7. Regarding the validity of Pancharatra

The Vedas and Smrti texts are held by the Hindus in great veneration and authority. Most of the people have faith in the Vedas 1. Harsacarita pp. 238-239 2. Brahmasutra-bhasya by Sankara II.ii.42-45 3. The allegorical drama Agamadambara Act III & IV 4. Agamapramanya passim. 5. Vide Jayakhya-samhita, forward p.7 for the extracts of this works. Vide also p.34 18

and in their infallibility. So, any literature, that preaches against Vedic authority is deceived. It is, therefore, no surprise, that the Agamas are considered to be lacking in authority as they are non-Vedic and are not treated on par with the Vedas. Charges are levelled against the admission of Agamic authority on the ground that the Agama practices violate the vedic precepts and prescribe practice that are not sanctioned in the vedas. In the Pancharatra women and the fourth class are given initiation and taught the mantras, recommending worship of the deities. They are denied upanayana and so the study of the Vedas. By teaching Tantric mantras, they are declared to be eligible to do worship. These objections are answered by showing that these classes form the major portion of the society and are to be treated with sympathy and they are denied the use of the vedic mantras, instead, 19

the Tantric mantras are taught to them'. Vaidika and Tantric mantras are to be used accordingly by the aspirants for worship who are qualified. It must be said here that the dvadasaksara mantra is a Tantric mantra enjoined for all the people including the dvijas. The second objection is that the followers of Pancaratra do not use the well-known savitri mantras in their sandhyavandana and follow ekayanasastra which they claim, supports their doctrines². The answer to this is that such a practice should have been in vogue long ago and they are not being practiced in this age. Agama is non-Vedic and so, the mantras were not to be practiced here. But, instead of these other mantras are mentioned. The contention that the Pancharatra Agama is not mentioned in the text of subjects of study is no argument. It is because, these texts do not exhaust all the subjects. Arthasastra, Ayurveda and others 1. Tantrika mula mantras syuh tantra mantrah prakirtitah| Sanatkumara-samhita IV.V.71 vide also: "Tantrika vaisya sudranam Sarvesam tantrikam va || Sanatkumara-samhita IX.V.9 2. "Visnusca upasyate" etc Sanatkumara-samhita Brahmaratra - Ch.V V.95-96 20

which are not included in these lists and are cited as authority and on that account, they do not cease to be the subjects of study. The Kurmapurana mentions Pancharatra as not authoritative along with Pasupata and other systems. This is a case of sheer antagonism to the Agama tradition. That the Vedic and not any other tradition is to be followed and glorifying the Vedas is the basis for this objection. An interesting objection raised in this context is, God is believed to have revealed the Vedas and this being the case how can he be admitted to have revealed the Pancaratra also which is held to be non-vedic? In answer to this, attention must be drawn to the word vakta in the statement "pancaratrasya krtsnasya vakta narayanah svayam'". The word vakta under discussion means 'speaker' and not author. The word, therefore, means that Pancaratra is a great 1. Quoted in Sri-bhasya by Ramanuja II.ii.42 21

upanisad and that the ekayanaveda was the source of this Agama, while the Rgveda and others are only its branches. This shows that the Pancharatra was considered as an upanisad of the ekayanaveda. Visnu is thus the 'vakta' of this veda and therefore of Pancaratra too. Therefore, there is no antagonism between the Vedas and Pancharatra. The Vedas do not conceive a deity to possess a physical body and treat it to have only the mantra as its body. As against this the Agamas hold that God, though formless, yet assumes a form to please the devotees. The objection to admitting God as having a body therefore does not stand. Initiation (diksa) is enjoined in the Pancaratra Agama for a person who seeks to conduct worship to the deity. The objection here is that a dvija (twice born) has the first diksa when he is born. and the second one when he gets upanayana performed to him'. 22

The most important objection against Pancaratra is based on the utpattyasambhavadhikarana, which forms part of the Brahmasutra of Badarayana. The adhikarana² called utpatyasambhavadhikarana, is the eighth section in the second quarter of the second chapter of the Brahmasutra. The second quarter of the second chapter of Brahmasutra, after critically examining the importance of the Sankhya system, the four schools of Buddhism namely Sautrantika, Vaibhasika, Yogacara and Madhyamika, Jaina, Pasupata and Pancharatra finally, rejects the views of all except the last mentioned system. In the adhikarana mentioned above, there are four aphorisms. Of these, the first two forms the prima facie view and the next two answers the objections there on. 1. Vide: Manu smrti. II. 16 2. An adhikarana contains the mention of the subject treated, the doubt about it, the prima facie view, the reply and the final decision on the problem raised. Vide visayo visayas caiva purvapaksastatottaram nirnayas ca pancangam sastrea dhikaranam smrtam. - Sabdakalpadruma.I.I-37. 23

The four sutras are: 1 2 3 4 utpatyasambhavat II.ii.39 na ca kartuh karanam II. ii. 40 vijnanadibhave va tadapratisedhat II.ii. 41 vipratisedhacca II.ii.42 These mean: (1) that the view of the Pancharatra school cannot be maintained since there is the impossibility of the origination of the jiva; (2) The instrument does not originate from the agent; (3) However, there is no contradiction to the system, because (4) they (vyuha) are admitted as of the nature of Vasudeva who is in the form of knowledge and There is the negation (of origination) in the Pancharatra itself. 24 24

An objection to the validity of the Pancaratra system was raised, for the first time, by Sankara in his Brahmasutrabhasya. Sankara admits the vyuha forms and the worship of the Lord in the five divisions of the day. He raises his objection to the statement in the Pancharatra text that one soul called Sankarsana, is born out of Vasudeva. But, it is emphatically stated in the Upanisads that the self is eternal and has no birth. The Pancaratra statement is, therefore, anti-Vedic and so the portion containing such statements of the Pancharatra Agama cannot be admitted as valid. This objection is answered by stating that in the Mahabharata it is said that Vasudeva is the soul of Sankarsana, Pradyumna the mind of Sankarsana and Aniruddha the ego of Pradyumna'. Here it is not stated that the soul, mind or ego are born out of Vasudeva. Yamuna states that the statement of Sankara, that the soul is born is not found in any of the Pancharatra works². 1. Vide Mahabharata santiparvan. 358; 39,40 2. Agamapramanya, p. 109, 10-14. 25 25

On the other hand the Kathopanisad mentions that the self is never born nor does it die¹. The word jayate which is used by Sankara in the sense intended by him cannot be admitted for, the word jnani means manifestation or emanation. A passage from the Vedas where this root must be taken to mean manifestation reads thus. "It (Brahman) which is not born is manifested" 2. The second objection is that the statement mind and ego are born of Sankarsana and Pradyumna is not correct, for these are the instruments and are stated to have come out of Brahman³. Nowhere it is observed that an instrument (karana), evolves out of an agent (karta). The third objection is that Sankarsana, Anirudda and Pradyumna are Vasudeva himself and all the three are associated 1. "na jayate, mriyate va" kathoup Ch. II. 18 2. "ajayamano bahudha vijayate" Taittiryaranyaka III. xiii. 1 3. etasmajjayate prana manassarvendriyanica - Munda.up.III.i 3 26

with the qualities of knowledge etc¹. Then, in that case, there is no need for the three deities, as they are not discriminated from Vasudeva.² To this, the followers of Visistadvaita contend that this is only a divine descent (avatara) of the Supreme out of His free will and serve a definite purpose. The four vyuha forms (caturaturya) are to be worshipped² by certain aspirants. The Brahmasutra vipratisedhacca [II.ii.42], does not mean, as Sankara holds, that the Pancaratra system is denied validity. It is because, according to Visistadvaita, the birth of 1. Isvara evaite sarve jnanaisvaryasaktibalaviryatejobhir aisvaraih dharmaih anvita abhsabhyupagamyante vasudeva eva. Brahmasutra-bhasya by Sankara II.ii.44 2. Vide Sri-bhasya by Ramanuja p.331,5-7 and BS 2.2.41 : vasudevakhyam param brahmaivasritavatsalam svasritasamasrayaniyatvaya svecchaya caturdhavatisthata iti hi tatprakriya. Yatha pauskarasamhitayam kartavyatvena vai yatra caturatmyamupasyate. Yamuna offers three explanations for the sutral "vijnanadibhave va tadapratisedhat ". See Agama pramanya pp. 118-121. 27 U

the soul is denied in the Pancaratra itself as is evident from the passage from the Parama Samhita'. vyaptirupena sambandhas tasyas ca purusasya ca sa hy anadinanantasca paramarthena niscitah. Among the four Sutras the first two contain the objection and the last two the Siddhanta. Puskaraksa, an eminent recluse, wrote that this is the way in which the four sutras are to be understood and interpreted accordingly.² Jayantabhatta, the author of Nyayamanjari defends the authenticity of the Pancharatra on the ground that this agama is like the upanisad which supports Vedic authority³. There are some more objections against the validity of Pancaratra. It is stated that sage Sandilya studied the Vedas, epics, Puranas 1. Parama-samhita II.19 2. Iti tatprakriya. Yatha pauskarasamhitayam. Nyaya Manjari-Grantha bhanga p 112. 3. Nyayamanjari part I p 242 28

T and many other works but could not get his doubts clarified about the ultimate reality and the means of final release. Finally, he studied the Pancaratrasastra through the grace of God. It is held that this statement is anti-Vedic since the authority of the Vedas is questioned². But this objection is to be considered by treating that Sandilya's attempt does not question the validity of the Vedas but expresses his inability to get his doubts solved. This explanation is analogous to the statement of Narada mentioned in the Chandogya text³ that he has studied all the Vedas but has not realized the self. This statement is only to glorify the bhuma vidya, that is going to be mentioned later in that context. The Pancharatra tradition is also known as Sattvata system. The word sattvata, it appears, seems to have been used in a despicable sense. But this point is to be proved, beyond doubt. 1. sangesu vedesu nisthamlabhamanah sandilyah pancharatra sastram adhi gatavan-quoted. 2. See Brahmasutra-bhasya by Sankara p.497 4-5: "catursu vedesu param sreyo labdhva sandilya idam sastram adhigatavan ityadivedanindadarsanat". 3. Ch U VII. 1-2 29

Later on, the word has come to mean a respectable clan. This word is derived by Parasarabhatta, while commenting on the word sattvata 66 thus: Sat is the supreme Brahman or the quality of the sattva..... Sattvan is a person who has realized Brahman or one who is associated with the quality of sattva.. Sattvata is the act of the person or the sastra that is followed by him....... Sattvatas are Bhagavatas"." Perhaps, the term pancaratra became prominent or glorified at the time of Mahabharata. It is observed in the commentary by Sankara on the BS II.ii.42 that the Pancharatra contains certain objectionable or contradictory statements. It must be admitted that the Pancaratra recommends certain rites such as killing (marana), subjugation of another (vasikarana) and drawing a person to one's proximity (akarsana) for vanquishing enemies and other such rites santika and pustika. 1. Vide Visnusahasranamabhasya, p.140, 7-12: "satvavan brahmavit sattviko va, tasyedam karma sastram va sattvatam.... sattvatah bhagavatah". 2. See Brahmasutra-bhasya by Sankara p.497.1 30

These are objectionable practices, but on this ground Pancharatra cannot be treated as anti-Vedic. Such practices, it should be observed, are not abundant in all the texts of Pancharatra. The Jayakhyasamhita and the Sattvatasamhita are the texts where such practices are mentioned'. The Buddhist work Sadhanamala seems to have influenced the Pancharatra texts with regard to these topics. The reason could be that these texts, being written around the 4th century B.C., might have come from the same place in North India and contains the treatment of the means of defence and offence as in other Buddhist works.