Panchadashi Ma-thesis-pahlajrai.pdf

The Authorship of the Pañcadaśī and the Textual Context of its Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa

Prem Pahlajrai

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

University of Washington 2005

Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Department of Asian Languages and Literature

University of Washington Abstract

The Authorship of the Pañcadaśī and the Textual Context of its Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa Prem Pahlajrai Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Richard Salomon Department of Asian Languages and Literature The Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa- of the Pañcadaśī presents an overview of fourteenth-century Advaita Vedānta. This thesis explores the various theories of authorship regarding the Pañcadaśī. In doing so, the identities of Mādhava, Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha are examined, along with the various texts ascribed to each. A new hypothesis in support of joint authorship of the Pañcadaśī by Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha is proposed. A chapter-by-chapter synopsis of the Pañcadaśī as well as a detailed look at the Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa are presented along with the prakaraṇa’s extra-textual context in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad and its primary and secondary commentaries. Vidyāraṇya’s innovations and contributions to Advaita Vedānta are presented in brief.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iii Abbreviations..................................................................................................................... iv 1. Introduction......................................................................................................................1 2. The Significance of PD7, Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa ..............................................................4 3. Who were Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha? .......................................................................8 3.1 Theories of Authorship of the PD....................................................................... 8 3.2 Many Mādhavas.................................................................................................. 9 3.3 Historical facts about Mādhava, Vidyāraṇya, Śṛṅgerī and Vijayanagara ......... 12 3.4 Works ascribed to Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya.......................................................... 14 3.5 Works ascribed to Bhāratītīrtha ........................................................................ 21 3.6 Bhāratītīrtha, Vidyāraṇya and the PD............................................................... 23 3.7 Textual parallels between the AP and the PD................................................... 29 3.8 Impact of AP-PD parallels on joint-authorship theory (
A2)............................. 31 3.9 Revised ascription of works to Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha .......................... 33 4. A Synopsis of the Pañcadaśī .........................................................................................37 4.1 Tattvavivekaḥ – Discrimination of Reality....................................................... 37 4.2 Pañcamahābhūtavivekaḥ – Discrimination of the Five Elements..................... 38 4.3 Pañcakośavivekaḥ – Discrimination of the Five Sheaths ................................. 38 4.4 Dvaitavivekaḥ – Discrimination of Duality...................................................... 39 4.5 Mahāvākyavivekaḥ – Discrimination of the Great Utterances ......................... 40 4.6 Citradīpaḥ – Light of the Picture ...................................................................... 40 4.7 Tṛptidīpaḥ – Light of Contentment ................................................................... 41 4.8 Kūṭasthadīpaḥ – Light of the Kūṭastha ............................................................. 42 4.9 Dhyānadīpaḥ – Light of Meditation.................................................................. 42 4.10 Nāṭakadīpaḥ – Light of the Theatre .................................................................. 43 4.11 Yogānandaḥ – Bliss of Yoga ............................................................................ 44 4.12 Ātmānandaḥ – Bliss of the Self ........................................................................ 45 4.13 Advaitānandaḥ – Bliss of Non-duality.............................................................. 46 4.14 Vidyānandaḥ – Bliss of Knowledge ................................................................. 47 4.15 Viṣayānandaḥ – Bliss of Objects ...................................................................... 48 5. A Closer Look at Tṛptidīpa-Prakaraṇa, PD7................................................................50 6. Extra-textual Context of PD7 ........................................................................................56 6.1 The context of BU 4.4.12 within the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad ....................... 56 6.2 Śaṅkarācārya’s bhāṣya (BUŚBh) on BU 4.4.12 ............................................... 60 6.3 Vidyāraṇya’s Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra (BVS) on BU 4.4.12...................... 63 7. Comparison of the various discourses on BU 4.4.12.....................................................67 7.1 The PD7’s treatment of BU 4.4.12 ................................................................... 67 7.2 Comparison and consistency of the three treatments of BU 4.4.12.................. 69

i

8. Vidyāraṇya’s Contributions to and Innovations in Advaita Vedānta ............................71 9. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................75 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................79 Primary sources & indices (including translations):..................................................... 79 Secondary sources......................................................................................................... 85 Appendix 1: PD7 Citations ................................................................................................93 Appendix 2: Passages in Sanskrit ......................................................................................95 A. Śaṅkarācārya’s bhāṣya on BU 4.4.12: .............................................................. 95 B. Vidyāraṇya’s Bṛhadāranyaka-vārtikasāra (BVS) on BU 4.4.12:...................... 95 C. Maheśvaratīrtha’s ṭīkā on BVS 4.4.272-6: ....................................................... 96 Index ..................................................................................................................................97

ii

LIST OF TABLES Table Number

Page

1. Śṛṅgerī maṭha’s guru succession .................................................................................. 12 2. Texts and persons honored therein by Mādhava/Vidyāraṇya....................................... 19 3. Texts and persons honored therein by Bhāratītīrtha ..................................................... 23 4. Works by Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha ....................................................................... 34 5. Texts Cited by PD7, Frequency .................................................................................... 93 6. Citations in PD7, sorted by Source ............................................................................... 94

iii

Abbreviations ABORI

Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona

AiU

Aitareya-Upaniṣad

AiUD

Aitareya-Upaniṣad-Dīpikā

AP

Anubhūti-prakāśa

BG

Bhagavad Gītā

BS

Brahma Sūtra

BU

Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad

BUŚBh

Śaṅkara-bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad

BVS

Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra

ChU

Chāndogya Upaniṣad

DDV

Dṛg-dṛśya-viveka

DV

Dhātu-vṛtti

JMV

Jīvan-mukti-viveka

JNM

Jaiminīya-nyāya-mālā

KM

Kāla-mādhavīya

KauU

Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad

MU

Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad

MāU

Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad

Naiṣ.

Naiṣkarmya-siddhi

NUTU

Nṛsiṃha-uttara-tāpanīya-upaniṣad

NUTUD Nṛsiṃha-uttara-tāpanīya-upaniṣad-dīpikā PaM

Parāśara-mādhavīya

PD

Pañcadaśī

PrM

Praṇava-mīmāṃsā

RV

Ṛg Veda

ŚBh

Śaṅkara-bhāṣya

SDS

Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha

ŚDV

Śaṅkara-digvijaya

SLS

Siddhānta-leśa-saṅgraha iv

TU

Taittirīya Upaniṣad

US

Upadeśa-sāhasrī

VNM

Vaiyāsika-nyāya-mālā

VPS

Vivaraṇa-prameya-saṅgraha

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to gratefully acknowledge the encouragement, support and understanding of the two most important women in his life – his wife, Theresa Pahlajrai and his mother, Usha Pahlajrai – without which this thesis would never have been completed. The author also appreciates the rich and fertile learning environment and culture nurtured and sustained by the faculty and staff of the Department of Asian Languages and Literature, and of the Jackson School of International Studies; they make learning a joyous and rewarding experience.

vi

DEDICATION To all my teachers:

िव या ता रताः मो यैज ममृ युमहोदिधम् । सव े यो नम ते यो गु

योऽ ानसंकुलम् ॥

Salutations to the all-knowing teachers by whom we have been led by means of knowledge across the great ignorance-filled ocean of birth and death. US 1.17.88

Frontispiece, Anubhūtiprakāśa, Nirnaya Sagara Press edition, 1902.

vii

1 1. Introduction The Pañcadaśī (PD) is considered a prakaraṇa grantha,1 an independent introductory text on Advaita Vedānta. It comprises fifteen chapters and is further subdivided into three sections, each containing five prakaraṇas, chapters. The first section, viveka-pañcaka, considers the discrimination of the real from the unreal. The dīpa-pañcaka describes the nature of ātman as pure illuminating consciousness. The last section, ānanda-pañcaka, elaborates on the ultimate, blissful nature of ātman. Some2 hold that each of these three sections elucidate respectively the attributes sat, cit and ānanda (existence, consciousness and bliss) of brahman. This is a superficial correspondence, however, as it will be observed in the synopsis to follow (in chapter 4) that almost every prakaraṇa deals with one or more of these three aspects to varying degrees. The authorship of the Pañcadaśī is usually ascribed to Swāmī Vidyāraṇya, the Śaṅkarācārya of the Śṛṅgerī maṭha or monastery. Tradition also holds that the authorship of the text changes with the seventh chapter, the Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa, and that Bhāratītīrtha, Vidyāraṇya’s guru also had a hand in authorship. Vidyāraṇya is typically associated with helping the Saṅgama kings Harihara I, Bukka I and Harihara II to establish the city of Vijayanagara, near present day Hampi in Karnataka. Prior to becoming a renunciate (sannyāsin) his name was Mādhava, and he is said to have been a

1

Mahadevan (1969), p. xiii: “The characteristic feature of a prakaraṇa is that it selects a few topics falling within the scope of a philosophical tradition and deals with them in a clear and concise manner. śāstraikadeśa-sambandham śāstrakāryāntare sthitam | āhuḥ prakaraṇam nāma grantha-bhedaṃ vipaścitaḥ ||” The source of this verse is not provided. 2 For example, Punjani, p. 22; Swahananda, p.ix.

2 minister of these kings. But the identities of Mādhava, Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha are shrouded in conflicting opinions and historical controversies. This thesis takes a closer look at the identity of these individuals, and their connection to Vijayanagara. There are various works ascribed either to Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya, or to Bhāratītīrtha or to both. These works shall be examined with a view to sorting out their authorship, with the greatest attention being paid to determining who really wrote the Pañcadaśī. Was it exclusively authored by Vidyāraṇya, by Bhāratītīrtha, or by both? If authored by both, what, if anything, can be determined regarding which sections were written by whom? The Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa is of particular interest in connection with these questions; tradition holds that the transition in the authorship of the Pañcadaśī occurred at this chapter. An comparison of the writing style and contents of the Tṛptidīpaprakaraṇa to the that of the rest of the Pañcadaśī will help shed light on these questions. The Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa also happens to be the longest chapter of the Pañcadaśī, and as such it affords us a unique view of key Advaita Vedānta concepts and their interrelationship. It is structured as an exposition of a śruti-vākya, a scriptural statement from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (BU) with which it opens (BU 4.4.12). In order to gain an understanding of Vidyāraṇya’s thought and an appreciation for his masterful exposition of Advaita Vedānta in the Tṛptidīpa, this chapter is examined in great detail and its content is compared with: 1. the context of BU 4.4.12 within the Yājñavalkya kāṇḍa of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad itself, 2. the bhāṣya or commentary by Śaṅkarācārya, the de facto “founder”3 of Advaita Vedānta on BU 4.4.12, and 3. a sub-commentary on the 3

While there were earlier thinkers on Advaita Vedānta (cf. Nakamura), very little of their work is extant in entirety. Śaṅkara’s thought has had the greatest influence not only on Advaita Vedānta, but on the many

3 BU passage, also attributed to Vidyāraṇya, called the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra. This may provide us a glimpse into the evolution of Advaita Vedānta thought over time as well as any innovations that Vidyāraṇya may have contributed in the process to Advaita thought.

other varieties of Vedānta too, which often differentiate themselves from Advaita in terms of how they differ from Śaṅkara.

4 2. The Significance of PD7, Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa Though the Pañcadaśī is ascribed to Vidyāraṇya, tradition holds that there was a change in authorship at the seventh prakaraṇa. For example, according to Swami Abhedananda, “the first six chapters of Panchadasi was [sic] written by Bharati Tirtha, but his sudden and unexpected death left the work to be completed by his disciple [Vidyāraṇya] who wrote the remaining nine chapters.”4 Acyutarāya Moḍaka indicates a similar transition in authorship in his sub-commentary on the PD, Pūrṇānandendukaumudī, though he has the direction of the handoff reversed: “Now Śrī Bhāratītīrtha, … with great compassion, thoroughly examined the six prakaraṇas ending with Citradīpa. [These six prakaraṇa-s] were a part of the fifteen extremely simple prakaraṇas, uniquely helpful to the most eminent and intense seekers of liberation, conforming to the Advaita śāstras. [The six prakaraṇa-s] had been begun by his own disciple, Śrī Vidyāraṇyaācārya, who was known as the omniscient Mādhavācārya in his pūrvāśrama. [Bhāratītīrtha] was pleased [with it], and in order to explore the meaning of the last section, particularly the last śloka [of the sixth prakaraṇa], for the sake of diversion alone, himself commenced the remaining nine prakaraṇas. He began with this very seventh prakaraṇa, called tṛptidīpa on account of the generation of the satisfaction [by its mere] mention, … by reading the mantra from the BU [4.4.12].”5

4

Abhedananda, p. 266. Tripāṭhī, p. 273: atha bhagavān bhāratītīrtha-munivaraḥ {sarvadā vakṣyamāṇa-vaicārika-yaugikānyatarādvaitātmatattva-niṣṭhaika-parāyanaḥ} paramakaruṇayā śrīmad-vidyāraṇyācāryākhya-pūrvāśramaprakhyāta-sarvajña-mādhavācāryābhidha-svaśiṣya-samārabdhādvaita-śāstrīya-tīvratara-mumukṣuvaraikopakāraka-parama-sarala-pañcadaśa-prakaraṇīgata-citradīpāntaṣaṭprakaraṇīṃ sampūrṇāṃ samavalokya santuṣṭas tadantyaśloka-viśiṣṭa-carama-caraṇārtham anusandhāya līlayaivāvaśiṣṭanavaprakaraṇīṃ svayameva samārambhamāṇas tatrādāv ukta-tṛptimātra-janyatvāt tṛptidīpākhyam idaṃ saptama-prakaraṇam eva {vakṣyamāṇa-vaicārika-saptamabhūmy-ekaniviṣṭatvena kurvāṇas 5

5 In the introduction to his Marathi work, Sārtha Pañcadaśī, D. V. Jog goes one step further and claims that Vidyāraṇya took sannyāsa at the hands of the then pontiff of Śṛṅgerī Maṭha, Śaṅkarānanda in 1380 CE at the age of eighty-five. At this time he undertook to write the Pañcadaśī but passed away (lit. became samādhi-stha) in 1386 CE after completing only six prakaraṇa-s and therefore his guru Bhāratītīrtha completed the text. He further posits that this Bhāratītīrtha was none other than Vidyāraṇya’s younger brother, named Bhoganātha prior to sannyāsa,6 who was well versed in Vedānta himself.7 Venimadhava Shastri presents yet another plausible theory: namely, that only the Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa was written by Bhāratītīrtha, and the remaining fourteen chapters by Vidyāraṇya. He does not provide any evidence or sources to back up this claim,8 but this is no doubt based on the fact that Rāmakṛṣṇa’s commentary to PD7 opens, “Beginning the prakaraṇa called Tṛptidīpa, since it is an explanation of the śruti, guru Bhāratītīrtha first states the śruti [passage] which is to be explained in detail.”9 Nowhere else in his commentary does Rāmakṛṣṇa refer only to Bhāratītīrtha; the invocations in all the maṅgala-śloka-s at the beginning of each prakaraṇa or chapter are to both Vidyāraṇya

tadviṣayādyapy āviṣkurvāṇaḥ prathita-pramāṇādi-maṅgalam apy ākalayan} kāṇvopaniṣanmantram eva paṭhati – {ātmānam ced iti} | – Text enclosed within { } has not been translated above. 6 We’ll explore this aspect further in Section
3.5, p. 21. 7 Jog, pp. 4-5 (of the prastāvanā, in Marathi): … śrīśaṃkarānanda he tyā veḷes śṛṅgerī maṭhāvar jagadguru mhaṇūn hote. tyāṃce pāsūn śake 1302 (1380 CE) madhye saṃnyās gheūn śrīmādhavācārya he śrīvidyāraṇya banūn gādīvar basle. tyāveḷes tyāṃce vay 85 varṣāṃce hote. … evḍhyā vṛddhāvasyeṃt śrīvidyāraṇyāṃnī ‘pañcadaśī’ yā nāvācā graṃtha lihāvayās ghetlā. paṇ sahā prakaraṇe lihūn jhālyāvar śake 1308 (1386 CE) madhye te samādhistha jhāle, va rahilelā graṃtha śrīmādhavācāryāṃce (vidyāraṇyāṃce) guru śrībhāratītīrtha yāṃnī purā kelā. mājhā asā tarka āhe kī to graṃtha tyāṃcyā dhākṭyā baṃdhūnī śrībhāratītīrtha (bhoganātha) yāṃnī purā kelā asāvā. kāraṇ te vedāntaśāstrāṃt pravīṇ hote. 8 Shastri (1986), p. 115. 9 tṛptidīpākhyaṃ prakaraṇam ārabhamāṇaḥ śrī-bhāratītīrtha-gurus tasya śruti-vyākhyāna-rūpatvāt tadvyākhyeyāṃ śrutim ādau paṭhati. Ācārya, p. 188.

10

and Bhāratītīrtha.

6 We shall keep this scenario in mind as we proceed with the

investigation. Yet another dual-authorship scenario is attributed to a Niścalānanda or Niścaladāsa Svāmin, author of the Vṛtti-prabhākara, namely that the first ten chapters were written by Vidyāraṇya and the remaining five by Bhāratītīrtha.11 Mahadevan also mentions Niścaladāsa’s scenario, but states that it “cannot be relied upon” since Niścaladāsa (18001900 CE)12 is so much later than Vidyāraṇya, Bhāratītīrtha and even Appayya Dīkṣita (ca. 1585 CE).13 The Vṛtti-prabhākara is said to be a commentary on the PD published in 1911,14 but this may be incorrect. I was able to locate a reprint of this text15 and it is an independent work on pramāṇa-s or means of knowledge, written in a Brajbhāṣā-like dialect of Hindi.16 This work does refer to the PD, in connection with the absence of the ānandamaya kośa, the sheath of bliss, in the state of being īśvara, the lord. But the reference to the dual-authorship theory is more to the effect that “even if differing works are examined, even though tradition says that the five viveka [prakaraṇa-s] and the five dīpa [prakaraṇa-s] are written by Vidyāraṇya and the five ānanda [prakaraṇa-s] by Bhāratītīrtha, even so it is not at all possible that in one and the same text, there can be a

10

For example, at the beginning of his work, he states: natvā śrī-bhāratītīrtha-vidyāraṇya-munīśvarau | pratyak-tattvavivekasya kriyate pada-dīpikā || The concluding (third) verse of the opening to the commentary on PD7 states: natvā śrī-bhāratītīrtha-vidyāraṇya-munīśvarau | kriyate tṛptidīpasya vyākhyānaṃ gurv-anugrahāt || Ibid., pp. 1,188. See also the discussion infra, p. 25. 11 Kripacharyulu, p. 128. 12 Thangaswami, p. 359. 13 Mahadevan (1938), p. 7. Appayya Dīkṣita’s date per Potter (2005). 14 Dasgupta, v. 2, p. 216, n. 1; Thangaswami, p. 127; Potter (2005). 15 Niścaladāsa (1984). 16 Thangaswami, p. 263, however, quotes Niścaladāsa in Sanskrit: prāthamikādaśa paricch[e]dā eva vidyāraṇya-nirmitāḥ.

17

contradiction of what was stated earlier [in that text].”

7 From the context of the quoted

passage it is actually clear that Niścaladāsa thinks that the citradīpa-prakaraṇa (PD6) and the brahmānanda-pañcaka (PD11-15) were written by Vidyāraṇya, and that there is agreement among the ideas presented in the two places. Perhaps it is due to the alleged handoff, either from Bhāratītīrtha, the teacher to Vidyāraṇya, his student (per Abhedananda) or from student to teacher (per Acyutarāya Moḍaka and Jog), that PD7 is the longest of the fifteen chapters of this text. Or perhaps it is because this was the only prakaraṇa that Bhāratītīrtha wrote. The incoming author might have felt it necessary to review all that had been mentioned thus far and then introduce the matter to be treated in the chapters that are to follow. In any case, PD7 serves as a comprehensive overview of general Advaita principles and can be studied by itself. At the same time, it does not appear to be discontinuous with the earlier six chapters of the text and is in fact well integrated with the subject matter of the text as a whole. In order to explore the connection of PD7 to the rest of the Pañcadaśī, I shall provide a synopsis of the remaining chapters (chapter 4, “A Synopsis of the Pañcadaśī,” p. 37) followed by a detailed look at PD7 itself and how it relates to the rest of the text (chapter 5, “A Closer Look at Tṛptidīpa-Prakaraṇa, PD7,” p. 50). But first we shall look at the issue of authorship more closely.

17

Niścaladāsa, p.355, infra Vṛtti-prabhākara 8.19: yadyapi vilakṣaṇ lekh dekhikai au [sic] paraṃparāvacan-maiṃ paraṃparā-taiṃ yah kahaiṃ haiṃ; pāṃc viveka au pāṃc dīp tau vidyāraṇya-kṛt haiṃ, aur pāṃc ānand bhāratītīrtha-kṛt haiṃ, tathāpi ek-hī granth-maiṃ pūrva uttar-kā virodh saṃbhavai nahīṃ; yataiṃ pañcadaśī-granth-maiṃ ānandamay-kūṃ īśvartā vivakṣit nahīṃ, …

8 3. Who were Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha? 3.1

Theories of Authorship of the PD From the previous section, it is evident that the identity of the author(s) of the

Pañcadaśī is not certain. In brief, there are three theories of authorship prevailing: A1. The PD was written solely by Vidyāraṇya, who was named Mādhavācārya before sannyāsa, i.e. during his pūrvāśrama. A2. The PD was a collaboration between Vidyāraṇya (of A1) and Bhāratītīrtha, who was Vidyāraṇya’s guru.18 A3. The PD was written exclusively by Bhāratītīrtha-Vidyāraṇya, the latter name being an appellation “Forest of Learning.”19 Based on the discussion in the preceding section, the joint-authorship theory, A2, itself has four branches: A2.6V: Vidyāraṇya wrote the first six prakaraṇa-s and Bhāratītīrtha, the
remaining nine; A2.6B: Bhāratītīrtha wrote the first six prakaraṇa-s and Vidyāraṇya, the remaining
nine; A2.10V: Vidyāraṇya wrote the first ten prakaraṇa-s and Bhāratītīrtha, the
remaining five (the scenario incorrectly attributed to Niścaladāsa); A2.B1: Bhāratītīrtha wrote only PD7 and Vidyāraṇya wrote the rest of the PD.

18 19

As seen in chapter 2, “The Significance of PD7, Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa,” p. 4. Mahadevan (1969), p. xxi.

9 3.2

Many Mādhavas Then there is the city of Vijayanagara, “City of Victory,” located on the banks of

the Tungabhadra river near the present-day village of Hampi in Karnataka. An alternate name for this city is Vidyānagara, “City of Learning” after Vidyāraṇya, because it is traditionally held that it was upon Vidyāraṇya’s sage advice that the brothers Bukka and Harihara founded the city at its location.20 There were four Mādhavas associated with Vijayanagara during the time period of interest to us: M1. Mādhavācārya, kulaguru and minister of the kings Bukka I (1354-1377 CE) and Harihara II (1376-1404 CE),21 M2. Mādhavamantrin, a minister of the kings Harihara I (1336-1354 CE), Bukka I, and Harihara II, M3. Mādhava, a possibly Sanskritized version of Māyaṇa, son of Sāyaṇa and possibly the author of Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha (SDS),22 and M4. Mādhava, the older brother of Sāyaṇa, the famous commentator of the Vedas; their younger brother Bhoganātha may have taken sannyāsa earlier, becoming Bhāratītīrtha.23 Mādhavamantrin (M2) is accepted as being different from Mādhavācārya (M1). A great warrior and governor of the Banavāsi near Goa, Mādhavamantrin had different 20

See Sewell, pp. 20-22 and Saletore, v. 1, pp. 83-87 for an enumeration of the various founding myths. Dates for the kings’ reigns are based on Rāma Sharma, pp. xvii-xviii. 22 Punjani, p. 9 suggests Mādhava is a “corrupt form” of Māyaṇa. See n. 26. infra for more details on SDS authorship. 23 In the Parāśara-mādhavīya, authored by Mādhava, śloka-s 1.6-7 state: śrīmatī jananī yasya sukīrtir māyaṇaḥ pitā | sāyaṇo bhoganāthaś ca manobuddhi sahodarau || yasya baudhāyanaṃ sūtraṃ śākhā yasya ca yājuṣī | bhāradvājaṃ kulaṃ yasya sarvajñaḥ sa hi mādhavaḥ || In Kane (1975), p. 785, n. 1173, Mahadevan (1938), p. 1 and Ācārya (1994), p.20 (introd.) have a slightly variant version for v. 7 (variations in bold) : baudhāyanaṃ yasya sūtraṃ śākhā yasya ca yājuṣī | bhāradvājaṃ yasya gotraṃ sarvajñaḥ sa hi mādhavaḥ || 21

24

parents and teachers and belonged to the Āṅgīrasa gotra.

10 He has however been

mistakenly identified with Vidyāraṇya in the past and a commentary on the Sūta-saṃhita written by him (Mādhava-mantrin) called Tātparya-dīpikā has often been incorrectly attributed to Vidyāraṇya, due to the conflation of the two ministers, M1 and M2.25 Very little is known about Mādhava (M3), but according to Kripacharyulu “this Mādhava is different from Mādhavācārya,” he is Mādhava’s (M1) nephew and the author of the Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha (SDS).26 Some also credit him with writing the Śaṅkaradigvijaya (ŚDV), also often mistakenly ascribed to Vidyāraṇya.27 It is safe to conclude that he too is not connected to the author of the PD. This leaves us with M1 and M4. The generally accepted view is that they are one and the same person, who took the name Vidyāraṇya after sannyāsa (A1 above). As mentioned earlier, he is said to have influenced Harihara I’s choice of the site for the capital city of Vijayanagara.28 It is often said that the city was originally named Vidyānagara in honor of Vidyāraṇya’s role in its establishment in 1336 CE29 but this is

24

In an inscription dated to 1368-69 by Filliozat, pp. 93,98: v. 6: …asti svastimatām udārayaśasām ēkāśrayaḥ śrēyasāṃ … śrī bukkanāmā nrupaḥ [sic]…v. 7: … mādhavay [sic] ity amātyaḥ | … v. 8: gōtrē yōṃgirasāṃ pracaṃḍatapasaś cāüṃḍapruthvīsura praśṭhād udbhavam … See also Kane, p. 791; Kulke, p. 129; Kripacharyulu, pp. 74-6. 25 According to Jagannadham et al, pp. 79-84; Mishra, p. iii; Kripacharyulu, p. 76. Also cf. n. 156 infra. 26 Kripacharyulu, pp. 96-7. This is based on śloka 1.3 of the SDS – śrīmat-sāyaṇa-dugdhābdhikaustubhena mahaujasā | kriyate mādhavāryeṇa sarvadarśanasaṅgrahaḥ || Cowell & Gough, in their translation of SDS want to emend the reading of śrīmat-sāyaṇa to śriman-māyaṇa to make it conform to M4! (p. 1, n. 1). Upādhyāya, in his Hindi work on Sāyaṇa and Mādhava, says that Sāyaṇa had three sons. Māyaṇa being the second, who wrote SDS (pp. 61-2). 27 Venkataraman (1976), p.20. Upādhyāya, pp. 153-5, provides evidence proving that the ŚDV is definitely not a work by Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya. But he makes no mention of Mādhava’s nephew in this context. Cf. n. 26 supra and n. 155 infra.. 28 For example, Verghese, p. 421 and Michell, pp. 41-2 both tell of myths whereby the city was established through Vidyāraṇya’s advice. 29 See various stories enumerated by Saletore, v. 1, pp. 83-90. Jog (among others) also gives this date in his prastāvanā, p. 5.

30

held to be an erroneous view by Sewell, Saletore and others.

11 Heras questioned the

authenticity of the inscriptional evidence linking Vidyāraṇya with Vijayanagara, considering it a fabrication by the sixteenth century Śṛṅgerī pontiff Rāmacandra Bhārati.31 This was verified by Saletore32 and “tacitly” assented to by Kane.33 The best that can be said reliably about Vijayanagara’s founding is that it came into existence gradually between 1346 and 1368 CE34 and that Mādhavācārya (M1) “played no significant role” in its foundation.35 However, up until the present time, people persist in associating Vijayanagara’s foundation with Vidyāraṇya.36 The issue is made more sensitive by the confluence of at least three ideological conflicts: 1) the perceived historical importance of Śṛṅgerī to the Śaṅkarācārya tradition, 2) the struggle for the revival of Hindu religion and culture in face of Muslim invaders, allegedly intent on converting Hindus to Islam, and 3) the conflicting claims of regional affiliation, regarding whether the rulers of Vijayanagara were kannaḍa or āndhra. However, this should in no way detract from Vidyāraṇya’s importance to Advaita Vedānta. In fact, Hacker suggests that the establishment of the Advaita monastaries (maṭha-s) all over India, typically credited to Śaṅkara, was really the work of Vidyāraṇya;37 his scholarship and facility with Advaita doctrine, which we are about to explore next, would certainly be a considerable asset in carrying out such a monumental task.

30

Sewell, p. 19, n. 2, p. 300, n. 1; Saletore, v. 1, pp. 93-101. See also Kulke (1985). Heras, pp. 33-5. 32 pp. 93-101. 33 Though with protestations – Kane, pp. 782,789; Kulke, p. 123. 34 Kulke, p. 126. 35 Ibid., p. 129. 36 See, for example, the essay “Birth of Vijayanagar” in Jagannadham et al (1990), pp. 12-23. Also cf. Wagoner, pp. 300-305 (I am grateful to Robert Goodding for bringing this article to my attention). 37 In “On Śaṅkara and Advaitism” in Halbfass (1995), p. 31. 31

12 3.3

Historical facts about Mādhava, Vidyāraṇya, Śṛṅgerī and Vijayanagara What do we know about Vidyāraṇya in connection with the Śṛṅgerī maṭha?

According to the maṭhāmnāya-s, texts describing institutional history, we have the following dates for Vidyāraṇya and his gurus:38 Table 1: Śṛṅgerī maṭha’s guru succession

Head Vidyātīrtha (or Vidyāśaṅkara/ Vidyāśaṅkaratīrtha) Bhāratītīrtha (or Bhāratīkṛṣṇatīrtha) Vidyāraṇya

Consecrated 1228 CE

Died 1333 CE

1328 CE 1331 CE

1380 CE 1386 CE

There are many issues with these dates. Vidyātīrtha’s longevity could perhaps be ascribed to yogic practices.39 The overlaps between Vidyātīrtha and Bhāratītīrtha’s reigns (1328-1333 CE) and Bhāratītīrtha and Vidyāraṇya’s reigns (1331-1380 CE) may be explained by interpreting the consecration date to refer to the date each took sannyāsa.40 The more likely explanation, proposed by Heras,41 is that the maṭhāmnāya was later falsified to allow for Vidyāraṇya to already be the head of Śṛṅgerī by the time Vijayanagara was “established” in 1336 CE42 Kulke’s examination of the non-spurious epigraphical evidence confirms that Vidyāraṇya is first mentioned only in 1375 CE, as 38

Based on Nanjundayya, v. 2, p. 458 and Srikantaya, p.138, n. 470. Venkataraman (1967), p. 23 and Shastry, p. 121 have the same end dates, but the start dates for Bhāratītīrtha (1333) and Vidyāraṇya (1380) do not have the overlap discussed below. 39 According to Srikantaya, p. 158, Vidyatīrtha entered lambika yoga in 1333 and the Vidyāśaṅkara temple was built at the site. (Srikantaya does not elaborate on the nature of lambika yoga). Also Venkataraman (1976), p. 1: “There was nothing strange about this long period, considering his mastery over the siddhis that enabled him to prolong his life as long as he liked.” 40 Upādhyāya suggests this approach. Then Bhāratītīrtha became the Śaṅkarācārya of the maṭha in 1333 CE (1255 śaka, p. 66) and Vidyāraṇya in 1380 CE (1437 Vikrama-saṃvat., p. 141), upon the deaths of their respective predecessors. 41 n. 31 supra. 42 Also Upādhyāya, p. 140, n. 1; also Kripacharyulu, pp. 31-2, though he goes on to (rather unconvincingly) defend the maṭhāmnāya view, pp. 30-37.

43

the head of Śṛṅgerī.

13 An inscription commemorating King Bukka’s visit to Śṛṅgerī in

1356 CE has Vidyātīrtha as the receiver of Bukka’s largess and does not mention Vidyāraṇya at all.44 Thus Vidyāraṇya must have been consecrated sometime during the interval 1356-1375 CE45 There then follow several inscriptions46 reflecting the importance of Vidyāraṇya as Śṛṅgerī’s mahant and the high regard he was held in by the kings Bukka I and Harihara II through his death in 1386 CE.47 That the Mādhavas M1 and M4 are one and the same is not contested by anyone.48 Both Sāyaṇa and Mādhavācārya seem to have been politically active in the courts of the Vijayanagara kings,49 and their younger brother Bhoganātha was the narmasaciva,50 sport or pleasure companion of King Saṅgama II.51 The identity of Mādhavācārya (M1, M4) with Vidyāraṇya (A1), on the other hand, is not as uncontested.52 The works of Mādhavācārya do not mention the name Vidyāraṇya and later references to Vidyāraṇya do not link him with his pūrvāśrama name, Mādhava. Some would say that this is but natural – in one’s pūrvāśrama one typically does not know whether one will take sannyāsa, much less the name one will be assigned at that time. On assuming sannyāsa,

43

Kuḍupu Stone Inscription, Uttankita Epigraphs, pp. 84-86; Filliozat, Appendix, no. 25, p. 145. Filliozat, no. 43, pp. 30-32. 45 Kulke, p. 130. 46 For example, the Be¬agu¬a copper plates of 1384, Uttankita Epigraphs, pp. 104-9; the Vidyāraṇyapura copper plate of Harihara II in 1386, Uttankita Epigraphs, pp. 112-117. 47 Kulke, pp. 130-32. 48 See, for example, Kane, pp. 785-787; Kripacharyulu, pp. 77-81; Kulke, p. 136. 49 See, among others, Kane, p. 786; Srikantaya, p. 104. 50 Kane, p. 785, n. 1174: “To translate the word ‘Narmasaciva’ as simply jester is not quite accurate. … The idea is this: the very learned brothers Sāyaṇa and Mādhava (both ministers) were far above playfulness or the cracking of jokes with the king, but Bhoganātha, a poet, being young and less learned than the other two, could be intimate with the king.” 51 Kane, ibid.; Upādhyāya, p. 58; Punjani, p. 10. 52 Kripacharyulu, pp. 54-72 lists seven objections to the “identity theory” and then refutes them point-bypoint. I do not agree with all the issues raised and their treatment. For the sake of brevity, I have dealt with only the issues I consider most relevant. 44

14 a renunciant in effect dies to his previous identity and therefore would no longer refer to 53

himself by his pūrvāśrama identity.54 3.4

Works ascribed to Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya The identity of Vidyāraṇya with Mādhavācārya can be established through textual

sources. For example, Vidyāraṇya’s Jīvan-mukti-viveka (JMV), an Advaita Vedānta work on the doctrine of liberation, refers to Mādhava’s commentary on Parāśara-smṛti, commonly known as the Parāśara-mādhavīya (PaM), as being written by himself.55 This clearly indicates that Vidyāraṇya, the author of the JMV, is the same as Mādhava, the author of the PaM. The identity of Mādhava and Vidyāraṇya is confirmed if we observe the parallels in the persons being paid homage to in the two works. In the JMV, Vidyāraṇya pays homage to his guru Vidyātīrtha at the beginning and end of the text.56 In the PaM, a dharma-śāstra “digest of civil and religious law”,57 in the opening stanza, Mādhava pays homage to Lord Gaṇeśa,58 and in the next stanza lauds his three teachers, Bhāratītīrtha, Vidyātīrtha and Śrīkaṇṭha.59 Mādhava also goes on to pay homage to King

53

Olivelle (1993), p. 207, speaks of renunciation as a ritual and civil death of the renouncer. Upādhyāya, p. 134: saṃnyās āśram svīkār kar lene par koī bhī yati apne prapañc meṃ phaṃse rahnevāle pūrva āśram ke nām kā ullekh karnā acchā nahīṃ samajhtā … 55 JMV 1.0.11: eteṣāṃ tu samācārāḥ proktāḥ pārāśarasmṛteḥ | vyākhyāne ’smābhir atrāyaṃ parahaṃso vivicyate || (Goodding, pp. 298-9). 56 JMV 1.0.1: yasya niḥśvasitaṃ vedā yo vedebhyo ’khilaṃ jagat | nirmame tam ahaṃ vande vidyātīrthamaheśvaram || JMV 5.4.48: jīvan-mukti-vivekena bandhaṃ hārdaṃ nivārayan | pumārtham akhilaṃ deyād vidyātīrthamaheśvaraḥ || JMV 1.0.1 is identical to the opening verse of Sāyaṇa’s commentary to the Ṛgveda. Cf. n. 58 infra regarding Sāyaṇa. 57 Kane, p. 779. 58 PaM 1.1: vāgīśādyāḥ sumanasaḥ sarvārthānām upakrame | yaṃ natvā kṛta-kṛtyāḥ syus taṃ namāmi gajānanam || This verse also occurs as v.2 of the opening of Sāyaṇa’s commentary to the Ṛgveda. Some scholars have suggested that Sāyaṇa’s works were jointly authored with Mādhava, e.g. Kripacharyulu, pp. 182-3. Exploration of the works of Sāyaṇa is sadly outside the scope of the present analysis. 59 PaM 1.2: so ’haṃ prāpya viveka-tīrtha-padavīm āmnāya-tīrthe paraṃ majjan sajjana-tīrtha-saṅganipuṇaḥ sadvṛtta-tīrthaṃ śrayan | labdhāmākalayan prabhāva-laharīṃ śrībhāratītīrthato vidyātīrtham upāśrayan hṛdi bhaje śrīkaṇṭham avyāhatam || Srikantaya, p. 102 considers Śrīkaṇṭha to be Vidyātīrtha’s 54

15 Bukka and his own parents; he also mentions his brothers Sāyaṇa and Bhoganātha, and 60

clearly indicates that he himself is the author.61 We see that Vidyāraṇya of the JMV and Mādhava of the PaM both honor Vidyātīrtha as guru. The others honored by Mādhava in the PaM, Bhāratītīrtha, Śrīkaṇṭha and Bukka are not mentioned by Vidyāraṇya in the JMV. But we can say with greatest confidence that Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya is the author of the PaM and the JMV. Another work that is universally attributed to the same author is the Kālamādhavīya (KM), also referred to as the Kāla-nirṇaya, a dharma-śāstra treatise on the proper times for the performance of religious rites.62 The first three stanzas are identical63 to PaM 1.1-3: homage is paid to Lord Gaṇeśa, Bhāratītīrtha, Vidyātīrtha, Śrīkaṇṭha, and King Bukka.64 The KM was written after the PaM as v. 5 of the KM mentions the PaM explicitly.65 The Jaiminīya-nyāya-mālā (JNM) is yet another work universally ascribed to Mādhava,66 whose first verse is identical to the PaM 1.1 and KM 1 already cited.67 The

pūrvāśrama-nāman but that raises the question as to why Mādhavācārya would mention him by both names in this context. Śrīkaṇṭha may have been the guru of Sāyaṇa, Mādhava and Bhoganātha in their early years (Upādhyāya, pp. 67-9; Kripacharyulu, pp. 6-7). According to Rāma Sharma, pp.19,25, n. 9, Śrīkaṇṭhanātha was their guru in Kānchi and a Śaiva philosopher. 60 PaM 1.3d: smārttocchrāya dhurandharo vijayate śrī-bukkaṇa-kṣmā-patiḥ || 61 For the verse mentioning his parents and brothers, see n. 23 supra. PaM 1.9: parāśara-smṛtiḥ pūrvair na vyākhyātā nibandhṛbhiḥ | mayā ’to mādhavāryyeṇa tad vyākhyāyāṃ prayatyate || 62 For example, by Kane, p. 788; Mahadevan (1938), p. 2; Kripacharyulu, pp. 114-6; Upādhyāya, pp. 147-8. 63 Except for v. 2b – where PaM has sajjana-tīrtha-saṅga-nipuṇaḥ, KM 2b has sajjana-saṅga-tīrthanipuṇaḥ. 64 See nn. 58, 59, 60 supra. 65 KM 5: vyākhyāya mādhavācāryo dharmān pārāśarān atha | tad anuṣṭhāna-kālasya nirṇayaṃ vaktum udyataḥ || 66 For example, by Kane, p. 788; Mahadevan (1938), p. 2; Upādhyāya, pp. 148-9; Venimadhava Shastri, p. 113; Kripācharyulu, pp. 116-120. 67 See n. 58 supra.

68

16

next verse offers homage to King Bukka, and the following verse to King Bukka and Vidyātīrtha.69 Bhāratītīrtha is mentioned in v. 7,70 and Mādhava names himself as the author in v. 8.71 In the PD, however, the opening verse offers salutations to Śaṅkarānanda.72 Rāmakṛṣṇa’s commentary to the PD (ca. 1375 CE)73 interprets Śaṅkarānanda as paramātman, who alone is the guru.74 Thus Śaṅkarānanda can possibly be interpreted as standing in for any or all of Vidyāraṇya’s teachers and is definitely treated as such by subsequent commentators. Śaṅkarānanda is also invoked in the opening benediction to Vivaraṇa-prameya-saṅgraha (VPS),75 a commentary on Prakāśātman’s (10th or 13th c. CE)76 Pañca-pādikā-vivaraṇa.77 The VPS, like the PD, is also ascribed to either Vidyāraṇya, Bhāratītīrtha or both.78 The closing verse to the VPS, however, mentions Vidyātīrtha as the author’s guru,79 strengthening the argument that Śaṅkarānanda implies

68

JNM 1.2cd: nitya-sphūrty-adhikāravān gata-sadābādhaḥ svatantreśvaro, jāgarti śrutimat-prasaṅgacaritaḥ śrī-bukkaṇa-kṣmāpatiḥ || Cf. PaM 1.3d (also KM 3d), n. 61 above. 69 JNM 1.3: yad brahma pratipādyate praguṇayat tat pañca-mūrti-prathāṃ, tatrāyaṃ sthiti-mūrtim ākalayati śrī-bukkaṇa-kṣmāpatiḥ | vidyātīrtha-munis tad ātmani lasan mūrtis tvanugrāhikā, tenāsya svaguṇair akhaṇḍita-padaṃ sārvajñam udyotate || 70 JNM 1.7: sa bhavyād bhāratītīrtha-yatīndra-caturānanāt | kṛpām avyāhatāṃ labdhvā parārthya-pratimo ’bhavat || 71 JNM 1.8: nirmāya mādhavācāryo vidvad-ānanda-dāyinīm | jaiminīya-nyāya-mālāṃ vyācaṣṭe bālabuddhaye || 72 PD 1.1: namaḥ śrīśaṅkarānanda-guru-pādāmbu-janmane | savilāsa-mahāmoha-grāha-grāsaikakarmaṇe || 73 Per Potter (2005). Cf. n. 133, p. 26 infra. 74 PD 1.1 s.v.: śaṅkarānandaḥ pratyag-abhinnaḥ paramātmā | sa eva guruḥ … 75 VPS 1: svamātrayā ’’nanda yad atra jantūn sarvātma-bhāvena tathā paratra | yac chaṅkarānandapadaṃ hṛdabje vibhrājate tad yatayo viśanti || 76 Potter (2005) gives 975 CE, while Dasgupta, v. 2, p. 52 and Venimadhava Shastri, p. 115 place him in the thirteenth century. 77 The Pañca-pādikā-vivaraṇa itself is a commentary on Padmapāda’s Pañca-pādikā (8th century), dealing with the first four sūtras of the Brahmasūtras and Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya. 78 Two of the three editions consulted ascribe it to Vidyāraṇya, one to Bhāratītīrtha. Venkataraman (1976) suggests it could be a joint work (along with PD, JMV and DDV)! 79 yad vidyātīrthagurave śuśrūṣā ’nyā na rocate tasmāt | astv eṣā bhaktiyutā śrīvidyātīrtha-pādayoḥ sevā ||

80

Vidyātīrtha.

17 This would then indicate that at the very least, the author of the PD, if not

the same as the author Vidyāraṇya of the JMV and Mādhava of the PaM, has the same guru Vidyātīrtha. There is also the closing verse of the PD, where the reference to Harihara can be interpreted as a clever pun on the word referring to the deities Viṣṇu and Śiva as well as Bhāratītīrtha and Mādhavācārya/Vidyāraṇya’s royal patrons, Harihara I (1336-54 CE) & Harihara II (1376-1404 CE).81 Based on the evidence presented thus far, either Vidyāraṇya or Bhāratītīrtha or both could be the author of the PD. There is yet another text ascribed to Vidyāraṇya, the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra (BVS), a sub-commentary on Sureśvara’s Vārttika (8th century) on the BU.82 We will look at a portion of this work in greater detail in section
6.3, “Vidyāraṇya’s Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra (BVS) on BU 4.4.12,” p. 63 infra when considering the extra-textual context of the PD. As far as opening and closing verses are concerned, this text is not very helpful as no specific teachers are named, but the opening verse is identical to the first verse of both the PaM and the KM.83

80

Venkataraman (1976), however, says that Śaṅkarānanda was a student of Vidyātīrtha who collaborated with Vidyāraṇya in founding several small maṭha-s (p. 18). No sources are provided. There is also a Śaṅkarānanda Bhāratī listed in the Śṛṅgerī māṭhāmnāya (Nanjundayya, p. 458) for the period 1428-1454, which puts him out of consideration for our discussion. Thangaswami, pp. 257-261 presents three possibilities: 1. Śaṅkarānanda was an alternate name for Vidyātīrtha, 2. he was Vidyātīrtha’s guru, 3. he was not Vidyātīrtha’s guru but along with him (Vidyātīrtha), he was a guru of Vidyāraṇya. 81 A similar argument is presented in Kripacharyulu, pp. 66-7. Dates for the kings’ reigns based on Rāma Sharma, pp. xvii-xviii. 82 Marcaurelle, p.189; Upādhyāya, p. 153; Kripacharyulu, pp. 140-44. 83 The opening śloka, BVS 1.0.1: vāgīśādyāḥ sumanasaḥ sarvārthānām upakrame | yan natvā kṛtakṛtyāḥ syus taṃ namāmi gajānanam || Cf. n. 58 supra. (There is a possibility that this opening verse has been inserted later, since the next verse again is numbered “1” and seems to be the beginning of the work proper, with homage paid to Sureśvara and his Vārttika. In the Dwivedī edition, the opening verse is unnumbered). The final two ślokas of this work don’t mention any teachers – 6.6.1-2: upasaṃhṛtya tāṃ vidyāṃ kāṇḍavaṃśo ’tha varṇyate | sa vyākhyātaḥ pūrvameva brahmāptyaiḥ japyatām iti || navaty adhikasaṃkhyātāḥ ślokā navaśatāni ca | santi vārtikasare ’smin ṣaṣṭādhyāyasya saṅgrahe ||

84

18

The Anubhūti-prakāśa (AP), yet another work attributed to Vidyāraṇya, is a metrical work interpreting selections from twelve upaniṣads in twenty chapters. While there is no opening invocation, the concluding verse of every chapter honors Vidyātīrtha.85 The AP seems to be composed after the BVS, since its section on the BU, chapters AP13-18, shares many verses with the BVS.86 Vidyāraṇya is also said to have written commentaries called Dīpikā-s on the Aitareya and the Nṛsiṃhottara-tāpanīya Upaniṣads (AiU, NUTU).87 The opening and closing śloka-s of the AiU-Dīpikā are virtually identical to those of the JMV, wherein Vidyātīrtha is invoked.88 Thus we can confidently ascribe this work to MādhavaVidyāraṇya too. The NUTUD is entirely a prose commentary,89 with the exception of the opening and closing verses, neither of which resemble any of the invocations seen so far.90 For the purpose of the present analysis, I conclude that this work was most likely not authored by Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya.91 84

Venimadhava Shastri, p. 115; Kripacharyulu, pp. 149-157; Upādhyāya, pp. 152-3 calls it the Anupamaprakāśa. 85 For example, AP 12.120: antaḥ praviṣṭaḥ śāsteti yo ’ntaryāmī śrutīritaḥ | so ’smān mukhyaguruḥ pātu vidyātīrtha-maheśvaraḥ || AP 20.156: śrī-smṛtītihāsānām abhiprāyavid-avyayaḥ | śruti-vyākhyānatas tuṣyād vidyātīrtha-maheśvaraḥ || 86 For example AP13.3 = BVS 4.1.5; AP 13.4 = BVS 4.1.10; AP 13.5-10 = BVS 4.2.1-2,8-11 u.s.w. 87 Upādhyāya, p. 153; Venimadhava Shastri, p. 116; Kripacharyulu, pp. 123-4. 88 AiUD opening śloka is the same as that of the JMV (cf. n. 56 supra): yasya niḥśvasitaṃ vedā yo vedebhyo ’khilaṃ jagat | nirmame tam ahaṃ vande vidyātīrtha-maheśvaram || AiUD closing śloka: vedārthasya prakāśena tamo hārdaṃ nivārayan | pumārtham akhilaṃ deyād vidyātīrthamaheśvaraḥ || Cf. JMV closing śloka in n. 56 supra where the text in bold is instead jīvan-mukti-vivekena bandhaṃ . 89 All the other works considered so far have been metrical. 90 NUTUD opening vv.: oṃ namo bhagavate śrī-divyalakṣmī-nṛsiṃkāya namaḥ || nirasta-nikhilānartha-paramānanda-rūpiṇe | nṛsiṃhāya namaskurmaḥ sarvadhī-vṛtti-sākṣiṇe ||1|| caraṇābja-rajoleśa-samparkāt sahsā ’sakṛt | sarva-saṃsāra-hīno ’haṃ tānnato’smi gurūn sadā ||2|| tāpanīya-rahasyārtha-vivṛtir leśato mayā | kriyate ’lpadhiyā tasmāt kṣantavyaṃ kṣatam uttamaiḥ ||3||, Closing vv.: tāpanīya-rahasyārtha-dīpikā timirāpahā | gurv-anugraha-labdhaiṣā satāmas tu sukāptaye ||1|| saccidānanda-sampūrṇa-pratyag-ekarasātmane | tejase mahate bhūyān namaḥ puṃsiṃha-rūpiṇe ||2|| yeṣāṃ saṃsmṛti-mātreṇa taranti bhavasāgaram | tān nato ’smi gurūn bhaktyā dhiyā vācā ca karmaṇā ||3|| 91 In the context of the commentary to NUTU 1.1, the Dīpikā cites ślokas from texts referred to as Mantrarāja-kalpa and Sāra-saṅgraha. I was unable to locate the Mantra-rāja-kalpa text in either Potter (2005) or

19 Lastly, there is a text of Vidyāraṇya’s which was recently discovered by Olivelle (1981), the Praṇava-mīmāṃsā (PrM), on the syllable om. The text begins with homage to Lord Gaṇeśa,92 and a few verses later there occurs what Olivelle terms “the signature verse of both Vidyāraṇya and his brother Sāyaṇa”,93 offering homage to Vidyātīrtha.94 For the present analysis, I have deliberately not taken the colophons of texts into account, since these can be later scribal additions. But this text can be considered an exception owing to its uniqueness,95 and its colophon also pays homage to Vidyātīrtha and King Bukka. The evidence presented can now be summed up tabularly: Table 2: Texts and persons honored therein by Mādhava/Vidyāraṇya

Text 1. Parāśara-mādhavīya

Abbr. PaM

Author Mādhava

2. Kāla-mādhavīya

KM

Mādhava

3. Jaiminīya-nyāyamālā 4. Jīvan-mukti-viveka

JNM

Mādhava

JMV

Vidyāraṇya

Homage paid to: Gajānana, Vidyātīrtha, Bhāratītīrtha, Śrīkaṇṭha, Bukkaṇa Gajānana, Vidyātīrtha, Bhāratītīrtha, Śrīkaṇṭha, Bukkaṇa Bukkaṇa, Vidyātīrtha, Bhāratītīrtha Vidyātīrtha

Thangaswami. There are many works titled Sāra-saṅgraha. Potter (2005) lists four titles, three of which can be ruled out by virtue of their being Jain, Viśiṣṭādvaita (and Tamil) or Acintya-bhedābheda (ca. 1770 CE) texts. The Sāra-saṅgraha by Vedānta Deśika or Veṅkaṭanātha (1268-1369 CE) is of a period contemporaneous with Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya and is also unlikely to be cited profusely by him (26 consecutive ślokas). Thangaswami mentions two Advaita texts by the same name, one a secondary commentary on the Śārīrika-nyāya-maṇimāla (itself a commentary on the BS ŚBh) is by an Anantānandagiri (1900 CE) and the other, a commentary on Sarvajñātman’s Saṃkṣepa-śārīraka by Madhusūdana Sarasvati (1565-1665 CE), post-dating Vidyāraṇya. If it be argued that Sāra-saṅgraha is an abbreviation for the Sarva-vedānta-siddhānta-sāra-saṅgraha ascribed to Śaṅkara (falsely according to Belvalkar, pp. 228-9), the verses cited in the NUTUD do not occur therein. 92 PrM 1: śrī-gaṇeśāya namaḥ || 93 p. 82 (1981). 94 PrM 4: yasya niśvasitaṃ vedā yo vedebhyo ’khilaṃ jagat | nirmame tam ahaṃ vande vidyātīrthamaheśvaram || This is virtually identical to JMV 1.0.1 except that the text in bold is instead niḥśvasitaṃ – cf. n. 56 supra. 95 Only one manuscript is extant. Olivelle (1981), pp.77-8.

20 Text 5. Vivaraṇa-prameyasaṅgraha 6. Pañcadaśī 7. Bṛhadāraṇyakavārtika-sāra 8. Anubhūti-prakāśa 9. Aitareyopaniṣadadīpikā 10. Praṇava-mīmāṃsā

Abbr. VPS PD BVS

Author Vidyāraṇya and/or Bhāratītīrtha Vidyāraṇya and/or Bhāratītīrtha Vidyāraṇya

Homage paid to: Śaṅkarānanda, Vidyātīrtha Śaṅkarānanda, Harihara Gajānana

AP Vidyāraṇya AiUD Vidyāraṇya

Vidyātīrtha Vidyātīrtha

PrM

Gaṇeśa, Vidyātīrtha, Bukka

Vidyāraṇya

The first three entries are definitively associated with Mādhava without any question. The fact that Bhāratītīrtha is recognized in these texts as a guru means that he is not in contention for authorship. Further, through the clear reference to the PaM in Vidyāraṇya’s JMV as the author’s own work, this Mādhava is Vidyāraṇya and thus the first four texts of Table 2 are by the same author, Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya. Since the same “signature verse”96 occurs in JMV, AiUD and PrM, we can presume these works were written by the same author, allowing us to group together entries 1-
4 and
9-
10. Due to the extensive reuse of verses from the BVS in the AP without attribution to another 7 & 8
) as being the works of the same author. If we author,97 we can group these two (
take the opening śloka of the BVS as genuine, it being identical to the first śloka of the PaM and the KM,98 we can make the case that the BVS and AP were also written by Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya, extending the list of works that can be ascribed to him to consist

96

yasya niḥśvasitaṃ vedā yo vedebhyo’khilaṃ jagat | nirmame tam ahaṃ vande vidyātīrtha-maheśvaram || Cf. nn. 56, 88, 94 supra. 97 As attested to in n. 86 supra. 98 vāgīśādyāḥ sumanasaḥ sarvārthānām upakrame | yaṃ natvā kṛta-kṛtyāḥ syus taṃ namāmi gajānanam || Cf. nn. 58, 63-64, 83 supra.

21 of entries 1-
4 and
7-
10. Next, due to the shared and unique feature of homage paid to Śaṅkarānanda,99 we can group the VPS and PD together as being authored by the same individual, or in case the PD has two authors, begun by the same author who wrote the VPS. Both works pay homage to Śaṅkarānanda in the beginning, so the author who wrote the VPS began the PD. In order to definitively ascribe authorship of the PD to Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya based on this evidence we would need to show a stronger link between any of the texts in the first group (entries 1-
4 and
7-
10) with either of the texts in the second group (entries
5 and
6). I believe this can be done, but first we need to examine the facts known about Bhāratītīrtha. 3.5

Works ascribed to Bhāratītīrtha What do we know about Bhāratītīrtha? As seen in the discussion in this chapter so

far, there is sufficient evidence to confirm that he was one of Mādhavācārya/ Vidyāraṇya’s gurus and his predecessor as the head of the Śṛṅgerī maṭha. Mādhavācārya is said to have obtained sannyāsa from Bhāratītīrtha.100 Both of them may also have counted Vidyātīrtha as their guru. The earliest known inscription mentioning the Śṛṅgerī maṭha (as a tīrtha, a place of pilgrimage)101 is dated to 1346 CE and mentions donations by King Harihara I to support Bhāratītīrtha-Śrīpāda and his disciples. Earlier, we saw Jog’s opinion that Bhāratītīrtha was Vidyāraṇya’s younger brother Bhoganātha, who took sannyāsa earlier.102 This opinion is also put forth by Venkataraman (1967)103 but is not

99

Cf. nn. 72, 75 supra. Upādhyāya, p. 66. 101 Filliozat, no. 14, pp. 8-10; Uttankita Epigraphs, pp. 69-73. 102 See chapter 2, “The Significance of PD7, Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa,” p. 4 supra. 100

22 accepted by Srikantaya, because it is apparently based on Śṛṅgerī kaḍita or “account” books of the maṭha, whose accuracy is doubted.104 Most other sources do not report any connection between Bhoganātha and Bhāratītīrtha.105 Besides the PD and VPS seen earlier, there are two more works that are attributed to Bhāratītīrtha – the Dṛg-dṛśya-viveka (DDV) and the Vaiyāsika-nyāya-mālā (VNM).106 These texts are also often attributed to Vidyāraṇya instead of, or in addition to, Bhāratītīrtha, on the basis of Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya’s authorship of the Jaiminīya-nyāyamālā (JNM).107 The DDV is a brief work consisting of only 46 śloka-s and has no opening and closing maṅgala-śloka-s. It is also known as the Vākya-sudhā.108 It is an inquiry into the discrimination of the Self from the not-Self, and is often mistakenly attributed to Śaṅkara (8th c. CE).109 The VNM is a summary of the Brahmasūtras and it opens with salutations to Vidyātīrtha.110 There is no closing salutation. The brevity of the opening salutation and the absence of a closing salutation may be dictated by the

103

p. 23. This is most likely based on the account of the guru-vaṃśa-kāvya (ca. 1735 CE, per Shastry, p. 8), whose historical accuracy is in doubt. See, for example, Kulke pp.130-1, 135; Srikantaya, pp. 110,1389. 104 Srikantaya, pp. 127,137-8; Kulke, p. 140, n. 53. 105 For example, Kane, pp. 785-6,789; Kripacharyulu, Thangaswami pp. 260-61. 106 Mahadevan (1938), p. 7; Upādhyāya, pp 66-7; Nikhilānanda, p. vi (in his tr. of the DDV), Thangaswami, pp. 259-60. Upādhyāya says that some commentators suggest that Vidyāraṇya may have helped his guru in the composition of one or both of these texts. 107 For example, Venimadhava Shastri, pp. 113-6 attributes both texts to Vidyāraṇya. Venkatarama Iyer ascribes joint authorship (in Venkataraman (1976), pt. 2, p.p. 4-5) for both texts. In the preface to his commentary on the BS and the VNM, the Brahma-sūtra-rahasyam, Ramanuja Tatacharya credits Vidyāraṇya with the authorship of the VNM. So does Kane, p. 788. Niścaladāsa, p. 355, attributes the DDV to Vidyāraṇya. 108 Venimadhava Shastri, p. 116; Thangaswami, p.259. However, Nikhilānanda, p. vi (in his tr.), suggests that Vākya-sudhā is the name of the commentary on the DDV by Brahmānanda Bhāratī. Thangaswami, p. 260 confirms this. 109 For example, Raphael’s translation of the DDV is titled Self and Non-self: The Drigdriśyaviveka Attributed to Śaṃkara. 110 VNM 1.1: praṇamya paramātmānaṃ śrī-vidyātīrtha-rūpiṇam | vaiyāsika-nyāya-māla ślokaiḥ saṅgṛhyate sphuṭam ||

format – for each adhikaraṇa

111

23 of the Brahmasūtra, there are two śloka-s. The first

śloka states the viṣaya, sandeha and pūrvapakṣa (subject, doubt, and prima facie view) for the adhikaraṇa, while the second śloka states the siddhānta or conclusion. The last member of the adhikaraṇa, saṅgati or consistency is considered self-evident.112 The evidence regarding texts attributed to Bhāratītīrtha can be tabularly summarized: Table 3: Texts and persons honored therein by Bhāratītīrtha

Text 1. Dṛg-dṛśya-viveka

Abbr. DDV

2. Vaiyāsika-nyāya-mālā

VNM

3.6

Author Homage paid to: Bhāratītīrtha and/or – Vidyāraṇya Bhāratītīrtha and/or Vidyātīrtha Vidyāraṇya

Bhāratītīrtha, Vidyāraṇya and the PD The theory that Bhāratītīrtha was the author of the PD (A3 in Section 3
.1, p. 8

supra) is propounded primarily by T.M.P. Mahadevan. According to Mahadevan, while it is probable that Mādhava may have been Vidyāraṇya (M1 above), the PD is not authored by him (ruling out M1, M2, M3 and M4) but by his guru, Bhāratītīrtha, who also possessed as an appellation the title “Vidyāraṇya” or “Forest of Learning”,113 and who was also connected with the early kings of Vijayanagara.114 Mahadevan based this view primarily on Appayya Dīkṣita’s attribution of the PD to Bhāratītīrtha in his

111

Each adhikaraṇa of the Brahma-Sūtras consists of six parts: 1. viṣaya, subject. 2. saṃśaya, doubt. 3. pūrvapakṣa, prima facie view. 4. uttarapakṣa, opposite view. 5. siddhānta, conclusion and 6. saṅgati, consistency with other parts of the work. 112 VNM 1.2: eko viṣaya-sandeha-pūrvapakṣāvabhāsakaḥ | śloko ’paras tu siddhāntavādī saṅgatayaḥ sphuṭāḥ || 113 Mahadevan (1969), p. xxi. 114 Mahadevan (1938), p. 8.

Siddhānta-leśa-saṅgraha (SLS, ca. 1585 CE),

115

24 supported by other textual citations

occurring even later.116 Mahadevan holds that Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya is the author of the JMV, where the PD is quoted as though it is authored by someone else, whom he calls Bhāratītīrtha-Vidyāraṇya. To the objection that tīrtha and araṇya are distinct sannyāsīsurnames and cannot occur in the same individual’s name,117 he counters that the Vidyāraṇya is not a surname as such but only “an appellation meaning ‘Forest of Learning’ applied to [Bhāratītīrtha].”118 Let us examine Mahadevan’s arguments more closely. Appayya Dīkṣita’s SLS mentions Bhāratītīrtha as the author of the VPS.119 He mentions the DDV in connection with the Citradīpa-prakaraṇa, PD6.120 Slightly earlier he also refers to the Brahmānanda-pañcaka, PD11-15.121 In an earlier section there is a reference to “Bhāratītīrtha and others” in connection with the views expressed in PD6.122 In a later section, Bhāratītīrtha is mentioned as the author of the Dhyānadīpa, PD9.123 Is there any significance to the fact that the name appears in the nominative plural?124 One

115

Potter (2005). Mahadevan (1938), pp. 6-7; (1969), pp. xiv-xxi. 117 The sannyāsins are often referred to as daśanāmins on account of their using one of ten surnames derived from the academic titles of ten disciples of Śaṅkara’s immediate pupils. The names are 1. Sarasvati, 2. Bhārati, 3. Pūri, 4. Tīrtha, 5. Sāgara, 6. Vana, 7. Araṇya, 8. Giri, 9. Parvata and 10. Sāgara (again). Of these, Sāgara, Araṇya and Parvata are no longer used, according to Nanjundayya, v. 2, p. 455. 118 Mahadevan (1969), pp. xx-xxi. 119 SLS II.3.5421 (Suryanarayana Sastri, v. 2, p. 93): vivaraṇopanyāse bhāratītīrtha-vacanam iti. Vivaraṇopanyāsa is Appayya Dīkṣit’s name for VPS. 120 SLS I.2.3117 (Ibid., p. 22): dṛg-dṛśya-viveke tu citradīpa-vyutpāditam kūṭastham jīva-koṭāv antarbhāvya cit-trai-vidhya-prakriyaivāvalambiteti viśeṣaḥ | 121 SLS I.2.3116 (Ibid., p. 20): brahmānande tu … 122 SLS I.4.1 (Ibid., p. 31): …iti bhāratītīrthādi-pakṣaḥ prāg eva darśitaḥ. Suryanarayana Sastri, v. 2, notes p. vi, n. 137: “Cp. Pañcadaśī 6.153-163.” 123 SLS III.3.0 (Ibid., p. 131): evam … bhāratītīrthāḥ dhyānadīpe … āhuḥ | 124 i.e. bhāratītīrthāḥ … āhuḥ instead of bhāratītīrthaḥ … āha. 116

125

possibility is that the plural is used to indicate respect,

25 but there may be another

explanation. Vidyāraṇya is mentioned ambiguously as “Vidyāraṇya-guru”126 – the compound can be interpreted as either “Guru Vidyāraṇya” or “the guru of Vidyāraṇya, i.e. Bhāratītīrtha.”127 I suggest that Appayya Dīkṣita’s references to Bhāratītīrtha and Vidyāraṇya can also be taken as indicative of his awareness of the joint-authorship theory (A2), that the PD was authored by both Bhāratītīrtha and Vidyāraṇya. That is why Appayya Dīkṣita says “Bhāratītīrtha and others,” and uses the plural form “Bhāratītīrthāḥ.” The reference “Vidyāraṇya-guru” could either be deliberately ambiguous, or simply indicative of the respect that Vidyāraṇya has come to be held in by the Advaita tradition in the two hundred years that have elapsed since his death 1386 CE. Furthermore, Mahadevan’s view that the PD is solely authored by BhāratītīrthaVidyāraṇya is also based on deliberately deprecating an important source of evidence. Mahadevan writes, “That Rāmakṛṣṇa Paṇḍita at the beginning of his commentary on the Tṛpti-dīpa mentions128 Bhāratītīrtha as the author is no ground for stating that the earlier chapters are the work of Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya. The mention of Bhāratītīrtha in the Tṛptidīpa may indicate his authorship not of that chapter alone, nor of that and the succeeding chapters alone but of the whole book. Rāmakṛṣṇa Paṇḍita no doubt pays obeisance to both Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha. But this would at best prove that

125

pūjāyāṃ bahuvacanam SLS II.3.4112 (Ibid., p. 83): trividhā-jīva-vādinām vidyāraṇya-guruprabhṛtīnām … 127 SLS Suryanarayana Sastri, v. 2, notes p. x, n. 50: “The reference seems clearly to be to vv. 36-46 of the DDV, attributed to Bhāratītīṛtha. It is an open question therefore whether Appayya means the preceptor of Vidyāraṇya or the preceptor, Vidyāraṇya, identifying him with Bhāratītīrtha.” In the translation, v. 1, p. 276, he chooses the latter, “Preceptor Vidyāraṇya.” 128 Rāmakṛṣṇa’s commentary to PD7 starts: tṛptidīpākhyaṃ prakaraṇam ārabhamāṇaḥ śrī-bhāratītīrthagurus tasya śruti-vyākhyāna-rūpatvāt tad-vyākhyeyāṃ śrutim ādau paṭhati. Ācārya, p. 188. 126

26 Rāmakṛṣṇa was probably the disciple of both and not that the Pañcadaśī was the work of both.”129 Rāmakṛṣṇa was indeed a disciple of Vidyāraṇya according to Thangaswami’s bibliographical survey of Advaita Vedānta literature.130 Potter dates Rāmakṛṣṇa to 1375 CE.131 According to Thangaswami, Bhāratītīrtha had two other disciples besides Vidyāraṇya: Brahmānanda-bhāratī who wrote the Vākya-sudhā commentary on the DDV, and Kṛṣṇānanda-bhāratī, who wrote a work called the Mahāvākya-darpaṇa.132 He shows Vidyāraṇya, on the other hand, as having three disciples – Kṛṣṇānanda-bhāratī, Brahmānanda-bhāratī, and Rāmakṛṣṇa.133 Rāmakṛṣṇa is the only disciple of the three who does not also have Bhāratītīrtha as a guru. His commentary to the PD only mentions Bhāratītīrtha the one time.134 Everywhere else, he refers to the author of the PD as ācārya.135 If anything, this serves to draw greater attention to his mention of Bhāratītīrtha at the start of his commentary to PD7. This would suggest that Rāmakṛṣṇa was aware that PD7 was authored by Bhāratītīrtha, while his guru Vidyāraṇya wrote the rest of the PD. There would be no other reason for Rāmakṛṣṇa to share his guru’s authorship credit with Bhāratītīrtha and every reason to ascribe complete authorship to Vidyāraṇya, if he wished to do so. Based on the contemporaneity of Rāmakṛṣṇa with Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha, and his direct association with Vidyāraṇya, I am inclined to

129

Mahadevan (1938), p. 7. pp. 260-61. 131 Potter (2005). 132 p. 259: brahmānanda-bhārty-ākhy apara-śiṣyo’pi bhāratītīrthasya | brahmānanda-bhārtyā dṛg-dṛśyavivekasya vyākhyā kṛtā | mahāvākya-darpaṇa-kāraḥ kṛṣṇānanda-bhāratī ca bhāratītīrtha-śiṣyaḥ | 133 p. 260: vidyāraṇyaḥ …kṛṣṇānanda-bhāratī-brahmānanda-bhārati-rāmakṛṣṇānāṃ guruḥ … See also: guru-śiṣya-pramparā-vṛkṣaḥ on p. 261. 134 See n. 128 supra. 135 See, for example, the introduction to PD3 and PD8, in Ācārya, pp. 63,283. 130

27 attach greater significance to the implications of his mention of Bhāratītīrtha at the start of PD7 than Mahadevan does. Mahadevan also draws attention to the fact that when, in the JMV, the author refers to his prior work, the PM, he does so unambiguously,136 whereas when he cites the PD, it is done neutrally without any allusion to whether the PD too was authored by him. In the JMV, the author says “… have been explained in the fourth chapter of the Brahmānanda [pañcaka, i.e. PD14].”137 There are certainly no metrical constraints inhibiting the author from inserting “by us” if he so desired. Mahadevan also points out that in the PD itself, a similar neutral statement is made, “… have been explained,”138 but the context makes it clear that what is being referred to is the preceding verse.139 But in the very next verse we have “… have been set forth by us in the Tṛptidīpa [prakaraṇa] (emphasis mine),”140 and the remainder of the chapter is a repetition of verses from PD7.141 Mahadevan himself suggests that one should not read too much into the use of the phrase “have been explained” versus “have been explained by us,” and he says that “the evidence is inconclusive … It is true that such an expression is sometimes used to refer to one’s own earlier work; but it may also be used to refer to a work other than one’s own – the work

136

(1969), p. xix. See also n. 55 and the relevant discussion on p. 14 supra. JMV 4.4.1-2: duḥkha-nāśa-sukhāvirbhāva-rūpa-caturtha-pañcama-rūpe prayojane vidyānandātmakena brahmānanda-gatena caturthādhyāyena nirūpite | tad ubhayam atra saṃkṣipyocyate: This is followed by a citation of BU 4.4.12/PD 7.1/PD 14.5. Dasgupta, v. 2, p. 251, n. 2 also revises his earlier opinion (that the same Vidyāraṇya wrote the PD and JMV) based on this reference to brahmānanda in JMV. 138 PD 14.38: duḥkhābhāvaś ca kāmāptir ubhe nirūpite | kṛta-kṛtyatvam anyac ca prāpta-prāpyatvam īkṣatāṃ || 139 Mahadevan (1969), p. xx. 140 PD 14.39: ubhayaṃ tṛptidīpe hi samyag asmābhir īritam | ta evātrānusandheyāḥ ślokā buddhiviśuddhaye || 141 PD 14.40-64 = PD 7.253-270,291-297. 137

28 of one’s preceptor which is well-known, or of one with whom one is closely connected.”142 There is another possible explanation for such usage. If the dual-authorship theory of the PD (
A2, p. 8) is true, then Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya, the author of the JMV might have deliberately chosen to say “have been explained” in order to refer to the portion of the PD written by his guru, Bhāratītīrtha.143 Whereas, if the second portion of the PD (chapters 7-15) were indeed written by Bhāratītīrtha, in PD 14.39144 it would be but natural for him (Bhāratītīrtha) to refer to his own passages in PD7 by saying “… have been set forth by us.” Or, if Bhāratītīrtha did indeed write only PD7, as suggested by the evidence in Rāmakṛṣṇa’s commentary, then perhaps Vidyāraṇya is referring in PD 14.39 to both Bhāratītīrtha and himself when he says “by us.” Once again, this is merely conjecture and by no means conclusive evidence, but it does help, in my opinion, to strengthen the case for the possibility of Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya’s joint authorship of the PD with Bhāratītīrtha.

142

Mahadevan (1969), p. xix. The PD is cited in four more places in the JMV: 1) JMV 2.3.26 cites PD 7.156, using “āhuḥ, they said.” 2) JMV 2.10.10 cites PD 7.139 (also MB 13.15.3971-2 per Goodding, p. 181, n. 66) using “iti.” 3) JMV 2.10.27-29 cites PD 12.65-67, prefaced by “putraviveko brahmānande darśitaḥ, discernement regarding sons is described in the Brahmānanda [pañcaka, PD 11-15].” 4) JMV 5.1.25 cites PD 4.68 (also Muktika Upaniṣad 2.64, per Goodding, p. 443), prefaced by “tathā ca smaryate, similary, it is mentioned in the Smṛti.” All four mentions are impersonal, with the exception of the fourth, all the references are within PD 7-15, the section thought to have been authored by the second author of the PD, who would have to be Bhāratītīrtha by my current reasoning. The impersonal reference to the fourth citation, though it falls outside this section, is a smṛti reference and thus would not merit “asmābhir uktam/īritam, it was said/setforth by us.” 144 See n. 140 supra. 143

29 3.7

Textual parallels between the AP and the PD There is one final piece of evidence to consider. There is the suggestion of

Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya’s authorship of the PD based on inter-textual sharing between the AP and the PD. Through a by no means complete examination145 of the śloka indices to both the PD and the AP, I have found a few instances of sharing between these two texts. Here is a list of the parallels found (the variations are in bold type): 1. PD 2.2:

śabda-sparśau rūpa-rasau gandho bhūta-guṇā ime | eka-dvi-tri-catuḥ-pañca-guṇā vyomādiṣu kramāt || AP 11.62: śabda-sparśau rūpa-rasau gandho bhūta-guṇā ime | eka-dvi-tri-catuḥ-pañca-guṇā vyomādayaḥ kramāt ||

2. PD 2.20: AP 3.32:

vṛkṣasya svagato bhedaḥ patra-puṣpa-phalādibhiḥ | vṛkṣāntarāt sajātīyo vijātīyaś śilāditaḥ || vṛkṣasya svagato bhedaḥ śākhādy avayavais tathā | vṛkṣāntarāt sajātīyo vijātīyaḥ śilāditaḥ ||

3. PD 8.73:

yayā yayā bhavet puṃsāṃ vyutpattiḥ pratyagātmani | sa saiva prakriyeha syāt sādhvīty ācārya-bhāṣitam || AP 13.108: yayā yayā bhavet puṃsāṃ vyutpattiḥ pratyagātmani | sa saiva prakriyeha syāt sādhvī sā cānavasthitā || [cf. Sureśvara’s works146]

4. PD 11.7: AP 6.65:

bhidyate hṛdaya-granthiś chidyante sarva-saṃśayāḥ | kṣīyante cāsya karmāṇi tasmin dṛṣṭe parāvare || bhidyate hṛdaya-granthiś chidyante sarva-saṃśayāḥ | kṣīyante cāsya karmāṇi tasmin dṛṣṭe parāvare || [MU 2.2.8]

5. PD 11.18: sa purāṇān pañca vedāñ chāstrāṇi vividhāni ca | jñātvāpy anātmavittvena nārado ’ti-śuśoca ha || AP 4.2: purāṇa-pañcamān vedān śāstrāṇi vividhāni ca | jñātvāpy anātmavittvena nāradāḥ śokamāptavān || [cf. ChU 7.1.2]

145

The indices on which I base my analysis only provided the beginnings of the ślokas, i.e., pāda-a of a four-part śloka. If the comparison were done on the basis of comparing each pāda of the śloka, more matches might presumably be found. 146 The verse is not in Naiṣ, though.

30 6. PD 11.19: vedābhyāsāt purā tāpa-traya-mātreṇa śokitā | paścāt tv abhyāsa-vismāra-bhaṅga-garvaiś ca śokitā || AP 4.3: vedābhyāsāt purā tāpa-traya-mātreṇa śokitā | paścāt tv abhyāsa-vismāra-bhaṅga-garvaiś ca śokitā || [cf. ChU 7.1.3] 7. PD 12.60: vittāt putraḥ priyaḥ putrāt piṇḍaḥ piṇḍāt tathendriyaṃ | indriyāc ca priyaḥ prāṇaḥ prāṇād ātmā priyaḥ paraḥ || AP 13.201: vittāt putraḥ priyaḥ putrāt piṇḍaḥ piṇḍāt tathendriyaṃ | indriyebhyaḥ priyaḥ prāṇaḥ ātmā priyatamas tataḥ || [cf. BU 1.4.8] There are also some partial pāda matches: 8. PD 4.7 AP 14.58

9. PD 11.47 AP 11.62

visphuliṅgā yathā vahner jāyante ’kṣaratas tathā | vividhāś cij-jaḍā bhāvā ity ātharvaṇikī śrutiḥ || visphuliṅgā yathā cāgner jāyante ’gni-svabhāvataḥ | tathā suptātmanau jīvā vijñānamaya-nāmakāḥ || [cf. MU 2.1.1] śakuniḥ sūtra-baddhaḥ san dikṣu vyāpṛtya viśramam | alabdhvā bandhana-sthānaṃ hasta-stambhādy upāśrayet || śakuniḥ sūtra-baddho yaḥ sa gacchan vividhā diśaḥ | alabdhvādhāram ākāśe bandhana-sthānam āvrajet || [cf. ChU 6.8.2]

10. PD 2.11ab vāk-pāṇi-pāda-pāyūpasthair akṣais tat-kriyā-janiḥ | AP 1.75ab vāk-pāṇi-pāda-pāyūpasthāḥ karmendriya-pañcakam | 11. PD 4.4ab khaṃ vāyv-agni-jalor vyoṣadhy anna-dehāḥ kramād amī | AP 2.32ab khaṃ vāyv-agni-jalor vyoṣadhy anna-deheṣu kāraṇam | [cf 2.1.1] 12. PD 6.181ab etasya vā akṣarasya praśāsana iti śrutiḥ | AP 13.172ab etasya vā akṣarasya śasane saty ado jagat | [BU 3.8.9] However, these parallels cannot be considered as incontrovertible evidence of common authorship for two reasons. First, with the exception of three instances, the rest are all references to śruti passages, and two (nos. 4 and 12) are outright quotations. It is

31 feasible that these passages are standard formulaic references that were commonly known. Even the three remaining cases might be references to texts that I am not familiar with, either minor upaniṣads or secondary literature. Second, even if these were not commonly occurring passages, it could be argued that two distinct, talented individuals composing works in the same anuṣṭubh metre, referring to the same textual passage or doctrinal concept, might come up with virtually identical śloka-s, particularly if they shared the same teaching lineage (as Bhāratītīrtha and Vidyāraṇya did).147 Tempering any conjecture with these two counter-explanations, if we were to persist in supposing that the author of the PD and the AP were the same, how does it affect the dual-authorship theory (
A2, p. 8)?

3.8

Impact of AP-PD parallels on joint-authorship theory (A2) Even though we have squarely assigned authorship of the AP to Mādhava-

Vidyāraṇya, we have no idea of the relative chronology of composition, i.e., whether the PD was composed later than the AP or not. Tradition holds that the PD was composed in the last few years of Vidyāraṇya’s life, even though no evidence has been offered to support this.148 Setting aside for the moment the lack of evidence, the AP, being simply a synopsis of select upaniṣads, could have been composed earlier than the PD. The PD may have been composed later to present Vidyāraṇya’s comprehensive overview of Advaita Vedānta.

147

Both acknowledge Vidyātīrtha as their guru. Vidyātīrtha was also their predecessor as head of Śṛṅgerī Maṭha. Cf. Table 1, p. 12; nn. 56, 59, 64, 69 et passim and Table 2, p. 19 for Vidyāraṇya and n. 110 and Table 3, p. 23 for Bhāratītīrtha. Also Thangaswami, p. 261. for a vaṃśa-vṛkṣaḥ. 148 See for example, the discussion of Jog’s opinion on p. 5 supra and also n. 7.

32 Some even hold that the JMV was Vidyāraṇya’s penultimate work and a supplement to the PD, perhaps intended to be its sixteenth chapter.149 That could make the PD his last work, which was interrupted by his death and then completed by Bhāratītīrtha (supporting theories
A2.6V and
A2.10V in section
3.1 supra). There is, however, a problem with this scenario which puts the JMV’s authorship as occuring before the PD: there are multiple instances where the JMV refers to the PD, specifically sections from PD chapters 4, 7, 12 and 14.150 This would either require the opposite, that the PD was written before the JMV, or that at the very least PD7 and PD12 were written (by either Bhāratītīrtha or Vidyāraṇya) before the JMV,151 and that Vidyāraṇya, as author of JMV was already planning to organize the PD into three pañcaka-s, and was intending to name the last pañcaka the brahmānanda pañcaka.152 This would suggest that perhaps Vidyāraṇya sketched out an outline for the organization of his PD, wrote at least a couple of possibly non-sequential chapters for the PD, then setting the unfinished PD aside, wrote the JMV, after which he resumed the PD, and passed away before completing it. This seems highly contrived and improbable. The simpler possibility, that the PD was written before the JMV, is more likely. Do the shared references between the AP and the PD support the hypothesis that Bhāratītīrtha completed the PD after Vidyāraṇya’s death? Parallels to the AP are found

149

Kripacaryulu reports this opinion without any references, p. 131: “Scholars already considered [that] the JMV[,] the penultimate work of the same author[,] is a supplement to this work PD as its sixteenth chapter.” 150 Cf. nn. 137, 143 supra. 151 The verses referred to from PD4 and PD14 also occur in the Muktika Upaniṣad and the BU respectively, and thus arguably need not necessarily be PD references. Cf. n 143 supra. 152 JMV 4.4.1 very specifically references the fourth chapter of the Brahmānanda pañcaka, i.e., PD14, before citing BU 4.4.12 which is also PD 14.5 and PD 7.1. Cf. n. 137 supra.

33 in the following prakaraṇa-s of the PD: 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12. This would contradict the theories that Vidyāraṇya only wrote PD1-6 (theory A
2.6V) or PD1-10 (theory
A2.10V, improperly attributed to Niścaladāsa). It is still possible that Bhāratītīrtha wrote only PD7 (theory A2.B1). There is also the other, more remote possibility, that Bhāratītīrtha did write either PD1-6 or PD7-15 (theories A2.6B and A2.6V respectively) but was familiar enough with Vidyāraṇya’s AP to quote from it. Of course, all of the preceding discussion in this paragraph has been conjecture based upon conjecture. The most we can say with certainty regarding the data presented by the parallels between the PD and the AP is that it strengthens the likelihood the same author, Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya wrote both the AP and the PD (theory A1) or portions of the PD (particularly theory A2.B1). 3.9

Revised ascription of works to Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha Thus, if one were to take Rāmakṛṣṇa’s references to Bhāratītīrtha at the start of

PD7 more seriously than Mahadevan does, for the reasons discussed above, it would strengthen the case that Bhāratītīrtha wrote only PD7. The evidence reviewed regarding the JMV’s references to the PD also supports joint authorship of the PD, either that Bhāratītīrtha wrote only PD7 or that he wrote PD7-15, which is far less likely. The evidence, albeit incomplete, of parallels between Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya’s AP and the PD examined earlier in section 3.8, p. 31 strongly favors the theory that only the PD7 was written by Bhāratītīrtha, while Vidyāraṇya wrote the rest of the prakaraṇa-s. Thus I would like to propose that we revise our opinion of authorship regarding the PD accordingly. The assignment of the various texts between Bhāratītīrtha and Vidyāraṇya can be revised as follows:

34 Table 4: Works by Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha

Text 1. Parāśara-mādhavīya

Abbr. PaM

Author Mādhava

Homage paid to: Gajānana, Vidyātīrtha, Bhāratītīrtha, Śrīkaṇṭha, Bukkaṇa Gajānana, Vidyātīrtha, Bhāratītīrtha, Śrīkaṇṭha, Bukkaṇa Bukkaṇa, Vidyātīrtha, Bhāratītīrtha Vidyātīrtha Śaṅkarānanda, Vidyātīrtha Śaṅkarānanda, Harihara

2. Kāla-mādhavīya

KM

Mādhava

3. Jaiminīya-nyāya-mālā

JNM

Mādhava

4. Jīvan-mukti-viveka 5. Vivaraṇa-prameyasaṅgraha 6. Pañcadaśī

JMV VPS

Vidyāraṇya Bhāratītīrtha*

PD

7. Bṛhadāraṇyakavārtika-sāra 8. Anubhūti-prakāśa 9. Aitareyopaniṣadadīpikā 10. Praṇava-mīmāṃsā

BVS

Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha (PD7 only) Vidyāraṇya

AP AiUD

Vidyāraṇya Vidyāraṇya

Vidyātīrtha Vidyātīrtha

PrM

Vidyāraṇya

11. Dṛg-dṛśya-viveka 12. Vaiyāsika-nyāya-mālā

DDV VNM

Bhāratītīrtha* Bhāratītīrtha

Gaṇeśa, Vidyātīrtha, Bukka – Vidyātīrtha

Gajānana

Authorship marked by * is assigned provisionally.

The VPS and the DDV are provisionally assigned to Bhāratītīrtha, the VPS primarily on the basis of Appayya Dīkṣita’s explicit attribution of the work to Bhāratītīrtha,153 and the DDV mainly because there is no convincing evidence to counter its traditional ascription to Bhāratītīrtha,154 and possibly also on stylistic parallel to VPS

153

See n. 119 supra. Venimadhava Shastri, p. 116 makes a case for attributing the DDV to Vidyāraṇya based on Appaya Dīkṣita’s reference to the DDV in SLS 2.3.4112: advaita-vidyā-kṛtas tu pratibimbasya mithyātvam abhyupagacchatāṃ trividha-jīva-vādināṃ vidyāraṇya-guru-prabhṛtinām … Venimadhava Shastri says, “And the three types of self is the thesis found in DDV only.” He is referring to DDV 32: avacchinnaś cidābhāsas tṛtīyaḥ svapna-kalpitaḥ | vijñeyas tri-vidho jīvas tatrādyaḥ pāramārthikaḥ || This is a tenuous argument, because a) this concept is not exclusive to Vidyāraṇya and b) there is no reason why Vidyāraṇya could not refer to ideas in Bhāratītīrtha’s work (the DDV). 154

35 with regard to brevity. More work is needed to definitively settle issues of authorship regarding these texts. In the preceding analysis, I have restricted myself primarily to analyzing the opening and closing invocations, purposefully choosing not to consider the evidence of the colophons, as their authenticity is often tenuous – perhaps inserted by scribes at some later point in time rather than by the authors themselves. A more thorough analysis would, of course, have to consider the coherency of the content of these various texts. I have attempted to do so, albeit to a very limited extent, in section 3.7 supra, where the parallels between the PD and the AP were explored, and in chapter 6, “Extra-textual Context of PD7” infra, where I shall compare the context of PD7 to the context of BU 4.4.12, its commentary BUŚBh and the corresponding section in the BVS. Lastly, there are five texts often ascribed to Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya which I have not considered in this discussion. One is the Śaṅkara-digvijaya (ŚDV), which is almost certainly a later text.155 The commentary Tātparya-dīpikā on the Sūta-saṃhita is also not by our Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya but instead by Mādhavamantrin (M2).156 Then there is the Dhātu-vṛtti (DV), whose authorship by Mādhava is also uncertain.157 The Saṅgīta-sāra is

155

For example, Upādhyāya, pp. 153-5. Thangaswami, p. 263: grantho’yam na vidyāraṇya-krtiḥ | parantu abhinava-kālidāsa-kṛtir iti siddhāntaḥ | Also cf. n. 27 supra. 156 See, for example, S. S. Janaki’s “Madhava, the Commentator on Suta Samhita” in Jagannadham et al, pp. 79-84; Srikantaya, pp. 152-5. Cf. n. 25 supra. 157 For example, Srikantaya, pp. 147-8. The opening invocatory verse to this text actually is the same as seen earlier in the PaM, KM and BVS (nn. 58, 83): DV 1: vāgīśādyāḥ sumanasaḥ sarvārthānām upakrame | yaṃ natvā kṛta-kṛtyāḥ syus taṃ namāmi gajānanam || Further along, there is a verse (v. 7) mentioning Māyaṇa-sāyaṇa, minister of King Saṅgama. In vv. 12-13 the text is named the mādhavīya-dhātu-vṛtti and the author is given as Sāyaṇa, son of Māyana. Kripacharyulu, pp. 85-9 also assigns the authorship to Sāyaṇa. The issue of shared authorship of works by Sāyaṇa and Mādhava is also a complex issue and one that I’ve deliberately side-stepped in this present work. Cf. nn. 56, 58 supra.

158

a work on music attributed to Vidyāraṇya, but is not extant.

36 There is also a

commentary or dīpikā on an Advaita text reputedly by Śaṅkara himself, the Aparokṣānubhūti. It is a non-metrical work and its attribution to Vidyāraṇya is in doubt.159 We now have a clearer understanding of the authorship issues as well as some evidence in favor of joint authorship of the Pañcadaśī, suggesting that Vidyāraṇya may have written all of it except for the Tṛptidīpa- prakaraṇa, (PD7). I have suggested that PD7 was authored by Bhāratītīrtha, Vidyāraṇya’s guru and predecessor at Śṛṅgeri. Is this conclusion supported by the text itself? Can we detect any divergence either in literary style or in doctrinal content between PD7 and the rest of the text? In order to explore this facet of the issue, I shall first present a chapter-by-chapter overview of the ideas treated by the Pañcadaśī in chapter 4, “A Synopsis of the Pañcadaśī.” This will set the stage for chapter 5, “A Closer Look at Tṛptidīpa-Prakaraṇa, PD7.”

158

Kripacharyulu, pp. 157-8; Upādhyāya, pp. 158-9; P. S. Sundaram Iyer, “Sri Vidyaranya and Music” in Karmarkar et al., pp. 333-342. 159 Belvalkar, p. 226, n. 1: “The editor [of Śaṅkara’s Misc. Works, Mysore, 1898] is not sure about the ascription of the com. to Vidyāraṇya. Even the original work [the Aparokṣānubhūti] does not rise above the common place, and may have been an early work of the Ācārya [Śaṅkara].”

37 4. A Synopsis of the Pañcadaśī 4.1

Tattvavivekaḥ – Discrimination of Reality This chapter introduces the subject matter of this text, namely reality, tattva which

is brahman. The nature of one’s experience in the waking, dreaming and deep-sleep states is examined, showing that consciousness is common to all three states. This consciousness is our true Self, ātman, of the nature of sat-cit-ānanda, existenceconsciousness-bliss, which is identical to brahman, as taught in the upaniṣads. Yet one does not live with this awareness of ātman/brahman and is instead attracted to objects and experiences duality. The cause of this contrary experience is beginningless ignorance, avidyā. Avidyā, māyā (illusion),160 īśvara (the creator) and jīva (the individual) are analyzed in terms of prakṛti and its constituent guṇas, namely sattva, goodness, rajas, passion and tamas, inertia.161 The jīva is also described as consisting of three bodies, śarīras or five sheaths, kośas (PD3). By differentiating the Self from the three bodies or the five sheaths, one is able to recognize the identity of the jīva with brahman through reasoning, yukti. Śravaṇa is defined as the investigation of this identity through the mahāvākyas, upaniṣadic utterances and manana, exploring the validity of this identity by means of logical reasoning. Through śravaṇa and manana, one can then achieve nididhyāsana, unbroken meditation, described as single-pointedly dwelling on brahman without any doubts.162 This then leads to samādhi, a state of the mind where one’s identity as meditator, the effort of meditation and the object being meditated on all 160

“Illusion” for māyā is a provisional translation. The term māyā also connotes unreality, falseness, magic, mysterious power. Henceforth, the Sanskrit term will be used. 161 The translation of these terms is limited and the original Sanskrit terms will be used instead. 162 PD 1.52-53

38 merge. This neutralizes obstacles and leads to direct realization of self-knowledge, aparokṣātma-vijñāna, which leads to immediate freedom from bondage. In effect, this chapter serves to introduce the aspects of self-realization that will be elaborated in detail in the remaining fourteen chapters. 4.2

Pañcamahābhūtavivekaḥ – Discrimination of the Five Elements To know the non-dual reality brahman, one must know what it is not. To that end

the five elements, their properties and relationship to the senses, the mind, and organs of action are considered here. Sat, being is other than all these and is relationless, without any svagata, sajātīya and vijātīya bheda-s, differences within itself, between members of the same species, and with members from other species. Nor is sat non-existent, śūnya (as claimed by the Buddhists). The world as we empirically see it is a creation of māyā, which is neither sat nor śūnya.163 Māyā is a power that is mithyā, apparent and creates illusory modifications with brahman as its basis. The one who understands that the appearance of duality is due to māyā and is illusory and unreal, knows that reality is nondual. When one is firmly rooted in this understanding of non-duality, one becomes jīvanmukta, liberated while still alive. 4.3

Pañcakośavivekaḥ – Discrimination of the Five Sheaths The five-sheath model of the human body presented by the TU is taken up with a

view to differentiating these from brahman/ātman. Each kośa, sheath, envelops the next one, proceeding from the gross to subtler versions. The annamayakośa is the physical

163

PD 2.49

39 body constituted by food. Within it is the prāṇamayakośa, the sheath composed of the vital airs. Next are the manomayakośa and the vijñānamayakośa, the mental and intellectual sheaths respectively. Innermost is the ānandamayakośa, the sheath of bliss. None of these are the ātman, since they are either devoid of consciousness (the first two kośas), or changing (the next two) or temporary (ānandamayakośa), whereas the ātman is eternal and the source of all joy.164 Having concluded that none of these kośas is ātman, the nature of ātman is taken up by the rest of the chapter. Ātman is brahman, not limited by space, time or objects. Īśvara, the creator is the superimposition on brahman due to māyā; jīva, the individual is the superimposition on brahman due to avidyā.165 Knowing brahman to be thus, one becomes brahman and is free from rebirth. 4.4

Dvaitavivekaḥ – Discrimination of Duality This chapter explores the extent of duality created by īśvara and jīva so that it may

be understood and overcome. Māyā is the creative power of īśvara. The world and jīva-s are created by īśvara, as affirmed by various Upaniṣads. Māyā also has the power to delude the jīva into forgetting that its true nature is brahman; the jīva instead identifies with the body and therefore is subject to grief. Objects are created by īśvara, but jīva also creates, by converting these into objects of enjoyment. Different jīva-s relate to the same object differently as conditioned by their respective mental states. There is a mentally modified version of the material object to which the jīva relates – it is this version that causes the jīva pleasure and pain. Thus the duality created by the jīva is binding, whereas īśvara’s duality simply is the substratum on which jīva’s duality is 164 165

PD 3.10 PD 3.37

40 projected. The tendency to mentally dwell on objects can be overcome by meditation on brahman. By gaining control of the mind through understanding of the nature of brahman, one knows that the objects are not real and is freed from the modifications of the mind such as attachment, desire, anger, etc. Then one knows oneself to be brahman. 4.5

Mahāvākyavivekaḥ – Discrimination of the Great Utterances This brief chapter (8 verses) explains the meaning of the four mahāvākyas of the

Upaniṣads: prajñānaṃ brahma, consciousness is brahman (AiU 3.1.1), ahaṃ brahmāsmi, I am brahman (BU 1.4.10), tat tvam asi, you are that (ChU 6.8.7) and ayam ātmā brahma, this Self is brahman (MāU 2). All express the identity of ātman and brahman. 4.6

Citradīpaḥ – Light of the Picture166 This chapter starts by drawing an analogy between the superimposition of empirical

reality on brahman and a painting on a canvas. Ātman/brahman is at various times referred to as kūṭastha, īśvara, cidātmā, jīva, and the different terms and their interrelationship, as well as the superimposition of jīva on kūṭastha is explained. Various opposing theories from other philosophical schools regarding where ātman resides as well as the nature of īśvara and jīva-s are presented and refuted. According to śruti, ātman is infinite, without parts and all-pervading; īśvara is the lord of māyā, prakṛti and the guṇa-s, and the antaryāmin, the inner controller. Jīva-s are only bound on account of

166

In the dīpa-pañcakam, the nature of the chapter title samāsa is ambiguous; it can be treated as either a ṣaṣṭhī tatpuruṣa, “Lamp/light of …” or a saptamī tatpuruṣa, “Light on …”. I’ve chosen the former in keeping with the analysis of the remaining pañcakas as ṣaṣṭhī tatpuruṣas as well, viveka-pañcaka = “Discrimination of …” and ānanda-pañcaka = “Bliss of …”.

41 their ignorance. Māyā is neither sat nor asat, but inexplicable, anirvācya. Yet from a worldly standpoint, it is quite real. Without affecting brahman, māyā transforms it into īśvara, the jīva-s and the creation, like a magician putting on a convincing show. Inconceivable entities like māyā cannot be dealt with by logic.167 Māyā as a reflection of ātman appears as īśvara and the jīva-s. However, īśvara controls māyā whereas the jīva is but a fraction of īśvara and is controlled by māyā. Instead of being distracted by the relative natures of īśvara and jīva, it is most important to understand brahman. Even bondage and release are ultimately illusory, being caused by māyā. Kūṭastha and brahman differ in name alone.168 Duality is caused by māyā; by the negation of duality, one is left with non-duality, free from all ills. The unreality of duality cannot be arrived at by logic alone, it has to be directly perceived. Once one disidentifies with the I-notion, ahaṅkāra, desires and diseases cease to bind. The knot of ignorance is cut and one no longer mistakes the ahaṅkāra to be ātman. Knowledge of reality is the direct cause of liberation. Detachment, vairāgya and withdrawal from action, uparama assist in the arising of knowledge. Śravaṇa, manana and nididhyāsana (PD1) are the cause of the knowledge of reality. The nature of this knowledge is the discrimination between the real and the unreal, and prevents the knot of ignorance from ever arising again. 4.7

Tṛptidīpaḥ – Light of Contentment This prakaraṇa begins by quoting Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (BU) 4.4.12, which is

then analyzed in detail in the remainder of the prakaraṇa with the goal of explaining the

167 168

PD 6.150 PD 6.237

169

contentment, tṛpti of one who is liberated while living, jīvanmukta.

42 This prakaraṇa is

the focus of this thesis and will be explored in greater detail shortly in chapter 5, “A Closer Look at Tṛptidīpa-Prakaraṇa, PD7.” 4.8

Kūṭasthadīpaḥ – Light of the Kūṭastha The relationship between the kūṭastha, the unchangeable (brahman) and the

cidābhāsa, reflected consciousness is explained here. Their roles in cognition are analyzed and the difference between the two is explained. Kūṭastha brahman is not the cidābhāsa but rather the basis for it. The relationship between the kūṭastha, cidābhāsa and the locus (of cidābhāsa, i.e., the mind, antaḥkaraṇa) is compared to the relationship between the face, its reflection and the mirror.170 The association between an embodied, limited and changing jīva and immutable brahman is explained to be one of superimposition based on avidyā; actually they are identical. From the perspective of the kūṭastha, there is no creation or destruction, bondage or liberation. The śruti conveys this reality, which is beyond words and the mind, in terms of jīva, īśvara and jagat, the world. 4.9

Dhyānadīpaḥ – Light of Meditation In earlier chapters (PD1, PD6, PD7), śravaṇa, manana, and nididhyāsana were

presented as the means to knowing brahman. For those who are not capable of these, the method of dhyāna, meditation is offered here as a subordinate means. Even though one is ignorant of the true nature of brahman and worships it in the form of deities, this can still lead to proper knowledge via parokṣa, indirect or mediate knowledge. Such parokṣa 169 170

PD 7.2: asyāḥ śruter abhiprāyaḥ samyag atra vicāryate | jīvanmuktasya yā tṛptiḥ sā tena viśadāyate || PD 8.26

43 knowledge is gained through study of the śāstras, scriptures. Direct, aparokṣa knowledge of brahman is only achieved through vicāra, enquiry. There are three kinds of obstructions to vicāra – past, present and future, which are described. But no vicāra is in vain – either in the present birth or in some future birth, all impediments will be removed through vicāra and one will eventually gain aparokṣa knowledge. For those not able to practice vicāra due to such obstacles, upāsana, meditation on brahman, saguṇa or nirguṇa, with or without attributes, is prescribed. Nirgūṇa upāsana is held to be superior since it is closest to the goal, brahman. The relationship between meditation and knowledge is discussed at length. Meditation, bhāvanā should be engaged in constantly since it results in the meditator feeling identity with brahman. This feeling however ceases when meditation, dhyāna ceases. The attitude towards the world of one who is one-pointed in meditation and the states of samādhi and nirodha are described. “The one who sees enquiry (sāṃkhya) and meditation (yoga) as one, he truly knows.”171 Ultimately, meditation helps one to overcome one’s doubts, to dissociate from the body, to see the difference between ātman and anātman and to realize brahman directly. 4.10 Nāṭakadīpaḥ – Light of the Theatre Here ātman or consciousness, cit is presented as the witness, sākṣin to the agent, the action and the various objects. It is likened to a lamp in a theatre which equally reveals the patron (ego, ahaṅkāra), the audience (sense objects, viṣaya), the dancer (intellect, mati) and the musicians (sense organs). Even when these are not present, the lamp (consciousness) continues to shine. Divisions of “internal” and “external,” “object” and 171

PD 9.134, also BG 5.5

44 “perceiver” are only possible with reference to the mind and the body, but the witness consciousness is neither internal nor external – it is all-pervading, beyond words, the mind, and means of knowledge. It is self-luminous, and to know it one must study the śruti from a teacher (śravaṇa), reflect on the teachings intellectually (manana) and understand (through nididhyāsana) the internal and external creations to be based on the witness-consciousness. 4.11 Yogānandaḥ – Bliss of Yoga The remaining five chapters describe the ānanda, bliss resulting from the knowledge of brahman. Ānanda is said to be of three kinds – 1. brahmānanda, the bliss of brahman, 2. the bliss born of knowledge, vidyāsukha and 3. the bliss created by sense objects, viṣayānanda. This chapter and the next two describe brahmānanda. Deep sleep is presented as an example of the ānanda directly experienced as arising from nonduality. The ignorance prevailing in this state, the ānandamaya kośa, is discussed. The mind and intellect are latent during deep sleep. The bliss known in the absence of objects is an impression, vāsanā of brahmānanda.172 So we have yet another three-way classification of ānanda – 1. brahmānanda, 2. vāsanānanda, the bliss arising due to impressions of brahmānanda, and 3. viṣayānanda, the bliss from objects. The latter two are dependent on the first. Vāsanānanda is also experienced via the ego during the waking state during detached intervals between pleasure and pain. Through practice of yoga, concentration, one forgets the ego and increasingly experiences non-dual brahmānanda while not asleep. Yoga is defined as the dissociation from connection with 172

PD 11.85

173

suffering.

45 Such practice is likened to baling out the ocean drop by drop with a blade of

grass, and to starving a fire of fuel. But even a brief glimpse of brahmānanda motivates one to strive for it ceaselessly. Once attained, one is ever present in brahmānanda, even while engaged in worldly tasks. One is able to enjoy both brahmānanda and worldly ānanda like a person who knows two languages. One is no longer affected by suffering. And since one dreams of what one experiences while awake, even in one’s dreams there is brahmānanda. Thus there is brahmānanda in waking, dream and deep sleep. 4.12 Ātmānandaḥ – Bliss of the Self In contrast to the previous chapter which dealt with brahmānanda with regard to those capable of concentration, the present chapter concerns the experience of ānanda by ignorant, mūḍha and (spiritually) dull, mandaprajña persons. Such persons are to be shown that one does not love other persons or objects for their sake but for one’s own sake. Therefore the ātman alone is the real goal of one’s love. This love is other than rāga, passionate love, śraddhā, pious faith, bhakti, devotion to deities and icchā, desire. The love of ātman is independent of all these emotions and their objects. Then what is one to make of śruti statements which equate ātman to the son (KauU 2.11, BU 1.5.17 etc)? These are figurative, gauṇa statements. The term ātman can be mentioned in either the figurative, illusory (mithyā) or primary (mukhya) sense. The love for ātman is always greatest with regard to the primary sense; towards that which is dependent, the love is moderate and towards what is not ātman, there is either disregard or hatred. Through discrimination, one learns to see the witness as ātman and not anything else. One who 173

PD 11.85, also BG 6.23ab: taṃ vidyād duḥkha-saṃyoga-viyogaṃ yogasaṃjñitam |

46 loves something other than ātman only experiences suffering. But the ātman is indestructible, the source of highest bliss – as the love for ātman increases, ānanda increases. So long as one arrives at this knowledge, whether one does so through concentration, yoga or discrimination, viveka is immaterial. 4.13 Advaitānandaḥ – Bliss of Non-duality The previous two chapters dealt with brahmānanda (attained through yoga) and ātmānanda (attained through viveka). This chapter presents the non-duality of brahman and equates the earlier two types of ānanda. The world is mere appearance of change, vivarta in the non-dual ānanda brought about by māyā, the indescribable power of brahman. This power does not exist apart from brahman, yet is not identical to it. If it were identical to brahman, in the absence of māyā, there would be no brahman either. The power of māyā is different from its effect and also from its substratum, it is beyond thought and description. As an analogy, a pot (the effect) and clay (its substratum) are both other than the power that created the pot. Yet the pot is not different from the clay, nor is it identical to clay – it is not visible in the clay state, but its potential to be is implicit in the clay, and it cannot be separated from clay once formed. The pot as a product of power when not perceptible is indescribable; when perceptible, it is a pot. Similarly, products of māyā are considered unreal; reality is only possible for that which is the substrate of māyā, brahman, just like clay for the pot. The substrate and its manifest effect exist by turns, while the unmanifest power persists at all times. The substrate is real, unchanged and indestructible at all times while the manifest effect has a name and form. Name and form are both unreal as they are subject to creation and

47 destruction. Liberation is achieved by knowledge of the unreality of the world, which is a manifest effect superimposed on the substrate, brahman. By knowing one lump of clay, one effectively knows the nature of all objects made of clay; similarly by knowing brahman, one knows the nature of the entire phenomenal world. In the steady natural bliss of the Self, there is no duality, no name and form, nor creation and destruction. Through the continuous practice, abhyāsa of brahman, one is liberated even while living. When the worldly objects are disregarded, the mind is freed of obstacles and abides in brahman, no longer affected by the worldly effects. 4.14 Vidyānandaḥ – Bliss of Knowledge The bliss arising from knowledge of brahman is a modification of the intellect, dhī. It has four aspects: the absence of sorrow, the fulfillment of all desires, the feeling that all that is to be done has been done, and the feeling that all that is to be obtained has been obtained. BU 4.4.12, with which PD7 began, is restated here, and its insights are reiterated. Suffering persists as long as one identifies with the body and the jīva; the ātman does not suffer. Desire too is only for one who considers objects of enjoyment to be real, but the knower of non-duality has no desire for or attachment to anything. Even worries regarding the future cease as the store of all future actions, sañcita-karman ceases to exist with knowledge of brahman, and there is no further rebirth. The bliss of ātman is unsurpassed and beyond the bliss of all other stations or attainments, worldly or otherwise. Until one knows oneself to be the witness, sākṣin, one doesn’t experience any satisfaction. The chapter concludes by repeating twenty-five verses from chapter 7 (vv.

48 253-270, 291-297) describing the nature of the perfect satisfaction of one who knows brahman. 4.15 Viṣayānandaḥ – Bliss of Objects Lastly the bliss experienced through sense objects is described. Though it is only a reflection of a fraction of the bliss of brahman, the viṣayānanda functions as a door into brahmānanda. Ātman, though non-dual, exists in every being. If there is a prevalence of rājasika and tāmasika vṛtti-s of the mind, the bliss of brahman is obscured while the consciousness, cit aspect is reflected. When sāttvika vṛtti-s predominate, both consciousness and bliss are manifested. Desires when fulfilled usually provide happiness; however, when thwarted, there is grief, anger and hatred. This is due to rajas and tamas. However, the greatest happiness results when one is dispassionate, virakta, as seen in previous chapter. There is a continuum of manifestation of brahman’s sat, cit and ānanda: objects only possess sat, existence, while rājasika and tāmasika vṛtti-s manifest sat and cit, and sāttivika vṛtti-s manifest all three attributes, guṇa-s. Māyā manifests objects and takes three forms: 1. non-existence or absence of sat, 2. inertness or absence of cit, and 3. sorrow or absence of ānanda. To get to know brahman, one must ignore non-existent objects and contemplate the inert objects by rejecting their name and form (PD13) and focusing on their sat-aspect. Similarly, one must contemplate the rājasika and tāmasika vṛtti-s by rejecting the sorrow associated with them and instead focusing on their sat and cit aspects. The most superior contemplation is on sāttvika vṛtti-s where one focuses on all three aspects of brahman. These three forms of contemplation are intended for those who are dull, manda, and engaged in worldly affairs. Eventually,

49 through the development of indifference to objects, an even higher form of contemplation arises focusing on the bliss of impressions, vāsanānanda (discussed in PD11). These four types of meditation involve both yoga and knowledge, jñāna, and thus provide knowledge of brahman itself. Through one-pointed meditation, this knowledge becomes steady and one knows sat, cit, and ānanda not individually but as a single indivisible essence. In fact, the knower-known-knowledge distinctions cease and there is an abundance of bliss, bhumānanda.

50 5. A Closer Look at Tṛptidīpa-Prakaraṇa, PD7 Now that we’ve examined the rest of the PD, let us take a detailed look at PD7, the Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa, paying attention to concepts also treated in other chapters. PD7 is composed of 298 anuṣṭubh śloka-s, making it the longest of the fifteen chapters in the PD. As mentioned earlier, the goal of PD7 is to elucidate the contentment, tṛpti of one who is liberated while living, jīvanmukta, by analyzing BU 4.4.12 in detail.174 BU 4.4.12 states: ātmānaṃ ced vijānīyād ayam asmīti pūruṣaḥ | kim icchan kasya kāmāya śarīram anusaṃjvaret || “If a person truly knows the self, ātman, as ‘I am this,’ desiring what, and for the love of whom (or what) would (s)he suffer on account of the body?” PD 7.3-6 present the meaning of pūruṣa, followed by vv. 7-18 discussing the meaning of aham asmi, and 19-22 the meaning of ayam in the śruti-vākya PD 7.1/BU 4.4.12. In the process the terms cidābhāsa, “reflected consciousness” and kūṭastha, “immutable consciousness” or brahman, are both introduced as secondary senses of the word aham. Parokṣa- and aparokṣa-jñāna, “indirect” and “direct knowledge” are also introduced. Vv. 23-27 introduce the "tenth man" allegory to illustrate how, despite the potential for direct knowledge of the self being ever-present, one can still have a mistaken sense regarding oneself. The indirect knowledge of brahman which is signified by ayam alleviates suffering, but with direct knowledge the cause for suffering itself is eliminated. This section briefly alludes to portions of PD1 (māyā’s relationship with īśvara and jīva), PD2 (the nature of creation, sṛṣṭi), PD6 and PD8 (kūṭastha and cidābhāsa) and PD12 (three senses of the term ātman).

174

PD 7.2: asyāḥ śruter abhiprāyaḥ samyag atra vicāryate | jīvanmuktasya yā tṛptiḥ sā tena viśadāyate ||

51 In vv. 28-84, the seven stages of self-knowledge are discussed: 1. ajñāna, ignorance, 2. āvṛti, covering, 3. vikṣepa, superimposition, 4. parokṣa-jñāna, indirect knowledge, 5. aparokṣa-jñāna, direct knowledge, 6. śoka-apagama, the cessation of affliction, and 7. tṛpti, contentment. The first three are considered the cause of bondage and the remaining four are causes of liberation. BU 4.4.12 refers to two of these stages, direct knowledge as in “I am this (brahman)” and the cessation of affliction. The difference between parokṣa and aparokṣa knowledge is discussed (48-84, and features of the tenth-man allegory are used to illustrate the distinction between the two (57-60. Parokṣa and aparokṣa knowledge are also discussed in PD9. In PD2, māyā’s ability to obscure non-dual reality is examined through the analysis of the five elements. In vv. 83-96, the differences between jīva and brahman are discussed along with the nature of direct knowledge produced. Vv. 97-135 consider the need for repeated study, abhyāsa to be performed by means of śravaṇa, listening, manana, reflection and nididhyāsana, deep meditation for the sake of strengthening the direct knowledge produced by the mahāvākyas. These topics were also introduced in PD1 and again alluded to in PD6. The entire (albeit short, 8 vv.) PD5, mahāvākyaviveka is devoted to the four mahāvākyas. PD9, dhyānadīpa is devoted to the practice of meditation. The practice of yoga, concentration on ātman is also treated in PD11, yogānanda while viveka, discrimination is treated in PD12, ātmānanda. There is a fourth process to be performed after śravaṇa, manana and nididhyāsana have been perfected: samādhi, where the meditator-meditation difference dissolves.175 175

PD 1.55: dhyātr-dhyāne parityajya kramād dhyeyakagocaram | nivāta-dīpavac-cittaṃ samādhir abhidhīyate ||

52 Though samādhi is not explicitly mentioned as a practice in PD7, one can infer its utility in attaining aparokṣa-jṇāna.176 PD1 and PD9 refer to samādhi explicitly. Then in vv. 136-142, the meaning of kim icchan, “desiring what” is considered. On realizing the deficiency in objects of pleasure, one’s desire for pleasure goes away. Vv. 143-191 discuss desires arising due to prārabdha karman which is of three varieties: 1. icchā-, causing enjoyments with desire, 2. anicchā-, causing enjoyments without desire, and 3. parecchā-prārabdha, causing enjoyments through the desire of others. The wise person spontaneously enjoys the fruits of such karman without being bound by their karmic results. Even desires that arise for such an individual are like roasted seeds that are nourishing but do not have the potential to bear fruit anymore.177 The wise recognize duality in order to teach in much the way one derives enjoyment from a magic show while still knowing it to be an illusion. Due to self-knowledge, any desires that arise for the wise are non-binding. The nature of objects and desire is also discussed in PD4 and PD6, and treated at length in PD15, viṣayānandaḥ. PD10 presents ātman as a sākṣin, witness to a play, tranquilly relating to all objects without being affected by them. Next, vv. 192-221 elaborate on the meaning of kasya kāmāya, regarding enjoyership in light of the falsity, mithyātva of the world. The self as cidābhāsa is subject to change, but as kūṭastha is neither a doer nor an enjoyer. The afflictions produced due to desire for pleasure have no effect. Thus one is exhorted to devote oneself to gaining this self-knowledge and to strengthening it. Vv. 222-251 then go on to

176

For instance, PD 7.265: vikṣepo nāsti yasmān me samādhis tato mama | vikṣepo vā samādhir vā manasaḥ syād vikāriṇaḥ || 177 PD 7.164: bharjitāni tu bījāni santy akārya-karāṇi ca | vidvad-icchā tatheṣṭavyā ’sattva-bodhān na kārya-kṛt ||

53 consider the absence of bodily afflictions for a knower of brahman by way of examining the nature of afflictions in the three śarīras, bodies, namely sthūla-, gross physical, sūkṣma-, subtle and kāraṇa-, causal. Once again, by means of the tenth-man story, the nature of affliction is illustrated. Though the understanding of one’s self-nature may occur instantaneously, overcoming one’s prārabdha karman and the habit of identifying with one’s body might take a while (247,50), but one does eventually “heal,”178 i.e., suffering/affliction ceases when identification with the body ceases. The nature of the body was also treated in PD1 (in terms of the sthūla, sūkṣma and kāraṇa śarīras) and in terms of the pañca kośas in PD3. Once released from suffering, one enters the final of the seven stages, tṛpti, satisfaction. Vv. 251-298 describe the state of unlimited satisfaction for a knower of brahman and his/her conduct in the midst of those who are still ignorant of their true nature. All that was to be achieved has already been achieved, nothing more remains to be done,179 not even śravaṇa, manana, nididhyāsana or samādhi, since one already knows oneself to be brahman. The wise one can act or remain actionless – one’s firm, unshakeable self-knowledge is not affected or obstructed by this – one is ever free from suffering. The body will persist as long as there are prārabdha karma-s to be exhausted, but their results do not affect the limitless self, brahman (262-3). The ānanda-pañcaka, PD11-15 also exhaustively describes the nature of bliss resulting from the knowledge of brahman. In fact, PD 14.40-67 are identical to PD 7.253-270, 7.291-297.

178 179

PD 7.247: śirovraṇas tu māsena śanaiḥ śāmyati … PD 7.252: … kṛtaṃ kṛtyaṃ prāpaṇīyaṃ prāptam ity eva tṛpyati ||

54 Thus we can see that in the process of expanding on the śruti-vākya BU 4.4.12, PD7 touched upon topics covered throughout the rest of the PD in varying degrees of detail. While there is no apparent divergence in content between the PD7 and the rest of the text to suggest a change in authorship, this does not necessarily mean that there was no change in authorship. The two authors could very well have been in agreement regarding their doctrinal views. Bhāratītīrtha was after all, one of Vidyāraṇya’s gurus and they both share Vidyātīrtha as a teacher as well. The PD7 serves as an overarching review of the entire text, outlining the entire trajectory of an individual from ignorance through contentment resulting from enlightenment through the intervening five stages (āvṛti, vikṣepa, parokṣa-jñāna, aparokṣa-jñāna and śoka-apagama). Also woven in are the means for attaining this knowledge of one’s true advaita nature, assurances that there is no backsliding and descriptions of what it is like to function in the world after liberation. PD7 in effect provides us a condensed representation of the life cycle of a mumukṣu (seeker of liberation), within which we can examine select Advaita issues to understand the interaction between the epistemological, metaphysical and praxeological aspects of the system. It provides us a microcosm within which we can explore aspects of Advaita praxis such as the means advocated for knowing brahman and achieving jīvanmukti. (Such aspects are generally implicit to any given text and not typically treated independently. I plan to research this in a future work). We are also afforded a forum for investigating innovations made by Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha on Śaṅkara’s system of Advaita, if any. Before that task is undertaken in chapter 8, “Vidyāraṇya’s Contributions

55 to and Innovations in Advaita Vedānta,” we need to complete our contextual analysis of PD7 by comparing its context to the context of BU 4.4.12, its BUŚBh and the corresponding section in the BVS. We now turn to the analysis of the PD7’s extratextual context.

56 6. Extra-textual Context of PD7 In chapter 5, “A Closer Look at Tṛptidīpa-Prakaraṇa, PD7,” we saw how Bhāratītīrtha’s Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa-, the seventh chapter of the Pañcadaśī (PD) starts with the śruti-vākya, BU 4.4.12. Now, let’s take a look at: 1. The context of BU 4.4.12 within the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (BU), 2. Śaṅkarācārya’s bhāṣya (BUŚBh) on BU 4.4.12, and 3. Vidyāraṇya’s Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra (BVS) on BU 4.4.12 accompanied by Maheśvaratīrtha’s Laghusaṅgraha on the same. This will then enable us to examine the similarities and differences, if any, among Śaṅkara, Vidyāraṇya in the BVS, Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha in the PD and the author(s) of the BU. 6.1

The context of BU 4.4.12 within the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad The BU is considered the oldest of the Upaniṣads, based on linguistic evidence. It

is divided into three kāṇḍas, sections. The first, Madhu-kāṇḍa “conveys the main teaching of the Advaita doctrine and is of the nature of upadeśa”, instruction. The second, Yājñavalkya- or Muni-kāṇḍa, wherein BU 4.4.12 occurs, “embodies the logical argument and explanation showing the soundness of the upadeśa.” The third, Khilakāṇḍa “deals with certain upāsanas or modes of meditation.”180 It is the Yājñavalkyakāṇḍa’s context which is primarily relevant for this discussion. It comprises two adhyāyas, chapters (3-4), each further subdivided into brāhmaṇas. In the third adhyāya,

180

Mādhavānanda (1988), p. xii.

181

the jalpa style of argumentation

57 is employed by Yājñavalkya to gain victory over

various opponents and to elucidate the nature of brahman and ātman in the process. In the fourth adhyāya, King Janaka, in whose assembly the debates of the third adhyāya had taken place, is asked by Yājñavalkya to tell him what he has learned from various teachers. Yājñavalkya dismisses the teachings of each teacher that Janaka relates as obvious182 and incomplete,183 and is then asked by Janaka to complete the picture. Eventually Janaka explicitly asks Yājñavalkya to teach him (4.2.1) and Yājñavalkya’s response culminates in the famous statement by Yājñavalkya that all one can say about this ātman is “neti, neti.”184 In 4.3, Yājñavalkya doesn’t wish to say anything, but Janaka calls in a boon granted him earlier by Yājñavalkya to ask him any question he (Janaka) wished. Janaka asks, “What is the (source of) light for a person here?”185 Yājñavalkya’s answer is that it is the self, ātman (4.3.6). He goes on to discuss how the self “travels” between the realms of dream and wakefulness (4.3.9-18). Deep sleep is the state where the self has no desires and sees no dreams (4.3.19). “The person embraced by the self consisting of knowledge is oblivious to everything within or without.”186 … “There isn’t a second (reality) here that he could see as something distinct and separate from himself.”187 … “This, O King, is the world of brahman.”188 After the glory of brahman has been extolled, Janaka still

181

jalpa - “a kind of disputation (overbearing reply and disputed rejoinder)”, MW, s.v. BU 4.1.2: Yathā mātṛmān pitṛmān ācāryavān brūyāt tathā … 183 BU 4.1.2: eka-pād vā etat … 184 See n. 197. 185 BU 4.3.2: kiṃjyotir ayaṃ puruṣa iti | 186 BU 4.3.21: … ayaṃ puruṣaḥ prājñenātmanā saṃpariṣvakto na bāhyaṃ kiṃcana veda nāntaram | 187 BU 4.3.23: … na tu tad dvitīyam asti tato ’nyad vibhaktaṃ yat paśyet | 188 BU 4.3.32: … eṣa brahmalokaḥ samrāṭ | 182

189

wants to know more, much to Yājñavalkya’s chagrin.

58 He then launches into a

description of transmigration (4.3.34-38) which is continued in the next brāhmaṇa (4.4). The deterioration of the vital breath, prāṇa is described, leading to the withdrawal of the ātman from the old body to a new one. “This non-corporeal and immortal prāṇa is nothing but brahman, nothing but light.”190 Next a series of śloka-s are cited (4.4.8-21), which includes 4.4.12, the śruti-vākya of particular interest to us. Vv. 8-9 describe the path by which the knowers of brahman, brahmavid-s go to the heavenly world on release. Vv. 10-11 describe the progressively darker worlds of blind darkness, andhaṃ tamaḥ, entered by worshippers of ignorance and by worshippers of learning.191 In contrast, a person who truly knows ātman wants for nothing and is not afflicted by his body; on the contrary the ātman is the maker of everything, indeed he is the world (12-13).192 Those who know this become immortal, while others only have suffering to look forward to (14). The ātman is to be sought out; it is venerated as life immortal. Ātman is the immortal brahman (15-17). Brahman is behind breathing, sight, hearing, thinking; it is non-diverse, realized through the mind alone, singular, immeasurable, immovable, taintless, beyond space, unborn, immense (18-20). It should be known though intuitive knowledge, prajñā and not through words (21).193 The prose section then resumes. Ātman is the goal of all, brahmins and ascetics alike. Knowing ātman, they give up desire for sons, wealth and worlds. Ātman is 189

BU 4.3.33: … yājñavalkyo bibhyāṃcakāra medhāvī rājā sarvebhyo mā’ntebhya udarautsīd iti | This is an interesting situation and certainly raises questions as to why Yājñavalkya would be afraid. Fodder for a future exploration… 190 BU 4.4.7: … ayam aśarīro ’mrtaḥ prāṇo brahmaiva teja eva | 191 BU 4.4.10: andhaṃ tamaḥ praviśanti ye ’vidyām upāsate | tato bhūya iva te tamo ya u vidyāyāṃ ratāḥ || 192 BU 4.4.13: … sa viśvakṛt sa hi sarvasya kartā tasya lokaḥ sa u loka eva || 193 BU 4.4.21: tam eva dhīro vijñāya prajñāṃ kurvīta brāhmaṇaḥ | nānudhyāyād bahuñ chabdān vāco viglāpanaṃ hi tad iti ||

59 ungraspable, undecaying, unbound, not subject to fear or injury, beyond good and bad, not subject to that which is done or undone. One who knows this becomes ātman/brahman (22-25). Thus the fourth brāhmaṇa concludes. The fifth brāhmaṇa repeats the Maitreyī-Yājñavalkya dialogue of 2.4 in the Madhukāṇḍa. The sixth and final brāhmaṇa provides the lineage of the teachers. This is followed by the two adhyāyas of the Khila-kāṇḍa, whose contents are not relevant to this discussion. Thus BU 4.4.12 occurs in the midst of Yājñavalkya’s teachings on brahma-tattva to Janaka. The transmigration of the ātman upon death to a new body is described and the nature of this new body depends on the nature of one’s desires and actions in the past body (4.3.35-38, 4.4.1-6). On the other hand, one who is without desire becomes immortal and attains brahman right here, in this life (7). Then deprecating both ignorance and learning (10-11), 4.4.12 rhetorically suggests that the body and its ills are of no consequence when compared to what is gained by the knowledge of ātman. The remainder of the fourth brāhmaṇa then adds greater detail to this suggestive proposition, explicitly stating that what is gained by this knowledge is the awareness that one is “the maker of all,” viśvakṛt (13), immortal, amṛta (14), brahman (17). In contrast, those who do not know this face suffering, duḥkha and great destruction, mahatī vinaṣṭi (14). The implicit message of BU 4.4.12 is the desirability of the knowledge of ātman/brahman. When known, nothing else is needed and nothing can adversely affect one.

60 6.2

Śaṅkarācārya’s bhāṣya (BUŚBh) on BU 4.4.12
Śaṅkara’s commentary on this verse is short enough that a complete translation can

be provided here. English words in italics are from BU 4.4.12 itself. (The footnotes provide the relevant Sanskrit passages in the sequence corresponding to the English A, p. 95 for the entire Sanskrit passage): translation, see Appendix 2
“If (a person), one in thousands194 truly knows the self, ātman, his own (which is also) the highest which knows the desires of all sentient beings, (which is) situated in the heart, (which is) beyond hunger and other characteristics:195 (The qualification) “if” shows the rarity of self-knowledge, ātma-vidyā. How (does one know)? “I am this” supreme self, the witness to the notions of all sentient beings,196 described by (statements) such as “neti, neti”,197 (and) other than which (there is) no one who sees, hears, thinks, or knows,198 constant, situated in all beings, whose nature is eternal, pure, awake and liberated.199 That person, what other object could he possibly desire as a result that is other than his own nature?200 And for the love of whom (or what) other than himself,201 for what motive?202 Because there is no result to be desired by him, (since he is) the self. Nor is there anyone other than the self, for whose sake he desires, since he is

194

sahasreṣu kaścit svaṃ paraṃ sarva-prāṇi-manīṣita-jñaṃ hṛtstham aśanāyādi-dharmātītam 196 sarva-prāṇi-pratyaya-sākṣī 197 Olivelle, p.67, pp.501-2 n.3.6, suggests “neti, neti” be rendered as “not ––, not ––” instead of the commonly held “not this, not this” which would require “iti na” instead. While this is syntactically valid, “not this” seems a friendlier translation than “not ––” without causing any significant violation to the import of the text. 198 yasmān nānyo ’sti draṣṭā śrotā mantā vijñātā 199 samaḥ sarva-bhūta-stho nitya-śuddha-buddha-mukta-svabhāvo 200 tat-svarūpa-vyatiriktam anyad vastu phala-bhūtaṃ 201 anyasya ātmano vyatiriktasya kāmāya 202 [kasya] prayojanāya 195

the self of all.

203

61 Therefore, desiring what and for whose sake would he suffer, be

ruined,204 on account of the body, i.e., (why) would he be afflicted on account of the suffering caused by bodily limitations,205 (why) would he suffer on account of bodily affliction?206 Because (this happens) only to one who does not know the ātman,207 (and therefore is) striving to obtain some object other than it (ātman).208 Desiring209 (that) “this should be mine, this (other) for my son, this (third thing) for my wife,”210 mounted on (the saṃsāra-cakra’s) uninterrupted sequence of birth and death,211 (he) suffers the disease(s) of the body.212 But this could not happen to one who sees the whole self: this is what is said (here).”213 It appears that Śaṅkara is reinforcing what we’ve already gathered from our analysis of the Yājñavalkya-kāṇḍa. The limitations of the body and its attendant ills such as hunger are reinforced particularly in contrast to the ultimacy of the knowledge of the self. The all-pervasiveness of the self is also highlighted, as is the rarity of achieving self-knowledge. In effect, Śaṅkara is saying that according to the śruti, given that knowing ātman means knowing one’s true nature, which is eternal, pure, awake, liberated, all-pervasive, all-knowing, it is absurd to persist in identifying with the body,

203

na hi tasya ātmana eṣṭavyaṃ phalam, na cāpy ātmano ’nyo ’sti, yasya kāmāyecchati, sarvasyātmabhūtatvāt | 204 bhraṃśet 205 śarīropādhikṛta-duḥkham-anu duḥkhī syāt 206 śarīra-tāpam-anutapyeta | 207 anātma-darśino hi 208 tad-vyatirikta-vastv-antarepsoḥ – I’ve taken antara in this compound as “different from”, strengthening the force of vyatirikta. 209 īhamānaḥ 210 mamedaṃ syāt putrasyedaṃ bhāryāyā idaṃ ity evam 211 punaḥ punar janana-maraṇa-prabandha-rūḍhaḥ 212 śarīra-rogam anu rujyate 213 sarvātma-darśinas tu tad asaṃbhava ity etad āha |

62 enduring the ills it undergoes, viewing oneself as limited and pursuing limited desires, thereby committing to saṃsāra. In fact, one who knows the self has no truck with limited desires – firstly, being all-pervasive there is nothing other than one’s self that can be desired and secondly, limited desires only reinforce the identifying with the body and its ills. Further, while at first glance it may seem odd that Śaṅkara is situating the allpervasive ātman in the heart, he is not adding a new inconsistency, but is being informed by the BU itself. For example, 4.3.7: “the inner light within the heart, hṛdyantar jyotiḥ”, 4.4.1: “(the ātman) descends back into the heart, hṛdayam evānvavakrāmati.” Later, we have 4.4.20: “(The self is) beyond space, para ākāśād.” 4.1.7 unequivocally states: “The highest brahman is the heart, hṛdayaṃ vai samrāṭ paramaṃ brahma.” This last occurs after successive declarative statements in the first brāhmaṇa that brahman has as its abode speech, breath, sight, hearing and the mind, but ultimately it is the heart that is the foundation of all beings. Thus it is clear from the BU context that a statement locating ātman/brahman in a specific place in the body is not to be taken literally. It is intended as a metaphor, perhaps suggesting at the same time the “nearness” of brahman – in fact nothing could be nearer as one is brahman, because that is one’s true nature – as well as its “dearness,” that which is most desirable to know, upon knowing which all suffering, let alone that associated with the body, ceases.

63 6.3

Vidyāraṇya’s Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra (BVS) on BU 4.4.12 The Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra, a sub-commentary on Sureśvara’s Vārttika214 on

the BU,215 is a relatively lesser known work of Vidyāraṇya. For example, there is no mention of it in Dasgupta’s A History of Indian Philosophy (1922), or by other works dealing with Vidyāraṇya, such as Mahadevan (1938, 69), Punjani (1985), and Goodding (2002). Potter’s bibliography has three editions listed, the earliest by Vajhe (1915-19) which includes Maheśvaratīrtha’s ṭīkā, a recent edition by Dwivedī (1999) which is accompanied by a Hindi translation and commentary, and another dating to 1941 which I was unable to examine.216 Based on my analysis in section
3.4, “Works ascribed to Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya,” particularly pp. 17,20, I have concluded that the ascription of the authorship of BVS to Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya is genuine and thus it will be of great interest to compare Vidyāraṇya’s treatment of BU 4.4.12 here with that in PD7. The BVS is a metrical text, mostly in anuṣṭubh meter, like the PD. The fourth brāhmaṇa of the BVS’s fourth adhyāya has a total of 491 śloka-s, among which BU 4.4.12 receives just five, 4.4.272-276. This section is brief enough to be translated in its entirety.217 English words in italics are from BU 4.4.12, (the corresponding Sanskrit B, p. 95 for the entire Sanskrit appears in boldface in the footnotes; see Appendix 2


214

I wished to consult this as well, but sadly, I was unable to locate the section containing BU 4.4.12. Marcaurelle, p.189. 216 Potter (2005): “809.5.1 Edited, with Uttamaślokatīrtha's Laghuvārttikavyākhyā and Maheśvara Tīrtha's Laghusaṃgraha, by Bhau Sastri Vajhe. ChSS 46, 1915, 1919; 809.5.2 Edited by Chandiprasada Sukla Sastri and Krsna Pant. AG 10, 1941; 809.5.3 Edited by Vacaspati Dwivedi. Varanasi 1999” 217 As far as I am aware, there are no published English translations of the BVS. 215

64 passage), and Maheśvaratīrtha’s relevant ṭīkā is provided within square brackets (see Appendix 2
C, p. 96 for the Sanskrit): “The fifth śloka218 here clearly sets forth the complete disappearance of suffering for those who are possessed of the knowledge of brahman. [(The BU śloka) “ātmānam …” is taken up].219 What suffering is there on account of the body for the fully satisfied person who directly knows, ‘I am this’? [Analyzing220 the words of the (BU) śloka, the nature of (self-)knowledge is brought forth (in this BVS śloka)].221 Someone who does not know one’s self, ātman, would subsequently suffer on account of mistaking the self to be the body, desiring pleasure for the sake of pleasure for oneself (as an) enjoyer. [To present the cause of the cessation of affliction due to self-knowledge, the cause of the affliction of that ignorance is stated. On account of mistaking oneself as an enjoyer, there is desire (lit: desiring) (for) all sorts of (objects of) enjoyment (lit: what is to be enjoyed); upon the destruction of (the objects of) enjoyment, (there is) suffering – i.e. one’s body would consequently suffer].222 The one who, on account of (realizing) the knowledge of being the ātman of all, would be excluded from (being the) enjoyer and from (the experience of) enjoyment, what could he possibly desire, and for the love of whom (or what) would he suffer on account of the body? [(This śloka) presents knowledge as the 218

BU 4.4.12 is fifth in the series of ślokas quoted starting at BU 4.4.8. BVS 4.4.272: brahmāvabodha-yuktānāṃ niḥśeṣo duḥkha-saṃkṣayaḥ | ślokena paṃcamenātra vispaṣṭam abhidhīyate || [ātmānam ity ady avatārayati brahmeti |] 220 vyākurvan literally means to separate from, to sever, divide; to explain. Hence my translation, “to analyze”. 221 Ibid. 273: puruṣaḥ paripūrṇo ’yam asmīti hy āparokṣataḥ | ya ātmānaṃ vijānāti śarīrānu jvaro ’sya kaḥ || [ślokākṣarāṇi vyākurvan jñāna-prakāram abhinayati puruṣa iti |] 222 Ibid. 274: na vetti cet svam ātmānaṃ dehātmatva-bhramād asau | bhoktus tasyaiva bhogāya bhogam icchann anujvaret || [ātmadhiyo jvara-nivṛtti-hetutvam upapādayituṃ tad ajñānasya jvara-hetutvam āha neti | svasya bhoktṛtva-bhramād bhogya-jātam icchan bhogya-nāśe jvaran tad deham anu jvaret tapyetety arthaḥ | ] 219

65 cause of the cessation of that (suffering). When the knowledge of the enjoyer’s brahman-nature and (the knowledge of) the emptiness of enjoyment(s) (is there), desiring what enjoyment for the love of which enjoyer, would one suffer on account of the suffering created by the limitations of the body?]223 For this detached (person), there is no association at all with the body, and hence there is no suffering on account of the suffering related to the body, etc., for the individual self, pratyag-ātman. [(This śloka) clarifies (what was) already stated, (that) there isn’t any affliction (caused) for the self by the affliction(s) of the body.]”224 It appears that Vidyāraṇya, and to an even greater extent, Maheśvaratīrtha is interested in explicitly stating the connection between identification with the body, desires for the enjoyment of pleasure, and the consequent suffering that arises when the enjoyment ceases. This connection is implicitly and unknowingly made by those who do not have the knowledge of ātman/brahman and who instead identify the self as the body, the enjoyer, bhoktṛ in search of enjoyment, bhogya. However, enjoyments are limited and can be destroyed, leading to suffering. The body too is subject to limitations and afflictions and identification with the body leads to the consequent experience of suffering. Therefore, the one who knows the self, ātman to be brahman, the self of all beings, knows (that) (s)he is not the body or the enjoyer and thus is not subject to their desires and suffering. Vidyāraṇya is consistent with Śaṅkara’s commentary on this

223

Ibid., 275: yasya sārvātmyabodhena bādhaḥ syād bhoktṛbhogyayoḥ | kim i[c]chan kasya kāmāya śarīram anusaṃjvaret || [jñānasya tan nivṛtti-hetutvam upapādayati yasyeti | bhoktur brahma-rūpatve bhogyasya tucchatve ca jñāne kiṃ bhogyaṃ kasya bhoktuḥ kāmāyecchan śarīropadhi-kṛta-duḥkham anu duḥkhī syad ity arthaḥ | ] 224 Ibid., 276: niḥsaṅgasyābhisambandho dehenāsya na kaścana | nāto dehādi-duḥkhena duḥkhitvaṃ prtyagātmanaḥ || [deha-tāpenātmanas tāpābhāvam uktam eva spaṣṭayati niḥsaṅgasyeti | ]

66 passage; the difference lies mainly in the seeming intensity of Vidyāraṇya’s focus regarding this passage. Vidyāraṇya doesn’t say anything about the significance of the cet, or elaborate on the nature of bodily afflictions, and desires leading to an uninterrupted cycle of birth and death. Vidyāraṇya single-mindedly focuses on the contrast between the individual who knows ātman and the one who doesn’t, as seen in regards to being an enjoyer and sufferer of bodily afflictions. Maheśvaratīrtha, following Vidyāraṇya’s example, also restricts himself to the these aspects. However, this isn’t really a shortcoming on either Vidyāraṇya or Maheśvaratīrtha’s part; they have dealt with some of these issues a few verses earlier in the BVS, in connection with BU 4.4.10-11.

67 7. Comparison of the various discourses on BU 4.4.12 7.1

The PD7’s treatment of BU 4.4.12 In chapter 5, “A Closer Look at Tṛptidīpa-Prakaraṇa, PD7,” we saw that

Bhāratītīrtha covers a lot of ground in the process of explaining the śruti-vākya, BU 4.4.12. Perhaps the context of the source text placed constraints on the commentators in the cases of the BUŚBh and the BVS and restricted the range of their discursions. Because the PD is an independent treatise, there are no such constraints and Bhāratītīrtha is free to support his analysis with other śruti and smṛti as well as worldly and accessible similes and allegories. As Rāmakṛṣṇa points out in his commentary to PD 7.2, there are five attributes to an explanation, vyākhyāna: padaccheda, separation of (constituent) words, padārthokti, stating the meaning of the words (glossing), vigraha, analysis, vākyayojanā, syntax of the sentence, and ākṣepasya samādhāna, replying to objections.225 In PD7, Bhāratītīrtha certainly addresses all of these aspects in far greater detail than in the other two versions we looked at, the BUŚBh and the BVS. Beyond explaining the constituent words and phrases of the passage, he also presents other Advaita concepts to support the concepts he wishes to convey. Thus in PD7 we have discussions on the difference between jīva and īśvara, cidābhāsa and kūṭastha (vv. 3-18) and jīva and brahman (vv. 83-96). The seven stages of knowledge are considered in great detail, ranging from ignorance to perfect contentment (vv. 28-84), with an embedded treatment on the difference between parokṣa and aparokṣa knowledge and how the former leads to the latter (vv. 48-84). How the direct knowledge of brahman 225

Ācārya, pp.188-9: padacchedaḥ padārthoktir vigraho vākyayojanā | ākṣepasya samādhānaṃ vyākhyānaṃ pañcalakṣaṇam || (Paraśara Purāṇa, Ch. 18).

68 is brought about is covered in vv. 87-129, including by means of śravaṇa, manana and nididhyāsana. In connection with desire, the concept of prārabdha karman is treated thoroughly (vv. 143-191). With regard to bodily afflictions, the sthūla, sūkṣma and kāraṇa śarīras and their respective afflictions are discussed (vv. 222-251). Lastly, the nature of liberation, jīvanmukti is described extensively. In connection with these topics, objections are raised and resolved but the emphasis is not merely on demonstrating the consistency, samādhāna of the Advaita metaphysics, but also on making the subject accessible by means of parallels from daily life and by parables and similes,226 and providing the reader with an introductory how-to manual on achieving self-knowledge. Bhāratītīrtha cites śruti (BU, ChU, TU, Katha, Kaivalya and MU are cited multiple times), smṛti (BS, BG and others) and also the works of other Vedāntins such as Śaṅkara’s Brahmasūtra bhāṣya and the Upadeśasāhasrī, Sureśvara’s Naiṣkarmyasiddhi and Mandana Miśra’s Bhāmati among others. [See Appendix 1: PD7 Citations on pp.9594 for details]. While bringing all of this additional material into the picture, Bhāratītīrtha still remains true to the overall context of BU 4.4.12. Transmigration is the lot of one who does not know the self227 and we’ve already reviewed the detailed discussions of the consequences of prārabdha karman on jīvanmukti in chapter 5, “A Closer Look at Tṛptidīpa-Prakaraṇa, PD7.”228 PD’s jīvanmukti itself is corroborated by BU 4.4.7.229 As

226

See n. 251, p. 74 supra. e.g. PD 7.103: bahu-janma-dṛḍhābhyāsād dehādiṣv ātmadhīḥ kṣaṇāt | punaḥ punar udety evaṃ jagatsatyatva-dhīr api || 228 Cf. the discussion concerning PD 7.143-191, 247, 250, 262-3 229 BU 4.4.7: yadā sarve pramucyante kāmā ye’sya hṛdi śritāḥ | atha martyo’mṛto bhavaty atra brahma samaśnuta iti || 227

230

in BU 4.4.10-11, the pursuit of worldly knowledge for its own sake is mocked.

69 We

can see why the Pañcadaśī is called a prakaraṇa grantha, on account of the lucid and comprehensive yet accessible treatment of Advaita fundamentals. 7.2

Comparison and consistency of the three treatments of BU 4.4.12 What can be said regarding the faithfulness of three separate discourses on BU

4.4.12 as compared to each other and to the source context itself in the BU? We’ve seen that all the versions considered (BUŚBh, BVS, PD7) are faithful to the context of BU 4.4.12. They differ in the manner in which the contrast between the ignorant and those who know the self is presented. Śaṅkara highlights the consequence of “uninterrupted, repeated birth and death” resulting from identification with the body and seems to be suggesting, “Why on earth would anyone persist with such a worldview, given that the alternative is liberation?!” The BVS seems more interested in explicitly spelling out the connection between identification with the body and desires and the consequent suffering resulting from lack of self-knowledge, contrasting it with the lack of suffering for one who does not associate the self with the body, thereby implicitly suggesting the attractiveness of the latter view. Both the BUŚBh and BVS passages are constrained by their formats, occurring within primary or secondary commentaries to the BU. Thus they restrict themselves to elucidating the śruti at hand and do not elaborate at great length, since the relevant context of the BU presents more appropriate opportunities for elaboration elsewhere. PD7, on the other hand, being within an independent prakaraṇagrantha has far more flexibility, and we see how Bhāratītīrtha avails himself of the 230

e.g. PD 7.206: kāvya-nāṭaka-tarkādim abhyasyati nirantaram | vijigīṣur yathā tadvan mumumkṣuḥ svaṃ vicārayet ||

70 opportunity to make relevant Advaita concepts accessible and understood in the process of exegesis. Not surprisingly, all three advaitin authors do not deviate from the basic message of BU 4.4.12, that self-knowledge is the logical alternative to identifying with the body, its desires and afflictions. The area of innovation then seems to be on what aspect they each choose to emphasize, and in the case of PD7, the thoroughness with which Bhāratītīrtha and Vidyāraṇya elaborate on the basics of Advaita Vedānta, using BU 4.4.12 to provide a framework within which concepts are masterfully laid out. Now that we’ve examined Bhāratītīrtha and Vidyāraṇya’s innovation in the framework of textual context, we can pull back further and look next at their contributions to Advaita Vedānta as a whole as evidenced in the PD.

71 8. Vidyāraṇya’s Contributions to and Innovations in Advaita Vedānta Vidyāraṇya231 belongs to the Vivaraṇa sub-school of Śaṅkara’s Advaita Vedānta, so named after Prakāśātman’s subcommentary, Pañca-pādikā-vivaraṇa on Śaṅkara’s direct disciple Padmapāda’s Pañca-pādikā.232 This sub-school advocates study of Vedānta and a direct apprehension of brahman for the attainment of liberation; it also holds brahman to be the locus of avidyā, ignorance.233 Vidyāraṇya is considered an important Advaita scholar and is credited with strengthening the position of the Vivaraṇa school through his works.234 Perhaps Vidyāraṇya’s most significant contribution is his description of the relationship between māyā and avidyā. For Śaṅkara, these terms are used synonymously. Vidyāraṇya distinguishes between the two: he describes māyā as prakṛti with only pure sattva, whereas avidyā is prakṛti tainted by rajas and tamas.235 Īśvara is the reflection of brahman in māyā,236 while the jīva-s, the corresponding reflections of brahman in

231

In this section, for brevity sake, I speak only of Vidyāraṇya since these remarks apply to the PD as a whole. But in all likelihood, based on what we have seen of the concord between Bhāratītīrtha’s thought in PD7 and that of Vidyāraṇya’s in the rest of the PD, these innovations can be credited to Bhāratītīrtha as well. 232 Cf. n. 77, p. 16 supra. 233 In contrast, the other sub-school based on Śankara’s exposition of Vedānta, the Bhāmatī school (named after Maṇḍana Miśra’s commentary on the first four sūtras of the ŚBh on the BS, 9th century CE) holds that yogic practices and mīmāṃsaka activities are key to achieving liberation and also that the individual jīva-s are the locus of avidyā (King 1999, pp. 55-6). 234 Venkatarama Iyer in Venkataraman et al (1976), pt. 2, p. i: “It will not be an exaggeration if we say that [Bhāratītīrtha and Vidyāraṇya] occupy the topmost place among post-Sankara writers on Advaita Vedānta.” S.P. Sharma, p. 85: “The credit of establishing the Vivarana School in the Post-Sankara-Vedanta goes to Vidyaranya only.” 235 PD 1.16ab: sattvaśuddhyaviśuddhibhyāṃ māyā ’vidye ca te mate | 236 PD 1.16cd: māyābimbo vaśīkṛtya tāṃ syāt sarvajña īśvaraḥ ||

avidyā, are diverse because avidyā has differing degrees of rajas and tamas.

237

72 But

fundamentally, īśvara and jīva-s are just two different superimpositions on brahman.238 Vidyāraṇya’s fourfold categorization of consciousness, cit into kūṭastha, brahman, īśvara, and jīva is also novel;239 the conventional list is brahman, īśvara and jīva only.240 The concept of cidābhāsa in particular is also a distinctive contribution: cidābhāsa is “the reflection of consciousness, which is illumined by brahman … and “in turn appears in and illumines the mind … and its modifications.”241 The kūṭastha consciousness is distinct from cidābhāsa; cidābhāsa is in effect when intellectual modifications (vṛtti-s) arise, but the kūṭastha is in effect in the intervals between the vṛtti-s,242 it is the sākṣin, witness.243 The relationship between kūṭastha, cidābhāsa and the mind is like that between a face, its reflection and the mirror.244 The concept of saṃvādi-bhrama, coinciding-error is also novel: even though the idea of meditation on or worship of brahman is erroneous since it treats brahman as an object, it still leads to liberation, the right end, hence the name “concurring- or

237

PD 1.17: avidyā-vaśa-gas tv-anyas tad-vaicitryād anekadhā | sā kāraṇa-śarīraṃ syāt prajñas tatrābhimānavān || 238 PD 3.37: satyaṃ jñānam anantaṃ yad brahma tad vastu tasya tat | īśvaratvaṃ ca jīvatvam upādhidvaya-kalpitaṃ || 239 PD 6.18ab: kūṭastho brahma jīvesāv ityevaṃ cic caturvidhā | Cf. PD 6.1-5, PD 7.83-96. 240 S.P. Sharma, p. 89. 241 Fort (2000), p. 497. Also cf. PD 8.6-10. 242 PD 8.3: cidābhāsa-viśiṣṭānāṃ tathāneka-dhiyām asau | sandhiṃ dhiyām abhāvaṃ ca bhāsayan pravivicyatām || 243 PD 8.25: antaḥkarana-tad-vṛtti-sākṣīty-ādāv-anekadhā | kūṭastha eva sarvatra pūrvācāryair viniścitaḥ || 244 PD 8.26: ātmābhāsāśrayāś caivaṃ mukhābhāsāśrayā yathā | gamyante śāstra-yuktibhyām ity-ābhāsaś ca varṇitaḥ || Here Vidyāraṇya is quoting Śaṅkara’s US I.18.43abc, but while Śaṅkara is talking about ātman, it’s reflection and the mind, Vidyāraṇya is re-mapping the śloka to his own terms by context, particularly kūṭastha and cidābhāsa.

245

coinciding-error.”

73 While such meditation is naturally second to meditation on the

attributeless brahman, it is still suited to those with manda-buddhi, dull intellects or those otherwise incapable of śravaṇa, manana and nididhyāsana,246 and yet it is better than performing scripturally enjoined actions, and far superior to being engaged in worldly activity, vyavahāra.247 The notion of the enjoyment of objects causing happiness through the reflection of brahman is not novel, yet Vidyāraṇya presents such enjoyment as a door to brahmānanda and dedicates an entire chapter to it (PD15). In his mind understanding the nature of such enjoyments helps a seeker strengthen one’s understanding effectively.248 Lastly, Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha’s use of easily accessible analogies and metaphors get his ideas across effectively – the allegory of the tenth-man249 is skillfully developed to illustrate the progression through the seven stages of self-knowledge in PD7.250 Such similes occur in virtually every chapter, with PD7 having the highest

245

PD 9.13: svayaṃbhramo ’pi saṃvādī yathā samyakphalapradaḥ | brahmatattvopāsanāpi tathā muktiphalapradā || Also PD 9.123: yathā saṃvādi-vibhrāntiḥ phala-kāle pramāyate | vidyāyate tathopāstir mukti-kāle ’tipākataḥ || 246 PD 9.54: atyanta-buddhimāndyād vā sāmagryā vāpy-asambhavāt | yo vicāraṃ na labhate brahmopāsīta so ’niśam || 247 PD 9. 121: pāmaraṇāṃ vyavahṛter varaṃ karmady-anuṣṭhitiḥ | tato ’pi saguṇopāstir nirguṇopāsanā tataḥ || 248 PD 15.19ab: yadyat sukhaṃ bhavet tattad brahmaiva pratibimbanāt | … PD 15.34cd: viṣayānanda etena dvāreṇāntaḥ praviśyatām || 249 This allegory is by no means novel. Śaṅkara also draws upon this story in US 1.12.3, 1.18.1704,187,190,199, and also in his ŚBh to BU 1.4.7, and to TU 2.1 (Mayeda 1979, p. 131, n. 2 et passim). The trope is also common in folk tales – see the entry Numskulls Unable to Count their own Number, Thompson & Roberts, pp. 135-6. The folk tales have a wide regional distribution, for example in Kashmir (Knowles 1893), the upper Indus area (Swynnerton 1892), Kumaon and Garwhal in the Himalayas (Upreti 1894), Mahakoshal in Central India (Elwin1944) and the Nilgiri Hills in South India (Rivers 1906). Animal versions of this tale also exist (Bødker 1957). 250 PD 7.23-27, 57-60, 80, 247-48, 250.

251

concentration.

74 Such anecdotes give the reader a sense of the author’s first-hand

experience with the subject matter and at the same time provide the reader with the assurance that she, too, is capable of having similar experiences. At the same time, the author does not shy away from dialectic analysis and refutation,252 but these are subordinated to explaining and clarifying the primary concepts. This accounts for the great popularity and importance that this work has enjoyed in the Advaita tradition and it continues to do so in the present time as well.

251

Punjani, p. 246, n. 1 shows that the most similes in the text occur in PD7. Some of these (besides the tenth-man allegory) are: 7.114-117, a hungry man eats as he likes, without following any rules or injunctions; 134, two tired travelers on a journey, one knows the destination is near and perseveres, the other doesn’t; 136, desire for a knower is like a lamp without oil; 164, desire is like roasted grain; 219, a dying man has no desire to marry; 228, the three bodies without any affliction are like cloth without thread or a blanket without wool; 237-8, the embarrassment of cidābhāsa on knowing the truth is like that of a man doing repeated penance for sins, or of a “disfigured” courtesan; 240, cidābhāsa avoids associating with the body as a brahman avoids mlecchas; 259, a wise man not affected by worldly pleasure, like a bush with red berries is not really on fire; 279, if a living rat can’t kill a cat, how can a dead one? Similarly for the perception of duality affecting the wise one’s knowledge; 282, the corpses of ignorance only proclaim the conqueror’s glory; 287-8 a wise man is towards ignorant ones like an indulgent father towards a disrespectful young child. 252 For example, PD 7.14-16 on the unreality of the cidābhāsa and kūṭastha, v. 21 on the knowability of brahman, vv. 81-84 on direct knowledge through the śāstra-s, vv. 88-89 on giving up the “I” notion, vv. 130-32, 276-278 regarding coexistance of knowledge and action, vv. 181-190 on the nature of direct knowledge.

75 9. Conclusion With a view to establishing the identity of the author(s) of the Pañcadaśī, this thesis has reviewed the historical evidence regarding the connection of Vidyāraṇya with the founding of Vijayanagara, with the Śṛṅgerī maṭha and also with the different Mādhava-s contemporaneous in the mid-fourteenth century. We have very strong evidence that Vidyāraṇya, prior to his sannyāsa, was Mādhavācārya, minister of the kings Bukka I and Harihara II, on the grounds that Vidyāraṇya in his Jīvan-mukti-viveka (JMV) mentions Mādhavācārya’s work, the Parāśara-mādhavīya (PaM), as being written by himself.253 But this Mādhavācārya was not connected with the founding of Vijayanagara, and the inscriptional evidence linking Vidyāraṇya with Vijayanagara had been proven by scholars such as Kulke (1985) and Saletore (1934) to be the fabrication of the sixteenth century Śṛṅgerī pontiff Rāmacandra Bhārati.254 This fact, however, does not detract from the significance of Vidyāraṇya as a scholar and an important contributor to the Advaita tradition. Through the examination of the parallels in the opening and closing verses to various works, an attempt has been made to identify works that are definitely authored by Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya and by his guru and predecessor at Śṛṅgeri, Bhāratītīrtha.255 An argument has been made for the joint authorship of the Pañcadaśī by Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha, on the basis of a re-examination of the evidence, primarily references to the PD in the JMV, as well as Appayya Dīkṣita’s references to the PD in his Siddhānta-leśasaṅgraha (SLS). This is further augmented by the attribution of the Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa, 253

Cf. p. 14. Cf. pp. 10-11. 255 Cf. Table 4: Works by Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha, p. 34. 254

76 PD7 to Bhāratītīrtha by Vidyāraṇya’s disciple, Rāmakṛṣṇa in his commentary to the PD. I suggest that we would be ill-advised to deprecate the testimony afforded by Rāmakṛṣṇa, owing to his contemporaneity with Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha as well as his direct discipleship of Vidyāraṇya. If anything, the historical proximity ought to force us to consider this evidence more significant relative to textual citations made approximately two hundered years later (by Appayya Dīkṣita). The persistence of memory regarding dual-authorship in traditional accounts may have some basis in fact, particularly when there seems more prestige to be gained by attributing the entire work to Vidyāraṇya alone. Taken altogether, it appears that Vidyāraṇya authored the PD with Bhāratītīrtha authoring only PD7. The review of the parallel śloka-s and pāda-s found between the PD and the Anubhūti-prakāśa (AP),256 particularly the lack of any shared references to verses in PD7, also supports this conclusion, though this aspect of the analysis is by no means complete or definitive and presumably some hitherto undetected parallels may surface on further exhaustive study. I then turn to the Pañcadaśī itself, in order to investigate whether there is any evidence of sylistic or doctrinal discontinuity between PD7 and the rest of the text that would corroborate the joint authorship hypothesis.257 PD7 proves to be a comprehensive overview of the entire text, structured as an exposition of the śruti-vākya BU 4.4.12. As such, no evident discontinuity of doctrinal ideas or literary style between PD7 and the whole text is observed. This is not altogether surprising, since Bhāratītīrtha, the proposed author of PD7, was Vidyāraṇya’s guru, and both of them also acknowledged Vidyātīrtha 256 257

Cf. sections
3.7 and
3.8, pp. 29-33. Cf. chapters 4 and 5, pp. 37-55

77 as their guru; therefore their ideas of Advaita Vedānta doctrine, as evidenced in their writings in the PD at the very least, would likely be in concord. PD7 proves to be a masterful presentation of the stages that a seeker after liberation, mokṣa, passes through, beginning with being ignorant of one’s true, non-dual nature and culminating with experiencing endless and absolute satisfaction, tṛpti during jīvanmukti, liberation while still alive. Next, in order to investigate whether Bhāratītīrtha and Vidyāraṇya present any novel interpretations of Advaita Vedānta doctrine in the PD, the extra-textual context of the śruti-vākya BU 4.4.12 was examined in three sources: the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (BU) itself, Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya on this vākya (BUŚBh), and its treatment in Vidyāraṇya’s Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra (BVS).258 We find that all the texts considered are faithful to the context of BU 4.4.12. differing only in the presentation of the contrast between an ignorant person and one who knows one’s true nature. BUŚBh and BVS are relatively terse as they are constrained by the circumstance of occuring within a commentary to the BU. The PD7, being part of an independent treatise, has far greater freedom to provide a detailed exegesis and a thorough exposition of the fundamentals of Advaita doctrine. Vidyāraṇya (and Bhāratītīrtha) can be credited with several innovations, which were summarized in chapter 8.259 Without oversimplifying matters, the importance of liberation and the means for achieving it are succintly presented in the Pañcadaśī, and doubts are raised and resolved. Most importantly, “the view from the other side” – what life looks like from the perspective of one who is enlightened – is dealt with at length. 258

Cf. chapter 6, Extra-textual Context of PD7,” pp. 56-66; chapter 7, “Comparison of the various discourses on BU 4.4.12,” pp. 67-70. 259 Cf. pp. 71-74.

78 The text is highly accessible owing to its use of delightful analogies and metaphors. It makes the attainment of liberation seem not just the purview of a select, exalted few but rather something that anybody can achieve with the proper preparation and effort. These factors help explain why the Pañcadaśī is one of the more popular Advaita Vedānta texts even today.

॥ ॐ तत् सत् ॥

79 Bibliography Primary sources & indices (including translations): Aitareyopaniṣad (AiU): Author Unknown (1980) Ānandagiri-kṛta-ṭīkā-saṃvalita-śāṅkara-bhāṣya-sametā aitareyopaniṣat | Vidyāraṇya-praṇītā Aitareyopaniṣaddīpikā ca. Poona: Anandashrama. Anubhūti-prakāśa (AP): Mishra, Godabarisha, ed. & tr. (1992) The Anubhūtiprakāśa of Vidyāraṇya: The Philosophy of Upaniṣads: An Interpretive Exposition. Critically Edited with Introduction, English Translation, Notes and Indexes. University of Madras. Mukerji, Bithika (1983) “The Translation of the Taittiriyaka-vidya-prakasah with an Introduction, Verse Analyses and Notes,” in Neo-Vedanta and Modernity. Varanasi: Ashutosh Prakashan Sansthan. Unknown (1902) Śrī-vidyāraṇya-viracita upaniṣat-tātparya-rūpo’nubhūtiprakāśaḥ. n.p.: Nirnaya Sagar Press. Aparokṣānubhūti: Sarasvati, Svāmī Akhaṇḍānanda (1970) Śrimac-chaṅkarācārya-kṛtaaparokṣānubhūti, Śrī Vidyāraṇya-svāmī Kṛta ‘Dīpikā’ Vyākhyā Sahita. Bombay: Sat-sāhitya-prakāśan Trust. Vimuktananda, Swami (1938) Aparokshānubhuti, or Self-realization of Sri Sankarāchārya: Text, with Word-for-word Translation, English Rendering and Comments. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama. Bhagavad-gīta (BG): Belvalkar, Shripad Krishna, ed. (1968) The Bhagavadgītā Being Reprint of Relevant Parts of Bḥīṣmaparvan from B.O.R. Institute’s Edition of the Mahābhārata. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Van Buitenen, J.A.B., tr. (1981) The Bhagavadgītā in the Mahābhārata: Text and Translation. The University of Chicago Press.

80 Warrier, A.G. Krishna, tr. (1983) Srīmad Bhagavad Gītā Bhāṣya of Sri Saṃkarācārya with Text in Devanagiri & English Rendering and Index of First Lines of Verses. Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math. Brahma-Sūtra (BS): Apte, V. M. trans. (1960) Brahma-Sūtra Shānkara-Bhāshya: Bādarāyaˆā’s Brahma-Sūtras with Shankarāchāryā’s Commentary. Bombay: Popular Book Depot. Author Unknown (2005) Brahmasūtra. Online at http://www.brahmasutra.iitk.ac.in/, accessed Dec. 2004. Date, V. H. (1973) Vedānta explained; Śaṃkara's Commentary on the Brahmasūtras, v.1 & 2. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Jayammal, K. (1998) A Glossary of Technical Terms in the Commentaries of Śankara, Rāmānuja, and Madhva on the Brahma-Sūtras, Parts One and Two. New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research. Mahadevan, T.M.P., ed. (1973) Word Index to the Brahma-Sūtra-Bhāṣya of Śaṅkara, Part Two. University of Madras. Shastri, J. L., ed. (1980) Brahmasūtra-Śāṃkarabhāṣyam Śrī Govinda-krtayā Bhāṣyaratnaprabhayā, Śrī Vācaspatimiśra-viracitayā Bhāmatyā, Śrīmad Ānandagiri-pranītena Nyāyanirṇayena samupetam. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Vireswarananda, Swami (1978) Brahma-Sutras with Text, Word-for-word Translation, English Rendering, Comments According to the Commentary of Śrī Śaṅkara, and Index. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (BU): Author Unknown (1968) B®hadāraˆyakopani∑ad (sānuvāda Śā∫karabhā∑ya sahita). Gorakhpur: Gita Press. D’Sa, Francis X., ed. (1996) Word Index to Bṛhad-Āraṇyaka Upaniṣad. Pune: Institute for the Study of Religion. Mādhavānanda, Swāmī, tr. (1988) The B®hadāraˆyaka Upani∑ad with the Commentary of Śa∫karācārya. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama. Panoli, V. (1994) Upanishads in Sankara’s Own Words (Brihadaranyaka), v.4. Calicut: Mathrubhumi Press.

81 Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra (BVS): Dwivedī, Vācaspati, (1999) Bṛhadāraṇyakavārtikasāra of Vidyāraṇya Svāmī, v.4. Varanasi: Sampurnanand Sanskrit University. Vajhe, Bhau Sastri, ed. (1915-19) Bṛhadāraṇyakavārtikasāra by Vidyāranya Swami, with a Commentary called Laghusaṅgraha by Maheshwar Tirth. Benares: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Series Office. Dhātu-vṛtti (DV): Phaḍake, Ananta Śāstri and Sada Śiva Śarma Śastri, eds. (1934) The Mādgavīyadhātu-vṛitti of Sayaṇāchārya. Benares: Kashi Sanskrit Series no. 103. Dṛg-dṛśya-viveka (DDV): Nikhilānanda, Swāmī, tr. (1964) Dṛg-dṛśya-viveka: An Inquiry into the Nature of the ‘Seer' and the ‘Seen'. Mysore: Sri Ramakrishna Ashrama. Raphael [pseud.?] (1990) Self and Non-self: The Drigdriśyaviveka Attributed to Śaṃkara. Translated from the Sanskrit with a Commentary. London: Kegan Paul International. Jaiminīya-nyāya-mālā (JNM): Dīkṣitha, M. Rāmanātha, ed. (1983) Jaiminīya-nyāyamālā Śrī-mādhavāchāryeṇa Viracitā Tad-viracita-vistārākhyayā Śrīmad-appayya-dīkṣita-racita Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-viṣaya-saṅgraha-dīpikayā ca Saṃvalitā. Karnataka: Vidyāraṇya Vidyāpītham. Jīvan-mukti-viveka (JMV): Goodding, Robert Alan (2002) The Treatise on Liberation-in-Life: Critical Edition and Annotated Translation of the Jīvanmuktiviveka of Vidyāraṇya. Ph.D. Dis., University of Texas at Austin. Mokṣadānanda, Swāmī, tr. (1992) Jīvan-mukti-viveka of Swāmī Vidyāraṇya. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama. Kāla-mādhavīya (KM): Śaṅkaraśāstri (1977) Śrī-mādhavācārya-praṇītaḥ Kāla-mādhava-kārikāḥ Bhaṭṭavaidyanātha-sūri-kṛta-vivaraṇa-sahitāḥ. Pune: Ānandāśrama.

82 Kaṭhopaniṣad: Gambhīrānanda, Swāmī, tr. (1987) Kaṭha Upaniṣad with the Commentary of Śa∫karācārya. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama. Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad (MāU) & Kārikā: Bhattacharya, Vidhushekhara (1943) The Āgamaśāstra of Gauḍapāda. University of Calcutta. Gambhīrānanda, Swāmī (1987) The Māṇḍūkya-kārikā. Trichur: Sri Ramakrishna Math. Karmarkar, Raghunath Damodar (1953) Gauḍapāda-Kārikā. Reprint, 1973, Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Nikhilānanda, Swāmī (1936) The Māṇḍūkyopani∑ad with Gauḍapāda’s Kārikā and Śaṅkara’s Commentary. Mysore: Sri Ramakrishna Ashrama. Nāiṣkarmya-siddhi (Naiṣ): Alston, A. J., tr. (1959) The “Naiṣkarmya Siddhi” of Śrī Sureśvara. London: Shanti Sadan. Jacob, G. A and M. Hiriyanna, eds. (1980) The Naiṣkarmya-siddhi of Sureśvarācārya with the Candrikā of Jñānottama, rev. 4th ed. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Nṛsiṃha-uttara-tāpanīya-upaniṣad (NUTU): Apte, Hari Nārāyaṇa, ed. (1896) The Nrisimhatāpanīyopanishad (Pūrva and Uttara) with the Bhāshya of Srīmat Sankarāchārya on the Pūrva and the Dîpikâ of Srīmat Vidyāranya on the Uttara Tapanīya. Poona: Ānandāśrama Sanskrita Series No. 30. Pañcadaśī (PD): Ācārya, Nārāyan Rām, ed. (1987) Śrīmad Vidyāraṇyamuni Praṇītā Pañcadaśī, Rāmakṛṣṇak®ta Vyākhyayā, Viṣamsthala-ṭippaṇīpāṭhāntara-śrutīkośaśloka-viṣayasūy-ādibhiḥ, Śrimat Paramahaṃsa-parivrājakācārya Maheśvara-mahodayānāṃ Bhūmikayā ca Samalaṃkṛtā. Delhi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan. Jog, Dattātreya Vāsudeva (2004) Śrī Vidyāraṇya-Bhāratītīrtha Viracita Sārtha Pañcadaśī. Pune: A. D. Jog.

83 Pītāmbara, tr. & comm. (1965) Śrī Pañcadaśī Śrīmat-paramhaṃsaparivrājakācārya Śrī Vidyāraṇyamuni Viracitā, Brahmaniṣṭha-paṇḍit Śrī Pītāmbarjī kṛta Tattvaprakāśikā Bhāṣā-vyākhyayā Evaṃ Ṭippaṇa Sahita. Delhi: Ratan & Co., Booksellers. Sāgar, Śrī Kṛṣṇānand, ed. (1984) Śrīmad Vidyāraṇyamuni viracitā Pañcadaśī, Rāmakṛṣṇa vyākhyayā samalaṅkṛtā, Sarvadarśanācārya Śrī Kṛṣṇāndasāgareṇa svakṛtayā Tattvarañjanī hindīvyākhyayā saha prakāśitā. Uttar Kashi: Shri Totakacharya Ashrama Swāhānanda, Swāmī, tr. & comm. (1967) Pañcadaśī of Śrī Vidyāraṇya Swāmī, Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math. Tripāṭhī, Ācārya Karuṇāpati, ed. (1989) Śrī Vidyāraṇyamuni viracitā Pañcadaśī, Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa viracita Tattvadīpikā vyākhyayā, Śrī Acyutarāyamoḍaka viracita Pūrṇāndendukaumudī vyākhyayā ca samalaṃkṛtā. Lucknow: Uttar Pradesh Sanskrit Academy. Parāśara-mādhavīya (PāM): Tarkālaṅkāra, Candrakānta (1893) Parāśara-smṛtiḥ śrīman mādhavācāry-kṛtavyākhyā sahitā, 3 v. Reprint, 1974, Calcutta: The Asiatic Society. Praṇava-mīmāṃsā (PrM): Olivelle, Patrick (1981) “Praṇavamīmāṃsā: A Newly Discovered Work of Vidyāraṇya.” ABORI 62:77-101 Śaṅkara-digvijaya (ŚDV): Tapasyananda, Swami, tr. (1978) Sankara-digvijaya: The Traditional Life of Sri Sankaracharya. Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math. Upādhyāya, Baladeva, tr. (1968) Śrī-śaṅkara-digvijaya (mādhavācārya-viracita) [hindī anuvād, vistṛt ṭippaṇī tathā vivecanātmak bhūmikā ke sāth]. Haridvar: Śrī Śravaṇanāth Jñān Mandir. Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha (SDS): Abhyankar, Vasudev Shastri ed. & comm. (1924) Sarva-darśana-saṃgraha of Sāyaṇa-Mādhava. 3rd ed. repr. 1978 Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Agrawal, Madan Mohan (2002) The Sarva-Darśana-Saṃgraha of Mādhavācārya with English Translation, Transliteration and Indices. Delhi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan.

84 Cowell, E. B. & A. E. Gough, trans. (1996) The Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha of Mādhavāchārya or Review of the Different Systems of Hindu Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Sarva-vedānta-siddhānta-sāra-saṅgraha: Śaṅkara (1983) Śrī-śāṅkara-granthāvaliḥ: Complete Works of Sri Sankaracharya in the original Sanskrit, v. 3. Upadeśa-racanāvaliḥ. Chennai: Samata Books. Tattwananda, Swami (1960) The Quintessence of Vedanta, being a translation of the Sarva-vedanta-siddhanta-sarasangraha of Acharya Sankara. Kalady, Kerala: Sri Ramakrishna Advaita Ashrama. Siddhānta-leśa-saṅgraha (SLS): Sāgara Kṛṣṇānanda (1996) Śrīmad-appayya-dīkṣitendra-viracitaḥ Śāstrasiddhānta-leṣa-saṅgrahaḥ Śrīmad-gaṅgādharendra-sarasvatī-kṛtavedānta-sūkti-mañjarī-sahitaḥ Śrīmad Acyuta-kṛṣṇānatīrtha-kṛtakṛṣṇālaṅkāra-vyākhyopetaḥ Sarva-darśanācārya-śrī-kṛṣṇānda-sāgareṇa svakṛtayā siddhānta-rañjanī-hindī-vyākhyayā Saha Sampadyaṃ Prakāśitaḥ. Varanasi: By the author. Suryanarayana Sastri, S. S., tr. (1935) The Siddhāntaleśasaṅgraha of Appayya Dīkṣita, 2 v. University of Madras. Tattvabodha: Author Unknown (1981) Tattvabodha of Sankaracharya, Bombay: Central Chinmaya Mission Trust. Upadeśa-sāhasrī (US): Mayeda, Sengaku (1973) Śaṅkara’s Upadeśasāhasrī: Critically Edited with Introduction and Indices. Tokyo: Hokuseido Press. Mayeda, Sengaku (1979) A Thousand Teachings: The Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkara. Tokyo, repr. 1992, Albany: State University of New York Press. Upaniṣads: Author Unknown (1964) Ten Principal Upaniṣads with Śaṅkarabhāṣya. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Jacob, G. A. (1891, repr. 1963) Upaniṣadvākyakośa˙: A Concordance to the Principal Upanishads and Bhagavadgītā. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

85 Olivelle, Patrick (1998) The Early Upani∑ads: Annotated Text and Translation. Oxford University Press. Panoli, V. (1991) Upanishads in Sankara’s Own Words (Isa, Kena, Katha and Mandukya with the Karika of Gaudapada), v.1. Calicut: Mathrubhumi Press. pp.149-296. Vaiyāsika-nyāya-mālā (VNM): Giri, Vidyānanda (1998) Śrī-bhāratītīrtha-muni-viracitā vāiyāsika-nyāya-mālā (with Hindi commentary, Lalitā). Rishikesh: Kailāsa-vidyā-prakāśanam. Saccittīrtha, Svāmī (1986) Brahma-sūtra-rahasyam (Brahma-sūtrāṇāṃ Vaiyāsika-nyāya-mālāyāś ca Vṛtti-rūpam) N. S. Ramanuja Tatacharya, ed. Tirupati: Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha. Saraswatī, Svāmi Satyānanda (1972) Paramahaṃsa-parivrājakācārya-śrībhāratītīrtha-muni-praṇītā Tat-tad-adhikaraṇa-pradarśaka-maharṣiveda-vyāsa-praṇīta-brahma-sūtrair Vibhūṣitā Vaiyāsikanyāyamālā śrīmat-paramahaṃsa-parivrājakācārya-śrī-svāmi-satyānanda-sarasvatīkṛta-bhāṣānuvādena Ṭippaṇyā ca Samalaṅkṛtā. Varanasi: By the author. Vivaraṇa-prameya-saṅgrahaḥ (VPS): Prasād, Lalitā (1999) Vivaraṇaprameyasaṅgrahaḥ Śrīmat-paramahaṃsaparivṛājakācārya-vidyāraṇya-muni-viracitaḥ Sarala Bhāṣānuvādena Sahitaḥ. Varanasi: Amar Publications. Suryanarayana Sastri, S. S. & Saileswar Sen, tr. (1941) The Vivaraṇaprameyasaṅgraha of Bhāratītīrtha, 2 v. Kumbakonam: Sri Vidya Press Tailanga, Rāmasāstrī, ed. (1893) Vivaraṇa-prameya-saṅgrahaḥ śrimatpramahaṃsa-parivṛajakācārya-varya-pūjyapāda-vidyāraṇya-munipranītaḥ. Benares: E. J. Lazarus. Secondary sources Abhedananda, Swami (1967) “An Introduction to the Philosophy of Panchadasi.” In Complete Works of Swami Abhedananda, v. 2, pp. 260-277. Calcutta: Ramkrishna Vedanta Math. Agrawal, Madan Mohan (2002) The Sarva-Darśana-Saṃgraha of Mādhavācārya with English Translation, Transliteration and Indices. Delhi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan.

86 Belvalkar, S. K. (1929) Shree Gopal Bāsu Mallik Lectures on Vedānta Philosophy. Part 1: Lectures 1-6. Poona: Bilvakuñja Publishing House. Bødker, Laurits (1957) Indian Animal Tales:A preliminary Survey. Folklore Fellows Communications, 68, no. 170. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Cardona, George (1968) “Anvaya and Vyatireka in Indian Grammar.” Adyar Library Bulletin, 31-32:313-352. Cenkner, William (1983) A Tradition of Teachers: Śaṅkara and the Jagadgurus Today. Missouri: South Asia Books. Clear, Edeltraud Harzer (1990) “Mādhava (d. 1386).” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Ver. 1.0, London: Routledge. Electronic reproduction (2001), Boulder, CO: NetLibrary. Comans, Michael (2000) The Method of Early Advaita Vedānta: A Study of Gau∂apāda, Śa∫kara, Sureśvara and Padmapāda. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Cronk, George (2003) On Shankara. Wadsworth Philosophy Series. n.p.: Thomson. Dallapiccola, Anna L. & Anila Verghese (1998) Sculpture at Vijayanagara: Iconography and Style. New Delhi: American Institute of Indian Studies/Manohar. Dasgupta, Surendranath (1922) A History of Indian Philosophy, v.1-5. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Deussen, Paul (1912) The System of the Vedānta, Authorized Translation by Charles Johnston. New York: Dover Publications. Deutsch, Elliot (1973) Advaita Vedānta: A Philosophical Reconstruction. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Dikshit, G. S., ed. (1986) Early Vijayanagara: Studies in its History & Culture: Proceedings of S. Srikantaya Centenary Seminar. Bangalore: B.M.S. Memorial Foundation. Elwin, Verrier (1944) Folk-tales of Mahakoshal. London: Oxford University Press. Filliozat, Vasundhara (1973) L’Épigraphie de Vijayanagar du début à 1377. Paris: École Française d’Extrême-Orient. Fort, Andrew O. (1988) “Beyond Pleasure: Śaṅkara on Bliss.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 16:177-189.

87 Fort, Andrew O. (2000) “Reflections on Reflections: Kūṭastha, Cidābhāsa and Vṛttis in the Pañcadaśī.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 28:497-510. Fox, Douglas A. (1993) Shankara Dispelling Illusion: Gau∂apāda’s “Alātaśānti” with an Introduction. Albany: State University of New York Press. Grimes, John (1989) A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hacker, Paul (1969) “Śaṅkara der Yogin und Śaṅkara der Advaitin.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens, 12-13:119-148. Hacker, Paul (1972) “Notes on the Māṇḍūkyopaniṣad and Śaṅkara’s Āgamaśāstravivaraṇa.” In Gaeffke, P. and Ensink, J, eds. India Maior: Congratulatory Volume Presented to J. Gonda, 115:132. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Halbfass, Wilhelm (1983) Studies in Kumārila and Śaṅkara. Reinbek: Verlag für Orientalische Fachpublikationen. Halbfass, Wilhelm (1988) India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding. Albany: State University of New York Press. Halbfass, Wilhelm (1991) Tradition and Reflection: Explorations in Indian Thought. Albany: State University of New York Press. Halbfass, Wilhelm, ed. (1995) Philology and Confrontation: Paul Hacker on Traditional and Modern Vedānta. Albany: SUNY Press. Harshananda, Swami. (1990) A Dictionary of Advaita Vedānta (with two essays and ten charts). Bangalore: Sri Ramakrishna Ashrama. Harzer, Edeltraud. See Clear. Heras, Henry (1929) Beginnings of Vijayanagara History. Bombay: Indian Historical Research Institute. Ingalls, Daniel H.H. (1953) “Śaṃkara on the Question: Whose is Avidyā?” Philosophy East and West, 3:69-72. Ingalls, Daniel H.H. (1954) “Śaṃkara’s Arguments Against the Buddhists.” Philosophy East and West, 3:291-306. Isayeva, Natalia (1993) Shankara and Indian Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

88 Isayeva, Natalia (1995) From Early Vedanta to Kashmir Shaivism: Gaudapada, Bhartrhari and Abhinavagupta. Albany: State University of New York Press. Jagannadham, Pervaram, B. Rukmini, K. Katyayani, and A. Bhoomiah (1990) Vidyaranya Bharati: Essays on Vidyaranya. Warangal (AP): Kakatiya University. Janaki, S. S. (1990) “Madhava, the commentator on the Suta Samhita.” In Jagannadham, Pervaram et al., Vidyaranya Bharati: Essays on Vidyaranya, pp. 79-84. Warangal (AP): Kakatiya University. Kamble, M. T. (2000) Vijayanagara Temples. Varanasi: Ganga Kaveri Publishing House Kane, Pandurang Vaman (1975) History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediæval Religious and Civil Law), v. 1, pt. 2. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental research Institute Karmarkar, D. P. and S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar (1936) Vijayanagara Sexcentenary Commemoration Volume. Dharwar. Karmarkar, Raghunath Damodar (1966) Śaṅkara’s Advaita. Dharwar: Karnatak University. Kasulis, Thomas P. (1992) “Philosophy as Metapraxis.” In Reynolds, Frank and David Tracy, eds., Discourse and Practice. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 169-196. King, Richard (1995) Early Advaita Vedānta and Buddhism: The Mahāyāna Context of the Gau∂apādīya-kārikā. Albany: State University of New York Press. King, Richard (1999) Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought. Washington D.C: Georgetown University Press. Knowles, J. Hinton (1893) Folk-tales of Kashmir. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co. Kripacharyulu, Munuganti (1986) Sāyaṇa and Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya: A Study of Their Lives and Letters. Guntur: Rajyalakshmi Publications. Krishnaswami Ayyangar, S. (1919) Sources of Vijayanagar History. Indian repr. 1986. Delhi: Gian Publishing House. Kulke, Hermann (1985) “Mahārājas, Mahants and Historians: Reflections on the Historiography of Early Vijayanagara and Sringeri.” In Dallapiccola, A. & S. Z. Lallemant, eds. Vijayanagara – City and Empire: New Currents of Research. v.1, pp.120-143. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden.

89 Kunjunni Raja, K. (1990) “Parisaṃkhyāna versus Prasaṃkhyāna in Śaṃkara’s Philosophy.” Adyar Library Bulletin, 54:191-193. Mahadevan, T.M.P. (1938) The Philosophy of Advaita, with Special Reference to Bhāratītīrtha-Vidyāranya, London: Luzac & Co., Fourth ed. (1976) Madras: Ganesh & Co. Mahadevan, T.M.P (1952) Gau∂apāda: A Study in Early Advaita. University of Madras. Mahadevan, T.M.P. (1969) The Pañcadasī of Bhāratītīrtha-Vidyāranya; an interpretative exposition, University of Madras Malkovsky, Bradley J. (2001) The Role of Divine Grace in the Soteriology of Śaṃkarācārya. Leiden: Brill Marcaurelle, Roger (2000) Freedom through Inner Renunciation: Śaṅkara’s Philosophy in a New Light. Albany: SUNY Press. Mayeda, Sengaku (1969) “The Advaita Theory of Perception.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens, 12-13:221-239. Mayeda, Sengaku (1979) A Thousand Teachings: The Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkara. Tokyo, repr. 1992, Albany: State University of New York Press. Mayeda, Sengaku (2000) “Śaṅkara and Buddhism.” In Malkovsky, Bradley J. ed. New Perspectives on Advaita Vedānta: Essays in Commemoration of Professor Richard de Smet, S.J. 18:29. Leiden: Brill Michell, George & Vasundhara Filliozat, guest eds. (1981) Splendours of the Vijayanagara Empire – Hampi. Bombay: Marg Publications. Mukerji, Bithika (1983) Neo-Vedanta and Modernity. Varanasi: Ashutosh Prakashan Sansthan. Nakamura, Hajime (1983) A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy, 2v. tr. Trevor Legett, Sengaku Mayeda, Taitetz Unno et al. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Nanjundayya, H. V. & L. K. Ananthakrishna Iyer (1928) The Mysore Tribes and Castes, v. 2. Mysore University. Niścaladāsa, Sādhu (1984) Vṛtti-prabhākara sādhu-śrī-niścaladāsa-jī-praṇīta. Bombay: Kemrāj Śrīkṛṣṇadās. Olivelle, Patrick (1981) “Praṇavamīmāṃsā: A Newly Discovered Work of Vidyāraṇya.” In ABORI 62:77:101.

90 Olivelle, Patrick (1993) The Āśrama System: This History and Hermeneutics of a Religious Institution. London: Oxford University Press. 2004 repr. New Delhi: Mushiram Manoharlal. Potter, Karl H. (1979) “Was Gauḍapāda an Idealist?” In M. Nagatomi, B.K. Matilal, J.M. Masson, E. Dimmock, eds. Sanskrit and Indian Studies: Essays in Honour of Daniel H.H. Ingalls, 183-199. Potter, Karl H. (1981) Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, v.3: Advaita Vedānta up to Śaṃkara and His Pupils. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Potter, Karl H. (2005) Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Bibliography. Online at http://faculty.washington.edu/kpotter/xhome.htm, accessed Apr. 2005. Punjani, Shakuntala (1985) Pañcadaśī: A Critical Study. Delhi: Parimal Publications. Ramanuja Tatacharya, N. S., ed. (1986) Brahmasūtrarahasyam (Vritti on Brahma-sutras and Vaiyasikanyayamala) by Shri Satcit Tirth Swamiji. Tirupati: Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha. Rāma Sharma, M. H. (1978) The History of the Vijayanagar Empire: Beginnings and Expansion (1308-1569). M. H. Gopal, ed. Bombay: Popular Prakashan. Rambachan, Anantanand (1991) Accomplishing the Accomplished: The Vedas as a source of Knowledge in Śaṅkara. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Rambachan, Anantanand (1994). The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Rivers, W. H. R. (1906) The Todas. London: Macmillan and Co. Saletore, Bhaskar Anand (1934) Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346–A.D. 1646), 2 v. Madras: B. G. Paul & Co. Sewell, Robert (1924) A Forgotten Empire (Vijayanagar): A Contribution to the History of India. London: Allen & Unwin. Sharma, Arvind (1995) The Philosophy of Religion and Advaita Vedanta: A Comparative Study in Religion and Reason. Pennsylvania State University Press. Sharma, S. P. (1990) “Contributions of Vidyaranya to Post-Sankara Vedanta.” In Jagannadham, Pervaram et al., Vidyaranya Bharati: Essays on Vidyaranya, pp. 85-93. Warangal (AP): Kakatiya University.

91 Shastri, Venimadhava (1986) “Works of Vidyāraṇya.” In Dikshit, G. S., ed., Early Vijayanagara: Studies in its History & Culture: Proceedings of S. Srikantaya Centenary Seminar, Bangalore: B.M.S. Memorial Foundation Shastry, A. K. (1982) A History of Sriṅgerī. Dharwad: Karnatak University. Slaje, Walter (1998) “On Changing Others’ Ideas: The Case of Vidyāraṇya and the Yogavāsiṣṭha.” Indo-Iranian Journal 41:103-124. Speijer, J. S. (1886) Sanskrit Syntax. Reprint, 1998, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Srikantaya, S. (1938) Founders of Vijayanagara. Bangalore: The Mythic Society. Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (1998) “On Prasaṃkhyāna and Parisaṃkhyāna: Meditation in Advaita Vedānta and Pre-Śaṃkaran Vedānta.” Adyar Library Bulletin, 62:51-89. Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (2002) “What determines Śaṅkara’s Authorship? The Case of the Pañcīkaraṇa.” Philosophy East and West, 52:1-35. Suthren Hirst, Jacqueline “Strategies of Interpretation: Śaṃkara’s Commentary on Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 116:58-75. Swynnerton, Charles (1892) Indian Nights’ Entertainment or Folk-tales from the Upper Indus. London: Elliot Stock. Tedesco, P. (1960) “Notes to Mayrhofer's Etymological Sanskrit Dictionary.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 80:360-366. Thangaswami, R. (1980) A Bibliographical Survey of Advaita Vedānta Literature. University of Madras. Thompson, Stith & Warren E. Roberts (1960) “Types of Indic Oral Tales: India, Pakistan and Ceylon.” Folklore Fellows Communications, 73, no. 180. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Upādhyāya, Baladeva (1984) Ācārya Sāyaṇa aur Mādhava. Prayāg: Hindī Sāhitya Sammelan. Upreti, Pandit Ganga Dutt (1894) Proverbs and Folklore of Kumaun and Garhwal. 2003 ed: New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts. Uttankita Vidya Aranya Trust (1985) Uttankita Sanskrit Vidya-aranya Epigraphs, v. 1: Vidyāranya. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.

92 Venkataraman, K. R. (1967) The Throne of Transcendental Wisdom: Sri Sankaracharya’s Sarada Pitha in Sringeri. (2nd rev. ed.) Madras: Akhila Bharata Samkara Seva Samiti Publication. Venkataraman, K. R. (1969) Samkara and his Sarada Pitha in Sringeri: A Study in Growth and Integration. Calcutta: Kalpa Printers and Publishers. Venkataraman, K. R., M. K. Venkatarama Iyer & K. R. Srinivasan (1976) The Age of Vidyaranya. Calcutta: Kalpa Printers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Verghese, Anila (2004) “Deities, Cults and Kings at Vijayanagara.” World Archeology 36(3):416-431. Vetter, Tillmann (1969) “Zur Bedeutung des Illusionismus bei Śaṅkara.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens, 12-13:407-423. Vetter, Tilmann (1979) Studien zur Lehre und Entwicklung Śaṅkaras. Vienna: De Nobili Research Library. Wagoner, Phillip B. (2000) “Harihara, Bukka, and the Sultan: The Delhi Sultanate in the Political Imagination of Vijayanagara.” In Gilmartin, David and Bruce B. Lawrence, eds., Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in Islamicate South Asia. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, pp. 300-326. Wood, Thomas E. (1990) The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad and the Āgama Śāstra: An Investigation into the Meaning of Vedānta. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

93 Appendix 1: PD7 Citations Table 5: Texts Cited by PD7, Frequency

Abbrev. AiU BU BBU

Text

Aitareya Upaniṣad Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Brahma- (or Amṛta-) Bindu Upaniṣad BG Bhagavad Gītā BhP Bhāgavata Purāṇa BS Brahmasūtra BSBhā Brahmasūtra Bhāmati ChU Chāndogya Upaniṣad Īśa Īśa Upaniṣad Ka Kaṭha Upaniṣad Kaiv Kaivalya Upaniṣad MS Manu Saṃhita MNā Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad MU Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad NUTU Nṛsiṃhottara-tāpanīya Upaniṣad Naiṣ Naiṣkarmyasiddhi of Sureśvara PD Pañcadaśī ŚBh Śaṅkara Bhāśya Śvet Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad TU Taittirīya Upaniṣad US Upadeśasāhasrī Vā Vākyavṛtti (Śaṅkara?) VāRā UP Vāsiṣṭha Rāmāyaṇa, Utpatti Prakaraṇa VāRā VP Vāsiṣṭha Rāmāyaṇa, Vairāgya Prakaraṇa ViṣP Viṣṇu Purāṇa YS Yogasūtra YV Yoga Vāsiṣṭha

Times Cited 2 19 2 9 1 2 1 6 1 4 4 1 1 4 2 2 7 1 1 3 2 5 1 1 1 1 1

94 Table 6: Citations in PD7, sorted by Source

Source AiU 1.1.1-1.3 AiU 3.1.1 BU 1.4.8+ BU 2.4.14+ BU 2.4.5 BU 2.4.5 BU 2.4.5+ BU 2.5.18+ BU 4.1.4+ BU 4.3.15-17 BU 4.3.23+ BU 4.4.12 BU 4.4.12+ BU 4.4.21 BU 4.4.21 BU 4.4.6+ BU 4.4.9 BU 4.5.13-15 BU 4.5.6 BU 4.5.6 BU ŚBh 1.4.15-39 BBU 11 BBU 9 BG 14.22 BG 18.60 BG 18.66 BG 3.25-26 BG 3.33 BG 3.36 BG 3.37 BG 6.34 BG 9.22 BS 4.1.1+ BS 4.4.16 BSBhā 4.1.16 BhP 11.23.17 ChU 6.2.1 ChU 6.8.1 ChU 6.8.7 ChU 7.24.1 ChU 8.11.1 ChU 8.7.1-3

PD7 v. 68 199 202 181 193 202 97 5 198 212 219 1 18 107 128 183 95 183 193 97 191 214 95 225 161 286 285 155 159 160 120 108 97 183 17 139 61 183 61 181 226 67

Source Īśa 7 Ka 1.2.7+ Ka 2.1.4+ Ka 2.2.4,8 Ka 4.11 Kaiv 1.12-14 Kaiv 1.17 or 20 Kaiv 1.18 or 21 Kaiv 42 MNā 10.5 MS 2.94 MU 2.2.5 MU 3.1.4 MU 3.1.7 MU 3.2.9 NUTU 9 NUTU 9 Naiṣ 2.77 Naiṣ 4.67 PD 1.40+ PD 1.44+ PD 13.83 PD 14.40-57 PD 14.5 PD 14.58-64 PD 6.213 Śvet 4.9-10 TU 2.1.5 TU 3.1.1 TU 3.6.1 US 17.61+ US 4.5 Vā 37-53+ Vā 38-41 Vā 44-46 Vā 48 Vā 49 VāRā UP 22.24 VāRā VP 21.1 ViṣP 1.20.19 YS 1.50+ YV ?

PD7 v. 181 297 171 219 95 217 213 215 286 286 147 128 107 95 241 217 3 195 191 72 72 106 253-270 1 291-297 4 217 66 63 64 173 20 70 75-78 71-73 74 97 106 140 203 149 121

The notation “XX nn+” indicates a paraphrase of or allusion to the specified section as opposed to an exact citation.

95 Appendix 2: Passages in Sanskrit A. Śaṅkarācārya’s bhāṣya on BU 4.4.12:260 ātmānaṃ svaṃ paraṃ sarva-prāṇi-manīṣita-jñaṃ hṛtstham aśanāyādi-dharmātītam ced yadi vijānīyāt sahasreṣu kaścit | ced ity ātma-vidyāyā durlabhatavaṃ darśayati | kathaṃ? ayaṃ para ātmā sarva-prāṇi-pratyaya-sākṣī yo neti netītyādy ukto, yasmān nānyo ’sti draṣṭā śrotā mantā vijñātā samaḥ sarva-bhūta-stho nitya-śuddha-buddhamukta-svabhāvo’smi bhavāmīti, pūruṣaḥ puruṣaḥ | sa kim icchan tat-svarūpavyatiriktam anyad vastu phala-bhūtaṃ kim icchan kasya vā’nyasya ātmano vyatiriktasya kāmāya prayojanāya | na hi tasyātmana eṣṭavyaṃ phalam | na cāpy ātmano’nyo ’sti, yasya kāmāyecchati, sarvasyātma-bhūtatvāt | ataḥ kim icchan kasya kāmāya śarīram anusaṃjvaret bhraṃśet | śarīropādhikṛta-duḥkham anuduḥkhī syāt | śarīra-tāpam anutapyeta | anātma-darśino hi tad-vyatirikta-vastv-antarepsoḥ | mamedaṃ syāt putrasyedaṃ bhāryāyā idaṃ ity evam īhamānaḥ punaḥ punar janana-maraṇaprabandha-rūḍhaḥ śarīra-rogam anurujyate | sarvātma-darśinas tu tad asaṃbhava ity etad āha | B. Vidyāraṇya’s Bṛhadāranyaka-vārtikasāra (BVS) on BU 4.4.12:261 BVS 4.4.272: brahmāvabodha-yuktānāṃ niḥśeṣo duḥkha-saṃkṣayaḥ | ślokena paṃcamenātra vispaṣṭam abhidhīyate || 273:

puruṣaḥ paripūrṇo ’yam asmīti hy āparokṣyataḥ | ya ātmānaṃ vijānāti śarīrānujvaro ’sya kaḥ ||

274:

na vetti cet svam ātmānaṃ dehātmatva-bhramād asau | bhoktus tasyaiva bhogāya bhogam icchann anujvaret ||

275:

yasya sārvātmya-bodhena bādhaḥ syād bhoktṛ-bhogyayoḥ | kim i[c]chan kasya kāmāya śarīram anusaṃjvaret ||

276:

niḥsaṅgasyābhisambandho dehenāsya na kaścana | nāto dehādi-duḥkhena duḥkhitvaṃ pratyag-ātmanaḥ ||

260 261

Upaniṣads, Author Unknown (1964), p.925. Vajhe, p.928; Dwivedī, v.4, pp.2355-6.

262

96

C. Maheśvaratīrtha’s ṭīkā on BVS 4.4.272-6: 272: ātmānam ity ady avatārayati brahmeti |

273: ślokākṣarāṇi vyākurvan jñāna-prakāram abhinayati puruṣa iti | 274: ātmadhiyo jvara-nivṛtti-hetutvam upapādayituṃ tad ajñānasya jvara-hetutvam āha neti | svasya bhoktṛtva-bhramād bhogya-jātam icchan bhogya-nāśe jvaran tad deham anu jvaret tapyetety arthaḥ | 275: jñānasya tan nivṛtti-hetutvam upapādayati yasyeti | bhoktur brahma-rūpatve bhogyasya tucchatve ca jñāne kiṃ bhogyaṃ kasya bhoktuḥ kāmāyecchan śarīropadhi-kṛta-duḥkham anu duḥkhī syad ity arthaḥ | 276: deha-tāpenātmanas tāpābhāvam uktam eva spaṣṭayati niḥsaṅgasyeti |

Image of Vidyāraṇya in JNM, Dīkṣita (1983), p. iii.

262

BVS: Vajhe, p.928.

97 Index Entries are arranged in the order of the English alphabet. Sanskrit terms are in italics. Names of persons, places, works and other proper nouns are listed without italics, with the first letter capitalized. Though footnotes are also indexed, limitations of the indexing software do not allow for listing the footnote numbers wherein an entry occurs, only the page number where it occurs is provided. Abhedananda............................... 4, 7, 85 abhyāsa ................................... 30, 47, 51 Ācārya ........... 5, 9, 25, 26, 67, 82, 83, 91 acintya-bhedābheda............................. 19 Acyutarāya Moḍaka .......................... 4, 7 adhikaraṇa ..................................... 23, 85 adhyāya ................................... 56, 57, 63 advaitānanda ....................................... 46 ahaṅkāra ........................................ 41, 43 Aitareya-Upaniṣad ....... iv, 18, 40, 79, 93 ajñāna .................................................. 51 ānanda..................................................... ...... 1, 6, 16, 37, 40, 44, 45, 46, 48, 53 ānanda-pañcaka......................... 1, 40, 53 āndhra.................................................. 11 anger.............................................. 40, 48 Āṅgīrasa gotra .................................... 10 anirvācya ............................................. 41 antaḥkaraṇa ......................................... 42 Anubhūti-prakāśa.. iv, 18, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 76, 79, 88, 90 Anupama-prakāśa ............................... 18 anuṣṭubh.................................. 31, 50, 63 aparokṣa................ 43, 50, 51, 52, 54, 67 Aparokṣānubhūti ........................... 36, 79 aparokṣātma-vijñāna ........................... 38 Appayya Dīkṣita...................................... ...................... 6, 23, 24, 25, 34, 75, 84 araṇya.................................................. 24 ātman.... 1, 37, 38, 40, 43, 45, 47, 50, 51, 52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 72 ātmānanda............................... 45, 46, 51 attachment ........................................... 40 avidyā.......................... 37, 39, 42, 71, 72 āvṛti ............................................... 51, 54 Banavāsi................................................ 9

Be¬agu¬a copper plates ........................ 13 Belvalkar, S.K................... 19, 36, 79, 86 bhakti................................................... 45 Bhāmati ......................................... 68, 93 Bhāratītīrtha ... iv, iii, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 54, 56, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 82, 85, 89 bhāṣya .... iv, 2, 16, 56, 60, 68, 77, 79, 95 bhāvanā........................... See meditation Bhoganātha ..................... 5, 9, 13, 15, 21 bhumānanda ........................................ 49 brahman .................................................. ... 1, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 62, 64, 65, 67, 71, 72, 73, 74 brāhmaṇa .......................... 58, 59, 62, 63 brahmānanda ... 7, 24, 26, 27, 28, 32, 44, 45, 46, 48, 73 Brahmānanda Bhāratī.................... 22, 26 Brahmasūtra ...................... 23, 68, 80, 93 Brajbhāṣā............................................... 6 Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad .... iv, 2, 17, 18, 27, 30, 32, 40, 41, 45, 56, 57, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 69, 70, 73, 77, 80, 93 BU 4.3.2.......................................... 57 BU 4.3.21........................................ 57 BU 4.3.23........................................ 57 BU 4.3.32........................................ 57 BU 4.3.33........................................ 58 BU 4.4.10........................................ 58 BU 4.4.122, 27, 32, 35, 41, 47, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 76, 77, 95 BU 4.4.13........................................ 58

BU 4.4.21........................................ 58 BU 4.4.7.......................................... 68 BU 4.4.7.......................................... 58 Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra .................... .... iv, 3, 17, 18, 20, 34, 35, 55, 56, 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 77, 81, 95, 96 Buddhist ........................................ 38, 88 Bukka I.... 1, 9, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 34, 75 Chāndogya Upaniṣad .. iv, 29, 30, 40, 68, 93 cidābhāsa .............. 42, 50, 52, 67, 72, 74 cidātmā................................................ 40 cit ............................ 1, 24, 37, 43, 48, 72 citradīpa................................ 4, 7, 24, 40 colophon.............................................. 19 Cowell & Gough ................................. 10 daśanāmin ........................................... 24 Dasgupta, S. .................. 6, 16, 27, 63, 86 deep sleep...................................... 44, 57 desire .. 40, 41, 45, 47, 52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 74 detachment ..........................See vairâgya dharma-śāstra ................................ 14, 15 Dhātu-vṛtti................................ iv, 35, 81 dhī ....................................................... 47 dhyānadīpa.............................. 24, 42, 51 dīpa ............................................. 1, 6, 40 dīpa-pañcaka ......................................... 1 dīpikā.................. iv, 6, 18, 20, 34, 36, 79 discrimination ............... 1, 22, 41, 45, 51 dream............................................. 45, 57 Dṛg-dṛśya-viveka .. iv, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 34, 81 duality ....... 37, 38, 39, 41, 44, 46, 52, 74 dvaitaviveka ........................................ 39 Dwivedī, V........................ 17, 63, 81, 95 elements, five .....................................See pañcamahābhūtaviveka Filliozat, V .................. 10, 13, 21, 86, 89 Gaṇeśa......................... 14, 15, 19, 20, 34 Goa........................................................ 9 Goodding, R................ 11, 14, 28, 63, 81 guṇa......................................... 37, 40, 48 guru-vaṃśa-kāvya............................... 22

98 Hacker, P....................................... 11, 87 Halbfass, W................................... 11, 87 Hampi.......................................... 1, 9, 89 Harihara I ........................ 1, 9, 10, 17, 21 Harihara II....................... 1, 9, 13, 17, 75 Heras, H .................................. 11, 12, 87 hṛdaya.................................................. 62 icchā.............................................. 45, 52 Islam.................................................... 11 īśvara..... 6, 37, 39, 40, 42, 50, 67, 71, 72 Jagannadham, P........... 10, 11, 35, 88, 90 jagat ................ 14, 18, 19, 20, 30, 42, 68 Jaiminīya-Nyāya-Mālā............................ ............... iv, 15, 16, 19, 22, 34, 81, 96 Jain ...................................................... 19 jalpa..................................................... 57 Janaka............................................ 57, 59 Janaki, S. S.................................... 35, 88 jīva........................................................... . 24, 25, 34, 37, 39, 40, 42, 47, 50, 51, 67, 71, 72 jīvanmukta............................... 38, 42, 50 jīvanmukti................................ 54, 68, 77 Jīvan-mukti-viveka ................................. .. iv, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 75, 81 JMV 2.10.10 ................................... 28 JMV 2.10.27-29 .............................. 28 JMV 2.3.26 ..................................... 28 JMV 5.1.25 ..................................... 28 jñāna ..................... 49, 50, 51, 54, 64, 96 Jog, D.V. ................... 5, 7, 10, 21, 31, 82 Kāla-Mādhavīya.... iv, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 34, 35, 81 Kāla-nirṇaya........... See Kala-mādhavīya Kānchi ................................................. 15 Kane, P.V. ... 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 22, 88 kannaḍa ............................................... 11 Karmarkar, D.P. ...................... 36, 82, 88 Karnataka .................................... 1, 9, 81 Khila-kāṇḍa................................... 56, 59 kośa ......................................... 37, 38, 53

ānandamaya.......................... 6, 39, 44 annamayakośa ................................ 38 manomaya....................................... 39 prāṇamaya ...................................... 39 vijñānamaya.................................... 39 Kripacharyulu, M... 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 35, 36, 88 Kṛṣṇānanda-bhāratī ............................. 26 kulaguru ................................................ 9 Kulke, H.......... 10, 11, 12, 13, 22, 75, 88 kūṭastha ................................................... ........ 40, 41, 42, 50, 52, 67, 72, 74, 87 Laghusaṅgraha ........................ 56, 63, 81 Laghu-vārttika-vyākhyā...................... 63 Mādhava..... iv, iii, 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 63, 75, 83, 86, 88, 91 Mādhavācārya.4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 21, 75, 83, 85 Mādhavamantrin ............................. 9, 35 Mādhavānanda .............................. 56, 80 Madhu-kāṇḍa ................................ 56, 59 Madhusūdana Sarasvati ...................... 19 Mahadevan, T.M.P..1, 6, 8, 9, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 63, 80, 89 mahāvākya ........................ 26, 37, 40, 51 Mahāvākya-darpaṇa............................ 26 Maheśvaratīrtha........... 56, 63, 64, 65, 96 Maitreyī............................................... 59 manana...... 37, 41, 42, 44, 51, 53, 68, 73 manda............................................ 48, 73 Mandana Miśra ................................... 68 mandaprajña........................................ 45 Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad ................ iv, 40, 82 maṅgala-śloka ................................. 5, 22 Marcaurelle, R......................... 17, 63, 89 maṭha.................. iii, 1, 11, 12, 17, 21, 75 māyā .......... 37, 38, 39, 40, 46, 50, 51, 71 Māyaṇa...................................... 9, 10, 35 meditation ............. 37, 40, 49, 51, 56, 72 bhāvanā........................................... 43 dhyāna....................................... 42, 43 upāsana..................................... 43, 56 Michell, G. .................................... 10, 89

99 Mishra, G. ..................................... 10, 79 mithyā...................................... 38, 45, 52 mokṣa .................................................. 77 mūḍha.................................................. 45 Muktika Upaniṣad......................... 28, 32 mumukṣu............................................. 54 Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad ...... iv, 29, 30, 68, 93 Muni-kāṇḍa ....... See Yājñavalkya-kāṇḍa Naiṣkarmyasiddhi ......................... 68, 93 Nakamura, H. .................................. 2, 89 Nanjundayya, H.V. ........... 12, 17, 24, 89 narmasaciva......................................... 13 nāṭakadīpa ........................................... 43 neti, neti......................................... 57, 60 nididhyāsana .. 37, 41, 42, 44, 51, 53, 68, 73 Nikhilānanda, S....................... 22, 81, 82 nirguṇa ................................................ 43 Niścaladāsa ................. 6, 7, 8, 22, 33, 89 Niścalānanda ................. See Niścaladāsa non-duality .......................................... 47 Nṛsiṃhottara-tāpanīya Upaniṣad .. 18, 82 Dīpikā.............................................. 18 Dīpikā closing vv 1-2...................... 18 Dīpikā opening vv 1-3 .................... 18 NUTU 1.1 ....................................... 18 Olivelle, P. ...... 14, 19, 60, 83, 85, 89, 90 om........................................................ 19 pain................................................ 39, 44 Pañcadaśī................................................ . i, iv, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 50, 53, 54, 56, 63, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 82 PD 1.1 ............................................. 16 PD 1.16 ........................................... 71 PD 1.17 ........................................... 72 PD 1.52-53 ...................................... 37 PD 1.55 ........................................... 51 PD 11.85 ................................... 44, 45 PD 12.65-67 .................................... 28 PD 14.38 ......................................... 27 PD 14.39 ......................................... 27

PD 14.40-64 .................................... 27 PD 14.5 ..................................... 27, 32 PD 15.19 ......................................... 73 PD 15.34 ......................................... 73 PD 2.49 ........................................... 38 PD 3.10 ........................................... 39 PD 3.37 ..................................... 39, 72 PD 4.68 ........................................... 28 PD 6.150 ......................................... 41 PD 6.153-163 .................................. 24 PD 6.18 ........................................... 72 PD 6.237 ......................................... 41 PD 7.1 ................................. 27, 32, 50 PD 7.103 ......................................... 68 PD 7.139 ......................................... 28 PD 7.156 ......................................... 28 PD 7.164 ......................................... 52 PD 7.2 ....................................... 42, 50 PD 7.206 ......................................... 69 PD 7.247 ......................................... 53 PD 7.252 ......................................... 53 PD 7.253-270 .................................. 27 PD 7.265 ......................................... 52 PD 7.291-297 .................................. 27 PD 8.25 ........................................... 72 PD 8.26 ..................................... 42, 72 PD 8.3 ............................................. 72 PD 9.121 ......................................... 73 PD 9.13 ........................................... 73 PD 9.134 ......................................... 43 PD 9.54 ........................................... 73 pañcaka ..................................... 7, 28, 32 pañcakośaviveka ................................. 38 pañcamahābhūtaviveka ....................... 38 Pañca-pādikā. ...................................... 71 Pañca-pādikā-vivaraṇa.................. 16, 71 Parāśara-mādhavīya ................................ .... iv, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 34, 35, 75, 83 Parāśara-smṛti .. See Pārāśara-mādhavīya parokṣa........................ 42, 50, 51, 54, 67 pleasure ........... 13, 39, 44, 52, 64, 65, 74 Potter, K. ........... 6, 16, 18, 24, 26, 63, 90 prajñā.................................................. 58

100 prakaraṇa........ 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 33, 41, 69 prakaraṇa grantha .......................... 1, 69 Prakāśātman .................................. 16, 71 prakṛti ..................................... 37, 40, 71 prāṇa ................................................... 58 Praṇava-mīmāṃsā........ iv, 19, 20, 34, 83 prārabdha karman .................. 52, 53, 68 pratyag-ātman..................................... 65 Punjani, S. ................. 1, 9, 13, 63, 74, 90 Pūrṇānandendu-kaumudī ...................... 4 pūruṣa ................................................. 50 pūrvapakṣa.......................................... 23 pūrvāśrama ........................... 4, 8, 13, 15 rāga ..................................................... 45 rajas ........................................ 37, 48, 71 Rāma Sharma, M.H............. 9, 15, 17, 90 Rāmacandra Bhārati...................... 11, 75 Rāmakṛṣṇa... 5, 16, 25, 28, 33, 67, 76, 83 Ramanuja Tatacharya.......................... 22 Raphael ......................................... 22, 81 rebirth............................................ 39, 47 reflection ......... 41, 42, 48, 51, 71, 72, 73 Ṛgveda ................................................ 14 saguṇa ................................................. 43 Śaiva.................................................... 15 sajātīya-bheda..................................... 38 sākṣin................................. 43, 47, 52, 72 Saletore, B.A................. 9, 10, 11, 75, 90 samādhāna .................................... 67, 68 samādhi ................... 5, 37, 43, 51, 52, 53 samāsa................................................. 40 sāṃkhya............................................... 43 Saṃkṣepa-śārīraka .............................. 19 saṃsāra ................................... 18, 61, 62 saṃvādi-bhrama ................................. 72 sañcita-karman ................................... 47 sandeha ............................................... 23 Saṅgama.................................... 1, 13, 35 saṅgati................................................. 23 Saṅgīta-sāra......................................... 35 Śaṅkara.... iv, 1, 2, 11, 16, 19, 22, 24, 36, 54, 56, 60, 61, 62, 65, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 77, 80, 82, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95

Śaṅkarācārya ................................. 11, 12 Śaṅkara-digvijaya .............. iv, 10, 35, 83 Śaṅkarānanda .......... 5, 16, 17, 20, 21, 34 sannyāsa.......... 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 21, 75 sannyāsin......................................... 1, 24 Sāra-saṅgraha...................................... 18 śarīra........................... 37, 53, 61, 68, 95 Śārīrika-nyāya-maṇimāla.................... 19 Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha..iv, 9, 10, 83, 84 Sarvajñātman....................................... 19 Sarva-vedānta-siddhānta-sāra-saṅgraha .................................................. 19, 84 śāstra....................................... 43, 72, 74 sat.................................. 1, 37, 38, 41, 48 sattva ................................. 37, 48, 52, 71 Sāyaṇa .. 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 19, 35, 83, 88, 91 self-realization..................................... 38 Sewell, R. .................................. 9, 11, 90 Shastri, A.V......................................... 83 Shastri, J.L. ......................................... 80 Shastri, V................................... 5, 34, 91 Shastry, A.K............................ 12, 22, 91 sheath ........................................ See kośa siddhānta................................. 19, 23, 84 Siddhānta-leśa-saṅgraha ... iv, 24, 25, 34, 75, 84 Śiva ............................................... 17, 81 smṛti ........................................ 28, 67, 68 śoka-apagama ............................... 51, 54 śraddhā ............................................... 45 śravaṇa...... 37, 41, 42, 44, 51, 53, 68, 73 Srikantaya, S. .. 12, 13, 14, 22, 35, 86, 91 Śrīkaṇṭha ........................... 14, 15, 19, 34 Śṛṅgerī..................................................... ....... iii, 1, 5, 11, 12, 13, 17, 21, 31, 75 śruti ......................................................... ... 5, 18, 25, 30, 40, 42, 44, 45, 61, 68, 69 śruti-vākya... 2, 50, 54, 56, 58, 67, 76, 77 substratum ..................................... 39, 46 Sundaram Iyer..................................... 36 śūnya ................................................... 38 superimposition................. 39, 40, 42, 51

101 Sureśvara......... 17, 29, 63, 68, 82, 86, 93 Suryanarayana Sastri, S.S. 24, 25, 84, 85 Sūta-saṃhita.................................. 10, 35 svagata-bheda...................................... 38 Swahananda, S ................................ 1, 83 Taittirīya Upaniṣad.. v, 30, 38, 68, 73, 93 tamas ....................................... 37, 48, 71 tat tvam asi.......................................... 40 Tātparya-dīpikā ............................. 10, 35 tattvaviveka ......................................... 37 tenth man..................... 50, 51, 53, 73, 74 Thangaswami, R. ... 6, 17, 19, 22, 26, 31, 35, 91 tīrtha.................................. 14, 15, 21, 24 Tṛptidīpa.......................... 2, 5, 25, 27, 41 Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa................................. ... i, iv, 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 36, 42, 50, 56, 67, 68, 75 Tungabhadra ......................................... 9 upadeśa ............................................... 56 Upadeśa-sāhasrī .................. v, 68, 84, 89 US 1.12.3 ........................................ 73 US 1.17.88 ...................................... vii
US 1.18.170-4,187,190,199
............ 73 US 1.18.43 ...................................... 72 Upādhyāya, B..10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 35, 36, 83, 91 upaniṣad............................ 18, 31, 37, 39 Uttamaślokatīrtha................................ 63 Uttankita Epigraphs ...................... 13, 21 vairāgya .............................................. 41 Vaiyāsika-nyāya-mālā... v, 22, 23, 34, 85 Vākya-sudhā ................................. 22, 26 vaṃśa-vṛkṣaḥ ...................................... 31 Vārttika ......................................... 17, 63 vāsanā ................................................. 44 vāsanānanda ................................. 44, 49 Vedānta Deśika ...........See Veṅkaṭanātha Venimadhava Shastri ... 5, 15, 16, 18, 22, 34 Veṅkaṭanātha....................................... 19 Venkataraman, K.R.... 10, 12, 16, 17, 21, 22, 71, 92 Verghese, A......................................... 10

vicāra .................................................. 43 Vidyānagara .................................... 9, 10 vidyānanda.......................................... 47 Vidyāraṇya. iv, iii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 54, 56, 63, 65, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 83, 88, 89, 91, 95, 96 vidyāsukha........................................... 44 Vidyātīrtha .............................................. . 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 31, 34, 54, 76 vijātīya-bheda ..................................... 38 Vijayanagara .. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 23, 75, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 founding myths ................................. 9 vikṣepa........................................... 51, 54 virakta ................................................. 48 viṣaya ...................................... 23, 43, 81 viṣayānanda ...................... 44, 48, 52, 73

102 Viśiṣṭādvaita........................................ 19 Viṣṇu ............................................. 17, 93 Vivaraṇa.................. v, 16, 20, 34, 71, 85 Vivaraṇa-prameya-saṅgraha .... v, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 34, 85 vivarta ................................................. 46 viveka . 1, 6, 7, 14, 19, 23, 34, 40, 46, 51, 75, 81 viveka-pañcaka ............................... 1, 40 vṛtti.................................... 18, 35, 48, 72 Vṛtti-prabhākara.......................... 6, 7, 89 vyākhyāna ........................................... 67 vyavahāra............................................ 73 Wagoner, P.................................... 11, 92 Yājñavalkya .................. 2, 56, 57, 58, 59 Yājñavalkya-kāṇḍa ....................... 56, 61 yoga................. 12, 43, 44, 46, 49, 51, 93 yogānanda..................................... 44, 51 yukti..................................................... 37