[Advaita-l] On the parakAyapraveSa legend about Sankara

[bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com]

praNAms
Hare Krishna

This *parakAyapravEsha* episode in shankara bhagavadpAda's biography &
other incidents like ubhayabhArati's questions to shankara, shankara's
justification at the time of  *sarvajna pITAvarOhaNa* etc. etc. have been
put forth by biographers to glorify shankara & to show  his supernatural
yOgic powers... But I think, in no way we can conclude that these episodes
are there to glorify shankara's character.... I regret to say that these
incidents will do no good to the stature of that noble
personality...instead, these incidents will hold shankara's character in a
very poor light & one can find there is an inadvertant mockery in the
biographers' efforts!!!....Shankara's biographers in their over enthusiasm,
without their knowledge have done great harm to shaNkara's noble
stature...IMHO, this is nothing but character assasination of great
personality shankara by biographers ....I think shankara's status in the
vaidika vAgmaya prapaNcha would have been better served without these
hilarious incidents...

Following are some of my observations which I had shared with Sri
Chittaranjan Nayak prabhuji (referred below as CN prabhuji ) last year in
Advaitin list.  Just thought it is relevant here.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar


// quote //

praNAms
Hare Krishna

I am always at loss to understand these incidents in shankara's
biography...There is no authenticity in shankara's biography written after
centuries of shankara's time by various authors as they are giving their
own interpretation to these incidents...Some major biographies like
mAdhavIya shankara vijaya, biographies written by chidvilAsa, Anandagiri,
BaladEva upAdhyAya etc. etc. drastically differs from one another while
accouting these episodes in shankara's life history.  So, these are all not
at all proven facts to accept it as it is!! Here are some of my doubts
about the below incidents:

CN prabhuji:

After Shankara defeated the famed Mimamsa philosopher, Mandana
Misra, in debate, Ubbaya Bharati, the wife of Mandana, challenged
Shankara to a debate on kama shastra.

bhaskar :

How can it be??  The agenda of debate between maNdana miShra & shankara was
karma pradhAna pUrva mImAmsa & jnAna pradhAna uttara
mImAmsa/vEdAnta...shankara did not come to mandana mishra to prove that he
is the master of *all sciences* His agenda was to prove that jnAna is
superior to karma.  Moreover, shankara did not claim here that he is
*sarvajna* to encourage UbhayabhArati to ask such a stupid & irrelevant
question!! Again, if the topic of kAmashAstra was already there in the
agenda, maNdana himself would have asked the question pertaining to kAma
shAstra is it not??...how can an orthodox housewife like ubhayabhArati in
front of his husband can put question about kAmashAstra to *parapuruSha*??
According to biographies, ubhayabhArati was cursed dEvi saraswati & she
must be knowing shankara has taken saNyAsa without taking gruhasthAshrama,
inspite of knowing this how can she put completely irrelevant question like
that??

CN prabhuji:

Being a sannyasi and wholly unfamiliar with that art, Shankara begs for one
month's time to come back for the debate.

bhaskar :

Again, can anybody agree that shankara's intention was to prove *sarvajna*
here??  was he ready to throw off his sanyAsadharma just to show he is
master of all sciences?? shankara came to maNdana mishra to show that by
knowing ONE everything becomes known & not to show that he is also master
in sexual activities & science?? How can a born jnAni, strict adherent of
sanAtana dharma like shankara can accept a totally irrelevant challenge
from a woman like this?? was he not enough educated to show ubhayabhArati
that her questions are complete irrelevant to the context of that debate??
was shankara so stupid to blindly accept this challenge that can cause him
dharma drOha??

CN prabhuji:

He then leaves his body and enters the body of King Amaruka who had just
then passed away. Inhabiting the body of the king, he sports with the
queens of Amaruka and learns the science of erotics. He is even said to
have written a book on the subject
called Amarushataka.

bhaskar :

This makes our beloved shankara heinous criminal than an ordinary criminal
is it not??  he misused his occult power & kept his *saNyAsa sharIra*
intact just to maintain his sanyAsi status & had fun by entering in another
body!!!  My god!! where we are heading here??  This means shankara was an
impostor and was maintaining saNyAsadharma only outwardly (only in kAya not
vAchA, manasA) and we are forced to accept that mentally he was no better
than a charlaton...Kindly confirm whether sanyAsa dharma pertains only to
body of a saNyAsi?? how can mahAjnAni like shankara can take lose exception
like this??  dont you think these are blasphemy & character assasination of
our shankara bhagavadpUjyapAda??  Infact, in mAdhavIya shankara biography,
padmapAda, a direct desciple of shankara asks this question, but what
author puts the words in the mouth of shankara for the justification of his
deed is totally illogical!!

CN prabhuji:

When he returns after a month, Ubbaya Bharati concedes victory without a
debate.

bhaskar :

that means her intention was to stray shankara from saNyAsa dharma & not
debate!! Again, in this incident also differet authors give different
versions...

CN prabhuji:

Much later, when Shankara is about to ascend the Sarvajna Pitha at Kashmir,
a voice from the heavens challenges his claim to the throne on the ground
that he had violated
the dharma of a sannyasi by having carnal relationships with women.
Shankara then replies that dharma had not been violated by the
actions performed in the body of Amaruka because what is done in one
body does not attach itself to another body. The way is then made
clear for him to ascend the throne of Supreme Knowledge.

bhaskar :

Can anybody think this is the answer that is acceptable to Pundits at
sarvajna pITa??  If the karma phala pertains to one particular body then
one has to exhaust his karma in that body itself there is no question of
carry forward of karma phala at all...According to shankara's (!!??)
assertion, Amaruka without a fault of his own has to bear the fruits of
shankara's karma just because shankara used his body!!this chArvAka style
of answer from shankara can anybody accept??  dont you think these are all
concocted stories fabricated in the books of shankara's biography??

Just few of my painful thoughts

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

// unquote //