A Debate with a Difference

[Guest guest]

Srimate SrivanSatakopa Sri Vedanta Desika Yatindra Mahadesikaya nama:

 

A Debate With A Difference

 

The Guruparampara prabhAvam, dealing with the glory of our Poorvacharyas,

is replete with instances of our Acharyas having entered into debates with and

won over votaries of other faiths. One might wonder-why at all should Acharyas

bother to do this? Is it not enough if they confine their instruction to their

own disciples? Why should they argue with others, who are equally convinced

about their tenets?

 

When a votary of a conflicting philosophy is permitted to have his say

unchallenged, it amounts to its approval by the silent listeners. Approval need

not be explicit-even non-refutation of the opponent's view is tantamount to

acquiescence. By this token, if Acharyas were to let such challenges pass, they

would be misunderstood to have sanctified the conflicting view with their seal

of approval.

 

Secondly, when one looks at scholarly works like the Sri Bhashyam of Sri

Ramanuja or the Paramatha Bhangam and Shatha DooshaNi of Swami Desikan, it

would appear as though it is as much the Lord's service to expound on one's own

philosophy with clarity, as to point out the lacunae in the opponents'. Sri

Nadadur AmmaL's blessing to Swami Desikan to establish the Vedantic school of

thought after refuting the others, is proof positive that such debates were

indeed considered to be " Kainkaryam " .

" PrathishttApitha VedAnta: pratikshiptha bahirmatha:

bhooyA: traividya mAnyastvam bhoori kalyANa bhAjanam "

 

 

A third reason is the infinite mercy of Acharyas, who cannot bear to see a soul

waste itself, while it can very well be redeemed by being shown the right path.

Hence they try to convince the contestant of the folly of his ways and win him

over to their fold, thus notching up their tally of saved souls.

 

There has been any number of debates of the aforesaid sort. We have heard of Sri

PeriyAzhwar participate in a hot debate for establishing the supremacy of the

Lord, Sri Ramanuja engage himself in a verbal battle with a thousand Jains at a

time. We have heard too of Sri KoorattAzhwan arguing with the unyielding and

unspeakable Kulottunga Chozha, Sri Bhattar winning over Vedanthi after

protracted arguments spread over 9 days, Sri Nadadur Ammal debating with the

ShAkta chieftain KeNdavara and KumbhIsuta Panditha of Kasi, Sri KidAmbi AthrEya

RamAnuja (Swami Desikan's maternal uncle and revered Acharya) debating with

anyone and everyone who had the temerity to oppose the Ramanuja Siddhantha and

thereby earning the sobriquet " VAdi HamsAmbuvAha: " , Swami Desikan vanquishing

advaiti vidvAns, KrishNa Mishra: Dindima Kavi and countless others, Swami

Desikan's prasishya Sri Prativadi Bhayankaram aNNA scoring over rivals of the

opposing philosophical camp, etc. All these instances go to show that being

argumentative for a good cause and to stand up for one's viewpoint with the

courage of conviction, are not bad at all.

 

All the aforesaid debates were protracted, with the opponents giving up only

after a valiant effort. The advancing of pramANAs by rival camps and the

proffering of arguments and counter arguments, is a time-consuming process,

often lasting days, weeks or months, depending on the erudition and perseverance

of the opponents.

 

However, there was a quite short debate, a debate with a difference, between

Sri Alavandar and AkkiAzhvAn, which stands out in the annals of history as an

unheard-of and inconceivable occurrence.

 

Veeranarayanapuram, the domicile of Sri YAmuna, fell under the jurisdiction of a

Chozha King, whose Court Pundit was one AkkiyAzhvAn, who fancied himself as the

uncrowned king of scholars, and, as such, used to collect tribute from all

scholars, much in the fashion of a king. MahAbhAshya Bhatta, Sri YAmuna's guru,

also received a notice from Akkiazhwan, to remit the tribute. Unable to muster

the sum demanded and fearing the consequences, Bhatta was in a quandary. Sri

YAmuna, in whose presence the notice was received, tore it into pieces and sent

a message through the soldiers who had brought it that they (Sri Alavandar and

his guru) would not pay the tribute, come what may.

 

Summoned to the King's court for their non-compliance, Sri Yamuna and his guru

were challenged by AkkiyAzhwan for a debate, to teach them a lesson for their

impudence in defying the great man's dictates. While young Yamuna's guru was

apprehensive of the outcome, Sri YAmuna reassured him with soothing words and

took the burden of argument upon his young shoulders.

 

The Queen was impressed with Sri Yamuna's youthful appearance, his eyes

sparkling with the light of knowledge, his fearless demeanour and refusal to be

cowed down by the presence of the King and formidable scholars of proven repute.

On impulse, she prophesied to the king that the ensuing debate would see Sri

Yamuna emerge victor. The king made fun of her, firm in his conviction that

AkkiyAzhwan, the seasoned soldier of several verbal battles, would make short

work of the small boy who dared oppose him. So strong was the King's faith in

his man's capability, that he offered to the Queen to gift half of his kingdom

to the young debater YAmuna, in the unlikely event of his winning the contest.

The Queen responded by saying that she would be the king's life-long slave, if

her protégé lost.

 

The Court Pundit began by addressing Sri YAmuna condescendingly, " I am not used

to debating with small boys. I prefer to deal with scholars who are my match in

age and erudition. However, as you have chosen to challenge me, so be it. In

view of your age, I shall give you the opportunity to ask the first question " .

 

Sri Yamuna replied- " You are very magnanimous. I shall not hold you up for long.

All I shall make are three statements. You should prove them to be false. If you

are unable to do this, you lose the debate. "

 

Challenged thus, and making light of the apparently brash boy's naiveté,

AkkiyAzhwan agreed and asked Sri Yamuna to proceed.

 

In his clear, piping voice, Sri Yamuna made the three statements as promised-

1. Your mother is not a barren woman.

2. This King is a " Sarvabhouma " (the ruler of all this earth)

3. This Queen is a " Pativrata " (a chaste woman).

 

Having made his statements, Sri Yamuna invited AkkiyAzhvAn to refute them,

placing the latter in a quandary. The all-knowing scholar was flummoxed. Rack

his brains furiously as he might, he could not find a way to establish these

averments to be false.

Having been born to his mother, how could he accept that she was a barren

woman? And he could deny that the King was a " Sarvabhouma " or that the Queen was

a chaste lady, only at the peril of his life. The Pundit was caught in a

" Catch-22 " situation. If he denied that his mother was not a barren woman,

people would make fun of him for uttering a falsehood. Similarly, if he were to

refute the statements about the royal couple, it would invite their immediate

ire and indubitable imprisonment and possibly the loss of his life too.

Reduced to tears, AkkiyAzhvAn admitted defeat.

 

However, the King was not about to hand over half of his kingdom to Sri YAmuna

on a platter. He told Yamuna, " It is all very well to make irrefutable

statements and ask the scholar to refute them at the risk of defeat. Can YOU

refute these statements? I shall acknowledge your victory only if you are able

to. "

Sri Yamuna said, " If your Highness permits, I shall indeed refute these

statements, on condition that you should not mistake me for my replies " . When

the King agreed, Sri Yamuna began his refutation of his own apparently

irrefutable averments.

 

" Shastras term the Crow and the Banana tree as barren, because they beget just a

single offspring. While the crow gives birth to only a single baby crow (through

a single egg), each banana tree yields just a single bunch of bananas. By this

standard, since you too are your mother's only son, your mother can very well be

termed barren. "

 

" A SArvabhouma is one whose writ runs over the entire world, who rules over the

entire expanse of this broad earth. This Chozha RajA's kingdom is doubtless

vast, but since it definitely has its frontiers, beyond which this King's

authority is not recognized, this King is not a " SArvabhouma " .

 

" The Veda mantras relating to marriage lay down clearly that every girl comes

under the influence of SOma, Gandharva and agni, before being married off to a

human being. The human groom is thus only the fourth in the line of possessors,

as far as the lady is concerned.

" SOma: prathamO vividE GandharvO vivida utthara:

TritIyO agnishtE pathi: turIya: tE manushyajA: "

Says the Manthra Prasna, comprising the 81st prasna of Yajur Veda. The Queen

too is no exception to this and hence, strictly speaking, cannot be a

" Pativrata " , though her devotion to her beloved king is beyond question and

though she has not broken her vows of chastity and purity. "

 

The King was impressed with the inoffensive way in which the three apparently

irrefutable averments had been shown to be untrue and immediately acknowledging

the young YAmuna's victory and living up to his promise to his Queen,

immediately signed a decree gifting half his kingdom to the Victor.

 

Pleased beyond words at the brilliant boy's victory and much more so at her

prophecy having come true, the Queen praised Sri YAmunA as " ALa vandhAr' (one

who has arrived to triumph, to rule).

 

Since then, Sri YAmunA came to be known as " ALavandhAr " and went on to

reestablish the VisishtAdvaita Sampradaya on unshakeable foundations with his

numerous works including the Siddhitrayam (Atma Siddhi, Samvit Siddhi and Isvara

Siddhi), Agama PrAmAnyam, Purusha Nirnayam, GIthArttha Sangraham, ChatusslOkI

and StOtraratnam.

 

Apart from his personal efforts, he also created an eternal fund of knowledge

through his prasishya Sri Ramanuja and his disciples, in the form of copious,

exhaustive, inspiring and enthralling commentaries on the Brahma SutrAs, the

Bhagavat Gita and Aruliccheyal. The immeasurable contribution of Sri YAmuna

would be abundantly apparent from even a single sloka of the Stotra Ratna or

ChatusslokI, which are vehicles of overwhelming devotion and verbatim

translations of the Sudar migu Surudhi and Chandam migu Tamizh Marai. One could

safely say, without fear of refutation, that the Stotra Ratna is the Sanskrit

equivalent of the ThirumAlai, every word and sentence of which melt even the

hardest of hearts and implant the dew of devotion in the stoniest of minds.

 

" VigAhE YAmunam thIrttham sAdhu BrindAvanE sthittham

nirastha jihmaka: sparsE yatra Krishna: krithAdara: "

 

Srimate Sri LakshmINrsimha divya paduka sevaka SrivanSatakopa Sri Narayana

Yatindra Mahadesikaya Nama:

Dasan, sadagopan.