pA'ncarAtra - An Overview - Part 4.

[Guest guest]

pA'ncarAtra - An Overview - Part 4.

 

Other Opposition to pA'ncarAtra:

 

Other main points raised by the vedAntin-s were:

 

1. The pA'ncarAtra prescribed, or required, a

special initiation called dIkshA for anyone to be

qualified for performing temple worship (the

equivalent of priests in the temple). dIkshA was not

explicitly mentioned in the veda-s, and so the

argument was that pA'ncarAtra was non-vedic.

 

2. Unlike the pA'ncarAtra system whose authorship

was not ascribable to any human source, the vaikhAnasa

school was initiated by a vedic sage by name vikhanas,

and so it was easier to accept the vaikhAnasa system's

known vedic basis.

 

3. A very well known mImAmasaka by name

kumArilabhaTTa (around 800 A.D.) published his work

titled tantravArtikA, in which he included the

pA'ncarAtra as a non-vedic Agama. Because of his

popularity, the confidence of the people in the vedic

origin of pA'ncarAtra was put under severe test.

 

4. The interpretation of four aphorisms of the

brahma sUtra-s considered to deal with the pA'ncarAtra

system by the well-known Adi Sa'nkara led him to

conclude that the pA'ncarAtra was non-vedic. (We have

covered the details of this earlier).

 

5. In one of the pA'ncarAtra samhitA-s (parama

samhitA), SANDilya is quoted as saying that he has

studied all the four veda-s but has not been able to

find beyond all doubt the road to bliss, and so he

undertook the study of pA'ncarAtra. This has been

quoted by the advaitin-s as proof that the pA'ncarAtra

undermines the veda-s by saying that they are

incapable of revealing the truth.

 

6. The term sAttvata refers to a class of low-born

people called vrAtya-s according to manu-smRti. The

vrAtya community is decidedly non-vedic. Since the

pA'ncarAtrin-s are referred to as sAttvata-s, it was

argued that they must be the same class of low-borns

that is referred to in the smRti, and so pA'ncarAtra

is non-vedic, and the bhAgavata-s (sAttvata-s) are not

even brAhmaNa-s.

 

7. Partaking the food offered in worship is forbidden

in smRti, and since the people who do temple worship

in the pA'ncarAtra tradition partake in the food

offered to the Lord, they are in violation of smRti-s.

 

8. The people who do temple worship should not benefit

by this activity, and some of the people who do

pA'ncarAtra worship have their livelihood from this.

 

9. vAsudeva, the person from whom the pA'ncarAtra is

said to have originated, is known to have deceived the

asura-s in His mohini incarnation, deceived mahAbali

in His trivikrama incarnation, etc., and so He is

unreliable, and could have also deceived people by

creating the pA'ncarAtra.

 

10. While the veda-s have got a particular sequence

(krama) - I presume the reference here is to the

intonations, there is no such krama for pA'ncarAtra

texts, and so pA'ncarAtra is non-vedic in character.

 

11. For the same rite, there is a vedic and a tantric

rite, and this again establishes that Agama-s are

opposed to, and different from the veda-s.

 

The defense of pA'ncarAtra - Continued:

 

Sa'nkara's interpretation of the pA'ncarAtra section

of the brahma sUtra-s and the responses from the

SrIvaishNava AcArya-s has been covered earlier. Some

of the additional objections raised and identified in

the previous section are addressed below. There is an

excellent English summary of the specifics that

yAmunAcArya used in defending the pA'ncarAtra in the

book titled AgmamprAmANya of yAmunAcArya by M.

Narasimhachary and published by the University of

Baroda. The following is an extract from this

reference.

 

1. Response to the Objection of dIkshA Being Required

for Temple Worship:

 

yAmunAcArya replies that the requirement of dIkshA for

performing temple worship is not non-vedic. He points

out that special sacraments are ordained in the veda-s

as and when necessary, to qualify one to perform

particular duties. Thus, for instance, for performing

the jyotishToma rite, special dIkshA is ordained by

the injunction "AgnAvaishNavam ekAdaSa kapAlam

puroDASam nirvaped dikshishyamANah", on a person who

has already been initiated by upanayana. This is a

vedic passage, and so it is authoritative by the

standards of the vedAntin-s.

 

2, 3. Authorship, vedic vs. non-vedic character:

 

yAmunAcArya points out that if the mimAmsaka does not

have a problem accepting the authenticity of the

veda-s, then he should not have problem with the

authenticity of the pA'ncarAtra. The mImAmsaka would

say that the veda-s are apaurusheya (impersonal in

character), and therefore their validity is

unquestionable. So also the pA'ncarAtra Agama-s are

the direct utterances of the Omniscient and Merciful

vAsudeva, and are therefore unquestionable.

 

4. SrI Sa'nkara's interpretation of the four brahma

sUtra aphorisms related to the pA'ncarAtra and the

responses by our AcArya-s have been covered in an

earlier write-up.

 

5. Defense of SANDilya's words that from the veda-s he

could not find the road to bliss:

 

yAmunAcArya points out that SANDilya's statement does

not mean that there is no human end in the veda-s. It

only means that he could not find the human end in the

veda-s, because of their vastness. In fact, this

only means that the purport of the Agama-s and the

veda-s is one and the same and there is no

contradiction between them. Both rAmAnuja and deSika

point out that what is meant here is that it is

difficult for everyone to understand the veda-s, and

the style of the pA'ncarAtra texts is more easily

grasped. So this statement is not meant to be

anti-vedic in any sense, but is only meant to

emphasize the easy style of the pA'ncarAtra texts.

 

6. Refutation of the contention that the bhAgavata-s

were not brAhmaNa-s:

 

Regarding the argument that "bhagavata-s" who

practiced pA'ncarAtra during the mImAmsaka's times did

not belong to any one of the three higher castes,

yAmunAcArya points out that they are in every sense

brAhmaNa-s. This is evident both by the fact of

occular perception (pratyaksha) of their practices and

observances, and also by the fact that there is the

practice of remembering the gotra from which they

come. There is no reason to doubt their brAhmanical

status.

 

Then yAmunAcArya deals with the statement by the

opponents that manusmRti (10.23) says the term

sAttvata refers to people from a community called

vrAtya-s who are decidedly non-vedic, and since the

sAttvata-s practiced pA'ncarAtra, pA'ncarAtra is

non-vedic by the fact of being practiced by a

non-vedic group. yAmunAcArya points out that the

term sAttvata as used in pA'ncarAtra context need not

refer to the same group of sAttvata-s as referred to

in manu-smRti. He illustrates this by pointing out

that the same manu-smRti (10.23), also uses the term

AcArya to refer to the low born belonging to the

vrAtya community.

 

vaiSyAttu jAyate vrAtyAt vrAtyAt sudhanvAcArya eva

ca |

kArushSca vijanmA ca maitrah sAttvata eva ca

||

 

But no one disagrees that the term AcArya does not

only refer to the person of the vrAtya community, but

also refers to a learned brAhmaNa teacher.

yAmunAcArya points out that when the etymological

meaning for the words bhAgavata and sAttvata are

available, indicating that these terms refer to the

devotees of the Lord, there is no need to reject these

and resort to some other meaning. By profession,

vrAtya-s look after the temple, but bhAgavata-s

perform the five-fold activities for bhagavAn, and

these are not comparable and identical.

 

The atharva veda also mentions a class called vrAtya-s

who are naturally pure and thus need no samskAra. In

praSnopanishad, prANa is referred to as vrAtya -

vrAtyatvam prANaikarshirattA…(2.11), which is

interpreted as "paRNa is vrAtya - One born first, and

so not needing purification etc.". In the atharva

veda (15-11) it is said that anyone who entertains a

vrAtya will gain the road that gods travel etc.

 

7. naivedya offered to Lord vishNu is Holy:

 

On the objection that the bhAgavata-s partake in the

food offered to the Lord in violation of the smRti-s,

yAmunAcArya gives evidence from many samhitA-s and

smRti-s and points out that this applies only to the

food offered to other gods, and not to the sacred

prasAdam offered to Lord vishNu. The naivedya offered

to bhagavAn is holy, and there is nothing to dispute

this.

 

8. Brahminical character vs. earning livelihood:

 

On the contention that the bhAgavata-s are not

orthodox brAhmaNa-s because they worshipped the Lord

for their livelihood, yAmunAcArya points out that

except under dire financial conditions, this is not

the case, and even when this is the case, this has

nothing to do with their brAhmanical character. It is

only when worship is done with greed as the motive,

that this is unacceptable.

 

9. Refutation of mimAmsaka's Position on VAsudeva

Being Deceitful:

 

yAmunAcArya points out that until there is reason to

believe beyond doubt that a certain utterance is not

dependable, there is no reason to doubt its validity.

Since the upanishad-s glorify the author of the

pA'ncarAtra as Omniscient and Merciful, there is no

reason to assign any evil designs in Him in composing

these Agama-s.

 

10, 11. Response to the Objection that A Tantric

Procedure is Specified for A Karma when a Vedic

Procedure Already Exists, and So Agama is Anti-vedic:

 

Regarding the objection that for the same karma,

pA'ncarAtra provides for a tantric rite when there is

a prescribed vedic rite and so pA'ncarAtra is

anti-vedic, I did not find a direct explanation.

However, based on SrI deSikan's nyAsa vimSati and

other writings, I feel that a justifiable explanation

is the veda-s limit the vedic rite only to those who

are qualified to perform these by their varNa etc.,

whereas the tantric rites are open to anyone without

these restrictions. An example is the prapatti or

bhara-nyAsa, for which svAmi deSikan clearly points

out that those who cannot utter the vedic mantra-s

required for the vedic procedure should follow the

tantric procedure. So it is purely because of His

Infinite Mercy or karuNA that SrIman nArayaNa gave the

pA'ncarAtra Agama so that people who cannot perform

the vedic rites can still perform the same rites using

the Agama or tantric procedure.

 

-To be continued.

 

-dAsan kRshNamAcAryan

 

 

 

Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

http://im.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Krishnamachari,

 

Thanks for working on this important topic. This is a good kainkaryam and

service to all of us on the net.

 

Please list the sources you are getting info on Pancharathra so that we

can understand the authors,. acharyas and rishis whose works have been used

as material for this series. Pancharathra is very important and we have to

be clear on what basis we are using to understand issues. Whose views are

represented here is critical. You might have already listed your source

earlier. I missed it.

 

adiyen

Krishna kalale

 

 

Narasimhan Krishnamachari [sMTP:champakam]

Friday, March 17, 2000 5:17 AM

bhakti-list

Cc: nkrish

pA'ncarAtra - An Overview - Part 4.