pA'ncarAtra - An Overview - Part 3.

[Guest guest]

Dear BhAgavatottama-s:

 

I had submitted two parts on the above title in Jan.

and Feb. 98. Even though I had completed the write-up

of the rest of the article at that time, it was

bhagavAn's wish that I could not submit them at that

time to the bhakti list. I had waited for an

opportune time to resume the series, and it looks like

now is a good time to resume, since there is

discussion going on in the list on this topic right

now. My intention is not to add to the disagreements

etc., but to share what I felt was a learning

experience for me, with the rest of the readers in the

list. Hope it achieves that purpose. (The previous

parts were published 27 Jan. 98, and Feb. 3, 98).

 

-dAsan kRshNamAcAryan

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

 

pA'ncarAtra – An Overview – Part 3.

 

SrI Sa'nkara's views on the pA'ncarAtra system:

 

In his explanation for the nAma catur-vyUha in his

vyAkhyAnam of SrI vishNu sahasra nAmam, SrI Sa'nkara

has given a reference to mahA-bhArata supporting the

vyuha concept. The vyUha concept is an integral part

of the pA'ncarAtra doctrine. It is known that SrI

Sa'nkara had opposed the pA'ncarAtra Agama, and this

was part of the reason that contributed to the

questioning of the pA'ncaratra system in his time and

the immediately following period.

 

Based on the bhAshya for brahma sutra by SrI

Sa'nkara, it is evident that he does not accept the

pA'ncarAtra doctrine. However, there are certain

aspects of the doctrine with which he agrees. vyuha,

or the division of the supreme Brahman into many

forms, is one aspect that he accepts. In his

preface to a book on pAdma samhitA, sudarSanam SrI

KrRshNasvAmi aiya'ngAr has included a section of the

original samskRt commentary by SrI Sa'nkara for the

brahma sutra II.2.42 - which clarifies this.

 

"tatra yat-tAvaducyate yo'sau nArAyaNah paro'vyaktAt

prasiddhah paramAtmA sa AtmanAtmAnam anekadhA vyuha

avasthita iti, tat na nirAkriyate. (Note the words 'na

nirAkriyate). 'sa ekadhA bhavati, tridhA bhavati'

(chAndogya 7.26.2) ityAdi Srutibhyah paramAtmanah

anekadhA bhAvasya adhigatatvAt. yadapi tasya

bhagavatah abhigamanAdi lakshNam ArAdhanam ajasram

ananya cittatayA abhipreyate tadapi na pratishidhyate

(again, note the words na pratishidhyate).

Sruti-smRtyoh esvara-praNidhAnasya prasiddhatvAt.

 

The translation of the above words of SrI Sa'nkara is

"We do not refute the view stated therein that

nArAyaNa, who is superior to Nature and who is

well-known to be the supreme Self and the Self of all,

has divided Himself by Himself into many forms; for

from vedic texts such as - He assumes one form, He

assumes three forms etc., it is known that the Supreme

Self does become multifarious. As for the

predilection for His propitiation, consisting in

visiting His temple etc., and so on, with exclusive

devotion and for long, that also is not denied. For

the contemplation of God is well in evidence in the

veda-s and smRti-s." - translation is taken from svAmi

gambhIrAnanda, advaita ASrama publication.

 

The major objection SrI Sa'nkara has for the

pA'ncarAtra system is on how the beings called

sa'nkarshaNa, pradyumna, and aniruddha resulted from

the supreme Self, vAsudeva. It is very interesting

to read the vyAkhyYna-s of SrI Sa'nkara and SrI

rAmAnuja for the sutra-s utpatti asambhavAt, na ca

kartuh karaNam, vij~nAnAdi bhAve vA tat apratishedhah,

and vipratishedAcca, wherein the objections are raised

and answered. Briefly, SrI Sa'nkara's objections are

- a) The soul called sa'nkarshaNa could not have

originated from the Self vAsudeva, since a soul cannot

be born or created according to veda-s; b) If

vAsudeva, sa'nkarshaNa, pradyumna, and aniruddha are

all of equal knowledge, powers, etc., as the bhAgavata

doctrine maintains, there is no need for four forms,

since one form could have carried out all the

functions of the God; c) If they are of all of equal

knowledge and powers etc., then one could not have

originated from another, since the cause and effect

should have some difference in order to differentiate

them, and yet the bhAgavata-s insist that there are

not different.

 

SrI rAmAnuja points out that the origin of

sa'nkarshaNa from vAsudeva etc. in this context should

be viewed as the voluntary assumption of bodily forms

by the supreme Brahman vAsudeva out of compassion for

its devotees, so that the devotees can have easy

access to the supreme Brahman. This is because

vAsudeva the supreme Brahman has for its body the pure

aggregate of the six supreme qualities, and thus is

difficult for all to attain easily. The devotee

attains to the vyuha forms by worshipping the vibhava

forms such as worship of rAma, kRshNa, etc., and from

the vyuha forms he attains to the Subtle form of

vAsudeva. If birth or origination of sa'nkarshaNa

from vAsudeva etc. is viewed thus, there is no

contradiction between the pAncarAtra doctrine and the

veda-s. In fact, the pA'ncarAtra doctrine is

considered to include in it all the other veda-s, the

sAnkhya-yoga, and AraNyaka-s.

 

Thus, in summary, while it is true that SrI Sa'nkara

did not accept the pA'ncarAtra doctrine in its

enitrety because he had issues with certain aspects of

it, by his own words, there are certain aspects of the

doctrine that he also agreed with, e.g., vAsudeva as

the supreme Brahman, its ability to divide itself and

manifest itself in many forms, dedicated worship to

vAsudeva in temples, etc.

 

Some background on vedAntins vs. pA'ncarAtra:

 

Historically, there was a lot of resistance to the

Agama-s from the vedAntins. There were even texts

which said that the pA'ncarAtrins should not be

invited to partake in SrAddha meals, people should not

talk to them, etc., alongside the texts that supported

the Agama adherents. There was also counter-attack

from the pA'ncarAtra camp, including statements

calling the veda-s as perverted texts incapable of

fulfilling the human values (purushArthAproyojaka).

 

It is in this atmosphere that SrI yAmuna-muni

undertook his valiant defense of the pA'ncarAtra

through his work Agama-prAmANya, to bring about

reconciliation between the two camps. He pointed out

that the pA'ncarAtra and the veda-s both originated

from SrIman nArAyaNa, and were complementary to each

other. Inevitably it was a very sensitive

undertaking, since it touched on the sensitivities of

both the opposing camps. Then there came the time

when the pA'ncarAtrins claimed superiority over the

veda-s saying that the pA'ncarAtra was more ancient,

and the veda-s came later. Perhaps in this

atmosphere, SrI vedAnta-deSika endeavored to bring a

balance between the veda-s and the Agama-s, quoting

passages from the pA'ncarAtra text Lakshmi-tantra)

that the wise man should never transgress even in his

thoughts the conduct prescribed in the veda-s. It

cannot but be noticed that our great pUrvAcArya-s have

done exceptional service in bringing about the

reconciliation between the vedanta adherents and the

Agama group, trying to make sure that people don't

succumb to self-destruction through disunity.

 

Even among the pA'nca-rAtrins, it appears that there

was not clear homogeneity. Four main divisions are

recognized in many samhitA-s. Even though all agree

that vAsudeva is the Supreme Spirit and that salvation

is to be got by worshipping him, they differ in the

methods of worship, the benefits that accrue from the

worship, the methods of rituals etc. Mix-up of

movement from one group to another was frowned upon

(pAdma samhitA).

 

These four divisions are called siddhAnta-s. As

mentioned in the pAdma samhitA, these are: mantra

siddhAnta, Agama siddhAnta, tantra siddhAnta, and

tantrantara siddhAnta. SrI vedAnda-deSika in his

pA'ncarAtra rakshA quotes from the hayagrIva samhitA

that Agama siddhAnta is meant to accomplish salvation

alone, tantra siddhAnta is for accomplishing all four

values of life (wealth, virtue, pleasures, and

salvation), and tantrAntara siddhAnta will fulfil all

that one desires.

 

The four siddhAnta-s differ in the number of forms

they worship, the way they consecrate the iconic forms

in the temples, the number of forms of deities that

are worshipped (e.g., one form - the deity is not

specified; four forms - vAsudeva, sa'nkarshNa,

pradyumna, and aniruddha; nine forms - in addition

to the above four, nArAyaNa, hayagrIva, vishNu,

nRsimha, and varAha) etc. The differences are

described in great detail in the referenced texts.

 

To be continued…

 

dAsan kRshNamAcAryan

 

 

 

Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

http://im.

 

 

 

Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

http://im.