Vedic Religion

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Shrisha Rao <shrao at NYX.NET> wrote:

> > As for why Sankara and vAcaspati disagree with a pAncarAtra
doctrine that
> > denies difference in the state of release, the reasons are the
same as why
> > ASmarathya and auDulomi are rejected elsewhere. Briefly, the
reason is that

There are also other problems sha.nkara finds with the pA.ncarAtra.

We should remember that the pA.ncarAtra doctrine sha.nkara quotes
talks about actual creation of a jIva. sha.nkara says in many places
no one can deny himself, and also quotes the bR^ihadAraNyaka that the
sight of the seer can never be lost. So, creation of a jIva would be
unacceptable for sha.nkara. He mentions explicitly the unacceptability
of the creation of jIva in his bhAshhya for 2.2.42 also. He also
quotes the brahmasUtra itself which denies orgination of the jIva.

Not to mention the fact that a real transformation of Narayana which
gives rise to the jIva, would contradict the eternality of nArayana
himself. He mentions this also in his commentary to 2.2.42.

BTW, sha.nkara interprets sUtras 2.2.42-45 as contradicting the
pA.carAtra doctrine in case anyone is wondering why I made a reference
to sUtra 2.2.42.

> Would appreciate a reference for this too.

See bhAshhyas to sUtra-s 1.4.20 and 1.4.21 for the views of
Ashmarathya and AuDulomi. The refutation is given after stating the
views of kAshakR^itsna in 1.4.22.

I still haven't managed to dig out the pAshupata reference from my
pile of books unfortunately. BTW, the commentator X also seems to have
this verse in mind when he mentions the partial credibility of
sA.nkhya, yoga, pAshupata and pA.ncarAtra religions. It is interesting
that yAmuna holds him in high regard though X could not have been a
vIra-vaishhNava.

Rama