vedic origin of pancharatra doctrine

[Guest guest]

Dear List,

 

There is a claim that pancharatra belongs to ekayana branch of shukla-

yajurvEda and hence it is very much vedic, which is now lost. Though

it is not new that all shaiva, shAkta and vaishNava Agamas claim

derivation from shruti, the claims are dismissed by "orthodox"

vaidikas. Pancharatra was opposed as heretical by the mimamsaka

kumarila bhatta and the vedantin shankara seemed to accept it.

VaikhAnasas fare better, as they are securely placed as a sub-branch

of taittiriyas, which is a known and living shAkhA, and vaikhAnasa

Agamas employ only vedic mantras.

 

The drawback is that ekAyana shAkha is non-existent as of now and any

speculation on its contents is just that - mere speculation.

 

However, I feel there is a case that could be made for the legitimacy

of the claim.

1. Though it is customary for Agamas & tantras to claim derivation

from vEdas, it is rare to mention the exact branch, as in our case.

2. EkAyana is mentioned in chAndOgya brAhmaNa.

3. I noticed a very interesting thing - ShAndilya, one of the

prominent figure in pAncharAtra doctrine features as authority in the

middle adhyAyas of shatapatha brAhmaNa. (yAgnyavalkya being the other

central authority in the rest of the adhyAyas. Views of other minor

teachers mentioned here and there, but it is the views of

yAgnyavalkya or shAndilya that are accepted).

 

So, pAncharAtra may have arisen from a branch of shukla-yajur veda

after all.

 

Regards,

KK

[Guest guest]

You need not do any research on it. Please learn "Agama prAmANya" of

yAmuna and "pAncharAtra rakshA" of dESika from a person knowing

sanskrit. Things will be clear then.

 

Regards

Vishnu

ramanuja, "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k> wrote:

> Dear List,

>

> There is a claim that pancharatra belongs to ekayana branch of

shukla-

> yajurvEda and hence it is very much vedic, which is now lost.

Though

> it is not new that all shaiva, shAkta and vaishNava Agamas claim

> derivation from shruti, the claims are dismissed by "orthodox"

> vaidikas. Pancharatra was opposed as heretical by the mimamsaka

> kumarila bhatta and the vedantin shankara seemed to accept it.

> VaikhAnasas fare better, as they are securely placed as a sub-

branch

> of taittiriyas, which is a known and living shAkhA, and vaikhAnasa

> Agamas employ only vedic mantras.

>

> The drawback is that ekAyana shAkha is non-existent as of now and

any

> speculation on its contents is just that - mere speculation.

>

> However, I feel there is a case that could be made for the

legitimacy

> of the claim.

> 1. Though it is customary for Agamas & tantras to claim derivation

> from vEdas, it is rare to mention the exact branch, as in our case.

> 2. EkAyana is mentioned in chAndOgya brAhmaNa.

> 3. I noticed a very interesting thing - ShAndilya, one of the

> prominent figure in pAncharAtra doctrine features as authority in

the

> middle adhyAyas of shatapatha brAhmaNa. (yAgnyavalkya being the

other

> central authority in the rest of the adhyAyas. Views of other minor

> teachers mentioned here and there, but it is the views of

> yAgnyavalkya or shAndilya that are accepted).

>

> So, pAncharAtra may have arisen from a branch of shukla-yajur veda

> after all.

>

> Regards,

> KK

[Guest guest]

Hi,

There are things like possibles and probables. It is not enough to

merely show that "pAncharAtra doctrine has vEdic basis" is possible -

One has to demonstrate that is is probable; or probable enough so

that other possibilities should border on improbability.

IMHO, none have demonstrated the latter - only the former (with

utmost respect to dEsika as well as to yAmunachArya). I am aware of

the proposed arguments by our AchAryas.

 

Regards,

KK

 

ramanuja, "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu> wrote:

> You need not do any research on it. Please learn "Agama prAmANya"

of

> yAmuna and "pAncharAtra rakshA" of dESika from a person knowing

> sanskrit. Things will be clear then.

>

> Regards

> Vishnu

> ramanuja, "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k>

wrote:

> > Dear List,

> >

> > There is a claim that pancharatra belongs to ekayana branch of

> shukla-

> > yajurvEda and hence it is very much vedic, which is now lost.

> Though

> > it is not new that all shaiva, shAkta and vaishNava Agamas claim

> > derivation from shruti, the claims are dismissed by "orthodox"

> > vaidikas. Pancharatra was opposed as heretical by the mimamsaka

> > kumarila bhatta and the vedantin shankara seemed to accept it.

> > VaikhAnasas fare better, as they are securely placed as a sub-

> branch

> > of taittiriyas, which is a known and living shAkhA, and

vaikhAnasa

> > Agamas employ only vedic mantras.

> >

> > The drawback is that ekAyana shAkha is non-existent as of now and

> any

> > speculation on its contents is just that - mere speculation.

> >

> > However, I feel there is a case that could be made for the

> legitimacy

> > of the claim.

> > 1. Though it is customary for Agamas & tantras to claim

derivation

> > from vEdas, it is rare to mention the exact branch, as in our

case.

> > 2. EkAyana is mentioned in chAndOgya brAhmaNa.

> > 3. I noticed a very interesting thing - ShAndilya, one of the

> > prominent figure in pAncharAtra doctrine features as authority in

> the

> > middle adhyAyas of shatapatha brAhmaNa. (yAgnyavalkya being the

> other

> > central authority in the rest of the adhyAyas. Views of other

minor

> > teachers mentioned here and there, but it is the views of

> > yAgnyavalkya or shAndilya that are accepted).

> >

> > So, pAncharAtra may have arisen from a branch of shukla-yajur

veda

> > after all.

> >

> > Regards,

> > KK