Vedic Religion

[Anand V. Hudli]

On Thu, 5 Aug 1999 04:18:08 +0000, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM>
wrote:

>On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Anand V. Hudli wrote:
>
>>   the vaikhAnasa, pancharAtra, etc. I am not against such worship, but
the
>        ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I was going to ask abouth this.  The Vaikhanas school claim to be a shakha
>of the Krshnayajuraveda and even have a shrautasutra, grhyasutra etc.  Yet
>they also have agamas.  So what does that tell us about the origins of
>pancharatra?  Have any later scholars considered this?

 I would appreciate if someone could post some information on
 vaikhAnasa Agamas. I don't think there is any vedic shAkhA of the
 krishna yajur veda today with the name "vaikhAnasa." Whether there was
 some shAkhA by the same name does not tell us much. It may be a
 coincidence for all we know. At any rate, the worship I was referring to
 is Agamic, not Vedic. Moreover, the standard vedic way of worshipping
 gods, perhaps even more importantly than temple worship, is by yajnas
 and homas (devAH yajnapriyAH). One does not see (today at least) any such
 sacrifices being performed as per a "vaikhAnasa" style.

>
>Also the term 'Satvata' is that a synonym for Pancharatra and/or Bhagavata
>or something else differently?
>
 Krishna is called sAtvatAM patiH sometimes in the bhAgavata purANa.
 According to some, sAtvatas were a class of worshippers of Krishna perhaps
 of nonbrAhminical origin, but I am not sure. These terms are loosely used
 or are used in their grammatical sense, so it is difficult to give a
 precise meaning in all contexts. Sometimes bhAgavata and pancharAtra
 are used synonymously but again they may be used in differently. At least,
 I know for sure that among smArtas, we don't use the term sAtvata in place
 of bhAgavata.

 Anand