– Dr. Rangachar
The Vaiṣṇava āgamas glorify Viṣṇu as the Supreme Being to the exclusion of other deities. They treat the Ultimate Reality as not mere Viṣṇu but Viṣṇu with śrī. While there are several names for Viṣṇu, the use of the word ‘Vaiṣṇava’ as an epithet for these āgamas shows that they must be related to the Vēdas where He is mentioned primarily by this name.
Most modern scholars in India and abroad hold that both Viṣṇu and Rudra occupy subordinate positions in the Vedas and that Vaiṣṇavism as a religion arose later than Shaivism. This view requires careful examination.
The Vedas (particularly r̥gvēda) have gained their present form through the efforts of Kr̥ṣṇadvaipāyana who acquired the title of Vyāsa:
vivyāsa vēdān yasmātsa tasmādvyāsa iti smr̥taḥ || (Mahābhārata, ādi, 64-130)
The need to arrange the Vedas, under the direction of his father Parāśara (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 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 Vyāsa was asked to arrange them in order. He picked out the r̥ks and prepared the r̥gvēda and similarly the other Vedas, Brāhmaṇas and other portions, following some principles:
tatassa r̥ca uddhr̥tya r̥gvēda kr̥tavān muniḥ |
yajūṁṣiśca yajurvēdaṁ sāmavēdaṁ ca sāmabhiḥ || (Viṣṇu Purāṇa III, 4-13)
Certainly, the arrangement of the hymns was not made in chronological order or with reference to the superiority of one deity over another. It is therefore futile to attempt to find out which r̥ks were composed earlier and which later. Equally hard is it to determine whether Rudra or Viṣṇu, Savitr̥ or Varuṇa was the earliest deity adored by the ancient seers of India. So the question of the relative prominence of any deity in the r̥gvēda cannot be answered. Viṣṇu 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 r̥gvēda and lost their position later to Viṣṇu and Rudra who thus emerged into pre-eminence after having occupied subordinate positions earlier.
Again, Sūrya, Varuṇa, Yama, and others are still objects of worship, though not with as much veneration as Viṣṇu and Rudra. It is not possible to pick out the specific traits of the deities from the r̥gvēda, 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 Viṣṇu and Rudra would show that people depended more on these deities for their security and wellbeing than on others. While Viṣṇu offered protection to the people providing them with means for a happy living (r̥gvēda, I-154), Rudra was looked upon as a terrible deity ready to award punishment to wrongdoers. 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 Viṣṇu and Rudra have been enjoying.
While studying the nature of Vaiṣṇavism, it becomes necessary to take into account the development of the Viṣṇu-sect in the source scriptures. Apart from the Vedas, there are the epics, the Purāṇas, and other such works. The difficulty of getting evidence to determine the antiquity of the sect is immense since the dates of these sourcebooks 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 Mahābhārata 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 BC by many. The Rāmāyaṇa which is cited (Drōṇa, XLIII 85,88) and whose author is mentioned in the Mahābhārata must be more ancient. The Bhagavadgītā forms part of the Mahābhārata.
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 Mahābhārata 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 Bhagavadgītā and the Purāṇas. Curiously enough, the Purāṇas have undergone much change which makes it difficult to identify their genuine portions. The Viṣṇu Purāṇa is mentioned as a Vaiṣṇava text in the Tamil classic Maṇimēkhalai (XXVII.98), which is to be placed much earlier than 6th century A.D., when Buddhism flourished unhampered at Kāncī before the renaissance of Shaivism and Vaishnavism there under the patronage of the Pallava rulers. This Purāṇa 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 Maṇimēkhalai was written.
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa 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 Rāmānuja (1017-1137 A.D.) This, however, is only negative evidence. The Viṣṇu Purāṇa was then available to serve the purpose of upabr̥mhaṇa, and the other Purāṇas, because their contents were more or less the same, might have been ignored.
upabr̥ṁhaṇaṁ nāma viditasakalavēdārthānāṁ svayōgamahimasākṣātkr̥tavēdatattvārthānāṁ vakyaissvāvagata vēdavākyārthavyaktīkaraṇam ||
The Bhāgavata can therefore be placed along with the Viṣṇu Purāṇa. It must however be understood that the Bhāgavata contains references to certain occurrences which the Mahābhārata 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 Viṣṇu. These were about Viṣṇu, Nārāyaṇa, Bhagavān and Vāsudēva, the theistic character of which could be traced to different sources. Viṣṇu is already a Vedic deity; Nārāyaṇa gets glorified in the Mahābhārata; Bhagavān is the Lord of the Bhagavadgītā and Bhāgavata. Vāsudēva is prominent in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa. 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 Viṣṇu and perhaps to Nārāyaṇa. The maṅgalaślōka, the Nārāyaṇīya section and other passages in the Mahābhārata refer to the name Nārāyaṇa. Bhīṣma refers to Kr̥ṣṇa as Brahman, Nārāyaṇa, Viṣṇu and Vāsudēva. The universal form (Viśvarūpa) which Kr̥ṣṇa displayed to Arjuna is referred to as the form of Viṣṇu in the Anugītā of the Mahābhārata. Yudhiṣṭhira calls Kr̥ṣṇa as Bhagavān. Mārkaṇḍēya refers to having been informed by the Deity whom he noticed during the cosmic deluge that He was Nārāyaṇa.
Though Kr̥ṣṇa does not openly speak of Himself as Brahman in the Gītā, the expressions used have a Upaniṣadic tinge and suggest that He is Brahman. He is identical to Viṣṇu and is Hari. He is the best among souls, Puruṣōttama, an appellation that could only apply to Brahman. He is identical to Vāsudēva. The word Nārāyaṇa does not occur, nor is Kr̥ṣṇa identified with Bhagavān in his own words, though the speeches of Kr̥ṣṇa are introduced by the words, śrī bhagavānuvāca.
Viṣṇu is identified in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa with Brahman, Hari, Bhagavān and Vāsudēva. The Bhāgavata identifies Kr̥ṣṇa with Bhagavān, Nārāyaṇa, Hari and Viṣṇu. Nārāyaṇa is identified with Viṣṇu in the Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra (dated 500 B.C.)
The principal role assigned to Viṣṇu in ancient texts like Vedas is one of helping suffering humanity. He is a protector of people in general (Shatapatha Brāhmaṇa, 1,2,5, X 45, 44), of the embryos (r̥gvēda 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. The 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 prakr̥ti. 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 arcā is conducted are mostly situated in South India. Each ancient temple of Viṣṇu has its greatness (sthalamāhātmya) recorded in the Purāṇas. Vēnkaṭādri is referred to in the Vāmana, Skānda, Mārkaṇḍēya, Varāha, Brāhma and Pādma Purāṇas. The Brahmāṇḍa refers to Ahobila and Kāncī. 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 Purāṇas.
A reference to some of these shrines is found in Tamil classical texts such as Silappadikāram and Paripāḍal and others. Other such works include Akanānūru, Puranānūru, and Kalittokai. They describe Viṣṇu 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 Vaiṣṇava āgamas. There could have been mutual indebtedness between them and the epics and Purāṇas which are found to make use of certain doctrines forming the fundamental principles treated in the āgamas. 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 risen in isolation nor undergone development and flourished without influencing one another.
The Vaiṣṇava āgamas reveal certain peculiar traits. Firstly, the Supreme Reality is Viṣṇu with śrī and they are inseparably associated with each other. Secondly, other deities are held to form part of the retinue of Viṣṇu. Thirdly, the archā 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 Vaiṣṇava āgamas are of two kinds, namely, Pāñcarātra and Vaikhānasa. The former is more liberal in its outlook and practice than the latter. Tantric practices have exerted a deeper influence on the Pāñcarātra than the Vaikhānasa. Tantrika mantras have little role to play in the Vaikhānasa āgama.
The Vaikhānasa āgama perhaps arose earlier than the Pāñcarātra on account of its pure vedic links. The following passage indicates this conclusion:
vaikhānasaṁ śrīśāstraṁ prāhurēkāyanābhidham |
śāstrēṇaikāyanākhyēnārcitē’tra harau purā ||
sarvē śrīharisānnidhyaṁ gatā vai jīvakōṭayaḥ |
na svargō nāpi narakō na janmamaraṇē tathā ||
śrīśāstrasyaiva rakṣārthaṁ pūjanārthaṁ tathāpadi |
pāñcarātraṁ punarprāha śāstraṁ vaiṣṇavamuttamam ||
It is said that Vaikhānasa is śrīśāstra called Ekāyana. When Hari was worshipped in olden times in accordance with the system called Vaikhānasa, 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 Vaiṣṇava system of Pāñcarātra to safeguard the śrīśāstra and also for preserving the mode of worship during times of danger.
Here the word śrīśāstra may be taken to mean a ‘holy system’ or a ‘system in which śrī is dealt with’. In the former case, śrī is only an honorific and in the latter, it indicates that the system is intended to glorify śrī. The word Ekāyana means the only one or unique path for salvation. This is the Ekāyana system mentioned in the Chāndōgya upaniṣad 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:
tamēva vidvānamr̥ta iha bhavati |
nānyaḥ panthā ayanāya vidyatē ||
According to this passage, a person becomes immortal here by knowing Him to be thus, that is, as depicted above in the Puruṣa sūkta. The word Veda is to be taken in the sense of worship or upāsanā (vēdanamupāsanaṁ syāttadviṣayē śravaṇāt). As it is said here that there is no other way available to attain mōkṣa, this method, namely, the worship of Puruṣa, is to be adopted.
In the passage cited above from the Vaikhānasa āgama, 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 mōkṣa, but only that they had gone hear Hari (śrīharisānnidhya). This means that if they had not really obtained mōkṣa 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 śrīśāstra might be lost, and so the Pāñcarātra was brought into being. The latter is declared to be the best Vaiṣṇava system and intended to safeguard the Vaikhānasa system. The word prāha must indicate that Pāñcarātra was uttered by Hari.
The word Ekāyana in the passage cited above presents a difficulty. The Pāñcaratra and not the Vaikhānasa is believed to be based on the Ekāyana which is also called Rahasyāmnāya. The references to this in many texts are not easy to reconcile with the sense of the passage cited above from the Vaikhānasa āgama. However, this statement is a good piece of evidence from the Pāñcarātra being closely allied to it.
There is again a reference in the Pāñcaratra tradition to the offering of the effigy of a paśu made of flour (piṣṭa-paśu) in the sacrifice where an animal is to be slain and offered (Mahābhārata). A similar rite, with the name Viṣṇuyāga, is referred to in the Vaikhānasa āgama. It is not clear whether it originally formed part of the Pāñcarātra tradition or was adopted mainly on grounds of kindness to animals. Anyway, this sacrifice lends support to believing that both āgamas have the same tradition, though the ritual is enjoined as a means of expiation in the Vaikhānasa.
There is also another way of explaining the above passage. The Ekāyana recension must have been the basic foundation for the development of the concept of absolute devotion. The Vaikhānasa must have developed out of this recension and in this respect, has to be regarded as akin to the Pāñcarātra. The latter had a specific development with provision made for yantras and Tāntrika mantras which are absent in the former. The two do not have much divergence in the main concepts of Vaishnavism. A Upaniṣad called Sītōpaniṣad alludes to Vaikhānasa (not Vikhanasa), a sage who is an exponent of such important doctrines as those relating to the three powers iccā, jnāna and kriyā, and others, which are treated only in the Pāñcarātra system. This work, relatively late, seeks to show sage Vaikhānasa as associated with the Pāñcarātra system. An approach on the basis of this reference may justify the passage in the Samūrtārcādhikaraṇa. Yet the frequent references to the Pāñcarātra as based on the Ekāyana recension cannot be easily explained away.
The following verses from the Pāñcarātra āgama lend support to the concept of absolute devotion of the Vaikhānasa:
vipra vaikhānasākhyā yē tē bhaktāstattvamucyatē |
ēkāntinastu sattvasthā dēhāntaṁ nānyayājinaḥ ||
kartavyamiti dēvēśaṁ saṁyajantē phalaṁ vinā |
prāpnuvanti ca dēhāntē vāsudēvatvamabjaja || (Pauṣkara)
That the Vaikhānasas do not worship any other deity and worship Viṣṇu out of a sense of duty and without expecting any results, makes it clear that they must be following the Ekāyana recension.
The Bhāgavata 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 Sāttvatas.
vikhanasārcitō viśvaguptayē sakha udēyivān sāttvatām kulē ||
The word Vikhanas must be taken to mean Brahmā who made a request to the Lord for the divine descent on earth. Vallabhācārya, the founder of the śuddhādvaita system of Vēdānta, takes this word to mean Vikhanas, the sage, and founder of the Vaikhānasa system. This interpretation would support the sense of the passage cited above in the Samūrtārcādhikaraṇa. Then the Pāñcarātra system must be admitted to have sprung long after the Vaikhānasa. Yet the problem remains unsolved. Brahmā is mentioned in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa and Bhāgavata as having approached the Lord and made a request to Him to descend on earth. The word Vikhanas means Brahmā besides the sage with that name. The expression viśvaguptayē means ‘for protecting the universe’. This protection, as far as the descent of Kr̥ṣṇa is concerned, was desired by the gods to be effected through lightening the burden on the earth. The Pāñcarātra 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 Brahmā, 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.