Regarding the Pancharatra: Shankara one with Purvamimamsa

Regarding the Pancharatra: Shankara one with Purvamimamsa

It is well known that in the Brahma Sutra and the Bhashya, along with many non-Vedantic schools, the Pancharatra (Bhagavata) school also has been refuted. We find that a similar refutation of all those schools along with the Pancharatra is refuted in the Purvamimamsa too.  Here is the Tantra Vartika of Kumarila Bhatta along with his own prose part:

It is stated under the section:

बाह्यग्रन्थानामप्रामाण्यनिरूपणम् ।

[the determining of the status of non-vedic texts as not being pramana]

http://sarit.indology.info/exist/apps/sarit-data/data/kumarila-tantravarttika.xml?root=1.4.4.2.8.16&odd=sarit.odd&view=div

वार्तामात्रेण तद्यावत्तावन्नैव ग्रहीष्यते ।
यदा तु श्रवणं प्राप्तं तदाऽस्मान्न विशिष्यते ॥
अतश्चैवं श्रुतिस्मृत्योर्विशेषोऽनेन दर्श्यते ।
नात्यन्तमेव बाध्यत्वं न चाप्यत्यन्ततुल्यता ॥

यद्वा यान्येतानि त्रयीविद्भिर्न परिगृहीतानि किंचित्तन्मिश्रधर्म-

कञ्चुकच्छायापतितानि लोकोपसंग्रहलाभपूजाख्यातिप्रयोजनपराणि त्रयीविपरीतासंबद्धदृष्टशोभादिप्रत्यक्षानुमानोपमानार्था-

पत्तिप्राययुक्तिमूलोपनिबद्धानि

सांख्ययोगपाञ्चरात्रपाशुपतशाक्यग्रन्थपरिगृहीत-

धर्माधर्मनिबन्धनानि 

विषचिकित्सावशीकरणोच्चाटनोन्मादनादिसमर्थकतिपयमन्त्रौषधि-कादाचित्कसिद्धिनिदर्शनबलेनाहिंसासत्यवचनदमदानदयादि-श्रुतिस्मृतिसंवादिस्तोकार्थगन्धवासितजीविकाप्रायार्थान्तरोपदेशीनि

यानि च बाह्यतराणि म्लेच्छाचारमिश्रकभोजनाचरणनिबन्धनानि

तेषामेवैतच्छ्रुतिविरोधहेतुदर्शनाभ्यामनपेक्षणीयत्वं प्रतिपाद्यते ।

न चैतत्क्वचिदधिकरणान्तरे निरूपितं न चावक्तव्यमेव

गाव्यादिशब्दवाचकत्वबुद्धिवदतिप्रसिद्धत्वात् ।

 

It is significant that those schools, Sankhya, yoga, pancharatra, pashupata, bauddha.. that Veda Vyasa has listed as un-vedantic in the Brahma sutra have been held by the Purva Mimamsa shaastra too as not admissible for the purpose of determining what is ‘dharma.’

 

The feature that Shankara adopted, ‘para matam apratishiddham anumatam bhavati’, [that which is non-contradictory in the opponents’ doctrine is admissible to us] is voiced by Kumarila Bhatta too.  Going further, Kumarila Bhatta cites a verse from the Manu Smriti which Shankara too has cited in the Mundaka 1.1.5, Kena Vakyabhashyam 2.3 and alluded to in the Taittiriya Bhashyam 2.8.5:

 

एतदीया ग्रन्था एव च मन्वादिभिः परिहार्यत्वेनोक्ताः ।

या वेदबाह्याः स्मृतयो याश्च काश्चित्कुदृष्टयः ।

सर्वास्ता निष्फलाः प्रोक्तास्तमोनिष्ठा हि ताः स्मृताः ॥

तस्माद्धर्मं प्रति त्रयीबाह्यमेवंजातीयकं प्रामाण्येनानपेक्ष्यं स्यादिति सिद्धम् ॥ ४ ॥

[‘Those smritis which are outside the Veda (vedic purport), those with incorrect vision, all these are stated to be not giving the avowed fruit as they are in the realm of tamas.’  Manu smriti: 12.95.  Kumarila Bhatta concludes after citing this Manu verse: Therefore to determine ‘dharma’ the unvedic doctrines (as listed above) do not qualify to be pramana and therefore not considered (in this Purva Mimamsa Shastra)].

Thus, we have someone preceding Shankara, in a non-Vedantic, but highly revered, shaastra, not admitting the Pancharatra as a flawless doctrine. Shankara is not, therefore, alone in taking such a view of this doctrine. After all, Shankara was doing that in the Brahma Sutras of Badarayana. It is also significant that Bhaskara, who is an avowed critic of Shankara, too has taken the same stand, using the similar reasons/yukti/logic/ arguments as Shankara to refute the Pancharatra system.

Om Tat Sat