According to the Brahma-Sutra 2/2/42, the PAncharAtra/BhAgavata doctrines are not acceptable.

How did the Dvaitavadi (Non-Advaitavadi) Vaishnava Acharyas who followed the Pancharatra/Bhagavata doctrines explain this? Answer could be from the ancient Acharyas any school of Dvaita-vaada.

  • 1
    Just look at Madhva bhashya. – Sarvabhouma Apr 4 '19 at 17:12
  • @Sarvabhouma Sorry for a common man like me, a look is not enough – user17294 Apr 4 '19 at 18:14

Sri Madhvacharya believes Brahma Sutras Adhyaya 2 Pada 2 Verses 42-45 talks about Shaktism rather than Pancharatra Agamas:

  1. On account of the impossibility of origination, {Sakti, a Goddess, cannot be the cause).

Commentary: For the bringing forth of anything has not been observed on the part of the female without the favour of the male.

  1. Nor it there the necessary instrumentality of organs for the (supposed male) agent.

Commentary: Even if a male agent be admitted to be (her helper) the impossibility of origination would still remain unexplained ; for the agent would be wanting means or organs (i.e., wisdom, the body and organs); and it is not possible that he is of any help to her in the work of creation.

  1. Further if wisdom, etc. be alto supposed (for him), there is no denying of that; (then the system lapses into the Pasupata).

Commentary: If wisdom and the necessary organs be supposed to be possessed by the Purusha (Sadasiva), then from him alone origination, etc., may proceed and there appears no necessity (again) for attributing them to Sakti. Further according to the position lastly assumed, the system would be included under the Pasupata and is consequently open to the objections taken to it.

  1. And on account of its being contradictory to (the Vedic conclusions).

Commentary: As this system is opposed to (and condemned by) all the Srutis and Smritis, and abhorred by the wise, it is not worthy of regard.

  • @Pratimaputra Do you need the Gaudiya Vaishnava interpretation too? – user9969 Apr 4 '19 at 13:31
  • of course if its by Sri Rupa, Sri Sanatana or Sri Jiva – user17294 Apr 4 '19 at 13:32
  • @Pratimaputra None of them wrote a commentary on the Brahma Sutras. But Baladeva Vidyabhushana did. – Keshav Srinivasan Apr 5 '19 at 21:25
  • @KeshavSrinivasan thnx.yes i know.But Sri Baladeva wrote certain things to establish that the Gaudiyas are a part of the Madhvas which contradict Mahaprabhu's teachings.These were discussed by Gaudiya scholars in1937 and 1953.So i am not interested in his explanations.In Bengal there have been many detailed researches on Mahaprabhu since early 20th century. – user17294 Apr 6 '19 at 3:32

You must log in to answer this question.