shrI sha~NkhachakragadApadmadhAri lakshmIpati nArAyaNaya namaH
shrImadAnandatIrthabhagavatpAdAcharyagurubhyonamaH
shrI gurubhyo namaH hariH OM

Srimad Acharya holds that the pancharAtra (PR) should be considered valid; Other Agamas are not, for, they are discordant with shruti. The followers of Ramanuja also consider them valid.

On the other hand, Shankara does not consider them valid. Dr.BNK Sharma has treated this subject in his monumental, 'Brahmasutras and their principal commentaries (BPC)' (Vol II) (treatment of Pashupata and Shakta agamas' contradiction with Vedas). The primary reason for Shankara's rejection of PR seems to be that of creation of 'Jiva' from Vasudeva. Other reasons are, like that of 'ahamkAra' coming from 'Jiva', while Vedanta (i.e., the Shankarite perspective of Vedanta) holds that 'ahamkAra' is formed from Brahman himself. These words 'Jiva' and 'ahamkara' refer to Sankarshana and Aniruddha vyUha rUpas. Dr.Sharma also quotes F.Otto Schrader's assessment that these words have started to refer to different vyUha rUpas.

In his Mahabharata-Tatparya-Nirnaya Srimad Acharya quotes a line from Moksha-dharma (Shanti parva, Mahabharata) that ascribes the authorship of PR to the Lord Narayana himself (pancharAtrasya vaktA tu nArAyaNaM svayaM). The section in which this line is present is referred to as 'nArAyaNIya' (and according to F.Otto Schrader, even nAradIya). Much like the entire shAntiparva, this section is quite heartening to read. A brief mention of Sri Hari's sarvottamatva is made by Sri Chaturmukha Brahma and Rudra. The superiority of PR over other agamas is also mentioned.

Here's a small compilation of quotes from various texts extolling the Pancharatras:

paN^charAtravido ye tu yathAkramaparA nR^ipa |
ekAntabhAvopagatAste hariM pravishanti vai || (Mahabharata, 12.337.67. Quoted by Dr.Sharma in BPC, vol II)

shAstraM cha vedAH smR^itayaH purANaM chaitadAtmakam.h |
itihAsaH paJNcharAtraM bhArataM cha mahAmate (Skanda purANa, 2.7.9.12, quoted by Dr.Sharma in HDSV, page 45)

vedena paJNcharAtreNa bhaktyA yaj~nena chaivahi |
dR^ishyo.ahaM nAnyathA dR^ishyo varShakoTishatairapi || (varAha purANa, 66.19. Quoted by Dr.Sharma in BPC, vol II)

paJNcharAtravidhAnena saMpUjya puruShottamam.h | (BrahmapurANa 48.12.1. The online text)

Some more can be found in the Shantiparva, Mahabharata itself.

The relevant nArAyaNiya section is copied here, with very loose translation and certain verses removed. The text is from the ITRANS version of the BORI edition. Most of the praises/glorifications are not translated. The BORI text differs a tad bit from the quote given by Srimad Acharya.

vaishampAyana uvAcha: (Addressing Janamejaya Maharaja)

sAN^khyaM yogaM paJNcharAtraM vedAH pAshupataM tathA |
j~nAnAnyetAni rAjarShe viddhi nAnA matAni vai || 59

sAmkhya, yoga, PR, vedAs, pAshupata -- Know these to be the various schools, they teach different doctrines).

(This verse is referred to by Sri Jayatirtha in his prameya dIpikA on Gita 2.39. He gives the full quote thus:

sAN^khyaM yogaH pAshupataM vedAraNyakameva cha |
j~nAnAnyetAni bhinnAni nAtra kArya vichAraNA ||

He observes that PR are not referred in this verse, yet this verse distinguishes the knowledge of sAnkhya, yoga, pAshupata schools from the one contained in the Vedas. The later verses give a brief mention of other Agamas and extols PR as giving best knowledge. He concludes, given that PR are addressed instead of Vedas, it should be understood, by a way of extension (upalaxaNa) that Vedas are also extolled. This also demonstrates that the PR and Vedas teach the same thing.

Another passage from Mokshadharma is quoted by Sri Jayatirtha that praises the 'chitrashikhaNDins' (authors of a particular PR samhitA) as having created the best shAstra (shAstramuttamaM) from compiling the four vedas. All subcommentators on Sri Jayatirtha's text explain this point in much detail. Sri Sumatindra Tirtha gives the entire passage that is slightly different from the BORI edn. If this reading of the verse is not taken, the rest of the passages will give rise to inconsistencies. If PR teaches differently from Vedas, and yet PR gives the best knowledge, it is equivalent to MBh decrying the importance of Vedas).

umApatirbhUtapatiH shrIkantho brahmaNaH sutaH |
uktavAnidamavyagro j~nAnaM pAshupataM shivaH || 62
Shiva, the son of Brahma, taught the Pashupata agama.

paN^charAtrasya kR^itsnasya vettA tu bhagavAnsvayam |
sarveShu cha nR^ipashreShTha j~nAneShveteShu dR^ishyate || 63

However, the PR is known by the bhagavAn himself. Of all (the ones mentioned above), shreShTha j~nAna (the best knowledge) is obtained from these.

[This verse is also given differently:
paN^charAtrasya kR^itsnasya vaktA nArAyaNaH svayam.h |
j~nAneShveteShu rAjendra sarveShvetadvishiShyate ||

This reading seems better than the (not-so) critical reading because the earlier verses spoke of authors of Agamas. Here too, one expects the same, instead of an irrelevant 'vettA' (knower) of PR. Also, in such a reading, 'svayaM' becomes redundant. This reading is quoted by Kalpataru also. In addition, that Narayana is the author of PR is stated elsewhere in the Shantiparva, Mahabharata.]

tameva shAstrakartAraM pravadanti manIShiNaH |
niShThAM nArAyaNamR^iShiM nAnyo.astIti cha vAdinaH || 65

The wise proclaim that He alone can be the author of these Agamas; it cannot be anybody else.

In the subsequent passages, there is an interesting dialogue between Sri Rudra and Sri Brahma. Rudra visits Chaturmukha-Brahma who receives him warmly. Brahma enquires him of his welfare, of his ugra-tapas (fierce penance) and his svAdhyAya-tapas (the penance of self-study of scriptures).

Rudra says:

tvatprasAdena bhagavansvAdhyAyatapasormama |
kushalaM chAvyayaM chaiva sarvasya jagatastathA || 16

Rudra says: By your grace, O Chaturmukha brahma, my study and tapas are proceeding peacefully. He later proceds to ask:

bahavaH puruShA brahmaMstvayA sR^iShTAH svayambhuvA |
sR^ijyante chApare brahmansa chaikaH puruSho virAt || 22
ko hyasau chintyate brahmaMstvayA vai puruShottamaH |
etanme saMshayaM brUhi mahatkautUhalaM hi me || 23

You have created many people. However you worship the Viratapurusha. How should He be worshipped? Such is the question I have and please dispel it.

AdhAraM tu pravakShyAmi ekasya puruShasya te || 24
bahUnAM puruShANAM sa yathaikA yoniruchyate |
tathA taM puruShaM vishvaM paramaM sumahattamam.h |

Chaturmukha Brahma replies: I shall describe the only Purusha, who is the support, the origin of all the others mentioned by you. He creates this universe and enters it.

shR^iNu putra yathA hyeSha puruShaH shAshvato.avyayaH |
akShayashchAprameyashcha sarvagashcha niruchyate || 1
tasyaikatvaM mahattvaM hi sa chaikaH puruShaH smR^itaH |
mahApuruSha shabdaM sa bibhartyekaH sanAtanaH || 9
hitvA guNamayaM sarvaM karma hitvA shubhAshubham.h |
ubhe satyAnR^ite tyaktvA evaM bhavati nirguNaH || 11
evaM hi paramAtmAnaM ke chidichchhanti paNDitAH |
ekAtmAnaM tathAtmAnamapare.adhyAtmachintakAH || 13
tatra yaH paramAtmA hi sa nityaM nirguNaH smR^itaH |
sa hi nArAyaNo GYeyaH sarvAtmA puruSho hi saH ||

(In brief)
Listen, son, this Purusha is unchanging and always present, indestructible, unknowable completely, thus he is talked of, by everybody. we are not capable of seeing him; He is saguNa, nirguNa and is known as seen only by knowledgeable. He is bodyless, but is in all bodies; Though he is in all bodies, he is untouched by karma-s. He is the inner controller of me, you and others. He is the sAkshi (witness?) in all beings, but is not grasped by anyone even to a little extent. Thus, the word 'mahApurusha' applies only to Him. He is the Only One Purusha, he is NirguNa, his body extends the world; he is the nirguNa purusha. One who discards all the kAmya-karmas born out of the prakriti guNAs becomes free from the prakriti guNAs himself (to explain what 'nirguNa' means). One who contemplates on Him always reaches Him. Some say He is the Paramatma; Some call Him the Atma of other Atmas (jIvas). He is to be understood as eternal, devoid of any flaws. Indeed, He is Narayana, who is to be known (jneyah) and who is the inner controller of everybody.

(The article is a slightly modified version of my mail at http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_50/msg00055.html.)

shrI madhveshakrishnarpanamastu