[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Pāśupata, Pāncharātra, etc. composed by Śiva and Viṣṇu as mohaka śāstra

[D.V.N.Sarma డి.వి.ఎన్.శర్మ]

Sandilya is the author of Bhakti Sutras with an advaitic bias.
Does somebody see a motive in depicting him as a non-vaidic tantric.

regards,
Sarma.

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:49 PM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> These verses are also stated in the Rudrabhashyam (that has been cited)
> discussing the composing of the doctrines:
>
> मत्तन्त्राश्रयणेनैव मत्पूजा च कृता त्वया । तपसा प्रीतवानस्मि तव शाण्डिल्य
> मे प्रिय ।।
>
> [Lord Viṣṇu addresses Śāṇḍilya: Only by adhering to My doctrine
> (Pāncharātra), you have performed My worship. My dear  Śāṇḍilya, I am
> pleased by your austerities.]
>
> कुमार्गेणापि शाण्डिल्य मम पूजा त्वया कृता । अतः कालेन महता वेदमार्गं
> गमिष्यसि ॥
>
> [Even by adhering to *this inferior path* (Pāncharātra), O Śāṇḍilya, you
> have performed My worship. As a result of this, over time, you will come to
> be included in the vedic fold.]
>
> The above make it clear that the practice of puja, tapas alone was
> performed and the resultant coming to the vedic fold is also specified.
> That shows that the puja, etc is not sufficient to gain mokṣa.
>
> Moreover, the smrtis are grouped and put in one place by Veda Vyasa in the
> Brahmasutras. That is to show that there is no contradiction, avirodha, to
> the Vedanta from the smrtis that are non-Veda. The pāncharātra is in this
> group of smrtis. Hence alone while refuting it, along with other schools
> mentioned in that group, whatever does not conflict with the Vedanta is
> admitted: paramatam apratiṣiddham anumatam.  From the above verses it is
> also clear that those practices are not contradictory to the Vedanta and
> hence admitted. This can be clearly witnessed in the pancharatradhikaranam
> where Shankara accepts explicitly the practices of worship, contemplating
> the Lord, etc. (At one place even the Bauddha is admitted for the fact that
> he too admits  the ephemerality of sense objects.) Only doctrinal
> differences are pointed out and refuted. It can also be seen from the
> bhashyas that all these schools that are refuted are non-advaitic, that is,
> un-vedāntic. We can see this also implicitly in the above verses where the
> puja, etc. is not endorsed as sufficient for moksa and a further stint in
> the vedic path is shown as wanting.
>
> regards
>
> subbu
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>