Shri Jayatirtharu - flaws in the story of the bull

By Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri

There are many stories that are floating around about Sri Jayatirtha having the birth of a bull and carrying the works of Acharya.

The idea may have gotten into the system for the traditional remark that Sri Akshobhya tirtha said “kim pashuH pUrva dehe”. Even if this remark were true, it can be taken in one of the following two ways.

1. Why are you drinking water like an animal? Were you an animal in your prior birth? (This may have been a simple chiding remark, which may have opened his eyes and brought transformation.)

2. See point 44 below, where once Indra took the form of a bull, that was described in Bhagavata.
So, there is no need to depict him as having bull’s body and carrying the works of Madhvacharya. That whole episode has many faults. I have indicated 50 flaws further below.
Some narrations are connected with Dvadasha stotra and some are not.

In the following link -
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Jayatirtha
Quote:
According to legend, in a previous birth, Sri Jayatîrtha was a bull that served as a pack-animal, and traveled with Srimad Ananda Tîrtha (Madhva) and his devotees, carrying his library of teachings. When Srimad Ananda Tîrtha gave a lecture, the bull would stand at a distance and listen silently. Once some disciples approached Sri Ananda Teertha to seek the privilege of writing commentaries on his works, and he told them it would not be any of them, but the bull, that would be his commentator. At this, some jealous disciples laid a curse on the bull, so that it would be bitten to death by a snake. When Sri Anand Teertha heard of this, he changed the wording of the curse slightly, so that the snake bit the bull and itself died immediately, leaving its victim unharmed.
Unquote.

There is no link with Dvadasha stotra in the above narrative.

In the animated version - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asyMQ26ttuI

it is left in the limbo. After the curse, the bull recites Dvadasha stotra.

ShiShya : We are happy that you taught tattvaj~nAna to us. It will be difficult for others to understand your teachings. Who would you think would be writing TikAs for your teaching.
(All disciple start to think - “I think Acharya would name me”, “would it be me”, etc.)

Acharya : vyAkhyAtyeSha gorAT (It will be the bull sitting there.)

shishya : This bull seems to be a noble soul. After all, this four legged animal? Animal getting intellectual opportunity. It has to be one of us.

(Without understanding the intent of Sri Madhvacharya, one of the shishyas cursed the bull – sarpadaShTo mriyeta (let the bull die of a serpent bite).

Acharya : Do not say like that. Let me show the yogyata, the capability of the bull.
Sri Madhvacharya annulled the curse by his grace. To everybody’s surprise, the bull started reciting Dvadasha stotra.
This revealed to the shishyas that the bull indeed was a divine soul, learning the lessons taught by Sri Madhvacharya.
So in this version, the disciples did not seek privilege or permission, but inquired as to who would write the commentaries on his works and the snake did not bite, as Acharya annulled the curse.

In another variation, the disciples themselves poison the bull. Again there are some variations. In some cases the bull dies and then it gets revived. In another variation, it just becomes unconscious and before it dies, it is cured of the poison.

There is a link with Dvadasha stotra. Again in that there are some variations.

In one variation, the shishyas gave poisonous food to the bull and it died and got revived when Sri Madhvacharya recited Dvadasha stotra in the ears of the bull. In another version, Sri Madhvacharya blessed the bull and the bull started reciting Dvadasha stotra and the disciples noted that and they sought the pardon of Acharya. In another version, after it is bitten by a snake and died, Acharya sprinkled the holy water on it and started reciting Dvadasha stotra.
what is the main intention behind this kind of stories. It is to glorify the work Dvadasha stotra that it has the capacity to remove the poisonous effects on food and that is why it is recited while doing naivedya (offering the food to God). It is to glorify Sri Madhvacharya, TeekArAyaru and the disciples of Acharya.

No matter what version we pick up, there are too many flaws in the whole approach itself and it is degrading all of them.

1. Why would the shishyas ask such a question? Who ever likes to write, they can write. There is no restriction that only one person should write. Historically was there any time in any tradition, some one asks such a question?

2. Let us grant that the shishyas did not know that. Did Acharya not know that more than one can write the commentary? He could have said that the bull would write and if they liked they could also write.

3. Did the person, who first built the story realize, who were the disciples of Acharya? They are great ones like Sri Padmanabha tirtharu, Sri Narahari tirtharu, Sri Hrishikesha tirtharu, Sri Trivikrama Pandita, Sri Madhava tIrtharu, Sri Akshobhya tirtharu etc. Will such disciples involve in such a conversation? It is insulting to such great disciples if anyone says that they indulge in such conversation.

4. Will Acharya Madhva involve in such a conversation? It is insulting to Acharya if anyone says that he indulges in such conversation.
It is insulting to all of them that they went with such a silly question or remark – silly because there is no restriction that only one can write the commentary. The person who built this story was not even aware of that?

5. Is it not just common sense that in any school, one of the parameters or scales to gauge or judge for the greatness of a work is the number of commentaries on it. The more the commentaries the greater the glory. Is that not?

6. For AchArya’s BrahmasutrabhAShya, Acharya’s own disciples Sri Padmanabha tirtharu and Sri Trivikrama PaNDitaru wrote commentaries. This disproves the whole episode.

7. Are there not multiple commentaries for the prasthAnatraya – Sutra prasthAna, upaniShatprasthAna, GeetaprasthAna? It is not only by multiple schools, even within one school, there are multiple commentaries. Even though Sri MadhvAchArya wrote on all three of them, Rayaru himself wrote direct commentaries on them as well (in the form of khaNDArtha). Further Rayaru wrote Tippanis for the Tikas of Tikarayaru on the bhAshyas of Acharya. For Brahmasutras, in addition to Parimala and Bhavadeepa, he wrote Tantra-Deepika. For Upanishads, he wrote Khandarthas. For Bhagavadgeeta, in addition to Bhavadeepa, he wrote Geeta Vivruti also.

8. Are not there multiple commentators for the works of Shankaracharya and RamanujAcharya?

9. Are not there multiple commentators for the works of Sri Madhvacharya? The whole episode is going in the wrong direction of some baseless exclusive rights approach. That is non-existent like shasha-viShANa or gagana-puShpa.

10. Even today, if the works of any of current swamijis are to be carried, won’t we push and shove to carry them? Do we let a bull or horse to carry them? Is Sri MadhvAcharya less than swamijis of today? Are the works of Sri Madhvacharya less than those of swamijis today? Even if we see Sri Madhvacharya’s original works, won’t we just jump at the prospect of carrying them? Are Sri Padmanabha tirtharu, Sri Narahari tirtharu, Sri Hrishikesha tirtharu, Sri Trivikrama Pandita, Sri Madhava tIrtharu, Sri Akshobhya tirtharu etc. not as much eager to carry as people like us? Why would they even allow a bull to carry them instead? Even if we grant that they were too many and too heavy, won’t they share among themselves with all earnestness?

11. What made Indra to come down as bull? If one claims that it is meant to carry the books and listen to Acharya, why did Indra not choose to come down as human shishya himself? As a shishya, couldn’t he carry them and listen to Acharya?

12. Was there a curse to Indra to be born as a bull that Acharya himself did not know or did not like to mention?

13. Even if Indra came down as the bull, the shishyas felt jealous of the bull for writing the commentary, but not jealous about carrying the works of Acharya?

14. The above mentioned great shishyas, who felt jealous of the bull, did not hesitate to commit the sin of gohatya?

15. The animated version says that the shishyas think : This bull seems to be a noble soul. After all, this four legged animal?
In the same breath, how can one say or think that it is a divine soul and also “after all four legged animal”? Sure, if they think that due to some curse or something the divine soul came down as animal, then they should not say or think “after all”.

16. Did the incident happen before the great ones like Sri Padmanabha tirtharu, Sri Narahari tirtharu, Sri Trivikrama Pandita wrote the commentaries or after?

17. If it is after they wrote the commentaries, the question becomes a moot point and there is no need to ask even.

18. If it is before they wrote, then it indicates that Sri Madhvacharya was not aware that they were going to write.

19. If it is before they wrote, then in spite of the whole event, they ignored the Acharya and went ahead with writing the commentaries, which is tantamount to disobeying.
20. Some try to find an escape by saying that the prominent ones did not do the act of poisoning the bull, but some less significant ones did it. Firstly no such claim was made in any of the narratives. Secondly even if such a claim is made, how can those insignificant ones have the capacity to curse the bull?

21. Even if further claim is made that those insignificant ones did not curse, but just poisoned it, even then it would not make sense that those who do not even have the capacity to write commentaries would feel jealous at all.

22. Further even if insignificant ones asked, Acharya should have told that Sri Padmanabha tirtharu, Sri Narahari tirtharu, Sri Trivikrama Pandita would write and later on the bull would write.

23. No matter who, when and how it all happened, even a ten year old kid would know that the bull in that life would not wite the commentary, but would write in its later birth only as the bull does not have any hands to write. So naturally the culprit shishyas also would know that. In that case what were they achieving by taking away the life of the bull? They would only be helping the bull to do the task faster.

24. JaDa bharata, when he was born as the deer, knew about his earlier life. So naturally, the great ones like Indra, should also have known that he was Indra and would he not wonder why he got such a body?

25. Sri Madhvacharya not being aware that multiple scholars can write the commentaries and not being aware of the potential of Sri Padmanabha tirtharu, Sri Narahari tirtharu, Sri Trivikrama Pandita and not mentioning them is an insult to Sri Madhvacharya.

26. For no reason or rhyme, Indra being born as the bull, is an insult to Indra.

27. The shishyas like Sri Padmanabha tirtharu, Sri Narahari tirtharu, Sri Hrishikesha tirtharu, Sri Trivikrama Pandita, Sri Madhava tIrtharu, Sri Akshobhya tirtharu etc. feeling jealous of the bull and not being aware that the bull can not write in that body and trying to kill the bull, which is a wasted effort and also a great sin of gohatya, is an insult to all of them.

28. Dvadasha stotra is powerful by its own mantrashakti in removing poisonous effects. Why is there a need for such stories?

29. Also, there is another tradition that Dvadasha stotra was composed while Acharya brought Krishna vigraha from the ocean and did sthApane in Udupi. That is not a problem story and there is no harm in it.

30. If such an important event had happened, where Indra himself had come down as bull and such powerful incident happened, why was that not even mentioned in Madhva Vijaya. Of course one may argue that Madhva Vijaya does not have to mention every single event. But an event like this, where Indra himself had taken the bull form and all of this story events – is that something Madhva Vijaya can ignore or forget?

31. Let us look at the two possible stories – one that is associated with bringing Sri Krishna vigraha and another the bull story. Both are not mentioned in Sri Madhva Vijaya. Reciting Dvadasha stotra while bringing Sri Krishna vigraha does not cause insult to any of those greats. Reciting Dvadasha stotra when the bull was poisoned brings insult to Sri Madhvacahrya, Indra and also the great disciples of the Acharya.

32. On one side, it glorified the shishyas that they had power to curse and on the other side it is insulting for them to commit many mistakes like feeling jealous of a bull, committing gohatya, being ignorant of the fact that there need not be any restriction for the number of commentators, and not having the common sense that the bull can not write in that body and the inability to think that taking away its life accelerates the process of letting it get another body and writing it in that next body. Then what? Did they think that they would have divyadriShTi (if they have power to curse, then why not?) to see how it is born and then go and kill it in that body also? Those are Asuric tendencies that they felt jealous of writing Teeka. Even so if they were jealous of that, why not jealous of carrying Acharya’s works? In fact if they wanted to carry themselves, would Madhvacharya or the bull prevent them?

33. It is insulting to Indra that he wanted to be born as a bull to carry Acharya’s works and listen to Acharya’s pATha and pravachana instead of doing those two acts in human body. If it is due to some curse, then it would mandate mentioning it even more.

34. There is another wild story that Bhima cursed Arjuna for bragging about what he did in Mahabharata war. Now that means Vedavyasa forgot to mention such an important event and only apara Vedavyasa has to come up with such an event.

35. It is insulting to Madhvacharya that he did not know that multiple commentators can write commentaries. Can’t someone write in addition to the bull? He could not even gauge that some of his shishyas had the capability to write Teeka. He did not have the bhavishyad-j~nAna that they were in deed going to write.

36. We hear the story that Rayaru sprinkled water (with some mantra) and the child drowned in Seekarni was brought back alive. But so as to prove the glory of Dvadasha stotra, Acharya’s sprinkling holy water was not good enough and he recited Dvadasha stotra to show its glory to the world? To prove one glory, some other thing had to be insulted?

37. Today if we tell a primary school kid that a Bull will write the commentary, the kid would laugh it out. At first the disciples would have to be forced to laugh it out.

38. If the kid is told that the bull will write in the next body that is human, then the kid would ask back, then why you say that the bull would write. The Shishyas would have done same thing with the Acharya.

39. The kid may not be able to ask, but the disciples must have this much knowledge to ask Acharya as to who the bull will be in the next birth and after how many years.

40. If the next birth of the bull is after the end of life of the disciples, then why bother to kill? Whether the bull dies natural death or death by poisoning, that will not prevent taking up next birth.

41. The whole episode has no direction, no logic and no sense at all.

42. Apart from the story in the parampara, did Sri Jayatirtharu mention this in any of his works that he had the good fortune of listening to the Acharya directly as the bull?

43. What Sri Jayatirtharu was not aware of, how come some of these sampradaya people, who came up with this story, knew this?

44. Indra taking the form of a bull is mentioned in Bhagavata and Padma Purana. In Bhagavata -
vachanAddevadevasya viShNorvishvAtmanaH prabhoH |
vAhanatve vR^itastasya babhUvendro mahAvR^iShaH || 9.7.14||
sa sannaddho dhanurdivyamAdAya vishikhAn shitAn |
stUyamAnastamAruhya yuyutsuH kakudi sthitaH || 9.7.15||
वचनाद्देवदेवस्य विष्णोर्विश्वात्मनः प्रभोः।
वाहनत्वे वृतस्तस्य बभूवेन्द्रो महावृषः॥ ९.७.१४॥
स सन्नद्धो धनुर्दिव्यमादाय विशिखान् शितान्।
स्तूयमानस्तमारुह्य युयुत्सुः ककुदि स्थितः॥ ९.७.१५॥

45. Would any one say that Vali fought with the Kauravas, Bhishma and DroNa? Why not, because both are indrAvatAras only. We say “No, we have to mention what is done in that body only”. If we know that much, did Madhvacharya not know that? How could Madhvacharya commit the mistake of saying that the bull would write, when that was not the case?

46. Acharya is the one who taught the concept of visheSha. We would not say Sri Rama killed ShishupAla or Sri Krishna killed Ravana, even though there is absolutely no difference among BhagavadavtAras. But for lower devatas like Indra, there is even difference among the avatAras. Then by kaimutya nyAya, why would we mix up the avatAras of Indra?

47. It is known that Sri Jayatirtharu had Shesha Avesha. Did the bull also have Shesha Avesha or not? No details available.

48. If the bull had Shesha Avesha, any ordinary snake biting it and having any effect on it is not even possible, even if those aj~nAta shishyas curse the bull.

49. There is a special prakriya called “nindA-stuti”. Some dAsaru do apparent ninda of Paramatma, but that ninda is indirectly stuti only. But this story is just the opposite. It is apparently stuti, but this stuti or story is indirectly ninda of Sri Tikarayaru, Sri Madhvacharya and his disciples. Is this stuti-nindA?

50. Did any of the standard commentators ever mention this in any of their works? What is the need for this? Who is the first originator of this whole episode?
vyavasAyAtmikA buddhirekeha kurunandana |
bahushAkhA hyanantAshcha buddhayo.avyavasAyinAm || 2-41||