Dear Johannes,

Here are a few works which might quote, refer to, or be inspired by, the SDS (a closer look at each in this regard is still needed).

1° The Sarvadarśanakaumudī of the advaitin Mādhavasarasvatī (South Konkan, to be dated c. 1480-1560 AD according to M.S. Bhat, "Avyayārtha-Saṅgraha of Mādhava Sarasvatī, JASB 52-53, 1977-78, p. 39-43; cf. Potter EIPh I, p. 235, VI, p. 651, and K. Madhava Krishna Sarma, ALB 5/4, 1941, p. 181-188 not seen; he has also authored a Vedāntasārasarvasva) (TSS 135)
(on p. i §4 of the English Preface "Sarvadarśanakaumudī" has to be corrected into "°saṃgraha", cf. the Sanskrit version ibid.)

2° The Sarvamatasaṃgraha of Melputtūr Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭa (Kerala, c. 1560-1656 AD), ed. M. Madhavan Unni, TSS 245, 1977 ( ) = in Journal of the Kerala University Oriental Research Institute and Manuscript Library, vol. xxi, part I, 1976, part II, 1977 ( ), that is in the part IA : ed. pp. 3-30 (pp. 4-5, st. 5-20 are here missing, and then repetitions) : ; in the part IIA: cover + introd. + ToC and index : (see "indebtedness to other works"),
where the Bhāṭṭa Pūrvamīmāṃsā is given as the last, highest and best system. 

3° As for the so-called Sarvamatasaṃgraha (of Rāghavānanda): Marek Major has devoted a detailed article to this doxography ("Sarvamatasaṃgraha: an anonymous “Compendium of all systems”", In: Expanding and Merging Horizons: Contributions to South Asian and Cross-Cultural Studies in Commemoration of Wilhelm Halbfass, ed. K. Preisedanz. Wien : Austrian Academy of Sciences press, 2007, pp. 259-274), underlying a series of textual parallels with the SDS. Here a few remarks challenging his views on the dating of the SMS (he considers it as a late text, somewhere "after 1700 AD").
The work was edited without author-ascription in the TSS (62: ). However, this text is in fact, as I was able myself to discover, a mere portion extracted from a long commentary to the BhāgavataP, entitled Kṛṣṇapadī, composed by Rāghavānanda (Śrīmadbhāgavatam,  Śrīrāghavānandamuninā viracitayā 'Kṛṣṇapadyā'khyayā ṭippaṇyīā sametamEkādaśadvādaśaskandhau, Ttīyo vibhāgaḥ, Pūratrayīpura: Sasktakalāśālanirvāhakasamiti, ŚrīRavivarma Samskta Granthāvali 2[/3], 1964: see pp. 224-248, ad BhgP 11,19.17; the edition of this important commentary was unfortunately left uncompleted). This explains the logical ascription of the extract (which became "autonomous" in a few manuscripts probably because of its doxographical character) entitled SM(siddhānta)S to Rāghavānanda authorship by Kerala authors (e.g. Kunjunni Raja CKSL p. 7; S. Venkitasubramonia Iyer, KSLB p. 81, 470-1) followed by Potter and Halbfass. And the fact that Melputtūr Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭa refers to the Kṛṣṇapadī in his Prakriyāsarvasva (Part IV, TSS 174 (1954), p. 50,  cf. S. Venkitasubramonia Iyer, Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa's Prakriyāsarvasva: A critical study, 1972, p. 303), makes sure that the work of Rāghavānanda is anterior to 1616-1617 AD. Therefore, contra Mejor (p. 264), the common stanza found in the SMS and in the Mānameyodaya (of Melputtūr Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭa) cannot longer allows to consider the latter as the terminus a quo of the former (if one has "quoted" the other, it is the reverse). And since Rāghavānanda is traditionally dated to the early 14th century by Kerala authors (op. cit. etc. ; post-Madhva at the least), even if there are more reasons to presume that he is later (15th or even rather 16th c. on internal evidences, cf. Mejor and Gerschheimer 2000-1 on the SMS, and Danielson 1980 about Rāghavānanda's commentary on the Paramārthasāra; cf. also Rāghavānanda's edited commentaries on the Mukundamālā and on the Laghustuti), it could be interesting to re-examine the textual relationships between the SDS and the SMS in order to see which one is anterior to the other (and the same for the Sarvasiddhāntasaṃgraha ascribed to one Śaṅkara, variously dated: usually given as prior to both the SMS and the SDS, but dated later, posterior to the SDS, viz. to the 15th c., by Gerschheimer [p. 180-1] on the basis of the structure of its contents).

Best wishes,


Le 21 déc. 2019 à 11:16, Johannes Bronkhorst via INDOLOGY <> a écrit :

Yes, that is of course a reference that I should have mentioned. But are there others, different from or after Cannibhaṭṭa?

On 21 Dec 2019, at 09:36, Matthew Kapstein <> wrote:

Dear Johannes,

Anantalal Thakur, “Cannibhaṭṭa and the authorship of the Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha Bulletin of the Adyar Library  25(1961): 524–538, gives some citations from the work of Cannibhaṭṭa, whom he holds to have been the real author.

I'll be most interested if you come up with anything else.

all best,

Matthew Kapstein
Directeur d'études, 
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes

Numata Visiting Pro
fessor of Buddhist Studies,
The University of Chicago

From: INDOLOGY <> on behalf of Johannes Bronkhorst via INDOLOGY <>
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 3:27 AM
To: Valerie Roebuck via INDOLOGY <>
Subject: [INDOLOGY] Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha
Dear colleagues,


Are there Sanskrit texts that quote or refer to the Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha? The text was known to Wilson in 1828 and a printed edition appeared for the first time in 1858. Are there authors during the preceding centuries who show an awareness of the text (apart from copyists who copied it)? Thanks in advance for any suggestions.


Johannes Bronkhorst

INDOLOGY mailing list (messages to the list's managing committee);data=02%7C01%7C%7C262861d4cc4f41da458d08d785feed95%7C7ab090d4fa2e4ecfbc7c4127b4d582ec%7C0%7C0%7C637125202258683595&amp;sdata=IuMz3%2B9%2BrccYHg%2BfJK7KkCzb6en1P4xjvON%2FEk%2BZLQE%3D&amp;reserved=0 (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

Christophe Vielle