How come Vyasa rejected Panchratra Agamas in Vedanta Sutras yet referred back to Bhagavad Gita which is also considered to be a Panchratra scripture?

Question

Badrayana/Vyasa refuted the Bhagavata view yet Mahabharata contains Pancharatra tradition passing down, as well as a Pancharatra scripture, Vyasa refers back to Bhagavad Gita too, which is also considered as a Pancharatra/Vaishnava scripture. Why is it so?

Answer 1

First of all, you're right that the Bhagavad Gita is part of the Pancharatra tradition. Here is what this chapter of the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata, which describes how the Pancharatra tradition was passed down, says:

During the seventh birth of Brahma due to the lotus, O king, that sprang from the navel of Narayana, this cult was once more declared by Narayana himself, unto the Grandsire of pure soul, the Creator of all the worlds, in the beginning of this Kalpa. The Grandsire gave it in days of yore to Daksha (one of his sons created by a fiat of his will). Daksha, in his turn, imparted it to the eldest of all the sons of his daughters, O monarch, viz., Aditya who is senior in age to Savitri. From Aditya, Vivaswat obtained it. In the beginning of the Treta Yuga, Vivaswat imparted the knowledge of this cult to Manu. Manu, for the protection and support of all the worlds, then gave it to his son Ikshaku. Promulgated by Ikshaku, that cult over-spreads the whole world. When the universal destruction comes, it will once more return to Narayana and be merged in Him. The religion which is followed and practised by the Yatis, has, O best of kings, been narrated to thee before this in the Hari Gita, with all its ordinances in brief. The celestial Rishi Narada got it from that Lord of universe, viz., Narayana himself, O king, with all its mysteries and abstract of details. Thus, O monarch, this foremost of cults is primeval and eternal. Incapable of being comprehended with ease and exceedingly difficult of being practised, it is always upheld by persons wedded to the attribute of Sattwa.

The Hari Gita is another name for the Bhagavad Gita, and as the passage says it encapsulates the teachings of Pancharatra.

In any case, yes, it would be odd if Vyasa, who praises Pancharatra in the Mahabharata, were to criticize them in the Brahma Sutras. But not everyone believes that Vyasa criticizes them in the Brahma Sutras. Adi Shankaracharya believed that, but other commentators disagree as you can see here. Ramanujacharya believed that Vyasa actually defended Pancharatra in the Brahma Sutras, and he cites the Mahabharata to demonstrate Vyasa's support for Pancharatra. Here is what Ramanujacharya says in this section of the Sri Bhashya:

The author of the Sûtras (Vyâsa)--who first composed the Sûtras, the purport of which it is to set forth the arguments establishing the Vedânta doctrine, and then the Bhârata-samhitâ (i.e. the Mahâbhârata) in a hundred thousand slokas in order to support thereby the teaching of the Veda--himself says in the chapter called Mokshadharma, which treats of knowledge, 'If a householder, or a Brahmakârin, or a hermit, or a mendicant wishes to achieve success, what deity should he worship?' and so on; explains then at great length the Pañkarâtra system, and then says, 'From the lengthy Bhârata story, comprising one hundred thousand slokas, this body of doctrine has been extracted, with the churning-staff of mind, as butter is churned from curds--as butter from milk, as the Brahmana from men, as the Âranyaka from the Vedas, as Amrita from medicinal herbs.--This great Upanishad, consistent with the four Vedas, in harmony with Sânkhya and Yoga, was called by him by the name of Pañkarâtra. This is excellent, this is Brahman, this is supremely beneficial. Fully agreeing with the Rik, the Yagus, the Sâman, and the Atharvân-giras, this doctrine will be truly authoritative.' The terms Sânkhya and Yoga here denote the concentrated application of knowledge and of works. As has been said, 'By the application of knowledge on the part of the Sânkhya, and of works on the part of the Yogins.' And in the Bhîshmaparvan we read, 'By Brahmanas, Kshattriyas, Vaisyas and Sûdras, Mâdhava is to be honoured, served and worshipped--he who was proclaimed by Sankarshana in agreement with the Sâtvata law.'--How then could these utterances of Bâdarâyana, the foremost among all those who understand the teaching of the Veda, be reconciled with the view that in the Sûtras he maintains the non-authoritativeness of the Sâtvata doctrine, the purport of which is to teach the worship of, and meditation on, Vâsudeva, who is none other than the highest Brahman known from the Vedânta-texts?

Answer 2

The Sarva darshana sangraha of Adi shankara clearly distinguishes between Veda vyasa's school(which is based on the mahabharata) and the Vedanta school of Badrayana as two essentially differnt philosophies.

It may be because Badrayana and Vyasa (The writer of the mahabharata) may not be the same person. The identification between both may have been a later phenomenon. Even vidvans such as Prof. Radhavallabh tripathi hold that opinion.

Also, Adi Shankara isn't the only bhasyakaara who takes the view that Brahma sutras criticise the Pancharatra. Bhaskara, and Vallabhacharya also agree with Shankara's stand on that particular Adhikarana as shown here

Answer 3

It's a severe misconception that vyasa maharishi Rejected the pañcarātra agamas in his Brahma Sutra. The pañcarātras are sung in all shāstras starting from the vedas to the Purans/itihaas, How Can one reject them? For instance, The Mahābhārata says :-

idaṃ mahopaniṣadaṃ caturvedasamanvitam | sāṃkhyayogakṛtaṃ tena pañcarātrānuśabditam || nārāyaṇamukhodīrta nārado'śrāvayatpunaḥ | ~ mbh 12.339

It says that Pañcarātras are great Upanishads, endowed with the science of the four Vedas. It is full of the principles of SaMkhya and Yoga. It has been sung from the mouth of Narayana himself and promulgated by Nārada. Further, it has been said :-

parasparāṅgānyetāni pāñcarātraṃ ca kathyate | evamekaṃ sāṃkhyayogaṃ vedāraṇyakameva ca || ~ Mbh 12.348

i.e Vēdas, ĀraNyakas, and the SaNkhya Yoga are all said to be one with the Pañcarātras being mutual parts of each other like different organs. The smritis also mention :-

evamabhyarthanaṃ viṣṇormunibhiḥ samprakīrtitam | śrautasmārtāgamoktāśca nityanaimittikāḥ kriyāḥ || ~ Vriddha. har 8.81

vaidikaṃ tu japaṃ kuryāt paurāṇāṃ pāñcarātrikam yo vedastāni cetāni yānyetāni ca sā śrutiḥ ||pañcarātravidhānena sthaṇḍile vāpi pūjayet | jalamadhyagato vāpi pūjaye jalamadhyataḥ || ~Brihat.Par.4

These were some examples from the Shāstras regarding the greatness if the Pañcarātra agamas.

Obj :- In the Kūrmapurāṇa, we have these verses where Lord Viṣṇu and Lord Śiva decide to compose certain doctrines to be followed by those who are outside the vedic fold:

Resp : If that's the case, then the same Context also mentions the kapala, Vamacara, bhairava and pashupata agamas. Will the opponents accept that their Revered bhairava agamas too are meant for delusion? or the fact that Worship by the method of Vamachara, in the pujapaddhati of Mahadeva or Bhagvati, is Avedika? Obviously people belonging to these schools don't accept this stance. Further, there are other statements in the purans as well, which include: -

pañcarātravidhānena śrīpati yo'rcayiṣyati || dīkṣāmavāpya vidhivadvaiṣṇavīṃ... tariṣyati bhavāmbhodhiṃ sa naraḥ kurunandana| ~ Skd.Pur 5.3

This clearly mentions that Worshipping Visnu via rites of Pañcarātras, leads to the ultimate moksha - certainly not the characteristic of deluding shāstras. Moreover, Garuda Puran 1.147 states that Only those who have the knowledge of the pañcarātras, are Eligible to get the Naivedya of Bhagvana Vishnu. As per Agni Puran 63.21, Knowers of Pañcarātras (and purans & Bharata), get the Supreme moksha कुलैकविंशमुद्धृत्य परे तत्त्वे तु लीयते. There are such statments in The bhagvata, varaha, Brahma, padma and Brahmanda purans as well. Therefore, on account of Contradicting several Statments, from not only smritis but even from purans/itihasa and Opposition from the other mentioned schools also, The Kurma purana verse and the verse from Vāsiṣṭhalainga, either has to be rejected or Has to be re interpreted accordingly.

Further, there are other statments as well in the shāstras, including: -

īśena racitaṃ śāstraṃ aṣṭāviṃśatisaṃkhyayā tavaiva vaiṣṇavaṃ cāpi vyāmohāya purā kṛtam| sugatānāṃ rākṣasānāṃ devadevena viṣṇunā tadetadṛ‌khilaṃ tasmācchāstraṃ ta‌dvividhaṃ param| vyāmohaka parityajya tārakaṃ parigṛhya vai

~ mārakanḍeya smṛti

sugatānāṃ ~ reference to buddha (bauddha agamas Propagated by Visnu) and it mentions that the 28 saiva agamas are deluding.

Obj :- Suta Saṃhitā Mukti khaṇḍam Ch-4.15-17.:

The Pancharatra and other Aagam paths are not based on the Vedas, they themselves declare this. They are independent of the Vedas, not followers of the Vedas. Hence, they are misleading in explaining the ultimate truth and should not be considered as evidence for theists. And the portion of them that does not go against the Vedas has been declared acceptable to those who are very far from the Vedic path.

Resp : utterly wrong, because Nowhere do the pañcarātras say that they are against the vedas. For instance, The Parameshwara samhita chapter one, talks of how the Rishi munis, who are well versed in all shāstras, including the वेदाङ्गज्ञानकुशलैर्युक्ते देवर्षिभिस्तथा, gather to Know the mahatamya of Vasudeva. Parasara samhita chapter 2 also states that They are following the path of Srutis निषेकादिक्रियास्सर्वा वैष्णवश्रुतिमार्गतः.Further, when the Pañcarātras themselves not talk of aligning with the vedas, but even Explaining the vedic suktas, How do you claim that they Call themselves Avedika? Not only is this against the Smritis and purans, but even against the Basic notion of the pañcarātras.

Obj : The Paushkara Agama says in Paushkara Agama 6.76.:

Followers of Pancarātra worship Vishnu as identical with Prakriti. Hence liberation achieved by them is limited to Prakriti Tattva.

Resp : once again a bogus claim, with No relation to the reality. I have already refuted this claim in this answer. Just like the suta samhita, the Paushkara agama too is factually wrong, about the Vaishnava agamas.

obj : Also, According to the Brahma-Sutra 2.2.42, the PAncharAtra/BhAgavata doctrines are not acceptable.

Resp : Not really. Sri Shankaracharya had only attempted the refutation of the explaination of the vyuha formation, as said in some Pañcarātra agama (which I haven't found in any of them till date). Moreover, Not only has he Accepted the Rituals, bhakti and Practices of the pañcarātras in the same adhikaran "योऽसौ नारायणः परोऽव्यक्तात्प्रसिद्धः परमात्मा सर्वात्मा, स आत्मनात्मानमनेकधा व्यूह्यावस्थित इति - तन्न निराक्रियते, 'स एकधा भवति त्रिधा भवति' (छा. उ. ७ । २६ । २) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः परमात्मनोऽनेकधाभावस्याधिगतत्वात् ; यदपि तस्य भगवतोऽभिगमनादिलक्षणमाराधनमजस्रमनन्यचित्ततयाभिप्रेयते, तदपि न प्रतिषिध्यते, श्रुतिस्मृत्योरीश्वरप्रणिधानस्य प्रसिद्धत्वात्", but in his prapanchasara Tantra and Visnu sahasranāma bhasya, he has accepted the Four Vyuhas as well. Further, bhagvata Ramanujacharya, Vedanta desikacarya, Sri yamunacarya and Even The Advaitin Acharaya Sri Amalanda, had all refuted the statments of Shankar bhagvatpada, regarding the Sutra.

Obj : PanchaRatra has it's roots in Sathapatha Brahmana. Bhagawan Shiva is Veda-Purusha as confirmed in the Taittiriya Aranyaka 10:24:1 "purusho vai rudrah" means "Lord Rudra (Shiva) is the (Veda) Purusha." So, Originally the Vaidik Pancharatra is the glory of Mahadeva and agamic one is delusional for bringing one in the path of Vedas.

Resp : The sathapath Brahmana rite doesn't praise Lord Siva at all and there is no proof of any Other pañcarātra, which existed before and were glorification of Sriman Mahadeva. The Pañcarātras Propagated by visnu (and by other deities like Shesha, Shiva etc), are themselves rooted in the ekayan sakha of Yajur veda, As said in the Mahābhārata, smriti aadi shāstras "श्रीमदेकायनं शास्त्रं श्रुतं गुह्यं सनातनम्" ~ Shandilya.smriti 1.2. Further, the claims regarding sathapath Brahmana, purusho vai rudro etc have been refuted in this answer of mine.

Obj : in the Narada Pañcarātra, Hari says that Those who are enemy of Siva, Will never benefit from his (Visnu) worship. The traits of a Bhagavata is explained by Lord Narayana himself to sage Markandeya in Narada Purana :

He who loves Shiva's loved ones (devotees), is fully devoted and delights in the worship of the lotus feets of Shiva, dons the Tripundra (Bhasma on the forehead, etc.) is a Bhagavatottama. Those who chant the divine names of Hari and Hara, adorned with the Rudraksha necklace is a Bhagavatottama. Those who perform vedic sacrifices with copious dakshina (gifts/fees to scholars) addressed to Hari or Hara with great devotion are Bhagavatottamas. Those who conduct themselves with the idea of non-difference between Hari and Hara are Bhagavatas." Those who are involved in fire-sacrifices addressed to Shiva, delight in the chanting of the Panchakshara and revel in the meditation on Shiva are Bhagavatottamas.

Resp : Resp : The opponent failed to realise, that Nārada Pañcarātra is a set of several agamas and not a single agama. Considering the fact that the Sloka is from gyanamrutsara samhita (RadhaKrishna centric agama), The opponent should look at the following Pramanas from the same Agama :-

na lakṣmī rādhikā vāni svayambhuḥ śambhur eva ca bhakta-prano hi kṛṣṇaś ca krsna prānā hi vaişnavāh ~ Gyan.sam 1.36

Here, Bhagvana mentions that His devotee is Dearer to him, than Laksmi, Shiva, radha and Brahma deva. Mahadeva says :-

eko 'yam na dvitīyaś ca deho me tejaso 'ntare ~ gyan.sam 3.19

i.e His Body is Born from the effulgence - of what? In the next verses, he talks of The Abode of Lord Krishna "goloko nitya-vaikuntho yathākāśo yathādisah".

Moreover, in other samhitas of Nārada Pañcarātra, there are Things which will put the opponent's doctrine in jeopardy, such as Siva himself Rejecting siva gita, Ishvara gita and Rudra sukta, as his Eulogy in Brihad brahma samhita or Rejection of Chakra theory of Siva puran in Bharadwaj samhita and so on.

As far as Nārada Purāņa goes, Applying Bhasma or Tripunda is not the Nirvaksha lingam for Either Lord Mahadeva or A Saiva ; This is quite evident from Smriti vachans, where Bhasma snana is An injunction of Visnu pujan or the fact that Pashupata Vrata is actually the worship of Paramsiva's antaryami i.e Jvalamali Sankarshan Nrisimha murty, who himself dons Bhasma, Tripunda, is the object of worship of Paramsiva and is praised by Satarudriyam, Pancabrahman mantras, Rudra suktas etc, as per Vajrapanjara Upanishad.

As shown in the Verse mentioned from the Gyanamrutsara SaMhitā, the devotees of Bhagvana are extremely dear to him, Be it Mahadeva or Prahalada ; this is the reason why Bhagvana liberated Lord Siva from the Śarabha murty and Also Saved Prahalada. Further, He himself incorporated the pashupata doctrine to Mahadeva, Whose Goal is Ultimately visnu (as per Nārada puran, Ahirbudya samhita ; I'll explain this in detail in the post about Svetasvatara maharishi's inclination). Hence, Siva being a devout follower & Bhakta, is extremely dear to Bhagvana and whosoever goes against him, is bound to be abandoned by Narayana as well.

Obj : Skanda Purāṇam, Suta Saṃhitā Yajña vaibhava Khaṇḍaḥ ch-22 mention How All Shāstras, including pañcarātras, emanated from Lord Siva

Resp : In the same skanda puran, lord Siva prays to Sri Hari as :

śaṃkara uvāca | trayī sāṃkhyavedāṃtayogāḥ purāṇaṃ tathā pañcarātraṃ prabho dharmaśāstram | tavaivātimāhātmyamekasya nityaṃ prakārairanekairhi gāyaṃti bhaktyā || tvadeveśa śāstrāṇi caitāni bhūmno babhūvustvadekāśrayāṇyādikalpe |ramāsevyapādāmbujaṃ śāstrayoniṃ tamādyaṃ bhavantaṃ bhaje vāsudevam || ~ Skanda.Pur 2.9.15

Lord Siva Clearly states in the First kalpa (referring to the Very Beginning of a creation obv, since There is no First kalpa as cycle of creation is endless), It was Nārāyaņa who gave him (Siva) the knowledge of all shāstras, with Visnu being the source of all shāstras.

So how do we reconcile both the verses? We know that Saiva shāstras are limited to the Expanse of Kshetrjna Purusha avatar of Visnu and they don't cover any form that Comes after this form, so Pañcarātras here refer to those, which Śiva taught, after he Was enlightened by Hari or Just like the Other Factually wrong verses of Suta samhita, this one should also be rejected.

Obj :- Thus, Vāsudevam Sarvam iti. Where Vāsudeva means the Atman. AsVāsudeva in vedas is not “VasudEva Sutam iti VAsudEva (Krishna)”. Vasu means the the tattvas which stays inside n envelope and Deva means the shining one. So, the meaning of Vasudeva is the one who stays inside everything and shine from inside viz the Atman.

Resp :- who said that Hari is Vāsudeva, only because he incarnated as the son of Vasudeva? Narasimha puran chapter 64 says "तस्मिन्निवासः संसर्गे वासुदेवस्ततस्तु सः" i.e He is Vasudeva, as everything exists in him, "भूतेषु वसनादेव वासुदेवस्ततः स्मृतः" (~ Nard.Pur 1.46) He is Vāsudeva as he resides within all, as the self of all. Such definitions exist in the Mahābhārata, Visnu puran, bhagvata puran and even the Smriti shāstras. Further, There is no proof that Vāsudeva of The vedas is Lord Śiva; None of the authentic scriptures Use the Vāsudeva mantra to praise Lord Siva and rather, Linga puran Twice Uses the Vāsudeva Nārāyaņa gayatri of the vedas to praise Visnu only.

Obj :- Rest forms are for gauna (substitute) bhakti. Which Sri Adi Shankara describes as follows in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya 4.1.3 as follows:-

The supreme 𝗟𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀𝗵𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗮 (Shiva) is to be realized as the supreme absolute reality just like the way how 𝗝𝗮𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘀 (Upanishad), 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀𝗵𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗮 address him as the eternal absolute Brahman the self, that oh 𝗘𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗕𝗵𝗮𝗴𝘄𝗮𝗮𝗻 though you appear deity (Devata) thou indeed art me (𝗧𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝘄𝗮𝗺 𝗮𝘀𝗶), I indeed am thee (𝗮𝗵𝗮𝗺 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗵𝗺𝗮𝘀𝗺𝗶), As a matter of fact, the Vedic texts make us understand Brahman as absolute The self is the supreme absolute, that absolute supreme self is the only reality. "That is Truth, that is the Self, and That thou art". As for the argument that on the 𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗩𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗻𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗮 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 '𝗜' 𝗶.𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗵𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆.

Obj :- The context doesn't even talk of Visnu vs siva thing or How Siva's bhakti is Nirgun ; The opponent failed to understand the Philosophy of Shankaracharya here. The context here is simple, as to How one Proceeds from Vigraha upasana towards Soham/Tat tvam asi upasana, Which is the ultimate goal of Shankar advaita and to Demonstrate it, The Upanishad mahavakyas present in jabala up. Are Used for Latter and Analogy of Visnu murty is used for the former; nirgun Brahman is not a deity in shankar advaita. it has nothing to do with Any sort of supremacy. Moreover, the Opponent Cannot neglect How Shankar bhagvatpada Eulogizes Visnu as Supreme Brahman in the same Sutra bhasya, Upanishad bhasya or his Gita bhasya.

Obj : only Lord Siva is Bhagvana in Vedas and no one else. Hence, gita says "Bhagvana uvach" and not Krishna or kesava uvach.

Resp : The claim of Only Śiva being Bhagvana in the vedas, has been refuted in the second last objection in this answer. moreover, the saiva puran like kurma or linga, themselves Address Visnu as "Sri Bhagvana uvach" plenty of times.

Answer 4

Sri Bada rayana(Vyasadeva) did not comment on Bramhasutra..He just composed the bramhasutra..The commentary that rejects Pancharatra is written by Shankaracharya ji..

Answer 5

Vaidik yes to some extent, Avaidik or Agamic nope et all.

In the Kūrmapurāṇa, we have these verses where Lord Viṣṇu and Lord Śiva decide to compose certain doctrines to be followed by those who are outside the vedic fold:

Kūrmapurāṇa.:

111. Viṣṇu says: Therefore for the protection/saving of those who are outside the vedic fold (due to adverse karma/sin/curse), to delude them we shall compose doctrines, O Śiva] [there is a reading करिष्याबो indicating dual number].

112. Told thus by Mādhava, Rudra composed deluding doctrines and Keśava too, asked by Rudra (composed such doctrines).

113. A few of the thousands of such doctrines the Two composed are: kāpāla, nākula, vāma, bhairava, pūrvapaśchima, pāncharātra, pāśupata. . .

From this it can be concluded that the Pāncharātra was composed by Lord Viṣṇu with a view to ‘delude’ certain people.

In the Vāsiṣṭhalainga appear the following verses.:

Lord Viṣṇu addresses Śāṇḍilya: Only by adhering to My doctrine (Pāncharātra), you have performed My worship. My dear Śāṇḍilya, I am pleased by your austerities.

Even by adhering to this inferior path (Pāncharātra), O Śāṇḍilya, you have performed My worship. As a result of this, over time, you will come to be included in the vedic fold.

From the above it can be seen that the Pāncharātra has been composed by Lord Viṣṇu as a mohaka śāstra. It is not that he caused Rudra or some other person to compose it; he did it himself.

Again,

Suta Saṃhitā Mukti khaṇḍam Ch-4.15-17.:

The Pancharatra and other Aagam paths are not based on the Vedas, they themselves declare this. They are independent of the Vedas, not followers of the Vedas. Hence, they are misleading in explaining the ultimate truth and should not be considered as evidence for theists. And the portion of them that does not go against the Vedas has been declared acceptable to those who are very far from the Vedic path.

Even, The Paushkara Agama says in Paushkara Agama 6.76.:

Followers of Pancarātra worship Vishnu as identical with Prakriti. Hence liberation achieved by them is limited to Prakriti Tattva.

As to what is meant by ‘mohaka śāstra’ is explained here (in the Sri Rudra Bhāṣyam by Sri Abhinava Shankaracharya for the second anuvāka) where the word त्विषीमते occurs.

Also, According to the Brahma-Sutra 2.2.42, the PAncharAtra/BhAgavata doctrines are not acceptable.

From the above explanation of the author of the Sri Rudra Bhashyam we conclude:

• The Pāśupata and Pāncharātra are both doctrines composed for deluding those who are outside the vedic fold.
• The two doctrines are composed by Lord Śiva and Lord Viṣṇu themselves.
• The ‘deluding’ does not mean anything negative or detrimental to the audience for which those doctrines are composed.
• On the other hand, they are intended to help them return to the vedic path and attain liberation thereby.
• The Bauddha, etc. doctrine is also composed by Lord Narayana alone with a view to ‘delude’.
• The method of the Pancharatra is termed as ‘kumārga’ by the Lord himself.
• It is not that Viṣṇu causes the composing of such ‘śāstra-s’ through someone else.
• Śiva and Viṣṇu ‘instruct’ and ‘obey’ each other in this ‘partnership’.

Sri Adi Shankara rejects both PanchaRatra Aagams and Maheshwara Aagamas. Shankara rejects philosophy of Maheshwara Aagams here as.:

The Máhesvaras maintain that the five categories, viz. effect, cause, union, ritual, the end of pain, were taught by the Lord Pasupati (Siva) to the end of breaking the bonds of the animal (i.e. the soul); Pasupati is, according to them, the Lord, the operative cause.--Similarly, the Vaiseshikas and others also teach, according to their various systems, that the Lord is somehow the operative cause of the world. Against all these opinions the Sutra remarks 'the Lord, on account of the inappropriateness.' I.e. it is not possible that the Lord as the ruler of the pradhâna and the soul should be the cause of the world, on account of the inappropriateness of that doctrine.

Similarly, Shankara criticises PanchaRatra (Bhagvata) doctrine as:

Moreover, manifold contradictions are met with in the Bhâgavata (Pancharatra) system, with reference to the assumption of qualities and their bearers. Eminence of knowledge and ruling capacity, strength, valour, and glory are enumerated as qualities, and then they are in some other place spoken of as Selfs, holy Vâsudevas, and so on.--Moreover, we meet with passages contradictory of the Veda. The following passage, for instance, blames the Veda, 'Not having found the highest bliss in the Vedas Sândilya studied this sâstra.'-- For this reason also the Bhâgavata doctrine cannot be accepted.

PanchaRatra has it's roots in Sathapatha Brahmana.:

Sathapatha Brahmana 13:6:1:1.:

"Purusha Narayana desired, 'Would that I overpassed all beings ! would that I alone were everything- here (this universe) !' He beheld this 'five days' (pañcarātram) sacrificial performance, the Purushamedha and took it and performed offering therewith ; and having performed offering therewith, he overpassed all beings, and became everything here. And, verily, he who, knowing this, performs the Purushamedha, or who even knows this, overpasses all beings, and becomes everything here.

Bhagawan Shiva is Veda-Purusha as confirmed in the Taittiriya Aranyaka 10:24:1 "purusho vai rudrah" means "Lord Rudra (Shiva) is the (Veda) Purusha."

Backed by Mahabharata.:

Mahabharata 7 : 172: verse No. 74.:

By the grace of me (Rudra) you will become Nārāyaṇa with unending strength among the deities, humans and Gandharvas.

MBH 13:14:10-11.:

"The Krishna, due to his devotion to Supreme Lord Rudra, Has spread all over the universe, Oh Bharatha, Oh king of kings, After making Lord Shiva pleased by his penance in Bhadrinath, He has attained the state of being more dear, Than all the worlds and all aspects of knowledge."

So, Originally the Vaidik Pancharatra is the glory of Mahadeva and agamic one is delusional for bringing one in the path of Vedas.

Mahabharata Shanti Parva SECTION CCCXLIX.:

The religion which is followed and practised by the Yatis, has, O best of kings, been narrated to thee before this in the Hari Gita, with all its ordinances in brief. The celestial Rishi Narada got it from that Lord of universe, viz., Narayana himself, O king, with all its mysteries and abstract of details. Thus, O monarch, this foremost of cults is primeval and eternal. Incapable of being comprehended with ease and exceedingly difficult of being practised, it is always upheld by persons wedded to the attribute of Sattwa.

So, let's see what knowledge Lord Narayana had given to sage Narada.:

Narad Pancharatra.:

‘Shiva is Hari and Hari is none other than Shiva. An enemy of Shiva is an enemy of Hari, even though he may daily worship Vishnu.’

The traits of a Bhagavata is explained by Lord Narayana himself to sage Markandeya in Narada Purana.:

In this chapter of the Narada Purana, Lord Srihari replies to a question of Markandeya Rishi.

Narada Purana First Half/Chapter 5.:

After listing noble traits such as pure conduct, human values, etc. the traits of a Bhagavatottama, supreme devotee of God, are stated.:

68. He who loves Shiva's loved ones (devotees), is fully devoted and delights in the worship of the lotus feets of Shiva, dons the Tripundra (Bhasma on the forehead, etc.) is a Bhagavatottama.

69. Those who chant the divine names of Hari and Hara, adorned with the Rudraksha necklace is a Bhagavatottama.

70. Those who perform vedic sacrifices with copious dakshina (gifts/fees to scholars) addressed to Hari or Hara with great devotion are Bhagavatottamas.

71. Those who conduct themselves with the idea of non-difference between Hari and Hara are Bhagavatas."

72. Those who are involved in fire-sacrifices addressed to Shiva, delight in the chanting of the Panchakshara and revel in the meditation on Shiva are Bhagavatottamas.

In the Mahabhashya of Patanjali (Vyakarana shaastra) there is the mention of the word ‘Shiva-Bhagavata’ as a compound word, as an example for a type of samasa (compound words). A Bhagavata is a devotee of Bhagavan. A Shiva-Bhagavata is a devotee of Bhagavan Shiva..

Furthermore,

Skanda Purāṇam, Suta Saṃhitā Yajña vaibhava Khaṇḍaḥ ch-22.:

The Vedas, (Manusmriti and others) Dharma Shastras, Puranas, Mahabharata, (Jyotisha and others) Vedangas, (Ayurveda and others) Upavedas, Kamika and other Agamas, Kapala Lakhula and other Agamas along with their distinctions, Pashupata, Soma, Bhairava and other Agamas, and their numerous variations, Vaishnava Agamas, Brahmagamas, Buddhist Agamas, Jain Agamas, Lokayata Shastras, extensive logic sciences, profound Mimamsa, Sankhya, and Yoga Shastras, as well as various other diverse sciences, all were directly created by Lord Shiva Himself. By the grace of Shri Rudra, Brahma, Vishnu, and other deities, siddhas, vidyadharas, yakshas, rakshasas, sages, and other human beings continuously summarize or elaborate on these scriptures created by Shiva. It is through this that the sciences, specific to each context, have gained fame through their connection with respective individuals.

Thus, Vāsudevam Sarvam iti. Where Vāsudeva means the Atman. AsVāsudeva in vedas is not “VasudEva Sutam iti VAsudEva (Krishna)”. Vasu means the the tattvas which stays inside n envelope and Deva means the shining one. So, the meaning of Vasudeva is the one who stays inside everything and shine from inside viz the Atman.

Rest 3 forms are for gauna (substitute) bhakti. Which Sri Adi Shankara describes as follows in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya 4.1.3 as follows:-

The supreme 𝗟𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀𝗵𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗮 (Shiva) is to be realized as the supreme absolute reality just like the way how 𝗝𝗮𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘀 (Upanishad), 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀𝗵𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗮 address him as the eternal absolute Brahman the self, that oh 𝗘𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗕𝗵𝗮𝗴𝘄𝗮𝗮𝗻 though you appear deity (Devata) thou indeed art me (𝗧𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝘄𝗮𝗺 𝗮𝘀𝗶), I indeed am thee (𝗮𝗵𝗮𝗺 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗵𝗺𝗮𝘀𝗺𝗶), As a matter of fact, the Vedic texts make us understand Brahman as absolute The self is the supreme absolute, that absolute supreme self is the only reality. "That is Truth, that is the Self, and That thou art". As for the argument that on the 𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗩𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗻𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗮 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 '𝗜' 𝗶.𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗵𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆.

Miscellaneous.:

Skanda Purāṇam; Suta Saṃhitā; Suta Gītā; Adhyāya-8. 68-75.:

Vyāsa Uvāca.:

By the compassionate grace of Lord Śrī Rudra, I became the author of Purāṇas. Through my grace, love for Rudra arose in Sage Suta . By Rudra's command, he became the creator and teacher of this Puranic anthology.

With the merit of your deeds and the divine will, you all have received true knowledge of the Vedas from the mouth of sage Suta . All of you have accomplished virtuous actions. What can't the grace of Rudra accomplish.?

With the command of Śiva, I became fully capable of understanding the meaning of Vedic concepts, determining the meaning of statements in all Upaniṣads, and was appointed to create Brahma Sutras by Śiva's grace alone.

By the order of Mahādeva, I became the supreme Guru of the sages in matters of knowledge. May you also become devoted to the veda siddha profound knowledge of Śiva, with unwavering dedication and supreme devotion.

Conclusion.: So, There are 2 types of Pancharatra. One is Vaidik (Hari gita which sings the glory of Mahadeva) and other is agamic (aka KuPatha according to Narayana himself). And they are intermixed together. So, that the avaidik one can also gets the glimse of Vedas. And Adi Shankara accepted the Vaidik part of Bhagawata which is about Puja-Pat, rituals, etc and rejected the agamic part and so does Brahma Sutra by Vyasa also.

As, Gita is the Product of Upanishadic knowledge and there is only One Bhagawan in Vedas and Upanishad and rest are all menifestations. Thus, Gita says Bhagawan Uvacha not Krishna or Keshava, etc. So, Agamic Pancharatra ≠ Gita.

For more info you can see this and this answers of mine.

I hope this clarifies all your queries. Prd..