[Advaita-l] A question on a dialogue in the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.1.15 Ajatrashtru brahmanam there is the
instance of this Kshatriya, a Jnani, instructing a Brahmana by name
Baalaaki.

स होवाचाजातशत्रुः प्रतिलोमं चैतद्यद्ब्राह्मणः क्षत्रियमुपेयाद्ब्रह्म मे
वक्ष्यतीति

The Upanishad itself calls it 'pratilomam', something not in the normal
order but in the opposite order.  Shankaracharya in the commentary says:

स होवाच अजातशत्रुः — प्रतिलोमं विपरीतं चैतत् ; किं तत् ? यद्ब्राह्मणः
उत्तमवर्णः आचार्यत्वेऽधिकृतः सन् क्षत्रियमनाचार्यस्वभावम् उपेयात् उपगच्छेत्
शिष्यवृत्त्या —

A brahmana, of the highest varna, who is supposed to be the teacher, shall
follow the kshatriya (who is not ordained to be a teacher), as a student.

Anandagiri, in the commentary, cites a smriti: “अब्राह्मणादध्ययनमापत्काले
विधीयते । अनुव्रज्या च शुश्रूषा यावदध्ययनं गुरोः ॥ नाब्राह्मणे गुरौ शिष्यो
वासमात्यन्तिकं वसेत् ॥” इत्यादीन्याचारविधिशास्त्राणि ।  [Learning from a
non-Brahmin is enjoined in an emergency situation. Till the

time of grasping the teaching, the one should keep following the guru
(wherever he goes) and serve him.  One should not live for too long
with a
non-brAhmaNa guru.




उत्तमादधमेन प्रणिपातोपसदनादिद्वारा विद्या ग्राह्या । अधमात्तूत्तमेन
तद्व्यतिरेकेण श्रद्धादिमात्रेण सा लभ्येत्याचारप्रकारज्ञापनार्थश्चायमारम्भ
इत्यर्थः ।


The meaning is:  From a person of a higher caste when a lower-caste
one seeks knowledge, it has to be done with namaskaara, etc.  When the
reverse

is the situation, then mere shraddhA, etc. are to be bestowed for
procuring the learning. This is the scriptural injunction.


In the case of the Shankara Vijaya we have a similarity with the above.
Here, in the hypothetical case, the shishya would be a sannyasi, of the
highest aashrama, and the guru would be a householder, of a lower ashrama
relative to the sannyasin.

Here too, the sannyasi-shishya has to display just shraddhaa in the
teaching of the householder-guru.

In modern times too we see such situations:  In the Sringeri Peetham, the
34th Jagadguru, soon upon being seated as the Pontiff, was instructed by an
eminent scholar who was a houeholder, in Nyaya.  The next Pontiff too had
an accomplished scholar-householder as his teacher.  I have known of such a
case with a well-known Madhva Mutt too where a newly inducted pontiff
sannyasin was instructed in certain shaastras/texts by a young householder
scholar.

warm regards
subbu



On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:03 PM <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 8 May 2020, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l wrote:
>
> > A question on a dialogue in the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya
> >
> > In the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya we have this verse, spoken by Shankara
> to
> > Mandana Misra:
> >
> > स चाब्रवीत्सोम्य विवादभिक्षामि-
> > च्छन्भवत्संनिधिमागतोऽस्मि ।
> > साऽप्यन्योन्यशिष्यत्वपणा प्रदेया
> > नास्त्यादरः प्राकृतभक्तभक्ष्यैः ||  8.32 ||
> >
> > To this Sankara replied: "I came here for Vaada bhiksha (an offering of
> > philosophic disputation) and not a Bhiksha of edibles. And the wager in
> the
> > disputation should be that the defeated one should become the disciple of
> > the victor.
> >
> > The question is: What is meant by the sannyasin Shankara becoming the
> > disciple of the householder Mandana' in case of the former losing the
> > debate?  Is there an instance of a sannyasin being a disciple of a
> > householder?
> >
> > The popular story in public would be: The bet is: The loser in the debate
> > should accept the Ashrama of the winner.
> >
> > Such a version would open the case of the Sannyasin taking up the life
> of a
> > householder. This is not permitted in Dharma, as we know, even from
> > Shankara's own Sutra Bhashya.
> >
>
> For a Paramahamsa it is out of the question but the lower grades of
> sannyasi such as Bahudaka and Kuchitaka practice karma to some extant.
> That would have been acceptable to Mandana Mishra I imagine.
>
> And remember Mandana Mishra also wrote a Vedantic work, Brahmasiddhi so he
> was not altogether anti-jnana just not at the expense of karma.
>
>
> --
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>