Madhava, Vidyaranya, Sringeri, and Kulke

[Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan]

Dr. Vasundhara Filliozat wrote:
<Now coming to his next question about the vassals and relatives of Hoysala>

Actually my question was about whether  Madhava-Vidyaranya served as a
minister to Harihara I.

<During the rule of Harihara and Bukka there were two ministers named
Madhava...Now the
publication of Puraanasaara confirms that Madhava, the brother of Sayana
first became the minister to Harihara I and then to Bukka I...
Unfortunately I do not have Dr. Kulke's article here with me. So I cannot
say either yes or no to his views.>

What Kulke says  is as follows:
"...Vasundhara Filliozat's more recent epigraphical studies are of greatest
importance. Thanks to her Ph.D. thesis L'epigraphie de Vijayanagar du de'but
a` 1377, we now possess a complete corpus of the inscriptions which refer to
the rule of the first generation of Sangama rulers, excluding,however, the
inscriptions which have been defined as spurious since H. Heras." (p. 124)

Later discussing the identities of Madhavamantrin and Madhava-Vidyaranya,
Kulke adds:
"It is therefore to be welcomed that Vasundhara Filliozat in her thesis on
the inscriptions of early Vijayanagara again took up this problem. On the
basis of of her epigraphical studies she verified the conclusions  of Rao
Bahadur R. Narasimhachar."(p. 129)

Kulke accepted Filliozat's conclusion that there were two different persons
named Madhava. Then he says:
"On the basis of this distinction between the two mAdhavas we are able to
come to yet another conclusion, which again might be of greatest importance
for our delineations. mAdhavAcArya, if he really ever held any 'secular'
post, was a minister of the kings Bukka I (1357-1377) and of his nephew
saGgama II. Nothing, however, is known from these sources about any 'secular'
activity of mAdhava under king Harihara I." (p.129)

Based on this, one is led to believe that in 1985, there was no evidence that
Vidyaranya served as a minister to Harihara I. Since Kulke was deriving this
conclusion from Filliozat's dissertation, if Filliozat has not changed her
views from 1985 until now about Vidyaranya serving under Harihara I,  then
there are two possibilities. Since her present position is that Vidyaranya
did serve under Harihara I, in 1985, Filliozat had based her conclusion on
textual sources while Kulke based his decision on epigraphical sources. (It
is not clear why Kulke who has quoted Filliozat's work did not mention this
important difference of opinion.) On the other hand, if Filliozat and Kulke
reached the same conclusion in 1985, then Filliozat's present position has
changed from what she held in 1985. The reason for that change is probably
the text "purANasAra". (Is this text a recently discovered text authenticated
to be that of Madhava-Vidyaranya?) If "purANasAra" played such a decisive
role, I would appreciate very much if Filliozat can expand a little bit about
what exactly "purANasAra" says regarding this issue. Thanks in advance.

Regards
S. Palaniappan