Madhava, Vidyaranya, Sringeri, and Kulke

[Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan]

Many thanks to Dr. Filliozat for the updates. But I would appreciate some
more details.

In a message dated 5/22/2000 3:01:21 AM Central Daylight Time,
pfilliozat at MAGIC.FR writes:

>  In 1986 a seminar was held in Bangalore on the topic of Early Vijayanagara
>  studies and the papers were published in 1988. Some valuable articles have
>  appeared in this volume amongst which "Identity of Madhava Vidyaranya by K.
>  Krishnamurthy annd Vidyaranya's Association with the Vijayanagara Empire by
>  Venimadhava Shastri". In these articles both the authors have proved the
>  identity of Madhava &Vidyaranya with scholarly arguments and references.

Can you give the title of this volume?

>  In the making of modern Karnataka empire brothers Sayana and Madhava played
>  a vital role under the guidance of their Guru Vidyatirthamuni who was then
>  on the pontifical seat of Sharadapitha at Shringeri.

The crucial question in this thread is the history of Sringeri maTha. Has any
new information come to light regarding this? Have you or other scholars
authenticated and analyzed the pre-Karnataka/Vijayanagara records mentioned
by Vidyasankar?   Whom do you agree with on the pre-Karnataka history of
Sringeri, Kulke or Vidyasankar?

> All the relatives and
>  the vassals of defunct Hoysala kings gave their full support to the new
>  rulers in their efforts of consolidation of one empire. Madhava occupied
the
>  seat of the minister and the adviser to Harihara I is proved from his
>  "Puranasaara" which is being published by the ORI in Mysore.

Based on Kulke's work (p.129)  you seem to be reversing your views of 1985.
Can you briefly tell us the basis of your change of view? Does this mean that
Harihara I had two ministers named Madhava? or as some others have held
Madhavamantrin and Madhava-Vidyaranya were one and the same?

> Only a "kadita" in Shringeri matha mentions the fact the Bukka
>  requested the Guru to send a letter to Vidyaranya to return from Kashi but
>  it is  not substantiated by the inscriptions.

Then, are you in agreement with Kulke that the "kaDita" records held by
Sringeri maTha are not reliable?

Thanks in advance.

Regards
S. Palaniappan