Why Bhagavata View Refuted in Brahma-Sutras ?

[gokulkr 1]

 

 

CHAPTER II

AVIRODHA ADHYAYA

SECTION 2

Utpattyasambhavadhikaranam: Topic 8 (Sutras 42-45)

Refutation of the Bhagavata or the Pancharatra school

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape id=_x0000_i1025 style="WIDTH: 106.5pt; HEIGHT: 20.25pt" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/2.2.42.gif" src="file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>

Utpattyasambhavat II.2.42 (213)

 

On account of the impossibility of the origination (of the individual soul from the Highest Lord), (the doctrine of the Bhagavatas or the Pancharatra doctrine cannot be accepted).

Utpatti: causation, origination, creation; Asambhavat: on account of the impossibility.

The Pancharatra doctrine or the doctrine of the Bhagavatas is now refuted.

According to this school, the Lord is the efficient cause as well as the material cause of the universe. This is in quite agreement with the scripture or the Sruti and so it is authoritative. A part of their system agrees with the Vedanta system. We accept this. Another part of the system, however, is open to objection.

The Bhagavatas say that Vaasudeva whose nature is pure knowledge is what really exists. He divides Himself fourfold and appears in four forms (Vyuhas) as Vaasudeva, Sankarshana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. Vaasudeva denotes the Supreme Self, Sankarshana the individual soul, Pradyumna the mind, and Aniruddha the principle of egoism, or Ahamkara. Of these four Vaasudeva constitutes the Ultimate Cause, of which the three others are the effects.

They say that by devotion for a long period to Vaasudeva through Abhigamana (going to the temple with devotion), Upadana (securing the accessories of worship). Ijya (oblation, worship), Svadhyaya (study of holy scripture and recitation of Mantras) and Yoga (devout meditation) we can pass beyond all afflictions, pains and sorrows, attain Liberation and reach the Supreme Being. We accept this doctrine.

But we controvert the doctrine that Sankarshana (the Jiva) is born from Vaasudeva and so on. Such creation is not possible. If there is such birth, if the soul be created it would be subject to destruction and hence there could be no Liberation. That the soul is not created will be shown in Sutra II.3. 17.

For this reason the Pancharatra doctrine is not acceptable.

 

 

<v:shape id=_x0000_i1026 style="WIDTH: 119.25pt; HEIGHT: 21pt" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/2.2.43.gif" src="file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/msoclip1/01/clip_image002.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>

Na cha kartuh karanam II.2.43 (214)

 

And (it is) not (observed that) the instrument (is produced) from the agent.

Na: not; Cha: and; Kartuh: from the agent; Karanam: the instrument.

The argument against the Pancharatra doctrine is continued.

An instrument such as a hatchet and the like is not seen to be produced from the agent, the woodcutter. But the Bhagavatas teach that from an agent, viz., the individual soul termed Sankarshana, there springs its internal instrument or mind (Pradyumna) and from the mind, the ego or Ahamkara (Aniruddha).

The mind is the instrument of the soul. Nowhere do we see the instrument being born from the doer. Nor can we accept that Ahamkara issues from the mind. This doctrine cannot be accepted. Such doctrine cannot be settled without observed instances. We do not meet with any scriptural passage in its favour. The scripture declares that everything takes its origin from Brahman.

 

 

<v:shape id=_x0000_i1027 style="WIDTH: 192pt; HEIGHT: 19.5pt" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/2.2.44.gif" src="file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/msoclip1/01/clip_image003.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>

Vijnanadibhave va tadapratishedhah II.2.44 (215)

 

Or if the (four Vyuhas are said to) possess infinite knowledge, etc., yet there is no denial of that (viz., the objection raised in Sutra 42).

Vijnanadibhave: if intelligence etc. exist; Va: or, on the other hand; Tat: that (Tasya iti); Apratishedhah: no denial (of). (Vijnana: knowledge; Adi: and the rest; Bhave: of the nature (of).)

The argument against the Pancharatra doctrine is continued.

The error of the doctrine will persist even if they say that all the Vyuhas are Gods having intelligence, etc.

The Bhagavatas may say, that all the forms are Vaasudeva, the Lord, and that all of them equally possess Knowledge, Lordship, Strength, Power, etc., and are free from faults and imperfections.

In this case there will be more than one Isvara. This goes against your own doctrine according to which there is only one real essence, viz., the holy Vaasudeva. All the work can be done by only One Lord. Why should there be four Isvaras?

Moreover, there could be no birth of one from another, because they are equal according to the Bhagavatas, whereas a cause is always greater than the effect. Observation shows that the relation of cause and effect requires some superiority on the part of the cause, as for instance, in the case of the clay and the pot, where the cause is more extensive than the effect and that without such superiority the relation is simply impossible. The Bhagavatas do not acknowledge any difference founded on superiority of knowledge, power, etc., between Vaasudeva and the other Lords, but simply say that they are all forms of Vaasudeva without any special distinction.

Then again, the forms of Vaasudeva cannot be limited to four only, as the whole world from Brahma down to a blade of grass is a form or manifestation of the Supreme Being. The whole world is the Vyuha of Vaasudeva.

 

 

<v:shape id=_x0000_i1028 style="WIDTH: 92.25pt; HEIGHT: 18.75pt" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/2.2.45.gif" src="file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/msoclip1/01/clip_image004.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>

Vipratishedhacca II.2.45 (216)

 

And because of contradictions (the Pancharatra doctrine is untenable).

Vipratishedhat: because of contradiction; Cha:and.

The argument against the doctrine of the Bhagavatas is concluded here.

There are also other inconsistencies, or manifold contradictions in the Pancharatra doctrine. Jnana, Aisvarya, or ruling capacity, Sakti (creative power), Bala (strength), Virya (valour) and Tejas (glory) are enumerated as qualities and they are again in some other place spoken of as selfs, holy Vaasudevas and so on. It says that Vaasudeva is different from Sankarshana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. Yet it says that these are the same as Vaasudeva. Sometimes it speaks of the four forms as qualities of the Atman and sometimes as the Atman itself.

Further we meet with passages contradictory to the Vedas. It contains words of depreciation of the Vedas. It says that Sandilya got the Pancharatra doctrine after finding that the Vedas did not contain the means of perfection. Not having found the highest bliss in the Vedas, Sandilya studied this Sastra.

For this reason also the Bhagavata doctrine cannot be accepted. As this system is opposed to and condemned by all the Srutis and abhored by the wise, it is not worthy of regard.

Thus in this Pada has been shown that the paths of Sankhyas, Vaiseshikas and the rest down to the Pancharatra doctrine are strewn with thorns and are full of difficulties, while the path of Vedanta is free from all these defects and should be trodden by every one who wishes his final beatitude and salvation.

Thus ends the Second Pada (Section 2) of the Second Adhyaya (Chapter II) of the Brahmasutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.

So above quotes from "Brahma-sutras" refute Bhagavatha view . Can some vaishnavas explain why is it so ?

Hare Krishna

Om Namo Venkatesha

 

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Can you post the sanskrit text so we can see what vyasa says?

[shiva 0]

 

So above quotes from "Brahma-sutras" refute Bhagavatha view . Can some vaishnavas explain why is it so ?

That translation is not correct and the commentary is by an advaitin who clearly has not the purpose of bringing enlightenment but instead to try and refute the more popular understanding in order to bring adulation upon himself from less intelligent people. Advaitins have been saying for many hundreds of years that the Brahma Sutras refute the vaisnava and bhagavata teachings. They sometimes do what Swami Sivananda has done in the commentary you provided, which is that first they mistranslate the text and then they misrepresent the vaisnava perspective in order to make some foolish impersonal conclusion. The definitive gaudiya vaisnava commentary on the Brahma Sutras is Srimad Bhagavatam. Since both the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavatam were written by Sri Vyasa we certainly do not need fools, imposters, and cheaters, proclaiming their nonsense "commentary" to be superior to that of Srila Vyasadeva.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

I believe this is based on Shankara's bhashya, where he raises these particular points, but I don't have a copy here to check.

[Guest guest]

Looks like Shankara's commentary to me.

 

He criticized the Pancharatra school for it supported creation of souls. However, subsequent commentaries by other schools disagree with this interpretation and refute it.

 

The Vaishnava commentaries obviously do not discredit the Pancharatra and the Bahagavata school.

 

Cheers

[gokulkr 1]

 

Can you post the sanskrit text so we can see what vyasa says?

http://www.brahmasutra.iitk.ac.in/bsutranav.php3 contains brahma-sutras in devangiri script. Please go to Chapter 2 - Section 2 - Sutras (42-45).

Hare Krishna

Om Namo Venkatesha

[gokulkr 1]

 

That translation is not correct and the commentary is by an advaitin who clearly has not the purpose of bringing enlightenment but instead to try and refute the more popular understanding in order to bring adulation upon himself from less intelligent people. Advaitins have been saying for many hundreds of years that the Brahma Sutras refute the vaisnava and bhagavata teachings. They sometimes do what Swami Sivananda has done in the commentary you provided, which is that first they mistranslate the text and then they misrepresent the vaisnava perspective in order to make some foolish impersonal conclusion. The definitive gaudiya vaisnava commentary on the Brahma Sutras is Srimad Bhagavatam. Since both the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavatam were written by Sri Vyasa we certainly do not need fools, imposters, and cheaters, proclaiming their nonsense "commentary" to be superior to that of Srila Vyasadeva.

<!--StartFragment --> Yes,The translation pasted above is made by Swami Sivananda.

Also translation of Brahma-sutras made by Swami Gambhirananda also refutes Bhagavata-view.

Hare Krishna

Om Namo Venkatesha

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Both of those versions follow Shankara's commentary.

[Guest guest]

Swami Shivananda practically rewrote Shankara's commentary on the BS.

 

Swami Gambhirananda is from RK Math and has translated a lot of Shankara's commentaries into english, including the popular upanishads and the BS.

 

Cheers

[shiva 0]

 

 

CHAPTER II

AVIRODHA ADHYAYA

SECTION 2

Utpattyasambhavadhikaranam: Topic 8 (Sutras 42-45)

Refutation of the Bhagavata or the Pancharatra school

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape id=_x0000_i1025 style="WIDTH: 106.5pt; HEIGHT: 20.25pt" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/2.2.42.gif" src="file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>

Utpattyasambhavat II.2.42 (213)

 

On account of the impossibility of the origination (of the individual soul from the Highest Lord), (the doctrine of the Bhagavatas or the Pancharatra doctrine cannot be accepted).

Utpatti: causation, origination, creation; Asambhavat: on account of the impossibility.

The Pancharatra doctrine or the doctrine of the Bhagavatas is now refuted.

 

No it's not. The Sutra is saying that there is no cause for everything in existence. It is a misunderstanding of the sutra to think that it is saying that the jiva does not originate from the Lord, there is a big difference. The Lord does not create the jiva and nowhere in the Pancharatra or Bhagavata doctrine do we find different. But the Lord is the origin of the jiva because the Lord is the origin of everything. Swami Sivananda gives us three translations of Utpatti: causation, origination, creation. These 3 are not the same. If a drop of water in the ocean finds it's origin in the ocean that is different then saying the drop of water in the ocean was created or caused by the ocean. All jivas and everything in existence finds their origin in the Lord but their essence is not created by the Lord because that essence is without beginning. Just like if I take a few gallons of water out of the ocean in order to create an aquarium in my house. It would be wrong to say that I actually created a mini ocean in my glass container. But it would be correct to say that I manipulated the ocean water to create a unique situation where the ocean water in my aquarium is functioning separately from the ocean as a mini ocean. All existence is like that. Everything is essentially comprised of the same eternal beginningless substance, but the Lord manipulates that self same substance and by doing so the varieties of existence comes into being. The whole point of this criticism of the Bhagavata and Pancaratras by the Advaitins is because they believe that the goal of life is to go back to the essential undifferentiated state of existence, to turn back into Brahman without a personal existence to live life with. They believe that losing their personality and differentiatedness from Brahman is the goal of life. Which is fairly foolish if you think about it. I mean why would Brahman become us if the goal of life for us is lose our individuality only to become Brahman again? That philosophy is based on a simplistic and errant understanding of the Upanishads.

 

 

According to this school, the Lord is the efficient cause as well as the material cause of the universe. This is in quite agreement with the scripture or the Sruti and so it is authoritative. A part of their system agrees with the Vedanta system. We accept this. Another part of the system, however, is open to objection.

The Bhagavatas say that Vaasudeva whose nature is pure knowledge is what really exists. He divides Himself fourfold and appears in four forms (Vyuhas) as Vaasudeva, Sankarshana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. Vaasudeva denotes the Supreme Self, Sankarshana the individual soul, Pradyumna the mind, and Aniruddha the principle of egoism, or Ahamkara. Of these four Vaasudeva constitutes the Ultimate Cause, of which the three others are the effects.

They say that by devotion for a long period to Vaasudeva through Abhigamana (going to the temple with devotion), Upadana (securing the accessories of worship). Ijya (oblation, worship), Svadhyaya (study of holy scripture and recitation of Mantras) and Yoga (devout meditation) we can pass beyond all afflictions, pains and sorrows, attain Liberation and reach the Supreme Being. We accept this doctrine.

But we controvert the doctrine that Sankarshana (the Jiva) is born from Vaasudeva and so on. Such creation is not possible. If there is such birth, if the soul be created it would be subject to destruction and hence there could be no Liberation. That the soul is not created will be shown in Sutra II.3. 17.

For this reason the Pancharatra doctrine is not acceptable.

 

Here we see misrepresentations. "Vaasudeva constitutes the Ultimate Cause, of which the three others are the effects." The three others are not effects nor are they different from Vasudeva. They are all Vasudeva engaged in different activities therefore they are given different nomenclatures in order to teach us the variety of activities of the Lord. Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha are all one and the same Lord. If I wear one type of clothes for when I work in the garden and then a different type of clothes for when I attend a marriage ceremony and then a different type of clothes when I fight in a battle we would not say that there is a cause and effect relationship between the clothes I wear in relation to each other. Secondarily Sankarsana does not refer to the jiva. Sankarsana is the Lord of the Jiva, the origin of the jiva (in the sense of the drop of water in the ocean having it's origin in the ocean)

 

 

 

<v:shape id=_x0000_i1026 style="WIDTH: 119.25pt; HEIGHT: 21pt" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/2.2.43.gif" src="file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/msoclip1/01/clip_image002.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>

Na cha kartuh karanam II.2.43 (214)

 

And (it is) not (observed that) the instrument (is produced) from the agent.

Na: not; Cha: and; Kartuh: from the agent; Karanam: the instrument.

The argument against the Pancharatra doctrine is continued.

An instrument such as a hatchet and the like is not seen to be produced from the agent, the woodcutter. But the Bhagavatas teach that from an agent, viz., the individual soul termed Sankarshana, there springs its internal instrument or mind (Pradyumna) and from the mind, the ego or Ahamkara (Aniruddha).

The mind is the instrument of the soul. Nowhere do we see the instrument being born from the doer. Nor can we accept that Ahamkara issues from the mind. This doctrine cannot be accepted. Such doctrine cannot be settled without observed instances. We do not meet with any scriptural passage in its favour. The scripture declares that everything takes its origin from Brahman.

 

More misrepresentation. The Sutra is refering to the oneness of everything within Brahman. Since everything has it's origin in Brahman therefore although there is the appearance of one thing being created by another thing in reality everything already exists in some form or another. For example if we take gold and make bangles it may appear that the bangle was created by an artisan, and in one sense it was. But in the absolute sense the gold already existed and the person who built the bangle simply manipulated that which already existed. So the sutra is telling us that everything in existence was never created because in the absolute sense everything is a manifestation of a manipulation of the eternal substance of Brahman, which is without creation. Therefore the sutra tells us that the substance of reality was not created.

 

"But the Bhagavatas teach that from an agent, viz., the individual soul termed Sankarshana, there springs its internal instrument or mind (Pradyumna) and from the mind, the ego or Ahamkara (Aniruddha)."

 

The Bhagavata does not teach that. Sankarsana is the origin of jiva, the abode of the jiva, one and different from the jiva. Aniruddha and Pradyumna as ego and mind are not the product of the jiva and nowhere in the Bhagavata do we find such teachings.

 

 

From Srimad Bhavagatam

 

3.26.23-24: The material ego springs up from the mahat-tattva, which evolved from the Lord's own energy. The material ego is endowed predominantly with active power of three kinds -- good, passionate and ignorant. It is from these three types of material ego that the mind, the senses of perception, the organs of action, and the gross elements evolve.

 

3.26.25: The threefold ahankara, the source of the gross elements, the senses and the mind, is identical with them because it is their cause. It is known by the name of Sankarshana, who is directly Lord Ananta with a thousand heads.

 

What is the material ego (ahankara)? It is the illusioned vision of the jiva. The ahankara springs up from the mahat-tattva (material world) in the sense that this world we see around us fools us into accepting that which is not real as real. We see so much variety and so much apparent cause and effect that we take everything in the world as being independently occuring free from an overarching transcendant control. We see people places and things as being the causes of all effects. In truth everything is one with and controlled by the Lord. Without that vision and knowledge the ahankara arises from the perception of the world as separate from the Lord. From that state of illusion the mind is then taken to also be independent and so the jiva identifies with the mind. In a sense the mind of the jiva evolves from the jiva's false ego of being identical to or in control of the mind. The mind is actually the Lord as will be explained in the next verses. Therefore the ahankara is considered to be equal to the material world and the material mind and senses because the false perception of reality is causing those things to exist. In truth the material world and mind and senses only exist in the conception of the jiva under the influence of ahankara. The ahankara is the source of the gross elements in the sense that the material world is material only in the vision of a person in illusion. The truth is that everything is a manifestation of the Lord and controlled at all times by the Lord, with that vision the jiva no longer sees the world as a place where anything is separate from the Lord because everything is the Lord and the Lord is controlling everything.

 

 

 

From Srimad Bhagavatam

 

3.26.26: This false ego is characterized as the doer, as an instrument and as an effect. It is further characterized as serene, active or dull according to how it is influenced by the modes of goodness, passion and ignorance.

 

3.26.27: From the false ego of goodness, another transformation takes place. From this evolves the mind, whose thoughts and reflections give rise to desire.

 

3.26.28: The mind of the living entity is known by the name of Lord Aniruddha, the supreme ruler of the senses. He possesses a bluish-black form resembling a lotus flower growing in the autumn. He is found slowly by the yogis.

 

The mind of the jiva is in reality the Lord and this is experienced when the jiva is free from the false association (ahankara) with the mind.

 

 

 

 

<v:shape id=_x0000_i1027 style="WIDTH: 192pt; HEIGHT: 19.5pt" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/2.2.44.gif" src="file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/msoclip1/01/clip_image003.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>

Vijnanadibhave va tadapratishedhah II.2.44 (215)

 

Or if the (four Vyuhas are said to) possess infinite knowledge, etc., yet there is no denial of that (viz., the objection raised in Sutra 42).

Vijnanadibhave: if intelligence etc. exist; Va: or, on the other hand; Tat: that (Tasya iti); Apratishedhah: no denial (of). (Vijnana: knowledge; Adi: and the rest; Bhave: of the nature (of).)

 

In the previous commnetary we find that (Sankara and Swami Sivananda) said that the Bhagavata teaches that Sankarsana is the jiva and that Aniruddha and Pradyumna are created by the jiva. Here in this sutra we find that it is saying that Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha are no doubt Isvara. This is what the Pancaratra and Bhagavat actually teaches as well.

 

 

From Srimad Bhagavatam

 

10.40.21

 

namas te vasudevaya

namah sankarsanaya ca

pradyumnayaniruddhaya

satvatam pataye namah

 

Obeisances to You, Lord of the Satvatas, and to Your forms of Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha.

 

5.25.1

 

tasya mula-dese trimsad-yojana-sahasrantara aste ya vai kala bhagavatas tamasi samakhyatananta iti satvatiya drastr-drsyayoh sankarsanam aham ity abhimana-laksanam yam sankarsanam ity acaksate

 

Sri Sukadeva Gosvami said to Maharaja Pariksit: My dear King, approximately 240,000 miles beneath the planet Patala lives another incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is the expansion of Lord Visnu known as Lord Ananta or Lord Sankarsana. He is always in the transcendental position, but because He is worshiped by Lord Siva, the deity of tamo-guna or darkness, He is sometimes called tamasi. Lord Ananta is the predominating Deity of the material mode of ignorance as well as the false ego of all conditioned souls. When a conditioned living being thinks, "I am the enjoyer, and this world is meant to be enjoyed by me," this conception of life is dictated to him by Sankarsana. Thus the mundane conditioned soul thinks himself the Supreme Lord.

 

 

 

The argument against the Pancharatra doctrine is continued.

The error of the doctrine will persist even if they say that all the Vyuhas are Gods having intelligence, etc.

The Bhagavatas may say, that all the forms are Vaasudeva, the Lord, and that all of them equally possess Knowledge, Lordship, Strength, Power, etc., and are free from faults and imperfections.

In this case there will be more than one Isvara. This goes against your own doctrine according to which there is only one real essence, viz., the holy Vaasudeva. All the work can be done by only One Lord. Why should there be four Isvaras?

 

That logic is in error. The Lord is equally present everywhere, if the Lord wants to take on trillions of different forms engaged in different activities how is it that those trillions of forms are more then one Isvara? The Lord is one but that one Lord can take on an infinite number of forms all equally the same all pervading Lord.

 

 

Moreover, there could be no birth of one from another, because they are equal according to the Bhagavatas, whereas a cause is always greater than the effect. Observation shows that the relation of cause and effect requires some superiority on the part of the cause, as for instance, in the case of the clay and the pot, where the cause is more extensive than the effect and that without such superiority the relation is simply impossible. The Bhagavatas do not acknowledge any difference founded on superiority of knowledge, power, etc., between Vaasudeva and the other Lords, but simply say that they are all forms of Vaasudeva without any special distinction.

Then again, the forms of Vaasudeva cannot be limited to four only, as the whole world from Brahma down to a blade of grass is a form or manifestation of the Supreme Being. The whole world is the Vyuha of Vaasudeva.

 

The forms of the Lord are not "born" from one to another. One form of the Lord does not "cause" another form of the Lord to exist because they all exist eternally. Therefore there is no cause and effect relationship between forms of the Lord. The Bhagavata teaches that the Lord is one and that the Lord is equally present everywhere. The confusion comes from misunderstanding the nature of the concept of the expansions of the Lord. An expansion of the Lord is the Lord who acts in a different capacity from other expansions of the Lord. They are all the same all pervading Lord but in order to show that there is a difference in the activities of the Lord they are explained in this manner. The original form of the Lord according to the Bhagavata is Sri Krishna. All expansions proceed from Sri Krishna. What does this mean? Sri Krishna is the form of the Lord where he enjoys life free from any other consideration. Since this is the primary purpose of the Lord this is considered the original form of the Lord. Also Krishna displays the Lord's full male qualities, characteristics, and personality, whereas the expansions from Sri Krishna exist for differing purposes and display differing amounts of the Lords personal qualities and characteristics or personality. The use of the analogy of the clay and the pot is of no value because the clay is causing the pot to exist and the clay and the pot are different in capacity, whereas all expansions of the Lord are the same Lord displaying differing activities but with equal capacity. There is no cause and effect because the so called effect is identical to cause whereas the clay and pot are not identical. The clay changes into a pot whereas the expansion of the Lord is not different from any other form of the Lord. There is no change in existential quality like there is between clay and a pot. Clay cannot do what a pot can do which furthur weakens the analogy because a pot can be used in so many ways whereas clay is useless until manipulated into some useful object. The Lord and the Lord's expansions are all the same all pervading Lord being described in such a way so as to educate us on the personal nature and activities of the Lord.

 

 

 

<v:shape id=_x0000_i1028 style="WIDTH: 92.25pt; HEIGHT: 18.75pt" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/2.2.45.gif" src="file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/msoclip1/01/clip_image004.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>

Vipratishedhacca II.2.45 (216)

 

And because of contradictions (the Pancharatra doctrine is untenable).

Vipratishedhat: because of contradiction; Cha:and.

The argument against the doctrine of the Bhagavatas is concluded here.

 

The Brahma Sutra is not arguing against the Pancharatra doctrine, that is the imagination of the commentator. It is arguing against the idea that anything came into existence at some point in time being caused by another thing. The point being that in reality everything has always existed in one form or another, the Lord simply manipulates what already exists (which is the Lord) and manifests a variety of seemingly different objects with seemingly different causes. These verses are not arguing agaisnt the Bhagavata doctrine at all.

 

 

 

There are also other inconsistencies, or manifold contradictions in the Pancharatra doctrine. Jnana, Aisvarya, or ruling capacity, Sakti (creative power), Bala (strength), Virya (valour) and Tejas (glory) are enumerated as qualities and they are again in some other place spoken of as selfs, holy Vaasudevas and so on. It says that Vaasudeva is different from Sankarshana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. Yet it says that these are the same as Vaasudeva. Sometimes it speaks of the four forms as qualities of the Atman and sometimes as the Atman itself.

 

There are not inconsistencies but rather intricacies with deep metaphors and analogies. With a challenging mentality and without a submissive attitude when approaching the Bhagavata and Panchratras the deep esoteric knowledge contained therein will be seen but not heard and understood.

 

 

Further we meet with passages contradictory to the Vedas. It contains words of depreciation of the Vedas. It says that Sandilya got the Pancharatra doctrine after finding that the Vedas did not contain the means of perfection. Not having found the highest bliss in the Vedas, Sandilya studied this Sastra.

For this reason also the Bhagavata doctrine cannot be accepted. As this system is opposed to and condemned by all the Srutis and abhored by the wise, it is not worthy of regard.

Thus in this Pada has been shown that the paths of Sankhyas, Vaiseshikas and the rest down to the Pancharatra doctrine are strewn with thorns and are full of difficulties, while the path of Vedanta is free from all these defects and should be trodden by every one who wishes his final beatitude and salvation.

Thus ends the Second Pada (Section 2) of the Second Adhyaya (Chapter II) of the Brahmasutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.

So above quotes from "Brahma-sutras" refute Bhagavatha view . Can some vaishnavas explain why is it so ?

Hare Krishna

Om Namo Venkatesha

 

 

 

 

 

What passages are contradictory to the Vedas and are depreciative towards the Vedas? The Vedas are the foundational texts which the Bhagavata and Pancaratras are based upon. They are furthur detailed expositions of the truths of the Vedas. If there is a book about life where the author mentions in a paragraph the importance of exercise, and then there is another book about life written specifically and only about exercise, which book would be more helpful if you wanted to learn to exercise? This is the importance of the Bhagavata and Pancaratras. The Upanishads contain the highest wisdom of this there is no doubt, but the Bhagavata and Pancaratras go into more detail on the various topics introduced in the Upanishads. The Advaitins who seek to discredit the Bhagavata and Pancaratras in trying to establish Advaita philosophy as the highest truth and the essence of the Vedas are simply in illusion.