[INDOLOGY] Madhva / Mbh

Robert Zydenbos zydenbos at uni-muenchen.de
Fri May 31 12:27:35 EDT 2013


[Sorry for this belated response, which I apparently never sent.] I 
haven’t made any thorough comparative study of the two redactions of 
Madhva’s Sarvamūlagranthas, but repeatedly in my reading I noticed that 
when Madhva’s text in its pracalitapāṭha form looks self-contradictory, 
the mūlapāṭha does not contain the contradiction. The differences can be 
small but dramatic (like not omitting a ‘na’, or having the verb in the 
passive instead of the active mode). I remember how in some places the 
one or the other pāṭha would contain words or phrases which the other 
one did not have.

Foolishly, I did not note down any of these details; I merely decided 
that the mūlapāṭha is the better (i.e., more straightforward and less 
confusing) version and stuck to that one. But the mūlapāṭha edition by 
Bannanje Govindacharya does contain a critical apparatus with frequent 
references to the pracalitapāṭha. (N.B.: some university libraries, such 
as the Univ. of Toronto, are fortunate enough to possess a copy of this 
set, but the author is mentioned in the catalogue under the name 
‘Ānandatīrtha’, Madhva’s earlier name, as given on the title pages of 
these volumes, and not under ‘Madhva’.)

Howard Resnick wrote:

> Thank you Robert for this valuable information. Perhaps you could
> explain a bit about the type and quality of evidence we have pointing
> to the correct state of the mulapatha and the corrupted state of the
> pracalitapatha.

> Many thanks,

> Howard Resnick




More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list