- Vidwan Dr. Rangachar

The vaiShNava Agamas glorify viShNu as the Supreme Being to the exclusion of other deities. They treat the Ultimate Reality as not mere viShNu but viShNu with shrI. While there are several names for viShNu, the use of the word ‘vaiShNava’ as an epithet for these Agamas shows that they must be related to the Vedas where He is mentioned primarily by this name.

Most modern scholars in India and abroad hold that both viShNu and rudra occupy subordinate positions in the Vedas and that vaiShNavism as a religion arose later than Shaivism. This view requires careful examination.

The vedas (particularly rgveda) have gained their present form through the efforts of krShNadvaipAyana who acquired the title of vyAsa:

vivyAsa vedAn.h yasmAtsa tasmAdvyAsa iti smR^itaH ||

[mahAbhArata, Adi, 64-130]

The need to arrange the Vedas, under the direction of his father parAshara (viShNu purANa III 3-4), must have been felt because all the Vedas during that period must have been mixed up so that the clear distinction of each veda could not be made. So vyAsa was asked to arrange them in order. He picked out the rks and prepared the rgveda and similarly the other vedas, brAhmaNas and other portions, following some principles:

tatassa R^icha uddhR^itya R^igveda kR^itavAn.h muniH |

yajUMShishcha yajurvedaM sAmavedaM cha sAmabhiH ||

[viShNu purANa III, 4-13]

Certainly, the arrangement of the hymns was not made in the chronological order or with reference to the superiority of one deity over another. It is therefore futile to attempt to find out which rks were composed earlier and which later. Equally hard is it to determine whether rudra or viShNu, savitr or varuNa was the earliest deity adored by the ancient seers of India. So the question of the relative prominence of any deity in the rgveda cannot be answered. viShNu and rudra could have been held in high regard then. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is not proper to assume that some deities were prominent in the rgveda and lost their position later to viShNu and rudra who thus emerged into pre-eminence after having occupied subordinate positions earlier.

Again, sUrya, varuNa, yama and others are still objects of worship, though not with as much veneration as viShNu and rudra. It is not possible to pick out the specific traits of the deities from the rgveda, since all of them have hymns addressed to them and are offered oblations in the sacred fire. Yet, a close, comparative study of the few hymns addressed to viShNu and rudra would show that people depended more on these deities for their security and wellbeing than on others. While viShNu offered protection to the people providing them with means for happy living (rgveda, I-154), rudra was looked upon as a terrible deity ready to award punishment to wrong doers. Naturally, the sages prayed to rudra for pardon and for gifts enabling them to lead a prosperous life with kith and kin. This explanation could be offered to justify the continued primacy which viShNu and rudra have been enjoying.

While studying the nature of vaiShNavism, it becomes necessary to take into account the development of the viShNu-sect in the source scriptures. Apart from the vedas, there are the epics, the purANas and other such works. The difficulty of getting evidence to determine the antiquity of the sect is immense, since the dates of these source books are yet to be fixed with a fair degree of accuracy. The tradition of the Hindus, however, fixes the periods of the sources at a very ancient date. Modern researchers find these dates unacceptable. However, it must be admitted that dates as arrived at by modern research also have their own limitations as regards accuracy. The date of the compilation of the mahAbhArata may not be far later than the beginning of the kaliyuga, when the war described in the epic was fought. This date is fixed at 3102 B C by many. The rAmAyaNa which is cited (droNa.p, XLIII 85,88) and whose author is mentioned in the mahAbhArata must be more ancient. The bhagavadgItA forms part of the mahAbhArata.

At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the accretions, losses, changes and interpolations which have entered into these texts from time to time. The mahAbhArata is said to have been available in its present form from about the beginning of the Christian era. This, however, does not prove that further changes did not take place after this period. It can only be said that by the beginning of the Christian era the two epics were available more or less in their present forms and known by their present names. The same must be said of the bhagavadgItA and the purANas. Curiously enough, the purANas have undergone much change which makes it difficult to identify their genuine portions. The viShNupurANa is mentioned as a vaiShNava text in the Tamil classic Manimekhalai (XXVII.98), which is to be placed much earlier than 6th century A.D., when Buddhism flourished unhampered at kAnchI before the renaissance of Shaivism and Vaishnavism there under the patronage of the Pallava rulers. This purANa must have become well-known before the Tamil epic was written. It will not be wrong to place it two centuries at least before 4th century A.D. when the Manimekhalai was written.

The bhAgavata purANa presents a problem regarding its date. Its contents are undoubtedly very old. The spirit of devotion permeates it. But the text is not mentioned by shankara (8th century A.D.) and rAmAnuja (1017-1137 A.D.) This, however, is only negative evidence. The viShNu purANa was then available to serve the purpose of upabrmhaNa, and the other purANas, because their contents were more or less the same, might have been ignored.

upabR^iMhaNaM nAma viditasakalavedArthAnAM svayogamahimasAkShAtkR^itavedatattvArthAnAM vakyaissvAvagata vedavAkyArthavyaktIkaraNam.h |

The bhAgavata can therefore be placed along with the viShNu purANa. It must however be understood that the bhAgavata contains references to certain occurrences which the mahAbhArata treats.

There were four currents of thought on Godhead, all of which were promoting salient and dominant traits which later on came to be identified as displayed by viShNu. These were about viShNu, nArAyaNa, bhagavAn and vAsudeva, the theistic character of which could be traced to different sources. viShNu is already a vedic deity; nArAyaNa gets glorified in the mahAbhArata; bhagavAn is the Lord of the bhagavadgItA and bhAgavata. Vasudeva is prominent in the viShNu purANa. Omnipresence, omnipotence, readiness to come down to sufferers and offering them relief from their misery, displaying miracles to convince them of His greatness and willingness to forgive the sinners and even those who offend Him are some of the features of the Deity who is widely mentioned in the sources listed above. These traits have made it possible to regard all the four names as standing for one Deity, so that the specific features and concepts found associated with each in the respective sources came to be attributed to that one Deity. The fusion of these currents had already taken place in the source scriptures, which must be looked upon as records of the concepts when they took a definite shape.

The Vedas do not refer to any of these names except viShNu and perhaps to nArAyaNa. The mangalashloka, the nArAyaNIya section and other passages in the mahAbhArata refer to the name nArAyaNa. bhIShma refers to krShNa as brahman, nArAyaNa, viShNu and vAsudeva. The universal form (vishvarUpa) which krShNa displayed to arjuna is referred to as the form of viShNu in the anugItA of the mahAbhArata. yudhiShThira calls krShNa as bhagavAn. mArkaNDeya refers to having been informed by the Deity whom he noticed during the cosmic deluge that He was nArAyaNa.

Though krShNa does not openly speak of Himself as brahman in the gItA, the expressions used have an upaniShadic tinge and suggest that He is brahman. He is identical with viShNu and is hari. He is the best among souls, puruShottama, an appellation that could only apply to brahman. He is identical with vAsudeva. The word nArAyaNa does not occur, nor is krShNa identified with bhagavAn in his own words, though the speeches of krShNa are introduced by the words, shrI bhagavAnuvAcha.

viShNu is identified in the viShNu purANa with brahman, hari, bhagavAn and vAsudeva. The bhAgavata identifies krShNa with bhagavAn, nArAyaNa, hari and viShNu. nArAyaNa is identified with viShNu in the baudhAyana dharmasUtra (dated 500 B.C.)

The principal role assigned to viShNu in ancient texts like vedas, is one of helping suffering humanity. He is a protector of people in general (shatapatha brAhmaNa, 1,2,5, X 45, 44), of the embryos (Rigveda VII 36, 9) and of conception in particular, this marks His effort as mainly intended to save beings and objects that have come into existence. Welfare of the people thus attracts His attention (RV VII, 100, 4), for which alone He descends down to earth taking up a form of utmost purity unsullied by the defects of prakrti. All gods are under His control, and so He is the greatest among them; yet He gets associated with Indra to help him in his undertakings (RV I 154,6). The universe is His body.

The temples in which the worship of the Lord in archA is conducted are mostly situated in South India. Each ancient temple of viShNu has its greatness (sthalamAhAtmya) recorded in the purANas. venkaTAdri is referred to in the vAmana, skAnda, mArkaNDeya, varAha, brAhma and pAdma purANas. The brahmANDa refers to ahobila and kAnchI. Hoary antiquity is claimed for most of them. Whether this can be upheld or not, it is not irrational to recognize the contribution made by such accounts in the purANas.

A reference to some of these shrines is found in Tamil classical texts such as SilappadikAram and ParipAdal and others. Other such works include AkanAnUru, PuranAnUru and Kalittokai. They describe viShNu graphically, depicting Him to be the foremost, and contain allusions to the divine descent of the Lord.

The above mentioned aspects of Vaishnavism are dealt with in the vaiShNava Agamas. There could have been mutual indebtedness between them and the epics and purANas which are found to make use of certain doctrines forming the fundamental principles treated in the Agamas. In the long history of the development of Hindu culture which is of an all-embracing character, the various branches of knowledge could not have rise in isolation nor undergone development and flourished without influencing one another.

The vaiShNava Agamas reveal certain peculiar traits. Firstly, the Supreme Reality is viShNu with shrI and they are inseparably associated with each other. Secondly, other deities are held to form part of the retinue of viShNu. Thirdly, the archA form of worship gets detailed treatment which includes the erection of temples and conducting private and public festivals. Lastly, they enjoin the worship in the household.

The vaiShNava Agamas are of two kinds, namely, pAncharAtra and vaikhAnasa. The former is more liberal in its outlook and practice than the latter. Tantric practices have exerted a deeper influence on the pAncharAtra than the vaikhAnasa. Tantrika mantras have little role to play in the vaikhAnasa Agama.

The vaikhAnasa Agama perhaps arose earlier than the pAncharAtra on account of its pure vedic links. The following passage indicates this conclusion:

vaikhAnasaM shrIshAstraM prAhurekAyanAbhidham |

shAstreNaikAyanAkhyenArchite.atra harau purA ||

sarve shrIharisAnnidhyaM gatA vai jIvakoTayaH |

na svargo nApi narako na janmamaraNe tathA ||

shrIshAstrasyaiva rakShArthaM pUjanArthaM tathApadi |

pA~ncharAtraM punarprAha shAstraM vaiShNavamuttamam ||

It is said that vaikhAnasa is shrIshAstra called ekAyana. When hari was worshipped in olden times in accordance with the system called vaikhAnasa, all the groups of living beings attained the presence of hari. There was then no paradise nor hell, and no birth and death. The Lord uttered the vaiShNava system of pAncharAtra to safeguard the shrIshAstra and also for preserving the mode of worship during times of danger.

Here the word shrIshAstra may be taken to mean a ‘holy system’ or a ‘system in which shrI is dealth with’. In the former case, shrI is only an honorific and in the latter, it indicates that the system is intended to glorify shrI. The word ekAyana means the only one or unique path for salvation. This is the ekAyana system mentioned in the chAndogya upaniShad as a subject of study among others. This is said to be the name of a recension of the veda which is now lost. The following passage is said to convey what this recension stood for:

tameva vidvAnamR^ita iha bhavati |

nAnyaH panthA ayanAya vidyate ||

According to this passage, a person becomes immortal here by knowing Him to be thus, that is, as depicted above in the puruSha-sUkta. The word veda is to be taken in the sense of worship or upAsanA (vedanamupAsanaM syAttadviShaye shravaNAt). As it is said here that there is no other way available to attain mokSha, this method, namely, the worship of puruSha, is to be adopted.

In the passage cited above from the vaikhAnasa Agama, it is evident that worship of the Lord takes the worshipper to Him. It is not, however, stated there that all the selves had obtained mokSha, but only that they had gone hear hari (shrIharisAnnidhya). This means that if they had not really obtained mokSha or other selves who were still waiting to be sent to the mortal world to have the experiences of the results of their past deeds, would be coming down to earth. By then, the shrIshAstra might be lost, and so the pAncharAtra was brought into being. The latter is declared to be the best vaiShNava system and intended to safeguard the vaikhAnasa system. The word prAha must indicate that pAncharAtra was uttered by hari.

The word ekAyana in the passage cited above presents a difficulty. The pAncharatra and not the vaikhAnasa is believed to be based on the ekAyana which is also called rahasyAmnAya. The references to this in many texts are not easy to reconcile with the sense of the passage cited above from the vaikhAnasa Agama. However, this statement is a good piece of evidence from the pAncharAtra being closely allied to it.

There is again a reference in the pAncharatra tradition to the offering of the effigy of a pashu made of flour (piShTa-pashu) in the sacrifice where an animal is to be slain and offered (mahAbhArata). A similar rite, with the name viShNuyAga, is referred to in the vaikhAnasa Agama. It is not clear whether it originally formed part of the pAncharAtra tradition or was adopted mainly on grounds of kindness to animals. Anyway, this sacrifice lends support to believing that both Agamas have the same tradition, though the ritual is enjoined as a means of expiation in the vaikhAnasa.

There is also another way of explaining the above passage. The ekAyana recension must have been the basic foundation for the development of the concept of absolute devotion. The vaikhAnasa must have developed out of this recension and in this respect, has to be regarded as akin to the pAncharAtra. The latter had a specific development with provision made for yantras and tAntrika mantras which are absent in the former. The two do not have much divergence in the main concepts of Vaishnavism. An upaniShad called sItopaniShad alludes to vaikhAnasa (not vikhanasa), a sage who is an exponent of such important doctrines as those relating to the three powers icchA, jnAna and kriyA, and others, which are treated only in the pAncharAtra system. This work, relatively late, seeks to show sage vaikhAnasa as associated with the pAncharAtra system. An approach on the basis of this reference may justify the passage in the samUrtArchAdhikaraNa. Yet the frequent references to the pAncharAtra as based on the ekAyana recension cannot be easily explained away.

The following verses from the pAncharAtra Agama lend support to the concept of absolute devotion of the vaikhAnasa:

vipra vaikhAnasAkhyA ye te bhaktAstattvamuchyate |

ekAntinastu sattvasthA dehAntaM nAnyayAjinaH ||

kartavyamiti deveshaM saMyajante phalaM vinA |

prApnuvanti cha dehAnte vAsudevatvamabjaja || [pauShkara]

That the vaikhAnasas do not worship any other deity and worship viShNu out of a sense of duty and without expecting any results, makes it clear that they must be following the ekAyana recension.

The bhAgavata contains a reference to vikhanas having prayed to the Lord for descending down to the earth and to the descent of the Lord in the family of the sAttvatas.

vikhanasArchito vishvaguptaye sakha udeyivAn.h sAttvatAm kule |

The word vikhanas must be taken to mean brahmA who made a request to the Lord for the divine descent on earth. vallabhAchArya, the founder of the shuddhAdvaita system of vedAnta, takes this word to mean vikhanas, the sage and founder of the vaikhAnasa system. This interpretation would support the sense of the passage cited above in the samUrtArchAdhikaraNa. Then the pAncharAtra system must be admitted to have sprung long after the vaikhAnasa. Yet the problem remains unsolved. brahmA is mentioned in the viShNupurANa and bhAgavata as having approached the Lord and made a request to Him to descend on earth. The word vikhanas means brahmA besides the sage with that name. The expression vishvaguptaye means ‘for protecting the universe’. This protection, as far as the descent of krShNa is concerned, was desired by the gods to be effected through lightening the burden on earth. The pAncharAtra doctrines receive exposition through the Lord, but the main purpose served by His descent is fulfilled only through the removal of the evil forces, and so this achievement, which is in consonance with the request made of Him by brahmA, should be considered as of primary significance. In fact, all the divine descents of the Lord have served this main purpose. It is not therefore appropriate to take the passage as being in favor of bringing the sage vikhanas into the picture. Ingenuity, however, plays the chief role in these interpretations; the context, however, does not support them.