VOICES OF SELF-SURRENDER: 
RELIGIOUS MULTILINGUALISM IN MEDIEVAL SOUTH INDIA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A Dissertation 
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School 
of Cornell University 
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy 
 
 
 
 
 
 
by 
Manasicha Akepiyapornchai 
May 2022
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
© 2022 Manasicha Akepiyapornchai
 
VOICES OF SELF-SURRENDER:  
RELIGIOUS MULTILINGUALISM IN MEDIEVAL SOUTH INDIA 
Manasicha Akepiyapornchai, Ph. D. 
Cornell University 2022 
 
This dissertation explores the distinctive intellectual history of South Asian 
multilingualism. Specifically, it focuses on the South India based Śrīvaiṣṇava religious 
community (c. tenth century CE onward) as a paradigmatic case. It analyzes the Sanskrit and 
Manipravalam, a mixture of Tamil and Sanskrit, production of theological treatises on the 
doctrine of self-surrender—a defining feature of the Śrīvaiṣṇavas—to reveal the dynamic 
interplay between the development of self-surrender and linguistic changes.  
Expanding on existing studies of Śrīvaiṣṇavas and self-surrender, this work 
demonstrates that different languages need to be considered in understanding the medieval 
Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ doctrine of self-surrender. I argue that the Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ linguistic multiplicity 
provides not only conditioning factors for the doctrinal development but also the possibility to 
harmonize any theological tensions. The chapters in this dissertation collectively offer insights 
into how precisely religious authors from the twelfth to the fourteenth century theorized self-
surrender in Sanskrit and Manipravalam through specific historical conjunctures between this 
doctrinal development and linguistic movements: formation, systematization, heterogeneity, 
distillation, and harmonization. 
Based on the case study, this dissertation also challenges Pollock’s (2006) binary 
paradigm between Sanskrit and the vernaculars, showing that it cannot do justice to the highly 
diverse and fluid multilingual domain of premodern India. To better capture the complexity of 
 
South Asian multilingualism, it offers a new framework for understanding language as not only 
a linguistic medium but the sphere of related representations—of norms and modes of 
expression that are constantly negotiated and expanded by the agent—specific to social and 
intellectual circumstances.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 
 
Manasicha Akepiyapornchai received her bachelor’s degree in Pali and Sanskrit from the 
Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand, in 2014. She received her master’s in 
Asian Studies from Cornell University in 2016. She was an exchange student at Harvard 
University, under the supervision of Professor Francis Clooney, in Spring 2017, and the 
University of Toronto, under the supervision of Professor Srilata Raman, in Spring 2018. She 
was also an affiliated researcher at the French Institute of Pondicherry, under the supervision 
of Kannan Muthukrishnan, and the Pondicherry Centre of the École française d’Extrême-
Orient, under the supervision of Dominic Goodall. Akepiyapornchai was a data curator for 
archival projects, namely the Around Veṅkaṭanātha Project and Bhakti Virtual Archive, and 
also a cataloguing researcher of monographs in Grantha Tamil script at the École française 
d’Extrême-Orient, Paris Library, in Summer 2020. She currently participates in the Thai 
Translation of Kālidāsa’s Abhijñānaśākuntalam Project and the Age of Vedānta Project. After 
the completion of her doctoral degree from the Department of Asian Studies, Cornell 
University, she will be an Assistant Professor in Classical Studies of South Asia at the 
University of Texas in Austin. 
   
iii 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For my parents
iv 
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
 
This dissertation has travelled to various places—Ithaca, New Jersey, Montauk, Cambridge, 
Chicago, Toronto, Pondicherry, Bangkok, Paris, and Rome. In all these places, I have been 
fortunate to have many friends, colleagues, and teachers who have helped and inspired me. 
Tassanee Sinsakul introduced me to Sanskrit. William Whorton convinced me that I could 
pursue graduate studies. I would not have been where I am today without them.  
 I am so grateful for my advisor, Lawrence McCrea, who continually puts his faith in me 
and has given me the space and support necessary to complete this dissertation. Larry is a friend, 
teacher, mentor and much more. I appreciate Anne Blackburn, a member of my special 
committee, for her valuable advice and care, especially when I needed it most. I also really 
enjoyed our every meeting. I thank the third member of my special committee, Daniel Gold, 
for his enthusiasm and kind words from the beginning of my time at Cornell. This dissertation 
would not have had taken shape without Srilata Raman, an additional member of my special 
committee. Her research inspired this project, and it has been a transformative experience 
reading with her. I would like to express my gratitude to Francis Clooney, the other additional 
member, who introduced me to Manipravalam. He patiently read multiple drafts of this 
dissertation and I benefitted greatly from his guidance and wisdom. Among numerous language 
teachers with whom I have studied, I want to pay special tribute to Anne Monius. As a teacher, 
I could not have had a better role model than her. I will always remember how she selflessly 
gave me time and supportive encouragement whenever I needed them.  
I have received generous financial assistance from the Ananda Mahidol Foundation, 
Thailand, throughout my graduate studies. I have been awarded travel grants from Cornell’s 
Department of Asian Studies, Graduate School, Society for the Humanities, and Mario Einaudi 
Center for International Studies.  
v 
 
 For the completion of this dissertation, I am indebted to many scholars and colleagues. 
I benefitted from wide-ranging discussions and readings with Ajay Rao, Parimal Patil, Hugo 
David, Dominic Goodall, Harunaga Isaacson, Eva Wilden, Giovanni Ciotti, Suganya 
Anandakichenin, Elisa Freschi, Marion Rastelli, and Marcus Schumacher. Brett de Bary shaped 
my interest in translation. Naoki Sakai encouraged me to develop my own linguistic framework. 
Erin McCann tirelessly helped me with a lot of the translation in this dissertation. Other scholars 
I always consider as my mentors, although I did not have an occasion to formally or officially 
be their students include Patricia Mumme, Steven Hopkins, David Shulman, Yigal Bronner, 
Whitney Cox, and Alex Watson. I gratefully acknowledge Maneepin Phromsuthirak, Prapod 
Assavavirulhakarn, Chanwit Tudkeao, Arnika Fuhrmann, and Peera Panarut for their support 
academically and personally along the way.   
I am lucky to have friends in every place I have been. At Cornell, those who have made 
the academic journey worthwhile include Tarinee Awasthi, Bruno Shirley, Liyu Hua, Patrick 
Cummins, Nils Seiler, Chantal Croteau, Alexandra Dalferro, Anissa Rahadi, and Juan 
Fernandez. In other places, I have also met many friends who are all expert and helpful such as 
Sohini Pillai, Mirela Stosic, Kristina Rogahn, Morgan Curtis, Tamara Cohen, Melissa Lago, 
Seth Powell, Jonathan Peterson, and Shiv Subramaniam. In India, I have always been welcomed 
by the friendly faces of Kannan Muthukrishnan, Prakash Venkatesan, and Matthew Baxter. 
Those who have made Ithaca and the East Coast enjoyable include but are not limited to 
LoBiondo family, Somsinee Haegele, Chairat Polmuk, Matthew Reeder, Tinakrit Sireerat, 
Sireemas Maspong, Sirithorn Siriwan, Francesco Burroni, and Danai Ployplai. Finally, I cannot 
thank my loved ones enough for always being there for me: Veeraporn Nitiprabha, Pirachula 
Chulanon, Daniele Cuneo, my brother, my uncle Charun, my grandmother, and my parents. 
vi 
 
TABLE OF CONTENT 
 
 
Introduction          1 
Chapter 1: Formation         37 
Chapter 2: Systematization        94 
Chapter 3: Heterogeneity        151 
Chapter 4: Distillation        197 
Chapter 5: Harmonization        241 
Conclusion          283 
Bibliography          292 
 
 
vii 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
How can we conceive of multilingualism in a premodern South Asian context in which 
languages were not bound to nations, and one culture or community often used more than one 
language? The areas that today are labelled Europe and North America have been the focus of 
multilingualism studies. In contrast, the history of premodern South Asian multilingualism 
remains open to investigation. Given that South Asian religious communities are one of the 
main sites of multilingual textual production—written and oral—and religious agents have 
heavily and dynamically engaged with languages to serve religious purposes and to claim their 
identities, the religious domain deserves as much attention as the literary and political domains 
that recent South Asian scholars have investigated.1 How did religious agents cross language 
boundaries; how did they make linguistic choices under a specific historical situation, 
intellectual tension, or social condition; and how did their choices define and redefine religious 
ideas? What can their multilingual texts tell us about the impact of multilingualism on their 
self-understanding in premodern South Asia?  
This dissertation “Voices of Self-surrender: Religious Multilingualism in Medieval 
South India” will answer these questions and explore the intellectual history of South Asian 
multilingualism during the medieval period, which is critical to linguistic transformation and 
institutional formation. It particularly engages with two domains, religion and multilingualism. 
To understand religion, it adopts Gavin Flood’s (1996) definition of religion as a set of people’s 
beliefs and practices that are related to “the sacred” or “a quality of mysterious power which is 
believed to dwell within certain objects, persons and places and which is opposed to chaos and 
 
1 For example, Ollett, Language of the Snakes, and Pollock, The Language of the God in the World of Men. 
1 
 
death.”2 It also agrees with Flood’s understanding that religion exists only within particular 
cultures and societies.3 Importantly, it acknowledges that what “religion” means in the context 
of this research is comparative and may not be similar to self-identification of the agents 
investigated here.4  
Participating in the scholarship on South Asian multilingualism, my dissertation first 
criticizes the most groundbreaking among the studies, Sheldon Pollock’s Language of Gods in 
the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India (2006). In this book, 
Pollock proposes the hierarchical paradigm between “Sanskrit cosmopolis,” the literary and 
political monopoly, and the vernaculars. Based on the paradigm, the vernaculars were 
subordinate and had to model on Sanskrit in order to eventually replace it in both polity and 
poetry in the second millennium. Many scholars have proved that this binary opposition 
between Sanskrit and vernaculars insufficiently captures the linguistic complexity and 
interactions in India and beyond (e.g., Hopkins 2002, Shulman 2007 and 2016, McCrea 2013, 
Francis 2013 and 2021, and Birkenholtz 2018). To specify, the fixation on Sanskrit does not do 
justice to the highly multilingual terrain of premodern India particularly as it ignores other 
essential and ancient vernaculars such as Tamil in the South. Furthermore, Pollock’s argument 
downplays the connection between linguistic changes and religious communities, exemplified 
by scholars such as Monius (2001) as central to the Tamil-speaking landscape.5 Despite its 
flaws, Pollock’s theory challenges current scholarship to respond and broaden the scope of 
South Asian multilingualism studies.  
 
2 Flood, An Introduction to Hinduism, 9. 
3 Ibid., 8–10. 
4 For the comparative nature of the term “religion,” see Freiberger, Considering Comparison. 
5 See my article, “Translation in a Multilingual Context.”  
2 
 
Recent scholarship on South Asian multilingualism has branched into two directions, 
one that presents an immense history with one language as the protagonist, such as Ollett’s 
Language of the Snakes (2017), and one that offers macrolevel narratives of multilingualism 
over a myriad of materials across geographical and temporal domains.6 However, these studies 
fail to capture the subtlety, fluidity, and real impact of multilingualism, which can be revealed 
only when we look at the linguistic usage, the continuity and discontinuity, within a single 
community.  
As a paradigmatic example, I chart the dynamic interplay between the intellectual ideas 
and linguistic changes in the South Indian-based Śrīvaiṣṇava religious community. The 
community, which is currently still active and known among the Śrīvaiṣṇava scholars as “the 
Śrīvaiṣṇava tradition,” was formed circa the tenth century CE in the area known today as 
Tamilnadu, South India.7 Remarkable characteristics of the community are the so-called 
equality of Tamil and Sanskrit scriptures and the use of Sanskrit, Tamil, and Manipravalam, the 
hybrid language that combines Tamil and Sanskrit, in compositions. More specifically, I focus 
on the multilingual production of the theological and philosophical treatises from the twelfth to 
the fourteenth century, when we see the attention given to the doctrinal development of self-
surrender, a defining feature of the Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ theology and practices. Generally speaking, 
the doctrine emphasizes the hierarchical relationship between God and the devotees who are 
subordinate to God due to the soul’s essential nature. Devotees can only resort to God as the 
sole refuge, surrendering their total agency and devotion to Him, in order to be liberated from 
transmigration of sufferings. Self-surrender was elaborately addressed in the three languages of 
 
6 The most recent one among them is Linguistic and Textual Aspects of Multilingualism in South India and Sri 
Lanka (2021). 
7 All dates mentioned in this work belong to the common era (CE) unless indicated otherwise. 
3 
 
Sanskrit, Tamil, and Manipravalam. “Voices of Self-surrender” shows the intertwined histories 
between self-surrender and linguistic changes within the Śrīvaiṣṇava community. It argues that 
the Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ linguistic multiplicity provides not only conditioning factors for the doctrinal 
development but also the possibility to harmonize any theological tensions. Therefore, different 
languages need to be considered in understanding the medieval Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ doctrine of self-
surrender. It should be noted that I differentiate between “community” and “tradition” in this 
work: while the term “community” refers to a body of diverse people who share certain beliefs, 
the term “tradition” denotes a more tightly bound and inclusive community of people with the 
emphasis on a doctrine such as self-surrender that they develop and follow. 
This work further proposes three meta-insights into religious multilingualism in 
premodern South Asia. First, it affirms that how to conceptualize South Asian intellectual 
culture should include an awareness of more than one language. Although languages provide 
certain frames for the author, their boundaries are not impermeable, and the author has agency 
in choosing to work in one linguistic domain, or the other, or across. Second, it reveals that 
Pollock’s dichotomous model of “Sanskrit cosmopolis” and the vernaculars is insufficient for 
analyzing the cultural contexts in which more than two languages are at stake, and that Sanskrit, 
while dominant in particular intellectual and social domains, is not hegemonic in relation to the 
vernaculars. Specifically, in a religious domain like the Śrīvaiṣṇava community where 
vernaculars grappled with what Vedic orthodoxy, which accepts and relies on the scriptural 
authority of the Sanskrit Vedas, implied from the early period, linguistic interaction between 
Sanskrit and the vernaculars must be seen differently. Sanskrit could not operate in a closed 
environment without much contact with the vernaculars, unlike in the political and literary 
domains that Pollock’s model implicitly assumes. Finally, this dissertation offers a new 
4 
 
framework to account for the multiplicity of languages and the flexibility of their interactions 
in South Asian religious contexts. Through this framework, we can view language not only as 
a linguistic medium but also as the sphere of related representations of norms and modes of 
expression that are constantly negotiated and expanded by the agent. Importantly, these 
linguistic spheres are specific to historical circumstances.  
In addition, this dissertation seeks to contribute to other fields of study, including, the 
intellectual history of South Asia, the religious studies of theism, and Śrīvaiṣṇava scholarship. 
It draws South Asian intellectual historians’ attention to “human-scale studies” or micro-
perspective investigation of agents and their intellectual projects and dialogical and polemical 
relationships between texts. For the field of religious studies, it highlights that religious ideas 
are constructed by working out the tensions between languages that impact agents’ choices that 
entail multilinguality. With attention to subtle and transformative choices made by religious 
agents in the Śrīvaiṣṇava community, this research affirms John Nemec’s argument that 
“change is not inimical to religion, even if particular religious agents are not infrequently 
inimical to change.”8 My dissertation further suggests that we cannot subsume authors and their 
transformative and complex voices under an umbrella of a “coherent” tradition.9   
 
The Intellectual History of Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ Multilingualism and Self-surrender 
This section explains some of methodological and conceptual practices that this dissertation 
engages strongly with and is indebted to: South Asian intellectual history, the Śrīvaiṣṇava 
multilingual textual corpus of self-surrender, and language and multilingualism. 
 
 
8 Nemec, “Innovation and Social Change,” 284. 
9 See the following section on South Asian intellectual history. 
5 
 
South Asian Intellectual History 
The primary methodology of this dissertation is the history of ideas or intellectual history, 
following Quentin Skinner’s approach. Skinner views texts as representing “both the intention 
to be understood, and the intention that this intention should be understood”10 and thus should 
be accompanied with contexts specific to those texts to avoid the superimposition of 
anachronistic ideas and an assumption of textual consistency.11 However, Skinner’s supposition 
of the interactions and dependency between texts, an author’s intentions, and contexts is not 
always applicable to the space that embodies variety and heterogeneities such as medieval 
South India.  
Instead of reading texts to recover the author’s intentions, I find the way of reading 
South Asian texts developed by Ronald Inden, Jonathan Walters, and Daud Ali in Querying the 
Medieval (2000) useful, especially when exploring several texts together.12 Based on their 
work, I understand texts as interdiscursive, dialogical, and polemical in the relations that agents 
have with themselves or others. Agents compose texts—written, oral, and in other forms—to 
make arguments either directly or indirectly that are specific to a situation and responsive to 
prior and circulating debates, and “a particular text is itself one momentary effect or result of 
the textual practices in which agents engage.”13 Looking at a text in this situational and 
dialogical manner allows us to effectively examine texts without ample concrete material or 
historical evidence of the world they inhabited. More importantly, the emphasis on the 
 
10 Skinner, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” 48–49. 
11 Ibid., 49: “The ‘context’ mistakenly gets treated as the determinant of what it said. It needs rather to be treated 
as an ultimate framework for helping to decide what conventionally recognizable meanings, in a society of that 
kind, it might in principle have been possible for someone to have intended to communicate.” 
12 Inden, Walters, and Ali, Querying the Medieval, 5–15. 
13 Ibid., 12. 
6 
 
heterogeneous and transformative dimensions of texts in Querying the Medieval draws our 
attention to the moments of continuity and change and the reasons or situations behind them. 
This approach further creates space for us to investigate religious agents and helps us avoid the 
tendency to subsume what the agents did, their decisions and contributions.14 
To document the detailed histories of intellectual encounters and endeavors, this 
dissertation is modeled on “human-scale studies” proposed by Anne Blackburn in Locations of 
Buddhism: Colonialism and Modernity in Sri Lanka (2010). According to Blackburn, this 
micro-perspective investigation, which is immersed in a particular figure along with the 
surrounding intellectual and institutional projects, reveals “the ways in which colonial-period 
institutions and social structure were inhabited at specific historical conjunctures.”15 Although 
Blackburn’s project addresses British rule in Sri Lanka, the human-scale investigation 
illuminates the broader South Asian context and South Asian multilingualism as it complements 
macro-level studies such as Pollock’s and Ollett’s. It is important to note that there have been 
various micro-level studies of Śrīvaiṣṇava figures and beyond who contribute to the shaping of 
either Sanskrit or vernacular communities, especially devotional ones. Nevertheless, by 
adopting this approach, this dissertation aims to extensively explore a series of religious figures 
who embodied the multilingual world of both Sanskrit and the vernacular, even if they 
composed only in Sanskrit and Manipravalam. Specifically, it brings the same attention to a 
religious figure as it does to textual engagement, and institutional projects. However, while 
Blackburn’s case study explores Sri Lankan Buddhist intellectual encounters with an external 
factor such as the British rule, I focus on the internal linguistic tension and formation of a 
 
14 Ibid., 12-14. 
15 Blackburn, Locations of Buddhism, 203. 
7 
 
Śrīvaiṣṇava communal unity more so than on outside social threats. 
 
The Śrīvaiṣṇava Multilingual Textual Corpus of Self-surrender 
Since its origin circa the tenth century, the Śrīvaiṣṇava community used Tamil, which was 
infused with devotional attitude, and Sanskrit, which was tied to their philosophical system and 
pan-Indic Vedic orthodoxy, to hand down scriptures and expound theology.16  
On the one hand, the authorship of the Tamil scripture, the Nārāyirativiyappirapantam, 
is attributed to the twelve Āḻvārs (c. sixth to tenth century), the South Indian Vaiṣṇava poets, 
who were regarded as the Śrīvaiṣṇava first generations. The Nārāyirativiyappirapantam is a 
collection of each Āḻvār’s independent work(s), including the Tiruvāymoḻi of Nammāḻvār (c. 
late eighth to early ninth century),17 the low-born Vaiṣṇava poet and the most revered Āḻvār. 
Among the Śrīvaiṣṇavas, the recovery and anthologization of the corpus and the establishment 
of its performative recitation for propagation and transmission were credited to Nāthamuni (c. 
tenth century), the first teacher (ācārya) of the generation after the Āḻvārs.18 Moreover, the 
Tamil collection inherits classical Tamil literary practices, of which the most notable is the love 
poetry or the poetry of “interior landscape” (akam), used for devotional expression.19 It also 
contains many narratives and mythologies found in the Sanskrit literature. Importantly, it shares 
the Southern devotional or “Tamil bhakti” terrain with other religious communities, such as the 
Śaiva Nāyaṉmārs and their Tēvāram, and shows the attitude of rivalry toward non-Vedic 
communities, such as the Buddhists and Jains.20 
 
16 For other elements in the Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ theological formation, see Freschi, “Śrī Vaiṣṇavism.” 
17 Venkatesan, Endless Song, 6. 
18 Venkatesan specifies that there is the inscriptional evidence of the recitation of the Tiruvāymoḻi since the 
eleventh century and there are a number of the thirteenth-century inscriptions recounting a festival of its 
recitation (Endless Song, Introduction). 
19 Narayanan, The Way and the Goal, 7–57. 
20 Anandakichenin, “Āḻvār.” 
8 
 
On the other hand, the Sanskrit scripture mainly comprises authoritative texts that are 
part of the broader system of philosophical, theological, and scriptural-hermeneutic knowledge, 
retrospectively collected under the name “Vedānta.” The system emerged in the late first and 
early second millennia and exegetically and philosophically dominated the premodern Indian 
world during the second millennium. The name “Vedānta,” which means “the end of the 
Vedas,” refers to the system’s conformity to both the Vedas or śruti, which possess the highest 
authority among the orthodox Vedic systems, and the Upaniṣads, the later part or the “end” of 
the Vedas as interpreted in the Brahmasūtra. The Śrīvaiṣṇavas developed their sub-system of 
Vedānta later labeled “qualified non-duality” (Viśiṣṭādvaita).21 Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta expounds 
that the soul and the material world are the qualification of the Supreme God, Viṣṇu-Nārāyaṇa, 
and thus not separate from Him.22 The early medieval Śrīvaiṣṇavas further incorporated the 
scriptural corpus of smṛti, which is the subordinate to and in conformity with śruti, and those 
external to Vedānta—the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās or Āgamas, a collection of ritual and theological 
Sanskrit texts associated with the Vaiṣṇava communities who worship Viṣṇu as the Supreme 
God. Thus, the Sanskrit heritage of the Śrīvaiṣṇavas is shared by other philosophical and 
religious domains, especially Vedānta. 
Around the twelfth century, the two scriptures were recognized in some of the 
Śrīvaiṣṇava compositions as authoritatively equivalent sacred texts under the notion of the dual 
scriptures known today as “Ubhayavedānta” (lit., the two Upaniṣads).23 A variation of this term, 
 
21 The term was first used by Sudarśanasūri, Rāmānuja’s commentator, and became identified with the system in 
the latter half of the sixteenth century, according to Varadachari, “Antiquity of the term Viśiṣṭādvaita.” 
22 For more on Rāmānuja’s theology, see Carman, The Theology of Rāmānuja, and Lipner, The Face of Truth. 
23 It should be noted that the label “the Tamil Veda” can be found before the twelfth century. However, the 
explicit claim of the two Vedas, one in Tamil and the other in Sanskrit, was made systematically after that. For 
more information on the pre-twelfth century notion of the Tamil Veda, see Venkatesan, Endless Song. 
9 
 
“the confluence of the end of the Vedas” (“śrutyanta yugma”), occurs for the first time circa 
the late eleventh or the early twelfth century in the Yatirāja Vaibhavam  by Āndhra Pūrṇa, a 
disciple of Rāmānuja (c. eleventh century), the most important Śrīvaiṣṇava leader.24 It should 
be noted that this notion does not refer to a word-for-word parallel between the Sanskrit and 
Tamil scriptures but to their equal status as the revelation of God’s essence. Importantly, the 
two languages were not perceived as identical.  
In my understanding, this notion is based on the claim that the Tamil scripture, most 
evidently Nammāḻvār’s Tiruvāymoḻi, which is the most authoritative work of poetry among the 
Āḻvārs, is comparable to the Sanskrit one and not the other way around25 since both the Vedas 
and the Upaniṣads were scriptures within Vedic orthodoxy and highly regarded within Vedānta 
before the acknowledgment of the Tiruvāymoḻi as the Tamil scripture. The label “Tamil Veda” 
has its earliest reference (“drāviḍa-veda”) in the Sanskrit taṉiyaṉ (a single praise-poem) 
attributed to Nāthamuni.26 It should be noted that the status of the Tiruvāymoḻi was associated 
with not only “the Veda” but also the Upaniṣad (“āmnāyānām śira”) and the Saṃhitā 
(“drāviḍīm brahma-saṃhitām”) as early as in the Sanskrit praise-poems of Kūreśa (c. eleventh 
century) and Pārāśara Bhaṭṭar (c. twelfth century).27 The variety of terms used to refer to the 
Tiruvāymoḻi suggests that its authority as a part of the Vedic corpus is more important than its 
actual identification with the Veda. Thus, it can be considered as either the Veda or Upaniṣad 
as long as it is as authoritative as the Sanskrit scripture. In addition, the Tiruvāymoḻi is 
 
24 Carman and Narayanan, The Tamil Veda, 259. For other terms, see Anandakichenin and McCann, “Tamil-
Sanskrit Interaction in Medieval Śrīvaiṣṇava Literature,” 6. 
25 According to Nayar, the other works of the Āḻvārs attained the authoritative status after the Tiruvāymoḻi, 
which functioned as the symbol for the whole corpus (Poetry as Theology, 42). 
26 Venkatesan, Endless Song, Appendix 3. 
27 Nayar, Poetry as Theology, 41–75. 
10 
 
characterized as the distillation of the Sanskrit Veda, as in Mathurakavi’s Kaṇṇinuṇciṟuttāmpu, 
because it contains only the accessible and important messages of the Veda.28 
While text production in the early period among the Śrīvaiṣṇavas was only through 
Sanskrit, contemporary to the identification of the Tiruvāymoḻi as the Tamil scripture is the 
introduction of the hybrid Tamil-Sanskrit language, known as Manipravalam, into the 
compositions. I argue that the use of Manipravalam enables the crystallization of self-surrender 
as a soteriological doctrine. Not long after the first appearance of Manipravalam in the 
Śrīvaiṣṇava corpus, we witness the production of the immense multilingual corpus in all three 
languages of philosophical and theological texts, commentaries, hagiographies, and poems, 
some of which circled the doctrinalization and systematization of self-surrender and some of 
which sought to justify the Ubhayavedānta notion. My dissertation builds upon various studies 
of Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ self-surrender and multilingual corpus from around this period, in particular. 
It attempts to show that the development of self-surrender and linguistic movements are 
interdependent. 
The recurring and haunting narrative that interlinks theology and the two languages, 
Sanskrit and Tamil, in Śrīvaiṣṇava scholarship points to the dichotomy between these heritages. 
This narrative was produced by twentieth-century scholars, for example, Friedhelm Hardy in 
his Viraha-Bhakti and Robert Lester in “Rāmānuja and Śrī-Vaiṣṇavism.” They argued for the 
domination of Sanskrit and its philosophical norm and Tamil emotionalism in the medieval 
period.29 The dichotomy is also invoked to account for the Śrīvaiṣṇava sectarian split into its 
current sub-schools, the Teṅkalais (the southern sub-school) and the Vaṭakalais (the northern 
 
28 Adluri, “Ācārya Bhakti,” 47–68. 
29 Narayanan best explains their arguments in The Way and the Goal, 4–5. 
11 
 
sub-school), whose centers are situated in Śrīraṅgam and Kāñcīpuram respectively. Although 
the split became evidently fixed from the eighteenth century onward due to the impact of 
colonialism, the Śrīvaiṣṇava scholarship has long attempted to trace the disputes that led to the 
split back to the premodern periods.30 The split is usually understood to be rooted in various 
communal, theological, and linguistic reasons.31 For example, no later than the nineteenth 
century, the cause of the split was projected onto the binary images of “Tamil Cats” and 
“Sanskrit Monkeys” to portray the Teṅkalais’ emphasis on Tamil scripture and the exclusive 
role of God’s grace, as opposed to the Vaṭakalais’ insistence on human’s effort as prescribed in 
Sanskrit scripture.32  
Many scholars oppose this binary opposition and defend the unity of the Tamil and 
Sanskrit scriptures and languages based on the Śrīvaisṇavas’ notion of Ubhayavedānta. Some 
scholars, for example, Carman and Narayanan 1989, Clooney 1996 and 2015, Anandakichenin 
2018, and McCann and Anandakichenin 2020 and 2021 pay attention to Manipravalam 
literature, which supports this notion. Some scholars include the Manipravalam theological 
treatises in the scope of their studies, such as Hardy 1979, Venkatachari 1978, Mumme 1988, 
Clooney 2002 and 2008, and McCann 2016. Nancy Nayar (1992) investigates the Sanskrit 
praise-poems of Kūreśa and Parāśara Bhaṭṭar, both Rāmānuja’s disciples, showing the 
confluence of the two scriptures in these poems. Srilata Raman’s Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to 
God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism (2007) comprehensively indicates that the seed of the split can be found 
in the theological discrepancies in the Manipravalam commentaries on the Tamil scripture such 
 
30 Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 9. 
31 For different narratives of the split, see ibid., 4–15. 
32 The first occurrence of the simile is found in Tirumaḻicai Aṇṇā Ayyaṅkār’s Tamil text titled “Paḻanaṭai 
Viḷakkam” (Ibid., 15). 
12 
 
as the status of Nammāḻvār and his surrender.33 However, the continuous interaction between 
Sanskrit and Tamil from the premodern period until the present is indisputable despite the 
split.34  
My dissertation is in conversation with these studies; however, it does not intend to 
make any claims regarding the split or its origin, whose scope is beyond this study. What this 
work does contribute is the affirmation that Tamil and Sanskrit were both critical to medieval 
Śrīvaiṣṇavas, their texts, theology, and communal identification. Simultaneously, it seeks to 
complicate the idea that the Tamil and Sanskrit scriptures, as well as their languages, were 
treated at the same level in every situation and by every author, according to the notion of 
Ubhayavedānta. As I elaborate later, Manipravalam was initially used to create a foundation in 
which Sanskrit and Tamil, their scriptures, citations, and theological ideas, could co-exist to 
support the notion of the Tamil scripture. The use of Manipravalam thus favors the Tamil 
scripture. Even in the Manipravalam commentaries on the Sanskrit texts of the main ācāryas, 
such as Yāmuna and Rāmānuja, Manipravalam allows the author to bring in Tamil scripture 
and draw a parallel between these texts. While the majority of the Sanskrit texts ignore or 
remain implicit about the Tamil heritage, the Manipravalam literature never brings in Sanskrit 
scripture alone without referring to the Tamil authorities. Given that tension, this dissertation 
proposes a new framework, one that does not reproduce the hierarchy between Tamil and 
Sanskrit, but reveals micro-histories of the Śrīvaiṣṇava multilingualism.  
Furthermore, this dissertation attempts to fill in a gap with respect to the Sanskrit 
 
33 Ibid., 175: “This book suggests that this ideological break between the Piḷḷāṉ and Nañcīyar on the status of 
Nammāḻvār and the nature of his prapatti anticipates one ultimate theological difference between Vaṭakalai 
School and the Teṅkalai School.”  
34 Ibid., 15–17. 
13 
 
literature composed around the same time as the Manipravalam literature in the studies 
mentioned and emphasizes the comparison of the literature in these two languages, Sanskrit and 
Manipravalam. The key inspiration to the inter-language relationships is Steven Hopkins’ 
exploration of Sanskrit and Tamil poems in his Singing the Body of God (2002). Hopkins gives 
insights into the roles and interactions of languages and directs my interest to its central figure, 
Vedāntadeśika (also Veṅkaṭanātha), the fourteenth-century Śrīvaiṣṇava poet-philosopher who 
inhabited the multilingual world. 
Several studies take up the topic of self-surrender. Vasudha Rajagopalan’s dissertation, 
of which the first part was published under the title, The Way and the Goal: Expressions of 
Devotion in the Early Śrīvaiṣṇava Community (1987), addresses the literature up to the scope 
of my research. The second part of Rajagopalan’s dissertation, which shares the period and 
literature under my investigation, is unfortunately still publicly unavailable.35 Although 
Rajagopalan’s dissertation provides a comprehensive study on self-surrender, it does not 
systematically chart the explicit connection between doctrinal development and the linguistic 
changes. Gerhard Oberhammer’s Zur spirituellen Praxis des Zufluchtnehmens bei Gott 
(śaraṇāgatiḥ) vor Veṅkaṭanātha (2004) traces the development of self-surrender but only in the 
Sanskrit literature of Vedāntadeśika’s predecessors and the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās. 
Another significant contribution to the field is Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in 
Śrīvaiṣṇavism (2007) by Srilata Raman. Raman’s work focuses on the medieval institutional 
formation around self-surrender from the time of Rāmānuja and in the medieval literary corpus 
 
35 I managed to get hold of the dissertation thanks to Professor Vasudha Narayanan who kindly sent me the 
retyped version of it and Patricia Mumme who graciously gave me the printed edition she owns. The materials 
investigated in her work includes Vātsya Varadaguru’s Prapannapārijāta, Peiryavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s 
Parantarahasyam, Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s Śrīvacanabhūṣaṇam, and Vedāntadeśika’s Rahasyatrayasāram. 
14 
 
of the Manipravalam commentaries on the Tiruvāymoḻi. Raman’s historical analysis inspires 
me to view a theological concept such as self-surrender as one of the defining features in the 
Śrīvaiṣṇava religious movements. I agree with Raman’s classification of “prapatti-literature” 
or “the literature whose main aim is to present a situation in which prapatti [self-surrender] 
takes place or to define and discuss it.”36 Raman points to the praise poems of Kūreśa and 
Parāśara Bhaṭṭar, Rāmānuja’s disciples, and the Manipravalam commentaries as two main 
categories of prapatti-literature before investigating the commentaries due to their attention to 
the theology of self-surrender.37 Raman indicates that these praise poems show the integration 
of Tamil scripture with the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās, and Sanskrit scriptural streams, and they also 
reflect the increasing importance of temple worship in the understanding. Raman further points 
out that the poems at this time display a collective attempt to promote self-surrender, inherited 
from Rāmānuja’s works, over the doctrine of meditative devotion (bhakti). The attempt is even 
more evident in the Tamil Ñāṉasāram of Aruḷāḷap Perumāḷ Emperumāṉār, Kūreśa’s 
contemporary.38 Given that various scholars have comprehensively studied these praise-poems, 
such as those by Narayanan (1987) and Nayar (1992), I confine myself to another genre. 
Also, while Raman views the commentaries as mainly aiming to define self-surrender, 
I differ from her in this regard. I understand self-surrender as one of the topics, in addition to 
the scriptural identification of the Tiruvāymoḻi as the Tamil scripture based on what Raman 
herself shows in her exploration of the commentaries.39 Moreover, while scholars continue to 
focus on the Manipravalam commentaries, they cannot tell us about the diversity of the 
 
36 Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 17. 
37 For the commentaries, see Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 17–23. 
38 Ibid., 53–57.  
39 Ibid., 60. 
15 
 
Śrīvaiṣṇava intellectual, social, and linguistic environments as they were historically produced 
by a single line of Śrīvaiṣṇava ācāryas who inhabited one geographical location, Śrīraṅgam.40 
Although there were likely interactions between Śrīraṅgam and Kāñcīpuram, the communities 
were engaged with different intellectual concerns. 
Instead of the praise poems and commentaries, my work is interested not in the 
Manipravalam commentaries but the theological treatises on self-surrender. These independent 
treatises in Sanskrit and Manipravalam were not produced by just one community but by those 
who were contemporaneous and from different generations in both influential and active 
locations of medieval Śrīvaiṣṇavas—Śrīraṅgam and Kāñcīpuram. They first appeared in the 
composition both in Sanskrit and Manipravalam circa the twelfth century after the Śrīvaiṣṇava 
production of Sanskrit philosophical treatises, Sanskrit devotional poems, and the 
Manipravalam commentaries. Given the chronological order, one could argue that these 
treatises were based on and influenced by these preceding genres of literature, especially the 
Āḻvārs’ Tamil poems, praise poems, and the Manipravalam commentaries. I understand that the 
genre of these independent treatises encourages the Śrīvaiṣṇava authors to explicitly make 
argumentative and systematic theology on self-surrender, unlike the poems, which deal with 
some of the same issues in a poetic and less assertive manner, or the commentaries, which are 
bound to the original text and implicitly assert any claims under the shadow of the original text. 
Thus, these treatises are prapatti-literature par excellence in the sense that their sole purpose is 
to defend and define self-surrender as the soteriological doctrine for the whole community. This 
does not imply that the independent treatises are superior to other genres. It is simply that the 
 
40 See Anandakichenin, My Sapphire-hued Lord, and Anandakichenin and McCann, “Towards Understanding 
the Śrīvaiṣṇava Commentary” and “Tamil-Sanskrit Interaction in Medieval Śrīvaiṣṇava Literature.”  
16 
 
treatises have a different agenda that makes it easier to compare them and to chart their 
treatments of self-surrender than it would be if we were to look at the more poetic Tamil texts 
or the less systematic Manipravalam commentaries despite their reference to the poetic sources. 
In addition, these treatises allow us to compare and contrast the linguistic choices of Śrīvaiṣṇava 
authors, who wrote these treatises in Sanskrit and Manipravalam, and to provide insights into 
their dynamic continuity and ruptures, how the authors contribute to the dynamics through their 
projects, and what the wider contexts are for the texts and their arguments. As Whitney Cox 
suggests, that the consideration of texts in multiple languages is “revelatory both of their 
author’s projects and of the wider textual and argumentative context” in a multilingual 
community.41 Through diachronic and synchronic textual analysis of the Sanskrit and 
Manipravalam theological treatises on self-surrender, a genre shared by the two locations of the 
Śrīvaiṣṇavas, “Voices of Self-surrender” treats the doctrinal development and multilingualism 
as an intertwined history and makes a case for their interdependence. 
 
Language and Multilingualism  
Naoki Sakai's works in the context of the Japanese language have helped shape the way I view 
language and translation. In Voices of the Past: The Status of Language in Eighteenth-Century 
Japanese Discourse (1992), Sakai argues that the unity of Japanese culture, especially Japanese 
language, is indispensable to the making of Japanese national identification in the discursive 
space of eighteenth-century Tokugawa Japan, in which some Japanese intellectuals became 
preoccupied with delineating more clearly the arena of the Japanese language after encountering 
 
41 Cox, “From Source-Criticism to Intellectual History,” 152. 
17 
 
the language of the Other or the West.42 The inquiry into Japanese resulted in the formation of 
the Japanese homogeneous interior as opposed to the outsider’s exterior.43 However, such a 
homogeneous collectivity does not ontologically exist. It sustains itself by concealing the 
occurring and recurring heterogeneities within and banishing the outsider from such an 
imaginary sphere.44 The suppression of heterogeneities operates in a highly integrated society, 
generating the figure of its unity.45  
Sakai’s further analysis of Japanese language in Translation and Subjectivity: On Japan 
and National Culturalism (1997) reveals that a language like Japanese is historically 
constructed in the making of the Japan nation when encountering the Other or the West. It 
further reminds us that the notion of a language as distinct from another language that we are 
familiar with is a regulative idea under what Sakai terms “the schema of co-figuration” in the 
modern context. The schema, Sakai indicates, is always at play in the ideological construction 
of the “regime of translation” that gives the impression that translation is the “symmetrical 
exchange” between two languages across their boundaries.46 It obscures the nature of language 
as “a site of hybridity” and “context-specific” and presents language as a unity.47  
I propose that the discursive moment in which the Japanese language was defined 
 
42 Sakai, Voices of the Past, 13: “Accordingly, in the discursive space of the eighteenth century, where 
differences are all ascribed to the difference of languages (langues), inquiry into the language of the other 
inevitably leads to the recognition that the other perceives and lives the world differently. This recognition is 
what writers of the eighteenth century were forced to face. Consequently, their discourse on language was 
guided by their concern about the identity of a language rather than about language in general.” 
43 See ibid., 17. 
44 Ibid., 17. 
45 Ibid., 23. 
46 Sakai, Translation and Subjectivity, 51: “The regime of translation is an ideology that makes translators 
imagine their relationship to what they do in translation as the symmetrical exchange between two languages. 
The operation of translation as it is understood by common sense today is motivated by this ideology.” 
47 Ibid., 19: “My position, which I maintain throughout this book, is that language is essentially a site of 
hybridity and that any notion of a pure language is some fabricated and dogmatic deviation from the correct view 
of language. And hybridity is also the fundamental relationship between the body as the agent of action and 
language.” 
18 
 
through its encounter with the language of the Other is comparable to the multilingual 
intellectual and social worlds of the Śrīvaiṣṇavas in which Sanskrit, Tamil, and Manipravalam 
are placed in certain relationships and shaped through their mutual contacts. I am aware that 
the premodern period dealt with here has distinct conditions from those found in the modern 
domain of nations. For example, the case under study takes into account more than two 
languages, and the linguistic boundaries in the premodern period are not tied to national borders. 
Nevertheless, Sakai’s works show that language is not a timeless, stable entity but rather is fluid 
and subject to changes as it is constructed at each specific historical moment by agents. Another 
aspect of Sakai’s studies that is valuable in the case of premodern multilingualism is the 
important role language plays in the social imagination of the “interior,” in which a social 
identification like Japanese rests on as opposed to the “exterior” Westerners. Similarly, 
Manipravalam is integral to the Śrīvaiṣṇava communal unity, which was constructed by 
internally harmonizing multiple heritages, scriptures, religious viewpoints, and languages. 
However, unlike the construction of the Japanese nation, the Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ self-understanding 
which is related to the context of self-surrender seems to be based on shared elements like 
authorities, soteriology, and linguistic environments more than the opposition to the outsiders. 
Guided by Sakai’s schema of cofiguration, Andrew Ollett argues for the plurality of 
such paradigms in which languages, two or more, are positioned together to be perceived as 
languages. Central to this study is the claim that Prakrit played a critical but neglected role in 
literary production before the rise of Sanskrit and the vernaculars. Ollett further develops 
Sakai’s “language unity” into “language order” to look at how languages such as Prakrit define 
19 
 
themselves.48 In his definition,  
 
The term “language order” refers to how languages are ordered within a culture, 
to the recurrent patterns and schemas and tropes by which they are defined and 
represented, the names under which they are known, and the values with which 
they are associated. A language order provides the linguistic parameters for all 
manners of cultural practices, from scratching one’s name on the wall of a cave 
to composing a text on poetics.49 
 
 
Put differently, languages are defined and redefined constantly in relation to one another. We 
can homogeneously perceive Prakrit as a language throughout its history through its differences 
from other languages, among which Sanskrit is the most evident. The binary schema between 
Prakrit and Sanskrit presents one of the paradigmatic orders in classical India in the educated 
and elite domain during the first millennium. Prakrit was “a classical language” that exercised 
its power in various areas of knowledge production, cultural fluency, geographical expansion, 
and literary culture, similar to Sanskrit.50 Its existence in cosmopolitan culture was then replaced 
by Sanskrit, which turned the classical domain into “Sanskrit cosmopolis,” leading to the 
forgetting of Prakrit and its glorious past in contemporary India.51 
 
48 Ollett, Language of the Snakes, 4: “Language, in short, was ordered in premodern India in a way that seems to 
have few parallels, premodern or modern. That is why, necessary though it is to describe and account for this 
order, it seems preferable at this stage of research to simply state it as a fact, and to allow its features to emerge 
over the course of this book. At the foundation of this language order was a dichotomy between Sanskrit and 
Prakrit. Built upon this “schema of co-figuration,” as I have learned to call it from Naoki Sakai, are a range of 
other schemas: the three languages, such as we encountered above in Mīrzā Khān; the three and a half languages; 
the four languages; the six languages.” 
49 Ibid., 5. 
50 Ibid., 9–10: “To summarize, Prakrit was a classical language in a number of overlapping senses. Prakrit texts 
were considered “classics” and studied for upwards of a thousand years, beginning in the first couple of centuries 
of the common era. Knowledge of the language and the literature was a key component of cultural fluency. 
Prakrit was cultivated across as vast swath of southern Asia, from Kashmir to Tamil Nadu, and from Sindh to 
Bengal, and it was at least known, if not studied, in Cambodia and Java as well. Like Sanskrit, it was a language 
of literary intellectual culture, and cut across regions and religious traditions. If it was not cultivated as 
intensively or as broadly as Sanskrit was, it was nevertheless cultivated by those as the very apex of 
cosmopolitan culture, such as Bhoja and Ānandavardhana.” 
51 Ibid., Chapters 5, 6, and 7. 
20 
 
 Ollett’s investigation of Prakrit affirms the value of Sakai’s work in South Asian studies 
of multilingualism and offers a compelling model. However, it focuses on the macro 
perspective and formation of a unitary figure of Prakrit throughout the first and second 
millennium without sufficient attention to the changes this language underwent in each specific 
context. Furthermore, while Ollett understands that “…premodern India was exceptional in the 
stability of its textual languages, and thus it is an important site for thinking about how 
languages are posited as unitary over the course of their history,”52 I highlight that textual 
languages are far from being stable or unitary and that premodern Indian texts are a site of 
linguistic transformations, particularly when we look deeper into a micro space at a particular 
point in time. Unlike Ollett’s investigation, which is based on the formalized literary and 
grammatical treatises,53 my study asks the following questions to highlight the multilingual 
characteristic and the dynamic relationships of religious texts: Why are multiple languages used 
in textual production simultaneously? What can one language do or express that another 
cannot? How do they shape or limit religious ideas in different writings? To answer these, this 
work proposes the framework of the “language sphere” to draw attention to the micro instances 
of language usage through the mutual constitutive movements of different linguistic domains. 
 
Language Sphere 
 
The framework of the “language sphere” views language as a linguistic medium and the 
repertoire of related representations. It invites us to look into the movements and players within 
one language in relation to another. We can then imagine the whole premodern South Asian 
multilingual terrain as a myriad network of overlapping and changing spheres that are in 
 
52 Ibid., 4. 
53 For example, Daṇḍin’s Mirror of Literature and Vararuci’s Light on Prakrit (Chapter 6). 
21 
 
constant contact and tension. I picture the language sphere as being constructed at each 
particular moment by three interconnected domains of representations: 1) agency, 2) 
normativity, and 3) expressivity. The first domain constructs normativity that, in turn, 
circumscribes the expressive domain. Expressivity is shaped but not limited by the normative 
domain since the agent can find or create a new expression and expand the normativity in one 
language by overlapping different language spheres. 
This framework begins by investigating agency as reflected in the author’s agentive and 
argumentative manners in text, especially written text. To explain, the author’s agency is 
reflected in the act of composing. The author composes a text to make certain arguments in 
relation to the author’s situation and in conversation with other authors. This domain of agency 
extends to the social and intellectual backgrounds of the authors, such as their geographical 
location, social engagement, educational upbringing, and situational problems. This domain of 
representation is informed by the reading of texts as situational and dialogical and micro-
investigation referred to previously. Although the author is embedded in and conditioned by a 
linguistic environment to begin with, the author can choose which sphere to inhabit and how to 
engage with the conditions in that sphere. This agency includes crossing the boundaries of 
language spheres even while working within them.  
Next, the territory of normativity highlights the norms constructed, handed down, and 
circulated by an agent or a group of agents. Specifically, in a religious domain, the norms are 
explicit and represented in scriptures, authoritative figures, and teachings, which set standards 
regarding beliefs and practices. Normativity mediates between the domain of agency and 
expressivity by providing rules or habitual practices that make it hard for the agent to entertain 
an alternative expression apart from what is already accepted and permitted by norms. These 
22 
 
practices also convince the agents of their contemporaries’ resistance if the agent deviates from 
certain norms. At the same time, ultimately, the agent can decide to follow or subvert the norms. 
The agency regarding such decisions makes innovation possible despite the normative 
restriction. 
The scope of expressivity indicates potential relationships between the agent and the 
domain of normativity. Unlike normativity, which is usually clearly articulated by the agents in 
the written or formalized forms, expressivity is implicit as it can be detected through a 
comparison between multiple language spheres. The terminology of expressivity here is 
inherited from Pollock’s The Language of Gods in the World of Men. Pollock uses expressivity 
(also “expression,” “expressive function,” “expressive power,” “an expressive instrument,” 
“expressive capability” and so on) to explain the function and capability that a language, like 
Sanskrit, possesses as opposed to the vernacular languages that were used, in his view, for 
informational and documentary purposes. Put differently, until the vernaculars managed to 
replace Sanskrit and become cosmopolitan, Sanskrit was the only language, like Latin in the 
Roman Empire, that had the power to express something more than real or non-factual 
statements in literary and political domains since it has more poetic and textual resources to 
draw from for this expressivity.54 This dissertation disagrees with this stable typology between 
Sanskrit expressivity and the factual use of vernaculars as it does not correctly reflect the 
complexity and fluidity of textual practices in the case of the Śrīvaiṣṇavas or the South Asian 
premodern domain.55 It also disagrees with Pollock’s claim that such expressivity is always 
 
54 Pollock, The Language of the Gods in the World of Men, 255. See more in the same chapter. 
55 Take, for example, Shulman’s disagreement with the uniformity of Sanskrit expressivity and monopoly in his 
review of Pollock’s book in which at some points he states, “Where he [Pollock] sees uniformity, I tend to see 
the most remarkable heterogeneity, local innovation, and context-sensitivity, and by no means only in the 
“vernacular millennium.” Where he sees context-free, theoretically unchanging rules and paradigms, I tend to 
23 
 
attached to a language throughout its existence because language itself is fluid and historically 
specific.  
In this dissertation, the term “expressivity” is used in the widest sense to denote the 
entire scope of what an agent can use linguistically to express what is within its power, including 
the normative expressions. Expressivity marks the power that any language temporarily 
acquires to articulate the normative expressions and other terms, ideas, discourses, debates, 
discussions, and so on that affirm, challenge, and reshape these norms. In other words, 
expressivity is the apparatus by which the agent localizes and normalizes the norms, and, at the 
same time, the mechanism by which the agent explores innovative expressions that dismantle 
and denormalize such norms. Take an example of the difference between being conservative 
and creative. While a conservative person is someone who preserves the norms through one’s 
expressions that conform to and thus reproduce those norms, a creative person expresses 
original ideas that undermine and eventually replace the norms. Of course, these two aspects 
are not always be in opposition. They are rather part of a spectrum and can exist in one person.  
 
The Paradigmatic Language Sphere: Manipravalam 
“Voices of Self-surrender” focuses on Manipravalam as the paradigmatic example of the 
language sphere as it combines merging and divergent norms and expressions of both languages 
in the same place and thus lets us see the moments of rupture and transformative choices when 
the agents choose to expand the norms or create a new expression in a particular spatial and 
temporal context. What is being expressed by the author and why? What has been continued 
and what replaced? The label “Maṇipravāḷa,” which preceded its emergence in the Śrīvaiṣṇava 
 
see mechanisms of empirical instantiation and assimilation…” (“The Language of the Gods in the World of Men 
Review,” 823). 
24 
 
commentaries, refers to the mixing of Sanskrit and the southern local languages that occurs in 
the literary and grammatical landscape, namely Abhinavagupta’s commentary on the 
Nāṭyaśāstra, dating to circa the eleventh century. The use of the term to specify the combination 
of Sanskrit and Tamil in poetry first can be found in the eleventh- or twelfth-century 
grammatical treatise, the Vīracōḻiyam. The hybrid was already used in the ninth century in the 
prose composition of a Vaiṣṇava retelling of the great Sanskrit epic Mahābhārata into Tamil, 
Peruntēvaṉar’s Pārataveṇpā, and the writings of other religious communities, such the Jains.56 
We do not have any evidence of the commentators as well as other medieval Manipravalam 
authors calling the linguistic medium Manipravalam, to my knowledge.  
Manipravalam in the Śrīvaiṣṇava writings and beyond presents a highly heterogeneous 
movement of the linguistic mixture as well as ideology.57 To exemplify, the variety of styles 
found in Śrīvaiṣṇava Manipravalam can be contrasted with a grammatical theory of 
Manipravalam in the fourteenth-century Kerala grammatical treatise, the Līlātilakam. 
Exploring the Līlātilakam, Rich Freeman (1998) shows that Kerala Manipravalam identifies 
itself more with Sanskrit literary culture to differentiate itself from the literary hegemony of the 
region, like Tamil. This methodology localizes Kerala Manipravalam in the poetic domain. 
Unlike Kerala Manipravalam, the Śrīvaiṣṇava Manipravalam was first used in composition to 
secure the scriptural status of the two scriptures. The Śrīvaiṣṇava Manipravalam can generally 
be identified by the use of Sanskrit terminology mixed with Tamil words and grammatical 
features, or what Erin McCann explains as Sanskrit lexifier or superstratum and Tamil 
grammatical substratum.58 However, in practice, Śrīvaiṣṇava Manipravalam ranges from a 
 
56 See Anandakichenin and McCann, “Towards Understanding the Śrīvaiṣṇava Commentary.” 
57 Shulman, Tamil: A Biography, 222. 
58 McCann, “Ācāryābhimāna,” 140. 
25 
 
highly colloquial style to a scholastic exegesis, from the domination of Sanskrit to the heavy 
use of Tamil, and from several Sanskrit scriptural citations to the prioritization of the Tamil 
scripture. Shulman effectively summarizes the spectrum of the Śrīvaiṣṇava Manipravalam as 
follow: 
 
Srivaishnava Tamil Maṇi-pravāḷam, as I have said, offers us a range of 
dialectical or idiolectical features. Very often the reader senses that he or she is 
encountering a richly colloquial style, undoubtedly reflecting the context of oral 
teaching and textual exegesis. We can also definitely assume a relation between 
written Śrīvaishṇava Maṇipravāḷam and characteristic dialectical features of 
spoken Śrīvaishṇava Brahmin Tamil, with its heavy influx of Sanskrit words. In 
some authors—for example, Aḻakiya Maṇavāḷap Pĕrumāḷ Nāyaṉār in his 
Aruḷiccĕyalrahasyam—there is a somewhat surprising, and rather beautiful, 
conjunction of recorded colloquial idiomatic speech and high-flown technical 
terms in Sanskrit, including long Sanskrit compounds (the latter being a 
diagnostic feature of Tamil Maṇipravāḷam style generally). Quotations from 
canonical Sanskrit and Tamil works account for some degree of the linguistic 
mixture that dominates the commentaries. Beyond such rather mechanical 
indicators, however, we can note differential stylistic and grammatical features, 
such as the degree to which Sanskrit words are Tamilized according to standard 
Tamil morphophonemic practice and, even more to the point, the inflection of 
Sanskrit either with proper Sanskrit nominal and verbal endings or with Tamil 
suffixes. Sanskrit-derived denominative verbs in Tamil, sometimes 
phonologically Tamilized, are another common marker.59 
 
These features are apparent especially in the Manipravalam commentary on the Tiruvāymoḻi as 
shown in Venkatachari’s The Maṇipravāḷa Literature of the Śrīvaiṣṇava Ācāryas: 12th to 15th 
Century A.D. (1978) and Anandakichenin’s and McCann’s “Towards Understanding the 
Śrīvaiṣṇava Commentary on the Nālāyira Tiyviya Paripantam: The Blending of Two Worlds 
and Two Languages” (2020). Still, the actual manifestation of the Śrīvaiṣṇava Manipravalam, 
especially its script(s) and the appearance and pronunciation of Sanskrit words during its peak 
production during and after the medieval period is obscure as we do not have any material 
 
59 Shulman, Tamil: A Biography, 222–223. 
26 
 
evidence from these texts.60 The Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ reference to Manipravalam as a linguistic 
medium cannot be found until circa the fifteenth to sixteenth century according to 
Anandakichenin.61 Nevertheless, it is possible to speculate the direction of Manipravalam 
movements based on inscriptions from the Pallava to the Vijayanagara period. Specifically, 
through the exploration of royal titulatures in the Tamil area from the sixth to fifteenth century, 
Francis charts the epigraphical development of Manipravalam as follows: 
 
To summarise, as far as biruda titulatures in the Tamil area are concerned, we 
find purely Sanskrit lists in the early period only, then examples with varying 
proportions of Sanskrit loanwords in Grantha, with a tendency towards almost 
monoscript Tamil titulatures—with most loanwords naturalised, which makes 
one wonder whether there was still consciousness that these were loanwords. 
However, late examples with abundant loanwords in Grantha are still met with.62 
 
We can safely assume that Manipravalam in the Śrīvaiṣṇava corpus might have undergone the 
same shift from the use of two scripts, Tamil and Grantha or in some cases Telugu for Sanskrit, 
to the naturalization of Sanskrit into Tamil script and pronunciation, while the use of Grantha 
for Sanskrit terms is never completely abandoned. This assumption accords with one of the few 
studies we currently have on contemporary Śrīvaiṣṇava Manipravalam by Giovanni Ciotti and 
R. Sathyanarayan. Focusing on a recension of Viṣṇupurāṇavacaṉam in palm-leaf manuscripts 
and printed books from the end of the eighteenth century to at least the middle of the twentieth 
century, they propose that this corpus presents the domination of Tamil script, which suggests 
the phonological adaptations of Sanskrit words as well as the use of both Tamil and Sanskrit 
 
60 The volume titled “The After-life of Tamil with Sanskrit” that I co-edit with Srilata Raman hopes to contribute 
to the studies on Manipravalam in the contemporary context. 
61 The reference is in the Periya Tirumuṭi Aṭaivu (c. fifteenth to sixteenth century) and on the list of works made 
by Piḷḷai Lokam Jīyar (sixteenth century?), according to Anandakichenin, “When did the Śrīvaiṣṇava Ācāryas 
call their language ‘Manipravalam’?” 
62 Francis, “Multilingualism in Indian Inscriptions,” 140. 
27 
 
scripts.63 Interestingly, this corpus exemplifies an author’s identification of Manipravalam 
(“maṇipravāḷam”) as Tamil (“drāviḍa-bhāṣa” and “drāmiḍa-bhāṣa”) as opposed to Sanskrit.64 
In the most recent study on Manipravalam, “Tamil-Sanskrit Interaction in Medieval 
Śrīvaiṣṇava Literature,” (2021) Suganya Anandakichenin and Erin McCann explore the origin 
of Manipravalam and point to three assumptions in the Śrīvaiṣṇava Manipravalam scholarship 
so far: first, Manipravalam is a byproduct of Ubhayavedānta in the sense that it is used to record 
oral teachings on the two scriptures; second, Tamil in Manipravalam provides accessibility to 
those do not have knowledge of Sanskrit, for example women and low-caste people or śūdras; 
and third, Sanskrit in Manipravalam helps increase the degree of esoterism of the Tamil 
scripture.65 Developing the case studies from the hagiographical and theological texts in 
Manipravalam from the thirteenth to fourteenth century, they affirm that Śrīvaiṣṇava authors 
were bilingual and that there is a division of lexical labors between Sanskrit, which is the main 
source for pan-Indian philosophical and theological terminology, and Tamil, which offers not 
only religious-related terms but also ordinary ones.66 This study further supports the first 
assumption and highlights the fact that “the practical and symbolic functions of Manipravalam 
changed over time,” which conforms with Shulman’s observation. It also makes the two other 
contradictory assumptions—that Manipravalam is more accessible than Sanskrit and that it is 
used for esoteric purpose—probable, but not necessary. Interestingly, the study indicates that 
the hagiographies, which contain a high degree of Tamil and narratives, could be more 
 
63 Ciotti and Sathyanarayanan, “Between Manipravalam and Tamil,” 685. 
64 Ibid., 682–683. 
65 Anandakichenin and McCann, “Tamil-Sanskrit Interaction in Medieval Śrīvaiṣṇava Literature,” 12. A similar 
version of the third assumption is made by Rao who claims that Manipravalam is the “ultimate ‘insider’ register, 
one that would be opaque to those not participating in the Śrīvaiṣṇava temple” (Re-Figuring the Rāmāyaṇa as 
Theology, 19). 
66 Anandakichenin and McCann, “Tamil-Sanskrit Interaction in Medieval Śrīvaiṣṇava Literature,” 29. 
28 
 
accessible and inclusive than the theological treatises or commentaries, which still include the 
exclusively Vedāntic terminology that the uneducated would not understand.67  
Building on the scholarship mentioned above, my research is interested in seeking 
answers to specific questions regarding Manipravalam: 1) Why would the Śrīvaiṣṇavas bring 
in Manipravalam when they already have Sanskrit and Tamil? 2) What can Manipravalam do 
that Sanskrit or Tamil alone cannot? And, 3) what are Manipravalam roles in the theological 
treatises on self-surrender?  
To answer the first question, it is critical to look at the more extensive social and 
historical contexts of the area, which I will do in the first chapter. At this point, it is sufficient 
to say that there was no need for a written and formalized exegetic engagement with the 
Tiruvāymoḻi, but the need arose roughly two-hundred-years after the emergence of the Tamil 
devotional corpus when the Manipravalam authors’ attempt to identify the Tiruvāymoḻi as the 
Tamil Veda in their Manipravalam commentaries.68 In fact, the Āḻvārs’ Tamil corpus was 
clearly a cause for the Manipravalam composition, despite the gap, as it provided the theological 
inspiration and expression perhaps for certain issues and attitudes in the Sanskrit writings. In 
order to bridge the Āḻvārs’ devotional world and the Vedānta system, the medieval authors need 
Manipravalam, which can hold the two heritages together. The Śrīvaiṣṇavas chose 
Manipravalam, not Tamil, because it allows the co-presence of the two scriptures, their 
citations, and theological ideas. However, instead of focusing on the legitimating function of 
Manipravalam, this dissertation highlights the soteriological systems of self-surrender and the 
Manipravalam expressions that were heavily influenced by the Āḻvārs’ Tamil hymns. 
 
67 Ibid., 31. 
68 The tradition claims the oral engagement with the Tiruvāymoḻi by Rāmānuja, for example, before the written 
composition. See Chapter 1. 
29 
 
To address the second question, my dissertation shows that there are different territorial 
demarcations in various linguistic spheres despite their overlapping existence in the Śrīvaiṣṇava 
community and textual corpus. The limitations of these language spheres motivate authors to 
create a way to transcend them when there is the need to draw the equivalence between the two. 
Take, for example, the normative practice of scholastic Sanskrit in general that prohibits the 
citation of scripture or passages in a non-Sanskrit language like Tamil. Specifically, I will show 
in the first chapter that the Śrīvaiṣṇava linguistic and ideological limitations were formed by 
Rāmānuja and the Manipravalam commentators. 
Importantly, the linguistic mixture of Manipravalam reveals that the two spheres of 
languages preserve their distinct linguistic functions, as Anandakichenin and McCann argue, 
and can be associated with different expressive domains to a certain extent. I explain this 
distinction also in the first chapter. Note that this distinction does not imply that Sanskrit cannot 
be used to articulate the Tamil expressions or vice versa. It mainly points out that the difference 
is perceptible and conceivable in a space like the hybrid sphere of Manipravalam in which 
Tamil and Sanskrit, not just one of them, operate together in a single textual domain. With this 
distinction in mind, we can look at how each language functions in the doctrinalization of self-
surrender, which is related to my third question.  
Patricia Mumme in The Śrīvaiṣṇava Theological Dispute (1988) indicates that the 
difference in the interpretative practice and community of audiences of the two locations causes 
what seems to be a disagreement in the matter of self-surrender between them. Particularly, the 
community of “Kanchi ācāryas” at Kāñcīpuram were much more “cosmopolitan” as they were 
engaged in the doctrinal and philosophical debates from the perspective of Viśiṣṭādvaita 
Vedānta to oppose other philosophical rival systems. In contrast, “the Srirangam ācāryas” 
30 
 
addressed only the Śrīvaiṣṇava community and thus prioritized the Tamil scripture, the 
devotional attitude, and the practice belonging to this audience.69 I agree with Mumme’s 
argument that the inconsistency of self-surrender may be caused by the interpretative difference 
and increased by the distinction of locations and audience. However, I contend that there are 
other underlying factors that are stronger than interpretive preference and audience at play. In 
this dissertation, I indicate that the plurality of self-surrender in the works of these two groups 
of authors reflects the contesting elements, especially the norms and expressions, that each 
language sphere places on the development of self-surrender. 
Thus, this dissertation investigates the Sanskrit and Manipravalam theological treatises 
produced by authors from the same and different generations in Kāñcīpuram and Śrīraṅgam to 
encompass the linguistic movements diachronically and synchronically in both locations. 
Although it does not directly explore any text in Tamil that belongs to a genre of poetry, it 
analyzes the Sanskrit and Manipravalam treatments of the Tamil Veda and Tamil authoritative 
passages and teachings that effectively represent Tamil norms and expressions.70  
 
Chapter Outline 
In what follows, I chart the historical conjunctures between theological development and 
linguistic transformation in a chronological order with attention to the three domains of each 
language sphere: 1) the agents or the religious authors, 2) the scripture and teachings, which 
represent normativity, and 3) argumentative expressions and practices, especially in the 
doctrinalization of self-surrender. The five chapters show critical movements of the Śrīvaiṣṇava 
 
69 See Mumme, The Śrīvaiṣṇava Theological Dispute, 1–25, especially 7–8. 
70 The Tamil poetry is, for example, the twelfth-century Ñāṉasāram (Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in 
Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 55–57). 
31 
 
multilingualism, namely the limitation of the Sanskrit sphere, which is parallel to the 
incorporation of Tamil in the Manipravalam sphere, the intensification of the Sanskrit and 
Manipravalam boundaries, and the harmonizing role of Manipravalam. These linguistic 
conditions were responsive to a specific social context. Importantly, working within these 
spheres, the authors shaped and reshaped theological development in different manners, 
resulting in varying systems of self-surrender, its heterogeneous strands, its distilled version, 
and, finally, its harmonized form. 
Chapter 1 explores the Śrīvaiṣṇava formation of the Sanskrit and Tamil spheres and 
their norms of scriptures and doctrinal expressions circa the eleventh to twelfth century. 
Although Sanskrit and Tamil scriptures existed prior to this period, this is the moment in which 
they were evidently associated with the philosophical system of Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta and the 
devotional and inclusive expressions respectively. While scholars often highlight the 
equivalence between Sanskrit and Tamil scriptures and their languages under the notion of 
Ubhayavedānta during this period, this chapter points to the central limitation manifested in the 
Sanskrit sphere based on the soteriological doctrine of bhakti expounded by Rāmānuja 
(traditional dates: c. 1017–1137 CE). To expand the community and accommodate people from 
different social hierarchies, Rāmānuja’s disciples introduced Manipravalam in their 
commentaries and explicitly defended the Tamil scripture along with the use of Tamil language 
in the Āḻvārs’ hymns. The Manipravalam sphere, I argue, was evidently formed based on the 
Tamil scripture and other authorities in these commentaries, especially the first two that 
influenced the later commentaries. This was also the moment when self-surrender was formed 
as another soteriological doctrine, an alternative to bhakti, and a basis for communal notion 
thanks to Manipravalam. Unlike the doctrine of bhakti, which is exclusive and deeply based on 
32 
 
Sanskrit Vedānta scriptures and expressions according to the Śrīvaiṣṇavas, self-surrender is 
available to all and combines Sanskrit philosophy and Tamil devotionalism, both co-exist in 
the Manipravalam sphere. Thus, in this chapter, we see the formation of different language 
spheres and doctrines. 
Chapter 2 deals with the moment when self-surrender became systematized as a valid 
soteriological doctrine in place of bhakti by two authors, Vātsya Varadaguru and Periyavāccāṉ 
Piḷḷai. These two authors were believed to be located in Kāñcīpuram and Śrīraṅgam, 
respectively, circa the twelfth to thirteenth century when Kāñcīpuram was already the main site 
for Sanskrit textual production, and when we see the bloom of Manipravalam literature in 
Śrīraṅgam. These two authors can be considered the systematizers of Sanskrit and 
Manipravalam spheres in the matter of self-surrender as they composed the first two 
independent treatises to systematically define and defend this doctrine. Exploring their treatises 
in Sanskrit and Manipravalam together reveals the parallel but varying developments of these 
two language spheres when the two locations of the community were expanding and forming 
their lineages. Both authors regarded Rāmānuja’s bhakti as the paradigm for soteriological 
doctrine and arguments as they incorporated the characteristics of bhakti in shaping self-
surrender and use the same set of Sanskrit scriptures that support bhakti to validate self-
surrender. However, while the Tamil scripture is preferred in the Manipravalam treatise, it is 
absent in the Sanskrit one. This difference points to their decisions to conform to the intellectual 
inclination in their locations and the influences they place on the later doctrinal development: 
self-surrender in the Sanskrit sphere is closer to bhakti, while in the Manipravalam sphere the 
doctrine strongly takes on the devotional attitude of the Āḻvārs that highlights the role of God 
and moves away from the paradigm of bhakti. 
33 
 
The third chapter traces the distance between the spheres of Sanskrit and Manipravalam 
in the next generation and the heterogenous views on self-surrender. Specifically, it investigates 
the discussions of self-surrender by two contemporary authors, Piḷḷai Lokācārya and 
Meghanādārisūri, who were engaged with different intellectual projects and locations. Around 
this time, we see a growth in the production of Manipravalam literature and engaging 
discussions of self-surrender in the Manipravalam commentaries and treatises in Śrīraṅgam. 
Among the ācāryas there, Piḷḷai Lokācārya alone was credited with eighteen Manipravalam 
works. In contrast, Meghanādārisūri composed only in Sanskrit, and his works are concerned 
with the consolidation of Rāmānuja’s system of Vedānta, like other previous and contemporary 
Sanskrit authors in Kāñcīpuram. Interestingly, he is the only author of his generation to 
compose a whole treatise to defend the validity of self-surrender. While Meghanādārisūri 
attempted to restrict self-surrender only to the Sanskrit Vedāntic domain of scriptures and 
expressions, Piḷḷai Lokācārya drew the distinction between bhakti and self-surrender and 
prioritized the Tamil scripture over the Sanskrit one. Their contrasting strands of self-surrender 
reflect the dissimilarity of representational domains of agency, normativity, and expressivity in 
each sphere of language and the authors’ choice to intensify their linguistic boundaries.  
Unlike the previous authors who composed texts in either Sanskrit or Manipravalam 
alone, Vedāntadeśika (traditionally dates: c. 1268–1369), the author at the center of my 
dissertation and the focus of Chapters 4 and 5, presents a distinctive case. Despite the 
overlapping between Sanskrit and Manipravalam in the Śrīvaiṣṇava community, the two 
languages in the earlier literature remain distinct. Although these linguistic tools were available 
before his time, Vedāntadeśika was the first to exercise the agency in working with both 
linguistic spheres, especially in the context of self-surrender, in the most systematic and 
34 
 
comprehensive manner in order to participate in discussions in these language spheres and 
resolve the inconsistency in texts of the same languages. This is evident in his composition of 
two treatises on self-surrender, the Sanskrit Nikṣeparakṣā and the Manipravalam 
Rahasyatrayasāram. 
His decision to do so may be rooted in his inhabiting the two locations, making it 
necessary for him to engage with these communities in both languages. Historical evidence also 
shows that there was internal social fluctuation within the community due to the entrance of 
different social groups and religious practices as well as political uncertainty, including the 
invasion of Muslims and the fall of the Cōḻa kingdom. Importantly, Vedāntadeśika attempted 
to raise a stronger and more inclusive notion of “the tradition” (sampradāya), which was not 
evident in the earlier literature, for the Śrīvaiṣṇava community based on self-surrender. These 
social factors may drive Vedāntadeśika to reconcile the accumulated discrepancies in 
soteriological teachings and status of the Tamil scripture to form a harmonized theological 
system based on varying strands of self-surrender in the Sanskrit and Manipravalam spheres.  
The Nikṣeparakṣā, which is the focus of Chapter 4, aims at engaging with Sanskrit 
scriptures and previous viewpoints on self-surrender, especially those found in the Sanskrit 
treatises dealt with in Chapters 2 and 3. Vedāntadeśika’s Sanskrit discussions on self-surrender 
in this work reflect in the distilled manner the pressing and elaborate issues discussed in the 
Manipravalam literature. The system of self-surrender in the Nikṣeparakṣā remains subject to 
the Sanskrit sphere of soteriology based on bhakti and contributes to the consolidation of the 
Sanskrit sphere.  
Next, Vedāntadeśika’s Rahasyatrayasāram, as shown in Chapter 5, reflects how the use 
of Manipravalam makes possible the confluence of the two scriptures and the harmonization of 
35 
 
the previous theological debates on self-surrender in Sanskrit and Manipravalam. This 
harmonized system of self-surrender is an essential basis for the Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ sense of “the 
tradition” as it provides a significant shared identity for the community. Thus, Manipravalam 
makes it possible for the intellectually and socially diverse body of Śrīvaiṣṇavas to imagine a 
unity based on self-surrender. 
It should be noted that I have chosen to refer to the soteriological doctrine of self-
surrender as “self-surrender” throughout my dissertation instead of “prapatti” as used by some 
other scholars, including Rajagopalan (1978), Raman (2007), and Freschi (2018), because the 
Śrīvaiṣṇava authors use several terms for this doctrine including “prapatti,” “śaraṇāgati,” 
“nyāsa,” “nikṣepa,” “samāśrayaṇa,” and so on. I intend to loosely translate all of these terms 
as “self-surrender,” and throughout this work, when necessary, I identify the Sanskrit terms 
each author uses to avoid placing a static notion of what this means or emphasizing a particular 
term in order to capture the multiplicity of its definition. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
36 
 
CHAPTER 1 
FORMATION 
 
In this chapter, I show the genealogy of two main soteriological doctrines of the Śrīvaiṣṇavas, 
bhakti and self-surrender, to reveal that their doctrinal origins were rooted in the respective 
spheres of Sanskrit and Manipravalam. In fact, they emerged out of the formation of each 
linguistic sphere by the most authoritative figure, Rāmānuja, and his followers, the 
Manipravalam commentators. While Rāmānuja advocates bhakti as the only soteriological 
means, his followers sought an alternative. Rāmānuja used Sanskrit in the soteriological context 
to express forms of authority, validation, and philosophy, shared with other philosophical 
Sanskrit systems, especially Vedānta. After Rāmānuja’s time, the Manipravalam commentators 
on the Tamil scripture, most openly that of Nañcīyar, promoted Tamil as belonging to the 
community unlike Sanskrit which is not accessible to all. The Āḻvārs’ Tamil hymns are 
saturated with devotion, especially to God, which associates Tamil with an intimacy and a 
relationship with the divine. The distinction in their linguistic mediums reflects the bordering 
of the two language spheres of Sanskrit and Manipravalam which became evident around the 
twelfth century despite a number of overlaps between the two spheres. While the linguistic 
boundaries set by the authors discussed in this chapter do not emerge exclusively or explicitly 
in relation to the doctrine of self-surrender or predestine the later linguistic changes, these 
authors greatly influenced subsequent authors to the extent that their stories can help us 
understand and imagine later engagements with the language spheres and the developments of 
self-surrender. This chapter thus serves as a background for the remainder of this dissertation 
and also outlines some of the social and historical contexts that likely influenced into the 
linguistic movements and doctrinal discussions.  
37 
 
Rāmānuja is widely known as a proponent of Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta and the doctrine of 
meditative devotion or bhakti as reflected in his works, which are all in Sanskrit, such as the 
Śrībhāṣya, a commentary on a foundational scripture of Vedānta, the Brahmasūtra; and the 
Gītābhāṣya, a commentary on the Bhagavadgītā, another Vedāntic scriptural foundation. 
Rāmānuja’s system of Vedānta forms the philosophy that differs from the existing philosophical 
schools such as Śaṅkara’s Advaita (non-dualist) Vedānta and Bhāskara’s Bhedābheda 
(difference and non-difference with God).71 Rāmānuja was the head of the Śrīvaiṣṇava 
community having succeeded Nāthamuni and Yāmuna.72 Although himself a brāhmaṇa from 
around Kāñcīpuram, Rāmānuja was hagiographically portrayed as being connected to other 
temples in different areas, including Śrīraṅgam. According to the current Śrīvaiṣṇava tradition, 
he was initiated by Periya Nambi and had five teachers who educated him different heritages 
in both Tamil and Sanskrit. These teachers were: Periya Nambi (Mahā Pūrṇa), Tirukoṭṭiyūr 
Nambi (Goṣṭhi Pūrṇa), Tirumālai Āṇḍān (Mālādhara), Tiruvarangattu Perumāḷ Araiyar, and 
Periya Tirumalai Nambi (Śrī Śaila Pūrṇa).73 His connection with various communities and 
Śrīvaisṇava heritages suggests that he was as a unifying figure. Rāmānuja is further regarded 
as “one of the first great organizers of the temple administration” due to his advocation of a 
more accessible Pañcarātra ritual to replace Vedic ritual and his introduction of śūdra 
participants in temple administration.74 In addition to these socio-religious activities, 
Rāmānuja’s biographies primarily claimed that he promoted the Āḷvārs’ anti-caste ideology, 
 
71 Oberhammer in “The Influence of Orthodox Vaiṣṇavism” proposes that the authors earlier than Rāmānuja, 
namely Bhāskara and Yādavaprakāśa, probably belonged to Vaiṣṇava orthodoxy, the scholastic system that 
preceded and influenced Rāmānuja’s Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta and South Indian Pāñcarātric traditions. For 
Rāmānuja’s differentiaion of his system from that of Bhāskara, see Neeval, Yāmuna's Vedānta and Pāñcarātra. 
72 Yāmuna was Nāthamuni’s grandson. These two were both brāhmaṇas according to the hagiographies 
(Carman, The Theology of Rāmānuja, 28).  
73 Ibid., 38–39. 
74 Brockington, The Sacred Thread, 138. See also Champakalakshmi, Religion, Tradition, and Ideology, 268. 
38 
 
and, they thus praise him as being a crucial socio-religious reformer of his time. The most 
traditionally recognized sources of his biographies include the Divyasūricarita (c. twelfth 
century) and Guruparamparāprabhāvam, which are stories of the lineages and the lives of the 
ācāryas of the Śrī Vaiṣṇava tradition. In addition, there is a Sanskrit text of unknown date called 
Prapannamritam, written by Anantacārya, which focuses on the life of Rāmānuja.75 Through 
these acts, Rāmānuja is perceived as associating himself with socio-religious reforms that focus 
on an egalitarian ideology drawn from the Āḻvārs, as Brockington points out: 
 
The increased participation of worshippers from all social levels with the 
establishment of more liberal Pañcarātra spread from Śrīraṅgam to other 
Vaiṣṇava centers is one of Rāmānuja’s main legacies to Vaiṣṇava faith as a 
whole, giving ritualized expression to the Āḷvārs’ disregard of and even 
opposition to caste restrictions, arising from the equality of all men before the 
deity.76 
 
 
However, most of his own works present a different image; one of a Vedāntin who was 
immersed in the Sanskrit philosophical and intellectual world of Vedic orthodoxy. This 
engagement is clearly seen in his teaching of bhakti as the main soteriological doctrine for the 
community. I will now focus on the exploration of his works. 
In the first section of this chapter, I investigate Rāmānuja’s theological treatises related 
to bhakti to show how his theological description of bhakti in his Śrībhāṣya is indispensable to 
the formation of the Śrīvaiṣṇava philosophical system. Bhakti serves as a tool for the 
Śrīvaiṣṇava community to differentiate itself from the rival and preceding philosophical system 
of Advaita Vedānta. Although the doctrine of bhakti was critical to the philosophical formation 
 
75 See Ramakrishnananda’s Life of Sri Ramanuja, and Jagannathan, Impact of Śri Rāmānujāçarya. 
76 Brockington, The Sacred Thread, 138. See also Dutta, From Hagiographies to Biographies, Chapter 5, for 
Rāmānuja’s image as an egalitarian. 
39 
 
for the Śrīvaiṣṇavas, it strictly conformed to Vedic orthodoxy and was available only to those 
who were from the first three castes, brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, and vaiśyas, and not śūdras or 
women. Its limitation prompted the creation of an alternative doctrine, self-surrender, which 
was already rooted in the devotional expression of the Āḻvārs.77 
There is no question that Rāmānuja taught bhakti in his most important philosophical 
treatise, the Śrībhāṣya. However, later Śrīvaiṣṇava authors claimed that Rāmānuja also put 
forward self-surrender as the soteriological doctrine instead of bhakti in some of his more 
devotional works, namely the Gītābhāṣya and the Gadyatraya.78 In my opinion, the attribution 
of self-surrender to Rāmānuja is retrospective. Based on hagiographies from the medieval 
period from the thirteenth century onward, Dutta also suggests that the attribution might have 
been a reaction to the marginalized position of self-surrender in Rāmānuja’s writings.79 Looking 
at Rāmānuja’s corpus, we can then see two potential issues. First, there is a discrepancy in his 
soteriological teaching, where it can be said that Rāmānuja proposed different doctrines in 
different works. However, this can be understood if we take into account the fact that the 
Gītābhāṣya is a commentary, a genre that leaves less room for originality, while the Gadyatraya 
is a devotional prose that invites more emotional expression and creativity. Second, it is difficult 
to determine what the soteriological doctrine Rāmānuja taught is and which one the community 
should follow. Rāmānuja’s ambivalence and unresolved teachings became a point of debate for 
the generations that followed. The majority of post-Rāmānuja authors, such as Periyavāccāṉ 
 
77 The notion of Tamil as the medium of devotional expression is true for these Vaiṣṇava poets as well as the 
Śaiva poets who lived around the same time. See Peterson, Poems to Śiva, for example. 
78 I decide not to include Rāmānuja’s Nityagrantha since it is not the focus of the authors dealt with in this 
dissertation. For the translation and analysis of this work, see Clooney, “Rāmānuja’s Nityam” and “Rāmānuja’s 
Nityagrantham.” 
79 Dutta, From Hagiographies to Biographies, 197.  
40 
 
Piḷḷai and Vedāntadeśika, claimed that Rāmānuja taught both doctrines in his Gītābhāṣya. In 
contrast, I argue in the second section of this chapter that that Rāmānuja consistently taught 
bhakti as the soteriological doctrine and did not view self-surrender as a distinct soteriological 
path even in the Gītābhāṣya.  
Unlike the way that the Gītābhāṣya consistently presents bhakti as the main doctrine 
with self-surrender as its auxiliary, many elements in the Gadyatraya makes it difficult to 
identify Rāmānuja’s intention. Thus, in exploring this work in the third section, I rely on the 
scholarly studies and the Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ commentaries on the text to better understand its 
complex features and theological points. I highlight that the Gadyatraya can be considered the 
precursor of the Manipravalam sphere based on its incorporation of the Tamil devotional 
attitude and what the post-Rāmānuja authors regarded as the three secrets (rahasya) or sacred 
formulas (mantra): the Mūla or Tirumantra, “Aum, I pay obeisance to Nārāyaṇa” (“aum namo 
nārāyaṇāya”); the Dvaya, “I surrender at the two feet of Nārāyaṇa with Śrī. I pay obeisance to 
Nārāyaṇa with Śrī” (“śrīmannārāyaṇacaranau prapadye. śrīmate nārāyaṇāya namaḥ”); and 
the Caramaśloka, “Having abandoned all dharma, come to Me alone as refuge. I will free you 
from all sins. Do not grieve” (“sarvadharmān parityajya mām ekam śaraṇaṃ vraja. ahaṃ tvā 
mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ”).80 It should be noted that Rāmānuja did not yet refer to the category 
of the three secrets or the “rahasyas.” These were first mentioned by his disciple, Parāśara 
Bhaṭṭar, whose date is debatable (c. 1062–1090, 1085–1090, 1122–1154, or 1123–1174), in his 
Aṣṭaślokī as will be discussed in Chapter 2.81 The paradigm of the three secrets was then 
 
80 See section 2.3.1 for the genealogy of the three secrets. 
81 The first two dates are proposed by Rangachari, The Sri Vaishnava Brahmins, 42, and Padmanabhan, 
Pārāśarabhaṭṭa, 6–7. The last two dates are found in Mumme, The Mumukṣuppaṭi of Piḷḷai Lokācārya, 
Appendix 1, 211. 
41 
 
comprehensively developed in Manipravalam independent treatises especially devoted to the 
interpretation of them, the rahasyagranthas.82 The Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ Manipravalam is suitable to 
convey the “secret” teachings meant only for the community since, as Ajay Rao argues, it is 
“an insider register” for the elite and intellectual Śrīvaiṣṇavas.83 
In the final section, we will see that self-surrender, as an outgrowth of Rāmānuja’s 
devotional expression in his Gadyatraya, evidently emerged as another doctrine, an alternative 
to bhakti, in the Manipravalam commentaries. Even though Rāmānuja and his predecessors, 
such as Nāthamuni and Yāmuna, composed texts only in Sanskrit, the community believes that 
they all had strong connections with the Tamil scripture. Nāthamuni is traditionally attributed 
with the compiliation of the Nālāyirativiyappirapantam.84 Then, Yāmuna encapsulated the 
devotional attitudes of the Āḻvārs in his devotional Sanskrit poem, the Stotraratna.85 Lipner 
convincingly and clearly explains Rāmānuja’s decision to compose works only in Sanskrit:  
 
The tenor of Ramanujan’s thinking and the tradition that all his works were in 
Sanskrit make it clear that, if he wished to publicize the Tamil Vaisnava sources, 
he wished more to establish as universal a base as possible for his system. For 
this it is necessary to write in the lingua franca of orthodox Hindu scholarship – 
Sanskrit – and to appeal to sources with the widest scholarly and religious 
authority. This meant that, in the main, Ramanujan attacked his opponents on 
common ground in so far as they sought similarly to accredit their views, and 
that he used common sources to state his own case.86  
 
However, Rāmānuja’s Gadyatraya, for example, shows his connection with Tamil 
 
82 Venkatachari categorizes this group of texts within the corpus of sampradāyagranthas or traditional works, 
that include the rahasyagranthas and other independent works (The Manipravāla Literature of the Śrīvaiṣṇava 
Ācāryas, 1).  
83 Rao, Re-Figuring the Rāmāyaṇa as Theology, 19. 
84 Nāthamuni further divides the Tamil corpus into those that should be recited (iyaṛpā) and sung (icaipā). 
Narayanan, The Vernacular Veda, Chapters 6 and 7. 
85 For the analysis of the Stotraratna, see Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 48, and 
Narayanan, The Way and the Goal, Chapter 2. 
86 Lipner, The Face of Truth, 6.   
42 
 
heritage. Nayar supports that “Rāmānuja provided certain theological openings for several 
features of Āḻvār spirituality.”87 The community also records that Rāmānuja commissioned his 
disciple, Tirukkurukaip Piraṉ Piḷḷāṉ, to compose the first commentary in Manipravalam.88 The 
Manipravalam commentaries on the Tiruvāymoḻi also account for Rāmānuja’s acknowledgment 
and views on Tamil scripture. Although the references to Rāmānuja are not elaborate, Francis 
Clooney suggests that the “small-scale” evidence makes it more credible that Rāmānuja must 
have engaged with Tamil scripture. Moreover, the devotional presence in Rāmānuja’s Vedānta 
system might have been influenced by the Āḻvārs’ devotionalism: 
 
It is still a fact that Rāmānuja’s entirely Sanskrit body of writings does not hint 
that he knew Tamil or even the āḻvār literature. Yet there is some evidence for 
his indebtedness to Tamil. The Īṭu, Nampiḷḷai’s great teaching of Tiruv̄ymoḻi as 
recorded by Vaṭakkutiruvītippiḷḷai, on occasion, even in passing, refers to 
Rāmānuja as a reader of the Tamil, and in very specific instances. At 1.4.3, for 
example, Rāmānuja is remembered as making a subtle point regarding the lord’s 
deceit. The verse reads in part, “He came as a small dwarf, by his wits he begged 
the earth, that trickster. I’ve lost my wits because of him…”. An elder teacher, 
Tirumālai Aṇṭan followed the older interpretations of Āḷavaṇṭar (more familiarly 
known as Yāmuna) and read “trickster” simply as referring to the dwarf’s 
tricking Bali. Rāmānuja agrees that the dwarf was helping Indra to regain his 
kingdom but denies that such is the lord’s primary concern. Rather, he had 
decided to trick the āḻvār, to make him fall in love with him in this small, 
innocuous dwarf form—and then to suddenly steal his heart. Such anecdotes—
and there are many of them—are small-scale and particular, and we see no sign 
of any grand mythic narrative of Rāmānuja’s relationship to Tiruvāymoḻi. 
Indeed, the fact that references to Rāmānuja’s reading of the poetry are so 
undramatic and small-scale gives the idea more credibility. The presence of 
emotion and personalism in his writing and his insistence that his intense 
devotion is Vedānta make more sense if one premises that he was influenced by 
the devotionalism of the āḻvārs.89 
 
 
The traditional record, the Vārtāmālai (c. fourteenth century), also portrays Rāmānuja receiving 
 
87 Nayar, Poetry as Theology, 9.  
88 Carman and Narayanan, The Tamil Veda, xi. 
89 Clooney, “The Use of Sanskrit as a Theological Resource,” 17. 
43 
 
education in the Tamil scripture from the lineage of Yāmuna:90 
 
…Nampi told Rāmānuja that he should now proceed to learn the 
Tiruvāymoḻi from Tirumālaiyāṇṭāṇ and handed him over to the teacher and left. 
When Nampi proceeded to the temple, he saw Āṇṭāṉ ther[e] and asked: What 
are you doing here instead of giving a commentary on the Tiruvāymoḻi? Āṇṭāṉ 
replied: I left because (Rāmānuja) invented new explanations which I have never 
heard from Āḷavantār (Yāmuna). 
‘What was Rāmānuja’s interpretation?’ asked Nampi (and Āṇṭāṉ 
explained in detail)…‘O, I have heard that version also from Āḷavaṉtār,’ said 
Nampi and continued, ‘Just as the Lord Krishna (while He was on this earth) 
learnt from the guru Santipan, so too Rāmānuja listening to the Tiruvāymoḻi 
from you! Rāmānuja will never say anything that Āḷavantār would not approve 
of…91 
 
 
Despite these accounts, the engagement with the Tamil scripture was only evident after the time 
of Rāmānuja in the Manipravalam commentaries. In the last section of this chapter, I argue that 
the doctrine of self-surrender, the one that is evidently distinct from bhakti as seen in the 
theological treatises of the medieval Śrīvaiṣṇavas, is the product of this emerging 
Manipravalam sphere. The most significant function of these commentaries is the formation of 
scriptural sources, terminology, and theological principles based on the Tamil scripture and its 
modes of devotional and intimate expression. The commentaries regarded the Tiruvāymoḻi as 
Tamil scripture and centered it as the main source of normativity and expression in the 
Manipravalam sphere. They also incorporated the materials that previously appeared in the 
Āḻvārs’ Tamil hymns and the epics or itihāsas, namely the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata. 
These sources, combined with those derived from Rāmānuja’s Sanskrit sphere of soteriology, 
construct the Manipravalam commentaries and the development of self-surrender.  
 
90 Venkatachari attributes this text to Piṉpaḻakiyaperumāḷjīyar who may have been the disciple of both Naṃpiḷḷai 
and Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai (The Manipravāla Literature of the Śrīvaiṣṇava Ācāryas, 159–160). However, his 
authorship and date are unclear. 
91 Rajagopalan, “The Śrī Vaiṣṇava Understanding of Bhakti and Prapatti,” 476–477. 
44 
 
1.1 Rāmānuja’s Sanskrit Sphere  
This section reveals that Rāmānuja’s teaching of the doctrine of bhakti presents the 
Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ Sanskrit sphere, its normativity and its expressivity, in the soteriological context. 
Despite being preceded by authors such as Nāthamuni and Yāmuna who are traditionally 
believed to have composed some Sanskrit works, Rāmānuja systematically established the 
Sanskrit norms and expressions.92 This is evident in his theorization of bhakti that was more 
elaborate than what we see in, for example, Yāmuna’s summary of the Bhagavadgītā, the 
Gītārthasaṃgraha.93 The soteriological defense of bhakti is indispensable to the constitution of 
Rāmānuja’s new branch of Vedānta. Compared to self-surrender, bhakti can be distinct from 
Advaita Vedānta factual knowledge to liberation (mokṣa) and more grounded in the Vedāntic 
scriptural domain. Specifically, Rāmānuja develops the main characteristic for any 
soteriological doctrine, including self-surrender, namely Vedāntic ritual status and the 
normative elements a doctrine should encompass: the Vedāntic scripture and Mīmāṃsā, the 
Vedic hermeneutics and ritual system that precedes Vedānta as an exegetical system. These 
characteristics offer demarcating factors for a soteriological doctrine and its validation. But, the 
doctrine of bhakti comes with its own limitation as it is accessible by only the first three castes 
(varṇas)—brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, and vaiśya—who can study the Vedas. 
 
92 Nāthamuni was reputedly the author of a non-extent work, the Yogarahasya, and Yāmuna, his successor, 
composed his treatises all in Sanskrit, namely the Siddhitraya, Gītārthasaṃgraha, and Āgamaprāmāṇya, and 
also the poems like the Stotraratna and Catuśślokī. See Carman, Theology of Rāmānuja, 23-26, and Nayar, 
Poetry as Theology, 7–8. 
93 Yāmuna’s Gītārthasaṃgraha divides the whole Bhagavadgītā into three sections according to the three paths 
(yogas), which are the soteriological means outlined in the Bhagavadgītā: Chapters 1–6 deal with the path of 
action and knowledge (karma- and jñāna-yoga); Chapters 7–12 focus on the path of devotion (bhaktiyoga); and, 
finally, Chapters 13–18 explain other topics related to the three yogas and the relationship between God and the 
soul. After, summarizing all the chapters in the Bhagavadgītā, in one verse per chapter, Yāmuna delineates the 
main points, including the three yogas and the one of wisdom (jñānī), who is the best among the devotees. 
Ultimately, Yāmuna establishes the Bhagavadgītā as the main scripture regarding the soteriological doctrine of 
bhakti. For the whole text and translation, see Buitenen, Rāmānuja on the Bhagavadgītā, 177–182. 
45 
 
The Śrībhāṣya’s lengthy commentary on Brahmasūtra 1.1.1 can be split into two 
sections (minor and major). Then, each of those can be divided into two sub-sections, one for 
the potential opponent (pūrvapakṣa) and the other devoted to the proponent (siddhānta).94 At 
the beginning of the section on the minor proponent, Rāmānuja addresses the critical 
soteriological issue between Advaita Vedānta and his system of Vedānta. Although the two 
Vedāntas agree that liberation is the cessation of ignorance that comes about by the knowledge 
of God in the ultimate form of Brahman (brahmavijñāna) enjoined in the Upaniṣads, they have 
different views regarding the nature of this knowledge.95 The issue centers on the question of 
whether knowledge of the sentential meaning of the Upaniṣadic passages proposed by Advaita 
Vedānta or knowledge, based on the sentence-meaning, in the form of the meditative worship 
of God is the means to liberation:  
 
The response in this regard [against the Advaitins] is that we agree that liberation 
is indeed cessation of ignorance, as you stated, and that cessation is only due to 
the knowledge of Brahman. [However,] it is to be discussed what form of this 
knowledge intended to be enjoined by Upaniṣadic passages for the cessation of 
ignorance is. Is it only the knowledge of the meaning of [Upaniṣadic] passages 
from a sentence? Or is it the knowledge, consisting of the worship [of Brahman], 
based on that [sentential meaning]?96  
 
Rāmānuja immediately rejects the first kind of knowledge and provides two reasons for 
accepting the second kind. The first reason aims to preserve the injunctive function and 
authority of the Upaniṣads. According to Rāmānuja, if we were to accept the first kind of 
 
94 For the analysis of this section and its theological significance, see Carman, The Theology of Rāmānuja. 
95 For more information on the Upaniṣads, see Olivelle, The Early Upaniṣads. 
96 Rāmānuja, Śrībhāṣya (Madras: Ubhaya Vedanta Granthamala, 1963), 15: atrocyate—yad uktam, 
‘avidyānivṛttir eva mokṣaḥ; sā ca brahmavijñānād eva bhavati’ iti—tad abyupagamyate. avidyānivṛttaye 
vedāntavākyair vidhitsitaṃ jñānaṃ kiṃ rūpam iti vivecanīyam—kiṃ vākyād vākyārthajñānamātra, uta 
tanmūlam upāsanātmakaṃ jñānam iti. 
46 
 
knowledge as a means to liberation, there would be no use for the injunctive passages in the 
Upaniṣads since the knowledge from hearing and understanding the Upaniṣadic passages does 
not need to be enjoined. Second, there is no scriptural support for the view that ignorance can 
be removed by mere knowledge from the Upaniṣads: 
 
[To answer,] It is not the first alternative, which is the knowledge, arising from 
[Upaniṣadic] passages. [The first reason is that] [that knowledge] can indeed by 
attained from the [meaning of] the sentence even without any injunctions. [The 
second reason is that] only that much [knowledge] cannot stop the ignorance.97  
 
 
Rāmānuja then claims that the knowledge that leads a person to liberation must be different 
from the knowledge derived from the meaning of the Upaniṣadic passages. As we will see in 
what follows, in order to validate bhakti, Rāmānuja asserts that the Upaniṣads enjoin bhakti, a 
kind of knowledge, which is synonymous with knowledge (vedana) of God in the ultimate form 
of Brahman, meditation (dhyāna), and meditative worship (upāsanā) as the means to liberation. 
Rāmānuja ultimately concludes that soteriological knowledge which should be 
undertaken is equivalent to the meditative worship of God (upāsanā), which is synonymous 
with bhakti. He also harmonizes different Vedāntic passages, which he views as soteriological 
teachings, to defend the position that the Upaniṣads unitedly propose bhakti as the only 
soteriological doctrine. His argument can be outlined as follows. First, Rāmānuja indicates that 
soteriological knowledge is equal to meditation, which “has the form of the continuous stream 
of remembrance like a stream of oil.”98 He then argues that this remembrance has the same 
form as perception.99 Next, the remembrance in the form of perception is characterized as the 
 
97 Ibid., 15–16: na tāvat vākyajanyaṃ; tasya vidhānam antareṇāpi vākyād eva siddheḥ; 
tāvanmātreṇāvidyānivṛtty anupalabdheś ca. 
98 Ibid., 17: dhyānaṃ ca tailadhārāvadavicchinnasmṛtisantānarūpam. 
99 Ibid.: sā ca smṛtir darśanasamānākārā. 
47 
 
nature of the knowledge of Brahman which is the same as the meditative worship: “It is just 
that knowledge in the form of worship, which is repeated more than once, that is described as 
constant remembrance.”100 To support this position, Rāmānuja cites a view of Brahmanandin 
(fifth century?), who commented on the Chāndogya Upaniṣad.101 Rāmānuja claims that, 
according to Brahmanandin, the knowledge of Brahman, enjoined in the Upaniṣads, refers to 
meditative worship: “All of this is explained by the author of The Sentences (i.e., 
Brahmanandin), ‘Knowledge should be worship, due to hearing regarding that object.’ What is 
stated [in this statement] is that the knowledge enjoined as the means to liberation in all the 
Upaniṣads is the meditative worship [of Brahman].”102  
In the final step, Rāmānuja shows that meditative worship (upāsana) is synonymous 
with bhakti. Thus, the word “bhakti” can be used to speak about knowledge in the form of 
meditative remembrance. He validates this argument with authoritative passages from the 
Vedāntic sources, namely the Śvetāśvatāra Upaniṣad, the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, and the 
Bhagavadgītā. While the first two sources are classified as śruti, the most authoritative 
scriptural corpus in Vedic orthodoxy, the Bhagavadgītā belongs to the secondary revelation 
group of smṛti, the scriptures that are remembered from the Vedas, for example itihāsas and 
Purāṇas:103 
 
Indeed, the constant remembrance, having that form, is referred to by the word 
“bhakti” since the word “bhakti” is synonymous to the meditative worship. Such 
a manner is, thus, prescribed by śruti and smṛti as follows: “Only when a man 
knows him does he pass beyond death” [Śvetāśvatāra Upaniṣad 3.8], “A person 
 
100 Ibid., 18: tasyaiva vedanasyopāsanarūpasyāsakṛdāvṛttasya dhruvānusmṛtitvam upavarṇitam. 
101 Nakamura, A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy, Vol. 2. For the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, see Olivelle, The 
Early Upaniṣads, Chapter 2. 
102 Rāmānuja, Śrībhāṣya, 18: vākyakāreṇaitat sarvaṃ prapañcitam—(vākyagranthaḥ)—“vedanam upāsanaṃ 
syāt tadviṣaye śravanāt” iti sarvāsūpaniṣatsu mokṣasādhanatayā vihitaṃ vedanam upāsanam ity uktam. 
103 For the Bhagavadgītā passages, see vol. 2, 336 and 110, respectively. 
48 
 
who knows Him in this way becomes immortal in this world. There is no other 
path for going forth” [Puruṣasūkta 17], “I cannot be seen as I am through the 
Vedas, penance, charity, and worship, as you have [now] seen me. However, 
Arjuna, I can be known, seen, and entered truly as I am by exclusive devotion, 
O Arjuna!” [Bhagavadgītā 11.53–54], “Arjuna, the Supreme Person is to be 
attained by exclusive devotion” [Bhagavadgītā 8.22].104 
 
 
Moreover, Rāmānuja defends bhakti as a valid Vedāntic doctrine through the 
hermeneutic and ritual system of Mīmāṃsā, which is devoted to the systematization of Vedic 
rituals and interpretation.105 Rāmānuja, followed by the later Śrīvaiṣṇava authors, regards the 
Mīmāṃsāsūtra of Jaimini (c. 200 BC) as the first part (Pūrva Mīmāṃsā) with the Brahmasūtra 
as the next part (Uttara Mīmāṃsā) of the single interpretative system (ekaśāstra).106 Both parts 
form a unified hermeneutic basis for his Vedāntic system. According to Rāmānuja, the first part 
outlines the sacrificial rituals, whose results are little and temporary. The realization of their 
provisional results urges a desire to study the subsequent part of the Vedic scripture—the 
Upaniṣads explained in the Brahmasūtra—which offers the best possible result, eternal 
liberation, through the knowledge of Brahman. Thus, the study of the first part, which is related 
to rituals (Karma-mīmāṃsā) is to be followed by the second part on Brahman (Brahma-
mīmāṃsā):  
 
Investigation is the desire to know. Since, for desire, it is the desired thing that 
is predominant, it is the desired knowledge that is intended to be enjoined here. 
Because the results of ritual actions known through the first part of Mīmāṃsā 
 
104 Rāmānuja, Śrībhāṣya, 19: evaṃrūpā dhruvānusmṛtir eva bhaktiśabdenābhidhīyate; upāsanaparyāyatvād 
bhaktiśabdasya | ata eva śrutismṛtibhir evam abhidhīyate—“tam eva viditvā ’ti mṛtyum eti”, tam evaṃ vidvān 
amṛta iha bhavati | nānyaḥ panthā ayanāya vidyate”, “nāhaṃ vedair na tapasā na dānena na cejyayā | śakya 
evaṃ vidhā draṣṭuṃ dṛṣṭavānasi māṃ yathā || bhaktyā tv ananyayā śakya aham evaṃvidho ’rjuna! | jñātuṃ 
draṣṭuṃ ca tattvena praveṣṭuṃ ca parantapa!”, “puruṣaḥ sa paraḥ pārtha! bhatyā labhyastv ananyayā” iti. The 
Śvetāśvatāra Upaniṣad passage is translated by Olivelle, The Early Upaniṣads, 421. For the full text, see ibid., 
420. 
105 For other ācāryas’ reception of Mīmāṃsā, see Freschi, “Śrī Vaiṣṇavism.”  
106 Jaimini’s Mīmāṃsāsūtra is commented by Śabara in the Śabarabhāṣya, which is then commented on by 
Kumārila. See McCrea, “Mīmāṃsā.” 
49 
 
are little and temporary, and because the knowledge of Brahman ascertained 
through the subsequent part has results that are infinite and un-decaying, what 
is stated is that Brahman is to be known after the knowledge of ritual actions in 
the first part, and precisely because of that [knowledge of ritual actions]. The 
commentator stated that “The intention to know Brahman is after the previously 
occurring acquisition of ritual actions.” It will be stated also [by the 
commentator] that there is unity of Mīmāṃsā related to ritual actions and one 
related to Brahman [in the statement,] “There is establishment of unity of the 
system [of Mīmāṃsā] since the Vedānta (śārīraka) is accompanied with sixteen 
chapters of Jaiminī.” Thus, there is a division of the first and subsequent parts 
of Mīmāṃsā by the [internal] division of matters which are desired to be 
communicated, just like the divisions of the [two sets of] six chapters and like 
the division between individual chapters [within the Mīmāṃsā system]. The 
Mīmāṃsāsūtra begins with “Now, thus, the investigation of dharma” 
[Mīmāṃsāsūtra 1.1.1] and concludes in this way, “There is non-repetition from 
the word [which states] non-repetition” [Brahmasūtra 4.4.22]. There is a 
specific order by means of a specific connection [at each point]. 107  
 
In the context of bhakti, the first part needs to be studied before the second part since 
the first part provides the knowledge of ritual actions, which are required to be performed as 
instruments of bhakti.108 However useful Mīmāṃsā may have been in giving methods that the 
Vedāntins can use in ritual and interpretative arguments, Rāmānuja’s incorporation of 
Mīmāṃsā as the first part of his exegetical foundation brings with it a significant restraint. Since 
the first step to undertake bhakti is the study of the Vedas and, according to Mīmāṃsā, the 
 
107 Rāmānuja, Śrībhāṣya, 7 and 9: jñātum icchā jijñāsā. icchāyā iṣyamāṇapradhānatvād iṣyamāṇaṃ jñānam iha 
vidhīyate. mīmāṃsāpūrvabhāgajñātasya karmaṇo ’lpāsthiraphalatvāt uparitanabhāgāvaseyasya 
brahmajñānasyānantākṣayaphalatvāc ca pūrvavṛttāt karmajñānād anantaraṃ tata eva hetor brahma 
jñātavyamityuktaṃ bhavati. tad āha vṛttikāraḥ—"vṛttāt karmādhigamād anantaraṃ brahmavividiṣā” iti. 
vakṣyati ca karmabrahmamīmāṃsayor aikaśāstryam, "saṃhitam etac chārīrakaṃ jaiminīyena ṣoḍaśalakṣaṇeneti 
śāstraikatvasiddhiḥ” iti. ataḥ pratipipādayiṣitārthabhedena ṣaṭkabhedavat adhyāyabhedavac ca 
pūrvottaramīmāṃsayor bhedaḥ. mīmāṃsāśāstram, “athāto dharmajijñāsā” ity ārabhya, “anāvṛttiḥ śabdād 
anāvṛttiḥ śabdāt” ity evamantaṃ saṅgativiśeṣeṇa viśiṣṭakramam. For Brahmasūtra 4.4.22, see the edition with 
Rāmānuja’s Śrībhāṣya (Madras: Ubhaya Vedanta Granthamala, 1963), 888. See Mīmāṃsāsūtra 1.1.1 in 
Mīmāṃsādarśana (Pune: Ānandāśrama), vol. 1, 1. 
108 Rāmānuja, Śrībhāṣya, 19. In another place, Rāmānuja argues that, just as the knowledge of Brahman is to be 
repeatedly contemplated on, these ritual actions must be performed as long as the performer lives, according to 
his caste and stage of life. They are necessary for the maintaining of the performer’s eligibility to perform the 
contemplation on Brahman. (tasyaiva vedanasya dhyānarūpasyāharaharanuṣṭhīyamānasya 
abhyāsādheyātiśayasya āprayāṇād anuvartamānasya brahmaprāptisādhanatvāt tadupattaye 
sarvāṇyāśramakarmāṇi yāvajjīvam anuṣṭheyāni). 
50 
 
Vedas can only be studied by those outside the three higher castes, only those from the three 
higher castes are eligible to perform bhakti.109 Therefore, those outside the three higher castes, 
including the śūdras, cannot perform bhakti due to their inability to study the Vedas. Rāmānuja 
explains the restraint in the section on the exclusion of śūdras (apaśūdrādhikaraṇa, 
Brahmasūtra 1.3.9) in his Śrībhāṣya.110  
 The knowledge and the meditative worship of Brahman can be attained only through 
the study of the first and the subsequent parts of the Vedas. Since śūdras cannot study them 
both, they cannot know and worship Brahman. Even if śūdras desire liberation, they cannot 
perform the means to attain God without any knowledge. Nor can they attain the knowledge 
from itihāsas, namely the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa, and Purāṇas, which are all regarded 
in the Śrībhāṣya as a supplement of the Vedas. The study of these supplemental scriptures only 
benefits śūdras through the destruction of their sins, so that they can be reborn in any of the 
three higher castes and, as a result, become eligible to study the Vedas in their next lives. 
However, the study of these scriptures is not enough to provide śūdras the knowledge of and 
the means to attain Brahman since itihāsa and Purāṇas rely on the Vedas. Rāmānuja states: 
 
It is not possible for a śūdra to have eligibility [to undertake bhakti] since they 
cannot [study the Vedas]. A person who does not know the nature of Brahman, 
the worship of Him, and the manner [of the meditative worship] would not know 
the auxiliaries of that worship such as the recitation of the Vedas, the sacrificial 
rituals, and so on. [Thus,] it is not possible that that person would be able to 
complete the meditative worship of Brahman. Even if that incapable person has 
 
.109 The section on the exclusion of śūdras with respect to eligibility for the Vedic study and sacrificial rituals 
can be found from Mīmāṃsāsūtra 6.1.26–38. According to Śabara, Mīmaṃsāsūtra 6.1.26 to Mīmāṃsāsūtra 
6.1.32 propose the views of other Vedic teachers. Jaimini then put forward his argument and reason in 
Mīmāṃsāsūtra 6.1.33. Śabara comments on Mīmāṃsāsūtra 6.1.33 that the Vedas refer to the fire required for the 
undertaking of Vedic study only in the case of the twice-born without mentioning śūdras. Thus, śūdras are not 
eligible for the Vedic study since they cannot be initiated for the Vedic study. See Śabarabhāṣya on 
Mīmāṃsāsūtra 6.1.33, vol. 4, 1379. 
110 Rāmānuja, Śrībhāṣya 1.3.33–39, 370–380. For the opinions on the exclusion of śūdras in the later 
Manipravalam literature, see Clooney, “Fierce Words.”  
51 
 
a desire for [that meditative worship] […] Thus, it is not possible for a śūdra to 
have capability for the Meditative worship, since it is only for a person who 
knows one’s own Vedic recension as prescribed by the injunction for Vedic 
study. Only in so far as itihāsas and Purāṇas support the Vedas can they become 
a means since they are not independent [of the Vedas]. The permission for a 
śūdra to listen to itihāsas and Purāṇas is for the results such as the destruction 
of sins, not for the meditative worship.111 
 
As we have seen in this section, the doctrine of bhakti is the protagonist of Rāmānuja’s 
soteriological system. In his teaching of bhakti in his Śrībhāṣya, Rāmānuja establishes the 
norms and expressions that are essential to the systematization of self-surrender in the 
Manipravalam and Sanskrit treatises. That said, it is also important to note that Rāmānuja does 
not mention self-surrender in his Śrībhāṣya.112 The medieval Śrīvaiṣṇava authors explain the 
absence of self-surrender in the Śrībhāṣya by arguing that Rāmānuja taught self-surrender for 
all of the Śrīvaiṣṇavas in a more secret and intimate space meant only for the community of his 
followers such as the Gadyatraya, while he proposed bhakti for the opposing philosophical and 
theological systems such as Advaita Vedānta.  
One of the earliest pieces of evidence for this explanation can be found in Periyavāccāṉ 
Piḷḷai’s Manipravalam commentary on Rāmānuja’s Śaraṇāgatigadya, the first among the three 
gadyas.113 In the introduction, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai explains that Rāmānuja defended the first 
doctrine to remove doubts of Advaita Vedānta but then offered self-surrender in the Gadyatraya 
 
111 Rāmānuja, Śrībhāṣya, 372–373: na śūdrasyādhikāraḥ saṃbhavati, sāmārthyābhāvāt. na hi 
brahmasvarūpatadupāsanaprakāram ajānataḥ tadaṅgabhūtavedānuvacanayajñādiṣv anadhikṛtasya 
upāsanopasaṃhārasāmarthyasaṃbhavaḥ. asamarthasya cārthitvasadbhāve ’py adhikāro na saṃbhavati. 
asāmarthyaṃ ca vedādhyayanābhāvāt […] ato ’dhyayanavidhisiddhasvādhyāyādhigatajñānasyaiva 
brahmopāsanopāyatvāt śūdrasya brahmopāsanasāmarthyāsaṃbhavaḥ. itihāsapurāṇe api vedopabṛṃhanaṃ 
kurvatī evopāyabhāvam anubhavataḥ; na svātantryeṇa. śūdrasyetihāsapurāṇaśravaṇānujñānaṃ 
pāpakṣayādiphalārtham; nopāsanārtham. 
112 Note that the word “prapatti” cannot be found anywhere in the Śrībhāṣya. 
113 For the loose translation of the whole text, see Rāmānujam, Gadyatrayam of Bhagavad Rāmānuja, 19–20. 
52 
 
for the followers.114 This commentarial account supports my understanding that Rāmānuja 
needs to provide a soteriological doctrine through which his system can differentiate itself from 
Advaita Vedānta for his new Vedāntic system. Due to the Advaita Vedānta claim that factual 
knowledge based on listening to the Upaniṣadic passages is liberative, Rāmānuja defines bhakti 
not only as knowledge but knowledge that has to be performed or meditated based on the 
Upaniṣadic injunctions. Rāmānuja’s defense further affirms the role of Mīmāṃsā and the 
Vedānta scriptural corpus in the soteriological development of bhakti. Compared to self-
surrender, which has fewer accounts in the Vedāntic sources like the Upaniṣads and the 
Bhagavadgītā as we will see in the following chapters, bhakti presents itself as a more 
convincing and appealing doctrine for Rāmānuja’s new Vedānta system due to its Sanskrit 
scriptural sources that are shared by other Vedāntic systems. Although the soteriological 
 
114 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s commentary on the Gadyatraya (Chennai: RNR Printers & Publishers, 2013), 1: “In the 
Śrībhāṣya, to reject the wrong views that only the knowledge rising from the [Upaniṣadic] statements like 
“That’s how you are” (tattvamasi) [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.8.7] is the means to liberation and that only the 
combination of karmayoga and jñānayoga is the means to liberation, he [Rāmānuja] affirms that only the 
knowledge which consists of the meditative worship and has a form of devotion (bhakti) is the means to 
liberation as prescribed in the Upaniṣads. It has ritual action as its auxiliary and can be referred to by the terms, 
knowledge (vedana), meditation (dhyāna), meditative worship (upāsanā) and so on. Good followers may believe 
that since this meaning [of bhakti] is favored by Rāmānuja it is it is the only thing that should be known as the 
means to liberation. Rāmānuja, knowing that, reveals the fact that self-surrender (prapatti) is the meaning that 
they should know, [so that they can] resort to this means. Thus, if one were to ask, why Rāmānuja does not reject 
the wrong views by talking about this self-surrender. [The answer is that], Rāmānuja sees that it is inappropriate 
to reveal this meaning, which is a supreme secret, to those who are not connected to the community, just like [it 
is not suitable for a brāhmaṇa to] teach the Vedas to the outcastes. [Therefore], he destroys them [those with 
wrong views] through the scripture that they are familiar with [in the Śrībhāṣya] and explains his own standpoint 
(svasiddhānta) which is the true meaning of the scripture [in the Gadyatraya].” (śrīpāṣyattil—“tat tvam asi” (tat 
tvam asi) ityāti vākyajanyajñānamē mōkṣasādhanam eṉṟum, karmajñānasamuccayamē mōkṣasādhanam eṉṟum 
collukiṟa tattṛṣṭikaḷai nirasikkakkāka, karmāṅgakam āy, vēdanadhyānōpasanātiśabdavācyamāy, 
bhaktirūpāpannamāṉa upāsanātmakajñāṉamē vēdāntapratipātyamāṉa mōkṣasādhaṉam eṉṟu ivar niścayittu 
aruḷicceykaiyālē ivar mōkṣasātanamāka aṟutiyiṭṭa artham ituvēy eṉṟukoṇṭu tammuṭaiya ruciparikruhītamāṉa 
arthattaiyē viśvasittu irukkum sādhvikar ittaiyē viśvasittu irukkakkūṭum eṉṟu pārttaruḷi, 
ācāryaruciparigṛhītamumāy, tamakkut tañcamākat tām aṟutiyiṭṭu irukkum artham prapattiy eṉṉum iṭattai 
ikkatyarūpēṇa veḷiyiṭṭu aruḷukiṟār. āṉāl, ipprapattitaṉṉaiyē koṇṭu kudṛṣṭinirasaṉam paṇṇātu oḻivāṉ eṉṉa eṉṉil: 
prāhmaṇaṉ caṇṭāḷaṉukku vēdattai upadēśittāṟ pōlē turastarāṉavarkaḷukkup paramarahasyam̱āṉa ivvarthattai 
veḷiyiṭav oṇṇātu eṉṟu pārttu, avarkaḷ iḻinta śāstramukhattālēyē avarkaḷai nirasittu, śāstratātparyamāṉa 
svasiddhāntattai immukhattālē veḷiyiṭukiṟār). The translation of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.8.7 is by Olivelle, 
The Early Upaniṣads, 252–253. 
53 
 
normativity that Rāmānuja formed here was later incorporated into the doctrine of self-
surrender, they were originally meant for expounding bhakti and not the newly developed 
doctrine of self-surrender. 
 
1.2 Bhakti in Rāmānuja’s Gītābhāṣya 
It is my contention that Rāmānuja still viewed self-surrender as a devotional attitude in his 
Gītābhāṣya despite the later authors’ claims that he taught self-surrender as an alternative to 
bhakti in this work. Their claims might be rooted in the respect for Rāmānuja as the most 
significant ācārya. As the one who established the first soteriological doctrine for the 
community, Rāmānuja became the most critical normative figure for validating self-surrender. 
Given this, it is possible that the later authors felt the need to argue that Rāmānuja not only 
approved of self-surrender, but also taught it in his own works.  
In this section, I analyze Rāmānuja’s teaching of bhakti in the Gītābhāṣya.115 The 
selection of passages that I explore is led by Srilata Raman in Self-surrender (Prapatti) to God 
in Śrīvaiṣṇavism (2007), the most comprehensive study on Rāmānuja’s Gītābhāṣya.116 The first 
commentary on the Bhagavadgītā in the Śrīvaiṣṇava literary corpus, the Gītābhāṣya, is 
influenced by a Sanskrit summary of the Bhagavadgītā, the Gītārthasaṃgraha, by Yāmuna 
(traditional dates: c. 918–1038). Following Yāmuna, Rāmānuja regards the Bhagavadgītā as 
one of the Vedāntic scriptures and the foundation for his soteriology of bhakti. Investigating 
Rāmānuja’s Gītābhāṣya, Raman focuses on the commentary of Chapters 7 and 18 of the 
 
115 Rāmānuja, “Gītābhāṣya,” in The Bhagavad-Gītā with Eleven Commentaries, ed. Gajanana Shambhu Sadhale 
Shastri (Delhi: Parimal Publications), 1991 (vol. 1), 1936 (vol. 2), and 1938 (vol. 3). 
116 See Buitenen, Rāmānuja on the Bhagavadgītā, and Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in 
Śrīvaiṣṇavism.  
54 
 
Bhagavadgītā.117 According to Raman, Rāmānuja refers to self-surrender, the one which is a 
penultimate step to the path of devotion (bhaktiyoga), in Bhagavadgītā 7.14. Here is the second 
half of Rāmānuja’s commentary, translated and analyzed by Raman: 
 
He [Krishna] talks of the means which will free one from māyā. Those 
who approach me alone for refuge, whose intention is true, who is supremely 
compassionate and the refuge of the entire world, impervious to distinctions, 
cross over this my māyā, composed of the strands. The meaning is that, casting 
off [that] māyā they will worship me alone. 
Here it is clearly stated that the māyā can only be crossed through taking 
refuge (śaraṇa) with Krishna, which is then described as a means (upāya) to this 
end.118 
 
Raman further notes that self-surrender which is subordinate to bhaktiyoga is specific 
for those without wisdom (non-jñānī) or those who are not considered the best of the devotees. 
This characterization is based on Bhagavadgītā 7.16, which outlines the four groups of devotees 
as follows: “Arjuna, four kinds of people with good deeds worship Me. They are the afflicted 
one, the one who desires wisdom, the one who desires wealth, and the one of wisdom.”119 The 
devotees, except the one of wisdom, cannot undertake bhaktiyoga since they are deluded by 
ignorance (māyā). They, then, must perform self-surrender to drive away the ignorance before 
beginning bhaktiyoga. This type of self-surrender is reiterated in Bhagavadgītā 7.15. 
The other type of self-surrender that is equal to bhaktiyoga and is suitable for the best 
devotees, the one of wisdom (jñānī), can be seen in Bhagavadgītā 7.19. Raman suggests that 
Rāmānuja interprets self-surrender as “jñānī’s prapatti” or bhaktiyoga for the one of wisdom 
 
117 Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 26-40. 
118 Ibid., 29. 
119 Bhagavadgītā 7.16 in The Bhagavad-Gītā with Eleven Commentaries, ed. Gajanana Shambhu Sadhale Shastri 
(Delhi: Parimal Publications, 1936), vol. 2, 35: caturvidhā bhajante māṃ janāḥ sukṛtino ’rjuna! | ārto jijñāsur 
arthārthī jñānī ca bharatarṣabha! || I chose to translate the word “jñānī” as “the one of wisdom” instead of “the 
man of wisdom” as in Raman’s translation. 
55 
 
since Rāmānuja glosses the verb “to surrender” (prapad-) in the verse with the verb “to 
worship” (upās-), which refers to bhaktiyoga. Here is Rāmānuja’s commentary on 
Bhagavadgītā 7.19: 
 
At the end of many births, one with knowledge surrenders to Me, thinking of 
Me as everything. He who has great self is difficult to find [Bhagavadgītā 7.19]. 
 
Surrender to Me is the result of no small number of auspicious births. It is 
preceded by the knowledge of the true nature of the self as that whose sole 
enjoyment is subordination to Me. “At the end of many births” means “at the 
conclusion of auspicious births.” Having been the one of wisdom that “I, whose 
only enjoyment is subordination to Vāsudeva (Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu), am whose 
nature, maintenance, and activities dependent on Him. God is superior to [to all] 
by the innumerable classes of auspicious qualities,” he surrenders to Me, 
thinking that “Vāsudeva alone is my supreme goal and means. He is everything 
desired by Me. [He surrenders to Me] means he worships Me. By saying, “He 
who has a great self,” what is meant is “He who has a great mind.” By saying, 
“[He] is difficult to find,” what is meant is “[He] is more difficult to find in the 
world.”120 
 
Raman then maps the same paradigm for the two types of self-surrender onto her analysis of 
Rāmānuja’s two interpretations of Bhagavadgītā 18.66, arguing that: 
 
Hence, we see that Rāmānuja’s first interpretation of the Caramaśloka deals with 
Krishna’s promise to the highest category of devotees, the jñānī, who is already 
practicing the three types of yogas and is now told to do the kind of prapatti 
which is the equivalent of bhaktiyoga. Krishna, in turn, promises to free him 
from any residual sins, which might constitute a final obstacle to his attainment. 
Correspondingly, the second interpretation of the śloka seems to relate to the 
prapatti of the other type of bhakta — whom I shall call the non-jñānī — who 
 
120 Rāmānuja, Gītābhāṣya 7.19, vol. 2, 220: 
bahūnāṃ janmanām ante jñānavān māṃ prapadyate | vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti sa mahātmā sudurlabhaḥ || 
nālpasaṃkhyāsaṅkhyātānāṃ puṇyajanmanāṃ phalam idam, yan 
maccheṣataikarasātmayāthātmyajñānapūrvakaṃ matprapadanam; api tu bahūnāṃ janmanāṃ puṇyajanmanām 
ante avasāne vāsudevaśeṣataikaraso ’haṃ tadāyattatvasvarūpasthitipravṛttiś ca; sa cāsaṅkhyeyaiḥ 
kalyāṇaguṇagaṇaiḥ paratara iti jñānavān bhūtvā vāsudeva eva mama paramaprāpyaṃ prāpakaṃ cānyad api 
yan manorathavartiṃ sa eva mama tatsarvam iti māṃ yaḥ prapadyate mām upāste; sa mahatma mahāmanāḥ 
sudurlabhaḥ durlabhataro loke. 
56 
 
is yet to commence bhaktiyoga and is unable to do so because of his sinfulness, 
his lack of purity.121  
 
I agree with Raman’s analysis that self-surrender can serve as the penultimate step for 
bhaktiyoga. Therefore, both Bhagavadgītā 7.14 and 7.19 should indicate the sequence of self-
surrender as an auxiliary, followed by bhaktiyoga, which is the means for the one of wisdom. 
In other words, self-surrender and bhaktiyoga form parts of the same process for the one of 
wisdom, and the one who desires knowledge can probably apply the same process to attain 
liberation as well. I understand that Rāmānuja’s glossing of the verb “to surrender” in 
Bhagavadgītā 7.19 might indicate that the verse means to say “to worship” when it uses the 
verb “to surrender” rather than saying that self-surrender can be equated to bhaktiyoga as 
Raman points out. Rāmānuja’s introduction to Chapter 7 of the Bhagavadgītā affirms that self-
surrender is for the removal of the concealment of Matter (prakṛti), which obstructs one from 
attaining God, but not for the direct attainment of God:  
 
In the seventh chapter here, [these things are] stated: 1) First, the true nature of 
the Supreme Person who is to be worshipped; 2) His concealment by Matter 
(prakṛti); 3) Surrendering [oneself] to God for the removal of that 
[concealment]; 4) The division of those who worship God; 5) The superiority of 
the one of wisdom.122 
 
Let us now turn to Rāmānuja’s commentary on Chapter 18. In the introduction to this 
chapter, Rāmānuja explicitly states that bhaktiyoga is the means for liberation and the essence 
of the teaching: 
 
 
121 Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 38.  
122 Rāmānuja, Gītābhāṣya, Introduction to Chapter 7, vol. 2, 6: tatra saptame tāvad 
upāsyabhūtaparamapuruṣasvarūpayāthātmyaṃ, prakṛtyā tattirodhānaṃ, tannivṛttayē bhagavatprapattiḥ, 
upāsakavidhābhedaḥ, jñāninaḥ śraiṣṭhyaṃ cocyate. 
57 
 
Then, these things are made known [in the eighteenth chapter]: 1) The identity 
between abandonment and renunciation, which are shown to be the means to 
liberation; 2) The nature of abandonment which is renunciation; 3) The 
contemplation that the Lord who is the Master of all is the agent of all actions; 
4) The necessity of the pure constituent (sattva-guṇa) [which is made known] 
through the elaboration of the effects of the purity (sattva), passion (rajas), and 
darkness (tamas); 5) The manner in which the attainment of the Supreme Person 
is accomplished through the actions according to one’s caste which are 
characterized as the worship of the Supreme Person; 6) [the fact that] bhaktiyoga 
is the essence of the whole Bhagavadgītā scripture.123  
 
The same sequence of self-surrender, followed by bhaktiyoga, appears in both of 
Rāmānuja’s two interpretations of Bhagavadgītā 18.66. These interpretations of the verse 
indicate that Arjuna should undertake bhaktiyoga to attain liberation. Importantly, both 
interpretations present the subordinate ways to remove the obstacles on bhaktiyoga and the 
devotees’ subordinate and dependent relationship to God, who is the means and the goal that is 
liberation or the attainment of God. While the first interpretation states that the devotee who is 
qualified for the three yogas, including karma, jñāna, and bhakti, should meditate on God as 
the means and the goal, the second interpretation indicates that God is the means for the 
beginning of bhaktiyoga for the devotee who is not yet eligible to perform this path. Ultimately, 
both of Rāmānuja’s interpretations culminate in bhaktiyoga and do not propose self-surrender 
as an independent means. Rāmānuja divides Bhagavadgītā 18.66 into four parts as follows:  
 
1) “Having abandoned all dharmas” (sarvadharmān parityajya),  
2) “come to Me alone for refuge” (mām ekam śaraṇaṃ vraja).  
3) “I will free you from all sins” (ahaṃ tvā sarvapāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi).  
4) “Do not grieve” (mā śucaḥ).  
 
 
123 Ibid., Introduction to Chapter 18, vol. 3, 284: anantaraṃ mokṣasādhanatayā nirdiṣṭayoḥ tyāgasannyāsayor 
aikyaṃ, tyāgasya sannyāsasya ca svarūpaṃ, bhagavati sarveśvare ca sarvakarmaṇāṃ kartṛtvānusandhānaṃ, 
sattvarajastamasāṃ kāryavarṇanena sattvaguṇasya avaśyopādeyatvaṃ, svavarṇocitānāṃ karmaṇāṃ 
paramapuruṣārādhanabhūtānāṃ paramapuruṣaprāptir nirvartanaprakāraḥ, kṛtsnasya gītāśāstrasya sārārtho 
bhaktiyoga ity ete pratipādyante. 
58 
 
 
In his first interpretation, the focus is on the first two parts, “Having abandoned all 
dharmas” and “come to me alone for refuge.” In this context, the devotee is defined as the one 
who performs dharmas, which refer to the three yogas, and instructed to abandon the agency 
and the result of the dharmas or the three yogas. The teaching on abandonment is supported by 
the preceding passages of the Bhagavadgītā, 18.4, 18.9, and 18.11.124 The devotee should then 
meditate on God in the form of Kṛṣṇa, a manifestation of Viṣṇu, as “the agent, the one to be 
worshipped, the goal, and the means” concerning the dharmas. Rāmānuja’s first commentary 
goes as follows: 
 
A person who is performing all dharmas in forms of karmayoga, jñānayoga, and 
bhaktiyoga, which are the means to liberation, according to eligibility, with 
excessive love, as a way of worshipping Me, that person, having abandoned the 
results, actions, and agency, as already stated in the Bhagavadgītā by Kṛṣṇa, 
meditate indeed on Me alone as the agent, the one to be worshipped, the goal, 
and the means. This alone is the scriptural way to abandon dharmas, as is 
explained very clearly at the beginning of this chapter, beginning with: “Listen 
to my conclusion regarding the abandonment O Arjuna! Abandonment is 
declared as three-fold O tiger among men!” [Bhagavadgītā 18.4]; “Having 
abandoned the attachment and also result, that abandonment is regarded as 
virtuous” [Bhagavadgītā 18.9]; “Because it is not possible to abandon actions 
entirely for one who is in a body. But the one who abandons the result of an 
action is called an abandoner” [Bhagavadgītā 18.11]; “I will free you from all 
sins” means “I will free you, existing in this way, from all sins, which have a 
form of doing what should not to be done and not doing what to be done, which 
are endless and are accumulated over a beginningless period of time and are 
obstacles to the attainment of Me.” “Do not grieve” means “do not feel grief.”125 
 
124 For these Bhagavadgītā passages, see vol. 3, 293, 301, and 303. 
125 Rāmānuja, Gītābhāṣya 18.66, vol. 3, 411–412: karmayogajñānayogabhaktiyogarūpān sarvān dharmān 
paramaniśśreyasasādhanabhūtān madārādhanatvena atimātraprītyā yathādhikāraṃ kurvāṇa evoktarītyā 
phalakarmakartṛtvādiparityāgena parityajya mām ekam eva kartāram ārādhyaṃ prāpyam upāyaṃ 
cānusaṃdhatsva; eṣa eva sarvadharmāṇāṃ śāstrīyaparityāga iti ‘niścayaṃ śṛṇu me tatra tyāge bharatasattama! 
| tyāgo hi puruṣavyāghra! trividhaḥ saṃprakīrtitaḥ’ [18.4] ityārabhya ‘saṅgaṃ tyaktvā phalaṃ caiva sa tyāgaḥ 
sāttviko mataḥ’ [18.9] ‘na hi dehabhṛtā śakyaṃ tyaktuṃ karmāṇy aśeṣataḥ. yastu karmaphalatyāgī sa tyāgīty 
abhidhīyate’ [18.11] ityadhyāyādau sudṛḍham upapāditam.‘ahaṃ tvā sarvapāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi’ evaṃ 
vartamānaṃ tvāṃ matprāptivirodhibhyo ’nādikālasañcitānantākṛtyakaraṇakṛtyākaraṇarūpebhyaḥ sarvabhyaḥ 
pāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi; mā śucaḥ śokaṃ mā kṛthāḥ. 
59 
 
 
Here, Rāmānuja interprets self-surrender as the mental contemplation on God’s features 
by glossing the phrase “come to Me alone for refuge” with the injunction for the devotee to 
contemplate God (anusaṃdhatsva). The contemplation plays a role in the performance of the 
three yogas, resulting in the release from sins, which are obstacles in attaining God. The 
contemplation on God, especially as an agent, can be found in many places in Rāmānuja’s 
commentary on Chapter 18, including verses 4, 12, 13, 17, 40, 49, and 57.126 It should suffice 
to give Rāmānuja’s commentary on Bhagavadgītā 18.4 as an example since Rāmānuja himself 
cites this verse to support the abandonment in his first interpretation. In his commentary on 
Bhagavadgītā 18.4, Rāmānuja explains that the abandonment of agency embodies a 
contemplation on the fact that God has agency regarding the actions performed by the devotee. 
This suggests that the contemplation on God’s agency is the counterpart of the detachment from 
agency and result. According to this statement, the contemplation does not refer to bhakti, but 
is only a step towards it: 
 
Listen to my conclusion regarding the abandonment, O Arjuna! Abandonment 
is declared as three-fold, O Tiger among men! [Bhagavadgītā 18.4]. 
 
[…] The abandonment is proclaimed to be three kinds by Me […] [First,] the 
abandonment of results, thinking that the results such as heavens, produced by 
actions, do not belong to me. [Second,] the abandonment of actions is the 
complete giving up of the possession regarding deeds with the thought that “This 
is my action, which is the means for my result.” [Third,] the abandonment of 
agency of oneself through the contemplation (anusaṃdhāna) that the Lord of all 
is the agent.127 
 
126 Ibid., vol. 3, 293–294, 308, 311, 323, 351, 370, and 387. The contemplation on God is also referred to in 
Rāmānuja’s commentary on Bhagavadgītā 7.26, 11.55, and 13.8, see vol. 2, 225, 331-332, and 363–364 
respectively. 
127 Rāmānuja, Gītābhāṣya 18.4, vol. 3, 293: niścayaṃ śruṇu me tatra tyāge bharatasattama! | tyāgo hi 
puruṣavyāghra! trividhaḥ saṃprakīrtitaḥ || […] mayā trividhaḥ saṃprakīrtitaḥ […] karmajanyaṃ svargādikaṃ 
phalaṃ mama na syād iti phalatyāgaḥ; madīyaphalasādhanatayā madīyam idaṃ karmeti karmaṇi mamatāyāḥ 
parityāgaḥ karmaviṣayas tyāgaḥ; sarveśvare kartṛtvānusaṃdhānenātmanaḥ kartṛtātyāgaḥ kartṛtvaviṣayas 
60 
 
 
The last two parts of Bhagavadgītā 18.66 receive less attention than the first two parts. For “I 
will free you from all sins,” Rāmānuja defines “sins” as the obstacles to the attainment of God. 
Finally, he simply paraphrases the last part, “Do not grieve.”  
In the second interpretation, Rāmānuja indicates that the word “dharmas” in the first 
part refers to the expiations that are too difficult for a person like Arjuna to accomplish. 
Knowing that he cannot undertake bhaktiyoga or perform the expiations to remove the sins in 
a short amount of time, Arjuna grieves. Kṛṣṇa then instructs Arjuna to abandon the dharmas 
and surrender to Him as a form of expiation. In this case, the abandonment of dharmas refers 
to an actual physical giving up of the expiations instead of the mental detachment from agency 
and result seen in the first interpretation. Rāmānuja further emphasizes God’s position as the 
refuge and His compassion by describing self-surrender as a giving up of the burden of 
removing sins on God. God Himself is both the means to the removal of the obstacles and the 
goal. In the third part of Bhagavadgītā 18.66, the sins, which are to be removed by God, are 
again the obstacles to bhaktiyoga. Finally, Rāmānuja reiterates the final part. Here is 
Rāmānuja’s second interpretation: 
 
Alternatively, because bhaktiyoga can be accomplished only by a person who is 
completely dear to God and free from all sins, and because of the infinity of sins 
which are obstacles to the beginning of that [bhaktiyoga], Arjuna grieves, seeing 
his own inability to begin bhaktiyoga due to the impossibility of getting beyond 
these sins by means of dharmas which consist of the form of this or that 
expiation for those sins and which are to be done in a limited time. Removing 
the grief of Arjuna, who is grieving in this way, God said, “Having abandoned 
all dharmas, come to Me alone for refuge.” Endless acts of various sorts such as 
kṛcchra, cāndrāyaṇa, kūśmāṇḍa, vaiśvānara, vrātapati, pavitreṣṭi, trivṛt, and 
agniṣṭoma, etc. are suitable for [removing] endless sins of various sorts piled up 
from a beginningless period of time which are obstacles for the undertaking of 
 
tyāgaḥ. 
61 
 
bhaktiyoga and take the form of expiations for these sins. Having abandoned all 
these dharmas which are difficult to be performed by you who have only limited 
time, for accomplishing the undertaking of bhaktiyoga, take refuge in Me who 
is the one to be resorted to for the whole world without considering any 
differences and supremely compassionate, an ocean of compassion for people 
who depend on Me alone. I will free you from all sins, which are obstacles to 
undertaking bhaktiyoga whose nature has already been stated; do not grieve.128  
 
Thus, Rāmānuja’s two interpretations offer the steps that help one perform the three yogas. In 
particular, they proclaim the ways that one can follow to remove the obstacles to becoming 
eligible for bhaktiyoga. It is important to note that Rāmānuja does not claim that Bhagavadgītā 
18.66 is the teaching of the soteriological doctrine of self-surrender as later authors argued as 
we will see in the subsequent chapters.  
Unlike in the Gītābhāṣya, Rāmānuja, in his Gadyatraya, prioritizes the devotional 
expression, which is not foreign to the later-developed doctrine of self-surrender. The 
devotional attitude that underlies the Gadyatraya links this work with the preceding poems of 
the Āḻvārs and Yāmuna, which likely influenced Rāmānuja’s devotional piece. 
 
1.3 Rāmānuja’s Gadyatraya as the Precursor of the Manipravalam Sphere 
In his Gadyatraya, Rāmānuja clearly emphasizes self-surrender to God. The emphasis may be 
influenced by the devotional poetry that predates Rāmānuja’s Gadyatraya, namely the 
Nālāyirativiyappirapantam, especially, but not exclusively, the Tiruvāymoḻi, and the 
 
128 Rāmānuja, Gītābhāṣya 18.66, vol. 3, 412–413: athavā, 
sarvapāpavinirmuktātyantabhagavatpriyapuruṣanirvartyatvād bhaktiyogasya tadārambhavirodhipāpānām 
ānantyāc ca tatprāyaścittarūpair dharmaiḥ aparimitakālakṛtais teṣāṃ dustaratayātmano 
bhaktiyogārambhānarhatām ālocya śocato ’rjunasya śokam apanudan śrībhagavān uvāca—‘sarvadharmān 
parityajya mām ekaṃ śaraṇaṃ vraja’ iti. 
bhaktiyogārambhavirodhyanādikālasañcitanānāvidhānantapāpānuguṇān tattatprāyaścittarūpān 
kṛcchracāndrāyaṇakūśmāṇḍavaiśvānaravrātapatipavitreṣṭitrivṛdagniṣṭomādikān nānāvidhānanantāṃs tvayā 
parimitakālavartinā duranuṣṭhānān sarvān dharmān parityajya bhaktiyogārambhasiddhaye mām ekaṃ 
paramakāruṇikam anālocitaviśeṣāśeṣalokaśaraṇyam āśritavātsalyajaladhiṃ śaraṇaṃ prapadyasva. ahaṃ tvā 
sarvapāpebhyo yathoditasvarūpabhaktyārambhavirodhibhyaḥ sarvebhyaḥ pāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi; mā śucaḥ. 
62 
 
Stotraratna, a Sanskrit praise-poem of Yāmuna. These devotional works contain various 
features that later influenced the doctrinal systematization of self-surrender both in Sanskrit and 
Manipravalam literature. The first-person perspective, the helpless attitude, and the 
surrendering act of the author make the Gadyatraya distinct from Rāmānuja’s other more 
philosophical works and lend support for subsequent generations to argue that Rāmānuja 
favored self-surrender over bhakti in this work. The devotional works that follow, namely the 
Sanskrit praise-poems of Kūreśa and Pārāśara Bhaṭtar continued the similar integration of 
emotional features from the Āḻvārs’ hymns into Sanskrit.129 Another important characteristic of 
this work that was inherited by the later authors is the reference to itihāsas, which became the 
norms in the subsequent Manipravalam commentaries on Nammāḻvār’s Tiruvāymoḻi.  
Instead of resorting only to the Vedāntic scripture, the later commentators bring in the 
Tiruvāymoḻi, other Tamil hymns, and itihāsas to represent the norms of authorities. They further 
expressed self-surrender as distinct from bhakti through its devotional characteristic based on 
these norms. Given the parallel between the authoritative elements in the Gadyatraya and the 
norms in the Manipravalam commentaries, I view Rāmānuja’s Gadyatraya as the predecessor 
of these texts and the Manipravalam sphere developed within them. In what follows, I outline 
these distinctive features of Rāmānuja’s Gadyatraya along with the later arguments that this 
work proposes self-surrender as an independent doctrine. 
The Gadyatraya is divided into three parts: the Śaraṇāgatigadya, Śrīraṅgagadya, and 
Vaikuṇṭhagadya. Among the three gadyas, the Śaraṇāgatigadya, which is the longest one, 
presents the most comprehensive process of self-surrender as a preliminary step to bhakti as in 
 
129 Nayar, Poetry as Theology, 259. Also, Carman and Narayanan, The Tamil Veda, 44. 
63 
 
the Stotraratna.130 The devotee begins his salvific journey by surrendering to Śrī, the consort 
of Viṣṇu-Nārāyaṇa.131 For the first time, the experience of God is described as that which can 
be completed by supreme devotion (parabhakti), supreme knowledge (parajñāna), and utmost 
devotion (paramabhakti). The experience produces love that in turn brings about the 
subservience of the devotee. This description of the experience of God is reiterated throughout 
the Śaraṇāgatigadya. Here, the devotee asks for Śrī’s protection so that he can experience God 
and be His servant eternally:  
 
[That experience] which is the eternally and incessantly most splendid is 
completely filled with supreme devotion, supreme knowledge, and utmost 
devotion which is exclusive to the pair of feet of the blessed one who is excellent. 
The experience of God who is limitlessly and eminently dear [to me] is an end 
in itself. The experience of the blessed one in such a manner produced the 
limitless and eminent love and the love brought about the subservient state [for 
me]. I desire to attain the eternal service which is characterized by the exclusive 
desire for total subservience which is suitable to that subservient state. Let me 
be uninterruptedly in the same state of the ultimate self-surrender (śaraṇāgati) 
at the pair of feet of the blessed one.132  
 
Śrī responds that he will attain what he desires.133 Then, the devotee praises God’s qualities at 
 
130 For detailed summary of the Śaraṇāgatigadya, see Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 
42–45. 
131 The Gadyatraya in Rahasyarakṣā (Madras: Sri Vedanta Desika Seventh Centenary Trust, 1969), 125: “I who 
have no other refuge surrender at the goddess Śrī. She, the blessed one, is on the lotus and possessed of 
auspicious innumerable qualities which are limitless and excellent such as nature, forms, qualities, power, 
sovereignty, moral conduct, conforming to the desire of the blessed one, Nārāyaṇa.” 
(bhagavannārāyaṇābhimatānurūpasvarūparūpaguṇavibhavaiśvaryaśīlādyanavadhikātiśayāsaṃkhyeyakalyāṇa-
guṇagaṇāṃ padmavanālayāṃ bhagavatīṃ śriyaṃ devīṃ nityānapāyinīṃ niravadyāṃ devadevadivyamahiṣīm 
akhilajaganmātaram (asmanmātaram) aśaraṇyaśaraṇyām ananyaśaraṇaḥ śaraṇamahaṃ prapadye). 
For the role of Śrī in Rāmānuja’s works, see Kumar, The Goddess Lakṣmī, 62–75. 
132 Rāmānuja, Gadyatraya, 136 (italics mine): 
pāramārthikabhagavaccaraṇāravindayugalaikāntikātyantikaparabhaktiparajñānaparamabhaktikṛtaparipūrṇāna
varatanityaviśadatamānanyaprayojanānavadhikātiśayapriyabhagavadanubhavajanitānavadhikātiśayaprītikāritā
śeṣāvasthocitāśeṣa-śeṣataikaratirūpanityakaiṃkaryaprāptyapekṣayā pāramārthikī 
bhagavaccaraṇāravindaśaraṇāgatir yathāvasthitā aviratāstu me. 
133 Ibid., 141: “Let (it) be yours.” (astu te.) 
64 
 
great length.134 Elisa Freschi notes that these qualities of God might not only serve a decorative 
purpose for the text, but also play a role in the process of self-surrender. In Freschi’s 
explanation, “[t]he long process of uttering God’s attributes and one’s shortcomings might be 
itself part of the salvific process of becoming aware of His greatness and of one’s 
inadequacy.”135 The climactic moment comes when the devotee declares that he has no other 
refuge and surrenders to God. As Freschi points out, style and structure in the Gadyatraya have 
great impact on self-surrender since they dramatize the situation by delaying the devotee’s 
request to perform service to God, God’s response to make the case for the devotee’s 
helplessness, and His grace: 
 
The narrative and dialogical structure of the text appear, therefore, to have a 
profound impact on the doctrine propounded, namely, prapatti [self-surrender]. 
Without this structure, the text would occupy only a few lines, stating that once 
one has obtained prapatti through God’s mercy, one can become bhakta. Within 
the structure, however, the same content gets a different connotation, insofar as 
both the request(s) and the response are delayed enough to show the difficulty 
of what has just been requested and the wondrous nature of God’s 
compassion.136 
 
Self-surrender accompanied by the expression of the devotee’s state of having no other 
refuge echoes what we see in the Tiruvāymoḻi and Stotraratna. These two works are 
traditionally regarded as paradigmatic moments of self-surrender. The emphasis on self-
surrender in the Gadyatraya might be shaped by these preceding works or conditioned by the 
style of praise-poetry and the dialogue between God and His devotee. Vasudha Narayanan 
effectively summarizes the Tiruvāymoḻi as follows: 
 
 
134 Ibid., 142–159. For almost complete translation, see Carman, The Theology of Rāmānuja, 236–237. 
135 Freschi, “Bhakti in Rāmānuja,” 302–303. 
136 Ibid., 303. 
65 
 
In about one fourth of the poems Nammāḻvār talks of his separation and talks 
from the stance of a lovesick “heroine,” a person seen in earlier (2nd–4th c. C.E.) 
secular Tamil poems of love. In thirty-three verses Nammāḻvār identifies himself 
as a cowherd girl who pines for Krishna. The rest of the Tiruvāymoḻi contains 
philosophical statements, didactic verses, wonder at the creations of the Lord, 
descriptions of sacred places where Viṣṇu is enshrined, recollection of past 
unions with the Lord, and the importance of serving the other devotees. The 
poem begins and ends with triumphant statements of union with the Lord.137 
 
In Tiruvāymoḻi 6.10.10, Nammāḻvār declares his desire to be God’s servant before expressing 
his helplessness and falling down at the feet of God in the form of the Lord of the Sacred Hill 
(Vēṅkaṭam) to seek refuge:138  
 
‘I won’t part from you for an instant’ 
says Śrī who rests on your chest, 
lord of matchless fame, 
holder of the three worlds, 
my king, master of Vēṅkaṭam 
dear to peerless immortals and sages 
with nowhere else to go, I’ve settled at your feet.139 
 
According to the Śrīvaiṣṇavas, Stotraratna 22 also indicates a critical moment of self-
surrender. In this verse, Yāmuna, using a first-person pronoun, expresses what can be 
interpreted in light of the soteriological doctrine of self-surrender later developed as the two 
qualifications, namely his helplessness (ākiñcanya) and his state of having no other means 
(ananyagatitva). The author claims that he does not yet attain nor is he yet eligible for the three 
means, namely dharma, knowledge, and bhakti. These three means can be interpreted as 
alluding to the three yogas—karma-, jñāna-, and bhakti-yoga—the collective means to reach 
 
137 Narayanan, The Vernacular Veda, 3. 
138 For the uniqueness of this verse, see Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 81–84. 
139 Translated by Venkatesan in Endless Song, 215. For the text, see Nālāyirativviyappirapantam (Ceṉṉai: 
Tiruvēṅkaṭattaṉ Tirumaṉaṟam, 1973), 553. 
66 
 
God according to the Bhagavadgītā. The author is helpless and seeks God as refuge (śaraṇya): 
 
I am not established in dharma; I do not know the self, 
I do not have bhakti regarding your lotus feet; 
I am unworthy, and I have no other means. 
My refuge (śaraṇya)! 
I fall down and surrender (śaraṇam prapadye) at your feet.140 
 
The author’s lack of means to attaining God is similar to Tiruvāymoḻi 5.7.1, “I’ve observed no 
vows, I’ve no subtle wisdom, still I can’t bear to leave you for even a moment. Lord asleep on 
the serpent, my father who abides in the city of Śrīvaramaṅgala with its fields of red paddy and 
blossoming lotus, I am nothing without you.”141 According to the earliest commentary on the 
Tiruvāymoḻi, Nammāḻvār expresses his own lack of the three yogas in the Bhagavadgītā. Instead 
of searching for other means, Nammāḻvār views surrender to God’s grace as an alternative to 
the three yogas. Here is the Tamil verse, followed by the first Manipravalam commentary by 
Tirukkurukaip Piraṉ Piḷḷāṉ, the introduction to section 5.7: 
 
O Lord who has the serpent for a bed! 
 I have not done any [pious ritual] act 
 I have no intelligence, 
and yet 
 I cannot move away from you and survive. 
O King, sitting in state, 
 enthroned in the city of Cirīvaramaṅkalam, 
a city 
 filled with fertile fields of red paddy 
 interwoven with blossoms of lotus flowers, 
I am not a burden on you! 
 
 
140 Yāmuna, Stotraratna 22 in Rahasyarakṣā, ed. Chettaloor V. Srivatsankacharyar (Madras: Sri Vedanta Desika 
Seventh Centenary Trust, 1969), 74: 
na dharmaniṣṭho ’smi, na ca ātmavedī, na bhaktimāṃs tvaccaraṇāravinde |  
akiñcano ’nanyagatiḥ śaraṇya! tvatpādamūlaṃ śaraṇaṃ prapadye || 
141 Translated by Venkatesan in Endless Song, 176. For the text, see Nālāyirativviyappirapantam, 526. 
67 
 
Even though he thus imitates the nature, form, and activities of the Lord who is 
the Lord of all, the āḻvār does not find anything to hold onto and says, “I am 
separated from him and suffer so, and yet the Lord ignores me. This is because 
I have no upāya in the form of karmayoga, jñānayoga, and bhaktiyoga [to make 
it possible] for him to unite with me, but even though I do not have any of them 
[upāyas] I cannot survive if I am to be separated from you who are extremely 
enjoyable. Therefore, since you have come to the city of Cirīvaramaṅkalam to 
make me an object [of your love], and since it does not befit you to let go of this 
ātmā, which is your servant, you cannot let me go. Therefore you have to make 
me, who am your servant (aṭiyēṉ), an object of your grace.”142 
 
 
What is added in the Śaraṇāgatigadya is the use of the Dvaya in self-surrender.143 The 
imperative to recite the Dvaya is found immediately after the moment of self-surrender.144 
Raman comments that self-surrender through the Dvaya removes the devotee’s sins and Matter 
(prakṛti) which are obstacles to the undertaking of bhakti and transforms the devotee from one 
who is without knowledge (non-jñānī) into one of wisdom (jñānī)—the ideal devotee in the 
Bhagavadgītā and Rāmānuja’s Gītābhāṣya.145 The devotee further asks God to make him one 
whose only nature is supreme devotion, supreme knowledge, and the utmost devotion.146 These 
three elements enable him to experience God as we have seen above. Now that he has 
experienced God, the devotee requests to be His eternal servant: 
 
I have the experience of the blessed one who is limitlessly and eminently dear 
[to me] as an end in itself. [That experience] which is the eternally and 
incessantly most splendid was completely filled with supreme devotion, 
supreme knowledge, and utmost devotion. The experience of the blessed one in 
such a manner produced the limitless and eminent love and the love brought 
 
142 Carman and Narayanan, The Tamil Veda, 116–117. 
143 The Manipravalam commentary of the Tiruvāymoḻi, the Īṭu Muppattāyirappaṭi, draws the connection between 
Tiruvāymoḻi 6.10.10 and the Dvaya, claiming that the Dvaya is a Sanskrit translation of Nammāḻvār’s expression 
of self-surrender. See Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 128–132, and Clooney, Seeing 
through Texts, 184–192 on “The Tiruvāymoḻi in Correlation with the Three Holy Mantras.” 
144 Rāmānuja, Gadyatraya, 160: nārāyaṇa! aśaraṇyaśaraṇya! ananyaśaraṇaḥ tvatpādāravindayugalaṃ 
śaraṇamahaṃ prapadye. atra dvayam. 
145 Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 45. See also the diagram of the salvific process 
outlined in the Śaraṇāgatigadya here. 
146 Rāmānuja, Gadyatraya, 168: parabhaktiparajñānaparamabhaktyekasvabhāvaṃ māṃ kuruṣva. 
68 
 
about the subservient state [for me]. [Now,] make me become the eternal servant 
who is characterized by the exclusive desire for total subservience which is 
suitable to that subservient state.147 
 
In response, God accepts the devotee, who has stated the Dvaya and possesses supreme 
devotion, supreme knowledge, and utmost devotion as His eternal servant. God asserts that all 
of the obstacles to the experience of Himself have been removed through His compassion. He 
is the only means to the attainment of the goal which is He Himself.148 In addition to the Dvaya, 
Rāmānuja also refers to the recitation of the Tirumantra towards the end of the Vaikuṇṭhagadya 
along with the devotee’s request that God accept him as a servant.149 Raman suggests that the 
use of the Tirumantra and Dvaya might be derived from the Pāñcarātra system and its focus on 
the worship of Nārāyaṇa.150  
At the end of the Śaraṇāgatigadya, God promises that the devotee will become His 
 
147 Ibid., 168 (italics mine): parabhaktiparajñānaparamabhaktikṛtaparipūrṇānavaratanityaviśadatamānanya-
prayojanānavadhikātiśaya-priyabhagavadanubhavo ’haṃ tathāvidhabhagavadanubhavajanitānavadhikātiśaya-
prītikāritaśeṣāvasthocitāśeṣaśeṣataikaratirūpanityakiṅkaro bhavāni. 
148 Ibid., 169 (emphasis mine): “Although you were impeded by the obstacle to supreme devotion, supreme 
knowledge, and utmost devotion which are exceedingly exclusive to My pair of feet […], you have stated the 
Dvaya indeed in some manner or another. Thus, you have supreme devotion, supreme knowledge, and the 
utmost devotion which are exceedingly exclusive to My pair of feet that cause the destruction of all (obstacles) 
only through my compassion (dayā) […] You have the experience of Me who is limitless and exceedingly dear. 
[That experience] which is an end in itself and eternally and incessantly most splendid was completely filled. 
The experience of Me in such a manner produced the limitless and eminent love and the love brought about the 
subservient state [for you]. Be the eternal servant who is characterized by the exclusive desire for total 
subservience which is suitable to that subservient state.” ([…] maccaraṇāravindayugaklaikāntikātyantika-
parabhaktiparajñānaparamabhaktivighnapratihato ’pi, yena kenāpi prakāreṇa dvayavaktā tvam, kevalaṃ 
madīyayaiva dayayā niśśeṣavinaṣṭasahetukamaccaraṇāravindayugalaikāntikātyantika-
parabhaktiparajñānaparamabhaktiḥ […] 
paripūrṇānavaratanityaviśadatamānanyaprayojanānavadhikātiśayapriyamadanubhavas tvaṃ 
tathāvidhamadanubhavajanitānavadhikātiśayaprītikāritāśeṣāvasthocitāśeṣataikaratirūpanityakiṅkaro bhava). 
149 Ibid., 191. See the sequence of the recitation of the Tirumantra in Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in 
Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 46–47. 
150 Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 48–49. Raman also points out in the same context 
that, in addition to the use of the two secrets, the importance of the Goddess and the prioritization of self-
surrender might be influenced by the Pāñcarātra Āgamas. Moreover, the influence from the Pāñcarātra Āgamas 
on the Gadyatraya could account for the difference between the concept of self-surrender in the Gadyatraya and 
that in the Gītābhāṣya. It should be noted also that the influence from Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās on Rāmānuja is 
evident in his Nityagrantha. For this last point, see Rastelli, “Service as an end in Itself.” 
69 
 
eternal servant in His abode, Vaikuṇṭha, after the devotee’s death. Once more, God stresses that 
all of this is possible due to His compassion.151 He further confirms that the devotee does not 
need to doubt whether or not he will attain the knowledge, perception, and attainment of God 
according to His promises which He made during His manifestation as Rāma and Kṛṣṇa in 
itihāsas, the Rāmāyaṇa and the Bhagavadgītā, an episode of the Mahābhārata. Rāmānuja cites 
Rāmāyaṇa 6.12.20, in which Rāma promises to show compassion to those who surrender to 
Him: “For someone who surrenders to Me even once and for someone who begs, ‘I am yours,’ 
I give safety for all beings. This is My promise.”152 The same statement is alluded to in 
Stotraratna 64, along with two other passages, “You are compassionate toward someone who 
surrenders to You even once, requesting, ‘Lord! I am yours,’ since You remember your 
promise. Why am I the only one excluded from your promise?”153 Importantly, Rāmānuja 
concludes the list of God’s promises with Bhagavadgītā 18.66. However, he does not refer to 
this as one of the three secrets in the Manipravalam soteriological paradigm of self-surrender, 
as developed in the later literature.154 Bhagavadgītā 18.66 is used merely as a scriptural 
authority equivalent to the Rāmāyaṇa.  
 
151 Rāmānuja, Gadyatraya, 173: “[The experience of Me] which is the eternally and incessantly most splendid 
was completely filled with supreme devotion, supreme knowledge, and utmost devotion, which are exclusive to 
My pair of feet and are attained by my compassion (prasāda) only at the time […] when [your] body falls. The 
experience of Me who is limitlessly and eminently dear is an end in itself. It produced the limitless and eminent 
love and the love brought about the subservient state [for you]. You will be the eternal servant who is 
characterized by the exclusive desire for total subservience which is suitable to that subservient state.” 
(śarīrapātasamaye […] tadānīmeva 
matprasādalabdhamaccaraṇāravindayugalaikāntikātyantikaparabhaktiparajñānaparamabhaktikṛtaparipūrṇāna
varatanityaviśadatamānanyaprayojanānavadhikātiśayapriyamadanubhavajanitānavadhikātiśayaprītikāritāśeṣāv
asthocitāśeṣaśeṣataikaratirūpanityakiṅkaro bhaviṣyasi). 
152 Rāmāyaṇa 6.12.20 in The Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa: Critical Edition, ed. P. L. Vaidya (Baroda: Oriental Institute, 
1971), vol. 6, 70:  
sakṛd eva prapannāya tavāsmīti ca yācate | abhayaṃ sarvabhūtebhyo dadāmy etad vrataṃ mama || 
153 Yāmunā, Stotraratna 64, 120:  
nanu prapannaḥ sakṛd eva nātha! tavāham asmīti ca yācamānaḥ | 
tavānukampyaḥ smarataḥ pratijñāṃ madekavarjaṃ kimidaṃ vrataṃ te? || 
154 Rāmānuja, Gadyatraya, 175–176. 
70 
 
Pandit Agnihotram highlights these features in the Gadyatraya to reject Rāmānuja’s 
authorship of this less philosophical work. This argument also extends to challenging 
Rāmānuja’s authorship of the Nityagrantha. Robert Lester further advances Agnihotram’s 
argument.155 Both scholars isolate these two works of the others mainly based on the theology, 
the dialogue and devotional style, and the terminology that cannot be found in any of 
Rāmānuja’s other works. I previously argued in my Master’s thesis, drawing from the opinions 
of various scholars in the field, that the rejection of Rāmānuja’s authenticity is not convincing 
enough.156 To give an example, John Carman states that Rāmānuja intends to write these works 
in a style of praise-poetry (stotra), and therefore, the Gadyatraya should be seen as following 
this genre. He further suggests that Rāmānuja’s decision to compose these hymns in prose 
instead of verse reflects “his insistence on literal precision.”157 
I agree that some of the elements presented by Rāmānuja in the Gadyatraya, namely the 
ease and effectiveness of the performance of self-surrender compared to other means, the 
devotee’s helplessness and lack of agency, the desire to be God’s eternal servant, self-surrender 
to Śrī before Nārāyaṇa, the use of the Dvaya and Tirumantra, and the reference to Bhagavadgītā 
18.66, indeed became central to the later systematization of self-surrender.158 However, they do 
not suggest that self-surrender can be used as an independent means that is separate from 
bhakti.159 Rāmānuja’s teaching in the Gadyatraya still focuses on the doctrine of bhakti, and 
this remains consistent, for the most part, in the Śrībhāṣya and Gītābhāṣya.  
 
155 See details in Carman, The Theology of Rāmānuja, 212–237 and his footnote, 298–300n1. See also Lester, 
Rāmānuja on the Yoga, and “Rāmānuja and Śrī-Vaiṣṇavism: The Concept of Prapatti or Śaraṇāgati.”  
156 See my thesis, “Vedāntadeśika’s Interpretation of Rāmānuja’s Prapatti: A Study based on the Nikṣeparakṣā.”   
157 Carman, The Theology of Rāmānuja, 209. 
158 For other features, see Freschi, “Bhakti in Rāmānuja,” 299–301. 
159 Freschi points out that the word “bhakti” is mentioned 19 times in the space of 23 sentences in the 
Śaraṇāgatigadya (“Bhakti in Rāmānuja,” 286).  
71 
 
Take, for example, the description of the devotee’s nature found in the Śaraṇāgatigadya, 
namely supreme devotion, supreme knowledge, and utmost devotion. Based on Rāmānuja’s 
citations and the commentary on this work by Vedāntadeśika, these three aspects form part of 
Rāmānuja’s bhakti system.160 According to Rāmānuja, the one with supreme knowledge can be 
equated with “the one of wisdom” (jñānī), the ideal devotee in the context of bhakti, through 
the citation of the three successive verses (ślokatraya) from the Bhagavadgītā, Chapter 7, verses 
17, 18, and 19.161 The same verses are also cited in the conclusion of the Śrībhāṣya, also in the 
context of bhakti:162 
 
Make me become the one with the knowledge as stated in these preceding three 
verses. “The one of wisdom, who is continuously engaged [in Me] and has 
exclusive love, is better than those [devotees] since I am greatly dear to him and 
he is dear to me. [Bhagavadgītā 7.17] Indeed, all the [devotees] are noble but 
the one with the knowledge is regarded as My very Self since he whose self is 
engaged stays only in Me, the unsurpassed way. [Bhagavadgītā 7.18] At the end 
of many births, the one with the knowledge who knows that all is Vāsudeva 
surrenders to Me. He, the one with a great self, is difficult to find. [Bhagavadgītā 
7.19].”163 
 
 
Then, Rāmānuja shows that supreme devotion is equivalent to bhakti through the citation of 
 
160 Raman argues that these three elements are “another way of describing the bhaktiyoga of the Gītābhāṣya”. 
She further proposes that post-Rāmānuja commentaries on the Tiruvāymoḻi view these three elements as bhakti 
of the one of wisdom who is not twice-born through the association with Nammāḻvār, the low-caste author of the 
text (Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 49). However, I think that there is not enough evidence 
in the Gadyatraya that these three elements point to bhakti for those who are not twice-born. Given that 
Rāmānuja himself was a twice-born, bhakti in this context more likely refers to bhakti for the twice-born. Since 
the later commentaries on the Gadyatraya all agree that the works feature Rāmānuja’s self-surrender to God, it is 
more likely that all the practices mentioned in the texts should be compatible to Rāmānuja, who was a twice-
born and thus capable of undertaking the rituals prescribed in the Gadyatraya. Also, Rāmānuja used the first-
person pronoun in the composition, suggesting that the content is meant for himself. 
161 For the Bhagavadgītā passages, see vol. 2, 39–43. 
162 See Freschi, “Bhakti in Rāmānuja,” 296–299. 
163 Rāmānuja, Gadyatraya, 167: 
teṣāṃ jñānī nityayukta ekabhaktir viśiṣyate | priyo hi jñānino ’tyartham ahaṃ sa ca mama priyaḥ ||  
udārāḥ sarva evaite jñānī tv ātmaiva me matam | āsthitaḥ sa hi yuktātmā mām evānuttamāṃ gatim ||  
bahūnāṃ janmanām ante jñānavān mām prapadyate | vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti sa mahātmā sudurlabhaḥ ||  
iti ślokatrayoditajñāninaṃ māṃ kuruṣva. 
72 
 
another three verses from different places in the Bhagavadgītā, namely 8.22, 11.54, and 
18.54.164 The first two verses can be found in the Śrībhāṣya where Rāmānuja explains that 
bhakti is synonymous with the meditative worship, enjoined in śruti and smṛti:165  
 
Make me become the one with supreme devotion as stated in the verses in three 
[different] occasions. “Arjuna, the Supreme Person is to be attained by exclusive 
devotion. [Bhagavadgītā 8.22] However, [I can be known, seen, and entered] by 
exclusive devotion. [Bhagavadgītā 11.54] He [the one with pure mind] attains 
supreme devotion to Me [Bhagavadgītā 18.54].”166 
 
We are now left with the utmost devotion that Rāmānuja mentions without being able 
to provide any scriptural quotations that actually use the term. Commenting on the 
Śaraṇāgatigadya, Vedāntadeśika explains the utmost devotion along with the two additional 
aspects in his Sanskrit commentary on the Gadyatraya. The three aspects are the successive 
stages of a single experience of God which has a form of direct perception. One stage leads to 
another. Thus, the utmost devotion, which is the final stage, can be retrospectively regarded as 
the culmination of the experience of God within the paradigm of bhakti. Vedāntadeśika defines 
these three elements as follows:  
 
Here, supreme devotion is thought that consists of a desire to directly perceive 
God more and more. It is born from the nature of the object like in the passage, 
“Which love” [Viṣṇupurāṇa 1.20.19], and not from thinking that it is the means 
to a desire. Supreme knowledge is the act of directly perceiving Him. Utmost 
 
164 See the Bhagavadgītā passages in vol. 2, 110, 336, and vol. 3, 379, respectively. 
165 Rāmānuja, Śrībhāṣya, 19.  
166 Rāmānuja, Gadyatraya, 168: puruṣaḥ sa paraḥ pārtha bhaktyā labhyās tv ananyayā  
bhaktyā tvananyayā śakyaḥ  
madbhaktiṃ labhate parām  
iti sthānatrayoditaparabhaktiyuktaṃ mām kuruṣva. 
Note that in their commentaries on the Gadyatraya, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai (73 and 81 respectively) and 
Vedāntadeśika (72) like Rāmānuja, understand that supreme knowledge is referred to by Bhagavadgītā 7.17–19 
and supreme devotion is stated in Bhagavadgītā 8.22, 11.54, and 18.54. However, Sudarśanasūri interprets that 
the three later Bhagavadgītā verses point to utmost devotion instead (73). For the last two commentaries, see 
Gadyatrayam of Bhagavad Rāmānujārya (Melkote: Academy of Sanskrit Research, 2009). 
73 
 
devotion is a desire to perceive God continuously when He has been directly 
perceived. The experience, which is one and continuous, is the direct perception 
itself as something very agreeable, for people who are eternally liberated and 
those who have been liberated, but is broken up into stages by dividing into the 
forms of supreme devotion, supreme knowledge, and utmost devotion by the 
division of the moments.167 
 
 
In the context of these three aspects—supreme devotion, supreme knowledge, and utmost 
devotion—Rāmānuja reuses several Bhagavadgītā passages that he cites in the context of bhakti 
in the Śrībhāṣya. The sequence of the devotee’s self-surrender, followed by the request for 
supreme devotion, supreme knowledge, and utmost devotion, in the Śaraṇāgatigadya further 
indicates that self-surrender is a preliminary step to these stages of bhakti, which is the 
soteriological means for the one of wisdom.168  
The exact sequence is reiterated in Rāmānuja’s Śrīraṅgagadya with different 
terminology, one that is closer to the terminology in the Bhagavadgītā. In the Śrīraṅgagadya, 
bhakti, brought about by “correct knowledge” (saṃyagjñāna) and “correct action” 
(samīcīnakriyā), is the means to attaining eternal service to God. The correct knowledge and 
the correct action here may allude jñānayoga and karmayoga in the Bhagavadgītā.169 Before 
undertaking bhakti, the devotee surrenders to God to remove the obstacles. Thus, self-surrender 
here also functions as an auxiliary to bhakti: 
 
 
167 Vedāntadeśika’s commentary on the Gadyatraya (Melkote: Academy of Sanskrit Research, 2009), 18 
(emphasis mine): atra parabhaktiḥ uttarottarasākṣātkārecchātmikā dhīḥ, sā ca ‘yā prītiḥ’ ity ādiṣu iva 
viṣayasvabhāvajā, na tu iṣṭasādhanatvabuddhijā. parajñānam – uttarottarasākṣātkāraḥ. anukūlatamatvena 
sākṣātkṛte nirantarānububhūṣā paramabhaktiḥ. anubhavas tu iha anukūlatamatvena sākṣātkāra eva. nityānāṃ 
muktānāñ ca nityānuvṛttaikarūpānubhavaḥ kṣaṇabhedena parabhaktitvādyākārabhedaiś ca. See Viṣṇupurāṇa 
1.20.19, ed. M. M. Pathak (Vadodara: Oriental Institute, 1997), vol. 1, 146.  
168 In addition to Vedāntadeśika, Nañcīyar, commenting on Tiruvāymoḻi 10.10.11 as referring to utmost devotion 
(paramabhakti), also implies that the whole Tiruvāymoḻi is about āḻvār-bhakti (Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) 
to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 111). 
169 Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 46. See similarities between the Gadyatraya and 
the Gītābhāṣya, ibid., 50–51. 
74 
 
I am devoid of all the self’s qualities, beginning with pure nature and faith, which 
are suitable to devotion (bhakti). The devotion is brought about by correct 
knowledge (saṃyagjñāna) and correct action (samīcīnakriyā). The devotion is 
the means for attaining the eternal service, which is characterized by the 
exclusive pleasure for total subservience that is suitable to that subservient state, 
brought about by the limitless and eminent love. The love is produced through 
the experience of all of God’s qualities beginning with limitless and eminent 
mastership, preceded by the contemplation on the nature of the self, which is 
characterized by the exclusive desire for eternal servitude (nityadāsya) of the 
self who is eternally controlled [by God]. I am bound by the bonds of karmas 
that do not loosen [even with] endless effort and are heaped up through the 
endless ignorance (avidyā). I do not see the means of crossing over even with 
the view towards the endless future. I surrender at the pair of your lotus feet, 
Nārāyaṇa with Śrī, who is the refuge manifesting for all beings.170 
 
 
Finally, in the last gadya, the Vaikuṇṭhagadya, Rāmānuja begins by praising Yāmuna’s 
teaching on bhakti: “Having dived into the teacher Yāmuna’s ocean of ambrosia according to 
my understanding, I brought forth the gem called ‘the means of bhakti’ and I put it on 
display.”171 Rāmānuja’s statement here suggests that the Gadyatraya involves the teaching of 
bhakti.172  
 
170 Rāmānuja, Gadyatraya, 181–182: 
svātmanityaniyāmyanityadāsyaikarasātmasvabhāvānusandhānapūrvakabhagavadanavadhikātiśayasvāmyādyak
hilaguṇānubhavajanitānavadhikātiśayaprītikāritāśeṣāvasthocitāśeṣaśeṣataikaratirūpanityakaiṅkaryaprāptyupāy
abhūtabhaktitadupāyasamyagjñānatadupāyasamīcīnakriyātadanuguṇasāttvikatāstikyādisamastātmaguṇavihīnaḥ 
anādyavidyāsañcitānantāśakyavisraṃsanakarmapāśapragrathitaḥ, anāgatānantakālasamīkṣayā 
’pyadṛṣṭasantāropāyaḥ, nikhilajantujātaśaraṇya! śrīman nārāyaṇa! tava caraṇāravindayugalaṃ śaraṇam ahaṃ 
prapadye. 
171 Rāmānuja, Gadyatraya, 189:  
yāmunāryasudhāmbhodhimavāgāhya yathāmati | ādāya bhaktiyogākhyaṃ ratnam saṃdarśayāmyaham || 
172 Vedāntadeśika, in his commentary on this verse, refuses to read bhakti as soteriological bhakti, stating that 
“the word ‘the means of bhakti’ here is intent on the contemplation of God as an end in itself” (“ihāsau 
bhaktiyogaśabdaḥ svayaṃprayojanabhagavadanusaṃdhānaparaḥ.”) Vedāntadeśika probably intends to 
maintain the argument that the Gadyatraya presents soteriological self-surrender by claiming that the word 
“bhakti” does not always have technical sense of soteriological doctrine of bhakti. However, the fact that 
Vedāntadeśika has to argue for the non-technical sense of bhakti seems to imply that the reading of the word as 
soteriological doctrine of bhakti is a more natural one in this case. See Vedāntadeśika’s commentary on the 
Śaraṇāgatigadya, 105.  
75 
 
Like many scholars, Carman’s analysis of the Gadyatraya agrees with my 
understanding.173 Carman argues that this text shares the same message with other works of 
Rāmānuja that bhakti is the only means and clarifies that the Gadyatraya presents the doctrine 
of bhakti in a way that seems to differ from other works because it is “considered from the 
standpoint of man’s essential nature of subservience to and helplessness before God, and it is 
therefore not surprising that it is particularly emphasized in a stotra, that is a praise of God’s 
glory and a confession of one’s own unworthiness.”174 According to Carman, the Gadyatraya 
presents theological ideas that are not entirely distinct from those in other undisputed works of 
Rāmānuja, especially pertaining to his teaching of God’s supremacy and accessibility: 
 
I submit that he [Rāmānuja] maintained both the balance and the inner 
connection of supremacy and accessibility (paratva and saulabhya) in his 
concept of the Divine nature in a way that sets him apart, not only from Hindu 
theologians of other schools but even, to a lesser extent, from his own followers. 
The Gadyatraya and the Nityagrantha seem to me to exhibit the balance and 
unity of paratva and saulabhya that is evident in Rāmānuja’s other works. They 
do not add anything essential, though they do make some points more explicit, 
and the evidence from them can therefore be ignored by those unconvinced that 
they are authentic.175 
 
 
Carman further comments that although Rāmānuja does not intend to establish self-surrender 
in these works, his emphasis on the ideas of the divine grace and the soul’s realization of its 
subordination and dependence on God may contribute to its development in the later 
Manipravalam commentaries.176 I concur that there are various features in the Gadyatraya that 
parallel the characteristics of self-surrender later systematized. One could argue that Rāmānuja 
 
173 Others include Lipner, The Face of Truth, Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, and 
Freschi, “Bhakti in Rāmānuja.”  
174 Carman, The Theology of Rāmānuja, 223–224.  
175 Ibid., 235–236. 
176 Ibid., 220. 
76 
 
was not resolutely uniform on the subordinate of self-surrender to bhakti in his Gadyatraya. In 
any case, these features created the ambiguity between bhakti and self-surrender for 
Rāmānuja’s followers.  
After the time of Rāmānuja, self-surrender in the Manipravalam literature embodies the 
devotional attitude of the Āḻvārs more than in Sanskrit literature to the extent that this doctrine 
does not need to be performed. In contrast, self-surrender in the Sanskrit sphere is a Vedāntic 
ritual to be undertaken similar to bhakti. Raman frames the division of the later-developed 
strands of self-surrender in terms of the “doing” and “non-doing” of self-surrender. She claims 
that the origin of this distinction is rooted in the unresolved tensions in Rāmānuja’s definition 
of self-surrender in the Gītābhāṣya and the Gadyatraya before becoming further intensified in 
the Manipravalam commentaries on the Tiruvāymoḻi which I turn to next. Building on the recent 
studies of this group of literature, I highlight that, in addition to the inconsistency they inherited 
from Rāmānuja, these Manipravalam commentaries are the location of the rise of the 
Manipravalam norms and expressions which are critical to the differentiation between self-
surrender as an independent doctrine and bhakti. 
 
1.4 The Rise of the Manipravalam Sphere and Self-surrender 
Let us consider the introduction of Manipravalam in the Śrīvaiṣṇava composition from a 
historical perspective before looking at its impact on self-surrender and the formation of the 
Manipravalam sphere. Following the lead of Raman, my research identifies the rise of 
Manipravalam as contemporaneous to the historical and social conditions of the devotional 
integration. According to Raman, comparing the rise of Manipravalam to what happened in the 
Śaiva community is revelatory.  
77 
 
Around the eleventh to the twelfth century, the religious communities of Vaiṣṇava and 
Śaiva were characterized by temple-building activity under Chola rule. The attention to temple-
formation activity is reflected in the representation of the most important Śrīvaiṣṇava figure, 
Rāmānuja, as the main organizer of temple worships and rituals based on the recitation of the 
Āḻvārs’ Tamil hymns in Śrīraṅgam, which became the center for other temple networks.177 Also 
during this period, an expansion of agriculture and land-ownership gave rise to the involvement 
of non-brahmin (brāhmaṇa) groups in temple management. The period in which the first two 
Manipravalam commentaries on the Tamil scripture that followed the time of Rāmānuja, 
Raman states, “saw the expansion of sacred, urban centres such as the Śaivite Cidambaram or 
the Vaiṣṇavite Śrīraṅgam and Kāñcīpuram.”178 According to Raman, given “the growing wealth 
and agrarian importance of such centres,” it is understandable that the post-Rāmānuja authors 
would incorporate the more temple-related and devotional aspects of their literature into 
Rāmānuja’s theology.179 Thus, we witness the parallel integrations to accommodate people 
from different social hierarchies: the Sanskrit system of Śaiva philosophy, Śaivasiddhānta, 
integrated the Śaiva devotional corpus of the Śaiva poets, the Nāyaṉmārs, and the Sanskrit 
system of Vedānta included the Āḻvār’s hymns and devotionalism.180 Raman further indicates 
that the legitimation of the Tamil hymns in both communities was “imperative” after the 
eleventh century as they are not in Sanskrit. In the Śrīvaiṣṇava community, the Manipravalam 
commentaries and hagiographies were specifically produced to define the Tiruvāymoḻi as the 
Tamil Veda.181  
 
177 Appadurai, Worship and Conflict, 75–76. 
178 Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 177. 
179 Ibid., 177–178. 
180 Ibid., 58–60. 
181 Ibid., 60. 
78 
 
Building on this historical narrative, I suggest that it is appropriate to characterize this 
legitimation of the Tamil scripture as the incorporation of it within the Vedāntic system. My 
suggestion is based on the fact that the more established system and the Sanskrit literature on 
Vedānta within the Śrīvaiṣṇava corpus preceded the Manipravalam textual production. 
However, my argument does not deny the Tamil or devotional influence on the Sanskrit 
treatises that expound the Vedānta system, especially those of Rāmānuja.182 The direction of 
integrating the Tamil hymns into the Sanskrit domain further accounts for the decision not to 
use Tamil alone as a medium to comment on the hymns despite the Tamil commentarial practice 
on the grammatical works such as the Iṟaiyaṉār Akkaporuḷ, the Tolkāppiyam, and the 
Vīracōḻiyam before the twelfth century and the proliferation of Tamil commentarial genre 
during the twelfth to the fourteenth century.183 One might then wonder why the Śrīvaiṣṇava 
authors did not only use Tamil to communicate their philosophy. It may be the case that Tamil 
was not meant to express the philosophy of Vedānta as the early authors, such as Yāmuna and 
Rāmānuja, discussed it, but only in Sanskrit treatises to converse with other Vedānta authors, 
such as Śaṅkara, who also used only Sanskrit. At the same time, Clooney points out that the 
Śrīvaiṣṇava authors never attempt pure Tamil engagement even with the Āḻvārs’ hymns. He 
argues that the Manipravalam commentators resorted to Sanskrit interpretative techniques to 
clarify the theological issues in the Tamil songs—but such interpretation “privileges rather than 
dilutes its poetic effectiveness.”184  
From the Tamil perspective, the recognition of the Tiruvāymoḻi as the “Tamil Veda” 
comparable to the Sanskrit one was historically pioneering because it is the first vernacular text 
 
182 See section 1.1. 
183 Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 57. 
184 Clooney, “The Use of Sanskrit as a Theological Resource,” 17. 
79 
 
to be regarded as equivalent to the Sanskrit Vedas. The concept of the Tamil Veda, on the one 
hand, broadens the Sanskrit normativity to accommodate sacred texts in a language other than 
Sanskrit and, on the other hand, introduces a new normative expression derived from the 
Sanskrit sphere that allows the definition of scripture as a Veda to be associated with non-
Sanskrit languages such as Tamil. This is a more radical move in comparison to the preceding 
designation of the Mahābhārata which is still in Sanskrit as the fifth Veda.185 In addition, it is 
earlier than that of the Tamil Śaivasiddhānta which, from around the thirteenth century makes 
the Śaiva scripture the “real” (uṇmai) revelation of which the Vedas are the general (potu) 
revelation.186  
While the Tamil scripture enters into the Vedāntic Sanskrit domain, the Sanskrit sphere 
and its revelation also incorporates Tamil. Through Tamil, the Sanskrit sphere opens up to wider 
and lower social groups other than those from the three higher castes and to other kinds of 
expression, such as the devotion to God. As a combination of both Sanskrit and Tamil, 
Manipravalam makes present both scriptures in the same sphere, blurring the boundaries of 
normativity and bringing their expressive practices together. Most evidently, Manipravalam 
allows for the citation of both Tamil and Sanskrit passages, while Sanskrit restricts the citations 
to only the Sanskrit passages. In this regard, Manipravalam is a suitable medium for the 
integration of the Tamil scripture into the Sanskrit Vedānta. Importantly, I contend that the 
Tamil scripture and its devotional expression incorporated in the Manipravalam sphere offers 
the distinguishing tool that makes the distinction between bhakti and self-surrender more 
evident to the point that self-surrender became an independent means separate from bhakti. 
 
185 See Fitzgerald, “India’s Fifth Veda,” for example.  
186 See Peterson, Poems to Śiva. 
80 
 
The five most authoritative commentaries on the Tiruvāymoḻi are the Ārāyirappaṭi 
(“6,000 unit commentary”) by Tirukkurukaip Piraṉ Piḷḷāṉ (c. 1060); the Oṉpatināyirappaṭi 
(“9,000 unit commentary”) by Nañcīyar (c. 1113–1208); the Iruppattunālāyirappaṭi (“24,000 
unit commentary”) by Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai (c. 1167–1262);187 the Īṭu Muppattāyirappaṭi 
(“36,000 unit commentary”), traditionally believed to be authored by Nampiḷḷai (c. 1230) and 
recorded by Vaṭakku Tiruvīti Piḷḷai (c. 1250); and, finally, the Paṉṉīrāyirappaṭi (“12,000 unit 
commentary”) by Vātikesari Aḻakiya Maṇavāḷa Cīyar (c. 1300).188 The commentaries, except 
for the first one, were produced during the medieval period by the authors who were active in 
Śrīraṅgam and focused more on the Tamil scripture and the three secrets.189 They were 
traditionally recorded for transmission from teacher to disciple. Nampiḷḷai was said to be have 
been a direct disciple of Nañcīyar, who was a disciple of Parāśara Bhaṭṭar, and a teacher of 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Vaṭakku Tiruvīti Piḷḷai, and Vātikesari Aḻakiya Maṇavāḷa Cīyar.190 
According to The Sri Vaishnava Brahmans (1931), the group of commentators is part of the 
retrospectively constructed lineage of the Teṅkalai ācāryas.191 That said, the first commentator 
listed here, Tirukkurukaip Piraṉ Piḷḷāṉ, was Rāmānuja’s cousin and the leading disciple in the 
lineage of the Vaṭakalai hierarchy of ācāryas. He was followed by Viṣṇu Citta, Vātsya 
Varadaguru (Nāṭātūr Ammāḷ), Ātreya Rāmānuja (Kiṭampi Appullār), and Vedāntadeśika.192 
Clooney, in his Seeing through Texts: Doing Theology among the Śrīvaiṣṇavas of South India 
(1996), proposes to view the five commentaries as comprising “a single complex conversation” 
 
187 The date is from Mumme, The Śrīvaiṣṇava Theological Dispute, 14. 
188 Clooney, Seeing through Texts, 26, and Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 21.  
189 Mumme, The Śrīvaiṣṇava Theological Dispute, 25–26. 
190 Clooney, Seeing through Texts, 26, and Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 127–128. 
191 See the chart of “The Tengalai Sri Vaishnavas” in Rangachari, The Sri Vaishnava Brahmins, 42.  
192 See the chart in ibid., 37.  
81 
 
of the followers of the same community. They are closely connected and collectively form “the 
irenic and progressive development” as detailed here: 
 
The style and development of the increasingly larger commentaries indicate the 
irenic and progressive development. This development may be put 
schematically as follows, as far as the written texts are concerned: 
 
• Piḷḷān offers a prose commentary of the verse of Tiruvāymoḻi, drawing 
heavily on Rāmānuja’s Sanskrit terminology;  
• Nañcīyar offers a brief opening comment on the verse, and then a series 
of specific comments elucidating particularly difficult or interesting 
words in the text;  
• Periyavāccāṉppiḷḷai incorporates almost everything found in Nañcīyar’s 
commentary, but amplifies it with comments on more of the individual 
words and with more elaborate and philosophical expositions of the ideas 
of the songs;  
• Vaṭakkutiruvītippiḷḷai, recording Naṃpiḷḷai faithfully, says more in 
every way. It is tempting to say that Vaṭakkutiruvītippiḷḷai’s commentary 
is a fuller version of Periyavāccāṉppiḷḷai’s but, if we respect the tradition 
that both are reports of Naṃpiḷḷai’s teachings, it is more accurate to see 
Periyavāccāṉppiḷḷai’s as a “condensation” of Naṃpiḷḷai’s teaching which 
was recorded more expansively in Vaṭakkutiruvītippiḷḷai’s Īṭu.193 
 
Although all of the commentaries collectively contribute to the development of self-surrender, 
the first two particularly play a role in forming the paradigms of self-surrender and its scriptural 
corpus by combining Rāmānuja’s theology with the Tamil scripture and other texts such as 
itihāsas for the subsequent commentators. According to Raman, the two commentaries can be 
viewed as the source of the traditional split, which was the continuing result of the theological 
divergence in the works of the two roughly contemporary authors, Vedāntadeśika and Piḷḷai 
Lokācārya, who were retrospectively regarded as the founders of the Vaṭakalai and Teṅkalai 
sub-school, respectively.194 This divergence is then rooted in the heterogeneous theology of 
 
193 Clooney, Seeing through Texts, 34. 
194 See Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 157–158. See also Chapters 2 and 3 of this 
dissertation. 
82 
 
Rāmānuja in his Gītābhāṣya and Gadyatraya, amplified by the innovative and varying 
interpretation of these commentaries: 
 
The material being presented here argues that prapatti ideas in the early part of 
this period, in the writings of the teacher Rāmānuja, evolved in the context of 
exegesis on the Bhagavadgītā and in praise-poems (stotra) written in Sanskrit. 
Further, that these core ideas of prapatti reveal a soteriological concept which 
is defined in a heterogeneous way, its definition varying according to the status 
of its practitioner. The study also argues that these core ideas re-emerge in the 
Tamil commentaries of the teachers who came after Rāmānuja are further 
theologically moulded by the emergence of and experimentation with this new 
literary genre. Thus, the first commentary of Tirukkurukaip Pirāṉ Piḷḷāṉ and the 
second commentary of Nañcīyar differ in the sort of prapatti they emphasize 
because Nañcīyar’s commentary innovates on the commentarial genre including 
in itself elements of hagiography. The difference in emphasis between Piḷḷāṉ and 
Nañcīyar on prapatti thus generated, which remains in a pre-systematic stage, is 
therefore seen as one crucial factor in the emergence of two different schools of 
interpretation of the concept by the mid-thirteenth century. Thus, it is suggested 
that the original heterogeneous understanding of prapatti in Rāmānuja is a major 
contributory cause to a larger theological dispute which arises among the 
Śrīvaiṣṇavas after the mid- thirteenth century and the eventual division of the 
community into two sub-sects.195 
 
Central to the heterogeneity is the division between “doing” and “non-doing” of self-surrender 
which arises when we compare the first two Manipravalam commentaries as Raman indicates: 
 
This book suggests that this ideological break between the Piḷḷāṉ and Nañcīyar 
on the status of Nammāḻvār and the nature of his prapatti anticipates one 
ultimate theological difference between Vaṭakalai School and the Teṅkalai 
School. In the commentarial literature which immediately followed Nañcīyar, 
the conceptions of God’s compassion are further developed, leading to a new 
model which, in effect, obviates any doctrinal grounds for “doing” prapatti.196 
 
 
In what follows, I draw on Raman’s analysis of the first two commentaries to illustrate 
their contributions to the rise of the soteriology of self-surrender. We see self-surrender overtly 
 
195 Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 23. 
196 Ibid., 175. 
83 
 
emerge as an alternative to bhakti after the time of Rāmānuja in these two commentaries. 
Collectively, they point to the Tiruvāymoḻi, and, by extension, to other hymns of the Āḻvārs, 
and itihāsas as the norms for self-surrender. Claiming that Nammāḻvār himself performed self-
surrender, they further established Nammāḻvār as the authoritative figure of the practice. 
Importantly, they derived devotional attitudes from the Tamil hymns to define self-surrender 
as the means for “the one who has no other refuge (ananyaśaraṇa) and no other goal 
(ananyaprayojana)” and specify God as the ultimate liberator due to His grace with Śrī as His 
mediator (puruṣakāra). All of these requirements in the surrendering process influenced later 
literature and became paradigmatic in the theology of self-surrender.  
In the first commentary, the Āṟayirappaṭi, Tirukkurukaippirāṉ Piḷḷāṉ (henceforth Piḷḷāṉ) 
directs readers’ attention to Tiruvāymoḻi 6.10.10 which he claims to be the moment in which 
Nammāḻvār surrenders himself to God. As Raman translates: 
 
You on whose chest the lady seated on the flower resides, saying,  
I cannot move away even for a second, 
You of incomparable Fame! You with the three worlds! My ruler! 
Lord of Vēṅkaṭam, desired by the incomparable immortals and groups of sages! 
I, your servant, without any refuge, sat at your feet and entered.197 
 
[Nammāḻvār] says, “You are the great ocean of unbounded compassion, 
the master due to your qualities. You, stand, graciously, on the alternative, 
Sacred Hill, which is to be desired even by the incomparable, eternal beings who 
have as their sole enjoyment their attendance upon you and their experience of 
your qualities in the divine land. Considering you the Refuge of the entire world 
impervious to distinctions, I, with no other refuge and without any other goal, 
with the Senior Goddess as mediator, took refuge at your feet. Right now, I, your 
servant, having become a person whose obstacles have been vanquished, should 
obtain the right at all times to all [manner of] service at your feet.”198 
 
 
 
197 This translation is from Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 79. For more information 
on the verse, see ibid., 81–84. 
198 Ibid., 79. 
84 
 
The commentary describes Nammāḻvār as the one who has no other refuge (ananyaśaraṇa), 
who has no other goal (ananyaprayojana), and who identifies Śrī, Viṣṇu’s consort, as the 
mediator (puruṣakāra), as one of requirements in the surrendering process. Raman suggests 
that Piḷḷāṉ adopted the terminology from Rāmānuja’s Gadyatraya, particularly the 
Śaraṇāgatigadya.199 Self-surrender is defined here as “samāśrayana” and is implied as an 
alternative to bhakti whose difficulty is stressed in the commentary on Tiruvāymoḻi 3.2.8, 4.7.9, 
and 5.7 and others.200 Raman indicates that “Piḷḷāṉ’s views on samāśrayaṇa in the Ārāyiram, it 
seems evident, have a certain internal coherence and are elaborate enough to be called the 
doctrine of self-surrender.”201 It is a soteriological means (upāya) for a person like Nammāḻvār 
who is helpless due to the states of having no other means as explained in the introduction to 
the section, 6.10. However, God remains the ultimate cause of the whole surrendering 
process.202 
 
Though he called out, inviting him until he could even be heard in the divine 
land, [Nammāḻvār] did not see God. Then, realizing that here was no other means 
of seeing him except to take refuge at his feet, he did so at the feet of the Lord 
of Vēṅkaṭam, the refuge of the entire world, speaking of His qualities such as 
compassion and parental love, etc., as his support, with the Goddess as 
mediator.203 
  
 
However, the emphasis on Tiruvāymoḻi 6.10.10 is no longer evident in the second commentary 
on the Tiruvāymoḻi, Nañcīyar’s Oṉpatiṉāyirappaṭi, which is the most structurally and 
doctrinally influential among all the commentaries.204 This verse is instead embedded in the 
 
199 Ibid., 80. 
200 Ibid., 76–77. 
201 Ibid., 96. 
202 Ibid., 89–92. 
203 Ibid., 77. 
204 Ibid., 126. 
85 
 
Rāmāyaṇa context and assimilated to the epic situation of Lakṣmana taking refuge with his 
elder brother, Rāma, the manifestation of Viṣṇu and the hero of the Rāmāyaṇa.205 Lakṣamana’s 
surrender represents one aof various epic surrendering events, all of which are of similar 
importance.206 Raman terms surrender in Nañcīyar’s commentary as “epic surrender” due to his 
stress on itihāsas, both the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa, in commenting on the 
Tiruvāymoḻi.207 Nañcīyar’s use of passages and stories from itihāsas might have been inherited 
from previous references to them in the Āḻvārs’ poetry.208 The itihāsas also serve as inspiration 
for the audiences. Unlike the Vedas which are accessible only to the three higher castes, the 
Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa are available to people from the lowest caste and women as 
well. Their accessibility might be one of the reasons why they are favored in the Manipravalam 
commentaries and the rahasyagranthas as we will see in other chapters.209 Although Nañcīyar 
echoes Piḷḷāṉ’s terms in his commentary on Tiruvāymoḻi 6.10.10, he notably omits referring to 
self-surrender as a means to liberation and reinforces the role of God instead.210 Nammāḻvār is 
thus highlighted as one who has no other means: 
 
… I, who am without any of the means mentioned in the scriptures, regarding 
[myself] as having no other goal, grasped your feet themselves as the means”. 
This also means, “Forsaking all other means that I have to reach the ultimate 
goal, I approached such that there was no gap between my head and your feet, 
and took refuge.”211 
 
205 Ibid., 114. 
206 Ibid., 115. 
207 Ibid., 100: “To put it broadly and succinctly, the Oṉpatiṉāyiram associates Nammāḻvār’s act of prapatti in 
VI.10.10, as well as other situations of taking refuge, with archetypal situations in the Rāmāyaṇa where certain 
characters in the epic take refuge with or seek the protection of Rāma. By doing so the Oṉpatiṉāyiram places the 
prapatti of the protection of Rāma in an epic context, in the context of the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata, a 
theological strategy which is reinforced by the commentary’s emphasis in its introduction on Nammāḻvār’s status 
as a ṛṣi (like Vālmiki) or the jñānī of the Bhagavadgītā.” 
208 Ibid., 104. 
209 Piḷḷai Lokācārya, among other authors, highly regards itihāsas. See section 3.2.2. 
210 Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 117–118.  
211 Ibid., 117. 
86 
 
 
The liberating role of self-surrender here is overshadowed by the devotee’s relationship to God 
and God’s greatness. Self-surrender is defined as “the mental determination (adhyavasāya) of 
oneself as subordinate (śeṣa) to God, who is the Principal (śeṣin). That is, it is the prapatti of 
the Bhagavadgītā and the Gītābhāṣya.”212 Moreover, central to the commentaries is the 
legitimization of the figure of Nammāḻvār, who belongs to the lowest caste of śūdra.213 
According to Raman, the commentaries consider the Tiruvāymoḻi as the lived, first-hand 
religious experience of self-surrender of Nammāḻvār.214 The theological elaboration of the 
doctrine of self-surrender is developed through the lens of Nammāḻvār’s life-story. Raman 
further shows that the commentaries portray the figure of Nammāḻvār in many ways, of which 
the one by Nañcīyar’s is the most influential.215 In his interpretation, as previously noted, the 
problem of Nammāḻvār being from the fourth caste is put aside through the elevated 
identification of Nammāḻvār as a seer or ṛṣi like Vālmiki, the mythical composer of the 
Rāmāyaṇa. Commenting on Nañcīyar’s introduction, Raman states: 
 
Rather, the charge that the āḻvār is a śūdra is treated as irrelevant in view of his 
fundamental superiority to all mortals. Thus, it is said that he is accomplished in 
[knowing about] the realities (tattvas) and what is good for one (hita) and in 
imparting this to others and that he is superior to others born in the fourth caste, 
like Vidura and Śabari.216 
 
 
In my opinion, the heterogeneity in the first two Manipravalam commentaries cannot 
overshadow the aspects shared by all of the spheres, namely Rāmānuja’s paradigmatic 
 
212 Ibid., 126. 
213 Ibid., 60. 
214 Ibid., 65–70. 
215 Nañcīyar’s image of Nammāḻvār was followed by his disciples, see ibid., Conclusion. 
216 Ibid., 105. These two characters are from the low caste in the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa, respectively. 
87 
 
soteriology and the devotional attitude, rooted in the Tamil scripture. As Clooney points out, 
devotionalism in Rāmānuja’s writing and theology makes sense once we assume the influence 
of the Āḻvārs on his Vedānta system.217 The seeming difference may be accounted for by the 
inheritance of Rāmānuja’s theology and terminology in the case of the Āṟayirappaṭi versus the 
preference for the Tamil devotional attitude to God in the second commentary.218 The difference 
in their Sanskrit and Tamil inclinations is also reflected in the styles of Manipravalam in their 
works: while Piḷḷāṉ uses “highly Sanskritized Tamil,” Nañcīyar’s Manipravalam is “more 
tamilized.”219 Nañcīyar explicitly prioritizes the Tamil scripture along with the Tamil language 
over Sanskrit norms and expressions in the introduction to his Oṉpaṭiṉāyirappaṭi. Nañcīyar’s 
validation of the Tamil scripture and language results in the association of these elements with 
accessibility and intimacy. Tamil is also presented as the medium to express the devotee’s 
desire and relationship towards God in soteriology—unlike Sanskrit which expresses 
soteriological doctrine like bhakti only from the philosophical and theological perspective 
based on the Upaniṣads. I argue that Nañcīyar’s argument is the first explicit articulation of the 
Manipravalam sphere as distinct to the Sanskrit sphere established by previous generations as 
it points to the difference between the two linguistic spheres. 
In the introduction to the Oṉpaṭiṉāyirappaṭi, Nañcīyar raises the possible objections 
against the non-authoritative status of Nammāḻvār and the Tiruvāymoḻi as well as other Tamil 
 
217 Clooney, “The Use of Sanskrit as a Theological Resource,” 17–18. 
218 Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 175. Raman points to the rise of the 
hagiographical genre, of which the first traditional hagiography is the Sanskrit Divyasūricarita, as one of the 
critical factors of the divergence. Unlike in the first commentary, the two genres, commentarial and 
hagiographical, mingle in the second commentary, Nañcīyar’s Oṉpaṭiṉāyirappaṭi.  
219 Carman and Narayanan, The Tamil Veda, xii, and Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 
100. 
88 
 
poems from people who belong to a Vedic community.220 Clooney sums up the objections: 
 
Thereafter Nañcīyar vigorously defends Tiruvāymoḻi against a series of seven 
objections which can be summarized briefly: 1. The songs cannot be taken 
seriously, since they are written in a vernacular tongue instead of sacred 
Sanskrit; 2. Women and low-class śūdras are well-versed in them, although they 
are barred from access to real sacred texts; 3. They were composed in this worst 
age of the world by a man of the lowest class, who has no access to knowledge; 
4. Tiruvāymoḻi is a regional text, not available everywhere; 5. People from 
outside the Vedic tradition accept it; 6. The songs judge inferior those states of 
lordship and isolation which scripture and tradition describe as legitimate human 
goals; and 7. the songs speak frequently of sexual desire, but such talk is contrary 
to both scripture and tradition.221 
 
 
The attacks are based mainly on two fundamental issues concerning the use of non-Sanskrit 
language and the contradiction to Vedic orthodoxy. The first and fourth objections discredit 
Tamil language (trāviṭa-pāṣai > (Sanskrit) dravida-bhāṣā) which is “prohibited” (niṣitta-pāṣai 
> (Sanskrit) niṣiddha-bhāṣā) to express divine revelation or sacred texts and limited to the South 
Indian region, unlike Sanskrit (saṃskṛta-pāṣai > (Sanskrit) saṃskṛta-bhāṣā) whose authority is 
undisputed and accessible in other areas. The other objections can be reduced to the 
contradiction between the Tamil scripture, such as the Tiruvāymoḻi, and Vedic Sanskrit corpus. 
The Sanskrit scripture is not accessible to women and people of a lower class. In contrast, the 
Tamil scripture is not only available to these groups of people but also composed by one of 
them: Nammāḻvār, who was a śūdra. The Tamil scripture further contains teachings on the 
human goals and sexual desire, which are opposed to those found in the Vedic scripture. Unlike 
the Sanskrit scripture, which is limited to Vedic communities, the Tamil scripture gains 
 
220 For further discussion, see Clooney, Seeing through Texts, 124–126, Venkarachari, The Manipravāla 
Literature of the Śrīvaiṣṇava Ācāryas, 26–29, and Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 
108. The text of Nañcīyar’s introduction can be found in Pakavat Viṣayam, ed. Krishnaswami Ayyangar (Trichy: 
Books Propagation Society, 1975), vol. 1, 61–64. 
221 Clooney, Seeing through Texts, 125.  
89 
 
recognition from those outside of Vedic orthodoxy also. According to the objector, the Vedic 
norm and its expression can only exist in the Sanskrit sphere. As a result, the Tamil scripture 
along with its linguistic medium, situated in the Tamil sphere, must be invalid as it is external 
to the Sanskrit sphere.  
 In response to these objections, Nañcīyar argues that Tamil could express topics related 
to God and is accessible to lower-class people who do not know Sanskrit and those outside the 
Tamil region. Therefore, the Tamil scripture composed in Tamil is as authoritative as the 
Sanskrit scripture, but it is even more socially and geographically accessible. The Tamil 
scripture is Nammāḻvār’s revelation of God’s teaching and is highly regarded by people outside 
of the Vedic communities. It does not contradict the Vedic teachings. Some instructions in the 
Tamil scripture, such as a sexual desire towards God and a disregard for other human goals 
except the highest attainment of God, are rooted in prioritizing human’s devotional relationship 
with God and the direct attainment of Him. Thus, the Tamil scripture highlights the desire and 
criticizes other human goals such as lordship and isolated consciousness. Here is a selected 
translation of Nañcīyar’s answer: 
 
1) According to Yama’s statement [purportedly from the untraceable verse in 
the Matsyapurāṇa], “Brāhmaṇas should not sing anything in languages other 
[than Sanskrit], except the praise of Hari (Viṣṇu),” the prohibition of the 
languages other [than Sanskrit] should apply only to the topics apart from 
God […]222  
2) Due to his great mercy, the āḻvār [Nammāḻvār] renders the meaning of the 
Vedas in Tamil (trāviṭa-pāṣai), so that [people other than those from the 
three castes] like women, śūdras, and so on, who are not eligible to [study] 
the Vedas, will not be lost. 
 
222 In this statement, Yama reprimands the king for banishing Kaiśikas and others who praise Viṣṇu with 
vernacular songs from his kingdom (Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 214, footnote 
48). 
90 
 
3) […] [Nammāḻvār] is the receptacle of the direct divine grace; he is well-
versed in truth and human goals; he is active in teaching them; he is distinct 
from [people from low caste] like Vidura and Śabarī. 
4) This language [, Tamil,] travels around and can be found everywhere in 
places filled with learned people […]  
5) The acceptance of those outside of Vedic orthodoxy who see the excellence 
of them [the Tamil poems] is the cause for their praiseworthiness. 
6) They talk about devotion (bhakti), referred to in the Upaniṣads as meditative 
worship (upāsana) and knowledge of God, in terms of sexual love. 
7) Lordship and isolated consciousness are criticized on the basis of their faults 
such as [their results that] are little and unstable […]223 
 
 
It should be noted that such treatment is, however, absent in the Āṟayirappaṭi, which is devoted 
to Rāmānuja’s theology. This indicates that the crystallization of the Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ connection 
with the Tamil scripture and language is a pressing task by Nañcīyar’s time. It might be the 
case that Rāmānuja’s explicit normativity, which is only in Sanskrit and highly Vedānta-
oriented, may not allow it to include the expanding and diversified community of followers or 
attract new ones in the time of Nañcīyar or within his social scope. Importantly, the normative 
and expressive representations we have seen in the commentaries of these two authors, 
especially the Oṉpaṭiṉāyirappaṭi, were accommodated more in the following Manipravalam 
literature, most evidently the rahasyagranthas, and thus pervades the Manipravalam sphere 
more than the Sanskrit one as I will show in the next chapter.  
 
 
223 Pakavat Viṣayam, 62–63: kuṟittu, “harikīrtiṃ vinaivānyadbrāhmaṇēna narōttama. bhāṣāgānaṃ na gātavyaṃ 
tasmāt pāpaṃ tvayā kṛtam. eṉṟa yamaṉvacaṉattiṉpaṭiyē pāṣāniṣēdham bhagavatviṣayam oḻiya 
bāhyaviṣayaṅkaḷilēy ākaiyālum […] āḻvār tammuṭaiya kṛpātiśayattālē vēdattil anadhikārikaḷāṉa strīśūtrātikaḷum 
iḻavātapaṭi vēdārthattai drāviḍabhāṣaiyālē aruḷicceykaiyālum […] nirantarabhagavatkaṭākṣapātramumāy, 
tattvahitaṅkaḷil nipuṇarāy, avaṟṟainuṭaiya upadēśattilum pravṛttarāy, viduraśabaryātikaḷil ilakṣaṇarāṉa āḻvār 
[…] ippāṣai naṭaiyāṭi śiṣṭapracuramāṉa dēśaṅkaḷeṅkum uṇṭāy […] ivaṟṟiṉ naṉmaiyaik kaṇṭa avaitikaṉuṅ kūṭap 
parikrahikkai ślākyatāhētuv ākaiyālum, vēdanam eṉṟum, upāsanam eṉṟum upaniṣattut taṉṉil colla paṭukiṟa 
bhaktiyai ivaṟṟil kāmamākak collukaiyālum, aiśvaryakaivalyaṅkaḷai dūṣittatu alpāstiratvādidoṣattālēy 
ākaiyālum.” This translation is mine with the guidance of Clooney’s unpublished translation of Nañcīyar’s 
introduction. The Matsyapurāṇa passage is untraceable. 
91 
 
1.5 Summary 
To summarize, the formation of the two language spheres by Rāmānuja and Manipravalam 
commentators that I deal with in this chapter precedes the time of the authors that I investigate 
in the following chapters. Their linguistic boundaries were constructed by normativity and 
expressivity, which, in turn, served as the conditions for the later authors. Specifically, 
Rāmānuja’s doctrinalization of bhakti set a paradigm for later systematization of self-surrender 
in both Sanskrit and Manipravalam spheres. In order to be considered another valid 
soteriological doctrine, self-surrender must be supported by Vedāntic scripture and 
hermeneutically subject to the Sanskrit sphere even if its surrendering attitude might be more 
rooted in the Tamil poems. The argument that self-surrender is another Upaniṣadic doctrine was 
essential to the preservation of the Vedāntic status of Rāmānuja’s system, especially in the 
Sanskrit treatises which are directed toward and can be accessed by outsiders. As shown in the 
subsequent chapters, self-surrender as found in the medieval Sanskrit treatises conforms more 
to these models than the Manipravalam treatises. Due to Rāmānuja’s Sanskrit soteriology, 
Sanskrit came to be associated with philosophical and intellectual arguments, endeavors, and 
debates. At the same time, it was perceived as being different from Tamil, which offers a 
devotional tone to the whole community.  
Self-surrender in Manipravalam literature moves away from the model of bhakti and 
embodies notions that are more important in the Tamil scripture, namely the devotee’s 
subordination to God in the liberating process to the extent that the devotee has very passive 
role and self-surrender is no longer an action to be performed. Despite its root in the confluence 
of Tamil and Sanskrit, self-surrender participates with these norms differently. The theological 
terminology, characteristics, and hermeneutics used in the validation of self-surrender belong 
92 
 
to the Sanskrit sphere, formulated by Rāmānuja. Yet, the surrendering attitude, its accessibility, 
intimacy, and the dominance of God in granting liberation are derived from the Tamil scripture 
and recur as the primary modes of expression as seen in the Manipravalam commentaries.  
As will be shown in the following chapters, I trace the development of self-surrender 
step-by-step to see how the normativity and expressivity in Sanskrit and Manipravalam spheres 
derived from Rāmānuja’s Vedāntic soteriology and the Tamil scripture and its Manipravalam 
commentaries varyingly affect the later soteriological development in the Sanskrit and 
Manipravalam treatises and how each post-Rāmānuja author dealt with the restrictions within 
their given or chosen sphere. One of the apparent conditioning factors is that Rāmānuja’s first 
soteriological doctrine is in Sanskrit under the Vedāntic scriptural normativity without explicit 
connection to the Tamil scripture. On the one hand, the following Sanskrit treatises, subjected 
to the Sanskrit sphere, do not depend on the Tamil scripture in their soteriological arguments, 
even if they are infused with the Tamil devotional representation. With Rāmānuja’s 
soteriological demarcation, self-surrender in the Sanskrit literature is modelled on the Vedāntic 
means such as bhakti. On the other hand, the Manipravalam authors incorporated Tamil 
normativity and expressivity in addition to Rāmānuja’s Sanskrit sphere and moved the 
discussion closer to the Tamil scripture. They eventually prioritized total surrender and God’s 
grace over Rāmānuja’s modeling characteristics of bhakti. Finally, in the last chapter, 
Vedāntadeśika used Manipravalam to transcend the norms and expressive limitations in each 
language sphere, making possible the confluence of the two scriptures and the harmonization 
of the previous debates on self-surrender not only in the Sanskrit texts but also those in 
Manipravalam.  
93 
 
CHAPTER 2 
SYSTEMATIZATION  
 
This chapter explores the moment when self-surrender was explicitly systematized by Vātsya 
Varadaguru (c. 1165–1200 to 1277)224 and Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai (c. 1167–1262),225 who 
inhabited Kāñcīpuram and Śrīraṅgam, respectively, based on the linguistic representations in 
Sanskrit and Manipravalam that were influential in these locations. Although both authors 
subscribed to Rāmānuja’s soteriological model of bhakti, the norms and expressions in the 
different language spheres that reflect the intellectual contexts of the two locations conditioned 
their Sanskrit and Manipravalam treatises on self-surrender, resulting in a difference in the sets 
of authority that they highlight and their definitions of self-surrender. Although self-surrender 
was already an alternative to bhakti in the Manipravalam commentaries on the Tiruvāymoḻi that 
preceded the treatises investigated here, the linguistic representations, specifically the scriptural 
authorities and theological characteristics, that these authors chose to devise and, in some cases, 
invent in their systematization of self-surrender, serve as the defining norms and expressions 
for the later doctrinal development of self-surrender in the corresponding domains of Sanskrit 
and Manipravalam. I chose these two authors because they were contemporary and could be 
compared to chart their engagement with the linguistic spheres of Sanskrit and Manipravalam. 
Unfortunately, we have little historical evidence on their lives, and I, therefore, rely mostly on 
their works and the traditional account of their lineages to reconstruct these authors. Their 
engagement with their respective linguistic spheres also reflects their social and intellectual 
contexts. Based on the tradition today, these two authors were part of different lineages that 
 
224 This date is proposed by Marlewicz, “Self-Surrender of the Afflicted One.”  
225 The date is given in Mumme, The Śrīvaiṣṇava Theological Dispute, 14. 
94 
 
were retrospectively considered as the Vaṭakalai and Teṅkalai.  
Because Vātsya Varadaguru was preceded by the Kāñcī authors, he can be considered 
a part of the Sanskrit sphere. He was a disciple of Viṣṇu Citta who was the disciple of 
Tirukkurukaip Piraṉ Piḷḷāṉ, the first commentator of the Tiruvāymoḻi and was succeeded by the 
significant figures in Kāñcīpuram, such as Ātreya Rāmānuja and Vedāntadeśika. Periyavāccāṉ 
Piḷḷai, however, was a student of Nampiḷḷai, who was the disciple of Nañcīyar, the second 
commentator of the Tiruvāymoḻi, and himself a Manipravalam commentator of the Tamil 
hymns. The Śrīraṅgam community Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai inhabited was saturated with 
Manipravalam norms and expressions because, by this time, it was known to be the main site 
for the production of the Manipravalam commentaries and discussions of self-surrender as an 
alternative to bhakti. While Vātsya Varadaguru composed only Sanskrit works, Periyavāccāṉ 
Piḷḷai used only Manipravalam and was immersed in the world of the Manipravalam 
commentaries. 
Both authors invented a new genre of literature that focuses on the systematization of 
self-surrender. Vātsya Varadaguru was, to my knowledge, the only Sanskrit author around this 
time who openly regards self-surrender as an alternative soteriological doctrine in his 
Prapannapārijāta. However, he limited his systematization of self-surrender only to one work 
while devoting his other works, namely the Premeyamālā, the Tattvasāra, and the 
Tattvanirnaya to Vedāntic philosophical discussions. His other works consolidate Rāmānuja’s 
bhakti as the primary doctrine found in the Vedāntic treatises of other authors around the twelfth 
and thirteenth centuries in Kāñcī, such as Nārāyaṇārya, Ātreya Rāmānuja, and 
Meghanādārisūri.  
Among the Manipravalam authors of this time, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai is innovative and 
95 
 
has the most variety in his composition. He was the first ācārya to comment on all of the Āḻvārs’ 
Tamil poems, not merely the Tiruvāymoḻi.226 In addition, he introduced Manipravalam 
commentaries on the devotional Sanskrit works of Yāmuna and Rāmānuja. Importantly, he 
initiated the genre of the rahasyagranthas. One could say that in order to systematize self-
surrender, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai set up this new platform, the rahasyagrathas, to specifically 
defend self-surrender based on both the Sanskrit and Tamil scriptures. He then uses the three 
secrets, the Tirumantra, Dvaya, and Caramaśloka, to harmonize these two scriptures as I show 
below. As Patricia Mumme argues, Manipravalam became “a major vehicle for the expression 
of Śrīvaiṣṇava doctrine” and not just a tool for commenting on the Tamil hymns thanks to 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai.227 As we will see in subsequent chapters, the later authors in the Śrīraṅgam 
community only used Manipravalam in their theological treatises. To converse with these 
authors, according to the traditional record, Vedāntadeśika himself wrote in Manipravalam 
instead of Sanskrit, which he employed during his stay in Kāñcīpuram.228 It should be noted 
that the three secrets became specific to the Manipravalam language sphere thanks to 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s rahasyagranthas even if they are in Sanskrit and can be found in the 
earlier Sanskrit works of Rāmānuja and Pārāśara Bhaṭṭar before. In this chapter, I investigate 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s most comprehensive rahasyagrantha, the Parantarahasyam.229  
The invention of the novel Sanskrit text on self-surrender and the Manipravalam 
 
226 For Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s life and role as a commentator, see Anandakichenin, My Sapphire-hued Lord, 84–
87. 
227 Mumme, The Śrīvaiṣṇava Theological Dispute, 5. 
228 See Chapters 4 and 5. 
229 Varadachari in Agamas and South Indian Vaisnavism (322) indicates that the Paranatarahasyam was 
composed by Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s son, Nāyaṉār Āccāṉ Piḷḷai (c. 1227–1327). However, Mumme (The 
Śrīvaiṣṇava Theological Dispute, 14) and Venkatachari (The Manipravāla Literature of the Śrīvaiṣṇava Ācāryas, 
116–120) both attribute this work to Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai. In my opinion, there is enough area of similarity in 
terms of the ideas and style of composition in the Paranatarahasyam and Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s works authorship 
is not in doubt of Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai like the commentary on Rāmānuja’s Gadyatraya and the Nigamanappati.  
96 
 
rahasyagranthas are crucial to the defense that self-surrender is an independent means 
alternative to bhakti and the claim that self-surrender can be found in different linguistic 
terrains. Thus, one could say that the two authors participated in their own social and intellectual 
domains and intended to establish self-surrender for their distinct audiences at Kāñcīpuram and 
Śrīraṅgam despite their shared influence from Rāmānuja and social interactions. This is evident 
in their varying incorporations of the scriptural sources and understandings of self-surrender. It 
should be noted that dissimilarity may be partly based on the styles of the compositions: verse 
in the Prapannapārijāta and prose in the Parantarahasyam. 
To explain further, in the Prapannapārijāta, Vātsya Varadaguru provides Sanskrit 
scriptural authorities for its validation of self-surrender. Instead of the Tamil scripture and the 
paradigm of the three secrets, he resorts to the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās as another foundational 
scriptural source. In the conclusion of the Prapannapārijāta, Vātsya Varadaguru imagines a 
community of good people who undertake self-surrender as the audience of this work. He 
claims that this composition, entitled “Prapannapārijāta,” validates self-surrender through the 
authority of the Sanskrit scripture, namely śruti, smṛti, the statements of the sages, and the 
Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās.230 Self-surrender which is referred to in the verses as “offering” (nyāsa) 
is likened to a boat that will carry those who perform it across transmigration to liberation: 
 
A great bridge across the milky ocean of practices of those who have 
surrendered is assembled with the pieces of the mountains of Vedānta, smṛti, 
important and true statements of the sages, and Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās.  
Those who desire to quickly attain the far shore of the ocean by this path 
surely will be liberated [due to] being free from previous and later sinful actions.  
 
 
230 The title can be interpreted as “the Pārijāta tree for those who surrender” (prapanna-pārijāta). Pārijāta which 
is a name of a tree refers to God who grants the goal to the devotees (Rajagopalan, “The Śrī Vaiṣṇava 
Understanding of Bhakti and Prapatti,” 296). 
97 
 
The ship of offering (nyāsa) has a bottom board, which is held together 
and fixed by wretchedness, is loaded with pins of faith, can be controlled by 
pulling the rope of a request, and has offering as the good oar. 
[Since] it [the ship of offering] carries embodied beings across 
the ocean of transmigration, fearless people who get on it will be rescued [from 
the ocean of transmigration] immediately and without any defects. 
The composition titled the “Prapannapārijāta” is known in the world as 
that in which all the needs are produced for good people all around.231  
 
 
This concluding verse reflects that the scriptural authority and validity of self-surrender are 
focal concerns of the Prapannapārijāta. This is also seen through the fact that the majority of 
the topics in this work are related to scripture.232 The last verse then states that the goal of the 
text is to provide all of the needs for the devotees through the teaching of self-surrender. Thus, 
self-surrender is meant for the whole community.233 However, given the limited eligibility of 
bhakti as shown in the first chapter, the project to consolidate bhakti probably presents an 
intellectual argument to defend Rāmānuja’s philosophical system of Vedānta rather than an 
 
231 Vātsya Varadaguru, Prapannapārijāta, ed. P. V. Ramanujaswami (Tirupati: Tirumala-Tirupati 
Devasthanams, 1954), 55–56: traiyantasmṛtimukhyasanmunivacaḥśrīpāṃcarātrācalakṣodraiḥ saṃghaṭitaḥ 
prapannacaritaḥ kṣīrābdhisetur mahān | ye vāñchnty amunā pathā ’ptum acirāt pāraṃ bhavāmbhonidheḥ te 
pūrvottarapāpakarmanicayaiḥ muktā vimuktāḥ smṛtāḥ ||  
kārpaṇyācitabaddhamūlaphalakā viśvāsakīlācitā yācñābandhanarajjukṛṣṭivaśagā nikṣepasaṃkṣepaṇiḥ | 
saṃsārārṇavatāriṇī tanubhṛtāṃ nyāsātmanauḥ tām imām acchidrām atha pārayiṣṇum abhayāḥ sadyo ’dhiruḍhā 
janāḥ || 
aśeṣāpekṣitaṃ yatra parito jāyate satām | prapannapārijātākhyaḥ prabandhaḥ kathito bhuvi || 
232 The Prapannapārijāta is divided into ten chapters. I base the names of the chapters on the 1954 edition, 1–3. 
The first three chapters outline scriptural authority (lit., the prosperity of scriptural authority - mānasaubhāgya), 
nature (svarūpa), and an eligible person (adhikārī). The following chapters elaborate on the performance of self-
surrender in relation to mantras and the relationship between the practitioners in the community. The fourth 
chapter deals with the relationship between ācāryas and those who have surrendered as well as the role of 
ācāryas in the transmission of the Dvaya. The next chapter illustrates the service that needs to be done after self-
surrender by the exclusive devotees (ekāntis) and the best devotees (paramaikāntis). It defines service as an 
obligatory rite (nitya-karma) but not as a means to liberation. The sixth chapter describes the service that the 
devotees should perform to Śrī and the attendants of God. The following chapter (bhagavad-upāsana) proclaims 
the importance of the Vaiṣṇava community. Chapter 8 instructs the practitioners to conform to the scripture and 
their injunctions. Chapter 9 makes known the avoidance of prohibited acts and the performance of expiations 
when offenses occur. The final chapter proclaims that being God’s eternal servant in Vaikuṇṭha is the ultimate 
result of self-surrender. 
233 Marlewicz, “Self-Surrender of the Afflicted One,” 299. Also, it should be noted that Vātsya Varadaguru does 
not mention the word “śrīvaiṣṇava” anywhere in the Prapannapārijāta and the word used in the text is 
“vaiṣṇava,” which can be found both in Vātsya Varadaguru’s words and citations on pages 16, 21–23, 34–35, 
41–42, 45–46, 48–49, and 54. 
98 
 
actual engagement with the practice.  
In contrast, in the Parantarahasyam, we see the combination of the Sanskrit and Tamil 
scriptural norms made possible thanks to the use of Manipravalam. Indebted to the preceding 
Manipravalam commentators on the Tiruvāymoḻi, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai regards the 
Nālāyirativiyappirapantam as authoritative and presents self-surrender as the main doctrine. 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s work can be characterized as an incorporation and expansion of the 
previously less systematic and explicit discussions on self-surrender in the Manipravalam 
commentaries.234 Importantly, his preference for the authoritative sources in addition to the 
Sanskrit scripture and prioritization of self-surrender over bhakti point to his intention to 
provide an alternative to Rāmānuja’s Sanskrit soteriology of bhakti, which is not available to 
the whole community. Thus, unlike Vātsya Varadaguru’s argument which is more for 
intellectual and philosophical in its defense and debates, with Manipravalam as the medium, 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s system of self-surrender takes into account the accessibility and practices 
of the community.  
In what follows, I will first illustrate that both authors rely on the Vedāntic Sanskrit 
scripture, itihāsas, and Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās in their systematization of self-surrender to argue 
that they share the same normative influence from Rāmānuja’s Sanskrit soteriological model 
and the Manipravalam commentaries. It should be noted that the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās seem to 
already play a role in Yāmuna’s Āgamaprāmāṇya and Rāmānuja’s works such as the 
Gadyatraya and Nityagrantha.235 These texts have the status of scripture as they are God’s 
 
234 According to Clooney, his Manipravalam commentary should be understood as an incorporation and 
amplification of the previous commentaries (Seeing through Texts, 34). 
235 Section 1.3. For more information on the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās in the Śrīvaiṣṇava theological context, 
especially related to Śrī, Kumar, The Goddess Lakṣmī. 
99 
 
words and thus created by God since the time of Yāmuna.236 However, the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās 
became part of the normativity of self-surrender for the first time thanks to Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai 
and Vātsya Varadaguru. However, as a part of the Manipravalam domain, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai 
incorporates the norms, such as the Tamil scripture and the three secrets, in his treatise, while 
they are absent in Vātsya Varadaguru’s Sanskrit treatise, as I show in the second and third 
sections.237 The authors’ participations in the two locations and language spheres render the 
distinction in their treatments of self-surrender as we see in the last section. While Vātsya 
Varadaguru identifies self-surrender with bhakti to conform to the Sanskrit soteriological 
expression of a doctrine based on bhakti and to gain his community’s acceptance of the Sanskrit 
authors who mainly, but not exclusively, consolidated bhakti as the primary soteriological 
doctrine, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, in accordance with other Manipravalam authors, explicitly prefers 
self-surrender and shapes it with the Tamil devotional expression as illustrated in the 
Manipravalam commentaries. 
 
2.1 The Sanskrit Norms of Self-Surrender 
In their works, both Vātsya Varadaguru and Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai validate self-surrender within 
the Vedāntic system and share the same set of Sanskrit scripture, namely śruti, itihāsas, and 
Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās. The fact that the two authors choose to use the same set of scripture in 
their systematization of self-surrender, along with the fact that there is clear familiarity with it 
in the early Manipravalam commentaries, indicates that these scriptural sources were internally 
 
236 See McCrea, “Does God Have Free Will.”  
237 It should be noted that, in addition to the incorporation of the Tamil hymns and itihāsas, Mumme in The 
Śrīvaiṣṇava Theological Dispute also argues for the use of analogies and Purāṇas as the main strategies of the 
Śrīraṅgam ācāryas. Here, I explore Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s reliance on the same sets of authorities and further pay 
attention to the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās and the three secrets as they are evidently brought into discussions by 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai more than the analogies and itihāsas in his Parantarahasyam.  
100 
 
circulated and definitely accepted around that time. It is also likely that how both use the 
scripture is influenced by Rāmānuja’s incorporation of the Vedāntic Sanskrit scripture in his 
system of bhakti. However, these two authors were the first to elaborately claim that these 
sources contain injunctions for self-surrender. Their incorporations of these injunctions set the 
normative paradigms for both the Sanskrit and Manipravalam spheres in the soteriologial 
context of self-surrender. 
 
2.1.1 Injunctions of Self-surrender 
Both authors cite passages from Sanskrit scripture to present the main Vedāntic injunctions of 
self-surrender, proving that self-surrender is an independent means to liberation. By assigning 
Vedāntic injunctions to self-surrender, they further argue that self-surrender is a Vedāntic 
doctrine just like bhakti, making it a valid alternative doctrine. Among the citations from śruti 
and smṛti, both authors regard passages from the Mahānārāyaṇa Upaṇiṣad, the Śvetāśvatara 
Upaniṣad, and the Viṣṇupurāṇa, as the most significant injunctions of self-surrender.  
Vātsya Varadaguru, in the first chapter on the scriptural authority, claims that the 
mantra in the Vedas prescribes self-surrender as an offering (nyāsa). According to Gerhard 
Oberhammer, the concept of an offering may be derived from Vātsya Varadaguru’s 
interpretation of “the doctrine of asceticism” as an “internalized sacrifice” in Taittirīya 
Āraṇyaka 10.63.19: “You, who are pervading and delighting in wealth, are joined with the 
breath. O Brahman, you are the creator of all and the giver of energy to the fire, speech to the 
sun, splendor to the moon, You are grasped in the sacrificial ladle. One should offer oneself as 
aum to You, the great glorious Brahman.”238 This passage is similar to Mahānārāyaṇa 
 
238 Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, ed. Suriya Mahajan (Puṇyākhyapattane: Ānandāśrama, 2008), vol. 2, 274–275: 
vasuraṇyo vibhur asi prāṇe tvam api sandhātā brahman tvam asi viśvasṛktejodās tvam asy agner vacādās tvam 
101 
 
Upaniṣad 24.2.239 Vātsya Varadaguru then innovatively applies this concept to self-
surrender.240 Oberhammer’s observation points out that Vātsya Varadaguru’s implicit 
classification of self-surrender as a Vedic offering might come from a Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 
passage. The Prapannapārijāta passage reads: 
 
Self-surrender is first enjoined in the Veda of Taittirīyas (Taittirīya 
Āraṇyaka) and the application of this practice is [derived] from the mantra 
[beginning with] “vasuraṇya.”  
In the same manner, Brahman, who is to be worshiped in this case, is 
said to be the cause of all and is the only One to be surrendered to by this 
[epithet] “the Creator of the universe, the all-pervading one.” 
Brahman is praised with the qualities in this manner: You are the giver 
of splendor to the suns like before; You are brilliant and pleasant. 
Having made oneself an offering, one should offer the body into the great 
fire of Brahman with the syllable aum as handed down through transmission.  
Thus, the application of this self-surrender is passed down as consisting 
of the sacred syllable aum. The application is referred to in the body of offering 
by the wise in the same manner. 
Best people say that, among austerities, there is self-surrender (prapatti) 
which is called offering (nyāsa). The Dvaya is remembered in the vallis of Kaṭha 
[Upaniṣad] as the prayer for self-surrender.241 
 
 
In addition, Vātsya Varadaguru paraphrases Śvetāśavatāra Upaniṣad 6.18, “Who at first 
created the Brahman and delivered to him the Vedas; who manifests himself by his own 
 
asi sūryasya dyumnodās tvam asi candramasa upayāmagṛhīto ’si brahmaṇe tvā mahasa om ity ātmānaṃ yuñjīta 
iti. 
239 Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 24.2 (Bombay: Government Central Book Depôt, 1888), 25. 
240 Oberhammer, “The Influence of Orthodox Vaiṣṇavism,” 48. However, it should be noted that Periyavāccāṉ 
Piḷḷai uses the same Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad passage to identify self-surrender with the offering as well. Thus, 
Vātsya Varadaguru’s identification might not be innovative. Oberhammer further suggests that the concept of an 
internalized sacrifice might have been derived from Vaiṣṇava orthodoxy that also influenced Rāmānuja’s system 
(ibid., 48–49). 
241 Vātsya Varadaguru, Prapannapārijāta, 3–4: 
prapattiḥ—taittirīyāṇāṃ vede tāvat vidhīyate | nyāsābhyāsaprayogo hi “vasuraṇye” ti mantrataḥ || 
tatropāsyaṃ yathā brahma sarvakāraṇam ucyate | prapattavyaṃ tadaiveti “vibhu viśvasṛg” iti api || 
sūryādīnāṃ yathāpūrvaṃ tejaḥ kalpayitā asi ca | vasuvat ramaṇīyo asi iti evaṃ brahma guṇaiḥ stutam || 
jīvātmānaṃ haviḥ kṛtvā taccharīraṃ mahīyasi | brahmāgnai juhuyād om ity anena āmnāyarūpitam || 
iti prapatter amnātaḥ prayogaḥ praṇavātmanā | tasyaivaṃ viduṣo yajñaśarīre tatra kalpitaḥ || 
prapattiṃ tapasām eṣāṃ nyāsākhyāmāhuruttamāḥ | āmnātaṃ kaṭhavallīṣu prapatter vācakaṃ dvayam || For the 
Kaṭha Upaniṣad, see Olivelle, The Early Upaniṣads, Chapter 7. 
102 
 
intelligence—in that God do I, desirous of liberation, seek refuge,” to affirm that self-surrender 
is enjoined as a means to liberation in Vedāntic scripture:242  
 
The favorable authority is stated to be in harmony with Śvetāśvatara [Upaniṣad]. 
The Upaniṣad states the instruction of the performance of offering in this way.  
One who desires liberation should seek refuge for the sake of [His] grace which 
is the knowledge of the self as it is said in śruti that “[Brahman] created Brahmā in the 
beginning” [and] “He taught him [the Vedas].”243 
 
 
He then resorts to Viṣṇupurāṇa 1.9.72, “There will be affliction, desire, confusion, and 
unhappiness as long as one does not take refuge with You, the destroyer of all sins,” to claim 
the supremacy of God in granting liberation to a person who surrenders to Him.244 Vātsya 
Varadaguru’s use of the Viṣṇupurāṇa as the main authority, especially regarding the supremacy 
of God, is unmistakably influenced by the way Rāmānuja’s use of the text in the Śrībhāṣya. 
Although Rāmānuja does not cite the same passage as Vātsya Varadaguru, he frequently refers 
to the Viṣṇupurāṇa in the Śrībhāṣya.245 Vātsya Varadaguru also incorporates other smṛti texts 
as citations. For example, in the first chapter, he supports the soteriological status of self-
surrender with passages from Dharmaśāstra,246 such as Manusmṛti 8.9.2, “[I]f the witness has 
no quarrel with Yama, the god of death and the judge of the dead, then there is no need for him 
 
242 Translated by Olivelle, The Early Upaniṣads, 433. For the full text, see ibid., 432. 
243 Vātsya Varadaguru, Prapannapārijāta, 4–5: 
pramāṇam subhagaṃ prāha śvetāśvatarasaṃjñītam [corr., “saṃhitā”] | prāha copaniṣannyāse yathā 
’nuṣṭhānadarśinī || “brahmāṇaṃ vidadhāty agre” “yas tasmai diśati” śrutiḥ | ātmajñānaprasādārthaṃ 
mumukṣuḥ śaraṇaṃ vrajet ||  
244 Ibid., 7: “Parāśara who knows the supremacy of God due to the boon of Vasiṣṭha declared in the Viṣṇupurāṇa 
in this way, ‘There will be affliction, desire, confusion, and unhappiness as long as one does not take refuge with 
You, the destroyer of all sins’ [Viṣṇupurāṇa 1.9.72].”  
(varadānāt vasiṣṭhasya devatāpāramārthyavit | parāśaraḥ praṇijagau purāṇe vaiṣṇave tathā ||  
“tāvad ārtis tadā vāñchā tāvan mohaḥ tadā” sukham | yāvan na yāti śaraṇaṃ tvām aśeṣāghanāśanam ||). See 
Viṣṇupurāṇa 1.9.72, vol. 1, 50. 
245 For Rāmānuja’s use of the Viṣṇupurāṇa, see Adluri, Textual Authority. 
246 Vātsya Varadaguru, Prapannapārijāta, 8–9: 
yamo vaivasvato rājā yas tavaiṣa hṛdi sthitaḥ | tena ced avivādas te mā gaṅgām mā kurūn gamaḥ || and 
atha pātakabhītas tvaṃ sarvabhāvena bhārata! vimuktānyasamārambho nārāyaṇaparo bhava || 
103 
 
to visit the Ganges or the land of the Kurus to expiate his sin,”247 and Viṣṇudharma 64.70, “O 
Bhārata! You who are afraid of sins, having given up all other efforts, become devoted to 
Narāyaṇa in every way.”248 
As we have seen, Vātsya Varadaguru’s use of Sanskrit scripture in the 
Prapannapārijāta is indeed conditioned by the style of scholastic composition in Sanskrit. In 
the same manner, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai also cites many Upaniṣadic passages, especially the 
Chāndogya Upaniṣad and the Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad, to explain theological issues, such as 
the nature of Brahman in his Parantarahasyam as I will show.249 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai introduces the Parantarahasyam and the soteriology of self-
surrender as part of Rāmānuja’s Vedāntic system, consisting of the first part (Pūrva Mīmāṃsā) 
or the Vedas and the subsequent part (Uttara Mīmāṃsā) or the Brahmasūtra.250 In the chapter 
on the Dvaya, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai cites Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 24.1, which states that the 
 
247 Translated by Olivelle, Manu’s Code of Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 310. For the text, 
see ibid., 676. See also ibid., 3–70, for more information on the Dharmaśāstra. 
248 Viṣṇudharma 64.70, ed. Reinhold Grünendahl (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1983), vol. 1, 114. 
249 See Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, Chapter on the Dvaya. 
250 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 1: “Due to God’s causeless grace, one turns away from the traditions 
like Sāṅkhyā and others which are outside of the Vedas. Having entered into the Vedas which are faultless 
authority, among the Vedas, one enters into the knowledge part [of the Vedas] since there is no use for the first 
part [of the Vedas] which makes known the lower human goals like heaven which tie [one to transmigration]. 
Then, in that part, having abandoned the liberation in isolation, which is somewhat better than sovereignty since 
it is lasting, and its means that person has a desire for liberation which is characterized as the supreme human 
goal and is in conformity to the nature unlike liberation in isolation and sovereignty. Then, one is discouraged by 
the thought of the difficulty of karmayoga, jñānayoga, and so on which are the means to [attain liberation]. So, 
one has a desire for the means which conforms to the nature [and becomes eligible for this means]. The three 
secrets should be studied by the eligible person since they individually make known the means and the goals 
which are in conformity and appropriate to what [that person] desires.” (nirhētukabhagavadprasādam aṭiyāka 
vēdabāhyamāṉa sāṅkhyādidarśaṉaṅkaḷil vimukhaṉāy, nirdōṣapramāṇamāṉa vēdattil pukuntu, atil 
bandhakamāṉa svargādikṣūdrapuruṣārthaṅkaḷaiyum tatsādhaṉaṅkaḷaiyum pratipādikkiṟa pūrvakāṇṭattil 
prayojanam illāmaiyālē jñāṉabhāgattilē pukuntu, atilum aiśvaryattiṟkāṭṭil nityatvādikaḷālē ciṟitu adhikamāṉa 
kaivalyattaiyum tatsādhaṉattaiyum viṭṭu, avvaiśvaryakaivalyaṅkaḷaip pōlaṉṟiyilē svarūpānurūpamāṉa 
paramapuruṣārthalakṣaṇamōkṣattilē ruciyuṭaiyaṉāy, tatsādhaṉamāṉa karmajñāṉādikaḷuṭaiya 
duṣkaratvādyanusandhāṉattālē kliṣṭaṉāy, svarūpānurūpamāṉa upāyattilē ruciyuṭaiyaṉāy irukkum adhikārikku, 
abhimatamāy anurūpamāy iruntuḷḷa anta upāyōpēyaṅkaḷait taṉittaṉiyē jñāpikkiṟa rahasyatrayamum 
jñātavyamākak kaṭavatu). 
104 
 
offering is superior to other ascetic practices: “Thus, offering is said to be superior to these 
austerities.”251 The passage is followed by another passage from Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 
21.2, in which the offering is likened to the Supreme Brahman.252 He then argues that self-
surrender is characterized as the offering, and the offering is nothing other than God who is the 
only means to attain the highest goal, which is God Himself. In this context, the passages from 
the Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad are the main source for the concept of offering and the 
identification between self-surrender and the offering:  
 
The manifold means—which are described as it is done in, “truthfulness, 
austerity, self-control, donation, duty, procreation, sacrificial offering to the fire, 
sacrificial ritual, mental contemplation, and offering,” which are written in the 
scripture as being the means to obtain service, which is thus the ultimate goal—
are said to be superior to the others, as said in, “Thus, the offering is said to be 
superior to these austerities” [Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 24.1] [and] “Offering is 
Brahman; Brahman is the Supreme; The Supreme is Brahman; Offering is 
superior to those austerities which are inferior” [Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 21.2]. 
And the special means called offering (nyāsa) is stated as being the most 
superior above all, as in, “Thus, truthfulness is said to be supreme” [and] “Thus, 
austerity is said to be supreme.” And since every single thing other than that is 
called inferior; because a special means that is more distinguished than this is 
not evoked; and because the means suitable for the obtainment of that service is 
the means that is referred to by the word “I pay obeisance” [in the Dvaya], there 
are the means and the goal, which are the intention of all the scriptures.253 
 
 
 
251 It should be noted that Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 24.1, 25: “tasmān nyāsam eṣāṃ tapasām atiriktam āhuḥ,” is 
echoed almost word for word by the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.36, ed. M. D. Ramanujacarya (Madras: The Adyar 
Library and Research Centre, 1966), vol. 2, 371: “But, among these austerities, offering is heard as being the 
distinguished one” (teṣāṃ tu tapasāṃ nyāsam atiriktaṃ tapaḥ śrutam). This is made explicit by Vedāntadeśika 
in the Nikṣeparakṣā as we will see in Chapter 4.  
252 Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 21.2, 23. It is also cited in Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 45. 
253 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 20–21: appaṭi paramaprāpyamāṉa kaiṅkaryattaip peṟukaikku 
sādhaṉamāka śāstraṅkaḷilē eḻutukiṟa, “satyaṃ tapō damaś śamō dānaṃ dharmaḥ prajananam agnyōgnihotraṃ 
yajñō mānasaṃ nyāsaḥ” eṉṟāppōlē, collukiṟa sādhanasamūhaṅkaḷai, “tasmāt satyaṃ paramaṃ vadanti, tasmāt 
tapaḥ paramaṃ vadanti” eṉṟu oṉṟukkoṉṟu utkṛṣṭamāka colli, ellāttukkuṃ mēlē “tasmān nyāsam ēṣāṃ tapasām 
atiriktam āhuḥ” “nyāsa iti brahmā, brahmā hi paraḥ, parō hi brahmā, tāni vā etāny varāṇi tapāṃsi nyāsa 
ēvātyarēcayat” eṉṟu sarvōtkṛṣṭamāka nyāsaśabdavācyamāṉa upāyaviśēṣattaic colli, tatvyāriktaṅkaḷaiyaṭaiya 
apakṛṣṭamākac collukaiyālum, itukku mēlē vilakṣaṇamāyiruppatu oru upāyaviśēṣattai eṭāmaiyālum, anta 
kaiṅkaryaprāptikku ucitamāṉa upāyamum namaśśabdōktamāṉa upāyamē ākaiyālē, ivai 
sakalaśāstratātparyaṅkaḷāṉa upāyōpāyaṅkaḷ. 
105 
 
Given that both authors draw from the same scriptural sources and agree on the identification 
between self-surrender and the offering, we can assume that the Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 
might also be the main source for the concept of the offering in the Prapannapārijāta.  
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai structures the Parantarahasyam according to the three secrets, the 
Tirumantra, the Dvaya, and the Caramaśloka, devoting one chapter to each of them. Like Vātsya 
Varadaguru, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai incorporates the same passages from Śvetāsvatara Upaniṣad 
6.18, Viṣṇupurāṇa 1.9.72, and also Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 24.1 in the Caramaśloka Chapter 
and also the Dvaya Chapter.254 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai employs these passages along with other 
citations to present injunctions of self-surrender. Interestingly, he assigns different roles to the 
passages from the three sources in the summary of the first part of the Dvaya. He separates the 
Viṣṇupurāṇa passage from the other two Upaniṣadic passages, arguing that the Viṣṇupurāṇa 
passage only communicates the fact that God is the accomplished means (siddhopāya) for four 
groups of people. On the other hand, the two Upaniṣadic passages single out one particular 
group of people among the four stated in Viṣṇupurāṇa 1.9.72 who are eligible to request the 
result of liberation. Thus, the Viṣṇupurāṇa passage indicates that God is the accomplished 
means which is the meaning of the first part of the Dvaya. The other two passages are in 
accordance with the later part of the Dvaya which makes known the result: 
 
Then, since the accomplished means which has been accepted in this [first part 
of the Dvaya] is common to all four kinds of eligible people, beginning with 
those who are afflicted, as in the statement, “There will be affliction, desire, 
confusion, and unhappiness as long as one does not take refuge with You, the 
destroyer of all sins” [Viṣṇupurāṇa 1.9.72], there is the need to say which 
eligible person is the one who has accepted [God] as the means among those 
previously stated. Given that is the case, the later part [of the Dvaya] specifies 
the eligible one through the determination based on his request for a particular 
 
254 See section 2.2.1 for Vātsya Varadaguru. Note that Vātsya Varadaguru focuses on the second part of 
Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 24 not the first one like Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai. 
106 
 
result as stated in “in that God do I, desirous of liberation, seek refuge” 
[Śvetāsvatara Upaniṣad 6.18] “One attains the greatness of Brahman” 
[Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 24.1]. Thus, it means that [the Dvaya] requests the 
means in the former part and the goal which is its result in the later part.255 
 
 
With Manipravalam as a medium, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai has a choice to cite from 
scriptures in both Sanskrit and Tamil, yet he provides only Sanskrit citations to prove the 
injunctions of self-surrender. His decision to use only Sanskrit scripture to validate self-
surrender suggests that Sanskrit is an embodiment of the authority and validation in soteriology 
thanks to Rāmānuja’s model of using Sanskrit Vedāntic scriptures in validating a doctrine like 
in the case of bhakti. Even though the Parantarahasyam is in Manipravalam, its soteriological 
arguments are closely tied to the Sanskrit sphere. In addition to śruti, the two authors further 
bring in the authoritative sources which are, according to them, subordinate to the Upaniṣads, 
namely itihāsas and Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās, to systematize self-surrender. 
 
2.1.2 Itihāsas and Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās 
The itihāsas, namely the Māhābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa, are another authoritative source in 
Vātsya Varadaguru’s Prapannapārijāta and Peiryavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s Parantarahasyam. It should 
be noted that Yāmuna alludes to the two itihāsas’ narratives of God’s promises, especially when 
Rāma vows to save any beings who surrenders to Him, including Vibhīṣaṇa, in the Stotraratna 
64.256 Rāmānuja follows Yāmuna when he cites two passages from these two itihāsas, namely 
 
255 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 35: aṉantaram, itil svīkṛtamāṉa siddhōpāyam “tāvad ārtis tadā 
vācchā tāvan mōhaḥ tadā ’sukham, yāvan na yāti śaraṇaṃ tvām aśēṣāghanāśanam” eṉṟu, ārtādikaḷāṉa 
caturvidhādhikārikaḷukkum sādhāraṇam ākaiyālē, ivarkaḷil kīḻ upāyasvīkaraṇam paṇṇi niṟkiṟavaṉ enta adhikāri 
eṉkiṟa apēkṣayilē, “mumukṣūr vai śaraṇam ahaṃ prapadyē” “brahmaṇō mahimānam āpnoti” eṉkiṟapaṭiyē 
phalaviśēṣaprārthanārūpādhyavasāyattālē ivaṉai viśēṣikkiṟatu: uttarārtham. āka, pūrvārthattālē 
upāyaprārthaṉam paṇṇiṟṟāy, uttarārthattālē tatphalamāṉa upēyattai prārttikkiṟatu eṉṟatāyiṟṟu. Viṣṇupurāṇa 
1.9.72, vol. 1, 50. The Śvetāsvatara Upaniṣad passage is translated by Olivelle, The Early Upaniṣads, 433. For 
the text of Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 24.1, see 25. 
256 Section 1.3. 
107 
 
Rāmāyaṇa 6.12.20 and Bhagavadgītā 18.66 in his Śaraṇāgatigadya. Nañcīyar also has high 
regard for itihāsas in his Manipravalam commentary.257 By the time of Vātsya Varadaguru and 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, these two passages can be regarded as paradigmatic passages of 
soteriological self-surrender. Influenced by their predecessors, both authors employ the same 
paradigmatic passages from the two itihāsas. However, Vātsya Varadaguru and Periyavāccāṉ 
Piḷḷai treat these passages differently, as we will see.  
Vātsya Varadaguru uses the two passages to prove that self-surrender is enjoined in 
smṛti as it is the case in śruti.258 Without any commentary on the passages, Vātsya Varadaguru 
treats them as injunctions of self-surrender, two among various others. This is understandable 
given that he pays attention to the validation of self-surrender and its identification with bhakti 
in the Prapannapārijāta. Importantly, Vātsya Varadaguru does not regard Bhagavadgītā 18.66 
as the Caramaśloka or one of the three secrets as in the Parantarahasyam, nor does he present 
it as the main Vedāntic injunction of self-surrender as we will see in Vedāntadeśika’s 
Nikṣeparakṣā.259  
 
257 Section 1.4. 
258 Vātsya Varadaguru, Prapannapārijāta, 7: “God stated in the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata,  
“For someone who surrenders to Me even once and for someone who begs, ‘I am yours,’ I give safety 
for all beings. This is My promise” [Rāmāyaṇa 6.12.20].  
“Having abandoned all dharmas, come to Me alone for refuge. I will free you from all sins. Do not 
grieve” [Bhagavadgītā 18.66].” (rāmāyaṇe ca bhagavān bhārate ca yad uktavān 
“sakṛdeva prapannāya tavāsmīti ca yācate | abhayaṃ sarvabhūtebhyo dadāmy etad vrataṃ mama” ||  
“sarvadharmān parityajya mām ekaṃ śaraṇaṃ vraja | ahaṃ tvā sarvapāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi mā 
śucaḥ” ||). For the Rāmāyaṇa passage, see vol. 6, 70. See also section 1.3. 
259 In addition to Bhagavadgītā 18.66, Vātsya Varadaguru cites parts of Bhagavadgītā 7.18-19 (vol. 2, 41–43) 
which he views as prescribing independent self-surrender as a soteriological doctrine. Unlike what we have seen 
in Rāmānuja’s Gītābhāṣya and Gadyatraya (sections 1.2 and 1.3), Vātsya Varadaguru interprets the predicate to 
surrender in a more literal sense compared to Rāmānuja. In the Gītābhāṣya, Rāmānuja construes self-surrender 
in Bhagavadgītā 7.19 in the sense of contemplation which is equivalent to bhakti. In the Śaraṇāgatigadya, he 
understands that the two Bhagavadgītā passages describe the one with knowledge who is in the stage before the 
undertaking of bhakti. According to his reading, the two verses point to the fact that the one with knowledge who 
surrenders to God at the end of many births is the best among the devotees. Here are the Bhagavadgītā passages 
in Vātsya Varadaguru, Prapannapārijāta, 50: 
“It is said by God Himself, “The one with knowledge is regarded as My Self” [Bhagavadgītā 7.18]. 
One surrenders [to God] after the end of many births and deaths out of good fortune.  
108 
 
Unlike Vātsya Varadaguru, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai situates Bhagavadgītā 18.66 within the 
paradigm of the three secrets and the Manipravalam soteriological sphere. He recognizes 
Bhagavadgītā 18.66 as the Caramaśloka and assigns a particular function and status to it in 
relation to the other secrets, namely the Tirumantra and the Dvaya. He devotes the last chapter 
of the Parantarahasyam to the interpretation and the theological explanation of the 
Caramaśloka. Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai argues that the Caramaśloka, which is God’s speech in the 
Bhagavadgītā, has the same status as itihāsas and Purāṇas, which play a role in reinforcing the 
Vedas (upabṛmhaṇa).260 He also provides word-for-word commentary for the Caramaśloka. 
Collectively, the Caramaśloka instructs a person who has no other means and refuge like Arjuna 
to surrender to God through the determination that God is the means for the attainment of the 
goal.261 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai also cites other passages of the Bhagavadgītā. For example, he 
brings in Bhagavadgītā 7.14, 15.4, and 18.62 to argue that the exclusive devotion to God is 
necessary in the context of self-surrender:262 
 
The word “alone” (eka) indicates the object to be accepted as stated in, “May 
You alone be the means for me” [Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.31] “Having attained 
your feet alone as refuge” [Rāmāyaṇa 5.36.28 or 29?] “Those who surrender to 
Me alone” [Bhagavadgītā 7.14] “I surrender to the Primordial Person alone” 
[Bhagavadgītā 15.4] “Go to Him alone as refuge” [Bhagavadgītā 18.62], and 
then due to the authority of its position that indicates the specification, comes to 
mean the limitation [that God alone is the refuge].263 
 
 
[That one who] “knows that all is Vāsudeva, the one with great self, is difficult to find” [Bhagavadgītā 7.19]. 
The success of the one who surrenders is stated by God in the scripture.” 
(svayaṃ bhagavatā coktaṃ “jñānī tv ātmaiva me matam” | bahujanmasahasrasrānte diṣṭyā yas tu prapadyate || 
“vāsudevas sarvam iti sa mahātmā sudurlabhaḥ” | uktā śāstre bhagavatā prapanne kṛtakṛtyatā ||). 
260 See below, section 2.3. 
261 See the summary of the Caramaśloka in section 2.3. 
262 See Bhagavadgītā vol. 2, 28, vol. 3, 160, and vol. 3, 383, for the respective verses. 
263 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 56: ēkapadam, “tvam ēva upāyabhūto me bhava” “tvām ēva śaraṇaṃ 
prāpya” “mām ēva yē prapatyantē” “tam ēva cādyaṃ puruṣaṃ prapadyē” “tam ēva śaraṇaṃ gaccha” eṉṟu 
svīkāryavastuvai nirdēśittu, aṉantaram avadhāraṇattai eḻutippōrukiṟa sthānapramāṇattālē, avadhāraṇārtham 
ākiṟatu. See Rāmāyaṇa 5.36.28 or 29?, vol. 5, 275, and Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.31, vol. 2, 370. 
109 
 
 
The Rāmāyaṇa is one of the most crucial sources for the doctrine of self-surrender in 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s intellectual reservoir. The turn to the Rāmāyaṇa can be seen in the 
commentary on the Tiruvāymoḻi by Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s predecessor, Nañcīyar, who motivated 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai and later generations of Manipravalam authors to incorporate the Rāmāyaṇa 
into their soteriological discussion.264 The importance Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai gives to the 
Rāmāyaṇa affirms its popularity in the soteriology of self-surrender. In the Parantarahasyam, 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai cites many passages from the Rāmāyaṇa in the chapter on the Dvaya and 
some in the chapter on the Tirumantra. However, to my knowledge, he does not mention any 
Rāmāyaṇa passages in the chapter on the Caramaśloka.265 Unlike Vātsya Varadaguru who 
categorizes the Rāmāyaṇa as one of the Sanskrit scriptures for validation of self-surrender, 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai does not sees the Rāmāyaṇa as only providing injunctions for self-
surrender, but highlights its role as the source of narratives and stories of ideal practices of 
devotees. In other words, according to Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, this text not only enjoins self-
surrender, but also teaches the devotees how to properly undertake this practice. For example, 
the Rāmāyaṇa story of Vibhīṣaṇa is used to affirm the fact that self-surrender is available to all 
since a desire to attain God is the only qualification. He further suggests reading the passage as 
communicating that self-surrender is to be performed only once, according to the word “once” 
(sakṛd) in the passage. He then provides alternative ways of understanding this word and the 
entire passage through the words of the previous ācāryas, Eṃpār and Āḻvāṉ: 
 
264 See how Nañcīyar handles the Rāmāyaṇa in section 1.4 and more in Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God 
in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 98–126. 
265 This chapter is overwhelmed with the passages from the Bhagavadgītā instead of the Rāmāyaṇa. However, 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai also cites other passages from the Mahābhārata, in addition to the Bhagavadgītā. In this 
context, given the amounts of citations from the Rāmāyaṇa, it might be the case that he prefers the Rāmāyaṇa 
than the Mahābhārata. 
110 
 
 
If it is enough to do [surrender] once as stated in “for someone who surrenders 
to Me even once” [Rāmāyaṇa 6.12.20], then the present tense in the phrase, “I 
surrender,” shows that [surrender] is characterized as the knowledge which 
consists of determination like the knowledge which consists of meditative 
worship. The meditative worship is not to be performed once [since] it is to be 
repeated in a manner that it needs to be continued like an uninterrupted stream 
of oil. Then, one may ask how to reconcile between single performance as stated 
in “even once” and the present tense. [To answer,] the phrase “even once” 
reveals the fact that single performance is enough for God’s acceptance. The 
present tense shows that there is a continuation since one needs to spend time 
until the falling of the body and is eager to attain the desired result. Eṃpār stated, 
“If one were to look at the result one attains, it is such that it is inappropriate for 
one to say “once” even if one does not perform [self-surrender] until the fall of 
the body.” Alternatively, “even once” can be substituted with the word 
“immediately” when it is stated “for the one who surrenders even once.” Āḻvāṉ 
makes the substitution, saying “for the one who surrenders immediately.”266  
 
 
Previous ācāryas’s views on this passage are recorded here to support the position favored by 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai. At the same time, these views indicate that this Vibhīṣaṇa passage had 
already received attention in the theological context prior to Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai. 
The Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās seem to become important in the soteriology of self-surrender 
only around the time of these two authors. Compared to itihāsas, they play a more important 
role in Vātsya Varadaguru’s systematization of soteriological self-surrender. His incorporation 
of the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās to systematize self-surrender in Sanskrit is, in fact, innovative 
among the Sanskrit literature. The passages cited by Vātsya Varadaguru are from various 
Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās, such as the Paramasaṃhitā, the Lakṣmītantra, the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā, 
 
266 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 34: “sakṛd ēva prapannāya” eṉkiṟapaṭiyē sakṛtkaraṇam 
amaiyumākil, asakṛdāvṛttirūpamāṉa upāsaṉātmakajñāṉam pōlē inta adhyavasāyātmakajñāṉamum, “prapadyē” 
eṉkiṟa vartamāṉattāl tailadhārāvadavicchinnamāy pōravēṇṭuṃpaṭi tōṉṟāniṉṟatu. appōtu “sakṛd ēva” eṉkiṟa 
sakṛtkaraṇattukkum ivvarthamāṉattukkum cērttiyeṉṉeṉṉil: “sakṛd ēva” eṉkiṟaviṭaṃ, bhagavadviṣayīkārattukku 
sakṛtkaraṇaṃ amaiyumeṉṉum iṭattai prakāśippikkiṟatu; vartamāṉaṃ, yāvaśśarīrapātaṃ kālakṣēpāpekṣaiyālum, 
abhimataphalalābhatvaraiyāluṃ, anuvartikkum iṭattai prakāśippikkiṟatu. “yāvaśśarīrapātaṃ anuṣṭhiyāniṉṟālum 
peṟukiṟa phalattiṉ kaṉattai pārttāl, ‘sakṛd’ eṉkakkum pōrātapaṭikāṇ iruppatu!” eṉṟu empār aruḷicceyvar. 
aṅṅaṉaṉṟiyilē, ‘sahasaiva prapannāya’ eṉkiṟapaṭi” eṉṟu āḻvāṉ paṇikkum. 
111 
 
and also the lost Sātyakitantra.267 The Saṃhitās, especially the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā and the 
Lakṣmītantra, are the core texts that inform the characteristics and procedure of self-
surrender.268 These two texts must have circulated before the time of Vātsya Varadaguru and it 
is likely that the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā might have influenced Rāmānuja’s Nityagrantha.269 They 
are used to supplement the scripture such as śruti and smṛti in order to strengthen the doctrinal 
status of self-surrender. 
In the Prapannapārijāta, Vātsya Varadaguru defends the authority of the Pāñcarātra 
Samhitās based on their conformity with the Vedas. For example, Lakṣmītantra 17.94–99 state 
that the Vedas, including all the ritual actions according to one’s own caste (varṇa) and stage 
of life (āśrama), should not be violated even mentally as follows:270 
 
The wise one should always respect the good conducts prescribed by the 
Vedas as stated in this Tantra (the Lakṣmītantra) regarding the transgression of 
Vedic rules. 
“For the non-confusion of dharmas [by other means] and for the 
protection of a family, for the supporting of the world and for the establishment 
of the boundary, 
for the love of me [Śrī] and Viṣṇu, the Archer who is the God of gods, 
wise one would not transgress the rule even with the mind. 
Someone dear to the king [crosses] the river which was set in motion by 
the king and is useful for the world [since it is] pleasing and increasing crops. 
[If that person] destroys it with disregard, [he would not be loved by the 
king anymore.] In the same way, the man who transgresses the boundary made 
by the Vedas [would not be loved by God and Śrī any longer].”271 
 
267 Kumar proposes that the Lakṣmītantra and the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā were composed sometime from the 
ninth to the thirteenth century, and in the eighth century, respectively (The Goddess Lakṣmī, Chapter 3).  
268 Marlewicz suggests that the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā must have existed long enough before Vātsya Varadaguru 
for it to already become authoritative by him time (“Self-Surrender of the Afflicted One,” 304). 
269 Section 1.3. 
270 The 1971 edition of the Prapannapārijāta identifies the text as the Lakṣmītantra, 59–60.  
271 Vātsya Varadaguru, Prapannapārijāta, 40: 
vedoditaṃ sadācāra mādriyeta sadāsudhīḥ | asmin tantre yathoktaṃ tu vaidikācāralaṅghane ||  
aviplavāya dharmāṇāṃ pālanāya kulasya ca | saṃgrahāya ca lokānāṃ māryādāsthāpanāya ca || 
priyāya mama viṣṇoś ca devadevasya śārṅgiṇaḥ | manīṣī vaidikācāraṃ manasā ’pi na laṅghayet ||  
yathā hi vallabho rājño nadīṃ rājñā pravartitām | lokopayoginīṃ ramyāṃ bahusasyavivardhinīm ||  
laṅghayan śūlam ārohed anapekṣo ’pi tāṃ prati | evaṃ vilaṅghayan martyo maryādāṃ vedanirmitām || 
See Lakṣmītantra, ed.  V. Krishnamacharya (Madras: The Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1959), 59. The 
112 
 
 
Among the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās, Vātsya Varadaguru prefers the Lakṣmītantra, 
regarding it as the most significant source for the nature of self-surrender.272 He cites 
Lakṣmītantra 17.75 to define self-surrender and its auxiliaries, “offering (nyāsa) which is 
synonymous with laying down (nikṣepa) joined with five auxiliaries is called abandonment 
(tyāga) and also taking refuge (śaraṇāgati).”273 He further outlines the auxiliaries of self-
surrender through Lakṣmītantra 17.66–74.274 These passages conclude that self-surrender is 
equivalent to “the offering of oneself.”275 In addition, he argues that self-surrender, especially 
to Śrī, can also serve as an expiation based on Lakṣmītantra 17.92–95: 
 
A person, relying on this religious practice, should submit to Lord of the world, 
Viṣṇu. The meaning of the scripture is [that this self-surrender] done merely 
once may liberate that person. When there is a combination with the means and 
faults, the person lacks this religious practice. If you are overwhelmed by faults, 
one should do an expiation at once. The expiation here is you come to [God for] 
the refuge again. If you accept [the other] means as means, that [expiation] is 
just the same. When there is the undesirable consequence of the expiation whose 
origin is all sins, one should come seek refuge with me, the consort of God of 
gods, alone.276 
 
same passages are also found in Vedāntadeśika’s Nikṣeparakṣā, 22. See Chapter 4. 
272 Vātsya Varadaguru’s preference in the Lakṣmītantra further influenced the way Vedāntadeśika used the 
Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās in his Nikṣeparakṣā and also the Manipravalam Rahasyatrayasāram.  
273 Vātsya Varadaguru, Prapannapārijāta, 10: 
nikṣepāparaparyāyo nyāsaḥ pañcāṅgalakṣaṇaḥ | sanyāsas tyāga ity uktaḥ śaraṇāgatir ity api || See 
Lakṣmītantra, 58. 
274 See section 2.4.1. 
275 The same concept can be found in the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.43 (vol. 2, 372) that Vātsya Varadaguru does 
not mention in this context. See Oberhammer, “The Influence of Orthodox Vaiṣṇavism,” 48-49. 
276 Vātsya Varadaguru, Prapannapārijāta, 38–39: 
sakṛdeva hi śāstrārthaḥ kṛto ’yaṃ tārayen naram | upāyāpāyasaṃyoge niṣṭhayā hīyate ’nayā || 
apāyasampluve sadyaḥ prāyaścittaṃ samācaret | prāyaścittir iyaṃ sā ’tra yat punaś śaraṇaṃ vrajet ||  
upāyānām upāyatvasvīkāre py etad eva hi | prāyaścittaprasaṅge tu sarvapāpasamudbhave || 
mām ekāṃ devedevasya mahiṣīṃ śaraṇaṃ vrajet | 
It should be noted that the Lakṣmītantra, edition 1959, 59, has a different reading for the second part of verse 94 
onwards. This is how verses 94 and 95 read:  
upāyānām upāyatvasvīkāre 'py etad eva hi | aviplavāya dharmāṇāṃ pālanāya kulasya ca || 
saṃgrahāya ca lokasya maryādāsthāpanāya ca | priyāya mama viṣṇośca devadevasya śārṅgiṇaḥ || 
113 
 
 
Vātsya Varadaguru then cites Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.25–27 to claim that self-
surrender is the means to all desires that cannot be attained by other means:277 
 
Self-surrender is also explained in other places in the scripture in general. 
“Whatever goal which a person who desires it cannot attain by other 
means and cannot be attained by the one who desires liberation, Sāṃkhyā, Yoga, 
or devotion, that is the supreme abode from which there is no return again.  
That which is attained by anyone is only due to offering, O great sage! 
The Supreme Self, who is the Supreme Person, is also attained only by that 
[offering].  
The [means] by which the goal whose accomplishment is difficult 
through other means can be easily attained is established in the world and the 
Vedas as self-surrender (prapatti)” [Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.25–27].278 
  
 
Compared to Vātsya Varadaguru, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai sparsely cites the Pāñcarātra 
Saṃhitās, with fewer than ten citations from the Lakṣmītantra and the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 
collectively in the chapters on the Dvaya and the Caramaśloka. These few passages are inserted 
in different contexts, without much elaboration, and often combined with the passages from 
other sources. Moreover, he only mentions the first two auxiliaries of self-surrender from 
Lakṣmītantra 17.60 without citing the whole list, as seen in the Prapannapārijāta.279 Unlike in 
the Lakṣmītantra and the Prapannapārijāta, in which the two auxiliaries can be interpreted as 
pertaining to other beings, they are directed to God in the Parantarahasyam. According to 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, the two auxiliaries should be understood as the will to please [God] 
 
277 Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā, vol. 2, 369–370. 
278 Vātsya Varadaguru, Prapannapārijāta, 12–13: 
prapattir api samānyaśāstre ’nyatra prapañcitā | “yad yena kāmakāmena na sādhyaṃ sādhanāntaraiḥ || 
mumukṣuṇā na sāṃkhyena yogena na ca bhaktitaḥ | prāpyate paramaṃ dhāma yato nāvartate punaḥ || 
tena tenāpyate tattannyāsenaiva mahāmune! | paramātmā ca tenaiva sādhyate puruṣottamaḥ || 
sādhanāntaradussādhaṃ prāpyaṃ yallokavedayoḥ | sukhena prāpyate yena sā prapattir iti sthitiḥ” || 
279 Lakṣmītantra 17.60, 57. See the translation in the next footnote. 
114 
 
(ānukūlyasaṅkalpa) and the avoidance of hostility (prātikūlyavarjana).280  
Unlike Vātsya Varadaguru, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai includes more passages from the 
Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā than the Lakṣmītantra to define self-surrender as the determination of God 
as the means, to provide an injunction of self-surrender, and to argue that God is the means to 
liberation. For example, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai provides citations from Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 
37.30–31 to identify self-surrender as the mental determination to accept God as the means, the 
meaning embedded in the word “I surrender” in the Dvaya: “I surrender at the two feet of 
Nārāyaṇa with Śrī. I pay obeisance to Nārāyaṇa with Śrī” (śrīmannārāyaṇacaranau prapadye. 
śrīmate nārāyaṇāya namaḥ).281 
 
“I surrender” denotes movement from the root “to go” in the sense of movement. 
[And] it refers a particular knowledge as stated in “That which means movement 
refers to thinking.” The particular knowledge is a particular determination which 
consists of the great faith. [The determination] is preceded by the contemplation 
on one’s helplessness and so on as stated in “I [am the abode of sins]” 
[Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.30]. It incorporates a request as stated in “The thought 
in the form of a request” [Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.31] “surrendering is a 
request” [Attributed to Bharatamuni]. It is a qualification for the eligible, not 
being connected to the scope of being the means as stated in “May You alone be 
the means for me” [Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.31] [and] “The request that He 
alone be the means” [Attributed to Bharatamuni]. Since it consists of the 
acceptance of [God] as the means, it is not connected to the scope of being the 
goal either. Due to the first person in “I surrender,” it is [a reference to] one’s 
performance, thinking, “I accept the object previously stated [God] as the 
means.”282  
 
280 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 53: “Thus, as stated in ‘the will to please [and] the avoidance of 
hostility’ [Lakṣmītantra 17.60], like the will to please [God], the avoidance of hostility is stated to be the suitable 
state [for the soul].” (ākaiyiṟe, “ānukūlyasya saṅkalpaḥ prātikūlyasya varjanam” eṉṟu ānukūlyasaṅkalpattōpāti, 
prātikūlyanivṛttiyaiyum saṃbhāvitasvabhāvamākac collukiṟatu.) 
281 Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.30–31, vol. 2, 370: 
vartate sāṃprataṃ caiṣa upāyārthaikavācakaḥ | aham asmy aparādhānām ālayo ’kiṃcano ’gatiḥ ||  
tvamupāyobhūto me bhaveti prārthanāmatiḥ | śaraṇāgatir ity uktā sā deve 'smin prayujyatām || 
282 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 32: “prapadyē” eṉṟu, “padlu-gatau” eṉkiṟa dhātuvilē gatyarthamāy, 
“gatyarthāḥ-buddhyarthāḥ” eṉṟu, oru jñāṉaviśeṣattai collukiṟatu. anta jñāṉaviśēṣam ākiṟatu: — “aham” 
eṉkiṟapaṭiyē svākiñcanyātyanusandhāṉapūrvakamāy, “prārthanāmati” “yācñā prapattiḥ” eṉkiṟa paṭiyē 
prārthanākarppamāy, “tvam ēva upāyabhūtō mē bhava” “tatēkōpāyatāyācñā” eṉkiṟapaṭiyē, tāṉ upāyaśarīrattil 
anvayiyātē upāyasvīkārātmakam ākaiyālē upēyaśarīrattilum anvayiyātē adhikārikku viśēṣaṇamāy, 
115 
 
 
In the chapter on the Caramaśloka, to prove the injunctions for soteriological self-
surrender, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai includes, among other Sanskrit passages, the passages from 
Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.36, “But, among these austerities, an offering is heard as being the 
distinguished one,” and also Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.31, “What is stated as taking refuge 
should be used regarding God.”283 Finally, he interprets the word “refuge” in the Caramaśloka 
as the means based on Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.29–30.284 
Let me explain their different preferences in the case of the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās. Vātsya 
Varadaguru selects the Lakṣmītantra passages to propose his definition of self-surrender which 
has a form of a ritual offering, accompanied by auxiliaries. Unlike Vātsya Varadaguru, 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai emphasizes the role of God as the accomplished means that does not need 
to be performed. He also identifies self-surrender with the acceptance of God as the means. All 
of the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā passages that Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai uses conveniently contribute to 
this identification. It is important to note that both authors seem to cite passages from only some 
of the chapters of the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās. Their citations suggest that these Saṃhitās are not 
entirely devoted to the soteriology of self-surrender, which is one among many topics in these 
Saṃhitās and is usually dealt with in one or only a part of a chapter. Importantly, later authors 
usually refer to the same passages cited by Vātsya Varadaguru and Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai. 
This section shows the similarity in the way both authors use the Sanskrit scriptures, 
 
mahāviśvāsātmakamāṉa pratipattiviśēṣaṃ. “prapadyē” eṉṟu uttamaṉ ākaiyālē, “kīḻ uktamāṉa viṣayattai 
upāyatyā svīkarikkiṟēṉ” eṉṟu svānuṣṭhāṉamākak kiṭakkiṟatu. 
283 Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā, vol. 2, 371. Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 45.  
284 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 57: “The word ‘refuge’ is referred to in this way in the statement, 
“The word ‘refuge’ refers to the means of the house and protector. Thus, it is properly synonymous to the 
meaning of the word ‘means.’ [Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.29–30, vol. 2, 370] Thus, the word ‘refuge’ points to the 
means […].” (śaraṇaśabdaṃ “upāyē gṛharakṣitrō śabdaś śaraṇam ity ayaṃ, vartatē sāmpratañ caiṣa 
upāyārthataikavācakaḥ” eṉkiṟapaṭiyē ippōtu śaraṇaśabdam upāyavācakamāy […]).  
116 
 
śruti, itihāsas, and the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās, to validate and systematize the doctrine of self-
surrender in order to argue that they both share Rāmānuja’s Sanskrit normativity when it comes 
to soteriology. However, we also see the difference in these authors’ normative preferences, 
which might be rooted in the definition of self-surrender that each advocates. In particular, even 
if both authors acknowledge the two Saṃhitās, each chooses to focus on the one suitable for 
his version of self-surrender.285 The following sections highlight the distinction between the 
Prapannapārijāta and the Parantarahasyam based on two main features found in the 
Parantarahasyam but absent in the Prapannapārijāta, namely the use of Tamil language and 
scripture and the incorporation of the three secrets to show the distinction between the ways 
both authors engage with different linguistic spheres.  
 
2.2 The Incorporation of the Tamil Language and Scripture 
Although Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai acknowledges the Sanskrit authority, he does not find it sufficient. 
Like other Manipravalam authors, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai argues for the importance of the Tamil 
side of the community in his systematization of self-surrender. In contrast to Periyavāccāṉ 
Piḷḷai, Vātsya Varadaguru is silent about both the Tamil scripture and the oral teachings in his 
Prapannapārijāta. It may be the case that the lack of Tamil and Tamil scripture in the Sanskrit 
text shapes Vātsya Varadaguru to pay less attention to the practical issues of self-surrender, of 
which the Tamil scrip 
ture and ācāryas’ teachings are the main sources. Moreover, given that the Prapannapārijāta 
centers on the validation of the doctrine of self-surrender, we may assume that Vātsya 
Varadaguru aims at a different mode of expression for his soteriology of self-surrender without 
 
285 We will see in Chapter 4 that Vedāntadeśika gives importance to both Saṃhitās and tries to harmonize them 
in his Nikṣeparakṣā.  
117 
 
focusing on the practical and experiential expressions that are more effectively expressed by 
Tamil. 
In what follows, I focus on Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s use of Tamil to argue that it is the 
language used for conversing with the community as it is a more accessible language than 
Sanskrit and prioritizes the relationship between God and the devotees. Given this, 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai uses Tamil to clarify Sanskrit passages and to speak to his audience as 
shown in the first section below. Moreover, the presence of Tamil in his Manipravalam text 
invites the Tamil norm into discussions, namely the Āḻvārs’ Tamil hymns, which remind the 
audience that the doctrine of self-surrender is of Tamil heritage that is part of the community. 
The importance given to Tamil here further reflects Nañcīyar’s influence. 
 
2.2.1 Talking to the Community in Tamil 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai defends the validity of Tamil by reiterating Nañcīyar’s justification of the 
Tamil scripture and language at the beginning of his Manipravalam commentary on the 
Tiruvāyomoḻi, the Iruppattunālāyirappaṭi. In fact, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai reuses Nañcīyar’s 
argument verbatim, stating that Tamil is a valid language for theological expression and is more 
accessible than Sanskrit.286 Although Tamil represents the devotional expression, it does not 
contradict Vedic orthodoxy.287 Thus, the language is a medium for the soteriological expression 
of self-surrender. In the Parantarahasyam, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai uses Tamil citations and 
dialogue to clarify various features of self-surrender and theological positions. 
In the Parantarahasyam, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai interweaves the Sanskrit and Tamil 
 
286 Pakavat Viṣayam, 59–63. For the discussion of Nañcīyar’s argument, see section 1.4. 
287 For Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s reiteration, see Pakavat Viṣayam, 59–63. For other examples of his high regard for 
Tamil, see Venkatachari, The Manipravāla Literature of the Śrīvaiṣṇava Ācāryas, 27–29. 
118 
 
citations, usually giving the Sanskrit citations first, followed by the Tamil passages. The 
citations in these two languages mirror one another and convey the same message. In some 
places, instead of providing Tamil citations to pair with Sanskrit ones, he paraphrases the cited 
Sanskrit passages into Tamil after the Sanskrit citations. For example, in the chapter on the 
Tirumantra, he paraphrases into Tamil the Sanskrit verses from Yāmuna’s Stotraratna 52 and 
57 to explain the soul’s subservience to God, which is the meaning embedded in the letter m, 
the last letter of aum (praṇava):288  
 
It is concerning the predominance of subservience that Āḷavantar [Yāmuna] too 
said “Whatever there may be in [my] body and so on” [Stotraratna 52] “I cannot 
tolerate even the self if it is outside of the property of being subservient to You 
[God]” [Stotraratna 57]. He revealed, “The soul can be any of these, the body, 
sense organs, mind, breath, or others, I do not need a description. I do not 
need to describe its state. Whatever it may be, I only need [it] to be 
subservient to You. Without the subservience, I do need even the 
distinguished soul itself.”289  
 
 
However, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai does not systematically translate all of the Sanskrit 
citations into Tamil, to my knowledge. Some Sanskrit citations are presumably translated so 
that they are accessible to those who are not well-versed in Sanskrit. Alternatively, he may use 
the Tamil translation to capture the essence of the Sanskrit citations or to indicate the way the 
Sanskrit passages should be understood in a certain context. Tamil serves here as the medium 
for clarification and accessibility. Thus, through the translation, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai clarifies the 
difficulties found in the Sanskrit passages and avoids any misunderstandings that might occur 
 
288 Yāmuna, Stotraratna 52 and 57, 102 and 108. 
289 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 13 (emphasis mine): śēṣatvattiṉuṭaiya prādhāṉyattaip paṟṟaviṟē 
āḷavantārum, “vapurādiṣu yō ’pi kō ’pi vā” “tava śēṣatvavibhavāt bahirbhūtam—ātmānam api na sahē” eṉṟu, 
“ātmavastu, dēhēndriyamanaḥprāṇādikaḷilē ētēṉum oṉṟākavum amaiyum; eṉakku itiṉuṭaiya 
svarūpanirṇayamum vēṇṭā; svabhāvanirṇayamum vēṇṭā; ētēṉumāka dēvarīrukku śēṣamām ittaṉaiyē vēṇṭuvatu. 
śēṣaṉṟākil vilakṣaṇamāṉa inta ātmavastutaṉṉaiyum vēṇṭāṉ” eṉṟu aruḷicceytatum. I bold the paraphrased Tamil 
passage in this passage. 
119 
 
if the audience only had Sanskrit available.  
Moreover, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai uses Tamil to construct a number of the thoughts and 
dialogues between the devotee and God and also between God and Śrī. This is not unique and 
may have been influenced by the practices of the Tiruvāymoḻi commentaries, which employ 
these methods to shape a narrative of Nammāḻvār’s spiritual experience.290 For example, 
towards the end of the Caramaśloka Chapter, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai shows that the Caramaśloka 
describes the surrendering process of an eligible person through God’s speech, where God 
speaks in the first person. In the speech, God instructs the eligible person to take refuge with 
Him and affirms that the only soteriological means is self-surrender:  
 
Having abandoned those means previously stated [in the Bhagavadgītā] as the 
means to liberation along with their auxiliaries and traces, take Me instead of 
them since they rely on Me to do what is to be done, but I am independent. Make 
a firm determination that I alone, the One who is characterized by qualities, 
beginning with unconditional parental love, am the means, the manner of 
accomplishing (sādhana) and the goal (sādhya), for both the cessation of 
undesirable things and the attainment of desirable things. This is necessary for 
you to do. Then, being the One who is accepted by you, I, am full of qualities 
such as knowledge, power, and so on, in such a way that I am suitable to be the 
means to what you desire. I shall cause all of the sins, which are obstacles to 
attaining Me, to be expelled for you who have given up your burden on Me. 
After that, you should not grieve because of the difficulty of the means stated.291  
 
This dialogue provides the impression that God is speaking to the audience who is referred to 
as the listener(s) or “you” in the passage, instructing His devotee about self-surrender and 
 
290 For information on the commentarial construction of Nammāḻvār’s spiritual experience, see Clooney, Seeing 
through Texts, and Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism. 
291 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 50: mōkṣasādhanatayā kīḻuktamāṉa sādhaṉaṅkaḷai sāṅkamākavum 
savāsanamākavum viṭṭu, avaṟṟukkum eṉṉaik koṇṭu kāryam koḷḷavēṇṭumpaṭiyumāy, svayam nirapēkṣaṉāy, 
nirupādhikavātsalyādiguṇaviśiṣṭaṉāṉa eṉṉaiyē avvō sādhanasādhyamāṉa aniṣṭanivṛttikkum iṣṭaprāptikkum 
upāyamāka dṛḍhātyavasāyattaip paṇṇum ituvē uṉakkuc ceyyavēṇṭuvatu; piṉpu tvatsvīkṛtaṉāy 
tvatabhimatasādhaṉayōgyaṉāmpaṭi jñāṉaśaktyādiguṇapūrṇaṉāṉa nāṉ, eṉkaiyilē nyastabharaṉāṉa uṉṉai 
matprāptivirōdhikaḷāṉa sakalapāpaṅkaḷum tāṉē viṭṭup pōmpaṭi paṇṇakkaṭavēṉ; āṉapiṉpu uktamāṉa 
sādhanaduṣkaratvātikaḷālē śōkikkakkaṭavaiy allai. 
120 
 
invites the audience of the text to identify themselves with the practice of self-surrender because 
it is accessible and inclusive of the devotees who are directly and intimately instructed by God 
Himself. It is important to note that we have seen God’s speech already in Rāmānuja’s 
Gadyatraya, which was likely known to both Vātsya Varadaguru and Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai.292 
Interestingly, this dialogical style with God speaking in the first person is only continued in the 
Manipravalam treatise, but not the Sanskrit one. This shows that the style became a part of the 
Manipravalam expression and less dominant in Sanskrit perhaps due to the Manipravalam 
commentaries. 
In addition, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai integrates the Āḻvārs’ Tamil poems, indicating that they 
are the means of knowledge regarding the ideal or proper practices forming a counterpart to the 
Sanskrit normativity that focuses on the validation and debates of self-surrender. Periyavāccāṉ 
Piḷḷai regards these poems as illustrating the actual surrendering practices of the Āḻvārs. Since 
the Āḻvārs themselves undertake self-surrender to attain liberation, they can validly direct other 
people in the community and the proper practices, and their poems should be taken as 
authoritative regarding self-surrender.  
 
2.2.2 The Āḻvārs’ Tamil Hymns 
The first two Manipravalam commentators before this time had already established the 
authority of the Tamil scripture.293 To continue this argument, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai advocates 
for the importance of the Tamil poems by commenting on the entire Nālāyirativiyappirapantam 
and expands on the earlier two commentaries on the Tiruvāymoḻi in various manners, such as 
 
292 Section 1.3. 
293 For more information on the commentaries on each work of the Nālāyirativiyappirapantam, see section 1.4 
and Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 19–20. 
121 
 
bringing in both Tamil and Sanskrit authoritative passages and weaving the three secrets with 
the Tiruvāymoḻi.294 
In the introduction of the Parantarahasyam, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai argues that the Sanskrit 
scripture is a part of a hierarchical chain of authority, consisting of the Upaniṣads, the 
reinforcing texts, namely itihāsas and Purāṇas, the Āḻvārs’ poems, and the teachings, all of 
which affirm the soteriological validity and power of the Tirumantra.295 This chain suggests 
that the Sanskrit scripture is not the only main authoritative source. For the Tiruvāymoḻi, in 
particular, he agrees with Nañcīyar’s argument in his introduction to his Manipravalam 
commentary that the Tiruvāymoḻi should be considered the revealed text that is in accordance 
with the Sanskrit Vedas. Importantly, it is more accessible since Tamil is the language of the 
region.296  
In the Parantarahasyam, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai pays attention to Tiruvāymoḻi 6.10.10 
where Nammāḻvār performs self-surrender, which takes the form of mental acceptance of God 
as the means and the goal:297 “‘I won’t part from you for an instant’ says Śrī who rests on your 
chest, lord of matchless fame, holder of the three worlds, my king, master of Vēṅkaṭam dear to 
peerless immortals and sages with nowhere else to go, I’ve settled at your feet.”298 The notion 
that Tiruvāymoḻi 6.10.10 is the moment of Nammāḻvār’s self-surrender is reiterated in 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s commentary of the Tiruvāymoḻi, the Irupattunālāyirappaṭi, and shared by 
 
294 See other strategies of Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s expansion in Clooney, “Nammāḻvār’s Glorious Tiruvallavāḻ.” 
295 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 5: “Thus, the Āḻvārs who have the direct perception of the Upaniṣads 
respect it since the Upaniṣads along with the reinforcing texts respect it. The ācāryas respect it since the Āḻvārs 
respect it. We should respect this particular mantra [Tirumantra] since the ācāryas respect it.” (āka 
sōpabṛmhaṇaṅkaḷāṉa vēdāntaṅkaḷ ādarikkaiyālē, anta vēdāntasākṣātkāraṃ paṇṇiṉa āḻvārkaḷ ādarittārkaḷ. 
āḻvārkaḷ ādarikkaiyālē, ācāryarkaḷ ādarittārkaḷ. ācāryarkaḷ ādarittapaṭiyālē, namakku iṃmantraviśēṣamē 
ādaraṇīyamākak kaṭavatu).  
296 Section 1.4. 
297 See the nature of self-surrender in the Parantarahasyam in section 2.4. 
298 Translated by Venkatesan in Endless Song, 215. For the text, see Nālāyirativviyappirapantam, 553. 
122 
 
the other commentators of the Tiruvāymoḻi.299 However, it is important to note that Tiruvāymoḻi 
6.10.10 is not the only verse of surrendering among all the Āḻvārs’ poems. Commenting on the 
word “I surrender” (prapadye) in the Dvaya, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai includes Tiruvāymoḻi 6.10.10 
and also Tirumaṅkai Āḻvār’s Ciriyatirumatal 23.300 These passages exemplify the verbal form 
of self-surrender, characterized as a request that God would protect oneself, along with the 
requests of Vibhīṣaṇa and Rāmānuja from the Rāmāyaṇa and the Śaraṇāgatigadya, 
respectively. Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai uses the Tamil scripture to idealize the surrendering of the 
Āḻvārs and points to the practices that the audience should follow: 
 
Alternatively, [the word “I surrender”] means activity as it states “a movement” 
either through the mind, speech, or body. Mental movement refers to the 
determination that [God is] the means. Verbal movement points to a request with 
one’s mouth by means of words that He would protect [one] as in the statements, 
“I [Vibhīṣaṇa] have come to Rāma for refuge” [Rāmāyaṇa 6.11.14], “I’ve settled 
at your feet” [Tiruvāymoḻi 6.10.10], “O Nārāyaṇa, One with the color of the 
[blue] gem! One whose bed is the serpent (Ananta), come and remove my 
difficult affliction” [Ciriyatirumatal 23]. “[I] state the Dvaya” 
[Śaraṇāgatigadya].301 
 
 
In some places, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai illustrates the practices of God Himself through the 
Āḻvārs’ poems, especially Tiruvāymoḻi 6.10.10. According to Clooney, God’s activity increases 
after Tiruvāymoḻi 6.10, including God’s pursuit of Nammāḻvār.302 In this regard, the Tamil 
hymns are used for theological instruction. For example, in his interpretation of the first line of 
the Dvaya, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai outlines the four qualities—parental affection (vātsalya), 
 
299 Section 1.4. 
300 See Ciriyatirumatal 23 in Nālāyirativviyappirapantam, 727. 
301 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 33: aṅṅaṉ aṉṟiyilē, “gati” eṉṟu vyāpāramāy, mānasagatiyaiyum 
vācikagatiyaiyum kāyikagatiyaiyum colliṟṟākavumām. mānasagatiyāvatu: upāyatvēna adhyavasikkai; 
vācikagatiyāvatu: “rāghavaṃ śaraṇaṃ gataḥ” “aṭikkīḻamarntu pukuntēṉ” “nārāyaṇā! maṇivaṇṇā! nākaṇaiyāy! 
vārāy eṉṉ āriṭarai nīkkāy” “dvayavaktā” eṉṟu collukiṟapaṭiyē, rakṣittaruḷavēṇum eṉṟu vāyālē prārttikkai. See 
Rāmāyaṇa 6.11.14, vol. 6, 58. 
302 Clooney, Seeing through Texts, Chapter 3. 
123 
 
lordship (svāmītva), disposition (śīla), and accessibility (saulabhya)—that are manifest in God 
when He becomes a refuge for the devotee.303 He then supports God’s manifestation of the 
qualities in the context of self-surrender with Periya Āḻvār’s Tirumoḻi 4.9.2, Tiruvāymoḻi 
6.10.10, and the Rāmāyaṇa passages.304  
So far, I have shown how Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai inherits the Tamil language and scripture 
from the Tiruvāymoḻi commentarial corpus that is embedded in the Manipravalam sphere. In 
some places, he clarifies the Sanskrit passages by translating them into Tamil and constructs 
dialogues in Tamil to actualize the relationship between the devotee and God. In addition to the 
use of Tamil, he incorporates the Āḻvārs’ Tamil poems to show that they play a role in the 
systematization of self-surrender and cites them to illustrate the ideal practices, in particular. 
The expressions about experience and practices are more accessible and relatable for the 
audience in comparison to the philosophical and theological Sanskrit expression which are 
limited to the intellectual and philosophical domain. Compared to the Sanskrit authoritative 
passages, the Tamil poems present a more intimate and accessible form of authority. They bring 
the doctrine of self-surrender closer to the audience, showing that it belongs to the community 
and can be immediately accessed through God’s instruction and the Āḻvārs’ models. 
Importantly, they encourage the audience of the Parantarahasyam to identify themselves with 
the devotee in the paradigm of self-surrender. Although this identification is not too explicit 
here, it lays the foundation for the later authors, such as Vedāntadeśika, to advance a stronger 
notion of the community based on the doctrine of self-surrender. In what follows, I will explore 
another critical norm in Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s system of self-surrender, the paradigm of the three 
 
303 Section 3.2.  
304 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 30. See section 3.2. 
124 
 
secrets.  
 
2.3 The Three Secrets as the Embodiment of Self-surrender 
The paradigm of the three secrets is first recorded in Parāśara Bhaṭṭar’s Aṣṭaślokī, which was 
known to Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai.305 Despite being preceded by other Manipravalam authors such 
as Tirukkurukaip Piraṉ Piḷḷāṉ and Nañcīyar, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai was the first one to 
systematically elaborate on self-surrender through the interpretation of the three secrets, giving 
rise to the genre of the rahasyagranthas. The rahasyagranthas mainly aim to expound self-
surrender through the interpretations of the three secrets and claim that they encode self-
surrender. To establish the three secrets as parallel to Sanskrit and Tamil norms, Periyavāccāṉ 
Piḷḷai explains that they are in accordance with other authoritative passages in Sanskrit and 
Tamil and that they can be interpreted through Mīmāṃsā hermeneutics, which is accepted by 
Rāmānuja in his Sanskrit doctrinalization of bhakti.306 
 
2.3.1 The Genealogy of the Three Secrets 
It should be noted that the three secrets can be found together for the first time in the Sanskrit 
Aṣṭaślokī (“The Eight Verses”) of Parāśara Bhaṭṭar, who was Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s predecessor, 
Nañcīyar’s teacher, and also in the Teṅkalai lineage of ācāryas.307 The Aṣṭaślokī, the first work 
to set out and explore the three secrets, can be considered the predecessor of the 
rahasyagranthas.308 Either due to the limitation of the poetic style or the intention to keep them 
 
305 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai cites the Aṣṭaślokī like the third verse in the Parantarahasyam, 59, for example. See 
section 2.4.2. 
306 Section 1.1.  
307 His date is uncertain. See introductory section of Chapter 1. For his life and other works, see Padmanabhan, 
Pārāśarabhaṭṭa. 
308 For the text and translation, see Mumme, The Mumukṣuppaṭi of Piḷḷai Lokācārya, Appendix 1, and 
Raghunathan, “Śrī Parāśara Bhaṭṭa’s Aṣṭaślokī,” 683-705. For more information, see ibid. 
125 
 
secretive, Parāśara Bhaṭṭar never reveals the whole secret and interprets each part of the three 
secrets separately. 
The three secrets are sacred formulas or mantras. However, that they are normally 
referred to by the word “rahasya,” which literary means “a secret,” until the time of 
Vedāntadeśika who usually uses the terms “rahasya” and “mantra” interchangeably in his 
Rahasyatrayasāram to refer to the three secrets.309 The three secrets appeared separately in the 
Śrīvaiṣṇava literature before the time of Parāśara Bhaṭṭar: 1) The Mūla or Tirumantra, “Aum, I 
pay obeisance to Nārāyaṇa” (“aum namo nārāyaṇāya”), was referred to by the Āḻvārs, namely 
Periyāḻvār, Tirumaṅkaiāḻvār, and Tirumaḻicaiāḻvār, as “the eight syllables.”310 2) The Dvaya, “I 
surrender at the two feet of Nārāyaṇa with Śrī. I pay obeisance to Nārāyaṇa with Śrī” 
(śrīmannārāyaṇacaranau prapadye. śrīmate nārāyaṇāya namaḥ), is mentioned in Rāmānuja’s 
Śaraṇāgatigadya as “dvaya” but not spelled out. The tradition today records that Rāmānuja 
undergoes initiation with Periya Nambi (Mahā Pūrṇa) through the recitation of the Dvaya.311 In 
Parāśara Bhaṭṭar’s commentary on the Viṣṇusahasranāma, it is referred to as a mantra.312 3) 
The Caramaśloka, “Having abandoned all dharma, come to Me alone as refuge. I will free you 
from all sins. Do not grieve” (sarvadharmān parityajya mām ekam śaraṇaṃ vraja. ahaṃ tvā 
mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ), is cited in Rāmānuja’s Śaraṇāgatigadya and is in the Gītabhāṣya but 
is not called “Caramaśloka.” It is mentioned in Parāśarar Bhaṭṭar’s Aṣṭaślokī as “the last 
statement” (carama-vākya).313  
In the Aṣṭaślokī, the meanings of these three statements are spelled out and connected 
 
309 See Chapter 5. 
310 Narayanan, The Way and the Goal, 49. 
311 Carman, The Theology of Rāmānuja. 
312 Narayanan, The Way and the Goal, 140. 
313 Mumme, The Mumukṣuppaṭi of Piḷḷai Lokācārya, Appendix 1, 211. 
126 
 
with self-surrender, collectively framing its theology. Particularly in the verses on the Dvaya 
and the Caramaśloka, Aṣṭaślokī 6 and 8, self-surrender is defined as an attitude or a decision to 
choose God as the means preceded by the performer’s helplessness and inability to save 
himself: 
 
Having approached Śrī, the eternally inseparable consort of the Lord of 
the universe, I resort to the feet of Hari [Viṣṇu], endowed with a host of qualities 
suitable for taking refuge, as my chosen upāya [means]. Wanting nothing for 
myself, I request to do complete service forever to my Lord who is joined with 
Śrī.314 
Convinced of my eternal dependence on you, O Hari, I am incompetent 
to do or even relinquish the upāyas such as karma[yoga], or to surrender (to 
you). Thus I am afflicted with misery. Knowing this, please destroy all my prior 
sins. I am firmly remembering your last words, O Charioteer [Kṛṣṇa].315  
 
Both verses highlight the fact that God is the means to the goal, i.e., service to God Himself. 
However, the role of the devotee, the speaker of these secrets, is quite passive and insignificant 
compared to God’s role. Although the theology of self-surrender in the Aṣṭaślokī is not 
systematic or elaborate, the notions embedded in the interpretation of the three secrets serve as 
the model for the Manipravalam rahasyagranthas.  
In the beginning of the Parantarahasyam, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai defends the soteriological 
importance of the three secrets by classifying them as being a part of Vedic orthodoxy: among 
the various scriptures that constitute Vedic orthodoxy, the paradigm of the three secrets is the 
basis for the doctrine of self-surrender. Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai then outlines the roles, meanings, 
and status of the three secrets. According to him, the classification links the three secrets to self-
surrender and justifies the necessity of all of them individually and collectively in the doctrinal 
 
314 Translated by Mumme, ibid., 210. 
315 Translated by Mumme also, ibid., 211. 
127 
 
systematization. It should be noted that like Parāśara Bhaṭṭar, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai separates the 
whole secret into parts in his treatise. 
First, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai proclaims the Tirumantra to be the authority within Vedic 
orthodoxy since it is the essence of both the Vedas and the Upaniṣads. Next, the Dvaya 
communicates the practice of learned people and thus comes in subsequently to support the 
Tirumantra. Then, the Caramaśloka presents God’s speech, which is in accordance with the two 
secrets. Thus, all of the three secrets should be known since they are validated by different 
forms of authorities, namely śruti, practice, and God.316 Moreover, the three secrets reveal 
different aspects of self-surrender, namely the nature of the soul for the Tirumantra, the goal 
for the Dvaya, and the means for the Caramaśloka. Thus, they should be studied together.317 
Finally, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai pairs the three secrets with each set of authorities. The Tirumantra 
is identified with śruti; the texts that strengthen the Vedas or itihāsas and Purāṇas are 
represented by the Caramaśloka; and the Dvaya is the authority of the practice.  
 
Thus, the Tirumantra affirms that the meaning is established in the scriptures; 
the Caramaśloka affirms that the meaning is established in the reinforcing texts; 
the Dvaya offers [the meaning] as the practice for oneself. In the same way that 
the rest of the [Tiru] mantra explain aum (praṇava), the Dvaya explains the rest 
of the [Tiru] mantra, and the Caramaśloka explains the meaning of the Dvaya. 
Since that is the case, all three of them should be known.318 
 
 
316 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 1–2. 
317 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 3: “Thus, all the three [secrets] should be known since there is 
authority which is the reason to accept the meanings for each of these three [secrets] in this way. Moreover, the 
Tirumantra aims at communicating the truth regarding [the soul’s] nature. The Dvaya aims at communicating the 
truth regarding the goal. The Caramaśloka aims at communicating the truth regarding the means. Since that is the 
case, all of the three [secrets] should be known.” (āka ippaṭi arthattārṭyahētubhūtamāṉa prāmāṇyam ivai 
mūṉṟukkum taṉittaṉiyē uṇṭu ākaiyālē, immūṉṟum jñātavyamākak kaṭavatu. kiñca, tirumantra, 
svarūpayātātmyapratipādanaparamākaiyālum, dvayam upēyayātātmyapratipādanaparamākaiyālum, 
caramaślōkam upāyayātātmyapratipādanaparamākaiyālum, immūṉṟum jñātavyamākak kaṭavatu). 
318 Ibid., 3: ivvarthattai śāstrasiddham ākkukiṟatu–tirumantram; upabṛmhaṇasiddham ākkukiṟatu–
caramaślōkam; svānuṣṭhāṉamākkit tarukiṟatu–dvayam. praṇavattukku mantraśēṣam vivaraṇamāṉap pōlē, 
mantraśēṣattai dvayam vivarikkaiyālum, dvayārthattai caramaślōkam vivarikkaiyālum immūṉṟum 
jñātavyamākak kaṭavatu. 
128 
 
 
Through various levels of classification, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai suggests that the three secrets are 
the comprehensive embodiment of self-surrender, and they are indispensable in its 
systematization. The meanings of each secret are outlined at the end of each chapter as follows: 
 
1) The Tirumantra 
 
In aum (praṇava), it is stated as follows: The Lord is the Master of all; the 
essence of the sentient being is subservience to no others [but Him]; dependency 
on oneself and subservience to others [apart from the Lord] are contradictory to 
the essential nature [of the sentient being]. In the word “I pay obeisance,” it is 
stated: The Lord is the infallible means; the sentient being has no other refuge, 
the inclination toward one’s protection is damaging to one’s essential nature. In 
the last word [“nārāyaṇa”], it is stated that being the Lord’s servant is the highest 
goal [for the sentient being]; the one [the sentient being] has no other enjoyment; 
[the sentient being’s] connection to other goals is improper. Thus, by this 
[Tirumantra], it is stated: the superiority to Matter (prakṛti) of the sentient being, 
the subservient one is superior to Matter, the subservient one is worthy of no 
other, the recipient of the subservience to no other, exclusive subservience, the 
removal of ego and possessiveness of the one who is subservient to no other, the 
total dependence of the essential nature from which [ego and possessiveness] 
have been removed, such subservience that is the absolute dependence, the 
means which conforms to the one who is dependent [on the Lord], the service 
which is the result of the means, and the recipient of the service.319  
  
2) The Dvaya 
 
Thus, by these two statements, the means and the goal stated by the two words 
[“śrīman-nārāyaṇa”] are requested immediately after the knowledge of the 
[soul’s] essential nature. In the first statement, the verb, “I surrender” 
(prapadye), states the mental determination (adhyavasāya). The word “refuge” 
(śaraṇa) communicates the means (upāya), having differentiated it from the 
mental determination of the goal. Saying “the feet of Nārayaṇa” 
 
319 Ibid., 19: īśvaraṉ sarvaśēṣiyāy irukkum; cētanavastu avaṉukku ananyārhaśēṣamāy irukkum; 
svasvātantryamum, anyaśēṣatvamum, svarūpavirodhiyākak kaṭavatu; eṉṟu collukiṟatu—praṇavattilē. 
namaśśabdattilē, īśvaraṉuṭaiya nirapāyōpāyatvamum, cētanaṉuṭaiya ananyaśāraṇatvamum, svarakṣaṇapravṛtti 
svarūpahāni eṉṉum iṭamum colliṟṟāyiṟṟu. īśvarakiñcitkārattiṉuṭaiya paramaprāpyatvamum, ivaṉuṭaiya 
ananyabhōgatvamum, prāpyāntarasaṃbandham aprāptam eṉṉum iṭamum caramapadattālē colliṟṟāyiṟṟu. āka, 
ittāl cētanaṉuṭaiya prakṛtēḥparatvamum, prakṛtēḥparaṉuṭaiya śēṣatvamum, śēṣatvattiṉuṭaiya anantārhataiyum, 
ananyārhaśēṣatvapratisaṃbandhiyaiyum, ananyārhaśēṣabhūtaṉuṭaiya ahaṅkāramamakāranivṛttiyaiyum, 
tannivṛttamāṉa svarūpattiṉuṭaiya atyantapāratantaryattaiyum, pāratantryakāṣṭaiyāṉa tadīyaśēṣatvattaiyum, 
paratantraṉukku anurūpamāṉa upāyattaiyum, upāyaphalamāṉa kaiṅkaryattaiyum, 
kaiṅkaryapratisaṃbandhiyaiyum collukiṟatu.  
129 
 
(nārāyaṇacaraṇau) differentiates this means from the means to be accomplished 
(sādhyopāya). The word “with Śrī” (śrīmat) states the way of approaching the 
accomplished means [God]. The word “I pay obeisance” states the removal of 
obstacles which continue in the state of the goal. The fourth-case ending [of the 
word “nārāyaṇa”] states the service which is the goal of that [soul]. The word 
“nārāyaṇa” states the recipient of that service. The word “with Śrī” (śrīmat, the 
second one) completes the recipient. Therefore, it is stated: the removal of the 
opposition to the service, the service, the recipient of the service, the 
completeness of the recipient, the mental determination that a particular eligible 
person who grasps that [service], the place where that is stated as the mental 
determination of the means, the state of that means as already accomplished, and 
the mediation that causes one to enter into the accomplished means.320 
 
3) The Caramaśloka 
 
Discussed [here] are the particular dharmas that are to be abandoned as an 
auxiliary of the acceptance [of God] (sarvadharmān);321 the manner of the 
abandonment of those dharmas (parityajya); God, who is accepted to be 
preceded by that abandonment, is endowed with qualities, beginning with 
accessibility (mām); the independence, characterized by intolerance of any 
auxiliaries, of the One with those particular qualities [, beginning with 
accessibility] (ekam); the state of the independent One as a means (śaraṇam); 
the acceptance of Him as the means (vraja); the possession of qualities such as 
knowledge, power, and so on of the means who is accepted (aham); the eligible 
person whose burden [of protecting oneself] has been given up to the One with 
those qualities (tvā); the collection of sins that are obstacles to that eligible 
person (sarvapāpebhyo); the manner of liberation of those sins (mokṣayiṣyāmi); 
[and] the freedom from the burden of the eligible one who accepts the One who 
removes sins (mā śucaḥ).322  
 
320 Ibid., 43: āka, ivvākyatvattālum svarūpajñānāṉantarabhāviyāy padadvayōktamāṉa upāyōpēyaṅkaḷai 
prārttittatāy niṉṟatu. atil pūrvavākyattil “prapadyē” eṉkiṟa kriyāpadam, adhyavasāyattaic collukiṟatu. atukku 
upēyādhyavasāyavyāvṛttiyaip paṇṇittarukiṟatu: upāyavācakamāṉa caraṇaśabdaṃ. anta upāyattukku 
sādhyōpāyavyāvṛttiyai paṇṇittarukiṟatu: “nārāyaṇacaraṇau” eṉṟu. anta siddhasādhaṉattil iḻiyum tuṟaiyaic 
collikiṟatu: śrīmatpadam. prāpyadēśānuvṛttivirōdhiyiṉuṭaiya nivṛttiyaic collukiṟatu: namaśśabdam. avaṉukku 
prāpyamāṉa kaiṅkaryattaic collukiṟatu: caturthī. anta kaiṅkaryapratisaṃbandhiyai collukiṟatu: 
nārāyaṇaśabdaṃ. pratisaṃbandhiyaip pūrittut tarukiṟatu śrīmatpadam. āka, kaiṅkaryavirōdhinivṛttiyaiyum, 
kaiṅkaryattaiyum, kaiṅkaryapratisaṃbandhiyaiyum, pratisaṃbandhipūrtiyaiyum, attaip peṟukiṟa 
adhikāriviśēṣaṇamāṉa adhyavasāyattaiyum, atu upāyādhyavasāyam eṉṉum iṭattaiyuṃ, anta upāyattiṉuṭaiya 
siddhatvattaiyum, anta siddhōpāyattilē mūṭṭum puruṣakāratvattaiyum colliṟṟāyiṟṟu. 
321 I add the Sanskrit terms and phrases from the Caramaśloka in this translation to indicate the progression of 
the commentary. 
322 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 60: āka, svīkārāṅkatayā tvājyamāṉa dharmaviśēṣaṅkaḷaiyum anta 
dharmaṅkaḷiṉuṭaiya tyāgaprakārattaiyum, anta dharmatyāgapūrvakamākap paṟṟum viṣayattiṉuṭaiya 
saulabhyādiguṇayōkattaiyum, anta guṇaviśiṣṭavastuviṉuṭaiya sahāyāsahatvalakṣaṇamāṉa nairapēkṣyattaiyum, 
nirapēkṣavastuviṉuṭaiya upāyabhāvatataiyum, attai upāyatvena svīkarikkaiyum, svīkṛtamāṉa upāyattiṉuṭaiya 
jñānaśaktyātiguṇayōgattaiyum, anta guṇaviśiṣṭavastuviṉ pakkalilē nyastabharaṉāṉa adhikāriyaiyum, anta 
adhikāriyiṉuṭaiya virōdhipāpasamūhattaiyum, anta pāpavimōcaṉaprakārattaiyum, pāpavimōcakaṉaip paṟṟiṉa 
adhikāriyiṉuṭaiya nairpparyattaiyum colliṟṟāyiṟṟu. 
130 
 
 
2.3.2 The Three Secrets as Manipravalam Normativity 
 
Even if the three secrets are all in Sanskrit, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai claims that they parallel not only 
to various Sanskrit authoritative passages, but also to the Tamil scripture as each word encodes 
the meanings that can be conveyed in both Sanskrit and Tamil. To support this argument, he 
harmonizes the meanings of the three secrets with the other sets of scriptures. The two most 
obvious examples are given here. 
In the chapter on the Tirumantra, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai interprets the meaning of the letter 
m, which is the last letter of aum at the beginning of the Tirumantra, saying that the letter 
expresses the subservience of the soul to God, who is the Master. To justify the soul’s 
subservient nature to God, he cites Yāmuna’s Stotraratna, verses 52 and 57, arguing that the 
Sanskrit passage communicates the same message.323 As previously mentioned, he also shows 
that God’s four qualities, namely parental affection, lordship, disposition, and accessibility, are 
revealed by God Himself when He becomes the refuge for His devotee as in, for example, 
Tiruvāymoḻi 6.10.10. The four qualities are encoded in the word “nārāyaṇa” in the first line of 
the Dvaya. By doing this, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai proves that the Dvaya and the Tamil hymns are 
in harmony, since the word “nārāyaṇa” from both the Sanskrit Dvaya and the Tamil hymns 
indicates the state in which God manifests His qualities: 
 
If these [thoughts] occur in mind, namely God’s fault, His non-accomplishment, 
His superiority, Him being beyond sense organs, it is impossible to take refuge. 
Because of being opposed to those [thoughts] and being exclusively for taking 
refuge, the four qualities, having been brought about by Śrī who is the mediator, 
even if [God] thought to destroy Sītā herself later, make God state: “I will give 
up even the life of myself and of you, Sītā, along with Lakṣmaṇa” [Rāmāyaṇa 
 
323 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 13. See section 2.2. See Yāmuna, Stotraratna 52 and 57, 102 and 108.  
131 
 
3.9.18],324 “If something happens to you, what am I to do with my Sītā” 
[Rāmāyaṇa, untraceable], “Even if the Lady on the lotus (Śrī) speaks of the 
faults, when my devotees act, they do not act in that way. [It is said that] they do 
good” [Periya Āḻvār’s Tirumoḻi 4.9.2].325 They are stated as being contemplated 
by Nammāḻvār, the first ācārya, in the order that begins with affection, “lord of 
matchless fame, holder of the three worlds, my king, master of Vēṅkaṭam” [ 
Tiruvāymoḻi 6.10.10].326 
 
Moreover, to propose that the three secrets are authoritative like other Sanskrit passages as they 
can be construed through Mīmāṃsā hermeneutics, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai applies Mīmāṃsā 
principles to justify his interpretation of the Caramaśloka. The function of Mīmāṃsā as a tool 
to strengthen the scriptural validity is carried over to the Manipravalam sphere in which it 
remains a tool to prove that the three secrets can be validly interpreted like the Sanskrit 
authoritative passages. 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai proposes that the Caramaśloka should be construed as an injunction 
of acceptance of God as the means, qualified with the abandonment of other soteriological 
means. The interpretation here is in accordance with the theological standpoint that the devotee 
is essentially subordinate to God alone, and the dependence on the means other than God would 
contradict that nature, resulting in the failure to perform self-surrender. This interpretation is 
the core of self-surrender and the relationship between God and the devotee. He affirms this 
interpretation with Nañcīyār’s teaching as follows: 
 
 
324 Rāmāyaṇa 3.9.18, vol. 3, 41. 
325 Nālāyirativviyappirapantam, 90. 
326 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 30: taṉṉuṭaiya dōṣamātal; avaṉuṭaiya aprāptiyātal; avaṉ 
mēṉmaiyātal; avaṉ atīdriyatvamātal; ivai, neñcilē naṭaiyāṭil, āśrayikka yōgyataiy illāmaiyālē, avaṟṟukku 
etirttaṭṭāy, āśrayaṇaikāntamāy, puruṣakārabhūtayāṉa pirāṭṭiyālē uktabhavikkappaṭṭu, piṉṉai avaḷtāṉē aḻikka 
niṉaikkilum, “apy ahaṃ jīvitaṃ jahyāṃ tvāṃ vā sītē salakṣmaṇām” “tvayi kiṃcit samāpannē kiṃ kāryaṃ sītayē 
mama” “tāmaraiyāḷākiluṃ citakuraikkumēl eṉṉaṭiy āratu ceyyār ceytārēl naṉṟu ceytār” eṉṉuṃpaṭi 
paṇṇakkaṭavatāy, prathamācāryarāṉa naṃmāḻvārālē āśrayaṇaikāntamāka “nikaril pukaḻāy! ulakam 
mūṉṟuṭaiyāy! eṉṉaiyāḷvāṉē! tiruvēṅkaṭattānē!” eṉṟu vātsalyādikramattilē anusandhikka paṭṭiruciṟa nālu 
guṇaṅkaḷaiyum colliṟṟāyiṟṟu. 
132 
 
Through the gerund form, “having abandoned” (tyajya), it is shown that the 
abandonment of dharmas should be done as the auxiliary of the acceptance. 
Then, the [gerund form also] points to the fact the reason otherwise it is 
inappropriate [if the acceptance is not done before the acceptance]. If there is no 
entering into acceptance after abandoning the dharmas, then indeed destruction 
will result from [failing] in both that precede [abandonment and acceptance]. 
With reference to this, Nañcīyar stated, “The state I am in is either being 
crowned among those who are in hell or going to the supreme abode with my 
little ticket” This means his dwelling place will be hell due to the sin, which is a 
result of abandoning dharmas [without acceptance], or the means that is 
acceptance preceded by abandonment results in having the supreme abode as the 
dwelling place. Thus, the gerund form indicates that the acceptance which will 
be later stated has the abandonment as its auxiliary.327  
 
Looking closer at his interpretation, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai understands the phrase, “come to Me 
alone as refuge,” as enjoining the acceptance of God as the means to the attainment of Himself. 
This part of the Caramaśloka serves as the main injunction. He then explains that the first part, 
which prescribes the abandonment of other means, apart from self-surrender, functions as its 
auxiliaries. This interpretation can be understood based on Mīmāṃsā hermeneutics as a 
qualified injunction (viśiṣṭavidhi), which consists of two injunctions, primary and 
subordinate.328  
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai then relies on the Mīmāṃsā model of qualified injunctions, “One 
purchases the soma with a red, pink-eyed, one-year-old [cow]” (Śabara on Mīmāṃsāsūtra 
3.1.12).329 According to the Mīmāṃsakas, this statement should be construed as mainly 
prescribing the purchase of the soma, which is the substance used in the ritual, along with the 
 
327 Ibid., 54: “tyajya” eṉkiṟa “lyap” pālē, dharmatyāgam svīkārattukku aṅgamāṉav aṉṟu kartavyam; allātapōtu 
ayuktam eṉṉum iṭattaik kāṭṭikiṟatu. dharmattai viṭṭu svīkārattil iḻiyātēy irukkumākil, ubhayapraṣṭaṉ ākaiyālē 
nāśamē phalamāy aṟumē. ittaip paṟṟaviṟē nañcīyar, “oṉṟil nārakikaḷukku mūrttābhiṣiktaṉātal; illaiyākil 
paramapadam eṉ ciṟu muṟippaṭiyē cellutal ceyyuṃpaṭiyiṟe nāṉ niṟkiṟa nilai” eṉṟu aruḷicceytatu. atu ākiṟatu: 
dharmatyāgaphalamāṉa pāpam mēliṭṭu narakam vastavyabhūmiyātal; tyāgapūrvakamāka svīkṛtamāṉa upāyam 
palittu, paramapatam vastavyabhūmiyātalām ittaṉaiyiṟē eṉkai. 
328 McCrea, “Mīmāṃsā,” 648. 
329 See Mīmāṃsāsūtra 3.1.12, vol. 2, 673. 
133 
 
cow and its attributes, all mentioned in the same sentence, are subordinately enjoined to qualify 
the purchase. The attributes of the cow are its qualification, and thus they are simultaneously 
enjoined along with the cow.330 The acceptance of God, as instructed in the Caramaśloka, must 
be understood as the qualification that distinguishes the eligible person who undertakes self-
surrender from other people in the same way that the attributes are taken into account in the 
selection of the cow for the purchase of the soma: 
 
One may ask, if being an eligible person [alone] is required, then why should 
the acceptance [of God as the means] be done? [To answer,] since the acceptance 
which is for the sake of attaining God singles out this eligible person from the 
one who performs the means, being the one who desires sovereignty, the one 
who desires liberation in isolation (kaivalya), and the one who desires God’s 
feet, this [acceptance] remains as a quality that singles out the eligible person 
like the qualities such as redness, pink-eyed-ness and so on differentiate the cow 
which is a subordinate means for the purchase of soma from other cattle as stated 
in “One purchase the soma with a red, pink-eyed, one-year-old [cow]” [Śabara on 
Mīmāṃsāsūtra 3.1.12].331 
 
 
As I have shown, in addition to the Tamil poems, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai pays attention to 
the three secrets that should be interpreted based on other scriptures and Mīmāṃsā 
hermeneutics. Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s incorporation of the Mīmāṃsā principle of qualified 
injunction, which was established by Rāmānuja as the normative hermeneutics in the Sanskrit 
scholastic and philosophical domain, also concurs with my argument that Manipravalam allows 
both Sanskrit and Tamil norms to coexist in the same sphere. 
Unlike Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Vātsya Varadaguru does not incorporate the paradigm of 
 
330 McCrea, The Teleology of Poetics in Medieval Kashmir, 76-81. 
331 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasya, 56: adhikāriyākil apēkṣitam, svīkāram ceykiṟa kāryam eṉṉeṉṉil: 
aiśvaryārthiyilum, kaivalyārthiyilum, bhagavaccaraṇārthiyāy sādhanānuṣṭhāṉam paṇṇum avaṉiṟ kāṭṭilum, 
ivvadhikāriyai vyāvṛttaṉ ākkukiṟatu bhagavallābhārthamāṉa inta svīkāram ākaiyālē, “aruṇayā ēkahāyanyā 
piṅgṣyā sōmaṃ krīṇāti” eṉkiṟaviṭattil, aruṇatvapiṅgākṣatvātikaḷ sōmakrayattukku uṟuppāṉa paśuvukku 
paśvantarattiṟkāṭṭil vyāvarttakaviśēṣaṇamāṉāp pōlē, ituvum adhikārikku vyāvarttaka viśēṣaṇamāy kiṭakkiṟatu. 
134 
 
the three secrets in the Prapannapārijāta. As previously stated, Vātsya Varadaguru refers to 
Bhagavadgītā 18.66 as an injunction of self-surrender, but he does not classify it as one of the 
three secrets. He further recognizes two of the secrets, the Tirumantra and the Dvaya, only as 
prayers, not as fundamental to the structure of self-surrender. In the first chapter, Vātsya 
Varadaguru states that the Dvaya is to be used in the performance of self-surrender, according 
to the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad.332 In the third chapter of the Prapannapārijāta, he claims that 
the Dvaya is a Vedic secret since it can be found in śruti that is the Kaṭha Upaniṣad without 
specifying its location in this scripture. Another source of this secret is smṛti such as the 
Pādmapurāṇa.333 There, the Tirumantra reiterates the same message of the Dvaya that God is 
the only refuge. It is the essence of the whole Vedāntic corpus and the highest among the 
mantras. After receiving the Tirumantra from the ācārya, one should recite it three times daily:  
 
After knowing that oneself is subservient to God, one should pass time with that 
[subservience] as the purpose. Having understood that the Mūlamantra 
(Tirumantra) has the same meaning as the Dvaya from the ācārya, one should 
worship Hari (Viṣṇu) with that [Mūlamantra] and one should worship Him three 
times daily with the Mūlamantra according to capability. “Mūlamantra, which 
is the essence of all Vedānta [scriptures], enables one to cross the ocean of 
transmigration. It is eternally the best among the mantras, the most secret one 
among the secrets, and the purest among the means of purification. It should be 
muttered all the time by those who desire liberation as it gives results which are 
enjoyment and liberation. It should be muttered all the time by Vaiṣṇavas as it 
increases bhakti and knowledge. It is the divine source of mantras as it destroys 
all sins. Being focused, one should unweariedly mutter it.”334 
 
332 Vātsya Varadaguru, Prapannapārijāta, 4–5.  
333 See section 2.4.1. In Chapter 1, Vātsya Varadaguru also refers to the Kaṭha Upaniṣad as the Vedic source for 
the Dvaya, see Vātsya Varadaguru’s Prapannapārijāta, 4. Uttamur Viraraghavacharya (1962, 4) in his Tamil 
commentary on the Prapannapārijāta points to Kaṭha Upaniṣad, of which each section is called Valli. The 
Upaniṣad belongs to the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda. 
334 Vātsya Varadaguru, Prapannapārijāta, 21–22: 
śeṣatvam ātmano jānan sārthayan kālam ākṣipet | vijñāya mūlamantrārthaṃ dvayaikārthatayā guroḥ ||  
tadekaśaraṇo bhūtvā hariṃ tena samarcayet | traikālyam arcanaṃ kuryāt mūlamantreṇa śaktitaḥ ||  
“sarvavedāntasārārthaḥ saṃsārārṇavatāraṇaḥ | mantrāṇāṃ paramo mantro guhyānāṃ guhyam uttamam ||  
pavitrānāṃ pavitraṃ ca mūlamantraḥ sanātanaḥ | mumukṣūṇāṃ sadā japyaṃ bhuktimuktiphalapradam || 
vaiṣṇavānāṃ sadā japyaṃ bhaktijñānavivardhanam | mantrāṇām āśrayaṃ divyaṃ sarvapāpapraṇāśanam ||  
135 
 
 
 
Thus, in the Prapannapārijāta, the two secrets only serve as prayers in self-surrender and for 
the remembrance of God’s role as the refuge. The disregard for the paradigm of the three secrets 
and its structural function is indeed noticeable in the Sanskrit works on self-surrender in 
addition to the Prapannapārijāta, namely Meghanādārisūri’s Mumukṣopāyasaṃgraha and 
Vedāntadeśika’s Nikṣeparakṣā, as we will see the following chapters. 
 
2.4 The Relationship Between Self-surrender and Bhakti 
Through the norms previously shown, Vātsya Varadaguru and Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai 
systematically propose self-surrender as an alternative to bhakti for the community in Sanskrit 
and Manipravalam. However, the argument that self-surrender is another means to liberation 
creates a tension between Rāmānuja’s teaching of bhakti and this new doctrine. Which one 
should be followed? What is the use of one if the other one can be successfully undertaken? 
And if they are equally effective, why do we need both? As I will show in this section, the two 
authors tackle these issues differently partly due to the different audience and intellectual 
environments that they engage with and partly due to their respective linguistic engagements. I 
first investigate Vātsya Varadaguru’s treatment of self-surrender, followed by the definition 
proposed by Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai.  
 
2.4.1 When Self-surrender Acts Like Bhakti 
 
As previously stated, Vātsya Varadaguru defends that self-surrender is a Vedāntic means like 
bhakti. Specifically, he does so through two arguments: 1) self-surrender has a form of ritual 
 
samāhitamanā bhūtvā japaṃ kuryād atandritaḥ” |. 
136 
 
that has to be performed with auxiliaries according to one’s eligibility like bhakti, and 2) self-
surrender can function under the system of bhakti through their hierarchical relationships.  
For the first argument, he defines self-surrender as a Vedic offering of oneself as a 
substance to fire which is equivalent to God, according to the Upaniṣads.335 In Chapter 2 of the 
Prapannapārijāta, he characterizes self-surrender as a mental determination which culminates 
in a request for a person who wants to attain God but is without other means. He then cites a 
passage that seems to be from Viṣvaksenasaṃhitā to argue that self-surrender is known as 
“prapatti,” which is synonymous with “taking refuge” (śaraṇāgati) with God, as follows:336  
 
The mental awareness (buddhi) which consists of determination and 
culminates in a request on the part of someone who seeks the goal [i.e., 
liberation] but is without any means is stated to be the nature of self-surrender.  
“When one’s desire is not able to be accomplished by other means, self-
surrender (prapatti) which is preceded by great faith [that God will protect] and 
has a form of a request that God alone is the means is taking refuge with God 
(śaraṇāgati).” [Thus,] self-surrender (prapatti) is also characterized by the word 
“taking refuge” (śaraṇāgati).337 
 
 
He further defines self-surrender as the cessation of one’s own effort in the protection of 
oneself, according to Lakṣmītantra 17.74.338 It is to be performed like a ritual, accompanied by 
 
335 Vātsya Varadaguru, Prapannapārijāta, 3–4. See section 1.1. 
336 This passage is attributed to the Viṣvaksenasaṃhitā according to the 1954 edition, 9. However, the 1971 
edition and the one edited by Uttamur Viraraghavacharya both identify this passage as belonging to Bharatamuni 
(9 and 12 respectively). To my knowledge, this passage is untraceable. Oberhammer suggests that the 
Viṣvaksenasaṃhitā could be a text of Rāmānuja’s system according to its explanation of self-surrender in the 
Prapannapārijāta (“The Influence of Orthodox Vaiṣṇavism,” 53). 
337 Vātsya Varadaguru, Prapannapārijāta, 9-10: 
buddhir adhyavasāyātmā yācñāparyavasāyinī | prāpyecchor anupāyasya prapatte rūpam ucyate ||  
“ananyasādhye svābhīṣṭe mahāviśvāsapūrvakam | tadekopāyatāyācñā prapattiḥ śaraṇāgatiḥ” ||  
śaraṇāgatiśabdena prapattis tu viśeṣitā |. 
338 Ibid., 11-12: “On the other hand, self-surrender is the means to the grace of the One who is to be surrendered 
to in this way, ‘The giving over of oneself, which culminates in the offering of [oneself] to Kṛṣṇa, is said to be 
the disconnection from ownership regarding the result on the part of a person who is being protected by Him’ 
[Lakṣmītantra 17.74].” (prapattes tu prapattavyaprasādadvāratā tathā | “tena saṃrakṣyamāṇasya phale 
svāmyaviyuktā || 
keśavārpaṇaparyantā hy ātmanikṣepa ucyate” |). See Lakṣmītantra 17.74, 58. 
137 
 
five auxiliaries, as in Lakṣmītantra 17.66–74:  
 
“Will to please [God]” is stated as being helpful to all beings. 
From the determination that I am staying inside all beings, he should 
practice helpfulness to all beings as to Me. 
And for that very reason, one should “avoid hostility.” 
“Wretchedness” is abandoning pride born from virtuous conduct and 
learning because of incompletion of the collection of auxiliaries and inabilities 
for all actions. Means are not accomplished, and faults are many because [there 
is] no accomplishment of eligibility because of decay of place, time, and 
quality. This abandonment of pride in this way, is pitiableness, which is called 
“wretchedness.”  
Because of [His] capability, being easy to attain because Viṣṇu is 
joined with compassion, because of connection between Lord and the thing to 
be commanded and also because this is not the first time, which is a firm belief 
that He will protect us who practice helpfulness, that is “faith.”  
O Indra! This belief destroys all evil deeds. 
Although He is compassionate, clearly capable, the master of all beings 
may not protect if he is not asked; therefore, there is the thought that one must 
ask Him: ‘Be my protector.’ This is remembered as “choosing God as the 
protector.” 
Disconnection from ownership in a result on the part of a person who is 
being protected by Him, which ends in offering [oneself] to Kṛṣṇa that is called 
“the offering of oneself.”339 
 
 
Moreover, Vātsya Varadaguru divides those who surrender into two types, the afflicted 
ones (ārta) and the content ones (dṛpta). This is based on Rāmāyaṇa 6.12.15, “If enemy who is 
either afflicted or content has taken refuge with another, having given up his life, he should be 
protected by the one whose self is disciplined” (ārto vā yadi vā dṛptaḥ pareṣāṃ śaraṇāgataḥ, 
ariḥ prāṇān parityajya rakṣitavyaḥ kṛtātmanā).340 The difference between the two groups 
 
339 These are passages from Lakṣmītantra 17.66–74 (57–58) without intervening verses by Vātsya Varadaguru. 
For the whole discussion in the Prapannapārijāta, see Vātsya Varadaguru, Prapannapārijāta, 10-12.  
340 Rāmāyaṇa 6.12.15, vol. 6, 69. Oberhammer suggests that the division seems to originate from Vātsya 
Varadaguru’s intention to resolve the tension in the Nītimālā of Nārāyaṇārya, Vātsya Varadaguru’s 
contemporary, between Rāmānuja’s self-surrender and the other kind of self-surrender, which is similar to self-
surrender proposed in the Manipravalam literature. See Oberhammer, Zur spirituellen Praxis des 
Zufluchtnehmens bei Gott, 141–176. In addition, Marlewicz in “Self-Surrender of the Afflicted One” suggests 
that it is likely that the two types of self-surrender are distinct and Vātsya Varadaguru views self-surrender of the 
afflicted ones as the proper one. It should be noted that Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai does not seem to mention this 
138 
 
centers on their application of the auxiliaries of self-surrender and grief regarding their karmas. 
In particular, all of the auxiliaries are present at the same time for the afflicted ones, while they 
occur one after another for the content ones. The afflicted ones are those who grieve regarding 
their past karmas, as opposed to those who are content. Finally, the afflicted ones attain the 
result instantly and do not have to wait until the end of their bodies as the content ones must 
do.341 
To establish the hierarchical relationship between self-surrender and bhakti, Vātsya 
Varadaguru claims that self-surrender can be understood as self-surrender that has “bhakti as 
the goal” (sādhya-bhakti). It can be illustrated through the analogy of the cātaka bird and the 
story of the male pigeon, who gives up his life to the hunter, from the Rāmāyaṇa 6.12.11: “It is 
told that the enemy [the hunter], who has come to seek refuge with the pigeon, is honored by 
the pigeon with his own flesh. The pigeon accepted the hunter, although the hunter is the 
kidnapper of his wife.”342 The cātaka bird which only waits for raindrops to sustain itself is like 
 
classification in the Parantarahasyam but refers to it along with the sub-division of each type in the 
Sakalapramāṇatātparyam. However, the classification in Vātsya Varadaguru is based on the intensity of the 
grief of these two groups, while Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai highlights the impatience and patience and the desire as the 
main reasons. For the translation of this part in the Sakalapramāṇatātparyam, see Anandakichenin, 
“Viśiṣṭādvaita in a Nutshell.” 
341 Vātsya Varadaguru, Prapannapārijāta, 12: “It is evident that the offering is the main thing since the cessation 
of one’s own effort regarding the means and the result depends on the Lord. These auxiliaries will be present 
[with the offering] in case of the surrendering of those who are afflicted, and they will be manifest in succession 
in case of the surrendering of the content ones. The division of [surrendering of] the afflicted ones and the 
content ones is declared in the Rāmāyaṇa, “If enemy who is either afflicted or content has taken refuge with 
another, having given up his life, he should be protected by the one whose self is disciplined” [Rāmāyaṇa 
6.12.15]. One who is grieving about having another body is called the content one; while one who is grieving 
even regarding the current body, already attained, is called the afflicted one. This self-surrender can be defined 
through the classification of the afflicted ones and the content one. It is a firm and constant [determination that] 
He [God] alone is the means for the attainment of Himself.”  
(upāye ca phale caiva svaprayatnanivartanam ||  
svāmyāyattam iti vyaktaṃ nikṣepasyāṅgitā tathā | ārtaprapattav ity eṣāṃ aṅgānāṃ sannidhiḥ tathā ||  
dṛptaprapattav etāni bhaviṣyanty uttarottaram | ārtadṛptavibhāgas tu śrīmadrāmāyaṇoditaḥ || 
“ārto vā yadi vā dṛptaḥ pareṣāṃ śaraṇāgataḥ | ariḥ prāṇān parityajya rakṣitavyaḥ kṛtātmanā” || 
yasya dehāntarakṛte śoko dṛptas sa ucyate | yaś ca prārabdhadehe ’pi śocety ārtas sa ucyate ||  
ārtadṛptavibhāgena prapattir iyam ucyate | sādhanaṃ bhagavatprāptau sa eveti sthirā dṛḍhā ||). 
342 Rāmāyaṇa 6.12.11, vol. 6, 68: “śrūyate hi kapotena śatruḥ śaraṇam āgataḥ | 
139 
 
the one who surrenders, exclusively waiting for liberation. On the other hand, the story of the 
male pigeon demonstrates God’s compassion in granting liberation to the one who seeks Him 
as refuge based on an untraceable passage from the Bhāgavatapurāṇa:343 
 
That which is remembered as having bhakti as a goal (sādhya-bhakti) is 
sung indeed as self-surrender. 
It is with this in mind that there is the statement in the Bhāgavata  
[-purāṇa, untraceable], 
“The one who surrenders is like a cātaka bird, and the one who is to be 
taken refuge to is like the pigeon. The characteristics of the one who is to be 
protected and the one who is the protector is indicated by these two [birds].”344  
 
 
When bhakti is the means, self-surrender functions as its auxiliary, and this is termed “bhakti 
which is the means” (upāya-bhakti).345 The notion that self-surrender can be performed as an 
auxiliary of bhakti reminds us of the same argument of Rāmānuja in the Gītābhāṣya. The main 
source for this hierarchy seems to be from the lost Sātyakitantra.346  
At the same time, Vātsya Varadaguru explains that self-surrender is available, implying 
that it is preferable to bhakti which is limited to the twice-born. In Chapter 3, he highlights that 
 
arcitaś ca yathānyāyaṃ svaiś ca māṃsair nimantritaḥ ||” 
343 The explanation is based on Uttamur Viraraghavadacharya’s commentary, 18–19. 
344 Vātsya Varadaguru, Prapannapārijāta, 12: 
sādhyabhaktiḥ smṛtā saiva prapattir iti gīyate | imaṃ cārtham abhipretya vaco bhāgavate yathā ||  
“prapannaś cātako yadvat prapattavyaḥ kapotavat | rakṣyarakṣakayor etat lakṣaṇaṃ lakṣyam etayoḥ ||”   
345 Vātsya Varadaguru mentions the passage that supports the identification of bhakti as a goal in the form of 
service presumably from the Viṣvaksenasaṃhitā. See Vātsya Varadaguru, Prapannapārijāta, 50: 
“The lord of the attendants states in the same way in his own Saṃhitā,  
‘The word service can be referred to with the word bhakti. The excellent kind of service is the entering into the 
absolute lowliness regarding the Master. Thus, supreme bhakti is defined as the exclusive desire for servitude 
[Viṣvaksenasaṃhitā, untraceable].’” 
(ātmīyasaṃhitāyāṃ tu yathā seneśa uktavān | sevā tu procyate sadbhiḥ bhaktiśabdena bhūyasī || 
sevā cātyantanīcatvāpattir hi svāminaṃ prati | tasmāt parasya dāsyaikarasatā bhaktir ucyate ||). 
346 Ibid., 51: “This meaning was uttered by the Lord [Kṛṣṇa in Bhagavadgītā 18.66] in detail, ‘Bhakti which is 
the means destroys any karmas which are different from those that have already begun to operate. On the other 
hand, [self-surrender] which has bhakti as the goal is superior since it destroys even karmas that have already 
begun to operate.’ Bhaktiyoga which is referred to as bhakti as the means along with its auxiliaries.” 
(ayam artho bhagavatā saviśeṣam udīritam | upāyabhaktiḥ prārabdhavyatiriktāghanāśinī || 
sādhyabhaktis tu sā hantrī prārabdhasyāpi bhūyasī | [Sātyakitantra, unidentifiable] upāyabhaktir ity ukto 
bhaktiyogo hi sāṅgakaḥ ||). 
140 
 
the Dvaya which is to be recited only once in the performance of self-surrender is available to 
all without a Vedic order and accent in recitation even if it is found in śruti, which is supposed 
to be limited to only those from the three higher castes.347 Also, in one place, Vātsya Varadaguru 
implies that self-surrender is preferable to bhakti in the matter of karmas since bhakti which is 
the means does not destroy the karmas that have already begun to operate (prārabdhakarma). 
On the other hand, self-surrender destroys even karmas that have already begun to operate for 
the afflicted ones who surrender but not for the content ones. Thus, self-surrender is better than 
bhakti in this regard.348 
He then mentions the three kinds of people who are eligible to undertake self-surrender, 
namely the ignorant one, the one with knowledge, and the devotee. These three can be mapped 
onto those who presumably follow the three yogas. They are eligible to perform self-surrender 
for different reasons: first, the ignorant one is not able to have the knowledge of other means; 
second, the one with knowledge turns away from the path of yoga after realizing its deprivation 
 
347 Ibid., 13–14: “The mantra that expresses self-surrender is prescribed in the śruti like the Vallis in the Kaṭha 
Upaniṣad. It is explained again and again in the Pādmapurāṇa in the form of the dialogue between Parāśara and 
Vasiṣṭha as having the same meaning as aum (praṇava) and consisting of twenty-five syllables along with its 
auxiliaries in connection with sages and others. The mantra is enjoined as being available to all [and] recited 
once there as well as in other scriptures [stated] by God, [i.e., Pāñcārātra Saṃhitās]. Therefore, even someone 
who is not from the three higher castes has eligibility regarding the Dvaya. That which is stated is established by 
the worldly and Vedic authority pertaining to [self-surrender] which possesses [the Dvaya]. Like [it is 
established] from the authority that the carpenters and others [are eligible for] the Vedic rituals like the offering 
of the fire and that a wife [of the one who sacrifices] [is eligible for] the mantra in the ājyavekṣaṇa [lit. looking 
after clarified butter in a sacrifice] ritual and others. Alternatively, the Dvaya is available to all due to the 
removal of the Vedic order [of recitation] or the accent [in recitation]. Or, [it can be taken as] Tantric, which is 
available to all.” (prapatter vācako mantraḥ kaṭhavallyādiṣu śrutaḥ [corr., “smṛtaḥ”] | ayaṃ purāṇe pādme ca 
parāśara-vasiṣṭhayoḥ ||  
saṃvāde praṇavaikārthaḥ pañcaviṃśativarṇakaḥ | ṛṣyādisahitaḥ sāṅgaḥ bhūyobhūyaḥ prapañcyate || 
tatra sarvādhikāratvaṃ sakṛduccāryatā tathā | vidhīyate tathā ’nyatra śāstre bhagavatā ’pi ca || 
traivarṇiketarasyāpi dvaye tasmād adhikriyā | dharmigrāhakamānena yat siddhaṃ lokavedayoḥ || 
yathā hi rathakārādeḥ agnyādhānādivaidike | yathā ’jyāvekṣaṇādau tu mantre patnyāḥ pramāṇataḥ || 
yad vā ’dhītakramāpāyāt svarāder vā vilopataḥ | dvayasya sarvādhikṛtiḥ sarveṣāṃ tāntrikam tu vā ||). 
The correction of “smṛtaḥ” in 1954 edition to “śrutaḥ” is based on the variant given in this edition and the 
reading of the verse in the 1971 edition, 13. 
348 Vātsya Varadaguru, Prapannapārijāta, 51. See the translation in section 2.4.1. 
141 
 
through God, and; finally, the devotee cannot depend on other means and goals due to exclusive 
devotion to God: 
 
The ignorant one, the one with all knowledge, and the devotee (bhakta) 
are eligible for self-surrender. 
It is eligible for the ignorant one due to their incapability for the 
knowledge of other means. 
The one with all the knowledge, realizing the deprivation of that kind of 
means directly from God, turns away from the path of yoga and goes to Him for 
refuge.  
Being unable to bear depending on other means or goal, the devotee 
worships Him exclusively all the time due to the power of love to God.349   
 
 
Thus, those who are eligible to pursue the three yogas can undertake self-surrender as it is 
available to all. However, in this scenario, it is implied that there are still those who are eligible 
to perform the three yogas as a means to liberation. Thus, both self-surrender and the three 
yogas serve as options for different groups of eligible people, and they are equally valid means 
to liberation.  
Compared to Vātsya Varadaguru’s system of self-surrender in the Prapannapārijāta, 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s discussions on self-surrender are more varied and elaborate, reflecting the 
possibility that the Manipravalam discussions preceded the one in the Sanskrit sphere as 
systematized by Vātsya Varadaguru. While Vātsya Varadaguru likens self-surrender to the 
doctrine of bhakti, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai highlights the binary opposition between self-surrender, 
where God is the main cause, and bhakti, which is the means to be performed.  
 
 
349 Ibid., 14–15:  
ajñasarvajñabhaktānāṃ prapattav adhikāritā | upāyāntaravijñānāśakter ajñasya yujyate ||  
sadṛśopāyavaidhuryaṃ sākṣād bhagavato vidan | sarvajñaḥ śaraṇaṃ yāti yogamārgaparāṅmukhaḥ ||  
sarvakālaṃ premavaśāt bhajan bhakto ’py ananyadhīḥ | upāyaṃ vā ’py upeyaṃ vā kṣamo ’nyaṃ nāvalambitum 
|| 
142 
 
2.4.2 The Binary Opposition Between Self-surrender and Bhakti  
Although Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s self-surrender belongs to the Manipravalam sphere, we can still 
see the influence of Rāmānuja’s system of bhakti, for example, in his reference to self-surrender 
as a means in the same manner as bhakti. Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai draws the distinction between 
these two means mainly in his interpretation of the three secrets, arguing that their difference 
lies in their natures: Self-surrender is equivalent to God who is the only accomplished means 
(siddhopāya). On the other hand, bhakti is a means to be accomplished by an eligible person 
like other means to liberation.350 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s description of self-surrender can be 
influenced by his teacher, Nañcīyar, who resists theorizing self-surrender as a performance.351 
Importantly, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s communal identification of the Śrīvaiṣṇavas reflects the 
importance of God and not the doctrine of self-surrender. He refers to the Śrīvaiṣṇavas in the 
chapter on the Tirumantra, when he comments on the letter u in aum and defines the 
Śrīvaiṣṇavas as “those whom God desires” since they are completely subordinate to Him based 
on Bhagavadgītā 7.18.352 This suggests that the Śrīvaiṣṇavas are a community of those who 
have the knowledge of their subservient nature to God. 
In his interpretation of the Caramaśloka, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai formulates the binary 
opposition between self-surrender and bhakti. He first addresses the first two parts of the 
passage: “having abandoned all dharmas,” which I term the abandonment part, and “come to 
Me alone as refuge.”. He construes that the abandonment part enjoins the abandonment of other 
 
350 For the other manners through which self-surrender can be differentiated from bhakti in the 
Parantarahasyam, see Venkatachari, The Manipravāla Literature of the Śrīvaiṣṇava Ācāryas, 119–120. 
351 Section 1.4. 
352 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 15: “Those whom God desires are indeed the Śrīvaiṣṇavas as stated, 
‘The one with knowledge is my very self’ [Bhagavadgītā 7.18].” (avaṉukku iṣṭarākiṟār: “jñānī tv ātmaiva” 
eṉkiṟa śrīvaiṣṇavarkaḷiṟē.) See sections 1.2 and 1.3. See also Bhagavadgītā 7.18, vol. 2, 41. 
143 
 
means like bhakti along with their auxiliaries or the Vedic rituals as they need to be 
accomplished.353 Following Nañcīyar, he explains that the injunction is subordinate to the main 
injunction in the second part which prescribes the eligible person to accept God as the means 
before specifying that both the abandonment and the acceptance should be understood as 
mental.354 Through this definition, it can be understood that one should not physically abandon 
the ritual duties which one has to perform according to one’s caste and stage of life. In fact, one 
should keep performing them with the realization that they are not the means to any results, 
including liberation: 
 
Next, “having abandoned” refers to the way to abandon that. Here, one may ask 
if the word abandonment means the abandonment of the nature of dharmas, or 
the abandonment of the results and so on [of dharmas but not dharmas 
themselves], or the abandonment of the thought that these dharmas are the 
means. [To answer,] for an eligible person, it is impossible to abandon the 
dharmas since they should be performed for the passing of time until death [and] 
[the abandonment of them] is harmful according to God. It does not make sense 
that the abandonment would indicate the abandonment of the results and so on 
since it is already stated that the results and so on are to be abandoned along with 
the agent of the means. Given that is the case, the abandonment here states the 
abandonment of the thought that these dharmas are the means. The 
abandonment of the thought that the dharmas are the means refers to the removal 
of the notion that a means that pleases God is the cause for the attainment [of 
the result]. Thus, there is no fault through the abandonment of the nature [of 
dharmas], and there is no redundancy which would result from talking about the 
abandonment of the results and so on.355 
 
353 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai states that these dharmas are karmayoga, jñānayoga, a combination of karma- and jñāna-
yoga (karmajñānasamuccaya), bhakti, the knowledge of the secret of the avatāras (avatārarahasyajñāna), the 
Upaniṣadic means to the Supreme Person (puruṣottamavidyā), living in sacred places (puṇyakṣetravāsa), and 
praising the names of God (tirunāmasaṅkīrtana). The word “all” in “all dharmas” points to other sacrificial 
rituals such as sāndhyāvandana according to castes and stages of life (Parantarahasyam, 51). 
354 Ibid., 54. See translation and text in section 2.3.2. 
355 Ibid.: aṉantaram “paritajya” eṉṟu atiṉuṭaiya tyāgaprakārattaic collukiṟatu. iṅku tyāgaśabdattālē collukiṟatu, 
dharmasvarūpatyāgattaiyō? dharmaphalādityāgattaiyō? dharmattil upāyatvabuddhityāgattaiyō? eṉṉil: 
ivvadhikārikku, yāvadśarīrapātam kālakṣēpattukkāka bhagavaddōṣahētubhūtam āṉavai anuṣṭhēyam ākaiyālē, 
dharmasvarūpatyāgamāka māṭṭātu. phalādikaḷ, sādhakaṉukkuṅkūṭa tyājyamākak kīḻē uktam ākaiyālē, 
phalādityāgattaic collukiṟatākav oṇṇātu. āka, iṅku dharmaṅkaḷiṉuṭaiya upāyatvabuddhityāgattaic collukiṟatu. 
anta upāyatvabuddhityāgam āvatu: lābhahētuvāṉa bhagavatprītikku sādhanam eṉkiṟa pratipattiyait tavirukai. 
ākaiyālē svarūpatyāgattāl varum kuṟaiyum, phalādityāgattaic collukiṟatu eṉkiṟattāl varum punaruktiyum iṉṟiyilē 
oḻiyum.  
144 
 
 
 
The abandonment is subordinate to and must precede the acceptance of God. The sequence 
implies that one cannot accept God as the means without abandoning the thought that there are 
other means to liberation apart from God. In other words, one can choose either only God or 
other means like bhakti. According to Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, the abandonment of other means and 
the non-active attitude towards self-surrender can be theologically justified by the natures of 
the soul and God. Since the soul’s nature is subservient to God, undertaking anything can 
destroy the nature and obstruct the soul from attaining God.356 The abandonment of other means 
thus should be regarded as the qualification of an eligible person. As the already accomplished 
means, God does not need any further actions or help. Even the acceptance of Himself as the 
means should not be understood as an auxiliary.357 Although Śrī functions as the mediator, she 
is only an attribute of God and does not contribute to the success or failure of the attainment of 
God.358  
Through the Rāmāyaṇa story of Vibhīṣaṇa, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai notes another important 
 
356 Ibid., 54: “Other means must be abandoned if considering one’s essential nature. Other means should be 
abandoned given their natures. Other means should be abandoned given the already mentioned nature of those 
[means]. If one looks at one’s nature, [one would know that] it is absolutely dependent [on God] in such a way 
that engaging in the activity of protecting oneself is damaging for one’s essential nature as stated in the word ‘I 
pay obeisance.’” (svasvarūpattaip pārttālum, sādhaṉāntraraṅkaḷai viṭavēṇṭivarum. avaṟṟiṉuṭaiya 
svarūpaṅkaḷaip pārttālum, sādhaṉāntaraṅkaḷ tyājyamāy aṟum. paṟṟappukukiṟa upāyasvarūpattaip pārttālum 
sādhaṉāntaraṅkaḷ tyājyamāyaṟum. svasvarūpattaip pārttāl namaśśabdattil collikiṟapaṭiyē 
svarakṣaṇavyāpārattilē iḻikai, svarūpahāniyāṃpaṭi atyantaparatantramāy irukkum). 
357 Ibid., 56: “Since this means [God] is already accomplished, there is no need to produce [this means]; since 
[this means] has a single form, there is no need to choose; [and] since He is the supreme sentient being, there is 
no need for others to give the result. Thus, since taking an action along with auxiliaries is not for this means, it is 
not possible for this acceptance [of God as the means] to be an auxiliary.” (inta upāyam siddham ākaiyālē 
utpat[t]yapēkṣaiy illai; ēkarūpam ākaiyālē vṛtyapēkṣaiy illai; paramacētanam ākaiyālē phalapradānattil 
anyasāpēkṣataiy illai. āka, aṅgaṅkaḷaik koṇṭu koḷvatu orukāryam ivvupāyattukku illāmaiyālē, inta svīkāram 
aṅgamāka māṭṭātu). 
358 Ibid., 26: “Although [she] is an attribute [of God], the is no function as the means for her like other particular 
qualities which are attributes [of God], […] one must regard her status as the mediator.” (viśēṣaṇatvam 
uṇṭēyākilum, viśēṣaṇabhūtamāṉa guṇaviśēṣaṅkaḷ ōpāti, upāyōpayōkitvam avaḷukku illāmaiyālum, […] ivaḷukkup 
puruṣakārabhāvattil nōkkākak kaṭavatu). 
145 
 
distinction between self-surrender and bhakti. He indicates that self-surrender is accessible by 
anyone regardless of the births (jātis) and other qualities, since the desire to attain the goal is 
the only qualification for self-surrender: 
 
Here, it is shown that everyone is eligible to perform self-surrender (prapatti) 
since there is no qualification of one with births, qualities, activities, and so on 
as stated in “I who am like this commit [myself to You].” Now, only desire is 
necessary. Since the desire has the purpose, [Vibhīṣaṇa’s] lowliness and so on 
is stated through his word in order to take refuge in the statement beginning with 
“[I am a younger brother of] the villain named Rāvaṇa” [Rāmāyaṇa 6.11.10]; 
[Rāma’s] subjects reviled him, stating his fault, in the statement, “Rāvaṇa’s 
younger brother, known as Vibhīṣaṇa, has come to you for refuge along with 
four demons (rakṣasas)” [Rāmāyaṇa 6.11.17]; on top of that, [Rāma] protected 
Vibhīṣaṇa despite the statements [of his subjects], “Let him [Vibhīṣaṇa] be 
killed-let us tie him” [Rāmāyaṇa 6.11.20]; the Lord [Rāma], who is the refuge, 
stated Himself, “Even if he is Rāvaṇa himself” […].359 
  
Another characteristic of self-surrender in the Parantarahasyam that conforms to bhakti 
is the distinction between self-surrender and the Advaita Vedānta knowledge from Upaniṣadic 
passages. After explaining the subservient nature of the soul, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai refers to the 
fact that this nature is contradictory to the identity of God and the soul, which is the knowledge 
conveyed by the passage, “That’s how you are” (tattvamasi) [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.8.7], 
according to the Advaita Vedānta.360 However, despite his anti-Advaita Vedānta attitude, 
 
359 Ibid., 33: itil “īdṛśaṉāṉa nāṉ adhyavasikkirēṉ” eṉṟu jātiguṇavṛttādikaḷālē oruvaṉai viśēṣiyāmaiyālē, 
ip̱prapatyanuṣṭhāṉam sarvādhikāram eṉṟu tōṟṟukiṟatu. iṉi, ruciyē vēṇṭuvatu. inta ruci prayojakam ākaiyiṟē, 
“rāvaṇō nāma dūrvṛttaḥ” eṉṟu toṭaṅkit taṉ nikarṣādikaḷaṭaiyat taṉ vāyālē colluvatu; “rāvaṇasyānujō bhrātā 
vibhīṣaṇa iti śrutaḥ, caturbhiḥ saha rakṣōbhir bhavantam śaraṇaṃ gataḥ” eṉṟu arukiruntārilum avaṉ kuṟai colli 
kṣēpippatu; atukku mēlē “vadhyatām-badhyatām” eṉpatakāniṟkac ceytēyum śrīvibhīṣaṇapperumāḷai rakṣittatu; 
śaraṇyarāṉa perumāḷ tām, “yadi vā rāvaṇas svayam” eṉpatu […]. See the Rāmāyaṇa passages, vol. 6, 57 and 
59. 
360 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 9: “Since the word “nārāyaṇa” which is the explanation of this [letter 
a which is the first letter of aum] has a fourth-case ending (dative) and this [letter a] is the summary [of the word 
“nārāyaṇa”], there must be a fourth-case ending. Being with the first-case ending (nominative) instead of the 
fourth-case ending with the meaning that refers to the oneness of the soul and the Supreme Soul as “That’s how 
you are” (tattvamasi) [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.8.7], is inconsistent with the explanation [in letter a]. On top of 
that, it is inconsistent with the soul’s nature as the body [of God], which is stated in the word “nārāyaṇa.” 
(itiṉuṭaiya vivaraṇamāṉa nārāyaṇapadam caturyantam ākaiyālē, saṅgrahamāṉa ituvum caturthyantamāka 
146 
 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s definition of self-surrender comes close to Advaita Vedānta knowledge 
towards the end of the Parantarahaysam.  
According to his analysis, the later part of the Caramaśloka, “I will free you from all 
sins,” points to God’s removal of sins for the person who has surrendered to Him. The sins are 
the obstacles to the realization of servitude to God, which is innate to the soul. Once God 
removes these obstacles, the soul can reveal the nature of servitude like a shining gem whose 
dirt has been cleaned. The notion of the removal of obstacles is based on Parāśara Bhaṭṭar’s 
Aṣṭaślokī 3, “I am the property of the one indicated in the letter a, I am not my own. The word 
‘nārāyaṇa’ means the abode of the group of eternal ‘nāras.’ The dative case-ending says that 
my performances of spontaneous service for him should take place at all times, in all places, 
and under all conditions.”361 Periyavāccaṉ Piḷḷai states: 
 
Like when rubbing the ruby which is covered in dirt to remove the dirt, taking 
refuge in Him reveals the light that belongs to him (the soul), taking refuge in 
Him reveals completely the state of having sins that have been destroyed and 
others whose resting-place is oneself due to the complete destruction of one’s 
coverings that are ignorance and so on. Thus, only the removal of obstruction is 
required. That predominance [of God] is said to show the removal of obstruction. 
For this very purpose, Parāśara Bhaṭṭar stated, “my performances of spontaneous 
service for him should take place” [Aṣṭaślokī 3].362 
 
The classification of self-surrender is close to the Advaita Vedānta definition of liberation in 
 
vēṇṭum. caturthyantamākātu prathamāntamāy “tattvamasi” pōlē, ātmaparamātmākkaḷuṭaiya aikyaparam 
ākiṟatu eṉṉum artham, vivaraṇattōṭē virōdhikkum. atukku mēlē nārāyaṇapadattiṟ collukiṟa 
śarīrātmabhāvattōṭum virōdhikkum). For the text and translation of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.8.7, see Olivelle, 
The Early Upaniṣads, 252–253. 
361 The translation by Mumme in The Mumukṣuppaṭi of Piḷḷai Lokācārya, Appendix 1, 209. For the Sanskrit text, 
see ibid. 
362 Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Parantarahasyam, 59: malayōgattālē maḻuṅkiṉa māṇikkattai aḻukkaṟakkaṭaintāl 
taṉṉaṭaiyē tadgatamāṉa oḷi prakāśikkum ōpāti, ivaṉukkum avidyādikaḷākiṟa tirodhāṉaṅkaḷaṭaiyak kaḻikaiyālē, 
svāśrayamāṉa apahatapāpatvādikaḷaṭaiyat taṉṉaṭaiyē prakāśikkumiṟē. ākaiyālē virōdhinivṛttiyiṟē apēkṣitam. 
anta prādhānyam tōṟṟa virōdhinivṛttiyaic collukiṟatu. ākaiyiṟē, “āvis syur mama sahajakaiṅkaryavidhayaḥ” 
eṉṟu bhaṭṭar aruḻiceytatu.  
147 
 
the form of the removal of ignorance.363 I understand that Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s classification 
of self-surrender as the removal of ignorance is rooted in his emphasis on the passive role of 
self-surrender and the fact that God is the means that needs not be accomplished. It is not likely 
that Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai intends to draw the similarity between self-surrender and Advaita 
Vedānta knowledge. However, the emphasis brings self-surrender even closer to Advaita 
Vedānta knowledge in the literature of the later generations such as Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s 
Mumukṣupaṭi, as we will see. 
Although both authors defend self-surrender as an independent soteriological doctrine, 
their definitions are directed to different intellectual groups and based on Sanskrit and 
Manipravalam modes of soteriological expression. Belonging to the Sanskrit community of 
authors who consolidate bhakti at Kāñcīpuram, Vātsya Varadaguru maintains at all costs that 
both bhakti and self-surrender are equally valid. Resting on the soteriology of bhakti, his self-
surrender takes on the Vedāntic status and the ritual-nature of bhakti. Like other Manipravalam 
authors at Śrīraṅgam, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai makes a distinct claim that only self-surrender can 
grant one liberation, that bhakti is no longer an option, and that self-surrender is nothing other 
than God Himself. As a result, the whole community should not follow bhakti, and everyone is 
eligible for self-surrender. 
 
2.5 Summary 
Operating within the Sanskrit sphere, Vātsya Varadaguru resorted to only the Sanskrit norms 
and brought in the Sanskrit soteriological expression centered on Rāmānuja’s bhakti. In 
particular, he used only the Sanskrit scripture and claimed the equivalence between self-
 
363 For more information on Advaita Vedānta and their doctrines, see Potter, Advaita Vedānta up to Śaṅkara and 
his Pupils, Vol. 3, for example. 
148 
 
surrender and bhakti to validate self-surrender as another soteriological doctrine. In the 
Prapannapārijāta, self-surrender is a ritual, like bhakti, which must be performed. It also has 
to conform to the injunctions and rules prescribed in the Sanskrit scripture. Due to his method 
of collecting various sets of authoritative passages and citing them together to support each 
topic, his system of self-surrender has to be extracted from these passages and does not reflect 
the practices or the actual community of those who follow self-surrender. Interestingly, 
focusing on the validity of self-surrender, which is the primary concern in the Sanskrit sphere, 
Vātsya Varadaguru’s arguments and discussions are intellectual and not as intimate as those in 
the Manipravalam sphere, which consists of a dialogical style that gives the sense that God is 
directly addressing the audience. This can also be understood to be caused by the absence of 
the Tamil scripture and language that allows the reference to the Tamil heritage.  
In contrast, the Vedāntic scripture is not the only authority in the Manipravalam sphere. 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, following other Manipravalam commentators on the Tiruvāymoḻi, paid 
attention to the Tamil scripture and further harmonized different sets of scriptures to form a 
scriptural foundation of self-surrender in relation to the paradigm of the three secrets. His 
scriptural systematization provides the basis for self-surrender for other rahasyagrathas of the 
later authors like Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s Mumukṣupaṭi and Vedāntadeśika’s Rahasyatrayasāram.  
Thus, we see the doctrine of self-surrender developed into two different strands with 
overlapping features: self-surrender in the Sanskrit sphere relies only on the Sanskrit norms and 
can be characterized through its identification with bhakti; while the one in the Manipravalam 
sphere rests on both the Sanskrit and Tamil normative sources and is so subordinate to God that 
it no longer plays a role in the soteriological process. These elements represent the norms and 
expressions of the soteriology of self-surrender at the moment when it was first systematized in 
149 
 
the two spheres. They further influenced the later treatises in each language. What we will see 
in the next chapter is that the difference in the scriptural preference and theological emphasis 
as explored in this chapter branch out in more opposing directions in the treatises of the 
subsequent generations due to the authors’ decisions to immerse their systems of self-surrender 
into varying linguistic spheres. 
 
150 
 
CHAPTER 3 
HETEROGENEITY 
 
By the thirteenth century, after Vātysa Varadaguru and Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, self-surrender was 
widely accepted as the primary soteriological doctrine of the Śrīvaiṣṇavas. It is also during this 
period that we see an increase in the consolidation of the community as a whole and in the 
organization of centers (maṭhas). Srilata Raman marks the thirteenth century as one of the 
historical turning points in the Śrīvaiṣṇava community, which also include the political and 
economic changes from a unified Cōḻa kingdom to more disintegrated regional powers and the 
rising social significance of non-brahmin groups. The political and social fluctuations around 
this period seem to accelerate the interest of the Śrīvaiṣṇava authors’ interest in expanding the 
community and to differentiate itself from other religious communities. This is even more 
evident in the later generation of authors of the fourteenth century, as we will see in the next 
chapter. Raman explains the situation:  
 
In contrast to the historical circumstances [i.e., the expansion of the Chola 
temple economy] in which Piḷḷāṉ and Nañcīyar composed their works, the later 
commentators Naṃpiḷḷai, Vaṭakku Tiruvītip Piḷḷai, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai and 
Aḻakiya Maṇvāḷa Cīyar lived in a period which marked the beginning of 
prolonged political uncertainty, starting from the mid-thirteenth century when 
what was once a unitary Cōḻa kingdom had disintegrated and was being 
challenged by growing regional powers. These included a new Pāṇḍya power 
within the Cōḻa heartland of the Kaveri delta, the Kakatiyas in the Telugu region 
with their seat at Warangal and the Hoysalas in Karnataka. The period of these 
commentators, therefore was one of political uncertainty and transition, 
straddling as it did the relative stability of the Cōḻa period on the one hand, and 
the turmoil of the Muslim incursions on the other, leading to the eventual 
establishment both of the Deccani sultanates and Vijayanagara. The Vaiṣṇavite 
sacred centres were also witnesses to the fluctuating fortunes of the regional 
powers: Kāñcipuram, for instance, changed hands from Cōḻa to Kakatiya to 
Pāṇḍya rule all within the space of a century. It was not just the old political 
order which was changing but also the agrarian settlements of the Cōḻa period. 
Regardless of how one characterizes the Cōḻa state – whether as “bureaucratic 
151 
 
and centralised” or “segmentary” – it is generally accepted that the thirteenth 
century saw the decline of old institutions and the emergence of new ones and 
changes in the old agrarian order. The evidence, taken as a whole, seems to speak 
for a society in motion with new groupings of non-brahmin, warrior 
communities becoming significant regional powers.364 
 
 
Moreover, the Śrīvaiṣṇava maṭhas, which had been loosely developed since the twelfth 
century seemed to have been more administratively structured around the thirteenth century 
before gaining recognition in the epigraphical evidence in the fourteenth century.365 The 
increasing attention to the entire communal notion may parallel the intensification of the social 
base of each location like Kāñcīpuram and Śrīraṅgam despite their mutual contact. Borrowing 
Patricia Mumme’s argument on the distinction between these two locations, one could say that 
the community at Kāñcīpuram was much more “cosmopolitan” in the sense that they engaged 
more with the Sanskrit philosophical debates shared by other philosophical systems, while 
Śrīraṅgam was more exclusively for the Śrīvaiṣṇavas and Tamil heritage.366 In addition to this 
distinction, I claim that there is an additional, distinction that pertains to the linguistic domain 
despite the connection between the two locations.  
In this chapter, I will show how Sanskrit and Manipravalam spheres are indeed more 
distinct than what we have seen due to the divergence in the normative and expressive choices 
made by the two authors investigated in this chapter, namely Meghanādārisūri and Piḷḷai 
Lokācārya. Both writers came from two respective groups of authors: first, those like Vātsya 
Varadaguru at Kāñcīpuram who paid attention to the philosophical Vedāntic debates and used 
only Sanskrit in their compositions, and, second, those who composed only Manipravalam 
 
364 Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 178. 
365 Dutta, From Hagiographies to Biographies, 93–94. 
366 Mumme, The Śrīvaiṣṇava Theological Dispute, 1–25. 
152 
 
works such as the Manipravalam commentators. Unfortunately, we have little historical 
evidence about them, and what we know is mainly extracted from their works.  
According to the tradition, Piḷḷai Lokācārya was the son of Vaṭakku Tiruvīti Piḷḷai (c. 
1250), the attributed author of the Īṭu Muppattāyirappaṭi, and the brother of Aḻakiya 
Maṇavāḷapperumāḷ Nāyaṉār, the author of the Ācāryahṛdayam and the Aruḷiceyalrahasyam.367 
In the hagiographical narrative of Vedāntadeśika, Piḷḷai Lokācārya is portrayed as 
Vedāntadeśika’s rival and friend at Śrīraṅgam. He escaped to Tirupati during the Muslim sack 
of Śrīraṅgam.368 From this information, we may assume that Piḷḷai Lokācārya was a significant 
figure at Śrīraṅgam who was immersed in engaging with the Tamil scripture and using 
Manipravalam to discuss theology. This picture is supported by his compositions. Despite his 
lineage from the Manipravalam commentators, Piḷḷai Lokācārya did not compose a single 
commentary on the Āḻvārs’ Tamil hymns. Following Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Piḷḷai Lokācārya 
composed eighteen Manipravalam rahasyagranthas, of which the Śrīvacana Bhūṣaṇam, 
Mumukṣuppaṭi, and Tattvatrayam are highly regarded by the present-day community of the 
Teṅkalais.369 He was also retrospectively regarded as the originator of the Teṅkalai sub-
tradition. It is certain that he was influenced by Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s Manipravalam works, 
especially the Parantarahasyam, which can be characterized as a model for Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s 
Mumukṣupaṭi, the focus of this chapter. 
Compared to Piḷḷai Lokācarya, we know almost nothing about Meghanādārisūri. Based 
on his Sanskrit works, we know that that he participated with the Sanskrit community at 
Kāñcīpuram. We do not have his exact dates apart from the assumption that he was likely active 
 
367 Venkatachari, The Manipravāla Literature of the Śrīvaiṣṇava Ācāryas, Chapter 3. 
368 Hopkins, “Vedāntadeśika,” 463–464. 
369 McCann, “Ācāryābhimāna,” 20. 
153 
 
in the thirteenth century.370 Thus, it might be the case that he was an older contemporary of 
Vedāntadeśika like Piḷḷai Lokācārya. Within his Sanskrit circle, self-surrender remained 
marginal and implicit, as seen in the works of, for example, Nārāyaṇārya and Ātreya Rāmānuja, 
who did not defend self-surrender as an independent means separate from bhakti.371 Instead of 
being explicit about self-surrender, the Sanskrit authors at this time focused on consolidating 
the Sanskrit sphere based on Rāmānuja. They also maintained the authority of the Upaniṣads 
and did not include the Tamil scripture in their intellectual scenario, let alone in their 
soteriology. Among them, Meghanādārisūri was arguably the primary advocate of the 
Upaniṣads and Rāmānuja’s philosophy. Following Rāmānuja, he strengthened the unity of 
Pūrva Mīmāṃsā and Vedānta by using Mīmāṃsā hermeneutics with Upaniṣadic statements, as 
in his central Vedāntic treatise, the Nayadyumaṇi. Interestingly, he devoted one work, the 
Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha, to defending self-surrender as Vātysa Varadaguru had done.  
This chapter draws attention to these two contemporary authors’ primary treatises on 
self-surrender, Meghanādārisūri’s Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha and Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s 
Mumukṣupaṭi, to reveal that the authors’ different strands of self-surrender are shaped by the 
spheres of Sanskrit and Manipravalam that they inhabited and the ways they engaged with their 
respective linguistic domains. In the first section, I explore how the two authors expressed self-
surrender in different manners by highlighting the contradicting aspects of its function and 
accessibility. I then show that their theological expressions are based on diverging normative 
sets of textual sources and authoritative figures.  
We can assume that Piḷḷai Lokācārya might have been addressing a more limited 
 
370 According to Pandit, his active year is c. 1250, see “Meghanādari sūri.” 
371 See Nārāyaṇarya’s Nītimālā, 67-68, and Ātreya Rāmānuja’s Nyāyakuliśa, 193. 
154 
 
audience compared to Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai since Piḷḷai Lokācārya composed only one genre, the 
rahasyagranthas in Manipravalam. This is unlike Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, who commented on the 
Āḻvārs’ hymns and also the Sanskrit works of previous ācāryas, in addition to composing 
rahasyagranthas. The style of aphorism (sūtra), which is brief and sometimes obscure in the 
Mumukṣupaṭi, further suggests that the text might have been used and circulated among those 
who were familiar with Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s teaching.372 Historically, Piḷḷai Lokācārya spent his 
time at Śrīraṅgam, where the ācāryas paid attention to the Tamil scripture. Also, the focus on 
the Tamil scripture might have increased since Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s time. Still, Piḷḷai 
Lokācārya’s preference for Tamil scripture is remarkable, and his inattention to the Sanskrit 
sources may be explained as his attempt to strengthen the Manipravalam sphere for his 
Śrīraṅgam milieu by limiting the use of the norms shared by the Sanskrit treatises. 
In contrast, Meghanādārisūri restricted the textual authority to Sanskrit scripture and 
regarded Rāmānuja as the ultimate authoritative figure in his Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha. This 
might be rooted in his intellectual project to consolidate the Sanskrit sphere to the normative 
domain demarcated by Rāmānuja’s soteriological teaching as reflected in his other works. 
Despite its overt restriction to the Sanskrit sphere, one can see that the Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha 
includes some of the views found in the Manipravalam literature before and around this time 
such as the passive nature of self-surrender and the inclusion of the non-twice-born in the 
soteriological process, which indicate the overlapping nature of different spheres despite their 
increasingly solidified borders.  
 
 
372 It is my understanding at this point that the Mumukṣupaṭi is a summation of Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s 
Parantarahasyam. This explains Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s choice of sūtra-style along with the brevity and obscurity of 
the Mumukṣupaṭi. However, this hypothesis needs further justification. 
155 
 
3.1 The Two Shades of Self-surrender 
Here, I present two shades of self-surrender as theorized by the two authors in their treatises. 
The difference in these two strands suggests the authors’ engagement with their respective 
spheres. To place self-surrender in the domain of the Sanskrit sphere established by Rāmānuja 
himself, Meghanādārisūri proposes that self-surrender is another Upaniṣadic means that has to 
be performed, similar to what Vātsya Varadaguru states. However, Meghanādārisūri goes 
beyond Vātsya Varadaguru to leave no avenue for śūdras to attain liberation even in the case 
of self-surrender. Meghanādārisūri’s exclusion of śūdras from performing self-surrender is 
unique even among the Sanskrit authors and points to his attempt to strictly conform to 
Rāmānuja’s characteristics of bhakti. Unlike Meghanādārisūri, Piḷḷai Lokācārya emphasizes the 
hierarchical relationship between God and the soul, stating that the soul is subject to God’s 
supremacy due to its subservient nature. As I argued in the previous chapter, this relationship 
represents Tamil devotional expression. As the Master of the soul, God has total control over 
the soul’s soteriological process. Thus, self-surrender can be reduced to just a gesture or a non-
resistance to God’s protection and is no longer a means that should be performed. It is passive, 
while God is active and, as a result, is available to all who realize this relationship, including 
those who are not twice-born. Thus, self-surrender in the Mumukṣupaṭi is even more accessible 
to everyone than in Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s in his Parantarahasyam, where it still functions as a 
means. 
 
3.1.1 Self-surrender and the Exclusion of Śūdras 
In this section, I first show that Meghanādārisūri’s definition of self-surrender largely agrees 
with Vātsya Varadaguru’s Prapannpārijāta, which may be the main source of influence. 
156 
 
However, despite this, Meghanādārisūri deviates from his predecessor’s acceptance of 
everyone’s eligibility for self-surrender. Meghanādārisūri argues that those who are not twice-
born and thus are not eligible for Vedic study cannot attain liberation through any Upaniṣadic 
means, including self-surrender. The only way they can attain liberation for them is to be reborn 
as one of the three castes. His insistence affirms soteriological arguments in the Sanskrit sphere 
as seen in Rāmānuja’s Śrībhāṣya and might stem from his intention to maintain both the validity 
of self-surrender and its Vedāntic status.  
Like Vātsya Varadaguru, Meghanādārisūri derives his definition of self-surrender from 
Upaniṣadic passages, especially the Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad passages, to prove that self-
surrender is one among the many Upaniṣadic means to liberation. Like Vātsya Varadaguru, he 
focuses on Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 24.2: “You, who are pervading and delighting in wealth, 
are joined with the breath. O Brahman, you are the creator of all and the giver of energy to the 
fire, speech to the sun, splendor to the moon, You are grasped in the sacrificial ladle. One should 
offer oneself as aum to You, the great glorious Brahman.”373 He claims that this verse connected 
to the statements regarding self-surrender in Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 21.2: “Offering is 
Brahman; Brahman is the Supreme; The Supreme is Brahman; Offering is superior to those 
austerities which are inferior,” and Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 24.1: “Thus, the offering is said 
to be superior to these austerities.”374  
 
The mantra, “You, who are pervading,” [Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 24.2] states 
the nature of self-surrender, having reminded one of the stated offering (nyāsa) 
in the passage, “Thus, the offering is said to be superior to these austerities” 
[Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 24.1], to explain the manner of self-surrender as 
stated in the mantra beginning with “Offering is Brahman; Brahman is the 
Supreme; The Supreme is Brahman; Offering is superior to those austerities 
 
373 Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 24.2, 25. See section 2.1.1. 
374 Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 21.2, 23, and Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 24.1, 25. See section 2.1.1.  
157 
 
which are inferior; one knows this; this is the secret (upaniṣad)” [Mahānārāyaṇa 
Upaniṣad 21.2].375 
 
Based on these passages, self-surrender can also be characterized as the laying down of oneself 
to God (ātmanikṣepa), which is synonymous to “offering” (nyāsa), and also as the knowledge 
of the soul’s subordination to God and of God as both the means and the goal: 
 
By the word “offering” (nyāsa), what is meant is self-surrender (prapatti), 
characterized as the laying down of oneself (ātmanikṣepa). [The Upaniṣad] 
praises the stated knowledge of self-surrender in order to show that it is superior 
to all other means due to its being the means to liberation […] Being the goal, 
Brahman is higher than anything else and offering, just like that, is a goal for 
someone who wants to cross beyond the transmigration. This is what the mantra 
[in the Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad] means.376 
 
 
Agreeing with Vātsya Varadaguru, Meghanādārisūri points out that self-surrender in the 
form of the laying down of oneself is the predominant Upaniṣadic means and is to be 
accompanied by five auxiliaries, based on Lakṣmītantra 60–61.377 In his explanation of each of 
the auxiliaries, Meghanādārisūri highlights the role of scripture, especially the Upaniṣads, and 
the duties according to one’s caste and stage of life, which are communicated by the first two 
auxiliaries, namely the will to please God and the avoidance of hostility. To elaborate, the first 
auxiliary shows that, to please God, an eligible person should maintain the knowledge of the 
hierarchical relationship between God and the subservient soul and preserve the duties 
according to one’s own caste and stage of life as prescribed by the Upaniṣads. This instruction 
 
375 Meghanādārisūri, Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha (Bangalore: Eriṣ Mudrākṣaraśālā, 1910), 38: “nyāsa iti brahmā hi 
paraḥ paro hi brahmā tāni vā etāny avarāṇi tapāṃsi nyāsa eva atyarecayad ayam evaṃ vedety upaniṣat,” 
ityādimantroktanyāsaprakārābhidjñānāya tasmān nyāsam īṣāṃ tapasām atiriktam āhuḥ, iti pūrvoktanyāsaṃ 
smārayitvā vasuraṇyo vibhūrasīti mantreṇa tatsvarūpam abhidhīyate, teṣāṃ mantrāṇām arthās tu. 
376 Ibid.: nyāsa ity ātmanikṣepopalakṣitā prapattir ucyata ity uktaprapattijñānasya mokṣasādhanatvena 
sarvopāyotkṛṣṭatvaṃ vaktuṃ stauti, […] paro hi brahma prāpyatve sarvasmād utkṛṣṭaṃ brahama 
tadvaduttitīrṣor nyāso ’pi prāpya ity arthaḥ. 
377 Lakṣmītantra 17.60–61, 57. See section 2.4.1. 
158 
 
is further supported by Viṣṇupurāṇa 3.8.9, which justifies the performance of these duties even 
in the case of bhakti.378 The second auxiliary informs one to avoid neglecting knowledge and 
ritual performance based on the Upaniṣadic injunctions, as doing so would displease God:379 
 
“This is six-fold taking refuge: the will to please [God], the avoidance of 
hostility, the faith that He will protect, the choosing of Him as the protector, the 
laying down of oneself, and wretchedness” [Lakṣmītantra 17.60-61]. 
This is the specific definition. The will to please [God] refers to the will 
for the performance of the service as an end in itself as in the case of 
Vibhīṣaṇa,380 Arjuna, and others through the scriptural rituals which conform to 
one’s nature, preceded by the knowledge of oneself, the Supreme Self, and so 
on. The conducts according to one’s caste and stages of life in the scriptures are 
what conform to God.  
It is remembered, “Viṣṇu who is the Supreme Person is worshiped by the 
person with conduct according to one’s caste and stage of life. No other path 
produces satisfaction for Him” [Viṣṇupurāṇa 3.8.9]. Thus, the worship of God 
is indeed service; therefore, that alone is what pleases God like [the conducts] 
of Vibhīṣaṇa and others.  
What is undesirable [to God] is the conforming act with the thought that 
the body, house, land, son, friends, and so on belong to oneself, or the actions 
suitable to pleasing but with the thought that the body and sense organs are 
oneself, or performing [the conducts] with the thought that oneself is 
independent, pervasive, or non-sentient in the manner opposed to the scripture, 
or resolving to perform the service previously explained wrongly, or not 
performing it at all. The avoidance of that is the avoidance of what is not pleasing 
to God and the knowledge of what is not pleasing is from the scripture since 
there is no other way to know that […].381 
 
378 For the full text, see Viṣṇupurāṇa 3.8.9, vol. 1, 294. 
379 Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha, 16–17. The third and fourth auxiliaries then indicate that self-surrender which is the 
mental offering of the activity and agency of protecting oneself to God is to be preceded by the constant faith in 
God and the determination that He is the protector. The last auxiliary, which is wretchedness, prescribes the 
contemplation that one has no other refuge other than God. Meghanādārisūri’s delineation of self-surrender and 
its auxiliaries suggests the continuation of the whole process as opposed to Vātsya Varadaguru’s explanation that 
self-surrender along with its auxiliaries is to be performed only once. 
380 It should be noted that, like other authors, Meghanādārisūri also regards Vibhīṣaṇa, who took refuge with 
Rāmā in the Rāmāyaṇa, as one of the exemplars of people who undertake self-surrender in this context. 
381 Meghanādārisūri, Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha, 16–17:  
ānukūlyasya saṅkalpaḥ prātikūlyasya varjanam | rakṣiṣyatīti viśvāso goptṛtvavaraṇaṃ tathā | 
ātmanikṣepakarpaṇye ṣaḍvidhā śaraṇāgatiḥ | iti viśeṣalakṣaṇaṃ, tadarthas tu svaparamātmādijñānapūrvakaṃ 
(tatsva)svarūpānukūlaśāstrīyakarmādibhir vibhīṣaṇārjunādivatkaiṅkaryasya ananyaprayojanatayā 
anuṣṭhānasaṅkalpa ānukūlyasya saṅkalpaḥ, śāstrīya varṇāśramācārā(modayānakaraṇā)dir eva hi 
bhagavadānukūlyārthaḥ. 
varṇāśramācāravatā puruṣeṇa paraḥ pumān | viṣṇur ārādhyate panthā nānyas tattoṣakāraṇam || iti 
smaraṇam api, ata eva bhagavatsamārādhanam eva hi kaiṅkaryaṃ, tad eva hi bhagavadanukūlaṃ 
159 
 
 
Thus, as in the case of the performance of bhakti, the performance of self-surrender is to be 
accompanied by other activities according to caste and stage of life. In self-surrender, all of 
these activities should be maintained as long as one lives.382  
Although his arguments so far are not identical to Vātsya Varadaguru’s, they are not too 
far from what we have seen in the Prapannapārijāta. Meghanādārisūri models self-surrender 
on bhakti, like Vātsya Varadaguru. However, unlike Vātsya Varadaguru who overtly views 
these two means as distinct, Meghanādārisūri obscures their distinction, except for some 
features like the auxiliaries required in surrendering process based on the fact that they are 
equally Upaniṣadic means. We see the remarkable difference between Maghanādārisūri and 
Vātsya Varadaguru in their arguments on the eligibility of self-surrender. Unlike Vātsya 
Varadaguru who indicates that everyone can perform self-surrender, Maghanādārisūri makes it 
clear that only the twice-born are eligible to perform self-surrender based on the fact that it is 
an Upaniṣadic meditative means like bhakti.  
At the beginning of the Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha, Maghanādārisūri classifies two groups 
of people who are eligible for Vedic study, namely those who are born among the three higher 
castes and those who are born from proper hierarchical marriages like mūrdhāvasikta (a mixed 
caste from a brāhmaṇa father and a kṣatriya mother). Only they can perform rituals as 
 
śrīvibhīṣaṇādayo ’pi śarīragṛhakṣetraputramitrādau mamatābuddhitadanukūlācaraṇaṃ dehendriyabuddhiṣu 
(ddhyādiṣu) svātmabuddhitadanukūlavartanaṃ, ātmani 
vedāntaviruddhasvātantryasarvagatatvajaḍatvādibuddhiḥ, 
pūrvoktakaiṅkaryānyathānuṣṭhānānanuṣṭhānasaṅkalpaś ca bhagavatprātikūlyaṃ, tadvarjanaṃ (ca) 
prātikūlyasya varjanaṃ prātikūlyajñānaṃ ca śāstrād eva, pramā(ṇā)ntarāviṣayatvāt […]. 
382 Ibid., 43: “Thus, one should sit and contemplate on this [self-surrender] as in the case of bhakti. One should 
perform ritual actions which are suitable to one’s caste and stage of life at the proper time. On the other hand, the 
Upaniṣadic means and their auxiliaries are like bhakti and one thus should perform them until death.” 
(evaṃvidhārthaṃ bhaktāu iva āsīno ’nusandadhyāt, varṇāśramācārocitakarmāṇi kāle kuryāt, aṅgavidyās tu 
bhaktivad eva, evaṃ āprayāṇād anuṣṭhet). 
160 
 
prescribed by the Vedas after their studies. Then, they would come to the realization that the 
results of Vedic rituals are trivial and fleeting. Due to this realization, they would study the 
Upaniṣads, which are the scriptural continuation of the Vedas. Through the Upaniṣadic study, 
they attain the knowledge that Nārāyaṇa is the Supreme God and the Master of all the souls 
who are His subordinates. They also gain the correct understanding that liberation in the form 
of the attainment of God is the ultimate and lasting result. They then have both the correct 
knowledge and capability to pursue the Upaniṣadic meditative means, including bhakti and self-
surrender, along with their auxiliaries. Without Vedic study and its knowledge, those outside 
of these two groups cannot perform bhakti and self-surrender and other Vedic rituals, which 
serve as their auxiliaries: 
 
First, someone among the three higher castes or those who are born from 
the marriage in a regular order like mūrdhāvasikta (a mixed caste from a 
brāhmaṇa father and a kṣatriya mother) are worthy of the initiation and Vedic 
study. They undergo the initiation by true ācāryas who possess qualities of the 
self like peace and self-control and are born within a lineage. Then, they become 
those with a bundle of the rituals to be performed from the teaching and the 
scripture. Thus, they study only their branch of the Vedas and the auxiliaries. 
Having preliminarily understood all the meanings [of the Vedas], they determine 
the meanings and then engage with the hearing of the Mīmāṃsāśāstra (the whole 
system of Mīmāṃsā and Vedānta). After understanding the Mīmāṃsāśāstra 
from a teacher, one should determine the Vedic meanings. Then, the one who is 
able to hear the Mīmāṃsāśāstra should listen to the Vedic meanings which have 
already been determined many times and the main meaning is that Nārāyaṇa 
Himself is the Supreme Self and the nature of the self and so on are subordinate 
to Him. Rituals alone are heard as being the means to little and unstable results 
but the knowledge of Brahman, referred to by the words “bhakti” and “self-
surrender” (prapatti), has endless and stable results are in the form of the 
experience of Brahman […]. 
Having understood the Vedic meanings from the teacher, and having 
determined again and again by valid means of knowledge that it is this way, one 
who has the firm desire in the attainment of the Supreme Self and is indifferent 
regarding his own goal which is other than God should undertake the 
performance of either bhakti or self-surrender with its auxiliaries.383 
 
383 Ibid., 1–4: prathamaṃ tāvat, traivarṇikeṣv anyatamaḥ, upanayanādhyayanārhamūrdhāvasiktādyanulomajo 
161 
 
  
 
Meghanādārisūri further claims that śūdras can only perform practices like the chanting of 
God’s names, which are auxiliary to the Upaniṣadic meditative means, to drive away their sins 
in order to attain better rebirths and eventually be eligible for Vedic study.384 
We might recall that Rāmānuja, in his Śrībhāṣya, argues for the ineligibility of śūdras 
in the case of bhakti based on the Mīmāṃsā exclusion of śūdras in ritual performance and, in 
doing so, sets the restriction of a soteriological doctrine to the twice-born. Meghanādārisūri’s 
decision to exclude the śūdras in the soteriological scenario shown above was surely influenced 
by Rāmānuja’s argument and conditioned by the Sanskrit sphere of soteriology. One could 
expand on this to say that, as one of the main authors who defend the Rāmānuja’s school of 
Vedānta on the ground of Mīmāṃsā, Maghanādārisūri favors the conformity to Mīmāṃsā. 
Regardless, his exclusion of śūdras reinforces a Vedāntic status for self-surrender and conform 
this doctrine to Rāmānuja’s Sanskrit soteriological model. 
 
3.1.2 When Self-surrender is no Longer a Means  
 
 
vā, satsantānaprasūta-śamadamādyātmaguṇopetasadācāryopanītaḥ, tataḥ śikṣitaśāstrīyānuṣṭheyārthakalāpaḥ, 
tasmād adhītasvāṅgasvaśākhaḥ, adhītasvaśākhāmātro vā, āpātapratītasakalavedārthaḥ, tannirṇayāya 
mīmāṃsāśāstrāśravaṇapravṛttaḥ, ācāryān mīmāṃsāśāstram adhikṛtya vedārthaniścayaṃ kuryāt. 
tacchravaṇaśaktas tu tato niścitān vedārthān bahuśaḥ śruṇuyāt, vedārthaś ca, pradhānataḥ paramātmā 
nārāyaṇa eva, anantasthirabrahmānubhavarūpaphalāni tu bhaktiprapattipadā(phalā)bhidheyāni 
brahmajñānāny eva […] 
 evam ācāryād vedārtham avagamya mānena evaṃ iti bhūyo bhūyo viniścitya prāpyaparamātmaprāptau 
dṛḍhābhilāṣas taditarasarvārthaviraktaś ca sāṅgabhaktiprapattyor anyatarānuṣṭhānam ārabheta. 
384 Ibid., 13: “The śūdras are incapable of meditating on the nature of the individual soul by means of sacrifice 
and other rituals as well as contemplation of the path of light that need to be done. Therefore, śūdras do not have 
eligibility with respect to that [recitation of God’s means as the means to liberation]. The permission [for śūdras] 
to recite God’s names, light the lamps, and building public gardens and so on can be for the sake of removing 
sins just like the permission to listen to the Purāṇas. For them, there is no performance for the sake of liberation. 
On the other hand, women who are twice-born are allowed to perform the Upaniṣadic means with the permission 
of their husbands.” (yajñādikaraṇajīvasvarūpānusandhānagaticintanādeś ca kartavyatvāt, śūdrādes tatrāśakteś 
ca na tatrādhikāraḥ. nāmasaṅkīrtanapradīpāropaṇodyānakaraṇādes tu purāṇaśravaṇābhyanujñāvad anujñā tu 
pāpakṣayamātrapareti na mokṣārthānuṣṭhānaṃ tasya, traivarṇikastrīṇāṃ tu patyanumatau vidyāsvīkāro ’sty 
eva). 
162 
 
Unlike Meghanādārisūri, Piḷḷai Lokācārya operated in the Manipravalam sphere and prioritized 
the Tamil expression of the importance of God’s grace over the restriction of self-surrender. 
His emphasis on the autonomy of God and the soul’s subservience further culminates in the 
rejection of the ritual status of self-surrender. Despite his rejection of the role of bhakti in the 
soteriological process, Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s characterization of self-surrender as knowledge, his 
repetition of the request for service in self-surrender, and his argument that other means should 
not be completely abandoned suggest that his system of self-surrender was still based on the 
Sanskrit sphere. 
Like Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Piḷḷai Lokācārya centers his systematization of self-surrender 
on the binary opposition between bhakti and self-surrender and the identification between God 
and self-surrender. However, Piḷḷai Lokācārya stresses God’s agency more than Periyavāccāṉ 
Piḷḷai. He explains that everything in the soteriological process is dependent on God, and self-
surrender is nothing other than accepting or not rejecting when God wants to liberate oneself. 
As a result, self-surrender cannot be regarded as a means that should be performed by a person 
who desires liberation. To support this view, mostly in his interpretation of the Caramaśloka in 
the Bhagavadgītā, he draws a distinction between God, who is the already accomplished means 
and independent, and the other means, which need to be performed by an eligible person. 
 According to Piḷḷai Lokācārya, the Caramaśloka teaches the last means to the attainment 
of God after informing Arjuna of the three yogas.385 Like Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Piḷḷai Lokācārya 
 
385 Piḷḷai Lokācārya, Mumukṣupaṭi, ed. Kṛṣṇasvāmi Ayyaṅkār (Tirucci: S. Kṛṣṇasvāmi Ayyaṅkār, 1970), 115: 
“The name for this Caramaśloka is because thinking about Arjuna who—after being taught a few particular 
means previously and thinking that those are polluting and opposed to the nature [of the soul]—was tormented 
by grief, in order to remove his grief, He reveals the last means about which can be said that there is nothing 
higher than this.” (kīḻē cila upāyaviśēṣaṅkaḷai upadēśikka, avai duśśakaṅkaḷ eṉṟum, svarūpavirōdhikaḷ eṉṟum 
niṉaittu śōkāviṣṭaṉāṉa arjuṉaṉaikkuṟittu, avaṉuṭaiya śōkanivṛttyarthamāka ‘iṉi itukku avvarukillai’ 
eṉṉalāmpaṭiyāṉa caramōpāyattai aruḷicceykaiyālē, caramaślōkam eṉṟu itukku pērāyirukkiṟatu). 
163 
 
construes that the first part of the Caramaśloka refers, first, to the abandonment of dharmas that 
are the means to be accomplished as enjoined in śruti and smṛti.386 The abandonment is an 
auxiliary to self-surrender, enjoined as the acceptance of God by the phrase “come to Me alone 
as refuge.” The abandonment and acceptance are directed to a person who is qualified to 
perform self-surrender due to the desire to reach God. The gerund form in the phrase “having 
abandoned” conditions that the abandonment is to be followed by surrendering as Piḷḷai 
Lokācārya states, “By the gerund [in parityajya], it is stated that ‘Having abandoned other 
means, one should surrender’ as in the statement, ‘Having bathed, one should eat.’”387 For the 
word “dharmas,” Piḷḷai Lokācārya, following Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, lists the dharmas that should 
be abandoned by the eligible person, including the same dharmas mentioned by Periyavāccāṉ 
Piḷḷai plus lighting the lamps and making garlands. The word “all dharmas” then includes other 
obligatory sacrificial rituals (nityakarma):388   
 
These [dharmas] are: karma-, jñāna-, and bhakti-yoga, all of those things done 
with the belief that they are the means, beginning with the knowledge of the 
secret of incarnations (avatārarahasyajñāna), the Upaniṣadic means to the 
Supreme Person (puruṣottamavidyā), living in [sacred] places (deśavāsa), 
praising the names of the Lord (tirunāmasaṅkīrtana), lighting the lamps, [and] 
making garlands.389 
 
 
386 Ibid., 118: “The word ‘all dharmas’ (sarvadharmān) means all dharmas. The word ‘dharma’ means that 
which is a means to a result. The word ‘dharma’ stated in this case refers to the means to the result which is 
liberation not the means to the worldly results. Since there are many of these means enjoined in śruti and smṛti. 
There is the use of the plural ending [attached to the word ‘dharma’].” (sarvadharmān-ellā dharmaṅkaḷaiyum. 
dharmam āvatu-phalasādhanamāy irukkum atu. iṅkuc collukiṟa dharmaśabdaṃ dṛṣṭaphalasādhanaṅkaḷaic 
collukai aṉṟikkē, mōkṣaphalasādhanaṅkaḷaic collikiṟatu. avaitāṉ-śrutismṛtivihitaṅkaḷāyp phalavāy irukkaiyālē 
bahuvacanaprayogam paṇṇukiṟatu). 
387 Ibid., 123: lyappālē “snātvā bhuñjīta” eṉṉumāpōlē, upāyāntaraṅkaḷai viṭṭē paṟṟa vēṇum eṉkiṟatu. 
388 Ibid., 120: “The word ‘all’ (sarva) refers to the obligatory rituals that are the basis for the suitability for those 
[means to liberation] at the time when there is the performance of these particular means.” (sarvaśabdattālē 
avvavasādhanaviśēṣaṅkaḷai anuṣṭhikkum iṭattil avaṟṟukku yōgyatāpādakaṅkaḷāṉa nityakarmaṅkaḷaic 
collukiṟatu). 
389 Ibid., 119: avaiy āvaṉa-karmajñānabhaktiyōgaṅkaḷum, avatārarahasyajñānam, puruṣōttamavidyai, 
dēśavāsam, tirunāmasaṅkīrtaṉam, tiruvaḷakkerikkai, tirumālaiyeṭukkai toṭakkamāṉa upāyabuddhyā ceyyum 
avaiyum. 
164 
 
 
It should be noted that Piḷḷai Lokācārya views abandonment only as mental realization that 
rituals cannot be used as the means to liberation, not a physical act of abandonment. He equates 
this realization to the recognizing when one has mistaken mother of pearl for silver:  
 
Abandonment is, having ascertained the state of the means and abandoned them 
with the particular thought that we have adorned the thought of the means on 
[those things that are] not the means like those who impose the thought of silver 
on the mother and those who set their minds on the wrong direction.390  
  
 
Such analogy, which is similar to the one in the Parantarahasyam, reminds us of the Advaita 
Vedānta argument that the knowledge gained from the Upaniṣadic passages makes one aware 
of the erroneous perception that the soul is distinct from God.391 According to Advaita Vedānta, 
this knowledge is the only way to liberation as it discards ignorance to reveal the unity between 
God and the soul. Piḷḷai Lokācārya then argues for the difference between God, the already 
accomplished means, and other means which need to be accomplished, the same distinction 
made by Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai. God is the means that is superior to other means because He is all 
capable and independent: 
 
That is to say, [God] is the already accomplished means (siddha), the supreme 
sentient being (paramacetana), the omnipotent one (sarvaśakti), the 
imperishable one (nirapāya), the obtainable one (prāpta), and the one who is 
without the need of other assistants (sahāyāntaranirapekṣa). The other means 
require a sentient being in completing the nature because they are the things that 
must be accomplished (sādhya). Since [they are] non-sentient and powerless, 
God is required in accomplishing what is to be done. This means [God] does not 
require others because of being contrary to those [non-sentient and powerless 
means].392 
 
390 Ibid., 122: tyāgam āvatu-uktōpāyaṅkaḷai anusandhittu, ‘śuktikaiyilē rajatabuddhi paṇṇuvāraip pōlēyum 
viparītatiśākamaṉam paṇṇuvāraip pōlēyum anupāyaṅkaḷilē upāyapbuddhi paṇṇiṉōm’ eṉkiṟa buddhiviśēṣattōṭē 
tyajikkai. 
391 See section 2.4.2. 
392 Ibid., 129–130: atāvatu-siddhamāy, paramacētaṉamāy, sarvaśaktiyāy, nirapāyamāy, prāptamāy, 
165 
 
 
 
God’s superiority overshadows the means such as self-surrender, reducing it to a mental activity 
with no physical or verbal actions involved. Piḷḷai Lokācārya confirms this nature of self-
surrender, interpreting the word “come” in the phrase, “come to Me alone as refuge,” in the 
Caramaśloka as follows: “[The word] ‘come’ [means] mental activity. The meaning of motion 
points to the determination which has the meaning of the mental activity. Although verbal and 
physical performances are expected for this word, it means mental performance since liberation 
is from knowledge.”393  
Moreover, Piḷḷai Lokācārya emphasizes the passivity of the eligible person, affirming 
that even the agency in the acceptance of God comes from Himself.394 Thus, it is sinful to think 
of self-surrender as a means through which one can exercise one’s own agency as Piḷḷai 
Lokācārya indicates: “Even self-surrender performed with the thought that it is a means due to 
confusion is comparable with a grievous sin.”395 Ultimately, it is only God’s grace that sets 
things in motion and tends to the entire soteriological process. Piḷḷai Lokācārya explains: “Since 
there is the teaching of the difficult means and the easy one for the same result, it ought to be 
the case that the means is only the grace of God and not these two means [i.e., bhakti and self-
surrender].”396  
 
sahāyāntaranirapēkṣamāy irukkai. maṟṟai upāyaṅkaḷ sādhyaṅkaḷ ākaiyālē, svarūpasiddhiyil cētaṉaṉai 
apēkṣittirukkum; acētaṉaṅkaḷumāy, aśaktaṅkaḷumāy irukkaiyālē kāryasiddhiyil īśvaraṉai apēkṣittu 
irukkum. inta upāyam avaṟṟukku etirttaṭṭāy irukkaiyālē, itaranirapekṣamāy irukkum. 
393 Ibid., 141–142: vraja-buddhipaṇṇu. gatyartham āvatu buddhyarthamāy, adhyavasiy eṉṟapaṭi. 
vācikakāyikaṅkaḷum itukku apēkṣitaṅkaḷāy irukkac ceytēyum, jñānān mōkṣam ākaiyālē mānasamāṉa 
anuṣṭhāṉattaic collukiṟatu. 
394 Ibid., 133–134: “By this word [‘alone’ (eka)], in the acceptance stated by the word ‘come,’ it is 
prevented from being a means. Even the acceptance comes from Him alone.” (ittāl, ‘vraja’ eṉkiṟa 
svīkārattil upāyabhāvattait tavirkkiṟatu. svīkārantāṉum avaṉālē vantatu). 
395 Ibid., 149: kalaṅki upāyabuddhyā paṇṇum prapattiyum pātakattōṭu okkum. 
396 Ibid., 161: oru phalattukku ariyavaḻiyaiyum, eḷiyavaḻiyaiyum upadēśikkaiyālē, ivai iraṇṭum oḻiya 
bhagavatprasādamē upāyamākak kaṭavatu. 
166 
 
In the Caramaśloka, the subordination of the soul is also expressed in the word “you” 
(tvā) in the second part of the verse, “I will free you from all sins.” Piḷḷai Lokācārya specifies 
that this word communicates the conditions that make the soul fit for taking refuge with God, 
“The word ‘you’ means you, who are ignorant, incapable, [and] not suitable, approach Me alone 
as the means.”397  
We have seen that Piḷḷai Lokācārya shares the main features of self-surrender with 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, such as God’s role as the means and the distinction between God and other 
means. However, unlike Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Piḷḷai Lokācārya makes explicit that self-surrender 
is not a means and reduces it to the knowledge of the soul’s subservience to God, who possesses 
the absolute power and agency of liberation. One could then ask, why is self-surrender 
necessary at all? Piḷḷai Lokācārya replies that self-surrender can prevent one from pursuing 
other means or simply serve as a way of spending time since it is pleasing for the soul and not 
for any other ends.398 Alternatively, it can function as a pretext to prevent everyone from 
attaining liberation at the same time.399 Piḷḷai Lokācārya uses the concept of pretext here to 
preserve God’s autonomy in granting liberation by theologically justifying that it is not the case 
that God, who is all powerful and has total control in soteriological scenario, cannot liberate 
every sentient being all at once. God is always ready and able to grant liberation to everyone, 
but He chooses to wait for an eligible person to approach Him first. In addition, Piḷḷai Lokācārya 
clarifies that the three yogas found in the Bhagavadgītā and self-surrender do not have to be 
 
397 Ibid., 145: tvā-ajñāṉāy aśaktaṉāy, aprāptaṉāy, eṉṉaiyē upāyamāka paṟṟiyirukkiṟav uṉṉai. 
398 Ibid., 100: “This [mental activity] is done so that the heart does not go to other means, to pass time, and 
because it is impossible to abandon due to the pleasure.” (upāyantaraṅkaḷil neñcucellāmaikkum, 
kālakṣēpattukkum, iṉimaiyālē viṭav oṇṇāmaiyālum naṭakkum).  
399 Ibid., 136: “This [acceptance of God as the means] is for avoiding the undesirable consequence of the 
liberation of all. The mental activity is for the sake of fixation of the mind, is done by intelligence, is attained by 
desire, is established in the soul’s nature, and shows non-rejection.” (itu sarvamuktiprasaṅgaparihārārtham, 
buddhisamādhānārtham, caitanyakāryam. rāgaprāptam, svarūpaniṣṭham, apratiṣēdhadyōtakam). 
167 
 
entirely abandoned by those who can perform them as they can be included in other 
soteriological elements as follows: “He [Arjuna] does not abandon these [other means] 
completely. Karma is included in service; Jñāna is included in self manifestation; Bhakti is 
included in the wish for the goal; Self-surrender (prapatti) is included in the knowledge of the 
true nature [of the self].”400 Although Piḷḷai Lokācārya maintains the authority and usefulness 
of these means to liberation, which are accepted by other authors, he does not assign any evident 
role for them in the soteriological process. He also does not explicitly state that everyone can 
attain liberation. Nevertheless, the fact that self-surrender is not a means along with its easiness 
suggests that anyone who realizes their subservience to God can be liberated.401 Among the 
features that make self-surrender easy and accessible, there is one that is clearly contradictory 
to those put forward by Meghanādārisūri.402 In contrast to Meghanādārisūri, Piḷḷai Lokācārya 
affirms that there are no restrictions in surrendering to God; only the desire for the goal is 
sufficient: 
 
Thus, it is said that only the desire is necessary for taking refuge and one does 
not need to wait for the occasion. There is no damage to the attainment even if 
one approaches [God] verbally and physically. [However,] [the approach] 
should be mental since liberation is from knowledge. Since He is the means and 
these [performances] are not direct means, there is no insistence that these three 
[performances] are necessary.403  
 
 
The importance of desire is further supported by an authoritative figures, such as Empār’s oral 
 
400 Ibid., 160: “ivaṉ tāṉ ivai taṉṉai nērākaviṭṭilaṉ. karmam-kaiṅkaryattilē pukum; jñānam-svarūpaprakāśattilē 
pukum; bhakti-prāpyaruciyilē pukum; prapatti-svarūpayāthātmya jñānattilē pukum.” 
401 For Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s discussion on castes, see Clooney, “Fierce Words.” 
402 Another different feature is the non-repetitive nature of self-surrender. Piḷḷai Lokācārya, Mumukṣupaṭi, 100: 
“If one thinks that it must be repeated many times for attainment [of liberation], the means slips away.” 
(pēṟṟukkup phalakālum vēṇum eṉṟu niṉaikkil upāyam naḻuvum). 
403 Ibid., 86 and 97–98: ittāl-āśrayikkaikku ruciyē vēṇṭuvatu, kālam pārkkavēṇṭā eṉkiṟatu. vācikamākavum 
kāyikamākavum paṟṟiṉāluṃ pēṟṟukku iḻavillai; ‘jñānān mōkṣam’ ākaiyālē, mānasamākak kaṭavatu. upāyam 
avaṉākaiyālum, ivai nērē upāyam allāmaiyālum, immūṉṟum vēṇum eṉkiṟa nirbandham illai.  
168 
 
teaching to Parāśara Bhaṭṭar that desire and also faith are necessary to pursue self-surrender, 
and, without them, one would attain bad consequences instead of liberation.404  
To conclude this first section on the two shades of self-surrender, I want to draw 
attention to two critical tensions between Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s self-surrender and that of 
Meghanādārisūri. First, the passive self-surrender according to Piḷḷai Lokācārya is in contrast 
to Meghanādārisūri’s definition of self-surrender as the means to be performed like bhakti. The 
other tension is the eligibility for self-surrender. Piḷḷai Lokācārya is not opposed to the notion 
that self-surrender is available to all. In contrast, Meghanādārisūri reserves it for the twice-born 
only. The tensions here, as I have argued, are based on their immersions in different spheres, 
specifically the distinction in their expressions. On the one hand, Meghanādārisūri limits his 
system of self-surrender to the Sanskrit sphere and models it on the expressibility of Rāmānuja’s 
bhakti, which is not meant for the śūdras. On the other hand, aiming to provide an alternative 
to bhakti, Piḷḷai Lokācārya situates self-surrender firmly in the Manipravalam sphere, of which 
the hierarchical relationship between God and the soul is one of the defining expressions. In the 
following sections, I show that their strands of self-surrender are embedded in the different 
norms they choose to resort to in their treatises. While Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s system of self-
surrender relies on the Manipravalam norms almost completely, Meghanādārisūri denies the 
authority of the Tamil scripture when it comes to any soteriological doctrines, including self-
surrender. 
 
 
404 Ibid., 163: “Empār replied to Bhaṭṭar that there is the uplifting when a believer has desire and faith in the 
activity, but destruction in the case of the non-believer. There is no middle ground [between uplifting and 
destruction].” (“āstikaṉay ivvarthattil ruciviśvāsaṅkaḷaiuṭaiyaṉāy ujjīvittal, nāstikaṉāy naśittal oḻiya naṭuvil 
nilaiy illai” eṉṟu bhaṭṭarukku eṃpār aruḷicceytavārttai). 
169 
 
3.2 The Celebration of Manipravalam Normativity in the Mumukṣupaṭi 
Around the time of the Mumukṣupaṭi, self-surrender was central in the Manipravalam literature 
to the extent that there is the exclusion of bhakti in the soteriological scenario. The Tiruvāymoḻi 
commentaries set a new intellectual model with Manipravalam as a medium, one which was 
not totally based on the Upaniṣads and Rāmānuja’s reading of these texts. They highlighted the 
authoritative role of the Tamil Veda and other Tamil hymns as well as itihāsas.405 They also 
incorporated the paradigm of the three secrets in the soteriology of self-surrender as seen in the 
first chapter. The rahasyagranthas, beginning with those of Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai as in the 
Parantarahasyam, followed this intellectual movement.  
Piḷḷai Lokācārya was not the first author to use the Tamil scripture, itihāsas, and the 
three secrets in the matters related to self-surrender since they were already in the 
Manipravalam commentaries on the Tiruvāymoḻi and the rahasyagranthas by this time. 
However, Piḷḷai Lokācārya deserves attention as another key figure who increases the role of 
these Manipravalam norms in the context of self-surrender. His development of self-surrender 
is almost entirely based on the Tamil scripture, and this might explain why self-surrender in his 
Mumukṣupaṭi is opposed to Meghanādārisūri’s. In addition to the Tamil scripture, Piḷḷai 
Lokācārya regards the three secrets as the structure of his system of self-surrender like 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai. Also, like his predecessor, Piḷḷai Lokācārya treats the Mahābhārata and 
the Rāmāyaṇa as the sources of narratives and stories of ideal practices. In this section, I 
investigate Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s advancement of the importance of the three norms derived from 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s systematization of self-surrender, namely the three secrets, itihāsas, and 
the Tamil scripture. His incorporation of these norms shows that he is part of the Manipravalam 
 
405 See section 1.4. 
170 
 
domain. In addition to showing his participation with other Manipravalam literature, especially 
the Parantarahasyam, I highlight Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s remarkable move, namely the domination 
of the Tamil scripture and itihāsas over the three secrets. Even the three secrets present a set of 
authority in his treatise that is subordinate to the Tamil scripture and itihāsas in his treatise. 
This dominance in the Mumukṣupaṭi differs from what we have seen in the 
Parantarahasyam, where Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai harmonizes the meanings of the three secrets with 
other authoritative passages from both Sanskrit and Tamil scriptures. In the Mumukṣupaṭi, Piḷḷai 
Lokācārya pays less attention to the Sanskrit passages. He refers to the Vedas, śruti, and smṛti 
in a couple places in the sections on the Tirumantra and Caramaśloka and cites only a few 
Sanskrit passages, namely Bhagavadgītā 15.4 and Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.31, in the section 
on the Caramaśloka.406 The first passage is found in the section on the Tirumantra. It illustrates 
the soul’s desire for God. The last three passages are used in the section on the Caramaśloka. 
They affirm the exclusivity of God as the means to the attainment of the goal, which is Himself. 
These three passages are also cited in the Parantarahasyam in the same context to support the 
same argument. This is one clue that the Parantarahasyam might have influenced the 
Mumukṣupaṭi. It is also possible that these two works participate in the same circle of sources 
and concepts. Whether or not Piḷḷai Lokācārya just records these Sanskrit passages as the 
inheritance from the previous teaching, he undoubtedly has higher regard for the Tamil scripture 
and itihāsas as he relies on them in various places in the Mumukṣupaṭi.  
We might recall that Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai brings in the Tamil hymns only to illustrate the 
actions of God, the soul, as well as the ideal practices but still turns to Sanskrit passages to 
 
406 See Mumukṣupaṭi, 14, 118, and 121, for his reference to śruti and smṛti. For the Sanskrit passages, see 
Mumukṣupaṭi, 133. See also Bhagavadgītā 15.4, vol. 3, 160, and Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā, vol. 2, 371. 
171 
 
argue for the injunctions of self-surrender. In contrast, Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s selection of Tamil 
hymns has more variation. The passages from the Tiruvāymoḻi comprise the majority of the 
Tamil passages referred to in the Mumukṣupaṭi. Only a few passages that Piḷḷai Lokācārya uses 
can be found in the Parantarahasyam. The Tamil passages are meant to emphasize the features 
of self-surrender that he proposes, such as the subordination of the soul.  
 
3.2.1 The Three Secrets and Āḻvārs’ Tamil Hymns 
 
Like Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai in the Parantarahasyam, Piḷḷai Lokācārya structures the Mumukṣupaṭi 
according to the three secrets. As a rahasyagrantha, the Mumukṣupaṭi mainly argues for the 
role of the three secrets in the system of self-surrender. Unlike Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, who 
elaborately interprets each secret, Piḷḷai Lokācārya offers only a summary of each one. I outline 
his summarizations of the three secrets here to show that his understanding of them agrees with 
the meanings proposed by Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, suggesting the influence of Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai. 
According to Piḷḷai Lokācārya, the three words in the Tirumantra, “Aum, I pay obeisance to 
Nārāyaṇa” (“aum namo nārāyaṇāya”), convey three meanings: namely the soul’s subservient 
nature (śeṣatva), its dependence (pāratantrya) on God, and the service (kaiṅkarya) to God as 
the highest goal.407 Next, Piḷḷai Lokācārya interprets the two parts of the Dvaya, “I surrender at 
the two feet of Nārāyaṇa with Śrī. I pay obeisance to Nārāyaṇa with Śrī,” as communicating 
the status of God as the means with Śrī as the mediator and the request for the goal, which is 
service, respectively.408 Finally, he divides the Caramaśloka into two parts. The first part 
indicates what is to be done by the eligible person, while the second part deals with God’s 
 
407 Piḷḷai Lokācārya, Mumukṣupaṭi, 26: “The three words [in the Tirumantra] communicate three meanings, 
namely the subservience [of the soul], its dependency [on God], and the service.” (mūṉṟu padamum mūṉṟu 
arthattaic collukiṟatu. atāvatu–śēṣatvamum, pāratantriyamum, kaiṅkaryamum). 
408 Ibid., 79.  
172 
 
performance.409 However, unlike Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, who pays the most attention to the Dvaya, 
Piḷḷai Lokācārya handles the Tirumantra more elaborately than the other two secrets. This 
section on the Tirumantra also contains the most citations from the Tamil hymns. Thus, I give 
his arguments in this section as an example of the important role of the Tamil normative 
passages in the interpretation of the secret.  
In the Tirumantra section, Piḷḷai Lokācārya first introduces the three secrets as being for 
those who desire liberation.410 He uses only two Tamil passages that are also found in the same 
section of the Parantarahasyam to argue that the three secrets embody the Tamil hymns based 
on the fact that they convey the same meanings regarding self-surrender. Piḷḷai Lokācārya then 
validates the authority of the Tirumantra through the hymns of the Āḻvārs. Based on Periya 
Tirumoḻi 1.1.9, Piḷḷai Lokācārya proposes that the Tirumantra is the means to all desires.411 In 
addition, it contains the truth regarding the five objects in the soteriological process 
(arthapañcaka), namely the soul’s nature, God, the goal, the means, and the obstacles, as stated 
in Periya Tirumoḻi 8.10.3.412 Thus, it is necessary even for the ācāryas to learn the meaning of 
the Tirumantra, according to Tiruccantaviruttam 64:413  
 
This [Tirumantra] indeed gives all desires as stated in, “It gives a family” [Periya 
Tirumoḻi 1.1.9]. For those who desire sovereignty, liberation in isolation, and 
the attainment of the Lord, it gives these things. For those who undertake karma-
, jñāna-, and bhakti- [yoga], it removes obstacles and makes them successful. 
For those who undertake self-surrender, it becomes the cause for the passing of 
time and experience after giving rise to the knowledge of the nature [of the soul]. 
All the meanings which should be known are stated [in the Tirumantra] as stated 
 
409 Ibid., 116: “In this case, He states what is to be done by the eligible person with the first part and what is to be 
done by the means with the later part.” (itil pūrvārthattālē adhikārikṛtayattai aruḷicceykiṟāṉ; utttarārthattālē 
upāyakṛtyattai aruḷicceykiṟaṉ). 
410 Ibid., 3: “It is necessary for the one who desires liberation to know the three secrets.” (mumukṣuvukku 
aṟiyavēṇṭum rahasyam mūṉṟu). 
411 Nālāyirativviyappirapantam, 211. 
412 Ibid., 374. 
413 Ibid., 178. 
173 
 
in, “Whatever else spoken about” [Periya Tirumoḻi 8.10.3]. In other words, there 
are five truths. The previous ācāryas thought that they are not born until 
knowing the meaning of the Tirumantra. After having the knowledge of its 
meaning, they spend their lives knowing nothing but that [Tirumantra] as stated 
in, “After being born, I do not forget [it]” [Tiruccantaviruttam 64].414 
 
 
Piḷḷai Lokācārya confirms each of these meanings with the Tamil hymns. The soul’s 
subservience to God, which is the meaning of aum, the first word of the Tirumantra, points to 
the hierarchical relationship between the soul and God, who is the Master of the soul. 
Subservience is the nature of the soul, and it can be understood as two-fold: subservience is 
defined as the subordination to God, and subservience to God alone can be achieved through 
the cessation of submission to others.  
At the end of the interpretation of aum, the first part of the Tirumantra, Piḷḷai Lokācārya 
summarizes that aum communicates the subservient relationship of the soul to God and stresses 
the exclusivity of this subservience, which is reiterated in the Tamil hymns, namely Periya 
Tirumoḻi 8.9.3 and Mutal Tiruvantāti 67:415  
 
Thus, aum refers to the relationship between the soul and the Supreme as stated 
in, “I am subordinate to the One in Kaṇṇapura, I belong to no other.” [Periya 
Tirumoḻi 8.9.3]. [Also,] by that, it is said, “[My] mind desires only the One, the 
husband of the Lady on the lotus” [Mutal Tiruvantāti 67].416 
 
 
 
414 Piḷḷai Lokācārya, Mumukṣupaṭi, 19–22: itutāṉ “kulantarum” eṉkiṟapaṭiyē ellā apēkṣitaṅkaḷaiyum koṭukkum. 
aiśvaryakaivalyabhagavallābhaṅkaḷai ācaippaṭavarkaḷukku avaṟṟaik koṭukkum. karmajñānabhaktikaḷilē 
iḻintavarkaḷukku virōdhiyai pōkki avaṟṟait talaikkaṭṭik koṭukkum. prapattiyilē iḻintavarkaḷukku svarūpajñānattaip 
piṟappittuk kālakṣēpattukkum pōkattukkuṃ hētuvāy irukkum. “maṟṟu ellām pēcilum” eṉkiṟapaṭiyē aṟiyavēṇṭum 
artham ellām itukkuḷḷē uṇṭu. atāvatu-añcartham. pūrvācāryarkaḷ, itil artham aṟivataṟku muṉpu, taṅkaḷaip 
piṟantārkaḷāka niṉaittirārkaḷ; itil arthajñānam piṟanta piṉpu, “piṟantapiṉ maṟantilēṉ” eṉkiṟapaṭiyē ittaiy 
oḻiyavēṟeṉṟāl kālakṣēpaṃ paṇṇiy aṟiyārkaḷ.   
415 Nālāyirativviyappirapantam, 372 and 642. 
416 Piḷḷai Lokācārya, Mumukṣupaṭi, 46–47: āka, praṇavattāl “kaṇṇapuram oṉṟuṭaiyāṉukku aṭiyēṉ oruvarku 
uriyēṉō” eṉkiṟapaṭiyē jīvaparasaṃpantañ colliṟṟu. ittāl, “tāmaraiyāḷ kēḷvaṉoruvaṉaiyē nōkkum uṇarvu” eṉṟatu 
āyiṟṟu.  
174 
 
Next, the word “I pay obeisance,” the second word in the Tirumantra, indicates the 
necessity of removing the obstacles to the attainment of God. The obstacles pertain to three 
aspects of self-surrender, namely the soul’s nature, the means, and the goal. Piḷḷai Lokācārya 
shows that the obstacle to each aspect is illustrated in the three Tamil hymns, Tiruvāymoḻi 2.9.9, 
Tiruvāymoḻi 5.8.8, and Tiruppāvai 29, respectively:417 
 
The word “I pay obeisance” gets rid of the obstacles and there are three [kinds] 
of them. There are obstacles to the nature, the means, and the goal. Removing 
the obstacle to the nature is to say, “I am indeed yours and what is mine is yours 
alone” [Tiruvāymoḻi 2.9.9]. To remove the obstacle to the means is to say, “No 
other would remove the suffering [that you can choose to] remove or not” 
[Tiruvāymoḻi 5.8.8]. To remove the obstacle to the goal is to say, “Change our 
desires for other [things]” [Tiruppāvai 30].418 
 
 
After the removal of the obstacles, Piḷḷai Lokācārya explains that the word “I pay obeisance” 
makes these three aspects manifest as seen in the three passages from Tiruvāymoḻi 6.5.1, 3.3.6, 
and 10.8.7, in order:419  
 
“With the passage, ‘Worshipping [the Lord at] Tolaivillimagala’ [Tiruvāymoḻi, 
6.5.1], the nature is stated. The means is stated with the passage, ‘[I] pay respect 
to the Lord of Veṅkaṭa’ [Tiruvāymoḻi 3.3.6]. The result is stated with the 
passage, ‘The final worshipping statement’ [Tiruvāymoḻi 10.8.7]”420  
 
 
Finally, Piḷḷai Lokācārya comments on the last word of the Tirumantra, “for Nārāyaṇa” 
(“nārāyaṇāya”), which, he claims, identifies Nārāyaṇa as the recipient of the service. Nārāyaṇa 
 
417 Nālāyirativviyappirapantam, 473, 530, and 114. 
418 Piḷḷai Lokācārya, Mumukṣupaṭi, 51–52: ittāl virōdhiyaik kaḻikkiṟatu. virōdhitāṉ mūṉṟu. atāvatu-
svarūpavirōdhiyum, upāyavirōdhiyum, prāpyavirōdhiyum. svarūpavirōdhikaḻikaiy āvatu – “yāṉē nī eṉṉ 
uṭaimaiyum nīyē” eṉṟu irukkai; upāyavirōdhikaḻikaiy āvatu “kaḷaivāy tuṉpam kaḷaiyātu oḻivāy kaḷaikaṇ 
maṟṟilēṉ” eṉṟirukkai; prāpyavirōdhikaḻikaiy āvatu–“maṟṟu naṅkāmaṅkaḷ māṟṟu” eṉṟirukkai. 
419 Nālāyirativviyappirapantam, 542, 478, and 629. 
420 Piḷḷai Lokācārya, Mumukṣupaṭi, 54: “tolaivillimaṅkalan toḷum” eṉkaiyālē, svarūpam colliṟṟu; “vēṅkaṭattu 
uṟaivārkku nama” eṉkaiyālē, upāyam colliṟṟu; “anti toḷuñ col” eṉkaiyālē, phalam colliṟṟu.  
175 
 
is then characterized as having several kinds of relationships with the soul. He is defined as the 
inner controller, the means, and the goal.421 Following from this, the soul desires to do all kinds 
of service to God who possesses all of the relationships. The request for all kinds of service is 
stated in the fourth-case ending on the word “for Nārāyaṇa” as shown in Mutal Tiruvantāti 53, 
“He [Ananta] becomes a canopy when He [Viṣṇu] walks.”422 It can be further understood that 
the request is embodied in the soul’s nature as stated in Perumāḷ Tirumoḻi 4.9 and Tiruvāymoḻi 
3.3.1:423 
 
The request of service is not strange and is suitable for one’s nature as stated in, 
“Laying down as the step, I will see your coral lips” [Perumāḷ Tirumoḻi 4.9]. 
Thus, this shows the request [for service], “We must serve him faultlessly” 
[Tiruvāymoḻi 3.3.1].424  
  
 
Piḷḷai Lokācārya ends this section on the Tirumantra with a citation also from Tiruvāymoḻi 3.3.1 
to argue for the unconditional nature of the service which can be carried out with no limitation 
in terms of time, place, and state, “This service indeed continues in all places, at all time, and 
in all states as in, ‘For all time in all places [we must serve him faultlessly]’ [Tiruvāymoḻi 
3.3.1].”425  
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai draws a parallel between the three secrets and the Tamil hymns and 
 
421 Piḷḷai Lokācārya, Mumukṣupaṭi, 64–65: “Supremacy and accessibility and also [the fact that He is] the 
internal controller, the means, and the goal are the result of these two [compounds of the word ‘nārāyaṇa’].” 
(ivai iraṇṭālum palittatu paratvasaulabhyaṅkaḷ. antaryāmitvamum, upāyatvamum, upēyatvamum ākavumām). 
422 Ibid., 67: “With ‘the fourth-case ending’ (āya), what is required is the necessity to do all service as stated in, 
‘[Ananta] becomes a canopy when [Viṣṇu] walks’ [Mutal Tiruvandādi 53].’” (‘āya’ eṉkiṟa ittāl “ceṉṟāṟ 
kuṭaiyām” eṉkiṟapaṭiyē ellā aṭimaikaḷum ceyyavēṇum eṉṟu apēkṣikkiṟatu). For the Tamil text, see 
Nālāyirativviyappirapantam, 640. 
423 Nālāyirativviyappirapantam, 154 and 478. 
424 Piḷḷai Lokācārya, Mumukṣupaṭi, 67–68: “paṭiyāyk kiṭantu uṉ pavaḷavāy kāṇpēṉē” eṉkiṟapaṭiyē 
kaiṅkaryaprārthaṉai vantēṟi aṉṟu; svarūpaprayuktam. ākaiyāl “vaḷuvilā vaṭimai ceyyavēṇṭum nāṃ” eṉkiṟa 
prārthaṉaiyai kāṭṭukiṟatu. The translation of Tiruvāymoḻi 3.3.1 is by Venkatesan, Endless Song, 108. 
425 Piḷḷai Lokācārya, Mumukṣupaṭi, 70: ivvaṭimaitāṉ “oḻivilkālam ellām uṭaṉāymaṉṉi” eṉkiṟapaṭiyē 
sarvadēśasarvakālasarvāvasthaikaḷilum anuvarttikkum. See the whole passage translated by Venkatesan in 
Endless Song, 108. 
176 
 
explains the three secrets word-by-word in Tamil in the Parantarahasyam while still 
incorporating the authoritative Sanskrit passages in his interpretation. However, compared to 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, Piḷḷai Lokācārya presents a more systematic and explicit interpretation of 
these secrets resting on the Tamil hymns. In addition, Piḷḷai Lokācārya renders the secrets into 
Tamil to propose that they are part of the Tamil sphere and to further suggest that the three 
secrets have the Tamil passages as their sources even if they are in Sanskrit. Here is an example 
from the section on the Caramaśloka. Interpreting this secret, Piḷḷai Lokācārya construes the 
last part of the secret, “do not grieve,” in Tamil. He highlights the relationship between the soul 
and God and gives the reason for the cessation of grief in the interpretation. It should be noted 
that the Tamil interpretation of this statement is much more elaborate than what we have in 
Sanskrit:  
 
[In] the statement, “do not grieve,” He [God] caused the cessation of his 
[Arjuna’s] grief saying, “Look! Since you do not have the eligibility to perform 
what is to be done and I am qualified to do what should be done by you, there is 
no cause for you to grieve.”426  
 
 
The translation here highlights the soul’s subordination and passivity, which is the 
essence of Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s self-surrender. According to this translation, God affirms that He 
will destroy all the sins which are the obstacles for the attainment of Himself and that there is 
nothing for the soul to do or grieve about. Piḷḷai Lokācārya then draws the connection between 
his understanding of the Caramaśloka and the Tamil passage, Tiruccantaviruttam 115, “Oh 
foolish heart, why did you immerse in the ocean of affliction,” which reiterates that there is no 
 
426 Piḷḷai Lokācārya, Mumukṣupaṭi, 152: mā śucaḥ-‘nī uṉ kāryattilē adhikāriyāmaiyālum, nāṉ uṉ kāryattilē 
adhikārittuk koṇṭu pōrukaiyālum, uṉakku śōkanimittam illaikāṇ’ eṉṟu avaṉuṭaiya śōkanivṛttiyaip 
paṇṇikkoṭukkiṟāṉ. 
177 
 
need for the soul to grieve to show the parallel between the Caramaśloka and the Tamil hymn.427 
Piḷḷai Lokācārya uses these two elements, the citation and paraphrase, to show the synthesis 
between the secrets and the Tamil hymns, despite the linguistic difference. They are part of the 
same sphere, and the rendering of the three secrets into Tamil makes their harmony explicit. In 
addition to the Tamil hymns, Piḷḷai Lokācārya adds itihāsas as another source of interpreting 
the three secrets to reinforce the deeds of the divine couple and what the devotee should do.  
 
3.2.2 The Narratives of Practices from Itihāsas 
 
In the Mumukṣupaṭi, the two itihāsas are the source of narratives of self-surrender and play a 
role in exemplifying the actions of God and Goddess and the ideal practices that should be 
followed by the devotee, as in the Parantarahasyam. Piḷḷai Lokācārya generally mentions the 
stories and the characters instead of citing the passages from itihāsas as seen in the 
Parantarahasyam. This suggests that the audience of the Mumukṣupaṭi might be limited to 
those who were familiar with the texts, unlike the Parantarahasyam, which may aim at a wider 
audience. Piḷḷai Lokācārya resorts to itihāsas, their stories and characters, to strengthen and 
remind the audience of important points presented in the Āḻvārs’ hymns. As Mumme indicates 
based on the Śrīvacanabhūṣaṇam, Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s other significant rahasyagrantha, he 
views the Mahābhārata as the authority for the greatness of God, while the Rāmāyaṇa is the 
manual for the devotees such as Sītā.428 Below, I illustrate the way Piḷḷai Lokācārya uses 
 
427 Ibid., 154: “He states, ‘Oh foolish heart, why did you immerse in the ocean of affliction’ [Tiruccantaviruttam 
115].” (‘ettiṉāl iṭarkkaṭaḻ kiṭaittiy ēḷai neñcamē’ eṉkiṟān). See the whole passage in Nālāyirativviyappirapantam, 
184. 
428 Mumme, “Rāmāyana Exegesis in Teṉkalai Srīvaịṇavism,” 205. 
178 
 
itihāsas to remind the audience of the effectiveness of the secrets, to illustrate the deeds of God 
and Goddess, and, finally, to show the models of practices related to self-surrender.429  
In the first section, Piḷḷai Lokācārya proves the effectiveness of the Tirumantra through 
the story of Draupadī from the Mahābhārata. After reciting the Tirumantra, which includes 
God’s name, Nārāyaṇa, Draupadī was saved from embarrassment by Kṛṣṇa.430 This story 
highlights the excellence of God, showing that God will save the one who recites His name in 
this secret. Then in the section on the Dvaya, Piḷḷai Lokācārya draws the connection between 
the two itihāsas, especially the Rāmāyaṇa, and the meanings of the Dvaya, arguing that the 
essence of the Dvaya lies in the fact that Śrī, Viṣṇu’s consort, is the mediator in the 
soteriological process. This is explicit in the Rāmāyaṇa, in which the main female character, 
Sītā, is identified with one of the incarnations of Śrī. Piḷḷai Lokācārya then provides some 
examples of Sītā’s deeds to show case that Śrī is the mediator who plays a role in God’s 
protection and forgiveness. For example, she made Hanumān forgive the demonesses (rakṣasīs) 
who offended her when she was kidnapped and locked down in Laṅkā by Rāvaṇa.  
 
In this case, she [Śrī] is referred to as the mediator. When anger is produced in 
the cool mind [of God] like fire rising up in water because of the offense [of the 
soul], [He] forgives for her sake. As a mother, she cannot bear their affliction. 
As His wife, she is pleasant [to Him]. Thus, she is a faultless mediator. There is 
no need to say that she who can make Hanumān bear with [the rakṣasīs] will 
make Him who normally does as she states bear [with the soul’s offense].431 
 
 
Piḷḷai Lokācārya further highlights the importance of her presence, indicating that Rāmā 
 
429 For more information on Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s use of the Rāmāyaṇa, in particular, see ibid. 
430 Piḷḷai Lokācārya, Mumukṣupaṭi, 18: “It is this holy name (Nārāyaṇa) that brings forth the clothes for Draupadī 
in distress.” (draupadikku āpattilē puṭavai curantatu tirunāmamiṟē). 
431 Ibid., 82–84: ippōtu ivaḷaic collukiṟatu puruṣakāramāka. nīrilē neruppuk kiḷarumāpōlē kuḷirnta tiruvuḷḷattilē 
aparādhattāl cīṟṟum piṟantāl poṟuppatu ivaḷukkāka. ivaḷ tāyāy ivarkaḷ klēśam poṟukka māṭṭātē, avaṉukkup 
patniyāy iṉiyaviṣayamāy irukkaiyālē, kaṇṇaḻivaṟṟa puruṣakāraṃ. tiruvaṭiyaip poṟuppikkum avaḷ, taṉ colvaḻi 
varum avaṉai poṟuppikkac collavēṇṭāviṟē.  
179 
 
forgave the crow, despite its offense towards Sītā, due to her presence, but he did not forgive 
Rāvaṇa since she was not there. In the same way, the soul can be saved only with Śrī around 
since she is the only one who can beg God to protect the soul and forgive all of its sins, “The 
crow was saved because she was near. Rāvaṇa perished because she was not there.”432 These 
two examples also illustrate God’s deeds in saving the soul. Piḷḷai Lokācārya further refers to 
the story of Lakṣmaṇa also from the Rāmāyaṇa to prescribe the soul’s duty. As the younger 
brother of Rāmā, Lakṣmaṇa served both his brother and Sītā, setting the model that the soul 
should do service to both God and Goddess and that service to the divine couple is the ultimate 
goal: “Like Lakṣmaṇa, the custom is doing service to the union that is the couple.”433  
For the Mahābhārata, Piḷḷai Lokācārya mentions the character, Śiśupāla, in his 
explanation of the word “feet” in the Dvaya. This word points to God’s captivating qualities 
which motivate beings to take refuge with Him, just like Śiśupāla turned to Kṛṣṇa due to His 
body’s beauty, despite his abusive attitude towards Kṛṣṇa: “As the place where Śrī remains and 
that which reveals His qualities, one thinks about the body [of God], having corrected even 
Śiśupāla so that there is the entanglement and accepted him.”434  
Thanks to Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s Mumukṣupaṭi, the Manipravalam norms gain increasing 
importance in the rahasyagranthas and render the Sanskrit scripture unnecessary for his system 
of self-surrender—even more so than what we have seen in the Parantarahasyam—thus 
narrowing down the Manipravalam sphere. They seem to pressure Meghanādārisūri to react in 
his Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha by consolidating the Sanskrit sphere in the context of self-
 
432 Ibid., 87: ivaḷ saṉṉidhiyālē kākaṃ talaipeṟṟatu; atu illāmaiyālē rāvaṇaṉ muṭintāṉ. 
433 Ibid., 105: iḷaiyaperumāḷaippōlē iruvarumāṉa cērttiyilē aṭimaiceykai muṟai. 
434 Ibid., 94: ittāl, pirāṭṭikku iruppiṭamāy, guṇaprakāśakamumāy, śiśupālaṉaiyum akappaṭattiruttic cērntuk 
koḷḷun tirumēṉiyai niṉaikkiṟatu. 
180 
 
surrender.  
 
3.3 Re-bordering the Sanskrit Sphere in the Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha 
We have seen that Meghanādārisūri’s self-surrender is almost identical to bhakti and is 
available only for the twice-born. In this section, it becomes clear that Meghanādārisūri’s 
version of this doctrine is limited to the Sanskrit sphere, not the one systematized by Vātsya 
Varadaguru but the one set up by Rāmānuja. Specifically, he re-borders the Sanskrit sphere, 
which Vātsya Varadaguru expands in his systematization of self-surrender to include śūdras 
and highlights the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās, narrowing it down to the normative domain of the 
Vedāntic scripture, Rāmānuja’s works, and rejecting the authority of the Tamil scripture and 
the three secrets in the soteriological context.  
In my understanding, the increasing importance of the Manipravalam norms with the 
Tamil hymns as the center presents a threat not only to the validity of self-surrender which 
should conform to Rāmānuja’s soteriological model of Sanskrit norms, but also to the authority 
of Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta within Vedic orthodoxy that only accepts Sanskrit scripture, especially 
the Upaniṣads. To gain acceptance from those who focus on Rāmānuja and the Upaniṣads and 
engage more with the Sanskrit side, Meghanādārisūri intends to strictly demarcate the Sanskrit 
sphere by excluding the Tamil scripture from any matters related to soteriology. His intention 
is reflected in the concluding verse of his Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha in which he aims to shed 
light on self-surrender for the internal audience who are skilled in the Upaniṣads and follow 
Rāmānuja: 
 
Even when the world is overcome by a bad path due to the power of the 
Kali age, there is still a group of good people whose minds are purified by the 
Upaniṣads out of lack of inner resentment.  
181 
 
These great ones follow the view of Rāmānuja. The summary of the 
performance is made for enlightening them.  
It is not composed out of ignorance, jealousy, greed, or even desire. 
Rather, it is produced from the blossoming faith in Rāmānuja.435  
 
 
This verse further implies that some people deviate from the correct understanding of 
Rāmānuja’s teaching based on the Upaniṣads. As I will show, Meghanādārisūri claims that the 
textual authority of self-surrender can be found only in Sanskrit, especially the Upaniṣads. 
Importantly, Meghanādārisūri’s re-bordering of the Sanskrit sphere extends to the minimization 
of the role of the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās, which are critical to Vātsya Varadaguru’s 
Prapannapārijāta. Meghanādārisūri was likely aware of the discussions on self-surrender, 
circulating in the Manipravalam sphere before and around his time based on his reference to 
the Tamil scripture and the three secrets. Nevertheless, he rejects the authority of the Tamil 
scripture in soteriology and moves self-surrender away from the Manipravalam sphere. I 
illustrate these features in the first section, and in the second section, I chart the various 
arguments that Meghanādārisūri puts forward to claim that Rāmānuja regards self-surrender as 
an alternative to bhakti in his own works. These arguments portray Rāmānuja as the ultimate 
authoritative figure regarding the soteriology, especially self-surrender, against the 
Manipravalam tendency to promote the Āḻvārs as the ideal practitioners of self-surrender.  
 
3.3.1 The Sanskrit Scripture for Self-surrender  
 
Limiting himself to the Sanskrit sphere, Meghanādarisūri resorts to the Sanskrit scripture, 
especially one of the most authoritative sources, the Upaniṣads, in validating self-surrender. 
 
435 Meghanādārisūri, Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha, 45: kalikālabalāl loke kumārgopaplute ’pi ca | sādhavo 
’matsarād antas [corr. “āntās”] tryyantavimalāśayāḥ || 
ke cin mahāntas santyatra rāmānujamatānugāḥ | teṣāṃ prabodhanārthāya kṛto ’nuṣṭhānasaṅgrahaḥ || 
na vidyāto na mātsaryān na lobhān nāpi kāmataḥ | kṛtaḥ kin tu yatīndrasya mataśraddhāvijṛmbhaṇāt || 
182 
 
Meghanādarisūri begins the Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha with a discussion on various means and 
references to them in the Upaniṣads, especially the Chāndogya Upaniṣad.436 He also cites 
passages from the Mahānārayaṇa Upaniṣad that are used by Vātsya Varadaguru to support the 
identification between self-surrender and the Upaniṣadic means of the laying down of oneself. 
He then provides an elaborate interpretation of the passage to show that self-surrender is 
characterized by the meditation on the Supreme Self, preceded by knowledge of the soul’s 
subservient nature.437 He identifies this passage with the passage from Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 
10.63.19.438 After that, he harmonizes it with Śvetasvatara Upaniṣad 6.18 which defines self-
surrender as one of the Upaniṣadic means as follows: “Who at first created the Brahman and 
delivered to him the Vedas; who manifests himself by his own intelligence—in that God do I, 
desirous of liberation, seek refuge.”439 According to Meghanādārisūri, all of the cited passages 
reveal that self-surrender cannot be accessible by śūdras who have no eligibility for Vedic study 
since it is enjoined in these śruti passages as Upaniṣadic means:  
 
This is the meaning [of Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 10.63.19]. Having mediated 
on the nature of God as stated in [the mantra beginning with] “You, who are 
delighting in wealth,” the nature of oneself whose meaning is aum, and also on 
God being both the means and the goal, then one should meditate on the 
Supreme Self. 
 Thus, since self-surrender is established indeed through the śruti 
statements such as this, a śūdra does not have eligibility for it just as in case of 
the meditative worship of God. Self-surrender is evidently Vedic as in the 
passages like this “in that God do I, desirous of liberation, seek refuge” 
 
436 Ibid., 6–7.  
437 Ibid., 37–38.  
438 Ibid., 39: “You, who are pervading and delighting in wealth, are joined with the breath. O Brahman, you are 
the creator of all and the giver of energy to the fire, speech to the sun, splendor to the moon, You are grasped in 
the sacrificial ladle. One should offer oneself as aum to You, the great glorious Brahman.” (vasuraṇyo vibhur asi 
prāṇe tvam api sandhātā brahman tvam asi viśvasṛktejodās tvam asy agner vacādās tvam asi sūryasya 
dyumnodās tvam asi candramasa upayāmagṛhīto ’si brahmaṇe tvā mahasa om ity ātmānaṃ yuñjīta iti). See 
Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, 274–275. See also section 2.1.1. 
439 Olivelle, The Early Upaniṣads, 432–433. 
183 
 
[Śvetāsvatara Upaniṣad 6.18]. Therefore, it is another type of Upaniṣadic means 
(vidyā) like the Upaniṣadic means of Śāṇḍilya and Upakosala etc.440  
 
 
Meghanādārisūri then presents a passage from Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.2.6, which is the same as 
Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 10.6, to support the argument that self-surrender can be referred to 
as “offering” (sannyāsa).441 The passage is found not in the Prapannapārijāta but in 
Rāmānuja’s commentary on Bhagavadgītā 18.1.442  
 
[The fact that self-surrender is the means] is understood by the passage 
like, “The ascetics who have firmly determined their goal through a full 
knowledge of the Vedānta, having their being purified by the discipline of 
renunciation. In the worlds of Brahman, at the time of the final end, having 
become fully immortal, they will all be fully liberated” [Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 
3.2.6]. 
 The meanings which have been determined regarding the Upaniṣadic 
knowledge are the primary meanings of the Upaniṣads with the subordinate 
meanings, directly ascertained through the Vedāntic hermeneutic 
(śārīrakamīmāṃsā). […] 
 This is the meaning: At the end of the body due to karmas that have 
begun to operate, those, who have ascertained the nature of the Supreme Soul 
etc. through the Upaniṣads, obtain their own true nature which can be obtained 
through Brahman through the establishment in mental self-surrender to God.443 
 
 
 
440 Meghanādārisūri, Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha, 41: ayam arthaḥ, vasuraṇyetyādinā uktabhagavatsvarūpam 
anusandhāya praṇavārthaṃ svasvarūpaṃ ca anusandhāya upāyopeyate ’pi na (sa?) paramātmānam 
anusandadhyād iti. 
 ata evamādiśrutivākyair eva prapattes siddhatvād upāsanavad eva tatra na śūdrasyādhikāraḥ, 
mumukṣur vai śaraṇam ahaṃ prapadye, iti ca vaidīkī spaṣṭā, ataḥ śāṇḍilyopakosalādividyāvatprapattir 
vidyābheda eva. The Śvetāsvatara Upaniṣad passage is translated by Olivelle, The Early Upaniṣads, 433. For 
Śāṇḍilya in Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14, see Olivelle, The Early Upaniṣads, 209. For Upakosala in Chāndogya 
Upaniṣad 4, especially 4.10, see ibid., 215–229. 
441 Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 10.6, 10. 
442 See Rāmānuja, Gītābhāṣya 18.1, 285. 
443 Meghanādārisūri, Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha, 36–37: “vedāntavijñānaśuniścitārthāḥ sanyāsayogād yatayaś 
śuddhasat[t]vā[ḥ] | te brahmaloke tu parāntakāle parā mṛtāt parimucyanti sarve ||” ityādinā tatpratīteḥ. 
vedāntavijñānaśuniścitārthāḥ śārīrakamīmāṃsayānuṣṭhuniścitasāṅgopaniṣatpradhānārthāḥ, […]  
ayam arthaḥ vedāntair niścitaparamātmādisvarūpās [corr., “as”] tatprapattijñānaniṣṭhayā 
prārabdhakarmahetuśarīrāvasāne brahma prāpyasvasvarūpaṃ prāpnuvanti ity arthaḥ, athavā brahmaloke 
sanyāsayogād iti sambandhaḥ, brahmaviṣayaprapattijñānād ity arthaḥ. For Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.2.6, see 
Olivelle, The Early Upaniṣads, 452–453.  
184 
 
Although Meghanādārisūri does not deny the authority of the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās, he 
does not regard them as highly as Vātsya Varadaguru, especially in the context of the nature of 
self-surrender and its auxiliaries. It could be the case that Meghanādārisūri prefers the 
Upaniṣads which are more authoritative than the Pāñcarātra corpus within Rāmānuja’s system. 
Throughout the Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha, we only find the passages that communicate the six-
fold taking refuge from Lakṣmītantra 17.75 and the functional excellence of self-surrender from 
Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 36.33.444 In addition to the Upaniṣads, he also pays attention to itihāsas, 
especially the passages that the Prapannapārijātā and the Parantarahasyam, already 
mentioned, for example, Bhagavadgītā 18.66 and Rāmāyaṇa 6.12.10.445  
So far, I have discussed the continuation of self-surrender in the Sanskrit sphere of 
soteriology from Vātsya Varadaguru to Meghanādārisūri. At the same time, I have highlighted 
some of the differences found in the Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha and the Prapannapārijāta, of 
which the most remarkable is the less significant role of the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās. In what 
follows, we will see that although Meghanādārisūri attempts to move away from the 
Manipravalam sphere, some discussions in the Mumukṣupāyasaṃgraha suggest that he was 
aware of the Manipravalam discussions, including the use of the Tamil hymns to justify the 
soteriological doctrine. Interestingly, the view that Meghanādārisūri presents as a potential 
opponent is parallel to Nañcīyar’s defense of Tamil and the Tamil scripture in the introduction 
to his Manipravalam commentary on the Tiruvāymoḻi.446 The same defense is reiterated by 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai in the introduction of his Manipravalam commentary.447 The reference 
 
444 Ibid., 15 and 43. See Lakṣmītantra, 58, and Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā, vol. 2, 370.  
445 Meghanādārisūri, Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha, 18–19.  
446 See section 1.4, for example. 
447 Section 2.2.1. 
185 
 
shows that Meghanādārisūri might have been aware of the Manipravalam discussion and felt 
the threat from the Manipravalam literature.  
Although Meghanādārisūri acknowledges the Āḻvārs’ Tamil hymns as one of the norms, 
he rejects the argument proposed by a potential opponent that they have authority regarding the 
soteriology of bhakti and self-surrender. He then explains that the Tamil hymns cannot give 
śūdras any soteriological knowledge even if śūdras have access to it. Rhetorically, 
Meghanādārisūri points out that if the Tamil scripture can provide knowledge of self-surrender, 
then it might as well teach bhakti, which has the same Upaniṣadic status as self-surrender. The 
implication here is that since bhakti and self-surrender are Upaniṣadic means, their only source 
of knowledge are the Upaniṣads. Thus, the Tamil hymns and other authorities cannot give 
anyone the soteriological knowledge needed for the undertaking of bhakti and self-surrender 
and thus should not be considered an authority in this regard. Given this is the case, śūdras and 
those who are not the twice-born have no means to attain liberation since they cannot access 
any soteriological knowledge from the Upaniṣads. 
Nevertheless, Meghanādārisūri does not deny the notion that Nammāḻvār, the author of 
the Tiruvāymoḻi, had the soteriological knowledge and performed self-surrender to attain 
liberation even as a śūdra. Accepting this view causes a contradiction in his system of self-
surrender as it gives in to the assumption that those who are not twice-born, including the śūdras 
such as Nammāḻvār, can perform self-surrender. To resolve the contradiction, Meghanādārisūri 
clarifies that Nammāḻvār was an exception. He was able to perform self-surrender because he 
was a twice-born in his previous life and attained the knowledge to follow self-surrender during 
his past birth. The point is that Nammāḻvār did not and could not have access to the 
soteriological knowledge as a śūdra, but he managed to perform self-surrender in this life as 
186 
 
Nammāḻvār due to the knowledge from his previous birth. Thus, one cannot use the exceptional 
case of Nāmmāḻvār to defend the idea that śūdras have access to the required knowledge and 
can perform self-surrender to attain liberation. Such inclusion of śūdras would also contradict 
the exclusion established by Rāmānuja in the case of bhakti:  
 
To object [the argument on the ineligibility of śūdras to attain liberation 
by any Upaniṣadic means], [one could say that] a śūdra should have eligibility 
since the nature the soul and the Supreme Soul can be taught through worldly 
statements without the uttering of the Vedic syllables; the teaching by other than 
[scriptural] statements is not prohibited; the meanings of the Vedas [or the 
Upaniṣads] can be heard in the hymns in Tamil and other [languages]; it is well 
known that the one who is in the fourth caste [namely Nammāḻvār] is the author 
of most of these hymns; and it is well known that these authors are established 
in meditation and the mental self-surrender. Therefore, even a śūdra has 
eligibility. 
That is not the case since it is already said that if they were to have 
eligibility for the means stated in the Upaniṣads, there would be the contradiction 
with the section on the exclusion of śūdras. Also, if there were the teaching of 
the means in another language, then it should be the same for bhakti. It is stated 
in the Śrībhāṣya that there is no eligibility for the means due to the absence of 
Vedic study. Self-surrender is also a means prescribed in the Upaniṣads and it is 
only called with a different name since it has a different practice. 
 The fact that [self-surrender] is the meaning of the Upaniṣads will be 
stated later. People like Nammāḻvār who surrender to God have possessed the 
knowledge since birth and they do not get the knowledge in this life. However, 
regular people cannot follow what is done by those who have knowledge since 
birth. In the same way, given that Gajendra can take refuge with God, it does not 
mean that other elephants will have the capability to do so. It is not the case that 
the scripture is directly intent on the eligibility of all regarding the mental self-
surrender.448 
 
 
448 Meghanādārisūri, Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha, 17–18: nanu vedākṣarānuccāraṇena laukikavākyād 
ātmaparamātmādeḥ svarūpopadeśād vākyāntareṇa upadeśe cāniṣedhāt, drāviḍādigādhāsu ca 
vedā(ntā)rthasyaiva śrūyamāṇatvāt, gāthānāñ ca prāyeṇa turīyavarṇakṛtatvaprasiddheḥ, tatkartṝṇāṃ ca 
dhyānaprapattijñānaniṣṭhatvasya prasiddheś ca śūdrasya apy adhikāra iti. 
maivaṃ vedāntoditavidayāsu teṣām adhikāre ’paśūdrādhikaraṇavirodha ity uktatvāt, bhāṣāntareṇa 
vidyopadeśe tadanuṣṭhāne ’py avirodhābhidhānasya bhaktav api samatvāt, bhāṣye hi vedād adhyayanābhāvān 
na vidyāsv adhikāra ity uktaṃ, prapattir api vedāntoditavidyaiva, anuṣṭhānabhedāt tu, pṛthagavyavahāraḥ. 
vedāntārthatvaṃ ca uttaratra vakṣyate, śrīmadvakulābhirāmādayas tu ājānasiddhajñānā bhagavantaṃ 
prapannāḥ, na tu tajjanmany eva upalabdhajñānāḥ, ājānasiddhakṛtaṃ prākṛto janonānuvartituṃ kṣamaḥ, na hi 
gajendras tiryaktve ’pi bhagavantaṃ prapanna itītaragajānāṃ tatsāmarthyam, na ca śṛṅgagrāhikayā 
prapattijñānasya sarvādhikāraparaṃ śāstram. 
187 
 
 
As we can see, Meghanādārisūri limits the source of soteriological knowledge to the Vedāntic 
Sanskrit scripture, especially the Upaniṣads, despite his acknowledgment of the Tamil scripture 
and the important figure Nammāḻvār. He regards Rāmānuja and his exclusion of those who are 
not twice-born as one of the essential components of the soteriology and thus preserves self-
surrender for people from the three higher castes. His argument leaves no possibility for those 
who are not eligible for Vedic study, such as śūdras, since even the Āḻvārs’ Tamil hymns cannot 
substitute for Vedic study nor provide the soteriological knowledge for these people. The 
expansion of the Manipravalam sphere along with the influence of the Tamil scripture and the 
soteriological inclusion of the śūdras around that time might have driven Meghanādārisūri to 
draw a strict line between the Sanskrit and Manipravalam spheres of soteriology.  
 
3.3.2 Meghanādārisūri on Self-surrender in Rāmānuja’s Works  
 
In this section, I demonstrate that Meghanādārīsūri defends the notion that Rāmānuja himself 
taught self-surrender as an independent soteriological doctrine in various works, namely his 
Gītābhāṣya, Gadyatraya, and even Śrībhāṣya. In the opening verse of the 
Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha, Meghanādārisūri identifies himself as Rāmānuja’s follower and 
places himself within Rāmānuja’s lineage to justify himself and his composition. The verse also 
reiterates the notion that Rāmānuja is the ultimate authority in the matters related to the 
Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ soteriology. It then makes known the fact that the Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha 
proposes two means to liberation, namely bhakti and self-surrender, according to the previous 
ācāryas, among which Rāmānuja is the most authoritative one: 
 
Having bowed down to Viṣṇu, the one with Śrī, Hayagrīva, Hanumān, 
[all] whose senses have been conquered, and Rāmānuja as well as Nāthamuni 
188 
 
along with other ācāryas,  
Meghanādāri of Ātreya [family] composed the Mumukṣūpāyasaṅgraha 
for those who wish to overcome the transmigration and desire to attain God.  
Bhakti and self-surrender are elaborated as the means in the commentary 
texts [such as the Śrībhāṣya and the Gītābhāṣya of Rāmānuja]. They should be 
performed at all times with their auxiliaries once they are established by 
reasoning.  
Their forms are stated in short according to the view and the capability. 
They are dealt with here for easy comprehension and in order to differentiate 
between the two.  
The texts of previous ācāryas can be difficult for those who have simple 
minds. Therefore, I compose this text so that those who desire to know [the 
means] can easily understand [them] according to the Vedic scriptures.449 
 
 
Meghanādārīsūri then addresses the two interpretations that Rāmānuja gave for 
Bhagavadgītā 18.66 in his Bhagavadgītābhāṣya, proposing that Rāmānuja’s first interpretation 
is about independent self-surrender, and the second interpretation presents self-surrender as an 
expiation which is an auxiliary to bhakti. It is important to note that he seems to be the first to 
touch on this issue. Interestingly, Vedāntadeśika claims the reverse of Meghanādārīsūri’s 
understanding as we will see in Chapter 4. 
According to Meghanādārīsūri, in the first interpretation, Rāmānuja understands 
Bhagavadgītā 18.66 as expressing the abandonment of the three yogas and their results. The 
abandonment indicates that another means is required, and Rāmānuja must have proposed self-
surrender as an alternative.450 It is also wrong to say that Rāmānuja only indicates the 
undertaking of bhakti with self-surrender as its auxiliary without the expected result since he 
 
449 Ibid., 1: 
śrīsakhaṃ vājivadanam āñjaneyaṃ jitendriyam | rāmānujāryanāthāryau praṇamyānyān gūran api || 
ātreyameghanādārir mumukṣūpāyasaṅgraham | saṃsāravijigīṣūṇāṃ bhagavatprāptikāṅkṣiṇām || 
bhaktiprapattī bhāṣyādau upāyatvena vistṛte | anuṣṭheye sadā sāṅge tayos tu nyāyasiddhayoḥ || 
yathāmati yathāśakti saṃkṣepād rūpam ucyate | u(yu)kte vivekasaṃsiddhyai sugrahatvāya ceha te || 
pūrvācāryaprabandhānāṃ durgrahatvādamedhasām | karomi sukhabodhāya vivitsūnāṃ yathāśrutam ||  
450 Carman agrees with Meghanādārisūri’s argument that Rāmānuja’s first interpretation not the second one is 
integral to the later development of independent self-surrender (The Theology of Rāmānuja, 216). 
189 
 
indeed prescribes the abandonment of actions along with their results in his interpretation. 
Moreover, if the first interpretation only points to the abandonment of the results of actions, 
there would be a repetition of such abandonment that is already mentioned in other 
Bhagavadgītā passages in Chapter 18.451 Finally, Rāmānuja’s first interpretation should not 
refer to self-surrender as an auxiliary of bhakti since it would repeat what Rāmānuja states in 
the second interpretation: 
 
Thus, given that self-surrender is an Upaniṣadic means, it is established that 
conduct according to castes and stages of life is an auxiliary. Thus, there is the 
statement that karmayoga and so on are subordinate to self-surrender in the first 
interpretation in [Rāmānuja’s] commentary on Bhagavadgītā 18.66 and it is 
already stated that the first interpretation is about self-surrender as an 
independent means to liberation. Otherwise, there would be the undesirable 
consequence of redundancy and a disconnection between what was said earlier 
and later in [the Gītābhāṣya]. Contemplation of the path of light [discussed by 
Rāmānuja in Śrībhāṣya 3.1.1]452 and other actions are established as what is to 
be done as subordinate to bhakti since there is an absence of the establishment 
of the result in the form of the attainment of God without contemplation of the 
path of light, and there is the understanding of non-rebirth by the statements like 
“by one [path], one reaches non-rebirth” [Bhagavadgītā 8.26]. Therefore, the 
statement [of the Dvaya] beginning with “[I surrender] at the two feet of 
Nārāyaṇa with Śrī” is intended to reveal the nature of self-surrender as 
established in the Upaniṣads.453 
 
 
Meghanādārisūri then assumes that Rāmānuja’s second interpretation communicates bhakti as 
 
451 See Meghanādārisūri, Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha, 30–31. To summarize, Meghanādārisūri mentions that 
Bhagavadgītā 18.2 is about the abandonment of results and Bhagavadgītā 18.4 refers to the nature of 
abandonment. Then, Bhagavadgītā 18.11 states the abandonment of actions that are subordinate to bhakti. All of 
these Bhagavadgītā passages culminate in Bhagavadgītā 18.66 which is about giving up bhakti and its result for 
the performance of self-surrender in place of bhakti. 
452 See Rāmānuja’s Śrībhāṣya, 619–625. 
453 Meghanādārisūri, Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha, 41–42: evaṃ vidyātve varṇāśramācārāder aṅgatā ca siddhā, ata 
eva hy uttamaślokabhāṣye pūrvayojanāyāṃ karmayogādeḥ prapattyaṅgatayoktiḥ, pūrvayojanā ca prapattes 
svātantryān mokṣopāyaparety uktam, anyathā punaruktiprasaṅgaḥ, pūrvāparāsaṅgatiprasaṅgaś caivaṃ ca 
prapattyaṅgatayā gaticintāder api kartavyatā siddhā, gaticintāvyatirekeṇa 
bhagavatprāptisvarūpaphalasiddhyabhāvāt, ekayāyātyanāvṛttim ityādinā gatasya anāvṛttipratīteś ca evaṃ 
vedāntasiddhaprapattisvarūpadyotanaparaṃ śrīmannārāyaṇacaraṇav ityādivākyam. 
190 
 
the means to liberation. He also indicates that bhakti, which is enjoined in this case, cannot be 
combined with another independent means such as self-surrender based on the principle: “In 
the proximity of something that has a result, it is an auxiliary of that” [Śabara on Mīmāṃsāsūtra 
4.4.34].454 Given that this is the case, self-surrender in the second interpretation should indicate 
self-surrender that is an auxiliary to bhakti and has the form of expiation.455  
In addition to the Bhagavadgītābhāṣya, Meghanādārīsūri defends the notion that 
Rāmānuja taught soteriological self-surrender in his Gadyatraya. He focuses on the 
Vaikuṇṭhagadya instead of the Śaraṇāgatigadya which is the longest section and the one to 
which other authors have paid the most attention. To support that Rāmānuja’s Gadyatraya 
prescribes self-surrender and not bhakti as the means to liberation, Meghanādārīsūri claims that 
the service mentioned in the Vaikuṇṭhagadya refers to the attainment of God or liberation.456 
The implication is that the whole Gadyatraya first makes known the performance of self-
surrender presumably in the first two gadyas, before communicating the service, which is its 
result in the Vaikuṇṭhagadya:  
 
One should not object that it is not said that [self-surrender] is a separate means 
in the [Bhagavadgītā]bhāṣya. It is not said so since this will be known from the 
teaching alone. Also, it is stated [to be a separate means] in just the manner 
explained by the [Bhagavadgītā]bhāṣya in texts like the Gadyatraya which are 
devoted to the independent means, for example, “Having accepted God, 
 
454 Śabarabhāṣya 4.4.34 in Mīmāmsādarśanam, vol. 4, 1283. 
455 Meghanādārisūri, Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha, 35: “When we hear that both of them [bhakti and self-surrender] 
are independent means, it is impossible to combine them. Bhakti which has a form similar to direct perception 
[of God] and is heard of as having a result according to the principle, “The act which is in the proximity of the 
act with result is an auxiliary of that,” [Śabara on Mīmāṃsāsūtra 4.4.34] is taught as the means to liberation. In 
the first interpretation [of Rāmānuja’s commentary of Bhagavadgītā 18.66], the cause of the sorrow is the 
thought of his own non-accomplishment of the goal which is God due to the incapability of the performance of 
this sort of means. On the other hand, it is evident in the second interpretation.” (nirapekṣasādhanatayā 
śrūyamāṇayor ekaprakāraprakaraṇe śravaṇe samuccayānupapatteḥ, phalavatsannidhau aphalaṃ tadaṅgam iti 
nyāyāt phalavattayā śrūyamāṇasākṣāddarśanasamānākārabhakter eva mokṣasādhanatayopadeśāt 
tādṛśopāyānuṣṭhānāśakteḥ svasya bhagavatprāptyasiddhidhīḥ śokanimittaṃ pūrvayojanāyām, uttarayojanāyāṃ 
tu spaṣṭam). 
456 For the Vaikuṇṭhagadya passage, see Rāmānuja, Gadyatraya, 189. 
191 
 
Nārāyaṇa, as the Master, Teacher, and Friend and having exclusive and total 
desire of the complete and intimate service at the paired feet to God, he thinks 
that there is no other means for the attainment of that even in thousands of 
millions of ages except self-surrender to the pair feet of God” [Vaikuṇṭhagadya]. 
It should not be stated also that self-surrender is not the means to liberation since 
exclusive servitude [mentioned in the Gadyatraya] is precisely the result of the 
attainment of God. There is no attainment of the exclusive servitude in 
transmigration but only in liberation.457  
 
 
Meghanādārīsūri also takes into account the fact that Rāmānuja is silent about self-
surrender, either as an auxiliary to bhakti or as an independent means to liberation in the 
Śrībhāṣya. He explains that the performance of self-surrender is implicitly included in the 
context in the section on the collection of God’s qualities (guṇa-upasaṃhāra) in the Śrībhāṣya 
3.3.5 in which Rāmānuja talks about the supreme nature of God and other means to liberation.458 
Self-surrender is not mentioned explicitly in this context merely because it does not need to be 
discussed separately from these other means, as Meghanādārisūri explains. In my opinion, 
Rāmānuja does not deal with self-surrender here as he does in the case of other independent 
means because it is not a separate means yet, making it irrelevant when he argues for 
independent means. According to the account of previous ācāryas, Meghanādārisūri adds, 
Rāmānuja originally discussed self-surrender independently in the section on the collection of 
God’s qualities before erasing it due to the concern that self-surrender should be preserved as a 
 
457 Meghanādārisūri, Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha, 29–30: na ca bhāṣye pṛthagupāyo ’yam iti noktir iti vācyam, 
upadeśamātrād eva jñāsyata iti tathānukteḥ, gadyādiṣu svatantropāyapareṣu bhāṣyoktaprakriyayaiva 
upanyastatvāc ca, bhagavantaṃ nārāyaṇaṃ svāmitvena gurutvena suhṛttvena ca 
parigṛhyaikāntikātyantikatatpādāmbujadvayaparicaryaikamanorathas tatprāptaye ca 
tatpādāmbujadvayaprapatter anyan na me kalpakoṭisahasreṇa api sādhanam asti iti manvānaḥ ityādau hi tathā 
pratīyate nirapekṣopāyatā ca, na ca atra bhagavatprāptyanabhidhānān na mokṣasādhanatvam iti vācyam, 
ātyantikakaiṅkaryasyaiva bhagavatprāptiphalatvāt. na hi saṃsāradaśāyām ātyantikakaiṅkaryasiddhiḥ.  mokṣa 
eva hi tatsiddhiḥ, paraṃjyotir upasampadya svena rūpeṇa abhiniṣpadyate iti hi śruti, 
bhagavaccheśataikarasatvam eva hi jīvasvarūpaṃ, tadāvirbhāve ca tadanuguṇakaiṅkaryam eva phalaṃ, 
kaiṅkaryābhāve ca na svarūpalābhaḥ, kṛte hi dāsakṛtye tu dāsānāṃ kṛtakṛtyatā | akṛte dāsakṛtye tu dāsyam eva 
na sidhyati, iti hi pūrvair uktam, ataḥ kaiṅkaryabhagavatprāptyanyatarābhidhāne ’py anyatarasya arthasiddhir 
iti bhāṣyādav anyataroktiḥ, ato gadyādau svatantropāyatvaṃ sphuṭam eva. 
458 Śrībhāṣya, 678. 
192 
 
secret. Thus, Rāmānuja composed other independent works devoted to the teaching of self-
surrender such as the Gadyatraya. To my knowledge, this argument is unique to 
Meghanādārisūri. However, the ideas that the Śrībhāṣya might be accessible by those who are 
not the followers of Rāmānuja and that self-surrender is an internal issue are not controversial 
by Meghanādārisūri’s time:459 
 
[Opponent:] Why is [self-surrender] not stated in the section on the collection of 
God’s qualities (guṇa-upasaṃhāra) [in the Śrībhāṣya 3.3.5] [Proponent:] The 
answer is that it is because there is neither collection nor non-collection of God’s 
qualities, just as for other Upaniṣadic means and the nature of the one to be 
surrendered to is known by the manner [already] stated in various Upaniṣadic 
means. It is also not the case that the Supreme Self has a different nature as the 
one to be surrendered to other than the nature stated in various Upaniṣadic 
means. Having known the nature of the Supreme Self in many Upaniṣadic 
means, one should perform either bhakti or self-surrender according to one’s 
eligibility.460 
  
 
It may be the case that Meghanādārisūri feels the need to argue that Rāmānuja discusses self-
surrender in the Śrībhāṣya since self-surrender should be included as one among the many 
Upaniṣadic means in this main text in which Rāmānuja establishes his soteriological system. It 
should be noted that the view that self-surrender is a secret—that it should be passed on and 
circulated only within the community—can be found mainly in the Manipravalam literature on 
self-surrender, especially the rahasyagranthas. This suggests that Meghanādārisūri’s 
Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha might be in conversation with the Manipravalam sphere.  
 
 
459 See section 1.3. 
460 Meghanādārisūri, Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha, 41: nanu guṇopasaṃhārapāde kim iti tarhi na cintiteti, ucyate, 
itaravidyāsv iva guṇopasaṃhārānupasaṃhārābhāvāt, prapadyasvarūpasya tattadvidyoditaprakāreṇa jñātatvāc 
ca iti. na hi tattadvidyoditasvarūpavyatirekeṇa paramātmanaḥ prapadyasvarūpaṃ bhinnaṃ, 
tattadvidyoditaparasvarūpaṃ jñātvā svādhikārānuguṇaṃ bhaktiprapattyor anyatarānuṣṭhānaṃ kuryāt.  
193 
 
3.4 Summary 
Despite the mutual contact between the two communities at Kāñcīpuram and Śrīraṅgam, Piḷḷai 
Lokācārya and Meghanādārisūri conformed to their norms and expressions in order to solidify 
their respective linguistic spheres and address their own groups of audience, resulting in their 
heterogeneous strands of self-surrender. Even if the two authors developed self-surrender in 
two opposing directions, it is unlikely that they were explicitly arguing against each other, as 
we have no evidence to suggest it. Also, they might argue against other authors who are not in 
the picture here. I agree with Francis Clooney’s reflection based on his analysis of the debate 
on caste issues between Vedāntadeśika and Piḷḷai Lokācārya that their distinction can be 
considered “a matter of communal and textual positioning and posturing, as the two branches 
of the Śrīvaiṣṇava community define their stances.”461 It is also likely that their decisions to 
strictly conform to the two spheres shapes their systems of self-surrender, one deeper into the 
Sanskrit Vedāntic world and the other diving into the devotionalism of the Tamil hymns. This 
results in two strands of self-surrender that, in turn, reflect the normative limitation and 
expressive boundaries in the two soteriological spheres.  
It is important to note that the two spheres are certainly intertwined as we can see in the 
Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha, most evidently, where Meghanādārisūri referred to the authority of 
the Tamil scripture and some of the discussions found in the Manipravalam literature. The 
interconnected nature could be one of the factors that drives Meghanādārisūri to re-border the 
Sanskrit sphere through the consolidation of Rāmānuja’s bhakti and the Upaniṣads, whose 
validity could be threatened by the Tamil sources and language. This consolidation manifests 
in the equation between bhakti and self-surrender, the exclusion of śūdras, and the rejection of 
 
461 Clooney, “Fierce Words,” 404. 
194 
 
the Tamil authority and the role of the three secrets in soteriology. Another possible factor may 
be his intention to convince other authors who focus on the Sanskrit heritage that self-surrender 
is another valid soteriological means. This might explain why his argument extends to the 
exclusion of śūdras, which would not have been practical given the diversity of the Śrīvaiṣṇava 
community around that time. One could also view the Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha as an 
intellectual and scholastic endeavor to establish the legitimacy of self-surrender without 
addressing the community and its praxis. 
On the other hand, Piḷḷai Lokācārya moved self-surrender away from the Sanskrit 
sphere. In the Mumukṣupaṭi, he prioritized the Tamil scripture over the Sanskrit authority whose 
role is reduced. The preference of the Tamil scriptures marks a significant transformation in 
authoritative usage from the time of Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai to Piḷḷai Lokācārya. Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s 
high regard for the Tamil scripture leads to his emphasis on the narratives of the Āḻvārs’ 
soteriological journeys and their exemplary practices. To undertake self-surrender is to follow 
the predecessors. His view brings self-surrender closer to the community because it does not, 
in theory, have to be mediated by the Sanskrit scripture which is distant and not engaged as 
much in the actual practices. Moreover, the Tamil hymns are pregnant with the devotional 
attitude that stresses the soul’s subservience as well as God’s power and compassion. With this 
attitude, Piḷḷai Lokācārya drove his system of self-surrender in the opposite direction to that of 
Meghanādārisūri. According to Piḷḷai Lokācārya, the essence of self-surrender lies in this 
relationship between the soul and God, and the same hierarchical relationship should be adopted 
in the real world among the Śrīvaiṣṇavas as well.  
As we will see in the next chapter, Vedāntadeśika felt the need to reconcile the 
contradiction and devoted two treatises in both Sanskrit and Manipravalam to harmonize the 
195 
 
different forms of self-surrender and bridge the norms and modes of expression in the two 
spheres. 
 
 
 
196 
 
CHAPTER 4 
DISTILLATION 
 
The previous chapters have shown the division between one group of the Śrīvaiṣṇava 
authors who mainly used Manipravalam as their medium and the others who did not include 
Manipravalam along with the Tamil scripture in the intellectual scenario despite the fact that 
both groups obviously followed Rāmānuja. Chapters 2 and 3 further indicate the plurality of 
self-surrender in the Sanskrit and Manipravalam treatises due to the dynamic interactions 
between the norms and expressions of different languages. Among the authors investigated in 
this dissertation, Vedāntadeśika is an excellent example of how the agent can exercise agency 
and creativity while working in and beyond each linguistic domain that dictates authorial 
production. 
Unlike previous authors who composed treatises in either Sanskrit or Manipravalam, 
Vedāntadeśika or Veṅkaṭanātha (c. 1268–1369) was the first to write treatises on self-surrender 
in both languages, of which the most significant ones are the Sanskrit Nikṣeparakṣā and the 
Manipravalam Rahasyatrayasāram. He also stands out among the authors in this dissertation 
due to his large corpus that ranges from philosophical treatises to poetry, in various languages, 
namely Sanskrit, Manipravalam, Tamil, and Prakrit.462 In the Śrīvaiṣṇava scholarship, 
Vedāntadeśika is famous for his intellectual and philosophical contribution, and he is known as 
arguably the most influential post-Rāmānuja philosopher of Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta. For the 
present tradition, he was retrospectively regarded as the founder of the sub-tradition, the 
Vaṭakalai, and a faithful follower of Rāmānuja. I understand that Vedāntadeśika’s uniqueness 
 
462 For other aspects of Vedāntadeśika, see Hopkins, Singing the Body of God, and “Vedāntadeśika” in Brill's 
Encyclopedia of Hinduism Online. 
197 
 
is partly tied up with social-institutional and intellectual pressures that are largely absent in the 
contexts of our previous authors but at play in the case of Vedāntadeśika. 
The picture of Vedāntadeśika as an important figure is painted mainly through his own 
compositions as well as the poems devoted to him. According to Hopkins, there are also some 
panegyrics, chronicles, and inscriptions in Śrīraṅgam that provide some information on 
Vedāntadeśika.463 These materials harmoniously point to Vedāntadeśika’s mastery of different 
intellectual and philosophical systems and poetry (“master of all systems” 
sarvatantrasvatantra, and “the lion among poets and logicians” kavitārkikasiṃha).464 In 
particular, the hagiographies narrate his miraculous qualities, from his birth as an incarnation 
of the sacred bell at Tirupati temple in Kāñcīpuram to his secret study with Garuḍa, Viṣṇu’s 
vehicle, and from Viṣṇu’s form of the horse-headed Hayagrīva in Tiruvahīndrapuram to his 
ability to heal an entire village affected by a plague. These narratives highlight his victory in 
various debates with ācāryas from Śrīraṅgam, during his pilgrimage to the north, and his 
leading positions in both Kāñcīpuram and Śrīraṅgam. This is mainly the story of this early and 
middle years. During his later years, the hagiographies focus on the Muslim attack and the 
dramatic moment when, during the attack, Vedāntadeśika had to hide under a pile of corpses 
before fleeing to Mysore with manuscripts of his own works and others. Vedāntadeśika was 
credited with the restoration of the community at Śrīraṅgam and the production of a multilingual 
corpus until the end of his life.465  
Due to the absence of more historical evidence, it is difficult to verify the validity of 
these stories. For example, an incarnation of the bell sounds more allegorical, while the Muslim 
 
463 “Vedāntadeśika,” 462. 
464 Ibid., 464. 
465 Ibid. 
198 
 
invasion could have a historical basis. However, through the stories, we can extract some views 
on Vedāntadeśika, especially in regard to his leading role in both locations, the variety of social 
and intellectual environments he was exposed to since his childhood, his great contribution to 
the Śrīvaiṣṇava philosophical and literary scene, and his attention to different languages. 
Moreover, the story of his debates implies the contentious religious and social milieu outside.466  
Hopkins defines Vedāntadeśika’s entire multilingual corpus as presenting “different 
facets of one all-embracing theology, [reaching] a certain extreme of textual polyphony.” 
Hopkins elaborates, “his Tamil poetry and prose are marked with the presence of Sanskrit, and, 
most important for Indian studies, his Sanskrit as well is saturated with Tamil literary 
conventions and idealized local landscapes, transparent to sociocultural-and geocultural-
aesthetic domains that I call more generally a South Indian, mostly Tamil, imaginary”467  
In Sanskrit, Vedāntadeśika composed philosophical works that present his mastery in 
various philosophical systems, for example, Nyāya in the Nyāyasiddhāñjana and 
Nyāyapariśuddhi, Mīmāṃsā in the Seśvaramīmāṃsā, Advaita Vedānta in the Śatadūṣaṇī, and 
Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta in the Tattvamuktākalāpa along with its auto-commentary titled 
Sarvārthasiddhi and the Adhikaraṇasārāvali, the summary of the Brahmasūtra. These works 
reflect Vedāntadeśika as a brahmin elite who participated in philosophical debates with other 
communities in order to defend the superiority of Rāmānuja’s philosophy. Vedāntadeśika 
engaged with the ritual scripture and practices based on the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās in his 
Pāñcarātrarakṣā and Saccaritarakṣā. He also composed some Sanskrit commentaries on the 
Sanskrit works of Yāmuna and Rāmānuja, such as Yāmuna’s Stotraratna, Rāmānuja’s 
 
466 The contentious nature of this era is supported by Appadurai, Worship and Conflict under Colonial Rule, 83–
101, and Rao, History of the Śrīrangam Temple, 88–105. 
467 Hopkins, “Vedāntadeśika,” 468.  
199 
 
Bhagavadgītābhāṣya (the Tātparyacandrikā), and Rāmānuja’s Gadyatraya. These 
commentaries are crucial to the reconstruction of the history of self-surrender as they show 
Vedāntdeśika’s attempt to read these works as literature of self-surrender in order to validate 
this doctrine. Vedāntadeśika’s Sanskrit non-prose corpus is comprised of both praise-poems 
(stotras), a great poem (mahākāvya, namely the Yādavābhyudaya), a messenger-poem (the 
Haṃsasandeśa), a play (the Saṃkalpasuryodaya), and other theological summaries such as the 
Śaraṇāgatidīpikā and the Dramiḍopaṇiṣat Tātpāryaratnāvalī. In his article, “The Philosopher 
as Poet – A Study of Vedāntadeśika’s ‘Dehalīśastuti,’ Freidhelm Hardy paved the way for a 
study of Vedāntadeśika’s poetry, arguing that “Vedāntadeśika is clearly aiming at a spiritual 
synthesis of a great many different traditions in the South Indian cultural heritage.”468 Despite 
the attention to self-surrender in his other works, Vedāntadeśika presented his system of self-
surrender most intricately in the Nikṣeparakṣā which is my focus. 
Vedāntadeśika’s works in Tamil are only in poetic form. According to Hopkins, his 
Tamil poetry mainly promotes Tamil devotionalism of the Āḻvārs and strengthen the Tamil 
stream of the community.469 In addition to expressing the Āḻvārs’ emotionalism, some of his 
Tamil poems contain the Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ theological illustration, especially on self-surrender, for 
example the Aṭaikkalappattu and the Tirucciṉṉamālai.470 Apart from the Sanskrit and Tamil 
verses, Vedāntadeśika composed one praise-poem devoted to Lord Devanāyaka in southern 
literary Prakrit, Māhārāṣṭrī, presumably to attract pan-regional audiences.471  
 
468 Hardy, “The Philosopher as Poet,” 315. 
469 Hopkins, Singing the Body of God. 
470 Ibid., 83. Hopkins also states that “though he [Vedāntadeśika] seems capable of writing a simple, luminous 
Tamil verse in the style of Nammāḻvār’s tirumoḷis and viruttams, he is also, as his tradition claims, the earliest of 
Vaiṣṇava writers to use the Tamil language to articulate religious doctrines in a purely technical style more 
natural to Sanskrit” (ibid.).  
471 Ibid., 215–231. 
200 
 
His Manipravalam compositions largely consist of short rahasyagranthas that focus on 
theology of self-surrender and the three secrets such as the Rahasyapadavī, the 
Rahasyaratnāvali, the Rahasyatrayaculakam, the Tattvasandeśam, and the 
Saṃpradāyapariśuddhi, collectively published today under the title “Cillarai Rahasyaṅkaḷ.”472 
His two longer works are the Paramatabhaṅgam, where he establishes the superiority of 
Rāmānuja’s philosophy over other intellectual and philosophical systems,473 and the 
Rahasyatrayasāram, his most important contribution that aims at harmonizing and synthesizing 
the views on self-surrender. 
For self-surrender specifically, Vedāntadeśika’s attempt to purify and harmonize the 
normative and expressive discrepancies can also be understood based on the institutional and 
intellectual contexts which are largely absent in the previous authors’ environment. As a leader, 
he further intended to raise the notion of “the Śrīvaiṣṇava tradition”—the inclusive community 
who follows Rāmānuja and shares the belief of self-surrender.474 Young’s analysis of the 
inscriptions in Tamilnadu from the eleventh to the twelfth century, for example, those during 
the reigns of Rājendra I, Rājādhirāja I, and Vīra Rājendra, also suggests the internal social 
fluctuation at this time as a result of different bodies of Vaiṣṇavas entering into the community 
such as the bhaṭṭars. Young states: 
 
We do not know what kind of Brāhmaṇas these bhaṭṭars were. But we do know 
that, by the fourteenth century, the bhaṭṭars were taking over from the 
śrīvaiṣṇavas in temple management. And we do know that conservatism was 
simultaneously affecting Śrīvaiṣṇavism; visible in works by Vedāntadeśika, and 
the provoking reactions by Maṇavāḷamāmuni”475  
 
 
472 See the 1990 edition, for example. 
473 Venkatachari, The Manipravāla Literature of the Śrīvaiṣṇava Ācāryas, 146–148. 
474 See section 5.3. 
475 Young, “Brāhmaṇas, Pāñcarātrins, and the Formation of Śrīvaiṣṇavism,” 255. 
201 
 
 
According to the inscriptional evidence, the social and power impact of new members of the 
community with “[i]ncreasing hierarchy and competition over temple honours and rights” along 
with the establishment of the Pāñcarātrins in Vaiṣṇava temples.476 Moreover, the Śrīvaiṣṇava 
maṭhas which were loosely developed since the twelfth century seem to have been more 
administratively structured around the fourteenth century based on the epigraphical and 
hagiographical evidence.477 The unified theology could also possibly sharpen the self-
understanding of the Śrīvaiṣṇavas and accommodate the diverse and changing bodies of 
followers. It should be noted that given the complex nature of his arguments, they seem to be 
largely related to polemics and theological debates rather than actual practices. Importantly, 
they should be understood as intra-Śrīvaiṣṇava discussions as there were no external pressures 
who actively attacked the doctrine of self-surrender at this time, to my knowledge. Finally, 
Vedāntadeśika’s involvement with the ācāryas in both locations might have also motivated him 
to compose works, especially treatises on self-surrender, in more than one language in order to 
engage with both communities. Satyavrata Singh suggests that Vedāntadeśika might have 
composed some of his immense works, such as the Rahasyatrayasāram and his Sanskrit 
commentaries on the works of Yāmuna and Rāmānuja, during the last period of his life in 
Śrīraṅgam, while the Nikṣeparakṣā was composed during his residence in Kāñcīpuram.478 This 
later corpus could have resulted from his revitalizing project as the head of Śrīraṅgam after its 
 
476 Ibid., 261: “By the fourteenth century, however, the status quo might have been disturbed by the arrival of 
another Brahmanical group (or several), generally known as bhaṭṭars, who pulled rank as more orthodox. 
Increasing hierarchy and competition over temple honours and rights explain the rise of charter myths in the 
fourteenth- and fifteenth-century hagiographies, which legitimated families or groups by association with early 
Ācāryas. In the Kōyil-oḻuku, the Śrībhāgavata nampis legitimated their temple role as priests by association with 
Rāmānuja. With this development, the Pāñcarātrins must have become more firmly established in many 
Vaiṣṇava temples of Tamilnadu.” 
477 Dutta, From Hagiographies to Biographies, 93–94. 
478 Singh, Vedānta Deśika, Chapter 2, for the potential chronology of Vedāntadeśika’s works. 
202 
 
sacking. Through both languages, Vedāntadeśika created some new ways of defining self-
surrender. As we have already seen, language spheres shape the authors’ linguistic choices, but 
the authors have agency to participate and operate in each language sphere.  
I analyze the Nikṣeparakṣā in this chapter. I propose that Vedāntadeśika’s decision to 
compose this work in Sanskrit suggests his attempt to show that the soteriological status of self-
surrender can be validated through the Sanskrit norms alone and to resolve any discrepancies 
in the Sanskrit expressions of self-surrender. Put differently, in the Nikṣeparakṣā, 
Vedāntadeśika claims that self-surrender, as presented by him, belongs in the Sanskrit sphere 
and is homogeneously accepted by the Śrīvaiṣṇavas, of which Rāmānuja is the supreme figure 
and Vedāntic scriptures are the scriptural norms. His claim indicates that there is also self-
surrender in the Sanskrit discussions and not only in Manipravalam. In the conclusion of the 
Nikṣeparakṣā, Vedāntadeśika himself declares that this work participates in the project of 
revealing the secret of self-surrender as follows:  
 
Good people ought to forgive [me, Vedāntadeśika,] as the Lord forgives 
[me] merely through the special love which is His power [even if] the secret that 
should be concealed is revealed [by me], and there is a mistake either little or 
great.  
Having refuted the muttering of those who travel away from the 
enjoyment of worshiping the ācāryas’ feet, I, Veṅkaṭeśa, by the traditional way, 
uncovers the supreme meaning that is the treasure of self-surrender (nyāsavidyā) 
hidden in the mountain of the Vedas.479 
 
This project is in fact shared by the Manipravalam rahasyagranthas like those of 
 
479 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā (Kañjīvaram: Śrīmadvedāntadeśikagranthamālā, 1941), 40: 
vivṛtam iha rahasyaṃ yan mayā gopanīyaṃ skhalitam api yadīṣad bhūyasā vā tad etat | 
nijamahimaviśeṣapremamātreṇa nāthāḥ kṣamata iti vicintya kṣantum arhanti santaḥ || 
gurucaraṇasaparyāsvādavaideśikānāṃ pralapitam avadhūya prāktanenādhvanaiva | 
vyavṛṇuta paramārthaṃ veṅkaṭeśaḥ prajānāṃ nigamagirinigūḍhaṃ nyāsavidyānidhānam || 
203 
 
Periyāvāccāṉ Piḷḷai and Piḷḷai Lokācārya. However, due to the limitation of the Sanskrit sphere, 
the Nikṣeparakṣā does not show an explicit connection with the Manipravalam discussions on 
self-surrender or the Tamil scripture. According to his verse, the Nikṣeparakṣā is meant to 
validate self-surrender as another Vedānta doctrine like bhakti on the ground of the Sanskrit 
sphere following Rāmānuja’s norms and expressions in soteriology. Importantly, his reference 
to those whose views deviate from the teaching indicates that there are internal discrepancies 
regarding self-surrender within the community, presumably those we have seen in the Sanskrit 
treatises of Vātsya Varadaguru and Meghanādārisūri. Importantly, the issues raised by 
Vedāntadeśika in the Nikṣeparakṣā present a distillation of the more elaborate discussions and 
debates on self-surrender in the previous and contemporaneous Manipravalam literature. One 
could also argue that the Sanskrit soteriology presented here is simply a distillation of what the 
Manipravalam sphere contains. 
Another goal of the Nikṣeparakṣā is to propose that a Vedāntic injunction for 
soteriological self-surrender can be found in Bhagavadgītā 18.66: “Having abandoned all 
dharma, come to Me alone as refuge. I will free you from all sins. Do not grieve.”480 In the 
conclusion, Vedāntadeśika claims that self-surrender in the Nikṣeparakṣā should be directed to 
those who are from the three higher castes like Arjuna since it is enjoined by Bhagavadgītā 
18.66 and not for other people such as śūdras or women:  
 
People say that there is the injunction of self-surrender (śaraṇāgati) as the means 
to attain liberation for women and śūdras who are not eligible for dharmas. They 
[, the people who say that,] have been previously largely rejected. As they [i.e., 
 
480 Vedāntadeśika mentions the Caramaśloka in many places in the Nikṣeparakṣā and highlights its importance 
by concluding this text with his own summary of the Caramaśloka (40): “This is the condensation of the 
Caramaśloka: I am the means for the person who would grieve because the means to what that person desires 
(liberation) is very difficult.” (suduṣkareṇa śoced yo yena yena iṣṭahetunā | sa sa tasyāham eveti 
caramaślokasaṃgrahaḥ ||).  
204 
 
śūdras and women] lack the attainment [of the eligibility to perform dharmas], 
it does not make sense to deny [their eligibility] on the view that [the 
Caramaśloka is] the injunction to abandon [the dharmas]. The statement cannot 
operate with reference to Arjuna, [if it refers to women and śūdras], since it 
would be irrelevant. Arjuna is not a woman or a śūdra. Thus, on the view that 
[the Caramaśloka is] a reiteration of the abandonment [of dharmas], [the 
injunction] for those people is also rejected, and there is no proof that Arjuna is 
not eligible to perform all of the dharmas [whether the Caramaśloka is an 
injunction or a reiteration of abandonment].481 
 
 
The final goal of the Nikṣeparakṣā is to differentiate between those who are eligible to 
perform bhakti and those who can undertake self-surrender as the means to liberation. The 
differentiation supports the argument that both bhakti and self-surrender are equally useful and 
preserves the authority of the scripture that enjoin these two means. 
In what follows, I will chart these arguments in detail. In the first section, I look into 
Vedāntadeśika’s conformity to the Sanskrit sphere through his use of the Sanskrit scriptures, 
hermeneutical methods, and the authority of Rāmānuja in defending self-surrender like Vātsya 
Varadaguru and Meghanādārisūri. In the second section, I argue that self-surrender in the 
Nikṣeparakṣā shares some similar features with the strands found in the Prapannapārijāta and 
Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha as they all model on Rāmānuja’s system of bhakti. Moreover, we see 
Vedāntadeśika’s attempt to differentiate his system of self-surrender from the strands of self-
surrender argued by the Manipravalam authors. Although Vedāntadeśika maintains that self-
surrender is a valid means that is separate from bhakti in the Nikṣeparakṣā, he does not advance 
the view that self-surrender is the only possible means. His attention to the equivalence between 
bhakti and self-surrender in the Nikṣeparakṣā places this work in the same linguistic domain of 
 
481 Ibid., 39: dharmānadhikāristrīśūdrādikam uddiśya mokṣopāyatayā śaraṇāgatividhānam iti vadantas tu prāg 
eva nirastaprāyāḥ; tyāgavidhipakṣe teṣāṃ prāptyabhāvena pratiṣedhāyogāt; arjunoddeśena vacanapravṛtter 
asaṅgatatvāt | nāsāv arjunaḥ strī, śūdrādir vā | tataḥ eteṣu tyāgānuvādapakṣo ’pi nirastaḥ; na cārjunasya 
sarvadharmānadhikāritvaṃ siddham. 
205 
 
the treatises by Vātsya Varadaguru and Meghanādārisūri.  
 
4.1 The Sanskrit Sphere in the Nikṣeparakṣā 
Here, I explore the content of the Nikṣeparakṣā to show the influence of the Prapannapārijāta 
on Vedāntadeśika’s work. Then, I analyze Vedāntadeśika’s use of Sanskrit scriptures to argue 
that the Nikṣeparakṣā participates in the Sanskrit sphere.  
The Nikṣeparakṣā is divided into nine sections with a brief introduction and conclusion. 
Each section consists of two parts: the first part establishes the views of potential and sometimes 
existing opponents.482 The latter part argues against the opposing views and provides the 
proponent’s response.483 In terms of the content, the Nikṣeparakṣā shares the topics of the 
nature, authority, and eligibility of self-surrender with the Prapannapārijāta. Like Vātsya 
Varadaguru, Vedāntadeśika pays attention to the nature of self-surrender, which he deals with 
in the first section (svarūpa). The same topic is further elaborated on in the section on the 
characteristics of self-surrender (lakṣaṇā). Section 4 (vidhi), which defends scriptural 
injunctions for self-surrender, is the most significant and serves as the foundation on which 
Vedāntadeśika rests other arguments. In section 5 (niṣedha), he then refutes the views that self-
 
482 The nine sections are as follows: 1) The absence of the nature of self-surrender (svarūpa-anupapatti), 2) The 
absence of its definition (lakṣaṇa-anupapatti), 3) The absence of its performance (anuṣṭhāna-anupapatti), 4) The 
absence of injunctions (vidhi-anupapatti), 5) The justification of prohibition of self-surrender (niṣedha-
samarthana), 6) The justification of oneness between bhakti and self-surrender (aikya-samarthana), 7) The 
justification of incapability to perform self-surrender (aśakti-samarthana), 8) The justification that self-surrender 
is not well-known in scriptures (akhyāti-samarthana), and 9) The justification that self-surrender is contradictory 
to the teachings in the Śrīvaiṣṇava tradition (saṃpradāyavirodha-samarthana).  
483 The proponent’s arguments: 1) The justification of the nature of self-surrender (svarūpa-samarthana), 2) The 
justification of its definition (lakṣaṇa-samarthana), 3) The justification of its performance (anuṣṭhāna-
samarthana), 4) The justification of injunctions (vidhi-samarthana), 5) The rejection of prohibition (niṣedha-
bhaṅga), 6) The rejection of oneness between bhakti and self-surrender (aikya-bhaṅga), 7) The rejection of 
incapability (aśakti-bhaṅga), 8) The rejection that self-surrender is not well-known in scriptures (akhyāti-
bhaṅga), 9) The rejection that self-surrender is contradictory to the teachings in the Śrīvaiṣṇava tradition 
(saṃpradāyavirodha-bhaṅga). Note that instead of indicating the conduct, Vedāntadeśika devotes the third 
section on the performance (anuṣṭhāna) to justify that self-surrender can be performed since it is enjoined by 
various injunctions and performed by some characters in itihāsas. 
206 
 
surrender cannot be performed. In section 6 (aikya), he argues against the unity between bhakti 
and self-surrender. Vedāntadeśika affirms that some people can acquire the qualifications 
required for the undertaking of self-surrender in section 7 (aśakti). In section 8 (akhyāti), he 
rejects that self-surrender and its nature cannot be known through worldly means or scripture. 
The final section (sampradāya-virodhana) shows that the tradition, led by Yāmuna and 
Rāmānuja, considered self-surrender not only as an auxiliary to bhakti but also as another 
soteriological doctrine. Moreover, self-surrender has been handed down and performed by 
people as the means to liberation until now.  
The Prapannapārijāta’s influence on the Nikṣeparakṣā is clear in many aspects, but 
Vedāntadeśika does not mention Vātsya Varadaguru or the Prapannapārijāta anywhere in his 
text. Interestingly, the topics found in the Nikṣeparakṣā point out that Vedāntadeśika focuses 
on the intellectual debates even more than Vātsya Varadaguru and chooses to ignore the 
performative or pragmatic aspect of self-surrender, which is one of the main concerns in the 
Prapannapārijāta. 
 
4.1.1 The Sanskrit Norms 
 
As stated previously, Vedāntadeśika’s discussion on the injunctions of self-surrender is to be 
considered the most important one here. He rests the arguments in other sections on the 
assumption that there are authoritative passages that enjoin independent self-surrender as the 
means to liberation. Following that, Vedāntadeśika makes the case that self-surrender can be 
defined and performed based on the śruti and smṛti injunctions. Vedāntadeśika cites Vedic 
passages, which Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai also refers to in the Parantarahasyam, namely 
Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.18, “Who at first created the Brahman and delivered to him the 
207 
 
Vedas,” and the passage from the Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 24.1, “Thus, offering is said to be 
superior to these austerities.”484 For the Mahānārāyaṇa passage, Vedāntadeśika justifies it as 
an injunction of self-surrender in a more elaborate manner than what we saw in the 
Prapannapārijāta, in which the passage is listed as one of the injunctions for self-surrender. He 
explains that the passage can be understood as an injunction of self-surrender through the 
support of Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.36, “But, among these austerities, offering is heard as being 
the distinguished one.”485 The fact that the Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad passage is mentioned in 
the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā passage, which is embedded in the context of self-surrender implies 
that the Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad passage also deals with the same topic on self-surrender even 
if it does not explicitly enjoin self-surrender. Vedāntadeśika further affirms that there is no 
contradiction between self-surrender in the śruti passage like the one from the Mahānārāyaṇa 
Upaniṣad and the one in the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā despite the different mantras used for self-
surrender in these scriptures, Vedic mantra in the Vedas and Tantric one in the Pāñcarātra 
Saṃhitās. The potential contradiction can be prevented by dividing those eligible for the self-
surrender in the śruti with a Vedic mantra, such as the twice-born and the group of eligible 
people to perform self-surrender with Tantric mantra, but not the Vedic mantra such as the 
non-twice-born.486  
 
484 For Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.18, see the full text and translation by Olivelle, The Early Upaniṣads, 432–433. 
Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 24.1, 25: “tasmān nyāsam eṣāṃ tapasām atiriktam āhuḥ.” For the passages and their 
occurrence in the Parantarahasyam, see section 2.1.  
485 Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.36, vol. 2, 371: teṣāṃ tu tapasāṃ nyāsam atiriktaṃ tapaḥ śrutam. 
486 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 29: “[…] there is no contradiction of reinforcing just that much [that the 
Mahānārāyaṇa passage is about self-surrender], and there is possibility of division of mantra of self-surrender 
conforming to the forms of God which are ornamented with this or that or different qualities forms, power, and 
so on.” ([…] tāvanmātropabṛṃhaṇasya avirodhāt, tattadguṇavigrahavibhūtyādiparikarmitabhagavadākā-
rānurūpaprapadamantrabhedasyāpy upapatteḥ). Also (ibid.), “offering conforming to their own eligibilities is 
suitable by some people because of injunctions according to eligibility with respect to mantras both Vedic and 
Tantric.” (evaṃ vaidikatāntrikamantreṣv api yathāvidhānam adhikārāt tair api kaiścit svādhikārānurūpo nyāso 
yaktaḥ). 
208 
 
Among all the smṛti passages, Vedāntadeśika highlights Bhagavadgītā 18.66, which 
Vātsya Varadaguru also mentions as a smṛti. In the first section, Vedāntadeśika emphasizes the 
central role of the most controversial part in Bhagavadgītā 18.66, “having abandoned all 
dharmas.” He claims that the phrase should be regarded as the essence of all the scripture. 
Furthermore, he criticizes the possible interpretation of this as the abandonment of dharmas, 
which deviates from the actual practices of those who surrender and from previous ācāryas: 
 
The essence of the particular scriptural meaning explained in various scriptures 
is, “having abandoned all dharmas.” As has been explained, the meaning of the 
word “abandonment” (tyāga) is that there will be no opportunity for confusion 
at any point for a person who rests on self-surrender of this sort. All meaning of 
scripture is to be arranged by the performance of people who are educated as it 
is remembered, “One should not perform even a dharmic thing if it does not lead 
to heaven and hated by people” [Yājñyavalkyasmṛti 6.156]. This confused 
question [if one should abandon the dharmas or not] is made without 
investigating the practice of those who establish in the dharma of self-surrender 
and ancient ācāryas.487 
 
Then, in the conclusion, he clarifies that the injunction in this Bhagavadgītā passage is 
directed toward Arjuna, who is the audience in the context of the Bhagavadgītā, or other people 
who are twice-born like Arjuna, not women or śūdras.488 However, his claim that self-surrender 
is not only Vedic but also Tantric implies that those who are not twice-born like śūdras are also 
eligible to perform self-surrender as the means to liberation. It may be the case that 
Vedāntadeśika does not state the argument overtly since he is concerned with conforming to 
the Sanskrit sphere of soteriology. We will deal with Vedāntadeśika’s interpretation of this 
 
487 Ibid., 24: evaṃ nānāvidheṣu śāstreṣu prapañcitasya śāstrārthaviśeṣasya saṃkṣepo ’yam - sarvadharmān 
parityajyeti. itthaṃbhūtaprapattiniṣṭhasya na kvacid apy upaplavāvakāśa iti yathokta eva tyāgaśabdārthaḥ. kiṃ 
ca, sarvo hi śāstrārthaḥ śiṣṭānuṣṭhānenaivāntato vyavasthāpyate. yathā smaranti - asvargyaṃ lokavidviṣṭaṃ 
dharmam apy ācaren na tv iti. tataś ca prapattidharmapratiṣṭhāpakānāṃ prācām ācāryāṇāṃ ca caryām 
avicāryedam upaplavacodyam. See Yājñyavalkyasmṛti 6.156 (Mumbayyāṃ: Tukārāma Jāvajī, 1909), 47. 
488 See the introductory section of this chapter.  
209 
 
passage as an injunction in detail later in the section on his use of Mīmāṃsā hermeneutics.  
Vedāntadeśika also analyzes Bhagavadgītā, Chapter 18, which is the context of 
Bhagavadgītā 18.66. He focuses on Bhagavadgītā 18.64 and the way to interpret the word 
“again” in this passage, “Listen to the last word about the most secret of all secrets from Me 
again. I will tell this for your advantage because you are very dear to Me.”489 He raises the 
potentially opposing view that the word “again” should indicate the communication of 
something previously known in the context. Thus, it fits that the word “again” in Bhagavadgītā 
18.64 points to bhakti and self-surrender as an auxiliary of bhakti, both of which are mentioned 
in the preceding part of the Bhagavadgītā. For example, bhakti can be found in Bhagavadgītā 
9.34, and self-surrender as its auxiliary is dealt with in Chapter 7, such as Bhagavadgītā 7.14.490 
Therefore, the two subsequent verses should reiterate these two ideas based on the word “again” 
in Bhagavadgītā 18.64; Bhagavadgītā 18.65 and 18.66 should refer to bhakti as the means and 
as self-surrender, respectively.491  
In response, Vedāntadeśika offers two ways to interpret the word “again” in verses 
18.65 and 18.66. First, it can communicate that one should listen again to the teaching, but the 
content of the teaching does not have to be what is already known in the context. Specifically, 
after teaching Arjuna about the three yogas as the means to liberation, Kṛṣṇa, seeing that Arjuna 
 
489 Bhagavadgītā 18.64, vol. 3, 396 (emphasis mine): 
sarvaguhyatamaṃ bhūyaḥ śṛṇu me paramaṃ vacaḥ | iṣṭo ’si me dṛḍham iti tato vakṣyāmi te hitam || 
490 Bhagavadgītā 9.34, vol. 2, 196: “Be one whose mind is fixed in Me, one who is devoted to Me, one who 
sacrifices to Me, bow down to Me. Having controlled yourself, you whose a final aim is Me will come to Me.”  
manmanā bhava madbhakto madyājī māṃ namaskuru | mām evaiṣyasi yuktvaivam ātmānaṃ matparāyaṇaḥ ||  
Bhagavadgītā 7.14, vol. 2, 28: “My divine māyā, composed of the strands, is hard to overcome. Those who 
surrender to Me alone cross that māyā.” 
(daivī hy eṣā guṇamayī mama māyā duratyayā | mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etāṃ taranti te ||). 
491 Bhagavadgītā 18.65, vol. 3, 398: “Be one whose mind is fixed in Me, one who is devoted to Me, one who 
sacrifices to Me, bow down to Me. You will surely come to Me, I promise you because you are dear to Me.”  
(manmanā bhava madbhakto madyājī māṃ namaskuru | mām evaiṣyasi satyaṃ te pratijāne priyo ’si me ||). 
210 
 
is still grieving, teaches another means to liberation in Bhagavadgītā 18.65 and 18.66, “Having 
seen Arjuna grieving after hearing that the means to liberation is difficult and takes a long time 
to accomplish, the Lord Vāsudeva (Kṛṣṇa) teaches a different means that is meant for a person 
who asks for the attainment of the result without delay and of the means to that [attainment] 
[…].”492 Thus, one could say that these two verses introduce self-surrender as a substitute to 
bhakti.493 Alternatively, the word “again” in Bhagavadgītā 18.64 could foreshadow that 
Bhagavadgītā 18.65 reiterates bhakti as the means to liberation. However, in Bhagavadgītā 
18.66, Kṛṣṇa teaches a new means that is self-surrender as the means to liberation since the 
repeated teaching of bhakti cannot pacify Arjuna, who is still grieving: 
 
Alternatively, [one could say that] the Lord, having seen the grief of Arjuna after 
[hearing Bhagavadgītā 18.63], “do as you wish,” [...] he states the two verses 
beginning with "the most secret of all secrets" [Bhagavadgītā 18.64–65]. Then, 
Arjuna's sorrow is not pacified even by that much. [So,] He comforts Arjuna, 
saying "do not grieve" through the teaching of the means, which is fast, eligible 
for all, the means to all desires, capable of getting rid of all undesirable things, 
to be done once, like the Brahma missile, easy, and unobstructed.494 
  
 
Vedāntadeśika then turns to one of the most significant passages in the other itihāsa, the 
 
492 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 31: “arjunasya viṣādam ālokya sa bhagavān vāsudevaś 
cirakālasādhyaduṣkarāpavargopāyaśravaṇena śocato 
’syāvilambitaphalaprāptisāpekṣatatsādhanasamarthapuruṣaviṣayam upāyāntaram […] upadiśati.” 
493 For more on Vedāntadeśika’s interpretation of Bhagavadgītā 18.65, see Nikṣeparakṣā, 31. 
494 Ibid., 31–32: yadvā yathecchasi tathā kurv ityasyānantaram arjunasya viṣādam avalokayan sa bhagavān […] 
sarvaguhyatamam ityādinā ślokadvayena āha. tāvatā ’py anupaśāntaśokam arjunam 
āśukārisarvādhikārasarveṣṭasādhanasarvāniṣṭanivartanakṣamabrahmāstratulyasakṛtkartavya- 
sukaraniṣpratibandhopāyopadeśena mā śuca iti paryavasthāpayatīti. 
The principle of the Brahma missile (brahmāstra) is derived from the Rāmāyaṇa scene when Rāvaṇa’s demonic 
army tied Rāma’s emissary, Hanumān, with the Brahma missile to render him helpless. However, the missile is 
effective only when it is used solely. Thus, it slipped off when the demonic army tied Hanumān with other ties, 
not trusting the power of the Brahma missile alone. Rāmāyaṇa 5.46.46 (vol. 5, 334) prescribes that the Brahma 
missile cannot be used with other ties as follows: “This tying with a missile does not go along with any other 
ties” (astrabandhaḥ sa cānyaṃ hi na bandham anuvartate). The Śrīvaiṣṇava ācāryas use this rule to support the 
independence of self-surrender and affirm that self-surrender cannot be followed along with any other means to 
liberation.   
211 
 
Rāmāyaṇa 6.12.20, “For someone who surrenders to Me even once and for someone who  
begs ‘I am yours,’ I give safety for all beings. This is My promise.”495 The same passage can 
be found first in the Stotraratna 64, in which Yāmuna cites the passage to exemplify God’s 
promise to protect anyone who resorts to Him.496 The passage is then used in the first chapter 
of Vātsya Varadaguru’s Prapannapārijāta as one of the main injunctions of self-surrender.497 
Conversely, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai employs the passage in the Parantarahasyam to show that self-
surrender is available to all. Following his predecessors, Vedāntadeśika also pays attention to 
the Rāmāyaṇa passage, and in section 4 of the Nikṣeparakṣā, Vedāntadeśika defends this 
passage as an injunction through Mīmāṃsā hermeneutics.  
Following Vātsya Varadaguru, Vedāntadeśika uses the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās, especially 
the Lakṣmītantra, the Ahirbudhnyasamhitā, and the Sātyakitantra, to define the nature of self-
surrender and its auxiliaries and also to consolidate the independence of self-surrender. Despite 
the status of Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās within Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta, Vedāntadeśika attempts to 
legitimize their authority within the Sanskrit sphere of soteriological self-surrender, in 
particular.498 In section 4 of the Nikṣeparakṣā, Vedāntadeśika defines the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās 
as “the condensation of the Vedas” (nigamasaṃgraha). According to Vedāntadeśika, if the 
statements from Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās are contradictory to Vedic statements, the statements from 
these two sources should be regarded as optional based on Mīmāṃsā principle that two 
conflicting statements of the Vedas can be used as options.499 His argument implies that 
 
495 Rāmāyaṇa 6.12.20, vol. 6, 70.  
496 See section 1.3. 
497 Section 2.1.2. 
498 For more information on the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās within Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta, see Freschi’s “Śrī 
Vaiṣṇavism.”  
499 For Mīmāṃsā principle of options, see Edgerton, Mīmāṃsānyāyaprakāśa, 149–150 and 170–174.   
212 
 
Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās are authoritatively on par with the Vedas in the context of self-surrender.500  
Vedāntadeśika refers to the same passages found in the Lakṣmītantra for the definition 
of self-surrender and the list of its auxiliaries. He also supports the function of self-surrender as 
an expiation in the Lakṣmītantra passage, as seen in the following section on self-surrender. In 
section 6 of the Nikṣeparakṣā, Vedāntadeśika also relies on the three main Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās, 
the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā, the Lakṣmītantra, and the Sātyakitantra, to affirm that self-surrender 
is a means to liberation that is separate from bhakti.501  
Moreover, in section 1, Vedāntadeśika turns to the Sātyakitantra, the chapter on self-
surrender (prapattyadhyāya), to argue for the exclusivity of this doctrine.502 According to the 
passage, Vedāntadeśika indicates that self-surrender is for those who are not eligible to perform 
other means of liberation.503 This further implies that self-surrender should be performed 
 
500 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 30: “In the Pāñcarātra scriptural corpus, which is composed for the holding up 
of the whole world by the Lord, who is independently omniscient and is the head of the Upaniṣads 
(śrutiśiraḥśekhara), and consists of the condensation of the Vedas along with their infinite and extended 
branches, the statements [of the Pāñcarātra corpus and the Vedas] are established optionally like when there is 
contradiction of two Vedic statements.” (śrutiśiraḥśekhareṇa svataḥ sarvajñena bhagavatā 
nikhilajagaduddharaṇāya praṇīte viprakīrṇānantaśākhanigamasaṃgrahātmake pañcarātraśāstre praṇītānāṃ 
śrutidvayavirodhavat vikalpataḥ sthāpanīyatvāt). 
501 Ibid., 34: “The existing statements of oneness [between self-surrender and bhakti] are rejected by great length 
by the distinction [between the two means] in the Sātyakitantra, Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā, and Lakṣmītantra.” 
(aikyāny apy uktāni sātyakitantrāhirbudhnyasaṃhitālakṣmītantrādiṣu pṛthaktvena prapañcanena nirastāni). 
502 Ibid., 19. The chapter on self-surrender in the Sātyakitantra is not mentioned by Vātsya Varadaguru. For 
Vātsya Varadaguru’s reference to the Sātyakitantra, see section 2.1.2.  
503 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 19:  
“O Lord, the great action that causes them to attain you which is good for souls which are falling down is 
said by you whose self is under the influence of compassion.  
Many mantras such as the one consisting of eight syllables [Tirumantra] are learnt. One, who is 
sacrificing with these actions and chanting  continuously these mantras, obtains You who are the Puruṣa and 
Supreme Person.  
O You, ocean of compassion, these actions, being seen, are difficult and their nature is difficult to 
understand one piece at a time.  
Life goes to decay by this stated path for a person chanting these mantras one at a time.  
Therefore, by the action which is done only once and by mantra which is chanted only once, man 
would be happy and successful. Say this action and this mantra. You are one whose heart is dripping with 
compassion.  
The Lord said, O One who has the lotus-seat (Brahmā), what you have said is true. The actions are 
213 
 
independently and cannot be combined with other means to liberation. The same idea is 
reiterated in Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.30, which Vedāntadeśika cites in section 1.504 
Among the three Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās, Vedāntadeśika gives importance to the 
Sātyakitantra to the extent that he understands the other two Saṃhitās according to the 
Sātyakitantra. For example, he uses a Sātyakitantra passage to claim that self-surrender which 
is characterized as the offering of oneself to God, is the predominant means, and the other 
elements outlined in the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā and the Lakṣmītantra should be understood as 
auxiliaries to this offering: 
 
In the Sātyakitantra, the Lord has shown that offering (nikṣepa) is to be preceded 
by the teaching of a particular mantra which is to be uttered silently once and 
that the offering is predominant. After that, He is asked by Brahmā: How should 
one go to You as refuge? Of what kind is this taking refuge (śaraṇāgati)? [The 
Lord answers:] “One should offer oneself to Me with this mantra.”505  
 
 
Thus, for Vedāntadeśika, the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās, especially the three mentioned in this section, 
 
impossible and it is not possible to perform mantras according to the scriptures.  
This is the action with which one offers such that, as soon as it is done, a man obtains Me and will 
become My Self, O Brahmā.” 
(bhagavan hitam ākhyātam ātmanāṃ patatām adhaḥ | tvatprāpakaṃ mahat karma kāruṇyavivaśātmanā || 
adhītā bahavo mantrāḥ śrīmadaṣṭākṣarādikāḥ | ebhiḥ karmabhir ījānas tān mantrān satataṃ japan ||  
tvām āpnoty eva puruṣaḥ puruṣaṃ puruṣottamam || 
etāny ālocyamānāni karmāṇi karuṇākara | durvijñeyasvarūpāṇi duṣkarāṇi vibhāgaśaḥ || 
mantrāṃś caikaikakaśas tāvaj japamānasya mādhava | uktenaiva ca mārgeṇa gacchaty āyur apakṣayam || 
tasmāt sakṛtkṛtenaiva karmaṇā yena mānavaḥ | sakṛjjaptena mantreṇa kṛtakṛtyaḥ sukhī bhavet || 
tad brūhi karma tan mantraṃ dayārdrahṛdayo hy asi ||  
śrībhagavān uvāca  
satyam uktam aśakyāni karmāṇi kamalāsana | mantrāṇāṃ ca yathāśāstram anuṣṭhānaṃ na śakyate || 
ijyate yena tat karma kṛtamātreṇa karmaṇā | mām āpnoti naro brahman mamātmā ca bhaviṣyati ||). 
504 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 28: “When the Lord is the only protector in this way, it is suitable to say that 
He is the means so that the one who wants to surrender [to Him] would determine to stop other means.” (tad 
evaṃ goptary eva bhagavati prapitsor upāyantaranivṛttim abhisaṃdhāya upāyatvavācoyuktiḥ). 
Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.30, vol. 2, 370. 
505 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 28: sātyakitantre ca kathaṃ tvāṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchet kīdṛśī śaraṇāgatir iti 
brahmaṇā pṛṣṭo bhagavān sakṛjjaptavyamantraviśeṣopadeśapūrvakaṃ nikṣepasya prādhānyam adarśayat - 
anenaiva tu mantreṇa svātmānaṃ mayi nikṣiped iti. 
214 
 
are the central authority for the definition of self-surrender and its soteriological status. 
Although Vedāntadeśika likely derives some of the authoritative passages or injunctions on self-
surrender from Vātsya Varadaguru, he refines their interpretation to make it more evident that 
they support the status of self-surrender as the soteriological doctrine. In this sense, he continues 
the Sanskrit sphere of self-surrender introduced by Vātsya Varadaguru, and he also accounts for 
any disagreement in their interpretation. 
 
4.1.2 Mīmāṃsā as Hermeneutics  
 
To validate self-surrender as another soteriological doctrine for the Śrīvaiṣṇavas in the 
Nikṣeparakṣā, Vedāntadeśika proposes that self-surrender, like bhakti, is enjoined in various 
scriptures and has the form of a sacrificial ritual that can be performed. In particular, he 
incorporates Mīmāṃsā hermeneutic and ritual theories to argue that Bhagavadgītā 18.66 is the 
primary injunction for the soteriological self-surrender that is to be accomplished (sādhya) in 
the form of the offering oneself to God. Although the reference to Mīmāṃsā hermeneutic and 
ritual concerns was already apparent in the discussions related to self-surrender both in 
Manipravalam and Sanskrit, as in Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s Parantarahasyam and 
Meghanādārisūri’s Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha, Vedāntadeśika resorts to Mīmāṃsā to a greater 
extent than the other authors. His attempt to locate self-surrender within the Sanskrit sphere is 
grounded in his interpretation of authoritative passages on self-surrender on Rāmānuja’s 
hermeneutic and ritual norms of Mīmāṃsā as seen in Chapter 1.506 Adopting these norms, 
Vedāntadeśika explains self-surrender as a sacrificial ritual with procedure and auxiliaries 
based on the model of the Vedic sacrifices formalized by the Mīmāṃsakas.  
 
506 Vedāntadeśika’s involvement with Mīmāṃsā is also evident in other works, especially the Seśvaramīmāṃsā. 
See Freschi, “Commenting by Weaving Together Texts.”  
215 
 
In analyzing the authoritative injunctions in the Nikṣeparakṣā, like Meghanādārisūri, 
Vedāntadeśika focuses on the conformity to the functional unity of a sentential injunction 
according to Mīmāṃsā hermeneutics, especially the two paradigmatic passages on self-
surrender, Bhagavadgītā 18.66 and the Rāmāyaṇa passage on Vibhīṣaṇa.507 According to 
Vedāntadeśika, it is not enough that these passages are accepted and handed down by different 
generations, as they have to be validly interpreted in the same manner as other Vedic and 
Vedāntic injunctions.  
Vedāntadeśika first presents Bhagavadgītā 18.66 as the primary injunction of 
soteriological self-surrender. Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai makes the same arguments in his treatise. On 
the other hand, Vātsya Varadaguru does not pay attention to Bhagavadgītā 18.66 or elaborate 
on its interpretation.508 In the previous chapter, I illustrated how Meghanādārisūri interprets the 
passage as a qualified injunction and rejects the attempt to construe the abandonment part of 
the passage as a reiteration.509 Vedāntadeśika’s interpretation of Bhagavadgītā 18.66 is 
concerned with the same interpretative issues, discussed in the Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha.  
The most significant challenge in interpreting Bhagavadgītā 18.66 pertains to the first 
line, “Having abandoned all dharmas, come to Me alone as refuge.” At first glance, this line 
seems to enjoin two things: the abandonment of dharmas and the surrendering to God for 
refuge. However, this interpretation would violate the principle of the functional unity since it 
splits the sentence into two parts. If we split the sentence, which is unacceptable for the 
Mīmāṃsakas, the passage cannot be a valid injunction. Vedāntadeśika is aware of the potential 
flaw as he cites a passage also found in Kumārila’s (mid-seventh century) Ślokavārtika 1.4.9, 
 
507 McCrea, The Teleology of Poetics in Medieval Kashmir, 55–56 and 70–87. 
508 Section 2.1.2. 
509 Section 3.3. 
216 
 
“If the unity of the sentence is possible, then the splitting of the sentence is not desired.”510 To 
avoid the problem, Vedāntadeśika deals with two ways to construe the passage.  
The first way interprets the passage as a qualified injunction (viśiṣṭa-vidhi). The part 
“come to Me alone as refuge” primarily enjoins self-surrender, and “having abandoned all 
dharmas” subordinately prescribes the preceding abandonment of all dharmas.511 
Vedāntadeśika then justifies this interpretation of Bhagavadgītā 18.66 as a qualified injunction 
as follows:  
 
There is no fault of splitting the sentence if there is an acceptance of a qualified 
injunction. Even if a qualified injunction should be accepted only when there is 
no alternative [way to interpret the sentence], nevertheless, here too, there is no 
alternative, so this [qualified injunction] should be accepted.512  
 
 
Following the second interpretation, Vedāntadeśika argues that the abandonment part can be 
understood as a reiteration to avoid the flaw of splitting of the sentence. In other words, the 
abandonment part indicates a person who is eligible to perform self-surrender due to a certain 
qualification. Here, the qualification is the grief caused by a person’s helplessness to follow 
other means. Then, self-surrender is enjoined by the second part of the first line: 
 
[…] what is being reiterated is a person who is penetrated by sorrow caused by 
the helplessness of other means, which are difficult to do to attain the particular 
result that is intended. This is determined from the implication of these two 
quotes [i.e., “all dharmas” and “do not grieve”]. Moreover, there may be intense 
grief for someone who cannot tolerate delay and whose ability is limited 
concerning [other] means to the intended result, which are impeded by hundreds 
of obstacles and can only be attained after a long time and are very difficult. The 
 
510 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 4: “saṃbhavaty ekavākyatve vākyabhedas tu neṣyate.” 
511 Ibid., 18. 
512 Ibid., 19: viśiṣṭavidhisvīkāre ca na vākyabhedadoṣaḥ. yady api cāsau gatyabhāvaviṣayaḥ; tathāpy atrāpi yadi 
gatyantarābhāvaḥ syāt tadā asau svīkārya eva. 
217 
 
person eligible for this [self-surrender] is someone qualified by that [sorrow]; all 
this makes sense.513 
 
 
Finally, Vedāntadeśika briefly addresses the second line of Bhagavadgītā 18.66, “I will free 
you from all sins. Do not grieve,” explaining that the removal of all sins refers to the removal 
of the obstacles to the attainment of God, and the grief points to the grief due to the delay of 
liberation as previously seen in Bhagavadgītā 16.5 instead of the grief caused by killing his 
relatives.514 
In section 4 of the Nikṣeparakṣā, Vedāntadeśika explains this Rāmāyaṇa passage on 
Vibhīṣaṇa, “For someone who surrenders to Me even once and for someone who  begs, ‘I 
am yours,’ I give safety for all beings. This is My promise,” as an injunction. He bases the 
interpretation on the principle of the necessary postulation (arthāpatti) as well as the Mīmāṃsā 
principle of functional unity. One should remember that the interpretation of the Rāmāyaṇa 
passage in the context of self-surrender was already circulating by Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s time, 
if not before. At the beginning of the discussion, Vedāntadeśika first mentions the opposing 
view, stating that the passage should not be regarded as an injunction since it does not have an 
injunctive form according to the Mīmāṃsakas’ view of injunctions: “One who desires the 
attainment of safety should surrender to Me.” Vedāntadeśika responds that even though this 
passage does not have an obvious injunctive form, the statement of Rāma’s quality as the person 
 
513 Ibid., 19–20: [...] abhimataphalaviśeṣalābhe 
duṣkarasādhanāntaranairāśyanimittaśokāviṣṭasyānūdyamānatvāt. etac ca “sarvadharmān parityajya,” “mā 
śucaḥ” ity anayoḥ sāmarthyād avasīyate. saṃbhavati ca duṣkaratareṣu cirakālasādhyeṣu 
pratibandhakaśatanirantareṣu abhimatopāyeṣu parimitaśakter vilambākṣamasya ca tīvraḥ śokavegaḥ; 
tadviśiṣṭaś cātrādhikārīti na kiṃcid apahīnam.   
514 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 20: “the grief caused by killing his relatives as understood at the beginning [of 
the Bhagavadgītā].” (upakramāvagatabandhuvadhanimittaśoka). Bhagavadgītā 16.5, vol. 3, 209: “The divine 
condition is considered to be for liberation, while the demonic condition is considered to be for bondage. Do not 
grieve, O Arjuna. You were born with divine condition!”  
(daivī sampad vimokṣāya nibandāyā ’surī matā | mā śucaḥ sampadaṃ daivīm abhijāto’si pāṇḍava! ||). 
218 
 
to whom people who desire liberation should surrender implies the injunction through the 
principle of necessary postulation.515 The fact that Rāma will save anyone who surrenders to 
Him in the same way He saved Vibhīṣaṇa enables us to postulate that anyone who surrenders 
to Him will be protected:516 
 
Although there is no injunction of self-surrender in this statement, “For 
someone who surrenders to Me even once” [Rāmāyaṇa 6.12.20], this 
statement establishes that “One who wants to attain safety [i.e., liberation] 
should surrender to Me [Rāma].” Even if the statement is intent on the 
explanation of Rāma’s special quality, self-surrender is established by the 
proof that Rāma is worthy of being surrendered to, through postulation based 
on the direct mention of Rāma’s special qualities.517 
 
Vedāntadeśika further delineates the interpretation of each part of the verse as well as its 
entirety: 
 
The meaning of this verse will be explained as follows: “Only once” means 
independence of repetition. When it is said, “for somebody who submits,” the 
asking part is intended. “I am yours” is the offering of oneself (ātmanikṣepa). 
Alternatively, the meaning of the scripture along with its auxiliaries is included 
just by the [expression] “for somebody who submits” alone. When it is said "I 
am yours" in the verse, it makes sense that what is intended is asking for the 
result “May I be yours?” and this [wishing or asking to be yours] is an indicating 
mark for other desired results. And the mental surrender is expressed by “for one 
who surrenders,” and the verbal self-surrender is referred to by “for one who 
begs.” The meaning is “I will give the cessation of fear caused by all beings,” 
which is like “I will free you from all sins.”518 
 
515 Here, Vedāntadeśika brings in the instrument of knowledge called necessary postulation (arthāpatti), 
through which one can start with two seemingly contradictory statements and be led to conclude out of 
them to the only piece of evidence which can solve the contradiction. A classic example is the way of 
concluding out of “Devadatta is not eating at daytime” and “Devadatta is fat” that “Devadatta eats at night.” 
For more information on arthāpatti, see Jha, Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā in Its Sources, Chapter 17. 
516 See my forthcoming article, “A Ritual of Self-surrender.”  
517 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 30: sakṛd eva prapannāyety atrāpi prapadanavidhyabhāve ’pi, 
abhayaprāptikāmo māṃ prapadyeteti vākyatātparyasya siddhatvāt, rāmaguṇaviśeṣapratipādanaparatve ’pi vākyasya 
guṇaviśeṣaśrutyarthāpattyaiva prapadanīyatvasiddhyā prapattisiddheḥ. 
518 Ibid.: vakṣyate cāsya ślokasyāyam arthaḥ – sakṛd evetyāvṛttinairapekṣyam ucyate. prapannāyeti 
prārthanādyaṃśo vivakṣitaḥ. tavāsmītyātmanikṣepaḥ. yad vā prapannāyetyanenaiva sāṅgaśāstrārthaḥ 
saṃgṛhītaḥ. tavāsmītyanena tv aucityāt tavāhaṃ syām iti phalaprārthanam abhipretam. upalakṣaṇaṃ caitad 
219 
 
 
Vedāntadeśika also denies the possibility that the Rāmāyaṇa passage might 
communicate two injunctions which would break the Mīmāṃsakas’ principle of functional 
unity and lead to the undesirable result of splitting of the sentence. To elaborate, the first 
injunction enjoins Vibhīṣaṇa to surrender to Rāma, “I [Rāma] give safety for the one who 
surrenders [Vibhīṣaṇa in the context].” In contrast, the other injunction prescribes that all 
beings should surrender to Him, “I give safety for all beings.” To avoid splitting the 
sentence, Vedāntadeśika proposes that the first sentence, “I give safety for a person who 
surrenders,” should be construed as a reiteration of what is already stated somewhere else 
in the context. The message is reiterated here to draw a connection with the new injunction 
enjoined by this Rāmāyaṇa passage that all beings are eligible to surrender to Rāma to 
attain His protection.519 
Although Vedāntadeśika uses the two same authoritative passages found in the treatises 
of Vātsya Varadaguru and Meghanādārisūri, he interprets them based on Mīmāṃsā 
hermeneutics to avoid any ambiguity in their meanings. Also, he shows that they are 
authoritative passages since they can be construed according to the hermeneutic norm of 
Mīmāṃsā just like the Vedas. Since these passages are valid, their injunctions for the 
performance of self-surrender should be followed. 
 
 
abhimatasya phalāntarasya. athavā prapannāyeti mānasaṃ, yācata iti vācikaṃ prapadanam ucyate. abhayaṃ 
sarvabhūtebhyo dadāmi – sarvabhūtanimittasya bhayasya nivṛttiṃ dadāmīty arthaḥ || sarvapāpebhyo 
mokṣayiṣyāmītivat. 
519 Ibid., 31: “The fact that I give safety for someone who does self-surrender even once and who begs ‘I am 
yours,’ that is for all beings, not for only people who do not do sins like Sugrīva, Vibhīṣaṇa, or others [and] 
even to Rāvaṇa, the crow, and others who both committed fresh sins. This is what is stated [by Rāma].” (yat 
sakṛd eva prapannāya tavāsmīti ca yācate abhayaṃ dadāmīti, tat sarvabhūtebhyaḥ, na kevalam anapakāribhyaḥ 
sugrīvavibhīṣaṇādibhyaḥ, api tv ādrāparādhebhyo rāvaṇavāyasādibhyo ’pi ity uktaṃ bhavati). 
220 
 
4.1.3 Rāmānuja’s Teachings of Self-surrender 
 
In section 9 of the Nikṣeparakṣā, Vedāntadeśika aims to reconcile two major elements found in 
the works of his predecessors, especially those of Rāmānuja: the teaching of bhakti as the 
soteriological doctrine and the notion that self-surrender only functions as an auxiliary of 
bhakti. First, he argues that Rāmānuja’s works, especially the Bhagavadgītābhāṣya and the 
Gadyatraya, propose self-surrender as another soteriological doctrine in addition to bhakti. 
Then, he uses Rāmānuja’s works as the model to show that the works of the previous ācāryas 
also harmoniously accept soteriological self-surrender without identifying or describing the 
works of these other ācāryas. According to Vedāntadeśika, the works of other ācāryas should 
be understood to be in conformity with those of Rāmānuja since his is the utmost authority. 
Finally, Vedāntadeśika relies on the authority of Rāmānuja to make the case that there is no 
traditional contradiction between bhakti and self-surrender: 
 
There is no contradiction in statements of the commentator (Rāmānuja) 
anywhere regarding the independence of self-surrender. By my stated principle, 
words of ācāryas other than Rāmānuja should be considered as not contradictory 
to what is being discussed [by Rāmānuja] in the context of what comes before 
and later. Therefore, there is no contradiction within the tradition 
(sampradāya).520 
 
 
Vedāntadeśika acknowledges the fact that Rāmānuja indeed focuses on bhakti with self-
surrender as its auxiliary in his commentary on the Bhagavadgītā. However, he claims that, in 
the second interpretation of Bhagavadgītā 18.66, Rāmānuja offers independent self-surrender 
as an alternative means to bhakti since self-surrender is easier. Thus, independent self-surrender 
 
520 Ibid., 39: ataḥ prapattisvātantrye na kvacid bhāṣyakāroktivirodhaḥ. uktenaiva nyāyenānyeṣām apy 
ācāryāṇāṃ prabandhāḥ pūrvāparaparāmarśena prakṛtāviruddhatayā pratisandheyā iti na kaścit 
saṃpradāyavirodha iti. 
221 
 
is the essence of Rāmānuja’s Bhagavadgītābhāṣya: 
 
In the second interpretation, since independent self-surrender is made optional 
with the means of bhaktiyoga, which are more complicated, have different 
degrees, and are endless, by having a common principle which is stated 
explicitly, it is also made an optional alternative with bhaktiyoga itself which is 
the means to liberation. From implication, this [self-surrender] is what is said in 
the Bhagavadgītābhāṣya deep down.521 
 
According to Vedāntadeśika, independent self-surrender can be characterized as 
seeking God for protection, and it is performed through a single request. A person who is 
eligible for self-surrender is required to have great faith in God and the incapability to perform 
other means to liberation—i.e., the three yogas in the context of the Bhagavadgītā—in the same 
manner that Arjuna is incapable of performing bhaktiyoga:   
 
This is the thing to be performed here, which is established by reflecting upon 
all injunctions [in the entire Bhagavadgītā]. [Arjuna,] having seen his lack of 
other means for attaining his desired result without delay, thus sinks with great 
grief. A person has abandoned other means, which are difficult to do for him who 
has little power to establish that result. [Then, that person] has produced great 
faith, which lasts until he attains the result and cannot be agitated even by God 
Himself, through the greatness of reflection on particular helping factors such as 
connection, good conduct, etc., regarding the Supreme One, who is qualified by 
a class of qualities which are suitable for giving the result. [The great faith is] 
that, “He [God] will give what is needed by mere asking once” Later, the person, 
who stops thinking about the collection of faults through the will to please [God], 
the avoidance of hostility, embraces this protector instead of other means, after 
declaring his state of having no other means and having nothing.522 
 
 
521 Ibid., 36: dvitīyāyāṃ tu yojanāyāṃ bhaktisādhanair gurutarair mithas tāratamyavadbhiḥ anantair 
vikalpyamānā prapattiḥ kaṇṭhoktasamānanyāyatayā muktisādhanabhūtayā bhaktyāpi vikalpyeteti arthato 
gabhīram abhāṣyata.   
522 Ibid., 32: ayam atra sarvavidhiparāmarśasiddho ’nuṣṭheyārthaḥ. avilambitābhimataphalasiddhau 
svasyopāyāntaraśūnyatām ālocya mahatā śokenāvasīdan puruṣas tatphalasiddhyartham alpaśakteḥ svasya 
duṣkarāṇy upāyāntarāṇi parityajya tatphalapradānocitaguṇagaṇaviśiṣṭe parasmin 
sakṛtprārthanāmātreṇāpekṣitaṃ dāsyatīti saṃbandhaśīlasahakāriviśeṣādiparāmarśātiśayena mahāntaṃ tāvat 
phalalābham īśvareṇāpy akṣobhaṇīyaṃ viśvāsam upajanayyānukūlyasaṃkalpaprātikūlyavarjanābhyām 
apāyajāte viratābhisandhiḥ ākiñcanyānanyagatitvaprakāśanapūrvakaṃ goptāram evopāya[āntara]sthāne 
niveśayan. 
222 
 
Vedāntadeśika then accounts for the noticeable discrepancy between the 
Bhagavadgītābhāṣya and the Gadyatraya of Rāmānuja. He raises a potential contradiction 
between the prominent role of independent self-surrender in Rāmānuja’s Gadyatraya and the 
proportionally much less attention to self-surrender in the Bhagavadgītābhāṣya. To resolve the 
discrepancy, Vedāntadeśika explains that independent self-surrender is not the focus in 
Rāmānuja’s commentary on the Bhagavadgītā except in his second interpretation of 
Bhagavadgītā 18.66. However, self-surrender is the essence and supreme secret of the 
Bhagavadgītā, not bhakti, since “self-surrender being an independent means, which is 
concealed as something supremely secret, manifests” only in the Caramaśloka.523  
As for the Gadyatraya, Vedāntadeśika argues that it proposes self-surrender as an 
independent means instead of an auxiliary to bhakti. The central indication for this is the 
statement in the Śaraṇāgatigadya that conveys that the performance of self-surrender, enabled 
by God’s compassion, results in liberation: “At the time when your body falls, you will be 
enlightened by My compassion alone.”524 Moreover, according to Vedāntadeśika, bhakti in the 
Gadyatraya should not always be understood as the means to liberation. Instead, it indicates 
either a means or a result of self-surrender. I term Vedāntadeśika’s view on bhakti in the 
Gadyatraya as “the detechnicalization” of bhakti or the method of construing bhakti in a non-
technical sense. For example, Vedāntadeśika clarifies the meaning of the word “bhakti” in “the 
utmost bhakti,” one of the three stages of the experience of God, the triad that Rāmānuja 
mentions in his Śaraṇāgatigadya.525 According to Vedāntadeśika, the denotation of this word 
 
523 Ibid., 36: “atirahasyatayā gopitaṃ prapattisvātantryaṃ svayam evonmajjatīti.”   
524 Ibid., 37: “śarīrapātasamaye tu kevalaṃ madīyayaiva dayayātiprabuddhaḥ.” This quotation is from the 
Śaraṇāgatigadya, 173. 
525 Section 1.3. 
223 
 
is “common to a result and a means, [thus,] it does not take either side.”526 Also, he indicates 
that the word “bhakti” in the Śaraṇāgatigadya points to the result of independent self-
surrender.527 In addition, Vedāntadeśika interprets the word “bhakti” in its literal meaning as a 
devotion to God. This kind of bhakti functions as an auxiliary of independent self-surrender. It 
helps those who have already taken refuge to maintain a great faith in God for as long as they 
live as required in the practice of self-surrender. Thus, the Gadyatraya does not necessarily 
defend the soteriological doctrine of bhakti: 
 
In the case of bhakti that belongs to those who surrender, it becomes a means by 
being a cause of an uninterruptedness of [independent] self-surrender. Also, it 
should not be stated, “What is the use of uninterruptedness, when [independent 
self-surrender], which is to be done once, is a means because [independent self-
surrender] requires an absence of obstacles [of great faith] to achieve its 
effect.528 
 
As we have seen, Vedāntadeśika uses the norms of scriptures and hermeneutics handed 
down by Rāmānuja and other preceding Sanskrit authors and rests on the authoritative norm of 
the figure of Rāmānuja himself to show that self-surrender is a valid doctrine. He also resolves 
the inconsistency in Rāmānuja’s teaching. It can be argued that Vedāntadeśika composes his 
work in Sanskrit so that he can engage with other Sanskrit authors like Vātsya Varadaguru and 
 
526 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 37: “phalopāyasādhāraṇyān nānyatarapakṣapāti.”   
527 Vedāntadeśika also applies this principle that the word “bhakti” can be used to refer to either a means or a 
result to the use of the word “bhakti” in the statement, “give me bhakti” (bhaktim api prayaccha) from 
Yāmuna’s Stotraratna 54. Vedāntadeśika suggests that “bhakti” that the person asks for in this statement should 
be understood as bhakti “that has a form of pleasure by its own nature, and because of the excellence of its object 
[i.e., God]; therefore, here it [i.e., bhakti] is a result [of independent self-surrender]” (bhakteś cātra phalatvaṃ 
svarūpatas sukharūpatvāt; tac ca viṣayavaiśiṣṭyāt). Vedāntadeśika further explains that the request for bhakti in 
this statement does not contradict the exclusive nature of independent self-surrender since bhakti in this 
statement is not a means to liberation. According to Vedāntadeśika, this bhakti which is a result of self-surrender 
has the forms of non-fear and friendliness of God. For Yāmuna’s Stotraratna 54 and Vedāntadeśika’s 
commentary, see 104. 
528 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 37: prapannagatāyā bhakteḥ prapattyavicchedahetutvena tadanupraveśāt. na 
ca sakṛtkṛtasyopāyatve kim avicchedeneti vācyam. tasya svakāryakaraṇe bādhābhāvasya apekṣitatvāt.  
224 
 
Meghanādārisūri, strengthening the norms, clarifying the interpretation of authoritative 
passages, and even proposing arguments that are different from those that preceded him. 
Conforming to the norm of the Sanskrit scholastic treatises, the Nikṣeparakṣā is silent about the 
Tamil scripture and does not integrate the paradigm of the three secrets. Systematizing self-
surrender in Sanskrit, Vedāntadeśika places it within the Sanskrit system of Rāmānuja’s bhakti 
and aligns it with the preceding Sanskrit strands of self-surrender, especially that of Vātsya 
Varadaguru. 
 
4.2. The Nature of self-surrender 
Due to the importance of Rāmānuja’s soteriological teaching, the characteristics of bhakti 
become the defining factors for the later-developed doctrine of self-surrender in the same 
manners that we saw in the Sanskrit treatises of Vātsya Varadaguru and Meghanādārisūri. In 
the Nikṣeparakṣā, Vedāntadeśika highlights the ritual status of self-surrender. He argues that 
self-surrender is a Vedāntic ritual, consisting of the ritual auxiliaries and other components that 
need to be performed, just like bhakti, to defend its soteriological function and difference from 
the Advaita Vedānta factual knowledge. It should be noted that self-surrender took shape within 
a ritual frame that was already in the treatises of Vātsya Varadaguru and Meghanādārisūri. 
However, compared to these two authors, Vedāntadeśika develops a more elaborated ritual form 
of self-surrender in his Nikṣeparakṣā. Also, to make sure that self-surrender and bhakti remain 
distinct and also to preserve the soteriological status of both means, he advances Vātsya 
Varadaguru’s argument on the differentiated options for these two means. Based on this 
argument, both self-surrender and bhakti are valid and lead to the same result—liberation—but 
they are not redundant since different groups of people are eligible for these two means.  
225 
 
4.2.1 A Ritual of Self-surrender  
 
Vedāntadeśika defines self-surrender as consisting of two parts, the offering of the protection 
and the ownership of oneself to God and the acceptance of God as the only goal: “The giving 
over of the self on the part of the one who is to be protected (rakṣyasyātmasamarpaṇam) 
consists of the thought that the protector [God] is the only goal, culminating in the abandonment 
of the burden and the ownership of results of protection.”529 Influenced by Vātsya Varadaguru, 
Vedāntadeśika views self-surrender as an offering of oneself to God (ātmanikṣepa). 
Vedāntadeśika’s definition of self-surrender is more elaborate than that of Vātsya Varadaguru 
and comes closer to the model of a Vedic sacrificial ritual according to Mīmāṃsakas’ theory. 
Vedāntadeśika proposes that self-surrender should be understood as an act of giving an offering 
with an individual soul as the material substance (dravya), which is then offered to the deity 
(devatā) who is the Supreme God. This understanding rests on Jaimini’s Mīmāṃsāsūtra 4.2.27, 
“Because of the injunction ‘to sacrifice’ the action [involves] substance and deity; because the 
purpose is accomplished with respect to that whole”530 The commentary on this passage by 
Śabara (fourth/fifth century) defines a sacrificial ritual as a ritual act in which “a substance is 
abandoned having a deity (like Indra) in view. There is an act of this [abandoning]. By that act 
[of abandoning], there is a connection between two things [i.e., a substance and a deity].”531 
Self-surrender can be understood in a similar manner as follows: 
 
[Self-surrender is] abandoning an offering in the form of an individual soul to 
the Supreme God preceded by a request to Him, thinking, “I am not mine; I am 
 
529 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 18: “svanirbharatvaparyantarakṣakaikārthyabhāvanā | 
tyaktarakṣāphalasvāmyaṃ rakṣyasyātmasamarpaṇam ||” 
530 Mīmāṃsāsūtra 4.2.27, vol. 4, 1241: “yajaticodanād dravyadevatākriyaṃ samudāye kṛtārthatvāt.” 
531 Ibid.: “dravyaṃ devatām uddiśya tyajyate, tasya ca kriyā, yayā kriyayā tayoḥ saṃbandho bhavati.”  
226 
 
for the Blessed One,” just like, [one would think about an offering] “this is not 
mine; this is for Indra.”532 
 
Vedāntadeśika then indicates that the five auxiliaries, outlined in the Lakṣmītantra and 
the Ahirbudhyasaṃhitā, can function as auxiliaries that are subordinate to the sacrificial ritual 
in the manner explained by the Mīmāṃsakas.533 In the ritual of self-surrender, a request and a 
particular mantra, which needs to be recited once, serve as procedures (itikartavyatās), one of 
the requirements for rituals. To confirm that self-surrender is a ritual action that requires a 
procedure, Vedāntadeśika cites the passage found in Kumārila’s Ślokavārtika 
Saṃbandhākṣepavāda 37, “In everyday practice or Vedic practice, there is no such instrumental 
means that does not have a desire for help which is to be accomplished by a procedure.”534 
Through the incorporation of Mīmāṃsā ritual theory, Vedāntadeśika formulates self-surrender 
into a highly systematized sacrificial ritual, equipped with the main requirements. 
Importantly, Vedāntadeśika affirms that, as in the performance of bhakti, a person who 
has surrendered should preserve Vedic obligatory and occasional rituals according to their 
castes and stages of life, as prescribed by the Mīmāṃsāsūtra. Although these rituals are not 
auxiliaries of self-surrender—it has its own as outlined in the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās—they are 
commanded by God through the Vedas and thus should be performed as a form of worship to 
maintain His love until the end of one’s life. Given that the performance of self-surrender does 
not require one to stop all activities, whether worldly or as prescribed by the Vedas, the 
performance of these actions would not obstruct self-surrender: 
 
532 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 18: “prārthanāpūrvakam parasyai devatāyai pratyagātmarūpasya haviṣas 
tyāgaḥ, indrāyedaṃ na mama ityādivat bhagavata eva aham asmi na mama iti.” 
533 Edgerton, Mīmāṃsānyāyaprakāśa, 110.  
534 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 3: “na hi tat karaṇaṃ loke vede vā kiṃcid īdṛśam | itikartavyatāsādhye yasya 
nānugrahe ’rthitā ||” 
227 
 
 
Worldly actions that are naturally accomplished, like closing and opening the 
eyes, are not prohibited by any injunction as they are meant to merely support 
the body. Moreover, all must perform the obligatory and occasional sacrifices 
with the thought of worshiping God for the sake of God’s love according to their 
capability for as long as they live. We do not understand the teaching of [self-
surrender] to be impossible since the cessation of those actions is not required.535 
 
 
Moreover, the person who has surrendered should continue to perform obligatory and 
occasional rituals to avoid the sins caused by the non-performance of these rituals and also 
maintain the eligibility for other rituals.536 Vedāntadeśika further alludes to Mīmāṃsāsūtra 
6.3.8 to explain that obligatory and occasional rituals can be performed according to one’s 
capabilities: “A desired-based action gives result only when there is a completion of all 
subordinate elements. On the other hand, obligatory and occasional injunctions are 
considered accomplished by performing them according to one’s capability.” 537 
Importantly, Vedāntadeśika affirms that self-surrender is to be performed as the means 
to be accomplished (sādhya) as prescribed by the scripture. Unlike Advaita Vedānta factual 
knowledge, which can be attained by only hearing the Upaniṣadic passages without any other 
actions, the scripture instructs that self-surrender should be performed as a sacrificial offering 
of oneself to God: 
 
 
535 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 35: yāni punaḥ svabhāvaprāptāni nimīlanonmīlanādīni, 
śarīradhāraṇamātrahetukāni vihitāpratiṣiddhāni yāni laukikāni karmāṇi, yāni ca yāvaccharīraṃ yathāśakti 
bhagavatsamārādhanatvabuddhyā tatprītyarthaṃ sarvair apy avaśyam anuṣṭheyāni nityanaimittikakarmāṇi, na 
tebhyo ’py uparamo ’pekṣita iti nāśakyopadeśatvam avagacchāmaḥ. 
536 Ibid., 20: “Even if these obligatory and occasional sacrifices are not taken up as subsidiaries of 
knowledge [which leads to liberation]; nevertheless, they are definitely to be taken up under the guise of 
being motivated by castes and stages of life etc. like for people who have stages of life only [but still 
continue to perform the rituals of their previous stages of life].” (tato yady api vidyāṅgatvena 
nityanaimittikakarmāṇi nopādīyante, tathāpi kevalāśramiṇām iva varṇāśramādimātraprayuktatvaveṣeṇopādeyāny eva). 
537 Ibid., 20: “sakalāṅgopasaṃhāre hi kāmyaṃ karma phalati. yathāśaktyanuṣṭhānamātreṇāpi 
nityanaimittikaśāstraṃ caritārthaṃ bhavati.” 
Cf. Mīmāṃsāsūtra 6.3.8, vol. 4, 1413. 
228 
 
Self-surrender is a mental awareness specified by a particular object. It is made 
known by the scriptures as the thing which is to be performed as the means to 
what is best (liberation) due to the division of object [of scripture, meaning 
knowledge arises from scriptural passages is different from knowledge produced 
from the performance enjoined by scriptural injunctions]. Even if the knowledge 
specified by a particular object is made known from the injunction, nevertheless, 
that specific object is made known by the scripture as the object of that 
[knowledge] and is not the immediate meaning of the injunction like the object 
of meditation and the awareness which consists of the abandonment of a 
substance referred to by the word “sacrifice” etc.538  
 
 
For the auxiliaries of self-surrender, Vedāntadeśika follows Vātsya Varadaguru by 
resorting to passages from the Lakṣmītantra. He points out that self-surrender is described as 
the middle ground between the means and faults in Lakṣmītantra 17.53–63 and can be referred 
to as “taking refuge,” consisting of the six components listed in the same passage.539 
 
538 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 18: viṣayaviśeṣaviśiṣṭabuddhir hi prapattiḥ, tasyā eva niḥśreyasasādhanatayā 
kartavyatvaṃ śāstravedyam iti viṣayabhe[daḥ]dāt. yady api viṣayaviśeṣaviśiṣṭaṃ jñānaṃ vidhīyata iti 
viṣayaviśeṣo ’pi vidhivākyavedyaḥ; tathāpi sa viṣayas tadviṣayatayaiva śāstravedya iti na 
sākṣādvidhivākyārthaḥ, upāsanāviṣayavat, yāgādiśabdābhilapyadravyatyāgātmakabuddhiviṣayavac ca. 
539 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 21:  
“The scriptural means and faults from something have been made by Me. The means which are 
enjoined [to do], faults which are prohibited.  
Faults lead a person who follows them down. The means lead a person who follows them up. 
Abandoning the faults and means and established on a middle course, one obtains Me alone in the end 
after attaining me as refuge.  
Hear this six-fold means from Me, O Lotus-born Goddess [Śrī/Lakṣmī]! Will to please [God]; the 
avoidance of what is contrary;  
The faith that God will protect one who asks; choosing God as the protector; The offering of oneself; 
[and] wretchedness: This is six-fold taking refuge.  
Having gone to Me alone as refuge, one becomes free of grief, fear, and fatigue without undertaking 
anything, without hoping for anything, without a thing of his own, [and] without a sense of himself.  
Having gone to Me alone as refuge, he may cross the ocean of cycle of births. People who are engaged in 
true actions and are pure knowers of Sāṃkhya and Yoga are not worth even a tiniest piece of a person who has 
resorted to refuge.” 
(upāyāś cāpy apāyāś ca śāstrīyā nirmitā mayā | vihitā ya upāyās te niṣiddhāś cetare matāḥ || 
adho nayanty apāyās taṃ ya enān anuvartate | ūrdhvaṃ nayanty upāyās taṃ ya enān anuvartate || 
upāyāpāyasaṃtyāgī madhyamāṃ vṛttim āsthitaḥ | mām ekaṃ śaraṇaṃ prāpya mām evānte samaśnute || 
ṣaḍaṅgaṃ tam upāyaṃ ca śṛṇu me padmasaṃbhave | ānukūlyasya saṃkalpaḥ prātikūlyasya varjanam || 
rakṣiṣyatīti viśvāso goptṛtvavaraṇaṃ tathā | ātmanikṣepakārpaṇye ṣaḍvidhā śaraṇāgatiḥ || 
evaṃ māṃ śaraṇaṃ prāpya vītaśokabhayaklamaḥ | nirārambho nirāśīś ca nirmamo nirahaṃkṛtiḥ || 
mām eva śaraṇaṃ prāpya taret saṃsārasāgaram | satkarmaniratāḥ śuddhāḥ sāṃkhyayogavidas tathā || 
nārhanti śaraṇasthasya kalāṃ koṭitamīm api ||). 
This quotation is from Lakṣmītantra 17.56–63, 57. 
229 
 
Vedāntadeśika then cites Lakṣmītantra 17.66–74 in which each auxiliary is characterized.540 He 
then uniquely provides another passage from the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā, Chapter 52, 12–23, 
which identifies self-surrender with six-fold bowing (namas) to illustrate the six auxiliaries:541 
 
Having stated namas by speech, body, and mind, that namas is said to be 
complete. Anything other than that is said to be less. This would be a completion; 
listen to the completeness of the auxiliaries.  
This is my eternal accomplishment that I bow down toward the Supreme 
Person. For me, there is no accomplishment other than this. This [the offering of 
oneself (ātmanikṣepa)] is said to be the best component. The desire for any result 
is contradictory to this. 
Due to weakness, which is natural, increase of beginningless traces, 
[and] being surrounded by stain, there is a prevention of the act of seeing God. 
That is wretchedness. Knowledge of all this is the second component of this 
sort. Thinking of your own independence is said to be the contradiction of that.  
Due to his superiority, this God is compassionate to all beings. He has 
the one thought of grace always. This is the third [the faith that God will protect 
one who asks (rakṣiṣyatīti viśvāsa)]. These thoughts, “He is indifferent” [and] 
“He gives result according to actions,” kill the third [component] which, 
indeed, consists of eternal faith.  
Since He is capable in this way, He should be my protection since He is 
capable in this way. With this thought, there is the determination that God can 
be the protector. This is said to be the fourth component [choosing God as the 
protector (goptṛtva varaṇa)]. The harming of that is imagining for no reason that 
He is indifferent, either by nature or because He does not have appropriate 
virtues. 
The action of oneself towards one master is an avoidance of hostility, 
which is the fifth component [the avoidance of activities that displease God 
(prātikūlyavarjana)], and it is equal to avoiding what is opposed to His order. The 
practice of what is not scriptural is said to be the opposite of that.  
“All beings moving and unmoving are the body of God. [Thus,] I should 
be helpful to those beings.” This determination is the sixth component [the will 
to please God (ānukūlyasaṃkalpa)]. The rejection to do so would contradict this 
[component].542 
 
540 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 21. See also Lakṣmītantra 17.66–74, 57–58. For the text and translation of this 
passage, see section 2.4.1. 
541 Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 52.12–23, vol. 2, 541–543. 
542 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 24 (italics added): 
vācā nama iti procya manasā vapuṣā ca yat | tan namaḥ pūrṇam uddiṣṭam ato ’nyan nyūnam ucyate || 
iyaṃ karaṇapūrtiḥ syād aṅgapūrtim imāṃ śṛṇu | śāśvatī mama saṃsiddhir iyaṃ prahvībhavāmi yat || 
puruṣaṃ param uddiśya na me siddhir ito ’nyathā | ity aṅgam uditaṃ śreṣṭhaṃ phalepsā tadvirodhinī || 
anādivāsanārohād anaiśvaryāt svabhāvajāt | malāvakuṇṭhitatvāc ca dṛkkriyāvihatir hi yā || 
230 
 
 
 
This passage conveys that the quality of bowing is common to those who bow down to God 
who is the Supreme. This quality consists of six auxiliaries parallel to those found in the 
Lakṣmītantra passage along with some elements that are not present in the Lakṣmītantra, 
namely the six activities opposed to the auxiliaries.  
Then, Vedāntadeśika cites Lakṣmītantra 17.91–102 to show that self-surrender can also 
function as an expiation and can be divided based on different groups of eligible people.543 It 
 
tat kārpaṇyaṃ tadudbodho dvitīyaṃ hy aṅgam īdṛśam | svasvātantryāvabodhaś ca tadvirodha udīryate || 
paratve sati devo ’yaṃ bhūtānām anukampanaḥ | anugrahaikadhīr nityam ity etat tu tṛtīyakam || 
upekṣako yathākarma phaladāyīti yā matiḥ | viśvāsātmakam etat tu tṛtīyaṃ hanti vai sadā || 
evaṃbhūto ’pi śaktaḥ san mattrāṇaṃ bhavituṃ kṣamaḥ | iti buddhyāsya devasya goptṛśaktinirūpaṇam || 
caturtham aṅgam uddiṣṭam amuṣya vyāhatiḥ svataḥ | udāsīno guṇābhāvād ity utprekṣānimittajā || 
svasya svāmini vṛttir yā prātikūlyavivarjanam | tadaṅgaṃ pañcamaṃ proktam ājñāvyāghātavarjanam || 
aśāstrīyopasevā tu tadvyāghāta udīryate | carācarāṇi bhūtāni sarvāṇi bhagavadvapuḥ || 
atas tadānukūlyaṃ me kāryam ity eva niścayaḥ | ṣaṣṭham aṅgaṃ samuddiṣṭaṃ tadvighāto nirākṛtiḥ || 
For the text in the Lakṣmītantra, see 59–60. 
543 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 22:  
“This is the Vedic foundation which is in the middle between the means and faults. A person, relying on 
this religious practice, should submit to Lord of the world, Viṣṇu. The meaning of scriptures is [that independent 
self-surrender] done merely once may liberate that person.  
When there is a combination of the means and faults, the person lacks this religious practice. If one is 
overwhelmed by sins, one should do an expiation at once.  
The expiation here is that one should choose the refuge again. If you accept [other] means as means, 
that [expiation] is just the same.  
For the non-confusion of dharmas [due to other means] and the protection of a family, for the 
supporting of the world and the establishment of the boundary, for the love of me [Śrī] and Viṣṇu, the Archer 
who is the God of gods, wise one would not transgress the Vedic rule even with the mind.  
Just as someone who is dear to the king [crosses] the river set in motion by the king and is useful for the 
world [since it is] pleasing and increasing crops.  
[If that person] destroys it with disregard, [he would be impaled on a stake.] In the same way, the man 
who transgresses the boundary made by the Vedas [even if he had been dear, would not be dear to me, because 
he transgressed my command]. The wise one should avoid holding [other things] as means with the mind. 
Having rested upon the fourth means which is relying on God’s feet in this way [and] having gone 
beyond all affliction, he enters into a pure place.  
Taking refuge is free from the means and faults. It rests on the middle path. It carries you across the 
ocean of transmigration.  
It is refuge for the ignorant and this very same thing is for the clever people. It is for people who want 
to cross the far shore, and it is for the people who want endlessness.” 
(eṣā sā vaidikī niṣṭhā hy upāyāpāyamadhyamā ||  
asyāṃ sthito jagannāthaṃ prapadyeta janārdanam | sakṛd eva hi śāstrārthaḥ kṛto ’yaṃ tārayen naram ||  
upāyāpāyasaṃyoge niṣṭhayā hīyate ’nayā | apāyasaṃplave sadyaḥ prāyaścittaṃ samācaret ||  
prāyaścittir iyaṃ sātra yat punaḥ śaraṇaṃ vrajet | upāyānām upāyatvasvīkāre ’py etad eva hi ||  
aviplavāya dharmāṇāṃ pālanāya kulasya ca | saṃgrahāya ca lokasya maryādāsthāpanāya ca ||  
priyāya mama viṣṇoś ca devadevasya śārṅgiṇaḥ | manīṣī vaidikācāraṃ manasāpi na laṅghayet ||  
231 
 
should be noted that Vātsya Varadaguru makes the same arguments based on the some of the 
same passages from the Lakṣmītantra in the Prapannapārijāta.544  
Also, like Vātsya Varadaguru, Vedāntadeśika categorizes those who surrender into two 
categories: 1) the afflicted, who cannot wait for any delay in attaining liberation, and 2) the 
content, who agree to attain liberation after the end of their lives based on Rāmāyaṇa 6.12.15.545 
Interestingly, while Vātsya Varadaguru argues for the difference in the timing of the two 
groups’ liberation, Vedāntadeśika stresses that there is no difference in the result, even if there 
is the division of place, time, condition, and eligibility as follows: 
 
The division between the afflicted one and content one through existence and 
non-existence of humbleness, fear, and so on is diversified by the One who is 
the refuge of the whole world since He gives the result even to the content one, 
so that they will have no fear and be protected. Despite the division of place, 
time, condition, and eligibility, there is no difference regarding the result for the 
easy and the difficult [means] […].546 
 
 Vedāntadeśika’s version of self-surrender in a ritual form is similar to Vātsya 
Varadaguru’s argument but differs from the views of Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai and Piḷḷai Lokācārya 
who both argue that self-surrender is not an act to be performed since God is the only means. 
Moreover, unlike Meghanādārisūri who maps self-surrender onto bhakti to the extent that it is 
 
yathā hi vallabho rājño nadīṃ rājñā pravartitām | lokopayoginīṃ ramyāṃ bahusasyavivardhinīm ||  
laṅghayan śūlam ārohed anapekṣo ’pi tāṃ prati | evaṃ vilaṅghayan martyo maryādāṃ vedanirmitām ||  
prayo ’pi na priyo ’sau me madājñāvyativartanāt | upāyatvagrahaṃ tatra varjayen manasā sudhīḥ ||  
caturtham āśrayann evam upāyaṃ caraṇāśrayam | atītya sakalaṃ kleśaṃ saṃviśatyamalaṃ padam || 
upāyāpāyanirmuktā madhyamāṃ sthitim āsthitā | śaraṇāgatir agryaiṣā saṃsārārṇavatāriṇī || 
idaṃ śaraṇam ajñānām idam eva vijānatām | idaṃ tirtīṣatāṃ pāram idam ānantyam icchatām ||). 
544 See section 2.4.1. 
545 See the same section. 
546 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 26: praśrayabhayādisadasadbhāvābhyāṃ vā ārtadṛptavibhāgaḥ, 
prapattavyena sarvalokaśaraṇyena dṛptānām api [phalāvinābhāvāya] phaladāyinā 
bhayābhāvāyāvaśyarakṣitavyatvāya ca prapañcitaḥ. deśakālāvasthādhikāryādibhedena gurulaghunor 
evāviśiṣṭaphalatvaṃ […]. 
232 
 
difficult to differentiate the two, Vedāntadeśika affirms their distinction based on the division 
of different groups of eligible people, as I will explore further below. 
 
4.2.2 Modeling Self-surrender on Bhakti  
 
In the Nikṣeparakṣā, Vedāntadeśika attempts to validate both self-surrender and bhakti by 
clarifying the relationship between the two. While the relationship between bhakti and self-
surrender can be found already in Vātsya Varadaguru’s Prapannapārijāta, Vedāntadeśika’s 
explanation of the relationship is more elaborate and systematic. First, he classifies self-
surrender into two forms—self-surrender as a ritual auxiliary and independent self-surrender 
(aṅga- and aṅgi- prapatti)—before placing them in relationship with bhakti. While self-
surrender as a ritual auxiliary is subordinate to bhakti as in Rāmānuja’s Gītābhāṣya and 
Gadyatraya, independent self-surrender is another means to liberation separate from bhakti.547 
Auxiliary self-surrender can also refer to bhakti since it culminates in bhakti based on a word 
that does not abandon its primary meaning (ajahallakṣaṇā). However, Vedāntadeśika rejects 
the views that self-surrender can only mean auxiliary self-surrender and can never communicate 
independent self-surrender. According to the untraceable Śrīvaiṣṇavadharmaśāstra passage, 
the word “self-surrender” can mean independent self-surrender:  
 
If you say that the words “bhakti” and “self-surrender” (prapadana) are seen to 
be used in some places as having the same meaning according to [their] location, 
this is not proven. Although the word "self-surrender" (prapadana) has a 
separate meaning according to the definition, it is not very separated from 
independent [self-surrender]. Therefore, it is possible to use the word in that 
place [to mean independent self-surrender]. It is even possible to use the word 
in the place of bhakti as a figurative indication that does not abandon its primary 
meaning like [in this statement], “The royal family is coming. He approaches 
the king. He serves the king. He lives with the king.” The fact that [the two 
 
547 See sections 1.2 and 1.3. 
233 
 
words] have different meanings is understood since we see [them] used together 
[, so they cannot replace each other] in the Śrīvaiṣṇavadharmaśāstra, Chapter 
on the horse sacrifice (aśvamedha): “O Acyuta, tell me how to do other 
meritorious dharmas, done to you out of affection, for those who surrender 
(prapanna) and those who are devoted (bhakta) to you.”548 
 
To justify the understanding self-surrender in these two forms, Vedāntadeśika resorts to 
Brahmasūtra 3.4.32–33.549 This passage, consisting of two sūtras, prescribes the performance 
of ritual actions according to stages of life in two different manners: the actions are enjoined 
independently in the first sūtra, and they are to be performed as auxiliaries to produce the 
eligibility for the meditative means in the second sūtra. Vedāntadeśika states: “It is indicated 
in the Brahmasūtra that actions according to stages of life are both auxiliaries and independent 
means, ‘There are also actions of stages of life since they are enjoined [as independent means] 
and as the auxiliaries’ [Brahmasūtra 3.4.32–33].’”550 
Vedāntadeśika further claims that self-surrender and bhakti are classified differently 
based on the difficulty and the number of times these two means should be performed. Bhakti 
is considered more complicated since it should be repeated, while self-surrender must be 
undertaken only once and is considered easier. Vedāntadeśika then mentions examples of ritual 
actions, namely, two types of bathing rituals (snāna), one easy and the other difficult, along 
with two types of jyotiṣṭoma, one to be repeated and the other to be performed once, to justify 
the division of bhakti and self-surrender: 
 
548 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 35: yat tūktaṃ bhajanaprapadanaśabdau sthānatas samānārthatayā kvacit 
prayujyamānau dṛśyete iti, tadasiddham; prapadanaśabdasya lakṣaṇato bhinnārthasyāpy 
aṅginānatidūraviprakarṣāt ajahallakṣaṇayā tatsthāne prayogopapatteḥ. yathā rājakulaṃ gacchati, rājānam 
abhigacchati, rājānaṃ sevate, rājñi vartata iti. ata evāśvamedhike śrīvaiṣṇavadharmaśāstre sahaprayogād 
bhinnārthatvam avagamyate – tasmād dhi tvāṃ prapannasya tvadbhaktasya ca bhāvataḥ. yuṣmadīyān parān 
dharmān puṇyān kathaya me ’cyuta. 
549 Brahmasūtra 3.4.32–33, 789–790. 
550 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 34: sūtritaṃ ca teṣām āśramakarmaṇām aṅgatvaṃ svatantratvaṃ ca - 
vihitatvāc cāśramakarmāpi, sahakāritvena ceti. 
234 
 
 
When a particular type that is not repeated (self-surrender) is possible, one 
should abandon a particular one that has to be repeated (bhakti) because it is 
difficult. If one were to accept the difficult one, then one should not end up 
[undertaking] the one that is easy and to be done once. If you oppose, saying that 
one should not perform the one which is not to be repeated because [the difficult 
one] would be useless. That should not be the case since there is an established 
arrangement between the difficult one and the easy one based on the rule of faith 
that an eligible person has. In the same way, general words like “bathing” 
(snāna) include different types of bathing rituals, difficult and easy, and suitable 
for various people. It is the same in the case [of self-surrender and bhakti]. [In 
the same way,] the word “jyotiṣṭoma” (a soma sacrifice) refers to both types 
through the separate application of two types of jyotiṣṭoma, repeated and not 
repeated. Then what contradiction is there, if there is the culmination of the 
words such as “knowledge” (vedana) in two meanings of meditative means to 
Brahman (brahmavidyā) in the forms of self-surrender (prapadana) and 
meditative worship (upāsana) in that way, one not repeated, and the others 
repeated. [The implication here is that there is no contradiction in this case].551 
 
Self-surrender can be differentiated from bhakti through its requirement of faith as well.552 In 
other words, those who do not have faith in self-surrender would be eligible for bhakti in the 
same way as those who cannot perform bhakti or do not have patience for the delay of its result 
would be eligible for self-surrender:553 
 
Some people always have doubts, [thinking as follows:] the means is [too] easy; 
it cannot uproot the whole cause of suffering which is endless and has been 
accumulated from the beginningless time; it is hard to reach the ascending to the 
step [and other stages in case of self-surrender] even for Brahmā, Śiva, Sanaka 
and other [great beings], let alone themselves who are much more inferior [to 
 
551 Ibid.: anāvṛttaviśeṣe saṃbhavati gauravād āvṛttaṃ viśeṣaṃ parityajet; atha gauravam anumatya tatra na 
paryavasyet, tadā tadvaiyarthyaprasaṅgād anāvṛttaṃ nāsīded iti cet; tan na, adhikāriviśeṣapratītiniyamena 
gurulaghuvyavasthāyāḥ sthāpitatvāt. yathā snānādisāmānyaśabdās tattadadhikāriviśeṣocitaṃ taṃ taṃ 
snānādiviśeṣaṃ guruṃ laghuṃ ca saṃgṛhṇanti, tathātrāpi. yathā vasante vasante jyotiṣā yajeta, jyotiṣṭomena 
svargakāmo yajeteti viniyogapṛthaktvenāvṛttānāvṛttajyotiṣṭomayoḥ jyotiṣṭomaśabdaḥ, tathātrāpy 
āvṛttānāvṛttayoḥ prapadanopāsanarūpayoḥ brahmavidyayoḥ vedanādiśabdaparyavasāne ko virodhaḥ? 
552 Vedāntadeśika (ibid.) also refers to other qualifications which include “the impatience of delay, fear of other 
means, being immersed in the meditation on the eminent and good qualities of God, and so on” 
(vilambākṣamatvam, upāyāntarabhīrutvaṃ, bhagavadguṇavattāprakarṣānusaṃdhānanimagnatvam ityādi). 
553 Unlike bhakti, self-surrender may indeed be able to destroy the karmas that have begun to operate 
(prārabdhakarma), but both of them lead to liberation. Thus, there is no difference regarding the result for both 
means. See Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 27.   
235 
 
these great beings]. Therefore, they enter on the more difficult means, which is 
far removed from these doubts. Thus, there is indeed particular differentiated 
optionality of eligibility based on determination (adhyavasāya). The 
differentiation of eligibility either due to ability or inability of other means or 
impatience or toleration of delay makes sense since people like Vyāsa and others 
[great people like Vyāsa] would not have the entailment of that sort of doubts. 
Given that is the case, the result may be the same [for both means, bhakti and 
self-surrender].554 
 
Finally, Vedāntadeśika differentiates self-surrender from the factual knowledge 
proposed by Advaita Vedānta to place self-surrender on par with bhakti. Looking back, 
Rāmānuja also highlights the difference between bhakti and Advaita Vedānta knowledge of the 
meaning of the Upaniṣadic passages in his Śrībhāṣya. According to the condition set by 
Rāmānuja, self-surrender must be different from Advaita Vedānta factual knowledge so that it 
becomes as valid as bhakti. Thus, Vedāntadeśika deals with this issue in the first section of the 
Nikṣeparakṣā on the nature of self-surrender:  
 
If self-surrender has a form of mental activity, does it have a form of an error 
like perception or a form of true knowledge? In the case of the first one, there is 
no proof that it [an error] is the means to liberation. In the latter case [that self-
surrender has a form of true knowledge], is it [true knowledge] born from only 
scriptures or other causes? In the first case [that self-surrender is born only from 
scriptures], there would be an undesirable consequence of agreeing to the view 
of the foolish people [i.e., Advaita Vedānta].555  
 
 
Vedāntadeśika elaborates that the factual knowledge is achieved from the Upaniṣadic 
 
554 Ibid., 27: ye punar upāyalāghavam, tata evānādikālasaṃcitānantasamastaduḥkhahetujālonmūlanam, 
kṣodīyasām api svātmanāṃ vidhiśivasanakādiduradhigamapadādhirohādikaṃ cānucintya satataṃ saṃdihate, 
teṣāṃ tacchaṅkād aviṣṭhagariṣṭhopāyānupraveśa iti. ato yathādhyavasāyam adhikāra ity ayam apy antato 
vyavasthitavikalpabheda eva. vyāsādīnāṃ tu tathāvidhaśaṅkāprasaṅgābhāvād upāyāntaraśaktyaśaktibhyāṃ 
vilambakṣamatvavilambākṣamatvābhyām eva vā adhikāravyavastheti nirbādham etat. ato ’viśiṣṭaphalatvam apy 
upapannam. 
555 Ibid., 3: manovyāpārarūpatve ’pi, dṛṣṭivat sā bhrāntirūpā, tattvajñānarūpā vā? pūrvatra 
apavargasādhanatvāsiddhiḥ. uttaratra, kiṃ śāstramātrajanyā, hetvantarajanyā vā? ādye 
kumatimatopanipātādiprasaṅgaḥ. 
236 
 
sentential meaning and cannot be enjoined or assisted by other activities. He then argues against 
the two positions, which suggest that self-surrender has the same characteristic as Advaita 
Vedānta factual knowledge. The first position states that self-surrender is an already 
accomplished means (siddha). The second one indicates that Bhagavadgītā 18.66 cannot enjoin 
a person to perform self-surrender since it should be construed as a reiteration as follows, “For 
the one who has gone to Brahman alone as refuge preceded by the abandonment of dharma, 
Brahman alone is the means to liberation.”556 This statement only makes known the status of 
Brahman as the means to liberation without enjoining anything. In response to these two 
positions, Vedāntadeśika points out that self-surrender is a means that needs to be accomplished 
(sādhya), as I have previously shown in the section on a ritual of self-surrender. He then 
interprets Bhagavadgītā 18.66 as a qualified injunction (viśiṣṭa-vidhi), consisting of the main 
injunction for the performance of self-surrender and the subordinate injunction to abandon other 
means. His interpretation is based on the Mīmāṃsakas’ theory, mentioned in Chapter 2. Thus, 
according to Vedāntadeśika, self-surrender acts like bhakti in the sense that it is a mental 
awareness to be performed by scriptures such as Bhagavadgītā 18.66.557  
In the sixth section of the Nikṣeparakṣā, Vedāntadeśika affirms that there is no unity 
between self-surrender and Advaita Vedānta factual knowledge, even if they share certain 
 
556 See the elaborate discussion on reiteration and injunction related to Bhagavadgītā 18.66 in the section 4.1. To 
summarize, Vedāntadeśika offers three reasons (Nikṣeparakṣā, 2–3): The first reason is explained as follows: 
Given that a reiteration normally makes known the result of an injunction and other things but not the injunction 
itself, this statement cannot be a reiteration since it should communicate something which is different from the 
things referred to by a reiteration. Second, if this statement from the Bhagavadgītā is to be understood as a 
reiteration, then it would not have any connection with an injunction. However, its grammatical construction 
suggests that it should be construed as an injunction. Third, if we assume that the statement is a reiteration which 
usually provides a precondition that should be connected to an injunction, there is nothing else that can be 
enjoined in the statement so that this reiteration has something to connect with. 
557 It should be noted that Vedāntadeśika seems to have Bhagavadgītā 18.66 as the center of his argument here 
since he begins the section with the passage and his discussion remains very engaged with the nature of self-
surrender based on the Bhagavadgītā passage.  
237 
 
characteristics such as having the form of mental activity and requiring no repetition or 
obligatory rituals as auxiliaries. Self-surrender is different from factual knowledge, since one 
needs to realize the relationship between the soul, who is subordinate, and God, who is superior 
to the soul, before performing self-surrender. In addition, unlike factual knowledge, which 
requires the cessation of all other activities, one should not stop performing obligatory and 
occasional rituals after self-surrender: 
 
Moreover, there is no descent into the views of people with bad views [i.e., 
Advaita Vedānta]. Although self-surrender is done once, it is different from the 
factual knowledge of the [Upaniṣadic] sentential meaning. Self-surrender is 
pregnant with a mass of particular things such as the ruler and the ruled ones. 
Although self-surrender does not have auxiliaries like sacrificial rituals and so 
on, it has been shown that there is no cessation of rituals such as obligatory and 
occasional rituals etc.558  
 
 
To sum up this section, like other Sanskrit authors, Vedāntadeśika aims to prove in the 
Nikṣeparakṣā that self-surrender can serve as an alternative to bhakti and conforms to the 
Sanskrit sphere of soteriology. By rejecting the identity between self-surrender and Advaita 
Vedānta factual knowledge that is liberative without actions required, Vedāntadeśika 
simultaneously differentiates his version of self-surrender from the passive form presented in 
the Manipravalam works of Periyavāccāṉ Pịḷḷai and Piḷḷai Lokācārya. We might recall that the 
Manipravalam authors maintain the view that self-surrender lacks the performative aspect, 
which bhakti embodies, since it is nothing but God, who is the accomplished means. Their 
views bring self-surrender dangerously close to Advaita Vedānta factual knowledge and 
possibly render it invalid in the Sanskrit sphere, in which bhakti, along with its anti-Advaita 
 
558 Vedāntadeśika, Nikṣeparakṣā, 34: naca kumatimatāvatāraḥ; sakṛdkaraṇe ’pi vākyārthajñānād atiriktatvāt, 
īśeśitavyādiviśeṣajālagarbhatvāt, karmādyaṅgakatvābhāve ’pi nityanaimittikādyanurodhasya darśitatvāt, 
adhikāryantarasadbhāvena asakṛdāvṛttānusaṃdhānapratikṣepābhāvāc ca.  
238 
 
Vedānta characteristic, is the soteriological model. It is true that Vedāntadeśika does not openly 
refer to the views of the Manipravalam literature in the Nikṣeparakṣā. Nevertheless, his 
argument effectively resolves the potential issue on the invalidity of self-surrender in the 
Sanskrit sphere, the risk that may arise from those views in the Manipravalam literature. 
 
4.3 Summary 
We have seen in the previous chapters that Vātsya Varadaguru and Meghanādārisūri 
systematized self-surrender only in Sanskrit, resulting in a version of self-surrender that is 
different from the one found in the Manipravalam literature from the same period. They 
consolidated the Sanskrit sphere, drawing it away from the Tamil scripture as well as the 
Manipravalam sphere. Unlike the Manipravalam authors who did not pay attention to bhakti, 
these authors maintain that bhakti is the valid soteriological doctrine based on Rāmānuja’s 
teaching. Vedāntadeśika, being a part of the Sanskrit scholastic and theological domain, 
followed the same agenda in the Nikṣeparakṣā. He synthesized the main constituents of the 
Sanskrit sphere, namely Vedāntic Sanskrit scriptures, Mīmāṃsā hermeneutics, and Rāmānuja’s 
theology, all focused on and handed down by Vātsya Varadaguru and Meghanādārisūri.  
Like the two Sanskrit authors, Vedāntadeśika also incorporated the Sanskrit emphasis 
on the performative characteristic of self-surrender in his systematization. Being a part of the 
Sanskrit soteriology in which bhakti remains central, self-surrender mimics the characteristics 
of bhakti, especially its ritual status, to become another doctrine. Although Vedāntadeśika 
defended self-surrender as a valid means separate from bhakti, he asserted that the two doctrines 
are on par with each other; they can both be undertaken as the means to liberation according to 
different eligibilities.  
239 
 
The preceding chapters have shown the distance between the Sanskrit theology of self-
surrender and the one seen in the Manipravalam literature. However, what becomes clear when 
we look at Vedāntadeśika is the choice he made as an author working within the Śrīvaiṣṇava 
multilingual community. Composing in Sanskrit, Vedāntadeśika complied with the limitations 
of the Sanskrit sphere and with earlier Sanskrit authors such as Vātsya Varadaguru, 
Meghanādārisūri, and even Rāmānuja. He further reinterpreted the scriptural passages used by 
these authors and reconciled the previously diverging views on self-surrender to affirm the 
soteriological status of self-surrender within the Sanskrit sphere. Although he alluded to the 
debates found in the Manipravalam sphere, he did not explicitly involve the Tamil scripture or 
the Manipravalam discussions due to the condition of the Sanskrit sphere. Self-surrender 
belongs to the Sanskrit sphere, and that means the marginalization and, in some cases, exclusion 
of the elements critical to the Manipravalam sphere, such as Nammāḻvār as an ideal devotee, 
the paradigm of the three secrets, and the fundamental relationship between God and the 
devotees in the soteriological process. These elements instead define self-surrender in the 
Rahasyatrayasāram. It is obvious that the Sanskrit sphere limits the authoritative norms in the 
Nikṣeparakṣā only to the Sanskrit sources. To examine the more elaborate discussions on self-
surrender and its sources both in Sanskrit and Tamil, Vedāntadeśika chose the linguistic 
medium of Manipravalam in the Rahasyatrayasāram. As I argue in the next chapter, 
Manipravalam not only functions as the medium that bridges the gap between the two 
confluences of the Sanskrit and Tamil scriptures but also conveys the various definitions of 
self-surrender by earlier authors. 
240 
 
CHAPTER 5 
HARMONIZATION 
 
The tradition today believes that the Rahasyatrayasāram was Vedāntadeśika’s last work and 
that he composed this text during his later days in Śrīraṅgam.559 This belief gives the impression 
that this text is a culmination of his ideas, which in turn renders its status as the most important 
work among his compositions. Francis Clooney indicates that this work is the most elaborate 
commentary on the three secrets and was meant for the “wider literate audience” compared to 
his other treatises.560 In addition to its commentarial expansiveness, this text contains different 
expressions, as Clooney claims that it is “the site of reason, imagination, affective 
intensification, and religious commitment.”561  
Many scholars highlight the harmonizing function of Vedāntadeśika’s 
Rahasyatrayasāram, some of whom I will now briefly mention. Patricia Mumme has 
comprehensively studied this text in comparison with Maṇavāḷamāmuni’s commentary on the 
words of Piḷḷai Lokācārya in The Śrīivaiṣṇava Theological Dispute (1988). Mumme argues that, 
through this work, Vedāntadeśika intended to resolve the contradictions and reconcile different 
interpretations regarding the traditional doctrine.562 Elisa Freschi also proposes that a decent 
number of Vedāntadeśika’s works are devoted to the harmonization of different intellectual and 
authoritative strands, namely Vedānta, Pūrva Mīmāṃsā, Pāñcarātra, and Āḻvārs’ theology. One 
such work is the Rahasyatrayasāram in which Vedāntadeśika harmonized contesting views of 
the Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ theology, centering on the doctrine of self-surrender and the three secrets.563 
 
559 Mumme, The Śrīvaiṣṇava Theological Dispute, 12. 
560 For more information on Vedāntadeśika’s Rahasyatrayasāram, see Clooney, The Truth, the Way, the Life, 8. 
561 Ibid., 13. 
562 Mumme, The Śrīvaiṣṇava Theological Dispute, 14. 
563 Freschi, “Śrī Vaiṣṇavism.”  
241 
 
In the analysis of this text in Beyond Compare (2008), Clooney shows that Vedāntadeśika 
aimed at balancing the two streams of Sanskrit and Tamil and harmonizing all the doctrines.564 
This chapter intends to strengthen this argument on the harmonizing role of the 
Rahasyatrayasāram and to argue further that Vedāntadeśika’s use of Manipravalam is 
necessary to his harmonization and consolidation of the communal sense, which might have 
been prompted by contemporaneous social and intellectual events. 
Comparing Vedāntadeśika’s Rahasyatrayasāram with the Nikṣeparakṣā, we can see 
that while Vedāntadeśika presented only some scriptures, aspects, and debates related to self-
surrender in Sanskrit, he discusses sources more extensively in Manipravalam. The scriptural 
sources included in the Rahasyatrayasāram are more diversified, stylistically and content-wise, 
and attention is given to the teachings from the Tamil scripture and the interpretation of the 
three secrets. However, we still see some Sanskrit authorities such as the Upaniṣads, Purāṇas, 
and Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās.  
Vedāntadeśika synthesized the sources from different origins and contexts, those used 
either by Manipravalam authors or the Sanskrit ones or both, claiming that the different 
scriptural streams agree on the subject at hand as previously shown. Through Manipravalam, 
which allows Vedāntadeśika to bring in both Sanskrit and Tamil scriptural and theological 
domains, he harmonized multiple strands of self-surrender and resolved the discrepancies we 
saw in his predecessors’ treatises, as we will see in the second section of this chapter. 
Vedāntadeśika’s harmonization results in the collective Manipravalam soteriology that 
incorporate different forms of self-surrender as I will illustrate below. The collective 
normativity and expression of self-surrender in the Rahasyatrayasāram became the main 
 
564 Clooney The Truth, the Way, the Life, 189–190. 
242 
 
defining characteristic of the Śrīvaiṣṇavas. To explain, Vedāntadeśika’s self-surrender 
contributes to the notion that “the tradition” refers to the community of those who follow or 
want to follow self-surrender.  
Clooney proposes that the entire Rahasyatrayasāram essentially expounds the “Truth,” 
“Way,” and “Life” around the three secrets or mantras, which reflect the “correct” doctrines as 
follows:565 
 
Thorough exegesis of the Tiru Mantra, Dvaya Mantra, and Carama Śloka occurs 
respectively in Chapters 27,28, and 29, which comprise nearly 40% of the whole. 
This exegesis is complemented by the expositions found in Chapters 3–19. Thus, 
Chapters 3–6 offer philosophical and theological underpinnings for the entire 
project – the Truth – while Chapters 7–12 offer the logic and psychology of 
taking refuge – the Way – and Chapters 13–19 spell out the manner and motive 
of a life lived in accord with the Mantras – the Life; other chapters raise 
questions about the transmission of the teaching of the Mantras, and the implied 
cosmology, epistemology, etc.566 
 
I agree that the exegesis of the three secrets is the main project of the Rahasyatrayasāram as it 
is itself a part of the genre of rahasyagranthas whose goal is to interpret and understand the 
three secrets. However, I understand that the three secrets attain meanings and roles within the 
soteriology of self-surrender, in particular. Thus, in this chapter, I focus on Chapters 7–12 that 
describe self-surrender and its function in relation to God in addition to Chapters 27–29 on the 
three secrets.  
 
5.1 The Rahasyatrayasāram in the Manipravalam Sphere 
In the Rahasyatrayasāram, we see that Vedāntadeśika incorporates scriptures, both Sanskrit 
and Tamil, and also the works of previous ācāryas to harmonize different normative streams. 
 
565 Ibid., 21. 
566 Ibid., 18. 
243 
 
Importantly, unlike in the Nikṣeparakṣā in which he focuses only on the Sanskrit scripture, 
Vedāntadeśika prefers the Tamil scripture and the Sanskrit texts that are less authoritative than 
the Vedas and Upaniṣads, such as the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa. His preference shows 
that the Nikṣeparakṣā and the Rahasyatrayasāram participate in different linguistic spheres as 
they are engaged with the predominant norms in Sanskrit and Manipravalam respectively. It 
also suggests that the Rahasyatrayasāram is clearly a part of the Manipravalam sphere and 
might have been in conversation with the previous Manipravalam treatises of Periyavāccāṉ 
Piḷḷai and Piḷḷlai Lokācārya in Chapters 2 and 3. 
It is also clear that Vedāntadeśika does not intend only to bring both the Sanskrit and 
Tamil scriptures into discussion but aims to harmonize these authorities. He further synthesizes 
the scriptures with the ācāryas’ teachings, which represent another norm of authority in the 
Manipravalam sphere, in particular. In some cases, he even argues that the Āḻvārs should be 
considered more authoritative than the itihāsa, and the itihāsa statement should not be 
contradictory to their models. The Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās remain one of the most authoritative 
scriptures regarding the nature and definition of self-surrender, as in the Nikṣeparakṣā. 
However, in this text, Vedāntadeśika centers on aligning these texts with other authorities. I 
chart his normative preference and attempt to harmonize all the authorities in the following 
section. 
Clooney comprehensively explores these three chapters on the secrets, Chapters 27–29, 
in his book, The Truth, the Way, the Life: Christian Commentary on the Three Holy Mantras of 
the Śrivaiṣṇava Hindus (2008). There, he argues that these chapters on the three secrets are 
central to the Rahasyatrayasāram. They not only expound the three secrets, but also capture 
various interpretations on them, interwoven with the Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ theology: 
244 
 
 
Deśika constantly reminds his readers that attention to even the details of the 
Mantras must be placed in the context of a full appreciation of the overall 
Śrīvaiṣṇava faith perspective. He insists that the three Mantras cooperate in 
shaping a Śrīvaiṣṇava worldview, and thus need to be understood together; in a 
number of texts, he introduces and praises them together.567 
 
 
In the section that follows, I propose that the three secrets, which Clooney claims to be the 
essence of the Rahasyatrayasāram, serve as the foundation for Vedāntadeśika’s systematization 
of self-surrender and a tool to synthesize multiple authoritative sources on self-surrender. His 
analysis of the three secrets is also immersed in the Manipravalam sphere and indebted to his 
predecessors’ interpretations of them. 
 
5.1.1 The Scriptural Synthesis 
 
As we can see from the previous chapter, the authoritative passages in the Nikṣeparakṣā are 
drawn only from the Sanskrit scriptures of which the majority can be found in the 
Prapannapārijāta. On the other hand, Vedāntadeśika reduces the Sanskrit passages from the 
Vedic and Upaniṣadic sources in the Rahasyatrayasāram, especially in the chapters related to 
self-surrender and the three secrets (Chapters 8–12 and 27–29). Frequently, Vedāntadeśika 
brings in the Tamil scriptures, especially the Tiruvāymoḻi, and itihāsas, instead of the Sanskrit 
ones, to balance the Sanskrit and Tamil scriptures. In what follows, I exemplify 
Vedāntadeśika’s preference to the Tamil scriptures and his treatments on itihāsas in relation to 
his arguments on self-surrender. 
 In Chapter 28 on the Dvaya, “I surrender at the two feet of Nārāyaṇa with Śrī. I pay 
obeisance to Nārāyaṇa with Śrī” (“śrīmannārāyaṇacaranau prapadye. śrīmate nārāyaṇāya 
 
567 Ibid., 19. 
245 
 
namaḥ”), Vedāntadeśika accepts the view that Tiruvāymoḻi 6.10.10 portrays Nammāḻvār’s self-
surrender: 
 
‘I won’t part from you for an instant’ says Śrī who rests on your chest, 
lord of matchless fame, holder of the three worlds, 
my king, master of Vēṅkaṭam 
dear to peerless immortals and sages 
with nowhere else to go, I’ve settled at your feet.568 
 
He also highlights the fact that Nammāḻvār explains the meaning of the Dvaya in the 
Tiruvāymoḻi, especially Tiruvāymoḻi 4.1.1, “As the world watches those who once ruled as 
kings beg with broken bowl in hand black dogs nipping at their heels. Quick, think now of 
Tirunāraṇaṉ’s feet;” Tiruvāymoḻi 7.2.11, “Those who master these ten from the thousand sung 
on the banks of the sacred Porunal in praise of the feet of him dark as storm clouds, will be 
swept up in a flood of bliss and will remain among celestials who are forever with him dark as 
storm clouds;” and Tiruvāymoḻi 6.10.10.569 He then draws the hermeneutic connection between 
the Dvaya and Tiruvāymoḻi 6.10.10, in particular, stating that God’s qualities shown in the word 
“nārāyaṇa” in the Dvaya are also summarized in the Tiruvāymoḻi passage. Thus, Tiruvāymoḻi 
6.10.10 and the Dvaya share the concept of surrender with God as the refuge: 
 
All the meanings stated by the etymological interpretation in the chapter on the 
Mūlamantra (Chapter 27) of the word “nārāyaṇa,” which has already been 
discussed here, are meant. However, for the word “nārāyaṇa” in the first part 
[of the Dvaya], [the qualities] which are summarized in the passage, “lord of 
matchless fame” [Tiruvāymoḻi 6.10.10], by indicating that they pertain to His 
(God’s) being the refuge, namely parental love (vātsalya), mastership 
 
568 Translated by Venkatesan in Endless Song, 215. For the text, see Nālāyirativviyappirapantam, 553. 
569 The two passages are translated by Venkatesan, 133 and 225. For the text, see Nālāyirativviyappirapantam, 
495 and 558. For Vedāntadeśika’s Rahasyatrayasāram, see the edition by Uttamur Viraraghavacharya (Madras: 
Ubhayavedāntagranthamālā, 1980), vol. 1, 947–948: ittvayattiṉ arthattai nammāḻvārum ‘tirunārāyaṇaṉ tāḷ 
kālam peṟac cintittuymmiṉō’ eṉṟum, ‘mutilvaṇṇaṉ aṭiyaiy aṭaintu aruḷ cūṭiy uyntavaṉ’ eṉṟum. ‘akalakillēṉ’ 
mutalāṉa pradeśaṅkaḷilum aruḷicceytār.  
246 
 
(svāmitva), excellence of disposition (sauśīlya), omniscience (sarvajñatva), 
omnipotence (sarvaśaktitva), true will (satyasaṃkalpatva), supreme 
compassion (paramakāruṇikatva), gratitude (kṛtajñatva), stability (sthiratva), 
completion (paripūrṇatva), supreme generosity (paramodāra) and so on, are the 
most predominant ones among those to be contemplated here.570 
 
 
 Moreover, following other Manipravalam authors, Vedāntadeśika treats itihāsas as 
illustrating the model practices for those who want to surrender to God. Specifically, he outlines 
examples of those who surrender to God through the pretext and how God saves them from the 
Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa in various chapters, especially in the chapters on the three secrets. 
It should be noted that Vedāntadeśika places the Āḻvārs’ practices at the top of the hierarchy of 
authority and ranks the models from itihāsas lower than those. The itihāsas are authoritative, 
but the Āḻvārs’ lives and practices have more authority. This is evident when he asserts that the 
rules according to castes should not be violated since even the Āḻvārs follow them. The Āḻvārs’ 
conformity to the rules of castes should be understood as the authority for the practices found 
in itihāsas as in the story of Vidura from the Mahābhārata. Being a śūdra, the lowest caste, 
Vidura serves food to Kṛṣṇa who is a twice-born. Vidura’s act theoretically violates the rule 
that a śūdra cannot cook food for the twice-born like Kṛṣṇa (Viṣṇu). However, Vidura does not 
break the rule according to Vedāntadeśika. In fact, Vidura is allowed to do so since he has a 
special quality based on being Viṣṇu’s devotee. The episode is portrayed through the dialogue 
between Kṛṣṇa and Duryodhana who is criticizing Vidura as follows:  
 
 
570 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 2, 967–968: iṅkuṟṟa nārāyaṇaśabdattukku mūlamantrādhikārattil 
vyutpattikaḷālē coṉṉa arthaṅkaḷ ellām vivakṣitaṅkaḷ ākilum pūrvakhaṇḍattil nārāyaṇaśabdattukku śaraṇyataiyilē 
nōkkāṉapaṭiyālē ‘nikaril pukaḻāy’ ityādikalilē saṃgṛhītaṅkaḷāṉa 
vātsalyasvāmitvasauśīlyasaulabhyasarvajñatvasarvaśaktitvasatyasaṃkalpatvaparamakārāruṇikatvakṛtajñatva-
sthiratvaparipūrṇatvaparamodāratvādikaḷ iṅku anusandhēyaṅkaḷil pradhānatamaṅkaḷ. 
247 
 
Duryodhana heard that “[Kṛṣṇa] who has eaten among the best of the twice-born 
sits on the supreme seat and eats the pure and nourishing food from Vidura” 
[Mahābhārata 411]. So, he asks [Kṛṣṇa], “O Madhusūdana, having passed me, 
Bhīṣma, and Droṇa, what is the point of eating the food of the śūdra, Lord with 
the lotus eyes?” [Mahābhārata 423]. By replying, “Food of the enemies should 
not be eaten, and one should not be caused to feed the enemies. O King, you hate 
the Pāṇḍavas who are my life-breath” [Mahābhārata 409], the Lord [Kṛṣṇa] 
agreed with Vidura’s particular birth (jāti) as Duryodhana stated. However, [it 
may be asked], is it not the case that eating food cooked by a śūdra is forbidden 
for brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas […] The fact that [Vidura can prepare food for 
Kṛṣṇa] is suitable due to the statement of Vidura’s special quality as in “Vidura, 
having become virtuous and pure, brings food [to Kṛṣṇa]” [Mahābhārata 411] 
[…] Therefore, the service to God according to the eligibility through the 
manner suitable to each birth, without abandoning various births but remaining, 
is suitable to do.571 
 
 
Vedāntadeśika then explains that the story of Vidura should be understood as an exception since 
he has a special quality that normal people do not have and thus cannot be used to overrule the 
prohibition or to violate the rules according to castes. In the same manner, the Āḻvārs’ conduct 
that seems inappropriate to their castes indeed conform to the rules since they have great power 
unlike devotees in general.572 Thus, devotees should not imitate the practices of these special 
devotees such as Vidura and the Āḻvārs. Vedāntadeśika’s argument here further suggests that 
the Mahābhārata should not be taken literally in some cases and cannot be applied entirely to 
 
571 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 2, 743–744:  
‘bhuktavatsu dvijāgryēṣu niṣaṇṇaḥ paramāsanē | vidurānnāni bubhujē śucīni guṇavanti ca ||’ 
eṉṟitaik kēṭṭu duryōdhanaṉ. 
‘bhīṣmadrōṇav atikramya māṃ caiva madhusūdana | kim arthaṃ puṇḍarīkākṣa bhuktaṃ vṛṣaḷabhōjanam’ eṉṟu 
kēṭka, 
‘dviṣadannaṃ na bhōktavyaṃ dviṣantaṃ naiva bhōjayēt | pāṇḍavān dviṣasē rājan mama prāṇā hi pāṇḍavāḥ ||’ 
eṉṟu uttaram aruḷicceykaiyālē śrīvidurarukku duryōdhanaṉ coṉṉa jātiviśēṣattai bhagavāṉ icaintāṉ āyiṟṟu. 
 ānāl brāhmaṇarkkum kṣatriyarkkum śūdraṉuṭaiya pakvānnattai bhujikkai niṣiddham aṉṟō […] itu, 
‘śucis tu prayatō bhūtvā vidurō ’nnam upāharat’ eṉṟu śrīviduraruṭaiya guṇaviśēṣaṅkaḷ collukaiyālē sūcitam […] 
ākaiyālē tam tam jātikaḷai viṭātē niṉṟu avvō jātikaḷukku ucitaprakriyaiyālē yathādhikāram bhagavatkaiṅkaryam 
paṇṇa prāptam. For the Mahābhārata passages, see vol. 6, 365, 366, and 375. 
572 Ibid., 748: “The particular ways of conduct of the Āḻvārs who have greater power than Vidura and others are 
not examples for our performance. If one investigates their conduct, there is no violation of the rules according to 
one’s own birth.” (vidurādikaḷum utkṛṣṭaprabhāvarāṉa āḻvārkaḷuṭaiya vṛttāntaviśēṣaṅkaḷai nam anuṣṭhānattukku 
dṛṣṭāntamākkal ākātu. avarkaḷ vṛttāntaṅkaḷaiyum ārāyntāl svajātiniyamattaik kaṭantamaiy illai).  
248 
 
the practices of those who surrender to God. Alternatively, the practices in the Māhābhārata 
must be justified by and conform to the Āḻvārs’ practices.  
Vedāntadeśika treats the Rāmāyaṇa differently, affirming that the Rāmāyaṇa shows the 
perfect practices of the main characters who represent various agents in the surrendering 
process: Rāma is God, Viṣṇu-Nārāyaṇa; Sītā is God’s consort, Śrī, who acts as the mediator in 
surrender, and the other characters, such as Lakṣmaṇa, Vibhīṣaṇa, and Hanumān are those who 
surrender to God. Thus, the Rāmāyaṇa functions as a guide for the perfect surrender.573 
Vedāntadeśika defines the Rāmāyaṇa as “the essence of taking refuge” (śaraṇāgati) and 
transform it into self-surrender literature in the Rahasyatrayasāram.574 It should be noted that 
he was not the first one to do so and that his argument here is likely indebted to Periyavāccāṉ 
Pilḷại, who elaborately argues that the Rāmāyaṇa is all about self-surrender in his 
Parantarahasyam.575 
For example, in Chapter 11 on the division of subsidiaries of self-surrender 
(parikaravibhāga), Vedāntadeśika defines the five auxiliaries of self-surrender or the offering 
of oneself (ātmanikṣepa) based on what we have seen in the Lakṣmītantra, in Chapter 17.576 As 
in the Nikṣeparakṣā, he maintains the position here that the laying down of oneself is the 
predominant means and other components are the auxiliaries.577 This is supported by the 
 
573 It might be the case that Vedāntadeśika was also influenced by the notion found in Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s 
Śrīvacanabhūṣaṇam that the Mahābhārata gives knowledge on God’s excellence while the Rāmāyaṇa 
communicates the greatness of the devotee like Sītā (Mumme, “Rāmāyana Exegesis in Teṉkalai Srīvaịṇavism,” 
205). Based on this notion, the Rāmāyaṇa not the Mahābhārata should be followed by the devotees as 
Vedāntadeśika indicates. 
574 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 2, 656: “Vālmiki composed the statements, ‘She is able to protect 
the demonesses from the great fear’ [Rāmāyaṇa 5.25.31] and ‘She is able to protect the group of demonesses 
from Rāma’ [Rāmāyaṇa, untraceable], in the first poetry (ādikāvya) which is the essence of taking refuge.” 
(“alam ēṣā paritrātuṃ rākṣasyō mahatō bhayāt” eṉṟum, “alam ēṣā paritrātuṃ rāghavād rākṣasīgaṇam” eṉṟum 
śrīvālmīkibhagavāṉ śaraṇāgatisāramāṉa ādikāvyattilē nibandhittāṉ). For the Rāmāyaṇa passage, see vol. 5, 208. 
575 Section 2.1.2. 
576 See Lakṣmītantra 17.53–63, 57, and 17.66–74, 57–58. See also Chapter 4. 
577 Section 4.2.  
249 
 
passage from the Lakṣmītantra, 17.75, “offering (nyāsa) which is synonymous with laying 
down (nikṣepa) joined with five auxiliaries is called abandonment (tyāga) and also taking 
refuge (śaraṇāgati),”578 which can be found in the Prapannapārijāta also.579 The auxiliaries 
are as follows: the will to please God (ānukūlyasaṃkalpa), the avoidance of hostility 
(prātikūlyavarjana), wretchedness (kārpaṇya), faith that God will protect (rakṣiṣyatīti viśvāsa), 
choosing God as the protector (goptṛtvavaraṇa). Then, he draws the parallel between the five 
auxiliaries of self-surrender in the Lakṣmītantra passage and the Rāmāyaṇa passages. 
According to Vedāntadeśika, the Rāmāyaṇa passages, 5.25.28 and 30–31, center around Sītā 
and the demonesses who detain Sītā in the garden in Laṅkā according to the order of Rāvaṇa 
who kidnapped Sītā from Rāma.580 Instead of assigning these auxiliaries to the context of 
surrendering to God in the form of Rāma, Vedāntadeśika describes them as the components in 
the context in which the demonesses take refuge with Śrī or Sītā in the Rāmāyaṇa: 
 
This meaning [of the five auxiliaries of self-surrender] is seen in the 
statement that Trijaṭā who has pure nature stated to the rākṣasīs, “Come take Śrī 
as refuge.”  
“Enough with your cruel words” [Rāmāyaṇa 5.25.28] states the 
avoidance of hostility.  
By the statement, “Say only gentle [words]” [Rāmāyaṇa 5.25.28], what 
is implied is the will to please [God] since there is no verbal activity that is not 
preceded by the mind.  
Since “The terrible fear of Rāma has befallen the rākṣasīs” [Rāmāyaṇa 
5.25.30] refers to the state of being without a path, what is stated are helplessness 
(ākiñcanya), which is a qualification [for self-surrender], and wretchedness 
(kārpaṇya) which is the auxiliary [of helplessness] in the form of being without 
pride and other [qualities] that occurs by means of contemplating that 
[helplessness].  
Since Hanumān reiterated that “She is able to protect the rākṣasīs from 
great fear” [Rāmāyaṇa 5.25.30]” after [Trijaṭā] stated it herself, “She is able to 
 
578 Lakṣmītantra 17.75, 58: “nikṣepāparaparyāyo nyāsaḥ pañcāṅgasaṃyutaḥ | saṃnyāsas tyāga ity uktaḥ 
śaraṇāgatir ityapi ||” 
579 Section 2.1.2. 
580 Rāmāyaṇa 5.25.28 and 30–31, vol. 5, 208. 
250 
 
protect the rākṣasīs from great fear” [Rāmāyaṇa 5.25.31], she [Śrī] is able to 
protect, having abated God’s anger even though He wants to punish someone. 
Therefore, [through the passage,] the faith that “She will protect” is stated. 
What is stated through [these passages] is choosing [Śrī] as the protector, 
“Let us beg Sītā. This is suitable for me” [Rāmāyaṇa 5.25.28], “Even you have 
threatened Her before, ask now! There is no use wanting to ask if She will protect 
[because She will definitely protect you]” [Rāmāyaṇa 5.25.30] 
The laying down of oneself (ātmanikṣepa), which is the predominant 
component of these five [auxiliaries], is meant by the word “those who submit” 
(praṇipāta) that refers to a particular cause of favor as in, “Sītā, the daughter of 
Janaka, favors those who submit [to Her]” [Rāmāyaṇa 5.25.31]. 
 Thus, the meaning of the scripture [Lakṣmītantra 17.75], “offering 
(nyāsa) joined with five auxiliaries” is complete here [in the Rāmāyaṇa].581 
 
 
This elaborate passage aims at harmonizing the Rāmāyaṇa and the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās by 
showing that both passages define self-surrender along with its auxiliaries. Although 
Vedāntadeśika still resorts to the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās as the significant source for the 
description of self-surrender, he highlights the fact that they are in accordance with the itihāsa. 
In what follows, we see more examples of how Vedāntadeśika synthesizes different sets of 
authorities, especially the scriptures and authoritative figures. 
 The use of both norms is evident, for example, in his discussion on the qualifications of 
those who are eligible for the performance of self-surrender, namely helplessness and the state 
 
581 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 1, 360–363 (emphasis mine): ivvartham, ‘pirāṭṭiyai śaraṇamākap 
paṟṟa vāruṅkaḷ’ eṉṟu sāttvikaprakṛtiyāṉa trijaṭai rākṣasikaḷukkuc collukiṟa vākyattilum kāṇalām. “tad alaṃ 
kūravākyair vaḥ” eṉṟu prātikūlyavarjanam collappaṭṭatu. “sāntvam ēva abhidhīyatām” eṉkaiyālē 
manaḥpūrvakamākav allatu vākyapravṛttiy illāmaiyālē ānukūlyasaṅkalpam ākṛṣṭam āyiṟṟu. 
 ‘rāghavād hi bhayaṃ ghōraṃ rākṣasānām upasthitam’ eṉṟu pōkkaṟṟu niṟkiṟa nilaiyaic collukaiyālē 
adhikāramāṉa ākiñcanyamum, atiṉuṭaiya anusandhānamukhattālē vanta garvahānyādirūpamāy aṅgamāṉa 
kārpaṇyamum colliṟṟāyiṟṟu.  
 “alam eṣā paritrātuṃ rākṣasyō mahatō bhayāt” eṉkaiyālum ittai vivarittuk koṇṭu “alam eṣā paritrātuṃ 
rākṣasyō mahatō bhayāt” eṉṟu tiruvaṭi anuvadikkaiyālum, perumāḷ oruttaṉai nigrahikkappārkkilum 
avarcīṟṟattaiyāṟṟ̱i ivaḷ rakṣikka vallavaḷ ākaiyālē rakṣiyatīti viśvāsam collappaṭṭatu. 
 “abhiyācāma vaidēhīm etad hi mama rocatē”, “bhartur satām api yācadhvaṃ rākṣasyaḥ kiṃ 
vivakṣayā” eṉkaiyālē gōptṛtvavaraṇam colliṟṟāyiṟṟu. 
 ivvaintukkum aṅgiyāṉa ātmanikṣēpam, “praṇipātaprasannā hi maithilī janakātmajā” eṉṟu 
prasādakāraṇaviśeṣattaic collukiṟa praṇipātaśabdattālē vivakṣitam āyiṟṟu. ākaiyāl “nyāsaḥ pañcāṅgasaṃyutaḥ” 
eṉkiṟa śāstrārtham iṅkē pūrṇam. 
251 
 
of having no other means. In this case, Vedāntadeśika first argues that these qualifications are 
proclaimed in the scriptures, namely Rāmāyaṇa 6.38.30 and Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.30.582 
Then, he relies on Nammāḻvār and Yāmuna as the representation of authoritative figures. 
According to Vedāntadeśika, both of them also announced the two qualifications in their works 
as shown in Nammāḻvār’s Tiruvāymoḻi 6.10.10 and Yāmuna’s Stotraratna 22, respectively:583 
 
The specificity of the eligibility for self-surrender is established by the 
authoritative passages and the tradition, beginning with, “Being abandoned by 
his father, gods, and great sages, He [Kākāsura] wandered around the three 
worlds before taking refuge only with Rāma” [Rāmāyaṇa 6.38.30], “I am the 
abode of sins. I am unworthy and have no other means” [Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 
37.30], “I am unworthy, and I have no other means. My refuge!” [Stotraratna 
22] […] “with nowhere else to go, I’ve [settled at your feet.]” [Tiruvāymoḻi 
6.10.10].584  
 
Vedāntadeśika further refers to the influence of previous ācāryas, especially the Kāñcī 
ācāryas. In Chapter 24 on the means to be accomplished (sādhyopāya), Vedāntadeśika claims 
that the Kāñcī ācāryas such as Śrīviṣṇucitta (Periyāḻvār), Vādihaṃsābuvāha (Ātreya 
Rāmānuja), and Varadācārya (Vātsya Varadaguru) agreed with his view of self-surrender as 
they also viewed that self-surrender which has the form of the offering of the protection of 
oneself to God is the predominate means among all auxiliaries of self-surrender.585 Among the 
 
582 Rāmāyaṇa 6.38.30, vol. 5, 275, and Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 37.30, vol. 2, 370. See section 2.1.2. 
583 For the whole Tiruvāymoḻi passage, see the beginning of this section. Yāmuna, Stotraratna 22, 74. See also 
section 1.3. 
584 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 1, 349: ipprapattyadhikāraviśēṣam 
sa pitrā ca parityaktas suraiś ca samaharṣibhiḥ | trīn lōkān saṃparikramya tam ēva śaraṇaṃ gataḥ ||  
aham asmy aparādhānām ālayō ’kiñcanō ’gatiḥ, akiñcanō ’nanyagatiḥ śaraṇya, 
anāgatānantakālasamīkṣayāpyadṛṣṭasantāropāyaḥ […] “pukaloṉṟillā aṭiyēṉ” eṉṟivai mutalāṉ 
pramāṇasampradāyaṅkaḷālē siddham. 
585 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 2, 692: “Thus, ācāryas such as Śrīviṣṇucitta, Vādihaṃsābuvāha, 
and Varadācārya summarized that only the offering of the burden of protecting oneself (ātmarakṣābharanyāsa) 
that possesses the five auxiliaries is the primary injunction in all the texts on self-surrender (prapattiśāstra).” 
(ippaṭi aṅgapañcakasaṃpannamāṉa ātmarakṣābharanyāsamē prapattiśāstram ellāv aṟṟilum 
pradhānamāṉavidhēyam eṉṟu śrīviṣṇucittavādihaṃsāmbuvāhavaradācāryādikaḷ saṃgrahittārkaḷ). 
252 
 
Kāñcī ācāryas, Vātsya Varadaguru who is known as Natātūr Ammāḷ under his Tamil name, has 
the most influence on Vedāntadeśika’s systematization of self-surrender. In Chapter 12, 
Vedāntadeśika provides Vātsya Varadguru’s teaching on self-surrender and its five auxiliaries: 
 
The summary stated by Naṭātūr Ammāḷ for the performance [of self-surrender] 
with its auxiliaries is as follows: I have been wandering in the transmigration 
due to performing the conduct that displeases You, God, since the beginning of 
time; I am obliged to be the one who is pleasing to [You] from now on 
(ānukūlyasaṃkalpa); I shall not act in a displeasing manner (prātikūlyavarjana); 
there is no single means for reaching you in my hand (kārpaṇya); I have 
determined that You, God, alone are the means (rakṣiṣyatīti viśvāsa); I need You 
alone as the means (goptṛtvavaraṇa); Now, is there any burden [left] for me 
regarding the cessation of what is undesirable and attainment of what is 
desirable? [To answer, there is no burden left].586  
 
 
The fact that it is referred to here and not in his Sanskrit treatise suggests that the reference to 
the ācāryas’ teaching is more habituated to the Manipravalam expressivity than the Sanskrit 
one. This kind of teaching was possibly handed down orally and recorded by Vedāntadeśika 
here in the Rahasyatrayasāram. Vedāntadeśika likely employs this teaching with an intention 
to synthesize various views on self-surrender and harmonize them together through the view of 
authorities like Vātsya Varadaguru. Speaking from the perspective of the audience, it might be 
the case that he highlights itihāsas and ācāryas’ teachings and does not dominate the 
discussions with the Vedic or Upaniṣadic sources to make the discussions more accessible to 
even those who do not receive Vedic education.  
 
 
586 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 1, 417–418: issāṅgānuṣṭhānattukku naṭātūrammāḷ aruḻicceyyum 
curukku—“anādikālam tēvarīrukku aniṣṭācaraṇam paṇṇukaiyālē saṃsarittup pōntēṉ; iṉṟu mutal anukūlaṉāy 
vartikkak kaṭavēṉ; pratikūlācaraṇam paṇṇakkaṭavēṉ allēṉ; tēvarīraip peṟukaikku eṉ kaiyil oru kaimmutal illai; 
tēvarīraiyē upāyamāka aṟutiyiṭṭēṉ, tēvarīrē upāyamāka vēṇum, aniṣṭanivṛttiyil ātal iṣṭaprāptiyil ātal eṉakku iṉi 
bharam uṇṭō?” eṉṟu. 
253 
 
5.1.2 Immersing in the Three Secrets 
 
Vedāntadeśika’s interpretation of the three secrets is immersed in the discussions of the 
previous Manipravalam authors and specifically directed to the followers. As I have shown 
earlier, the three secrets represent one of the norms in the Manipravalam soteriology of self-
surrender, but they do not receive the same attention in the Sanskrit treatises. Participating in 
the Manipravalam sphere, Vedāntadeśika presents the three secrets as the essence of the 
Rahasyatrayasāram in Chapters 27–29 and another authority, one that is in accordance with 
other authoritative sources. In this section, I illustrate how he integrates the doctrinal 
systematization of self-surrender into this normative paradigm to reveal the function and nature 
of self-surrender as well as the relationship between God and the soul, which is central to the 
soteriological process.  
Vedāntadeśika assigns different roles to each of the three secrets in Chapter 27. The 
Tirumantra makes known the hierarchical relationship between the subordinate soul and God 
who is the Supreme Person. Then, the Caramaśloka serves as an instruction of self-surrender. 
Finally, the Dvaya makes one reach the goal of liberation by just uttering it once.587 It should 
be noted that the functions of the first two secrets correspond to what Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai states 
in the Parantarahasyam. However, Vedāntadeśika claims that the Caramaśloka enjoins self-
surrender instead of indicating the result as Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai states. This supports my 
 
587 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 2, 817–818: “Tirumantra is the [authoritative] vessel because it 
gives the true desire after clarifying the pure nature [of the soul for whom] the state of being subordinate to the 
supreme is the only pleasure […] The Caramaśloka which is the culmination of the teaching of the means is the 
nourisher in such a way that nothing is left to be listened to because it is the cause for the increase of a particular 
knowledge that is the way in which to endeavor in the ultimate means. The Dvaya is the nourishment because it 
causes one to become successful through a true contemplation along with being the cause of the supreme human 
goal by a single utterance.” ([…] paraśēṣaṭaikarasamāṉa pariśuddhasvarūpattai veḷiyiṭṭu sattālābhattaip 
paṇṇukaiyālē tirumantram dhārakam. caramōpāyattilē pravartikkum paṭiyāṉa jñānaviśēṣōpacayahētuv ākaiyālē 
śrōtavyaśēṣam illātapaṭi upāyōpadēśaparyavasānamāṉa caramaślōkam pōṣakam. sakṛduccāraṇattālē 
paramapuruṣārthahētuvāyk koṇṭu sadānusandhānattālē kṛtārthaṉākkukaiyālē dvayam bhōgyam). 
254 
 
argument that Vedāntadeśika focuses on validating self-surrender by using the Caramaśloka as 
the main injunction as he does in the Nikṣeparakṣā.  
Chapter 27 begins with four Sanskrit verses that encapsulate the Mūlamantra or 
Tirumantra.588 The first verse outlines the meanings of parts, namely “aum,” “I pay obeisance,” 
and “to Nārāyaṇa,” but does not state the whole Mūlamantra. This practice of spelling out each 
part of a secret without stating the mantra in a complete form can be traced back to Parāśara 
Bhaṭṭar’s Aṣṭaślokī, the predecessor of the rahasyagranthas.589 By doing so, the secret remains 
“rahasya” that requires proper teachings.590 The Mūlamantra is stated to be given by the 
ācāryas and is involved in the offering of the burden (bharanyāsa) that culminates in servitude 
(kiṅkara) to God: 
 
First, there is, “aum.”  
After, there is the heart [of the Mūlamantra, meaning namas]. 
Then, there is, “For Nārāyaṇa.” 
The step is stated by the transmission of those who know [the words] 
along with its meaning, given by the ācāryas. 
God accepts the burden of protecting  
on behalf of us whose minds are weak. 
May He quickly get rid of all obstacles to the sovereignty of servitude.591 
 
 
The next verse refers to God in the form of Kṛṣṇa, the giver of the Caramaśloka.592 The 
 
588 According to Clooney, these verses are likely meant for memorization or changing the mode of writing to 
attract the attention of the audience who seems to be knowledgably in either Tamil or Sanskrit or both (The 
Truth, the Way, the Life, 124–131). 
589 Ibid., 35. 
590 Clooney comments that “rahasya” “indicates a body of meaning/s that become available – to those who take 
to heart and receive humbly wisdom that has been transmitted from generation to generation by teachers and that 
has been encoded in the Mantra as properly read in accord with tradition” (ibid., 24).  
591 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 2, 813: 
tāram pūrvam tadanu hṛdayaṃ tat ca nārayaṇāya iti āmnāyōktaṃ padam avayatāṃ sārtham ācāryadattaṃ | 
aṅgīkurvan alasamanasāṃ ātmarakṣābharaṃ naḥ kṣipraṃ dēvaḥ kṣipatu nikhilān kiṅkaraiśvaryavighnān || 
592 Ibid., 814: “May He, the ascetic who dwells in Badarika, the friend of good people, protect the merit of the 
Kṛta Age (the first of the four ages of the world), by proclaiming for us [the doctrine of] following one’s own 
duty (svadharma), while humans and others are listening intently, having approached the excellent ancient 
chariot of eight wheels.” 
255 
 
following verse communicates that this secret contains the meanings of the Vedas and smṛtis 
for the sake of establishing it in Vedic orthodoxy. The final opening Sanskrit verse confirms 
the important role of the teacher who revealed the entire meaning, hidden in the Mūlamantra.593 
Note that Vedāntadeśika usually refers to the secret with the word “mantra” in the 
Rahasyatrayasāram. 
The final Tamil verse in Chapter 27 communicates that the Mūlamantra is to be used in 
the context of seeking service to God and reveals the steps through which “we” or the 
Śrīvaiṣṇava followers attain service to God, stop other activities in life, join with the feet of 
God, and continue reciting the Mūlamantra. This is the means to attain all of the service desired 
even by the immortals, God’s eternal servants (nityasūris).594 The ending Sanskrit verse 
reiterates each part of the Mūlamantra and states that it contains the essential meanings 
regarding the self, “namely, the truth, the beneficial thing, and the aim” based on the Vedas and 
Upaniṣads as follows:  
 
Thus, the Mūlamantra is composed of three words: one, two, and five-syllabic. 
This mantra contains three meanings that are the essence of the self, 
 
(kalyāṇam āvahatu kārtuyugaṃ svadharmaṃ prakhyāpayan praṇihitēṣu narādikēṣu | 
ādyaṃ kamapi adhigatō ratham aṣṭacakraṃ bandhuḥ satāṃ badarikāśramatāpasō naḥ ||). 
593 Ibid., 815: “The great mantra contains entirely inside it the speeches, belonging to the Vedas and relating to 
the Vedas. I pay obeisance to that great mantra, the head of the pervading mantras.” 
(yadantaḥsthamaśēṣēṇa vāṅmayaṃ vēdavaidikam | tasmai vyāpakamukhyāya mantrāya mahatē namaḥ ||) 
and 
“In this world, a certain person experiences entirely the meaning, hidden in the Mūlamantra, in the same way 
that a person experiences a treasure, embedded in the base of a crystal, by the eye that is given by the teacher.” 
(iha mūlamantrasaṃvṛtamartham aśēṣēṇa kaścid anubhavati | sphuṭikatalanihitanidhim iva dēśikadattēna 
cakṣuṣā jantuḥ ||). 
594 Ibid., 928: 
“We reached service for no one but the protector who is exalted. 
We ceased the ignorance of living. 
We joined with the feet of Nārāyaṇa, the pervading One. 
We then recite the good prayer that seeks all desirable service for the eternal devotees (Nityasūris).” 
(uyarntaṉaṉ kāvalaṉ allārkku urimai tuṟantu uyirāy 
mayarntamai tīrntu maṟṟu ōr vaḻi iṉṟi aṭaikkalamāy 
payantavaṉ nārāṇaṉ pātaṅkaḷ cērntu paḻa aṭiyār 
nayanta kuṟṟēval ellām nāṭunaṉ maṉu ōtiṉamē). 
256 
 
namely, the truth, the beneficial thing, and the goal. 
It has, in the beginning, the origin of the Vedas that is the three letters. 
It has the word that does not lose its three meanings, 
namely, the gross, the subtle, and the Supreme. 
It has that which is the culmination of the three [Vedas, i.e., the Upaniṣads]. 
It grants to good people the cessation of the three qualities.595 
 
 
To support the authoritative status of the Tirumantra, Vedāntadeśika identifies it as a 
part of Vedic orthodoxy and relies on authoritative texts from various sources to interpret it, 
including the Brahmasūtra, the Mahābhārata, the Nārādīya, and the Tamil poems of the 
Āḻvārs. He further points out that the secret might also be rooted in the Tantric sources such as 
the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās, especially the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā, Chapter 52, from which he draws 
verses 2–34 to elucidate the meaning of the word “I pay obeisance.”596  
The opening Sanskrit verse in Chapter 28 describes the Dvaya as “the mantra for taking 
refuge (śaraṇāgati) with the Companion of the Lady on the lotus (Viṣṇu).”597 The ending Tamil 
verse communicates the performance of the Dvaya, which is to be sung in taking refuge with 
God. The goal of singing the Dvaya and taking refuge here is service: 
 
We sung the two-line prayer that is to be recited. 
We grasped as refuge the two feet of Tirumāl (Viṣṇu) who helps us through His 
grace. 
We approached our Lord of the Lady on the lotus (Śrī). 
We then contemplate the way of attaining all service, 
 
595 Ibid., 929: itthaṃ saṅghaṭitaḥ padaiḥ tribhir asav ēkadvipañcākṣaraiḥ arthaistattvahitaprayojanamayaiḥ 
adyātmasārais tribhiḥ | ādyastryakṣaravēdasūtirajahatsthūlādivṛttitrayaḥ traiguṇyapraśamaṃ prayacchati 
satāṃ trayyantasārō manuḥ || 
596 For the verses, see Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 2, 840–841. 
597 Ibid., 931: 
“Being heard, it pervades the periphery of the person who has done what ought to be done. 
Being recited, it shows the state of the one who has attained the goal. 
It becomes the dawn to the night time of transmigration. 
It is the mantra for taking refuge (śaraṇāgati) with the Companion of the Lady on the lotus.” 
(ākarṇitō vitanutē kṛtakṛtyakakṣyāṃ āmrēḍitō diśati yaś ca kṛtārthabhāvam | 
pratyūṣatāṃ bhajati saṃsṛtikālarātrēḥ padmāsahāyaśaraṇāgatimantra ēṣaḥ ||). 
257 
 
in the land of brightness and goodness, along with the faultless realization.598 
 
 
Finally, the ending Sanskrit verse proclaims the authority of the Upaniṣads and validates the 
recitation of the Dvaya in the context of taking refuge as the highest means to liberation.599 
Following other rahasyagrathas, Vedāntadeśika views the Dvaya as the performance of 
the Tirumantra.600 Like the Tirumantra, the Dvaya is authoritative as it can be regarded as both 
Vedic and Tantric but when it is from the Upaniṣads, it is Vedic. However, the Dvaya, which 
is taught by God in the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās like the Śrīpraśnasamhitā, is Tantric: 
 
The Dvaya clearly communicates a particular means stated implicitly or 
explicitly in the middle word (“I pay obeisance”) in the Tirumantra and a 
particular human goal stated as a result in the third word (“for Nārāyaṇa”) of the 
Tirumantra. It is a Tantric mantra rooted in śruti since the mantra is enjoined to 
be contemplated and recited separately in the Kaṭavalli Upanisad and then it is 
stated in Śrīpraśnasaṃhitā and other texts in the section on varṇas and so on. 
What is said by some people that it [the Dvaya] is the teaching of previous 
ācāryas is for the purpose of paying respect that it [the Dvaya] is taught by 
noteworthy people and of saying that it is in the scriptures [Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās] 
of God, the Lord of all, who is the supreme teacher. It is just so.601 
 
 
598 Ibid., 1021: 
ōtum iraṇṭai icaittu aruḷāl utavum tirumāl 
pātam iraṇṭum caraṇ eṉa paṟṟi nam paṅkayattāḷ 
nātaṉai naṇṇi nalam tikaḻ nāṭṭil aṭimai ellām 
kōtu il uṇarttiyuṭaṉ koḷḷumāṟu kuṟittaṉamē. 
599 Ibid., 1023: 
“There is no scripture higher than the Upaniṣads. There is no truth higher than the Killer of Madu 
(Kṛṣṇa). There is no one worthy other than His devotees (bhaktas). There is no pure abode other than those that 
are dear to the devotees. 
There is nothing that gives a good health other than pure things. There is no cause of awakening other 
than worshipping the wise One. There is no happiness other than liberation. There is no means to peace other 
than praying the Dvaya.” (na vēdāntāc chāstraṃ na madhumathanāt tattvam adhikam na tadbhaktāt tīrthaṃ na 
tadabhimatāt sāttvikapadam | na sattvād ārogyaṃ na budhabhajanād bōdhajanakam na muktaiḥ saukhyaṃ na 
dvayavacanataḥ kṣēmakaraṇam ||). 
600 See Clooney, The Truth, the Way, the Life, Chapter 3. 
601 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 2, 933: tirumantrattil madhyamapadattil ārthamākavātal 
śābdamākavātal coṉṉa upāyaviśēṣattaiyum, itiṉ phalamākat tṛtīyapadattiṟ coṉṉa puruṣārthaviśēṣattaiyum 
viśadamākap prakāśippikkiṟatu dvayam. itu kaṭhavalliyilē piriyavōtic cērttu anusandhikka vidhikkaiyālum, 
bhagavaccāstrattilē śrīpraśnasaṃhitādikaḷilē varṇōddhārādikaḷum paṇṇip pratipādikkaiyālum śrutimūlamāṉa 
tāntrikamantram. ittaip pūrvācāryavākyam eṉṟu cilar coṉṉa atuvum—āptar upadēśittār eṉṟu ādarikkaikkākav 
ātal, paramācāryaṉāṉa sarvēśvaraṉ bhagavaccāstrattilē aruḷicceykaiyālēy ātalām attaṉai. 
258 
 
 
Finally, Chapter 29 introduces the Caramaśloka with two Sanskrit verses. The first verse 
proposes that the Caramaśloka is an Upaniṣadic injunction to perform self-surrender to Kṛṣṇa 
who gave the verse due to His compassion. The other verse interprets the Caramaśloka, first 
explaining that the Śrīvaiṣṇavas, referred to by the pronoun “we,” grieve due to the means to 
liberation that are not possible for them. Seeing the grief, Kṛṣṇa offers Himself as a means that 
is easy to the followers. 
 
Kṛṣṇa exists inside the Upaniṣads. 
From Kṛṣṇa who is the boundless ocean of compassion, 
the stanza itself, by which the sorrow of mankind is destroyed, was born. 
By the injunction, we took refuge with Kṛṣṇa, the eternal virtue (dharma). 
With our sins destroyed and doubts as well as sorrows abandoned, 
we then become happy.602 
 
By many paths that are difficult to understand, are inaccessible due to 
injunctions, possess a resting place far away, and are not suitable for simple 
people, we grieve.  
For us, the charioteer who is the leader of all becomes the easy path.  
He who desires to lead us to His own feet unimpededly, by His own abundance,  
knows a certain true provision for a journey.603 
 
 
He then divides the Caramaśloka into two main parts. The first part consists of the first 
line, “Having abandoned all dharmas, come to Me alone as refuge,” and the second line 
constitutes the second part, “I will free you from all sins. Do not grieve.” The first part states 
what Arjuna should do while the second part communicates the result and God’s role in the 
same manner as in the interpretations of Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai and Piḷḷai Lokācārya. 
 
602 Ibid., 1025: 
ya upaniṣadāmante yasmād anantadayāmbudheḥ truṭitajanatāśokāḥ ślōkaḥ svayaṃ samajāyata | 
tam iha vidhinā kṛṣṇaṃ dharmaṃ prapadya sanātanam śamitaduritāḥ śaṅkātaṅkatyajaḥ sukhamāsmahē || 
603 Ibid., 1026: 
durvijñānair niyamagahanaiḥ dūriviśrāntideśaiḥ bālānarhair bahubhir ayanaiḥ śocatāṃ naḥ supanthāḥ | 
niṣpratyūhaṃ nijapadam asau netukāmaḥ svabhūmnā satpātheyaṃ kim api vidadhe sārathiḥ sarvanetā || 
259 
 
Vedāntadeśika pays more attention to the first part, whose interpretation seems to be heavily 
debated. To illustrate, he lists all of the meanings accepted by the community for the phrase, 
“Having abandoned all dharmas,” at the end of his analysis on this part as follows: 
 
The meanings of the words that state the abandonment of all dharmas which are 
accepted by good people are as follows: The eligibility is the incapability to 
perform; the procedure is being worthless; dharmas are not auxiliaries; [self-
surrender is] the prevention of effort to perform what is impossible and the 
pacification of one’s desire towards doing other means as communicated by the 
rule of Brahma missile [that cannot be used with other means].604 
 
Vedāntadeśika then construes “come to me alone as refuge” as the main injunction. At 
the same time, the statement says that God is the refuge and the accomplished means while self-
surrender is the means that needs to be accomplished by an eligible person. Vedāntadeśika’s 
classification of the accomplished means and the means to be accomplished must have been 
influenced by his predecessors’ discussions such as those of Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai and Piḷḷai 
Lokācārya. According to Vedāntadeśika, the phrase “Me alone” points to God, the 
accomplished means, and “come [to Me] as refuge” refers to the means to be accomplished, 
which is self-surrender.605 
In addition to the chapters on the three secrets, Vedāntadeśika systematizes self-
 
604 Ibid., 1071: 
1. ato ’śaktādhikāratvam 2. ākiñcanyapuraskriyā | 3. anaṅgabhāvo dharmāṇām 4. aśakyāraṃbhavāraṇam || 
5. tat pratyāśāpraśamanaṃ 6. brahmāstranyāyasucanam | sarvadharmaparityāgaśabdārthās sādhusammatāḥ || 
The principle of the Brahma missile (astra) is derived from the Rāmāyaṇa scene when Rāvaṇa’s demonic army 
tied Rāma’s emissary, Hanumān, with the Brahma missile to render him helpless. However, the missile is 
effective only when it is used solely. Thus, it slipped off when the demonic army tied Hanumān with other ties, 
not trusting the power of the Brahma missile alone. See also Chapter 4 for Brahma missile. 
605 Ibid., 1074: “Thus, the statement ‘Me alone’ shows the accomplished means who does not need 
anything else except the offering of the burden preceded by the request for protection according to 
injunctions in case of the eligible person who is helpless. The means to be accomplished for the sake of 
gaining God’s favor is shown through the injunction ‘Come to refuge.’ (ippaṭi akiñcanaṉāṉa 
adhikārikku yathāvidhi rakṣāpēkṣāpūrvikabharanyāsattaiy oḻiya vēṟoṉṟāl apēkṣaiyillāta siddhopāyattai 
‘mām ekaṃ’ eṉṟu kāṭṭi atiṉuṭaiya vaśīkaraṇārthamāṉa sādhyopāyattai ‘śaraṇaṃ vraja’ eṉṟu vidhiyālē 
kāṭṭukiṟatu). 
260 
 
surrender mainly in Chapters 7–12 in which he draws together and advances what we have seen 
to harmonize different views of self-surrender proposed by other authors previously 
investigated. 
 
5.2 The Sanskrit and Manipravalam Streams of Self-surrender 
In this section, I focus on Chapter 7–12 of the Rahasyatrayasāram in which Vedāntadeśika 
systematically expounds his version of self-surrender. I argue that he develops his system of 
self-surrender by synthesizing various Sanskrit and Manipravalam sets of terminology and 
concepts regarding self-surrender. Vedāntadeśika’s self-surrender reflects the culmination of 
multiple strands and expressions of self-surrender, resulting in the doctrinal collectivity that 
accommodates and balances the roles of bhakti, self-surrender, and God. It resolves the 
divergence created by the other authors, especially Meghanādārisūri who promotes the active 
function of self-surrender and likens it to bhakti and Piḷḷai Lokācārya who prioritizes the role 
of God and highlights the passive role of self-surrender. My argument here is influenced by 
Mumme’s study, but it differs. While Mumme views that there remains the clear distinction 
between the Śrīraṅgam authors’ emphasis on God as the agent and means to liberation and the 
insistence that the soul has to actively perform self-surrender from the Kāñcī ācāryas, including 
Vedāntadeśika,606 I contend that Vedāntadeśika aims to propose a collective theology that 
highlights both God’s autonomy and the soul’s agency in the soteriological journey. His 
theological harmonization in this Manipravalam treatise agrees with my argument that 
Manipravalam is the primary medium for the theological collectivity of self-surrender, which 
in turn allows the communal imagination of the Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ unity that we will see in the third 
 
606 Mumme, The Śrīvaiṣṇava Theological Dispute, 187. 
261 
 
section of this chapter. 
 I also account for the similarity and difference between Vedāntadeśika’s 
Rahasyatrayasāram and Nikṣeparakṣā to show the boundaries between the Manipravalam and 
Sanskrit spheres. Although the Rahasyatrayasāram and Nikṣeparakṣā share many similar 
arguments and concerns, the Rahasyatrayasāram is much more comprehensive than 
Nikṣeparakṣā when it comes to the doctrine of self-surrender and clearly participates in the 
Manipravalam discussions. To elaborate, similar to what we see in the Nikṣeparakṣā, 
Vedāntadeśika defines self-surrender as the means to be done (sādhya) by an eligible person 
who desires liberation. However, unlike the Nikṣeparakṣā which is limited to the Sanskrit 
sphere, the soteriological expression in the Rahasyatrayasāram presents clear influence from 
both the previous Sanskrit and also other Manipravalam literature. Being a part of the 
Manipravalam sphere like other rahasyagranthas, the Rahasyatrayasāram is meant to prove 
that self-surrender is the best means to liberation and is open to all. In addition, Vedāntadeśika 
introduces new terminology and complicates the already existing theological concept to resolve 
the tension between God and other means, resulting in the more expansive expression of self-
surrender in the Rahasyatrayasāram. Thus, his system of self-surrender is both the combination 
of the strands of self-surrender we have investigated as well as the most expansive one thanks 
to his innovation. 
 In section 5.2.1, I indicate that although Vedāntadeśika maintains that both self-
surrender and bhakti are valid means and that self-surrender can be used in place of bhakti as 
in the Nikṣeparakṣā, he clearly differentiates these two means and prefers self-surrender over 
bhakti as other Manipravalam treatises do. The next section illustrates that Vedāntadeśika’s 
system of self-surrender is very much dominated by the autonomy of God, the argument that is 
262 
 
in line with those in the Manipravalam literature of Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai and Piḷḷai Lokācārya. 
We can see his innovative attempts in both cases. 
 
5.2.1 The Superiority of Self-surrender  
 
In the Rahasyatrayasāram, as in the Nikṣeparakṣā, Vedāntadeśika maintains the soteriological 
status of both bhakti and self-surrender, stressing that they are optional means to liberation. He 
also insists on the distinction between the two, especially in terms of eligibility of each means. 
However, unlike in the Nikṣeparakṣā in which Vedāntadeśika claims that the two means are 
equivalent in their soteriological status, he suggests here, like other Manipravalam authors, that 
self-surrender is better than bhakti as it is easier to be performed and gives liberation faster. 
Importantly, Vedāntadeśika expands the expression of self-surrender by inventing a new set of 
terminology to reverse the previous binary paradigm that centers on bhakti rather than self-
surrender. Instead of likening self-surrender to sacrificial ritual understood by a Mīmāṃsā 
model, Vedāntadeśika characterizes self-surrender as “a particular contemplation of the 
subordination [of oneself] qualified by the total dependence of which the offering of the burden 
is the predominant,” highlighting the hierarchical relationship between the soul and God which 
is the essence of self-surrender.607  
 According to Vedāntadeśika, bhakti and self-surrender can be options since they give 
the same result that is liberation. Thus, each person can perform either of them for liberation 
depending on one’s eligibility. Vedāntadeśika supports the argument on the optional relation 
between self-surrender and bhakti with the passages from Brahmasūtra 3.3.56–57, which 
justify that self-surrender and bhakti can be optional since they are named differently and have 
 
607 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 1, 354: bharanyāsapradhāṉa 
atyantapāratantryaviśiṣṭaśēṣatvānusandhānaviśēṣam. 
263 
 
the same result, according to Vedāntadeśika’s interpretation:608  
 
In this way, self-surrender and bhakti must be optional because they have the 
same result regarding a particular eligible person. The distinction in eligibility 
is established for them as described in, “There are various [Upaniṣadic means] 
due to their different names and other [characteristics]” [Brahmasūtra 3.3.56]. 
Option in eligibility is established as stated in, “There is option because their 
results are not different” [Brahmasūtra 3.3.57].609 
 
 
 Vedāntadeśika then differentiates these two means based on the difference of their 
eligibility. In Chapter 10, he points out that the knowledge of the soul’s subordination to God 
is required for the performance of both bhakti and self-surrender. However, to become eligible 
to perform self-surrender requires special qualifications, namely helplessness to perform other 
means to liberation and the state of having no other means. The two qualifications can be 
understood as follows: 
 
In case of the one who desires liberation, the knowledge of the relationship 
[between God and the soul] produced by scripture is the common to those who 
are upāsakas (those who perform bhakti) and the one who is devoted to a 
particular means to liberation which has the form of independent self-surrender. 
[However,] the state of having no other means and helplessness are special 
qualifications for the one who surrenders. Helplessness means the absence of 
capability [to perform] other means. The state of having no other means refers 
to the aversion to other goals and refuges.610  
 
 
In Chapter 8, Vedāntadeśika further explains the distinction between these two means 
through two different sets of terminology. He inherits the first set from Vātsya Varadaguru and 
 
608 For the Brahmasūtra passages, see 756–757. 
609 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 1, 332–333: ippaṭi prapattikkum bhaktikkum adhikāriviśēṣattaip 
paṟṟit tulyaphalatvam uṇṭākaiyālē vikalpamākak kaṭavatu. ivaṟṟukku “nānā śabdādibhēdāt” eṉkiṟa 
adhikaraṇattilē bhēdam siddham. “vikalpo ’viśiṣṭaphalatvāt” eṉkiṟa adhikaraṇattilē vikalpamum siddham. 
610 Ibid., 342–345: iṅku mumukṣutvam uṇṭāy svatantraprapattirūpamokṣopāyaviśēṣaniṣṭhaṉukku 
śāstrajanyasaṃbandhajñānādikaḷ upāsakaṉōṭu sādhāraṇamāy irukka viśēṣitta adhikāram – taṉṉuṭaiya 
ākiñcanyamum ananyagatitvamum. ākiñcanyam āvatu - upāyāntarasāmarthyābhāvam. ananyagatitvam āvatu -
prayojanāntaravaimukhyam śaraṇyāntaravaimukhyam ākavumām.  
264 
 
invents the other based on Vātsya Varadaguru’s model. In his Sanskrit verse, Vedāntadeśika 
characterizes auxiliary self-surrender as bhakti that is the means (sādhanabhakti) and 
independent self-surrender as self-surrender that has bhakti as the result (phalabhakti). Note 
that bhakti in the latter form of self-surrender denotes devotion and not the soteriological bhakti. 
Although the actual terms used by Vedāntadeśika are slightly different from those found in 
Vātsya Varadaguru’s Prapannapārijāta, namely bhakti as the means (upāyabhakti) and bhakti 
as the goal (sādhyabhakti), they clearly have the same meanings, referring to the means and the 
result: “Those [who perform] self-surrender independently and as an auxiliary are both those 
who surrender (prapannas). Those [who undertake] bhakti as a result and as a means are seen 
as devotees (bhaktas).”611 This paradigm, derived from the Prapannapārijāta, however, 
subsumes self-surrender under the terminology of bhakti. To reverse the paradigm and highlight 
the important role of self-surrender as an independent means, Vedāntadeśika introduces another 
set of terminology which is not found anywhere else not even in the Nikṣeparakṣā. Instead of 
having the word “bhakti” as the main part as in bhakti as the means and bhakti as the goal, these 
invented terms denote self-surrender as an auxiliary and an independent means respectively: 
self-surrender with [bhakti as] the means (sadvārakaprapatti), which is equivalent to the means 
of bhakti that has self-surrender as its auxiliary, and self-surrender without means 
(advārakaprapatti) or independent self-surrender.  
In the same chapter, Vedāntadeśika further specifies the distinction between self-
surrender and bhakti based on its easiness and swiftness in giving the desired result. According 
to Vedāntadeśika, on the one hand, bhakti is exemplified only in the practice of the great sages 
 
611 Ibid., 280: 
“svatantrāṅgaprapattibhyāṃ prapannav atra tau ubhau | phalasādhanabhaktibhyāṃ bhaktav api ca darśitau ||” 
265 
 
such as Vyāsa. It is undertaken by those who are capable of the more difficult performance and 
can wait for the delay in liberation after following all the rules and conditions. The result of 
bhakti would not come until all the sins which have begun to operate have been destroyed. On 
the other hand, self-surrender is for those who do not have any other means to attaining God. It 
is easier and gives faster results compared to bhakti. After the performance of self-surrender, 
the person can attain the experience of God without any delay or obstacle. Thus, Vedāntadeśika 
suggests, self-surrender is superior to bhakti in terms of the ease and swiftness: 
 
For the one who is devoted to self-surrender with [bhakti] as the means 
(sadvāraka), lacking helplessness due to the capability for other means and the 
state of having no other means due to the ability to bear the delay, like Vyāsa 
and others, the result is liberation that is preceded by proper accomplishment of 
the predominant means in the form of meditative worship (upāsana), which 
culminates in the ultimate perception [of God], and emerges at the end of the 
karmas that have begun to bear fruits. For the one who undertakes without other 
means (advāraka) in accordance with one’s eligibility self-surrender that is 
applicable to all, can remove all of those undesirable, is the way to attain all 
desires, is easy, should be done once, acts quickly, has no obstacles, cannot 
tolerate the use of other means for its result like the Brahma missile 
(brahmāstra) [, which is effective only if used alone, according to the 
Rāmāyaṇa], the result is liberation that culminates in complete service at the 
surrendering moment […] in the way that there are no other obstacles to the 
complete enjoyment.612  
 
 
612 Ibid., 300–305: ivarkaḷil vyāsādikaḷaip pōlē upāyāntarasamarthaṉākaiyālē akiñcanaṉum aṉṟikkē 
vilambakṣamaṉ ākaiyālē ananyagatiyum aṉṟikkēy irukkiṟa sadvārakaprapattiniṣṭhaṉukku 
prārabdhakarmaparyavasānabhāviyāṉa antimapratyayattai avadhiyāka uṭait tāṉ upāsanarūpāṅgiyiṉuṭaiya 
yathāvanniṣpattipūrvakamāṉa mokṣam phalam. 
 sarvādhikāramāy, sarvāniṣṭanivartanakṣamamāy, sarvēṣṭasādhanamākav aṟṟāy, sukaramāy, 
sakṛtkartavyamāy, āśukāriyāy, pratibandhānarhamāy, brahmāstrabandham pōlē svaphalattil 
upāyāntaraprayogāsahamāy iruntuḷḷa prapattiyait taṉ adhikārānurūpamāka advārakamākap paṟṟiṉ avaṉukkup 
paripūrṇānubhavattukku vēṟu pratibandhakam illāta paṭiyālē prapattikṣaṇam […] 
paripūrṇakaiṅkaryaparyantamokṣaṃ phalam. For the Brahma missile, see section 4.1.1. See also Rāmāyaṇa 
5.46.46, vol. 5, 334. 
266 
 
 In the following passage, Vedāntadeśika also cites a passage from Viṣṇupurāṇa 1.9.72, 
as Vātsya Varadaguru and Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai.613 Based on this passage, Vedāntadeśika affirms 
that self-surrender bears the result as soon as one wants it, unlike bhakti that delays in leading 
one to the result. He interprets this passage as communicating the four kinds of people who 
surrender based on their desires and claim that it should be understood as a counterpart of 
Bhagavadgītā 7.16 which makes known the four kinds of people who resort to bhakti (bhaktas) 
according to the different results that one desires, “Arjuna, four kinds of people with good deeds 
worship Me. They are the afflicted one, the one who desires wisdom, the one who desires 
wealth, and the one of wisdom.”614 The Viṣṇupurāṇa passage seen below informs us that self-
surrender can destroy all obstacles and implies that the person attains the result without delay 
after performing this means:615 
 
In the same way that meditative worship (upāsana) is the means for four-fold 
results as stated in “four kinds of people [with good deeds] worship Me” 
[Bhagavadgītā 7.16], the great sages determine that self-surrender (prapatti) is 
the means for the results of four kinds as stated in “There will be affliction, 
desire, confusion, and unhappiness as long as one does not take refuge with You, 
the destroyer of all sins” [Viṣṇupurāṇa 1.9.72].616 
 
 
 Unlike in the Nikṣeparakṣā, in which self-surrender is likened to bhakti, Vedāntadeśika 
attempts to differentiate these two means in terms of eligibility and the time they provide the 
result. Although, Vedāntadeśika defends bhakti as a means to liberation, he is explicit that self-
 
613 See section 2.1.1. 
614 Bhagavadgītā 7.16, vol. 2, 35: “caturvidhā bhajante māṃ janāḥ sukṛtino ’rjuna! | ārto jijñāsur arthārthī 
jñānī ca bharatarṣabha! ||” 
615 Viṣṇupurāṇa 1.9.72, vol. 1, 50. 
616 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 1, 306: “caturvidhā bhajantē mām” eṉkiṟapaṭiyē upāsanam 
yātorupaṭi caturvidhaphalattukkum sādhanamāy irukkiṟatu—appaṭiyē “tāvad ārtis tathā vāñchā tavān mohas 
tathā ’sukham | yāvan na yāti śaraṇaṃ tvām aśēṣāghanāśanam ||” eṉkiṟapaṭiyē prapattiyum ic 
caturvidhaphalattukkum sādhanamākaviṟē maharṣikaḷ aṟutiyiṭuvatu.  
267 
 
surrender is preferable to bhakti. His preference is close to the Manipavalam authors’ arguments 
that only self-surrender is suitable as the means since it is in accord with the soul’s 
subordination to God.617 Also, unlike in the Nikṣeparakṣā, Vedāntadeśika emphasizes the role 
of God in the soteriological process in the Rahasyatrayasāram as we have seen in the other 
Manipravalam rahasyagranthas.  
 
5.2.2 Surrendering to God  
In the Rahasyatrayasāram, Vedāntadeśika follows the Manipravalam discourse that God is the 
main cause of everything including liberation and the one who makes the performances of self-
surrender possible. This is evident in his categorization of God and the soteriological means 
such as self-surrender and bhakti through the paradigm of God as the accomplished means and 
other means to liberation as the means to be accomplished. This paradigm is a part of the 
Manipravalam sphere of soteriology as we have seen in other literature, and this may be the 
reason why it is not explicit in the Nikṣeparakṣā.  
At the same time, the Manipravalam emphasis on God creates the tension between the 
independence of God and the active role of self-surrender in the soteriological process. In other 
words, if God has the absolute autonomy and agency in granting liberation, the devotees do not 
need to undertake self-surrender. Given that God alone is enough, self-surrender is useless and 
thus should not be regarded as a valid soteriological means. This tension is theological and also 
shows a divergence between the two spheres similar to what we have already seen in the 
Mumukṣupaṭi and the Mumuksūpāyasaṃgraha. Interestingly, Vedāntadeśika aims to resolve 
the tension unlike the two authors who defend one side at the cost of the other: Piḷḷai Lokācārya 
 
617 See Chapters 2 and 3 and also Mumme, The Śrīvaiṣṇava Theological Dispute, Chapter 3. 
268 
 
pays attention to God’s autonomy and agency to the extent that self-surrender is no longer active 
in the soteriological process while Meghanādārisūri claims that only the means such as self-
surrender and bhakti matter when it comes to seeking liberation.618 Vedāntadeśika proposes a 
chain of arguments that are more explicit and complex than those we have previously seen to 
balance the roles of God and self-surrender. The most elaborate one is the concept of the pretext. 
Influenced by the Manipravalam authors, Vedāntadeśika views the relationship between 
God and the means through the paradigm of the accomplished means and the means to be 
accomplished. Instead of reducing the role of self-surrender, he claims that although God is the 
accomplished means for the attainment of Himself who is the goal, He needs to be motivated 
through some means to be accomplished such as self-surrender. These means embody the 
cessation of one’s own agency and effort in pursuing liberation. They allow God to take control 
of the whole process and also activate God’s compassion which will counteract God’s 
autonomy and independence. This relationship between God and other means is supported by 
both scriptures and the ācāryas’ teachings:  
 
They know the accomplished means from the previously established one 
with Śrī who is the means to all the human goals and the ocean of compassion. 
The wise know the means to be accomplished as having bhakti and self-
surrender as the principal and the cause of motivating Him due to the fact that it 
is to be attained by the one who desires the result.  
The flow of play of the Master who is the accomplished means is hindered 
by the stream of compassion [caused by] the rising wave of the means to be 
accomplished. 
Only by that [stream of God’s compassion], all the wills even of someone 
who is independent which obstructs the service to [God] Himself vanish like the 
dams made of sand. 
When the propitiating means [like self-surrender and bhakti] are the 
means [to liberation] according to the scripture, the accomplished means, is 
 
618 Mumme suggests that Vedāntadeśika argues against the soul’s total dependency on God since he does not 
want self-surrender to become too close to the Advaita Vedānta knowledge which does not need any active role 
or performance on part of the soul (The Śrīvaiṣṇava Theological Dispute, 67). 
269 
 
predominant in terms of the agency and non-interruption towards the result. 
For those who are devoted to independent self-surrender, the firmness of 
the Lord who is the accomplished means is specifically taught by the 
manifestation of the cessation of one’s own effort from that moment [of self-
surrender]. 
Thus, the one whose effort subsides looks for the accomplished means 
for the goal for which one’s burden is placed on the accomplished means. 
In the definition of self-surrender, mantra, injunction, and the tradition 
like the commentaries and other statements, it is established that Brahman is the 
means.  
The already proven fact that place and other things are dharmas is 
accepted. In the same way, the one who knows the truth announced that Kṛṣṇa 
is the eternal dharma.619 
  
 
To further illustrate the importance of God and the active role of self-surrender, 
Vedāntadeśika brings in the analogy of a baby feeding on its mother’s milk. Although the milk 
from the mother flows naturally, the baby has to feed on it. In the same way, one needs to 
surrender to God to enable His natural compassion to manifest. Self-surrender is the realization 
that the whole process of surrendering oneself is caused by God and one has to entirely rely on 
Him.620 
Vedāntadeśika also puts forth a concept of pretext (vyāja) to prevent the contradiction 
between God’s autonomy and the rule of karmas, established in the scriptures. As Mumme 
suggests, his concept also helps preserve the validity and usefulness of scriptures and 
 
619 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 2, 678–680: 
samastapuruṣārthānāṃ sādhakasya dayānidhēḥ | śrīmataḥ pūrvasiddhatvāt siddhopāyam imaṃ viduḥ || 
bhaktiprapattipramukhaṃ tadvaśīkārakāraṇam | tattatphalārthisādhyatvāt sādhyopāyaṃ vidur budhāḥ || 
sādhyopāyottaraṅgēṇa siddhopāyasya śēṣiṇaḥ | līlāpravāhaḥ kāruṇyapravāhēṇa nirudhyatē || 
tēnaiva sarvē līyantē sikatāsētubandhavat | svatantrasya api saṅkalpās svakaiṅkaryanirodhakāḥ || 
prasādanasya upāyatvē śāstrīyē ’pi phalaṃ prati | kartṛtvāvyavadhānādyais siddhopāyapradhānatā || 
svatantranyāsaniṣṭhānāṃ siddhopāyē vibhau sthitiḥ | kṣaṇāt svayatnavirativyaktyai proktā viśēṣataḥ || 
ato yadarthaṃ svabharas siddhopāyē nivēśitaḥ | tadarthaṃ śāntayatno ’sau siddhopāyaṃ pratīkṣatē || 
prapattēr lakṣaṇē mantrē vidhau vākyāntarēṣu ca | bhāṣyādau saṃpradāyē ca upāyatvaṃ brahmaṇi sthitam || 
pūrvasiddhasya dēśādēr dharmatvaṃ yadvadiṣyatē | ēvaṃ tattvaviduḥ prāhuḥ kṛṣṇaṃ dharmaṃ sanātanam || 
620 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 2, 650-651: “Thus, like the act of feeding milk from the breast [that 
requires a baby’s activity], there are requirements and others for the soul [to receive] the Lord’s grace that comes 
out like milk from a mother’s breast.” (ākaiyāl tāy mulaippāl pōlē varukiṟa īśvaraprasādattukkum 
stanandhayaṉuṭaiya mulaiyuṇkiṟa vyāpāram pōlē ivaṉuṭaiya apēkṣātikaḷ.) 
270 
 
injunctions.621 In Chapter 23, to support his definition, Vedāntadeśika defines self-surrender as 
the pretext, citing Tiruvāymoḻi 10.8.1, “The moment I said Tirumāliruñcōlai Tirumāl entered 
and filled my heart. He’s in Tiruppēr on the southern bank of the Poṉṉi its waters glittering with 
dark gems.”622 He argues that Nammāḻvār’s statement of “Tirumāliruñcōlai” in this 
Tiruvāymoḻi verse should be understood as a pretext, which, he interprets, identical with self-
surrender. Given that God is omnipotent and independent, He could liberate everyone whenever 
He wants to. However, He would violate the rule of karmas which restricts that one could enter 
into the process depending on the karmas. To respect the rule of karmas, God creates the pretext 
which one can undertake once the karmas allow one to do so. Since the pretext is created by 
God Himself out of His compassion so that He would not be partial or cruel, to perform the 
pretext does not violate the autonomy of God: 
 
To clarify them [regarding God’s autonomy], even if the Lord is independent, 
having produced the pretext for the soul so that the faults of partiality and cruelty 
do not arise, He who is the support protects that [the soul]. The Āḻvār 
(Nammāḻvār) himself explained this meaning as follows: “The moment I said 
Tirumāliruñcōlai Tirumāl entered and filled my heart.” [Tiruvāymoḻi 10.8.1]. 
One might ask, if this pretext is due to the Lord, why would it occur now, not 
having been produced before? [The answer is:] the Lord gives results according 
to karmas since the souls’ streams of karmas continue from the beginningless 
time along with different ripening times. Otherwise, since there would be the 
fault of partiality, there is no occasion to produce the pretext before. This should 
be assumed from seeing the difference in the effects [i.e., the pretexts that 
happen at different times].623 
 
 
 
621 Mumme, The Śrīvaiṣṇava Theological Dispute, 67. 
622 Translated by Venkatesan in Endless Song, 322. For the text, see Nālāyirativviyappirapantam, 628. 
623 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 2, 635–637: ivarkaḷait teḷivikkumpaṭi—īśvaraṉ svatantraṉēy ākilum 
vaiṣamyanairghṛṇyaṅkaḷ ākiṟa dōṣaṅkaḷ taṉakkut taṭṭāmaikkāka ivaṉ pakkalilē oru vyājattaiy uṇṭākki attai 
avalambittat tāṉ rakṣikkum. ivvarthattai, “tirumāliruñcōlai malaiy eṉṟēn eṉṉat tirumāl vantu eṉṉeñcu niṟaiya 
pukun tāṉ” eṉṟu āḻvār tāmēy aruḷicceytār. inta vyājam tāṉum īśvaraṉ taṉṉālēy ākil, ittai muṉpēy uṇṭākkātē 
viṭṭatu eṉṉil, ivvātmākkaḷukku anādiyāṉa karmapravāhaṅkaḷ viṣamavipākasamayaṅkaḷāyk koṇṭu pōrukaiyālē 
īśvaraṉ karmānurūpaphalapradaṉ allātapōtu vaiṣamyadōṣaṃ varukaiyālē muṉpu itukku avasaramāyiṟṟu illaiy 
eṉṉum iṭam kāryaviśēṣadarśanattālē kalpitam. 
271 
 
It should be noted that Piḷḷai Lokācārya also resorts to the concept of pretext to resolve the same 
tension between God and other means.624 However, Vedāntadeśika does so in a more elaborate 
manner by providing the Tiruvāymoḻi as the scriptural support.625 Also, while Piḷḷai Lokācārya 
does not accept that means other than God have a real function in granting liberation, 
Vedāntadeśika acknowledges the liberating role of self-surrender even if it relies on God’s 
grace, which is what truly liberates those who surrender to God. Thus, Vedāntadeśika clearly 
presents self-surrender as the means that those who desire liberation should undertake and does 
not encourage the audience of the Rahasyatrayasāram to pursue bhakti. His claim on the 
superiority of self-surrender aligns with the arguments of the previous Manipravalam authors, 
namely, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai and Piḷḷai Lōkācārya, and is opposed to the identification of both 
means supported by the Sanskrit authors such as Vātsya Varadaguru and Meghanādārisūri. His 
emphasis on God also indicates one of the different soteriological expressions in Sanskrit and 
Manipravalam. Between the two works of Vedāntadeśika, this paradigm further represents a 
significant point of distinction between the Nikṣeparakṣā, which focuses on the Sanskrit system 
of self-surrender, and the Rahasyatrayasāram, which shares the discussions with other 
Manipravalam treatises, proving that the two texts are engaged with and conditioned by the 
Sanskrit and Manipravalam spheres, respectively. Despite the gap between these two spheres, 
Vedāntadeśika collects the discussions of self-surrender from both domains and introduces 
some new features to harmonize the more active and passive roles of self-surrender found in 
the previous treatises. 
 
 
624 See section 3.1.2. 
625 According to Mumme, Vedāntadeśika even argues that the significant figure like Nammāḻvār was also 
conditioned by his karmas whose ripening allows him to surrender to God. This argument clearly supports his 
concept of pretext (The Śrīvaiṣṇava Theological Dispute, 258). 
272 
 
5.3 Imagining the Śrīvaiṣṇavas 
As we have seen in the previous sections, Vedāntadeśika attempts to harmonize different norms 
and expressions for his system of self-surrender in the Rahasyatrayasāram with Manipravalam 
as the medium. Manipravalam provides Vedāntadeśika an opportunity and ability to bridge the 
gap between the two streams of the scriptures and to combine different strands of self-surrender 
of the earlier authors, resulting in the more expansive and complex soteriology of self-
surrender. I contend that Vedāntadeśika resorts to the normative and expressive harmonization 
to invoke the imaginative unity based on the doctrine of self-surrender.  
In particular, Manipravalam in the Rahasyatrayasāram encourages the reference to the 
Śrīvaiṣṇavas as the tradition, especially through the genealogy of Śrīvaiṣṇava ācāryas as well 
as the teaching on the practices shared by the Śrīvaiṣṇavas. Through the reference, 
Vedāntadeśika forms the interior of the tradition and invites the audience to identify themselves 
as belonging to this internal space in which self-surrender is central. It should be noted that 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai also mentions the term “Śrīvaiṣṇavas” in the sense of community in his 
Parantarahasyam and attempts to define the community as those who undertake self-
surrender.626 However, his arguments are not as explicit as what we see in the 
Rahasyatrayasāram, which makes it evident that self-surrender is necessary to the 
Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ identification as the tradition of those who follow self-surrender. In his treatise, 
Vedāntadeśika uses both “sampradāya” and “śrīvaiṣṇava” to refer to the communal collective 
unity as we will see below. 
It should be noted that Katherine Young indicates that the terms “sampradāya” and 
 
626 Section 2.4.2. 
273 
 
“śrīvaiṣṇava” appear in the inscriptions as early as the eleventh century in Tamilnadu.627 In 
particular, the word “śrīvaiṣṇava” only functions as honorific adjective and do not denote a 
strong sectarian notion in this period. It is only around the twelfth and thirteenth centuries that 
the term “śrīvaiṣṇava” was more commonly used with the sectarian connotation. Young 
explains the term’s nuance: 
 
The word śrīvaiṣṇava might have originally referred simply to the good, or holy, 
Vaiṣṇavas; śrī or tiru (its Prakrit equivalent) is a common honorific adjective, 
as in Tirupati, the auspicious, or holy, place. Inscriptional references from the 
eleventh century refer generally to holy workers (tevarkaṉmikaḷ from 
devakarman: therefore workers of the god) or to performers of sacred work 
(śrīkāriyam ceyyār) in temples but not to priests. If they refer to functions, these 
include hymns-singers, gardeners, and garland makers. They indicate also that 
temple management was in the hands of the Brāhmaṇa sabhai. The word 
śrīvaiṣṇava appears in inscriptions as the name of a sectarian group along with 
the Vaikhānasa, Śivabrāhmaṇas, and Śrīmaheśvaras (devotees of Śiva). But, 
says ORR, this became more common in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, 
when references to the śrīvaiṣṇava committee (vāriyam) and śrīvaiṣṇava 
supervisors (kaṇkāṇi) also increased.628 
 
 
In addition to the inscriptional evidence, we see the identification of the Śrīvaiṣṇavas 
through the opposition with non-Śrīvaiṣṇavas in the Īṭu Muppattāyirappaṭi. The communal 
values and sensitivity are created through the disregard of the worldly gain and the emphasis 
on the search for God, Viṣṇu.629 Then, after the time of Vedāntadeśika, Srilata Raman indicates 
that the Śrīvaiṣṇavas took advantage of the dynamic changes in the political and social spheres 
under the Vijayanagara polity to expand its institution and become distinct from other 
 
627 Young, “Brāhmaṇas, Pāñcarātrins, and the Formation of Śrīvaiṣṇavism,” 247: “Only one inscription refers to 
the word sampradāya, however, and that is in a very general sense. It mentions (daily) offerings to the deity on 
festivals and feeding pilgrims and sampradāyins. Sampradāyin can simply mean “teachers,” however, one who 
hands down knowledge; it need not mean a sectarian teacher.” 
628 Ibid., 249–250. 
629 For the Īṭu Muppattāyirappaṭi passages which are infused with the sectarian notion, see Clooney, Seeing 
through Texts, 237–240. 
274 
 
neighboring religious communities, especially the Śaivas, who were predominant in South India 
before the rise of Vijayanagara. They managed to gain patronage of Vijayanagara kings around 
this time, resulting in the growing influence of the Śrīvaiṣṇava temples. This can be seen, for 
example, in the institutional project of Maṇavāḷamāmuni (traditional dates: c. 1370–1445), the 
direct disciple of Piḷḷai Lokācārya and the younger contemporary of Vedāntadeśika.630  
Vedāntadeśika refers to “the tradition” (sampradāya) as important for the clarification 
of what the scripture says regarding self-surrender and that there should not be any contradiction 
between these two sets of authorities. He reiterates the importance of both scriptures and the 
traditional figures in a number of places as in the opening Sanskrit verse of Chapter 24 on the 
investigation of the means to be accomplished. For example: 
 
The Lord is propitiated by sacrifice, gift, oblation, worship, 
offering of the burden, meditation, and so on according to one’s eligibility. 
He grants a result to embodied beings. 
This established doctrine of the tradition shines forth for us, 
through śruti, smṛti, and the ācāryas’ speeches, filled with sound reasons.631  
 
In Chapter 17 on the scriptural obligations, Vedāntadeśika records Rāmānuja’s oral 
teaching before his final departure to his foremost disciples who were gathering by his side. His 
teaching concerns, first, the conducts and service that those who have done self-surrender 
should follow, emphasizing the importance of service for life after self-surrender and different 
forms of service. Importantly, in the teaching there is the explicit reference to the followers as 
the “Śrīvaiṣṇavas” as opposed to those who are not and Rāmānuja’s instruction on how one 
 
630 Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism, 5–6. 
631 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 2, 683–684 (emphasis mine): 
yathādhikāraṇaṃ prabhur yajanandānahomārcanābharanyasanabhāvanāprabhṛtibhiḥ samārādhitaḥ | 
phalaṃ diśati dehinām iti hi sampradāyasthitiḥ śrutismṛtigurūktitabhir nayavatībhir ābhāti naḥ || 
275 
 
who has surrendered should behave towards the community and the outsiders:632  
 
When Emperumāṉār (Rāmānuja) was about to depart to the supreme abode, 
having seen the suffering of his primary [disciples] who served by his feet were 
afflicted, he summoned and told them that “Those who abandon their bodies in 
separation from me have no connection with me, O the sacred feet of Āḷavantār 
(Yāmuna).” Having heard that and been afflicted by great sorrow, they asked 
[Rāmānuja], “What should we do to join [you] from now on?” He said to them, 
“Due to being one who surrenders (prapanna), since his soul’s journey [to the 
supreme abode] depends on the Lord, he has no connection to that.” If he decides 
that there is [the connection], the giving over of the self (ātmasamarpaṇa) would 
be false […]  
In this case, there are five kinds of service that may be done until the last 
day [of one’s life]: 1) reciting and studying the Śrībhāṣya, 2) if one is not eligible 
for that, listening to what is stated [by the Āḻvārs, i.e., the 
Nālāyirativiyappirapantam], 3) if one is not suitable for that, producing food, 
sandal paste, a lamp, and garlands for the sacred places favored [by God], 4) if 
one cannot do that, contemplating the meaning of the Dvaya, 5) If one cannot 
do that, dwelling closely in the affection of the Śrīvaiṣṇava who has affection 
towards him, thinking that “He is mine.”633  
 
 
Importantly, these codes of conducts sharpen the self-understanding of the Śrīvaiṣṇavas. The 
passage goes on to differentiate between the Śrīvaiṣṇavas who are “agreeable” and the others 
who, according to Rāmānuja’s oral teaching, are those who are “disagreeable” and “indifferent” 
as follows: 
 
 
632 Since Vedāntadeśika presents this passage as Rāmānuja’s oral teaching, it is difficult to verify if Rāmānuja 
used the word “śrīvaiṣṇava” or not. However, it is clear that Rāmānuja’s instruction addresses the community of 
followers. 
633 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 1, 499-503: emperumāṉār tirunāṭṭukku eḻuntaruḷukiṟa pōtu 
śrīpādattilē sēvittirunta mutalikaḷuṭaiya ārtiyak kaṇṭaruḷi ivarkaḷai aḻaittaruḷi, “eṉṉuṭaiya viyōgattil dēhatyāgam 
paṇṇiṉār uṇṭākil, āḷavantār śrīpādamē, eṉṉōṭu avarkaḷukku sambandham illai” eṉṟu aruḻicceyya, ivarkaḷum 
ittaik kēṭṭu mikavum śokārtarāy “iṉi eṅkaḷukkuc ceyya aṭuppatu etu?” eṉṟu viṇṇappam ceyya, ivar aruḷicceytu 
aruḷiṉa vārttai—“oruvaṉ prapannaṉ āṉāl avaṉuṭaiya ātmayātrai bhagavadadhīnay ākaiyālē atil avaṉukku 
anvayam illai. uṇṭeṉ aṟiruntāṉākil ātmasamarpaṇam poyyām ittaṉai […]  
 ātil ivaṉukku iṅkirunta nāḷ paṇṇalāl kaiṅkaryam añcu uṇṭu; avaiy āvaṉa—(1) bhāṣyattai vācittu 
pravarttippital (2) atukku yogyataiy illaiy ākil aruḷicceyalaik kēṭṭu pravarttippittal (3) atukku yōgyataiy illaiy 
ākil ukantaruḷiṉa divyadēśaṅkaḷukku amutupaṭi cāttuppaṭi tiruviḷakkut tirumālaikaḷaiy uṇṭākkutal (4) atukku 
yogyataiy illaiy ākil dvayattiṉuṭaiya arthānusandhānam paṇṇutal (5) atukku yogyataiy illaiy ākil, ‘eṉṉuṭaiy 
avaṉ’ eṉṟu abhimāṉippāṉ oru śrīvaiṣṇavaṉuṭaiya abhimānattilē atuṅki varttittal ceyyalām. 
276 
 
Before the eligible person dwells in this way, three things must be seen: 1) those 
who are agreeable, 2) disagreeable, and 3) indifferent. Those who are agreeable 
are the Śrīvaiṣṇavas. Those who are unagreeable are the enemies of the Lord, 
and those who are neither are those who are in the transmigration.634  
 
 
The essential point is that the Śrīvaiṣṇavas and those who want to remain the Śrīvaiṣṇavas are 
supposed to follow Rāmānuja’s teaching of these ways of conducts and do not mingle with the 
non-Śrīvaiṣṇavas.  
Vedāntadeśika also defines the Śrīvaiṣṇavas as those who belong to the lineage of the 
previous ācāryas to construct the communal unity based on this element. Vedāntadeśika begins 
the work with the essence on the lineage of the ācāryas (Guruparaṃparāsāra). My analysis of 
this chapter relies on Clooney’s comprehensive study in his article “From Person to Person: A 
Study of the Tradition in the Guruparaṃparāsāra of Vedānta Deśika’s Śrīmat 
Rahasyatrayasāra” (2011). Clooney argues that this chapter offers “intra-community rationale 
for the Śrīvaiṣṇava choice of founding the tradition in the person of the ācārya.”635 It reminds 
the audience of the Rahasyatrayasāram to recollect the lineage of ācāryas, who are the 
foundation of the tradition. It further instructs on the appropriate roles of teachers and students, 
reflecting on the importance of this relationship. Clooney explains the structure of the whole 
chapter as follows: 
 
At the beginning of the Guruparaṃparāsāra, readers were instructed to 
remember their lineage of ācāryas. Near its end, as we shall see, the importance 
of the right relationship of teachers and their students, in whom the tradition 
subsists, is made clear yet again. In the middle, we find the enunciation of 
 
634 Ibid.: ippaṭi varttikkum adhikārikku muṉṉaṭi pārttu varttikkaveṇṭuvaṉa mūṉṟu viṣayam uṇṭu. avaiy āvaṉa—
(1) anukūlar eṉṟum (2) pratikūlar eṉṉum (3) anubhayar eṉṉum. anukūlar āvār—śrīvaiṣṇavarkaḷ; pratikūlar 
āvār—bhagavaddviṣṭukkaḷ; anubhayar āvār—ivviraṇṭum illāta saṃsārikaḷ.  
635 Clooney, “From Person to Person,” 203. 
277 
 
specific lineages, the naming of names; enjoining remembrance as essential to 
tradition, Deśika actually engages in an act of remembrance.636 
 
Then, in the Manipravalam content, Vedāntadeśika outlines the lineage by referring to 
Śrīvaiṣṇava ācāryas mostly by their Tamil names. These ācāryas represent the tradition that 
precedes Vedāntadeśika: 
 
Among the ācāryas, Nāthamuni was the son of Īśvaramuni […] Nammāḻvār who 
appeared before Nāthamuni in his meditative state was the teacher of 
Nāthamuni. Īśvara Bhaṭṭa was the son of Nāthamuni. Āḷavantār was the son of 
Īśvara Bhaṭṭa […] Coṭṭainampi was the son of Āḷvantār. Eṉṉāccāṉ was the son 
of Coṭṭainampi. Coṭṭainambi had four sons, one of which was Piḷḷaiyappar. 
Tōḻappar was the son of Piḷḷaiyappar. Tōḻappar had two daughters.637 
 
 
In addition, Vedāntadeśika names his predecessors, namely the Āḻvārs, the first 
generation of the Śrīvaiṣṇavas, and the lineage of the ācāryas who participated in the Vedāntic 
intellectual domain, starting with Nāthamuni. In the Tamil opening verses of this chapter, he 
lists the ten Āḻvārs, excluding the other two who are part of the contemporary list, Maturakavi 
and Āṇtāḻ.638 He then highlights the accessibility of their hymns, which can reveal the obscure 
essence of the Sanskrit Veda and their intimacy with the Śrīvaisṇavas and the Tamil lands they 
used to inhabit: 
 
Reciting with clarity the excellent Tamil garland sung with delight by those who 
are called Poykai, Bhutattār, and Pēyāḻvār, by Kurukēśaṉ, who came to the field 
of the Tāmraparṇī river, by Viṣṇucittaṉ, by pure Kulaśēkharaṉ, our lord Pāṇa, 
by Toṇṭaraṭippoṭi, the light who came to the Maḻicai, [and] by the lord Maṅkai, 
 
636 Ibid., 210. 
637 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 1, 28–30: ivvācāryarkaḷil, īśvaramuṉikaḷ piḷḷai nāthamuṉikaḷ […] 
yōkatacaiyilē sākṣātkrutarāyum nammāḻvār ācāryarāṉār. nātamuṉikaḷ piḷḷai īśvara paṭṭāḻvāṉ. īśvara bhaṭṭāḻvāṉ 
piḷḷai āḷavantār […] āḷavantār piḷḷai coṭṭainampi, coṭṭainampi piḷḷai eṉṉāccāṉ, eṉṉāccāṉ. piḷḷaikaḷ nālvar. 
ivarkaḷil oruvar piḷḷaiyappar. piḷḷaiyappar piḷḷai tōḻappar, tōḻapparukkup peṇpiḷḷaikaḷ iruvar. 
638 Clooney, “From Person to Person,” 214. Clooney suggests that Maturakavi and Āṇtāḻ are omitted in this verse 
since Vedāntadeśika seems to list only ten names to match the Lord's ten descents.  
278 
 
we understand clearly the passages in the [Sanskrit] Veda that were not apparent 
before.639  
 
The next Tamil verse singles out Maturakavi and regards him as the one who revealed the good 
path for the followers through the grace of Nammāḻvār, who composed the Tiruvāymoḻi or the 
Veda in Tamil: 
 
The ancient path is shown by Maturakavi, who held on solely to the feet of the 
One who turned into Tamil the rare Vedas even though there exists Kṛṣṇa who 
descends only for his devotees, for delight, for refuge … like him. This path is 
the good path only for those who are determined.640  
 
 
The next generation of the Śrīvaiṣṇava ācāryas, beginning with Nāthamuni, are addressed in 
the Sanskrit concluding verses of the same chapter. They are described as those who argue 
against opponents and affirm the correct view for the tradition. The Sanskrit verses connect this 
lineage of ācāryas with the Upaniṣads and the debates surrounding them, suggesting that they 
 
639 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 1, 9: 
poykaimuni pūtattār peyāḻvār taṇ 
porutal varum kurukecaṉ viṭṭucittaṉ 
tuyya kulacekaraṉ nam pāṇanātaṉ 
toṇṭaraṭippoṭI maḻicai vanta cōti 
vaiyamelām maṟai viḷaṅka vāḷvēlēntum 
maṅkaiyar kōṉ eṉṟivarkaḷ makiḻntu pāṭum 
ceyya tamiḻmālaikaḷ nām teḷiya ōti 
teḷiyāta maṟainilaṅkaḷ teḷikiṉṟomē || 
640 Ibid., 14: “Mathurakavi, who was without sorrow, held on to the feet of the one who composed in Tamil the 
difficult Veda (Nammāḻvār) in order to make Kṛṣna descend for the sake of His devotees, for their pleasure, for 
being their refuge, for obtaining union with them, for being in many unforgettable relationships, for changing 
their desires, for making them His, for removing bad deeds, for giving them knowledge, for making them realize 
the truth, and for making them become like Him. Mathurakavi then showed the good paths in the ancient way of 
life in order to reveal them.” 
(iṉpattil iṟaiñcutalil icaiyum pēṟṟil 
ikaḻāta pal uṟavil irākam māṟṟil 
taṉpaṟṟil viṉai vilakkil takavu ōkkattil 
tattuvattai uṇarttutalil taṉmaiyākkil 
aṉparkkē avatarikkum āyaṉ niṟka 
aru maṟaikaḷ tamiḻ ceytāṉ tāḷē koṇṭu 
tuṉpu aṟṟa maturakavi tōṉṟa kāṭṭum 
tol vaḻiyē nal vaḻikaḷ tuṇivārkaṭkē ||). 
279 
 
participated in the wider domain of the Sanskrit and Vedānta: 
 
May I take delight in the ācāryas such as Nātha and others who made known the 
One who is to be celebrated by the Upaniṣads in various ways ... Our delightful 
ācāryas’ lineage that is full of many qualities and casts down the pride of the 
opponents through the sound of the neighing of Hayagrīva, who delights in the 
royal throne in the heart lotus, is victorious. The lineage leads us to the distinct 
truth that gets rid of the tufts of different views which were shaken by the 
increasing wind in the cloth banners of victory, fastened to the mansions of the 
[different] directions.641 
 
 
In the concluding chapter of the Rahasyatrayasāram, Vedāntadeśika devotes some 
verses to affirm the truth and reliability of the ācāryas in terms of their nature, knowledge, 
practice, and teaching. The ācāryas are portrayed as the Vedic ācāryas who have the following 
characteristics which make them suitable to instruct the means to liberation and what must be 
followed: 
 
They say that the meanings of the Vedas are all true. 
They do not think of speaking of faults 
regarding excellent qualities of those who have firm intellects. 
They attain the faultless minds regarding ācāryas. 
They hold on to goodness. 
They realize what is perceived by those with firm minds 
which are not corrupted by doubts of some humans who dwell in the prison. 
They will indeed enter in our non-perishing good path, 
shown by holy people who are calm in the world. 
 
641 Ibid., 40–41: “May I take delight in the ācāryas such as Nātha and others who made known the One who is to 
be celebrated by the Upaniṣads in various ways so as to destroy the arrow of desire after it has been removed. 
They were the ācāryas who pervaded the divine river that is the compassion of the Couple who is the refuge in 
whom we should have faith. They were also foreign to the paths of envy, confusion, and deception.” (ete 
mahyamapoḍhamanmathaśaronmāthāya nāthādayaḥ trayyantapratinandanīyavividhodantāḥ svadantām iha | 
śrāddhātavyaśaraṇyadampatidayādivyāpagāvyāpakāḥ spardhāviplavavipralambhapadavīvaideśikā deśikāḥ ||). 
“Our delightful ācāryas’ lineage that is full of many qualities and casts down the pride of the opponents through 
the sound of the neighing of Hayagrīva who is pleased with the royal throne in the heart lotus, is victorious. The 
lineage leads us to the distinct truth that gets rid of the tufts of different views which were shaken by the 
increasing wind in the cloth banners of victory, fastened to the mansions of [different] directions.” (hṛdyā 
hṛtpadmasiṃhāsanarasikahayagrīvaheṣormighoṣakṣiptapratyarthidṛptirjayati bahuguṇā paṃktir asmad 
gurūṇām | 
diksaudhābaddhajaitradhvajapaṭapavanasphātinirdhūtatattatsiddhāntastomatūlastabakavigamanavyaktasadvart
anīkā ||). 
280 
 
 
They say that this means is the sweet nectar of immortality. 
They cast away agreeable senses. 
They are indeed our ācāryas who know that there are no other means. 
They forgive our faults with delight, saying "Take this means." 
We accept this as a means through the grace of those Vedic ācāryas.642 
 
 
 With these verses, Vedāntadeśika invokes the Āḻvārs, their Tamil hymns, and the 
ācāryas who were engaged in the Sanskrit philosophical domain and resort to the Upaniṣads. 
The function of these verses, according to Clooney, is to “inspire readers to a greater imaginative 
identification with the tradition.”643 Vedāntadeśika’s construction of the tradition coincides with 
his attempt to harmonize the norms and strands of self-surrender to make sure that the internal 
space can be shared by the Śrīvaiṣṇavas based on the normative and expressive collectivity. It 
is Manipravalam that allows for this unified notion for the followers to imagine and identify 
themselves with.  
 
5.4 Summary 
In the introduction, I ask three questions, two of which are as follows: What can Manipravalam 
do that Sanskrit or Tamil alone cannot? And, what precisely are Manipravalam roles in the 
theological treatises on self-surrender? My answer to these questions is the basis of this in this 
 
642 Vedāntadeśika, Rahasyatrayasāram, vol. 2, 1208–1210: 
maṟaiyuraikkum poruḷ ellām meyy eṉṟōrvār 
maṉṉiya kūrmatiyuṭaiyār vaṇkuṇattiṟ 
kuṟaiyuraikka niṉaivu illār kurukkaḷ tampāṟ (māṟ) 
 kōtaṟṟa maṉam peṟṟār koḷvār naṉmai 
ciṟaiv aḷarkkuñ cila māntar caṅkētattāṟ 
 citaiyāta tiṇmatiyōr terintatōrār 
poṉrāta naṉneṟiyiṟ pukutuvārē. 
 
ituvaḻiy iṉṉamuteṉṟavariṉ pulaṉ vēṟiṭuvār 
 ituvaḻiyā malaveṉṟaṟivā reṅkaḷ tēcikarē 
ituvaḻI yeytuka veṉṟukappālem piḻaipoṟuppār 
 ituvaḻiyā maṟaiyōr aruḷāl yāmicaintaṉamē. 
643 Clooney, “From Person to Person,” 216. 
281 
 
chapter: Manipravalam allows for the harmonization of different language spheres, their 
scriptural norms and theological expressions—a role that either Tamil or Sanskrit alone does 
not possess. As a systematic theologian, Vedāntadeśika synthesized various sources on self-
surrender only in his Manipravalam Rahasyatrayasāra. He bridged the gap, if not traditionally 
at least intellectually, in the two spheres found in the previous treatises, namely the preference 
for the Tamil scripture or the Sanskrit orthodoxy and the attention to or disregard for the 
performative role of self-surrender. Again, through Manipravalam, he harmonized the doctrine 
of self-surrender by collecting various strands of self-surrender proposed by other authors that 
I investigated. 
Then, what is his harmonization meant for? It is my understanding that his scriptural and 
doctrinal harmonization results in collective normativity and expressibility that serve vital 
social and intellectual functions by making possible a sense of unity of the tradition against 
institutional fluctuation and theological inconsistency within. His harmonized system of self-
surrender renders the doctrine the most expansive and comprehensive one to the extent that it 
overshadows the authors of later generations, and one could say that the development of 
soteriological self-surrender reaches its peak with Vedāntadeśika’s Rahasyatrayasāra. This 
might explain why the current Śrīvaiṣṇavas who subscribe to Vedāntadeśika’s teaching regard 
the Rahasyatrayasāram as the locus classicus of self-surrender.644  
 
644 For example, see Uttamur Viraraghavacharya’s introduction to his commentary on the Rahasyatrayasāra 
(Madras: Ubhayavedāntagranthamālā, 1980). 
282 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
I have posited three questions at the beginning of my introduction to this dissertation: 1) How 
can we conceive of multilingualism in premodern South Asian context in which languages were 
not bound to nations, where one culture or community often use more than one language?; 2) 
How did religious agents across language boundaries make linguistic choices and how did their 
choices shape their religious beliefs? 3) What can their linguistic engagements tell us about the 
impact of multilingualism on their self-understanding? To deal with the first question, this 
dissertation participates in the investigation of South Asian multilingualism preceded by the 
works of Pollock (2006), Shulman (2016), Ollett (2017), and other scholars. However, unlike 
these scholars who tell histories of a language with a long-time frame, I focus on the 
interconnected movements of languages, mainly Sanskrit and Manipravalam, and Tamil, to a 
certain extent, within more or less four generations of authors to highlight their dynamic 
interactions and the role of the Śrīvaiṣṇava authors responsible for the linguistic changes. This 
micro-perspective investigation allows us to better capture the complex relationships between 
languages, authors who use these languages, and their textual engagement compared to the 
macro studies mentioned. 
My study further proposes a new framework, the language sphere, that views language 
as a sphere that is demarcated through mutually influenced representations of agency, 
normativity, and expressivity. This framework provides tools to explore the contacts and 
tensions between languages that overlapped and shaped the historical contexts and also how the 
agents choose to engage with these spheres. Although the authors are largely conditioned by 
the language spheres they inhabit, they may exercise their agency in choosing which language 
283 
 
sphere to work with or even crossing different linguistic boundaries.  
Based on the Śrīvaiṣṇava theological treatises on the doctrine of self-surrender from the 
twelfth to the fourteenth century, my work reveals the complex variations of linguistic usages 
of the authors and dynamic and fluid interactions between different languages that cannot be 
confined within Pollock’s hierarchical paradigm. I argue that the doctrinal development of self-
surrender has to be understood with attention to the multiplicity of language spheres. Each 
author differently shaped the doctrine of self-surrender through their relationships with the two 
language spheres of Sanskrit and Manipravalam in addition to their social and intellectual 
factors, resulting in not only linguistic but also doctrinal systematization, heterogeneity, 
distillation, and harmonization, as shown in the earlier chapters. 
The chapters in this dissertation collectively provide insights into how precisely both 
linguistic spheres affect the doctrinal development of self-surrender and how each religious 
author deals with them in order to respond to the second and third questions. Chapter 1 focuses 
on the Śrīvaiṣṇava authors’ innovative choices in creating their versions of the spheres of 
Sanskrit and Manipravalam, especially in the soteriological context. These spheres then set the 
models of norms and expressions for the later authors to choose to either follow, expand, or 
deviate. While Sanskrit expresses matters related to authority, validation, and philosophy 
shared by pan-Indian philosophical and theological systems that are predominantly orthodox, 
and those based on Rāmānuja’s teaching of the soteriological doctrine of bhakti, Tamil is 
associated with intimate feeling such as devotion, inclusive teachings, and accessibility of the 
Tamil language and scripture based on the Āḻvārs’ usage. 
After the time of Rāmānuja, we see the rise of the Manipravalam sphere from the 
incorporation of the Tamil scripture into the Vedāntic philosophical counterpart of the 
284 
 
Śrīvaiṣṇavas. The Śrīvaiṣṇava decision to use Manipravalam can be seen as conditioned by the 
limitation of scholastic Sanskrit practice within Vedic orthodoxy that does not allow the 
incorporation of Tamil or other vernaculars, let alone other texts that are not considered 
authoritative within this orthodoxy. Socially speaking, the use of Manipravalam in commenting 
on the Āḻvārs’ Tamil hymns is a tool to legitimize the Tamil scripture, which creates an 
opportunity for the institutional expansion as it is available to different social hierarchical 
groups, unlike the Sanskrit Vedas, which are limited to the three first castes.  
Contemporaneous to the use of Manipravalam is the crystallization of the doctrine of 
self-surrender, which relies on the scriptures in these two languages. The devotional aspect and 
accessibility of the doctrine of self-surrender are clearly rooted in the Tamil scripture and 
expression, while its validated status as a soteriological doctrine is immersed in the Sanskrit 
sphere. This is why we see the post-Rāmānuja authors both in Sanskrit and Manipravalam resort 
to the Sanskrit sources to validate self-surrender and bring in the Āḻvārs’ Tamil hymns and 
ācāryas’ teachings to explain its practicality. 
The subsequent chapters portray the linguistic oscillation between limitation and 
expansion through the three critical moments based on their interactions: the rise of the Sanskrit 
sphere and importance of Tamil, the heterogeneities of these two spheres’ norms and 
expressions, and, finally, the function of Manipravalam in harmonizing different norms and 
expressions and bridging the gap between these two spheres. The authors who only wrote in 
Sanskrit, such as Vātsya Varadaguru and Meghanādārisūri, followed Rāmānuja’s Sanskrit 
soteriology more than the Manipravalam authors, such as Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai and Piḷḷai 
Lokācārya, who emphasized the Tamil scripture and the devotional attitude of self-surrender. 
More specifically, as shown in Chapter 2, the systematization of self-surrender became 
285 
 
more evident in the twelfth/thirteenth-century Manipravalam and Sanskrit treatises of 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai and Vātsya Varadaguru despite its early forms in the Śrīvaiṣṇavas’ previous 
literature. While Vātsya Varadaguru introduced self-surrender into the Sanskrit sphere of the 
soteriology of which bhakti and Vedānta are the norms in the Prapannapārijāta, Periyavāccāṉ 
Piḷḷai, in continuing the discussions of self-surrender in the preceding Manipravalam 
commentaries, favored the Tamil scripture to the Sanskrit one and includes the three secrets. 
Their linguistic choices seem to be conditioned already by their lineages and locations. To 
elaborate, these two authors were motivated to use Manipravalam and Sanskrit due to their 
social and intellectual circumstances. Vātsya Varadaguru composed only Sanskrit works meant 
for conversation with the Sanskrit authors at Kāñcīpuram, and Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai was 
immersed in the community at Śrīraṅgam, in which Manipravalam was the linguistic medium 
for intellectual and theological composition already by his time due to the presence of the 
previous Manipravalam commentaries. While working with Sanskrit and Manipravalam 
respectively, they chose to strengthen and localize the representations in each language sphere, 
such as Rāmānuja’s soteriology of bhakti and the Manipravalam commentaries on the 
Tiruvāymoḻi, before passing them down to the subsequent treatises, as we saw in Chapters 3, 4, 
and 5.  
Their systems of self-surrender are tied to the boundaries of both spheres. With this 
statement, I do not mean that the ideas of self-surrender did not exist before this process. In 
fact, the preexisting forms of self-surrender before its systematization already existed in the 
theological domains of the Āḻvārs’ Tamil hymns and Rāmānuja’s Gadyatraya, which in turn 
was influenced by Tamil heritage. However, Vātsya Varadaguru and Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai were 
the first to devise the representations in the Sanskrit and Manipravalam spheres in systematizing 
286 
 
self-surrender.  
In Chapter 3, the Sanskrit author, Meghanādārisūri, defended self-surrender as another 
Vedāntic doctrine and narrows the Sanskrit sphere through his doctrinalization of self-
surrender. Unlike other authors who stress the accessibility of self-surrender, Meghanādārisūri 
was the first and only author mentioned here who claims that self-surrender is limited only to 
people who were born in the three castes, just as with bhakti in his Sanskrit 
Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha. On the contrary, Piḷḷai Lokācārya brought self-surrender to the 
opposite direction, denying its ritual status and similarity to bhakti. He claimed that what is 
required in the soteriological process is acknowledging and faith that God is the means to 
liberation. The Manipravalam sphere under his composition is also distant from the Sanskrit 
one. Although Piḷḷai Lokācārya still valued the Sanskrit scripture, he clearly preferred the Tamil 
corpus and itihāsas over the Upaniṣads.  
This chapter thus portrays how Meghanādārisūri and Piḷḷai Lokācārya intensified the 
Sanskrit and Manipravalam boundaries set in the treatises of Vātsya Varadaguru and 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, resulting in the heterogeneity in both theological and linguistic domains. 
Looking from a social perspective, the heterogeneity is likely caused by the intentions of these 
two authors to immerse self-surrender, which undisputedly the primary doctrine by this period, 
into their respective language spheres at Kāñcīpuram and Śrīraṅgam. Alternatively, it could be 
said that Meghanādārisūri’s system of self-surrender is a response to the increasing importance 
of the Tamil authoritative and expressive norms in the soteriology of self-surrender, which can 
threaten the validity of the Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta system. Thus, he confined its theology to the 
Sanskrit sphere.  
In terms of their theological arguments, the authors investigated in Chapters 2 and 3 
287 
 
deal with the tension between self-surrender and bhakti differently based on the distinct 
emphases they placed on bhakti and God despite constant mutual linguistic contact. Vātsya 
Varadaguru and Meghanādārisūri attempted to simultaneously consolidate Rāmānuja’s 
teaching of bhakti and present self-surrender as an independent doctrine for the Sanskrit 
community at Kāñcī. However, the Sanskrit sphere that dominates this location places the main 
expressive condition, without which their attempts can be accomplished, that their versions of 
self-surrender must conform to Rāmānuja’s soteriology of bhakti. By making self-surrender 
bhakti-like, it is more likely to gain respect among the Sanskrit authors and within the wider 
Śrīvaiṣṇava community, who had already accepted bhakti since the time of Rāmānuja.  
Unlike the Sanskrit authors, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai and Piḷḷai Lokācārya highlighted the 
role of God even in the system of self-surrender and the distinction between self-surrender and 
bhakti as well as other Upaniṣadic rituals. The emphasis on God can be understood as the 
defining expression in the Manipravalam doctrinalization of self-surrender since the time of 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai. It is not the case that these authors ignored the role of bhakti because they 
had no regard for Rāmānuja or the Vedāntic scripture. Following their Manipravalam 
predecessors, these authors intended to find a doctrine that is easily accessible by anyone to 
replace bhakti. To do so, they pushed forward the two main arguments derived from earlier 
Manipravalam commentaries, especially that of Nañciyār: first, the absolute liberating role of 
God and, second, the nature of God as the accomplished means. These two arguments imply 
that self-surrender is more appealing than bhakti since it relies on God alone, who has power 
and compassion to save anyone. Self-surrender is more about the relationship between God and 
devotee rather than ritual performance and requirements. Most evidently, Piḷḷai Lokācārya, in 
his Mumukṣupaṭi, replaced bhakti with self-surrender and even canceled the role of bhakti in 
288 
 
the soteriology.645 Writing in Manipravalam, these authors had more flexibility in choosing 
texts from Sanskrit and Tamil to support their arguments.  
Looking at Vedāntadeśika’s two works, who stood out as the systematizer, through the 
framework of language sphere, Chapters 4 and 5 together most clearly affirm that, in the 
processes of defining and redefining self-surrender, the authors chose to operate within each 
linguistic sphere differently based on their social environments and intellectual pursuits. They 
introduced more sophisticated and innovative linguistic tools or excluded certain norms and 
expressions in different language spheres to address the debates found in that languages’ earlier 
literature. Using both languages allows Vedāntadeśika to harmonize the tensions in the two 
language spheres and draw them together. The social and internal tension along with his 
responsibility as a traditional leader might have prompted Vedāntadeśika to purify any 
discrepancies in the previous teachings so that the community could accommodate the 
increasingly diverse body of Śrīvaiṣṇava members under the notion of “the tradition.”  
In Chapter 4, the Nikṣeparakṣā exemplifies the merging between the two spheres. In 
this work, Vedāntadeśika touched on some of the same concerns in the Manipravalam 
rahasyagranthas. Yet, the Nikṣeparakṣā is restricted to the Sanskrit sphere and participates in 
the Sanskrit consolidation of bhakti like other authors who were in his same social and 
intellectual circle in Kāñcīpuram. As a result, it does not acknowledge the discussions as 
belonging to the Manipravalam domain and only presents the distilled versions. In the same 
manner that self-surrender in the Nikṣeparakṣā stands for the more elaborate soteriology in 
 
645 This replacement of bhakti by self-surrender in the works of Piḷḷai Lokācārya is also supported by 
Rajagopalan, “The Śrī Vaiṣṇava Understanding of Bhakti and Prapatti,” 471: “The change comes in the time of 
Piḷḷai Lokācārya. He argues that since bhaktiyoga involves human ‘effort’, it is against the essential nature of the 
jīva. The jīva is a śeṣa and should not assert himself. He should be resigned and allow the Lord’s grace to 
operate, when He wills it. So bhaktiyoga as an ‘alternative’ is removed completely for some Śrī Vaiṣṇavas.” 
289 
 
Manipravalam, the Sanskrit sphere in the Nikṣeparakṣā can also be understood as the distillation 
of the Manipravalam sphere. 
In Chapter 5, Vedāntadeśika harmonized the Tamil and Sanskrit scriptures as well as 
the previous discussions on self-surrender in either Sanskrit or Manipravalam. He also 
reconciled the theological discrepancies and bridged the distance between the two spheres 
present in the preceding literature. Vedāntadeśika’s harmonization results in the Manipravalam 
soteriology that incorporates multiple strands of self-surrender. Vedāntadeśika’s self-surrender, 
more so than those of his predecessors, provides an opportunity to unite the Śrīvaiṣṇava 
community together under the notion of “the tradition.” However, the internal space does not 
deny the diversity of its heritages or languages. As in the case of Vedāntadeśika’s 
Rahasyatrayasāram, the Śrīvaiṣṇavas can be seen through multiple norms and expressions 
instead of as a singularity as long as they collectively function, at least for the most part, in 
harmony.  
My dissertation is an initial attempt to frame South Asian multilingualism without 
relying on the binary opposition between Sanskrit and vernaculars theorized by Pollock (2006) 
or other macro-perspective studies of South Asian languages. It proposes a more flexible 
framework that provides a better way to conceptualize complex and fluid histories of 
multilingualism in the second millennium, especially in the premodern South Asian religious 
contexts and beyond.646 This framework can potentially be used to investigate the impacts that 
languages have on different genres of the Śrīvaiṣṇava composition, like poetry or other 
philosophical treatises that are not only devoted to self-surrender. Specifically for Śrīvaiṣṇava 
 
646 For example, with this framework in mind, I propose the distinction between Tamil and Sanskrit in 
Akepiyapornchai and Peera Panarut, “Sacred Literacy: An Overview of Multilingual Siamese Grantha 
Manuscripts.” 
290 
 
studies, my work attempts to offer a basis and framework for critical follow-up projects, for 
example, a more complete analysis of the roots of bhakti and self-surrender as poetically 
conceived in the Nālāyirativiyappirapantam and a commentary study of the commentaries on 
the Tamil poems and other Sanskrit works of Yāmuna and Rāmānuja. I hope that “Voices of 
Self-surrender” is not the last voice on the value of multilingualism, but one that encourages 
further work in several fields of study.
291 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
Adluri, Sucharita. “Ācārya Bhakti in Early Śrīvaiṣṇavism: Mathurakavi Āḻvār’s  
Kaṇṇinuṇciṟuttāmpu.” Journal of Vaiṣṇava Studies 25, 2 (2017). 
 
———. Textual Authority in Classical Indian Thought: Rāmānuja and the Viṣṇu Purāṇa.  
Routledge Hindu Studies Series. London: Routledge, 2015. 
 
Akepiyapornchai, Manasicha. “Translation in a Multilingual Context: The Mixture of Sanskrit  
and Tamil Languages in Medieval South Indian Śrīvaiṣṇava Religious Tradition.” 
Journal of South Asian Intellectual History 2, no. 2 (2020): 153–179. 
 
———. “Vedāntadeśika’s Interpretation of Rāmānuja’s Self-surrender: A Study Based on the  
Nikṣeparakṣā.” Master’s Thesis, Cornell University, 2016. 
 
Akepiyapornchai, Manasicha and Peera Panarut. “Sacred Literacy: An Overview of  
Multilingual Siamese Grantha Manuscripts” In Manuscript Cultures and Epigraphy of 
the Tai World, edited by Volker Grabowsky, 115–165. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, 
2022. 
 
Anandakichenin, Suganya. “Āḻvār.” In Hinduism and Tribal Religions, edited by Jeffery D.  
Long, Rita D. Sherma, Pankaj Jain, and Madhu Khanna, 59–66. Dordrecht: Springer 
Netherlands, 2022. 
 
———. My Sapphire-Hued Lord, My Beloved! A Complete, Annotated Translation of  
Kulacēkara Āḻvār’s Perumāḷ Tirumoḻi and of Its Medieval Maṇipravāḷa Commentary 
by Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai with an Introduction. Vol. Collection Indologie 136. NETamil 
Series 2. Pondicherry: École française d’Extrême-Orient; Institut français de 
Pondichéry, 2018. 
 
———. “Viśiṣṭādvaita in a Nutshell.” Forthcoming. 
 
———. “When did the Śrīvaiṣṇava Ācāryas call their language ‘Manipravalam’?, Suganya’s  
Musings and Scribblings. 
https://suganyasmusingsscribblings.wordpress.com/2021/01/21/when-did-the-
srivaiṣṇava-acaryas-call-their-language-manipravalam (accessed January 22, 2022). 
 
Anandakichenin, Suganya, and Erin McCann. “Tamil-Sanskrit Interaction in Medieval  
Śrīvaiṣṇava Literature.” In Linguistic and Textual Aspects of Multilingualismin South 
India and Sri Lanka, edited by Giovanni Ciotti and Erin McCann, 3–56. Pondicherry, 
École française d’Extrême-Orient; Institut français de Pondichéry, 2021. 
 
———. “Towards Understanding the Śrīvaiṣṇava Commentary on the Nālāyira Tivviya  
292 
 
Pirapantam.” In The Commentary Idioms of the Tamil Learned Traditions, edited by 
Suganya Anandakichenin and Victor D’Avella. Vol. Indologie 141. NETamil Series 5. 
École française d’Extrême-Orient; Institut français de Pondichéry, 2020. 
 
Appadurai, Arjun. Worship and Conflict under Colonial Rule: A South Indian  
Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. 
 
Ayyangar, Krishnaswami, ed. Pakavat Viṣayam, Vol. 1. Trichy: Books Propagation Society,  
1975. 
 
Birkenholtz, Jessica Vantine. Reciting the Goddess: Narratives of Place and the Making of  
Hinduism in Nepal. New York, NY, United States of America: Oxford University 
Press, 2018. 
 
Blackburn, Anne. Locations of Buddhism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. 
 
Brockington, J. L. The Sacred Thread: Hinduism in Its Continuity and Diversity. Edinburgh:  
Edinburgh University Press, 1981. 
 
Buitenen, J. A. B. van. Rāmānuja on the Bhagavadgītā: A Condensed Rendering of His  
Gītābhāsya with Copious Notes and an Introduction. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 
1968. 
 
Carman, John. The Theology of Rāmānuja: An Essay in Interreligious Understanding. New  
Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. 
 
Carman, John, and Vasudha Narayanan. The Tamil Veda: Piḷḷan's Interpretation of the  
Tiruvāymol̲i. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.  
 
Champakalakshmi, R. Religion, Tradition, and Ideology: Pre-Colonial South India. New  
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2011. 
 
Ciotti, Giovanni and R. Sathyanarayan. “Between Manipravalam and Tamil: The Case of the  
Viṣṇupurāṇavacaṉam and Its Recensions.” In Linguistic and Textual Aspects of 
Multilingualism in South India and Sri Lanka, edited by Giovanni Ciotti and Erin 
McCann, 665–752. Pondicherry, École française d’Extrême-Orient; Institut français de 
Pondichéry, 2021. 
 
Clooney, Francis X. “Fierce Words: Repositionings of Caste and Devotion in Traditional  
Srivaisnava Hindu Ethics.” The Journal of Religious Ethics 3 (2002): 399–419. 
 
———. “From Person to Person: A Study of Tradition in the Guruparaṃpārasāra of Vedānta  
Deśika’s Śrīmat Rahasyatrayasāra.” In Boundaries, Dynamics and Construction of 
Traditions in South Asia, edited by Federico Squarcini, 203–224. Anthem Press, 2011. 
 
293 
 
———. “Nammāḻvār’s Glorious Tiruvallavāḻ: An Exploration in the Methods and Goals of  
Śrīvaiṣṇava Commentary.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 111, no. 2 
(1991): 260–276. 
 
———. “Rāmānuja’s Nityagrantham (‘Manual of Daily Worship’): A Translation.”  
International Journal of Hindu Studies 24 (2020:345–380. 
 
———. “Rāmānuja’s Nityam: A Neglected Key to His Theology.” In the Adyar Library  
Bulletin 2017–2018: Sri Ramanuja Millenium, edited by T. Narayanan Kutty. Vol. 81–
82. Chennai: Vasanta Press, 2018. 
 
———. Seeing through Texts: Doing Theology among the Śrīvaiṣṇavas of South India.  
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996. 
 
———. The Truth, the Way, the Life: Christian Commentary on the Three Holy Mantras of  
the Śrīvaiṣṇava Hindus. Peeters Publishers, 2008. 
 
———. “The Use of Sanskrit as a Theological Resource in the Interpretation of  
Tiruvāymoḻi.” International Journal of Hindu Studies 19 (2015): 7–38. 
 
Cox, Whitney. “From Source-Criticism to Intellectual History in the Poetics of the Medieval  
Tamil Country.” In Bilingual Discourse and Cross-Cultural Fertilisation: Sanskrit 
and Tamil in Medieval India, edited by Whitney Cox and Vincenzo Vergiani, 115–
160. Pondicherry: Institut français de Pondichéry, 2013. 
 
Dutta, Ranjeeta. From Hagiographies to Biographies: Ramanuja in Tradition and History.  
From Hagiographies to Biographies. Oxford University Press, 2014.   
 
Edgerton, Franklin, tr. Mīmāṃsānyāyaprakāśa of Āpadeva. 2nd ed. Dehli: Mohindra Offset  
Press, 1986. 
 
Fitzgerald, James L. “India’s Fifth Veda: The Mahābhārata’s Presentation of Itself.” Journal  
of South Asian Literature 20, no. 1 (1985): 125–140.  
 
Flood, Gavin. An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996. 
 
Francis, Emmanuel. “Multilingualism in Indian Inscriptions with Special Reference to  
Inscriptions of the Tamil Area.” In Linguistic and Textual Aspects of Multilingualism 
in South India and Sri Lanka, edited by Giovanni Ciotti and Erin McCann, 57–164. 
Pondicherry, École française d’Extrême-Orient; Institut français de Pondichéry, 2021. 
 
———. “Praising the King in Tamil During the Pallava Period.” In Bilingual Discourse and  
Cross-Cultural Fertilisation: Sanskrit and Tamil in Medieval India, edited by Whitney 
Cox and Vincenzo Vergiani, 359–409. Pondicherry: Institut français de Pondichéry, 
2013. 
294 
 
 
Freiberger, Oliver. Considering Comparison: A Method for Religious Studies. New York:  
Oxford University Press, 2019.  
 
Freschi, Elisa. “Bhakti in Rāmānuja: Continuities and Changes of Perspective.” In The Adyar  
Library Bulletin 2017–2018: Sri Ramanuja Millenium, edited by T. Narayanan Kutty. 
Vol. 81–82. Chennai: Vasanta Press, 2018. 
 
———. “Commenting by Weaving Together Texts: Veṅkaṭanātha’s Seśvaramīmāṃsā and the  
Sanskrit Philosophical Commentaries.” Philological Encounters 3, no. 3 (2018): 337–
358. 
 
———. “Śrī Vaiṣṇavism: The Making of a Theology.” In Many Vaiṣṇavisms: Histories of the  
worship of Viṣṇu, edited by Archana Venkatesan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Forthcoming. 
 
Grünendahl, Reinhold, ed. Viṣṇudharmāḥ: Precepts for the Worship of Viṣṇu, Vol. 1.  
Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1983. 
 
Hardy, Friedhelm. “The Philosopher as Poet—A Study of Vedāntadeśika’s Dehalīśastuti.”  
Journal of Indian Philosophy 7, no. 3 (1979): 277–325. 
 
———. Viraha-Bhakti: The Early History of Kṛṣṇa Devotion in South India. Delhi: Oxford,  
1983.  
 
Hari Rao, V. N. History of the Śrīrangam Temple. Tirupati: Sri Venkateswara University,  
1976. 
 
Hopkins, Steven P.  Singing the Body of God: The Hymns of Vedāntadeśika in Their South  
Indian Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 
 
———. The Flight of Love: A Messenger Poem of Medieval South India. New York: Oxford  
University Press, 2016. 
 
———. “Vedāntadeśika.” In Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism Online, edited by Knut A.  
Jacobsen, Helene Basu, Angelika Malinar, and Vasudha Narayanan. doi: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2212-5019_BEH_COM_9000000134 (accessed January 19, 
2022). 
 
Inden, Ronald B., Jonathan S Walters, and Daud Ali. Querying the Medieval:Texts and the  
History of Practices in South Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. 
 
Jacob, Colonel G. A., ed. The Mahānārāyaṇa-Upanishad of the Atharva-Veda with the Dīpikā  
of Nārāyaṇa. Bombay: Government Central Book Depôt, 1888.  
 
295 
 
Jaimini. Mīmāmsādarśanam with Śabarabhāṣya of Śabara and Tantravārtika of  
Kumārilabhaṭṭa. Ed. K. V. Abhyaṅkar and Gaṇeśaśātrī Jośī. 4 vols. Pune: 
Ānandāśrama, 1929–1934. 
 
Jha, Ganganatha, and Umesha Mishra. Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā in Its Sources. 2nd ed. Varanasi:  
Banaras Hindu University, 1964. 
 
Krishnamacharya, V., ed. Lakṣmī-Tantra: A Pāñcarātra Ᾱgama. Madras: The Adyar Library  
and Research Centre, 1959. 
 
Kumar, P. Pratap. The Goddess Lakṣmī: The Divine Consort in South Indian Vaiṣṇava  
Tradition. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. 
 
Lester, Robert C. “Rāmānuja and Śrī-Vaiṣṇavism: The Concept of Prapatti or  
Śaranāgati.” History of Religions 5, no. 2 (1966): 266–282. 
 
———. Rāmānuja on the Yoga. Madras: The Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1976.  
 
Lipner, Julius. The Face of Truth: A Study of Meaning and Metaphysics in the Vedāntic  
Theology of Rāmānuja. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986. 
 
Mahājana, Supriyā, ed. Kṛṣṇayajurvedīyaṃ Taittirīyāraṇyakam:  
Śrīmatsāyaṇācāryaviracitabhāṣyasametam (Sapriśiṣṭam), Vol. 2. Puṇyākhyapattane: 
Ānandāśrama, 2008. 
 
Marlewicz, Halina. “Self-Surrender of the Afflicted One (ārta prapatti) as the Concept of  
Human Existence in the Prapannapārijāta of Vātsya Varadaguru.” In Wege durchs 
Labyrinth: Festschrift zu Ehren von Rahul Peter Das, edited by Carmen Brandt and 
Hans Harder, 293–314. Heidelberg: CrossAsia-eBooks, 2020. 
 
McCann, Erin. “Ācāryābhimāna: Agency, Ontology, and Salvation in Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s  
Śrīvacana Bhūṣaṇam.” Ph.D. diss., McGill University, 2016. 
 
McCrea, Lawrence J. “Does God Have Free Will: Hermeneutics and Theology in the Work of  
Vedāntadeśika.” In One God, One Śāstra: Philosophical Developments Towards and 
Within Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta Between Nāthamuni and Veṅkaṭanātha, edited by Elisa 
Freschi and Marcus Schmücker. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der 
Wissenschaften, Forthcoming. 
 
———. “In the World of Men and beyond It: Thoughts on Sheldon Pollock's The Language  
of the Gods in the World of Men.” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the 
Middle East 33, no. 1 (2013): 117–124. 
 
———. “Mīmāṃsā.” In Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism, edited by Knut A. Jacobsen,  
296 
 
Helene Basu, Angelika Malinar, and Vasudha Narayanan. 3 (2011): 643–656. Leiden: 
Brill. 
 
———. The Teleology of Poetics in Medieval Kashmir. Cambridge, Mass.: the Dept. of  
Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University, 2008. 
 
Meghanādārisūri. Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha. Bangalore: Eriṣ Mudrākṣaraśālā, 1910. 
 
Monius, Anne Elizabeth. Imagining a Place for Buddhism: Literary Culture and Religious  
Community in Tamil-Speaking South India. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2001. 
 
Mumme, Patricia Y. The Mumukṣuppaṭi of Piḷḷai Lokācārya with Maṇavāḷamāmuni’s  
Commentary. Ananthacharya Indological Research Institute Series No. XIX, ed. K. K. 
A. Venkatachari. Madras: The Balussery Press, 1987. 
 
———. “Rāmāyana Exegesis in Teṉkalai Srīvaịṇavism.” In Many Rāmāyanas: The Diversity  
of a Narrative Tradition in South Asia, edited by Paula Richman, 202–16. Berkeley: 
University of California Press, 1991. 
 
———. The Śrīvaiṣṇava Theological Dispute: Maṇavāḷamāmuni and Vedānta Deśika.  
Madras: New Era Publications, 1988.  
 
Nakamura, Hajime.  A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy. Tr. Trevor Legget. Vol. 2. Delhi:  
Motilal Banarsidass, 1983. 
 
Narayanan, Vasudha. The Vernacular Veda: Revelation, Recitation, and Ritual. Columbia,  
S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1994. 
 
———. The Way and the Goal: Expressions of Devotion in the Early Śrī Vaiṣṇava  
Community. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Vaishnava Studies, 1987. 
 
Nayar, Nancy Ann. Poetry as Theology: The Śrīvaiṣṇava Stotra in the Age of Rāmānuja.  
Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1992. 
 
Neevel, Walter G. Yāmuna's Vedānta and Pāñcarātra: Integrating the Classical and the  
Popular. Missoula, Mont.: Published by Scholars Press for Harvard theological 
review, 1977. 
 
Nemec, John. “Innovation and Social Change in the Vale of Kashmir, circa 900–1250 C.E.”  
In Śaivism and the Tantric Traditions, edited by Dominic Goodall, Shaman Hatley, 
Harunaga Isaacson, and Srilata Raman. Gonda Indological Studies, Vol. 22, 283–320. 
Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2020. 
 
Oberhammer, Gerhard. “The Influence of Orthodox Vaiṣṇavism on Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta and  
297 
 
Pāñcarātra.” In Studies in Hinduism IV: On the Mutual Influences and Relationship of 
Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta and Pāñcarātra, edited by Gerhard Oberhammer and Marion 
Rastelli, 37–54. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 
2007. 
 
———. Zur spirituellen Praxis des Zufluchtnehmens bei Gott (śaraṇāgatiḥ) vor  
Veṅkaṭanātha. Materialien zur Geschichte der Rāmānuja-Schule Veröffentlichungen 
zu den Sprachen und Kulturen Südasiens 7 710. Wien: Verlag der Österreichen 
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004. 
 
Olivelle, Patrick. The Early Upaniṣads: Annotated Text and Translation. New York: Oxford  
University Press, 1998. 
 
———. Manu’s Code of Law: a Critical Edition and Translation of the Mānava- 
Dharmaśāstra. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. 
 
Ollett, Andrew. Language of the Snakes: Prakrit, Sanskrit, and the Language Order of  
Premodern India. Oakland, California: University of California Press, 2017. 
 
Padmanabhan, S. Pārāśarabhaṭṭa: His Contribution to Viśiṣṭādvaita. Madras: Sri  
Vishishtadvaita Research Centre, 1995. 
 
Pathak, M. M, ed. The Critical Edition of the Viṣṇupurāṇam, Vol. 1. Vadodara: Oriental  
Institute, 1997. 
 
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai. “Parantarahasyam.” In Rahasyagranthas, edited by K. Śrīnivāsa  
Ayyaṅkār. Tirucci: S. Kṛṣṇasvāmi Ayyaṅkār, 1948. 
 
Peterson, Indira Viswanathan. Poems to Śiva: the Hymns of the Tamil Saints. Princeton, N.J.:  
Princeton University Press, 1989. 
 
Piḷḷai Lokācārya. Mumukṣupaṭi. Ed. Kṛṣṇasvāmi Ayyaṅkār. 2nd ed. Tirucci: S. Kṛṣṇasvāmi  
Ayyaṅkār, 1970. 
 
Pollock, Sheldon. The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and  
Power in Premodern India. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. 
 
Potter, Karl. Advaita Vedānta up to Śaṅkara and his Pupils. Vol. 3 of Encyclopedia of Indian  
Philosophies. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1981. 
 
Potter, Karl, and Elisa Freschi. “Meghanādari Sūri,” Pandit.  
https://panditproject.org/entity/85543/person (accessed February 16, 2022). 
 
Raghunathan, Radha. “Śrī Parāśara Bhaṭṭa’s Aṣṭaślokī.” In The Adyar Library Bulletin 2017– 
298 
 
2018: Sri Ramanuja Millenium, edited by T. Narayanan Kutty. Vol. 81–82. Chennai: 
Vasanta Press, 2018. 
 
Rajagopalan, Vasudha. “The Śrī Vaiṣṇava Understanding of Bhakti and Prapatti (From the  
Āḷvārs to Vedānta Deśika).” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Bombay, 1978. 
 
Ramakrishnananda. Life of Sri Rāmānuja. Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1959. 
 
Raman, Srilata. Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism: Tamil Cats and Sanskrit  
Monkeys. London: Routledge, 2007. 
 
Ramanujacarya, M. D., ed. Ahirbudhnya-Saṃhitā of the Pāñcarātrāgama, Vol. 2. Second  
Edition revised by V. Krishnamacharya. Madras: The Adyar Library and Research 
Centre, 1916.  
 
Ramanujachari, R. and K. Srinivasacharya, eds. Nītimālā. Annamalai University, 1940. 
 
Ramanujachari, R. and K. Srinivasacharya, eds. Nyāyakuliśa. Annamalai University, 1938. 
 
Rangachari, K. The Sri Vaishnava Brahmins. Madras: Bulletin of the Madras Government  
Museum, 1931. 
 
Rao, Ajay K. Re-Figuring the Rāmāyaṇa as Theology: A History of Reception in Premodern  
India. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2015. 
 
Rastelli, Marion. “Service as an end in Itself: Viśiṣṭādvaitic Modifications of Pāñcarātra  
Ritual.” In Studies in Hinduism IV: On the Mutual Influences and Relationship of 
Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta and Pāñcarātra, edited by Gerhard Oberhammer and Marion 
Rastelli, 287–314. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 
2007. 
 
Rāmānuja. Gadyatrayam of Bhagavad Rāmānujārya with Śrutiprakāśikābhāṣya of  
Sudarśanasūri and Rahasyarakṣā of Vedāntadeśika, edited by Bhasyam Swamy. 
Melkote: Academy of Sanskrit Research, 2009. 
 
———. Gadyatrayam with Commentaries by Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai and Sudarśanasūri. 
Chennai: RNR Printers & Publishers, 2013. 
 
———. “Gītābhāṣya.” In The Bhagavad-Gītā with Eleven Commentaries, edited by Gajanana  
Shambhu Sadhale Shastri. Delhi: Parimal Publications, 1991 (vol. 1), 1936 (vol. 2), 
1938 (vol. 3). 
 
———. Śrībhāṣya with Śrutaprakāśikā.  Ed. Uttamūr Vīrarāghavācārya.  Madras:  
Ubhayavedāntagranthamālā, 1967. 
 
299 
 
———. The Śrībhāṣya with Uttamur T. Viraraghavacharya’s Commentary. Madras:  
Ubhayavedāntagranthamālā, 1963. 
 
Rāmānujam, V. V., ed. and tr. Gadyatrayam of Bhagavad Rāmānuja (Text in Sanskrit with the  
Commentary of Periya Accān Piḷḷai). Bangalore: Sri Parampara Sabha, 1994. 
 
Reṭṭiyār, Ki Veṅkaṭacāmi, ed. Nālāyirativviyappirapantam. Ceṉṉai: Tiruvēṅkaṭattaṉ  
Tirumaṉaṟam, 1973. 
 
Sakai, Naoki. Translation and Subjectivity: On “Japan” and Cultural Nationalism.  
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997. 
 
———. Voices of the Past: The Status of Language in Eighteenth-Century Japanese  
Discourse. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992. 
 
Shastri, Gajanana Shambhu Sadhale, ed. The Bhagavad-Gītā with Eleven Commentaries.  
Delhi: Parimal Publications, 1991 (vol. 1), 1936 (vol. 2), 1938 (vol. 3). 
 
Shastri, Surendra Nath, ed. Aṣṭaślokī. Delhi: Bharati Printing Press, 1971. 
 
Shulman, David. “Reviewed Work: The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit,  
Culture, and Power in Premodern India by Sheldon Pollock” The Journal of Asian 
Studies 66, no. 3 (2007), 819–825. 
 
———. Tamil: A Biography. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard  
University Press, 2016. 
 
Singh, Satyavrata. Vedānta Deśika: His Life, Works and Philosophy. A Study. Varanasi:  
Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1958. 
 
Skinner, Quentin. “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas.” History and Theory  
8, no. 1 (1969): 3–53. 
 
Sukthankar, V. S., Shripad Krishna Belvalkar, and P. L. Vaidya, eds. The Mahābhārata, Vol.  
6. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1940. 
 
Vaidya, P. L., ed. The Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa: Critical Edition. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1963  
(vol. 3), 1966 (vol. 5), and 1971 (vol. 6). 
 
Varadachari, V. Agamas and South Indian Vaisnavism. Madras: Prof. M. Rangacharya  
Memorial Trust, 1982. 
 
———. “Antiquity of the Term Viśiṣṭādvaita.” The Adyar Library Bulletin XXVI: 177–181,  
1962. 
 
300 
 
Varadācārya. Prapanna parijata. Madras: Visishtadvaita Pracharini Sabha, 1971. 
 
———. Prapannapārijātaḥ. Ed. Uttamur T. Viraraghavacharya. Madras: Visishtadvaita  
Prachạrini Sabha, 1962. 
 
Vātsya, Varadaguru. Prapannapārijāta. Ed. P. V. Ramanujaswami. Tirupati: Tirumala- 
Tirupati Devasthanams, 1954. 
 
Vedāntadeśika. Chatusslokibhashyam, Sthothraratnabhashyam, and Gadyatrayabhashyam, 
edited by Chettaloor V. Srivatsankacharyar. Madras: Sri Vedanta Desika Seventh 
Centenary Trust, 1969. 
 
———. Nikṣeparakṣā, Saccaritrarakṣā, Śrīpāñcarātrarakṣā, Bhugolanirṇaya, and Other  
Works. Kañjīvaram: Śrīmadvedāntadeśikagranthamālā, 1941. 
 
———. Rahasyarakṣā: Srimad Vedanta Desikaʾs Chatusslokibhashyam,  
Sthothraratnabhashyam, and Gadyatrayabhashyam. Madras: Sri Vedanta Desika 
Seventh Centenary Trust, 1969. 
 
———. Srimad Rahasya Trayasara with Sara Vistara (Commentary) by Sri Uttamur T.  
Viraraghavacharya. 2 vols. Madras: Ubhayavedāntagranthamālā, 1980.  
 
———. Śrīmannikamāntamahātēcikan̲ aruḷiya Cillarai rahasyaṅkaḷ, edited by Vaṅkīpuram  
Navanītam Śrīrāmatēcikācāriyar Svāmi. Tañcāvūr: V.R. Rāmasvāmi Aiyaṅkār, 1900. 
 
Venkatachari, K. K. A. The Manipravāla Literature of the Śrīvaiṣṇava Ācāryas, 12th to 15th  
Century A.D. Bombay: Ananthacharya Research Institute, 1978. 
 
Venkatesan, Archana. Endless Song: Tiruvaymoli. Haryana: Penguin Random House India,  
2020.  
 
Yājñavalkyasmr̥tiḥ. Mumbayyāṃ: Tukārāma Jāvajī, 1909. 
 
Young, Katherine K. “Brāhmaṇas, Pāñcarātrins, and the Formation of Śrīvaiṣṇavism.” In  
Studies in Hinduism IV: On the Mutual Influences and Relationship of Viśiṣṭādvaita 
Vedānta and Pāñcarātra, edited by Gerhard Oberhammer and Marion Rastelli, 179–
261. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007. 
 
 
 
 
 
301