Zeitschrift: Asiatische Studien : Zeitschrift der Schweizerischen Asiengesellschaft =

Études asiatiques : revue de la Société Suisse-Asie

Band: 57 (2003)
Heft: 1

Artikel: Madhva's unknown sources : a review

Autor: Rao, Shrisha / Sharma, B.N.K.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5169/seals-147598

Nutzungsbedingungen
Die ETH-Bibliothek ist die Anbieterin der digitalisierten Zeitschriften. Sie besitzt keine Urheberrechte
an den Zeitschriften und ist nicht verantwortlich für deren Inhalte. Die Rechte liegen in der Regel bei
den Herausgebern beziehungsweise den externen Rechteinhabern. Siehe Rechtliche Hinweise.
Conditions d'utilisation
L'ETH Library est le fournisseur des revues numérisées. Elle ne détient aucun droit d'auteur sur les
revues et n'est pas responsable de leur contenu. En règle générale, les droits sont détenus par les
éditeurs ou les détenteurs de droits externes. Voir Informations légales.
Terms of use
The ETH Library is the provider of the digitised journals. It does not own any copyrights to the journals
and is not responsible for their content. The rights usually lie with the publishers or the external rights
holders. See Legal notice.

Download PDF: 19.11.2024

ETH-Bibliothek Zürich, E-Periodica, https://www.e-periodica.ch

 MADHVA'S UNKNOWN SOURCES: A REVIEW

Shrisha Rao, Mount Mercy College B. N. K. Sharma1

1. Introduction

The present paper attempts to give an academic response to Roque Mesquita's

study, Madhva's Unknown Literary Sources: Some Observations.2 Reviews of
the original German version of the above-mentioned text have appeared in
various academic journals (some are briefly cited on the book jacket itself).
Although well-intentioned in their assessments, they miss serious problems in
the text reviewed, which we would like to point out here.
Upon an investigation of Madhva's unknown sources, Mesquita concludes
that Madhva himself is the author of them, and that "we should assume that all
the unknown sources of Madhva are not 'finished products', but merely 'work-
titles', which Madhva employs as a loop (sic) to hang up his literary
compositions" (p. 175). Madhva commits the fraud in honesty, for he "is
sincerely and firmly convinced that he was acting on the command of Visnu" (p.
176). Mesquita has a detailed discussion (pp. 35-62) ofthe avatara doctrine of
Madhva, and indicates how Madhva's claim of being the third incarnation of
Väyu, a god he describes as close to Visnu, is pertinent in this regard (pp. 63-
87).
Mesquita's monograph upon the subject of Madhva's unknown sources is a
welcome foray into the subject, just touched upon by previous authors like
Suzanne Siauve (Doctrine de Madhva, Pondicherry, 1968), and B.N.K. Sharma
(History ofthe Dvaita School ofVedanta, 3d. ed., Motilal Banarsidass, 2000). It
however makes factual enors of a type not generally expected in mature
scholarship, and is thus suspect in its core assessments.
The chief difficulty with Mesquita's work is that his research is
monumentally incomplete, so he presents a distorted picture that does little to

1
Corresponding author.
2 Mesquita, Roque: Madhva's Unknown Literary Sources: Some Observations. Aditya Praka¬
shan, 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.
182 Shrisha Rao and B.N.K. Sharma

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 Madhva's 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 Madhva's 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 a few
of the "fictitious" sources (with an emphasis on the Sruti sources, which are
thoroughly researched), and also point out other enors in the claims Mesquita
presents as facts. We intend the following solely as a template for further
thorough research, rather than as an exhaustive resource in itself.3
One improvement in the English version over the original German text is
the availability of indices, so that names, "fictitious" titles, etc., may be readily
cross-referenced with the pertinent pages in the book. Taking this into account,
we do not necessarily cite every instance where an unknown source is discussed
by Mesquita.

2. Some "fictitious" sources

Mesquita (pp. 30-31) cites with apparent approval the list of unfamiliar sources
from Madhva's BSBh. objected to by Appayyadlksita (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
traditionalist's claims, a rather odd thing for a modern scholar to do. Mesquita
also is apparently unaware of the reply to Appayyadlksita by his Mädhva
contemporaries Vijayïndra Tïrtha4 and Näräyanäcärya5, whom he completely
fails even to mention. The work of Vijayïndra has been published.6

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: Mäyävaibhava Samhitä, Hayagrîva
Samhitä, etc., used by Madhva, are titles of available Pâncarâtra texts or fragments.
Cf. B. N. K. Sharma, History ofthe Dvaita School of Vedänta, 3rd ed., 2000, pp. 403-404.
 Madhva ' s unknown sources A Review : 183

Here are some "fictitious" sources of Madhva, and independent evidences

of their reality—

2.1 Paingi-Sruti
In footnote 49 on page 39, and elsewhere, Mesquita calls a Sruti text of Madhva
with the label Paingi unknown, following Appayyadlksita. In fact:

1. In the Käsikä commentary7 (pp. 192-193) on Pänini's Astädhyäyi 4.3.105,

we find the statement kalpesu paingi kalpah, showing that this was an
important recension with its own Kalpa-sütra. Patanjali's Mahâbhâsya on
4.2.66 also refers to the same, and indicates that said Kalpa-sütra was
actually available to him: evamapi painglkalpah aträpipräpnoti.
2. A manuscript of a Paingäyani Brähmana is reported by Oppert8 (p. 22, no.
390) to have been in the possession of one Venkataräma 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 Oppert's catalog does not give any
accurate contact information on his informants).
3. Paingi Grhya (further evidence of a robust recension) is quoted by the
following9 (pp. 187, et seq.) traditional commentators—Haradatta on
Äpastambha Grhya 8.21.9, Maskat! on Gautama Dharmasütra 14.6.17; the
Paingi Dharmasütra is quoted in the Smrticandrikä (Asaucakhanda).
4. Paingi is counted as one of the Säkhas of the Rg Veda by the
Prapancahrdaya10, a pre-Rämänuja text, in its second chapter (Veda
Prakarana).

5 Ibid., pp. 437-438.

6 Madhvamatamukhabhüsana, Gurusärvabhauma Samskrta Vidyapîtha, Mantralayam, 1994.
7 Käsikä—(A Commentary on Pänini's Astädhyäyi) of Vämana and Jayäditya with Nyäsa (or
Käsikä Vivaranapanjikä) of Jinendrabuddhi and Padamanjari of Haradatta Mishra with
Bhävabodhinl—A Hindi exposition by Dr. Jaya Shankar Lai Tripathi, Vol.5 (Adhyäyas 4.2-
5.1), Tara Book Agency, Varanasi, 1988.
8 Gustav Oppert: Lists of Sanskrit Manuscripts in Private Libraries of South India, Vol. 2.
Govt. Press, Madras: 1885.
9 Datta, Bhagavad and Satya Shrava: Vaidik Vähmaya kä Itihäs, vol. I. Pranava Prakashan,
Delhi: 1978.
10 Ganapatisastrï, T; 1915; Prapancahrdaya; Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, vol. 45; Trivandrum.
Reprinted in 1987 by Yudhishthira Mimamsaka (Ramalal Kapoor Trust, Bahalagarh, district
Sonepat).
184 Shrisha Rao and B.N.K. Sharma

5. Teachers ofthe Paingi clan are quoted in numerous pre-Madhva texts, e.g.,
Shankhäyana Brähmana 16.9; Patanjali's Sämavedlya Nidänasütra 4.7;
Brhadâranyaka Upanisad 6.3.16 (Madhuka Paingya is mentioned).
6. The Paingäyani Brähmana is twice quoted in the Äpastambha Srauta-sütra
(at 5.14.18 and 5.29.4).11
7. There are literally dozens of citations from Paingi, Paingäyani, and
Paingala Brähmanas which have been collected by Satya Shrava, pp. 45-
4812, and by Ghosh.13 For brevity, we do not list them all here.
8. A Paingi-Sruti (having an Upanisadic flavor) is quoted by Sudarshana Suri
(a disciple of Rämänuja) in his Srutapradlpikä, as well as in the
Srutaprakäsikä in the catuhsûtrïportions. These are the same as that quoted
by Sankaräcärya in his own commentary14 on the Brahma Sütras, but SS
quotes a few more words. Thus, early authors from the other two Vedäntic
streams also cite this source.

2.2 Bhällaveya-Sruti

In footnote 17 on page 21, and elsewhere, Mesquita calls a Sruti text of Madhva
with the label Bhällaveya unknown, also following Appayyadlksita. In fact:

1. As before, in the Käsikä commentary15 on Pänini's Astädhyäyi 4.3.105, we

find the statement brähmanesu tävat—bhällavinah, refening to a Brähmana
text of this recension. The commentary Nyäsa shows that the recension was
named after its progenitor Bhallu.
2. According to Ramanatha Dikshitar16, manuscripts of the Bhällavi
Brähmana of the Säma Veda are still said to exist in North India (p. 207).
These need to be traced and published.
3. The Bhällaveya-SVwz'z is also quoted by Sankara in his BSBh. (3.3.26) and
by his disciple Suresvara in his Brhadvärtika (2.4.26).
4. Satya Shrava17 (pp. 66-68) shows that the following pre-Madhva sources all
reference the Bhällaveyas: Venkatamädhava (commentator on several texts

11 Makoto Fushimi: "Brähmana passages in Äpastambha-Srautasütra." In: Electronic Journal

of Vedic Studies (EJVS) 4-1 (1998), p. 11.
12 Satya Shrava: A Comprehensive History of Vedic Literature—Brähmana and Äranyaka
Works. Pranava Prakashan, Delhi: 1977.
13 Batakrishna Ghosh: Collection of the Fragments of Lost Brähmanas, 1935; reprinted as
Panini Vaidika Granthamälä 9. Distributors, Meharchand Lachhmandas, New Delhi: 1982.
14 The Catuh-Sûtrl Bhäsya ofMadhväcärya. B.N.K. Sharma, Madras: 1934.
15 See footnote 7 above.
16 M. Ramanatha Dikshitar: Sämasärasarwaswam. Rämayana Printing Works, Madras: 1972.
 Madhva's unknown sources: A Review 185

ofthe Rg Veda); Patanjali's Mahâbhâsya on 4.2.66 and 4.3.105 (from this

context it is clear that a recension ofthe SV is implied); Näradasiksä 1.13;
Jaiminïya Brähmana 3.125; Jaiminïya Upanisad Brähmana 2.4.7;
Upagranthasütra 1.10 of Kätyäyana; Bhäsikäsütra 3.15 of Kätyäyana;
Tandy a Brähmana 2.2.4.
5. Ghosh18 gives citations (pp. 110-111) of "this well-known school ofthe
Sämaveda" from the following: Brhaddevatä 5.21-23 and 5.159,
Drähyäyana-srauta-sütra 3.4.2, Baudhäyana Dharmasütra 1.2.11-12—and
also indicates other places where citations may be found.

2.3 Sauparna-Sruti

In Madhva's Visnu-Tattva-Vinirnaya, one finds a quote labeled iti sauparna-

srutih. This is, Mesquita thinks, a "loop" for one of Madhva's own productions.
However, a clue about the origin of this Sruti is to be found in another of
Madhva's own works, the Gltä-Tätparya-Nirnaya 2.25, whence he references a
quote with the label, iti rgvede sauparnasäkhäyäm. Accordingly:

1. In the Kashmir Khila Samhitä, the Suparna Adhyäya comprises the whole
of Adhyäya 1 of 11 süktas (79 mantras in all). However, a manuscript of
the Suparna Adhyäya having an extent of 214 slokas (i.e., 214 x 32
syllables) exists in the collection ofthe Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal19
(p. 240, entry 172).
2. In addition, there is one more Suparna Adhyäya20 translated into English.
3. In her work on the khila texts of the Rg Veda, Bhise21 discusses some
Sauparna hymns, and translates them as well.

Our sources indicate that many manuscripts of the Sauparna recension of the Rg
Veda still exist in India; these need to be collated and published.

17 See footnote 12 above.

18 See footnote 13 above.
19 Mahämahopädhyäya Hariprasad Shastri: A Descriptive Catalog of Sanskrit Manuscripts in
the Government Collection under the Care ofthe Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. II—Vedic
Manuscripts; Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta: 1923.
20 Dange, Sadashiv A.: Divine Hymns and Ancient Thought Ritual and the Quest for Truth.
Navrang, New Delhi: 1995 (vol. II, pp. 292-301).
21 The Khila-Suktas ofthe Rgveda: A Study. Usha R. Bhise, BORI, Poona: 1995. Bhandarkar
Oriental Series #27.
186 Shrisha Rao and B.N.K. Sharma

2.4 Vatsa-Sruti

This is source objected to as fictitious by Appayyadlksita, and following him,

a
by Mesquita also. In fact:

1. In the Visnu Puräna22, the recensions of various Vedas is discussed, and a

guru-sisya paramparä is described from Paila, one of the direct disciples of
Vyäsa. There (verse 3.4.22), each of the following five disciples of
Devamitra Säkalya are mentioned as having received a Samhitä each ofthe
RV from their Guru: Mudgala, Galava, Vatsa, Säliya, Sisira. These all
conespond to Vedic recensions only: a Sisira säkhä is known, as are the
RV Kramapatha of Bäbhravya Galava, and the Mudgala Upanisad. This is
strong collateral evidence for the onetime existence of the Vatsa säkhä also
(remnants may still remain).
2. The Mahâbhâsya of Patanjali23 at 4.2.104 reads Gärgakam Vätsakam \ \

Maudakam Paippalädakam Käläpakam, etc.—the other names on the

\ \

list are of Vedic recensions: Mauda and Paippaläda of AV, Käläpaka the
same as Maiträyarü, Gärga of SV—so must 'Vatsa' also be.
3. All the versions of the ancient text Caranavyüha clearly state24 that Vatsa
(also called Paundravatsa) was a school ofthe Vâjasaneyî Yajur Veda.
4. Hemädri (13th cent.) has quoted the Vatsa Grhya25. Once more, the
existence of a Grhya is strong evidence for the recension.
5. The Vedavrksa26 mentions a YV säkhä named Paundravatsa.

2.5 Other "fictitious"titles

For brevity, we mention just in passing some of the other "fictitious" titles used
by Madhva:

2.5.1 Uddälaka-Sruti

Uddâlaka the son of Aruni belonged to the Gautama clan27 (pp. 187-188), for
which reason he is also called Aruni. The Prapancahrdaya mentions Gautama as

22 See footnote 9 above.

23 Ibid., p. 165.
24 Ibid., p. 213.
25 Ibid., p. 165.
26 Witzel, Michael: Materialien zu den vedischen Schulen (I. Ueber die Caraka-Sakha).
Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik, vol. 8/9; 1982/3; pp. 171-240.
27 See footnote 9 above.
 Madhva's unknown sources: A Review 187

a sakhä of the RV(and also of the SV); an "Uddalaka-Sruti" could come from
either source. (Madhva also cites a Gautama-ÄMa in his Gita Bhäsya, 10.41.)

2.5.2 Indradyumna-Sruti

This is related to the Bhällaveyas, or could even be part of them. For instance,
note the following passage from the Känva Satapatha Brähmana:28

2.7.1.16 In that matter, Indradyumna Bhällaveya made [use of] an anustubh [verse] as
prayer of invitation and a tristubh [verse] as the offering prayer, thinking, "Let me thus
enclose on both sides (or let me obtain from both)." He fell down from this chariot. Having
fallen from the chariot, he broke (dislocated) his arm.

Mention of an Indradyumna Bhällaveya may also be found elsewhere, e.g., in

the Chândogya Upanisad, 5.14.1.

2.5.3 Agnivesya-Sruti and Kaundinya-Sruti

Agnivesya and Kaundinya, the progenitors of the recensions bearing their

names, are said to have been disciples of Vadhula, which is a full-fledged säkhä
now found in Kerala. The Ananda Samhitä—a Vaikhänasa text, clearly mentions
the Kalpas of these two säkhas. The Tantravärttika of Kumârila Bhatta (1.3.11)
also mentions the Kaundinya Kalpa. The Pravaramanjart of Purusottama also
quotes the Kaundinya Srautasütra29 (pp. 237-238).
At this time, the remnants of the Agnivesyas may be found in the Tanjore
region among the Dikshitar Saivites. They use the Taittiriya YV, and their
tradition might now be extinct.30

2.5.4 Pippaläda-Säkhä

An Atharva Veda recension bearing the name is well known (and has been
published); it, or associated Brähmana and such literature, could easily qualify
for the name.
The Pippaläda school is also alluded to by the Mahâbhâsya of Patanjali at
4.2.104 (cited previously) and 4.2.66.

28 Swaminathan, C. R. Känvasatapathabrähmanam, vol. II. Indira Gandhi National Center for

Arts, New Delhi: 1997. Comprises Kända II and III ofthe text.
29 See footnote 9 above.
30 M. Witzel, personal communication.
188 Shrisha Rao and B.N.K. Sharma

2.5.5 Vyasa-Smrti

This is not, as Mesquita appears to assume, simply a loose tag applied to a

mixture of some proportion of Puränic sources as well as Madhva's own secret
compositions, but is an independent dharmasâstra treatise in its own name. It is
quoted from by Sankara under Gaudapäda-Kärikä 2.31, as well as by others in
many other places. The editors of the Dharmakosa series out of Pune (vol. 1,
1937) state that they have tried to reconstruct this and other rare Smrtis from
quotations found in various works. P.V. Kane31 discusses this source also.
We have heard that the complete Vyäsa-Smrti is part of a collection of
Smrti texts published from Calcutta, but do not have an exact reference.

2.5.6 Bhavisyatparva

This is a name given to the last part of the Hari-vamsa; Mesquita (pp. 62, fn.
103) adduces no reasons whatsoever for saying that it has "nothing to do" with
that text. (The mere assertion that a quote is not found there is not sufficient—
see section 3.) Names at a second level (names for parts of texts) such as
Moksadharma are used by Madhva. The name can also refer to the last Parva of
the Mahâbhârata itself—see the opening remarks of Räghavendra32 (p. 1) in his
Gltä-Vivrti, where he names the eighteen Parvas of the Mbh., using this name
for the last.

2.5.7 Mahäsamhitä

This is a Pâncarâtra work also known as the Sanatkumära Samhitä. It is divided

into five major sections each called a Rätra. It has been published.33
Unfortunately, all manuscripts the editors could find were mutilated, so the final
Rätra called Brhaspati-Rätra is missing, as are significant parts of others as well.
The colophon, which uses the name Mahä Samhitä, states that the text contains
of the order of 10,000 verses (11,000 according to one manuscript) while the
published text has ofthe order of 6000 verses, the rest being lost.

31 Pändurang Vaman Kane: History of Dharmasâstra (Ancient and Medieval Religious and
Civil Law), Vol. 1. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona: 1930.
32 Räghavendrayatikrtah Gïtarthasangrahah (Gïtavivrtih). Editors A. R. Panchamukhi, Raja S.
Pavamanacharya. Gurusärvabhauma Sanskrtavidyapïtha, Räghavendra Swämi Matha,
Manträlaya: 1995.
33 Sanatkumära Samhitä ofthe Pancaräträgama. Ed. Pandit V. Krishnamacharya (Foreword
by Dr. V. Raghavan). The Adyar Library and Research Centre, Madras: 1969.
 Madhva's unknown sources: A Review 189

2.5.8 Laksanasästra

An unknown text called a laksana-sästra by Madhva is found quoted in his

MBTN, chapter nine. The fragment from which the verse is quoted is found in
two manuscripts, and has been published; its editor surmises that it may be from
the Brahmända Puräna.34

3. "Fictitious" quotes from known works

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 Brahmända Puräna

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 ofthe major Puränas, Banerji35 says (p. 25):

None of the many verses from the Brahmända quoted by Hemädri (13th cent.) in his
Caturvarga-Cintämani occurs in the extant Brahmända Puräna. This naturally raises the
suspicion that the present Puräna is, to a great extent, different from the genuine Brahmända
Puräna. The contents ofthe extant Brahmända Puräna [also] do not accord well with what is
stated [about them] in the Matsya Puräna.

3.2 Garuda Puräna

This is another source of Madhva that has a similar problem. Even here, Banerji
says we have the same difficulty:36

34 Mahäbhäratatätparyanirnayah: Sri Vädiräjatlrthasnpädapranltayä Bhävaprakasikäkhyavyä-

khyayä sametah, ed. V. Prabhanjanacarya, Sri Vyasa Madhwa Seva Pratisthana: supported
by Prof. B. Venkateshacharya Memorial Trust, Bangalore: 1998.
35 Sures Chandra Banerji: Studies in the Mahäpuränas. Punthi Pustak, Calcutta: 1991.
36 Ibid., p. 30.
190 Shrisha Rao and B.N.K. Sharma

The contents of the extant Garuda do not tally with those mentioned in the Matsya, Skanda,
and Agni [Purânas]. Not a single one ofthe many verses attributed to the Garuda by early
writers like Madhväcärya, Devanabhatta, Hemädri, Mädhaväcärya, Sülapäni, etc., is found
in the present version. These reasons warrant the assumption that there was an earlier
version ofthe Garuda.

Similar problems exist with other Puränas also—refer Banerji. Mesquita uses
just one published version of each text he refers to, which would cause problems
even in other cases than Madhva's quotes, because the published texts do vary
significantly from one another.

3.3 Mahä Upanisad

This is an extant Upanisad quoted from by Madhva (and also Rämänuja in his
BSBh. on 1.1.1), but none ofthe quotes said by Madhva to have come from this
source are to be found there. In this regard, the editors of the Dharmakosa
series37 opine (p. 4), based on their reading of the work itself, that the text
presently known as Mahä Upanisad "is collected from the original Mahä Upanisad,
and the [present] text is a quotation from the latter."

4. Arguing for the Authorship of Madhva

Most of the arguments Mesquita offers for the authorship of Madhva are
predicated upon the inconect assumption that there indeed is no trace of the
sources except Madhva's 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 enors in
Mesquita's analysis.
The claim of Madhva that certain texts called Tattva-viveka, etc., were
authored by Visnu or Näräyana comes from the Vaisnava doctrine that all ofthe
traditional Pâncarâtra texts were authored by Näräyana:

pahcarätrasya krtsnasya vaktä (vetta) näräyanah (tu bhagavân) svayam^

37 Dharmakosa. Upanisatkända, vol. 2, part 2, Pune: 1949.

38 Mbh. 12.337.63, also quoted by Madhva in the second chapter of his Mahäbhärata-
Tätparya-Nirnaya.
 Madhva's unknown sources: A Review 191

Whether there were, or are, Pancarätric texts named Tattva-nirnaya, etc., and
indeed whether any modern scholar would glibly accept the claim that the entire
genre of such texts was authored by Näräyana are issues to be discussed, of
course, but Mesquita is nonetheless in enor for not having raised them, and for
having mis-stated Madhva's position.
Mesquita claims (pp. 93 et seq.) that Madhva's commentator Jayatlrtha
refers to the unknown source "Brahma Tarka" as a "lost work," vide his
statement atltena prabandhena uktam. However, the phrase atlta 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 Jayatlrtha39 is seen in his commentary on Madhva's commentary
on the Isäväsya Upanisad, verse 15, where he says iti atïtagranthena uktam in
reference to verse 6 of that Upanisad itself. Madhva gives the extent of the
Brahma Tarka as 5000 verses, etc., in verses 74, et seq., of his Anu-Vyäkhyäna,
in commenting upon which not only does Jayatlrtha not state that a "lost" text is
being refened to, but argues for why the Brahma Tarka only, rather than the
traditional Nyäya and other texts, must be accepted by all Vedäntins.

5. Madhva's Critics and Non-Critics

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 Venkatanätha were of Madhva's own time,40 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 conelated with Madhva except by a stretch of Mesquita's ill-
founded imagination. The fact remains that the first opponent to clearly accuse
Madhva was Appayyadlksita, 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 Vijayïndra Tïrtha felt the need to respond to the charge, as
surely would have been done had it been known before then. It is not plausible

39 See the publication of the Isavasya with commentaries that is available online from
http://www.dvaita.net (ISBN 0-9703421-2-8).
40 We do not in fact accept this, noting that Mesquita confounds the 17th-century
Venkatanätha, who was a critic of Madhva, with the 13th-century Vedänta Desika, who was
not. This issue and related ones are discussed at length elsewhere; see foonote 3 above.
192 Shrisha Rao and B.N.K. Sharma

that such charge made would have been ignored, since Jayatlrtha and others
a
were quick to consider and explain other charges against Madhva.
These issues have already been discussed by Sharma41 in extenso under the
rubrics 'Problem of Sources' (pp. 87-89) and 'Problem of Untraceable Texts'
(pp. 437-438). 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 Vyäsaräya (1460-1539), who
initiated the polemical battle between Dvaita and Advaita with his Nyäyämrta,
quotes some of Madhva's supposedly "fictitious" sources as authorities in his
favor, and his opponent Madhusüdana Saraswatï, 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 side's
favor.
For instance, Vyäsaräya quotes a line attributed to the Brahma-Tarka in the
Visnu-tattva-vinirnaya, in the first pariccheda, under the topic pratyaksasya
jätyä upakramädinyäyaisca präbalyam.42 Note particularly the following:

präbalyamägamasyaiva jätyä tesu trisu smrtam" iti tu vaidikärthavisayam \

In response, the Advaitasiddhi says:43

tadagrhltagrähitvamapi na präbalye prayojakam [...]

—and specifically concludes with:

pratyuta ägamasyaiva sarvatah präbalyam smäryate

— "präbalyamägamasyaiva jätyä tesu trisu smrtam " iti \

na ca tad vaidikärthavisayam ' Iti väcyam,

advaitasyäpi vaidikärthavisayatvät\ \

Similarly, the Nyäyämrta quotes a verse attributed to the Parama-Sruti in the

Visnu-tattva-vinirnaya:44

41 B.N.K. Sharma; see footnote 4.

42 Number 20, page 276, Volume Nyäyämrta-Advaitasiddhi with commentaries. Dvaita
1,
Vedanta Studies and Research Foundation, Bangalore: 1994.
43 Ibid., p. 279.
44 DVSRF edition, Vol. 2, Number 33, page 490.
 Madhva's unknown sources: A Review 193

ahamityeva yo vedyah sa jîva iti kïrtitah

|

sa duhkhïsa sukhï calva sapätram bandhamoksayoh ||

iti srutau moksänvayoktesca \

The Advaitasiddhi response is seen to accept the validity of the quote offered.45
As such, the conclusions are that the question of unknown sources never
figured in the Nyäyämrta-Advaitasiddhi debate, the locus classicus for the
criticism—and defense—of Madhva, and that criticism of his sources was not
uniformly made from his time on, unlike the impression conveyed by Mesquita.

6. Conclusion

The bogey of unknown and untraceable quotations was raised against Madhva
by disgruntled critics like Appayyadlksita for the first time centuries after
Madhva, and was of only a nuisance value. Appayyadlksita never contested the
Nyäyämrta or Candrikä composed near his own time, though he survived the
demise of their author Vyasatïrtha by a good 40 years or more. He thought it
wise to leave it to better men like the far-off Madhusüdana Saraswatï 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 Madhva's alleged departures from Päninian grammar,
language, and idiom; or his alleged metrical lapses and so forth. The attempts
had only a nuisance value but even these inelevant criticisms were repulsed then
and there by doughty scholars of Dvaita like Vijayïndra and Näräyanäcärya.
Madhva's disciple Aksobhya debated with Vidyäranya on tattvamasi in a
vada umpired by the great Vedänta Desika and was declared the victor. As a
result, Madhva's system was given a place in the Sarvadarsana Sangraha, which
could not have been done if Madhva's 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 Madhva's 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

45 Ibid., p. 498.
194 Shrisha Rao and B.N.K. Sharma

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 Mesquita's 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.