[Advaita-l] 'Prana' as Brahman

[V Subrahmanian]

Kaushik,

The quote of Sri Amalananda that you have cited is actually a refutation of
Bhagavatpada by him.  While the BSB Pancharatra section holds that Veda
Vyasa denounces this school for various reasons, the first being: It says
the jiva has an origin.  Not only Shankara but Bhaskara and even Vallabha
have taken the same stand as Shankara.  Only the Vaishnava schools differ
as they hold Pancharatra dear.  Amalananda's opinion is a stark
disagreement from Shankara. Srivaishnavas happily quote this and say: Look,
while Shankara refuted this school on this point, his own descendent
differs from him and has said what is supporting us.

regards
subbu

On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 6:18 PM Kaushik Chevendra <
chevendrakaushik at gmail.com> wrote:

> Because tika has been quoted in the prashnopanishad.
> Here is a statment of amalananda(our own acharya) on the panchatantra
> texts which hold narayana and his avataras as supreme and not a "jeeva"
> (which shankara himself says is in accordance with the vedanta).
> जीवाभिन्नब्रह्मणो जगत्सर्गं वदतः समन्वयस्य
> जीवोत्पत्तिप्रतिपादकपाञ्चरात्रस्मृतिविरोधसंदेहे, अधिष्ठातैवेश्वर इति मते
> निरस्ते, प्रकृतिरपि स इति मतस्य वेदसंमतत्वाज्जीवोत्पत्तावपि प्रमाणत्वम् —
> एवंभूतावान्तरसंगतिलोभेन स्मृत्पादसंगतमप्यधिकरणमिह लिखितम् । तत्र — ईशोक्तं
> न पुराणेषु व्यामोहार्थमितीरितम् । पञ्चरात्रमतो जीवो विकार इति मीयते ॥
> पञ्चरात्रकर्तुर्वासुदेवस्य वेदादेव सर्वज्ञत्वावगमात् कपिलपतञ्जल्यादीनां च
> जीवत्वात्, पञ्चरात्रस्य च पुराणेषु बुद्धादिदर्शनवत्
> व्यामोहार्थमीश्वरप्रणीतत्वाश्रवणात्
> ब्रह्मनिमित्तत्वप्रकृतित्वसंप्रतिपत्तेश्च
> जीवोत्पत्तावप्यद्वैताव्याघातात्तत्सिद्धजीवोत्पत्तिरबाध्या । अत एवागतार्था च
> । एवं प्राप्ते, अभिधीयते — “बुद्धिपूर्वकृतिस्तन्त्रं ब्रह्मनिःश्वसितं
> श्रुतिः । तेन जीवजनिस्तत्र सिद्धा गौणी नियम्यते ॥” यावद्ध्येकदेशे
> वेदाविरोधादीश्वरबुद्धेर्वेदमूलत्वं वेदाद्वा सर्वविषयत्वं प्रतीयते, तावदेव
> स्वतःप्रमाणवेदाज्जीवानुत्पत्तिप्रमितौ तादृशबुद्धिपूर्वकेश्वरवचनान्न
> जीवोत्पत्तिरवगन्तुं शक्यते । अतः प्रमाणापहृतविषये गौणं तद्वचनम्, न तु
> भ्रान्तं पूर्वोक्तयुक्तिभिरिति ।
> Meaning: The adhikaraNa is begun as follows — there is a doubt as to
> whether the the origination of the individual soul (jIvotpatti) must be
> accepted literally from statements in the pAncarAtra Agama. This tantra was
> composed by the Omniscient Lord, and are in agreement with the Veda in
> terms of the oneness of material and efficient causes. It cannot be said
> that these statements are made in error, since they were uttered by the
> Lord Himself, compared to other darshanas like sAMkhya, yoga, etc. that
> were composed by jIvas like Kapila, Patanjali, etc. Moreover, we do not see
> anywhere in the Puranas that the pAncarAtra tantra was propagated by the
> Lord Himself for the sake of delusion not unlike the doctrine of the
> Bauddhas propagated again by Himself to delude the wicked. Such a doubt is
> raised here. The correct position, on the other hand , is as follows:
> “Since the Lord’s voluntary composition is the pAncarAtra tantra, and His
> involuntary breath is the shruti, statements of origination of the soul are
> secondary and figurative, not primary and literal”. The omnscience,
> benevolent nature, and infalliability of the Lord are all understood to be
> true only from the self-evident shruti. Hence, the pAncarAtra Agamas are
> dependent on the Veda for their authority. Hence, it cannot be said that
> they propagate the theory of origin of the individual soul literally, since
> it would contradict the shruti that says the individual soul is eternal.
> Therefore, such statements in the pAncarAtra are to be understood as
> secondary and conveying something else, and are not erroneous due to the
> reasons given in the prima facie position.
>
>
>>
>>>