Pāñcarātra Texts in the Teṉkalai-Vaṭakalai Dispute

7/28/2019 Pāñcarātra Texts in the Teṉkalai-Vaṭakalai Dispute

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pancaratra-texts-in-the-tenkalai-vaakalai-dispute 1/18

P ÑCAR TR A TEXTSIN THE TE NK ALAI-VAAK ALAI DISPUTE

Patricia Y. Mumme

BACK GROU ND

Professor OBER HAMMER and his students, over the past threedecades or so, have done a remarkable amount of solid scholarshipon the textual traditions of Pñcar tra and Viidvaita and their mu-tual relationship. For that they have earned the gratitude and admira-tion of all those who have done research in either of these areas.Future scholars in these areas will be able to stand on the broadshoulders of the work of these pioneers.

I could not adequately summarize the scholarly contribution of the “Vienna School” of Pñcar tra research. Nevertheless, the dis-cussions of this work in the Symposium raised several points espe-cially relevant to the present endeavor:(1) The Pñcar tra tradition is old, but not all its texts are. As withitih sapur a, the texts we have grew up over a long period of time

and have enjoyed much layering.(2) Pñcar tra tradition and its texts have a peculiar historical contextwhich is not yet well understood. Who is writing these texts? For what audience? And for what purpose? Who is passing on thesetexts, and for what purpose are they being studied and utilized? Thechanging socio-historical context of the authors and audience of thePñcar tra texts has yet to be fully understood and articulated. Theavailable texts suggest that they arose under royal patronage, written

by priestly ritual specialists and advisors to kings.(3) The authority of Pñcar tra texts is defended by most Viidvaitatheologians (Ymuna to Vedntadeika and beyond) in their Sanskritworks (with R mnuja as a notable exception). These works werewritten primarily for an “outsider” audience of rival Brahmanicalschools. But r vaiava “in house” literature in Maiprava simplyassumes the authority and hoary antiquity of all Pñcar tra texts.(4) By the time the r vaiava tradition had coalesced into an identi-

fiable textual tradition and religious movement, the historical and re-ligious context, in South India at least, was quite different from thatof the earlier strands of the Pñcar tra tradition. The r vaiavatheologians don’t always know quite what to make of these texts and



Patricia Y. Mumme108

their concerns. The authors of Pñcar tra texts talk to the royal courtand its ritual specialists. The r vaiava authors, however, write ascryas and theologians for a popular movement. Though they seethe Pñcar tra texts as authoritative, their reading of them is highlyselective. They see them through the lens of their own tradition andits other sources: the devotional experiences of the lvrs, legendaryfigures of itih sapur a, and the writings of their own tradition’s

previous cryas.(5) Twenty-five years ago, scholars tended to assume that Pñcar trainfluenced r vaiavism, but not the other way around. It is clear now, after the work of Professor OBER HAMMER and his students, thatmany of the Pñcar tra texts we now have arose after the Vii-dvaita and the r vaiava tradition were well underway, and that theinfluence is at least as strong in this opposite direction. We knownow that r vaiavism exerted its doctrinal influence on later Pñca-r tra texts, presumably as Pñcar tra priests and r vaiava cryas

both became more involved in Vaiava temple rituals and ceremo-nies for a r vaiava more popular audience.(6) Often overlooked or taken for granted by scholars is the impact of the Pñcar tra tradition on the liturgy of r vaiavism. The practice

of mantra initiation in r vaiavism is poorly understood and under-appreciated by Western scholars, but enormously important in theactual practice and promulgation of the r vaiava tradition.1 This

practice clearly is related to a long tradition of Pñcar tra use of andspeculation about mantras and their meaning. Some of the most im-

portant and widely read r vaiava theological texts are the rahasya

commentaries, which explicate the three r vaiava mantras used ininitiation ritual.

The three basic r vaiava mantras used in the pañcasa s-

k ra initiation from twelfth century to today are as follows:(1) the Tirumantra or Mlamantra: o namo nr ya ya, “Om,Homage to Nr yaa!”

1For more on this topic, see R A NGACHAR I 1931. To my knowledge,

no up-to-date anthropological research on the r vaiava community’s practice has yet been published.



Pñcar tra Texts in the Tenkalai-Vaakalai Dispute 109

(2) the Dvayamantra: r mannr yaacaraau araa prapadye || r mate nr ya ya nama, “I seek the feet of the Glorious Nr -yaa as my refuge. Homage to Glorious Nr yaa!”(3) the Caramaloka (BhG 18.66): sarvadharmn parityajya mm

eka araa vraja || aha tv sarvap pebhyo mok ayi ymi m uca ||, “A bandoning all dharmas, seek Me alone as refuge. I willrelease you from all sins, do not fear.”

It’s true that only one of these mantras is mentioned inPñcar tra texts, the Tirumantra (in LT 17.19 and 24.68ff.; AS 52).This widely known mantra may even predate the Pñcar tra tradi-tion, for it is mentioned in the lvr’s hymns as a part of temple lit-urgy.2 The ceremony which bestows these mantras, and recites thelineage of cryas through which they came ( guruparampar ), isone of the five components of pañcasa sk ra initiation. Withoutthat initiation, one cannot call oneself a r vaiava. Every r -vaiava in his daily worship thereafter is expected to recite the guruparampar , recite and reflect upon the meaning of the threemantras, and worship the domestic image of Viu- Nr yaa.

Even if the three r vaiava mantras do not come directly

from Pñcar tra, the way these mantras are interpreted seems con-sistent with Pñcar tra tradition. mantra initiation by a guru, secretinstruction, daily worship and meditation on the mantras are all stan-dard fare in the Pñcar tra and, indeed, throughout the larger Tantrictradition.

At least among the larger Tenkalai school of r vaiavism, the pañcasa sk ra ritual which bestows these mantras is understood asequivalent to an act of prapatti or ara gati. In Vaakalai practice,

prapatti is performed in a separate ritual toward the end of one’slife.3 The teaching of salvation by prapatti or ara gati, a distinc-tive feature of r vaiava thought and practice after R mnuja, isunderstood by later r vaiavas to be a Pñcar tra teaching (thoughnot exclusively so). It is considered one of many ritual up yas or sdhanas taught in Pñcar tra for almost any result imaginable.

Salvation via prapatti is one of the two sdhanas to mok a

officially recognized in r vaiavism, but it becomes the only prac-

2 See MUMME 1988, introduction.3 See R A NGACHAR I 1931: 45.




tical soteriology. R mnuja and the Viidvaita philosophers spill alot of ink in Sanskrit articulating and developing R mnuja’s theoryof salvation by bhaktiyoga, which includes prapatti or ara gati.But the r vaiava Maiprava tradition that claims R mnuja asits founder focuses virtually all its attention, in both theory and prac-tice, on prapatti or ara gati alone as a distinct path to mok a thatis open to all and not limited, as is bhaktiyoga, to twice-born males.

A R A GATI , P ÑCAR TR A

A ND THE TE NK ALAI-VAAK ALAIDISPUTE

A hotly disputed question in r vaiava history is when thenotion arose that ara gati or prapatti is an up ya distinct frombhaktiyoga. The r vaiava tradition teaches that prapatti is a hoarytradition taught in the Bhagavadgt, demonstrated in itih sapur a,

practiced by the lvrs, and advocated by all the cryas; however,scholars have disputed that claim. Did R mnuja recognize it andexpress it in his Gadyas? Did R mnuja even write these Gadyas? Towhat extent is prapatti or ara gati presented in Ymuna’s devotion-al poems?4 The general scholarly position in this debate has been that

prapatti was not seen as a separate up ya up to and through R m-nuja. To such scholars, the question is who and when, in the r -vaiava tradition after R mnuja, recognized it and taught it as such.

It is clear that in some Pñcar tra texts, prapatti or ara gati

is clearly defined and taught as a path to mok a distinct from bhakti-

yoga, and the viewpoint later r vaiavism taught is articulated: thatall other paths to mok a boil down to these two. However, the datesof the Pñcar tra texts (or portions thereof) which teach this doctrine,

the Ahirbudhnyasahit ch. 37 and the Lak mtantra ch. 17, areequally unclear, and cannot shed much light on when this doctrinearose. It seems likely that the doctrine of prapatti or ara gati as aseparate up ya to mok a emerged concomitantly in the r vaiavaand Pñcar tra traditions, indicating that the keepers of these twotraditions were closely associated in the centuries between Ymuna(c. 1050?) and Periyavccn Piai and Vtsya Varadcrya (c. 1225).

4 R OBERT LESTER , JOHN CAR MA N and VASUDHA NAR AYA NA N havediscussed these questions in many of their works.




I began this present investigation by reviewing Pñcar tra ref-erences in the major r vaiava Maiprava rahasya texts andasking the following questions: How are Pñcar tra proof texts usedin the r vaiava rahasya literature? Which Pñcar tra texts aremost used? Since my own research has been on the Tenkalai-Vaa-kalai schism, I was especially interested in the role that Pñcar tratexts play in the way authors from each school explain and defendtheir unique theological and soteriological points. The texts I re-viewed included Vedntadeika’s Rahayasyatrayasram (probablywritten c. 1350) for the Vaakalai position, and an assortment of textscommented on and quoted by Maavammuni (1370-1443) for theTenkalai position: Piai Lok crya’s r vacanabhaam and Mu-muk uppai, and the cryah dayam of his brother AlakiyamaavaPerum Nyanr. I also looked over the voluminous Parantara-hasyam of Periyavccn Piai (1167-1262), an early rahasya com-mentary which was composed a generation earlier than Piai Lok -crya (1205-1311) and his brother (1207-1309). Most of these texts(Mumuk uppai, Parantarahasyam, nearly half of Rahasyatrayas-ram) are commentaries on the three r vaiava mantras. The restare independent doctrinal works nevertheless included by r vaia-

vas in the general genre of Maiprava “rahasya” texts. I found thattwo chapters in two Pñcar tra texts, Lak mtantra ch. 17 andAhirbudhnyasahit ch. 37 account for over half of the Pñcar trareferences in this body of r vaiava rahasya literature. This is notsurprising, because these are precisely the Pñcar tra chapters thatelucidate the teaching of ara gati or prapatti, the main focus of the rahasya literature.5

5 OTTO SCHR ADER (1916: 23) mentions the Bhradv jasahit, a latePñcar tra text purported to be solely about prapatti. I have had no accessto this text, unfortunately. Even though SCHR ADER describes this as a

popular Pñcar tra text, it is not used much in the literature I investigated. Ifound footnotes in printed rahasya literature attributing a few quotes to it,none of which seem to involve key points of dispute. I leave to a futureresearcher to study this text, elucidate its view of prapatti, and ascertain its

probable date and influences. My hunch is that it may shed light on how theteaching of prapatti to the crya, or to R mnuja himself, came to berecognized in the Tenkalai tradition as a means to mok a that is separatefrom prapatti to the Lord himself.




I found that the Tenkalai and Vaakalai cryas quote the same passages from these two chapters in these two Pñcar tra texts, butinterpret them differently. In fact, nearly all the major disputed pointsin the Tenkalai-Vaakalai argument about the nature of prapatti or ara gati seem to be imbedded in these two Pñcar tra chapters.These chapters are themselves ambiguous on the disputed issues, andthus leave room for both the Tenkalai and Vaakalai interpretations.They seem to demonstrate a pre-schism understanding of prapatti

consistent with the period of time between the generations before andafter R mnuja. By their ambiguity, these texts helped fuel the later schism in the r vaiava tradition.

A couple of generalizations did shake out of this investigation,to be explained and supported below. Generally Vedntadeika’s in-terpretation of prapatti follows the sense and context of the Pñca-r tra texts’ teachings about ara gati or prapatti more closely. Thismay suggest that the K ñc school of r vaiavism, from whichVedntadeika arose, had more influence on the formation of theselate Pñcar tra texts than the Southern school. Or it may only meanthat Vedntadeika’s somewhat legalistic approach to soteriology ismore in keeping with that of Sanskrit stric tradition to which

Pñcar tra is related, and thus he finds these texts more theologicallyto his liking. Clearly the r vaiava cryas in r ragam, whoforged what would be later known as the Tenkalai tradition, devotedmore of their intellectual energy to the interpretation of the lvr hymns and itih sapur a than to Sanskrit stra. Their voluminousrahasya works demonstrate a willingness to creatively reinterpretPñcar tra passages about prapatti to fit their own soteriologicaldoctrines. One gets the impression that the Tenkalai cryas are al-

ways viewing the Pñcar tra tradition through the lens of the lvrs’experience and the Bhagavadgt’s Caramaloka, which they see asthe theological crystallization of that experience.

Furthermore, these two Pñcar tra chapters on ara gati,Lak mtantra ch. 17 and Ahirbudhnyasahit ch. 37, seem to show avery slight, and opposing, sectarian slant. It would be going muchtoo far to say that one supports the Tenkalai position and the other the Vaakalai position on ara gati. But I found that Vedntadei-

ka’s interpretation of prapatti, though not at odds with what is said inAhirbudhnyasahit, is more compatible with, and indebted to, thatseen in the Lak mtantra. The Tenkalai position on prapatti, how-




ever, is more hospitable to the view of ara gati expounded inAhirbudhnyasahit than that found in the Lak mtantra.6

All the disputed points in the theological argument betweenTenkalai and Vaakalai understanding of prapatti can be seen as re-volving around the central issue of whether or not prapatti or ara-

gati, surrender to the Lord, can be called an up ya. This term, besttranslated as “means” or “instrument,” carries a lot of soteriologicalweight in r vaiava doctrine. Is prapatti an up ya, a ritual meansor implement employed by the seeker of salvation (mumuk u) toachieve his goal, comparable to other ritual up yas specified inDharmastra and Pñcar tra? Or, in ara gati, is the up ya solelythe Lord himself, such that the mumuk u’s act has no instrumentalvalue at all? Vedntadeika and the Vaakalai school claim that pra-

patti or ara gati can be properly considered an up ya. The Lordhas primary causality in effecting salvation, making him the primarymeans or up ya; but since the Lord won’t bring about salvation with-out the individual taking the initiative by performing prapatti, thatact of prapatti itself has some causal instrumentality, and can be le-gitimately designated as an up ya. The Tenkalai cryas, Periya-vccn Piai through Maavammuni, unanimously claim that pra-

patti is not to be seen as an up ya. In ara gati, the Lord alone isthe up ya. ara gati or prapatti is not even an act, much less an actwith any causal or instrumental function in bringing about salvation.

The r vaiava tradition eventually came to frame the disputein terms of the “monkey school” versus the “cat school,” an analogywhose charm earns it mention in nearly every introductory textbook on Hinduism published in the West. The Vaakalai support a soteri-

6 Pñcar tra quotations are certainly not the only kinds of proof textsused in r vaiava rahasya literature to support the disputed points re-garding the nature of prapatti or ara gati, nor even the most important

proof texts. Passages and examples from the Bhagavadgt, itih sapur a,and the hymns of the lvrs figure more prominently in the discourse of

both schools. For an exploration of the difference between the way Tenkalaiand Vaakalai cryas use excerpts from the R myaa to support their doctrines, see MUMME 1991. For a study of the Tenkalai and Vaakalaiinterpretations of Bhagavadgt 18.66, see MUMME 1992. For a study of how both schools use and interpret passages from Nammlvr’s hymns seeMUMME 1987a. The focus of the present work is how the two groups of cryas use Pñcar tra texts.




ology of cooperative grace, where God is seen as saving the soul in ara gati like a mother monkey carries a baby monkey: the baby it-self must make some small effort to hang on in order to be carried. TheTenkalais, however, articulate that in prapatti or ara gati, there issalvation by divine grace alone, more like a mother cat carries a kitten.The kitten is passive, making no positive efforts in the act. In fact, anyefforts it made would only interfere with those of the mother. Thoughthe analogy developed only later in r vaiava history (perhaps theearly nineteenth century) it aptly summarizes the distinction betweenthe soteriology of these two branches of the r vaiava tradition. Inthe earlier Maiprava rahasya literature, there are several interre-lated aspects to the central soteriological dispute, all of which appealto these same two Pñcar tra chapters that expound ara gati.

DOES PR A P ATTI HAVE A GAS?

A key point of dispute within the larger issue of whether pra-

patti or ara gati can be considered an up ya is the questionwhether it has a gas or ancillaries. Vedic and even Tantric up yasare analyzed as consisting of an a gin, the main ritual event or ac-

tion, and the various a gas or ritual ancillary actions which accom- pany it or fill it out. Both the Tenkalai and Vaakalai cryas seemto agree that if ara gati is determined to have the same kind of a gin-a ga structure, then it can be called an up ya. Maavam-muni quotes a Prva Mmsa maxim: “Whatever has a gas, that isa sdhana (or up ya).”7 Though I can’t determine whether Vednta-deika quotes this maxim, what he says shows that he clearly as-sumes its truth. So is prapatti an up ya with a gas? Vedntadeika

and the Vaakalai school say yes, and the Tenkalai cryas say no.Both schools can quote Pñcar tra to support their positions.

Lak mtantra and Ahirbudhnyasahit speak of prapatti, ara-

gati or self-surrender as having five or six aspects, components or a gas. All of these a gas or aspects are mental attributes or attitudes,so that the parallel with Vedic ritual a gas and a gins is not perfect,since generally Vedic a gas are physical actions. Nevertheless, the

issue is: are these mental attributes properly considered to be the

7 VB 56: yad yat s ga tat tat sdhanam.




a gas and prapatti or ara gati, the a gin? In Lak mtantra (LT17.59-62) the Lord, speaking to r , proclaims: “Hear from me,Lotus Lady, the six-limbed up ya whereby one attains Me as arefuge and ultimately joins me.” These six a gas are then listed as:(1) the will to do what is pleasing (nuk lyasya sakalpa),(2) avoidance of what is displeasing ( pr tik lyasya varjanam),(3) faith that he will protect (rak i yat ti vi v sa),(4) asking for protection ( gopt tvavaraam),(5) self surrender (tmanik epa),(6) helplessness (k rpa yam).8

A bit later on in the same chapter (LT 17.75), surrender (ny sa) – which is proclaimed to be synonymous with nik epa, sany sa,ty ga or ara gati – is described as having five a gas ( pañc ga).In the Ahirbudhnyasahit (AS 37.28) the ara gati method is de-scribed as having six aspects (vidh). The list given is identical tothat cited in LT 17.60-61b.9

Vedntadeika has no trouble reconciling these three passagesfrom the two texts into a single consistent doctrine: tmanik epa, a-

ra gati, prapatti or its other synonymns is the a gin or main event.The other five are the a gas. Together they form the up ya of

ara gati or prapatti, which must be accomplished in toto, with allits a gas, in order to be effective. Though the Lord is the siddhop ya

or accomplished means, prapatti is the sdhyop ya, the small part of the means yet to be accomplished. When one performs prapatti withall its a gas, as a momentary act, the full up ya is then accomplishedand one’s salvation is assured. Vedntadeika takes pains to showthat prapatti with all its a gas is articulated in the Dvayamantra ut-tered by the aspirant to salvation (mumuk u) in the prapatti cere-

mony, thus legitimating the efficacy of this ritual (RTS ch. 11).The Tenkalai position is different, and somewhat more consis-

tent with the Ahirbudhnyasahit (AS 37.28) which speaks of ara-

8LT 17.59-61b: mm eka araa pr pya mm evnte sama nute |

a a ga tam up ya ca su me padmasambhave || 59 nuk lyasya

sakalpa pr tik lyasya varjanam | rak i yat ti vi v so gopt tvavaraatath || 60 tmanik epak rpa ye a vidh ara gati |.

9AS 37.28-29b: nuk lyasya sakalpa pr tik lyasya varjanam |

rak i yat ti vi v so gopt tvavaraa tath || 28 tmanik epak rpa ye a -vidh ara gati |.




gati as having six aspects ( a vidh). Though the same compo-nents are listed as in Lak mtantra, in Ahirbudhnyasahit it is im-

portant to note that these components are not called a gas and ara-

gati is not called an up ya. Rather, the Lord himself is referred toas the up ya. In Ahirbudhnyasahit (AS 37.30c-31b), prapatti or ara gati is defined as the following prayer: aham asmy apar dh-

nm layo ’kicano ’ gati || tvam evop yabhto me bhaveti. “I aman abode of sins, helpless, with no recourse; You indeed be myup ya.” Though this definition of prapatti is cited frequently by bothVedntadeika and the Tenkalai cryas, the latter emphasize itmore. Piai Lok crya’s Prapannaparitr am, one of his eighteenMaiprava rahasya texts, is an exposition of the two qualificationsfor ara gati here mentioned: helplessness (kiñcanya) and nothaving any other way of salvation (ananyagatitva). The Tenkalaisingle out this Ahirbudhnyasahit passage as forming the nucleusof their understanding of prapatti. Like this passage, they emphasizethe negative. They point out that the attributes of helplessness (kiñ-

canya) and having no other recourse (ananyagatitva) are not positiveattributes. Hence they cannot be considered true a gas or ritual an-cillaries, for the absence of an act or quality cannot itself be an a ga

(Mumu 121).At any rate, the Ahirbudhnyasahit speaks more clearly of

the Lord being the up ya, rather than ara gati being the up ya.However, the Ahirbudhnyasahit, in introducing ny sa or ara-

gati, does refer to it as a sdhana (AS 37.24), a term which Vednta-deika routinely takes to be equivalent to up ya. In other contexts,the Tenkalai cryas also consider these two terms equivalent. Here,however, they seem to take this term in a general or non-technical

sense to mean simply “method.” The Ahirbudhnyasahit uses vari-ous forms of the verb root sdh- to articulate that prapatti/ ara-

gati/ny sa to the Lord can be used to achieve ( sdh-) any or allgoals, not just mok a. On this point there is no dispute between thetwo schools.

In refuting Vedntadeika’s a ga doctrine, Piai Lok cryaand Maavammuni, following the Ahirbudhnyasahit’s usage,simply call these five characteristics “aspects” (vidh), not a gas in

the technical sense of Vedic a gas. They insist that prapatti does nothave the a gin-a ga construction of a stric up ya. In prapatti, asthe Ahirbudhnyasahit says, the Lord alone is the up ya. These so-called a gas are to be seen in this light. As Piai Lok crya puts it,




“The essential character of this ( prapatti) is not tolerating itself; itsancillary is not tolerating anything other than itself. This up ya sup-

ports only itself.”10Maavammuni explains in his commentary:

“The distinctive characteristic of this prapatti is such that it cannotsupport calling itself – that is, choosing [the Lord] to be the up ya – as an up ya. This means that if described as it truly is, and not sim-

ply superficially, it cannot appropriately be labeled an up ya ... [Onemight object:] But since it is enjoined with a gas in the Carama-loka, the principle, ‘Whatever has a gas is a sdhana,’ applies here.Therefore, doesn’t that mean it is a sdhana? [ No.] Piai Lok cryashows that this does not apply by saying, ‘Its a ga is not toleratinganything other than itself.’ … This means that it tolerates nothing byway of activity of the sentient soul except for itself – in the form of acceptance. The a ga for this ( prapatti) is relinquishing with alltraces, all activity in the form of sdhana. The principle ‘whatever has a gas’ refers to things accompanied by a gas in the form of activity. But the a ga of this prapatti is in the form of inactivity(niv tti). Therefore this means that [ prapatti] is not an up ya.”11

It isclear that here the Caramaloka forms the lens through which theTenkalai cryas interpret these Pñcar tra passages. Its phrase,

sarvadharmn parityajya, “reliquishing all dharmas,” establishesthat the a ga first abandons all up yas (Mumu 200-202). In thefollowing phrase, mm eka araa vraja, “take refuge in mealone,” the verb vraja does not indicate an action but a thought of ac-

10 VB 55-57: itutanakku svar pam tannaip por tolikai. a gam

tannaiyolintavarraip por tolikai. up yam tannaip porukkum.

11 Maavammuni ad VB 55-56: up yavaratmakamna tannai

up yamenna sahiytapa iy yirukkai. at vatu – pdaprat tiyiloliya u apa inir pitt l svasminnup yatva pratipattikku y gyamkam apa i yirukkai-

yenrapati. ... carama lokattil ittai s gamka vidhikkaiyl , “ yad yat s-

gam, tat tat sdhanam” enkira ny yamitukkum vr t venna; a ga svar pa-

ttai dar ippikkav anta ny yami guvr tenru prttu, atu tannai yaru iccey-

kir r : “a gam tannaiyolintavarraippor tolikai.” ... svk rar pamna tan-

naiyolinta cetana prav ttika ilonraiyum sahiytapatiyirukkai. sdhanar pa

sakala prav ttika inu aiyavum sav sanatykamir yitukka gam “ yad yat

s gam” enkiravi attil prav tti r p ga sahitamna varraiyir sdhanam-

kac collukiratu; appa iyanrikk , itinu aya vakam niv ttir pamkaiyl , i ut n yitinu aya vanup yatva scakamenrukaruttu.




ceptance (Mumu 238-239), and ekam establishes that all up yatva isin the Lord alone, not in the acceptance (Mumu 220-222).

So in the Tenkalai interpretation of prapatti, the Caramalokaand the Ahirbudhnyasahit definition (AS 37.30-31) are taken ashaving a higher authority in articulating the true a gin-a ga con-struction than the other Pñcar tra texts. These passages indicate thatthe a gas of prapatti or ara gati are negative – the state of havingrelinquished all other up yas and being truly helpless. The absenceof an action or characteristic cannot truly be called an a ga in theVedic sense. Ritual a gas are in the form of the positive presence of some attribute or action. Thus, they claim, one can’t argue on the

basis of these negative a gas that prapatti or ara gati is an up ya.Maavammuni quotes Piai Lok crya’s Parantapai (in

ADR 155-156), which echoes Vedntadeika’s terminological dis-tinction between siddhop ya and sdhyop ya, while explicitly re-

jecting the view that nuk lyasakalpa and the other attributes men-tioned in Pñcar tra are truly a gas. In commenting on VB 57,Maavammuni says: “The siddhop ya [that is, the Lord himself]is intolerant of association with other aids. This idea Piai Lok cryahimself has revealed in his Parantapai, saying, ‘Since this particular

up ya does not tolerate anything other than itself, nuk lyasakalpaand the like cannot be designated as a gas to the up ya. Rather,these are characteristics which arise in the process, like sweat when

pounding rice.’”12

In summary, we can say that the Tenkalai doctrine of the lack of a gas in prapatti, though somewhat at odds with the Lak m-tantra’s teaching of prapatti, is quite reconcilable with the teachingsof the Ahirbudhnyasahit. But it is clear that the Tenkalai cryas

are seeing both Pñcar tra texts through the lens of the Caramaloka.The Caramaloka’s articulation of abandonment of all positive activi-ties as the precursor to taking refuge colors the Tenkalai interpreta-tion of the Pñcar tra a gas or vidhs of ara gati.

12Maavammuni ad VB 57: inta siddhopayam sah yantara sam-

sarg sahamayir yiruppatu. “ivvup ya vi esam svavyatiriktam yiruppaton-

rai sahiymaiyl yir nuk lyasakalpdikalukkumup y gatvamanrikk ,avak ta sv tam pl sambvita svabhvatvamukiratu” enru ivvarthattai

parantapa iyil ivarthm yaru icceyt rir .




We might note that Vedntadeika devotes an entire chapter of his Rahasyatrayasram (RTS ch. 24) to refuting the doctrine (pre-sumably of the Tenkalai cryas) that prapatti is simply a prayer or request rather than a six-limbed up ya with a gas. Quoting the Ahir-

budhnyasahit’s definition or ara gati as a request that the Lord be the up ya (AS 37.30-31), he says it is common in Vedic andcommon usage to refer to a ritual act by one of its a gas rather than

by the a gin, and that is what this passage does. However, he claimsthat other passages in Lak mtantra and Ahirbudhnyasahit clarifythat ara gati, ny sa, or tmanik epa is the a gin and that it hasmany a gas. (See R AJAGOPALAAYYA NGAR 1956: 265.)

THE ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL’S WILL OR EFFORT IN PR A P ATTI

Does the effort or will of the individual prapanna play a cru-cial and indispensable role in salvation? Can the Lord save even if not so requested by the individual? Or does He always wait for a re-quest from the individual, in the form of a clear act of prapatti? Thisis another important aspect of the disagreement over the nature of ara gati or prapatti. Two Lak mtantra passages are especially

relevant to this issue:(1) karuvn api vyakta akta svmy api dehinm || apr rthito

na gop yet . “Although the Lord is declared to be the master of allembodied beings, and although he is compassionate and capable, yetwithout a prayer He will not protect.” (LT 17.72cd-73a)(2) sarvajño ’ pi hi vi ve a sad k ruiko ’ pi san || sa sratantra-

vhitvd rak pek prat k ate | “Even though the Lord of the uni-verse is all knowing and ever compassionate, yet in order not to dis-

turb the order of sa sra, he expects a request for protection.” (LT17.79cd-80ab)

Here the Lak mtantra seems to affirm, as do Vedntadeikaand the Vaakalai school, that the Lord invariably waits for a request.It is interesting that the Lak mtantra even gives a reason for this: “inorder not to disturb the order of sa sra.” This is the central argu-ment Vedntadeika makes in defense of his position. For the Lord todo otherwise, says Vedntadeika, would result in the sarvamuk-

tiprasa ga, the logical result – which is clearly not seen – that every-one should have already been saved. The Lord is all powerful andcompassionate; if he doesn’t need a request from us, then he shouldhave saved everyone already. Since he hasn’t, it’s clear he is waiting




for this token, this initiative, in order to support the normal function-ing of sa sra according to the law of karman. Vedntadeika is

passionate about this point, referring to it over and over in his Raha-syatrayasram, and quoting these same Lak mtantra passages atevery turn. He sees all kinds of intolerable theological consequencesif this point is compromised. stric injunctions of dharma and pro-hibitions of adharma would all lose their meaning. The Viidvaita

principle of the agency (kart tva) of the soul and the Lord’s egali-tarianism would both be seriously threatened. 13

The Tenkalai position is not so carefully or consistently artic-ulated, but can be summarized as follows: Though the Lord usuallywaits for a request for protection, this is not always the case. Namm-lvr himself is an important case in point. Piai Lok crya’s youn-ger brother, Alakiyamaava Perum Nyanr, spells this out clear-ly in his book, the cryah dayam.14 The Tenkalai cryas defendthe Lord’s freedom to choose to save any individual He so chooses,completely unprompted by the will or action of the individual. TheLord can, and sometimes does, even force the will of the individual,and make him or her surrender, or choose an accidental good deed asa pretext for showering his saving grace on an oblivious individual. Nammlvr’s hymns are cited to claim that all this indeed happenedin his case. The Tenkalai cryas submit that the Lord’s ai varya,his lordliness or ownership of creation, extends this far. But they canalso agree with the Lak mtantra’s point: the reason the Lord seldomacts in this way – and generally seems to wait for the soul’s accep-tance of Him in order to effect salvation – is in order to maintain thel l vibhti or realm of sa sra, support the validity of his own stricinjunctions, and avert the sarvamuktiprasa ga. (See Mumu 228.)

Even if the Lord chooses to wait for this request, in order to preserve the meaning of the “ekam” in the Caramaloka, the Tenkalaicryas insist that the prapanna should think of that request as com-

pletely useless or superfluous in his own salvation (Mumu 226-229).The up ya is the Lord alone; one’s request is not really needed, andit’s wrong to think of it as having any instrumental value (up yatva).

13 See RTS ch. 11, quoting LT 17.79-80. This appears in R AJAGO-

PALAAYYA NGAR 1956 on p. 125.14 See especially cH 93-113 and VB 381-383, 396, and MUMME

1988, ch. 6.




“You be my up ya.” That is the request of the supplicant, as stated inAS 37.30-31. And the Tenkalai see it as an intolerable contradiction togive up yatva to the mere mental request that the Lord be the up ya.

ATO NEME NT FOR SINS AFTER PR A P ATTI

A fourth major point of dispute is how to deal with deliberatesins done after prapatti. Do they require atonement ( pr ya citta) inthe form of a subsequent prapatti or ara gati? If so, the status of prapatti or ara gati as an up ya is strengthened. Thus the doctrineof pr ya citta is a key disputed point in Tenkalai-Vaakalai debate.Here again, both sides quote the same Lak mtantra verses fromchapter 17 to support their positions. These passages are:

sak d eva hi str rtha k to ’ yam tarayen naram |“The teaching of this stra, done one time only, will liberate ahuman being.” (LT 17.92ab)

up y p yasa yoge ni hay h yate ’nay ||“Whereas by following the up ya and ap ya [method] one

does not have that advantage.” (L

T 17.92cd)ap yasa plave sadya pr ya citta samcaret |“If one intentionally commits some misdeed, atonement should

be done immediately.” (LT 17.93ab)

pr ya cittir iya stra yat puna araa rayet ||“Here, the atonement is yet again to take refuge.” (LT 17.93cd)

up ynm up yatvasvk re ’ py etad eva hi |

“The same, indeed, even if up yas are accepted as up yas.”(LT 17.94ab)

Vedntadeika focuses his attention on LT 17.93, and considersits meaning to be unambiguous. If you intentionally do any sinfuldeed after prapatti, you must do prapatti again for the specific pur-

pose of atoning for it. Failure to do so would not affect your salva-tion at the end of this life, however. It would simply delay your sal-

vation long enough to be punished for that sin in this life. Vednta-deika devotes a whole chapter of the Rahasyatrayasram to thistopic (RTS ch. 18) where these verses are quoted at the outset. AsVedntadeika sees it, the contention that prapatti could be done to




even remove subsequent sins is not found in scripture. Since theLak mtantra explicitly enjoins a subsequent prapatti as atonementfor sins after prapatti, its injunction would have no meaning if thefirst prapatti included even subsequent sins (RTS ch. 18, R AJAGO-PALA AYYA NGAR 1956: 180-181). Furthermore, there are many in-

junctions of the proper code of conduct for prapannas sprinkledthroughout the stras, all of which would have no meaning if the prapanna’s subsequent actions had no possibility of having anynegative karmic effect at all. Therefore he rejects as completely un-founded any claims that prapatti can be done in such a way as to for-give even future deliberate sins or that unatoned deliberate sins haveno affect on the prapanna (R AJAGOPALA AYYA NGAR 1956: 180-181).

The Tenkalai cryas take a broader perspective, interpretingLT 17.93 in light of the phrases just before and just after. Their ren-dering of this verse focuses on the phrase sak d eva or “once only” inLT 17.92a, which they take as having a normative force. As they un-derstand it, to see the next loka on atonement as injunction of anactual performance of prapatti would be contradictory to the sense of sak d eva. So they take it to enjoin simply meditating on one’s prior

prapatti and on the Lord’s self-sufficiency as the up ya to salvationas a kind of mental atonement. That’s enough to reinstate assuranceof one’s own salvation, if one were to somehow lapse into engagingin a subsequent sin. In commenting on VB 121, Maavammuniquotes the LT 17.92-94 passage above and clarifies that the atone-ment called punarprapadana means “remembering one’s previous prapatti, not undertaking it again.” Thus all that is being enjoinedhere is a kind of mental atonement, or mental reassurance. If one per-

forms a sin, and feels uneasy, thinking that one’s salvation is some-how threatened, one need only recall one’s previous prapatti. pra-

patti is not to be done more than once (LT 17.92ab) and engaging inup yas as up yas is said to be a sin (LT 17.94ab). So in light of thesetwo verses, the passage in between must be taken as enjoining mentalremembrance of the original prapatti as an atonement, not literal

performance of prapatti with the idea that it is an up ya for re-moving sin.

When they comment on the Caramaloka’s phrase sarvap pe-bhya, “from all sins” (as in Mumu 251) the Tenkalai cryas gener-ally affirm that “all sins” means all past, present and even future sins. prapatti is to be done once and for all ( sak d eva), as the Lak m-




tantra clearly states. Piai Lok crya says, “Even prapatti, done inconfusion, with the idea that it is an up ya, is equivalent to a sin.”15

In commenting on this passage, Maavammuni takes this passageto refer specifically to subsequent prapattis done to atone for later sin, saying: “ prapatti does not tolerate repeated performance; it isdone once-and-for-all. prapatti done again, by one confused or igno-rant of its nature, with the idea that it is a means to get rid of what isunwanted or to attain a desire, is equivalent to an offense just likeother up yas.”16

But these offenses, too, are included in the Carama-loka’s mok ayi ymi (interpreted in Mumu 254). Though the Ten-kalai cryas do not explicitly say so, presumably the sins that theLord promises to forgive would include all instances of prapatti

performed by the K ñc cryas following Vedntadeika’s posi-tion! So the implication is that the Vaakalai practitioners will go toVaikuha, too. The Lord, becoming their means to salvation as theyrequest, will generously forgive them of all their sins, including boththeir error of thinking of their original prapatti as an up ya for sal-vation itself, and their performance of later acts of prapatti as anup ya for the removal of deliberate sins.

CO NCLUSIO N

In summary, we may safely say that this investigation hasshown the following:(1) The main features of the doctrine of prapatti or ara gati taughtin the later r vaiava tradition are present in germ form in the two

passages on this topic found in Pñcar tra texts: AS 37 and LT 17.(2) Though the Tenkalai and Vaakalai schools differ in important

ways in their understanding of prapatti, cryas in both traditionsappeal frequently to these chapters, and indeed to the same passagesin these chapters, to support their position.

15Mumu 253: kalanki up yabuddhy paum prapattiyum ptakatt -

u okkum. This passage seems to be based on LT 17.94ab, though that text isnot quoted here.

16Maavammuni ad Mumu 253: sak t anu namoliyap punar-

anu nattai sahiyta prapatti svabhvattai ariyte kalaki ani a niv tti-

kk kavtal i apr ptikk vtal up yabuddhymu u paum prapattiyum ...

up yntaramppl ptakasamam. See also MUMME 1987b.




(3) The Lak mtantra is generally more compatible with Vednta-deika’s thought and the Vaakalai position; the Ahirbudhnyasahitis somewhat more hospitable to the Tenkalai interpretation. Neither text, however, can be clearly said to endorse either sectarian positionwithout considerable interpretation. Therefore, though these textsclearly teach prapatti as a separate up ya from bhaktiyoga, their articulation of prapatti seems to predate the sectarian split over howthis prapatti is understood.(4) Vedntadeika’s view of prapatti is slightly more consistent withthe view of prapatti that comes through in a casual reading of thePñcar tra texts themselves, where prapatti is taught as an up ya

like many others. The Tenkalai school tends to use the teaching of the Caramaloka as a lens through which they view Pñcar tra textson prapatti or ara gati. That lens helps them highlight importantwords and phrases in the Pñcar tra injunctions of prapatti to sup-

port their claim that prapatti is not like other up yas. It is, theyclaim, not an up ya at all. It is not a necessary cause of salvation andhas no instrumental efficacy of its own; it is simply a passive, one-time acceptance of the Lord as one’s complete and total means(up ya) for salvation: that is, the removal of all karman and the

attainment of mok a.

Documents

Pāñcarātra Texts in the Teṉkalai-Vaṭakalai Dispute