, p. 97.]

[Footnote 484: Syam iti Sankalpa, Ahirbudh. Sam. II. 7. In some late
Upanishads (_e.g._ Naradaparivrajaka and Brihatsannyasa) Cakri is used
as a synonym for a Pancaratra.]

[Footnote 485: The same is true of Ramanuja, who never quotes the
Bhagavata Purana.]

[Footnote 486: See the quotations from the Sattvata Samhita in
Schrader, pp. 150-154. As in the Pancaratra there is the Para above
the four Vyuhas, so some late forms of Buddhism regard Vairocana as
the source of four Jinas.]

[Footnote 487: The Manicheans also had groups of five deities (see
Chavannes and Pelliot in _J.A._ 1913, I. pp. 333-338) but they are
just as likely to have borrowed from Buddhism as _vice versa._]

[Footnote 488: See Bhattacharya, _Hindu Castes and Sects_, p. 565.]

[Footnote 489: Manu, I. 10-11, identifies him with Brahma and says,
"The waters are called Narah because they are produced from Nara, and
he is called Narayana because they were his place of movement
(ayana)." The same statement occurs in the Narayaniya.]

[Footnote 490: They are said to have been the sons of Dharma (religion
or righteousness) and Ahimsa (not-injuring). This is obvious allegory
indicating that the Bhagavata religion rejected animal sacrifices. At
the beginning of the Narayaniya (Santip. cccxxxv.) it is said that
Narayana the soul of the universe took birth in a quadruple form as
the offspring of Dharma, _viz._ Nara, Narayana, Hari and Krishna.
Nara and Narayana are often identified with Arjuna and Vasudeva.
_e.g._ Udyogap. xxlx. 19.]

[Footnote 491: Mahabhar. XII.]

[Footnote 492: It is an episode in Mahabhar. VI. and in its present
form was doubtless elaborated apart from the rest. But we may surmise
that the incident of Krishna's removing Arjuna's scruples by a
discourse appeared in the early versions of the story and also that
the discourse was longer and profounder than would seem appropriate to
the European reader of a tale of battles. But as the Vedanta
philosophy and the doctrine of Krishna's godhead developed, the
discourse may have been amplified and made to include later
theological views. Garbe in his German translation attempts to
distinguish the different strata and his explanation of the
inconsistencies as due to successive redactions and additions may
contain some truth. But these inconsistencies in theology are common
to all sectarian writings and I think the main cause for them must be
sought not so much in the alteration an