aagamA-s

[Guest guest]

--- Mani Varadarajan <mani

wrote:

> As far as the various Vaishnava Agama texts are

> concerned, other

> members have already pointed out articles by Sri

> Krishnamachari

> which detail their contents.

>

> adiyen ramanuja dasan,

> Mani

>

 

Mani,

 

If you read Sri.krishnamachari's posts in the archives

in this matter it appears clearly that it is NOT a

settled matter that 'agamA-s' are not part of Veda-s.

 

In fact he begins a paragraph saying,

 

Quote:

" SrI vedAnta deSika in his tatva-mukta-kalApa points

out that the =pAncarAtra system originated from the

ekAyana Sakha portion of the =veda-s. The chAndogya

upanishad refers to the ekAyana Sakha as the veda =

of veda-s, the treasure of the gods, and the sacred

utterance among all =utterances. ekAyana means "the

only means".

".....pancamam vedAnAm vedam pitryam rASim

daivam nidhim vAkovAkyam =ahma-sutra-s.

UNquote

 

Mani, I have done no research whatsoever on this

subject except reading a few articles on it. So I

don't claim any sort of irrefutability in these

matters. But perhaps you or Sri.Krishnamachari himself

can explain what exactly the above passage means?

 

dAsan,

Sampathkumaran

 

 

 

 

Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

http://im.

[Guest guest]

Dear SrimAn Anbil,

 

Thank you for your clarifications re: the non-Vedic

origins of the AgamA-s. (Sri.Anbil, thank you too very

much for your private-mail to me on the subject which

too was very enlightening).

 

Adiyen "confusion" arises not out of the word

"samhita" (as Mani said) but basically but because in

certain articles (some TTD magazine, I think) I had

read in the past on the subject I remember reading

clearly the authors stating that the 'pAncharAtra'

system was extensively inspired by both "samkhyA" and

yogA systems. And since "samkhyA" according to the

MahabhAratA also traces its roots to Vedic philosophy,

adiyen (perhaps mistakenly, I don't know) thought that

it follows that the AagamA-s too have their basic

origins in the Vedas only.

 

The aagamA-s deal with cosmogony. The "jyotisha-anga"

of the Vedas too deal with cosmogony and astronomy. So

I had figured that the aagama must have its roots

somewhere in the Veda or VedAnga.

 

Further reading Sri.KrishnamAchari's post on the

bhakti-archive (which adiyen had read much earlier

even) I had believed his reference to Sri.Desikan's

note in the tattva-mukta-kalApa that the

"pAncha-rAtrA" system has its origins in the "ekAyana

sAkhA" of the Vedas... I had believed that finally

settled the matter for me.

 

Adiyen is still not sure what the exact position on

this matter is.

 

Sri.Anbil is probably right when he says, " what my

Acharyas have explained is that the Vedas are like

Departmental

Stores (Pala Sarakku Kadai) catering to the needs of

all and any consumers. This aspect has been taken

advantage of by Non-Vedic literatures to derive some

semblance of authenticity for their own projections

because in those

days people respected any view only if shown to derive

inspiration from Vedas. May be, this is possibly one

example of these."

 

Sir, if our temples are "aagami-c" and aagama is not

Vedic at all, then what are we Veda-Vedantic adherents

of various hues doing inside a "non-Vedic" temple?

 

Yes, Sir, it is all really a little "confusing", yes

it is indeed!

 

dAsan,

Sampathkumaran

 

 

 

 

Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

http://im.

[Guest guest]

sampath kumar writes:

> Mani, I have done no research whatsoever on this

> subject except reading a few articles on it. So I

> don't claim any sort of irrefutability in these

> matters.

 

Sri Sampath Kumar,

 

To settle this question of the status of the Agamas,

we should go to the original sources. Unanimously,

all our acharyas as well as acharyas outside our

tradition (Sankara, Madhva, et al) have recognized

that the Agamas and Vedas are two different bodies

of scripture.

 

Let's look at the two types of scripture for a moment.

 

The Vedas are unauthored, eternal, "preterpersonal"

texts (apaurusheya). Being eternal, they do not

have an origin in time, not even from Brahman (Narayana).

This is established in the mImAmsA and is accepted

both by the ritualists (pUrva-mImAmsakas) and

Vedantins (uttara-mImAmsakas). Only the Veda is known

as "Sruti", meaning eternal words that are "heard",

not read or written.

 

All Agamas, whether Vaishnava, Saiva, or Sakta, on the

other hand, are *authored* texts. Among the Vaishnava Agamas,

there are two varieties, the Pancaratra and the Vaikhanasa,

the former being prevalent. The Pancaratra is universally

known in our tradition as "Bhagavat Sastra", because

it is believed by us to have been authored by Bhagavan Narayana

Himself. The Vaikhanasa texts are believed to be authored

by rishis, beginning with Vikhano Muni.

 

This difference between the two sets of scriptures is

taken as axiomatic by the ancient scholars. Let me cite

Sri Yamunacharya's statements in his monumental treatise

"On the Validity of the Agama" (Agama prAmANyam), the

first work establishing the authority of the Pancaratra

texts against outside objections.

 

Notice how Yamuna assumes a distinction between the Veda

and the Pancaratra Agamas:

 

There should be certainty about the lack of defects

of the self-validity of both bodies of texts.

In the case of [the Veda] there is certainty because

there is no person who authored it, and therefore no

possible source for the defect; in the case of [the

Pancaratra] there is certainty because the author

of the texts [bhagavan] possesses virtues which preclude

all defects.

 

-- Para 112

 

[ etad uktam bhavati - ubhayor api svataH prAmANyayor

ekatra doshAbhAvaniScayaH, tad ASraya-purusha-abhAva-

niScayAt, anyatra tad viruddha-guNa-vaktRkatva-niScayAd

iti ]

 

In para 82, Yamuna further establishes that the Pancaratra sastra

is a perfect text, because it is *created* by Narayana. This

is why, in his view, the Agamas and Tantras of other schools

are not authoritative. Their authorship rests with imperfect

beings such such as Rudra, etc., and they communicate ideas

that are at odds with the Vedas.

 

Now, what about the statement that the Agamas have their

origin in the Ekayana Sakha of the Yajur Veda? If you read

Yamuna's arguments, he says this in reply to people who

argue that the Pancaratra Agamas have practices which are

*nowhere mentioned* in the Vedas. Yamuna replies that

the followers of the Pancaratra simply follow a different

branch of the Veda, which indeed contains descriptions of

similiar practices. Because the Ekayana Sakha (and indeed

other parts of the Veda) were difficult to understand,

Bhagavan Narayana condensed it, took the essence,

and presented it again as the Pancaratra Agamas:

 

The Omniscient Lord Hari took the essence of the

Upanishads and condensed it out of compassion

for his devotees, for their convenience.

 

-- Para 89, from Pancaratra Agama quoted by Yamuna

 

[ vedanteshu yathAsAram sangRhya bhagavAn hariH |

bhaktAnukampayA vidvAn sancikshepa yathAsukham || ]

 

Ramanuja follows this line of argumentation in brief in

the Sribhashya, and as cited earlier, Desika accepts this

distinction as well.

 

Sankaracharya would certainly have accepted the Pancaratra

entirely if it were part of the Vedic samhita; he would

have no choice in doing so, as he is a Vaidika. On the other

hand, he finds it possible to reject its authority in his

Brahma-Sutra bhashya precisely because it is not *part* of

the Vedas, but an outside body of texts. (See comments on

Pancaratra-adhikaraNa for both Ramanuja and Sankara).

 

Furthermore, the Pancaratra does not have svara, etc., which

characterize any portion of a Vedic samhita.

 

I hope this establishes clearly that while the Pancaratra

Agama is *based* on the Vedas (as argued by our acharyas),

it is not *part* of the Vedas.

 

adiyen ramanuja dasan,

Mani

[Guest guest]

--- Mani Varadarajan <mani

wrote:

> Sankaracharya would certainly have accepted the

> Pancaratra> entirely if it were part of the Vedic

samhita; he> would > have no choice in doing so, as he

is a Vaidika. On> the other> hand, he finds it

possible to reject its authority> in his> Brahma-Sutra

bhashya precisely because it is not> *part* of> the

Vedas, but an outside body of texts.

> Mani

>

 

Mani,

This is a very clever, very valid point. Adiyen

confesses I'd never thought of it before in that

angle!

 

According to you, Sankara's endorsement can be

regarded almost as a "litmus-test" to check if the

aagamA-s are Vedic or not! Applying this test, I

agree, the aagama will undoubtedly fail the "test" of

"Veda-centricity".

 

Which still leaves us with the question what business

we (all who like to believe we are adherents of true

Veda-Vedanta tradition) have inside a temple which is

'aagami-c' but can never be said to be genuinely

Vedic?

 

Food for thought!

Thanks,

dAsan,

Sampathkumaran

 

 

Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

http://im.