The Vaisnava Writings of a Saiva Intelle

The Vaiṣṇava Writings of a Śaiva Intellectual

Ajay K. Rao

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Although today Appayya Dı¯ks ı¯ta enjoys a reputation as the preeminent S´aiva polemicist of the sixteenth century, it must be remembered that he also wrote ˙ works from a distinctively Vais n ava perspective, in which Vis n u is extolled as the paramount god rather than S´iva. This paper examines one of those works, the ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Varadarājastava and its autocommentary. It places special emphasis on how the poem is patterned on the Varadarājapañcāśat of the fourteenth-century S´rı¯vais n ava poet and philosopher, Veda¯nta Des´ika, with close attention to the Varadarājastava’s ˙ ˙ use of the Vais n ava imagery of the dahara-vidyā or meditation on brahman as the small space within the lotus-shaped heart. While this meditation was the central ˙ ˙ devotional practice for Appayya Dı¯ks ita and for his S´aiva predecessor S´rı¯kan t

ha, in the Varadarājastava, Appayya is able to develop a more overtly Advaita dahara- ˙ ˙ ˙ vidyā, unfettered by hermeneutic fidelity to S´rı¯kan t ha’s S´aiva approach. The paper also considers the anomaly of Appayya writing as a Vais ˙ ˙ n ava in the context of the institutional conflicts that took place between S´aivas and Vais ˙ ˙ n avas at sites close to

˙ ˙ where Appayya received patronage.

Keywords Appayya Dı¯ks ita · Veda¯nta Des´ika · Vijayanagara · S´iva¯dvaita · Vis´is t a¯dvaita · dahara-vidyā · Cidambaram ˙

Introduction The Vais n ava writings of the sixteenth-century S´aiva intellectual, Appayya Dı¯ks ita,

and his complex relationship—his fascination—with his Vais ˙ ˙ n ava predecessor, ˙ Veda¯nta Des´ika, are curiosities: why was this paradigmatic S´aiva so obsessed with ˙ ˙ the discourse of someone who ought to have been his natural adversary? Studying

A. K. Rao (&) University of Toronto, 170 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5R 2M8, Canada e-mail: ajay.rao@utoronto.ca

A. K. Rao

the totality of Appayya’s theology reveals a S´aiva–Vais n ava paradox: there are passages in his S´aiva works where he proclaims the supremacy of S´iva, and there ˙ ˙ are passages in his Vais n ava works where he proclaims the supremacy of Vis n u. Appayya’s Vais n ava writings are of especial interest given that they were composed ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ amid documented institutional conflicts between S´aivas and Vais ˙ ˙ n avas in the Tamil region during the post-Vijayanagara period.

Appayya Dı¯ks ita, who lived from 1520 to 1592 CE and hailed from Ad ayapalam near Ka¯n˜cı¯, was perhaps the most important of the “new” Sanskrit intellectuals in ˙ ˙

the early modern south. 1 These new intellectuals distinguished themselves in part by their proficiency and productivity in a number of scholarly disciplines, and Appayya

Dı¯ks ita’s fidelity in representing rival perspectives in aesthetics, grammar, and theology make it at times difficult to pin down his core intellectual positions. Yet all ˙ the evidence that we have for his life history—in the form of retrospective Sanskrit biographies, characterizations by contemporary rivals, Appayya’s own writings, and the Ad ayapalam inscription of 1582—indicates that one commitment was more crucial for Appayya than any other: his identity as a S´aiva. Indeed, the Ad ˙ ayapalam inscription establishes Appayya Dı¯ks ita as a powerful institution-builder and ˙ partisan S´aiva who inaugurated a college of five hundred students, who built the ˙ Ka¯lakan t hes´vara Temple, and who was famously bathed in gold by his patron Cinna Bomma of Vellore upon the completion of his magnum opus. the Śivārkamaṇidī- ˙ ˙ pikā, a super-commentary on S´rı¯kan t ha’s S´aiva commentary on the Brahma Sūtra. The dramatic significance of this event became an emblem of his stature in ˙ ˙ hagiographies. 2

Under the patronage of Cinna Bomma, Appayya produced a series of key S´aiva works, including the Śivārkamaṇidīpikā, Śivatattvaviveka, Bhāratatātparyanirṇaya, Rāmāyaṇatātparyasaṃgrahastotra, Ratnatrayaparīkṣā, Ānandalaharī, and Śivādva- itanirṇaya, which develop, in pointed, polemical fashion, a distinctive S´aiva Veda¯nta metaphysics centered around the univocal identification of S´iva with the universal spirit, brahman. In these works Appayya is passionately devoted to demonstrating S´iva’s supremacy over other gods. In the Rāmāyanatātpar- yasaṃgrahastotra, for example, he adduces a series of incidents from the Rāmāyaṇa which seem to prove that, on the pretext of telling a story about Vis n u,

Va¯lmı¯ki really shows S´iva to be paramount. 3 We may take one example here: the ˙ ˙ killing of the demon Lavan a by S´atrughna. In the Rāmāyaṇa, before S´atrughna kills Lavan a, Ra¯ma lends him Vis ˙ n u’s weapon, but tells him not to attack the demon when the latter is in possession of the spear of S´iva, for at that time Lavan ˙ ˙ ˙ a would be unconquerable. The implication of Ra¯ma’s instructions, so it seems to Appayya, is ˙ that S´iva’s weapon is simply more powerful than Vis n u’s weapon, and by extension S´iva himself is more powerful than Vis n u. Appayya here cites Ra¯ma’s own words: ˙ ˙ “It is impossible to surpass that which is made by S´iva” (śrīmataḥ śitikaṇṭhasya ˙ ˙ kṛtyaṃ hi duratikramam). 4

1 On the innovations of the new Sanskrit intellectuals, see Pollock ( 2001 ). 2 The text of this inscription is provided by Mahalinga Sastri ( 1929 , pp. 148–149). 3 For a detailed discussion of Appayya Dı¯ks

˙ ita’s Rāmāyaṇatātparyasaṃgrahastotra see Bronner ( 2011 4 ). Rāmāyaṇatātpayrasaṃgrahastotra, pp. 4–5.

The Vais n ava Writings of a S´aiva Intellectual ˙ ˙

Turning from this S´aiva standpoint to Appayya’s Vais n ava writings makes one’s head whirl, for the contrast is sharp. In addition to writing commentaries on the ˙ ˙ Brahma Sūtra that articulate Vis´is t a¯dvaita and Dvaita positions, presumably for pedagogical purposes, Appayya wrote two important works that engage with the ˙ ˙ seminal S´rı¯vais n ava intellectual, Veda¯nta Des´ika (traditional dates, 1269–1370): a commentary on Des´ika’s epic poem, the Yādavābhyudaya, and a Sanskrit praise ˙ ˙ poem dedicated to the form of Vis n u at the Varadara¯ja Sva¯mı¯ Temple in Ka¯n˜cı¯, the

Varadarājastava. 5 We can characterize these works as Vais ˙ ˙ n ava (rather than merely being about Vis n u) by virtue of three characteristics that they all have: the ˙ ˙

˙ ˙ identification of Vis n u as paramount god, a Vais n ava theological idiom, and intertextual references to Vais ˙ ˙ n ava canonical texts (to the near total exclusion of ˙ ˙

S´aiva sources).

The Yādavābhyudaya narrates the legendary life of Kr s n a in twenty-four sargas.

A close examination of Appayya’s Yādavābhyudayavyākhyā leads to the inescap- ˙ ˙ ˙ able conclusion that the great S´aiva intellectual is commenting on a Vais n ava text as

a Vaiṣṇava. Appayya never interrupts the flow for the Vais n ava reader, even where ˙ ˙ the Yādavābhyudaya downgrades S´iva in a way that is strangely parallel to the ˙ ˙ downgrading of Vis n u evident in the Rāmāyaṇatātparyasaṃgrahastotra. Consider for example S´iva’s praise of Kr ˙ ˙ s n a in verses 79–86 of the twentieth sarga. Here S´iva says:

sisṛkṣatas te bhuvanāni sapta prasādato nātha babhūva vedhāḥ/ saṃhartukāmasya tavaiva kopād ahaṃ tvayā dattanijādhikāraḥ//

When you desired to create the seven worlds, the god Brahma¯ came into being through your favor. When you desired to destroy those worlds, it was because you yourself became angry that I received my charge,

from you. 6 The somewhat humiliated position of S´iva in this account constitutes a direct

reversal of his supremacy in Appayya’s S´aiva works. One might expect Appayya to take exception to this marginalizing treatment of S´iva, yet not only does Appayya provide a faithful gloss of the verse but he takes the additional step of citing a corroborating verse from the Mahābhārata. This verse attests the idea that the “two best among the gods” (vibudhaśreṣṭhau), the creator and destroyer Brahma¯ and S´iva, were born respectively from Vis n u’s favor (prasāda) and anger (krodha). 7

Appayya’s Varadarājastava is even more of an entry into Vais ˙ ˙ n ava waters. It is not a commentary but an original work, and that too a devotional poem voicing ˙ ˙

5 For a treatment of Appayya’s engagement with Vis´is a¯dvaita in the Pūrvottaramīmāṃsāvāda- nakṣatramālā, see Pollock ( 2004 ).

6 Yādavābhyudaya 20.81. 7 Mahābhārata 12.328.17: etau dvau vibudhaśreṣṭhau prasādakrodhajau smṛtau/ tadādeśitapanthānau

sṛṣṭisaṃhārakārakau//

A. K. Rao

praise for Vis n u in a distinctively Vais n ava fashion. In the Varadarājastava, Appayya often asserts Vis ˙ ˙ n u’s supremacy over other gods. For example, in the ˙ ˙ second verse Appayya calls Vis ˙ ˙ n u the supreme being, paramapuruṣa:

jāto na vetti bhagavan na janiṣyamāṇaḥ pāraṃ paraṃ paramapūruṣa te mahimnaḥ/ tasya stutau tava taraṅgitasāhasikyaḥ kiṃ mādṛśo budhajanasya bhaven na hāsyaḥ//

No one born nor yet to be born, O blessed lord, O supreme being, can know the full extent of your greatness. Won’t someone like me, racing ahead in your praise, become a joke for the wise? 8

In his autocommentary, Appayya strengthens the authority of the claim his own verse makes about Vis n u’s greatness by demonstrating its patterning on a revealed

śruti source. 9 ˙ ˙

These two sets of texts raise an obvious question of conceptual consistency: Can S´iva and Vis n u be paramount at the same time? The question is especially pointed given the circumstances in which Appayya wrote: a period when the social ˙ ˙ boundaries between S´aivas and Vais n avas were hardening, as is evident from a number of conflicts in Appayya’s near vicinity. ˙ ˙

Sites of Śaiva–Vaiṣṇava Conflict State policy seems to have had a direct impact on relations between S´aivas and

Vais n avas during the rule of the the Aravı¯d us, the last dynasty of the Vijayanagara Empire, and in the aftermath of the collapse of the empire. Sada¯s´ivara¯ya (r. 1542– ˙ ˙ ˙ 1570) and his powerful regent, Ra¯mara¯ya, abandoned the diverse patronage that had earlier been practiced in Vijayanagara: of S´aiva, Vais n ava, Jaina, and Muslim institutions. They commissioned the construction of Vais n ˙ ˙ ava temples, to the almost total exclusion of others. The temples that were built did not include subsidiary ˙ ˙ S´aiva elements (Verghese 1995 , p. 137). A S´aiva reaction to this shift in patronage may have been the reason behind the desecration of temples in the Vijayanagara capital after the battle of Ta¯likot a in 1565, which marked the end of Vijayanagara as an empire.

Many historians writing in the last century characterized the Vijayanagara Empire as a Hindu citadel against expansive Islamic imperialism. They based this account in part on the apocalyptic descriptions of Ta¯likot a that are found in Persian chronicles. Consider, for example, this account by Robert Sewell ( ˙ 1962 , p. 200):

8 Varadarājastava, verse 2. 9 Ṛg Veda 7.99.2, a Vis

˙ astabhnā nākam ṛṣvám bṛhántaṃ dādhártha prācīṃ kakúbham pṛthivyāḥ// nu hymn: ná te viṣṇo jāyamāno ná jātó déva mahimnáḥ páram ántam āpa/ úd

The Vais n ava Writings of a S´aiva Intellectual ˙ ˙

With fire and sword, with crowbars and axes, they carried on day after day their work of destruction. Never perhaps in the history of the world has such havoc been wrought, and wrought suddenly, on so splendid a city, teeming with a wealthy and industrious population in the full plenitude of prosperity one day, and on the next seized, pillaged, and reduced to ruins, amid scenes of savage massacre and horrors beggaring description.

Closer inspection, however, suggests a somewhat different picture. The desecration of temples at Vijayanagara did not result in the actual razing of temples but rather in the selective mutilation of icons in shrines that were, as it turns out, almost exclusively Vais n ava and not S´aiva. The Viru¯pa¯ks a Temple remained untouched, while worship at many major Vais ˙ ˙ n ava sites, including the central axis of the ˙ Vit t hala temple complex, was affected (Lycett and Morrison ˙ ˙ 2013 , pp. 457–458). Moreover, a comparison of the fortunes of S´aiva and Vais ˙ ˙ n ava temples standing side-by-side reveals a number of cases where only the Vais ˙ ˙ n ava temple was damaged. 10

˙ ˙ Some historians have offered convoluted explanations for this discrepancy. 11 It

seems likely, however, that it was S´aivas in Vijayanagara who were responsible for the desecration of Vais n ava temples, perhaps as a reaction to the dramatic loss of patronage under Sada¯s´ivara¯ya and Ra¯mara¯ya. A Kannada Vı¯ras´aiva prophetic text, ˙ ˙ the Jaṅgama Kālajñāna, actually retrospectively characterizes the defeat at Ta¯likot a as a punishment on the part of Viru¯pa¯ks a, the form of S´iva worshipped as the state ˙ deity in Vijayanagara, for his abandonment by Vijayanagara rulers. 12 ˙

After 1565, Aravı¯d u rulers were more aggressive in these policies as they shifted

their center of control east to Penukon ˙ d a and Candragiri. Ven˙kat a II—Appayya’s third patron—provocatively replaced Viru¯pa¯ks ˙ ˙ a with Vit t hala (a form of Vis ˙ n u) as the Vijayanagara ensign. It appears that the actions of figures associated with the ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ disintegrating Vijayanagara state and its successor states were a major factor in conflicts occurring at sites close to where Appayya lived, in the triangle between Tirupati, Ka¯n˜cı¯, and Tan˜ja¯vu¯r.

Appayya Dı¯ks ita’s intellectual life history can be divided into three separate

periods of patronage. ˙ 13 He first served a ruler with blood ties to the Aravı¯d us, Cinna Timma of Trichy, the nephew of Ra¯mara¯ya. He wrote all his major S´aiva works and ˙ built the Ka¯lakan t hes´vara Temple while later serving at the court of Cinna Bomma, an independent ruler at Vellore, and this constituted the longest period of Appayya’s ˙ ˙ adult life, until Cinna Bomma’s death in 1578. His last patron was the Vijayanagara king, Ven˙kat a II. The shift at this point in time from Cinna Bomma would have been

a dramatic one. Ven˙kat ˙ a II was the third son of the founder of the Aravı¯d u dynasty, Tirumala, and retained control of sections of the Tamil country from Candragiri, a ˙ ˙

10 For example, the S´aiva Giant Lin˙ga and Vais n ava Laks mı¯narasim ha temples and the S´aiva Mudu Vı¯ran n a and Vais n ava Tiruven˙gal ana¯tha temples. ˙ ˙

Verghese ( 1995 , pp. 137–138). Theories include the participation of Mara¯t ha¯s, predominantly S´aivas, in the army of the Bija¯pur Sultanate, bribes on the part of Vais n ava leaders to the invading armies, or the ˙ rapid abandonment of the capital by the Vais ˙ n ˙ ava-leaning royal elite. ˙ ˙

12 The text is listed in the Mackenzie Collection. Wilson ( 1828 , p. 272). 13 Mahalinga Sastri ( 1928 ) and ( 1929 ).

A. K. Rao

mere hundred kilometers from Vellore where Cinna Bomma ruled. He was crowned king at Candragiri in 1586 and returned from Penukon d a to rule from Candragiri for stretches. The relationship between regional Na¯yakas with emerging power bases ˙ ˙ and the remnants of the Vijayanagara Empire was an unstable one, and Vijayanagara overlords struggled for control of the deep south throughout Appayya’s lifetime and beyond: just as Cellappa led an unsuccessful rebellion against Acyuytara¯ya in 1531–1532, so Ve¯lu¯ri Lin˙ga, the son of Cinna Bomma, waged a revolt against Ven kat a II and was killed in 1603. The latter clash, between the regimes of his last two patrons, occurred only a decade after Appayya’s death. ˙ ˙

Both Ven˙kata II and his royal preceptor Laks mı¯kuma¯ra Ta¯ta¯ca¯rya, the adopted son of Pan˜camatabhan˜jana Ta¯ta¯ca¯rya, engaged in Vais ˙ n ava proselytizing. The seventeenth-century Vais n ava legendary chronicle, the Prapannāmṛta describes ˙ ˙ how the younger “Ta¯ta¯ca¯rya, having won over the emperor Ven˙kat ˙ ˙ a, made the entire world accept Ra¯ma¯nuja” (ākrāntaveṅkaṭapatirāyaḥ śrītātādeśikaḥ/ yatīndrābhimu- ˙

khaṃ samyak cakārākhilaṃ jagat//). 14 Laks mı¯kuma¯ra Ta¯ta¯ca¯rya, born in Kumbhakon am, wrote a number of philosophical and poetic texts and was also ˙ dynamically involved in religious institutions in the area between Tirupati and ˙

Ka¯n˜cı¯. 15 Making Ka¯n˜cı¯ his base, Laks mı¯kuma¯ra Ta¯ta¯ca¯rya personally took control of the land, ritual, and functionaries at the Varadara¯ja Sva¯mı¯ Temple. Rivalry ˙ between Appayya and the elder Ta¯ta¯ca¯rya, Pan˜camatabhan˜jana Ta¯ta¯ca¯rya (who hailed from the Ta¯ta¯ca¯rya family of Et t u¯r, also the family of Krs n adevara¯ya’s royal preceptor, Ven˙kat a Ta¯ta¯ca¯rya) forms a central trope in later S´aiva biographical ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ sources such as the Appayyadīkṣitendravijaya of S´iva¯nanda Yo¯gı¯, where Appayya is ˙ cast as the victim in cartoonish battles that are made to serve as the organizing

principle for his life. 16 Fanciful, colorful examples are related in these stories of Appayya’s miraculous escape from ill treatment at the hands of Ta¯ta¯ca¯rya, by such feats as curing fever induced by black magic, drinking poisoned water, and emitting fire from his hands.

The Vais n ava Prapannāmṛta draws Appayya Dı¯ks ita and Pan˜camatabhan˜jana Ta¯ta¯ca¯rya together in the context of a controversy regarding Vais ˙ ˙ ˙ n ava worship at the S´aiva center of Cidambaram. Despite Cidambaram’s significance to S´aivas, the ˙ ˙ Govindara¯ja shrine at the temple complex was also long revered by Vais n avas. According to the Kulōttuṅka Cōḻaṉ Ulā, the Col a king Kulottun˙ga II (1133–1150) ˙ ˙ removed the Govindara¯ja icon and banned Vais ¯ n ava worship at Cidambaram, leading to successive struggles by Vais n avas to reinstate the icon. None of the pre- ˙ ˙ Vijayanagara inscriptions at Cidambaram refer to the Govindara¯ja icon, and it ˙ ˙ appears that there was no Vais n ava worship at Cidambaram in the intervening period prior to the sixteenth century. ˙ ˙ 17

In the tendentious narrative of the Prapannāmṛta, Appayya is cast as the S´aiva antagonist, a “hater of the lord” (bhagavaddveṣī), “devoted to the S´aiva dharma” (śaivadharmarataḥ), and “the foremost of experts on the S´aiva system”

14 Prapannāmṛta, p. 252. 15 Vijayaraghavachari ( 1947 ). 16 On the Appayyadīkṣitendravijaya, see Yigal Bronner’s essay in this volume. 17 Balasubrahmanya ( 1931 , pp. 40–53).

The Vais n ava Writings of a S´aiva Intellectual ˙ ˙

(śaivaśāstravidāṃ śreṣṭhaḥ). 18 The Prapannāmṛta goes on to describe Appayya’s defeat at the hands of Pan˜camatabhan˜jana Ta¯ta¯ca¯rya and another S´rı¯vais n ava figure, Ma¯ha¯ca¯rya (or Dod aya¯ca¯rya) of Gat ika¯cala near Sholinghur. His defeat is brought ˙ ˙ about in connection with events at Cidambaram, where Maha¯ca¯rya and Pan˜cam- ˙ ˙ atabhan˜jana Ta¯ta¯ca¯rya eventually succeed in reinstalling the Govindara¯ja icon after they seek the assistance of the Vijayanagara ruler Ra¯mara¯ya. Pan˜camatabhan˜jana Ta¯ta¯ca¯rya received his name because of the title of his major work, the Pañcamatabhañjana, published posthumously by his student Ran˙gara¯ma¯nuja, the famed commentator on the Upanis ads. It includes critiques of Appayya’s S´aiva

philosophy. Maha¯carya was a major intellectual as well who wrote a voluminous commentary on Veda¯nta Des´ika’s Śatadūṣaṇi called the Caṇḍamāruta, another work that critically engages with Appayya’s thought.

It certainly seems that Appayya Dı¯ks ita had a strong personal connection to the Nat ara¯ja Temple at Cidambaram. It is said that he lived his last years in retirement ˙ and died in Cidambaram. However, Appayya never makes mention in his own ˙ works of any incident at Cidambaram. In addition, epigraphic evidence indicates that it was actually Acyutara¯ya (earlier in the sixteenth century)—and not Ra¯mara¯ya —who had the Govindara¯ja icon re-installed at Cidambaram. A 1538 CE Tamil inscription on the north tier of the central structure in the Govindara¯ja shrine records the reconsecration, confirmed by another Tamil inscription a year later, this time on the south wall of the main Nat ara¯ja Temple, to the right of the entrance. 19

We have one significant, if somewhat opaque, source of contextual information, ˙ expressed in Appayya’s own words. It suggests the possibility that Appayya Dı¯ks ita became ensnared in a violent situation at the hands of Vais n avas, whether at ˙ Cidambaram or elsewhere. The passage appears in the short, enigmatic poem in eight ˙ ˙

verses called the Nigrahāṣṭaka. 20 This poem includes descriptions of immanent danger, a call for violent resistance, and provocative fantasies of a reversal of fortune for Appayya’s Vais n ava opponents. In the second verse, Appayya asks S´iva to bring an end (“antaṃ gamayatu”) to those who seek to harm him in a desolate forest or on a ˙ ˙ lonely path. The final verse of the poem is especially terse and direct:

sakalabhuvanakartā sāmbamurtiḥ śivaś cet sakalam api purāṇaṃ sāgamaṃ cet pramāṇam/ yadi bhavati mahattvaṃ bhasmarudrākṣabhājāṃ kim iti na mṛtir asmaddrohiṇaḥ syāt akāṇḍe//

If S´iva together with the goddess created all the worlds, if all the Pura¯n as along with the A ¯ gamas are valid, if there is greatness ˙ in those bearing ashes and the rudrākṣa beads, then why do our enemies not die suddenly? 21

18 Prapannāmṛta, p. 203. 19 Annual Report on South Indian Epigraphy, 1 of 1915 and 272 of 1913. 20 Cited in Ramesan ( 1972 , pp. 147–148). 21 Nigrahāṣṭaka, verse 8.

A. K. Rao

In this passage, Appayya speaks directly here of his enemies. It is very tempting to try to identify them, but there is no historically verifiable detail that connects the poem to Cidambaram.

We do have evidence that interventions on the part of local officials led to physical violence at Cidambaram just after the lifetime of Appayya Dı¯ks ita. A letter by Fr. Nicolas Pimenta, a Portuguese Jesuit traveler, describes the dramatic fallout ˙ of the actions of Kr s n appa Na¯yaka of Gingee in 1597. Kr s n appa Na¯yaka had succeeded Su¯ruppa Na¯yaka at Gingee in 1576 as a feudatory of Ven˙kat ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ a II. Although other royal patrons were also involved in Cidambaram at this time, ˙ Kr s n appa seems to have been dominant in the area, as is evident from the large

number of grants in his name. ˙ ˙ ˙ 22 He also would have been intimately involved in the affairs of Cidambaram during Appayya’s sojourn there in the last years of his life. According to Fr. Pimenta’s letter, after Kr s n appa Na¯yaka ordered that the Govindara¯ja shrine be repaired and perhaps enlarged, twenty S´aivas committed ˙ ˙ ˙ suicide in protest by jumping from the temple towers, while others were shot at and killed, and a woman cut her own throat. 23

Another site of conflict, closer to the relocated Vijayanagara capital, is Maha¯balipuram, recently examined by Vidya Dehejia and Richard Davis. Additions to and erasures from the cave temples at Mahabalipuram occurred in two phases: those favoring S´aivas toward the end of Pal l ava rule and those favoring Vais n avas sometime during Vijayanagara control of the south. According the Dehejia and ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Davis, the Vijayanagara interventions show signs of “greater tension between S´aivas and Vais n avas,” evident in “shocking structural alterations and the drastic

removal of relief sculptures.” 24 ˙ ˙ In the Ra¯ma¯nuja cave, for example, images are now discolored and walls have been cut away in an attempt to re-fashion the three

original shines of S´iva, Brahma¯, and Vis n u into a single space dedicated to the worship of Vis n u. The Dharmara¯ja Man d ˙ apa and Koneri Cave, on the other hand, ˙ involve Vais n ava projects that appear to have been abandoned or left incomplete. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Dehejia and Davis date these Vais ˙ ˙ n ava interventions to the Vijayanagara period. Given the corroborating evidence described so far, might it be the case that they ˙ ˙ took place in the sixteenth century? If representatives of Vijayanagara were involved, it is unlikely that these alterations could have occurred at any prior point.

What was the relationship between the intellectual activities of Appayya Dı¯ks ita and his Vais n ava contemporaries and these institutional sites of S´aiva–Vais n ava ˙ conflict? Textual sources and the little documentary evidence that survives suggest a ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ strikingly different mode of engagement between intellectuals. This is indicated for example in the 1580 Sanskrit copper plate inscription of Sevappa Na¯yaka of Tan˜ja¯vu¯r. Sevappa Na¯yaka was linked to Vijayanagara as the brother-in-law of Acyutara¯ya and as the son of Ra¯mara¯ya’s minister, Cinna Ra¯ja¯. His inscription contains a reference to three figures, Vijayı¯ndra Tı¯rtha (Ma¯dhva), Ta¯ta¯ca¯rya

22 Balasubramanya ( 1931 , pp. 48–51). Vı¯rappa Na¯yaka of Madurai, r. 1572–1595, made improvements to the Nat

23 ˙ Cited in Heras ( ara¯ja Temple, including an outer wall known as “Vı¯rappa-Na¯yakan-Matil”. 1927 , pp. 553–554). 24 Dehejia and Davis ( 2010 , p. 9).

The Vais n ava Writings of a S´aiva Intellectual ˙ ˙

(S´rı¯vais n ava), and Appayya Dı¯ks ita (S´aiva), who debated with each other at Sevappa’s court: ˙ ˙

tretāgnaya iva spaṣṭaṃ vijayīndrayatīśvaraḥ/ tātācāryo vaiṣṇavāgryo sarvaśāstraviśāradaḥ// śaivādvaitaikasāmrājyaḥ śrīmān appayyadīkṣitaḥ/ yatsabhāyāṃ mataṃ svaṃ svaṃ sthāpayantaḥ sthitās trayaḥ//

Vijayı¯ndra Tı¯rtha, Ta¯ta¯ca¯rya, the leader of the Vais n avas

and expert in all the sciences, and the respected Appayya Dı¯ks ita, emperor of S´iva¯dvaita,

met together in this court, each establishing his own views, like embodiments of the three sacred fires. 25

It is not certain whether the Ta¯ta¯ca¯rya referred to is Pan˜camatabhan˜jana Ta¯ta¯ca¯rya or his son, Laks mı¯kuma¯ra Ta¯ta¯ca¯rya, since the latter served as rājaguru to Ven˙kat a

II some time after the latter’s coronation in 1586. ˙ ˙

Vijayı¯ndra Tı¯rtha (1514–1595) was an influential figure in Tan˜ja¯vu¯r under the rule of Sevappa, and he was involved in two incidents in Kumbakon am that appear to be at odds with the harmonious picture of intellectual debate depicted in the 1580 ˙ inscription: the encroachment of the Vais n ava S´a¯rn˙gapa¯nı¯ Temple onto the Viprasabha¯patı¯s´vara shrine in the temple of Somana¯thadeva prior to 1570 and the ˙ ˙

takeover of a Vı¯ras´aiva mat ha as the result of an eleven-day debate in 1576. 26 There is evidence of more sustained, heated polemics between Appayya Dı¯ks ˙ ita and Vijayı¯ndra Tı¯rtha than between Appayya and his S´rı¯vais n ava rivals, judging from ˙ texts such as Vijayı¯ndra Tı¯rtha’s Appayyakapolacāpeṭikā and Madhvādhvakaṇṭak- ˙ ˙ oddhāra, which leveled critiques against Appayya, and Appayya Dı¯ks ita’s Madhvatantramukhamardana, which took on the Ma¯dhvas. We are left to wonder ˙ how Appayya Dı¯ks ita would have responded to his close contemporary’s activities against S´aiva institutions at nearby Kumbakon ˙ am.

The contextualized study of Appayya Dı¯ks ˙ ita’s works remains an elusive desideratum. We are confronted in the late Vijayanagara period, as we are ˙ elsewhere in South Asian history, with severe limitations in terms of the weakness of our data, a result of a peculiar combination of historical circumstances,

environmental conditions, and ideology. 27 Although inscriptions and later sources consistently suggest that major intellectual figures of the day were involved in

25 Annual Report of the Mysore Archaeological Department (1917, pp. 15–17, 55–56). See Yigal Bronner’s article in this volume for another discussion of this verse.

26 See Sharma ( 1961 , pp. 399–400). Saletore ( 1940 ) studied the remarkably similar encroachment onto the Anantes´vara Temple at Udipi, which stemmed from competition over the digging of a temple tank

between another Ma¯dhva disciple of Vya¯satı¯rtha, Va¯dira¯ja (1539–1597), and the Nit t u¯ru village corporate assembly.

27 For a summary of the challenges to writing intellectual history of South Asia, including “a constitutional disinclination to time-space localization,” see Pollock ( 2008 , pp. 537–538).

A. K. Rao

institutional conflict, in nearly all the cases we are unable to connect the evidentiary dots. Artifacts of material culture represent haunting traces that offer few answers to the most relevant historical questions. What we can say with reasonable confidence is that there appears to have been a pattern of ritual contestation between S´aivas and Vais n avas that was occurring at the same time and place as Appayya’s authorship of the works discussed in this essay. This set of facts may help us in fleshing out the ˙ ˙ significance of writing as a S´aiva or as a Vais n ava in the Tamil country during the second half of the sixteenth century.

Who is the Lord in the Lotus-Heart? In the remainder of this essay, I return to the paradox of Appayya’s Vais n ava

writings in the context of this history of S´aiva–Vais n ava social conflict by ˙ ˙ examining in detail a single, crucial passage—the benedictory verse of the ˙ ˙ Varadarājastava (henceforth, VRS), the most important of Appayya’s Vais n ava works, together with its expansive autocommentary. The theological density of ˙ ˙ Appayya’s interpretive amplification here provides the ideal place to probe the depth of Appayya’s immersion in Vais n ava traditions. Careful examination of the VRS reveals close intertextual connections with Veda¯nta Des´ika’s Vara- ˙ ˙ darājapañcāśat (henceforth, VRPS), and it is through these specific patterns of influence that we may best be able to tease out Appayya’s objective in writing as a Vais n ava.

The VRS takes the dual form of homage and critique with respect to the VRPS, ˙ ˙ evoking the predecessor through repeated allusions but also overturning it in covert and overt ways.

Table 1 reveals a self-conscious mirroring. There is an identical progression from stereotyped self-deprecatory statements to concise theological speculation, then to general conceptions of the lord’s beauty, and, finally, to more detailed descriptions of Varadara¯ja’s form.

In one important sense, however, the structure of the VRS stands in contrast to that of the VRPS: it is almost exactly twice as long (106 verses instead of 51 verses). This doubling of length amounts to a not-so-subtle act of one-upmanship that is also apparent in other aspects of the poem. The change in length entails a transformation of the very genre of Sanskrit devotional poem. The VRPS conforms to the earliest style of Sanskrit praise-poetry. It is a philosophical poem that consists of a series of epithets detailing abstract qualities of Vis n u. While in the VRPS descriptions of erotic iconography comprise seven of the last verses, in the VRS, these descriptions ˙ ˙ are extended to such a degree that they constitute the body of the poem (seventy- eight verses or more than two-thirds). Unlike the VRPS, the VRS is an example of a new form of Sanskrit praise-poetry that incorporates modes of Tamil devotional lyric, such as liturgical imagery and descriptions of the god’s iconography. 28

Although this shift might be taken as delimiting the devotional relationship with Varadara¯ja—an emphasis on physicality of form rather than on universal

28 Nayar ( 1992 ).

The Vais n ava Writings of a S´aiva Intellectual ˙ ˙

Table 1 Parallel structures of the Varadarājapañcāśat and the Varadarājastava Varadarājapañcāśat

1 Benedictory verse

2–6 Disclaimers/ self-deprecatory verses 7–15

Vis n u as paramount lord, accessible through the horse sacrifice

The beauty of Varadara¯ja’s form

Surrender (prapatti)

44–50 The lord’s iconography and erotic imagery 51 Phalaśruti

Varadarājastava

1 Benedictory verse

2–5 Disclaimers/ self-deprecatory verses 6–9

The city of Ka¯n˜cı¯

10–11 Approach to the temple steps and sanctum sanctorum 12–13

Vis and within ˙ n ˙ u’s presence in the horse sacrifice, the Varadara¯ja Temple, 14–27

The beauty of Varadara¯ja’s form

28–105 The lord’s iconography and erotic imagery 28–34

Calves, knees, thigh, loins

Hands 82 Throat

Phalaśruti

qualities—early on Appayya Dı¯ks ita uses the conspicuous contrast with the VRPS to turn what he calls his inadequacy as a poet into a virtue: ˙

manye sṛjantv abhinutiṃ kavipuṅgavās te tebhyo ramāramaṇa mādṛśa eva dhanyaḥ/ tvadvarṇane dhṛtarasaḥ kavitātimāndyād yas tattadaṅgaciracintanabhāgyam eti//

O lover of Laks mı¯. Let the best among poets ˙ compose their poems to you.

A. K. Rao

It’s someone like me who is really fortunate. Because I am so slow as a poet,

I delight in describing you. And I get to meditate for a long time on every single one of your limbs. 29

Appayya’s slowness and deficiency in composing poetry allows him to linger over the form of Varadara¯ja. Here Veda¯nta Des´ika is cast as a “best among poets” (kavipuṅgava) but one who, by implication, is focused on conventional scholastic formalism rather than on loving description.

Appayya shows his indebtedness to Des´ika on the level of specific phrases, allusions, and images. I earlier discussed the second verse as a rephrasing of Ṛg Veda

7.99.2, with jāyamāno from the Ṛg Veda now replaced with janiṣyamāṇaḥ, jātó and mahimnáḥ remaining, and páram ántam becoming paraṃ pāram. Appayya’s words also closely mirror those of Des´ika’s in acknowledging the poet-persona’s temerity in praising the lord. Just as for Des´ika in his second verse the emperors among sages are unable to know (adhigantum aśaknuvataḥ), so for Appayya neither one born (jātaḥ) nor anyone yet to be born (janiṣyamānaḥ) knows (na vetti). In both verses, the poet’s effort is taken to be a form of impetuousness (sāhasa): Des´ika asks for forgiveness despite giving himself over to boldness (sāhasam aśnuvānaḥ), and similarly, Appayya describes himself as one racing ahead (taraṅgitasāhasikyaḥ). 30

Another example of imagistic echoing evokes a different work by Veda¯nta Des´ika: his allegorical play, the Saṅkalpasūryodaya. Both VRS 13 and Saṅkal- pasūryodaya 1.62 contain puns on the two meanings of the word pratyak: “west” and “inwards.” The Varadara¯ja icon faces the west, and therefore devotees look towards the east while viewing it; but in VRS 13, we are told that in looking inwards

(pratyak), they are also, incongruously, facing “west” (pratyak). 31 Veda¯nta Des´ika’s verse in the Saṃkalpasūryodaya includes the same compound, “facing westwards/ inwards” (pratyaṅmukha), with the same doubling of meaning. 32

This pattern of creative transfiguration is nowhere more evident than in regard to the theological core of the VRS: the dahara-vidyā or meditation on brahman as the small space within the lotus-shaped heart. The dahara meditation is the central devotional practice for Appayya Dı¯ks ita and for his S´aiva theological predecessor S´rikan t

ha, and it is an important topic in Veda¯nta, the focus of an independent ˙ adhikaraṇa in the Brahma Sūtra. The key Upanis ˙ ˙ adic sources for the dahara meditation are Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.1–6 and the Nārāyaṇa anuvāka of the ˙ Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad (attached to the Taittirīya Upaniṣad).

29 Varadarājastava, verse 5. 30 Varadarājapañcāśat, verse 2: yasyānubhāvam adhigantum aśaknuvanto muhyanty abhaṅguradhiyo

munisārvabhaumāḥ/ tasyaiva te stutiṣu sāhasam aśnuvānaḥ kṣantavya eṣa bhavatā kariśailanātha//

31 Varadarājastava, verse 13: pratyaṅmukhaṃ tava gajācalarāja rūpaṃ pratyaṅmukhāś cirataraṃ nayanair nipīya/ asthānam āptavacasām avitarkaṇīyam āścaryam etad iti niścayam āvahante//

32 Saṅkalpasuryodaya, 1.62: pratyaṅmukhī sumatidīptim iha pracinvan prāptodayo ’py amitarāgabalo- papannaḥ/ kṣāmyan ahaṃkṛtimayīm avaśo himānīṃ bhāsvān asau bhajati viṣṇupadaṃ vivekaḥ//

The Vais n ava Writings of a S´aiva Intellectual ˙ ˙

The dahara adhikaraṇa centers on a problem arising at the beginning of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad passage:

atha yad idam asmin brahmapure daharaṃ puṇḍarīkaṃ veśma daharo ’sminn antarākāśaḥ tasmin yad antas tad anveṣṭavyaṃ tad vāva vijijñāsitavyam iti.

Now, here in this fort of brahman there is a small lotus, a dwelling-place, and within it, a small space. In that space there is something—and that’s what you

should try to discover, that’s what you should seek to perceive. 33 This sentence appears to contain an ambiguity: to what exactly does the subtle

space, the dahara-ākāśa, refer? The commentaries consider three options: (1) the space element; (2) the individual soul, jīva; or 3) the universal spirit, brahman. S´am kara, Ra¯ma¯nuja, and S´rı¯kan t ha all concur that the dahara-ākāśa must refer to brahman, and not to the space element or to the individual soul, since, as elaborated ˙ ˙ ˙ in Brahma Sūtra 1.3.16, brahman and not the individual soul is an established

meaning for the word ākāśa. 34 And this dahara ākāśa could not be the space element because of an analogy made a few lines later—yāvān vā ayam ākāśas tāvān eṣo ’ntarhṛdaya ākāśaḥ (“as vast as the space here around us is this space within the heart”)—which would then become tautological. 35

In contrast to the dahara adhikaraṇa, Brahma Sūtra 3.3.43 marks a significant point of divergence among the commentators regarding the question of the Vais n ava or S´aiva nature of the meditation. 36 S´am kara, Ra¯ma¯nuja, and S´rı¯kan t ha all believe ˙ ˙ that the sūtra affirms the principle that indicating marks (liṅga) trump context in the ˙ ˙ ˙ interpretation of Vedic statements, as per Pūrva Mīmāṃsā 3.3.14. Sam kara, however, does not connect the sūtra to the dahara meditation. For him, the ˙ statement in question comes instead from the Agnirahasya of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. For Ra¯ma¯nuja and S´rı¯kan t

ha, on the other hand, the relevant statement occurs towards the end of the dahara meditation in the Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad: ˙ ˙

tasyāḥ śikhāyā madhye paramātma vyavasthitaḥ/ sa brahmā sa śivaḥ sendraḥ so ’kṣaraḥ paramaḥ svarāṭ//

In the middle of that flame rests the highest self. He is Brahma¯, he is S´iva, he is Indra. He is the imperishable, highest, self-luminous one. 37

33 Chāndogya Upaniṣad, 8.1.1. I have used Olivelle’s 1996 translation for the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. All other translations are mine.

34 Brahma Sūtra 1.3.16, prasiddheś ca. 35 Chāndogya Upaniṣad, 8.1.3. (Tr. Olivelle 1996 ). 36 liṅgabhūyastvāt tad dhi balīyas tad api. 37 Mahānārāyaṇa Upanisad, 11.13.

A. K. Rao

In the Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad, the dahara-ākāśa is described as located within a tiny flame in the heart.

The discussion forms part of the overall problematic explored in the third pāda of the third adhyāya of the Brahma Sūtra: the hermeneutic principle of coordination or upasaṃhāra. Coordination is defined in 3.3.5:

upasaṃhāro ’rthābhedād vidhiśeṣavat samāne ca There should be coordination of qualifications from different texts when the

meditation is the same, since the meaning does not differ, as in the case of the subsidiary elements of injunctions. 38

Drawing on the principle that distant passages can be brought together despite contextual differences, Ra¯ma¯nuja argues that the Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad statement is not contextually and syntactically delimited to the preceding description of the dahara meditation but in fact determines the object to be worshipped in all meditations in the Upanis ads. This is due to the fact that the qualifiers of the lord included here (akṣara, śiva, śambhu, parabrahma, parajyotiḥ, ˙ paratattva, paramātmā, etc.) are used in a wide range of meditations. Since Vis n u is left out of the list of qualifiers, he alone can be the actual object of the meditation. ˙ ˙

S´rı¯kan t ha makes an almost identical argument but with the reverse ideological significance—for him, the Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad establishes that it is S´iva who ˙ ˙ is the object of all meditations. Citing numerous verses in the Mahānārayaṇa Upaniṣad praising S´iva, S´rı¯kan t ha argues that in this text Vis n u is merely S´iva’s devotee, and S´iva, identified with brahman, is located in the flame in Vis ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ n u’s heart. The verse from the Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad quoted most frequently by S´rı¯kan ˙ ˙ t ha occurs just two lines after the flame verse just cited:

˙ ˙ ṛtaṃ satyaṃ paraṃ brahma

puruṣaṃ kṛṣṇapiṅgalam/ ūrdhvaretaṃ virūpākṣaṃ viśvarūpāya vai namaḥ//

Brahman is the cosmic order, the truth, the highest. He has a personality, is blackish-brown, and is chaste, with three eyes. We bow down to him whose form is the universe. 39

Several of the qualifiers here have strong S´aiva associations (e.g. kṛṣṇapiṅgala, referring to S´iva’s color, and virūpākṣa, referring to S´iva’s third eye). For S´rı¯kan t ha, the dahara meditation is emblematic of the core metaphysical synthesis of S´iva with ˙ ˙ his primal consciousness (cit-śakti). In S´rı¯kan t ha’s philosophy, cit-śakti is the supreme power of S´iva, the source of gross matter (prakṛti), S´iva’s conscious ˙ ˙ awareness of the phenomenal world, and the dahara-ākāśa itself. Cit-śakti as

38 Brahma Sūtra 3.3.5. 39 Mahānārayaṇa Upaniṣad 12.1.

The Vais n ava Writings of a S´aiva Intellectual ˙ ˙

dahara-ākāśa is in turn identified with S´iva along the lines of the Vis´is t a¯dvaita substance/attribute (viśeṣaṇa-viśeṣya) or body/embodied (śarīra-śarīrin) relation. ˙ ˙

Before examining how Appaya Diks ita interprets the dahara meditation in the VRS benediction and its autocommentary, it may be helpful to consider briefly how ˙ Appayya develops the dahara meditation in his mainstream S´aiva theology. Despite Appayya’s penchant for novel strategies aimed at bringing S´rı¯kan t ha into conformity with his own nondualist metaphysics, he is also deeply indebted to ˙ ˙ S´rı¯kan t ha for the formulation of key concepts, and this is especially the case with

the dahara meditation. ˙ ˙ 40 In the Śivārkamaṇidīpikā and in works like the Śivādvaitanirṇaya and the Ratnatrayasāra, Appayya strengthens S´rı¯kan t ha’s argument regarding the S´aiva nature of the dahara meditation while also deftly ˙ ˙ incorporating a Vais n ava element. In his comment on 3.3.38 in the Śivārkamaṇidī- pikā, for example, Appayya acknowledges that Vis ˙ ˙ n u seems to be the object of the dahara meditation in some Upanis adic passages, just as S´iva is in others. But he ˙ ˙ proceeds to provide a clear criterion for establishing the supremacy of the S´aiva ˙ dahara meditation: according to Appayya, the dahara meditation described in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad must be S´aiva because of the description of liberation contained therein; as for the Vais n ava dahara meditation, it is subsumed under the S´aiva dahara meditation, with Vis ˙ ˙ n u’s heaven (Vaikun t

ha) relegated to a subsidiary point along the path of sequential liberation (krama-mukti). ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ 41

In the Śivādvaitanirṇaya and the Ratnatrayasāra, Appayya seems to contradict himself when he asserts in connection with the dahara meditation that S´iva, and not Vis n u, is brahman; and that Vis n u is actually identified with S´iva. Appayya displays sleight of hand in attempting to maintain both hierarchy and non-difference between ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ S´iva and Vis n u, affording himself great flexibility in engaging polemically with

rivals of various stripes. ˙ ˙ 42 However, as we will see, Appayya makes no reference to any S´aiva re-framing of the Vais n ava dahara meditation at any point in the VRS or the autocommentary.

40 See Lawrence McCrea’s article, as well as Jonathan Duquette’s, in this volume. 41 Śivārkamaṇidīpikā 3.3.38: ataś chāndogye ’pi muktiphalaśravaṇāt tadāmnātā guṇāḥ śaivīṃ dahar-

avidyāṃ prāpnuvantīti yuktam. vaiṣṇavī tadupasarjanabhūtā. vaikuṇṭhaṃ bhagavallokaṃ gamiṣyatīti śravaṇena tasyā vaikuṇṭhaprāptidvārā muktihetutvāt. muktisthānasya vaikuṇṭhasya cordhvādharabhāvaḥ parāparabhāvaś ca prāgvyavasthāpitaḥ.

42 At the same time, he is also able to play the card of his advaita metaphysics to tendentious effect. For example, Appayya’s polemical critique of the Ma¯dhva system in the Madhvatantramukhamardana begins

with a benedictory verse that strikes a neutral chord regarding the question of whether S´iva or Vis n u is saguṇa brahman: śivaṃ viṣṇuṃ vā yady abhidadhāti śāstrasya viṣayaṃ tad iṣṭaṃ grāhyaṃ naḥ saguṇam ˙ ˙ api tad brahma bhajatām. (“If someone holds that S´iva or Vis n u is the subject of the śāstras, we desire it and accept it.”) (Madhvatantramukhamardana, verse 1). Appayya in his commentary clarifies that his ˙ ˙ support for the worship of saguṇa brahman—whether S´iva or Vis n u—ultimately rests on an advaita position. It may be the case that such a stance furthers Appayya’s case that his critique of the Ma¯dhva ˙ ˙ system is not based on parochial differences between S´aivas and Vais n avas but on sound exegetical and epistemological grounds, while also providing shelter to Appayya’s S´rı¯vais ˙ ˙ ava interlocutors who are doctrinally closer to Appayya.

A. K. Rao

Dahara Meditation in the VRPS and in the VRS Let us turn to a direct comparison of the treatment of the dahara meditation in

Veda¯nta Des´ika’s VRPS and in Appayya Dı¯ks ita’s VRS. The metaphorical development of the dahara meditation in the VRPS occurs in six verses: 12, 19, ˙

20, 21, 28, and 33. In verse 12, Veda¯nta Des´ika refers implicitly to the central controversy regarding the Mahānārayaṇa Upaniṣad’s flame verse—the omission of Vis n u in the list of qualifiers, taken by Vais n avas to indicate that Vis n u is brahman while the other ˙ ˙ deities (S´iva, Brahma¯, etc.) are mere manifestations: ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

brahmeti śaṃkara itīndra iti svarāḍ ity ātmeti sarvam iti sarvacarācarātman/ hastīśa sarvavacasām avasānasīmāṃ tvāṃ sarvakāraṇam uśanty anapāyavācaḥ//

You are ensouled by everything—the animate and the non-animate. “Brahma¯,” “S´am kara,” “Indra,” “Self-luminous,” “Self,” “All”— these eternal expressions seek you, ˙ O lord of the elephant hill. You are the end point of all words, the cause of all. 43

The first line is a direct rephrasing of the corresponding line in the Mahānārayaṇa Upaniṣad—sa brahmā sa śivaḥ sendraḥ so ’kṣaraḥ paramaḥ svarāṭ now becomes

brahmeti śaṃkara itīndra iti svarāḍ ity ātmeti sarvam iti. Veda¯nta Des´ika is referring to the Vis´is t a¯dvaita view that names like S´iva or Brahma¯ ultimately refer to Vis n u as

inner controller, since the meaning of all words terminate in him. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

The verse of most interest in the VRPS, and the direct model for Appayya’s benediction, is verse 20 (verses 19, 21, 28, and 33 of the VRPS contain somewhat

more subtle references to the dahara meditation) 44 :

ha for his part responds to the issue of Vis ˙ n ˙ u not being listed among the manifestations by citing a variation on the Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad verse, Kaivalya Upaniṣad verse 7, which does include Vis n

43 Varadarājapañcāśat, verse 12. S´rı¯kan

˙ ˙ sa prāṇaḥ sa kālo ’gniḥ sa candramāḥ// u: sa brahmā sa śivaḥ sendraḥ so ’kṣaraḥ paramaḥ svarāṭ/ sa eva viṣṇuḥ

44 Verse 19 describes the lord growing within the heart as consciousness (cinmayatayā): rūḍhasya cinmayatayā hṛdaye karīśa stambhānukāripariṇāmaviśeṣabhājaḥ/ sthāneṣu jāgrati caturṣv api sattva-

vantaḥ śākhāvibhāgacature tava cāturātmye//. Verse 21 lifts an exact phrase used in the Mahānārayaṇa Upaniṣad to emphasize the infinitely tiny size in which the lord appears in the heart: “a small hole” (sūkṣmaṃ suṣiram): audanvate mahati sadmani bhāsamāne ślāghye ca divyasadane tamasaḥ parasmin/ antaḥkalevaram idam suṣiraṃ susūkṣmaṃ jātam karīśa katham ādaraṇāspadaṃ te// (Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 11.9: satataṃ tu śirābhis tu lambatyā kośasannibham/ tasyānte suṣiraṃ sūkṣmaṃ tasmin sarvaṃ pratiṣṭhitam//). Verse 28 and verse 33 involve a shift from the Mahānārayaṇa Upaniṣad to Ra¯ma¯nuja’s use of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad treasure passage (described below). Verse 28 is patterned entirely on the Chāndogya treasure metaphor: nityaṃ karīśa timirāviladṛṣṭayo ’pi siddhāñjanena bhavataiva vibhūṣi- tākṣāḥ/ paśyanty upary upari sañcaratām adṛśyaṃ māyānigūḍham anapāyamahānidhiṃ tvām//. Verse 33 refers more obliquely to the dahara-ākāśa as inner controller: antaḥ praviśya bhagavan nikhilasya jantor āseduṣas tava karīṣa bhṛśaṃ davīyān/ satyaṃ bhaveyam adhunāpi sa eva bhūyaḥ svābhāvikī tava dayā yadi nāntarāyaḥ//

The Vais n ava Writings of a S´aiva Intellectual ˙ ˙

nāgācaleśa nikhilopaniṣanmanīṣā- mañjūṣikāmarakataṃ paricinvatāṃ tvām/ tanvī hṛdi sphurati kāpi śikhā munīnāṃ saudāmanīva nibhṛtā navameghagarbhā//

O lord of the elephant hill,

a wondrous slender flame shines in the hearts of ascetics who contemplate you. It is an emerald in a treasure-chest and the idea communicated by all the Upanis ads. It resembles abiding lightning

bearing a new cloud. 45 Here Veda¯nta Des´ika incorporates elements of the flame verse as well as the verse

directly preceding it in the Mahānarāyaṇa Upaniṣad: nīlatoyadamadhyasthā

vidyullekheva bhāsurā/ nīvāraśūkavattanvī pītābhā syāt tanūpamā//

It shines like a streak of lightning within a black cloud, as slender as an awn of rice, yellow in appearance,

comparable to the tiniest of things. 46 Des´ika’s comparison reverses the normal spatial relationship between lightning and

a cloud. Whereas in the Mahānārayaṇa Upaniṣad verse lightning contains the cloud (nīlatoyadamadhyasthā vidyullekheva), in the VRPS verse lightning is itself contained within the cloud (saudāmanīva nibhṛtā navameghagarbhā). This counterfactual metaphor corresponds visually to Vis n u’s dark form within the flame in the heart. In addition, by describing Vis n u as the “idea communicated by ˙ ˙ all the Upanis ads” (nikhilopaniṣanmanīṣā) Veda¯nta Des´ika also recalls Ra¯ma¯nuja’s ˙ ˙ extension of the Mahānārayaṇa Upaniṣad verse to other Upanis ˙ adic meditations.

There is depth to the layers of reference to the dahara meditation in verse 20. The ˙ metaphor of the lord being an emerald in a treasure-chest brings to mind a passage from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad that is cited by Ra¯ma¯nuja in his Śrībhāṣya and that also provides the imagistic core for Appayya’s benedictory verse in the VRS:

tad yathāpi hiraṇyanidhiṃ nihitam akṣetrajñā upary upari saṃcaranto na vindeyuḥ evam evemāḥ sarvāḥ prajā ahar ahar gacchantya etaṃ brahmalokaṃ na vindanty anṛtena hi pratyūḍhāḥ.