Regulating Religious Texts: Access to Texts in Mādhva Vedānta

DEEPAK SARMA REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS: ¯ ACCESS TO TEXTS IN MADHVA ¯ VEDANTA INTRODUCTION In this paper I examine one type of governing doctrine that is found among the doctrines propounded by Madhv¯ac¯arya, the 13th century CE theologian who established M¯adhva Ved¯anta. A study of these doctrines will shed new light on the transmission of certain types of knowledge in South Asia. Governing doctrines are doctrines about doctrines. Though there are several types of governing doctrines the study here is limited to governing doctrines that restrict access to other doctrines and to membership in a given community.1 These are called restrictive governing doctrines (RGD). More formally, restrictive governing doctrines are rules and regulations about doctrines and doctrinal systems that restrict both adherents and outsiders from obtaining doctrines and the ordered sets of doctrines found in doctrinal system. RGD also include rules and regulations about doctrines and doctrinal systems that restrain the admission of outsiders as members in a given religious community. They thus restrict accessibility and establish exclusivity. Nearly every major school of Indian philosophy discussed the topic of accessibility and related topics such as eligibility and thereby established governing doctrines that either allowed or restricted access to texts and teachings in commentaries on at least one (usually the first) sutra ¯ found in their central texts. This practice points towards the importance that governing doctrines had for the regulation of reading and other pedagogical habits and, therefore, for the training of virtuoso religious readers. Sometimes these doctrines, moreover, may have hindered (and continue to hinder) the abilities of outsiders who are ineligible and not allowed access to texts and, therefore, not allowed to become virtuoso readers. The establishment of these restrictive governing doctrines in Ved¯anta centers primarily around the interpretation of the first pada of the first ¯ sutra ¯ of the Brahma Sutras of B¯adar¯ayan. a;2 athato ¯ brahmajijn˜as¯ a, ¯ “Then, therefore, the inquiry into brahman”.3 The term atha glosses the sequence of eligibility. Taking into consideration Madhv¯ac¯arya’s commentary, the expanded passage reads “Therefore, after having Journal of Indian Philosophy 27: 583–635, 1999. c 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. 584 DEEPAK SARMA met the requirements for eligibility, the inquiry into brahman is to be undertaken”.4 Madhv¯ac¯arya thus addresses these issues in his Brahma ¯ Sutra ¯. ya, a commentary on the Brahma Sutras, Bhas ¯ in connection with the requirements for eligibility and thereby establishes restrictive governing doctrines. This paper, then, is an in depth analysis of these restrictive governing doctrines. To this end I first examine the historical context within which M¯adhva Ved¯anta originated. Viewing M¯adhva doctrine in light of the social and religious matters that dominated medieval South India may help to shed light on Madhv¯ac¯arya’s restrictive governing doctrines. After a brief summary of some historical matters I offer an analysis of these doctrines. Finally, I examine several instances in M¯adhva texts where debate with outsiders is addressed. Throughout this analysis, I also critique and evaluate Madhv¯ac¯arya’s positions. A study of the M¯adhva rules and regulations pertaining to the transmission of knowledge may help scholars to look at the RGD propounded by other traditions, philosophical and otherwise, in South Asia. ¯ THE MADHVA RESTRICTIVE GOVERNING DOCTRINES: AN INTRODUCTION Questions about accessibility and inclusivity do not usually arise given the contemporary understanding and interpretation of M¯adhva Ved¯anta by scholars both inside and outside of the tradition. The Sw¯amiji of the Pej¯avar mat. ha in Ud. upi, for example, states that “Sri Madhva alone is to be regarded as Jagad [world] Guru because he has shown the way to men of all castes that they can attain spiritual grace”.5 M¯adhva Ved¯anta is often referred to as a bhakti tradition by contemporary M¯adhva scholars and theologians. Bhakti, devotionally oriented, traditions are typically believed to offer catholicons or universal openness for salvation. They thus employ governing doctrines which allow both access and inclusivity for all sentients. That is, regardless of class, character, or past behavior, anyone can obtain relevant doctrine and then attain that which is maximally desirable, moks. a, simply through their sincere devotion.6 Juxtaposing M¯adhva Ved¯anta with other bhakti religions is misleading.7 The Sw¯amiji of the Pej¯avar mat. ha and other contemporary scholars are only partly correct. I thus examine the governing doctrines, the adhikara ¯ prerequisites, by which Madhv¯ac¯arya subtly introduces this exclusivity and the subsequent doctrinal restrictions for potential adherents. I show that M¯adhva Ved¯anta, as characterized by Madhv¯ac¯arya in medieval Karn. a¯t.aka, can be categorized as a religious community whose doctrines are regulated by RGD, governing doctrines that restrict access.  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 585 Before investigating these doctrines it is important to examine the context within which Madhv¯ac¯arya derived them. To this end I briefly sketch out the social and religious world of medieval Karn. a¯t.aka that confronted Madhv¯ac¯arya and may have informed the doctrines that he propounded. This survey is not intended to be comprehensive. Instead, it is intended to suggest possible answers to etiological questions regarding Madhv¯ac¯arya’s strict RGD. ¯ ARYA BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ON MADHVAC ¯ Madhv¯ac¯arya (1238–1317 CE) was born of Sival ´ .l.i Brahmin parents in the village of P¯ajakaks. etra near modern day Ud. upi in the Tul.un¯ad. u area of South Kanara.8 Aside from relevant colophons found in Madhv¯ac¯arya’s own works, the biographical data regarding Madhv¯ac¯arya derives from two sources: first, data from the Madhvavijaya, The Triumph of Madhvac ¯ arya, ¯ a hagiographic account composed by N¯ar¯ayan. a Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya; second, evidence from inscriptional evidence and records found in Ud. upi mat. has, monasteries. First, I discuss each of these sources. Second, I summarize Madhv¯ac¯arya’s educational background. Finally, I address the political, social, and religious contexts within which Madhv¯ac¯arya developed his school of thought. Sources N¯ar¯ayan. a Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya was the son of Trivikrama Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya who was one of the first direct disciples of Madhv¯ac¯arya.9 N¯ar¯ayan. a Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya lived shortly after Madhv¯ac¯arya’s demise and, therefore, the metrical biography that he composed may have some accuracy with regard to the presentation of the socio-historical context of the 13th and 14th centuries. Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya’s hagiographies are regarded as accurate by the M¯adhva community. Given the dearth of accurate historical data in connection with medieval Tul.un¯ad. u, the degree to which the hagiographic accounts are prescriptive rather than descriptive remains ambiguous. Several of the people and places mentioned in the Madhvavijaya are also mentioned in relevant histories etc. This indicates that portions of Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya’s hagiographical works may be reliable. For the purposes of the discussion here they are nevertheless useful. He was a Sival ´ .l.i Tul.u-speaking Brahmin born and raised in the Tul.un¯ad. u district. He was, then, of the same regional subcaste as Madhv¯ac¯arya.10 Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya composed several hagiographies of Madhv¯ac¯arya in addition to the Madhvavijaya. The An. u Madhvavi- jaya is an outline of the Madhvavijaya while the Madhvavijaya 586 DEEPAK SARMA ¯ Bhavaprak a¯s´ika is an elucidation of several aspects of the Madhvavi- jaya. The Man. iman˜jar¯ı is a mythological account of the rise of M¯adhva Ved¯anta.11 The as. .tamat. has, the eight monasteries, of Ud. upi are the second source for biographical records about Madhv¯ac¯arya.12 The institution of the eight mat. has was begun by Madhv¯ac¯arya before his death. These mat. has have kept genealogical and inscriptional records regarding the param ¯ lineage, of the svamins . para, ¯ of each of the eight mat. has.13 The ¯ first svamin of each of the eight mat. has was ordained by Madhv¯ac¯arya himself. For this reason, the lineage data and the relationship of such data in connection with Madhv¯ac¯arya found at the mat. has are regarded as accurate by the M¯adhva community. For the purposes of this discussion relevant portions will be considered accurate. Education Aside from popular accounts, these two sources are the bases for materials about Madhv¯ac¯arya’s educational and political background. Nevertheless, there is still very little information about Madhv¯ac¯arya’s education and much of it must be surmised from the limited data. Madhv¯ac¯arya was, of course, familiar with the Ved¯anta literature and this is evidenced in the 292 texts that he mentions by name in his works.14 According to the Madhvavijaya he studied the Vedas and other relevant texts with a teacher who was of the Pu¯gavana family.15 He then studied aspects of the Advaita school of Ved¯anta founded by ´ n Sa ¯ kar¯ ac¯arya in the 8th century CE. Madhv¯ac¯arya did not find this intellectual trajectory to be satisfactory and he thus sought a new teacher in order to be granted sam . nyasa, ascetic, status. At the age of sixteen, Madhv¯ac¯arya found Acyutapreks. a, an ascetic who was also dissatisfied with the tenets of Advaita Ved¯anta, and underwent the prescribed 16 sam . nyasa rites. According to Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya’s hagiography, his name was then changed by Acyutapreks. a to Pu¯rn. aprajn˜a.17 After becoming an ascetic he studied tarka, logic.18 He also studied Vimukt¯atman’s Is. .tasiddhi (9th century CE).19 This is the only mention of an Advaita text in the Madhvavijaya.20 After again disagreeing with his teacher, Madhv¯ac¯arya was installed as the head of the mat. ha by Acyutapreks. a in deference to his student’s superior abilities.21 Madhv¯ac¯arya then began to travel around South Asia in order to argue his new Ved¯anta position with other scholars.22 His exposure to, and interaction with, other schools of philosophy – both Ved¯anta and non-Ved¯anta – is  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 587 evident in his hagiographies, his works, and the broader issues that he addresses.23 According to the hagiographic tradition, Madhv¯ac¯arya’s travels took him to Mah¯abadarik¯a´srama, the home of Vy¯asa, author of the Brahma ¯ Sutras, to meet the founder of the Ved¯anta tradition himself. Under the guidance of Vy¯asa, Madhv¯ac¯arya is said to have composed his Brahma Sutra¯ ¯. ya, a commentary on Vy¯asa’s Brahma Sutras. Bhas ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Linking Madhvacarya to Vyasa may be Pan. d. itacarya attempt at making Madhv¯ac¯arya’s unusual Ved¯anta position legitimate.24 Data taken from colophons along with genealogical and chronological data found in the mat. has lead scholars to conclude that Madhv¯ac¯arya died in 1317 CE.25 In his hagiography Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya records that Madhv¯ac¯arya was immediately honored with a shower of flowers from the deities.26 According to popular tradition, however, he is considered to be alive and residing in Mah¯abadarik¯a´srama with Vy¯asa. The corpus of texts that Madhv¯ac¯arya mentions in support of his position (and, presumably, that he studied) has been the center of controversy. The dispute concerns the existence of a number of these texts. For example, Madhv¯ac¯arya often cites passages from the Brahma Tarka – a text which has yet to be recovered and is not mentioned by name by any other Ved¯anta philosopher.27 The possibility that non-existent texts were appealed to later became a matter of debate between M¯adhva and other Ved¯anta schools. N¯ar¯ay¯an. a¯c¯arya, a 17th century M¯adhva, for example, attempted to defend Madhv¯ac¯arya’s use of untraceable texts in his Advaitakal¯ anala ¯ against the Advaita scholar Appayya Diks. ita (16th century CE). 28 Aside from these controversial texts, Madhv¯ac¯arya also does not appear to mention the names of texts outside of the typical medi- eval Ved¯anta canon. Sharma holds that there are eight passages in Madhv¯ac¯arya’s Tattvoddyota that have parallels in Buddhist texts – yet no texts are named.29 According to Sharma, these passages do not appear to be taken from extant Buddhist texts. Nevertheless, it is likely that Madhv¯ac¯arya was familiar with N¯ag¯arjuna’s Mulamadhyamaka ¯ ¯ as Karik ¯ (circa 150–250 CE) given that his commentator Jayat¯ırtha cites a passage taken from the Karik¯ as¯ in his Tattvoddyotat. ¯ıka, ¯ a commentary 30 on Madhv¯ac¯arya’s Tattvoddyota. Buddhis¯ag¯ara, a Buddhist, is also mentioned as a disputant encountered by Madhv¯ac¯arya in Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya’s Madhvavijaya.31 Although the name is mentioned only in the hagi- ographic literature, it is possible to surmise that Madhv¯ac¯arya read Buddhist texts and came into contact with scholars expounding Buddhism. Despite these interactions mentioned in the Madhvavi- 588 DEEPAK SARMA jaya, Madhv¯ac¯arya neither refers to any Buddhist texts by name nor does he quote passages from Buddhist texts. According to Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya’s hagiographies, Madhv¯ac¯arya also came into contact with followers of the Vai´ses. ika school. He mentions V¯adisim. ha, “a knower of the essence of the Vai´ses. ika [system]” in ¯ his Bhavaprak a¯s´ika.32 Madhv¯ac¯arya thus refers to and argues against ¯ tenets of nastika schools such as Buddhism, or other non-Ved¯anta astika ¯ schools such as Vai´ses. ika, etc. yet does not mention the names or cite passages from any of the texts of these schools.33 There are several possibilities as to why he does not do so.34 First, it may be that he did not read many of their texts and had second-hand knowledge about them – though this seems unlikely. Second, the lack may also indicate that texts were so common in medieval philosophical dialogues, both polem- ical and pedagogical, that they were neither cited from nor mentioned by name. Third, it may also be that philosophical matters outside of the sacred texts were regarded as denaturalizable and, therefore, the name of the text from where the citation derived was unnecessary.35 Fourth, and perhaps most likely, as a trained religious reader it can be presumed that Madhv¯ac¯arya had relevant texts memorized and, more importantly, expected the same of those who read his own texts. There- fore he did not need to directly cite passages. In fact, as I show below, the eligibility to read his text itself presumed a training as a virtuoso religious reader. Although this is not explicitly stated in Madhv¯ac¯arya’s works, it may be that this method, not mentioning the name of texts or directly citing passages from texts, is inextricably linked to assumptions about literacy – the abilities of the reader and his training.36 Finally, it may also be that there was an operational RGD in connection with a deficiency in citations and named texts. That is, the lack of citations may have indirectly indicated the importance of satisfying pedagogical prerequisites to be able to gain appropriate access to doctrines etc. and status as a virtuoso religious reader. Political Environment and Patronage Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya states in several places in his Madhvavijaya that Madhv¯ac¯arya came into contact with local kings, though only one, Jayasim . ha, is named. There is no indication in relevant historical data that Madhv¯ac¯arya was, however, supported financially by any of them. In the Madhvavijaya, for example, Madhv¯ac¯arya is recorded as having been on good terms with a king who may have been a Muslim.37 Having impressed the king with both his ability to walk on water and his language skills, the king is said to have given half his kingdom  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 589 to Madhv¯ac¯arya.38 This meeting and exchange does not appear to be mentioned in histories of Tul.un¯ad. u, Karn. ¯at.aka, and South India.39 Although the granting of half the kingdom does seem a bit fantastic, it is not unlikely that Madhv¯ac¯arya came into contact with Muslim rulers, given their invasions at the beginning of the 14th century CE.40 However, there is no evidence, inscriptional or otherwise, that the Muslim king gave additional land grants or monetary gifts to Madhv¯ac¯arya. The land grant, then, might be better understood in the context of the hagiography as hyperbole. Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya reports that Madhv¯ac¯arya interacted with a king named Jayasim . ha on several occasions. A popular account that is also found in the Madhvavijaya involving Jayasim . ha concerns the loss of Madhv¯ac¯arya’s extensive library to the thievery of a local philosopher who was, not surprisingly, a follower of the Advaita school. Without his library, Madhv¯ac¯arya was unable to continue to refute the positions of his Advaita contemporaries. Fortunately, he is said to have had the library returned to him with the help of the local king Jayasim 41 . ha. Jayasim . ha may have also supported him during his stay at his stay in the village of P¯ad. ikud. el.42 B.N.K. Sharma identifies Jayasim . ha as the ruler of 43 Kumbla. Research into the kingly dynasties of the Hoysala empire has turned up no kings named Jayasim . ha who reigned during Madhv¯ac¯arya’s lifetime.44 It is evident historically, however, that Madhv¯ac¯arya was a contemporary of Narasim . ha III (1254–1292 CE) and Ball¯al.a III (1291– 1342 CE) who were two kings of the Hoysala dynasty.45 There is no mention, however, in histories of Karn. a¯t.aka that either of the Hoysala kings had contact with or patronized Madhv¯ac¯arya.46 There is evidence that Narasim . ha III was a devout Jain and provided monetary support for the Jain tradition.47 No information is available about Ball¯al.a III’s religious affiliations.48 It may be that Jayasim . ha of the Madhvavijaya and either Narasim . ha III and Ball¯ al.a III are one and the same person.49 Religious Context The 13th and early 14th centuries CE were periods of religious excite- ment in South Kanara given the presence of both astika, ¯ ¯ nastika, and tribal and indigenous traditions.50 Adherents to Ved¯anta, both Advaita and Vi´sis. t.¯advaita, along with Jains, and V¯ıra´saivites, populated Tul.un¯ad. u.51 These literati traditions were juxtaposed with tribal and ´ other indigenously based traditions including Saivism, ¯ ar bhut ¯ adhana, ¯ ´ worship of apparitions, worship of sakti, female power, and worship ¯ of nagas, snakes among others. 590 DEEPAK SARMA This religious pluralism was permitted by the Hoysala kings who considered themselves supporters and protectors of the various traditions that existed in Tul.un¯ad. u.52 The rulers may not have had much of a choice but to allow pluralism, given that coastal Kanara was a center for trade with both South Asian and non-South Asian communities.53 It may be that the diversity fostered a cosmopolitan society wherein religious heterogeneity prevailed. Economic conditions, then, may have indirectly affected prevailing religious attitudes. It is thus likely that Madhv¯ac¯arya and the school of Ved¯anta that he developed, both in terms of theoretical issues and practical issues, were directly affected by this variegated setting.54 Detailed research about this area and this time period is sorely lacking. My intent here is to gesture at possibilities rather than to be comprehensive. ¯ Astika Traditions; Vedanta¯ In the philosophical and religious realm, M¯adhva Ved¯anta competed with Advaita and Vi´sis. t.¯advaita among other schools. Both the Advaita and Vi´sis. t.¯advaita schools had many followers in the area. In fact, R¯am¯anuj¯ac¯arya, founder of the Vi´sis. t.¯advaita school of Ved¯anta in the 12th century CE, is known for converting Vis. n. uvardhana (1110–1152 CE), a Hoysala king, from Jainism to Vais. n. avism in 1093 CE.55 This conversion may have helped to hinder the growth of Jainism and other non-Vais. n. ava traditions.56 The heart of Vi´sis. t.¯advaita activity, moreover, lay in nearby Melko¯t.e. Temples which were officiated by priests adhering ¯ to the agamas, ritual texts, and other worship texts found in the Advaita and Vi´sis. t.¯advaita canons were built in the area as were affiliated mat. has, monasteries. According to the Sa ´ nkaravijaya, ¯ a hagiographic account of the founder of Advaita Ved¯anta, Sa ´ n ¯kar¯ac¯arya visited South Kanara in the 9th century and disputed with scholars of local traditions.57 One of the four mat. has established by Sa ´ n¯kar¯ac¯arya himself was located in Sr. n¯geri in South Kanara – only about 50 km, from Ud. upi.58 These two cites, Melko¯te and Sr. n¯geri were (and are) centers for Ved¯anta studies in Karn. a¯t.aka. These and other medieval mat. has, monasteries, were centers for theological education and for training of virtuoso religious readers.59 They were centrally administered by the svamin ¯ of one mat. ha. Admission as a student of the mat. ha was typically regulated by class, class, and gender; there were RGD, restrictive governing doctrines, linked to admission as a student at a mat. ha. For example, there were rituals prescribed for those who wish to study.60 Once one obtains admission into the mat. ha, one must follow rules according to one’s a¯s´rama, period  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 591 of religious life. For example, the brahmacaris, ¯ students, who were required to live in the mat. has along with their teachers, were expected to be celibate. The mat. has usually accompanied temples and were thus centers for intellectual work concerning the traditions as well as training ¯ grounds for experts in the sectarian agamas, ritual texts, followed by that temple. Though students were trained in a variety of traditions their studies focused primarily on the philosophy held by the literati and practiced in the sectarian temple. They were, then, places where specialist religious readers and ritualists were trained. The intellectual work of these specialist readers may have involved defense of tenets, criticism of rival traditions, and training of other specialists. Finally, these mat. has were oftentimes institutional instruments for the propagation of the tradition for lay people who did not seek to become, or were excluded from becoming, highly trained religious readers. The mat. has sponsored religious festivals, rituals, and other religious activities as well as offered their ritual expertise to practicing lay people. Medieval Tul.un¯ad. u was the location of a large number of these mat. has linked with a variety of religious communities including astika ¯ ¯ and nastika communities. ¯ The astika Ved¯anta traditions were well established in the South Kanara area and may have competed with one another for political support and for adherents. There are no accounts of disputes, however, aside from those regarding philosophical matters, concerning land, patronage, or other political matters between the M¯adhva school and these two Ved¯anta traditions. ¯ Two Anti-Vedanta Traditions; V¯ıras´aivism and Jainism ¯ ´ Vırasaivism and Jainism, two non-orthodox, non-Brahmanical traditions, were also prevalent in the Tul.un¯ad. u.61 Both schools, in contrast to the orthodox Ved¯anta traditions, were arguably more oriented towards making their doctrines accessible. These traditions typically did not employ RGD. Instead, they allowed access to doctrines and doctrinal systems as well as allowed admission of outsiders into their community. Use of the vernacular, Kannad. a, for example, instead of Sanskrit and appeals to the teachings of contemporary mystic saints helped to increase the availability of V¯ıra´saivism for non-Brahmins. V¯ıra´saivas, in fact, not only granted equal status to women but loosened the rigidity of the class system in their tradition.62 S´udras, ¯ who occupied the lowest position in the class system, for example, were given status in both worship and in religious practices.63 592 DEEPAK SARMA As mentioned above, the Jain institutions were supported by local rulers such as Narasim 64 . ha III. Aside from data concerning the patronage of Narasim . ha III, there are large numbers of inscriptions and documents that pertain to the funding of Jain institutions.65 The most important Jain mat. ha in South India was also located in South Kanara at Sr ´ ¯avana . Belgol.a. The majority of feudal states in Tul.un¯ad. u were Jain.66 For these reasons Jain activities in Tul.un¯ad. u for outweighed those of the Ved¯anta traditions. ¯ Anti-Vedic nastika traditions as well as traditions opposed to Ved¯anta then, were prevalent in Tul.un¯ad. u in the 13th and 14th centuries CE and competed with other existing traditions. Their anti-class activity and the social world they envisioned is contrasted with the social systems expounded by the Ved¯anta traditions. Such egalitarian tenets undoubtedly helped to foster religious and theological excitement at the time. It also seems likely that the cosmopolitan nature of the area surrounding medieval Ud. upi sparked interest among other literati and lay people in these egalitarian traditions. It may be that the centrality of the non-restrictive governing doctrines in these traditions increased the importance for literati in the Ved¯anta traditions to reestablish strict RGD and, thereby, reassert their theological authority. Tribal and Other Indigenous Traditions These exegetical traditions, Ved¯anta, V¯ıra´saivism, and Jainism, were juxtaposed with tribal and other indigenous traditions. These traditions were often local and more popular among the lower classes. Worship ´ of Siva stands foremost among these traditions and was the prevalent religion in Tul.un¯ad. u. In fact, the largest number of temples in pre- ´ M¯adhva Tul.un¯ad. u are Saiva. ´ 67 Although the Saiva tradition was extant ´ in Tul.un¯ad. u prior to the influence of San¯kar¯ac¯arya, it may be that the Advaita school played a role in popularizing Siva. ´ According to Advaita cosmology, Siva ´ is held to be the highest among the gods. It is likely that the V¯ıra´saiva communities also helped to increase the importance of the Siva´ ´ temples, given the centrality of Siva to their religious practices. ´ Siva ´ temples were often found in the vicinity of Sakti temples.68 In ´ this connection, the Sakti traditions were also dominant in Tul.un¯ad. u. Worshipped as Devi, Durg¯a, and, more often, as a local female deity, they were sometimes linked to male counterparts who were worshipped ¯ by the astika traditions. For example, Mu¯k¯ambik¯a, a 15th century CE form of the Goddess, was eventually absorbed into the M¯adhva tradition. V¯adir¯aja, the 15th century CE svamin ¯ of the So¯de mat. ha in  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 593 Ud. upi, invoked the Mu¯k¯ambik¯a in his T¯ırthaprabhanda.69 The Saiva ´ ´ and Sakti traditions, then, may have been the most dominant traditions in Tul.un¯ad. u. ´ The Sakti traditions were also affiliated with tantric rituals and worship regimen. These tantric texts and practices were in contrast with those of the prevailing Vedic tradition. Moreover, though tantric worship often entailed initiation rites, these rites were not restricted to literati or other elite groups.70 They thus allowed all devotees to engage in and lead worship practices. Such traditions were widespread among the lower social classes.71 It is likely that such tantric traditions were intellectual and social challenges for the literati defending and upholding Vedic orthodoxy and their accompanying class restrictions. Perhaps the most well known indigenous religious tradition of Tul.un¯ad. u is the bhut ¯ ar ¯ adhana, ¯ worship of apparitions, also known as dayivagal. u in Tul.u, apparition worship.72 Considered to be an indi- ¯ genous Dravidian form, it is starkly contrasted with astika ¯ and nastika traditions.73 The practice of bhuta ¯ worship was fully accepted by the majority of the population and outweighed the importance of Siva ´ and 74 Vis. n. u for most. The worship of spirits often centered around Sakti ´ and, according to Nambiar, was integrated into both later Vais. n. avism ´ and Saivism. 75 The tradition may not have had a noticeable effect on the doctrines of the M¯adhva school of Ved¯anta or the other schools. Nevertheless, bhut ¯ ar ¯ adhana ¯ indicates the presence of traditions that predated and were in total variance with many of the astika, ¯ ¯ nastika, and related traditions. The religious atmosphere at the time when Madhv¯ac¯arya first developed his school of Ved¯anta was iridescent given the diverse and disparate traditions that existed. Again, it may be that such pluralism played an important role in Madhv¯ac¯arya’s theology and, more impor- tantly, in connection with his concept of community and the associated RGD. ¯ The Madhva Community and Institutions In addition to composing treatises on Ved¯anta matters, Madhv¯ac¯arya founded the M¯adhva religious community and accompanying institutions in Ud. upi. According to traditional accounts, Madhv¯ac¯arya discovered an idol of Kr. s. n. a encased in mud in the ocean and installed it at a temple in Ud. upi.76 The idol is still worshipped in Ud. upi today. After ordaining seven monks, Madhv¯ac¯arya established each of them ¯ as svamin, head, of a mat. ha, thereby establishing the as. .tamat. has, eight monasteries, as an institutional tradition. Vis. n. ut¯ırth¯a, Madhv¯ac¯arya’s 594 DEEPAK SARMA younger brother, who is included among the seven svamis, ¯ was also ordained as head of the So¯de mat. ha. Madhv¯ac¯arya placed the mat. has of his disciples under his tutelage. After he died, an eighth svamin ¯ ¯ ¯ replaced Madhvacarya. The as. .tamat. has, eight monasteries, still exist today and are loci for studying both primary and secondary doctrines and for the training of virtuoso religious readers.77 Madhv¯ac¯arya may have developed paryaya, ¯ a rotating system of leadership, that would 78 begin after his death. In this system of governing, paryaya, ¯ ¯ the svamis of each of the eight mat. has is proclaimed to be leader every two years. Although the institution and the community established by Madhv¯ac¯arya have spread to different parts of India, both are still centered in Karn. ¯at.aka state and, most importantly, in Ud. upi. Never- theless, the Uttar¯adi mat. ha in Bangalore and the Vy¯asar¯aya mat. ha in Tirupati are both central to the contemporary M¯adhva sam ¯ . pradaya, system of religious teaching, despite being outside of Ud. upi. 79 There is little information regarding grants given to Madhv¯ac¯arya in order to facilitate the establishment of the as. .tamat. has. Nevertheless, it is likely that he was given some funding by the local kings in the region. It may be that the as. .tamat. has were funded by king Jayasim . ha who, as described above, assisted Madhv¯ac¯arya with the recovery of his library. Given the hagiographic data this funding seems likely. Trivikrama Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya was also Jayasim . ha’s court pan. d. ita and was, therefore, himself funded by Jayasim 80 . ha. There are, of course, later records of mat. has receiving numerous land grants from subsequent rulers.81 It is likely that the initial funding for the mat. has also derived from donations or from fees for puj ¯ as, ¯ daily worship ceremonies, etc., by adherents at the newly established Kr. s. n. a temple in Ud. upi. In medieval Tul.un¯ad. u it may also have been a standard practice to fund temples, mat. has, regardless of the religious background of either the benefactor or the recipient.82 However, it also seems likely that if the benefactor and the recipient were of the same religion then more funds were provided. For example, the feudatory states surrounding Ud. upi were primarily ruled by Jains. There is, then, a great deal of inscriptional evidence of funding given to the Jain mat. has and institutions.83 Regardless, Madhv¯ac¯arya was able to secure a sufficient amount of funds to be able to inaugurate the 700 year old tradition of the Ud. upi as. .tamat. has. It is within this context that Madhv¯ac¯arya professed his doctrine and accompanying RGD as well as establishing the M¯adhva community.  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 595 “WHICH SENTIENTS ARE ELIGIBLE?” AND “WHAT ARE THEY ELIGIBLE FOR?” “Having learned it, the knowledge, he understands brahman. He may speak about this [knowledge] to men. As he speaks about it, he indeed becomes greater”. The instructions for teaching is spoken of in the Mat ´ ¯. hara Sruti. One should not think: “[It is the] aim to distribute [this knowledge] to many [men]”. For there is a reason [for not distributing this knowledge]: when it is distributed, the result is the granting [of Vedic knowledge] to those not qualified. This is prohibited.84 According to Madhv¯ac¯arya “Everyone does not possess eligibility [for acquiring knowledge of brahman]”.85 Each and every agent does not have full access to M¯adhva doctrine – knowledge that is efficacious for learning about the nature of brahman, for obtaining moks. a, and for learning the intricacies of M¯adhva dialectics. Madhv¯ac¯arya directly addresses eligibility requirements in his gloss of the first pada of the ¯ first sutra ¯ of the Brahma Sutras of B¯adar¯ayan. a; athato ¯ brahmajijn˜as ¯ a, ¯ 86 “Then, therefore, inquiry into brahman”. The expanded passage that takes Madhv¯ac¯arya’s commentaries into account reads “Therefore, after having met the requirements for eligibility, the inquiry into brahman is to be undertaken.” Madhva’s interpretation is opposed to Sa ´ n ¯kar¯ac¯arya who interprets the term very differently. He writes: Then the word “atha” is understood to mean “afterwards” and not “eligibility”. [This is] because there is no eligibility for the desire to inquire into brahman.87 Another major difference between the two thinkers is evident in their interpretation of the term jijn˜as ¯ a. ¯ Madhv¯ac¯arya takes it to mean “inquiry” ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ while Sankaracarya interprets the term as the “desire to inquire”. Through a set of arguments and links with Pu¯rva M¯ım¯am ´ ¯kar¯ac¯arya takes . s¯a, San the primary meaning of the word to refer to desire, while the secondary meaning refers to “inquiry”.88 The implications in terms of the immediate relevance of accessibility are quite substantial. Jayat¯ırtha’s commentary restates Madhv¯ac¯arya’s interpretation and explicitly rejects the Advaita interpretation. He writes: In the beginning of a work, the auspicious benediction is inevitably to be done. For that reason, the word “then” is thus mentioned. [This is the explanation of the term] “atha”. [Madhv¯ac¯arya] states the literal meaning of it to be “[after obtaining] eligibility”. [It is] mentioned for the sake of denying the commencement of the inquiry into brahman for the person who merely desires liberation. He [thus explains 89 the term] “adhikara”. ¯ Neither Madhv¯ac¯arya nor Jayat¯ırtha argue here against the Advaita position. Instead, they merely explain their own position. Madhv¯ac¯arya thus holds a position that differs from the Advaita school and this 596 DEEPAK SARMA difference is evident in their varying interpretations of the first sutra¯ ¯ of the Brahma Sutras of B¯adar¯ayan. a. The question concerning eligibility is two-fold; first, “Eligible for what?”, and second, “Which sentient beings are eligible?” Questions regarding the object of eligibility must be addressed before examining the parameters that determine the eligibility of adherents.90 In this section, then, I examine, in brief, the distinction between aparoks. ajn˜ana, ¯ direct intuitive knowledge (through revelation) of brahman, and paroks. ajn˜ana, ¯ 91 textual knowledge of brahman. The first is a result of the second and, moreover, leads to moks. a, release. The discussion concerning eligibility and pedagogical requirements thus pertains to obtaining one of these types of jn˜ana, ¯ knowledge. Madhv¯ac¯arya holds that moks. a, the maximally desirable state for sentients (both living and dead) to exist in, can be obtained only after having been granted aparoks. ajn˜ana. ¯ Direct intuitive knowledge about brahman cannot be obtained by any other means aside from the grace of Vis. n. u. Vis. n. u, pleased that an individual has met a five- fold list of prerequisites, may grace a devout and eligible adherent ¯ 92 The state of possessing aparoks. ajn˜ana with aparoks. ajn˜ana. ¯ while living is likened to the state of being j¯ıvanmukta, liberated while living, as described in the Advaita school.93 The granting of aparoks. ajn˜ana ¯ is at the first level of discussion regarding eligibility. At the second level of discussion there are restrictive doctrines regarding eligibility for aparoks. ajn˜ana, ¯ direct intuitive knowledge (through revelation) of brahman, in the form of a list of salvifically efficacious sadhanas,¯ penances, expedients. Madhv¯ac¯arya states: In the Narada ¯ Puran ¯. a it is stated: “Hearing, reflecting, also meditating, and also being devoted are the important means of securing knowledge [of the lord]. No other is shown [to be a means of securing such knowledge]. And without these [sadhanas], ¯ no one obtains knowledge from anywhere else”.94 In an earlier passage in his Bhas ¯. ya vairagya, ¯ detachment, is mentioned ¯ as a required sadhana for the adhikar¯ı, eligible sentient.95 The compre- hensive list of M¯adhva sadhanas, ¯ ¯ then, are vairagya, detachment, bhakti, devotion, s´ravan. a, hearing, manana, reflecting, and dhyana,¯ meditating. ¯ If all of these sadhanas, prerequisites, have been accomplished then the adherent is eligible for aparoks. ajn˜ana. ¯ This list and the characterization of the components of this list are not unusual in the history of philosophical speculation in South Asia about that which is maximally desirable.96 Every school has a list ¯ and definitions of sadhanas that must be satisfied with regard to the eligibility by those on the prescribed path to moks. a, nirvan ¯. a, and other  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 597 states regarded as maximally desirable. Of course, these schools may differ on definitions and the theological implications and foundations ¯ of the sadhanas. All five of these eligibility prerequisites for moks. a may be of interest to adherents and others. However, my discussion here concerns only a subset of the prerequisites for paroks. ajn˜ana, ¯ indirect knowledge – the component in the list that is in connection with doctrine and access to doctrine. For this reason I focus on the sadhana¯ prerequisites for s´ravan. a, hearing, and subsequent manana, reflecting. Of course, both ¯ of these sadhanas presuppose appropriate vairagya ¯ and bhakti, modes of acquiring paroks. ajn˜ana ¯ which are typically considered to be non- ¯ textual. Such sadhanas cannot be jettisoned by adherents. However, it may be reasonable to ignore these “non-textual” prerequisites for the purposes of this discussion. Aside from these first and second levels of discussion about eligibility ¯ prerequisites, bhakti, vairagya, ¯ dhyana, etc., there is still a third level concerning the detailed requirements for eligibility that are specific to ¯ each sadhana. That is, the third tier of specificity here is in connection with restrictive doctrines regarding eligibility for proper bhakti, vairagya,¯ s´ravan. a, reading, and manana, reflecting: eligibility requirements for each of the eligibility requirements. There are, moreover, sentient beings who, though eligible for aparoks. ajn˜ana, ¯ direct intuitive knowledge (through revelation) of brahman, are not eligible for, and cannot obtain, all the components of paroks. ajn˜ana, ¯ textual knowledge of brahman. As I show below, for this reason it may be a misnomer to denominate M¯adhva Ved¯anta to be a bhakti tradition that propounds universal salvation. The interpretation of the Sw¯amiji of the Pej¯avar mat. ha and others, therefore, may only be partly or superficially correct in proclaiming the catholicity of M¯adhva Ved¯anta. Several of these eligibility requirements in connection with paroks. ajn˜ana ¯ cannot be ignored by scholars who wish to become educated readers, rather than practitioners, of M¯adhva Ved¯anta. The question “Eligibility for what?”, thus, has two answers; first, eligi- bility for aparoks. ajn˜ana ¯ and, therefore, moks. a; second, eligibility for paroks. ajn˜ana ¯ and, preeminently, s´ravan. a and manana. Eligibility for aparoks. ajn˜ana, ¯ is not relevant for non-adherents. On the other hand, it may be impossible for those outside of the tradition to ignore many or all of the components of the second set, regarding paroks. ajn˜ana. ¯ Who, then, is eligible for paroks. ajn˜ana ¯ for s´ravan. a and manana? Which sentients are eligible for a M¯adhva education? Which are not? Why? 598 DEEPAK SARMA ¯ THE MADHVA RESTRICTIVE DOCTRINES Madhv¯ac¯arya posits restrictive doctrines throughout his texts. Given the rich and complex ontology envisioned by Madhv¯ac¯arya, he must address the eligibility and, therefore, establish restrictive governing doctrines, for a wide variety of sentient beings – both human and non-human. His highly detailed characterization of the universe thus requires an equally detailed response. To this end, I examine the restrictive governing doctrines regarding the eligibility of several types of sentient beings. First, I examine the eligibility of males in the higher classes. Second, I examine the RGD regarding women. Third, I examine the eligibility of s´udras. ¯ Fourth, I examine the status of antyajas, those who are outside of the class system. I then summarize the discussion of the eligibility of the gods. I also provide critical evaluations of each of these restrictive governing doctrines for the sake of illuminating philosophical strategies and themes. Finally, I turn to two places in the M¯adhva corpus where debate with outsiders is addressed. Dvijas, Twice Born, Men The varieties of men and the types of education that they are entitled to are characterized by Madhv¯ac¯arya in the first few passages of his commentary on BS 1.1.1. The universe that he envisions is inextricable from a gradation with the gods at the highest position in the hierarchy. He thus defines human eligibility in comparison to the divine communities that they are excluded from: Those who are eligible are spoken of in the Bhagavata ¯ Tantra: “Eligible devotees are three-fold; lowest, middling, and highest. The lowest class is considered to be [comprised of] the best among men. The middling class is considered to be [comprised of] sages and gandharvas. The highest class is considered to be [comprised of] gods”.97 Men, then, are at the lower end of the hierarchy of sentient beings who are eligible. The set of men is further qualified to encompass only the best among men, thereby excluding most men from the group of sentients who are eligible for a M¯adhva education. The lowest variety of eligible sentients, the highest among men, are thus composed of the ucca, highest, among the amukta¯ – those fit for, or qualified for release, muktiyogyah¯. . These ucca men are further delineated with regard to class: [Those] of the first three castes, those who are particularly devoted to Hari are eligible with regard to Vedic study. And, they also say, the highest women are fit for Vedic study.98  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 599 Vedokte, “with regard to Vedic study”, includes the body of texts categorized as Vedas by Madhv¯ac¯arya. According to Madhv¯ac¯arya, the term veda denotes the R ¯ . g, Yajur, Sama, and Atharva Vedas, the ¯ am Mular ¯ ayan ¯ . a, the Bharata, ¯ ¯ 99 Again, he cites two and the Pan˜caratra. injunctive passages: “The study of the Vedas is to be practiced” is a general rule. And from the smr. ti” [indicated by the use of the] term ‘indeed’ [in the Sutra, ¯ this rule is shown:] “All of the Vedas along with the secret doctrine are to be studied [by] the twice born”.100 Hence, access to the M¯adhva canon is restricted to the male ucca, among the first three classes. The dvijatva, twice born-nature, of these humans is in reference to initiation practices. Madhv¯ac¯arya states: “At the age of 8, let the Brahmin be initiated and let him be taught them [the Vedas]”.101 The sacred initiation rite is, perhaps, the most important prerequisite for the majority of sentients for studying the Vedas. The ceremony, investiture with a sacred thread, is regarded as a second birth. Hence those who undergo the ceremony are described as twice born. Presumably only those who have this ceremony or are naturally twice born can read the Vedas – can access the M¯adhva canon and the doctrines contained therein.102 Eligibility also requires celibacy – literally “one whose semen is rising up.” In his commentary on BS 3.4.17, “And, [as is mentioned] in the s´abda [Vedas etc., the eligible one] is properly celibate”, Madhv¯ac¯arya states: Even [if there is] a little bit of wantonness there is no eligibility with regard to knowledge. He, the celibate one, tells the highest mystery to that one [who is celibate].103 The prerequisite for eligibility is celibacy for the student. Madhv¯ac¯arya is ¯ aware of texts such as Manavadharma s´astra ¯ wherein strict prohibitions are enunciated. Given the rules found in such texts, it is likely that Madhv¯ac¯arya intended this requirement to be followed in full. Degrees of sexual activity are irrelevant here. Madhv¯ac¯arya comments on BS 3.4.12, “[Eligibility] is only for those who have studied the Vedas”, and then links eligibility for s´ravan. a, hearing, and manana, reflecting, with eligibility for aparoks. ajn˜ana, ¯ direct intuitive knowledge (through revelation) of brahman: 104 In the Brahma Tarka it is stated “The person who is not a follower of Vis. n. u, who does not have devotion to the teacher, who is devoid of peace, etc., who is not of the favorable classes [the dvijas], such a person is not eligible. Therefore, [in contrast], a person who possesses Vedic learning is eligible with regard to knowledge of brahman by means of what is taught in the Vedas. [This is] believed by the wise”.105 600 DEEPAK SARMA This governing doctrine, restricting access to Vedic study only to dvijas, is not often mentioned in his Bhas ¯. ya or in other relevant texts by Madhv¯ac¯arya. These restrictions, moreover, are not unusual among the schools of Ved¯anta or their Pu¯rva M¯ım¯am . s¯a predecessors and are ¯ a typical practice of astika forms of Indian education. Dvijatva, the state of being a twice born, does not guarantee eligibility. That is, it is possible to lose the privilege of eligibility as a dvija, yet remain a dvija. To this end, Madhv¯ac¯arya states that “For women, ¯ sudras, and unworthy Brahmins, there is eligibility with regard to the knowledge of the tantras but [only] when a portion is spoken and not with regard to study from a text”.106 The term brahmabandhun ¯ am ¯. usually refers to an unworthy Brahmin or one who is only nominally a Brahmin.107 Such dvijas have lost their eligibility. Madhv¯ac¯arya justifies these restrictions based on a theory regarding intellectual capability. This move may be necessary given the intimate link between mythological facts and philosophical positions. He states: It was said “Only humans are eligible for knowledge found in the Vedas”. The distinction, “only humans”, is said excluding lower sentient beings, etc. but not excluding gods, etc.108 These lower sentient beings, however, may be eligible if they have a distinguished intellect. In commenting on the BS sutra¯ that follows, BS 1.3.26, “Even after [attaining divinity etc. there is eligibility] because of the existence [of all that is required]. B¯adar¯ayan. a [states this]”, Madhv¯ac¯arya characterizes the difference between humans and the lower sentient beings:109 The phrase “even after” [means, even after the] humans attained the state of being gods, etc. [they still have eligibility]. [Eligibility] is possible for them as they [have] a distinguished intellect, etc. Of those [lower sentient beings, etc. previously] referred to, [eligibility] is not possible [for them] for they are lacking [a distinguished intellect etc.] Even for those [lower beings], [eligibility] is possible [if there is] a distinguished intellect, etc. There is no objection here [to their eligibility]. [And eligibility is also evident] because there is no restriction. [For example, cases like the bird] Jarit¯ari, etc. are seen.110 The reference to Jarit¯ari, etc. is in connection with a myth found in the ¯ arata. ¯ 111 In this myth, Mandap¯ Mahabh . . ala, a .rs. i, reproduces with Jarit¯a, a bird. The offspring of their union, Jarit¯ari, S¯aris. rikva, Stambamitra, and Dron. a, are each eligible interpreters of the Vedas. This myth is relevant here as birds are regarded as lower sentient beings and as dvijas, twice born. The class of birds are dvija as they are born first from the mother as an egg and then from their egg. For this reason they are eligible to study the Vedas. According to Madhv¯ac¯arya, birds  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 601 occupy a lower position on the hierarchy of intelligence and do not typically have distinguished intellects. Jarit¯ari and his siblings, however, are examples of sentient beings, who, though low on the hierarchy, nevertheless possess distinguished intellects. Therefore they can (and do) study the Vedas. Madhv¯ac¯arya posits criteria here regarding the quantity and complexity of information that any given agent can digest. As with the case of the lower sentient beings, such evaluations either implicitly increase or decrease accessibility. That is, the texts are available to all birds, though only a select few have the required intellectual abilities. Given these various qualifications, there is access for human males who possess a distinguished intellect and are twice born. Non-human sentient beings that are dvijas are also granted access if they are male and possess a distinguished intellect. All other human beings and sentient beings that are not dvijas are excluded from this elite group. This elite group has full access to M¯adhva doctrine. They are among a very small group of sentients who qualify for a M¯adhva education and, therefore, are literate and approved readers and interpreters of M¯adhva texts and doctrines. As virtuoso religious readers, these dvija men can effectively argue both for and against the M¯adhva tradition. Women Women, both human and non-human, are mentioned as eligible for either written or oral transmission in several places in the Brahma ¯ Sutra Bhas¯. ya. Madhv¯ac¯arya posits a two-fold hierarchy of eligible women. The first set are women who are eligible for the study of the Vedas and, therefore, qualify for training to become virtuoso religious readers of M¯adhva Ved¯anta. Madhv¯ac¯arya identifies the first set of women in his commentary on BS 1.1.1: “And, they also say that the highest women are eligible for Vedic study; and they [the highest among women] are Urva´s¯ı, Yam¯ı, ´ ¯ı, and the rest”.112 It is not clear why Madhv¯ac¯arya chose these Sac three women as ideal examples of this highly exclusive set of women. Each of these women is central to an akhy ¯ ana, ¯ conversational hymn, found in the R . g Veda. The R . g Veda was composed in Sanskrit and, therefore, the conversations that these apsaras, heavenly nymphs, had were also in Sanskrit. It is possible that Madhv¯ac¯arya thus inferred that they were eligible for Vedic study given their knowledge of Sanskrit. The choice of these three women is further complicated by the content and concerns of the conversations that they have in each of their hymns. Urva´s¯ı, for example, made the gandharva, demi-god, Puru¯ravas promise 602 DEEPAK SARMA never to let her see him naked. Yam¯ı’s conversation is with her brother Yama. She tries to commit incest with him and fails. Finally, Sac ´ ¯ı, the wife of Indra, known also in the R . g Veda as Indr¯an. i, has a dialogue with her husband regarding sex she had with his favorite monkey and a comparison of their sexual abilities. It is not clear why Madhv¯ac¯arya chose these sexually charged hymns and women for his ideal set except, of course, from their being mentioned in the R 113 . g Veda. ¯ translated into English as “and the rest”, is open- The term adi, ended and does not appear to clearly fix the limits of the set of eligible women. To mitigate this openness, Jayat¯ırtha nd R¯aghavendrat¯ırtha each gloss the term “highest”. Jayat¯ırtha states that “The highest, then, are those well born and the wives of the munis, sages”.114 Though this commentary helps, his use of the term “those well born” needs further explanation. To this end, R¯aghavendrat¯ırtha states: [Explanation of the passage beginning] “Those well born”: This is said in the Tatparyanirn ¯ . aya 29th adhyaya, ¯ chapter. Those well born are the wives of munis and goddesses.115 R¯aghavendrat¯ırtha thus adds goddesses to Jayat¯ırtha’s list. From both of their interpretations it may follow that Madhv¯ac¯arya restricted human women from accessing relevant texts, aside from those human wives of munis. All other female sentient beings, aside from goddesses and the three apsaras of the R . g Veda, would thus be restricted from becoming virtuoso religious readers – if Jayat¯ırtha and R¯aghavendrat¯ırtha correctly interpret Madhv¯ac¯arya’s intent. ¯ is taken more strictly it may refer to several types of If the term adi women. First, as suggested above, it may refer only to those women ¯ ana with akhy ¯ in the R . g Veda. Such women include Lop¯amudr¯a, among others. Second, it may refer only to those women who speak Sanskrit in any of the canonical texts. Third, it may refer to all women who are mentioned in the R . g Veda. ¯ has also elicited some controversial discussions among The term adi contemporary scholars and followers of M¯adhva Ved¯anta given its ambiguity and the possibility that Jayat¯ırtha’s and R¯aghavendrat¯ırtha’s commentaries are neither accurate nor convincing.116 The phrase, “and the rest”, may be taken to include all of the highest among women – though this is unlikely. On the other hand, it may be the case that “and the rest” refers only to those women similar to the ones mentioned. Those women mentioned, moreover, are apsaras. The extent of the restriction, then, may be indexed to the degree of similarity with apsaras. If the similarity is understood to be literal then the phrase, “and the rest”, restricts all human females from accessing doctrine. On the other  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 603 hand, if it is taken to be figurative, then some apsaras or goddess-like human females may be able to access the M¯adhva doctrinal system. Regardless, there is an overlap of the governing doctrines given the exclusion of human women. More generally, there appears to be an ambiguity in Madhv¯ac¯arya’s restrictive doctrine regarding women and this ambiguity is still found in the contemporary M¯adhva intellectual community.117 Further ambiguities are evident in what appears to be a hierarchy of different types of knowledge of brahman and eligibility involving the second set of eligible woman. Madhv¯ac¯arya writes: For women, s´udras, ¯ and unworthy Brahmins, there is eligibility with regard to the knowledge of the tantras but [only] when a portion is spoken and not with regard to study from a text.118 All women, human and non-human, are eligible to be taught a portion of the Tantras. They are not allowed to learn, however, directly from the text. There are several complications here with regard to the extent of the Tantras. According to Jayat¯ırtha the term tantra refers to the Pan˜caratra ¯ and other texts.119 Although this equation does not appear to be evidenced in any of Madhv¯ac¯arya’s compositions it is likely that he was refer- ring to the Pan˜caratras. ¯ ¯ He may also be referring to the Bhagavata Tantras, a Pan˜caratra¯ text, here. Again, there is a further limitation on the knowledge deriving from these sources. That is, women require ¯ aptagurus, reliable teachers, for limited instruction of sections of the M¯adhva canon. The ucca men (aside from brahmabandhus), in contrast, are eligible to receive full instruction in all the Vedas. Knowledge is thus restricted by those who have power over the knowledge. Finally, ¯ neither the Bhagavata nor the Pan˜caratras ¯ plays a central role in the philosophy of M¯adhva Ved¯anta. Though it is not clearly stated, it is likely that the portions of these texts that were available did not educate listeners sufficiently so that they could partake in inter or intra Ved¯anta philosophical dialogue. It is not clear why there is a specific restriction to the use of texts. According to this passage, teaching must be orally transmitted to women and others. The written text is available only to the eligible adherents. This explicit distinction may point at the importance of the written over the oral in the M¯adhva Ved¯anta. It may also indicate that women and others were literate at this time.120 ¯ Finally, in a discussion regarding the eligibility of sudras, women are mentioned as having an initiation rite – unlike the sudras. Madhv¯ac¯arya ´¯ states: 604 DEEPAK SARMA But the highest among women are not like s´udras. ¯ [This is the case] from observing the eligibility [to study] in passages like “along with my wife, the highest”. [This is also the case] by reason of the general rule; “There is ineligibility by reason of the lack of initiation rite”. There is [however] an initiation rite for them [women]. In a smr. ti it is found that “The activity of giving away in marriage for women is like the upanayana ceremony”.121 Here the upanayana ceremony, required in order to obtain status as a dvija, is compared to a marriage ceremony that females are permitted to undergo. This may conflict with other passages summarized above as it appears here that women are permitted to study the Vedas etc. However, if the highest among woman remain “Urva´s¯ı, Yam¯ı, Sac ´ ¯ı and the rest” as glossed in BSB, 1.1.1 then the conflict is avoided.122 The term “uttamastr¯ın. am”, ¯ of those highest among women, is not glossed here. Nevertheless, it is not likely that Madhv¯ac¯arya’s characterization changes. From these restrictive doctrines it follows that: 1) Some apsaras are eligible for Vedic study. 2) It may be that some goddesses and wives of sages are also eligible for Vedic study and to become virtuoso religious readers. 3) All women are eligible to be orally taught sections from the tantras – whichever sections they may be – though not directly from these texts. ¯ a¯dhikaran. am, “section on the unworthy S´udra” Apas´udr ¯ Vis. n. u is not to be investigated by s´udras ¯ and the like by means of the Vedas.123 The group of human beings who are the most rigorously restricted from accessing unabridged portions of the M¯adhva canon are the s´udras ¯ – the group which occupies the lowest position among humans in the four-fold class system. The majority of governing doctrines restricting access propounded by Madhv¯ac¯arya are in connection with the s´udra ¯ class. As mentioned above, Madhv¯ac¯arya restricts access to the study of the Vedas to males of the first three classes who have a distinguished intellect, vis´is. .tabuddhyadibh ¯ ¯ ava. They also must have participated in the appropriate ritual, the upanayana ceremony, before they can study. These parameters entail governing doctrines that allow access to a defined set of sentients entail implicit (or, in this case, explicit) existence of governing doctrines that restrict access to another set of sentients. Madhv¯ac¯arya writes that the reason for such a strong prohibition is that the s´udra ¯ does not undergo any sacred initiation rites. As mentioned above, he does so in BSB 1.3.36:  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 605 “At the age of 8, let the Brahmin be initiated and let him be taught them [the Vedas]”: the reference is to the sacred initiation rites as the condition for studying the Vedas. And, [in the case of the s´udra], ¯ the absence of this initiation ceremony is [declared] in Paingi ¯ s´ruti; “The s´udra ¯ has no sacred fire, no sacrifice, no prayers, no initiation ceremonies, and no ritual observances”. The restriction, then, is based on the inability to partake in a practical doctrine – to perform the sacred initiation rite, the upanayana. Again: For women, s´udras, ¯ and unworthy Brahmins, there is eligibility with regard to the knowledge of the tantras but [only] when a portion is spoken and not with regard to study from a text. S´udras ¯ can be orally taught sections of the Tantras by members of the first three classes. The same problems with regard the indeterminacy of this type of knowledge are evoked here. As stated above, the philo- sophical relevance of the allowed and abridged portions is not known. However, it is likely that they were insignificant for matters other than teaching and inculcating practical doctrines. These portions, moreover, could only be heard and not read directly from the texts. There are several s´udras ¯ ¯ in the Brahma Sutras regarding the ambiguity in the assertion “All men are eligible to study the Vedas” and the possibility that s´udras ¯ are found in such a set.124 The discussion in the Brahma Sutras¯ ¯ is couched in terms of a myth taken from Chandogya Upanis. ad 4.1–4.2. This example concerns the myth of Pautr¯ayan. a, J¯ana´sruti, the grandson of Jana´sruta. In the myth Pautr¯ayan. a is called a s´udra ¯ and is still eligible to obtain initiation and to study the Vedas.125 The myth is as follows: J¯ana´sruti, after hearing from birds passing overhead that sage Raikva is greater than he is, is plunged into despair and grief. Seeking the guidance of Raikva, he goes to Raikva and offers him wealth – cows, jewelry, and a mule driven chariot.126 Raikva answers him: But Raikva replied: “Hey you! Drive them back to your palace, s´udra! ¯ Keep your goods and cows!”127 Pautr¯ayan. a goes back to his castle and gathers together more gifts. He returns to Raikva who, pleased with the king’s sincerity and rejection of material goods, agrees to initiate him and take him on as a student.128 Pautr¯ayan. a receives some instruction and nothing else is mentioned ¯ about him in the Chandogya Upanis. ad. A discussion thus ensues given the fact that Pautr¯ayan. a is referred to as a s´udra, ¯ and is nevertheless initiated into Vedic study.129 Madhv¯ac¯arya explains this problematic appellation as simply an appropriate description 606 DEEPAK SARMA of Pautr¯ayan. a – that he was tearing and was sad. By nirukta, word derivation, rules, Madhv¯ac¯arya thus derives the term s´udra ¯ from the ´ ¯ compound sucadravan. am, “tearing that is due to distress”. 130 Madhv¯ac¯arya refers to other characteristics of Putr¯ayan. a to buttress his nirukta argument. He argues that Putr¯ayan. a is the possessor of a chariot that is lead by a mule and that such vehicles are not possessed by those outside of the first three classes.131 Finally, chariot possession is linked to the study of the Vedas: “Wherever there is Vedic study, there is a chariot. Wherever there is no Vedic study, there is no chariot”. So [it is said] in the Brahmavaivarta.132 After this discussion of chariot propriety, Vy¯asa notes that another characteristic mark of the s´udra ¯ is that he is not allowed to undergo the sacred initiation rite and, therefore, that he cannot study the Vedas. There is another example given in BS 1.1.37 regarding the possible sudratva, state of being a s´udra, ´ ¯ ¯ of Satyak¯ama. This myth is also taken ¯ from Chandogya Upanis. ad 4.4. The story is as follows: a boy named Satyak¯ama J¯ab¯ala finds out from his mother that he is a bastard and that the identity of his father is unknown. He desires Vedic knowledge and approaches a teacher, H¯aridrumata Gautama, who asks him about his parentage. Satyak¯ama states that he does not know and relates his mother’s explanation. Gautama replies that a non-Brahmin would not be able to answer truthfully and, for that reason, Satyak¯ama must be a Brahmin. Satyak¯ama is therefore regarded as eligible for the knowledge of the Vedas. For this reason he is not a s´udra. ¯ 133 Madhv¯ac¯arya quotes several passages from this myth. Of course, he uses the myth as an argument in support of his restrictive doctrine concerning s´udras. ¯ He states: “Oh, I do not know this, which gotra, lineage, I am”. By reason of the true statement of Satyak¯ama, there is certainty for H¯aridrumata with regard to [Satyak¯ama’s] not being a s´udra. ¯ [H¯aridrumata says] “A non-Brahmin is not able to say that [true statement]”. And [then, after ascertaining this] there is the activity with regard to his [Satyak¯ama’s] initiation.134 Though Madhv¯ac¯arya does not explicitly state it here, the implication is that s´udras ¯ are restricted from studying the Vedas. ¯ These two myths from the Chandogya Upanis. ad are thus used as arguments in support of Madhv¯ac¯arya’s restrictive governing doctrines. Of course Madhv¯ac¯arya’s position here is simply commentary on Vy¯asa’s BS. It is not clear why Madhv¯ac¯arya chose these myths here in favor of others. Interestingly they occur together in the fourth section of the ¯ first chapter of the Chandogya Upanis. ad. Each implicitly concerns eligibility requirements and restrictive doctrines.  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 607 Many times these operational or non-doctrinal strategies link the theoretical with the practical. Punishment, for example, may be used as a method of restriction. In commenting on BS 1.3.38, “And from the prohibition from [knowing] the meaning [of the Vedas], studying [the Vedas], and hearing [the Vedas] in smr. ti”, Madhv¯ac¯arya suggests several forms of discipline and punishment by which restrictive doctrines are to be adhered to:135 [From Gautama Dharma S´astra ¯ 12.4–6.]: “For [the s´udra ¯ is] prohibited [from studying the Vedas]: If [a s´udra ¯ is] hearing [the Vedas his] ears [are to be] filled with lead and lac. If [he is] speaking [the Vedas his] tongue [is to be] slit. If [he is] understanding [the Vedas his] heart [is to be] ripped open”. According to the smr. ti; “There is no fire, nor sacrifice for the s´udra ¯ – much less, studying [of the Vedas], but only the service136 of the [upper] three classes is enjoined”. For Vidura and the rest, from being knowers of what is to be known, of those [special cases], there is an exception.137 These are clearly non-doctrinal methods for maintaining and establishing restrictive governing doctrines. A s´udra, ¯ then, can be punished according to these restrictive doctrines. Restrictive governing doctrines, then, are linked to legal matters. Sections of this passage are taken from Gautama ¯ Dharma Sutras 12.4–6, a legal text.138 This appears to be a use of law as an instrument of power, here also theological power. Appended to these passages regarding punishment are, again, excep- tions to his restrictive governing doctrines regarding s´udras. ¯ He states “For Vidura and the rest, from being knowers of what is to be known, of those [special cases], there is an exception”.139 Vidura is a char- acter from the Mahabh ¯ arata. ¯ The story of his birth explains why he is exceptional. Vyasa, a sage, was asked by Satyavat¯ı to have sex with ¯ his daughters-in-law in order to produce needed children. Vy¯asa agrees but requires that the daughters-in-law do not break a vow – namely to react in any way to his ugliness during sexual intimacy. The first two women fail to comply to the vow, react, and, for that reason, their children are physically incapacitated (Pan. d. u is born pale and sickly while Dhr. tar¯as. t.ra is born blind). The elder daughter-in-law sends a lower class slave dressed as herself to have sex with Vy¯asa. The slave woman, unlike the other daughters-in-law, does not react in a negative way. In fact she gives Vy¯asa great pleasure and acts appropriately. Vy¯asa awards her for her behavior and the result is Vidura who is an ¯ of the god Dharma, law, himself. Dharma is born as a human avatara as a result of a curse by a Brahmin. Vidura is loved by the P¯an. d. avas for his great knowledge and impartiality. His knowledge, however, far outreaches his birth-right as the son of a slave.140 It is for this reason 608 DEEPAK SARMA that Madhv¯ac¯arya regards Vidura as an example of an exception to his restrictive rules. ¯ There is still a slight ambiguity here given the use of the term adi, “and the rest”. A strictly delineated set of humans who are restricted from access to M¯adhva doctrines is consequently opened up. Jayat¯ırtha explains: [Explanation of the passage beginning] “For Vidura and the rest”: There is an exception for them, for those other s´udras ¯ [like Vidura] etc. because they are possessors of aparoks. ajn˜ana, ¯ direct knowledge [of brahman], acquired in a former birth. [For them,] the ascertainment of the meaning of the Vedas is not restricted. This is the meaning of the passage beginning “Of Vidura and the rest”. Thus Hari is not to be known by s´udras ¯ etc. by means of Vedic knowledge. This is the case.141 Despite Jayat¯ırtha’s commentary, it still remains unclear as to the members of this subset of exceptions as the term adi ¯ may refer exclu- ¯ sively to avartaras of gods. Aside from the ambiguity inherent in the ¯ it is also not clear how it is possible to determine the character term adi, ¯ of the purvajanma, the previous birth, of a s´udra ¯ or any other sentient being – aside from mythological characters and accounts. To summarize: there are doctrines about doctrines that restrict s´udras ¯ from accessing those doctrines. S´udras ¯ can only be taught abridged portions of the Tantras. The term tantra is ambiguous and, therefore, it is not clear what knowledge is available to them though it is likely that the knowledge is not oriented towards M¯adhva dialectics. There is, however, a subset of s´udras ¯ who are eligible for a comprehensive M¯adhva education. The example adduced in Vidura, a figure from the Mahabh¯ arata. ¯ Finally, Jayat¯ırtha explains that these exceptions to the rule had obtained aparoks. ajn˜ana ¯ in previous births and, therefore, are eligible. Devata¯dhikaran. am, “Section on the Gods” The discussion with regard to the eligibility of the gods, as noted in the ¯ Brahma Sutras themselves, is directly linked to a structurally similar set of controversies in Pu¯rva M¯ım¯am a.142 The discussion in the Brahma . s¯ ¯ Sutras moreover, begins with a reference to Jaimini: “Jaimini [thinks that] there is no eligibility with regard to madhuvidya, ¯ knowledge of brahman, because there is an impossibility”.143 The inconsistency here is outlined by Madhv¯ac¯arya again by adducing a myth from the ¯ Chandogya Upanis. ad. Madhv¯ac¯arya explains: Jaimini thinks: By reason of [assertions found in the Chandogya ¯ Upanis. ad 3.5.6] like “On the first nectar among these Vasus subsist [with fire as their mouth]” and other [assertions] about [gods] having the fruit which is to be obtained, there is no  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 609 eligibility [for these gods] with regard to madhuvidya,¯ knowledge of brahman. [There is no eligibility] for the possessors [of the fruits, namely the gods,] have [already] obtained the state [of being a vasu].144 The example here is taken from a series of passages in the Chandogya¯ Upanis. ad 3.6–3.10. The first in this series is about the vasus: “On the first nectar among these Vasus subsist with fire as their mouth. The gods, of course, neither eat or drink. They become sated by simply looking at this nectar”.145 The significance of this passage in connection with eligibility concerns the last sentence: “They become sated by simply looking at this nectar”. This myth appears to confirm that gods already possess knowledge of brahman. Why do they need to engage in brahmajijn˜as ¯ a,¯ the inquiry into brahman, and become virtuoso readers? Aren’t they overqualified and, therefore, ineligible? Aren’t they satiated simply by looking at the Vedas? In his commentary on BS 1.3.32, “And from [their] state of being all knowing”, Madhv¯ac¯arya summarizes the possible problem of their over-qualification and consequent ineligibility.146 The over-qualification is with regard to the light. The light is glossed here as “being all knowing”. Omniscience, moreover, is the natural state for gods. Their over-qualification, then, is inherent.147 Their cognitive state may thus be static; there is nothing to be learned by those sentients who know everything. ¯ In the next sutra, BS 1.3.33, B¯adar¯ayan. a, however, holds “That [there is eligibility for] there is [something that] becomes”.148 There is still some change in the cognitive state of the gods that could occur despite their omniscience. Therefore the gods are eligible. Madhv¯ac¯arya explains: B¯adar¯ayan. a thinks that from the existence of a distinctive fruit for the gods, who have [already] obtained [that] state [of knowledge], there is eligibility with regard to the madhuvidya¯ etc. for there is a distinctive light [to be obtained].149 This possibility of obtaining praka¯s´avis´es. ah. , a distinctive light, a type of knowledge, then reduces the extent of the omniscience of the gods, therefore making them eligible and no longer overqualified. Madhv¯ac¯arya ties the discussion here to the Pu¯rva M¯ım¯am . s¯a conver- sation. The Pu¯rva M¯ım¯am. s ¯ a debate centers around the eligibility of the gods to partake in sacrifices and other ritual activities. Madhv¯ac¯arya ¯ thus cites from the Skanda ¯. a: Puran [This passage is from] the Skanda ¯ Puran ¯. a: “Where there is devotion with regard to the Real, there is distinctive bliss [in heaven]. Because of the possibility of [increased] enlightenment for the gods, except for Hari the Great One, and because of their possession of a capacity, all practices and all activities such as sacrifices and the like are eternally enjoined for the gods as well”.150 610 DEEPAK SARMA He reiterates here that there is a gradation of bliss in moks. a for all sentients and that this gradation is indexed to the extent of devotion. The gods, of course, are not exempt from these gradations. Madhv¯ac¯arya thus links his eschatology with the Pu¯rva M¯ım¯am . sa matters, and then both his eschatology and the Pu¯rva M¯ım¯am . sa matters with eligibility. Again, these explanations make sense only if the scope of the term sarvajn˜atva, ¯ the state of being all knowing, is limited and excludes ˜ ¯ aparoks. ajnana. From this, then, gods are held to be eligible to become literate M¯adhva readers. They are, of course, at the top of the hierarchy of eligible sentients described by Madhv¯ac¯arya in BSB 1.1.1: “. . . the highest class is considered to be [comprised of] gods”.151 Antyajas, Those Excluded From The Class System Even antyajas devotees [who are excluded from the class system], for them there is eligibility with regard to knowledge of the name [of God].152 Following Jayat¯ırtha’s commentary I have translated the term antyaja here as “excluded from the class system”.153 Antyajas are included in the set of sentient beings who can have “knowledge of the name”. Though antyajas are eligible for “knowledge of the name” the significance of such eligibility is not clear. Though it may be linked to aparoks. ajn˜ana, ¯ direct intuitive knowledge (through revelation) of brahman, the precise nature of the “knowledge of the name” remains uncertain. It is likely that “knowledge of the name” refers to the name of God and, therefore, to a mantra, ritual chant, that is salvifically efficacious. Antyajas are to be distinguished from mlecchas, foreigners or barbarians. The former, though excluded from the class system, never- theless are considered to be part of the community of sentient beings found in the approved or the immediate areas. The latter term, mlecchas, refer to foreigners – those sentient beings who are not born or living in the approved or immediate areas.154 The geographic boundaries that determine the classification of such sentients are not clear and may indicate an important ambiguity. . gra¯hakadharma, Limiting Philosophical Cruxes: Upasam Characterization In this section I briefly summarize the locations of philosophical contro- versy that are thematic in this discussion of eligibility. To this end, I examine he problem of lacking a upasam ¯ . grahakadharma, limiting characterization.  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 611 Perhaps the most consistent problem in each one of Madhv¯ac¯arya’s characterizations of eligible sentient beings concerns the lack of a upasam ¯ . grahakadharma. I take this characterization from an argument ¯ ¯ ¯ made by Vyasatırtha in his Tatparyacandrik ¯ The Tatparyacandrik a. ¯ ¯ a, is a commentary on Jayat¯ırtha’s Tattvapraka¯s´ika which is, in turn, a commentary on Madhv¯ac¯arya’s Brahma Sutra ¯ Bhas¯. ya. Vy¯asat¯ırtha argues against the prerequisite “the condition of increased tranquillity, restraint, etc.” held by the Advaita school in their interpretation of what precedes brahmajijn˜asa, ¯ the investigation into brahman. Vy¯asat¯ırtha argues that the prerequisite lacks philosophical precision. That is, the phrase “the condition of increased tranquillity, restraint, etc.” is problematic given the inherent ambiguity of the term “etc.” It is likely ¯ that he is reacting here to a passage found in the Bhamat ¯ı. In his Bhamat ¯ ¯ı V¯acaspati thus states: The detachment [from the enjoyment of worldly and other-worldly] things, abstaining from them, and faith in the Real are included by the [use of the] word “etc.” Thus [this indicted in] the s´ruti: “Having become possessed of the condition of tranquillity, restraint, abstinence, detachment, and faith [in the Real], one seeing the self in the self along, he sees everything in the self”. The phrase “the condition of increased tranquillity, restraint, etc.”, [refers to] the possession of these means [which are] the condition of tranquillity, restraint” in abundance. Thus arises the desire for the release from bondage. And [it is for this reason that] he says “and the desire for moks. a”.155 Against this position, Vy¯asat¯ırtha states: And in the phrase “the condition of increased tranquillity, restraint, etc.”, the use of the word “etc.” is not appropriate. By this [word “etc.”] “obtaining endurance” is understood but not “discrimination, etc.” And there is no regulating cause. And [there is the problem that] there is no limiting characterization. That is, there is no characterizing assertion that includes [only] “obtaining endurance” and excludes “discrimination”.156 Vy¯asat¯ırtha argues here that the term “etc.” may include an unlimited number of possibilities. There is no limiting definition of the term at all. Hence, the Advaita position is rejected on the basis of the unrestricted nature of the term “etc.” The same tactic can be used against Madhv¯ac¯arya. Madhv¯ac¯arya’s use of the term adi, ¯ translated as “etc.” “and the rest”, and “and the like”, typically results in an ambiguity in determining who is excluded from the sets he is trying to delineate. What appears to be a fixed or finite set is opened up by means of the ambiguity inherent in the term. It is also apparent from the commentaries of both Jayat¯ırtha and R¯aghavendrat¯ırtha that the need for a upasam ¯ . grahakadharma, limiting characterization, was a problem for them as well and not merely a matter of sophistry put forth by contemporary scholars. The problem 612 DEEPAK SARMA gains further significance when contextualized; it is not simply a matter of minor (or major) inconsistencies in metaphysics. Instead the result is linked to the social system and the transmission of knowledge in that social system. It is not surprising that this deficiency occurs in the two most contro- versial cases – woman and s´udras. ¯ In the first case, “Urva´s¯ı, Yam¯ı, ´ Sacı and the rest”, the term adi creates an ambiguity.157 Who are “the ¯ ¯ rest”? I suggested several possibilities in preceding sections – women mentioned in the R . g Veda, women who know Sanskrit, and the like. The set remains open and, therefore, ambiguous. The same problem occurs with regard to the set of sentients cate- gorized as s´udras ¯ and is a result of the assertion found in the BS, “All men are eligible to study the Vedas”.158 There is a clear ambiguity with regard to those sentients who are included in the set “men”. S´udras ¯ are included in the set and, of course, this is not desirable for Madhv¯ac¯arya and his followers. The discussion is couched in terms of several myths taken from the Mahabh ¯ arata ¯ ¯ and the Chandogya Upanis. ad. These myths themselves are places where the upasam ¯ . grahakadharma problem is confronted. In these places myth is used as argument against the lack of an upasam ¯ . grahakadharma. An interesting interaction exists here between myth and argument. 159 The second set of upasam ¯ . grahakadharma problems concern the delineation of canon. First there is the use of the term tantras which does not clearly demarcate any particular portion of the M¯adhva canon – except for the Pan˜caratra. ¯ In his gloss of the term tantras as pan˜caratr ¯ adi, ¯ “the Pan˜caratra ¯ and others”, Jayat¯ırtha only adds to the ambiguity. The term namaj ¯ n˜ana ¯ also creates the same diffi- culty. These are both upasam . gr ¯ ahakadharma, limiting characterization, problems. Though the problems with adi ¯ are prima facie damaging, it may be that the members of the set were implied or part and parcel of the philosophical language of medieval Ved¯anta. That is, the sets might have been lucid to religious readers at the time and, since then, their demarcations have been forgotten. The criticism that they lacked a upasam ¯ . grahakadharma, then, would merely indicate ignorance of what was once obvious. Madhv¯ac¯arya thus establishes a set of rules and parameters within which to allow or restrict access to canonical texts, the doctrines contained therein, and therefore, the ability to become literate as a M¯adhva reader. Although there may be upasam ¯ . grahakadharma prob- lems, the intent remains clear.  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 613 DEBATE WITH HERETICAL TRADITIONS If a tradition prepares its adherents to debate with members of other religious traditions then it would seem that conversion of outsiders is a possibility. Depending on the issues of debate, access to relevant doctrines may also be permitted to the debaters, regardless of class, gender, etc. There are several places in Madhv¯ac¯arya’s corpus where he addresses issues of debate itself and he argues against doctrines of non-Ved¯anta traditions that do not uphold the legitimacy of the Vedas. This interest in debate, and also with nastika ¯ traditions, seems to conflict with the strict governing doctrines. Why is there an interest in debating with those outside of the M¯ım¯am . s¯a and astika ¯ world view? ¯ ¯ Why, for example, did Madhvacarya examine Buddhism and why did he summarize debates in his texts? What was the purpose of critically examining the doctrines of traditions outside of the Vedic fold? To approach these questions I examine two locations in the ¯ Madhva corpus where such matters are discussed. First I examine Madhv¯ac¯arya’s Vadalaks ¯ . an. a, a text devoted to the rules and regulations surrounding debate. Then, I examine several passages in Madhv¯ac¯arya’s ¯ ana Anuvyakhy ¯ in connection with BS 2.1, known as samayavirodha, the contradictions [in other] doctrines. I do not examine the citations in the polemical texts of nastika ¯ traditions. Preliminary research indicates that medieval Tul.un¯ad. u Jains neither cite nor address M¯adhva doctrines in their texts.160 M¯adhva texts are cited and critiqued in the texts of other scholars of Ved¯anta in the time period. This may only indicate that they were not excluded from access by M¯adhva RGD. That Jains do not cite M¯adhva texts may indicate that the RGD were functioning at the time. The Va¯dalaks. an. a ¯ The Vadalaks ¯ . an. a, is a brief text of 35 . an. a, also known as the Kathalaks anus. .tubhs in which Madhv¯ac¯arya sets out the proper types of debate in which devotees can engage.161 Madhv¯ac¯arya lists three types of appropriate debating methods. These are vada, ¯ ¯ 162 jalpa, and vitan. d. a. Although this treatise on polemics is useful as a dialectical handbook for adherents who wish to debate, it does not contain any explicit summaries of restrictions regarding debate with outsiders, with those who do not have adhikari, ¯ eligibility and, therefore, may not be able to become skilled readers. That is, Madhv¯ac¯arya states the rules and regulations regarding the practice of debate but does not address any 614 DEEPAK SARMA restrictions in connection with the eligibility and qualifications of each of the participants of the debate. Several conclusions may be drawn from this. First, it may be that there are no restrictions regarding who can and who cannot participate in debate. Second, it may be that Madhv¯ac¯arya has assumed that all participants have eligibility and are legitimate (and skilled) religious readers. In this case, there would be no need to address the eligibility and literacy of the participants. Though the first conclusion is possible, the second clearly is more likely; one must have familiarity with the Vedas and similarly restricted texts to argue with the M¯adhva about his own doctrines. Arguing with a M¯adhva about his doctrine presumes knowledge of the Vedas and other s´ruti texts. These apaurus. eya, without human origin, texts are also restricted. If a debate were to take place between a M¯adhva and a mleccha it would have to be one-sided as the outsider would not be able to partake in arguments about the proper interpretation of passages. It is thus reasonable to conclude that debate with M¯adhva devotees about M¯adhva doctrine can only be undertaken by those who are (or can become) skilled readers of M¯adhva doctrine. Third, it also is reasonable to conclude that these debating rules could be employed by M¯adhva scholars when they argued via reductio against the doctrines of other schools. This way M¯adhva scholars can refute rival positions and, at the same time, need not reveal their own doctrine. To this end, Madhv¯ac¯arya characterizes the vitan. d. a¯ style of argument: The vitan. d. a¯ argument is [characterized] for the sake of truth [when the argument is] with another [wicked opponent]. The Real is hidden in this [argument style].163 This style is not unusual in the history of debate among South Asian philosophical traditions. Nevertheless, this passage indicates that it was part and parcel of M¯adhva debate. It moreover provides a reasonable explanation for the occurrence of M¯adhva debates with debaters who are not skilled readers of M¯adhva texts. BS 2.1, Samayavirodha, The Contradictions [In Other] Doctrines The relevance of debate with other traditions is exemplified in the introduction to BS 2.1, known as samayavirodha, the contradictions [in other] doctrines. The passages in Madhv¯ac¯arya’s Anuvyakhy ¯ ana, ¯ a commentary on the Brahma Sutra, ¯ are introductions to this series of refutations of rival positions. These rival schools are the Ny¯aya, Vai´ses. ika, S¯am ´ . khya, Yoga, C¯ arv¯aka, Buddhism, Jainism, Saiva, and, ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ finally, the Sakta schools. Madhvacarya first states reasons as to why these doctrines exist:  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 615 The adherence to the knowledge regarding the falseness of the world is because of ignorance, because of the scarcity of correct understanding, because of the abundance of those who have little knowledge, because of the ceaseless hatred for the highest Reality and for those with knowledge of the Real.164 He next locates the upholders of these rival doctrines in his j¯ıvatraividhya, three-fold distinction of sentients, and svarupatraividhya, ¯ three-fold doctrine of predestination: The doctrines are maintained because of [their being in contact with] the endless impressions of many asuras [demons] due to their being caught by foolishness.165 The doctrines are kept alive by those who are predestined to do so. The phase “endless impressions” refers to their predestined status. Having thus accounted for the existence of rival traditions in his cosmology, Madhv¯ac¯arya states the importance of studying and refuting these tradition: Therefore, those who are suitable for that which is connected with the understanding of the Lord, for correct understanding, who observe the [doctrines of the] agamas, ¯ they would always destroy the darkness [the ignorant].166 He further addresses the reason why these refutations are important: Therefore [Vy¯asa] the lord of knowledge composed the refutations of each of the [rival] doctrines for [his] own devotees in connection with establishing a sharpened intellect.167 Given these portions of the introductory passages, it appears that debate with outsiders is primarily for the sake of having a correct understanding of one’s own position and for increasing one’s mental dexterity. Neither a correct understanding nor mental dexterity are ends in and of them- selves. Both contribute to obtaining proper knowledge of the Lord, increasing one’s skill as a religious reader, and eventually obtaining moks. a, liberation. If this is the case then there is no need to reveal one’s own position even if one debates with an outsider. One can argue vitan. d. a¯ style and employ reductio ad absurdum methods, find fault with the doctrines of others, yet reveal nothing about one’s own position. The intent then, is not to convert those who are most opposed to the M¯adhva position. Instead, the intent is to reaffirm the truth of one’s own position for oneself through argument with outsiders. Conversion due to loss in a debate may indeed be possible if the interlocutor is a dvija (or former dvija), eligible, and, therefore, can become a skilled religious reader of M¯adhva Ved¯anta. Research has not uncovered any instances in M¯adhva works of responses to critique of M¯adhva doctrine by those outside of the 616 DEEPAK SARMA M¯ım¯am. s¯ a fold – but Pu¯rva and Uttara. The responses that I have discovered refer to criticisms made by Advaita and Vi´sid. t.¯advaita oppo- nents. If there were responses to external critiques then this may indicate the M¯adhva thinkers permit the possibility of outsider, dvijas and other- wise, to understand M¯adhva doctrines. However, I found no cases of this type of response. ¯ EXCLUSIVIST STRATEGIES IN MADHVA ¯ VEDANTA In this paper I have examined the rules and regulations in connection with the transmission of knowledge and, therefore, becoming a virtuoso religious reader in M¯adhva Ved¯anta. I showed that the rules governing access to doctrines were matters of great importance for virtuoso readers of M¯adhva Ved¯anta. To this end I examined several locations in Madhv¯ac¯arya’s commentary on the Brahma Sutras ¯ in which he addresses issues of access to texts. Not surprisingly, he restricts access to texts and, therefore, to training as a virtuoso religious reader to a select group of sentient beings based on class and gender. In the human realm, male dvijas has access while members of lower classes and women from all classes had limited access to salvifically efficacious summaries of M¯adhva doctrine conveyed orally and not textually. Though they had some access it did not allow them to obtain training as a virtuoso religious reader and, therefore, to examine M¯adhva doctrine. Although Madhv¯ac¯arya had contact with outsiders, this contact cannot be taken to imply that he did not employ strict RGD, restrictive governing doctrines. It may be, moreover, that the historical context within which Madhv¯ac¯arya first professed his doctrines can be linked to his RGD. Clearly these RGD played an important role in M¯adhva Ved¯anta and may have hindered (and may continue to hinder) the abilities of outsiders who are ineligible and not allowed access to texts and, therefore, not allowed to become virtuoso readers of M¯adhva Ved¯anta. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT My work in India was funded by a Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Grant (1996–1997) as well as a grant from the Committee on Southern Asian Studies at the University of Chicago (1996). My work on the M¯adhva school would not have been possible without the assistance of Prof. D. Prahl¯ad¯ac¯arya of the Pu¯rn. aprajn˜¯a Vidy¯apit.a in Bangalore, guruji. Prof. Sita Nambiar, and the grace of the Sw¯amiji of the Pej¯avar mat. ha. I wish to thank Prof. Paul Griffiths, Wendy Doniger,  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 617 and Sheldon Pollock for their assistance and editorial suggestions. Many thanks to Keri Elizabeth Ames who read and edited the entire manuscript. NOTES 1 For a study of other types of governing doctrines see Christian, Doctrines of Religious Communities and Sarma, “Exclusivist Strategies in M¯adhva Ved¯anta”. 2 B¯adar¯ayan. a is also known as Vy¯asa. I use these two names interchangeably. 3 Madhv¯ac¯arya, Brahma Sutra ¯ Bhas ¯. ya, 18. This particular sutra, ¯ the very first in the Brahma Sutras, ¯ can also be found at the beginning of the jijn˜as ¯ adhikaran ¯ . am, section concerning the eligibility for investigation, section (1.1.1) of any edition of the Brahma Sutras. ¯ Abbreviations: AB Madhv¯ac¯arya’s An. ubh¯as. ya AV Madhv¯ac¯arya’s Anuvy¯akhy¯ana BD R¯aghavendrat¯ırtha’s Bh¯avad¯ıpa BS Vy¯asa’s Brahma S¯utras BSB Madhv¯ac¯arya’s Brahma S¯utra Bh¯as. ya BSSB ´ nkar¯ Sa ˙ ac¯arya’s Brahmas¯utra´sa¯nkarabh¯as. ya MBh Vy¯asa’s Mah¯abh¯arata MBhTN Madhv¯ac¯arya’s Mah¯abh¯aratat¯atparyanirn. aya MV N¯ar¯ayan. a Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya’s Madhvavijaya TC Vy¯asat¯ırtha’s Ta¯ tparyacandrik¯a TP Jayat¯ırtha’s Tattvaprak¯as´ika VTV Madhv¯ac¯arya’s Vis. n. utattva(vi)nirn. aya Numerals following the comma refer to pagination in Sanskrit texts. 4 athas´abdo mangal ¯ artho ¯ ’dhikar ¯ anantary ¯ artha ¯ s´ ca | atah. s´abdo hetvarthah. | BS 1.1.1, 18. The word “then” is used as an auspicious expression and for sequence of eligibility. The word “therefore” refers to the reason. na ca jn˜anam ¯ . vinatyarthapras ¯ ¯ . | ato brahmajijn˜as adah ¯ a¯ kartavya¯ | BSB 1.1.1, 28. And without the knowledge [of brahman], there is no extraordinary grace [granted by brahman]. Therefore, the inquiry into brahman is to be undertaken. 5 ´ ¯ı Vi´sve´sa T¯ırtha Sw¯ [brackets mine] Sr amiji, “The Fitness of ´sr¯ı Madhva Philosophy to be the Universal Religion for Humanity”, 23. The Sw¯amiji may also be referring here to the contemporary and modified tradition. 6 Stein, for example, states that “The central characteristic of the bhakti movement, in textual terms, is its openness, its universal appeal without regard to caste”. Stein, “Social Mobility”, 80. 7 For that matter, all bhakti traditions must not be regarded as offering catholicons. Such stereotypes may be deceptive. These generalizations about bhakti traditions are quite common. For example, Mumme analyzes the schism in the Vi´sis. .t¯advaita School of Ved¯anta, a bhakti tradition, with regard to governing doctrines that allow access. In the 13th and 14th centuries CE there was a bifurcation into the Vat.akalai and Tenkalai schools. The former adhere to strict restrictive governing doctrines while the latter are comparatively egalitarian. Mumme thus shows that bhakti traditions are 618 DEEPAK SARMA not as egalitarian as the are stereotypically believed to be. See Mumme, “Rules and Rhetoric: Caste Observance in Doctrine and Practice”. 8 My data for much of this section derives from Sharma, History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta. ¯ For further information regarding inscriptional and other biographical evidence etc. please refer to Sharma, History, 75–89. For further information about the establishment of the dates of Madhv¯ac¯arya see Sharma, History, 77–79, Jha, A Critical Study of the Tattvapraka¯s´ika of Jayat¯ırtha, 29–35, and Siauve, La Doctrine de Madhva, 2–6. The dates, 1238–1317 CE, are generally accepted among contemporary scholars of M¯adhva Ved¯anta. For this reason I do not explore the issues involved in fixing the date. The South Kanara district is located in Karn. ¯a.taka state. I use Tul.un¯ad. u and South Kanara interchangeably. The adjective “Sival ´ .l.i” indicates a regional distinction. When modifying the noun Brahmin, it refers to those Brahmins who are born in or around Ud. upi and have Tul.u as their mother tongue. After the M¯adhva tradition was ´ established, Sival ..li came to refer only to those Ud. upi born Tul.u speaking followers of M¯adhva Ved¯anta. The difference between Sival ´ ´ .l.i and non-Sival.l.i Brahmins may play a role in unofficial or operational RGD, rules and regulations about doctrines and doctrinal systems that restrain the admission of outsiders as members in a given religious community. Lindbeck distinguishes between official and operational doctrines in the context of Christian doctrine. The former are made explicit. The latter, on the other hand, may be “so explicitly self-evidence that no church has even felt the need to dogmatize them . . . ” See Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine, 74. Tul.un¯ad. u Brahmins are, as a whole, referred to as Havika Brahmins. The Havika Brahmins are comprised of Havikas, Ko¯t.as, Sakalapuris and Sival ´ .l.is. The Brahmins found in the areas around Ud. upi are differentiated according to region. They are the ´ Sival.l.is, Ko ¯t.as, Ko ¯t.e´svara, Kand¯ avaras, and Pan˜cagr¯amas. For further discussion of the etymological origins of the term s´ival..li and other issues of sub-caste distinctions among Tul.un¯ad. u Brahmins, see Siauve, La Doctrine, 10. 9 My data for this section on N¯ar¯ayan. a Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya derives from Sharma, History, 216–222. See Sharma, “Life and Works of Trivikrama Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya”, for more biographical information on N¯ar¯ayan. a Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya’s father. 10 That is, he was a Sival ´ .l.i (Tul.u-speaking Ud. upi) Brahmin. In contemporary M¯ adhva Vedanta, the majority of practitioners are Tul.u-speaking Brahmins from South Kanara ¯ ´ – though not all are Sival .l.i. Siauve reports the same: “. . . les brˆ ahmanes, s´ival..li auxquels appartenait le premier noyau des m¯adhva”. Siauve, La Doctrine, 10. The distinction between practitioners and mat. has from South Kanara and those from Ud. upi had and has relevance with regard to institutional politics. The Ud. upi mat. has were and are considered to be more authentic. The distinction often had relevance with regard to theological matters although there is no evidence in Madhv¯ac¯arya’s works of such RGD linking authenticity and geography. Sharma, History, 198. There was a controversy in the 16th century CE with regard to the admission of the members of the Gaud. a S¯arasvata community who, though Brahmins, were neither Sival ´ .l.i nor Tul.u speakers. Their presence inspired disputes regarding their rights to access M¯adhva texts and teachings and their very inclusion in the M¯adhva community. Sharma, History, 577–587. For contemporary practitioners there is still some relevance with regard to birthplace, language, etc. For these reasons, historical and contemporary, it is relevant to note N¯ar¯ayan. a Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya’s caste, class, language, and birth details. 11 Strict followers of M¯adhva Ved¯anta may (and do) take the accounts as literal and not mythological, as biographical and not hagiographical. 12 I will say more about the establishment of the as. .tamat. has below. 13 For further reading about the accuracy of these genealogical records, see Sharma, History, 200.  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 619 14 For a detailed list of the texts that Madhv¯ac¯arya mentions and/or cites, see Sharma, History, Appendix 1, 567–570. The list is not exhaustive as Sharma excludes many texts found in the standard Ved¯anta canon such as the Upanis. ads. I say more about Madhv¯ac¯arya’s citations and references (or lack thereof) below. 15 Madhvavijaya, 3. According to Prabhan˜jan¯ac¯arya, the Tul.u equivalent of the name Pu¯gavana is Tot.antillayah. . See page 10 of the introduction to Prabhan˜jan¯ac¯arya’s edition Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya’s Madhvavijaya. 16 MV, 4.4–30. It is not clear from the Madhvavijaya if Acyutapreks. a was a follower of Advaita Ved¯anta. However, according the hagiographic evidence, Madhv¯ac¯arya vehemently disagreed with Acyutapreks. a with regard to some issues in hermeneutics. MV, 4.49–54. For this reason, it is likely that Acyutapreks. a was an adherent of Advaita Ved¯anta. 17 Madhv¯ac¯arya also refers to himself as Anandat ¯ ¯ırtha in colophons. Although Madhv¯ac¯arya has several names, including Pu¯rn. aprajn˜a, Pu¯rn. abodha, V¯asudeva, etc., I hereafter refer to him only as Madhv¯ac¯arya. For further reading on the etymological origins of several of these names, including “Madhva”, see Siauve, La Doctrine de Madhva, 1–2. 18 It is not explicitly stated that he studied tarka. However, an account in the Madhvavijaya records that Madhv¯ac¯arya used tarka in a debate in which he was victorious. MV, 4.44. Though the term tarka refers to logic and reasoning in general, it is likely that Madhv¯ac¯arya was formally trained in tarka. 19 See Is. .ta Siddhi of Vimuktatman ¯ translated by P. K. Sundaram for further reading. 20 MV, 4.45. According to Sharma, Madhv¯ac¯arya also directly cites and/or summa- rizes passages from Sarvajn˜¯atmamuni’s Sam ´¯ ¯ . ks. epa Sar ıraka in his Anuvyakhy ¯ ana ¯ and Tattvodyota. I have not been able to locate such passages. Sharma, History, 123, 145, ft. 4. Sarvajn˜¯atmamuni was a contemporary of Vimukt¯atman as well as a direct disciple of Sa ´ n ¯kar¯ac¯arya, the founder of the Advaita school of Ved¯anta. Veezhinathan, 5. For further reading on the Sarvajn˜¯atmamuni’s Sam ´¯ ¯ . ks. epa Sar ıraka see Veezhinathan’s translation, critical edition, and notes. 21 MV, 5.1. 22 According to C. R. Krishna Rao, Madhv¯ac¯arya came into contact with Vidy¯a´san¯k¯ara, the svamin ¯ of the Sr.n¯geri mat. ha, a monastery founded by Sa ´ n ¯kar¯ ac¯arya himself. Rao, 6–8, 23–27. This meeting is not mentioned in the MV. 23 Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya states “. . . [Madhv¯ac¯arya] refuted the six systems”. . . . .sat. ca tatra samayanakhan¯ .d. ayat | MV, 9.15. Presumably Madhv¯ac¯arya was aware of six systems of thought. It is, of course, unclear as to which six systems he is supposed to have refuted. It may be some combination of the Buddhism, C¯arv¯aka, Jaina, Ny¯aya, Pu¯rva M¯ım¯am . s¯a, S¯am . khy¯ a, Vais. e´sika, Uttara M¯ım¯am . s¯ a, and Yoga traditions. Madhv¯ac¯arya examines several of these traditions in BSB, 2.1, known as samayavirodha, the contradictions [in other] doctrines. Madhv¯ac¯arya does not cite or name the texts of these traditions. I say more about this deficiency below. 24 For further reading about the link between Madhv¯ac¯arya and Vy¯asa, see Sheridan, “Vy¯asa as Madhva’s Guru: Biographical Context for a Ved¯antic Commentator”. For further reading regarding the link of hagiography to philosophy see also Sheridan, “Madhva, the Bhagavata ¯ Puran ¯. a, and His Commentary on Its First Chapter”. 25 Sharma, History, 77–78. 26 MV, 16.58. 27 See Sharma, History, 88 and Siauve, La Doctrine, 26–32 for brief discussions of (and arguments regarding) the putative existence of the Brahma Tarka. For an in depth analysis, see Mesquita, Madhva Und Seine Unbekannten Literarischen Quellen. 620 DEEPAK SARMA 28 Sharma, History, 437. See also von Glasenapp’ for further discussion of this issue. von Glasenapp, Madhva’s Philosophy of the Vis. n. u Faith, 24–28. 29 Sharma, History, 146 ft. 1. See Vadah ¯ . , 47 in Govind¯ ac¯arya’s edition of the Sarvamu¯la. Govind¯ac¯arya calls the Tattvoddyota the Vadah ¯ . . The attack on Buddhist positions is not unusual especially in light of the M¯adhva comparison of Advaita with Buddhism. 30 Sharma, History, 146 ft. 3. The passage that Jayat¯ırtha cites is: dve sattve samupa¯s´ritya buddhan ¯ . dharmades´ana¯ | loke sam ¯ am ¯ . vr. tasatyam . ca sataym . ca praramarthatah ¯ . || Tattvoddyotat. ¯ ıka, ¯ 653 (vol. 3). 31 samastavad ¯ ¯ındragajaprabhadgadas´ caranavanyam ¯ . pratipaks. akan ¯. ks. aya¯ | vedadvis. am ¯. yah. prathamah. samayayau ¯ savadisim ¯ . ho ’tra sa buddhisagara¯ || MV, 5.8. Buddhis¯agara, the best among the haters of the Vedas, who is the defeater of all the elephants who are the best disputants, wandering along with V¯adisim . ha, with the desire of [meeting] opponents, came here. Though Buddhis¯agara is only described as a hater of the Vedas, his status as a Buddhist is mentioned in Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya’s Bhavaprak ¯ a¯s´ika, an auto commentary on his Madhvavijaya. He writes: vais´es. ikavis´es. ajn˜o vadisim ¯ . habhidho ¯ dvijah. | mah¯ım . vijitya sam . prapto ¯ bauddhagamyam ¯ . buddhisagara ¯ || Bhavaprak ¯ a¯s´ika, 5.8. He whose name is V¯adisim . ha, the twice born, is a knower of the essence of the Vai´ses. ika [system]. Having conquered the earth, Buddhis¯agara fell in with the incom- prehensible followers of Buddha. 32 For a list of all of the names of people mentioned in the Madhvavijaya see Prabhan˜j¯ac¯arya’s introduction of the critical edition of the Madhvavijaya and Bhavaprak ¯ a¯s´ika, 14–16. 33 Those schools that uphold the Vedas are known as astika ¯ while those that argue against the validity of the Vedas are known as nastika. ¯ 34 The etiology here is entirely speculative. 35 See Griffiths, “Denaturalizing Discourse: Abhidh ¯ armikas, Propositionalists, and the ¯ Comparative Philosophy of Religion” for further reading regarding denaturalizability. 36 See Griffiths, Religious Reading, for further reading on religious readers. Narayana Rao examines oral literacy in opposition to written literacy. Narayana Rao, “Pur¯an. a as Brahmanic Ideology”, 94–96. One additional possibility suggested by Prof. Prahl¯ad¯ac¯arya, Director of the Pu¯rn. aprajn˜¯a Research Institute, is that Madhv¯ac¯arya did not mention scholars and texts by name as they were not worthy to be mentioned! Prahl¯ad¯ac¯arya, personal interview, 6-5-97. 37 It is not explicitly stated in the Madhvavijaya that the king was a Muslim. However, contemporary biographers of Madhv¯ac¯arya refer to the king as a Muslim in their translations and accounts. For further details see Govind¯ac¯arya, Madhvac ¯ arya ¯ (Life and Teachings), 10, Padmanabhacharya, Life and Teachings of Sri Madhvacharya, 59, Rau, Nar ¯ ayana ¯ Pan. d. itac ¯ arya’s ¯ ´¯ Srı Madhva Vijaya, 125. 38 gam ¯ . bhiryam . dhr. tim uruv¯ ıryam aryabh ¯ avam ¯ . tejobhyam . giram api des´akalayukt ¯ am ¯ | raj ¯ asya ¯ sphut. am upalabhya vismito ’smai rajy ¯ ardham ¯ . sapadi samarpayam ¯ babhuva¯ | MV, 10.18. Having clearly grasped the dignity, nobility, wide command, and eminent luster, and words appropriate to the time and place [of Madhva], the king, surprised, instantly gave him [Madhv¯ac¯arya] one half of [his] kingdom. The report that Madhv¯ac¯arya walked on water has led some scholars to conclude that M¯adhva Ved¯anta was influenced by Christianity. Siauve states that “L’id´ee messiannique peut paraˆıre assez ´etrange en contexte indien, et l’on a voulu voir dans cette conviction de Madhva le reflet d’influences chr´etiennes”. Siauve, La Doctrine  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 621 de Madhva, 6. The influence, however, has not been proven and remains unfounded. For a synopsis of the discussion see Dasgupta, vol. 4, pp. 92–93. 39 See Bhatt, Studies in Tul. uva History and Culture, Chopra, History of South India, Diwakar, Karnataka Through the Ages, and Sastri, A History of South India. 40 The Hoysala empire succumbed to several attacks from Muslim invaders at the beginning of the 14th century CE. Chopra, 192. 41 See Granoff, “Going by the Book: The Role of Written Texts in Medieval Jain Sectarian Conflicts” for similar accounts in Jainism. 42 See MV, 15.1–141. Incidentally, it is at this visit to P¯ad. ikud. el that Madhv¯ac¯arya is said to have come into contact and debated with Trivikrama Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya (the father of biographer N¯ar¯ayan. a Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya) who was the Court-Pan. d. it of Jayasim . ha. Sharma, History, 82. Nilakantha Sastri, however, holds that Madhva was in Trivandrum when his texts were stolen. Sastri, A History of South India, 431. 43 Sharma, History, 82. I find no reference to Kumbla in either cartographic or historical materials. I was, however, able to locate a town named Kumbal.e on the coast of Tul.un¯ad. u approximately 30 km south of Ud. upi. Bhatt, plate I, plate II. Bhatt identifies the Jayasim . ha referred to in the MV as Jayasim . ha II who ruled the Kumbal.e (Kumbul.e) in 13th century. Ibid., 102–105. I thus suspect that Sharma’s error in identifying Jayasim . ha as the ruler of Kumbla and not Kumbal.e is only a matter of differing transliteration conventions. 44 Diwakar, Karnataka Through the Ages, 400. 45 Diwakar, 471, Chopra, 193. 46 It was during the reign of Ball¯al.a III, that South India was first invaded by Muslims (1310 CE). Diwakar, 399. K. T. Pun. d. urangi, in his essay “Dvaita Saints and Scholars of the Vijayanagar Period”, states that Madhv¯ac¯arya came into contact with both Narasim . ha III and Ball¯ a.la III. He does not, however, cite any evidence, historical or otherwise, for his claim. He also holds that King ¯I´svaradeva, who is mentioned in the Madhvavijaya, refers to Y¯ad. ava king named Mah¯adeva. Ibid., 59. I do not find any mention of this king in relevant texts – the Madhvavijaya or others. Nadgouda refers to a king “Ishwardeva” in his translation of Madhvavijaya 10.5. Nadgouda, 164. This name is not included in the Sanskrit manuscripts. Mah¯adeva, however, is mentioned as the Mah¯alin¯gadeva deity of the Tol.ahas feudatory of Sur¯ala located in the Ud. upi district. “Mah¯adeva” was engraved on signet rings and used in official seals. Bhatt, 79–80, 441. For these reasons I concluded that Pan. d. urangi’s claim may be false or, at least, unsubstantiated. 47 Diwakar, 453. I say more about funding below. 48 Diwakar, 453. 49 Unless, of course, Jayasim . ha is Jayasim . ha II of Kumbal.e. 50 I am reliant upon Bhatt, Studies in Tul. uva History and Culture for many of the details with regard to Tul.uva religion, culture, etc. I have separated the religious traditions into three groups; the astika,¯ nastika, ¯ and tribal and indigenous. The astika ¯ and nastika ¯ categories are well defined. The third category, tribal and indigenous, stands in contrast to the astika ¯ and nastika ¯ traditions. These tribal and indigenous are not exegetical traditions and are not always involved in inter and intra scholastic debates about philosophical matters. The astika ¯ and nastika ¯ schools, on the other hand, cannot be easily separated from exegetical and doctrinal matters. For these reasons I separate the religious traditions in medieval Tul.un¯ad. u into three categories. This category separation has no implications with regard to hierarchy and should not be regarded as evaluative. Bhatt uses the term “cult” to refer to these tribal and indigenous traditions. I prefer to use less evaluative terminology though Bhatt may not have used the term “cult” in a derogatory sense. 51 For a brief overview see Hanumantha Rao, “Religious Toleration in Karnatak”, 622 DEEPAK SARMA 312–319. The V¯ıra´saiva community, as known as the Lin¯g¯ayats, was founded by Basavanna (1105–1167 CE) in the 12th century CE. 52 Diwakar, 443. The Jain rulers, for example, were known to fund non-Jain insti- tutions and vice versa. Bhatt, 441. 53 See Bhatt, 220–225 for further details regarding overseas trade. 54 Govind¯ac¯arya, Madhvac ¯ arya, ¯ 10. For example, Madhv¯ac¯arya’s epistemology draws from Jain epistemology. See Zydenbos, “On the Jaina Background of Dvaitaved¯anta” for further details regarding Jain influences on M¯adhva epistemology. 55 Diwakar, 420. 56 Bhatt notes that the V¯ıra´saiva and Vi´sis. t.¯advaita schools had the help of the rulers in connection with the disintegration of Jainism. Bhatt, 427. 57 See the Padmap¯adat¯ırthayatr¯avarn. am and related chapters of M¯adhava’s ´ nkaradigvijaya. Sa ¯ These chapters are descriptions of religious pilgrimages and travels undertaken by Sa ´ n ¯kar¯ac¯arya. 58 Siauve, La Doctrine, 10. 59 I rely on Mookerji for much of this summary. Mookerji, Ancient Indian Education, 366–373. I am reliant upon Griffiths for this language. Griffiths, Religious Reading, Ch. 3. 60 I say more about these rituals and RGD below in my analyses of M¯adhva RGD. Not surprisingly, the schools of Ved¯anta shared many of the same RGD. 61 Buddhism also had a history in Tul.un¯ad. u. However by medieval times it was displaced by Jainism and the Advaita and Vi´sis. .t¯advaita schools. There were still vestiges of Buddhism in medieval Tul.un¯ad. u in the form of images and monuments rather than a community of adherents. Bhatt, 370–373. 62 Ibid., 444–448. Ishwaran, 43, 115–121. 63 Bhatt, 448. 64 Bhatt, 453. 65 There are far too many to summarize them here. For further reading, see Bhatt, 426–451. 66 Bhatt, 441. 67 Bhatt, 282. Interestingly, the Ud. upi Sr´ ¯ı Krsna temple founded by Madhv¯ ac¯arya in .. . the 13th century CE and the as. .tamat. has form a circle, within which is enclosed the ´ ¯ı Anante´svara temple. The Sr Sr ´ ¯ı Anante´svara temple, built in the 8th or 9th century CE, has a form of Siva ´ as its centerpiece. 68 Bhatt, 283. 69 V¯adir¯aja, T¯ırthaprabandha, 56–58. Bhatt, 301–302. The T¯ırthaprabandha is historically significant as it is a description of temples and t¯ırthas, holy places, encountered by V¯adir¯aja. Sharma, History, 430. Work remains to be done on this important account. 70 Gonda, 70. 71 Gonda, 49. 72 Nambiar, The Ritual Art of Teyyam and Bhut ¯ ar ¯ adhane: ¯ Theatrical Performance with Spirit Mediumship. 73 Bhatt, 360. 74 Bhatt, 359. 75 Nambiar, 19. 76 According to Bhatt, the Ud. upi image is quite unusual given stylistic and icono- graphic matters and does not fit well with other Kr. s. n. a images produced in Tul.un¯ad. u. Bhatt surmises that the image may have been sculpted in North India. Bhatt, 330–331. 77 For a brief analysis of contemporary M¯adhva mat. has, see Rao’s “The Udupi Madhva matha”. 78 It is not altogether clear that the system existed immediately after M¯adhva’s death or if it was a later development. There is some inscriptional evidence, however,  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 623 which indicates that it took effect immediately upon Madhv¯ac¯arya’s demise. See Sharma, History, 192–194 for further details about this controversy. 79 As mentioned above, there was a controversy in the 16th century CE with regard to the K¯a´si and Gokarn. a mat. has whose adherents are members of the S¯arasvata Brahmin community. 80 Sharma, History 213. Of course, Jayasim . ha may be identical with Jayasim . ha II. 81 For example, the Bad. gan. a mat. ha received a land in 1433 CE. Devi, 251. The Kr.s. n. apur and Adamar mat. has received funds in 1402 CE and 1433 CE respectively. Sharma, History, 192. 82 The Vijayanagara empire, though in power one century after the as. .tamat. has were founded, patronized all traditions and did not favor one tradition over the others. The mat. has were regarded by Vijayanagara empires as centers of education – theological, philosophical, and otherwise. Ramanayya, 327–328. I suspect that this type of uniform funding may also have been existent at the time when the as. .tamat. has were founded. See Sarma for more about M¯adhva scholars in the Vijayanagara empire. 83 For further information regarding funding of the astika ¯ and nastika ¯ temples in South Karn. ¯a.taka see Bhatt, Studies in Tul. uva History and Culture. A large portion of the evidence appealed to by Bhatt in his construction of the history of Tul.un¯ad. u concerns inscriptions about funding. 84 etam ¯ . vidyam¯ adh¯ ıtya brahmadars´¯ıvava ¯ bhavati | sa etam ¯ . manus. yes. u vibruy ¯ | ¯ at yatha¯ yatha¯ ha vai bruy ¯ at ¯ tatha¯ tatha¯ adhiko ’bhavat¯ ıti mat ¯. haras´rutau vidyad¯ anam ¯ . s´ruyate ¯ | tac ca bahun ¯ am ¯ . sv¯ıkaran. artham ¯ avis ¯ . e ’ti na mantavyam | anvayad ¯ . karen ¯ yukteh. | avis ¯ . kare ¯ ’yogyan ¯ am ¯ api sv¯ ıkarapr ¯ ¯ . | tac ca nis. iddham | BSB, 3.3.49, aptih 342. 85 na sarves´am ¯ adhikarah ¯ . | BSB, 3.4.10, 293. . | anantartye 86 evam ukto naradena ¯ brahma¯ provaca ¯ sattamah ¯ ’dhikarasya ¯ mangal ¯ arthe ¯ tathaiva ca | athas´abdas . . . || BSB, 1.1.1, 24. Thus spoken to by N¯arada, Brahm¯a, the most excellent one, said: The word ‘then’ is used as an auspicious expression and for sequence of eligibility ... 87 tatra athas´abdah ¯ . anantary ¯ arthah ¯ . parigr. hyate nadhik ¯ ar ¯ athah ¯ . brahmajijn˜as ¯ ay ¯ a¯ anadhikaryatv¯ ¯ | BSSB 1.1.1. at 88 For a summary of these arguments see Clooney, Theology, 129–134. 89 granthadau ¯ mangal ¯ acaran ¯ . asyava ¯ s´ayakartvyatvat ¯ tatparatayatha ¯ s´abdam . vyacas ¯ . .te || atheti || muktyarthimatrasya ¯ brahmajijn˜as ¯ ay ¯ am ¯ . pravr. ttinirasanaparatayapi ¯ tam . vyacaks ¯ . an ¯. a tasyabhidheyam ¯ artham aha ¯ || adhikareti ¯ || TP 1.1.1, 18. 90 See Halbfass, “Vedic Orthodoxy” in his Tradition and Reflection for a general analysis of the concept of adhikari. ¯ Halbfass, Tradition and Reflection, 66–74. 91 I have expanded the semantic range of the scope of the term “texts” to encompass phenomena which are typically excluded or restricted from discussions in comparative philosophy of religion such as rituals, meditative practices, and other experiences. 92 yam evais. a vr. n. ute tena labhyas tasyais. atm ¯ a¯ virr. n. ute tanum¯ svam ¯ | BSB, 1.1.1, 27. Cited from the Kathopanis. ad, 2.23. He [the Lord] is attainable to whom He chooses. Only by that [grace, He], the Self, reveals His nature. paramatm ¯ aparoks ¯ . yam. ca tatprasad ¯ ad¯ eva na j¯ ıvas´aktyeti . . . | BSB, 3.2.22, 126. Direct realization of the highest Lord (comes] only from grace and not [from] the efforts of the j¯ıva. 93 See Sheridan, “Direct Knowledge of God and Living Liberation in the Religious Thought of Madhva”. In this essay Sheridan links the state of j¯ıvanmukti in Advaita Ved¯anta to the state of obtaining aparoks. ajn˜ana ¯ in M¯ adhva Ved¯anta. He argues that they are functionally equivalent. 624 DEEPAK SARMA 94 s´ravan. am . mananam . caiva dhyanam ¯ . bhaktis tathaiva ca | sadhanam ¯ . jn˜anasampattau ¯ pradhanam¯ . nanyadis ¯ . yate || na caitani ¯ vina¯ kas´ cijjn˜anam ¯ apa ¯ kutas´cane ’ti narad¯ ¯ ıye | BSB, 1.1.1, 36. In his commentary on this passage, Jayat¯ırtha states: etani ¯ s´ravan . ad ¯ ¯ıni | kutas´ ca na karmadeh ¯ . | jn˜anasya ¯ s´ravan. adyanvayavyatirekitv ¯ at ¯ tad eva pradhanas ¯ adhanam ¯ . karmades ¯ tadabhav¯ at ¯ tatparamparyen ¯ . a sadhanam ¯ iti ¯ . | TP, 1.1.1, 37. bhavah The term “these” refers to hearing, etc. The phrase “from anywhere else” refers to “through action, etc.” Between hearing, etc. and knowledge there is an relationship of cause and effect. [Hearing, etc.] are the primary penances. As there is no [such relationship between knowledge] and action, it is an indirect penance. This is the case. If Jayat¯ırtha’s interpretation is correct then each sadhana ¯ is required. Detailed analyses of this list of sadhanas ¯ can be found in Madhv¯ac¯arya’s Bhagavadg¯ıtabh ¯ as ¯. ya. 95 abrahmastambaparyantamas ¯ aram ¯ . capy ¯ anityakam | vijn˜aya ¯ jatavair ¯ agyo ¯ vis. n. upadaikasam ¯ . s´rayah . || sa uttamo ’dhikar¯ ı syat ¯ sam . nyastakhilakarmav ¯ ¯ iti | an BSB, 1.1.1, 27. He, having realized the essenceless and transient nature of things like grass up to brahman, detached, dwelling at the feet of Vis. n. u, and is one who has given up the entirety of his works, he would be the highest eligible one. 96 For an analysis of each of the sadhanas ¯ in M¯adhva Ved¯anta, see Sharma, Philo- sophy, 376–382. 97 adhikar ¯ a¯s´ cokta bhagavatatantre ¯ | mandamadhyottamatvena trividha¯ hy adhikarin ¯ . ah . | tatra manda¯ manus. yes. u ya uttamagan. a¯ matah ¯. | madhyama¯ .rs. igandharva¯ devas ¯ tatrottama matah ¯. || BSB, 1.1.1, 27. 98 traivarn. ikanam¯ ¯ . vedokte samyag bhaktimatam ¯ . harau || ahur ¯ apy uttamastr¯ın. am¯ adhikaram ¯ . tu vaidike | BSB, 1.1.1, 28. . tatha¯ | bharatam 99 .rgyajuh. sam ¯ atharv ¯ a¯s´ ca mular ¯ am ¯ ayan ¯ . am ¯ . pan˜caratram ¯ ca veda¯ ity eva s´abditah ¯. || BSB, 2.1.5, 12. . | his´abdat 100 svadhy ¯ ayo ¯ ’dhyetavyah . iti sam ¯ anyavidheh ¯ ¯ vedah . kr. tsno ’dhigatavyah. sarahasyo dvijanmane ti smr. teh. | BSB, 3.3.3, 160. The first passage cited by Madhv¯ac¯arya, svadhy ¯ ayo ¯ ’dhyetavyah . , is from Taittar¯ ıya Upanis. ad 2.15. I have not been able to locate the origin of the second citation. 101 as. .tavars. am. brahman¯ . am upanay¯ ıta tam adhyapay ¯ ıtety adhyayanartham ¯ ¯ . sam . skarapar¯ amar ¯ ¯ | BSB, 1.3.36, 321. s´at There are other age minimums for the Ks. atriya and Vai´sya castes – both of which were regarded as dvijatvavarn. a, twice born classes. See Mookerji, Ancient Indian Education, 174 for further reading on the origins of this ritual practice. 102 I point out below that there are sentient beings, birds and other oviparous creature, who are dvijas, twice born by nature and, therefore, do not have to undergo the sacred thread initiation. 103 urdhvaretassu ¯ ca s´abde hi || BS 3.4.17, 303. na tavat ¯ a¯ kamac ¯ ar ¯ an¯. am ¯ . jn˜ane¯ ’dhikarah ¯ . | ya idam . paramam . guhyam urdhvaretassu ¯ bhas ¯. ayet | BSB, 3.4.17, 303. . || BS 3.4.12, 294. 104 adhyayanamatravatah ¯ 105 avais. n. avasya vede ’pi hy adhikaro ¯ na vidyate | gurubhaktivih¯ınasya s´amadirahitasya ¯ ca || na ca varn. avarasyapi ¯ tasmad ¯ adhyayananvitah¯ . | brahmajn˜ane¯ tu vedokte ’py adhikar ¯¯ ı satam ¯ . mata iti brahmatarke || BSB, 3.4.12, 295. 106 str¯ıs´udrabrahmabandh ¯ un ¯ am¯ . tantrajn˜ane ¯ ’dhikarit ¯ a¯ || ekades´e parokte tu na tu granthapurah. sare | BSB, 1.1.1, 28. 107 I have not been able to uncover a gloss of the term brahmabandhu in any  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 625 commentaries. It is not clear what it means to earn the title of unworthy brahman and to be, for all intents and purposes, expelled from the Brahmin community. According to Prahl¯ad¯ac¯arya, it is possible to perform a ritual and be reinstated as an eligible Brahmin. 108 manus. yan ¯. am ¯ eva vedavidyadhik ¯ ara ¯ ity uktam | tiryagadyapeks ¯ . ayaiva manus. yatvavis´es. an. am uktam . na tu devadyapeks ¯ . ayety aha ¯ | BSB, 1.3.26, 297. The term manus. yan ¯. am ¯ may be taken here to refer to the entire human race. The qualifier “male” is implied given the discussion that occurs later in connection with sudras ¯ and women. According to Madhv¯ac¯arya the former are not included in the set of humans. With regard to the latter, Madhv¯ac¯arya addresses the eligibility of women apart from others. For these reasons I take the qualifier “male” to be implied here. 109 tad upary api badar ¯ ayan ¯ . ah . sambhavat ¯ || BS 1.3.25, 297. 110 tad upari manus. yan ¯. am ¯ . satam¯ . devaditvapr ¯ aptyupari ¯ | sambhavati hi tes. am ¯. vis´is. .tabuddhyadibh¯ av ¯ at¯ | tiryagad ¯ ¯ınam ¯ . tadabhav ¯ ad ¯ abhavah ¯ . | tes. am ¯ api yatra vis´is. .tabuddhyadibh¯ avas ¯ tatravirodhah ¯ . | nis. edhabh¯ av ¯ | dr. .syante hi jaritary ¯ at ¯ adayah ¯ . || BS 1.3.26, 297. This discussion of intellect leads to a debate regarding the eligibility of the gods and s´udras. ¯ It is for this reason that the passage begins with reference to the state of gods. I summarize these debates below. 111 MBh, 1.220.15–17. 112 ahur ¯ apy uttamastr¯ın. am ¯ adhikaram ¯ . tu vaidike | yathorvas´¯ ı yam¯ı caiva s´acyady ¯ a¯s´ ca tathapar ¯ a¯ || BSB, 1.1.1, 28. 113 B. N. K. Sharma may be referring to this very point when he states: “In his [Madhv¯ac¯arya’s] view, K¯ama-Bhakti or erotic devotion is the special privilege of the Apsarases [sic] and ought not to be practised by others”. This may help to explain Madhv¯ac¯arya’s choice. Sharma, Philosophy, 393. 114 ahur ¯ iti || tatha¯ para¯ munistriyo naradikulaj ¯ a¯s´ ca | TP, 1.1.1, 29. 115 [Explanation of the passage beginning] “They say . . . ”: The highest, then, are those well born and the wives of the munis, sages. naradikulaj ¯ a¯s´ ceti | taduktam . tatparyanirn ¯ . aye ekonatrim ¯ | devyo munistriyas´ . s´edhyaye caiva naradikulaj ¯ ¯ | R¯ api aghavendrat¯ırtha, Bhavad ¯ ıpa, 1.1.1, 33. ¯ 116 I am reliant upon interviews and discussions with Profs. Prahl¯ad¯ac¯arya, Harid¯asa Bhat, Pan. d. urangi, and Pur¯an. ika for data in connection with this contemporary issue. 117 There is a discussion in the contemporary M¯adhva community about this ambiguity regarding the restrictive doctrines for women. The discussion concerns the nature of individual j¯ıvas, agents. That is, svabhava, ¯ innate disposition, is inherently gendered. Svabhava, ¯ moreover, can be born in bodies of genders opposed to the gender of the svabhava; ¯ a female svabhava ¯ may be born in a male body and a male svabhava ¯ may be born in a female body. Given this confluence of gender, there is a question as to the ability of female svabhava ¯ residing in male bodies to study the Vedas etc. as well as the ability of male svabhava ¯ residing in female bodies! There are two possibilities here; either there are restrictive governing doctrines that mandate that accessibility and membership is not possible in future lifetimes or there are restrictive governing doctrines that mandate that accessibility and membership is not possible in this lifetime. Although the contemporary discussion is moot, it nevertheless indicates the relevance of restrictive doctrines. Determining the gender of an individual’s svabhava ¯ appears to evoke the same problems with regard to determining the nature of some sentient’s purvajanma, ¯ previous birth. This discussion, moreover, did not occur only as a hypothesis. Prof. Nambiar, for example, recalls a debate among traditional pan. d. its in the 1950’s with regard to her own eligibility. They concluded that she was the possessor of a male svabhava ¯ and she was thus able to receive 626 DEEPAK SARMA some Sanskrit training. Nambiar, personal interview, May 1997. Similar issues were discussed in Jain texts. See Jaini’s Gender and Salvation. 118 str¯ıs´udrabrahmabandh ¯ un ¯ am¯ . tantrajn˜ane ¯ ’dhikarit ¯ a¯ || ekades´e parokte tu na tu granthapurah. sare | BSB, 1.1.1, 28. 119 tantram . pan˜caratr ¯ | TP, 1.1.1, 29. ¯ adi 120 According to Granoff such cases may indicate more widespread literacy in medieval India. Granoff, personal communication, May 9, 1998. Work remains to be done in connection with literacy in medieval Tul.un¯ad. u. See Granoff, “The Role of Written Texts in Medieval Jain Sectarian Conflicts” for related issues. 121 uttamastr¯ın. am ¯ . tu na s´udravat ¯ | sapatn¯ım . me paradhame¯ ’tyadis ¯ . v adhikaradar ¯ s´anat ¯ | sam . skar ¯ abhaven ¯ abhavas ¯ tu sam ¯ anyena ¯ | asti ca tas ¯ am ¯ . sam ¯ . | str¯ . skarah ın. am ¯. pradanakarmaiva ¯ yathopanayanam . tathe ’ti smr. teh . || BSB, 1.3.36, 321. According to the notes in Panchamukhi’s edition, the passage “along with my wife, the highest” is taken from the Mantrapras´na 1–16. The smr. ti passage is from Manavadharmas´astra ¯ 2.67. Jayat¯ırtha’s commentary on the verse helps to contextualize the passage from the Mantrapras´na: uttameti || nottamastr¯ın. am ¯ . s´udravat ¯ sam . skar¯ abhavena ¯ vedavidyadhik ¯ ar ¯ abhavo ¯ vaktavyah. | saptn¯ım . me paradhame ¯ tyadividy ¯ asu ¯ sacyad ¯ ¯ınam ¯ . tad dras. .tr. tvenadhik ¯ aradar ¯ s´anad ¯ ity arthah . | TP, 1.3.36, 322. [Explanation of the passage beginning] “The highest . . . ”: It is not fit to say [that] the highest among women are [like] s´udras, ¯ [that they] lack of an initiation rite, and [that they] are not eligible for the knowledge of the Vedas. [The highest among woman are not like s´udras ¯ is evident] in passages like “along with my wife, the highest.” with regard to Sac ´ ¯ı, etc., from seeing the eligibility, by being seers of that [knowledge]. This is the meaning [of the passage]. Presumably, the passage refers to women like Sac ´ ¯ı and the like who are the consorts of gods, .rs. is, munis, and the like. 122 ahur ¯ apy uttamastr¯ın. am¯ adhikaram ¯ . tu vaidike | yathorvas´¯ ı yam¯ı caiva s´acyady ¯ a¯s´ ca tathapar ¯ a¯ || BSB, 1.1.1, 28. Of course, there is still a problem regarding who is also included in the set due to the use of the term adi, ¯ “and the rest”. . . . . | Madhv¯ 123 [vis. n. ur] jn˜eyo na vedaih. s´udr ¯ adyaih ¯ ac¯arya, An. ubhas ¯. ya, 1.6. There is, of course, an ambiguity here in connection with the term adi, translated here as “and the like.” This text does not have many commentaries. Chal¯ari Ses ´ ¯ . ac¯ arya, a 17th century M¯adhva, clarifies this ambiguity in his Tattvapraka¯s´ikavyakhy ¯ ana, ¯ a commentary on the An. ubhas ¯. ya: adya ¯ s´abdena sadh ¯ aran ¯ . astrinnovation n. am ¯ varn . abahy ¯ an ¯. am ¯ ca grahan . am | Tattvapraka¯s´ikavyakhy ¯ ana, ¯ 43. By the term “and others”, ordinary women and those excluded from the class system is to be understood. 124 manus. yadhik¯ aratv ¯ adity ¯ ukte ’vis´es. ac¯ cchudrasy ¯ ¯ . . . | BSB, 1.3.33, 316. apy When “Because of the eligibility of male humans” is said, because of this lack of distinction, [there is eligibility] for s´udras. ¯ The context of this argument is debates about the eligibility of the gods. 125 Olivelle, Upanis. ads, 129. 126 tad u ha jana ¯ s´rutih . pautrayan ¯ . ah . .sat. s´atanigav ¯ am ¯ nis. kam as´vatar¯ ıratham . tadadaya ¯ praticakrame tam . habhyuv ¯ ada ¯ || Chandogya ¯ Upanis. ad, 4.2.1, 263. “Taking with him six hundred cows, a gold necklace, and a carriage drawn by a she-mule, J¯ana´sruti Pautr¯ayan. a went back to Raikva and said to him . . . ” Translation is from Olivelle, Upanis. ads, 128–129. 127 tam u ha parah. pratyuvac ¯ aha ¯ hare tva¯ s´udra ¯ tavaiva saha gobhir astv iti  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 627 . . . | Chandogya ¯ Upanis. ad, 4.2.1, 263. The translation is from Olivelle, Upanis. ads, 129. 128 Chandogya ¯ Upanis. ad, 4.2.1, 264. 129 . . . apy aha hare ¯ tva¯ s´udre¯ ’ti pautrayan ¯ . okter adhikara ¯ ityataha ¯ | BSB, 1.3.33, 316. And also “Hey you! [Drive them back to your palace,] s´udra! ¯ Keep [your goods and cows!]” spoken to Pautr¯ayan. a. [Therefore] they say “[the s´udra] ¯ is eligible”. The translation of this portion of the Chandogya ¯ Upanis. ad is from Olivelle’s Upanis. ads, 129. 130 s´ugasya tad anadara ¯ s´ravan. at ¯ tada¯ dravan . at ¯ sucyate ¯ hi || BS 1.3.34, 316. Of him there is distress, at that time it [his status as a s´udra] ¯ is indicated from the oozing [of tears]. nasau ¯ pautrayan¯ . as´s´udrah ¯ . s´ucadravan ¯ . am eva s´udratvam ¯ | kamvera etam etat santam ity anadara ¯ s´ravan. at¯ | sa ha san˜jihanaiva ¯ ks. attaram ¯ uvace ¯ ’ti sucyate ¯ hi | BSB, 1.3.34, 316. That Pautr¯ayan. a is not a s´udra. ¯ The status of being a s´udra ¯ is the tearing due to distress from hearing the disdain “Why [do you speak of him as if her were Raikva,] the Gatherer?” It is [also] indicated [from hearing the disdain and from the passage in the Chandogya ¯ Upanis. ad 4.1.5] “as soon as he got up in the morning, he said to his steward”. The translation of this portion of the Chandogya ¯ Upanis. ad is from Olivelle’s Upanis. ads, 128. Madhv¯ac¯arya is consistent here as he glosses the term s´udra ¯ in the same way in his commentary on the Chandogya ¯ Upanis. ad. s´ucadrevan ¯ . accch ¯ udrah ¯ . | raj ¯ a¯ pautrayan¯ . ah . | s´okacc ¯ udreti ¯ munibodhitah. | Chandogyopanis ¯ . adbhas ¯. ya, 4.2.1–2, 262–263. The grandson of the king, a s´udra ¯ from tearing due to distress, is called a “distressed s´udra”. ¯ I translate nirukta as “word derivation” and not “etymology” in light of Patton’s argument regarding this issue. See Patton, Myth, 142. 131 ks. atriyatvavagate ¯ s´ cottaratra caitrarathena ling ¯ || BS 1.3.35, 320. ¯ at And, [that Pautr¯ayan. a is not a s´udra] ¯ from the understanding of [his] status as a ks. atriya by reason of the mark of the chariot subsequently [mentioned]. ayam as´vatar¯ıratheti citrarathasambandhitvena lingena ˙ pautrayan ¯ . asya ks. atriyatvavagate ¯ s´ ca | rathastvas´vatar¯ıyuktis´citra ity abhidh¯ıyata | iti brahman ¯. d.e | BSB, 1.3.35, 320. “This citra-chariot drawn by a she mule” by reason of the characteristic mark, the connection with the citra-chariot, Pautr¯ayan. a is understood to be a ks. atriya. But the chariot that is one whose yoke is with a mule is called ‘citra.’´’ So [it is said] in the Brahman ¯. d . a. 132 yatra vedo rathas tatra na vedo yatra no ratha iti brahmavaivarte | BSB, 1.3.35, 320. 133 Chandogya ¯ Upanis. ad, 4.4, 270–271. Mookerji, 131–132. . || BS 1.3.37, 323. 134 tad abhavanirdh ¯ aran ¯ . e ca pravr. tteh And of [H¯aridruma’s] proceeding with regard to the ascertainment [that Satyak¯ama] was not [a s´udra]. ¯ naham ¯ etad veda bho yadgotro ’hamasm¯ıti satyavacanena satyakamasya ¯ s´udratv ¯ abh ¯ avanirdh ¯ aran ¯ . e haridrumatasya ¯ naitad abrahman ¯ . o vivaktumarhat¯ ıiti tatsam ¯ pravr. tes´ ca || BSB, 1.3.37, 323. . skare 135 s´ravan. adhyayan ¯ arthapratis ¯ . edhat¯ smr. tes´ ca || BS 1.3.38, 323. 136 Literally “desire to hear” in this case “desire to hear the order of . . . ” 137 s´ravan. e trapujatubhyam ¯ . s´rotraparipuran¯ . am | adhyayane jihvacchedah ¯ . | arthavadh ¯ aran ¯ . e hr. dayavidaran ¯ . am iti pratis. edhat ¯ | nagnir ¯ na yajn˜as´ s´udrasya ¯ 628 DEEPAK SARMA tathaivadhyaynam ¯ . kutah . | kevalaiva tu s´us´rus ¯. a¯ trivarn . an ¯ am ¯ . vidh¯ ıyateti smr. tes´ ca | vidurad ¯ ¯ınam ¯ . tu utpannajn˜anatv ¯ at ¯ kas´cid vis´es. ah . || BSB, 1.3.38, 323–24. 138 BSB, 323. For further reading in connection with the Gautama Dharma Sutras, ¯ see Mitra’s introduction to the critical edition of the Gautama Dharma Sutras ¯ and see Kane, 22–38. . || BSB, 1.3.38, 324. 139 vidurad ¯ ¯ ınam ¯ . tu utpannajn˜anatv ¯ at ¯ kas´cid vis´es. ah 140 MBh, 1.100.22–28. 141 vidurad¯ ¯ ınam ¯ iti || tes. am ¯ purvajanmany ¯ utpannaparoks ¯ . ajn˜a(na)nitvenetara- ¯ s´udr ¯ adibhyo ¯ vis´is. .tatvat ¯ vedarth¯ avadh ¯ aran ¯ . adi¯ na nis. iddham iti bhavah ¯ . | ato harih . s´udr ¯ adyair ¯ vedavidya¯ vijn˜eyo na bhavat¯ıti siddham || TP, 1.3.38, 324. 142 The debate between the schools of Ved¯anta and the Pu¯rva M¯ım¯am . s¯a schools are summarized in Clooney’s “Devatadhikaran ¯ . a: A Theological Debate in the M¯ım¯ am. s¯a- Ved¯anta Tradition”. In this article, Clooney looks primarily at the gods and their relationship to ritual and mediation. He does not examine the relationship between the gods and brahmajijn˜as ¯ a, ¯ the inquiry into brahman. . || BS 1.3.31, 312. 143 madhvadis ¯ . v asam . bhav ad ¯ anadhikaram ¯ . jaiminih 144 vasun¯ am ¯ evaiko bhutve ¯ ’ty adin ¯ apr ¯ apyaphalatv ¯ ¯ | praptapad at ¯ an ¯ am ¯ . devan ¯ am¯. madhvadividy ¯ asv ¯ anadhikaram ¯ . jaiminir manyate | BSB, 1.3.31, 312. The translation of this portion of the Chandogya ¯ Upanis. ad is from Olivelle’s Upanis. ads, 120. 145 sa ya etad evam amr. tam . veda vasun ¯ am¯ evaiko bhutvagninaiva ¯ mukhenaitad evamr ¯ . tam . dr. s. .tva¯ tr. pyati . . . || Chandogya ¯ Upanis. ad, 3.6.2, 202. The translations of the portion of the Chandogya ¯ Upanis. ad are from Olivelle’s Upanis. ads, 120. The numbering of the amr. ta is connected with the order of the myths; for vasus it is the first amr. ta, for rudras the second, etc. This series of passages can be found in Chandogya ¯ Upanis. ad, 3.6–3.10, 202–204. 146 jyotis. i bhav ¯ ac¯ ca || BS 1.3.32, 314. 147 jyotis. i sarvajn˜atve bhav ¯ ac¯ ca | adityaprak ¯ a¯s´e ’ntarbhavavat ¯ tajjn˜ane ¯ sarvavastun ¯ am¯ antarbhav ¯ | nityasiddhatvac ¯ at ¯ ca vidyan ¯ | BSB, 1.3.32, 314. ¯ am And from being in the light [of brahman, that is] being all knowing. Because all things are included in knowledge of that [brahman] just as the inclusion [of all things] in the light of the sun, and because their knowledge is eternally established. 148 bhavam ¯ . tu badar ¯ ayan¯ . o ’sti hi || BS 1.3.33, 314. 149 phalavis´es. abhav ¯ at ¯ praptapad ¯ an ¯ am¯ api devan ¯ am ¯ . madhvadis ¯ . v apy adhikaram ¯ . badar ¯ ayan¯ . o manyate | asti hi praka¯s´avis´es. ah . | BSB, 1.3.33, 314. 150 yavat ¯ seva¯ pare tatve tavat ¯ sukhavis´es. ata¯ | sam . bhavac ¯ ca praka¯s´asya param ekamr. te harim || tes. am ¯ . samarthyayog ¯ ac ¯ ca devan ¯ am ¯ apy upasanam ¯ | sarvam . vidh¯ıyate nityam . sarvayajn˜adikarma¯ ce ’ti skande ¯ || BSB, 1.3.33, 314. 151 . . . devas¯ tatrottama¯ matah ¯. || BSB, 1.1.1, 27. . | BSB, 1.1.1, 28. 152 antyaja¯ api ye bhakta¯ namaj ¯ n˜an ¯ adhik ¯ ar ¯. in. ah 153 antyaja¯ varn. abahy ¯ ah¯. | TP, 1.1.1, 28. 154 See Halbfass’ “Tradition Indian Xenology” in his India and Europe and Killingley’s “Mlecchas, Yavanas and Heathens: Interacting Xenologies in Early Nineteenth-Century Calcutta” for introductions to the xenological thought and categories of classical India. . gr. hyante | ata eva 155 adigrahan ¯ . ena ca vis. ayatitiks. ataduparamatattva ¯ s´raddhah ¯. sam s´rutih. tasmac ¯ chanto ¯ danta ¯ uparatistitiks. uh. s´raddhavitto ¯ bhutv ¯ atmany ¯ evatm ¯ anam ¯ . pas´yet sarvam atmani ¯ pas´yati iti | tatdetasya s´amadamadir ¯ upasya ¯ sadhanasya ¯ sam. pat prakars. a s´amadamadis ¯ adhanasam ¯ . pat | tato ’sya sam . sarabandhan ¯ an ¯ mumuks. a¯ bhavat¯ ıty aha ¯ mumuks. utvam . ca iti | Bhamat ¯ ¯ı, 1.1.1, 154.  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 629 . || tena titiks. ader 156 s´amadaadisampattir ¯ ity atra cadi ¯ s´abdo na yuktah ¯ eva grahan. am . na tu vivekader ¯ iti niyamahetos titiks. anugatasya ¯ vivekadivy ¯ avr ¯ . ttasya copasam . grahakadharmasy ¯ abhav ¯ ¯ || TC 1.1.1, 135–136. at Upasam ¯ . grahakadharma ¯ is a term in Ny¯aya connoting the limiting characteristic by which some are included in the set and others are excluded. 157 ahur ¯ apy uttamastr¯ın. am ¯ adhikaram ¯ . tu vaidike | yathorvas´¯ ı yam¯ı caiva s´acyady ¯ a¯s´ ¯ a¯ || BSB, 1.1.1, 28. ca tathapar 158 manus. yadhik ¯ aratv ¯ adityukte ¯ ’vis´es. ac ¯ cchudrasy ¯ ¯ . . . | BSB, 1.3.33, 316. “Because api of the eligibility of male humans” it is proven. Because of this non-distinction, [there is eligibility] for s´udras. ¯ The context of this argument is debates about the eligibility of the gods. 159 See Patton’s Myth as Argument for a brief analysis of what she calls the “mythic process” whereby myths are used to provoke philosophical discussion and vice versa. Patton, Myth, 41–44. 160 Zydenbos, personal communication 1-14-99. 161 See Sharma, History of Dvaita School, 139 for a summary of the contents of this text. My summary here is, in part, reliant upon Sharma’s. An anus. .tubh is a class of meter. . eti trividha¯ . . . | Vadalaks 162 vado ¯ jalpo vitan. d ¯ . an. a, 2, 69. The three-fold [debating methods] are vada, ¯ jalpa, and vitan. d. a.¯ 163 vitan. d. a¯ tu satam¯ anyais tattvam es. u niguhitum ¯ || Vadalaks ¯ . an. a, 3, 271, 273. anyaih. asadbhis saha | Jayat¯ırtha, Vadalaks ¯ . an . atika,¯ 3, 271, 273. [The word] “with another” [means] along with wicked [opponents]. 164 daurlabhyac ¯ cchuddhabudh¯ ı nam ¯ bahuly¯ ad ¯ alpavedinam ¯ || AV, 551, 3159. tamasatv ¯ ac ¯ ca lokasya mithyaj ¯ n˜anaprasaktitah ¯ . | vidves. atprame ¯ tattve tattvavedis. u ¯ s´am || AV, 552, 3159. cani 165 anadiv ¯ asan ¯ ayog ¯ adasur ¯ an ¯ . bahutvatah. | duragrahagr ¯. am ¯ . h¯ ıtatvad¯ vartante samayah ¯. sada¯ || AV, 553, 3159. 166 tathapi¯ s´uddhabuddh¯ ınam ¯ ¯ ıs´anugrahayogin ¯ ¯ | suyuktayas tamo hanyur am agam ¯ anugat ¯ ¯. sada¯ || AV, 554, 3162. ah tamah. ajn˜anam¯ | Jayat¯ırtha, Nyaya ¯ Sudha¯ 3162. [The term] “darkness” [refers to] the ignorant. 167 iti vidyapatih ¯ . samyak samayan ¯ am¯ . nirakr¯ . tim | cakara ¯ nijabhaktan ¯ am¯ buddhis´an ¯. atvasiddhaye || AV, 555, 3162, 3167. REFERENCES Primary Sources ´ ¯ Chal¯ari Ses ´¯ . ac¯arya. Tattvapraka¯s´ikavyakhy¯ ana. ¯ In An. ubhas¯. ya of Srı Madhvac ¯ arya ¯ with the commentary, Tattvapraka¯s´ikavyakhy ¯ ana ¯ of Sr ´¯ı Chalari ´ ac ¯ Ses . ¯ arya. ¯ R. G. Malagi ed. Mysore: Oriental Research Institute, 1985. Gautama. Gautama Dharma Sutra ¯ with Maskari Bhas ¯. ya (A Critical Edition). V. Mitra ed. Delhi: Veda Mitra and Sons, 1969. Jayat¯ırtha. Tattvoddyotat. ¯ıka. ¯ In Das´a Prakaran . ani ¯ (4 vols.). P.P. Laks. m¯ın¯ar¯ayon. op¯adhy¯aya ed. Bangalore: Pu¯rn. aprajn˜¯a Vidy¯apit.ha, 1971. Jayat¯ırtha. Vadalaks ¯ . an . atika. ¯ In Das´a Prakaran . ani ¯ (4 vols.). P.P. Laks. m¯ın¯ar¯ayan. op¯adhy¯aya ed. Bangalore: Pu¯rn. aprajn˜¯a Vidy¯apit.ha, 1971. Jayat¯ırtha. Sr´¯ımannyayasudh ¯ a. ¯ Uttar¯ adi mat. ha ed. Bangalore: Uttar¯adi mat. ha, 1982. Jayat¯ırtha. Tattvapraka¯s´ika. Panchamukhi ed. Delhi: Indological Research Centre, 1994. Kathakopanis ´ astri ed. Poona: Oriental Book Supply Agency, 1919. ¯ . at. Sridhara S¯ 630 DEEPAK SARMA Madhv¯ac¯arya. Brahmasutr ¯ anuvy ¯ akhy ¯ ana. ¯ Pan. d. urangi ed. Bangalore: Prabha Printing House, 1991. Madhv¯ac¯arya. Brahmasutrabh ¯ as ¯. yam. R. Raghavendracharya ed. Mysore: Government Branch Press, 1911. Madhv¯ac¯arya. Das´a Prakaran. ani ¯ (4 vols.). P. P. Laks. m¯ın¯ ar¯ayan. op¯adhy¯aya ed. Bangalore: Pu¯rn. aprajn˜¯a Vidy¯apit.ha, 1971. Madhv¯ac¯arya. Sarvamulagranth ¯ ah ¯. . Govind¯ ac¯arya ed. Bangalore: Akhila Bharata Madhwa Mahamandala, 1969–74. Madhv¯ac¯arya. Mahabh ¯ aratat ¯ atparyanirn ¯ . aya. Vol. 2. Sarvamulagranth ¯ ah ¯. . Govind¯ ac¯arya ed. Bangalore: Akhila Bharata Madhwa Mahamandala, 1969–74. Madhv¯ac¯arya. Praman ¯. alaks. an . am. Vol. 5. Sarvamulagranth ¯ ah ¯. . Govind¯ ac¯arya ed. Bangalore: Akhila Bharata Madhwa Mahamandala, 1969–74. Madhv¯ac¯arya. Vadalaks ¯ . an. am. Vol. 1. Das´a Prakaran . ani ¯ (4 vols.). P. P. Laks. m¯ın¯ar¯ayan. op¯adhy¯aya ed. Bangalore: Pu¯rn. aprajn˜¯a Vidy¯apit.ha, 1971. Madhv¯ac¯arya. Vadah ¯ . . Vol. 5. Sarvamulagranth ¯ ah ¯. . Govind¯ ac¯arya ed. Bangalore: Akhila Bharata Madhwa Mahamandala, 1969–74. Madhv¯ac¯arya. Anuvyakhy ¯ ana. ¯ ´¯ In Sr ımannyayasudh ¯ a. ¯ Uttar¯ adi mat. ha ed. Bangalore: Uttar¯adi mat. ha, 1982. Madhv¯ac¯arya. An. ubhas ¯. ya. In An . ubhas ¯. ya of Sri Madhvacarya with the commentary, Tattvapraka¯s´ikavyakhy ¯ ana ¯ of Sri Chalari Seshacarya. Malledevaru ed. Mysore: Oriental Research Institute, 1985. Madhv¯ac¯arya. G¯ıtat ¯ atparyanirn ¯ . ayah . . Prahl¯ ad¯ac¯arya ed. Bangalore: Pu¯rn. aprajn˜avidy¯apit.ham, 1987. Madhv¯ac¯arya. Brahma Sutra Bhashya. Panchamukhi ed. Delhi: Indological Research Centre, 1994. Madhv¯ac¯arya. Chandogya ¯ Upanis. asadbhas ¯. yam. K. T. Pan. d. urangi ed. Bangalore: Dvaita Ved¯anta Studies and Research Foundation, 1994. Narasimhan, K. R ´ . g Bhas ¯. yam of Srimad anandat ¯ ırtha Bhagavadpad ¯ ¯ ac ¯ arya; ¯ Volume 1. Tirunelveli: Guru Offset Printers, 1996. N¯ar¯ayan. a Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya. Sumadhvavijayah. . Prabhanjanacharya ed. Bangalore: Varna Graphics, 1996. O’Flaherty, Wendy Doniger. Hindu Myths. Great Britain: Penguin Books, 1975. O’Flaherty, Wendy Doniger. The Rig Veda. Great Britain: Penguin Books, 1981. Olivelle, Patrick. Upanis. ads. Great Britain: Oxford U.P., 1996. Pandurangi, K. T. Brahma Sutra ¯ Bhas ¯. ya of Anandat¯ ırtha with Tattvapraka¯s´ika¯ of Jayat¯ırtha. Bangalore: Dvaita Ved¯anta Studies and Research Foundation, 1994. Pan. d. urangi, K. T. Mahabh ¯ aratat ¯ atparyanirn ¯ . aya. Bangalore: Sriman Madhva Siddhantonnahini Sabha, 1993. Pan. d. urangi, K. T. Vis. n. u-Tattva Vinirn. aya; Translated into English with Detailed Notes. Bangalore: Dvaita Ved¯anta Studies and Research Foundation, 1991. Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya, N¯ar¯ayan. a. Bhavaprak ¯ a¯s´ika in Sumadhvavijayah. , Bhavaprak ¯ a¯s´ikasametah ¯ .. ed. Prabhan˜jan¯ac¯arya. Bangalore: Sri Man Madhwa Siddantonnahini Sabha, 1989. Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya, N¯ar¯ayan. a. Sumadhvavijayah. , Bhavaprak ¯ a¯s´ikasametah ¯ . . ed. Prabhan˜jan¯ac¯arya. Bangalore: Sri Man Madhwa Siddantonnahini Sabha, 1989. Raghavachar, S. S. Sr ´¯ ı Madhva’s An. ubhas ¯. ya or Sarvas´astr ¯ artha ¯ Sangrahah. of Sr ´¯ ı Madhva. Madras: Dharmaprakash Publications, 1973. Raghavachar, S. S. Sr ´¯ ımad Vis. n. u-Tattva Vinirn. aya by Sr ´¯ ı Madhvac ¯ arya. ¯ Madras: Institute of Git¯a Studies, 1985. R¯aghavendrat¯ırtha. Bhat ¯..tasam . graha. P. P. Lakshm¯ın¯ ar¯ayan. a Up¯adhy¯aya ed. Madras: Brindavan Office, 1974. R¯aghavendrat¯ırtha. Bhavad ¯ ıpa. Panchamukhi ed. Delhi: Indological Research Centre, ¯ 1994. R¯agavendrat¯ırtha. Praka¯s´a in Brahmas´utrabh ¯ as ¯. yam. R. Raghavendracharya ed. Mysore: Government Branch Press, 1911.  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 631 Rao, S.K. Ramachandra. Agama-kosha ¯ ¯ (Agama Encyclopaedia) Vol. IV Pa¯n˜charatr ¯ agama. ¯ Bangalore: Kalpatharu Research Academy, 1989. [Includes a partial translation of Madhva’s Tantrasarasam ¯ . graha.] Rao, S. Subba. The Bhagavad Gita; Translation and Commentaries in English according to Sri Madhwacharya’s Bhashyas. Madras: Minerva press, 1906. Rao, S. Subba. The Vedanta-Sutras with the commentary of Sri Madhwacharya. Tirupati: Sri Vyasa Press, 1936. Rau, D. R. Vasudeva. Nar ¯ ayan ¯ . a Pan ´¯ .d . itac ¯ arya’s ¯ Sr ı Madhva Vijaya. Madras: ´ ¯ımad¯ Sr ananda T¯ırtha Publications, 1983. San¯kar¯ac¯arya. Brahma Sutra ¯ ´ nkara Sa ¯ Bhas ¯. yam: Bhamat¯ ıkalpataruparimalopetam. ¯ Subrahmanya et al. eds. Sri Vani Vilas Press: Srirangam, 1914. ´ n Sa ¯kar¯ac¯arya. Brahma Sutra ¯ ´ nkara Sa ¯ Bhas¯. ya: With the Commentaries Bhamat ¯ ı, ¯ Kalpataru, and Parimala. K. L. Joshi ed. Delhi: Parimal Publications, 1996. Sastri, S. S. Suryanarayana and C. Kunhan Raja ed. tr. The Bhamat ¯ ı of Vacaspati. ¯ ¯ Adyar: Theosophical Publishing House, 1992. Sharma, B. N. K. The Bhagavadg¯ıta¯ Bhas ¯. ya of Sr ´¯ı Madhvac ¯ arya. ¯ Bangalore: Anandat¯ırtha Pratishth¯ana, 1989. Siauve, Suzanne. La Voie vers la Connaisance de Dieu (Brahma-Jijn˜as ¯ a) ¯ Selon l’Anuvyakh¯ ana¯ de Madhva. Publications de L’Institut Franc¸ais D’Indologie No. 6. Pondich´ery: Institut Franc¸ais D’Indologie, 1957. Siauve, Suzanne. Les Noms Vediques ´ De Vis. n. u; Dans l’Anuvyakh¯ ana ¯ de Madhva (Brahma-Sutra ¯ I, 1, adhikaran. a 2 a` 12). Publications de L’Institut Franc¸ais D’Indologie No. 14. Pondich´ery: Institut Franc¸ais D’Indologie, 1959. Siauve, Suzanne. Les Hierarchies ´ Spiritualles Selon l’Anuvyakhy ¯ ana ¯ de Madhva. Publications de L’Institut Franc¸ais D’Indologie No. 43. Pondich´ery: Institut Franc¸ais D’Indologie, 1971. Sundaram, P. K. Is. .ta Siddhi of Vimuktatman: ¯ An English Translation with Notes and Introduction. Madras: Swadhara Swaarajya Sangha, 1980. V¯adir¯aja. Bhavaprak ¯ as ¯. ikat ıkasahitah ¯. ¯ ¯ . . photocopy of text in Pu ¯rn. aprajn avidy¯ap¯ıt.ha ˜¯ library. Bibliographic information not available. V¯adir¯aja. T¯ırthaprabandhah. . V. Prabhan˜jan¯ac¯aryah. ed. Udupi: Bhandarkere Math, 1990. Veezhinathan, N. The Samks ˙ . epas´ar¯¯ıraks of Sarvajn˜atman; Critically Edited with Introduction Notes and Indexes. Madras: Centre for Advanced Study in Philosophy; Uviv. of Madras, 1972. Vy¯asa. Mahabh ¯ arata. ¯ Dandekar ed. Poona: The Bhadarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1971. Vy¯asat¯ırtha. Tatparyacandrik ¯ a¯ in Brahmas´utrabh ¯ as ¯. yam. R. Raghavendracharya ed. Mysore: Government Branch Press, 1911. Vy¯asat¯ırtha. Tatparyacandrik ¯ a. ¯ H. R. Rao ed. Mysore: Hare Pahi Prakashan, 1981. ¯ Secondary Sources on Madhva ¯ Vedanta and Other Schools of Indian Philosophy Anantharangachar, N. S. The Philosophy of Sadhana¯ in Vis´is. .tadvaita. ¯ Mangalore: Sharada Press, 1967. Apte, V. S. The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Kyoto: Rinsen Book Co., 1986. Badrinath, G. Life and Works of Sri Jayatirtha [Sri Teekacharya]. Gadgag: R. S. Hombali Press, n.d. Bhat, Harid¯asa. Interview. Bangalore, India. 2-14-96. Tape recording, with author. Bhatt, P. Gururaja. Studies in Tul. ava History and Culture. Manipal: Manipal Power Press, 1975. 632 DEEPAK SARMA Champakalakshmi, R. “Religion and Social Change in Tamil Nadu (c. AD 600–1300)”. In Medieval Bhakti Movements in India. N. N. Bhattacharyya ed. 162–173. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1989. Chopra, P. N. et al. ed. History of South India. New Delhi: S. Chand and Co. Ltd., 1979. Clooney, Francis X. “Devatadhikaran ¯ . a: A Theological Debate in the M¯ım¯ am . s¯ a-Ved¯anta Tradition”. Journal of Indian Philosophy Vol. 16 (1988): 277–298. Clooney, Francis X. Thinking Ritually: Rediscovering the Purva ¯ M¯ımam¯ . sa¯ of Jaimini. De Nobili Research Library Vol. XVII. Vienna: E.J. Brill, 1990. Clooney, Francis X. “From Anxiety to Bliss; Argument, Care, and Responsibility in the Ved¯anta Reading of Tattir¯ıya 2.1–6a”. In Authority, Anxiety, and Canon. ed. L. Patton. 139–170. NY: State University of New York Press, 1994. Diwakar, R. R. ed. Karnataka Through the Ages. Bangalore: Govt. of Mysore, 1968. Doniger, Wendy. “The Scrapbook of Underserved Salvation: The Kedara ¯ Khan .d .a of the Skanda Puran ¯. a”. In Puran ¯. a Perennis: Reciprocity and Transformation in Hindu and Jaina Texts. ed. W. Doniger. 59–84. NY: State University of New York Press, 1993. Glasenapp, Helmuth von. Madhva’s Philosophy of the Vis. n. u Faith. Translated by S. B. Shrothri. Edited by K. T. Pandurangi. Bangalore: Dvaita Vedanta Studies and Research Foundation, 1992. Govind¯ac¯arya, Bannanje. Madhvac ¯ arya ¯ (Life and Teachings). Udupi: Pejawar Mutt, 1984. Govind¯ac¯arya, Bannanje. Udupi: Past and Present. Udupi: Pejavara Mutt, 1984. Granoff, Phyllis. “Going by the Book: The Role of Written Texts in Medieval Jain Sectarian Conflicts”. In Jain Studies in Honour of Jozef Deleu. ed. R. Smet and K. Wantanabe. 315–338. Tokyo: Hon-No-Tomosha, 1993. Halbfass, Wilhelm. Studies in Kumarila ¯ and Sa´ nkara. ¯ Studien Zur Indologie Und Iranistik Monographie 9. Reinbek: Dr. Inge Wezler, 1983. Halbfass, Wilhelm. India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding. NY: SUNY, 1988. Halbfass, Wilhelm. Tradition and Reflection: Explorations in Indian Thought. NY: SUNY, 1991. Kane, Pandurang Vaman. History of Dharmas´astra; ¯ Ancient and Medieval Religious and Civil Law in India Vol. 1. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Institute, 1968. Killingley, Dermot. “Mlecchas, Yavanas and Heathens: Interacting Xenologies in Early Nineteenth-Century Calcutta”. In Beyond Orientalism: The Work of Wilhelm Halbfass and its Impact on Indian and Cross Cultural Studies. ed. E. Franco and K. Preisendanz. 123–140. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1997. Kopperdrayer, K. I. “The Varn. a¯s´ramacandrika and the S´udra’s ¯ Right to Preceptorhood: The Social Background of a Philosophical Debate in Late Medieval South India”. Journal of Indian Philosophy Vol. 19 (1991): 297–314. Mesquita, Roque. Madhva Und Seine Unbekannten Literarischen Quellen: Eine Beobachtungen. Vol. XXIV. Vienna: De Nobili, 1997. Mookerji, Radha Kumud. Ancient Indian Education: Brahmanical and Buddhist. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass, 1989. Mumme, Patricia Y. “Rules and Rhetoric: Caste Observence in Sr ´ ¯ıvaisnava Doctrine .. and Practice”. Journal of Vais. n. ava Studies Vol. 2, No. 1 (1993): 113–138. Nambiar, Sita K. Interviews. Bangalore, India. Jan. 1997–Aug. 1997. Nambiar, Sita K. The Ritual Art of Teyyam and Bhut ¯ ar ¯ adhane: ¯ Theatrical Performance with Spirit Mediumship. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, 1996. Narayana Rao, Velcheru. “Pur¯an. a as Brahmanic Ideology”. In Puran ¯. a Perennis: Reciprocity and Transformation in Hindu and Jaina Texts”. ed. Wendy Doniger. 85–100. NY: SUNY, 1993.  REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 633 O’Connel, Joseph T. “Do Bhakti Movements Change Hindu Social Structures? The Case of Caitanya’s Vais. n. avas in Bengal”. In Boeings and Bullock Carts; Vol. 4; Religious Movements and Social Identity. ed. Bardwell Smith. 39–63. Delhi: Chanakya Pub., 1990. Padmanabhacharya, C. M. Life and Teachings of Sri Madhvacharya. Udupi: Paryaya Sri Palimar Mutt, 1970. Panchamukhi, R. S. Brahmasutras of Badarayan. Dharwar: Pavamana Prakashana, publication date unknown. Panchamukhi, V. R. Badarayan’s Brahma Sutras: Essentials of Madhwa Philosophy. New Delhi: Interest Publications, 1989. Pandurangi, K. T. “Madhva’s View of Life”. In Karnataka Darshan. ed. R. S. Hukkerikar. 285–289. Bombay: Hukkerikar, 1955. Pandurangi, K. T. “Dvaita Saints and Scholars of the Vijayanagar Period”. In Early Vijayanagar: Studies in its History and Culture. ed. G. S. Dikshit. 59–66. Bangalore: B.M.S. Memorial Foundation, 1988. Pandurangi, K. T. Interviews. Bangalore, India. Jan. 1996–May 1996. Jan. 1997–March 1997. Tape recording, with author. Prahl¯ad¯ac¯arya, D. Interviews. Bangalore, India. Jan.1996–May 1996. Jan. 1997–Tape recording, with author. Pur¯an. ika, H. Interviews. Bangalore, India. Jan. 1996–May 1996. Tape recording, with author. Puthiadam, I. Vis. n. u: The Ever Free. Dialogue Series No. 5. Varanasi: Arul Anandar College, 1985. Qvarnstro¨m, Olle. Hindu Philosophy In Buddhist Perspective: The Vedantatattvavini ¯ s´caya Chapter of Bhavya’s Madhyamakahr. dayakarik ¯ a.¯ Lund Studies in African and Asian Religions Vol. 4. Lund: Plus Ultra, 1989. Raghavan, V. “The Name P¯an˜car¯atra with an analysis of the Sanatkum¯ara-Sam . hita in Manuscript”. Journal of the American Oriental Society Vol. 85 (1965): 73–79. Raghavendrachar, H. N. Brahma M¯ımam ¯ . sa. ¯ Mysore: Wesley Press, 1963. Ramanayya, N. Venkata. Studies in the History of the Third Dynasty of Vijayanagara. Madras: University of Madras, 1935. Rao, C. R. Krishna. Srimadhwa, His Life and Doctrine. Udupi: Prabhakara Press, 1929. Rao, G. Hanumantha. “Religious Toleration in Karnatak”. In Karnataka Darshan. R. S. Hukkerikar. ed. 312–319. Bombay: Hukkerikar, 1955. Rao, M. A. Vasudeva. “The Udupi Madhva matha”. Seminar Vol. 456 (1997): 52–55. Rao, M. V. Krishna. Glimpses of Karnataka. Bangalore: Indian National Congress, 1960. Sarma, Deepak. “Exclusivist Strategies in M¯adhva Ved¯anta”. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1998. Sastri, Nilakantha. A History of South India. Madras: Oxford U.P., 1976. Shanbag, D. N. Sr ´¯ ı Madhvac ¯ arya ¯ and His Cardinal Doctrines. Dharwad: Bharat Book Depot and Prakashan, 1990. Sharma, B. N. K. “Life and Works of Trivikrama Pan. d. it¯ac¯arya”. Journal of the Annamalai University Vol. II, No. 2 (Oct. 1933): 209–226. Sharma, B. N. K. “Dvaita Vedanta – An Exclusive Contribution of Karnatak to Indian Philosophy”. In Karnataka Darshan. ed. R. S. Hukkerikar. 232–250. Bombay: Hukkerikar, 1955. Sharma, B. N. K. History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta ¯ and its Literature. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1981. Sharma, B. N. K. The Brahmasutras ¯ and Their Principal Commentaries: A Critical Exposition. Vol. 1–3. Bombay: Munshiram Manoharlal Pub., 1986. Sharma, B. N. K. Philosophy of Sr ´¯ ı Madhvac ¯ arya. ¯ Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1986. 634 DEEPAK SARMA Sharma, B. N. K. Nyayasudh¯ a¯ of Jayatirthamuni (Pan˜cadhikaran ¯ .¯ı) Rendered into English. Malleswaram, Bangalore: Sri Raghavendra Ashram, 1995. Sheridan, Daniel P. “Madhva, the Bhagavata ¯ Puran ¯. a, and His Commentary on Its First Chapter”. In Journal of Vais. n. ava Studies ed. D. Sarma. Vol. 5, No. 3 (1997): 113–138. Sheridan, Daniel P. “Vy¯asa as Madhva’s Guru: Biographical Context for a Ved¯antic Commentator”. In Texts in Context: Traditional Hermeneutics in South Asia. ed. J. Timm. 109–126. NY: SUNY, 1992. Sheridan, Daniel P. “Direct Knowledge of God and Living Liberation in the Religious Thought of Madhva”. In Living Liberation in Hindu Thought. ed. A. Fort and P. Mumme. 91–114. NY: SUNY, 1996. Siauve, Suzanne. La Doctrine de Madhva: Dvaita Vedanta. Publications de L’Institut Franc¸ais D’Indologie No. 38. Pondich´ery: Institut Franc¸ais D’Indologie, 1968. ´ ¯ı Vi´sve´sa T¯ırtha Sw¯ Sr ´ ¯ı Madhva Philosophy to be the Universal amiji. “The Fitness of Sr Religion for Humanity”. Dharmaprakash. Vol. 16-5/6 (January and February 1987): 19–23. Stein, Burton. “Social Mobility and Medieval South Indian Hindu Sects”. In Social Mobility in the Caste System in India: An Interdisciplinary Symposium. ed. James Silverberg. 78–94. The Hague: Mouton, 1968. Verpoorten, Jean-Marie. “Le Droit A L’Adhyayana Selon La M¯ım¯am . s¯ a”. Indo-Iranian Journal Vol. 30 (1987): 23–30. Wayman, Alex. “Contributions Regarding the Thirty-Two Characteristics of the Great Person”. In Leibenthal Festschrift. ed. Ksihtis Roy. 253–268. Sino-Indian Studies, vol. 5, parts 3 and 4. Santineketan: Visvabharati, 1957. Wilson, Frances. The Love of Krishna: The Kr. .sn. akarn. amr¯ . ta of L¯ ıla¯s´uka Bilvamangala. ¯ Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1975. Zydenbos, R. J. “On the Jaina Background of Dvaitaved¯anta”. Journal of Indian Philosophy Vol. 19 (1991): 249–271. Secondary Sources of Theoretical Importance Christian, William A. Doctrines of Religious Communities. New Haven: Yale U.P., 1987. Clooney, Francis. Theology After Vedanta: ¯ An Experiment in Comparative Theology. NY: SUNY, 1993. Dalmia, Vasudha and H. von Stietencron. eds. Representing Hinduism: The Construction of Religious Tradition and National Identity, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1995. ¯ Griffiths, Paul J. “Denaturalizing Discourse: Abhidh armikas, Propositionalists, and the ¯ Comparative Philosophy of Religion”. In Myth and Philosophy. ed. F. Reynolds. 57–94. NY: SUNY, 1990. Griffiths, Paul J. Religious Reading. Forthcoming, Cited with the permission of the author, March, 1997. O’Flaherty, Wendy Doniger. Dreams, Illusions, and Other Realities. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984. Patton, Laurie L. Myth as Argument: The Br. haddevata¯ as Canonical Commentary. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996. Ramanujan, A. K. Speaking of Siva.´ Great Britain: Penguin Books, 1973. Department of Religious Studies Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN, U.S.A. REGULATING RELIGIOUS TEXTS 635