0

9999999 031560 YĀMUNA’S GAMA PRAMANYAM OR TREATISE ON THE VALIDITY OF PANCARĀTRA Sanskrit Text and English Translation BY J. A. B. van BUITENEN Prof. of Sanskrit, Chicago University Author of Bhagavadgita of Ramanuja Translator of Vedarthasangrahz PUBLISHED BY RAMANUJA RESEARCH SOCIETY MADRAS-17 Printed in 1971

Printed by D. S. Kelihnachar, M.Sc., Proprietor, Prabha Printing House, Baravangudi, Bangalore-1. (India)

PUBLISHERS

Our Research Society has been formed to publish 7 in English all the works of our Alwars and Acharyas→→ Yamuna, Ramanuja and Vedanta Desika. Several North Indian Scholars and American Students are now researching in various aspects of Visistadvaita Philosophy.

Last year December we published an English Edition of Thirupavai with eighty pages of introduction and eighty pages of Swapadesam by the late M. B. Srinivasa Iyengar. Five other books of this series of Nityanusandhanam will be published very soon.

Though Nathamuni is our Prathama Acharya, none of his works is now available. Yamuna is our Next Acharya, whose books formed the basis on which Ramanuja later on built up our Siddhanta which was perfected by Vedanta Desika, ’two centuries afterwards.

The first book of Yamuna to be published was Githarthasamgraha in English by the late Dewan Bahadur V. K. Ramanujachariar. Some years later Prof. M. R. Rajagopala Iyengar translated the Stotraratna and Chathusloki in English. In the Annamalai University Series Prof. R. Ramanujachari and K. Srinivasachari got the English translation of all the three Siddhantas published some years ago.

The only other work of Yamuna that has not so far been published in English was ‘Agamapramanyam.’ Our good friend Dr. van Buitenen, Prof. of Sanskrit, Chicago University, sent us a translation of the text and an introduction in English of the Agamapramanyam. Though we started printing the books more than three years ago due to the serious illness of our Honorary Secretary it was delayed, and we are happy that we are able to publish it at least now. Our Readers are aware that Dr. van Buitenen has already published ‘Vedarthasamgraham’ and ‘Gita Bhashya’ of Ramanuja in English, and is a well-known authority on Visistadvaita Philosophy.

Our good friend Dr. K. C. Varadachari who read the manuscript, undertook to write a scholarly Preface in his own inimitable style. But he passed away before the printing was completed. So we requested Prof. R. Ramanujachari who had mastered all the works of Yamuna, and has acceded to our request and has written a Preface.

We are heavily indebted to Sri D. S. Krishnachar of Prabha Printing House, Bangalore, who has undertaken the arduous task of printing the book faultlessly from the typed manuscript. But for his hearty cooperation we could not have published this book at all.

V. SRINIVASA Raghavan
Honorary Secretary Ramanuja Research Society

RAMANUJACHARI

The works of Yamuna are of special importance to students of vedanta not only because they are the earliest available visistadvaita classics, but also because they present an authentic account of this system of thought and belief, having been inspired and shaped by the rich contributions of previous acharyas including Nathamuni transmitted to him through an unbroken tradition. Agamaprāmāṇyam is one of the most important among his writings; and, strangely enough, there has been till now no critical edition of the text. In this context, my esteemed friend, Dr. van Buitenen has rendered invaluable service by bringing out a critical edition of this masterpiece with a scholarly introduction and English translation, eminently readable and faithful to the original. This timely publication has achieved a twofold purpose, that of giving the text, fast becoming scarce, further lease of life, and of making the thought imbedded in this treatise available even to those unacquainted with Sanskrit. An orientalist of great repute, he has made the field of vedanta, especially visistadvaita vedanta, his own. Already he has earned the gratitude of all interested in our cultural heritage by his excellent publications, such as Ramanuja’s Vedarıhasamgraha and Ramanuja on Bhagavat Gita. A warm welcome awaits this excellent publication.

Yamuna, more properly known as Alavandar, occupies a central place among the illustrious visistaiii iv dvaita acharyas who, reformed and revivified this ancient system of thought and belief. Nathamuni set visistadvaita vedanta on a new and glorious phase of its career; Yamuna strengthened it considerably by his writings; and Ramanuja systematised and fortified it. Kuresa pays reverential homage to the illustrious hierarchy of acharyas commencing from Laksminatha (Supreme God, the Consort of Laksmi) and ending with his own preceptor, Ramanuja, with Sage Natha and Yamuna at the centre : Laksmīnātha samārambhām Näthayāmuna madhyamām ! asmadācārya paryantām vande guruparamparām | The grandson and spiritual successor of Nathamuni, Yamuna had the unique privilege of inheriting his grandsire’s immeasurable spiritual wealth’ and of passing on that legacy to Ramanuja, having enriched it by his own invaluable contributions. At an early age, he achieved great distinction and fame for his erudition and dialectical skill. He easily defeated a court poet, Akkialvan, who was a terror to all learned men, far and near; and, in recognition of this victory he was hailed as Alavandar (Man come to save, rule) and granted the gift of a territory. He ruled over this principality and led a life of pomp and luxury, forgetting the high traditions of his grandfather, until he was won over to the higher life, thanks to the great efforts of Ramamisra, the chosen disciple of PundariI …stoṣyāmi nah kuladhanam kuladaivatam tat Pādāravindamaravinda vilocanasya tl Stotraratna, St. 6 kākṣa who was himself the foremost among the disciples of Nathamuni, charged with the duty of instructing his grandson in the sacred lore. When the awakening came, Yamuna realised the futility of the life he had been leading, became a sannyasin, settled down at the holy spot of Srirangam, the great centre of Vaisnava thought and devoted the rest of his life to disseminating the truths handed to him by Ramamisra and writing treatises and in unremitting and onepointed devotion to the Lord.

In his exposition of visistadvaitic thought, Yamuna follows the lead of the ancient masters like Bodhayana, Tanka and Dramida and Nathamuni, whose masterpiece, Nyayatattva greatly influenced his own writings. He follows in the foot-steps of Nathamuni so closely that Vedanta Desika describes Atmasiddhi of Yamuna as a brief version of Nyayatattva. (Nyayatativa prakaranam hi Atmasiddhi.) Though steeped in tradition, he was no blind follower. The following stanza shows how he insisted on high standards of thought and discussion: Hanta! brahmopadeśosyam śraddadhānesu śobhate | vayamaśraddadhānāh smo ye yuktim prārthayāmahe || Samvitsiddhi, p. 191 “Well, all this dogmatic teaching may carry conviction with (blind) believers; we are lacking in such faith, and we search for logical reasons to convince us, 11 vi Endowed with a sharp intellect and piercing logic, he could easily see through sophistry, and was averse to using crooked ways of thinking (nirasta jimhaga sparée, Tetirajasaftati, St. 8). He presented his views with precision and clarity and in a manner that would compel astent. A sparkling sense of humour is discernible in his discourses. To cite one illustration while refuting the doctrine of absolute identity based on the upanisadie text-ekam evādvitiyam BrahmaYamuna says in his Samritsiddhi: “The statement ’the permanent ruler of the Cola country now reigning is without a second in this world’ is intended to deny the existence of a ruler equal to him. It does not deny the existence of servants, sons, consort, and so on.” The learned editor designates Yamuna as a “temple priest” (vide infra, p. 6) and includes Ramanuja in the class of “theologians and officiating priests” (Vedārthasamgraha, p. 33) and suggests that the inspiration came to them from religion and theology. The appelations ’temple priest’ and ’theologian’, taken literally, do not imply any derision, and may not be inappropriate designations of these eminent thinkers and ardent devotees who considered service to God and god-lovers as the supreme goal of life; but ’temple priest’ is suggestive of one making a living by temple service, one who cares merely for outward, formal routine of worship. Likewise, ’theologian’ has veiled association with dogmatic, uncritical acceptance of beliefs. This suspicion gets somewhat strengthened when we read the learned editor saying “What Pancaratra signifies for him (Yamuna) is dîkşâ and the other sacraments; ārādhana and the various aspects of the ritual of vii worship of the God; puja…” In point of fact, they were not temple priests, but eminent sannyasins and accredited leaders and exponents of visistadvaitic thought and vaiṣnava religion, who set great store by logic and sought convincing evidence before accepting any belief It is therefore necessary to consider if these are fair and factual descriptions.

In his learned introduction Dr. van Buitenen refers to a number of problems that challenge attention and call for further study. One of these is ’the reticence of the illustrious vaiṣnava philosopher, Ramanuja, about the Pancaratra system. “Ramanuja remains” he says, “wholly silent about the element, both of doctrine and of religious practice of Pancaratra.” In his earlier publication, Ramanuja’s Vedarthasamgraha, Dr. van van Buitenen says, that although the orthodoxy of the Pancaratra had been established, “it is not utilised as a source of knowledge in its own right to corroborate Ramanuja’s system of vedanta, " There is reference again to “Ramanuja’s evident indifference towards Pancaratra. ” He has himself suggested a plausible reason for Ramanuja’s not quoting even a single pada from the veritable ocean of the Pancaratra. A master of dialectics, to win support for his interpretation of vedic teachings, form vedantins of all shades of opinion, he would take his stand only on śruti and universally accepted smrti; he would not like to jeopardise a good case by quoting from what may be dubbed sectarian. For an indentical reason, he studiously avoided all reference to the Divyaprabandha, though it has been one of the shaping forces of his thought.viil As regards Ramanuja remaining “wholly silent about the elements both of doctrine and of religious practice of the Pancaratra,” it may be said that he presented a synthetic account of vedanta incorporating into it the vedic, agamic and prabandha contributions. The genealogy of the specific items was not indicated because most of them are found in all the scriptures. Ramanuja looked upon the varied scriptures as setting forth identical doctrines, though their language and idiom vary.

It is certainly not difficult to identify the agamic elements in Ramanuja’s teaching. In the first place, the prapatti doctrine, though ancient and based on the Upanisads and the Bhagavat Gita, gets special elaboration in the Pancaratra. The credit for having stressed its importance as a self-sufficient and independent means to mokṣa and of explaining its angas (steps) goes to the Pancaratra. As this path is accessible to all irrespective of caste or rank, it has a universal appeal. That everyone, whatever his station in life, is entitled to mokṣa, and that it may be attained in this very birth is a characteristic Pancaratra teaching. Ramanuja utilised this doctrine and incorporated this in his exposition of the visiștadvaita. Though he makes a passing mention of it in the Sri Bhasya and the Vedarthasamgraha, he emphasises it in the Gita Bhasya especially in commenting on the Carama sloka. More than all, in his Gadyatraya which is a confession of his faith, he presents saranagati as hita par excellence.

Another feature of the Pancaratra which Ramanuja has utilised is its insistence on an austere life. In ix Nityagrantha it is prescribed as part of the daily routine throughout life. The day is divided into five periods, each to be devoted to an appropriate duty. The first is abhigamana, when one is to approach God as soon as daily ablutions and pujā are over. The second is called upādāna, a period to be spent în in carning a livelihood in legitimate and appropriate ways. Then follows ijya (literally, sacrifices), referring not to vedic sacrifices but to pancamahā yagna, which include among others, noonday prayer, offering unto God the food prepared and even partaking of meal, which is regarded as a religious act. What pleases the Lord is not the sacrifice which entails much material and effort, but sincere, unselfish and devout approach. True worship is something inward, involving mental purity, earnestness and steadfast faith. Next comes the path of svadhyāya or study. It is a duty cast on every householder to study our sacred lore and to teach the same to others (pravacana) where possible. The concluding part of the day is devoted to quiet concentration (yoga). One is to retire to bed with thoughts of God uppermost in one’s mind. Without bisecting life into the sacred and the secular and thereby making either valueless, the Pancaratra invests all our acts with sanctity. Everything that man does, eating and sleeping not excepted, are worship of the Divine. In a word, man’s life is to be a God-centred life, all day long and all through life. Life should be characterised by this pervasive note, Yet another fruitful idea which Ramanuja selects from the Pancaratra for elaboration is the concept of disinterested action. Action performed without IL X thought of personal gain and in the spirit of dedication to God leads progressively to self-knowledge, selfrealisation and knowledge of God, which leads to meditation on God and flowers into live of, and surrender to God and final beatitude. “Satvikatyāga pūrvaka karma yogyena karmana ” is a typical Pancaratra formula. In the Gita Bhasya Ramanuja explains the full implications of this concept while commenting on St. 15, Ch. IV of the Bhagavat Gita. “Such a person sees non-action in action; and action in non-action. He is the man of wisdom, worthily engaged; and he is the performer of all actions.” Yamuna composed eight works, and they are: Atma-siddhi, Isvara-siddhi, Samvit-siddhi, Gitarthasamgraha, Purusanirnaya, Stotraratna, Catussloki and Agamapramanya. The first three are usually referred to by the collective name, Siddhitraya. A good part of each of these three siddhis has been lost due to neglect and the ravages of time; but even the little that remains gives us a clear idea of the author’s views on important philosophical problems and of the masterly way in which he expounds them. Ramanuja quotes profusely from these splendid manuals in his Sri Bhasya.

Gitarthasamgraha is a marvel of epitomising effort. The inspiration for this undertaking came from Ramamisra who initiated Yamuna into the inmost secret of the Bhagavad Gita. In thirty-two stanzas, it sums up the teaching of the Lord’s Song as understood by the school which he represented and indicates how the teaching is developed logically and step by step and how the Gitasastra is a consistent xi exposition of the doctrine that it is only through bhakti (loving devotion) brought on by karma and jnana (svadharma jnana vairagya sädhya bhaktyaka gocarah) that the Lord could be reached. This work served as a ground-plan, as it were, for Ramanuja’s luminous exposition of the Gita.

Purusanirnaya is designed to show the supremacy of Lord Visnu. The book is not extant now.

Stotraratna AND CATUSSLOKI Stotra-ratna and Catussloki are hymns in praise of Lord Visnu and Goddess Lakshmi respectively. They are held in high esteem as portraying the author’s fervent religious feelings and inmost longing for Divine communion and as expounding in an easily intelligible form the central philosophical doctrines of Visiștadvaita regarding tattva (God, man and nature), hita (the way) and puruşartha (the nature of the supreme goal). poem, as Vedanta Desika says, is the spontaneous overflow of the author’s ecstatic religious experiences brought on by constant meditation on Divya Prabandha, especially the Tiruvoimozhi of Saint Satakopa. To him the Alwar was father, mother, consort, children, wealth, in a word, everything.

Mātāpita yuvatayah tanaya vibhuti This sarvam yadeva niyamena matanvayānām | ädhyasya nah kulapateh vakulā-bbiramam srimad tadanghri yugalam pranamāmi mūrdhnā || Stotraratna, St. 6 One could see that the stotra is replete with the ideas culled from Tiruvoimozhi; and some of the stanzas seem to be Sanskrit renderings of the Tamil xii hymns. The key-note of the stotra is that prapatti is the only effective means of attaining transcendental felicity. Vedanta Desika has written a commentary bringing out the treasures imbedded in it; and he wrote a brochure on one of its stanzas under the heading Anjalivaibhava. Ramanuja felt moved as he heard Stotraratna recited; and he got there from the cue for his Vaikuntagadya.

CATUSSLOKI Catussloki is an exceedingly brief poem singing the glories of Goddess Lakshmi. The four stanzas comprising it attribute to Sri the qualities of the Lord elaborately set forth in the four chapters of the Brahimasutras. The first stanza refers to the vibhutis of Goddess Lakshmi and shows that they are beyond praise; the second states that Her greatness is incomprehensible even to Her omniscient Consort, even as He cannot comprehend His own greatness; the third speaks of the saving power of Her grace; and the last describes how Her resplendent forms are inseparable from, and co-existent with, those of the Lord.

ĀGAMAPRĀMĀṆYAM Agama pramanya is devoted to vindicating the authority of the Pancaratra tantras. The extensive Pancaratra works called agamas or tantras or samhitas and also Bhagavat Sastra, for the reason that Sriman Narayana is believed to have promulgated them Himself, have always been considered canonical; but detractors have not been wanting, who challenged their authority. Hence Yamuna felt the need for this xiii defence of the Pancaratra. The main adversaries against whom he had to contend are the Mimāmsakas of the Bhatta and the Prabhākara school, the Advaitins and the Naiyayikas. From their respective standpoints they directed their attacks on the Pancaratra tantras. With the aid of reason and scripture, Yamuna meets this many-pronged attack and establishes that the tantras are authoritative. In Agamapramanya, more A than in Siddhitraya, we see Yamuna at his best. master dialectician, he exposes the fallacies in the arguments of his rivals and demonstrates the correctness of his own views, with a wealth of incontrovertible evidence. In the course of the discussion, Yamuna indicates his views on a wide range of problems including those of linguistics, psychology, epistemology and exegesis.

Yamuna discusses at length the proper interpretation that is to be put on the Utpatyadhikarana of the Brahmasutra, as this section has been taken by Sankara to be a refutation of the Pancaratra. With surprising unanimity all commentators have taken Brahmasutra II-ii, 39– 22 as dealing with the Pancaratra although there is no word or expression directly or remotely specifying this theme. They differ however, in their interpretation of these aphorisms. Sankara interprets the four sutras as adducing four reasons for rejecting the Pancaratra; but Yamuna takes the first two as stating the prima facie case against it, and the last two as establishing conclusively the validity of the Pancaratra after exposing the hollowness of the prima facie view. The location of this adhikarana in a pada devoted to the refutation of rival systems, namely, those xiv of Kapila, Kanada, Sangaba, (Arhata) and Pasupata, which are either outside the pale of, or opposed to veda seems to lend support to Sankara’s view that the Sutrakara meant to reject the Pancaratra along with the others. Against this view, it is mentioned that with the rejection of the Pasupata agama the impression may be created that the Pancaratra also is devoid of authority; to allay this apprehension the Sutrakara specifically raises the question of the Pancaratra to clinch the argument, Sankara’s interpretation of the sutras :— (i) utpattyasambhavat: “On account of the impossibility of origination (the system that subscribes to the view that soul originates, i.e. the Pancaratra is unacceptable).” “There occurs in the Pancaratra the statement, “From Vasudeva there originates the Jiva known as Sankarṣana; …’ “This is an instance where ,the Pancaratra is opposed to the vedic teaching that the soul is neither born, nor does it die. Hence it is to be rejected.

(ii) na ca kartuh karanam: “Besides, the instrument cannot originate from the agent (hence the Pancaratra which accepts such a doctrine is to be discarded)”. There is the Pancaratra statement … from the individual soul called Sankarṣana manas, known as, Pradyumna originates; from Pradyumna originates Ahamkāra known as Aniruddha.” The Jiva who is an agent engages in his activity only with the aid of manas; when that is so, how can the Jiva be said to give rise to manas? Moreover, the vedas declare that manas and the like proceed from Brahman alone. Hence the Pancaratra is to be rejected.

XV K (iii) vijnānādibhāve rā tadapraṣedhah: “Should it be said that they are only Brahman, the objection, namely, impossibility of origination is not got over.” That is, even if it be said that Sankarṣana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha are not Jiva, manas and Ahankara respectively, but really Brahman, since they are all alike Brahman there cannot be the causal rela. tion among them; no one of them could give rise to the next in the series. It is everywhere observed that the cause and its effect differ from each other in some of their characteristics.

(iv) vipratiṣedhat: “And because of contradiction (the Pancaratra lacks authority).” As the Pancaratra is self-discrepant and as it contradicts the vedic teachings, it is liable to be rejected. For example, the Pancaratra maintains that jnana is at once guna and guni. Bhagavan is of the essence of jnana for His attribute. Further, the Pancaratra denounces the veda. It is well-known, Sandilya declares, that failing to find the highest felicity in the veda, he learnt the Pancaratra and attained thereby what he could not get from the veda. Hence the Pancaratra contradicts itself and speaks disparagingly of the veda, it is to be rejected.

Yamuna’s interpretation: Yamuna, and, following his lead, Ramanuja, argue that this adhikarana establishes precisely the opposite conclusion, namely, the validity of the Pancaratra. While there is substantial agreement between Sankara and Yamuna in their interpretation of the first two sutras, Yamuna takes the third and the fourth sutras as meeting the objections xvi that may be urged against the Pancaratra. The expression va occurring in the third sutra is indicative of a change in the direction of the argument, as in many an instance where this expression occurs.

(iii) Vijnānābhāve va tadapratiṣedhah:“Or if they are of the nature of jnāna and cause, i.e., Brahman, the authority of the Pancaratra is unassailed, i.e., there can be no valid objection to the Pancaratra.” Either the Vyūhas (Vasudeva, Sankarṣana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha) are independent sovereigns or they are the four-fold forms, chosen out of His own free-will by the Supreme Lord out of compassion for purposes of protecting the world. The first alternative is ruled out, as the Pancaratra does not admit of a plurality of God, but is an uncompromising monotheism. On the other alternative of a single Deity in fourfold forms, the question of origination does not arise. Sankarṣana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha are really the highest Brahman; they are not jivas, manas and ahamkara respectively. If they are so called, it is because they control these factors from within. Thus, in truth the Pancaratra does not, as it is alleged, countenance the view that the soul has an origin. Whoever says it does advocate the non-vedic doctrine of the origination of the soul is really ignorant of the Pancaratra teaching, (iv) Vipratiṣdhāt : “Morcover, on account of contradiction (the authority of the Pancaratra cannot be assailed).” The Pancaratra agamas actually deny origination to the soul and assert its eternity. Thus the objections raised against them are not tenable. The allegation that xvii there is denunciation of the veda, is baseless, because the statement is not to be construed as meaning that the veda is no guide to transcendental felicity, but only as signifying the inability of Sandilya to ascertain the profound truths of veda and the Pancaratra helping him to comprehend easily the vedic teachings. Far from belittling the veda, it proclaims the greatness of Bhagavat Sastra and suggests that while the veda and the agamas contain an identical teaching, the latter arc easier of comprehension.

Yamuna presents quite a number of alternative interpretations of the third and fourth sutras, all alike strengthening the conviction that the authority of the Pancaratra cannot be gainsaid.

It passes one’s understanding how Badarayana (Vyasa) foremost among those proficient in the veda who loudly proclaimed the glories of the Bhagavat Sastra in his Mahabharata could be taken as having denied it any authority in his Brahmasutra the most authentic exposition of vedantic teachings.

Thus with unparalleled dialectical skill and with a wealth of convincing arguments Yamuna turns the table against his opponents and establishes conclusively the orthodoxy of the Pancaratra.

R RAMANUJACHARI

PREFACE

The present study was undertaken to increase the materials for a historical study of Vedanta thought. Yamuna’s treatise on the scriptural validity of Pañcarātra introduces a very significant chapter in Vedāntamīmāmsā, both because of its author, who was the predecessor of the famous Rāmānuja, and in certain essentials anticipated the latter’s fully worked-out system of Visiṣṭādvaita, and because of the intrinsic interest of the work itself, which in effect makes a plea for other and new authority beside the traditionally acknowledged authoritative scriptures.

The translation of this relatively brief Prakaraṇa proved to be difficult, for its language as well as its subject matter. No commentaries seemed to exist, nor has the text been translated before. I have used as my basis the edition of Rama Misra Sastri, reprinted from the Pandit at Benares, 1937. I was unable to consult original manuscripts of the work, so that my dependence of the printed text was complete. The edition is good, with not too many misprints, though it is somewhat unreliable in its punctuation. There are a number of obvious corruptions, whose restoration was easy and a few not so obvious ones, the emendation of which must remain doubtful. The acompanying Sanskrit Text is based upon the Pandit edition as well as a text in Telugu character, and includes my emendations which have been noted in the annotations when it was a less than obvious case of correction.

xix The work is written in a mixture of Slokas and prose, but the kārikā portions form such a complete unity with the prose passages that, with accompanying Sanskrit Text, it seemed pointless to distinguish them in the translation, More useful may prove my division into paragraphs for more convenient refer ence, which has been carried through in both text and translation.

I have tried to keep the English readable, as far as the concise and highly technical style of the author allowed. Although the reading of the work will remain difficult, I hope that thus this interesting treatise will be more accessible to scholars and laymen who lack the knowledge or the leisure to read the Sanskrit. To many of them it will prove to be rewarding. The historian of Indian thought, and especially of Vedanta at the start of its medieval development will find here a lucid exposition of the scope of the scriptural authority accepted by the tremendously influential sects of southern Vaiṣṇavism. The cultural anthropologist alert to the historical role of the sects as vehicles of social and cultural change will be interested in the manner in which a leading exponent of Vaiṣṇavism defines his sectarian position within the orthodox tradition of the Vedas and Smṛtis. The historian of religions will be arrested by the exceedingly well-reasoned apologia for a valid scriptural basis of “Tantric” religious experience and practice.

But for the enlightened sponsorship and most obliging patience of Mr. V. S. Raghavan of Park Town, Madras, the publication of this study would XX have been long delayed, if it could have taken place at all. Mr. Raghavan has looked upon his venture as an act of Kaimkārya, of selfless service to his Guru, and it is in a kindred spirit that I have continued the study, which was originally begun in India, during my stay at the University of Chicago. Illuminated support of studies in the history of the Indian Culture is urgently needed if a great tradition of scholarship, both in India and the West, is to continue and to meet the challenges of a new world, Mr. Raghavan’s example of generosity in promoting serious studies in the classical works of Vaiṣṇavism is a hopeful sign that such support will continue to be forthcoming.

Chicago J. A. B. VAN BUITENEN INTRODUCTION 1. NATHAMUNI AND YAMUNA: The almost total disappearance of prior works which gave a systematic exposition of the theology of Vaiṣṇavism within the framework of Vedanta makes Yamuna the first Vaiṣṇava Vedāntin, about whose views we are informed to a significant degree. Though we may not be as well informed as we could wish-his most important work, the Almasiddhi, is now incomplete-, his works allow us to form a good impression of this author, whose significance has long been overshadowed by that of his pupil Mahāpūrṇa’s great pupil Rāmānuja. The extent to which Yamuna’s works have been neglected is measured by the fact that his most important collection, the Siddhitraya, has been permitted to be truncated and that at least two of his treatises, the Puruşanirnaya and the Kāśmīrāgamıprāmāṇya, now appear to be lost. Modern research has largely bypassed him, and only quite recently English translations have become available of his Siddhitrayaı and Stotraratna z Tradition has it that Yamuna was the grandson of Näthamuni with whom the line of Alagiyas or Acāryas begins.

At the conclusion of his Agamaprāmāṇya Yamuna devotes a stanza to his predecessor, and follows it with a stanza, closing the treatise, which extols the greatness of those scriptures “whose spirit has been increased by the glorious Nathamunindra.“s The addition of these laudatory strophes would indeed secm most appropriate at the end of a treatise which expounds the scriptural validity of Pañcarātra Agama; A 2 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀṆYAM for in writing this exposition Yamuna was acting very closely in Näthamuni’s spirit. Just as Yamuna was to claim authority for a class of texts which had not before been given official recognition as part of the Vedanta literature, so Nathamuni before him claimed authority for the collection of Tamil hymns known as the Prabandha. Within a few generations the canon of Vaiṣṇava Vedānta was thus increased enormously and it may be useful to enlarge on the implications.

As so often, it would seem that the Vaisnava hagiographers, for all the pious and at times miraculous detail they were moved to add, translated into legend a core of historical fact, which remains recognizable. It is told that Nathamuni, after a pilgrimage to the hallowed places of the NorthMathura, Vṛndavana, Haridvārā, Dvārakā and Purī—, became aware of the ritual use that had been given to the Tamil hymns of the Alvārs. The Prapannāmṛta, written one generation after Rāmānuja, or five generations after Näthamuni, notes that at Kumbhakoṇam the study of these hymns was considered damaging to Vedic orthodoxy, and that the offending texts had even been thrown in the Tamraparņi river. There are several, and not always consistent, accounts of the manner in which the scriptures were saved. It is said that Madhura-kaviy ālvär, a pupil of Namm-ālvār’s, was instrumental in transmitting his master’s work the Tiruvaimoli to Nathamuni, or the latter received it directly from Namm-ālvār’s hands. Perhaps the most interesting fact is that when Näthamuni wanted a second hearing of the text for purposes of study, he was referred to a local artisan who (“by Namm-ālvār’s INTRODUCTION 3 If we may inspiration”) revealed the work to him. regard the details of the miraculous recovery as edify ing embroidery, the fact stands out that Nathamuni had to go to the common people in order to collect the hymns of the Alvärs that had been rejected by the orthodox authorities. Although the Tamil scriptures had not received official sanction for use in high temple worship, they were current among the people, and certainly also in use at their devotional worship. What Näthamuni in effect did was to incorporate these scriptures, henceforth known as the Draviḍa Veda, in the temple worship at Srirangam.

It P. N. SRINIVASAchari remarks that “this innovation effected a silent revolution in temple worship, as it raised the status of the Prabandha to the level of the Veda, and liberalized the meaning of Revelation. is important to recall that it was the bhakti movement which produced the Alvārs and made their perfervid exultation in the God live among the people. By incorporating the Tamil Prabandha among the sacred scriptures that served in temple worship orthodox tradition was enabled to ally itself to the popular movements which had a tendency to break away from Brahmanism, and to be itself revivified by them. For a long time to come Vaiṣṇavism in the South looked for its spiritual leadership to Srirangam.

Nathamuni lived to the ripe old age of 96 and died in 920. He was succeeded at Srirangam by Puṇḍarīkākṣa Uyyakkoṇḍār and then by Ramamiśra Maṇakkāl-nambi. Rāmamiśra was Yāmuna’s teacher. Legend has embroidered his early life with many 4 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀŅYAM details, not all of them consistent. As so frequently in the hagiographies of great saints, Yāmuna showed early signs of great knowledge and at the age of twelve defeated in debate the learned Äkkiālvān of the Cola court. He was rewarded with ‘half the kingdom’ and led a life of great luxury, until a new encounter with his old teacher Rāmamiśra, who handed over to him his grandfather’s legacy of the shrine of Srirangam, opened his eyes to his spiritual obligations.

Like his distinguished successor Rāmānuja, Yamuna too is supposed to have lived to the age of one hundred and twenty years. From this pontificate at Srirangam must date a comparatively small oeuvre of theological and philosophical treatises. They comprise several small devotional poems, the Stotraratna and the Catuḥśloki (both commented upon by Venkaṭanātha in his Rahasyarakṣā in which he seeks to define the theology of Lakṣmî on the basis of the Catuḥśloki), a very brief summary in stanzas of the Bhagavadgītā Gitärthasamgraha (which became the programme for Rāmānuja’s Gītābhāṣya2 and was further enlarged upon in Venkaṭanātha’s Gitärthasamgraharahṣā), and a series of expositions in mixed kārikā and prose style, the Atmasiddhi, Iŝvarasiddhi and Samvitsiddhi, usually bundled together under the title Siddhitraja; a lost work Puruşanirṇaya “Argumentation for a Personal God”; and finally two disquisitions on the authority of Agama, the Agamaprāmāṇya and the Kāśmīrāgamaprāmāṇya.

Precisely what we have to understand by Kāśmirāgama is not clear, but Yamuna’s use of Agama in the other work is abundantly evident. In this treatise, INTRODUCTION 5 Yamuna sets out to prove by scripture and logic that the texts of Pañcarātra Agama have an authority equal to that of the Vedas, because they are God’s direct revelation. He argues this validity not so much to a particular school of philosophical or theological thought as against established orthodox opinion which reserves exclusive authority for the Vedas and the accepted Traditions that derive from them. Striking even more than in the Atmasiddhi is Yamuna’s polemical tone and argumentative manner. Throughout his works the impression which he creates is that of a high temple priest who is not content routinely to continue the temple services as they had grown in Srirangam, but is apostolic in his fervour to persuade orthodoxy not only of the existence, but also of the truth, of a complete Vaiṣṇava philosophy and theology. He may rightly be called the first apologist of a Vaiṣṇava theology.

Like his predecessor Näthamuni, who had made room for the Tamil Veda in the temple worship, Yamuna too effected a silent revolution. Not in temple worship, to be sure, since the contents of typical Pañcarātra texts abundantly demonstrate that they had grown out of temple service and recorded practices that had been observed since long. The revolution which he effected was in Vedānta tradition, and it has proved to be a crucial one. After Sankara who continued an orthodox tradition of monism, and Bhāskara who continued a not less orthodox tradition of dualismmonism, traditions both which based themselves principally on the Upanisads, Yamuna gave Vedānta a completely new scope. Not only did he argue a 6 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀṆYAM theistic Vedānta–as others had done before-, he argued it with texts that so far had had no place in the tradition of uttaramīmāņsā. The significance does not lic principally in the fact that he accepted as canonical a certain class of sectarian Vaiṣṇava texts, but that he argued it within the aupaniṣada tradition. Several schools had arisen which, while paying lip service to the Vedic scriptures, in practice ignored them in favour of more accessible and more popular texts. The interest and the importance of the Agamaprāmāṇya lic in the author’s intention of bringing within the Vedānta tradition, and thus in a way subjecting to this tradition, a body of religious literature that often had been denied to be part of it.

The motivation of this attempt was in part surely to restore to Vedanta thought the religious inspiration that, one cannot help but feel, was threatened by the philosophical acrobatics of the monistic schools. This religious inspiration was for Yamuna that of the religion of worship and devotion that had swept Southern India. As a temple priest, he saw this religion guided and contained in the temple worship which itself was guided by Pañcarātra tradition. From this point of view the Agamaprāmāṇya was a plea for the emancipation of popular religion.

2. EARLY PAÑCARĀTRA: The origin of Pañcarātra is obscure, because it has not one origin. Investigation into the meaning of the word pañcarātra in so far as it might shed light on the origin of the tradition associated with that name has been hampered by the too great emphasis laid by recent authors on the ‘philosophical’ INTRODUCTION 7 content of the tradition. It is noteworthy that Yamuna himself does not accent this philosophical content at all in the Agamaprāmāṇya, and that he understands Pañcarātra principally as a tradition of ritual worship. What Pañcarātra signifies for him is dīkṣā and the other sacraments; ārādhana and the various aspects of the ritual worship of the God; pūjā, devotion to the arcã, function and use of nirmālya and naivedya; and rites like the pañcakālikā. A similar significance does it have for Venkaṭanātha in his Srīpāñcarātrarahṣā. As has been pointed out by other scholars, the cosmological and philosophical content of the Pañcarātra Samhitās are far less considerable than their ritual contents.

In these ritual contents we have the cumulative growth of many centuries, and at the present stage of our knowledge concerning the history of non-yajña ritual it is vain to identify the origins and early development of the numerous rites and ritual speculations. Inevitably the name pañcarātra has invited speculation’ that the tradition is historically linked with Vedic ceremonials, like the Pañcarātram Sattram; it is, however, impossible to find convincing arguments for such a construction.

The question thus rises whether it is permissible to separate the cosmological super-structure from the ritual content, and to seek to connect the name pañcarātra with the former. This is tempting because in the Mahabharata we find several references to a Pañcarātra system just in connection with certain speculative tencts. I believe that although without a8 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀṆYAM doubt the system referred to in the epic as Pañcarātra is basically the same as the cosmological system described, or taken for granted in the later Pañcarātra Samhitas, the original meaning of the name pañcarātra cannot be elicited from the epic.

All but one of the occurrences of the term are to be found in the Nārāyaṇîya book, chapters 334-351 of the Santiparvan. One of the most distinctive features of the doctrine there set forth is the fourfold nature of the Supreme Being, which immediately recalls the Vyūha doctrine of Pañcarātra. There are two series of names to describe the four aspects, one of very minor importance, and one of major, and remaining importance MBh. 12.334 relates that the eternal Nārāyaṇa was born the son of Dharma in the Kṛta age during the Svāyambhuva manvantara, as Nara, Nārāyana, Hari and Kṛṣṇa Svayambhuva.’ The devotion to Nārāyaṇa, the general concern of the Nārāyaṇīya, which is also called Sātvatamata1 and proclaimed by the Sun,” is associated particularly with the people of Svetadvipa north of the Milk Sea.1 Although thus there is a very definite identification of both doctrine and devotion with the name of Nārāyaṇa, the most common description of the quaternity of God is in Kṛṣṇaite terms, as Vasudeva, Samkarṣaṇa (Baladeva), Pradyumna and Aniruddha. But in these terms is also captured a particular doctrine of the relationship between God, soul and body, in terms which strongly recall the essentially theistic Samkhya of the epic. The Puruşa, the Supreme Being, who is the soul of all beings, is Vasudeva. This Puruşa enters the body which is constituted of the five elements.13 The context conveys INTRODUCTION manas, 9 16 that from this contact between puruşa and body the jīva appears, which is the embodied soul, or the purușa as embodied. The Jiva is called Seṣa,” but more generally Samkarṣaṇa,” by the name of Kṛṣṇa Vāsu. deva’s half-brother. Samkarṣaṇa produces the which is described also as an incarnation of Sanatkumāra,” but specially as Pradyumna, Kṛṣṇa’s son by Rukmini. From the manas Pradyumna originates he who is the “agent, cause and instrument, from whom the universe of moving and unmoving entities derives, the God manifest in all actions,” the Ahamkāra named Aniruddha after Pradyumna’s son.

This doctrine must have enjoyed considerable currency and in many places of the epic, outside the Mokşadharma, there are references to it. It is also a most interesting doctrine, since it combines a particular cosmological-psychological view with a devotional religion concentrated on the person of Kṛṣṇa The philosophical basis is easily recognizable; the doctrine is that of the eight prakṛtis and God/purușa. It differs from the most common descriptions of the eight prakṛtis in that the three superior ones, jīva, manas and ahaṇkāra not only deviate from the usual series buddhi, ahaṇkāra and manas, in name as well as function, but that the three are put in a very close relation to the purușa-Vasudeva, a relation so close that they can be described as forms of the God. Nevertheless, the three are different from God, as the kinship pattern in which they are arranged clearly illustrates. In a way this part of the doctrine resembles the doctrine of the sūkṣmaŝarīra or lingasarīra.” The place of manas is puzzling since regularly the manas appers after and B 10 below the ahaņkāra.

ĀDAMA PRĀMĀṆYAM But this may be not more than a particular use of the term; not infrequently in older texts we observe that manas can be a name for that entity that is elsewhere known as buddhi.” The kinship pattern in which the cosmology is put is quite important, because it very lucidly illustrates how the relationship between God and the world is represented and by itself refutes the later objection against Pañcarātra that it allows the jiva to “originate” from God. The fact that God is called Vasudeva, and that the jiva is designated by the name of Samkarṣaṇa proves that some sort of independent coexistence was admitted of God and individual soul, for Vasudeva was the half-brother of Krsna, not the son. The relationships this pattern illustrates are: Puruşa jīva Manas (Buddhi) Ahamkāra At this point it becomes clear that the doctrine is basically not an eight prakṛti doctrine, but a seven prakṛti doctrine, which is the older form of the former. The jiva is the individual soul which heads a series of seven evolvents. That at one stage the relation between jiva and manas was not viewed as a simple cause-effect relation may be shown by the fact that the jiva is called Samkarṣaṇa, who was not the father of Pradyumna.

In the absence of evidence in the epic that Samkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha were, in their own right, the objects of cult worship, the conclusion is justified that their role was primarily that of providing the cosmological doctrine with an immeINTRODUCTION 11 The diately, and popularly, comprehensible pattern. purușa of the doctrine was identified with Kṛṣṇa who himself was equal to Nārāyaṇa; the others illustrated the relations between the various orders of the cosmological doctrine. Hence they have no independent existence from Kṛṣṇa Vasudeva, as for example different avatāras of one God may have a separate existence of their own. In the form of the doctrine known from the Samhitas, this is formulated in the doctrine of the Vyūhas, which is that of the one God in a quaternity of forms, which should not be equated with the cosmological orders, for they are each God. This point will occupy us when we consider the interpretations of the ulpallyasambhavādhikaraṇa in the Brahmasutras.

24 24 It is not clear from the Nārāyaṇīya what relation the series of Vasudeva, Samkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha entertains with the series Nara, Nārāyaṇa, Hari and Kṛṣṇa. After the latter four have been described as manifestations of the Supreme, it is the former manifestations which are described in detail when an account is given of Nārada’s visit to Svetadvīpa.” And on Nārada’s return to the Badari hermitage, only Nara and Nārāyaṇa are brought further to the scene, Perhaps we can think of regional variations in the developing Vaiṣṇavism which will be absorbed almost without trace in the Pañcarātra system. This much is clear that Nara-Nārāyaṇa (themselves frequently equated with Arjuna-Kṛṣṇa) were closely linked to the doctrine of the four Kṛṣṇaite manifestations which thereupon seems to have superseded a Nara-Nārāyaṇa tradition.

12 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀṆYAM The tradition in which the cosmology of purușa jiva, manas and ahamkara was formulated in the terms of Kṛṣṇa Vasudeva and his family and certainly involved a Kṛṣṇa devotion, is described as Sātvata and Pañcaratra. But the literal meaning of the term “Five Nights” does not permit of interpretation in this context. It is noteworthy that the Nārāyaṇīya itself seems to make an attempt to reinterpret the term Pañcarātra. In the Nārāyaṇa litany 12.338.4 Nārāyaṇa is called pañcayajña, pañcakālakartṛpate, pañcarātrika. This series of three epithets each compounded with pañca can best be interpreted as a unit and translated as follows: “(Homage to) Thee of the Five Offerings, Lord of those who perform the Pañcakāla ritual, Thee of the Pañcaratra.” Unless I am mistaken, this points at an interpretation of Pañcarātra as “The tradition which observes the Pañcakāla ritual.” An explicit reference to this pañcakāla ritual is to be found in a previous chapter of the Nārāyaṇīya 12 336.51: tair iṣṭaḥ pañcakālajñair harir ekāntibhir naraiḥ | bhaktyā paramayā yuktsir manovākkarmabhis tadā || If my suggestion that pañcarātra is here connected with pañcakāla is correct, we still have to regard it as a reinterpretation of the word, for pañcarātra “a span of five nights (and five days) cannot really signify “five times” as a name of a ritual that took place five times a day.

The only other explicit reference to Pañcarātra in the Mahābhārata is not very helpful. Here (12.218. 11-12) in a very early layer of the Mokṣadharma (but probably interpolated) the thinker Pañcasikha is thus described: INTRODUCTION pañcaśrotasi niṣṇātaḥ pañṭarātravišäradaḥ | 13 pañcajñaḥ pañcakṛt pañcaguṇaḥ pañcaśikhaḥ smṛtaḥ || The ŝtoka is obviously inspired by the name of this thinker. He was an early Samkhya philosopher in whose doctrine there is no association with VaiṣṇavaKrsnaite Pañcarātra.

A critical survey, then, of the epical evidence for the term Pañcarātra does not produce a solution for the problem of the original meaning of the word. Therefore, there is perhaps some merit in approaching the question from an entirely different direction. Could the case be made that in Pañcarâtra we have a specialized use of a term that originally had a wider and more general use ? The juxtaposition of Pañcarātra with traditions like Samkhya, Yoga and Pasupata, the references to the esoteric nature of the doctrine, and the intimations of the ascetic life of its followers suggest that the Pañcarātra way of life was typically that of seekers of wisdom and enlightenment whose beliefs and practices were not necessarily part of Vedic ritualist sacerdotalism, but who were wandering sages, and recluses, and pilgrims. Like so many of those mumukṣus who from the sixth century B.C. (and doubtless before) went about teaching or settled down in semi-retirement from active life in a life of contemplation, the Pañcarātrikas too, whose doctrine later on remains linked with the innovators rather than with conservative ritualists, may have been part of the same movement that in the first millenium B.C. largely reformed the ancient āryan tradition. These sages were not necessarily organized in definite groupings, although the 14 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀṆYAM very fact of the early appearance of orders in Buddhism and Jainism must indicate that many of them observed similar or comparable regulations and vows which could become the basis of monastic life-rules. Among the commonest of these vows were self-chosen homelessness and its corollary, religious mendicancy. On the practice of these vows, however, nature imposed certain limitations. Surely the rainy months always forced the homeless wanderer to seek a temporary retreat in a village, and the normalization of this in early Buddhism, which led to the Vihara system, must reflect a generally observed practice.

These observations may provide an approach to the explanation of the name pañcarātra. Nondoctrinaire literature knows of Pañcarātrikas without any apparent creedal affiliation. Thus for example, the oldest extant Sanskrit version of the Bṛhatkathā, contained in Budhasvamin’s Bṛhatkathaślokasamgraha, describes a certain grhastha as a Pañcarātrika who leda n‘ascetic’ life.” This gṛhastha, which in this text generally means vaidya, in the present case, specially a prosperous farmer, gives up his old life in quest of salvation. His complete lack of allegiance to any school is brought out with humorous emphasis. The farmer reviews the practice of pilgrimage to Avimukta and Benares, the philosophy of Vedanta and the doctrine of the Buddha, and finally decides himself in favour of the last “for the doctrine of the Buddha has a reputation for efficiency.”” It is clear from the context that the Pañcarātrika is not distinguished by any particular faith or creed, INTRODUCTION 15 but by a more or less ascetic life-rule. And elsewhere the same text tells us precisely what kind of life-rule is expressed in the term pañcarātra, The setting is a conversation between a disguised Pasupata and a young brahmin friend. He remarks to his friend that his affection has caused him to stay several months at Rājagṛha and that he is now obliged to depart. For even householders have to obey certain observances for their own good, let alone the seckers after the highest good; whereupon he observes:29 ekarātram vased grâme pañcarātram muniḥ pure | iti pravrājitācāram etam veda bhavān iti|| “The hermit should live one night in a village for every five nights that he stays in town; you know that this is the life-rule for those who have left their homes as pravrājakas.” This rule clearly does not apply to Pasupatas alone. It is far more likely that it is inspired by the hoary practice of homeless wanderers to retreat during the two rainy months and to go abroad during the remaining ten. Towns rather than villages were the scene of their preaching and mendicancy, but the villages were their retreats Quite consistently with the gṛhastha pañcarātrika who became a ‘Buddhist’ pilgrim, this Pasupata too thereupon departs on an extensive pilgrimage. The context shows also that one need not leave town every five nights, yet the fivenights were made characteristic of a whole way of life.

A pañcarātrika in this very large sense is therefore an itinerant religious recluse, who follows the FiveNights rule regardless of doctrinal allegiance. With 16 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀṆYAM the growing systematization of doctrine which identified certain wandering saints ever more precisely with definite schools and traditions, Pañcaratrika became specialized in its meaning and was mostly, though not invariably, associated with the Vaiṣṇava tradition since known by that name. Pañcarātra, from which pañcarātrika or pāñcarātrika was formed, was reanalysed from the name: a pañcarātrika was a pāñcarātrānusärin, and Pañcarātra became the reinterpreted name of the tradition he followed.

This explanation of the name seems on the whole somewhat more plausible than that which postulates a relation with the pañcarātram sattram mentioned in the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa. Pañcarātra as a system allied itself from the beginning more with popular devotional religion-bhakti is repeatedly mentioned in the same contexts of the epic, than with the brāhmaṇaic ritualism that was obviously losing its hold.

3. PANCARĀTRA IN THE BRAHMASUTRAS: According to the commentatorial tradition the concluding sutras of the Tarkapada 2.2 of the Brahmasūtras deal with the doctrine of Pañcarātra. The sutras concerned are extraordinarily cryptic, and without a firm tradition to that effect one could hardly make out that its orthodoxy is at stake in sutras 42-45. The four sūtras read: uṭpattyasambhavāt ; na ca kartuḥ karaṇam; vijñānādibhāve và tadaprutisedhah ; vipratisedhāc ca.

According to Sankara, who interprets the lines as a condemnation of the system, the point at issue is the relationship in the Pañcarātra doctrine between purușa -Supreme Brahman, the jiva (Samkarṣaṇa)-soul, and the INTRODUCTION 17 manas (Pradyumna). This view is accepted alike by Blāskara, Yāmuna (who also adds alternative interpretations) and Rāmānuja. In Sankara’s and Bhaskara’s view the four sutras enumerate arguments against Pañcarātra, according to the others the first two contain the pūrvapakṣa, the latter two the siddhānta.

However unsatisfactory in most cases a prima-facietranslation of single Brahmasutras must be, it may be useful to make some attempt to discover how the Author (or as some maintain the interpolators of the Tarkapāda) viewed the Pañcarātra. If indeed the Pañcarātra is at issue in 2.2.42-45 (and this we must take on faith), some primary observations can be made. In all previous cases the traditions discussed are condemned. Secondly, the Brahmasūtras are not concerned with saving any particular tradition, e.g., Pañcarātra from outside attack; their concern is to defend the aupaniṣada tradition against rival traditions whose views are in conflict with it and which can be shown to be unscriptural.

Therefore, if we find, after the refutation of several heretic traditions, an adhikarana devoted to Pañcarātra, our first assumption is that the Author has something to refute in it. But against this, it may be argued that the Author was himself in favour of Pañcarātra and wished to conclude his argumentations of the Tarkapāda on a positive note, asserting by way of siddhanta the orthodoxy of this tradition. On the basis of the sūtras themselves neither of the two assumptions can be proved.

One more argument can be made. The fact that Bhaskara’s commentary on the sutras follow that of18 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀṆYAM 29 Sankara very closely while the aupādhikavāda philosopher lets no opportunity pass to attack his advaitin adversary when a controversial point is at issue has led INGALLS to conclude that both Bhaskara and Sankara virtually copy a pre-existing bhāṣya by a Protocommentator since Bhaskara cannot be expected to copy his arch-antagonist.2 Following this line of argument the hypothetical proto-commentator must have rejected the authority of Pañcarātra and explained the sutras concerned as containing a condemnation of the system, because both Sankara and Bhāskara explain them thus. Even if INGALLS’ hypothesis is right, this does not bring us much nearer to an understanding of the true sense of the sutras. Moreover, the hypothesis is unconvincing; although there are indications that there existed a traditional explanation of the sūtras (the principal argument for which is the firmness of the tradition concerning (the upaniṣad passages explained in the sūtras), there may have been several and they may have been minimal. Considering the extreme paucity of surviving comments from before Sankara, on which I have enlarged elsewhere, I find it easier to believe in orally transmitted school traditions, which might differ from place to place, than in a fixed text available to both Sankara and Bhaskara On the whole one is inclined a priori to expect that the Brahmasūtras include a discussion of the Pañcarātra in order to refute that part of the doctrine that the Author considers unscriptural. Whether the Author, or as the case may be, the interpolator was correct in his condemnation is another matter.

The first of the four controversial sūtras reads utpallyasambhavāt. This must be the hetu to an implied INTRODUCTION 19 proposition, on which all commentators-Sankara, Bhāskara, Yamuna and Rāmānuja-agree: “[This tradition is unscriptural (like the preceding ones)], because of the impossibility of origination.” The only entity of which it can be said in this context that it cannot originate is the soul.

The second sūtra is clear enough: na ca kartuḥ karaṇam. Considering the previous sutra where the origination of the soul was in question, it is clear that here too we must supply a word like ulpadyate: “And the instrument does not originate from the agent.” sense of For bhāve The difficulty lies mainly in the third sūtra : vijñānādibhāve vā tadapratiṣedhaḥ The genitive to be supplied is to be supplied from the previous sūtras; it is either “(soul) or karaṇa, or both. The commentators take the last possibility, treating soul and karaṇa in Pancarătric terms as vyhas which in turn imply the other two.

The translation then would be: “Or in case [the four vyūhas are taken] in the vijñānādi, there is non-rejection of that.” “in the sense of…” one may also render “if they are…”. All commentators allow that va introduces a new argument; for Sankara and Bhaskara this is a different characterization of the vyūkas, not as entities in cause-effect relationships but as personifications of the divine properties of God, for Yamuna and Rāmānuja the new argument is a refutation of the previous objection. The latter two do not take vijñānādi to refer to the divine properties. Yamuna suggests no less than three different explanations: as dvandva: “knowledge as well as beginning,” ie., a 20 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀŅYAM description of the supreme brahman; as a tat-purușa : “the beginning of knowledge,” in which case the genitive to be supplied to vijñānādibhāve is asya pañcarātrāgamasya: “since Pañcarātra is the source of true knowledge”; and finally is a bahuvriti with the same supplement of asya pañcarātrāgamasya: “since Pañcarātra has its origin in the true knowledge of God.” Of these explanations Rāmānuja retains the first one.

If we may accept that the supplied genitive is indeed teṣām vyūhānām, the explanation of vijñānādi : “The divine properties of knowledge, etc.” would seem not only hermeneutically the most obvious one (… ādiin the expected sense), but also contextually the most relevant. Then the problem shifts to tadapratiṣedhaḥ : non-rejection of what? Either of the impossibility of the origination of the soul, or of the impossibility of the origination of instrument from agent, if we stick to what the sūtras themselves have supplied. What happens if Samkarṣaṇa is not taken as jiva, nor Pradyumna as manas, literally, but as aspects of the deity which each represent certain divine properties? These aspects are all equally God, and cause-effect relationships simply do not obtain. If this is indeed the correct interpretation-and Sankara’s Bhaskara’s contrary ones are far-fetched, this would in effect mean that the Author reverses himself.

and The discussion closes with a last argument in hetu form vipratiṣedhâc ca “and because of conflict,” which is such a general ground that it can be interpreted any way, depending on how one interprets the previous sútra. Brief and general though it is, the sütra offers INTRODUCTION 21 a problem of its own: ca. The commentators in general ignore the syntactical patterns of the sūtras and, as here, treat helus in the ablative and proposi tions like na ca kartuḥ karaṇam as being on the same level, with no apparent reason for the difference of syntactical formulation. But what does ca join? According to Sankara’s and Bhaskara’s explication the hetu vipratiṣedhāt with both the hetu utpattyasambhavāt-and the hetu analysed from na ca kartuḥ karaṇam, according to Yamuna and Rāmānuja vipratisedhāt with the hetu analysed from vijñānādibhāve vā tadapratiṣedhaḥ. Perhaps it is possible to link directly link directly utpattyasambhavā….. vipratiṣedhãc ca. These two hetus are interrupted by a parenthetical discussion na ca kartuḥ karaṇam, vijñānādibhāve vā tadapratiṣedhaḥ. This is a kind of construction well represented in philosophical style of which this sūtra style is a severe abbreviation. A possible interpretation then would be: “.. because of impossibility of origination (also the instrument does not derive from the agent; or, if these entities are taken in the sense of knowledge, etc., we need not reject this part of the doctrine), and because of conflict.” Under this interpretation the final conclusion would be against Pañcarätra.

It is obvious that the above attempt at a philological interpretation must remain inconclusive.

It may, however, have its use by showing how completely dependent we are on the commentators, and how completely absent our criteria are to judge between one and the other. I am not without hope that a comprehensive study of the style and syntax of the sutra collections eventually may provide criteria of judgment; in the absence of such a study we must for the 22 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀŅYAM time being resign ourselves to the fact that we cannot utilize the Brahmasutras in specific detail for the history of Vedānta and of Indian Philosophy generally, because we cannot independently make sense of them.

4. SANKARA and Bhaskara on PaÑcarĀTRA Hercunder, I add new translations from the commentaries on the utpallyasambhavādhikaraṇa by Sankara and Bhaskara which are our earliest evidence of the attitude which at least one tradition in Vedanta took to the orthodoxy of Pañcarātra. As both philosophers point out, it is not the general orthodoxy of Pañcarātra as a system of religious practice which is at issue, but the orthodoxy, or conformity of specific points or theological doctrine. Somewhat in contradiction with this view of the matter is the interpretation by both commentators of the last sutras which clearly implies that Pañcarātra is non-Vedic in orientation; but neither thinker gives much weight to this point, though it must be noted that for Yamuna this was the fundamental objection raised against Pañcarātra, 1. SANKARA, BRAHMASUTRABHāsya (2.2.42-45) ulpattyasambhavāt (2.2.42) The views of those who maintain that the operator is not the material cause, that the Lord is only the operative cause, have now been refuted. Presently the view of those who hold that the Lord is the cause in both ways, material as well as operative, is confuted.

OBJECTION. But in previous sūtras,30 it has been decided on scriptural authority that the Lord is in fact INTRODUCTION both operative and material cause.

23 Why then should the Author now wish to refute this point? REPLY. Even though a certain part of a doctrine may not be open to disagreement, because it conforms and holds the same view, nevertheless other elements of doctrine may give rise to disagreement; and it is with this point in view that the Author now embarks on his refutation.

The Bhāgavatas maintain concerning the question the following doctrine: the venerable Lord, the unique Vasudeva, whose essence is unaffected knowledge, is the supreme reality. He exists in four forms, into which He has divided Himself, Himself, as as Vasudeva, Samkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. Väsudeva is called the Supreme Soul, Samkarṣaṇa the individual soul, Pradyumna the mind, Aniruddha the ego-factor. Vasudeva is the supreme cause, Samkarṣaṇa and the others are effects. When one has worshipped this Supreme God for a hundred years with the rites of preparing the way, preparing the gifts, offering them, and studying, and when all one’s sins have been cleansed, one will attain to the venerable Lord, That part of the doctrine which states that Nārāyaṇa, who is well-known to be transcendent over the auyakta, who is the Supreme Soul and the soul of the Universe, divides himself into more than one being and exists in this condition, is not rejected; for it is found from such texts as “He exists as One, he becomes three, etc.,” that the Supreme Soul exists in a plurality of forms. Nor is it denied that propitiation of this venerable Lord with rites of preparing the way, etc. is 24 AGAMA PRĀMĀṆYAM to be constantly observed with exclusive concentration, for religious devotions to the Lord are quite well-known in both śruti and smrti. But as to the contention that Samkarṣaṇa originates from Vasudeva and Pradyumna from Samkarṣaṇa, and Aniruddha from Pradyumna, we maintain that this origination of the individual soul, called Samkarṣaṇa, from the Supreme Soul, called Vasudeva, is impossible, because it entails the defect of non-eternality. For if the individual soul has an origin, such defects as its non-eternality follow. Consequently, its attainment of the Lord cannot mean salvation, for if an effect returns to its cause it is completely merged with it. Also, the Author denies the origin of the individual soul in the sûtra: “Not the soul, because there is no śruti to that effect, and because, its eternality follows from the śrutis,” Therefore, the assumption is not consistent with the truth.

na ca kartuḥ karaṇam-43.

Besides the assumption is inconsistent, because experience shows that an instrument, e.g., an axe, does not originate from an agent, e.g., Devadatta. The Bhāgavatas however maintain that the instrument, sc. the mind called Pradyumna, originates for the agent, sc. the soul called Samkarṣaṇa. Out of this mind, itself born of the soul, the ego-factor called Aniruddha originates. Without an example we cannot ascertain that such is indeed the case; nor do we find a śruti to this effect.

vijñānādibhāve vā tadapratiṣedhaḥ-44.

Or else it may be that these three beings Samkarṣaṇa, etc. are not really meant to be identical with INTRODUCTION 25 soul, etc. But then what are they? They are all to be accepted as Gods who possess the divine properties of knowledge, sovereignty, power, strength, heroism and splendour. They are all Väsudevas, defectless, causeless, immaculate. Consequently the afore-mentioned defect, namely, the impossibility of origination does not obtain.

REPLY. Even so, there is no refutation of it, that is to say, non-refutation of the impossibility of origination still obtains; that means that the same defect, sc. impossibility of origination, obtains in a different manner. How? First, if the meaning is this that these four, Vasudeva, etc., are mutually distinct and are all four co-equal Gods, and that they are not identical in essence, then the assumption of a plurality of Gods is senseless, because the functions of God can be accounted for by one single God. Also this violates their own doctrine, because they hold that only the venerable Lord Vasudeva, is the supreme reality. Secondly, if the meaning is this that these four are the co-equal divisions of this one venerable Lord, still the impossibility of origination obtains under this condition. For Samkarṣaṇa, cannot originate from Vasudeva, nor Pradyumna from Samkarṣaṇa, nor Aniruddha from Pradyumna, because no one exceeds any other one. For it is necessary that the cause exceeds the effect, as in the case of the clay and the pot; for without such excession, the effect can be regarded as the cause. And those who follow the Pañcarātra doctrine do not accept any difference in degree of the properties of knowledge, sovereignty, etc. between anyone of the four divisions, or between all four of them, for they D 26 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀṆYAM hold that all the divisions are Vasudevas, without any differentiation. Nor are the divisions of the venerable Lord limited to four, since we find that all things in the Universe, from Brahma to a blade of grass, are divisions of the venerable Lord.

vipratiṣedhāc ca—45.

1 Also A variety of conflicts are observed in this system, like, for example, the assumption that property is substance: for we find that knowledge, sovereignty, power, strength, heroism and splendour are properties, yet they themselves are all Lord Vasudevas. there is conflict with the Veda. For we find that the Veda is being censored in statements like this: “Failing to find the supreme good in the four Vedas, Sandilya learnt Therefore, it is established that the this system.’ * Pañicarātra theory does not conform.

2. BHASKARA, SĀRĪRAKAMĪMĀMSābhāṣya, 2.2.42-45.32 utpaltyasambhavāt—2.2.42 Now the doctrine of Pañcarâtra is examined. The objection is raised that there is no justification for doubting3 its validity, because it does not militate against revelation.” Why? They maintain that Vasudeva is the material as well as the operative cause of the Universe; and a discipline of ritual acts is the means of attaining Him. It is taught that when one has propitiated the venerable Lord Vasudeva with ritual disciplines like preparing the way,” preparing the gifts, the offering of them, and studying, one will attain to Him. All this is quite well-known from revelation too. Therefore, we find nothing in it that is to be condemned.

INTRODUCTION 27 REPLY. The ritual acts, characterised as worship, meditation and contemplation of the God, as well as the knowledge concerning such acts,36 are considered valid. However, if some part is found among acceptable elements that is in conflict, that part must be rejected.

According to the doctrine of the Bhagavatas Vasudeva is the Supreme Material Cause, and the Supreme Soul. From him the individual soul called Samkarṣaṇa originates, from Samkarṣaṇa the mind called Pradyumna,” and from him the ego-factor called Aniruddha. Against this view this sūtra is laid down: “because of the impossibility of the origination of the individual soul from the Supreme Soul Vasudeva.” Why this impossibility? Because this entails the defects of non-eternality, etc. In the absence40 of beings which are involved in heaven, hell, or release, the authority of the Veda is vitiated, and the ordinary practice of the world is brought to a stand-still. Therefore this assumption is unjustified.

39 na ca kartuḥ karaṇam—43.

It is also unproven that the mind called Pradyumna, which is the inner organ, originates from the agent, namely, Samkarṣaṇa the individual soul. For the axe docs not originate from Devadatta.

vijñānādibhāve vā tadapratiṣedhaḥ-44.

The particle vă in the sense of indicating an alternative meaning. All these beings are indeed Lord Vāsudevas and as such without cause and defectless, possessed of the divine properties of knowledge, sovereignty, power, strength, heroism and splendour.28 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀṆYAM The reply to this is as follows: even if these are knowledge, etc., this does not invalidate the argument, that is to say, there would not be refutation of the defect of impossibility of origination:” the same defect obtains. If all four are equal, there is impossibility of origination because no one exceeds the others; or if they are unequal, the impossibility mentioned above obtains nonetheless.

vipratiṣedhāc ca12 —45.

In stating that the mind is called Pradyumna and that Aniruddha is the ego-factor, it is stated that they are instrument and ego-factor respectively. Thus the postulation that they are all souls in the above assertion “all these souls….” is self contradictory. And there is conflict with śruti: “Failing to find the way to the supreme good in the four Vedas,43 Sandilya composed this system.” 5. RĀMĀNUJA on PaÑcarātra In view of his predecessor Yāmuna’s concern with Pañcarātra, the reticence of the illustrious Vaiṣṇava philosopher Rāmānuja about the same system is somewhat puzzling. Except for his commentary on the utpaltyasambhavādhikaraṇa, in which he follows Yamuna, Rāmānuja remains wholly silent about the elements both of doctrine and of religious practice of Pañcarātra. Elsewhere, I have suggested” that Rāmānuja was motivated by a desire to reach all Vedantins and did not wish to limit his appeal, which he based on sruti and universally recognized smrtis, by emphasizing his allegiance to any particular school and by quoting as decisive authority, sactarian texts that others would INTRODUCTION 29 refuse to accept.

Also the cosmogonical doctrine in which most of the philosophic superstructure of Pañcaratra consists was of no immediate concern to Rāmānuja’s ontological preoccupations. Still it remains curious that even in his introduction to the Gîtâbhāṣya, where Rāmänuja enlarges upon the manifestations of God in their different gradations, no room whatever is given to even a passing mention of, for example, the Vyuhas. Rarely, moreover, will one find him use the appellation Vasudeva. When it occurs in the texts, he comments upon, it is translated into Nārāyaṇa, which is his favourite name for God.

Therefore it may be useful to include here the full translation of Rāmānuja’s commentary on the ulpaitzasambhavādhikarana, both for its own sake and for its relationship to Yâmuna’s discourse. In the numbering of the Srībhāṣya this adhikaraṇa comprises Brahmasūtras, 2.2.39-42.

utpattyasambhavāt-39.

Another doubt that may arise, viz., that the Pañcarātra system-which being promulgated by the Venerable Lord Himself actually sets forth the means of attaining the summum bonum-has also no authority because it would be in the same class with Samkhya and other systems, is presently disposed of.

With regard to this system the objection is raised : The individual soul, Samkarṣaṇa by name, originates from Vasudeva, who stands for the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate cause. From Samkarṣaṇa orginates the manas called Pradyumna. From that again originates the subjectifying organ called Aniruddha: Thus is, as 30 ĀGAMA PRĂMÂṆYAM is well-known, the doctrine of the Bhagavatas. So it is held that the individual soul has an origin; but this is contrary to the śruti: for the śrutis maintain that the soul has no beginning: “The intelligent being is not born nor does it die.“45 na ca kartuḥ karaṇam—40.

“From Samkarṣaṇa originates the manas called Pradyumna” means that the instrument manas has its origin in the agent soul-which is impossible because the śruti declares that the manas, too, has its origin in none but the Supreme Brahman: “From Him spring breath, mind and all senses.” Consequently, this system is also denied authority since its teachings are in conflict with the śruti.

تر At this point we propound: vijñānādibhāve vā tadapratiṣedhaḥ—41.

With và this view is exchanged for the opposite one. Vijñānādi, i.e., vijñāna “knowledge” as well as ādi—“beginning”-refers to the Supreme Brahman. Where Samkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha are of the Supreme Brahman’s being, the doctrine which declares this very fact cannot be denied authority. In other words that the origination of the soul is promulgated in contradiction with the śruti is an objection raised by people who do not really know the doctrine of the Bhāgavatas. Actually this doctrine is that the Supreme Brahman-called Vasudeva-, moved by affection for those who take refuge in Him, exists Himself and by His own will in a quadruple form in order to serve as a refuge for His votaries. So in Pauṣkarasambitā: “Agama is that in which the Brahmins INTRODUCTION 31 who adhere to the tradition make a duty of worshipping the quaternity under its different names,” etc. That this “worship of the quaternity” is the worship of the Supreme Brahman under the name of Vasudeva is declared in the Sātvatasaṇhitā: “The great upaniṣada of Brahman is the most important săstra as it imparts discrimination to the Brahmins who worship the real Brahman under Vāsudeva’s name.” This Supreme Brahman called Vasudeva, whose personality is constituted by the six qualities in full measure, the votaries will attain when they have worshipped Him through acts following on knowledge, and cach will attain Him in proportion that he is qualified: in His subtle form, or as Vyūha, or as Vibhava, in which He is differentiated Through worship of the Vibhava he will attain the Vyūha, and through worship of the Vyuha he will attain the Supreme Brahman in His Subtle form in which He is called Vasudeva. This is their view. Vibhava is defined as the sum-total of the manifestations Rāma, Kṛṣṇa, etc.; the Vyūha has the four forms of Vasudeva, Samkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha; the Subtle is the Supreme Brahman called Vasudeva whose personality is constituted by the six qualities alone. So in Pauṣkarasamhita: “That śăstra by means of which one attains the Supreme Brahman called Vasudeva completely through acts following on knowledge,” etc.

Therefore, Samkarṣaṇa, etc. also constitute the voluntarily assumed personality of the Supreme Brahman who, according to the śruti, “is born in many ways without being born: “48 so, since it is declared that Brahman has births in the form of voluntary assumptions of individuality occasioned by His affection for 32 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀṆYAM His votaries, the Sastra that declared the same cannot therefore be denied authority. Samkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha are in that system, the operators of the categories of soul, manas and subjectifying organ, so that there is no contradiction if they are denoted by the words for soul, etc., just as Brahman is denoted by the words space, etc.

vipratiṣedhāc ca—42.

Besides, in that very system the origination of the soul is emphatically denied: as in Pauşkarasamhitā : “The nature of prakṛti is declared to be non-spiritual, subservient to the other, eternal, ever-developing,, governed by the three gunas, the field of experience for beings subject to karman. The conjunction of prakṛti and purușa takes place through pervasion, for the puruşa is determined as being in reality without beginning or end.” Therefore, since all the Samhitas declare thus that the soul is eternal, the origination of the proper form of the soul is denied in the Pañcarātra system. It will be said later on, in the sūtra nātmā śruteḥ,” why in Vedic and profane usage the soul is said to be born, to die, etc.

To conclude: the very doctrine denies the origination of the soul, so that the objection that it is not authoritative, since it holds that the soul originates is absolutely rejected.

Then there is the outcry of some who think that since Sandilya studied the Pancarätra doctrine because he could not find a proper basis in Vedas and auxiliary sciences, and that this signifies that no proper basis for man’s ends in life is found in Vedas and auxiliary sciences, it follows that the tantra is incompatible with INTRODUCTION “‘51 33 the Vedas. But this is obviously no more than a parti. pris of people who have not the faintest idea about the purport of the Veda and not the slightest consideration for all the canons which corroborate the Veda. For example, in the text: “Morning after morning those tell lies who offer the Agnihotra before sunrise,” the censure with which the oblation before sunrise meets serves to exalt the merit of the oblation after sunrise. Or, for example, in the opening text of the so-called bhūmavidyā Nārada begins: “My Lord, I have studied the Rgveda, the Yajurveda, the Samaveda, and fourthly, the Atharvan, and fifthly, epic and purāņa,” continues to sum up all the branches of knowledge and concludes: “but, My Lord, here I am knowing the mantras but not the soul.” That he thus declares to have found no knowledge of the soul in all the branches of knowledge except the bhūmavidyā means that he exalts the value of the bhūmavidyā, which he is about to set forth-or else, the contention of this Narada is occasioned by the fact that he was unable to find out the Supreme Reality that is set forth in Vedas and auxiliaries. Similarly Sandilya’s contention, as may be gathered from his exposition later on of the Supreme Reality Brahman called Vasudeva, who is to be known from the Vedanta. So it is said in the Paramasamhita that in view of the difficulty of understanding the meaning of the Veda, the śāstra has commenced in order to facilitate this understanding: “My Lord, I have studied in great detail all the Vedas with the auxiliary and subsidiary sciences, and I have listened to the auxiliaries together with the disputations. But nowhere in all those texts have I found beyond all doubt the road to bliss by which the end is attained,” and “the E 34 ÃQAMA PRĀMĀNYAM Lord Hari, who knows, has taken the essence from the Vedānta and summarized it in an easy form to show His mercy to His devotees,” Therefore, it is beyond reproach that the Lord Vasudeva who is identical with the Supreme Brahman and who is known from the Vedanta-absolutely opposed to all imperfection, solely comprising perfec-· tion and ocean of immeasurable perfect qualities like infinite knowledge, bliss, etc. and whose every will is realized has gazed upon His devotees, distinguished according to the system of the four stations and four stages of life and conformably pursuing the four ends. of man’s life, dharma, artha, kāma and mokṣa; and shoreless sea of compassion, clemency, and affection, He considered that the Vedas which teach true knowledge of His proper form, His supernal manifestation, the means of His propitiation and the fruit thereof, were difficult to grasp for all gods and men different from Himself, as they are divided in Rg, Yajuḥ Sāman and Atharvan, with numberless branches and consisting in injunction exegesis and formula, and therefore He Himself composed the Pañcarātra sastra to teach the true purport of the Vedas.

Moreover, if others interpret the four Lessons of the Sūtras in such a way that they deny the authority of an incompatible component part, this interpretation runs counter to the very letter of the Sūtras and to the intention of the Author of the Sutras. For the Author of the Sūtras, after having promulgated the Sutras that set forth the canons of Vedānta, composed in support of the Veda the hundred thousand slokas of the INTRODUCTION 35 Bhāratasamhitā, in the jñānakāṇḍa of which, the Mokṣadharma, he declared: “When a householder or an initiated, or a hermit, or a wandering mendicant wants to attain the final aim, which deity is he to worship then ?“52 and so on and proceeds to propound the doctrine of the pañcarätra śāstra in a long disquisition: “This has been extracted from the Bharata epic in its full length of one hundred thousand slokas after it has been churned with the stick of thought: like butter is extracted from curds, and curds from milk, the Brahmin from the bipeds, the Aranyaka from the Vedas, the Amṛta from the herbs this Mahopanişada which is consistent with the four Vedas and the demonstrations of Samkhya and Yoga is called the Pañcarätra.5+ This is bliss, this is Brahman, this is absolutely salutary,55 Consistent with Rg, Yajuh and Sāman and the Atharvângirasas,56 This discipline will of a certainty be authoritative.“57 The words sāmkhya and yoga above denote jñānayoga and karmayoga, compare “the sāmkhyas through jñānayoga and the yogins through karmayoga. Juga, “58 Further in the Bhismaparvan: “Brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and šūdras as described are all to worship, to serve and to honour Mādhava according to the sãtvata ritual that has been promulgated by Samkarṣaṇa.”59 Now, how would it be possible that the foremost of Vedic scholars Bādarāyaṇa, who has said this Himself, would say that the satvata sastra, which sets forth the ways of worshipping and propitiating Vasudeva, the Supreme Brahman, the One known from the Vedanta has really no authority whatever? However, in texts like: “Are Sāmkhya, Yoga, Pañcarātra, Vedas and Pāšupata all founded on the same principle or have they different foundations,” O Sage and so on, it 36 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀṆYAM is said that Samkhya, etc. do also deserve our respect, whereas they are refuted in the Sārīraka. Hence it would be the same with this system too.-No, for in the Mahabharata the same argumentation is embodied as in the Sārīraka. The meaning of the question: “Are they founded on the same principle or not” is this: Do Samkhya, Yoga, Pasupata, Vedas and Pañcarātra set forth the same fundamental or different ones? And if they set forth one and the same fundamental, what is it? But when they set forth different fundamentals, their teachings are incompatible and since we have no option in matters of reality, it follows that only one can be admitted: what is that one?” To this question he replies: “Know what these different theories of knowledge really are, O Royal Sage. The founder of Sāmkhya is Kapila,”1 etc. and he declares that Sāmkhya, Yoga and Pasupata have their origins in persons because they are creations of Kapila, Hiranyagarbha and Pasupati; then in “the teacher of the Vedas is held to be Avāntaratapas, “‘62 he states the impersonal origin of the Vedas, and finally he says in “founder of the entire Pañcarātra is Nārāyaṇa Himself,” that no one but Nārāyaṇa has promulgated the Pañcaratra system. What the author here intends to say is this: Inasmuch as the personal systems hold mutually irreconcilable views on reality nd maintain tenets that are incompatible with the cality as we know it from the Veda without the slightest possibility of such errors as inaccuracies, etc. since its origin is impersonal, they can hardly be deemed to carry any authority on reality such as it is. And Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Brahman, is the One known from the Veda. Therefore, we may accept the fundamentals of pradhāna, purușa, pasupati, etc. as propounded INTRODUCTION 37 by these various systems only in so far as they are ensouled by Nārāyaṇa the Supreme Brahman, who is the One known from the Veda. So he says: “In all these different systems of knowledge, eminent prince, we see that according to tradition and logic the sovereign Nārāyaṇa is the only basis :“i.e., he who ponders over reality yathāgamaṇ jathāṇyāyam, sc. as propounded by these different traditions and corroborated by arguments sees clearly that Nārāyaṇa alone is the basis of all reality. That is to say: as the fundamentals are not declared in these systems to be ensouled by Brahman, the one who, on the authority of śrutis “all this is verily Brahman,” “Nārāyaṇa is all, etc.” realizes that everything in fact is ensouled by Brahman, understands that Nārāyaṇa alone is the basis, Consequently, considering that Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Brahman, the One known from the Vedānta, is Himself the founder of the entire Pañcarātra, and that this system sets forth His proper form and the means of worshipping Him, it is evident that no one can seriously maintain that this system is on a par with the other systems. Hence, it is declared in the same epic: “Thus it is said that sāmkhyayoga and vedāraṇyaka -which are mutually complementary-constitute the one Pañcarātra:“67 samkhyayoga is “Samkhya and Yoga:” vedāraṇyaka “the Vedas and the Aranyakas”: these are said to be mutually consistent and to constitute the one Pañcarātra because they form a whole inasmuch as they all propound one truth, In other words: the Aranyakas accept the 25 fundamentals of the Samkhya, the discipline of yama, niyama, etc. of the Yoga and declare that these fundamentals are ensouled by38 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀṆYAM Brahman, that this discipline is a form of worshipping Brahman, and that the acts of the Vedas are propitiations of Him, so that they hereby propound the proper form of Brahman: it is precisely this that the Supreme Brahman Nārāyaṇa Himself elucidates in the Pañcarātra Tantra. And what is rejected in the Sārīraka is not the fundamentals as such of the Samkhya, but the tenet that they are not ensouled by Brahman; and what is rejected of Yoga and Pasupata is not the discipline and Pasupati as such but the tenet that the Lord is only the operative cause, the fallacious opinions on major and minor fundamentals and certain unorthodox practices. Therefore, the text: “Samkhya, Yoga, Pañcarātra, Vedas and Pāŝupata are all in essence authoritative and are not to be invalidated by argumentations,” which means that their fundamentals as propounded in these systems are to be accepted and the systems are not to be anathematized in their entirety like the fundamental doctrines of Jainism and Buddhism: for this is in agreement with the statement that “according to tradition and logic the sovereign Nārāyaṇa is the only basis.

NOTES ON INTRODUCTION

1. Almasiddhi, Itvarasiddhi, and Sameitsiddhi, Sanskrit text and English translation by RauanUJACHARYA and SrinivasaCHARYA, Journal, Annamalai University.

2. Slotraratna, edited and translated by SwAMI ADIDEVANANDA (Madras 1950).

3. §139 4. P. N. SRINIVAsachari, The Philosophy of Višiṣṭādvaita (Adyar 1946), p. 511.

4. cf. my Râmānuja on the Bhagavadgită (The Hague 1953), Introduction, ch, 3; appendix, 6. As represented by, e.g, Sankara and Bhaskara, whose common objections (infra ch 4] keep recurring in 4) Yamuna’s argument.

5. So still F. Otto Schrader, Introduction to the Pâîcarātra and the Ahirbudhnya Šamhi’ā (Adyar 1916), p. 26, where he states the opinion that the name refers to “the Pañcarātra Sattra of Nārāyaṇa (spoken of in Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, 13. 6. 1.) interpreted philosophically as the five-fold selfmanifestation of God by means of his Para, Vuha, Vibhava, Antaryami, and Arca forms.” However, though the earliest sources in the epic know the Vyuhas, there is indication of the five-fold nature, whereas references to the term pañcarātra tend to another interpretation, see below, 8. Sat Br. 13. 6. 1. I. sa etam puruşamedham pañcarâtram yajitakratum apaśyat, where pañcarātra should mean “lasting five days and five nights.” 9. cf. also 12. 339. 14; all references are to the Bombay Edition.

10, 12, 335. 19; 24; cf. 12. 242. 78; 348, 55.

12. e.g., 12. 336. 30.

39 40 13. 12.339. 33 f.

ĀGAMA PRĀMĀṆYAM tad (sc. ŝarīram of five elements) āvifati brahman na dṛšpo laghuvikramaḥ 1 ulpanna eva bhavati sariram ceştayan prabhuḥ || na vină dhātusaṇghātam sariram bhavati kvacit | na ca jīvam vinā brahman vāyavaś ceşṭayanty uta \ 14. 12. 339. 36.

15. 12 339. 36; cf. 5. 67: Samkarṣaṇam agrajam sarvabhūtānām, created by Kṛṣṇa; thus 12, 207. 10; 344. 16; 13. 159.

16. 12.339, 37 f.

17. cf. 1.67: Pradyumna as incarnation of Sanatkumāra; 10. 12, Sanatkumāra is described as Kṛṣṇa’s son by Rukmini.

18. cf. 6.65: Kṛṣṇa creates himself as Pradyumna out of himself and evolves Aniruddha from Pradyumna; in 13. 159 Pradyumna is described as Kṛṣṇa’s third form, 19. 12. 339, 38.

19. In the sense that the four vyûhas, or Vasudeva and the three others constitute the ensouling principle of the gross body (12. 339. 34 ff.), yet Vāsudēva is the soul to Samkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha; comparably the Pañcarātra theory of the subtle and gross creations.

20. cf. my “Studies in Samkhya III: Sattva,” JAOS 77.2; 1957.

22. 12. 336, 27 ff.
23. 12. 339 110 F 25. e.g., 12. 339. 111; 349. 64.

26 …parivrāt pañcarātrikah ; the edition is by the French scholar Félix LACOTE, Budhasyamin: Bṛhat-katha, Glokasomgraha (Paris 1908-29). The same farmer complains (ib 63); dhyānādhyāyapradhānam ca vihitam bhikṣukarma yati vaisyakarmābhiyuktasya tasya nāmāpi nāsti me l 27. ib. 65-67.

28. ih 22. 220.

NOTE ON INTRODUCTION 41 29. Daniel H. H INGALLS, “Samkara’s Arguments against the Buddhists,” Philosophy East and West, III.4, 1954, p. 292 f.

30. BrS. I. 4. 23.

31. BrS. 2. 3. 17.

32. The only edition in existence (by Pt. V. P. Dvivedi, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series 70; 185; 209; Benares 1915) is very poor; the Amendations suggested hereunder are based on an examination of all extant MSS, collated for a new edition which I have in preparation.

33. Read cintâ for citrä 34. Read frutivirodhābhāvāt for śrutir virodhābhāvāt.

34. Read abhigamano for adhigamano~.

35. Read karma jñânam ca for karmajñānaṇ ca.

36. Read aṇfāntaram for avântaram.

37. Read Pradyumnasamjñayı mano for Pradyumnaḥ ṣrjyamāno. 39. Read ’nityatvādifor nityatvādi-.

38. Read ‘bhârâd for bhāvād 41. Read utpattyasambhavadoṣaszāpratıṣedhaḥ for uthaliyasambhavād doṣaḥ szāpratişedhah, 42. Read tathapy utpattyasambhavaḥ pratipādītaḥ | VIPRATISEDAC CA for tathapy utpattyasambhavaḥ | pratipaditavipratiṣedhāc ca, and thus restore the submerged sūtra. 43. Read vedeșu caturşu; all MSS have cakāra; all other authors have avagatavān.

39. Rāmānuja’s Vedarthasamgraha (Poona 1956), Intr. ch. 3, p. 36 ff.

40. Kath Up. 2. 17.

41. Mund Up. 2. 1.3.

42. Sātvat S. 2. 5.

43. Teitt. Ar. 3. 12.

44. Br S. 2. 3. 17 (18).

42 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀṆYAM 50. Ait. Br. 5.316, see translation note 196.

51. Ch Up. 7. 1. 2.

52. MBh. 12. 334. 1.

53. MBh. 12. 343. 11-13.

54. MBh. 12. 339.111-112.

55. MBh. 12, 335, 32.

56. MBh. 12 335. 40.

57. MBh. 12. 335. 44.

58. Bhg. 3. 3.

59. MBh. 6. 66, 39-40, 60. MBh. 12, 349, 8.1.

60. MBh 12. 349, 64-65.

61. MBh. 12.349. 66.

62. MBh. 12. 349. 68.

63. MBh. 12. 349. 68-69.

64. Chhp. 3. 14. 1.

66 Märhp 13.

67. MBH. 12.348. 61.

68. not identified.

69. MBh 12.349 69.

CONTENTS

1. Dedication to Vişņu.

2. Introduction.

PART ONE: THE Major Opposition 3—52 “Pañcarātra Sāstra is not a valid means of knowledge.”

3. The validity of Pañcaratra must depend on other means of knowledge. It cannot depend on Perception.

4. Nor on a supposed all-embracing divine Perception.

5. Objection. The scope of Perception depends on the percipient; in a supreme percipient supreme Perception is possible.

6. Refutation. No Perception can be supreme, since it is limited by its organ.

7. Objection. Even so, Perception as a whole could be total.

8. Refutation. No, the finite can never become infinite. Thus there can be no all-embracing perception and the validity of Pañcaratra, dependent on such Perception, collapses.

9. Nor can its validity depend on Inference.

10. Nor on Scripture, whether explicitly found, or proved to exist by Inference, Analogy or Circumstantial Implication.

11. Objection. The same reasoning applies to the validity of any Smrti.

12. Refutation. No, since the validity of Smṛti resides in the fact that its injunctions are observed by the same agent as observe the Vedic injunctions.

F 44 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀṆYAM These agents do not observe Pañcarâtra injunctions, because those are condemned by exemplary exponents of the three Estates.

13. Objection. But since the Bhāgavatas are Brahmins, this should validate Pañcarātra, 14. Refutation. But they are not Brahmins.

14. Discussion of the caste rank of Bhāgavatas and Sātvatas; the evidence of Smṛti.

15. Evidence of their customs and conduct.

16. Pañcarātra is invalid, because it opposes the Veda and is therefore heretical.

FIRST MINOR COUNTER-OPPOSITION: THE NAIYAYIKA VIEW 18-23

18. Pañcarātra is independent of Veda, both corporal of verbal statements being accounts of the universal Perception of the same Personal God.

For the Veda too must have been composed by a Personal Creator, 20. This Personal Creator has complete knowledge of Dharma and Adharma, 21. For these are the means of world creation and must therefore be completely known by the world creator.

22. Proof for the existence of such a Creator is furnished by the proved producedness of the world.

23. The ritual acts of individual performers cannot be ultimate causes of world creation and destruction. The existence of a divine Creator is abundantly evidenced by Scripture and Tradi tion.

REFUTATION 24-32 45

24. There is no authority for such a creator of the Veda either in Perception or in Inference, since such an author would be motivated by bodily existence and since, if Dharma were provable by other means of knowledge, there would be no purpose for the authority of the Veda.

25. The argument that someone must know Dharma because someone has created the world is fallacious, since there is no scope for a world creator.

26. Nor does a crcator need to know the means for his creations.

27. Nor can it be proved that the world as a whole is produced.

28. If it were produced, the producer could not be God.

29. The God of reason is a person with personal defects.

30. He could not operate independently of his personal karman, which renders him superfluous.

31. No author of the Veda is remembered.

32. The preterpersonal virtue of the Veda.

33. Conclusion. Since there can be no divine author of the Pañcarātra, it must have been composed by someone in order to deceive.

34. Objection. God need not be proved by Inference.

He is proved by Scripture.

35. Scriptural testimony is informative of fact as well as of karya, and Vedic statements on God therefore have full authority.

46 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀṆYAM SECOND MINOR COUNTER OPPOSITION: THE PRABHAKARA VIEW 36-41 36. Only injunctive Vedic statements are denotative, 37. Factual statements are denotative only if connected with injunctions.

38. Generally denotation belongs to words in so far as they are connected in an injunctive sentence. 39. Otherwise indicative statements with injunctive sense are impossible.

39. Thus the Upanisads are informative only in so far as they are construed as subordinate to an injunction, which even then does not prove the existence of its content.

40. Consequently Scripture cannot prove the exist ence of God.

41. Continuation of the Bhaṭṭa opposition.

Even if God existed, he could not be omniscient, since all knowledge derives from sense perception.

43. The omniscient Gods claimed by different sects cancel one another.

44. Objection. Vasudeva, the omniscient promulgator of Pañcarātra, is proved by Scripture and must therefore not be compared with the Gods of other systems.

45. Scriptural statements concerning the omniscience of Pasupati are figurative.

46. Refutation. If Vasudeva is indeed proved by Scripture, the promulgator must either be a deceiver or Vasudeva in his role of illusionist. Consequently Pañcarātra has no validity.

47. Pañcarātra Tradition cannot be compared with Manu’s Tradition, since that would make the promulgator dependent.

47 48. Pañcarātra is traditionally known as a heresy. 49. And it is also heretical because of its unscriptural doctrine that the soul has a beginning.

50. Pañcarātra cannot be eternal.

51. Arguments against the Pasupata and other such Traditions apply equally to Pañcarātra.

52. Final Conclusion: Pañcarātra is not a valid means of knowledge.

PART TWO: MAJOR ARGUMENTATION 53-139.

53. SYLLOGISM. “Pañcarātra is valid, because it produces faultless knowledge, like the Vedic Statements”.

54-55. The thesis is not disproved by Perception and Inference.

56-57. It cannot be shown logically that Pañcarātra is outside the Veda.

58. The thesis is not disproved by the Veda.

59. The ground of the syllogism is not defective. 60. It cannot be shown that Pañcaratra as language statement is defective because it derives from a person.

61-62. Nor can the Prabhakara view be admitted that all non-injunctive statements are non-denotative.

63. The Prābhākara view should be restated as “denotation of connected meanings generally.” 64. Kārya is but one of several factors which decide denotation, 65. Kārya statements can only be understood if the words constituting them are already known.

64. It is inadmissible to assume different denoting powers for different kinds of statements.48 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀŅYAM 67.. It cannot be shown that a Karya statement proves that Karya itself is instrumental in bringing about the fruit.

68-69. Not Kārya but heaven is the Sadhya.

70. Objection. A fruit is not essential to a Kārya.

71. Refutation. It must be, or all acts are fruitless.

Conclusion: Factual statements can produce knowledge of their contents.

72. Objection. But this knowledge arises from Inference, not from the verbal statement itself. 73. Refutation. No, since a word naturally communicates its meaning.

73. General Conclusion: The substantive statements of the Upanisads concerning God are authoritative.

74. The fact that the content of a statement may be known through other means of knowledge does not render this statement non-authoritative.

75. Omniscience is not acquired through the senses. 77. The scriptural statements to this effect cannot be disproved.

76. The view that statements are only denotative if they prompt to action is incorrect.

77. The person celebrated in the Upanisads is Viṣņu.

78. It is not stated that this Person is Siva.

not 81. Vişņu’s supremacy, and consequently the acceptability of His composition, are sectarian assertions but are proved by orthodox scriptures.

82. The necessity of Pañcarātra.

83. The same cannot be proved of other Tantras. The Kāpālika and Kālamukha doctrines are heretical.

CONTENTS 49 84-85. The Pasupata and Saiva doctrines are in part heretical.

86. These doctrines have been promulgated by Siva in order to deceive the world.

87. Since the other Tantras are not based on Scripture they cannot compare with Pañcarātra. 88. Even if Pañcarātra is based on Scripture this does not mean that its author was not independent.

88. Pañcarātra is a digest of the Vedic tradition, 90-91. Pañcarātra does not censure the Veda.

89. The fact that Pañcarātra enjoins additional sacraments does not render it non-Vedic.

90. The fact that Pañcarātra is not included among the fourteen sciences does not render it nonauthoritative.

91. Badarāyaṇa-Dvaipayana does not reject Pañcarátra.

95-116. On the understanding of Brahmasūtras, 2.2.42-45.

95. Against the condemning interpretation of BrS.

2.2.42.

96. Of BrS. 2. 2. 43.

97. Of BrS. 2.2.44.

98. Of BrS. 2. 2. 45.

99. The correct interpretation of BrS. 2. 2. 42.

100. Of BrS. 2. 2, 43.

101. Of BrS. 2. 2. 44.

102. Of BŕS. 2. 2. 45.

103. An alternative explanation of BrS. 2. 2. 44.

50 ĀGAMA PRĀMĀṆYAM 104. Of BrS. 2. 2. 45.

105. An alternative explanation of BrS. 2. 2.42.

106. Of BrS. 2. 2. 43.

2.2.

107-116. On the optionality of Pañcarātra and Veda. 107. Second alternative for BrS. 2. 2. 44.

108. Objection. Pañcaratra cannot be optional vis-avis the Veda.

109. Refutation. It can, since it is based on the independent perception of its author, God.

110-111. On self-validity and defectlessness.

112. The defectlessness of Veda and Pancarātra.

113. On invalidation.

114. The living tradition of Visņu’s authorship of Pañcarätra.

115. Second alternative for BrS. 2. 2. 45.

116. On Jaimini’s rule of the invalidity of statements conflicting with the Veda.

117. The fact that Pañcarātra is ‘accepted’ by those who are outside the Veda cannot render Pañcarätra invalid.

118. On the distinction between those qualified and those unqualified for the Veda.

119. Pancarātra is accepted by the Vedic sages, 120. Bhāgavatas are Brahmins.

120. On the distinction between Brahmin and nonBrahmin.

121. The Bhāgavatas have traditions of Brahminic gotras.

122. Brahminhood allows of proof.

[[51]]

124. Objection. None of the means of knowledge can prove it.

125. Refutation. It can be proved by Perception.

126-127. On the supposed lowly origin of the Bhāgavatas.

128. On conventional and etymological meaning.

129. Bhāgavatas do not observe vratya occupations.

130. On rathakāra and the meaning of bhāgavata and sātvata.

131. Bhagavata does not exclude the connotation of ‘Brahmin,’

132. On the professional priesthood of the Bhāgavatas.

133. The professional worship of Visnu is not condemned.

134. On naivedya and nirmālya.

135. The explanation of Pañcarātra condemnation of naivedya and nirmalya use.

136. The nirmalya of Viṣṇu is supremely purifying,

137. Naivedya as means of the pränägnihotra.

138 Bhāgavatas do not reject the Vedic sacraments the Ēkāyanaśākhīyas do, but on the authority of their own Vedic ŝākhā.

139. Concluding benedictions of Näthamuni and the Vaisnava sacred texts.