The Authorship of the Pañcadaśī and

the Textual Context of its Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa

Prem Pahlajrai

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

Master of Arts

University of Washington

2005

Program Authorized to Offer Degree:

Department of Asian Languages and Literature
 University of Washington

Abstract

The Authorship of the Pañcadaśī and

the Textual Context of its Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa

Prem Pahlajrai

Chair of the Supervisory Committee:

Professor Richard Salomon
Department of Asian Languages and Literature

The Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa- of the Pañcadaśī presents an overview of fourteenth-century

Advaita Vedānta. This thesis explores the various theories of authorship regarding the

Pañcadaśī. In doing so, the identities of Mādhava, Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha are

examined, along with the various texts ascribed to each. A new hypothesis in support of

joint authorship of the Pañcadaśī by Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha is proposed.

A chapter-by-chapter synopsis of the Pañcadaśī as well as a detailed look at the

Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa are presented along with the prakaraṇa’s extra-textual context in

the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad and its primary and secondary commentaries.

Vidyāraṇya’s innovations and contributions to Advaita Vedānta are presented in brief.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

ii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Number Page

1. Śṛṅgerī maṭha’s guru succession .................................................................................. 12

2. Texts and persons honored therein by Mādhava/Vidyāraṇya....................................... 19
3. Texts and persons honored therein by Bhāratītīrtha ..................................................... 23
4. Works by Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha ....................................................................... 34
5. Texts Cited by PD7, Frequency .................................................................................... 93
6. Citations in PD7, sorted by Source ............................................................................... 94

iii
 Abbreviations

ABORI Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona

AiU Aitareya-Upaniṣad
AiUD Aitareya-Upaniṣad-Dīpikā
AP Anubhūti-prakāśa
BG Bhagavad Gītā
BS Brahma Sūtra
BU Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad
BUŚBh Śaṅkara-bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad
BVS Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra
ChU Chāndogya Upaniṣad
DDV Dṛg-dṛśya-viveka
DV Dhātu-vṛtti
JMV Jīvan-mukti-viveka
JNM Jaiminīya-nyāya-mālā
KM Kāla-mādhavīya
KauU Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad
MU Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad
MāU Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad
Naiṣ. Naiṣkarmya-siddhi
NUTU Nṛsiṃha-uttara-tāpanīya-upaniṣad
NUTUD Nṛsiṃha-uttara-tāpanīya-upaniṣad-dīpikā
PaM Parāśara-mādhavīya
PD Pañcadaśī
PrM Praṇava-mīmāṃsā
RV Ṛg Veda
ŚBh Śaṅkara-bhāṣya
SDS Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha
ŚDV Śaṅkara-digvijaya
SLS Siddhānta-leśa-saṅgraha

iv
TU Taittirīya Upaniṣad
US Upadeśa-sāhasrī
VNM Vaiyāsika-nyāya-mālā
VPS Vivaraṇa-prameya-saṅgraha

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to gratefully acknowledge the encouragement, support and

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

vi
 DEDICATION

To all my teachers:

िव या ता रताः मो यैज ममृ युमहोदिधम् ।

सव े यो नम ते यो गु योऽ ानसंकुलम् ॥
Salutations to the all-knowing teachers
by whom we have been led by means of knowledge
across the great ignorance-filled ocean of birth and death.
US 1.17.88

Frontispiece, Anubhūtiprakāśa, Nirnaya Sagara Press edition, 1902.

vii
 1
1. Introduction

The Pañcadaśī (PD) is considered a prakaraṇa grantha,1 an independent

introductory text on Advaita Vedānta. It comprises fifteen chapters and is further

subdivided into three sections, each containing five prakaraṇas, chapters. The first

section, viveka-pañcaka, considers the discrimination of the real from the unreal. The

dīpa-pañcaka describes the nature of ātman as pure illuminating consciousness. The last

section, ānanda-pañcaka, elaborates on the ultimate, blissful nature of ātman. Some2

hold that each of these three sections elucidate respectively the attributes sat, cit and

ānanda (existence, consciousness and bliss) of brahman. This is a superficial

correspondence, however, as it will be observed in the synopsis to follow (in chapter 4)

that almost every prakaraṇa deals with one or more of these three aspects to varying

degrees.

The authorship of the Pañcadaśī is usually ascribed to Swāmī Vidyāraṇya, the

Śaṅkarācārya of the Śṛṅgerī maṭha or monastery. Tradition also holds that the authorship

of the text changes with the seventh chapter, the Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa, and that

Bhāratītīrtha, Vidyāraṇya’s guru also had a hand in authorship. Vidyāraṇya is typically

associated with helping the Saṅgama kings Harihara I, Bukka I and Harihara II to

establish the city of Vijayanagara, near present day Hampi in Karnataka. Prior to

becoming a renunciate (sannyāsin) his name was Mādhava, and he is said to have been a

1
Mahadevan (1969), p. xiii: “The characteristic feature of a prakaraṇa is that it selects a few topics falling
within the scope of a philosophical tradition and deals with them in a clear and concise manner.
śāstraikadeśa-sambandham śāstrakāryāntare sthitam | āhuḥ prakaraṇam nāma grantha-bhedaṃ
vipaścitaḥ ||” The source of this verse is not provided.
2
For example, Punjani, p. 22; Swahananda, p.ix.
 2
minister of these kings. But the identities of Mādhava, Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha are

shrouded in conflicting opinions and historical controversies. This thesis takes a closer

look at the identity of these individuals, and their connection to Vijayanagara.

There are various works ascribed either to Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya, or to Bhāratītīrtha

or to both. These works shall be examined with a view to sorting out their authorship,

with the greatest attention being paid to determining who really wrote the Pañcadaśī.

Was it exclusively authored by Vidyāraṇya, by Bhāratītīrtha, or by both? If authored by

both, what, if anything, can be determined regarding which sections were written by

whom? The Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa is of particular interest in connection with these

questions; tradition holds that the transition in the authorship of the Pañcadaśī occurred

at this chapter. An comparison of the writing style and contents of the Tṛptidīpa-

prakaraṇa to the that of the rest of the Pañcadaśī will help shed light on these questions.

The Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa also happens to be the longest chapter of the Pañcadaśī,

and as such it affords us a unique view of key Advaita Vedānta concepts and their inter-

relationship. It is structured as an exposition of a śruti-vākya, a scriptural statement from

the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (BU) with which it opens (BU 4.4.12). In order to gain an

understanding of Vidyāraṇya’s thought and an appreciation for his masterful exposition

of Advaita Vedānta in the Tṛptidīpa, this chapter is examined in great detail and its

content is compared with: 1. the context of BU 4.4.12 within the Yājñavalkya kāṇḍa of

the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad itself, 2. the bhāṣya or commentary by Śaṅkarācārya, the

de facto “founder”3 of Advaita Vedānta on BU 4.4.12, and 3. a sub-commentary on the

3
While there were earlier thinkers on Advaita Vedānta (cf. Nakamura), very little of their work is extant in
entirety. Śaṅkara’s thought has had the greatest influence not only on Advaita Vedānta, but on the many
 3
BU passage, also attributed to Vidyāraṇya, called the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra. This

may provide us a glimpse into the evolution of Advaita Vedānta thought over time as

well as any innovations that Vidyāraṇya may have contributed in the process to Advaita

thought.

other varieties of Vedānta too, which often differentiate themselves from Advaita in terms of how they
differ from Śaṅkara.
 4
2. The Significance of PD7, Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa

Though the Pañcadaśī is ascribed to Vidyāraṇya, tradition holds that there was a

change in authorship at the seventh prakaraṇa. For example, according to Swami

Abhedananda, “the first six chapters of Panchadasi was [sic] written by Bharati Tirtha,

but his sudden and unexpected death left the work to be completed by his disciple

[Vidyāraṇya] who wrote the remaining nine chapters.”4 Acyutarāya Moḍaka indicates a

similar transition in authorship in his sub-commentary on the PD, Pūrṇānandendu-

kaumudī, though he has the direction of the handoff reversed: “Now Śrī Bhāratītīrtha, …

with great compassion, thoroughly examined the six prakaraṇas ending with Citradīpa.

[These six prakaraṇa-s] were a part of the fifteen extremely simple prakaraṇas, uniquely

helpful to the most eminent and intense seekers of liberation, conforming to the Advaita

śāstras. [The six prakaraṇa-s] had been begun by his own disciple, Śrī Vidyāraṇya-

ācārya, who was known as the omniscient Mādhavācārya in his pūrvāśrama.

[Bhāratītīrtha] was pleased [with it], and in order to explore the meaning of the last

section, particularly the last śloka [of the sixth prakaraṇa], for the sake of diversion

alone, himself commenced the remaining nine prakaraṇas. He began with this very

seventh prakaraṇa, called tṛptidīpa on account of the generation of the satisfaction [by its

mere] mention, … by reading the mantra from the BU [4.4.12].”5

4
Abhedananda, p. 266.
5
Tripāṭhī, p. 273: atha bhagavān bhāratītīrtha-munivaraḥ {sarvadā vakṣyamāṇa-vaicārika-yaugikānyatar-
ādvaitātmatattva-niṣṭhaika-parāyanaḥ} paramakaruṇayā śrīmad-vidyāraṇyācāryākhya-pūrvāśrama-
prakhyāta-sarvajña-mādhavācāryābhidha-svaśiṣya-samārabdhādvaita-śāstrīya-tīvratara-mumukṣu-
varaikopakāraka-parama-sarala-pañcadaśa-prakaraṇīgata-citradīpāntaṣaṭprakaraṇīṃ sampūrṇāṃ
samavalokya santuṣṭas tadantyaśloka-viśiṣṭa-carama-caraṇārtham anusandhāya līlayaivāvaśiṣṭa-
navaprakaraṇīṃ svayameva samārambhamāṇas tatrādāv ukta-tṛptimātra-janyatvāt tṛptidīpākhyam idaṃ
saptama-prakaraṇam eva {vakṣyamāṇa-vaicārika-saptamabhūmy-ekaniviṣṭatvena kurvāṇas
 5
In the introduction to his Marathi work, Sārtha Pañcadaśī, D. V. Jog goes one step

further and claims that Vidyāraṇya took sannyāsa at the hands of the then pontiff of

Śṛṅgerī Maṭha, Śaṅkarānanda in 1380 CE at the age of eighty-five. At this time he

undertook to write the Pañcadaśī but passed away (lit. became samādhi-stha) in 1386 CE

after completing only six prakaraṇa-s and therefore his guru Bhāratītīrtha completed the

text. He further posits that this Bhāratītīrtha was none other than Vidyāraṇya’s younger

brother, named Bhoganātha prior to sannyāsa,6 who was well versed in Vedānta himself.7

Venimadhava Shastri presents yet another plausible theory: namely, that only the

Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa was written by Bhāratītīrtha, and the remaining fourteen chapters by

Vidyāraṇya. He does not provide any evidence or sources to back up this claim,8 but this

is no doubt based on the fact that Rāmakṛṣṇa’s commentary to PD7 opens, “Beginning

the prakaraṇa called Tṛptidīpa, since it is an explanation of the śruti, guru Bhāratītīrtha

first states the śruti [passage] which is to be explained in detail.”9 Nowhere else in his

commentary does Rāmakṛṣṇa refer only to Bhāratītīrtha; the invocations in all the

maṅgala-śloka-s at the beginning of each prakaraṇa or chapter are to both Vidyāraṇya

tadviṣayādyapy āviṣkurvāṇaḥ prathita-pramāṇādi-maṅgalam apy ākalayan} kāṇvopaniṣanmantram eva

paṭhati – {ātmānam ced iti} | – Text enclosed within { } has not been translated above.
6
We’ll explore this aspect further in Section

3.5, p. 21.
7
Jog, pp. 4-5 (of the prastāvanā, in Marathi): … śrīśaṃkarānanda he tyā veḷes śṛṅgerī maṭhāvar jagadguru
mhaṇūn hote. tyāṃce pāsūn śake 1302 (1380 CE) madhye saṃnyās gheūn śrīmādhavācārya he
śrīvidyāraṇya banūn gādīvar basle. tyāveḷes tyāṃce vay 85 varṣāṃce hote. … evḍhyā vṛddhāvasyeṃt
śrīvidyāraṇyāṃnī ‘pañcadaśī’ yā nāvācā graṃtha lihāvayās ghetlā. paṇ sahā prakaraṇe lihūn jhālyāvar
śake 1308 (1386 CE) madhye te samādhistha jhāle, va rahilelā graṃtha śrīmādhavācāryāṃce
(vidyāraṇyāṃce) guru śrībhāratītīrtha yāṃnī purā kelā. mājhā asā tarka āhe kī to graṃtha tyāṃcyā
dhākṭyā baṃdhūnī śrībhāratītīrtha (bhoganātha) yāṃnī purā kelā asāvā. kāraṇ te vedāntaśāstrāṃt pravīṇ
hote.
8
Shastri (1986), p. 115.
9
tṛptidīpākhyaṃ prakaraṇam ārabhamāṇaḥ śrī-bhāratītīrtha-gurus tasya śruti-vyākhyāna-rūpatvāt tad-
vyākhyeyāṃ śrutim ādau paṭhati. Ācārya, p. 188.
 6
10
and Bhāratītīrtha. We shall keep this scenario in mind as we proceed with the

investigation.

Yet another dual-authorship scenario is attributed to a Niścalānanda or Niścaladāsa

Svāmin, author of the Vṛtti-prabhākara, namely that the first ten chapters were written by

Vidyāraṇya and the remaining five by Bhāratītīrtha.11 Mahadevan also mentions

Niścaladāsa’s scenario, but states that it “cannot be relied upon” since Niścaladāsa (1800-

1900 CE)12 is so much later than Vidyāraṇya, Bhāratītīrtha and even Appayya Dīkṣita

(ca. 1585 CE).13 The Vṛtti-prabhākara is said to be a commentary on the PD published

in 1911,14 but this may be incorrect. I was able to locate a reprint of this text15 and it is

an independent work on pramāṇa-s or means of knowledge, written in a Brajbhāṣā-like

dialect of Hindi.16 This work does refer to the PD, in connection with the absence of the

ānandamaya kośa, the sheath of bliss, in the state of being īśvara, the lord. But the

reference to the dual-authorship theory is more to the effect that “even if differing works

are examined, even though tradition says that the five viveka [prakaraṇa-s] and the five

dīpa [prakaraṇa-s] are written by Vidyāraṇya and the five ānanda [prakaraṇa-s] by

Bhāratītīrtha, even so it is not at all possible that in one and the same text, there can be a

10
For example, at the beginning of his work, he states: natvā śrī-bhāratītīrtha-vidyāraṇya-munīśvarau |
pratyak-tattvavivekasya kriyate pada-dīpikā || The concluding (third) verse of the opening to the
commentary on PD7 states: natvā śrī-bhāratītīrtha-vidyāraṇya-munīśvarau | kriyate tṛptidīpasya
vyākhyānaṃ gurv-anugrahāt || Ibid., pp. 1,188. See also the discussion infra, p. 25.
11
Kripacharyulu, p. 128.
12
Thangaswami, p. 359.
13
Mahadevan (1938), p. 7. Appayya Dīkṣita’s date per Potter (2005).
14
Dasgupta, v. 2, p. 216, n. 1; Thangaswami, p. 127; Potter (2005).
15
Niścaladāsa (1984).
16
Thangaswami, p. 263, however, quotes Niścaladāsa in Sanskrit: prāthamikādaśa paricch[e]dā eva
vidyāraṇya-nirmitāḥ.
 7
17
contradiction of what was stated earlier [in that text].” From the context of the quoted

passage it is actually clear that Niścaladāsa thinks that the citradīpa-prakaraṇa (PD6) and

the brahmānanda-pañcaka (PD11-15) were written by Vidyāraṇya, and that there is

agreement among the ideas presented in the two places.

Perhaps it is due to the alleged handoff, either from Bhāratītīrtha, the teacher to

Vidyāraṇya, his student (per Abhedananda) or from student to teacher (per Acyutarāya

Moḍaka and Jog), that PD7 is the longest of the fifteen chapters of this text. Or perhaps it

is because this was the only prakaraṇa that Bhāratītīrtha wrote. The incoming author

might have felt it necessary to review all that had been mentioned thus far and then

introduce the matter to be treated in the chapters that are to follow. In any case, PD7

serves as a comprehensive overview of general Advaita principles and can be studied by

itself. At the same time, it does not appear to be discontinuous with the earlier six

chapters of the text and is in fact well integrated with the subject matter of the text as a

whole. In order to explore the connection of PD7 to the rest of the Pañcadaśī, I shall

provide a synopsis of the remaining chapters (chapter 4, “A Synopsis of the Pañcadaśī,”

p. 37) followed by a detailed look at PD7 itself and how it relates to the rest of the text

(chapter 5, “A Closer Look at Tṛptidīpa-Prakaraṇa, PD7,” p. 50). But first we shall look

at the issue of authorship more closely.

17
Niścaladāsa, p.355, infra Vṛtti-prabhākara 8.19: yadyapi vilakṣaṇ lekh dekhikai au [sic] paraṃparā-
vacan-maiṃ paraṃparā-taiṃ yah kahaiṃ haiṃ; pāṃc viveka au pāṃc dīp tau vidyāraṇya-kṛt haiṃ, aur
pāṃc ānand bhāratītīrtha-kṛt haiṃ, tathāpi ek-hī granth-maiṃ pūrva uttar-kā virodh saṃbhavai nahīṃ;
yataiṃ pañcadaśī-granth-maiṃ ānandamay-kūṃ īśvartā vivakṣit nahīṃ, …
 8
3. Who were Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha?

3.1 Theories of Authorship of the PD

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

Pañcadaśī is not certain. In brief, there are three theories of authorship prevailing:

A1. The PD was written solely by Vidyāraṇya, who was named Mādhavācārya

before sannyāsa, i.e. during his pūrvāśrama.

A2. The PD was a collaboration between Vidyāraṇya (of A1) and Bhāratītīrtha,

who was Vidyāraṇya’s guru.18

A3. The PD was written exclusively by Bhāratītīrtha-Vidyāraṇya, the latter name

being an appellation “Forest of Learning.”19

Based on the discussion in the preceding section, the joint-authorship theory, A2,

itself has four branches:

A2.6V: Vidyāraṇya wrote the first six prakaraṇa-s and Bhāratītīrtha, the

remaining nine;

A2.6B: Bhāratītīrtha wrote the first six prakaraṇa-s and Vidyāraṇya, the remaining

nine;

A2.10V: Vidyāraṇya wrote the first ten prakaraṇa-s and Bhāratītīrtha, the

remaining five (the scenario incorrectly attributed to Niścaladāsa);

A2.B1: Bhāratītīrtha wrote only PD7 and Vidyāraṇya wrote the rest of the PD.

18
As seen in chapter 2, “The Significance of PD7, Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa,” p. 4.
19
Mahadevan (1969), p. xxi.
 9
3.2 Many Mādhavas

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

the Tungabhadra river near the present-day village of Hampi in Karnataka. An alternate

name for this city is Vidyānagara, “City of Learning” after Vidyāraṇya, because it is

traditionally held that it was upon Vidyāraṇya’s sage advice that the brothers Bukka and

Harihara founded the city at its location.20 There were four Mādhavas associated with

Vijayanagara during the time period of interest to us:

M1. Mādhavācārya, kulaguru and minister of the kings Bukka I (1354-1377 CE)

and Harihara II (1376-1404 CE),21

M2. Mādhavamantrin, a minister of the kings Harihara I (1336-1354 CE), Bukka I,

and Harihara II,

M3. Mādhava, a possibly Sanskritized version of Māyaṇa, son of Sāyaṇa and

possibly the author of Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha (SDS),22 and

M4. Mādhava, the older brother of Sāyaṇa, the famous commentator of the Vedas;

their younger brother Bhoganātha may have taken sannyāsa earlier, becoming

Bhāratītīrtha.23

Mādhavamantrin (M2) is accepted as being different from Mādhavācārya (M1). A

great warrior and governor of the Banavāsi near Goa, Mādhavamantrin had different

20
See Sewell, pp. 20-22 and Saletore, v. 1, pp. 83-87 for an enumeration of the various founding myths.
21
Dates for the kings’ reigns are based on Rāma Sharma, pp. xvii-xviii.
22
Punjani, p. 9 suggests Mādhava is a “corrupt form” of Māyaṇa. See n. 26. infra for more details on SDS
authorship.
23
In the Parāśara-mādhavīya, authored by Mādhava, śloka-s 1.6-7 state:
śrīmatī jananī yasya sukīrtir māyaṇaḥ pitā | sāyaṇo bhoganāthaś ca manobuddhi sahodarau ||
yasya baudhāyanaṃ sūtraṃ śākhā yasya ca yājuṣī | bhāradvājaṃ kulaṃ yasya sarvajñaḥ sa hi mādhavaḥ ||
In Kane (1975), p. 785, n. 1173, Mahadevan (1938), p. 1 and Ācārya (1994), p.20 (introd.) have a slightly
variant version for v. 7 (variations in bold) : baudhāyanaṃ yasya sūtraṃ śākhā yasya ca yājuṣī |
bhāradvājaṃ yasya gotraṃ sarvajñaḥ sa hi mādhavaḥ ||
 10
24
parents and teachers and belonged to the Āṅgīrasa gotra. He has however been

mistakenly identified with Vidyāraṇya in the past and a commentary on the Sūta-saṃhita

written by him (Mādhava-mantrin) called Tātparya-dīpikā has often been incorrectly

attributed to Vidyāraṇya, due to the conflation of the two ministers, M1 and M2.25

Very little is known about Mādhava (M3), but according to Kripacharyulu “this

Mādhava is different from Mādhavācārya,” he is Mādhava’s (M1) nephew and the author

of the Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha (SDS).26 Some also credit him with writing the Śaṅkara-

digvijaya (ŚDV), also often mistakenly ascribed to Vidyāraṇya.27 It is safe to conclude

that he too is not connected to the author of the PD.

This leaves us with M1 and M4. The generally accepted view is that they are one

and the same person, who took the name Vidyāraṇya after sannyāsa (A1 above). As

mentioned earlier, he is said to have influenced Harihara I’s choice of the site for the

capital city of Vijayanagara.28 It is often said that the city was originally named

Vidyānagara in honor of Vidyāraṇya’s role in its establishment in 1336 CE29 but this is

24
In an inscription dated to 1368-69 by Filliozat, pp. 93,98: v. 6: …asti svastimatām udārayaśasām
ēkāśrayaḥ śrēyasāṃ … śrī bukkanāmā nrupaḥ [sic]…v. 7: … mādhavay [sic] ity amātyaḥ | … v. 8: gōtrē
yōṃgirasāṃ pracaṃḍatapasaś cāüṃḍapruthvīsura praśṭhād udbhavam … See also Kane, p. 791; Kulke,
p. 129; Kripacharyulu, pp. 74-6.
25
According to Jagannadham et al, pp. 79-84; Mishra, p. iii; Kripacharyulu, p. 76. Also cf. n. 156 infra.
26
Kripacharyulu, pp. 96-7. This is based on śloka 1.3 of the SDS – śrīmat-sāyaṇa-dugdhābdhi-
kaustubhena mahaujasā | kriyate mādhavāryeṇa sarvadarśanasaṅgrahaḥ || Cowell & Gough, in their
translation of SDS want to emend the reading of śrīmat-sāyaṇa to śriman-māyaṇa to make it conform to
M4! (p. 1, n. 1). Upādhyāya, in his Hindi work on Sāyaṇa and Mādhava, says that Sāyaṇa had three sons.
Māyaṇa being the second, who wrote SDS (pp. 61-2).
27
Venkataraman (1976), p.20. Upādhyāya, pp. 153-5, provides evidence proving that the ŚDV is definitely
not a work by Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya. But he makes no mention of Mādhava’s nephew in this context. Cf.
n. 26 supra and n. 155 infra..
28
For example, Verghese, p. 421 and Michell, pp. 41-2 both tell of myths whereby the city was established
through Vidyāraṇya’s advice.
29
See various stories enumerated by Saletore, v. 1, pp. 83-90. Jog (among others) also gives this date in his
prastāvanā, p. 5.
 11
30
held to be an erroneous view by Sewell, Saletore and others. Heras questioned the

authenticity of the inscriptional evidence linking Vidyāraṇya with Vijayanagara,

considering it a fabrication by the sixteenth century Śṛṅgerī pontiff Rāmacandra

Bhārati.31 This was verified by Saletore32 and “tacitly” assented to by Kane.33 The best

that can be said reliably about Vijayanagara’s founding is that it came into existence

gradually between 1346 and 1368 CE34 and that Mādhavācārya (M1) “played no

significant role” in its foundation.35 However, up until the present time, people persist in

associating Vijayanagara’s foundation with Vidyāraṇya.36 The issue is made more

sensitive by the confluence of at least three ideological conflicts: 1) the perceived

historical importance of Śṛṅgerī to the Śaṅkarācārya tradition, 2) the struggle for the

revival of Hindu religion and culture in face of Muslim invaders, allegedly intent on

converting Hindus to Islam, and 3) the conflicting claims of regional affiliation, regarding

whether the rulers of Vijayanagara were kannaḍa or āndhra. However, this should in no

way detract from Vidyāraṇya’s importance to Advaita Vedānta. In fact, Hacker suggests

that the establishment of the Advaita monastaries (maṭha-s) all over India, typically

credited to Śaṅkara, was really the work of Vidyāraṇya;37 his scholarship and facility

with Advaita doctrine, which we are about to explore next, would certainly be a

considerable asset in carrying out such a monumental task.

30
Sewell, p. 19, n. 2, p. 300, n. 1; Saletore, v. 1, pp. 93-101. See also Kulke (1985).
31
Heras, pp. 33-5.
32
pp. 93-101.
33
Though with protestations – Kane, pp. 782,789; Kulke, p. 123.
34
Kulke, p. 126.
35
Ibid., p. 129.
36
See, for example, the essay “Birth of Vijayanagar” in Jagannadham et al (1990), pp. 12-23. Also cf.
Wagoner, pp. 300-305 (I am grateful to Robert Goodding for bringing this article to my attention).
37
In “On Śaṅkara and Advaitism” in Halbfass (1995), p. 31.
 12
3.3 Historical facts about Mādhava, Vidyāraṇya, Śṛṅgerī and Vijayanagara

What do we know about Vidyāraṇya in connection with the Śṛṅgerī maṭha?

According to the maṭhāmnāya-s, texts describing institutional history, we have the

following dates for Vidyāraṇya and his gurus:38

Table 1: Śṛṅgerī maṭha’s guru succession

Head Consecrated Died

Vidyātīrtha 1228 CE 1333 CE
(or Vidyāśaṅkara/ Vidyāśaṅkaratīrtha)
Bhāratītīrtha (or Bhāratīkṛṣṇatīrtha) 1328 CE 1380 CE
Vidyāraṇya 1331 CE 1386 CE

There are many issues with these dates. Vidyātīrtha’s longevity could perhaps be

ascribed to yogic practices.39 The overlaps between Vidyātīrtha and Bhāratītīrtha’s

reigns (1328-1333 CE) and Bhāratītīrtha and Vidyāraṇya’s reigns (1331-1380 CE) may

be explained by interpreting the consecration date to refer to the date each took

sannyāsa.40 The more likely explanation, proposed by Heras,41 is that the maṭhāmnāya

was later falsified to allow for Vidyāraṇya to already be the head of Śṛṅgerī by the time

Vijayanagara was “established” in 1336 CE42 Kulke’s examination of the non-spurious

epigraphical evidence confirms that Vidyāraṇya is first mentioned only in 1375 CE, as

38
Based on Nanjundayya, v. 2, p. 458 and Srikantaya, p.138, n. 470. Venkataraman (1967), p. 23 and
Shastry, p. 121 have the same end dates, but the start dates for Bhāratītīrtha (1333) and Vidyāraṇya (1380)
do not have the overlap discussed below.
39
According to Srikantaya, p. 158, Vidyatīrtha entered lambika yoga in 1333 and the Vidyāśaṅkara temple
was built at the site. (Srikantaya does not elaborate on the nature of lambika yoga). Also Venkataraman
(1976), p. 1: “There was nothing strange about this long period, considering his mastery over the siddhis
that enabled him to prolong his life as long as he liked.”
40
Upādhyāya suggests this approach. Then Bhāratītīrtha became the Śaṅkarācārya of the maṭha in 1333 CE
(1255 śaka, p. 66) and Vidyāraṇya in 1380 CE (1437 Vikrama-saṃvat., p. 141), upon the deaths of their
respective predecessors.
41
n. 31 supra.
42
Also Upādhyāya, p. 140, n. 1; also Kripacharyulu, pp. 31-2, though he goes on to (rather unconvincingly)
defend the maṭhāmnāya view, pp. 30-37.
 13
43
the head of Śṛṅgerī. An inscription commemorating King Bukka’s visit to Śṛṅgerī in

1356 CE has Vidyātīrtha as the receiver of Bukka’s largess and does not mention

Vidyāraṇya at all.44 Thus Vidyāraṇya must have been consecrated sometime during the

interval 1356-1375 CE45 There then follow several inscriptions46 reflecting the

importance of Vidyāraṇya as Śṛṅgerī’s mahant and the high regard he was held in by the

kings Bukka I and Harihara II through his death in 1386 CE.47

That the Mādhavas M1 and M4 are one and the same is not contested by anyone.48

Both Sāyaṇa and Mādhavācārya seem to have been politically active in the courts of the

Vijayanagara kings,49 and their younger brother Bhoganātha was the narmasaciva,50 sport

or pleasure companion of King Saṅgama II.51 The identity of Mādhavācārya (M1, M4)

with Vidyāraṇya (A1), on the other hand, is not as uncontested.52 The works of

Mādhavācārya do not mention the name Vidyāraṇya and later references to Vidyāraṇya

do not link him with his pūrvāśrama name, Mādhava. Some would say that this is but

natural – in one’s pūrvāśrama one typically does not know whether one will take

sannyāsa, much less the name one will be assigned at that time. On assuming sannyāsa,

43
Kuḍupu Stone Inscription, Uttankita Epigraphs, pp. 84-86; Filliozat, Appendix, no. 25, p. 145.
44
Filliozat, no. 43, pp. 30-32.
45
Kulke, p. 130.
46
For example, the Be¬agu¬a copper plates of 1384, Uttankita Epigraphs, pp. 104-9; the Vidyāraṇyapura
copper plate of Harihara II in 1386, Uttankita Epigraphs, pp. 112-117.
47
Kulke, pp. 130-32.
48
See, for example, Kane, pp. 785-787; Kripacharyulu, pp. 77-81; Kulke, p. 136.
49
See, among others, Kane, p. 786; Srikantaya, p. 104.
50
Kane, p. 785, n. 1174: “To translate the word ‘Narmasaciva’ as simply jester is not quite accurate. … The
idea is this: the very learned brothers Sāyaṇa and Mādhava (both ministers) were far above playfulness or
the cracking of jokes with the king, but Bhoganātha, a poet, being young and less learned than the other
two, could be intimate with the king.”
51
Kane, ibid.; Upādhyāya, p. 58; Punjani, p. 10.
52
Kripacharyulu, pp. 54-72 lists seven objections to the “identity theory” and then refutes them point-by-
point. I do not agree with all the issues raised and their treatment. For the sake of brevity, I have dealt with
only the issues I consider most relevant.
 14
53
a renunciant in effect dies to his previous identity and therefore would no longer refer to

himself by his pūrvāśrama identity.54

3.4 Works ascribed to Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya

The identity of Vidyāraṇya with Mādhavācārya can be established through textual

sources. For example, Vidyāraṇya’s Jīvan-mukti-viveka (JMV), an Advaita Vedānta

work on the doctrine of liberation, refers to Mādhava’s commentary on Parāśara-smṛti,

commonly known as the Parāśara-mādhavīya (PaM), as being written by himself.55 This

clearly indicates that Vidyāraṇya, the author of the JMV, is the same as Mādhava, the

author of the PaM. The identity of Mādhava and Vidyāraṇya is confirmed if we observe

the parallels in the persons being paid homage to in the two works. In the JMV,

Vidyāraṇya pays homage to his guru Vidyātīrtha at the beginning and end of the text.56

In the PaM, a dharma-śāstra “digest of civil and religious law”,57 in the opening stanza,

Mādhava pays homage to Lord Gaṇeśa,58 and in the next stanza lauds his three teachers,

Bhāratītīrtha, Vidyātīrtha and Śrīkaṇṭha.59 Mādhava also goes on to pay homage to King

53
Olivelle (1993), p. 207, speaks of renunciation as a ritual and civil death of the renouncer.
54
Upādhyāya, p. 134: saṃnyās āśram svīkār kar lene par koī bhī yati apne prapañc meṃ phaṃse
rahnevāle pūrva āśram ke nām kā ullekh karnā acchā nahīṃ samajhtā …
55
JMV 1.0.11: eteṣāṃ tu samācārāḥ proktāḥ pārāśarasmṛteḥ | vyākhyāne ’smābhir atrāyaṃ parahaṃso
vivicyate || (Goodding, pp. 298-9).
56
JMV 1.0.1: yasya niḥśvasitaṃ vedā yo vedebhyo ’khilaṃ jagat | nirmame tam ahaṃ vande vidyātīrtha-
maheśvaram || JMV 5.4.48: jīvan-mukti-vivekena bandhaṃ hārdaṃ nivārayan | pumārtham akhilaṃ
deyād vidyātīrthamaheśvaraḥ || JMV 1.0.1 is identical to the opening verse of Sāyaṇa’s commentary to the
Ṛgveda. Cf. n. 58 infra regarding Sāyaṇa.
57
Kane, p. 779.
58
PaM 1.1: vāgīśādyāḥ sumanasaḥ sarvārthānām upakrame | yaṃ natvā kṛta-kṛtyāḥ syus taṃ namāmi
gajānanam || This verse also occurs as v.2 of the opening of Sāyaṇa’s commentary to the Ṛgveda. Some
scholars have suggested that Sāyaṇa’s works were jointly authored with Mādhava, e.g. Kripacharyulu, pp.
182-3. Exploration of the works of Sāyaṇa is sadly outside the scope of the present analysis.
59
PaM 1.2: so ’haṃ prāpya viveka-tīrtha-padavīm āmnāya-tīrthe paraṃ majjan sajjana-tīrtha-saṅga-
nipuṇaḥ sadvṛtta-tīrthaṃ śrayan | labdhāmākalayan prabhāva-laharīṃ śrībhāratītīrthato vidyātīrtham
upāśrayan hṛdi bhaje śrīkaṇṭham avyāhatam || Srikantaya, p. 102 considers Śrīkaṇṭha to be Vidyātīrtha’s
 15
60
Bukka and his own parents; he also mentions his brothers Sāyaṇa and Bhoganātha, and

clearly indicates that he himself is the author.61 We see that Vidyāraṇya of the JMV and

Mādhava of the PaM both honor Vidyātīrtha as guru. The others honored by Mādhava in

the PaM, Bhāratītīrtha, Śrīkaṇṭha and Bukka are not mentioned by Vidyāraṇya in the

JMV. But we can say with greatest confidence that Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya is the author of

the PaM and the JMV.

Another work that is universally attributed to the same author is the Kāla-

mādhavīya (KM), also referred to as the Kāla-nirṇaya, a dharma-śāstra treatise on the

proper times for the performance of religious rites.62 The first three stanzas are

identical63 to PaM 1.1-3: homage is paid to Lord Gaṇeśa, Bhāratītīrtha, Vidyātīrtha,

Śrīkaṇṭha, and King Bukka.64 The KM was written after the PaM as v. 5 of the KM

mentions the PaM explicitly.65

The Jaiminīya-nyāya-mālā (JNM) is yet another work universally ascribed to

Mādhava,66 whose first verse is identical to the PaM 1.1 and KM 1 already cited.67 The

pūrvāśrama-nāman but that raises the question as to why Mādhavācārya would mention him by both names
in this context. Śrīkaṇṭha may have been the guru of Sāyaṇa, Mādhava and Bhoganātha in their early years
(Upādhyāya, pp. 67-9; Kripacharyulu, pp. 6-7). According to Rāma Sharma, pp.19,25, n. 9, Śrīkaṇṭhanātha
was their guru in Kānchi and a Śaiva philosopher.
60
PaM 1.3d: smārttocchrāya dhurandharo vijayate śrī-bukkaṇa-kṣmā-patiḥ ||
61
For the verse mentioning his parents and brothers, see n. 23 supra. PaM 1.9: parāśara-smṛtiḥ pūrvair na
vyākhyātā nibandhṛbhiḥ | mayā ’to mādhavāryyeṇa tad vyākhyāyāṃ prayatyate ||
62
For example, by Kane, p. 788; Mahadevan (1938), p. 2; Kripacharyulu, pp. 114-6; Upādhyāya, pp. 147-8.
63
Except for v. 2b – where PaM has sajjana-tīrtha-saṅga-nipuṇaḥ, KM 2b has sajjana-saṅga-tīrtha-
nipuṇaḥ.
64
See nn. 58, 59, 60 supra.
65
KM 5: vyākhyāya mādhavācāryo dharmān pārāśarān atha | tad anuṣṭhāna-kālasya nirṇayaṃ vaktum
udyataḥ ||
66
For example, by Kane, p. 788; Mahadevan (1938), p. 2; Upādhyāya, pp. 148-9; Venimadhava Shastri, p.
113; Kripācharyulu, pp. 116-120.
67
See n. 58 supra.
 16
68
next verse offers homage to King Bukka, and the following verse to King Bukka and

Vidyātīrtha.69 Bhāratītīrtha is mentioned in v. 7,70 and Mādhava names himself as the

author in v. 8.71

In the PD, however, the opening verse offers salutations to Śaṅkarānanda.72

Rāmakṛṣṇa’s commentary to the PD (ca. 1375 CE)73 interprets Śaṅkarānanda as

paramātman, who alone is the guru.74 Thus Śaṅkarānanda can possibly be interpreted as

standing in for any or all of Vidyāraṇya’s teachers and is definitely treated as such by

subsequent commentators. Śaṅkarānanda is also invoked in the opening benediction to

Vivaraṇa-prameya-saṅgraha (VPS),75 a commentary on Prakāśātman’s (10th or 13th c.

CE)76 Pañca-pādikā-vivaraṇa.77 The VPS, like the PD, is also ascribed to either

Vidyāraṇya, Bhāratītīrtha or both.78 The closing verse to the VPS, however, mentions

Vidyātīrtha as the author’s guru,79 strengthening the argument that Śaṅkarānanda implies

68
JNM 1.2cd: nitya-sphūrty-adhikāravān gata-sadābādhaḥ svatantreśvaro, jāgarti śrutimat-prasaṅga-
caritaḥ śrī-bukkaṇa-kṣmāpatiḥ || Cf. PaM 1.3d (also KM 3d), n. 61 above.
69
JNM 1.3: yad brahma pratipādyate praguṇayat tat pañca-mūrti-prathāṃ, tatrāyaṃ sthiti-mūrtim
ākalayati śrī-bukkaṇa-kṣmāpatiḥ | vidyātīrtha-munis tad ātmani lasan mūrtis tvanugrāhikā, tenāsya
svaguṇair akhaṇḍita-padaṃ sārvajñam udyotate ||
70
JNM 1.7: sa bhavyād bhāratītīrtha-yatīndra-caturānanāt | kṛpām avyāhatāṃ labdhvā parārthya-pratimo
’bhavat ||
71
JNM 1.8: nirmāya mādhavācāryo vidvad-ānanda-dāyinīm | jaiminīya-nyāya-mālāṃ vyācaṣṭe
bālabuddhaye ||
72
PD 1.1: namaḥ śrīśaṅkarānanda-guru-pādāmbu-janmane | savilāsa-mahāmoha-grāha-grāsaika-
karmaṇe ||
73
Per Potter (2005). Cf. n. 133, p. 26 infra.
74
PD 1.1 s.v.: śaṅkarānandaḥ pratyag-abhinnaḥ paramātmā | sa eva guruḥ …
75
VPS 1: svamātrayā ’’nanda yad atra jantūn sarvātma-bhāvena tathā paratra | yac
chaṅkarānandapadaṃ hṛdabje vibhrājate tad yatayo viśanti ||
76
Potter (2005) gives 975 CE, while Dasgupta, v. 2, p. 52 and Venimadhava Shastri, p. 115 place him in
the thirteenth century.
77
The Pañca-pādikā-vivaraṇa itself is a commentary on Padmapāda’s Pañca-pādikā (8th century), dealing
with the first four sūtras of the Brahmasūtras and Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya.
78
Two of the three editions consulted ascribe it to Vidyāraṇya, one to Bhāratītīrtha. Venkataraman (1976)
suggests it could be a joint work (along with PD, JMV and DDV)!
79
yad vidyātīrthagurave śuśrūṣā ’nyā na rocate tasmāt | astv eṣā bhaktiyutā śrīvidyātīrtha-pādayoḥ sevā ||
 17
80
Vidyātīrtha. This would then indicate that at the very least, the author of the PD, if not

the same as the author Vidyāraṇya of the JMV and Mādhava of the PaM, has the same

guru Vidyātīrtha. There is also the closing verse of the PD, where the reference to

Harihara can be interpreted as a clever pun on the word referring to the deities Viṣṇu and

Śiva as well as Bhāratītīrtha and Mādhavācārya/Vidyāraṇya’s royal patrons, Harihara I

(1336-54 CE) & Harihara II (1376-1404 CE).81 Based on the evidence presented thus far,

either Vidyāraṇya or Bhāratītīrtha or both could be the author of the PD.

There is yet another text ascribed to Vidyāraṇya, the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra

(BVS), a sub-commentary on Sureśvara’s Vārttika (8th century) on the BU.82 We will

look at a portion of this work in greater detail in section

6.3, “Vidyāraṇya’s

Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra (BVS) on BU 4.4.12,” p. 63 infra when considering the

extra-textual context of the PD. As far as opening and closing verses are concerned, this

text is not very helpful as no specific teachers are named, but the opening verse is

identical to the first verse of both the PaM and the KM.83

80
Venkataraman (1976), however, says that Śaṅkarānanda was a student of Vidyātīrtha who collaborated
with Vidyāraṇya in founding several small maṭha-s (p. 18). No sources are provided. There is also a
Śaṅkarānanda Bhāratī listed in the Śṛṅgerī māṭhāmnāya (Nanjundayya, p. 458) for the period 1428-1454,
which puts him out of consideration for our discussion. Thangaswami, pp. 257-261 presents three
possibilities: 1. Śaṅkarānanda was an alternate name for Vidyātīrtha, 2. he was Vidyātīrtha’s guru, 3. he
was not Vidyātīrtha’s guru but along with him (Vidyātīrtha), he was a guru of Vidyāraṇya.
81
A similar argument is presented in Kripacharyulu, pp. 66-7. Dates for the kings’ reigns based on Rāma
Sharma, pp. xvii-xviii.
82
Marcaurelle, p.189; Upādhyāya, p. 153; Kripacharyulu, pp. 140-44.
83
The opening śloka, BVS 1.0.1: vāgīśādyāḥ sumanasaḥ sarvārthānām upakrame | yan natvā kṛtakṛtyāḥ
syus taṃ namāmi gajānanam || Cf. n. 58 supra. (There is a possibility that this opening verse has been
inserted later, since the next verse again is numbered “1” and seems to be the beginning of the work proper,
with homage paid to Sureśvara and his Vārttika. In the Dwivedī edition, the opening verse is unnumbered).
The final two ślokas of this work don’t mention any teachers – 6.6.1-2: upasaṃhṛtya tāṃ vidyāṃ
kāṇḍavaṃśo ’tha varṇyate | sa vyākhyātaḥ pūrvameva brahmāptyaiḥ japyatām iti || navaty adhika-
saṃkhyātāḥ ślokā navaśatāni ca | santi vārtikasare ’smin ṣaṣṭādhyāyasya saṅgrahe ||
 18
84
The Anubhūti-prakāśa (AP), yet another work attributed to Vidyāraṇya, is a

metrical work interpreting selections from twelve upaniṣads in twenty chapters. While

there is no opening invocation, the concluding verse of every chapter honors

Vidyātīrtha.85 The AP seems to be composed after the BVS, since its section on the BU,

chapters AP13-18, shares many verses with the BVS.86

Vidyāraṇya is also said to have written commentaries called Dīpikā-s on the

Aitareya and the Nṛsiṃhottara-tāpanīya Upaniṣads (AiU, NUTU).87 The opening and

closing śloka-s of the AiU-Dīpikā are virtually identical to those of the JMV, wherein

Vidyātīrtha is invoked.88 Thus we can confidently ascribe this work to Mādhava-

Vidyāraṇya too. The NUTUD is entirely a prose commentary,89 with the exception of the

opening and closing verses, neither of which resemble any of the invocations seen so

far.90 For the purpose of the present analysis, I conclude that this work was most likely

not authored by Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya.91

84
Venimadhava Shastri, p. 115; Kripacharyulu, pp. 149-157; Upādhyāya, pp. 152-3 calls it the Anupama-
prakāśa.
85
For example, AP 12.120: antaḥ praviṣṭaḥ śāsteti yo ’ntaryāmī śrutīritaḥ | so ’smān mukhyaguruḥ pātu
vidyātīrtha-maheśvaraḥ || AP 20.156: śrī-smṛtītihāsānām abhiprāyavid-avyayaḥ | śruti-vyākhyānatas
tuṣyād vidyātīrtha-maheśvaraḥ ||
86
For example AP13.3 = BVS 4.1.5; AP 13.4 = BVS 4.1.10; AP 13.5-10 = BVS 4.2.1-2,8-11 u.s.w.
87
Upādhyāya, p. 153; Venimadhava Shastri, p. 116; Kripacharyulu, pp. 123-4.
88
AiUD opening śloka is the same as that of the JMV (cf. n. 56 supra): yasya niḥśvasitaṃ vedā yo
vedebhyo ’khilaṃ jagat | nirmame tam ahaṃ vande vidyātīrtha-maheśvaram || AiUD closing śloka:
vedārthasya prakāśena tamo hārdaṃ nivārayan | pumārtham akhilaṃ deyād vidyātīrthamaheśvaraḥ || Cf.
JMV closing śloka in n. 56 supra where the text in bold is instead jīvan-mukti-vivekena bandhaṃ .
89
All the other works considered so far have been metrical.
90
NUTUD opening vv.: oṃ namo bhagavate śrī-divyalakṣmī-nṛsiṃkāya namaḥ ||
nirasta-nikhilānartha-paramānanda-rūpiṇe | nṛsiṃhāya namaskurmaḥ sarvadhī-vṛtti-sākṣiṇe ||1||
caraṇābja-rajoleśa-samparkāt sahsā ’sakṛt | sarva-saṃsāra-hīno ’haṃ tānnato’smi gurūn sadā ||2||
tāpanīya-rahasyārtha-vivṛtir leśato mayā | kriyate ’lpadhiyā tasmāt kṣantavyaṃ kṣatam uttamaiḥ ||3||,
Closing vv.: tāpanīya-rahasyārtha-dīpikā timirāpahā | gurv-anugraha-labdhaiṣā satāmas tu sukāptaye ||1||
saccidānanda-sampūrṇa-pratyag-ekarasātmane | tejase mahate bhūyān namaḥ puṃsiṃha-rūpiṇe ||2||
yeṣāṃ saṃsmṛti-mātreṇa taranti bhavasāgaram | tān nato ’smi gurūn bhaktyā dhiyā vācā ca karmaṇā ||3||
91
In the context of the commentary to NUTU 1.1, the Dīpikā cites ślokas from texts referred to as Mantra-
rāja-kalpa and Sāra-saṅgraha. I was unable to locate the Mantra-rāja-kalpa text in either Potter (2005) or
 19
Lastly, there is a text of Vidyāraṇya’s which was recently discovered by Olivelle

(1981), the Praṇava-mīmāṃsā (PrM), on the syllable om. The text begins with homage

to Lord Gaṇeśa,92 and a few verses later there occurs what Olivelle terms “the signature

verse of both Vidyāraṇya and his brother Sāyaṇa”,93 offering homage to Vidyātīrtha.94

For the present analysis, I have deliberately not taken the colophons of texts into account,

since these can be later scribal additions. But this text can be considered an exception

owing to its uniqueness,95 and its colophon also pays homage to Vidyātīrtha and King

Bukka.

The evidence presented can now be summed up tabularly:

Table 2: Texts and persons honored therein by Mādhava/Vidyāraṇya

Text Abbr. Author Homage paid to:

1. Parāśara-mādhavīya PaM Mādhava Gajānana, Vidyātīrtha,
Bhāratītīrtha,
Śrīkaṇṭha, Bukkaṇa
2. Kāla-mādhavīya KM Mādhava Gajānana, Vidyātīrtha,
Bhāratītīrtha,
Śrīkaṇṭha, Bukkaṇa
3. Jaiminīya-nyāya- JNM Mādhava Bukkaṇa, Vidyātīrtha,
mālā Bhāratītīrtha
4. Jīvan-mukti-viveka JMV Vidyāraṇya Vidyātīrtha

Thangaswami. There are many works titled Sāra-saṅgraha. Potter (2005) lists four titles, three of which
can be ruled out by virtue of their being Jain, Viśiṣṭādvaita (and Tamil) or Acintya-bhedābheda (ca. 1770
CE) texts. The Sāra-saṅgraha by Vedānta Deśika or Veṅkaṭanātha (1268-1369 CE) is of a period
contemporaneous with Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya and is also unlikely to be cited profusely by him (26
consecutive ślokas). Thangaswami mentions two Advaita texts by the same name, one a secondary
commentary on the Śārīrika-nyāya-maṇimāla (itself a commentary on the BS ŚBh) is by an
Anantānandagiri (1900 CE) and the other, a commentary on Sarvajñātman’s Saṃkṣepa-śārīraka by
Madhusūdana Sarasvati (1565-1665 CE), post-dating Vidyāraṇya. If it be argued that Sāra-saṅgraha is an
abbreviation for the Sarva-vedānta-siddhānta-sāra-saṅgraha ascribed to Śaṅkara (falsely according to
Belvalkar, pp. 228-9), the verses cited in the NUTUD do not occur therein.
92
PrM 1: śrī-gaṇeśāya namaḥ ||
93
p. 82 (1981).
94
PrM 4: yasya niśvasitaṃ vedā yo vedebhyo ’khilaṃ jagat | nirmame tam ahaṃ vande vidyātīrtha-
maheśvaram || This is virtually identical to JMV 1.0.1 except that the text in bold is instead niḥśvasitaṃ –
cf. n. 56 supra.
95
Only one manuscript is extant. Olivelle (1981), pp.77-8.
 20
Text Abbr. Author Homage paid to:
5. Vivaraṇa-prameya- VPS Vidyāraṇya and/or Śaṅkarānanda,
saṅgraha Bhāratītīrtha Vidyātīrtha
6. Pañcadaśī PD Vidyāraṇya and/or Śaṅkarānanda,
Bhāratītīrtha Harihara
7. Bṛhadāraṇyaka- BVS Vidyāraṇya Gajānana
vārtika-sāra
8. Anubhūti-prakāśa AP Vidyāraṇya Vidyātīrtha
9. Aitareyopaniṣada- AiUD Vidyāraṇya Vidyātīrtha
dīpikā
10. Praṇava-mīmāṃsā PrM Vidyāraṇya Gaṇeśa, Vidyātīrtha,
Bukka

The first three entries are definitively associated with Mādhava without any

question. The fact that Bhāratītīrtha is recognized in these texts as a guru means that he

is not in contention for authorship. Further, through the clear reference to the PaM in

Vidyāraṇya’s JMV as the author’s own work, this Mādhava is Vidyāraṇya and thus the

first four texts of Table 2 are by the same author, Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya. Since the same

“signature verse”96 occurs in JMV, AiUD and PrM, we can presume these works were

written by the same author, allowing us to group together entries 1-

4 and

9-

10. Due to

the extensive reuse of verses from the BVS in the AP without attribution to another

author,97 we can group these two (

7 & 8
) as being the works of the same author. If we

take the opening śloka of the BVS as genuine, it being identical to the first śloka of the

PaM and the KM,98 we can make the case that the BVS and AP were also written by

Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya, extending the list of works that can be ascribed to him to consist

96
yasya niḥśvasitaṃ vedā yo vedebhyo’khilaṃ jagat | nirmame tam ahaṃ vande vidyātīrtha-maheśvaram ||
Cf. nn. 56, 88, 94 supra.
97
As attested to in n. 86 supra.
98
vāgīśādyāḥ sumanasaḥ sarvārthānām upakrame | yaṃ natvā kṛta-kṛtyāḥ syus taṃ namāmi gajānanam ||
Cf. nn. 58, 63-64, 83 supra.
 21
of entries 1-

4 and

7-

10. Next, due to the shared and unique feature of homage paid to

Śaṅkarānanda,99 we can group the VPS and PD together as being authored by the same

individual, or in case the PD has two authors, begun by the same author who wrote the

VPS. Both works pay homage to Śaṅkarānanda in the beginning, so the author who

wrote the VPS began the PD. In order to definitively ascribe authorship of the PD to

Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya based on this evidence we would need to show a stronger link

between any of the texts in the first group (entries 1-

4 and

7-

10) with either of the texts in

the second group (entries

5 and

6). I believe this can be done, but first we need to

examine the facts known about Bhāratītīrtha.

3.5 Works ascribed to Bhāratītīrtha

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

far, there is sufficient evidence to confirm that he was one of Mādhavācārya/

Vidyāraṇya’s gurus and his predecessor as the head of the Śṛṅgerī maṭha. Mādhavācārya

is said to have obtained sannyāsa from Bhāratītīrtha.100 Both of them may also have

counted Vidyātīrtha as their guru. The earliest known inscription mentioning the Śṛṅgerī

maṭha (as a tīrtha, a place of pilgrimage)101 is dated to 1346 CE and mentions donations

by King Harihara I to support Bhāratītīrtha-Śrīpāda and his disciples. Earlier, we saw

Jog’s opinion that Bhāratītīrtha was Vidyāraṇya’s younger brother Bhoganātha, who took

sannyāsa earlier.102 This opinion is also put forth by Venkataraman (1967)103 but is not

99
Cf. nn. 72, 75 supra.
100
Upādhyāya, p. 66.
101
Filliozat, no. 14, pp. 8-10; Uttankita Epigraphs, pp. 69-73.
102
See chapter 2, “The Significance of PD7, Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa,” p. 4 supra.
 22
accepted by Srikantaya, because it is apparently based on Śṛṅgerī kaḍita or “account”

books of the maṭha, whose accuracy is doubted.104 Most other sources do not report any

connection between Bhoganātha and Bhāratītīrtha.105

Besides the PD and VPS seen earlier, there are two more works that are attributed

to Bhāratītīrtha – the Dṛg-dṛśya-viveka (DDV) and the Vaiyāsika-nyāya-mālā (VNM).106

These texts are also often attributed to Vidyāraṇya instead of, or in addition to,

Bhāratītīrtha, on the basis of Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya’s authorship of the Jaiminīya-nyāya-

mālā (JNM).107 The DDV is a brief work consisting of only 46 śloka-s and has no

opening and closing maṅgala-śloka-s. It is also known as the Vākya-sudhā.108 It is an

inquiry into the discrimination of the Self from the not-Self, and is often mistakenly

attributed to Śaṅkara (8th c. CE).109 The VNM is a summary of the Brahmasūtras and it

opens with salutations to Vidyātīrtha.110 There is no closing salutation. The brevity of

the opening salutation and the absence of a closing salutation may be dictated by the

103
p. 23. This is most likely based on the account of the guru-vaṃśa-kāvya (ca. 1735 CE, per Shastry, p.
8), whose historical accuracy is in doubt. See, for example, Kulke pp.130-1, 135; Srikantaya, pp. 110,138-
9.
104
Srikantaya, pp. 127,137-8; Kulke, p. 140, n. 53.
105
For example, Kane, pp. 785-6,789; Kripacharyulu, Thangaswami pp. 260-61.
106
Mahadevan (1938), p. 7; Upādhyāya, pp 66-7; Nikhilānanda, p. vi (in his tr. of the DDV),
Thangaswami, pp. 259-60. Upādhyāya says that some commentators suggest that Vidyāraṇya may have
helped his guru in the composition of one or both of these texts.
107
For example, Venimadhava Shastri, pp. 113-6 attributes both texts to Vidyāraṇya. Venkatarama Iyer
ascribes joint authorship (in Venkataraman (1976), pt. 2, p.p. 4-5) for both texts. In the preface to his
commentary on the BS and the VNM, the Brahma-sūtra-rahasyam, Ramanuja Tatacharya credits
Vidyāraṇya with the authorship of the VNM. So does Kane, p. 788. Niścaladāsa, p. 355, attributes the
DDV to Vidyāraṇya.
108
Venimadhava Shastri, p. 116; Thangaswami, p.259. However, Nikhilānanda, p. vi (in his tr.), suggests
that Vākya-sudhā is the name of the commentary on the DDV by Brahmānanda Bhāratī. Thangaswami, p.
260 confirms this.
109
For example, Raphael’s translation of the DDV is titled Self and Non-self: The Drigdriśyaviveka
Attributed to Śaṃkara.
110
VNM 1.1: praṇamya paramātmānaṃ śrī-vidyātīrtha-rūpiṇam | vaiyāsika-nyāya-māla ślokaiḥ
saṅgṛhyate sphuṭam ||
 23
111
format – for each adhikaraṇa of the Brahmasūtra, there are two śloka-s. The first

śloka states the viṣaya, sandeha and pūrvapakṣa (subject, doubt, and prima facie view)

for the adhikaraṇa, while the second śloka states the siddhānta or conclusion. The last

member of the adhikaraṇa, saṅgati or consistency is considered self-evident.112 The

evidence regarding texts attributed to Bhāratītīrtha can be tabularly summarized:

Table 3: Texts and persons honored therein by Bhāratītīrtha

Text Abbr. Author Homage paid to:

1. Dṛg-dṛśya-viveka DDV Bhāratītīrtha and/or –
Vidyāraṇya
2. Vaiyāsika-nyāya-mālā VNM Bhāratītīrtha and/or Vidyātīrtha
Vidyāraṇya

3.6 Bhāratītīrtha, Vidyāraṇya and the PD

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

supra) is propounded primarily by T.M.P. Mahadevan. According to Mahadevan, while

it is probable that Mādhava may have been Vidyāraṇya (M1 above), the PD is not

authored by him (ruling out M1, M2, M3 and M4) but by his guru, Bhāratītīrtha, who

also possessed as an appellation the title “Vidyāraṇya” or “Forest of Learning”,113 and

who was also connected with the early kings of Vijayanagara.114 Mahadevan based this

view primarily on Appayya Dīkṣita’s attribution of the PD to Bhāratītīrtha in his

111
Each adhikaraṇa of the Brahma-Sūtras consists of six parts: 1. viṣaya, subject. 2. saṃśaya, doubt. 3.
pūrvapakṣa, prima facie view. 4. uttarapakṣa, opposite view. 5. siddhānta, conclusion and 6. saṅgati,
consistency with other parts of the work.
112
VNM 1.2: eko viṣaya-sandeha-pūrvapakṣāvabhāsakaḥ | śloko ’paras tu siddhāntavādī saṅgatayaḥ
sphuṭāḥ ||
113
Mahadevan (1969), p. xxi.
114
Mahadevan (1938), p. 8.
 24
115
Siddhānta-leśa-saṅgraha (SLS, ca. 1585 CE), supported by other textual citations

occurring even later.116 Mahadevan holds that Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya is the author of the

JMV, where the PD is quoted as though it is authored by someone else, whom he calls

Bhāratītīrtha-Vidyāraṇya. To the objection that tīrtha and araṇya are distinct sannyāsī-

surnames and cannot occur in the same individual’s name,117 he counters that the

Vidyāraṇya is not a surname as such but only “an appellation meaning ‘Forest of

Learning’ applied to [Bhāratītīrtha].”118 Let us examine Mahadevan’s arguments more

closely.

Appayya Dīkṣita’s SLS mentions Bhāratītīrtha as the author of the VPS.119 He

mentions the DDV in connection with the Citradīpa-prakaraṇa, PD6.120 Slightly earlier

he also refers to the Brahmānanda-pañcaka, PD11-15.121 In an earlier section there is a

reference to “Bhāratītīrtha and others” in connection with the views expressed in PD6.122

In a later section, Bhāratītīrtha is mentioned as the author of the Dhyānadīpa, PD9.123 Is

there any significance to the fact that the name appears in the nominative plural?124 One

115
Potter (2005).
116
Mahadevan (1938), pp. 6-7; (1969), pp. xiv-xxi.
117
The sannyāsins are often referred to as daśanāmins on account of their using one of ten surnames
derived from the academic titles of ten disciples of Śaṅkara’s immediate pupils. The names are 1. Sarasvati,
2. Bhārati, 3. Pūri, 4. Tīrtha, 5. Sāgara, 6. Vana, 7. Araṇya, 8. Giri, 9. Parvata and 10. Sāgara (again).
Of these, Sāgara, Araṇya and Parvata are no longer used, according to Nanjundayya, v. 2, p. 455.
118
Mahadevan (1969), pp. xx-xxi.
119
SLS II.3.5421 (Suryanarayana Sastri, v. 2, p. 93): vivaraṇopanyāse bhāratītīrtha-vacanam iti.
Vivaraṇopanyāsa is Appayya Dīkṣit’s name for VPS.
120
SLS I.2.3117 (Ibid., p. 22): dṛg-dṛśya-viveke tu citradīpa-vyutpāditam kūṭastham jīva-koṭāv
antarbhāvya cit-trai-vidhya-prakriyaivāvalambiteti viśeṣaḥ |
121
SLS I.2.3116 (Ibid., p. 20): brahmānande tu …
122
SLS I.4.1 (Ibid., p. 31): …iti bhāratītīrthādi-pakṣaḥ prāg eva darśitaḥ. Suryanarayana Sastri, v. 2, notes
p. vi, n. 137: “Cp. Pañcadaśī 6.153-163.”
123
SLS III.3.0 (Ibid., p. 131): evam … bhāratītīrthāḥ dhyānadīpe … āhuḥ |
124
i.e. bhāratītīrthāḥ … āhuḥ instead of bhāratītīrthaḥ … āha.
 25
125
possibility is that the plural is used to indicate respect, but there may be another

explanation. Vidyāraṇya is mentioned ambiguously as “Vidyāraṇya-guru”126 – the

compound can be interpreted as either “Guru Vidyāraṇya” or “the guru of Vidyāraṇya,

i.e. Bhāratītīrtha.”127 I suggest that Appayya Dīkṣita’s references to Bhāratītīrtha and

Vidyāraṇya can also be taken as indicative of his awareness of the joint-authorship theory

(A2), that the PD was authored by both Bhāratītīrtha and Vidyāraṇya. That is why

Appayya Dīkṣita says “Bhāratītīrtha and others,” and uses the plural form

“Bhāratītīrthāḥ.” The reference “Vidyāraṇya-guru” could either be deliberately

ambiguous, or simply indicative of the respect that Vidyāraṇya has come to be held in by

the Advaita tradition in the two hundred years that have elapsed since his death 1386 CE.

Furthermore, Mahadevan’s view that the PD is solely authored by Bhāratītīrtha-

Vidyāraṇya is also based on deliberately deprecating an important source of evidence.

Mahadevan writes, “That Rāmakṛṣṇa Paṇḍita at the beginning of his commentary on the

Tṛpti-dīpa mentions128 Bhāratītīrtha as the author is no ground for stating that the earlier

chapters are the work of Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya. The mention of Bhāratītīrtha in the

Tṛptidīpa may indicate his authorship not of that chapter alone, nor of that and the

succeeding chapters alone but of the whole book. Rāmakṛṣṇa Paṇḍita no doubt pays

obeisance to both Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha. But this would at best prove that

125
pūjāyāṃ bahuvacanam
126
SLS II.3.4112 (Ibid., p. 83): trividhā-jīva-vādinām vidyāraṇya-guruprabhṛtīnām …
127
SLS Suryanarayana Sastri, v. 2, notes p. x, n. 50: “The reference seems clearly to be to vv. 36-46 of the
DDV, attributed to Bhāratītīṛtha. It is an open question therefore whether Appayya means the preceptor of
Vidyāraṇya or the preceptor, Vidyāraṇya, identifying him with Bhāratītīrtha.” In the translation, v. 1, p.
276, he chooses the latter, “Preceptor Vidyāraṇya.”
128
Rāmakṛṣṇa’s commentary to PD7 starts: tṛptidīpākhyaṃ prakaraṇam ārabhamāṇaḥ śrī-bhāratītīrtha-
gurus tasya śruti-vyākhyāna-rūpatvāt tad-vyākhyeyāṃ śrutim ādau paṭhati. Ācārya, p. 188.
 26
Rāmakṛṣṇa was probably the disciple of both and not that the Pañcadaśī was the work of

both.”129 Rāmakṛṣṇa was indeed a disciple of Vidyāraṇya according to Thangaswami’s

bibliographical survey of Advaita Vedānta literature.130 Potter dates Rāmakṛṣṇa to 1375

CE.131 According to Thangaswami, Bhāratītīrtha had two other disciples besides

Vidyāraṇya: Brahmānanda-bhāratī who wrote the Vākya-sudhā commentary on the DDV,

and Kṛṣṇānanda-bhāratī, who wrote a work called the Mahāvākya-darpaṇa.132 He shows

Vidyāraṇya, on the other hand, as having three disciples – Kṛṣṇānanda-bhāratī,

Brahmānanda-bhāratī, and Rāmakṛṣṇa.133 Rāmakṛṣṇa is the only disciple of the three

who does not also have Bhāratītīrtha as a guru. His commentary to the PD only mentions

Bhāratītīrtha the one time.134 Everywhere else, he refers to the author of the PD as

ācārya.135 If anything, this serves to draw greater attention to his mention of

Bhāratītīrtha at the start of his commentary to PD7. This would suggest that Rāmakṛṣṇa

was aware that PD7 was authored by Bhāratītīrtha, while his guru Vidyāraṇya wrote the

rest of the PD. There would be no other reason for Rāmakṛṣṇa to share his guru’s

authorship credit with Bhāratītīrtha and every reason to ascribe complete authorship to

Vidyāraṇya, if he wished to do so. Based on the contemporaneity of Rāmakṛṣṇa with

Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha, and his direct association with Vidyāraṇya, I am inclined to

129
Mahadevan (1938), p. 7.
130
pp. 260-61.
131
Potter (2005).
132
p. 259: brahmānanda-bhārty-ākhy apara-śiṣyo’pi bhāratītīrthasya | brahmānanda-bhārtyā dṛg-dṛśya-
vivekasya vyākhyā kṛtā | mahāvākya-darpaṇa-kāraḥ kṛṣṇānanda-bhāratī ca bhāratītīrtha-śiṣyaḥ |
133
p. 260: vidyāraṇyaḥ …kṛṣṇānanda-bhāratī-brahmānanda-bhārati-rāmakṛṣṇānāṃ guruḥ … See also:
guru-śiṣya-pramparā-vṛkṣaḥ on p. 261.
134
See n. 128 supra.
135
See, for example, the introduction to PD3 and PD8, in Ācārya, pp. 63,283.
 27
attach greater significance to the implications of his mention of Bhāratītīrtha at the start

of PD7 than Mahadevan does.

Mahadevan also draws attention to the fact that when, in the JMV, the author refers

to his prior work, the PM, he does so unambiguously,136 whereas when he cites the PD, it

is done neutrally without any allusion to whether the PD too was authored by him. In the

JMV, the author says “… have been explained in the fourth chapter of the Brahmānanda

[pañcaka, i.e. PD14].”137 There are certainly no metrical constraints inhibiting the author

from inserting “by us” if he so desired. Mahadevan also points out that in the PD itself, a

similar neutral statement is made, “… have been explained,”138 but the context makes it

clear that what is being referred to is the preceding verse.139 But in the very next verse

we have “… have been set forth by us in the Tṛptidīpa [prakaraṇa] (emphasis mine),”140

and the remainder of the chapter is a repetition of verses from PD7.141 Mahadevan

himself suggests that one should not read too much into the use of the phrase “have been

explained” versus “have been explained by us,” and he says that “the evidence is

inconclusive … It is true that such an expression is sometimes used to refer to one’s own

earlier work; but it may also be used to refer to a work other than one’s own – the work

136
(1969), p. xix. See also n. 55 and the relevant discussion on p. 14 supra.
137
JMV 4.4.1-2: duḥkha-nāśa-sukhāvirbhāva-rūpa-caturtha-pañcama-rūpe prayojane vidyānandātmakena
brahmānanda-gatena caturthādhyāyena nirūpite | tad ubhayam atra saṃkṣipyocyate: This is followed by a
citation of BU 4.4.12/PD 7.1/PD 14.5. Dasgupta, v. 2, p. 251, n. 2 also revises his earlier opinion (that the
same Vidyāraṇya wrote the PD and JMV) based on this reference to brahmānanda in JMV.
138
PD 14.38: duḥkhābhāvaś ca kāmāptir ubhe nirūpite | kṛta-kṛtyatvam anyac ca prāpta-prāpyatvam
īkṣatāṃ ||
139
Mahadevan (1969), p. xx.
140
PD 14.39: ubhayaṃ tṛptidīpe hi samyag asmābhir īritam | ta evātrānusandheyāḥ ślokā buddhi-
viśuddhaye ||
141
PD 14.40-64 = PD 7.253-270,291-297.
 28
of one’s preceptor which is well-known, or of one with whom one is closely

connected.”142

There is another possible explanation for such usage. If the dual-authorship theory

of the PD (

A2, p. 8) is true, then Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya, the author of the JMV might have

deliberately chosen to say “have been explained” in order to refer to the portion of the PD

written by his guru, Bhāratītīrtha.143 Whereas, if the second portion of the PD (chapters

7-15) were indeed written by Bhāratītīrtha, in PD 14.39144 it would be but natural for him

(Bhāratītīrtha) to refer to his own passages in PD7 by saying “… have been set forth by

us.” Or, if Bhāratītīrtha did indeed write only PD7, as suggested by the evidence in

Rāmakṛṣṇa’s commentary, then perhaps Vidyāraṇya is referring in PD 14.39 to both

Bhāratītīrtha and himself when he says “by us.” Once again, this is merely conjecture

and by no means conclusive evidence, but it does help, in my opinion, to strengthen the

case for the possibility of Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya’s joint authorship of the PD with

Bhāratītīrtha.

142
Mahadevan (1969), p. xix.
143
The PD is cited in four more places in the JMV: 1) JMV 2.3.26 cites PD 7.156, using “āhuḥ, they said.”
2) JMV 2.10.10 cites PD 7.139 (also MB 13.15.3971-2 per Goodding, p. 181, n. 66) using “iti.” 3) JMV
2.10.27-29 cites PD 12.65-67, prefaced by “putraviveko brahmānande darśitaḥ, discernement regarding
sons is described in the Brahmānanda [pañcaka, PD 11-15].” 4) JMV 5.1.25 cites PD 4.68 (also Muktika
Upaniṣad 2.64, per Goodding, p. 443), prefaced by “tathā ca smaryate, similary, it is mentioned in the
Smṛti.” All four mentions are impersonal, with the exception of the fourth, all the references are within PD
7-15, the section thought to have been authored by the second author of the PD, who would have to be
Bhāratītīrtha by my current reasoning. The impersonal reference to the fourth citation, though it falls
outside this section, is a smṛti reference and thus would not merit “asmābhir uktam/īritam, it was said/set-
forth by us.”
144
See n. 140 supra.
 29
3.7 Textual parallels between the AP and the PD

There is one final piece of evidence to consider. There is the suggestion of

Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya’s authorship of the PD based on inter-textual sharing between the

AP and the PD. Through a by no means complete examination145 of the śloka indices to

both the PD and the AP, I have found a few instances of sharing between these two texts.

Here is a list of the parallels found (the variations are in bold type):

1. PD 2.2: śabda-sparśau rūpa-rasau gandho bhūta-guṇā ime |

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

2. PD 2.20: vṛkṣasya svagato bhedaḥ patra-puṣpa-phalādibhiḥ |

vṛkṣāntarāt sajātīyo vijātīyaś śilāditaḥ ||
AP 3.32: vṛkṣasya svagato bhedaḥ śākhādy avayavais tathā |
vṛkṣāntarāt sajātīyo vijātīyaḥ śilāditaḥ ||

3. PD 8.73: yayā yayā bhavet puṃsāṃ vyutpattiḥ pratyagātmani |

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

4. PD 11.7: bhidyate hṛdaya-granthiś chidyante sarva-saṃśayāḥ |

kṣīyante cāsya karmāṇi tasmin dṛṣṭe parāvare ||
AP 6.65: bhidyate hṛdaya-granthiś chidyante sarva-saṃśayāḥ |
kṣīyante cāsya karmāṇi tasmin dṛṣṭe parāvare ||
[MU 2.2.8]

5. PD 11.18: sa purāṇān pañca vedāñ chāstrāṇi vividhāni ca |

jñātvāpy anātmavittvena nārado ’ti-śuśoca ha ||
AP 4.2: purāṇa-pañcamān vedān śāstrāṇi vividhāni ca |
jñātvāpy anātmavittvena nāradāḥ śokamāptavān ||
[cf. ChU 7.1.2]

145
The indices on which I base my analysis only provided the beginnings of the ślokas, i.e., pāda-a of a
four-part śloka. If the comparison were done on the basis of comparing each pāda of the śloka, more
matches might presumably be found.
146
The verse is not in Naiṣ, though.
 30
6. PD 11.19: vedābhyāsāt purā tāpa-traya-mātreṇa śokitā |
paścāt tv abhyāsa-vismāra-bhaṅga-garvaiś ca śokitā ||
AP 4.3: vedābhyāsāt purā tāpa-traya-mātreṇa śokitā |
paścāt tv abhyāsa-vismāra-bhaṅga-garvaiś ca śokitā ||
[cf. ChU 7.1.3]

7. PD 12.60: vittāt putraḥ priyaḥ putrāt piṇḍaḥ piṇḍāt tathendriyaṃ |

indriyāc ca priyaḥ prāṇaḥ prāṇād ātmā priyaḥ paraḥ ||
AP 13.201: vittāt putraḥ priyaḥ putrāt piṇḍaḥ piṇḍāt tathendriyaṃ |
indriyebhyaḥ priyaḥ prāṇaḥ ātmā priyatamas tataḥ ||
[cf. BU 1.4.8]

There are also some partial pāda matches:

8. PD 4.7 visphuliṅgā yathā vahner jāyante ’kṣaratas tathā |

vividhāś cij-jaḍā bhāvā ity ātharvaṇikī śrutiḥ ||
AP 14.58 visphuliṅgā yathā cāgner jāyante ’gni-svabhāvataḥ |
tathā suptātmanau jīvā vijñānamaya-nāmakāḥ ||
[cf. MU 2.1.1]

9. PD 11.47 śakuniḥ sūtra-baddhaḥ san dikṣu vyāpṛtya viśramam |

alabdhvā bandhana-sthānaṃ hasta-stambhādy upāśrayet ||
AP 11.62 śakuniḥ sūtra-baddho yaḥ sa gacchan vividhā diśaḥ |
alabdhvādhāram ākāśe bandhana-sthānam āvrajet ||
[cf. ChU 6.8.2]

10. PD 2.11ab vāk-pāṇi-pāda-pāyūpasthair akṣais tat-kriyā-janiḥ |

AP 1.75ab vāk-pāṇi-pāda-pāyūpasthāḥ karmendriya-pañcakam |

11. PD 4.4ab khaṃ vāyv-agni-jalor vyoṣadhy anna-dehāḥ kramād amī |

AP 2.32ab khaṃ vāyv-agni-jalor vyoṣadhy anna-deheṣu kāraṇam |
[cf 2.1.1]

12. PD 6.181ab etasya vā akṣarasya praśāsana iti śrutiḥ |

AP 13.172ab etasya vā akṣarasya śasane saty ado jagat |
[BU 3.8.9]

However, these parallels cannot be considered as incontrovertible evidence of

common authorship for two reasons. First, with the exception of three instances, the rest

are all references to śruti passages, and two (nos. 4 and 12) are outright quotations. It is
 31
feasible that these passages are standard formulaic references that were commonly

known. Even the three remaining cases might be references to texts that I am not familiar

with, either minor upaniṣads or secondary literature. Second, even if these were not

commonly occurring passages, it could be argued that two distinct, talented individuals

composing works in the same anuṣṭubh metre, referring to the same textual passage or

doctrinal concept, might come up with virtually identical śloka-s, particularly if they

shared the same teaching lineage (as Bhāratītīrtha and Vidyāraṇya did).147

Tempering any conjecture with these two counter-explanations, if we were to

persist in supposing that the author of the PD and the AP were the same, how does it

affect the dual-authorship theory (

A2, p. 8)?

3.8 Impact of AP-PD parallels on joint-authorship theory (A2)

Even though we have squarely assigned authorship of the AP to Mādhava-

Vidyāraṇya, we have no idea of the relative chronology of composition, i.e., whether the

PD was composed later than the AP or not. Tradition holds that the PD was composed in

the last few years of Vidyāraṇya’s life, even though no evidence has been offered to

support this.148 Setting aside for the moment the lack of evidence, the AP, being simply a

synopsis of select upaniṣads, could have been composed earlier than the PD. The PD

may have been composed later to present Vidyāraṇya’s comprehensive overview of

Advaita Vedānta.

147
Both acknowledge Vidyātīrtha as their guru. Vidyātīrtha was also their predecessor as head of Śṛṅgerī
Maṭha. Cf. Table 1, p. 12; nn. 56, 59, 64, 69 et passim and Table 2, p. 19 for Vidyāraṇya and n. 110 and
Table 3, p. 23 for Bhāratītīrtha. Also Thangaswami, p. 261. for a vaṃśa-vṛkṣaḥ.
148
See for example, the discussion of Jog’s opinion on p. 5 supra and also n. 7.
 32
Some even hold that the JMV was Vidyāraṇya’s penultimate work and a

supplement to the PD, perhaps intended to be its sixteenth chapter.149 That could make

the PD his last work, which was interrupted by his death and then completed by

Bhāratītīrtha (supporting theories

A2.6V and

A2.10V in section

3.1 supra). There is,

however, a problem with this scenario which puts the JMV’s authorship as occuring

before the PD: there are multiple instances where the JMV refers to the PD, specifically

sections from PD chapters 4, 7, 12 and 14.150 This would either require the opposite, that

the PD was written before the JMV, or that at the very least PD7 and PD12 were written

(by either Bhāratītīrtha or Vidyāraṇya) before the JMV,151 and that Vidyāraṇya, as author

of JMV was already planning to organize the PD into three pañcaka-s, and was intending

to name the last pañcaka the brahmānanda pañcaka.152 This would suggest that perhaps

Vidyāraṇya sketched out an outline for the organization of his PD, wrote at least a couple

of possibly non-sequential chapters for the PD, then setting the unfinished PD aside,

wrote the JMV, after which he resumed the PD, and passed away before completing it.

This seems highly contrived and improbable. The simpler possibility, that the PD was

written before the JMV, is more likely.

Do the shared references between the AP and the PD support the hypothesis that

Bhāratītīrtha completed the PD after Vidyāraṇya’s death? Parallels to the AP are found

149
Kripacaryulu reports this opinion without any references, p. 131: “Scholars already considered [that] the
JMV[,] the penultimate work of the same author[,] is a supplement to this work PD as its sixteenth
chapter.”
150
Cf. nn. 137, 143 supra.
151
The verses referred to from PD4 and PD14 also occur in the Muktika Upaniṣad and the BU respectively,
and thus arguably need not necessarily be PD references. Cf. n 143 supra.
152
JMV 4.4.1 very specifically references the fourth chapter of the Brahmānanda pañcaka, i.e., PD14,
before citing BU 4.4.12 which is also PD 14.5 and PD 7.1. Cf. n. 137 supra.
 33
in the following prakaraṇa-s of the PD: 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12. This would contradict the

theories that Vidyāraṇya only wrote PD1-6 (theory A

2.6V) or PD1-10 (theory

A2.10V,

improperly attributed to Niścaladāsa). It is still possible that Bhāratītīrtha wrote only

PD7 (theory A2.B1). There is also the other, more remote possibility, that Bhāratītīrtha

did write either PD1-6 or PD7-15 (theories A2.6B and A2.6V respectively) but was

familiar enough with Vidyāraṇya’s AP to quote from it. Of course, all of the preceding

discussion in this paragraph has been conjecture based upon conjecture. The most we

can say with certainty regarding the data presented by the parallels between the PD and

the AP is that it strengthens the likelihood the same author, Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya wrote

both the AP and the PD (theory A1) or portions of the PD (particularly theory A2.B1).

3.9 Revised ascription of works to Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha

Thus, if one were to take Rāmakṛṣṇa’s references to Bhāratītīrtha at the start of

PD7 more seriously than Mahadevan does, for the reasons discussed above, it would

strengthen the case that Bhāratītīrtha wrote only PD7. The evidence reviewed regarding

the JMV’s references to the PD also supports joint authorship of the PD, either that

Bhāratītīrtha wrote only PD7 or that he wrote PD7-15, which is far less likely. The

evidence, albeit incomplete, of parallels between Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya’s AP and the PD

examined earlier in section 3.8, p. 31 strongly favors the theory that only the PD7 was

written by Bhāratītīrtha, while Vidyāraṇya wrote the rest of the prakaraṇa-s. Thus I

would like to propose that we revise our opinion of authorship regarding the PD

accordingly. The assignment of the various texts between Bhāratītīrtha and Vidyāraṇya

can be revised as follows:

 34
Table 4: Works by Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha

Text Abbr. Author Homage paid to:

1. Parāśara-mādhavīya PaM Mādhava Gajānana, Vidyātīrtha,
Bhāratītīrtha, Śrīkaṇṭha,
Bukkaṇa
2. Kāla-mādhavīya KM Mādhava Gajānana, Vidyātīrtha,
Bhāratītīrtha, Śrīkaṇṭha,
Bukkaṇa
3. Jaiminīya-nyāya-mālā JNM Mādhava Bukkaṇa, Vidyātīrtha,
Bhāratītīrtha
4. Jīvan-mukti-viveka JMV Vidyāraṇya Vidyātīrtha
5. Vivaraṇa-prameya- VPS Bhāratītīrtha* Śaṅkarānanda,
saṅgraha Vidyātīrtha
6. Pañcadaśī PD Vidyāraṇya and Śaṅkarānanda, Harihara
Bhāratītīrtha
(PD7 only)
7. Bṛhadāraṇyaka- BVS Vidyāraṇya Gajānana
vārtika-sāra
8. Anubhūti-prakāśa AP Vidyāraṇya Vidyātīrtha
9. Aitareyopaniṣada- AiUD Vidyāraṇya Vidyātīrtha
dīpikā
10. Praṇava-mīmāṃsā PrM Vidyāraṇya Gaṇeśa, Vidyātīrtha,
Bukka
11. Dṛg-dṛśya-viveka DDV Bhāratītīrtha* –
12. Vaiyāsika-nyāya-mālā VNM Bhāratītīrtha Vidyātīrtha
Authorship marked by * is assigned provisionally.

The VPS and the DDV are provisionally assigned to Bhāratītīrtha, the VPS

primarily on the basis of Appayya Dīkṣita’s explicit attribution of the work to

Bhāratītīrtha,153 and the DDV mainly because there is no convincing evidence to counter

its traditional ascription to Bhāratītīrtha,154 and possibly also on stylistic parallel to VPS

153
See n. 119 supra.
154
Venimadhava Shastri, p. 116 makes a case for attributing the DDV to Vidyāraṇya based on Appaya
Dīkṣita’s reference to the DDV in SLS 2.3.4112: advaita-vidyā-kṛtas tu pratibimbasya mithyātvam
abhyupagacchatāṃ trividha-jīva-vādināṃ vidyāraṇya-guru-prabhṛtinām … Venimadhava Shastri says,
“And the three types of self is the thesis found in DDV only.” He is referring to DDV 32: avacchinnaś
cidābhāsas tṛtīyaḥ svapna-kalpitaḥ | vijñeyas tri-vidho jīvas tatrādyaḥ pāramārthikaḥ || This is a tenuous
argument, because a) this concept is not exclusive to Vidyāraṇya and b) there is no reason why Vidyāraṇya
could not refer to ideas in Bhāratītīrtha’s work (the DDV).
 35
with regard to brevity. More work is needed to definitively settle issues of authorship

regarding these texts.

In the preceding analysis, I have restricted myself primarily to analyzing the

opening and closing invocations, purposefully choosing not to consider the evidence of

the colophons, as their authenticity is often tenuous – perhaps inserted by scribes at some

later point in time rather than by the authors themselves. A more thorough analysis

would, of course, have to consider the coherency of the content of these various texts. I

have attempted to do so, albeit to a very limited extent, in section 3.7 supra, where the

parallels between the PD and the AP were explored, and in chapter 6, “Extra-textual

Context of PD7” infra, where I shall compare the context of PD7 to the context of BU

4.4.12, its commentary BUŚBh and the corresponding section in the BVS.

Lastly, there are five texts often ascribed to Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya which I have not

considered in this discussion. One is the Śaṅkara-digvijaya (ŚDV), which is almost

certainly a later text.155 The commentary Tātparya-dīpikā on the Sūta-saṃhita is also not

by our Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya but instead by Mādhavamantrin (M2).156 Then there is the

Dhātu-vṛtti (DV), whose authorship by Mādhava is also uncertain.157 The Saṅgīta-sāra is

155
For example, Upādhyāya, pp. 153-5. Thangaswami, p. 263: grantho’yam na vidyāraṇya-krtiḥ | parantu
abhinava-kālidāsa-kṛtir iti siddhāntaḥ | Also cf. n. 27 supra.
156
See, for example, S. S. Janaki’s “Madhava, the Commentator on Suta Samhita” in Jagannadham et al,
pp. 79-84; Srikantaya, pp. 152-5. Cf. n. 25 supra.
157
For example, Srikantaya, pp. 147-8. The opening invocatory verse to this text actually is the same as
seen earlier in the PaM, KM and BVS (nn. 58, 83): DV 1: vāgīśādyāḥ sumanasaḥ sarvārthānām upakrame
| yaṃ natvā kṛta-kṛtyāḥ syus taṃ namāmi gajānanam || Further along, there is a verse (v. 7) mentioning
Māyaṇa-sāyaṇa, minister of King Saṅgama. In vv. 12-13 the text is named the mādhavīya-dhātu-vṛtti and
the author is given as Sāyaṇa, son of Māyana. Kripacharyulu, pp. 85-9 also assigns the authorship to
Sāyaṇa. The issue of shared authorship of works by Sāyaṇa and Mādhava is also a complex issue and one
that I’ve deliberately side-stepped in this present work. Cf. nn. 56, 58 supra.
 36
158
a work on music attributed to Vidyāraṇya, but is not extant. There is also a

commentary or dīpikā on an Advaita text reputedly by Śaṅkara himself, the

Aparokṣānubhūti. It is a non-metrical work and its attribution to Vidyāraṇya is in

doubt.159

We now have a clearer understanding of the authorship issues as well as some

evidence in favor of joint authorship of the Pañcadaśī, suggesting that Vidyāraṇya may

have written all of it except for the Tṛptidīpa- prakaraṇa, (PD7). I have suggested that

PD7 was authored by Bhāratītīrtha, Vidyāraṇya’s guru and predecessor at Śṛṅgeri. Is this

conclusion supported by the text itself? Can we detect any divergence either in literary

style or in doctrinal content between PD7 and the rest of the text? In order to explore this

facet of the issue, I shall first present a chapter-by-chapter overview of the ideas treated

by the Pañcadaśī in chapter 4, “A Synopsis of the Pañcadaśī.” This will set the stage for

chapter 5, “A Closer Look at Tṛptidīpa-Prakaraṇa, PD7.”

158
Kripacharyulu, pp. 157-8; Upādhyāya, pp. 158-9; P. S. Sundaram Iyer, “Sri Vidyaranya and Music” in
Karmarkar et al., pp. 333-342.
159
Belvalkar, p. 226, n. 1: “The editor [of Śaṅkara’s Misc. Works, Mysore, 1898] is not sure about the
ascription of the com. to Vidyāraṇya. Even the original work [the Aparokṣānubhūti] does not rise above the
common place, and may have been an early work of the Ācārya [Śaṅkara].”
 37
4. A Synopsis of the Pañcadaśī

4.1 Tattvavivekaḥ – Discrimination of Reality

This chapter introduces the subject matter of this text, namely reality, tattva which

is brahman. The nature of one’s experience in the waking, dreaming and deep-sleep

states is examined, showing that consciousness is common to all three states. This

consciousness is our true Self, ātman, of the nature of sat-cit-ānanda, existence-

consciousness-bliss, which is identical to brahman, as taught in the upaniṣads. Yet one

does not live with this awareness of ātman/brahman and is instead attracted to objects

and experiences duality. The cause of this contrary experience is beginningless

ignorance, avidyā. Avidyā, māyā (illusion),160 īśvara (the creator) and jīva (the

individual) are analyzed in terms of prakṛti and its constituent guṇas, namely sattva,

goodness, rajas, passion and tamas, inertia.161 The jīva is also described as consisting of

three bodies, śarīras or five sheaths, kośas (PD3). By differentiating the Self from the

three bodies or the five sheaths, one is able to recognize the identity of the jīva with

brahman through reasoning, yukti. Śravaṇa is defined as the investigation of this identity

through the mahāvākyas, upaniṣadic utterances and manana, exploring the validity of this

identity by means of logical reasoning. Through śravaṇa and manana, one can then

achieve nididhyāsana, unbroken meditation, described as single-pointedly dwelling on

brahman without any doubts.162 This then leads to samādhi, a state of the mind where

one’s identity as meditator, the effort of meditation and the object being meditated on all

160
“Illusion” for māyā is a provisional translation. The term māyā also connotes unreality, falseness,
magic, mysterious power. Henceforth, the Sanskrit term will be used.
161
The translation of these terms is limited and the original Sanskrit terms will be used instead.
162
PD 1.52-53
 38
merge. This neutralizes obstacles and leads to direct realization of self-knowledge,

aparokṣātma-vijñāna, which leads to immediate freedom from bondage. In effect, this

chapter serves to introduce the aspects of self-realization that will be elaborated in detail

in the remaining fourteen chapters.

4.2 Pañcamahābhūtavivekaḥ – Discrimination of the Five Elements

To know the non-dual reality brahman, one must know what it is not. To that end

the five elements, their properties and relationship to the senses, the mind, and organs of

action are considered here. Sat, being is other than all these and is relationless, without

any svagata, sajātīya and vijātīya bheda-s, differences within itself, between members of

the same species, and with members from other species. Nor is sat non-existent, śūnya

(as claimed by the Buddhists). The world as we empirically see it is a creation of māyā,

which is neither sat nor śūnya.163 Māyā is a power that is mithyā, apparent and creates

illusory modifications with brahman as its basis. The one who understands that the

appearance of duality is due to māyā and is illusory and unreal, knows that reality is non-

dual. When one is firmly rooted in this understanding of non-duality, one becomes

jīvanmukta, liberated while still alive.

4.3 Pañcakośavivekaḥ – Discrimination of the Five Sheaths

The five-sheath model of the human body presented by the TU is taken up with a

view to differentiating these from brahman/ātman. Each kośa, sheath, envelops the next

one, proceeding from the gross to subtler versions. The annamayakośa is the physical

163
PD 2.49
 39
body constituted by food. Within it is the prāṇamayakośa, the sheath composed of the

vital airs. Next are the manomayakośa and the vijñānamayakośa, the mental and

intellectual sheaths respectively. Innermost is the ānandamayakośa, the sheath of bliss.

None of these are the ātman, since they are either devoid of consciousness (the first two

kośas), or changing (the next two) or temporary (ānandamayakośa), whereas the ātman is

eternal and the source of all joy.164 Having concluded that none of these kośas is ātman,

the nature of ātman is taken up by the rest of the chapter. Ātman is brahman, not limited

by space, time or objects. Īśvara, the creator is the superimposition on brahman due to

māyā; jīva, the individual is the superimposition on brahman due to avidyā.165 Knowing

brahman to be thus, one becomes brahman and is free from rebirth.

4.4 Dvaitavivekaḥ – Discrimination of Duality

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

be understood and overcome. Māyā is the creative power of īśvara. The world and jīva-s

are created by īśvara, as affirmed by various Upaniṣads. Māyā also has the power to

delude the jīva into forgetting that its true nature is brahman; the jīva instead identifies

with the body and therefore is subject to grief. Objects are created by īśvara, but jīva

also creates, by converting these into objects of enjoyment. Different jīva-s relate to the

same object differently as conditioned by their respective mental states. There is a

mentally modified version of the material object to which the jīva relates – it is this

version that causes the jīva pleasure and pain. Thus the duality created by the jīva is

binding, whereas īśvara’s duality simply is the substratum on which jīva’s duality is
164
PD 3.10
165
PD 3.37
 40
projected. The tendency to mentally dwell on objects can be overcome by meditation on

brahman. By gaining control of the mind through understanding of the nature of

brahman, one knows that the objects are not real and is freed from the modifications of

the mind such as attachment, desire, anger, etc. Then one knows oneself to be brahman.

4.5 Mahāvākyavivekaḥ – Discrimination of the Great Utterances

This brief chapter (8 verses) explains the meaning of the four mahāvākyas of the

Upaniṣads: prajñānaṃ brahma, consciousness is brahman (AiU 3.1.1), ahaṃ

brahmāsmi, I am brahman (BU 1.4.10), tat tvam asi, you are that (ChU 6.8.7) and ayam

ātmā brahma, this Self is brahman (MāU 2). All express the identity of ātman and

brahman.

4.6 Citradīpaḥ – Light of the Picture166

This chapter starts by drawing an analogy between the superimposition of empirical

reality on brahman and a painting on a canvas. Ātman/brahman is at various times

referred to as kūṭastha, īśvara, cidātmā, jīva, and the different terms and their

interrelationship, as well as the superimposition of jīva on kūṭastha is explained. Various

opposing theories from other philosophical schools regarding where ātman resides as

well as the nature of īśvara and jīva-s are presented and refuted. According to śruti,

ātman is infinite, without parts and all-pervading; īśvara is the lord of māyā, prakṛti and

the guṇa-s, and the antaryāmin, the inner controller. Jīva-s are only bound on account of

166
In the dīpa-pañcakam, the nature of the chapter title samāsa is ambiguous; it can be treated as either a
ṣaṣṭhī tatpuruṣa, “Lamp/light of …” or a saptamī tatpuruṣa, “Light on …”. I’ve chosen the former in
keeping with the analysis of the remaining pañcakas as ṣaṣṭhī tatpuruṣas as well, viveka-pañcaka =
“Discrimination of …” and ānanda-pañcaka = “Bliss of …”.
 41
their ignorance. Māyā is neither sat nor asat, but inexplicable, anirvācya. Yet from a

worldly standpoint, it is quite real. Without affecting brahman, māyā transforms it into

īśvara, the jīva-s and the creation, like a magician putting on a convincing show.

Inconceivable entities like māyā cannot be dealt with by logic.167 Māyā as a reflection of

ātman appears as īśvara and the jīva-s. However, īśvara controls māyā whereas the jīva

is but a fraction of īśvara and is controlled by māyā. Instead of being distracted by the

relative natures of īśvara and jīva, it is most important to understand brahman. Even

bondage and release are ultimately illusory, being caused by māyā. Kūṭastha and

brahman differ in name alone.168 Duality is caused by māyā; by the negation of duality,

one is left with non-duality, free from all ills. The unreality of duality cannot be arrived

at by logic alone, it has to be directly perceived. Once one disidentifies with the I-notion,

ahaṅkāra, desires and diseases cease to bind. The knot of ignorance is cut and one no

longer mistakes the ahaṅkāra to be ātman. Knowledge of reality is the direct cause of

liberation. Detachment, vairāgya and withdrawal from action, uparama assist in the

arising of knowledge. Śravaṇa, manana and nididhyāsana (PD1) are the cause of the

knowledge of reality. The nature of this knowledge is the discrimination between the real

and the unreal, and prevents the knot of ignorance from ever arising again.

4.7 Tṛptidīpaḥ – Light of Contentment

This prakaraṇa begins by quoting Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (BU) 4.4.12, which is

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

167
PD 6.150
168
PD 6.237
 42
169
contentment, tṛpti of one who is liberated while living, jīvanmukta. This prakaraṇa is

the focus of this thesis and will be explored in greater detail shortly in chapter 5, “A

Closer Look at Tṛptidīpa-Prakaraṇa, PD7.”

4.8 Kūṭasthadīpaḥ – Light of the Kūṭastha

The relationship between the kūṭastha, the unchangeable (brahman) and the

cidābhāsa, reflected consciousness is explained here. Their roles in cognition are

analyzed and the difference between the two is explained. Kūṭastha brahman is not the

cidābhāsa but rather the basis for it. The relationship between the kūṭastha, cidābhāsa

and the locus (of cidābhāsa, i.e., the mind, antaḥkaraṇa) is compared to the relationship

between the face, its reflection and the mirror.170 The association between an embodied,

limited and changing jīva and immutable brahman is explained to be one of

superimposition based on avidyā; actually they are identical. From the perspective of the

kūṭastha, there is no creation or destruction, bondage or liberation. The śruti conveys this

reality, which is beyond words and the mind, in terms of jīva, īśvara and jagat, the world.

4.9 Dhyānadīpaḥ – Light of Meditation

In earlier chapters (PD1, PD6, PD7), śravaṇa, manana, and nididhyāsana were

presented as the means to knowing brahman. For those who are not capable of these, the

method of dhyāna, meditation is offered here as a subordinate means. Even though one

is ignorant of the true nature of brahman and worships it in the form of deities, this can

still lead to proper knowledge via parokṣa, indirect or mediate knowledge. Such parokṣa

169
PD 7.2: asyāḥ śruter abhiprāyaḥ samyag atra vicāryate | jīvanmuktasya yā tṛptiḥ sā tena viśadāyate ||
170
PD 8.26
 43
knowledge is gained through study of the śāstras, scriptures. Direct, aparokṣa

knowledge of brahman is only achieved through vicāra, enquiry. There are three kinds

of obstructions to vicāra – past, present and future, which are described. But no vicāra is

in vain – either in the present birth or in some future birth, all impediments will be

removed through vicāra and one will eventually gain aparokṣa knowledge. For those not

able to practice vicāra due to such obstacles, upāsana, meditation on brahman, saguṇa or

nirguṇa, with or without attributes, is prescribed. Nirgūṇa upāsana is held to be superior

since it is closest to the goal, brahman. The relationship between meditation and

knowledge is discussed at length. Meditation, bhāvanā should be engaged in constantly

since it results in the meditator feeling identity with brahman. This feeling however

ceases when meditation, dhyāna ceases. The attitude towards the world of one who is

one-pointed in meditation and the states of samādhi and nirodha are described. “The one

who sees enquiry (sāṃkhya) and meditation (yoga) as one, he truly knows.”171

Ultimately, meditation helps one to overcome one’s doubts, to dissociate from the body,

to see the difference between ātman and anātman and to realize brahman directly.

4.10 Nāṭakadīpaḥ – Light of the Theatre

Here ātman or consciousness, cit is presented as the witness, sākṣin to the agent, the

action and the various objects. It is likened to a lamp in a theatre which equally reveals

the patron (ego, ahaṅkāra), the audience (sense objects, viṣaya), the dancer (intellect,

mati) and the musicians (sense organs). Even when these are not present, the lamp

(consciousness) continues to shine. Divisions of “internal” and “external,” “object” and

171
PD 9.134, also BG 5.5
 44
“perceiver” are only possible with reference to the mind and the body, but the witness

consciousness is neither internal nor external – it is all-pervading, beyond words, the

mind, and means of knowledge. It is self-luminous, and to know it one must study the

śruti from a teacher (śravaṇa), reflect on the teachings intellectually (manana) and

understand (through nididhyāsana) the internal and external creations to be based on the

witness-consciousness.

4.11 Yogānandaḥ – Bliss of Yoga

The remaining five chapters describe the ānanda, bliss resulting from the

knowledge of brahman. Ānanda is said to be of three kinds – 1. brahmānanda, the bliss

of brahman, 2. the bliss born of knowledge, vidyāsukha and 3. the bliss created by sense

objects, viṣayānanda. This chapter and the next two describe brahmānanda. Deep sleep

is presented as an example of the ānanda directly experienced as arising from non-

duality. The ignorance prevailing in this state, the ānandamaya kośa, is discussed. The

mind and intellect are latent during deep sleep. The bliss known in the absence of objects

is an impression, vāsanā of brahmānanda.172 So we have yet another three-way

classification of ānanda – 1. brahmānanda, 2. vāsanānanda, the bliss arising due to

impressions of brahmānanda, and 3. viṣayānanda, the bliss from objects. The latter two

are dependent on the first. Vāsanānanda is also experienced via the ego during the

waking state during detached intervals between pleasure and pain. Through practice of

yoga, concentration, one forgets the ego and increasingly experiences non-dual

brahmānanda while not asleep. Yoga is defined as the dissociation from connection with

172
PD 11.85
 45
173
suffering. Such practice is likened to baling out the ocean drop by drop with a blade of

grass, and to starving a fire of fuel. But even a brief glimpse of brahmānanda motivates

one to strive for it ceaselessly. Once attained, one is ever present in brahmānanda, even

while engaged in worldly tasks. One is able to enjoy both brahmānanda and worldly

ānanda like a person who knows two languages. One is no longer affected by suffering.

And since one dreams of what one experiences while awake, even in one’s dreams there

is brahmānanda. Thus there is brahmānanda in waking, dream and deep sleep.

4.12 Ātmānandaḥ – Bliss of the Self

In contrast to the previous chapter which dealt with brahmānanda with regard to

those capable of concentration, the present chapter concerns the experience of ānanda by

ignorant, mūḍha and (spiritually) dull, mandaprajña persons. Such persons are to be

shown that one does not love other persons or objects for their sake but for one’s own

sake. Therefore the ātman alone is the real goal of one’s love. This love is other than

rāga, passionate love, śraddhā, pious faith, bhakti, devotion to deities and icchā, desire.

The love of ātman is independent of all these emotions and their objects. Then what is

one to make of śruti statements which equate ātman to the son (KauU 2.11, BU 1.5.17

etc)? These are figurative, gauṇa statements. The term ātman can be mentioned in either

the figurative, illusory (mithyā) or primary (mukhya) sense. The love for ātman is always

greatest with regard to the primary sense; towards that which is dependent, the love is

moderate and towards what is not ātman, there is either disregard or hatred. Through

discrimination, one learns to see the witness as ātman and not anything else. One who

173
PD 11.85, also BG 6.23ab: taṃ vidyād duḥkha-saṃyoga-viyogaṃ yogasaṃjñitam |
 46
loves something other than ātman only experiences suffering. But the ātman is

indestructible, the source of highest bliss – as the love for ātman increases, ānanda

increases. So long as one arrives at this knowledge, whether one does so through

concentration, yoga or discrimination, viveka is immaterial.

4.13 Advaitānandaḥ – Bliss of Non-duality

The previous two chapters dealt with brahmānanda (attained through yoga) and

ātmānanda (attained through viveka). This chapter presents the non-duality of brahman

and equates the earlier two types of ānanda. The world is mere appearance of change,

vivarta in the non-dual ānanda brought about by māyā, the indescribable power of

brahman. This power does not exist apart from brahman, yet is not identical to it. If it

were identical to brahman, in the absence of māyā, there would be no brahman either.

The power of māyā is different from its effect and also from its substratum, it is beyond

thought and description. As an analogy, a pot (the effect) and clay (its substratum) are

both other than the power that created the pot. Yet the pot is not different from the clay,

nor is it identical to clay – it is not visible in the clay state, but its potential to be is

implicit in the clay, and it cannot be separated from clay once formed. The pot as a

product of power when not perceptible is indescribable; when perceptible, it is a pot.

Similarly, products of māyā are considered unreal; reality is only possible for that which

is the substrate of māyā, brahman, just like clay for the pot. The substrate and its

manifest effect exist by turns, while the unmanifest power persists at all times. The

substrate is real, unchanged and indestructible at all times while the manifest effect has a

name and form. Name and form are both unreal as they are subject to creation and
 47
destruction. Liberation is achieved by knowledge of the unreality of the world, which is

a manifest effect superimposed on the substrate, brahman. By knowing one lump of

clay, one effectively knows the nature of all objects made of clay; similarly by knowing

brahman, one knows the nature of the entire phenomenal world. In the steady natural

bliss of the Self, there is no duality, no name and form, nor creation and destruction.

Through the continuous practice, abhyāsa of brahman, one is liberated even while living.

When the worldly objects are disregarded, the mind is freed of obstacles and abides in

brahman, no longer affected by the worldly effects.

4.14 Vidyānandaḥ – Bliss of Knowledge

The bliss arising from knowledge of brahman is a modification of the intellect, dhī.

It has four aspects: the absence of sorrow, the fulfillment of all desires, the feeling that all

that is to be done has been done, and the feeling that all that is to be obtained has been

obtained. BU 4.4.12, with which PD7 began, is restated here, and its insights are

reiterated. Suffering persists as long as one identifies with the body and the jīva; the

ātman does not suffer. Desire too is only for one who considers objects of enjoyment to

be real, but the knower of non-duality has no desire for or attachment to anything. Even

worries regarding the future cease as the store of all future actions, sañcita-karman ceases

to exist with knowledge of brahman, and there is no further rebirth. The bliss of ātman is

unsurpassed and beyond the bliss of all other stations or attainments, worldly or

otherwise. Until one knows oneself to be the witness, sākṣin, one doesn’t experience any

satisfaction. The chapter concludes by repeating twenty-five verses from chapter 7 (vv.
 48
253-270, 291-297) describing the nature of the perfect satisfaction of one who knows

brahman.

4.15 Viṣayānandaḥ – Bliss of Objects

Lastly the bliss experienced through sense objects is described. Though it is only a

reflection of a fraction of the bliss of brahman, the viṣayānanda functions as a door into

brahmānanda. Ātman, though non-dual, exists in every being. If there is a prevalence of

rājasika and tāmasika vṛtti-s of the mind, the bliss of brahman is obscured while the

consciousness, cit aspect is reflected. When sāttvika vṛtti-s predominate, both

consciousness and bliss are manifested. Desires when fulfilled usually provide

happiness; however, when thwarted, there is grief, anger and hatred. This is due to rajas

and tamas. However, the greatest happiness results when one is dispassionate, virakta, as

seen in previous chapter. There is a continuum of manifestation of brahman’s sat, cit and

ānanda: objects only possess sat, existence, while rājasika and tāmasika vṛtti-s manifest

sat and cit, and sāttivika vṛtti-s manifest all three attributes, guṇa-s. Māyā manifests

objects and takes three forms: 1. non-existence or absence of sat, 2. inertness or absence

of cit, and 3. sorrow or absence of ānanda. To get to know brahman, one must ignore

non-existent objects and contemplate the inert objects by rejecting their name and form

(PD13) and focusing on their sat-aspect. Similarly, one must contemplate the rājasika

and tāmasika vṛtti-s by rejecting the sorrow associated with them and instead focusing on

their sat and cit aspects. The most superior contemplation is on sāttvika vṛtti-s where one

focuses on all three aspects of brahman. These three forms of contemplation are

intended for those who are dull, manda, and engaged in worldly affairs. Eventually,
 49
through the development of indifference to objects, an even higher form of contemplation

arises focusing on the bliss of impressions, vāsanānanda (discussed in PD11). These

four types of meditation involve both yoga and knowledge, jñāna, and thus provide

knowledge of brahman itself. Through one-pointed meditation, this knowledge becomes

steady and one knows sat, cit, and ānanda not individually but as a single indivisible

essence. In fact, the knower-known-knowledge distinctions cease and there is an

abundance of bliss, bhumānanda.

 50
5. A Closer Look at Tṛptidīpa-Prakaraṇa, PD7

Now that we’ve examined the rest of the PD, let us take a detailed look at PD7, the

Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa, paying attention to concepts also treated in other chapters. PD7 is

composed of 298 anuṣṭubh śloka-s, making it the longest of the fifteen chapters in the

PD. As mentioned earlier, the goal of PD7 is to elucidate the contentment, tṛpti of one

who is liberated while living, jīvanmukta, by analyzing BU 4.4.12 in detail.174 BU 4.4.12

states: ātmānaṃ ced vijānīyād ayam asmīti pūruṣaḥ | kim icchan kasya kāmāya śarīram

anusaṃjvaret || “If a person truly knows the self, ātman, as ‘I am this,’ desiring what,

and for the love of whom (or what) would (s)he suffer on account of the body?”

PD 7.3-6 present the meaning of pūruṣa, followed by vv. 7-18 discussing the

meaning of aham asmi, and 19-22 the meaning of ayam in the śruti-vākya PD 7.1/BU

4.4.12. In the process the terms cidābhāsa, “reflected consciousness” and kūṭastha,

“immutable consciousness” or brahman, are both introduced as secondary senses of the

word aham. Parokṣa- and aparokṣa-jñāna, “indirect” and “direct knowledge” are also

introduced. Vv. 23-27 introduce the "tenth man" allegory to illustrate how, despite the

potential for direct knowledge of the self being ever-present, one can still have a

mistaken sense regarding oneself. The indirect knowledge of brahman which is signified

by ayam alleviates suffering, but with direct knowledge the cause for suffering itself is

eliminated. This section briefly alludes to portions of PD1 (māyā’s relationship with

īśvara and jīva), PD2 (the nature of creation, sṛṣṭi), PD6 and PD8 (kūṭastha and

cidābhāsa) and PD12 (three senses of the term ātman).

174
PD 7.2: asyāḥ śruter abhiprāyaḥ samyag atra vicāryate | jīvanmuktasya yā tṛptiḥ sā tena viśadāyate ||
 51
In vv. 28-84, the seven stages of self-knowledge are discussed: 1. ajñāna,

ignorance, 2. āvṛti, covering, 3. vikṣepa, superimposition, 4. parokṣa-jñāna, indirect

knowledge, 5. aparokṣa-jñāna, direct knowledge, 6. śoka-apagama, the cessation of

affliction, and 7. tṛpti, contentment. The first three are considered the cause of bondage

and the remaining four are causes of liberation. BU 4.4.12 refers to two of these stages,

direct knowledge as in “I am this (brahman)” and the cessation of affliction. The

difference between parokṣa and aparokṣa knowledge is discussed (48-84, and features of

the tenth-man allegory are used to illustrate the distinction between the two (57-60.

Parokṣa and aparokṣa knowledge are also discussed in PD9. In PD2, māyā’s ability to

obscure non-dual reality is examined through the analysis of the five elements.

In vv. 83-96, the differences between jīva and brahman are discussed along with the

nature of direct knowledge produced. Vv. 97-135 consider the need for repeated study,

abhyāsa to be performed by means of śravaṇa, listening, manana, reflection and

nididhyāsana, deep meditation for the sake of strengthening the direct knowledge

produced by the mahāvākyas. These topics were also introduced in PD1 and again

alluded to in PD6. The entire (albeit short, 8 vv.) PD5, mahāvākyaviveka is devoted to

the four mahāvākyas. PD9, dhyānadīpa is devoted to the practice of meditation. The

practice of yoga, concentration on ātman is also treated in PD11, yogānanda while

viveka, discrimination is treated in PD12, ātmānanda.

There is a fourth process to be performed after śravaṇa, manana and nididhyāsana

have been perfected: samādhi, where the meditator-meditation difference dissolves.175

175
PD 1.55: dhyātr-dhyāne parityajya kramād dhyeyakagocaram | nivāta-dīpavac-cittaṃ samādhir
abhidhīyate ||
 52
Though samādhi is not explicitly mentioned as a practice in PD7, one can infer its utility

in attaining aparokṣa-jṇāna.176 PD1 and PD9 refer to samādhi explicitly.

Then in vv. 136-142, the meaning of kim icchan, “desiring what” is considered. On

realizing the deficiency in objects of pleasure, one’s desire for pleasure goes away. Vv.

143-191 discuss desires arising due to prārabdha karman which is of three varieties:

1. icchā-, causing enjoyments with desire, 2. anicchā-, causing enjoyments without

desire, and 3. parecchā-prārabdha, causing enjoyments through the desire of others.

The wise person spontaneously enjoys the fruits of such karman without being bound by

their karmic results. Even desires that arise for such an individual are like roasted seeds

that are nourishing but do not have the potential to bear fruit anymore.177 The wise

recognize duality in order to teach in much the way one derives enjoyment from a magic

show while still knowing it to be an illusion. Due to self-knowledge, any desires that

arise for the wise are non-binding. The nature of objects and desire is also discussed in

PD4 and PD6, and treated at length in PD15, viṣayānandaḥ. PD10 presents ātman as a

sākṣin, witness to a play, tranquilly relating to all objects without being affected by them.

Next, vv. 192-221 elaborate on the meaning of kasya kāmāya, regarding

enjoyership in light of the falsity, mithyātva of the world. The self as cidābhāsa is

subject to change, but as kūṭastha is neither a doer nor an enjoyer. The afflictions

produced due to desire for pleasure have no effect. Thus one is exhorted to devote

oneself to gaining this self-knowledge and to strengthening it. Vv. 222-251 then go on to

176
For instance, PD 7.265: vikṣepo nāsti yasmān me samādhis tato mama | vikṣepo vā samādhir vā
manasaḥ syād vikāriṇaḥ ||
177
PD 7.164: bharjitāni tu bījāni santy akārya-karāṇi ca | vidvad-icchā tatheṣṭavyā ’sattva-bodhān na
kārya-kṛt ||
 53
consider the absence of bodily afflictions for a knower of brahman by way of examining

the nature of afflictions in the three śarīras, bodies, namely sthūla-, gross physical,

sūkṣma-, subtle and kāraṇa-, causal. Once again, by means of the tenth-man story, the

nature of affliction is illustrated. Though the understanding of one’s self-nature may

occur instantaneously, overcoming one’s prārabdha karman and the habit of identifying

with one’s body might take a while (247,50), but one does eventually “heal,”178 i.e.,

suffering/affliction ceases when identification with the body ceases. The nature of the

body was also treated in PD1 (in terms of the sthūla, sūkṣma and kāraṇa śarīras) and in

terms of the pañca kośas in PD3.

Once released from suffering, one enters the final of the seven stages, tṛpti,

satisfaction. Vv. 251-298 describe the state of unlimited satisfaction for a knower of

brahman and his/her conduct in the midst of those who are still ignorant of their true

nature. All that was to be achieved has already been achieved, nothing more remains to

be done,179 not even śravaṇa, manana, nididhyāsana or samādhi, since one already

knows oneself to be brahman. The wise one can act or remain actionless – one’s firm,

unshakeable self-knowledge is not affected or obstructed by this – one is ever free from

suffering. The body will persist as long as there are prārabdha karma-s to be exhausted,

but their results do not affect the limitless self, brahman (262-3). The ānanda-pañcaka,

PD11-15 also exhaustively describes the nature of bliss resulting from the knowledge of

brahman. In fact, PD 14.40-67 are identical to PD 7.253-270, 7.291-297.

178
PD 7.247: śirovraṇas tu māsena śanaiḥ śāmyati …
179
PD 7.252: … kṛtaṃ kṛtyaṃ prāpaṇīyaṃ prāptam ity eva tṛpyati ||
 54
Thus we can see that in the process of expanding on the śruti-vākya BU 4.4.12, PD7

touched upon topics covered throughout the rest of the PD in varying degrees of detail.

While there is no apparent divergence in content between the PD7 and the rest of the text

to suggest a change in authorship, this does not necessarily mean that there was no

change in authorship. The two authors could very well have been in agreement regarding

their doctrinal views. Bhāratītīrtha was after all, one of Vidyāraṇya’s gurus and they both

share Vidyātīrtha as a teacher as well.

The PD7 serves as an overarching review of the entire text, outlining the entire

trajectory of an individual from ignorance through contentment resulting from

enlightenment through the intervening five stages (āvṛti, vikṣepa, parokṣa-jñāna,

aparokṣa-jñāna and śoka-apagama). Also woven in are the means for attaining this

knowledge of one’s true advaita nature, assurances that there is no backsliding and

descriptions of what it is like to function in the world after liberation.

PD7 in effect provides us a condensed representation of the life cycle of a mumukṣu

(seeker of liberation), within which we can examine select Advaita issues to understand

the interaction between the epistemological, metaphysical and praxeological aspects of

the system. It provides us a microcosm within which we can explore aspects of Advaita

praxis such as the means advocated for knowing brahman and achieving jīvanmukti.

(Such aspects are generally implicit to any given text and not typically treated

independently. I plan to research this in a future work). We are also afforded a forum for

investigating innovations made by Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha on Śaṅkara’s system of

Advaita, if any. Before that task is undertaken in chapter 8, “Vidyāraṇya’s Contributions

 55
to and Innovations in Advaita Vedānta,” we need to complete our contextual analysis of

PD7 by comparing its context to the context of BU 4.4.12, its BUŚBh and the

corresponding section in the BVS. We now turn to the analysis of the PD7’s extra-

textual context.
 56
6. Extra-textual Context of PD7

In chapter 5, “A Closer Look at Tṛptidīpa-Prakaraṇa, PD7,” we saw how

Bhāratītīrtha’s Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa-, the seventh chapter of the Pañcadaśī (PD) starts

with the śruti-vākya, BU 4.4.12. Now, let’s take a look at:

1. The context of BU 4.4.12 within the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (BU),

2. Śaṅkarācārya’s bhāṣya (BUŚBh) on BU 4.4.12, and

3. Vidyāraṇya’s Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra (BVS) on BU 4.4.12 accompanied

by Maheśvaratīrtha’s Laghusaṅgraha on the same.

This will then enable us to examine the similarities and differences, if any, among

Śaṅkara, Vidyāraṇya in the BVS, Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha in the PD and the

author(s) of the BU.

6.1 The context of BU 4.4.12 within the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad

The BU is considered the oldest of the Upaniṣads, based on linguistic evidence. It

is divided into three kāṇḍas, sections. The first, Madhu-kāṇḍa “conveys the main

teaching of the Advaita doctrine and is of the nature of upadeśa”, instruction. The

second, Yājñavalkya- or Muni-kāṇḍa, wherein BU 4.4.12 occurs, “embodies the logical

argument and explanation showing the soundness of the upadeśa.” The third, Khila-

kāṇḍa “deals with certain upāsanas or modes of meditation.”180 It is the Yājñavalkya-

kāṇḍa’s context which is primarily relevant for this discussion. It comprises two

adhyāyas, chapters (3-4), each further subdivided into brāhmaṇas. In the third adhyāya,

180
Mādhavānanda (1988), p. xii.
 57
181
the jalpa style of argumentation is employed by Yājñavalkya to gain victory over

various opponents and to elucidate the nature of brahman and ātman in the process.

In the fourth adhyāya, King Janaka, in whose assembly the debates of the third

adhyāya had taken place, is asked by Yājñavalkya to tell him what he has learned from

various teachers. Yājñavalkya dismisses the teachings of each teacher that Janaka relates

as obvious182 and incomplete,183 and is then asked by Janaka to complete the picture.

Eventually Janaka explicitly asks Yājñavalkya to teach him (4.2.1) and Yājñavalkya’s

response culminates in the famous statement by Yājñavalkya that all one can say about

this ātman is “neti, neti.”184

In 4.3, Yājñavalkya doesn’t wish to say anything, but Janaka calls in a boon granted

him earlier by Yājñavalkya to ask him any question he (Janaka) wished. Janaka asks,

“What is the (source of) light for a person here?”185 Yājñavalkya’s answer is that it is the

self, ātman (4.3.6). He goes on to discuss how the self “travels” between the realms of

dream and wakefulness (4.3.9-18). Deep sleep is the state where the self has no desires

and sees no dreams (4.3.19). “The person embraced by the self consisting of knowledge

is oblivious to everything within or without.”186 … “There isn’t a second (reality) here

that he could see as something distinct and separate from himself.”187 … “This, O King,

is the world of brahman.”188 After the glory of brahman has been extolled, Janaka still

181
jalpa - “a kind of disputation (overbearing reply and disputed rejoinder)”, MW, s.v.
182
BU 4.1.2: Yathā mātṛmān pitṛmān ācāryavān brūyāt tathā …
183
BU 4.1.2: eka-pād vā etat …
184
See n. 197.
185
BU 4.3.2: kiṃjyotir ayaṃ puruṣa iti |
186
BU 4.3.21: … ayaṃ puruṣaḥ prājñenātmanā saṃpariṣvakto na bāhyaṃ kiṃcana veda nāntaram |
187
BU 4.3.23: … na tu tad dvitīyam asti tato ’nyad vibhaktaṃ yat paśyet |
188
BU 4.3.32: … eṣa brahmalokaḥ samrāṭ |
 58
189
wants to know more, much to Yājñavalkya’s chagrin. He then launches into a

description of transmigration (4.3.34-38) which is continued in the next brāhmaṇa (4.4).

The deterioration of the vital breath, prāṇa is described, leading to the withdrawal

of the ātman from the old body to a new one. “This non-corporeal and immortal prāṇa is

nothing but brahman, nothing but light.”190 Next a series of śloka-s are cited (4.4.8-21),

which includes 4.4.12, the śruti-vākya of particular interest to us. Vv. 8-9 describe the

path by which the knowers of brahman, brahmavid-s go to the heavenly world on release.

Vv. 10-11 describe the progressively darker worlds of blind darkness, andhaṃ tamaḥ,

entered by worshippers of ignorance and by worshippers of learning.191 In contrast, a

person who truly knows ātman wants for nothing and is not afflicted by his body; on the

contrary the ātman is the maker of everything, indeed he is the world (12-13).192 Those

who know this become immortal, while others only have suffering to look forward to

(14). The ātman is to be sought out; it is venerated as life immortal. Ātman is the

immortal brahman (15-17). Brahman is behind breathing, sight, hearing, thinking; it is

non-diverse, realized through the mind alone, singular, immeasurable, immovable,

taintless, beyond space, unborn, immense (18-20). It should be known though intuitive

knowledge, prajñā and not through words (21).193

The prose section then resumes. Ātman is the goal of all, brahmins and ascetics

alike. Knowing ātman, they give up desire for sons, wealth and worlds. Ātman is
189
BU 4.3.33: … yājñavalkyo bibhyāṃcakāra medhāvī rājā sarvebhyo mā’ntebhya udarautsīd iti | This is
an interesting situation and certainly raises questions as to why Yājñavalkya would be afraid. Fodder for a
future exploration…
190
BU 4.4.7: … ayam aśarīro ’mrtaḥ prāṇo brahmaiva teja eva |
191
BU 4.4.10: andhaṃ tamaḥ praviśanti ye ’vidyām upāsate | tato bhūya iva te tamo ya u vidyāyāṃ ratāḥ ||
192
BU 4.4.13: … sa viśvakṛt sa hi sarvasya kartā tasya lokaḥ sa u loka eva ||
193
BU 4.4.21: tam eva dhīro vijñāya prajñāṃ kurvīta brāhmaṇaḥ | nānudhyāyād bahuñ chabdān vāco
viglāpanaṃ hi tad iti ||
 59
ungraspable, undecaying, unbound, not subject to fear or injury, beyond good and bad,

not subject to that which is done or undone. One who knows this becomes

ātman/brahman (22-25). Thus the fourth brāhmaṇa concludes.

The fifth brāhmaṇa repeats the Maitreyī-Yājñavalkya dialogue of 2.4 in the Madhu-

kāṇḍa. The sixth and final brāhmaṇa provides the lineage of the teachers. This is

followed by the two adhyāyas of the Khila-kāṇḍa, whose contents are not relevant to this

discussion.

Thus BU 4.4.12 occurs in the midst of Yājñavalkya’s teachings on brahma-tattva to

Janaka. The transmigration of the ātman upon death to a new body is described and the

nature of this new body depends on the nature of one’s desires and actions in the past

body (4.3.35-38, 4.4.1-6). On the other hand, one who is without desire becomes

immortal and attains brahman right here, in this life (7). Then deprecating both

ignorance and learning (10-11), 4.4.12 rhetorically suggests that the body and its ills are

of no consequence when compared to what is gained by the knowledge of ātman. The

remainder of the fourth brāhmaṇa then adds greater detail to this suggestive proposition,

explicitly stating that what is gained by this knowledge is the awareness that one is “the

maker of all,” viśvakṛt (13), immortal, amṛta (14), brahman (17). In contrast, those who

do not know this face suffering, duḥkha and great destruction, mahatī vinaṣṭi (14). The

implicit message of BU 4.4.12 is the desirability of the knowledge of ātman/brahman.

When known, nothing else is needed and nothing can adversely affect one.
 60
6.2 Śaṅkarācārya’s bhāṣya (BUŚBh) on BU 4.4.12

Śaṅkara’s commentary on this verse is short enough that a complete translation can

be provided here. English words in italics are from BU 4.4.12 itself. (The footnotes

provide the relevant Sanskrit passages in the sequence corresponding to the English

translation, see Appendix 2

A, p. 95 for the entire Sanskrit passage):

“If (a person), one in thousands194 truly knows the self, ātman, his own (which is

also) the highest which knows the desires of all sentient beings, (which is) situated in the

heart, (which is) beyond hunger and other characteristics:195 (The qualification) “if”

shows the rarity of self-knowledge, ātma-vidyā. How (does one know)? “I am this”

supreme self, the witness to the notions of all sentient beings,196 described by

(statements) such as “neti, neti”,197 (and) other than which (there is) no one who sees,

hears, thinks, or knows,198 constant, situated in all beings, whose nature is eternal, pure,

awake and liberated.199 That person, what other object could he possibly desire as a

result that is other than his own nature?200 And for the love of whom (or what) other than

himself,201 for what motive?202 Because there is no result to be desired by him, (since he

is) the self. Nor is there anyone other than the self, for whose sake he desires, since he is

194
sahasreṣu kaścit
195
svaṃ paraṃ sarva-prāṇi-manīṣita-jñaṃ hṛtstham aśanāyādi-dharmātītam
196
sarva-prāṇi-pratyaya-sākṣī
197
Olivelle, p.67, pp.501-2 n.3.6, suggests “neti, neti” be rendered as “not ––, not ––” instead of the
commonly held “not this, not this” which would require “iti na” instead. While this is syntactically valid,
“not this” seems a friendlier translation than “not ––” without causing any significant violation to the
import of the text.
198
yasmān nānyo ’sti draṣṭā śrotā mantā vijñātā
199
samaḥ sarva-bhūta-stho nitya-śuddha-buddha-mukta-svabhāvo
200
tat-svarūpa-vyatiriktam anyad vastu phala-bhūtaṃ
201
anyasya ātmano vyatiriktasya kāmāya
202
[kasya] prayojanāya
 61
203
the self of all. Therefore, desiring what and for whose sake would he suffer, be

ruined,204 on account of the body, i.e., (why) would he be afflicted on account of the

suffering caused by bodily limitations,205 (why) would he suffer on account of bodily

affliction?206 Because (this happens) only to one who does not know the ātman,207 (and

therefore is) striving to obtain some object other than it (ātman).208 Desiring209 (that)

“this should be mine, this (other) for my son, this (third thing) for my wife,”210 mounted

on (the saṃsāra-cakra’s) uninterrupted sequence of birth and death,211 (he) suffers the

disease(s) of the body.212 But this could not happen to one who sees the whole self: this

is what is said (here).”213

It appears that Śaṅkara is reinforcing what we’ve already gathered from our

analysis of the Yājñavalkya-kāṇḍa. The limitations of the body and its attendant ills such

as hunger are reinforced particularly in contrast to the ultimacy of the knowledge of the

self. The all-pervasiveness of the self is also highlighted, as is the rarity of achieving

self-knowledge. In effect, Śaṅkara is saying that according to the śruti, given that

knowing ātman means knowing one’s true nature, which is eternal, pure, awake,

liberated, all-pervasive, all-knowing, it is absurd to persist in identifying with the body,

203
na hi tasya ātmana eṣṭavyaṃ phalam, na cāpy ātmano ’nyo ’sti, yasya kāmāyecchati, sarvasyātma-
bhūtatvāt |
204
bhraṃśet
205
śarīropādhikṛta-duḥkham-anu duḥkhī syāt
206
śarīra-tāpam-anutapyeta |
207
anātma-darśino hi
208
tad-vyatirikta-vastv-antarepsoḥ – I’ve taken antara in this compound as “different from”, strengthening
the force of vyatirikta.
209
īhamānaḥ
210
mamedaṃ syāt putrasyedaṃ bhāryāyā idaṃ ity evam
211
punaḥ punar janana-maraṇa-prabandha-rūḍhaḥ
212
śarīra-rogam anu rujyate
213
sarvātma-darśinas tu tad asaṃbhava ity etad āha |
 62
enduring the ills it undergoes, viewing oneself as limited and pursuing limited desires,

thereby committing to saṃsāra. In fact, one who knows the self has no truck with

limited desires – firstly, being all-pervasive there is nothing other than one’s self that can

be desired and secondly, limited desires only reinforce the identifying with the body and

its ills.

Further, while at first glance it may seem odd that Śaṅkara is situating the all-

pervasive ātman in the heart, he is not adding a new inconsistency, but is being informed

by the BU itself. For example, 4.3.7: “the inner light within the heart, hṛdyantar jyotiḥ”,

4.4.1: “(the ātman) descends back into the heart, hṛdayam evānvavakrāmati.” Later, we

have 4.4.20: “(The self is) beyond space, para ākāśād.” 4.1.7 unequivocally states: “The

highest brahman is the heart, hṛdayaṃ vai samrāṭ paramaṃ brahma.” This last occurs

after successive declarative statements in the first brāhmaṇa that brahman has as its

abode speech, breath, sight, hearing and the mind, but ultimately it is the heart that is the

foundation of all beings. Thus it is clear from the BU context that a statement locating

ātman/brahman in a specific place in the body is not to be taken literally. It is intended

as a metaphor, perhaps suggesting at the same time the “nearness” of brahman – in fact

nothing could be nearer as one is brahman, because that is one’s true nature – as well as

its “dearness,” that which is most desirable to know, upon knowing which all suffering,

let alone that associated with the body, ceases.

 63
6.3 Vidyāraṇya’s Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra (BVS) on BU 4.4.12

The Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra, a sub-commentary on Sureśvara’s Vārttika214 on

the BU,215 is a relatively lesser known work of Vidyāraṇya. For example, there is no

mention of it in Dasgupta’s A History of Indian Philosophy (1922), or by other works

dealing with Vidyāraṇya, such as Mahadevan (1938, 69), Punjani (1985), and Goodding

(2002). Potter’s bibliography has three editions listed, the earliest by Vajhe (1915-19)

which includes Maheśvaratīrtha’s ṭīkā, a recent edition by Dwivedī (1999) which is

accompanied by a Hindi translation and commentary, and another dating to 1941 which I

was unable to examine.216 Based on my analysis in section

3.4, “Works ascribed to

Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya,” particularly pp. 17,20, I have concluded that the ascription of the

authorship of BVS to Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya is genuine and thus it will be of great interest

to compare Vidyāraṇya’s treatment of BU 4.4.12 here with that in PD7.

The BVS is a metrical text, mostly in anuṣṭubh meter, like the PD. The fourth

brāhmaṇa of the BVS’s fourth adhyāya has a total of 491 śloka-s, among which BU

4.4.12 receives just five, 4.4.272-276. This section is brief enough to be translated in its

entirety.217 English words in italics are from BU 4.4.12, (the corresponding Sanskrit

appears in boldface in the footnotes; see Appendix 2

B, p. 95 for the entire Sanskrit

214
I wished to consult this as well, but sadly, I was unable to locate the section containing BU 4.4.12.
215
Marcaurelle, p.189.
216
Potter (2005): “809.5.1 Edited, with Uttamaślokatīrtha's Laghuvārttikavyākhyā and Maheśvara Tīrtha's
Laghusaṃgraha, by Bhau Sastri Vajhe. ChSS 46, 1915, 1919; 809.5.2 Edited by Chandiprasada Sukla
Sastri and Krsna Pant. AG 10, 1941; 809.5.3 Edited by Vacaspati Dwivedi. Varanasi 1999”
217
As far as I am aware, there are no published English translations of the BVS.
 64
passage), and Maheśvaratīrtha’s relevant ṭīkā is provided within square brackets (see

Appendix 2

C, p. 96 for the Sanskrit):

“The fifth śloka218 here clearly sets forth the complete disappearance of suffering

for those who are possessed of the knowledge of brahman. [(The BU śloka) “ātmānam

…” is taken up].219 What suffering is there on account of the body for the fully satisfied

person who directly knows, ‘I am this’? [Analyzing220 the words of the (BU) śloka, the

nature of (self-)knowledge is brought forth (in this BVS śloka)].221 Someone who does

not know one’s self, ātman, would subsequently suffer on account of mistaking the self to

be the body, desiring pleasure for the sake of pleasure for oneself (as an) enjoyer. [To

present the cause of the cessation of affliction due to self-knowledge, the cause of the

affliction of that ignorance is stated. On account of mistaking oneself as an enjoyer, there

is desire (lit: desiring) (for) all sorts of (objects of) enjoyment (lit: what is to be enjoyed);

upon the destruction of (the objects of) enjoyment, (there is) suffering – i.e. one’s body

would consequently suffer].222 The one who, on account of (realizing) the knowledge of

being the ātman of all, would be excluded from (being the) enjoyer and from (the

experience of) enjoyment, what could he possibly desire, and for the love of whom (or

what) would he suffer on account of the body? [(This śloka) presents knowledge as the

218
BU 4.4.12 is fifth in the series of ślokas quoted starting at BU 4.4.8.
219
BVS 4.4.272: brahmāvabodha-yuktānāṃ niḥśeṣo duḥkha-saṃkṣayaḥ | ślokena paṃcamenātra
vispaṣṭam abhidhīyate || [ātmānam ity ady avatārayati brahmeti |]
220
vyākurvan literally means to separate from, to sever, divide; to explain. Hence my translation, “to
analyze”.
221
Ibid. 273: puruṣaḥ paripūrṇo ’yam asmīti hy āparokṣataḥ | ya ātmānaṃ vijānāti śarīrānu jvaro ’sya
kaḥ || [ślokākṣarāṇi vyākurvan jñāna-prakāram abhinayati puruṣa iti |]
222
Ibid. 274: na vetti cet svam ātmānaṃ dehātmatva-bhramād asau | bhoktus tasyaiva bhogāya bhogam
icchann anujvaret || [ātmadhiyo jvara-nivṛtti-hetutvam upapādayituṃ tad ajñānasya jvara-hetutvam āha
neti | svasya bhoktṛtva-bhramād bhogya-jātam icchan bhogya-nāśe jvaran tad deham anu jvaret tapyetety
arthaḥ | ]
 65
cause of the cessation of that (suffering). When the knowledge of the enjoyer’s

brahman-nature and (the knowledge of) the emptiness of enjoyment(s) (is there), desiring

what enjoyment for the love of which enjoyer, would one suffer on account of the

suffering created by the limitations of the body?]223 For this detached (person), there is

no association at all with the body, and hence there is no suffering on account of the

suffering related to the body, etc., for the individual self, pratyag-ātman. [(This śloka)

clarifies (what was) already stated, (that) there isn’t any affliction (caused) for the self by

the affliction(s) of the body.]”224

It appears that Vidyāraṇya, and to an even greater extent, Maheśvaratīrtha is

interested in explicitly stating the connection between identification with the body,

desires for the enjoyment of pleasure, and the consequent suffering that arises when the

enjoyment ceases. This connection is implicitly and unknowingly made by those who do

not have the knowledge of ātman/brahman and who instead identify the self as the body,

the enjoyer, bhoktṛ in search of enjoyment, bhogya. However, enjoyments are limited

and can be destroyed, leading to suffering. The body too is subject to limitations and

afflictions and identification with the body leads to the consequent experience of

suffering. Therefore, the one who knows the self, ātman to be brahman, the self of all

beings, knows (that) (s)he is not the body or the enjoyer and thus is not subject to their

desires and suffering. Vidyāraṇya is consistent with Śaṅkara’s commentary on this

223
Ibid., 275: yasya sārvātmyabodhena bādhaḥ syād bhoktṛbhogyayoḥ | kim i[c]chan kasya kāmāya
śarīram anusaṃjvaret || [jñānasya tan nivṛtti-hetutvam upapādayati yasyeti | bhoktur brahma-rūpatve
bhogyasya tucchatve ca jñāne kiṃ bhogyaṃ kasya bhoktuḥ kāmāyecchan śarīropadhi-kṛta-duḥkham anu
duḥkhī syad ity arthaḥ | ]
224
Ibid., 276: niḥsaṅgasyābhisambandho dehenāsya na kaścana | nāto dehādi-duḥkhena duḥkhitvaṃ
prtyagātmanaḥ || [deha-tāpenātmanas tāpābhāvam uktam eva spaṣṭayati niḥsaṅgasyeti | ]
 66
passage; the difference lies mainly in the seeming intensity of Vidyāraṇya’s focus

regarding this passage. Vidyāraṇya doesn’t say anything about the significance of the

cet, or elaborate on the nature of bodily afflictions, and desires leading to an

uninterrupted cycle of birth and death. Vidyāraṇya single-mindedly focuses on the

contrast between the individual who knows ātman and the one who doesn’t, as seen in

regards to being an enjoyer and sufferer of bodily afflictions. Maheśvaratīrtha, following

Vidyāraṇya’s example, also restricts himself to the these aspects. However, this isn’t

really a shortcoming on either Vidyāraṇya or Maheśvaratīrtha’s part; they have dealt with

some of these issues a few verses earlier in the BVS, in connection with BU 4.4.10-11.
 67
7. Comparison of the various discourses on BU 4.4.12

7.1 The PD7’s treatment of BU 4.4.12

In chapter 5, “A Closer Look at Tṛptidīpa-Prakaraṇa, PD7,” we saw that

Bhāratītīrtha covers a lot of ground in the process of explaining the śruti-vākya, BU

4.4.12. Perhaps the context of the source text placed constraints on the commentators in

the cases of the BUŚBh and the BVS and restricted the range of their discursions.

Because the PD is an independent treatise, there are no such constraints and Bhāratītīrtha

is free to support his analysis with other śruti and smṛti as well as worldly and accessible

similes and allegories. As Rāmakṛṣṇa points out in his commentary to PD 7.2, there are

five attributes to an explanation, vyākhyāna: padaccheda, separation of (constituent)

words, padārthokti, stating the meaning of the words (glossing), vigraha, analysis,

vākyayojanā, syntax of the sentence, and ākṣepasya samādhāna, replying to

objections.225 In PD7, Bhāratītīrtha certainly addresses all of these aspects in far greater

detail than in the other two versions we looked at, the BUŚBh and the BVS.

Beyond explaining the constituent words and phrases of the passage, he also

presents other Advaita concepts to support the concepts he wishes to convey. Thus in

PD7 we have discussions on the difference between jīva and īśvara, cidābhāsa and

kūṭastha (vv. 3-18) and jīva and brahman (vv. 83-96). The seven stages of knowledge

are considered in great detail, ranging from ignorance to perfect contentment (vv. 28-84),

with an embedded treatment on the difference between parokṣa and aparokṣa knowledge

and how the former leads to the latter (vv. 48-84). How the direct knowledge of brahman

225
Ācārya, pp.188-9: padacchedaḥ padārthoktir vigraho vākyayojanā | ākṣepasya samādhānaṃ
vyākhyānaṃ pañcalakṣaṇam || (Paraśara Purāṇa, Ch. 18).
 68
is brought about is covered in vv. 87-129, including by means of śravaṇa, manana and

nididhyāsana. In connection with desire, the concept of prārabdha karman is treated

thoroughly (vv. 143-191). With regard to bodily afflictions, the sthūla, sūkṣma and

kāraṇa śarīras and their respective afflictions are discussed (vv. 222-251). Lastly, the

nature of liberation, jīvanmukti is described extensively. In connection with these topics,

objections are raised and resolved but the emphasis is not merely on demonstrating the

consistency, samādhāna of the Advaita metaphysics, but also on making the subject

accessible by means of parallels from daily life and by parables and similes,226 and

providing the reader with an introductory how-to manual on achieving self-knowledge.

Bhāratītīrtha cites śruti (BU, ChU, TU, Katha, Kaivalya and MU are cited multiple

times), smṛti (BS, BG and others) and also the works of other Vedāntins such as

Śaṅkara’s Brahmasūtra bhāṣya and the Upadeśasāhasrī, Sureśvara’s Naiṣkarmyasiddhi

and Mandana Miśra’s Bhāmati among others. [See Appendix 1: PD7 Citations on pp.95-

94 for details].

While bringing all of this additional material into the picture, Bhāratītīrtha still

remains true to the overall context of BU 4.4.12. Transmigration is the lot of one who

does not know the self227 and we’ve already reviewed the detailed discussions of the

consequences of prārabdha karman on jīvanmukti in chapter 5, “A Closer Look at

Tṛptidīpa-Prakaraṇa, PD7.”228 PD’s jīvanmukti itself is corroborated by BU 4.4.7.229 As

226
See n. 251, p. 74 supra.
227
e.g. PD 7.103: bahu-janma-dṛḍhābhyāsād dehādiṣv ātmadhīḥ kṣaṇāt | punaḥ punar udety evaṃ jagat-
satyatva-dhīr api ||
228
Cf. the discussion concerning PD 7.143-191, 247, 250, 262-3
229
BU 4.4.7: yadā sarve pramucyante kāmā ye’sya hṛdi śritāḥ | atha martyo’mṛto bhavaty atra brahma
samaśnuta iti ||
 69
230
in BU 4.4.10-11, the pursuit of worldly knowledge for its own sake is mocked. We

can see why the Pañcadaśī is called a prakaraṇa grantha, on account of the lucid and

comprehensive yet accessible treatment of Advaita fundamentals.

7.2 Comparison and consistency of the three treatments of BU 4.4.12

What can be said regarding the faithfulness of three separate discourses on BU

4.4.12 as compared to each other and to the source context itself in the BU? We’ve seen

that all the versions considered (BUŚBh, BVS, PD7) are faithful to the context of BU

4.4.12. They differ in the manner in which the contrast between the ignorant and those

who know the self is presented. Śaṅkara highlights the consequence of “uninterrupted,

repeated birth and death” resulting from identification with the body and seems to be

suggesting, “Why on earth would anyone persist with such a worldview, given that the

alternative is liberation?!” The BVS seems more interested in explicitly spelling out the

connection between identification with the body and desires and the consequent suffering

resulting from lack of self-knowledge, contrasting it with the lack of suffering for one

who does not associate the self with the body, thereby implicitly suggesting the

attractiveness of the latter view. Both the BUŚBh and BVS passages are constrained by

their formats, occurring within primary or secondary commentaries to the BU. Thus they

restrict themselves to elucidating the śruti at hand and do not elaborate at great length,

since the relevant context of the BU presents more appropriate opportunities for

elaboration elsewhere. PD7, on the other hand, being within an independent prakaraṇa-

grantha has far more flexibility, and we see how Bhāratītīrtha avails himself of the

230
e.g. PD 7.206: kāvya-nāṭaka-tarkādim abhyasyati nirantaram | vijigīṣur yathā tadvan mumumkṣuḥ
svaṃ vicārayet ||
 70
opportunity to make relevant Advaita concepts accessible and understood in the process

of exegesis. Not surprisingly, all three advaitin authors do not deviate from the basic

message of BU 4.4.12, that self-knowledge is the logical alternative to identifying with

the body, its desires and afflictions. The area of innovation then seems to be on what

aspect they each choose to emphasize, and in the case of PD7, the thoroughness with

which Bhāratītīrtha and Vidyāraṇya elaborate on the basics of Advaita Vedānta, using

BU 4.4.12 to provide a framework within which concepts are masterfully laid out.

Now that we’ve examined Bhāratītīrtha and Vidyāraṇya’s innovation in the

framework of textual context, we can pull back further and look next at their

contributions to Advaita Vedānta as a whole as evidenced in the PD.

 71
8. Vidyāraṇya’s Contributions to and Innovations in Advaita Vedānta

Vidyāraṇya231 belongs to the Vivaraṇa sub-school of Śaṅkara’s Advaita Vedānta, so

named after Prakāśātman’s subcommentary, Pañca-pādikā-vivaraṇa on Śaṅkara’s direct

disciple Padmapāda’s Pañca-pādikā.232 This sub-school advocates study of Vedānta and

a direct apprehension of brahman for the attainment of liberation; it also holds brahman

to be the locus of avidyā, ignorance.233 Vidyāraṇya is considered an important Advaita

scholar and is credited with strengthening the position of the Vivaraṇa school through his

works.234

Perhaps Vidyāraṇya’s most significant contribution is his description of the

relationship between māyā and avidyā. For Śaṅkara, these terms are used synonymously.

Vidyāraṇya distinguishes between the two: he describes māyā as prakṛti with only pure

sattva, whereas avidyā is prakṛti tainted by rajas and tamas.235 Īśvara is the reflection of

brahman in māyā,236 while the jīva-s, the corresponding reflections of brahman in

231
In this section, for brevity sake, I speak only of Vidyāraṇya since these remarks apply to the PD as a
whole. But in all likelihood, based on what we have seen of the concord between Bhāratītīrtha’s thought
in PD7 and that of Vidyāraṇya’s in the rest of the PD, these innovations can be credited to Bhāratītīrtha as
well.
232
Cf. n. 77, p. 16 supra.
233
In contrast, the other sub-school based on Śankara’s exposition of Vedānta, the Bhāmatī school (named
after Maṇḍana Miśra’s commentary on the first four sūtras of the ŚBh on the BS, 9th century CE) holds that
yogic practices and mīmāṃsaka activities are key to achieving liberation and also that the individual jīva-s
are the locus of avidyā (King 1999, pp. 55-6).
234
Venkatarama Iyer in Venkataraman et al (1976), pt. 2, p. i: “It will not be an exaggeration if we say that
[Bhāratītīrtha and Vidyāraṇya] occupy the topmost place among post-Sankara writers on Advaita Vedānta.”
S.P. Sharma, p. 85: “The credit of establishing the Vivarana School in the Post-Sankara-Vedanta goes to
Vidyaranya only.”
235
PD 1.16ab: sattvaśuddhyaviśuddhibhyāṃ māyā ’vidye ca te mate |
236
PD 1.16cd: māyābimbo vaśīkṛtya tāṃ syāt sarvajña īśvaraḥ ||
 72
237
avidyā, are diverse because avidyā has differing degrees of rajas and tamas. But

fundamentally, īśvara and jīva-s are just two different superimpositions on brahman.238

Vidyāraṇya’s fourfold categorization of consciousness, cit into kūṭastha, brahman,

īśvara, and jīva is also novel;239 the conventional list is brahman, īśvara and jīva only.240

The concept of cidābhāsa in particular is also a distinctive contribution: cidābhāsa is

“the reflection of consciousness, which is illumined by brahman … and “in turn appears

in and illumines the mind … and its modifications.”241 The kūṭastha consciousness is

distinct from cidābhāsa; cidābhāsa is in effect when intellectual modifications (vṛtti-s)

arise, but the kūṭastha is in effect in the intervals between the vṛtti-s,242 it is the sākṣin,

witness.243 The relationship between kūṭastha, cidābhāsa and the mind is like that

between a face, its reflection and the mirror.244

The concept of saṃvādi-bhrama, coinciding-error is also novel: even though the

idea of meditation on or worship of brahman is erroneous since it treats brahman as an

object, it still leads to liberation, the right end, hence the name “concurring- or

237
PD 1.17: avidyā-vaśa-gas tv-anyas tad-vaicitryād anekadhā | sā kāraṇa-śarīraṃ syāt prajñas
tatrābhimānavān ||
238
PD 3.37: satyaṃ jñānam anantaṃ yad brahma tad vastu tasya tat | īśvaratvaṃ ca jīvatvam upādhi-
dvaya-kalpitaṃ ||
239
PD 6.18ab: kūṭastho brahma jīvesāv ityevaṃ cic caturvidhā | Cf. PD 6.1-5, PD 7.83-96.
240
S.P. Sharma, p. 89.
241
Fort (2000), p. 497. Also cf. PD 8.6-10.
242
PD 8.3: cidābhāsa-viśiṣṭānāṃ tathāneka-dhiyām asau | sandhiṃ dhiyām abhāvaṃ ca bhāsayan
pravivicyatām ||
243
PD 8.25: antaḥkarana-tad-vṛtti-sākṣīty-ādāv-anekadhā | kūṭastha eva sarvatra pūrvācāryair viniścitaḥ
||
244
PD 8.26: ātmābhāsāśrayāś caivaṃ mukhābhāsāśrayā yathā | gamyante śāstra-yuktibhyām ity-ābhāsaś
ca varṇitaḥ || Here Vidyāraṇya is quoting Śaṅkara’s US I.18.43abc, but while Śaṅkara is talking about
ātman, it’s reflection and the mind, Vidyāraṇya is re-mapping the śloka to his own terms by context,
particularly kūṭastha and cidābhāsa.
 73
245
coinciding-error.” While such meditation is naturally second to meditation on the

attributeless brahman, it is still suited to those with manda-buddhi, dull intellects or those

otherwise incapable of śravaṇa, manana and nididhyāsana,246 and yet it is better than

performing scripturally enjoined actions, and far superior to being engaged in worldly

activity, vyavahāra.247

The notion of the enjoyment of objects causing happiness through the reflection of

brahman is not novel, yet Vidyāraṇya presents such enjoyment as a door to brahmānanda

and dedicates an entire chapter to it (PD15). In his mind understanding the nature of such

enjoyments helps a seeker strengthen one’s understanding effectively.248

Lastly, Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha’s use of easily accessible analogies and

metaphors get his ideas across effectively – the allegory of the tenth-man249 is skillfully

developed to illustrate the progression through the seven stages of self-knowledge in

PD7.250 Such similes occur in virtually every chapter, with PD7 having the highest

245
PD 9.13: svayaṃbhramo ’pi saṃvādī yathā samyakphalapradaḥ | brahmatattvopāsanāpi tathā
muktiphalapradā || Also PD 9.123: yathā saṃvādi-vibhrāntiḥ phala-kāle pramāyate | vidyāyate
tathopāstir mukti-kāle ’tipākataḥ ||
246
PD 9.54: atyanta-buddhimāndyād vā sāmagryā vāpy-asambhavāt | yo vicāraṃ na labhate brahmopāsīta
so ’niśam ||
247
PD 9. 121: pāmaraṇāṃ vyavahṛter varaṃ karmady-anuṣṭhitiḥ | tato ’pi saguṇopāstir nirguṇopāsanā
tataḥ ||
248
PD 15.19ab: yadyat sukhaṃ bhavet tattad brahmaiva pratibimbanāt | …
PD 15.34cd: viṣayānanda etena dvāreṇāntaḥ praviśyatām ||
249
This allegory is by no means novel. Śaṅkara also draws upon this story in US 1.12.3, 1.18.170-
4,187,190,199, and also in his ŚBh to BU 1.4.7, and to TU 2.1 (Mayeda 1979, p. 131, n. 2 et passim). The
trope is also common in folk tales – see the entry Numskulls Unable to Count their own Number,
Thompson & Roberts, pp. 135-6. The folk tales have a wide regional distribution, for example in Kashmir
(Knowles 1893), the upper Indus area (Swynnerton 1892), Kumaon and Garwhal in the Himalayas (Upreti
1894), Mahakoshal in Central India (Elwin1944) and the Nilgiri Hills in South India (Rivers 1906).
Animal versions of this tale also exist (Bødker 1957).
250
PD 7.23-27, 57-60, 80, 247-48, 250.
 74
251
concentration. Such anecdotes give the reader a sense of the author’s first-hand

experience with the subject matter and at the same time provide the reader with the

assurance that she, too, is capable of having similar experiences. At the same time, the

author does not shy away from dialectic analysis and refutation,252 but these are

subordinated to explaining and clarifying the primary concepts. This accounts for the

great popularity and importance that this work has enjoyed in the Advaita tradition and it

continues to do so in the present time as well.

251
Punjani, p. 246, n. 1 shows that the most similes in the text occur in PD7. Some of these (besides the
tenth-man allegory) are: 7.114-117, a hungry man eats as he likes, without following any rules or
injunctions; 134, two tired travelers on a journey, one knows the destination is near and perseveres, the
other doesn’t; 136, desire for a knower is like a lamp without oil; 164, desire is like roasted grain; 219, a
dying man has no desire to marry; 228, the three bodies without any affliction are like cloth without thread
or a blanket without wool; 237-8, the embarrassment of cidābhāsa on knowing the truth is like that of a
man doing repeated penance for sins, or of a “disfigured” courtesan; 240, cidābhāsa avoids associating
with the body as a brahman avoids mlecchas; 259, a wise man not affected by worldly pleasure, like a bush
with red berries is not really on fire; 279, if a living rat can’t kill a cat, how can a dead one? Similarly for
the perception of duality affecting the wise one’s knowledge; 282, the corpses of ignorance only proclaim
the conqueror’s glory; 287-8 a wise man is towards ignorant ones like an indulgent father towards a
disrespectful young child.
252
For example, PD 7.14-16 on the unreality of the cidābhāsa and kūṭastha, v. 21 on the knowability of
brahman, vv. 81-84 on direct knowledge through the śāstra-s, vv. 88-89 on giving up the “I” notion, vv.
130-32, 276-278 regarding coexistance of knowledge and action, vv. 181-190 on the nature of direct
knowledge.
 75
9. Conclusion

With a view to establishing the identity of the author(s) of the Pañcadaśī, this thesis

has reviewed the historical evidence regarding the connection of Vidyāraṇya with the

founding of Vijayanagara, with the Śṛṅgerī maṭha and also with the different Mādhava-s

contemporaneous in the mid-fourteenth century. We have very strong evidence that

Vidyāraṇya, prior to his sannyāsa, was Mādhavācārya, minister of the kings Bukka I and

Harihara II, on the grounds that Vidyāraṇya in his Jīvan-mukti-viveka (JMV) mentions

Mādhavācārya’s work, the Parāśara-mādhavīya (PaM), as being written by himself.253

But this Mādhavācārya was not connected with the founding of Vijayanagara, and the

inscriptional evidence linking Vidyāraṇya with Vijayanagara had been proven by

scholars such as Kulke (1985) and Saletore (1934) to be the fabrication of the sixteenth

century Śṛṅgerī pontiff Rāmacandra Bhārati.254 This fact, however, does not detract from

the significance of Vidyāraṇya as a scholar and an important contributor to the Advaita

tradition.

Through the examination of the parallels in the opening and closing verses to

various works, an attempt has been made to identify works that are definitely authored by

Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya and by his guru and predecessor at Śṛṅgeri, Bhāratītīrtha.255 An

argument has been made for the joint authorship of the Pañcadaśī by Vidyāraṇya and

Bhāratītīrtha, on the basis of a re-examination of the evidence, primarily references to the

PD in the JMV, as well as Appayya Dīkṣita’s references to the PD in his Siddhānta-leśa-

saṅgraha (SLS). This is further augmented by the attribution of the Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa,

253
Cf. p. 14.
254
Cf. pp. 10-11.
255
Cf. Table 4: Works by Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha, p. 34.
 76
PD7 to Bhāratītīrtha by Vidyāraṇya’s disciple, Rāmakṛṣṇa in his commentary to the PD.

I suggest that we would be ill-advised to deprecate the testimony afforded by Rāmakṛṣṇa,

owing to his contemporaneity with Vidyāraṇya and Bhāratītīrtha as well as his direct

discipleship of Vidyāraṇya. If anything, the historical proximity ought to force us to

consider this evidence more significant relative to textual citations made approximately

two hundered years later (by Appayya Dīkṣita). The persistence of memory regarding

dual-authorship in traditional accounts may have some basis in fact, particularly when

there seems more prestige to be gained by attributing the entire work to Vidyāraṇya

alone. Taken altogether, it appears that Vidyāraṇya authored the PD with Bhāratītīrtha

authoring only PD7. The review of the parallel śloka-s and pāda-s found between the PD

and the Anubhūti-prakāśa (AP),256 particularly the lack of any shared references to verses

in PD7, also supports this conclusion, though this aspect of the analysis is by no means

complete or definitive and presumably some hitherto undetected parallels may surface on

further exhaustive study.

I then turn to the Pañcadaśī itself, in order to investigate whether there is any

evidence of sylistic or doctrinal discontinuity between PD7 and the rest of the text that

would corroborate the joint authorship hypothesis.257 PD7 proves to be a comprehensive

overview of the entire text, structured as an exposition of the śruti-vākya BU 4.4.12. As

such, no evident discontinuity of doctrinal ideas or literary style between PD7 and the

whole text is observed. This is not altogether surprising, since Bhāratītīrtha, the proposed

author of PD7, was Vidyāraṇya’s guru, and both of them also acknowledged Vidyātīrtha

256
Cf. sections

3.7 and

3.8, pp. 29-33.
257
Cf. chapters 4 and 5, pp. 37-55
 77
as their guru; therefore their ideas of Advaita Vedānta doctrine, as evidenced in their

writings in the PD at the very least, would likely be in concord. PD7 proves to be a

masterful presentation of the stages that a seeker after liberation, mokṣa, passes through,

beginning with being ignorant of one’s true, non-dual nature and culminating with

experiencing endless and absolute satisfaction, tṛpti during jīvanmukti, liberation while

still alive.

Next, in order to investigate whether Bhāratītīrtha and Vidyāraṇya present any

novel interpretations of Advaita Vedānta doctrine in the PD, the extra-textual context of

the śruti-vākya BU 4.4.12 was examined in three sources: the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad

(BU) itself, Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya on this vākya (BUŚBh), and its treatment in Vidyāraṇya’s

Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra (BVS).258 We find that all the texts considered are faithful

to the context of BU 4.4.12. differing only in the presentation of the contrast between an

ignorant person and one who knows one’s true nature. BUŚBh and BVS are relatively

terse as they are constrained by the circumstance of occuring within a commentary to the

BU. The PD7, being part of an independent treatise, has far greater freedom to provide a

detailed exegesis and a thorough exposition of the fundamentals of Advaita doctrine.

Vidyāraṇya (and Bhāratītīrtha) can be credited with several innovations, which were

summarized in chapter 8.259 Without oversimplifying matters, the importance of

liberation and the means for achieving it are succintly presented in the Pañcadaśī, and

doubts are raised and resolved. Most importantly, “the view from the other side” – what

life looks like from the perspective of one who is enlightened – is dealt with at length.

258
Cf. chapter 6, Extra-textual Context of PD7,” pp. 56-66; chapter 7, “Comparison of the various
discourses on BU 4.4.12,” pp. 67-70.
259
Cf. pp. 71-74.
 78
The text is highly accessible owing to its use of delightful analogies and metaphors. It

makes the attainment of liberation seem not just the purview of a select, exalted few but

rather something that anybody can achieve with the proper preparation and effort. These

factors help explain why the Pañcadaśī is one of the more popular Advaita Vedānta texts

even today.

॥ ॐ तत् सत् ॥
 79
Bibliography

Primary sources & indices (including translations):

Aitareyopaniṣad (AiU):

Author Unknown (1980) Ānandagiri-kṛta-ṭīkā-saṃvalita-śāṅkara-bhāṣya-sametā

aitareyopaniṣat | Vidyāraṇya-praṇītā Aitareyopaniṣaddīpikā ca. Poona:
Anandashrama.

Anubhūti-prakāśa (AP):

Mishra, Godabarisha, ed. & tr. (1992) The Anubhūtiprakāśa of Vidyāraṇya: The
Philosophy of Upaniṣads: An Interpretive Exposition. Critically Edited
with Introduction, English Translation, Notes and Indexes. University of
Madras.

Mukerji, Bithika (1983) “The Translation of the Taittiriyaka-vidya-prakasah with

an Introduction, Verse Analyses and Notes,” in Neo-Vedanta and
Modernity. Varanasi: Ashutosh Prakashan Sansthan.

Unknown (1902) Śrī-vidyāraṇya-viracita upaniṣat-tātparya-rūpo’nubhūti-

prakāśaḥ. n.p.: Nirnaya Sagar Press.

Aparokṣānubhūti:

Sarasvati, Svāmī Akhaṇḍānanda (1970) Śrimac-chaṅkarācārya-kṛta-

aparokṣānubhūti, Śrī Vidyāraṇya-svāmī Kṛta ‘Dīpikā’ Vyākhyā Sahita.
Bombay: Sat-sāhitya-prakāśan Trust.

Vimuktananda, Swami (1938) Aparokshānubhuti, or Self-realization of Sri

Sankarāchārya: Text, with Word-for-word Translation, English Rendering
and Comments. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama.

Bhagavad-gīta (BG):

Belvalkar, Shripad Krishna, ed. (1968) The Bhagavadgītā Being Reprint of

Relevant Parts of Bḥīṣmaparvan from B.O.R. Institute’s Edition of the
Mahābhārata. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Van Buitenen, J.A.B., tr. (1981) The Bhagavadgītā in the Mahābhārata: Text and
Translation. The University of Chicago Press.
 80
Warrier, A.G. Krishna, tr. (1983) Srīmad Bhagavad Gītā Bhāṣya of Sri
Saṃkarācārya with Text in Devanagiri & English Rendering and Index of
First Lines of Verses. Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math.

Brahma-Sūtra (BS):

Apte, V. M. trans. (1960) Brahma-Sūtra Shānkara-Bhāshya: Bādarāyaˆā’s

Brahma-Sūtras with Shankarāchāryā’s Commentary. Bombay: Popular
Book Depot.

Author Unknown (2005) Brahmasūtra. Online at

http://www.brahmasutra.iitk.ac.in/, accessed Dec. 2004.

Date, V. H. (1973) Vedānta explained; Śaṃkara's Commentary on the Brahma-

sūtras, v.1 & 2. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal

Jayammal, K. (1998) A Glossary of Technical Terms in the Commentaries of

Śankara, Rāmānuja, and Madhva on the Brahma-Sūtras, Parts One and
Two. New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research.

Mahadevan, T.M.P., ed. (1973) Word Index to the Brahma-Sūtra-Bhāṣya of

Śaṅkara, Part Two. University of Madras.

Shastri, J. L., ed. (1980) Brahmasūtra-Śāṃkarabhāṣyam Śrī Govinda-krtayā

Bhāṣyaratnaprabhayā, Śrī Vācaspatimiśra-viracitayā Bhāmatyā, Śrīmad
Ānandagiri-pranītena Nyāyanirṇayena samupetam. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass.

Vireswarananda, Swami (1978) Brahma-Sutras with Text, Word-for-word

Translation, English Rendering, Comments According to the Commentary
of Śrī Śaṅkara, and Index. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama.

Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (BU):

Author Unknown (1968) B®hadāraˆyakopani∑ad (sānuvāda Śā∫karabhā∑ya

sahita). Gorakhpur: Gita Press.

D’Sa, Francis X., ed. (1996) Word Index to Bṛhad-Āraṇyaka Upaniṣad. Pune:
Institute for the Study of Religion.

Mādhavānanda, Swāmī, tr. (1988) The B®hadāraˆyaka Upani∑ad with the

Commentary of Śa∫karācārya. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama.

Panoli, V. (1994) Upanishads in Sankara’s Own Words (Brihadaranyaka), v.4.

Calicut: Mathrubhumi Press.
 81
Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra (BVS):

Dwivedī, Vācaspati, (1999) Bṛhadāraṇyakavārtikasāra of Vidyāraṇya Svāmī, v.4.

Varanasi: Sampurnanand Sanskrit University.

Vajhe, Bhau Sastri, ed. (1915-19) Bṛhadāraṇyakavārtikasāra by Vidyāranya

Swami, with a Commentary called Laghusaṅgraha by Maheshwar Tirth.
Benares: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Series Office.

Dhātu-vṛtti (DV):

Phaḍake, Ananta Śāstri and Sada Śiva Śarma Śastri, eds. (1934) The Mādgavīya-
dhātu-vṛitti of Sayaṇāchārya. Benares: Kashi Sanskrit Series no. 103.

Dṛg-dṛśya-viveka (DDV):

Nikhilānanda, Swāmī, tr. (1964) Dṛg-dṛśya-viveka: An Inquiry into the Nature of

the ‘Seer' and the ‘Seen'. Mysore: Sri Ramakrishna Ashrama.

Raphael [pseud.?] (1990) Self and Non-self: The Drigdriśyaviveka Attributed to

Śaṃkara. Translated from the Sanskrit with a Commentary. London:
Kegan Paul International.

Jaiminīya-nyāya-mālā (JNM):

Dīkṣitha, M. Rāmanātha, ed. (1983) Jaiminīya-nyāyamālā Śrī-mādhavāchāryeṇa

Viracitā Tad-viracita-vistārākhyayā Śrīmad-appayya-dīkṣita-racita
Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-viṣaya-saṅgraha-dīpikayā ca Saṃvalitā. Karnataka:
Vidyāraṇya Vidyāpītham.

Jīvan-mukti-viveka (JMV):

Goodding, Robert Alan (2002) The Treatise on Liberation-in-Life: Critical

Edition and Annotated Translation of the Jīvanmuktiviveka of Vidyāraṇya.
Ph.D. Dis., University of Texas at Austin.

Mokṣadānanda, Swāmī, tr. (1992) Jīvan-mukti-viveka of Swāmī Vidyāraṇya.

Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama.

Kāla-mādhavīya (KM):

Śaṅkaraśāstri (1977) Śrī-mādhavācārya-praṇītaḥ Kāla-mādhava-kārikāḥ Bhaṭṭa-

vaidyanātha-sūri-kṛta-vivaraṇa-sahitāḥ. Pune: Ānandāśrama.
 82
Kaṭhopaniṣad:

Gambhīrānanda, Swāmī, tr. (1987) Kaṭha Upaniṣad with the Commentary of

Śa∫karācārya. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama.

Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad (MāU) & Kārikā:

Bhattacharya, Vidhushekhara (1943) The Āgamaśāstra of Gauḍapāda. University

of Calcutta.

Gambhīrānanda, Swāmī (1987) The Māṇḍūkya-kārikā. Trichur: Sri Ramakrishna

Math.

Karmarkar, Raghunath Damodar (1953) Gauḍapāda-Kārikā. Reprint, 1973,

Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Nikhilānanda, Swāmī (1936) The Māṇḍūkyopani∑ad with Gauḍapāda’s Kārikā

and Śaṅkara’s Commentary. Mysore: Sri Ramakrishna Ashrama.

Nāiṣkarmya-siddhi (Naiṣ):

Alston, A. J., tr. (1959) The “Naiṣkarmya Siddhi” of Śrī Sureśvara. London:
Shanti Sadan.

Jacob, G. A and M. Hiriyanna, eds. (1980) The Naiṣkarmya-siddhi of

Sureśvarācārya with the Candrikā of Jñānottama, rev. 4th ed. Poona:
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Nṛsiṃha-uttara-tāpanīya-upaniṣad (NUTU):

Apte, Hari Nārāyaṇa, ed. (1896) The Nrisimhatāpanīyopanishad (Pūrva and

Uttara) with the Bhāshya of Srīmat Sankarāchārya on the Pūrva and the
Dîpikâ of Srīmat Vidyāranya on the Uttara Tapanīya. Poona:
Ānandāśrama Sanskrita Series No. 30.

Pañcadaśī (PD):

Ācārya, Nārāyan Rām, ed. (1987) Śrīmad Vidyāraṇyamuni Praṇītā Pañcadaśī,

Rāmakṛṣṇak®ta Vyākhyayā, Viṣamsthala-ṭippaṇīpāṭhāntara-śrutīkośa-
śloka-viṣayasūy-ādibhiḥ, Śrimat Paramahaṃsa-parivrājakācārya
Maheśvara-mahodayānāṃ Bhūmikayā ca Samalaṃkṛtā. Delhi:
Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan.

Jog, Dattātreya Vāsudeva (2004) Śrī Vidyāraṇya-Bhāratītīrtha Viracita Sārtha

Pañcadaśī. Pune: A. D. Jog.
 83
Pītāmbara, tr. & comm. (1965) Śrī Pañcadaśī Śrīmat-paramhaṃsa-
parivrājakācārya Śrī Vidyāraṇyamuni Viracitā, Brahmaniṣṭha-paṇḍit Śrī
Pītāmbarjī kṛta Tattvaprakāśikā Bhāṣā-vyākhyayā Evaṃ Ṭippaṇa Sahita.
Delhi: Ratan & Co., Booksellers.

Sāgar, Śrī Kṛṣṇānand, ed. (1984) Śrīmad Vidyāraṇyamuni viracitā Pañcadaśī,

Rāmakṛṣṇa vyākhyayā samalaṅkṛtā, Sarvadarśanācārya Śrī
Kṛṣṇāndasāgareṇa svakṛtayā Tattvarañjanī hindīvyākhyayā saha
prakāśitā. Uttar Kashi: Shri Totakacharya Ashrama

Swāhānanda, Swāmī, tr. & comm. (1967) Pañcadaśī of Śrī Vidyāraṇya Swāmī,
Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math.

Tripāṭhī, Ācārya Karuṇāpati, ed. (1989) Śrī Vidyāraṇyamuni viracitā Pañcadaśī,

Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa viracita Tattvadīpikā vyākhyayā, Śrī Acyutarāyamoḍaka
viracita Pūrṇāndendukaumudī vyākhyayā ca samalaṃkṛtā. Lucknow:
Uttar Pradesh Sanskrit Academy.

Parāśara-mādhavīya (PāM):

Tarkālaṅkāra, Candrakānta (1893) Parāśara-smṛtiḥ śrīman mādhavācāry-kṛta-

vyākhyā sahitā, 3 v. Reprint, 1974, Calcutta: The Asiatic Society.

Praṇava-mīmāṃsā (PrM):

Olivelle, Patrick (1981) “Praṇavamīmāṃsā: A Newly Discovered Work of

Vidyāraṇya.” ABORI 62:77-101

Śaṅkara-digvijaya (ŚDV):

Tapasyananda, Swami, tr. (1978) Sankara-digvijaya: The Traditional Life of Sri

Sankaracharya. Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math.

Upādhyāya, Baladeva, tr. (1968) Śrī-śaṅkara-digvijaya (mādhavācārya-viracita)

[hindī anuvād, vistṛt ṭippaṇī tathā vivecanātmak bhūmikā ke sāth].
Haridvar: Śrī Śravaṇanāth Jñān Mandir.

Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha (SDS):

Abhyankar, Vasudev Shastri ed. & comm. (1924) Sarva-darśana-saṃgraha of

Sāyaṇa-Mādhava. 3rd ed. repr. 1978 Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute.

Agrawal, Madan Mohan (2002) The Sarva-Darśana-Saṃgraha of Mādhavācārya

with English Translation, Transliteration and Indices. Delhi: Chaukhamba
Sanskrit Pratishthan.
 84
Cowell, E. B. & A. E. Gough, trans. (1996) The Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha of
Mādhavāchārya or Review of the Different Systems of Hindu Philosophy.
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Sarva-vedānta-siddhānta-sāra-saṅgraha:

Śaṅkara (1983) Śrī-śāṅkara-granthāvaliḥ: Complete Works of Sri Sankaracharya

in the original Sanskrit, v. 3. Upadeśa-racanāvaliḥ. Chennai: Samata
Books.

Tattwananda, Swami (1960) The Quintessence of Vedanta, being a translation of

the Sarva-vedanta-siddhanta-sarasangraha of Acharya Sankara. Kalady,
Kerala: Sri Ramakrishna Advaita Ashrama.

Siddhānta-leśa-saṅgraha (SLS):

Sāgara Kṛṣṇānanda (1996) Śrīmad-appayya-dīkṣitendra-viracitaḥ Śāstra-

siddhānta-leṣa-saṅgrahaḥ Śrīmad-gaṅgādharendra-sarasvatī-kṛta-
vedānta-sūkti-mañjarī-sahitaḥ Śrīmad Acyuta-kṛṣṇānatīrtha-kṛta-
kṛṣṇālaṅkāra-vyākhyopetaḥ Sarva-darśanācārya-śrī-kṛṣṇānda-sāgareṇa
svakṛtayā siddhānta-rañjanī-hindī-vyākhyayā Saha Sampadyaṃ
Prakāśitaḥ. Varanasi: By the author.

Suryanarayana Sastri, S. S., tr. (1935) The Siddhāntaleśasaṅgraha of Appayya

Dīkṣita, 2 v. University of Madras.

Tattvabodha:

Author Unknown (1981) Tattvabodha of Sankaracharya, Bombay: Central

Chinmaya Mission Trust.

Upadeśa-sāhasrī (US):

Mayeda, Sengaku (1973) Śaṅkara’s Upadeśasāhasrī: Critically Edited with

Introduction and Indices. Tokyo: Hokuseido Press.

Mayeda, Sengaku (1979) A Thousand Teachings: The Upadeśasāhasrī of

Śaṅkara. Tokyo, repr. 1992, Albany: State University of New York Press.

Upaniṣads:

Author Unknown (1964) Ten Principal Upaniṣads with Śaṅkarabhāṣya. Delhi:

Motilal Banarsidass

Jacob, G. A. (1891, repr. 1963) Upaniṣadvākyakośa˙: A Concordance to the

Principal Upanishads and Bhagavadgītā. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
 85
Olivelle, Patrick (1998) The Early Upani∑ads: Annotated Text and Translation.
Oxford University Press.

Panoli, V. (1991) Upanishads in Sankara’s Own Words (Isa, Kena, Katha and
Mandukya with the Karika of Gaudapada), v.1. Calicut: Mathrubhumi
Press. pp.149-296.

Vaiyāsika-nyāya-mālā (VNM):

Giri, Vidyānanda (1998) Śrī-bhāratītīrtha-muni-viracitā vāiyāsika-nyāya-mālā

(with Hindi commentary, Lalitā). Rishikesh: Kailāsa-vidyā-prakāśanam.

Saccittīrtha, Svāmī (1986) Brahma-sūtra-rahasyam (Brahma-sūtrāṇāṃ

Vaiyāsika-nyāya-mālāyāś ca Vṛtti-rūpam) N. S. Ramanuja Tatacharya, ed.
Tirupati: Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha.

Saraswatī, Svāmi Satyānanda (1972) Paramahaṃsa-parivrājakācārya-śrī-

bhāratītīrtha-muni-praṇītā Tat-tad-adhikaraṇa-pradarśaka-maharṣi-
veda-vyāsa-praṇīta-brahma-sūtrair Vibhūṣitā Vaiyāsikanyāyamālā
śrīmat-paramahaṃsa-parivrājakācārya-śrī-svāmi-satyānanda-sarasvatī-
kṛta-bhāṣānuvādena Ṭippaṇyā ca Samalaṅkṛtā. Varanasi: By the author.

Vivaraṇa-prameya-saṅgrahaḥ (VPS):

Prasād, Lalitā (1999) Vivaraṇaprameyasaṅgrahaḥ Śrīmat-paramahaṃsa-

parivṛājakācārya-vidyāraṇya-muni-viracitaḥ Sarala Bhāṣānuvādena
Sahitaḥ. Varanasi: Amar Publications.

Suryanarayana Sastri, S. S. & Saileswar Sen, tr. (1941) The Vivaraṇa-

prameyasaṅgraha of Bhāratītīrtha, 2 v. Kumbakonam: Sri Vidya Press

Tailanga, Rāmasāstrī, ed. (1893) Vivaraṇa-prameya-saṅgrahaḥ śrimat-

pramahaṃsa-parivṛajakācārya-varya-pūjyapāda-vidyāraṇya-muni-
pranītaḥ. Benares: E. J. Lazarus.

Secondary sources

Abhedananda, Swami (1967) “An Introduction to the Philosophy of Panchadasi.” In

Complete Works of Swami Abhedananda, v. 2, pp. 260-277. Calcutta: Ramkrishna
Vedanta Math.

Agrawal, Madan Mohan (2002) The Sarva-Darśana-Saṃgraha of Mādhavācārya with

English Translation, Transliteration and Indices. Delhi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit
Pratishthan.
 86
Belvalkar, S. K. (1929) Shree Gopal Bāsu Mallik Lectures on Vedānta Philosophy. Part
1: Lectures 1-6. Poona: Bilvakuñja Publishing House.

Bødker, Laurits (1957) Indian Animal Tales:A preliminary Survey. Folklore Fellows
Communications, 68, no. 170. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.

Cardona, George (1968) “Anvaya and Vyatireka in Indian Grammar.” Adyar Library
Bulletin, 31-32:313-352.

Cenkner, William (1983) A Tradition of Teachers: Śaṅkara and the Jagadgurus Today.
Missouri: South Asia Books.

Clear, Edeltraud Harzer (1990) “Mādhava (d. 1386).” In Routledge Encyclopedia of

Philosophy, Ver. 1.0, London: Routledge. Electronic reproduction (2001),
Boulder, CO: NetLibrary.

Comans, Michael (2000) The Method of Early Advaita Vedānta: A Study of Gau∂apāda,
Śa∫kara, Sureśvara and Padmapāda. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Cronk, George (2003) On Shankara. Wadsworth Philosophy Series. n.p.: Thomson.

Dallapiccola, Anna L. & Anila Verghese (1998) Sculpture at Vijayanagara: Iconography

and Style. New Delhi: American Institute of Indian Studies/Manohar.

Dasgupta, Surendranath (1922) A History of Indian Philosophy, v.1-5. Delhi: Motilal

Banarsidass.

Deussen, Paul (1912) The System of the Vedānta, Authorized Translation by Charles
Johnston. New York: Dover Publications.

Deutsch, Elliot (1973) Advaita Vedānta: A Philosophical Reconstruction. Honolulu:

University of Hawaii Press.

Dikshit, G. S., ed. (1986) Early Vijayanagara: Studies in its History & Culture:
Proceedings of S. Srikantaya Centenary Seminar. Bangalore: B.M.S. Memorial
Foundation.

Elwin, Verrier (1944) Folk-tales of Mahakoshal. London: Oxford University Press.

Filliozat, Vasundhara (1973) L’Épigraphie de Vijayanagar du début à 1377. Paris: École

Française d’Extrême-Orient.

Fort, Andrew O. (1988) “Beyond Pleasure: Śaṅkara on Bliss.” Journal of Indian

Philosophy 16:177-189.
 87
Fort, Andrew O. (2000) “Reflections on Reflections: Kūṭastha, Cidābhāsa and Vṛttis in
the Pañcadaśī.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 28:497-510.

Fox, Douglas A. (1993) Shankara Dispelling Illusion: Gau∂apāda’s “Alātaśānti” with

an Introduction. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Grimes, John (1989) A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined
in English. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Hacker, Paul (1969) “Śaṅkara der Yogin und Śaṅkara der Advaitin.” Wiener Zeitschrift
für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens, 12-13:119-148.

Hacker, Paul (1972) “Notes on the Māṇḍūkyopaniṣad and Śaṅkara’s

Āgamaśāstravivaraṇa.” In Gaeffke, P. and Ensink, J, eds. India Maior:
Congratulatory Volume Presented to J. Gonda, 115:132. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Halbfass, Wilhelm (1983) Studies in Kumārila and Śaṅkara. Reinbek: Verlag für
Orientalische Fachpublikationen.

Halbfass, Wilhelm (1988) India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding. Albany: State
University of New York Press.

Halbfass, Wilhelm (1991) Tradition and Reflection: Explorations in Indian Thought.

Albany: State University of New York Press.

Halbfass, Wilhelm, ed. (1995) Philology and Confrontation: Paul Hacker on Traditional
and Modern Vedānta. Albany: SUNY Press.

Harshananda, Swami. (1990) A Dictionary of Advaita Vedānta (with two essays and ten
charts). Bangalore: Sri Ramakrishna Ashrama.

Harzer, Edeltraud. See Clear.

Heras, Henry (1929) Beginnings of Vijayanagara History. Bombay: Indian Historical

Research Institute.

Ingalls, Daniel H.H. (1953) “Śaṃkara on the Question: Whose is Avidyā?” Philosophy
East and West, 3:69-72.

Ingalls, Daniel H.H. (1954) “Śaṃkara’s Arguments Against the Buddhists.” Philosophy
East and West, 3:291-306.

Isayeva, Natalia (1993) Shankara and Indian Philosophy. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
 88
Isayeva, Natalia (1995) From Early Vedanta to Kashmir Shaivism: Gaudapada,
Bhartrhari and Abhinavagupta. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Jagannadham, Pervaram, B. Rukmini, K. Katyayani, and A. Bhoomiah (1990)

Vidyaranya Bharati: Essays on Vidyaranya. Warangal (AP): Kakatiya University.

Janaki, S. S. (1990) “Madhava, the commentator on the Suta Samhita.” In Jagannadham,

Pervaram et al., Vidyaranya Bharati: Essays on Vidyaranya, pp. 79-84. Warangal
(AP): Kakatiya University.

Kamble, M. T. (2000) Vijayanagara Temples. Varanasi: Ganga Kaveri Publishing House

Kane, Pandurang Vaman (1975) History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediæval

Religious and Civil Law), v. 1, pt. 2. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental research
Institute

Karmarkar, D. P. and S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar (1936) Vijayanagara Sexcentenary

Commemoration Volume. Dharwar.

Karmarkar, Raghunath Damodar (1966) Śaṅkara’s Advaita. Dharwar: Karnatak

University.

Kasulis, Thomas P. (1992) “Philosophy as Metapraxis.” In Reynolds, Frank and David

Tracy, eds., Discourse and Practice. Albany: State University of New York Press,
pp. 169-196.

King, Richard (1995) Early Advaita Vedānta and Buddhism: The Mahāyāna Context of
the Gau∂apādīya-kārikā. Albany: State University of New York Press.

King, Richard (1999) Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist

Thought. Washington D.C: Georgetown University Press.

Knowles, J. Hinton (1893) Folk-tales of Kashmir. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner,
& Co.

Kripacharyulu, Munuganti (1986) Sāyaṇa and Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya: A Study of Their

Lives and Letters. Guntur: Rajyalakshmi Publications.

Krishnaswami Ayyangar, S. (1919) Sources of Vijayanagar History. Indian repr. 1986.

Delhi: Gian Publishing House.

Kulke, Hermann (1985) “Mahārājas, Mahants and Historians: Reflections on the

Historiography of Early Vijayanagara and Sringeri.” In Dallapiccola, A. & S. Z.
Lallemant, eds. Vijayanagara – City and Empire: New Currents of Research. v.1,
pp.120-143. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden.
 89
Kunjunni Raja, K. (1990) “Parisaṃkhyāna versus Prasaṃkhyāna in Śaṃkara’s
Philosophy.” Adyar Library Bulletin, 54:191-193.

Mahadevan, T.M.P. (1938) The Philosophy of Advaita, with Special Reference to

Bhāratītīrtha-Vidyāranya, London: Luzac & Co., Fourth ed. (1976) Madras:
Ganesh & Co.

Mahadevan, T.M.P (1952) Gau∂apāda: A Study in Early Advaita. University of Madras.

Mahadevan, T.M.P. (1969) The Pañcadasī of Bhāratītīrtha-Vidyāranya; an interpretative

exposition, University of Madras

Malkovsky, Bradley J. (2001) The Role of Divine Grace in the Soteriology of

Śaṃkarācārya. Leiden: Brill

Marcaurelle, Roger (2000) Freedom through Inner Renunciation: Śaṅkara’s Philosophy

in a New Light. Albany: SUNY Press.

Mayeda, Sengaku (1969) “The Advaita Theory of Perception.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die
Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens, 12-13:221-239.

Mayeda, Sengaku (1979) A Thousand Teachings: The Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkara.

Tokyo, repr. 1992, Albany: State University of New York Press.

Mayeda, Sengaku (2000) “Śaṅkara and Buddhism.” In Malkovsky, Bradley J. ed. New
Perspectives on Advaita Vedānta: Essays in Commemoration of Professor
Richard de Smet, S.J. 18:29. Leiden: Brill

Michell, George & Vasundhara Filliozat, guest eds. (1981) Splendours of the
Vijayanagara Empire – Hampi. Bombay: Marg Publications.

Mukerji, Bithika (1983) Neo-Vedanta and Modernity. Varanasi: Ashutosh Prakashan

Sansthan.

Nakamura, Hajime (1983) A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy, 2v. tr. Trevor Legett,
Sengaku Mayeda, Taitetz Unno et al. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass

Nanjundayya, H. V. & L. K. Ananthakrishna Iyer (1928) The Mysore Tribes and Castes,
v. 2. Mysore University.

Niścaladāsa, Sādhu (1984) Vṛtti-prabhākara sādhu-śrī-niścaladāsa-jī-praṇīta. Bombay:

Kemrāj Śrīkṛṣṇadās.

Olivelle, Patrick (1981) “Praṇavamīmāṃsā: A Newly Discovered Work of Vidyāraṇya.”

In ABORI 62:77:101.
 90
Olivelle, Patrick (1993) The Āśrama System: This History and Hermeneutics of a
Religious Institution. London: Oxford University Press. 2004 repr. New Delhi:
Mushiram Manoharlal.

Potter, Karl H. (1979) “Was Gauḍapāda an Idealist?” In M. Nagatomi, B.K. Matilal,

J.M. Masson, E. Dimmock, eds. Sanskrit and Indian Studies: Essays in Honour of
Daniel H.H. Ingalls, 183-199.

Potter, Karl H. (1981) Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, v.3: Advaita Vedānta up to

Śaṃkara and His Pupils. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Potter, Karl H. (2005) Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Bibliography. Online at

http://faculty.washington.edu/kpotter/xhome.htm, accessed Apr. 2005.

Punjani, Shakuntala (1985) Pañcadaśī: A Critical Study. Delhi: Parimal Publications.

Ramanuja Tatacharya, N. S., ed. (1986) Brahmasūtrarahasyam (Vritti on Brahma-sutras

and Vaiyasikanyayamala) by Shri Satcit Tirth Swamiji. Tirupati: Kendriya
Sanskrit Vidyapeetha.

Rāma Sharma, M. H. (1978) The History of the Vijayanagar Empire: Beginnings and
Expansion (1308-1569). M. H. Gopal, ed. Bombay: Popular Prakashan.

Rambachan, Anantanand (1991) Accomplishing the Accomplished: The Vedas as a

source of Knowledge in Śaṅkara. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Rambachan, Anantanand (1994). The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda’s

Reinterpretation of the Vedas. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Rivers, W. H. R. (1906) The Todas. London: Macmillan and Co.

Saletore, Bhaskar Anand (1934) Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire
(A.D. 1346–A.D. 1646), 2 v. Madras: B. G. Paul & Co.

Sewell, Robert (1924) A Forgotten Empire (Vijayanagar): A Contribution to the History

of India. London: Allen & Unwin.

Sharma, Arvind (1995) The Philosophy of Religion and Advaita Vedanta: A Comparative
Study in Religion and Reason. Pennsylvania State University Press.

Sharma, S. P. (1990) “Contributions of Vidyaranya to Post-Sankara Vedanta.” In

Jagannadham, Pervaram et al., Vidyaranya Bharati: Essays on Vidyaranya, pp.
85-93. Warangal (AP): Kakatiya University.
 91
Shastri, Venimadhava (1986) “Works of Vidyāraṇya.” In Dikshit, G. S., ed., Early
Vijayanagara: Studies in its History & Culture: Proceedings of S. Srikantaya
Centenary Seminar, Bangalore: B.M.S. Memorial Foundation

Shastry, A. K. (1982) A History of Sriṅgerī. Dharwad: Karnatak University.

Slaje, Walter (1998) “On Changing Others’ Ideas: The Case of Vidyāraṇya and the
Yogavāsiṣṭha.” Indo-Iranian Journal 41:103-124.

Speijer, J. S. (1886) Sanskrit Syntax. Reprint, 1998, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Srikantaya, S. (1938) Founders of Vijayanagara. Bangalore: The Mythic Society.

Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (1998) “On Prasaṃkhyāna and Parisaṃkhyāna: Meditation in

Advaita Vedānta and Pre-Śaṃkaran Vedānta.” Adyar Library Bulletin, 62:51-89.

Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (2002) “What determines Śaṅkara’s Authorship? The Case of

the Pañcīkaraṇa.” Philosophy East and West, 52:1-35.

Suthren Hirst, Jacqueline “Strategies of Interpretation: Śaṃkara’s Commentary on

Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 116:58-75.

Swynnerton, Charles (1892) Indian Nights’ Entertainment or Folk-tales from the Upper
Indus. London: Elliot Stock.

Tedesco, P. (1960) “Notes to Mayrhofer's Etymological Sanskrit Dictionary.” Journal of

the American Oriental Society, 80:360-366.

Thangaswami, R. (1980) A Bibliographical Survey of Advaita Vedānta Literature.

University of Madras.

Thompson, Stith & Warren E. Roberts (1960) “Types of Indic Oral Tales: India, Pakistan
and Ceylon.” Folklore Fellows Communications, 73, no. 180. Helsinki:
Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.

Upādhyāya, Baladeva (1984) Ācārya Sāyaṇa aur Mādhava. Prayāg: Hindī Sāhitya
Sammelan.

Upreti, Pandit Ganga Dutt (1894) Proverbs and Folklore of Kumaun and Garhwal. 2003
ed: New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts.

Uttankita Vidya Aranya Trust (1985) Uttankita Sanskrit Vidya-aranya Epigraphs, v. 1:

Vidyāranya. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.
 92
Venkataraman, K. R. (1967) The Throne of Transcendental Wisdom: Sri
Sankaracharya’s Sarada Pitha in Sringeri. (2nd rev. ed.) Madras: Akhila Bharata
Samkara Seva Samiti Publication.

Venkataraman, K. R. (1969) Samkara and his Sarada Pitha in Sringeri: A Study in

Growth and Integration. Calcutta: Kalpa Printers and Publishers.

Venkataraman, K. R., M. K. Venkatarama Iyer & K. R. Srinivasan (1976) The Age of

Vidyaranya. Calcutta: Kalpa Printers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

Verghese, Anila (2004) “Deities, Cults and Kings at Vijayanagara.” World Archeology
36(3):416-431.

Vetter, Tillmann (1969) “Zur Bedeutung des Illusionismus bei Śaṅkara.” Wiener
Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens, 12-13:407-423.

Vetter, Tilmann (1979) Studien zur Lehre und Entwicklung Śaṅkaras. Vienna: De Nobili
Research Library.

Wagoner, Phillip B. (2000) “Harihara, Bukka, and the Sultan: The Delhi Sultanate in the
Political Imagination of Vijayanagara.” In Gilmartin, David and Bruce B.
Lawrence, eds., Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in
Islamicate South Asia. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, pp. 300-326.

Wood, Thomas E. (1990) The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad and the Āgama Śāstra: An
Investigation into the Meaning of Vedānta. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
 93
Appendix 1: PD7 Citations

Table 5: Texts Cited by PD7, Frequency

Abbrev. Text Times

Cited
AiU Aitareya Upaniṣad 2
BU Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 19
BBU Brahma- (or Amṛta-) Bindu 2
Upaniṣad
BG Bhagavad Gītā 9
BhP Bhāgavata Purāṇa 1
BS Brahmasūtra 2
BSBhā Brahmasūtra Bhāmati 1
ChU Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6
Īśa Īśa Upaniṣad 1
Ka Kaṭha Upaniṣad 4
Kaiv Kaivalya Upaniṣad 4
MS Manu Saṃhita 1
MNā Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 1
MU Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 4
NUTU Nṛsiṃhottara-tāpanīya Upaniṣad 2
Naiṣ Naiṣkarmyasiddhi of Sureśvara 2
PD Pañcadaśī 7
ŚBh Śaṅkara Bhāśya 1
Śvet Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 1
TU Taittirīya Upaniṣad 3
US Upadeśasāhasrī 2
Vā Vākyavṛtti (Śaṅkara?) 5
VāRā UP Vāsiṣṭha Rāmāyaṇa, Utpatti 1
Prakaraṇa
VāRā VP Vāsiṣṭha Rāmāyaṇa, Vairāgya 1
Prakaraṇa
ViṣP Viṣṇu Purāṇa 1
YS Yogasūtra 1
YV Yoga Vāsiṣṭha 1
 94
Table 6: Citations in PD7, sorted by Source
Source PD7 v. Source PD7 v.
AiU 1.1.1-1.3 68 Īśa 7 181
AiU 3.1.1 199 Ka 1.2.7+ 297
BU 1.4.8+ 202 Ka 2.1.4+ 171
BU 2.4.14+ 181 Ka 2.2.4,8 219
BU 2.4.5 193 Ka 4.11 95
BU 2.4.5 202 Kaiv 1.12-14 217
BU 2.4.5+ 97 Kaiv 1.17 or 20 213
BU 2.5.18+ 5 Kaiv 1.18 or 21 215
BU 4.1.4+ 198 Kaiv 42 286
BU 4.3.15-17 212 MNā 10.5 286
BU 4.3.23+ 219 MS 2.94 147
BU 4.4.12 1 MU 2.2.5 128
BU 4.4.12+ 18 MU 3.1.4 107
BU 4.4.21 107 MU 3.1.7 95
BU 4.4.21 128 MU 3.2.9 241
BU 4.4.6+ 183 NUTU 9 217
BU 4.4.9 95 NUTU 9 3
BU 4.5.13-15 183 Naiṣ 2.77 195
BU 4.5.6 193 Naiṣ 4.67 191
BU 4.5.6 97 PD 1.40+ 72
BU ŚBh 1.4.15-39 191 PD 1.44+ 72
BBU 11 214 PD 13.83 106
BBU 9 95 PD 14.40-57 253-270
BG 14.22 225 PD 14.5 1
BG 18.60 161 PD 14.58-64 291-297
BG 18.66 286 PD 6.213 4
BG 3.25-26 285 Śvet 4.9-10 217
BG 3.33 155 TU 2.1.5 66
BG 3.36 159 TU 3.1.1 63
BG 3.37 160 TU 3.6.1 64
BG 6.34 120 US 17.61+ 173
BG 9.22 108 US 4.5 20
BS 4.1.1+ 97 Vā 37-53+ 70
BS 4.4.16 183 Vā 38-41 75-78
BSBhā 4.1.16 17 Vā 44-46 71-73
BhP 11.23.17 139 Vā 48 74
ChU 6.2.1 61 Vā 49 97
ChU 6.8.1 183 VāRā UP 22.24 106
ChU 6.8.7 61 VāRā VP 21.1 140
ChU 7.24.1 181 ViṣP 1.20.19 203
ChU 8.11.1 226 YS 1.50+ 149
ChU 8.7.1-3 67 YV ? 121
The notation “XX nn+” indicates a paraphrase of or allusion to the specified section
as opposed to an exact citation.
 95
Appendix 2: Passages in Sanskrit

A. Śaṅkarācārya’s bhāṣya on BU 4.4.12:260

ātmānaṃ svaṃ paraṃ sarva-prāṇi-manīṣita-jñaṃ hṛtstham aśanāyādi-dharmātītam ced

yadi vijānīyāt sahasreṣu kaścit | ced ity ātma-vidyāyā durlabhatavaṃ darśayati |
kathaṃ? ayaṃ para ātmā sarva-prāṇi-pratyaya-sākṣī yo neti netītyādy ukto, yasmān
nānyo ’sti draṣṭā śrotā mantā vijñātā samaḥ sarva-bhūta-stho nitya-śuddha-buddha-
mukta-svabhāvo’smi bhavāmīti, pūruṣaḥ puruṣaḥ | sa kim icchan tat-svarūpa-
vyatiriktam anyad vastu phala-bhūtaṃ kim icchan kasya vā’nyasya ātmano vyatiriktasya
kāmāya prayojanāya | na hi tasyātmana eṣṭavyaṃ phalam | na cāpy ātmano’nyo ’sti,
yasya kāmāyecchati, sarvasyātma-bhūtatvāt | ataḥ kim icchan kasya kāmāya śarīram
anusaṃjvaret bhraṃśet | śarīropādhikṛta-duḥkham anuduḥkhī syāt | śarīra-tāpam
anutapyeta | anātma-darśino hi tad-vyatirikta-vastv-antarepsoḥ | mamedaṃ syāt
putrasyedaṃ bhāryāyā idaṃ ity evam īhamānaḥ punaḥ punar janana-maraṇa-
prabandha-rūḍhaḥ śarīra-rogam anurujyate | sarvātma-darśinas tu tad asaṃbhava ity
etad āha |

B. Vidyāraṇya’s Bṛhadāranyaka-vārtikasāra (BVS) on BU 4.4.12:261

BVS 4.4.272: brahmāvabodha-yuktānāṃ niḥśeṣo duḥkha-saṃkṣayaḥ |

ślokena paṃcamenātra vispaṣṭam abhidhīyate ||
273: puruṣaḥ paripūrṇo ’yam asmīti hy āparokṣyataḥ |
ya ātmānaṃ vijānāti śarīrānujvaro ’sya kaḥ ||
274: na vetti cet svam ātmānaṃ dehātmatva-bhramād asau |
bhoktus tasyaiva bhogāya bhogam icchann anujvaret ||
275: yasya sārvātmya-bodhena bādhaḥ syād bhoktṛ-bhogyayoḥ |
kim i[c]chan kasya kāmāya śarīram anusaṃjvaret ||
276: niḥsaṅgasyābhisambandho dehenāsya na kaścana |
nāto dehādi-duḥkhena duḥkhitvaṃ pratyag-ātmanaḥ ||

260
Upaniṣads, Author Unknown (1964), p.925.
261
Vajhe, p.928; Dwivedī, v.4, pp.2355-6.
 96
262
C. Maheśvaratīrtha’s ṭīkā on BVS 4.4.272-6:

272: ātmānam ity ady avatārayati brahmeti |

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

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

262
BVS: Vajhe, p.928.

Index
Entries are arranged in the order of the English alphabet. Sanskrit terms are in italics.
Names of persons, places, works and other proper nouns are listed without italics, with
the first letter capitalized. Though footnotes are also indexed, limitations of the indexing
software do not allow for listing the footnote numbers wherein an entry occurs, only the
page number where it occurs is provided.
Abhedananda............................... 4, 7, 85
abhyāsa ................................... 30, 47, 51
Ācārya ........... 5, 9, 25, 26, 67, 82, 83, 91
acintya-bhedābheda............................. 19
Acyutarāya Moḍaka .......................... 4, 7
adhikaraṇa ..................................... 23, 85
adhyāya ................................... 56, 57, 63
advaitānanda ....................................... 46
ahaṅkāra ........................................ 41, 43
Aitareya-Upaniṣad ....... iv, 18, 40, 79, 93
ajñāna .................................................. 51
ānanda.....................................................
...... 1, 6, 16, 37, 40, 44, 45, 46, 48, 53
ānanda-pañcaka......................... 1, 40, 53
āndhra.................................................. 11
anger.............................................. 40, 48
Āṅgīrasa gotra .................................... 10
anirvācya ............................................. 41
antaḥkaraṇa ......................................... 42
Anubhūti-prakāśa.. iv, 18, 20, 29, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34, 35, 76, 79, 88, 90
Anupama-prakāśa ............................... 18
anuṣṭubh.................................. 31, 50, 63
aparokṣa................ 43, 50, 51, 52, 54, 67
Aparokṣānubhūti ........................... 36, 79
aparokṣātma-vijñāna ........................... 38
Appayya Dīkṣita......................................
...................... 6, 23, 24, 25, 34, 75, 84
araṇya.................................................. 24
ātman.... 1, 37, 38, 40, 43, 45, 47, 50, 51,
52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 72
ātmānanda............................... 45, 46, 51
attachment ........................................... 40
avidyā.......................... 37, 39, 42, 71, 72
āvṛti ............................................... 51, 54
Banavāsi................................................ 9
97
Be¬agu¬a copper plates ........................ 13
Belvalkar, S.K................... 19, 36, 79, 86
bhakti................................................... 45
Bhāmati ......................................... 68, 93
Bhāratītīrtha ... iv, iii, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
25, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 54, 56, 67,
68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 82, 85,
89
bhāṣya .... iv, 2, 16, 56, 60, 68, 77, 79, 95
bhāvanā........................... See meditation
Bhoganātha ..................... 5, 9, 13, 15, 21
bhumānanda ........................................ 49
brahman ..................................................
... 1, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48,
50, 51, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 62, 64, 65,
67, 71, 72, 73, 74
brāhmaṇa .......................... 58, 59, 62, 63
brahmānanda ... 7, 24, 26, 27, 28, 32, 44,
45, 46, 48, 73
Brahmānanda Bhāratī.................... 22, 26
Brahmasūtra ...................... 23, 68, 80, 93
Brajbhāṣā............................................... 6
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad .... iv, 2, 17, 18,
27, 30, 32, 40, 41, 45, 56, 57, 62, 63,
64, 66, 68, 69, 70, 73, 77, 80, 93
BU 4.3.2.......................................... 57
BU 4.3.21........................................ 57
BU 4.3.23........................................ 57
BU 4.3.32........................................ 57
BU 4.3.33........................................ 58
BU 4.4.10........................................ 58
BU 4.4.122, 27, 32, 35, 41, 47, 50, 51,
54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 63, 64, 67, 68,
69, 76, 77, 95
BU 4.4.13........................................ 58

BU 4.4.21........................................ 58
BU 4.4.7.......................................... 68
BU 4.4.7.......................................... 58
Bṛhadāraṇyaka-vārtika-sāra ....................
.... iv, 3, 17, 18, 20, 34, 35, 55, 56, 63,
64, 66, 67, 69, 77, 81, 95, 96
Buddhist ........................................ 38, 88
Bukka I.... 1, 9, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 34, 75
Chāndogya Upaniṣad .. iv, 29, 30, 40, 68,
93
cidābhāsa .............. 42, 50, 52, 67, 72, 74
cidātmā................................................ 40
cit ............................ 1, 24, 37, 43, 48, 72
citradīpa................................ 4, 7, 24, 40
colophon.............................................. 19
Cowell & Gough ................................. 10
daśanāmin ........................................... 24
Dasgupta, S. .................. 6, 16, 27, 63, 86
deep sleep...................................... 44, 57
desire .. 40, 41, 45, 47, 52, 57, 58, 59, 60,
62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 74
detachment ..........................See vairâgya
dharma-śāstra ................................ 14, 15
Dhātu-vṛtti................................ iv, 35, 81
dhī ....................................................... 47
dhyānadīpa.............................. 24, 42, 51
dīpa ............................................. 1, 6, 40
dīpa-pañcaka ......................................... 1
dīpikā.................. iv, 6, 18, 20, 34, 36, 79
discrimination ............... 1, 22, 41, 45, 51
dream............................................. 45, 57
Dṛg-dṛśya-viveka .. iv, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25,
26, 34, 81
duality ....... 37, 38, 39, 41, 44, 46, 52, 74
dvaitaviveka ........................................ 39
Dwivedī, V........................ 17, 63, 81, 95
elements, five .....................................See
pañcamahābhūtaviveka
Filliozat, V .................. 10, 13, 21, 86, 89
Gaṇeśa......................... 14, 15, 19, 20, 34
Goa........................................................ 9
Goodding, R................ 11, 14, 28, 63, 81
guṇa......................................... 37, 40, 48
guru-vaṃśa-kāvya............................... 22
98
Hacker, P....................................... 11, 87
Halbfass, W................................... 11, 87
Hampi.......................................... 1, 9, 89
Harihara I ........................ 1, 9, 10, 17, 21
Harihara II....................... 1, 9, 13, 17, 75
Heras, H .................................. 11, 12, 87
hṛdaya.................................................. 62
icchā.............................................. 45, 52
Islam.................................................... 11
īśvara..... 6, 37, 39, 40, 42, 50, 67, 71, 72
Jagannadham, P........... 10, 11, 35, 88, 90
jagat ................ 14, 18, 19, 20, 30, 42, 68
Jaiminīya-Nyāya-Mālā............................
............... iv, 15, 16, 19, 22, 34, 81, 96
Jain ...................................................... 19
jalpa..................................................... 57
Janaka............................................ 57, 59
Janaki, S. S.................................... 35, 88
jīva...........................................................
. 24, 25, 34, 37, 39, 40, 42, 47, 50, 51,
67, 71, 72
jīvanmukta............................... 38, 42, 50
jīvanmukti................................ 54, 68, 77
Jīvan-mukti-viveka .................................
.. iv, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 27,
28, 32, 33, 34, 75, 81
JMV 2.10.10 ................................... 28
JMV 2.10.27-29 .............................. 28
JMV 2.3.26 ..................................... 28
JMV 5.1.25 ..................................... 28
jñāna ..................... 49, 50, 51, 54, 64, 96
Jog, D.V. ................... 5, 7, 10, 21, 31, 82
Kāla-Mādhavīya.... iv, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20,
34, 35, 81
Kāla-nirṇaya........... See Kala-mādhavīya
Kānchi ................................................. 15
Kane, P.V. ... 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 22, 88
kannaḍa ............................................... 11
Karmarkar, D.P. ...................... 36, 82, 88
Karnataka .................................... 1, 9, 81
Khila-kāṇḍa................................... 56, 59
kośa ......................................... 37, 38, 53

ānandamaya.......................... 6, 39, 44
annamayakośa ................................ 38
manomaya....................................... 39
prāṇamaya ...................................... 39
vijñānamaya.................................... 39
Kripacharyulu, M... 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15,
17, 18, 22, 35, 36, 88
Kṛṣṇānanda-bhāratī ............................. 26
kulaguru ................................................ 9
Kulke, H.......... 10, 11, 12, 13, 22, 75, 88
kūṭastha ...................................................
........ 40, 41, 42, 50, 52, 67, 72, 74, 87
Laghusaṅgraha ........................ 56, 63, 81
Laghu-vārttika-vyākhyā...................... 63
Mādhava..... iv, iii, 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14,
15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29,
31, 33, 34, 35, 63, 75, 83, 86, 88, 91
Mādhavācārya.4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15,
17, 21, 75, 83, 85
Mādhavamantrin ............................. 9, 35
Mādhavānanda .............................. 56, 80
Madhu-kāṇḍa ................................ 56, 59
Madhusūdana Sarasvati ...................... 19
Mahadevan, T.M.P..1, 6, 8, 9, 15, 22, 23,
24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 63, 80, 89
mahāvākya ........................ 26, 37, 40, 51
Mahāvākya-darpaṇa............................ 26
Maheśvaratīrtha........... 56, 63, 64, 65, 96
Maitreyī............................................... 59
manana...... 37, 41, 42, 44, 51, 53, 68, 73
manda............................................ 48, 73
Mandana Miśra ................................... 68
mandaprajña........................................ 45
Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad ................ iv, 40, 82
maṅgala-śloka ................................. 5, 22
Marcaurelle, R......................... 17, 63, 89
maṭha.................. iii, 1, 11, 12, 17, 21, 75
māyā .......... 37, 38, 39, 40, 46, 50, 51, 71
Māyaṇa...................................... 9, 10, 35
meditation ............. 37, 40, 49, 51, 56, 72
bhāvanā........................................... 43
dhyāna....................................... 42, 43
upāsana..................................... 43, 56
Michell, G. .................................... 10, 89
99
Mishra, G. ..................................... 10, 79
mithyā...................................... 38, 45, 52
mokṣa .................................................. 77
mūḍha.................................................. 45
Muktika Upaniṣad......................... 28, 32
mumukṣu............................................. 54
Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad ...... iv, 29, 30, 68, 93
Muni-kāṇḍa ....... See Yājñavalkya-kāṇḍa
Naiṣkarmyasiddhi ......................... 68, 93
Nakamura, H. .................................. 2, 89
Nanjundayya, H.V. ........... 12, 17, 24, 89
narmasaciva......................................... 13
nāṭakadīpa ........................................... 43
neti, neti......................................... 57, 60
nididhyāsana .. 37, 41, 42, 44, 51, 53, 68,
73
Nikhilānanda, S....................... 22, 81, 82
nirguṇa ................................................ 43
Niścaladāsa ................. 6, 7, 8, 22, 33, 89
Niścalānanda ................. See Niścaladāsa
non-duality .......................................... 47
Nṛsiṃhottara-tāpanīya Upaniṣad .. 18, 82
Dīpikā.............................................. 18
Dīpikā closing vv 1-2...................... 18
Dīpikā opening vv 1-3 .................... 18
NUTU 1.1 ....................................... 18
Olivelle, P. ...... 14, 19, 60, 83, 85, 89, 90
om........................................................ 19
pain................................................ 39, 44
Pañcadaśī................................................
. i, iv, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 16, 17, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 50, 53, 54,
56, 63, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74,
75, 76, 77, 82
PD 1.1 ............................................. 16
PD 1.16 ........................................... 71
PD 1.17 ........................................... 72
PD 1.52-53 ...................................... 37
PD 1.55 ........................................... 51
PD 11.85 ................................... 44, 45
PD 12.65-67 .................................... 28
PD 14.38 ......................................... 27
PD 14.39 ......................................... 27

PD 14.40-64 .................................... 27
PD 14.5 ..................................... 27, 32
PD 15.19 ......................................... 73
PD 15.34 ......................................... 73
PD 2.49 ........................................... 38
PD 3.10 ........................................... 39
PD 3.37 ..................................... 39, 72
PD 4.68 ........................................... 28
PD 6.150 ......................................... 41
PD 6.153-163 .................................. 24
PD 6.18 ........................................... 72
PD 6.237 ......................................... 41
PD 7.1 ................................. 27, 32, 50
PD 7.103 ......................................... 68
PD 7.139 ......................................... 28
PD 7.156 ......................................... 28
PD 7.164 ......................................... 52
PD 7.2 ....................................... 42, 50
PD 7.206 ......................................... 69
PD 7.247 ......................................... 53
PD 7.252 ......................................... 53
PD 7.253-270 .................................. 27
PD 7.265 ......................................... 52
PD 7.291-297 .................................. 27
PD 8.25 ........................................... 72
PD 8.26 ..................................... 42, 72
PD 8.3 ............................................. 72
PD 9.121 ......................................... 73
PD 9.13 ........................................... 73
PD 9.134 ......................................... 43
PD 9.54 ........................................... 73
pañcaka ..................................... 7, 28, 32
pañcakośaviveka ................................. 38
pañcamahābhūtaviveka ....................... 38
Pañca-pādikā. ...................................... 71
Pañca-pādikā-vivaraṇa.................. 16, 71
Parāśara-mādhavīya ................................
.... iv, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 34, 35,
75, 83
Parāśara-smṛti .. See Pārāśara-mādhavīya
parokṣa........................ 42, 50, 51, 54, 67
pleasure ........... 13, 39, 44, 52, 64, 65, 74
Potter, K. ........... 6, 16, 18, 24, 26, 63, 90
prajñā.................................................. 58
100
prakaraṇa........ 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 33, 41, 69
prakaraṇa grantha .......................... 1, 69
Prakāśātman .................................. 16, 71
prakṛti ..................................... 37, 40, 71
prāṇa ................................................... 58
Praṇava-mīmāṃsā........ iv, 19, 20, 34, 83
prārabdha karman .................. 52, 53, 68
pratyag-ātman..................................... 65
Punjani, S. ................. 1, 9, 13, 63, 74, 90
Pūrṇānandendu-kaumudī ...................... 4
pūruṣa ................................................. 50
pūrvapakṣa.......................................... 23
pūrvāśrama ........................... 4, 8, 13, 15
rāga ..................................................... 45
rajas ........................................ 37, 48, 71
Rāma Sharma, M.H............. 9, 15, 17, 90
Rāmacandra Bhārati...................... 11, 75
Rāmakṛṣṇa... 5, 16, 25, 28, 33, 67, 76, 83
Ramanuja Tatacharya.......................... 22
Raphael ......................................... 22, 81
rebirth............................................ 39, 47
reflection ......... 41, 42, 48, 51, 71, 72, 73
Ṛgveda ................................................ 14
saguṇa ................................................. 43
Śaiva.................................................... 15
sajātīya-bheda..................................... 38
sākṣin................................. 43, 47, 52, 72
Saletore, B.A................. 9, 10, 11, 75, 90
samādhāna .................................... 67, 68
samādhi ................... 5, 37, 43, 51, 52, 53
samāsa................................................. 40
sāṃkhya............................................... 43
Saṃkṣepa-śārīraka .............................. 19
saṃsāra ................................... 18, 61, 62
saṃvādi-bhrama ................................. 72
sañcita-karman ................................... 47
sandeha ............................................... 23
Saṅgama.................................... 1, 13, 35
saṅgati................................................. 23
Saṅgīta-sāra......................................... 35
Śaṅkara.... iv, 1, 2, 11, 16, 19, 22, 24, 36,
54, 56, 60, 61, 62, 65, 68, 69, 71, 72,
73, 77, 80, 82, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90,
91, 92, 93, 95

Śaṅkarācārya ................................. 11, 12
Śaṅkara-digvijaya .............. iv, 10, 35, 83
Śaṅkarānanda .......... 5, 16, 17, 20, 21, 34
sannyāsa.......... 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 21, 75
sannyāsin......................................... 1, 24
Sāra-saṅgraha...................................... 18
śarīra........................... 37, 53, 61, 68, 95
Śārīrika-nyāya-maṇimāla.................... 19
Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha..iv, 9, 10, 83, 84
Sarvajñātman....................................... 19
Sarva-vedānta-siddhānta-sāra-saṅgraha
.................................................. 19, 84
śāstra....................................... 43, 72, 74
sat.................................. 1, 37, 38, 41, 48
sattva ................................. 37, 48, 52, 71
Sāyaṇa .. 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 19, 35, 83, 88,
91
self-realization..................................... 38
Sewell, R. .................................. 9, 11, 90
Shastri, A.V......................................... 83
Shastri, J.L. ......................................... 80
Shastri, V................................... 5, 34, 91
Shastry, A.K............................ 12, 22, 91
sheath ........................................ See kośa
siddhānta................................. 19, 23, 84
Siddhānta-leśa-saṅgraha ... iv, 24, 25, 34,
75, 84
Śiva ............................................... 17, 81
smṛti ........................................ 28, 67, 68
śoka-apagama ............................... 51, 54
śraddhā ............................................... 45
śravaṇa...... 37, 41, 42, 44, 51, 53, 68, 73
Srikantaya, S. .. 12, 13, 14, 22, 35, 86, 91
Śrīkaṇṭha ........................... 14, 15, 19, 34
Śṛṅgerī.....................................................
....... iii, 1, 5, 11, 12, 13, 17, 21, 31, 75
śruti .........................................................
... 5, 18, 25, 30, 40, 42, 44, 45, 61, 68,
69
śruti-vākya... 2, 50, 54, 56, 58, 67, 76, 77
substratum ..................................... 39, 46
Sundaram Iyer..................................... 36
śūnya ................................................... 38
superimposition................. 39, 40, 42, 51
101
Sureśvara......... 17, 29, 63, 68, 82, 86, 93
Suryanarayana Sastri, S.S. 24, 25, 84, 85
Sūta-saṃhita.................................. 10, 35
svagata-bheda...................................... 38
Swahananda, S ................................ 1, 83
Taittirīya Upaniṣad.. v, 30, 38, 68, 73, 93
tamas ....................................... 37, 48, 71
tat tvam asi.......................................... 40
Tātparya-dīpikā ............................. 10, 35
tattvaviveka ......................................... 37
tenth man..................... 50, 51, 53, 73, 74
Thangaswami, R. ... 6, 17, 19, 22, 26, 31,
35, 91
tīrtha.................................. 14, 15, 21, 24
Tṛptidīpa.......................... 2, 5, 25, 27, 41
Tṛptidīpa-prakaraṇa.................................
... i, iv, 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 36, 42, 50, 56, 67,
68, 75
Tungabhadra ......................................... 9
upadeśa ............................................... 56
Upadeśa-sāhasrī .................. v, 68, 84, 89
US 1.12.3 ........................................ 73
US 1.17.88 ...................................... vii
US 1.18.170-4,187,190,199
............ 73


US 1.18.43 ...................................... 72
Upādhyāya, B..10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18,
21, 22, 35, 36, 83, 91
upaniṣad............................ 18, 31, 37, 39
Uttamaślokatīrtha................................ 63
Uttankita Epigraphs ...................... 13, 21
vairāgya .............................................. 41
Vaiyāsika-nyāya-mālā... v, 22, 23, 34, 85
Vākya-sudhā ................................. 22, 26
vaṃśa-vṛkṣaḥ ...................................... 31
Vārttika ......................................... 17, 63
vāsanā ................................................. 44
vāsanānanda ................................. 44, 49
Vedānta Deśika ...........See Veṅkaṭanātha
Venimadhava Shastri ... 5, 15, 16, 18, 22,
34
Veṅkaṭanātha....................................... 19
Venkataraman, K.R.... 10, 12, 16, 17, 21,
22, 71, 92
Verghese, A......................................... 10

vicāra .................................................. 43
Vidyānagara .................................... 9, 10
vidyānanda.......................................... 47
Vidyāraṇya. iv, iii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33,
34, 35, 36, 54, 56, 63, 65, 70, 71, 72,
73, 75, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 83, 88, 89,
91, 95, 96
vidyāsukha........................................... 44
Vidyātīrtha ..............................................
. 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23, 31, 34, 54, 76
vijātīya-bheda ..................................... 38
Vijayanagara .. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 23,
75, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92
founding myths ................................. 9
vikṣepa........................................... 51, 54
virakta ................................................. 48
viṣaya ...................................... 23, 43, 81
viṣayānanda ...................... 44, 48, 52, 73
102
Viśiṣṭādvaita........................................ 19
Viṣṇu ............................................. 17, 93
Vivaraṇa.................. v, 16, 20, 34, 71, 85
Vivaraṇa-prameya-saṅgraha .... v, 16, 20,
21, 22, 24, 34, 85
vivarta ................................................. 46
viveka . 1, 6, 7, 14, 19, 23, 34, 40, 46, 51,
75, 81
viveka-pañcaka ............................... 1, 40
vṛtti.................................... 18, 35, 48, 72
Vṛtti-prabhākara.......................... 6, 7, 89
vyākhyāna ........................................... 67
vyavahāra............................................ 73
Wagoner, P.................................... 11, 92
Yājñavalkya .................. 2, 56, 57, 58, 59
Yājñavalkya-kāṇḍa ....................... 56, 61
yoga................. 12, 43, 44, 46, 49, 51, 93
yogānanda..................................... 44, 51
yukti..................................................... 37