WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DAKSHINACHARA AND VAMACHARA

[MVSSP AGNI]

CAN ANYBODY PLEASE ANSWER THIS

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DAKSHINACHARA AND VAMACHARA. I HEARD DIFFERENT VIEWS  . ONE SAYS THAT IN VAMA CHARA "MAKARA PANCHAKAM " WILL BE THERE. AND SOME ONE ELSE TOLD THAT THE VAMA MARGA IS THE KARMA MARGA AND THE DAKSHINA MARGA IS THE VEDANTA . PLEASE TELL ME

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Please don't use all caps for your messages.

Please use Devanagari fonts to message in Sanskrit. 

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 7:56 AM, MVSSP AGNI <mvssp...@gmail.com> wrote:

CAN ANYBODY PLEASE ANSWER THIS

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DAKSHINACHARA AND VAMACHARA. I HEARD DIFFERENT VIEWS  . ONE SAYS THAT IN VAMA CHARA "MAKARA PANCHAKAM " WILL BE THERE. AND SOME ONE ELSE TOLD THAT THE VAMA MARGA IS THE KARMA MARGA AND THE DAKSHINA MARGA IS THE VEDANTA . PLEASE TELL ME

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

एकः परमात्मा  । ईश्वरास्सप्त । असंख्या जीवाः । ब्रह्मविष्णुशिवसूर्यगणेशशक्तिभैरवाश्चेश्वराः । 

पारानन्दे मते त्रयो मार्गाः। दक्षिणः ।वामः । उत्तरः । तथैव गाथामुदाहरन्ति।

दक्षिणादुत्तमं वामं वामादुत्तरमुत्तमम् ।

उत्तरादुत्तमं  किंचिन्नैव ब्रह्माण्डमण्डले ॥

वामाचारो द्विप्रकारो मध्यमोत्तमभेदेन । मद्यमैथुनमुद्राभिर्युक्तो’सावुत्तमः स्मृत इति मद्यमंसमत्स्यमुद्रामैथुनैर्युक्तो मध्यमः।

                                                           --- पारानन्दसूत्रम् , pp 1-3 ; 13

वैष्णवादुत्तस्मं शैवं शैवाद्दक्षिणमुत्तमम्।

दक्षिणादुत्तमं वामं वामात् सिद्धान्तमुत्तमम् ।

सिद्धान्तादुत्तमं कौलं कौलात्परतरं न हि ॥

                                                            ---- कुलार्णवतन्त्रम् , 2-7,8

All the तन्त्रग्रन्थs are अवैदिक and अशिष्टाचारप्रवर्तित । They say the purpose is ' easy मोक्ष ’ ।

There are great scholars like भास्करराय who are influenced by तन्त्रम् ।

धन्यो’स्मि 

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

[surya upprasad]

Respected Guruji (Korada ji), pls ignore my ignorance and enlighten me.

I could see the following sentence in your replay on the subject line:

All the तन्त्रग्रन्थs are अवैदिक and अशिष्टाचारप्रवर्तित । They say the purpose is ' easy मोक्ष ’

Now, are these तन्त्रग्रन्थs should be followed or not? as you mentioned that these are

अवैदिक and अशिष्टाचारप्रवर्तित is my जिज्ञासा. These can be ignored as these are अशिष्टाचारप्रवर्तित, I think.

Hence i humbly request you to enlighten me in this regard.

With humble pranams

G Surya Prasad,

Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Puri

[Aravinda Rao]

Just in a lighter vein. 

There used to be a joke while we were in the Government service. If you are trying to please your boss through hard work it is like dakshinaacaara. It is a tough process. If you can take recourse to please him by the three or five makaara-s, then it is vaamaacaara. The latter is effective in most cases, which seems to validate the claim by the tantra proponents. At any rate, the combination of the two is sure to succeed.

Aravinda Rao

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

IMHO the दक्षिण Maarga can be followed and it is beneficial also. Example -  Adi Sankara replaced Vaamachaara in many temples by दक्षिण type of worship. It does not have the Pancha Makaaras. In Lalitha Sahasra Naama there is a name Samayachara Tatpara. This is clearly showing for Lalithambika the Samachara internal type worship is best and not external worship.

Regards

 

-Venkatesh

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmur...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste

IMHO the दक्षिण Maarga can be followed and it is beneficial also. Example -  Adi Sankara replaced Vaamachaara in many temples by दक्षिण type of worship. It does not have the Pancha Makaaras. In Lalitha Sahasra Naama there is a name Samayachara Tatpara.

There are other names of Lalitāmbikā too: कौलिनी कुलयोगिनी, कौलमार्गतत्परसेविता, etc. of one class and सर्ववेदान्तवेद्या, मिथ्याजगदधिष्ठाना, वेदजननी, शिष्टेष्टा, शिष्टपूजिता, etc. of another class.

All this can be accounted for by the rule: रुचीनां वैचित्र्याद्रुजुकुटिलनानापथजुषां नृणामेको गम्यस्त्वमसि पयसामर्णव इव of the Śivamahimnastotra of Pushpadanta which has been commented upon by Madhusudana Saraswati as both Hara-para and Hari-para.

regards

vs

[Venkata Sriram]

Namaste,

तान्त्रिकाः say that their is 'easy मोक्ष'.  Infact, it is other way round. It is 'delayed मोक्ष'.  Let us recollect the words of shrI bhAskararaya again.

उपासनक्रमे द्वौ मार्गौ दृश्यते । वाममार्गो दक्षिणमार्गश्चेति । तत्र वाममार्गो नाम स्ववर्णाश्रमविहितानि यावन्ति कर्माणि, श्रौतान्यग्निहोत्रादीनी, स्मार्तान्यष्टकादीनि, तन्त्रिकाणि मन्त्रसिध्यादीनि तेषु सर्वेषु या या देवताः प्रधानभूता अंगभूता वा तत्तत् स्थाने स्वापास्यामेव देवतानां सर्वत्र भावयेत् । ईदृशे मार्गे देवपितृणां ऋणशोधनाभावजन्यं पातकं । दक्षिणमार्गे तु श्रौतादितत्त्तत्कर्माङ्गदेवतास्थाने स्वापास्यदेवतैव भावतीयेति न निर्बन्धः अपितु तत्त्तदेवताविषयकतन्त्रेषु यानि कर्माणि विहितानि तदङ्गत्वेनैवेति सर्वकर्माणां उपरोधाभावात् अस्मिन्मार्गे तादृशं पातकं नास्तिति ॠढिति मोक्षः , वाममार्गे तु विळंबितः । ऋणशोधनाभावेन कञ्चित्कालं प्रतिबन्धनात् ।

 

In dakshinachara, the svadharma related to one’s varnashrama (for dvijas) is essential and there are obligations towards one’s riShi, pitru-devata and other devata-s.  Owing to the performance of these obligatory duties, the debts are nullified and moksha is easy.  The 5 types of sacrifices (पञ्च यज्ञाः) are prescribed for dakshinachari.

 

Whereas, in vAmachara (which is for non-dvija), one is not bound by these obligations and the upAsana siddhi is based on the upAsya-devata-niSTa.  As there is no ऋणत्रयशुद्धि (3 obligations towards rishi, ancestors and other deities) and पञ्च यज्ञाः, chances of प्रत्यवाय दोषः in the form of योगिनिशापः is there which leads to सिद्धिहानि.

 

The dakshinachari when offers libations (tarpanas) to sages, ancestors and deities, utters those corresponding names of sages, ancestors & deities; whereas; the vamachari offers the libations only to bhairava & bhairavi.

 

Owing to these, the moksha for vamachari is delayed.

 

Now, the question arises.  Inspite of knowing this fact of delayed liberation, why certain शिष्टाः are showing interest & practicing vAma rituals.  The answer given by shrI bhAskararaya makhin is: भोगलिप्सया ....भुक्तिमुक्तिप्रदत्वेन वैशयिकशिष्टानां प्रवृत्तिसंभवात् ie., those shiSTa-s whose objective is to enjoy the sensual pleasures and mundane aspects, get attracted towards vamachara and get entangled in worldly pleasures and thus, their liberation is delayed.

 

एैहिकभोगविरक्तशिष्टानां तु दक्षिणमार्गे प्रवृत्तिरिति विवेकः …….those shiSTa-s who are dispassionate towards worldly pleasures, the path of dakshinachara is advisable.  So, says shrI bhAsararaya.

 

Regs,

Sriram 

On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 9:30:22 PM UTC+5:30, surya upprasad wrote:

Respected Guruji (Korada ji), pls ignore my ignorance and enlighten me.

I could see the following sentence in your replay on the subject line:

All the तन्त्रग्रन्थs are अवैदिक and अशिष्टाचारप्रवर्तित । They say the purpose is ' easy मोक्ष ’

ps.google.com/d/optout.

[Rishi Goswami]

यदि वामाचारे पञ्चप्रकृतिकर्माणि सोमयज्ञादीनि देवपितृकार्याणि न स्यु: तदा स्त्रीशूद्रैरपि वामवर्त्म अनुसंधेयम्? तैरपीति मार्गमनुसृत्य मोक्ष: प्राप्य:?
If there are no compulsions for tarpan, panchaprakritikarma, and devapitrakaryas, so can women and shudras perform this avaidik tantra? Can they attain moksh through vaamaachaar?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Rishi Goswami <gris...@gmail.com> wrote:

यदि वामाचारे पञ्चप्रकृतिकर्माणि सोमयज्ञादीनि देवपितृकार्याणि न स्यु: तदा स्त्रीशूद्रैरपि वामवर्त्म अनुसंधेयम्? तैरपीति मार्गमनुसृत्य मोक्ष: प्राप्य:?
If there are no compulsions for tarpan, panchaprakritikarma, and devapitrakaryas, so can women and shudras perform this avaidik tantra? Can they attain moksh through vaamaachaar?

Even without the 'other' path, the category that has no vedādhikāra can always strive and attain moksha through the medium of purāṇa-s. 

subrahmanian.v

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Can we use expressions like "those who have been considered in the dominant section of the Vedic tradition as not having Vedaadhikaara" in stead of we saying, "the category that has no vedādhikāra"? 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Can we use expressions like "those who have been considered in the dominant section of the Vedic tradition as not having Vedaadhikaara" in stead of we saying, "the category that has no vedādhikāra"? 

I agree with the expression you suggest.  That's a better way of putting it.

regards

vs 

[Rishi Goswami]

But why was Vaamaachar made when "Turiya" and women were allowed to attain Moksh through Puran? Yes I know, that streeshoodras are allowed Pouranik mantras and basic karma such as Vaishwadev etc. They just are not allowed to speak mantras but are not karmachyuta or akriyas like sannyasis.
But through my understanding of the vaamaachar, i think that they are allowed maans madira etc. Are Brahmans allowed to do that if they are vaamaacharis?
If not, even in Dakshinachar, kshatriyas were allowed to drink and eat flesh(restricted, not all types). So what is the actual prayojan to make such a maarg?
Is it made for Stree shudras? Is it made for Brahmans who can eat and drink the "Abhakshya" and still attain Moksh?

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste,

I prefer and suggest orthodox instead of dominant in the expression.

Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Yes, you are right. That is certainly better expression. I agree. Thanks. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Rishi-ji,

These maargas (or any maarga including bhakti maarga) are not 'made' by anyone.

They come into existence. 

when you speak allowing, who you think should allow or should not allow these?

Vedas, Smritis or any other?

Vedas do not have any instruction allowing or disallowing these things directly. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Rishi Goswami]

Thankyou sir. And in the case of addressing them, you can just use the word adwij. It will be short and non offensive.

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Now, are these तन्त्रग्रन्थs should be followed or not? as you mentioned that these are

अवैदिक and अशिष्टाचारप्रवर्तित is my जिज्ञासा. These can be ignored as these are अशिष्टाचारप्रवर्तित, I think.

                                                                                            ------ Vidvan Surya Prasad

You are right - those who find  repose  in  वैदिकधर्म should keep themselves aloof  from all  so called  तन्त्रs .

Some scholars argue - दक्षिणाचार is वैदिक whereas वामाचार is तान्त्रिक ( for some both are different procedures within तन्त्र ) । 

No doubt , it is confusing .

Why such a caution ?

As has already been mentioned , even great scholars fell prey to तन्त्रसिद्धान्तs --

In कारणत्वाधिकरणम् (ब्रह्मसूत्रशांकरभाष्यम् 1-4-14)  Samkaracarya took up विगानम् (different उपनिषत्s offering different

causes of सृष्टि - विरुद्धं गानम्) and clearly stated - 

विगानदर्शनात् । प्रतिवेदान्तं ह्यन्यान्या सृष्टिरुपलभ्यते , क्रमादिवैचित्र्यात् । ......कार्यविषयं तु विगानं दृश्यते .... । न च कार्यविषयेण 

विगानेन कारणमपि ब्रह्म  सर्ववेदान्तेषु अविगीतम् अधिगम्यमानम् अविवक्षितं भवितुमर्हतीति वक्तुं शक्यम् , अतिप्रसङ्गात्।....

उपक्रमोपसंहाराभ्यां तत्र ब्रह्मविषयवाक्यैः साकमेकवाक्यताया गम्यमानत्वात् । ..... तथा च संप्रदायविदो वदन्ति --

मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः सृष्टिर्या चोदितान्यथा ।

उपायस्सो’वताराय नास्ति भेदः कथञ्चन ॥ ( मां का 3-25)

So by and large , ब्रह्मन् is the उपादानकारणम् ( also निमित्तकारणम् ) of this जगत् ।

But , having all this down to भामतीकल्पतरुपरिमळ on the tip of the tongue , नागेशभट्ट ( लघुमञ्जूषा - सृष्टिक्रमः)

borrowed  नाद - बिन्दु etc from शारदातिलकम् ( a तन्त्रग्रन्थः) ।

Similar  is the case with भास्करराय also - why should he embrace तन्त्रम् at all ?

’ महतामपि मोहतः ’ - क्षीरस्वामी ।

Here is मधुसूदनसरस्वती in प्रस्थानभेदः --

सर्वेषां च् संक्षेपेण त्रिविध एव प्रस्थानभेदः - तत्र आरंभवाद एकः , परिणामवादो द्वितीयः , विवर्तवादस्तृतीयः । .....

सर्वेषां प्रधानकर्तॄणां मुनीनां विवर्तवादपर्यवसानेन परमेश्वर एव प्रतिपाद्ये तात्पर्यम् । न हि ते मुनयो भ्रान्ताः ,

सर्वज्ञत्वात् तेषाम् । 

किन्तु बहिर्विषयप्रवणानाम्  आपाततः पुरुषार्थे प्रवेशो न संभवतीति नास्तिक्यवारणाय तैः प्रकारभेदाः प्रदर्शिताः।

तत्र तेषां तात्पर्यम् अबुद्ध्वा वेदविरुद्धे’पि अर्थे तात्पर्यम्  उत्प्रेक्षमाणाः तन्मतमेवोपादेयत्वेन गृह्णन्तो जनाः नानापथजुषो

भवन्ति ।

(जुषी = प्रीतिसेवनयोः )

यत्र नान्यत् पश्यति नान्यत् शृणोति नान्यत् विजानाति स भूमा । अथ यत्र अन्यत् पश्यति अन्यत् शृणोति अन्यत् विजानाति

तदल्पम् । यो वै भूमा तदमृतम् । अथ यदल्पं तन्मर्त्यम् ।

                                                                                                          ---- छान्दोग्योप , 7 - 2-41

Why पाञ्चरात्रागम , the स्म्रुति  that  follows the श्रुति , is being refuted ? Samkaracarya ( ब्र सू 2-2-42 , उत्पत्त्यसंभवधिकरणम्/

पाञ्चरात्राधिकरणम् ) responds that since there are certain things , which are अवैदिक , so the refutation --

ननु श्रुतिसमाश्रणेनापि एवंरूप एवेश्वरः प्राङ्निर्धारितः - प्रकृतिश्चाधिष्ठाता चेति , श्रुत्यनुसारिणी स्मृतिः प्रमाणमिति स्थितिः। 

तत् कस्य हेतोः एष पक्षः प्रत्याचिख्यासित इति । उच्यते - यद्यपि एवंजातीयकः अंशः समानत्वात् न विसंवादगोचरो भवति।

अस्ति तु अंशान्तरं विसंवादस्थानम् इत्यतः तत्प्रत्याख्यानाय आरम्भः ।

There is कौलाचार and in Buddhism there is तन्त्रम् ।

The founders and propagators of different तन्त्रग्रन्थs are so strong that they quote from different उपनिष्त्s and दर्शनs 

and try to lure people into तान्त्रिकविद्या , which is actually अविद्या / क्षुद्रविद्या ।

Some scholars are asking about the अधिकार for द्विजेतरs --

There is साधनचतुष्टयम् enumerated by Samkaracarya in जिज्ञासाधिकरणम् ( ब्र सू शां भा 1-1-1 ) -- 

नित्यानित्यवस्तुविवेकः , इहामुत्रार्थफलभोगविचारः , शमदमादिसाधनसंपत् , मुमुक्षुत्वं च ।

’ ज्ञानमात्रे यद्यपि सर्वाश्रमिणाम्  अधिकारः ’ ( मुण्डकोपनिषद्भाष्यपीठिका ) - declares Samkaracarya.

Vidura and Dharmavyadha are अद्विजs . सुलभा , मैत्रेयी and गार्गी are ladies .

स्त्रियो वैश्यास्तथा शूद्राः ते’पि यान्ति परां गतिम् ( भगवद्गीता , 9-32)

So if one has got the above said साधनचतुष्टयम् , even if he / she  is an अद्विज ,  can try for मोक्ष ।

There was a question on तन्त्रम् during 2009-2010 and now this is the second question .

Any more doubts ? Feel free .

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Rishi Goswami <gris...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thankyou sir. And in the case of addressing them, you can just use the word adwij. It will be short and non offensive.

[Hari Parshad Das]

my pranams to all vidvaj-janas.

The thread started with a simple question on differentiation between vāma and dakṣiṇa ācāras, but I am a bit taken aback to see that the discussion has turned into negativity about tantras.

In brahma-sūtra (2.2.42) i.e. utpatty asambhavādhikaraṇam, Adi Shankaracharya has spoken against a specific pāñcarātra text which seems to specify the origin of the jīva.

The Śrī-bhāṣya clarifies the situation in order to establish the authoritativeness of the pāñcarātra texts.

Entire books dedicated to establish validity of āgama/tantra have been written by the Śrī-vaiṣṇavas e.g. Āgama-prāmāṇyam of Sri Yamunācārya ( https://archive.org/stream/pancaratra-agamas/Agama%20Pramanyam%20%5BSkt-Eng%5D#page/n0/mode/2up )

The most widely accepted Purāṇas such as the Śrīmad-bhāgavatam too validate the tantras. The Śrīmad-bhāgavatam goes ahead to say that tantras were a bona-fide way of worshiping an image of Hari even in Dvāpara Yuga:

Pramāṇa: यजन्ति वेदतन्त्राभ्यां परं जिज्ञासवो नृप (श्रीमद्भागवतम् 11/5/28)

Commentary by Sri Sridhara Swami: वेदतन्त्रभ्यां वैदिकेनागमिकेन च मार्गेण । यजन्ति पूजयन्ति । परं ईश्वरं ज्ञातुमिच्छवः ।

The worship of deity in the age of Dvāpara consisted of a mixture of both Vedic and Tantrik rituals. In this age of Kali however, there is immense importance of Tantras, especially for worshiping various deities in the temples:

Pramāṇa: नानातन्त्रविधानेन कलावपि तथा शृणु (श्रीमद्भागवतम् 11/5/31)

Sri Sridhara Swami says: नानातन्त्रविधानेनेति कलौ तन्त्रमार्गस्य प्राधान्यं दर्शयति

The various details of installing and worshiping deities, mantras, bhūta-śuddhi etc. are not always to be found in śruti. Therefore, Āgamas and Tantras are an indispensable part of the lives of many sādhakas.

Tantras are not always a case of easy mokṣa. They are often also a case of mokṣa for those who cannot directly access the Vedas. 

In the Saundarya-laharī, Adi Shankaracharya has mentioned the names of 64 tantras. The commentator Lakshmidhar says there that these are all non-Vedic, but Bhaskararaya does not agree with this opinion of Lakshmidhara.

Buddhists may have composed some literature under the name tantra but this does not invalidate all tantras, just as the Jainas composed various Purāṇas but this does not invalidate the authenticity of the Purāṇas coming from Sri Vyāsa. The Śrīmad-bhāgavata-purāṇam itself accepts that some tantras were created by Śrī Nārada:

तृतीयमृषिसर्गं वै देवर्षित्वमुपेत्य सः

तन्त्रं सात्वतमाचष्ट नैष्कर्म्यं कर्मणां यतः (श्रीमद्भागवतम् 1/3/8)

Sri Sridhar Swami: सात्वतं वैष्णवं तन्त्रं पञ्चरात्रागमं आचष्टोक्तवान् |

So according to the Purāṇas, there are various authoritative tantras. One cannot reject all tantras wholescale. This is the reason why previous authorities such as Nāgeśabhaṭṭa have accepted the validity of various tantras and quoted them in various places. They are all good scholars who have placed faith in the validity of various tantras.

sādhu-caraṇa-rajo 'bhilāṣī,

hari parshad das.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com> wrote:

my pranams to all vidvaj-janas.

The thread started with a simple question on differentiation between vāma and dakṣiṇa ācāras, but I am a bit taken aback to see that the discussion has turned into negativity about tantras.

In brahma-sūtra (2.2.42) i.e. utpatty asambhavādhikaraṇam, Adi Shankaracharya has spoken against a specific pāñcarātra text which seems to specify the origin of the jīva.

I have a question on this adhikaraṇam:  Shankaracharya introduces this section with the remark that the schools which have a sentient entity as only nimittakāraṇam of the jagat have been considered hitherto. Now this school which admits of the upādāna-nimitta kāraṇatva for jagat is taken up. And this school is identified as the pāncharātra. My question is: both Madhvas and the Ramanujas accept the pancharatra. However the former accept only nimitta karanatvam for Brahman while the latter admit of both the kāraṇatvam. Could it be conjectured that Shankaracharya was referring to a school that was extant then and not later?

I also like to add that Sri Amalānanda (13 CE), the author of the Kalpataru on the Bhāmatī, has explicitly stated in that work that the Prapanchasāra is a work of Shankaracharya and has also cited a verse from that text, which is present in that text for verification today. 

The Rājahamsaṭīkā on Darśanasarvasva (4) cites a verse that is stated to be from the Prapanchasāratantra (of Shankaracharya?) by another wiki page:

https://sa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D

• नागेशभट्टेन वाचः चातुर्विध्यं स्वीकृतम । यथा –परा, पश्यन्ती, मध्यमा वैखरी चेति । ऋग्वेदे चत्वारि वाक् परिमिता पदानि इति मन्त्रे चतुर्विधा वाक् वर्णिता । किन्तु तत्र तासां नामोल्लेखो न दृश्यते । अस्य व्याख्यानावसरे महाभाष्ये चत्वारि पदजातानि नामाख्यातोपसर्गनिपाताश्च इत्युक्तम् । अस्य भाष्यस्या प्रतिकमादाय वाचः चातुर्विध्यं सिद्धान्तितं नागेशेन । तथाहि उद्द्योते – वाक्परिमितानीति षष्ठीतत्पुरुषः, पदजातानि- परापश्यन्तीमध्यमावैखर्थः, नामादीनि चेति । तस्य मते चशब्दोऽयं परापश्यन्तीमध्यमावैखरीणामपि संग्रहं बोधयति । अन्यथा चकारस्यानर्थक्यापत्तिः स्यात् । नामाख्यातादीनामपि परेत्यादिरुपचतुष्टयं वर्त्तते । तत्र त्रयोंऽशा मध्यमान्ता हृदयादिरुपायां गुहायां वर्त्तन्ते । चतुर्थं भागं वैखरीरुपं मनुष्याः वदन्ति । अवैयाकरणाः अज्ञानात् वैखरीरुपमेव जानन्ति व्यवहरन्ति च । वैयाकरणाः परादिमध्यमान्ता जानन्ति, वैखरीरुपेण व्यवहरन्ति ।

परा वाचः अस्तित्वप्रतिपादनाय नागेशेन प्रमाणद्वयं प्रदत्तम् ।

• वाक्यपदीये अनादिनिधनम् इति कारिकायां शब्दब्रह्मणः उल्लेखः कृतः । एवं च शब्दब्रह्म रवशब्देन पराशब्देन चोच्यते । मतमिदं समर्थनाय प्रपंचसारतन्त्रस्य कारिकामुद्धरति । यथा –

बिन्दोस्तस्माद्भिद्यमानाद् रवोऽव्यक्तात्मकोऽभवत् ।

स एव श्रुतिसम्पन्नैः शब्दब्रह्मेति गीयते ॥

Scholars may please clarify the period of Nagesha Bhatta. 

There is a bhāṣya said to be of Adi Shankaracharya to the Nrsimha Tāpinyupanishad. Here, as I had stated in this forum before, the bhashyakara himself says that he has stated .....in his Prapanchasara and cited some verses from there, which are available in that text. A lot of tantra is involved in the upasanas of this Nr.Tā.Upanishad.

If worship involving archana with flowers, washing feet with water, pradakshina, etc. are grouped under 'tantra', we have these practices stated in Shankaracharya's Upanishad/Brahmasutra bhashyas.

Thanks and warm regards

subrahmanian.v

 

The Śrī-bhāṣya clarifies the situation in order to establish the authoritativeness of the pāñcarātra texts.

Entire books dedicated to establish validity of āgama/tantra have been written by the Śrī-vaiṣṇavas e.g. Āgama-prāmāṇyam of Sri Yamunācārya ( https://archive.org/stream/pancaratra-agamas/Agama%20Pramanyam%20%5BSkt-Eng%5D#page/n0/mode/2up )

The most widely accepted Purāṇas such as the Śrīmad-bhāgavatam too validate the tantras. The Śrīmad-bhāgavatam goes ahead to say that tantras were a bona-fide way of worshiping an image of Hari even in Dvāpara Yuga:

Pramāṇa: यजन्ति वेदतन्त्राभ्यां परं जिज्ञासवो नृप (श्रीमद्भागवतम् 11/5/28)

Commentary by Sri Sridhara Swami: वेदतन्त्रभ्यां वैदिकेनागमिकेन च मार्गेण । यजन्ति पूजयन्ति । परं ईश्वरं ज्ञातुमिच्छवः ।

The worship of deity in the age of Dvāpara consisted of a mixture of both Vedic and Tantrik rituals. In this age of Kali however, there is immense importance of Tantras, especially for worshiping various deities in the temples:

Pramāṇa: नानातन्त्रविधानेन कलावपि तथा शृणु (श्रीमद्भागवतम् 11/5/31)

Sri Sridhara Swami says: नानातन्त्रविधानेनेति कलौ तन्त्रमार्गस्य प्राधान्यं दर्शयति

The various details of installing and worshiping deities, mantras, bhūta-śuddhi etc. are not always to be found in śruti. Therefore, Āgamas and Tantras are an indispensable part of the lives of many sādhakas.

Tantras are not always a case of easy mokṣa. They are often also a case of mokṣa for those who cannot directly access the Vedas. 

In the Saundarya-laharī, Adi Shankaracharya has mentioned the names of 64 tantras. The commentator Lakshmidhar says there that these are all non-Vedic, but Bhaskararaya does not agree with this opinion of Lakshmidhara.

Buddhists may have composed some literature under the name tantra but this does not invalidate all tantras, just as the Jainas composed various Purāṇas but this does not invalidate the authenticity of the Purāṇas coming from Sri Vyāsa. The Śrīmad-bhāgavata-purāṇam itself accepts that some tantras were created by Śrī Nārada:

तृतीयमृषिसर्गं वै देवर्षित्वमुपेत्य सः

तन्त्रं सात्वतमाचष्ट नैष्कर्म्यं कर्मणां यतः (श्रीमद्भागवतम् 1/3/8)

Sri Sridhar Swami: सात्वतं वैष्णवं तन्त्रं पञ्चरात्रागमं आचष्टोक्तवान् |

So according to the Purāṇas, there are various authoritative tantras. One cannot reject all tantras wholescale. This is the reason why previous authorities such as Nāgeśabhaṭṭa have accepted the validity of various tantras and quoted them in various places. They are all good scholars who have placed faith in the validity of various tantras.

sādhu-caraṇa-rajo 'bhilāṣī,

hari parshad das.

--

[Rishi Goswami]

Namaskara Vidwajjanah!
I actually did not get answers to my question asked previously so please quench my thirst.

Can Brahmans in vaamachar eat abhakhshya and prohibitted food by Vedas? Are they allowed to do that?
Can Adwij also be engaged in Vaamachar? I know they have Pauranik mantras and pooja prakar, but that is not vaama bhairav Tantra.
Can someone clarify please?
Dhanyavadah.

[Venkata Sriram]

If we go deep into the roots of these tantrAs, there is no distinction of vAma and dakSiNa either.  It was kula-tantra which got ramified into two schools of thought viz., shrIkula and kAlikula.  The kAlikula is popular in north, east and shrIkula is popular in south. Later, depending upon the propagators, the names stuck as dakshinamurti sampradaya, hayagriva sampradaya and bhairava sampradaya.  Accordingly, yantra-puja-kalpa was formulated by the propagators and sages.

The most popular in the south are 'saubhAgya-chintAmaNi kalpaH" which is followed in kAmakoTi pITa which was drafted by Sage Durvasa. Barring this, most of the parts are following the 'parashurAma kalpa' which was drafted by Sage Parashurama. Keeping this as base, several AmnAya mutts have modified / refined a bit to suit their mode of worship.  Even the great vedic scholar & shrIvidyA upAsaka 'dharma-samrAT' karapAtri ji took this as pramANa for his work 'shrIvidyA ratnAkar' and 'nityAhnikaM'.  The great shAkta shrI bhAskararaya took this as pramANa and later his chief disciple shrI umAnandanAtha wrote commentary to this which is now called as 'nityOtsava'.  

Now, coming to your point.

................

Can Brahmans in vaamachar eat abhakhshya and prohibitted food by Vedas

.............

What do you mean by a-bhakSya ? If it is मद्य​, मांस​, मत्स्य​, then , yes, going by the pramANa of परशुरामकल्पसूत्रं, there is prescription of it but it is NOT a नियम विधि BUT a परिसंख्या विधि.  The sutras say:

अनित्यकर्मलोपः । मपञ्चक अलाभेऽपि नित्यक्रमप्र्यवमृष्टिः ॥

Since, this vidhi is taken to be परिसंख्या विधि, there are अनुकल्पाः (substitutes) advised in लोपामुद्रा संहिता as:

substitute for मद्य - गुड मिश्रित​ तक्रं वा दधी ; सैन्धवलवण मिश्रित पयः ; ताम्रपात्रगतं क्षीरं

substitute for मांसः - मूलकं (raddish), आपूपः 

substitute for मत्स्य​ : कदळी फलं (as per लोपामुद्रा संहिता); garlic / ginger (also called नागर खण्डं). 

In several AmnAya peetas, the above substitutes are followed. The karvIra puSpa is shown as a substitute for maithuna. Also, swa-strI-samparka is also permissible. 

.......................

Can Adwij also be engaged in Vaamachar

............

First of all, you should remove whatever wrong notions you borrowed about vAmAchAra.  And, yes...non-dwijas have the adhikAra to perform devi puja with vAmAchAra rituals.  However, here too the shAstra has given certain injunctions for consumption.  One should never consume this freely at one's own free will then what is the difference between a vAmAchAri and a drunkard / non-vegetarian person.

The त्रिपुरोपनिषद् vide 12th mantra says:

परिस्रुतं झुषमाद्यं पलं च भक्तानि योनीः सुपरिष्कृताश्च ।

निवेदयन् देवतायै महत्यै स्वात्मीकृत्य सुकृती सिद्धिमेति ॥

ie., one should offer the madya, mIna, mAmsa ONLY after purifying with rituals and meditate on the Devi as non-different from oneself, thus, attains highest siddhi. 

While explaining the above shloka, shrI bhAskararaya makhin and shrI rAghavAnanda tirtha yati have explained the esoteric meanings and what all should be offered by chAturvarNAs respectively (traivarNikAs should adopt substitutes).

Last but not the least : 

The so-called अभक्ष्याः are also used in श्रौत यागाः and सौत्रामणी rituals where सोमरस​, पशुयाग​, यजमानस्य मैथूनं, वेश्या नाट्यं are seen. So, if somebody says, वामाचारः is निन्द्य​ then श्रौत यागाः  that involves पशुहिंसा, सोमरसपानं, मैथूनं (यजमान एवं यजमानपत्नी) is also निन्द्य.

Food for thought !!

regs,

sriram

[Nagaraj Paturi]

This forum is not a dharma peetha to decide the adhikaras of dvijas and advijas.

It is better to use sentences like this text says dvijas must do this or this text says advijas are allowed to do this etc.

What is the purpose of the questioner in asking these questions? For his own decision making in to do or not to do? To judge some behaviour observed by him? For academic purposes such as giving references in article?

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Aayushmaan Sriram, 

Do you understand somarasa as some kind of a liquor?

Liquors are aasavas not svarasa.

[Rishi Goswami]

Dhanyosmi Vidwadganah!

[Venkata Sriram]

Pujya Nagaraj Garu,

I am aware of the difference...somarasa is the extract in the form of juice from soma creeper.  And, आसव​ is a sort of preparation done from extract of sugarcane juice (a sort of molasses).  Sometimes, the old Jaggery (stored for some years) is used as a substitute.  

The poet Kalidasa mentions the order of tarpaNa done to Tripura Sundari vide लघुस्तवः as:

विप्राः क्षोणिभुजो विशस्तदितरे क्षीराज्यमध्वासवैः 

त्वां देवि ! त्रिपुरे ! परापरमयीं सन्तर्प्य पूजाविधौ ।

The articles used for तर्पणं in the order of varNa-krama is below:

ब्राह्मणः - क्षीरः

क्षत्रियः - आज्यः

वैश्यः -मधु 

शूद्रः - आसवः

regs,

sriram

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Rishi-ji,

You did not share your purpose with us. You need not, if you don't want to.

But I found a little weird that you ended with dhanyosmi in response to my questions about your purpose. 

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Rishi Goswami <gris...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dhanyosmi Vidwadganah!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

No one during contemporary times identified the soma plant. The present yaajis are using some 'substitutes'.

There are articles by western Indologists trying to understand the concept of Soma rasa. None of these is conclusive. 

Still, people take it for granted that Soma rasa is some intoxicating drink. 

Gita has 'पूष्णामिचोषधीन् सर्वान् सोमो भूत्वा रसात्मकः'. Soma here is the common medicinal quality of (medicinal) plants. This could be metaphorical extension of the original meaning. But the original meaning can not be liquor from which the meaning of 'common medicinal quality of (medicinal) plants' can be derived. 

The descriptions of something like elevated moods found as results of drinking Soma in some Vada mantras do not mean intoxication.  

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

>The so-called अभक्ष्याः are also used in श्रौत यागाः and सौत्रामणी rituals where सोमरस​, पशुयाग​, यजमानस्य मैथूनं, वेश्या नाट्यं are seen. So, if somebody says, वामाचारः is निन्द्य​ then श्रौत यागाः  that involves पशुहिंसा, सोमरसपानं, मैथूनं (यजमान एवं यजमानपत्नी) is also निन्द्य

Dharma Sastra texts have prohibited some Srauta Yaagas in Kali Yuga. Ashwamedha is one such. First of all there are no ruling Hindu Kings today. Therefore nobody can do Ashwamedha. The questions of meat eating and sexual intercourse of the Chief Queen with the dead horse will not arise. Many criticisms of Ashwamedha are useless because nobody is doing it today.

In Srauta Yaagas done in modern day they will invariably use substitute of flour animal instead of real animal. Soma plant is not available. They are using Putika plant with no intoxication powers. In some Yaagas with sexual intercourse they are skipping that part. I do not know about Veshya Natya. I have not heard of it. First of all the Srauta Yaagas are very rare and done in some rare venues. It is not common like Chandi Homa.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Regards

 

-Venkatesh

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

The young scholar has जिज्ञासा and hence the discussion . It is not possible to simply offer a single sentence 

as a response in such matters .

Meaning of the term तन्त्रम् --

तनु = विस्तारे , ष्ट्रन् (उणादि 4-159)

व्याकरणतन्त्रम् (वाक्यप.), अस्मिन् पाणिनीयतन्त्रे ( नागेश , परिभाषेन्दु.) , तन्त्रवार्तिकम् ( मीमांसा) , 

तन्त्रयुक्तिः (आयुर्वेदः , अर्थशास्त्रम्), सर्वतन्त्रस्वतन्त्रः ( नागेश etc) , 'स्वतन्त्रः कर्ता ’ (पा सू ) etc

यत्सकृत्कृतं बहूनामुपकरोति तत्त्न्त्रमित्युच्यते  -- शाबरभष्यम् ( मी सू 11-4-1)

तथापि महाजनपरिग्रुहीतानि महान्ति  सांख्यादितन्त्राणि .... सम्यग्दर्शनाय उपादेयानीत्यपेक्षा - ब्रह्मसूत्रशाङ्करभा . 2-2-1

Same is the case with the term 'आगम ’ also - it can be वेद or any शास्त्रम् or शैवागम etc

If the  उपनिषत्s say that ब्रह्मन् is the cause of the universe while नागेश , following some 

तन्त्रग्रन्थ , says  it is नाद - बिन्दु etc  which is to be taken as प्रमाणम् ? Is नागेश not going  

against वेद ? 

युक्तियुक्तं वचो ग्राह्यं न ग्राह्यं गुरुगौरवात् -- याज्ञवल्क्यशिक्षा ।

We did not accept the भाष्यम् of Samkaracarya on अपरस्परसंभूतम् ( गीता 16-8 ) ।

The शास्त्रैक्यम् of Ramanujacarya in श्रीभाष्यम् and some other aspects ( जाति in 

निर्विकल्पक  etc ) go against मीमांसा ।

The सौन्दर्यलहरी (श्लोक 31 ) itself is not strongly established with evidence to be a work 

of Jagadguru Samkaracarya.. 

The Samkaracarya of Gaudadesa authored a तन्त्रग्रन्थ called तारारहस्यवृत्तिका  ।

Even if a scholar enumerates the तन्त्रs , it does not mean that one should / can practice 

the same . That  goes against मीमांसा --

There are some अभिचारमन्त्रs ( some are quoted by तान्त्रिकs) in अथर्ववेद । Does it mean that वेद 

ordains one to perform अभिचारहोम ? (अभिचारः = हिंसा ) । It is for information .

 Sabarasvamy clarifies --

चोदनालक्षणो’र्थो धर्मः (पू मी सू 1-1-2 )

उभयमिह चोदनया लक्ष्यते अर्थः अनर्थश्चेति । ..... को’नर्थः ? यः प्रत्यवायाय श्येनो वज्र इषुरित्येवमादिः । ....

कथं पुनरसावनर्थः ? हिंसा हि सा । हिंसा च प्रतिषिद्धेति । कथंपुनः अनर्थः कर्तव्यतया उपदिश्यते ? उच्यते ।

नैव श्येनदयः कर्तव्या विज्ञायन्ते । यो हि हिंसितुम् इच्छेत् तस्यायमभ्युपाय इति हि तेषामुपदेशः । ’ श्येन अभिचरन् यजेत ’ 

इति हि समामनन्ति । न ’ अभिचरितव्यम् " इति ।

वेद says - मा हिंस्यात् सर्वा भूतानि and also वायव्यं श्वेतमालभेत भूतिकामः’ । Here it is clarified by

मनुस्मृति , शङ्कराचार्य etc that यागीयहिंसा , since ordained by वेद itself , is acceptable . Same is the

case  with सोमपानम् , मैथुनम् also . Outside वेद these three are not acceptable - this is the सिद्धान्त।

वाक्यार्थनिर्णय has to be done with the help of पूर्वमीमांसा / वाक्यशास्त्रम् ।

Just like in the case of सन्ध्यावन्दनम् , wherein मुद्राs etc are added , with a caution - मुद्रारहिता गयत्री 

निष्फला भवेत् , the original सात्त्विकं तपः is modified and  made तामसम् ( भगवद्गीता - 17 ) .

There are many verses across तन्त्रग्रन्थs which directly or indirectly generate द्वेष against वेद ।

What we say is do not go for मकारपञ्चकम् etc . The other types of पूजा is not at all negated .

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

[surya upprasad]

Respected Guruji, so delighted and enlightened by your explanation with references.

Dhanyosmi

With warm obeisances

G Surya Prasad

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sri Srini Kalyanaraman-ji uploaded a paper on Soma:

https://www.academia.edu/35315680/Soma_is_yaj%C3%B1asya_%C4%81tm%C4%81_RV_9.2.10_9.6.8_.pdf

[Niranjan Ni]

Namaste to all here,

I see that you gentlemen are well versed in Tantra.

Can you kindly throw light on my question?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bvparishat/cEfMx8YuviA

dhanyosmi

On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 11:45:55 PM UTC+5:30, Nagaraj Paturi wrote:

Sri Srini Kalyanaraman-ji uploaded a paper on Soma:

https://www.academia.edu/35315680/Soma_is_yaj%C3%B1asya_%C4%81tm%C4%81_RV_9.2.10_9.6.8_.pdf

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

No one during contemporary times identified the soma plant. The present yaajis are using some 'substitutes'.

There are articles by western Indologists trying to understand the concept of Soma rasa. None of these is conclusive. 

Still, people take it for granted that Soma rasa is some intoxicating drink. 

Gita has 'पूष्णामिचोषधीन् सर्वान् सोमो भूत्वा रसात्मकः'. Soma here is the common medicinal quality of (medicinal) plants. This could be metaphorical extension of the original meaning. But the original meaning can not be liquor from which the meaning of 'common medicinal quality of (medicinal) plants' can be derived. 

The descriptions of something like elevated moods found as results of drinking Soma in some Vada mantras do not mean intoxication.  

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Sri Rishi-ji,

You did not share your purpose with us. You need not, if you don't want to.

But I found a little weird that you ended with dhanyosmi in response to my questions about your purpose. 

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Rishi Goswami <gris...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dhanyosmi Vidwadganah!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear list members,

Please answer , if you want to or if you can, only in the thread 

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bvparishat/cEfMx8YuviA

where the sources for the saadhana were sought. Not in this thread.  

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[rupabhaty16]

Namaste, 

Is लोपामुद्रा संहिता text accessible online? If so, kindly share the link, I shall be grateful.

Thanks in Advance.

Regards

Rupa 

>अनित्यकर्मलोपः । मपञ्चक अलाभेऽपि नित्यक्रमप्र्यवमृष्टिः ॥

Since, this vidhi is taken to be परिसंख्या विधि, there are अनुकल्पाः (substitutes) advised in लोपामुद्रा संहिता as:

substitute for मद्य - गुड मिश्रित​ तक्रं वा दधी ; सैन्धवलवण मिश्रित पयः ; ताम्रपात्रगतं क्षीरं

substitute for मांसः - मूलकं (raddish), आपूपः 

substitute for मत्स्य​ : कदळी फलं (as per लोपामुद्रा संहिता); garlic / ginger (also called नागर खण्डं).<