa—on the forehead, right arm, left arm and neck of the initiate alone even while the ācārya repeatedly said: tāpaḥ puṇḍraḥ.

Soon after this the initiate prostrated herself once more before the ācārya saying (in a mixture of Tamil and Sanskrit), “I, a subordinate, am [now] a subordinate of [all] Śrīvaiṣṇavas”.¹⁷

mantra

Then, the fourth rite of the five-fold samskāra ceremony—the mantrasamskāra—began. It consisted of three parts, in all of which the ācārya recited the verses first, followed by the initiate.

First there was the recitation of the common guruparamparā verses of both the Vaṭakalai and Tenkalai lineages, though this recitation was prefaced by the Tenkalai verse: śrīśaileśadayāpātram.

The second part consisted of the recitation of the three samāśrayaņa mantras—the Aṣṭākṣara, the Dvaya and the Caramaśloka, which was taught in a lowered voice by the ācārya to emphasise their esoteric nature.

The third part consisted of the recitation of the guruparamparā verses of the ācārya’s own lineage beginning with that of Nāthamuni and ending with that of Rajahamsa Chariyar himself.

This third part concluded with the words: “The feet of the ācārya alone are the refuge. The feet of [Namm]ālvār, Emperumānār [Rāmānuja] and Cīyar [Maṇavāḷamāmuni] alone are the refuge”.¹⁸

dakṣiṇā

Once the ceremony was over the initiate and her husband offered the sacrificial fees—dakṣiṇā—to Rajahamsa Chariyar’s father who was the head of the family and had been present throughout the ceremony though he had not conducted it.

Comparison

A comparison of the two ceremonies enables one to detect a common script which consists of two main components in the following order: the samāśrayaņa consists of an initial homa followed by the pañcasamskāra in which the order of procedure is tāpa, puṇḍra, [nāma,] mantra [and yāga]. Nevertheless, even this basic script had been modified, in each of the performances, in significant ways.

Prelims

The first difference is that the ritual in Chennai was done by a Vaṭakalai ascetic, while the one in Kāñcīpuram was done by a Tenkalai householder. This difference in the āśrama of the ācārya concerned led to a division in the ritual duties performed in the course of the ceremony: in Chennai most of the rites prior to the pañcasamskāra itself (the rakṣābandhana samprokṣaṇa, pañcagavya sammelana and the homa) were done by the married disciple of the ācārya and these rites were concluded even before the initiate entered the hall of the maṭha for the ceremony.

The ascetic ācārya’s ritual duties began after these were concluded when he came in front of the homakuṇḍa in order to tie the pavitra around the initiate’s wrist.¹⁹

In contrast to this Rajahamsa Chariyar did all the preliminary rites himself assisted considerably by his wife during portions of the ceremony. Thus, in effect, in both ceremonies it was a married householder, the gṛhastha, who did the rituals preceding the main rite of pañcasamskāra.

In the sequence of the pre-rites to the pañcasamskāra two differences are to be noted: in the Kāñcīpuram ritual the tying of the pavitra around the wrist of the initiate had been preceded by the consecration and ingestion of the pañcagavya.

In the Chennai ceremony this did not take place.

In contrast, in the Chennai ceremony the rakṣābandhana had been followed up by a rite in which the ascetic ācārya laid or deposited the twelve puṇḍras of the twelve names of Viṣṇu on the body of the initiate. This was not done in the Kāñcīpuram case.

puṇḍrasamskāra

Certain differences also emerged in the performance of the pañcasamskāra itself. Firstly, the significant role of the wife of the householder ācārya, assisting throughout and particularly prompting him when it came to the recitation of the ślokas regarding the guruparamparā, was reinforced in the puṇḍrasamskāra. For, then, it was she, not the ācārya, who did the puṇḍrasamskāra for the female initiate.

nāmasamskāra

The next difference was in the nāmasamskāra ceremony. While it was completely elided in the Vaṭakalai ceremony it is my opinion that it was alluded to in the second, where the female initiate admits to taking on a Śrīvaiṣṇava identity and, hence, name, by acknowledging that she is, henceforth, a “Śrīvaiṣṇavadāsī”.

mantrasamskāra

Two differences could be noticed as far as the mantrasamskāra was concerned. The first is again traceable to the difference in āśrama between the ācāryas: when the guruparamparā of an ascetic lineage is recited one begins with the incumbent and traces the lineage backwards; for the gṛhastha it is done the opposite way. The second difference was doctrinal, reflecting the influence of the schismatic dispute within Śrīvaiṣṇavism. One of the so-called “eighteen points of difference” between the two schools of Śrīvaiṣṇavism—aṣṭhādaśabhedaḥ—lies in the fact that the Vaṭakalais believe that women should not pronounce the praṇava, om, when they utter mantras while the Tenkalais permit this.

Am

This theological difference emerged as established in the respective ceremonies witnessed: in the Vaṭakalai ceremony the female initiate substituted am for the praṇava of the three esoteric mantras taught while in the Tenkalai ceremony she said om.

yāgasamskāra

Most importantly, in both cases the pañcasamskāra ceremony, in effect, concluded after the mantrasamskāra and the fifth and final rite, the yāgasamskāra, did not take place.

In other words, it does not seem to be a component of the pañcasamskāra ceremony as we know it today and the ceremony performed these days may be properly called a catuḥ-samskāra. The reason for this becomes clear in the next section, where a relatively late textual account of the ceremony is examined.

Samāśrayana in the Parāśaraviśiṣṭaparamadharmaśāstra

The Parāśaraviśiṣṭaparamadharmaśāstra is a not earlier than 12th century ritual appendage to the Parāśarasmṛti. The brief editorial introduction to the printed copy of the Parāśaraviśiṣṭaparamadharmaśāstra which I possess identifies the Parāśarasmṛti with the Parāśarasaṃhitā and further states that the Parāśaraviśiṣṭaparamadharmaśāstra is considered to be the latter portion (uttarabhāga), to be found only in southern recensions of the text. The New Catalogus Catalogorum (vol. 11: 208) indicates that there are at least two Parāśarasmṛtis. The more famous one is that which is summarized in Chapter 107 of the Garuḍapurāṇa. The other is a [Pāñcarātra] Śrīvaiṣṇava theological text with the colophons of all the available manuscripts containing only an uttarakhaṇḍa. To add to the confusion, in his bibliography of Pāñcarātra texts Daniel Smith lists and describes a Parāśarasaṃhitā, which is a work of approximately 2000 ślokas divided into thirty-one chapters. It speaks of both the āḻvārs and the ācāryas such as Nāthamuni leading him to the conclusion “that the composition of this work must have been before the 15th century but considerably after the time of Śundara [sic]. Thus it belongs to the Saṃhitās of the ‘later’ period” (Smith 1978: 61–62). A comparison of the contents of this Parāśarasaṃhitā with the Parāśaraviśiṣṭaparamadharmaśāstra could not be undertaken for this study, since I do not possess a copy of this former work. Nevertheless, even a cursory examination of the chapterization of the Parāśarasaṃhitā given in Smith (1978: 188–196) with the chapterization and contents of the Parāśaraviśiṣṭaparamadharmaśāstra indicates wide discrepancies. This, at the very least, seems to indicate that the Parāśaraviśiṣṭaparamadharmaśāstra is not a straightforward textual extract from the Pāñcarātra Parāśarasaṃhitā described by Smith but, in the event of being one, has undergone considerable modification.

At this stage, all that can be said about the text is that, inasmuch as it deals at such length with the pañcasamskāras, it cannot be an earlier than 12th century text. The text, in the edition consulted, consists of the following ten chapters:

description of tāpasamskāra (tāpasamskāravarṇana) sequence of puṇḍrasamskāra (puṇḍrasamskārakrama) sequence of mantrasamskāra (mantrasamskārakrama) sequence of yāgasamskāra (yāgasamskārakrama) worship of the Blessed One and the rights pertaining to one’s station in life (bhagavadārādhanavarṇāśramadharmavarṇana) extensive description of daily worship (vistṛtanityārādhanakrama) description of the swing festival (dolotsavavarṇana) description of occasional festivals (naimittikotsavavarṇana) description of the “great festival” (mahotsavavarṇana) worship of Bhāgavatas and their greatness (vaiṣṇavārādhanatanmāhātmyavarṇana)

The analysis in this section concentrates on the first four chapters. The text begins with the seers (munis) asking Parāśara to instruct them in detail about how to do samāśrayaņa to Hari and how to worship him. Parāśara replies that he will do so and, in addition, also inform them about the injunction relating to the mantra initiation (mantradīkṣāvidhi).

He then adds: “Foremost, indeed, regarded as Vaiṣṇava, is the bearing of, among others, the conch, the discus, the insignia, [undergoing] the naming ritual, the mantra and the ritual worship of Hari. Five saṃskāras) have to be done for the Brahman, according to the precepts”.²⁰

A detailed description of the pañcasamskāras begins in verse 10 of this first chapter, with that of the first rite, the tāpasamskāra. The ācārya does the tāpasamskāra on an auspicious day, in the early part of it (pūrvāhṇi), after having bathed and worshipped Viṣṇu, for the śiṣya who is summoned to the ceremony after his daily ablutions, whose sacred thread ceremony has taken place (kṛtakautukamaṅgalam) (10).²¹

The ācārya has already had models (pratikṛti) of the conch, discus etc. made out of metals such as gold, silver or copper (11-12).²² These model weapons are first purified in the “five-fold nectar” (pañcāmṛta) and then worshipped with flowers and the mantras pertaining to them (13). The ācārya then establishes the sacrificial fire, homa, according to the gṛhyasūtra of his lineage, does the homa to the extent of placing the fuel sticks in the fire (idhmādhāna) (14) and, then, placing the weapons on the fire he sacrifices together with the disciple (15).²³ The disciple, who is seated facing the east, is anointed with water consecrated with mantras and then is to be branded with the conch, discus and other weapons (16-17).²⁴ He is first branded on his upper left arm with the discus, then with the conch on his right, upper arm, with the mace in the middle of the forehead, with the sword on the heart and the bow on the head (17-18).²⁵

The second chapter deals with the ritual sequence of the puṇḍrasamskāra. The ācārya does the rite on another day. He begins by drawing the twelve puṇḍras of the twelve names of Viṣṇu on the ground, or on sand strewn for that purpose (3).²⁶ The twelve forms of Viṣṇu are worshipped on these puṇḍras, in sequence and then honoured with the upacāras, before doing a homa, similar to the one which took place for the tāpasamskāra (4-5).²⁷

Once the homa is finished, the ācārya begins to paint the puṇḍras on the seated disciple who, henceforth, is to wear the puṇḍras (painted with mud taken from a site holy to Vaiṣṇavas and consecrated with the Mūlamantra) on a daily basis (8-9).²⁸ Several verses follow which are devoted to the correct measurements of the puṇḍra (10), how one should draw it accurately (11-12) and the consequences of not doing so (13-14). Some verses stress the particular necessity of wearing the ūrdhvapuṇḍra when obligatory rituals such as the morning and evening sandhyā, the evening japa, homa and śrāddha are done (15-16).²⁹ If one performs these rituals without wearing it they would be unsuccessful (17).³⁰ With this set of verses the core elements of the puṇḍrasamskāra are mentioned and concluded. The rest of this section of the second chapter is devoted to establishing the superiority of the ūrdhvapuṇḍra over the tripuṇḍra of the Śaivites and then concludes with once again listing the deities of each of the puṇḍras.

The second part of the second chapter, which begins with verse 45, deals with the nāmasamskāra. Parāśara suggests that the naming ceremony, nāmakarma, could be done at different phases in the individual’s life: at the time of the naming ceremony after birth, at the tonsure, during the sacred-thread ceremony or at the time of the puṇḍrasamskāra itself, before the study of the mantras (45-46).³¹ The name can be that of one of the forms of Viṣṇu, such as Vāsudeva or Keśava, one of his emanations (vyūha or vibhava) or any other auspicious Vaiṣṇava name (46-47).³² The ceremony itself, if one were to do it as part of the pañcasamskāra ceremony, is described in one-and-a-half verses. Viṣṇu is first worshipped, the deity whose name will be bestowed is meditated upon and worshipped with upacāras. After that one offers oblations (into the homa).³³ It is to be presumed, even though this is not explicitly stated in the text, that the disciple receives the new name after this homa.

In verses 51-52 it is strongly recommended that the ācārya bestow upon the disciple the name of the particular form of Viṣṇu who is also the “lord of the month” (māsādhipathi) on which the ceremony is performed.³⁴ The final verse of the chapter recommends that the name consist of two components: a name of Viṣṇu or one of his devotees and a suffix—dāsa, “servant”.³⁵

The third chapter deals with mantrasamskāra. Some initial verses describe the pertinent homa: oblations of ghee are to be offered accompanied by the recitation of the Viṣṇu and Nārāyaṇa Mantras (such as the Dvaya and Aṣṭottara), the Puruṣasūkta, the Viṣṇugāyatrī, among others (2-3).³⁶ After these oblations are concluded the ācārya brings a kalaśa filled with water consecrated with the Dvaya- and Mūlamantras and sprinkles the disciple with this consecrated water even while reflecting on the same mantras again. After this the water has to be sipped three times (4-7).³⁷ Then the ācārya places his right hand on the disciple’s head, his left hand on his heart and gazing with compassion upon him, contemplating his own ācārya is his heart, reciting the guruparamparā of the lineage, he begins the process of teaching the mantras.³⁸ The mantrasamskāra is initiated through a prayer first addressed to the Goddess:³⁹

You are the mother of all, O Beloved of the Lord of all the Worlds, Ignore/overlook/tolerate (śrāvayasva) this person today, who is surrounded (vṛta) with these thousand transgressions.

Then, says the text, after appealing to the Goddess, the Lord is resorted to with the following words:

O Nārāyaṇa, Ocean of Compassion, Sea of the Quality of Parental Love, Rescue this Evil-doer O God, who has come [to you] out of compassion.⁴⁰

After reciting these two verses the ācārya proceeds to teach the initiate the “Jewel among the mantras” which is the Dvaya Mantra, followed by the eight-syllabled Aṣṭākṣaramantra.⁴¹ The next verse states emphatically that the mantrasamskāra can only take place after the disciple has been branded with the conch and discus. A guru who imparts the mantras without these preliminary samskāras to a disciple goes to hell.⁴² The mantrasamskāra is brought to a close by finishing the homa and feeding Brahmins.⁴³

The fourth and final chapter, in terms of this analysis, concerns the yāgasamskāra. Sometime after the above-mentioned rites have taken place, the initiated disciple visits the guru and obtains from him, with his blessings, an idol (vigraha) of Viṣṇu-Nārāyaṇa with that of his consorts, Śrī, Bhūmi and Nīlā which he has to henceforth worship every day of his life.⁴⁴ Prior to giving the main idol of a form of Viṣṇu-Nārāyaṇa to the disciple, the guru establishes a homa (4) and does oblations which involve the recitation of the important Vedic and Pāñcarātric mantras already mentioned in the previous chapters (5-6).⁴⁵ Once the homa is concluded the guru gives the idol to the disciple, teaches him the proper manner of worship, has the disciple do the worship himself and sees to the feeding of Vaiṣṇava Brahmins.⁴⁶

A comparison of the two performances of this ritual witnessed with the textual account of it in the four chapters of the Parāśaraviśiṣṭaparamadharmaśāstra shows, in principle, that it is remarkably true in its essentials to the textual account. Where there is deviation it is inevitably in the form of contraction, a telescoping of entire facets of the ritual or even entire auxiliary rites within it to their minimal form. Thus, to begin with, the Parāśaraviśiṣṭaparamadharmaśāstra recommends, ideally, that each of the five saṃskāras be done on different days with an elaborate homa for each occasion.

Even so, at the end of the third chapter, after the description of the “sequence of the mantrasaṃskāra” the text allows for the possibility that all the saṃskāras can be done on one single day provided they are done in orderly succession.⁴⁷ Next, there is the fact that samāśrayaṇa nowadays consists, in effect, only of three of the saṃskāras with the nāmasaṃskāra and the yāgasaṃskāra being omitted during the ritual. The Parāśaraviśiṣṭaparamadharmaśāstra clearly allows for the omission of the nāmasaṃskāra at the time of samāśrayaṇa. In II: 45-46 the text states that one could have been bestowed with a Vaiṣṇava name at the time of the birth ceremonies (jātakarman), or at the time of tonsure or during the sacred thread ceremony, thus allowing for this saṃskāra to have taken place prior to samāśrayaṇa.⁴⁸ What was important is that it had taken place prior to the mantrasaṃskāra at some point in time, since one could not be instructed in the Vaiṣṇava mantras without a Vaiṣṇava name. Less obviously explicable is the omission of the yāgasaṃskāra—which in the Śrīvaiṣṇava context is the obtainment of the idol of Viṣṇu-Nārāyaṇa for daily worship from the ācārya, along with the proper instructions on how to conduct this worship⁴⁹—from samāśrayaṇa nowadays when it is described in elaborate detail in the fourth chapter of the Parāśaraviśiṣṭaparamadharmaśāstra. Firstly, the very fact that the Parāśaraviśiṣṭaparamadharmaśāstra allows for the telescoping of the entire ceremony of pañcasaṃskāra, at the end of the third chapter, may well be an indication that an elaborate procedure such as teaching the disciple how to do his proper, daily worship may have become redundant to the ceremony by the time of the redaction of the text. This redundancy can only be deduced, though, from the perspective of contemporary, Śrīvaiṣṇava practice. Since most Śrīvaiṣṇava households have one if not several idols of Viṣṇu-Nārāyaṇa in regular, private worship any person born a Śrīvaiṣṇava is expected to be instructed in the procedures of daily worship by the elders of the family or the family priest nowadays rather than the ācārya. Finally, allowing for the view that the Parāśaraviśiṣṭaparamadharmaśāstra is prescriptive and gives an account of the ideal ritual, further discrepancies between text and context could also be explained by the adaptation of the saṃskāras to changing circumstances.

To take the obvious example of the tāpasaṃskāra, even the most orthodox of Śrīvaiṣṇavas these days would balk at the idea of being branded, as the Parāśaraviśiṣṭaparamadharmaśāstra perhaps hyperbolically recommends, not just with the discus and conch but, in addition, with the mace (gadā) on the forehead, the sword (khaḍga) on the chest and the bow (śārṅga) on the skull.

The significance of samāśrayaṇa is laid out by the Parāśaraviśiṣṭaparamadharmaśāstra in the very first chapter. The text offers us two main reasons why this ritual is mandatory for all Vaiṣṇavas, women at the time of marriage, men at the time of the sacred, thread ceremony, the upanayana.⁵⁰ The ritual is a marker of Vaiṣṇava identity, without it one is not a Vaiṣṇava (I: 3)⁵¹ and cannot be instructed in the mantras which are necessary for salvation (I: 21-22).⁵² A male Brahmin cannot be considered a Brahmin without samāśrayaṇa because it complements or is equivalent to the sacred, thread ceremony (I: 4-6).⁵³ It also follows from this that it is only samāśrayaṇa following upon and complementing the sacred thread ceremony that qualifies the Śrīvaiṣṇava for doing any further ritual activity (I: 9)⁵⁴ and the smārta rituals such as the śrāddha ceremony for the dead (I: 7).⁵⁵

Thus, in the final analysis, it is by drawing an explicit parallel between the ritual and upanayana, that the Parāśaraviśiṣṭaparamadharmaśāstra validates this Śrīvaiṣṇava ritual as a saṃskāra par excellence. By doing so, the text explicitly draws legitimacy from none less than Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā in as much as in the Mīmāṃsā-sūtras VI: 1.35 the word saṃskāra is synonymous with that ritual which qualifies the male for Vedic learning, the upanayana. And by elevating samāśrayaṇa to the level of the upanayana the Śrīvaiṣṇava ritual theorists were, in effect, doing what Alexis Sanderson (1995: 27) has pointed out regarding the legitimation of Tantric ritual in general: that the rituals aim at “achieving parity with the orthodox by providing the system with equivalents of all the essential smārta rites which the invested perform or undergo during adult life and, indeed, beyond it”.

Enquiry among contemporary Śrīvaiṣṇavas who have undergone samāśrayaṇa about the significance of it for them elicited, as might be expected, a spectrum of responses. Broadly classified, the response was two-fold. Men and women less well-informed or learned in aspects of Śrīvaiṣṇava ritual significance or theology were of the opinion that it was a good thing to do if one wished to intensify one’s religious life, become more orthodox as it were. And this becoming more orthodox was seen primarily in terms of further dietary restrictions as well as a more strict adherence to daily worship at the household altar. The response, on the other hand, of orthodox Śrīvaiṣṇava males as to the significance of the ritual was almost text-book perfect—they told me that samāśrayaṇa qualified them for all ritual activity whether in the temple or for the domestic, smārta rites.

The Theology of samāśrayaṇa

This very spectrum of interpretation—of what the ritual of samāśrayaṇa signifies today needs to be contextualized theologically as well and evaluated against the background of developments in Śrīvaiṣṇava theology in the post-Rāmānuja period of Śrīvaiṣṇavism. In that period, commencing in the mid-12th century, ācāryas such as Tirukkurukaip Piṟāṉ Piḷḷāṉ and Nañcīyar wrote the first commentaries on the Tamil devotional poetry of the āḻvārs. In the writings of these two ācāryas, in particular, we see the emergence of certain doctrines of salvation which are not entirely compatible with each other, an incompatibility which eventually led to a sectarian split within the Śrīvaiṣṇava community and the formation of the “Northern” and the “Southern” schools (Vaṭakalai & Teṉkalai) of Śrīvaiṣṇavism. I give below a summary of the contours of the theological dispute in the earliest phase of its emergence.⁵⁶

Śrīvaiṣṇava soteriology at least from the time of its consolidation, i.e., the 12th century, is based upon the conviction that the divine plan for human salvation is ultimately unfathomable.

Not capricious but beyond human perception.

The Southern School of Śrīvaiṣṇavism endorsed the view that the ideal stance to be adopted by the human being in the face of this unfathomability would be to arrive at a full cognition of one’s utter helplessness followed by a surrender to the divine plan. The rare few who do this are “resorting to Viṣṇu-Nārāyaṇa”, doing, variously, prapatti/āśrayaṇa/samāśrayaṇa which is, in effect, pure contemplation of this fact of their helplessness. Called adhyavasāya or anusaṃdhāna, it is this kind of samāśrayaṇa which is the guarantee of salvation.

This definition of samāśrayaṇa became widespread in the post-Rāmānuja theological commentaries of the ācāryas Nañcīyar, Nampiḷḷai and their disciples and ultimately derives its legitimacy from Rāmānuja’s interpretation of certain chapters and verses of the Bhagavadgītā.

From this perspective, samāśrayaṇa is not a ritual at all but only a specific kind of cognition. One does not do anything, one just realizes the truth and those rare few who do so are called men of wisdom, jñānīs.

The Northern School of Śrīvaiṣṇavism held the view that, as far as the non-enlightened majority of Viṣṇu bhaktas are concerned, the prapatti/samāśrayaṇa done in whatever form, without or prior to the acquisition of this superior knowledge which the jñānī possesses, is a ritual and has the specific power of ritual to bring about certain specific consequences—whether the qualification for further ritual activity or as expiation for demerit (pāpa). This interpretation of prapatti/samāśrayaṇa as ritual is also present in the commentaries of the post-Rāmānuja ācāryas such as Piḷḷāṉ and ultimately derives its legitimacy from other textual passages of the Bhagavadgītā as well as stotra literature.

In the final analysis, then, even the Śrīvaiṣṇava Teṉkalai theological literature on prapatti/samāśrayaṇa is at pains not to repudiate ritual as such. Rather, it differentiates between various kinds of intentionality and held that the one correct intentionality, which is the recognition that one was not the agent of ritual action or of one’s own salvation, transformed ritual activity into pure cognition, into non-ritual and a guarantee of salvation.

विश्वास-टिप्पनी

Inadequate analsysis. kartRtva-tyAga is there in vaDakalai school as well.

The term prapatti/samāśrayaṇa was particularly useful for generating and encompassing this amplitude of meaning in the theological literature because it could be interpreted both as a resorting to or passive surrender to a higher knowledge just as much as a participation in and active surrender to God through the utterance of a mantra during the course of a ritual of surrender—making it both a ritual and non-ritual in Śrīvaiṣṇavism.

The previous sections have shown, though, that at some point in the historical evolution of Śrīvaiṣṇavism, the term samāśrayaṇa came to almost exclusively be understood as the pañcasamskāra ceremony, which is very clearly a ritual. Thus, in effect, both schools of Śrīvaiṣṇavism would appear, at first glance, to be recommending a ritualized surrender to God. The implication of such a development is that a major theological dispute between the two schools is not reflected in their ritual literature, such as the Parāśaraviśiṣṭaparamadharmaśāstra or in their contemporary ritual practice.

This, it turns out, is not so, as the final part of the Kāñcīpuram ceremony showed.

The Tenkalai samāśrayaṇa

Once the main part of the pañcasamskāra ceremony finished in Kāñcīpuram Rajahamsa Chariyar turned to me and said,

“It is from now that the difference between those who are Vaṭakalais and those who are Teṉkalais emerges. That is, they [Vaṭakalais] have the tradition (sampradāya) that one should do this thing called prapatti separately. But [the view of the Teṉkalais is that] one should perform that which is prapatti during the yāgasamskāra itself, that it does not have a separate time, for it is only when one requests the deity of the sacrifice (yāgadevatā) to come by saying, ‘You please come’, by doing prapatti, will it come. Hence, it is the tradition of the Teṉkalais to do prapatti here itself and not separately, while it is the tradition of the Vaṭakalais that one should do it separately. This prapatti will now take place”.

Having said this, he went to the shrine in his house. The initiate and her husband faced him, standing next to the door of the shrine on one side and Rajahamsa Chariyar’s wife instructed both of them to prostrate in front of the shrine and remain in that position till they were instructed to get up. Rajahamsa Chariyar entered the shrine and began to recite the Śaraṇāgatigadya, the devotional hymn attributed to Rāmānuja with folded hands.⁵⁷ After completing a shortened version of it he turned to the initiate and her husband and made them recite after him Yāmunācārya’s Stotraratna verse 22,⁵⁸ Tirumaṅkai Āḻvār’s Periyatirumoḻi I. 9.7⁵⁹ and finally Nammāḻvār’s Tiruvāymoḻi VI. 10.10,⁶⁰ all of which verses deal with a situation where the poet acknowledges his own sinfulness and requests God’s grace by surrendering himself to him.

This small rite finally concluded the Teṉkalai pañcasamskāra ceremony.

In order to understand what exactly had happened in this last section of the performance of the Teṉkalai samāśrayaṇa ceremony one would have to reflect on Rāmānuja Chariyar’s words. He, in effect, stated that the Vaṭakalais believe in doing prapatti as a separate ritual but the Teṉkalais don’t since they consider it an essential part of the pañcasamskāra ritual or more precisely, as the yāgasamskāra.

In giving his explanation Rajahamsa Chariyar was taking it for granted that I was conversant with the theological dispute about prapatti/samāśrayaṇa, which indeed I was. Further, he was proposing that the theology of prapatti held by the Teṉkalais and the differing theology of the Vaṭakalais had, in turn, influenced the pañcasamskāra initiation ritual of both groups, by altering the manner in which each group performed the last section of the ritual.

It was not possible for me to discuss with him after the ceremony how he would justify, from the Teṉkalai point of view, the theology of prapatti/samāśrayaṇa as cognition with its performance as ritual within the pañcasamskāra ceremony.

But it seems to me that there is one possible answer: that is, as long as the Teṉkalai ritual tradition did not accept prapatti as a separate ritual in itself but absolved it as a sub-rite of another main ritual (in this case the pañcasamskāra) it need not be considered a ritual. In contrast, according to Rajahamsa Chariyar’s explanation, the Vaṭakalai ritual tradition adopted the stance that an explicit ritual of prapatti and not just of samāśrayaṇa/pañcasamskāra needs to be done.

This observation of Rajahamsa Chariyar’s was also confirmed, if only negatively, by the fact that the terminus prapatti was never once uttered during the Chennai ceremony but only samāśrayaṇa. Hence, in contemporary ritual practice which I witnessed the Teṉkalais do a samāśrayaṇa/pañcasamskāra ceremony which incorporates prapatti, while the Vaṭakalais do a separate samāśrayaṇa/pañcasamskāra ceremony and a separate prapatti ceremony.

विश्वास-टिप्पनी

Rather weak explanation

In both cases, the two schools seem to have consciously restructured a fundamental ritual which bestows Śrīvaiṣṇava identity upon members of their community in such a way as to result in differently practiced samāśrayaṇa ceremonies.

In their observations on the issue of how theological texts relate to actual ritual performance (observations quoted in the preface to this volume) Humphrey & Laidlaw (1994: 199) have discouraged the view that there might be a correlation between the two, citing Christopher Fuller’s study of the consecration rituals of the priests of the Mīnākṣī temple in Madurai as further evidence for their views.

Often a priestly citation of Āgamic sources as the basis for their ritual practice proves to be highly misleading. “The accepted idea that they [such sources] are authoritative can well go along with almost universal ignorance about their content” (ibid.: 200). The Tenkalai samāśrayaṇa ceremony could, at one level, be seen as validating this view. +++(as the initiate has no idea she’s performing “prapatti”. 5)+++

Certainly, from the perspective of the initiate the Tenkalai ceremony, its significance and its possible theological underpinnings would seem not to matter and it would be radically underprescribed, her observance of it largely being a matter of a family tradition which she too chooses to faithfully uphold.

Yet, the other main participant or performer of the ritual, Rajahamsa Chariyar was only too aware of its significance and the manner is which it is differently “inflected”⁶¹ from the Vatakalai ceremony. In other words, it can be argued that, in the case of the Śrīvaiṣṇava samāśrayaṇa ceremony we appear to have a ritual which is considered so crucial to the establishment of the respective, specific, sectarian religious identity that its interpretation is still kept within the control of the religious and theological experts of the community.

Hence, in its case, theological exegesis has continued to inform ritual performance and moulded it to the extent that one nowadays entering the Śrīvaiṣṇava community enters it through a ritual by which one is marked as either a Teṉkalai or a Vaṭakalai Vaiṣṇava, at the very moment of initiation.

References

Bühnemann, Gudrun 1988. Pūjā. A Study of Smārta Ritual. Vienna.
Entwistle. A.W. 1981–82. Vaiṣṇava Tilakas. Sectarian Marks Worn by Worshippers of Viṣṇu. IAVRI Bulletin XI & XII. London.
Humphrey, Caroline & James Laidlaw. 1994. The Archetypal Actions of Ritual. A Theory of Ritual Illustrated by the Jain Rite of Worship. Oxford.
Jagadeesan, N. 1977. History of Sri Vaishnavism in the Tamil Country: PostRāmānuja. Madurai.
Kane, Pandurang Vaman ²1974. History of Dharmaśāstra. Vol. 2. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
Mumme, P. 1988. The Śrīvaiṣṇava Theological Dispute: Maṇavāḷamāmuni and Vedānta Deśika. Madras.
Olivelle, Patrick. 1995. Rules and Regulations of Brahmanical Asceticism. Albany.
Parāśaraviśiṣṭaparamadharmaśāstra. Not dated. In: Srī Viṣṇucittavijayam. Tiruchi.
Raman, Srilata 2004. “Soteriology in the Writings of Rāmānuja: Bhakti and/or Prapatti?” In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 154.1: 85–130.

Raman, Srilata forthe. a. Tamil Cats and Sanskrit Monkeys? Surrender to God (Prapatti) in Śrīvaiṣṇavism. Under review for publication with Routledge/Curzon.
Raman, Srilata forthe. b. “Pañcasaṃskāra as Historical Practice in the Śrīvaiṣṇava Hagiographical Literature”. In: The Relationship between Viśiṣṭādvaita and Pāñcarātra, Gerhard Oberhammer & Marion Rastelli (ed.). Vienna.
Rangachari, K. 1986. The Sri Vaishnava Brahmins. Madras: Bulletin of the Madras Government Museum.
Sanderson, Alexis 1995. “Meaning in Tantric Ritual”. In: Essais sur le rituel III, Blondeau, Anne-Marie & Kristofer Schiper (ed.). Louvain-Paris: Peeters, 10–95.
Smith, Daniel. 1978. The Smith Āgama Collection: Sanskrit Books and Manuscripts Relating to Pāñcarātra Studies. A Descriptive Catalogue. Syracuse.