Maisor Prachya Koshagarastha Likhit Sanskrit Granth Suchi

Author(s): M S Basavalingayya, T T Srinivasgopalachar
Publisher: Oriental Library

Page 10

A.D. But he does not appear to have written any commentary on the Vedas. It has not yet been ascertained which of the above-mentioned two Madhavas—the Mādhava of Anukramanis and the Rgarthadipikā or the Madhava who commented on the Sāma Veda and who is a disciple of Skandaswamin-is to be identified with Madhara Bhatta referred to by Sāyaṇa. But since the quotation taken from Madhava Bhatta by Sāyana, while interpreting the Mantra, “विहिसोतोरित्येषा ऋगिन्द्राण्या” is found to agree, word for word, with Venkatārya's commentary on the same, Madhara Bhatta referred to by Savana appears to be identical with Venkatamadhava. (Astaka VIII, Adhyāya 4, Varga 1, Rk 1.)
Regarding the date of Venkatamādhava, Dr. Venkatasubbiah has come to the conclusion that the Madhava of Rgarthadipikā is posterior to Sāyana since the former's commentary contains, in his opinion, unmistakable references to Sāyana's commentary. The arguments adduced by the learned doctor in support of the conclusion, though plausible, are not convincing. He says that since certain features which Madhavārya considers to be defects in some of the earlier commentaries on the Rg Veda, are to be found in the commentary of Sāyaṇa, the latter must be anterior to him. In reply to this, it may be said that since there is many a similarity in words as well as in content between the commentary of Sāyaṇa and the earlier commentaries, the defects of Sāyana's commentary might be found also in the commentaries of other earlier commentators; and Madhavārya, while enumerating the defects, might have had in view those commentaries which are not now extant. Or Sāyaṇa himself might have reproduced, in his commentary, passages from the earlier commentators, not regarding as defects what Mādhavārya took as defects. Dr. Venkatasubbiah himself admits that in the case of very many Mantras, Sāyaṇa's explanations are almost identical with those of Skandaswāmin. Another argument brought forward by Dr. Venkatasubbiah is this-Madhavārya refers to two com