________________
Esther A Solomon
(c) lo y, we do not food anytbiog specific whicb could explain Bbasarvamia's criticism that Madhava recognised abhiyyakti (manifestation) as a new attribute brought about by the act of production, though he would not accept that the effect was not there in the cause before its production
I would also like to draw attention to an unwarranted reference to a 'kltbaraja' 10 V, 33 "yatha bhavisyanti" gunasyante gudakathaḥ ya[tha] la asahtekliharaja bhavisyati' or "yat hayatha) va subakta[1] khbaraja bhaveyati' or 'bhavuyati gunasyante gudah kaşayavasa[ h]saktaklbaraja bhavisyati" (The expression in the manuscript is 'yatha bhavisyanti gunasyante gudakatha ya va sasaktakltbardja bhavisyah', which clearly requires to be cmended) We have seen above that Madhava bad to enter into a debate with Gunamati, pupil of Vasubaadhu and preceptor of Paremgrtha (499569 A.D This Madhava must have lived in the latter part of the fifth century and been a senior contemporary of Gunamati ? He died whule tho discussion was 1a progress and then the ruling king got a Sangharama built to commemorate Guna mati's victory oyor Madhava Could the author bo referring to Narasimha Gupta (Baladitya) (500 A.D onwards) who must bave been a crown-prince then and shown some leading towards Buddhism or bad a soft corner for the Buddhists for which bo le indirectly criticised boro. We know that it was moreover la Narasithha Gupta's time that the Gupta empre started tottering and bad to face a Hana invasion. This lende some weight to our conjecture that Madbaya was the author of Y, Yet there can be no denying the fact that this is just & conjecture meant to provoko further thought and inquiry It may again be mentioned that what we know as Mathara-opit is only a revised and enlarged version of V, and contains quotations from the Upanişads, Gira, Puranas, Hastamalakastatra and the like and is perhaps as late as 1,000 A D
It may seem a bit surprising that a mero commentator should have attracted the attention of great philosophors liko Komanda, Dharmakirti, Santarakṣita, Bhusarvajña and the like But if Mathara, also regarded as a commentator on the Sankhya-karika could be mentioned, there is no reason wby Madhava also should not be so mentioned We cannot definitely say what he did to deserve the appellation 'Sarhkhya-Nasakd' The author of diffen la cerlalu respects from other commentators, and the author of Tukudipika and even Paramartha scom to respect his views and readings
7 I have shown elsewhere that Mallavidin and his commentator Simhasuri bave made use
of V a putting forth the Sankhya tenets in the Nayacakra and its commentary (Buxth Dentury AD) - we find here the expression jktyantara' (found only in V, and M. - KL 13), sod the discussion regarding 'servant sarvatmakan' (See V., 15) Thul aluo Agro with the date niggested above for Madhani
