[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Pāśupata, Pāncharātra, etc. composed by Śiva and Viṣṇu as mohaka śāstra

[D.V.N.Sarma డి.వి.ఎన్.శర్మ]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:52 PM, D.V.N.Sarma డి.వి.ఎన్.శర్మ <
dvnsarma at gmail.com> wrote:

> >>So tantras are created to delude papi vaidikas. Tantras are created to
> protect vedabahyas and not to delude them.


>>This is correct.

But according to the Sri Rudra bhashya there is no place in this sloka for
vedabahyas.
By the word vedabahya,  only vaidikas who strayed from vedic path are
indicated.

ये वैदिका एव सन्तः
पापवशाद्वेदेष्वविश्वासं कुर्वन्ति, तान्विमोहयितुम्, तच्च विमोहनं
तेषामनुग्रहायैव । ते हि वेदद्विषः तन्त्रेषु स्थितां वेदनिन्दामुपश्रुत्य
बहुमन्यमाना वेदं विहाय तान्त्रिकमार्गमनुप्रविश्य तेन विधिना परमेश्वरमाराध्य
तत्पुण्यक्षतवेदद्वेषदोषाः क्रमेण जन्मान्तरे वेदनिष्ठां प्रतिपद्य कृतकृत्या
भवन्ति । अत एव वैदिकस्यैव सतः शाण्डिल्यस्य वेदनिष्ठां विहाय
पाञ्चरात्रादिदीक्षाविधिना विष्णुमाराधितवतो निन्दापूर्वकं तं प्रति चिराय
वेदमार्गं गमिष्यसीति भगवता वासुदेवेन वरो दत्त इति वासिष्ठलैङ्गे
श्रूयते  - मत्तन्त्राश्रयणेनैव
मत्पूजा च कृता त्वया । तपसा प्रीतवानस्मि तव शाण्डिल्य मे प्रिय ।।
कुमार्गेणापि
शाण्डिल्य! मम पूजा त्वया कृता । अतः कालेन महता वेदमार्गं गमिष्यसि ॥

Therefore the delusion as well as protection are meant for vaidikas only.

regards,
Sarma.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 8:34 AM, D.V.N.Sarma డి.వి.ఎన్.శర్మ <
dvnsarma at gmail.com> wrote:

> None of us are perfect. Since we are discussing non-advaitic Saiva
> sectarian purana
> I thought that there can be some motive in depicting advaitic proponent as
> vedabahya.
>
> regards,
> Sarma.
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 7:48 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah@
> lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't understand why shANDilya is assumed prefect just because he wrote
>> some aphorisms on bhakti at one point of his life?
>> Do you have some other information to prove that he was never vedatyAgI?
>> Only then we'll entertain your idea that vyAsa had some 'motive'?
>>
>> On Sat 18 Feb, 2017, 05:03 D.V.N.Sarma డి.వి.ఎన్.శర్మ via Advaita-l, <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Sandilya is the author of Bhakti Sutras with an advaitic bias.
>>> Does somebody see a motive in depicting him as a non-vaidic tantric.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Sarma.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:49 PM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > These verses are also stated in the Rudrabhashyam (that has been cited)
>>> > discussing the composing of the doctrines:
>>> >
>>> > मत्तन्त्राश्रयणेनैव मत्पूजा च कृता त्वया । तपसा प्रीतवानस्मि तव
>>> शाण्डिल्य
>>> > मे प्रिय ।।
>>> >
>>> > [Lord Viṣṇu addresses Śāṇḍilya: Only by adhering to My doctrine
>>> > (Pāncharātra), you have performed My worship. My dear  Śāṇḍilya, I am
>>> > pleased by your austerities.]
>>> >
>>> > कुमार्गेणापि शाण्डिल्य मम पूजा त्वया कृता । अतः कालेन महता वेदमार्गं
>>> > गमिष्यसि ॥
>>> >
>>> > [Even by adhering to *this inferior path* (Pāncharātra), O Śāṇḍilya,
>>> you
>>> > have performed My worship. As a result of this, over time, you will
>>> come to
>>> > be included in the vedic fold.]
>>> >
>>> > The above make it clear that the practice of puja, tapas alone was
>>> > performed and the resultant coming to the vedic fold is also specified.
>>> > That shows that the puja, etc is not sufficient to gain mokṣa.
>>> >
>>> > Moreover, the smrtis are grouped and put in one place by Veda Vyasa in
>>> the
>>> > Brahmasutras. That is to show that there is no contradiction,
>>> avirodha, to
>>> > the Vedanta from the smrtis that are non-Veda. The pāncharātra is in
>>> this
>>> > group of smrtis. Hence alone while refuting it, along with other
>>> schools
>>> > mentioned in that group, whatever does not conflict with the Vedanta is
>>> > admitted: paramatam apratiṣiddham anumatam.  From the above verses it
>>> is
>>> > also clear that those practices are not contradictory to the Vedanta
>>> and
>>> > hence admitted. This can be clearly witnessed in the
>>> pancharatradhikaranam
>>> > where Shankara accepts explicitly the practices of worship,
>>> contemplating
>>> > the Lord, etc. (At one place even the Bauddha is admitted for the fact
>>> that
>>> > he too admits  the ephemerality of sense objects.) Only doctrinal
>>> > differences are pointed out and refuted. It can also be seen from the
>>> > bhashyas that all these schools that are refuted are non-advaitic,
>>> that is,
>>> > un-vedāntic. We can see this also implicitly in the above verses where
>>> the
>>> > puja, etc. is not endorsed as sufficient for moksa and a further stint
>>> in
>>> > the vedic path is shown as wanting.
>>> >
>>> > regards
>>> >
>>> > subbu
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>> >
>>> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>> >
>>> > For assistance, contact:
>>> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>>
>>> For assistance, contact:
>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>>
>>
>