93. Mādhavācārya

Volume I: Part II pp. 778–791

93. Mādhavācārya

##93. Mādhavācārya A vast mass of literature has accumulated on the history of Sāyaṇa, Mādhava, Vidyāraṇya, the foundation of Vijayanagara, the relations of these three with the founding of the city of Vijayanagara and their relations with the kings of Vijayanagara, the identity of Mādhava and Vidyāraṇya and so oṇ It is not possible to discuss the whole mass of evidence. Attention will have to be fixed in this work mainly on the contributions of Mādhavācārya to Dharmaśāstra.

It must be stated that sectarian zeal, local patriotisms, personal inclinations and prejudices appear to have played havoc with the Mss, of the works of Sāyaṇa and Mādhava and inscriptions and copperplates relating to theṃ An instance may be cited to illustrate thiṣ There are only six introductory verses in the bhāṣya on the Ṛgveda. Attempts appear to have been made to tamper with verses 3 and 4 (as shown in the note).¹ As to serious disputes between persons belonging to different religions persuasions, reference may be made to the petition made by Jains that the bhaktas (Vaiṣṇavas) were killing them (Vide Prof. B. R. Sala-tore's Vol. I. p. 103). 93. Mādhavācārya

Mādhavācārya is the brightest star in the galaxy of dākṣiṇātya authors on dharmaśāstra. His fame stands only second to that of the great Śaṅkarācārya. He had a most versatile genius and either himself wrote or inspired his brother Sāyaṇa and others to write voluminous works on almost all branches of Sanskrit literature. As an erudite scholar, as a far-sighted statesman, as the bulwark of the Vijayanagara kingdom in the first days of its foundation, as a samnyāsin given to peaceful contemplation and renunciation in old age, he led such a varied and useful life that even to this day his is a name to conjure with. Among his numerous works two deserve special mention here, viz., the Parāśara-mādhavīya and his commentary on the Parāśarasmṛti and the Kālanirṇaya.

The Parāśara-mādhavīya has been published several times, the edition in the B. I. Series and in the Bombay Sanskrit Series being the best knowṇ In the following the Bombay edition has been useḍ This work is very extensive and occupies about 2300 print-ed pages in the Bombay editioṇ It is not a mere commentary on Parāśara's text, but is in the nature of a digest of civil and religious law. The original smṛti of Parāśara contains no verses on vyavahāra but Mādhavācārya hangs on the slender peg of a single verse of Parāśara² calling upon the king to rule his subjects with righteous-ness, his treatise on vyavahāra that covers a little over a fourth part of the whole commentary (vide note 491 above on Parāśara). The Parāśara-mādhavīya is a work of authority on modern Hindu Law in southern India.³ His style is lucid and he generally avoids lengthy and abstruse discussionṣ Besides numerous smṛti-kāras and purāṇas he names the following authors and works— Apara´rka, Devasvāmin, Purāṇasāra, Prapañcasāra, Medhātithi, Vivaraṇakāra ( on the Vedāntasūtra ), Viśvarūpācārya, Śambhu, Śivasvāmin, Smṛticandrikā. The Parāśara-mādhavīya was amongst his earliest workṣ He tells us that there was no commentary on Parāśara before hiṃ⁴ Raghunandana in Āhnikatattva (vol. I. p. 382) expressly says ‘iti Parāśarabhasye Mādhavācārya’. The Parāśarabhasya is mentioned by Raghunandana in ( vol. I. ) Tithi pp. 24, 63, Āhnika pp. 343, 359 also.

The Kālanirṇaya of Mādhavācārya has been published several timeṣ In the following the B. I. edition has been useḍ He states that he wrote this work after he composed his commentary on the Parāśarasmṛti.⁵ The work is divided into five prakaraṇaṣ The first ( Upodghāta ) deals with a scholastic disquisition on kāla ( time ) and its real nature; the 2nd ( called vatsara ) speaks of the year, its various lengths according as it is cāndra, sāvana or saura, of the two ayanas, of the seasons and their number, of the months ( cāndra, saura, sāvana and nakṣatra ) of the intercalary months, and the religious acts allowed and forbidden in intercalary months, of the two pakṣas ( fortnights ); the third prakaraṇa ( pratipat-prakaraṇa ) deals with the meaning of the word tithi, duration of a tithi, the fifteen tithis of a pakṣa, two kinds of tithis, viz. śuddhā ( i. e. not intermixed with another tithi on the same day ) and viddhā ( intermixed with another tithi on the same day ), rules about the preference of the first tithi for particular religious rites and observances ( for Gods and Manes ) when intermixed with the preceding and following tithis, the fifteen muhūrtas of the day and of the night; the fourth ( dvitīyādi-tithi-prakaraṇa ) extends the application of the rules about pratipad to the tithis from the second to the fifteenth and decides on what tithi ( whether inermixed with the preceding or the following ) certain vratas, such as Gaurīvrata on the third, Janmāṣṭamī on the 8th, were to be performed; the fifth ( prakīrṇaka i. e. miscellaneous ) deals with rules about the determination of nakṣatras for various acts, the yogas and karaṇas and rules about saṁkrānti and eclipses and the actions proper for theṃ

The Kālanirṇaya besides the names of numerous sages, purāṇas, astronomical and astrological writers mentions the following works and authors :—Kāladarśa ( p. 83 ), Bhoja ( as having composed in Ārya metre a work on the Śaiva āgama ), Muhūrtra-vidhāna-sāra ( p. 341 ). Vaṭeśvarasiddhānta, Vasiṣṭha 93. Mādhavācārya Rāmāyaṇa, the Siddhānta-śiromaṇi (of Bhāskarācārya ), Hemādri ( p. 67 his vratakhaṇḍa and Dānakhaṇḍa ).

The vesres ( Kārikās ) in the Kālanirṇaya are collected together and sometimes treated as a separate work. Vide Prof. Velankar's Cat. of the Sanskrit Msṣ in the B. B. R. A. S. ( pub. in 1925 ) No. 676 and also his Cat. of the Desai collection of Sanskrit Msṣ Noṣ 197–199 ( pub. in 1953 ).

The Kālanirṇaya was published by the A. S. B. ( Calcutta ) in 1889, also in the Kashi Sanskrit Series of Benares in 1936 and was also published with the commentary of Lakṣmīdevī Payaguṇḍe.

It should not be supposed that Sāyaṇa single-handed com- posed the Vedabhāṣyaṣ He was probably the chairman of the com- mittee of scholars gathered for carrying out the work of the several bhāṣyaṣ From the eulophons of his several works it appears that he was minister under four kings, viz Bukka I, Kampana, Saṅgama II and Harihara II. The Mysore Archaeological Report for 1908 para 54 states ( under date 1386 A. D. ) that Harihara II gave in the presence of Vidyāraṇya a copperplate grant to three scholars who were the promoters ( pravartaka ) in the matter of the commentaries on the four Vedas, their names being Nārāyaṇa Vājapeyayājin, Narahari Somayājin and Pandari Dīkṣita. Father Heras admits that he himself referred to Vidyāraṇya as the great helper of Harihara in the foundation of Vijayanagara, but later he grew wiser and says that it was his mistake ( vide ‘Beginnings’ &c. p. 14 ).

Even Father Heras concedes that the stone inscription in E. C. VI Sgi of 1346 A. D. is genuine. It records a grant, after obeisance to Vidyātīrtha, by Harihara of nine villages to Bhāratītīrtha Śrīpāda, his disciples and others and 40 brāhmaṇas residing in that tīrtha of Śṛiṅgeri. Father Heras ( on pp. 1º–28 of his work ) gives a catalogue of 196 inscriptions from 1336 A. D. to 1669 A. D. Father Heras summarises on p. 18 of his work the principal, historical events in the life of Vidyāraṇya con- nected with Vijayanagara. In 1347 Vidyāraṇya was a minister of Mārappa in the kingdom of Banavāsi–twelve thousand; in 1356 he was at Benares, but had to return to Vijayanagara as he was ordered to do so by his guru Vidyātīrtha; in 1368 he was a great minister ( Mahāpradhāna ) of Bukka I; in 1380 he is mentioned as Jagadguru; his teachings benefitted Harihara II in 1384; in 1386 he died at Hampi and an inscription of Harihara II contains a funeral eulogy of the learned Guru. Heras insists that he was not Jagad-guru in 1346 or 1356. He further holds that Vijayanagara was purposely corrupted into Vidyānagara; only 54 out of 196 Inscriptions exhibit this form of Vidyānagara; while 111 all give the name Vijayanagara and only 31 refer to the ancient name of the city. Father Heras rounds off the examination of the several inscriptions and grants with the following conclusion (p. 34 of ‘Beginning &c.’) : ‘Hence it may be concluded that the ascetics of the Śrīn̉gerimath fabricated the story of Vidyāranya as the founder of the city and Empire of Vijayanagara in the beginning of the 16th century. And it seems most probable that the fabrication of the whole story and the falsification of a great number, if not of all the spurious grants above referred to, was perpetrated during the rule of Ramchandra Bhārati who directed the Śrīngerī Maṭha from 1508 to 1560’. This is not the place to enter upon an examination of Father Heras’ reasons for this conclusioṇ But I cannot avoid the temptation of quoting one of the reasons set forth by Heras as it is well worth quoting. It is : ‘Finally such religious ascetics and recluses psychologically are persons often inclined to fabricate such fables’. Then he winds up with the remark ‘Hence that fabrication of a story which one may derive a profit from – provided no harm should result from the concoction to a third person – is always attractive to such religious recluses’. This is a grand generalisation of Father Heraṣ He adduces no evidence except his ipse dixit; comment is superfluouṣ I hope that Heras would have agreed to apply that dictum to the priests of all religions, as an English poet says ‘the priests of all religions are the same’.

In this History of Dharmaśāstra the discussion of the vexed question of the connection of Mādhava-Vidyāranya with the founding of Vijayanagara is not necessary or relevant. The only important question for the History is the identity of Mādhava and Vidyāranya. That Vidyāranya presided over the Śrīn̉gerī Maṭha is admitted even by Father Heraṣ That Mādhava became a Sannyāsin and became known as Vidyāranya is a tradition of long standing. There is some literary evidence also to substantiate thiṣ Vidyāraṇya is the author of several works such as the Jīvanmukti-viveka and the Pañcadaśī. The former of these two has several Introductory verses, one of which (verse 9) ⁶ says that some sannyāsins are called ‘Kuṭīcaka’ or ‘Bahūdaka’; they are ‘tridaṇḍins’, but the ‘paramahaṁsa’ is different and that the first two have been dealt with by us (me) in the commentary on Parāśara-smṛti, while the Paramahaṁsa would be expatiated upon in this work (i. e. Jīvanmukti-viveka).

Other questions are : (1) Who founded Vijayanagara and (2) whether Mādhava is identical with Vidyāraṇya. From the days of Sewell, who wrote the book ‘Forgotten Empire’ on Vijayanagara Empire, many works and papers on the subject of the founder or founders of Vijayanagara have appeareḍ Vide, the example, ‘The origin of the city of Vijayanagara and Empire’ by Dr. N. Venkata Ramanayya (University of Madras 1933), Dr. B. R. Salatone on ‘Rajguru of the founders of Vijayanagara and the Pontiffs of Śṛngerī Maṭha’ in J. A. H. R. vol. IX part 4 pp. 33–42 and his two volumes on ‘Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire’ (1934, in about 1000 pages); Journal of Mythic Society, vol. 27 pp. 54–107 (foundation of Vijayanagara) ; ‘Founders of Vijayanagara’ by S. Srikantayya (1938); Mr. Gopinath Rao in E. I. vol. XV pp. 10–15. Mr. Srikantayya observes on p. 43 ‘Who founded Vijayanagara? The question still remains unanswered’.

On the question of the identity of Mādhava and Vidyāraṇya a few references are given here. In I. H. Q. vol. VI pp. 701– 717 and vol. VII p. 78 ff. Mr. R. Ramrao tries to negative the identity. In I. H. Q. vol. VIII pp. 611–644 K. Markandeya Sastri replies at length to R. Ramrao. R. Rarmrao returns to the charge in I. H. Q. vol. X pp. 801–810; Journal of Indian History vol. XII pp. 241–250 ( Doraiswamy Iyengar rejects the identity of Mādhava and Vidyāraṇya ). The present author holds that Mādhava and Vidyāraṇya are identical. There are, apart from traditions and chronicles several inscriptions that bear on the connection of Mādhavācārya or Vidyāraṇya with the several kings of Vijayanagara. Father Heras in his work called ‘Beginnings of Vijayanagar History’ goes so far as to say that practically all inscriptions relating to the Vidyā- raṇya tradition or to the connection of Vidyāraṇya with Harihara and Bukka in political and imperial undertakings are spurious or must be certainly looked upon with suspicioṇ His remarks are very sweeping and cannot be accepted as embodying the truth. At least about 200 inscriptions and grants relating to Vijayanagara are knowṇ The scholars must try to separate the spurious ones from the otherṣ There is no reason to damn all grants and Inscrip- tions referring to Vidyāraṇya. He was a Sannyāsin and had renounced the worlḍ It is too much to suppose that he forged grantṣ If one holds that he did so, then the question arises, for what benefit or for whose benefit? Besides copperplate grants can be easily fabricated and passed off; but Inscriptions on stone are generally in public places such as roads, temples, tops of hills, where all members of the public can observe them everyday. A scholar must think long before damning an inscription on stone as a forgery.

There is no doubt that in the 13th century A. D. and after- wards Hindu society in South India was ridden with the wrangles and quarrels of the followers of Śaṅkarācārya, Mādhavācārya, Rāmānujācārya and of Liṅgayats and Jains and that individuals of some persuasions tampered with msṣ to bolster up their indivi- dual preferences, leanings and beliefṣ This may be illustrated by citing the Introduction of Sāyaṇácārya’s bhāṣya as done above.

Sāyaṇácārya’s bhāṣya⁷ on the Yajurveda-saṃhitā is once mentioned by Raghunandana (vol. I, Śrāddha p. 277 as quoted below). But Mādhavācārya is frequently quoted by hiṃ For example, the Kālamādhavīya is quoted very often as on (vol. I) Tithi pp. 1, 6, 8, 16, 33, 48, 60 as Kālamādhavīya or Mādhava- cārya, Śrāddha p. 283; the Parāśarabhāṣya of Mādhavācārya is mentioned in (vol. I) Āhnika on pp. 336, 382 and simply as 93. Mādhavācārya Mādhavācārya also in many places e. g. (vol. I), Mala pp. 771, 781, 794 (definition of the word Mantra).

A good deal about the family and personal history of Mādhavācārya can be gleaned from the above mentioned two works and other treatises of Mādhavācārya. From the Parāśara- mādhavīya we⁸ learn that he was the son of Māyaṇa and Śrīmati, that Sāyaṇa and Bhoganātha⁹ were his younger brothers, that he was a student of the black Yajurveda and of the Baudhāyana-sūtra-caraṇa and belonged to the Bhāradvāja- gotra. The introductory verses and the colophon of the Prāyaścitta-sudhanidhi¹⁰ of Sāyaṇa corroborate most of these particularṣ A verse at the beginning of the Kālanirṇaya tells us that Vidyātīrtha, Bharatītīrtha and Śrīkaṇṭha were his teacherṣ¹¹⁷⁶ The Parāśara-Mādhavīya highly eulogises¹¹⁷⁷ Mādhavācārya, compares him to divine and semi-divine councillors like Aṅgirasa of Indra and says that he was the hereditary teacher ( kulaguru ) and mantrin of king Bukkana, (or Bukka). The colophons to the several works of Sāyaṇa, the younger brother of Mādhavācārya, show that these brothers were closely connected with four rulers of the Vijayanagar dynasty, viz. Bukka and his son Harihara, Kampa and his son Saṅgama. In the Yajñatantra-sudhānidhi¹¹⁷⁸ (mṣ in the Bhau Daji collec- tion) Sāyaṇa, the author of the bhāṣyas on the Vedas, is said to be the kulaguru of Harihara, son of Saṅgama. In the Guruvamśa-kāvya ( Vāṇīvilāsa Press eḍ) it is said that Vidyā- raṇya was the pupil of Vidyātīrtha, that he composed Veda- bhāṣyas and published them in the names of Sāyaṇa and Mādhava, that Harihara and Bukka were the most valiant of the five sons of Saṅgama (v. 48), that Vīra Rudra was the sovereign of Harihara and Bukka and was defeated by the sura- trāna i. e. sultaṇ The same work says that Vidyāraṇya founded Vijayanagari in śake 1258, Vaiśākha śuddha 7 Sunday (i. e. 30th April 1335 A. D.) and crowned Harihara king.^1178a

Burnell in his introduction to the Vamśabrāhmaṇa started the theory that Sāyaṇa and Mādhava were identical and put forward an esoteric meaning on the verse that states that Sāyaṇa and Bhoganātha were the younger brothers of Mādhava. But the facts as culled from the works of these two great men and the inscrip- tions of contemporary Vijayanagara kings are too strong for the 93. Mādhavācārya

hypothesis of Burnell and make it look absurḍ The whole subject about the relationship of Mādhava, Sāyaṇa and Bhoganātha has been carefully examined by Rao Bahadur R. Narasimhachar in Inḍ Ant. vol. 45 pp. 1-6 and 17ff. and the theory of Burnell has been thoroughly refuteḍ Sāyaṇa and Bhoganātha were as real personages as Mādhavācārya himself. Mādhavācārya in his later years became a saṁnyāsin and was named Vidyāraṇya. To the items of evidence adduced by R. B. R. Narasimhachar for establishing the identity of Mādhava and Vidyāraṇya (Inḍ Ant. vol. 45 p. 18) I may add one more. The Viramitrodaya ascribes the commentary on Parāśara composed by Mādhava to Vidyāraṇya.¹¹ It has however to be noted that the Guruvamśakāvya (Vāṇīvilās Press eḍ) says (V. 41-44) that Vidyāraṇya was different from both Sāyaṇa and Mādhava.

Sāyaṇa¹² was not only a very learned man and author of several works (besides the Vedabhāṣyas) but he also fought several battleṣ He composed several works enumerated in the note below.¹³

In the bhāṣya on Parāśara he names three gurus, Vidyātīrtha, Bhāratītīrtha and Śrīkaṇṭha. He, however, says in his Anubhūtiprakāśa that Vidyātīrtha was his principal guru.¹⁴

Vidyāraṇya was originally Mādhava. He is the author of the Jīvanmuktiviveka and of Pañcadaśī. The introductory verses 9-11 of the Jīvanmuktiviveka have been cited above. The com- mentary on Parāśarasmṛti (called Parāśaramādhavīya) is claimed to be his by Mādhavācārya (vide note 1170). Therefore Vidyā- raṇya’s words lead to the conclusion that he is identical with Mādhavācārya in a former stage of life (āśrama). Vide Rao Bahadur R. Narasimhachar’s learned paper on ‘Mādhavācārya and his younger brothers’ in I. A. vol. 45 pp. 1-6 and 17-24.

Among the works of Mādhavācārya are the following : Parāśarasmṛtibhaṣya, Kālamādhava, Jīvanmuktiviveka, Pañcadaśī, Jaiminīya-nyāyamālāvisțara, Vaiyāsika-nyāyamālāvisțara. The Pañcadaśī has a commentary of Rāmakṛṣṇa (Nir. Press eḍ of 1918). It is a famous work on the Advaita Vedānta. It is so called because it has 15 Prakaraṇaṣ It may also be noted that in the Nir. edition the work has 1501 verseṣ The longest Praka- raṇas are Tṛptidīpa with 298 verses and Citradīpa with 290. The shortest Prakaraṇa is ‘Mahāvākya-viveka’ with only eight verseṣ The Jīvanmuktiviveka has extensive quotations from the Upa- niṣads and the Bhagavadgītā. It also quotes the following works and authors viz. Ānandabodhācārya (p. 8), Āryapañcāśiti (p. 48), Upadeśasāhasrī (p. 6), Gaūḍapādācārya (pp. 78, 108), Dakṣa p. 106 (two verses of which one is Dakṣasmṛti VII. 30), Patañjali (p. 39), Bhāgavata (p. 87), Manusmṛti (pp. 106 and 108 quote respectively VII. 10-11 and VI. 53-54), Medhātithi (9 verses on p. 109 about Yati, probably from his Smṛtiviveka not yet discovered), Yama (p. 108), Yogabhāṣya (pp. 64, 74), Yogasūtra (pp. 46, 67), Vākyavṛtti (p. 30 two verses), Vedānta- sūtra (p. 30, IV. 1. 19).

It appears that Mādhavācārya regarded Vidyātīrtha, his principal guru, as an incarnation of God Maheśvara. Vide the verse quoted in the note below.¹⁵

Besides being a mantrin of the Vijayanagara kings, it appears that Mādhavācārya performed some great vedic sacri- fices, and made donations called ‘Mahādānas’. In the 93. Mādhavācārya

Yajñatantrasudhanidhi¹⁶ he is described by Sāyana as ‘Mahā-kratnām-āhartā’ and to have weighed himself against precious metals (tulāpuruṣadāna).

The chronology of the kings of Vijayanagara has been a fruitful source of controversy. It is not necessary to go into that chronology in great detail here. It may be studied in such works as Sewell’s ‘Forgotten Empire’ and in E. I. vol. III. p. 36, E. I. vol. XIV p. 68, E. I. vol. XV p. 8. The following pedigree¹⁷ will be sufficient for the purpose of connecting Mādhava and his brothers with the kings of Vijayanagara. The earliest inscription is that of Harihara I dated śake 1261 (1339-40 A. D.) wherein Harihara is said to be a Mahā-mandaleśvara and is spoken of as ‘Śrī-Vīra-Hariyappa- Voḍeya’.¹⁸ The colophon of the Mādavīyā Dhātuwṛtti describes Mādhava as the great minister of Saṅgamarāja, the son of Kamparāja.¹⁹ The Bitraguṇṭa grant in śake 1278 (1356 A. D.) by Saṅgama II at the request of his teacher Śrīkanthanātha shows that Bhoganātha²¹ who composed the contents of the grant was a narmasaciva (gay or humorous companion) of Saṅgama II. We saw above that Śrīkantha was a teacher of Mādhavācārya and that Bhoganātha was the youngest brother of Mādhavācārya. Bhoganātha in order to be a poet and a narama- saciva of a reigning sovereign must have been a grown-up man in 1356 A. D. and so Mādhavācārya must have been quite an elderly person about that time. The Kālanirṇaya tells us that in the cyclic year Īśvara following immediately after śake 1258 Śrāvaṇa was an intercalary month and that in the cyclic year Bhāva that preceded śake 1258 (i. e. śake 1256) Phālguna was an intercalary month and then examines the intercalary months that occurred in the cyclic years up to Vikārī thereafter (i. e. up to śake 1281).²¹ As the Kālanirṇaya examines the intercalary months from śake 1256 (i. e. 1334 A. D.) to śake 1281 (i. e. 1359 A. D.), it follows that it was either composed during these years or immediately after this perioḍ The Parāśara- mādhavīya was composed before the Kālanirṇaya. Rao Bahadur Narsimhachar states that in a copperplate grant dated 1386 A. D. it is said that Harihara (II) gave in the presence of Vidyā- raṇya-śrīpāda certain donations to three scholars who were the promoters (pravartaka) of the commentaries on the four Vedas (Inḍ Ant. vol. 45 p. 19). Another inscription speaks of Vidyā- raṇya in 1378 A. D.²² This shows that Mādhavācārya had become a samnyāsin at least in 1377 A. D. Tradition says that Vidyāraṇya died in 1386 A. D. at the ripe old age of 90. There- fore we shall not be far wrong if we place the literary activity of Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya between 1330–1385 A. D. From the remarks about intercalary months it appears that the Parāśara- mādhavīya and Kālanirṇaya were composed between 1335–1360 A. D. There was a tradition among pandits that it was Mādhava- cārya who composed bhāṣyas on the Vedas and ascribed them to his brother Sāyaṇa. Kāśinātha, in his Vitthala-rāmantra- sāra-bhāṣya says so.²³ 93. Mādhavācārya Great confusion has been caused by identifying Mādhava- Vidyāraṇya with another scholar named Mādhava who was also a mantrin of Bukka, who was a great warrior and was governor of Banavase and the country round Goa on the western coast. In a grant¹¹⁹¹ of the village Kucara, also called Mādhavapura, dated śaka 1313 (1391 A. D.), it is said that he routed the armies of the Turuskas, wrested Goa the capital of Koṅkaṇa from them and re-established the temple of Saptanātha (i. e. Sapta-koṭīśvara). There is another inscription dated śaka 1290 (i. e. 1368 A. D.) where the great minister ( Mahāpradhāna ) Mādhavāṅka is stated to have ruled over Banavase 12000 under king Bukkarāya (Inḍ Ant. vol. IV, p. 206 ). Fleet is wrong in identifying the minister Mādhavāṅka with Mādhavācārya-Vidyāraṇya. Another grant from Goa (found by Dr. Bhau Daji) says that Mādhava-mantrin, son of Cauṇḍibhaṭṭa, established the liṅgu of Saptanātha (JBBRAS Vol. 9, p. 228 ). Vide E. C. vol. VIII, Sorab No. 375 dated śake 1268 (Sunday Mādhava 30, i. e. 11th Feb. 1347), where we are told that Mādhavamantrin was governor of Candragutti, capital of Banavase 12000, that he was minister of Mārapa, younger brother of Harihara I and that he was a disciple of Kriyāśakti, a Śaiva teacher. In E. C. vol. VII, Shikarpur 281 dated śake 1290 Kartika bahula 8 (i. e. 15th November 1368) Mādhava is said to have been a son of the Cauṇḍa of the Āṅgirasa gotra and a minister of Bukka I and his guru is said to have been Kāśīvilāsa Kriyāśakti.

From this it follows that the Mādhava mantrin who was a governor of Banavase and Goa and was living in 1391 A. D. was the son of Cauṇḍibhaṭṭa and cannot be identified with Mādhavācārya who was the son of Māyaṇa.

There is a mṣ in the Bombay University Library of a work called Kālanirṇayakārikā in 130 verses, which contains the intro- ductory verses of the Kālanirṇaya dealing with the contents, though in a somewhat different order. There are several commen- taries on the Kālanirṇaya, viz. Kālanirṇayadīpikā by Ramacandra- cārya composed about 1450 A. D., a commentary called Lakṣmi