Indian Antiquary Vol 62

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 201

OCTOBER, 1933]
THE MAŅDOKYOPANIŞAD AND GAUDAPADA
189
written; and this book, as we know, is not a sruti text at all.22 And, as regards the other commentators referred to above, even the earliest of them is posterior by at least three hundred or four hundred years to Sankara, who is thus the earliest commentator that we know of on the work in question. As such, therefore, his testimony deserves far more credit than that of the other commentators; and when there is a conflict between the two, we have neces. sarily to give credence to the former and reject the latter. Now, though it is true that Sankara has nowhere said that the Måndükya is not sruti, he has said that it and the 215 kârikâs have been written by the great teacher' (parama-guru). This statement effectively negatives the idea of the Mandûkya being śruti, and it becomes plain that the Mandukya is not a śruti text,23 but that it forms part of a work, which contains, besides, the 215 kårikås, and which was written by a human author.
In that case, it may be asked, what about the circumstantial account given by Madhva out Varuna, in the form of a frog, seeing the Mândukya? We answer, it is all pure concoction. The Harivamsa does not contain the passage cited by Madhva or anything similar to it. Nor is there any possibility of its containing it ; for, apart from other considerations, the Mândükya was, as set forth above, written by a human author and not "seen" at all by any seer.
The charge has often been brought against Madhvâcârya that he is addicted to the fabrication of evidence, and that he very frequently cites passages from books which do not. and did not at any time, exist. Appayya Dikşita, in his Madhva-mata-vidhvamsana, has compiled a small list of such books cited by Madhva which includes Caturamatha, Matha kaurnarava, Kaundinya, Måndavya, Markandavya, Maudgalya, Pausyâyana, Sautrayana, Saukarayana, Katharayana, Párásaryâyana, Madhyamdināyana, Kásárara, Kauşára, Kaupayana, Brhad-uddalaka, Auddalakayana, Kausika, Sauvarnya, Valsa-gaupavana, Bhallaveya, Agnivebya, Caturveda-Sikha, Caturveda-Samhita, Parama Srutih, Adhyatma-narayana. samhita, Brahmavai karta, Bhavisyat-parvan, Mahd-samhita, Mayatantra, Branmatantra, Narayanatantra and Purupottamatantra. Similarly, the Virasaiva writer Nirvana too, when criticising Madhva's views in his commentary on the Kriyására, uses the words (p. 24) sravacanaprakațita-vaidika-márgánanuguna-bhagavatalvenabhimata-eva-kapola-kalpita-rocane, and thus gays that Madhva's quotation from the Bhagavatatantra is fabricated by Madhva. His words, iti tad anadhita-veda-gandha-Bhallaveya-Katharayana-Matharayana-sruti-Vyomasamhi. tadhinam na bhavati kim tu prasiddha evopanişadi....on p. 33 too seem likewise to indicate that he considered mythical the Katharayana-sruti and the other above-mentioned works cited by Madhva.
The justness of this charge is borne out by Madhva's commentary on the Mandûkya. In this commentary (Kumbakonam edition), Madhva cites passages from Padma, Byhateamhita, Harivamia (in the plural), Mahayoga, Varáha, Prakásika, Markandeya, Brahmatarka, Garuda, Brahmanda, Mahatmya, Samkalpa, Pratyaya, Pratyanard, Mahopanişad, Praakta-fruti and Atma-samhita, and many other works. Of these, Mahopanigad is the name of an upanipad ; Padma, Garuda, Vardha, Markandeya, Brahmanda and Harivamia are the names of well-known Puranas, and Brhat-samhita the name of Varaha-mihira's wellknown work. No works are known bearing the names Prakasika, Brahmalarka, Mahatmya,
» It is interesting to note that, like the Mandukya, the Caraka-sa qahita too has, at the end of many of its sections (chapters), verses that are introduced by the words atraite or atraite floked bhavanti. This is the case with Vatayâyana's Kamastra and Kautilya's Arthaddatra also works which were, like the Mandakya, written in the early centuries of the Christian era.
** It is the accepted canon of tho Mim&msakas that the sole criterion of whether & text is druti or not, is its being known by the name of fruti among the Veda-knowers from time immemorial (brutitvena anadi. lodla-bigla-vyavahdrah). Such usage is not seen in the case of the Mandokya ; for not only was it not known as frito Sankara, who has commented upon it, but it is actually stated by him that it is the work of a human author.