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

[jaldhar at braincells.com]

Lots of things have been going on with my life and then I had to devote 
all my attention to shivaratri preparations so I'm far behind in 
participating in the list but as Natarajji had also discussed this I think 
it might be useful to add to this topic.

On Thu, 2 Feb 2023, Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l wrote:

> While there is absolutely no doubt that for us, the advaitins, shankara 
> bhagavatpAda is 'avatAra purusha'.  But some of the prakaraNa-s in his 
> name is still suspicious even among traditional advaita scholars.  And 
> the work prapanchasAra is one of those works.  Prof. SKR, then the head 
> of kalpataru saMshOdhana Kendra at Sringeri Bangalore mutt was of the 
> opinion that this work is purely tAntrik based work and the authorship 
> of this work is doubted and can be debated like in lalita trishati 
> bhAshya (though it has been commented by Kanchi paramaachaarya). And 
> this has been justified based on shankara's commentary on geeta 9-25 and 
> 17-4 where bhAshyakAra rejected tAntrik approach and the worship of 
> vinAyaka, saptamAtruka-s and so on as tAmasi!!

Ah but he hasn't rejected Tantrik approach.   भूतानि 
विनायकमातृगणचतुर्भगिन्यादीनि यान्ति भूतेज्याः भूतानां पूजकाः ।            isnot a 
reference to random tAntrik deities but a specific pantheon of a specific 
tAntrik tradition namely the vAmashrota; so-called because it was spoken 
from the leftward facing head of Bhagavan Sadashiva.

An important tantra of this sampradaya is the viNAshikhA which mainly 
focuses on Tumburu.  According to amarakosha following purANas, Tumburu is 
a divne Gandharva and a musician who is the rival of nArada but here he is 
a form of Bhairava.  He is the vinAyaka mentioned by Acharya not gaNesha 
though it seems the two were sometimes confused.  In his maNDala he is 
surrounded on four sides by His sisters jayA, vijayA, ajitA and aparAjitA. 
They are accompanied by hosts of mAtR^is but these are different from the 
sapta or ShodaShamAtRikAs we worship in pUjas.

Two exmples of how popular this sect once was are one, an inscription from 
outside India altogether.  In Cambodia (where Buddhism supplanted Hinduism 
only relatively recently) a king called Jayavarman invited a Brahmana from 
Java called Hiranyadamana to perform his Rajabhisheka and Hiranyadamana 
taught the Rajapurohita Shivakaivalya the shirashchheda, sammohana, 
nayottara,and viNAshikhA which are the four principle tantras of the 
vAmaShrota.  Significantly, this inscription dates this event to 
802 AD which is within the generally accepted dates for the life of 
Shankaracharya.  Secondly in the Buddhist ma~njushrImUlakalpa, it is said 
that Tumburu is a Boddhisattva who meditates on Mt. Kailasha accompanied 
by His four sisters.  This work is still studied in Tibet and exists in 
Tibetan and Chinese translations along with the original Sanskrit.

Thus it is entirely plausable that Shankaracharya was making a specific
reference to this sampradaya and the offhand way he mentions it is because 
he expected His reading audience to be familar with it.

Why are these Devatas described as bhautika?  Because these tantras are 
concerned with developing siddhis and worldly powers.  Jayavarman was 
interested because he wanted to become a chakravarti samrAT.  Other 
contents include vidhis for destroying enemies, seducing women, finding 
treasure etc.  Furthermore the methods used in this sadhanA are adharmic 
such as meditating in a smashAna while seated on a corpse etc.

ShrIvidya on the other hand is based on Vamakeshvara Tantra.  The 
presiding deity is mahAtripUrasundarI.  Although there is discussion of 
the acquisition of siddhis, it has also evolved to being a path to moksha. 
The procedures of sadhana are also compatible with vaidika dharma.

While all this doesn't conclusively prove that Shankaracharya wrote 
shrIvidya works, it does show that rejection of one tantrika approach 
cannot be admitted as evidence of rejection of  another completely 
different tantrika approach.


> prapanchasAra in 
> particular he says antagonistic to the spirit of vedAnta.

So is sandhya, puja, mandir worship etc. if taken as rigidly separate 
concepts.  Yet we see Advaitin acharyas reccommed all these things 
throughout history to the present day.  There is a context in which tantra 
is appropriate and a context in which vedanta is appropriate.  I don't see 
why one person can't recommend different things in different contexts.


>  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.

Which traditional circle and which context?  SmArtas who are shrIvidyA 
upAsakas do speak highly of it.


>  And he continues 
> to observe that the authorship of the gloss on prapanchasAra by 
> padmapAda is as doubtful as the authorship of the original work.

I'd like to know his reasons but this sounds like circular thinking to me. 
I think Natrajji's comparison of the writing style in PS vivAraNa and 
pa~nchapAdikA shows a good deal of similarity.

In the Shankaradigvijaya Padmapadacharya is depicted as being an expert in 
mantrashastra.  Even if SDV is unreliable as an accurate historical source 
it does show that atleast from the time of the author Madhava it was not 
considered strange that an advaitin could also be a tantrik.  This is not 
some new idea.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>