Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

An Outline of the Religious Literature of India c11: Chapter VI

An Outline of the Religious Literature of India c11

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VI

c11.1

A. D. 900 TO 1350.

c11.2

§ 258. The sects which ruled the development of Hinduism during these centuries received their inspiration in large measure from the enthusiastic bhakti of the wandering singers of the Tamil country described in our previous chapter. Much of the peculiar fervour and attractive power of the *Bhāgavata Purāṇa* comes from the devotion of the Āḷvārs, and the introduction of their lyrics into the Śrī-Vaiṣṇava temples produced great changes and prepared the way for Rāmānuja. So the hymns of the Śaiva singers inspired Māṇikka Vāckakar, while their introduction into the temples gave the community a splendid uplift and made possible the creation of the Tamil Śaiva Siddhānta. Rāmānuja’s influence, in turn, told powerfully on all the sects. The two greatest books of the period are his *Śrī-bhāshya* and the *Bhāgavata P.* From them come two streams of bhakti characteristic of the period, the one quiet and meditative, the other explosive and emotional. The latter type of devotion can be felt in the atmosphere everywhere from the thirteenth century onward.

c11.3

§ 259. The history of the Mīmāmsā school during these centuries seems to be a blank until quite the end of the period. Then, probably about A. D. 1300, flourished Pārthasārathi

c11.4

The Muhammadan conquest of North India (1193-1203) was an immeasurable disaster to Hinduism as well as to the Hindu people, and it gave Buddhism its death-wound.

c11.5

i. HINDUISM.

c11.6

A. *The Philosophies.*

c11.7

a. *The Karma Mīmāmsā.*

c11.8

Miśra,¹ who wrote, among a number of other works on the Karma Mīmāmsā, the *Śāstra-dīpikā*, which, on account of its popular modern style, soon found readers, and has, since then, been more studied than the ancient manuals. He faithfully follows Kumārila.

c11.9

¹ His date is unknown, but as the earliest known reference to the work is in Mādhava’s *Nyāyamālāvistara* (§ 338), the above conjecture is not likely to be far from the truth. See Rāmamiśra Śāstrī, *Mīmāmsā-śloka-vārtika*, Intro., Benares, 1898.

c11.10

But, if we know little about the school itself during the period, we hear a good deal about the system outside. It is very prominent in the *Prabodhachandrodaya*,² a drama which was produced about A. D. 1065 and is described below.³ In the case of most of the theistic sects which rose to the dignity of a presentation of the Vedānta in accord with their own convictions, we find that they held the Karma Mīmāmsā as well as the Vedānta, and taught that *karma*, action, as well as *jñāna*, knowledge, was necessary for the winning of release.⁴ This is true of the Bhāgavatas, Śrī-Vaishnavas, Mādhavas, and Vishnusvāmīs, and possibly of others.

c11.11

² Taylor’s *Tr.*, pp. 13, 14, 15, 49, 61, 78 f.

c11.12

³ § 270.

c11.13

⁴ See § 285.

c11.14

b. The Vedānta.

c11.15

§ 260. Quite at the beginning of our period there appears a noteworthy bhāshya on the *Vedānta-sūtras* by a scholar named Bhāskarāchārya, and therefore often called the *Bhāskara-bhāshya*.⁵ Its interest lies in this that its standpoint is, not advaita, but bhedābheda; yet it is not one of the modern sectarian commentaries but definitely of the same type as the lost Vedānta work of Āśmarathya mentioned in the *Sūtras*.⁶ Bhāskara does not name Śaṅkara, yet he attacks him all through the commentary, and Bhāskara, in turn, is assailed by Udayana in the *Kusumāñjali*. As Udayana’s date is about A. D. 980, Bhāskara must have written between 850 and 980, and thus probably at some point near the beginning of the period.¹ He attacks the Pāñcharātra Vaishṇavas also. Yādava Prakāśa of Conjeeveram wrote a fresh advaita bhāshya about A.D. 1050, but, at a later date, was won over to Vaishṇavism by his own pupil Rāmānuja. It is not known whether the Yādava-bhāshya survives or not. But the main history of the school of the Vedānta during these centuries seems to consist in the continuous study of Śaṅkara’s Bhāshya with the help of Vāchaspati’s Bhāmatī. This belief is confirmed by the most outstanding advaita work of the period, the Vedānta-kalpataru, which was written by Amalānanda just before A.D. 1260: it is an ample exposition of the Bhāmatī.

c11.16

⁵ Thus Thibaut is mistaken in thinking that Rāmānuja’s *Śrībhāshya* is the earliest surviving bhāshya after Śaṅkara.

c11.17

⁶ See *SBE.* XXXIV. xix.

c11.18

¹ See the Bhūmikā to Vindhyeśvarī Prasād’s edition of the Bhāshya.

c11.19

Two popular advaita works might quite naturally find mention here, the Prabodhachandrodaya and the Yoga-Vasishṭha-Rāmāyaṇa; yet as their connexions are more with householders than sannyāsīs, they are dealt with elsewhere.²

c11.20

² See § 270.

c11.21

§ 261. But the most startling feature of the progress of the Vedānta during the period is the rise of the sectarian bhāshyas. The movement seems to have been created by a single man, Rāmānuja; for the great success of his Śrī-bhāshya stirred so much emulation that every sect was impelled to endeavour to produce a bhāshya that would justify its theology. As each of these theistic bhāshyas will be discussed in connexion with the sect which created it, there is no need to deal with them at length here. The dates of a few of them are still uncertain, yet we may with safety conclude that the following appeared during the period: Rāmānuja’s Śrī-bhāshya, Madhva’s Sūtra-bhāshya, Vishṇusvāmī’s Brahma-sūtra-bhāshya, and Śrīnivāsa’s Vedānta-Kaustubha.³

c11.22

³ See the table below, § 340.

c11.23

The Kusumāñjali of Udayana, which is discussed under the Nyāya philosophy,⁴ may be mentioned here as further evidence of the great vogue of theism at this stage of Hindu history. Here also we may mention an extraordinary work, which, though it shows a sceptical and destructive spirit, yet maintains the chief positions of the advaita Vedānta, the Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya, i. e. The Sweets of Refutation,¹ by Śrīharsha, the date of which is the latter half of the twelfth century.

c11.24

⁴ See § 265.

c11.25

¹ See also § 265.

c11.26

The chief Upanishad commentator during the period was Śaṅkarānanda, the guru of Mādhava, the advaita Vedantist. He must have flourished in the first half of the fourteenth century. Madhva, the founder of the Mādhva sect, left dvaita commentaries on ten of the chief Upanishads.

c11.27

§ 262. During these centuries no noticeable manual of the Sāṅkhya philosophy appeared, and the system seems to have undergone very little modification. It is described by Alberuni, the Muhammadan scholar, in his work on India dating from A.D. 1030.

c11.28

d. The Yoga.

c11.29

§ 263. The Yoga system remained almost stationary also. The only outstanding work belonging to the period is the Rājamārtaṇḍa, a commentary on the Yoga-sūtra, ascribed to Bhoja, King of Dhārā (1018–60). It is clear and easy but of no great value. Alberuni deals with the Yoga as well as the Sāṅkhya, and Garbe is inclined to believe that he used the Rājamārtaṇḍa. If that be so, it must have been written during the earliest years of the king’s reign.

c11.30

The new Yoga of Gorakshanātha, which is described below,² found no entrance into the school of Patañjali.

c11.31

² § 302.

c11.32

e. The Vaiśeshika.

c11.33

§ 264. In the tenth century two very noteworthy thinkers wrote on the Vaiśeshika system. Udayana, a writer of great clearness and force, left two works on the system. The first is the Kiraṇāvalī, or ‘Necklace of Rays’, which is a commentary on Praśastapāda’s Bhāshya. The other work, written in A.D. 984, is called the *Lakṣaṇāvalī*, or ‘Necklace of Definitions’ of Vaiśeṣika terms. Śrīdhara, the second writer, who belonged to the south-west of Bengal, is the author of a commentary on Praśastapāda called the *Nyāya-Kandalī*, which has been used as an authoritative manual ever since it was written in A.D. 991.

c11.34

f. The Nyāya.

c11.35

§ 265. Udayana wrote also on the Nyāya system. His work, which is an exposition of Vāchaspati’s *Ṭīkā*, is called the *Nyāya-vārtika-tātparya-pariśuddhi*. But Udayana is most famous for his *Kusumāñjali*, i. e. ‘Handfuls of Flowers’, a metrical treatise in seventy-two memorial couplets with a paraphrase in prose, the purpose of which is to prove the existence of God. The fact that the work is frequently called the *Nyāya Kusumāñjali*, coupled with the settled theistic teaching of the school, makes it natural we should refer to it here. Cowell, in his text and translation,¹ bespeaks a hearing for the work because,

c11.36

¹ P. v.

c11.37

though obscure and technical, it professes to grapple, from a Hindu standing-point, with the world-old problem, how the existence of the Supreme Being is to be proved; and perhaps those who are interested in the history of philosophy may turn over some of the pages with curiosity, especially when they occasionally recognize old familiar arguments and objections in their quaint Oriental disguise.

c11.38

From the eleventh century onwards the Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika form practically one combined school. The syncretism commences with Śivāditya’s *Sapta-padārtha-nirūpaṇa*,² which probably belongs to the eleventh century. It is continued in a twelfth-century work which has been widely used, the *Nyāya Chintāmaṇi* of Gaṅgeśa, in the *Tarka-bhāṣā* of Keśava of the thirteenth century, and in Śaṅkara Miśra’s *Vaiśeṣika-Sūtro-paskāra*, written in the fifteenth century. This syncretistic school has been ably described by Suali.³

c11.39

² See Keith on Suali, *JRAS*. 1914, 1089.

c11.40

³ *Introduzione allo Studio della Filosofia Indiana*.

c11.41

From the point of view of logic and dialectic, great interest attaches to that section of the *Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya*¹ which criticizes logic:

c11.42

¹ See § 261.

c11.43

The object of Harsha is to prove that the logicians with their assumption of the reality of existence were guilty of a complete blunder, and his mode of doing so is the simple one of taking each of the definitions set up by the Nyāya school and proving it to be untenable.²

c11.44

² Keith, *JRAS.* 1916, 377.

c11.45

§ 266. During the tenth and eleventh centuries logic was cultivated by Buddhists at Vikramaśīla, but the last name mentioned by Vidyābhūṣaṇa is Śaṅkarānanda,³ whose date is about A.D. 1050. Among the Jains logic was continuously studied, and logical works were produced throughout the period. Devasūri⁴ of the twelfth century was the greatest of their writers on logic, but there were many others.

c11.46

³ *MSIL.* 142.

c11.47

⁴ Ib. 38.

c11.48

§ 267. Mādhava’s *Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha* may be recommended to the student as a most helpful outline of the chief systems current in India towards the end of the period, though its date falls within the limit of the next period.⁵

c11.49

⁵ See § 345.

B. The Purāṇas.

c11.t1.1

§ 268. The emergence of the *Bhāgavata P.* is a fact of signal importance, but it is discussed at another point.⁶ If there was already a Canon of eighteen Purāṇas in the ninth century, the rise of the *Bhāgavata* to a position of such authority as to require recognition in the Canon would create a difficulty. The confusion which the lists show to-day may be the direct result of that circumstance.⁷

c11.t1.2

⁶ See § 272.

c11.t1.3

⁷ If the old Canon stood as follows:—Brahma, Padma, Viṣṇu, Vāyu, Śiva, Nārada, Mārkaṇḍeya, Agni, Bhavishya, Brahmavaivārta, Liṅga, Varāha, Skanda, Vāmana, Kūrma, Matsya, Garuḍa, Brahmāṇḍa, the substitution of the *Bhāgavata* for the *Śiva*, followed by various attempts to find a place for the expelled Purāṇa, would account for all the phenomena.

c11.t1.4

In the present state of Puranic study, it is very hard to date individual documents occurring in Purāṇas, but the evidence available suggests that the following may belong to the period:

c11.t1.5

Vaishṇava: *Narasimha Upapurāṇa*; part of the *Pātāla Khaṇḍa* of the *Padma P.*, which praises the *Bhāgavata*; the *Uttara Khaṇḍa*, which is *Śrī-Vaishṇava*. Śaiva: *Vāyavīya S.* of the *Śiva P.* Śākta: *Devī Bhāgavata Upapurāṇa*. Saura: *Brahma P.* xxi-xxviii. Gāṇapatya: *Gaṇeśa Upapurāṇa*.

C. Smārta Literature.

c11.t2.1

§ 269. The most noticeable piece of Vedic literature produced during this period is Bhaṭṭa Bhāskara Miśra’s¹ commentaries on the *Taittirīya Saṃhitā*, *Āraṇyaka*, and *Upanishad* of the Black *Yajus*. He lived in the Telugu country, belonged to the Ātreya *Śākhā* of the Taittirīya school, and wrote his commentary on the *Saṃhitā* in A.D. 1188.²

c11.t2.2

¹ To be carefully distinguished from Bhāskarācārya who wrote the *Bhāskara Bhāshya*, above, § 260.

c11.t2.3

² The *Śloka* in the *Bhāshya* on the *Saṃhitā* in the Mysore Text reads *Nishpāvāke śake*, 1410 in the Śaka era, i.e. 1488-9. But the commentary is unquestionably earlier than Sāyaṇa. We must therefore suppose that the *śloka* ought to be read *nishpāpāke śake*, 1110 Śaka, i.e. A.D. 1188-9. The confusion of *p* and *v* in a South Indian MS. is a very likely error. I owe this note to Prof. Keith. Cf. also Śeshagiri Rao, *SSTM.* 1893-4, p. 3.

c11.t2.4

Hemādri, a learned Brāhman, held the office of chief minister at the Yādava court in the Marāṭhā country under two kings towards the end of the thirteenth century, and was clearly a man of much influence. He wrote an encyclopaedia of orthodox Hindu observances, the *Caturvargacintāmaṇi*, a work of large importance to Smārtas.

c11.t2.5

§ 270. Several pieces of popular literature written from the standpoint of the advaita Vedānta during the period were probably meant for Smārta householders rather than for sannyāsīs, and ought therefore to be mentioned here.

c11.t2.6

At the court of Kīrtivarman, the Chandel king of Jejākabhukti, about the year 1065 and possibly in the city of Khajuraho, there was produced a Sanskrit drama called *Prabodhacandrodaya*, i.e. The Moonrise of Wisdom. The author was a sannyāsī named Kṛṣṇamiśra. The play is an allegory of the deliverance of the human spirit from the temptations and delusions of the world. Viṣṇu-bhakti stirs up Discrimination, and, using the Upanishads, Faith, Good Sense, and their numerous allies, inflicts a signal defeat on Delusion, Love, Greed, and their many attendants. The rise (*udaya*) of Wisdom (*prabodha*) naturally follows, and the human spirit realizes its own absolute identity with God, renounces Action, and adopts dispassionate Asceticism as the only right rule of life. The number of abstract conceptions which take part as persons in the play make it rather hard to follow, but it contains abundance of life and movement also. Apart from the fact that Viṣṇu-bhakti plays a leading part, there is no aggressive Vaiṣṇavism in the play. The supreme Brahman is definitely called Viṣṇu, and several times his incarnations are referred to, especially Kṛṣṇa, but it goes no further. There are no references to Vaiṣṇava literature, and Lakṣmī is mentioned only once. The philosophy is pure Advaitism. The scenes in which followers of Buddhism, Jainism, Materialism, the Karma Mīmāṃsā, the Sāṅkhya, Yoga, and Nyāya philosophies and the Kāpālika form of Śaivism are represented in discussion with one another are amongst the most vivid and interesting in the play. In the great battle the Buddhists, the Jains, and the materialist Lokāyatas, or Chārvākas, range themselves with Kāma and the Vices under their general, Moha, while Vaiṣṇavas, Śaivas, and Sauras gather round the goddess Sarasvatī, and are aided by all the six orthodox philosophies and by Grammar and the Virtues to inflict a signal defeat on the atheist host. When the question is raised how these ever-hostile Hindu disputants brought themselves to any common action, a sufficient reason is found in hostility to the common foe, and we are told that wise men perceive that the orthodox sects and philosophies are only seemingly opposed to each other, that in truth they all celebrate the one Reality. So far as the writer knows, this is the first time the idea of the inner harmony of the Hindu systems finds expression in Hindu literature.

c11.t2.7

The *Yoga-Vāsiṣṭha-Rāmāyaṇa* is one of many Sanskrit poems written in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries to popularize a philosophy or the theology of a sect. It is scarcely parallel with the *Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇa*; for the story of Rāma here serves merely as a dramatic setting for the exposition of the Vedānta. It is a very long and diffuse poem, running to some 32,000 stanzas. The system taught is the advaita Vedānta, but there already appears in it that admixture of Sāṅkhya ideas which is still more prominent in Mādhava and Vijñāna Bhikshu. The value of yoga is also emphasized. It may date from about A.D. 1300, or earlier.

c11.t2.8

The Right-hand movement among Śāktas, which is described below,¹ can be traced from the period, and is probably older. As all its connexions are with Vedic Hinduism, it ought to be mentioned here as affecting the religious practice of many Smārtas.

c11.t2.9

¹ § 317.

D. Vaiṣṇava Literature.

c11.t3.1

a. General.

c11.t3.2

§ 271. The only type of general Vaiṣṇava literature belonging to this period consists of translations or adaptations of the Epics. It is important to realize that vernacular versions of ancient religious books are usually literary rather than religious in their influence. The *Mahābhārata* appeared in Tamil in the tenth century and in Telugu in the eleventh, while the *Rāmāyaṇa* was rendered in Telugu about 1100 and in Tamil in the twelfth century. Jain adaptations of the two Epics were written in Kanarese verse, the *Mahābhārata* in the tenth, the *Rāmāyaṇa* in the eleventh. But all the greatest Vaiṣṇava literature was produced by the Sects.

c11.t3.3

b. *Bhāgavata Literature.*
1. *The Bhāgavata Purāṇa.*

c11.t3.4

§ 272. About the beginning of this period the *Bhāgavata P.* seems to have been born from the Bhāgavata community; and during the following centuries a number of new sects sprang from the influence of the Purāṇa. Under this heading we therefore comprehend all the work produced both by the parent body and the dependent sects. Of the two dominating events of this period the earlier is the appearance and the influence of this great Purāṇa. No theory of its date and origin yet advanced has been accepted by scholars as satisfactory. Can sufficient fresh evidence now be produced to bring the problem nearer solution?

c11.t3.5

§ 273. The work has several characteristic features. While the *Harivaṃśa* and the *Viṣṇu P.* each gives some account of Kṛṣṇa's youth spent among the gopās and gopīs of Vṛndāvana and its neighbourhood, they deal with the whole life of Kṛṣṇa. The *Bhāgavata* scarcely refers to his later life, but spends all its strength over his boyhood and youth. Secondly, the gopīs play a very large part in the work. Rādhā does not appear: she is a later creation. Yet there is a favourite among the gopīs who wanders alone with Kṛṣṇa; and the other gopīs remark that she must surely have worshipped Kṛṣṇa in a former life with more devotion than the rest, and in that way must have won her favoured position.

c11.t3.6

The *Bhāgavata* is really a great work. What distinguishes it from all earlier literature is its new theory of *bhakti*; and therein lies its true greatness. Some of its utterances on this subject are worthy of a place in the best literature of mysticism and devotion. A careful study of those passages will convince the student that they are expressions of a living religious experience.¹ We may with absolute certainty conclude that the work arose in some centre where there was a group of Vaiṣṇava ascetics who lived a life of fervent devotion, and that the writer’s religious experience was rooted there. In this rich religious element lies the chief source of the power of the *Bhāgavata*. Hence the hold it has had on some of the best Vaiṣṇava communities and on many of the noble minds of India.

c11.t3.7

¹ This element may be most conveniently studied in the *Bhaktiratnāvalī*, a collection of *bhakti* passages from the *Bhāgavata* made by a Mādhva ascetic named Viṣṇu Purī.

c11.t3.8

Bhakti in this work is a surging emotion which chokes the speech, makes the tears flow and the hair thrill with pleasurable excitement, and often leads to hysterical laughing and weeping by turns, to sudden fainting fits and to long trances of unconsciousness. We are told that it is produced by gazing at the images of Kṛṣṇa, singing his praises, remembering him in meditation, keeping company with his devotees, touching their bodies, serving them lovingly, hearing them tell the mighty deeds of Kṛṣṇa, and talking with them about his glory and his love. All this rouses the passionate bhakti which will lead to self-consecration to Kṛṣṇa and life-long devotion to his service. Such devotion leads speedily to release. Thus the whole theory and practice of bhakti in this purāṇa is very different from the bhakti of the *Bhagavad-gītā* and of Rāmānuja.

c11.t3.9

But we must also recognize in the *Bhāgavata* the presence of another fresh element of a very different character, a long series of highly erotic passages which go far beyond anything the *Viṣṇu P.* and the *Harivaṃśa* contain, and which seem to consort ill with the high devotion to the Lord and the service of his saints which we have been considering. In these passages Kṛṣṇa’s dalliance with the gopīs is described in sensuous and glowing poetry which captivates the Hindu heart. The tenth book, which contains them, has been translated into all the chief languages of India. Yet the author expects these highly wrought narratives of the passions of the gopīs to stimulate bhakti. The utter self-abandonment of their love for Kṛṣṇa has come to be regarded as a symbol of spiritual devotion. Meditation on these scenes is expected to produce that passionate bhakti which is regarded as the highest religious experience. This, the leading religious idea of the *Bhāgavata*, lies at the foundation of the whole series of sects which sprang from it.

c11.t3.10

Another noticeable feature of the Purāṇa is this, that its philosophic teaching stands nearer to Śaṅkara’s system than to the theistic Sāṅkhya which dominates earlier Puranic works.

c11.t3.11

§ 274. All scholars agree that it is the latest of the eighteen Purāṇas. Old material has been incorporated into it, but as a work it is the latest of all. In the fourth chapter of the first book of the Purāṇa itself there is a passage which implies that it was composed last of all the eighteen; and there is a late section in the *Padma P.* which states that Vyāsa promulgated the *Bhāgavata* last of all as the extracted essence of all the rest.

c11.t3.12

Hindu estimates of the age of the work vary to an extraordinary extent, some assigning it to the earliest times, others attributing it to Vopadeva, a well-known scholar of the second half of the thirteenth century. Even in the time of Śrīdhara Svāmī, the author of the most famous commentary on it, who probably lived about A.D. 1400, there were Hindus who said it had been written by Vopadeva, a fact which seems to imply that scholarly Hindus of those days suspected that it was a late production. All European scholars have spoken of it as a late work, but, while Colebrooke, Burnouf, and Wilson accept the suggestion that it is the work of Vopadeva, students to-day are inclined to give it a higher date. And the truth is that it is quite impossible to believe that Vopadeva was the author; for Madhva, who regarded it as fully inspired and used it in the creation of his sect, lived at least fifty years earlier than Vopadeva. Vopadeva’s name became associated with the Purāṇa because he wrote several books on it. But the belief in its inspiration implies its existence for some considerable time before the days of Madhva’s activity; and, fortunately, we possess another piece of evidence which proves clearly that it was already recognized as an authoritative work some two centuries before Madhva wrote. Alberuni, in his work on India, which was completed in A.D. 1030, gives us the list of Purāṇas as it was in the *Viṣṇu P.* in his day, and it is precisely the same as the list in our MSS. of to-day. Thus it is absolutely clear that by 1030 the *Bhāgavata* had not only been written but had already gained such acceptance as to have won its present recognized place as the fifth of the Purāṇas. We must, then, acknowledge that it can scarcely have been written later than, say, A.D. 900.

c11.t3.13

§ 275. Can we discern where it was written? There is a passage in the eleventh book¹ which suggests that it may have been in the Tamil country. The passage runs thus in English:

c11.t3.14

¹ XI. v. 38-40. It is quoted in another connexion by Govindāchārya, *JRAS.* 1911, 949.

c11.t3.15

Men born in the Kṛita, Tretā, Dvāpara ages wished to take birth in the Kali age, because they knew that in this age would be born great souls devoted to Nārāyaṇa. These souls would be thinly scattered in various places; but in the Drāviḍa land they would be found in some numbers, living by the side of such rivers as the Tāmraparṇī, Kṛitamālā, Payaśvinī, Kāverī the holy.

c11.t3.16

Then in the *Bhāgavata Māhātmya*, a late appendix to the *Bhāgavata*, there is an episode² which bears on the question, but which cannot be understood unless we distinguish carefully between ordinary bhakti and the bhakti of the *Bhāgavata P.* In this episode bhakti, incarnate as a young woman, says, ‘I was born in Drāviḍa’. Now to say that the bhakti of the *Śvetāśvatara Upanishad*, the *Gītā*, and the early Purāṇas was born in Drāviḍa would be absurd; but if we realize that, in this appendix to the *Bhāgavata*, bhakti necessarily means the passionate and many-sided devotion of the great Purāṇa, there is no difficulty, and it becomes clear that the work asserts that this bhakti arose in Tamil-land. Now, it was in the Tamil country, by the side of the rivers just mentioned, that those Vaishṇava poet-singers who are known as Āḷvārs composed their hymns and went from shrine to shrine, singing and dancing in fervent devotion before images of Viṣṇu and his Avatāras. Their period is the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries. No other group of early Vaishṇavas exhibit so much excitement in their bhakti. Further, many of the temples they frequented were dedicated to both Vishṇu and Śiva.¹ We may thus be certain that the ministrants of those temples were Bhāgavatas, and that a considerable section of the people belonged to that community. Now, if in the Tamil-country there was a group of Bhāgavata ascetics who felt the same devotion as the Āḷvārs and expressed it in similar fashion, we should have precisely the ‘great souls devoted to Nārāyaṇa’ mentioned in the Bhāgavata, and in such circumstances the bhakti referred to in the Bhāgavata Māhātmya would be born.

c11.t3.17

² I. 27. Grierson, *JRAS.* 1911, 800.

c11.t3.18

¹ Kṛiṣhṇa Śāstrī, SII. 72.

c11.t3.19

§ 276. It thus seems natural to conjecture that the Bhāgavata was written about A. D. 900, in the Tamil country, in some community of ascetics belonging to the Bhāgavata sect who felt and gave expression to the bhakti characteristic of the work. If it arose in such a centre, the advaita philosophy would inevitably be one of its characteristics, and it would naturally receive the name Bhāgavata.

c11.t3.20

2. The Bhāgavatas.

c11.t3.21

§ 277. We now turn to the sects. If the Purāṇa arose in the way we suggest, one would expect that it would gradually find acceptance among Bhāgavatas all over the country; and that clearly happened. Whether in the Tamil, Telugu, Kanarese, or Marāṭhā districts, the Bhāgavata P. is the chief scripture of the Bhāgavatas.

c11.t3.22

The Nārada-bhakti-sūtra and the Śāṇḍilya-bhakti-sūtra are brief compendiums of the bhakti system, probably meant to be committed to memory by ascetics. Both are clearly dependent on the Bhāgavata P., and neither mentions Rādhā. The Nārada is simple both in language and thought, and is practical in aim; the Śāṇḍilya is sūtra-like and philosophic, its standpoint being bhedābheda. The Bhāgavatas of the south use only the *Nārada*. It is probable that it was produced among the Bhāgavatas at quite an early date. The connexions of the *Śāṇḍilya-sūtra*, which has been much used in the north, are still obscure. It may be a Nimbārkite document.

c11.t3.23

It seems clear that the *Vāsudeva* and *Gopīchandana* Upanishads¹ are Bhāgavata books; for the *Ūrddhvapuṇḍra* made with a single line of creamy *gopīchandana*, which these Upanishads praise, is the Bhāgavata sect-mark. As Nārāyaṇa wrote commentaries on them, they belong to this period.

c11.t3.24

¹ Jacob, *EAU.* 5 ff.

c11.t3.25

Towards the end of the thirteenth century, Vopadeva, a famous grammarian belonging to the Marāṭhā country, wrote several works on the *Bhāgavata P.*, the chief of which were the *Harilīlā*, which is an abstract of the Purāṇa, and the *Muktāphala*, which sums up its teaching. His name thus became associated with the Purāṇa, and the myth about its authorship arose.

c11.t3.26

3. The Bhaktas of the Marāṭhā country.

c11.t3.27

§ 278. The Vaishṇavas of the Marāṭhā country are Bhāgavatas, but it is not known when the *Bhāgavata P.* began to be used by them. In the thirteenth century the movement became a popular one, and all their literature is in the vernacular; so that there are marked differences between them and the Bhāgavatas of the Tamil and Kanarese districts. The unbroken tradition of the country is that the Bhakti movement began with a poet named Jñāneśvara, who is popularly called Dnyāndev or Dnyānobā. According to another tradition, which appears in the *Bhakta Mālā*, was a disciple of Vishṇusvāmī.

c11.t3.28

Jñāneśvara is the author of a work in Marāṭhī verse on the *Bhagavadgītā* called the *Jñāneśvarī*, which runs to 10,000 couplets. Its date is A. D. 1290. The work is advaitist in tone, but it also lays great stress on yoga, and the author says he is the disciple of Nivṛttināth, the disciple of Gaṇināth, the disciple of Gorakhnāth.¹ He is also the author of the *Haripāṭh*, a collection of 28 *abhaṅgs*, or hymns. His poetry decidedly shows the influence of the *Bhāgavata*, and his note is that of an enthusiastic bhakta. Tradition makes him the greatest of a group of saints. His poems are philosophical in tone and full of reflective thought, and have had a great and lasting influence on the educated classes. There need be no doubt that he was the coryphaeus of the whole bhakti movement of the Marāṭhā country. It is not at all unlikely that he should have also come under the personal influence of Viṣṇusvāmī, who was probably his senior by some thirty or forty years at most.² That would account for the fact that, while scholarly Marāṭhā Bhāgavatas still use the old Bhāgavata mantra, *Oṃ namo Bhagavate Vāsudevāya*, the mantra in common use is *Rāma-Kṛṣṇa Hari*, which is the Viṣṇusvāmī Mantra.³ It ought to be noticed, however, that Jñāneśvara and the other Marāṭhā bhaktas do not, like Viṣṇusvāmī, recognize Rādhā. He is also the author of the *Amṛtānubhava*, an advaita Śaiva philosophical work in Marāṭhī verse. He was thus a true Bhāgavata, honouring Śiva as well as Viṣṇu, and following Śaṅkara in philosophy.

c11.t3.29

¹ This statement occurs in his *Amṛtānubhava*.

c11.t3.30

² See below, § 281.

c11.t3.31

³ See § 281.

c11.t3.32

4. The Mādhvas.

c11.t3.33

§ 279. The first sect directly founded on the *Bhāgavata P.* seems to have been the Mādhvas. They are simply an offshoot from the Bhāgavatas, the sole reason for the schism being the detestation in which the founder held Śaṅkara’s Vedānta. Madhva (1199-1278),⁴ the founder, was born at Udipi in South Kanara, and organized his sect in the early decades of the thirteenth century. While still quite young, he became a sannyāsī, and received a training in Śaṅkara’s system. But in addition to the regular Vedānta treatises, he gave much time to the *Aitareya U.*, the *Mahābhārata*, and the *Bhāgavata P.* This last work clearly dominated his religious life. Before his period of training was over, he broke away from Śaṅkara. Soon after, he began public discussion, and gradually formed a system for himself, based in the main on the *Bhāgavata P.* He was successful in gathering a community of some size and in winning a number of notable converts. The theology which he taught is in many points like Rāmānuja’s; but the philosophy is frankly dualistic. He distinguishes very sharply between man and God, and thus stands further away from Śaṅkara than any other exponent of the *Vedānta-sūtras*, except perhaps Viṣṇusvāmī. Apart from the theology, his system is very similar to that of the *Bhāgavata* sect. The centre of the religion is the adoration of Kṛṣṇa by bhakti, as taught in the *Bhāgavata*, without recognition of Rādhā; but all the other avatāras are reverenced. Śiva also is worshippped, and the five Gods are recognized.

c11.t3.34

⁴ Bhandarkar, *VS.* 58 f.; Grierson, *ERE.* VIII. 232.

c11.t3.35

Madhva’s chief works are his *Bhāshya* and *Anuvyākhyāna*, both on the *Vedānta-sūtras*. The *Bhāshya* is a comparatively short prose treatise, which seeks to show by an array of proof-texts that Madhva’s explanation of the *Sūtras* is the only right one. The texts are drawn from (*a*) the *Ṛigveda*, (*b*) the Upanishads and the *Gītā*, (*c*) the Purāṇas, the Vaiṣṇava Saṃhitās, and other late works. The book is thus of very little interest except as an account of the teaching of the sect.¹ His exposition of the *Bhāgavata*, the *Bhāgavata-tātparya-nirṇaya*, and a companion volume on the *Mahābhārata* are also works of considerable importance for the sect. He wrote commentaries on ten Upanishads.

c11.t3.36

¹ It also gives us many quotations from the Purāṇas and Saṃhitās which ought to be useful as revealing in part the condition of these texts in his time. The Saṃhitās quoted are the *Bhāgavata*, *Varāha*, *Nārāyaṇa*, *Purushottama*, *Parama*, *Māyāvaibhava*, which occur in Schrader’s list, *IPAS.* 6 ff.; and the *Vyoma*, *Bṛihat*, and *Mahā* besides. The *Bṛihat* is quoted by Mādhava in his exposition of Mādhvism: *SDS.* v.

c11.t3.37

The followers of Śaṅkarāchārya opposed and persecuted Madhva with a good deal of bitterness; so that ever since those days there has been little love lost between the two groups. Madhva believed himself to be an incarnation of Vāyu, and, probably as a result of Śaṅkarite persecution, he taught that Śaṅkara was a reincarnation of an obscure demon named Maṇimat who appears in the *Mahābhārata*.¹

c11.t3.38

¹ Śaṅkara's demon-origin is mentioned in Madhva's exposition of the *Mahābhārata*. After his death, Paṇḍit Nārāyaṇa, the son of one of his disciples, published two Sanskrit works, the *Manimañjarī* and the *Madhavavijaya*, in which the theory of the two incarnations is fully set forth. See Grierson, *ERE.*, VIII. 232. It is possible that the Śaṅkaravijayas were written as a counterblast to these Mādhva works. A long polemic against Mādhvism has also been interpolated into the *Saura Purāṇa*.

c11.t3.39

About half a century after Madhva's death, Jayatīrtha was the head of the sect. His commentaries on the founder's most important works are amongst the chief books of the sect.

c11.t3.40

5. Rādhā.

c11.t3.41

§ 280. Neither the Bhāgavatas, nor the Mādhvas recognize Rādhā: they do not go beyond what is contained in the *Bhāgavata*. But all the later sects who depend on the great Purāṇa do recognize Rādhā. We must therefore ask whence her story came.

c11.t3.42

We have seen above that in the *Bhāgavata P.* there is a gopī whom Kṛṣṇa favours so much as to wander with her alone, and that the rest of the gopīs surmise that she must have worshipped Kṛṣṇa with peculiar devotion in a previous life to have thus won his special favour. This seems to be the source whence Rādhā arose, and it is probable that the name Rādhā comes from the root *rādh* in the sense of conciliating, pleasing. She is thus the pleasing one. In what book she first appeared is not yet known, but an Indian scholar² suggests to me that it may have been the *Gopāla-tāpanī-Upanishad*, which contains an account of Rādhā, and is reverenced by all Rādhā-worshipping sects.

c11.t3.43

² Paṇḍita Rādhā Charaṇa Gosvāmī of Brindāban.

c11.t3.44

Two early sects recognize Rādhā, the Viṣṇusvāmīs and the Nimbārkas, but the chronology and the relationships are still obscure. Tradition sets the leaders in the following order, Madhva, Viṣṇusvāmī, Nimbārka; and that order seems to fit in with their teaching; for Madhva does not recognize Rādhā at all, and Viṣṇusvāmī’s theology is very similar to Madhva’s, while Nimbārka strikes out quite a new line for himself. Yet the seemingly natural may not be the historical order. There is one historical fact which necessarily suggests a doubt: it is quite clear that Rādhā was worshipped and praised in song in North India before Madhva’s day; for Jayadeva’s Gītāgovinda belongs to the end of the twelfth century. There is a tradition in Bengal that Jayadeva was a Nimbarkite; but in the Gītāgovinda Rādhā is the mistress, not the consort, of Kṛiṣhṇa, as she is in Nimbārka’s theology.¹

c11.t3.45

¹ He lived under Laksmaṇa Sena, King of Bengal, who reigned c. 1170–1200 (Smith, EHI. 403); and some of his verses appear in the Sadukti-karṇāmṛita, an anthology by Śrīdhara Dāsa, which dates apparently from A. D. 1205. The chronology is also opposed to his being a Nimbarkite.

c11.t3.46

Sufficient evidence does not seem to be available to settle the question, but we may conjecture that the myth of Rādhā grew up quite spontaneously at Brindāban on the basis of the narrative of the Bhāgavata P., and that her worship was organized there, perhaps about A. D. 1100, and thence spread to Bengal and elsewhere. If that is the history, Jayadeva’s poetry, on the one hand, and the rise of the two sects, on the other, are easily explainable; and it is possible that Nimbārka may have developed his Rādhā-theology at Brindāban while Viṣṇusvāmī was forming his simpler system in the south.

c11.t3.47

6. The Viṣṇusvāmīs.

c11.t3.48

§ 281. Of Viṣṇusvāmī very little is known, but it is believed that he belonged to the South. His system is precisely like the Mādhva system, except that Rādhā is acknowledged. She is simply Kṛiṣhṇa’s favourite among the gopīs, his mistress. Viṣṇusvāmī, like Madhva, is a dualist, quite as pronounced as Madhva, if not more so. Tradition states that he wrote commentaries on the Gītā, the Vedānta-sūtras, and the Bhāgavata P. His Bhāgavata-bhāshya is referred to by Śrīdhara Svāmin in his comment on *Bhāgavata P.* I. 7; and it is said that the work survives, but it has not been seen by any scholar. In Mādhava’s *Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha* there is a reference to Viṣṇusvāmī’s devoted adherent, Śrīkānta Miśra,¹ and to a work by him named *Sākāra-siddhi*, the teaching of which is clearly dualist. The *Bhakta-mālā* says that Viṣṇusvāmī was also the teacher of Jñāneśvara, the Marāṭhā bhakta; and the story is probably true.² In any case it is clear that the sect was widespread and popular for centuries.³ The sectarian mantras are said to be *Oṃ Rāma-Kṛṣṇāya namaḥ*, and *Oṃ Rāma-Kṛṣṇa Hari*. The Viṣṇusvāmīs and all other Rādhā-worshipping sects use the *Gopālatāpanīya U.* and the *Gopālasahasranāma*.

c11.t3.49

¹ Cowell, p. 141.

c11.t3.50

² See § 278.

c11.t3.51

³ For a suggestion with regard to the *Nārada Pañcharātra*, see § 377.

c11.t3.52

The Bhāgavatas, the Mādhavas and the Viṣṇusvāmīs, like Rāmānuja,⁴ uphold the *Samuchchhaya* doctrine; i. e. they teach that, in seeking release, men should perform their full religious duty as Hindus as well as seek the knowledge of Brahman, while Śaṅkara finds release in knowledge alone.

c11.t3.53

⁴ See § 285.

c11.t3.54

7. The Nimbārkas.

c11.t3.55

§ 282. Nimbārka was a scholarly Bhāgavata from the Telugu country who settled at Brindāban, accepted the story of Rādhā, and created a sect of his own. The date is uncertain.⁵ Nimbārka’s philosophic position is *bhedābheda*, dualistic monism.⁶ He was considerably influenced by Rāmānuja, and, like him, laid great stress on meditation. He goes far beyond Viṣṇusvāmī in his account of Rādhā. She is Kṛṣṇa’s eternal consort, and lives for ever with him in the Cow-world, Goloka, far above all the other heavens. Like her lord, she became incarnate in Brindāban, and was his wedded wife there. The story of the gopīs remains unchanged. To Nimbārka Kṛṣṇa is not a mere incarnation of Viṣṇu: he is the eternal Brahman, and from him springs Rādhā, and also uncounted gopās and gopīs, who sport with them in Goloka. Nimbārka thus necessarily centred all his devotion on Kṛṣṇa and his consort, to the exclusion of other gods. He thus gave up the Smārta position of the Bhāgavatas, and became fully sectarian. All the later sects owe a great deal to him. He wrote a short commentary, a sort of Vṛtti, on the Vedānta-sūtras called Vedānta-parijāta-saurabha, and a poem of ten stanzas, the Daśaślokī, which contains the quintessence of his system; but the Bhāshya of the sect is Śrīnivāsa’s Vedānta-Kaustubha, a lengthy work of considerable merit. Later leaders also produced scholarly works. Nimbārkas use the Gautamīya S.¹ for their ritual; and the Kṛṣṇa section of the Brahma-vaivarta P. seems to be a Nimbārka document interpolated into the Purāṇa. The Śāṇḍilya-bhakti-sūtra may be of Nimbārkite origin.²

c11.t3.56

⁵ See Bhandarkar, VS. 62.

c11.t3.57

⁶ As Nimbārka’s original name is said to have been Bhāskara, it has been suggested that he is identical with Bhāskarāchārya, who wrote the *Bhedābheda bhāshya* about A. D. 900: see § 260. But the mere coincidence of name is scarcely sufficient to outweigh the following considerations. It is extremely unlikely that one man should write a pure Vedānta bhāshya and also a sectarian Vṛtti; and, as our knowledge of the literature stands at present, it would seem probable that the name of Rādhā and her worship appeared at Brindāban at a date considerably lāter than Bhāskarāchārya, say about A. D. 1100.

c11.t3.58

¹ Schrader, IPAS. 7, no. 44.

c11.t3.59

² See § 277.

c11.t3.60

c. Pāñcharātra Literature.

c11.t3.61

1. The Śrī-Vaishṇavas.

c11.t3.62

§ 283. The Śrī-Vaishṇavas of the Tamil country reached the summit of their history during these centuries, and became the model on which many other sects sought to form their literature and organization. The introduction of the singing of the enthusiastic lyrics of the Āḻvārs³ into the temple service of the sect is an event of much importance. The use of Tamil in the worship brought the cult nearer the people; and the rich and passionate devotion of the hymns made the bhakti of the sect more vivid and real. The man to whom Vaishṇavas owe the change is Nāthamuni.¹ His date has been disputed, but the end of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh century seems to satisfy the evidence best.² He gathered the hymns of Nammāḷvār and of the other Āḷvārs, arranged them in four groups of about a thousand stanzas each, and set them to Dravidian music. The whole collection is called *Nālāyira Prabandham*, or book of four thousand hymns. He also succeeded in arranging for the regular singing of these hymns in the great temple of Śrīraṅgam at Trichinopoly, where he resided. The practice spread to other shrines, and now obtains in most of the more important temples.

c11.t3.63

³ See § 217.

c11.t3.64

¹ He was the grandfather of Yāmunāchārya, whom Rāmānuja succeeded at Śrīraṅgam.

c11.t3.65

² He was a contemporary of Nambi and of Rājarāja the Great. See § 306.

c11.t3.66

But Nāthamuni was also a theologian and teacher. Under him a school of combined Sanskrit and Tamil scholarship arose at Śrīraṅgam,³ whence he is called the first Āchārya of the sect. The study of the *Nālāyira Prabandham* was one of the chief parts of the curriculum, and a series of commentaries was written on them.

c11.t3.67

³ At quite an early date another school rose in the neighbourhood of Tinnevelly. Govindāchārya, *JRAS*, 1912, 714.

c11.t3.68

The succession of teachers is Nāthamuni, Puṇḍarīkāksha, Rāmamiśra, Yāmunāchārya. Of the second and third⁴ very little is known, but the fourth, who was the grandson of Nāthamuni and lived in the middle of the eleventh century, was a competent scholar and left several significant works. He was a sannyāsī, like the other teachers of the school. His chief books are the *Siddhitraya*, which seeks to establish the reality of the human soul in opposition to the school of Śaṅkara, the *Āgamapramāṇya*, on the authority of the Vaishṇava Āgamas or Saṃhitās, and the *Gītārtha-saṅgraha*, an exposition of the *Bhagavadgītā*, all in Sanskrit. In these works is found the earliest statement of the Viśishṭādvaita philosophy, of which Rāmānuja is the classical exponent.

c11.t3.69

⁴ But see Rajagopalachariar, *VRI*.

c11.t3.70

§ 284. Rāmānuja received his early philosophical training at Śrīraṅgam.

c11.t3.71

in Conjeeveram from a teacher belonging to the school of Śaṅkara, named Yādava Prakāśa,¹ but he disagreed with his guru and adhered to the modified monism which was taught at Śrīraṅgam. He was still a young man when Yāmunāchārya died. Although he had not been trained in the school, he was already so prominent as a Vaishṇava scholar that he was invited to succeed him. He accepted the invitation, but did not settle down to teaching until he had learned all he could from former pupils of the school. The appointment gave him control of the temple of Śrīraṅgam as well as of the school, and also a sort of pontifical authority in the sect. He was most successful as a teacher and controversialist. For some twenty years he lectured, held discussions and wrote books. The sect grew steadily in influence. He produced three philosophical works of importance, the Vedārthasaṅgraha, which seeks to show that the Upanishads do not teach a strict monism, the Śrībhāshya, a commentary on the Vedānta-sūtras, and a Gītā-bhāshya. The Śrībhāshya is a fine piece of work.

c11.t3.72

¹ See § 260.

c11.t3.73

§ 285. The system taught in these works antagonizes Śaṅkara’s illusionary monism with great skill and thoroughness, and also opposes the Bhedābheda system of Bhāskarāchārya.² Rāmānuja follows a long succession of theistic scholars, the most famous being Bodhāyana, who lived before Śaṅkara and wrote a gloss, Vṛitti, on the Vedānta-sūtras, now unhappily lost.³ The following summary of the system is abridged from Thibaut :⁴

c11.t3.74

² See § 260.

c11.t3.75

³ See § 193.

c11.t3.76

⁴ SBE. XXXIV. xxvii ff.

c11.t3.77

There exists only one all-embracing being called Brahman, who is endowed with all imaginable auspicious qualities. The Lord is all-pervading, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-merciful; his nature is fundamentally antagonistic to all evil. He contains within himself whatever exists—material or immaterial—and is the ‘internal ruler’ of all. Matter and souls, as forming the body of the Lord, exist in two different, periodically alternating, conditions. During the period of world-rest, matter and souls being apart from bodies, their intelligence is in a state of contraction. The Lord is then said to be in his casual condition. When the period comes to an end, creation takes place owing to an act of volition on the Lord’s part. Unevolved matter then, evolving, acquires its sensible characteristics, while souls enter into connexion with bodies, and their intelligence undergoes expansion.

c11.t3.78

Owing to former actions, souls are implicated in the process of transmigration; and from this Release is possible only through true knowledge of the Lord, which rests on a study of the scripture and consists in constant devotion (bhakti) to him and meditation (upāsana) on him. The released soul enters paradise and enjoys intercourse with the Lord for ever.

c11.t3.79

The Lord is a personal being. Brahman is but another name for Nārāyaṇa-Viṣṇu, the god of the Vaiṣṇava sect.

c11.t3.80

Warm-hearted devotion to a god must have been a frequent element in early Hindu religious feeling, and as early as the Śvetāśvatara U., which probably dates from about the fourth century B.C., we find it spoken of as an important part of the highest religion. In the Gītā its place is more distinctly affirmed. Here in the school of Rāmānuja it becomes still more prominent, for it is the loftiest and most important factor in the means of deliverance. It remains, however, quiet and meditative, an aspect of man’s reaching out towards fuller knowledge of God, and thus very different from the bhakti of the Bhāgavata P.

c11.t3.81

Rāmānuja holds, in opposition to Śaṅkara, that the man who wishes to win release ought to continue to do his duties as a Hindu while he seeks the knowledge of Brahman with a view to final release. Works and knowledge are both necessary for the great end in view. This is called the Samuchchhaya or ‘combination’ doctrine. The serious seeker ought therefore to study the Karma Mīmāmsā as well as the Vedānta. This theory is then typified in the fact that sannyāsīs of the school of Rāmānuja do not lay aside the sacred thread. They continue the worship of Viṣṇu and may even act as ministrants in temples as well as heads of monasteries.¹

c11.t3.82

¹ Śrī-Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs are quite a distinct order from Śaṅkara’s Daśnāmīs. Only Brāhmans are admitted, and they carry a triple daṇḍa in contrast with the single daṇḍa of Śaṅkara’s Brāhman sannyāsīs: see § 198. The two orders are distinguished as Ekadaṇḍīs and Tridaṇḍīs. Rāmānuja’s convert, Yādava Prakāśa, wrote the Yati-dharma-samuchchhaya on the duties of Tridaṇḍīs: Govindāchārya, R., 73. Non-Brāhman Śrī-Vaiṣṇava ascetics are called Ekāṅgas.

c11.t3.83

§ 286. The writing of the *Śrī-bhāshya* was a most important event for the Śrī-Vaishṇavas. It was doubtless meant in the first instance to provide the sect with a clearly expressed philosophy in full accordance with its beliefs and its ancient literature, a matter of great moment for the training of teachers and ascetics. But it was not merely of large practical value. The dignity of the sect was vastly enhanced when it was brought into living connexion with the Vedānta by this illustrious work. It was the first sectarian bhāshya ever written. We may realize how valuable an acquisition it was felt to be from the long array of similar works produced during the following seven centuries.¹ It is also probable that Rāmānuja hoped, by linking the sect to the Vedānta, to get rid, to some extent at least, of the reproach of heterodoxy which had dogged the sect throughout its history.² His own punctilious observation of caste rules in the matter of food and intercourse with other castes was doubtless intended to help in the same direction.

c11.t3.84

¹ See § 340.

c11.t3.85

² See § 94 and § 215.

c11.t3.86

§ 287. There were two types of Vaishṇava temples in the south in his day, one class using Pāñcharātra Saṃhitās for their ritual, the other using Vaikhānasa Saṃhitās,³ the latter class being probably Bhāgavata shrines. Rāmānuja did all he could to unify the sect by substituting Pāñcharātra for Vaikhānasa manuals wherever he could win over the authorities.⁴

c11.t3.87

³ See § 211 and § 384.

c11.t3.88

⁴ Rajagopalachariar, *VRI*. 4; Padmanabhachar, *LTM*. 252; Govindāchārya, *R*. 142.

c11.t3.89

§ 288. While he held strictly by the ancient rule that none but the twice-born may read the Upanishads, he was most eager to teach both Śūdras and Outcastes the doctrine of Vishṇu-bhakti. In this he was a faithful disciple of the Āḷvārs. In certain places he arranged that the Outcastes should have the privilege of visiting the temple one day in the year. But there is no reliable evidence for the statement, so often made, that he ate with Outcastes, or that he took any step to alter their social position.¹ He maintained the ancient Hindu restrictions in all their fullness. His position is clearly revealed in the use of the *pavitra*, or thread of purity, with which Śūdra and Outcaste adherents of the sect are invested. It is a low-caste sacred thread. Acknowledgement is thus made that they are capable of receiving spiritual religion, yet they are kept rigorously apart from the twice-born. The Sātānis² are a group of people of Śūdra caste whom he taught and connected with the sect, but no suggestion was made that their caste status should be altered.

First 152 of 419 passages. Read on

Cites (157)