Debate with Maṇḍana Miśra (Same Ślokas)

In Bhagavatapādābhyudaya (VI-12-17, 21-24), Mādhaviya Śaṅkara Digvijayam (VIII-16-25), Swami Satyānanda Sarasvatī’s Śri Śaṅkara Digvijayam (VIII-16-25), the folowing similar ślokās are seen.

It is clear that the other biographies borrowed there verse from Mādhaviya Śaṅkaradigvijaya [Śaṅkaradigvijayam].

kuto muṇḍyā galānmuṇḍī panthāste pṛcchayate mayā |
kimāha panthāstvanmātā muṇḍetyaha tathaiva hi || 16 ||
panthānaṃ tvamapṛcchaºtvāṃ panthāḥ pratyaha maṇḍana |
tvanmātetyatra śabdo'yaṃ na māṃ brūyādapṛcchakam || 17 ||
aho pītā kimu surā naiva śvetā yataḥ smara |
kiṃ tvaṃ jānā si tadvarṇamahaṃ varṇaṃ bhavān rasam || 18 ||
matto jātaḥ kalañjāśī viparītāni bhāṣate |
satyaṃ bravīti pitṛvattvatto jñātaḥ kalañjabhuk || 19 ||
kanthāṃ vahasi durbuddhe gardabhenāpi durvahām |
śikhāyajñopavītābhyāṃ kaste bhāro bhaviṣyati || 20 ||
kanyāṃ vahāmi durbuddhe tava pitrā'pi durvarām |
śikhāyajñopavītābhyāṃ śruterbhāro bhaviṣyati || 21 ||
“sūtramantargataṃ yeṣāṃ jñānayajñopavītinām |
te rve sūtravido loke te ca yajñopavītinaḥ || 22 ||
jñānaśikhino jñānaniṣṭhā jñānayajñopavītinaḥ |
agneriva śikhā nānyā yasya jñānamayī śikhā || 23 ||
sa śikhītyucyate vidvānnetare kerādhāriṇaḥ” |
iti brahmopaniṣadaṃ paṇḍitaṃmanya saṃsmara || 24 ||
tyaktvā pāṇigṛhītīṃ svāmaśaktyā parirakṣaṇe |
śiṣyapustakabhārecchorcyākhyātā brahmaniṣṭhatā || 25 || ^[1]

Maṇḍana was a staunch follower of Vedic ritualism. He was terribly annoyed to note that the new comer without sikhā (tuft of hair) and upavita (sacred thread) was a Saṃnyāsin. In that time Maṇḍana is a state of anger. He asked many abusive questions and Śaṅkara retorted with equal strength, teasing him. Their controversy is as follows:

‘When you have come, you shaven-headed fellow?’ asked Maṇḍana angrily, meaning by what way he come in, when the gates were closed. Taking the question to mean ‘How far are you shaven?’ in that time Śaṅkara replied ‘upto the neck’. ‘That is not what I asked’ said Maṇḍana, ‘I asked about your way?’ to this Śaṅkara quipped. ‘Did you ask the way?’ then what did the ‘way’ reply? Annoyed angrily, Maṇḍana replied that Śaṅkara is a widow son. Unconcerned, Śaṅkara humorously says that ‘indeed! Did the way’ tell you that ‘you’ are a widow son? Then it must surely be so. For, it was you and not myself who questioned the way, and in the answer you received, the you must surely refer to yourself. Further tired of Maṇḍana exclaimed ‘Have you drunk (pītam) toddy?’ The meaning of ‘piṭam’ means ‘drunk’ when used as verb and yellow, when used as a noun. He gave answer to the impertinent question.

‘No No! toddy is not yellow but white’. At this Maṇḍana remarked with a mischievous insinuation. ‘I see you are, therefore, well acquainted with its colour.’ Hearing this words Maṇḍana says that Śaṅkara indulge in such impertinent talk must be under the intoxication produced by eating poisoned (rotten) flesh. Interpreting the statement of Maṇḍana Miśra differently, for the statement ‘matto jātah kalañjāsi’ can also mean ‘the one born for me, that is my son, is an eater of poisoned flesh, Śaṅkara said: ‘you are right. As the father, so the son. If your son eats poisoned flesh, he must have learnt it only from you’. Maṇḍana, defeated on that front, raised another abusive issue and asked: ‘O vicious fellow! Is it that you have abandoned your Yajñopavita and your tuft, because they are too much of a burden to you? But having abandoned them, you seem to have burdened yourself with a bundle of rags too heavy even for asses’. Śaṅkara replied that: ‘Even your father would not bear this load of a Saṃnyāsin’s rags that I am caring. Instead, he continued to bear like an ass the burden of a wife till the end, inspite of getting kicks from her. For the life of the householder, characterised by Śikha and Yajñopavita, is, in the eyes of the Sruti, a mere burden for a man full of the spirit of renunciation. O fool of a fellow, You who cannot grasp this, must be a man of little understanding. At this Maṇḍana again said: ‘The world knows what your much vaunted Brahmanishtha or devotion to knowledge of Brahman is-it is loafing about with a bundle of books and a brood of disciples owing to one’s incapacity to continue for long as a celibate Brahmacarin.

Hearing these words Maṇḍana continued ‘O fool! You are born of a woman. It was again a woman that brought you up. And still how can you, O prince among brutes, bring yourself to seek sensuous enjoyements in her company like an animal?’ One who fails to tend the sacred fires (Gārhapatya, Āhavanīya and Dakṣiṇā) commits the sin of Vīrahatya (murder of one son), said Maṇḍana criticising the Saṃnyāsin’s pratice of abandoning these sacred fires that a follower of the Vedas should maintain. Śaṅkara retorted: ‘You who have failed to know the self have commited suicide. ‘You are a thief’, replied Maṇḍana, ‘for you have come into my house stealthily like a thief, avoiding the noise of my gate keeper’. At this Śaṅkara replied, ‘you are a real thief; for, you eat your food without giving to Saṃnyāsin’s and Brahmacarin’s their share as laid down in the scriptures’. Now at his wit’s end, Maṇḍana attempted to beat a retreat, saying ‘I should not be talking like this to a brutish fellow like you during the time I am engaged in ritualistic performances’. Refering to a mistake in articulation in Maṇḍana’s speech (sambhashya aham instead of Sambhashyoham), Śaṅkara said mocking, ‘From your committing Yati Bhanga (inappropriate pause), you are indeed, giving an exhibition of your scholarship’. Quibbling on the meaning of the word, Yati Bhanga (which also means ‘attacking and defeating a Yati or monk’), Maṇḍana said: ‘When I am concerned with the defeat of a Yati (Yati Bhanga), what harm is there if I commit a Yati Bhanga (inappropriate pause)? To this question Śaṅkara replied with another quibble: ‘Your presumption will be true, if you say defeat by a Yati in place of defeat of a Yati. For the former is what is now happening’. Continuing his abuse, Maṇḍana said: Where is Saṃnyāsa in Kali Yuga, and where is Brahman for a brutish fellow like you? You have put on the garb of a Saṃnyāsin only as a means to get good food without any work? Śaṅkara retorted ‘where is Agnihotra in Kali Yuga? And how can heaven be attained through all the foul actions involved in ritualism? Your garb of a ritualist is only a means to secure the licence for living with woman’.

Bhagavatpādābhyudya is the latest Śaṅkaradigvijaya of 19^th century. In this work he described deeply Sankara’s life. Preparing this chapter I mainly used some available Śaṅkaradigvijayās. This is an attempt to make the study of important similarities and dissimilarities in different digvijayās. First of all the controversies were pointed out and then the similarities were outlined. This is very helpful to know the different dimensions of different digvijayās.

The main disputes are relating birth place, upanayana, samdhi, etc. MādhavaVidhyāranya’s opinion is followed by Lakṣmaṇa Sūrin. At the same time he has recorded the differences of opinion about Śaṅkara’s life citing in other Digvijayās.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Lakṣmaṇa Sūrin, Bhagavatpādābhyudaya, IV. 12-17, 21-24 Mādhava Vidhyaranya, Śriṃad Śaṅkaradigvijaya, VIII.16-25 Sri Swami Satyananda Sarasvati, Śri Śaṅkaradigvijayam, 16-25.