A History of Indian Philosophy Volume 3

by Surendranath Dasgupta | 1940 | 232,512 words | ISBN-13: 9788120804081

This page describes the philosophy of ramanuja literature: a concept having historical value dating from ancient India. This is the fourth part in the series called the “an historical and literary survey of the vishishtadvaita school of thought”, originally composed by Surendranath Dasgupta in the early 20th century.

As already noted, the principal commentary on Rāmānuja’s bhāṣya, was the Śruta-prakāśikā by Sudarśana Sūri. Even before this Śruta-prakāśikā was written, another commentary, called Śrī-bhāṣya-vivṛti, was written by Rāma-miśra-deśika, a disciple of Rāmānuja, under his own direction. This work was written in six chapters and was not a commentary in the ordinary sense, but a study of the principal contents of Rāmānuja’s bhāṣya. This Rāma Miśra was a different man from Rāma Miśra, the teacher of Yāmuna. The Śruta-prakāśikā had a further study, entitled Bhāva-prakāśikā, by Vīrarāghavadāsa.

Criticisms of this work were replied to in a work called Bhāṣya-prakāśikā-dūṣaṇoddhāra by Śathakopācārya, a writer of the sixteenth century. The Śruta-prakāśikā had another commentary, called Tūlikā, by Vādhūla Śrīnivāsa, a writer who probably belonged to the fifteenth century. The contents of the Śruta-prakāśikā were summarized in a work called Śruta-prakāśikā-sāra-saṃgraha. The bhāṣya of Rāmānuja was further commented on in the Tattva-sāra, by Yātsya Yarada, a nephew of Rāmānuja.

The name of the commentator’s father was Devarāja, and his mother was Kamalā, a sister of Rāmānuja. He was a pupil of Śrīviṣṇucitta, a disciple of Kureśa. This Tattva-sāra provoked a further criticism, called Ratna-sāriṇī, by Vīra-rāghava-dāsa, son of Vādhūla Nara-simha-guru and pupil of Vādhūla Varadaguru, son of Vādhūla Veṅkatācārya. He also himself wrote a commentary on the Śrī-bhāṣya, called Tātparya-dīpikā.

Vīra-rāghava-dāsa lived probably in the later half of the fourteenth or the beginning of the fifteenth century. Rāmānuja’s views were also collected together in a scholarly manner in a work called Naya-mukha-mālikā, by Apvaya-dīkṣita, who was born in the middle of the sixteenth century.

Rāmānuja’s bhāṣya is also dealt with by the famous Veṅkaṭanātha, in his work Tattva-ṭīkā. The Śrī-bhāṣya had another commentary called Naya-prakāśikā, by Aleghanādāri, a contemporary of Yeṅ-katanātha of the fourteenth century[1]. A further commentary is called Mita-prakāśikā, by Parakāla Yati, probably of the fifteenth century. Parakāla Yati had a disciple called Raṅga Rāmānuja, who wrote a study of the Śrī-bhāṣya, called Mūla-bhāva-prakāśikā.

One Śrīnivāsācārya also criticized the Śrī-bhāṣya in Brahma-vidyā-kaumndī. It is difficult to guess which Śrīnivāsa was the author of the work, there being so many Śrīnivāsas among the teachers of the Rāmānuja school.

Campakeśa, disciple of Veñkatanātha, also dealt with the Śrī-bhāṣya. Śuddhasattva Lakṣmaṇācārya also wrote on the Śrī-bhāṣya, a work entitled Gnru-bhāva-prakāśikā which was based upon the Guru-tattva-prakāśikā of Campakeśa. This work was in reality a commentary on the Śruta-prakāśikā. The author was the son of Śuddhasattva Yogīndra. He descends from the line of Rāmānuja’s mother’s sister, in which there were born eighteen teachers of Vedānta; he was the pupil of Saumya Jāmātṛ muni and flourished probably in the latter half of the sixteenth century.

This Guru-bhāva-prakāśikā was commented on in the Guru-bhāva-prakāśikā-vyākhyā. Sudarśana Sūri also seems to have written a commentary on the Śrī-bhāṣya, called Śruti-dīpikā. Śrīnivāsa, the son of Tāta-yārya and Lakṣmī-devi, of Śrīśaila lineage and pupil of Aṇṇayārya and Koṇḍinna Śrīnivāsa-dīkṣita, wrote another digest on the Śrī-bhāṣya, called Tattva-mārtaṇḍa. He probably lived in the latter half of the fifteenth or the beginning of the sixteenth century.

The name of his grandfather was Aṇṇa-guru. He wrote

He is also known as Śrīśaila Śrīnivāsa, and he wrote other books, e.g.

  • Jijñāsā-darpaṇa,
  • Naya-dyu-maṇi-dīpikā,
  • and Naya-dyu-maṇi-saṃgraha.

The Naya-dyu-maṇi of Naya-dyu-maṇi-dīpikā is not to be confused with the Naya-dyu-maṇi of Megha-nādāri; for it is a summaiy in verse of Rāmānuja’s bhāṣya with a commentary in prose. The Naya-dyu-maṇi-saṃgraha is a work in prose on the bhāṣya of Rāmānuja, and the first four sūtras intended to refute the criticisms made by his opponents. The Naya-dyu-maṇi-saṃgraka is a much smaller work than the Naya-dyu-maṇi, which is often referred to by the author for details. It makes constant reference to objections against Rāmānuja without mentioning the name of the critic. In the Naya-dyu-maṇi the author has made detailed discussions w'hich are summarized by him in this work[3].

Thus Śrīnivāsa wrote three works

  • Naya-dyu-maṇi,
  • Naya-dyu-maṇi-saṃgraha,
  • and Naya-dyu-maṇi-dīpikā.

In his Siddhānta-cintāmaṇi Śrīnivāsa tries mainly to uphold the theory that Brahman is the only cause of all creation, animate and inanimate. In this work he tries to refute at every point the theory of Brahma-causality, as held by Śaṅkara.

Again, Deśikācārya wrote a commentary on the Śrī-bhāṣya, called Prayoga-ratna-mālā. Nārāyaṇamuni wrote his Bhāva-pradīpikā, and Puruṣottama his Subodhinī also as commentaries on the Śrī-bhāṣya. These writers probably lived some time about the seventeenth century. Yīra-rāghava-dāsa also criticized the Śrī-bhāṣya in the Tātparya-dīpikā. His name has already been mentioned in connection with his study, Ratna-sāriṇī, on Yātsva Yarada’s Tattva-sāra.

  • Śrīnivāsa Tātācārya wrote his Laghu-prakāśikā,
  • Śrīvatsāṅka Śrīnivāsa his Śrī-bhāṣya-sārārtha-saṃgraha,
  • and Śaṭhakopa hia Brahma-sūtrārtha-saṃgraha as commentaries on the Śrī-bhāṣya.

These writers seem to have flourished late in the sixteenth century. Śrīvatsāṅka Śrīnivāsa’s work was further summarized by Raṅgā-cārya in his Śrīvatsa-siddhānta-sāra.

Appava-dīkṣita, of the middle of the seventeenth century, wrote a commentary on the Brahma-sūtras, called Naya-mukha-mālikā, closely following the ideas of Rāmānuja[4].

Raṅga Rāmānuja also wrote a commentary, called Śārīraka-śāstrārtha-dīpikā, on the Brahma-sūtra, following the interpretations of Rāmānuja. His Mūla-bhāva-prakāśikā, a commentary on the Śrī-bhāṣya, has already been referred to in this section.

He wrote also a commentary on the Nyāya-siddhāñjana of Veṅkaṭanātha, called Nyāya-siddhāñjana-vyākhyā. He was a pupil of Parakāla Yati and probably lived in the sixteenth century.

He wrote also three other works, called

  1. Viṣaya-vākya-dīpikā,
  2. Chānda-gyopaniṣad-bhāṣya,
  3. and Rāmānuja-siddhānta-sāra.

Rāmānujadāsa, called also IVIahācārya, lived probably early in the fifteenth century, and was a pupil of Vādhūla Śrīnivāsa. This Vādhūla Śrīnivāsa, author of the Adhikaraṇa-sārārtha-dīpikā, must be an earlier person than Śrīnivāsadāsa, author of the Yatīndra-mata-dīpikā, who was a pupil of Mahācārya.

Mahācārya wrote a work called Pārāśarya-vijaya, which is a thesis on the general position of the Rāmānuja Vedanta. He wrote also another work on the Śrī-bhāṣya called Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣyopanyāsa.

Mahācārya’s other works are

He should be distinguished from Rāmānujācārya, called also Vādihamsāmbuvāha, uncle of Veṅkaṭanātha.

There is a work called Śrī-bhāṣya-vārttika, which, unlike most of those above, has already been printed; but the author does not mention his name in the book, which is composed in verse. Senā-nātha, or Bhagavat Senāpati Miśra, who is an author of later date, wrote Śārīraka-nyāya-kalāpa.

Vijayīndra Bhikṣu was the author of Śārīraka-mīmāṃsā-vṛtti,
and Raghunāthārya of Śārīraka-śāstra-saṃgati-sāra.

Sundararāja-deśika, an author of the sixteenth century, wrote a simple commentary on the Śrī-bhāṣya called Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya-vyākhyā.

Veṅkatācārya, probably an author of the sixteenth century, wrote Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya-pūrva-pakṣa-saṃgraha-kārikā in verse. This Veṅkatācārya was also known as “Prativādībhakeśarī.” He also composed Ācārya-pañcāśat.

Campakeśa, who has already been referred to, wrote a commentary on the Śrī-bhāṣya, called Śrī-bhāṣya-zyākhyā.

Veṅkaṭanāthārya wrote a work called Śrī-bhāṣya-sāra.

Śrīvatsāṅka Śrīnivāsācārya was the author of Śrī-bhāṣya-sārārtha-saṃgraha.

Śrīraṅgācārya composed Śrī-bhāṣya-siddhānta-sāra
and Śrīnivāsācārya wrote a work called Śrī-bhāṣyopanyāsa.

There are two other commentaries, called

  1. Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya-saingraha-vivaraṇa
  2. and Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣyā-rambha-prayoyana-samarthana ;

but the names of the authors are missing in the manuscripts.

Veṅkaṭanātha, of the thirteenth century, wrote Adhikarana-sārāvalī,
and Maṅgācārya Śrīnivāsa, Adhikaraṇa-sārārtha-dīpikā.

Varadārya or Varadanātha, son of Veṅkaṭanātha, wrote a commentary on the Adhikaraṇa-sārāvali called Adhikāra-cintāmaṇi. There is another work on similar subjects called Adhikaraṇa-yukti-vilāsa; but, though the author offers an adoration to Śrīnivāsa, he does not mention his name and it is difficult to discover who this Śrīnivāsa was.

Jagannātha Yati wrote a commentary on the Brahma-sūtra on the lines of Rāmānuja’s bhāṣya, and it was called Brahma-sūtra-dīpikā. It will thus be seen that Rāmānuja’s bhāṣya inspired many scholars and thinkers and a great literature sprang up on its basis. But it must be noted with regret that this huge critical literature on Rāmānuja’s bhāṣya, is not in general of much philosophical importance.

Rāmānuja’s Vedārtha-saṃgraha was commented on by Sudarśana Sūri of the fourteenth century, in Tātparya-dīpikā. He was the son of Yāgvijaya, or Viśvajaya, and pupil of Yātsya Yarada. In addition to his study of Rāmānuja’s bhāṣya already referred to, he wrote a Sandhyā-randana-bhāṣya.

Rāmānuja’s Vedānta-dīpa (a brief commentary on the Brahma-sūtra) was dealt with by Ahobila Raṅganātha Yati, of the sixteenth century. Rāmānuja’s Gadya-traya was criticized by Veṅkaṭanātha, and Sudarśanācārya also wrote a commentary; Kṛṣṇapada, a later author, also wrote another commentary. Rāmānuja’s commentary on the Gītā also was commented on by Veṅkaṭanātha. The Vedānta-sāra was a brief commentary on the Brahma-sūtra by Rāmānuja himself, based on his Śrī-bhāṣya.

Rāmānujācārya, called also Yādihamsāmbuvāhācārya of Ātreya gotra, son of Padmanābha and maternal uncle of Veṅkaṭanātha, lived in the thirteenth or fourteenth century; he wrote an important work, called Naya-kuliśa or Nyāya-kuliśa, which has been noticed before.

He composed also

It might seem that the Nyāya-kuliśa was one of the earliest logical or ontological treatises of the Viśiṣṭādvaita school; but we find that there were other treatises of this type written during this period and even earlier than Rāmānuja. Thus Nāthamuni wrote a Nyāya-lattva, in which he refuted the logical views of Gautama and founded a new system of Logic.

Viṣṇucitta, a junior contemporary of Rāmānuja, wrote two works,

  1. Prameya-saṃgraha
  2. and Saṃgati-mālā.

Varadaviṣṇu Miśra, who flourished probably in the latter half of the twelfth century, or the beginning of the thirteenth century, wrote a Māna-yāthātmya-nirṇaya.

Varada Nārāyaṇa Bhattāraka, who flourished before Veṅkaṭanātha, also wrote a Prajñā-paritrāṇa[6].

Parāśara Bhattāraka, who also probably lived in the thirteenth century, wrote a Tattva-ratnākara[7]. These works have been referred to by Veṅkaṭanātha in his Nyāya-pariśuddhi ; but the manuscripts were not available to the present writer. Vātsya Varada’s works have been mentioned in a separate section.

Veṅkaṭanātha, called also Vedānta-deśika, Vedāntācārya, and Kavitārkikasiṃha, was one of the most towering figures of the school of Viśiṣṭādvaita. He was born at Tupple in Kanjivaram in A.D. 1268. His father was Ananta Sūri, his grandfather’s name was Puṇḍarīkākṣa, and he belonged to the Viśvāmitra gotra ; his mother was Totārambā, sister of Ātreya Rāmānuja, otherwise called Vādi-kalahamsāmbuvāhācārya. He studied with his uncle Ātreya Rāmānuja, and it is said that he accompanied him to Vātsya Varadācārya’s place, when he was five years old.

The story goes that even at such an early age he showed so much precocity that it was predicted by Vātsya Varada that in time he would be a great pillar of strength for the Viśiṣṭā-dvaita-vāda school and that he would repudiate all false systems of philosophy[8]. It appears that he also studied with Varadārya himself[9]. It is said that he used to live by uñcha-vṛtti, receiving alms in the streets, and spent all his life in writing philosophical and religious works. In the saṃkalpa-sūryodaya he says that at the time when he was writing that work he had finished the Śrī-bhāṣya for the thirtieth time.

While he lived in Kāñcī and Śrīraṅgam, he had to work in the midst of various rival sects, and Pillai Lokācārya, who was very much senior to him in age and was the supporter of the Teṅgalai school, against which Veṅkaṭanātha fought, wrote a verse praising him. Scholars are in general agreement mat Veṅkaṭanātha died in 1369, though there is also a view that he died in 1371. He enjoyed a long life and spent much of his time in pilgrimage to various northern countries such as Vijayanagara, Mathura, Brindāban, Ayodhyā, and Puri.

The story of Vidyāraṇya’s friendship with Veṅkaṭanātha may be true or false; but we know that Vidyāraṇya was acouainted with the Tattva-muktā-kalāpa, and he quotes from it in his account ot the Viśiṣṭādvaita view in Sarva-darśatia-saṃgraha. When Veṅkaṭanātha was middle-aged, Sudarśana Sūri, writer of the Śruta-prakāśikā, was already an old man, and it is said that he called Veṅkaṭanātha to Śrīraṅgam and handed over to him his commentary on the Śrī-bhāṣya, so that it might get a greater publicity.

Veṅkaṭanātha himself also wrote a commentary on the Śrī-bhāṣya, called the Tattva-ṭīkā. Though an extremely kind man of exemplary and saintly character, he had many enemies who tried to harass and insult him in countless ways. A great difference in interpretation of the nature of prapatti, or self-surrender to God, was manifested at this time in the writingsof different Śrīvaiṣṇava scholars. Two distinct sects were formed, based mainly on the different interpretation of the nature of prapatti, though there were minor differences of a ritualistic nature, such as the marks on the forehead, etc.

Of these two sects, the leader of the Vaḍakalai was Veṅkaṭanātha, and that of the Teṅgalai was Pillai Lokācārya. Later on Saumva Jāmātṛ muni became the accepted leader of the Teṅgalai school. 'Though the leaders themselves were actuated by a spirit of sympathy with one another, yet their followers made much of these little differences in their views and constantly quarrelled with one another, and it is a well known fact that these sectarian quarrels exist even now.

It was during Veṅkaṭanātha’s life that Malik Kafur, a general of ’Alā-ud-dīn, invaded the Deccan in 1310. He easily conquered the countries of Warangal and Dvārasamudra and pushed to the extreme south, spreading devastation and plundering everywhere.

In 1326 the Mahomedans invaded Śrīraṅgam and pillaged the city and the temple. About 1351 the Hindu Kingdom in Vijay-anagar was established by King Bukka I. When the Mahomedans pillaged the temple of Śrīraṅgam, the temple-keepers had fled away to Madurā with the God Raṅganātha, who was established in Tirupati and was worshipped there. Bukka’s son Kampana began to make conquest in the south and eventually Gopana, a general of Kampana, succeeded in restoring Raṅganātha to Śrīraṅgam. This affair has been immortalized by a verse composed by Veṅkaṭanātha, which is still written on the walls of the temple of Śrīraṅgam, though certain authorities think that the verse was not by him, but is only attributed to him.

This story is found in a Tamil work, called Kavilologu, and is also recorded in the Vaḍakalai Guru-paramparā of the fifteenth century. During the general massacre at Śrīraṅgam, Veṅkaṭanātha hid himself among the dead bodies and fled ultimately to Mysore. After having spent some years there he went to Coimbatore, and there he wrote his Abhīti-stava, in which he makes references to the invasion of the Mahomedans and the tragic condition at Śrīraṅgam. When he heard that by Gopana’s endeavours Raṅganātha was restored to Śrīraṅgam he went there and wrote a verse applauding his efforts[10].

Veṅkaṭanātha was a prolific writer on various subjects and also a gifted poet. In the field of poetry his most important works are the Yādavābhyudaya, "Haṃsa-saṃdeśa, Subhāṣita-riīvi, and Saṃ-kalpa-sūryodaya, an allegorical drama in ten acts. The Yādavābhyudaya was a work on the life of Kṛṣṇa, which was commented upon by no less a person than Appaya-dlkṣita. The Subhāṣita-nīvi, a didactic poem, was commented upon by Śrīnivāsa Sūri of the Śrīśaila lineage, son of Veṅkaṭanātha. He lived in all probability in the fifteenth century. Veṅkaṭanātha’s other poem was Haṃsa-sandeśa.

In his Saṃkalpa-sūryodaya he dramatically describes, after the pattern of the Prabodha-candro-daya, the troubles and difficulties of the human soul in attaining its final perfection.

He wrote about thirty-two adoration hymns such as

He also wrote many devotional and ritualistic pieces, such as the

Hle also collected from various sources the verses regarding the doctrine of prapatti, and wrote the Nyāsa-viṃśati and a further work based on it, called the Nvāsa-tilaka, which was commented upon by his son Kumāra-Vēdānta-deśika in a work called Xyāsa-tilaka-vyākhyā. Due notice of his Paiicarātra-rakṣā has been taken in the section on Pañcarātra of the present volume.

He wrote also a work called Śilpārtha-sāra, two works on medicine called

  1. Rasa-bhaumāmṛta
  2. and Vṛkṣa-bhaumāmṛta,

a Purāṇika geography called Bhū-gola-nirṇaya,
and a philosophical work called Tattva-muktā-kalāpa in verse with his own commentary on it called Sarvārtha-siddhi, which have been noticed in some detail in the special section on Veṅkaṭanātha.

This work has two commentaries, called

  1. Ananda-dāxinī or Ānanda-vallarī (in some manuscripts) or Nṛsiṃha-rājīya
  2. and Bhāva-prakāśa,

of which the latter is of an annotative character.

The commentary called Ānanda-dāyim was written bv

  • Vātsya Nṛsiṃhadeva, son of Narasiṃha-sūri,
  • and Totārambā
  • and Devarāja Sūri.

Nṛsiṃhadeva’s maternal grandfather was Kauśika-Śrīhhāṣya-Śrīnivāsa, who was also his teacher.
He had another teacher, named Appavācārva.

This Devarāja Sūri was probably the author of the

  • Vimba-tattva-prakāśikā
  • and Caramopāya-tātparya.

Nṛsiṃhadeva’s other works were

  • Para-tattva-dīpikā,
  • Bheda-dhikkūra-nxakkāra,
  • Maṇi-sāra-dhkkāra,
  • Siddhānta-nirṇaxa, a commentary on Veṅkaṭanātha’s Nikṣepa-rakṣā, called Nṛsiṃha-rājīya,
  • and a commentary on the Śata-dūṣaṇī.

This Nṛsiṃhadeva lived probably in the sixteenth century. 1 he commentary called Bhāva-prakāśa was written bv Navyaraṅgeśa. He describes himself as a disciple of Kalijit; but this must have been a different Kalijit from the well-known Lokācārya; for the Bhāza-prakāśikā commentary, as it refers to the topics of the Ananda-dāymī, is a later one. It must have been written late in the sixteenth or at the beginning of the seventeenth century.

Veṅkaṭanātha also wrote the Nyāya-pariśuddhi, a comprehensive logical work of the Viśiṣṭādvaita school. It was criticized by Śrīnivāsadāsa, son of Devarājācārya, who was a disciple of Veṅkaṭanātha. He may have been an uncle and teacher of Nṛsiṃha-deva, author of the Ānanda-dāyinī. His commentary was called Nyāya-sāra.

The Nyāya-pariśuddhi had two other commentaries,

  1. Nikāśa, by Śaṭhakopa Yati, a disciple of Ahovila
  2. and Nyāya-pari-śuddhi-vyākhyā, written by Kṛṣṇatātācārya.

Veṅkaṭanātha wrote a work supplementary to the Nyāya-pariśuddhi, called Nyāya-siddhā-ñjana, the contents of which have been noted in the separate sections on Veṅkaṭanātha. He also wrote another work called Para-mata-bhaṅga, and a polemical work called Śata-dūṣaṇi. The name Śata-dūṣaṇī signifies that it-contains a hundred refutations; but actually, in the printed text available to me, I can trace only forty.

The best-known commentary, by Rāmā-nujadāsa, pupil of Vādhūla Śrīnivāsa, is called Caṇḍa-māruta. All important discussions contained in the Śata-dūṣaṇī, which are directed mainly against the Śaṅkara school, have been duly noticed in a different section. It had another commentary, by Nṛsiṃharāja, which is also called Caṇḍa-māruta, and another, by Śrīnivāsācārya, called Sahasra-kiraṇī.

Veṅkaṭanātha, in addition to his Tattva-ṭīkā commentary on the Śrī-bhāṣya, wrote a summary of the general topics of the Śrī-bhāṣya discussion, called Adhikaraṇa-sārāvali, which was commented upon by his son Kumāra Vedantācārya or Varadanātha, in a work called Adhikaraṇa-sārāvali-vyākhyā or Adhikaraṇa-cintāmaṇi.

He also wrote two small pamphlets, called Cakāra-samarthana and Adhikaraṇa-darpaṇa ; a commentary on the Īśopaniṣat ; one on Yāmuna’s Gītārtha-saṃgraha, called Gītārtha-saṃgraha-rakṣā, and a commentary on Rāmānuja’s Gītā-bhāṣya, called Tātparya-candrikā. He also criticized Rāmānuja’s Gadya-traya, in a work called Tātparya-dīpikā, and wrote commentaries on Yāmuna’s Catuḥ-ślokī and Stotra-ratnākara, which are called Rahasya-rakṣā.

In addition he composed thirty-two works in the maṇi-pravāla style, some of which have been translated into Sanskrit.

These works are

  1. Sampradāya-pariśuddhi,
  2. Tattva-padavī,
  3. Rahasya-padavī,
  4. Tattva-navanītam,
  5. Rahasya-navanītam,
  6. Tattva-mātṛkā,
  7. Rahasya-mātṛkā,
  8. Tattva-sandeśa,
  9. Rahasya-sandeśa,
  10. Raha-sya-sandeśa-vivaraṇa,
  11. Tattva-ratnāvali,
  12. Tattva-ratnāvali-saṃgraha,
  13. Rahasya-ratnāvali,
  14. Rahasya-ratnāvali-hṛdaya,
  15. Tattva-traya-culuka,
  16. Rahasya-traya-culuka,
  17. Sāra-dīpa,
  18. Rahasya-traya-sāra,
  19. Sāra-sāra,
  20. Abhaya-pradāna-sāra,
  21. Tattva-śikhā-maṇi,
  22. Rahasya-śikhā-maṇi,
  23. Añjali-vaibhava,
  24. Pradhānā-śataka,
  25. Upakāra-saṃgraha,
  26. Sāra-saṃgraha,
  27. Virodha-parihāra,
  28. Muni-vāhana-bhoga,
  29. Madhura-kazi-hṛdaya,
  30. Parama-pāda-sopāna,
  31. Para-mata-bhaṅga,
  32. Hastigiri-māhāt-mya,

(second list:)

  1. Draviḍopaniṣat-sāra,
  2. Draviḍopaniṣat-tātparyāvali
  3. and Nigama-parimala.

The last three are works summarizing the instructions of the Āḻvārs. He was the author of twenty-four poems in the Tamil [11].

Veṅkaṭanātha also wrote a small pamphlet called Vādi-traya-khaṇḍana, in which he tried to refute the views of Śaṅkara, Yādavaprakāśa, and Bhāskara. Most of the arguments are directed against Śaṅkara, whereas the views of Yādavaprakāśa and Bhāskara were but slightly touched.

He also wrote two works on Mīmāṃsā, called

  1. Mīmāṃsā-pādukā
  2. and Seśvara-mīmāṃsā.

In the last work Yeṅ-katanātha tries to interpret the Mīmāṃsā-sūtra of Jaimini in a manner different from that of Śabara. His main intention was to interpret the Mīmāṃsā-sūtra in such a manner that it might not be in conflict with the Brahma-sūtra, but might be regarded as a complementary accessory to the teachings of the Brahma-sūtra. Thus, in interpreting the first sūtra of Jaimini, he says that the injunction of reading the Vedas is satisfied with the mere study of the Vedas. The injunction does not include an enquiry into the meaning of the texts and a study of the Mīmāṃsā, which comes out of the natural desire for knowing the meanings of the texts and their applications.

The study of the Mīmāṃsā may therefore be undertaken even after the final bath of the brahma-cārin. Thus, a man mav, after finishing his obligatory studies as a brahma-cārin in the house of his teacher, still continue to live there for the study of Mīmāṃsā, but the latter is no part of his obligatory duty. Again, in defining the nature of dharma, Veṅkaṭanātha says that dharma is that which contributes to our good and is also in accordance with the injunctions[12]. Though the word dharma may be otherwise used by some persons, yet its accepted meaning, as defined above, remains unaltered.

The instructions of the Smṛtis, Purāṇas, Pañcarātras, Brahma-sūtras, etc., are to be regarded as dharma, as being based upon the Vedas, which are their source. The validity of the nature of dharma cannot be determined by a reference to any other pramāṇa than the scriptural texts. In all matters of doubt and dispute the Mīmāṃsā-sūtra should be interpreted in such a manner that it does not come in conflict with the views of Bādarāyaṇa, who was the teacher of Jaimini.

Veṅkaṭanātha’s son was also a great writer on Vedānta.

He was called

  • Kumāra Vedāntācārya,
  • Varadārya
  • or Varadanātha
  • or Varada Deśikācārya
  • or Varadarāja Sūri
  • or Varadanāyaka Sūri
  • or Varada-guru.

He wrote a Tattva-traya-culuka-saṃgraha, a work in Sanskrit prose, in which he summarizes the contents of the Tamil Tattva-traya-culuka of Veṅkaṭanātha, describing the fundamental Śrīvaiṣṇava doctrines regarding soul, matter and God[13].

His other works are

  • Vyavahāraika-satyatva-khaṇḍana,
  • Prapatti-kārikā,
  • Rahasya-traya-culuka,
  • Carama-guru-nirṇaya,
  • Phala-bheda-khaṇ-ḍana,
  • Ārādhana-saṃgraha,
  • Adhikaraṇa-cintāmaṇi,
  • Nyāsa-tilaka-vyākhyā,
  • Rahasya-traya-sārārtha-saṃgraha.

The last three works are commentaries on Veṅkaṭanātha’s Adhikaraṇa-sārāvali, Nyāsa-tilaka, and Rahasya-traya-sāra.

Varadārya lived till the end of the fourteenth or the beginning of the fifteenth century.

Meghanādāri lived probably in the twelfth and the early thirteenth centuries. He was closely associated with his elder brother Rāma Miśra, a pupil of Rāmānuja.

He wrote a Naya-prakāśikā, a commentary on the

  • Śrī-bhāṣya,
  • Bhāva-prabodha,
  • Mumukṣū-pāya-saṃgraha,
  • and Naya-dyu-maṇi.

The last work is one of the most recondite works on the Viśiṣṭādvaita school of thought, and its main contents have been noted in a separate section. He was the son of Ātreyanātha and Adhvara-nāyikā. He had three brothers, Hastyadrinātha, Varadarāt, and Rāma Miśra.

Rāmānujadāsa or Mahācārya wrote a Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣyopa-nyāsa, a commentary on the Śrī-bhāṣya. He wrote also a Pārāśarya, in which he tried to show that the commentaries of Śaṅkara, Madhva and others were not in consonance with the Sutras of Bādarāyaṇa. Some account of this will be found in the fourth volume of the present work.

He also wrote a

  • Rāmānuja-carita-culuka,
  • Rahasya-traya-mīmāṃsā-bhāṣya,
  • and Caṇḍa-māruta, a learned commentary on the Śata-dūṣaṇī of Veṅkaṭanātha.

Sudar-śanaguru wrote a commentary on his Vedānta-vijaya, called Maṅgala-dīpikā. He wrote a big treatise called Vedānta-vijaya, which was divided into several more or less independent, though inter-related parts.

  1. The first part is (rurūpasatti-vijaya, in which the methods of approaching the teacher are discussed. The manuscript is fairly voluminous, containing 273 pages, and the modes of discussion are on the basis of Upaniṣadic texts.
  2. The second partis called Brahma-vidyā-vijaya (a MS. containing 221 pages), in which he tries to prove, on the basis of Upaniṣadic texts, that Brahman means Nārāyaṇa and no other deity.
  3. The third part, called Sad-vidyā-vijaya, contains seven chapters and is philosophical and polemical in spirit. I have in a later section given an account of its principal contents.
  4. The last part is called Vijayollāsa (a MS. of 158 pages), in which he seeks to prove that the Upaniṣads refer to Nārāyaṇa alone.

I have not been able to trace the fourth part. Sudarśanaguru wrote a commentary on this Vedānta-vijaya. This Sudarśana is different from Sudarśanācārya. He wrote also an Advaita-vidyā-vijaya, a work in three chapters, based principally on Upaniṣadic texts.

The three chapters are

  1. Prapañca-mithyātva-bhaṅga,
  2. Jīveśvaraikya-bhaṅga,
  3. and Akhaṇḍārthatva-bhaṅga.

He also composed another work, called Upaniṣad-maṅgala-dīpikā, which was not accessible to the present writer. He describes himself sometimes as a pupil of Vādhūla Śrīnivāsa and sometimes as a pupil of his son Prajñānidhi. He lived probably in the fifteenth century. He was the disciple of Vādhūla Śrīnivāsa, who wrote the Tūlikā commentary on the Śruta-prakāśikā.

Raṅga Rāmānuja Muni lived probably in the fifteenth century.

He was the disciple of

  • Vātsya Anantārya,
  • Tātavārya,
  • and Parakāla Yati or Kumbha-koṇa Tātayārva.

He wrote a commentary on the Śrībhāṣya, called Mūla-bhāva-prakāśikā,
and one on the Xvāya-siddhāñjana, called Nyāya-siddhāñjana-vyākhyā.

He also wrote a

  • Dramiḍopamṣad-bhāṣya,
  • Viṣaya-vākya-dīpikā,
  • Rāmānuja-siddhānta-sāra,
  • a commentary on the Chāndogyo-paniṣad, called Chandogvo-paniṣad-prakāśikā,
  • and one on the Bṛhad-āraṇyako-paniṣat-prakā-śikā.

He wrote an independent commentary on the Brahma-sūtra, called Śārīraka-Śāstrārtha-dīpikā.

Aufrecht reports, in his Cata-logus Catalogorum, that he wrote also the following works (which, however, are not accessible to the present writer):

  • Upaniṣad-vākya-vivaraṇa,
  • Upaniṣat-prakāśikā,
  • Upaniṣad-bhāṣya,
  • Draviḍopaniṣat-sāra-ratnāvalī-vyākhyā,
  • Kathavally-upaniṣat-prakāśikā,
  • Kauśita-kopaniṣat-prakāśikā,
  • Taittirīyopaniṣat-prakāśikā,
  • Praṣnopaniṣat-prakāśikā,
  • Māṇḍūkyopaniṣat-prakāśikā,
  • Muṇḍakopaniṣat-prakāśikā,
  • Śvetāśz'ataropaniṣat-prakāśikā,
  • Śruta-bhāva-prakāśikā,
  • Guru-bhāva-prakāśikā[14].

Raṅga Rāmānuja’s teacher, Parakāla Yati, otherwise called Kumbha-koṇa Tātayārya, wrote the following works:

  • Draviḍa-śruti-tattvārtha-prakāśikā,
  • Tiruppalāṇḍu-vyākhyana,
  • Tiruppalavai-vyākhyāna,
  • Kaṇṇiṇṇuṇ-śirattāmbu-vyākhyāna,
  • Adhikāra-saṃgraha-vyākhyā.

He wrote also a Vijayīndra-parājaya in refutation of the Para-tattva-prakāśikā of Vijaylndra.

Śrīnivāsadāsa, of the lineage of Mādhava, son of Devarājācārya and a pupil of Veṅkaṭanātha, wrote

  • a Nyāya-sāra, a commentary on the Nyāya-pariśuddhi,
  • and also a commentary called Śata-dūṣaṇī-vyākhyā-sahasra-kiraṇī.

It is possible that the Śrīnivāsadāsa who wrote the

  • Viśiṣṭā-dvaita-siddhānta,
  • Kavvaly-śata-duṣaṇī,
  • Durupadeśa-dhikkāra,
  • Nyāsa-vidyā-vijaya,
  • Mukti-śabda-vicāra,
  • Siddhy-upāya-sudarśana,
  • Sāra-niṣkarṣa-ṭīppanī
  • and Vādādri-kuliśa

is the same as the author of the Nyāya-sāra.

He lived late in the fourteenth and in the fifteenth century. This Śrīnivāsa must be distinguished from Śrīśaila Śrīnivāsa, whose works have been treated in a separate section. Śrīśaila Śrīnivāsa also lived probably in the fifteenth century.

We have another Śrīnivāsa, who wrote an Adhikaraṇa-sārārtha-dīpikā. On some interpretations of the colophon he may probably be styled as Vādhūla Śrīnivāsa, in which case he would be the teacher of Mahācārya[15].

There is another Śrīnivāsa, who was the pupil of Mahācārya, alias Rāmānujadāsa, and son of Govindārya.

He wrote a commentary on the

  • Śruta-prakāśikā
  • and also the Yatīndra-mata-dīpikā, or Yati-pati-mata-dīpikā.

The author says that in writing this elementary treatise on the fundamental principle and doctrines of Śrīvaiṣṇavism he collected his materials from a large number of ancient treatises.[16]

The book Yatīndra-mata-dīpikā contains ten chapters.

The first chapter enumerates the different categories, gives the definition of perception and shows how other sources of knowledge, such as memory, recognition, and non-perception, can all be included within this definition. It then gives a refutation of the various theories and establishes the theory of sat-khyāti. It denies the claim of verbal cognition to be regarded as a case of perception, refutes the definition of indeterminate cognition, and does not admit the possibility of any inference regarding God.

In the second chapter the writer defines “inference,” classifies it and enumerates the rules regarding the validity of it and also gives a list of fallacies that may arise out of the violation of these rules. He includes analogy (upamiti) and proof by implication (arthāpatti) in the definition of inference and names the different modes of controversy.

In the third chapter we get the definition of “verbal testimony.” The authority of the scriptures is established, and an attempt has been made to show that all words convey the sense of Nārāyaṇa the Lord.

The fourth chapter is longer than all the others. The author here refutes the categories of the Nyāya school of thought such as the universals, the relation of inherence, the causality of the atoms, and gives his own view about the genesis of the different categories, the mind-stuff, the body, the senses, the five primordial elements of earth, air, heat, water, sky, and so on.

The fifth chapter gives an account of time and establishes its all-pervasive and eternal nature.

The sixth chapter enumerates the eternal, transcendental attributes of pure sattva, which belongs both to īśvara and jīva.

The seventh chapter is more philosophical. It contains a detailed discussion as to how knowledge may be both an attribute and a substance, so that it may be a quality of the self and also constitute its essence. Attempts are here made to show that all mental states, including that of feeling, can be reduced to that of knowledge. Devotion and the attitude of self-surrender are discussed and the three courses, knowledge, action, and devotion, are elaborated. The writer also brings out the futility of the means of salvation prescribed by other systems of thought.

In the eighth chapter the author enumerates the attributes common to both jīva and īśvara, and deals at great length with the true nature of the individual self, refuting the theory of the Buddhists on this point. He gives also a description of the devotees and their twofold classification, and enumerates the attributes of the emancipated jīvas.

The ninth chapter is devoted to the definition of God, and establishes Him as the instrumental, material and the accessory cause of the world. It refutes the theory of māyā of the monists (adraitins) and gives an account of the fivefold aspects of God such as vibhavas, avatāras, etc.

The tenth chapter enumerates and defines ten categories other than substance, such as the

  • sattva,
  • rajas,
  • tamas,
  • śabda,
  • śparsa,
  • and the relation of contact,
  • etc.

There was another Śrīnivāsadāsa, of the Āṇḍān lineage, who was author of a Ṇatva-tattva-paritrāṇa. He tried to prove that the word Nārāyaṇa is not an ordinary compound word, but a special word which stands by itself indicative of the name of the highest God. There was yet another Śrīnivāsa, called Śrīnivāsa Rāghava-dāsa and Caṇḍa-māruta, who wrote a Rāmānuja-siddhānta-saṃgraha.

This Śrīnivāsa again must be distinguished from another Śrīnivāsa of the lineage of Śathamarṣana, who wrote at least one work known to the present writer, Ānanda-tāratamya-khaṇḍana. In this small treatise he tries to refute, by a reference to scriptural passages, the view that there are differences in the state of salvation.

A few other Śrīnivāsas and their works are also known to the present writer, and it is possible that they flourished in the fifteenth or the sixteenth century.

These are

  • Śrīvatsāṅka Miśra, who wrote a small work called Śrī-bhāṣya-sārārtha-saṃgraha ;
  • Śrīnivāsa Tātārya, who wrote Laghu-bhāva-prakāśikā ;
  • Śrīśaila Yogendra, who wrote a work called Tyāga-śabdārtha-tippanī ;
  • Śrīśaila Rāgha-vārya, grandson of Veṅkaṭanātha, who wrote a Vedānta-kaustubha ;
  • Śrīśailadāsa, son of Raṅgadāsa, who wrote Siddhānta-saṃgraha
  • Sundararājadeśika, author of Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya-vyākhyā (an elementary commentary).

These minor writers flourished probably in the sixteenth, seventeeth and eighteenth centuries.

Śrīnivāsa-dīkṣita, son of Śrīśaila Śrīnivāsa Tātayārya, grandson of Aṇṇayārva, and a pupil of Ācārya-dlkṣita, wrote a work called Virodha-varūthinī-pramāthini. This must be distinguished from the Virodha-varūthinī-pramāthini of Raṅgācārya dealt with in a different section.

Śrīnivāsa-sudhī also wrote Brahma-jñātia-nirāsa, which records the controversy which the author had with Tryambaka Paṇḍita, a follower of Saṅkara. It generally follows a line of argument adapted in the Śata-dūṣaṇī in refuting the monistic Vedānta of Śaṅkara.

It is difficult to say whether the works

  • Naya-maṇi-kalikā,
  • Lakṣmaṇārya-siddhānta-saṃgraha,
  • and Hari-guṇa-maṇimālū

should be attributed to this author or to the Śrīnivāsa who wrote the Virodha-nirodha.

Sudarśana Sūri, who lived in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, of the lineage of Hārita, son of Vāgvijaya and pupil of Vātsya Varada, has been already mentioned. He wrote a treatise on the commentary of Rāmānuja from whose works all succeeding writers drew their inspiration. The title of his commentary is Śruta-prakāśikā, which incorporates, often word for word, what he heard from his teacher Vātsya Varada[17].

He also wrote a

  • Sandhyā-vandana-bhāṣya,
  • Vedānta-saṃgraha-tātparya-dīpikā, a commentary on the Vedārtha-saṃgraha of Rāmānuja,
  • and another work, called Śruta-pradīpikā.

He was often called Vedavyāsa Bhaṭṭārya. This Sudarśana must be distinguished from Sudarśanaguru who wrote a commentary on the Vedānta-vijaya of Mahācārya.

Śaṭhakopa muni, who was a pupil of Śathāri Sūri and often known as Śaṭhakopa Yati, lived probably towards the end of the sixteenth century.

He wrote the following works:

  • Brahma-lakṣaṇa-vākyārtha-saṃgraha,
  • Brahma-śabdārtha-vicāra,
  • Vākyārtha-saṃgraha,
  • Brahma-sūtrārtha-saṃgraha,
  • Brahma-lakṣaṇa-vākyārtha,
  • Divya-prabandha
  • and Bhāva-prakāśikā-dūṣaṇoddhāra.

The last work is an attempt at refutation of the criticism of the Bhāva-prakāśikā, a commentary on Śruta-prakāśikā, by Varada Viṣṇu Sūri.

Ahobila Raṅganātha Yati, who flourished at the beginning of the fifteenth century, wrote a Nyāsa-vivṛti, in which he deals with the topics of nyāsa as expounded in Veṅkaṭanātha’s Nyāsa-tilaka.

Ādivarāha Vedāntācārya wrote a Nyāya-ratnāvalī.

Kṛṣṇatātācārya, who flourished in the fifteenth century and belonged to the Śrīśaila lineage, wrote a commentary on the Nyāya-pariśuddhi, called Nyāya-pariśuddhi-vyākhyā and some small treatises called

  • Dūrārtha-dūrīkaraṇa,
  • Brahma-sabdārtha-vicāra
  • and Ṇatva-candrikā.

Kṛṣṇa-pāda-lokaguru, probably of the same century, wrote a

  • Rahasya-traya-mimāṃsā-bhāṣya,
  • Divya-prabandha-vyākhyā,
  • Catuḥ-ślokī-vyākhyā,

and a number of Tamil works.

Campakeśa, of the fifteenth century, wrote a

  • Guru-tattva-prakāśikā,
  • and a Vedānta-kaṇṭako-ddhāra.

In the last work he tried to refute the criticisms of the Śrī-bhāṣya[18]. He was a pupil of Veṅkaṭanātha.

Another Tātācārya, who was grandfather of Veṅkatādhvarī, the author of the Viśva-guṇādarśa, wrote a Tātācārya-dina-caryā. He was the maternal uncle of Appaya-dīkṣita.

Again, Deśikācārya, who wrote the Prayoga-ratna-mālā as a commentary on the Śrī-bhāṣya, also wrote a book on the commentary on Veṅkaṭanātha’s Pañyikā on the Taittirīyopaniṣat, which was called the “Asti-brahmeti-śruty-artha-vicāra .”

Doḍḍayācārya, who lived probably in the fifteenth century, wrote a Parikara-vijaya, often referred to in Mahācārya’s works, and a life of Veṅkaṭanātha, called Vedānta-deśika-vaibhava-prakāśikā.

Nārāyaṇa muni wrote a

  • Bhāva-pradīpikā,
  • Gītārtha-saṃgraha,
  • Gītā-sāra-rakṣā,
  • Gītā-saṃgraha-vibhāga,
  • Rahasya-traya-jīvātu.

He was the son of Śrīśaila Tātayārya, grandson of Anantārya and pupil of Rāmānujācārya, probably Mahācārya. He lived perhaps late in the fifteenth century.

Nṛsiṃharāja, who wrote a commentary on the Śata-dūṣaṇī, called Sāta-dūṣaṇī-vyākhyā, was probably the same person who wrote an Ānanda-dāyinī on the Tattva-muktā-kalāpa.

Nṛsiṃhasūri, a much later writer, wrote a

  • Śarīra-bhāvādhikaraṇa-vicāra
  • and Tat-kratu-nyāya-vicāra.

Paravastu Vedāntācārya, son of Adivarāhācārya, composed a Vedānta-kaustubha.

Puruṣottama wrote a commentary on the Śrī-bhāṣya called Subodhinī,
and Bhagavat Senāpati Miśra wrote a Śārīraka-nyāya-kalā.

Pela Puradeśika wrote a work called Tattva-bhāshara. It is divided into two parts, in the first of which he tries to ascertain the meaning of māyā and elucidates the nature of God on the basis of Dravidian and Sanskrit texts. The second part is of a ritualistic nature.

Raṅgarāja, who lived probably in the sixteenth century, was the author of Advaita-vahiṣkāra.

Raṅganāthācārya wrote an

  • Aṣṭādaśa-bheda-vicāra,
  • Puruṣārtha-ratnākara,
  • Vivādārtha-saṃgraha,
  • Kāryādhikaraṇā-veda
  • and Kāryādhikaraṇa-tattva.

The contents of the last two works have been dealt with in a different section. He lived perhaps in the sixteenth centurv, and was a pupil of Saumya Jāmātṛ muni.

A Rāmānuja called Vedanta Rāmānuja wrote a

  • Divya-sūri-prabhāza-dīpikā
  • and a Sarva-darśami-śiromaṇi.

Rāmānujadāśabhikṣu wrote Sauri-rāja-caraṇāravinda-śaraṇā-gati-sāra,
and Rāma Subrahmaṇyasāśtrī Viṣṇu-tattva-rahasya.

These two writers flourished probably in the seventeenth or late in the sixteenth century.

Ātreya Varada wrote a Rahusva-traya-sāra-vyākhyā, a commentary on Veṅkaṭanātha’s Rahasya-traya-sāra.

Varadadāsa wrote Nyāsa-vidyā-bhūṣaṇa and Vādi Keśarī Miśra the following:

  • Adhyātma-cintā,
  • Tattva-dīpa-saṃgraha-kārikā,
  • Tattva-dīpa
  • and Rahasya-traya-kārikū.

These small works are of little value.

Only the Tattva-dīpa contains some philosophical materials inspired by the Śruta-prakāśikā of Sudarśana. Vīra-rāghava-dāsa, son of Vādhūla Narasiṃha and pupil of Vādhūla Varadaguru, produced a commentary on the Śrī-bhāṣya, called Tātparya-dīpikā, and one on Vātsya Varada’s Tattva-sāra, called Ratna-sāriṇī.

Veṅkaṭa Sudhī wrote a voluminous work in four chapters, called Siddhānta-ratnāvali, in which he tried to prove that Nārāyaṇa and not Śiva is the supreme Lord and the cause of the world, and dealt with many sectarian doctrines which are of no philosophical value.

He was the pupil of Veṅkaṭanātha and son of Tātācārva of Śathamarṣaṇa lineage. Some notice of the work will be taken in the section on Pañcarātra.

Veṇkaṭadāsa, called also Vucci Veṅkaṭācārya, the third son of Aṇṇayārya, of Śathamarṣaṇa lineage, composed a work called Vedāntakārikāvali.

Veṅkatādhvari wrote a work called Yati-prativandana-khaṇḍana,
Ayyaṇṇa wrote Vyāsa-tātparya-nirṇaya
and Aṇṇavāyyaṅgācārya, Tṛṃśa-praśno-ttara, Kesara-bhūṣaṇa and Śrī-tattva-darpaṇa.

Gopālatāta wrote Śatakoti-dūṣaṇa-parihāra,
Govindācārya Pramāṇa-sāra
and Jagannātha Yati Brahma-sūtra-dīpikā.

Devanātha wrote Tattva-nirṇaya,
Dharmakureśa Rāmānuja-nava-ratna-mālikā,
Nīlameghatātācārya Nyāsa-vidyārtha-vicāra,
Raṅgācārya Śrīvatsa-siddhānta-sāra,
Raghunāthācārya Bāla-sarasvatl and Saiigati-sāra.

Rāghavācārya wrote Rahasya-traya-sāra-saṃgraha,
Rāmanātha Yogī Sadā-cāra-bodha,
Rāmānuja Gāyatrl-śata-dūṣaṇī
and Tirumalācārya of Bharadvāja lineage Nattvopapatti-bhaṅga.

Aṇṇayārya, brother of Śrīśaila Śrīnivaśa, wrote

  • Saptati-ratna-mālikā,
  • Vyavahārikatva-khaṇḍana-sāra,
  • Mithyātva-khaṇḍana,
  • Ācārya-viṃśati,
  • Ānanda-tāratamya-khaṇḍana.

Appaya-dīkṣita of the sixteenth century commented on the Brahma-sūtra in accordance with the views of Rāmānuja, in a work called Naya-mukha-mālikā.

Anantārya of the nineteenth century wrote a number of works of which the following have been published:

  • Nattva-tattva-vibhūṣaṇa,
  • Śatakoti-khaṇḍana,
  • Nyāya-bhāskara,
  • Ācāra-locana (a refutation of widow-remarriage),
  • Śāstrārambha-samarthana,
  • Samāsa-vāda,
  • Viṣayatā-vāda,
  • Brahma-śakti-vāda,
  • Śāstraikya-vāda,
  • Mokṣa-kāraṇatā-vāda,
  • Nirviśeṣa-pramāṇa-vyudāsa,
  • Saṃvin-nānātva-samarthana,
  • Jñāna-yāthārthya-vāda,
  • Brahma-lakṣaṇa-vāda,
  • Īkṣaty-adhikaraṇa-vicāra,
  • Pratijñā-vāda,
  • Ākāśādhikaraṇa-vicāra,
  • Śrībhāṣya-bhāvāṅkura,
  • Laghu-sāmānādhikaraṇya-vāda,
  • Guru-sāmānādhikaraṇya-vāda,
  • Śārīra-vāda,
  • Siddhānta-siddhāñjana,
  • Vidhi-sudhākara,
  • Sudarśana-sura-druma,
  • Bheda-vāda,
  • Tat-kratu-nyāya-vicāra,
  • Dṛśyatvā-numāna-nirāsa.

These treatises are mostly short papers, though a few are more elaborate. The Nyāya-bhāskara is a refutation of the Gauḍa-brahmānandi commentary on the Advaita-siddhi, in refutation of the Nyāyāmṛta-taraṅginī. It consists of twelve topics, and the refutations are mostly of a scholastic nature following the style of the new school of logic in Bengal which found fault with the definitions of their opponents. Some of the most important works of this writer have been referred to in the relevant places of this work.

Footnotes and references:

1.

Meghanādāri s great work, Naya-dyu-maṇi, has been treated in detail in a later section. He was the son of Ātreyanātha and his mother's name was Adhvara-nāyikā.

He had three brothers,

  1. Hastyadrinātha or Vāraṇādrīśa,
  2. Varadarāt,
  3. and Rāma Miśra.

This Vāraṇādrisa should not be confused with Dāśarathi’s grandson, who was of Vādhūla gotra.

Meghanādāri’s other works are

  • Bhāva-prabodha
  • and Mumukṣū-pāya-saṃgraha.

2.

In his Virodha-nirodha he makes reference to a
Mukti-darpaṇa
(MS. p. 82),
Jñāna-ratna-darpaṇa (MS. p. 87),
and in his Bheda-darpaṇa (MS. p. 96) lie refers to his Cuṇa-darpaṇa.

In his Virodha-nirodha he makes further reference to his other works,

  • Advaita-vana-kuṭhāra and Bheda-maṇi (MS. p. 37),
  • to his Bheda-darpaṇa (MS. p. 68),
  • and to his Sāra-darpaṇa (MS. p. 66)
  • and Tattva-mārtaṇḍa (MS. p. 87).

His Sāra-darpaṇa gives the principal contents of Rāmānuja’s philosophy. In his Virodha-nirodha (MS. p. 37) he refers to a Virodha-bhaṅjana, by his elder brother Annayārya and to his own Siddhānta-cintāmaṇi (MS. p. 12). In referring to his elder brother he says that his Virodha-nirodha is largely a rearrangement of the arguments adduced by him in his Virodha-bhaṅjana, some of which had been elaborated and others condensed and rearranged in his Virodha-nirodha. The Virodha-nirodha is thus admitted by the author to have been based materially on Virodha-bhaṅjana by Annayārya, his elder brother.

3.

bhāṣyā-rṇavam avatīrṇo vistīrnaṃ yad arodaṃ Nayo-dyumoṇau
saṃkṣipya tat paroktīr vikṣipya karomi toṣaṇaṃ viduṣām.
      Saya-dyu-maṇi-saṃgraha,
MS.

The general method of treatment followed in the book is to indulge in long discussions in refutation of the views of opponents and to formulate, as conclusion, the positive contentions of the Viśiṣṭā-dvaitn theory on the special points of interest.

Thus at the end of a long discussion on the Hrahma-sūtra, i. 1.2, he says:

rāddhāntas tu na janma dītiātn viścṣaṇatve viśesya-bheda-prasaṅgaḥ, avirud-dhaviśeṣaṇānām āśraya-bhedakutvāt na caivaṃ viśeṣaṇatvā-racchcdena na vyāvar-takutva-bhaṅgaḥ tad-an-āśtaya-jivādi-vyāvartakatvenaiva tad-asiddheḥ.

(Naya-dyu-maṇi, MS. p. 126.)

4.

Lakṣmaṇārya-hṛdayā’nusāriṇī likhyate Naya-mālikā.
Naya-mukha-mālikā, printed in Kumbakonam, 1915, p. 3.

5.

I have not been able to procure a MS. of the Mokṣa-siddhi, and, so far as I can guess, the book is probably lost.

6.

He is said to have written another work, called Nyāya-sudarśana, mentioned in the introduction to the Tattva-muktā-kalāpa (Mysore, 1933).

7.

He also wrote another work, called Bhagavad-guṇa-darpaṇa.

8.

utprekṣyate btiḍha-janair upapatti-bhūmnya
ghaṇṭā ḥareḥ samajaniṣṭa jaḍātmanī’ti
pratiṣṭhāpita-vedāntaḥ pratikṣipta-bahir-mataḥ
bḥūyās traiviḍya-mānyas tvaṃ bhūri-kalyāṇa-bhājanam.

It is said that he was blessed by Varadācarva in the aforesaid verse, in which he describes Veṅkaṭanātha as an incarnation of the bell of God. Vaiṣṇavite Reformers of India, by T. Rajagopalachariar.

9.

śrutvā rāmānujāryāt sad-asad-api tatas tattva-muktā kalāpaṃ
vyātānīd veñkaṭeśo varada-guru-kṛpā-lambhito-ddāma-bhūmā.
      Tattva-muktā-kalāpa, śl.
2.

10.

ārīyanīla-śṛñga-dyuti-racita-jagad-rañjanād añjanā’dreś
ceñcyām ārādhya kañ cit samayam atha nihatyod’dhanuṣkāns tuluṣkān
lakṣmī-bhumyāv'ubhābhyāṃ saha nija-nagare sthāpayan raṅganāthaṃ
samyag-varyāṃ saparyāṃ punar akṛta yaśo-darpaṇaṃ goppaṇā-ryaḥ.

The verse appears in Epigraphica Indica, vol. vi, p. 330.

This fact has also been recorded in Doḍḍyācārya’s Vedānta-deśika-vaibhava-prakāśikā and Yatīndra-pravaṇa in the following verse:

jitvā tuluṣkān bhuvi goppanendro
raṅgā-dhipaṃ sthāpitavān sva-deśe
ity’evam ākarṇya guruḥ kavīndro
dhṛṣṭavad yas tam ahaṃ prapadye.

According to the commentary, the aforesaid Vaibhava-prakāśikā, Veṅkaṭanātha was born in 1269 and died in 1369. Goppanārya’s reinstallation of Śrīraṅganātha took place in 1371.

11.

The list of these Tamil works, which were not accessible to the present writer, has been collected from the introduction to the Mysore edition of the Tattva-muktā-kalāpa.

12.

Codanā-lakṣaṇatva-viśeṣitam evārthe sādhanatvaṃ dharma-lakṣaṇam. Īśvara-mīmāṃsā, p. 18.

13.

It is also called cid-acid-ēśvara-tattva-nirupaṇa, or Tattva-traya.

14.

See Aufrecht’s Catalogus Catalogorum, pp. 488-9.

15.

On the other interpretation the adjective Vādhūla-kula-tilaka applies to his teacher Samara-puṅgavācārya. This Śrīnivāsa was known also as Maṅgācārya Śrīnivāsa.

16.

evam

  • Drāviḍa-bhāṣya — 
  • Nyāya-tattva
  • Siddhi-traya —
  • Śrī-bhāsya —
  • Dīpa-sāra
  • Vedārtha-santgraha
  • Bhāṣya-vivaraṇa
  • Saṃgīta-mālā —
  • Sad-artha-saṃkṣepa, Sruta-prakāśika —
  • Tattva-ratnākara —
  • Prajñā-paritrāṇa —
  • Prameya-saṃgraha
  • Nyāya-kuliśa
  • Nyāya-sudarśana
  • Māna-yāthātmya-nirṇaya —
  • Syāya-sāra
  • Tattva-dipana
  • Tattva-nirṇaya
  • Sarvārtha-sīddhi
  • Nyāya-pariśuddhi
  • Nyāya-siddhāñjana —
  • Paramata-bhaṅga
  • Tattva-traya-culuka
  • Tattva-traya-nirū-paṇa
  • Tattva-traya-pracaṇḍa-māruta
  • Vedānta-vijaya —

Pārāśaryya-vijava’dīpūrvā’cārya-prubandhā-nusāreṇa jñātavyārthān saṃgṛhya bālabodhārthaṃ Yatin-dra-niata-dīpikā-khya-śārīraka-paribhāṣāyāṃ te pratipāditāḥ.

Yatīndra-mata-dipikā, p. 101.

17.

gurubhyo’ rthaḥ śrutaḥ śabdais tat-prayuktaiś ca yojitaḥ
saukaryāya bubhūtsunāṃ saṃkalayya prakāśyate.
    
Introductory verses to the Śruta-prakāśikā.

18.

Śuddhasattvalakṣaṇārya wrote a work called Guru-bhāva-prakāśikā as a commentary on the Śruta-prakāśikā, which he based upon the Guru-tattva-prakāśikā of Campakeśa. He was the disciple of Śuddhasattvācārya, son of Saumya Jāmātṛ muni. In his commentary he constantly refers to the Tūlikā commentary of Vādhula Śrīnivāsa. He lived probably in the sixteenth century, and may have been a contemporary of Mahācārya.