Access to Texts in Madhva Vedanta Eng

DEEPAK SARMA

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS: ¯ ¯ ACCESS TO TEXTS IN MADHVA VEDANTA

INTRODUCTION

In this paper I examine one type of governing doctrine that is found among the doctrines propounded by Madhv¯ac ac¯arya, arya, the 13th century CE ¯ theologian who established Madhva adhva Ved¯anta. anta. A study of these doctrines will shed new light on the transmission of certain types of knowledge in South Asia. Governing doctrines are doctrines about doctrines. Though there are several types of governing doctrines the study here is limited to governing doctrines that restrict access to other doctrines and to membership in a given community.1 These are called restrictive governing doctrines (RGD). More formally, restrictive governing doctrines are rules and  regulations about doctrines and doctrinal systems that restrict both adherents and outsiders from obtaining doctrines and the ordered sets of doctrines found in doctrinal system. RGD also include rules and  regulations about doctrines and doctrinal systems that restrain the admission of outsiders as members in a given religious community . They thus restrict accessibility and establish exclusivity. Nearly every major school of Indian philosophy discussed the topic of  accessibility and related topics such as eligibility and thereby established governing governing doctrines doctrines that either allowed or restricted restricted access to texts and ¯ teachings in commentaries on at least one (usually the first) sutra found in their central texts. This practice points towards the importance that governing doctrines had for the regulation of reading and other pedagogical habits and, therefore, for the training of virtuoso religious readers. Sometimes these doctrines, moreover, may have hindered (and continue to hinder) the abilities of outsiders who are ineligible and not allowed access to texts and, therefore, not allowed to become virtuoso readers. ¯ anta The establishment of these restrictive governing doctrines in Vedanta centers primarily around the interpretation of the first pada of the first ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ a ¯, brahmajijn˜as of the Brahma Sutras of Badar adarayan ayan. a;2 athato sutra 3 “Then, therefore, the inquiry into brahman”. The term atha glosses ¯ acarya’s arya’s the sequence of eligibility. Taking into consideration Madhv¯ac commentary, the expanded passage reads “Therefore, after having  Journal of Indian Philosophy 27: 583–635, 1999. c 1999 Kluwer  Kluwer Academic Publishers. Publishers. Printed Printed in the Netherlands. Netherlands.

584

DEEPAK DEEPAK SARMA

met the requirements for eligibility, the inquiry into brahman is to be undertaken”.4 Madhv¯ac ac¯arya arya thus addresses these issues in his Brahma ¯ ¯ ¯ , in connection Sutra Bhas. ya, a commentary on the Brahma Sutras with the requirements for eligibility and thereby establishes restrictive governing doctrines. This paper, then, is an in depth analysis of these restrictive governing doctrines. ¯ To this end I first examine the historical context within which Madhva adhva Ved¯anta anta originated. Viewing M¯adhva adhva doctrine in light of the social and religious matters that dominated medieval South India may help to shed light on Madhv¯ac ac¯arya’s arya’s restrictive governing doctrines. After a brief summary of some historical matters I offer an analysis of these ¯ doctrines. Finally, I examine several instances in Madhva adhva texts where debate with outsiders is addressed. Throughout this analysis, I also ¯ critique and evaluate Madhv¯ac ac¯arya’s arya’s positions. A study of the M adhva adhva rules and regulations pertaining to the transmission of knowledge may help scholars to look at the RGD propounded by other traditions, philosophical and otherwise, in South Asia.

¯ THE MADHVA RESTRICTIVE GOVERNING DOCTRINES: AN INTRODUCTION

Questions Questions about accessibility accessibility and inclusivit inclusivity y do not usually usually arise given ¯ ¯ the contemporary understanding and interpretation of Madhva adhva Vedanta anta ¯ by scholars both inside and outside of the tradition. The Sw amiji amiji of the ¯ Pejavar avar mat  . ha in Ud . upi, for example, states that “Sri Madhva alone is to be regarded as Jagad [world] Guru because he has shown the way to ¯ ¯ men of all castes that they can attain spiritual grace”.5 Madhva adhva Vedanta anta ¯ is often referred to as a bhakti tradition by contemporary Madhva adhva scholars and theologians. Bhakti, devotionally oriented, traditions are typically believed to offer catholicons or universal openness for salvation. They thus employ governing doctrines which allow both access and inclusivity for all sentients. That is, regardless of class, character, or past behavior, anyone can obtain relevant doctrine and then attain that which is maximally desirable, moks. a, simply through their sincere devotion.6 ¯ ¯ Juxtaposing Madhva adhva Vedanta anta with other bhakti religions is misleading.7 ¯ ¯ The Swamiji amiji of the Pejavar avar mat  . ha and other contemporary scholars are ¯ only partly correct. I thus examine the governing doctrines, the adhik ara prerequisites, by which Madhv¯ac ac¯arya arya subtly introduces this exclusivity and the subsequent doctrinal restrictions for potential adherents. I show ¯ ¯ that Madhva adhva Ved¯anta, anta, as characterized by Madhv¯ac acarya arya in medieval ¯ at.aka, can be categorized as a religious community whose doctrines Karn. at are regulated by RGD, governing doctrines that restrict access.

584

DEEPAK DEEPAK SARMA

met the requirements for eligibility, the inquiry into brahman is to be undertaken”.4 Madhv¯ac ac¯arya arya thus addresses these issues in his Brahma ¯ ¯ ¯ , in connection Sutra Bhas. ya, a commentary on the Brahma Sutras with the requirements for eligibility and thereby establishes restrictive governing doctrines. This paper, then, is an in depth analysis of these restrictive governing doctrines. ¯ To this end I first examine the historical context within which Madhva adhva Ved¯anta anta originated. Viewing M¯adhva adhva doctrine in light of the social and religious matters that dominated medieval South India may help to shed light on Madhv¯ac ac¯arya’s arya’s restrictive governing doctrines. After a brief summary of some historical matters I offer an analysis of these ¯ doctrines. Finally, I examine several instances in Madhva adhva texts where debate with outsiders is addressed. Throughout this analysis, I also ¯ critique and evaluate Madhv¯ac ac¯arya’s arya’s positions. A study of the M adhva adhva rules and regulations pertaining to the transmission of knowledge may help scholars to look at the RGD propounded by other traditions, philosophical and otherwise, in South Asia.

¯ THE MADHVA RESTRICTIVE GOVERNING DOCTRINES: AN INTRODUCTION

Questions Questions about accessibility accessibility and inclusivit inclusivity y do not usually usually arise given ¯ ¯ the contemporary understanding and interpretation of Madhva adhva Vedanta anta ¯ by scholars both inside and outside of the tradition. The Sw amiji amiji of the ¯ Pejavar avar mat  . ha in Ud . upi, for example, states that “Sri Madhva alone is to be regarded as Jagad [world] Guru because he has shown the way to ¯ ¯ men of all castes that they can attain spiritual grace”.5 Madhva adhva Vedanta anta ¯ is often referred to as a bhakti tradition by contemporary Madhva adhva scholars and theologians. Bhakti, devotionally oriented, traditions are typically believed to offer catholicons or universal openness for salvation. They thus employ governing doctrines which allow both access and inclusivity for all sentients. That is, regardless of class, character, or past behavior, anyone can obtain relevant doctrine and then attain that which is maximally desirable, moks. a, simply through their sincere devotion.6 ¯ ¯ Juxtaposing Madhva adhva Vedanta anta with other bhakti religions is misleading.7 ¯ ¯ The Swamiji amiji of the Pejavar avar mat  . ha and other contemporary scholars are ¯ only partly correct. I thus examine the governing doctrines, the adhik ara prerequisites, by which Madhv¯ac ac¯arya arya subtly introduces this exclusivity and the subsequent doctrinal restrictions for potential adherents. I show ¯ ¯ that Madhva adhva Ved¯anta, anta, as characterized by Madhv¯ac acarya arya in medieval ¯ at.aka, can be categorized as a religious community whose doctrines Karn. at are regulated by RGD, governing doctrines that restrict access.

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

585

Before investigating these doctrines it is important to examine the context within which Madhv¯ac ac¯arya arya derived them. To this end I briefly ¯ sketch out the social and religious world of medieval Karn. at at.aka that ¯ ¯ confronted Madhvac acarya arya and may have informed the doctrines that he propounded. This survey is not intended to be comprehensive. Instead, it is intended to suggest possible answers to etiological questions regarding ¯ Madhv¯ac acarya’s arya’s strict RGD. ¯ ARYA ¯ BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ON MADHVAC

´ Madhv¯ac ac¯arya arya (1238–1317 CE) was born of  Sival .l.i Brahmin parents in the ¯ ¯ village of Pajakaks ajakaks. etra near modern day Ud. upi in the Tul.unad ad. u area of  8 ¯ South Kanara. Aside from relevant colophons found in Madhv¯ac acarya’s arya’s ¯ own works, the biographical data regarding Madhv¯ac acarya arya derives from two sources: first, data from the Madhvavijaya, The Triumph ¯ arya ¯ ¯ , a hagiographic account composed by N¯ar arayan ayan. a of Madhvac Pan. d. it¯ac ac¯arya; arya; second, evidence from inscriptional evidence and records found in Ud. upi mat  . has, monasteries. First, I discuss each of these sources. Second, I summarize Madhv ¯ac ac¯arya’s arya’s educational background. Finally, I address the political, social, and religious contexts within which Madhv¯ac ac¯arya arya developed his school of thought.

Sources ¯ ¯ N¯ar arayan ayan. a Pan. d. it¯ac ac¯arya arya was the son of Trivikrama Pan. d. it¯ac acarya arya who was 9 ¯ ¯ ¯ one of the first direct disciples of Madhv ¯ac acarya. arya. N¯ar arayan ayan. a Pan. d. it¯ac acarya arya lived shortly after Madhv¯ac ac¯arya’s arya’s demise and, therefore, the metrical biography that he composed may have some accuracy with regard to the presentation of the socio-historical context of the 13th and 14th centuries. Pan. d. it¯ac ac¯arya’s arya’s hagiographies are regarded as accurate by ¯ the Madhva adhva community community.. Given Given the dearth of accurate accurate historical historical data in ¯ connection with medieval Tul.unad ad. u, the degree to which the hagiographic accounts are prescriptive rather than descriptive remains ambiguous. Several of the people and places mentioned in the Madhvavijaya are also mentioned in relevant histories etc. This indicates that portions of  Pan. d. it¯ac ac¯arya’s arya’s hagiographical works may be reliable. For the purposes of the discussion here they are nevertheless useful. ´ He was a Sival .l.i Tul.u-speaking Brahmin born and raised in the ¯ Tul.unad ad. u district. He was, then, of the same regional subcaste as ¯ ¯ Madhv¯ac acarya. arya.10 Pan. d. it¯ac acarya arya composed composed several several hagiographies hagiographies of  ¯ acarya arya in addition to the Madhvavijaya. The An. u MadhvaviMadhv¯ac  jaya is an outline of the Madhvavijaya while the Madhvavijaya

586

DEEPAK DEEPAK SARMA

¯ ´  Bhavaprak  a¯sika is an elucidation of several aspects of the Madhvavi˜ ¯ ¯  jaya. The Man ı is a mythological account of the rise of Madhva adhva . imanjar  11 ¯ Vedanta. anta. The as. .t amat  . has, the eight monasteries, of Ud . upi are the second ¯ source for biographical records about Madhv¯ac acarya. arya.12 The institution of the eight mat  ac ac¯arya arya before his death. These . has was begun by Madhv ¯ genealogical and inscriptio inscriptional nal records records regarding regarding the mat  . has have kept genealogical 13 ¯, lineage, of the svamins ¯  param of each of the eight mat  The . par a . has. ¯ ¯ first svamin of each of the eight mat  ac acarya arya . has was ordained by Madhv¯ himself. For this reason, the lineage data and the relationship of such data ¯ in connection with Madhv¯ac acarya arya found at the mat  . has are regarded as accurate by the M¯adhva adhva community. For the purposes of this discussion relevant portions will be considered accurate.

 Education

Aside from popular accounts, these two sources are the bases for materials about Madhv¯ac ac¯arya’s arya’s educational and political background. ¯ Neverthe Nevertheless, less, there is still very little information information about Madhv¯ac acarya’s arya’s education and much of it must be surmised from the limited data. ¯ Madhv¯ac ac¯arya arya was, of course, familiar with the Vedanta anta literature and this is evidenced in the 292 texts that he mentions by name in his works.14 According to the Madhvavijaya he studied the Vedas and ¯gavana family.15 u other relevant texts with a teacher who was of the Pugavana ¯ He then studied aspects of the Advaita school of Vedanta anta founded by ´ ¯ kar¯ ¯ Sankar n ac ac¯arya arya in the 8th century CE. Madhv¯ac acarya arya did not find this intellectual trajectory to be satisfactory and he thus sought a new teacher in order to be granted sam . nyasa, ascetic, status. At the age of sixteen, Madhv¯ac ac¯arya arya found Acyutapreks. a, an ascetic who was also dissatisfied with the tenets of Advaita Ved¯anta, anta, and underwent the prescribed 16 According to Pan. d. it¯ac ac¯arya’s arya’s hagiography, his name sam . nyasa rites. ¯ rn ˜ a.17 After becoming was then changed by Acyutapreks. a to Purn u n . aprajna. ¯ an ascetic he studied tarka, logic.18 He also studied Vimuktatman’s atman’s 19  Is. .t asiddhi (9th century CE). This is the only mention of an Advaita text in the Madhvavijaya.20 After again disagreeing with his teacher, Madhv¯ac ac¯arya arya was installed as the head of the mat  . ha by Acyutapreks .a 21 ¯ in deference to his student’s superior abilities. Madhv¯ac acarya arya then ¯ began to travel around South Asia in order to argue his new Ved anta anta position with other scholars.22 His exposure to, and interaction with, ¯ ¯ other schools of philosophy – both Ved anta anta and non-Vedanta a nta – is

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

587

evident in his hagiographies, his works, and the broader issues that he addresses.23 ¯ According to the hagiographic tradition, Madhv¯ac acarya’s arya’s travels took  ¯ ¯ ´ ¯ him to Mahabadarik  abadarik asrama, srama, the home of Vyasa, asa, author of the Brahma ¯ Sutras , to meet the founder of the Ved¯anta anta tradition himself. Under ¯ the guidance of Vyasa, asa, Madhv¯ac ac¯arya arya is said to have composed his ¯ ¯. ya, a commentary on Vyasa’s ¯ ¯ Bhas asa’s Brahma Sutras .   Brahma Sutra ¯ ¯ ¯ Linking Madhv¯ac acarya arya to Vyasa asa may be Pan. d. it¯ac acarya arya attempt at making ¯ Madhv¯ac acarya’s arya’s unusual Ved¯anta anta position legitimate.24 Data taken from colophons along with genealogical and chronological ¯ data found in the mat  ac acarya arya died . has lead scholars to conclude that Madhv ¯ 25 ¯ in 1317 CE. In his hagiography Pan. d. it¯ac ac¯arya arya records that Madhv¯ac acarya arya was immediately honored with a shower of flowers from the deities. 26 According to popular tradition, however, he is considered to be alive ¯ ¯ and residing in Mah abadarik  abadarik ¯a´srama srama with Vyasa. asa. The corpus of texts that Madhv¯ac ac¯arya arya mentions in support of his position (and, presumably, that he studied) has been the center of  controversy. The dispute concerns the existence of a number of these ¯ texts. For example, Madhv¯ac acarya arya often cites passages passages from the Brahma Tarka – a text which has yet to be recovered and is not mentioned ¯ anta philosopher. philosopher.27 The possibility that by name by any other Vedanta non-existent texts were appealed to later became a matter of debate ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ between Madhva adhva and other Vedanta anta schools. N¯ar aray ayan an. ¯ac acarya, arya, a 17th ¯ ¯ century Madhva, adhva, for example, attempted to defend Madhv¯ac acarya’s arya’s use ¯ ¯ of untraceable texts in his Advaitak alanala against against the Advaita Advaita scholar scholar 28 Appayya Diks. ita (16th century CE). ¯ Aside from these controversial texts, Madhv¯ac acarya arya also does not appear to mention the names of texts outside of the typical medianta canon. Sharma holds that there are eight passages in eval Ved¯anta ¯ Madhv¯ac acarya’s arya’s Tattvoddyota that have parallels in Buddhist texts – yet no texts are named.29 According to Sharma, these passages do not appear to be taken from extant Buddhist texts. Nevertheless, it is likely ¯ ¯ ¯ ac¯arya arya was familiar with Nag agarjuna’s arjuna’s M ulamadhyamaka that Madhv¯ac ¯ ¯ (circa 150–250 CE) given that his commentator Jayat¯ K arik  as ırtha cites ¯ ¯ in his Tattvoddyotat  ¯ as ık a¯, a commentary a passage taken from the K arik  . ık  30 ¯ ¯ ¯ on Madhv¯ac acarya’s arya’s Tattvoddyota. Buddhisag agara, ara, a Buddhist, is also ¯ ¯ mentioned as a disputant encountered by Madhv¯ac acarya arya in Pan. d. it¯ac acarya’s arya’s 31  Madhvavijaya. Although the name is mentioned only in the hagi¯ ographic literature, it is possible to surmise that Madhv ¯ac acarya arya read Buddhi Buddhist st texts texts and came came into into contac contactt with with schola scholars rs expoun expoundin ding g Buddhism. Despite these interactions mentioned in the Madhvavi-

588

DEEPAK SARMA

 jaya, Madhv¯ ac¯arya neither refers to any Buddhist texts by name nor does he quote passages from Buddhist texts. According to Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya’s hagiographies, Madhv¯ac¯arya also came into contact with followers of the Vai´ses. ika school. He mentions V¯adisim ses. ika [system]” in . ha, “a knower of the essence of the Vai´ 32 ¯ ´ a¯sika his Bhavaprak  . Madhv¯ac¯arya thus refers to and argues against ¯ ¯ tenets of  nastika schools such as Buddhism, or other non-Ved ¯anta astika schools such as Vai´ses. ika, etc. yet does not mention the names or cite passages from any of the texts of these schools. 33 There are several possibilities as to why he does not do so.34 First, it may be that he did not read many of their texts and had second-hand knowledge about them – though this seems unlikely. Second, the lack may also indicate that texts were so common in medieval philosophical dialogues, both polemical and pedagogical, that they were neither cited from nor mentioned by name. Third, it may also be that philosophical matters outside of  the sacred texts were regarded as denaturalizable and, therefore, the name of the text from where the citation derived was unnecessary.35 Fourth, and perhaps most likely, as a trained religious reader it can be presumed that Madhv¯ac¯arya had relevant texts memorized and, more importantly, expected the same of those who read his own texts. Therefore he did not need to directly cite passages. In fact, as I show below, the eligibility to read his text itself presumed a training as a virtuoso religious reader. Although this is not explicitly stated in Madhv¯ac¯arya’s works, it may be that this method, not mentioning the name of texts or directly citing passages from texts, is inextricably linked to assumptions about literacy – the abilities of the reader and his training. 36 Finally, it may also be that there was an operational RGD in connection with a deficiency in citations and named texts. That is, the lack of citations may have indirectly indicated the importance of satisfying pedagogical prerequisites to be able to gain appropriate access to doctrines etc. and status as a virtuoso religious reader. Political Environment and Patronage

Pan. d. it¯ac¯a rya states in several places in his Madhvavijaya that Madhv¯ac¯arya came into contact with local kings, though only one, Jayasim . ha, is named. There is no indication in relevant historical data that Madhv¯ac¯arya was, however, supported financially by any of them. In the Madhvavijaya, for example, Madhv¯ac¯arya is recorded as having been on good terms with a king who may have been a Muslim. 37 Having impressed the king with both his ability to walk on water and his language skills, the king is said to have given half his kingdom

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

589

to Madhv¯ac¯arya.38 This meeting and exchange does not appear to be mentioned in histories of Tul.un¯ad. u, Karn. ¯at.aka, and South India.39 Although the granting of half the kingdom does seem a bit fantastic, it is not unlikely that Madhv¯ac¯arya came into contact with Muslim rulers, given their invasions at the beginning of the 14th century CE.40 However, there is no evidence, inscriptional or otherwise, that the Muslim king gave additional land grants or monetary gifts to Madhv¯ac¯arya. The land grant, then, might be better understood in the context of the hagiography as hyperbole. Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya reports that Madhv¯ac¯arya interacted with a king named Jayasim . ha on several occasions. A popular account that is also found in the Madhvavijaya involving Jayasim . ha concerns the loss of Madhv¯ac¯arya’s extensive library to the thievery of a local philosopher who was, not surprisingly, a follower of the Advaita school. Without his library, Madhv¯ac¯arya was unable to continue to refute the positions of his Advaita contemporaries. Fortunately, he is said to have had the 41 library returned to him with the help of the local king Jayasim . ha. Jayasim . ha may have also supported him during his stay at his stay in the village of P¯ad. ikud. el.42 B.N.K. Sharma identifies Jayasim . ha as the ruler of  43 Kumbla. Research into the kingly dynasties of the Hoysala empire has turned up no kings named Jayasim ac¯arya’s . ha who reigned during Madhv¯ lifetime.44 It is evident historically, however, that Madhv¯ac¯arya was a contemporary of Narasim al.a III (1291– . ha III (1254–1292 CE) and Ball¯ 1342 CE) who were two kings of the Hoysala dynasty.45 There is no mention, however, in histories of Karn. ¯at.aka that either of the Hoysala kings had contact with or patronized Madhv¯ac¯arya.46 There is evidence that Narasim . ha III was a devout Jain and provided monetary support for the Jain tradition.47 No information is available about Ball¯a.la III’s religious affiliations.48 It may be that Jayasim . ha of the Madhvavijaya and either Narasim al.a III are one and the same person.49 . ha III and Ball¯   Religious Context 

The 13th and early 14th centuries CE were periods of religious excite¯ ¯ , nastika ment in South Kanara given the presence of both astika, and tribal and indigenous traditions.50 Adherents to Ved¯anta, both Advaita and Vi´sis. t.¯advaita, along with Jains, and V¯ıra´saivites, populated Tul.un¯ad. u.51 These literati traditions were juxtaposed with tribal and ´ ¯ ar  ¯ adhana ¯ other indigenously based traditions including Saivism, , bhut  ´ , female power, and worship worship of apparitions, worship of  sakti ¯ of  nagas , snakes among others.

590

DEEPAK SARMA

This religious pluralism was permitted by the Hoysala kings who considered themselves supporters and protectors of the various traditions that existed in Tul.un¯ad. u.52 The rulers may not have had much of a choice but to allow pluralism, given that coastal Kanara was a center for trade with both South Asian and non-South Asian communities. 53 It may be that the diversity fostered a cosmopolitan society wherein religious heterogeneity prevailed. Economic conditions, then, may have indirectly affected prevailing religious attitudes. It is thus likely that Madhv¯ac¯arya and the school of Ved ¯anta that he developed, both in terms of theoretical issues and practical issues, were directly affected by this variegated setting.54 Detailed research about this area and this time period is sorely lacking. My intent here is to gesture at possibilities rather than to be comprehensive. ¯ ¯ Traditions; Ved anta Astika In the philosophical and religious realm, M¯adhva Ved¯anta competed with Advaita and Vi´sis. t.¯advaita among other schools. Both the Advaita and Vi´sis. t.¯advaita schools had many followers in the area. In fact, R¯am¯anuj¯ac¯arya, founder of the Vi´sis. t.¯advaita school of Ved¯anta in the 12th century CE, is known for converting Vis. n. uvardhana (1110–1152 CE), a Hoysala king, from Jainism to Vais. n. avism in 1093 CE.55 This conversion may have helped to hinder the growth of Jainism and other non-Vais. n. ava traditions.56 The heart of Vi´sis. t.¯advaita activity, moreover, ¯ .te. Temples which were officiated by priests adhering lay in nearby Melk o ¯ to the agamas , ritual texts, and other worship texts found in the Advaita and Vi´sis. t.¯advaita canons were built in the area as were affiliated mat  . has, ´ ¯ monasteries. According to the Sankaravijaya , a hagiographic account ´ ¯ kar¯ of the founder of Advaita Ved¯anta, San ac¯arya visited South Kanara in the 9th century and disputed with scholars of local traditions.57 One ´ ¯ kar¯ of the four mat  ac¯arya himself was located in . has established by San 58 ¯ geri in South Kanara – only about 50 km, from Ud Sr. n These two . upi. ¯ te and Sr. n ¯ geri were (and are) centers for Ved¯ cites, Melk o anta studies in Karn. ¯at.aka. These and other medieval mat  . has, monasteries, were centers for theological education and for training of virtuoso religious readers.59 ¯ They were centrally administered by the svamin of one mat  . ha. Admission as a student of the mat  . ha was typically regulated by class, class, and gender; there were RGD, restrictive governing doctrines, linked to admission as a student at a mat  . ha. For example, there were rituals prescribed for those who wish to study.60 Once one obtains admission ¯srama ´ into the mat  , period . ha, one must follow rules according to one’s a

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

591

¯ of religious life. For example, the brahmacaris , students, who were required to live in the mat  . has along with their teachers, were expected to be celibate. The mat  . has usually accompanied temples and were thus centers for intellectual work concerning the traditions as well as training ¯ grounds for experts in the sectarian agamas , ritual texts, followed by that temple. Though students were trained in a variety of traditions their studies focused primarily on the philosophy held by the literati and practiced in the sectarian temple. They were, then, places where specialist religious readers and ritualists were trained. The intellectual work of these specialist readers may have involved defense of tenets, criticism of rival traditions, and training of other specialists. Finally, these mat  . has were oftentimes institutional instruments for the propagation of the tradition for lay people who did not seek to become, or were excluded from becoming, highly trained religious readers. The mat  . has sponsored religious festivals, rituals, and other religious activities as well as offered their ritual expertise to practicing lay people. Medieval Tul.un¯ad. u was the location of a large number of these mat  . has linked ¯ ¯ with a variety of religious communities including astika and nastika communities. ¯ The astika Ved¯anta traditions were well established in the South Kanara area and may have competed with one another for political support and for adherents. There are no accounts of disputes, however, aside from those regarding philosophical matters, concerning land, patronage, or other political matters between the M¯adhva school and these two Ved¯anta traditions. ¯ ´ Two Anti-Ved anta Traditions; V ¯ ırasaivism and Jainism V¯ıra´saivism and Jainism, two non-orthodox, non-Brahmanical traditions, were also prevalent in the Tul.un¯ad. u.61 Both schools, in contrast to the orthodox Ved¯anta traditions, were arguably more oriented towards making their doctrines accessible. These traditions typically did not employ RGD. Instead, they allowed access to doctrines and doctrinal systems as well as allowed admission of outsiders into their community. Use of the vernacular, Kannad. a, for example, instead of Sanskrit and appeals to the teachings of contemporary mystic saints helped to increase the availability of V¯ıra´saivism for non-Brahmins. V¯ıra´saivas, in fact, not only granted equal status to women but loosened the rigidity of  ¯ the class system in their tradition.62 S´udras , who occupied the lowest position in the class system, for example, were given status in both worship and in religious practices.63

592

DEEPAK SARMA

As mentioned above, the Jain institutions were supported by local 64 rulers such as Narasim Aside from data concerning the patronage . ha III. of Narasim . ha III, there are large numbers of inscriptions and documents that pertain to the funding of Jain institutions.65 The most important ´ avana Jain mat  . ha in South India was also located in South Kanara at Sr¯ . 66 Belgol.a. The majority of feudal states in Tul.un¯ad. u were Jain. For these reasons Jain activities in Tul.un¯ad. u for outweighed those of the Ved¯anta traditions. ¯ traditions as well as traditions opposed to Ved¯anta Anti-Vedic nastika then, were prevalent in Tul.un¯ad. u in the 13th and 14th centuries CE and competed with other existing traditions. Their anti-class activity and the social world they envisioned is contrasted with the social systems expounded by the Ved¯anta traditions. Such egalitarian tenets undoubtedly helped to foster religious and theological excitement at the time. It also seems likely that the cosmopolitan nature of the area surrounding medieval Ud. upi sparked interest among other literati and lay people in these egalitarian traditions. It may be that the centrality of the non-restrictive governing doctrines in these traditions increased the importance for literati in the Ved¯anta traditions to reestablish strict RGD and, thereby, reassert their theological authority. Tribal and Other Indigenous Traditions These exegetical traditions, Ved¯anta, V¯ıra´saivism, and Jainism, were   juxtaposed with tribal and other indigenous traditions. These traditions were often local and more popular among the lower classes. Worship ´ of  Siva stands foremost among these traditions and was the prevalent religion in Tul.un¯ad. u. In fact, the largest number of temples in pre67 ´ ´ M¯adhva Tul.un¯ad. u are Saiva. Although the Saiva tradition was extant ´ ¯ kar¯ in Tul.un¯ad. u prior to the influence of  San ac¯arya, it may be that ´ the Advaita school played a role in popularizing Siva. According to ´ Advaita cosmology, Siva is held to be the highest among the gods. It is likely that the V¯ıra´saiva communities also helped to increase the ´ ´ importance of the Siva temples, given the centrality of  Siva to their religious practices. ´ ´ Siva temples were often found in the vicinity of  Sakti temples.68 In ´ this connection, the Sakti traditions were also dominant in Tul.un¯ad. u. Worshipped as Devi, Durg¯a, and, more often, as a local female deity, they were sometimes linked to male counterparts who were worshipped ¯ ¯ k ¯ by the astika traditions. For example, Mu ambik ¯a, a 15th century CE form of the Goddess, was eventually absorbed into the M¯adhva ¯ ¯ de mat  tradition. V¯adir¯aja, the 15th century CE svamin of the So . ha in

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

593

´ ¯ k ¯ Ud. upi, invoked the Mu ambik ¯a in his T ¯ırthaprabhanda.69 The Saiva ´ and Sakti traditions, then, may have been the most dominant traditions ¯ in Tul.unad. u. ´ The Sakti traditions were also affiliated with tantric rituals and worship regimen. These tantric texts and practices were in contrast with those of the prevailing Vedic tradition. Moreover, though tantric worship often entailed initiation rites, these rites were not restricted to literati or other elite groups.70 They thus allowed all devotees to engage in and lead worship practices. Such traditions were widespread among the lower social classes.71 It is likely that such tantric traditions were intellectual and social challenges for the literati defending and upholding Vedic orthodoxy and their accompanying class restrictions. Perhaps the most well known indigenous religious tradition of  ¯ ar  ¯ adhana ¯ Tul.un¯ad. u is the bhut  , worship of apparitions, also known as dayivagal. u in Tul.u, apparition worship.72 Considered to be an indi¯ ¯ genous Dravidian form, it is starkly contrasted with astika and nastika 73 ¯ traditions. The practice of  bhuta worship was fully accepted by the ´ majority of the population and outweighed the importance of  Siva and 74 ´ Vis. n. u for most. The worship of spirits often centered around Sakti and, according to Nambiar, was integrated into both later Vais. n. avism 75 ´ and Saivism. The tradition may not have had a noticeable effect on the doctrines of the M¯adhva school of Ved¯anta or the other schools. ¯ ar  ¯ adhana ¯ Nevertheless, bhut  indicates the presence of traditions that ¯ ¯ predated and were in total variance with many of the astika , nastika , and related traditions. The religious atmosphere at the time when Madhv¯ac¯arya first developed his school of Ved¯anta was iridescent given the diverse and disparate traditions that existed. Again, it may be that such pluralism played an important role in Madhv ¯ac¯arya’s theology and, more importantly, in connection with his concept of community and the associated RGD.

¯ The M adhva Community and Institutions In addition to composing treatises on Ved¯anta matters, Madhv¯ac¯arya founded the M¯adhva religious community and accompanying institutions in Ud. upi. According to traditional accounts, Madhv¯ac¯arya discovered an idol of Kr. s. n. a encased in mud in the ocean and installed it at a temple in Ud. upi.76 The idol is still worshipped in Ud. upi today. After ordaining seven monks, Madhv¯ac¯arya established each of them ¯ , head, of a mat  as svamin . ha, thereby establishing the as . has, eight . .t amat  monasteries, as an institutional tradition. Vis. n. ut¯ırth¯a, Madhv¯ac¯arya’s

594

DEEPAK SARMA

¯ younger brother, who is included among the seven svamis , was also ¯ ¯ ¯ ordained as head of the Sode mat  . ha. Madhvacarya placed the mat  . has ¯ of his disciples under his tutelage. After he died, an eighth svamin replaced Madhv¯ac¯arya. The as. .t amat  . has, eight monasteries, still exist today and are loci for studying both primary and secondary doctrines and for the training of virtuoso religious readers.77 Madhv¯ac¯arya may ¯ , a rotating system of leadership, that would have developed paryaya 78 ¯ , the svamis ¯ begin after his death. In this system of governing, paryaya of each of the eight mat  . has is proclaimed to be leader every two years. Although the institution and the community established by Madhv¯ac¯arya have spread to different parts of India, both are still centered in Karn. ¯at.aka state and, most importantly, in Ud. upi. Nevertheless, the Uttar¯adi mat  asar¯aya mat  . ha in Bangalore and the Vy¯ . ha in ¯ , Tirupati are both central to the contemporary M¯adhva sam . prad aya 79 system of religious teaching, despite being outside of Ud. upi. There is little information regarding grants given to Madhv ¯ac¯arya in order to facilitate the establishment of the as. .t amat  . has. Nevertheless, it is likely that he was given some funding by the local kings in the region. It may be that the as. .t amat  . ha . has were funded by king Jayasim who, as described above, assisted Madhv¯ac¯arya with the recovery of  his library. Given the hagiographic data this funding seems likely. Trivikrama Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya was also Jayasim . ha’s court pan . d  . ita and was, 80 therefore, himself funded by Jayasim There are, of course, later . ha. records of  mat  . has receiving numerous land grants from subsequent 81 rulers. It is likely that the initial funding for the mat  . has also derived ¯ as ¯ , daily worship ceremonies, etc., from donations or from fees for puj by adherents at the newly established Kr. s. n. a temple in Ud. upi. In medieval Tul.un¯ad. u it may also have been a standard practice to fund temples, mat  . has, regardless of the religious background of either the benefactor or the recipient.82 However, it also seems likely that if  the benefactor and the recipient were of the same religion then more funds were provided. For example, the feudatory states surrounding Ud. upi were primarily ruled by Jains. There is, then, a great deal of inscriptional evidence of funding given to the Jain mat  . has and 83 institutions. Regardless, Madhv¯ac¯arya was able to secure a sufficient amount of funds to be able to inaugurate the 700 year old tradition of  the Ud. upi as. .t amat  . has. It is within this context that Madhv¯ac¯arya professed his doctrine and accompanying RGD as well as establishing the M¯adhva community.

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

595

“WHICH SENTIENTS ARE ELIGIBLE?” AND “WHAT ARE THEY ELIGIBLE FOR?” “Having learned it, the knowledge, he understands brahman. He may speak about this [knowledge] to men. As he speaks about it, he indeed becomes greater”. The ´ ¯. hara Sruti instructions for teaching is spoken of in the M at  . One should not think: “[It is the] aim to distribute [this knowledge] to many [men]”. For there is a reason [for not distributing this knowledge]: when it is distributed, the result is the granting [of Vedic knowledge] to those not qualified. This is prohibited.84

According to Madhv¯ac¯arya “Everyone does not possess eligibility [for acquiring knowledge of  brahman]”.85 Each and every agent does not have full access to M¯adhva doctrine – knowledge that is efficacious for learning about the nature of  brahman, for obtaining moks. a, and for learning the intricacies of M¯adhva dialectics. Madhv¯ac¯arya directly addresses eligibility requirements in his gloss of the first pada of the ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ a ¯, brahmajijn˜as first sutra of the Brahma Sutras of B¯adar¯ayan. a; athato “Then, therefore, inquiry into brahman”.86 The expanded passage that takes Madhv¯ac¯arya’s commentaries into account reads “Therefore, after having met the requirements for eligibility, the inquiry into brahman is to be undertaken.” ´ n ¯ kar¯ Madhva’s interpretation is opposed to Sa ac¯arya who interprets the term very differently. He writes: Then the word “atha” is understood to mean “afterwards” and not “eligibility”. [This is] because there is no eligibility for the desire to inquire into brahman.87

Another major difference between the two thinkers is evident in their ¯ a ¯. Madhv¯ interpretation of the term jijn˜as ac¯arya takes it to mean “inquiry” ´ ¯ kar¯ while San ac¯arya interprets the term as the “desire to inquire”. Through ´ n ¯ rva M¯ ¯ kar¯ a set of arguments and links with Pu ım¯am a, Sa ac¯arya takes . s¯ the primary meaning of the word to refer to desire, while the secondary meaning refers to “inquiry”.88 The implications in terms of the immediate relevance of accessibility are quite substantial. Jayat¯ırtha’s commentary restates Madhv¯ac¯arya’s interpretation and explicitly rejects the Advaita interpretation. He writes: In the beginning of a work, the auspicious benediction is inevitably to be done. For that reason, the word “then” is thus mentioned. [This is the explanation of the term] “atha”. [Madhv¯ ac¯ arya] states the literal meaning of it to be “[after obtaining] eligibility”. [It is] mentioned for the sake of denying the commencement of the inquiry into brahman for the person who merely desires liberation. He [thus explains 89 ¯ ”. the term] “adhik ara

Neither Madhv¯ac¯arya nor Jayat¯ırtha argue here against the Advaita position. Instead, they merely explain their own position. Madhv ¯ac¯arya thus holds a position that differs from the Advaita school and this

596

DEEPAK SARMA

¯ difference is evident in their varying interpretations of the first sutra ¯ of the Brahma Sutras of B¯adar¯ayan. a. The question concerning eligibility is two-fold; first, “Eligible for what?”, and second, “Which sentient beings are eligible?” Questions regarding the object of eligibility must be addressed before examining the parameters that determine the eligibility of adherents.90 In this section, ¯ , direct then, I examine, in brief, the distinction between aparoks. ajn˜ana ¯ , intuitive knowledge (through revelation) of  brahman, and paroks. ajn˜ana 91 textual knowledge of  brahman. The first is a result of the second and, moreover, leads to moks. a, release. The discussion concerning eligibility and pedagogical requirements thus pertains to obtaining one of these ¯ , knowledge. types of  jn˜ana Madhv¯ac¯arya holds that moks. a, the maximally desirable state for sentients (both living and dead) to exist in, can be obtained only ¯ . Direct intuitive knowledge after having been granted aparoks. ajn˜ana about brahman cannot be obtained by any other means aside from the grace of Vis. n. u. Vis. n. u, pleased that an individual has met a fivefold list of prerequisites, may grace a devout and eligible adherent ¯ .92 The state of possessing aparoks ˜ana ¯ with aparoks. ajn˜ana while . ajn living is likened to the state of being j¯ıvanmukta, liberated while living, ¯ as described in the Advaita school.93 The granting of  aparoks. ajn˜ana is at the first level of discussion regarding eligibility. At the second level of discussion there are restrictive doctrines regarding eligibility ¯ , direct intuitive knowledge (through revelation) of  for aparoks. ajn˜ana ¯ , brahman, in the form of a list of salvifically efficacious sadhanas penances, expedients. Madhv¯ac¯arya states: ¯ ¯. a it is stated: “Hearing, reflecting, also meditating, and also In the N arada Pur an being devoted are the important means of securing knowledge [of the lord]. No other ¯ is shown [to be a means of securing such knowledge]. And without these [sadhanas ], 94 no one obtains knowledge from anywhere else”.

¯. ya vair agya ¯ In an earlier passage in his Bhas , detachment, is mentioned ¯ as a required sadhana for the adhikar ¯ı, eligible sentient.95 The compre¯ ¯ hensive list of M¯adhva sadhanas , then, are vair agya , detachment, bhakti, ´ ¯ , meditating. devotion, sravan . a, hearing, manana, reflecting, and dhyana ¯ If all of these sadhanas , prerequisites, have been accomplished then ¯ . the adherent is eligible for aparoks. ajn˜ana This list and the characterization of the components of this list are not unusual in the history of philosophical speculation in South Asia about that which is maximally desirable.96 Every school has a list ¯ that must be satisfied with regard to the and definitions of  sadhanas ¯. a, and other eligibility by those on the prescribed path to moks. a, nirvan

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

597

states regarded as maximally desirable. Of course, these schools may differ on definitions and the theological implications and foundations ¯ of the sadhanas . All five of these eligibility prerequisites for moks. a may be of interest to adherents and others. However, my discussion here concerns only a ¯ , indirect knowledge – the subset of the prerequisites for paroks. ajn˜ana component in the list that is in connection with doctrine and access ¯ to doctrine. For this reason I focus on the sadhana prerequisites for ´ sravan . a, hearing, and subsequent manana, reflecting. Of course, both ¯ ¯ of these sadhanas presuppose appropriate vair agya and bhakti, modes ¯ of acquiring paroks. ajn˜ana which are typically considered to be non¯ textual. Such sadhanas cannot be jettisoned by adherents. However, it may be reasonable to ignore these “non-textual” prerequisites for the purposes of this discussion. Aside from these first and second levels of discussion about eligibility ¯ ¯ , etc., there is still a third level prerequisites, bhakti, vair agya, dhyana concerning the detailed requirements for eligibility that are specific to ¯ each sadhana . That is, the third tier of specificity here is in connection ¯ with restrictive doctrines regarding eligibility for proper bhakti, vair agya, ´ sravan . a, reading, and manana, reflecting: eligibility requirements for each of the eligibility requirements. There are, moreover, sentient beings ¯ , direct intuitive knowledge who, though eligible for aparoks. ajn˜ana (through revelation) of  brahman, are not eligible for, and cannot obtain, ¯ , textual knowledge of  brahman. As I all the components of  paroks. ajn˜ana show below, for this reason it may be a misnomer to denominate M ¯adhva Ved¯anta to be a bhakti tradition that propounds universal salvation. The interpretation of the Sw¯amiji of the Pej¯avar mat  . ha and others, therefore, may only be partly or superficially correct in proclaiming the catholicity of M¯adhva Ved¯anta. Several of these eligibility requirements in connection with ¯  paroks. ajn˜ana cannot be ignored by scholars who wish to become educated readers, rather than practitioners, of M ¯adhva Ved¯anta. The question “Eligibility for what?”, thus, has two answers; first, eligi¯ bility for aparoks. ajn˜ana and, therefore, moks. a; second, eligibility for ¯ ´  paroks. ajn˜ana and, preeminently, sravan . a and manana. Eligibility for ¯ , is not relevant for non-adherents. On the other hand, aparoks. ajn˜ana it may be impossible for those outside of the tradition to ignore many ¯ . or all of the components of the second set, regarding paroks. ajn˜ana ¯ ´ Who, then, is eligible for paroks. ajn˜ana for sravan . a and manana? ¯ Which sentients are eligible for a Madhva education? Which are not? Why?

598

DEEPAK SARMA ¯ THE MADHVA RESTRICTIVE DOCTRINES

Madhv¯ac¯arya posits restrictive doctrines throughout his texts. Given the rich and complex ontology envisioned by Madhv ¯ac¯arya, he must address the eligibility and, therefore, establish restrictive governing doctrines, for a wide variety of sentient beings – both human and non-human. His highly detailed characterization of the universe thus requires an equally detailed response. To this end, I examine the restrictive governing doctrines regarding the eligibility of several types of sentient beings. First, I examine the eligibility of males in the higher classes. Second, I examine the RGD regarding women. Third, I examine the eligibility of  ¯ . Fourth, I examine the status of  antyajas, those who are outside s´udras of the class system. I then summarize the discussion of the eligibility of  the gods. I also provide critical evaluations of each of these restrictive governing doctrines for the sake of illuminating philosophical strategies and themes. Finally, I turn to two places in the M¯adhva corpus where debate with outsiders is addressed. Dvijas , Twice Born, Men The varieties of men and the types of education that they are entitled to are characterized by Madhv¯ac¯arya in the first few passages of his commentary on BS 1.1.1. The universe that he envisions is inextricable from a gradation with the gods at the highest position in the hierarchy. He thus defines human eligibility in comparison to the divine communities that they are excluded from: ¯ Those who are eligible are spoken of in the Bhagavata Tantra: “Eligible devotees are three-fold; lowest, middling, and highest. The lowest class is considered to be [comprised of] the best among men. The middling class is considered to be [comprised of] sages and gandharvas. The highest class is considered to be [comprised of] gods”.97

Men, then, are at the lower end of the hierarchy of sentient beings who are eligible. The set of men is further qualified to encompass only the best among men, thereby excluding most men from the group of  sentients who are eligible for a M¯adhva education. The lowest variety of eligible sentients, the highest among men, are thus composed of the ucca, highest, among the amukt a¯ – those fit for, or qualified for release, ¯. . muktiyogyah These ucca men are further delineated with regard to class: [Those] of the first three castes, those who are particularly devoted to Hari are eligible with regard to Vedic study. And, they also say, the highest women are fit for Vedic study.98

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

599

Vedokte, “with regard to Vedic study”, includes the body of texts categorized as Vedas by Madhv¯ac¯arya. According to Madhv¯ac¯arya, ¯ the term veda denotes the R , and Atharva Vedas, the . g, Yajur, Sama ¯ ¯ ayan ¯ . a, the Bharata ¯ ˜ ¯ , and the Pancar  .99 Again, he cites two  M ular  am atra injunctive passages: “The study of the Vedas is to be practiced” is a general rule. And from the smr  . ti” ¯ [indicated by the use of the] term ‘indeed’ [in the Sutra , this rule is shown:] “All of  the Vedas along with the secret doctrine are to be studied [by] the twice born”.100

Hence, access to the M¯adhva canon is restricted to the male ucca, among the first three classes. The dvijatva, twice born-nature, of these humans is in reference to initiation practices. Madhv¯ac¯arya states: “At the age of 8, let the Brahmin be initiated and let him be taught them [the Vedas]”.101 The sacred initiation rite is, perhaps, the most important prerequisite for the majority of sentients for studying the Vedas. The ceremony, investiture with a sacred thread, is regarded as a second birth. Hence those who undergo the ceremony are described as twice born. Presumably only those who have this ceremony or are naturally twice born can read the Vedas – can access the M¯adhva canon and the doctrines contained therein.102 Eligibility also requires celibacy – literally “one whose semen is rising up.” In his commentary on BS 3.4.17, “And, [as is mentioned] in the ´ sabda [Vedas etc., the eligible one] is properly celibate”, Madhv¯ac¯arya states: Even [if there is] a little bit of wantonness there is no eligibility with regard to knowledge. He, the celibate one, tells the highest mystery to that one [who is celibate].103

The prerequisite for eligibility is celibacy for the student. Madhv¯ac¯arya is ¯ ¯ s´astra aware of texts such as M anavadharma wherein strict prohibitions are enunciated. Given the rules found in such texts, it is likely that Madhv¯ac¯arya intended this requirement to be followed in full. Degrees of sexual activity are irrelevant here. Madhv¯ac¯arya comments on BS 3.4.12, “[Eligibility] is only for those ´ who have studied the Vedas”, and then links eligibility for sravan . a, ¯ , hearing, and manana, reflecting, with eligibility for aparoks. ajn˜ana direct intuitive knowledge (through revelation) of  brahman:104 In the Brahma Tarka it is stated “The person who is not a follower of Vis. n. u, who does not have devotion to the teacher, who is devoid of peace, etc., who is not of the favorable classes [the dvijas], such a person is not eligible. Therefore, [in contrast], a person who possesses Vedic learning is eligible with regard to knowledge of  brahman by means of what is taught in the Vedas. [This is] believed by the wise”.105

600

DEEPAK SARMA

This governing doctrine, restricting access to Vedic study only to ¯. ya or in other relevant texts dvijas, is not often mentioned in his Bhas by Madhv¯ac¯arya. These restrictions, moreover, are not unusual among ¯ rva M¯ the schools of Ved¯anta or their Pu ım¯am a predecessors and are . s¯ ¯ a typical practice of  astika forms of Indian education.  Dvijatva, the state of being a twice born, does not guarantee eligibility. That is, it is possible to lose the privilege of eligibility as a dvija, yet remain a dvija. To this end, Madhv¯ac¯arya states that “For women, ¯ sudras , and unworthy Brahmins, there is eligibility with regard to the knowledge of the tantras but [only] when a portion is spoken and ¯ am ¯. not with regard to study from a text”.106 The term brahmabandhun usually refers to an unworthy Brahmin or one who is only nominally a Brahmin.107 Such dvijas have lost their eligibility. Madhv¯ac¯arya justifies these restrictions based on a theory regarding intellectual capability. This move may be necessary given the intimate link between mythological facts and philosophical positions. He states: It was said “Only humans are eligible for knowledge found in the Vedas”. The distinction, “only humans”, is said excluding lower sentient beings, etc. but not excluding gods, etc.108

These lower sentient beings, however, may be eligible if they have a ¯ distinguished intellect. In commenting on the BS sutra that follows, BS 1.3.26, “Even after [attaining divinity etc. there is eligibility] because of the existence [of all that is required]. B¯adar¯ayan. a [states this]”, Madhv¯ac¯arya characterizes the difference between humans and the lower sentient beings:109 The phrase “even after” [means, even after the] humans attained the state of being gods, etc. [they still have eligibility]. [Eligibility] is possible for them as they [have] a distinguished intellect, etc. Of those [lower sentient beings, etc. previously] referred to, [eligibility] is not possible [for them] for they are lacking [a distinguished intellect etc.] Even for those [lower beings], [eligibility] is possible [if there is] a distinguished intellect, etc. There is no objection here [to their eligibility]. [And eligibility is also evident] because there is no restriction. [For example, cases like the bird] Jarit¯ ari, 110 etc. are seen.

The reference to Jarit¯ari, etc. is in connection with a myth found in the ¯ arata ¯ .111 In this myth, Man. d. ap¯ala, a r  a,  Mahabh .s . i, reproduces with Jarit¯ a bird. The offspring of their union, Jarit¯ari, S¯aris. rikva, Stambamitra, and Dron. a, are each eligible interpreters of the Vedas. This myth is relevant here as birds are regarded as lower sentient beings and as dvijas, twice born. The class of birds are dvija as they are born first from the mother as an egg and then from their egg. For this reason they are eligible to study the Vedas. According to Madhv ¯ac¯arya, birds

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

601

occupy a lower position on the hierarchy of intelligence and do not typically have distinguished intellects. Jarit¯ari and his siblings, however, are examples of sentient beings, who, though low on the hierarchy, nevertheless possess distinguished intellects. Therefore they can (and do) study the Vedas. Madhv¯ac¯arya posits criteria here regarding the quantity and complexity of information that any given agent can digest. As with the case of the lower sentient beings, such evaluations either implicitly increase or decrease accessibility. That is, the texts are available to all birds, though only a select few have the required intellectual abilities. Given these various qualifications, there is access for human males who possess a distinguished intellect and are twice born. Non-human sentient beings that are dvijas are also granted access if they are male and possess a distinguished intellect. All other human beings and sentient beings that are not dvijas are excluded from this elite group. This elite group has full access to M¯adhva doctrine. They are among a very small group of sentients who qualify for a M¯adhva education and, therefore, are literate and approved readers and interpreters of M¯adhva texts and doctrines. As virtuoso religious readers, these dvija men can effectively argue both for and against the M¯adhva tradition. Women

Women, both human and non-human, are mentioned as eligible for either written or oral transmission in several places in the Brahma ¯ ¯. ya. Madhv¯ Sutra Bhas ac¯arya posits a two-fold hierarchy of eligible women. The first set are women who are eligible for the study of the Vedas and, therefore, qualify for training to become virtuoso religious readers of M¯adhva Ved¯anta. Madhv¯ac¯arya identifies the first set of women in his commentary on BS 1.1.1: “And, they also say that the highest women are eligible for Vedic study; and they [the highest among women] are Urva´s¯ı, Yam¯ı, ´ ¯ Sac ı, and the rest”.112 It is not clear why Madhv¯ac¯arya chose these three women as ideal examples of this highly exclusive set of women. ¯ ¯ , conversational hymn, Each of these women is central to an akhy ana found in the R . g Veda. The R . g Veda was composed in Sanskrit and, therefore, the conversations that these apsaras, heavenly nymphs, had were also in Sanskrit. It is possible that Madhv ¯ac¯arya thus inferred that they were eligible for Vedic study given their knowledge of Sanskrit. The choice of these three women is further complicated by the content and concerns of the conversations that they have in each of their hymns. ¯ ravas promise Urva´s¯ı, for example, made the gandharva, demi-god, Puru

602

DEEPAK SARMA

never to let her see him naked. Yam¯ı’s conversation is with her brother ´ ¯ Yama. She tries to commit incest with him and fails. Finally, Sac ı, the ¯ wife of Indra, known also in the R . g Veda as Indran . i, has a dialogue with her husband regarding sex she had with his favorite monkey and a comparison of their sexual abilities. It is not clear why Madhv ¯ac¯arya chose these sexually charged hymns and women for his ideal set except, 113 of course, from their being mentioned in the R . g Veda. ¯ , translated into English as “and the rest”, is openThe term adi ended and does not appear to clearly fix the limits of the set of eligible women. To mitigate this openness, Jayat¯ırtha nd R¯aghavendrat¯ırtha each gloss the term “highest”. Jayat¯ırtha states that “The highest, then, are those well born and the wives of the munis, sages”.114 Though this commentary helps, his use of the term “those well born” needs further explanation. To this end, R¯aghavendrat¯ırtha states: [Explanation of the passage beginning] “Those well born”: This is said in the ¯ ¯ , chapter. Those well born are the wives of  munis and T atparyanirn . aya 29th adhyaya 115 goddesses.

R¯aghavendrat¯ırtha thus adds goddesses to Jayat¯ırtha’s list. From both of  their interpretations it may follow that Madhv¯ac¯arya restricted human women from accessing relevant texts, aside from those human wives of  munis. All other female sentient beings, aside from goddesses and the three apsaras of the R . g Veda, would thus be restricted from becoming virtuoso religious readers – if Jayat¯ırtha and R¯aghavendrat¯ırtha correctly interpret Madhv¯ac¯arya’s intent. ¯ If the term adi is taken more strictly it may refer to several types of  women. First, as suggested above, it may refer only to those women ¯ ¯ with akhy in the R amudr¯a, among ana . g Veda. Such women include Lop ¯ others. Second, it may refer only to those women who speak Sanskrit in any of the canonical texts. Third, it may refer to all women who are mentioned in the R . g Veda. ¯ The term adi has also elicited some controversial discussions among contemporary scholars and followers of M¯adhva Ved¯anta given its ambiguity and the possibility that Jayat¯ırtha’s and R¯aghavendrat¯ırtha’s commentaries are neither accurate nor convincing.116 The phrase, “and the rest”, may be taken to include all of the highest among women – though this is unlikely. On the other hand, it may be the case that “and the rest” refers only to those women similar to the ones mentioned. Those women mentioned, moreover, are apsaras. The extent of the restriction, then, may be indexed to the degree of similarity with apsaras. If the similarity is understood to be literal then the phrase, “and the rest”, restricts all human females from accessing doctrine. On the other

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

603

hand, if it is taken to be figurative, then some apsaras or goddess-like human females may be able to access the M¯adhva doctrinal system. Regardless, there is an overlap of the governing doctrines given the exclusion of human women. More generally, there appears to be an ambiguity in Madhv¯ac¯arya’s restrictive doctrine regarding women and this ambiguity is still found in the contemporary M ¯adhva intellectual community.117 Further ambiguities are evident in what appears to be a hierarchy of  different types of knowledge of  brahman and eligibility involving the second set of eligible woman. Madhv ¯ac¯arya writes: ¯ For women, s´udras , and unworthy Brahmins, there is eligibility with regard to the knowledge of the tantras but [only] when a portion is spoken and not with regard to study from a text.118

All women, human and non-human, are eligible to be taught a portion of the Tantras. They are not allowed to learn, however, directly from the text. There are several complications here with regard to the extent of the Tantras . ˜ ¯ According to Jayat¯ırtha the term tantra refers to the Pancar  and atra 119 other texts. Although this equation does not appear to be evidenced in any of Madhv¯ac¯arya’s compositions it is likely that he was refer˜ ¯ ¯ atras ring to the Pancar  . He may also be referring to the Bhagavata ˜ ¯ text, here. Again, there is a further limitation Tantras , a Pancar  atra on the knowledge deriving from these sources. That is, women require ¯ aptagurus , reliable teachers, for limited instruction of sections of the M¯adhva canon. The ucca men (aside from brahmabandhus), in contrast, are eligible to receive full instruction in all the Vedas. Knowledge is thus restricted by those who have power over the knowledge. Finally, ¯ ˜ ¯ atras neither the Bhagavata nor the Pancar  plays a central role in the philosophy of M¯adhva Ved¯anta. Though it is not clearly stated, it is likely that the portions of these texts that were available did not educate listeners sufficiently so that they could partake in inter or intra Ved¯anta philosophical dialogue. It is not clear why there is a specific restriction to the use of texts. According to this passage, teaching must be orally transmitted to women and others. The written text is available only to the eligible adherents. This explicit distinction may point at the importance of the written over the oral in the M¯adhva Ved¯anta. It may also indicate that women and others were literate at this time.120 ¯ Finally, in a discussion regarding the eligibility of  sudras , women are ¯ . Madhv¯ac¯arya mentioned as having an initiation rite – unlike the s´udras states:

604

DEEPAK SARMA

¯ But the highest among women are not like s´udras . [This is the case] from observing the eligibility [to study] in passages like “along with my wife, the highest”. [This is also the case] by reason of the general rule; “There is ineligibility by reason of  the lack of initiation rite”. There is [however] an initiation rite for them [women]. In a smr  . ti it is found that “The activity of giving away in marriage for women is like the upanayana ceremony”.121

Here the upanayana ceremony, required in order to obtain status as a dvija, is compared to a marriage ceremony that females are permitted to undergo. This may conflict with other passages summarized above as it appears here that women are permitted to study the Vedas etc. ´ ¯ However, if the highest among woman remain “Urva´s¯ı, Yam¯ı, Sac ı and 122 the rest” as glossed in BSB, 1.1.1 then the conflict is avoided. The ¯ ”, of those highest among women, is not glossed term “uttamastr ¯ın . am here. Nevertheless, it is not likely that Madhv¯ac¯arya’s characterization changes. From these restrictive doctrines it follows that: 1) Some apsaras are eligible for Vedic study. 2) It may be that some goddesses and wives of sages are also eligible for Vedic study and to become virtuoso religious readers. 3) All women are eligible to be orally taught sections from the tantras – whichever sections they may be – though not directly from these texts. ´¯ ¯ adhikaran ¯ ” Apas´udr . am , “section on the unworthy Sudra ¯ Vis. n. u is not to be investigated by s´udras and the like by means of the Vedas.123

The group of human beings who are the most rigorously restricted ¯ from accessing unabridged portions of the M¯adhva canon are the s´udras – the group which occupies the lowest position among humans in the four-fold class system. The majority of governing doctrines restricting ¯ access propounded by Madhv ¯ac¯arya are in connection with the s´udra class. As mentioned above, Madhv¯ac¯arya restricts access to the study of  the Vedas to males of the first three classes who have a distinguished ´ . .t abuddhyadibh ¯ ¯ . They also must have participated in the intellect, visis ava appropriate ritual, the upanayana ceremony, before they can study. These parameters entail governing doctrines that allow access to a defined set of sentients entail implicit (or, in this case, explicit) existence of  governing doctrines that restrict access to another set of sentients. Madhv¯ac¯arya writes that the reason for such a strong prohibition is ¯ does not undergo any sacred initiation rites. As mentioned that the s´udra above, he does so in BSB 1.3.36:

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

605

“At the age of 8, let the Brahmin be initiated and let him be taught them [the Vedas]”: the reference is to the sacred initiation rites as the condition for studying ¯ the Vedas. And, [in the case of the s´udra ], the absence of this initiation ceremony ¯ sruti ´ ¯ is [declared] in Paingi ; “The s´udra has no sacred fire, no sacrifice, no prayers, no initiation ceremonies, and no ritual observances”.

The restriction, then, is based on the inability to partake in a practical doctrine – to perform the sacred initiation rite, the upanayana. Again: ¯ For women, s´udras , and unworthy Brahmins, there is eligibility with regard to the knowledge of the tantras but [only] when a portion is spoken and not with regard to study from a text.

¯ S´udras can be orally taught sections of the Tantras by members of the first three classes. The same problems with regard the indeterminacy of this type of knowledge are evoked here. As stated above, the philosophical relevance of the allowed and abridged portions is not known. However, it is likely that they were insignificant for matters other than teaching and inculcating practical doctrines. These portions, moreover, could only be heard and not read directly from the texts. ¯ ¯ in the Brahma Sutras regarding the ambiguity There are several s´udras in the assertion “All men are eligible to study the Vedas” and the ¯ possibility that s´udras are found in such a set.124 The discussion in the ¯ ¯ is couched in terms of a myth taken from Chandogya   Brahma Sutras ayan. a, Upanis. ad  4.1–4.2. This example concerns the myth of Pautr¯ J¯ana´sruti, the grandson of Jana´sruta. In the myth Pautr ¯ayan. a is called a ¯ s´udra and is still eligible to obtain initiation and to study the Vedas.125 The myth is as follows: J¯ana´sruti, after hearing from birds passing overhead that sage Raikva is greater than he is, is plunged into despair and grief. Seeking the guidance of Raikva, he goes to Raikva and offers him wealth – cows, jewelry, and a mule driven chariot. 126 Raikva answers him: ¯ But Raikva replied: “Hey you! Drive them back to your palace, s´udra ! Keep your 127 goods and cows!”

Pautr¯ayan. a goes back to his castle and gathers together more gifts. He returns to Raikva who, pleased with the king’s sincerity and rejection of  material goods, agrees to initiate him and take him on as a student. 128 Pautr¯ayan. a receives some instruction and nothing else is mentioned ¯ Upanis. ad . about him in the Chandogya A discussion thus ensues given the fact that Pautr¯ayan. a is referred to ¯ as a s´udra , and is nevertheless initiated into Vedic study.129 Madhv¯ac¯arya explains this problematic appellation as simply an appropriate description

606

DEEPAK SARMA

of Pautr¯ayan. a – that he was tearing and was sad. By nirukta, word ¯ derivation, rules, Madhv¯ac¯arya thus derives the term s´udra from the 130 ´ adravan ¯ compound suc . am, “tearing that is due to distress”. Madhv¯ac¯arya refers to other characteristics of Putr¯ayan. a to buttress his nirukta argument. He argues that Putr¯ayan. a is the possessor of a chariot that is lead by a mule and that such vehicles are not possessed by those outside of the first three classes.131 Finally, chariot possession is linked to the study of the Vedas: “Wherever there is Vedic study, there is a chariot. Wherever there is no Vedic study, there is no chariot”. So [it is said] in the Brahmavaivarta.132

After this discussion of chariot propriety, Vy¯asa notes that another ¯ characteristic mark of the s´udra is that he is not allowed to undergo the sacred initiation rite and, therefore, that he cannot study the Vedas. There is another example given in BS 1.1.37 regarding the possible ´ ¯ ¯ sudratva, state of being a s´udra , of Satyak ¯ama. This myth is also taken ¯ from Chandogya Upanis. ad  4.4. The story is as follows: a boy named Satyak ¯ama J¯ab¯ala finds out from his mother that he is a bastard and that the identity of his father is unknown. He desires Vedic knowledge and approaches a teacher, H¯aridrumata Gautama, who asks him about his parentage. Satyak ¯ama states that he does not know and relates his mother’s explanation. Gautama replies that a non-Brahmin would not be able to answer truthfully and, for that reason, Satyak ¯ama must be a Brahmin. Satyak ¯ama is therefore regarded as eligible for the knowledge ¯ of the Vedas. For this reason he is not a s´udra .133 Madhv¯ac¯arya quotes several passages from this myth. Of course, he uses the myth as an argument in support of his restrictive doctrine ¯ concerning s´udras . He states: “Oh, I do not know this, which gotra, lineage, I am”. By reason of the true statement of Satyak ¯ a ma, there is certainty for H¯ aridrumata with regard to [Satyak ¯ ama’s] not ´ ¯ ¯ being a sudra. [Ha ridrumata says] “A non-Brahmin is not able to say that [true statement]”. And [then, after ascertaining this] there is the activity with regard to his [Satyak ¯ ama’s] initiation.134

Though Madhv¯ac¯arya does not explicitly state it here, the implication ¯ is that s´udras are restricted from studying the Vedas. ¯ These two myths from the Chandogya Upanis. ad  are thus used as arguments in support of Madhv¯ac¯arya’s restrictive governing doctrines. Of course Madhv¯ac¯arya’s position here is simply commentary on Vy¯asa’s BS. It is not clear why Madhv¯ac¯arya chose these myths here in favor of others. Interestingly they occur together in the fourth section of the ¯ Upanis. ad . Each implicitly concerns first chapter of the Chandogya eligibility requirements and restrictive doctrines.

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

607

Many times these operational or non-doctrinal strategies link the theoretical with the practical. Punishment, for example, may be used as a method of restriction. In commenting on BS 1.3.38, “And from the prohibition from [knowing] the meaning [of the Vedas], studying [the Vedas], and hearing [the Vedas] in smr  ac¯arya suggests several . ti”, Madhv¯ forms of discipline and punishment by which restrictive doctrines are to be adhered to:135 ¯ ¯ [From Gautama Dharma S´astra 12.4–6.]: “For [the s´udra is] prohibited [from studying ´ ¯ the Vedas]: If [a sudra is] hearing [the Vedas his] ears [are to be] filled with lead and lac. If [he is] speaking [the Vedas his] tongue [is to be] slit. If [he is] understanding [the Vedas his] heart [is to be] ripped open”. According to the smr  . ti; “There is ¯ no fire, nor sacrifice for the s´udra – much less, studying [of the Vedas], but only the service136 of the [upper] three classes is enjoined”. For Vidura and the rest, from being knowers of what is to be known, of those [special cases], there is an exception.137

These are clearly non-doctrinal methods for maintaining and establishing ¯ restrictive governing doctrines. A s´udra , then, can be punished according to these restrictive doctrines. Restrictive governing doctrines, then, are linked to legal matters. Sections of this passage are taken from Gautama ¯  Dharma Sutras 12.4–6, a legal text.138 This appears to be a use of law as an instrument of power, here also theological power. Appended to these passages regarding punishment are, again, excep¯ . He states tions to his restrictive governing doctrines regarding s´udras “For Vidura and the rest, from being knowers of what is to be known, of those [special cases], there is an exception”. 139 Vidura is a char¯ arata ¯ acter from the Mahabh . The story of his birth explains why he is exceptional. Vy¯asa, a sage, was asked by Satyavat¯ı to have sex with his daughters-in-law in order to produce needed children. Vy¯asa agrees but requires that the daughters-in-law do not break a vow – namely to react in any way to his ugliness during sexual intimacy. The first two women fail to comply to the vow, react, and, for that reason, their children are physically incapacitated (Pan. d. u is born pale and sickly while Dhr. tar¯as. t.ra is born blind). The elder daughter-in-law sends a lower class slave dressed as herself to have sex with Vy ¯asa. The slave woman, unlike the other daughters-in-law, does not react in a negative way. In fact she gives Vy ¯asa great pleasure and acts appropriately. Vy¯asa awards her for her behavior and the result is Vidura who is an ¯ avat ara of the god Dharma, law, himself. Dharma is born as a human as a result of a curse by a Brahmin. Vidura is loved by the P¯an. d. avas for his great knowledge and impartiality. His knowledge, however, far outreaches his birth-right as the son of a slave. 140 It is for this reason

608

DEEPAK SARMA

that Madhv¯ac¯arya regards Vidura as an example of an exception to his restrictive rules. ¯ , There is still a slight ambiguity here given the use of the term adi “and the rest”. A strictly delineated set of humans who are restricted from access to M¯adhva doctrines is consequently opened up. Jayat¯ırtha explains: [Explanation of the passage beginning] “For Vidura and the rest”: There is an exception ¯ for them, for those other s´udras [like Vidura] etc. because they are possessors of  ¯ , direct knowledge [of  brahman], acquired in a former birth. [For aparoks. ajn˜ana them,] the ascertainment of the meaning of the Vedas is not restricted. This is the meaning of the passage beginning “Of Vidura and the rest”. Thus Hari is not to be ¯ known by s´udras etc. by means of Vedic knowledge. This is the case.141

Despite Jayat¯ırtha’s commentary, it still remains unclear as to the ¯ members of this subset of exceptions as the term adi may refer exclu¯ sively to avart aras of gods. Aside from the ambiguity inherent in the ¯ , it is also not clear how it is possible to determine the character term adi ¯ ¯ of the purvajanma , the previous birth, of a s´udra or any other sentient being – aside from mythological characters and accounts. ¯ To summarize: there are doctrines about doctrines that restrict s´udras ´ ¯ from accessing those doctrines. Sudras can only be taught abridged portions of the Tantras . The term tantra is ambiguous and, therefore, it is not clear what knowledge is available to them though it is likely that the knowledge is not oriented towards M¯adhva dialectics. There ¯ is, however, a subset of  s´udras who are eligible for a comprehensive M¯adhva education. The example adduced in Vidura, a figure from the ¯ arata ¯  Mahabh . Finally, Jayat¯ırtha explains that these exceptions to the ¯ rule had obtained aparoks. ajn˜ana in previous births and, therefore, are eligible. ¯ Devatadhikaran . am, “Section on the Gods”

The discussion with regard to the eligibility of the gods, as noted in the ¯  Brahma Sutras themselves, is directly linked to a structurally similar set ¯ rva M¯ of controversies in Pu ım¯am a.142 The discussion in the Brahma . s¯ ¯ moreover, begins with a reference to Jaimini: “Jaimini [thinks Sutras that] there is no eligibility with regard to madhuvidya¯, knowledge of  brahman, because there is an impossibility”.143 The inconsistency here is outlined by Madhv¯ac¯arya again by adducing a myth from the ¯ ac¯arya explains: Chandogya Upanis. ad . Madhv¯ ¯ Jaimini thinks: By reason of [assertions found in the Chandogya Upanis. ad  3.5.6] like “On the first nectar among these Vasus subsist [with fire as their mouth]” and other [assertions] about [gods] having the fruit which is to be obtained, there is no

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

609

eligibility [for these gods] with regard to madhuvidya¯, knowledge of  brahman. [There is no eligibility] for the possessors [of the fruits, namely the gods,] have [already] obtained the state [of being a vasu].144 ¯ The example here is taken from a series of passages in the Chandogya Upanis. ad  3.6–3.10. The first in this series is about the vasus: “On the first nectar among these Vasus subsist with fire as their mouth. The gods, of  course, neither eat or drink. They become sated by simply looking at this nectar”.145 The significance of this passage in connection with eligibility concerns the last sentence: “They become sated by simply looking at this nectar”. This myth appears to confirm that gods already possess ¯ a ¯, knowledge of  brahman. Why do they need to engage in brahmajijn˜as the inquiry into brahman, and become virtuoso readers? Aren’t they overqualified and, therefore, ineligible? Aren’t they satiated simply by looking at the Vedas? In his commentary on BS 1.3.32, “And from [their] state of being all knowing”, Madhv¯ac¯arya summarizes the possible problem of their over-qualification and consequent ineligibility.146 The over-qualification is with regard to the light. The light is glossed here as “being all knowing”. Omniscience, moreover, is the natural state for gods. Their over-qualification, then, is inherent.147 Their cognitive state may thus be static; there is nothing to be learned by those sentients who know everything. ¯ In the next sutra , BS 1.3.33, B¯adar¯ayan. a, however, holds “That [there is eligibility for] there is [something that] becomes”.148 There is still some change in the cognitive state of the gods that could occur despite their omniscience. Therefore the gods are eligible. Madhv ¯ac¯arya explains:

B¯ adar¯ ayan. a thinks that from the existence of a distinctive fruit for the gods, who have [already] obtained [that] state [of knowledge], there is eligibility with regard to the madhuvidya¯ etc. for there is a distinctive light [to be obtained].149 ´ ´ . ah ses This possibility of obtaining prak a¯savi . , a distinctive light, a type of knowledge, then reduces the extent of the omniscience of the gods, therefore making them eligible and no longer overqualified. ¯ rva M¯ Madhv¯ac¯arya ties the discussion here to the Pu ım¯am a conver. s¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ sation. The Purva Mımam . sa debate centers around the eligibility of the gods to partake in sacrifices and other ritual activities. Madhv ¯ac¯arya ¯ ¯. a: Pur an thus cites from the Sk anda ¯ ¯. a: “Where there is devotion with regard to [This passage is from] the Sk anda Pur an the Real, there is distinctive bliss [in heaven]. Because of the possibility of [increased] enlightenment for the gods, except for Hari the Great One, and because of their possession of a capacity, all practices and all activities such as sacrifices and the like are eternally enjoined for the gods as well”.150

610

DEEPAK SARMA

He reiterates here that there is a gradation of bliss in moks. a for all sentients and that this gradation is indexed to the extent of devotion. The gods, of course, are not exempt from these gradations. Madhv ¯ac¯arya ¯ rva M¯ thus links his eschatology with the P u ım¯am . sa matters, and then ¯ rva M¯ both his eschatology and the Pu ım¯am . sa matters with eligibility. Again, these explanations make sense only if the scope of the term ¯ , the state of being all knowing, is limited and excludes sarvajn˜atva ¯ . aparoks. ajn˜ana From this, then, gods are held to be eligible to become literate M¯adhva readers. They are, of course, at the top of the hierarchy of  eligible sentients described by Madhv¯ac¯arya in BSB 1.1.1: “. . . the highest class is considered to be [comprised of] gods”.151 Antyajas, Those Excluded From The Class System Even antyajas devotees [who are excluded from the class system], for them there is eligibility with regard to knowledge of the name [of God].152

Following Jayat¯ırtha’s commentary I have translated the term antyaja here as “excluded from the class system”.153  Antyajas are included in the set of sentient beings who can have “knowledge of the name”. Though antyajas are eligible for “knowledge of the name” the significance of  ¯ , such eligibility is not clear. Though it may be linked to aparoks. ajn˜ana direct intuitive knowledge (through revelation) of  brahman, the precise nature of the “knowledge of the name” remains uncertain. It is likely that “knowledge of the name” refers to the name of God and, therefore, to a mantra, ritual chant, that is salvifically efficacious.  Antyajas are to be distinguished from mlecchas, foreigners or barbarians. The former, though excluded from the class system, nevertheless are considered to be part of the community of sentient beings found in the approved or the immediate areas. The latter term, mlecchas, refer to foreigners – those sentient beings who are not born or living in the approved or immediate areas.154 The geographic boundaries that determine the classification of such sentients are not clear and may indicate an important ambiguity. ¯ Philosophical Cruxes: Upasam Limiting . grahakadharma, Characterization

In this section I briefly summarize the locations of philosophical controversy that are thematic in this discussion of eligibility. To this end, I ¯ , limiting examine he problem of lacking a upasam . gr ahakadharma characterization.

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

611

Perhaps the most consistent problem in each one of Madhv ¯ac¯arya’s characterizations of eligible sentient beings concerns the lack of a ¯ . I take this characterization from an argument upasam . gr ahakadharma ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ made by Vyasatırtha in his T atparyacandrik  a¯. The T atparyacandrik  a¯, ´ is a commentary on Jayat¯ırtha’s Tattvaprak a¯sika which is, in turn, ¯ ¯. ya. Vy¯ Bhas a commentary on Madhv¯ac¯arya’s Brahma Sutra asat¯ırtha argues against the prerequisite “the condition of increased tranquillity, restraint, etc.” held by the Advaita school in their interpretation of what ¯ , the investigation into brahman. Vy¯ precedes brahmajijn˜asa asat¯ırtha argues that the prerequisite lacks philosophical precision. That is, the phrase “the condition of increased tranquillity, restraint, etc.” is problematic given the inherent ambiguity of the term “etc.” It is likely ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ı. In his Bhamat  ı that he is reacting here to a passage found in the Bhamat  V¯acaspati thus states: The detachment [from the enjoyment of worldly and other-worldly] things, abstaining from them, and faith in the Real are included by the [use of the] word “etc.” Thus ´ [this indicted in] the sruti : “Having become possessed of the condition of tranquillity, restraint, abstinence, detachment, and faith [in the Real], one seeing the self in the self along, he sees everything in the self”. The phrase “the condition of increased tranquillity, restraint, etc.”, [refers to] the possession of these means [which are] the condition of tranquillity, restraint” in abundance. Thus arises the desire for the release from bondage. And [it is for this reason that] he says “and the desire for moks. a”.155

Against this position, Vy¯asat¯ırtha states: And in the phrase “the condition of increased tranquillity, restraint, etc.”, the use of the word “etc.” is not appropriate. By this [word “etc.”] “obtaining endurance” is understood but not “discrimination, etc.” And there is no regulating cause. And [there is the problem that] there is no limiting characterization. That is, there is no characterizing assertion that includes [only] “obtaining endurance” and excludes “discrimination”.156

Vy¯asat¯ırtha argues here that the term “etc.” may include an unlimited number of possibilities. There is no limiting definition of the term at all. Hence, the Advaita position is rejected on the basis of the unrestricted nature of the term “etc.” The same tactic can be used against Madhv¯ac¯arya. ¯ , translated as “etc.” “and the rest”, Madhv¯ac¯arya’s use of the term adi and “and the like”, typically results in an ambiguity in determining who is excluded from the sets he is trying to delineate. What appears to be a fixed or finite set is opened up by means of the ambiguity inherent in the term. It is also apparent from the commentaries of both Jayat¯ırtha and ¯ R¯aghavendrat¯ırtha that the need for a upasam , limiting . gr ahakadharma characterization, was a problem for them as well and not merely a matter of sophistry put forth by contemporary scholars. The problem

612

DEEPAK SARMA

gains further significance when contextualized; it is not simply a matter of minor (or major) inconsistencies in metaphysics. Instead the result is linked to the social system and the transmission of knowledge in that social system. It is not surprising that this deficiency occurs in the two most contro¯ versial cases – woman and s´udras . In the first case, “Urva´s¯ı, Yam¯ı, ´ ¯ ¯ Sac ı and the rest”, the term adi creates an ambiguity.157 Who are “the rest”? I suggested several possibilities in preceding sections – women mentioned in the R . g Veda, women who know Sanskrit, and the like. The set remains open and, therefore, ambiguous. The same problem occurs with regard to the set of sentients cate¯ gorized as s´udras and is a result of the assertion found in the BS, “All men are eligible to study the Vedas”.158 There is a clear ambiguity with ¯ regard to those sentients who are included in the set “men”. S´udras are included in the set and, of course, this is not desirable for Madhv ¯ac¯arya and his followers. The discussion is couched in terms of several myths ¯ arata ¯ ¯ taken from the Mahabh and the Chandogya Upanis. ad . These myths ¯ problem is themselves are places where the upasam . gr ahakadharma confronted. In these places myth is used as argument against the lack  ¯ of an upasam . An interesting interaction exists here . gr ahakadharma 159 between myth and argument. ¯ The second set of  upasam problems concern the . gr ahakadharma delineation of canon. First there is the use of the term tantras which does not clearly demarcate any particular portion of the M¯adhva ˜ ¯ canon – except for the Pancar  . In his gloss of the term tantras atra ˜ ¯ adi ¯ , “the Pancar  ˜ ¯ as pancar  and others”, Jayat¯ırtha only adds atr  atra ¯ ¯ n˜ana to the ambiguity. The term namaj also creates the same diffi¯ culty. These are both upasam , limiting characterization, . gr ahakadharma problems. ¯ Though the problems with adi are prima facie damaging, it may be that the members of the set were implied or part and parcel of the philosophical language of medieval Ved¯anta. That is, the sets might have been lucid to religious readers at the time and, since then, their demarcations have been forgotten. The criticism that they lacked a ¯ , then, would merely indicate ignorance of what upasam . gr ahakadharma was once obvious. Madhv¯ac¯arya thus establishes a set of rules and parameters within which to allow or restrict access to canonical texts, the doctrines contained therein, and therefore, the ability to become literate as a ¯ M¯adhva reader. Although there may be upasam prob. gr ahakadharma lems, the intent remains clear.

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

613

DEBATE WITH HERETICAL TRADITIONS

If a tradition prepares its adherents to debate with members of other religious traditions then it would seem that conversion of outsiders is a possibility. Depending on the issues of debate, access to relevant doctrines may also be permitted to the debaters, regardless of class, gender, etc. There are several places in Madhv¯ac¯arya’s corpus where he addresses issues of debate itself and he argues against doctrines of non-Ved¯anta traditions that do not uphold the legitimacy of the ¯ Vedas. This interest in debate, and also with nastika traditions, seems to conflict with the strict governing doctrines. Why is there an interest ¯ in debating with those outside of the M¯ım¯am a and astika world view? . s¯ Why, for example, did Madhv¯ac¯arya examine Buddhism and why did he summarize debates in his texts? What was the purpose of critically examining the doctrines of traditions outside of the Vedic fold? To approach these questions I examine two locations in the M¯adhva corpus where such matters are discussed. First I examine ¯ Madhv¯ac¯arya’s V adalaks . an . a, a text devoted to the rules and regulations surrounding debate. Then, I examine several passages in Madhv ¯ac¯arya’s ¯ ¯  Anuvyakhy ana in connection with BS 2.1, known as samayavirodha, the contradictions [in other] doctrines. ¯ I do not examine the citations in the polemical texts of  nastika traditions. Preliminary research indicates that medieval Tul.un¯ad. u Jains neither cite nor address M¯adhva doctrines in their texts.160 M¯adhva texts are cited and critiqued in the texts of other scholars of Ved¯anta in the time period. This may only indicate that they were not excluded from access by M¯adhva RGD. That Jains do not cite M¯adhva texts may indicate that the RGD were functioning at the time. ¯ The Vadalaks . an .a ¯ ¯ The V adalaks . a, also known as the Kathalaks . a, is a brief text of 35 . an . an anus. .t ubhs in which Madhv¯ ac¯arya sets out the proper types of debate in which devotees can engage.161 Madhv¯ac¯arya lists three types of  ¯ ¯.162 appropriate debating methods. These are vada, jalpa, and vitan . d  .a Although this treatise on polemics is useful as a dialectical handbook  for adherents who wish to debate, it does not contain any explicit summaries of restrictions regarding debate with outsiders, with those ¯ , eligibility and, therefore, may not be able who do not have adhik ari to become skilled readers. That is, Madhv¯ac¯arya states the rules and regulations regarding the practice of debate but does not address any

614

DEEPAK SARMA

restrictions in connection with the eligibility and qualifications of each of the participants of the debate. Several conclusions may be drawn from this. First, it may be that there are no restrictions regarding who can and who cannot participate in debate. Second, it may be that Madhv¯ac¯arya has assumed that all participants have eligibility and are legitimate (and skilled) religious readers. In this case, there would be no need to address the eligibility and literacy of the participants. Though the first conclusion is possible, the second clearly is more likely; one must have familiarity with the Vedas and similarly restricted texts to argue with the M ¯adhva about his own doctrines. Arguing with a M¯adhva about his doctrine presumes ´ knowledge of the Vedas and other sruti texts. These apaurus. eya, without human origin, texts are also restricted. If a debate were to take place between a M¯adhva and a mleccha it would have to be one-sided as the outsider would not be able to partake in arguments about the proper interpretation of passages. It is thus reasonable to conclude that debate with M¯adhva devotees about M¯adhva doctrine can only be undertaken by those who are (or can become) skilled readers of M¯adhva doctrine. Third, it also is reasonable to conclude that these debating rules could be employed by M¯adhva scholars when they argued via reductio against the doctrines of other schools. This way M¯adhva scholars can refute rival positions and, at the same time, need not reveal their own ¯ style of  doctrine. To this end, Madhv¯ac¯arya characterizes the vitan . d  .a argument: ¯ argument is [characterized] for the sake of truth [when the argument The vitan . d  .a is] with another [wicked opponent]. The Real is hidden in this [argument style].163

This style is not unusual in the history of debate among South Asian philosophical traditions. Nevertheless, this passage indicates that it was part and parcel of M¯adhva debate. It moreover provides a reasonable explanation for the occurrence of M¯adhva debates with debaters who are not skilled readers of M¯adhva texts.  BS 2.1, Samayavirodha, The Contradictions [In Other] Doctrines

The relevance of debate with other traditions is exemplified in the introduction to BS 2.1, known as samayavirodha, the contradictions ¯ ¯ , ana [in other] doctrines. The passages in Madhv ¯ac¯arya’s Anuvyakhy ¯ a commentary on the Brahma Sutra , are introductions to this series of refutations of rival positions. These rival schools are the Ny¯aya, ´ Vai´ses. ika, S¯am arv¯aka, Buddhism, Jainism, Saiva, and, . khya, Yoga, C¯ ´ finally, the S¯akta schools. Madhv¯ac¯arya first states reasons as to why these doctrines exist:

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

615

The adherence to the knowledge regarding the falseness of the world is because of  ignorance, because of the scarcity of correct understanding, because of the abundance of those who have little knowledge, because of the ceaseless hatred for the highest Reality and for those with knowledge of the Real.164

He next locates the upholders of these rival doctrines in his ¯  j¯ ıvatraividhya, three-fold distinction of sentients, and svar upatraividhya , three-fold doctrine of predestination: The doctrines are maintained because of [their being in contact with] the endless impressions of many asuras [demons] due to their being caught by foolishness.165

The doctrines are kept alive by those who are predestined to do so. The phase “endless impressions” refers to their predestined status. Having thus accounted for the existence of rival traditions in his cosmology, Madhv¯ac¯arya states the importance of studying and refuting these tradition: Therefore, those who are suitable for that which is connected with the understanding ¯ of the Lord, for correct understanding, who observe the [doctrines of the] agamas , they would always destroy the darkness [the ignorant].166

He further addresses the reason why these refutations are important: Therefore [Vy¯ a sa] the lord of knowledge composed the refutations of each of the [rival] doctrines for [his] own devotees in connection with establishing a sharpened intellect.167

Given these portions of the introductory passages, it appears that debate with outsiders is primarily for the sake of having a correct understanding of one’s own position and for increasing one’s mental dexterity. Neither a correct understanding nor mental dexterity are ends in and of themselves. Both contribute to obtaining proper knowledge of the Lord, increasing one’s skill as a religious reader, and eventually obtaining moks. a, liberation. If this is the case then there is no need to reveal one’s own position ¯ style and even if one debates with an outsider. One can argue vitan . d  .a employ reductio ad absurdum methods, find fault with the doctrines of  others, yet reveal nothing about one’s own position. The intent then, is not to convert those who are most opposed to the M¯adhva position. Instead, the intent is to reaffirm the truth of one’s own position for oneself through argument with outsiders. Conversion due to loss in a debate may indeed be possible if the interlocutor is a dvija (or former dvija), eligible, and, therefore, can become a skilled religious reader of M¯adhva Ved¯anta. Research has not uncovered any instances in M ¯adhva works of  responses to critique of M¯adhva doctrine by those outside of the

616

DEEPAK SARMA

¯ rva and Uttara. The responses that I have M¯ım¯am a fold – but Pu . s¯ discovered refer to criticisms made by Advaita and Vi´sid. t.¯advaita opponents. If there were responses to external critiques then this may indicate the M¯adhva thinkers permit the possibility of outsider, dvijas and otherwise, to understand M¯adhva doctrines. However, I found no cases of  this type of response.

¯ ¯ EXCLUSIVIST STRATEGIES IN M ADHVA VEDANTA

In this paper I have examined the rules and regulations in connection with the transmission of knowledge and, therefore, becoming a virtuoso religious reader in M¯adhva Ved¯anta. I showed that the rules governing access to doctrines were matters of great importance for virtuoso readers of M¯adhva Ved¯anta. To this end I examined several locations in ¯ Madhv¯ac¯arya’s commentary on the Brahma Sutras in which he addresses issues of access to texts. Not surprisingly, he restricts access to texts and, therefore, to training as a virtuoso religious reader to a select group of sentient beings based on class and gender. In the human realm, male dvijas has access while members of lower classes and women from all classes had limited access to salvifically efficacious summaries of  M¯adhva doctrine conveyed orally and not textually. Though they had some access it did not allow them to obtain training as a virtuoso religious reader and, therefore, to examine M¯adhva doctrine. Although Madhv¯ac¯arya had contact with outsiders, this contact cannot be taken to imply that he did not employ strict RGD, restrictive governing doctrines. It may be, moreover, that the historical context within which Madhv¯ac¯arya first professed his doctrines can be linked to his RGD. Clearly these RGD played an important role in M¯adhva Ved¯anta and may have hindered (and may continue to hinder) the abilities of outsiders who are ineligible and not allowed access to texts and, therefore, not allowed to become virtuoso readers of M¯adhva Ved¯anta.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My work in India was funded by a Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Grant (1996–1997) as well as a grant from the Committee on Southern Asian Studies at the University of Chicago (1996). My work on the M¯adhva school would not have been possible without the ¯ rn ˜¯ assistance of Prof. D. Prahl ¯ad¯ac¯arya of the Pu a Vidy¯apit.a in . aprajn Bangalore, guruji. Prof. Sita Nambiar, and the grace of the Sw¯amiji of  the Pej¯avar mat  . ha. I wish to thank Prof. Paul Griffiths, Wendy Doniger,

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

617

and Sheldon Pollock for their assistance and editorial suggestions. Many thanks to Keri Elizabeth Ames who read and edited the entire manuscript.

NOTES 1

For a study of other types of governing doctrines see Christian, Doctrines of  adhva Ved¯ anta”.   Religious Communities and Sarma, “Exclusivist Strategies in M¯ 2 ¯ ¯ ¯ Badarayan. a is also known as Vyasa. I use these two names interchangeably. 3 ¯ ¯. ya, 18. This particular sutra ¯ Madhv¯ ac¯ arya, Brahma Sutra , the very first in Bhas ¯ ¯ adhikaran ¯ the Brahma Sutras , can also be found at the beginning of the jijn˜as . am, section concerning the eligibility for investigation, section (1.1.1) of any edition of  ¯ the Brahma Sutras . Abbreviations: AB Madhv¯ac¯arya’s An. ubh¯  as. ya AV Madhv¯ac¯arya’s Anuvy¯  akhy¯  ana   BD R¯aghavendrat¯ırtha’s Bh¯  avad ¯ıpa BS Vy¯asa’s Brahma S¯  utras BSB Madhv¯ac¯arya’s Brahma S¯  ¯ . ya utra Bhas ´ ˙ BSSB Sankar¯ac¯arya’s Brahmas¯  utra´  sa¯  nkarabh¯  as. ya MBh Vy¯asa’s Mah¯  abh¯  arata MBhTN Madhv¯ac¯arya’s Mah¯  abh¯  aratat ¯  atparyanirn . aya MV N¯ar¯ayan. a Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya’s Madhvavijaya TC Vy¯asat¯ırtha’s T atparyacandrik  ¯  a¯  TP Jayat¯ırtha’s Tattvaprak ¯  a´  sika VTV Madhv¯ac¯arya’s Vis. n. utattva(vi)nirn . aya Numerals following the comma refer to pagination in Sanskrit texts. 4 ¯ ¯ ¯ anantary ¯ ¯ ´abdo hetvarthah athas´abdo mangal artho ’dhik ar  artha s´ ca | atah .s . | BS 1.1.1, 18. The word “then” is used as an auspicious expression and for sequence of eligibility. The word “therefore” refers to the reason. ¯ ¯ ¯ ˜as ¯ a ¯ kartavya ¯ | BSB 1.1.1, 28. na ca jn˜anam adah . vinatyarthapras . | ato brahmajijn And without the knowledge [of  brahman], there is no extraordinary grace [granted by brahman]. Therefore, the inquiry into brahman is to be undertaken. 5 ´ ¯ [brackets mine] Sr ı Vi´sve´sa T¯ırtha Sw¯ amiji, “The Fitness of  ´sr¯ı Madhva Philosophy to be the Universal Religion for Humanity”, 23. The Sw¯ amiji may also be referring here to the contemporary and modified tradition. 6 Stein, for example, states that “The central characteristic of the bhakti movement, in textual terms, is its openness, its universal appeal without regard to caste”. Stein, “Social Mobility”, 80. 7 For that matter, all bhakti traditions must not be regarded as offering catholicons. Such stereotypes may be deceptive. These generalizations about bhakti traditions are quite common. For example, Mumme analyzes the schism in the Vi´sis. t.¯ advaita School of Ved¯ a nta, a bhakti tradition, with regard to governing doctrines that allow access. In the 13th and 14th centuries CE there was a bifurcation into the Vat.akalai and Tenkalai schools. The former adhere to strict restrictive governing doctrines while the latter are comparatively egalitarian. Mumme thus shows that bhakti traditions are

618

DEEPAK SARMA

not as egalitarian as the are stereotypically believed to be. See Mumme, “Rules and Rhetoric: Caste Observance in Doctrine and Practice”. 8 My data for much of this section derives from Sharma, History of the Dvaita School ¯ . For further information regarding inscriptional and other biographical of Ved anta evidence etc. please refer to Sharma, History, 75–89. For further information about the establishment of the dates of Madhv¯ ac¯ arya see Sharma, History, 77–79, Jha, A ´ Critical Study of the Tattvaprak a¯sika of Jayat ¯ ırtha, 29–35, and Siauve, La Doctrine de  Madhva, 2–6. The dates, 1238–1317 CE, are generally accepted among contemporary scholars of M¯ adhva Ved¯ anta. For this reason I do not explore the issues involved in fixing the date. The South Kanara district is located in Karn a.taka state. I use Tul.un¯ ad. u and .¯ ´ South Kanara interchangeably. The adjective “Sival l i” indicates a regional distinction. .. When modifying the noun Brahmin, it refers to those Brahmins who are born in or around Ud. upi and have Tul.u as their mother tongue. After the M¯ adhva tradition was ´ established, Sival l i came to refer only to those Ud upi born Tul u speaking followers .. . . ´ ´ ¯ ¯ of Madhva Vedanta. The difference between Sival..li and non-Sival.l.i Brahmins may play a role in unofficial or operational RGD, rules and regulations about doctrines and doctrinal systems that restrain the admission of outsiders as members in a given religious community. Lindbeck distinguishes between official and operational doctrines in the context of Christian doctrine. The former are made explicit. The latter, on the other hand, may be “so explicitly self-evidence that no church has even felt the need to dogmatize them . . . ” See Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine, 74. Tul.un¯ ad. u Brahmins are, as a whole, referred to as Havika Brahmins. The Havika ´ ¯.tas, Sakalapuris and Sival Brahmins are comprised of Havikas, Ko ..lis. The Brahmins found in the areas around Ud. upi are differentiated according to region. They are the ´ ¯.tas, Ko ¯.te´ ˜cagr¯ Sival svara, Kand¯ avaras, and Pan amas. .l.is, Ko ´ For further discussion of the etymological origins of the term sival ..li and other issues of sub-caste distinctions among Tul.un¯ ad. u Brahmins, see Siauve, La Doctrine, 10. 9 My data for this section on N¯ ar¯ ayan. a Pan. d. it¯ ac¯ arya derives from Sharma, History, 216–222. See Sharma, “Life and Works of Trivikrama Pan ac¯ a rya”, for more .d . it¯ biographical information on N¯ ar¯ ayan. a Pan. d. it¯ ac¯ arya’s father. 10 ´ That is, he was a Sival adhva .l.i (Tul.u-speaking Ud . upi) Brahmin. In contemporary M¯ Ved¯ anta, the majority of practitioners are Tul.u-speaking Brahmins from South Kanara ´ – though not all are Sival ahmanes, s´ival..li .l.i. Siauve reports the same: “. . . les brˆ auxquels appartenait le premier noyau des m¯ adhva”. Siauve, La Doctrine, 10. The distinction between practitioners and mat  . has from South Kanara and those from Ud . upi had and has relevance with regard to institutional politics. The Ud upi were mat  has . . and are considered to be more authentic. The distinction often had relevance with regard to theological matters although there is no evidence in Madhv¯ ac¯ arya’s works of such RGD linking authenticity and geography. Sharma, History, 198. There was a controversy in the 16th century CE with regard to the admission of the members of  ´ the Gaud. a S¯ arasvata community who, though Brahmins, were neither Sival .l.i nor Tul.u speakers. Their presence inspired disputes regarding their rights to access M¯ adhva texts and teachings and their very inclusion in the M¯ adhva community. Sharma,  History, 577–587. For contemporary practitioners there is still some relevance with regard to birthplace, language, etc. For these reasons, historical and contemporary, it is relevant to note N¯ ar¯ ayan. a Pan. d. it¯ ac¯ arya’s caste, class, language, and birth details. 11 Strict followers of M¯ adhva Ved¯ a nta may (and do) take the accounts as literal and not mythological, as biographical and not hagiographical. 12 I will say more about the establishment of the as. .t amat  . has below. 13 For further reading about the accuracy of these genealogical records, see Sharma,  History, 200.

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 14

619

For a detailed list of the texts that Madhv¯ ac¯ arya mentions and/or cites, see Sharma,  History, Appendix 1, 567–570. The list is not exhaustive as Sharma excludes many texts found in the standard Ved¯ a nta canon such as the Upanis. ads. I say more about Madhv¯ ac¯ arya’s citations and references (or lack thereof) below. 15 ˜jan¯ ac¯ arya, the Tul.u equivalent of the name  Madhvavijaya, 3. According to Prabhan ¯ gavana is Tot.antillayah ˜jan¯ Pu ac¯ arya’s . . See page 10 of the introduction to Prabhan edition Pan. d. it¯ ac¯ arya’s Madhvavijaya. 16 MV, 4.4–30. It is not clear from the Madhvavijaya if Acyutapreks. a was a follower of Advaita Ved¯ anta. However, according the hagiographic evidence, Madhv¯ ac¯ arya vehemently disagreed with Acyutapreks. a with regard to some issues in hermeneutics. MV, 4.49–54. For this reason, it is likely that Acyutapreks . a was an adherent of  Advaita Ved¯ anta. 17 ¯ ¯ Madhv¯ ac¯ a rya also refers to himself as Anandat ırtha in colophons. Although ˜ a, Pu ¯rn Madhv¯ ac¯ arya has several names, including P¯ urn. aprajn asudeva, etc., . abodha, V¯ I hereafter refer to him only as Madhv¯ ac¯ arya. For further reading on the etymological origins of several of these names, including “Madhva”, see Siauve, La Doctrine de  Madhva, 1–2. 18 It is not explicitly stated that he studied tarka. However, an account in the ac¯ arya used tarka in a debate in which he was  Madhvavijaya records that Madhv¯ victorious. MV, 4.44. Though the term tarka refers to logic and reasoning in general, it is likely that Madhv¯ ac¯ arya was formally trained in tarka. 19 ¯ See Is. .t a Siddhi of Vimukt atman translated by P. K. Sundaram for further reading. 20 MV, 4.45. According to Sharma, Madhv¯ ac¯ arya also directly cites and/or summa´¯ ¯ ˜¯ ¯ ¯ rizes passages from Sarvajn atmamuni’s Sam ıraka in his Anuvyakhy ana . ks . epa Sar  and Tattvodyota. I have not been able to locate such passages. Sharma, History, ˜¯ 123, 145, ft. 4. Sarvajn atmamuni was a contemporary of Vimukt¯ a tman as well as ´ n ¯kar¯ a direct disciple of  Sa ac¯ a rya, the founder of the Advaita school of Ved¯ anta. ´ar  ˜¯ ¯ ¯ Veezhinathan, 5. For further reading on the Sarvajn atmamuni’s Sam ks epa S ıraka . . see Veezhinathan’s translation, critical edition, and notes. 21 MV, 5.1. 22 ¯k ¯ According to C. R. Krishna Rao, Madhv¯ ac¯ arya came into contact with Vidy¯ a´san ara, ´ ¯kar¯ ¯ the svamin of the Sr.¯ ngeri mat  ac¯ arya himself. . ha, a monastery founded by San Rao, 6–8, 23–27. This meeting is not mentioned in the MV. 23 Pan. d. it¯ ac¯ arya states “. . . [Madhv¯ ac¯ arya] refuted the six systems”. ¯ . . . s. at  | MV, 9.15. ca tatra samay anakhan d  ayat  . .. Presumably Madhv¯ ac¯ a rya was aware of six systems of thought. It is, of course, unclear as to which six systems he is supposed to have refuted. It may be some ¯ rva M¯ combination of the Buddhism, C¯ arv¯ a ka, Jaina, Ny¯ a ya, Pu ım¯ am a, S¯ am a, . s¯ . khy¯ Vais.e´sika, Uttara M¯ım¯ am a, and Yoga traditions. Madhv¯ ac¯ arya examines several of  . s¯ these traditions in BSB, 2.1, known as samayavirodha, the contradictions [in other] doctrines. Madhv¯ ac¯ a rya does not cite or name the texts of these traditions. I say more about this deficiency below. 24 For further reading about the link between Madhv¯ ac¯ arya and Vy¯ asa, see Sheridan, “Vy¯ asa as Madhva’s Guru: Biographical Context for a Ved¯ antic Commentator”. For further reading regarding the link of hagiography to philosophy see also Sheridan, ¯ ¯. a, and His Commentary on Its First Chapter”. “Madhva, the Bhagavata Pur an 25 Sharma, History, 77–78. 26 MV, 16.58. 27 See Sharma, History, 88 and Siauve, La Doctrine, 26–32 for brief discussions of (and arguments regarding) the putative existence of the Brahma Tarka. For an in depth analysis, see Mesquita, Madhva Und Seine Unbekannten Literarischen Quellen.

620 28

DEEPAK SARMA

Sharma, History, 437. See also von Glasenapp’ for further discussion of this issue. von Glasenapp, Madhva’s Philosophy of the Vis. n . u Faith, 24–28. 29 ¯ . , 47 in Govind¯ Sharma, History, 146 ft. 1. See V adah ac¯ arya’s edition of the ¯ Sarvam¯ ula. Govind¯ ac¯ arya calls the Tattvoddyota the V adah . The attack on Buddhist . ¯ positions is not unusual especially in light of the Madhva comparison of Advaita with Buddhism. 30 Sharma, History, 146 ft. 3. The passage that Jayat¯ırtha cites is: dve sattve ´ ¯ am ¯ . dharmadesan ´ a ¯ | loke sam ¯ . vr  samupa¯sritya buddhan . tasatyam . ca sataym . ca ¯ ¯ ¯ || , 653 (vol. 3).  praram arthatah Tattvoddyotat  ı k  a . . 31 ¯ ¯ ¯ . pratipaks ¯. ks ¯ | vedadvis ¯. samastavad  ındragajaprabhadgadas´ caranavanyam . ak an . aya . am ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ MV, 5.8. Buddhis a gara,  yah prathamah sam ayayau sav adisim ho ’tra sa buddhis agara || . . . the best among the haters of the Vedas, who is the defeater of all the elephants who are the best disputants, wandering along with V¯ adisim . ha, with the desire of  [meeting] opponents, came here. Though Buddhis¯ a gara is only described as a hater of the Vedas, his status as a ¯ ´ Buddhist is mentioned in Pan. d. it¯ ac¯ arya’s Bhavaprak  , an auto commentary on a¯sika his Madhvavijaya. He writes: ´ . ajno ˜ vadisim ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ vais´es. ikavises dvijah ım bauddhagamyam . habhidho . | mah¯ . vijitya sam . pr apto . ¯ ¯ buddhisagara a¯s´ika, 5.8. || Bhavaprak  He whose name is V¯ adisim . ha, the twice born, is a knower of the essence of the Vai´ses. ika [system]. Having conquered the earth, Buddhis¯ agara fell in with the incomprehensible followers of Buddha. 32 For a list of all of the names of people mentioned in the Madhvavijaya ˜j¯ see Prabhan ac¯ arya’s introduction of the critical edition of the Madhvavijaya and ¯ ´ , 14–16.  Bhavaprak  a¯sika 33 ¯ Those schools that uphold the Vedas are known as astika while those that argue ¯ against the validity of the Vedas are known as nastika . 34 The etiology here is entirely speculative. 35 ¯ ¯ See Griffiths, “Denaturalizing Discourse: Abhidh armikas, Propositionalists, and the Comparative Philosophy of Religion” for further reading regarding denaturalizability. 36 See Griffiths, Religious Reading, for further reading on religious readers. Narayana Rao examines oral literacy in opposition to written literacy. Narayana Rao, “Pur¯ an. a as Brahmanic Ideology”, 94–96. One additional possibility suggested by Prof. Prahl¯ ad¯ ac¯ a rya, Director of the ¯ ˜ ¯ ¯ ¯ Purn. aprajna Research Institute, is that Madhvacarya did not mention scholars and texts by name as they were not worthy to be mentioned! Prahl¯ ad¯ ac¯ arya, personal interview, 6-5-97. 37 It is not explicitly stated in the Madhvavijaya that the king was a Muslim. However, contemporary biographers of Madhv¯ ac¯ a rya refer to the king as a Muslim in their ¯ arya ¯ translations and accounts. For further details see Govind¯ ac¯ arya, Madhvac ( Life and Teachings), 10, Padmanabhacharya, Life and Teachings of Sri Madhvacharya, ´ ¯ ¯ ayana ¯ ¯ arya’s ¯ 59, Rau, N ar  Pan Sr  ı Madhva Vijaya, 125. . d  . it ac 38 ¯ . bhiryam ¯ ¯ ¯ ´ak alayukt  ¯ ¯ gam dhr  tim uruv ı ryam aryabh avam am . . . tejobhyam . giram api des ¯ asya ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ | r aj sphut  am upalabhya vismito ’smai r  ajy ardham sapadi samarpay am babh uva . . | MV, 10.18. Having clearly grasped the dignity, nobility, wide command, and eminent luster, and words appropriate to the time and place [of Madhva], the king, surprised, instantly gave him [Madhv¯ ac¯ arya] one half of [his] kingdom. The report that Madhv¯ ac¯ arya walked on water has led some scholars to conclude that M¯ adhva Ved¯ anta was influenced by Christianity. Siauve states that “L’id´ ee messiannique peut paraˆıre assez ´ etrange en contexte indien, et l’on a voulu voir dans cette conviction de Madhva le reflet d’influences chr´ etiennes”. Siauve, La Doctrine

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

621

de Madhva, 6. The influence, however, has not been proven and remains unfounded. For a synopsis of the discussion see Dasgupta, vol. 4, pp. 92–93. 39 See Bhatt, Studies in Tul. uva History and Culture, Chopra, History of South India, Diwakar, Karnataka Through the Ages, and Sastri, A History of South India . 40 The Hoysala empire succumbed to several attacks from Muslim invaders at the beginning of the 14th century CE. Chopra, 192. 41 See Granoff, “Going by the Book: The Role of Written Texts in Medieval Jain Sectarian Conflicts” for similar accounts in Jainism. 42 See MV, 15.1–141. Incidentally, it is at this visit to P¯ ad. ikud. el that Madhv¯ ac¯ arya is said to have come into contact and debated with Trivikrama Pan. d. it¯ ac¯ arya (the father of  biographer N¯ ar¯ ayan. a Pan. d. it¯ ac¯ arya) who was the Court-Pan. d. it of Jayasim . ha. Sharma,  History, 82. Nilakantha Sastri, however, holds that Madhva was in Trivandrum when his texts were stolen. Sastri, A History of South India , 431. 43 Sharma, History, 82. I find no reference to Kumbla in either cartographic or historical materials. I was, however, able to locate a town named Kumbal.e on the coast of Tul.un¯ ad. u approximately 30 km south of Ud. upi. Bhatt, plate I, plate II. Bhatt identifies the Jayasim . ha referred to in the MV as Jayasim . ha II who ruled the Kumbal.e (Kumbul.e) in 13th century. Ibid., 102–105. I thus suspect that Sharma’s error in identifying Jayasim . ha as the ruler of Kumbla and not Kumbal.e is only a matter of differing transliteration conventions. 44 Diwakar, Karnataka Through the Ages, 400. 45 Diwakar, 471, Chopra, 193. 46 It was during the reign of Ball¯ al.a III, that South India was first invaded by Muslims (1310 CE). Diwakar, 399. K. T. Pun. d. urangi, in his essay “Dvaita Saints and Scholars of the Vijayanagar Period”, states that Madhv¯ ac¯ arya came into contact ¯ with both Narasim ha III and Ball a l a III. He does not, however, cite any evidence, . . historical or otherwise, for his claim. He also holds that King ¯I´svaradeva, who is mentioned in the Madhvavijaya, refers to Y¯ ad. ava king named Mah¯ adeva. Ibid., 59. I do not find any mention of this king in relevant texts – the Madhvavijaya or others. Nadgouda refers to a king “Ishwardeva” in his translation of  Madhvavijaya 10.5. Nadgouda, 164. This name is not included in the Sanskrit manuscripts. Mah¯ adeva, ¯ gadeva deity of the Tol.ahas feudatory of Sur¯ however, is mentioned as the Mah¯ alin ala located in the Ud. upi district. “Mah¯ adeva” was engraved on signet rings and used in official seals. Bhatt, 79–80, 441. For these reasons I concluded that Pan. d. urangi’s claim may be false or, at least, unsubstantiated. 47 Diwakar, 453. I say more about funding below. 48 Diwakar, 453. 49 Unless, of course, Jayasim . ha is Jayasim . ha II of Kumbal.e. 50 I am reliant upon Bhatt, Studies in Tul. uva History and Culture for many of the details with regard to Tul.uva religion, culture, etc. I have separated the religious ¯ ¯ ¯ traditions into three groups; the astika, , and tribal and indigenous. The astika nastika ¯ and nastika categories are well defined. The third category, tribal and indigenous, ¯ ¯ stands in contrast to the astika and nastika traditions. These tribal and indigenous are not exegetical traditions and are not always involved in inter and intra scholastic ¯ ¯ debates about philosophical matters. The astika and nastika schools, on the other hand, cannot be easily separated from exegetical and doctrinal matters. For these reasons I separate the religious traditions in medieval Tul.un¯ ad. u into three categories. This category separation has no implications with regard to hierarchy and should not be regarded as evaluative. Bhatt uses the term “cult” to refer to these tribal and indigenous traditions. I prefer to use less evaluative terminology though Bhatt may not have used the term “cult” in a derogatory sense. 51 For a brief overview see Hanumantha Rao, “Religious Toleration in Karnatak”,

622

DEEPAK SARMA

¯g¯ 312–319. The V¯ıra´s aiva community, as known as the Lin ayats, was founded by Basavanna (1105–1167 CE) in the 12th century CE. 52 Diwakar, 443. The Jain rulers, for example, were known to fund non-Jain institutions and vice versa. Bhatt, 441. 53 See Bhatt, 220–225 for further details regarding overseas trade. 54 ¯ arya ¯ Govind¯ ac¯ arya, Madhvac , 10. For example, Madhv¯ ac¯ arya’s epistemology draws from Jain epistemology. See Zydenbos, “On the Jaina Background of Dvaitaved¯ anta” for further details regarding Jain influences on M¯ adhva epistemology. 55 Diwakar, 420. 56 Bhatt notes that the V¯ıra´saiva and Vi´sis. t.¯ advaita schools had the help of the rulers in connection with the disintegration of Jainism. Bhatt, 427. 57 See the Padmap¯ adat¯ırthayatr¯ avarn. am and related chapters of M¯ adhava’s ´ nkaradigvijaya ¯ . These chapters are descriptions of religious pilgrimages and Sa ´ n ¯kar¯ travels undertaken by Sa ac¯ arya. 58 Siauve, La Doctrine, 10. 59 I rely on Mookerji for much of this summary. Mookerji, Ancient Indian Education, 366–373. I am reliant upon Griffiths for this language. Griffiths, Religious Reading, Ch. 3. 60 I say more about these rituals and RGD below in my analyses of M¯ adhva RGD. Not surprisingly, the schools of Ved¯ a nta shared many of the same RGD. 61 Buddhism also had a history in Tul.un¯ ad. u. However by medieval times it was displaced by Jainism and the Advaita and Vi´sis. t.¯advaita schools. There were still vestiges of Buddhism in medieval Tul.un¯ ad. u in the form of images and monuments rather than a community of adherents. Bhatt, 370–373. 62 Ibid., 444–448. Ishwaran, 43, 115–121. 63 Bhatt, 448. 64 Bhatt, 453. 65 There are far too many to summarize them here. For further reading, see Bhatt, 426–451. 66 Bhatt, 441. 67 ´ ¯ Bhatt, 282. Interestingly, the Ud. upi Sr ı Kr.s. n. a temple founded by Madhv¯ ac¯ arya in the 13th century CE and the as. .t amat  . has form a circle, within which is enclosed the ´ ¯ ´ ¯ Sr ı Anante´svara temple. The Sr ı Anante´svara temple, built in the 8th or 9th century ´ CE, has a form of  Siva as its centerpiece. 68 Bhatt, 283. 69 V¯ adir¯ aja, T ¯ ırthaprabandha, 56–58. Bhatt, 301–302. The T ¯ ırthaprabandha is historically significant as it is a description of temples and t ¯ ırthas, holy places, encountered by V¯ adir¯ aja. Sharma, History, 430. Work remains to be done on this important account. 70 Gonda, 70. 71 Gonda, 49. 72 ¯ ar  ¯ adhane: ¯ Nambiar, The Ritual Art of Teyyam and Bhut  Theatrical Performance with Spirit Mediumship. 73 Bhatt, 360. 74 Bhatt, 359. 75 Nambiar, 19. 76 According to Bhatt, the Ud. upi image is quite unusual given stylistic and iconographic matters and does not fit well with other Kr.s. n. a images produced in Tul.un¯ ad. u. Bhatt surmises that the image may have been sculpted in North India. Bhatt, 330–331. 77 For a brief analysis of contemporary M¯ adhva mat  . has, see Rao’s “The Udupi Madhva matha”. 78 It is not altogether clear that the system existed immediately after M¯ adhva’s death or if it was a later development. There is some inscriptional evidence, however,

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

623

which indicates that it took effect immediately upon Madhv¯ ac¯ arya’s demise. See Sharma, History, 192–194 for further details about this controversy. 79 As mentioned above, there was a controversy in the 16th century CE with regard to the K¯ a´s i and Gokarn. a mat  arasvata . has whose adherents are members of the S¯ Brahmin community. 80 Sharma, History 213. Of course, Jayasim . ha may be identical with Jayasim . ha II. 81 For example, the Bad. gan. a mat  . ha received a land in 1433 CE. Devi, 251. The Kr.s. n. apur and Adamar mat  received funds in 1402 CE and 1433 CE respectively. has . Sharma, History, 192. 82 The Vijayanagara empire, though in power one century after the as. .t amat  . has were founded, patronized all traditions and did not favor one tradition over the others. The mat  . has were regarded by Vijayanagara empires as centers of education – theological, philosophical, and otherwise. Ramanayya, 327–328. I suspect that this type of uniform funding may also have been existent at the time when the as. .t amat  . has were founded. See Sarma for more about M¯ adhva scholars in the Vijayanagara empire. 83 ¯ ¯ For further information regarding funding of the astika and nastika temples in South Karn. ¯ a.taka see Bhatt, Studies in Tul. uva History and Culture. A large portion of the evidence appealed to by Bhatt in his construction of the history of Tul.un¯ ad. u concerns inscriptions about funding. 84 ¯ . vidyam ¯ ¯ ¯ . manus ¯ at  ¯ | et am adh¯ ıtya brahmadar s´¯ ıvava bhavati | sa et am . yes . u vibr uy ¯ at ¯ tatha ¯ tatha ¯ adhiko ’bhavat ¯ ¯. harasrutau ´ ¯ anam ¯  yatha¯ yatha¯ ha vai br uy ı ti mat  vidyad  . ´ uyate ¯ ¯ am ¯ . sv¯ ¯ ¯ . k aren ¯ . e ’ti na mantavyam | anvayad  ¯ | tac ca bahun sr  ıkaran avis . artham ¯ . k are ¯ ¯ am ¯ ¯ ¯  yukteh ’yogyan api sv¯ ık arapr  aptih . | avis . | tac ca nis . iddham | BSB, 3.3.49, 342. 85 ¯ ¯ . | BSB, 3.4.10, 293. na sarves´am adhik arah 86 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ evam ukto naradena brahma¯ provaca sattamah ’dhik arasya mangal arthe . | anantartye tathaiva ca | athas´abdas . . . || BSB, 1.1.1, 24. Thus spoken to by N¯ arada, Brahm¯ a, the most excellent one, said: The word ‘then’ is used as an auspicious expression and for sequence of eligibility

... 87

¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ athah ¯ ˜as ¯ ay ¯ a ¯ tatra athas´abdah arthah ar  . anantary . parigr  . hyate nadhik  . brahmajijn ¯ ¯ anadhik aryatvat  | BSSB 1.1.1. 88 For a summary of these arguments see Clooney, Theology, 129–134. 89 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ s ´ayakartvyatvat ¯ tatparatayatha ¯ ´ ¯ . .t e granth adau mangal acaran sabdam . asyava . vyacas ¯ ˜ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ || atheti || muktyarthimatrasya brahmajijnasayam . ttinirasanaparatayapi tam . pravr  . ¯ ¯. a tasyabhidheyam ¯ ¯ ¯ || adhik areti || TP 1.1.1, 18. vyacaks artham aha . an 90 See Halbfass, “Vedic Orthodoxy” in his Tradition and Reflection for a general ¯ . Halbfass, Tradition and Reflection, 66–74. analysis of the concept of  adhik ari 91 I have expanded the semantic range of the scope of the term “texts” to encompass phenomena which are typically excluded or restricted from discussions in comparative philosophy of religion such as rituals, meditative practices, and other experiences. 92 ¯ a ¯ virr  ¯ ¯  yam evais svam | BSB, 1.1.1, .n .n . ute tena labhyas tasyais . ute tanum . a vr  . atm 27. Cited from the Kathopanis. ad , 2.23. He [the Lord] is attainable to whom He chooses. Only by that [grace, He], the Self, reveals His nature. ¯ aparoks ¯ ¯ ad ¯ eva na j¯ ´ . . . | BSB, 3.2.22, 126.  param atm ıvasaktyeti . ca tatprasad  . yam Direct realization of the highest Lord (comes] only from grace and not [from] the efforts of the j¯ ıva. 93 See Sheridan, “Direct Knowledge of God and Living Liberation in the Religious Thought of Madhva”. In this essay Sheridan links the state of  j¯ ıvanmukti in Advaita ¯ ˜ ¯ ¯ Vedanta to the state of obtaining aparoks. ajnana in Madhva Ved¯ anta. He argues that they are functionally equivalent.

624 94

DEEPAK SARMA

¯ s´ravan. am . mananam . caiva dhyanam . bhaktis tathaiva ¯ ˜ ¯ ¯ ¯ sadhanam . jnanasampattau pradhanam . nanyadis . yate ||

ca |

¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ na cait ani vina¯ kas´ cijjn˜anam apa kutas´cane ’ti narad  ıye | BSB, 1.1.1, 36. In his commentary on this passage, Jayat¯ırtha states: ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ . | jn ˜anasya ¯ ¯ ¯ et ani s´ravan. ad  ıni | kutas´ ca na karmadeh s´ravan. adyanvayavyatirekitv at  ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ tad eva pradhanas adhanam karm ades tadabh av at tatp aramparyen a s adhanam iti . . ¯ . | TP, 1.1.1, 37. bhavah The term “these” refers to hearing, etc. The phrase “from anywhere else” refers to “through action, etc.” Between hearing, etc. and knowledge there is an relationship of cause and effect. [Hearing, etc.] are the primary penances. As there is no [such relationship between knowledge] and action, it is an indirect penance. This is the case. ¯ If Jayat¯ırtha’s interpretation is correct then each sadhana is required. ¯ Detailed analyses of this list of  sadhanas can be found in Madhv¯ ac¯ arya’s ¯ as ¯. ya.  Bhagavadg¯ ıt abh 95 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ abrahmastambaparyantamas aram anityakam | vijn˜aya jatavair  agyo . capy ¯ ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ || vis. n. upadaikasam srayah sa uttamo ’dhikar  ı sy at sam nyast  akhilakarmav an iti | . . . BSB, 1.1.1, 27. He, having realized the essenceless and transient nature of things like grass up to brahman, detached, dwelling at the feet of Vis. n. u, and is one who has given up the entirety of his works, he would be the highest eligible one. 96 ¯ For an analysis of each of the sadhanas in M¯ adhva Ved¯ anta, see Sharma, Philosophy, 376–382. 97 ¯ a ¯s ´ cokta bhagavatatantre ¯ ¯ . ah adhik ar  | mandamadhyottamatvena trividha¯ hy adhik arin . ¯. | madhyama ¯ .r s ¯ ¯ | tatra mand a¯ manus. yes. u ya uttamagan. a¯ mat ah igandharv a dev as . ¯. || BSB, 1.1.1, 27. tatrottama mat ah 98 ¯ am ¯ . vedokte samyag bhaktimat am ¯ . harau || ahur ¯ ¯ traivarn apy uttamastr ¯ ın. am . ik an ¯ BSB, 1.1.1, 28. | adhik aram tu vaidike . 99 ¯ atharv ¯ ¯ ¯ ayan ¯ . am ¯ | bharatam ¯ ˜ ¯ r  gyajuh a¯s´ ca mular  am atram ca ved a¯ . . sam . tatha . pancar  ¯. || BSB, 2.1.5, 12. ity eva s´abdit ah 100 ¯ ¯ ¯ anyavidheh ¯ ´ ¯ vedah svadhy ayo ’dhyetavyah at . iti sam . | hisabd  . kr  . tsno ’dhigatavyah . | BSB, 3.3.3, 160. sarahasyo dvijanmane ti smr  teh . . ¯ ¯ The first passage cited by Madhv¯ ac¯ arya, svadhy ayo ’dhyetavyah ıya . , is from Taittar ¯ Upanis. ad  2.15. I have not been able to locate the origin of the second citation. 101 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ as. .t avars. am ı ta tam adhyapay ıtety adhyayanartham . br ahman . am upanay¯ . ¯ ¯ ´ ¯ BSB, 1.3.36, 321. | sam sk  arapar  amar  s at  . There are other age minimums for the Ks. atriya and Vai´sya castes – both of which were regarded as dvijatvavarn . a, twice born classes. See Mookerji, Ancient Indian  Education, 174 for further reading on the origins of this ritual practice. 102 I point out below that there are sentient beings, birds and other oviparous creature, who are dvijas, twice born by nature and, therefore, do not have to undergo the sacred thread initiation. 103 ¯ urdhvaretassu ca s´abde hi || BS 3.4.17, 303. ¯ ¯ ¯ an ¯. am ¯ . jn ˜ane ¯ ¯ . | ya idam ¯ na t avat  a¯ k amac ar  ’dhik arah . paramam . guhyam urdhvaretassu ¯ bhas. ayet  | BSB, 3.4.17, 303. 104 ¯ adhyayanamatravatah . || BS 3.4.12, 294. 105 ¯ avais. n. avasya vede ’pi hy adhik aro na vidyate | gurubhaktivih¯ ınasya ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ | sam adirahitasya ca || na ca varn avarasy api tasm ad adhyayan anvitah brahmaj n˜ane . . ¯ ¯ ¯ . mata iti brahmatarke || BSB, 3.4.12, 295. tu vedokte ’py adhik ar  ı sat am 106 ¯ ¯ am ¯ . tantrajn ˜ane ¯ ¯ a ¯ || ekadese ´ parokte tu na tu str ¯ ıs´udrabrahmabandh un ’dhik arit  granthapurah. sare | BSB, 1.1.1, 28. 107 I have not been able to uncover a gloss of the term brahmabandhu in any

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

625

commentaries. It is not clear what it means to earn the title of unworthy brahman and to be, for all intents and purposes, expelled from the Brahmin community. According to Prahl¯ ad¯ ac¯ a rya, it is possible to perform a ritual and be reinstated as an eligible Brahmin. 108 ¯. am ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ manus. yan eva vedavidyadhik  ara ity uktam | tiryagadyapeks . ayaiva ¯ ¯ BSB, 1.3.26, 297. | manus. yatvavis´es. an am uktam na tu dev adyapeks ayety aha . . . ¯. am ¯ The term manus. yan may be taken here to refer to the entire human race. The qualifier “male” is implied given the discussion that occurs later in connection with ¯ and women. According to Madhv¯ ac¯ a rya the former are not included in the sudras set of humans. With regard to the latter, Madhv¯ ac¯ arya addresses the eligibility of  women apart from others. For these reasons I take the qualifier “male” to be implied here. 109 ¯ ¯ . ah ¯ || BS 1.3.25, 297. tad upary api badar  ayan . sambhavat  110 ¯. am ¯ . sat am ¯ . devaditvapr  ¯ ¯ ¯. tad upari manus. yan aptyupari | sambhavati hi tes. am ´ . .t abuddhyadibh ¯ ¯ at  ¯ | tiryagad  ¯ ¯ ¯ . tadabhav ¯ ad ¯ ¯ . | tes ¯ visis av ınam abhavah am api yatra . ´ . .t abuddhyadibh ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ av ¯ at  ¯ | dr  ¯ adayah ¯ visis avas tatr avirodhah ary . | nis .s . . edhabh .  yante hi jarit  || BS 1.3.26, 297. This discussion of intellect leads to a debate regarding the eligibility of the gods ¯ and s´udras . It is for this reason that the passage begins with reference to the state of gods. I summarize these debates below. 111 MBh, 1.220.15–17. 112 ¯ ¯ adhik aram ¯ ´¯ ¯ a ¯s ´ ahur apy uttamastr ¯ ın. am ı yam¯ ı caiva s´acyady . tu vaidike | yathorvas ¯ ca tathapar  a¯ || BSB, 1.1.1, 28. 113 B. N. K. Sharma may be referring to this very point when he states: “In his [Madhv¯ ac¯ arya’s] view, K¯ ama-Bhakti or erotic devotion is the special privilege of the Apsarases [sic] and ought not to be practised by others”. This may help to explain Madhv¯ ac¯ arya’s choice. Sharma, Philosophy, 393. 114 ¯ ¯ ahur iti || tatha¯ par a¯ munistriyo nar adikulaj a¯s´ ca | TP, 1.1.1, 29. 115 [Explanation of the passage beginning] “They say . . . ”: The highest, then, are those well born and the wives of the munis, sages. ¯ ¯ ´edhyaye ¯ nar adikulaj a¯s´ ceti | taduktam | devyo munistriyas´ . t atparyanirn . aye ekonatrim . s ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ | R¯aghavendrat¯ırtha, Bhavad  caiva nar adikulaj api ıpa, 1.1.1, 33. 116 I am reliant upon interviews and discussions with Profs. Prahl¯ ad¯ ac¯ arya, Harid¯ asa Bhat, Pan. d. urangi, and Pur¯ an. ika for data in connection with this contemporary issue. 117 There is a discussion in the contemporary M¯ adhva community about this ambiguity regarding the restrictive doctrines for women. The discussion concerns the nature of  ¯ , innate disposition, is inherently gendered. individual j¯ ıvas, agents. That is, svabhava ¯ , moreover, can be born in bodies of genders opposed to the gender of the Svabhava ¯ ; a female svabhava ¯ ¯ may be born in a male body and a male svabhava svabhava may be born in a female body. Given this confluence of gender, there is a question ¯ as to the ability of female svabhava residing in male bodies to study the Vedas etc. ¯ as well as the ability of male svabhava residing in female bodies! There are two possibilities here; either there are restrictive governing doctrines that mandate that accessibility and membership is not possible in future lifetimes or there are restrictive governing doctrines that mandate that accessibility and membership is not possible in this lifetime. Although the contemporary discussion is moot, it nevertheless indicates the relevance of restrictive doctrines. Determining the gender of an individual’s ¯ appears to evoke the same problems with regard to determining the nature svabhava ¯ of some sentient’s purvajanma , previous birth. This discussion, moreover, did not occur only as a hypothesis. Prof. Nambiar, for example, recalls a debate among traditional pan . d  . its in the 1950’s with regard to her own eligibility. They concluded ¯ that she was the possessor of a male svabhava and she was thus able to receive

626

DEEPAK SARMA

some Sanskrit training. Nambiar, personal interview, May 1997. Similar issues were discussed in Jain texts. See Jaini’s Gender and Salvation. 118 ¯ ¯ am ¯ . tantrajn ˜ane ¯ ¯ a ¯ || ekadese ´ parokte tu na tu str ¯ ıs´udrabrahmabandh un ’dhik arit  granthapurah. sare | BSB, 1.1.1, 28. 119 ˜ ¯ adi ¯ | TP, 1.1.1, 29. tantram atr  . pancar  120 According to Granoff such cases may indicate more widespread literacy in medieval India. Granoff, personal communication, May 9, 1998. Work remains to be done in connection with literacy in medieval Tul.un¯ ad. u. See Granoff, “The Role of  Written Texts in Medieval Jain Sectarian Conflicts” for related issues. 121 ¯ . tu na s ´udravat  ¯ ¯ ¯ . v adhik aradar  ¯ ´ at  ¯ | sapatn¯ım uttamastr ¯ ın ’tyadis san . am . me par adhame ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ sk  ar  abhaven abhavas tu s am anyena asti ca t  as am sam sk  arah str  ı n am | sam | | . . . . . . ¯  prad anakarmaiva yathopanayanam . teh . tathe ’ti smr  . || BSB, 1.3.36, 321. According to the notes in Panchamukhi’s edition, the passage “along with my wife, ´ the highest” is taken from the Mantrapra sna 1–16. The smr  . ti passage is from ´ ¯  Manavadharmas astra 2.67. Jayat¯ırtha’s commentary on the verse helps to contextualize the passage from the  Mantrapra s´na: ¯ ¯ abhavena ¯ ¯ ¯ abhavo ¯ ¯. s ´udravat uttameti || nottamastr ¯ ın. am sam vedavidyadhik  ar  . sk ar  ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ vaktavyah saptn ı m me par  adhame ty adividy asu sacy ad  ı n am tad  | . . . ¯ ¯ ¯ ity arthah dras. .t r  aradar  s´anad . tvenadhik  . | TP, 1.3.36, 322. [Explanation of the passage beginning] “The highest . . . ”: It is not fit to say [that] ¯ the highest among women are [like] s´udras , [that they] lack of an initiation rite, and [that they] are not eligible for the knowledge of the Vedas. [The highest among ¯ woman are not like s´udras is evident] in passages like “along with my wife, the ´ ¯ highest.” with regard to Sac ı, etc., from seeing the eligibility, by being seers of that [knowledge]. This is the meaning [of the passage]. ´ ¯ Presumably, the passage refers to women like Sac ı and the like who are the consorts of gods, r  , and the like. s is, munis .. 122 ¯ ¯ adhik aram ¯ ´¯ ¯ a ¯s ´ ahur apy uttamastr ¯ ın. am ı yam¯ ı caiva s´acyady . tu vaidike | yathorvas ¯ ca tathapar  a¯ || BSB, 1.1.1, 28. Of course, there is still a problem regarding who is also included in the set due ¯ , “and the rest”. to the use of the term adi 123 ˜ ´udr  ¯ adyaih ¯ ¯. ya, 1.6. [vis. n ac¯ arya, An. ubhas na vedaih . ur ] jneyo . s . . . . | Madhv¯ There is, of course, an ambiguity here in connection with the term adi, translated here ´ ¯ as “and the like.” This text does not have many commentaries. Chal¯ ari Ses arya, . ac¯ ´ ¯ ¯ , a a 17th century M¯ adhva, clarifies this ambiguity in his Tattvaprak a¯sikavy akhy ana ¯. ya: commentary on the An. ubhas ¯ ´ ¯ aran ¯ . astrinnovation n ¯ ¯ an ¯. am ¯ adya sabdena sadh varn ca grahan . am . abahy . am | ¯ ¯ , 43. Tattvaprak a¯s´ikavyakhy ana By the term “and others”, ordinary women and those excluded from the class system is to be understood. 124 ¯ ¯ ¯ ´ . ac ¯ cchudrasy ¯ ¯ . . . | BSB, 1.3.33, 316. manus. yadhik  aratv adity ukte ’vises apy When “Because of the eligibility of male humans” is said, because of this lack of  ¯ distinction, [there is eligibility] for s´udras . The context of this argument is debates about the eligibility of the gods. 125 Olivelle, Upanis. ads, 129. 126 ¯ s ´rutih ¯ . ah ´ anigav ¯ ¯ nis ´ ¯ ¯ tad u ha j ana am ıratham . pautr ayan . s . at  . sat  . kam asvatar  . tad adaya ¯ ¯ ¯ , 4.2.1, 263. ||   praticakrame tam h abhyuv ada Ch andogya Upanis ad  . . “Taking with him six hundred cows, a gold necklace, and a carriage drawn by a she-mule, J¯ ana´sruti Pautr¯ ayan. a went back to Raikva and said to him . . . ” Translation is from Olivelle, Upanis. ads, 128–129. 127 ¯ aha ¯ ¯ tam u ha parah hare tva¯ s´udra tavaiva saha gobhir astv iti . pratyuvac

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

627

¯ . . . | Chandogya Upanis. ad , 4.2.1, 263. The translation is from Olivelle, Upanis. ads,

129. 128 129

¯ Chandogya Upanis. ad , 4.2.1, 264. ¯ ¯ ¯ . okter adhik ara ¯ ¯ . . . apy aha hare tva¯ s´udre ’ti pautr ayan ityat aha | BSB, 1.3.33,

316. ¯ And also “Hey you! [Drive them back to your palace,] s´udra ! Keep [your goods ¯ and cows!]” spoken to Pautr¯ ayan. a. [Therefore] they say “[the s´udra ] is eligible”. ¯ The translation of this portion of the Chandogya Upanis. ad  is from Olivelle’s Upanis. ads, 129. 130 ´ ¯ ¯ tad a ¯ dravan ¯ sucyate ¯ sugasya tad anadara s´ravan hi || BS 1.3.34, 316. . at . at ¯ Of him there is distress, at that time it [his status as a s´udra ] is indicated from the oozing [of tears]. ¯ ¯ . as ´s ´udrah ¯ ´ adravan ¯ ´udratvam ¯ | kamvera etam etat santam nasau pautr ayan . suc . am eva s ¯ ´ ¯ ˜ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ity anadara sravan at  sa ha sa njih anaiva ks att  aram uv ace ’ti sucyate hi | BSB, | . . 1.3.34, 316. ¯ ¯ That Pautr¯ ayan. a is not a s´udra . The status of being a s´udra is the tearing due to distress from hearing the disdain “Why [do you speak of him as if her were Raikva,] the Gatherer?” It is [also] indicated [from hearing the disdain and from the passage ¯ in the Chandogya Upanis. ad  4.1.5] “as soon as he got up in the morning, he said to his steward”. ¯ The translation of this portion of the Chandogya Upanis. ad  is from Olivelle’s Upanis. ads, 128. ¯ Madhv¯ ac¯ arya is consistent here as he glosses the term s´udra in the same way in his ¯ commentary on the Chandogya Upanis. ad . ´ adrevan ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯a ¯ pautr ayan ¯ . ah ´ acc ¯ udreti ¯ suc udrah munibodhitah . accch . | r aj . | sok  . | ¯ ¯ Chandogyopanis . adbhas . ya, 4.2.1–2, 262–263. ¯ The grandson of the king, a s´udra from tearing due to distress, is called a “distressed ¯ ”. s´udra I translate nirukta as “word derivation” and not “etymology” in light of Patton’s argument regarding this issue. See Patton, Myth, 142. 131 ¯ ¯ at  ¯ || BS 1.3.35, 320. ks. atriyatvavagate s´ cottaratra caitrarathena li ng ¯ And, [that Pautr¯ ayan. a is not a s´udra ] from the understanding of [his] status as a ks. atriya by reason of the mark of the chariot subsequently [mentioned]. ˙ ¯ . asya ayam as´vatar ¯ ıratheti citrarathasambandhitvena lingena pautr ayan ¯ ¯. d  ks. atriyatvavagate s´ ca | rathastvas´vatar ¯ ıyuktis´citra ity abhidh¯ ıyata | iti brahman .e | BSB, 1.3.35, 320. “This citra-chariot drawn by a she mule” by reason of the characteristic mark, the connection with the citra-chariot, Pautr¯ ayan. a is understood to be a ks. atriya. But the chariot that is one whose yoke is with a mule is called ‘citra.’´’ So [it is said] in ¯. d  the Brahman . a. 132  yatra vedo rathas tatra na vedo yatra no ratha iti brahmavaivarte | BSB, 1.3.35, 320. 133 ¯ Chandogya Upanis. ad , 4.4, 270–271. Mookerji, 131–132. 134 ¯ ¯ . e ca pravr  tad abhavanirdh aran . tteh . || BS 1.3.37, 323. And of [H¯ aridruma’s] proceeding with regard to the ascertainment [that Satyak ¯ ama] ¯ was not [a s´udra ]. ¯ ¯ naham etad veda bho yadgotro ’hamasm¯ ıti satyavacanena satyak amasya ¯ ¯ avanirdh ¯ ¯ . e haridrumatasya ¯ ¯ s´udratv abh aran naitad abr ahman ıiti . o vivaktumarhat ¯ ¯ ´ BSB, 1.3.37, 323. || tatsam sk  are pravr  te s ca . . 135 ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ smr  ´ ca || BS 1.3.38, 323. sravan arthapratis . tes . adhyayan . edhat 136 Literally “desire to hear” in this case “desire to hear the order of  . . . ” 137 ´ ¯ . srotraparip ´ ¯ . am | adhyayane jihvacchedah ¯ sravan uran . e trapujatubhyam . | ¯ ¯ . e hr  ¯ . am iti pratis ¯ | nagnir ¯ ˜ s ´ s ´udrasya ¯ arthavadh aran na yajna . dayavid aran . edhat 

628

DEEPAK SARMA

¯ ´ sr  ´ us ¯. a ¯ trivarn ¯ am ¯ . vidh¯ ´ ca | tathaivadhyaynam ıyateti smr  . kutah . | kevalaiva tu su . an . tes ¯ ¯ ¯ ˜ ¯ ¯ ´ ´ vidur ad ınam . tu utpannajnanatvat kascid vises . || BSB, 1.3.38, 323–24. . ah 138 ¯ BSB, 323. For further reading in connection with the Gautama Dharma Sutras , ¯ see Mitra’s introduction to the critical edition of the Gautama Dharma Sutras and see Kane, 22–38. 139 ¯ ¯ ¯ . tu utpannajn ˜anatv ¯ ¯ kas ´cid vises ´ . ah vidur ad  ınam at . || BSB, 1.3.38, 324. 140 MBh, 1.100.22–28. 141 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˜a(na)nitvenetara¯ vidur ad  ınam iti || tes. am purvajanmany utpannaparoks . ajn ¯ adibhyo ¯ ´ . .t atvat ¯ ved arth ¯ ¯ ¯ . adi ¯ ¯ . | ato harih s´udr  visis avadh aran na nis. iddham iti bhavah . ¯ adyair ¯ ˜ s´udr  vedavidya¯ vijneyo na bhavat ¯ ıti siddham || TP, 1.3.38, 324. 142 ¯ rva M¯ The debate between the schools of Ved¯ a nta and the Pu ım¯ am a schools are . s¯ ¯ summarized in Clooney’s “ Devat adhikaran ım¯ am a. a: A Theological Debate in the M¯ . s¯ Ved¯ anta Tradition”. In this article, Clooney looks primarily at the gods and their relationship to ritual and mediation. He does not examine the relationship between ¯ a ¯, the inquiry into brahman. the gods and brahmajijn˜as 143 ¯ . v asam ¯ anadhik aram ¯ madhvadis . bhavad . jaiminih . || BS 1.3.31, 312. 144 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ | pr aptapad  ¯ ¯ am ¯ . devan ¯ am ¯. vasunam evaiko bhutve ’ty adinapr apyaphalatvat  an ¯ ¯ ¯ madhvadividy asv anadhik aram . jaiminir manyate | BSB, 1.3.31, 312. ¯ The translation of this portion of the Chandogya Upanis. ad  is from Olivelle’s Upanis. ads, 120. 145 ¯ am ¯ ¯ sa ya etad evam amr  evaiko bhutvagninaiva mukhenaitad  . tam . veda vasun ¯ . tam ¯ ¯ . . . , 3.6.2, 202. || evamr  dr  s t  v a tr   pyati Ch andogya Upanis ad  . .. . . . ¯ The translations of the portion of the Chandogya Upanis. ad  are from Olivelle’s Upanis. ads, 120. The numbering of the amr  . ta is connected with the order of the myths; for vasus it is the first amr  , for the second, etc. This series of passages can be found ta rudras . ¯ in Chandogya Upanis. ad , 3.6–3.10, 202–204. 146 ¯ ac ¯ ca || BS 1.3.32, 314.  jyotis. i bhav 147 ˜ ¯ ac ¯ ca | adityaprak  ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ am ¯  jyotis. i sarvajnatve bhav a¯s´e ’ntarbhavavat tajjn˜ane sarvavast un ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ antarbhavat  | nityasiddhatvac ca vidyanam | BSB, 1.3.32, 314. And from being in the light [of  brahman, that is] being all knowing. Because all things are included in knowledge of that [brahman] just as the inclusion [of all things] in the light of the sun, and because their knowledge is eternally established. 148 ¯ ¯ ¯ . o ’sti hi || BS 1.3.33, 314. bhavam ayan . tu badar  149 ´ . abhav ¯ at ¯ pr aptapad  ¯ ¯ am ¯ ¯ am ¯ . madhvadis ¯ . v apy adhik aram ¯  phalavises an api devan . ¯ ¯ . o manyate | asti hi prak a ¯savi ´ ´ . ah BSB, 1.3.33, 314. badar  ayan ses | . 150 ¯ ¯ ´ . at a ¯ | sam ¯ ca prak a ¯sasya ´  yavat seva¯ pare tatve t avat sukhavises param . bhavac ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ || | ekamr  te harim tes am s amarthyayog ac ca dev an am apy up asanam sarvam ıyate . . . . vidh¯ ˜ ¯ ¯ BSB, 1.3.33, 314. nityam sarvayaj n adikarma ce ’ti sk  ande || . 151 ¯ tatrottama ¯ mat ah ¯. || BSB, 1.1.1, 27. . . . devas 152 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ adhik  ¯ ¯. in antyaja api ye bhakt a namajn˜an ar  . ah . | BSB, 1.1.1, 28. 153 ¯ ¯ TP, 1.1.1, 28. antyaja¯ varn ab ahy ah | . . 154 See Halbfass’ “Tradition Indian Xenology” in his India and Europe and Killingley’s “ Mlecchas, Yavanas and Heathens: Interacting Xenologies in Early Nineteenth-Century Calcutta” for introductions to the xenological thought and categories of classical India. 155 ¯ ¯ ´ ¯. sam adigrahan sraddh ah . hyante | ata eva . ena ca vis . ayatitiks . ataduparamatattva . gr  ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ anam ¯ srutih tasm ac ch anto d  anta uparatistitiks uh sraddh avitto bh utv atmany evatm . . . . ´ ¯ ´ ¯ ¯ ¯  pasyet sarvam atmani pas´yati iti | tatdetasya samadam adir  upasya sadhanasya sam . pat  ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ mumuks ¯ bhavat ¯  prakars. a s´amadamadis adhanasam an ıty . pat  | tato ’sya sam . sarabandhan .a ¯ ¯ ¯ , 1.1.1, 154. aha mumuks. utvam ca iti Bh amat  ı | .

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

629

156

´ ¯ ¯ sabdo ´ ¯ samada adisampattir ity atra cadi na yuktah eva . || tena titiks . ader ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ grahan. am . na tu vivek ader iti niyamahetos titiks . ttasya . anugatasya vivek adivyavr  ¯ ¯ ¯ || TC 1.1.1, 135–136. copasam abhav at  . gr ahakadharmasy ¯ . gr ahakadharma ¯ is a term in Ny¯ aya connoting the limiting characteristic by Upasam which some are included in the set and others are excluded. 157 ¯ ¯ adhik aram ¯ ´¯ ¯ a ¯s ´ ahur apy uttamastr ¯ ın. am ı yam¯ ı caiva s´acyady . tu vaidike | yathorvas ¯ ca tathapar  a¯ || BSB, 1.1.1, 28. 158 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ cchudrasy ¯ ¯ . . . | BSB, 1.3.33, 316. “Because manus. yadhik  aratv adityukte ’vis´es. ac api of the eligibility of male humans” it is proven. Because of this non-distinction, [there ¯ is eligibility] for s´udras . The context of this argument is debates about the eligibility of the gods. 159 See Patton’s Myth as Argument  for a brief analysis of what she calls the “mythic process” whereby myths are used to provoke philosophical discussion and vice versa. Patton, Myth, 41–44. 160 Zydenbos, personal communication 1-14-99. 161 See Sharma, History of Dvaita School, 139 for a summary of the contents of  this text. My summary here is, in part, reliant upon Sharma’s. An anus. .t ubh is a class of meter. 162 ¯ ¯ . . . | V adalaks ¯ vado jalpo vitan. d  . eti trividha . an . a, 2, 69. ¯ ¯. The three-fold [debating methods] are vada, jalpa, and vitan . d  .a 163 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ vitan d  a tu sat  am anyais tattvam es u nig uhitum V  adalaks || .. . a, 3, 271, 273. . . an ¯ ¯ ¯ anyaih . asadbhis saha | Jayatırtha, V adalaks . atik a, 3, 271, 273. . an [The word] “with another” [means] along with wicked [opponents]. 164 ¯ cchuddhabudh¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ || AV, 551, 3159. daurlabhyac ın am bahuly ad alpavedinam ¯ ¯ ca lokasya mithyaj ¯n ˜anaprasaktitah ¯ ¯ t amasatv ac vidves atprame tattve tattvavedis | . . .u ¯ sam ´ || AV, 552, 3159. cani 165

¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯. am ¯ . bahutvatah ¯ ¯ vartante samayah ¯. anadiv asan ayog adasur  an ıtatvad . h¯ . | dur agrahagr  sad a¯ || AV, 553, 3159. 166 ¯ ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ tathapi suddhabuddh ın am ıs´anugrahayogin am | suyuktayas tamo hanyur  ¯ ¯ ¯. sad a ¯ || AV, 554, 3162. agam anugat  ah ˜anam ¯ ¯ tamah Sudha¯ 3162. | Jayat¯ırtha, Nyaya . ajn [The term] “darkness” [refers to] the ignorant. 167 ¯ ¯ am ¯ . nir akr  ¯ . tim | cak ara ¯ ¯ am ¯ iti vidyapatih nijabhakt an . samyak samayan ´ ¯ AV, 555, 3162, 3167. || buddhisan . atvasiddhaye

REFERENCES

Primary Sources ´ ¯ ´ ¯ ´ ¯ ¯ . In An ¯. ya of  Sr  ¯ arya ¯ Chal¯ ari Ses arya. Tattvaprak a¯sikavy akhy ana ı Madhvac with . ac¯ . ubhas ´ ¯ ´ ac ¯ ¯ ¯ Ses ¯ ¯ . R. G. Malagi the commentary, Tattvaprak a¯s´ikavyakhy ana of  Sr  ı Chalari arya . ed. Mysore: Oriental Research Institute, 1985. ¯ ¯. ya (A Critical Edition). V. Mitra Gautama. Gautama Dharma Sutra with Maskari Bhas ed. Delhi: Veda Mitra and Sons, 1969. ´ ¯ Jayat¯ırtha. Tattvoddyotat . ¯ (4 vols.). P.P. ık a¯. In Dasa Prakaran . ani ¯rn ˜ ¯ ¯ Laks. m¯ın¯ ar¯ ayon. op¯ adhy¯ aya ed. Bangalore: Pu apraj n a Vidy apit.ha, 1971. . ¯ ¯ ´ ¯ Jayat¯ırtha. V adalaks . In (4 vols.). P.P. an atik  a Da sa Prakaran ani . . . ˜¯ Laks. m¯ın¯ ar¯ ayan. op¯ adhy¯ aya ed. Bangalore: P¯ urn. aprajn a Vidy¯ apit.ha, 1971. ´ ¯ ¯ Jayat¯ırtha. Sr  adi mat  adi mat  ımannyayasudh a¯. Uttar¯ . ha ed. Bangalore: Uttar¯ . ha, 1982. ¯ ¯ ´ Jayatırtha. Tattvaprak asika. Panchamukhi ed. Delhi: Indological Research Centre, 1994. ´ astri ed. Poona: Oriental Book Supply Agency, 1919. ¯ K athakopanis . at . Sridhara S¯

630

DEEPAK SARMA

¯ anuvy ¯ ¯ ¯ . Pan Madhv¯ ac¯ arya. Brahmasutr  akhy ana .d . urangi ed. Bangalore: Prabha Printing House, 1991. ¯ ¯. yam. R. Raghavendracharya ed. Mysore: Government Madhv¯ ac¯ arya. Brahmasutrabh as Branch Press, 1911. ¯ Madhv¯ ac¯ arya. Das´a Prakaran (4 vols.). P. P. Laks. m¯ın¯ ar¯ ayan. op¯ adhy¯ a ya ed. . ani ¯rn ˜ ¯ ¯ Bangalore: Pu apraj n a Vidy a pit ha, 1971. . . ¯ ¯. . Govind¯ Madhv¯ ac¯ arya. Sarvamulagranth ac¯ arya ed. Bangalore: Akhila Bharata ah Madhwa Mahamandala, 1969–74. ¯ aratat  ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯. . Govind¯ Madhv¯ ac¯ arya. Mahabh ac¯ arya atparyanirn ah . aya. Vol. 2. Sarvamulagranth ed. Bangalore: Akhila Bharata Madhwa Mahamandala, 1969–74. ¯. alaks ¯ ¯. . Govind¯ Madhv¯ ac¯ arya. Praman ac¯ a rya ed. ah . an . am. Vol. 5. Sarvamulagranth Bangalore: Akhila Bharata Madhwa Mahamandala, 1969–74. ¯ ´ ¯ Madhv¯ ac¯ arya. V adalaks (4 vols.). P. P. Prakaran . an . am. Vol. 1. Dasa . ani ˜¯ Laks. m¯ın¯ ar¯ ayan. op¯ adhy¯ aya ed. Bangalore: P¯ urn. aprajn a Vidy¯ apit.ha, 1971. ¯ . . Vol. 5. Sarvamulagranth ¯ ¯. . Govind¯ Madhv¯ ac¯ arya. V adah ac¯ arya ed. Bangalore: Akhila ah Bharata Madhwa Mahamandala, 1969–74. ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ . In Sr  ¯ Madhv¯ ac¯ arya. Anuvyakhy adi mat  ana ımannyayasudh a¯. Uttar¯ . ha ed. Bangalore: Uttar¯ adi mat  , 1982. ha . ¯. ya. In An ¯.  ya of Sri Madhvacarya with the commentary, Madhv¯ ac¯ arya. An. ubhas . ubhas ´ ¯ ¯ Tattvaprak a¯sikavy akhy ana of Sri Chalari Seshacarya. Malledevaru ed. Mysore: Oriental Research Institute, 1985. ¯ atparyanirn ¯ Madhv¯ ac¯ arya. G¯ ad¯ ac¯ a rya ed. Bangalore: ıt at  . ayah . . Prahl¯ ¯ ˜ ¯ Purn. aprajnavidyapit.ham, 1987. Madhv¯ ac¯ arya. Brahma Sutra Bhashya. Panchamukhi ed. Delhi: Indological Research Centre, 1994. ¯ ¯. yam. K. T. Pan Madhv¯ ac¯ arya. Chandogya Upanis. asadbhas .d . urangi ed. Bangalore: Dvaita Ved¯ anta Studies and Research Foundation, 1994. ´ ¯.  yam of  Srimad  ¯ ¯ ¯ ac ¯ arya; ¯ Narasimhan, K. R anandat  ırtha Bhagavadpad  Volume 1. . g Bhas Tirunelveli: Guru Offset Printers, 1996. N¯ ar¯ ayan. a Pan. d. it¯ ac¯ arya. Sumadhvavijayah . . Prabhanjanacharya ed. Bangalore: Varna Graphics, 1996. O’Flaherty, Wendy Doniger. Hindu Myths. Great Britain: Penguin Books, 1975. O’Flaherty, Wendy Doniger. The Rig Veda. Great Britain: Penguin Books, 1981. Olivelle, Patrick. Upanis. ads. Great Britain: Oxford U.P., 1996. ¯ ¯. ya of Anandat ¯ ´ a ¯ of  Pandurangi, K. T. Brahma Sutra Bhas ırtha with Tattvaprak a¯sik  anta Studies and Research Foundation, 1994.  Jayat ¯ ırtha. Bangalore: Dvaita Ved¯ ¯ aratat  ¯ ¯ Pan. d. urangi, K. T. Mahabh atparyanirn . aya. Bangalore: Sriman Madhva Siddhantonnahini Sabha, 1993. Pan. d. urangi, K. T. Vis . u-Tattva Vinirn . aya; Translated into English with Detailed  .n anta Studies and Research Foundation, 1991.  Notes. Bangalore: Dvaita Ved¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Pan. d. it¯ ac¯ arya, N¯ ar¯ ayan. a. Bhavaprak  a¯s´ika in Sumadhvavijayah a¯s´ik asametah . , Bhavaprak  .. ˜jan¯ ed. Prabhan ac¯ arya. Bangalore: Sri Man Madhwa Siddantonnahini Sabha, 1989. ¯ ´ asametah ¯ Pan. d. it¯ ac¯ a rya, N¯ ar¯ ayan. a. Sumadhvavijayah a¯sik  . , Bhavaprak  . . ed. ˜jan¯ Prabhan ac¯ arya. Bangalore: Sri Man Madhwa Siddantonnahini Sabha, 1989. ´ ¯ ´ ı ¯.  ya or Sarvas ´astr  ¯ ¯ Raghavachar, S. S. Sr  ı Madhva’s An. ubhas artha Sangrahah . of  Sr ¯  Madhva. Madras: Dharmaprakash Publications, 1973. ´ ¯ ´ ı Madhvac ¯ arya ¯ Raghavachar, S. S. Sr  . Madras: ımad Vis. n . u-Tattva Vinirn . aya by Sr ¯ Institute of Git¯ a Studies, 1985. ¯..t asam R¯ aghavendrat¯ırtha. Bhat  ın¯ ar¯ ayan. a Up¯ adhy¯ aya ed. Madras: . graha. P. P. Lakshm¯ Brindavan Office, 1974. ¯ ¯ R¯ aghavendrat¯ırtha. Bhavad  ıpa. Panchamukhi ed. Delhi: Indological Research Centre, 1994. ¯ ¯. yam. R. Raghavendracharya ed. Mysore: R¯ agavendrat¯ırtha. Prak a¯s´a in Brahmas´utrabh as Government Branch Press, 1911.

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

631

Rao, S.K. Ramachandra.   ¯Agama-kosha  (¯Agama Encyclopaedia) Vol. IV  ˜ ¯ agama ¯ . Bangalore: Kalpatharu Research Academy, 1989. [Includes Pa¯nchar  atr  ¯ a partial translation of Madhva’s Tantrasarasam . graha.] Rao, S. Subba. The Bhagavad Gita; Translation and Commentaries in English according to Sri Madhwacharya’s Bhashyas. Madras: Minerva press, 1906. Rao, S. Subba. The Vedanta-Sutras with the commentary of Sri Madhwacharya. Tirupati: Sri Vyasa Press, 1936. ´ ¯ ¯ ayan ¯ . a Pan ¯ arya’s ¯ Rau, D. R. Vasudeva. N ar  Sr  ı Madhva Vijaya. Madras: . d  . it ac ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ Srımadananda Tırtha Publications, 1983. ´ nkara ¯kar¯ ¯ ¯ ¯.  yam: Bhamat  ¯ ¯ San ac¯ arya. Brahma Sutra Sa Bhas ıkalpataruparimalopetam. Subrahmanya et al. eds. Sri Vani Vilas Press: Srirangam, 1914. ´ n ´ nkara ¯kar¯ ¯ ¯ ¯.  ya: With the Commentaries Bhamat  ¯ ¯ Sa ac¯ arya. Brahma Sutra Sa Bhas ı, Kalpataru, and Parimala. K. L. Joshi ed. Delhi: Parimal Publications, 1996. ¯ ¯ ¯ Sastri, S. S. Suryanarayana and C. Kunhan Raja ed. tr. The Bhamat  . ı of V acaspati Adyar: Theosophical Publishing House, 1992. ´ ¯ ¯.  ya of  Sr  ¯ arya ¯ Sharma, B. N. K. The Bhagavadg¯ . Bangalore: ıt a¯ Bhas ı Madhvac Anandat¯ırtha Pratishth¯ ana, 1989. ¯ a) ¯ Selon Siauve, Suzanne. La Voie vers la Connaisance de Dieu (Brahma-Jijn˜as ¯ ana ¯ l’Anuvyakh de Madhva. Publications de L’Institut Franc¸ais D’Indologie No. 6. Pondich´ ery: Institut Franc¸ais D’Indologie, 1957. ´ ¯ ana ¯ Siauve, Suzanne. Les Noms V ediques De Vis. n. u; Dans l’Anuvyakh de Madhva ¯ ` . Publications de L’Institut Franc¸ais (Brahma-Sutra I, 1, adhikaran a 2 a 12) . ´ D’Indologie No. 14. Pondichery: Institut Franc¸ais D’Indologie, 1959. ´ ¯ ¯ Siauve, Suzanne. Les Hierarchies Spiritualles Selon l’Anuvyakhy ana de Madhva. Publications de L’Institut Franc¸ais D’Indologie No. 43. Pondich´ ery: Institut Franc¸ais D’Indologie, 1971. ¯ Sundaram, P. K. Is. .t a Siddhi of Vimukt atman: An English Translation with Notes and   Introduction. Madras: Swadhara Swaarajya Sangha, 1980. ¯ ¯. ik at  ¯. ¯ ¯ ¯rn ˜¯ V¯ adir¯ aja. Bhavaprak  avidy¯ ap¯ıt.ha as ık asahitah . . photocopy of text in Pu . aprajn library. Bibliographic information not available. ˜jan¯ V¯ adir¯ aja. T ¯ ac¯ aryah. ed. Udupi: Bhandarkere Math, ırthaprabandhah . . V. Prabhan 1990. ˙ . epas ´ar  ¯ ¯ ˜ Veezhinathan, N. The Samks ıraks of Sarvajnatman; Critically Edited with   Introduction Notes and Indexes. Madras: Centre for Advanced Study in Philosophy; Uviv. of Madras, 1972. ¯ arata ¯ Vy¯ asa. Mahabh . Dandekar ed. Poona: The Bhadarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1971. ¯ ¯ ¯. yam. R. Raghavendracharya ed. Vy¯ asat¯ırtha. T atparyacandrik  a¯ in Brahmas´utrabh as Mysore: Government Branch Press, 1911. ¯ Vy¯ asat¯ırtha. T atparyacandrik  a¯. H. R. Rao ed. Mysore: Hare Pahi Prakashan, 1981. ¯ ¯ Secondary Sources on M adhva Ved anta and Other Schools of Indian Philosophy ¯ ¯ Anantharangachar, N. S. The Philosophy of Sadhana . Mangalore: in Vis´is. .t advaita Sharada Press, 1967. Apte, V. S. The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Kyoto: Rinsen Book Co., 1986. Badrinath, G. Life and Works of Sri Jayatirtha [Sri Teekacharya]. Gadgag: R. S. Hombali Press, n.d. Bhat, Harid¯ asa. Interview. Bangalore, India. 2-14-96. Tape recording, with author. Bhatt, P. Gururaja. Studies in Tul. ava History and Culture. Manipal: Manipal Power Press, 1975.

632

DEEPAK SARMA

Champakalakshmi, R. “Religion and Social Change in Tamil Nadu (c. AD 600–1300)”. In Medieval Bhakti Movements in India. N. N. Bhattacharyya ed. 162–173. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1989. Chopra, P. N. et al. ed. History of South India. New Delhi: S. Chand and Co. Ltd., 1979. ¯ Clooney, Francis X. “ Devat adhikaran ım¯ am a-Ved¯ anta . s¯ . a: A Theological Debate in the M¯ Tradition”. Journal of Indian Philosophy Vol. 16 (1988): 277–298. ¯ ¯ . sa ¯ of Jaimini. Clooney, Francis X. Thinking Ritually: Rediscovering the Purva M ¯ ımam De Nobili Research Library Vol. XVII. Vienna: E.J. Brill, 1990. Clooney, Francis X. “From Anxiety to Bliss; Argument, Care, and Responsibility in the Ved¯ anta Reading of  Tattir ¯ ıya 2.1–6a”. In Authority, Anxiety, and Canon. ed. L. Patton. 139–170. NY: State University of New York Press, 1994. Diwakar, R. R. ed. Karnataka Through the Ages. Bangalore: Govt. of Mysore, 1968. ¯ Doniger, Wendy. “The Scrapbook of Underserved Salvation: The Ked ara Khan. d  .a ¯. a”. In Pur an ¯. a Perennis: Reciprocity and Transformation in of the Skanda Pur an  Hindu and Jaina Texts. ed. W. Doniger. 59–84. NY: State University of New York  Press, 1993. Glasenapp, Helmuth von. Madhva’s Philosophy of the Vis. n. u Faith. Translated by S. B. Shrothri. Edited by K. T. Pandurangi. Bangalore: Dvaita Vedanta Studies and Research Foundation, 1992. ¯ arya ¯ Govind¯ ac¯ arya, Bannanje. Madhvac (Life and Teachings). Udupi: Pejawar Mutt, 1984. Govind¯ ac¯ arya, Bannanje. Udupi: Past and Present . Udupi: Pejavara Mutt, 1984. Granoff, Phyllis. “Going by the Book: The Role of Written Texts in Medieval Jain Sectarian Conflicts”. In Jain Studies in Honour of Jozef Deleu. ed. R. Smet and K. Wantanabe. 315–338. Tokyo: Hon-No-Tomosha, 1993. ´ nkara ¯ ¯ Halbfass, Wilhelm. Studies in Kumarila . Studien Zur Indologie Und and  Sa Iranistik Monographie 9. Reinbek: Dr. Inge Wezler, 1983. Halbfass, Wilhelm. India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding . NY: SUNY, 1988. Halbfass, Wilhelm. Tradition and Reflection: Explorations in Indian Thought . NY: SUNY, 1991. ¯ Kane, Pandurang Vaman. History of Dharmas´astra; Ancient and Medieval Religious and Civil Law in India Vol. 1. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Institute, 1968. Killingley, Dermot. “ Mlecchas, Yavanas and Heathens: Interacting Xenologies in Early Nineteenth-Century Calcutta”. In Beyond Orientalism: The Work of Wilhelm   Halbfass and its Impact on Indian and Cross Cultural Studies. ed. E. Franco and K. Preisendanz. 123–140. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1997. ¯ Kopperdrayer, K. I. “The Varn. a¯s´ramacandrika and the S´udra’s Right to Preceptorhood: The Social Background of a Philosophical Debate in Late Medieval South India”.  Journal of Indian Philosophy Vol. 19 (1991): 297–314. Mesquita, Roque. Madhva Und Seine Unbekannten Literarischen Quellen: Eine  Beobachtungen. Vol. XXIV. Vienna: De Nobili, 1997. Mookerji, Radha Kumud. Ancient Indian Education: Brahmanical and Buddhist . Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass, 1989. ´ ¯ Mumme, Patricia Y. “Rules and Rhetoric: Caste Observence in Sr ıvais. n. ava Doctrine and Practice”. Journal of Vais. n . ava Studies Vol. 2, No. 1 (1993): 113–138. Nambiar, Sita K. Interviews. Bangalore, India. Jan. 1997–Aug. 1997. ¯ ar  ¯ adhane: ¯ Nambiar, Sita K. The Ritual Art of Teyyam and Bhut  Theatrical Performance with Spirit Mediumship. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, 1996. ¯. a Perennis: Narayana Rao, Velcheru. “Pur¯ an. a as Brahmanic Ideology”. In Pur an   Reciprocity and Transformation in Hindu and Jaina Texts”. ed. Wendy Doniger. 85–100. NY: SUNY, 1993.

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS

633

O’Connel, Joseph T. “Do Bhakti Movements Change Hindu Social Structures? The Case of Caitanya’s Vais. n. avas in Bengal”. In Boeings and Bullock Carts; Vol. 4; Religious Movements and Social Identity. ed. Bardwell Smith. 39–63. Delhi: Chanakya Pub., 1990. Padmanabhacharya, C. M. Life and Teachings of Sri Madhvacharya. Udupi: Paryaya Sri Palimar Mutt, 1970. Panchamukhi, R. S. Brahmasutras of Badarayan. Dharwar: Pavamana Prakashana, publication date unknown. Panchamukhi, V. R. Badarayan’s Brahma Sutras: Essentials of Madhwa Philosophy . New Delhi: Interest Publications, 1989. Pandurangi, K. T. “Madhva’s View of Life”. In Karnataka Darshan. ed. R. S. Hukkerikar. 285–289. Bombay: Hukkerikar, 1955. Pandurangi, K. T. “Dvaita Saints and Scholars of the Vijayanagar Period”. In Early Vijayanagar: Studies in its History and Culture. ed. G. S. Dikshit. 59–66. Bangalore: B.M.S. Memorial Foundation, 1988. Pandurangi, K. T. Interviews. Bangalore, India. Jan. 1996–May 1996. Jan. 1997–March 1997. Tape recording, with author. ad¯ ac¯ arya, D. Interviews. Bangalore, India. Jan.1996–May 1996. Jan. 1997–Tape Prahl¯ recording, with author. Pur¯ an. ika, H. Interviews. Bangalore, India. Jan. 1996–May 1996. Tape recording, with author. Puthiadam, I. Vis .n . u: The Ever Free. Dialogue Series No. 5. Varanasi: Arul Anandar College, 1985. Qvarnstr¨ o m, Olle. Hindu Philosophy In Buddhist Perspective: The ¯ ¯ Ved antatattvavini s´caya Chapter of Bhavya’s Madhyamakahr  a¯. Lund . dayak arik  Studies in African and Asian Religions Vol. 4. Lund: Plus Ultra, 1989. ˜car¯ Raghavan, V. “The Name P¯ an a tra with an analysis of the Sanatkum¯ ara-Sam . hita in Manuscript”. Journal of the American Oriental Society Vol. 85 (1965): 73–79. ¯ . sa ¯. Mysore: Wesley Press, 1963. Raghavendrachar, H. N. Brahma M ¯ ımam Ramanayya, N. Venkata. Studies in the History of the Third Dynasty of Vijayanagara. Madras: University of Madras, 1935. Rao, C. R. Krishna. Srimadhwa, His Life and Doctrine. Udupi: Prabhakara Press, 1929. Rao, G. Hanumantha. “Religious Toleration in Karnatak”. In Karnataka Darshan. R. S. Hukkerikar. ed. 312–319. Bombay: Hukkerikar, 1955. Rao, M. A. Vasudeva. “The Udupi Madhva matha”. Seminar  Vol. 456 (1997): 52–55. Rao, M. V. Krishna. Glimpses of Karnataka. Bangalore: Indian National Congress, 1960. Sarma, Deepak. “Exclusivist Strategies in M¯ adhva Ved¯ anta”. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1998. Sastri, Nilakantha. A History of South India. Madras: Oxford U.P., 1976. ´ ¯ ¯ arya ¯ Shanbag, D. N. Sr  ı Madhvac and His Cardinal Doctrines. Dharwad: Bharat Book Depot and Prakashan, 1990. Sharma, B. N. K. “Life and Works of Trivikrama Pan ac¯ arya”. Journal of the .d . it¯   Annamalai University Vol. II, No. 2 (Oct. 1933): 209–226. Sharma, B. N. K. “Dvaita Vedanta – An Exclusive Contribution of Karnatak to Indian Philosophy”. In Karnataka Darshan. ed. R. S. Hukkerikar. 232–250. Bombay: Hukkerikar, 1955. ¯ Sharma, B. N. K. History of the Dvaita School of Ved anta and its Literature. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1981. ¯ Sharma, B. N. K. The Brahmasutras and Their Principal Commentaries: A Critical  Exposition. Vol. 1–3. Bombay: Munshiram Manoharlal Pub., 1986. ´ ¯ ¯ arya ¯ Sharma, B. N. K. Philosophy of  Sr  . Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1986. ı Madhvac

634

DEEPAK SARMA

¯ ˜ adhikaran ¯ Sharma, B. N. K. Nyayasudh a¯ of Jayatirthamuni (Panc ı) Rendered into .¯  English. Malleswaram, Bangalore: Sri Raghavendra Ashram, 1995. ¯ ¯. a, and His Commentary on Its Sheridan, Daniel P. “Madhva, the Bhagavata Pur an First Chapter”. In Journal of Vais. n. ava Studies ed. D. Sarma. Vol. 5, No. 3 (1997): 113–138. Sheridan, Daniel P. “Vy¯ asa as Madhva’s Guru: Biographical Context for a Ved¯ antic Commentator”. In Texts in Context: Traditional Hermeneutics in South Asia. ed. J. Timm. 109–126. NY: SUNY, 1992. Sheridan, Daniel P. “Direct Knowledge of God and Living Liberation in the Religious Thought of Madhva”. In Living Liberation in Hindu Thought . ed. A. Fort and P. Mumme. 91–114. NY: SUNY, 1996. Siauve, Suzanne. La Doctrine de Madhva: Dvaita Vedanta. Publications de L’Institut Franc¸ais D’Indologie No. 38. Pondich´ ery: Institut Franc¸ais D’Indologie, 1968. ´ ¯ ´ ¯ Sr ı Vi´sve´sa T¯ırtha Sw¯ amiji. “The Fitness of  Sr ı Madhva Philosophy to be the Universal Religion for Humanity”. Dharmaprakash. Vol. 16-5/6 (January and February 1987): 19–23. Stein, Burton. “Social Mobility and Medieval South Indian Hindu Sects”. In Social  Mobility in the Caste System in India: An Interdisciplinary Symposium. ed. James Silverberg. 78–94. The Hague: Mouton, 1968. Verpoorten, Jean-Marie. “Le Droit A L’Adhyayana Selon La M¯ım¯ am a”. Indo-Iranian . s¯  Journal Vol. 30 (1987): 23–30. Wayman, Alex. “Contributions Regarding the Thirty-Two Characteristics of the Great Person”. In Leibenthal Festschrift . ed. Ksihtis Roy. 253–268. Sino-Indian Studies, vol. 5, parts 3 and 4. Santineketan: Visvabharati, 1957. ¯ . ta of L¯ ´ ¯ Wilson, Frances. The Love of Krishna: The Kr  . ıla¯suka Bilvamangala .s .n . akarn . amr  Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1975. Zydenbos, R. J. “On the Jaina Background of Dvaitaved¯ anta”. Journal of Indian Philosophy Vol. 19 (1991): 249–271.

Secondary Sources of Theoretical Importance Christian, William A. Doctrines of Religious Communities. New Haven: Yale U.P., 1987. ¯ Clooney, Francis. Theology After Ved anta: An Experiment in Comparative Theology. NY: SUNY, 1993. Dalmia, Vasudha and H. von Stietencron. eds. Representing Hinduism: The Construction of Religious Tradition and National Identity , Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1995. ¯ ¯ Griffiths, Paul J. “Denaturalizing Discourse: Abhidh armikas, Propositionalists, and the Comparative Philosophy of Religion”. In Myth and Philosophy. ed. F. Reynolds. 57–94. NY: SUNY, 1990. Griffiths, Paul J. Religious Reading. Forthcoming, Cited with the permission of the author, March, 1997. O’Flaherty, Wendy Doniger. Dreams, Illusions, and Other Realities. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984. ¯ as Canonical Commentary. Patton, Laurie L. Myth as Argument: The Br  . haddevat a Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996. ´ Ramanujan, A. K. Speaking of  Siva . Great Britain: Penguin Books, 1973.

  Department of Religious Studies Vanderbilt University   Nashville, TN, U.S.A.