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

[jaldhar at braincells.com]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023, Bhaskar YR wrote:

>
>>  Kindly elaborate this also prabhuji. How the sapta mAtrukA-s in
>>  bhAshya different from devi's popular sapta mAtruka svarUpa i.e.
>>  brAhmi, mAheshwari, kaumAri, vaishNavi, vArAhi, indraaNi, chAmunda.
>>  What are other sapta mAtruka-s which bhAshyakAra had in his mind when
>>  saying it is tAmasi pUja.
>

The bhashya uses the word mAtR^igaNa.  It is TikAkAras who gloss it as 
saptaMatR^is.  As gaNa merely means "group" and a group of seven is 
certainly a group, this is plausible.  However in our shAstras the matR^is 
are not always seven.  Some texts mention aShTamAtR^is (8) and a part of 
any major vidhi such as vivahA or upanayana in Gujarati parampara at least
we do gaNeshagauryAdiShoDashamAtR^ikA puja where 16 are named and 
worshipped.  These particular groups are mostly named after devas and have 
distinct names and iconographic features.  For instance in shrI ChaNDI 
pATha, in 8th adhyAya shlokas 12 - 21, it is said that in order to defeat 
the armies shumbha and nishumbha, mahAdevI summoned the shaktis of various 
male devas.  There are seven and they are named and described: brAhmANI, 
maheshvarI, kaumArI, vAiSNavI, vArAhI, narasiMhI, and aindrI.  But this is 
not the only place mAtRis are mentioned.  In the 2nd adhyAya, shlokas 
51-52, it is said that while fighting mahishAsura, mahAdevi from Her own 
breath brought forth mAtrgaNa "by hundreds and thousands".  These mAtR^is
are not named and only described in generic terms.

Another account of the origin of the mAtRis is given in matsyapurANa 
adhyAya 179.  andhakAsura has prevailed over the devas and they turn to 
shiva bhagavAn for help.  When the combined forces of the devas and the 
(shiva) gaNas attack, they are dismayed to find that every time they 
injure andhakAsura, a duplicate andhakAsura appears.  They are quickly 
overhelmed by all these andhakAsuras and it is at this point that shiva 
bhagavAn (not mAtAji) creates the mAtR^igaNas.  The text goes on to name 
almost 200 of them.  Some have familiar names from 7, 8 or 16 groups 
(Including Tumburus 4 sisters interestingly) but others are completely 
different.  The end of the list indicates it is not supposed to be 
exhaustive.  The mAtR^igaNas drink up the blood of andhakAsura before it 
falls to the ground preventing him from reproducing (like kAlI and 
raktabIja in CP) and eventually he is defeated.  But then the mAtR^is run 
amok and threaten to devour the rest of the universe.  shiva bhagavAn is
unable to control them so He appeals to viShNu bhagavAn in the form of 
narasiMha.  viShNu bhagavAn creates 4 devis each with a retinue of 8 and 
these 36s mAtr^is subdue the other mAtR^is and turn them to a peaceful and 
protective path.

So we see that the term "mAtR^i" is applied to beings of two types.  One 
is fixed in number, distinct in appearance, and beneficient.  The second 
is an undistinguished mass, unnamed and without specific appearances and 
is chaotic or even dangerous unless appeased.  Given the context of the 
gItA shloka he is commenting, doesn't it seem more likely that 
ShankarAchArya would be referring to the second type, especially when that 
type is also associated with tumburu as are the chaturbhagini?

>
>>  Though it is very valid and logical justification, kindly pardon me
>>  prabhuji I failed to reconcile this with that of vinAyaka, mAtrugaNa,
>>  chaturbhagini in bhAshya vAkya.  For that I think first we have to
>>  establish that tumburu=bhairava=vinAyaka without any ambiguity.
>

I don't think at this point in time it is possible for anyone to establish 
their theories without ambiguity but that goes for the historians too!

>
>>  Yes, but it is not clear whether shankara while writing this bhAshya
>>  had the inscriptions like this in mind or popularly known deities like
>>  mAtru gaNa, sapta mAtruka and vinAyaka!! There could be a possibility
>>  that being a sanAtana vaidika dharma follower he might be having the
>>  popular pUrANic characters only when writing vinAyaka and sapta
>>  mAtrukA-s.

The problem is that by the time usually ascribed to AchArya, 
vinAyaka/gaNapati was already part of mainstream astika dharma.  See the 
inclusion in yaGYavAlkyasmR^iti which is second only to manusmR^ti in 
importance in dharmashAstras.  Same for saptamAtR^is who were considered 
as kuladevatas for gupta emperors some 4-500 years previously.  So why 
mention these particular deities and not others?  Were they just picked at 
random?

>
>>  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.

Traditional Advaitic circles or traditional tantric/agamic circles? 
According to Prof. Vrajavallabha Dwivedi, the PS has been quoted in 
ishAnashivagurudevapaddhati which he dates during 11th century. 
According to the authors of the section on "Hindu Shakta and Tantric 
Literature" in the "History of Indian Literature" series, (Vol. 2 Fasc. 2) 
Profs. Goudriaan and Gupta, "The many quotations in various Tantric 
digests and commentaries attest to the popularity of the PS. This 
popularity, as well as the extreme difficulty of the work, led to an 
intensive commentarial activity."

>
>>  Prof. observes the widespread belief that these are shankara's was due
>>  to a series of 20 volumes entitled The works of shankara (shankara
>>  granthAvaLiH) published by vANi vilAs press during the early years of
>>  the 20th Century.  And which has been approved by the then pointiff of
>>  Shringeri Sri Sacchidaananda shivaabhinava nrusimha bhArati svAminaH.
>>  But we are not told what methods were employed to ascertain the
>>  veracity of the claim that all these works were shankara's /
>>  bhAshyakAra's.

To be sure the PS was brought to a much wider audience due to this series 
but it was hardly unknown before then as shown above.


>  The claim that all these were works of shankara was
>>  not accepted even in the orthodox circles of those days.  The
>>  scholarly tradition has all along ignored all these works (like
>>  prapanchasaara, trishati bhAshya, Soundarya lahari, yoga sUtra bhAshya
>>  etc.) with the exception of his commentaries on the prasthAna traya.
>>  And he further writes : a very simple test is the citation by the long
>>  line of authors belonging to the Advaita fold.  None of the earlier
>>  authors has ever cared to mention or cite from, any of the minor
>>  dissertations and of course from any devotional hymn contained in the
>>  vANi vilAs edition of shankara's works.  A possible exception is US
>>  which has been quoted by sureshwara, the vArtikakAra in his NS.  That
>>  no author of any standing has cared to prepare glosses on the works
>>  (contained in volumes 13 to 20) is an additional argument.

Personally, I think this is a good criterion.  But it should be pointed 
out that most historians who have opined on the subject use a different 
test.  They look at the language and concepts.  Shri Natarajji has shown 
how the language and style of the vivaraNa does match up with that of 
pa~nchapAdika.

As once again I am going long, let me stop here and summarize my 
contention.  While nothing I have written can prove that shaMkarAchArya 
wrote tantrik works, in BG bhAShya, he has one particular tantrik 
sampradaya in mind so we cannot use that to  assert that he was against 
_all_ forms of tantra without looking at additional factors.

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