Madhvas Zitate aus den Puranas und dem Mahabharata: Eine analytische Zusammenstellung nicht identifizierbarer Quelienzitate in Madhvas Werken nebst Ubersetzung und Anmerkungen.

• Author: Rocher, Ludo
• Position: Book review

Madhvas Zitate aus den Puranas und dem Mahabharata: Eine analytische Zusammenstellung nicht identifizierbarer Quelienzitate in Madhvas Werken nebst Ubersetzung und Anmerkungen. By ROQUE MESQUITA. Publications of the De Nobili Research Library, vol. 24. Vienna: INSTITUT FUR SUDASIEN-, TIBET-UND BUDDHISMUSKUNDE DER UNIVERSITAT WIEN, 2007. Pp. 643.

"Un des traits assez deconcertants de son oeuvre," Suzanne Siauve wrote about Madhva alias Anandatirtha, "est le fait qu'il cite un nombre considerable de Sruti inconnues qui, a de rares exceptions pres, ne sont utilisees par aucun auteur anterieur ni posterieur a lui, pas meme a l'interieur de son ecole" (La doctrine de Madhva [Paris 1968], 24). Siauve was not one who could be suspected of being unduly critical of Madhva. To the contrary, if anything, reviewers of her works most often found her being partial in his favor (W. Halbfass, JAOS 92 [1972]: 176; O. von Hinuber, Erasmus 25 [1973]: 775). In fact, Siauve actively defended Madhva's numerous unverifiable quotations from the sruti against accusations of deception and even fraud. His sense of orthodoxy, she said, his respect for the Veda, his wide travels in search of manuscripts, the richness of his library, and his remarkable memory make fraud very unlikely. "S'il avail forge ses sources il aurait ete plus habile" (Siauve 1968, p. 25).

Yet, there have been attacks on Madhva's method of citing, in support of his novel dvaita theory, passages said to be from sruti and from smrti, starting soon after Madhva's time. In addition to Varadacarya's reference to quotations kaiscid, that are svakapolakalpita, and Vedantadesika/Venkatanatha's dismissal of unnamed quotations invented by papisthah (P. Olivelle: Renunciation in Hinduism [Vienna], vol. 2 [1987], 47, 62-63, and vol. 1, 1986, 115, 153), which may or may not have been specifically aimed at Madhva, the most direct and personal attack on Madhva came in the Madhvatantramukhamardana by the Visistadvaitin Appayadiksita. Even though, Appaya says in the second and third verses of the text and in his auto-commentary, different branches of Vedanta are acceptable since they differ only in the interpretation of a handful of sutras (katipayesv eva sutresu prakdrabhedah), Madhva's theory must be rejected out of hand (agrdhyam eva), because Anandatirthiye tu yojane prdyah sarvatraiva prakarabhedah. And in his auto-commentary he lists twenty-nine sruti and eleven smrti (followed by-adi) totally unknown (atyantaprasiddha) titles Madhva introduces in support (saksitayopanyasah) of his idiosyncratic theories (Madhvatantramukhamardana with the commentary Madhvamatavidhamsana, ed. Ramanathadiksita [Kasi 1941 ], 3-4).

The debate about the authenticity of Madhva's quotations was taken up again by Western scholars in the twentieth century. I already referred to Suzanne Siauve, and will restrict myself to just a few other examples. In her doctoral dissertation on Madhva's commentary on the Kathopanisad (Leipzig, 1922), Betty Heimann expressed surprise at the many metrical parts of the commentary. She was willing to consider two alternatives: either they were quotations from Agama texts that were generally known in Madhva's time, "or they were invented by Madhva himself (ad hoc?)," and she decidedly leaned toward the latter alternative (pp. 7-8). Helmuth von Glasenapp mentioned the same two alternatives, but he refrained from committing himself in either direction. It is regrettable, he...