[Advaita-l] Regarding the Pancharatra, Shankara is one with Purvamimamsa

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 7:44 AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> For Shankara, according to the Brahma
>> sutras, all schools that accept multiple souls, absolute reality of world,
>> etc. are un-vedantic.
>
>
>
> This is case of Shankara not knowing and aware of the very background in
> which the very B.sUtras were written. As I quoted earlier skanda-purANa
> about such background, one has to see what svayam Bhagavan Veda-Vyasa
> Himself has to say about what exactly was the philosophy during the period
> of Krta/trEta/dvapara youga-s.
>
> Madhva also quotes nArayaNa saMhita (in his AtharvaNa bhAshya) about the
> same topic ;
>
> krtE bhAgavatAtsarvE vEdaccha puruShAstadhA | trEtAyAM bhinnaviShayAH
> tatastrai vidhyAtAM batAH | tasmAdEkaH sarva vEdai
> jnEyO vishNuH sanAtanaH | pUjyO yajnyEH sOpachAraidhyEyO vaMdhyaccha
> sarvadA || -- ityAdi nArAyaNasamhitAm
>
> (crude translation – In Krta yuga, since all sadakas are bhagvat bhakatas,
> all vEda-s are bhagavat pratipAdaka only. In trEta, since some sAdakas have
> other interest (other than vishNu), vEdas will bring jnyAna in other
> subjects for them. However, since all vEdas have mukhya tAtparya in vishNu
> only in all yugas, one has to do worship sanAthana vishNu with all vEdas
> only)
>
> So, it is suffice to say at least from textual evidence, non-duality was
> definitely not the doctrine from the beginning. Of course, there is always
> a chance these evidences are forgotten during Shankara's time and hence he
> felt doctrine of duality is unvedic.
>

All the above goes against the Shruti: The Kenopanishad  which repeatedly
teaches:

तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते [know that alone to be Brahman and
not that which people meditate  as 'this'; that is as something different
from the meditator]

Seeing that this is contradictory to his siddhanta, Madhva parsed the word
upaasate into three words :-)   upa aasa te:  (someone who is sitting close
to you) [see the second line in the bhashya].

His bhashya:

नेदं जीवस्वरूपं यद् ब्रह्म  विष्ण्वाख्यमव्ययम् |
* किन्तु यत् ते समीपस्थमास ते विनियामकम्* |   [upa has the meaning of
sameepe.  Madhva takes the one word upaasate, a verb, as three different
words: upa aasa te]
तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि विष्ण्वाख्यं परमव्ययम् |
नियामकं तद्देवानां मर्त्यानां किमुतोत्तमम् ||

Even the Rangaramanuja Bhashya (Vishishtadvaita) does not doctor the
upanishdic word but retains it as it is:  नेदं यदिदमुपासते  = na idam yat
idam upaasate

There are many pramanas to show that Shiva is sarva veda vedya.  So, the
Skanda purana verse cited by Madhva to say that 'Brahma sutras were written
in order that Rudra, Brahma, etc. will study it and get enlightened' is
nothing more than stuti of Vishnu and is not absolute pramana.  It is
contradicted by many other statements in the Skanda purana itself.  The
Atharva Shira and Atharva Shikha upanishads hold Rudra as the Supreme
Brahman from whom the trimurtis emerge, Rudra as the Upasya, dhyeya, etc.

vs





>
> /sv
>