________________
128 Madhva's Interpretation of the Brahma-sūtras (ch.
The Madhvas accept the second meaning and object to the first, on the ground that His being the source of the Vedas does not in any way add anything to His omniscience beyond what was implied in His being the cause of the production, etc., of the world, as described in the first sūtral. The commentators on Madhva's Bhāşya and Anuvyākhyāna, Jaya-tīrtha, Vyāsa-tīrtha and others, following Madhva's explicit statements, argue in detail that the word "scripture" (śāstra) in the sūtra means the Vedas Rk, Sāman, Yajus and Atharva, and not the Saiva āgamas, which hold that Siva is the cause of the production, etc., of the world. The Madhva commentators try to emphasize the fact that inference by itself is helpless to prove Brahman to be the cause of the production, etc., of the world.
Sūtra 1. 1. 4. Sankara here supposes a mīmāṁsā objection that the Vedas cannot have for their purport the establishing of Brahman, since they are always interested in orders and prohibitions with reference to some kind of action. He refutes it by saying that a proper textual study of the Upanişads shows that their principal purport is the establishing of pure Brahman, and that it has no connection whatever with the performance of any action.
Madhva holds that this sūtra (tat tu samanvayāt, "that however through proper relationing") means that it is intended to indicate that all the scriptures (šāstra) agree in holding Vişņu as Brahman and the ultimate cause, and not Siva or any other gods, as held by
1 katham ca ananta-padārthakasya prapancasya kartstvena na sphufam tad-eka-deśa-veda-karanatvena sphuţibhavisyati sarvajñam. Jaya-tirtha further argues that there is no such concomitance whereby from the authorship of the Vedas omniscience can be inferred. Again, if the authorship of the Vedas means the literary composition representing facts known by sense experience or inference, it must be admitted that the Vedas have been composed like any other ordinary book (pauruşeya); and, if the authorship means only utterance like that by a teacher, that may not mean even a thorough knowledge of the contents of the Vedas. Nyāya-sudha, pp. III, 112.
2 The other scriptures which the Madhvas admitted as authoritative are the Pañcarātra, Mahābhārata and Rāmāyana and not the Samkhya, Yoga or Pāśupata. Thus Madhva says in his Bhāşya: Rg-yajuh-sămātharvas ca bhāratam panca-rätrakam, mūla-rāmāyanam caiva śāstrānity abhidhīyate. Whatever else agrees with these has to be accepted as valid, and the other so-called scriptures have to be rejected. The Pañcarătra and the Vedas are in thorough agreement, and therefore the word śāstra in the sutra refers to the Pañcarātra; so that by declaring the validity of the Pañcarătra alone the Vedas, which agree with it, are also accepted as valid, but everything else which is in disagreement with it is rejected. Thus Madhva says in his bhäşya on this sūtra: teda-pañcarātrayor aikyābhiprayena pañca-tātrasyaiva prāmanyam uktam.
