Madhvas Unknown Sources
Madhvas Unknown Sources
Shrisha Rao
B. N. K. Sharma
Introduction
Corresponding author.
Sharma (History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta, 3d. ed., Motilal Banarsidass, 2000). It however makes factual errors of a type not generally expected
in mature scholarship, and is thus suspect in its core assessments.
The chief difficulty with Mesquitas work is that his research is monumentally incomplete, so he presents a distorted picture that does little to cause
faith in his conclusions. Mesquita is genuinely unfamiliar with the spread
of the Vedic corpora, and in a rush to judgement labels Madhva the author
of rare Vedic (and some post-Vedic) sources for which we have collateral
evidence other than Madhvas own word; in fact, in a few cases, we even
have evidence of their present-day or recent availability. This evidence for
the existence of many of Madhvas sources that Mesquita carelessly labels
fictitious is damaging to his credibility, to say the least, since it is always a
given that a conclusion is no more sound than the facts upon which it rests.
It is well beyond the scope of the present paper to discuss the question of
the unknown sources in full detail, but here we simply highlight evidences for
Mesquita (pp. 3031) cites with apparent approval the list of unfamiliar
sources from Madhvas BSBh. objected to by Appayyadks.ita (17th cent.),
and proceeds to assume without verification that all of them, as well as
others like them, must indeed be unknown. This amounts to putting too
much faith in a medieval traditionalists claims, a rather odd thing for a
modern scholar to do. Mesquita also is apparently unaware of the reply
2
2.1
Pain.gi-Sruti
22, no. 390) to have been in the possession of one Venkatarama Srauti
of Mullandram. Also see pages 454, 557, and 582, where Oppert notes
other manuscripts. Therefore, in all, Oppert reports a total of four
manuscripts, although there do not seem to be more recent reports of
them (a matter unfortunately not helped by the fact that Opperts catalog does not give any accurate contact information on his informants).
3. Pain.gi Gr.hya (further evidence of a robust recension) is quoted by
these8 (pp. 187, et seq.) traditional commentatorsHaradatta
on Apastambha
Gr.hya 8.21.9, Maskar on Gautama Dharmas
utra
14.6.17; the Pain.gi Dharmas
utra is quoted in the Smr.ticandrik
a
(Asaucakhan.d.a).
akhas of the R.g Veda by the
4. Pain.gi is counted as one of the S
Prapancahr.daya,9 a pre-Ramanuja text, in its second chapter (Veda
Prakaran.a).
3
8. A Pain.gi-Sruti
(having an Upanis.adic flavor) is quoted by Sudarshana
S
ur (a disciple of Ramanuja) in his Srutaprad
pika, as well as in
the Srutaprak
asika in the catuhs
utr portions. These are the same as
2.2
Bh
allaveya-Sruti
2.3
Sauparn.a-Sruti
2.4
Vatsa-Sruti
2.5
For brevity, we mention just in passing some of the other fictitious titles
used by Madhva:
2.5.1
Udd
alaka-Sruti
Uddalaka the son of Arun.i belonged to the Gautama clan26 (pp. 187188),
. i. The Prapancahr.daya mentions
for which reason he is also called Arun
6
Gautama as a sakha of the RV (and also of the SV); an Uddalaka-Sruti
could come from either source. (Madhva also cites a Gautama-khila in his
Gta Bhas.ya, 10.41.)
2.5.2
Indradyumna-Sruti
Agnive
sya-Sruti
& Kaun.d.inya-Sruti
s
akha now found in Kerala. The Ananda
Samhitaa Vaikhanasa text, clearly
mentions the Kalpas of these two s
akhas. The Tantravarttika of Kumarila
Bhatta (1.3.11) also mentions the Kaun.d.inya Kalpa. The Pravaramanjar of
akh
Pippal
ada-S
a
An Atharva Veda recension bearing the name is well known (and has been
published); it, or associated Brahman.a and such literature, could easily qualify for the name.
The Pippalada school is also alluded to by the Mahabhas.ya of Patanjali
at 4.2.104 (cited previously) and 4.2.66.
7
2.5.5
Vy
asa-Smr.ti
Bhavis.yatparva
Mah
asam
a
. hit
2.5.8
Laks.an.a
s
astra
Mesquita notes that he is unable to find quotes given by Madhva from certain
well-known sources, and assumes that this is because Madhva has claimed
that his quotes come from them in order to impart legitimacy. However, we
show by a few examples that no such assumption is called for.
Briefly, we may note that published versions and manuscripts of these
known sources vary widely, and there is generally no editio cum notis variorum for one to use.
3.1
Brahm
an.d.a Pur
an.a
This is a source quoted from by Madhva quite a number of times, and always,
apparently, with the problem that his quotes are not to be found (Mesquita,
p. 90, fn. 153).
After a study of the major Puran.as, Banerji34 says (p. 25):
None of the many verses from the Brahman.d.a quoted by
Hemadri (13th cent.) in his Caturvarga-Cintaman.i occurs in
the extant Brahman.d.a Puran.a. This naturally raises the suspicion that the present Puran.a is, to a great extent, different
from the genuine Brahman.d.a Puran.a. The contents of the extant Brahman.d.a Puran.a [also] do not accord well with what is
stated [about them] in the Matsya Puran.a.
3.2
Garud.a Pur
an.a
3.3
Mah
a Upanis.ad
Most of the arguments Mesquita offers for the authorship of Madhva are
predicated upon the incorrect assumption that there indeed is no trace of
the sources except Madhvas own word. Given the evidence we have cited
for the veracity of these sources, his arguments have no basis and may be
summarily discarded. However, just for illustration, we mention a few specific
errors in Mesquitas analysis.
10
The claim of Madhva that certain texts called Tattva-viveka, etc., were
authored by Vis.n.u or Narayan.a comes from the Vais.n.ava doctrine that all
of the traditional Pancaratra texts were authored by Narayan.a:
pancaratrasya kr.tsnasya vakt
a (vett
a) n
ar
ayan.ah. (tu bhagav
an) svayam
(Mbh. 12.337.63, also quoted by Madhva in the second chapter of his
Mahabharata-Tatparya-Nirn.aya). Whether there were, or are, Pancaratric
texts named Tattva-nirn.aya, etc., and indeed whether any modern scholar
would glibly accept the claim that the entire genre of such texts was authored
by Narayan.a are issues to be discussed, of course, but Mesquita is nonetheless
in error for not having raised them, and for having mis-stated Madhvas
position.
Mesquita claims (pp. 93 et seq.) that Madhvas commentator Jayatrtha
refers to the unknown source Brahma Tarka as a lost work, vide his
statement attena prabandhena uktam. However, the phrase atta prabandha
need not necessarily mean lost text. It simply means previous text,
where the previous is anterior in the flow of discussion, rather than in
time. Such usage on the part of Jayatrtha37 is seen in his commentary on
Madhvas commentary on the Isavasya Upanis.ad, verse 15, where he says iti
attagranthena uktam in reference to verse 6 of that Upanis.ad itself. Madhva
gives the extent of the Brahma Tarka as 5000 verses, etc., in verses 74, et seq.,
of his Anu-Vyakhyana, in commenting upon which not only does Jayatrtha
not state that a lost text is being referred to, but argues for why the
Brahma Tarka only, rather than the traditional Nyaya and other texts, must
be accepted by all Vedantins.
Mesquita is very wrong in his impression that Madhva was criticized for his
unknown sources right from his own time. Even if we accept his suggestion
that Varadaguru and Venkat.anatha were of Madhvas own time,38 the fact
remains that neither scholar has referenced Madhva, his doctrine, his works,
or his statements. A random or undirected diatribe about people who use
unknown sources cannot be correlated with Madhva except by a stretch of
11
Mesquitas ill-founded imagination. The fact remains that the first opponent
to clearly accuse Madhva was Appayyadks.ita, who came three centuries
later, and it is also highly significant that Appayya offers his criticisms on
his own, with no reference to previous views. It is also significant that no follower of Madhva upto the time of Vijayndra Trtha felt the need to respond
to the charge, as surely would have been done had it been known before
then. It is not plausible that such a charge made would have been ignored,
since Jayatrtha and others were quick to consider and explain other charges
against Madhva.
These issues have already been discussed by Sharma39 in extenso under the
rubrics Problem of Sources (pp. 8789) and Problem of Untraceable Texts
(pp. 437438). Although this material must have been easily available to
him, Mesquita remains unaware, as Sharma notes (p. 632).
As new evidence, we should note that Vyasaraya (1460-1539), who initiated
the polemical battle between Dvaita and Advaita with his Nyayamr.ta, quotes
some of Madhvas supposedly fictitious sources as authorities in his favor,
and his opponent Madhus
udana Saraswat, who did not even refrain from
name-calling during the course of his defense of Advaita, makes no charge
of unknown sources, but instead strives to explain the authorities in his own
sides favor.
For instance, Vyasaraya quotes a line attributed to the Brahma-Tarka
in the Vis.n.u-tattva-vinirn.aya, in the first pariccheda, under the topic
pratyaks.asya jatya upakramadiny
ayaisca pr
abalyam.40
Note particularly the following:
prabalyamagamasyaiva j
aty
a tes.u tris.u smr.tam iti tu
vaidikarthavis.ayam |
In response,41 the Advaitasiddhi says:
tadagr.htagrahitvamapi na pr
abalye prayojakam ...
and specifically concludes with:
pratyuta agamasyaiva sarvatah. pr
abalyam
aryate
. sm
prabalyamagamasyaiva j
aty
a tes.u tris.u smr.tam iti |
12
Conclusion
The bogey of unknown and untraceable quotations was raised against Madhva by disgruntled critics like Appayyadks.ita for the first time centuries after
Madhva, and was of only a nuisance value. Appayyadks.ita never contested
the Nyayamr.ta or Candrika composed near his own time, though he survived the demise of their author Vyasatrtha by a good 40 years or more.
He thought it wise to leave it to better men like the far-off Madhus
udana
Saraswat who never bothered to raise the issue, possibly because they were
better informed.
It was in sheer frustration that Appayya turned to target Madhva himself
somehow and found the topic of the alleged aprasiddha texts a convenient
weapon with which to discomfit and malign the system on minor issues like
the untraceable texts; or Madhvas alleged departures from Paninian grammar, language, and idiom; or his alleged metrical lapses and so forth. The
attempts had only a nuisance value but even these irrelevant criticisms were
13
repulsed then and there by doughty scholars of Dvaita like Vijayndra and
Narayan.acarya.
Madhvas disciple Aks.obhya debated with Vidyaran.ya on tattvamasi in a
v
ada umpired by the great Vedanta Desika and was declared the victor. As
a result, Madhvas system was given a place in the Sarvadarsana San.graha,
which could not have been done if Madhvas system had only a cart-load of
untraceable texts to show in support.
In the present paper, we have tried to gather pertinent information about
texts alleged to be creations of Madhvas own fancy. In the absence (in
some cases incidental rather than necessary) of access to the actual texts
themselves, such circumstantial evidence as we have tried to present here
serves the purpose; even in law, circumstantial evidence is acceptable when
direct witnesses are not available. Mesquita, and anyone who cares to agree
with his analysis, would be doing a far better job by investigating matters
for himself as we have done, rather than by blindly agreeing with Appayya
and coming up with ludicrous theories based on false premises.
Acknowledgements
Robert Zydenbos drew our attention to Mesquitas work, and also to the need
for a well-researched academic response. Gerald Penn helped us begin our
work by his partial translation of the German text. A great deal of information regarding Vedic sources was given by Vishal Agarwal; some information
on other sources was also provided by Krishna Kadiri and Kesava Tadipatri. Proofing of earlier drafts was undertaken by Arvind Acharya, Kesava
Tadipatri, Nataraj B. V., and Krishna Kadiri.
14
Notes
1
Mesquita, Roque: Madhvas Unknown Literary Sources: Some Observations. Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, 2000. 197 pp. (Translation of Madhva
und seine unbekannten literarischen Quellen). Publications of the De Nobili
Research Library, Volume XXIV. Wien: University of Vienna, Institute of
Indology, 1997. 151 pp.
2
The following, which has appeared since the original writing of this paper, may also be of interest: Sharma, B. N. K., My Latest Four Research Papers, available online from http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/papers/four.pdf.
This booklet contains leads for further research, including the showing that
some strange source names: M
ay
avaibhava Sam
a, Hayagrva Sam
a, etc.,
. hit
. hit
used by Madhva, are titles of available Pancaratra texts or fragments.
3
Madhvamatamukhabh
us.an.a, Gurusarvabhauma Sam
. skr.ta Vidyapt.ha,
Mantralayam, 1994.
6
k
a Itih
as, vol. I;
Pranava Prakashan; Delhi; 1978.
9
vol. 45; Trivandrum. Reprinted in 1987 by Yudhishthira Mimamsaka (Ramalal Kapoor Trust, Bahalagarh, district Sonepat).
11
The Catuh-S
utr Bhasya of Madhvacarya, B.N.K. Sharma, Madras, 1934.
14
15
M. Ramanatha Dikshitar: S
amas
arasarwaswam, Ramayana Printing
Works, Madras, 1972.
16
17
18
Mahamahopadhyaya Hariprasad Shastri; A descriptive catalog of Sanskrit manuscripts in the Government collection under the care of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal, Vol. IIVedic Manuscripts; Asiatic Society of Bengal,
Calcutta; 1923.
19
Dange, Sadashiv A.; Divine Hymns and Ancient Thought Ritual and the
Quest for Truth; Navrang; New Delhi; 1995 (vol. II, pp. 292301).
20
The Khila-S
uktas of the R.gveda: A Study, Usha R. Bhise, BORI, Poona,
1995. Bhandarkar Oriental Series #27.
21
22
ibid., p. 165.
16
23
ibid., p. 213.
24
ibid., p. 165.
25
27
29
30
Mahabharatatatparyanirn.ayah.:
Sri
Vadirajatrthasrpadapran.taya
Bhavaprakasikakhyavyakhyaya sametah., ed. V. Prabhanjanacarya, Sri
Vyasa Madhwa Seva Pratisthana: supported by Prof. B. Venkateshacharya
Memorial Trust, Bangalore 1998.
33
34
17
35
ibid., p. 30
36
38
We do not in fact accept this, noting that Mesquita confounds the 17thcentury Venkatanatha, who was a critic of Madhva, with the 13th-century
Vedanta Desika, who was not. This issue and related ones are discussed at
length elsewhere; see footnote 2 above.
39
40
Number 20, page 276, Volume 1, Nyayamr.ta-Advaitasiddhi with commentaries. Dvaita Vedanta Studies and Research Foundation, Bangalore,
1994.
41
ibid., p. 279.
42
43
ibid., p. 498.
18