Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The Tantra-śuddha of Bhaṭṭāraka-Śrī-Vedottama : a translation and commentary Fern, David John 1989

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1989_A8 F47.pdf [ 6.71MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0097776.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097776-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097776-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097776-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097776-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097776-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097776-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

THE TANTRA -$UDDHA OF BHATTARAKA-SRI-VEDOTTAMA A TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY By David John Fern B.A., The University of Calgary, 1977 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Asian Studies We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April 1989 © David John Fern, 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. 1 further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of f-JSlftf^ Q T o o i e J The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date A ^ < < - ^ ^9 DE-6 (2/88) Tantra-tfuddha Abstract This thesis is a translation of and commentary on the Tantra-iuddha (Purity of the System), a 14th century (circa) Sanskrit philosophical monograph defending the religious validity of the Pancaratra school. The work is attributed to a Sri Bhattaraka-sn-vedottama. Set in the framework of a debate between two Mimamsaka disputants the text follows the "objection-response" (purva-paksa - uttara-paksa) format so characteristic of the genre. I have divided the work into three more or less cohesive sections. In the first the author is faced with the problem of justifying the validity of his school and its smrti in the absence of confirmation by a §ruti. He does so by hypothesizing a supporting iruti which existed in the past but has since been lost. In Section 2 the opponent plays the devil's advocate and suggests that the author: 1. Claim universal validity for all smrtis, (independent of iruti support), 2. reject the traditional requirement that smrtis be free from any taint of an ulterior motive, and 3. claim the status for the smrti of being an equally valid alternative to iruti in instances where the two appear to conflict. Fully cognizant that to accept any of these would be to undermine his position the author rejects all three proposals. In the third section the author clarifies the distinctions between his own school and four Saivite ones. He then responds to a number of objections and citations that declare the Pancaratra system to be non-Vedic, both in its beliefs and in its ritual practices. This he does by reinterpreting the intentions of alleged opponents such as Sankara and Rumania or by simply declaring Tantra-fuddha iii deprecatory passages as inaccurate. The text draws heavily upon an earlier work by Yamuna, the Agama-pramanya, which also sought to defend the Pancaratrikas. Arguments and conclusions correlate highly throughout, with one significant difference. Whereas Yamuna speaks from the perspective of Vislstadvaita Vedanta, Bhattaraka Vedottama infuses the Pancaratra school with a much more monist tinge. This is perhaps the sole reason for studying the text ; it reminds us that religious schools are rarely stagnant. Considerable variation occurred within movements bearing the same name and we would be foolish to cling to our generalizations too seriously. Tantra-fuddha iv T A B L E OF CONTENTS HEADING PAGE Abstract ii Acknowledgements v Part I: Introduction Placing the text 1 Purpose and form of the text 3 Topical structure 7 Section 1 7 Section 2 8 Section 3 11 The author's sympathy with the Kevaladvaitins 15 The author's debt to Yamuna 16 Comments on text presentation 18 Part II: Translation 1. Pramanas and the Pancaratra smrti 20 2. Sruti-smrti relationship 42 3. Non-Vedic nature of the Pancaratra system 71 Bibliography 118 Tantra-iuddha v Acknowledgements The completion of this thesis is overwhelmingly due to the patience and commitment of two people. The first is my wife Gail, who supported me financially throughout my studies and, more importantly, who never stopped encouraging me. The second is my adviser Dr. Ashok Aklujkar, whose dedication to his professional field and to his students have inspired me since I've known him. Tantra-Suddha: Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION Placing the text This thesis is a translation of and commentary on the Sanskrit monograph (prakarana) Tantra-Suddha,^- — "Purity of the (Pancaratra)2 system" ~ attributed to Bhattaraka-§ri-vedottama. The Sanskrit text was edited by T. Ganapati Sastri and published in 1915 in Vol. XLIV of the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series. To my knowledge it is the only published edition of the work. In his brief preface the editor states that it is based on a single palmleaf manuscript written in the Malayalam script. Little is known about the author, but he is estimated by the editor to have lived in the 14th or 15th century. His name, Bhattaraka-srl-vedottama, is probably not his birth name but rather the combination of a pair of honourific titles or epithets, a practice not uncommon in South India. This title would suggest he was an influential figure in or leader of a matha (religious ashram or school) and was likely familiar with Vedic ritual and lore. Further evidence for a southern origin for the text is attested by the fact that, to our knowledge, no other manuscript has been found outside Kerala. A final point, which will be discussed below, is the author's heavy reliance upon another southern text, the Agama-pramanya of Yamuna, who lived in the late 10th and early 11th centuries. 1 Dr. Ashok Aklujkar has suggested that the original tide was Tantra-Suddhi rather than Tantra-Suddha. This seems likely given the nominal character of Suddhi as opposed to the adjective Suddha. It is also easy to imagine a change from Suddhyakhyarh to Suddhakhyam. 2 In the literature the school has been called both "Pancaratra" and "Pancaratra" while the followers have been variously termed, "Pancaratras," "Pancaratras," "Pancaratrins," "Pancaratrins," and "Pancaratrikas." In this thesis the word "Pancaratra" will be used to refer to the school itself while its adherents will be called "Pancaratrikas," which is the author's name for them. Tantra-guddha: Introduction 2 Against this geographical placing must be weighed some internal evidence. In Section 3 the author expends much effort distinguishing his school from various Saivite^ sects. The most prominent of these in his eyes appears to be the Pasupatas, a group placed in western India in what is now Gujarat by Gonda (MRLS p. 165) and Dasgupta (Vol. 5, p. 18). The Vlrasaivas, on the other hand, who trace their roots to south-western India in what is now Karnataka are not mentioned at all by the author, although they had been active for one or two centuries before the time assigned to Bhattaraka-sri-vedottama by the editor.4 Nor are the Saiva-Siddhantas discussed, albeit they represented the most prominent southern Saivite school at the time.5 Although it is difficult to specify exactly where the Pancaratrikas first thrived Schrader (p. 16) argues they spread from the North to the South, with the majority of the samhitas (works within their tradition) being composed in the North. D.L. De (p. 643) links the Pancaratrikas with the Yadava tribe of Krsna. Mahabharata 12.336.30 describes the home of the Pancaratrikas as Sveta-dvipa, (lit. the "white island") but does not elaborate further. The movement itself is a very old one, as indicated by their inclusion in the Narayaniya section of the Mahabharata. The Pancaratra samhitas are estimated by Schrader (p. 19) to be no older than the eighth century. They were certainly known in the South by the 11th century insofar as both 3 In this thesis the term "Saivite" will be used as a generic noun or adjective pertaining to all worshippers of Siva. "Saiva," on the other hand, will be taken to mean only that specific Saivite sect discussed by the author in Section 3. 4 The VlraSaivas are normally dated from the time of the poet Basavanna in the late 12th or early 13th century. Gonda (MRLS p. 156) suggests the Vlrasaivas were a branch of the older Kalamukha tradition, which the author does discuss. An alternative explanation for this non-mention would be that the author predates the 13th or 14th century. 5 Pereira (p. 167) dates them back to at least the eighth century and Dasgupta (Vol. 5, p. 16) believes the bulk of their Saivagama was completed by the ninth century. Tantra-Suddha: Introduction 3 Yamuna (in the Agama-pramanya) and Ramanuja (in his commentary on Brahma-sutras 2.2.42-45) defend the movement. Purpose and form of the text The stimulus for the Tantra-Suddha, as its name implies, was to defend the legitimacy of the Pancaratra system and its agama (collected body of works considered authoritative) against orthodox Vedic critics who maligned its claim to be based on the Veda. The Pancaratrikas were worshippers of Visnu in his supreme form (known as Vasudeva or Narayana) as well as in his various manifestations, particularly those of Krsna and the four vyiihas (emanations of Visnu).6 They were among the numerous bhakti schools prevalent in India from the first millenium onwards which stressed devotion to a personal deity rather than ritual practice and discriminative wisdom (vijnana) as the path to spiritual achievement and ultimate liberation. Yet they claimed to remain within the general Brahmanical tradition in that, unlike the Buddhists and Jains, they did not reject the authority of the VedasJ Proponents of the more traditional schools however, particularly Mlmamsa and Advaita Vedanta,^ generally refused them such a standing and questioned 6 For a more detailed explanation of the vyuhas see Section 3, para. 12 below. 7 Gonda (MRLS p. 110) has remarked of the Pancaratragama, "Throughout this literature there is the uncontested tradition that it is based on the Veda; like other authoritative writings of Hinduism it sometimes claims to be the Tifth Veda'." See also Dasgupta Vol. 3, p. 18. Against their self-evaluation it should be noted that Mahabharata 12.350.64 assigns them a separate place as one of the four great schools of religious/philosophical learning along with the Veda, Sankhya-Yoga and Pasupata traditions. Dasgupta (Vol. 3, pp. 18-20) refers to a number of deprecatory passages from various works, including the Aivalayana-smrti, the Kurma, ParaSara, Samba, Vayu, Vrhan-naradlya, LMga, Aditya and Agni puranas and the Vatistha, Suta, Visnu, Satapatha, Harita, Bodhayana and Yama samhitas. 8 See for instance, Sankara's bhasya on Brahma-sutras 2.2.42-45. The Naiyayikas, on the other hand, were not so clearly opposed. In the fourth ahnika of the Nyaya-manjan Jayanta Bhatta Tantra-fuddha: Introduction 4 the Vedic sanction not only for the ritual practices they taught but for the Pancaratragama itself (or Pancaratra smrti as it is called in this text). The agama available in the author's time was probably extensive. Schrader (pp. 6-14) has listed over 200 samhitas referred to within the Pancaratra literature and estimated that "the Samhita literature of the Pancaratras must have once amounted to not less but probably more than one and a half million slokas."9 Among the works known to us the most important ones include the Satvata (Sattvata-)-samhita, livara-samhita, Laksml-tantra, Jayakhya-saihhita, and Ahirbudhnya-samhita. Other, less specifically sectarian texts which were obviously influential within the school at that time include the Visnu and Bhagavata puranas, the Bhagavad-gha, and the Narayaniya section of Book 12 (Santi-parvan) of the Mahabharata.^ That the work is called a prakarana is indicative that the author did not intend to compose a general work on the Pancaratrikas or an all-encompassing defence of their numerous ritual practices.11 A prakarana seeks merely to discuss one aspect of a system in the desire to add something original. The purpose here is to affirm the system's authority in the face of accusations to the contrary. However it is a limited sanction that the author seeks. The Tantra-§uddha is not a full-scale defence of all bhakti movements or all smrtis. While carving out his own school's niche in the house of Vedic orthodoxy the author is careful to distance himself from the other major devotional group, the Saivites. endorses both the Saivagama and the Pancaratragama (see fh. 19 below). 9 Of the extant works 30 have been briefly encapsulated by Smith in his very useful descriptive bibliography (Smith, Vol. 1). l u See Dasgupta, Vol. 3, p. 13 for a further list of Vaisnava Upanisads. 1 1 He does however devote some energy to justifying two such practices — nirmalya-dharana and nivedya-bhaksana — in Section 3 of the text Tantra-fuddha: Introduction 5 The author's defence of the alleged divergence of his system from the orthodox mainstream is structured on ground rules established by his opponents within that mainstream. Thus, he argues for his views not on the basis of intuition or emotional fervour but according to principles of logic and scriptural support developed in the Brahmanical systems. In common with other Indian philosophical works this one is set in the framework of an imaginary dialogue. The opponent, who may be real or hypothetical, begins by raising objections and generally constructing a prima facie case against the Pancaratrikas. This tentative position, called the purva-paksa, is then refuted by the author in his uttara-paksa or final position. In this instance the two parties, although at odds over the status of the Pancaratrikas, do share a number of beliefs. Both structure their arguments around the tenets of the Mlmamsa school1 2 and seem to accept its guidelines regarding the interpretation of the orthodox sruti, i.e. the Vedas and Brahmanas. Both accept the primacy of that §ruti, and the necessary dependency thereon of any legitimate school of thought. And both are opposed to the heterodox schools of Buddhism, Jainism and Saivism, although the Pancaratrikas seem to have evinced some tolerance towards the last.1 3 Having said this, it should be noted that the opponent does assume different characteristics during the discussion. This is particularly apparent in Section 2 where his suggestions to assign universal validity to all smrtis and 1 2 It is not clear which of the two major Mlmarhsa schools (Bhatta or Prabhakara) the two disputants subscribe to. In his criticism of the Pancaratrikas in Section 1 the opponent cites only the five pramanas accepted by Prabhakara but omits from the discussion the sixth pramana — anupalabdhi — accepted by Kumarila. However anupalabdhi is mentioned in Section 2 as the basis for invalidating the use of rice or barley whenever the other is used in a sacrifice. In other areas the author appears to endorse the Bhatta school of Mlmarhsa. He follows Rumania's interpretation of Mimamsa-sutra 1.3.3 in Section 2 and quotes from the Tantra-vaittika in Section 3. 1 3 See Gonda (V&S), pp. 94-95 for further discussion of this inter-sectarian tolerance. Tantra-s'uddha: Introduction 6 (later) to allow an option between following iruti or smrti are not in accordance with Mlmamsa teachings. He should thus be regarded more as a composite figure, offering differently motivated objections at different times. Similarly, different people appear to be speaking on behalf of the Pancaratrikas. Tentative uttara-paksas are presented in Section 2 by someone called apara (lit. "another"), who may be a less mature debater within the school. His views are generally succeeded by the author's own positions. In many instances it is difficult to tell exactly who is speaking, as the author frequently anticipates objections and states them as questions posed to himself. Thus a sentence beginning with nanu (it may be objected . . .) is not inevitably in the opponent's voice. Nonetheless this does not pose serious problems as it is usually evident whether a particular statement is one the author endorses or not. The issues and arguments at hand are well-worn ones. They have virtually all been raised in the major works and their commentaries of the preceding centuries — the Mimamsa-sutras, the Nyaya-manjan, the Brahma-sutras, the Agama-pramanya, etc. Like many Indian philosophical works then, this is specialists' literature. The author was clearly writing the Tantra-iuddha for a reader presumed to be familiar not only with the features of the Pancaratra system but also with the orthodox objections to its validity. Thus brief snatches of citations, such as those from Kumarila and Sankara in Section 3, are regarded as sufficient to identify the relevant passages to the reader.14 1 4 Sheldon Pollock has accurately remarked that reading a Sanskrit philosophical text is like walking into the middle of a conversation. Tantra-s'uddha: Introduction 7 Topical structure The published edition of the Tantra-s'uddha is continuous but for ease of reading I have divided it into three sections. Of these, Sections 1 and 2 generally deal with issues concerning the authority of smrtis in general while Section 3 more specifically supports the Pancaratra smrti. These relate to three general purva-paksas: 1. There is no support in §ruti for the Pancaratra smrti. 2. The author should either accept universal validity for all smrtis or else accord it the status of an optional alternative to the Sruti. 3. The Pancaratra system is non-Vedic in nature. Section 1 In the first part of the work the author is faced with the difficulty of affirming the validity of the Pancaratra smrti in the absence of any surviving §ruti statement which directly corroborates it. Moreover, the opponent contends that the validity of the Pancaratra smrti is not verifiable by any of the five pramanas or means of truth accepted by the Mimariisa school. In his reply the author skirts the objections and attempts to establish his school's legitimacy in a two-fold manner. First he emphasizes the valid lineage of the Pancaratrikas by linking them with a line of sages beginning with Narada, an early divine rsi who shuttled between heaven and earth. This noble origin supports his second point that Narada and his successors were loyal to the Veda and would not have taught anything contrary to it. The inference then is that the Pancaratra smrti which we have now and which was derived from these seers must have been based on a Sruti which they either knew directly or were at least aware of. Such a §ruti could sanction the Pancaratra system either expressly or indirectly. In the latter case one Tantra-Suddhx Introduction 8 would be able to infer the validity of the system from the sruti. That this sruti has been lost in no way undermines the authority for the smrti because it is well-known that many other srutis have also been lost. The notion of a lost Vedic recension is certainly plausible. Many once-vigorous iakhas or branches have vanished over time.15 However this raises the theoretical problem that if such a defence is allowed any school would be free to claim sanction from §ruti statements which have since been lost. This objection is then disallowed by the author on the grounds that the heterodox schools generally shun rather than seek sanction by the Veda. Much of the train of discussion follows similar points raised by Sahara in his bhasya and Kumarila in his Tantra-varttika on the section dealing with smrti authority (Mimamsa-sutras 1.3). The latter writer in particular deals with the issues of claiming a basis on a lost iruti and the problem of denying the heterodox schools the same privilege. The essential point is that the extant Sruti does not openly deny the validity of the Pancaratra system; indeed both disputants concede there is no mention of this issue at all in the Veda. The opponent interprets this omission in a negative light while the author views it more positively. That is, the former clearly regards the school as invalid until proven valid while the author seems to adopt the opposite posture — it is valid until proven invalid. Section 2 In the second part the opponent tries to clarify the degree of authority the author attributes to his agama. Given a situation in which the Pancaratra smrti 1 5 Frequently their separate identity was based on nothing more than minor variations in pronunciation but some did contain statements not found in the others. Tantra-Suddha: Introduction 9 contradicts the extant Sruti in some detail the opponent enquires which one should be followed. The author responds by redefining any such conflict as one between two Srutis, i.e. the extant Sruti and the inferred Sruti (which endorsed the Pancaratra system but has since been lost). Posing as his own devil's advocate the opponent then suggests the Pancaratrikas would do better to argue for the universal validity of all smrtis independent of the Sruti. In this way they would not have to resort to the weaker tactic of hypothesizing a possible supporting Sruti at some point in the past. The opponent, in effect lays a trap in hopes of inducing the author to concede a special status for the smrti — that of validity independent of Sruti — which the opponent can then denounce as an indisputably non-Vedic notion. To use a more picturesque analogy, the opponent offers the author enough rope to hang himself. However the author resists the bait and reiterates the primacy of Sruti, while adding that this in no way removes the possibility of the prior existence of a Sruti supporting the Pancaratrikas. In a similar tactic the opponent also advises the author to disregard Mimamsa-sutra 1.3.416 which specifically invalidates smrtis based on ulterior motives. The opponent justifies doing so on the grounds that the sutra is too convenient a tool for heterodox opponents (e.g. atheists or materialists) to use to discredit certain smrtis. For instance it could be claimed that the true motive for a smrti statement enjoining a sacrificial fee to be paid to a priest for his services was greed on the part of the composer-priest who was seeking to benefit himself and his cohorts. Less cynically, one could point out that at the very least the fee was prescribed for the very mundane purpose of supporting the priest and his family. The problem is that if one concedes that such 16 ^ c K ^ H M ^ Tantra-s'uddha: Introduction 10 motives may have influenced the composers of certain smrtis, all smrtis are cast in a suspicious light. When this suggestion is rejected the opponent proposes treating smrti and Sruti as equally valid options, much as ritual practitioners may choose between conflicting Sruti statements which recommend rice or barley for use in a sacrifice. The author's approach differs somewhat from that of Sahara17 but the end result is the same — the suggestion is rejected. If option is accepted as a possibility between Sruti and smrti, that assumes not only independent validity for the smrti but also a potential conflict (or else option would not be needed). If one accepts that the smrti is based on an earlier Sruti this would then imply a further Sruti-Sruti conflict. In his reply the author basically disallows hypothetical situations. He will not consider the existence of any more mutually contradictory Sruti statements than already exist. The opponent's last objection had begun with the presupposition of a lost Sruti from which he argued forward in time for the validity of a derivative smrti which then conflicts with an extant Sruti.l% Had the author accepted that presupposition he would have been faced with the dilemna of retroactively invalidating a Sruti. Under his own guidelines he could not have even entertained the existence of such a Sruti because its derivative smrti was in conflict with an extant Sruti. The form of the author's answers indicates he is seeking a sanction for his school, but it must be a rather qualified one. He does not want to upset the traditional understanding of Sruti and smrti nor does he want acceptance on 1 < 7 In his bhasya on Mimamsa-sutra 1.3.3 Sahara argues that the optional usage of Sruti or smrti is permissible only when neither choice is clearly shown to be wrong. !8 By contrast the author had previously argued in Section 1 for the supposition of a lost Sruti in order to validate a (derivative) smrri which is held to be in complete accordance with the Veda. Tantra-guddha: Introduction 11 terms that could also be met by heterodox schools such as that of the Buddhists. Section 3 The third section begins by exploring the possibility that the Saivites too might claim Vedic legitimacy by hypothesizing an earlier supporting §ruti. In order to exclude them from the orthodox fold the author adopts a two-pronged strategy. He begins by reiterating his school's Vedic credentials through the identification of Vasudeva as the material cause of the universe. This monist position is then contrasted favourably with the dualist theology of the Pasupatas. His second tactic is to point out the contradictory beliefs among the four major Saivite schools: the Pasupatas, Saivas, Kalamukhas and Kapalikas. According to the author not only do these schools diverge among themselves ~ despite all claiming to worship the same God ~ they diverge from the Veda. 1 9 His criticism of the Saivite schools is interesting in that for the most part it is based not on purely sectarian grounds as we would expect, but on inconsistency within their own ranks. Despite being a Vaisnava 1 9 The attitude of the Saivites to the Veda was by no means completely negative. Srlkantha's bhasya on Brahma-sutra 2.2.38 declares that Siva composed both the Veda and the Saivagama. In the fourth ahnika of the Nyaya-manjan (p. 379 Sastri edition) Jayanta Bhatta supports both the Saivagama and the Pancaratragama on the grounds that both were composed by trustworthy persons and did not oppose the Veda: ffa~M<>^ <N-MT-H C[ r R - " ^ ^ LJ^I^-M^MJ^^-M-^ | ~»T cl-Ml < 3*jy 1HIU-MH^ I The Paiupata practices of meditation upon OM and trisavana-snana indicate they still retained some links with Vedic orthodoxy. Kaundinya also exhibits a clear preference for Brahmanas in PMupata-sutras 1.9, 1.13, 4.20 and their commentary. The Kapalikas are said in Section 3 to recognize the sacred thread. Nonetheless, they clearly accorded their own agama a higher place, universally crediting its authorship to Siva himself (Gonda, MRLS p. 162). The prevalent attitude seemed to be that the Vedas are acceptable but inferior to the Saivagama (Gonda, MRLS p. 169). Tantra-s'uddha: Introduction 12 himself, the author is careful to deprecate only the divergent practices of S a i v i s m and not the deity.20 As mentioned near the beginning of this introduction the author pays particular attention to the Pasupatas. This preoccupation is apparent in his selection of Saivite text to examine. Although the Saivagama was extensive, particularly in the region under the influence of the Saiva-Siddhantas in South India, the author concentrates instead upon the relatively obscure text, the Pasupata-sutras. Undeniably one of the earliest works in the Saivite tradition it was curiously ignored by the rest of the Saivagama.^ The focus upon the Pasupatas would suggest one of two things: 1. They were the Pancaratrikas' most visible competitors within the bhakti movement in the author's region. 2. The author is following the precedent of Yamuna and Sankara who also deal with the text. It is the second explanation which seems the more plausible. Following this, numerous objections from the Tantra-varttika and Brahma-sutras (including Sankara's bhasya) are discussed. The Pancaratrikas are vilified on a number of grounds: 1. They are included by Kumarila in the ranks of the clearly less acceptable schools of the Sankhyas, Yogins, Pasupatas and Buddhists. 2. They specify new, non-Vedic rites and sacraments when determining those eligible to perform rites of worship in the Pancaratra temples. 3. They permit Sudras to perform religious functions. 2 u See footnote 13 above. 21 Gonda (MRLS p. 220) remarks, "... as far as I am aware the agamas do not mention the Pas~upata-sutras or Kaundinya's commentary." Dasgupta (Vol. 5, p. 17) makes the same point. Tantra-Suddha: Introduction 13 4. Through their conception of the vyuhas they accept a real origin for individual souls, thus contradicting the Vedic doctrine identifying atman with Brahman. 5. They are included in the section on logical refutation in the Brahma-Sutras (2.2) along with a number of other schools rejected therein by Badarayana (according to traditional Kevaladvaita interpretation). 6. They have traditionally been regarded as heretical. 7. They are accused by Sankara of demeaning the Vedas in a passage from their agama concerning the sage Sandilya where he is described as finding the highest truth in the Pancaratra smrti after failing to find it in the Vedas. 8. They are generally disregarded by the tistas (spiritual elite). 9. They established a second, Tantric system of knowledge, implying their exclusion from the Vedic tradition. 10. In their religious functions they accept leftover food and flowers, thus polluting themselves. The first objection is handled by asserting that Kumarila included the Pancaratrikas with non-Vedic schools purely in the context of a purva-paksa. His remark deals with heterodox systems in general, among which the Pancaratrikas are commonly but incorrectly placed. The second objection concerning the creation of new rites is disallowed on two counts: a. Other, additional rites such as the iiro-vrata have come to be accepted. b. The Pancaratra rites do not oppose the Veda. The eligibility of the Sudras is justified by noting that since sruti allows the Nisada people (who are outside the four varnas or social classes) to conduct Tantra-s'uddha: Introduction 14 rites there is surely an opportunity for the Sudras to do so. The issue of the creation of new souls in the fourth objection is explained as a misinterpretation. No origin for the soul was ever proposed by the Pancaratrikas and the vyuhas should not be taken as such. Rather they are simply emanations of Visnu which permit devotees to focus their devotion. In reply to the fifth objection the author suggests that Badarayana included the Pancaratrikas in the section on invalid schools incidentally, rather than deliberately. The answer to the sixth objection is a lengthy one and touches upon: (a) The ultimate unity of Visnu, the vyuhas and the avataras, (b) the absence of conflict between the Veda and the Pancaratragama, (c) the need to accept the entire system, not merely the more defensible elements, (d) the genesis of the Pancaratragama in the teachings of Narayana to Narada, and (e) the reliability of the teachings, (unlike those of the Buddhists which were intended to mislead humanity) The reference to Sandilya's pronouncement in the seventh objection is explained as an example of henotheism — praising one thing by belittling another. It might also be described as emphasizing one issue or tenet in an exaggerated fashion not intended to be taken literally. Examples from the Aitareya-brahmana and Mahabharata are then cited as precedents for this manner of speaking. The eighth objection is simply denied on the grounds that Sistas already perform the Pancaratra rites throughout the country. And as for the accusation of belonging to the Tantric, as opposed to Vedic fold, this is related to the well-established tradition of dividing rites into §rauta, smarta and Tantra-s'uddhx Introduction 15 domestic. They may arise from different sources but each is valid The reply to the final objection concerning the use of leftover food and flowers will be recounted below under the heading "The author's debt to Yamuna." The final passages of the section state the kamya or voluntary nature of such rituals and how they do not contravene the prohibition on more than two meals per day. Many of these objections revolve around the same core issue: is the Pancaratra system faithful to the Veda? Although the system's Vedic roots (or lack thereof) are explored in Section 1 the debate later returns again and again to this same question. Of the ten objections listed in Section 3, five or six may really be considered just variations on the theme of vedanusara (faithfulness to the Veda). The author's sympathy with the Kevaladvaitins The interesting aspect of the author's reply to the objection concerning the vyuhas is the pains he takes to reinterpret Sankara's apparent condemnation of the Pancaratrikas in his bhasya. Where it might have seemed more advantageous to simply attack the Kevaladvaitin, the author chooses instead to act almost as an apologist for his ostensible enemy. He explains away the criticism with the defence that jiva is used by Sankara in the more general sense of "being" rather than the specific meaning of "individual soul." A similar interpretation of motives occurs when he rationalizes the inclusion of the Pancaratrikas in the section on conflict by Badarayana. The latter is said to have not intended to criticize those who truly understand the Pancaratra doctrine but merely those less intelligent ones who superficially accepted the creation of a new soul called Samkarsana. It is curious that he did not adopt Tantra-s'uddha: Introduction 16 Yamuna's position as outlined in Agama-pramanya 99-105. There sutras 2.2.42-43 are described as the purva-paksa which is then disproven by sutras 2.2.44-45.22 That Bhattaraka-Sri-vedottama did not adopt this same position seems to support the view that he was not unsympathetic to Sankara. These monist leanings are also suggested in the reply to the sixth objection where the author reemphasizes the ultimate unity of Visnu, the vyuhas and the avataras and the deference to the Veda by the Pancaratragama. The author's debt to Yamuna One of the most noteworthy features of the Tantra-s'uddha is how closely it follows Yamuna's Agama-pramanya (or vice versa). The latter is a 10th century (circa) Vaisnava work which also sought to legitimize the Pancaratra system (the agama in its title refers to the Pancaratragama). The degree of similarity between the two far transcends any possibility of coincidence. Many lines are lifted word-for-word or lightly paraphrased in the Tantra-s'uddha, the same verses from outside sources are often used, the arguments generally follow the same lines, and the conclusions reached correspond highly throughout. The order of the topics varies between the two but most of the objections raised by Bhattaraka-srI-vedottama are also discussed by Yamuna (whose longer text addresses a number of other issues as well). Many of these points of similarity will be noted in the text itself as they occur. However, as one example I will briefly summarize the two authors' defences of the practices of eating food remnants and wearing garlands previously offered to the deity (nivedya-bhaksana and nirmalya-dharana). In Agama-pramanya 134 Yamuna begins by questioning whether the 2 2 This is also Ramanuja's rendering of the sutras. Tantra-Suddhx Introduction 17 opponent objects to food and flowers in general or specific food and flowers. He rhetorically dismisses the first interpretation on the grounds that food and flowers should not be wasted. He handles the second by sarcastically asking how the opponent can object since he does not recognize the divinity of the Pancaratra temple deity (i.e. if there is no deity to partake there can be no leftovers). Following further arguments Yamuna then notes in Agama-pramanya 136 the purifying features of the remnants, comparing them to the soma consumed at a sacrifice. This is then followed by a passage from the Brahma-purana which orders the performance of the candrayana rite of expiation for those who partake of food other than nivedya. The argument concludes with a citation from Mahabharata 12.322.24 describing the dining habits of Pancaratra sages in the palace of King Upicara. Bhattaraka-sri-vedottama's defence in Section 4 begins also by asking the opponent to clarify his objection. The same two interpretations are then rejected, again with the feeling that the opponent's nose is being gently tweaked. The analogy of soma is brought up and the same passages from the Brahma-purana and the Mahabharata are then cited. Despite such a high degree of what would be plagiarism in modern terms, Bhattaraka-sri-vedottama never acknowledges even the existence of the Agama-pramanya. One possible explanation would be that the Tantra-iuddha could have been an attempt to condense and summarize the major points and arguments of the earlier text, perhaps for teaching purposes. It is conceivable that the author felt it redundant to even mention the title of his source as his contempories were probably as familiar with it as he was. Another hypothesis is that this text may have simply been personal notes of the author which were never intended for dissemination. An alternative view is that it may have been Yamuna who did the Tantra-s'uddha: Introduction 18 borrowing. If we were to assume the Tantra-s'uddha preceded the Agama-pramanya this would at least account for the omission of the Vrras*aivas. However, one is then left to explain the correspondences between the arguments used by Ramanuja in the Sn-bhasya on Brahma-sutras 2.2.42-45 (apart from the purva-paksa/uttara-paksa division he proposed) and those found in Section 3 of the Tantra-s'uddha where the objections of Sankara are dealt with .23 It is far more likely that this author borrowed from Ramanuja and Yamuna than the other way round. Regardless of the order we ultimately assign however, it is clear that the Tantra-s'uddha must be closer in time to the Agama-pramaya than the 14th or 15th century. A significant point of departure between the two works appears to be that whereas the Agama-pramanya defends the Pancaratra system from a Visistadvaitin position the Tantra-s'uddha attempts the same task from a perspective closer to that of Sankara's Kevaladvaita Vedanta. This change in emphasis is perhaps the primary reason for studying this text. The Tantra-suddha serves as a reminder that Indian religious groups bearing the same name were not stagnant, monolithic entities; they grew and changed not only over the centuries but across different regions. It is thus superficial and misleading for us to attempt to force them into convenient, preconceived categories of the sort, "All devotional schools were dualist" etc. Comments on text presentation Instances of unclear readings or suspected corruption apparently occurred in various places in the manuscript. The editor, T. Ganapati Sastri, has generally indicated his readings or suggestions in round brackets ( ) or else 23 These correspondences will be discussed in Section 3. Tantra-s'uddha: Introduction 19 footnoted them, although his policy of emendation is never explained in the text. His footnotes will be duly noted as belonging to him. Some of these uncertainties may be attributable to the nature of the Malayalam script. Dr. Aklujkar has frequently noted that certain characters which bear no resemblance to each other in the nagari script are difficult to distinguish in the older Malayalam script, e.g. the characters for ka and ta. Disagreements with Sastri's edition and suggested readings where there is uncertainty will be indicated with square brackets [ ] and/or footnotes. I have chosen to divide the original nagari text into manageable portions of several sentences each. For ease of reading I have hyphenated compounds wherever possible. I have also enclosed in quotation marks " . . . " those nagari passages followed by iti which are direct quotations from other texts or from a statement earlier in the present work. Numerous common words such as iruti, smrti, and varna have been left untranslated as have certain technical terms such as codana and dharma whose meanings are particularly difficult to render in one or two English words. The Sanskrit passages are followed by my translation and, where helpful, by my commentary explaining the author's line of reasoning. I also try to point out any underlying assumptions or implications of the passage that may not be apparent to the casual reader. Related discussions and references and problems in reading are usually cited in footnotes. The abbreviations preceding the English passages stand for: P-R: - Pancaratrika Opp: - Opponent Comm: - Commentary Tantra-s'uddha: Section 1 20 II aft: II A Monograph Called "The Purity of the (Pancaratra) System" Composed by Sri Bhattaraka-sii-vedottama That stride, unperceived in the sky, which pushed down the very plane2 of the earth, And which broke the top of the egg-shell; may that all-encompassing stride of the Unfallen One protect you. Comm: This mangala or benedictory verse is based on the famous incident from Visnu's incarnation as Vamana the dwarf wherein he bestrides the universe in three steps, thus capitalizing on the demon Bali's offer to grant him whatever land he could encompass in three steps. The anda-kapala is almost certainly a synonym for brahmanda-kapala, the cosmic egg of Indian mythology from which all Creation stems. Acyuta is an epithet of Visnu. Common to much of Indian literature, the mangala seeks not only a form of divine assistance and sanction for the author's efforts but also indicates his denominational bent to the reader — in this case, Vaisnavism. 1 As noted in the introduction (fh. 1) this may well have originally been Suddhyakhyam. 2 Tala also has the sense of "bottom." Tantra-Suddha: Section 1 Section 1- Pramanas and the Pancaratra smrti 21 1. qo^ vT-TR-cF^  few. I cTrf f^> ymu|H STWuf ^ tcf | f¥*T 3T? f ^ - ^ s T F W q ^ - T r e - d ' ^ N i > < M f a i d ^ M ^ ^ - ^ r g j - ? r r 5 F q - J I M ^ - q r e r -M d l ( V d ^ = H qo^ r-TT?-d^ H 3Ht-^m^|U |H f^rT q^ f: q§T: I ^f-tfl°bK!>?-*Td-« = i l ^ 4 i n ^ - q ^ - ^ T R H - < \ H \ M ^ l f e - ^ * ^ qTTFR^rWcTT ^ - ^ ^ t t ^ T - W -^d^if^-q?q-qo?rH-c<^Hc<d qo^-Tr^-cF^nr s r f q hhwh i f a ftngT^r: i P-R: In the following the Pancaratra system is the subject-matter. Regarding it, an uncertainty exists: is it valid or invalid? What is the cause of uncertainty here? The arguments — whose distinctions are not determined ~ pertaining to the two alternatives are the cause of uncertainty. In this context the preliminary position is, that because of: (i) the complete non-acceptance by those knowledgeable of the three (Vedas), and (ii) the exclusion of the Pancaratra system from the 14 branches of knowledge3 accepted by the learned as an authority for dharma, the Pancaratra system is also invalid, like the systems of the Buddhists, Jains, Pasupatas and others, which are outside the three Vedas. The final view is that: (i) because of being accepted by eminent people such as Narada who has 3 This is a reference to Yajnavalkya-smrti. 1 . 3 which lists the 1 4 branches as the Puranas, Nyaya, Mlmarhsa, Dharma-s'astra, the six Aiigas, — Siksa, chandas, vyakarana, nirukta, jyotisa and kalpa — and the four Vedas. A related discussion occurs in Agama-pramanya 1 7 : - M ^ I H tpjf-yHlyl<1'MI ^ H ^ d l R d ^ - ^ F f - M p i J ^ d M ^ d ^ l - f ^ T R ^ I ^ ^ M p i J I U M ' d < j i ^ f e c f r T ^ Tantra-s'uddhx Section 1 22 become a model for the whole world, and (ii) even though it is not included among those reckoned as iastras, it is possible to justify its validity as in the case of the works, the Mahabharata and Ramayana and others, composed by Dvaipayana (Vyasa) and Valmiki, the Pancaratra system is also authoritative just like the statements made by people such as Manu, Gautama and others who are closely connected with the Veda. Comm: The phrase "whose distinctions are not determined" means the respective merits of the two positions are as yet unresolved. The Pancaratra system has its own ancient lineage of authority ~ a line of sages beginning with the divine rsi Narada ~ which negates the necessity for explicit Vedic sanction. Other texts such as the epics by Vyasa and Valmiki are accorded authoritative status as are the works of sages such as Manu and Gautama. The latter two are accepted as having an association with the Veda (veda-samyoga). The format of the siddhanta -statement follows that of the purva-paksa: two reasons with an example or analogy appended to the second. 2. ^ TrfcR t^R^SJ grrrcrf W - O T ^ - ^ S J ^ T H I ^ f - f ^ T R -Opp: A smrti (recollection) is not independently valid like the Veda because of its dependence upon the authority of a source. It is said, "A smrti is knowledge which is dependent upon earlier knowledge." And its (the smrti's) Tantra-s'uddha: Section 1 23 authority is conditioned by the authority of earlier knowledge; (the authority) does not arise of (the smrti's) own nature. Indeed all smrtis convey a content which is already apprehended by a valid means of knowledge such as perception etc. Comm: The opponent acknowledges that a smrti may well convey a valid meaning but it must be verifiable by another traditionally-accepted means of knowledge ( Between the two major branches of Mlmarhsa thought -- the school of Kumarila Bhatta and that of Prabhakara - there is general agreement on what these pramanas are. Both sides accept pratyaksa (direct sensory perception),4 agama (traditional or inherited knowledge), anumana (inference or reason), upamana (analogy) and arthapatti (presumption). Additionally, a sixth — anupalabdhi (non-perception) — is accepted by Kumarila. gcqajr4tt>T mmuiifa *mtfRjd w^rat^T* i srfHT ^ H 4 l ^ d I " t * ^ qo^-^-u|f>|q i|^d-^^dKI ^ - H H - , - r>e iHI^-Ml t? l 4 Radhakrishnan notes that the term has a wider scope in Nyaya thought, "Though pratyaksa originally meant sense-perception it soon came to cover all immediate apprehensions whether with the aid of the senses or not" (Vol. 2, p. 48) For the Munamsakas however it seems limited to cognitions arising from sensory perception, (Radhakrishnan, Vo l . 2, p. 380). Tantra-Suddha: Section 1 24 Opp: Now, in this case, perception and the other means are unable to bring to us the relationship of end and means between the supreme blissful state and the adoration etc. of the Lord. Nor is Testimony (able to), because (mention of the Pancaratra school) is not found. Nor is the Pancaratra smrti pervaded by its source Sruti, so that a source Sruti could be inferred through the Pancaratra smrti. Just as the existence of the means-and-end relationship between the adoration of the deity as taught by the Pancaratrikas and the acquisition of that (ultimate state of bliss) is not attainable through inference because of the very imperceptibility of the relationship, so also the source Sruti is not to be inferred because of that same imperceptibility of relationship. Comm: The opponent notes the inability of the usual means of knowledge to confirm the efficacy of the Pancaratra devotional practices such as the adoration of Krsna or Visnu in achieving the state of ultimate bliss or liberation. We do not witness devotees of Krsna or Visnu achieving this state. (This of course does not preclude the possibility that an internal transformation has occurred, merely that it is not evident to the external senses.) Sabda or "Testimony" (the Veda) similarly fails to provide support for such a relationship as there is no mention anywhere that the Pancaratra system is to be honoured. Given the absence of a surviving sruti to support the Pancaratra smrti, the opponent considers the possibility that the sort of Sruti necessary to justify the smrti may have existed at one time but has since been lost. The traditional example of vyapti (pervasion, concomittance or invariable association) is that of smoke and fire. Wherever we find smoke we invariably Tantra-s'uddha: Section 1 25 find fire but the reverse does not hold, for there can be fire without smoke. Hence smoke is said to be pervaded by fire in that the latter has a wider domain than the former. The relevance of this concept here is to point out that, like perception, inference cannot be used to buttress the Pancaratra views. The Pancaratra smrti is not pervaded by imti and so we cannot infer the existence of the latter on the basis of the former.5 OS. N i^yidld I Opp: Nor by traditional knowledge is there the apprehension of a source sruti. Traditional knowledge is of two kinds: human and non-human.7 As for the apprehension of a source Sruti on the strength of human tradition, it is not at all possible, because of the suspicion of deception. For some are seen in the present time chattering even non-traditional things by superimposing agama [i.e. wrong attribution from a legitimate tradition]. Thus a suspicion arises that the state of being based on the Veda is propounded by the authors of the Pancaratra smrti in the case of their own compositions — either having found a source Sruti, or even without having actually found it — for the sake of * A similar objection is raised in Agama-pramanya y^dd^^d-^-f^TmT^T^K^II^H)<^H vdcM^ H 3raf, dlt^-^R-6 The editor reads t l ^ g : . 7 A non-human agama would include not only divine revelations but also those from supremely-accomplished persons. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 1 26 achieving the status of credible statements, and to that extent (that there is such a suspicion) there is damage to validity. Comm: Human tradition is too susceptible to distortion and manipulation to be used as a valid standard.8 H | L q q ^ | ^ H McitMelfitr:, ^ l l f ^ M ^ U d I -»S C >© X X C X •sO X X tTs, X ff\ X CTv. X OX Qpp: Neither is there cognizance of a source sruti on the strength of non-human tradition because it is not found (in the Veda). For no non-human tradition is found which states a source Sruti for the Pancaratra smrti. Therefore, neither by tradition is there an apprehension of the source. Nor is there a determination of the source by analogy, because there is no determination of something similar (to a source Sruti). 8 The implication is that the Pancaratra tradition is also not safe from such tendencies. A similar warning is raised in Agama-pramanya 10: fawstrq 3Tfq *P^cf q w qrT: II 3TSTc^sfq % iVM-d 3UJ|ft°r>^$?Jld I SF T R T f ^ T ^ R r r ^ T i f ^crr^igrrrjrr fa^OTT : II Tantra-s'uddha: Section 1 27 Nor is there an apprehension of it by implication, because of the absence of non-justification in the case of a smrti without a sruti [i.e., it is not that the existence of the smrti will not be justified if the Sruti were not there]. As for the smrti, the lack of explication (of its existence) implies nothing more than a source in general, not necessarily a validating Sruti, because of the absence of disproof of a smrti by that (Sruti) [i.e., it is not that the smrti will not be explicated if such a Sruti did not exist]. There can be the origin of a recollection (a smrti) from error as well. Therefore there is no proof of a source Sruti even by implication. Therefore, it is proven that because of the impossibility of there being a source Sruti of the intended sort and because of the possibility of being based on error, the Pancaratra smrti is definitely unfounded. Comm: Upamana is the identification or classification of a previously unknown thing on the basis of a similar, known thing: a sadrSa. A traditional instance is that of the cow and the wild bull. Someone enquiring about what a wild bull looks like is told it resembles a cow. Venturing into the forest he finds such an animal and on the basis of its similarity to a cow determines that this indeed is a wild bull. Prabhakara's example of arthapatti is that of the man Devadatta who is definitely known to be alive but who is not found living at his house. The unavoidable implication is that he is residing elsewhere.9 The opponent rejects the applicability of implication here by pointing out that a smrti can exist without a source Sruti: it can't perhaps be absolutely validated but it can 9 Taken from Dasgupta, Vol. 1, pp. 391-2. Another example is that of the fat Deva-datta who declares he is fasting. He is not seen eating during the daytime yet his weight remains the same. The unavoidable implication is that he is eating during the night. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 1 28 exist. Therefore the mere fact that a smrti exists does not imply a preceding Sruti. The existence of a smrti signifies its dependence upon some source, not necessarily an authoritative Sruti. The smrti may well be the product of misunderstanding or confusion. Having eliminated as possible means of validation the five pramanas accepted by both schools of Mlmamsa the opponent declares the invalidity of the Pancaratra smrti. 6. 3 T f q ^ ^ ? - W T : ^ - T R - ^ d ^ : q f ^ F c q ^ t |10 cRTtf-^uiclc^ Opp: Moreover the Pancaratra smrtis are considered (by the Pancaratrikas) to be based on the Veda. In that case, like the recollection of the content [i.e. the Pancaratra teachings allegedly based on the Veda], one should also recall through uninterrupted succession, "Having acquired such-and-such a Vedic statement the Pancaratra smrtis were composed by the rsis Narada et. al.," yet this is not remembered. (f) Comm: The opponent here anticipates a defence by the Pancaratrikas: namely that their founders recalled the meaning or sense, instead of the specific words, of the Vedic passages upon which they based their smrtis.11 1 0 Dr. Aklujkar has suggested that the original reading may have been T f c J ^ . . . Hp<<=r> c<-^»rl ?T^^-'^TTJrarv? . . . . a change to "And i f . . . then . . . " which would create a smoother transition to the new issue of recalling the exact source. 1 1 A similar objection is raised in Agama-pramanya N X X >0 " X * ^ordH I X Tantra-s'uddha: Section 1 29 7. cT^MdlClTTT)*f-**HU|«H' 1 2 m ^ l ^ H ^ T ^ H W-*H<UI^H4 ^ f^4>c?ic^K N OS. N 3T^Kcf HT ?fcT 1 •s > N V N Os N P-i?: Although this was so, there was some gain in remembering this sort of content and because it was of no use to remember the source it (the source sruti) was disregarded by them (Narada et. al.). Opp: That is improper. It is unsuitable to forget that very thing which has bestowed authoritativeness (the Sruti) because of the absence of self-validation in the case of the recollection of content. And it is acknowledged by all that, without the knowledge that something (like this) has a source in the Veda authoritativeness cannot be determined. This being so, how did Narada et. al. fashion the system? Comm: If one bases something like a religio-philosophical system on something else such as a Sruti one has no right to preserve merely the meaning of that initial foundation while discarding the exact words. It is important to preserve the original statement because a mere recollection of the meaning has no validity in itself. If Narada et. al. did know the basis of their beliefs ~ the mula-Sruti — then they should have preserved it as well. N S ^  ' OS OS "S N N N -S ' 1 2 One would normally expect nanu or cef in this sentence to indicate an alternative possibility or explanation.. Tantra-Suddhx Section 1 30 q^TTfq %^-cTTofqTr viMcrJo^R ^ c ^ ^ - q ^ T q ^ j ^ T fa4ei-^q^c^-WIfFT H ^ e i l f^TT: q o ^ q - T F T - ^ d ^ : q ^ q ^ T I Opp: Now, it would be said that only the content itself was gained from others by Narada et. al. as well; the Vedic statement which was the source was not seen. In that case, since the meaning itself was learned from others and by them from others as well, the Vedic statement was known by no one. Therefore these Pancaratra smrtis should be regarded as unfounded because of the logical predicament of being an unfounded tradition, like the blind leading the blind [lit. a chain of blind people]. 9. 3m q ^ f R - ^ l l ^ l - d ^ - W c T T ° b ^ q d , cT^T *H?<HI 4*4 I fa - *^cft <d IM 3Tfq H ^ - S I R qFTF-q y < H ^ d i q ? q q ^ srtWd"" ^ H T T q ^ R - w ^ T - q ^ r ^ M s r c q L^|uf|°r>qfd I 3T?T fa £IM M-Tf"RafT-^TcTT I ^ H s ^ f : , ?T3T H K ^ l ^ q ^ ^ q W ^ T cTd" LJc^Mei^KKdfd ^^qJH-yU|q<d-tq^~*f W d I Opp: If being based on another, lost Vedic recension could be imagined, then authenticity could be attached to all the smrtis, even those of the Buddha etc. with that (hypothesis) as the door. If someone intended (to claim) "x" (as a smrti) he would place it on the head of a lost Vedic recension and declare it to be authoritative.13 On the other hand, if these contents (statements which could be construed as endorsing the Pancaratra system or some doctrinal aspect thereof) are actually part of existing Vedic recensions, then it would be pointless to 1 3 See Agama-pramanya 89 for related discussion: 3Tq fa's-H-^MMTl^ q ? ? R -facqHMq-"5TT^T-q^dl 3TT#qH c^T q ^ I ^ T 4^l<J|dqi H K ^ d " ^ H H q ^ R - ^ r n ^ T - q ^ d % Rfajcq qqT^tq^qfd i Tantra-s'uddha: Section 1 31 compose a smrti since, like Narada et. al., all men could acquire them from the same source. Comm: The dilemma for someone professing to abide by orthodox Vedic tradition is that if a system is allowed to claim an unverifiable sanction like a passage in a lost Vedic text then even the heterodox schools like the Buddhists could theoretically fall back on this rationale. In other words, how do you allow such a privilege for yourself and not for other schools? 10. 3Tfq ^ =+^113 ^?-c*|oM|^ H K ^ l f c f a : Mf>N-H, f^F f ^ f V q T R Qpp: Moreover, it is also not known from what kind of Vedic statement this is understood by Narada et. al. Is it from some (statement) intending to enjoin or from something having the form of a recommendation? Nor do we ascertain the source from the statements themselves of Narada et. al.; through being deceptive even they might say something unfounded to fool the world. Therefore it is proven, the Pancaratra smrti is invalid. For it is said, "Because of the dependence of dharma upon Testimony, that which has no Testimony (for support) [lit. that which lacks sabda] is not to be accepted." (Mimamsa-sutra 1.3.1) Tantra-s'uddha: Section 1 32 Comm: Sruti statements were traditionally divided by the Mrmamsakas into five major categories with various subdivisions according to nature or intent.*4 These are: (i) vidhi - injunctions or orders (ii) artha-vada - explanatory passage, statement of purpose, incidental commendation of or (rarely) advice against a particular religious practice; these state something which was either not stated previously or else was stated imperfectly (iii) . nisedha - prohibitory injunction (iv) mantra - sacrificial formula (v) namadheya - name of a sacrifice or its parts A vidhi statement for instance, may prescribe anointed sand to be placed on the altar but not indicate what the sand should be anointed with. If a nearby non-injunctive statement (artha-vada) praises the merits of ghee then the quite justifiable conclusion may be drawn that the sand should be anointed with ghee. The artha-vada statement did not specifically prescribe this and its authority is inferior to that of a vidhi, but clearly it may be used to guide actions. The opponent's point is that not only is the exact wording of the source Sruti unknown but so is its general nature. Dharma here carries the connotation of punya or merit. A religious or ritual practice is virtuous only to the extent that it is based on support in the Sruti. Human beings cannot determine non-mundane results of actions. I 4 See Laugaksi Bhaskara's Aitha-samgraha 1.10: Tantra-s'uddha: Section 1 33 11. 3T^cqcT |15 q o ^ - T T ^ - r a f t : ym^lM, 3Ff*R-M^<*><;c<ld T^H I T C X > » OS, N C N OS. ^ T H %T "JMM"?t ^ -^rqraTH ^c<^fobH!M" C^TRT-^rrsq 1.3.0 ^fd 1 qTFf q ^ r sr^qq^f -^-^fqrJTFn" ^ i c f t H m ^ d ^ P ^ ^ T ^ - ^ ^ m i P H , fmf * T V T ->s© "\ *NP -N0 N ' OS. c h c - M H T - ^ r q f ^ T T ^ T T ^ ^ r r s R T - q ^ m s r f q ^ r e ^ f a ^TFcT-q?rd^r crqf q f ^ F F o r d i P-R: This is the reply. The Pancaratra smrti is a valid means of knowing, because of the smrti's basis in direct experience. Without having experienced the thing himself, no man is able to remember. And the established causes of experience are contact (of the senses with the objects) etc. And since these (causes) are not possible in the case of an extra-sensory thing, on the basis of the remainder principle it is thought that only codana, (Vedic urging) is the cause of experience. And codana is possible as the cause of the prior understanding by Narada et. al. For it is said: "Contact with the Veda is justified in the case of the members of the three (upper) varnas (social classes)."(£a&ara-Wiasya 1.3.2).16 On the other hand, the teachings of extra-sensory things [e.g. dharma, merit, demerit, etc.] by the Buddha et. al., whose connections with the Veda are unjustified, are regarded as rooted in error, since at the time of considering their source codana had not mounted even the path of possibility. 15 The structure of the author's defence follows the lines of Sahara's interpretation of Mhnamsa-sutras 1.3.1-2. As in Sahara's bhasya the author treats 1.3.1 as the purva-paksa to be refuted by the uttara-paksa of 1.3.2, which he uses to conclude his reply at the end of Section 1. Sahara writes in 1.3.2 concerning the preceding sufra which ostensibly denied validity to the smrtis: ' S r fq cTfci qsrt o-MHc4d i ^ q f d : I 16 Manu-smrd 2.70-80 also leaves little doubt that the Sudras were excluded from study of the Vedas. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 1 34 Comm: Since dharma is beyond the senses pratyaksa is ruled out as a possible cause of the experiences of Narada et. al. In the absence of pratyaksa inference, analogy etc. are also ruled out. This leaves only codana, which is a Vedic urging or impelling to act or believe in a certain way.i6 The three upper classes — Brahman as, Ksatriyas, and Vaisyas ~ were the only ones allowed to study the Veda. And as members of this subset of society Narada et. al. most probably possessed the necessary Sruti passages. The final statement is in response to the opponent's earlier observation (para. 9) that the Buddhists and other heterodox schools could claim sanction on the basis of a lost Sruti or Sakha. The proponent suggests that no one, including the Buddhists themselves, even entertains the possibility that the Buddha's teachings are rooted in codana. Since they claim independence from any Vedic source one need not worry about them seeking legitimacy on the basis of a lost Sruti or Sakha. 12. -q"? ^Fcf ^IcMI-Tr^ ^t^TT tVMH ^tq^^TFf17 -ffH I Kk-MM^W 1 6 codana is described in Mimamsa -sutra 1.1.2 as the designator of dharma: Commenting on the same passage, Sahara defines codana as: [qf-HI-mt y <=Jci°r> <=t"^ <r1H "(codana is) a statement which promotes activities." In Hermeneutics and Language in Purva Mimamsa (p. 150) Othmar Giichter remarks, "it forms the primordially authoritative section of the Vedas, as it is pure Sabda as pramana, i.e. it has no extraneous source leading to error." 1 7 To judge from the plural in the next sentence the original reading might well have been: the plural referring to the codanas or irufi urgings for the various Pancaratra practices. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 1 35 P-R: Regarding (your question) "When there is the basis of a codana why is the codana not seen?", we respond that those (codanas), being always inferrable, are never given expression. If it be argued, "How can the unuttered be a source?," this is not a fault. As in the case of a continuously maintained text [e.g., the Veda] its existence is proven on the basis of being remembered in an unbroken sequence. As the proof of existence is from the continuity of the tradition of the text so in that same way the proof of existence (of a codana) is from the continuity of the tradition that a Sruti is always inferrable. Comrn: The author here restates the opponent's query (para. 6) as to why Narada et. al. did not preserve the original statements on which they based their teachings. He then answers to the effect that their basis on codana was so obvious that they did not feel the need to continually refer to it.19 13. cH? 3T5^FrR, 3F^T-4 «*M < I - ^ F f - q ¥ ^ C^fcf) 2 0 I % ^ f t ^ T ^ X -SO N >* N N •NO N -SO P-R: This is illogical because (if this defence is accepted) there would be the predicament of having to accept the maxim of a blind tradition. Indeed that codana which is never uttered is an even more difficult phenomenon to find because it is not amenable to the operation of sensory perception etc. by 19 As will be seen below this should not be regarded as the author's final defence. It appears instead to be part of a rather tentative uttara-paksa. 20 m is a questionable addition by the editor (or an unnecessary word in the ms.) as the sentence does not really require it. Tantra-iuddhx Section 1 36 all people. And then there would be the baselessness of the smrti as well. Inference of a lost Sruti is decidedly preferable to this. Nor is an occurrence of loss impossible. Non-availability (of Srutis) due to the destruction of men and through inattentiveness, idleness and sloth is indeed seen. Comm: The author now rejects his own proposal on the same grounds as those used against the Buddhists; that is, the mere continuity of a tradition is no testimony to its validity because there are examples in which followers of a certain school blindly perpetuate a set of unfounded teachings. The author is aware of the flimsy nature of the argument that because Pancaratra adherents nowadays claim support in the Veda, the original founders must have had such support. Either Narada et. al. did have access to a Vedic statement endorsing their school and/or their beliefs or they didn't have such access and merely preserved the tradition that there was such a statement or mula-Sruti. Parts of the Veda have been lost for various reasons. People entrusted with preserving certain texts have been killed while others have grown careless and lazy over the years and have neglected their duties. 14. 3T*r q ^ T ^ - ^ f H - H e J ^ H Y I H I ^ ^ 3 T f V ^ c f H l H s 3?fq y i H I ^ - W " f f Opp: Then, when something becomes valid through being based on a lost sruti, there is the predicament of the authoritativeness of the smrtis of the Buddha et. al. as well. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 1 37 P-R: This is not so, because (in that situation) inference of a Sruti is outside the realm of possibility other than through a tradition of human recollection which in turn is due to connection with the Veda. 15. 3m fatJHM-^II^Hld-^fH-WT JfRT: 4Hd^: I -^R-Mlcbq STfq TO-^"srqq^'a-T?"^1;: I t>T^-q"5FT^-M"fddc=*ld q^rcrrf qiTR-^'^T^ •N C OK. N N P-R: Or, alternatively, these smrtis are (really) based on the Srutis found in existing Vedic recensions. However, even then, finding a source Sruti is not a predicament for us. (We can declare that) the basis of (our) smrti is not found by us because of being spread over different sections (of texts), because of the possibility of human negligence and because of the branches being (geographically) scattered about. Comm: It is not the case that one must infer the existence of a Sruti in order to account for the recollection of the Buddha, etc. Unlike Narada and the other early Pancaratrikas, the Buddhists did not have nor did they claim to have veda-samyoga: connection with the Veda. Their teachings stem from the Buddha. One could justifiably hypothesize a possible lost mula-Sruti for the Buddhists only if they had such a tradition of veda-samyoga and if their traditionally handed down teachings could not be explained other than through connection with the Veda. Thus there are no grounds for supposing a pralina-Sruti for the Buddhists. A further possibility is proposed that the relevant mula-Sruti may not be lost but has just remained unnoticed for various reasons. That is, they are not lost in time but are being maintained at places unknown or inaccessible to us. Tantra-iuddha: Section 1 38 The author in this way disclaims any blame or embarrassment over being unable to produce the sort of Vedic citations required to endorse the Pancaratra school. P-R: If it be argued, "Why were these same Vedic statements not collected by them?" we say, how would it be if these statements were taught? In such a case there could be a conflict with one's own selected text because of an alteration in the sequence. And by this viewpoint, by the omission of the explanatory passages, evert others could study merely the injunctions or simply that which is useful in performing (ritual) action. In that case the loss of the Veda would follow. Nor were Narada et. al. necessarily students of all the (Vedic) recensions. It is possible that having heard through effort just the meaning from students of the other recensions they would record (those contents) even with their own words for the sake of recollection. Comm: Each Brahmana family was traditionally responsible for passing on a part of the Veda. Different people thus specialized in different Vedas and aspects of ritual. 2 1 Despite the editor's uncertainty over the correct reading, qf5"*n«"Mv-cHc| alone fits the context much better. It is also possible, albeit less likely, that the editor is suggesting as a reading cf^P^TT^Tc^TcT "because of their having a different sequence." Tantra-s'uddha: Section 1 39 Dr. Aklujkar has suggested the phrase kramanytvat svadhyaya-virodhah may be interpreted in two ways: (i) The insertion of the collected statements into the scholar's own specialized section of the Veda (thereby improperly disrupting the traditional order of study and recitation) would create a conflict, or, (ii) The scholar would be studying portions from outside his assigned text, again precipitating a conflict. If Sruti statements were collected out of context in the manner implicit in the opponent's question it would set a dangerous precedent. The author is implying that the whole Veda must be preserved in its entirety and in its traditional order. One cannot extract sentences here and there and teach them out of context in order to provide doubters with a sanction for the Pancaratra system. 17. ^ ^ ^ T ^ q - f a ^ l N N r ^ 5 l H H 3TT>ci I tFTcR faf^-^H^Id d - M e i - ^ R ^ T - m ^ T C ^ ? ^ ) 2 2 I T^T cT ^ TT^cR^T failed TTcTT: SJcTq:, d^lfa W&ti terq ^"RFcT I cr^-fatTW-Hf^TfTFf H^R 3i4lMfa<+>cc<K 3TWcf H: I N ON. N C N N N 22 Assuming the ms. reading was the editor is correct in suggesting ^M. 2 3 f=RH y. yllc^ is the probable reading. If f=4"=4 <yU<3N is taken as the reading it could be interpreted as "because of explaining this part (elsewhere) - in which recension . . ." The implication then would be that Narada eL al. did in fact state the sources of the statements they used, but these have apparently been lost However this rendering seems unlikely given that no word for "elsewhere" is used and no mention is made of where else it is explained. Additionally, the author has just finished suggesting the possibility of forgetting the source. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 1 40 P-R: Nor is there ignorance about the specific kind of statement (the source sruti was). Since the smrti has the form of an injunction, we conclude its source sruti is also like that, not something having the form of an explanatory statement. Moreover, even forgetting (the precise nature of the source Sruti) is possible on their part [i.e., Narada et. al.]. For the forgetting of a part of the text is found even in the present time. Even when these Srutis exist in other Vedic recensions, because of forgetting this part — in which recension and how they are recited — they (Narada et. al. or people in general) remember for the establishment of validity merely that it is Vedic in nature. The specific knowledge of the particular (Sakha) is, however, ignored by them because of being of no use. Therefore it is established that because of being based on the Veda, the Pancaratra smrti is valid. It is said, "Or else, by reason of a common agent inference could be valid." (Mimamsa-sutra 1.3.2) Comm: The author responds to the earlier criticism (para. 10) that the Pancaratrikas may not even know what sort of Sruti Narada et. al. based their teachings on. It is to the Pancaratrikas' benefit to claim a vidhi rather than an artha-vada for their source. Dr. Aklujkar has noted the following: if the earlier occurrence of vakya-viSesa (at the beginning of the paragraph) is taken to mean vakyanam viSesah "specific features [e.g., vidhitva, artha-vadatva, etc.] of sentences," which is also a possible meaning, tesam here could be taken to mean "(forgetting of) sentence distinctions." However if it were intended one would have expected the author to use vakya- viSesanam vismaranam and not to put tesam where subjective genitives usually occur. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 1 41 What is really critical for the establishment of validity is that these statements be of Vedic origin — not the names of the recensions in which they are found. The author is using an analogy with ritual performance to defend his case. Sruti and smrti are preserved by the same people — Brahmanas — who perform the actions enjoined by Sruti and smrti.24 In sacrifices there are times when the actions or specific details outlined in the smrti lack a clear basis in Sruti. On such occasions we rely upon the inference of trustworthy persons — the Brahmanas performing the rituals — to establish whether the smrti statement is valid and consistent with the spirit (if not the actual word) of Sruti. The author seems to be saying that just as we can trust Pancaratra Brahmanas in the field of ritual action so too we can trust them when they declare that in their tradition the smrti must at one time have been based on a Sruti even though such a Sruti is no longer preserved. Similarly we can trust Narada et. al. when they say the Pancaratra system is based on the Veda. 24 As noted earlier in fh. 15 the author here implicitly draws on Sahara's interpetation of this sutra. For both disputants, the fact that the agents of the smrti are also the agents of the acts prescribed by the Veda is testimony to the validity of the smrti. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 42 Section 2 - Sruti-smrti relationship V N f^F q ^ R ^ - + 1 ^ I d^-Jd I q f ^ - ^ f R ^ r q 3H^d^-qferl-f^rqc^Td cbc^-s^--3rf^-rc i5 iM*^ ^ £ R - ^ F * F T : y n i u 4 HkciiPd srgrqM Qpp: So it is said that the smrti is valid. This is now to be deliberated: Is the smrti valid even when there is a manifest conflict (with a Sruti) or is it invalid? But is there cause for uncertainty here? In response we say that under both alternatives there is the manifestation of an argument and there is the non-ascertainment of predominance of either argument. The argument for validity is that where there is no difference in being Vedic between the cognition generated by an attested Sruti and the cognition generated by an inferred Sruti which invest conflicting properties in a single object [lit. property-possessor], because (the cognitions) are of similar strength the smrti is valid even when there is a conflict with the attested Sruti. The argument for invalidity is that, even when there is no difference in Vedic conformity, the cognition produced by an attested Sruti which has a swift birth takes away the domain (of an issue); hence the cognition produced by an imagined Sruti has no validity. 1 The meaning intended here is that of q^8T-^fo-f^ R T^sfq. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 43 Comm: The dharmin represents the smrti. One Sruti or sruti-produced cognition invests it with an acceptable quality while the other bestows an unacceptable one. If we accept the existence of the lost mula-Sruti then we must also accept its status as comparable to that of the extant Sruti; both must be equally Vedic in nature. And given this equality of authority, a smrti based on the mula-Sruti must also be valid, even if in apparent conflict with the attested Sruti. The argument for invalidity is that when an issue is settled by what is readily available there is no need to invent other means (e.g., an imagined Sruti) to settle it. P-R: Set aside the consideration of validity and non-validity (that you propose) as if a conflict is proven. (First) this needs to be examined: between which two or where is the conflict? To begin with, there is no conflict in the experience of two cognitions which arise from their own components [i.e. are produced self-sufficiently], because of the acceptance of (the thesis of) self-validation. The Mimamsaka position is that the validity of all knowledge is in its very nature. Indeed, that alone is self-validity which consists in the cause of cognition also being the cause of validity. Therefore there is no conflict 2 The editor reads 3-J-J-HM, but cl-tHM seems more appropriate. 3 The editor's addition of a negative is contextually demanded. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 44 [i.e. the conflict we are talking about cannot be found] in the experience (of the two cognitions). Nor (is there a conflict) in application, because the valid cognitions are the cause in their own domain of giving rise to proceeding forth, abstention and indifference . Comm: The following arguments should be regarded as a tentative uttara-paksa by another, less mature member of the author's camp: a siddhantyekadeSin or acarya-deSlya. He responds to the opponent by putting on hold the proposed issue of debate and attacking its basic premise, namely that some sort of conflict exists. The compound siddhavat-karena literally means, "by the sound 'proven'." The speaker uses it to object to the assumption that the existence of a conflict has already been established. The Mlmamsakas held that all cognitions are self-validating in the sense that they are inevitably true at the time of their occurrence.4 The traditional example of the inherent validity of a cognition is that of a rope mistaken in the dark for a snake. The validity of the snake-cognition is attested to by its results — fear, sweat, goose bumps etc. — all of which occur whether the object is really a snake or merely assumed to be one. These effects are possible only if the cognition is taken as valid. Cognition is here regarded as an event rather than an abstracted or reified entity to be verified over time. Thus our later cognition that the "snake" is actually a rope is as valid (and no more so) than the earlier one. The concept of svatah-pramanya means that all the conditions necessary to prove the validity of a cognition are present in the circumstances of the cognition's generation. 4 See Dasgupta, Vol. 1, p. 372. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 45 When we put a cognition — e.g. "fire is hot" — into practice we can do so in three possible ways. (i) We will apply it; i.e. we will use fire when we need to heat something. (ii) We won't apply it; i.e. we will refrain from using fire when we don't want to heat something. (iii) We will remain indifferent and use or not use it In any case we will be operating under the cognition that fire is hot and this cognition is valid within its own domain of application. Even if we were to believe fire is not hot, this too would be a valid cognition governing our actions. The Pancaratrika's point is that, as good Mlmamsakas he and his opponent must agree that cognitions arise within their own realm or situation and are assumed to be valid at that time. Hence the question of conflict between cognitions doesn't arise on a practical level either. 3ttl«+<Mv:e|ld *q*S" ^  farm: I P-R: The reply in this case is this. In the experience and in the application (of a cognition) a conflict does exist. In the experience, first of all, a conflict definitely exists because of the admission of the badhya-badhaka relationship [i.e., the relationship between that which is to be invalidated and that which invalidates]. In application as well, conflict is indeed evident in the carrying out of (the content of) one (cognition), because of the impossibility of carrying out the (content of the) other. 5 Sandhi not observed in edition. Tantra-Suddhx Section 2 46 Comm: This is now the author presenting the superior uttara-paksa. He objects that even for Mimamsakas the notion of conflicting cognitions is accepted within the framework of the badhya-badhaka relationship. Returning to the well-known example above, the rope is the invalidator or badhaka of the imagined snake which is the badhya. In other words, the later cognition of a rope is what will disprove the earlier cognition of the imagined snake. If I believe something, e.g., "fire is hot," I cannot act as if I didn't believe it. If I do then I must have changed my cognition beforehand. Conflict arises in any situation where a choice must be made between two incompatible actions. H ^ - ^ c = < K ^ * P d - ^ ^ T T : ^ cTTO faRf*?: <H i^>d I f ^ r l « =^TK rr^ <T 6 I (editor's footnote; presumably this was the original ms. reading). 7 sjorj *H?iHs I (see fh. 6) The two emendations made here by the editor appear to have been introduced for syntactical reasons. Dr. Aklujkar has suggested that the reading could be, gcqSTRt^-SijfcT-iTvT W q*Mkd<-gcq8J-2rf^--5reJ W I 3TH"?q . . ."The source (of a smrti) has strength in the form of either, (i) an attested or inferred Sruti, or (ii) a tfrufi attested by another person (such as Narada). In any case, there cannot be a conflict between a Sruti and a smrti because the strengths of the two are not equal." Such a reading would have the added advantage of removing what is otherwise an inconsistency in understanding the first part of the compound q c q & M fad-?TfcT-«<eK^ »T. In para. 1 above pratyaksanumita-Sruti is used as a dual with a distinction drawn between a pratyaksa-Sruti and an anumita-Sruti. Here however, I have rendered it in the singular. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that manuscript corruption caused balam mulam to be altered over the centuries to balatvena. It is perhaps conceivable though, that a preceding sentence or phrase has been lost. 8 This had clearly become one expression meaning "but" by the author's time. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 47 MI^Ndlfa-^Fq-faw faTTV-f^^^d-q^T W ' W J W - f ^ r t l r ! I P-R: Another [respectable] person says that whether through the strength of a sruti inferred to have been evident or through the strength of a Sruti evident to other beings [i.e. an extant Sruti], because (the two Srutis) are of equal strength conflict never occurs between a sruti and a smrti. But a mutual conflict can be entertained between two Srutis. And in that case there is an option or non-conflict between the two through the arrangement of (varying) subject-matter or through having differences in domain. Or it may be that there is a conflict between them only in the domain of application. In any case whatsoever of a conflict between Sruti and smrti, the consideration of validity and non-validity is not to be undertaken by the declaration of "proven" [i.e. assuming a conflict is proven] because of (the acceptance of a conflict) being prohibited (by us) at that very time (at which it is raised). Moreover (in this matter) some declare a rejoinder [i.e. avoidance of our preceding objection]. In this view, the consideration of validity or non-validity as if a conflict is "proven" pertains to the texts of the Buddhists, Jains and Pasupatas etc. which are outside the three (Vedas) in this view. Comm: Apara may be a pun on a-para, "one of our own." It is frequently used in Sastric literature to refer to a thinker whose view is acceptable within certain limits to the author. The first line poses problems in interpreting purusantara. In para. 7 below the term refers to people far in the past such as Narada et. al., but here it seems to indicate presently existing beings other than 9 One would normally expect something like atra "in this matter" here. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 48 the two disputants. If we apply the former interpretation to both instances of the compound we are left with the problem of distinguishing the mula-Sruti known to Narada from the anumita-Sruti. For a faithful Mlmamsaka — which both the author and his opponent appear to be — a true Sruti cannot be discredited. Hence there are really only two possibilities in cases of a perceived conflict. The first is that the two offer alternatives in a certain action or ritual and hence we have the option (vikalpa) of following one or the other. The second is that the statements actually pertain to different areas of application, a notion which presumably has been misunderstood before. As for the question of a conflict between Sruti and smrti; it's a non-starter. The Pancaratrikas will reject the possibility the instant it is raised. If a Sruti-smrti conflict does not really exist, why do respectable authors [e.g. Jaimini, Kumarila] discuss the topic at all? One way to explain interest in the topic is to say that they do not engage in discussion to cast doubt on the validity of systems like the Pancaratra, but to point out the unacceptability of non-Vedic smrtis. P-R: Another viewpoint is as follows. Between cognitions generated by smrtis and Srutis there is this very distinction; that is to say, there is some distinction made on the basis of their source because of one being based on an attested Sruti and the other on an inferred Sruti. Only because of this Tantra-Suddhx Section 2 49 (distinction) is there the consideration of validity and invalidity when there is a conflict between the two. y w i " ^ ^ T T f ^ c i c T O i 3 F q * r r % ^ ?qfo: q q T ^ s r g q F m ?fcT f ^ * ^ H N ^ F c f 3 F r ^ 3 ^ i q TT^T T P T H i Qpp: What is arrived at thus far? The smrti is valid even when there is conflict. How? Because of the prior establishment of the validity of the smrti. Otherwise there would be the contradictory statement that, "The same smrti is valid and invalid." The validity of the smrti would be unstable since when based on a Sruti it is valid; when there is a conflict with (the Sruti) it is based on error, greed etc. Comm: The opponent here attempts to extrapolate from the author's own argument. Whereas the Pancaratrika had been arguing for the validity of his school's smrti in circumstances where there was no direct corroboration within the extant Sruti, the opponent now suggests that validity be extended to any smrti, even when it conflicts with an extant Sruti. In essence this would be a condition of de facto universal validity for all smrtis. F^T ^ r f : q ^ F H "I3f^ ^tt>T" "3Frfe£ ^tfcf," "STFfTrV MURH *JjrfcT " H | ( O K £ q Y l f W aj^TtV f fd, cRT obl^lT^d^ ^cTlHT ^ ^ - ^ - ^ R -10 The editor's reading omits mis negative but it is contextually demanded. Tantra-s'uddhx Section 2 50 N ON, "N Opp: Moreover, if Srutis did not state mutually conflicting meanings, then there could be no hypothesis of another source for a smrti which contradicts the Sruti. But when even Srutis having mutually conflicting meanings are found such as, "Sacrifice when (the sun is) risen," "Sacrifice when (the sun is) not risen," "Take the 16th (step of the soma sacrifice) at night," "Don't take the 16th (step of the soma sacrifice) at night," then, in the case of some smrtis whose meanings conflict with attested Sruti statements and whose sources are the statements of an invisible [i.e. inferred] Sruti, the rejection of a Sruti evident to other persons [i.e. Narada et. al.] and made available by the (traditional) recollections of persons in contact with the Veda « merely because a conflict with the studied statements is seen ~ is improper. Comm: Given that contradictions exist, the mere existence now of a Sruti statement saying one thing does not rule out the possible earlier existence of a contrary Sruti. That it may contradict an existing Sruti is unimportant since we see that existing Srutis conflict with one another anyway. 8. "R ^5f5" gfa ftFRrT (^ t. 5.. V. l O ?fo -^^ TcfRT ^-q^TR qfcT N N N > © yniuif cr -^farr^ c^ qmT^ TR ?cqtf-uR#q ejttrq i Opp: As has been said, "It is not taught to one only" (Mlmamsa-sutra 2.4.18), the validity of all Srutis is undifferentiated with respect to all beings. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 51 Therefore, the following view is to be accepted. Just as the attested Sruti statements are valid even when there is a mutual conflict of meaning, so also the attested and the inferred Sruti statements (are valid). In this way either the validity of the smrtis should always be accepted, or the non-validity. But the "half-an-old-woman" principle should not be applicable, "Validity when there is no conflict with the attested Sruti but non-validity when there is conflict with it." Comm: Each Vedic group possessed its own traditional recension but the details of rites in each such work were not intended to be restricted to that Sakha only. They were universal in application. The opponent likens the status of the qualified validity of the smrti to a well-known proverb or principle succinctly summarized by the compound, ardha-jaratlya. A young man was offered an older woman in marriage. He replied that he would like to marry her body but not her face. A modern counterpart would be that of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. 9. 3Tfq -^fa*«g;c=*-5lMcFcHsfo *Hdk^ cF% ^FFH11 I cP? H^c^ll °hcqqp-d I dTTO °Mfaw TOT«fcc||(<jHI ^ WRT^rs^FH T^cfcr d~?-l^»i^ HiywM HllW«=M: °r>cM-Mp-d I 3TdT 4)Hm\^dlP:d°r>MI WTT I 1 1 This may be a reference to the Pancaratra sage Sandilya, cited in Section 3 in a quote from Sankara's bhasya on the Brahma-sutras. 1 2 The editor reads lj<=< t^til^f but this was likely an oversight or printing error. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 52 Opp: Moreover, even retainers of tradition knowledgeable of the conflict (of the Pancaratra system) with the Veda are seen in (your) system. In those cases [on the part of those people] what else, other than the strength derived from being based on the Veda, can be the cause of the (tradition of) recollection? Nor should one proclaim that (certain parts of the smrti) are invalid because of mundane [i.e. verifiable] causes such as greed etc., because then there would be the predicament of the invalidity of the entire smrti. For how is it possible not to imagine that there is a mundane cause, or that (the smrti) is somehow suspicious? And thus the materialists declare that every Vedic ritual action whose purpose is non-mundane (actually) has a mundane purpose. They also imagine conflict on the basis of any reason whatsoever. Therefore, when the invalidity of a smrti is accepted in some cases on the basis of having a mundane purpose etc., the atheists imagine invalidity everywhere by extension from that. Hence no scope should be granted by the Mlmamsakas to the atheists. Comm: The motivation behind the first two sentences is unclear. In this section the opponent seems to share with the Pancaratrikas the same basic belief that the Veda was the primary source of Narada et. al. Earlier thinkers of the iruti-smrti relationship have expressed the opinion that the validity of a smrti not supported by sruti should be dependent upon the absence of a drsta-karana (ulterior or worldly motive, vested interest). The opponent thinks that this is an unreasonable condition and that his approach will result in getting rid of it, thus simplifying the theory. For all statements it is possible to imagine an ulterior motive. Thus, the opponent questions why the author would want to open himself to all such potential objections and controversies by insisting on purity of motive for a smrti to be valid. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 53 O "-O 0\, N *Mcft<Hl" |^ cJt<io-M, tpFR TtjfrT-yiHI^H 34MeiM^-MM I ^jfcT-yWIu-M-Ht q^nf^ H ^ I ^ ^ - f ^ T t ^ s f q l 5 3 T f ^ T ^ T 3TRTT yiMlu^H ffcT Opp: Moreover, if the Veda does not state a contradictory meaning or one having a worldly purpose, then a smrti stating a meaning in conflict with a Sruti and having a mundane purpose would abandon its basis in Sruti. When actions such as the offering of a sacrificial fee to the priests (or the pounding and grinding of rice) which have mundane purposes, are prescribed by even the Veda, it is impossible to declare that (the smrti) is non-Vedic or invalid because of having a worldly purpose. Therefore, in the case of smrtis, only having a basis in the Veda is to be retained; the validity of the smrti, on the other hand, is not to be denied because of having a worldly purpose etc. Therefore it is proper that, since it is (already) established that the smrtis are valid, even when there is a conflict with the Veda their validity is unchanged. i i . srsTr^Tct i srfcT-f^ rcYSt ^Rfcr-qrornro a r a ^ s R , C R - 3 T ^ R T $ srfci-<• N N -j> is the editor's reading, which is understandable, given the common pronunciation of vedaS Sruti as veda-Sruti. It should be noted however, that up to this point the author has implicidy identified veda with Sruti and it seems an unlikely distinction for him to make now. 14 The status of this insertion by the editor is unclear. The compound was probably in the ms. and he could not make sense of i t Mimamsa-koSa Vol . 7, p. 4492 notes the compound frf*1 cf - fq^T which is contextually more appropriate here — "pounding and grinding (of rice)." !5 Sandhi not observed in the edition. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 54 -so -N N C O\ o\. -so >e TO qcqa5-5iTcqT ?R*rT H W ^ r i : I 3 T q f r t cf" ^ - R q q , • i M M M H 3 H k H M H TJcT ^ T R q V c o f , q r c q - r ^ ^ l ^ ^ ^ N ^ d - f ^ M ^ ^ l d I ^ ^R: V f tg - ^ T T f q f ^ M H ^ T R -fasiM-faN-MWgK* H l O d , cT^ " ^ ? T T q 3 T f q *TW^t>WrR t>RT4c1 I ^ % f ^ T F F f o h ^ l f ^ d q m F q c 3 « * f , H^f cTcT ^ R R T ^ c f l ^ H # 5 ^ T T ^ T -P-i?: On this matter we say that when there is a conflict with a sruti the validity of a smrti is to be disregarded; when there is no conflict, the smrti is valid from being based on a Sruti. Those smrtis which conflict with the Veda are all based on error; they are not based on a Sruti. There is no independent validation of smrtis. Nor would there be the inference (that they are) based on the Veda, because of conflict with an attested Sruti. Only so long as the meaning (of smrti statements) is not taken away by an attested Sruti is there the possibility of inferring (the existence) of a Sruti as the source of those smrti statements. However, when their own domain is taken away then inference itself will not at all obtain. Between two cognitions (which invest) conflicting properties in a single object there is no delivering of its own domain by a subsequent slow-moving cognition when that same domain is communicated previously by a swift-moving (cognition), because of the carrying away of the domain by that earlier cognition. However, where there is no rapidly-moving cognition which takes away the domain of a later cognition, even a slow-moving cognition is not blocked. For it is not established by Lord's command that if a cognition once gains validity it should always possess it. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 55 Comm: The first statement harks back to a similarly-worded argument for smrti-validity by the opponent in para. 1. As in that instance, here too speculation regarding other cognitions is denied once an issue is settled. 12. TTcT fasiHH^ vdcMilHM" ^-fertf^RT ^ t T R T T fa^ll^H T^T ^  3W(j^d, R cTF7 oh^ lpM^ Si'-Mkq-cTTO: ^ WcrfcT I ^ ^ t 4 > - ^ - ^ r ^ R T farter ^ k q f q dHkHi ^ s ^ r s q fcq^  f^R TO^m arfer, -*JV*WI?M«U<*-^ q r q - ^ ^ T H i ^ ^ ^ ^ C P ? ;jc*rrf: q ^ f t f H ?fd ^NmdNRf^ cr: i P-R: For every arising cognition which is not blocked by an opposing, stronger cognition there would definitely be the acquisition of itself [i.e. it would come into being]. However if the source (of a cognition) which is coming into being, is denied by some (other cognition), its (the former cognition's) self-acquisition is never possible. But it is not the case that there can be no self-acquisition by a cognition, whose birth was (once) impeded by a stronger (cognition), even in the absence of the stronger (cognition). Nor is it by any means true that if there is self-acquisition (of a cognition) when a conflict does not exist, the self is to be attained by that (same cognition) even when a conflict does exist, because the logic of general rules and exceptions is possible everywhere. And since a general rule is shown (to apply) in some domain an exception in all domains is not impossible. Therefore, having discerned the domains of the general rule and the exception, invalidation and validation are to be distinguished by scholars. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 5 6 Comm: So long as a smrti statement is not being refuted by a Sruti statement it has the potential of assuming authority. A cognition which comes into its own when not contradicted is in different waters when striving to be recognized in the face of opposition. As the author goes on to point out, there are exceptions to general rules, but these are not unconditionally allowable. Hence, all smrtis cannot be arbitrarily declared valid. 13. c[ ^mk -M-^f^-TTT^T y|HI<JqNIH|uq-o.qc^K: | qf f% <HIHI^dT-^ t ^ - T T T ^ r r ° -Mc^ (d , rRq q jT-dj* u l °M-ufc4^HlfH" ( j u T - H ^ P d : T^TH, * j f e i ? i -U H ^ tfrr-Pic^rri-^iyHcclId I 3W ^ - ^ y i c h l - ^ f ^ ^ - M H ^ I ^ I - f a ^ r r i -^TTMHc^ldN cjfqdTq HRRT^-^fec?iH 3Tfq ^ - H ^ I V ^ m ^ " ^ ^ I c T T ^TT^ •N -© -s© <7V O -V -sfi C x P-i?: There is, on the other hand, no (justified) designation of validity and non-validity merely by looking (at a situation) in a general way. According to one who designates (validity) merely by general observation, the water of a mirage would remove thirst because a drink of water is a means of removing thirst. Or conversely, because of mirage-water's inability to remove thirst, real water would also not be effective in quenching thirst. Only so long as there is no invalidation in the form, "This is not water, this is a mirage," is the cognition of water valid. In the same way, only to the extent that the domain of the smrti is not denied by an attested Sruti is the validity of a smrti preceded by the inference of a (mula-) Sruti. 1 6 The editor's reading is actually q i^ ' -d^Tfe^*^ but this clearly contradicts the author's intention. The loss of a negative in the original manuscript or the printed edition is quite conceivable in the given phonetic situation. 1 7 The editor's reading is •HIH6KJ but this again clearly contradicts the author's intention. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 57 Comm: The term mrga-trsnika literally means "thirst of a deer" but is a common idiom for mirage. It was so named after thirsty deer who fruitlessly chased after distant mirages in the desert. i8 14. 3TcT: °MpMd TRrf: gmrrq ° M | \ R 3WW|iu( <r-Miq^ ^TcR^m^df V C N -\ ^TVf-t - 5 R T-q^t I cTTqR T^f ^  ^FcF*f "*Hfuf TRrfFff •so N HTRTcT qrq85-?TrqT STc^FTTTR^T fa*^cc*R ^-^^^-^Tjcfmf ^ r -P-P: Thus, there is no predicament of a semi-murder for those who would determine by rules that a smrti is sometimes valid and sometimes invalid . For this very reason it should not be said that only the validity of all smrtis should be accepted, and that the validity of one and the invalidity of another should not be accepted. Therefore it is established that all smrtis which conflict with the Veda are to be disregarded because an attested Sruti will block the inference of (another) sruti, because smrtis which conflict with the Veda cannot have a basis in the Veda, (and) because it is possible (such smrtis) are based on error. Comm: A semi-murder is like being a little bit pregnant; either one is or one isn't. The opponent had suggested universal validity as a means of avoiding what he saw as a serious problem: the uncertainty caused by 18 See also the Tantra-varttika on Mimamsa-sutra 1.3.3 (p. 286, Gosvami edition) for a related discussion. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 58 situational fluctuations in the validity of smrtis. For the author, however, this problem does not arise. So long as the smrti always accedes to the primacy of a Sruti we have a means of consistently assessing validity. Nonetheless, each situation must be assessed individually with particular weight given to the applicability of any extant Sruti statement. 15. 3TT? I ^ fa - T R c ^ K f W F q 3TOfR?ri sfrfe-q^-SflcRK ^ I W qRI«Jk^M Wf~H: ^ H : q ^ M - M ^ R 3TR^T I ?Tcm ^ ^Tf*THT ^ f a d ^ Opp:19 (An opponent) says this. Let option be resorted to between a sruri and a smrti, as between two srufis (prescribing the use of) rice or barley (in rites and sacrifices). An utter invalidation would not be resorted to. P-R: With regard to that we say that as for the the option (between statements) of equal strength, it is resorted to in some cases by the axiom of last resort, since (option) is flawed by eight faults. In that case, what is the scope for not resorting to option between those taught as unequal? The smrti, for its part, is not independently valid like the Sruti with respect to dharma, so that it could go to the path of option. As it is a dependently valid [i.e., it anticipates the aid of some other means] means of knowledge the smrti has not mounted the path of validity on it's own. And how can that which is unable even to exist when opposed by a Sruti rise to the status of being an option? 19 This is not the primary opponent but rather a doubter. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 59 Comm: An opponent with possibly somewhat different motives tries a different tack. Certain Sruti statements recommend rice for use in sacrifices while others recommend barley.2 0 The solution accepted by the Mimamsakas21 is that the use of either is optional; in other words both statements are equally valid. "Fault" here has primarily the sense of "theoretical inflation, sacrifice of economy." agatika-gati means a state or situation in which none of the usual or preferable ways of avoiding a difficulty is available. In other words, one is "cornered." The author asks rhetorically how it is possible to entertain option as a solution when deciding between statements of unequal authority, considering that option is considered with great reluctance even in the case of equally strong sruti statements. 16. ? f F q - ^ - f a * ^ q ^ opvm 3T^ -^ m-<^ <i^ H ffcT I V -sO -S cT3 d ^ d I 2 2 "sTrfef^ R q^TdY '^T^R 3Tfa ^TFFq HHWH I ^ ^ H ^ 6 M ^ 1 cT^  qFrf q^ -=ll°r-M-^ Td"" yiHl uq FFTT obK'JlHN^Id^M, •so V STWTT^Rq y^l^kcf q^"-J|)^3T^TR-yMI^IN^-MM 3TlfT-°bci°^ M I rrsrer srfq, ^ Hifa ^cFrr q*fr*T-*iivH^H q^n-MMdiA, q^fq srqrcdrq qmpq^q ^ F R STTWritqcof, cR-H^I^HI^-=td^iyH|uq^ qR: qft?qTTT ^ ^ c ^ R t •s* N N O -so ^rqi TT^ftqR 4\Jr±\ q^T^ F H I t^cftqsfq qiCH-yPic-MNlYsqTCcrTarq^" qRcq^dTqRFf q^rFftdrq ^ f W i ?fn %k^i<l ^tqi: i 2 u Sahara also raises the possibility of vikalpa between Sruti and smrti (using the same analogy with the rice and barley sruti statements) but then rejects it in his bhasya on Mtmamsa-sutra 1.3.3: 3T«T tVq?f fatft t^ FFFcqd- ^fr%-qq^N^j^-T*FdTcn? I HWPd . . . 2 1 See for instance Mlmamsa-sutras 12.3.9 and 12.3.24. 2 2 The ensuing explanation follows the Tantra-vaittika on Mimaihsa-sutra 1.3.3 (p. 287, Gosvami edition). Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 60 Opp: How can the option between ones of equal strength be flawed by eight faults? P-R: It is explained as follows. "One should sacrifice with rice," "One should sacrifice with barley"; both statements are valid. In that situation the statement (prescribing) barley becomes inapplicable [i.e., not resorted to] when resorting to the statement (prescribing) rice, because of the impossibility of simultaneously performing both (a rice offering and a barley offering). There, the validity pertaining to the barley statement is to be abandoned without cause and the truth of invalidity is to be accepted, this truth being similar to the object of a sixth sense and being determinable by the absence proof. In this way also, when there is the acceptance of barley as the means of performance for some reason one must again resort to the authority of what was previously discarded. Four faults apply in one statement since there is also a renunciation of the non-validity of what is accepted by this refutation. The four faults are, the renunciation of what is indicated when there is also a second (choice), the recourse to what is not indicated, the employment of what is rejected, (and) the renunciation of that which is brought through effort [i.e. the inferred invalidity of one statement]. Comm: The first two faults arise immediately when the priest chooses rice, for instance. The very act of choosing is an indication that the barley injunction is somehow invalid or less valid than the rice injunction. This means that the given validity is abandoned and an absent invalidity is taken to be actually there. We really have no means to ascertain this absent validity and so we have to presuppose it is known through anupalabdhi, (or abhava, as Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 61 it is called here) .23 An analogy of the range (gocara) of something non-existent is given to explain this. If a cognition arises independent of perception by the five accepted senses we are forced to concede the existence of a sixth sense or means of cognition, albeit such a sense is not admitted by philosophers. If in future one decides to use barley in the sacrifice one is in effect undermining the validity of the situation reached when barley was rejected. The final sentence is a formulaic restatement of the four faults. To summarize in more concrete terms, they are: (i) If barley is not used then a Vedic injunction is set aside for no good reason. (ii) Through not being followed the barley injunction is treated as invalid, according to the absence-proof. (iii) If barley is later used then one is accepting an injunction whose validity was previously rejected. (iv) The previous judgement of invalidity accorded to the barley injunction is now rejected. These same four difficulties similarly apply to the rice statement if rice is first disregarded and later used, leading to a total of eight faults. 17. cT^ rrfq cTFq-<Meicc<|c{ d|c*J»rNI^|clM sTT%-WqR f W ^ q 3TrfacT: I •SB N N s. sTRR 3Tfq qqWRRTi? 3T^ qHT-qMc^ M<-^ R^ Tc[ ^*PTR<>6 M*-M 23 This pramana, accepted by Kumarila but not Prabhakara, was not included in the discussion in Section 1. 24 The addition of the negating prefix by the editor is contextually justified. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 62 P-R: Nevertheless, because (the Sruti statements are) of equal strength and because there is no other recourse the option of rice or barley has been resorted to. Because of the validity of the two, because of the non-detenriination of the superiority of either, and because of the impossibility of performing both simultaneously, even by God, the invalidity of both follows (if option is disallowed). The hypothesis of invalidity is a situation with no way out. When another resort exists however, the invalidity hypothesis is unsuitable. In such a case, the hypothesis of the invalidity of one only is better than the hypothesis of the invalidity of both, from the principle that a wise man abandons half when the loss of everything arises (as a possibility). Comm: If option were not a possibility then we could consider treating both statements as invalid. However that would amount to undermining the reliability of the entire scripture. 18. arqrc an? i *TT fa<*>C-MIs^-^ra-^^cc<iH I ^ H ^ 4 T S ^ 7 T I FR^TT OX N >0 X -*« -NO X ^IK^-H yW|u-q-Mi><-M|J|: | P-R: Another says thus (on the matter). Let there not be option, because of being flawed by eight faults. Let there be a combination. Let a sacrifice be performed by mixing. In that case, the validity of both Sastra (statements) is adhered to (and) there is no renunciation of the validity of either Sastra (statement). Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 63 Comm: As before, apara is probably not an opponent but rather another member of the author's camp. 19. 3 ^ V - M d I f*W-qa> ^TT^-sTRWfq WRT^R Y<SUdft^ldN, ^TK^-^Hl fq sh^FTf t^Tq^-WT-^T^Tc^" yfdMK^fd, qq-^II^M 3Tfq H^ TT I 0*Fl"?)25 cT?T M ^ K ^ I ^ - ^ R - M l f q I rHT W ^ - g ^ R T t q «H^ T TTET 7Epr: ^ T R , *iM4ig: I 3TH: •S N *s N P-i?; On this matter we reply thus. With regard to a combination the validity of both Sastra statements would disappear because both would convey (simultaneously) independent and dependent effectiveness [which is logically impossible]. To explain. The Sastra (prescribing) rice teaches that the sacrifice (using rice) is effective independently (of other materials); the Sastra (prescribing) barley does likewise (for barley). According to this view (advocating) the use of a combination, there would actually be no sacrifice with rice, nor with barley, because both Sastra statements intend to state independent effectiveness. In such a case an injury would actually be done to both Sastra statements, not a service. Thus this alternative of combination is worse (than the alternative of option). Therefore, the option between the Srutis (prescribing) rice and barley is resorted to since the hypothesis that only one is invalid is better than the hypothesis that both are invalid. 25 The editor's uncertain reading here is probably a ms. corruption of T<=U»H. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 64 Comm: The injunction prescribing rice asserts that rice by itself is sufficient to ensure a successful rite and makes no mention of using barley. Similarly the barley injunction is complete in itself. To use both together is to denigrate both statements by implying that rice alone or barley alone is not sufficient, i.e. that the Sruti statement is somehow wrong or incomplete as it stands. At least with option the integrity of one injunction is respected. To perform a sacrifice in a manner not enjoined by some Sruti is to do violence to the scripture. One must adhere strictly to the injunction, without making subjective modifications. 20. ^ ^ faobc-M-qSTT rrsr, 3T5q^^-TOfTd" I T^T ^I^H^ ^ WcTT I faM4q c^^ =h-^ 4co||G|^ KulH fa^Iqd-^q T^^ F?f M^', «T RRT STR^ fqd"-> « -sO X q^ -^ rcqR SFTfTTd: \ -sO N %© P-i?: This alternative of option is indeed faulty, because of the predicament of uncertainty. And this uncertainty is not proper. What is valid is always valid; as well, what is invalid is always invalid. Since there is never a reversal of their own forms by these two, it is possible to make use of a form which is determined by the specification of uniformity, but not an undetermined form. Thus, there would no confidence of any sort when sometimes the same (statement) is valid, sometimes it is invalid. Therefore this alternative of option, although it is also flawed by many faults is permitted in the case of the two Srutis (prescribing) rice and barley because of absolute unavoidability. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 65 Comm: vikalpa doesn't lead to a fixed validity and is thus only a last resort. Its use implies a sruti statement is only conditionally valid, according to time and circumstances, and this renders rather tentative the decision of which to use at what time, e.g. rice or barley. N N >a -s P-R: On the other hand the alternative of option is in no way possible between a Sruti and a smrti, because they are of unequal strength. Therefore, when there is a conflict between a Sruti and a smrti the cognition produced by the Sruti is the invalidator of the cognition produced by the smrti because (the Sruti) is of greater weight. Thus it is proven that the validity of a smrti which conflicts with an attested Sruti is to be disregarded. As has been said, "But when there is conflict it should be disregarded; when there is none then there is inference." (Mimamsa-sutra 1.3.3.). Comm: "Inference" refers to the supposition of an earlier mula-Sruti. Only when there is no conflict between a smrti and an extant Sruti is one permitted to infer the existence of a mula-Sruti for the smrti. 22. s?dlT ^ Rfq^q q^^-^-t>^-^TfH-ym|uq, ^ o R - H t f l - d ^ l d 1 OS, •* OS C OS 3. tf) ffcl l Tantra-Suddhx Section 2 66 P-R: From this (injunction), the validity of a smrti which conflicts with an attested sruti is to be disregarded, because of the possibility of other sources. For, another basis such as error, greed, etc. is possible for a smrti whose source is defeated by an attested Sruti. And when the possibility exists of a perceived source [i.e. an ulterior motive] the hypothesis of an unperceived source is not acceptable. Thus, it is proven that when there is a conflict with an attested Sruti only the smrti is refuted; the Sruti is not (refuted) even when there is conflict with the smrti. As has been said, "And by seeing the motive." (Mimamsa-sutra 1.3.4.). Comm: The author here replies to the opponent's earlier suggestion (para. 9) that he disregard the precondition of having no ulterior motive. 23. ^fH- faTT^r ^qJH-'3Tt^R ^ 3 < Y I H | u ^ N 3 T f t # c f , d~3 ^ - ^ p ^ - q j q -dTHFT I 3Trf THE* H T f ^ - ^ T [ t % - H e J d l f q cTRTT ^ W ^ f d " ; t^FH 26 STOc^ST-X OS, -*0 P-R:. When there is a conflict with Sruti the invalidity spoken of regarding the smrti [lit. whose domain is the smrti\ does not concern smrtis composed by humans in contact with the Veda, because of (the smrtis) bases in statements found in other recensions accessible to other people (such as Narada). For this very reason (the possibility of) being based on error and greed does not arise in the case (of the smrtis of Narada et. al.); rather, these smrtis are based on 26 Sandhi not observed in the edition. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 67 statements attributed to other, unseen recensions. However, if these statements (of the unseen recensions) were also to become accessible, then because they are of equal strength there may be an option. Comm: In other words, don't attempt to extend the invalidity of other contradicted smrtis to the smrtis composed by people like Narada who were aware of Vedic statements that no longer survive. q^/rr "qT ^ - s r r a w H r w " O F T n . s ' O sfcr 127 Opp: How then would you account for this sutra? "But when there is a conflict it should be disregarded; when there is none then there is inference." (Mimamsa-sutra 1.3.3.). P-R: We reply, in that instance, that the sutra is concerned with the smrtis of the Buddhists, Jains, Pasupatas etc. which are outside the Vedas. And it was said by Manu, "These smrtis which are outside the Veda." (Manu-smrti 12.95). Comm: The author interprets Jaimini's intentions as being solely to exclude the possibility of validity for heterodox smrtis. He was thus concerned not with smrtis in general (and certainly not with orthodox smrtis 27 Nearly the same words are found at the end of Kumarila's Tantra-varttika on Mimamsa-sutra i.3.3: q T : ^ - s r r§n: ^ q j r q t . . . (p. 330, Gosvami ed.) Kumarila attributes the line to Manu "and others," — Manavadibhih. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 68 such as those of the. Pancaratrikas) but with heterodox smrtis in a negative sense.2 8 25. «TT, ^ - ^ P l - q ^ - q ^ - ^ q f r T - f a N ^ M Tic* W T I ^PT cTRTT s*frT-*TeTc% VR^tT ITS* qT^R-t>Tt^: I cPT cTF*I-«(<yi<;cUc{ N N -sO N "N >0 * * 0\ C "\ OS. ^raf: yRiuk^HHys^tFqT ? R T P U ^ M V I Qpp: Or rather, let us say the sutra is concerned only with smrtis composed by humans in contact with the Veda. If (the smrtis composed by people in contact with the Veda) are based on (other) Srutis then there actually is a mutual contradiction between two Srutis. And in that case, when there is an option because they are equal in strength, why has it been said there should be invalidity? P-R: On that matter we reply that the validity of a smrti is indeed dependent on the hypothesis of its own supporting sruri, but the validity of the Sruti is decidedly independent (of other sources). And when there is a conflict with it that (attested) sruti blocks the hypothesis of a source for a smrti whose basis would be an hypothesized sruti. And so there is invalidity both ways as well. It is established that those smrtis which conflict in some way with a Sruti are not to be entertained as being valid. 28 This is also the position of Kumarila. Sahara however interprets the surra as pertaining to the disqualification of smrtis in general. There does seem to be no indication in Jaimini's context that a specific class of smrtis is the subject-matter and I would tend to agree with Sahara. 29 The editor actually offered a choice here (presumably because of ms. corruption) between S^d •< and t * £ d ^ but contextually the latter must be correct Tantra-s'uddha: Section 2 69 Comm: The suggestion is that by being derived from a sruti a smrti acquires something of its source's authority. And if a lost sruti taught something apparently contradictory to an extant sruti then its derivative smrti would be similarly contradictory. Yet if the lost sruti is valid (and as a Sruti it surely must be) then how can its smrti be judged invalid for conflicting with the extant sruti ? If an hypothesized Sruti would have to contradict an extant one in order to support a Smrti then there is no possibility of supposing such a Sruti. A smrti may be disregarded for either of the following reasons: (i) If it is contrary to an extant Sruti. (ii) If there is no possible mula-Sruti that would not contradict the extant Sruti. Tantra-Suddha: Section 3 Section 3 - Non-Vedic nature of the Pancaratra system 70 1. r^fcl: yHI^IM fcqsfFPT I f^cT-t>7t^  FTcR CHYWI^ H 3TTR c|(ofdM I C N N© N N© C N N N N C N© »*© N N C N, N© P-R: It has been said that the smrti is valid. When there is a conflict with Sruti the invalidity of the smrti has also been discussed. (The following) is now being considered. Is the Pancaratra smrti outside the Veda like those of the Pasupatas etc. through being contrary to the Sruti, or does it conform to the Veda like the smrtis of Manu etc. because of the absence of conflict? 2. H ^ H P^qr <dlMM£4d I NO NO N ^ * T R I N W=TR TT^fST ^T?Tct^t ^ T c T - g B F f t n ; 3ffafc6ldl ^ f c T %^-ftn£*crc-N -sO "\ V N N NO N NO X NO ON -v *HM-d cTRR^' 3HcKdM 3TRTVR 5fpT-^Silt ^M-dR TTcf mfdM^ d ?fcT ^ I cR TTrfH ^-qf^sTR ^ I %k-MH*llP<uft TRfcl: WTO ftcl N N NO N >4> NO C N 41 M m * H I " ft*rfc*: i P-R: Doubt does not arise in this manner Why? Because of the absence of conflict with the Sruti by the Pancaratra system. How? Because (we) propound (the thesis) of a Lord as established in the Veda, "The one and only God is Vasudeva, the substratum and ruler of the universe." This second ca appears out of place and it is possible some words preceding it have been lost. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 71 And it is stated in the systems that He is the Self of the experiencer. Kriya-yoga and jnana-yoga are taught in the systems as being the means of attainment of the Lord. (Further, it is taught that) having propitiated continuously for 100 years the Lord Vasudeva with (the practices of) approaching, collecting, worshipping, studying one's own traditional lore and yoga, one whose impurities are destroyed reaches the Lord Himself. Al l this is well-known in the Sruti. And the position of the Mrmamsakas is that the smrti which adheres to the Sruti is valid. Comm: In the Pancaratra tradition Vasudeva (an appellation of Visnu)2 is not only the one who creates and oversees the universe, he is what the universe is made of ~ its material as well as efficient cause. Kriya-yoga and jnana-yoga are accepted by the Pancaratrikas as legitimate means for finding God. Kriya-yoga refers to the sacrifices and actions, while Jnana-yoga is the discipline of cultivating true knowledge of the Supreme Being, abhigamana, upadana, ijya, svadhyaya and yoga are the five elements of the panca-kala, the daily practice enjoined upon a devout Vaisnava. The terms are technical3 and refer to: (i) abhigamana - going to the temple in an appropriately devout frame of mind. (ii) upadana - collecting the materials of worship. (iii) ijya - actual worship of the deity. (iv) svadhyaya - recitation of one's assigned scriptures or mantras, e.g., the 2 The two figures are explicitly equated in Visnu-purana 6.5 but they are also distinguised at times. Vasudeva is regarded as the first vyuha or emanation from Visnu in the cycle of Creation. See discussion in para. 12 below on the vyuhas. 3 See also Sankara's commentary on Brahma-sutra 2.2.42 where he lists the practices. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 72 Pancaratragama. (v) yoga - meditation 3. mi)IMdlfa-?F%q yfdMl^d I cT? iraqjfHT 3Tt\j^<ildl ^ c R T Hfarl-3Tfq xT T T T t W T r a H" M-M-d I ^ dfaUT H&W<i-*ll*HM<Ulf\u|: Hl^lHdi: ^ T : cHe3W<3|: ohNlfe°b|!>l ^ fcT I IJHqf ^Tcfaf ^ J M H H^<=K: q r q -TT?:, q?RT d^Mfa^-^qqf-MHliH^IK'JI TiH I H^l^-Ml-M fayfdMtKd I P-R: It is not taught in this way in the systems of the Pasupatas etc. For there Isvara (Siva) is taught not as being the substratum (but) as the ruler, merely the efficient cause and not as the Self (of individual creatures). And this hypothesis of Isvara is outside the Veda. Moreover the Mahesvaras (followers of Mahesvara) by contrast, believe the following. The followers of the teachings of the Great Lord are divided into four: the Pasupatas, Saivas, Kalamukhas and Kapalikas.4 The Lord Mahesvara is the supreme teacher of all these, since they are followers of the path of conduct taught by him. Nevertheless they disagree with each other. Comm: The author here begins his comparison of the Pancaratra concept of God with that expressed in Pasupata theology. He emphasizes the limited role their deity plays in comparison to his own. In the Pasupata school God is merely the agent or instrument of Creation, working with a pre-existing body 4 These same four divisions occur in Agama-pramanya 83 and in Ramanuja's Srl-bhasya on Brahma-sutra 2.2.37 and are generally accepted by scholars, with some variations on the third group. Vacaspati Misra, in his Bhamati on 2.2.37, lists them as the Saiva, Paiupata, Karunika Siddhantins and Kapalikas. "Saiva" may refer to the southern Saiva Siddhanta school as may the "Karunika Siddhantins." For this thesis I have used "Saiva" to refer to this particular school of Saivism discussed by Bhattaraka-s'ri-vedottama, and "Saivite" as a generic noun covering all four schools. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 73 of material. The result is a dualistic system which not only undermines the pre-eminence of God but, according to the author, is also at odds with the Veda.5 4. MWMdl M-^-d I H^TR 3Tf\jMfcK #^R: q^Fff °-MKo^H^d ohi^ uf ^FFf qRfT fcf^R ^t^T^d" ^ tcT I cR ^ K ^ f H[fW fafa-dM P-R: Among them, the Pasupatas believe the following. Conscious beings are transmigratory; their master is Isvara who, for the benefit of transmigratory beings, has composed a sastra of five chapters. There (in the Pancadhyayi) five categories are explained: cause, effect, yoga, practices, and the end of sorrow.7 Among these the cause is of two sorts, instrumental and material. The instrumental cause is Isvara etc. The material cause is unevolved nature referred to by the term Uvara-kala. And the result is the first principle [lit. the Great One]. Comm: The Sastra referred to is the PaSupata-sutras, a work dating from 5 The author here shows agreement with Sankara's critique of God as a "superintendent" in the bhasya on Brahma-sutras 2.2.36 and 37. Nonetheless he apparendy overlooks (or was ignorant of) the existence of monist Saivite systems, e.g. the KaSrnlr school 6 This corresponds closely to Agama-pramanya 84, which reads: 7 These are also listed in Sankara's bhaSya on Brahma-sutra 2.2.36. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 74 the 4th-6th centuries A.D. (according to A. Sastri, the editor of the 1940 edition). Comprised of five chapters it also possesses a bhasya by Kaundinya. The use of the word Pasupata, derived from PaSupati (lit. lord of the beasts), is indicative of humanity's inferior nature relative to Siva. Many of the Pasupata practices were intended to emphasize this beast-like status and nature of humans.8 Each chapter of the Paiupata-sutras deals with one of the five categories, karana refers to the material and efficient causes of the universe (i.e. the Lord), karya is the effect (i.e. the universe from which the existence of a cause, Isvara, is inferred), yoga involves chanting of mantras and inward stillness, the vidhis pertain to bathing in ashes and other purificatory rites and duhkhanta is the state of final, sublime release from transmigratory existence.9 According to Kaundinya's commentary on Paiupata-sutra 2.5 (p. 58:) there are 25 elements or categories, the first being purusa. The next is pradhana — unevolved nature — which is pervaded by purusa. Each element thereafter is pervaded by the one before and every thing is pervaded by Mahesvara.1" Mahat,^ the first principle, is the Sankhya term used to apparently denote 8 The founder of the Paiupata system is traditionally said to be Lakulls'a or Nakulis'a (R.G. Bhandarkar, p. 166). A. Sastri (p. 1) mentions Nakulis'a as the first in a line of eighteen teachers of the Paiupata system. See also Dasgupta, Vol. 5, pp. 6-7. 9 The editor of the PaSupata-sutras, A. Sastri, differs in his definition of the second term. He limits karya to the individual soul (p. 10 of the introduction). 11 Although a Sankhya term, mahat is probably not used here by the author in the Sankhya sense of a synonym for buddhi. In the Pancaratra system, it is clearly distinguished from buddhi, according to Schrader (pp. 72-73) who identified it with prana, "... nothing else can be meant by Mahat than the Prana or Mukhya Prana of the ancient Upanisads, which is both vitality (prana, ayus) and sub- or super-conscious intelligence (prajna), and on whom the five Pranas as well as the senses are said to depend like servants on their master." Tantra-Suddha: Section 3 75 the physical cosmos arising from pradhana. kala is defined by Kaundinya (p. 74) as: 3T5T W&\ " T F T - ° r n ^ - c F ^ T F F T T : W&J'> From this it would seem to be a general term given to both the cause of the manifest world and the world itself. Siva/Pasupati is called kala in 2.23 and kala is thus anything derived from H i m . 1 2 5. qRTtsfq • • 3 f i $ K ^ 3 T f a t q | ± f i d , ^fc ^ t f t H m<mi*T (5.24-25) fc*F3q ^ : ^ F H t qt85 ^cqk -Mp -dc fT l ^ ^ - t ^ f f c R |o-d-J>l«>^HK-Md I ^ ^ s T -fa^frR q t a T - ^ l ^ ^ d V q d I qt8> ( ^ ? ) H T q 1 4 M+ d *q*« (< -7T^-^ " °h IP - d ^ P-R: Yoga too, is described thus, "One should meditate on the syllable O M ; one should hold the mental retentions (of OM) in the heart." The practice (includes) bathing in the morning, noon and evening [lit. at the time of the three soma-pressings], secret conduct and ending with the offering (of ?). The end of suffering is liberation. So the ultimate cessation of suffering is called by the word duhkhanta. This same cessation of suffering is called by the word moksa. In moksa they propose the transference of the qualities of Isvara into that liberated one. That liberated soul is not inanimate [material] like a stone, as in (the doctrines of) the Vaisesikas and Naiyayikas. 1 2 See also Dasgupta Vo l . 5, p. 137 for a similar view. 1 3 A . Sastri's edition reads, ^ in place of >^ «• The essential meaning of the passage however is unchanged. 1 4 The editor expressed uncertainty over whether this was kasya or fasya. As mentioned before, the similarity of the old Malayalam characters for ka and ta make such confusion understandable. However tasya would seem to be the textually appropriate choice here. The following ca is somewhat problematic as its more logical place would be immediately after mokse. This may suggest some words have been lost. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 76 Comm: The heart, as used here, refers to the locus of the atman or soul. Kaundinya defines it in 5.25 as: cR e£R f^Tcq-q^qf**: 1 ^ The text in parentheses in the statement regarding the practice is problematic. The suffix ddha seems to be part of the past participle of Vidft - to kindle. Gadu is a bodily excrescence while gadduka is a water-jug. Together however, ddhagadduka make little contextual sense. 16 In the stage of liberation the devotee acquires the divine properties of his deity, although some separation between deity and devotee is still implied. The author here alludes to the concept of liberation posited by two schools associated with the Pasupatas.1? Although originally independent traditions with distinctive textual roots ~ the Nyaya-sutras and the Vaifesika-sutras — the Naiyayikas and Vaisesikas borrowed ideas from each other and were generally allied on most issues against the other systems.18 And by the author's time they had come to be treated as a unitary body. For them the emancipated soul was defined in a negative sense — as existing in a state of freedom from pain or sensation.^ *5 This practice plus Kaundinya's clear preference for Brahmanas (see 1.9, 1.13, 4.20 and their commentaries) indicate the Pasupatas still retained some links with Vedic orthodoxy. 16 Agama-pramanya 84 reads: J |c D I^K - : RTsr- i>H^IH^TH-^«HHM'HIH: ^ 1 I which van Buitenen treats as a corruption. His proposed reading is: ^TJST^T - ^T-IT - ^^ TT»T -17 See Keith (pp. 262-263) who links the Naiyayikas with the Saivas and the Vais"esikas with the PaSupatas. Potter (pp. 21-22) accepts that this was the tradition but questions the evidence for associating the Vais"esikas with the Pasupatas. He does concur that both schools worshipped Siva rather than Visnu. In the Nyaya-manjari, for instance, Jayanta Bhatta addresses his maAgala to Sambhu, an epithet of Siva. 1 8 Potter, pp. 12-13. *9 Gautama's Nyaya-sutra 1.1.22 describes it as complete freedom from suffering. Vatsyayana's bhasya on the same sutra further notes that this state is not characterized by bliss. Radhakrishnan (Vol. n, p. 170) has remarked that the Nyaya moksa has been compared to a deep, dreamless sleep. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 77 N * N Ox N O N O ^rtf * 4 p i | ^TTcr obleJI-d<-^TTc! cTdt I cTF3 - -5Tf^ -HMId<d TFsFn ^tfsjrTT II NO r^Mc^-oqf^d-Wjt: ^ <TcTT II f c R T R I OX. ^ TsR q ^ T t J|*^H ^ 3T%m I20 P-R: The Saivas, on the other hand, believe the adoration of the Supreme Lord, preceded by initiation, bestows enjoyment and final beatitude. Likewise, they believe in the omniscience of liberated souls in the state of final emancipation. And so they say: "Then when karman becomes even through passage of time, When one is initiated by the guru through the sending down of great power. He is omniscient like Siva as one free from incompete understanding [lit. someone who knows something] Then, filled with the manifestation of Sivaness, he is no longer a transmigratory one [a being subject to transmigration], etc." The Great Lord himself declared thus when questioned by Garuda. Comm: The Saivites placed great emphasis on dlksa (initiation) by a proper guru. Only after such initiation is one able to reap the bounty of Siva's blessings. Sakti-mpata literally means the "descent of power" and refers to the 20 i w a s unable to trace this reference. However Gonda (MRLS, p. 186) describes a Saivite text (also unavailable to him) entitled the Karanagama in which a very similar discussion occurs in Chapter 1 among Mahesvara, Garuda and Bhagavat (Visnu?). Tantra-Suddha: Section 3 78 directing by the guru of his stored-up energy into the disciple at an opportune time. The devotee then acquires the omniscience of his deity and attains liberation from the cycle of rebirth. 7. oM?3|H<cmi T^Tg": I *K*HI ^RR °r>mtf-MH<dR £*cKK|tR ^ 5W^>->• "N N© "\ v o STTT^q fcqTTC -Rf rNM^6RT<? l^TC^-^^-q^qT^ q i f^TR ?fcT |21 N NO N N© %, N f^t N V N N N H - M - d |22 ?f?TT ^ NO yR"<ioh( *^°r>*l ^  <=b^ ei ^  t>R^-qFT: I •s -so * F F T q#qqYa ^  q r^-q^qV qq^ tfH>rq u NO N N N N ' N, xO STTt^ R R%H-%^T (T *F-T WE ^ TTqH II ffrT P N se - \ > « C N "cTR q(c??)24 H*U*Kl fe fa : "-M-Mp-d clsfq ^ - * ^ | < J | - ^ ? t ^RRH I fqV N ON. 21 Agama-pnunanya 83 reads: TTcf 3Tfq ^H^d-'STTC^-y fdf^l«d-«=hMlt?J-qT^-N O *TT3Ff - T^cT - *T**T - ? R R c R - q r $ R - v^TS - *TR**' - ^PTT-qo*** - ^ ^Tq^T-oTRq-N N O N O N O etedl-JHI^TJcT t ^ l ^ ^ l H T ^ - r ^ f e R 3 T t e^TRi : wfcT-«l (e l^dl I R I-22 Agama-pramanya 83 reads: HfecH-q^-fa: jUHld q^RT cRqcT ^K^l ld I N O " N N N O N . N , 3Tq=T3f-^rTcT-y|fld^ ^ ^olMJimRjfd II N 23 Dyczkowski (p. 27) has noted that the Kapalikas "do not appear to have had any scriptures which were peculiarly their own, nor written independent works." Not surprisingly then, I was unable to trace this reference. However it follows almost to the word Agama-pramanya 83, which differs only in the first two lines: vj> N q^ Ttq^ m" q^T-q^qV q%r§rct u s « N It also resembles Ramanuja's Sri-bhasya 2.2.36. which reads: * f ^ 6 °b l ^ q ° F ^ dpu&<£ ^q ft|4c(|-T*fb*. | N O *req q#qqrd ^ q£T-qzq> qqsra n N O N 3TrfqR qt^ cT-^ pRT cT ^ *rq WE ^nqH I s> "s» N > « C N For a brief discussion of the resemblance between the Kapalika mudras and the Buddhist ones see Dyczkowski p. 146, fn. 141. 24 From the editor's presentation of the text it appears the ms. reading was unclear, although he nowhere states that bracketed items are the ms. readings. Tantra-Suddhx Section 3 79 TT?T: q r^cr^o-^qT Mglsl(cM,,25 ?fcT W H ^ W ? ! ^ M^W< ?R ^TTf: I P-R: And the Kalamukhas say the attainment of the mundane and non-mundane goals of human existence results from the specific practices of bathing with ashes, eating from a skull, worship of Is*vara, bearing a cudgel and so forth. And the Kapalikas believe the attainment of final beatitude [release from samsara] results from the complete acquaintance with the sixfold marks and from wearing them. Thus they say: "Small bell, necklace, earring, crest jewel, Ashes, and the sacred thread are proclaimed as the six marks. The skull and the club are proclaimed as secondary signs. He whose body is marked with these is not born again here." They [the Kapalikas] say that Lord MahesVara Himself said, "Even those who worship these (six mudras) with homage etc. attain all that is excellent. How much more those who undertake the Great Vow and are one with the Supreme Lord?" Comm: The Kalamukhas and the Kapalikas were the two most extreme sects among the Saivites. To cultivate disinterest in worldly possessions and experiences they adopted not only harsh ascetic practices but also bizarre and superficially counter-religious activities such as drunkenness, orgies and even cannibalism. For these they were harshly condemned by most mainstream Hindus. 2 6 mahavrata was a Vedic as well as Saivite term. In the latter sense however it meant following the example of Siva in his wrathful form of Bhairava. This 2 ^ I was also unable to trace this reference. 2 6 See for instance, Gonda (V&S), pp. 92-93. Tantra-Suddha: Section 3 80 form is described in Siva-purana 3.8 and in the 5th skanda of the Devi-bhagavata wherein Siva cuts off one of Brahma's heads and is thereupon cursed by Brahma to carry a skull and beg for his food. Thus the Kapalikas adopted this practice of eating food from a skull as well as bathing in crematory ashes. 8. ^ q q v 3\ - q l - q - f f e s r - - M d r ^ - ^ r q f * ^ H I ^ ^ f r (wqTT^Tin) 2 ?, ^ ^ ^ r ? r q # ^ q r - q ^ F r q i ^ c T ^ s n ^ R Y q q ^ q q ^ ? q ^ - • q r s r - q f ^ q T ^Jioidi q l ^ r V r PnP^dfd, q n : ^ R t ^ N 3 T ^ f V ? F R i r ^ T q ^ q r - : ? r q M - ^ r R T ^ f r - q T a f - ^ t % ^ q j H q " q f ^ q T fa^P^di i H R - R R - ^ m i - q ^ % f q ^ H r ^ q T q^^^-HHor ^ M f a ^ -qT^q 3Hei f* " M d ^ « - d : I 3 T d : q i t H M d l f c - d ^ d q o ^ q - T i q -c F 5 T ? q R ^ - q T S J c q q I cRqR 3 F f q q 5 R q 2 8 PMTHI I N S "SO P-i?; And it is this hypothesis of a division into four kinds of observances conflicting with each other which is outside the three (Vedas); not just the hypothesis of Isvara alone (as the instrumental but not material cause). Nor is it to be wondered why this process, which is outside the Veda, was devised by Lord Mahesvara, since the practice which is excluded from the path of the three (Vedas) was (actually) devised by some soul of a later [i.e. more recent] time with a name similar to (that of) Mahesvara. Through the similarity of these names some, in confusion, have clung to the path taught by one called Mahesvara. Thus, the Pancaratra system is not outside the Vedic pale like the systems of the Pasupatas etc. Therefore this issue (raised above that the Pancaratrikas resemble the Pasupatas et. al.) is without basis. 2 7 The editor has suggested either ^l<*qi or as a possible reading but the latter seems more likely. 2 8 The editor's reading is d H H ' H q , but contextually the negative, S H H H H ' H q , seems called for. Tantra-Suddha: Section 3 81 Comm: It is noteworthy that the author considers it impossible that non-Vedic practices could go back to Mahes*vara Himself. ^ ' ^HHM I^-Md I ^ 3TFT MJ|ciejK|VRTfV^Sn*f WTFf ^ ^o^q-T^-•v© N 0\. N N© N v© x, ^ N >0 Opp: This is the reply. The Bhagavata system is seen to teach various matters such as the origin of the soul etc., which conflict with the Veda; because of being similar to that system a suspicion of invalidity arises in us regarding other systems such as the Sattvatas as well, in which there is no divergence from the path of the three (Vedas). We suspect that whatever rites in the form of adoration etc. of Visnu and knowledge are taught in the Pancaratra systems are inapplicable and not to be relied on, like the milk put in a dog-skin bag. Therefore, this (issue of being non-Vedic) is not unjustified. (h) Comm: The Sattvatas (also known as the Satvatas) were a group of Krsna-bhaktas intermittently identified with the Bhagavatas, the school which arose from the South Indian Vaisnava tradition of the later centuries of the first millenium. As worshippers of "Bhagavat" (Visnu) they in turn, are 29 This is the first reference in the text to the existence of more than one Pancaratra system. 3 0 This simile occurs in virtually the same words in Agama-pramanya 17: 'IfcT-l'frl-f^ff^f^rl-8JRcTcT. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 82 usually associated with the Pancaratrikas.^1 This passage however, clearly implies the Sattvatas were regarded as a separate school from the Bhagavatas. One possibility, suggested by the context and by the plural "systems" in the next statement, is that the opponent views the Bhagavatas and Sattvatas (the latter including the Pancaratrikas) as allied but distinct systems. By discrediting one (the Bhagavatas) the opponent intends to undermine the other. As a dog is considered a polluting animal in Indian society milk placed in a bag or water-sack made of dog-skin is useless and of questionable quality. 10. t^ f> H R H qFcPT I q ^ - T T ^ - d ^ " ^ - ^ T U J T ?ft I q^f: I Opp: What is arrived at thus far? The Pancaratra system is outside the Veda. Why? Because of the inclusion of the system of the Pancaratrikas as being outside 31 In Mahabharata 12.348.3, 55 and 84 and in Ahirbudhnya-samhita 12.1 the three are linked. In Laksml-tantra 1.21 the Bhagavatas are identified with the Sattvatas. One of the major texts in the Pancaratragama is entitled the Satvata-samhita. In his bhasya on Brahma-sutras 2.2.42 and 44 Sankara seems to equate them. In Agama-pramanya 3-4 Yamuna seems to identify the Bhagavatas with the Pancaratrikas. Dasgupta (Vol. 3, pp. 14-15) distinguishes the Bhagavatas from the Pancaratrikas but notes that the words bhagavata and satvata are interchangeable. Jaiswal (pp. 44-45) and Gonda (MRLS p. 48) both reject the identification of the Bhagavatas with the Pancaratrikas. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 83 the Veda in the tantra commentary by (Kumarila) Bhatta-pada in the section on conflict, beginning with, "The others which are not included by those knowledgeable of the three (Vedas)" ~ continuing with — "The bases of proper and improper conduct accepted in the scriptures of the Sankhya-Yogas, Pancaratras, Pasupatas, Buddhists etc." - and ending with ~ "Therefore with regard to dharma, this kind (of system) which is outside the three (Vedas) is not to be regarded as being authoritative." Comm: These quotes are taken from a long passage in the Tantra-varttika. on Mimamsa-sutra 1.3.4 (pp. 328-330 Gosvami ed.) 3 2. 11. 3Tfq ^ MI»xK |R|cbl^df&fcbMl" ^ ^ - ^ W N H l f a - ^ c h K - ^ e ^ d H I H ° s *» N v o v. •s ^ ^ T ^ " 5 T T T Y q p f \ T H^T d*T TT^ ^ q > T t : ^ T S P F H C ^ T ^ ^ K I ' d < H I cR ^ FTR 3i^faof> M o ^ - ^ - c F ^ r q r^fcT M^IH^ \ ^IsK^MJfa + KM 3W :i cRTO 3 T c q f f ^ r T c^q I Os, N - * N •> Opp: Moreover, the Pancaratrikas prescribe another sacrament --initiation — for the purpose of establishing eligibility for the worship of the Lord among members of the three varnas who have (already) undergone the smrti sacraments such as the impregnation rite and who are (already) eligible for Sruti rites such as the fire sacrifice, new and full moon sacrifices and the soma sacrifice. If this path also conforms to the Veda, then, because of being purified by those same sacraments, they should be eligible also to worship the 3 2 Gosvami reads Pancaratra but other than that the two passages are the same. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 84 Lord. Why prescribe another sacrament? Yet they do specify another sacrament.33 We therefore believe the Pancaratra system does not conform to the Veda. Furthermore they have declared the eligibility of a Sudra (for performing religious functions). On this basis too there is non-conformity with the Veda. It is non-Vedic also because of the mention of the origin etc. of the soul, in contradiction of the Veda. Comm: If the path claims to be Vedic why shouldn't anyone eligible to perform Vedic rites be permitted to perform the Pancaratra rites? By creating their own qualifications the author and his cohorts are setting themselves apart from and even undermining the stature of the Vedic sacraments. The opponent does not cite any Pancaratra smrti passage upholding the eligibility of Sudras, so presumably this practice of the Pancaratrikas was too well-known to require elaboration. And indeed the Pancaratrikas were far less discriminating than other orthodox schools regarding the participation of the lower members of society in religious functions.34 The second objection focuses on the Pancaratra concept of vyuhas or emanations, which seems to imply the creation of an individual soul named Samkarsana. This ostensibly conflicts with the Vedic tradition of the 3 3 See Smith, Vol. U, p. 42 for an extensive list of the different rites and requirements proposed by the Pancaratrikas. Gonda (V&S pp. 64-65) also discusses Vaisnava diksa. See Agama-pramanya 92 for related discussion. 3 4 Smith (Vol. U, p. 96) remarks, "Indeed, with the notable exception of an authoritative work like Padma-sarhhita, the abiding hallmark of the social oudook of the Pancaratra literature is to welcome all, including "stri-sudra" (even women and Sudras)." On the same page he provides a copious list of references from the agama illustrating this tolerance. Jaiswal (p. 46) has similarly noted, "The Pancaratras, on the other hand, showed no respect to the varna rules and their initiation was open to all with no distinctions of caste and sex." Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 85 eternality (unchanging nature) of the soul. 12. 3 T f q ^ q J H d l ^ - ^ r r ^ 3 5 • JcMTq^^RTs?' (sT. 5 . . * 0 ?tcT q s ^ j -TRTt\|cb^ol H ^ - ^ - U - M H^I-^>dcdldN, cT^-mt 4 W l (VHT - q 8 5 - kWI° rW , J | -y=h<>j| f>^ic^dcdid v > "frcf Mi^md" ^ter toN [3Tc*r]T#d"* crm i w^m v >»ve ~e ^ STt f i dd lH" 3 7 fc^rfe ^ - t R ^ T - ^ t R T d ; , f ^ 3 - f a J l f ^ d c d l ^ , t f ^ F dlP-slohH ?fH t^TFT-oh<^lld v > ft^-fa J | ( ^ d - H M ? c ~ q - ^ ^ - f ^ ^ Opp: Moreover, it is thus established that the Pancaratra system is indeed outside the Veda like the systems of the Pasupatas etc.: (i) because of being repudiated by the venerable Vyasa in the section concerning the Pancaratra (system) with this view, "because of the impossibility of the origin (of the soul)" (Brahma-sutra 2.2.42), (ii) because of being repudiated in the discussion of the opposing views of the Buddhists etc. in the Tarka-pada (section on logical refutation -Brahma-sutra 2.2), (iii) because of traditionally being regarded as being heretical (in the passage): "The Saivite, the Pasupata, the Buddhist, the Jain, the 35 Sandhi not observed in edition. 36 There may well be an earlier source for this quote but it corresponds exacdy to Agama-pramanya 48 which reads: ° M M W Mo^T-TTaf ^ T c ^ f MINu^dl-T*Jd": II The emendation by the editor to match this reading suggests he was also aware of Yamuna's text. 37 Although a well-known passage it seems to be so only because of its presence in Sankara's bhasya on Brahma-sutra 2.2.45. Bhandarkar (p. 55) has described a similar-sounding passage he found in the Parama-samhita, but I was unable to trace it. Agama-pramanya 90 reads: ^ ° r " d t% ^cftf 3T?WrFf : S T T F ^ T Ft? S J I I W H S T t H d ^ H . . . Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 86 Kapalaka and the Pancaratrika," (iv) because of the derision of the Veda (in this passage), "Not having found the highest (truth) in the four Vedas Sandilya studied this Sastra" (v) because of being censured by the Sistas [spiritual elite], (vi) because a division like, "Vedic, Tantric," is made, (vii) because of accepting the (practices of) wearing the garlands worn by the deities and eating the food offered to the deity, which (practices) are censured by the Sistas. (1) Comm: The first objection uses the appellation Vyasa,which likely refers to Badarayana, the author of the Brahma-sutra. According to Sankara's commentary the sutra is directed against the Pancaratra teaching of the four vyuhas — Vasudeva,38 Samkarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha — which emanate from Visnu and are used to explain the Creation process.39 Within this rubric Lord Vasudeva creates Samkarsana who is identified with individual soul or atman. From him comes Pradyumna who is identified with manas "mind," which in turn devolves into ahankara "I-awareness, ego," represented by Aniruddha.4 0 That Samkarsana is alleged to represent the 38 Vasudeva, in his form as the first vyuha, should not be confused with Vasudeva as the highest reality. 39 See van Buitenen's introduction (pp. 16-22) to his translation of Agama-pramanya in which he discusses the problems in interpreting sutras 2.2.242-45 which ostensibly deal with the Pancaratrikas. 4 0 Descriptions of the four and their roles abound in the Pancaratragama. See for instance Satvata-samhita 7.25-28 or Laksml-tantra 4.8-28 and 6.6-12. Schrader (pp. 35-42) has provided an excellent summary of the vyuhas, their properties and their roles in Creation. A parallel popular mythology also exists, derived from the Visnu-purana among others, wherein Vasudeva is Krsna (4.15), Samkarsana is his brother Balarama (5.1) and Pradyumna and Aniruddha are Krsna's son (5.26) and grandson (5.28) respectively. In Kurma-purana 1.49.38-42 Sankarsana is called Sesa, which of course is another epithet of Balarama. See also Bhagavata-purana 4.24.34-36, 11.5.29 and 12.11.21. Ramanuja accepted the vyuhas as objects of worship but does not appear to have utilized them in his own teachings (Anantharangachar, p. 64). The vyuhas should not be confused with Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 87 individual soul is held by the opponent to contradict the Vedic teaching that souls are eternal and have no origin. Tarka-pada is the name commonly given to the second section of Chapter Two, wherein Badarayana refutes the various systems of Sankhya, Yoga, Vaisesika etc. using logic and reason. This is in contrast to his refutations based on Sruti and smrti statements in the earlier parts of the Brahma-sutras. The third objection is intended to reflect the orthodox Brahmanical attitude. Objection four is also referred to in Sankara's commentary on Brahma-sutra 2.2.45. Here Sandilya is described as a devotee of Visnu who fails to find the highest spiritual truth in the Veda and so turns to the Pancaratragama, or at least one text in the tradition.41 This is perceived by Sankara and the opponent as a slighting of the Veda. Objections five and six indicate that by the author's time (and probably much earlier) there was a clear categorization of what was Vedic and what was Tantric, with little or no overlap. The opponent's statement implies that the Pancaratrikas belonged with the Tantric groups, hence they cannot claim to be Vedic. Objection seven implicitly touches on the issue of pollution. During Pancaratra rituals food is usually offered to an image or statue of the deity and the statue is often wreathed in garlands. These items are later distributed to the devotees. The objection is based on the assumption that even food eaten by the deity should be treated like food eaten by a living being; i.e. unfit for others to consume. Similarly, (in the opponent's view) garlands should not be avataras such as Rama or Krsna. 4 1 Sandilya is a rather ubiquitous figure, appearing variously in Mahabharata 2.137.22, 12.47.6, and 13.4.17; Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 2.6.1, 4.6.1, and 4.6.3; and Chandogya Upanisad 3.14. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 88 passed from one wearer to another even if the first wearer is God himself. P-P: In this matter we reply (as follows). Regarding the argument in the section on conflict [i.e. conflicting systems], it is concerned with smrtis outside the Veda and is not concerned with smrtis composed by persons in contact with the Veda. Thus the statement of Kumarila is solely intent on making known the subject of the argument; it does not concern itself with propounding the externality to the Veda of the Pancaratra system or with (Pancaratra) elements conflicting (with the Veda). Comm: Although it is possible and indeed, natural to interpret Rumania's remark as including the Pancaratra smrtis with those not established as derived from the Veda the author seems to distinguish between "not being included by those knowledgeable of the three Vedas" (trayl-vidbhir na parigrhitani) and "being outside the Veda" (veda-bahya). He seems to be suggesting that while the Veda-knowers do not accept the Pancaratra system they do not necessarily assert that it is indeed outside the Vedic tradition. Such splitting of hairs over word-meanings; is plausible but not supported by anything in Rumania's discussion. 14. ^ ? ^Fcf ^>*Kkd^M^|R ffo, d^V-Md I ^"^TT-iR-qT%^T cR|tqq^sfaobd*qc< q^TT H ^ + l M ^ ^ i r q ^ f^ TTT-^ Trf "TTT *RcbK: "f^TTt-qrH fefeR %T ?f ^ q>tV 0**%. 3. V.. lo) cT%Tfq ^ f a ^ f d I Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 89 f>d^r^ rTcTcr I P-R: As for the statement, "because of the teaching of other sacraments," the status of being Vedic is not quashed merely by differences in sacraments, for those (differences) can be accounted for, like the Siro-vrata rite. Just as the rite called Siro-vrata is heard of in the study of the Mundaka Upanisad (3.2.10) by an initiated member of one of the three varnas who is already eligible for the study of the Veda, as attested by the statement, "By whom according to rule, the §iro-vrata rite is performed," so too it will be here. If an additional rite is enjoined for the purpose of establishing eligibility for the adoration of the Lord in the case of one desiring other fruits, then what is the conflict? Nor is there a conflict with what went before [i.e. the preceding Vedic rites], because one can account for different sacraments on the basis of differences of eligibility. Nor is a sacrament (performance) that is sruri-derived or smrti-derived prohibited, so that one would suspect a condition of being non-Vedic. Therefore there is no substance in (the objection) that there is non-adherence to the Veda because of the teaching of other sacraments for the initiated members of the three varnas even when they are eligible to perform rites prescribed in the Veda. Comm: The iiro-vrata rite is the practice of shaving one's head in 4 2 Dr. Aklujkar has suggested the original reading may have been 3?Pd"i *H I c f - ^ f*°r> which would more naturally translate as "a smrtr-derived sacrament that is in keeping with the Sruti." Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 90 preparation for studying a samyasa upanisad like the Mundaka. Brahmanas normally maintained a tuft of hair. The rite is not mentioned among the Vedic sacraments but nonetheless came to be accepted for a specific purpose on the basis of its mention in the upanisad. By extension from this precedent therefore, the Pancaratrikas are not necessarily non-Vedic for prescribing additional rites for worship. The Pancaratra rites merely add to but do not reject any of the established sacraments. 15. ^ ^ l ^ f ^ K I c ! S^fcct^H ffcT *R cR 3RR, ^ Mcilfc<icR ON P-R: As for the statement, "From the eligibility even of the Sudra there is non-conformity to the Veda," it is untrue, for it can be accounted for like "the sacrifice of the chief official." Just as eligibility is established in that case from the statement itself, "One should have the chief official of the Nisada sacrifice" so also it will be here (in the case of the Sudras). Just as from the statement in the Epics, the Puranas etc., "Let it be proclaimed to the four varnas," there is eligibility also of the Sudras, and there is no state of being non-Vedic, so too it will be in this (our) case. Comm: The Nisada are viewed as outside the three main varnas, and hence, as ineligible to perform sacrifices. Yet Mimamsa-sutra 6.1.51 and Sahara's accompanying bhasya discuss the citation above and acknowledge the right of a Nisada chief to perform at least the raudra sacrifice.43 4 3 I was unable to trace the original citation. For a discussion of Sudra ineligibility to perform the Tmaa-Suddhx Section 3 91 The statement cited may have been a well-known introduction to or conclusion of these works. Although denied by Manu the right to study the original Vedic texts the Sudras were permitted to receive the message of the Vedas through the Epics and Puranas which were Vedic in spirit if not in actual wording. The implication is that if the Epics and Puranas did not become non-Vedic by being extended to the Sudras neither would the Pancaratra system. 16. qcT d^ Pcf, 4 1^4x^1 ( V ^ F T T C 3^fa=bo=lM ff>f, d^ t^TH I X O N , x -s 41^ 111 CM fa: <*>c*|f\^  3Tt>f^rqH I fpfV c# I ^>^u||fa-qt^-^Rq v O N OX. OS f ^ ^ m , d"%rfq qfa^qfd i ere 4 i ^ i f a - - ? T ^ - q q R r r ° - M ^ ^ K I ^ ^ r i % f d ^ : , ^ R ¥ 4 I ST^T^T ^d<J|f dU|?HI* qSTT-q^i-M^n^f dl^^dlfa-qfcf-^d^dq P-R: Where it is said, "(The Pancaratra system) does not conform to the Veda because the mention of the origin of the soul etc. conflicts with the Veda," we reply (as follows). Here (in our system) the arising of the soul is never expressed. What then? It is the arising through the form of the vyuha emanations of the triad of manifestations - Samkarsana etc. And like the manifestations of Rama, Krsna etc. this does not conflict in the case of the Lord. Indeed, just as the manifestation of Lord Vasudeva, who has become the life of the entire world, as Rama, Krsna etc. by free will is not contrary, so also it will be here. The use of the word jiva etc. in that context is conventional for agni-hotra and other important rites, see Sabara-bhasya 6.1.25-38 4 4 Dr. Aklujkar has suggested that something like is more likely to have been the original reading here. The following ST^T^T could have corrupted the reading.. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 92 the sake of communication, not otherwise. Otherwise, why would the fourfold manifestations of Vasudeva et. al. be employed for the purpose of sequential worship by the four varnas ? (p) Comm: The existence of divine incarnations in no way undermines or competes with the ultimate reality and supremacy of Vasudeva. Similarly the triad of Samkarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha poses no threat to the Lord's stature. Indeed, for the benefit of his devotees who require some sort of personalization as a focus for their worship the Lord manifests himself in forms such as the vyuhas,45 thus confirming they are not really jivas. 1 7 . q c f r R r f , ^ J M d l P - K l ^ d c ^ M 3Ttfe=Fc=<R a ^ T ^ T H I N OX. o\ O x . "S f c r £ r f t o^TMP< - j 1 M l c J 3lPd°h)He3-P^Tld^l q ^ T - ^ c F T I^T?f d j ^ c ^ | , c l l ^ ^ c < -W ^ i R W : l ^ - ^ ? ^ "3ft=T d c M i l d , d W N ^ y ^ H - U ^ I * * R : , 3iMic^cT t>R^-qrafq: ^ R T R R srf^oh^um 3TR**aq ' ^ M ^ w ^ r c r ti. s* s* o \ v V -v \ 45 In his Srl-bhasya on Brahma-sutra 2.2.44 Ramanuja praises the compassion of the Lord for doing just this to help His devotees: He then cites a passage from the Satvata-samhita to encapsulate the spiritual progression from worshipping the vibhavas (e.g. Krsna, Rama) to worshipping the four vyuhas to the final stage of worshipping the Supreme Brahman: ^RT%^Hpq *TIR" q r c q n . . . Bhandarkar (p. 56) relates how the Brahmanas worship the single god while the other varnas worship the vyuhas. Agama-pramanya 95 also indicates the four vyuhas are to be worshipped successively by the four varnas: Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 93 P-R: As for the statement, "There is non-conformity with the Veda because of being repudiated by the venerable author of the sutra, (Badarayana)" we reply as follows. Because someone who lacks a study of the complete Pancaratra system grasps a literal meaning due to an excessively soft [i.e. dull-witted] mind there is an incomplete ascertainment of the intended meaning due to hearing of one part of the system. (He thus) asserts the soul named Sarhkarsana rises from the Supreme Soul named Vasudeva, and from him the mind which is called Pradyumna, and from him the ego which is called Aniruddha and declares this as having a meaning contrary to the Veda. To refute that view the section was begun, "Because of the impossibility of origin," by the highly intelligent author of the sutra, not out of a desire to repudiate the Pancaratra (system) itself. Comm: Sutra again refers to Brahma-sutra. An unsophisticated listener, having simply heard that part of the Pancaratra teachings which refers to the personal emanations of Vasudeva, might take them literally and regard them as contrary to the Veda which emphasizes the oneness of Brahman. His view is intended to be dispelled by the sutra passage. Badarayana merely used the vyuhas to remove misconception; he did not reject the Pancaratra system by following a superficial understanding of it. 18. MRT f ^ T "HT-qS5-H^I°b<u|-qT% pK|cbdc«ll<r ?fd\ 3TR Y^fHdv<£Cc<lpM«-dqi qtTSTTR": I P-R: As for the statement, "From being repudiated in the section on refutation of opposing views," that also we refute as being incidental or through imagining an issue (where there is really none when the Pancaratra Tantra-Suddha: Section 3 94 teaching is properly understood) 4 6 Comm: The author is here answering the second of the seven objections, this one claiming that the mere inclusion of the Pancaratra school in the section on false systems (Brahma-sutra 2.2) is incriminating evidence. He counters that Badarayana must have included the Pancaratrikas in this section, which is otherwise devoted to invalid or criticized schools, merely incidentally to show the weaknesses of the schools which were really to be refuted.47 19. ^H? 3Tfq "-fte MISjIMdH" s jJcMlfV^^f, cT3 STq^RWR ?fcT ^ T:, N v O ' % N <7s fa^^i^-difa^mrqTH i % yfcim^ri q ^ q q 3Tt%??nTcr ar^r V <K. "N X H ^ q M ^ l P 4 ^ 3TR yfdMlild I d*Hl<^ ^ ^-fa^^TRl<=4ldN Mo-^-^l't—NT^I'dt X 3FTHMM ^T, fc|«JWRM4l-Mcf Ho^-TT* «1<*M*HK^«IM, M'dlfe-P-R: As for the traditional recollection "A Saiva, a Pasupata" and so on we declare this is a poor recollection because the (Pancaratra system) is not a propounder of things contrary to the Veda. For, just as it is taught by the Veda 46 The expression °£ c<=H T i I seems to refer to the tactic of imagining a problem in order to have an opportunity to explain things correcUy. 4 7 Badarayana did not refer to the Pancaratrikas by name. This statement is more a defence against Sankara's bhasya than against the sutra. By comparison, Baladeva (who was also a Vaisnava) argued in his commentary that sutras 2.2.42-45 pertained to the Saktas and not to the Bhagavatas. Ramanuja, on the other hand, accepted that the sutras do deal with the Bhagavatas but maintained that 2.2.42-43 present only a purva-paksa. This is then refuted by 2.2.44-45 which he interprets to endorse the Pancaratra system. Agama-pramanya 99 argues similarly. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 95 that Brahman, the immutable, non-dual, and unattached, which is the nature of the universal and individual soul, is the instrumental and material cause of Creation, subject to the entrance of its maya, so too it is taught by the Pancaratrikas.48 Therefore, because of the absence of conflict with the Veda, the Pancaratra smrti is valid. And by inference, the Pancaratra (system) which is the object of dispute is valid, because it conforms to the Veda, like the smrtis of Manu et. al. And even that part which appears like a conflict is to be explained as being a non-conflict just as an explanatory passage (is understood in the case of the Veda). 20. 3TT!f: I t>Tr*^°r><vi-<--q|iH ^-fa*^-^=ftcMTqifc-t^q ^ - ^ - ^ ^ H < ^ 3JYMIUIM, ^fa^^-^^^-cTT^-H^My|-d^KlMHlfa - fWl P-R: Here some say that with regard to the origin etc. of the soul which conflicts with the Veda, by the argument in the section on conflict [Mimamsa-sutras 1.3.3-4] (the Pancaratra system) is invalid, like the sarva-vestana-smrti; with regard to the description of the true nature of the unopposed universal Lord and His adoration etc., it is valid, like the smrti dealing with the astaka ceremony etc. Comm: Two analogies are given here. The first is discussed by Sahara in his bhasya on Mimamsa-sutra 1.3.3. The sarva-vestana-smarana refers to a smrti rule prescribing that the sacrificial post used in the vaisarjana rite be covered entirely by a cloth during the ritual. This is said to contradict a Sruti injunction wherein the priest must touch the post during the ritual; hence it 4 8 See Laksmi-tantra 2J2-56 for a monist account of Creation. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 96 cannot be completely covered. On the basis of this obvious conflict, Sahara rejects the smrti practice (which he later ascribes to ulterior motives). The second analogy is related to Sankara's bhasya on Brahma-sutra 2.1.3. There he relates how the astaka rite (a sacrifice to the ancestors on the eighth day after a full moon) is recommended in a smrti statement but is neither prohibited nor recommended in the Veda. On the basis that no apparent contradiction occurs, he agrees that it be allowed. The implication of the two analogies is that the Pancaratrikas should abandon that part of their system which conflicts with the Veda (e.g., the vyuha theory) and keep the remainder. 21. cn? srq^cTR- f c R ^ r i Wcv. i TrsF-%Trrq ^ H I ^ H T T - 5 F - % ^ R T -P-R: Others say this is improper. How so? For those who accept validity in one place and invalidity in another there is the predicament of the "half-an-old-woman" proverb [i.e. one part of the system is valid and another invalid] and the predicament of no breathing room (to make a case). Comm: If a spokesman for a school were to accept the invalidity of a part of his teachings this would undermine his efforts to defend the validity of the remainder. He would have no logical manoeuvering room, for any opponent could simply question why the remainder of the teachings are to be treated differently from the portion that has already been discarded. One either accepts a religious or philosophical system in its entirety or not at all. 22. ^ q ^ - T T ^ r r r ^ * ^ »wmcM^^arcq^ tm^s fOc^H: i Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 97 ^TR I 3TfcRteR TR cT R-^ -H I •FT cTtlf cRfq I so Qpp: Is it not so that being both ways [i.e. partly valid and partly invalid] is accepted even by the author of the bhasya (Sankara) in the section on the Pancaratra system? P-R: It is not so. He considers there to be no conflict at all. Opp: What then is the basis of the context of the bhasya which has proceeded as if a conflict is proven? P-R: Indeed, it is the very same as that of the sutra. Opp: Then what is (the sutra's) explanation? P-R: It has been said here, "The beginning of the section is from the point of view of one who speaks of contrary meaning." This should not be overlooked. Comm: This discussion refers to Sankara's commentary on Brahma-sutra 2.2.42 where he notes that he has no quarrel with the notion of Brahman assuming multiple forms. However he does object to the concept of an individual soul (Samkarsana) arising from the Supreme Self. The author must somehow account for the purpose of bhasya interpretation. Why does Sankara speak as if a conflict between the Pancaratra system and the Veda was already established? In the passage beginning sakala-panca-ratra-tantra-pariirama-rahitasya . . . the topic of the domain of the sutra has already been addressed. Similarly, the bhasya is not directed against those who have a proper understanding of the Pancaratra system; rather it has in mind those Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 98 shallow minds who have misunderstood the teachings or taken them too literally. 23. 3Tfq "ST, ^ TR^ - q H a q t ^ h r : WT - R F T q-fa^iM' ^ ^T5R-HKNU|-•xO N 0\, NO iTRT%^TcI 3RTcq^' tffaSfa *Tcf W T II" ^ T T R |49 cT^f *rfcT H ^ T c R -NO N N •N N N N P-R: Moreover, it is traditionally held that the divine seers Narada et. al., having heard from the lotus mouth of Lord Narayana the knowledge of the supreme mystery, (and) having comprehended it completely, set the tradition in motion: "The lofty being Narada, out of a desire to benefit the world, Having obtained this supreme doctrine from Vasudeva, condensed it." Since this is so, only from unfortunate ones does this sort of speech come out again and again in this way: "A Sastra composed by Lord Narayana is valid in one place and invalid in another place." Comm: Abhavya is a derogatory term for those who have no spiritual future, who are not going to become what they should. 49 i was unable to trace this exact reference but it seems likely to have occurred either in a text from the Pancaratragama or in some version of the Mahabharata corresponding to 12.321 ff. of the critical edition by Belvalkar et. al. There Narada finds Nara and Narayana at the Badari hermitage and questions the latter on issues of worship. Verse 321.14 reads: NO X OS N N, N, cf ^ TR 3T3T*Tc? TRFT «Mc|^HR 3TT5RT: II N N N N N© Tantra-Suddha: Section 3 99 N N ' v O R R qJMdlsfq faL<JJc^dlfa q^rfrT: ^ q ^ q H * ^ s k ^ M ° q i ^ S I qrqT-qtF^ H i wrq i q q ^-farrtrq cr? fa^T^^-wq^T i ^d^imccw TTq | qqjH q-T* q ^ - f q T > ^ m T q T C STTt^ cTT rrq %T-T«rH: q ^ q H , P-J?; Nor should it be suspected that there is no evidence to confirm (the Pancaratra smrti) is composed by the Lord since in the Skanda-purana the following is preserved: Kapila is the proclaimer of the Sankhya (system), Kesava [Krsna] of the Pancaratra. The proclaimer of the five categories [i.e the Pasupata system] is actually the god Mahesvara. Opp: Is it not possible that the activity of even the Lord can also be decisionary as in the case of maya-moha, since He is omniscient and cannot be 50 i w a s unable to find this passage in the Skanda-purana but it is likely the same one referred to by Ramanuja in his Sri-bhasya on Brahma-sutra 2.2.45 where he apparently quotes from the Mahabharata: " ^ M k q d l M \M<? faf^jr I M H d l M ^ I ^ f ^ q ^ q cJ<=MI °hfaei:" The first line, <HI<9q*q . . . is also cited in Agama-pramanya 114. si qrqr-qtFt fa^T^r ^q-^i-TWid tcq-qteHiqfa PFSTT faw-qrFt ( ? . TVS) SFRF^TqT I (editor'snote) " Delusion in the form of maya was created by Visnu from his body as a means to deceive the Daityas'; this narrative in the Visnu-purana (3.17) should be attended to." Other instances of such deception include his incarnation as Vamana the dwarf wherein he tricked the demon Bali into handing over as much land as he could cover in three strides. As Nrsirhha the man-lion, he was able to overcome the boons protecting the demon Hiranyakasipu. During the churning of the ocean he adopted the guise of the beautiful woman MohinI to distract the demons and enable the gods to whisk away the amrta. Even the Buddha is occasionally regarded in Brahmanical mythology as an incarnation of Visnu sent to teach a false doctrine and mislead the forces of evil. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 100 confused? P-R: True. Where there is conflict with the Veda there is the hypothesis of (the Lord) as an agent of delusion. Elsewhere (though) there is definitely tmstworthiness. In this case, because of the absence of conflict with the Veda, only the trustworthiness of the Lord is hypothesized, not (His role as) an agent of distortion. Comm: Particularly in earlier works, Visnu often plays the role of a deceiver or trickster. Given this sort of record it is not impossible or out of character that the teachings given to the Pancaratra school by Visnu may be unreliable. 25. H^o-M TR cU^q-^qR-^TRT ^ R^-^TPR y V d d M I HcT: ^ RFT-^TR-X X C X X sTFRtfcT i d^Rid NM^R^^-yjfld^iH v^TT^-qqjcTfqR 5 2 ^ - ^ T T ^ - q ^ f q : q^q-TT5T-?TR5r-<H y cJ W ycjktdcclld yiHI^H rtqfcT Hfi^HH: I X X s » Opp: Perhaps someone else named Vasudeva taught the (Pancaratra Sastra) to one named Narada. Thus, there may be an error on the part of the Pancaratrikas due to the similarity of names. P-R: No. If such were the case then because of the absence of evidence and the predicament of "no breathing room" elsewhere as well, non-activity (by the Lord) would obtain everywhere. Therefore we conclude there is indeed validity because (the Pancaratra Sastra) was composed by the Supreme Lord (and) because a line of tradition was established for the Pancaratra Sastra 52 The editor reads g ^ T T ^ ^ - but this must be a printing error. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 101 by the composers, such as Narada, of the iastras oncerning dharma. Comm: The same objection of false identity was proposed in para. 8 above by the author against the Saivites to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Mahesvara they alleged to have founded their system. His defence here is that if one casts doubt on this teaching of Visnu which is permitted by the Veda, then all His incarnations and teachings would be similarly suspect. In none of the instances would one be able to state categorically if it were a legitimate teaching or deception by the Lord. This would open a Pandora's box of problems in endeavouring to determine what is valid and what is not. P-R: Moreover, neither do the Pancaratrikas declare that the Veda is made by a person or that it is invalid as the Pasupatas etc. do. Neither do they regard 53 Agama-pramanya 85 reads: ^ y N ^ I - q T ^ T <4\&v\\ ^ T K T OTTCT I qfcK *RfcT TFT^: II 54 ^ tHciTT <=r><ldl(d °r>4u"M^ I (editor's note) Dr. Aklujkar noted that this is an explanation given in terms of Paninian grammar by the editor. It indicates that °kara (causal) needs to be taken in the sense of °iara and that one can, if forced to, derive °Jrara in a non-causal sense according to Panini. Perhaps a simpler solution would be to emend 0Jtara to "icara or to read akara as the final member of the compound making it mean "the form of which is repulsive." The former solution is better in light of the second occurrence of bibhatsakaram in Sista-bi". 55 Sandhi not observed in the edition. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 102 the varnas etc. in contradistinction to the model of the varna system set forth in the Veda .56 They (the Saivas) set up (the following) which are repulsive to the Sistas. They become Brahmanas merely by entering into initiation, and ascetics when they take vows such as carrying a mendicant's bowl etc., bathing only in ashes at the three junctures [sunrise, noon and sunset], there is no washing with water, etc. But there is nothing similar to this which would cause disgust in the Sistas is set forth by the Pancaratrikas. Therefore, it is correctly said that the traditional recollection, "A Saiva, a Pasupata" etc. is a wrong smrti. Comm: The "etc." in PaSupatadi refers to the Buddhists and Jains who did not accept the mystic or divine origin or infallible nature of the Veda. However in the term Saivadibhih "etc." denotes the different Saivite sects. 27. T^cT ^ T, q q T - ^ - v ^ c ^ M T ^ f a g R * i K " i nf=TsqfcT I *R ST^t^T ^ Tcf N O >a *\ ^ % FfSRT FFSf Hp-cjd q^rtrt, 3TFf cT tV^TRfrR Y^IRldH I5 7 r^rSTJt qTH: ^ TcR 3T5Jrf H dejfcrl H^^M v"^fcT ^ s t ^ - f T ^ 3cRH fed-^m-P-R: An alternative (explanation of the smrti grouping the Pancaratrikas 56 As indicated in fn. 19 of the Introduction, the attitudes of at least some Saivite sects towards the Veda were not universally negative. With regard to the social structure, some Saivites did reject completely the varnasrama. Notable among these (at least at the time of their founding) were the Vlras'aivas, a 12th and 13th century political and religious revolutionary movement in southwestern India. Others merely modified the existing system, as the next passage in the text indicates. As for the Pancaratrikas, Jaiswal (p. 46) has suggested that while the later forms of the tradition came to accept varna distinctions the early school actually opposed the vamas'rama. 57 The second line corresponds almost identically to Agama-pramanya 90. PiP-cJd Y^cfd I 3Tfq cT PlP^dK ^cTTd M^dM I N © - N O N N N O "N Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 103 with the Pasupatas et. al.) is the smrti pertains (only) to matters such as the origin of the soul just as it is heard [i.e. literally]. As for the statement, "because of the appearance of a derision of the Veda in, 'Not having found the highest among the four (Vedas) Sandilya' etc." we say (the following). (This) slighting (of the Veda) is not initiated to deride the object of the slight but to praise that which is different from the object of the slight. Just as (it is said) in the Rg-veda-brahmana, "Those who perform the fire sacrifice before sunrise speak a lie every morning," [Aitareya-brahmana 5.31.6] the censure of the sacrifice performed before sunrise is for the purpose of praise of the sacrifice which is not performed before sunrise, so also the (Sandilya-related smrti) is for commendation of the Pancaratra system. Comm: An alternative explanation is that the passage associating the Pancaratrikas with other unorthodox groups may have meant only those Pancaratrikas who have a simplistic and incomplete understanding of the teachings. In reply to the fourth objection, praise is often given in relative terms. In the Vedas for instance, certain deities are extolled without intending the deprecation of the other deities. This sort of henotheism is quite common and deliberate in the Brahmanical tradition and the author explains the Sandilya quote as being a similar sort of statement. It is in no way intended to diminish the Vedas but rather to praise the Pancaratragama.5* 2 8 . ^T°T d = I M f c j d - £ l * U ^ * l » | U | | - d } fafedcdld d"m-*TR: I ? ? T f q HT¥ ^ ^ r q ^ q ^ - ? > q : - ^ m ^ - q f o q T ^ q ^ ^ ^ % H R ? R q " 5 9 •NO 58 This accords with Ramanuja's argument in the Sn-bhasya on Brahma-sutra 2.2.45. 59 Sandhi not observed in the edition. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 104 Opp: Is the (Vedic) example not so because of a decree in another Brahmana which enjoins a sacrifice performed before sunrise? P-R: Here too then the point is the same as in that case, because of the affirmation in the other (Pancaratra) Samhitas that the Veda is the highest spiritual teaching in every way. Comm: The opponent questions the relevance of the author's analogy by noting that there is a Brahmana text prescribing anudita-homa so that practice is defensible. There is no Sruti text, however, prescribing the Pancaratra view. Au contraire, the author declares the analogy is apt because the Pancaratragama consistently upholds the supremacy of the Veda. 29. qqT qT qfT-KTTH -*kdK r^ FrTT q^T ^Rrf ^ q r^FH: | v O v, MdxctM ^  <»l*cdM ^  "R^T-^lKdH d ^ d II N v O V N P-R: Or, (to cite a similar instance) in the Mahabharata, [1.1.208-9]. 6 0 The text differs slightly in the critical edition published by the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute which reads: -qc^K TTSFcTt *TRcf -qo^ M ricf>cT: I ^HNId: *KiWrcT dWT 3TTTtrqcf qTT I v « S T T ^ ^ q r r ^ w q qfT-^RHq vi^qd 11 No real change in meaning occurs betwen the two readings however. The same verse is also cited in Agama-pramanya 90 as an example of praising one thing by apparently belittling another. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 105 Once, by the great seers who had assembled, the Four Vedas on one side and the one Bharata on the other were placed upon the scale Since it holds over and above in size and weight It is called the Mahabharata due to (its) size and weight. As it is understood that the purpose is commendation of the Mahabharata (and) not censure of the Veda, in this case as well it will be like that. 30. TTcT 3TqY^T 3 ^ r f f ^ - f a J l f ^ H ^ K f R , He* H M ^ I d R I ^ f - % ^ T ?ftcT-P-R: As for the statement, "because of being censured by the Sistas " the opposite (is the case), because (the Pancaratra rites) are accepted and performed in every region by the very tistas who are practitioners of the §ruti-based and smrti-based rites. 31. qc? 3Tfq H T F W q ? R feTHR-cb <ullcJ f R , ? R 3?fq sftcf, Wcf, P-R: As for where (it says), "from the creation of the division 'Vedic, Tantric'," this also we refute as being like sruti-based, smrti-based and domestic (rituals). Comm: Similar sorts of divisions already exist, as for example among the different types of rituals. And just as such categorization is irrelevant to the efficacy of each ritual so too merely calling the Pancaratra system "Tantric" does not undermine its validity. 3 2 . ^ c ? 3 T 4 T ^ R ^ * R ftre-fe^tlf^-fcrRf^ Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 106 N N. "\ NO -v0 H f W - ^ f cTT I ^ rTRc? 3TTST: pF^q:, 3PT|pr-cb ^ f d y ^ ^ M ^ I ^rrfq f^rtrq:, fa^MiPH^M^iidj P-R: As for the statement, "Because of accepting the (practices of) wearing the garlands worn by the deities and eating the [left-over] food offered to the deities, which (practices) are censured by the Sistas," the reply in that case is as follows. What is this "offered garland" and "remnant of food?" Is it merely the substance in the form of the flowers etc. or is it a specific substance? The first is not the (correct) alternative because we don't accept (any food as nivedya or any flower as nirmalya) and because of (the possibility of) too wide an application (if a rule were to be formed).6 2 Neither is the second, because distinctions are not determined (by you, the opponent). Comm: The author asks the opponent to clarify this last of his objections. Is he referring to the practices of utilizing any food or flowers or does he have in mind only those which have been offered to the deity and are thus particularized or rendered distinct? 33. •FT 3c |d^$ lH qfVcWTT N^M^IR I 6 1 Agama-pramanya 134 reads: q R : f^ I -f^RTf^TT-faqfVq -faq^dTqqraTP^ ^HNdMIH f W c M H f R 1 c R TO fqiq f<? R R W f^Tsf ^ i f tYd tftGnUM I 62 in his translation of the Agama-pramanya 134, van Buitenen proposes a different interpretation of this objection. If non-particularized food or flowers are used in the offering and later caused by the opponent to be spurned as leftovers this would amount to wastage. The rationale is that since that same opponent does not acknowledge the divinity present in the temple image or murti he must also believe the food has not been "used" by the image. Thus the food and flowers would be simply wasted if they are not given to the devotees. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 107 TnxrRTCqTt?^:) 6 4 H ^ - T O - c f ^ - y f d M l f a d i q i [ ^ d W l ] %^[rTT]^rq65 3tf[-TFT qJM^^^lH Mp^c^P-d qT^qTTfWT: ° b U H ^ H l f c - ^ P T I f ¥ cldT 4)HW*-HdH^iP"yim i x Opp: Isn't being offered with a deity as the recipient a distinguishing (feature)? P-R: In that case the offered garlands and food are not to be shunned because they are not offered to a deity (recognized by the Mimamsakas). The divine nature of that (deity) taught in the Pancaratra system is not accepted by the Mimamsakas, so that the offered garlands and food would become something to be shunned as a thing offered to that (deity). Indeed, as an offering to the Lord the Pancaratrikas sacrifice substances such as flowers, boiled rice etc. Opp: What do those who follow the doctrines of the Mimamsakas have to do with them? Comm: The act of offering to the deity is what defines the characteristics of the left-over food and flowers. As philosophers the Mimamsakas adopted an atheistic position. If the temple deities of the Pancaratrikas were acceptable to the Mimamsakas then they might have cause to criticize the food and flowers as being mvedya and nirmalya. However since they do not accept 63 The insertion of R at the beginning of this sentence by the editor is necessary not only contextually but grammatically as well; a sentence cannot begin with <cicri'. "s© 64 The editor's uncertain reading was likely due to poor ms. quality. As the clause is passive T f r T R F F J is clearly called for. 65 Haplography can account for these two emendations. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 108 the divinity of the images or murtis they cannot claim a real offering is actually taking place. •S. X V N ' ' yiHI"J-MM S T W ^ - t ^ F q d T q , 3 T ^ M d | d - Y I M | u i k c U d ri^MM cTWR I •s V X S > 3T?T66 3^H|U|-%TrFT rn=r cF5f M I o - ^ K l f s J ^ : yTTFT - ^ M l q p i ^ c i H N f f c T »T d ^ H K 3 T Y H|U|-qH - d ^ - f W-q^ - Y ( d ^ 6 l f q d - y f d H I ^ WdNI 3T^rRT^ N O S X V O S X N X V N -\ s. O s f ^ - f a d | [ ^ d d l I H^TPf ^ - I T f ^ T 3Ff"^TfeT TR^tV^-^R^-FT^T-N V X N qyuuijdi^ufi^H i cFq-ymiuqH S H ^ K H S U faHfc^-trr^-H^-^SFTTfe -V V X V P-R: If, from being accepted by the Pancaratrikas, (this practice) is also accepted by the Mimamsakas, then let the validity of the system be accepted as well, because then they will be the ones who have the accepted authority of the system. However if (the Pancaratra system is) not accepted by the Mimamsakas then, with the thought that an invalid system is being accepted as valid by the Pancaratrikas then they would have accepted as a deity something which is not at all (our) deity. Thus, because of the absence of divinity among the idols established by the mantras set by a system which is invalid and because of the inadmission as divine of that (deity) set forth by a system which is invalid, there is the absence of an offering and a sacrifice to that (deity). Because of this 66 Sandhi not observed in the edition. 67 The edited text reads ^ ^ H l ^ - M 0 but the negation 3Fr*-"*T° is contextually required Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 109 (absence), because of the non-mention of a specific substance and because of the unavoidability (of a substance) in general, this censure by the Sistas is indeed unfounded. Therefore the wearing of garlands offered to the deity and the eating of food remnants etc. left by the deity is not to be reproached by the Mimamsakas following their own view. The wearing of garlands and the eating of food remnants etc. is even more not to be reproached by (those among the Mimamsakas) who accept the validity of the (Pancaratra) system. Comm: If the Mimamsakas accept a particular practice then the issue is quickly settled and this in itself lends credence to the overall Pancaratra system. This harks back to the earlier discussion (para. 21) wherein the author declared a system must be accepted in its entirety or not at all. The author's intention is to depict the criticism of nirmalya and nivedya as arbitrary and insubstantial. 35. STR ^ , ^ m - q ^ q T^cf <^ <i-MH I % ^f-JjII^N YPdfa^H N N N© N R^H)pM4<><il H^rfTfrT ^ R R , q*TT MMPi«el3Tp-f q ^ - R h H l f c - W T O N 3T^^TR-Rqq qTCT-MNHdqi cRR-y W|uq|c{ ar^t-Rb^dsH^qd R f^ct:, W T O |68 P-R: Moreover, this is to be regarded like the partaking of soma. Just as the consumption of remnants which, although forbidden in all the iastras, is 68 This is a direct quote from Sabara-bhasya 3.2.35 but is originally from Patanjali's Mahabhasya 1.2.1. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 110 accepted as extremely purifying in a specific rite such as the soma sacrifice,^ (as is evident) from the statement, "They become partakers with that soma,"70 or just as the partaking of fish and meat which, although prohibited, is accepted and practised by the Sistas on the authority of a statement as being supremely purifying in the context of the astaka sacrifice etc.,71 so also it is to be regarded here. Indeed we are the ones for whom Testimony is the authority; that which (such) a text expresses is valid to us. Comm: The author here draws on traditional ritual practices to support his case. In the jyotistoma the soma left over is consumed by the priests. Other substances such as fish and meat, which are normally not eaten by Brahmanas, are purified by the sacrificial process and regarded as not only fit but desirable for human consumption.72 36. ^  c^Tc? 3mir^-d°q I^fR dkcftfd, W ^TF^-MRFt M6^d 3T?TR fa^J-HMU-MK ^P^TT -Ml^l^uf ^ RcT II qt RT: f^ TT^ TT ^TrT ^  qifcT ^ TRT l|73 ffo I Mlo^^N-f^t W i r a dT3 MtfkMH: I 69 See related discussion in Munamsa-sutras 3.5.19-20 and Sahara's bhasya authorizing the consumption of the soma remnant 70 j w a s Unable to trace this citation. 71 See Manu-smrti 5.31-32, 41-42, and 52 permitting the consumption of flesh in the context of a sacrifice. 72 See Agama-pramanya 136 for related discussion. 73 I was unable to trace this citation. It also occurs in very similar wording in Agama-pramanya 136 where it is ascribed to the Brahma-purana, as the Brahmanda-purana is often called. The only variations occur in the first line: . . . *T^ ?rq> . . . Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 111 qR^f ^RH-grsFH McwTrt q s?J -^v jHR ||74 f^cT | V so H qiFcT •TTqV qUTH cTcT-q^MMtflfaH: II ?fcT I 7 5 P-R: Nor is it to be suspected that there is no Testimony in this case, because (the following) is recited in the Brahmanda-purana: "The purified food offering from Visnu is to be eaten by the munis. One, having partaken of something other than the (leftover) food offering and the (used) garland should undertake the candrayana ritual.76 That man who puts on his head the virtuous garland which was touched by the body of Visnu, And which removes sin; he reaches the supreme course of existence." Further, it is found in the Sri Narayaniya section in the Mahabharata (12.322.24): "Those foremost knowers of the Pancaratra [system], in the dwelling of that great soul, 74 The reading in the critical edition is: W l " ^rrqH-gtqrf *To^ Tct ^ TRJ-^I^HH II V •so N This same verse is also cited in Agama-pramanya 136 as: xq^-TTq-R^t q^RT ?Rq ^  HtfkRH: I grcrcf ^ R ^ - ^ F r f Ho^ TcT ^rraj-4l^-dH II V s« s» S. 75 I was unable to trace this citation. 76 in the candrayana ritual the offender begins at the full moon by earing 15 mouthfuls of food but with each day the moon wanes he eats one mouthful less until he fasts completely on the new moon day. Thereafter he eats progressively one mouthful more until the moon waxes full again. Alternatively the penance may begin with 15 mouthfuls on the new moon day and proceed to the full moon and back. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 112 Eat that purifying, foremost food specified by Visnu." Thus it is found in one of the branches of the Pancaratra Sarhhita: "That which is consumed, all the fragrant flowers etc. The curds and milk etc. suitable for bathing (the deity) Those who, find fault with (this) divine, purifying thing, thinking it a leftover garland, They proceed to hell, those bewildered ones who deny His majesty." Comm: The second passage arises from a narration by Bhisma to Yudhisthira regarding the activities of a King Uparicara, a great devotee of Narayana. He is the great soul in whose palace the Pancaratra sages dine on the specified divine remnants. The third passage describes the flowers, curds and milk commonly used in Vaisnava worship to bathe and honour the deity.77 37. ^FT fq%?TccTsfq facta-W»f FFR cTT | •v© ^ cTFFf kk-MH, 3TqR^ t c^m^uud I X V X q^TR dcjlfq fqV ^ =rq 4l^HFd<R 3TTf8Tcq cR H ^ - q & R T miM-Mfd, X ' xJcT ^TFT-qTrT: g f t r^ -qr^FT c f ^ r W l N = T F T ^ F f qiM^fd I T cTFTc* ^h^HKd^H7^ 3TTT>qfd, "Wf-qifR H[-^lcilHIH 3TTFf* SitfcT-^fedR I H I T K I X " X X -s» X qr^Ff* *MU" fcq^rTTT-qr^FRq mfdfN^c^id i ^ r r rc 7 9 CF^: [H^T?] q^nfr N© X N cTT fa^l^ld I X 7 7 See also Bhagavad-gM 3.12 and Sandilya-sutra 68. 7 8 The editor reads STq^JFTFcTTq^ but this must be an oversight or printing error. 7 9 H^TR f t H TRTcT I ^ 4 l ^ - d ^ ^ H ^ O H ' C F T O I 34-4l^HF"Mcfl-M^|fq ^TgFT^vSF* *d<H SV: I (editor's note) "(Neither) would there be the tantra principle, tantra is the simultaneous performance by the offering to either. (Where) by offering to one there is the performance of another as well, (that is) prasafiga." The two are technical terms in the Mlmarhsa system, tantra is neuter and it is unclear why tantrah is used. I Tantra-Suddhx Section 3 113 Opp: Even if we accept the consumption of the offered food, is it obligatory or voluntary? It is not obligatory, because of the non-mention (in the Pancaratra tradition) of a fault when not performed. If, on the other hand, it is voluntary does it imply another meal (in addition to the morning and evening meals)? Or does it introduce the performance (of eating leftovers) in the well-known evening or morning meals by the tantra or the prasanga principle? This (practice) never implies another meal because of the prohibition of food in the interval;80 eating in the evening and morning by the twice-born is enjoined in the Sruti. One should not take a meal in the interval (between morning and evening). Neither (can it be according to) the tantra principle or the prasanga principle, because of a conflict. Comm: All prescribed rituals or sacrifices are divided into three forms by the Mimamsakas. The definitions below are from Smith, Vol. II: (i) nitya - "An adjective referring to anything done regularly, usually on a daily basis." (Such practices are usually obligatory as well.) (ii) kamya - "Any ritual undertaken on an optional basis with a view to please the divine powers and derive thereby certain desired (usually mundane) rewards." (iii) naimittika - "Any ritual undertaken on a periodical basis, namely, as occasion demands, hence monthly and annual festivals, as well as pacification-rites at times of plagues, earthquakes, etc." The tantra principle pertains to the situation where two objectives are met 8 0 Eating between the two meal-times is prohibited for Brahmanas in Manu-smrti 2.56. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 114 simultaneously and deliberately through a single action. The prasanga principle refers to the incidental accomplishment of a second goal by an action directed only at another end. Thus the opponent here is questioning whether the consumption of nivedya is intended to replace the morning or evening meal, or does it do so only incidentally. Either way, there will be a conflict with the injunction against such a meal. 38. ^FT q^Tsq fq i fc} : I 3rq farm: I Y | U | | P H - ^ - F T T T ? H dTcR TR?q: , d<*°rWJl ^ m-SHU |K t%-*1kftHH I # W - * I T V R ^  q s f c T - ^ q q | q f c f ^ T ^ T - q O T R 3Tfq ^ i f a d cKT cn? 3TR f^m - ^ q ^ m-^i^dq 3 T ^ - ^ T r t r q qT ^qrcT i ST^T ^Tfd": I s r ^ rq -9«°q^q ^ d i - d ^ ^ M c q i J i i q V i i d i crcqrc? srq fa^-qq*qqR fq rT^q q^tMYq: i t ^ r c r - q ^ t qr cqT^qq v i - H I T K I ^ k d - q R d l N i q g r r R i Opp: What is this conflict? This is the conflict. The pranagni-hotra sacrifice to be sure, is obligatory, because of the indication of a transgression on the part of the twice-born when not performed by them. Now the means of (this) sacrifice is a food substance. Thus if the consumption of the leftover food offering were also enjoined then that food substance too would either be the means of a sacrifice or not be the means of a sacrifice. Two possibilities exist. When not the means of a sacrifice the very consumption (of the nivedya) would be criticized. And the nivedya would not be justifiable as the means of a sacrifice because of the impropriety of offering an offered substance again to another deity. Therefore the conflict between what is obligatory and what is voluntary is to be described here. Alternatively, the consumption of offered food should be abandoned. There is no satisfaction in the hearts of the great ones in an Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 115 intermediary (solution). Comm: The pranagni-hotra rite is a symbolic variation of the agni-hotra wherein food is offered twice daily to the deities before being consumed by the performer. If a certain item of food is not the means of a sacrifice then it can't be nivedya and therefore cannot be eaten by the true devotee. Conversely, if it is the means then it becomes a sort of ucchista, (having already been offered to one deity), and cannot be offered again to another deity. Thus if it has already been offered to Visnu it cannot then be offered to Agni (the deity of the pranagni-hotra rite), as enjoined in Manu-smrti 3.84-85. ^*%nTd i a srfq H J V J H I T K M 3TTt^rqfH, dc j i ^d - w - ^ i ^ q - f e rT ' e r rcT i N V N ' vO -V v O N > » V V V v O V oh^4lc!Hlfa-^f HRT faMcr^ldW H^ltld, 3reTR ^ f a ^ f d I P-i?: To this we reply (as follows). We say the consumption of the offered food is definitely voluntary, because of the connection (of the consumption) with the eligibility derived from the desire to (accomplish such things as) destroying sins etc. Nor does this (nivedya) imply another meal in itself, because of conflict with the cited statements of Manu (prohibiting eating between the two meals in the morning and evening). Just as there is (co-existence) between an obligatory agni-hotra rite and a voluntary agni-hotra 8 1 See fh. 79 above. Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 116 rite because of the unity of place, time and agent, so too there is co-existence with the obligatory pranagni-hotra rite in that meal made possible by the injunction of eligibility based on desire. This is our final conclusion. When there is a sacrifice by offering the already offered substance to another deity this substance again there is no conflict whatsoever, because the deities of prana etc. are not in the form of the supreme spirit, like Visvaksena (is not). Just as substances like flowers, boiled rice etc. which are sacrificed as an offering to the Lord are again offered to Visvaksena, so too it will be like that here. Comm: Both disputants agree that all rites, whether obligatory or voluntary, can only be performed by certain eligible persons. For the Pancaratrikas however, eligibility in this case is bestowed by a desire to eradicate one's past bad karma. Hence anyone seeking spiritual benefits can theoretically become eligible to perform the rite. On the other issue there would be no contradiction between the obligatory pranagni-hotra rite and the voluntary nivedya-bhaksana. Both can co-exist, just as the obligatory (prana-) agni-hotra and the voluntary agni-hotra using actual fire can co-exist. Prana is the deity of the pranagni-hotra and is on a lesser level than Visnu, much like Visvaksena who might be described as Visnu's chief official.8 2 Hence there is nothing improper in offering him food that has already been offered to Visnu. 8 2 Smith (Vol. n , p. 103) calls him, "The commander-in-chief of Visnu's retinue, and the dispeller of obstacles. He occupies in Vaisnava piety a place analogous to that of Ganapati in Saiva piety." Tantra-s'uddha: Section 3 117 40. N V N v O N ^ d d M ^ F s H <=bVcW, rfrT °*">*<H HcjquiH II" •S % vO N q T l ^ T T r t R - - ^ r q T j r q q ^ T T R 3 T R T ^ T ^ F R ^ST^R f c W q N v O N N V N S i f d f a ^ d ^ ' J I II d ^ H Y k ^ K U - c F s f YHl<JWN?fd" t % ^ T F d : It P-R: On the other hand, by the maxim, "Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you sacrifice, whatever you give, Whatever you practise as austerity, O son of Kunti! Do it as an offering to me." (Bhagavad-gita 9.27) even the pranagni-hotra rite is resorted to only for the worship of the Supreme Spirit, then, having worshipped the Lord with a substance suitable for His adoration, one could eat the offering again. Now enough of prolixity. Thus, it is established that the Pancaratra system is valid. 3"fcT aq - ^c i c iKob - 5 i J t - ^^ | -dH- fa<rMd d ^ - ^ l * ? ^ W I <HMILdM I Thus concludes the monograph called "The Purity of the (Pancaratra) System" composed by Sri Bhattaraka-srT-vedottama. 8 3 Dr. Aklujkar has suggested that this may originally have been either or T r q . The meaning would remain constant but it would be smoother grammatically. Tantra-s'uddha: Bibliography 118 BIBLIOGRAPHY Sanskrit Texts and Translations Agama-Pramanyam of Yamuna V A N BUTTENEN, J.A.B. (trans.) Ramanuja Research Society, Madras 1971 Aphorisms of Sandilya with the Commentary of Swapneiwara CO W E L L , E.B. (trans.) Indological Book House, Varanasi 1965 (2nd ed.: 1st ed. 1878) The Arthasamgraha of Laugaksi Bhaskara GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. B. and K A R M A R K A R , R. D. (eds. & trans.) Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1984 (Reprint) The Arthasamgraha of Laugaksi Bhaskara THIBAUT, G. (ed. &trans.) Chaukamba Amarabharati Prakashan, Varanasi 1974 (2nd ed.) Brahma-Sutra Bhasya of Sankaracarya GAMBHJJRANANDA, Swami (trans.) Advaita Ashrama, Calcutta 1977 (3rd. ed.) Brahmasutra-Sankarabhasyam (with the Bhasyaratnaprabha of Govindananda, the Bhamatl of Vacaspatimiira and Nyaya-Nirnaya of Anandagiri) . SHASTRI, J.L. (ed.), Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1980 Laksml Tantra: A Pancaratra Text GUPTA, Sanjukta (trans.) E.J. Brill, Leiden 1972 Mahabharata (critical edition) SUKTHANKAR, V.S., B E L V A L K A R , S.K. and VAIDYA, P.L. (eds.) Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona 1933-72 Tantra-s'uddha: Bibliography 119 The Mimamsa-DarSana of Maharsi Jaimini (with the Tantravartika of Kumarila Bhatta) 2 Vols. GOSVAMI, Dr. Mahaprabhulala (ed.) No. 16 in the Prachayabharti Series Tara Printing Works, Varan asi, 1984 The Mhnamsa-Sutras of Jaimini SANDAL, Pandit Mohan Lai (trans.) Vol. XXVTJ in theSacred Books of the Hindus series, Allahabad 1974 (reprint of 1923-25 edition) Nyaya-Manjari of Jayanta Bhatta (Vol.1) B H A T T A C H A R Y Y A , Janaki Vallabha (trans.) Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1978 Nyaya-Manjari of Jayanta Bhatta (Part 1) SASTRI, Gaurinath (ed.) Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, Varanasi 1982 Nyaya Philosophy: A Literal Translation of Gautama's "Nyaya-Sutra" and Vatsyay ana's Bhasya (4 Vol.) C H A T T O P A D H Y A Y A , Debiprasad and G A N G O P A D H Y A Y A , Mrinalkanti (trans.) R. Maitra, Calcutta 1967 PaSupata-Sutras with Pancarthabhasya of Kaundinya SASTRI, R. Ananthakrishna (ed.) Trivandrum Sanskrit Series No. CXLIIT, University of Travancore, Trivandrum, 1940 Sabara-Bhasya 3 Vols. JHA, Ganganatha (ed. and trans.) Oriental Institute, Baroda 1973 (reprint of 1933 edition) Satvata-Samhita with Commentary by Alaiihga Bhatta DWTWEDI, Vraja Vallabha Lakshmi Narayan Tiwari, Varanasi 1982 Sribhasyam Sri Bhagavad Ramanuja 2 Vols. Sri Uttamurti Viraraghava (ed.) Nathamunivlthi, Madras 1967 Tantra-s'uddha: Bibliography 120 Vedanta-Sutras of Badarayana with the Commentary of Baladeva V A S U , Rai Bahadur Srisa Chandra (trans.) Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, New Delhi 1979 (reprint of 1912 edition) The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary of Ramanuja THIBAUT, G. (trans.) Vol. XLVUI in the Sacred Books of the East series, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1904 Visnu Purana 5 Vols. WILSON, H.H. (trans.) Triibner & Co., London, 1864. Yajnyavalkya-Smrti VIDYARNAVA, Rai Bahadur Srisa Chandra (trans.) Vol. XXI in the Sacred Books of the Hindus series, Bhuvaneswar Asrama, Bahadurganj 1974 (reprint of 1918 edition) Secondary Texts A N A N T H A R A N G A C H A R , N.S. The Philosophy of Sadhana in Vi&stadvaita Prasaranga, University of Mysore 1967 BHANDARKAR, R. G. Vaisnavism Saivism and Minor Religious Systems Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona 1982 (reprint of 1913 edition) BHATT, Govardhan P. Epistemology of the Bhatta School of Purva Mimamsa Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Vol. XVTJ, Varanasi-1 1962 BODEWrrZ, H.W. The Daily Evening And Morning Offering (Agnihotra) According To The Brahmanas E.J. Brill, Leiden 1976 Tantra-s'uddha: Bibliography 121 C A R M A N , John Braisted The Theology of Ramanuja Yale University Press, New Haven 1974 DASGUPTA, Surendranath A History of Indian Philosophy 5 Vols. University Press, Cambridge 1951-55 DE, D.L. "Pancaratra and the Upanisads" in Indian Historical Quarterly, September, 1933 pp. 645-662 D H A V A M O N Y , Mariasusai Love of God According to Saiva Siddhanta Oxford University Press 1971 DYCZKOWSKI, Mark S.G. The Canon of the Saivagama and the Kubjika Tantras of the Western Kaula Tradition State University of New York Press, 1988 GACHTER, Othmar Hermeneutics and Language in Purva Mlmamsa Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1983 GONDA, Jan Visnuism and Sivaism: A Comparison Athlone Press, University of London, 1970. Medieval Religious Literature in Sanskrit Vol. JJ,1 in "A History of Indian Literature" series (Gonda ed.) Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1977 Vedic Ritual: The Non-Solemn Rites E.J. Brill, Leiden 1980 HARA, Minoru "Nakullsa-Pasupata-Darsanam" in Indo-Iranian Journal, Vol. U, pp. 8-32, Mouton & Co., Gravenhage 1958 JAISWAL, Suvira The Origin and Development of Vaisnavism Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi 1967 Tantra-s'uddha: Bibliography 122 KEITH, A.B. Indian Logic and Atomism Greenwood Press, New York 1968 (reprint of 1921 Oxford University Press edition) KUJPER, F.B.J. Ancient Indian Cosmogony (selected essays) Vikas Publishing House PVT Ltd., New Delhi 1983 K U M A R , Dr. Pramod Moksa: The Ultimate Goal of Indian Philosophy (trans, from Hindi by M.C. Bharatiya) Indo-Vision Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad, U.P. 1984 M O G H E , S.G. Studies in the Purva Mimamsa Ajanta Publications, Delhi 1984 PANDEY, Raj Bali Hindu Samskaras Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1969 (2nd ed.) PEREIRA, Jose (ed.) Hindu Theology: A Reader Image Books, Garden City, New York 1976 POTTER, Karl. H . (ed.) Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies: Vol. II, Indian Metaphysics and Epistemology Princeton University Press, Princeton 1977 RADHAKRISHNAN, Sir Sarvepalli Indian Philosophy 2 Vols.. George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London 1966 (eighth impression of second edition) SCHRADER, F. Otto Introduction to the Pancaratra and the Ahirbudhnya Samhita Adyar Library, Adyar, Madras 1916 SHARMA, Peri Sarveswara (ed.) Anthology of Kumarila Bhatta's Works Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1980 Tantra-s'uddha: Bibliography 123 SINHA, Jadunath A History of Indian Philosophy Vols. I & II Central Book Agency, Calcutta 1952 (Vol. U) 1956 (Vol. I) SMITH, H . Daniel A Descriptive Bibliography of the Printed Texts of the Pancaratragama (Vol. I) and An Annotated Index to Selected Topics (Vol. II): Gaekwad's Oriental Series, Nos. 158 & 168 Oriental Institute, Baroda 1975 (Vol. I) 1980 (Vol, U) W A L K E R , Benjamin 77je Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism Vols. I & II Frederick A. Praeger, New York 1968 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items