Shubhagama Panchaka

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

The intention of this post is not to appear as the champion of

samayAchara’s cause, for it needs none, but rather to express some

anguish over the recent trend of discussions that show a certain lack

of respect towards shankara, his followers and their wide contributions.

 

*********************************************

 

That is because the so called shubhAgama pa~nchaka is of late

provenance. People are of the opinion that came into existence either

during or after lakShmIdhara. This is not an original work on

shrIvidya. Consider the following objections by a learned freind of mine.

 

*********************************************

 

[Harsha] There are various issues in this statement. Firstly, who are

the " people " we are talking about and that would be important to know

as also their sources for their views are being seen as authority

here? If the panchaka came after lakShmIdhara, how did lakShmIdhara

quote from them? Or is the suggestion that saundaryalaharI bhAShya

itself was written by someone else and not lakShmIdhara? Why would

someone believe your learned friend over a weighty authority such as

lakShmIdhara who is referred to extremely reverentially by even

bhAskara in setubandha? We have known bhAskara to be not very civil

with people such as shivAnandanAtha etc and that shows that the

respect shown is not customary.

 

************************************

Regarding the shubhAgama pa~nchaka (shp): They are a controversial

topic. The below view is mine, and you may find people violently

object to it if they belong to the extreme samaya path or are close the

prescriptions of certain authorities from shaMkara maThas. Followers

of what may be called the extreme samaya path believe that the only

real authorities on tantric worship available to a brahmin are : 1)

veda 2)dharma shAstras and 3) the shp or the five texts attributed to

vasiShTha, parAshara, shUka, sanaka, sanatkumAra and sanandana. I am

yet to see a complete text of any of these five works, though they

might exist in manuscript form in Orissa. They are generally held in

utmost secret by the practioners of samaya path of shrividya and known

only to those who have gone beyond the level of initiation of highly

guarded mantras known as the ShoDashi or the mahAShoDashi.

However, despite their high prestige with the samayins they are really

not cited by most of the ancient shrividya manuals which instead draw

from the shrikula tantras. The beginnings of shrividya are so firmly

embedded in shrikula tantras (like the great tantrarAja and

vAmakeshvara= nityAShodashikArNava + yoginIhR^idaya for example) and

their rituals that the shubhAgama pa~nchaka sort of seems out of place

in this setting. The great goddess is always referred to as kaulinI or

identified with the kulayoginI. Thus, it appears likely that the

extreme view that the shp is the only valid canon for the samayins is

a late innovation. However, from the existing fragments it appears

that the shubhAgama was culled together from ancient shrividya texts

by moving away to the extant possible from the kaula krama. I would

consider them a late regional innovation that occurred in eith

Varanasi or Orissa just prior to the reign of Prataparudra Gajapati

which was then actively fostered by the shaMkara Matha and South Indian

practioners.

 

************************************

 

[Harsha] Why do we forget that bhAskararAya quotes from these in his

bhashya? If they were medieval works, why would he use them? As

stated, this is mere hypothesis and does not prove anything. Of

course, this is one view and everyone can have their views. But is not

the same mistake being made here, that someone else made, by forcing

ideas down someone’s throat, by stating that these works are not

original works of Srividya? Moroever, we know nothing of the

credentials of the people who concluded thus, the rationale behind the

conclusion and the associated pramANa. Till these are answered,

lakShmIdharAcharya is certainly a weightier authority over an unknown

“learned†person :-)

 

************************************

In my opinion the followers of the shubhAgama's main objection that

pa~ncha makara is against the sanction of the shruti (ultimate

authority for an Arya) is not exactly true. Hence, I do not believe

that the kaula path is anti-Vedic or unfit for brAhmaNas. However, I

personally do not employ pa~ncha makara, but only take their esoteric

significance. We of course follow the great vAmAchAra teacher,

bhAskararAya makhIndra, who a great vedic ritualist and knower of the

atharvaNa shruti. He pointed out that there is really no need for a

sectarian debate between samaya and kaula paths and that a shrauta

ritualist may follow the esoteric aspect of the kaula path without the

actual makaras (after all she is bahirmukha durlabhA, and one can

easily go down false leads by actually using makaras without the

correct initiation, temperment and knowledge). The great bhAskararAya

has explained this point sufficiently to nArAyaNa bhaTTa in Varanasi.

So the view that the shubhAgamas are the only texts to be followed by

Brahmins is not necessarily correct or even the older view.

****************************************

 

[Harsha] This is a personal belief. What is the pramANa here? Where is

it illustrated that this was what bhAsurAnandanAtha explained to

nArAyaNa bhaTTa? If mAdhavIya shankara vijaya is fiction, why would

someone base their practice and belief system of some tale like this

one? Also, as someone posessing about 80% of the five samhitAs, I can

quote to say that samayAchara is not really prescribed for all dvijas,

and the shAstra clearly says for an uttamAdhikArin. Because

Samayachara is purely a mental process, it indeed makes sense that

literature dealing with rituals did not speak of them. Moreover,

uttamAdhikArins at any point are few and that assumption is not

unreasonable.

 

The argument kind of becomes circular when we say:

 

1. Okay you said something, where is the pramana?

2. Okay, now you provided something, but that is of later origin, the

kula tantras were earlier to these.

 

We should take one of the two approaches:

 

1. Believe that the shAstras, accepted as shAstras by authorities,

contemporary and ancient, are word of God (no, I am not trying to act

catholic) and abide by them with faith. This is the traditional, or

shall we say, “conditioned†route?

2. We can take the other path of viewing shastras in terms of

evolution over a period.

 

a. Currently we claim (or someone claims) samayAchAra as a superior or

authentic branch of shrIvidyA.

b. The counter claim is that in the past, at a timeframe X, kaula was

the form and samaya was derived of it later.

c. Now, I can go back and ask, what was the state of shAstra at a time

Y, even before X? Was there no shrIvidyA? Or is it not possible that

Samaya was present then and later, kaula derived stuff from it!

Periodic and timely revelation of shAstra is almost a universal belief.

 

Timeline analysis is extremely subjective, inaccurate and

non-confirmatory in most cases. Agehananda Bharati, who tried the

same, regrets in his later writings. I am extremely willing to accept

your theories if there is some proven logic or non-circular argument

there in!

 

I read in an older post that kaula etc. were derived or inspired by

Vedic rituals and developed on the basis of Vedic thought. So, this, I

assume, is being visualized as “refinementâ€. Now, even if samaya was

derived out of kaula, why is it being seen as degradation or

corruption and not as a refinement for the theology and metaphysics

associated with samayAchara sure does appear more sophisticated than

its leftist counterpart.

 

Also, as an accessorial observation, the group file needs to be modified:

 

3) You should not be an adherent of vamachara.

5) If you are an adherent of vAmachara, then is not a list for

you.

 

This would seem to me that discussion, pro or against vAmAchAra are

not encouraged in the group but the past several threads are solely

dwelling on vAmAchara.

 

6) Any works from tantra-s posted to the list should adhere to

samayaachaara/daxinaachara. And we request you to post the original in

sanskrit along with a translation.

 

This does not seem to be true as well. Most of the ideas being thrown

around from either side are quotations from somewhere or someone, and

not one actual verse, leave alone from samaya/dakShiNa text, seems to

have been quoted here.

 

A few years ago, when I was a member of this group, I remember seeing

another line item, which spoke about the shankara mutts. Now, with the

almost apologetic tone with which shankara or shankaraites are

referred to in this group, it is rather a relief that the statement

has been dropped.

 

Again, the theory about panchAyatana being of recent origin seems to

be have a similar lack of puShTi. How would one explain panchAyatanI

dIkShAdikas detailed in the same manuals and texts that we measured

shubhAgama panchaka against? And, it seems ridiculous to quote some

person's not liking the fact that Skanda is left out from the group as

the main reason for dishing out the concept of panchAyatana.

vaidyanAtha dIkShitIya deals with panchAyatana and if that were to be

doubted, what else would you pick and choose from the sea of smR^itis?

Moreover, someone would want bhairava included in panchAyatana and

someone else would want Sarah Palin included and that really does not

proove anything does it, for it is pramANa that matters. The north has

counted kApAlika as the sixth darshana and the south kaumAra. Chyavana

smR^iti states that kumAra is agnisvarUpa and his presence is within

sUrya in the panchAyatana. Like Sudarshan pointed out, skanda is

visualized sometimes as non-different from sadAshiva and his tripti

occurs in shivapUjA.

 

 

With this I take leave...

 

Wishing fun for all and shubha dIpAvaLi

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

, " harsha_ramamurthy "

<harsha_ramamurthy wrote:

>

> Dear All,

>

> The intention of this post is not to appear as the champion of

> samayAchara’s cause, for it needs none, but rather to express some

> anguish over the recent trend of discussions that show a certain

lack

> of respect towards shankara,

 

 

Lack of respect for AchArya you will never find it here from any

member. That you can be sure of.

 

> his followers and their wide contributions.

 

I have expressed some anguish towards a good percentage of his

followers but I do recognise their contributions. This can be seen in

one of my response to a member on this issue.

 

One more thing to note is that most discussions on vAmAchAra here,

are only reactive. You will not see anyone actively propagating it

including me.

 

>If the panchaka came after lakShmIdhara, how did lakShmIdhara

> quote from them?

 

Fine. Since lakShmIdhara quoted these(in SL bhAShya right?)then they

must have been created either during his time or prior to him.

 

I will clarify rest of the things over the weekend or next week as I

am leaving for my howntown now for dIpAvali.

 

Getting quotes now like I did in the past has become a little

difficult as I moved away from the library that used to provide me

these texts. But will try..

 

Wishing a shubha dIpAvali..

 

Regards

[Guest guest]

With all respect some of the statements here are based on unreasonable

anguish. Firstly no one has condemned or disrespected AchAryas. Of

course one can respectfully disagree with interpretations of this

AchArya or that without calling them names or making them incarnate

demons. They say those who live in glass houses should not throw

stones at others. It is apparently OK to insinuate that Acharya

Ramanuja honored a Telugu guy who beheaded 101 shaiva-s: Is that not

" certain lack of respect for an Acharya " (BTW I am not a Vaishnava).

 

I was just quoting a personal opinion regarding Panchayatana and I

clearly qualified it as such. It is not an imposition but just a

different viewpoint from yours or Shriram's. Naturally such a personal

opinion is comparable to statements of a certain Vaidyanatha Dikshita

or some other Smarta Brahmin (In my region they used to have

Anantadeva and before Devapala as the equivalent of your Vaidyanatha

Dikshita). Each has a certain logic and tradition to back it up - some

may be more learned than the other and one has to do Abhyasa to reach

ones own conclusions. I think it has been reasonably shown that the

worship of Skanda came long before that of classical Ganapati (not the

4 Vinayaka Grahas) became prominent. Even in iconography Somaskanda

Shiva is gradually replaced by the now popular triad of

Uma-Vinayaka-Shiva. Skanda is gradually absorbed as a subsidiary deity

of different Shaiva, Vaishnava and Bauddha systems.

 

Coming to relative antiquity of different texts this is a technically

very difficult topic that might not interest some people. Some would

say it is not important for Upasana. This is a personal view.

Irrespective of that one can place bounds on the ages of various

Shastras within a testable framework.

shubha dIpAvalI

RR

[Guest guest]

Respected Madam,

 

Namaste. I am sorry if i have hurt you.

 

The problem with most of the scholars is that they have

certain " PCNs " ie., Pre-conceived Notions. With these set of PCNs,

the judgements they give are biased.

 

I received a personal mail saying that Shri Bhaskara has refuted Shri

Shivanandanatha. He says that they had differences in Navavarana

Archana and concluded that the Sampradaya of Shivananda is

questionable. I am surprised how one can conclude like that. Which

implies that they have certain PCNs for Bhaskara.

 

Now, i would say that Shri Vaidyanatha Dikshitar in Chandrikakhya

differs in certain aspects from Bhaskara. So, should i conclude that

the navarana archana parampara of Shri Bhaskara is wrong? Why

Umanandanatha, his own disciple, differs from Bhaskara?

 

with regards,

sriram

 

, " rajita_rajvasishth "

<rajita_rajvasishth wrote:

>

> With all respect some of the statements here are based on

unreasonable

> anguish. Firstly no one has condemned or disrespected AchAryas. Of

> course one can respectfully disagree with interpretations of this

> AchArya or that without calling them names or making them incarnate

> demons. They say those who live in glass houses should not throw

> stones at others. It is apparently OK to insinuate that Acharya

> Ramanuja honored a Telugu guy who beheaded 101 shaiva-s: Is that not

> " certain lack of respect for an Acharya " (BTW I am not a

Vaishnava).

>

> I was just quoting a personal opinion regarding Panchayatana and I

> clearly qualified it as such. It is not an imposition but just a

> different viewpoint from yours or Shriram's. Naturally such a

personal

> opinion is comparable to statements of a certain Vaidyanatha

Dikshita

> or some other Smarta Brahmin (In my region they used to have

> Anantadeva and before Devapala as the equivalent of your Vaidyanatha

> Dikshita). Each has a certain logic and tradition to back it up -

some

> may be more learned than the other and one has to do Abhyasa to

reach

> ones own conclusions. I think it has been reasonably shown that the

> worship of Skanda came long before that of classical Ganapati (not

the

> 4 Vinayaka Grahas) became prominent. Even in iconography Somaskanda

> Shiva is gradually replaced by the now popular triad of

> Uma-Vinayaka-Shiva. Skanda is gradually absorbed as a subsidiary

deity

> of different Shaiva, Vaishnava and Bauddha systems.

>

> Coming to relative antiquity of different texts this is a

technically

> very difficult topic that might not interest some people. Some would

> say it is not important for Upasana. This is a personal view.

> Irrespective of that one can place bounds on the ages of various

> Shastras within a testable framework.

> shubha dIpAvalI

> RR

>

[Guest guest]

shri gurubhyo namaH

shri mahAgaNapataye namaH

 

Friends:

 

Just my two cents.

 

Don't knock Shri Bhaksara makhin's methods (or his shishya paramparA) until you

have lived it and tried it. These are antarmuhka experiences, and we dont talk

much about them outside of our guru-shishya circles.

 

You can talk about these methodologies and discuss them until you are blue in

the face. Without the force of internal experience, it means nothing.

 

We should realize that like Hinduism, even Shri Vidya is based on many paths to

the same goal. No single presciption for achievement of that goal exists today.

Would a human being be recommended to take the same path to Mount Kailasa /

Maansarovar as a mountain goat ?

Can a 50 year old woman running fever after knee surgery take the same time to

climb up to Thirupathi Devasthaanam as an 18 year old young boy ?

Paths/methods are different.

Goal is the same.

Rejoice in your path, and don't look down on others in their path.

Recognize that yours is not the one and only true path.

Thanks.

KR.

 

 

 

( makArapanchakodbhUtaprouDhAntollAsasundaryai namaH )

 

shrI mAtre namaH

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear kumar,

 

Namaste. Please donot misunderstand me.

 

That was an example just to show certain pre-conceived notions which

the scholars have about some of the upasakas. Personally i am not

against any upasaka neither Bhaskara nor Sivanandanatha or anybody

else.

 

My gurunatha used to say that one must know one's " limitations " while

pointing out Bhaskara, Sivanandanatha, Lakshmidhara, etc. Please

note that i am consciously using the word " Limitation " here. Neither

we are " learned " nor we have the " relevant spiritual experience " of

the above-mentioned upasakas.

 

Chandrasekhara bharati swamigal used to say that " we have not yet

reached the stage to have the glimpse of the holy feet of the Parama

Purusha what to speak of having the glimpse of His Face. When, we by

chance and grace, have the glimpse of His Face, then we would decide

whether He has urdhwapundra or tripundra " . This was the statement

when a disciple asked whether the Supreme God is Vishnu or Shiva.

 

To put in the words of my gurunatha and Brahmasri Tadepalli

Raghavanarayana Shastrigal " Shri Bhaskara has completely assimilated

the Jagatguru Vedavyasa Hridaya " . My gurunatha and Shri Narayana

Sastrigal had close affinity with the descendants of Bhasakaraya and

his pita in the village of Narayanpet at Mahaboobnagar district of

Andhra Pradesh. Shri Subramanya Sastry, who was the descendant of

Bhaskara, was the Head of the Department of Sanskrit at Osmania

University, Hyderabad. He was the person to give the original

portrait of Bhaskara to my gurunatha. Shri Bhushananandanatha, a

great srividyopasaka belonging to the lineage of Bhaskara in

Mahaboobnagar district of AP was the friend of my gurunatha.

 

Now, there is a misconception among the followers of dakshinamargis

that Shri Bhaskara was a follower of Vama Marga as he followed the

Katyayana Tantra. The hue and cry about this misconception was raised

by certain people like Kalyananda Bharati of Sringeri Virupaksha

Pita, Guntur, AP, Shri Tummalapalli Ramalingeswara Rao (Shri

Adwayananda Bharati of Sringeri), Pisipati Subramanya Sastry,

Mudigonda Venkatarama Shastry etc. to name a few.

 

The greatness and enigma about Bhaskara is that we was adept in all

64 tantras, a wonderful scholar of Srauta rituals, a great knowledge

bank of Purva Mimamsa and Uttara Mimamsa, a great scholar of

Vyakarana etc. Though he was adept in dakshina and vama marga, HE HAD

A GREAT RESPECT FOR OUR ACHARYA SANKARA BHAGAVATPADA.

 

Though he was not a vama-margi, to some of the names of LS, he quotes

the leftist tantras in his commentary and hence the misconception

among some of the sadacharis.

 

Now, if one looks at the Chandrikakhya vyakhya of Vaidyanatha

Dikshitar, he differs in some of the aspects of commentary of LS.

Like Bhaskara, Shri Dikshitar was also a marvellous srividyopasaka

and was initiated in Mahapaduka and Hamsa Vidya by none other than

Lalitha Tripurasundari Herself. Mother Divine was the Gurumurthi for

Dikshitar. Some of the rahasya-namas of LS, Dikshitar gives the

commentary which is in tune with Sankara Advaita Marga.

 

Though this may seem " BIASED " AND " RUBBING OF VEDANTIC COLOURS " to

some of our members, this has been held in high esteem by most of the

sadacharis and acharyas of Sringeri.

 

Some of the principles which Shaktas believe differ from the belief

of Vedanta. Like there are only 4 avasthas for vedanta (jagrat,

svapna, sushupti and turiya). But shakta sampradaya have 5 avasthas

(jagrat, svapna, sushupti, turiya and turiyAtIta).

 

Vedantis say that when you say Turiyatita you are putting the

boundaries and limitations for Turiya Avastha. Acharya Gaudapada also

says the same thing in Mandukya Karika. But shaktas belive in 5 th

state which they equate with Mula Para dasa which is the source for

the Para Nada avastha (para, pashyanti, madhyama, vaikhari).

 

There are many difference of opinions, but owing to shortage of time,

i am stopping here.

 

But personally I AM FOR SHRI BHASKARA.

 

With regards and wishing you happy diwali,

 

sriram

 

, " Kumar Ramachandran " <kramach

wrote:

>

> shri gurubhyo namaH

> shri mahAgaNapataye namaH

>

> Friends:

>

> Just my two cents.

>

> Don't knock Shri Bhaksara makhin's methods (or his shishya

paramparA) until you have lived it and tried it. These are antarmuhka

experiences, and we dont talk much about them outside of our guru-

shishya circles.

>

> You can talk about these methodologies and discuss them until you

are blue in the face. Without the force of internal experience, it

means nothing.

>

> We should realize that like Hinduism, even Shri Vidya is based on

many paths to the same goal. No single presciption for achievement of

that goal exists today.

> Would a human being be recommended to take the same path to Mount

Kailasa / Maansarovar as a mountain goat ?

> Can a 50 year old woman running fever after knee surgery take the

same time to climb up to Thirupathi Devasthaanam as an 18 year old

young boy ?

> Paths/methods are different.

> Goal is the same.

> Rejoice in your path, and don't look down on others in their path.

> Recognize that yours is not the one and only true path.

> Thanks.

> KR.

>

>

>

> ( makArapanchakodbhUtaprouDhAntollAsasundaryai namaH )

>

> shrI mAtre namaH

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

shri gurubhyo namaH

shri mahAgaNapataye namaH

 

Dear shriram:

 

Yes.

I agree this respect was mutual between my guru paramparA and the shankara

matham.

 

regards.

KR.

 

shri mAtre namaH