Janitota Viṣṇoḥ

श्री लक्ष्मीहयग्रीवाय नमः 

श्रीमदानन्दतीर्थभगवत्पादाचार्यगुरुभ्यो नमः 

श्रीमद्वादिराजतीर्थगुरुभ्यो नमः

श्री गुरुभ्यो नमः

The most important tenet of Shrimad Anandatirtha Bhagavatpadacharya’s school is Vishnu-sarvottamatva - the absolute / supreme sovereignty of Vishnu. This tenet is based on the fact that the apauruṣeya Vedas propound Vishnu’s unmatchable supremacy and do not mention any flaws in Him, while declaring flaws in other deities: गुणान् विष्णोः श्रुतिश्चाह नैव दोषान् कथञ्चन (Rgbhashya). Authored texts like Puranas are acceptable only if they are aligned with, rather not contrary to this primary Vedic tenet. 

The part i.e. Vedas do not mention any flaws in Vishnu - is contested on the basis of Vedic sentences like the following verse from Rigveda (9.96.5), and answered in various texts of the Dvaita school:

सोमः पवते जनिता मतीनां जनिता दिवो जनिता पृथिव्याः ।

जनिताग्नेः जनिता सूर्यस्य जनितेन्द्रस्य जनितोत विष्णोः ॥

This seems to say that Soma is the janitā (i.e. creator or father) of Vishnu. Thereby, it ascribes the flaw or a limitation of Vishnu. A Being who is born cannot be the Unborn Supreme Being.

It may be in a direct contradiction with the Mahā Upanishat’s statement:
एको ह वै नारायण आसीत्, न ब्रह्मा नेशानो नापो नाग्नीषोमौ नेमे द्यावापृथिवी न नक्षत्राणि न सूर्यो न चन्द्रमाः
(Only Narayana was at the beginning of Creation, and Soma wasn’t there. How can Soma then give birth to Narayana / Vishnu?). But still, how does one understand such vedic statements which ascribe flaws like birth etc. to Vishnu. 

Shrimad Acharya explains the approach to understand such statements that seem to ascribe flaws in Vishnu:

• अतो दोषवचो यत्र तद्वाक्यमवरं वदेत् । (Rgbhashya)
  (Such flaw-ascribing statements have to be interpreted as referring to some inferior being or entity.
  
  

• विष्ण्वाधिक्यविरोधीनि यानि वेदवचांस्यपि ।
  तानि योज्यान्यानुकूल्याद् विष्ण्वाधिक्यस्य सर्वशः ॥ (Mahabharata-tatparya-nirnaya)
  Whichever Vedic statements are in conflict with Vishnu’s supremacy should be interpreted suitably i.e. in line with (without compromising) Vishnu’s supremacy.
  
  

This approach naturally raises the question of sectarian bias and circularity: Vishnu is sarvottama because Vedas do not ascribe flaws to Him. Whichever Vedic statements ascribe flaws to Him should be reinterpreted because He is sarvottama (i.e. without any flaws) (See p.s.1).

This circularity has been answered by Shrimad Acharya himself: 

1. In Rgbhashya, Acharya quotes Mānya shruti that explicitly declares Vishnu alone is flawless:
   निर्दोषगुणपूर्णश्च विष्णुरेको न चापरः ।
   अपूर्णा दोषरहिता मायैका तद्वशैव च ॥
   अदोषः प्रायशो ब्रह्मा दोषवन्तः क्रमात्परे ।
   Thus, the Mānyashruti holds: Vishnu alone is nirdoṣa and guṇapūrṇa. Lakshmi (referred here as māyā) is apūrṇa (deficient compared to Vishnu) but is nirdoṣa and is in His control. Brahma, for most part, does not have any flaws. Others have flaws but in a certain order of magnitude.
   
   Similar such shrutis that explicitly declare Vishnu to be flawless are quoted in other sarvamula works. So such explicit statements break the circularity.
   
   

But that only gets us two contradictory sets of statements - one, which say Vishnu is flawless and the other, which ascribe flaws to Vishnu. Why should we favor the former over the latter? That is answered further.

2. This is in Anuvyakhyana:
   गुणाः श्रुता इति ह्यस्मान् न दोषोऽर्थः श्रुतेर्भवेत्
   The Vedic statement ‘गुणाः श्रुता’ explicitly states that the Vedas do not mention flaws in Vishnu.
   [Here’s the full verse: गुणाः श्रुताः सुविरुद्धाश्च देवे सन्त्यश्रुता अपि नैवात्र शङ्का । चिन्त्या अचिन्त्याश्च तथैव दोषाः श्रुताश्च न, अज्ञैः हि तथा प्रतीताः |
   The Vedas mention virtues in the Lord; even such virtues that seem contradictory (like being infinitesimal and infinite simultaneously) from a worldly perspective. Ofcourse, there are virtues, which are not mentioned in the Vedas. All these virtues are both contemplable and not contemplable. (That is, one can contemplate only as per one’s capability. But there is a large non-contemplatable part). Similarly, no flaws are mentioned in the Vedas. Only ignorant people perceive such.]
   This Vedic statement reveals the purport of all vedic statements. Moreover, it acknowledges that people do perceive flaws in Vishnu, but dismisses them as the ignorant people's delusions.
   Since Vedas' own statement about all vedic corpus is superior to non-vedic interpretations that ascribe flaws to Vishnu, we must favor statements that mention Vishnu as flawless over the statements that seem to ascribe flaws in Vishnu. Since the second set is also a vedic set, we cannot altogether discard them, instead we should re-interpret them.

3. In Anuvyakhyana, Acharya mentions the following in a different context:
   आगमैकप्रमाणेषु तस्यैव ह्युपजीव्यता
   The idea here is that Veda is upajīvya (dependent) on either Pratyakṣa (perception) or Agama itself, and in few cases on Anumāna. For example, in the case of the sentence tat tvam asi, the tvam part is supplied by pratyakṣa (i.e. sākṣi pratyakṣa i.e. experience). Thus, the sentence is dependent on pratyakṣa. Therefore it should not be interpreted in such a manner that contradicts the upajīvya (that on which it is dependent). Contradicting that, on which its existence is dependent, is a flaw called upajīvya-virodha.
   
   Now, in cases of entities that are known to us solely through Agama, one part of Veda is upajīvya to another. (While the ‘tat’ part is one such), Shri Jayatirtha gives this instance, which is relevant to us:
   आगमैकप्रमाणकेषु विष्ण्वादिविषयेषु प्रवर्तमानं ‘जनितोत विष्णोः’ इत्यादिवेदं प्रति ‘निरनिष्टो निरवद्यः’ इत्यादेस्तस्य वेदस्य उपजीव्यता इत्यर्थः|
   
   The phrase ‘janitota viṣṇoḥ’ refers to the creator of Vishnu. This sentence presumes prior knowledge of a Being called Vishnu, and predicates Soma as the creator of Vishnu. Where is such prior knowledge of Vishnu obtained from? It is obtained from vedic sentences such as निरनिष्टो निरवद्यः. These sentences introduce Vishnu to us, not just as any being, but as one who does not possess any flaws (no undesirables), unobjectionable etc. Therefore निरनिष्टो निरवद्यः is the upajīvya pramāṇa. And janitota viṣṇoḥ should be interpreted in such a manner that it does not contradict the upajīvya-pramāṇa.

[Though the shruti निरनिष्टो निरवद्यः seems unavailable to us as of now, it seemed available to Shri Vyasarājaru, who completes the line in his Nyāyamṛta: निरनिष्टो निरवद्यः शोकं मोहमत्येति नित्यमुक्तः and his opponent Madhusudana Sarasvati, who does not complain about having to deal with a fabricated text. In any case, equivalent sentences like स एष सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा अपहतपाप्मा दिव्यो देव एको नारायणः - (from Subala Upanishat) which introduce Narayana as a Being, who is sinless, who is the Supreme Lord inside all beings etc. - serve our purpose.]

4. Shrimad Acharya mentions, across his works, another yukti (reasoning). If Vedas ascribe flaws to Vishnu, it defeats their purpose viz. which is to help jivas beget mokṣa. Moksha can be obtained by Vishnu’s grace. The worldly wisdom (laukika nyāya) points out that berating somebody (on right or wrong grounds) cannot be the means to obtain that person’s favor or grace. This is more so for a person with exalted qualities. So the Vedas cannot predicate flaws in Vishnu. It is anyway against explicitly stated Mahā-tatparya (the grand purport). Therefore, statements that seem to ascribe flaws to Bhagavan need to be reinterpreted. However, since that yukti does not deal with the interpretation of janitota viṣṇoḥ, it is not detailed here.
   
   

5. In this very MBTN line तानि योज्यान्यानुकूल्याद् विष्ण्वाधिक्यस्य सर्वशः where Acharya suggests interpreting the flaw-ascribing set suitably i.e. without compromising Vishnu's supremacy, he hints at another reason. The reason is bahutva - numbers (or statistical signficance).  The number of statements that refer to Vishnu as Supreme (and as flawless) is far higher than the number of statements that ascribe flaws to Vishnu. So it is fair to reinterpret (i.e. not accept the direct meaning but look for alternate acceptable meanings) fewer statements than the other way around. Therefore, it is correct to reinterpret the flaw-ascribing statements like जनितोत विष्णोः, rather than statements of his flawslessness. Acharya has hinted this by the phrase - विष्ण्वाधिक्यस्य सर्वशः. I must caution that most Tippanikaras have not said this.
   
   

6. Shri Vadiraja tirtha mentions, in his gurvarthadIpikā (on Nyāyasudhā), that Bhagavan is niraniṣṭa (does not have any aniṣṭa i.e. undesirable) because he is niravadya. Since he does not have anything objectionable (niravadya), he is flawless. By this, the shruti indicates that those who still doubt the possibility of flaws in Vishnu, are being illogical for accepting the existence of an effect (flaw), without its causes (objectionable qualities) being in place:
   अनिष्टमूलावद्यं निरवद्य इति निवारयन्त्या श्रुत्याऽक्षिणी निमील्य तथापि भगवत्यनिष्टं वदन्तं प्रति अकारणकार्योत्पत्तिरूपव्याख्यानस्य सूचितत्वाच्च वेधादिशङ्कैव नोचिता.
   [For this reason, this shruti (निरनिष्टो निरवद्यः) has an embedded upapatti (logic) and is therefore prabala (stronger) than any contradictory but plain shruti.]

So what then could be the meaning of जनितोत विष्णोः, which holds that Soma is Vishnu’s creator? Three solutions are provided:

1. Shri Jayatirtha writes in his Nyāyasudhā: विष्णुरिति यजमानस्य यज्ञस्य वा नाम, तौ सोमाद्भवत इति सोमो जनितोत विष्णोरित्युच्यते.
   The word Vishnu in above sentence refers to either the yajamāna (conductor of the sacrifice) or the sacrifice itself. Both of them are born (get their qualities as yajamānatva and yajnatva) from Soma. Hence Soma is called as Vishnu’s janitā.
   
   Shri Shrinivasa tirtha's Tippaṇi on Rgbhashya Tika is helpful:
   तथा च सोमलताविशेषो विष्णोः सोमसवनं कर्तुं यजमानस्य जनिता ।  याजमान्यस्य सोमाधीनात्वाद् इति सम्भावितदोषवान् यजमान एव विष्णुशब्देन उच्यते न विष्णुः  इत्याहुः ।  वस्तुतस्तु 'मखो विष्णुरिन्दुः' इति यज्ञनामसु विष्णुशब्दस्य पठितत्वात् । विष्णोः यज्ञस्य सोमलतारूपो जनिता, यज्ञस्य सोमाधीनोत्पत्तिकत्वाद् इत्यर्थो द्रष्टव्यः ।
   Thus, ‘Soma’ i.e. the special creeper (used in sacrifices) is called as the 'janitā' (producer) of the yajamāna (sacrificer). One becomes a yajamāna if one is able to perform a yajna, for which possessing soma is a prerequisite. This yajamāna, whose yajamāna-ness is dependent on Soma, is referred here as viṣṇu, not the Lord Viṣṇu. But, as a matter of fact, the word viṣṇu is counted among one of the synonyms of yajna. Thus, the soma creeper is (called) the 'janitā' (i.e, the producer) of viṣṇu i.e. the sacrifice, for, a sacrifice too is dependent on the soma.
   
   All Tippaṇīkārās refer to the Nighaṇṭu to explain this line - ‘मखो विष्णुरिन्दुः’ इति यज्ञनामसु पठितत्वात्. Nighaṇṭu 3.17 gives the 15 names of yajna: यज्ञः, वेनः, अध्वरः, मेधः, विदथः, नार्यः, सवनं, होत्रा, इष्टिः, देवताता, मखः, विष्णुः, इन्दुः, प्रजापतिः, घर्म.
   
   [In this explanation, the parts of the above Rk which refer to Soma as the creator of the earth, the heavens, agni, surya and Indra should be understood as referring to the corresponding devatas getting their devatā-role in the yajna, or Ahutis made possible by Soma.]
   
   

2. Shri Vadiraja tirtha gives a different explanation in his Yuktimallikā and Bhāvaprakāshikā (commentary on Mahābhārata-tātparya-nirṇaya):
   
   Soma in this entire section refers to Vāyu, because the speaker, in the immediately preceding line, declares to talk about Pavamāna Soma (तदहं वच्मि पवमान सोम). Even the word ‘pavana’ i.e. to purify / flow is Vāyu’s characteristic.
   [He points out that the Soma referred here cannot be Rudra. The standard practice of Vedic commentators is to avoid splitting common words. For example, nobody splits सजूः (meaning together / simultaneously) as स and जूः. Similarly one must avoid splitting soma as स-उम i.e. he who is along with Uma. Thus Soma here cannot refer to Rudra. ]

This Vāyu, who is the abhimāni devata for Mahat-tattva, is indeed the creator for rest of the deities like agni, indra etc. This Vāyu is the creator of the wise (janitā matīnāṃ). That is, Vāyu, seated inside wise people, gives them Viṣṇu-jñāna i.e. knowledge about Vishnu.
Another way to look at it is: The above attributes - moving around (pavate) the various places, instilling tattvajnāna among the wise people (as is told in the Balittha sukta) - are present in Vāyu’s avatāra as Shri Madhvacharya. So he is refered in this part as the ‘janitā’.

Wrong knowledge such as the falsity of qualified-beings like agni, indra, surya, viṣṇu (i.e. only consciousness is real, other qualities are not real) is dispelled by Vāyu (or his avatara). He instills correct knowledge about real existence of such deities and their bodies. Even he, who justifies (not just makes) the body's reality, is also a creator. In that sense, Vāyu is their creator - from the perspective of the recipients of that knowledge.

Making a thing known correctly is also a type of birth for that thing. This is told in the Veda itself: 1.164.16: यस्ता विजानात् स पितुः पितासत् (Whoever knows the father in this manner becomes the father of such father).
Thus, जनितोत विष्णोः means Vāyu provides knowledge about Vishnu.

In this explanation, Vāyu is referred as Soma. So the rest of the Rk means - Vāyu is the creator of agni, surya etc. and also makes them known in the right manner to the sādhakas. In case of Vishnu, Vāyu makes him (Viṣṇu) known in the right manner. This too is indicated by the phrase ‘janitā matInām’.
(In his gurvarthadipika, Shri Vadiraja  gives one more meaning.  Vāyu in his avatara rupa gives protection to the avataras of Agni, Indra and Surya. 5 people, including a biological father, can be referred as janitā. One of them is protector from fear (bhayatrātā) is also called janitā. Since Vāyu avataras have protected these deities' avatārās from fear, he is called janitā for those deities).

Please do refer to Yuktimallika Phalasaurabha for more explanation and details, esp. to understand the rest of the Vedamantra. Here, Soma (Vāyu) is explained as the future brahma, the provider of knowledge through upadesha (Rishi), the provider of strength in the best among animals, best of the birds and even other instruments.

3. There is another interpretation from Shri Padmanabha tirtha:
   जनितोत विष्णोरिति वाक्यं तु सोमादिशब्दवाच्यात् क्षीराब्धिशयनात् मूलरूपाद् विष्णु-शब्दाभिधेय-प्रादुर्भावरूपस्य विवक्षया उपपन्नम् |
   
   Soma etc. in that passage refer to the Mūlarūpa (of Narayana, who is present before the brahmanda is created). From that Mūlarūpa, one of the forms called Vishnu emanates. This emanation of Vishnu’s form from the Mūlarūpa is referred to here as ‘janitota viṣṇoḥ’.
   
   But where is this mentioned? Ofcourse, it is not surprising that Narayana is denoted by the name Soma. After all, Narayana being sarva-shabda-vāchya is a well established tenet. But where is the latter part - Vishnu is one of the emanant forms from this mūlarūpa - mentioned? 
   
   All avatāra forms of Bhagavan are also sarva-shabda-vāchya (denoted by all words), for the same reason - that each form possesses the positive quality (or qualities) denoted by any given word OR is the controller of negative quality, if that word denotes a negative quality. 
   That’s why one finds references to avatāra forms being referred as Vishnu. For example, in Bhagavad Gita 11th chapter, Arjuna refers to Krishna as Vishnu: धृतिं न विन्दामि शमं च विष्णो and भासस्तवोग्राः प्रतपन्ति विष्णो. And thus, the shruti phrase ‘janitota viṣṇoḥ’ narrates the emanation of the avatāra forms from the mūlarūpa.
   
   It is not just during creation or at the beginning of a specific avatāra, that avatāra forms emanate from the mūlarūpa. In MBTN 9th chapter, Acharya mentions that Rāma merged into the Mūlarūpa of Bhagavan, who sleeps on the Kṣirābdhi. At that point, he says that infinite forms of Lord emanate from this form and merge back into the mūlarūpa:
   कदाचिदीशः सकलावतारानेकं विधायाहिपतौ च शेते  ।
   पृथक् च संव्यूह्य कदाचिदिच्छया रेमे रमेशोऽमितसद्गुणार्णवः ॥
   So this too justifies Shri Padmanabha tirtha's commentary.
   
   Further, there is another event in which an emanant form is called Vishnu. Though this form does not emanate from the Mūlarūpa, who rests on the milky ocean (Kshirabdhi-shāyi), it still is interesting.
   
   In MBTN 3rd chapter, Acharya mentions the sequence of events at the time of Creation. Broadly, there are 3 stages: 

• Sūkṣma-sṛṣṭi outside Brahmanda

• Sthūla-sṛṣṭi outside Brahmanda

• Creation of Brahmanda and all gods entering it.

In the second stage, Vāsudeva brings forth, from Māyā (his consort), his own three forms called Vishnu, Brahma (or Virinchi) and Shiva. These forms are all Vishnu himself. Though there is no difference between these three forms, Vishnu’s form is associated with Sattva-guṇa, Brahma’s form is associated with Rajo-guṇa and Sharva (Rudra)’s form is associated with Tamo-guṇa. The Brahma form of Vishnu is seated inside Brahma (Chaturmukha Brahma, who is associated with Creation within Brahmanda). Similarly, the Rudra form of Vishnu is inside Rudra (who is associated with destruction within Brahmanda).
Acharya’s verse is as follows:
पुनश्च माया त्रिविधा बभूव सत्त्वादिरूपैरथ वासुदेवात्  ।
सत्त्वात्मिकायां स बभूव तस्मात् स विष्णुनामैव निरन्तरोऽपि  ।
रजस्तनौ चैव विरिञ्च आसीत् तमस्तनौ शर्व इति त्रयोऽस्मात्  ॥
Thus, this verse refers to birth i.e. emanation of Vishnu’s form from the mūlarūpa here. The Bhagavata too mentions Lord’s forms emanating from his mūlarūpa as a type of Creation (tri-sarga includes this). It is called Shuddha-sṛṣṭi).

In this explanation, Soma refers to the Mūlarūpa. The rest of the Rk describe this Mūlarūpa creating other deities like Indra.

With the above explanations, it can be seen that there is no contradiction with the Mahā Upanishat’s statement which asserts Narayana alone to be every devata’s creator. Thus, there is no flaw in Vishnu as per the Vedas. 

श्री मध्वेशकृष्णार्पणमस्तु

A similar circularity has been expressed by Valerie Stoker elsewhere:
"This etymological approach demonstrates that Vişnu's supremacy and the subordination of the other deities beneath Him is the fundamental premise on which all words of the sacred texts must be interpreted. It is Vişnu's status as supreme and therefore as sarvasabdavācya that both guides and sets limits on explorations into the meanings of words. This understanding of how etymology ought to function in Rgvedic commentary is what allows Madhva to argue that negative statements cannot refer to Vişnu at the level of conventional usage. Furthermore, this approach to the meaning of words in the sacred texts is based on circular reasoning: we can prove through etymology that Vişņu is conveyed by all words but etymology must be conducted so that it proves that Vişņu is conveyed by all words."

As we can see, there is no circular reasoning. Just as the Veda dictates Vishnu to be sarvanāmavān (yo devānāṃ nāmadhā eka eva), they also declare ḥim to be flawless. The above article discussed why such śrutis are stronger than ones like janitota viṣṇoḥ.