कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Madhavācārya

A vast mass of literature has accumulated on the history of Sayana, Madhava, Vidyaranya, the foundation of Vijayanagara, the relations of these three with the founding of the city of Vijayanagara and their relations with the kings of Vijayanagara, the identity of Madhava and Vidyāranya and so on. It is not possible to discuss the whole mass of evidence. Attention will have to be fixed in this work mainly on the contributions of Madhavācārya to Dharmasastra.

It must be stated that sectarian zeal, local patriotisms, person al inclinations and prejudices appear to have played havoc with the Mss, of the works of Sāyana and Madhava and inscriptions and copperplates relating to them. An instance may be cited to illustrate this. There are only six introductory verses in the bhāsya on the Rgveda. Attempts appear to have been made to tamper with verses 3 and 4 ( as shown in the note).1166 As to serious disputes between persons belonging to different religions persua sions, reference may be made to the petition made by Jains that the bhaktas (Vaiṣṇavas) were killing them (Vide Prof. B. R. Sala tore’s Vol. I. p. 103).

TT.

1166

Vide the review of Vijayanagara-Origin of the City and the Empire’ by Dr. N. Venkataramanayya in J, A. H. R. S. Vol. IX. pp. 49-54 ( by K. Iswara Dutt), in which it is pointed out that there are three main theories viz. (1) Hoysala origin propounded by messrs Krishna Swaini Aiyyangar and Krishna Shastri; (2) the Canarese sources advocated by Father Heras and Mr. Hayavadana kao and (3) the Andhra origin spon sored by Vincent Smith and Dr. Venkataramaniah. Tehetetu तद्रूपं दधद् बुक्कमहीपतिः। आदिशन्माधवाचार्य वेदार्थस्य प्रकाशने ।। ये पूर्वोत्तर मीमांसे ते व्याख्यायति सङ्ग्रहात् । कृपालुर्माधवाचार्यों वेदार्थ वक्तुमुद्यतः।। verses 3 and 4 of the Intro. to the bhāsya o! RV. Samhitā. It will be seen that some Mss, used by the editors of the Poona Vaidika Sariisodhana Manlala read in verse 3 सायणाचार्य for माधवाचार्य and in verse four सायणाचार्यों for माधवाचार्यों and four mss. read two more verses after verse 3 as follows — H E TEET सायणार्यों ममानुजः । सर्व वेत्त्येष वेदानां व्याख्यातृत्वेन मुज्यताम् ।। इत्युक्तो माध argu arengtufa: (strautica i v. l. RS) ATAUTO ariel

Madhavācārya

779

Madhavācārya is the brightest star in the galaxy of daksinatya authors on dharmaśāstra. His fame stands only second to that of the great Saṅkarācārya. He had a most versatile genius and either himself wrote or inspired his brother Sāyaṇa and others to write voluminous works on almost all branches of Sanskrit literature, As an erudite scholar, as a far-sighted statesman, as the bulwark of the Vijayanagara kingdom in the first days of its foundation, as a saṁnyasin given to peaceful contemplation and renunciation in old age, he led such a varied and useful life that even to this day his is a name to conjure with. Among his numerous works two deserve special mention here, viz., the Parāśara-madhaviya his commentary on the Parāśarasmṛti and the Kālanirṇaya.

The Parāśara-madhaviya has been published several times, the edition in the B. I. Series and in the Bombay Sanskrit Series being the best known. In the following the Bombay edition has been used. This work is very extensive and occupies about 2300 print ed pages in the Bombay edition. It is not a mere commentary on Parāsara’s text, but is in the nature of a digest of civil and religious law. The original smrti of Parāsara contains no verses on vyavahāra but Mādliavācārya hangs on the slender peg of a single verse of Parāśaral167 calling upon the king to rule bis subjects with righteous ness, has treatise on vyavahāra that covers a little over a fourth part of the whole commentary (vide note 491 above on Parāśara). The Parāśara-madhaviya is a work of authority on modern Hindu Law in southern India. 1108 His style is lucid and he generally avoids lengthy and abstruse discussions. Besides numerous smrti kāras and purāṇas he names the following authors and works— Aparārka, Devasvāmin, Purāṇasara, Prapañcasāra, Medhātithi, Vivarapakāra (on the Vedāntasutra ), Viśvarūpācārya, Sambhu, Śivasvamin, Smṛticandrika. The Parāsara-madhaviya was amongst his earliest works. He tells us that there was no commentary on Parāsara before him.1169 Raghunandana in Abnikatattva (vol. I. p. 382) expressly says iti Parāśarabhāsye

1167 TERTIFLI I. 58 is : gafareit fe 4541197 vaqtfor: gausa i falfesten

परसैन्यानि क्षितिं धर्मेण पालयेत् ।। 1168 2 Mad. H.C. R. p. 206 at p. 217; 11 Mov. I. A. p. 487 at p. 508;

I. L. R. 35 Mad. 152 at p. 156, 1169 पराशरस्मृतिः पूर्वैर्न व्याख्याता निबन्द्धृभिः । मयातो माधवार्येण तद्व्याख्यायां

qeyd || 9th Intro. verse,

780

Mādhayācāryah’. The Parāśarabhāsya is mentioned by Raghu nandana in ( vol. I.) Tithi pp. 24, 63, Ahnika pp. 343, 359 also.

The Kālanirṇaya of Madhavācārya has been published several times. In the following the B. I. edition has been used. He states that he wrote this work after he composed his commen tary on the Parāsarasmsti. 1170 The work is divided into five prakaranas. The first (Upodghāta ) deals with a scholastic dis quisition on kāla (time) and its real nature; the 2nd (called vatsara ) speaks of the year, its various lengths according as it is candra, sāvana or saura, of the two ayanas, of the seasons and their number, of the months (candra, saura, sāvana and nāksatra) of the intercalary months, and the religious acts allowed and for bidden in intercalary months, of the two pakṣas (fortnights ); the third prakarana (pratipat-prakarana ) deals with the meaning of the word tithi, duration of a tithi, the fifteen tithis of a pakṣa, two kinds of tithis, viz. suddhā (i. e. not intermixed with another tithi on the same day) and viddha (intermixed with another tithi on the same day), rules about the preference of the first tithi for parti cular religious rites and observances (for Gods and Manes ) when intermixed with the preceding and following tithis, the fifteen muhurtas of the day and of the night; the fourth ( dvitiyādi tithi–prakaraṇa ) extends the application of the rules about pratipad to the tithis from the second to the fifteenth and decides on what tithi ( whether inermixed with the preceding or the following ) certain vratas, such as Gaurivrata on the third, Janmāstami on the 8th, were to be performed; the fifth (prakimaka i. e. miscellaneous ) deals with rules about the deter mination of nakṣatras for various acts, the yogas and karanas and rules about samkrānti and eclipses and the actions proper for them.

The Kālanirṇaya besides the names of numesous sages, purāṇas, astronomical and astrological writers mentions the following works and authors :-Kālādarśa (p. 83), Bhoja (as having composed in Aryā metre a work on the Śaiva agama), Muhūtra-vidhana-sāra (p. 341 ). Vateśvarasiddhanta, Vāsiṣtha

1170 व्याख्याय माधवाचार्यो धर्मान्पाराशरानथ । तदनुष्ठानकालस्य निर्णय वक्तुमुद्यतः॥

4th Intro. verse of Fofauja.93. Madhavācārya

781

Rāmāyaṇa, the Siddhanta-siromani ( of Bhāskarācārya ), Hemādri (P. 67 his vratakhanda and Danakhanda ).

The vesres (Karikās ) in the Kālanirṇaya are collected together and sometimes treated as a separate work. Vide Prof. Velankar’s Cat. of the Sanskrit Mss. in the B. B. R. A. S. (pub. in 1925 ) No. 676 and also his Cat. of the Desai collection of Sanskrit Mss. Nos. 197-199 (pub. in 1953 ).

The Kalanirṇaya was published by the A. S. B. (Calcutta ) in 1889, also in the Kashi Sanskrit Series of Benares in 1936 and was also published with the commentary of Laksmidevi Payagunde.

It should not be supposed that Sayana single-handed com posed the Vedabhāsyas. He was probably the chairman of the com mittee of scholars gathered for carrying out the work of the several bhāsyas. From the cnlophons of his several works it appears that he was minister under four kings, viz Bukka I, Kampana, Sargama II and Harihara II, The Mysore Archaeological Report for 1908 para 54 states (under date 1386 A. D.) that Harihara II gave in the presence of Vidyāraṇya a copperplate grant to three scholars who were the promoters (prarartaka) in the matter of the commentaries on the four Vedas, their names being Nārāyaṇa Vājapeyayājin, Narahari Somayājin and Paṇdari Dikṣita. Father Heras admits that he himself referred to Vidyāranya as the great helper of Harihara in the foundation of Vijayanagara, but later he grew wiser and says that it was his mistake (vide ‘Beginnings’ &c. p. 14).

Even Father Heras concedes that the stone inscription in E. C. VI Sgi of 1346 A. D. is genuine. It records a grant, after obeisance to Vidyātirtha, by Harihara of nine villages to Bharatitirtha Sripida, his disciples and others and 40 brāhmaṇas residing in that tirtha of Sringeri. Father Heras ( on pp. 19-28 of his work ) gives a catalogue of 196 inscriptions from 1336 A. D. to 1669 A D. Father Heras summarises on p. 18 of his work the principal, historical events in the life of Vidyaranya con nected with Vijayanagara In 1347 Vidyaranya was a minister of Mārapa in the kingdom of Banavāsi – twelve thousand; in 1356 he was at Benares, but had to return to Vijayanagara as he was ordered to do so by his guru Vidyātirtha; in 1368 he was a great minister (Mahāpradhana) of Bukka 1; in 1380 he is

782

mentioned as Jagadguru; his teachings benefitted Harihara II in

1384; in 1386 he died at Hampi and an inscription of Harihara II contains a funeral eulogy of the learned Guru. Heras insists that he was not Jagad-guru in 1346 or 1356. He further holds that Vijayanagara was purposely corrupted into Vidyānagara; only 54 out of 196 Inscriptions exhibit this form of Vidyanagara; while 111 all give the name Vijayanagara and only 31 refer to the ancient name of the city. Father Heras rounds off the examination of the several inscriptions and grants with the following conclusion (p. 34 of. Beginning &c.’): ‘Hence it may be concluded that the ascetics of the Sringerimath fabricated the story of Vidyāraṇya as the founder of the city and Empire of Vijayanagara in the beginning of the 16th century. And it seems most probable that the fabrication of the whole story and the falsification of a great number, if not of all the spurious grants above referred to, was perpetrated during the rule of Ramchandra Bharati who directed the Sringeri Matra from 1508 to 1560". This is not the place to enter upon an examination of Father Heras’ reasons for this conclusion. But I cannot avoid the temptation of quoting one of the reasons set forth by Heras as it is well worth quoting. It is : ‘Finally such religious ascetics and recluses psychologically are persons often inclined to fabricate such fables’. Then he winds up with the remark ‘Hence that fabrication of a story which one may derive a profit from - provided no harm should result from the concoction to a third person - is always attractive to such religious recluses’. This is a grand generalisation of Father Heras. He adduces no evidence except his ipse dixit; comment is superfluous. I hope that Heras would have agreed to apply that dictum to the priests of all religions, as an English poet says the priests of all religions are the same’.

In this History of Dharmaśāstra the discussion of the vexed question of the connection of Madhava-Vidyāranya with the foun ding of Vijayanagara is not necessary or relevant. The only important question for the History is the identity of Madhava and Vidyāranya. That Vidyaranya presided over the Sringeri Matha is admitted even by Father Heras. That Madhava became a Sannyasin and became known as Vidyāraṇya is a tradition of long standing. There is some literary evidence also to substantiate this.

Madharacārya

783

Vidyāranya is the author of several works such as the Jivanmukti viveka and the Pañcadasī. The former of these two has several Introductory verses, one of which ( verse 9 ) 1171 says that some sannyasins are called “Kuticaka’ or Bahūdaka’; they are * tridandios’, but the paramahamsa’ is different and that the first two have been dealt with by us (me) in the commentary on Parāsara-smsti, while the Paramahamsa would be expatiated upon in this work (i. e. Jivanmukti-viveka ).

Other questions are: (1) Who founded Vijayanagara and (2) whether Madhava is identical with Vidyaranya. From the days of Sewell, who wrote the hook Forgotten Empire’ on Vijayanagara Empire, many works and papers on the subject of the founder or founders of Vijayanagara have appeared. Vide, the example, " The origin of the city of Vijayanagara and Empire’ by Dr. N. Venkata Ramanayya (University of Madras 1933 ), Dr. B. R. Salatore on Rajguru of the founders of Vijayanagara and the Pontiffs of Sringeri Matha’ in J. A. H. R, vol. IX part 4 pp. 33-42 and his two volumes on Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire’ (1934, in obout 1000 pages); Journal of Mythic Society, vol. 27 pp. 54-107 ( foundation of Vijayanagara ); * Founders of Vijayanagara’ by S. Srikantayya (1938); Mr. Gopinath Rao in £. I. vol. XV pp. 10–15. Mr. Srikantayya observ es on p. 43 Who founded Vijayanagara? The question still remains unanswered ..

On the question of the identity of Madhava and Vidyāranya a few references are given here. In I. H. Q. vol. VI pp. 701 717 and vol. VII p. 78 ff. Mr. R. Ramrao tries to negative the identity. In I. H. Q. vol. VIII pp. 611-644 K. Markandeya Sastri replies at length to R. Ramrao. R. Rarmrao returns to the charge in I, H. Q. vol. X pp. 801-810; Journal of Indian History vol. XII pp. 241-250 ( Doraiswamy Iyengar rejects the identity of Madhava and Vidyaranya ). The present author holds that Madhava and Vidyāraṇya are identical.

1171 gatashag a Facfugni…. gaat T WATFITT: A TIT: YTTE

Fatin e SHIRTSTÜ EA fafand il verses 9 and 11 of Fitanfanfaa. The last verse of titao js: fartfalena T निवारयन् । पुमर्थमखिलं देवाद्विद्यातीर्थमहेश्वरः ।।

784

There are, apart from traditions and chronicles several inscriptions that bear on the connection of Mādbavācārya or Vidyaranya with the several kings of Vijayanagara. Father Heras in his work called · Beginnings of Vijyanagar History’ goes so far as to say that practically all inscriptions relating to the Vidya ranya tradition or to the connection of Vidyāraṇya with Harihara and Bukka in political and imperial undertakings are spurious or must be certainly looked upon with suspicion. His remarks are very sweeping and cannot be accepted as embodying the truth. At least about 200 inscriptions and grants relating to Vijayanagara are known. The scholars must try to separate the spurious ones from the others. There is no reason to damn all grants and Inscrip tions referring to Vidyaranya. He was a Sannyasin and had renounced the world. It is too much to suppose that he forged grants. If one holds that he did so, then the question arises, for what benefit or for whose benefit? Besides copperplate grants can be easily fabricated and passed off; but Incriptions on stone are generally in public places such as roads, temples, tops of hills, where all members of the public can observe them everyday. A scholar must think long before damning an inscription on stone as a forgery.

There is no doubt that in the 13th century A. D. and after wards Hindu society in South India was ridden with the wrangles and quarrels of the followers of Saṅkarācārya, Mādhavācārya, Rāmānujācārya and of Lingayats and Jains and that individuals of some persuasions tampered with mss. to bolster up their indivi dual preferences, leanings and beliefs. This may be illustrated by citing the Introduction of Sāyaṇācārya’s bhāsya as done above.

Sāyaṇācārya’s bhāsyallia on the Yajurveda-samhitā is once mentioned by Raghunandana (vol. I, Sraddha p. 277 as quoted below). But Madhavācārya is frequently quoted by him. For example, the Kalamadhaviva is quoted very often as on ( vol. I) Tithi pp. 1, 6, 8, 16, 33, 48, 69 as Kalamadhaviya or Madhava carya, Śrāddha p. 283; the Parāsarabhāsya of Mādhavācārya is mentioned in (vol. I) Ahnika on pp. 336, 382 and simply as

1172 TUTTI 2015TT TRII qrifa ratato FraTIZTETT I 16

ara p. 277 ( vol ofāā game is a mantril of the Sukla yaju: vedo (Madhyandina I. 12 and Kāṇva-samhitā I. 16)

Madhavācārya

785

Madhavācārya also in many places e. g. ( vol. I ), ‘Mala pp. 771, 781, 794 (definition of the word Mantra ).

A good deal about the family and personal history of Mādhavācārya can be gleaned from the above mentioned two works and other treatises of Madhavācārya. From the Parāśara madhaviya we1173 learn that he was the son of Māyaṇa and Srimati, that Sayana and Bhoganātha1174 were his younger brothers, that he was a student of the black Yajurveda and of the Baudhāyana-sūtra-carana and belonged to the Bhāradvāja gotra. The introductory verses and the colophon of the Prayascitta-sudhānidhi 175 of Sayana corroborate most of these particulars. A verse at the beginning of the Kālanirṇaya tells us that Vidyātirtha, Bharatitirtha and “rikantha were his

1173 stunt wat gr untijaam: TI! ATTUTT THIETTES HATS & HETZT I

यस्य बौधायणं सूत्रं शाखा यस्य च याजुपी । भारद्वाजं कुलं यस्य सर्वज्ञः स हि

HIY: 11 Intro. verses 6 and 7 of TETTATEERT. 1174 Bboganātha wis a learned inan in his own way. Vide I. A. vol.

45 pp. 22-24 in R. B.R. Narasimhachtr’s paper. He wrote six works viz HZIH, Fati4, ZITURIT, HTMutfana, TFTT

it, tart. He was the composer of the Bitragunta grant of sake 1378 ( 1356 A, 1). !, published in E. I. vol. III. pp. 31-34. In the Alazi, kāra-suillānidhi (vide ‘Indian Culture’ vol. VI. pp. 439-447 ly Jr, P. L. Sastry ) composed by Sāyaṇa the Udābaraṇamālā of ihuganātha is cited. He composed the Bitragunta graut and describes himself as the narmasaciva’ of king Sangama (II). To translate the word ‘Narmasaciva’ as simply “jester’ is not quite accurate (as the editor of the Inscription does ) The idea is : the very learned brothers Sāyaṇa and Madhava (both ministers) were far above play! fulness or the cracking of jokes with the king, but Bhoganatha a poet, being young and less learned than the other two, could, be intimate with the king. The verse quoted in I. A. vol. 45 p. 24 from the Alumkārie-sud hāvidhi indicates this : 34717 प्रणयापराधनिभृतव्यापारदीनात्मनोर्देवीसङ्गमयोः पराङ्मुखतयाप्येकासने तस्थुषोः । मध्ये सायणमन्त्रिणा न भणितं श्री भोगनाथेन वा नोक्तं नर्मसखीजनेन च तदप्यन्योन्यमुद्रीक्षितम् ॥ यस्य मन्त्रिशिरोरत्नमस्ति मायणसायणः । य ख्याति रत्नगर्भेति यथार्थयति पार्थि at 11 and the colophon fa 91TTU HEITTT AT RI HEUTERI &c. Descriptive Cat. of Madras (iont, Sanskrit 139.

vol. VII, p. 2620 No, 3190. The king referred to is FFH. H. D. 99

786

teachers.1176 ’ The Parasara-Madhaviya highly eulogisesium Mādhava, compares him to divine and semi-divine councillors like Ångirasa of Indra and says that he was the hereditary teacher (kulaguru) and mantrin of king Bukkana, (or Bukka). The colophons to the several works of Sāyaṇa, the younger brother of Madhavācārya, show that these brothers were closely connected with four rulers of the Vijayanagar dynasty, viz. Bukka and his son Harihara, Kampa and his son Sangama. In the Yajnatantra-sudhānidhill18 (ms. in the Bhau Daji collec tion ) Sayana, the author of the bhāsyas on the Vedas, is said to be the kulaguru of Harihara, son of Sangama. In the Guruvamsa-kāvya ( Vanivilāsa Press ed.) it is said that Vidya ranya was the pupil of Vidyātirtha, that he composed Veda bhāsyas and published them in the names of Sāyana and Mādhava, that Harihara and Bukka were the most valiant of the five sons of Sangama (v. 48 ), that Vira Rudra was the sovereign of Harihara and Bukka and was defeated by the sura trana i. e. sultan. The same work says that Vidyaranya founded Vijayanagari in sake 1258, Vaisakha suddha 7 Sunday (i. e. 30th April 1335 A. D.) and crowned Harihara king.11180

Burnell in his introduction to the Vamsabrāhmaṇa started the theory that Sāyaṇa and Madhava were identical and put forward an esoteric meaning on the verse that states that Sayapa and Bhoganātha were the younger brothers of Madhava. But the facts as culled from the works of these two great men and the inscrip tions of contemporary Vijayanagara kings are too strong for the

1176 सोहं प्राप्य विवेकतीर्थ पदवीमान्नायतीर्थे परं मज्जन् सज्जनसङ्गतीर्थनिपुण: सद्वत्ततीर्थ

श्रयन् । लब्धामाकलयन्प्रभावलहरीं श्रीभारतीतीर्थतो विद्यातीर्थमुपाश्रयन् हृदि

भजे श्रीकण्ठमव्याहतम् ।। 2nd verse of कालनिर्णय. 1177 इन्द्रस्याङ्गिरसो नलस्य सुमतिः शैब्यस्य मेधातिथिघौम्यो धर्मसुतस्य वैन्यनृपते:

स्वौजा निमेगौतमिः । प्रत्यष्टिररुन्धतीसहचरो रामस्य पुण्यात्मनो यद्वत्तस्य विभोर

भूत्कुलगुरुर्मन्त्री तथा माधवः ।। 4th verse of परा. मा. 1178 तस्याभूदन्वयगुरुस्तत्त्वसिद्धान्तदेशिता । सर्वज्ञः सायणाचार्यो मायणार्यतनूद्भवः ।

उपेन्द्रस्येव यस्यासीदिन्द्र: मुमनसां प्रिय: । महाक्रतुनामाहर्ता माधवार्य: सहोदरः॥ अधीताः सकला वेदास्ते च दृष्टार्थगौरवाः । त्वत्प्रणीतन तद्भाष्यप्रदीपेन प्रथीयसा ।।

Intro. verses 7, 8, 1 t. 11786 नागेवकैंर्मित इह शक मालिवाहस्य याने धातर्यब्दे शुभसमुचित मासि वैशास्त्र

नाम्नि | शुक्ल पक्ष मुगुणपितृभे सूर्यवारे सुलग्ने सप्तम्यां श्रीविजयनगरी निर्ममे निर्ममेन्द्रः । गुरुवंशकाव्य VI. 8.

Madhavācārya

787

hypothesis of Burnell and make it took absurd. The whole subject about the relationship of Madliava, Sāyaṇa and Bhoga nātha bas been carefully examined by Rao Bahadur R. Narsimba char in Ind. Ant. vol. 45 pp. 1-6 and 17ff, and the theory of Burnell has been thoroughly refuted. Sāyaṇa and Bhoganatha were as real personages as Madhavācārya himself. Madhavācārya in his later years became a sarinyāsin and was named Vidyāranya. To the items of evidence adduced by R. B. R. Narasimhachar for establishing the identity of Madhava and Vidyaranya (Ind. Ant. vol. 45 p. 18) I may add one more. The Viramitrodaya ascribes the commentary on Parāsara composed by Madhava to Vidya ranya.1179 It has however to be noted that the Guruvamśakāvya (Vāṇivilās Press ed.) says (V. 41-44) that Vidyāranya was diffe rent from both Sayaṇa and Madhava.

Sāyaṇa1180 was not only a very learned man and author of several works (besides the Vedabhāsyas ) but he also fought several battles. He composed several works enumerated in the note below.1181

In the bhāsya on Parāsara he names three gurus, Vidya tirtba, Bhāratitirtha and Srikantha. He, however, says in his Anubhūtiprakasa that Vidyatirtha was his principal guru. 1132

Vidyaranya was originally Madhava. He is the author of the Jivanmuktiviveka and of Pancadasi. The introductory verses 9-11 of the Jivanmuktiviveka have been cited above. The com

1179 व्याख्यातं चेदं शङ्खवचनं विद्यारण्य श्रीचरणै: पराशरस्मृतिटीकायां पैतृकद्रव्यविभाग

Artes Fayogriafo F4T STAISITE 5 stai ato p. 593; vide p. 672 विद्यारण्यश्रीचरणोक्तं प्राग्लिखितं तस्मानिरिन्द्रिया इत्यादिश्रुतिव्याख्याने I TI TATEUR TEETÀTETT: saataifa i’. This refers to the

remarks in TTT HT, vol. III. p. 538. 1180 From E. I vol. III p. 70 and 71 it appears that in 1377 a gift

was made to Sāyapa’s three sons, Kampaṇa, Māyaṇa and Singapa and that Sāyaṇa died in 1387. अलङ्कारमुधानिधि, आयुर्वेदसुधानिधि, पुरुषार्थसुधानिधि, प्रायश्चित्तसुधानिधि

(called fara alsu), 4319941 , Jathagafa. 1182 3fat: sfat: Tila Tapeting fra: 1 ATSHIHE: 919 faentei

महेश्वरः ॥ quoted from अनुभूतिप्रकाश of माधवाचार्य by Rao Bahadur R. Narasimhachar in I. A vol 45 p. 3. The Antaryāmi Śruti is Brhadaranyaka Upaniṣad III. 7. 1. 23 where the word ‘antaryāmin’occurs many times.

788

mentary on Parāśarasmṛti (called Parāsaramadhaviya) is claimed to be his by Madhavācārya (vide note 1170). Therefore Vidyā ranya’s words lead to the conclusion that he is identical with Madhavācārya in a former stage of life (āśrama). Vide Rao Bahadur R. Narasimhachar’s learned paper on “Madhavācārya and his younger brothers’ in I. A. vol. 45 pp. 1-6 and 17-24.

Among the works of Madhavācārya are the following: Parāśarasmṛtibbāsya, Kālamadhava, Jivanmuktiviveka, Pañcadasi, Jaiminiya-nyayamālāvistara, Vaiyasika-nyāyamālāvistara. The Pañcadasi has a commentary of Ramakrsna (Nir. Press ed. of 1918). It is a famous work on the Advaita Vedānta. It is so called because it has 15 Prakaraṇas. It may also be noted that in the Nir. edition the work has 1501 verses. The longest Praka raṇas are Trptidipa with 298 verses and Citradipa with 290. The shortest Prakaraṇa is ‘Mahāvākya-viveka ’ with only eight verses. The Jivanmuktiviveka has extensive quotations from the Upa niṣads and the Bhagavadgitā. It also quotes the following works and authors viz. Anandabodhācārya (p. 8), Aryāpañcāsiti (p. 48), Upadeśasābasri (p. 6), Gaudapādācārya (pp. 78, 108), Daksa p. 106 (two verses of which one is Daksasmṛti VII. 30), Patañjali (p. 39), Bhāgavata (p. 87), Manusmṛti (pp. 106 and 108 quote respectively VII, 10-11 and VI. 53-54), Medhātithi ( 9 verses on p. 109 about Yati, probably from his Smstiviveka not yet discovered ), Yama (p. 108 ), Yogabhāsya (pp. 64, 74), Yogasutra (pp. 46, 67), Vākyavṛtti (p. 30 two verses ), Vedanta sūtra (p. 30, IV. 1. 19).

It appears that Madhavācārya regarded Vidyātirtha, his principal guru, as an incarnation of God Mahesvara. Vide the verse quoted in the note below, 1183

Besides being a mantrin of the Vijayanagara kings, it appears that Madhavācārya performed some great vedic sacri fices, and made donations called “Mahādānas’. In the

1183 प्रणम्य परमारत्मानं श्रीविद्यातीर्थरूपिणम् । वैयासिकन्यायमाला श्लोकैः संगृह्यते

स्फुटम् ।। first verse of the वैयासिकन्यायमाला ( Anandasrama. ed.). The जैमिनीय-न्यायमाला has several Introductory verses of which the last is the sime as above (except this that the 2nd pāda begins with Gia T414HTT’).

Madhavācārya

789

Yajñatantrasudhānidhi 18+ he is described by Sāyaṇa as ‘Mabā kratūnām-ahartā’ and to have weighed himself against precious metals ( tulāpuruṣadāna ).

The chronology of the kings of Vijayanagara has been a fruitful source of controversy. It is not necessary to go into that chronology in great detail here. It may be studied in such works as Sewell’s ‘Forgotten Empire’ and in E. I. vol. III. p. 36, E. I. vol. XIV p. 68, E. I. vol. XV p. 8. The following pedigree1185 will be sufficient for the purpose of connecting Mādhava and his brothers with the kings of Vijayanagara. The earliest inscription is that of Harihara I dated sake 1261 (1339-40 A. D.) wherein Harihara is said to be a Mahā mandalesvara and is spoken of as ‘Sri-Vira-Hariyappa Vodeya ’.1186 The colophon of the Mādaviyā Dhātuvștti describes Mādhava as the great minister of Sangamarāja, the son of Kamparāja.1187 The Bitragunṭa grant in śake 1278 (1356 A. D.) by Sangama II at the request of his teacher Srikanthanatha shows that Bhoganātha1138 who composed the contents of the grant was a narmasaciva (gay or humorous companion ) of Sangama II. We saw above that Srikantha was a teacher of Madhavācārya and that Bhoganātha was the youngest brother of Mādbavācārya. Bhoganātha in order to be a poet and a narama

1184 स शक्रवन्महादानान्याम्नायोक्तान्यनुक्रमात्। तुलापुरुषदानेन भूसुरान् समतोषयत् ।।

verse 10 of Intro. to 40- afa uns in Bhau Daji collection

of the Bombay Asiatic Society. 1185

SHI

TRY

मुद्दप

हरिहर I

y or UE (śake 1261)

सङ्गम II RT II (1379–1399 A. D.). (sake 1278)

(sake 1328) 1186 ‘HETHUSISHT VETA Agregla zitatceffaceta’ Int. Ant. vol. x,

p. 63. 1187 श्रीमत्पूर्वपश्चिमदक्षिणसमुद्राधीश्वरकम्पराजसुतसङ्गमराजमहामन्त्रिमायणपुत्रमाधव

सहोदरसायणाचार्यकृता माधवीया वृत्तिः । 1188 इति भोगनाथसुधिया सङ्गमभूपालनमसचिवेन । श्रीकण्ठपुरसमृद्धथै शासनपत्रेषु

farsfear: AT: 11 E I. vol. III at p. 30.

790

saciva of a reigning sovereign must have been a grown-up man in 1356 A. D. and so Mādhavācārya must have been quite an elderly person about that time. The Kālanirṇaya tells us that in the cyclic year Isvara following immediately after sake 1258 śrāvana was an intercalary month and that in the cyclic year Bhāva that preceded sake 1258 (i. e. sake 1256) Phālguna was an intercalary month and then examines the intercalary months that occurred in the cyclic years up to Vikāri thereafter (i. e. up to śake 1281 ).11384 As the Kālanirṇaya examines the intercalary months from śake 1256 (i. e. 1334 A, D.) to śake 1281 (i. e. 1359 A. D.), it follows that it was either composed during these years or immediately after this period. The Parāśara madhaviya was composed before the Kālanirṇaya. Rao Bahadur Narsimhachar states that in a copperplate grant dated 1386 A. D. it is said that Haribara (11) gave in the presence of Vidya ranya-sripada certain donations to three scholars who were the promoters (pravartaka) of the commentaries on the four Vedas ( Ind. Ant. vol. 45 p. 19). Another inscription speaks of Vidya ranya in 1378 A. D.1188 This shows that Madhavācārya had become a sasnyasin at least in 1377 A. D. Tradition says that Vidyāraṇya died in 1386 A, D, at the ripe old age of 90. There fore we shall not be far wrong if we place the literary activity of Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya between 1330-1385 A. D. From the remarks about intercalary months it appears that the Parāśara mādhaviya and Kālanirṇaya were composed between 1335-1360 A. D. There was a tradition among pandits that it was Madhava cārya who composed bhāṣyas on the Vedas and ascribed them to his brother Sāyana. Kasinātha, in his Vitthala-șómantra sāra-bhāsya says so. 1190

—

1188° तादृशं चाधिमासमुदाहराम: 1 अष्टपञ्चाशद्युक्तशतद्वयाधिक शकवर्षाणां सहस्र गते

सति समनन्तरभावी योयमीश्वरसंवत्सरस्तास्मन्श्रावणमासोधिकः । ततः पूर्वभावी यो भावसंवत्सरस्तलिन् फाल्गुनमासोधिकः … ननु अधिकमासस्य क्वचित्रिंशत्तमत्वं व्यभिचरति न्यूनाधिकसंख्याया अपि दर्शनात् । तथा हि यथोक्तेश्वरसंवत्सरोत्तर भाविनि चित्रभानुसंवत्सरे वैशाखमासोधिकः … तथा दुर्मुखसंवत्सरे श्रावणमासो धिकः । हेमलम्बिविलम्बिसंवत्सरद्वयव्यवहिले विकारिसंवत्सरे ज्येष्ठोधिकः । तथा च

75 T RITT #49I Fissfatury pp.70-71. ‘1189 Epigraphia Carnatica, vol. VI. Koppa 30. 1190 कथं तर्हि माधवाचार्यदभाष्यादिषु सायणादेः स्वभातुर्नाम लिखितमिति चेत्कारु

Ja &c i folio 37 b of the F **HTHTT4157 (D C. ms. No. 100 of 1869-70).93. Madhavācārya

791

Great confusion has been caused by identifying Madhava Vidyāraṇya with another scholar named Madhava who was also a mantrin of Bukka, who was a great warrior and was governor of Banavase and the country round Goa on the western coast. In a grant 101 of the village Kucara, also called Madhavapura, dated śake 1313 ( 1391 A. D.), it is said that he routed the armies of the Turuṣkas, wrested Goa the capital of Konkaṇa from them and re-established the temple of Saptanātha (i. e. Sapta-kotiśvara ). There is another inscription dated sake 1290 (i. e. 1368 A. D.) where the great minister ( Mahāpradhāna) Madhavāñka is stated to have ruled over Banavase 12000 under king Bukkarāya ( Ind. Ant. vol. IV, p. 206 ). Fleet is wrong in identifying the minister Madhavanka with Madhavācārya-Vidyāraṇya. Another grant from Goa (found by Dr. Bhau Daji) says that Madhava-mantrin, son of Caundibhatta, established the flingu of Saptanātha (JBBRAS Vol. 9, p. 228 ). Vide E. C. vol. VIII, Sorab No. 375 dated sake 1268 ( Sunday Madhava 30, i. e. llth Feb. 1347), where we are told that Madhavamantrin was governor of Candragutti, capital of Bunavase 12000, that he was minister of Marapa, younger brother of Harihara I and that he was a disciple of Kriyāsakti, a Śaiva teacher. In E. C. vol. VII, Shikarpur 281 dated sake 1290 Kartika bahula 8 (i. e. 15th November 1368 ) Madhava is said to have been a son of the Cāuṇda of the Angirasa gotra and a minister of Bukka I and his guru is said to have been Kāsivilāsa Kriyāsakti.

From this it follows that the Madhava mantrin who was a governor of Banavase and Goa and was living in 1391 A. D. was the son of Caundibhatta and cannot be identified with Madhavācārya who was the son of Māyana.

There is a ms, in the Bombay University Library of a work called Kālanirṇayakārika in 130 verses, which contains the intro ductory verses of the Kālanirṇaya dealing with the contents, though in a somewhat different order. There are several commen taries on the Kālanirṇaya, viz. Kalanirṇayadipika by Ramacandra cārya composed about 1450 A. D., a commentary called Lakṣmi

1191 गोवाभिधा कोकणराजधानीमन्येन मन्येरुणदर्णवेन । प्रतिष्ठितस्तित्र तुरुष्कसङ्घानु

पाट्य दोष्णा मुवनैकवीरः ।। उन्मूलितानामकरोप्रतिष्ठां श्रीसप्तनाथादिसुधामुजां यः । JBBRAS vol. IV, p. 113 ( text), p 107 ( translation ).

792

by Lakṣmidevi, wife of Vaidyanātha Payagunda. There is a Vivarana of the Kālanirṇayadipikā, by Nṛsimha, son of Rama candrācārya ( vide D. C. Ms. No. 99 of 1871-72).