Gaekwad’s Oriental Series

Published under the Authority

of the Maharaja Sayajirao
University of Baroda, Baroda

General Editor :
A. N. Jani,
M.A., Ph.D., D.Lill.,
Kévyatirtha.
Director, Oriental Institute

No. 160

44' *9
"“119
50

E
fl
1' ”Om

AGAMAPRKMKNYA
OF
YKMUNKCKRYA
 “manur- Orkntll Series
_.l'muulml uudor the Authority
of "to Mlhlmju Snyujirno
_'.Ultuully 0f "Mada. Baroda

General Editor :

A. N. Janl
M.A., Ph.D., D Litt..
Kivyatirtha
Director, Oriental Institute

No. I00

\:‘
kw
KGAMAPRKMKNYA
OF
YXMUNKCKRYA

Edited by
Dr. M. Nmsimhnchlry,
M.A.,Ph.D.
Research-Supervisor,
Sanskrit Department,
Vivekananda College,
Madras

Oriental Institute
Baroda
1976
l-‘int Edition _, .. _

' _.__
.. . ._

. .. g

Copier 1000
._

.
.

I976

Published with the Financial Aid of the University

Grants Commission, the Government of Gujarat
and the M. S. University of Baroda

/
Price Rs. '13-09'

.Coplu can be had of :—

The Manager,
UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS SALES UNIT,
M. S. University of Baroda Press (Sadhann Pres ),
Near Palace GaterPalace Road,
BARODA

Printed by Shrl R. 0. Fatal. Manager, The Mnhnraja Sayajirao University of Baroda

m
(Sndhunn Pros: ). nonr l’nlnco (into. I'nlnu Road. Baroda and published by Dr. 6. N. Jani,
Director. Oriental lnalltulo. Mnhnrnjn Suyujimo Unlvenlty of Baroda. Baroda-2.
February I976.
 FOREWORD
A critical edition of the Agamaprdma‘nya of Yfimunacarya, an authoritative
wurk of the Visistadvaita School of Vedanta, is now being published in the
(inekwad's Oriental Series.
The Visistédvaita school of Vedanta is influenced by the Par‘tcaratra Agamas.
In the [ligamaprdmtinya Yarnunacarya, the grand teacher of Ramanujacarya, has
established the Vedic character of the Paficaratra Agamas refuting all arguments
ndvnnced against their being considered as such.
I)r. Nurasimhachary has tried his level best to edit the work critically with
variants and informative and explanatory notes wherever necessary.
introduction the learned editor has thoroughly discussed all relevant
In the
topics nimut Agnmas and about the author Yamunacarya and his works. While
dealing with the Jgamaprdmdnya he has treated the Paficaratra Agamas, their
Vcdlc character and their influence on the Visistadvaita school of Vedanta. He
inns further discussed the influencc of the Agamaprdmdnya on later writers of the
Vtiistndvnitu school and summarised all topics discussed in the text.
.vigumaprdnmya has already been published thrice; however, the present
t‘liiiL‘fli edition will surely be welcomed and appreciated by Sanskrit Scholars and
upsuinlly by the students of the Viéstfidvaita school of Vedanta.
I
opportunity to thank the University Grants Commission and
tnite this
of
the (loverntnent Gujarat for giving financial aid towards the publication of
this volume.

()rtentni institute, B. J. SANDESARA

Baroda Director
i’ehruary I8, 1975
 CONTENTS

Pages

Foreword

(2) Introductory Study 1—46

(J) Table of Contents (Vigayasnciki) 47-50

(4) Text l-l7l

(5) Appcndix I72-l76

(0) lndlcen 1.4 177-186

 CRITICAL APPARATUS

The following is a description of the printed texts and palm-leaf manu-

Iellpts collated for this Critical Edition. There are altogether three printed
texts and twelve palm-leaf manuscripts of the text of Agamaprdmdnya. Among
the printed texts, the first one Was printed at Madras in 1892 A.D., the other at
llenures in 1900 A.D., and the third one at Mathura in 1936 AJ). With regard
to the palm-leaf manuscripts collated, seven are from the Madras Government
()rirntal ManuscriptsLibrary, One from the Adyar Library, Adyar, two from the
hit Venkatesvara Oriental Research Institute, Tirupati, one from the Oriental
lnntitute, Mysore and one from the Oriental Institute, Baroda. All these
manuscripts are in Grantha script.
I’ Signifies the text of A'gamaprdmduya that appeared in the l’nndit
Series, in Devamigari. It was edited with Sanskrit Introduction by
Sui Ramamisras'astrin, Professor of Sanskrit College, Benares and
printed by E. J. Lajrasa Company in the Medical Hall Press in the
Vikrama Year 1957:1900 A.D.
I'M Signifies the text in Devamigari, edited with an Introduction and
foot-notes in Sanskrit by Sri Parafikusicaryasastrin of Mathura and
Inporv|ud hy Pundit Sri Raghunandanacarya. It was published by
l't‘lhhnduynl Mitul ut the Agarwal Press, Mathura, as the fourth
" mum ” in the Sri Vaisnavagranthamala Series in the year 1936 A.l).
'l' Signifies the Text printed by the Chennapuri Sri Saraswati Bhanda‘rr,
'I‘Iiplicane, Madras, in Telugu characters, in the year 1892 A.D.
A Signifies the palm-leaf manuscript No.71271 in grantha script de-
posited in the Adyar Library, Adyar, Madras. The codex contains
the Texts of Veddntavijayavydkhyé, VUayamarigaIa-dflrikd and
Agamaprdmdnya, with a total number of [32 folios. The text of
Agamaprdma'nya starts on the 95th folio. The number of lines per
leaf ranges between 6 and 8. The manuscript is good in condition
and old in appearance.
It Signifies the palm-leaf manuscript from the Oriental Institute,
Baroda, Acc. No. 6646, in grantha characters. It has altogether 38
folios, including 3 blanks, consisting of 1250 granthas. This breaks
off from the word " soma " onwards, corresponding to p. 165 of this
Critical Edition. The actual text comprises only 33 leaves. The
number of lines per leaf ranges between 7 and 10. The manuscript is
old and injured.
 X

M. Signifies a palm-leaf manuscript in gruntha characters from the

Government Oriental 3155. Library ( GOML ), Madras, under D. No.
5202, which contains the texts of ligamaprtima'zzya and Sajianavai
bhava, the former ending on the 57th folio. It is good and old, with
6-; lines per leaf, the total number of folios being 113.
Signifies a palm-leaf manuscript from the abovelibrary (GOML ),
under I). No. 5203, in grantha script, with 57 leaves and 6-H lines
per leaf. The Ms. is old in appearance and injured.
Signifies another palm-leaf ms. in grantha letters, from the GOML,
under D. No. 15988, witha total number of 74 leaves, consisting of
the Siddhirruya and the nfgumapnima'nya, the latter starting on the
40th folio. There are 10-11 lines per leaf. The manuscript is good
and old, but abounds in blanks and the worst type of scribal errors.
Signifies another palm-leaf codex in grantha characters from the
GOML, under R. No. 4227, with a total number of 16! leaves. It
contains the texts of Sandhyévandanamanrravrm', Vimusahasra-
ndmabha'sya, Bhagaradgunadarpana, Jgamaprdmdnya and Pdficard-
trarakgd, the fourth text (i.e., Afgamaprdmdnya) commencing on
folio 88a and ending on folio 114b. There are 7-r2 lines per leaf.
The ms. is old and injured.

Signifies another palm-leaf ms. in grantha from the GOML, under

R. No. 4575 with a total number of 44 folios. The text of A'gama-
prtimdztya commences on the first folio and ends on the 40b folio.
Folios 4Ia-42a contain Vismrsruli and 42b-44b are blanks. There are
7-8 lines per leaf. T.his ms. is also old and injured.
Signities another palm—leaf manuscript in grantha letters, from the
GOML, under R. No. 4916, containing the texts of A’gamapra'mduya,
and Prapannapdrijtita, the former ending on the 4rst leaf. There are
8 lines per leaf. The ms. is old but injured.

M7 Signifies the palm-leaf ms. in grantha from the GOML, under

R.'No. 6048, with a total number of I47 folios, consisting of zfgama-
pnimtim‘a and some other text. The first six leaves are missing and
the text of A-gamaprdmfinya starts actually on folio 7a and ends on
folio Io4b. The text starts from " ragama" " on p. 7 of the present
edition. There are five lines per leaf. The ms. is old and injured.

Signifies the palm-leaf ms. in grantha script, deposited in the Oriental

Institute, Mysore, No. V 5776, with 44a folios and 7_-9 lines per leaf.
It is old and good.
V, Signities the palm-leaf ms. in grantha script, deposited in the Srl
Venkateévara Oriental Research Institute, Tirupati, under Stock No.
3008, with the texts of Agamapnimduya and Siddhitraya. ’l'he lirnt
folio on which the text of the ligamapra'mdnyu appears, hears the
number 48. The text of .Iigamnprcimdnya does not have the begin-
ning portion, the actual place at which the text starts being, the word
" dfisanam ” on p. 6 of our present Edition. The text ends on lolin
75b. There are about 10-12 lines per leaf and the manuscript is old
in appearance and injured in many places.
v,. Signifies another palm-leaf ms. in grantha from the above Institute,
Stock No. 1574, with only 18 leaves extant, and with 5 lines per lent.
The title of the text is given as “ Pdficardrrapr(ima'nyasrhdpanam
The ms. is incomplete, with only 1/3 of the original text available,
i.e.. upto " vedesu sci vdryara ", on p. 65 o! the present Edition. This
is the most damaged of all the manuscripts collated.
 PREFACE
The Jgamaprdmdzrya of Sr] Ya’rmunacarya. the great predecessor and grand-
teacher of Ramanuja, occupies an important place in the Visiflddvaira literature.
It hr devoted to the establishment of the Vedic character of the Pdflcardrra litera-
ture which forms one of the two main branches of the Srivaisnava religion, the
other one being the Vaikhana'sa. The Pdficardrra literature was once the target
of severe criticism by the Mimamsakas that preceded Yamuna. This refutation
became more pronounced when the great Sankara in his commentary on the
llralrmast‘ltra, questioned the philosophical basis of these texts. It is in reply to
all these doubts and criticisms that loomed large in the field that Yamuna wrote
the Juamuprdmdnya. Here he took up the question of the Paficardrra being as
valid as the Vedas themselves. Though short, this is perhaps the only early work
solely devoted to this question. Here he answered the charges levelled by the
Mltltfllilstlkrls as well as the Advaitins against the Pdficardrra and tried to estab-
ll-h that the Bhfigavata religion, as it is also known, was authoritative in theory
and practice. llut even this masterly work of Yamuna could not completely
rllupel the doubts in the field, as is shown by the emergence of two late works in
support of the ligamapnimfinya, viz., the Tamraiuddha of Bhattaraka Vedottama
and tlte I’dflr'ardlmkantakoddha'ra‘ of Vadhfila Varadacarya. There was of
rttttllt‘. the far better known Prifirardtraraksd of the great Vedanta Desika.
YItltttmr'I defence of the I’mlcardrra formed the basis and the main content
at ltttntflnuja'rt explanation of the Utpattyarambhava-isection of the Brahmasrilra.
It Is the Amrmuprdmdnya that refers to another work of Yamuna, viz., the
I‘unmmlrrmyu which is not available now. Vedanta Desika tells us that the sec-
tion of ltnrtmnuju's Veddrthasarigraha dealing with the Supremacy of Lord Visnu
is tuned on this lost text of Yamuna. That Yamuna was most probably the
author of another work, the Kris’mr'rrigamaprdmdnya, which has also not come
down to posterity, is known only through the Agamaprdmdztya. Yamuna says
that it establishes the revealed character of the Ekdyana Sdklui of the S'uklu
l’uluriwla on which the Pzificardtra-dgdmar are claimed to have been based.
The present attempt is to offer a critical edition and study of this important
tut, which has been a desideratum for long. This edition is the result of an
surrnlnutlon of twelve palm-leaf manuscripts from different places. It was pre-
pared by me as a stipendiary Research Scholar in the Sanskrit Department of the
University of Madras during the years l96l-63. and was submitted to the Uni-

‘ A brief summary of this work was presented by me at the 27th Session of the AIOC.
held at Kurulrshetra in I974.
 xiv

versity in February. I964. It was the lirst time for ligamaprdma'nya to be sub-
jected to a critical study. It is hoped that the English Introduction and expla-
natory notes along withlthe Indexes will add to the utility of the text.
It is a pleasant duty to express my deep gratitude to my revered Professor,
Dr. V. Raghavan for giving me this work when I firstjoined the Sanskrit Depart-
ment of the University as a Research Scholar in 1961. He took personal interest
in me and supervised my work at all stages. He read the whole thesis and ofi'er-
ed valuable suggestions in the reconstruction and interpretation of the text. He
was helpful in getting the necessary manuscripts for collation from different
libraries and institutes. It is during this period that he introduced me to Dr.
H. Daniel Smith, Professor of Religion, Syracuse University, New York, who
was then working on a Descriptive Bibliography of the printed texts of the
Pdficardlra-dgamas, which work has since been printed in the Gaekwad's Oriental
Series ( No. 158 ). This acquaintance with him was of significant help to me as
I had the opportunity of going through a numbeg of Pdfir-ardlra texts and obtain-

ing a first~hand knowledge of the nature and scope of these works. It is this
knowledge that facilitated my comprehension of the arguments advanced by
Yamuna in support of the precepts and practices of this school laid down-in
these texts.
Having thus provided me with the necessary background to understand
Yamuna, my Professor then set me on the most important work, "The Contri-
bution of Yamuna to Visistfrdvaita ”,* which was altogether a virgin field.
Under his eminent guidance I studied all the extant works of Yamuna and sub.
mitted it as a Thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of
Madras in I966. It was awarded the Degree in I967. For all this and for his
continued interest in me and my work, I am profoundly indebted to my Professor.
1 will be failing in
my duty if I do not express my sense of indebtedness to
Tarka'rrnava Panditaratna Uttamt'rr Sri Viraraghavficaryasvamin of Madras, who-
was an unfailing and inestimable source of information for me in studying the
text Agamaprdmduya. In spite of his busy schedule of daily routine he was kind
enough to take me as his student. The work Agamaprtimdnya is by no means
an easy text. It is full of sastraic discussions and in several places it is difficult
to follow the trend of the arguments. But for the very lucid interpretation
offered by Sri Viraraghavacaryasvamin I could not have understood Yamuna
\properly. The zlgamaprdmfinya, like the Siddlrr'traya of Yamuna, which also I
studied under him, is not in the list of traditional texts which the Srivaisnava
scholars generally read or teach. It is for this reason that l atn all the more
indebted to him for the thoroughness and readiness with which he taught me
these texts.
‘ Published by the Prof M. Rntmttcllutyu Memorial Trust, Madras. I97].
 XV

I wish to express my grateful thanks to the authorities of the M. S. Uni-

versity. Baroda, and to the former Director of the Oriental Institute. Dr. B. J.
Sundown: and to the Deputy Director, Dr. U. P. Shah, for including my work
In the reputed Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, and also to Dr. A. N. Jani. the present
Director. for looking after the completion of this work.
I
express my grateful thanks to the authorities of the University of Madras
Im having given me a scholarship for two years during 1961-63 and necessary
rm tlnticu to carry on my research work in the Sanskrit Department of the Uni-
versity and for the permission that they gave for publishing this work. My
Ilmnku are also due to the Curators of the following Libraries and Institutions
for lmving permitth me to consult not only the palm-leaf manuscripts of the
Allunmprdmdm'a but also some rare and unpublished manuscripts of other con-
mulml works : The Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras. The
Mlym I tlmuy, Mudrus. Sri Venkateswara Oriental Research Institute, Tirupati,
llm thlrnlul luutitulc. Baroda and the Oriental Institute. Mysore.

MAIm AS. I976 M. NARASIMHACIIARY

 INTRODUCTORY STUDY
Yttmunficarya (known in Tamil as Alavandfir) occupies a unique place
auuuug the Srivaisnava teachers. He was Ramanujacfirya’s grand teacher and
ltniunuujn and later writers owe a deep debt of gratitude tO‘Yamuna and his
\tutkh. When the Advaita Philosophy was widely popular and the sastruie
trmzhiugs of Nfithamuni, Yamuna’s grandfather and the first in the list of Actiryus
“He just nascent, Yfimuna had to play a vital role in promoting the Srivaisnnvn
religion and philosophy. He succeeded in this task remarkably well through
luv. wm‘ks.‘ The completion of this task of promoting the Visistadvaitu was left

tn ltnnuttuujn. Thus it was Yamuna that paved the way, so to say, for the
umtt Itntnmiujn.
.Immmprdmdnya of Yfimuna which we have taken up for a critical edition
and nlmlv. tries to establish the authority of the Pancaratragamas, which form
nu tutegiul part of the Visistadvaita religion and philosophy. The Visistadvaitn
'u lnml tun three aspects : the Sanskrit scriptures owing to Vedic authority, the
'muutuu Agumns and the Psalms of the Alvars in Tamil. We are not concerned
ltt‘lt' “uh the Iirst and last of these above three aspects of Visistadvaita. Of the
tin uml, rl:.. the Sanskrit Agamas, there are two schools: the Vaikhanasa and
tho I'unrmntru. Ol‘ these two branches of the Srivaisnava-agamas, we are
muwtnvd 'H‘l't' only with the Paficarfitra.
Home ol the lending exponents of the Visistadvaita school of thought have
“HHI'II upon both these aspects: the firm: deriving the Vedic authority and
thr l'ttth-nrntrt’tgnmas. Among the pre—Rémfinuja writers of this school whose
mutt-t we hnve, Yfimuna is the most important. His contributions cover both
ttu- Vt'tltc und the Agamic aspects. His Gitdrthasan'tgraha is on one of the texts_
ml the l'rusthnnatraya. His Siddhitraya is an independent text linked to the
l'ttt'tlllfltttlll‘tlyfl. 0n the Agamic side, he wrote the Agamaprdmdnya taken by
ma In! the present study. The Kismirdgamaprdmdnya, which is referred to in
the ,h:«mmprdmtinya,2 appears to be his own work.3
YAMUNA'S PREDECESSORS
l‘heexnet state of the pre-Yfimuna Visistadvaita is not known because of
l'lt‘ l'nrt Ihnt though there werethe works of Nithamuni, Yamuna’s grandfather
lvv Yntuuuu's time. they have not come down to posterity.

I See my " Ydmuna's Contribution to Vitinddvaira“. published by Prof. M. Rangnchnryn

Mcinorinl Trust, Madras, 1971.
). See p. I70 Sanskrit text of this work.
t See p. 4, foot-note 3, below.
 2

In the list of teachers recited by Srlvaisnavas, barring the Divine Teachers,

we have the following mentioned in the pre-Yfimuna age : Sathakopa (known
in Tamil as Nammfilvz‘tr), Nathamuni, Pundarikaksa (Uyyakkondar) and
Sriramamisra (Manakkalnambi). Of these, Sathakopa is the celebrated Tamil
Saint. Thus it is Nathamuni that forms the first Srivaisnava teacher of the
South, who wrote works in Sanskrit.
Nathamuni, perhaps otherwise called Sriranganathamuni and Srinfttha,‘
was a native of Viranarayanapura, a village in tne South Arcot District, not far
from Chidambaram. This village is now known as Kattumannz‘trkoil or
Kattumannargudi. He lived in the later quarter of the 9th and the major part
of the 10th cent. A.D. He had a son called Isvara and a daughter too.2 He
was a great scholar, philosopher, musician3 and yogin“ all in one.
He wrote Yogarahasya, a treatise on Yoga, and Nydyalaltva, a treatise on the
Nyaya philosophy.5 None of these works is available now, though many
passages from the second are quoted by Venkatanatha, the famous later-day
Srivaisnava teacher.‘S
An additional significance of the position of Nathamuni is the fact that
he was the grandfather of Yamuna, whose work we are studying. Yamuna
makes several references to him and his distinguished disciples in his own works.7
Nathamuni was followed by Pundarikaksa and he, by ‘Srirfimamiéra. It
is not known whether these teachers wrote any works or not. Vedanta Desika,
in his works8 refers to Sadart/tasan'tksepa and Viraruua of one Sriramamisra,

1. See T. A. Gopinitha Rau‘s “ Sir Subrahmanya Aiyar Lectures on the History of Srivais-
navas “, where he identifies Nathamuni with Srinatha, on inscriptional data: p. 30, line 26.
Vide Prapanndmrla. ch. 108, $1. 71, p. 417.
. Ibid., p. 413 ff.
99'5“!”
. Ibid., p. 416.
Ibid.
Nydyasiddhdfljana:eh. I, pp. 30, 42, 43; ch. III, p. 104; ch. V, pp. 116, 125, 129; ch. VI,
pp. 159, 161, etc.
See also Nya'yaparis‘uddhi: pp. 109; 130, 132, 138, etc. In this work it is also said that the
Nydyatatrva of Nathamuni criticizes and refutes the classical Nyaya system of Gautama.
Cf. p. 87 : “ bhagavannéthamunibhir nyayatattvasamahvayé
avadhiryéksapadédin nyabandhi nyayapaddhatih "
7. ee Stotraratna: slokas 1, 2, 3 and 65. These verses state that Nathamuni was a great
philosopher, teacher and devotee. Special reference is made in verse 3 to his bringing the
great bhaktiyoga to the reach of the lay man by his preachings as well as writings. See in
this connection. Desika’s commentary on this verse, p. 28.
The last verses of A'gamaprdmdnya also bring about the glory of Nathamuni and his dis-
ciples. Of special importance is the phrase “sva-yogamahimapratyaksatattvatrayah”
attributed by Yamuna to Nathamuni. in the penultimate verse. which means that the latter
attained a vision of the Three Realities ( cit. not! and Mara) by means of his Yogic powers.
8. NydyaridtlltJ/Umm ch. 1, p. 35: ch. III, p. 106, We. See also N)'dynparit‘mldhi. pp. 152, 153.
 4

The Stotrarama is in praise of the Lord, where the agony of the Individual
Self trying to reach the divine plane of existence is very well brought out. We
find Yamuna here at his best as a poet. The main concern of this hymn is
praparti, the Doctrine of Surrender, which is one of the cardinal features of this
school. This Stotra also brings out other philosophical issues like the Supreme
Being, His nature and abode. Tradition records that Ramanuja got attracted
to Yfimuna after listening to this storm, particularly the verse “ svabhavika. . . . ”J
The Sristuti is a very short work comprising only four slokas, from which
it derives its another but popular name Catus’s'laki. Though short, this work
has got its own importance, because the author here discusses the independent
and strategic position of Laksmi, the Consort of the Lord and the Mediator
between Him and His devotee. The commentaries on this work by Venkatanatha
and Periyavaccan Pillai are very useful in understanding the significance of
Laksmi according to this school of thought.
The Purusanimaya, referred to in the A'gamaprdmdaya2 is, we are told,
devoted to establishing the Supremacy of Lord vasudeva over other deities, on
scriptural authority. We have to content ourselves with the relevant portions
of the Slotraratna and the Agamaprdmdnya where Yamuna deals with the ques-
tion of the supremacy of Visnu.
The demfrdgamaprdmdnya,’ which is also referred to in the Jgama-
prdmdnya, is devoted to establishing the revealed character ( apauruseyatva) of
the Ekdyanas‘dkhd, which the Pancaratragamas claim to be their source and
which is one of the redactions of the White ( Sukla) Yajurveda. This work,
like the previous one, exists only in name.
AGAMAPRAMANYA
The Agamaprdmdnya is devoted to prove the Vedic character of the
Pancaratra-texts. In this work, Yamuna controverts the contentions of his

1. Cf. Stotrarama, verse 11:

“ svabhavikanavadhikatiéayeéitrtvarh
mirayana! tvayi na mrsyati vaidikah kah?
brahmfi sivah éatamakhah paramasvarfidi-
tyetepi yasya mahimarnavaviprusaste"
Vida Prapanmimrm, ch. IX, p. 22, for the above account.
2. See p. 90 of the text. See also Ydmuna': Contribution.. .., pp. 14-16
Prapzmmimrra ch. 108, p. 416, wrongly ascribes the Purusanirnaya to Nathamuni.
3. The exact authorship of this work is open to doubt. The Rahasyarrayasdra of Venkatanatha,
which enumerates the works of Yamuna as eight in number (counting the three Siddhis
of the Siddhirmya separately ), does not mention the demirdgamaprfima'nya. But
the way in which Yamuna refers to it in the Jgamaprdmdnya, which 'is similar to his
reference to the Puruyanlmaya, makes us believe that it might be hls own work. until It is
proved otherwise.
 6

present attempt is to give a critical edition of this text and make a study of it.
This text, of course. has already appeared in print four times but those editions
are not satisfactory from the critical point of View.
THE PANCARATRAGAMAS
The Agama literature of the Paficaratra branch of the Srivaisnava religion
is a vast one. The difference between this and the other branch of these agamas,
viz., the Vaikhanasa, lies only in the details of ritualistic worship in temples.
The votaries of these two schools seem tohave had some mutual ill-will and
hostility which are reflected in some Vaikhanasa and Paficaratra works accord-.
ingly.l Venkatanzitha in his Pdficardtraraksdtried to reconcile these two differing
schools and declared that in essence, both these igamic ways of worship are
equally authoritative.2
The number ‘of these Pancaratragamas (called also Samhitas and Tantras)
is traditionally given as 108. Dr. F. O. Schrader in his masterly work Introduc-
ction lo the Pdficardrra and the Ahirbudlmya San'Ihitd, mentions as many as 210
San'ihitfis and remarks that the original extent of these works must have been
one and a half crorc of s’loka.r.J
It may be noted that the three main againic schools. viz-n, the Saiva, Sfikta
and Vaisnava, have many common features, such as (a) the existence of a
Supreme Being with a predominant male or female aspect, (b) the existence of
individual souls, (c) the reality of the objective universe and (d) efficacy of
unflinching devotion to the Deity in effecting salvation, expressed in the worship
of the idols of the Deity.4 “The Vedas and the Agamas are two different
streams of thought running in two parallel channels acting and reacting upon
each other so as to ultimately blend together indistinguishably. This is the
leason why later thinkers came to hold that the Agamas and the Vedas are one
and the same, being taught or delivered by the same God. . .. ".5 The votaries
of the Saivagamas hold that the Vedas and Upanisads are of a much general

I. For n refutation of the Pancaratra way of worship, see Jnandasmiihild: ch. XIII. sls. 1-4.
For a refutation of the Vaikhénasa mode of worship, see the verse “asrikaramasaumyam
ca vaikhanasamatattvikam " eta, quoted by Desika in his Pdflcardrmraksci,p. 10], as from
Tanrmrdrammucmya.
2. Cf. SJangmidipikd of Desika, s1. 32, p. 120:
“ tvfir‘n pinearatrikanayena prthagvidhena
vaikht‘tnasena ca pathi niyatadhikarfih
sarhjhavis'esaniyamena samarcayantah " etc.
3. See p. 14.
9 See pp. 299-300, Lifigadhfiranacandrika of Nnndikesvara edited by M. R; Sakhare.
5. Ibid,p. 276. For an account of the theories regarding the origin and source of the
figamic lore in general, see lbld . p. 266 ff.
the Vaikhlnasa enjoyed wide popularity and unquestioned authority. The
reason behind this is that the Vaikhanasa scriptures had, as their basis, the
sfitras of Vikhanas, who is an undoubtedly Vedic Sage. These aphorisms were
well expounded by his disciples Atri, Marici, Kasyapa and Bhrgu in their respec-
tive Saihhitas. In the case of the Paficaratra, though there are Vedic elements,
in addition to them, there are other elements too, which, for a superficial observer
appear non-Vedic. All such views are stated and refuted as the pfirvapaksa-
arguments in this work Agamaprdmdnya. The position is that all these
Pfificarfitragamas lay claim to authority on the ground that they are the direct
utterances of Vasudeva, the Supreme Deity, and also that they are based upon
the Ekdvanas’dkhd, which forms one of the redactions of the White Yajurveda.
This Ekdyanm‘dkhd, which is generally described sometimes as the Crown and
sometimes as the Root of the Vedas, is mentioned in the Cltdndogya Upam’sud.1
An early KaSmirian author Utpala, reverentially quotes several passages from
the Ekéyanas‘ruti, Ekdyana Upanisad and many Pancaratragamas, in his Spanda-
pradipikti.2 This definitely points to the existence of an Ekdyana Veda, which
is of course almost lost now, and which is claimed by the Pancaratragamas
as their source.
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE
JGAMAPRAMJNYA WAS WRITTEN
We have already noticed above that while the Vaikhanasa gained the
confidence of the people, it was only the Paficaratra that came to be doubted
of its Vedic nature due to a few apparently non-Vedic elements, as for example,
the enjoining of a special Initiation (diksd) on a man already initiated by the
Upanayana, so as to qualify him to do worship in Visnu temples. Orthodox
Vedic followers began to entertaih doubts about the Vedic character of the
Paflcaratra and its followers. The inclusion of the Paficaratra among the
non-Vedic schools by the great Mimamsaka Kumarilabhatta (about 800 AD.)
in his Tantravdrtika,’ put this school under severe test and shook the confidence
of the people deeply. The interpretation of the four aphorisms comprising the
Pfthcaratra-section of the Brahmasfitra‘ by the celebrated Advaita teacher
Sankaracarya exposed the philosophical side of these agamas to still grave doubts.
This situation demanded a scholastic approach to the problem of the authority
of these texts and consequently, of their followers, called the Bhdgavatas or
I. Chéndogya, VII. 1.2: “ rgvedam bhagvo ' dhyeme...ekayanarh "
Cf. also Sarapatha Bra/imam, X111. 6.1.1: “ sa etarh . . . . paflcaratram. . . .".
2. See Spandapradipikfi,pp. 2, B, 22, 40, etc. :
“ pancaratrasrutltvapi . . . . yadvat sopanena prasadamaruhet . . ._ .
" era, and
“ pancarfitropanisadi ca . . . . jfllltti ca jfleyam ca . . . . " etc.
3. pp. 114-115.
4. 11. 11. 42-45.
 Yamuna undertook the task of upholding the case of these Agamas
It'ltdmins.
and their adherents as being Vedie in theory as wellas practice. which resulted
in the composition of the Agamaprdmtinya.‘

N l’rl YAMA/VJARI'S STAND ON THE VALIDITY OF PANCARJTRA

II may be interesting to note that Jayantabhatta of Kfismir (about 900

A I) l. a noted Naiyfiyika, himself a Saivite by faith, perhaps for the first time
m the annals of Sanskrit literary activity tried to uphold in his Nydyamafijari’
lln' authoritative character of all agamas irrespective of their sectarian leanings,
|UlI|\'ltlt'(l they are based on the Vedas.

that Par'icardtra is as valid as the Saivagamas

He had clearly stated there
um. there is nothing indicative of its non-authoritative character.3 The
I‘

llmltlhisl and other non-Vedic schools of thought which have objectionable and
MIH'IIIC practices. are non-authoritative. It may be of additional interest to
lllllt' a more dedicated attitude of Jayantabhatta to this question of the validity
nl Autumn; in his little-known dramatic work Agamadambara,4 in which he
uphill". profusely from his Nydyamar'ijari. It is in these circumstances that the
owl was felt to devote special attention to the question of the Pdficardlra
m ttpltttt". with regard to their validity. As already mentioned, Yamuna meets
lltu' u‘ltnllt‘llttt' [)0st by other schools in his Agamaprdmdzzya, where he examines
thv rtilnu' mm- of these agamas regarding their validity and places them on a
"ton luottnu n.» texts of equal status with the Vedas.

R/lM/lNUJA ON THE VALIDITYIOF THESE AGAMAS

llu- stand of Ramanuja on the validity of the Pdficardtra scriptures is

‘uuultn to that of Yamuna. His interpretation of the Utpattyasarr'ibhava or
in. I'mhm'dlra-adhikarana of the Brahmamitra (II.ii.39-42) does not differ in
. .mnu- from that of Yamuna, offered 'in the Agamaprdmdnyafi Ramanuja
m pin the validity of these figamas in toro, as texts of equal status with the
. .

\'-«l u, and quotes passages from the Pauskara, the Sdttvata and the Paramasa-
mlmm ll'ollowing are some of the important points elucidated by Ramfinuja :

I
J» N Itmtlmkrishnan, in his Indian Philosophy. Vol. I,
p. 499, observes:
lluI my need for defence (of the Paflcanitra by the Vaisnava philosophers ) seems to
«how lltnl It took some time for the system to be accepted as Vedic.‘
‘
Mmllui IV. p. 26] if.
t III/ti, p. .265: “ paflcarfitrepi tenaiva prfimfinyamupavamilan'i
apra'ma'nyanr'mitlan‘r hi na'stl rarrdpr' kiflcarm ".
t « vitticnl edition of this work is under preparation by Dr. V. Raghavan.
I 'lm' the text, p. l09 fi'.
 12

their authors, being human the possibility of error is not ruled out.1
The “taduparyapi” section of the Sribhdsya,2 according to Vedanta Desika,
indicates that these agamas might have had as their basis, a Vedic branch which
lies scattered and is thus not available.3 Since Vyasa and others are known to
have had restored some of the Vedic branches that had long ago become extinct,
it is also reasonable to suppose that these agamas had, as their source, some Vedic
recension which has now become extinct.4 Such a supposition is warranted
by the statements of Marici, Apastamba and others. Even if there be some
contradiction between the Paficardtra and the Vedas, it is to be understood as
based on different contexts such as time, place and the qualified aspirant.
Therefore in such cases, the validity of these agamas would only be of an
alternative character (vikalpa).5 In fine, Desika states that the Paficardlra
texts are based on the ekdyana-s‘ruti and corroborates his statement by quoting
from many authorities, including some Prir'icara'tra works.

THE POSITION 0F PANCARATRARAKS/I

The Pdficardtraraksd of Desika is a work in three sections, devoted mainly
to an explanation and commendation of the five-fold observance of a day of
a Vaisnava, namely, “ abhigamana ” ( approaching the Lord, comprising morn-
ing prayers, ablation, etc. ), “ updddna” (fetching of flowers, etc., for
worship), “ ijya ( worship), “ svdalhydya ” (study of the sacred lore) and
“ yoga ” (meditation ).5

The first section deals with the fourfold division of the Paficaratra-mode
of worship, technically called the Siddhdma, into Mantra, A'gama, Tantra and
Tantrdntara, and their explanation. It is said that all these modes of worship
lead to emancipation.7 On the authority of many Samhitas Deéika states that
those initiated under the higher orders of the Siddhdnla are also eligible to
worship according to the lower order of the Siddhdnta. Inter-mixture of one
Siddhanta-worship with another is prohibited especially regarding the Ekdyapa
or the Paficaratra way of worship. The Paficaratra-worship can be followed

1. Cf. Nydyaparijuddhi, p. 167: “ evam sdksdt is‘varadayamrilatvat manvddinibandhanebhyo

'syétirekah ". '

2. Cf. Sribha'ysa under I. iii. 25 : ‘A‘sarikirnabrdhmanau " etc. qutoed by Deéika.

3. Nydyaparia‘uddhi, p. 167: “mm eva caisdm viprakirnasfikhfimfilatvam siddhdnta ityapi
sficiram ".
4. (bid. : “. . . .ucchinnas‘dkhdmdlatvamastu ”.
5. Ibid., p. 168: “ ..pai‘lcaratrasya s'rutyadivirodhe. . . .vikalpa eva ".
6. See Pdflcararraraksd, p. 154:
“ vidilam'gamasimna vefikalcs‘cna. . . .vihlreyam paflcakalasyn rakrd ".
7. Ibid., p. [10 : " namrme puflcakdlajfla paflcakdlapardyaaa.
paflcakdlaikanmnamm Ivamcva gatimvyuyd ".
 l3

ltv all. irrespective of sex, caste and other considerations. One may question
the necessity of the Pdflcardtra-texts themselves, while there are already autho-
ltlllllVC Vaikhdnasa treatises on worship. Desika replies that those manuals
rover only that particular Vedic branch which is followed by the Vaikha'inasas
and that their scope is thus limited. It is to fill in the gap and to suit the require-
ttwttt- of the followers of another Vedic branch that the Pdficardtra texts came
up. liven the Vaikhfinasa treatises allow in some cases the Pdficardtra worship-
ptttlrrn as an alternative,‘ which only points to the authoritative character
nl these agamas. It is declared by Desika more than once that the I’dflcanitra
:vus arc authoritative in rota in as much as they are the direct utterances of Lord
Vttsudcva regarding His own worship, the performance of which would result
In Inn/«w.

As regards statements which exhibit mutual ill-will and hatred found both
Itt the Vttlkltdnasa and the Pdflcardtra works, Desika says that such passages
are interpolations effected by overambitious and prejudiced disciples as well as
worshippers. Both these ways of worship-arc commended.by no less a person
than Vyl'lsa. These two methods of worship should properly be understood as
hunting the two phases of one and the same Vaisnavas’dstra. Moreover, accord-
tnp, to the principles of exegesis, condemnation of one agama-text made by
another, should only be viewed as based on the intention of praising one particulat
ttuatnn, but not on that of refuting the other2
Ihc second and the third sections are devoted to_a further elaboration of
"W almw-tnentioned Observances, “ubhigamana”, “updda'na ”, etc. It is said
that ltttmanaja and his immediate disciples observed them3 and that even those
who tollow the path of Surrender should practise them.

AUTHORITIES QUOTED BY YAMUNA

In the Agamaprdmdnya Yamuna quotes from a variety of sources, which
.wlnlnts his familiarity with texts belonging to various schools of thought. He
quotes tnany Mantras and Brihmana—passages, as also from the Prasthanatraya,
tlu- ntaiot' portion of quotations being from Upanisads like the Chdndogya, the
\‘wlth‘t'mara. the Maitrdyam'ya, the Mahdndrdyana, the Brhaddranyaka and the
Manda/ta. He is conversant with the Pfirvamimdrr'tsd of Jaimini and its allied
illt‘ltlllll't‘. viz., the Sabarabhdsya, Kumarila’s Tantravdrn‘ka (which he

I
t'l. I't'mt-urfitrarakszi, p. 101. Desika quotes the verse “gurfiparlesasammltlhuill kalpu-
Imtltlntlt'ttlhript' vd“ etc. from the Bhrgusarithirfi (a Vat‘khcinasa-work) and explains thc
term “ ltu/rmmumra " as the mantra of the Pdflcarfilrdgamas.
I See .‘i'tlhurabltdyya under 11. iv. 20: _

" mt ltl [rim/d nindyam nimlllum prat'artate; apt' tu nindirriditural praiun'txitttm". Sec
I'mlt'urdlmmkytl. p. 102.
t l’ttlr l’dflcurdtrarukyd, pp. 110, 112.
 l4

culls Tantraflkd) and Slokavdrtika and Sillikanfitha’s Prakaranapaficika'. It is

probable that Yamuna derives much information regarding the Prabhfikara
school from Salikanatha’s compositions but we cannot be certain Unless we have ‘
some more works of Prabhakara himself. Our author’s familiarity with the
Brahmasfitra of Badariyana is equally evident.1 Yamuna cites passages from
the Nyaya works also. On the Epic side, he quotes the Ra'mdyana only for once,
and that too, from the latter half. Quotations from the Mahabharata are many,
the bulk of which are from the Sdnti and the Bhisma Parvans. Many passages
are also Culled from Purinas like the Visnu, the Matsya, the Skanda, the Lir'tga,
the Vardha, the Aditya, the Brahma, the Brahmdnda, the Pddmodbhava and the
Bhavisyat. Many Paiicara'lra works are quoted, of which reference is made
to the Parama, Is’vara and the Mahdsanatkuma'ra Sarhhitds by name. The sources
of some of the passages are yet to be identified. Yamuna is found to be equally
conversant with Saiva works like the Paficddhydyt' and the Mdhes’varatantra from
which he quotes passages by name. As regards the Smrtis he quotes those of
Manu, Bodhdyana, Ydjfiavalkya, Atri, Vasistha, Us’anas, Deva/a and Sarikha
and many other passages, the sources of which are yet to be traced out.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE AGAMAPRAMANYA

The influence of the Jgamaprdmdnya on later writers is indeed great. The

Paficarz‘ttra section(Brahmasfitra, II. ii. 39-42) of Raminuja’s Sribhdsya, as
already examined by us, very closely follows Yamuna’s explanation of the
four aphorisms comprising that section, found in the present work.2
Ramanuja, following Yamuna, treats the first two aphorisms of that section
as putting forth the prima facie view and the next two sfitras as giving
the siddhdnta. The refutation of .the contention that some of the statements
found in the Pdiicardtrdgamas betray anti-Vedic character, made by Ramanuja
under “ vipratisedhdcca ” (II. ii. 42), proceeds on the lines shown by Yfimuna
in his Agamaprdmdnya. He is also one with Yamuna in holding that Vyasa,
the author of the Mahdbha'rata is identical with Badarayana, the author of the

l. C]. the following verse attributed to Yémuna, quoted in the Prapanndmrta Ch. 111:
" d s‘aildt adrikanydcaramkisalayanydsadhanyopakamhfi!
c7 raksonitasitdmukhakamalasamulldsahetofimsetoh

6 ca prdcydpraticyaksitidharayugnlddarkacandra'vatarhsfir
mimdn'ufisdstrayugmasramavimalamnmi mrgyaldn'l ma‘drso ’nyah ”
2. Cf. the text, p.117 the passage starting with “evam rd. .na ca. ." etc., and SribhfisyaII.ii.40.
Cf. again the text, p. 118: “ vdiabddt pakso viparivartate " etc. and Sribhdsya, 11. ii. 41:
“ va's‘abdti! pakso viparivarrate " etc.
Desika in his Nyfiyaparijuddhi. p. 168, avers that Ramanuja followed Yamuna in
interpreting the Priflrarritra section of the Bruhmasfilra: “Iadunusa'rwaiva bhdsyakérail!
.tripdrlcardn'ddhikarunam vydkhydlum ".
 l6

THE STYLE OF THE JGAMAPRJMANYA

The style of the work is powerful and cryptic. Even prose-passages

read like metrical ones and the verses, though dialectic in character, bear clear
evidence to the great poetic skill of the author.1 The fact that the passages are
mostly metrical, sometimes leaves the readers in doubt as to whether a passage
in question is the author’s own composition or a quotation from some other
work.2 Almost every passage bears ample testimony to the vast erudition of
the author and especially to his command over the Nyaya dialectics and the
Miman'isz'i exegesis, so that a general reader will find it very difficult to under:
stand many of the arguments, unless he is conversant with the Nyfiya and the
Mimarhsa systems. The author sparingly employs certain archaic phrases and
terms that are not generally found in the later works.3 It is hoped that the
explanations offered by us in the foot-notes would be of some help in
this connection.

The second verse at the beginning of this text, read along with the two
concluding ones,4 clearly brings out the disdain of our author for some of his
contemporaries, who, out ofjealousy, were not fairly disposed towards his works.
In the light of this, the terse‘ness of the text can be well appreciated as having
been intended by Yamuna to silence such intolerant critics.

The following is a brief account of the arguments advanced by the critics

of the Paficaratra school and their refutation by Yamuna. Followers of this
school claim authority to'their Agamas in toto on the ground that they are the

l. The Caruss‘loki' and particularly the Srolrarama are good instances of Yfimuna's poetic
gifts.
2. See the text, p. 8|, f.n.+; p. 82, f.n."; p. 96, fin.”
U See the text, p. 29, f.n. -= ; p. 30, f.n.s.
4. See the text, p. l :
“ ye ’mi kerana marsarfir savayaso durmfinasfirfi narfih
gambliira‘m gunasdlinimapl girarii nindani nindantu re
sdrdsfimvicfirakausaladasdpa'repare ’vasfhitfih
.rantab santyanasfiyavo ‘pi bahavali sariu'anti ye madgiram"
This reminds one, of Bhavabhfiti's famous verse: “ ye ndma kecidiha " etc.
See ibid., pp. 170-171 :
“ tallalkalpimyukribhifiakalaéah Irrtvd radi'yan'i mararh
yacchi‘syair udamardi sdttvatamataspardhdvara‘muddhatih
yaccemxsaratam mukundacaranadvandvfispadan'i i-arrare
jivfinmithamunib .rvayogamahimapraryaksatarrvarrayah"
“ dkalparii vilasanru sdltvatamatapraspardhlduypaddha/l—
vyfimugdhoddhaladurvidagdhapariyadvuldagdhyavidhvariuindli
trimannfilhmmmfndravurdhlladhiyonilrdhfitavlsvdflvdli
Jamal! .mnlaIrmmlyupmlyapaduvlhrdydnavadyokmya, "
 17

direct utterances of Lord Vttsudeva and that there is nothing non-vedic in them.‘
Nu, naturally the Mlmamsaka (Bhatta ), who upholds the sole authority of the
leuu and who denies the existence of a Supreme Being, becomes the first
mlvernury whom Yamuna has to tackle first.

THE BH/ITTA-MIMAMSAKA'SCRITICISM
l‘lic Mimamsaka, first of all, examines the sources of these Panca-
I allrdgumus.
‘I‘he Pdflcardtrdgamas, like the agamas of any other school, speak of n
umlnin thing as the summum bonum of life and they prescribe a number of rites
lttm Inn-a ( Initiation) and Arddhana ( worship) of the Lord as a means thereof.
l'he muse und effect relationship between those rites and the resulting heaven,
m: thCOl‘tllnfl tn the MImarhsaka, cannot be verified by any means of knowledge.
()culnr perception ( pratyaksa ), however powerful it might be, has to obey
Itn uwn uulurnl laws and so it cannot reveal the desired causal connection that
mutt-um between the rites and heaven. Here the Mimamsaka attacks the‘theory
"I Supremacy of some person advanced by others in support of the above
ntuuuu'lll. According to the Mimaihsaka there does not exist any person posses-
Ilun unlimited power, knowledge, e1c., presiding over this entire universe. Even
tt um l| n Wlllc perception is accepted, he states that it cannot be proved that that

put. ultllntt nlunc realised the desired causal connection between Initiation and
lmm-n
lttlut‘cttt'c ( anumdna) likewise, is stated to be incapable of establishing the
.twnwnt ivlnlinuship between the means and the end because, the knowledge of
lttt’vttltllilt‘ mucomittance which is the source of anumdna, is absent here.
tt..l....lv mu know the invariable relationship that exists between Initiation and
ltn-nvu'n, wlicrc heaven happens to lie beyond the scope of human perception.
l'lu- Mluutrhsaka then observes that there is no Vedic statement (dgama)
ul'm. Ill l'uVuur of these agamas. Such a Vedic text cannot even be inferred.
Nor urc there any Religious Texts (dgamas) which preserve injunctions
otuttnu thut initiation is instrumental to heaven. Agamas are of two types:
tItuw t'tlllllCClCd with human beings as their works and those for which there is
un' nuthnr ut all. Of these, the first type of agamas is not authoritative since it
In. nllt-r nll, the composition of human beings, who are subject to passions like
lnvu nml hutrcd and are therefore, prone to err. As for the second type, there

l (7'.Yullmlmmutadt'plkd, p. 30:
" Manunllvya tantranrdnrrasiddhdnmbhcdabhlnnas
ya sripaflcardrragamasya kvacldapl
mlm'lrodlidbhdvatkdrtsnyena prdmdayam. . . ." ‘
 L8

is no- revealed textthat is in favour of the desired causal connection. Thus, the
Mimfimsaka states that thereis no text which can reveal the sdtlhya-sddhana relation
between the rites these agamas ordain. and the fruits that are said to accompany
the performance of those rites.

Comparison ( upamdna ), the next means of knowledge too, cannot reveal

this relationship. Comparison takes place between two objects well-known.
Since the original Vedic text is itself not known here, comparing another statement
with it is highly impossible.
The next pramdna examined by the Mimamsaka is Assumption (arthdpam' ).
This is also found to be not helpful in establishing the desired relationship.
' Incompatibility of statement‘. which forms the source of this
pramdna is absent
in the present case. Again, these figamas cannot stand comparison with
Manusmrti and such other works, in whose case arthdpatti-prama'na is applied.
Moreover, the aphorism “apt“ vd kartrsdmdnydt...."' of Jaimini, which the
Paficaratrins try to press into service to uphold the validity of their agamas,
sanctions authority only to smrti works like those of Manu and others, but
not to works like the Pdfimrdmigamas. Smrtis obtain validity only when the
rites enjoined by them are performed by those, who also perform the other duties
laid down in the Vedas. The ‘astakd’ sacrifice ordained by the Smrtis for
instance, is performed by those who perform the other Vedic rites also, as for
instance, the sandhydvandana. But the rites ordained by the Paficardtra works
are not at all performed by those who carry out the Vedic rites. At the same
time. those who follow these Tantric practices are severely condemned by the
Vedic people and hence it is beyond all doubt that these agamas are non-Vedic.
The Mimamsaka then states that the followers of these figamas who are
called Bhdgayanu2 are not brahmanas at all. They no doubt, maintain knots
of hair and other brahmanical marks but this is no indication of their true caste.3
Such marks are exhibited even by the .s‘fidras who try to delude people about
their true nature.

I. Plirvanu'mdimfi, 1. iii. 2: “ api rd karrrsfimdnyfit pramfinamanumdnamsyfi! ".

2. See Indian Philosophy by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Vol. I, p. 497. ,

“ The followers of the Pailcaratra were apparently not allowed originally to adopt the Vedic
forms of worship. . . ."
3. .Vide, Dr. Ganganatha Jha, The Prdblifikara School of Pfirvamimdn'rsfi, p. 101 : “ Kumt'u'ila
and Prabhakara alike, do not admit of sucn 'ja'ris ‘ as ‘ brfihmazmtva ', ‘ ksarriyatva ' and
the like, all of which cannot be perceived by the senses. What is meant by calling a man
‘
Brdhmana ' is not that he belongs to any such ‘jfin’ ' but only that he descended from a
particular line of ancestors. The purity of descent has to be accepted until there is sufl'i-
'

cient proof to the contrary."

Cf. Slokavfim'ka. vanavdda, V-29: “ bréhmanatvédi yonitali". and Tantravfirrika under
1. ii. 2
 20.

ances, he warns, should not be taken as indicating the true nature of these agamas.
They are merely hypocritical. This is so because, these texts, at a number of
places, also pour down instructions regarding mundane practices like charming
persons and exorcising evil spirits. “ There is too much of black magic and super-
stition ”1 in them. These instructions are calculated only to delude the common
people. They are not in keeping with the spirit of a text purporting to be based
on the Vedas. Therefore, even a stray case of ordaining worship should rightly
be regarded as hypocritical. The correct conclusion is that these agamas are
not Vedic.
* t *

Vedas, according to the Mimamsaka, are apauruseyo, without an author.

The Naiyfiyika however, argues that even the Vedas are the work of Isvara, the
Omniscient Lord, since they consist of sentences ( vdkyas) which would ultimately
point to an author. This author could not be human, since the Vedas deal with
supra-mundane results like the heaven, which are outside the ken of human be-
ings. The Mimimsaka refutes this argument. According to him this reasoning
would ultimately result in the authorship of only a human being possessing a
physical body and limited knowledge, but not the desired authorship of an omnis-
cient Lord. It is well-known that the physical body is only the result of the previous
merit and demerit of a particular being. This position therefore does not apply
to the divine authorship of the Vedas. If it would apply, it would directly affect
the authoritative character of the Vedas themselves. Dharma which lies beyOnd
the scope of the ordinary means of knowledge cannot be revealed by the vdkyal
composed by human beings.
Regarding the creation and dissolution of this world, the Mimamsaka is
of the view that they are not instantaneous operations. “ Prabhakara and Kumfi-
rila alike, deny absolutely the validity of the belief in the periodic creation and
dissolution of all things. They accept a constant process of becoming and pass-
ing away. .”2 Thus, for instance, the Prabhftkara, “though he admits that the
Universe is made of constituent parts, and as such it must have a beginning and
an end in time, yet he finds no reason for believing that the Universe, as a whole,
hada beginning at any one point of time, or that it would all come to an end
at any one point. Hence, if the constituent factors of the Universe have a begin-
ning, they must also cease one after the other; in fact, this is what 'is actually
found to be the case in everyday experience ”.3 Creation of the earth, therefore,

l. S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, Vol. I, p. 499.

2. Keith A. B. Karmamimfin‘mi, p. 6}. .

3. Cf. The Prdbhdkora School of Piirvamimdrhsd. p. 87. Also cf. S'Iakavfirliko. San'ibandhdksepa-
pari'hdra, éls. 47, 68, where the theories of the creation and dissolution of the universe are
refuted and see also (bid. all. “3 for u general rcl'utution.
 2i.

means a gradual but not simultaneous accumulation of mass and dissolution.

likewise, is a gradual reduction of it.

Continuing, the Mimarhsaka says that a Supreme Being need not at all be
postulated to account for the entities like the hills, earth and oceans, which we
me, We, the human beings tjivas) who are intelligent, could ourselves produce
them: entities through sacrifices, and as such, no postulation of a divine agent
II justified. It may be argued that a Supreme Person is to be assumed Who can
perceive the “ apfirva ” or the unseen result that arises out of the performance
of acts (sacrifices) and which the human beings cannot decidedly see. This
argument, according to the Miman'nsaka, is only superficial. Human beings
are not directly connected with the perception of the apfirva, which is only the
instrumental cause of things. It is enough if they understand the ellicacy of
the lites they perform. They get a knowledge of the productive capacity ( .i‘ukri)
of those rites, through a study of the Vedas. This they can do, since they are
endowed with intelligence. This is supported by the critic by citing the analogy
of a potter who only understands the eflicacy of the clay, the rod, are, but cannot
have a direct perception of their productive capacity ( .s‘akti ).

Then the critic attacks the Naiyayika’s view that the entities obtained in
the world are liable to destruction, on the ground that they consist of parts. All
entities like the earth and the Sun, according to the Miman'isaka, are eternal. ’l‘lic
eternal character of these things is proved by the means of knowledge called
Recognition ( pratyabhijfid ), which is a variety of ocular perception ( prawn/am)
and hence, is more powerful and valid than inference (anumdna ). This recogni-
tion is of the type: “ That earth (which people of the past saw) is verily this
(which I now see)” and “That Sun is verily this ”, etc. People that lived in
the past must have had similar recognitions with regard to these and other entities
and people that live in future will also have similar recognitions. There is thus,
a continuity of knowledge regarding these things during all periods of time—-
past, present and future. This, argues the Mimamsaka, proves that these entities
are eternal.

Again, he criticises the Nyaya theory that an Agent for this world can be
Inferred, Who is possessed of qualities like Lordship and Omniscience and Wno,
‘ut the same time, is devoid of a physical body. Referring to worldly experience.
he says that every entity that is produced, points to an agent—a human agent—
wlio is found ‘to be dependent, and to possess limited knowledge, and a physical
lmdy. So, the so-called Creator of the world would necessarily have to be
admitted to be in possession of a body. If this is admitted, then it would
naturally follow that that body is also liable to destruction like any other body, since
It is also composed of parts. So, inference of a Supreme Being as Creator of
 22

this universe is quite untenable.l The critic further argues that the knowledge
of invariable concomittance, (vydpti) which is the very life of anumdna (inference),
should not stop merely at pointing to an intelligent agent. All the particularities
associated with the agent, like his possession of a physical body, limited knowl-
edge, etc., which are understood along with the invariable concomittance, should
also be taken into account, without any exception.

He then launches his attack against the creative and other activities of the
Supreme‘Person inferred by the Naiyayika.2 An agent in general, is found to
sit at a particular place and do a bit of work at a particular time, with
the necessary instruments, and with a view to achieve some fruit. When this is
our practical experience, it is difficult for us to imagine an ultra-mundane God
engaged in creating, maintaining and destroying the entire universe, without any
appointed place and time, and that too, for no purpose at all since it is declared
that all the desires of that God are fully realized. Even if it is admitted that there
is such a lord who does all this, the motive behind such activities cannot be
explained. To examine, it is not out of mere sport (kridci) that the Supreme
Being is doing all this, since it is known that He is already happy with all His
desires realized. If to create is His nature, which cannot be overcome, it only
means that the Lord has no independence. He creates, maintains and destroys
the universe restlessly, without a definite plan of His own, being impelled by His
own irresistible nature. But if it is said that He creates the beings out of pure
mercy, then the actual state ofafl‘airs obtained in the creation proves to the con-
trary. Many of the beings are not happy and they should have been created
happy, if the Creator is merciful. 1f the individuals’ past karmans are themselves
held responsible for their misery, then again. the independence of the Creator-God
gets impaired. So, the Mimarh'saka declares that there could be no person who

l. Vide The Prfibhdkara SchoolofPfirvamimfin‘zrfi, p. 87: “ As the Naiyayika bases his argument
on the analogy of the carpenter supervising and guiding the making of wooden articles,
and as this carpenter is a bodied being, the analogy, extended a little further, would prove
this supervising GOd also to be a bodied being; but at the same time we know that no
‘ ’

bodied being can exercise any intelligent control over such subtle things as the atoms,
Dharma and Adharma ".
2. Vide Karnmmimdn'nd, pp. 62-63: Kumarila ridicules the idea of the existence of Prajapati
before creation of matter; without a body. how could he feel desire? If he possessed a
body, then matter must have existed before his creative activity, and there is no reason to
deny then, the existence of other bodies. Nor is there any intelligible motive for creation;
granted that, when the world exists, conditions are regulated by merit and demerit, originally
there was no merit or demerit, and the creation of a world full of misery was inexcusable,
for it is idle to argue that a creator could only produce a world in which there is sin and
pain. Yet, if his action is conditioned, ne cannot be omnipotent. If, again, it is alleged
that the creation was for his amusement. this contradicts the theory that he is perfectly
happy, and would involve him in much wearisome toil."
 23

treates the worldl with a‘direct knowledge of Dharma and Adharma and Who
tould also compose the Vedas.
He then examines the claim that the Paficgrdtra-texts are as valid as the
Vedas themselves, on the ground that they both are the compositions of God.
He reiterates his stand that the Vedas are not composed by any person, htnnun
at divine. Revealed as they are, their authority is unquestioned. They are
I'lt‘l'lllll since their author is not at all remembered while he deserves to he
remembered. Such is not the case with works like the Rdma'yaua and the
Mahabharata, whose authors like Valmiki and Vyasa deserve to be remembered
and are also remembered. Since such a remembrance of the author is absent in
the ease of the Vedas, it is to be admitted without further hesitation lhttt the
Vedas are not written by anybody. The author of the Pa'flcardtra-works. ou the
other hand, is' known to be Ve‘tsudeva. After an impartial consideration of
these facts, one would be forced to admit that these agamas are not eternal or
revealed and that they do not deserve comparison with the eternal Vedas in
respect of authority.
He then draws a distinction between the Vedas and the agamas. The chief
characteristic of the Vedas is that they consist of sentences which have got a
particular sequence (krama). These sentences cannot be changed of their
sequence by persons that may, from time to time, repeat them. But in the ease
of the Pdficardtra-texts, there being no such rigid sequence, people may effect
changes in them, at their own free will. This characteristic, namely, ‘sequcuce ',
ts itself enough, argues the Mimarhsaka, to distinguish the Vedas and thc
I’dflcardtra. '
He then turns his attention to the contention of the Pfifiearatrins that the
author of their agamas is the Omniscient Lord and that His Omniscience is not
title to any of the well-known means of knowledge but that it is quite natural
with Him. The critic points out that it is quite unreasonable to say that a person
t-oald get knowledge even without a proper study of the Vedas and such other
texts. Further, there is no Vedic statement to the effect that the Supreme Being
lteeame Omniscient even without the well-known means of knowledge. liven
tl' such a text is somehow, traced,2 the Mimarhsaka suggests that it should only

I Vale Karmamimfin'isa', p. 64: “Though the existence 0! a creator is denied, the Mlmtlrhutt
accepts without reserve, the doctrine of the existence of the self or soul and Snbarasvtlmin
elaborates the case for its existence; Prabhakara and Kumarila both develop the theme in
close accordance with this view. The necessity of the existence of the self for the Mlmttrhstl
rests on its fundamental assumption that the sacrifices are performed to secure, in many
eases, a reward not in this life. There must, therefore, be an etemal entity, distinct from
the body, the sense-organs, and cognitions, which is both the doer of actions and the
reaper of their reward."
I The Bhatta has in his mind, the text: “ "a tasya kfiryarh karanam ca vldyate, svfibhdvlkl
llldnabalakriyfica " (S’vctfivatam: Ill. 6), which states clearly that the Lord’s Knowledge,
I'ower, etc. are natural with Him but not due to any means.
 24

be explained as an ‘arlhardila‘—nn explanatory passage. To be clear, since

the Lord is, in many cases, known to possess knowledge, we. invariably, He is
liguratively said to possess knowledge etc. naturally. This is the way of explain-
ing such texts as eulogistic passages. Thus the significance of such texts is always
to be understood as secondary but not primary. He further points out that
even if such a Person with natural knowledge etc. is admitted to exist, there
could be nothing to the credit or advantage of the Pdiicardtra texts as such.
As a matter of fact, the Mimamsaka does not accept Supreme God as
such.1 God, according to him, is only that particular term of the authoritative
Vedic text (such as agm' in the Mantra “ agnaye svdhd ” ), which is itself under-
stood to be the recipient of the ofl'erings made in a sacrifice, in a particular con-
text.2
Continuing the previous discussion that the author of the Pdficara'tra could
not be omniscient, the Mimamsaka points out that even the Pasupatas hold that
Siva, the author of their own Agamas is the only Omniscient One. Similar is
the case with other religious schools too. The promulgators of all religions,
however, cannot be admitted to be omniscient because of the divergent views held
by them regarding metaphysical issues. Thus it is difiicult to state who actually is
all-knowing since scriptural texts glorify for instance, both Siva and Vasudeva to
be so. The Mimarhsaka therefore concludes that the Pdficara'trdgamas could
only be the work of some deceitful person bearing the name Vzisudeva. Another
point of discredit to the Pancaratrins is that Vasudeva, in the Purinas, is stated
to have deceived demons by teaching them the non-Vedic systems of thought,

1. Vida the following extracts from the Karmamimfirhsfi:

“ Tne Mimarhsa, in both schools, is confident that there is no question of rewards coming
from the deity to whom the ofi'erings are made; no deity is either eternal or omnipresent
and there could be no assurance of it ever receiving the numerous offerings made by diverse
votaries, apart from the difficulty of the deity conferring reivards." (p. 74)
“ Despite its emphatic denial of the existence of a Supseme Lord, the Sarvasiddhdnrasmigraha
(Vlll. 40, 41 ) treats the end of man as to be obtained by meditation upon, and worship
of, the Supreme Spirit which is manifested in each man, and authors such as Apadeva and
Laugaksibhaskara, declare that if the sacrifice is performed in honour of Govinda or the
Creator isvara, it leads to the highest good, basing this assertion on the authority of the
'
Bhagavadgirfi."
“ It can hardly be assumed that these deities were not believed to be real by the founders of
the Mimarhsa. And there is nothing to show that Jaimini did not accept their existence.
But the later doctrine, as evinced in such works as Devardsvarfipavicfira of Apadeva, does
not accept the validity of the descriptions of the deities given in the Puranas as showing
the existence of such beings; these passages rank as mere Arthavada; the deity is merely
that to which offering is made, and has no existence beyond the Mantras addressed to it."
(p. 78)
2. Cf. p. 159 of the Text: “na h! kdcir jdlyii devatd Mmdsti; yaiva hi havillpratiyagimyd
pramanabhtirat .tubtlddavagamyain, sd mrru devout! hi vaulddhdntalt."
 25

nutuning the form of Mayamohana' and others. It is therefore proper to suppose

that Pancaratra which is professedly his own teaching, was deliberately propound-
ed by him to delude the people. It is in consonance with this that we find the
orthodox Vedic followers not observing the rites ordained by these particular
llamas.
Even granted that the Lord too studied the Vedas like Mann and others
under a teacher, there is no need to attribute any originality to him. It is difficult
to imagine that He could understand the meaning of the Vedas even without
the required study of them, under some preceptor.
Another reason to suppose that these Agamas are non-Vedic is that they are
rel'utcd by other Smrti-works. The Pdflcardtra-texts themselves draw a distinction
between the Vedic and Tantric practices regarding one and the same rite. This
distinction would be meaningless if these-Agamas are strictly Vedic character.
An assessment of all the reasonings put forth above, says the Mlmnrhsaku
in fine, would only point to the non-Vedic character of the Paficaratra system
so much so that there is no other choice than to conclude that it is purely the
invention of a deceitful man.

i t C

THE NAIYAYIKA‘S ARGUMENTS

The Naiyayika and his stand regarding the position of the Pancaratra are
introduced by Yamuna next. It has already been mentioned above (p. 5),
that Yamuna has much in common with the Naiyayika regarding the existence
of an Isvara, the creation etc. of the world by Him, His authorship regarding
the Pdficardtra'gamas, etc. and that our author differs from him regarding the
authorship of the Vedas.
It has been argued by the Mimarhsaka that the Pdficardtra texts cannot
he compared with Manusmrti and such other works. The Naiyayika points
nut that it is Mansumtti that cannot stand comparison with these agamas and
not the other way. These agama-texts belong to the same class to which the
Vedas belong. They both are derived from one and the same source, namely
the “ anubhava” (EXperience) of the Lord. So, there is no question of these
texts themselves being based on the Vedic texts for their authority. Just as two
tlltl'erent smrti—passages ordaining the asfakd and ficamana rites for instance,
uniumt be said to be mutually dependent, so are these dgamas and the Vedas.
Whatever reason one might advance in support of the contention that Vedas are
the only authority on matters of Dharma, can equally be applied to the agamas
lot).

I. (‘1'. the verse " ma'ya'mohanavlgraheua hariafi. ." on p. 52 of the Text. See Visnupurdna:
Ill chs. l7 and 18 for this account.
 26

Vedas, according to the Nuiyl‘lyiku, are composed by Evan, the Lord.

These Vedas consist of sentences (wlkyas), which unmistakably point to the
authorship of some person, who possesses a direct knowledge of Dharma and
Adharma, instrumental to the world-creation. It cannot be stated that even
while being in the form of sentences, the Vedas need not necessarily be composed
by anybody. This extreme view might even lead one to conclude that smoke
can come out even without fire. which however is absurd.
[t is the Lord alone that could directly perceive Dharma and Adharma, which
form the instrumental cause of this world. He composed the Vedas, purely as.
a matter of mercy towards the individual selves so that they may be of great
help to those beings in achieving the objects they desire. It cannot be argued that
no perception can visualize Dharma and Adharma. The position is, that unless a
person of excelling power is accepted, we cannot account for the entities found in
this universe. A direct knowledge ofthe instrumental and material causes is the
chief criterion of one's becoming the agent or author of a particular thing.
Dharma and Adharma, whose instrumentality to this world is accepted even
by the Mimz'tmsaka, should necessarily be accepted as perceived by the Lord,
'
Who could also compose the Vedas.
This may lead to the doubt whether entities like the earth and the hills are
clfects (krirya) or not. The Naiyfiyika, with the help of syllogisms, tries to
infer that earth, etc. are all effects. They have parts, which help deduce that
they are also destructible by persons who know their causes. It is also possible
to infer origination and destruction For all entities on the ground that they vibrate
while having a manifested form.
When once these arguments establish that earth, etc. are effects, it naturally
follows that a Supreme Being capable of perceiving Dharma and Adharma
pertaining to thOSe effects, is also accepted.‘ The Naiyayika infers an agent
for all entities in this world with the help of syllogistic statements.
It might be contended that creation and dissolution, being mere acts, can
independently produce the desired effects, without reference to the agency of any
ultra-mundane person. But practically, argues the Naiyfiyika, we know that
mere insentient acts cannot produce ell'ects independent of a sentient agent.
A chisel, fol instance, cannot prepare a wooden article without being operated
by a carpenter. Human beings of ordinary knowledge and power cannot perceive

l. Vt'de Karmamimdliisd, p. 61: g

“ The Nyaya-Vaisesika, accepting the doctrine of atoms on the one hand and the periodical
creation and destruction of the world on the other, had found it necessary to introduce
the conception of a Creator. in order to secure in some measure, It mode of bringing’a‘bout
the renewal and destruction of the combinations of the atoms and their connection with
' '
souls."
‘
 27

the apfirva—the unseen potency that results from the performance of acts. That
Is to say, that the human beings cannot become the designers of certain entities.
I'lterel‘ore an Omniscient Designer-Agent of this entire universe is to be presumed.
As a corollary, it is to be admitted that qualities like Omniscience, Detachment
and Lordship reside in Him. This argument is corroborated by various Mantras,
Arthavida-passages and Purfiaa-statements.
The Naiyayika argues that there is nothing special about the so-called
nlmuruseyatva (revealed character) of the Vedas, advocated by the Mlmaliisaku.
II' this ‘ eternal character ’ of the Vedas belongs actually to the letters ( mum)

that go into their composition, then, same is the case with the Pdiicardlra-texts.
which also consist of letters. If this eternity, however, belongs to the words
(pada) taken as a unit, even that would apply to these agamas. If, as the next
step, this eternity is attributed to the sequence (duupfirvi) in which these letters
occur, this contention, declares the Naiyfiyika, is wrong. Sequence as such.
cannot attribute eternity to letters. It is quite clear that sequence is. after all.
the result of human utterance (uccdrana ). This utterance in its turn. is not
eternal because it exists so long as a man utters the words. So sequence. which
is based upon such a short-lived utterance will naturally be non-eternal. Thus.
the theory of apauruseyati'a of the Vedas advocated so zealously by the
Mlmt‘trhsaka, has nothing special in it, by which the Vedas might be claimed as
higher in status than the Pdficardtrdgamas. The Naiyfiyika concludes that both
the Vedas and these figamas are equal in authority, being the compositions of
one and the same Isvara.
The Naiyayika states that his arguments regarding the existence of n
Superhuman Being are not mere logical speculations. They have got the full
support of the Upanisads. Accordingly, the Upanisads statethat there is an
ltvara, the Supreme Being, and that He is possessed of qualities like Onmisciencc
and Lordship. He had created this Universe and it is He that could compose
the Pdficardtra texts too. Since these agamas are the work of such a Person.
it naturally follows, contends the logician, that their authority is unquestioned.

The Prabhakara Miinamsaka does not admit the primary validity of

llpanisadic statements, which speak of entities already existing (sit/dim, blima
or purinisthita vast'u) like the Brahman. According to him, all Vedic passages.
no as to gain validity, should be explained as supplementary statements speaking
of something connected with a ‘thing to be established’ (kcirya ). This is so
because, sentences that speak of an already existing thing might be merely
repetitive (anm'fida) or even might go wrong at times (bad/1a ).
Against such a view. the Naiyayika argues that just as a sentence speaking
ol‘ 'something to be done’ (kdrya) is held authoritative by the Prabht'ikara,
no also, a sentence that speaks of a past event (.t‘il/dhfl) should be admitted as
 28

valid by him. Sentences speaking of past events should not be divested of their
due authority. As regards the contention that a sentence referring to already
existent entities (bhfitapara vdkya) is liable to defects, the Naiyayika states that
even a sentence devoted to the so-called kdrya is subject to similar defects. A
kdrya like ‘ fetching of chips of wood ’ (samiddharana) for instance, can also
revealed by other means of knowledge like perception (but not necessarily by
verbal testimony—iabda), which the Prabhakara himself admits. This, says the
Naiyayika, proves that even a kdrya-sentence might be repetitive in character
(anuvdda ).
In the injunction “One desirous of heaven should perform the fire-
sacrifice ”, reference is made to the “ fire-sacrifice ” (agnihotra ), which is an
already existing entity (siddha ), but not something to be established (kdrya ).
Validity of such sentences is admitted by the Prabhakara on the ground that
these sentences are the only means of our knowledge regarding the instrumentality
of the fire-sacrifice, etc. towards heaven, etc. The Naiyayika states that even
in the case of the Supreme Person, it is only the Upanisads that reveal His nature
and there is no other prama'na that could be applied here. So it is to be admitted
that even the Upanisadic texts are valid in their own right.
The logician affirms that having a physical body, limited knowledge, etc.,
which are generally found among human beings, cannot at all be attributed to
the ‘lJpreme Person whose Omniscience, etc. are glorified by a number of
Upanisads. He thus concludes that the Pdficardtra scriptures which owe their
origination to such a Lord, have to be viewed as fully authoritative.
. i II

THE PRABHAKARA—MIMAMSAKA’S CRITICISM

It has already been observed that according to the Mimémsaka, every Vedic
statement, as a rule, should be connected with something to be done—a kdrya,
which is not revealed by other means of knowledge.
The connotation of words, in general, is to be arrived at solely by tracing
their ultimate purport to a kdrya. This is indeed, the process by which youngsters
grasp the meaning of words not known to them. This, the Prabhakara illustrates
by taking the stock-instance of the usage (vyavahdra) of elderly people. Thus,
a youngster who stands near two elderly men, notices one of them bringing a
cow when the other man utters the words “ bring the cow ” (gdrh dnaya) and
concludes that the action of bringing the cow was the result of the former’s under-
standing the intention of the latter, when he uttered the words “ bring the cow ”.
The youngster hears the man again say “ bring the horse ” (as‘van’r dnaya) and
observes that as a result, a different animal is brought. When again, the words
“ tie up the cow " (gdrh’badhdna) are uttered, a difl‘erent activity takes place.
 29

Thus. by noticing different actions following different utterances (vyavahdra ).

the young boy understands what the words “ cow " and “ horse " actually stand
for. In all these cases, the denotation of different words, contends the Prllbha‘lkara,
tn invariably arrived at by connecting those words with the main theme, viz..
the kdrya,I the activity of bringing, tying, etc. in the above instances.

Another point to be noted is that the lift—the optative and other sullixes
In an injunction directly denote the kdrya, whereas suffixes other than these
denote other things connected with it, like the qualified aspirant and the fruit.
In a supplementary sense.

It might be urged that even sentences which refer to matters of past ( Nutm-
vasm) like the birth of a son become authoritative in their own right, without
any reference to the so-called kdrya. Thus for instance, when a messenger tells
a man : “ a son is born to you ”, a bystander who does not know what aetuully
the message is, notices that the listener feels glad after hearing the above
words. Further, the bystander, through indications like blooming of the face
and horripilation exhibited by the listener, infers that the words uttered by the
messenger should have conveyed to him the happy tidings of the birth of a son.
This argument is unsound, says the Prabhakara, because gestures like blooming
of the face and horripilation, though indicative of the pleasure of a man. need
not necessarily arise from the knowledge of the birth of a son. Reasons for

I. Vi'de Karmamimfirr’ua‘, pp. 39-40:

“ The essential character of the word is, in the view of Jaimini, not mere denotatlon. hat
injunction, a view which clearly stands in close relation to the doctrine that the meunlng
of words is largely learned by the young from the observation of intercourse among the
old; one addresses the other and the other acts as a result; one says "gdm anuyu ". the
other brings the cow. Hence, as against the Vedanta, it is denied that the essence of Vcdle
texts lies in the making manifest of the sole existent Brahman, 'and asserted that, even when
this seems to be the case, the real import of the text is an injunction to meditate on the
Brahman. From this view Prabhakara proceeds to develop a conclusion. whicn is in harmony
with the view of Sabarasvamin, that words themselves have no meaning, and obtain it only
in sentences possessing injunctive clauses; “ gdm " by itself, is nothing, but attains meaning
when enjoined with “ dnaya", the whole then signifying generically the genus 'eow '
as connected with ‘ bringing ’. This view in this school (of Prabhakara) obtains the name
of the ‘theory of signification in syntactical combination ’ (anvita'bhidhéna). in opposi-
tion to the view of Kumarila, who admits that words possess a meaning independently or
combination in injunctive sentence, and whose theory accepts. therefore, ‘ the combina-
tion of significant terms ' (abhihitdnvaya ). The two schools, however, are at one in hold-
lng that the signification of words is a class-signification, as the theory of eternity of words
demands. The modern Nyaya, on the other hand, insists that the import of words is always
the concrete individual. while the older Nyiya adopts the doctrine that the word expresses
the class (jdri ), individual (vyakrl ) and characteristic mark of the class (dim! ). all at
once."
 30

happiness are so manifold that it is practically impossible to decide whether the

happiness exhibited by the listener of the sentence “ a son is born to you ", is
due only to the news conveyed by it or to something else. Proceeding on similar
lines, says the Prabhakara, one should get at the meaning of other unknown
words which are not found to have the “ kdrya ” as their purport, and which
are, however, employed in sentences belonging to the present tense.1 The
Prabhakara also advances logical alternatives to assert that only those sentences
that have a bearing on kdrya are valid.
The apfirva that arises from a performance of certain acts attains a new
name niyoga ( prompting) at the hands of Prabhakara, since it acts as an incentive
to the prompted person ( niyojya) and makes him put forth an exertion for accom-
plishing the action indicated by the verbal root. “This kdrya or m'yoga is ex-
pressed neither by the verbal root nor by the injunctive affix, nor by any other
word in the sentence; but it is denoted by the sentence as a whole, all other neces-
sary factors being expressed by the several words of the sentence individually.
What the sentence as a whole expresses is this niyoga as related to the prompted
person expressed by one of the words in the sentence (110., the word signifying
the result, the person desiring which is the prompted person). . . .and there'is
no doubt that of all things made known by the sentence, the m'yoga is the most
important, for, even though the final iesult has all the appearance of the most
important factor, yet it is the niyoga that is really such, because it is the direct
and immediate cause of the result and it is also the immediate effect of the action
performed; and further, because the result also has to be regarded as subservient
to the m'yoga, in view of the fact that the result enters as one of the factors neces-
sary for the making up of the full character of the niyoga. To explain, the niyoga
cannot be a true niyoga, until there is a niyojya, the person to beprompted to
exertion; without exertion there can be no m'yoga and gain, without the agent,
there can be no exertion; nor can an agent put forth an exertion and be a niyojya,
until he is entitled to the undertaking resulting from that exertion, and lastly,
it is only the person desiring the result issuing from the undertaking that is entitled
to its performance; thus indirectly, through the agent, the result becomes a neces-
sary factor in the niyoga, this relation between the niyoga and the result being
similar to that between the master and servant; without the servant the master
cannot be a true master’ and yet it is the master that is the more important
‘

person of the two.”2

All this is only in regard to sentences found in the Vedic texts. As regards
the sentences spoken by human beings in this world, the Prabhakara dismisses
————————7
1. Thus, for instance, the meaning of the word " pika " in the sentence “pikah kfijati " should
be got with the help of the next term " kiijuli'". Since " kfijwm" is characteristic of a
cuckoo-bird, the term " pika " is to be taken as standing for the cuckoo-bird.
2. The Prdbhdkuru 50/100] of Pilri'umhmillud. pp. 163-164.
 Jl
their primary authority summarily on the ground that they are inferential in
nttture. Thatis to say, that their authority is to be inferred on the ground of
their being spoken by reliable persons.1

In the light of this discussion, the Prabhakara declares that the Upanisadic
statements which speak of the Brahman, an established entity, should be explained
ltt such a way that they are only art/tai‘dda—or explanatory passages with regard
to injunctions of “jfidna” and “updsand”. In other words they should be
taken as enjoining on one, the meditation of the Omniscient and Blissful Self.
By this, one should not, however, be led to the conclusion that there is in fact,
such as Person possessed of Omniscience and such other pcrfections.2 liven
non-existing entities can be spoken of as existing for purposes of meditation and
such is the present one. So, statements to the effect that there exists tttt
Omniscient God and so on, are not of primary significance and God is nothing but
the fabrication of fanatics. Sacrifices, etc. which an agent performs, are ephemeral
in nature and one might think that the agent might not get the legitimate fruit of
his actions, if his self is not eternal. Upanisadie passages which speak of the
eternity of the Self, therefore, should be taken as arlhavdda or corroborative
passages to the above fact, assuring the fruit of one’s actions to one‘s own sell'to
be realized in another world.

——__
l. Cf. Karmamimfin'zsd, pp. 41—42:
" Prabhikara holds that the only authoritative testimony to things beyond the reach of the
senses and other means of proof, is the scripture ( sastra ). Other words deal only with
matters cognised by perception, inference, etc. and have no inherent cogency. lf tl‘ey give
us true information, it is merely because we believe the speaker to be trustworthy. Thul.
like the Vaisesika school, Prabhakara holds all cognition of this kind to be based on infer-
ence, the argument being “ this man says something; he must know what he is talking about:
what he says. therefore, must be true.". . . .Thus the sole possibility of the validity of verbal
testimony lies in the Veda, which has no author, and therefore, is not viliated by double
as to trustworthiness and ability of correct expression. ."
2. Cf. Prdbhfikara School of Pfirva'mimdn‘tsfi, pp. 85-86:
The Prébhikara, like the Bhatta, denies a creator for the universe, who can also know
everything: “ If it were true that certain factors of the universe are brought into existence
by an ultra-mundane Supervisor of Dharma-Adharma, this could not be true for the entire
universe, as a whole. For instance, the bodies of all men and animals are found to be
. produced by the functioning of the parents, and not by a Supervening agency; and this
fact will enable us to infer the same with regard to the bodies of all animals, past and future
also." The claim of the logicians that our Dharma and Adharma must have a Supervisor.
with more intelligence than us, is also weak. “ Dharma—Adharma of the body. . . .must
always belong to the same intelligent being to whom the body belongs. .. . .Hence
the ultra-mundane ‘ God ‘ can have no knowledge of Dharma and Adharma of the beings
. . . .and without such knowledge, he could not exercise any intelligent control over them;

(lod could not perceive Dharma by His sens 5. .nor by his mind as the mind. .cannot per-
’ '
ceive Dharma of beings which is outside God's body."
 32

The Prabhftknra thus inserts thnt there is no sentence in the Veda that refers
to a past event primarily. and that everything should be connected with the kdrya
so as to gain validity.

$ t *

The Advaitin's Criticism

The Advaitin is also introduced by Yamuna as a critic of the Paficarfitra.

According to him, Badarayana himself had refuted the validity of these agamas
in his Brahmasfirra, devoting a separate section for this purpose, .called the
urpatryusambhava or the Pdficardtra-adhikarana comprising four aphorisms.‘
This refutation takes place soon after the other schools of thought like the Nyiya
and Vaisesika are refuted as non-Vedic. So, the Advaitin argues that the con-
text in which this adhikarana takes place, is also in full support of his contention.
Another important factor that exhibits the non-Vedic nature of these samhitds
is that they speak of the origination of jiva, manas, etc. which is fundamentally
against the sanction of all the Vedic and smrti-declarations. The jiva is inborn
and mind and other senses originate from the Supreme Being. The Pdficardtra-
text which speaks of the birth of the self is: “ Lord Vasudeva is the Highest source
and from Him is born the self called Sankarsana; from Sankarsana is born the
mind called Pradyumna and thence is born the ahankdra called Aniruddha ”.1
The Vedic and smrti-passages state that the self only comes into contact with the
live subtle elements (tanmdtrd) for purpose of manifestation. This view is
emphasized by the Advaitin through logical arguments and quotations from
scriptural texts.
The Advaitin further finds -fault with the vyfiha-theory advanced by the
Pancaratrins. According to him, Vfisudeva, Sankarsana and other forms should
either be one in essence with the Supreme Brahman, or different. If these forms
are held to possess equal status and differ from each other, there is no purpose
served by such an assumption, says the Advaitin, because cosmic activities can be
performed by a single form of the Lord. This assumption undermines the posi-
tion taken by the Paficaratrins that Vasudeva alone is the Highest Reality.
Even if it is argued that all these forms are equal in status and that they pertain
to only one Supreme Person, the difficulty regarding the birth of the self cannot
be got over. Sankarsana cannot originate from Vfisudeva. Pradyumna likewise
cannot arise from Sankarsana and so forth, because some distinction is necessary
between a cause and an effect, as in the case of clay and pot. The Pancaratrins
do not admit of any difference between one form of the Lord and another re-

l. Cf. Sankara's commentary on ll. ll. 42-45.

2. See Sankara on H. ii. 42.
 33

luniing jfldna, alsvarya etc. There is thus no justification in the vyflha-theory

propounded by these agamas, says the Advaitin.l
The Advaitin continues that there is a lot of contradiction in what the PM-
I'ardtra-dgamas teach; they do not show any distinction between qualities (gunas)
and the self which possesses those qualities. They thus say that jr'ldna, aiharya
m'. are qualities and that these qualities themselves become different forms of
Vluudeva. Another clear indication of the non-Vedic character of these agamus
III that they undermine the validity of the Vedas themselves. The Advaitin takes
up the statement found in one of these tiaxts: Sandilya'took to a study of these
Annmas, being unable to get the highest good (human end ) in all the four Veads."
l'lIis, he says, discloses the nature of these texts since it underestimates the instru-
mentality of the Vedas themselves regarding salvation.2

THE SIDDHANTA
In reply to all his critics, Yamuna at the very outset, makes the following
I'IIferentialstatement: “The Pancaratra Tantra is authoritative like the Vedic
sentences ordainingjyotistoma, etc., on the ground that it is based upon knowledge
which is free from all defects”. He, with all his logical skill,proves that no
error can be pointed out in the above statement either with regard to the Subject
( paksa) or the Probans (hetu ), through any means of knowledge, perception,

inference or verbal testimony. He, in great detail, examines the possibility of any
fullacy being pointed out, and concludes that this inferential statement is perfect
In all respects. It had earlier been contended by the opponents that the validity
.If the Pdficardtra scriptures cannot be accepted on the ground that they were
composed by Visudeva, a deceitful person. Defending the cause of the Pdflvardlra
texts against the onslaught of the Mimarhsaka, Yamuna questions him as to
how he would ward off invalidity for the Vedas on the ground that they too
consist of sentences like the works of human authorship. The Mimamsaka
Would reply that ‘Vedas are impersonal in character ( apauruseya) and that their
vulitlity is therefore unquestionable. In the same vein, Yamuna declares that the
l'dilrardtra-figamas are the direct utterances of the Omniscient and Merciful
Vnuudeva, the Lord of the Universe and that for that very reason, their validity
becomes unquestionable.
_
Clarifying his point, Yamuna states that validity of words is intrinsic ( svarah
prdmdnya).3 Their validity gets impaired only when the people that utter them

l. VIII: Sankara on II. il. 44.

). (T. Sankara on II. ii. 45.
t It may be noted that for the Sinkhyas, validity and invalidity are both Intrinsic; for the
N.Iiytlylkas, they are extrinsic; for the Buddhists. invalidity'Is intrinsic and validity extrinsic
“ml for the Vedantins, validity is intrinsic and invalidity extrinsic.
 34

haVe defects like deceit and ignorance. Until it is proved beyond doubt that
the man who uttered certain words is not dependable regarding the genuineness
of the words uttered by him, no person is justified in doubting their validity.
Since the author of the Pdiicardtra-dgamas is one that is glorified in the Upanisads
as Omniseient and Merciful, there is no room for any conjecture that He had
evil designs in His mind in composing these agamas.
The crux of the problem to which the argument then turns is, whether
sentences speaking of an already existent entity (bhfita or siddhavastu) are
authoritative or not. The Mimamsakas, as we have already seen. do not admit
of any primary validity for such statements. According to them, all statements
should be connected with “something to be done" (kdrya ), if their validity
is to he admitted. Accordingly, the statement “ you have got a son "‘ ( putraste
lamb) is explained by them as not primarily valid, on the ground that gestures
of happiness which the listener of the above statement is said to exhibit, need
not necessarily make a third man infer that they proceed from the happy tidings
of a child-birth. Reasons for happiness might be many, past present and future,
and as such. the exact cause for the happiness of the man to whom the above
sentence is addressed, cannot be specified. This contention of the Mimarhsakas
is turned down by the author as preposterous. A third man, who listens to the
above sentence addressed to another man, is still able to conclude through the
signs of happiness exhibited by him, that he heard the happy news. ofa child's
birth. The way in which he arrives at such a conclusion is this: He sees the man,
soon after listening to the news, making arrangements for the jdtakarmansacra-
ment for the new-born babe. The third man, who himself had had the occasion
to perform such a sacrament when a son was born to his own self, quickly, comes
to the conclusion that the news -heard by the man in question, must only be re-
garding the birth of a child. Since the activity regarding the jdtakarman per-
formance is noticed in the man only after his listening to the sentence but
not before, it is proper to think that it must have been due only to the news of
a child's birth. It may be contended that the news of a child-birth and the per-
formance of jdrakarman need not have a cause and effect relation on the ground
that even those who cannot afford to perform it, are seen to do it, even through
displeasure. But this argument cannot stand to reason, says Yémuna. Even
as listening to the statements “ grin) dnaya " is taken by the Mimamsakas as the
cause of the activity of bringing a cow, on the ground that the activity of bringing
is found to take place only when the statement had been made, so also, it is proper
to admit that the activity of jdrakarman-performance must have proceeded from
listening to the news of the birth of a child.
Yamuna states that there is no justification whatsoever in the Prabhakara's
contention that all words have their sole purport in a kdrya. In statements like
(an) duaya and am»: duaya, the terms gauli (cow) and asvah (horse) should
 35

he explained in their own individual capacity. without connecting them with

the so-called kdrya, points out the author. He says that it is possible to interpret
terms in conjunction with factors other than the kdrya also. Pointing ottt that
the Prabhakara’s dictum that all connotations of words should be arrived at only
lu relation to a kdrya is based upon a wrong conception of the connotation of
words. Yfimuna says that this definition cannot be applied to the suflix (Ill. To
"plain, the optative suffix Iii: conveys the kdrya proper in a sentence. As such.‘

how can it be said to convey its sense in relation to a kdrya, while it itself indicates
the ktirya?’ asks Yamuna. So, the proper way of arriving at the significance of
Words should be untainted by any preconceived notions either in favour of u
lulrya or a .‘siddha-vastu’. One has to admit that a word conveys its sense in
relation to such other thing that is required to complete the sense (tiktlri/t,tital
that goes with it (yagya) and which is supplied by a word uttered along with
It (drama ). So, there should be no special attachment to a kdrya or a sic/dim-
tmm. Kdrya should only be taken as a subsidiary but not the sole cause in
arriving at the connotation of words. When its function is over, it is no longer
helpful.
Yimuna then turns to the contention of the Prabhakara that the statements
made by human beings cannot be taken as valid as and when they are uttered
ttud thin the validity of those statements can be arrived at, only after inferring
the reliability of the person that made those statements, because of the fact that
human speech is always open to defects like deceit and ignorance.l Yamuua
states that it is true that in a few cases, where persons are liable to have defects,
the statements made by them do not attain validity. But this does not tneuu
that words lose their correct deuotative power which is quite natural with them.
No, a listener that has a general capacity to understand the mutual connection
of Words and their meanings, arrives at the sense of a particular word, soon after
It is heard. It is not necessary that he should infer the soundness of the source
of the words first and then alone get at their sense. The author emphasizes that
the knowledge arising out ofsentences such as “ there are fruits on the river bank "

I. Vida Karmamimfiritsfi, p. 42:

“ There is an obvious difficulty in this reasoning
of Prabhakara when it is remembered that
Prabhakara....insists on the self-evidence of cognitions, from which it would seem to
follow that the assertions of any man are prima facie valid, until sublated by better evidence.
Kumarila, who is always anxious to accommodate the views of the school to popular
beliefs, is at the same time more in harmony with the tenets of the school in adopting a
doctrine, which does not involve the general denial of the validity of human testimony.
lle adopts therefore, the plan of distinguishing testimony as human and superhuman
tupauruseya ). while admitting both as valid, though for different reasons. In the case
of the Veda, there is no author. and therefore. the possibility of defects is absolutely pre-
cluded. In the case of human testimony, its validity may be impaired by defects In the
speaker. but the presence of excellencleu in him precludes the presence of defects."
 36

Which speak of an estuhli-«hed entity ( hhflmvasm) is purely verbal but not infere
ential.

Yamuna also refers in this connection to the theory of niyoga advanced.

by the Prabhakara. According to the latter, apfirva is indicated by the optative
suffix Hit in an injunction. He further says that in the injunctive sentence “ one
desirous of heaven should perform the jyotifloma sacrifice ”, the performer
(niyoiya) is qualified by the heaven. Refuting this argument, Yamuna says
that heaven is something that is going to be attained in future, but not an al-
ready existent entity. So, it cannot become an attribute of the agent. On the
other hand, the desire (kdmami) regarding heaven, which exists at the time of
activity could alone be taken as the attribute of the person concerned. All injunc-
tions should be understood as referring to the thing to be established (sddhya ),
the means thereof ( sddhana ), and the cause-effect relationship subsisting between
them (sambandha ). It is not always true that a niyoga is ever associated with
the realization of certain fruits like heaven. In injunctions ordaining obligatory
rites for instance, m‘yoga has no connection with the realization of a corresponding
result. So, the proper way of understanding an injunctive sentence is that the
optative and other affixes first make an agent understand that the performance
of a particular rite leads to a particular result. Then the agent, motivated by
desire regarding the result, exerts. There is nothing contradictory in admitting
that words even in ordinary parlance referring to existent factors (siddha-vastu ),
become valid in their own right.

Yamuna points out that Upanisads, which speak of the Supreme Being,
should also be treated as authoritative since they give us a correct knowledge
regarding the Lord, a knowledge that is pure from all defects.

As regards the contention of the Mimamsakas that Upanisadic texts are

not primarily valid on the ground that they speak of a siddha-vastu, the Brahman,
the author argues in favour of the 'validity of the siddhapara-statements, like
the Naiyayika. Defects of repetition (anuvdda) and contradiction to facts
(viparyaya ), which the Mimimsaka points out in the case of statements
speaking of existent factors, can also be pointed out in the case of statements
referring to a kdrya, says Yamuna. It is asserted that all pieces of knowledge are
valid in their own right, provided they are free from defects like doubt and
falsehood, and also that no distinction should be made in terms of something
to be done (kdrya) and something already existing ( siddha).

Yimuna criticises the Bhfitta view that Omniscience is beyond all possibi-
lity. The author states that the above view is directly opposed to the Vedic passages
which speak of the Lord’s Omniscience as quite natural with Him: “ He sees
 38

As regards the origin of the I’dflcurdrra texts, Yamuna states that Lord
Narayana, Who possesses an overall knowledge regarding the vast Vedic
literature, understood that His devotees were unable to grasp and retain its mean-
ing. Then, out of Mercy, He gave them the Pdficardtra San'thitds through
sagas like Narada and Sandilya; and these agamas bring out in an abridged form,
the very essence of the Vedic teaching.
Then the author turns to the statement “ Sandilya studied the Pdflcardtrd-
gamas, being unable to get the means of attaining the Highest from all the four
Vedas ”, which had been cited by the Advaitins as an instance of Vedic denun-
ciation by the Pdficardtrdgamas. For this, the reply is given that a deprecatory
statement (nindd) should not be taken as deprecating something that is already
deprecated. Its purpose is in praising something other than the particular thing
denounced. Thus, we should take the present passage as purporting to praising
the figamas, but not as underestimating the Vedas, as alleged. Then the method
of construingéhe passage is also pointed out. The statement does not mean that
“there is no human end in the Vedas”. It only means that “ Sandilya could
not get at the human end which is laid down in the Vedas, because of their
vastness ”. Thus it becomes clear that the purport of the agamas and the Vedas
is one and the same and that there is no contradiction between them.

As regards the argument that the Paftcaratra is non-Vedic since it ordains

(liksd over and above the upanayana sacrament qualifying one to worship in
temples, Yamuna replies that it is not a non-Vedic mark. Special sacraments are
ordained as and when necessary, to qualify one to perform particular duties. Thus
j
for instance, even for the performance of the yoristoma rite, special diksdis oroained
by the injunction “ dgndvaisnuvam ekddasakapdlariz puroddsarh nirraped dik-
sisyamdnah”,l on a person who had already been initiated by Upanayana.
But this cannot be put forth as the cause for the non-authoritative character
of the above Vedic passage.
With regard to the argument that the Paficaratra is non-Vedic on the ground
that it is not counted as one among the fourteen sources of knowledge, it has
been replied that on such a consideration, even Rdma'yazta and Maha'bhdrata
of great sages like valmiki and Vyfisa would be liable to the same defect of
non-Vedic character because they too are not included among the fourteen
sources of knowledge.

The next discussion is regarding the alleged condemnation of these figamas

by deardyana in his Brahmasfitra. The point to be kept in mind here is that
Yamuna does not hold Badarfiyana the author of the Brahmasfitrayto be

I. Quoted by Subaru in his commentary on Pair-vii Mimdriml. Xll-i-ZS. p. 3l9.

 40

Lord, out of mere sport, manifests Himself in four different forms and protects
the world. We have to accept that these manifestations are as genuine and
purposeful as the other manifestations of Visnu such as Rama, Laksmana,
Bharata and Satrughna.l
The above argument is purely from the stand-point of a Paficaratrin. It
will be highly interesting to note that after all, the Paficaratra did not fail to
appeal to some noble thinkers, even among the followers of Safikara. It appears
that Safikara’s attack on the Piflcamtra vyfiha-theory could not convince his
own followers. A section of the Advaitins held that the Paflcaratra-theory of
the origination of the jiva, manas, etc., should not be understood literally and
primarily. On the other hand, it should be taken in a secondary sense ('gauzra ).
The Advaitin who held this view was Amalananda Sarasvati, the famous author
of the commentary called the Veddntakalpataru on the Bhdmati of Vacaspati-
misra, which in its turn, is a commentary on Sankara's Brahmasfitrabha'sya.
Amalananda advances the following argument in support of the Pdficardtrd-
gamas and their vyfiha-theory :
“The Pdficara'trdgamas were intentionally composed by Lord Vasudeva.
But the fact that He is Omniscient (that is to say that His compositions are valid
in toto) is known only through the Vedas, which are, so to say, the voluntary
revelations by Lord Vasudeva (niss‘vasitarh A‘rutib ). Thus, the Pdiicardtra texts,
for their own validity, depend upon a Vedic statement to the effect that their
author Vasudeva is Omniscient, whereas the Vedas, being eternal in character,
do not require anything else for their own validity. Their validity is thus intrinsic
(svatah ). Now we read from the Paficarfitra works that a jiva is'born, whereas
the Vedic texts declare that a jivb is inborn. In such a case, it is the Vedic texts
with intrinsic validity that establish themselves first, prior to the agama-texts.
So we have to attach primary significance to the Vedic doctrine of the non-origina-
tion of the individual self and secondary significance (gauna) to the agarna-

“ vyfihatrirayapfirvarvdr pradhdnalt parlpathyate

sankarsanidimfirtyantarh asesabhuvanarh yatah
bibhartyaJharabhavena vyapnotyantasca tat svayarh " (183, 19)
Also cf. ibid, Ch. 55, £1. 29:
“ sankarsanadirfipena vyilhyatmflnarh trldha sthitah
tattadasritakaryaya yo vibhussarvatomukhah "
It is thus clear that the argument that the Paflcarltra vyflha-theory admits the plurality
of Gods, is baseless. 1

1. This explanation of Yamuna is quite in accordance wlth the Pdflcardrrdgamas. Cf. Ahlr-
budhnya Sariihird, Ch. 36. sls. 64-65:
“ pratitretfiyugarh devah sidhutranakrte harih
ralmalaksmnnasatrughnabharatlldyltmani svayarh
calurdhavaslhitnh tadval cakrltml harlrevn hl
guuuprudhlnnbhflvnstu rilmllderlvn yujyate"
 4|
doctrine of the origination of the individual self, because there is the Vedic
contradiction in attaching primary significance to it. So, there is no question
ol‘ the agama statements being due to delusion (na tu bhra'mam ).

These agamas were composed by Vasudeva, the Divine Being and His
()mniscience is attested by the Vedas themselves. The promulgators of other
uehools of thought like Kapila (of Sfir‘ikhya) and Pata'r'ijali (of Yoga) on the
other hand, were human beings and hence were susceptible to err. So. there
cannot be any comparison between the Pfiiicarétrfigamas and the texts of other
schools of thought. It is no doubt stated in some Purz‘tnas that Lord Vfisudevu
uppeared as the Buddha and deluded the people through non-Vedic prcueliings.
Hut there is no proof as such, of any Puranic text saying that the Paiicart'ttru
too was intended by the Lord to delude the world ( vya'mohdrtham)".
The relevant portion of Amalananda’s commentary is worth quoting in
full :I

“ paficaritrakartur vasudevasya yedz‘ideva sarvajfiatvfivagama’tt kupilu-pnt-

nhjalyfidinam ca jivatvat, paficaratrasya puranesu buddhadidesanavat vyt‘unohttr-

—— ............
tharii isvarapranitatvasravanit, na yogfidyadhikaranagatfirthata
siddhantastu
buddhipfirvakrtih paficaratram, nissvasitarh srutih !

tena jivajanistatra siddha gauni niyamyate !!

yavaddhi ekadese vedavirodhadisvarabuddheh vedamt‘tlatvam, vedttdvtt
narvavisayatvarh pramiyate, tavadeva svatahpramanavedat jivinutpattipramitau
taldrgbuddhipfirvakesvaravacananna jivotpattir avaganturh sakyate; atuh prumflut‘l-
pahrtavisaye gaunan't tadvacanan't, na tu bhrdntan'r pfirvapaksayukmriti".
Thus it has been proved that the Pdficardtrdgamas are not contradicted
by Vedic declarations. As regards the contention that these figamas are contru-
dicted by other smrti—works, or by statements -made by these agamas elsewhere.
Yz'tmuna says that the contradiction is only apparent. The seemingly con-
tradictory passages lose their contradiction when we examine them keeping in
mind the fact that one text is primary and the others are subordinate. As
much, the explanation offered by the Advaitins to the four aphorisms ol‘ the
lirahmasfitra in question, is entirely against the intentions of Bfidarilyunu.
who holds the Paficaritra in high esteem and as valid as the Vedas themselves.

Yimuna states that Badarayana, having refuted systems like the Nyuya
and the Vaisesika on the ground that they militate against the Vedic tenets, takes
up the question of the validity of the Pa‘r'icardtrdgamas, because the context is

I. See SfiIikarabhdi-ya with Bhémati, Vedantakalpataru and Kalpataruparimala edited by

M. N. Anantakrishnaflstrin. rc-edited by Bhargavasastrin and published by Pflodurans
“wail, Bombay, I938, p. 573.
 42

such that the Pfificaratra may, like the Nytlyu and the Vaisesika, be subjected
to doubts regarding validity. That is why, lla'idarayana questions the validity of
the Paficaratra in the first two aphorisms which form the pfirvapaksa and esta-
blishes the invalidity in the last two aphorisms which form the siddhdnta. The
pfirvapaksa-view had already been given above. The conclusion arrived at is
that there is no contradiction to the origination of Sankarsana and other forms,
since they are the Lord Himself, Who is of the form of Knowledge ( vijfia'na) and
Who is the Origin (a'di) of the entire Universe. So it is to be admitted that
the Lord Vasudeva, though One, Himself becomes the kdrana as well as the
kdrya.
5 Then Yamuna explains the same sfirras in different ways and for different
purposes. The sfitra na ca kartub karanam (II-ii-40) is explained by him as
speaking of the revealed character (apauruseyatva) of the Vedas. It is here
that the Naiyayika’s view that the Vedas are the work of ISVara, is refuted. It
may be recalled that Yamuna differs from the Naiyayika regarding the author-
ship of the Vedas. Vedas, according to Yamuna, are impersonal in character
whereas, for the Naiyayikas, they are the work of Isvara, the Lord of the
Universe. The above sfitra means, says Yfimuna, that the Vedas are not
(na ca) the work (karanam) of Isvara (kart'uh ). In the course of these
explanations, Yamuna makes it clear that the Pdiicardtra is as valid as the
Vedas themselves. He says further that since the Lord Vfisudeva Himself is
glorified in many Upanisads and Puranas, Pdficardlra, His work, cannot be
doubted of its validity by attributing deceit, etc. to Vfisudeva, its author.
Yamuna then examines the view entertained by the bha'syakdra that the
Paficaratra is partially non-authoritative. He says that this statement had been
made by the bhdsyakdra lest the weak minded should reject the Vedas completely
and take up these agamas because of their easily comprehensible nature.
Regarding the contention that the Paficaratra is invalid on the ground
that people outside the pale of the Vedas practise the rites ordained by it,
Yamuna disproves it with all his logical skill, posing various alternatives regarding
the exact definition of “ being outside the pale of the Vedas”. Vedic seers of
great repute like Bhrgu, Bharadvaja and Narada accept the authority of these
agamas, as is revealed by their own works. Even today, orthodox people are
found to perform the rites enjoined in these texts, as for instance, regarding the
construction of temples, consecration of images and the like. They perform these
rites, even as they perform other Vedic duties.
As regards the argument that Paficaratra is invalid since it is followed by
the Bhagavatas who do not belong to any one-of the three higher castes, Yfimuna
replies that the Bhagavatas arc orthodox Brahamanas that follow the Ektiyana
branch of the Suit/a Yajurvcda. They too maintain the brahmanical marks like
 43

knots of hair and remember their golra. The brahmanical status of a mun,
however, is known by ocular perception (pratyaksa) coupled with the recollec-
tion of the particular family to which he belongs. Since such a practice of
remembering the gotra exists among the 'bhdgavatas, the fact that they are
hrz‘lhmans is to be accepted without any doubt.
Yamuna then examines the smrti-statement that the bhdgavatas belong to
the vais‘ya-vrdtyacommunity', which is deeidely non-Vedic. It has been urged
by the opponent that the bhdgavatas were referred to by the term sdeum in the
.wnrn’s. In reply, Yimuna points out that the terms bhzigarata and sdttrula
nppearing in the smm's need not necessarily be taken as pointing to those
belonging to the particular vaifiya-vrdtya community because these two terms
can as well be taken as referring to people other than those belonging to the above
community, bearing the same name. As a matter of fact, the bhdgavalas hnve
nothing to do with the vais'ya-vrdtya community referred to in the smrti—texts.
If these two terms bhdgavata and sdm'ata are taken as referring only to n low
community, Yamuna argues that even the term dcfirya mentioned along with
the term sdttvara in the Manusmrti—passage: vais'ya'ttu jciyare vrzilydr .s'm/Imm'd
" cdrya eva ca ” (X; 23), will have to be taken as referring only to the low-horn
man and not to the learned Brfihmana teacher. But we know that the term
dcdrya refers to the teacher in its conventional sense and that it could be at ntnne
of some low-born people also.
As regards the contention that the terms bhdgavara and Miriam should be
taken in their conventional sense alone, meaning the low-caste people, the author
snys this contention is baseless. When a term is capable of yielding a incnning
by etymology itself, there is no justification in pressing the conventional sense
into service. Even the instance of the rathakdra-nydya applies only to cnscs
other than the present one. Thus etymologically, these two terms hhdgm'am
nnd sdttavata, which are formed by the addition of the sufiix “ an ” to the buses
mltvat and bhagavat, refer to the devotees of the Lord conveyed by those
buses, and this explanation is to be accepted as genuine.
Therefore, the contention of the opponents that these Bhfigavzitns urc
Identical with vrdryas2 on account of similarity of vocation, stands refuted.
Vrdlyas who look after the temples and the bhdgavatas who perform the five-fold

I. Vide Manusmrti X. 23:

“ vaisyattu jayate vratyz'it sudhanva " earya eva ca!
bhirusasca nijar’tghasca maitrassittvata eva ca !l "
2. Vide the following extracts from Lirigadhéranacandrikfi:
“ The Atharvavedq mentions a new class ofbcings called ‘ vratyas ‘. They meant originally
those that were naturally pure and thus needed no sarhskara—henee they are glorified in
the Alliarvavcda. Préna is'spoken in the Prntnopanlsar as being a ‘ vrfllya ' and has been
 44

activities like abhigamana, "pm/dun, ijd. .rvddhydya and yoga that are ordained
upon devout Pfificarfltrins, cannot at all be identical. The usage of terms like
bhdgavara and salivata should not be understood as necessitated by the non-
brahmanical status of those people. They should be explained like the terms
bra/imam and purivrdjaka. Yfimuna supports this view by citing other nydyas.
The next contention is that bhdgavatas are not at all orthodox Brahmanas,
since they worship the Lord for their livelihood and also take in the food offered
to Him, which acts are strictly prohibited by the orthodox. The reply is that
all bhdgavatas are not found engaged in worshipping the Lord for livelihood.
It is true that some bhfigavatas under acute financial circumstances, perform the
worship of Lord Visnu in temples for their maintenance (swirrha ). But this
does not afl'ect the brahmanical character of the bhdgavatas in general, who are
great devotees. Worshipping is prohibited only when it is done by greedy
worshippers purely as a trade, but not otherwise.

explained by Sankarficarya in his Bhasya as “ prathamajatvat anyasya sarhskarturabhavit

asarhskrtah vratyah; tvarh svabhavata eva suddha ityabhiprayah"....The Vrityas seem
to have attached greater importance to a life of austerity and meditation upon God, than
to the performance of sacrificial rites and the like.
It is stated in the Atharvaveda (XV-ll ) that anyone who “ entertains a vratya will gain
the road that gods travel ", “ will gain possession of waters ", “ will obtain what is clear ",
etc. The Veda similarly mentions further other benefits bestowed upon those that honoured
the vratyas. The word ‘ vre'ltya ‘ may or may not be understood as a form of Brahman—
but it is evident that at this and subsequent times there must have deveoped in the public
a reverence for religious mendicants who wandered about the land... .without conform-
ing themselves to the Brahmanic conventions.
Even during the Vedic times, their failure to conform to Vedic rites seems to have been
disapproved and the Vrz‘ttyas were regarded as falling outside the pale of orthodox society.
And an attempt seems to have been made by the orthodox section to take the Vratyas back
into their fold by subjecting them to some purificatory ceremonies called ‘ vratyastomas ',
a noteworthy 'content of the Tandycbra'hmana of the Sdma Veda. ‘They are sacrifices
meant to enable these Aryan but non-Brahmanical Indians to enter the Brahmantcal order ’
(MacDonel, Sanskrit Literature, p. 2l0 ). But it seems that the Vrityastomas had not
much effect and the Vratya-section continued to develop and increase. Otherwise there
was no necessity for the later orthodox literature contained in sfitras and smrtis to treat of
Vratyas and the Vratyastomas, e.g., Katyayana Srautasfirra says: “ vratyayogyah stomah
vratyah prasiddhe‘t eva, patitasavitrikah ". ( Vfiwparyam: p. 5071).
They came to be a heterodox and degraded people, as may be ascertained from the deri-
vative explanation of the word ‘vratya' as: “ vratat samfihat cyavati yat, avyavaharye
sarhskérahine jatimatropajivini " ( Vacasparyam: p. 5071). pp. 151-53.
“ The position of the Vrfttyas was much better than that of the Sfidms. They were
certainly non-sudras but were privileged Aryans and had degraded themselves by discarding
the Brahmanical conventions. Otherwise, the Vratyastomas or the purificatory ceremonies
cannot be significant except that they were designed by the orthodox section to take back
the Vrltyas. tho non-conformista, within their told "—9. mt
 45

As regards the argument that the bhdgararas are identical with the (lava/(1km
since they, like the latter, worship God for livelihood and live upon God‘s exchcqucr.
which activities are denounced by the smrtls, Yamuna on the evidence of
many smrti-passages, replies that the above condemnation applies only to those
worshippers that are not initiated according to the Pa'ilcardrra scriptures. It
is also pointed out that the term devalaka applies to one that worships deities
other than Visnu like Rudra and Kali.
Regarding the allegation that the bhdgararas are not orthodox since they
eat the food offered to the Lord and use His nirmdlya which activities are refuted
by the smrtis, Yamuna discusses at length and concludes on the evidence of many
san'rhitds and smrtis, that there is nothing contradicting the usage of Lord ViSIJU'N
naivedya and nirmdlya. Statements condemning their usage are to be taken
as referring to the naivedya and nirmdlya of deities other than Visnu. Yttniuna
declares that nobody can call in question the holy character of the naivodya and
nirmdlya of Lord Visnu.
Regarding the contention that the bhdgavaras are non-Vedic on the ground
that they perform sacraments like garbhddhdna in a way that is quite different
from the familiar one followed by others generally, Yfimuna replies as follows:
These bhigavatas who follow the Ekdyanas‘dkhd of the White Yajurveda
perform sacraments only according to the Grhya-sfitra of Katyfiyana. They do
not lose their brahmanical status by not performing these rites in the way ordained
by other branches of the Veda. Anywhere, this is the case regarding the observa-
tion of certain sacraments and a man following a particular Vcdic rccension
should not question the validity of the way in which these very sacraments are
performed by other Vedic groups, without taking into consideration the tradi-
tional factor that runs through all such practices in general.
The Ekdyana branch of the Sukla Yajurveda on which the Paficaratra is
claimed to be based, Yamuna declares, is not of human origin. He refers his
readers in this connection, to another work, ‘de’mirrigamaprdmtinya‘, which
seems to be his own work,1 and which is unfortunately lost to us. This work
establishes the apauruseyatva or the revealed character of the Ekriyana branch,
says Yamuna. The Bhdgavatas of the present day ( his own times), says Yamuna
in fine, cannot be proved to be Vrdtyas (the non-conformists to Vedic rites ),
since they carry out all the Vedic rites like any other orthodox follower'of the
Vedas, perform the Scivim' ( Gdyatri)—japa and so on.
Towards the end of the text, there are two stanzas in praise of Nt‘tthamuni, the
author’s grandfather and the disciples of Nathamuni. It is said that the disciples
of Nathamuni were great champions of the Bhdgavara (Sdrtvata) religion and

I. See p. 4 foot-note 3.
 46

that they were unparalleled diulccticiuns, lit to silence the opponents through
the very arguments set forth by the latter. thhamuni is glorified here as a great
devotee of Lord Mukunda (Visau, the Bestowe‘r of Moksa ), and as one that had
It direct vision of the Three Realities (‘ tattmtraya ', Le, the cit, ad! and Iivara 5
through his Yogic powers.
 afi:

quw
afimgagfiwfiaq
I

~f-WV
[WEW]
awnfiufitaifimfififié I

ifitmma; Emir we: firm-3 :11: ll

[unmarflasr]
fisa‘i‘ warmer Hana? infirm! an:
Raw-fir

nm‘rri ummfidiafi firi3 mafia 315

may I

EIUHIIfiHR6E€Tfi6§fiNfiI wisafium:
:a:mafia
arf‘wfiiamfigfiaai
agar: frafifi 51 «Farm u“

agfifimfi mwafir an: I

3&3 Tmmré Ham-Hm

nafité fining fémfifiaz II§
‘
"Rf—a at; Ma: 2. : Mg—aaaa
2
Me—fiififi: Ma—
Ma,
°
3
M3, M,—°crIfI‘w{ B, M1, M2, M‘,My_°fiaq;°
* This verse brings out the disdain of our author towards some of his con-
temporaries, who, out of jealousy, were too critical in their attitude towards his
works. Also compare in this connection, the two concluding verses of this text.
T The term bhdgavala refers to the Paficaratra system of thought. Another
‘ ’

term used generally is ‘sfinvara’. For names applied to adherents of this

religious school, see the Pddma Samhird ( Tantra) 1V. ii. 88:
“ sfirissuhrt bhagavatah sattvatah pancakalavit
aikantikah tanmayasca péficarfitrika ityapi."
See article on the ‘ Pancaralra ’ in JRAS for 1911, p. 936.
§Y5muna in this verse appeals to scholars for an impartial scrutiny of the
I'mlcarfitra religion.
 ! «lawman?!

u wamfi'swmmfiwmésmwzf‘amfinw-
32%!1.
fifirn‘naa: anfimfifitwawfim fiafiwfia’a‘mmfimm
waiver: qugfiwfirffiafirrfimafizfiwafitatlwzrm
msumwh fiufivfié I

Infia a6—
[ tfiwiI-firvl mm? $11 mmfimnfim]
3191
fig unmet aaamad’mé I

qt trmmtfiatmfianfiafi ll
Hatfi—
§=r
35qu
area Hair afiq
we‘lqfi umwranwfiazfiawq
I

II

:rmurmwi‘awafiwnm‘fiwrfiu-
rim-hi: fir era:
mfr aim afilfiffinafiwmwfia umwmangmfir I

‘ Mg—lfiffid: ‘ M3, Ms—°é(€lfii‘5

' B, M1, M2, M4, My—"fiifiwv 5
M1—°cnirfil°
3
B,M1, M2, M4, M5, My _
0
M3, M8 omit a
omit fil‘aa 7
B—°awlqam°
TSee ,JRAS (1911), pp. 940-41, for various definitions of the term
‘
Pfificarfitra’. See also the latest article on the meaning of the term by Dr.
V. Raghavan, JAOS‘. Vol. 85, No. 1 (Jam-Mar. I965 ), pp. 73-79. The Mahd-
sanarkumdra Sarfihild, lndrarfitra section, ch. lll, ofl‘ers the following explana-
tion for the term “ sattvata ”2
“ punassfittvate yasmét kule jatassuresvarah,
5a
tasmittu sfittvatarh nama purfinan‘t kovidfi viduh
upadistam paficaritram tena lokahitaisinfi,
fihukfir‘nslu samuddisya tena sattvatamucyate”
(Adyar edn. p. 245, SIS. 79- l0)
IThc Mimz'trhsaka is the pfirvapaksin here.
§Cf. Prakuranapaficikd ll. 19:
“and f3 Samara?! am «an
fiiianawm'lfi' mfifiwqm’ (era: II ”
 tfitflmm u

[
mammmq]
=r awn: Hfiafiawffiq'ffimmlwfianflw-
MHZ“: wfizztfi, 5:: a=qaaur3 Wfiflafiifim amu‘r {3: I

murfisfi‘x argumfiat: *nfia I?“ awn-‘f‘aafim-

=r I

mmfinafiwfifimmmaamah mammfiar: mur-

wmmwfivm, an? afiamtfikfi aa qa mam-Q'- mm: l

[ aw «mam mmmfifia: mnfifivé a I ]

T=r £11151?th wquawfimmsanm amafil

8 ft im—fiafiufimfiwfimm
=I HEEL W301 8mm am Ema: I

a
+fimaagufi9 egg. qua
+
:1an ‘18. II
O O

fiamfisfi Pg“) zinc—3 fimnfhafiwaal

WWW}? amamwr fiaaun: II

m wmraa=u“mgwmfi12 mqaqamm‘larm'
gtwfi fir talfiawmfiri éaqazam'firar? fir wmsfir an
‘-

mini Hair-nu lam exam? _

31% wait I

' M.—°fiIfi° 9 M3, Ma—fiqawqfi

2
M1—°ENWFI° '0 A, M5, M.,, V], Vz—a; M_, reads
3
M.
‘ Mo—lfifiq;
flawomits Q area f‘g, in which case the line falls
short of one syllable.
5
My omits q “ M1 omits a“:
‘ T notes °qiafilfimfi° as a variant '3 M3—°qfi:qmmfi
7 '3 Ma—°a{<n11=nir°
Ma—aafimfito
‘ M1, M6 omit 3mm ‘4 Mil—1%
fiiiu
* Tantravdrtika, p. 70.
Cf.
TCf. ibid.
1 Ibid.

§lbid.
4a Manuscript M7 starts from “ mgamu" Sec. Critical Apparatus.
ac «mum-r3

mmm‘amawfiz gnvfianl wwfifigfimfia 2 mamfi

& fifi'fi‘fifififitfififi3Htfifiifi‘rfimflfi'ififiafifirsfifimt
am I

**‘ ém afiqaq’, ‘fit'i'qf it Wfii‘fifi’d |

HW—
§‘ wigs}, {afiwfié
é'q’ISfiazvfIg
a af‘garq I’
I“
gfiwfififififi mi: ’ I

1‘ H fismahg’ 3%”, Hiatwwfi I? H: II’ 3% a I

[ afimétmrfifimifi Wéfifiififlfifim ]
11¢“ngamfiéwarfimf‘figfimil1a wfirg‘twfi-
an’a‘tfimafifig, gwtfi waaamwmfimuifirfi *aaraam-
fizmufi, afifimmfimfimufi I %fifi% I? *3 daft:
wnflmamatqfilf‘afifita I

' Ml—HEHHMIQO
‘5
P omit these two aphorisms
8; IilM
M" M‘” My‘fammo I]? Pll:/I.&
.
7
My omit am
2
M2 & My omlt 312m 8 M2—%%5F@a°
3
M1 omits athli'a 9 M1 & M7—°fif%a:
‘ P, PM—oihkfifif 1o Mtg—313
5
Wis—CHEW" 1‘ A—omits
afigmam
*"‘ Gautamadharmasfitra: I. 1-2.
§ Mam/smrti: II. 63.
T VasiM/Iasmrti: I. 2.
i Manusmrti: II. 7b.
"'
Cf. Pddmasan'rhitd Caryépfida: I. Sb-IOa:
“ naivfidhikérirjaste ca diksfisafilskéravarjitéh II
yathaiva diksaniyestyfi jfiyante bréhmanfidayah I

tathaiva diksfividhinfi jéyaménfi yathoditfih II

pfijz‘widhau bhagavntalh prakalpunlc ‘(lhikfirimlh I"
 WWW: a x

[ fiatwficaqfinmm mm «Mama ]
uafi ufisrmuram Hwtarfmmaaqfiqfiég hag-
?Emfimmfisawfirrurir, aatnfirfiafiaa flag WWI I {hr-
trfi amanafi: ufial I =r a EVE?! I
mwfi afi-
fimfiéfi' warrmnmfixfit l

[wramfifmfi WWiifilifififiH‘]
*era '33 32 WITHHI Harman afinrfiumflafi‘ofi-
€5ng3aamgrratrmfiamanufimmaai‘sm aware:
fitnmw I“ smawara’ 3% I

an‘rfiqrfimnwu’gw
am azftanuqmw I

wamfi%1fi5 afinfiq
:r marrfimfirmqu II

1 4
Ma—w—ia Me—°fi(aaraai°
’ M2, M3 & My omit a My—°F:Iualaafit°
3
M.—°afiwa° 5
Ma—Bfih 33%(fi

§ Vide Ydjfiavalkyasmrri: I. 3:
“ purananyayamimz'irnsfidharmasastrangamiéritéh I

vedassthénani vidyfinz‘uh dharmasya ca caturdaéa ll ”

* This is the contention of the Advaitins. The entire Utpattyasambhavn
or the Pancarfitra section of the Brahmasfitra [IL ii.42-45] consisting of the

dibhave vz'I tadapratisedhah ” and “vipratisedhficca ” had been interpreted by

Sankarficfirya as refuting the validity of the Paficaratragamas.
1' Brahmasfitra: II. ii.42. This sfitra is the 42nd one in the second Pfida
of the second Adhyaya, according to Sankara. But according to Rfimfinuju,
this is the 39th aphorism.
 We: as

fiwfifizéfimnifit martfir’éfi: fitfir’imi-t, atmgw‘tmtfit‘

afimwt’rwrfi st agfifimzefirafiffi tfiumfi I

' Ms, My—°aqahnnl3t

2 A, M1: M2‘ M3, M4: M5, M7, MY: V1; B—‘t'fiklfic'

Stirrvarasan'thitd: XVII. 440 et passim; Hiranyagarbhasarhhild: XIII. 3 IT;

Is'varasan'ihitd: XXV. 115a.
By the term “ddi” mentioned in the text “vaéikaranz‘tdi”, are under-
stood mdrana , visaharana ”, “ visacikitsa , “ unmddana ”, “ dkarsugm ‘ ,
“ ’
“
“ stambhana ” and the like.
For “mdrana”, see Hiranyagarbhasarhhitd: XIX; Agasrysan'ihim: XXXI;
Srivisnutilakasarhhitd: IV. 645-666 and the Is'varasan'third: XXV. lle.
For " visaharana ”, see Srivisnurilakasan'fliird: IV. 488-490; and de‘ya/m-
samhitd: Chs. VI to XII.
For “unmddana”, see Ktix'yapasarithité: III. 33-36; and [sirarasmiI/Iild:
XXV. 116a.
For “dkarsana”, see de'yapasamhitd: III. 1-3 and lr’varasmil/iini:
XXV. 115a.
For " stamb/mna ”, see the Is'varagarhhitci: XXV. 1163.
Thus, though apparently, the Pancaritrasamhitfis pour down instructions
and incantations to be followed and applied, so as to achieve some mundane
pleasures, the attitude of a Pancarfitrin to this question is an altogether diITc-
rent one. According to him, all such Agamas which are found to give in-
structions regarding the achievement of some mundane pleasure or other, are
intent upon advising men against such pursuits, rather than prescribing such
pursuits. Thus, for instance, the Paramasan‘thitd, one of the oldest and the
most authoritative Agamas of the Paficarétra literature, also. refers to the ways
and means of attaining earthly pleasures in chs. VI, XIII, XV and XVI. But
it spares no effort to stress upon the‘futility and undesirability of such pursuits.
Thus it says in VI. 60-61a:
“nz'tnyah siddhyati kémena tasmfit kfimo nirarthakah
tasmfit sarvaprayatnena muktvfi kamamanoratham
bhagavantamupfisita sarvam tenaiva siddhyati ”.
Unflinching devotion to God will itself bring to a man all material pro-
sperity, even ifhe does not himself pray God for it.
Also cf. ibid: XXXI. 69 :
u tritium-i
wraith“: firfimwmrfifiwm]
[

ask Fe wamiqafimmareamfiw Gil aa aa1 emira-

Rtfit =r a2 I
ififimm'fi3mflfiififl4am We: afifém
um, Wg‘rfitflammuniqni-
m‘aaméi an era:
fififiaea‘iafitaefimwz afiist‘iz fifmuwi‘fifiw: gash-
swgwnman: *ae: “if whenmnrmmemz
I I

nulsssgz‘S—
§‘ atwnnf‘aéfl am fiwd a answer: I

‘qm‘i ire mix 83% fi'g’E‘I‘I ||’ ST?“

smite ats'vi wfiafifiaagrmatat “Mafia—
T‘enatzfita‘i
gfianfiml"
an; ea
I'
(£65: ’, $‘ :ramfifiwf’ emera’

1
M1 & M, omit fist “
Ma omits aitg:
2
M1 omits a a 7
Ma—S-[Fi qf‘aafim‘
"
M.—a§anin1é° a
P, PM, T, M1, M6, M7, My, V2
4
M1, M2, M7, My & B—°Htaitfim° omit a
s
.

Ml—auf 9
M3, M4, M0, B—°éqtaur“r
1" Ml—ziaamfi}

"' Vide Doctrine of Sakti in Indian Literature, p. 42 :

“ God in the conception of the Naiyz‘iyikas is one that is not only the
efficient cause and supreme agent of the world, but possesses innumerable
qualities such as knowledge, activity, desire, etc. ”.
Cf. Vétsyfiyana’s commentary on the Nydyasfitra, IV. i.21 , p. 292:
“ gunavisistamatméntaram isvarah ".
Cf. also ibid: p. 293 :
“na tfivadasya buddhin'i vini kasciddharmo lingabhutaséakya upa-
pfidayitum ”.
§To be identified. This verse is quoted by Sucaritamisra in his comment-
ary on the Slokavdrtika, p. l 10 [Trivandrum Skt. Series No. 90].
T Mahdna'rriyaniya Upanisar: ll. 2.
$ To be identified.
u umnmmi

E a warfifinaa‘emfigt
a garner swim gear II

we 31 afifii’tqfiwmfi Qg: ‘afirfizarar” 31% I

*mrfieé Fe {EWIHEEzFWEEFHIflIH3filfiWIR‘T’HiWTEfiEQI—
fiamfifisgfigfianfiafififimgfih mafia Hawaiian-
qamfirfilerannémmfmafii‘mm §Hrmaf§rfir era-
mmfi 2 fisflfifirmnfi mfitmamtanarfi‘iwmafi-
numeral :rrm'fifi-t =r wifiafilfifiw: EHFEFHET-‘fifi: I

afi‘zarfitqemu eemfitrgfinfi I

auteur, tn at? amafisnafiafn? II

'3' Big}
fiaeésaufiré a turefimfiaa}: aagt I

1
A omits alfi 3 ° M3—°a*afiqfitf‘a°
5'
B omits q: 7
M.-°$(Ufi°
a
M.— °finfifia ma“ 9 B—°aaal‘ezf‘a: I T records a variant :

‘ T records a variant: °équirfi1° a a fmfir:

5
M. omits (a ' B—a an

"‘
Vida Karmamz'mdn'tsd: pp. 61-62:

“Experience, Prabhfikara urges, shows us the bodies of all animals

being produced by purely natural means; we can argue hence to the facts of
the past and future and need invoke no extraneous aid.
..Supervision (by
God) also is impossible, even had God the necessary knowledge; it must take
the form either of contact, which is impossible as merit and demerit being
qualities are not subject to contact, or inherence, and plainly a man’s qualities
cannot inhere in God. If the argument is adduced on the analogy of the car-
penter, it may be replied that on this basis, the creator would have to be an
embodied spirit, and no embodied spirit can effect such subtle things as the
atoms or merit and demerit. ”
§ ‘ffinmfitfin melt ’
mitt: l

Magma Hiaqaza%rhr?mfifl%€1 new“: I

w umwnmni

X‘
wfilfiér gfiafi’fir fif‘w: analgfiué?
aw aa trauma éfiisf‘n‘ a mam I

gfimfieaamml fiffiflgwmh ll
aqua—w crmmmi fi’fifififii‘llflfll I

aim, fig $11532 w‘iafiqfi‘ag: ll

§7f Eli's Efifiafinf‘naw: Elafiara‘tfinaf‘wnafhfi“

mamma‘mwm wrwffiggfiml
afiwfifia Swami III-46L 6515 a Enf‘maas l
=r mam afinmtfzffi‘éfié fifizafiswq ll

[Wfilfilfifii asifitrmaunimwm]
a‘Iwfimamfi” fiat
*qa'r aatsrmmam‘mamfifififl
i’mamssu‘i aaImIUfiu: I aqumiw‘ Hianmamemfr
award” 3f?“
‘
M,—°anhsqq 5
Ms—Fl (math
2
P, PM—aragyo 5
M1, Ma, M3, M7, B—°I'5I3i§l°
3
My adds was 7 M1, M2, My add fiitq
4
A, M2, M5, M8—°3ifimaqua ' 9
Ma, M‘, B—°fi€tqa¢n°

x Taittiriya Samhitd V. 9. 1.
§ Cf. Tantravdrtika under 1. ii I, p. 2 :
na hi lostarh pasyatah taddaréanarh nisprayojanamiti suvarnadars’anaté
kalpyate.
Vehkatanétha quotes this passage in his Seivaramimdmsd under
I. ii. I, p. 57.
"‘
Cf. Prakaranapaficikd V. p. 93, ff:
ataéca vedénténémapi filmfi jfiatavya ityapunarfivrttaye samfimnfitena
vidhini ekavékyatémfiéritya kéryaparatvameva vamaniyam....api ca siddhfir-
thaparatvepi Sabdasya na vedfinténém paramfinandédirfipatve brahmanah
prémfinyamavakalpate; tatra hi bramasvarfipénuvfidenfinandfidirfipavidhirésthe-
yah.
u mmmmrfit

wit amg‘ at: 95?in arewtfimumu: I

I‘hmwfifiaawmmmnm fifimnaq?
as a amalgam“: fitfiafiafitzfi wanem‘talg-
Elfin: tntfial
[ afiagwfitfiumwaeam]
Ingmar at fit =r Inzfifi ? asfit aqfiafifiafitrfiaa-
fiflqiflafilfiafit I awzrsri'tsffil3 I
a a4 HE'ISIfi Gian, fab"
qrwfifimgw%zl 1: gar a
anfitmfimez ari‘afi: Hafiz
f‘ai‘ré fifiafit, H H‘aiqi warm: a§g7 I
afia “Niaga-
miqgtrgfhmm stq'iIr-g writ“ Héauwammfi?
musse—
’-’-

‘Héi’rg a fling fiagtvfiwif‘flgl

gswggg 333 85‘} wt'frafi ‘0
19.11::an II’ at?“
T
aamfirmrfifi“ Hiawfifiwq I

wuwnafiama Haimmmmaaq II

[érsgfiuam afimt]
A h ‘\
grazqralwffirgw await: mam” I

l P, PM, T, A, M5, V1, V2—°31fifi; 7

M1 omits g
3
Ma—°ana°rq; M,,—°9-m=li M,—°aII{-Ig Ml—am
2
M1 & M7 0m“ “*1 9
P, PM, T—OSIWEIEIH:
M3_°a;:fi a 10
3
Mb M4, M7, My, 13—33545???
4 M3 omits H a “ M2—°arrfia°
5

“
M,J adds a 12

‘3
M3, M, add a
Nil—“33133 M2—°Iaa°
14
A—‘E‘RH‘I
* To be identified.
T
‘aaa' saw ‘Iafiqfia’ zzufi fiaflfirI
S The Mimfin'Isaka anticipates the following argument from the Sid-
dhfintin.
 WHEN“: 3%

I693 awaiting garment new?

mu as} 813% am ifiml
f2 ifmfi
I‘ mi mafia: whrfi’enfié‘ amsqu II

9"
auimewa’i mar H‘Jl'filflfim’ I 31% I

rim——

1‘H3 arm '3 RW’ 3%, 5‘ ai’gmfi: wit my II

‘I‘ =r
am afif‘awfirtfia 6135
7: QIAfiEIfiT an: a 5115
firm’ I

:Ffimfia gau‘rsm fii‘é

arrafifiwfiméfim II

*‘fitnfimwmggéi, emiré‘ra a fiaaq I

fiazfiémrasaié‘fl sang a: 11mm II

393 afiafl 1155.! agitate am" I

X‘
mum: wfimzuenwmmwaq’ ll 3% I

'
A~°figfiaq 5
My—‘F‘ia'a an
1
MI, M2, M4, My, B omit zfir 5
P, PM, omit a
-‘
B—m 7
M, reads wfia, omitting em. in
4
M3—a in" which case the line will be wanting
in one syllable.

Rgveda X. 90.41.
Mahdna'rdyana Up. V. 7.
_.g;++om—|-

[bid. XI. 13.

Kajhopanisad III. 9; also Maitriyopanisad VI. 26.
'
Svetdévatara Up. VI. 9.
Vimupurdna l. i. 35. This verse declares that Visnu is both
‘l the
material and the instrumental cause of the universe.
X This verse does not occur in editions of Manusmrti with the comment-
Iuics of Medhétithi and Kullfikabhatta. Manvarrhamuktdvali oflhe Kfifi Sanskrit
Ncrics, however, hasthis verse inserted between the 10th and the llth stanzas
ul' Ihc lst Chapter.
‘3
 WW“: ‘4 ‘

11% ma'rfi'dr‘zaz' ggmwfifi‘tfimql

anamiwfimi: mafiafigwaz ll

arazuaimsgm awfi, Rim! auISHeW I

WW3?! £153! ufimafiaé‘rfiwm II

*
aa“ atfiifiififiw a fiqnagfifiar: I

a a tfissawfim: gfififlfi'f’imfifi: II
[um agar—(fig wean Warsaw]
fins“—
A
{lit wrgwa.8
& A O -
§ 7‘
manwrza am
o

=13 I

wwé Ina-911% ’ét’eaé mmatmfi: II

I‘ Eden's aIFaI’i; %’fit fiwmmrafi I

ma Wfi'fl‘fim afilmeafaam: II

1
M1, M5—°%EI°; Ma-afinf‘zaéa 5
M1, M2, M4, M7, My, B add It
2 M1, M,—°afifiwz; M3—°u:aaffia file 6
M2 & M7 omit a
3 All ptd. texts and mss. read aulafir 7
M2 & My omit this and the follow-
with the final fit as a short one, ing verse.
except My, which gives the reading "
M4, B—I'E'fi a “@161 (no I393 &’§1'q
chosen by us. separately)
4
P, PM, T, M1, M3, M“, v,, B—‘aq 9
P, T, M3, M4—qa°

* Vide s’Iokavamka I. i. 2, sl. 111b, fl“.

§ To be identified.
1' Vide Anandasalhllird ch.
XIII, folios 43b—44a:
athato devasyfircanam dvividhan'i SrunuI [sic]
vaikhz’masam pancaratran'i vaidikam tantrikam kramét ll
tayor vaikhfinasam sresthamaihikfimusmikapradam I

The (Main?) Sanalkumdrasan'lhild draws a distinction among the

Vaisnava-mantras in terms of Vaidika, Tantrika and Vaidika-tantrika.
Cf. Rsirétra IX. 35: vaidikam te‘mtrikarh caiva tatha vaidikatfintrikum I

mantratrayarh kramenoktam ........ II

Cf. Vasisflmsalizlzird XIII. 16b—l7a:

 «Wu: um

[ahfiwfinfirwasafi gfimmfifar‘tmu mm wmmufiml

fina—
gfiwfinfif‘afifiawmfifitam I

wrng‘fi aaamfirfir mfié trad II

am a ’gfilzl——
*‘
afimtfi ansisumem argfwi‘auniz, Insu-
fififimm mfir’ sf‘a I

aur—
T‘ sfiafié-I are Rafi Ema =r shah i‘wza’ 3f?”
mafia—3173531mamasrfiwraasfiakafi, :r“
:mwrauawmuafrfi I

q_
Waztfimfiw armflwrafisaasflué I

13: die mush, 311319 arm} fiat aftfifir II

:3 =1—
§‘ Baa fizfiwafil’fi @mmmmrq“ I

I"? Efizmtm, mmswasfiafi II

‘
V2 is broken here 7
My-mfi°
_2 M2 adds area] here 3
M3 omits four lines from :1 aka
3
M., M2, M4, M7, B—shahfiazr upto awaaéhfit
4 M1, M2, M4. My—°sz41° 9
MI, M7-éfii; M2 omits 31H}
5
M4, B, omit a and add Her '0 P, PM, T—Efinf
6 M1. M7—H ” M2—°araflr(01'i
*
thaddranyaka IV. v. 14.
Cf. Bhagavadgitd II. 14 :

mfitrésparféstu kaunteya éitosnasukhaduhkhadfih I

figamfipéyino ’nitya‘stén titiksasva bhfirata II

Chandogya VI. 11. 3.

'47?++—|-
‘
aifi’ifiafifi a aquuafirfi ma:
awn ma‘t ‘aa l

Chdndogya: VI. ii. 1: ' (Ra £31:an infill qfiqlfagfiq “1' .

 tfiwmwfimq H0

nunnfixnar El merit ‘qa’filafi

aaagmamsm‘i affix ‘Efiafia’mm I

Hi? a 2131‘?! 5&3 ‘qa’airfizz, Ham?-

nfir «1% Hail slur amgafia II

81a} afiwzfisfi: ‘31?! ’WW 3511?: l

‘srmm’ 3% witsfi, ‘zfififia‘il

mad’r’fiaq l|
Hawks?! {5365’ 38mm gafiismm 111%! a: l
WEFW'Ffimfimz, FRITZ mam"! Eta: II

w?! 356': %a fitmnfr swmfit ’, §‘ 315?! fia-

T‘

wvaa‘tsfi gum? ’, i‘ at am% fimfir an mafia’ $3111? I

amm—
fiamwrfifi’t shit =r Eng afiqwf‘a I

331163 maxim,
@356an mama"
Hum: fiafiufi {awry-rim film I

ammnam Qif‘aq ads firmnfilféwa ll

aaaq Iagquffifgafimafifiémufisanfimufl
mfimfiaql
fins:—
339’17wrgwmfiwf 7mm 1% mmfia: '2

avzrr%ar% nfiz gun-1, EHIHIHRUIF‘RWE ll

‘
M1: M2, M7. My, B—‘fifitft 4 M2 reads 3%
2 M1 & M7—fiEfl 5
My—aq
5 A omits alfiz‘fifi
3
M3 omits gum:
‘ 7
B omits mm
* Svetds'vatara IV. 5: “ash in? gwflsgfi l"
1' Bhagavadgira' XIII. 193.
§ lbid: 11. 20c.
1 Ibid: 11. 20a.
 m: ‘1‘.

harm waffle: manaunfit :53qu I’ {W I

ugzwutaur =fiaqr3 qauanfi’tqa: I

WfifiWlfilffi matr—
[em mama-Hm]
* qa’r mfisf‘mfiufi II

[aw agqfimr; afiimwfifi a]

fimmwrffié qumma? unwrfi'rfit
fifmarwwa‘m“ Tsitfiéimfiamaa II

a alaqgtrrfisf‘ma mmmawfif‘am: I

its" Eflfig' man; Has m: fireman: II

nffiafiz, H a fitfifi 351%“

W
§wait WIT-I i

fifin‘zma uterufigfifiua: ll
“7 =r arafinfiafizfifiwfi w: ntmuum: wani-
I

m‘tmrfifhmrq mum“? Imfi afieafifim,

WIIW'JRHT'J'O Hé'16‘tmwfiIwIa I =nfit ffiaamm,
ntgamcrquw cria‘aarfi'iisf‘warai =r 6: ma-
fiqu, armamamraflfiauam mfit argmafiaaz I

‘
PM omits :fir; M2 adds Hi 3 7
My omits an
2
M2 omits {f3 3
M1, M7—°fiitqm:
, Ma—fian 9
M1, M2, M‘, M,, My, B—omit
‘ M2. M3—°a=qeam new?
’ Ml. Mp My, B-eafi; Ms—fi'fl 1° Mz—wi'trfim
° Mn—fafi a “ M3 omits HE}
" From here starts the ‘ Siddhdnta ’.
T ‘
szhfama awn ufira‘ {fir swarm watnafinfir firiiwammmar‘aah: qmmfififd
Inmmfiqu I

§ Wire“; fifi'fim wit am (qimf‘iz) qfimfiwzflw: man [qfitm with: want: I

‘
m a fiia fireman
arrami' Racism I] a figtfia [*Ifnfim] fiamflfitaz
”[11ng I

tumufizfiasfi a: fifiafifimiiw [afiqiasfitn] faamfitfiaz, a g Elmmlifilifll; [fa f‘am

no mmmmviz

www—
[mffifitaruanfi $1!le azw‘tmmafianfiwraaq]
filazvfiwmarmér mfimffifizfima I

Efifimmfig gen, whamm§waefi II

*‘
ammmqf‘ inset»? 3% mmfaafimans I

amtsfiwmqam‘s wfiarfia {IT-FEW: II

[35:13? wan-affimfl
agawafiarzr‘tgfl I“ woman" ’fi'fifl II
in??? #73:" award}arr‘aaafai‘rqramtfiwfifir-
I
M,, M2, M7, My, B, omit amfit 6
M,—°zfim
3 B omits fir, rendering the metre 7
M2—-°62IHER g; M3—°r—IHEIisfFI
defective 3
M2, M4, M7, My, B—-omit 1%

3
M7—°&Elafl M3 reads Ifififi f3
4
M4—3F-anikl! 9
M2 adds firgfil
5
M1, M2, M4, M7, My, B—if‘a :qrqaqarfeifaz

1|' migéseq, imam, Pure-I an firm fianfifiqfiw‘ arsxgfi‘zfit, fizaafifil Etai

mlwvfifi EJ‘IEFLI

* may}: a ‘11 fliifflliz, a: Hamlin a am} “ TWP-1i

nataf‘wfiritit mi:
’
| I

in?” ifii Imam ween-liars affixifimfi, aeaaanq efiwfq and ”.5! EHWI’JI smu- I

ai'nlfi Efitaima as aim-16min: am It: Swami mfinz; afiufaql‘aa fire:

I I

Cf. Bhuvanes’alaukikanydydsdhasri, p. 243. ,

T Vid.’ Ralnas’dstra of Buddhabhata, $1. 39:

“ an, aégilg‘fia
a? fitfii Enftlfi I

{an}? aqfisfi aw witmfasqa II ”

The quality of gems is tested by putting them in water. If they float, that
is an indication of their superiority. This method of testing or the knowledge
regarding the test is no doubt useful in determining the class of gems; but it
is of no avail at the time of wearing them. On this analogy, it is argued that
the knowledge of ‘ kdrya ’ though useful to arrive at the significance of words,
is not useful at the time of using those words.
3;For a classification of gems as ‘ male’ and female ’, see Ramadipikd of ‘

Candesvara, Sls. “-13, and for a classification into the four castes ‘ brfihmana ’,
ksatriya ’, ‘ vais’ya’ and ‘ sudra see Ramas‘dslra: Sls. 21 and 23.
‘ ’
m3
mm
am i, fir'fimfiti’mmmgwaa: {Hafiz saga
mm?
Hmamww‘ii'meai, i‘ra marl
11ft? I

afiw firearm mad, maefintfifiwmz II

infigfiéfiam am *fififiifiumfiml
fiflflfl: mmufi‘mflwmm’r gm II

1
A reads iv‘ififiEIT, making the metre 3
Ml—fili“
defective 4
PM, M2, M3, M5, Me, My, B, V], A
1 A & Vl read qraétmramaz; Ml, M,, —<ficmwi a°
.M5, M7 & My read machumaara:
* ‘
Niyoga ’
is another name coined by Prabhakara to denote Apfirva.
See Karmamz'mdn'lsd, pp. 74-75:

Mimarhsa does not believe in any God that receives the offerings
from the votaries and rewards them accordingly. “There must, therefore, be
a capacity. which does not exist prior to the sacrificial action, either in the
principal performance or in the agent, but which is generated in the course of
the performance. Before a man performs a sacrifice, which will lead to heaven,
there is an incapacity in the offering and in the man himself to secure that
result, but when he has performed it, he becomes, as a result of the action,
endowed with a potency, styled ‘ apfirva’, which in the course of time, will
secure for him the end desired. The existence of this potency is testified to in
the scriptures; its necessity is apparent by the means of proof known as Pre-
sumption (arthdpani ). We find in the Veda, assertions that sacrifices produce
certain results, and, as the operation of the sacrifice, as we see it, is transient,
the truth of the scripture would be vitiated if we did not accept the theory of
Apfirva. Nor is there anything illogical in this doctrine; every action sets in
force activities in substances or agents, and these come to fruition when the
necessary auxiliaries are present. The action specified is called into existence
by the injunction contained in the form of an optative in a sentence in the
Veda.
From this doctrine, Prabhakara dissents, elaborating instead, a theory
which is obviously a refinement on the simple view which Kumarila accepts
from the older writers of the school and which best suits the Mirnariisa Sutras.
In his opinion, the injunction rests in the sentence as a whole, not in the
optative verb, and he denies that from the action there arises directly the
 firm
ah; wire 111W,
m:Wm =r wum' I
I!“

may: a mafia-1 merit mwaztréfit II

Ht‘éfiaflafimfi?
tamer Pg man"!!!
again §mr mtugmf; fia‘mfirfifimfiumfir tart?-
W“ I

ffii: HEW—‘ Eru‘trrfista‘t Ha" mam’ 31%, ‘35:: ma

I

fin'tnfiamwi maf‘qfig ’fifir in wmfiibfi {Fa %q“, a I

wfiffifi9 firm fig” fit‘iifl'fflfi' ffimfit '2

'
mm, a from}, =r firmer“ fiwfifr‘afiq ll

ll otIIittI HIWMI upto muffifi:

’ M.| await 7 I’M—$373M:
‘
M,I -"".'Ml‘f¢l¥t 3
P, T & My add arr
‘ M,—-t la «Inf: 9
Ml—fiftfitzm
"
M.. li—atuqta' wt 1°
My—fia
“
MI has n lacuna from afiafi‘qifiiatd ” Ml—Ft Erma

Aptlrvn. ()n the contrary the process is that the injunctive sentence lays down
It MIIIIdtIte. Niyogtt: this excites the man to exertion, and this exertion pertains

to some form of action, indicated by the verb of the injunctive sentence. The
I-itettlutt produces in the agent a result (ka'rya) to which also the name of
leuntt ltt given by l’rnbhftkara, on the ground that it is this which acts as an
Incentive to the agent to put forth exertion towards the performance ofthe
IIItlntI denoted by the verb of the injunctive clause. The Niyoga, however, is
unable to produce its result, unless aided by something which Salikanatha styles
‘I'IIte '. nor is it apparent that either in his terminology, or in his view ofthe
prneous. l’rIIhhakara‘s doctrine is any superior to that of Kumarila. It seems
an lf primarily it arose from nothing more important than the observation that
tho N‘ntlll produced in the agent was in one sense his motive to action as tnuch
II- the sentence directing the action to be done, leading to a transfer of the
IN!" leogn. naturally applicable to the sentence, to the condition in the
agent to which the more orthodox name of Apt'trva was usually applied. "
" ltI nltnple Hthl‘iiiCCS, there is only one Apfirva produced, but in more com-
plietttrd sacrifices, there may be several, as a rule, four.... But it is not every
III lion which brings out an Apt'trva; these actions, which are devoted simply to

mate material result, though a part of the sacrifice, such as the appointment of
ptlt-ntu or the threshing of corn are not credited with any such cfl‘ect, as they
mve an imtnediate purpose and need no further explanation ".
 I‘i'mvfi mum-(mm: In

mt' awawfiffil fiflfi'ififlfiz manual?! I WW flaw“-

wmfemfiz“ dig: Hzéa wsfisvinaq‘mufi; gawk a
ufiwfil
wamfimmqafinfi'stfi EPIfiIZ'JIS I

‘mwfiawfi‘s ai’mgmir wafifi ll

m
fimamfiw‘:fiaf‘fifiagfir-Hfi
fifimnfiwnamfiamgnfisafi II
I

a amqunsrnsfia am fififiafium I

*smmtfiauaztfi HI9 (mat Wtfirfififi ll

fifiwxfiwfimfifi‘tsyfi g “amt-raw”-
quimgmfirfi :rrfia mwfisammam a um- I

mfin'fiwfifiqfim‘}: éfifi: “NIH? WW3” I =r

w mu' ‘gfiftalf’q: wifi'ti‘m: firm%

rflmt” mum", at mauatammmfif‘a fin, alarm-
I

Hamm-
mfi Infill wfiwmmu: a F: garaarfifim‘s man: I

wit“ mszmrfl-r I

wt‘qfia WW fifi’fifimfi'g I

m mmfiw 39$, 11! smelt mamfiafi‘t II

I'. I'M. ‘l‘. A, Mn «- vl omit aqaaqq; 8

M3, B—aqam°
M. I'I‘Ill’l’l 9
M29 Mu M7: MY. B: read a;
M3 omits at
‘ A
A V, IIIIIII 1ll'l
-
M.. M, «II 1° M2, My omit afiw; M1—°afiwit"
. M,. M. In M,. My, B, vl & A omit H Ml—a unnmgfia"
IIII‘ ' ' ‘2
l'luu'yu M1, M2, M4, M7, My & B rcud
' l', I'M, l. M”. MD. Vl & A, read fink—R, omitting aqfif
rum 1' My omits emf
" Mv ‘4
QI'UMMUL Mn M2: M7 & My add '4!
M, IrII:IcIrIIwuquto ‘5
Ms reads mafia:
'

Mv lrIItIzm'FaIfiI innit '6 M; Ma, Mo-fiIfi“

‘ "mu: autism; 8mm: 1'11?va
A mmrnrrmfit

mafiaau 3% fin, a I *srtrmafiétsififi mafia}-

WEIWWIFLII WIS‘HEHWIFU {fiaammfirmzmq-
TENT:

nfnfimhfimfir“ amfi‘rar mutual??? urgfiafifi?

fir i‘F'r Hfir mane? aniaaifiarti‘a: I

finmaéa f‘arfi‘afia, first %a-sr war II

igntfimf‘aamafi naiifi‘ras anfixarrl

fazqg9€21°i°rararrq mmmfitafiram‘t: ll
311%
a fist §Hfét§fiqql§rfifitfimllanamam anima-
am” fitmamlfia,
‘

Eanr-rgfi uwmzarlzamwm :1 %€
uabwamlssoianzzm Wt‘dl
’
M.—°mwtn '1
B—qaaaafilq
2 M1—°atmrfiiamr°; M2—°annf‘aaa° 9
B—famq
3 P & PM—om‘fio ‘0 M2—°£q$i°: My-—°£qe°
4 A’ M1’ M2, M4! M5, Mr “ M2, My—ofiliilfifio
My, V1 & B—°qfiaaq‘ 12
M1 adds afiqfi
5
M1, M3, M5, M6, Vl & T—qqfit:; 13
M2 & My omit at”
I4
M2, M4—°qra:; M7, My, B—°al‘fi° Ma—fieqaaufi
6
M2 & My add 3% '5 Ml—qfiiafim"
7
Mo—qirnfiz ' '5 Mo—°avianamt

"‘
This line too is metrical.
Tflfianmfimm Samara fiiafial uni suit ifififil‘il aqrfitalammtaenqfisw-
gamut aquafilifif‘a ma: l
1 See p. 47 above for the Mimamsaka’s argument. The illustration ofthe
arthavdda : “fidityo yfipah” [Taittiriya Brdhmana: II-i-S-Z] was put forth
there. This view is now being refuted.
The figurative statement “ adityo yfipah "is made on the ground of simi-
larity of brightness ( tejasvitva) between the Sun and the sacrificial post. The
relevant sat/a is “ sfirupyat " [Pfirvamimdnisd : 1. iv. 25].
§ The _rk to be repeated while anointing the yfipa with ghee is : “ afijanti
tvftmadhvarc devayantah " ( Taittiriya Bra/imam: : VI-ii. p. I42 ). For the deri-
vation of the term yfipa, sec [bid : VI-i, the opening part.
 fix-31:3 urgnufinm: 4I

am Ewam‘qfi gamtieagfiazl I

3191153! fifi aaz iiwsa't whafiwfi II

”1'5552—
man my :rmgmf nafiwfilafii
"“ I

3.18:! =r 313%, mat-st filtmfa'si’qu II’

3%, Ha I

wésfi f‘aFafiWmtq {$35 1% 3:193?" I

“332%?! ana’ semi? awn wfiwfil II

firsasmgtr:6l Wfi‘t'mSfi fifii 356W-

a w an
wm‘umiw wiistfiz am, $1 film! '2’ ‘mm’ smfinit- I
‘

mmwfi‘j II$35!?!BFWI?Hfifiqlfi%fifil%flI§fifllfi9fiII-
mm: 5133'” =rfitmmznnfiafir I

1'32 3 mafia“? «amass? gaq I

W
:1me an“ waffi’, i‘uufiffi mafia ‘WI’ II

my?! mum H13 Rafi mm: H 811mm

'I‘ l

unrfq'~‘ad‘talarfiz sum” am gmfim II

.
M._ M... M.. M“. M. My, Bléalfaa: 3
Me—qg: 331°; B—qzaa°; My—ngifh"
9 Mo—°HT5H?L°
M,. Mn— "aucm:
1°
.
M\ M" M7, My—°fiuasfama%
' AL, IIIIIIII. I-I-'. 11
M4 omits i161
I A m‘ 1’ Ma—HITIIII;Me—am:
1’
"
My I”. Ma—zeqlfifiiz;My~-Eamfi°
1‘ M2, My—ggm
"
M. ‘IIIHIUIIIIII:
'
My IIIIIIJ-t
‘ In Inc iIlcnliIicd.
NUIL' IlIc way in which Yfimuna connects the previous discussion with
I

II..- umm Ilu-nw, viz , the validity of the Pdficardtra-texls, based upon the author-
ulnp ul’ Nurnymm, the Supreme and Omniscient Being.
I. (,'/'. Aluqu/m: III-ii-9 : “ ilfifia ital? iflffi " I

1
('l‘. Tail/iriyu: Il-i-l : “aafizIr-‘hfi WL” I

1| (y; ibid: “ H‘Isgfir nah mafia: mm fiqfiaal " I

 m: CH

333% Q '8 %:I%*‘carlem :mmur: qtz’ I

1‘ FF":
atanafi’ a, §‘af§wr\t: writ wq’ I

T‘wu gimme?! mafia: ’, am ”It: ’2

ll
"‘ am: «we? 3&4 awra’
TT‘
Hififiqi mswmfia finf‘fia’ I

$F3¥fi€lliffilgfluis ll‘afi‘t an
gmfir aarfi’ §§‘H%ar H‘imé’ ll
{Elfififif’i a, FIFRH Ema:
afifirttfiaffimé‘ng I

$=r
manna arramfiufisérm: gait Igen: I

Hafiz?! 3" H733: wmfifi 81111881 II

mafia wrmsnrir awmawnwanauqfinzfi-

“21m: nfiaw"’mn%“ I
am fit—
' M" Irmlu |_l't-l III III'ITMIJIII 7
M3—°gs°
. M. In M,_. M,. My, v.. A & B—qi‘ 8
M1. M2, M4, M7, My, B—aq’t-
"
M.. H "II aficflfigaélq:
‘ M. mum lll|_ ”
A, B, M7—qa:%%a
‘
l', I'M "-II'QI-IJIUI‘L '0 M1 has a lacuna: mm. .fil’IlfiT
"
|'. PM, I', Mfl—a’lixq 1' M2, My, B—fl‘amarfi

nut llllli M NIIL‘il. the importance of this part of the text need not be overempha-
nquI. II nulirmcs the way at least, in which the author had dealt with this
I'lll'lllitlll III the Work.
‘ Alli/It’llt’lliyllllltfi
XI. 4 2t Taittirr'ya: II-i-l.
'. l‘u/urmla : Vl-5; also Kaflmpanisat : Ill-9.
l 'I I) he “head out.

" 1 his uppcnrs in the Jyugyasfikta, beginning with “ it? mm film 31m ”.
llw II'IIIIIIIH found is ” 'Hi: garner {3'
iii
”. It appears on folio 15 b of palm-leuf
my In (irnnllni, under R. No. 657, deposited in the Govt. Or. Mss. Library.
MIIIIIIIM. llllti ulso on folio 42 a of another p.l. ms. in Grantha, R. No. 67 from
the home library.
H- S'vuids‘valaru : Ill-9; 1i Taittiriya: lII-i-l; §§ Chdndogya : Vl-ii-l.
s (7'. Bra'ImaSI'm'a l-i-2 : “Stimuli 1H: " I
 {Emmi alumni-Ilium n.
'15! =1 13%, airfimfimafixw z: I

m arm, F": @fi‘m: §§‘Bfi'€°l aiu’fi rhfia H

w safari wwlmzamfimaafigtmwmz'
wgfirfii‘tma EE'JI’fi: =I I
tram-

war, aux-mam awzfirgwaufimwm I

w’éfiw $313 anagmfi i? 552% II

[fimftz ntmmeaafimm]

*éfifiwtfimfifg fixgfiar WIRE?“ II

Ham! E‘Imfi“ —
T“ “man 5! (fisntmm: wfimé I

Emma! '3’ £36 hwég a rfitfi II”

ama—
i“ Fagin vi an Farina? was): I

aafirqwaufigs, Fifi mafia thaw: II

3
mama wfi fir‘t =r 31519 =r wfiwf‘a I

Qafiei aw Emmi a Hat-I1" "”31?! I

I
"114:6"an A, Ma—gfi'flfin:
3
2
M1, M7—fifi Ma) Mrs—Egg
‘
A—“qfiqlfim: 7
Mo-oa'fi
‘
M.. Mg, M4, M7, My, & B, omit 5
Ma—éflaffiamfig
11"") My—{aq
5’

[0 P2 PM: T,
h
Ml! M2, M4, M7, My: B—‘Hfl’: {€33 M1 1.0 M7, v1. B""Hi1‘"2

§§ [Ir/Iaddranyaka IV. i. 5: “ MEI; i5: " l

‘ This line occurs below. It is from the Bhavigya Purina, to be identified.

Viwupurtina VI, iv. 39.
Vardhapura'na [Sri Venkatesvara Press, Bombay], Ch. 72. $1. 4.
{/3++—|-

Ch. 73, £11. 52.

Also cf. ibid. Ch. 70, $1. 26a:
” H mm m7 fir ufim a ufiwf‘. I"
u mmmvi
Twirl amcnlmirzz marge": wrgqmfiafi I

A
a name aafi‘ar were
o o

warmest II

‘ 3
Mo—fi!" M2, My—°§qa1:
2 My—alffiaarz 4 B-EfiquETIEI‘f
T See M. R. Sakhare, Lifigadhriranacandrikd, pp. 331—332 :
“In the Vayupurana (ch. 23)and the Lingapurana (ch. 24) it is said
that Mahesvara told Brahma that when Vasudeva is born, he would incarnate
himself as a Brahmacarin by the name of Lakulin and that Lakulin Would have
four pupils of names Kushika, Garga, Mitra and Kaurushya, these would be
Pasupatas. The refutation of the Pasupata system is found in the Brahmasfltra:
“ patyurasamanjasyat ” (II. ii. 37).
From all this it appears that the Pasupata school was founded by Lakuliéa
(the' holder of Iakula or Iakuga—a club or staff). This Lakulisa (also called
Nakuliéa)is the last of the 28 incarnations of Siva as mentioned by the
Purinas. This has been confirmed by inscriptions too.”
The Kalfimukhas and Kapfilikas were two different sects of the Mane-r
svaras. Dr. Bhandarkar (in his Saivism and Vaisnavism, etc., p. 183 ), identi—
fies the Kilamukhas with Mahavratadharas on the authority of Sivapurana
but M. R. Sakhare, on the evidence of a Jain author, states that the Kfipilikas
but not the Kfilfimukhas were the same as Mahavratadharas ( pp. 344 f. ).
The Kalamukhas, according to T. A. Gopinatha Rao (Elements of Hindu
Iconography, Vol. II, p. 26 ), were so called as they marked their forehead with
black streak and were said to be the offspring of "nara” and “rfiksasa”
parents.
“ The Kapalika system is very ancient since it is mentioned in the Maitrl
Upanisad (‘atha ye cinye ha vrthfi kasfiyakundalinah kapalinah )” [Litiga-
’

dhdranacandrikd, p. 344 ].
“The allegorical drama, Prabodhacandrodaya of Krsnamisra (III. 12, 13)
introduces a Kapilika, who describes himself and his practices as follows :
atrfiaararaaawfim:
Hammett aarqreaha: I

we filnlaageagrr
3111:1147 fiaafianfiauq II

afhsamamfiififiamiarsfl: gait
aé‘r nuaqtsafimgtmaa a: war I

amfifltmfimfiaramfiseafi :

awfi a: airmail-33m: 2% airfare: II”

mm. p. 345]
 marsh wawwrfim u
[mmnfiufifiq]
Hfimwgfifiafirfi, smasher ‘EI‘IIUTIFLI

erwarriqrarnfirz, =r “Namath ll

Missy'—
*
“Efiifimgzfifiazz “sidearm? I

wrrrtrmatrrrurrir tarsal firariurqsafi'r ll ”

aur—
“ mfi’rmr flair:
*
a firmnlfinf
%ar 50-52-13 I

we: usitwéié‘S it 53%; High ll

* Irafii‘a’és
WWW! agrmwg‘i I

an 3's awe ”
Q
arrfifigfafizrg =r II

' ll omits 6 Ma-—--urnq$itrrah3t

Fl'llSEfl:

a, to the detriment of
‘
M), M;I rim“: 7
M3 adds
'M, "lrtuuvu: metre.
‘
M:- My—4~l"IMH-‘tz “
M.—sraf‘a?r; Ma—qfiraz’ia; My—um
“
My -»quiulfii: 9
M2 & My—fitfir:

Also vii/u Indian Philosophy by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Vol. I, p. 488 :

" I'he Rudru of the Rgveda (1. 114.8). the personification of the destruc-
Iwc powers of nature, becomes in the Satarudriya, the Lord of Cattle, 'parmmm
,m/Ih '. In the Brahmanas, Siva becomes the distinctive term for Rudra. The
l'n'mlmtn system continues the tradition of Rudra—giva. In the Mahfibhfiratu,
we hml u theology named Pfisupata centring round Siva [Santiparvam ch.
NU, M |. We have an account of this system in Sarvadarsanasahgruhu and
Arlvmlaimmli's Bruhmavidyfibharana. Sankara criticises this theology in his
iilllllllcllllll'y ( ll. ii. 37-39 ). ”
For ll history and philosophy of these difierent schools of Saivism from
hm Iiptional data, see V. S. Pathak, History of Saiva Cults in Northern India
[mm Insrnptions, pp. 4-28.
’ Passages to be identified.
‘m martini}
[aw fifiwafima]
=r
figmfimwgwflm,wtm,fifiqaluntena-
aaZ-aufirm awafimwér gram} {SEER I
at i? Eam-
gfknfiamfi’GImf‘rrarqfigamfiaaawemrmarfiarm—
wmfiqaa'sfi HWHmWE—* ‘ 35134 fififififififlafia
mm: mm swam fiafi’ WW“ '

[mama-Managua]
qi asrargar 31R! Hmamaufiffiqmwramas-
mannawereIzaamzrmfiagémmgngrmumaewxéfi-
atémfia Eatmnfisfifigqfia’mm: gfiiafisgar czar I

[qrgqamfitm‘tfiaz ]

WE wasfran'ui fiwfméfifig fiafia‘qffif‘gé,

Rafi fififiFEEfifi'fifi I

[ mgqanam’fimafiq ]

airs" wrgqaqfivm—
T shin: writ Eva Zfiqufiwfitffiaa: I

| M2, 5
My, B--°f?Ifi1a° M,—°amfla°; M3-°amamaq°
2
p, PM, T, M3 to M,, B, v,, A—— 7
M2, M4, M6, M7, B—°a§z°
oago g Ml—otflfl‘fao
3
Ma omits fir 9
P, T, Ml, Vl‘—°aqgmr{°
‘ M1-°EEI¢1 M2. MyJfiuégmt
5
A, B—°FII5|°

* Taitrin'ya Aranyaka III. xiii. I; also Svem's'varara VI. 15.

T Vida Pdfupjtauitra with Kaundinya's commentary, I. 1, p. 5 :

“ Emma Innari WEI: EH tum am firifimmw: am: I"

I

Also see ibid :

5‘
8&5th 2‘:
mt, altsmhfinn-I it I

qmwfininfin: H? St
llama-WI: ll "
 Rim-it mafia! m

H fiwmtm‘ §warwmfinfi§tgm ll
an azimuths; WIE’JW: autumn? I

Hanoi fin? With gzerwa 31%! I

errant fitfitfi' a summer smut Fem I

filament)? 13:, Heart-m3 WWFFRE n

trwa' need? ‘Efitfi’gfié, ‘
fifi4’fiua an
l
I'M “nurtmuq 3
M3, Ma—amal
"
M.."--'l.l"llvllt: ‘ Me—afiliffi:

§ 'l‘his I’trIiL'riJIiytiyi is, in all probability, same as the Pdfuparasrilra,

u-I'mul lo nlmvc. This work is in five chapters, dealing with the five charac-
lt'lislics of this cult, viz.. Kdrazta, Kdrya, Vidlu', Yoga and Duhklzdma, which
also gr) hy the name Paficapaddrthas or Paficdrrhas.
'l‘
(f. Kuundinya’s commentary on the Pdfupatasfitra : I-i, p. 6 :

" v.4tag-amt we? not «Wait firfimfi q’aa mat: amaa arm: I”
I'l.l«- Imlhm l’hllosvphy, Vol. I, p. 489:
" ‘I In: llvo cutcgorics are :
It'draem or Cause: The Cause is the Lord, the Pati, the Eternal rulcr,
I

who crcules, maintains and destroys the whole existence.

2 I\'(ir_l’a or Effect : It is what is dependent on the cause. It includes
lumwlcdge or vidyd, organs or kala' and individual souls or pas‘u. All know-
Inlyv nlul cxistcncc, the five elements and the five qualities, the five senses and
tlw Itvu ulmlns of actions and the three internal organs of intelligence, cgoism
ulml Inlml are dependent on the Lord.
t )‘utu or Discipline : It is the mental process by which the individual
mull mum (ind.
ll l‘lrI/il or Rules 1 It relates to the practices that make for'righteousncss.
.5
or the end of misery: It is final deliverance or destruc-
Dull/«Initial
Hull of misery and obtaining an elevation of spirit, with full powers of Know-
it‘ni’tl‘ tlllti Action. ”

lnl' u more detailed explanation of these categories, sec Lirigadlrdraua-

”unlit/Hi, pp. 35l—57.
9.! autumn?!

*qaraugtflmmaiwf‘ammamm, WI: I

‘u‘m‘t’ wtmgmfi ‘Igfi' fixmtfignfi, am

§‘ glam-{1’ fig: na‘t‘swar‘} 3f?! 3r wan?! fififim: ll
wrafiaafirz gzafiaf‘fi: ‘gzmm’mfififirl atfia
fifii‘rfii‘rfiifirmuw‘tfiawfi 3%}: WW?! I
swim =13

£93655“! fiammfiqi a I

[ $6th gfiififiiafiqu]
fin’: Fifi {n'fifimqr swan“, um” I

mféfifi‘tmfifi ‘15: 3315 333: agaq II

nzrammfi than Her aarwa: I

wavtéfifii’tfl amfimi 1111mm II

Waue‘m'fia‘i fiai‘a’étas Wham

fies, iii-man} fiafitaavfiwmfiaz II
flammammfifi, aéisfi agFammar I

' M2, M4, B—°aifmrc1:° 4

M1~afifiwqfil
2
M‘, B—anfiaqfi 5
Ms—‘REIEI
3
M1, M2, M4, M5, M7, My, A, B 6
M4—wuwf
omit a 7
M2 adds a
3
M44?“
* Cf. Pds’uputasfltra: IV. 2: ‘qgar’; IV. 3: ‘mmfitfifilfiit’; 1V. 4:
‘aaifiI (KIWI fivzm’; IV. 5: ‘gxen’ I

$ lbid. V. 30: ‘Ewraaiefi’

1 Ibid. I : 2, 3, 4 : ' 1mm fi‘n'fi aIdIH’, ‘mfii {1411613 ‘aigalam’ I

1i Ibid. V. 23, 24 & 25 :

‘
afih aI‘m: sraefi ’, ‘ ahgitqfin'qrdia ’, ‘afi filer mmm’ I

§ Ibid. v. 40:
‘ammé’r man gamma iflqaiam’ I

** This line is wanting in two syllabl:s_ Or, this may be taken as a prose
passage.
 Hussy:—
*“fia’lm§mfirw sum} “Rafi
afimé aam‘mm ufifiafP-I mam”
am II
I

3512 I

Wmfiaa]
[qmrafifimmt tantrum
:r 6: mmnquafimfi wwfifr w} unfun-
ni’t“ an: musafifir =r a Hummufinfqrwmfiuw- I

aFflW gm, arfiufimfifi UH:— I

1'Htfiwaagamfmenswmsgwua I

E's-mm, =r firmer maarsf‘anasufir II

sunfish =r arena swag a awaits I

war saw ntmufimsawm9 311th-

qwfimmwlanmaglhwa 3%, mm“: mm (NI-
wfi‘mxml
Hi" It mtri --
I
M,—Iw{° 7 M3 reads ofHIU'fiWFIfiIfi;
’ I'M omits [Er B, reads ”immfiaafifirfir
' Ml lends “a “filmfit, for °ammtmfinr 3
T, M1, Ma—a {WEI
‘ M. “fl!“ 9
Ma adds an
" A IIIIII'Ilrt" ‘0 P, PM—qufififiiflfi f%
'I
M. mum «In; M. rcads aramaanf “ M,,Ma—°qana{°
’ II) he identified.
lcvcry school of thought stresses the importance of its own (Ii/ml-
II-IrInan. Sec S'aivas'iddhdnta, p. 47.
| See. the verse “vz‘tsudevabhidhinena” etc. on p. 52 above for the
,nIII-m/IIIII,I-u-vicw.

('f. 'I'anlrasmldha, p. 17:

"
«M: mt‘azakfifia ania nfiltamaalfil Hzflnlfiifi'fid afim fitf‘vml mum I

mmuI-I mlwum nintalufiqfizmfiqwfisaam: I"

1 I
‘6
*
£3! mama! firearm emu
“eat a1
W I

T
fiifilfifififlalfil‘ f‘aaqratunfiz a ll
§afnfiaarsewmmfi «:63 5M3 mafia I

era Ha 11331115513 a?“ II 31%

0A G

«Wear
o
_ _ ,3 I

am, a’éra“ imam GE: mgae’r‘rammmai Emil?

afiiflflf-é, éamniwgsamifimtfiaé, Framfiflsmhfimfi
a fifmfir—
“& aanrfifilfifinfiqf thglzfia‘as a II

iwugffimfinfiw um mtg—31° Ir'q'f‘i‘mr II

3
mmanw 65mg trenches tram“ I

mérsafifla‘r than“: =r Ema agnma II

x Hut wrgwmfifir uaéfir 656} 351 ll

a
wrraeqfiansananf‘a‘t%w
am {awmwfi Ing-
qmfiaafirqi fiaanzrf afmfh I

l P: PM: T: M3, M5! M6) V11 & A 7

M1, M2: My: B—oqihfifififi
read FE .
9
Ma—flsafia
7 M3——°il(fl1!l5l 9
My—a 21°
3
Ma, Mus-355R 1" M2. My—mznmaar
4
Ma—afira “ M2, My—WEfiWI:
5
M1—°3Iqag° ‘2 M2, My omit E
6 My—azmhfina“
* Ch. 70, él. 36b.
1' To be traced out.
§ The ptd. text of the pura'na has the following line in the place of this

“award iiififian $3ng want ” (ch. 70, 5!. 37a) I

1 The ptd. edn. has the following reading : .

" aufrimaéarfir: mu finial 3 «31611 I” (ch. 70, 3']. 4lb-42a)

3 Ch. 70. $1. 38b-39a. Variant for the second line:
“ fin‘fiwfirteh a3: ingafia 31333: I"
x Ibid. SI. 43a. Variant : “
an mgqa' wit me hath-cw: I ”
to o mum?!
1 “ 31:3 mum‘fiar wz‘tfin r’r‘rawfilgu I

mm dmf‘aat 33°} #1" await am lI ” 3% I

angina um fi=§i firmfi

f‘mé‘fit I

a a mafia} €mn, um $7? Hfifiaq II

1 “
a
a g (":1me “711%
'2“:
qrwffiei’t
mem
an: awfia§s§mz 3% ll ” I

mega“—
'33 Q6! *1 3! 5N? atezm‘a‘rwrfi =n%:rq5 I

* “ wwffiei’t fiafifiwa” satfiwfiiféaq“ II

§ “ tn firearm ” seamfffi kiwfiam I

HF"?! mesa, msfi mafia-m II

mamwf gfinf‘a W3: ammwam II

FIE qawmfiafl 11% Wlflfl 0{6mm

fiifi II
tarazcrmut firs": war-II as;
.
0 o

mug—«€513 fiatfinmwnwfiufiw I

armwmiifirwf, arafi“ mat-g :3???” II

I
M4, B—qzhefifi‘ramef ' B
Ms—aazfi;
2
Ma—éafi " Ms—fi'alfi
3
M1, Ma—‘éafi ‘° M1—°a'Ffiq€r; M,—°€flfi find
4 M3 omits aaia Ms—°aifi 314%
5
M3 reads mama “ M,, Ma—aanffi
6
A, M2, M3—°§fia1{ ‘2 Ma—zgram
7
M‘, B, read mrcmfi‘en for mammal
I Passages to be identified.
"' Cf. Manusmrti IV-30:
' qwffiefit fimfimi‘aamafifiifi 513:1 I

%§EEFL mfifia alsm‘aurrfi 31331 n

’

§ Ibid. XII-95:
‘qr fiwamqaq‘t run 2mm @211: I

aakal Camel: KIM nrhfisl I“: filfiqfilt u '

 film: 10‘

amfiml :fi'fi Q1 ‘wgfi fig gasudqawma:

mffireu {It mmd’rama’ 31% §I

[fiammméfiwq
annaaamfi‘azfi #53151?!” ‘3 ft fit?!“ fimi
* T

MEL-{é ma; an?! 5 fitfizfirfizm srfifi‘rgq’ ufia‘t- I

mfiamfi‘t I‘crrazmfi'fié fir aqfia”, fifififi'fififlfi'flt

afinfiwfifmfifir Imfi; um HIRE}—
' M, hus. «for R; My omits ii 3
Ma—fifiififl
I I'M rcmls {4:qu ‘ A—ufitfifl”
5'
q: ArII'ruddlIa Samhitd Ch. I:
“ fiafiaiwanfiqwmqmmn (9 b)
3111

quilt” gnaw? “Wm anmfim

gnu: HE qaamanafiiar: ll (12)
3.336%

MM"? Huléa Hilfiqmfiafiau: I

ma: mama am: If? alum: ll ( 13)

NQIIIIII :I
wuuz, azza wait (14 a)
I

' (ff. .‘z'rI/I/Hi‘vya undcr ll-ii-42, p. 831:

“an‘rI'I FIlethiI'I: ‘aiiIg 323 fismauma: :Iifiéq: qamumalf‘afir, {#313 m
uln'IIIIflIsI a with :13an «3am: «51% ’, @sqmmfifiawqafifiafiqézmqtqmdlIIIcII
wunlqafiuan amt ‘mamatqfirazfia game: 5% itsfizfim‘ xf‘a, mafiafinffim
IMIIIIMquHla?QEfi am a {nfimqfi man 55:37; mahsciIfiI ug‘fi amaimuéfi agéfnf'dm-
‘

o-Iquu'I qmq’
mum, Hé fiamranfiwm, 6153'
‘

Imm WEI fimzauwfimmuaafi ammqnfirumimu} fiat, ammsm Hum H'rfig 35:3 «<1
m
Hafiialfiw amfiq' lfa {mamma-

mm mama, azamfin’fifihsfi anaz, mafia infiaaqfifi '1:an Waéwalgfiamqmmmlffi-

‘ll-ll'fl'lufi I
am 311% whim gmaafimémww: wadfimmgeqa I

‘aIvfraI WHFL! am: ailfitfim: afilfitI: I

amffi a aIfiatwgmfi a u
WWII?
a %%g was; mafia fiat man I

‘aIeIWIIII'I qqaqlfit 5m
fifififiwfir II’ leII ” [I. 3, 4]
T Vide Sdbarabhdsya under II-iv-20, p. 139, lines 27 & 28.
Aitareya Bra/Imam : V-31-6.
I
Cf. also Taiuiriya Bra/Imam: ll. 1. 2. 7 : “mafia Ifi magma auqimfiu
mum all mfififa ” I
 "'
“was“!
ugfiatg man: fiwfi‘ I

Hrnaeazg than; ma, ammmggfitéfiz” II

3% HméaF-‘tm galéazsrfi'rmvfi; am an mtfi’ —

§“fi?fifi gem} an“, WIT-l was?!»
Hmnfizmfi’tfiré gamssftfia’ an II
Rafi a 36% a fimm'ir“ fisfififi‘l'
«gala {mama ugrmtagmfi” ll
3% wrmufiafifi! 3115137, =r fiqfiia‘fi; qa’r

watrwfiifirfi mfigl
Wlflfi'fifimfitma {3%qu
WWW?!
mfi wfi'wfer
fitv—Q‘Iurz,

éwfim alga: @313:st 3:139 I

ll

i “ =r f5: aw: vi fif‘fia angina amatam

éwfifiafia‘fifi marinahqrq'é‘fiz ll ” gem?! I

31f?!
a ‘agé fiifia’wfil mnnéz—‘aag‘l gawfi
mefi’fi; avg ‘uzfig assmfz, anawumz’ 3% I

as minimum? swam, a ‘fig gwfiq’

‘

{fin I

' M1, M9, Mo—ifiafizfi below. A, M3, M5, V, have the

1
M2 omits 33 following line instead: ‘1143 '1?-
3
M2 & My read 1M! 51103 Ifilsfir agzh éznqiat’; M2, Mp My
‘ A—mm: & B, have the following line
5
P, PM—Qnm‘e‘ug fififilz in addilion: ‘iiifi qflfiSfi 155!
° B—fii‘lfilufifi fiaqnm’l
7
M1, M2, M‘, M7, My, B,—°maq% 1" PM omits {Fa
3
M3, Ma—wfi “ M, reads : aifi a agfi 32mm}: fizwég
9 M3 omits this and the two preceding ‘2
PM—gwti 3%
lines but has them after a final: my,
’ Manusmrli IV. 124.
§ Adiparvan 1. 208.209.
1 To be identified.
 film!" sow

fin ~amaafimala“ I
a f? flaw": 36w? a
awfizl am} a: gmrvfz, anammfi, aqfimr'fi 3&3
wwnwwzand’manfifi wattage}: fiafirvsfiaa“ uefiufi I

[Wlahfimmfiw: ]
wagaafiq—awnmfisfifiami waaarmmvi-
*

am" fiatwwémtfiwata’éfifiafif‘a, aagfirfl =r Q I

awnmfifisafimf sfififiqrfimnkam rfimfiézafitt-

hwmc‘r. fi‘wmfiwaq’ gan'Emaunsafi-zéfi wafit am I

fifim'fiwum“ fitwwmfimfi” '33:”, a14agwaq I

mitt fig warramamfifiaszfi” am fizmtmaraamffim;

nfina’} w amfifixmaffif‘qfiwfimIWR-[I

Fm, Hufii‘mfimfiw: muwavé an 23:,

3'! mfiwfimfimfiwz? =1
antiwar: awn; aqanmfi‘x-
mwnmfiz filafiétmfi fizwnmrafiw fii‘awa—
unwm‘l
' M.—"’II1WWEIII‘L 9
M, & M3—°§f&${
‘
I', I'M-Imam? :I m3 1° B—afifi'an"
‘1 M2—°fifl(l€[
‘l‘. A. M ,,. Vl—gwrfi a 611%
‘
M. ICIHIH IIw-(iqawa: ( no am) 12
Ma adds an
4
M, .II My—u‘hl‘iqaq ‘3 PM ~°ffimfi%§=
"
Mv 1'l-I‘HH" ‘4 Ma has a gap from aagqqfiqupto an
" M. N M., mnit MI 3g: below.
'
M. N II, omit defiant; M3 adds 5% ‘5 B—°§fi{afi%; M2 adds g
' I'M nuIIIII_»I.:(” ( no mm)
‘6 Mo—fi'fiflfiifikflqififi"

" Sec 18 above, for the opponent’s argument.

I; (ff. ‘ anm‘émafiaatmamé 5321:? fia'rfiq fif‘aeqmwfi, quoted by Subaru
IIIIIII'I XII. l-25, p. 319.
Also (f. Aitareya Brdhmana. I. l :

'aIInIiiwIai gham fiéqfia mafiqfimlwmmw I

1 I
1oa ultimatum?!

I “arena fiafififr :fitfi (termite Q‘ I

mama av: $532 11:51? it II

' M. omits 3 making the metre defective 2

Mz—E‘qfi ‘
caturnfimadhikaro vai prfipte diksfikrame sati I

This Diksd is threefold, yielding different results to the followers.

Cf. ibid. XIX. 4 :
kaivalyaphaladapyeka bhogaikaphalada para I

bhogadaiva trtiya ca prabuddhanarh sadaiva hi II

Ch. XIX of this dgama deals with Diksd in detail.
Also see Parama Sanihitd XXXI. 53 :
tisro diksah krta yena vaisnavena tapasvinfi I

sa eva vaisnavam jfianamakhilam srotumarhati II

Ibid. XXVII. 41b :

evarh diksam tridha bbinnarh uttarottarabhfiyasim II
Also cf. ibid. VIII.3 :
Si tu bhaktivaéfit nmam trisu karmasu nisthita I

prathamam samaye paécfit tantrajfifine tato’ rcane II

The Diksd-ceremony is dealt with in ch. VIII of this San'zhild, in detail.
The purpose of Initiation is given in VIII. 1-2:
ata firdhvam pravaksyfimi diksfiya laksanam param I

yamavépya visuddhfitmi vaisnavah siddhimrcchati II

apratisthasya manasah sreyomargamavindatah I

upéyam bandhanasyahur diksam diksavisz‘iradah II ’

Also cf. ibid. s’l. 6b-7a :
yastu tivrah prayufijita diksfim bhaktisamanvitah II
tasya devaprasadena sakalam siddhyatipsitam I

The three types of Diksd called Samaya, Tantra and Arcana, are defined
and explained in ch. VIII. Sls. 7b-11a.
Also, cf. ibid. 111. 29b-30a :
brahmanfih ksatriya vaisyaés'fidrfi yosita eva ca II
bhaktiyuktah svabhfivena kuryad devasya pfijanam I

It is said that one who undertakes Diksd is better qualified than one with-
out it. Cf. ibia'. III. 39 :
dvividhah puruso brahman diksito ’ diksitastathfi I

diksitassakalam kuryfit ekadesamadiksitah ll

Cf. also Aniruddha Sarhhitd ch. IV and Visnu Samhita ch. Xfor
different treatments of Diksd.
; To be traced out.
 fill-it Mmflfiam to!
fist": H mm! 3 warlwfimaa: I”
am—
I “a&:a2gi'%1°wf%fi3 gm? fit with?! I”
qamfiaa‘twgfiilfiwwm‘tfifi: II

I Earmarwaiamafifi uni“ naql

new-fir fimfi £553 fiwmwmutfit
[WWW: ]

£591 a???%' Qm—§‘BT-W?UB=WEUQ’ 3%? Er

IIIWI awe: gang?
*
3mm W3— maméfi Efifiw‘fi: wfi’wm—
mama, aura-er Igfiimmfilfiamatm anazfrdtir
Inmfizfi-I I

vim fi'lmiz, at? wartamfisfinafimwfi? an” I

II III wunwmiig shitzwf‘r'ritflgm, fié‘ragaufi I

' M‘. Mn. V“ A &B--a§€m€t 7

M1, M2, M4, M7, My. B—°:II1313
J M“ 1M: Ma & M,—°:III%I:
' l', I’M, T—Hfiiaxt; A, Vl & MB— 3
M1, M2, M4, M7, My, B, omit mm
lliliili; Md—H'fizari 9 P, PM, T, M1, M3, M5, M“, V, &
4

‘
M" "mafia a wt
II E'IMHEQTL
A, omit
'0 Ma—(aalr
wt
" omit at?
M. .V B,

1 Mahdbhdrata, .s‘a'mi, 322. 28b:

t holds Vyz‘tsa, the author of the Mahdbhdrata to be one with
Ya'Imuna
“Iltllll'flylllllll, the author of the Brahmasmru.
§ Brahmasfitra II. ii. -39.
‘ The ‘ pfirvapaksa ' arguments advanced here are those made by Sun-
LIIIII. See his commentary on the four sfitras comprising the ‘ Utpntlynsum-
'
MHIVII or the ‘ Pfificnrfitra ' section : Brahmasfitra ll. ii. 42-45.
8 'mm‘ {'3' EN: I
no «m3
fifi? WIRE-m;
W
I mam’fi atafr— ‘angth: wrml
maxim mar shaft awn; winter Hit me;
aa‘fi'Sfitwtm“ artisan} man” 31% I

Hatfiel-
afifi Eta-3th Wursffid’mfis I

* 3113‘

T
3W3 Sufism
aa #3“pr mafia 3511316
£18531"
I

mtnrga‘tfiw {snfiauthfi ll
I
All but Ml—WU aeqqfia; My reads min with: GM
2
Ma—quafir: meme
3
Ml, M2, M4, My, B—qgmq 5
P, PM, T, A, M5, M, & V, read
‘ A—Nfiififi =mro an dammit Shana: Ryan; M, omits
5 P & B
omit this line and the Words this and the preceding line.
: Cf. Ahirbudlmya Salk/rim V. 28a :
‘unafir when arm fifiia an'
Cf. Sankara under Brahmasfltra ll. ii. 42 :

‘
argafiagifi—atgéam H'afim aqua, {Hanna Eugen, Stalin: attire; {1% I’ etc.
"' Cf. Ahirbud/mya Sarithird, ch. V :
vyfiha ete visélaksfiscatvarah purusottamah I

nirdosa niranistasca niravadyassanfitanah ll [$1.41 ]

anantamaksaram caitat cfituratmyan'r mahamune [sl.42a] I

tatra sthfiladasz‘lyfim te vyaktibhévamupagatfih II [él.43b]

T ‘Etaqasmv'r’ fifiwqfirmmfiffifir war: I

Cf. Ahirbudhnya Sarhhitd : V. 44 :

jagatamupakaraya saccidanandalaksanah I

manafilambanfiyaisa caturfitmyavyavasthitih II
This Sarhhird thus clarifies that the four-fold manifestation of the
Supreme Lord Vasudeva, as Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha is for the
welfare of the creation, by facilitating mental concentration in different degrees
for aspirants of difl‘erent capacities.
This four-fold manifestation has got a purpose, says the Su‘ttvata
Sam/lira, namely. facilitating the worship by the four castes, Brahmana, Ksatriya,
Vaisya and Sfidra, respectively.
It is only the Brahmana that is entitled to worship all these four mani-
festations of God, viz., Vasudcva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. For
the remaining castes, however, only particular forms of God are ordained for
worship. For further details, see the Sdltvam Sarizhitd ch. Vll.
 Ran-h afiituwlfifl'm: t 11

mztssgz—
*
“fiaagfiwz WE: wrath" mutual” 11%|
(T. the follewing passages from the Sziuvara Sarithird :
Ithjfintamarcanarh visnor niskamenfigrajanmani ll [VIL 29b]
cvnn'i suhkarsanfidyan‘t tu vésudevintamarcanam I

vihitarii ksatrajdtervai kartavyatvena sarvadfi II

prudyumnfidyam tu vaifiyasya musalfintamudéhrtan'i I

rm'r/nirlrasJ-dniruddhadyarh pradyumnantam sadaiva hi II [30-3l ]

survutrftdhikrto vipro vasudevfidipfijane I

yuthfl tulha‘t na ksatrfidyah tasmacchastroktamacaret II [55]

t'nturnmh brilhmanz‘tdinaih svayamevanukampaya I

I'nlm'ntmyenu rflpena caturdha vyaktimeti ca II [X[I.l7]

I'vnIhstvunugrahfirtharh tu saktyatmé bhavitfitmanfim I

hlhhurti bahubhcdotthan’t rt'ipaih sadvahanasthitam II [176]

('l'. the following from the Parama Sarilhitd 1L 99b-101 :
:.n In devascaturvyfiho bhuvanesvadhitisthate II
dhurlm‘tdisu parz'm'i siddhimavépya hitakémyaya I

vnntulevussmrto dharmo jfianarh sankarsanassmrtah II

tnthfl vimuktuh prudyumnah aniruddhassakalesvarah I

Illll‘ll vynktnsuunmstz’tsca catvz‘nrastu gunfi ime II

'I he uhuvc passages from the Parama Sathhita't point out that the four
l'uIImI of the Lord, viz., Vasudeva, Safikarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha
mu Intended by the Lord to initiate the qualities of Dharma, Jfifina, Vimukti and
AIv‘Ivmyu respectively, in the beings created.
The fact that the four manifestations of the Lord are designed by the
l unl Himself to facilitate the worship by the four different castes is briefly set
lutth hy the Pauskara Sam/ma ( ch. 38. 51. 4a, 5a ), which Rama'nuja quotes in
Ms ,‘illblul‘tya under 11. ii. 4], p. 829 t
kurtztvyatvena vai yatra citurfitmyamupfisate I

krumfigataih svasarhjfiabhih brfihmanairfigamam tu tat I

( 'I'. also Visvaksena San'thitd XI. 146-147 :

vnsudcvah para mfirtissthapaniyi dvijottamaih I

dvitlyfi sthépyate mftrtih ksatriyair moksakanksibhih II

prndyumnakhyfi tu viprendra vaiéyaissthépyfi mumuksubhih I

smlruissulhsthfipyate mflrtiraniruddho jagadguruh II

O
'l'u he identified.
m malaria
awn? wrrsfial =mmgagtl2ami g araai‘ =r 155%th
WREE‘IT‘IWHEI musse—
i ‘Wwamfifiaafi'fiz fifitafifltfiiimafiq” 3+3”
own warrior §‘3=;' ne‘mfirm’ garfiaafiz,
ah'itki‘aifiwsfl arf‘wtramsntmag wart-stems arfiu—
wmsfifiewfinfimmm‘mfifiw afimfimnm wit am-
vsummir anmargunfiammfi (Sammie Irina: I

msfiufiwma ] [

a§w6 2519f: 175! arf‘wfia7mmwfiwfiugaaffiam-

I

wgmfiwmfinami xgfiwumfiriimn steward: :rFa—

wrmgar arf‘wfirawamasflwmfi garaqqamfiwfirrw
maf’ 3.3"? Hfélifiamfhfimnwa:‘Onrnaaznriifiq crinmt‘r
“Mgr-WEI“ I

[Wm]
' M2, My-HEFIFHQ that Paficarfitra is equal in autho-
2
M1adds an rity to the Vedas.
3
M3-°éiqaar .
*3
M4—a3ia
4 M2—°%?M: 7
B—Efilfi°
5
We split here as wraith; no printed 9
M1, M,, A, B—°fifif3ht°; Ma adds a
text does so. Our reading is in con- 9
M, repeats gfifiqlqfifmiamswa
formity with Yamun’s statements, ‘0
M,—°£atfifiqafi°
“ Ml—zfiqiua
The source is yet to be identified. This verse, however, is quoted in
I
full by Sudarsam, in his commentary on the Sribhdsya, I-i-l; pp.l68-l69 :
“ Hair-i aa' as? mtRmafiaara’Iaazt |
wiziawlfi'aazififi wwmmfiam ” II

Vedantadeéika too quotes this in his Nydyaparis'uddhi, p.151.

§ Maha‘bhdrala, S‘a'nti, 011.326.100.
'fi ‘arfiifi'fl’ amaam 38W: I

" amqaimfira afifa’fimiififa ma: l

T aaiwiue=wita€t I
 wi‘htmnwfimm 1
u
Manim'
{aha :4."1I‘EJI='I%3 am Q—wx-
(1535312 I

nunmuwmm; aawwmwatqw-uffimmamt: n1:-

Ifimgmmwala I
Emmet-am“? awnvztsmm%:5I
mu ft—
fiagfi amt
qaa Hm’fiaafimfiraz?
with an mm was??? ? “gutscgswwmwaz” II

Hmé‘rva‘é‘mfireét gnaw-L fiat usual" I

amtanfiswgfiésfi adiefitmma: ||
asgl°qsm%wrafi f? ’é‘raafinaaasaqfi” I

am * ‘=r a” £55}: mm’ gaiarsrmwm Elfin“:-

I

dwémq ”eh-ma more: wgfifiam mm sswwannm‘ I

a fit haw-ma “W31?! 31% I

an--* ‘=r =1 655;: arm 14’ 55%: Hgéwm =r

Iqa‘r I

mum-WEI Rm '2? HHIWIUfiWfiIgfi: — $‘Qatm-

mnit Inuit wfllfifiamfit a” 3% I

‘0
' ll —-:mmin PM, M‘,M6—HE°
I II mnils mafia 1‘ Mz—afiisfinfifiafi; Ma—‘F‘Imfiuin
.
M" omits this line in run. enema; M4, B—‘aqafiqmmqa; Ma—q‘w-
‘ Mn, My—w’: amen sfiqaameqa
‘ lI—"aqqfi: '2 My omits a
" I’M 45573 '3 M1, M2, M4, M7 & B omit from
' M1 to M‘,Me. M7 8: B-ag‘z‘tz: Ghana upto °éfi£€l
" I’. PM —im agqiqamq: “ P & PM add 555;:
0
l'. PM, T, A, V1, M3, Ms—qufi

§ According to gafikara, all the four aphorisms of the utpaltyasambhava

wI-Iinn [' lI-ii-42-45 put forth the refutation of the Paficardtra.
J

" Brahmasfilru ll. ii. 40.

1' Cf. $rib/xci,vya under H. ii. 40, where almost the same words nrc used.
$ Mul,1¢lak0pani,md H. i. 3.
He «11mm
*‘fisrrnrfizmé an muffin ’
:ifil ‘ar’firafii
trait fiwfiaéhI ugfiq— awwrsi‘it ngémrafifitw-
:qaficrmwafitfil,’ mafia am: Bflwwymumfimt I

at??? i? fiarmauz gal =r #33:, targewfifirrffifi‘m fisnfi

mfi %f%r4 ‘fiamtfi’ stall ma «was aefitr-

nfirfism
Wages wrath—1w?“ wrnrnit atgeammfi-
Pas-stirs}: Marmara-anti mm éfitmma‘rwf‘fifira I

' M_., — wane: qmtnqqfir aarfia 4 M1 M2, M4, M0, M7, My, B—fian a
1 M —f€t:nzq: emf} i‘tfa
3
Mo—Hngiql‘fi: 5
M2 omits Emma
5 M1 adds onother Ema
*Cf. $ribhdsya under ll.ii.4l : “ vijfifinadibhave va tadupratisedhah, ”
where again the same words are used.
I ‘Izét’ agfimtaq: I

§ 363R étnm at? Era: urttatistl cfifirm: lama: I

In. tza Wfili HEM: Wham
mam agqlsaatéfifir fima: I

I Vide Ahirbud/mya Sarithitd Ch. V :

“3w: guefiafirar afilt afimqr at: I” [25a]
“ Haiqrfifimit fish angfia:
mm In

fiuaafiqfilssmfii are asfiwaa: I” [29b-30a]

“
ma qa Imam argéazaaraa: I

as araaafiqrq taéméqqihfiafi II
33:5 qa INTER éfléififitfiga: " [34-35a] I

“war-a qa Huerta qgtaz gfifitau: I” [36a]

ara=a Iza‘ unarafiwfi man u ” [38b]
The words “ ananta eva bhagavfin ” occuring in 34a, 35a, 36a & 38b quot-
ed above, stress the point thatt he Lord is One and only One and that He assumes
different forms, without any diminution of His powers and perfections in this
process. Therefore, the question raised by Sankara regarding the plurality of
God is unwarranted.
S This Mfiyfi is the Sakti or the Power of the Lord, termed also Jfifina,

Vidyfi, Sankalpa and so on.

 m: m
lawman Henna,
'11! ‘W
'9'. MRI 8P1 fistmfifia wfigaql
m net sewfimfifl ’

*Cfifi amm’ zi‘a fin-3%: unfit? fit

a, T‘=r =2! afifi:
. Q
mm: fiamm wet afith, aa’ afimtifigmwufi“? 53?! an
N‘

an rmsta' amt, 3&6 grafhafi mgr: imam 31% at?

astfia as??? fiqmafiamsgmfim fisufifiw: I
=r
mt” dwima min seq-anti nan” zitmfi mum,
mutt-um I
:1st ziiwfi‘t, $5331?“

qmamfit Hafiz!
eta-“(55: 558i}
I
uami‘amfitfim
$53:
31'th I

gataraaewfmaflmqt Hfiwm
Q
catw-

t‘faqfifififi’ 31%|

'15?! — mma112=mg=ua
$H§EUIVRH I

iifiatflfi: wmwefia}: max, :13 35-11% ..

' M. nth: 7
M1, M2. M7, My, B omit imfi
' MI. M, -I% mutt twat minim 3
M, omits f3:
M,. My. B—t‘qa quit f‘aaqmt 45610131 9
Ml—a Ilia; M.—a um
Mll & Mfl add a W
Ma—H:
' I'.PM, M,, Ma & Mo omit am “ M4-331fl'7fl‘?“ Ma—amuzmtfl
‘ M2. Ma—fiqqufi ‘1 M3 omits at. to the detriment of
' Mn & Ma omit from an upto Fhmfi metre
I M; adds another ad '3 PM reads 311%?! as one wood

‘
These different interpretations are not included by Rfimfinuju in his
Srlhhdwa.
T Vide Brahmasfitra: Il.ii.40.
’
*t
‘
1H lalfi finamrfitfi ’31: l

: Cf. Brahmasfilra: ll.ii.42.

3*
IaaImamq—‘Iawamun at muffin; ' ‘fanfifitum‘ If?! «unsafe 1m: |

11 ‘Hnr-n‘m' arm (mm

x ' m?! 'aat‘i l
 no mm
1211mm ntmafifi®* thzcrawfi: I

aaaatafififimlfiqffiam "
maximums? ‘Fa'irm ’ueuni‘ra I

mmqawmafimumwwgfifi“ ll

§‘anf%{’fira%=r aamrmsfiefieai fiaf‘afitfi I

am Pg—
llwfimmmgaé Hat 8331113231! an?! fi'TFL
11: SHInFq7ai%arfi flint?! WfiWfifi: I

‘fimaraanzfiafim’ 3% 1': mgzg afimt:

afimr fian9finat-nagw 2&6" fig: Ema?
Tsawwmwfi‘t aw fifiagfifirazl" I

Hgémfirfifiwi, Fla ufirfitfiafir ll

‘fimfitfim’ 5% wazmumafifimfi-
1 I

nemfimfi‘fiafi, Wfififillwfifisfifi I

' PM—qlfi" 5
PM omits this line in full.
7
M,—°f‘a§mfi° 5
Ms—qn
3
M2. My—a final Human; B, rea'ds 7
M1, M7, My, B—gamfi"
ffitfii Elfilu'liilfi, in which case the metre 3
A, M,, V], T—E'ringz
wants in one syllable. 9
Ml—fiun"
4
M.—°aml§t§waaa 1" T—sl‘arn; M1, N‘s-"33611
B—°fi1wlimmgfiir “ B omits I31

*
amen mall‘zrqatfi ammuqqefinfianmzl
§ The term ddi is from Brahmasfitra ll.ii.4l : ‘ fiaralfiufi at flatlfififiz ' I

Wash E‘Iwfiaflt, fisnwzéa gmarfiai arfifilaq; I

1} Cf. The following verse, which, according to tradition, forms the

opening verse of Nathamuni’s Nydyatattva :
“ 2h ara 31m 66': mém Hat Ha: I

a mum EFI Elli? Emmi Elena u ”

T qeiafienamflargeqfiifi thaaheqtq 16?an fifilflfigfifll Will ‘wfiqatna’
:6"th ‘ {fifiiISfi wank. 1H amt: anwragafi
‘
l

I Bra/nmasdlru ll.ii,42.
 mm Wm: m
l
WWW W: |

nurL— Emmi mmznfiwmm trimaran:

wmufi firfié airman finafil4 am f2— I

Hfit Wee—El figs meme-«mm I

wnmli'té arms? :rtnu'r 3% we II

anmci fiafiufiegmwmwafil
flatwaaa Haafifimam: II

*mai‘g miter} westward!“ wwwfimmflwgéw

mvi nmggfinfi, mater fifimn’izfiumgfl nail":
Imhmmm WR33EIE, Fifi-(ram: nfirfiwwmm I

mafia“
§atafq wet-{ram

W]
l

mme‘ms qua III-4:116 =r ll

[WW
'
Sag can an an finite“: Imam" awn wrang-
M, My omit llll
#4 6
P, PM, T, M3. Ms, M” VI & A
I A.
M.. a M. omit u add a
' M,. M]. M.. M,, My & B, omit an 7 B
omits It
‘ M.--IHI (Quit; Mo—alil fiwit '
M, & M.—°mfinn
‘
M. 4m; 9 Ml—tfififi'fiT
‘ For a discussion on the validity of smrtis when they are in opposition
to more powerful means of knowledge. sce Tantravdrrika under I. iii. 3,
pp. 82403.
§ Cf. ibid. p. 87 :

tfivadeva sphurantyarthz‘rh purastfidfinumfinikfih l

yévat pratyaksaéfistrena mfllamesérh na krntyate II

S This is the contention of the Naiyfiyika. He does not accept the
“ upuuruseyatva ” of the Vedas. They, according to him, are dependent upon
the Supreme BeingI like the Pfificara‘itrégamas, for their validity, so much so they
mu ure “ pauruseya ", i.e., composed by the Divine Person. This is the point-

on which Yimuna differs from the Naiyfiyika. The aphorism “ na ca kurluh

hut'unum " (Brahmasfitra ll. ii. 40) is ingeniously interpreted by Yémunu to
wiuto the above concept of the Logician, and to establish the “ apauruse-
vulvn " or the revealed character of the Vedas.
 rum-aim
W: In
mfirfi!‘ T‘Wmafix’gfiq magma: mfi'wfi,
mm:
I

qmi 33%, Inwfiia:

'

:3 «vi agfi‘fissqa
mumrm‘z‘ It 1:331ng Rafi-w: WISH?!
m §fiww
mum-3mm:
I m}!!-
2

w: n a mfiisfiuamfiammmmm“
I 31118117
arma-
mu?!“ mug **‘ afiififififira ’, 11%?
I
a Q F151 ‘
315-1 I

Wi
wnnrqwqfiw warm, sw'fiflwfiafitfimX“ a I

hut?! wmmgafi: fima’lfi firt- “Fm, I

“In,
Fwt RI “this afilsfiuafinl Hfiai am-
1“?”th muuafififiw: 2

Wm]
qquwwmfin 11W”
[WI-mm
1

. My 6mm Iffi ' My—uasmfi

1
M, omits 1% 9
Ma—fim 1%; Mo—fim
°
' Ma—m maul? 1° M5, M.—°aI=I
‘ omits 51%
11 1‘ M1, M,—°awa:::m
3
M, omits fir '2 Mz—ametfilam
“ M ;-—<“mtunmara B—°il€l(ilrfi '3
‘4
"
M.—”mImmHfinaI M.—°Izaw;
T Cf. Pddma Sarr'Ihitd, Jfifinapéda, 11. 5b :
“ Hank
mam mmwgfirfiqa I ”
i ‘fi'fllfl‘faflz’ nmruqtquafi‘qz, mmqffif‘a march
§ Vide Tantravdrtika, pp. 89-90.
Cf. Tamras'uddha, pp. 11-12 :
“ afifiififié‘m”, “ flifim” WINE: aIarzi sunny 5: ififiammufi naalivwamqulm
«In; "11mm 21an 3312113313131 era mi qaamna‘ mme'z fiat. mfiamuaaqq‘; 31:"qu
I

wflamwmammrafiwflmésqq; mm 33am fig?" nimmaéa uan‘awfi {aiml-

IIIII'HN

quI umww ganaqvfiqfiq; afitréafrham mammal 3a: qRam xf‘a afirfi awn vszi‘sm‘
miI uqufiI maqfiswhsqrmaqfi qfimifiqmfi «Wham qfiann (fir
fi‘cfiiisfi mm FRI": I

musm gesqwaeam «mammal? fifiqafifim anfiIa: I”

3 ‘IIFGIEL’ = km???
'“ Apasramba Srautasfilra, VI. 3.1.13.
‘ To be identified.
v. aafiumfifimam = wififlamu I

1| Irafimam‘, aammwrmffitfiumm I
m mama
‘
EB":
3 WE! aaéi‘ War ?’
3% in, gamma? fitfi‘fiq Fl’lfififii: ll

flaw: imam-inn wnfiwwgfiu?! ?

Fm"
an
guaiaaw an
anm?
aa agufir-Iwmm: ?
uvztfimwm an?
ll

tag #3373652an was?! Hfifia’

MI
=r gaffe
amt aggtmi Efi'fl’fialfi 1mm ma fraimfiwa I

=r
a avatar Hfiafiw fraiwa 3%;fififi I

mffi fifiwafiml =t f? T‘sfiifia’ Film 31%-

ifififir éirfizfi mugewmufi, agwf‘ficrfimfiwmafiiw-
anew
wrfi wwieam“ =r gen-fir an} I
HE’SWW
umfiatmwtnsfiafi gum: LTIH'W‘JPI 5meatq, arm-g- I

wma I

a gawniemfl tmfiaarl mmfirwfia‘raafia

=r

#63: a: i? wfifiéfiusaaf mewawa aflifiufig,

I

am“) adfirfilwrfiifirgsrir, =ra‘t fiIfiwunmmfififiI

mafia wanmfi I '
1
M2 reads finial, spoiling the metre.
6 omits a;
M.J
2
M1, My—°anas
7
Ml—limsnaam
M3_oHfili c
B -

3
M3 omits from 516133! upto WEIR .
below.
9
Ms-flrammaazuaraq.
I
.
B—fiivfiimrq
‘ M.—qutrceIIq
. ~
.0 Ma—ava:
5
PM—°q(¢1° ll M8_oqao
T To be identified,
’ ”A —————

I BQWFHEIEU'I fiat 31:qu fimfi alfiaa {Fa ma: I

‘ Cf. Ahirbud/mya San'I/zitd ch. XV :

“ qlfinfimnfiai‘ 5am: mafia: ll [ 15b]
Em fiéfifilfil‘ atgiai fiafia a II [ 17b;]
“3%th fifli mmrfiaqt‘afiufi: II [49b]
"
mafiamfialfl 'é’iwIai ma mu { 53b ]
 mm W: WA

«flank—Hafiz mmuwfi‘
wartwawmiz
mm“ 5m: mfizfifiifiugutfi itmma‘t mwtuifl
"II «m1 umwfi fimmm 3% I

awn I
:I Q fimmaafir :IItnw'x fimmfitl
fi'iiwarmwrwlias’ agafi‘t: I =r a fifwem ”smurf?-
qui'tfim”; lawman afiafizlz I
1191155? mffiafiwz:—
“an a aurfimfi g ma‘3maam gun: I’ {fan
immurtisfh gum? Hfi‘fi'fi’fi‘fi atfiaz—
1?me 3 faith Harmsfiwafirfiw: || {RI
f‘ ’
I

:I fiz‘mwfi mun” mqmrfilsmm awr-

"wfiafi l
mmrfimmwrfia fifia‘a: $11555”— I

i‘ mm‘gf‘wmfi swan: mafia I

’
{fir I

31f“!
a, ammawmtmmwi kmnffi um airfi-
an‘fifiuguHi fiwtma‘t meta-2t, =I man-I umwi
ufifisfirfi“ Emir mam I

I
Mfl_am};qa I3 A—am°; Mz—aI-‘IM"
' Mn M2, M» M. B—°iTl’5"“TH N All but My—mnmi
'
Ml reatis an.. mmuq filwmfir
l
7 IS
M3_wl;‘fiq[glq[fif°
‘ M“ omits mad
Ma—mfimaifi"
I M‘ omits
an
n
M“ adds ea
Io M1
_ “ii °

, n M3 omits lung:
My—aiaarm'fit
. M" B omit a 13 B omits z, spoiling metre.
, M,. My_oflmq I9 M2, M‘, M, & B. omit um
"‘ M,. My—aInIRE‘q'IR" 2° All mss. and printed texts rend
H
I'M~vI Faé'meenfigmfifiq:
=1 °$fififi°
'-‘
M,—fiiqf€t3: 1' M‘ & Bflnfaaafifit
O
Slokavdrlika under l.i.2, él. 67a.
..—+
Ibid. 67b.
To be identified.
 m mm
aw u‘twmgmwtfiamumfi‘t‘a mwfil, Rm-
awq‘mmmmz WWW it? atEfifi an;
muss-g:—
*‘
aarwm‘fififsnz
3'3, nmuwtma' =r
mans ad’rwfi
wmfimwfi“ II
’
I

3F?! ;

Iva Fifi warrmfifi HiaH§DaI7ar¥§m§fiamae

firir iisrmra, mammary: aimfn Rama: I

m—a‘mhtfi ammnwun‘r: m finn-

angst:
mafifims amgawmfifieama, anus: Fifi-51mm-
asgmgfirfiurfirfi am Wt‘mafifiu‘t awfi-‘r fiat:
I

mmmlofi‘fimfi, are 3 aimllfiw‘twatmfifi I

fies—
‘
Ma reads except PM, all
31331132;
6
M|—°alfifit8l?'f
ptd. texts and mss. have «$9113 7 ‘B‘omits from an upto gm of the
2
Mr. Maw M4, M7. My—°amrm following para.
3M,V&Aomtt3t%
. . “M " M2’ M.M 4 ai
7’ My—Enma:
' a] a
9 . .,
MI: M2. M4. M7. My—aasraar’fit-
M.— mam
awe
4

5
Except Me, My and PM, all mss. 1° All except M.—azmzmtar°
and ptd. texts have aaquma “ M.—afififi°

* Slokavdrlika under [.i.2, sl. 68.

T The similarity of status between the Vedas and the Agamas, according
to Yamuna, lies in the fact that both of them are understood to be free from the
defects that generally stand in their way. The way in which this ‘ faultlessness'
is understood, however, differs between the Vedas and the Agamas. As regards
the Vedic texts, there being no author ( apauruseya ), there is no question of any
defect ever appearing at all. As regards the Paficardtrdgamas too, there could be
no question of any defect ever arising, on the ground that they are the direct
utterances of Vfisudeva, the Omniscienl Supreme Lord of the Universe. This is
what Yflmuna explains in the succeeding para: “etaduktan‘t bhavati" etc.
 um ital-fin": 1
u
nfiwfifimfi a ti maul 55th I

am": mfi’mm fitfimu W2 II

‘fiitwa’fimq; mmfiawfivIfiJ I

‘
i191 HIE ’fé“ Fifi-Em hafifimm II

313:" «1W5 gm, mfiumm I

WEI fit-«emit?
W36 fiffimfi ll

in mammai Warsaw:
=r I

m qfifima ammmfl 33mg ll

wahwfim‘t {fig-335:1?! 11.11% I

wnwfuaam 321211111118 an Ema II

wfififiwmmmfifiafi arf‘qfiqs’ 2
math 3121mm mafia-3W” II
awnfi” amazing mafimafiwam I

'zmémm” FIE! nfiz aw‘rafiw

mfim
II

mmm? fir w

[mm W W:]
afia mutt m gm” mam II

‘wanamfitfim amafi wmfit’fi I

mmfimfimfi”
I'M—hum; M4 has mum and B
mm air «3
. Nix—3701‘“!
II

both rendering the metre

Imu Hl‘HRq, °
Ms—INHIIL
III'I'I't'livc.
I Ims a variant
'0
3—.an
” M1, M,—aunflt
:
Elna
M1"“"mla35§qa '2 M1 omits this and the following
A. M1. M4, M., T, V,,— :mnfi“ line.
'3 My—wfiwmm
M.. M,—BI§III 11mm
All except Mo-Hlafiim u Mr—(‘IIK'BI
' II n: {IHMIIN‘F‘WW‘I " M.—"fillfilf
 wum‘tw when: m
*
Hmuu'tawha twmtgsrfim‘ ll

§=mmrm=hafié2 annsmmafial
mm? are 1
times: uuw’ ll

' M3, M0 add {fit 2 M1, M,, M... M,, My, B—°gt;itrm;
A—°§enfi?fl;
" The Upanisads, with no set theory of philosophy or dogmatic scheme of
theology to propound, form the root of all the later religio-philosophic systems
of the country ”.
“ It cannot be said definitely whether the Pfificarétras confined themselves
wholly to the contemporary Upanisads in the matter of borrowing. They
Imrrowcd probably from the contemporary Upanisads as well as from the pre-
exlsting Upanisads. The Upanisads are the sources from which they drew most
ul' their doctrines ".

For a detailed account of these borrowings, see ibid., pp. 648-660.

" See G.A. Grierson, Indian Antiquary, vol. 37,
p. 261 :
“Nearly the whole Moksadharma-parvan consists lectures on' Sititkhyn-
Yoga, together with attempts to reconcile it with Brahmaism. One system
which results from the attempted reconciliation of these two opposite philo-
unphies is attributed to Paficaéikh‘a and is explained at some length . ..The
Ntlrftyaniya, while claiming to describe Siftkhya-Yoga really describes the Bhflgtt-
vuta monotheism as united with this system, but also with more of a Brahmuist
colouring than we find in the Gitfi. ”
1 See ibid., p. 258:
“The Niriyaniya sometimes alludes to the religion which it preaches us
the doctrine of the Bhfigavatas, and sometimes as that of the Pz'tficart'ttras. The
two terms are not exactly synonymous, for the Pfificaratras formed only one sect
of the great Bhagavata religion. Prof. R.G. Bhandarkar tells us that Dhruva-
mm I. one of the earliest princes of the Valabhi dynasty (C. 530 AD.) is called
n llhflgavata, and Bfina (C. 600 AD.) in the 8th chapter of the Harsncnrita
mentions both the Bhagavatas and the Paficaratras. ”
§ According to the Santiparvan of the Mahabharata ( Gorakhpur edn. ).
the SdttvaIa-teaching is said to have been announced by the sun :
“ atfiei fifimtwm snag afigafitraaatt
{Mime fin «saith fifilqfi'li II’I
See (LA. Grierson, Indian Antiquary. vol. 37, p. 253:
1w
no «mm'i
antfigmfififilaeé: :nmfilfifi: I

mafiawfiaa" wazttam fiafiuuf II

avg“ rm3w:flats?! fimfiaa:

a: firfiqfiafiafitwmq :q‘trfi ll
I

firfiifi unmet Wtfififitfi: l

HM? gamma fimfifis mum II

3% HEWG WK? newer? ll

*‘
fififilfi'fifi an“ aarrrfifia: ’ 3% I

[ma fimzwmiiwfim: ]
W:
as Halaeéatawlaqnmmnfi
a9
Hifif‘fifiw fimwnfim mafifi, firfitenfi met Sanit-
aim-ft,

qfigufilfiaq“ 2 ea afifiisafirafiwrlz
‘ 9
mm @1711-

P, PM—°g‘(tlfil¥fi: Mz—omits at
3 My—tnfi° 9
M2 omits a
' Ml—ffifilfl . 1° M2, My omit an“?
‘ PM, M2 to M7, My, V1. A—fisg “ M1 reads only Surfif‘aaq
B—fim ‘2 A, M“. M7—°l%tl%ri gm
5 PM—fim‘z a M, to My, V1, B—°aial%€r get
6 P, PM, M.—°anai; Ml—nfiamae M,—°fitze‘r git
7
Mi-H’é'liwam T—°aral%€r gear

“ We have no literary evidence as to the train of reasoning by which this

doctrine ( Bhagavata) was reached, but to me it appears more than probable that
it was a development of the Sun-worship that was the common heritage of both
branches of the Aryan people—the Eranian and the Indian. All the legends
dealing with the origins of the Bhfigavata religion are connected in some way or
other, with the sun. ”
See also in this connection, L.D. Barnett, “The Hindu Gods and Heroes,"
pp. 82-83.
‘ Brahmasfitra II. ii. 41.
 umvu‘m qwflmw: ‘l
u
an an: name? Bra-i gfi; afixwffi I

I'll??? WWII ii anti wtugém‘r’ ll

*‘
Hamil fine? at; newmafiarnq“ II

T‘ guiila’ira fix? treatfir: aha a I

Wtufia tilfia‘t fired mafia-{a uafia aq’ II

‘Qarfiaiz utma‘tfi a $31qu I

‘Tfi‘fl'lfifiafilfi-r wan-“i a trans II t

' Ml—QR am; Mo—aau 3
M1, M4, A—fiwfir; Mz—afifi a
’
Mz—azm 4 M1, A—°aw'mq:
5
M4, B—aam:

" Vardhapurdna Ch. 66. $1. 18b.

Also Cf. ibid. s1. 11b:
“ armfi 3:11am qaua‘tfiaa in II”
T Rdmdyana [uttara] Ch. X (Praksipta) [M .L. J. Press ]. p. 1012. The
tending found is :
“1151135 wfifié‘r: «gram II” [61b]
Hare'r

“q; 311% a 3% a we: a «551% II” [62b]

§ See Amarnath Ray, “Srikrsna and the source of the Blmgavadgird, "
Indian Historical Quarterly, V01. 1X, pp. 193-194:
“Krsna was the great religious teacher who brought about a Sfin‘ikhyu-
Yoga-Vedanta synthesis. . . .The first book which is fragmentary might have been
II remnant of the Aranyaka of the Sittvatas, spoken of in the Nfirfiyaniya account

of the Mahabharata [XIL 348. 31]. When the doctrines of bhakti and aI'mdra
IIml desireless action were adopted by Krsna’s followers, they were called Bhfl-
unvutas. "
For a detailed account of the alliance between Paficarz'ttra and Sfinkhyn-
You“ and their influences and counter-influences, see G.A. Grierson, ‘The Ndrd—
hull)?! and the Bhdgavatas’, The Indian Antiquary, Vol. 37, pp. 255-258.
1 Mahdbhdrata XII. 336. 76.
Cf. ibid., Ch. 337. $1. 1 :
“ sankhyan‘i yogarh pancarfitrarh vedfiranyakameva ca I

jfianfinyetfini brahmarse lokesu pracaranti ha ll "

Also cf. ibid. s1. 59 :

“sinkhyan'i yoguh pflficarfitram vedfih pfisupzitan'i tathtl I

jnflnfinyctt’tni rlljurse vidtlhi nfinllmntfini vol II"

‘3)!
*‘
394:1
W
warrant a: “11% H mfir’ II

T‘ 33' néiwfirwé; agfiaanfiaaq’l

aamfiamfimmmlgwmfi II

335131381
Hist m wait
final
Intimate fiagwfigafii
111% I

II—
§‘ f‘q'srfifimaf 3% I qai a—
fiIfiQSfiZ filfiqfififi
firth qa mta'lffi mil-qr Herman II
mzm‘lé I

' A—QESJ short of one syllable.

2
Ma omits am, and the metre falls ' M4—°aaq}:

Commenting upon the verse “evamekam” in his Srfbhdsya under 11. ii. 39
(p. 834), Rfimfinuja says:
“ aired a aha“ aizsqzfimu mermaid? a filmvamt qwrmnilarffi, “muffin l

afiqtafiafiifirfir; Iza'i Wtififhfir anfil Kasai wife—Hie’hwfi qafiirl‘afiflfil fitthfisa

aufiqmumfi firm éfifiamfifiwuqafifi arm? aim-«mi, anneal a afimaamzii mfivn‘ a
azrmasqamfirwfirl ifififififi nfimqfimwfil mafia fin awn Human nami- am
afiz fiflfigimfir I
am
a afafififialarqfiwqmma‘ fiugm, a (astral zimcngqfizifia
€81th aiqafirfhfiammar, qtraza‘afiqfiaafiefir, fizaf‘a'filalfl WEEK; 3 «Masai, mfitafii
I

a I am: ‘altaei tin: crawl 3:1: mgqa am I meqqmlfizarfii a fismfii figfirz’ {fir afizfir—
feaawaswmnfihlziml filfigfifilfilfiifififii a Imlfifiafifi ‘umfi qurmzi f‘am
85 I

alum: qgfl’afifiwq‘m I”
Also see Collected Works of Sir R. G. Bhandarkar (Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institute, 1933 ), Vol.1, pp. 248-294 for an article ‘The Rdmdnujiya
and the Bhdgavata or Pdficarfitra systems’.
"‘
To be identified.

T Mahdbhdrala XII. 326. 100a.

1 wanna: QIHHHI‘TDKTWIEI Fagrqamzfi Hfimfir ammquem wanna ta 31in fiqfir-
im: eqlfifilfismmtmfififfi wit agfififir ‘ Hi: unamma’ tam l ‘firqfirfim (fa ’
uhmfiafié 6“?qu
§ Brahmasfitra Il. ii. 42.
 M": ll“
[ffifimmfifilfifl
*mm
mafia?
mum Wmmmurfi‘mtfi'

gatfifiam
qfigazz, artfi “WHI-
turf": Elfin:
:nm3nmnamr§nwfiqemi4 aritnanmi amwm‘t tn
‘lfifiéqms 131%; f? We?! fififi: asfi'na'twutm"
I

mfiwtfiafiwfifit
[warm Wwfisfim]
fianmfltmwumfi wart
«alumna awn an an? an :1 2

arfi 37—
fi: afi'
film? !
W? mqagsz‘tam?
saws: Manama
eaten
||
' Ml reads fiu'rmmm‘lqiwh: 5
Tdtparyafikd of Vedanta Desiku
1
Ma—atqua: (Kanchi edn.), which quotes this
3
M1 omits anti line, has a variant : aim: whamla:
4
M2, My—qRiemf; Ma, M,-qftm— 7
M3, M‘ omit aiffi a
EFL; PM—arqflumnr 3
M‘ omits an, to the detriment of
' Ma reads ”m; ‘
T ' reads °av1 metre.

* This reference by Yamuna to ‘ bhfisyakara ’ has been taken by some

Vnisnava scholars as speaking of Dramidabhasyakara, who is traditionally said
to have commented upon the Brahmasfitra. But this may be taken as :1 refer-
cnce to Sankara himself. Ramfinuja’s Sribhdsya also seems to support this
position. Cf. Sribhdsya under II. ii. 42, p. 832 :
" an Iii: wage?! aatztfafizuiaw mnlmfitfiqqt sweeten”, with the above pus-
mgc “ fifififiaai " etc. Also cf. Sankara on the above sfitra, p. 259 :
:

“qmfiaimdhitsn:amaeatnafittmfimft natal Wfifig smart finammafitm:

dtWMlGlfl-‘HWH: ” etc.
1 Cf. Veddrthasarigraha, p. 157 :
"wgaiafinat with was] In mfifa iantfimit wfiram: item, mfimi Inn at
""th " I

§ See the verse ‘famnmfm' cte., p. 17 above.

m Him-vi}
afirfimti‘amfiaqz ? 311%?
“Kim?
am—
qg‘iaFa'na‘Iac-ét sitar—oi an fifinéam I

fimmvmim an 13:11, mafia gmfif" II

Ha mafi—
ufi;
émm‘iz
m fitfiqsfia’r Emma},
i‘ai‘wéfi‘ns wfia’fi Qfiaia Era: ll
mswzfiam“ I

nmwfia’iéfiwei g'a‘IEIa “@1137 I

ataaérsfi waé, imam-3r Qatar“ ll

mafia éfirmai fimmvmiar 11% I

'ZE‘IfifiIfilg, a'ézmfi av’ia aufiwatfim II

ufii‘wm‘afifi Qantwafi‘rl" I

affirm: acfrmar’z‘zz urui‘fififimu’a‘fiz ll

:rmfiaafimuemfi Enamfir” *‘ ism-3': agnfi’

zanéfiir ufilfiafirfiwzafiaw‘atgfiuqmfifian unm-
afifi” atzahmmqfimafiwfiamm
1
‘A’ has afifimfi" 9 Ml—IJE‘IHHI H
2
M3 reads °éfilnaanf 1°
Ma —°E~ff*fi%
3
Ml—iufi “ M1, M2, M4, M7, My & B omit
4 PM reads filtq‘rfi'fim alamfi
5 M3—°H§: ‘2 A—°a§¥fiqmfimififi; T, M1, M2, M5,
5
Ma reads 31th M0, M7, My, B—°aigéhlmmui:im; Ma
7
Mn Ma—fiaflfi —°ai§smmami73m
1’ M4—snrnuqfi’rfi1'
3
M1, M2, M‘, M,, My, B, PM—gafi

" Cf. Badhdyanadharmasfitra, III. vii. l:

‘fimlu‘éguqm its'fir {a mira’ I
 fixer-u: w:
lath iq’afi‘wawfiqflmmqmwmfi saltwater-
ml €5firf§§am arfn at =t3 fififnawfiug: snmm‘r
wfigfia at? ti magma, firfiaafi’ atfhmmi“ tram:
l

it it kutmufirfimmn Imam:—
*Efififitfi aeatarurfit Irina" finatmml
«mamas firework: ear-1 firmn n

am aat6=rfififirfiwttttaamita T T‘ =r arme’rg-u
wrrfimumea’ mtfi7aaasnuia‘taflm itch, =r Erika!-
Iwurmfitfi #10 W19 uegaafiwwfimrfiwafiqammitw
nth: :r fifiwaqrwtfitfir, mi Hnmnmmf‘wfifiwml
3W as harms? :m-r afifiafin‘ififianfifi, anath-
IfitRPq: éfitfi: fight-Etta firmer—firmuamnmfixfi;
' M2, M3, M4, My, A—hfifififi 6 B—atq°
2
My— m§° 7
Mi—xfiw?
3
A omits a 3
M, omits aim
‘ Ma—fitfiaafitfimai 9 M1 & M, omit rm
5
Ma—wamtfita 1° M3—°a=§‘afiqztmflmft°

T The argument here is that the handling of Vedic texts by the un-
orthodox people like the Buddhists and the Jains, cannot bring down the
authoritative character of those texts. Otherwise, the Vedas would long ago,
huvc become invalid since the unorthodox schools of thought tried to explain the
leic passages as they pleased contradicting their original significance. The
uuthority of the Vedas is for all time to come and the wrong handling of those
tutu by others cannot undermine it.
"'
Cf. Tantravdrtz'ka I. iii. 3, p. 85:
‘ahmtqfiwmini imam anti ma l

mart Miami: an quilt f7: 5% n '

H Manusmrti II. 172a. The reading found is: ‘atfitéqmi‘alfl' th- A
Illlliltlr statement is found in the Gautama Dharmasfitra ll. 9: ‘a nutfitaqmii‘tfl'
N t',

Bhatta Medhatithi, commenting upon Manusmrn' Xll. 95, quotes from

§

mine unidentified source:

“:leat: 34mm“: mil with I'
u
my. mama
fifilSfiI, fimfififimnhfimfimlwfiqfififi %g:?
3a mfiwfifiafimfiaf‘wfiaazwf‘mfiaeaf 2 3% fifirw
mam“ I

a W3:
amfim: anew" W3:
HEHWSfiaflafigmafifififi‘sifififiTll
I

asfigqhfiéma‘r ammfim: I

swam {é amamnmfiwmwézrw—
mnfi: grain": fireman”! =r gfiagz, aawfirasrfiearf I

*ma i? we ended, as: E creators WWI!“ arfiwh’wfi-

ewéfimgmfiuufimrft finer gamma? %§‘ I

arwfimafim war: I =rrsfi mfiwfifiafififillafiz—

ufimzrurmfx, Hufifiaamnmmuwe-
esrfii‘wzlz
wag arfia % afiqi fiwuafim‘3mfiafiamz—armfia
1
M1 omits 38 metre; Ma & B have «Emma
2 All except M.i omit am. We chose 5 M1. M7—filsfi
the reading of M3. 7
Ml—afiffifittm
3
P, PM, T, A, M3, M5, M,, My, V1 8
Ml—afirtwt
omit qfi; M1 has a lacuna from fig: 9
M2 & My omitétfim
1°
upto qfiflfififitll M1—°fiih‘efifi
4
M.-—mae; M2, M4. M7. MY— “ M1—°“T‘i°
12
3113313; M.—°$¥lififififilfi°
5
M5 omits area“, to the detriment of '3 B omits%f\{ai

* Vidc Karmamimdmsd, p. 93 :

“ While an injunction directs a positive act, a prohibition (nisea'ha or

pratisedha) serves to turn a man away from performing the action expressed in
the verb and its object. The prohibition does not lead to any desirable result
such as heaven; it serves none the less a useful purpose; the man, who obeys the
direction not to eat the mysterious kalafija, by observing this taboo escapes the
hell which else had been his fate. In the technical phraseology of Mimfimsa,
the negative applies not to the sense of the verb, but to the optative affix; as an
optative urges us to action, so a negatived optative turns away from it. "
 ht 1|".

'tmfi, wmfiaz that"? I art-h mafiammifitwfi-

wniqarahz whmtfimfit Q3: *armi‘tfim— I

"fiat-Elana: wit
waeh’eheqfi nth: I

=r mwfiuzlfim'm, firfi Emmitfifi: II

[us-mam
Wmmhml
flauntarfiamfiwgwaimuaana-
Tamar
nfiaavfififi 3165353: Q qfimafit‘gamfiw
I

9'erfifiitmfimssrfhsmasrmwfiféflfisastral?! nem-
' M1. Mw—llmafi’ 3
M3—°qfinarum
' M1. M2. M7. B-ufiqfia 4 A—nalz"
M” My—afimfitq 5
Ma omits HEW!

* awhawfia srfirmqfi ‘imwaa: ’ mtfifit I

1' See G.A. Grierson, “The Ndrdyam'ya and the Bha'gavmm ", Imlirm
Amiquary Vol. 37, p. 254 :
“ The usual tradition is that it ( the Bhégavata doctrine ) was transmitted :
Deity—Narada—saints including the Sun—Rsis in his train—gods—AsiIII—Iu
IIIo world in different channels. Modern Bhagavatas recognise two grcut lcuchcrs
of their religion. One is Narada, to whom is attributed Ndradiya Bhuktisfilm.
liquully esteemed is the collection of Sindilyabhakti-sfitras. The author to whom
II In ultributed, composed the Sandilyavidya quoted in the Chandogya Upzmisud

lll. xiv.3. "

See also p. 9 above, in 1‘

§ For a detailed account of temple-construction according to PafimrdIru-

Iulu, see Agastyasanfihitd 1-106; Ahirbudhnya San‘I/u‘ni XXXVI. 31-49; livaru-
mmhlld XVI. 1, 219-247; 266-287; Kapifijalasamhitd X. 61-66; 69-72; Jayd/IlIyu-
uI/II/Iltd XX. 73H;Pddma ‘ kriyfi ’ IV. 24-28, 35-45; V. 84-90; VIII; Pdramcfvam
\ .‘-I06; Pauskara XL. 92-109a, XLII. 71-118; Viszmtilaka VI. 1-342a, 449-498;
IMIIIm/runuira ‘ Brahma ’ VIII; Sdttvata XXIV. 280-43221, XXV. 1-375; Hayan‘irm
' Al“ '. XIII. 1-41; XXXVIII. 61; XLIV. 12-19.

For the installation of images, see Am'ruddha XV, XXXIII, XXXIV; Is‘vuru
IWI. 228-352, XVIII. 1-560; Jaydkhya XX. l3lb If; Parama XVIII. 28-75;
Mum/mm XXXVIII. lfl‘, 15-46; Sanalkumtira " Brahma " VI. llOparsim, IX.
puntm: Stillvatu XXV. 307"; 320". XXVI. 375.
w!
Emil awf’qmwmafi,
W uaafifima, afimmz,
wavewmawfiwn‘ktarfig’ amafifiauz, aawa'rfi
Emit“
aw tract—mam armfi aamwnwfiatmlfifi,
fimmrmnfi Hmam turfia i?“ mnaar:—‘ am ww-
afim“, Elf: 6513mm, 31': rimmz, anfi‘rwats ’ 31%| :1 £1?
n‘tamu'r fiaié mafia? an; Hafifimtnvnwi 891131137-
swam
mwwutrmaim
wanna, aéi 6316i;
a Emmi,
Ha?
11%
antgafianq
m’ :

ll
I

Hen Fi—
afiafimfismfmrafiwm I*
fitfiwgzl" $91 amasfifi“ mg BTW”? I!

wmaammfi” wfifiwlfiuwumfifiwfiw
‘
@m
{utmwfiamrfita’r aruwmw‘tfianma 3% =r wtflaar-nu-
an? a mama afifiaffitq: I HF: Vi, 3r” wrugmfiarfiam
Qwfiam, 31:3 ga’éaawfl“ Hnmwr gt?! l

' Mc—filfififlll ” P, PM—aifitfia; Ml—éalatflé‘

1 My reads mqafifimaflmafi '2 PM, T—ngefim
\

3
M1, M2, M4, M7, My, B, omit 3 M1. M‘,M7, B—°aarr:
‘3 P & PM omit aifi
4 My—nmat:
'4 A—Wfififiio; Ma—aisqqfiasfi
5
M, omits amfitmal:
6 M2, My—Bmfififlt
‘5
M; & B omit qt 3r
7 A omits ma ‘5 All ptd. texts and mss. except
3 M.—°Erv%m M1. Me—Eafimz; Ml—éaafirg
9
p, PM—°arcr: We chose the reading of Mo.
10 Ma—fifim
* aizi igififiit ‘iai’ renal awruw fiitqmti
 Rant-II: 1
n
fir mam maria umwt‘qfinq'?
*Ixhlfiqm I

an
HQ“:
a
an N2
93W? ufi:
imam?
filmm—=1

agjlgwuaISfi amen alum

3
I

new ans-gm: an wam’itrf‘i-rh an ll

=13 W3 new? mnwnufi?
WWIH‘RRI- =r fig

wmawawrmfifimaHutfiu‘téqfifigusafilfit awr-
Wqumfififiti’mafi ‘afi'l 51mm, 315: afiuz’ {fit
fimfi’fifi m%wmn% I
=r
a afiwrfiarmmwafiamfilsa nfifimm-
Rfigafimwnarmurfifi ("RIF-IE asmmfiu Infam- I

fizi'ur margatmfi: I

=r mammal muloffiaEIIMMfimq I

:1 a waan‘zawffiafi'fi” alum?” Esra I itm‘

Imam Hm” Htwmrajfi, aaf‘wama I

' M1, M2, M4, M7, My, 8: B 9

M4 omits Elfin
omit atfitfiaa 1° M1, M,, M0 M7. My & B omit an
3 B—uzé‘sn'q “ M,. M.—°qf%a=rl°; A—°ufamu°
J A reads HWIWIRI" ‘2 M2 & My omit an
‘ Ma & M. add I ‘3 M1. M2. Mu M7, My & B—“Iflmfiémi
-
‘A’adds a: “ Man. M» My—mm"
0
Ma reads mmmfémfi° '5 M‘—aat
’ M1, M2, M., M, & My read fiifiw ‘6 My—wmmama
' Mo omits 3mm
‘ 815m! armfia nfimat marinara mm, at: firm‘ mnwat quuti’r IIIIIU'I

mum mafia: I

T «mafia fialia am am: ? mutt} qwfiwntl

we mam“?
=1!th mfitfim, agmumana
=r I
=I
a
$‘aa=§r amm‘tsfitm‘fll’m’ firmer» fiat am-
wzfi'tufug wnrfi’wnfianwfiwafi agr4arwfiarr-
we“
HIS": after? I =r f1 mfimfinana qa wmmfr
was, awnfimfifi film:
niéfiausamwmgfir I

{wig anfiawa‘mfifi‘", HFL mam am a ammfirfa

aaffi uaam wflth it angfifkallehamz, mum???-
f‘a’i’tmgawmatfirmi atf‘aslzastiudtumqéwmzfififi
graft-356mm Hmamfig fiaagwafiehfifiwfitm-
”tfiafiafig watwgmaaq annual
=r éraata’imq,
Vi Hmfifii‘rmwmafiawé”
mane inseam?“ *Héa itmémmfilsfiasfiaamg-
qé’tfi‘Qfiafi afifit’rwfi'ifimi‘” W1” wad?“ §W-
mama? amen, ‘Ifi‘fiifidml 1121155319—
1
All except M3—°at'.fi'-L ‘° M1, M2, M4, M7, My, B—“urefit
We have selected the reading of M, “ T, V1, A—oafilififfi’o
2
M1, M2, M4, M7, My & B 12 PM and all mss. except My—elféso
omit imam ' u M.—°£n@l°
3
M2, M7. My, B—iIItIUIIR° " M2, M4, M,, B omit mm
4 ‘ B ’ omits
an 1‘ M2,
M“ Mrmmam
5
M2 reads ilq: 1‘ M4, B—°{fi¥.éam§qflaq°
6
M3 adds I '7 M1, M2, M4, M7, My, B, read
7
Mz—amazefifi arhimfiiéé
fl
PM—Qfififlm; M2 4&3“? 18
PIPM: T: M3, M5! M0! V & A ~

9
qufififi
M3 &
2mm
'9 Ml—qlfl
Mg—Hfil 1%

$ Taittin'ya Brdhmana 1.1.2.

* Cf. Slokavdrtikaunder 1.1.5, £1. 26 ( vanavfida) :

'aufiqaaui am aim enema I

swfiat faith fiqmmfiam II "

T qfiiazz=sniu 1316113 at I

§ iWHH1=€fiIUIHWFQI I
 ‘aftmwrfivfik,i&mflrfirfimql
Izfififiaummrfi um mantdiim‘ II’ {fil
"aafi mfizmrmflfiw agar I

fisnmnfr W": mafia a 325% II

am a {311% mmmIfiaufiam I

agii’ athfimfi‘ 1191in II

“gun? mu?! Em mmfifiwm

m
I

a, "=3: 3 ran
'{é fid’fi'r an ll

WWa («W Nfifi'fiwwfi

Exam-«€16
3%:
{Era-cit firm?!”
I

war: II

fieniw mafi, fimwremfi' 15mm I

'
Mimi? am um9wrfism M1, M2. M‘, Ma, B—awmlii
ll 3” 11%” I

M, & Mo—auiar" 6

1
M2, My-av—cra' 7
MI, M7—firirtfi (no a )
3
B-aga ' M,.M,,M‘, M7, B—mfi
‘ P,
PM—"m ' P, PM—nsqlgf; Ml—anmg'
s
Mz-fifilfi'l 1° M2 omits {RI

I Slokavdrrika ( Sambandhdksepavdda) under I.i.5.él. 37.

‘
lffimézqmmfi ' 31mm; ‘ agqfi ' anti; ‘ Nfi'am ’ minim [1% um: I

Cf. Nydyaramdkaru ( Chowkhamba edn. ) on the above verse p. 507 :

“ Eli! agnfi nfiqrufiafim‘éfimfifi amfiufi amfimmznfi man lfifl‘lfl I

«VIII WIN}
awn In all fienfa I"
"' Vefikatanfitha
quotes this and the following verse in his Nydyaslddhdfi-
luna V. p. 267.
Cf. Prakaranapailcikd III. p. 17:
"an“azmqeh Sm qmfifilfim I

wimuwi‘la qmifitafifim II”

T fifian'aaa thI an:I

§ cf; Slokavdrtika( Vakyadhikarana ) $1. 358, p. 947 :

“ma: mama Ezqmui H mm: I

gtfiiml'a a iaflssh “Hem dI: u"

S Vida Ibld ( Vanavflda ) 1. LS, “I. 27929.
'H
{In «Imam-fix

wmiéwfiuganfiafifi I

quf‘aa‘t‘ 9&1 mawrfiflfi mfiraqz II

fianmfiétmw mar-#3 fiafifi“ I

mufiwf aw (an fimwm: II

Hmawéenmf‘fiwafifiafii: l

{3325: 83m mmfifi“, immisfi fin; ll

mail =r wan? qéfl fiaaafiifi fim II

Tum—mafifilfiwwaafia maul as two—eru-

aafilfin‘nf wréfizg mafiamg’mfiaw I

3: gm wafillfii’tfilz?
as mumsé W” fit: I

*3 all” Egam?
:fi‘fi filsrfiwi‘imfiwfinfiaafim: I

“qua
film
stratum-gar fire", sud”: saw I

firfi“ fiat wmam 3% ll

9
I
P, PM, T, A, M2. M,. M5, M., A—mqua'mq; Ml—amqham
1° M7, My—°arq'muia
V,—'ama: .
2
My—mfifi‘t ” P, PM—°af3—cr°
3
Mz—wé a ‘2 Ma, Mo—qgmfi
4 B—fiafia ‘3 M2 adds a
5
MrJM '4 PM—amga'el
6
Mg—mmufi 15
P, PM, T, M,, M,, M., v1, & A,
7
Ma—‘Iil omit IE and the line falls short
8
M2 & My—qmaher of one syllable
n Mr—fi‘l‘l
* finfit 5%, fifim {I
1' Cf. Prakaranapaficikfi, III, p. 31 :
“ Eta aafififiqsmarafia nImafiquacnfiI: mqwarfia afififfim {fit a FIFE:-
I

aélmu 33 Ema Hfifif‘iim: ? Fl % mama 312g ilfi'fl‘a; fifig aha Ila qfim: mar-.2": I

am a afimfitarfir 3mm? H2133 an: I"

§ “taxman 0:3 aflwfi-I; ah %1II Kiwanafi‘qnmuma 'Iil mum-i, a want
lfe‘r um: I
 | mafia “minimum 1

*haammfi wt: uiwmwafi‘lmf I

T‘WWHFFET am Wamfit H: II

imam.mz, 11 g mummy: I’
§‘§:m§ armfi marq’ 3% mamaaam II

wfimumzfi an
31': gm—f‘afifimuf arammf W?
II
arm; fitflfiz arsf‘wefiumq’
=r ataa ariaawmaamé‘t knamtf‘wmuwifit‘a

Famg mtfi; amalfiz, Wfilfifififil =1 1% ‘wsmmwn‘

ma Hfififi‘fi'mfifiifii‘ft: abzfianf‘wmafififim wanna,
gawwgamamfimq 3?, f? Wanauwmr m, I

”mm mm 31%? Hex Hfififi'fiafiiflfiSfiflWa’, ”Ian‘-

mqm uunfirfi’wfiafifirfiata I

:I a wane: Hfiaafi“, mwfimfi amamwzfiw

wfia-oum 3 Pg sfiwnmmrifhufi, smfmumrmfi:
“363:7 wfiasum WP: =r hawfiwafa‘fiamg www-
‘maawfiqamfi amafifiu: I

| Ma-°ficfifi't 6
Ma‘i’ga
’ ll—fivfi 7
M.—t§fi%fi
' Ml, M2, M‘, M,, My—aIfiI-afiqa 3
M1, M4, M5. B—"aq‘iaaaql
‘
My-aqhemfima" V,, A—°qqfaaaam
I
M“ adds a: "
M4, B—ofltflaf

‘ See p. 13 above, for the pfirvapaksa view.

t To be identified.
5‘
Cf. Manusmrn' X. 23 :
“3mg! Gnu?! imam gmussmd «a a I

mwfi fis‘ma human ".1 a II "

ma quI:
’
: 'afuanlaw I
we
W
MR gmi’l: arrwaisfi mirth ES mam, aw-
quiinam wmwifinmfi‘ Emmi firmwar-
fiiam, an: aé‘iaz fifiamr-
wi‘a’“ mam ’m-tmfi’
w-a :r'itrrqfima, Hmumfizm: fiammfismw
ruler!
am an: amammmwmfiwfiufisfi 5"me-
figafifimnfifimfi, anartim7 1‘ mfiw‘fim gf-‘gq’
WQWfirfi affi'éwafi alaasingfl, aaatfiz final- =r

mtw9mfiamaamafwfiufisffi mammal-gm-
fimmfiqmfiilorwfii‘mmafimffinrmimwfl‘ in-
ma”,
i’tfifia
Hfififimfififiwthfifi mam” wrafi'i wf‘efi-
qi‘fimwarq, =r amsa’ngfiam angst warm-.- I

fifim‘fimam @5me W
mmtfiflmam} Emma: firmr
I

II

I
Ml—ufimfitasrmammmfi ' Ml—amaf
3
Mrfiaq ° Mz—°fi'lfa°
a
M,. M2, M‘, M,, My & B—qmrfi 1° M,—°xfa°
4
PM, Ml—fiquf '1 My-—°{alqrcfiqii
‘ P—fiaqwnfi '2 Ma—mmq
' M—“53° P, PM, T, M2, M5. M7, 1’ P, PM, T, M5, V1, A—H'fiqfe‘r;
My, V1, A—c‘an'gfi° M,, My—G‘lfifir; M,—fifir
1
M1, M4. M7, My & B add arfi ‘4 P, PM, T—a W
1'This paragraph is in elucidation of the word “ atiprasafigacca ” used in
the para " na tivat " etc. above.
‘ The term ‘ acarya ’ is from the Manusmrti X. 23a :
“3:111: am?! infirm anatssalii '23 a ” l

1 Cf. Nirukta ( Anandasrama Series 88 ) I. ii. 4, p. 36 :

" 311311“: marmf‘afiequiq, mf‘aa‘tfir sfzfirfil an” I

Also Cf. Vihagmdrasan'zhitd (ms. ):

‘ anfashfa (mi «71 mmufi aa‘a: I

mahqfi an Shani a a man} a“?! u’ [XXI]. l4]

s " sabdyatvat ” would have been a better reading. But no text preserves
this reading. As it stands now, the term “aciryafiabdalvit " has to be explained
as a Bahuvrihi compound, qualifying the term “ Brfihmunu ".
 fiat-II: a u 0.

Tam 1 ‘qfi’mxm mr' womatfim

warm
I

sffi, fim? {in} flutes kw

amz
‘rh’mm warmth fireman?
um—
i‘ WSSfiTa'

W
3mm §HNIS’Ii=fiIfiIfiifiI:" l

ngsufi'i, av'fifir wanna: II

[MW «mm: fitmmqv]

WWufiwfi
Mgfii mmwaaa’nfin‘t

mam” WI
afiwfifiiamffiggfififi, mWaHaWHm-
firmfimfifi Hui u‘isfiz fg"
Hmammmm'i: {imfiwufi Efismi‘fimgw-
nwfil, wvwafimafim Ima‘swrmmn'ifl m5-
-
Ml—qu; M.—§u° 4 M2 reads 139%; Mg; M. omit In
2
MI) Mfl—qm s M] &Ma-sa°
’ M.—°filfil«'fl: 6
PM—fififin"
7
Ml-mfiaumaawazh:
This and the two succeeding lines are quoted by Sudarfiunusflri in his
1'

commentary on Sribhdgya, I.i.l, Vol. I, p. 153.

1 Manusmrti X. 23a: "‘aaulfi, innit imam” etc.
§ guarfiam urn mimmw, we? mmumwnmaflfir mam ‘aumI-m- I

Ilfir’ {fin Imei ml

$ See “San " etc., p. 12 above.
* aawaflfifit=itmfifir |
{I Parfiéarabhatta in his ' Visnusahasrandmabhdsya ' gives the following
oxplanations for the term 'sémata ’ identifying the latter with mahdbhdgavum '
‘

| See Introduction to Jayfikhya Sariihird ]

( i ) El Ill. Hfi' ’11, am: altar—cit, main: aififiiai; 3mm wt {WW II

«mm, again, mama an I

(ii) amt? aaqmrfiimi If? an mum; a fimfihfe an filfia'III email

'0 WINNING]: I

The Mahabharata, Aévamedhikapnrvan [ Vavilla cdn., Vol. XVIII ch. |

124, “8. 33-37 speaks in favour of the brnhmanicnl status of the Bhagnvulus :
N0

fit‘qa'fiz, agewa a
W Iafiaummmfiattf‘wumlmtr-
cfiq—Vafiaé fifitmmu’, §‘sr:tn=m§%: gm’izz xi}
‘fl’fll‘fifii W371, satin afizrfi azfii’r'i‘ra
mwnfit
gfiranfi mmmtarwmi“ writ nah
#3 awafa
fimnfi“ Wigwaathmmésfl arghmwawfima—
fifg’fiémufitmamfiffimfififia Hfiaawmaawmfiw-
omens, *‘fifim’ 31%| mvamésfir a ‘am’mw-
:3“qu Tm? aiqfifiqfififififiifisfi wmmaffiiwm-
fifémr‘fim—II‘ Hfiamai a emalofi‘mé, fian‘tafi,
nfimfitm’ 31% Hun—V fism‘iflmfi w, Imam I

3% I

[ERIEIW'R-t alumni mafia-Eda tram fimmq]

Qafiamwnsfi”, mmfir gfi'mnmq” anam-
firt”f%r I
afiifia f‘e imaaw‘sfiuaafiafiémmufim-
‘
M, and My omit from amfi 3
M1, M,—°:amfixawaq
above upto arfima P, PM—°§|mfin?ma11
2
M1 omits 3&3: 9
Ma—mifimqaa°; P, PM add am?
3
All except‘ T read afiifinfia,
’ 1° M1, M‘, M7—2-q'alqaa°
as one word. ° “ P, PM, T, A, Vl—Eirfiam
4
5
M1, M2, M4, M7, My, B—°aaar:I
A, M1 omit we
'2 M4,
'3
34an
B—{f‘fiammm
6
PM, A omit atfil '4 Ma—qfiqaaf
7
M1 adds Wamaaihm '5 M5 & My—ifimafi"
16 M3—°af%6'a'm°

“amtfia 2111653 a 5m Imam ficn WHEN: agar: ll aaiaifig

5m ulna-en {Far I

a am a win: 331% l mmmafia: ag‘éafiumfiq II afiofl'aefiraaz 6% mafia: we: I

mafia 33m 3 agqrssaéiq a II mafia am: yfialfiigafiamI amaifintal $3M fiamuém

Fiat: II mafia aaa'r 3: qt 3% ulnaamqm: II”
1; agfia new ‘an1_ ’ {Fer mafia fifc‘mfi I

$ Mahabharata, Bhisma, ch. 62. £1. 39b. ’

§ Paramusamhl'td, III. 38b.
I. See Siddha'ntakaumudi, IV. iii. 120.
T See p. 14 above where the word i‘fiififirfii was used.
II To be identified.
 m: an
fi'wunfim, 3r? 1 wfhwufimni'mmmwfimz"'

W
WWI-imam: fitwmzamz 3%, ‘u‘tfitfimtfiu I

ah“ f? nanngmfiwm’rmaavnfi‘g mph

amino, snfiamg Wufimfi‘fimfimsmafia, a 1:
mam aqi aesuri Wat‘fimz,
qafimfit
fiawrfiwf‘awgstammfiwrumaf’n‘matfiz 5am mm-
mam
IBswarm"amt mam” as: l

WW] [

Iusgm—Hfiaamafimm‘t: fitfires‘it“ [5‘01-

em
.
W’ mantis mama-<33:M.,mm‘zmitw‘fl
M., B— aim° B add 31th
graffiti;-

2
A, M.—F$emhm: ‘ My—““
3
P, T, M3, M5, M0 V1, A—a‘v‘za 9 M.—°qlf€fifil‘fl°; P—°qtmma(°
4
M.—szitffian° 10
P, PM, T, M3, M,, Ma, Vl—nmmm
5
B—°arruqa° u M,, M. & B—zitfima
' —°Hafifizfia° '2 M1, M7—Nimm"

* Vide Journal of Royal Asiatic Society,( 1911 ), p. 948 :

The Paficakala or Five-Time-observances enjoined on a Bhngnvutu
nre: ( i ) abhigamana : morning prayer, abluting etc., ( ii ) updddna: fetch-
tng articles of worship, (iii) tjyd: divine worship, (iv) svddliydya : study
of the sacred lore and ( v ) ydga or yoga : divine meditation.
The day, from 4 am. to 10 pm. is to be divided into five divisions for
ouch of these acts. Cf. Pddmasan‘ahitd : Caryapada : XIII : 3-4a :
" adyam karmabhigamanamupfidanamatah pararh |
ijyé ca paécfit svfidhyayastato yogastatah param II
paficaite vidhayastesam kfilah paficaiva te kramfit ' I

For a definition and explanation of these five terms, see ibld: st. 4b. II.
1‘
“Graha”, “Camasa”, etc., are the names of cups into which
mum-juice is poured during a sacrifice. Cf. Sahara on Pfirvamimdn'isd : III.i.l6,
1:. I58 : grahidi somapétram".
‘_‘

I See p. [2 above for the purvnpaksa.

§ Cf. Apastambasrautastitra. V. 3.|9.
1i («mama-amt |
 Mr
ma mum-i
affirms MW! grit it”
3%, e-
nmmmfiwasmwfim, “‘6?!th
zfa wawhnammf‘fimwémfil §§‘ ama’
W2
WWSfi,
Em-
trai’ '3' mm: sienna” {fir
I‘Wfiwga‘tfim‘t mg m5 mmfiwwafiam-
‘
Mz—fiwen; Mrfimfirmr V,, A—rwm°
3
3
PM—mfifiw
P, M,, Ms—ifimflll‘t
-"
M1 reads
(m for a“;
there is no separate (m:
‘ P, PM, T, M1, Ms, M,, M,, preceding.

ateqamaa (fa its:

* ‘ ’ I

§ " referred to here are : “ vasante brahmano

The “ ddhéna-utpattivdkyas
’
gnimadadhita ”, grisme rfijanyah " and " saradi vaisyah ” ( Taittiriya Brah-
“
mana, I.i.2.1. )
Vide Karmamimdn'tsd, pp. 86-87 :
“ The direction to perform an ofl'ering is laid down in an originating
injunction ( ulpattividlzi ) or an injunction of application ( viniyogavidhi ), accord-
ing as the matter concerned is a principal or a subordinate offering. The
originating injunctions are few in number relating as they do, to the principal
Vedic offerings only, such as the Agnihotra, the New and Full-moon sacrifices,
the Soma sacrifice and so forth...The originating injunctions, however, do no
more than excite in the mind of the bearer the desire to perform the action
which they enjoin, generally in the form of a sacrifice; it remains for other in-
junctions, those of application ( viniyogavidhi ), to denote the exact manner of
procedure ( itikartavyatti) by specifying the numerous subsidiary actions requi-
site, and the materials and other necessaries for the performance. ”
** Rgveda : I.110.4.
§§ Rearidhyaya : I.iv.95a.
Ydjflavalkyasmrti :

I No printed text of the Sankharmrti contains this passage. It is however,

traced in the “ Reconstruction of the Dharmasfitra of Sarikha and Likhita ",
attempted by Dr. P. V. Kane, in the Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute, Vol.
VII, p. 115. The passage was numbered 76 there. The reading found is :
“ ksatriyavaisyanulomantarotpannajo rathakarah, tasyejyadhanopanayanasan'as-
karakriya asvapratistha rathasutravastuvidyadhyaysnavrttita ca ". This passage
appears in the Mitaksara on Ya'jfiavalkyasmrt! : [-95 and in Aparfirka. The
Mitiksara [ Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series No. 62] has a variant : “ ksatriyavais-
yfinulomz‘tntarotpanno yo rathakarah ”.
 tn fitmt
ewfitffim’ til?! mgr-mm, fintnttfisfit whamm-
fitftwr. fiafir’mwi st fineq‘twhléeam stfi-tfqaeitw fig
pzmnfifiqmlflplfialfil mammffieatmaaqu I =t 3!!
FM! fitflkfiSfia I wfiz st—

fiflaaamsfia asa’ amiaittfi I

Immuamw‘t‘ names a germ ll

§‘
Mafiéfitma’ :fit I

[ mmaenw-gwfinfirm]

*fififi HEEL“ man; weal-Jr :5: W37

gun I

a ‘Hfiatat’, ‘mrraat’ 33%“? fitment: ll

' M5 omits a ing of M2.

1 A, M2. M‘, M,—°qtf%rtmam 5
M.—uma’!
3
A—aw° ‘ P, PM. T, M., M,, M” Ma,
‘ All edns.and mss except M2. read My—I‘fiifl
”main; We have adopted the read- " Ma omits wk, spoiling the metro.

T finnmd‘mat ‘atrt 'Ifia nfiqtf‘flgiqfirt aetaqaatwiusfiut mu:

autiqatfi' I

§ Pfirvamimfin'tsd : I iv.ll. This aphorism metns that in words like

" proksani ,' the etymol ‘gical significance itself is app'icable; i.e., the word is
to be taken in its etymological sense alone and not the conventional one, for
the former is quite compatible with the later. The advantage of this ‘fllra over
the preceding smms is that all liquids are meant by the term " proksaui ", and
not water alone.
"' For a definition of the term B'tfigavara. see Pa'lmasan'thild, Caryflpndu.
ll. 91b-95a and XXI. 14-15, For an interesdng account of the o igin ttnd
Ilgnificance of the term Sduvula see J. Przyluski. ‘ Sdlvunt, Silva“; and Ndsalya ',
IIIQ, Vol. IX pp 83 9|.
For a glorification of Pancaratrins along with Vaikhanasas, see Mahd-
bhdrata, Anuéasana [Vavilla edn. Vol. XVI ], ch. 78 :
“ limit titewlat d‘fit-flifififi‘ll! winttlflfl gutter-n amen:
I It? It
[:4]
Emaatr 3mm: ‘ItMtatutftut: I “ [ 2‘11 ]
“ unlit nuaf‘vet dimmer ’wt-n ‘t u " 28b] 1’
sum
mm
Ewarlf‘w a wtnamawfimnfimfil
water nzqfrfirwer IT
[mfimfifi mane-aim]
§ng=r§fi°r 811133 aroma finfirfir
fiaanbna‘fia @er fiwfia swear 3%, awfiamasfimqr-
mum:-
fiafiafiw: infia
main,
I

amfiri‘aaafl
i‘gemit W,
113% a6,
with ‘wfianamfinfi ’5!sz-
31%
tr=%8—$‘ 1'?th Emma, wfiarfim amfimarq’, “wife:
«he, =r Ewan; firm 33:31, a wiffir’ 3% =19, mrfir
wffirwfir” I
flaw—HQ? momma I
*‘
with a1 a35-
eana’ :Fét mmf‘mIfiaI
[Wiifilfim mamnmawfi‘rfil mu firm]
§§qsu9i11§amfir§r§ammrrfifiwzlz I

333'?st Hugo's, Ha ufirfiufiufir II

1
P, PM, T, V1, A, add {Far 7
M2, My—%f‘a%q
1 M2 & My omit q ' T records variant ‘ arfinr-it '
3
M. reads mania . 9
M1, M2, M7, My, B, omit a
4 M1, M1, M4, M7, My, omit as 1° ‘ B’
adds (fit
5
M2, M5, My—c‘mfir 1‘ P, PM—aauif
8
A, Ma—qgfiia 12
M, reads °qmarfiaz
1' No such smrtis are however, quoted by the author in the remaining
portion of the text.
§ See p. 12 above, for the pfirvapaksa-view.
I See PfirVamimcin‘er, II. i. 35-37 : “3in am whim mam”, "aftfirg
HERE!" ”, “ as 7:31:16? ”, for the definitions of rk, sdman and yajus respectively.
By the last of the above sfitras, the group of mantras called " nigada " also
comes to be known as “ yajus ".
S Cf. Sahara under II. i. 43, p. 89.
" Cf. ibid. under 11. i. 39, p. 89.
"‘
Vide Pfirvamimdn‘zsd II. 1. 40.
§§ See p. 15 above.
 Mum: WI
[7 what fiflwsrfimm]
=r Q ‘mfirq’é: {6353113’3311 fit: I

ft an? {awmsffiz Hfiamr:

M
:21 agar: II

Ti ma: Imam qfiaafifiht: I

Rafi-<13 warm!" amen“ qFfiEfiImrq II

=r arfiM armanefifir wrfigqs
{Hard I

=r mmtafiéfi grain su‘tfinfifi, wfirwffi II

11% =r :rfitqg'igz, first finial 113ml

mmmgmfiwfinmfi new II

1‘ ar§=n=fir fizm': a fifif a5: amfimfl I

3171191! {3655M Ha games” “in" II’

T‘
mnef‘wfi 113’ wrfiwffizfimq I

Sufism! aaugsiia, 131i

amatgttmq ll

u-qn'fira'r ga’ 651$, 83:? fit When?! I

m10_
*“ w'lfianmmlzfiaw ammfia” ‘
cm at a timer
' P, PM—°3Wn'§€h WWII here.
1

'
M.—°fn'
P, PM, T, M3, M5, M0, V1. A—
3
Paramasan'Ihird has airman-1:45 for u
{Emmi
qmfia ”
Ml & M7 omit this and the two
‘ All edns. and mss. except Ml & M7 preceding lines.
read mwfizfiwfiz—We have adopted ‘0 M1, M2, M7, My—qqm
the reading of M1 & M7 “ Ma—qm°
’ M4-Whfi‘t ‘2 M1. M4, M7-wriiamaa; M2. My—
. Ma_°qul qaémmaq; B—qurimmaii”
7
A—fiafifif‘u: I Paramasarhhitd has ‘3 M3 adds 5%

t Paramasamhitd, XVII. 46b-47a.

T Manus'mrti, XI. 40b.
" Cf. Aitareya Brdhmrum XV. ii. p. 418 [Annndfis’srama Skl. Scr. 32,
with Silyanu's commentary]. The passage rcuds thus :
m unmrsrnrrfi

3a armgnlfi’fifia awrrfia‘, um “m2; =r %a3

fi'fil’fi'fil“ gaf‘fi” 3% I

mrmfawrw qm'ttfi masts I

“11.15%”? crfirqgrffir, Wlfifififiar it“ I

alga“: nun: tariq’ garfflqfimfimq u

mfimrfizrnq
[unifies
*fiafi qwé7eafir=na Qaan‘tfifiwfifiem ham-
:rrfnfifi, Rafi hamfimfinqaam‘rfitwfiaasfiqnfirfi
wart“
am a” ‘SI‘ITEI'FL aura:—
I
Ml & M7—aa qua-q- ‘ Mx—°sa't
z MJ—WQ 5
My-fit
3 All edns. and mss. except M, & A 7
Pvt—firth?
P,
read a E6111. ‘ A ’ has HEW; We have 9
M1, M2, M4, M7, My, B, omit
adopted the reading of Mo. mirfl‘tqifiafi
4
P, PM—aaqramt‘or airman 9
M” B, omit 3262411
'0 M,—m
" taddhaitadeva jagdltarh yadfiéarhsamfinamfirtvijyam karayata uta va't
me dadyat uta v5 mi vrniteti taddha tatparfifieva yathe't jagdham na haiva tad
yajamz'mam bhunakti ".
This passage points out that a careful J'ajamfi'ra should avoid greedy
priests who perform three types of objectionable offerings in sacrifices. Cf. ibid.
p. 417 : “ trini ha vai )ajfie kriyante, jagdharh, girnari], vantan'l ".
Vida Sz'ayana’s commentary on it :
" tz'tnyeténi trtni durbuddhibhir yajfie kriyante jagdhfidisthfiniyéni
trini, varjaniyénityarthah. ”
For more information on this, see Sfiyana’s commentary, p. 4”.
Vide Manusmrti. lV-238. The remainder of the verse is “ narakan'1 tu
1L

viparyaye ". The term “ arcitam ” should he understood in the sense of

“ arcanfipurassaram ”. It is an adverb and not a noun.
This verse is also found in the Mahdbha'rala, A-‘va'nedhika [ Vavilla
edn. Vol. XVlll. ] ch. ”2, SI. 30.
" 5:: pp. 15-l6 above,
319:3 wafi wrfiesuawm—
memes?
T‘ I’
‘ofii‘mmfii u‘t‘ & zfin

memmma W125! imam I

aacfiaraw @5 Fifi? m 311 35% u

Tfiffit Warm—3 =t win, =r 6: éfii’m N

am—
Twi'aaast: aaf‘aa afi‘fifimfil WR' ‘

am firaqfi‘aénfi‘lm6 WWW" "

Ta afiw‘fi'fi ngréfifi anvil?" fawn: u

gvfi an, @593 an, mafia-3mg % ll

[2am]
qFr‘r fififia Emma:
gear 3 firirw IT

31:31 mfifianm: Rafi?! u*

113% ganfié‘ma, fimfiam “an IT

‘awmr’ 3% ‘ afifzzfia’ 36min aaafl {Winfi—

‘m‘tfifiw firm a: 3m Pwmwa: I

aw? We?! 56*? fiawmraaq n’T unfit-

' ‘ omits :17, in which case the
B ’ 3
M3, Mo—atfii
metre becomes defective. 4 P, PM—fiqih“
2
P, PM—afllgqafiaanr; M1. M2, M‘, 5
Ml—ifi; My—ifif
M7, My, B, read éfiflrzrlqififi: 6 Mz—mfizqz; Ma—zhuu:
7
Mz—‘fllh

T To be identified.
"'
Puramusan‘llmd, XVII. 468.
Cf also i/)i:/., ‘81) :
“ 357M ZIUIQC‘H hi nu: wufim u "
a ‘14 mmmri
rqfirwawia‘tawm‘wmfiqzfiwfimnfirfififii
armmf hm‘tifiwfiaagwfiwmfim4wafiaw-
eamgfirfi fi'fihwh I

[mnaafifi fifiafififinwfilmfirmfl
§uzg=rz Btefirrfiafimiwfififirw‘tnfi unmann-
nfimfifirfir, Hats 35m firfitéf firm firéa'r arfifia’
u‘tfimm?
fiwfafimsafifimm]
[fi'fl'

gui‘mmfififi’r §q Hia‘tififims I

gw‘tafig’wfiam'r :r f? Ffiqfisgmqa u

fifitgfififi‘afifi =r gar: «Elfin: ll

=r f? arifiafiafii’mm fifilflgi‘a‘ttfiifia I 7r %g
fii‘m‘r fimfitg' {aqua l

fifirfh a inertia, mam aafifi‘rfialo Writ

fii’rwq?
*fififimfi weanermm'i‘: umngfigfi warm, it:
I
P, PM, T, M1, M, to M,,V,,A,B— 6
M,, M2, M4, M7, My, a—fismq
°wtétaa1a 7 All but P, PM—gsrh'q'arfio
3
M2 adds another RI: 5
P, PM, T, M.—°arf3I§aar
3
M, omits ( ' All but P, PM—guhaef
4 M1—°{:-ni&m; ‘0 P, PM, T. M3, M5, M0, V1, A,
5
M1, M7, My, B—wa B—éét‘qfia

§ for the opponent’s view.

See p. 15 above
For a detailed discussion on this subject, see Vedanta Desika’s Saccari-
rraraksd, Adhikara III.
"' The discussion here is, whether
or not the usage of nirmfilya, nivm'va,
c!c., contradicts the genuine character of the Bhagavatas. The Mimiritsaka
cannot attribute non-brahmanical character to the Bhagavatas, says the author,
on the ground that they use nirmdlya and nivedya prohibited is some smrIt-texts.
 Rama: 1'“
wrraawfiliwuwcrfirmfinwfirmg
it-Sw emit fiitqwnfimwa 22 6593 ft amrmmlavgw-
Hg- WWW
writ“, aarffiwmmmm iterates}, wind as agiimr
finknfitémmazt
m6
*ar7 fit airf‘fi“ wan aim mmfiah 1'53
ii {mafi-
u‘tfitam‘" wwmqarq iraqfiarmuét, at Her 5::th fit
«Ram: I

am mallnfiréii: Qaa‘r‘a’hfi wfinemaan'gwnm”

firtrfeafiréamaz“, 3:3 a’r‘é fi‘tar wruwraraamfi fink“!-
1
P, PM, T, M1, M2, M4, M5, M6,
My, B—aaa'rzf’; Ma reads angéaanq"
6
7
A, M5, v,, omit sigma
m
My omits from a 13 upto Rnisqlfiu-
(no srfbmg before) ma: I

1
P, PM, T, M, to M7, V,—atfitaw%t; 3
Mz—mfiaq
Ma & My—art‘waaa 9
Ma—fiafinamfia
3
A, B—mt’r aft; srrrnmto ‘° A, B—ER: affiqélaaqr
‘ Ma—°ar¥ngrfi “ Ma-qfi°
“
M1, M2, M4, M7, My & B, omit ‘2 M1, M2, M‘. M, & B, omit QR
ad a; M, has a lacuna from arwfir- '3 B—qfiafifitvawam
maximum above, up to 13' here. ‘4 See note 7 above.

First of all, the prohibition pertains to the nirmdlya and m'vedya offered to
other than Visnu. Secondly, the Mimamsaka has to qualify the terms
Ileities
" m‘rmzilya ” and “ m‘vedya ", even to refute their usage, because flowers and
fund in general cannot be termed so. He might say that “ nlrmdlya " and
“ m'vedya ” are things offered by the Paficarétrins to some
deity; but this state-
ment lands him in trouble, since he does not admit of any deity with apersonulity
and also because such a statement would imply his acceptance of the validity
of the Paficaratta-texts. Without admitting their validity as the starting point,
he cannot speak of a deity, and flowers etc., being offered to that deity.
" Cf. Tantravdrtika under I. iii. 10, p. 172 :
‘fifitfia f8 Berra nfianfiaurfra a are" llama lIr Infaafia wall-tent II'
I

Cf. also Prakaranapaficikd. V. p. 105 :

‘
éaahiita 15mm} am: ...... «in {Int «gunk «(Sta a [fist mnnéluit. at
I I

MI Fri!
I
mama Rearmiflqlnml ill ll cII‘tI'IIIIt'ttIvalvguIi mama“ climate,
“1|"!!th ifitér \‘
i Iio WWI-zit

firfinfiwa‘tnwr‘afifiazafi, ma fitnzwmaangfifim—
any
SWNWHI'N %:
mgtm wfiqe‘lafiifa in“fiFfiT’flIET- =r
ugfiffimfir, g==r FIE-é afifia hargmrfifiw wfiqa‘l—
en‘fi =r agfira NW?! finknfiéuwra‘isgfifimmrr I5

Qfigfii mfi—gsfizaifi‘smmahmzmfim-
Fara, Ififimafiw a fifiwlfiwam, waefimgafiw
f‘fitwffimi’lg, a??? wrmmafimara, aagmqmmr-
sgwrrwfie, 31:35:, fani-cufifia‘tw‘trr‘tsazmgfiifiwfia
g fa l

[mqmm ffifia: fink] {1%

awe—35913:: aermmrwmhfi-gim finned f‘aéei

a :r whim?
.i‘affiwé” Pg fig finkwmmfim I

am" Hfilflfittfifimrgfifim I!
T‘ fiéfia’
g
afimie-wfi'tfi
m” an we}: “ii-tar
36% matrmfi:
.sr'ifi'i”,
an I

II’
1
Ms—fiaealqfilw° ' M2, My—fififimfi‘n
2
M2 & My alone have Elm, while all 9
Allptd. texts and‘mss. except M. &
other edns. and mss. omit it. M, read ax; we have adopted the
3
M, M7—Eaatgfln fim reading of M4 & M6.
4 M1—%fi ‘0 Here again, all ptd. texts and mss.
5
Ms omits this whole para, from am except M‘ & Ma read EH; we have
upto here. adopted the reading of M‘ & Me.
5
P, PM—grcifimf? “ ‘ B’ adds
a here, spoiling the metre.
7
M1 & M7 add (it ‘2 My—qfim
13
Ml—finfiafitfil when
* Published by the Adyar Library and Research Centre, Madras, 1969.
’r Sivarfitra, v. 48b —49a. Also Cf. Paramasarhhitd XII. 3619-374 :
“ {mat fif‘agéfi a 11pm: m: finiaafif‘a fiizi Han-‘13 affirm n "
I =1

Cf. also Va.\is{ha.rarhhitd( ms VII. 52b-5 a :

I

“mm a mi Ti mum ii finieqf‘qfa 6 [ad tl‘it with Farah ll ”

I
 firm: m
«m airmai—

W
I‘ finish wafhfiaggwwgfitfi I

mti Wham? 11m mu II

“magi? aa: ‘1'}??? fit 313% mar: II’ {fit

WP:—
*‘=r fi‘fififiifiif =r fimianfitz warh’ I

Hut—
T‘ =r étw‘ttr’u'hmfi Ernie'mfir Emma II ’ {fin
am fifififii—
§‘ finismfit =r mafium“, =r Brim a éafiq’ I

g fi I

aa'auafififimunftmflf‘afitm finkn‘twfi’mm
mafia waarg'o‘tamzt
mamas—335% afimfi a“ 31:31: I

:rtfiqafimmaigqfin‘t =r Elma II

Wm qat -—

‘
Saccaritraraksd (SR) quotes this case the metre becomes defective;
passage and reads man here. PM reads a filth???
1
SR reads Faniaqtf‘ck a for a finisqtfi I 4
M9 and SR read Pnisqd‘a a alumna
3
M1, M2, M. & B omit fin in which 5
Mz—aine:
6
MI, M2 M4, My & B, read a for =1

I Rsira‘ttra, VIII. 77b 78. Variants : “ unifies! 31f?! ” in the first line,
“ :1qu august ” in the second line and " 1% mfir (twat: ” in the third line.
*"' A mixture of five products of the cow (pail agavyu I with daIb/ta-wntcr.
* IX. Za.
T This is not found in the extant text of the Indrarfitra—scction, perhaps
lost in the rest of ch. IX, which ends in a blank.
§ To be identified.
Cf Paramasan'thiui III. 44 :
“finiszi “iii: a gutter a main I

a :1th a If“ :in ........ a II

\\
an «mm-wit
1‘ fiflatmfiaia {#1 mafia! fiaam I

minnagfimzz muffin f?
%EI II’
*‘ aman‘tmfifis‘fi g Ernie": whafi I

enema %=mir fish, ‘1‘?! Gail, 5114 II’ 3&5 I

awn—ma finieamfiranfi smafi I

fi’fig Trauma? fifilgfim raga: II

miéwaifi'. 10‘1” warmth W3: I

mafia: f‘fifiam gs'fifinafl gramtfiam finia-

amass mil :rtfi'afifiwafigfldl graham 1311‘??? W—
meat; {t urfiq’ 3%
§‘ I

aafia aathwaw‘iéiawrfi a: I

Efifirloqfifiawwmllswfimfim II
=r ifiréfir; flingifirgfia: a: a, {it a: awmz?

[mantis aqhwiaafiz mamafm]

are} fimefigf‘ufirmmv ffim: I

f‘HaIii'fi'I ain‘t unfit ma§=gfiwaa1 II

1
N‘s—‘15"! 7 All but P, PM—auhrafiz
2 SR reads a 1R2: I
3
M2, My—°arqaq:‘-I
3
SR has al 9
P: PM: T! M2, M3, M64 M0! My, VI
4 M6, M,, B, V1 & A—fi & A omit a:
5
PM omits (fir ‘° My—ETRH"
6
M4, B—Ife'm firm " M,. A ”In“?
1 I. 10b~1Ia. Variants : wwfim for was; and a arm- for agfie: I

* I. 11b, 10a. Variant: ennui} for %IaIfiII

T For an account of pfiranapfijd, see Indrarfitra, ch. 1. See also Kapifi-
jalasan'rhitd, ch. 29.
§ Indrarétra, I. 10b.
3 This is Yfimuna's reply to the above arguments regarding m'rmdlya and
naivodya.
 film-m HI
*3 fig gmfim quiz, imam fiit‘d'rfiz' I

ire-anti: ft Hamil Mfirfiwfifir: ll

ata‘lwfimrmé H‘tnmlitarear‘t I

317361? l2
mm “Ia-item: gmfira II

Mardfigmum—
I‘ gag—vii wages} a‘ifirsm
gawrga I

aan‘fi 33%me writ a m3 area: II’

‘mfiaa’a uf‘a gm“ than??? 6i ffifiza I

WERE afiwg%a gufifitnififi? a II’

“M wmfiamflwm” a finger
firfiq’ wmnffimanffié ii!” war II’ {Ia
I

nut wean“?—
‘
Mg—fifimfiz; M4. B—I'fiwen; ’ Mp M. M‘, M.—la¢I=?t
5
Mo—fil‘fikfi: M.—ihqvg%hsra¢’
7
2 M,—a‘<€fil° M1, M4. M7. B—°aqlhm'«lim
3
Ma omits MEI, to the detriment of 3
B—°Flfifiil;ll31
metre. 9
Ml—unawra ( I
)
‘ M1, M4: M7, My—Ilfc‘rgum ‘0 SR has a for l3

"‘
Cf. Sittvala San'Ihitd, XXI. 45b—46 :

" yo na vettyacyutarh tattvam paficarfitrfirthameva ca I

tatha sadvaisnavim diksam nanaéastroktalaksanam II

na tena saha sambandhah karyah ................ II

1' Cf. Pddmasan'xhird, Caryfipada, XII.83b :

“ éunfimiva purodaéo na nicesu tadi$yate II ”
+
‘0These and a few other verses following, quoted by Yamuna us from
“mm samhitd, are not found in the available dgamas of that name. The “van:
.mmhitd from which Yfimuna quotes uppcurs to have been a difl'crent work. Sec
lnIroduclion to Jaya'k/Iyasan'mfld ( Gucwkzul Oriental Series ). p. 4‘).
an «mm
*‘grgir maxi %a‘ mirwghqu I

ficgi‘fwrtqé‘ FIE
wIaWIm II’ 3% I

am wrefifiS—
M
Wfiwflfié“ Wfi7 firm!
Ehmfiascfié mm: fasga‘fi: ngi'fi
ah II’ I

Tfifiwtfififinum—
“mm-£11 Him wqgwrfimw a I

arramgwgeram afim‘irrfqafim a II

{W =r fimfi W3%TW%WFH§I:9 I

finiwgtm mini {Infia a II

’a‘rafiir“)

% urfia first gen, assrmarwarfia: I’ 31‘?“

“Infir gm afiafifian'fiw Huntsmmanfi

finisa‘w“filrlzfilfia”wfir aramfir, atfir‘“ wfififi‘sw-
u‘iri’rarlfimmfirmaw mtfi I

I
P, PM, T, A, vl & Mfi—‘araq 9 M1 to M4, M., M7 My & B, omit
this line; A, V1 & MI have mqfiqi‘fi:
it? arfitfirq
2 SR has
5*
M —Ia-u1 21° W P & PM—aenqar
4 M:—°qu “ M, adds fit
5
M2, Ma, Ma. M7, B-q‘FRa ‘2 T-fifi‘@qafio
6
M2-°qlme=[ ‘3
M2, My, omit $13»:
7
M3, Mo—Qiqja; ‘4 M1, M2, M7, My, omit mffi
‘5 SR—°EII'§'<&I°;
3
Ml—éis'afi§° PM-"qifiqimf
1‘ M1, M2, M” M7. My, B—°whma=ar°
"' To be identified.
1This is the second instance where Yfimuna quotes from Isvarasarivhitd,
which is yet to be recovered.
*" ta: '{fififlfiilfii fiqi‘cqlnghnififiqfimh fiaIRazl Fifi? fifiaamrfi af‘mir firm:
may? I
 hum 1 m

mafia mk' mmmftmq

In??? I

Wamw‘lwafz HIW Wafiéqmnf‘ ll

W! I!!! 913qu aimfi’ra um: I

arfi a—
aaua, 3m
firm?! 65m II

i‘z‘taawarfinit-fi Blfifié finfi‘aq I

(3‘32:
3 {flaw-aw“ HWtrmw-q'fizwé II
5'1
am finazmumwfi mama-E1 I

=r fifiwffig {Hafiz 'fifinffinfisflfiawfl II

[unafiIfir-amim]
fim‘filsffi WTEI'BmiF-‘Iflfis‘il‘fifi’q I

Hufififiafifitfiafifitflfiué II

mammal-Zia ufii, mum? mafiafi: I

{sit mafifi
=r mar Emmi affiia’i: II

mu” mllgrfi’r a qua—

1
Ma. My-Rfifi" lost from the word ah.
2
Mz—fiinfim; PM—wfinihm 7 M4, M.—°aafiaq
3 T—IIIFva ° M,-—°f3mf6qfhf?1°
‘ SR—“wfl‘axu 9
M1. M2. M..M,, M., My. A unnam-
-"
SR—Efié act for fifiurfl 1° M3, Mo—am
‘ The rest of the ms. ‘ B ’ is “ M1, M4, M6, M7, My—lllll”

T Cf. Sa'n‘vata San'IIIiui. X. 57-53.

‘fiafi: Erma amalfzmm a I fifi’aiatufii emit fi-aqfimfii 5% II

ua‘szi a fit 31h luau fifififiaw $311 :r-aIIfiffat fifiegmsmfi II

’

++
itififirrtfiukvq RIE: finfimasfiw nfimfi: I

§ Cf. Viwusan'third, XXXIX. 12-l3a :

‘ffinfsiI a 813mm «'55than in: I Emmi 71'5"?“ finiauuafa “Wt II

Ways 3 a-tIIR Imam“?! q? I'
an
Tfitfii’fiimii‘
M
g:
gfilfitfi'fiagwé I*
waffiwiz fluff-cf: germ mama? aiaf II

”‘33??me
Iii WW 9%,
ma mattutti
11w
wfiq mfi-I
I

III

wan—mm 6: am: a {fiat 35331161 fia’

3% math ammfifiwfimfifiamqfi
'

aw ramifi—
*‘zfiz WW1 3f? a??? flaws} Htflféfifi‘ I

ummfhwgfi: wens} hfi9'ngl" II

mum: airman 8am a an: um I

3mm: 8mm 13% agarqanmau’ 3%“ I

I
SR—fifif‘zal; 7
M2 reads aMT; PM omits at”
1 P, PM—amfifiw; SR,—aafiit g M,—anli%a(
3

3
Ma adds {Er M], M“ Ma, M7—qa'fial fiffiaq;
9

4
M.. Mr" A—f‘a‘fiifiz“ Ma—qfliamfiaz; P, PM—qfifirfifiafi
5 1° SR has HHIFEH: for ma
M2—°qfifim Ha:
‘

6
M1, M1, M4, M6, M7, My—°m1f‘q “ PM, M1, A, omit zf‘a
warm
1 Passages to be identifiéd.
"' Cf. Pddmasarhhilfi, carya'l. XII. 81b :

1
“MW at want a unmi’
Cf. Pddmasarhhitd, caryfi, XII. 85 :
ll

‘ wfle'r
figfin‘iafi azawaémaqn
arm! mum? a gaiafi ll
’
uh
§ To be traced out. Cf. Pfidmasamhitfi, caryi, XII. 79a :
‘
Mlmfiifim %a fin flan-m ’ l

" Tobeidcntified.
Cf. Laghuvydsasamhild ( AggdviMiatismrtis) ch. 11. 74-76 :

‘
fitllflufifigfi mummy? Ha: I WWW «a?!
gal smart: aaaam ll
3mm aa: gran aman‘tfir was: flaw mtfihi gammwfa fia:
I II

ism alarm? 35% ada‘fiéaq 2mm I

mm harem? % narqffivt II’
This type of taking food is called ‘
anuydga ’. See Pdficardtraraksd,
a mafiaqmafimmsmq «name:
‘ ’
p. 115 : {grit I
m1! firmi—
T‘ fitéfizfi 15 its, mm mmfiw’ {51' I

am2 flaw?!—
§‘waamf3rfi3
:rrwu‘rs
Emu
waagfi: 75a?!
W“:
Wzfim
3%“
II’
'
9% I

am a was"; fibres:—
*‘
fiat? fiflfififi'flfl’ {W l

[mmmmi mm]
mfiafimffiiflfis W:
fié'ér WW vii fifi-vin l

wrfiam mf‘awaafigfiawrw:
afaa'rfisrmfia gains! u

[mam Wu 5%
tag qmrfilfiw W9
a fififir firm emit
Emil? HWW'
8mm]

firfisai; =t firmfié” ftmfimaaq“ II

' PM omits If?! Ma—fim'xo

2
343-3“; 7
M, omits [fif
3 M2, My—mérsffir it 3
M1—°§11°
4 Ml—EE‘ 9 SR has fiawq
' PM-mqm ‘° M. reads “Frau;
‘ M, M,, M7, My—awzf;
1 To be traced out.
§ Sfinti, ch. 322, $1. 23.
Cf. Stittvarasamhird, ch. 17, éls. 423-424 :
‘
alarai a flaw a aura? maximal fififiafi and. ah a:
a! man u qfiwqammfi
1mg haw
aia 1% aarfiancflsmm qraé mmfiam 'l '
" Vimudharma ( of Bhavisyapurfina ). Saunakiya, ch. 92. SI. 3211 :
“31361 enamel imagfiga: ' I

Cf. Pfijdsafigraha ( ms. ) folio 90b:

" Isa"; alfi Emmet aémfiafi l'
I Vcdfinta Deéiku quotes from as upto «Imam
etc.. below, in his
Savmrltrarakyi, p. 93.
ur. mum
:r q‘ W3fi‘lfi4
pqmfi'la‘hz I

Ima: mafia"?! um§=fiwfiswa ll

msfi WWW 3211qu ll

*‘
mt} uraii‘mehfitmtfi'r gfififififi‘l I

=n=rm when? graiq’ {fa asufiifiaarq ll

3m iii}, In:
ginger: {1&7 fimfiz,
W1fimfififlfifl
Samar? l

ll

ufia l2“ Wfifififinfi" gfiw‘fifilfitw

armrir Hrfifmfizfi,
amt?
am at ““692” W HerEhS‘éai” I

wfi a—
mania; figqfi‘z m,
gamer wfirwfir ll

T
[
mm: mafifl
firsmtheqaamrm: mil?” firearm“ I

a‘aa fitwfité” aft, 1% air filafifinfi?

' Mz—arfi; My filfil 9 M1, M2, M5, M7, My & PM,
3
M.—zsal:ai‘ aim:
, omit arfi
3
Ms—Eflmifiaf 1' All except P, PM—gnitaarfi
4 M4——°3rqafiatq% “ Ma, M‘s—3g:
5
P, PM—°aqcnq?r '2 My—afioefia fillflfilifi
5
M‘—°nrm: ‘3 M3—m9fiz"
7
M.—gun{m: gar; PM, Ms, M,, ‘4
M, adds the following :
A—gmfirgeit afii‘rsq'oqarmm: mafia Firearm
“
M2 reads fit: ( no l2 separately. ‘5
M,. Ma—Fl aileqfha'qf
A—rfi%irnafiiaa
§ aném: finafifi mall
* The remainder of the verse is ‘ arfiréhfitil fifit; I" Many Smrtis attribute
this to Mann. But Aparfirka on Ydjfiavalkyasmrti (p. 61 )attributes this to
Sariwarta. C‘f. also Sarr‘lvartasmrti ( Collection of 27 smrtis , Anandfiérama Skt.
Series ), I.l2.
1L Cf. Bhagavadgitd, XVI. 24a :
" fiwwfi :1de it wakfimnfiw‘r ” I
 Rm“: m
aozsgutm‘zé‘ fimmwmfizflwfi: I

('6'! mmfitfifisfit Samarium?" II

[ manual mmwmfimz]
Magma m1?matfimfia‘fitwnmfiamq mu-
aaratnamnfqfi, aarwamfiamnwfir, gwtrgwrh“ =r

itrzz, 111% énwztwrm araafiuhwwd’mmz hamm-

mfiqzfiv‘cfim‘fiw nnfimfiéfimq gait I

[afifiqinnnm-firfia mmmfifimfim]
mfisngaaa6ngfiafiafiarfia “magi?!-
:3 gm
filfiarfia azarfi'fla Fianna 373%, fisffi amwwfimnfi
wazgifisma‘r =r firmarmfiamiargznnf“ mama
wan-$33; airmail: qtsmtarfilga°anniagsml‘afi‘mtm-
wwwcrzfirm Baler I? arfhatwrr‘tatfhmufiauafium
‘
M,—°a=fiea° 7
PM—wlgsralq
2
M4—f3rammfif 9
M, has lacuna from Hum?!
3
Ma—éela° to (NEW;
‘ My—°angw: My—afiqurahifitaz"
5
M. 8: My add an ' M,. M, qqulalfitflln“
‘5
My—mfitmqgaaa° M7—wtwwlallafca°
'0 M. adds W
* anilifia 6mm? amt l

T See p. l4 above for pfirvapaksa. Vedénta Deéika quotes from here

upto the end of the text. in his Nyiyaparis‘uddhi. p. 168
I Deéika quotes from here upto the end, in his Pdflcard!rurak,vd, p. 95.
§ See Kdrydyanagrhyasfitm ( ms. ), p. 25fl‘ for san'ukdms.
**
mama kalflfa ma: l
$ Cf. the following quoted in the Pdflcardlraraksd, p. 110, as from Ihe
Pdramefivarasan'xhitfi :
“ fifiwéfia dfiltfii «@1511 9W1 I

“ashram aifi it tannin-fin: II”

Cf. also Aua‘anacu Dharmus‘dstra ( Smrn’na’m Samuccayah, Annndflérumu
Sanskrit Series 48 ), I, 48 :
“ mam: “maven- fintu: qfimurfi l
twain at with unmade u "
$th
= Hum-2a mafia} l
an m?!
QR lamina sum-11%| unfit 1‘ némtarmwfiaé afifi’,
Hurfiz ‘=r wnwtfiaamfimlfimfim: uni: $943 1155'}-
u=I=F I
fiaamfi adiffif‘zmafigarfifiwflwfitnmfi-
aritmfii’afiniffimrfivm ffinu: *azfiafimafiffifiifia-
fiamifiqflwfiwmfismmzfirunascrrczfiafiswmfifinifiafit-
PM? await arm" 31% mfimnmgm‘tmmmfiifiamnfi
aamq9amuam‘0qtmfil am“ a wawmrarm wilt?-
Erma, am” waftmmmmw qa” uqffiafitfit 9!?
“gnaw g v-rmamfii Hfiwgaawtf‘zad’tafi-
ugmm’
mama: {giaatgwasélz =r alswmfirfitamaaarfi 11%?
113?! 3%” I

[mafiafiafimatfiaq]
mmt‘swgfini‘w: main: we" Flatt ua’
nfianfi'finfi mmumfiatmgfifi: I

1 ‘
A
omits a’ 3
Ma, A, omit 37%
2
M1 has a lacuna from atfiifilfiali to 9
M3, Vi—°$¥Iififllfil
Mimi? 1° M3, M.—°insluqa1°
3
M1. M7—°amfi=aiwqrfi° ” M2, A—azn
M2, My—°awit=m==qrf‘{° 12 A & M2 omit EMF
.
M3 omits ant? ‘3 P & PM omit mar
4
M1, M7—qfimqa° 14
M1, M2, M... M,, & My omit
5
M1, M2, M3, My—mamfiax" is was
6
P, PM—°3qmai°; M4—°aqmfi° ‘5
My omits an
7
My—°$ttiflxifilfi° ‘5
P, PM, T, M3, M5, M. & A omit {fit
Cf- Sahara 0n 11- iV- 32, p- 142 l “. fiiirraiqwi Ha‘lmwi fia‘a anti shear
1

sfir uafér I "

RITE

See also Pfirvamz'mdrhsd, 11. iv. 18 : “ a 1% fif‘fi Fania l ” and Sabara

on this ( p. 139 ) : “ a a mamfisfiifia’ an mafia; 36¢ qfa f‘qvfiafir I %Fafiqwfi an
fif‘gafia l amfifiqaaamnfi |.. . .azmq aimmt‘nfi: Hmte'r avian sfér 1"
* See Pddmasarr'lhitd, l. 5b-6a :
“amfifilifii 3:" Wfififimiifl n
3%: Gem film gsnfiwfimfim: l ”
T lbid. marina, 11. 5b :
“ Emil maxi—4113i asmafigfirfiq'a II”
 mm; 1
n
u‘anmnfi ggawrwmwi vi?!
sfimugfin afinwfiw‘mwawz n
emanafi flaws maanauwfimfit—
mmflhagfiaflwfifiqvwfitéfiam I

zfiuamgfiafifiafh‘t fiaififfi’arfi'mzz
makemammqsfiwammz“ ll

3% afinrngfigfiwflé
annuwmm'z Hamlin u

1
M,—°fif‘€fi° 3
Ma—aw:
2
M1 & M7—afiwmgafiaafira- 4
M,—°cr<ahuul mum:
wfififiwfi mam:
 APPENDIX ‘0!
suit I )éa mafimafit’imf’; '3 Jim ’ semi man it It didwmmlulq
(
=I mama?" ’ WIR‘ Rama ’Rwa
mm Wtfiimfi‘m, Wammmt
‘
I

‘a‘été Maw {an} ‘it fh( ) 'qrnngiqtfh‘awafh ’31? cum

atm‘mi fiafi’tafiem, aafiatmqi quit ‘ktfiwmq’ wife, 'atanfiid’
I

381761 menu gfifilfieimmmmffim

airflow an €1th ’anfe ‘dam-
him? 361761
mam iii; a f
)maiq afitmm Manama! ‘ main

thfnma
I

afifiiz’
genre, 'aqrfi‘om’
HEREIN ‘ Ell-Ilfififi’ ( )maztrl
semi
m I
1553:

wflfiagtwfiwfiww: I

mmgqmsé Ingfivi autumn II

u‘tinatmq an: I

summation I

Manuscript “ Ml ” begins with the following :

‘
wehfrfimfifivmfiwfim: mmgnmfisfi maid: amt?! atr’ I II dink:-
arafimafimztgta an: I
I’

It ends with the following :

amhi'lfiwmhmmfimnq: mtgqma‘tsi mafié =1an "at: II I Kfif: aim I

fififi flank amt quanta fimnfimnmtwt mm «In II I

miss: afiifltuqmaam: I
mama: am am? an flute“! II

31f?
Wm «at w'ma Wm améwfisrm
are amen-i am $33th figaafi: he: men snw mmnfi mm
I Emit
I
II

II

m
unit was
«figmzfia‘lafiw .f‘z

{2ng mar fisRfii um

am: Wfiflfiifli amazisqfimt II
21%}

an: at 6mm itch a Emit

I

I
m II

Manuscript " M2 " begins with : flmflfi I It ends with the following :

annwsnrmfi main I
@1an I

Manuscript “ M3 " opens with IR: aha I It ends with the following :

3ft aim aware I

fififimgs'fi Swami rite-{Item fi( 84: )fimm 313nm: I an! henna: I

aft: afiqI ma when: an: II

fintmfififiefiafis nit I afififirmgt 1mm; shamanism II

51% an: I minim «(U—42°
109 APPENDIX

6. Manuscript M4 " starts with :

wafifiswafiawfiwms: I fifitgwmafisé mafia? aqrfir fiq II

Towards the end, it has :

air-gaaqn'ri mafia H: II xl‘t: aha II aIImIsImmi Hum ll

7. Manuscript “ M5 ” starts with the following verse :

anWmfimfimam m mmifi fifil srrfitswfigm I II

It ends with the following :

ERR? mafi Rafiafi sump gig-rent

“emf—Er

fié afififimfiafisfim( Maw-5W 1?: I

WWW Hmfia'q'I-«t ll

mflfimrfizmwfim mazwmImafl:
m:
I ll

film it Rag 3m: fimwfirfim I amf‘qgélfi: I

qszimi‘q: géa gfifin I @111:

{grammar a: II

mm a: fimfiagam air Q filgfll:

_

ammafiqmaw: I ah am II

WW anal WW1 an:

maflwfi'fit hm 1m WW: I

airman (firm at? a: aflnfiqmfim:

65!:qu an East WWI aflqnimch 3R: II

5J3 31361 3619351 Wfi:

211%?
am as mafia-ell an I

an 31mm 1%an ('l ) @313-

9H?!
an’a‘ih i333

II:
W: saw-em
gfifirfifit: gfigfiafifififi €011
II

efiq‘tsrdéfifitfita' mum I

«am in mm H130
WINK
Whaflrfigrmfiftnfihmm: II

We“
m
“mi awnwé at? §§i
Fl mfifia’t a? final Ii mm I

may? (amugfi‘t? ) mfiahsfi Rim: Ram whim:

Esmfimm :55: xgfiamnwfia’t II

m than tsfifismil m:
WW1
3!

WEI éfifiam I
 ng
APPENDIX

53m Wm fawn aim:

WEE-163131;: 31% W1 mm :1ng II

qqufifififi mat WM 31::

fimaflamfi RH Mam: 1mm Haw-qua I
31qu (similar if? 3:: afimmfia:
fitstni an
{EFF-{P1 at if?
m war
@Gfim
FfiT‘lfi
afiurfiaa‘l
3&5?
fig: II ( repeated )

Mai: wfifim 3:3 ummfiq I

whi Ema fig'q'fi WW‘R

M§Ea In it a ram? WWR
EEK II

3am 5mm mm 1%qu mn-

avnaqmimr mm
ma Wramficrfanfiamfi
mm
am:
(2 ) I

fimtqgfifi name?! FEW ahfiwn II

fit?! swam am 33% ......

W51 3
a‘l'figfifii mm 33%
i 2&1? qfirfiwitsf‘q 312%
min
ail??? mfim
W
a Whnmfifih 1m? m u

Writfimmfi‘l tfiqfitfifizfi
fifimlfifl'fififi GEN a ”591%: I

W: Wars? fiafifi’r @1131? W:

Qwaflwfiafi air mam it nemmfiaafi II

W
Wramfi gifiat Wamrffim-
Wmmnmam I

mafiqfifirasri‘awé wfimmfifw

. Manuscript “ M," starts with the following :

m Emma an: I aim? Maw Fm: I aflsfi (mama an: I

am
w: mam: Wen: mm
wait
953 {mail 35:33:11 I ma «251%:th II
I as} fiafia «a W am II

fiWfiImm Wafimvmcm I

mm 33%! mil 3% mm mi! II

'N‘ APPENDIX

It ends with the following :

afi: ah I aha-St
(WW an: I

Manuscript “ M7 " has no beginning and it ends with the following :

ER: ath
mg mama I
an: am? (Mama an: I I

31mm mafia I

afinatgagaa an: II

10. Manuscript “ My " has the following beginning :

ma (Imam an: I

Wfimmmw: I ataatgwa‘tsa' argfiai am an II

It ends with :

31?: am I

ll. Manuscript “ V,” which has no beginning, ends with the following :

3R: ath manta-13:3 an: I

mama an: I

12. " starts with the following ; it breaks off in the middle
Manuscript ‘ V2 :

mmnaanzImm an: afinrfi-gfi-firfinmmqafifimq an: I I

m: I

fimnam ...... mum at: ma ...... afimzfiqtfiafi :m: I I mafiifia 3": '
amiss-16m? an: I 5111121333313 an: I
 I Index of Verses
mmwm’mat whiz-mi «Luigi! u

[st Wm: him: Hunt-5M: agar u]

tits: m {13's
WI
WWW m 1
3mm? finsmfi an
em qa fi‘q‘mf‘q 1N arfi‘ifififl 1

mm
"

#3131? as: {@3133 H's

ammi'lilflififi: “.5WWW}

ti
6R?! Ffiaflfisfi um [Mimi 2I m: 1w
are?! a 3mm? WWW
n mg?! u
m
i

an i": an. cl
31313 3.15135;
wanna «23%
u
g“
1 awnfi
«a
mam an
u
an: a: game? it an?) fiwaflmfir “3.
am Mama a: 81W Ema aH
'
arm gfitqfixm a 3: W355}?! \i-
amafaafimi: 1 w wmflq a w
-

affiag‘tmmu as...
'afiaimmu 3:...
n ananq‘tm w
fia amwgm a A
aqzfi mag gin-«1;

*afifaéa final
He *ansum
#6 mafia?!
m: w
1W 1|-
31:152st 1‘; u {Fa wagni'lsflt an
mama: u. {a} afia n.
*Wfififi'fi: a: :63: aratgfi a.
aFfi’JIW
Naztmqgiafi "
an
1%
geufiafi'inm
iii: «mania? ,
'
‘w
wfiaarfiwfih "m R95! HEW ‘ 1'
agar mfifin 'Ru zarf‘qfimfifl: w
an: a: u zalfiwtama 1w
any. am 3.. “gamma“ “1
am: mm: W {gamma H
'
31F:

unifq an 33"
avg at: u‘0 #3:"
U551"
“fifififii
WWW“
1W. “A, 11'
\Oi
ufiufiuamfi “v am in: ‘.u
‘V‘ max
fit 1“. $3:
55mm H WWW ‘9"
Eula Hahn-61 :3 mafia 3721mm H“
5?. NEWa 43 Mania-mu ‘HR
We? Fa mama ‘M *iflfi W ‘3‘“
art-:13 am an $615631?! fin 3K
w’fiafimtfiafi 1“ Tmmfiw ‘H'i
amen-Ha: aRo #fiafiz at fi‘fi‘fi
aqaafiunfi m fiifih mail:
'I § 1 fink—3?
d
*awgfim a ‘10.
mam hawk \w E in 35%
.12
5R st?! fafi‘I a :1 mfivnmfz 1V
93%
mm ,w} qa'laanrfifiaq ‘1“
M156: (RR-Hm A man GET! am 10“
qa Q: a3 “w, %
.o Mm: 561: 31%
113'
a GE! c \ amfpaf-a
11%
yam
qanrfiauuhrfi
\ e '1 afihmméz
mm f:
1‘6"

m
'11 0 “N
*qaifii manila? ‘13: :fi'q'l: W: $3
*Qfi Era??? (4 *aTannfiE'; aw ‘5
mfi't‘fimmfi i a“ azeflqmsnmfi
am a q‘tafiqw 1 av fififi Wma ‘1“
*mmqu K: 631'? Ram 3"!
admin (3* a: fififi' wafer 1H
méa‘x mafia fi v Ha: maamfi: 3»
*ené‘r ail-Eur: v. afiémafi “u
#iméaam: 1w mafiiagffifi: ‘90
qmammfih '. t
*mm 6R
$135 map—mtg? 1’1 a3 “1% 8‘1
r-m‘tflrfififi an as: a: mum E: 4
t% a mmmfi n as: mama “G
fl; 3 «#35521 "n a5! Wmfi ”0
% =11?
anufi ‘1
1H awarrésfi -\‘\’
fl 31% engine! ‘I 0o $53!?“anfiéfim a“
fl; 31% «Fa a a *Efifi" fiiflfififinfit 5‘
fl: 3 3w: Rafi 11° WWW “S
fix a want 111% 1 'N a!" film 11%
 mum: “N

’51! m i
a}: ‘1“
am a {111% aw i
{Faint We? “a
am a" new ac iafifimnmé \c
PM a @3236:
muss?! in:
m
“w
qunamfuis [a “R
’arfimqimfim
mm mm»??? \e 35% mam: H!
am {Ii qé
am «mafia
a 14-1de :1 Hahn“? aw
iv iaalmfiraffil “K
N
5

W F: n Tam fig Emmi
Wufisfi \1
'

am Fa HS =r 17. aav-‘aififi:
am f2: aim: Hi =1 azmrauawz “a
mama511mm W a a fiféifi u
fizaa; , a w a a mwaafiifi Ru
awn. a 1% v3 a mama; (.‘I,

m,
‘

m: H a atma’rmfism K".
firm 3mm H “K H «mm “‘1
aliawaqqfi “1" 3 again?!“ 1'!
I

*fimi am an a %; main-11a? 'RV

unkind uv a in? (Katmai ta
an
#61:?!
Ma
fit 3?. cc
a $111M
*3! an qua; u.
mafia M. =1 61113611
am
amm’rf‘mfi u a man with
*mlmw
*ERJJ 3:1: a
ua a =r
m
a maumawmz
Ifimfiw

fire: mam ‘1 a maufiafiafka: 11‘

*Efia G'EIEHITVL
we a madanfisf‘an M
mafia w a anmwwfia u
arfi mafia 2: Hg 3 33?»!
v.
mm a srvnuna" c :13 a afiwgafi wow
minim
snarl“:
m a3 am 33:23qu
awfirmmmfi a3 mmfi‘éfiw
1. “‘1
r21 anfia ate}:
1:er as; 13mm?!" ‘00
{1153161131 x :13 firfiafiafl (Y
mfimfifirifi \: *aa'afia‘r um an: 1%
fish Elam:
'
fizfifi'm‘ififi ax a HR
iii a S! \c HI fl dam} "‘1
11¢. max
Eh: m 1&3

tfi F; 31:71: at 1 w
1743mm} gem: 1%“
a F:
a F: mnfi:
flaw was!!! finfiin
vfi
1‘11 11mm?!
'19.“

a f: mafimcfi 13 R4 gala? amt—can ‘13

:1 Fa mama? agflfi: v1 «Farm If}
H filfllfi
1% 1o ”(mm a 9311 6%

a F; 111%qu 11: MINER! qt: 61

alfiifisfi. q?! 1 :1 mafia R?
atfqflffimé 116 #:U 551%: 4‘1
alfia Hail}; — 11o qejflfimmfifi “1S

mfi' matfiwz 1 $4 mm: 113611113

alfimlfia w what qfa 1 3

Humwgfiwfi 121 finamfifiafi 1 R»

«mam: qt: ¢6 35min S»
*ammnm: cu, u, gnsgfiqw Hi
magma R *gtfihfilfi 13?
fiq‘m»?
mm
Fatanmrmi
H ufi
1? .
36%|qu
13f?! Emmi
1‘14
131
fisqhsfi 1H :1wa
#fiaféfi 3.551%? 1i 1» sn’afimfi 'l S

Elfin: mom? 1 i0 film ‘6

that??? a a1- mafflfirfifi Yo
Emma F;
51%
(mm
11o
1!“
‘

WW
wait a 2131 \‘I‘fi
\‘I

am:
fianaan
'1-
11:1
stsga Elmira!
again:
Ha
fie
fififimfi “1 mum a
as: 6?: qmfi '
1- WWW 311
31%, a SEW-31 1.1 srmmmmé (1
'35: in? am w milsfiz a
fimfi 1n “germ: fi‘fl
5N 3.71: 11a 1mm Wm 1“
qaa‘l am ‘11 .m'z‘r 1131?? as? ‘fi
win: (new: 1:, 1w g‘ranraéat 1';
«(mama “0 #3131}! HE: “‘1
mini! awn" \ I? *fiflifl'flfil SS
 INDEX ‘IG‘

£1.35: "132 fits

”MEET: affix: fin“ H12 1mm u!
Héfgfi a a v: HR €113!!! w
mfmlfi smvir 100 am imam: 4%
umqalfia:
We? mnfifi
'W‘x
“W
1m
mm ism
mm 11%
0:
fiszrm‘mr
“l7U awnings? Th
ugfim «min mmfifix: \\
*nafi a ‘10? lflfi Tifi'l ‘4
ma «Fa 3‘] M 1m (fig ‘l
nataafiafi H‘YH: \fi qr 31111311 «an 100
nfifimmfi; 3‘! arm 31am: want: K‘
' ware!
Rafi 8". 111%? 4‘
In am 56157" 1‘» 5: fim‘lfi “W
*II'I fmrafiw \‘x 51
3' ("mm ‘00
mmn‘lzaficaw
*gf‘gimajfiriem:
«a 3 am
«1' 515th ha
NW “‘fl

*Hfifimfim \3 «a amfi ‘4
apalaqfisnafi VS @611 #5! 1‘1
afifi geaifiifi 3““! a '3 3m: 1“
rm? =r 14 *ilsfia mm 1‘“
Ila?!
an: film “it '6
11??! 31113: NR sfafilfia i!
mg WI qfi‘ n: (am am 5‘
mamaazfiaw M swsfi
Inn mum: '11 #WIW 6‘
umsam ifi's damn: 9‘
am 31123? ‘3 aafia Eli»; “
am at ah:
qz'ifi
w air it am
vsil'fifi‘i @331
V.
33 10‘
fili‘é’ifli "55?? ‘I‘x‘x Emir TE Wt ‘0
'qfi' 3'13”: as mgiawflafi 11“
an? «mama: v: mgfialf‘wia H!
uh 3! afirqfirg: Na fififififi'flfiw: H!
all? Haifa-fl H: fafififififim ‘6
Ma film: u #ffigm' a fl
at? 3113, 'm fiaufii flw' ‘0
 16‘ man

in in at:
mm Inn I»: am? a a: \S
Emma an 63mm
afifia
\90
151111601133? i I
area
fiti‘lsfi am miqnmfi‘. “R
I

filifit af‘a ii Ii'filfinq

an 8'5
lawman: it I»§ré my??? u
fimmmfie‘r...fi nrv'I 5»: I#§Iér qrgqai Em? m
fiawnu RH .. .srmu'r v. ammumafia
I {o
Warffim: ‘H I
Emmuflfiaffi V‘I
fammnfaa‘t sfia‘t ‘w gratafésr'mf‘afi m
“4
I

fifirzqfiiaflsfiz I afiffif‘awfil’a 3‘
*fififlifiqtraé ma? ass I
anagram an
*fi‘flfiflifii 34': fix 513% F: a: 4"
a
I

“3183?? II? #H qaaz no

#fiwhfiafié .m
‘

«Fa aqmfi "H

#fiwfiwmmm u, cw I
«a? fl: 100
afisu'fi aim; 4: Hagar?! 7M

*Tfifi W g ‘1!» BER

mm “w:

mam 3'“ 39613311163 “I

field {aim afi «Rama 14
*W’Emfifi: fi‘w m its: qai 6‘
1w
mm
335m" - {Imam 1H
fix Hmér’fi...fl§a1 1“
313qu a: «mi-unarfr...m 11"
afiahfi 0. Gamma an
mam as,“ cémfia '1“
amt m .afi’mfifi‘aa “a
finfis 1o? “imam Y‘
#32:! lam-rim man 1n Giana “M
*QEH qatfiw =1:
at: tamer-g:
*QWW an. *Hrrarafifimww 10‘:
tafisfélfi: v mfiafivfis \o
3&6; afisfi Ha ,mmmmw v5
Wanna aw mark-ans: “1
AWE . . .mm 3331
Wanflmnfifi
H"
Wu
«mm
mi:
ma:
1"“
1V
 INDEX N!
sh
mam «WW
mm"!
5!?! 12
Y‘
N
fii Hafiz afififk frfin 0‘1
gunman} afiafiafiuma ‘6
tgfil
aim
Willi! "K
|
mm
afirémmn
Kl
H
in? ea? 373%! as?
3h
1.33% a 10% imam: 1‘“
an}? 11%
3‘!
W
*zl‘a
:ham
‘IH
‘fi‘
 2"
Index of Texts Quoted
spasm mm“: mm? mm 1 (an n

m m m m
Wm
WWI
H
‘1“
Hm a», 4:, won-ace,
an, ass, an
an,
w fim n
W
i’mfim m.
64, 1V°,"i‘¢‘, fiuo ace, an

W
{mm-mi
mgfi: m, sun Mm 'n, awn-n w
mm
qu
so! ‘hro, firm-‘1“
WWW ass mm \o
w, an
m
w. 2mm 4», as,

W:
an
as
m<m>
mfiafi
w. a
1-»
«am
m
mm \‘x w
qwfim 1!, w: “n, ‘H‘
Indiana “X
111mm as, u, was
55m: ‘0
WW“! 1!, fifi‘x
ufiwm so
W11} ’ flow
magnum cg, \o
new: \, u, up“, w. an. ac:
 3 Index of Authors Referred to
mm fif’mfii namynt (an n
m m am
313::
u affirm: (Mam)
war: a: mad-Ira:
amfi: we, “'1, 1H: am:
Em: 1h. :13:
hm: c'q, aeg, an, 13% swim:
mqafi: an EMS:
m: -‘

0%
lWilt: n, (A
mam: as, 'M, an, 11s, 11-
311W: 11%
313: c, n, w, 14, in, H}
 W'W
4 Index' of Miméthsfi & Vyfikeiran’a‘ Sfitras Quoted
«mm qdi n

wk: m: m
afifaraéannana t1. iii. 2
Ifi. 1. it)
aflhar¢nfifimfi ,, I; iii. 7 "Too

wwwa a. K. ‘11. ii. 39 u, aux

amtamwm ,, II. iii. 17 HR
Ham qrfilfi IV. iii. 120 “0
=r

man
a 35%:

31%:
m a. K.
_.,
II. ii. 40
II. iii. 18
“a, H», a“, an
1n
mmmm 1. #1 I. iv. II 3%
qfiifi it II. i. 40
,, '1‘“
warm m, an, 'm,
_

7:1
3.1. II. ii. 4t we
fihflaaqfit II. ii. 42
.1} am, an, 31-,111, w:

-h— “—