365bet

Bhagavatpadabhyudaya by Lakshmana Suri (study)

by Lathika M. P. | 2018 | 67,386 words

This page relates ‘Canto VI—Meeting with Sureshvara� of the study on the Bhagavatpadabhyudaya by Lakshmana Suri: a renowned Sanskrit Scholar from the 19th century. The Bhagavatpada-abhyudaya is a Mahakavya (epic poem) narrating the life of Shankara-Acharya, a prominent teacher of Advaita Vedanta philosophy. This essay investigates the socio-spiritual conditions of 8th century AD in ancient India as reflected in Lakshmanasuri’s work.

Go directly to: Footnotes.

Canto VI—Meeting with Sureśvara

Śṅk left ʰ岵 for Māhiṣmati.[1] It was the residence of ѲṇḍԲ. Śṅk descended to the earth, seeing the beauty and splendour of the place. He looked like a setting sun coming close to earth. He was physically exhausted but the gentle breeze lessened his miseries. After chanting �Գٰ� in the morning he went to ѲṇḍԲ’s place, before noon. He asked the water fetching maid servants for direction to find out ѲṇḍԲ’s house. The women who were astonished at the imposing personality of Śṅk replied that the house could be identified by a number of parrots in the cages at the gate. The parrots would be repeating philosophic topics like Veda, Karma etc.[2] The philosophy of ѲṇḍԲ Ѿś was ūīṃs. He spotted the house but the gate was closed. So he descended to the compound from the sky. The house was wonderfully beautiful and resembled the heavenly aboard of Indra himself. Entering a towering mansion he got into a hall where ѲṇḍԲ was seated. He is famous for his learning and noble qualities, he looked like Brahma himself. That house seems like Brahma’s second house. Reaching ѲṇḍԲ’s house Śṅk saw he was washing the feet of the great sages ղ and Jaimini. He had brought thereby the power of his Tapas to grace the occasion of a Śrāddha ceremony he was performing that day. On seeing the two great sages, Śṅk greeted them, and they wished him in turn.

In Confrontation with ѲṇḍԲ

ѲṇḍԲ Ѿś was the staunch follower of Vedic ritualism. He was terribly annoyed to note that the newcomer without Ś (tuft of hair) and 貹īٲ (sacred thread) was a ṃn. “When have you come, you sheaven-headed fellow?� asked ѲṇḍԲ discourteously, meaning of what way he come in, when the gates where closed. Taking the questions to mean, how far are you sheaven? Śṅk replied “up to the neck�. “That is not what I asked� said ѲṇḍԲ, “I asked (about) your way?� To this Śṅk quipped, “Did you ask the way?� then what did the ‘way� reply? Then ѲṇḍԲ replied that Śṅk’s mother is a widow and he is a widow’s son. Unconcerned, Śṅk humourously remarked ‘indeed! Did the ‘way� tell you that ‘you� are a widow’s son? Then it must surely be so. It was you and not myself who questioned the ‘way� and in the answer you received, the ‘you� must surely refer to yourself. Further tried out ѲṇḍԲ surprised and said “Have you drunk (pīṭam) toddy?� the meaning of the word ‘pitam� means ‘drunk� when used as verb and ‘yellow� when used as an adjective Śṅk took the question to mean “is toddy yellow?� and gave a sudden answer to the impertinent question. “Oh no! Toddy is not yellow but white�. At this ѲṇḍԲ remarked with a mischievous insinuation, “I see, you are, therefore well acquainted with its colour!� “and you with its taste!� promptly replied Śṅk. Again ѲṇḍԲ said “You who indulge in such contempt talk must be under the intoxication produced by eating poisoned (rotten) flesh�. Interrupting the statement of ѲṇḍԲ differently (for the statement “Matto Jātah Kalañjasi�. Its meaning, ‘the one born of me, that is, my son, is an eater of poisoned flesh)�. Śṅk said that “You are right. As the father saw the son. If your son eats poisoned flesh, he must have learned it only from you�. And then ѲṇḍԲ, defeated on that front raised another abusive issue and asked “O vicious fellow! Is it that you have abandoned your ۲ñDZ貹īٲ and your tuft, because they are too much of burden to you? But having abandoned them, you seem to have burdened yourself with a bundle of rays too heavy even for assess. Śṅk replied that even your father would not bear this load of a saṃnyāsiṃs rays that I am carrying. Instead, he continued to bear like an ass the burden of a wife (householder’s life) till the end, inspite of getting kicks from her. For the life of the householder is characterised by Ś and ۲ñDZ貹īٲ. This is the eyes of Sṛuti, a mere burden for a man full of the spirit of Renuncitation. O fool of a fellow, you who cannot grasp this, must be a man of little understanding. Hearing this ѲṇḍԲ said again “The world very well knows what your much vaunted Brahma-Niṣṭa (devotion to knowledge Brahman) is it is lazing about with a bundle of books and a brood of disciples owing to one’s incapacity to feed one’s wife and look after her. Again Śṅk says that you say your Karma-Niṣṭa, that is adherence to the life of Vedic ritualism? That means to become a servant of woman after abandoning the service of the teacher owing to your in capacity to continue for long as of celibrate Brahmacharin. Then ѲṇḍԲ continued: “O fool! You were born of a women. It was again a women that brought you up and still you are so ungreatful as to hate women�. Śṅk replied “Having been born of a women’s womb, and feet at her breast, still how can you, O prince among brutes, bring yourself to seek sensuous enjoyments in her company like an animal?� One who fails to tend the sacred fires (󲹱貹ٲⲹ, Ā󲹱īⲹ, Dakṣina are regarded as sacred fires) committes the sin of Virahatya, said ѲṇḍԲ, criticism the saṃnyāsiṃs practise of abandoning these sacred fires that a follower of the Vedas should maintain. Śṅk said “You who have failed to know the self have committed Ātmahatya (suicide) “You are a thief�-replied ѲṇḍԲ, for you have come into any house stealthily like a thief, avoiding the noice of my gate-keeper�. At this Śṅk observed “You are a real thief for, you eat your food without giving to saṃnyāsiṃs and Brahmacāriṃs their share as laid down in the scriptures�. Now at his wit’s end, ѲṇḍԲ attempted to beat retreat, saying “I should not be talking like this to a brutish fellow like you during the time I am engaged in ritualistic perfomances�. Refering to a mistake in articulation in ѲṇḍԲ’s speech. Then Śṅk said “From your committing yatibhaṅga you are, indeed, giving an exhibition of your scholarship. The meaning of the word “yatibhaṅga� means, �attacking and defeating a yati or monk. ѲṇḍԲ remarked, “When I am concerned with the defeat of a yati (yati bhanga) what harm is there if I commit a yatibhaṅga (inappropriate pose)�. To this Śṅk 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 formaries what is now happening “Continuing his abuse, ѲṇḍԲ said: Where is ṃn in Kaliyuga, 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 food without any work�. Śṅk replied, “Where is Agnihotra in Kaliyuga? 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 license for living with women�.

Decision to hold Debate

Then Śṅk and ѲṇḍԲ continued the war of words and wits (knowledge). ѲṇḍԲ was proud but Śṅk was calm. At this time Jaimini and ղ interfered. ղ blamed Mandana on his improper behaviour towards a great saṃnyāsin like Śṅk. He advised ѲṇḍԲ that he had to see him as Ѳ屹ṣṇ and invite him for 󾱰ṣ�. ѲṇḍԲ however accepted and invited Śṅk for 󾱰ṣ�. Śṅk replied that he came there for ‘Vādabhikṣā� and not for ‘Edible 󾱰ṣā�. The defeated should be the disciple of the victor. His purpose was to spread Vedanta every where. It was the true gospel to follow for gaining salvation. He declared that Vedanta was the only medicine for man’s ills in ṃs. His mission in life was to establish the truth of Vedanta. According to Śṅk “Brahman is the Existence-consciousness, bliss, absolute is the one ultimate truth. It is He who appears as the entire world of multiplicity. That is owing to dense ignorance, just as a shell appears as a piece of silver. That is like when the illusion is dispelled the silver is sublated by, and dissolved into, its substractum, the shell, so also, when ignorance is erased the whole world is sublated and dissolved into its substractum, Brahman which is same as one’s own Āٳ. That is the supreme knowledge as also Ѵǰṣa or liberation and it brings about the cessation of future births. The 貹Ծṣa are formed the crown of the Vedas. They are the authorizing in support of this proposition. I am sure to prove this and be victorious in the debate. If, I am defeated, I shall cease to be a saṃnyāsin, abandon my ochre robe, and assume the white dress let Ubhaya-bharati be the umpire to determine success or failure.

After Śṅk had finished making his declaration ѲṇḍԲ emphasized the teachings of his faith. He added that “the Vedanta or the 貹Ծṣa cannot be the proof of a subject objectless pure consciousness unoriginated and infinite. For, words can reveal only objects which are originated and it is, but never a pure subject objectless consciousness which does not form an effect. Therefore the non-Vedantic part of the Veda, dealing with such effects produced by works is the real Ś岹 ʰṇa (verbal testimony). In the light of actions alone constitute the steps leading to Ѵǰṣa and embodied beings have to perform action or karma till the end of their lives. If I happen to be defeated in arguments, I shall take to the life of a Saṃnyāsa.

As requested by you, let my wife Ubhayabhārati, who is learned enough for this subject, be the judge in this context�. Mean while Ubhayabhārati became an umpire in the context. They started the debate with their hearts firmly set on victory. She put two wreaths on the necks of both the contestants and said that, that person is to be considered defeated whose wreath is seen to fade. Having so arranged, she went to the inner apartments of the house for completing her household duties as also to cook the 󾱰ṣa (or food offering) for the sannyasin and meals for the masters of the house. In the time of the debate there was the presence of Brahma and Devas who were eager to attend it. Quoting authority after authority from the Veda and supporting the same with weighty arguments they conducted the debate in a highly dignified manner. As days passed the debate became kneer and kneer and larger and larger number of scholars swelled the audience. Both of them were interested in victory. Five or six days passed in this way in debate, Ubhayabhārati appearing every day at noon to inform ѲṇḍԲ that food was ready and to invite the saṃnyāsin for his 󾱰ṣa. A sweet smile played on their shining faces all through the debate. But ѲṇḍԲ launched on an elaborate criticism of the Advaita doctrine expounded by the 貹Ծṣa.

The Identity of Āٳ and Brahman

Both ѲṇḍԲ and Śṅk accept as the revelation standing for the ultimate good of man. ѲṇḍԲ’s ūīṃs holds that the only purpose of the Veda is to prompt man to actions (rituals of Vedic sanction) by the performance of which man attains heavenly felicity of long duration. At the end of which he returns to the earth again to acquire more merits by performing karmās. The real Veda is one of the nature of commandments to action of a ritualistic nature. In Veda there are purely descriptive passages in it. There are purely description of certain aids to karma like its ingredients, agents required etc. There are so many passages which are by way of eulogy of the rituals or their agents. None of these have any independent status and are to be understood only in subordination to the commandments instituting rituals. In this way the whole of Veda is of the nature of commandments for the performance of rituals, and if this is not accepted, Veda becomes a mere trash, a purposeless literature.

Verdict of Ubhayabhārati: Defeat of ѲṇḍԲ Announced

Ubhayabhārati accepted the arguments of Śṅk had overcome the contentions of ѲṇḍԲ, thereby subjecting him to the humility of defeat. That is like a shower of sweet smelling flowers came her words giving a verdict, its effect was a directive to her husband to adopt the life of Saṃnyāsa abandoning home and herself. She gave her verdict, in favour of the distinguished ṃn, the flower wreath which she had put at the start round ѲṇḍԲ’s neck was found to fade.[3] Unlike the ordinary days, Ubayabhārati invited them both for their 󾱰ṣ� in the noon, for, from now onwards ѲṇḍԲ was no longer a householder but a sannyasin, according to the vager, agreed up in the beginning. At the same time addressing Śṅk, she said “it was due to the curse of angry ٳܰ that I, Goddess ī, was born on earth. With your victory the effect of that curse is over. Let me now go back to my heavenly residence�. When she was making haste to depart, Śṅk stopped her with the power of �Vanadurga mantra�, inorder that he might defeat her also in argument. Śṅk said to Ubhayabharati that she is the wife of Brahman and the sister of God Ś and she is the forms of various goddesses like ṣmī. And then he added that “O mother, different forms for the protection of the worlds. Only when I, your great devotee, permit you, should you go to your heavenly abode�. The Devi accepted his request. Śṅk then wanted to know what ѲṇḍԲ thought about the future.

Seventeen days this protracted debate continued day and night. Ubhayabhārati found that the ṃn was invisible in Vedic lore, philosophies and other Śāstrās. Then a new idea struck her. She thought that this great ṃn took to ascetic life from his very boyhood. And he was seen observing the vow of contineunce throughout life. He had no occassion to live with women and master the science of love between the sexes. I shall now take advantage of his ignorance in this respect and try to gain victory over him. After she challenged Śṅk discuss with the science and the art of love between he sexes. Enumerate its forms and expressions and she added that “what is its nature and what are its centers? How does it vary in the sexes during the bright and dark fortnights? What are its manifestations in man and woman? Hearing these types of questions Śṅk sat silent for a while, revolving the various issues in his mind. He was in the state of dilemma. If Śṅk did not wake up the challenge, his claim to be the master of all learning would be compromised. If he directly enter into a discussion on the subject, it would be against the Dharma of a sannyasin as he is not expected to concern himself with the love of the sexes. Though he had some theoretical knowledge of this topic also, he professed ignorance inorder to observe this saṃnyāsiṃs code of conduct and he said please give me a months time. It is a practise among controversialists to ask for notice. After an interval of a month, he will meet Ubhayabhārati again, and then she will give up her pride of proficiency in the science of sex love too.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Vide ṣmṇa ū, 󲹲󲹱ٱܻ岹ⲹ, p.75, The summary of the Section is based on chapter VI.

[2]:

Ibid.,

[3]:

Ibid., p.81

Let's grow together!

I humbly request your help to keep doing what I do best: provide the world with unbiased sources, definitions and images. Your donation direclty influences the quality and quantity of knowledge, wisdom and spiritual insight the world is exposed to.

Let's make the world a better place together!

Like what you read? Help to become even better: