[71]

Arguments from Textual Criticism for Madhva's Authorship

One confirmation for the view taken here we find in an excerpt from an
unknown work named Pratisankhyana:^139

sutram tu ...

It is noteworthy that this unknown source declares Vishnu to be the
author of well-known texts such as the Brahmasutras, Mimamsasutras and
Sankarsanakanda, together with a range of totally unknown works.
Three of them, namely Prakasika, Nirnaya and Tattvanirnaya were identified
therein as commentaries.  If, by Nirnaya, Sabdanirnaya is referred to,^140 then
all three have also been quoted in the works of Madhva independently of this
source's quotation, as we have seen above.  Besides, subcommentaries such as
Brhattarka^141 as well as independent works such as Brahmatarka and many others
(adayah) are named or implied.  By this, Madhva might be referring to all
of the above-named works, since they are also directly ascribed to Vishnu.
And the mention of the well-known texts together with the completely unknown
ones seems to be intended to make it appear that the later-named works are
real and not merely fictitious works.^142  This impression is reinforced

139: BAUBh p. 323, 20-23; compare above Anm. 58.
140: Multiple unknown works are designated ``Nirnaya'' by Madhva, such as
    Upasana, Jiva, Tantra, Bhoga, Linga, Vakya, Vidya, Sruti, and Sara; judging
    from the meaning of its title, Sabdanirnaya might be an etymological work
    (compare Anuv p. 174, 18)
141: I could not find a work with this title cited anywhere in the works of
    Madhva, but probably it is Brhatsruti, Brhatsamhita, Brhattantra.
142: Compare above p. 54 f; Anm. 209.  In this context, it should be mentioned
    that Madhva also ascribes other known works, such as, for example, the 
    BhagP, directly to Vishnu.  With this in mind, he gives a proof of its
    source (BhagTN p. 4, 7 f.) from a Puranic text:

    uktam ca garude...
[72]
    It is odd that the earlier GarP (about 10th cent.) has more exact knowledge
    about the BhagP, which is posited as later (about 11th cent.), not only 
    concerning its scope and arrangement, but also concerning the fact
    that is is based on a solid tradition, in which the BhagP was
    designated as gayatribhasya.  The reason for this is that the first
    verse of this Purana ends with dhimahi, just as the gayatri.  No
    wonder that this stance is not included in the traditional text
    of the GarP!

by the fact that these works are named in turn by a new independent
literary source, namely the Pratisankhyana, since mention by name in a
foreign source is apparently supposed to serve the purpose of
imparting a special authority to the content.

  Because the content of this foreign source aligns itself with the
testimony of Madhva, we can assume that no one other than Madhva
himself stands behind it.^143  This intention becomes visible in Madhva's
GiT, where an excerpt, this time from a known text, namely NarP, is quoted,
in which the not more closely known Brahmatarka is mentioned together with
the orthodox and non-orthodox systems.  The Brahmatarka is here characterised
as a textbook on logic^144 and presented as the work of Vishnu, just as
all of the other texts before:

  brahmatarkas tarkasastram...daivi^145 ca karmiki //

143: Compare in addition a partial quotation from the Hayagrivasamhita (BAUBh
    p. 294, 17 ff.); compare above Anm. 124.
144: Compare in addition Anuv p. 6, 29 f.:
     etat sarvam...
     From the different quotations it seems to emerge that the
     Brahmatarka is not principally a textbook on logic, since only a minor 
     part of its Slokas occupy themselves with the means of cognition
     or Vada.  It is striking that the Brahmatarka, which otherwise
     contains all of the characteristic teachings of Madhva, makes
     absolutely no allusion to his avatara-teaching.  Foreign quotations are 
     also missing there!
145: This three-part arrangement could point to the Brahmamimamsa, the
    Sankarshanakanda, which is also called the Devata- or Upasanakanda,
    and the Karmamimamsa.  It is, however, remarkable that Madhva in the
    ChUBh (p. 452, 3 f.) quotes the Devamimamsa and similarly the
    Sankarshanasutra on something that would point to their disagreement
    [perhaps ``difference''], in connection with upasana (tasmad
    ... kascana) alongside the BSu (II 1,5 and II 2,3).

[73]
    But both quotes are not traditionally in the Sankarshanakanda.

  brahmatarkam ... naradiye.^146

Now the Brahmatarka, among all unknown words of Madhva, stands out through
its special status; not merely because of the title, which suggests an
examination or investigation of Brahman, and thus is often named in
connection with the mimamsa in the sense of brahmanischaya, but also
above all because Madhva regards it as a key text of his philosophical 
system, which he quotes the most.  There are 148 entries of this text
in several of his works, and in the BhagTN alone it is quoted 74
times!  Many of them are strikingly long in contrast to the other
quotations.^148 Moreover, according to his own excerpts, Madhva based
this text on two other logical works,^149 and in addition, it is the only
unknown work which all typical lessons of Madhva (satsiddhantah)
contain [quotations of].^150  There is also the circumstance that the

146: GiT p. 23, 24-28.
147: KeUBh p.474, 6 f.; Anuv p. 153,31: brahmatarkas ca mimamseti;
    compare ibid. p. 7, 16; GiT p.23, 27; KavM II p.3, 22-23:
    nigamavakyanam ...
148: Compare Rao 1960:92.  All these quotations were collected by
    A. Narayana Tantry and organised under various themes in
    Rao:1960:11-55.
149: Compare the key verse in the PL and VL:
     Anandatirthamunina...
     The title VL might be a reference [?] to the Kathalakshana,
     because Kathalakshana appears both in the Mangala verse and in the
     colophon.
150: Compare Rao 1960: 86 ff.; Siauve 1968: 26 ff.; 75, Anm. 5; above
    Anm. 144; below Anm. 153.  The special importance of this work was
    thus not only emphasised by the adherents of Madhva, but also by
    some researchers such as Siauve (1968:31), who determined: [in
    French] ``Should the originality of Madhva's thought be situated
    solely in the force of synthesis with which it implements an
    already existing concept?  Is it necessary in order to save its
    genius creator to make him the secret author of the
    Brahmatarka?  It does not seem so to us.''  The reason stated by
    Siauve for the fact that the Brahmatarka is not yet acquainted
    with the very important teachings by the sakshin of the system of
    Madhva is not cogent, because in the setting of the
    Pramana-teachings in the Brahmatarka, the expression svadrg
    anubhavah is used - in contrast to its meaning - but in fact
[74]
    by the sakshin with the same meaning, and thus compatibly:
    Brahmatarka (GiT p. 105, 22 f.): visesho ... sarvavastushu = Anuv
    p. 101, 19-20: viseshah ... sakshipratyayagocarah.  Elsewhere,
    Siauve herself pointed to this synonymy!  It is not easy for her
    to explain how a work as recent as the Brahmatarka, which
    initiated a new philosophical tradition, could disappear without a
    trace, so that not even Madhva's direct disciples had knowledge of
    it.  Moreover, Madhva would be situated among his contemporaries
    as a mere plagiarist, insofar as he follows outright the teachings 
    of a foreign work.  A different claim of Siauve (ibid. p. 30;
    1971: 15)  in connection with the estimation of Rao
    (1960: 89 f.) and Sharma (1960: 115), that Madhva at the time of
    the composition of GiBh and BSuBh up to the first and second
    chapters did not have the Brahmatarka available, because he would
    not have found it until later during a trip to North India, is
    completely unfounded, since according to Madhva's statement, the
    NarP discloses information about the Brahmatarka (compare above
    Anm. 146).  Because this Purana was quoted by Madhva some 19 times 
    in the GiBh and three times in the BSuBh up to the first chapter,
    one must presume an acquaintance with the Brahmatarka by him and
    during the composition of both of these works!

unique specimens of different teaching's contents, which traditionally 
fall under this working title, show the same literary structure, which 
is peculiar to the works of Madhva.

But it seems odd that a work so important had not even relied upon
Madhva's direct disciples, since there are no quotations from it in
their works.^151  And Jayatirtha, whose paramaguru was Madhva, speaks
of the Brahmatarka in a general and rather non-committal fashion in
his Tika to the VTN as an old work: praktena granthena, and, at a
different

151: Rao (1960:96) believed he had found a clinching argument for the
    reality of the Brahmatarka, as he determined: [in English] "... but
    one quotation of three verses beginning sarvabhimanino devas tatrapi
    is not found anywhere in Madhva's works.  It must be a quotation taken 
    by Trivikrama direct from the Brahma Tarka.  If this view is correct,
    at once it concludes the matter."  Now these three verses were in fact 
    non-descriptly adduced by Madhva simply by iti ca in his GiT
    (p.49,15-18)!  Also, Siauve, who, to be sure, assumed the reality of
    the Brahmatarka, and as a complete work, takes issue with the
    argumentation of Rao, as with his conclusion that Padmanabhatirtha,
    who was as direct of a disciple of Madhva as Trivikrama (Rao 1960: 80
    f.), must have had a direct knowledge of the Brahmatarka,
    independently of Madhva, because he knows to assign an undetermined
    passage of five verses in Anuv (p. 55, 2-7), which is commenced
    merely with uktam bhallavisakhayam brahmatarke ca sadaram, exactly to
    the respective text.  Siauve (1968:28) remarked in addition: [in
    French] "None of the facts is decisive.  The first commentator could
    have divided the two texts for simple reasons of verisimilitude, and
    each one could recall a passage to which Madhva was referring during
    the course of his teaching."  In BhagTN (p.85, 9 f.), a verse from
    some manuscripts and ascribed to the PadP was assigned to the
    Brahmatarka.  I was unable to identify this verse in the
    aforementioned Purana.

[75]
point, as a lost work: evam atitena prabandhenoktam.^152  If one could
then succeed to prove positively that the author of the Brahmatarka is
Madhva himself, then one would thereby have provided a striking proof
for its Urheberschaft [difficult to translate: it's an authority or
authenticity that a work derives from the authority of its author on
the subject at hand], which would then be paradigmatically extended
to all of the other works that are, in the same way, directly
attributed by Madhva to Vishnu.  In fact, the Brahmatarka shows signs
of a new style of work which would have been composed somewhere in the
12th century, and thus in the period of Madhva's influence, as will be
seen below.

Because the numerous quotes from this work allow us to form absolutely
no opinion about its final, completed or perfected form as a text, the
question arises whether one has drawn conclusions based on a complete
work or merely based on isolated fragments which were selected in an
ad hoc fashion by Madhva so as to correspond with his typical
teachings and relgious needs.  If this were the case, then Madhva
would have produced an absolutely new literary genre, which would have
permitted him to present his novel teachings without letting them
appear as lacking a traditional foundation at the same time.  There
are, indeed, several remarks of Madhva that confirm the alternatives
presented here, such as, for example, the following reflection of
Madhva, similar to the NarP:

  satsiddhaanta iti jneyo ...

  "One should recognise the true Siddhanta as defined by Hari
  himself.  All that which contradicts this leads to deep darkness.
  Thus teaches the Sruti unequivocally: 'You go into deep darkness' (BAU
  IV 4).  Exactly this (proclaim) all of the Srutis, the collected
  (corpus) of the Pancaratrasamhitas, so also the ancient Ramayana, the
  Mahabharata, all of the Smrtis, the Vaishnava Puranas, and also both
  of the best (systems) of the Sankhya and Yoga and (finally) the
  Brahmatarka, as an investigation (into Brahma).  From here lies before
  one an endless ocean of words.  In addition, the endlessly many
  logical reflections (contained therein) are based on 

152: Compare VTNT p. 432, 7-8; 360, 16.
153: Anuv p. 153, 28 and 154, 24.

[76]
  direct perception [pratyaksha] and revelation of Sruti [agama]."