Don't act smart with Shankaracharya, you will get roasted...

This is a very interesting story from ShankarDigvijaya where Mandan Mishra tries to insult Shankaracharya but gets insulted in return.

The fun lies in the twisting of meanings of Sanskrit words by Shankaracharya.I will try my best to translate while preserving the real meaning.

Shankaracharya went to house of Mandan Mishra to debate with him, but he found the door locked so he took alternate way and went in
The conversation that followed went somewhat like this...

On seeing Shankaracharya

Mandan(angrily)- From where did you come, you bald fellow?

Shankar - I am bald till neck.

(He said कुतो मुण्ड्य Shankar took meaning as, 'How far are you shaven?' so he replied till neck. )
Mandan - I did not ask this, I asked your way

Shankar - Then what did the way reply?

(Mandan ment "I asked about your way" (From where did you come?) Shankar twisted meaning as 'I asked your way' so he said "What did the way reply?")
Mandan (frustrated) - It said, your mother is bald.

Shankar - But you asked it, it must be talking about your mother not mine.
Mandan(Fuming) - Oh ! Did you drink alcohol ?? (Are you drunk)

Shankar - No Alcohol is white not yellow

(He said अहो पीता किं सुरा? Here पीता has two meanings, drunk and yellow, Shankar twisted the meaning as yellow and said no it was white not yellow.)
Mandan (slyly) - Oh, so you know about the color of Alcohol...

Shankar - Yes I know the colour but you know the taste.
Mandan (totally frustrated) - (Indicating towards Shankar) This poisoned meat eater has gone mad thats why (he is) speaking like this.

Shankar - True, just like his father, your child born from you is a poisoned meat eater.
(He said मत्तो जातः कलञ्जाशी it has two meanings, 1."Poisoned meat eater has gone mad"
2 "Poisoned meat eater was born from me"

Shankar twisted the meaning and took second meaning.)
Their talk continued after this, If readers are interested I will make a thread of their rest of their talk
Original for thise who are interested

More from Religion

@Kate_SdE @PriyamvadaGopal @ChathamHouse @AdomGetachew Hindu nationalism should not have a negative connotation. It’s not exclusivist because Hinduism isn’t a religion - rather, it’s a way of life, and the term “Hindu” refer broadly to the people around and east of the Sindhu. This transcends the modern construct of religions.

@PriyamvadaGopal @ChathamHouse @AdomGetachew For “Hindus” - a broad-brush stroke for a people whose culture is underpinned by a knowledge system that provides logical structure for adopters of a plethora of philosophies, “Hindu nationalism” by definition, is inclusive and pluralistic. It gives space to everyone.

@PriyamvadaGopal @ChathamHouse @AdomGetachew If Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, Yoga, Purva-Mimamsa, Buddhist and Jain philosophies are studied in comparison with Abrahamic faiths, India’s unique Carl Popper Paradox comes to light. The imposition of a western matrix of secularism on a pluralistic culture has done much harm.

@PriyamvadaGopal @ChathamHouse @AdomGetachew Because the traditions are rooted in universalist philosophies, India gladly hosts followers of non-proselytizing faiths. Supremacist theocratic ideologies find little resonance with the people of the land. To understand “Hindu nationalism,” one has to study Indic philosophy.

@PriyamvadaGopal @ChathamHouse @AdomGetachew Equally, it is important to view history objectively, know the excesses of supremacist invaders/colonizers, and importantly, understand the asymmetries created by the “secular” state which structurally disadvantage the vastly heterogeneous so-called “Hindu” majority.

You May Also Like