Madhava, Vidyaranya, Sringeri, and Kulke
pfilliozat at MAGIC.FR
Fri Jun 9 21:01:40 UTC 2000
Shri Palaniyappa has sent many questions on MAdhava VidyAraNya and Dr.
Well, while I was working for my thesis I was not able to put my hands on
this text PurANasAra.
In 1986 when I met my friend late Pandit Pathak he told me about PurAnasAra
and informed me that he is working on that. Also he showed me a few extracts
of it when I visited him briefly in Mysore. By then Dr. Kulke's article was
published.This PurANasAra text is published for the first time. Very few
students of Karnataka (Vijayanagara) history know about the existence of
this text though it is valuable one. In ParAsara Madhaviya and in his other
works MadhavacArya quotes from his PurANasAra. In this text, Madhava clearly
mentions that for a while he worked as a minister and adviser to Harihara I.
Like you all, I am also eagerly looking forward to the release odf this
publication from ORI, Mysore.
This work of Pandit Pathak has given an impetus to my opinion that Madhava
before embracing SanyAsa was serving as a minister to Harihara I and then
Palaniyappa's another question is about the two MadhavAcAryas who were in
the service of the first two kings of Sangama dynasty. One MadhavacArya was
the son CAvuNDarAya of Angirasagotra. His guru was KASivilAsakriyAsakti.
Another MadhavacArya is ofcourse the famous MAdhavacArya the elder brother
There was one more question about the name of place Gokarai or Kogara etc.
Unfortunately I do not know except the names of GokarNa or Karkala. To me
the latter seems to be more close to the Tamil orthographie . These answers
might pave path for more questions.
From: Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan <Palaniappa at AOL.COM>
To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
Date: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: Madhava, Vidyaranya, Sringeri, and Kulke
>Dr. Vasundhara Filliozat wrote:
><Now coming to his next question about the vassals and relatives of
>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
>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
>a` 1377, we now possess a complete corpus of the inscriptions which refer
>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,
>"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
>activity of mAdhava under king Harihara I." (p.129)
>Based on this, one is led to believe that in 1985, there was no evidence
>Vidyaranya served as a minister to Harihara I. Since Kulke was deriving
>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
>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
>what exactly "purANasAra" says regarding this issue. Thanks in advance.
More information about the INDOLOGY