________________
292
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[OCTOBER, 1876.
that he did not flourish more than two genera- allusion made to the separate worship of Krishna, tions before Mâdhavâchârya. And it therefore either in his own person or that of the infantine follows that the author of the Sankaravijaya forms in which he is now so preëminently venecannot have lived long, if at all, before the rated in many parts of India, nor are the names fourteenth century after Christ, and cannot, of Råma and Sitâ, of Lakshmana or Hanumân, therefore, be identical with the Anandagiri who once particularized, as enjoying any portion of was one of the pupils of Sankaracharya. distinct and specific adoration." The impli
In the 47th section of the Sankaravijaya, con- cation here seems to be that the Sankaravijaya taining the refutation of the Pitrimata, we have must be earlier than the 11th century. But is the following lines, quoted as from the Adhika- it necessary to suppose that the Sankaravijaya ranaratnamáld :
was written before Ramanuja flourished, merely पारिनवार्थमाख्यानं किंवा विद्यास्तुतिस्तुतेः । ज्यायोनुष्ठानशे- because Ramanuja is not mentioned in it? Not षत्वं तेन पारिनवार्थकः
to mention other possible explanations, it seems Now the Adhikaranaratnamálá|| is traditional- to me more likely that our author had before him ly known as only another name of a celebrated as his authority some other work, in which no Mimâmså treatise of Madhavâchârya--the Jai- reference was made to the sect of Râmânuja. miniyanyayamálávistara, of which a beautiful Upon the whole, therefore, I think that the ciredition was commenced by the late Professor cumstance here noted does not affect the conGoldstücker under the auspices of the Oriental clusions which we have already drawn, namely, Text Society, but unfortunately not completed, that the Sankaravijaya is in all probability a in consequence of the death of that lamented work of the 14th century, and that consequently scholar. The above-mentioned stanza, however, it cannot be a work of Anandagiri the pupil of does not occur in that work- either in the por- Sankaracharya. tion printed, or in the remaining portion, which If this is so, it follows that Professor Aufrecht I have examined in Ms. It is to be found in the is not correct in saying that Madhavacharya, work from which the quotation last discussed is in compiling his Sankaravijaya, made use of taken, namely, the Vydsddhikaranamala. It Anandagiri's work, omitting some things, transforms part of the stanzas summarizing Brahma- posing others, abridging here and amplifying sútras III. 4, 23, 24; so that although this pas- there. It is true that in the commentary on sage does not carry us any further than the last, the fifteenth chapter of Madhava's Sankarait still strengthens the conclusion based on it- vijaya we meet with passages, cited as from the namely, that the Sankaravijaya cannot have been "ancient" work to which Mâdhava refers, corcomposed before the fourteenth century A.C. responding with passages in our Sankaravijaya.
But now it becomes desirable to inquire about But, in the first place, the author of that comthe indisputable evidence upon which Professor mentary-Dhanapati-lived only at the beWilson assigned this work to a time not farginning of this century, and his authority on removed from that of Anandagiri. For myself, such a point as the present, though not to be I have failed to find any such evidence. One slighted, is not conclusive. And, what is of argument, however, on which Professor Wilson
more importance, the passages, though coincidwould probably have relied is contained in the ing in some portions, do not coincide altogether. following passage in his Essay on Hindu Sects :- Thus the comment on Madhava XVI. 1, expa"The great divisions," he says, "of Ra- tiating on the word pupils' in that stanza, remå nuja and Râm â nanda, the former of peats the list to be found in our Sankaravijaya which originated, we know, in the course of the (p. 19). And then, commenting on the text 11th century, are unnoticed, and it is also worth which says "he first set out for the Setu (the while to observe that neither in this nor in any Bridge)," the author writes, “This, in conformother portion of the Sankaravijaya is any ity with the old work, should be explained as
I p. 291.
1 In the Catalogue of M88. in the Central Provinces (p. 108), Jaiminlyany dyam dlavistara and Adhikara. naratnamdia are mentioned as two distinct Mimmså treatises. Dr. Bhau Deji (Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. vol. IX. p. 226) speaks of two works, Jaiminfyanyáyaratna.
dhikaranamala and Vedantadhikaranaratnamdia. And see Dr. Hall's Contributions, &c. p. 186.
9 Wilson's Works, vol. I. p. 17. Il p. 3600, and compare also p. 2560, note.
See Aufrecht's Catalogus, p. 260a.
