[Footnote 482:  Lueder’s List of Brahmi inscriptions, No. 6, supposed not to be later than 200 B.C. and No. 1112 supposed to be of the first century B.C.  Sankarshana is also mentioned in the Kautiliya Arthasastra, XIII. 3.]

[Footnote 483:  Some Samhitas emphasize the distinction between the followers of the Veda and the enlightened ones who worship the Lord.  See Schrader, Pancaratra, 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 and combination of documents,