[Advaita-l] Fwd: Panchapadika and Prapanchasara-vivaranam of Bhagavan Padmapadacharya

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Jaldhar ji
Thank you for your informative posts on Vinayaka and matRgaNa-s.

The tantras and Agamas are dynamic topical responses of respected Acharyas
and upAsakas in keeping with particular times and places.

The worship of saumya aspects of certain hitherto ugra devatAs may well
have their origin/commencement in the upAsanA/bhakti of krAnta-darSI
Acharyas and jnAnIs including Sri Shankara BhagavatpAda etc.

In that sense there is no mistake in accepting that certain of the Agama
and tantra worship may well be a sAttvika/saumya evolute of later times
(say, the 8th Century) of corresponding ugra aspects of those very devatAs,
which happened to be in vogue in earlier times.

The bhakti/upAsana of later acharyas evoked that particular saumya response
from Ishvara (who has agency too; the forms she can manifest are not
pre-programmed or frozen in time but can be a dynamic response to the
bhakta/upasaka in question) and this was codified in sAttvika tantras etc.
The imprimatur of tradition and the wider peer "review" of other upAsakas
and acharyas of the Vedic tradition was a sine qua non for such upAsya
mUrti worship to pass muster as authentic veda-compatible Agama. (This is
to preclude every "Adi yogi" kind of arbitrary innovation from being
considered authentic.)

Om
Raghav


On Thu, 2 Mar, 2023, 12:26 pm Jaldhar H. Vyas via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Feb 2023, Bhaskar YR wrote:
>
> >
> >>  Kindly elaborate this also prabhuji. How the sapta mAtrukA-s in
> >>  bhAshya different from devi's popular sapta mAtruka svarUpa i.e.
> >>  brAhmi, mAheshwari, kaumAri, vaishNavi, vArAhi, indraaNi, chAmunda.
> >>  What are other sapta mAtruka-s which bhAshyakAra had in his mind when
> >>  saying it is tAmasi pUja.
> >
>
> The bhashya uses the word mAtR^igaNa.  It is TikAkAras who gloss it as
> saptaMatR^is.  As gaNa merely means "group" and a group of seven is
> certainly a group, this is plausible.  However in our shAstras the matR^is
> are not always seven.  Some texts mention aShTamAtR^is (8) and a part of
> any major vidhi such as vivahA or upanayana in Gujarati parampara at least
> we do gaNeshagauryAdiShoDashamAtR^ikA puja where 16 are named and
> worshipped.  These particular groups are mostly named after devas and have
> distinct names and iconographic features.  For instance in shrI ChaNDI
> pATha, in 8th adhyAya shlokas 12 - 21, it is said that in order to defeat
> the armies shumbha and nishumbha, mahAdevI summoned the shaktis of various
> male devas.  There are seven and they are named and described: brAhmANI,
> maheshvarI, kaumArI, vAiSNavI, vArAhI, narasiMhI, and aindrI.  But this is
> not the only place mAtRis are mentioned.  In the 2nd adhyAya, shlokas
> 51-52, it is said that while fighting mahishAsura, mahAdevi from Her own
> breath brought forth mAtrgaNa "by hundreds and thousands".  These mAtR^is
> are not named and only described in generic terms.
>
> Another account of the origin of the mAtRis is given in matsyapurANa
> adhyAya 179.  andhakAsura has prevailed over the devas and they turn to
> shiva bhagavAn for help.  When the combined forces of the devas and the
> (shiva) gaNas attack, they are dismayed to find that every time they
> injure andhakAsura, a duplicate andhakAsura appears.  They are quickly
> overhelmed by all these andhakAsuras and it is at this point that shiva
> bhagavAn (not mAtAji) creates the mAtR^igaNas.  The text goes on to name
> almost 200 of them.  Some have familiar names from 7, 8 or 16 groups
> (Including Tumburus 4 sisters interestingly) but others are completely
> different.  The end of the list indicates it is not supposed to be
> exhaustive.  The mAtR^igaNas drink up the blood of andhakAsura before it
> falls to the ground preventing him from reproducing (like kAlI and
> raktabIja in CP) and eventually he is defeated.  But then the mAtR^is run
> amok and threaten to devour the rest of the universe.  shiva bhagavAn is
> unable to control them so He appeals to viShNu bhagavAn in the form of
> narasiMha.  viShNu bhagavAn creates 4 devis each with a retinue of 8 and
> these 36s mAtr^is subdue the other mAtR^is and turn them to a peaceful and
> protective path.
>
> So we see that the term "mAtR^i" is applied to beings of two types.  One
> is fixed in number, distinct in appearance, and beneficient.  The second
> is an undistinguished mass, unnamed and without specific appearances and
> is chaotic or even dangerous unless appeased.  Given the context of the
> gItA shloka he is commenting, doesn't it seem more likely that
> ShankarAchArya would be referring to the second type, especially when that
> type is also associated with tumburu as are the chaturbhagini?
>
> >
> >>  Though it is very valid and logical justification, kindly pardon me
> >>  prabhuji I failed to reconcile this with that of vinAyaka, mAtrugaNa,
> >>  chaturbhagini in bhAshya vAkya.  For that I think first we have to
> >>  establish that tumburu=bhairava=vinAyaka without any ambiguity.
> >
>
> I don't think at this point in time it is possible for anyone to establish
> their theories without ambiguity but that goes for the historians too!
>
> >
> >>  Yes, but it is not clear whether shankara while writing this bhAshya
> >>  had the inscriptions like this in mind or popularly known deities like
> >>  mAtru gaNa, sapta mAtruka and vinAyaka!! There could be a possibility
> >>  that being a sanAtana vaidika dharma follower he might be having the
> >>  popular pUrANic characters only when writing vinAyaka and sapta
> >>  mAtrukA-s.
>
> The problem is that by the time usually ascribed to AchArya,
> vinAyaka/gaNapati was already part of mainstream astika dharma.  See the
> inclusion in yaGYavAlkyasmR^iti which is second only to manusmR^ti in
> importance in dharmashAstras.  Same for saptamAtR^is who were considered
> as kuladevatas for gupta emperors some 4-500 years previously.  So why
> mention these particular deities and not others?  Were they just picked at
> random?
>
> >
> >>  And it has
> >> not been taken as seriously as PTB in the traditional circle for the
> >> vyAkhyAna-s on bhAshya and most of the time ignored.
>
> Traditional Advaitic circles or traditional tantric/agamic circles?
> According to Prof. Vrajavallabha Dwivedi, the PS has been quoted in
> ishAnashivagurudevapaddhati which he dates during 11th century.
> According to the authors of the section on "Hindu Shakta and Tantric
> Literature" in the "History of Indian Literature" series, (Vol. 2 Fasc. 2)
> Profs. Goudriaan and Gupta, "The many quotations in various Tantric
> digests and commentaries attest to the popularity of the PS. This
> popularity, as well as the extreme difficulty of the work, led to an
> intensive commentarial activity."
>
> >
> >>  Prof. observes the widespread belief that these are shankara's was due
> >>  to a series of 20 volumes entitled The works of shankara (shankara
> >>  granthAvaLiH) published by vANi vilAs press during the early years of
> >>  the 20th Century.  And which has been approved by the then pointiff of
> >>  Shringeri Sri Sacchidaananda shivaabhinava nrusimha bhArati svAminaH.
> >>  But we are not told what methods were employed to ascertain the
> >>  veracity of the claim that all these works were shankara's /
> >>  bhAshyakAra's.
>
> To be sure the PS was brought to a much wider audience due to this series
> but it was hardly unknown before then as shown above.
>
>
> >  The claim that all these were works of shankara was
> >>  not accepted even in the orthodox circles of those days.  The
> >>  scholarly tradition has all along ignored all these works (like
> >>  prapanchasaara, trishati bhAshya, Soundarya lahari, yoga sUtra bhAshya
> >>  etc.) with the exception of his commentaries on the prasthAna traya.
> >>  And he further writes : a very simple test is the citation by the long
> >>  line of authors belonging to the Advaita fold.  None of the earlier
> >>  authors has ever cared to mention or cite from, any of the minor
> >>  dissertations and of course from any devotional hymn contained in the
> >>  vANi vilAs edition of shankara's works.  A possible exception is US
> >>  which has been quoted by sureshwara, the vArtikakAra in his NS.  That
> >>  no author of any standing has cared to prepare glosses on the works
> >>  (contained in volumes 13 to 20) is an additional argument.
>
> Personally, I think this is a good criterion.  But it should be pointed
> out that most historians who have opined on the subject use a different
> test.  They look at the language and concepts.  Shri Natarajji has shown
> how the language and style of the vivaraNa does match up with that of
> pa~nchapAdika.
>
> As once again I am going long, let me stop here and summarize my
> contention.  While nothing I have written can prove that shaMkarAchArya
> wrote tantrik works, in BG bhAShya, he has one particular tantrik
> sampradaya in mind so we cannot use that to  assert that he was against
> _all_ forms of tantra without looking at additional factors.
>
> --
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>