History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s77.15

v1.c6.s77.15

Burnell in his introduction to the Vaṁśabrāhmaṇa started the theory that Sāyaṇa and Mādhava were identical and put forward an esoteric meaning on the verse that states that Sāyaṇa and Bhoganātha were the younger brothers of Mādhava. But the facts as culled from the works of these two great men and the inscriptions of contemporary Vijayanagara kings are too strong for the hypothesis of Burnell and make it look absurd. The whole subject about the relationship of Mādhava, Sāyaṇa and Bhoganātha has been carefully examined by Rao Bahadur R. Narsimhachar in Ind. Ant. vol. 45 pp. 1-6 and 17ff and the theory of Burnell has been thoroughly refuted. Sāyaṇa and Bhoganātha were as real personages as Mādhavācārya himself. Mādhavācārya in his later years became a *saṁnyāsin* and was named Vidyāraṇya. To the items of evidence adduced by R. B. R. Narsimhachar for establishing the identity of Mādhava and Vidyāraṇya (Ind. Ant. vol. 45 p. 18) I may add one more. The Vīramitrodaya ascribes the commentary on Parāśara composed by Mādhava to Vidyāraṇya.⁹⁰⁴ It has however to be noted that the Guruvaṁśakāvya (Vāṇīvilāsa Press ed.) says (V. 41-44) that Vidyāraṇya was different from both Sāyaṇa and Mādhava.