This article re-examines the famous muni hymn, Rgveda 10.136, arguing that its depiction of munis is anomalous in comparison to wider literary contexts. A close examination of all attestations of munis in the Rgveda and Atharvaveda suggests they were ascetics associated with drug concoctions and ritual formulas capable of both healing and causing harmful bodily and psychological conditions. They are also described as plagued with madness and closely linked to the god Rudra, who is well known for causing and curing illness. In Rgveda 10.136, however, their characteristics are interspersed with motifs from royal and soma rites, a poetic inversion of their depiction elsewhere.
Abstract This paper argues that the eighteenth-century intellectual landscape was no less dynamic or significant than that of earlier periods. It demonstrates that the eighteenth century constituted another critical phase in the structuring and restructuring of the intellectual tradition of the South Indian Śrīvaiṣṇavas, whose philosophical system is Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta (qualified non-dualism). One of the defining theological features of the Śrīvaiṣṇava tradition is the soteriological doctrine of self-surrender (prapatti). This doctrine had been well established since the medieval period, most prominently by the fourteenth-century theologian Vedānta Deśika. His Manipravalam work, the Rahasyatrayasāram, is regarded by the contemporary Śrīvaiṣṇava tradition as the culmination of Śrīvaiṣṇava soteriology, and the issue of self-surrender is often considered settled after his time. However, the eighteenth-century Śrīvaiṣṇava scholar Gopāla Deśika, in his independent treatise Nikṣepacintāmaṇi, re-presented self-surrender as a contested doctrinal site. He identified unresolved issues inherited from Vedānta Deśika’s system, revealing ongoing divergences within his intellectual milieu. In particular, Gopāla Deśika foregrounded debates concerning the auxiliaries and types of self-surrender, which were not central concerns for Vedānta Deśika. His work thus illuminates both the reception of Vedānta Deśika’s soteriology and the significance of the eighteenth century as an active moment of intellectual debate within the Śrīvaiṣṇava tradition.
