Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c15: Chapter X. Education and Literature

Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c15

Language
English

Contents

Chapter X. Education and Literature

c15.2

Education

c15.3

Ideas of popular and mass education are as yet new in India. In ancient and mediaeval India liberal or general education was not considered to be necessary for all people. But each caste or community had its own educational system which was of a technical character. The education of the different classes of people was determined by the nature of their occupation. The state did not very much interfere with the educational system that obtained in the empire. It neither maintained schools for the people, nor materially encouraged even private initiative.

c15.4

But each village or each small group of villages had a pial school in which the teacher, who was generally called the vātti, taught the three R's to the children of school-going age. The school was either held in the pial of the house of the teacher or under the shade of some big tree. The remuneration of the teacher consisted of payments both in kind and cash. We have an interesting description of the working of the schools and the method of teaching followed in them, in the writings of the traveller Pietro della Valle. He says: "They (the boys) were four, and having taken the lesson from the master, in order to get the same by heart and repeat likewise their former lessons and not forget them, one of them singing musically with a certain continued tone (which hath the force of making a deep impression in the memory) recited part of the lesson; as for example, 'one by itself makes one,' and whilst he was thus speaking, he writ down the same number, not with any kind of pen, nor on paper, but (not to spend paper in vain) with his finger on the ground, the pavement being for that purpose strewed all over with very fine sand; after the first had writ what he sang, all the rest sang and writ down the same thing together. Then the first boy sang and writ down another part of the lesson; as for example, 'two by itself makes two' which all the rest repeated in the same manner, and so forward in order. When the pavement was full of figures, they put them out with the hand, and if need be strewed it over with new sand from a little heap which they had before them wherewith to write further. And thus they did as long as the exercise continu’d, in which manner likewise they told me, they learnt to read and write without spoiling paper, pens or ink which certainly is a pretty way.”¹ Thus the pial schools served as places where the young boys learnt the three R’s. According to Ibn Battuta the town of Onore contained twenty-three schools for boys and thirteen for girls.² Added to this general education the members of the different professions underwent courses of training suited to their respective professions.

c15.5

¹ Travels of Pietro della Valle, II, p. 227; see also Ancient Indian Education by Keay, pp. 149-152; J.R.A.S., 1834, pp. 15 ff for an article on the School System of the Hindus.

c15.6

² These were probably exclusively intended for Mussalmans. Ibn Battuta, Broadway Travellers, p. 230. Also K. A. Nilakanta Sastri. Foreign Notices, pp. 220, 234.

c15.7

The presence of the Jesuit Fathers in the Vijayanagar empire led to the foundation of certain types of schools where the vernaculars were taught by the Christian missionaries and the new converts to their faith. Thus at Madura Fr. Fernandes established a primary school for the Hindus where a Brahman convert to Christianity taught the boys to read and write. Fr. Pimenta while he chanced to pass through Madura, visited the school and distributed some prizes among the best pupils of the school.³ Fr. Pimenta founded a school at St. Thomé where Telugu and Tamil were taught. In 1567 Fr. H. Henriquez established a Tamil school at Punnei Kayal for the young Goans who were sent there as catechists and himself taught the pupils in the school. His assistant was one Luiz, a Brahman convert. Another school was founded at Candragiri for the benefit of the sons of the nobles of the court. The missionaries employed a Hindu teacher in that school.⁴

c15.8

³ Du Jarric, I, p. 650. quoted in Aravidu Dynasty, I. p. 528.

c15.9

⁴ See ibid., pp. 528-29 and the authorities quoted therein.

c15.10

But the system of Brahmanical education was different. Eminent pandits and scholars conducted small schools of their own and trained students in the study of the Vedas and allied literature. This education was also mainly the result of private initiative and effort. At Aḍayapalam and Vēlūr (North Arcot district), for instance, Appayya Dīkṣita established schools where provision was made for the teaching of about five hundred students in the Śrīkaṇṭha Bhāṣya.⁵ In some places, certain portions of the temple buildings were set apart for conducting such classes. At Conjeevaram there was a Vēdamaṭha in the temple of Viṣṇu where such classes were held.⁶ The teachers in these schools appear to have been remunerated by assignments of lands, the income from which they could enjoy. Thus according to an inscription at Vēppūr (North Arcot district) of the time of Kampaṇa Uḍaiyār, a piece of land was granted to a particular individual as an adhyayanavṛtti.7 Acyuta Rāya made a grant of the village of Kambampaḷḷi to Peda Kṛṣṇamācārlu, son of Gōvinda Dīkṣita, for the promotion of studies in the Ubhayavēdānta.⁸ A record at Viriñcipuram, (North Arcot district) dated A.D. 1535, mentions the grant of a number of kulis of land for the benefit of two Brahmans, Timmappaṇ and Śaivādirāyar Vasantarāyaguru who taught the Ṛg śākhā and Yajus śākhā respectively.9 Similarly in A.D. 1579 a few villages were granted as bhaṭṭa vṛttimānyams in Podiliśīme (Nellore district) for carrying on work connected with learning.¹⁰

c15.11

⁵ 395 of 1911.

c15.12

⁶ 32 of 1890; S.I.I., IV, No. 355.
7. 21 of 1890; S.I.I., IV, No. 344.

c15.13

⁸ M.A.R., 1924, No. 100.
9. 50 of 1887; S.I.I., I, No. 120.

c15.14

¹⁰ Nel. Ins., III, Podili, 34.

c15.15

In the beginning of the seventeenth century education at Madura was purely in private hands. That place which was the seat of the ancient Saṅgam continued to be a centre of learning under the Madura Nāyaks also. Fr. de Nobili in one of his letters written in A.D. 1610 says that there were more than ten thousand students at the place who went to different professors for study. The same missionary, while referring to Veṅkaṭa the emperor and the Nāyak of Madura, probably Muttu Kṛṣṇappa, says that they “royally endowed several colleges for the maintenance of professors and students while they are studying; they are there supplied victuals, clothes, and everything they are in need of.”¹¹

c15.16

¹¹ Heras, Aravidu Dynasty, I, pp. 525-26.

c15.17

These Madura teachers were engaged in giving a course of instruction in Vedānta. The lectures fell into four groups Argumentation, Knowledge, Evidence and Faith. Speaking about the method how philosophical studies were pursued, Fr. de Nobili says that the whole course was divided into three parts the first dealing with evidence, the second with knowledge and the third with authority. Each of these parts was divided into smaller divisions which the Jesuit Father noted down with great care.¹²

c15.18

¹² See *ibid.*, pp. 525-28.

c15.19

Encouragement was also given for the recitation of religious literature in the temples. In A.D. 1523 for example a gift of land to a particular individual was made, its object being the recitation of the Sanskrit Vedas, Draviḍa Vedas (*Prabandhams*) and the exposition of the Vedānta.¹³ Eleven years later Acyutayyadeva Mahārāya made a gift of land and a house for the merit of Periya svāmi Narasānāyaka to each of the two Vaiṣṇava Brahmans who recited the Purāṇam known as the Bhakti Sañjīvinī in the temple at Naraśiṅgapuram (Chingleput district).¹⁴

c15.20

¹³ 627 of 1904.

c15.21

¹⁴ 240 of 1910.

c15.22

Apart from such private initiative, public institutions like the *matha* and the temple devoted themselves to the popularisation of education.¹⁵ We have seen in an earlier section how there are numerous instances to show that the *mathas* were so many educational institutions in India.¹⁶ But the temples appear to have encouraged the study of ancient literature only indirectly by making provision for the recitation of the Vedas and *prabandhams* in the temple. Thus in A.D. 1449-50 the village of Manattan alias Śirutampuram was given away to a servant of the temple of Poṇ Amarāvati (Pudukkoṭṭai State) for the service of singing the hymns of Śaḍagōpan.¹⁷

c15.23

¹⁵ See *infra* pp. 332-3.

c15.24

¹⁶ *Ibid.*

c15.25

¹⁷ 20 of 1909.

c15.26

The state, however, made endowments for the study of certain subjects and honoured great scholars and literary celebrities. Technical sciences like astrology, astronomy and medicine also received great patronage from the Vijayanagar court. In A.D. 1556-57 the great scholar and astrologer Sarvabhaṭṭa was granted a village with all its income.¹⁸ In 1515 the village of Nāgulavaram and a field measuring 2,250 kuṇṭas were granted to a Brahman astronomer who was versed in (the science of) the movements of stars, an expert in the science of the Yantras (mystic tantric diagrams for worship) and an astronomer versed in the science of Yāmala (*Rudrayāmala*, a certain treatise on mantra).¹⁹ According to a copper-plate a village was granted to Sampat Kumāra who had with him excellent and learned Brahmans of various gotras and relatives, who was the foremost among the physicians and who was the renowned son of the great Gōvinda Paṇḍita, who was a great scholar in Āyurveda and the Vedāṅgas.²⁰ A Brahman doctor was the recipient of a gift of land perhaps in recognition of his abilities in his profession.²¹ Similarly scholars who had acquired a vast amount of general learning were greatly honoured. Thus a scholar (unnamed) who wrote a work called Bhāṣya Bhūṣā was honoured by a grant of land.²² Mallikārjuna Rāya honoured one Āditya Rāya, a Brahman learned in the Vedas, Śāstras, Purāṇas and the six systems of philosophy with the grant of a village named Dēvarāyapura, in recognition of his scholarship. It is said the scholar was examined by the king in all branches of learning in a learned assembly, and was honoured in open court.²³ Tirumaladēva Mahārāya made a grant of one vṛtti of land in a village for the study of the Ṛg Veda and another for that of Yajur Veda.²⁴ According to a copper-plate grant, Veṅkaṭapati Rāya made a gift of land in A.D. 1612-13 to the scholar Rāmakṛṣṇa Jōsya who belonged to the Hārita Gotra and Āpastamba sūtra, and was well versed in the Vedas, Vedāṅgas, Tarka (logic), Smṛti, and Sūryasiddhānta.²⁵ Similarly, at the request of Nāga Nāyaka, son of Malla Nāyaka, Immaḍi Narasimha made a grant of Cākenahaḷḷi to forty persons well versed in Mīmāmsā, Nyāya, the three Vedas, the Purāṇas, the Smṛtis, the tantras and the mantras and who were strict observers of the religious customs and ceremonies.26 In the Vijayanagar days there lived many such scholars who received great patronage at the hands of the ruling sovereigns. To mention only a few of them: they were Mādhava, Vidyāraṇya, Vēdānta Dēśika, Diṇḍima Kavi, Tātācārya, Vyāsarāya Tīrtha, and Appayya Dikṣita.

c15.27

¹⁸ Cp. 5 of 1917-18.

c15.28

¹⁹ Nel. *Ins.*, I, Cp. 16.

c15.29

²⁰ E.I., VIII, pp. 307-17; V. R. I.M.P., N.A. 625; Cat. of Cop. Plates in the Mad. Mus., No. 9, pp. 45-46.

c15.30

²¹ Cp. 2 of 1913-14.

c15.31

²² Ibid.

c15.32

²³ E.C., VI, pg. 69.

c15.33

²⁴ E.I., XVI, p. 245 and p. 257, l. 73; Cp. 1 of 1912-13.

c15.34

²⁵ Cp. 7 of 1922-23.

c15.35

The condition of literacy among the people in the Vijayanagar days can be gleaned through the style, orthography and script used in the inscriptions of the period. Royal grants were composed in the language of the territory in which the inscription was to be engraved. Though a few epigraphs were in Sanskrit or in Telugu even in the Tamil districts the portions of the inscriptions wherein were described the boundaries of lands and similar other details of general local interest and importance were generally in Tamil. So far as the Tamil epigraphs are concerned a perceptible deterioration is seen both in the matter of style and in orthography. This was evidently due to the fact that the composition and engraving of the inscriptions were in the hands of men of mediocre abilities.

c15.36

The composers of the inscriptions were the later representatives of the Sūtas, and Māghadas of ancient Sanskrit literature. Their office seems to have been hereditary in certain families. They were not only composers of grants but also the reciters of laudatory verses on important ceremonial occasions, on the achievements of the kings and the proclamation of their titles. They were also to relate the valorous deeds of the kings and their ancestors, which picture was generally exaggerated and coloured. Bhaṭṭa Baciappa for instance was so good at his office that he has been called in an inscription “......a head jewel of the Baḍavārukula, a master of the Gautama Gotra......a garland of love to royal bhaṭs...... fearless champion of eulogisers, illustrious Baciappa of the Bhaṭas.”²⁷

c15.37

²⁷ E.C., III, Ml. 42, text, see also ibid., 47, for a few other titles of his.

c15.38

Next mention may be made of the śāsanācāryas who were the engravers of royal edicts. Imperial grants or orders were generally engraved on stone or copper plates by these engravers. They generally belonged to the carpenter class but a few stray inscriptions indicate that Brahmans were also employed in the work.²⁸ Men of position and eminence were also employed as engravers. This is indicated by the fact that in A.D. 1475 one Timmarasa, the son of Aṭhavaṇi (revenue) Dēvarasa, was an engraver.²⁹ In another case in A.D. 1431 one Pratāpa Rāya, the son of Maṅgappa Daṇṇāyaka, was an engraver.³⁰ These instances indicate that the engravers must have been well paid.

c15.39

²⁸ E.C., VII, Sk. 281.

c15.40

²⁹ E.C., X, Bp. 20.

c15.41

³⁰ E.C., IX, Bn. 127.

c15.42

Writing was generally done on palm leaves. Describing this practice Abdur Razāk remarks: “These people have two kinds of writing, one upon the leaf of the Hindi nut (cocoanut) (a mistake for tāḍi palm) which is two yards long, and two digits broad on which they scratch with an iron style. These characters possess no colour and endure but for a little while. In the second kind they blacken a white surface, on which they write with a soft stone cut into the shape of a pen, so that the characters are white on a black surface and are durable. This kind of writing is highly esteemed.”³¹ Barbosa described the same practice which he saw at the time of his visit to Calicut.³²

c15.43

³¹ Elliot, Hist. of Ind., IV, pp. 107-08.

c15.44

³² Barbosa, II, p. 18.

c15.45

Mention may be made here of the casting of the Tamilian characters and the introduction of printing in the Tamil country. The first book containing a summary of the Christian doctrine was printed in 1577 by the letters having been cast by the Jesuit lay Brother Giovanni (Joa) Gonslaves. Fr. De Souza while describing how these early printings were received by the people says: “Those countries were marvelling at the new invention, and pagans as well as Christians tried to obtain these printed books and prized them highly.”³³

c15.46

³³ See Heras, Aravidu Dynasty, I, pp. 530-31.

Section II. Literature: Sanskrit

c15.s1.2

The prosperity and greatness of a particular empire or age can be well gauged by the number and character of the literary productions of the period. Considered from this point of view, there are certain marked periods in the history of India which are characterised by an outburst of intense literary activity and the production of works of great literary value. Among them prominent mention may be made of the Gupta period in North Indian History and the Cōḷa and Vijayanagar periods in South Indian History. The causes that contributed to such great literary activity were many, and perhaps the most important among them was a renaissance in the field of religion. As in the Christian world, so in India, literary activity has gone hand in hand with religious revival in the country; and the result is the production of voluminous literature of a religious, philosophical and sectarian character. The Vijayanagar period saw the production of such works; besides these there were also produced works of a historical or semi-historical character not to speak of *Prabandhams*, *Kāvyams* and other types of literary compositions.

c15.s1.3

A marked characteristic of the literary activity in the Vijayanagar period was the fact that the literary celebrities who flourished then were greatly patronised by the ruling sovereigns, though there were differences in the religious faith between the sovereigns and the scholars. Examples of such cases are not rare in the period. Harihara II who was an orthodox Hindu by faith, had as his minister Irugappa Daṇḍanātha, a Jain, who was the author of the Sanskrit work *Nānārtharatnamālā*. Veṅkaṭa II who was a staunch Vaiṣṇava, was a great patron of Appayya Dīkṣita, his contemporary and a great Advaita philosopher, who flourished in the court of Cinna Bommu Nāyaka of Vēlūr. The Dīkṣita himself says in his *Kuvalayānanda* that he was patronised by Veṅkaṭa and that he wrote the work at his request. Another interesting fact that deserves notice in this connection is the fact that many of the sovereigns were not only patrons of learning but were also learned authors themselves. This is borne out by the fact that many of them not only wrote important literary works but also assumed titles which throw light on the point. Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya and the Nāyak ruler Raghunātha of Tanjore besides being patrons of learning were also authors of several important Telugu and Sanskrit works, though it must be said that the former had a partiality for Telugu. Harihara II assumed the enviable titles *Rāja-Vyāsa*, *Rāja-Vālmīki* and *Karṇāṭaka Vidyā Vilāsa* which show in unmistakable terms that he was himself an author of great works of literature besides being a patron of literary men.³⁴ Besides, there flourished in the period many poetesses who wrote valuable literary works. Prominent among them are Gaṅgādēvī, the wife of Vīra Kampaṇa, who wrote the *Madhurāvijayam*, Tirumalāmbā, a queen of Acyuta Rāya, the authoress of the *Varadāmbikā Pariṇayam*, and Rāmabhadrāmbā, a poetess of merit who lived in the court of Raghunātha of Tanjore and was the authoress of the *Raghunāthābhyudayam*.

c15.s1.4

³⁴ E.C., VI, Kp. 34; *M.E.R.*, 11 of 1915, Rep., 1915, para 41.

c15.s1.5

Vēdānta Dēśika (1268-1368):

c15.s1.6

Vēdānta Dēśika, an orthodox Vaiṣṇava of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, was the nephew of one Ātrēya Rāmānuja, the great-grandson of one Praṇatārtihara, a nephew and disciple of Rāmānuja. He was a devotee of Śrī Ranganātha of Śrīrangam and when that temple was about to fall into the hands of the Muham-madans he took the idol and fled with it to the Malayālam country where he wandered for some time, and finally came to Jiñji and he built a temple for God Ranganātha and consecrated him there. Later he reconsecrated Ranganātha at Śrīrangam with the help of Kampaṇa who defeated the Muhammadan Sultan of Madura and brought the Cōḷamaṇḍalam under the Vijayanagar yoke.

c15.s1.7

Vēdānta Dēśika was a versatile genius of rare ability and was a prolific writer both in Sanskrit and Tamil, in prose and in verse. He wrote about one hundred and twenty works of which about thirty were in Tamil and the rest in Sanskrit which included also works in Prākṛt. His Yādavābhyudayam is a long mahākāvya in twenty-one cantos on the life of Kṛṣṇa. This work was so well appreciated by the later Advaita teacher and philosopher Appayya Dikṣita that he wrote a very valuable commentary to it. The Haṃsa Saṃdeśa of Vēdānta Dēśika is modelled on Kālidāsa's Meghadūta.³⁵ The Saṅkalpa Sūryodaya, another work of his, is a long allegorical drama in ten acts presenting the system of Viśiṣṭādvaita. In that work the author personifies the evil and good dispositions of man like love, hate, discrimination and ignorance and introduces them on the stage. There is an innate grandeur throughout the whole work which was written on the model of Kṛṣṇamiśra's Prabodhacandrodaya. This work of Vēdānta Dēśika is to the system of Rāmānujācārya what Kṛṣṇamiśra's work is to that of Śaṅkarācārya. The Subhāṣita nīvī is a didactic work of 144 stanzas in very difficult style.³⁶ Most of the verses yield two meanings. The Śatadūṣaṇi of the great Vaiṣṇava teacher is an anti-advaitic work, and is one of the most polemical treatises in Vaiṣṇava literature. With a view to expound the Śrī Bhāṣya of Rāmānuja he wrote the Tattvaṭikā, an extensive gloss on it. Vēdānta Dēśika was also the author of Tātparyacandrikā, an elaborate commentary on the Gīta Bhāṣya, Nyāya Siddhāñjana an incomplete text-book on Viśiṣṭādvaita system, Adhikaraṇa Sārāvali, a string of Sanskrit verses which summarises the discussions of the various sections of the Vēdānta Sūtras, and the Tattvamuktā Kalapa which discusses in an elaborate and critical manner the nature of the universe in the light of the Viśiṣṭādvaita philosophy. His Rahasya traya sāra (Tamil) is a very famous work in which he elaborates the doctrine of self-surrender (*prapatti*). He also wrote a large number of Prabandhaic works. From his facile pen emanated the 74,000, a commentary on the works of the Ālvārs, special commentaries on Tiruppāṇālvār’s *Amalanādippirān* and a large number of others. Thus the life of Vēdānta Dēśika was one of unceasing literary and religious activity.³⁷

c15.s1.8

³⁵ T. Rajagopalachar, Vaishnavite Reformers of India, p. 86.

c15.s1.9

³⁶ Ibid., p. 86; M.E.R., 1913, para 71.

c15.s1.10

³⁷ See J. B.B.R.A.S., XXIV, for an article on the life and times of Śrī Vēdānta Dēśika by V. Rangachary. See also Life of Śrī Vēdānta Dēśika by Mr. A. V. Gopalachar in the *Yādavābhyudayam*, Vol. I, Intro., and Vaishnavite Reformers of India by T. Rajagopalachar.

c15.s1.11

*Mādhavācārya*:

c15.s1.12

Among the literary celebrities that flourished in the fourteenth century and had very intimate relations with the royal house of Vijayanagar, Mādhavācārya was the most notable. He was the son of Māyaṇa, a Brahman of the Bhāradvāja gotra, Bodhāyana sūtra and Yajuś-śākhā. Mādhavācārya is reputed to have been the author of a large number of works bearing on a variety of subjects like philosophy, grammar, sacrificial ritual, etc.

c15.s1.13

The first among the works of Mādhava was the *Parāśarasmṛti-vyākhyā*, a commentary on the *Parāśarasmṛti*; and it prescribes rules for the daily conduct and rituals of the Hindus. He has added a section on *Vyavahāra* as a supplement to that work, as Parāśara did not deal with it in his *smṛti*; the work is known as *Vyavahāramādhava*. Another work of his is the *Kālamādhavīya* or *Kālanirṇaya*, which, according to the author himself, was written by him after the completion of his commentary on *Parāśarasmṛti*, to explain the details about *Dharma* and when and how the acts of *Dharma* were to be performed. *Jīvanmuktiviveka* is another important work of Mādhava on Advaita Vedānta. In this work the author gives the rules which the Paramahamsas (a class of ascetics) were to follow. Mādhavācārya wrote another work called the *Jaiminīyanyāyamālā vistara*. It is an exposition of the Karmamīmāmsā system in verse, and contains the explanation of the sūtras of Jaimini and the significance of the sacrifices and rituals connected with them. According to the author he first composed the basic text in verses, the *Jaiminīyanyāyamālā*, which was very much appreciated by king Bukka in open court; he was requested to elaborate the work and therefore he wrote the *vistara* which is a comment on the same. The colophon at its end says that Mādhavā- cārya was an ornament to the science of Mīmāmsā.³⁸ A few scholars believe that Mādhavā wrote the *Sarvadarśana Saṅgraha*. But it appears that it was Mādhava, the son of Sāyaṇa, that was the author of the work, as can be inferred from the words ‘Sāyaṇa Mādhava’ used in the third and fourth verses of the prologue to the work.³⁹

c15.s1.14

³⁸ *Jaiminīnyāyamālāvistara*, Ānandāśrama Series.

c15.s1.15

³⁹ Cowell and Gough however think that it refers to Mādhavācārya and explain the term Sāyaṇa Mādhava thus: “Māyana elsewhere calls Sāyaṇa his younger brother, as an allegorical description of his body, himself the eternal soul. His use of the term Sāyaṇa Mādhava here (not the dual) seems to prove that the two names represent the same person. The body seems meant by the Sāyaṇa of the third śloka. Māyana was the father of Mādhava and the true reading may be Śrīman Māyana.” (*Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha*—Translated by Cowell, p. 272, *fn.* 1). The natural interpretation of the terms like Sāyaṇa Mādhava according to the usage of the time is to take the first name to be that of the father and the second that of the son. There is no reason why this method should not be adopted here also.

c15.s1.16

Mādhavācārya was greatly honoured at the Vijayanagar court. According to the *Parāśaramādhavīyam* he was the minister and *kulaguru* of king Bukka, and was called Madhavāmātya and *Sāmrājyadurandhara* (bearer of the burden of the government) of Mahārājādhirāja Vīra Bukka as Āṅgirasa was to Indra. In the *Kālamādhavīya* and the *Jaiminīnyāyamālāvistara* also Mādhava states that he was patronised by Bukka I.

c15.s1.17

Mādhavācārya was an orthodox householder. In his *Jaiminīnyāyamālāvistara* he describes himself as a performer of the soma sacrifice in every spring (*Prativasanta somayājin*). References to Mādhava in his brother Sāyaṇācārya’s works also show that he was an orthodox householder. In his *Yajñatantrasudhānidhi*, Sāyaṇa describes Mādhava as a performer of great sacrifices (*mahākratūn āhartā Mādhavāryāḥ sahodaraḥ*).⁴⁰ In the *Alaṅkārasudhānidhi* of Sāyaṇa, Mādhava is described as enjoying various pleasures (*anantabhoga saṃsaktaḥ*).⁴¹

c15.s1.18

⁴⁰ *Ind. Ant.*, 1916, p. 2.

c15.s1.19

⁴¹ *Ibid.*

c15.s1.20

Mādhavācārya seems to have had three gurus, Vidyā Tīrtha, Bhārati Tīrtha and Śrīkaṇṭha. Vidyā Tīrtha was considered by Mādhava as an incarnation of Maheśvara. Bhārati Tīrtha is referred to in Mādhava’s *Jaiminīnyāyamālā* as his guru and it is believed that he wrote a portion of the *Pañcadaśi prakaraṇa*. Śrīkaṇṭhanātha also is mentioned as a guru of Mādhava in the *Parāśara Mādhavīyam*.

c15.s1.21

This Mādhavācārya has generally been considered to have assumed the yellow robes and is identified with Vidyāraṇya of the Śṛṅgēri maṭha. But it is highly doubtful if such an identification can be supported on strong and reliable evidence.

c15.s1.22

Sāyaṇa:

c15.s1.23

Sāyaṇa, the younger brother of Mādhavācārya, was an equally eminent scholar-statesman. As he himself says in his *Alaṅkāra sudhānidhi*, he was the minister of Kampa I and his son Saṅgama II, and later served in the court of Bukka I and saw the enthronement of Harihara II. On account of the infancy of Saṅgama, Sāyaṇa acted as his regent for some time,⁴² and during that time he gave his royal pupil the liberal education necessary for princes. He also took part in that period in a campaign against Campa. He was a householder and had three sons named Kampaṇa, Māyaṇa and Śiṅgaṇa.⁴³ Sāyaṇācārya was a great scholar and a prolific writer. A few of his works may be noted here. He compiled the *Subhāṣita sudhānidhi*, a literary anthology during the time of Kampa I as is stated in the colophon itself,⁴⁴ wrote *Dhātuvṛtti*, a work on Sanskrit verbs, *Prāyaścittasudhānidhi* also known as *Karmavipāka*, a work describing penances, *Yajñatantrasudhānidhi*, a treatise on ritual, and *Alaṅkārasudhānidhi*, explaining the figures of speech, all written during the time of Saṅgama II.⁴⁵ During the time of Bukka he wrote his commentaries on the Vedas and the *Puruṣārthasudhānidhi* consisting of Purāṇic teachings.⁴⁶ But it appears that he completed his *Yajñatantrasudhānidhi* only during the time of Harihara II for though he refers to Saṅgama at the beginning of his work, in the colophon at the end of the work he says that he wrote it in the reign of Harihara II.⁴⁷ Sāyaṇa wrote the following commentaries on the Vedas : *Taittirīyāraṇyaka bhāṣya*,⁴⁸

c15.s1.24

⁴² Ind. Ant., 1916, p. 23.

c15.s1.25

⁴³ See ibid., p. 23; A Cp. grant of Harihara II of A.D. 1377 mentions a grant made to Sāyaṇa and Śiṅgaana (M.A.R., 1915, para 89).

c15.s1.26

⁴⁴ Ind. Ant., 1916, p. 2.

c15.s1.27

⁴⁵ Ibid.

c15.s1.28

⁴⁶ Ibid.

c15.s1.29

⁴⁷ Des. Cat. of Sans. Mss. in the Lib. of the Cal. Sans. College, 1894, No. 2.

c15.s1.30

⁴⁸ Ānandāśrama Series, 1891.

c15.s1.31

Śukla Yajurvedasaṃhitā bhāṣya,⁴⁹ Vamśabrāhmaṇa bhāṣya,⁵⁰ Taittirīyasaṃhitā bhāṣya,⁵¹ Sāma veda saṃhitā bhāṣya,⁵² Atharvaveda saṃhitā bhāṣya,⁵³ and the Ṛg Veda bhāṣya.⁵⁴

c15.s1.32

⁴⁹ Benares Edn.

c15.s1.33

⁵⁰ Calcutta, 1892.
51. Ānandāśrama Series.

c15.s1.34

⁵² Calcutta, 1903.

c15.s1.35

⁵³ Bombay, 1895.

c15.s1.36

⁵⁴ Max Muller's Edn.

c15.s1.37

The composition of the Vedic commentaries is often attributed to Mādhavācārya, for in the colophons of many of them the term Mādhavīyam occurs, or at least it is considered they were the joint productions of Mādhava and Sāyaṇa. But the colophons of all these works state that they were the productions of Sāyaṇa and were called Mādhavīyam. In the Vamśabrāhmaṇa bhāṣya, Sāyaṇa says that he took up the Brāhmaṇas for interpretation after finishing the commentaries on the Ṛg, Yajus and Sāma Veda Saṃhitās. Likewise in the introductory verses in the Atharvaveda Saṃhitā bhāṣya he says that he took up that work after writing a commentary on the other three Vedas. The Ṛg Veda bhāṣya contains some interesting details about its authorship. In the introductory verses of that book it is said that Bukka I asked Mādhavācārya to write a commentary on the Ṛg Veda; but the colophon at the end of each anuvāka specifically states that the work was written by Sāyaṇācārya. It is difficult to explain this apparent contradiction, but it becomes clear when the introductory verses and colophons of this work are compared with those of the Puruṣārtha sudhānidhi and Yajurveda bhāṣya. In the introductory verses of these two works it is said that king Bukka asked Mādhavācārya to compose the treatises, but he told the king that his brother Sāyaṇa was proficient in those subjects, and consequently Bukka asked Sāyaṇa to compose the works.⁵⁵ Thus Sāyaṇa was the author of the works and he wrote them at the command of Bukka who was induced by Mādhava to ask Sāyaṇa to write them. In the case of the Ṛg Veda bhāṣya also Sāyaṇa must have been asked by Bukka to write the commentary at the suggestion of Mādhava. It is apparent that the suggestion of Mādhava that the work may be entrusted to Sāyaṇa has been omitted by mistake by either the copyists or editors of the work.56 That the term *Mādhavīyam* at the end of a work does not necessarily mean that it was a work by Mādhava becomes evident from the following. In the colophons at the end of a few works of Mādhava himself it is stated that the *Mādhavīyam* was written by Mādhava. In the colophons at the end of *Parāśaramādhavīyam* for instance it is said: *Iti śrī...... Mādhavāmātyasya kṛtayām Parāśara smṛti vyākhyāyām Mādhavīyāyām Prathamo adhyāyaḥ.* In the first part of the *Dhātuvṛtti* Sāyaṇa says that he wrote it under the name of *Mādhavīya* and refers to it again in the second part of his work.⁵⁷ This statement gives the lie direct to the view that Mādhava is meant as author by the term *Mādhavīyam*. Further the *Dhātuvṛtti* was written by Sāyaṇa when he was in the court of Saṅgama II while Mādhavācārya was in the court of Bukka I. It is difficult to imagine how the two could have collaborated in the production of that work.

c15.s1.38

⁵⁵ See the Dhātuvṛtti edited by the Mysore Govt. Or. Lib., where the quotation is given; see also Taittirīyasaṃhitā bhāṣya, introductory verses.

c15.s1.39

⁵⁷ Mys. Or. Lib. Edn. of *Dhātuvṛtti*, p. 32, referred to in *I.H.Q.*, VI, pp. 707-708.

c15.s1.40

It has been suggested by a few scholars that these works were written not by Sāyaṇa alone but by a school founded by Mādhava and Sāyaṇa. Macdonell says: “Sāyaṇa’s com-

c15.s1.41

56. Shankar Pandurang Pandit who with the help of Narasimhaiyangar of Mysore came into the possession of a commentary of the Atharva Veda by Sāyaṇa thinks that Sāyaṇa and Mādhava were one and the same person. He says: “From the introductory verses, when taken with the opening of the commentary on the Ṛg Veda it would appear that Sāyaṇa and Mādhava are one and the same person. For according to the present commentary, Harihara commanded Sāyaṇācārya to compose and it is Sāyaṇācārya that composes the commentary; and the author farther on says that he proceeds therefore to write his commentary, having already written his commentaries on the other three Vedas. In Sāyaṇa’s commentary on the Ṛg Veda it is Bukka who commands Mādhavācārya to explain the Ṛg Veda, and it is that Mādhavācārya who composes the commentary. The question therefore whether Mādhava and Sāyaṇa were one and the same person, or as has been supposed by some, different individuals, may be said to be set at rest by the commentary now found.” (*Ind. Ant.*, IX, p. 200). But as said above it was not Mādhava that wrote the commentary on the Ṛg Veda but only Sāyaṇa. S. P. Pandit’s identification of Mādhava with Sāyaṇa is due to an imperfect understanding of the term *Mādhavīyam* used in the colophons of the commentaries. Further that Mādhava was different from Sāyaṇa and that he was his elder brother is shown by Sāyaṇa’s own references to him. That the commentary on the Ṛg Veda was written by Sāyaṇa and not by Mādhava is clearly shown in the words of Sāyaṇa himself, who says in his *Vaṃśa-brāhmaṇa bhāṣya* that he had commented upon the Ṛg Veda.

c15.s1.42

ments on the two saṃhitās would appear to have been only partially composed by himself and to have been completed by his pupils.”⁵⁸ Aufrecht also remarks: “There can be very little doubt, and a thorough examination of all parts enables us to prove, that Sāyaṇa’s comments on the Ṛg Veda and Taittirīya saṃhitā were only partially done by himself and carried on by his school. The interpretation of the Taittirīyabrāhmaṇa, Taittirīyāraṇyaka, and the Aitareyāraṇyaka shows a want of discretion which can only be explained on the supposition that their authorship belongs to a different author.”⁵⁹ It is possible that there is some truth in this suggestion. There are inconsistencies and inaccuracies in Sāyaṇa’s Vedabhāṣya which, if it had been written by him, could not have occurred.⁶⁰

c15.s1.43

⁵⁸ Hist. of Sans. Lit., p. 275.

c15.s1.44

⁵⁹ Catalogus Catalogorum, p. 711.

c15.s1.45

⁶⁰ Rama Rao explains away this point by remarking that Sāyaṇa depended on the traditional interpretation of the Vedas and the Brāhmaṇas such as that of Yāska to whom reference is frequently made in the course of the works, and also the explanation offered to him by scholars who were his contemporaries. (I. H. Q., VI, p. 708). But it may be asked why, if the work had been by Sāyaṇa alone, he did not correct the traditional interpretations which were incorrect and inconsistent?
61. See M.A.R., 1907-08, para 54.

c15.s1.46

The surmise of Macdonell and Aufrecht is strengthened by a few epigraphs which mention a few persons who were honoured by the king for their services to the cause of learning by being the promoters of the commentaries of the Vedas. The inām office copper plate grant of Harihara II (A.D. 1386) records the grant of lands made to three persons who were the promoters of the commentaries of the Vedas in lieu of money grants already made to them. Even to this day there are three families that receive special honours from the Śṛṅgēri maṭha. The donees in the inām office grant were perhaps the progenitors of these three families.61 The date of the record is however not above suspicion, since it refers to Vidyāraṇya as living after the date on which he appears to have died. The Bacahaḷḷi plates of Harihara II (A.D. 1377) also mention two scholars who were the promoters of the commentaries of the Vedas.⁶² Since these scholars are said to have been the promoters of the commentaries when Sāyaṇa wrote them at the bidding of Bukka, and since the scholars were honoured by Harihara, it is reasonable to take the view that Sāyaṇa was assisted by a band of scholars in his work though there is no direct evidence to show that the different portions of the Vedabhāṣya were written by different scholars under the general editorship of Sāyaṇa.

c15.s1.47

⁶² M.A.R., 1915, paras 88-89.

c15.s1.48

According to Aufrecht Sāyaṇa died in A.D. 1377.

c15.s1.49

Bhōganātha :

c15.s1.50

Mādhavācārya had another brother Bhōganātha by name. About him however not much is known. In the Bitraguṇṭa grant of Saṅgama II of which he was the author he styles himself the narmasaciva or boon companion of Saṅgama II. His guru was Śrīkaṇṭha. From the Alaṅkāra sudhānidhi of Sāyaṇa we learn that Bhōganātha was the author of the following works: Rāmollāsa, Tripuravijaya, Udāharaṇamālā, Mahāgaṇapatistava, Śṛṅgāramañjarī, and Gaurīnāthāṣṭaka. The first two works appear to be kāvyas based on the Rāmāyaṇa and the Purāṇas. Sāyaṇa had very great regard for his brother Bhōganātha and in one place says, speaking about certain rules, ‘examples of the rules have to be sought for in Bhōganātha’s works.’⁶³ Thus he also appears to have been a great scholar.

c15.s1.51

⁶³ Ind. Ant., 1916. p. 24.

c15.s1.52

Cauṇḍa Mādhava :

c15.s1.53

Contemporaneous with the Mādhava brothers was another Mādhava, who belonged to the Āṅgirasa gotra and was the son of Cauṇḍapa. He was a follower of the Pāśupata school of Śaivism and had for his guru Kriyāśakti Paṇḍita. This Mādhava was the minister of Mārappa, the brother of Harihara, and was in charge of the Banavāse country. He ‘cleared and made plain the ruined path of the Upaniṣads which was overgrown and dangerous from the serpents, the proud advocates of evil doctrines,’ and was hence called the guru ‘who established the path of the Upaniṣads.’ He was the author of the work Tātparya Dīpikā, a commentary on the Sūtasaṃhitā.⁶⁴

c15.s1.54

⁶⁴ S. K. Aiyangar, Sources, pp. 51-2.

c15.s1.55

The minister of Harihara II, Irugappa Daṇḍanātha, born in the family of Baicaya Daṇḍēśa, was a great Sanskrit scholar. He wrote the Nānārtharatnamālā, a Lexicon. Virūpākṣa also known as Udayagiri Virūpaṇṇa, a son of Harihara II, was a good scholar and a master of various arts. He was the author of the Nārāyaṇī- vilāsam, a Sanskrit drama.⁶⁵ Narahari, a disciple of Vidyāraṇya, has written the Naiṣadha dīpikā a commentary on the Naiṣadha.⁶⁶ In the court of Bukka II flourished Lakṣmaṇa Paṇḍita, the author of the medical work Vaidyarāja vallabha.

c15.s1.56

⁶⁵ S. K. Aiyangar, Sources, p. 53.

c15.s1.57

⁶⁶ India Office Catalogue, Pt. VII, 3832.

c15.s1.58

Gaṅgādēvī:

c15.s1.59

Among the eminent women writers of the time the first place has to be given to Gaṅgādēvī, the wife of Kampaṇa (the son of Bukka), who conquered the Cōḷamaṇḍalam for the Vijayanagar empire. In her work the Madhurāvijayam she describes the conquest of Madura by her husband. She has adopted the mahākāvya style for her work. It contains lengthy descriptions of the seasons, of the twilight and other aspects of nature. "The authoress writes in the Vaidarbhī style and her thoughts flow with ease and simplicity. Her diction is beautiful and charming and her similes are grand and drawn from nature. She has none of the pedantry of grammar and rhetoric which so largely spoils the productions of latter day poets." She has largely followed Kālidāsa, but has transformed his scenes and descriptions "at the mint of her imagination and invested them with new significance."⁶⁷

c15.s1.60

⁶⁷ Madhurāvijayam, Intro., pp. iv-v.

c15.s1.61

Fifteenth Century Poets:

c15.s1.62

Dēva Rāya II, besides being himself a good scholar, was a patron of scholars in different languages. He appears to have been the author of the Ratiratnadīpikā and the Brahmasūtravrtti a gloss on the Brahmasūtras of Bādarāyaṇa, following the Advaita of Śaṅkara.67a Gōpa Tippa, the grandson of Harimā, a sister of Dēva Rāya II, also flourished in the same period. He was a great Sanskrit scholar. He was the commentator of the Kāvyālaṅkāra kāmadhenu.⁶⁸ He was also the author of Tāla dīpikā a work on music devoted to the determination of the different ways of keeping time besides a work on dancing.⁶⁹

c15.s1.63

67a Vijayanagar Sexcentenary Volume, p. 397.

c15.s1.64

⁶⁸ M.E.R., 1923, para 77.

c15.s1.65

⁶⁹ S. K. Aiyangar, Sources, p. 63 T. C. of Mss. of the M.O.M.L. I. 1, No. 770, pp. 1015-16.

c15.s1.66

Sāḷuva Narasiṁha was a good Sanskrit scholar. Generally he has been credited with the authorship of the Rāmābhyudayam. The Diṇḍima family which has produced many literary celebrities came into prominence under Sāḷuva Narasimha. Rājanātha Diṇḍima, the author of the Sāḷuvābhyudayam, was his court poet. This historical poem is written in the kāvya style. Diṇḍima Sārvabhauma, his son, appears to have been the real author of the Rāmābhyudayam. The colophon at the end of the fifth canto of the work shows that the poem was written by one Sōṇādrinātha, also called Diṇḍima Sārvabhauma, son of Abhirāmā and Rājanātha.⁷⁰ One Aruṇagirinātha is the author of the farce called Somavallīyōgānandaprahasana and a commentary on Śaṅkara’s Saundaryalaharī.⁷¹

c15.s1.67

⁷⁰ S. K. Aiyangar, Sources, p. 85.

c15.s1.68

⁷¹ M.E.R., 1923, para 79; 1912 para 72. In an extract of this work published by the late T. A. Gopinatha Rao, Aruṇagirinātha calls himself the nephew through the sister (bhāgineyah) of Sabhāpati (I.A., XLVIII, p. 134).

c15.s1.69

The reign of Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya marks a glorious epoch in the literary history of South India, when there flourished in his court scholars in Sanskrit, Telugu, Kannaḍa and Tamil. Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya, besides being a patron of scholars, was himself a gifted scholar not only in Telugu but also in Sanskrit. Before he began to write his masterpiece in Telugu, the Āmuktamālyada, he wrote Sanskrit works like Madālasācaritra, Satyavadhūpreṇanam, Sakalakathāsāra saṅgraham, Śuktinaipuni jñānacintāmaṇi and Rasamañjarī. He was also the author of the Sanskrit drama known as Jāmbavatīkalyāṇam which was enacted before the people assembled to witness the Caitra (spring) festival of Śrī Virūpākṣa, the tutelary deity of the Karṇāṭaka empire, residing on the top of the mountain Hemakūṭa in the city of Vijayanagar.

c15.s1.70

It was during this period that the great Dvaita philosopher Vyāsārāya lived. He was a great scholar and as said in an earlier section was patronised by Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya.

c15.s1.71

Sāḷuva Timma, the Prime Minister of the king, was the author of a work known as the Bāla Bhārata Vyākhyā, a commentary on Agastya’s Bāla Bhārata. In the colophon to the work he calls himself Pradhāna sakalāgama pārāvāra daṇḍanāyaka. Gōpa, the nephew of Sāḷuva Timma, was the author of a work called Candrikā, a commentary on Kṛṣṇamiśra’s famous drama Prabodhacandrodaya. He was also the author of the Kṛṣṇārjunasamvādamu. a popular Telugu poem in the dvipada metre. Nādinḍla Appa, another nephew of Sāḷuva Timma, was a great patron of literature and to him was dedicated the Telugu work, Rājaśekharacaritramu, by Mādayagāri Mallanna.⁷²

c15.s1.72

⁷² S. K. Aiyangar, Sources, p. 149.

c15.s1.73

Lolla Lakṣmīdhara was another eminent scholar and a versatile genius of the time. He was the author of several works bearing on astronomy, astrology, mantraśāstra, the ṣaḍdarśanas and law. He was also the author of a part of the encyclopaedic work, the Daivajñavilāsa.⁷³ He wrote a commentary on Śaṅkara’s Saundaryalaharī in which he claims the authorship of the Sarasvatī vilāsam, an important work on law generally attributed to Pratāpa Rudra, the ruler of Orissa and a contemporary of Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya.

c15.s1.74

⁷³ Ibid., pp. 151-2.

c15.s1.75

Among the other poets of the period mention may be made of Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa, Sūranna and Haribhaṭṭa. The first among them was the author of the Saṅgīta sūryodaya, a work on music dedicated to Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya. Sūranna (not to be confounded with Piṅgaḷi Sūranna) wrote his two books, the Udayanodaya and the Vanamāli vilāsa (Telugu). But when the former of the two works was still in an unfinished stage he died. Hence his son finished the work and dedicated it to a subordinate of Rāmayāmātya. Haribhaṭṭa was the author of the Ratirahasya in Sanskrit and translated into Telugu cantos VI, XI and XII of the Bhāgavata. He also wrote the Uttaranarasimhapuraṇa, Varāhapurāṇa and Matsyapurāṇa (Telugu).

c15.s1.76

Acyuta Rāya appears to have been a good scholar like his brother Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya. He has been credited with the work called Tāḷamahodadhi which was commented by Sōmanātha, a contemporary of his.

c15.s1.77

During this time Rājanātha Diṇḍima, the author of the Acyutarāyābhyudayam, was the court poet. He was in close association with the third Vijayanagar dynasty and hence was able to include in his work some details about the achievements of Narasa, the father of Acyuta. Rājanātha was also the author of the Bhāgavata Campū, a work that was dedicated to Acyuta. In the royal court also flourished the poetess Tirumalāmbā who wrote the Varadāmbikāpariṇayam which gives an account of Acyuta’s life and closes with the installation of Veṅkaṭādri as Yuvarāja.

c15.s1.78

She was an accomplished lady with good literary tastes, and her poem has a simple and chaste style.⁷⁴ One Vōdūru Tirumalammā composed a Sanskrit verse (A.D. 1533) to commemorate the gift of a svarṇameru by Acyuta Rāya, and the verse is inscribed in the Viṭṭhala temple at Hampi. A suggestion has been made that this lady may be identified with Tirumalāmbā the authoress of the Varadāmbikāpariṇayam.75 A poetess by name Mōhanāṅgi, identified with the wife of Rāma Rāja, is said to be the authoress of the Mārīcipariṇayam, a love poem. It has been suggested that this poetess may be the same as Tirumalāmbā the wife of Rāma Rāja and the daughter of Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya.⁷⁶ But one cannot be sure if Vōdūru Timmalammā was the same as this Tirumalāmbā.⁷⁷ An eminent poet Ēkāmranātha by name lived at the court of Aṅkuśa Rāya, a feudatory of Rāma III in the Seringapatam territory. He was the author of the Jāmbavatī kalyāṇam and the Satyā pariṇayam both in Sanskrit.⁷⁸ Cerukūri Lakṣmīdhara was another literary celebrity of the period and he was the author of a large number of works like the Abhilaṣitārthadāyanī, a commentary on Jayadēva’s Prasan-narāghava, and dedicated to Siddharāju Timmarāju, a commentary on Anargha rāghava, Ṣaḍbhāṣācandrikā, a grammar on six Prākṛts and a few others. He has also written the Śrutarañjanī, a commentary on the Gītagovinda, a lyrical drama of Jayadēva. This work however is generally attributed to Tirumala.⁷⁹ During this period in the Nāyak court of Jiñji there lived a Sanskrit scholar Ratnakhēṭa Śrīnivāsa Dīkṣita. He was patronised by Śūrappa Nāyaka. This Dīkṣita wrote a drama Bhāvanāpuruṣottama and dedicated it to his patron.⁸⁰

c15.s1.79

⁷⁴ 9 of 1904; 708 of 1922, M.E.R. 1923. Para. 81; M.A.R., 1920 Para. 38
75. M.E.R., 1923, para 81; S. K. Aiyangar, Sources, p. 170, fn.

c15.s1.80

⁷⁶ Vireśalingam Pillai, Lives of Telugu poets, p. 187.

c15.s1.81

⁷⁷ See M.E.R., 1923, para 81.

c15.s1.82

⁷⁸ See S. K. Aiyangar, Sources, pp. 227-230 and Des. Cat. of the books in the Or. Mss. Lib., Madras, XX Nos. 11535 and 11816.

c15.s1.83

⁷⁹ See S. K. Aiyangar, Sources, pp. 212-13; Hultzsch, Rep. on Sans. Mss., IV, p. 130, No. 2112; A.S.R., 1908-09, p. 196; 1909-10, p. 182.

c15.s1.84

⁸⁰ S. K. Aiyangar, Sources, p. 272 fn.

c15.s1.85

Tātācārya :

c15.s1.86

Among the literary celebrities that received patronage in the court of Veṅkaṭa the most important was Tātācārya, variously known as Eṭṭūr Kumāra Tirumala Tātācārya, Lakṣmīkumāra, and Koṭikanyādānam Tātācārya. He was the manager of the Vaiṣṇava temples at Kāñcī where he is said to have lived in kingly splendour. He made many grants to the Vaiṣṇava temples at Kāñcī and he even dug a tank there which came to be known as Tātasamudram after him.⁸¹ Tātācārya was the author of a philosophical work known as Sātvika Brahma Vidyā Vilāsa. He also wrote a work called the Pāṇḍuraṅgamāhātmya devoted to the Viṣṇu temple at Pandharpur in the present Bombay Presidency. He had great influence over Veṅkaṭa. According to the Prapannāmṛtam, Veṅkaṭa entrusted the whole kingdom to Tātācārya and himself led a life of retirement.⁸² Whether this statement is true or not, his influence at the court of the emperor was very great. This adversely affected the fortunes of the Jesuit Fathers at Veṅkaṭa’s court for which they bore a grudge against him. Their malice against Tātācārya was exhibited in one of the letters which Father Coutinho wrote. He says that Tātācārya was “unworthy of the post because of his vices.” He observes the teacher was lacking in continence as he had many wives at home, and he was one of those “who swallow camels and shy at mosquitoes.”⁸³ But in fairness to Tātācārya it must be said that he was not a sanyasin as the Jesuit Father appears to have considered him, but only a householder who was allowed to marry and yet was not prevented from being a guru. Heras too accuses Tātācārya of incontinence and belittles his purity of character evidently on slender grounds. As said earlier he was a staunch Vaiṣṇava and was largely responsible for the spread of Vaiṣṇavism during his time; but it seems his views on religion were narrow and evidently he could not tolerate opposition to his views, and if tradition can be believed, he plotted the assassination of his contemporary, the great Advaita teacher Appayya Dīkṣita, who narrowly escaped falling a victim to the plot.

c15.s1.87

⁸¹ 354 of 1919; 475 of 1919; 649 and 650 of 1919; Cp. 8, Ap. A. of M.E.R., 1916-17 and Cat. of P. Grants in the Mad. Govt. Mus., No. 54.

c15.s1.88

⁸² S. K. Aiyangar, Sources, p. 251.

c15.s1.89

⁸³ See Heras, Aravidu Dynasty, I, pp. 305-06.

Appayya Dīkṣita

c15.s1.t1.1

Appayya Dīkṣita was a son of Raṅgarāja Dīkṣita of Aḍayapalam, a village in the present North Arcot district. Even at the age of twelve Appayya Dīkṣita had gained complete knowledge of the Vedas and many abstruse and philosophical sciences. He was a great genius and his scholarship was not only very wide but also very deep. As a philosopher he was a follower of Śrikaṇṭha. And he is even called Śrīkaṇṭhamata pratiṣṭhāpanācārya (establisher of Śrīkaṇṭha’s school of philosophy).

c15.s1.t1.2

He was a polyhistor and is credited with the authorship of 104 works. His Śivārkamaṇidīpikā is a commentary on Śrīkaṇṭha’s Śaiva Bhāṣya. The work shows that he had a thorough knowledge of Mīmāṃsā, Vyākaraṇa, Nyāya, Alaṅkāra, practically the whole field of Sanskrit literature. In it he fights to the best of his ability against his own Advaitic leanings and conviction and tries to demolish the Advaitic doctrine and establish Śivādvaita. But his Parimala, which is an illuminating work, is important for its powerful advocacy of Advaita. In his Śivatattvaviveka he attempts to make Śiva the lord of the Universe. As a great scholar in rhetoric he wrote three works on the subject, namely the Kuvalayānanda, Citramīmāṃsā and Vṛttivārtikam. He was also the author of the Caturmatasāra containing four sections each devoted to a system of philosophy, namely Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Śivādvaita and Dvaita.⁸⁴ He also wrote on grammar. In his Rāmāyaṇa tātparya saṅgraha and the Mahābhārata tātparya saṅgraha he has attempted to establish that the Itihāsas have propounded Śiva as the lord of the Universe. Thus he was really a sarvatantra svatantra, which epithet he himself interprets in his commentary on the Yādavābhyudayam as meaning “one who can, according to his pleasure, prove or disprove any system of religion or philosophy.”⁸⁵

First 135 of 255 passages. Read on

Linked texts (101)