gnosis (jña ̄na) section. Its physiology which involves mystical centers and a
complex “vein” (na ̄d.ı ̄) system differs from that of such texts as the Hat.hayo-
gapradı ̄pika ̄ (probably composed after the fourteenth century). Its metaphysical
speculations consist of a kind of theistic Sa ̄m.khya with the emanation of suc-
cessive “principles” (tattva) from the Primordial Matter (pradha ̄na,prakr.ti), but
this Matter ontologically depends on Vis.n.u. Its teachings are similar to those of
the Vis.n.usmr.ti and it borrows certain passages almost verbatim from the Bha-
gavadgı ̄ta ̄. Certain ritual passages of the corpus also prescribe meditations on
complex metaphysical notions, for example the visualization by the performer of
the god from his “undivided” (nis.kala) aspect to his aspect “with divisions”
(sakala). Mantric texts like the Eka ̄ks.ara, the A ̄tmasu ̄kta, and the Pa ̄rama ̄tmika
contain the conception of an A ̄tman or Vis.n.u, both the creator of the universe
and omnipresent in it.
The major Vaikha ̄nasa theogonical notion is the group of “Five Manifesta-
tions” (pañcamu ̄rti): Primordial Vis.n.u, Purus.a, Satya, Acyuta, and Aniruddha,
already announced in the Vaikha ̄nasasma ̄rtasu ̄tra. The medieval corpus pro-
vides abundant instructions for the installation of this group of Manifestations
in a temple. It considers the last four of these Manifestations as fractions of the
Primordial Vis.n.u and as incarnating his four qualities (dharma,jña ̄na,ais ́varya,
andvaira ̄gya), four Vedas, four cosmic ages, etc. Purus.a etc. are sometimes iden-
tified with Vis.n.u, Sada ̄vis.n.u, Maha ̄vis.n.u, and Na ̄ra ̄yan.a (or Vya ̄pin) (also men-
tioned in Pa ̄ñcara ̄tra texts), and sometimes they are said to arise respectively
from them. The medieval corpus contains frequent and long descriptions of the
iconography and ritual installation of Vis.n.u’s incarnations (avata ̄ra), sometimes
divided into a ̄virbha ̄vas(Matsya, Ku ̄rma, Vara ̄ha, Nr.sim.ha, and Va ̄mana) and
pra ̄durbha ̄vas(Paras ́ura ̄ma, Ra ̄ghavara ̄ma, Balara ̄ma, Kr.s.n.a, and Kalkin).
While the Vaikha ̄nasas ́rautasu ̄tra, in common with Vedic and Mı ̄ma ̄m.saka
texts, did not recognize S ́u ̄dras (the fourth class of the society) and Anulomas
(groups born from fathers of a higher class than that of the mother) as qualified
to be yajama ̄nas, that is, institutors of Vedic sacrifices, the medieval corpus
accepts them as yajama ̄nasof several major temple rites like the installation of an
image, festivals, marriage of the god with S ́rı ̄ and Bhu ̄. This admission was con-
ditioned by the presence of devotion to Vis.n.u in the patron and by the ritual inter-
mediary of a “king” (ra ̄jan), that is, of an economically and/or politically eminent
person (though perhaps not specifically a person of a Ks.atriya class which was
absent from south Indian society). An initiation called Nigamadı ̄ks.a ̄ which
Vaikha ̄nasas conferred to non-Vaikha ̄nasas served as a ritual recognition of the
presence of devotion. This positive reevaluation of the role of S ́u ̄dras and Anu-
lomas perhaps corresponded to the growing economic and social importance of
these potential temple patrons. They could not be classified as twice-born, as was
the case with Vel.l.a ̄l
̄
as, often agriculturists, whom inscriptions of the eleventh
century mention as donors to Vaikha ̄nasa temples. The rather rigid social pattern
which the corpus prescribes is also mitigated by the omnipresence of devotion,
ritualized or not, in the masses, for instance during the Festival (utsava), when
strict rules against social promiscuity were lifted at least temporarily.
242 gérard colas