3

In this excerpt from the Garuda Purana, various incarnations of Vayu the wind god are described. In particular, it says this:

When lord Rama incarnated on earth, Vayu was born as Hanuman for rendering assistance to Rama. When lord Krishna descended on earth, he was born as Bhima, the offspring of Vayu. Vayu will be born as Maniman daitya, known as Shankara. He will be so called, for he will abolish caste and destroy Dharma.

Now I think the part in bold is probably either the source or the product of Madhvacharya's belief that Adi Shankaracharya was a rebirth of a demon, described in this book:

Madhva believed himself to be an incarnation of Vayu, and probably as a result of Shankarite persecution, he taught that Shankara was a reincarnation of obscure demon named Manimat who appears in the Mahabharata.

In the Vana Parva of the Mahabharata, Bhima kills a demon named Manimat. Since Madhvacharya considered himself to be an incarnation of Vayu, he thought he was the rebirth of Bhima and Adi Shankaracharya was the rebirth of Manimat. For the record I find this whole line of thinking absurd; I consider Adi Shankaracharya to be an incarnation of Shiva as I discuss here. And besides, that Garuda Purana chapter identifies Shankara, not Madhva, as an incarnation of Vayu.

But I'm interested in a statement found later on in that chapter. The Garuda Purana also describes the incarnations of Vayu's wife Bharati, and in particular it says this:

Draupadi, the daughter of Drupada gave up her body together with her maidens. O lord of birds, she will be born in the Kali Yuga in the house of Shankara in the village of Karati.

Now Karati is the actual birthplace of Adi Shankaracharya. So my question is, who is this rebirth of Draupadi supposed to be?

The fact that she was born "in the house of Shankara" might indicate that she was Adi Shankaracharya's sister or something. But then again, if Adi Shankaracharya is being considered an incarnation of Vayu and this woman is being considered an incarnation of Vayu's wife Bharati, then the logical relation would be that of husband and wife. But the traditional biographies of Adi Shankaracharya make clear that he took up Sanyasa at a you age.

Is it possible that before he had become a Sanyasi, his mother was planning to have him marry some girl? Are there any biographies of Adi Shankracharya that shed light on who this rebirth of Draupadi may be?

Community
  • 1
Keshav Srinivasan
  • 98,014
  • 18
  • 293
  • 853
  • 3
    I agree that this whole story is absurd. There is no record of sankaracharya getting arranged. 2ndly, didn't Draupadi's incarnation exist only ~5000 years ago?Isn't it outlandish that a divinity would keep on reincarnating quickly ( in the grand scheme of things, ~3k years is quick)? 3rdly, would a god (even if not a great god like shiva or vishnu) actually take up an avatar to destroy dharma instead of upholding it? –  Feb 18 '16 at 03:26
  • @moonstar2001 Well, the notion seems to be that Bharati incarnates once per Yuga. Besides, gods do often incarnate quickly; look how many times Vishnu incarnated over the course of the most recent Dwapara Yuga. But yeah, I do agree with you that this notion of Madhvacharya vs. Adi Shankaracharya being a "rematch" of Bhima vs. Manimat is ridiculous. (They weren't even contemporaries!) Still, I'm wondering if the rebirth of Draupadi part has a basis in some real female figure in Adi Shankaracharya's life, perhaps a sister or a fiancé or something. – Keshav Srinivasan Feb 18 '16 at 03:52
  • 2
    @KeshavSrinivasan Some versions consider Draupadi as incarnation of kali, consort of Shiva. So, if Adi Shankara was Shiva, then she should be his fiance or relationship similar to it. BTW, Madhavacharya's allegations are baseless. Why did Garuna Purna consider Adi Shankara as avatar of Vayu while most of the people believe him as avatar of Shiva? – The Destroyer Feb 18 '16 at 08:20
  • Madhvacharya and Garuda Purana are... controversial to say the least – Surya Feb 19 '16 at 16:27
  • @Surya Madhvacharya's views are certainly controversial, but the Garuda Purana is one of the 18 Mahapuranas, and for the most part it's pretty well-preserved. Still, the end of the Moksha Kanda of the Garuda Purana is the pretty much the only place in Hindu scripture that backs up Madhvacharya's Vayu-centric Vaishnava theology, so I do agree that there's a good chance that the end of the Moksha Kanda contains interpolations created by followers of Madhvacharya. That's why I said in my question "the part in bold is either the source or the product of Madhvacharya's belief..." :-) – Keshav Srinivasan Feb 19 '16 at 16:32
  • @Keshav I noticed. So Vayu is not glorified elsewhere? – Surya Feb 20 '16 at 03:05
  • @Surya No, Vayu is not glorified elsewhere as being a close associate of Vishnu. So I'm not sure if Madhvacharya developed his whole theory of Vayu as the Mukhya Prana and the chief attendant of Vishnu based on the end of the Garuda Purana, or Madhvacharya got his theory from elsewhere and then his followers added it to the Garuda Purana. I may post a question about that. – Keshav Srinivasan Feb 20 '16 at 03:29
  • Btw, I think that Madhvacarya believed himself to be incarnation of Vayu on account of divine revelation or a vision that he got, something as a seer or sort of. I don't believe he said something about himself on account of some statements from the scripture. But we can't be sure where he get an idea about Shankara being incarnation of Manimat. – brahma jijnasa Feb 20 '16 at 16:49
  • @brahmajijnasa Well, one possibility is that he got the idea of Adi Shankaracharya and Manimat from the end Garuda Purana, but then as I was discussing with Surya the end of the Garuda Purana may have been interpolated by Madhvacharya's followers. – Keshav Srinivasan Feb 21 '16 at 04:15
  • 2
    @keshavSrinivasan Garuda purana never called that Vayu would be born as a demon. but says maniman would be born as a demon. why are you posting misleading stuff ? – Rakesh Joshi Oct 05 '16 at 08:39
  • @RakeshJoshi I gave a specific quote from the Garuda Purana: "Vayu will be born as Maniman daitya, known as Shankara." – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 05 '16 at 09:32
  • 1
    Kalady is the birthplace of Adi Shankaracharya. What is karati? –  Oct 05 '16 at 11:13
  • 3
    Thanks to @Rakesh Joshi's quoting the verse, I think the translator has erred - the Garuda Purana says Maniman will be born as Shankaracharya and Vayu will be born as Madhva (the son of Vasudeva) to confront Maniman's philosophy. – Surya Oct 05 '16 at 12:26
  • 3
    maNimAnnAma daityastu shaN^karAkhyo bhaviShyati | sarveShAM saN^karaM yastu kariShyati na saMshayaH || 3:16:70 tena shaN^karanAmA.asau bhaviShyati khageshvara | dharmAn.h bhAgavatAn.h sarvAn.h vinashyati sarvathA || 3:16:71 who is saying these verses ? Vayu or some other ? – Rakesh Joshi Oct 05 '16 at 11:41
  • @Surya OK, but then I'm not sure why Garuda Purana says that Vayu's wife Bharati will be born in the house of Shankara. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 05 '16 at 15:38
  • @Keshav it's confusing as to who is Draupadi - like does Bharati incarnate once as Draupadi and again as Valandhara? – Surya Oct 05 '16 at 15:48
  • 2
    "O goddess, in the age of Kali, I will appear in the form of a brahmana to preach the false doctrine of Mayavada which is simply covered Buddhism." Indisputably, the brahmana mentioned in the verse is none other than the great Indian philosopher of monistic Vedanta, Adi Sankara. Siva continues: "This powerful doctrine of Mayavada resembles the Vedas, but is by nature non-Vedic. I propagate this philosophy in order to destroy the world." After sankara most vedantins and shaiva acharyas have criticised sankara for borrowing buddhist ideology. He was called as "Pracchhana bauddha" "Crpto-budhist" – Rakesh Joshi Oct 06 '16 at 18:08
  • 2
    @RakeshJoshi Do you really think that Chapter is Authentic? Shiva demeans Himself and His Philosophy and that chapter Portrays Adi Shankara as deceiver. And moreover, there was no Buddhism when Vyasa wrote Padma Purana, so that chapter is clear interpolation by some unscrupulous elements. – The Destroyer Oct 06 '16 at 19:34
  • 1
    Nice arguments. Just one doubt - I believe buddhism (as an idea, not referring to Gautama Buddha's teachings) have always been there. Else, why would Vyasa (Badarayana) attempt to refute Jainism and Buddhism principles in the Brahma Sutra (the foundation of Vedanta). – Vishwanath N Jan 23 '18 at 11:05
  • It says Sankara will abolish caste. But he accepted fourfold caste system. So, this is not Adi Shankara. @RakeshJoshi – Tat Tvam Asi Aug 13 '18 at 09:39

0 Answers0