Access To Texts in Madhva Vedanta Eng

DEEPAK SARMA
REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS:

ACCESS TO TEXTS IN MĀDHVA VEDĀNTA
INTRODUCTION
In this paper I examine one type of governing doctrine that is found

among the doctrines propounded by Madhvācārya, the 13th century CE
theologian who established Mādhva Vedānta. 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 doctrines that either allowed or restricted access to texts and
teachings in commentaries on at least one (usually the first) sūtra
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.
The establishment of these restrictive governing doctrines in Vedānta
centers primarily around the interpretation of the first pada of the first
sūtra of the Brahma Sūtras of Bādarāyan. a;2 athāto brahmajijñāsā,
“Then, therefore, the inquiry into brahman”.3 The term atha glosses
the sequence of eligibility. Taking into consideration Madhvācārya’s
commentary, the expanded passage reads “Therefore, after having
Journal of Indian Philosophy 27: 583–635, 1999.

c 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
584 DEEPAK SARMA
met the requirements for eligibility, the inquiry into brahman is to be

undertaken”.4 Madhvācārya thus addresses these issues in his Brahma
Sūtra Bhās. ya, a commentary on the Brahma Sūtras, in connection
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 Mādhva
Vedānta originated. Viewing Mādhva doctrine in light of the social and
religious matters that dominated medieval South India may help to
shed light on Madhvācārya’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 Mādhva texts where
debate with outsiders is addressed. Throughout this analysis, I also
critique and evaluate Madhvācārya’s positions. A study of the Mādhva
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 MĀDHVA RESTRICTIVE GOVERNING DOCTRINES: AN INTRODUCTION
Questions about accessibility and inclusivity do not usually arise given

the contemporary understanding and interpretation of Mādhva Vedānta
by scholars both inside and outside of the tradition. The Swāmiji of the
Pejāvar 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 Mādhva Vedānta
is often referred to as a bhakti tradition by contemporary Mādhva
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 Mādhva Vedānta with other bhakti religions is misleading.7
The Swāmiji of the Pejāvar mat. ha and other contemporary scholars are
only partly correct. I thus examine the governing doctrines, the adhikāra
prerequisites, by which Madhvācārya subtly introduces this exclusivity
and the subsequent doctrinal restrictions for potential adherents. I show
that Mādhva Vedānta, as characterized by Madhvācārya in medieval
Karn. āt.aka, can be categorized as a religious community whose doctrines
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 Madhvācārya derived them. To this end I briefly
sketch out the social and religious world of medieval Karn. āt.aka that
confronted Madhvācārya 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
Madhvācārya’s strict RGD.
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ON MADHVĀCĀRYA
Madhvācārya (1238–1317 CE) was born of Śival.l.i Brahmin parents in the

village of Pājakaks. etra near modern day Ud. upi in the Tul.unād. u area of
South Kanara.8 Aside from relevant colophons found in Madhvācārya’s
own works, the biographical data regarding Madhvācārya derives
from two sources: first, data from the Madhvavijaya, The Triumph
of Madhvācārya, a hagiographic account composed by Nārāyan. a
Pan. d. itācārya; second, evidence from inscriptional evidence and records
found in Ud. upi mat. has, monasteries. First, I discuss each of these
sources. Second, I summarize Madhvācārya’s educational background.
Finally, I address the political, social, and religious contexts within
which Madhvācārya developed his school of thought.
Sources
Nārāyan. a Pan. d. itācārya was the son of Trivikrama Pan. d. itācārya who was
one of the first direct disciples of Madhvācārya.9 Nārāyan. a Pan. d. itācārya
lived shortly after Madhvācārya’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. itācārya’s hagiographies are regarded as accurate by
the Mādhva community. Given the dearth of accurate historical data in
connection with medieval Tul.unād. 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. itācārya’s hagiographical works may be reliable. For the purposes
of the discussion here they are nevertheless useful.
He was a Śival.l.i Tul.u-speaking Brahmin born and raised in the
Tul.unād. u district. He was, then, of the same regional subcaste as
Madhvācārya.10 Pan. d. itācārya composed several hagiographies of
Madhvācārya in addition to the Madhvavijaya. The An. u Madhvavi-
jaya is an outline of the Madhvavijaya while the Madhvavijaya
586 DEEPAK SARMA
Bhāvaprakāśika is an elucidation of several aspects of the Madhvavi-

jaya. The Man. imañjar¯ı is a mythological account of the rise of Mādhva
Vedānta.11
The as. .tamat. has, the eight monasteries, of Ud. upi are the second
source for biographical records about Madhvācārya.12 The institution
of the eight mat. has was begun by Madhvācārya before his death. These
mat. has have kept genealogical and inscriptional records regarding the
param 13
. parā, lineage, of the svāmins of each of the eight mat. has. The
first svāmin of each of the eight mat. has was ordained by Madhvācārya
himself. For this reason, the lineage data and the relationship of such data
in connection with Madhvācārya found at the mat. has are regarded as
accurate by the Mādhva 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 Madhvācārya’s educational and political background.
Nevertheless, there is still very little information about Madhvācārya’s
education and much of it must be surmised from the limited data.
Madhvācārya was, of course, familiar with the Vedānta 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
other relevant texts with a teacher who was of the Pūgavana family.15
He then studied aspects of the Advaita school of Vedānta founded by
Śan̄karācārya in the 8th century CE. Madhvācārya 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,
Madhvācārya found Acyutapreks. a, an ascetic who was also dissatisfied
with the tenets of Advaita Vedānta, and underwent the prescribed
sam 16
. nyasa rites. According to Pan. d. itācārya’s hagiography, his name
was then changed by Acyutapreks. a to Pūrn. aprajña.17 After becoming
an ascetic he studied tarka, logic.18 He also studied Vimuktātman’s
Is. .tasiddhi (9th century CE).19 This is the only mention of an Advaita
text in the Madhvavijaya.20 After again disagreeing with his teacher,
Madhvācārya was installed as the head of the mat. ha by Acyutapreks. a
in deference to his student’s superior abilities.21 Madhvācārya then
began to travel around South Asia in order to argue his new Vedānta
position with other scholars.22 His exposure to, and interaction with,
other schools of philosophy – both Vedānta and non-Vedānta – is
evident in his hagiographies, his works, and the broader issues that he
addresses.23
According to the hagiographic tradition, Madhvācārya’s travels took
him to Mahābadarikāśrama, the home of Vyāsa, author of the Brahma
Sūtras, to meet the founder of the Vedānta tradition himself. Under
the guidance of Vyāsa, Madhvācārya is said to have composed his
Brahma Sūtra Bhās. ya, a commentary on Vyāsa’s Brahma Sūtras.
Linking Madhvācārya to Vyāsa may be Pan. d. itācārya attempt at making
Madhvācārya’s unusual Vedānta position legitimate.24
Data taken from colophons along with genealogical and chronological
data found in the mat. has lead scholars to conclude that Madhvācārya died
in 1317 CE.25 In his hagiography Pan. d. itācārya records that Madhvācārya
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 Mahābadarikāśrama with Vyāsa.
The corpus of texts that Madhvācārya 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, Madhvācārya often cites passages from the Brahma
Tarka – a text which has yet to be recovered and is not mentioned
by name by any other Vedānta philosopher.27 The possibility that
non-existent texts were appealed to later became a matter of debate
between Mādhva and other Vedānta schools. Nārāyān. ācārya, a 17th
century Mādhva, for example, attempted to defend Madhvācārya’s use
of untraceable texts in his Advaitakālānala against the Advaita scholar
Appayya Diks. ita (16th century CE).28
Aside from these controversial texts, Madhvācārya also does not
appear to mention the names of texts outside of the typical medi-
eval Vedānta canon. Sharma holds that there are eight passages in
Madhvācārya’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
that Madhvācārya was familiar with Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamaka
Kārikās (circa 150–250 CE) given that his commentator Jayatı̄rtha cites
a passage taken from the Kārikās in his Tattvoddyotat. ¯ıkā, a commentary
on Madhvācārya’s Tattvoddyota.30 Buddhisāgāra, a Buddhist, is also
mentioned as a disputant encountered by Madhvācārya in Pan. d. itācārya’s
Madhvavijaya.31 Although the name is mentioned only in the hagi-
ographic literature, it is possible to surmise that Madhvācārya read
Buddhist texts and came into contact with scholars expounding
Buddhism. Despite these interactions mentioned in the Madhvavi-
588 DEEPAK SARMA
jaya, Madhvācārya neither refers to any Buddhist texts by name nor

does he quote passages from Buddhist texts.
According to Pan. d. itācārya’s hagiographies, Madhvācārya also came
into contact with followers of the Vaiśes. ika school. He mentions
Vādisim. ha, “a knower of the essence of the Vaiśes. ika [system]” in
his Bhāvaprakāśika.32 Madhvācārya thus refers to and argues against
tenets of nāstika schools such as Buddhism, or other non-Vedānta āstika
schools such as Vaiśes. 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 polem-
ical 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 Madhvācārya had relevant texts memorized and, more
importantly, expected the same of those who read his own texts. There-
fore 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 Madhvācārya’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. itācārya states in several places in his Madhvavijaya that
Madhvācārya came into contact with local kings, though only one,
Jayasim . ha, is named. There is no indication in relevant historical data
that Madhvācārya was, however, supported financially by any of them.
In the Madhvavijaya, for example, Madhvācārya 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
to Madhvācārya.38 This meeting and exchange does not appear to be

mentioned in histories of Tul.unād. u, Karn. āt.aka, and South India.39
Although the granting of half the kingdom does seem a bit fantastic, it
is not unlikely that Madhvācārya 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 Madhvācārya. The land
grant, then, might be better understood in the context of the hagiography
as hyperbole.
Pan. d. itācārya reports that Madhvācārya 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 Madhvācārya’s extensive library to the thievery of a local philosopher
who was, not surprisingly, a follower of the Advaita school. Without
his library, Madhvācārya was unable to continue to refute the positions
of his Advaita contemporaries. Fortunately, he is said to have had the
library returned to him with the help of the local king Jayasim 41
. ha.
Jayasim . ha may have also supported him during his stay at his stay in the
village of Pād. 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 . ha who reigned during Madhvācārya’s
lifetime.44 It is evident historically, however, that Madhvācārya was a
contemporary of Narasim . ha III (1254–1292 CE) and Ballāl.a III (1291–
1342 CE) who were two kings of the Hoysala dynasty.45 There is no
mention, however, in histories of Karn. āt.aka that either of the Hoysala
kings had contact with or patronized Madhvācārya.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 Ballāl.a III’s
religious affiliations.48 It may be that Jayasim . ha of the Madhvavijaya
and either Narasim 49
. ha III and Ballāl.a III are one and the same person.
Religious Context
The 13th and early 14th centuries CE were periods of religious excite-
ment in South Kanara given the presence of both āstika, nāstika,
and tribal and indigenous traditions.50 Adherents to Vedānta, both
Advaita and Viśis. t.ādvaita, along with Jains, and Vı̄raśaivites, populated
Tul.unād. u.51 These literati traditions were juxtaposed with tribal and
other indigenously based traditions including Śaivism, bhūtārādhana,
worship of apparitions, worship of śakti, female power, and worship
of nāgas, 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.unād. 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
Madhvācārya and the school of Vedānta 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.
Āstika Traditions; Vedānta

In the philosophical and religious realm, Mādhva Vedānta competed
with Advaita and Viśis. t.ādvaita among other schools. Both the Advaita
and Viśis. t.ādvaita schools had many followers in the area. In fact,
Rāmānujācārya, founder of the Viśis. t.ādvaita school of Vedānta 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 Viśis. t.ādvaita activity, moreover,
lay in nearby Melkōt.e. Temples which were officiated by priests adhering
to the āgamas, ritual texts, and other worship texts found in the Advaita
and Viśis. t.ādvaita canons were built in the area as were affiliated mat. has,
monasteries. According to the Śan̄karavijaya, a hagiographic account
of the founder of Advaita Vedānta, Śan̄karācārya visited South Kanara
in the 9th century and disputed with scholars of local traditions.57 One
of the four mat. has established by Śan̄karācārya himself was located in
Sr. n̄geri in South Kanara – only about 50 km, from Ud. upi.58 These two
cites, Melkōte and Sr. n̄geri were (and are) centers for Vedānta studies
in Karn. āt.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 svāmin 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
into the mat. ha, one must follow rules according to one’s āśrama, period
of religious life. For example, the brahmacāris, 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 āgamas, 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.unād. u was the location of a large number of these mat. has linked
with a variety of religious communities including āstika and nāstika
communities.
The āstika Vedānta 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 Mādhva school and
these two Vedānta traditions.
Two Anti-Vedānta Traditions; V¯ıraśaivism and Jainism

Vı̄raśaivism and Jainism, two non-orthodox, non-Brahmanical traditions,
were also prevalent in the Tul.unād. u.61 Both schools, in contrast to the
orthodox Vedānta 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 Vı̄raśaivism for non-Brahmins. Vı̄raśaivas, in fact,
not only granted equal status to women but loosened the rigidity of
the class system in their tradition.62 Śūdras, 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

rulers such as Narasim 64
. ha III. Aside from data concerning the patronage
of Narasim . ha III, there are large numbers of inscriptions and documents
that pertain to the funding of Jain institutions.65 The most important
Jain mat. ha in South India was also located in South Kanara at Śrāvan. a
Belgol.a. The majority of feudal states in Tul.unād. u were Jain.66 For
these reasons Jain activities in Tul.unād. u for outweighed those of the
Vedānta traditions.
Anti-Vedic nāstika traditions as well as traditions opposed to Vedānta
then, were prevalent in Tul.unād. 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 Vedānta 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 Vedānta traditions to reestablish strict
RGD and, thereby, reassert their theological authority.
Tribal and Other Indigenous Traditions

These exegetical traditions, Vedānta, Vı̄raśaivism, and Jainism, were
juxtaposed with tribal and other indigenous traditions. These traditions
were often local and more popular among the lower classes. Worship
of Śiva stands foremost among these traditions and was the prevalent
religion in Tul.unād. u. In fact, the largest number of temples in pre-
Mādhva Tul.unād. u are Śaiva.67 Although the Śaiva tradition was extant
in Tul.unād. u prior to the influence of Śan̄karācārya, it may be that
the Advaita school played a role in popularizing Śiva. According to
Advaita cosmology, Śiva is held to be the highest among the gods. It
is likely that the Vı̄raśaiva communities also helped to increase the
importance of the Śiva temples, given the centrality of Śiva to their
religious practices.
Śiva temples were often found in the vicinity of Śakti temples.68 In
this connection, the Śakti traditions were also dominant in Tul.unād. u.
Worshipped as Devi, Durgā, and, more often, as a local female deity,
they were sometimes linked to male counterparts who were worshipped
by the āstika traditions. For example, Mūkāmbikā, a 15th century
CE form of the Goddess, was eventually absorbed into the Mādhva
tradition. Vādirāja, the 15th century CE svāmin of the Sōde mat. ha in
Ud. upi, invoked the Mūkāmbikā in his T¯ırthaprabhanda.69 The Śaiva

and Śakti traditions, then, may have been the most dominant traditions
in Tul.unād. u.
The Śakti 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
Tul.unād. u is the bhūtārādhana, 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 āstika and nāstika
traditions.73 The practice of bhūta worship was fully accepted by the
majority of the population and outweighed the importance of Śiva and
Vis. n. u for most.74 The worship of spirits often centered around Śakti
and, according to Nambiar, was integrated into both later Vais. n. avism
and Śaivism.75 The tradition may not have had a noticeable effect on
the doctrines of the Mādhva school of Vedānta or the other schools.
Nevertheless, bhūtārādhana indicates the presence of traditions that
predated and were in total variance with many of the āstika, nāstika,
and related traditions.
The religious atmosphere at the time when Madhvācārya first
developed his school of Vedānta was iridescent given the diverse and
disparate traditions that existed. Again, it may be that such pluralism
played an important role in Madhvācārya’s theology and, more impor-
tantly, in connection with his concept of community and the associated
RGD.
The Mādhva Community and Institutions

In addition to composing treatises on Vedānta matters, Madhvācārya
founded the Mādhva religious community and accompanying institutions
in Ud. upi. According to traditional accounts, Madhvācārya 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, Madhvācārya established each of them
as svāmin, head, of a mat. ha, thereby establishing the as. .tamat. has, eight
monasteries, as an institutional tradition. Vis. n. utı̄rthā, Madhvācārya’s
594 DEEPAK SARMA
younger brother, who is included among the seven svāmis, was also
ordained as head of the Sōde mat. ha. Madhvācārya placed the mat. has
of his disciples under his tutelage. After he died, an eighth svāmin
replaced Madhvācārya. The as. .tamat. 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 Madhvācārya may
have developed paryāya, a rotating system of leadership, that would
begin after his death.78 In this system of governing, paryāya, the svāmis
of each of the eight mat. has is proclaimed to be leader every two years.
Although the institution and the community established by
Madhvācārya have spread to different parts of India, both are still
centered in Karn. āt.aka state and, most importantly, in Ud. upi. Never-
theless, the Uttarādi mat. ha in Bangalore and the Vyāsarāya mat. ha in
Tirupati are both central to the contemporary Mādhva sam . pradāya,
system of religious teaching, despite being outside of Ud. upi.79
There is little information regarding grants given to Madhvācārya in
order to facilitate the establishment of the as. .tamat. has. Nevertheless,
it is likely that he was given some funding by the local kings in the
region. It may be that the as. .tamat. has were funded by king Jayasim . ha
who, as described above, assisted Madhvācārya with the recovery of
his library. Given the hagiographic data this funding seems likely.
Trivikrama Pan. d. itācārya was also Jayasim . ha’s court pan. d. ita and was,
therefore, himself funded by Jayasim 80
. ha. There are, of course, later
records of mat. has receiving numerous land grants from subsequent
rulers.81 It is likely that the initial funding for the mat. has also derived
from donations or from fees for pūjās, daily worship ceremonies, etc.,
by adherents at the newly established Kr. s. n. a temple in Ud. upi.
In medieval Tul.unād. 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
institutions.83 Regardless, Madhvācārya was able to secure a sufficient
amount of funds to be able to inaugurate the 700 year old tradition of
the Ud. upi as. .tamat. has.
It is within this context that Madhvācārya professed his doctrine and
accompanying RGD as well as establishing the Mādhva community.
“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
instructions for teaching is spoken of in the Māt. hara Śruti. 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 Madhvācārya “Everyone does not possess eligibility

[for acquiring knowledge of brahman]”.85 Each and every agent does
not have full access to Mādhva doctrine – knowledge that is efficacious
for learning about the nature of brahman, for obtaining moks. a, and
for learning the intricacies of Mādhva dialectics. Madhvācārya directly
addresses eligibility requirements in his gloss of the first pada of the
first sūtra of the Brahma Sūtras of Bādarāyan. a; athāto brahmajijñāsā,
“Then, therefore, inquiry into brahman”.86 The expanded passage that
takes Madhvācārya’s commentaries into account reads “Therefore, after
having met the requirements for eligibility, the inquiry into brahman
is to be undertaken.”
Madhva’s interpretation is opposed to Śan̄karācārya 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

interpretation of the term jijñāsā. Madhvācārya takes it to mean “inquiry”
while Śan̄karācārya interprets the term as the “desire to inquire”. Through
a set of arguments and links with Pūrva Mı̄mām . sā, Śan̄karācārya takes
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. Jayatı̄rtha’s commentary
restates Madhvācārya’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”. [Madhvācārya] 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
the term] “adhikāra”.89
Neither Madhvācārya nor Jayatı̄rtha argue here against the Advaita

position. Instead, they merely explain their own position. Madhvācārya
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 sūtra

of the Brahma Sūtras of Bādarāyan. 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,
then, I examine, in brief, the distinction between aparoks. ajñāna, direct
intuitive knowledge (through revelation) of brahman, and paroks. ajñāna,
textual knowledge of brahman.91 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
types of jñāna, knowledge.
Madhvācārya holds that moks. a, the maximally desirable state for
sentients (both living and dead) to exist in, can be obtained only
after having been granted aparoks. ajñāna. Direct intuitive knowledge
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 five-
fold list of prerequisites, may grace a devout and eligible adherent
with aparoks. ajñāna.92 The state of possessing aparoks. ajñāna while
living is likened to the state of being j¯ıvanmukta, liberated while living,
as described in the Advaita school.93 The granting of aparoks. ajñāna
is at the first level of discussion regarding eligibility. At the second
level of discussion there are restrictive doctrines regarding eligibility
for aparoks. ajñāna, direct intuitive knowledge (through revelation) of
brahman, in the form of a list of salvifically efficacious sādhanas,
penances, expedients. Madhvācārya states:
In the Nārada Purān. a it is stated: “Hearing, reflecting, also meditating, and also
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 [sādhanas],
no one obtains knowledge from anywhere else”.94
In an earlier passage in his Bhās. ya vairāgya, detachment, is mentioned

as a required sādhana for the adhikar¯ı, eligible sentient.95 The compre-
hensive list of Mādhva sādhanas, then, are vairāgya, detachment, bhakti,
devotion, śravan. a, hearing, manana, reflecting, and dhyāna, meditating.
If all of these sādhanas, prerequisites, have been accomplished then
the adherent is eligible for aparoks. ajñāna.
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
and definitions of sādhanas that must be satisfied with regard to the
eligibility by those on the prescribed path to moks. a, nirvān. a, and other
states regarded as maximally desirable. Of course, these schools may

differ on definitions and the theological implications and foundations
of the sādhanas.
All five of these eligibility prerequisites for moks. a may be of interest
to adherents and others. However, my discussion here concerns only a
subset of the prerequisites for paroks. ajñāna, indirect knowledge – the
component in the list that is in connection with doctrine and access
to doctrine. For this reason I focus on the sādhana prerequisites for
śravan. a, hearing, and subsequent manana, reflecting. Of course, both
of these sādhanas presuppose appropriate vairāgya and bhakti, modes
of acquiring paroks. ajñāna which are typically considered to be non-
textual. Such sādhanas 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
prerequisites, bhakti, vairāgya, dhyāna, etc., there is still a third level
concerning the detailed requirements for eligibility that are specific to
each sādhana. That is, the third tier of specificity here is in connection
with restrictive doctrines regarding eligibility for proper bhakti, vairāgya,
śravan. a, reading, and manana, reflecting: eligibility requirements for
each of the eligibility requirements. There are, moreover, sentient beings
who, though eligible for aparoks. ajñāna, direct intuitive knowledge
(through revelation) of brahman, are not eligible for, and cannot obtain,
all the components of paroks. ajñāna, textual knowledge of brahman. As I
show below, for this reason it may be a misnomer to denominate Mādhva
Vedānta to be a bhakti tradition that propounds universal salvation. The
interpretation of the Swāmiji of the Pejāvar mat. ha and others, therefore,
may only be partly or superficially correct in proclaiming the catholicity
of Mādhva Vedānta.
Several of these eligibility requirements in connection with
paroks. ajñāna cannot be ignored by scholars who wish to become
educated readers, rather than practitioners, of Mādhva Vedānta. The
question “Eligibility for what?”, thus, has two answers; first, eligi-
bility for aparoks. ajñāna and, therefore, moks. a; second, eligibility for
paroks. ajñāna and, preeminently, śravan. a and manana. Eligibility for
aparoks. ajñāna, is not relevant for non-adherents. On the other hand,
it may be impossible for those outside of the tradition to ignore many
or all of the components of the second set, regarding paroks. ajñāna.
Who, then, is eligible for paroks. ajñāna for śravan. a and manana?
Which sentients are eligible for a Mādhva education? Which are not?
Why?
598 DEEPAK SARMA
THE MĀDHVA RESTRICTIVE DOCTRINES
Madhvācārya posits restrictive doctrines throughout his texts. Given the

rich and complex ontology envisioned by Madhvācārya, 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
śūdras. Fourth, I examine the status of antyajas, those who are outside
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 Mādhva 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 Madhvācārya 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 Bhāgavata 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 Mādhva education. The lowest variety
of eligible sentients, the highest among men, are thus composed of the
ucca, highest, among the amuktā – those fit for, or qualified for release,
muktiyogyāh. .
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
Vedokte, “with regard to Vedic study”, includes the body of texts

categorized as Vedas by Madhvācārya. According to Madhvācārya,
the term veda denotes the R . g, Yajur, Sāma, and Atharva Vedas, the
Mūlarāmāyan. a, the Bhārata, and the Pañcarātra.99 Again, he cites two
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 Sūtra, 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 Mādhva 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. Madhvācārya 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 Mādhva 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
śabda [Vedas etc., the eligible one] is properly celibate”, Madhvācārya
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. Madhvācārya is

aware of texts such as Mānavadharmaśāstra wherein strict prohibitions
are enunciated. Given the rules found in such texts, it is likely that
Madhvācārya intended this requirement to be followed in full. Degrees
of sexual activity are irrelevant here.
Madhvācārya comments on BS 3.4.12, “[Eligibility] is only for those
who have studied the Vedas”, and then links eligibility for śravan. a,
hearing, and manana, reflecting, with eligibility for aparoks. ajñāna,
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

dvijas, is not often mentioned in his Bhās. ya or in other relevant texts
by Madhvācārya. These restrictions, moreover, are not unusual among
the schools of Vedānta or their Pūrva Mı̄mām . sā predecessors and are
a typical practice of āstika 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, Madhvācārya states that “For women,
sūdras, 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”.106 The term brahmabandhūnām .
usually refers to an unworthy Brahmin or one who is only nominally
a Brahmin.107 Such dvijas have lost their eligibility.
Madhvācārya 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 sūtra that follows, BS
1.3.26, “Even after [attaining divinity etc. there is eligibility] because
of the existence [of all that is required]. Bādarāyan. a [states this]”,
Madhvācārya 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] Jaritāri,
etc. are seen.110
The reference to Jaritāri, etc. is in connection with a myth found in the

Mahābhārata.111 In this myth, Man. d. apāla, a .rs. i, reproduces with Jaritā,
a bird. The offspring of their union, Jaritāri, Sāris. 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 Madhvācārya, birds
occupy a lower position on the hierarchy of intelligence and do not

typically have distinguished intellects. Jaritāri 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.
Madhvācārya 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 Mādhva doctrine. They are among a very small
group of sentients who qualify for a Mādhva education and, therefore,
are literate and approved readers and interpreters of Mādhva texts and
doctrines. As virtuoso religious readers, these dvija men can effectively
argue both for and against the Mādhva tradition.
Women
Women, both human and non-human, are mentioned as eligible for
either written or oral transmission in several places in the Brahma
Sūtra Bhās. ya. Madhvācārya 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 Mādhva Vedānta.
Madhvācārya 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 Urvaśı̄, Yamı̄,
Śacı̄, and the rest”.112 It is not clear why Madhvācārya chose these
three women as ideal examples of this highly exclusive set of women.
Each of these women is central to an ākhyāna, conversational hymn,
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 Madhvācārya 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.
Urvaśı̄, for example, made the gandharva, demi-god, Purūravas promise
602 DEEPAK SARMA
never to let her see him naked. Yamı̄’s conversation is with her brother
Yama. She tries to commit incest with him and fails. Finally, Śacı̄, the
wife of Indra, known also in the R . g Veda as Indrān. 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 Madhvācārya
chose these sexually charged hymns and women for his ideal set except,
of course, from their being mentioned in the R 113
. g Veda.
The term ādi, translated into English as “and the rest”, is open-
ended and does not appear to clearly fix the limits of the set of eligible
women. To mitigate this openness, Jayatı̄rtha nd Rāghavendratı̄rtha
each gloss the term “highest”. Jayatı̄rtha 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, Rāghavendratı̄rtha states:
[Explanation of the passage beginning] “Those well born”: This is said in the
Tātparyanirn. aya 29th adhyāya, chapter. Those well born are the wives of munis and
goddesses.115
Rāghavendratı̄rtha thus adds goddesses to Jayatı̄rtha’s list. From both of

their interpretations it may follow that Madhvācārya 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 Jayatı̄rtha and Rāghavendratı̄rtha correctly
interpret Madhvācārya’s intent.
If the term ādi is taken more strictly it may refer to several types of
women. First, as suggested above, it may refer only to those women
with ākhyāna in the R . g Veda. Such women include Lopāmudrā, among
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 ādi has also elicited some controversial discussions among
contemporary scholars and followers of Mādhva Vedānta given its
ambiguity and the possibility that Jayatı̄rtha’s and Rāghavendratı̄rtha’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
hand, if it is taken to be figurative, then some apsaras or goddess-like

human females may be able to access the Mādhva 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 Madhvācārya’s restrictive doctrine regarding women and
this ambiguity is still found in the contemporary Mādhva 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. Madhvācārya writes:
For women, śūdras, 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 Jayatı̄rtha the term tantra refers to the Pañcarātra and
other texts.119 Although this equation does not appear to be evidenced
in any of Madhvācārya’s compositions it is likely that he was refer-
ring to the Pañcarātras. He may also be referring to the Bhāgavata
Tantras, a Pañcarātra text, here. Again, there is a further limitation
on the knowledge deriving from these sources. That is, women require
āptagurus, reliable teachers, for limited instruction of sections of the
Mādhva 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,
neither the Bhāgavata nor the Pañcarātras plays a central role in the
philosophy of Mādhva Vedānta. 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 Vedānta
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 Mādhva Vedānta. It may also indicate that women and
others were literate at this time.120
Finally, in a discussion regarding the eligibility of sūdras, women are
mentioned as having an initiation rite – unlike the śūdras. Madhvācārya
states:
604 DEEPAK SARMA
But the highest among women are not like śūdras. [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 “Urvaśı̄, Yamı̄, Śacı̄ and
the rest” as glossed in BSB, 1.1.1 then the conflict is avoided.122 The
term “uttamastr¯ın. ām”, of those highest among women, is not glossed
here. Nevertheless, it is not likely that Madhvācārya’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.
Apaśūdrādhikaran. am, “section on the unworthy Śūdra”

Vis. n. u is not to be investigated by śūdras 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 Mādhva canon are the śūdras
– the group which occupies the lowest position among humans in the
four-fold class system. The majority of governing doctrines restricting
access propounded by Madhvācārya are in connection with the śūdra
class.
As mentioned above, Madhvācārya restricts access to the study of
the Vedas to males of the first three classes who have a distinguished
intellect, viśis. .tabuddhyādibhāva. They also must have participated in the
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.
Madhvācārya writes that the reason for such a strong prohibition is
that the śūdra does not undergo any sacred initiation rites. As mentioned
above, he does so in BSB 1.3.36:
“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 śūdra], the absence of this initiation ceremony
is [declared] in Pain̄giśruti; “The śūdra 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, śūdras, 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.
Śūdras 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 philo-
sophical 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.
There are several śūdras in the Brahma Sūtras regarding the ambiguity
in the assertion “All men are eligible to study the Vedas” and the
possibility that śūdras are found in such a set.124 The discussion in the
Brahma Sūtras is couched in terms of a myth taken from Chāndogya
Upanis. ad 4.1–4.2. This example concerns the myth of Pautrāyan. a,
Jānaśruti, the grandson of Janaśruta. In the myth Pautrāyan. a is called a
śūdra and is still eligible to obtain initiation and to study the Vedas.125
The myth is as follows: Jānaśruti, 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, śūdra! Keep your
goods and cows!”127
Pautrāyan. 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
Pautrāyan. a receives some instruction and nothing else is mentioned
about him in the Chāndogya Upanis. ad.
A discussion thus ensues given the fact that Pautrāyan. a is referred to
as a śūdra, and is nevertheless initiated into Vedic study.129 Madhvācārya
explains this problematic appellation as simply an appropriate description
606 DEEPAK SARMA
of Pautrāyan. a – that he was tearing and was sad. By nirukta, word

derivation, rules, Madhvācārya thus derives the term śūdra from the
compound śucādravan. am, “tearing that is due to distress”.130
Madhvācārya refers to other characteristics of Putrāyan. a to buttress
his nirukta argument. He argues that Putrāyan. 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, Vyāsa notes that another

characteristic mark of the sú̄dra 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
śūdratva, state of being a śūdra, of Satyakāma. This myth is also taken
from Chāndogya Upanis. ad 4.4. The story is as follows: a boy named
Satyakāma Jābāla 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, Hāridrumata Gautama, who asks him about
his parentage. Satyakāma 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, Satyakāma must be a
Brahmin. Satyakāma is therefore regarded as eligible for the knowledge
of the Vedas. For this reason he is not a sú̄dra.133
Madhvācārya quotes several passages from this myth. Of course,
he uses the myth as an argument in support of his restrictive doctrine
concerning śūdras. He states:
“Oh, I do not know this, which gotra, lineage, I am”. By reason of the true statement
of Satyakāma, there is certainty for Hāridrumata with regard to [Satyakāma’s] not
being a śūdra. [Hāridrumata 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 [Satyakāma’s] initiation.134
Though Madhvācārya does not explicitly state it here, the implication

is that śūdras are restricted from studying the Vedas.
These two myths from the Chāndogya Upanis. ad are thus used as
arguments in support of Madhvācārya’s restrictive governing doctrines.
Of course Madhvācārya’s position here is simply commentary on Vyāsa’s
BS. It is not clear why Madhvācārya chose these myths here in favor
of others. Interestingly they occur together in the fourth section of the
first chapter of the Chāndogya Upanis. ad. Each implicitly concerns
eligibility requirements and restrictive doctrines.
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. ti”, Madhvācārya suggests several
forms of discipline and punishment by which restrictive doctrines are
to be adhered to:135
[From Gautama Dharma Śāstra 12.4–6.]: “For [the śūdra is] prohibited [from studying
the Vedas]: If [a sú̄dra 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 śūdra – 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 śūdra, 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 Sūtras 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-
tions to his restrictive governing doctrines regarding śūdras. He states
“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-
acter from the Mahābhārata. The story of his birth explains why he is
exceptional. Vyāsa, a sage, was asked by Satyavatı̄ to have sex with
his daughters-in-law in order to produce needed children. Vyāsa 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. tarās. t.ra is born blind). The elder daughter-in-law sends a
lower class slave dressed as herself to have sex with Vyāsa. The slave
woman, unlike the other daughters-in-law, does not react in a negative
way. In fact she gives Vyāsa great pleasure and acts appropriately.
Vyāsa awards her for her behavior and the result is Vidura who is an
avatāra 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 Pān. 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 Madhvācārya 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 ādi,
“and the rest”. A strictly delineated set of humans who are restricted
from access to Mādhva doctrines is consequently opened up. Jayatı̄rtha
explains:
[Explanation of the passage beginning] “For Vidura and the rest”: There is an exception
for them, for those other śūdras [like Vidura] etc. because they are possessors of
aparoks. ajñāna, direct knowledge [of brahman], acquired in a former birth. [For
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 śūdras etc. by means of Vedic knowledge. This is the case.141
Despite Jayatı̄rtha’s commentary, it still remains unclear as to the

members of this subset of exceptions as the term ādi may refer exclu-
sively to avartāras of gods. Aside from the ambiguity inherent in the
term ādi, it is also not clear how it is possible to determine the character
of the pūrvajanma, the previous birth, of a śūdra or any other sentient
being – aside from mythological characters and accounts.
To summarize: there are doctrines about doctrines that restrict śūdras
from accessing those doctrines. Śūdras 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 Mādhva dialectics. There
is, however, a subset of śūdras who are eligible for a comprehensive
Mādhva education. The example adduced in Vidura, a figure from the
Mahābhārata. Finally, Jayatı̄rtha explains that these exceptions to the
rule had obtained aparoks. ajñāna in previous births and, therefore, are
eligible.
Devatādhikaran. am, “Section on the Gods”

The discussion with regard to the eligibility of the gods, as noted in the
Brahma Sūtras themselves, is directly linked to a structurally similar set
of controversies in Pūrva Mı̄mām 142 The discussion in the Brahma
. sā.
Sūtras moreover, begins with a reference to Jaimini: “Jaimini [thinks
that] there is no eligibility with regard to madhuvidyā, knowledge
of brahman, because there is an impossibility”.143 The inconsistency
here is outlined by Madhvācārya again by adducing a myth from the
Chāndogya Upanis. ad. Madhvācārya explains:
Jaimini thinks: By reason of [assertions found in the Chāndogya 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
eligibility [for these gods] with regard to madhuvidyā, 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 Chāndogya

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
knowledge of brahman. Why do they need to engage in brahmajijñāsā,
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”, Madhvācārya 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 sūtra, BS 1.3.33, Bādarāyan. 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. Madhvācārya
explains:
Bādarāyan. 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 madhuvidyā etc. for there is a distinctive light [to be obtained].149
This possibility of obtaining prakāśaviśes. ah. , 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.
Madhvācārya ties the discussion here to the Pūrva Mı̄mām . sā conver-
sation. The Pūrva Mı̄mām. s ā debate centers around the eligibility of the
gods to partake in sacrifices and other ritual activities. Madhvācārya
thus cites from the Skānda Purān. a:
[This passage is from] the Skānda Purān. a: “Where there is devotion with regard to
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. Madhvācārya
thus links his eschatology with the Pūrva Mı̄mām . sa matters, and then
both his eschatology and the Pūrva Mı̄mām . sa matters with eligibility.
Again, these explanations make sense only if the scope of the term
sarvajñātva, the state of being all knowing, is limited and excludes
aparoks. ajñāna.
From this, then, gods are held to be eligible to become literate
Mādhva readers. They are, of course, at the top of the hierarchy of
eligible sentients described by Madhvācārya 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 Jayatı̄rtha’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. ajñāna,
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, never-
theless 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.
. grāhakadharma, Limiting
Philosophical Cruxes: Upasam
Characterization
In this section I briefly summarize the locations of philosophical contro-
versy that are thematic in this discussion of eligibility. To this end, I
examine he problem of lacking a upasam . grāhakadharma, limiting
characterization.
Perhaps the most consistent problem in each one of Madhvācārya’s

characterizations of eligible sentient beings concerns the lack of a
upasam . grāhakadharma. I take this characterization from an argument
made by Vyāsatı̄rtha in his Tātparyacandrikā. The Tātparyacandrikā,
is a commentary on Jayatı̄rtha’s Tattvaprakāśika which is, in turn,
a commentary on Madhvācārya’s Brahma Sūtra Bhās. ya. Vyāsatı̄rtha
argues against the prerequisite “the condition of increased tranquillity,
restraint, etc.” held by the Advaita school in their interpretation of what
precedes brahmajijñāsa, the investigation into brahman. Vyāsatı̄rtha
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
that he is reacting here to a passage found in the Bhāmat¯ı. In his Bhāmat¯ı
Vācaspati 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 śruti: “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, Vyāsatı̄rtha 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
Vyāsatı̄rtha 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 Madhvācārya.
Madhvācārya’s use of the term ādi, translated as “etc.” “and the rest”,
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 Jayatı̄rtha and
Rāghavendratı̄rtha that the need for a upasam . grāhakadharma, limiting
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 śūdras. In the first case, “Urvaśı̄, Yamı̄,
Śacı̄ and the rest”, the term ādi 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 śūdras 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”. Śūdras are
included in the set and, of course, this is not desirable for Madhvācārya
and his followers. The discussion is couched in terms of several myths
taken from the Mahābhārata and the Chāndogya Upanis. ad. These myths
themselves are places where the upasam . grāhakadharma problem is
confronted. In these places myth is used as argument against the lack
of an upasam . grāhakadharma. An interesting interaction exists here
between myth and argument.159
The second set of upasam . grāhakadharma problems concern the
delineation of canon. First there is the use of the term tantras which
does not clearly demarcate any particular portion of the Mādhva
canon – except for the Pañcarātra. In his gloss of the term tantras
as pañcarātrādi, “the Pañcarātra and others”, Jayatı̄rtha only adds
to the ambiguity. The term nāmajñāna also creates the same diffi-
culty. These are both upasam . grāhakadharma, limiting characterization,
problems.
Though the problems with ādi 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 Vedānta. 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
upasam . grāhakadharma, then, would merely indicate ignorance of what
was once obvious.
Madhvācārya 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
Mādhva reader. Although there may be upasam . grāhakadharma prob-
lems, the intent remains clear.
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 Madhvācārya’s corpus where
he addresses issues of debate itself and he argues against doctrines
of non-Vedānta traditions that do not uphold the legitimacy of the
Vedas. This interest in debate, and also with nāstika traditions, seems
to conflict with the strict governing doctrines. Why is there an interest
in debating with those outside of the Mı̄mām . sā and āstika world view?
Why, for example, did Madhvācārya 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
Mādhva corpus where such matters are discussed. First I examine
Madhvācārya’s Vādalaks. an. a, a text devoted to the rules and regulations
surrounding debate. Then, I examine several passages in Madhvācārya’s
Anuvyākhyāna 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 nāstika
traditions. Preliminary research indicates that medieval Tul.unād. u Jains
neither cite nor address Mādhva doctrines in their texts.160 Mādhva
texts are cited and critiqued in the texts of other scholars of Vedānta
in the time period. This may only indicate that they were not excluded
from access by Mādhva RGD. That Jains do not cite Mādhva texts may
indicate that the RGD were functioning at the time.
The Vādalaks. an. a
The Vādalaks. an. a, also known as the Kathālaks. an. a, is a brief text of 35
anus. .tubhs in which Madhvācārya sets out the proper types of debate
in which devotees can engage.161 Madhvācārya lists three types of
appropriate debating methods. These are vāda, jalpa, and vitan. d. ā.162
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
who do not have adhikāri, eligibility and, therefore, may not be able
to become skilled readers. That is, Madhvācārya 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 Madhvācārya 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 Mādhva about his
own doctrines. Arguing with a Mādhva about his doctrine presumes
knowledge of the Vedas and other śruti texts. These apaurus. eya, without
human origin, texts are also restricted. If a debate were to take place
between a Mādhva 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 Mādhva devotees about Mādhva doctrine can only be undertaken
by those who are (or can become) skilled readers of Mādhva doctrine.
Third, it also is reasonable to conclude that these debating rules
could be employed by Mādhva scholars when they argued via reductio
against the doctrines of other schools. This way Mādhva scholars can
refute rival positions and, at the same time, need not reveal their own
doctrine. To this end, Madhvācārya characterizes the vitan. d. ā style of
argument:
The vitan. d. ā argument is [characterized] for the sake of truth [when the argument
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 Mādhva debate. It moreover provides a reasonable
explanation for the occurrence of Mādhva debates with debaters who
are not skilled readers of Mādhva 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
[in other] doctrines. The passages in Madhvācārya’s Anuvyākhyāna,
a commentary on the Brahma Sūtra, are introductions to this series
of refutations of rival positions. These rival schools are the Nyāya,
Vaiśes. ika, Sām
. khya, Yoga, Cārvāka, Buddhism, Jainism, Śaiva, and,
finally, the Śākta schools. Madhvācārya first states reasons as to why
these doctrines exist:
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 svarūpatraividhya,
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,
Madhvācārya 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] āgamas,
they would always destroy the darkness [the ignorant].166
He further addresses the reason why these refutations are important:

Therefore [Vyāsa] 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 them-
selves. 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
even if one debates with an outsider. One can argue vitan. d. ā style and
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 Mādhva 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 Mādhva Vedānta.
Research has not uncovered any instances in Mādhva works of
responses to critique of Mādhva doctrine by those outside of the
616 DEEPAK SARMA
Mı̄mām. sā fold – but Pūrva and Uttara. The responses that I have
discovered refer to criticisms made by Advaita and Viśid. t.ādvaita oppo-
nents. If there were responses to external critiques then this may indicate
the Mādhva thinkers permit the possibility of outsider, dvijas and other-
wise, to understand Mādhva doctrines. However, I found no cases of
this type of response.
EXCLUSIVIST STRATEGIES IN MĀDHVA VEDĀNTA
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 Mādhva Vedānta. I showed that the rules governing
access to doctrines were matters of great importance for virtuoso
readers of Mādhva Vedānta. To this end I examined several locations in
Madhvācārya’s commentary on the Brahma Sūtras 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
Mādhva 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 Mādhva doctrine. Although
Madhvācārya 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
Madhvācārya first professed his doctrines can be linked to his RGD.
Clearly these RGD played an important role in Mādhva Vedānta 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 Mādhva Vedānta.
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 Mādhva school would not have been possible without the
assistance of Prof. D. Prahlādācārya of the Pūrn. aprajñā Vidyāpit.a in
Bangalore, guruji. Prof. Sita Nambiar, and the grace of the Swāmiji of
the Pejāvar mat. ha. I wish to thank Prof. Paul Griffiths, Wendy Doniger,
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
Religious Communities and Sarma, “Exclusivist Strategies in Mādhva Vedānta”.
2
Bādarāyan. a is also known as Vyāsa. I use these two names interchangeably.
3
Madhvācārya, Brahma Sūtra Bhās. ya, 18. This particular sūtra, the very first in
the Brahma Sūtras, can also be found at the beginning of the jijñāsādhikaran. am,
section concerning the eligibility for investigation, section (1.1.1) of any edition of
the Brahma Sūtras.
Abbreviations:
AB Madhvācārya’s An. ubhās. ya
AV Madhvācārya’s Anuvyākhyāna
BD Rāghavendratı̄rtha’s Bhāvadı̄pa
BS Vyāsa’s Brahma Sūtras
BSB Madhvācārya’s Brahma Sūtra Bhās. ya
BSSB Śaṅkarācārya’s Brahmasūtraśan̄karabhās. ya
MBh Vyāsa’s Mahābhārata
MBhTN Madhvācārya’s Mahābhāratatātparyanirn. aya
MV Nārāyan. a Pan. d. itācārya’s Madhvavijaya
TC Vyāsatı̄rtha’s Tātparyacandrikā
TP Jayatı̄rtha’s Tattvaprakāśika
VTV Madhvācārya’s Vis. n. utattva(vi)nirn. aya
Numerals following the comma refer to pagination in Sanskrit texts.

4
athaśabdo man̄galārtho ’dhikārānantaryārthaś ca | atah. śabdo hetvarthah. | 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.
na ca jñānam. vinātyarthaprasādah . | ato brahmajijñāsā kartavyā | BSB 1.1.1, 28.
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] Śrı̄ Viśveśa Tı̄rtha Swāmiji, “The Fitness of śrı̄ Madhva Philosophy
to be the Universal Religion for Humanity”, 23. The Swāmiji 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 Viśis. .tādvaita School
of Vedānta, 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
of Vedānta. For further information regarding inscriptional and other biographical
evidence etc. please refer to Sharma, History, 75–89. For further information about
the establishment of the dates of Madhvācārya see Sharma, History, 77–79, Jha, A
Critical Study of the Tattvaprakāśika 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 Mādhva Vedānta. For this reason I do not explore the issues involved in
fixing the date.
The South Kanara district is located in Karn. āt.aka state. I use Tul.unād. u and
South Kanara interchangeably. The adjective “Śival.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 Mādhva tradition was
established, Śival..li came to refer only to those Ud. upi born Tul.u speaking followers
of Mādhva Vedānta. The difference between Śival.l.i and non-Śival.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.unād. u Brahmins are, as a whole, referred to as Havika Brahmins. The Havika
Brahmins are comprised of Havikas, Kōt.as, Sakalapuris and Śival.l.is. The Brahmins
found in the areas around Ud. upi are differentiated according to region. They are the
Śival.l.is, Kōt.as, Kōt.eśvara, Kandāvaras, and Pañcagrāmas.
For further discussion of the etymological origins of the term śival..li and other
issues of sub-caste distinctions among Tul.unād. u Brahmins, see Siauve, La Doctrine,
10.
9
My data for this section on Nārāyan. a Pan. d. itācārya derives from Sharma, History,
216–222. See Sharma, “Life and Works of Trivikrama Pan. d. itācārya”, for more
biographical information on Nārāyan. a Pan. d. itācārya’s father.
10
That is, he was a Śival.l.i (Tul.u-speaking Ud. upi) Brahmin. In contemporary Mādhva
Vedānta, the majority of practitioners are Tul.u-speaking Brahmins from South Kanara
– though not all are Śival.l.i. Siauve reports the same: “. . . les brâhmanes, śival..li
auxquels appartenait le premier noyau des mādhva”. 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 mat. has were
and are considered to be more authentic. The distinction often had relevance with
regard to theological matters although there is no evidence in Madhvācārya’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 Sārasvata community who, though Brahmins, were neither Śival.l.i nor Tul.u
speakers. Their presence inspired disputes regarding their rights to access Mādhva
texts and teachings and their very inclusion in the Mādhva 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 Nārāyan. a Pan. d. itācārya’s caste, class, language, and birth details.
11
Strict followers of Mādhva Vedānta 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. .tamat. has below.
13
For further reading about the accuracy of these genealogical records, see Sharma,
History, 200.
14
For a detailed list of the texts that Madhvācārya 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 Vedānta canon such as the Upanis. ads. I say more about
Madhvācārya’s citations and references (or lack thereof) below.
15
Madhvavijaya, 3. According to Prabhañjanācārya, the Tul.u equivalent of the name
Pūgavana is Tot.antillayah. . See page 10 of the introduction to Prabhañjanācārya’s
edition Pan. d. itācārya’s Madhvavijaya.
16
MV, 4.4–30. It is not clear from the Madhvavijaya if Acyutapreks. a was a follower
of Advaita Vedānta. However, according the hagiographic evidence, Madhvācārya
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 Vedānta.
17
Madhvācārya also refers to himself as Ānandatı̄rtha in colophons. Although
Madhvācārya has several names, including Pūrn. aprajña, Pūrn. abodha, Vāsudeva, etc.,
I hereafter refer to him only as Madhvācārya. 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
Madhvavijaya records that Madhvācārya used tarka in a debate in which he was
victorious. MV, 4.44. Though the term tarka refers to logic and reasoning in general,
it is likely that Madhvācārya was formally trained in tarka.
19
See Is. .ta Siddhi of Vimuktātman translated by P. K. Sundaram for further reading.
20
MV, 4.45. According to Sharma, Madhvācārya also directly cites and/or summa-
rizes passages from Sarvajñātmamuni’s Sam . ks. epa Śār¯
ıraka in his Anuvyākhyāna
and Tattvodyota. I have not been able to locate such passages. Sharma, History,
123, 145, ft. 4. Sarvajñātmamuni was a contemporary of Vimuktātman as well as
a direct disciple of Śan̄karācārya, the founder of the Advaita school of Vedānta.
Veezhinathan, 5. For further reading on the Sarvajñātmamuni’s Sam . ks. epa Śār¯
ıraka
see Veezhinathan’s translation, critical edition, and notes.
21
MV, 5.1.
22
According to C. R. Krishna Rao, Madhvācārya came into contact with Vidyāśan̄kāra,
the svāmin of the Sr.n̄geri mat. ha, a monastery founded by Śan̄karācārya himself.
Rao, 6–8, 23–27. This meeting is not mentioned in the MV.
23
Pan. d. itācārya states “. . . [Madhvācārya] refuted the six systems”.
. . . .sat. ca tatra samayānakhan. d. ayat | MV, 9.15.
Presumably Madhvācārya 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
combination of the Buddhism, Cārvāka, Jaina, Nyāya, Pūrva Mı̄mām . sā, Sām. khyā,
Vais. eśika, Uttara Mı̄mām . sā, and Yoga traditions. Madhvācārya examines several of
these traditions in BSB, 2.1, known as samayavirodha, the contradictions [in other]
doctrines. Madhvācārya 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 Madhvācārya and Vyāsa, see Sheridan,
“Vyāsa as Madhva’s Guru: Biographical Context for a Vedāntic Commentator”. For
further reading regarding the link of hagiography to philosophy see also Sheridan,
“Madhva, the Bhāgavata Purān. a, and His Commentary on Its First Chapter”.
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 DEEPAK SARMA
28
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
Sharma, History, 146 ft. 1. See Vādah. , 47 in Govindācārya’s edition of the
Sarvamūla. Govindācārya calls the Tattvoddyota the Vādah. . The attack on Buddhist
positions is not unusual especially in light of the Mādhva comparison of Advaita
with Buddhism.
30
Sharma, History, 146 ft. 3. The passage that Jayatı̄rtha cites is: dve sattve
samupāśritya buddhānām . dharmadeśanā | loke sām . vr. tasatyam . ca sataym . ca
praramārthatah. || Tattvoddyotat. ı̄kā, 653 (vol. 3).
. ks. ayā | vedadvis. ām
31
samastavād¯ındragajaprabhadgadaś caranavanyām . pratipaks. akān .
yah. prathamah. samāyayau savādisim . ho ’tra sa buddhisāgara || MV, 5.8. Buddhisāgara,
the best among the haters of the Vedas, who is the defeater of all the elephants
who are the best disputants, wandering along with Vādisim . ha, with the desire of
[meeting] opponents, came here.
Though Buddhisāgara is only described as a hater of the Vedas, his status as a
Buddhist is mentioned in Pan. d. itācārya’s Bhāvaprakāśika, an auto commentary on
his Madhvavijaya. He writes:
vaiśes. ikaviśes. ajño vādisim. hābhidho dvijah. | mah¯ım
. vijitya sam . prāpto bauddhāgamyam .
buddhisāgara || Bhāvaprakāśika, 5.8.
He whose name is Vādisim . ha, the twice born, is a knower of the essence of the
Vaiśes. ika [system]. Having conquered the earth, Buddhisāgara fell in with the incom-
prehensible followers of Buddha.
32
For a list of all of the names of people mentioned in the Madhvavijaya
see Prabhañjācārya’s introduction of the critical edition of the Madhvavijaya and
Bhāvaprakāśika, 14–16.
33
Those schools that uphold the Vedas are known as āstika while those that argue
against the validity of the Vedas are known as nāstika.
34
The etiology here is entirely speculative.
35
See Griffiths, “Denaturalizing Discourse: Ābhidhārmikas, 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, “Purān. a
as Brahmanic Ideology”, 94–96.
One additional possibility suggested by Prof. Prahlādācārya, Director of the
Pūrn. aprajñā Research Institute, is that Madhvācārya did not mention scholars and
texts by name as they were not worthy to be mentioned! Prahlādācārya, personal
interview, 6-5-97.
37
It is not explicitly stated in the Madhvavijaya that the king was a Muslim. However,
contemporary biographers of Madhvācārya refer to the king as a Muslim in their
translations and accounts. For further details see Govindācārya, Madhvācārya (Life
and Teachings), 10, Padmanabhacharya, Life and Teachings of Sri Madhvacharya,
59, Rau, Nārāyana Pan. d. itācārya’s Śr¯ı Madhva Vijaya, 125.
38
gām . bhiryam . dhr. tim uruv¯ ıryam āryabhāvam. tejobhyam . giram api deśakālayuktām
| rājāsya sphut. am upalabhya vismito ’smai rājyārdham . sapadi samarpayām babhūva
| 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 [Madhvācārya] one half of [his] kingdom.
The report that Madhvācārya walked on water has led some scholars to conclude
that Mādhva Vedānta was influenced by Christianity. Siauve states that “L’idée
messiannique peut paraı̂re assez étrange en contexte indien, et l’on a voulu voir dans
cette conviction de Madhva le reflet d’influences chrétiennes”. Siauve, La Doctrine
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 Pād. ikud. el that Madhvācārya is
said to have come into contact and debated with Trivikrama Pan. d. itācārya (the father of
biographer Nārāyan. a Pan. d. itācārya) 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.unād. 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 Ballāl.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 Madhvācārya came into contact
with both Narasim . ha III and Ballāl.a III. He does not, however, cite any evidence,
historical or otherwise, for his claim. He also holds that King Īśvaradeva, who is
mentioned in the Madhvavijaya, refers to Yād. ava king named Mahādeva. 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. Mahādeva,
however, is mentioned as the Mahālin̄gadeva deity of the Tol.ahas feudatory of Surāla
located in the Ud. upi district. “Mahādeva” 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 āstika, nāstika, and tribal and indigenous. The āstika
and nāstika categories are well defined. The third category, tribal and indigenous,
stands in contrast to the āstika and nāstika traditions. These tribal and indigenous
are not exegetical traditions and are not always involved in inter and intra scholastic
debates about philosophical matters. The āstika and nāstika 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.unād. 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
312–319. The Vı̄raśaiva community, as known as the Lin̄gāyats, 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 insti-
tutions and vice versa. Bhatt, 441.
53
See Bhatt, 220–225 for further details regarding overseas trade.
54
Govindācārya, Madhvācārya, 10. For example, Madhvācārya’s epistemology draws
from Jain epistemology. See Zydenbos, “On the Jaina Background of Dvaitavedānta”
for further details regarding Jain influences on Mādhva epistemology.
55
Diwakar, 420.
56
Bhatt notes that the Vı̄raśaiva and Viśis. t.ādvaita schools had the help of the rulers
in connection with the disintegration of Jainism. Bhatt, 427.
57
See the Padmapādatı̄rthayatrāvarn. am and related chapters of Mādhava’s
Śan̄karadigvijaya. These chapters are descriptions of religious pilgrimages and
travels undertaken by Śan̄karācārya.
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 Mādhva RGD.
Not surprisingly, the schools of Vedānta shared many of the same RGD.
61
Buddhism also had a history in Tul.unād. u. However by medieval times it was
displaced by Jainism and the Advaita and Viśis. .tādvaita schools. There were still
vestiges of Buddhism in medieval Tul.unād. 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 Śrı̄ Kr. s. n. a temple founded by Madhvācārya in
the 13th century CE and the as. .tamat. has form a circle, within which is enclosed the
Śrı̄ Ananteśvara temple. The Śrı̄ Ananteśvara temple, built in the 8th or 9th century
CE, has a form of Śiva as its centerpiece.
68
Bhatt, 283.
69
Vādirāja, 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 Vādirāja. Sharma, History, 430. Work remains to be done on this
important account.
70
Gonda, 70.
71
Gonda, 49.
72
Nambiar, The Ritual Art of Teyyam and Bhūtārādhane: 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 icono-
graphic matters and does not fit well with other Kr. s. n. a images produced in Tul.unād. u.
Bhatt surmises that the image may have been sculpted in North India. Bhatt, 330–331.
77
For a brief analysis of contemporary Mādhva mat. has, see Rao’s “The Udupi
Madhva matha”.
78
It is not altogether clear that the system existed immediately after Mādhva’s
death or if it was a later development. There is some inscriptional evidence, however,
which indicates that it took effect immediately upon Madhvācārya’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 Kāśi and Gokarn. a mat. has whose adherents are members of the Sārasvata
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. has received funds in 1402 CE and 1433 CE respectively.
Sharma, History, 192.
82
The Vijayanagara empire, though in power one century after the as. .tamat. 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. .tamat. has were founded.
See Sarma for more about Mādhva scholars in the Vijayanagara empire.
83
For further information regarding funding of the āstika and nāstika temples in
South Karn. āt.aka 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.unād. u
concerns inscriptions about funding.
84
etām
. vidyām adh¯ ıtya brahmadarś¯ıvāva bhavati | sa etām . manus. yes. u vibrūyāt |
yathā yathā ha vai brūyāt tathā tathā adhiko ’bhavat¯ıti māt. haraśrutau vidyādānam .
śrūyate | tac ca bahūnām ıkaran. ārtham āvis. kāren. e ’ti na mantavyam | anvayād
. sv¯
yukteh. | āvis. kāre ’yogyānām api sv¯ıkāraprāptih. | tac ca nis. iddham | BSB, 3.3.49,
342.
85
na sarveśām adhikārah. | BSB, 3.4.10, 293.
86
evam ukto nāradena brahmā provāca sattamah. | ānantartye ’dhikārasya man̄galārthe
tathaiva ca | athaśabdas . . . || BSB, 1.1.1, 24.
Thus spoken to by Nārada, Brahmā, the most excellent one, said:
The word ‘then’ is used as an auspicious expression and for sequence of eligibility
...
87
tatra athaśābdah. ānantaryārthah. parigr. hyate nādhikārāthah. brahmajijñāsāyā
anadhikāryatvāt | BSSB 1.1.1.
88
For a summary of these arguments see Clooney, Theology, 129–134.
89
granthādau man̄galācaran. asyāvaśayakartvyatvāt tatparatayāthaśabdam . vyācas. .te
|| atheti || muktyarthimātrasya brahmajijñāsāyām . pravr. ttinirasanaparatayāpi tam .
vyācaks. ān. a tasyābhidheyam artham āha || adhikāreti || TP 1.1.1, 18.
90
See Halbfass, “Vedic Orthodoxy” in his Tradition and Reflection for a general
analysis of the concept of adhikāri. Halbfass, Tradition and Reflection, 66–74.
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
yam evais. a vr. n. ute tena labhyas tasyais. ātmā virr. n. ute tanūm svām | BSB, 1.1.1,
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.
paramātmāparoks. yam . ca tatprasādād eva na j¯ ıvaśaktyeti . . . | BSB, 3.2.22, 126.
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
Vedānta to the state of obtaining aparoks. ajñāna in Mādhva Vedānta. He argues that
they are functionally equivalent.
624 DEEPAK SARMA
. bhaktis tathaiva ca |
94
śravan. am . mananam . caiva dhyānam
sādhanam . jñānasampattau pradhānam . nānyadis. yate ||
na caitāni vinā kaś cijjñānamāpa kutaścane ’ti nārad¯ıye | BSB, 1.1.1, 36.
In his commentary on this passage, Jayatı̄rtha states:
etāni śravan. ād¯ıni | kutaś ca na karmādeh. | jñānasya śravan. ādyanvayavyatirekitvāt
tad eva pradhānasādhanam . karmādes tadabhāvāt tatpāramparyen. a sādhanam iti
bhāvah. | TP, 1.1.1, 37.
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 Jayatı̄rtha’s interpretation is correct then each sādhana is required.
Detailed analyses of this list of sādhanas can be found in Madhvācārya’s
Bhagavadg¯ıtābhās. ya.
. cāpy anityakam | vijñāya jātavairāgyo
95
ābrahmastambaparyantamasāram
vis. n. upādaikasam . || sa uttamo ’dhikar¯
. śrayah ı syāt sam . nyastākhilakarmavān 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 sādhanas in Mādhva Vedānta, see Sharma, Philo-
sophy, 376–382.
97
adhikārās´ cokta bhāgavatatantre | mandamadhyottamatvena trividhā hy adhikārin. ah.
| tatra mandā manus. yes. u ya uttamagan. ā matāh. | madhyamā .rs. igandharvā devās
tatrottama matāh. || BSB, 1.1.1, 27.
. harau || āhur apy uttamastr¯
98
traivarn. ikānām . vedokte samyag bhaktimatām ın. ām
adhikāram . tu vaidike | BSB, 1.1.1, 28.
. tathā | bhāratam
99
.rgyajuh. sāmātharvāś ca mūlarāmāyan . am . pañcarātram ca vedā
ity eva śabditāh. || BSB, 2.1.5, 12.
100
svādhyāyo ’dhyetavyah. iti sāmānyavidheh. | hiśabdāt vedah. kr. tsno ’dhigatavyah.
sarahasyo dvijanmane ti smr. teh. | BSB, 3.3.3, 160.
The first passage cited by Madhvācārya, svādhyāyo ’dhyetavyah. , is from Taittar¯ıya
Upanis. ad 2.15. I have not been able to locate the origin of the second citation.
101
as. .tavars. am
. brāhman . am upanay¯ ıta tam adhyāpay¯ıtety adhyayanārtham .
sam . skāraparāmarśāt | BSB, 1.3.36, 321.
There are other age minimums for the Ks. atriya and Vaiśya 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
ūrdhvaretassu ca śabde hi || BS 3.4.17, 303.
na tāvatā kāmacārān. ām . jñāne ’dhikārah. | ya idam . paramam . guhyam ūrdhvaretassu
bhās. ayet | BSB, 3.4.17, 303.
104
adhyayanamātravatah. || BS 3.4.12, 294.
105
avais. n. avasya vede ’pi hy adhikāro na vidyate | gurubhaktivih¯ınasya
śamādirahitasya ca || na ca varn. avarasyāpi tasmād adhyayanānvitah. | brahmajñāne
tu vedokte ’py adhikār¯ı satām . mata iti brahmatarke || BSB, 3.4.12, 295.
. tantrajñāne ’dhikāritā || ekadeśe parokte tu na tu
106
str¯ıśūdrabrahmabandhūnām
granthapurah. sare | BSB, 1.1.1, 28.
107
I have not been able to uncover a gloss of the term brahmabandhu in any
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 Prahlādācārya, it is possible to perform a ritual and be reinstated as
an eligible Brahmin.
108
manus. yān. ām eva vedavidyādhikāra ity uktam | tiryagādyapeks. ayaiva
manus. yatvaviśes. an. am uktam . na tu devādyapeks. ayety āha | BSB, 1.3.26, 297.
The term manus. yān. ām 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
sūdras and women. According to Madhvācārya the former are not included in the
set of humans. With regard to the latter, Madhvācārya addresses the eligibility of
women apart from others. For these reasons I take the qualifier “male” to be implied
here.
109
tad upary api bādarāyan. ah. sambhavāt || BS 1.3.25, 297.
. devāditvaprāptyupari | sambhavati hi tes. ām
110
tad upari manus. yān. ām
. satām .
viśis. .tabuddhyādibhāvāt | tiryagād¯ınām. tadabhāvād abhāvah . | tes. ām api yatra
viśis. .tabuddhyādibhāvas tatrāvirodhah. | nis. edhābhāvāt | dr. .syante hi jaritāryādayah.
|| BS 1.3.26, 297.
This discussion of intellect leads to a debate regarding the eligibility of the gods
and śūdras. 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.
. tu vaidike | yathorvaś¯
112
āhur apy uttamastr¯ın. ām adhikāram ı yam¯ı caiva śacyādyāś
ca tathāparā || BSB, 1.1.1, 28.
113
B. N. K. Sharma may be referring to this very point when he states: “In his
[Madhvācārya’s] view, Kāma-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
Madhvācārya’s choice. Sharma, Philosophy, 393.
114
āhur iti || tathā parā munistriyo narādikulajāś 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.
narādikulajāś ceti | taduktam . tātparyanirn. aye ekonatrim. śedhyāye | devyo munistriyaś
caiva narādikulajāpi | Rāghavendratı̄rtha, Bhāvad¯ıpa, 1.1.1, 33.
116
I am reliant upon interviews and discussions with Profs. Prahlādācārya, Haridāsa
Bhat, Pan. d. urangi, and Purān. ika for data in connection with this contemporary
issue.
117
There is a discussion in the contemporary Mādhva community about this ambiguity
regarding the restrictive doctrines for women. The discussion concerns the nature of
individual j¯ıvas, agents. That is, svabhāva, innate disposition, is inherently gendered.
Svabhāva, moreover, can be born in bodies of genders opposed to the gender of the
svabhāva; a female svabhāva may be born in a male body and a male svabhāva
may be born in a female body. Given this confluence of gender, there is a question
as to the ability of female svabhāva residing in male bodies to study the Vedas etc.
as well as the ability of male svabhāva 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
svabhāva appears to evoke the same problems with regard to determining the nature
of some sentient’s pūrvajanma, 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 svabhāva 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.
. tantrajñāne ’dhikāritā || ekadeśe parokte tu na tu
118
str¯ıśūdrabrahmabandhūnām
granthapurah. sare | BSB, 1.1.1, 28.
. pañcarātrādi | TP, 1.1.1, 29.
119
tantram
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.unād. u. See Granoff, “The Role of
Written Texts in Medieval Jain Sectarian Conflicts” for related issues.
. tu na śūdravat | sapatn¯
121
uttamastr¯ın. ām ım. me parādhame ’tyādis. v adhikāradarśanāt
| sam . skārābhavenābhavas tu sāmānyena | asti ca tāsām . sam. skārah. | str¯
ın. ām
.
pradānakarmaiva yathopanayanam . tathe ’ti smr. teh . || 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 Mantrapraśna 1–16. The smr. ti passage is from
Manavadharmaś āstra 2.67.
Jayatı̄rtha’s commentary on the verse helps to contextualize the passage from the
Mantrapraśna:
uttameti || nottamastr¯ın. ām . śūdravat sam . skārābhavena vedavidyādhikārābhavo
vaktavyah. | saptn¯ım . me parādhame tyādividyāsu sacyād¯ ınām
. tad
dras. .tr. tvenādhikāradarśanād ity arthah. | 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] sú̄dras, [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 śūdras is evident] in passages like “along with my wife, the
highest.” with regard to Śacı̄, 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 Śacı̄ and the like who are the
consorts of gods, .rs. is, munis, and the like.
122
Of course, there is still a problem regarding who is also included in the set due
to the use of the term ādi, “and the rest”.
123
[vis. n. ur] jñeyo na vedaih. śūdrādyaih. . . . | Madhvācārya, An. ubhās. ya, 1.6.
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. Chalāri Śes. ācārya,
a 17th century Mādhva, clarifies this ambiguity in his Tattvaprakāśikavyākhyāna, a
commentary on the An. ubhās. ya:
ādyaśabdena sādhāran. astrinnovation n. ām varn. abāhyān. ām ca grahan. am |
Tattvaprakāśikavyākhyāna, 43.
By the term “and others”, ordinary women and those excluded from the class
system is to be understood.
124
manus. yādhikāratvādity ukte ’viśes. āc cchūdrasyāpy . . . | BSB, 1.3.33, 316.
When “Because of the eligibility of male humans” is said, because of this lack of
distinction, [there is eligibility] for śūdras.
The context of this argument is debates about the eligibility of the gods.
125
Olivelle, Upanis. ads, 129.
126
tad u ha jānaśrutih. pautrāyan. ah. .sat. śatānigavām nis. kam aśvatar¯ıratham. tadādaya
praticakrame tam . hābhyuvāda || Chāndogya Upanis. ad, 4.2.1, 263.
“Taking with him six hundred cows, a gold necklace, and a carriage drawn by a
she-mule, Jānaśruti Pautrāyan. a went back to Raikva and said to him . . . ”
Translation is from Olivelle, Upanis. ads, 128–129.
127
tam u ha parah. pratyuvācāha hare tvā śūdra tavaiva saha gobhir astv iti
. . . | Chāndogya Upanis. ad, 4.2.1, 263. The translation is from Olivelle, Upanis. ads,
129.
128
Chāndogya Upanis. ad, 4.2.1, 264.
129
. . . apy aha hāre tvā śūdre ’ti pautrāyan. okter adhikāra ityatāha | BSB, 1.3.33,
316.
And also “Hey you! [Drive them back to your palace,] śūdra! Keep [your goods
and cows!]” spoken to Pautrāyan. a. [Therefore] they say “[the śūdra] is eligible”.
The translation of this portion of the Chāndogya Upanis. ad is from Olivelle’s Upanis. ads,
129.
130
śugasya tad anādaraśravan. āt tadā dravan. āt sūcyate hi || BS 1.3.34, 316.
Of him there is distress, at that time it [his status as a śūdra] is indicated from the
oozing [of tears].
nāsau pautrāyan. aśśūdrah. súcādravan. am eva śūdratvam | kamvera etam etat santam
ity anādaraśravan. āt | sa ha sañjihānaiva ks. attāram uvāce ’ti sūcyate hi | BSB,
1.3.34, 316.
That Pautrāyan. a is not a śūdra. The status of being a śūdra 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 Chāndogya Upanis. ad 4.1.5] “as soon as he got up in the morning, he said to
his steward”.
128.
Madhvācārya is consistent here as he glosses the term sú̄dra in the same way in his
commentary on the Chāndogya Upanis. ad.
śucādrevan. āccchūdrah. | rājā pautrāyan. ah. | śokāccūdreti munibodhitah. |
Chāndogyopanis. adbhās. ya, 4.2.1–2, 262–263.
The grandson of the king, a śūdra from tearing due to distress, is called a “distressed
śūdra”.
I translate nirukta as “word derivation” and not “etymology” in light of Patton’s
argument regarding this issue. See Patton, Myth, 142.
131
ks. atriyatvāvagateś cottaratra caitrarathena lin̄gāt || BS 1.3.35, 320.
And, [that Pautrāyan. a is not a śūdra] from the understanding of [his] status as a
ks. atriya by reason of the mark of the chariot subsequently [mentioned].
ayam aśvatar¯ıratheti citrarathasambandhitvena liṅgena pautrāyan. asya
ks. atriyatvāvagateś ca | rathastvaśvatar¯ıyuktiścitra ity abhidh¯ıyata | iti brahmān. d. 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, Pautrāyan. 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
the Brahmān. d. a.
132
yatra vedo rathas tatra na vedo yatra no ratha iti brahmavaivarte | BSB, 1.3.35,
320.
133
Chāndogya Upanis. ad, 4.4, 270–271. Mookerji, 131–132.
134
tad abhāvanirdhāran. e ca pravr. tteh. || BS 1.3.37, 323.
And of [Hāridruma’s] proceeding with regard to the ascertainment [that Satyakāma]
was not [a śūdra].
nāham etad veda bho yadgotro ’hamasm¯ıti satyavacanena satyakāmasya
śūdratvābhāvanirdhāran. e hāridrumatasya naitad abrāhman. o vivaktumarhat¯ıiti
tatsam . skāre pravr. teś ca || BSB, 1.3.37, 323.
135
śravan. ādhyayanārthapratis. edhāt smr. teś ca || BS 1.3.38, 323.
136
Literally “desire to hear” in this case “desire to hear the order of . . . ”
. am | adhyayane jihvācchedah. |
137
s´ravan. e trapujatubhyām . śrotraparipūran
arthāvadhāran. e hr. dayavidāran. am iti pratis. edhāt | nāgnir na yajñaś śūdrasya
628 DEEPAK SARMA
tathaivādhyaynam . kutah . | kevalaiva tu śuśrūs. ā trivarn . ānām

. vidh¯ıyateti smr. teś ca |
vidurād¯ınām . tu utpannajñānatvāt kaścid viśes. ah . || BSB, 1.3.38, 323–24.
138
BSB, 323. For further reading in connection with the Gautama Dharma Sūtras,
see Mitra’s introduction to the critical edition of the Gautama Dharma Sūtras and
see Kane, 22–38.
. || BSB, 1.3.38, 324.
139
vidurād¯ınām . tu utpannajñānatvāt kaścid viśes. ah
140
MBh, 1.100.22–28.
141
vidurād¯ınām iti || tes. ām pūrvajanmany utpannāparoks. ajñā(na)nitvenetara-
śūdrādibhyo viśis. .tatvāt vedārthāvadhāran. ādi na nis. iddham iti bhāvah. | ato harih.
śūdrādyair vedavidyā vijñeyo na bhavat¯ıti siddham || TP, 1.3.38, 324.
142
The debate between the schools of Vedānta and the Pūrva Mı̄mām . sā schools are
summarized in Clooney’s “Devatādhikaran. a: A Theological Debate in the Mı̄mām . sā-
Vedānta Tradition”. In this article, Clooney looks primarily at the gods and their
relationship to ritual and mediation. He does not examine the relationship between
the gods and brahmajijñāsā, the inquiry into brahman.
. || BS 1.3.31, 312.
143
madhvādis. v asam . bhavād anadhikāram . jaiminih
144
vasūnām evaiko bhūtve ’ty ādināprāpyaphalatvāt | prāptapadānām . devānām
.
madhvādividyāsv anadhikāram . jaiminir manyate | BSB, 1.3.31, 312.
120.
145
sa ya etad evam amr. tam . veda vasūnām evaiko bhutvāgninaiva mukhenaitad
evāmr. tam . dr. s. .tvā tr. pyati . . . || Chāndogya Upanis. ad, 3.6.2, 202.
The translations of the portion of the Chāndogya 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. ta, for rudras the second, etc. This series of passages can be found
in Chāndogya Upanis. ad, 3.6–3.10, 202–204.
146
jyotis. i bhāvāc ca || BS 1.3.32, 314.
147
jyotis. i sarvajñatve bhāvāc ca | ādityaprakāśe ’ntarbhāvavat tajjñāne sarvavastūnām
antarbhāvāt | nityasiddhatvāc ca vidyānām | 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.
. o ’sti hi || BS 1.3.33, 314.
148
bhāvam . tu bādarāyan
149
phalaviśes. abhāvāt prāptapadānām api devānām . madhvādis. v apy adhikāram .
bādarāyan. o manyate | asti hi prakāśaviśes. ah. | BSB, 1.3.33, 314.
150
yāvat sevā pare tatve tāvat sukhaviśes. atā | sam . bhavāc ca prakāśasya param
ekamr. te harim || tes. ām . sāmarthyayogāc ca devānām apy upāsanam | sarvam . vidh¯ıyate
nityam . sarvayajñādikarma ce ’ti skānde || BSB, 1.3.33, 314.
151
. . . devās tatrottamā matāh. || BSB, 1.1.1, 27.
152
antyajā api ye bhaktā nāmajñānādhikār. in. ah. | BSB, 1.1.1, 28.
153
antyajā varn. abāhyāh. | TP, 1.1.1, 28.
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.
. gr. hyante | ata eva
155
ādigrahan. ena ca vis. ayatitiks. ātaduparamatattvaśraddhāh. sam
śrutih. tasmāc chānto dānta uparatistitiks. uh. śraddhāvitto bhūtvātmany evātmānam .
paśyet sarvam ātmani paśyati iti | tatdetasya śamadamādirūpasya sādhanasya sam . pat
prakars. a śamadamādisādhanasam . pat | tato ’sya sam . sārabandhanān mumuks. ā bhavat¯ ıty
āha mumuks. utvam . ca iti | Bhāmat¯ ı, 1.1.1, 154.
156
sámadaādisampattir ity atra cādiśabdo na yuktah. || tena titiks. āder eva
grahan. am . na tu vivekāder iti niyamahetos titiks. ānugatasya vivekādivyāvr. ttasya
copasam . grāhakadharmasyābhavāt || TC 1.1.1, 135–136.
Upasām . grāhakadharma is a term in Nyāya connoting the limiting characteristic by
which some are included in the set and others are excluded.
157
158
manus. yādhikāratvādityukte ’viśes. āc cchūdrasyāpi . . . | BSB, 1.3.33, 316. “Because
of the eligibility of male humans” it is proven. Because of this non-distinction, [there
is eligibility] for śūdras.
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. .tubh is a class
of meter.
162
vādo jalpo vitan. d. eti trividhā . . . | Vādalaks. an. a, 2, 69.
The three-fold [debating methods] are vāda, jalpa, and vitan. d. ā.
163
vitan. d. ā tu satām anyais tattvam es. u nigūhitum || Vādalaks. an. a, 3, 271, 273.
anyaih. asadbhis saha | Jayatı̄rtha, Vādalaks. an. atikā, 3, 271, 273.
[The word] “with another” [means] along with wicked [opponents].
164
daurlabhyāc cchuddhabudh¯ı nām bāhulyād alpavedinām || AV, 551, 3159.
tāmasatvāc ca lokasya mithyājñānaprasaktitah. | vidves. ātprame tattve tattvavedis. u
cāniśam || AV, 552, 3159.
. bahutvatah. | durāgrahagr. h¯
165
anādivāsanāyogādasurān. ām ıtatvād vartante samayāh.
sadā || AV, 553, 3159.
166
tathāpi śuddhabuddh¯ınām ¯ıśānugrahayoginām | suyuktayas tamo hanyur
āgamānugatāh. sadā || AV, 554, 3162.
tamah. ajñānam | Jayatı̄rtha, Nyāya Sudhā 3162.
[The term] “darkness” [refers to] the ignorant.
. nirākr. tim | cakāra nijabhaktānām
167
iti vidyāpatih. samyak samayānām
buddhiśān. atvasiddhaye || AV, 555, 3162, 3167.
REFERENCES
Primary Sources
Chalāri Śes. ācārya. Tattvaprakāśikavyākhyāna. In An. ubhās. ya of Śr¯ı Madhvācārya with
the commentary, Tattvaprakāśikavyākhyāna of Śr¯ı Chalāri Śes. ācārya. R. G. Malagi
ed. Mysore: Oriental Research Institute, 1985.
Gautama. Gautama Dharma Sūtra with Maskari Bhās. ya (A Critical Edition). V. Mitra
ed. Delhi: Veda Mitra and Sons, 1969.
Jayatı̄rtha. Tattvoddyotat. ı̄kā. In Daśa Prakaran. āni (4 vols.). P.P.
Laks. mı̄nārāyon. opādhyāya ed. Bangalore: Pūrn. aprajñā Vidyāpit.ha, 1971.
Jayatı̄rtha. Vādalaks. an. atikā. In Daśa Prakaran. āni (4 vols.). P.P.
Laks. mı̄nārāyan. opādhyāya ed. Bangalore: Pūrn. aprajñā Vidyāpit.ha, 1971.
Jayatı̄rtha. Śr¯ımannyāyasudhā. Uttarādi mat. ha ed. Bangalore: Uttarādi mat. ha, 1982.
Jayatı̄rtha. Tattvaprakāśika. Panchamukhi ed. Delhi: Indological Research Centre,
1994.
Kāthakopanis. at. Sridhara Śāstri ed. Poona: Oriental Book Supply Agency, 1919.
630 DEEPAK SARMA
Madhvācārya. Brahmasūtrānuvyākhyāna. Pan. d. urangi ed. Bangalore: Prabha Printing

House, 1991.
Madhvācārya. Brahmasūtrabhās. yam. R. Raghavendracharya ed. Mysore: Government
Branch Press, 1911.
Madhvācārya. Daśa Prakaran. āni (4 vols.). P. P. Laks. mı̄nārāyan. opādhyāya ed.
Bangalore: Pūrn. aprajñā Vidyāpit.ha, 1971.
Madhvācārya. Sarvamūlagranthāh. . Govindācārya ed. Bangalore: Akhila Bharata
Madhwa Mahamandala, 1969–74.
Madhvācārya. Mahābhāratatātparyanirn. aya. Vol. 2. Sarvamūlagranthāh. . Govindācārya
ed. Bangalore: Akhila Bharata Madhwa Mahamandala, 1969–74.
Madhvācārya. Pramān. alaks. an. am. Vol. 5. Sarvamūlagranthāh. . Govindācārya ed.
Bangalore: Akhila Bharata Madhwa Mahamandala, 1969–74.
Madhvācārya. Vādalaks. an. am. Vol. 1. Daśa Prakaran. āni (4 vols.). P. P.
Laks. mı̄nārāyan. opādhyāya ed. Bangalore: Pūrn. aprajñā Vidyāpit.ha, 1971.
Madhvācārya. Vādah. . Vol. 5. Sarvamūlagranthāh. . Govindācārya ed. Bangalore: Akhila
Bharata Madhwa Mahamandala, 1969–74.
Madhvācārya. Anuvyākhyāna. In Śr¯ımannyāyasudhā. Uttarādi mat. ha ed. Bangalore:
Uttarādi mat. ha, 1982.
Madhvācārya. An. ubhās. ya. In An. ubhās. ya of Sri Madhvacarya with the commentary,
Tattvaprakāsíkavyākhyāna of Sri Chalari Seshacarya. Malledevaru ed. Mysore:
Oriental Research Institute, 1985.
Madhvācārya. G¯ıtātātparyanirn. ayah. . Prahlādācārya ed. Bangalore:
Pūrn. aprajñavidyāpit.ham, 1987.
Madhvācārya. Brahma Sutra Bhashya. Panchamukhi ed. Delhi: Indological Research
Centre, 1994.
Madhvācārya. Chāndogya Upanis. asadbhās. yam. K. T. Pan. d. urangi ed. Bangalore:
Dvaita Vedānta Studies and Research Foundation, 1994.
Narasimhan, K. R . g Bhās. yam of Śrimadānandat¯ırtha Bhagavadpādācārya; Volume 1.
Tirunelveli: Guru Offset Printers, 1996.
Nārāyan. a Pan. d. itācārya. 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.
Pandurangi, K. T. Brahma Sūtra Bhās. ya of Anandat¯ırtha with Tattvaprakāśikā of
Jayat¯ırtha. Bangalore: Dvaita Vedānta Studies and Research Foundation, 1994.
Pan. d. urangi, K. T. Mahābhāratatātparyanirn. aya. Bangalore: Sriman Madhva
Siddhantonnahini Sabha, 1993.
Pan. d. urangi, K. T. Vis. n. u-Tattva Vinirn. aya; Translated into English with Detailed
Notes. Bangalore: Dvaita Vedānta Studies and Research Foundation, 1991.
Pan. d. itācārya, Nārāyan. a. Bhāvaprakāśika in Sumadhvavijayah. , Bhāvaprakāśikāsametah. .
ed. Prabhañjanācārya. Bangalore: Sri Man Madhwa Siddantonnahini Sabha, 1989.
Pan. d. itācārya, Nārāyan. a. Sumadhvavijayah. , Bhāvaprakāsíkāsametah. . ed.
Prabhañjanācārya. Bangalore: Sri Man Madhwa Siddantonnahini Sabha, 1989.
Raghavachar, S. S. Śr¯ı Madhva’s An. ubhās. ya or Sarvaśāstrārtha Sangrahah. of Śr¯ı
Madhva. Madras: Dharmaprakash Publications, 1973.
Raghavachar, S. S. Śr¯ımad Vis. n. u-Tattva Vinirn. aya by Śr¯ı Madhvācārya. Madras:
Institute of Gitā Studies, 1985.
Rāghavendratı̄rtha. Bhāt..tasam . graha. P. P. Lakshmı̄nārāyan. a Upādhyāya ed. Madras:
Brindavan Office, 1974.
Rāghavendratı̄rtha. Bhāvad¯ıpa. Panchamukhi ed. Delhi: Indological Research Centre,
1994.
Rāgavendratı̄rtha. Prakāśa in Brahmaśūtrabhās. yam. R. Raghavendracharya ed. Mysore:
Government Branch Press, 1911.
Rao, S.K. Ramachandra. Āgama-kosha (Āgama Encyclopaedia) Vol. IV

Pāñcharātrāgama. Bangalore: Kalpatharu Research Academy, 1989. [Includes
a partial translation of Madhva’s Tantrasārasam . 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.
Rau, D. R. Vasudeva. Nārāyan. a Pan. d. itācārya’s Śr¯ı Madhva Vijaya. Madras:
Śrı̄madānanda Tı̄rtha Publications, 1983.
San̄karācārya. Brahma Sūtra Śan̄kara Bhās. yam: Bhāmat¯ıkalpataruparimalopetam.
Subrahmanya et al. eds. Sri Vani Vilas Press: Srirangam, 1914.
Śan̄karācārya. Brahma Sūtra Śan̄kara Bhās. ya: With the Commentaries Bhāmat¯ı,
Kalpataru, and Parimala. K. L. Joshi ed. Delhi: Parimal Publications, 1996.
Sastri, S. S. Suryanarayana and C. Kunhan Raja ed. tr. The Bhāmat¯ı of Vācaspati.
Adyar: Theosophical Publishing House, 1992.
Sharma, B. N. K. The Bhagavadg¯ıtā Bhās. ya of Śr¯ı Madhvācārya. Bangalore:
Anandatı̄rtha Pratishthāna, 1989.
Siauve, Suzanne. La Voie vers la Connaisance de Dieu (Brahma-Jijñāsā) Selon
l’Anuvyākhāna de Madhva. Publications de L’Institut Français D’Indologie No. 6.
Pondichéry: Institut Français D’Indologie, 1957.
Siauve, Suzanne. Les Noms Védiques De Vis. n. u; Dans l’Anuvyākhāna de Madhva
(Brahma-Sūtra I, 1, adhikaran. a 2 à 12). Publications de L’Institut Français
D’Indologie No. 14. Pondichéry: Institut Français D’Indologie, 1959.
Siauve, Suzanne. Les Hiérarchies Spiritualles Selon l’Anuvyākhyāna de Madhva.
Publications de L’Institut Français D’Indologie No. 43. Pondichéry: Institut Français
D’Indologie, 1971.
Sundaram, P. K. Is. .ta Siddhi of Vimuktātman: An English Translation with Notes and
Introduction. Madras: Swadhara Swaarajya Sangha, 1980.
Vādirāja. Bhāvaprakās. ikāt. ¯ıkāsahitah. . photocopy of text in Pūrn. aprajñāvidyāpı̄t.ha
library. Bibliographic information not available.
Vādirāja. T¯ırthaprabandhah. . V. Prabhañjanācāryah. ed. Udupi: Bhandarkere Math,
1990.
Veezhinathan, N. The Saṁks. epaśār¯ıraks of Sarvajñatman; Critically Edited with
Introduction Notes and Indexes. Madras: Centre for Advanced Study in Philosophy;
Uviv. of Madras, 1972.
Vyāsa. Mahābhārata. Dandekar ed. Poona: The Bhadarkar Oriental Research Institute,
1971.
Vyāsatı̄rtha. Tātparyacandrikā in Brahmaśūtrabhās. yam. R. Raghavendracharya ed.
Mysore: Government Branch Press, 1911.
Vyāsatı̄rtha. Tātparyacandrikā. H. R. Rao ed. Mysore: Hare Pahi Prakashan, 1981.
Secondary Sources on Mādhva Vedānta and Other Schools of Indian

Philosophy
Anantharangachar, N. S. The Philosophy of Sādhana in Viśis. .tādvaita. Mangalore:

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, Haridāsa. 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. “Devatādhikaran. a: A Theological Debate in the Mı̄mām . sā-Vedānta
Tradition”. Journal of Indian Philosophy Vol. 16 (1988): 277–298.
Clooney, Francis X. Thinking Ritually: Rediscovering the Pūrva M¯ımām . sā of Jaimini.
De Nobili Research Library Vol. XVII. Vienna: E.J. Brill, 1990.
Clooney, Francis X. “From Anxiety to Bliss; Argument, Care, and Responsibility in
the Vedānta 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 Kedāra Khan. d. a
of the Skanda Purān. a”. In Purān. a Perennis: Reciprocity and Transformation in
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.
Govindācārya, Bannanje. Madhvācārya (Life and Teachings). Udupi: Pejawar Mutt,
1984.
Govindācārya, 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.
Halbfass, Wilhelm. Studies in Kumārila and Śan̄kara. Studien Zur Indologie Und
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 Dharmaśāstra; 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. āśramacandrika and the Śūdra’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 Śrı̄vais. 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.
Nambiar, Sita K. The Ritual Art of Teyyam and Bhūtārādhane: Theatrical Performance
with Spirit Mediumship. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts,
1996.
Narayana Rao, Velcheru. “Purān. a as Brahmanic Ideology”. In Purān. a Perennis:
Reciprocity and Transformation in Hindu and Jaina Texts”. ed. Wendy Doniger.
85–100. NY: SUNY, 1993.
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.
Prahlādācārya, D. Interviews. Bangalore, India. Jan.1996–May 1996. Jan. 1997–Tape
recording, with author.
Purān. 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.
Qvarnström, Olle. Hindu Philosophy In Buddhist Perspective: The
Vedāntatattvaviniścaya Chapter of Bhavya’s Madhyamakahr. dayakārikā. Lund
Studies in African and Asian Religions Vol. 4. Lund: Plus Ultra, 1989.
Raghavan, V. “The Name Pāñcarātra with an analysis of the Sanatkumāra-Sam . hita
in Manuscript”. Journal of the American Oriental Society Vol. 85 (1965): 73–79.
Raghavendrachar, H. N. Brahma M¯ımām . sā. Mysore: Wesley Press, 1963.
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 Mādhva Vedānta”. Ph.D. diss., University
of Chicago, 1998.
Sastri, Nilakantha. A History of South India. Madras: Oxford U.P., 1976.
Shanbag, D. N. Śr¯ı Madhvācārya and His Cardinal Doctrines. Dharwad: Bharat
Book Depot and Prakashan, 1990.
Sharma, B. N. K. “Life and Works of Trivikrama Pan. d. itācārya”. Journal of the
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 Vedānta and its Literature. Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 1981.
Sharma, B. N. K. The Brahmasūtras and Their Principal Commentaries: A Critical
Exposition. Vol. 1–3. Bombay: Munshiram Manoharlal Pub., 1986.
Sharma, B. N. K. Philosophy of Śr¯ı Madhvācārya. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1986.
634 DEEPAK SARMA
Sharma, B. N. K. Nyāyasudhā of Jayatirthamuni (Pañcādhikaran. ¯ı) Rendered into

English. Malleswaram, Bangalore: Sri Raghavendra Ashram, 1995.
Sheridan, Daniel P. “Madhva, the Bhāgavata Purān. a, and His Commentary on Its
First Chapter”. In Journal of Vais. n. ava Studies ed. D. Sarma. Vol. 5, No. 3 (1997):
113–138.
Sheridan, Daniel P. “Vyāsa as Madhva’s Guru: Biographical Context for a Vedāntic
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
Français D’Indologie No. 38. Pondichéry: Institut Français D’Indologie, 1968.
Śrı̄ Viśveśa Tı̄rtha Swāmiji. “The Fitness of Śrı̄ 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 Mı̄mām . sā”. Indo-Iranian
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.
Wilson, Frances. The Love of Krishna: The Kr. .sn. akarn. āmr. ta of L¯ılāśuka Bilvaman̄gala.
Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1975.
Zydenbos, R. J. “On the Jaina Background of Dvaitavedānta”. 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 Vedānta: 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: Ābhidhārmikas, 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.
Patton, Laurie L. Myth as Argument: The Br. haddevatā as Canonical Commentary.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996.
Ramanujan, A. K. Speaking of Śiva. Great Britain: Penguin Books, 1973.
Department of Religious Studies

Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN, U.S.A.

Access To Texts in Madhva Vedanta Eng

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Access To Texts in Madhva Vedanta Eng

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

DEEPAK SARMA

REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS:

In this paper I examine one type of governing doctrine that is found

Journal of Indian Philosophy 27: 583–635, 1999.

met the requirements for eligibility, the inquiry into brahman is to be

THE MĀDHVA RESTRICTIVE GOVERNING DOCTRINES: AN INTRODUCTION

Questions about accessibility and inclusivity do not usually arise given

Before investigating these doctrines it is important to examine the

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ON MADHVĀCĀRYA

Madhvācārya (1238–1317 CE) was born of Śival.l.i Brahmin parents in the

Bhāvaprakāśika is an elucidation of several aspects of the Madhvavi-

jaya, Madhvācārya neither refers to any Buddhist texts by name nor

Political Environment and Patronage

to Madhvācārya.38 This meeting and exchange does not appear to be

This religious pluralism was permitted by the Hoysala kings who

Āstika Traditions; Vedānta

of religious life. For example, the brahmacāris, students, who were

Two Anti-Vedānta Traditions; V¯ıraśaivism and Jainism

As mentioned above, the Jain institutions were supported by local

Tribal and Other Indigenous Traditions

Ud. upi, invoked the Mūkāmbikā in his T¯ırthaprabhanda.69 The Śaiva

The Mādhva Community and Institutions

“WHICH SENTIENTS ARE ELIGIBLE?” AND

According to Madhvācārya “Everyone does not possess eligibility

Another major difference between the two thinkers is evident in their

Neither Madhvācārya nor Jayatı̄rtha argue here against the Advaita

difference is evident in their varying interpretations of the first sūtra

In an earlier passage in his Bhās. ya vairāgya, detachment, is mentioned

states regarded as maximally desirable. Of course, these schools may

THE MĀDHVA RESTRICTIVE DOCTRINES

Madhvācārya posits restrictive doctrines throughout his texts. Given the

Dvijas, Twice Born, Men

Vedokte, “with regard to Vedic study”, includes the body of texts

Hence, access to the Mādhva canon is restricted to the male ucca,

The prerequisite for eligibility is celibacy for the student. Madhvācārya is

This governing doctrine, restricting access to Vedic study only to

These lower sentient beings, however, may be eligible if they have a

The reference to Jaritāri, etc. is in connection with a myth found in the

occupy a lower position on the hierarchy of intelligence and do not

Rāghavendratı̄rtha thus adds goddesses to Jayatı̄rtha’s list. From both of

hand, if it is taken to be figurative, then some apsaras or goddess-like

All women, human and non-human, are eligible to be taught a portion

Here the upanayana ceremony, required in order to obtain status as a

Apaśūdrādhikaran. am, “section on the unworthy Śūdra”

The restriction, then, is based on the inability to partake in a practical

Śūdras can be orally taught sections of the Tantras by members of the

of Pautrāyan. a – that he was tearing and was sad. By nirukta, word

After this discussion of chariot propriety, Vyāsa notes that another

Though Madhvācārya does not explicitly state it here, the implication

Many times these operational or non-doctrinal strategies link the

These are clearly non-doctrinal methods for maintaining and establishing

that Madhvācārya regards Vidura as an example of an exception to his

Despite Jayatı̄rtha’s commentary, it still remains unclear as to the

Devatādhikaran. am, “Section on the Gods”

The example here is taken from a series of passages in the Chāndogya

This possibility of obtaining prakāśaviśes. ah. , a distinctive light, a type

He reiterates here that there is a gradation of bliss in moks. a for all

Antyajas, Those Excluded From The Class System

Following Jayatı̄rtha’s commentary I have translated the term antyaja

Perhaps the most consistent problem in each one of Madhvācārya’s

Against this position, Vyāsatı̄rtha states:

gains further significance when contextualized; it is not simply a matter