When Yamuna was only twelve, he won a kingdom through the power of his wits. At that time, the royal pandita of the Pandya king of Cola had succeeded in making all the other panditas in his country look like fools. He was famous as “Vidvajjanakolahala” which means “One who throws scholars into an uproar.” The royal pandita was very dear to the king who patronized him lavishly. Vidvajjanakolahala used to extract an annual tax from all the panditas in the land. Those who didn't pay had to face the royal pandita in argument and be humiliated and subsequently punished. For fear of losing their reputation as scholars, everyone used to regularly pay this tax without argument. One day a disciple of the royal pandita arrived at the asrama of Yamuna's guru demanding the tax. Yamuna's guru was away at the time and Yamuna himself refused to pay the tax, considering it to be an insult to his gurudeva. He sent the disciple back with the message that an insignificant follower of Bhasyacarya would challenge the world-conquering royal pandita, Vidvajjanakolahala in open debate.
When the news of the twelve-year old boy's challenge came to the royal pandita, he simply laughed. “All right,” he said. “Summon this scholar here and let us match wits.” By the king's own order a day was set for the debate, and at the appointed time the boy scholar was brought before the royal court on a lavish palanquin. Seeing the boy's beauty, the queen was charmed. She instantly took his side, while the king favored his own pandita. A wager was settled on by the king and queen. If the king's pandita won the debate, the queen was to submit to the king's every whim. If the queen's favorite, the beautiful boy pandita, won the debate, the king was to award Yamunacarya half the kingdom.
First the royal pandita examined the child, asking him many obscure questions about Sanskrit grammar which Yamuna answered perfectly. Then it was Yamuna's turn to examine the scholar. He said, “I will state three maxims. If you can refute them, I shall admit defeat. The first is this: your mother is not barren.”
The royal pandita was dumbfounded. To refute this maxim would be do deny his own birth. Unable to answer, he stood silent.
Yamunacarya continued: “My second proposal is this: The king is righteous. Refute this if you dare.”
Again the pandita was silenced. How could he argue that his own king was impious?
Finally the boy said: “My third proposal is this: The queen is chaste. Refute this and I am defeated.”
Unable to refute these propositions, the pandita fought back. “You are proposing things which are irrefutable. By asking me to challenge the piety of the king and the chastity of the queen you are committing treason and blasphemy. How dare you ask this of me! This is an outrage. If you think these propositions can be refuted then refute them yourself and be damned as an offender to the throne. Otherwise admit your insolence and hang your head in shame.”
The panditas followers filled the arena with applause, and the king felt confident that his champion had successfully turned back the challenge of this impudent boy. But Yamunacarya was not finished. “As you wish,” he said. “I shall refute these propositions myself. First I asked to to refute the proposal that your mother is not barren. Since you have failed to do so, I must cite the Manu Smrti on this matter. According to the Laws of Manu, “If a woman has no more than one child, she may be considered barren.” (eka-putro hy aputrena lokavadat, Manu-Samhita, 9.61, Medhatithi Bhashya). Since your mother had only one son, the proposal that she is not barren is refuted.
“Now the second proposal: the king is pious. I asked you to refute this, but you were unable to do so. The Laws of Manu also state that since he is responsible for their protection, the king assumes one sixth of the results of the pious or impious deeds of his subjects. (sarvato dharmasad bhago rajo bhavati raksatah, adharmadapi sad bhago bhavatyasya hyaraksatah, Manu-Samhita, 8.304, Medhatithi Bhashya) Since this is Kali-yuga, the people in general are naturally impious, and so the king must assume a heavy burden of impiety. This refutes the second thesis: the king is pious.
“As for my refutation to the third proposal—the queen is chaste.” With this the crowd became quiet. The queen herself blushed. Yamunacarya's supporters wondered, how the boy could refute this proposition and conquer the pandita without embarrassing the queen. Yamunacarya continued, “The Laws of Manu state that a great king is the representative of the gods. The gods—Agni the fire-god, Vayu the wind-god, Surya the sung-god, Chandra the moon-god, Yama the lord of death, Varuna, Kuvera, and Indra—are all present in the body of the king. The queen, therefore is wedded to more than just one man. When a woman is married to more than one man how then can she be chaste? Thus the third proposition is refuted.”
The crowd was astonished. The boy scholar had certainly defeated the royal pandita. The queen was jubilant and embraced Yamunacarya, saying, “Alabandaru,” meaning “one who conquers.” The court pandita was disgraced. The king, who had been defeated in his wager with the queen, arose and said, “My boy, Alabandaru, child-scholar that you are you have defeated my royal pandita, the terror of scholars—Vidvajjanakolahola himself. His pitiful life is now yours to do with as you see fit. I commend him into your hands. As for yourself, I promised the queen to give you half my kingdom upon your victory here. Now that you have won, I humbly request you to accept half my kingdom as your reward.” The king awarded to Yamunacarya the place which is now called alavandara-medu.
Yamunacarya, who had won the title of “conqueror” now became famous as Alabandaru, the boy-king. As the years passed, he became involved more and more in the affairs of state, practically forgetting the legacy of his grandfather, Nathamuni. Surrounded by kingly opulence and royal power, he gradually became entrenched in the position of a king. Absorbed in politics, he had little time for spiritual affairs.
About this time, Alabandaru's grandfather, Nathamuni, had passed away, but before he left this world, he called his most confidential disciple Nambi to his side and entrusted him with a sacred task: to inspire Yamunacarya to renounce his kingdom and champion the cause of Sri Vaisnavism. Yamunacarya was uniquely qualified to propogate Sri Vaisnavism. No one else could take the place of Nathamuni.
When the news of the twelve-year old boy's challenge came to the royal pandita, he simply laughed. “All right,” he said. “Summon this scholar here and let us match wits.” By the king's own order a day was set for the debate, and at the appointed time the boy scholar was brought before the royal court on a lavish palanquin. Seeing the boy's beauty, the queen was charmed. She instantly took his side, while the king favored his own pandita. A wager was settled on by the king and queen. If the king's pandita won the debate, the queen was to submit to the king's every whim. If the queen's favorite, the beautiful boy pandita, won the debate, the king was to award Yamunacarya half the kingdom.
First the royal pandita examined the child, asking him many obscure questions about Sanskrit grammar which Yamuna answered perfectly. Then it was Yamuna's turn to examine the scholar. He said, “I will state three maxims. If you can refute them, I shall admit defeat. The first is this: your mother is not barren.”
The royal pandita was dumbfounded. To refute this maxim would be do deny his own birth. Unable to answer, he stood silent.
Yamunacarya continued: “My second proposal is this: The king is righteous. Refute this if you dare.”
Again the pandita was silenced. How could he argue that his own king was impious?
Finally the boy said: “My third proposal is this: The queen is chaste. Refute this and I am defeated.”
Unable to refute these propositions, the pandita fought back. “You are proposing things which are irrefutable. By asking me to challenge the piety of the king and the chastity of the queen you are committing treason and blasphemy. How dare you ask this of me! This is an outrage. If you think these propositions can be refuted then refute them yourself and be damned as an offender to the throne. Otherwise admit your insolence and hang your head in shame.”
The panditas followers filled the arena with applause, and the king felt confident that his champion had successfully turned back the challenge of this impudent boy. But Yamunacarya was not finished. “As you wish,” he said. “I shall refute these propositions myself. First I asked to to refute the proposal that your mother is not barren. Since you have failed to do so, I must cite the Manu Smrti on this matter. According to the Laws of Manu, “If a woman has no more than one child, she may be considered barren.” (eka-putro hy aputrena lokavadat, Manu-Samhita, 9.61, Medhatithi Bhashya). Since your mother had only one son, the proposal that she is not barren is refuted.
“Now the second proposal: the king is pious. I asked you to refute this, but you were unable to do so. The Laws of Manu also state that since he is responsible for their protection, the king assumes one sixth of the results of the pious or impious deeds of his subjects. (sarvato dharmasad bhago rajo bhavati raksatah, adharmadapi sad bhago bhavatyasya hyaraksatah, Manu-Samhita, 8.304, Medhatithi Bhashya) Since this is Kali-yuga, the people in general are naturally impious, and so the king must assume a heavy burden of impiety. This refutes the second thesis: the king is pious.
“As for my refutation to the third proposal—the queen is chaste.” With this the crowd became quiet. The queen herself blushed. Yamunacarya's supporters wondered, how the boy could refute this proposition and conquer the pandita without embarrassing the queen. Yamunacarya continued, “The Laws of Manu state that a great king is the representative of the gods. The gods—Agni the fire-god, Vayu the wind-god, Surya the sung-god, Chandra the moon-god, Yama the lord of death, Varuna, Kuvera, and Indra—are all present in the body of the king. The queen, therefore is wedded to more than just one man. When a woman is married to more than one man how then can she be chaste? Thus the third proposition is refuted.”
The crowd was astonished. The boy scholar had certainly defeated the royal pandita. The queen was jubilant and embraced Yamunacarya, saying, “Alabandaru,” meaning “one who conquers.” The court pandita was disgraced. The king, who had been defeated in his wager with the queen, arose and said, “My boy, Alabandaru, child-scholar that you are you have defeated my royal pandita, the terror of scholars—Vidvajjanakolahola himself. His pitiful life is now yours to do with as you see fit. I commend him into your hands. As for yourself, I promised the queen to give you half my kingdom upon your victory here. Now that you have won, I humbly request you to accept half my kingdom as your reward.” The king awarded to Yamunacarya the place which is now called alavandara-medu.
Yamunacarya, who had won the title of “conqueror” now became famous as Alabandaru, the boy-king. As the years passed, he became involved more and more in the affairs of state, practically forgetting the legacy of his grandfather, Nathamuni. Surrounded by kingly opulence and royal power, he gradually became entrenched in the position of a king. Absorbed in politics, he had little time for spiritual affairs.
About this time, Alabandaru's grandfather, Nathamuni, had passed away, but before he left this world, he called his most confidential disciple Nambi to his side and entrusted him with a sacred task: to inspire Yamunacarya to renounce his kingdom and champion the cause of Sri Vaisnavism. Yamunacarya was uniquely qualified to propogate Sri Vaisnavism. No one else could take the place of Nathamuni.
No comments:
Post a Comment