In Search of Sri Jay

Jayatirtha’s
atirtha’s Brindavana
Book 2
A Critical Analysis of Sri Nārayana Tirtha Manuscript and Jayasthambha at Mulbagal

C. Raghothama Rao
MadhvaHistory.com
Contents

Prologue

Introduction

Gist of Previous Efforts

Brief Story of Jayasthambha !

Riposte from Advaitins

Religious Distinctions in Early Vijayanagara Empire ( Confounded Identities *

How Mādhava Mantrin can be the Avadikottama or Avaidikagryam/ 0

Kālamukha as an Avaidika doctrine *

Vidyāranya 2 Confusions ( Mystifications 3

Evidences for the influence wielded by Kālamukhas in Vijayanagara Empire 3

Evidences from Literary Sources for Kriyashaktis’ Presence at Vijayagara Court 3

Doubtful claim of Vidyāranya as Rajaguru of Sangama dynasty

Madhva Vijaya and Usage of word “Avadika” to refer Advaitha9

Continued trail of Kāplikās during Sripadaraya’s time 0

Vidyāranya’s tryst with Jayatirtha : Evidences from Dāsa Sāhitya9 ;3

Vedanta Deshika’s Judgment 2 A Myth of Confounded Identity< ;=

Silence of Dāsa Sāhitya on Jayasthambha ;0

Why Jayasthambha story is dubious/ ;

Conclusion on Avaidika Vidyāranya and Jayasthambha !

APPENDIX 2 I
Prologue
The issue of Sri Jayatirtha’s Brindavana location is as important as the study of his Nyaya Sudha.
Theologically, Mādhvas are the staunch followers of ‘saguNopAsana’ and revere all types of physical
insignia or monuments that are associated with the Gods and enlightened souls. In ‘saguNOpAsana’
as the physical world can’t be disassociated with philosophy, the search for the original location of Sri
Jayatirtha’s Brindavana shall become part and parcel of Sādhana. And hence the present on-going
researches can’t be termed as ‘waste of time’ or ‘frivolous, petty job’ as described by some
disgruntled voices. In order to save ourselves from ‘mithyOpAsana’ such researches shall become
imperative and important from time to time.

By keeping this need of the hour in view, an eBook titled “In Search of Sri Jayatirtha’s Brindavana”
was published in MadhvaHistory.com on 16/08/2015. As a number of topics need to be discussed
threadbare and the explanations of which can’t be comprehended in a single-take, the whole context
has been divided in to individual topics which have been further arranged into meaningful chapters
and thereafter being published as eBooks. The present eBook is second in the series that discusses a
particular context of the on-going “In Search of Sri Jayatirtha’s Brindavana.”

The Malkhed camp has a huge database of evidences that are of post-Vādiraja period and majority of
their evidences have started coming from late 17th century AD onwards. On the other hand, Anegundi
camp has heavily relied upon the stone carvings on the 14th century Brindavana-in-question and 16th
century Tirtha Prabhanda shlokas (17th & 18th of Purva Prabandha) of Sri Vādiraja. The lack of
evidences drawn from 14th to 16th centuries has caused considerable hindrance for Malkhed camp.

As if to alleviate this shortcoming, Malkhed camp has come up with two paper manuscripts of Sri
Nārayana Tirtha (NT) of Kudli Arya Akshobhya Matha as early as 1980 and 1982. They have projected
these manuscripts as contemporaneous ‘evidence’ that belong to the period of Sri Vādiraja. Sri
Vyasanakere Prabhanjanacharya has published the scanned copies of these manuscripts in his 2014
published “Sri Jayatirthara Mulabrindavana sthala Malkheda” (SJMBM).
As Sri NT and his handwritten manuscripts are not that famous and familiar as that of Sri Vādiraja and
Tirtha Prabhanda, the authenticity of Sri NT’s manuscripts can tilt the scale and can alter the course of
on-going discussions.

From this perspective, in the previous eBook, some of the contents of NT’s second paper manuscript
and its inconsistencies have been presented through a critical analysis. Also, the usage of paper by
South Indian Brahmans, particularly by Mādhvas and other allied subjects have been discussed in
detail. Also, the then manufacturing methodologies of the paper and the associated taboos have also
been discussed in detail.

In this eBook, an exclusive study of the first paper manuscript of Sri NT has been taken up to gain
proper insight of its contents.

I felt that a dedicated eBook is highly essential for the readers to understand the criticality of the
document-in-question i.e. Sri Nārayana T’s first paper manuscript, its contents and the conflicts that it
creates for a genuine enthusiast. It becomes fundamental to understand the veracity of this
manuscript as it is not neutral in nature but explicitly supports Malkhed argument. Therefore an
impartial scrutiny of these documents is required to remove wishy-washy usage of them.

This topic has been discussed through an independent exploration with the support of authentic
sources. Many of the evidences furnished hitherto are of third-party in nature to the Mādhvas and
thereby I have tried to eliminate the element of ‘bias.’

Some of the contents of this eBook have already been published in the form of individual articles in
MadhvaHistory.com and hence the regular readers of MadhvaHistory.com may take a note of the
same.

I appeal to the seekers of truth to deploy their own reasoning and logic to come to a rational
conclusion on the location of Sri Jayatirtha’s brindavana in light of the contents provided herein.

C. Raghothama Rao
Introduction

“The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice.” – Mark Twain

I don’t know what made Mark Twain to say so but it successfully describes the topic that I am
presenting in this eBook.

Sri Vyasanakere Prabhanjanacharya (VP) in his book “Sri Jayatirthara Mulabrindavana sthala –
Malkheda” (SJMBM) thus writes in Page 21
211 (request
request readers to read the whole content given
hereunder including footnotes)
VP says that the author of “Mula R
Rāmasthu Manmathe” book has termed the much famed
disputation between Sri Akshobhya Tirtha of Dvaita school and Sri Vidyāranya
ranya of Advaita school as a
mythical story created by a particular Matha. In addition to this, in 2nd footnote, VP quotes a
statement made by Sri G.V. Navalagunda (GVN), one of the two editors of the book “Sri Jayatirthara
Mulabrindavana – Gajagahvara” (SJMBG),
JMBG), that he called the alleged Akshobya
Akshobya-Vidyāranya
Vidyāranya debate as a
hoax. VP substantiates his criticism of these statements by giving a reference of a shloka from Sri
Rāghavendra
ghavendra Vijaya. He says that the Akshobhya – Vidyāranya debate and the defeat of the latter
have been mentioned by Sri Nārayanach
rayanachārya, the biographer of Sri Rāghavendra
ghavendra Tirtha in that shloka
of ‘Sri Rāghavendra Vijaya.’

Curiously, one of the purported handwritten manuscripts of Sri Nārayana Tirtha (NT) of Kudli
Akshobhya Matha mentions the Victory Pillar that was said to be erected in memory of
Akshobhya’s victory against Vidyāranya
Vidyāranya. Also, at the end of the said ‘TippaNi’ there is a
reproduction of the shloka purportedly written by Sri Vedānta Deshika as his judgment on
Akshobhya-Vidyāranya debate. Hereunder is an excerpt of the page from VP’s book SJMB-M:
SJMB

According to VP, NT’s paper manuscript not only confirms the presence of Jayatirtha’s Brindavana at
Malkhed but also validates the Jayasthambha and the legend associated with it.
Now this is quite paradoxical for a layman such as me to see the conflict of this sort where not only
Jayatirtha’s brindavana but his Ashrama Guru’s achievement too becoming controversial.

Initially, I was a bit perplexed to witness the love of VP towards Akshobhya’s Jayasthambha and the
detestation of the same by GVN. But after another round of contemplation, I have understood that
there is an invariable connection between Jayatirtha’s Brindavana and the Jayasthambha of
Akshobhya.

This challenge of knowing the facts behind that love of VP and odium of GVN has led me to get
involved in a daunting task of history hunt. As result of this effort, I have written three articles in
MadhvaHistory.com under the section of “Saints & Life History Accounts.” Now, by writing this eBook
I have renewed my efforts to elaborate the discussion with some new found evidences and references
which the reader shall be reading in the ensuing chapters.

*****
Gist of Previous Efforts

In the previous eBook, the authenticity of the paper manuscripts of NT has been critically reviewed
from historical and scientific perspectives and certain validation methods of their antiquity have been
suggested.

Whether VP wishes to subject his manuscripts for scientific scrutiny or not, a critical appraisal of its
contents can replace the scarcity of not submitting them for such modern technical assessments.

In the previous eBook some of the contents of said paper manuscripts have been examined for their
relevance and consistency but found out that there are many discrepancies that are not easy to
justify.

In this eBook, I shall be discussing about a particular context of the aforesaid manuscript i.e.
“Jayasthambha” at Mulbagal. Based on the exploration of this Jayasthambha and its historical
accuracy, I shall be submitting my opinion on the authenticity of NT’s paper manuscript.

If the said MS stands its ground on the issue of Jayasthambha, well, I am ready to accept its genuine
nature else said MS must be either subjected to the scientific tests recommended in the previous
eBook or Sri VP must announce the truth with no strings attached.

In order to carry out the estimation of “Jaysthambha” I have used the sources of history that are
available at present to me and the relevant citations have been provided from the sources directly.
AAAAA
Brief Story of Jayasthambha

For those readers who are new to this subject, I wish to give them the gist of the story.

Sri Akshobhya Tirtha, the 4th successor of Acharya Madhva has ascended the Dvaita Vedanta Peetha
in the year c.1350. He has succeeded Sri Mādhava Tirtha (Ascendance:1333 Brindavana: 1349/50) and
prevailed over the Peetha till c.1365.

The fables of Mādhva community say that there ensued a great debate between Akshobhya and
Vidyāranya, the two stalwarts of Dvaita and Advaita schools, at a place called Hunchadakallu Gudda, a
small hillock in Mulbagal (Purva Kavatapuri). Kumara Kampana, purportedly the then Governor of
Mulbagal and many other royal dignitaries have gathered to witness this grand fiesta of polemic
dispute. Vedanta Deshikan of Srivaishnava school has been chosen as the “referee” but he was not
physically present at the venue and was purportedly staying at Srirangam. The 40 days of close
contest between the two saints has touched upon every book of Vedanta and finally Akshobhya came
out victorious while discussing Upanishad statement of “tattvamasi” and a ‘pillar of victory’ (image
shown below) has been erected at the very spot where the arguments took place.
Riposte from Advaitins

The story of Vidyāranya’s alleged defeat started spreading its wings in contemporary times and a few
organizations such as Madhva Siddhanta Vijaya Sthambha Samsevana Samiti have come up to further
the purported victory of Mādhvas over Advaitins. Books and pamphlets have started flying thick and
fast through the rank and file of Mādhva community.

Then it was the turn of Advaitins to make a ‘quick return thrust’ to stop the onslaught of Mādhvas
and this has resulted in publishing a book titled 'Akshobhya Vijaya Vibhrama’ (AVV) by Mr. G.R. Patil
which has been followed up with another booklet by the same author, rebutting the objections raised
by few Mādhvas on AVV.

In this book, I will not be discussing about AVV or the objections raised by the Mādhvas and not even
about the subsequent rejoinder written by Mr. Patil. Instead this book shall make an independent
inquiry on the said topic with a fresh mind and new perspective.

Now, in to the topic…..

Religious Distinctions in Early Vijayanagara Empire & Confounded Identities

Before I present the case study of particular religions that are internal to Sanatana Dharma
(Hinduism), it will be appropriate to give a brief synopsis of religious environment during Sangama
dynastic rule of Vijayanagara.

Krishnaswamy Aiyangar in his work Some Contributions of South India writes…

“During the age of Vijayanagara the Lingayats certainly existed and flourished. We know of
contemporaries of Vidyāranya belonging to this sect occupying high positions in the service of the
state. Several sovereigns of the first dynasty of Vijayanagara seem to have patronized this
particular creed. But it does not appear to have been exactly what might be called the state
religion.” Page 205

From the above statement, we can understand that the family members of Sangama dynasty at
personal level were followers of Veerashaiva cult of Lingayats but were secular in their approach
towards other religious denominations that are either sacrosanct or not and either conforming to
Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) or not.

In his introduction to “The Elements of Hindu Iconography” Mr. T.A. Gopinatha Rao introduces the
Saivite sects as under:
The above narrative by a renowned historian and epigraphist of Mr. Gopinatha Rao’s stature causes
us to take a closer look at the various denominations of Veerashaivism in Vijayanagara that flourished
during Sangama dynasty. A detailed study of these sects shall definitely lead us to understand as to
with whom Akshobhya Tirtha might have argued and won subsequently.

Krishnaswamy Aiyangar writes in Page 309 of Some Contributions of South India about a
certain Kriyāshakti Pandita who guided Harihara I. Kriyāshakti Pandita’s reference comes in
connection with a certain minister called Mādhava Mantrin who was a minister-cum-general working
under Harihara II and a contemporary to Mādhava Vidyāranya. This Mādhava Mantrin was a Brahmin
and a disciple of Kriyāshakti Pandita, a Saivācharya, heading Kriyāshakti Peetha that was belonging to
a Veerashaiva sect called Kālamukha (More details about Kriyashaktis and Kalamukha cult have been
given in subsequent chapters of this book). As per Krishnaswamy Aiyangar, this Mādhava Mantrin
might have passed away in c.1384. Probably the following inscription could have been one of the last
inscriptions issued by Mādhava Mantri.

(Page 192 of Epigraphia Carnatica Vol 8 – Inscriptions of Shimoga Dist (Vol. 2); 1904)

Thus we get two Mādhavas i.e. Mādhava Mantrin and Mādhava Vidyāranya existing at almost same
time and both were contemporaries to Akshobhya T. at one point of time, presumably between
c.1350-65. Readers must keep this crucial aspect in mind all along the reading of this book.

Now getting along with the history, Advaitin accounts say that Mādhava Vidyāranya acted as Rāja
Guru and guided Harihara and Bukkarāya. That means Mādhava Vidyāranya must have replaced
Kriyāshakti Pandita as Rāja Guru and thence guided Harihara-I and Bukka-I while his
brother Sāyanāchārya mentored Kumāra Kampana who was the governor of Udayagiri at that time.
The authenticity of this version shall be discussed in ensuing chapters.

As for now, readers have been introduced to those two powerful Mādhavās of early Vijayanagara
period. At this juncture, it appears that there prevailed a thorough confusion for sometime in the past
in distinguishing Mādhava Vidyāranya and Mādhava Mantrin and the present disputed victory of
Akshobhya is a result of such confounded identity.

Here, it is worthwhile to quote Krishnaswamy Aiyangar’s narration from his “Sources of Vijayanagara
Empire.” In Page 3, he offers a solution to distinguish two Mādhavās who lived at the same time and
in same place. Read the following excerpt:

Thus “The two Mādhavās were of different gotras and sutras as is clear from the extracts.[…] The
designation “establisher of the path of the Upanishads’, as applied to the second Mādhava, seems
deliberately intended to distinguish him from the other.[…]”
From this narration it can be safely concluded that there is a perfect demarcation between those two
Mādhavas i.e. Mādhava Mantri was enjoying a title “Upanishan mārgapratisthāpanāchārya” and
Mādhava Vidyāranya was credited with title of “Vedamārga-pratishthapanāchārya.”

Krishmaswami Aiyangar, in Page 51 of Sources of Vijayanagara, gives further details of Tātparya

Dipika, a commentary written by Mādhava Mantrin and offers further clues to distinguish both the
Mādhavās.

Thus those two Mādhavachāryās who almost co-existed at same time and in same place have been
perfectly distinguished by their works and titles. According to Krishnaswamy Aiyangar one was
representing ‘rigid Saivism’ and another was from ‘Advaitha’ school. In other words Mādhava
Mantrin was from rigid Saivism and Mādhava Vidyāranya was an Advaita scholar. This distinction is
crucial and serves as the perfect differentiator in understanding the phrase “ಅ ೈ ಾಗ ಂ ಮು ೇಷ
ಾ ರಣ ಂ.”

Getting back to the history, in his book “A History of Vijayanagara – The Never to be forgotten
Empire” Bangalore Suryanarayana Row writes about Mādhava Mantri as below:
Further to the above observation, Mr. Row offers another support for establishing Mādhava Mantri as
a learned Upanishad expert. In Page 234 of his book, Mr. Row writes as below:

Most important lines that the readers must read are:

“[…]and we see that Mādhava Mantri is the author of [Suta Samhimta]“Tatparya Dipika” and not
Mādhavāchārya. The commentator commences with hailing his Guru as “Kāsivilāsa Kriyāsakti
Parama Bhakta Pādābja Sevaka,” adjectives which are totally absent in all the accredited works of
Vidyāranya.”
Thus the observations made by Krishnaswamy Aiyangar proved to be correct with the above
statement of B. Suryanarayana Row. Also, all the above sources successfully establish the connection
between Kriyashakti Pandita of Kālamukha sect and Mādhava Mantri. Thus, I have concluded that one
of these two Mādhavācharyas must be the “ಅ ೈ ಕ ಾ ರಣ ” stated in Sri Rāghavendra Vijaya.
I must draw the reader’s attention to the carefully written phrases of Krishnaswamy Aiyangar while
describing these two Mādhavāchāryās. I once again reproduce the text such that the reader can
redeem the second reading:

I wish to draw the reader’s attention for a careful study of the last sentence. The phrase ‘rigid
Saivism’ is the key that can unlock the mystery of “ಅ ೈ ಾಗ ಂ” used in Sri Rāghavendra Vijaya.

From the above narration of Krishnaswamy Aiyangar it becomes very clear that Mādhava Mantrin
who was also called as ‘Mādhavacharya’ had attempted to elevate his ‘rigid Saivism’ in conformity
with the path of Upanishads. In other words, it becomes apparently clear that the said ‘rigid Saivism’
practicised by Mādhava Mantrin appears to be non-Upanishadic in nature.

Therefore it can be understood that the Kālamukha sect headed by a certain Kriyāshakti Pandita who
was the Guru of Mādhava Mantrin must be a non-Vedic sect and so gets qualified to be called as
“ಅ ೈ ಕ”.

Based on these facts, I presume that at Mulbagal, Akshobhya Tirtha might have got engaged into an
argument with Mādhava Mantri and not with Mādhava-Vidyāranya.

Another fact behind this assertion is that the sentence “tat tvam asi” or “tattvamasi” from
Chandogya Upanishad has been quoted as the crucial debate between Sri Akshobhya and ‘Avaidika’
Vidyāranya. As Mādhava Mantrin being hailed as the ‘Establisher of Upanishad Path’, I am in no
doubt to conclude that this Mādhava Mantrin must be the “ಅ ೈ ಕ ಾ ರಣ ” and not Mādhava
Vidyāranya of Advaita school.
How Mādhava Mantrin can be the Avadikottama or Avaidikagryam?

Now the moot point to be addressed here is – “Why was Mādhava Mantri referred to as
Avaidikottama or Avaidika Vidyāranya?”

For finding an answer for the above question, I have drawn some insight from a highly resourceful
book called “The Kāpālikas and Kālamukhas: Two Lost Śaivite Sects” by David N. Lorenzen wherein
in Page 173, the author establishes the link between Pāshupata sect and Kālamukha:

Pāshupata is the oldest school of ‘rigid Saivism’ aka ‘Veerasaivism.’ As it is but natural for any
organized religion to break into many sub-sects even this rigid Pāshupata Saivism also branched out
by giving a birth to Kālamukha sect.

Readers must remember this parent-child relationship between Pāshupata and Kālamukha through-
out the reading of this eBook. This becomes highly crucial for understanding the ‘Avaidika’ status of
Kālamukha sect which will be discussed subsequently in the following chapters.

Now, returning to David Lorenzen and his narrative of Kāpālikās and Kālāmukas, in page 162 he
describes the Kriyāshaktis of Vijayanagara and their elevated status in the then religious environment.
Read the following excerpt:
Such was the importance of Kriyāshaktis in early Vijayanagara history. Also, the above narrative
confirms that Mādhava Mantri was a disciple of Kriyāshakti and was wielding lot of power in
emperor’s court.

As the Sanātana Dharma is known for its intra-religious disputes and polemical war of words, these
Pāshupata, Kālamukha and Kāpālika sects have come under heavy criticism by the Vedic cults such as
Vishista Advaita and Dvaita.

David Lorenzen says that Rāmānujachārya and his preceptor Yāmunāchārya were highly critical of
Kālamukhas that they were adherents of non-Vedic teachings. Kalamukhas have been accused of
being practitioners of vicious Tāntric practices. Though Lorenzen differs with this presentation of
Kālamukhas by Ramanuja, he agrees to a fact that the Kālamukha followers were widely adhering to
their own doctrine called Lakula-Siddhānta instead of Vedas and were having some Buddhist Tāntric
influences as well. This detour of Kālamukhas from Vaidika practice could have caused Rāmānuja to
relegate them as Avaidika with an added vehemence sprang out of his anti-Saiva stand.
T.A. Gopinatha Rao gives a very interesting account of why and how the later date Saivites tried to
emulate their cults as Vedic cults. First he narrates how these rigid Saivite sects have been grouped as
Shudras.

Subsequently Gopinatha Rao narrates the efforts made by the Saivites to add some Vedic relevance to
their cults:

In the present context, it is interesting to note that Mādhava Mantri, though being an
Sāraswat Brāhman, was actually a practicising Kālāmukhi. Owing to his original roots as an
Sāraswath Brahman he was well versed with the Upanishads and also wrote a commentary on Suta
Samhita that has classified Pāshupatas, Kālamukhas, Kāpālikas and many other rigid Savities as
“Shudras.” Given his strength of Upanishadic knowledge, Mādhava Mantri had tried to promote
Kālamukha practice as a practice that is in agreement with Vedas and also might have tried to
brand the Kālamukhas as “Brahmins.”
One may question me that a stand-alone case of Mādhava Mantrin’s attempt to promote Kālamukha
as Vedic cult is being blown out of proportion only to suit my argument of calling him as “Avaidika
Vidyaranya.” To clear such doubt, I present the following statement of T.A. Gopinatha Rao:

There was one Srikāntha Sivācharya who wrote Bhāshya on Brahmasutras in accordance with rigid
Saivism (Agamanta Saivism) thus not leaving Mādhava Mantrin all alone in Kālamukhas’ pursuit or
elevating their cult as a Vedic one.

Here I wish to present the following excerpts from Epigraphia Carnatica Vol VIII – Inscriptions of
Shimoga Dist (Part 2) edited by B.L. Rice and published in 1904. The first excerpt is from the Page 12
of the introduction written by B.L. Rice in which an important reference to Mādhava Mantri was made
by him.
Following is an edited version of inscription from the same volume of Epigrahia Carnatica that shows
the original content of inscription no. 375 found at Sorab Taluq.

Here the name of Kriyāshakti appears as the Guru of ‘Mantri Mahan’ Mādhava and it also gives the
name of ‘Saivāgama Sāra Sangraha’ as being written after reviewing three Vedas, Puranās and
Samhitās (trayam samAlOkya purANa saMhitA). Thus the authorship of Mādhava Mantrin of writing a
book that tried to elevate Kālamukha sect as an Upanishadic sect can be easily established and the
Kālamukhas had a specific plan of employing a learned Brahmin for accomplishing their task.

From the above, it can be understood that in 1347 Mādhava Mantri was actually at Chandragutti
province and was assisting Mārapa, brother of Harihara and Bukka. Both Mārapa and Mādhava have
compiled a book called ‘Saivāgama Sāra Sangraha’ by reviewing three Vedas and probably all 18
Puranas.

Most importantly, here Mādhava has been identified as a disciple of Kriyāshakti. Subsequently the
inscription of c.1384 (given in Page 13) shows this Mādhava Mantri as the great minister of
Harihara-II who became the emperor of Vijayanagara in c.1379. From this epigraph it can also be
concluded that Mādhava Mantri must have got a promotion during Bukkraya – I’s regime i.e.
sometime between c.1350 to c.1365 i.e. during the period of Akshobya Tritha sitting on the throne
of Dvaita Siddhanta.
With these epigraphic evidences I have deduced an inference that Mādhava Mantri was an important
minister at Vijayagara court and he followed an Avaidic sect called Kālamukha and he was well versed
with Vedic scriptures which he tried to use in elevating his Avaidic cult to the status of Vedic cult.

Further to this, I understood that many of ‘rigid’ Saivite sects were readily initiating non-Brahmins
as ascetics. As these sects were not strictly adhering to the teachings of Vedas and Upanishads but
to their own Likula-Agama, they had the liberty to recruit non-Brahmins as well. At one point of
time, Kālamukhas might have thought of qualifying their sect at par with the rapidly growing
communities of Advaita, Vishishta Advaita and Dvaita. In order to do this, they needed the help of
Brahman who can bring-in the vast knowledge of Vedas into Kālamukha fold and I presume that
Mādhava Mantrin was their champion to accomplish this daunting task.

I am, once again, calling-in the remarks made by Krishnaswami Aiyangar in Sources
of Vijayanagara. He states that the purpose for which Mādhava Mantri gained mastery over
Upanishads is to make the rigid Saivism (here it is Kālamukha Saivism) to correspond with the Vedic
Upanishads. Read the following excerpt from ‘Sources of Vijayanagara’.

The last sentence sums it all that Mādhava Mantri tried to elevate his belief system (Kālamukha) by
writing “Saivāgama Sāra Sangraha”. Kālamukhas might have hoped that such a clever work by a
qualified Brahmana Kālāmukhi can erase the stigmas created by Rāmānuja and Yāmuna on their cult.
Also they might have wished that the ministerial power of Mādhava Mantri might earn many
followers for them. Yet it appears that Mādhava Mantri could not successfully remove the stigma
created by Yāmunāchārya and Rāmājunacharya that Kālamukhas are Avaidiks.

I am of the belief that these revival efforts of Kālamukhas to project themselves as a Vedic cult must
have taken severe blow from the Dvaita preachers whose intellect was causing hardest challenges to
other established Vedic schools of Advaita and Vishishta Advaita. Thus Dvaitins of that time too must
have considered Mādhava Mantri as “Avaidika” and hence Nārāyanachārya in his Sri Rāghavendra
Vijaya aptly called him as “Avaidikagryam.”

In addition to this, the following shloka from the commentary by Chalāri Sankarshanāchārya on his
own work of Jayatirtha’s biography should be read with utmost care:

“ಅ ಾ ತತ ಮ ಾ ಪರ ೕವ ಪ ೇ ಾ ಅ ೈ ೋತ ಾರಣ ಮ ೋಭ ಮು ರ !ನ#”

In the above shloka it is interesting to note that the word Vidya is missing and only ‘Aranya’ has been
mentioned. This gives rise to an extrapolation of the meaning and articulation of the word ‘Aranya’ in
Saiva and/or Advaita sects.

Dashanāmi Sanyāsa (System of Ten names) has been established by Adi Shankarāchārya and till date
the same system is being followed by Saiva and Advaita sects for initiating new incumbents into
asceticism. Mr. A.L. Ahuja in his “Eminent Indians: Saints and Sages” gives the 10 names of this
system as under:

Thus ‘Aranya’ is one of the 10 names that a Saiva or Advaita ascetic can choose from. In accordance to
this the usage ‘ಅ ೈ ೋತ ಾರಣ ’ in Chalāri shloka must be interpreted as a [Vira]Shaiva sanyasi who
took initiation under ‘Aranya’ order and not a Advaita ‘Aranya’sanyasi. Therefore, amongst two
Mādhavacharyas that I have spoken of in the above paragraphs, Mādhava Mantrin comes closer to be
identified as Avaidika Aranya. As there are no concrete details available as to whether this Mādhava
Mantrin was married or not, I have taken a benefit of doubt that he is unmarried and got initiated
into ‘Aranya’ order of Dasanami system of asceticism by Kriyāshakti Pandita.

Even with all these suppositions my argument may still fall short while interpreting the usage of
“ಅ ೈ ಾಗ ಂ ಮು ೇಷ ಾ ರಣ ಂ” wherein the word “Vidyāranya” appears to be having a direct
reference to the famous Mādhava Vidyāranya. But I trust that my argument is not suffering from total
disintegration as the other key word “Avaidika” is still prefixed to Vidyāranya. It must be recalled here
by the reader that Krishnaswamy Aiyangar has specified that Mādhava Vidyāranya has “Vedamarga
pratishtapanacharya’ title to his credit. Hence, a person who established a ‘Vedamarga’ can never
be called as ‘Avaidika.’

If this argument can be accommodated in lieu of the other vital leads furnished hitherto that
Mādhava Mantri is the Avaidik Kālāmukhi, readers can make their own assessment that
Nārāyanachārya, the biographer of Sri Rāghavendra and Chalāri Achārya were referring to Mādhava
Mantrin only.

On contrary to this, David Lorenzen informs that Kālamukhas were following ‘Dualist’ theory which is
in direct confrontation with the ‘Monist’ theory adhered to by Advaitins.

BPage * 2 The Kāpālikas and Kālamukhas9 Two Lost Śaivite Sects By David N. Lorenzen)

Now the above narrative throws up a highly interesting aspect that a staunch Advaitha Saivite such as
Vidyāranya has rejected ‘rigid Saivites’ of Kālamukha sect. In other words, Vidyāranya too not
considered Kālāmukhis as ‘Vaidikas.’

On the other hand Dvaita preached ‘Dualism’ but found to be confronting another ‘Dualist’
philosophy i.e. Kālamukha albeit was a Saivism cult. If Acharya Madhva declared ‘Dualism’ as the
essence of Vedas, why did Dvaitins not only challenge ‘Dualist’ Kālāmukhis but also mercilessly brand
them as ‘Avaikdikas”?

*****
Kālamukha as an Avaidika doctrine

After giving the initial fall-out between Dualist Kālamukha and Monist Advaita, David Lorenzen
explains further in the same paragraph as below:

Thus the dualist Kālamukhas and monist Advaitins were not as hostile to each other as they were with
Dvaita or Visishta Advaita schools. Having resolved the first conflicting statement of Lorenzen, now it
is time to deal with the other i.e. “Why dualist Dvaitins considered dualist Kālamukhas as Avadikas?”

T.A. Gopinatha Rao in his “Elements of Hindu Iconography” makes following important statement on
how to distinguish Vadika Advaitins and Avadika Saivites:

(Page 6 & 7 – The Elements of Hindu Iconography by T.G. Gopinatha Rao, 1904)
It is for the view of treating Vedas as inferior to Agamas the rigid Saivites have been classified as
“Avadikas” by Vedic scholars.

Though Gopinatha Rao says that Kumarila Bhatta rejected rigid Saivites as “Avaidik” but according to
David Lorenzen, the first rejection of Kālamukha as a non-Vedic sect has come
from Yāmunāchārya and his disciple Rāmānujachārya. Hereunder is what Lorenzen records in “The
Kāpālikas and Kālamukhas: Two Lost Śaivite Sects”

Other sources such as Tamil Arts Academy say that Rāmānuja had a contemporary Kālamukha
scholar by name Chaturānana Pandita who wielded greater influence on the then Chola monarch
Rajendra.
With this we can understand that Rāmānuja must have had the first hand information on
the doctrines and practices of Kālamukhas and then only rejected them as Avaidiks.

Encyclopedia Britannica says that the Kālamukha and Pāshupata sects have fallen from their
reputation due to extreme forms of worship that included human sacrifice. Though the human
sacrifice by these sects has so far not been proven but it appears that this stigma had loomed large on
them during medieval periods.

Hereunder is the screen grab of Britannica’s online encyclopedia that serves the much needed
clarification on Kālamukha sect:
Britannica also informs that these extreme sects have been termed as “Atimārgika” (Away from the
path).

An article published in Shodhganga website has the following description for Kālāmukhas and their
practices:

If the above statement is true then the reasons for the extinction of Kālamukha sect along with
Kāpālika can be easily understood. This also strengthens my argument that Mādhava Mantrin had
intentionally tried to qualify such a horrendous Saiva cult as a Vedic cult.

I wish to present an extract from a Telugu book titled “Sri Virupaksha – Sri Rama Tamra Sasanamulu”
(Sri Virupaksha – Sri Rama Copperplate Inscriptions), by Dr. Vadlamudi Gopalakrishnaiah (VG),
published in 1973 by Andhra Pradesh Govt. Oriental Manuscript Library and Research Institute,
Hyderabad. In his introduction to Aravidu dynasty, Dr. Gopalakrishnaiah talks about a particular
Somanatharaju who is an ancestor of famous Aliya Ramaraya of Vijayanagara. This Somanatharaju
was an independent king during early Vijayanagara time but his successors have been subdued and
were brought under the fold of Vijayanagara. In his introduction to Aravidu dynasty, in Page No. LXI
GV quotes an interesting poem from a 16th century Telugu book called “Dwipada Bala Bhagavatamu”

Hereunder I give the Kannada translation of the underlined prose text:

[ ೋಮ ಾಥ ಾಜು] ಒಂ ಾ ೊಂದು ಶತು ನ $ರಸ&ನು' (ೈರವ ೇವರ ಮುಂ ೆ ಖಂ+, ಬ.ಯನು' ೊಟ1ಂಥ ವರ
2ಪದ 4ಾಲ (ಾಗವತದ.6 ವ78ಸ9ಾ: ೆ.
The above narrated incident may not amount to human sacrifice as that killing was a politically
motivated execution of the enemy. But the striking aspect is the existence of Bhairava worship
during Somanatharaju’s time i.e. between c.1358 to 1375.

This Bhairava is a central theme of Pāshupata and Kāpalikās’ rituals with variants such as Ugra
Bhairava, Ananda Bhairava etc. Therefore, it must be understood here that in line with North India
where Veerashaiva sects have a sway till to this day, even in South India there was a bustling activity
of these sects during medieval times.

A noted historian from Andhra Pradesh, Mr. B.S.L. Hanumantha Rao in his article “Kālamukhas in
Andhradesha” written for the Oriental Journal Volume XXVIII published in the year 1985 by Sri
Venkateswara University, Tirupati states that Pāshupata sect had some practices that were socially
boycotted as ‘immoral’.
But Mr. Hanumantha Rao supports David Lorenzen’s view that Kālamukhas were not as bad as
Pāshupatas or Kāpalikās but were quite pious in nature and highly learned in studies. But the
irrefutable fact remains that they have followed a book called ‘Lakulisa Agama’ which was an
independent work of Saivite saint called Lakulisa who prevailed in Western India during 2nd century
AD.

But there is a vital clue available in Mr. Hanumantha Rao’s article that must be studied carefully.
Hereunder is that very important hint as to what could have become of Kālamukha sect during
medieval periods:

Mr. Hanumatha Rao quotes from David Lorenzen’s book that both Rāmānuja and his preceptor
Yāmunāchārya have ‘purposely’ superimposed the immoral practices of Pāshupata sect over
Kālamukha sect and have caused a great distortion about the latter sect.
So, by and large Kālamukhas have been branded as ‘Avaidikas’ though they appear to be practicising
the extreme rituals adopted by Pāshupatas. In my opinion, the mere absence of heinous rituals such
as making amorous gestures to ladies etc. can’t qualify Kālamukha sect on par with Advaita,
Vishishtadvaita or Dvaita for a simple reason that this Kālamukha sect has been built around Lakulisa
Agama which is an independent work of a human being called Lakulisa lived sometime in 2nd century
AD and was not based on Apaurusheya scriptures such as Vedas.

Following narrative from the Introduction to Gangadevi’s Madhura Vijaya, it can be understood
beyond any doubt that Madhva Mantrin has been hailed as the Establisher of Upanishad Path as he
tried to set right the ‘deranged’ Upanishadic lore which unmistakingy points towards the Kalamukha’s
tenet that Vedas are inferior to Saiva Agamas. It also confirms that Madhava Mantrin wrote a
commentary to this effect.

(Page 8 & 9 – Introduction – Madhura Vijaya by Gangadevi – Edited by G. Harihara Sastri & V. Srinivasa Sastri – Pub in 1924)

The above inputs hint that Kālamukha had been branded as “Avadika” for being “Atimārgika” which
is actually not as per Lorenzen and Hanumatha Rao but certainly for its adherence to a non-Vedic
and non-Upanishadic Agama called Lakulisa Agama.

Mādhava Mantri though being a Vedic Sāraswat Brahman had tried to uphold an Atimārgika and
Avaidic cult as a cult that conforms to Upanishads. Thus I wish to identify “Avaidika Vidyāranya” as
Mādhava Mantrin and not Mādhava-Vidyāranya who is indeed a Vaidika Vidyāranya as he
commented upon Vedas.
At this juncture it would not be out of context to mention another important aspect that the life
account of Vidyāranya too is not devoid of confusions and controversies. Having to deal with such
distorted versions of the bygone eras there ought to be many myths and mirages that mar the reality.

In the next chapter I have briefly discussed the mixed-up versions of Vidyāranya’s life history and his
position during first dynastic rule of Vijayanagara.

*****
Vidyāranya – Confusions & Mystifications

In this chapter, several distortions that are associated with the life history of Sri Vidyāranya are being
presented such that readers can familiarize themselves with the factual account of Vidyāranya.

After reading considerable amount of literature on Vidyāranya, I have been given to an understanding
that there are certain confusions among the public about the history of Sri Vidyāranya. And the
Advaita community too is not an exception to this bewilderment of their Guru who is considered as
the second greatest seer after Adi Sankara himself.

Following are the confusions that are usually associated with Vidyāranya and can dazzle not only the
common readers but the faithful followers of Advaita as well:

1. Vidyāranya and Mādhavacharya are different persons.

2. Vidyāranya and Mādhavacharya is one and the same person.
3. Sāyana & Mādhava are the brothers who have been jointly ordered by Bharati Tirtha &
Vidyāranya to write Veda Bhashyas.
4. Mādhava was a minister in the court of Vijayanagara emperor and later became Vidyāranya.
5. Kriyāshakti is another name of Mādhava Vidyāranya.

I found some of these riddles in an online discussion that was held almost 20 years ago while some
were found while researching the topic. Interested readers can read through the following discussions
to get a feeling of what I just narrated.

http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/may96/0022.html
http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/may96/0016.html

From the above it becomes evident that Advaitins too are confused with regard to the life history of
Vidyāranya. There is certain amount confusion as to whether a scholar named Mādhava became
Vidyāranya and whether this Mādhava was a minister at Vijayanagara court? It also becomes evident
that the various Advaita Mathās have had different versions.

From 1996 i.e. the year in which above online discussions were held and up to 2015, in the last 19
years I hardly see any greater clarity prevailing over the obscurities of Vidyāranya’s life and his ‘royal
preceptor’ status.
I shall be discussing these questions under a separate chapter but for now, let me put some light on
Kālamukha cult as it qualifies as the “Avadik” sect of Saivism.

For the misunderstanding that Kriyashakti is Vidyaranya, the erudite Kannada scholar DVG has made
it clear that Kriyashakti is different from Vidyaranya. Hereunder I produce the screenshot of English
translation of Mr. Venkatasubbaiah’s book on DVG:

(Page 31 of D.V. Gundappa by Venkatasubbaiah – English translation by S.G. Mysroe Math)

Venkatasubbaian also informs that in his Vidyaranya Vijaya drama, DVG presented a concerted effort
put by the then heads of various communities of Hindu fold. Following excerpt from Page 33 of above
mentioned English translation is quite remarkable.

Interestingly, Kannada University at Hampi has named its campus as Vidyaranya and its
Administrative building as Kriyashakti. Readers can check up the About Us page of the University.

With all this, its my conclusion that Vidyaranya and Kriyashakti are different and I personally don’t
think that between c.1310 to c.1350 i.e. till the Vijayanagara is firmly established, no religious head
would have engaged in polemical disputes as the very Dharma was at peril. The stark reality of 14th
century during which carnage caused by Islam incursion is quite evident till this day stands testimony
for this inference.

*****
Evidences for the influence wielded by Kālamukhas in Vijayanagara Empire

David Lorenzen informs that the existence of Kālamukhas in South India goes back to 9th century AD
and many inscriptions have been indentified to this effect. These inscriptions have been found
from Belagavi, Mysore and up to Mulbagal. Few inscriptions have been found in Kolar District as
well.

From the sheer geographical stretch of these inscriptions we can understand the spread of
Kālamukhas throughout the Karnataka. According to an inscription belonging to 810AD, certain
Kālamukha practitioners were operating from Nandi Hills (famous hill station & a most frequented
tourist destination in Kolar Dist.)

The below mentioned inscription of Devarigi Yadavas exemplify the exalted status of Kriyāshaktis
during 13th century.

(Page 35 – Inscriptions of Yadavas of Devagiri)

Further to this, a clinching evidence of the Kālamukha sect being flourished in Mulbagal region can be
found from the below shown Kannada inscription of Immadi Bukka Raya, son of Harihara II. This
inscription has been erected in the year 1390AD and was found on the southern wall of a ruined
temple near Lakshmi Narayana temple located on the banks of Shankara Tirtha (south-east of
Mulbagal town)
Lorenzen has mentioned this inscription in Page 162 of his book and commented as under:

The above inscription of Immadi Bukka confirms that Kālamukha sect had their center at Mulbagal
and the head of this cult has been greatly revered by the then ruling Sangama dynasty of
Vijayanagara.

I wish to present one more inscription from Sangama dynasty that has been erected in the year
1378AD in Chennarayaattana:
The last but one sentence carries the name of Kriyāshakty-acharya as the family guru of Harihara II.

This inscription confirms that Kriyāshakthi was holding the position of royal preceptor and was
enjoying the patronage of the then royal family. Also, the deep veneration of Sangama dynasty
towards Kriyāshaktis can be understood from the 1390AD inscription of Mulbagal, wherein the then
head of Kriyāshakthi Peetha has been hailed as “Preceptor of Preceptors”

The below mentioned excerpts from the Annual Archeological Report of Mysore District,
1941 establish the fact that it was (were) Kriyāshakti(s) that was (were) revered as Rājaguru(s).
Evidence 1:

Evidence 2:

Evidence 3:

It must be noted here that the terms “mahā manDalEshwara” cited in Evidence 2 clearly points
towards the ‘Akhāda’ culture of Veerashaiva sects of North India. A mahā manDalEshwara in Akhāda
tradition is equivalent to a Peethadhipati in South Indian tradition. Thus the connection between
Kālamukha and the weapon wielding, militant Saiva sects of North Indian Akhādas can be established
without any doubt. Also, the mention of ‘Svayambhu Triyambakadeva’ as shown in Evidence 3 further
substantiates that the Kālamukhis of Karnataka were having their roots in Trimbakeshwar near
Nashik, Maharashtra which has got maximum number of Akhadas in India.

Hereunder I am quoting from a Maratha book called “Trayambakam Gautami Thate” which lists the
staunch Saiva Akhādās at Trimbakeshwar that are active to this day. Read the Maratha text given
below the image that is self-explanatory:
 (Page 67 – Trayambakam Gautami Thate: 2013 Edition – Rajesh Suresh Dixit)

It appears that the Kriyāshaktis of Vijayanagara were part of those militant Nāga Sadhu type of North
Indian Akhādās that have not gone well with the extremely Vaidic community of South India. This also
can contribute to the dogma of Kālamukhas of South being branded as ‘Avadikas.”

Alongside of the above, I wish to furnish the extract of Dharwad District Gazette that confirms
Kriyashaktis as Gurus of Sangama Dynasty
 (Page 72 of Chapter 2 – History of Dharwad, Dharwad Dist Gazette as put up in Dist’s official website)

Last but not lease, now I wish to quote Madhura Vijaya, a historical work by Gangadevi, wife of
Kumara Kampana who drove away the Muslim marauders from Srirangam and other parts of present
day Tamil Nadu.

(Page 8 – Introduction – Madhura Vijaya by Gangadevi – Edited by G. Harihara Sastri & V. Srinivasa Sastri – Pub in 1924)
From the contemporary writing of 14th century and by a member of Sangama family I don’t think
further more evidences are needed to know the influence wielded by Kriyashakti Kalamukhas during
first dynastic rule f Vijayanagara.

Thus my supposition that Akshobhya Tirtha must have debated with Mādhava Mantrin at Mulbagal
stands ratified in light of the above Archeological, Epigraphical and Gazette’s information.

*****
Evidences from Literary Sources for Kriyashaktis’ Presence at Vijayagara Court

The famous Telugu poet Kavisārvabhauma Srinātha (15th century AD) who was the poet laureate of
Reddy Kings of Kondavidu mentions a particular Kriyāshakti Acharya in his chATu poem.

DEFGHIJKLM DEHNOPQRJST
UVRWGXEY OZ[G\M]LM,
^M_к_ [aQbc [GJdefghL OiKLj\
FkcldmnJo pJUHqOZrк_,
^mZMstIuvJS wxUqI yzLU {|e}R
s~• QRJQRO€I•v кJ‚ƒ„к…,

ш
!" # ,
†‡I•M †‡ˆ‰ŠJ‹bDŒ rrƒ• ŽJк•U
•Lj‘ ’‰Jm O“”{LM_ XEy]LM_
ŽJ••K–M_j‘r FkMK–Ž—ZJQR ˜j‘
pкM pUƒ
™ W Žк_HJš! ]LHDGJš!

Srinātha says that it was “ಚಂದ ಭೂಷ * +ಾಶ*” who gave the title “ಕ ಾವ8(ೌಮ” to him in the court
of Devarāya – II. In fact, Srinātha Kavi was a staunch Virashaiva follower.

Here an important question may arise that were Kālamukhas engaged in any religious debates as
their parent sect i.e. Pāshupatha never built any Matha nor maintained Gurukulas?

For an answer to this question, I wish to quote David Lorenzen’s following statement:

With all these various evidences I have concluded that Akshobhya Tirtha had a debate with
Mādhava Mantrin who has been called as ‘Avaidikottama’ and ‘Avaidikagryam’ by then Mādhva
writers.
*****
Doubtful claim of Vidyāranya as Rajaguru of Sangama dynasty

All the inscriptions, archeological and gazettes and the salutations and appellations awarded to
Kālamukha Kriyāshaktis presented in the above chapters can pose a serious question as to “who, in
reality, was (were) the royal preceptor(s) for Sangama dynasty?” Was it Vidyāranya as Advaitins
claim through their legends or Kriyāshakti(s) whose direct references are overwhelmingly available in
inscriptions & literature that are contemporaneous to the Sangama dynasty?

The extract of Dharwad Dist Gazetteer makes it clear that Advaitins claim of Vidyāranya’s Rājagurutva
is unsubstantiated. In Page 73 of the same gazetteer, it is mentioned that the Sangama emperors
have persuaded great scholars such as Vidyāranya and Sāyana to build repositories of Vedic wisdom
such that its extinction in the hands of Muslim marauders could be averted.

But some Advaitins argue that Vidyāranya became Rājaguru after the death of Kriyāshakthi Pandita
who mentored Sangama dynasty and Mādhava Mantri. But according to the 1390AD inscription of
Immadi Bukka Raya, it becomes evident that a specific Kriyāshakthi Pandita had died in 1389AD.
Read the following narration of David Lorenzen on this inscription:

It is accepted by all the stakeholders that Vidyāranya attained videha mukti in the year 1387AD. If
Kriyāshakthi Pandita, the Rajaguru of Sangama dynasty, had passed away in 1389AD, then Vidyāranya
does not stand to become Rājaguru as he himself left the world two years before Kriyāshakthi i.e. in
1387AD.
If that Kriyāshakthi Pandita mentioned in 1390AD inscription of Mulbagal has also been the mentor of
Mādhava Mantri then it becomes clear that Vidyāranya had never been a royal preceptor as claimed
by the Advaitins.

Also, the 1378AD inscription of Chennarayapattana clearly shows that Kriyāshakthi was still being
hailed as Rājaguru even while Vidyāranya was alive and seated in his hermitage at Hampi. This also
points towards a supposition that Vidyāranya had never been a full time Rājaguru of Sangama
dynasty!

With these epigraphic and archeological evidences I have arrived at a conclusion that Kriyāshakthis
have been the royal preceptors for Sangama dynasty at least up to the time of Harihara II and
Vidyāranya could have been honoured by the royal dynasty as a great intellect but not as their royal
preceptor or guardian saint.

This understanding gives rise to my earlier observation that the purported “tattvamasi” debate must
have occurred between Akshobhya and Mādhava Mantri as the latter had been hailed as the
“Establisher of the path of Upanishads” and also tried to elevate Kālamukha as a Vedic cult. Hence
this Mādhava Mantri must have been the “ಅ ೈ ಾಗ ಂ” or in simple terms the “Avaidika
Vidyāranya” as he belonged to a cult that had been labeled as “Atimārgika” i.e. Away from the
[accepted] path.

This supposition gains more weight for the irrefutable fact that the pontiffs of Kālamukha cult were
the actual royal preceptors of the then Vijayanagara royal family.

The said defeat of an Avaidika scholar (Mādhava Mantri) must be treated as the defeat of the cult’s
head himself. Thus the grandeur of Akshobhya’s win over a Rājaguru of that time would never get
diminished or demeaned even if we accept Mādhava Mantri as Avadika Vidyāranya. And I am of
strong belief that for this great achievement of his guru that Sri Jayatirtha had praised Sri Akshobhya
with as eloquent term as “ದು ಾ8 ಾರಣ ದ= ೕ=ಃ”
*****
Madhva Vijaya and Usage of word “Avadika” to refer Advaitha:

So far my argument on the extrapolation of “Avaidika” word was based on the inscriptions and other
scriptural references. But as I was discussing this topic with other learned pundits one of them has
given me a ‘fore-part-of-the-debate’ (pUrva paksha) that Sri Narayana Panditacharya (NP) in his Sri
Madhva Vijaya (SMV) has called Advaitins as Avaidikas. He quoted the following shloka from
Prathama Sarga:

ಅ ೈ ಕಂ ಾಧ .ಕಂ ರಸಂ
0ೕ12 ತತ31 ಸುಪ14ಾ5ೕ
ತ6ೕವ ಪ1ಂ ಪ 54ಾದು ೋಽ8ೌ
ನ ರೂರುಪ ಾ:ಗ<.=ಾನುರೂಪ> (1/50)
Here the word “ಅ ೈ ಕಂ” denotes Advaitha while “ ಾಧ .ಕಂ” signifies Bauddha religion. Thus, the
pundit said that the SMV can successfully nullify my arguments.

As SMV being the irrefutable and accurate biography having written during the life time of Acharya
Madhva, its contents and the veracity can never be ignored. I have spent many an hour to understand
the nuances of Narayana Panditacharya and have discussed with scholars to remove the traces of my
own ignorance from the subject matter and thereafter have finally arrived at the following conclusion:

• The usage of “Avadika” for Advaitins by NP in SMV is from the theological angle only and not
from worldly view.
• Advaitins, though ‘deviate’ from the final teachings of Vedas i.e. Dvaita, never refute Vedas nor
criticize them and not even undermine their importance in understanding the Brahman.
• Advaitins do generally follow the Vedic procedures and practices such as Shodasha Samskaras.
• To given an example for their adherence to Vedic practices, during Upakarma, Advaitins also
make a Sankalpa as “?ೌ ತ ಾ@ತ8 ಕAಾ8ನುBಾCನ Dೕಗ Eಾ ,ದF ಥ8ಂ .”
• Thus they are not ‘Avadikas’ in their worldly affairs.
• While deciphering the real purports of Vedas, they claim certain things that are not agreed to
by Dvaita.
• The contradictions of Advaitins in their worldly practice of Vedic teachings and their theological
interpretations are well known.
• From this standpoint, NP called Advaitins as Avadika as there is a disconnection between what
they preach and practice.
• On the other hand, the rigid Saivites such as Kalamukhas did not adhere to any Vedic
practices or procedures nor have they held Vedas as paramount. Instead they followed a
man-made Lakulisa Agama. Also, they had some socially boycotted practices as part of their
‘Sadhana.’
• Thus there is a great difference between Saivites and Advaitins as the former is Avaidika by
all means while the latter is Vaidika in worldly affairs but ‘Avadika’ in theological terms.

*****
Continued trail of Kāplikās during Sripadaraya’s time

Sri Sripadaraja Stotram written by Sri Vādiraja clearly exhibits the existence of Kāpalikās
K in Mulbagal
region during Sripadaraya’s life time
time.. The following underlined portion of the stotra supplies this all
important information:

In the above stotra, Vādiraja informs that Srip

Sripādarāya has defeated a great Kāpālika scholar whose
extreme asset was “Anger” ( ೋGಾH ತI). We can see the evidences for this narrative in the present
day Sripādarāya
ya Matha at Narasimha Tirtha which features Saiva insignia and sculptures.
The above image has been taken from photo gallery of Sripadaraja Matha’s official website and some
of the Saivite carvings have been marked in red. Following are the close-up images of the two pillars
that contain the marked images in the above photograph.

The striking feature of these images is the Shiva Linga and being worshipped by a snake, a lion, a cow
and a monkey. Other images such as the Dancing Shiva and a cross legged mendicant in sitting
posture also point towards Saiva culture. A detailed study must be conducted in deciphering this
iconography of Kāpālikas.

These images and many others carved on the other faces of these pillars confirm that the place was
once used by Saivite followers. (For more images please see Appendix – I) Therefore this ancient
structure had been a Kāpālika Matha that has been forfeited to Sripādarāya after their defeat with
him in polemical debates.
Dvaita’s victory against Avaidika cults has not stopped with Sripādarāya but continued with his
disciple Vyāsatirtha who defeated a Lingayat scholar “Suri Linganna” and received an emerald Shiva
linga as a gift. Usually, Mādhvas don’t worship Shiva in Linga form but in Vyāsarāja Matha this Shiva
linga is being worshipped as a token of remembrance of Vyāsatirtha’s victory. Similarly, in Sode
Vādiraja Matha, the pontiff uses a Basavana Gante (a bell embellished with Bull on top) which is
squarely in contrast with Mukhyaprāna Gante (bell with Hanuman with folded alms). This Basava bell
was belonging to a Veerashaiva scholar whom Vādiraja defeated and started using it upon the request
made by the defeated Veerashaiva.

With all these archeological evidences, it can be understood that Mādhva Yatis were consistently had
debates with Veerashaivas alongside of Advaitins and the memorabilia of Veerashaivas are in vogue
to this day in the respective Mādhva Matha.

Now, I wish to present an epigraphic evidence to prove that the today’s Sripādarāya Matha at
Narasimha Tirtha was belonging to Kāpālikas. Below shown inscription found in Sri Venkateshwara
temple of Kurijili village, Vayalpad Taluq, Chittoor Dist of Andhra Pradesh. This inscription belongs to
Sripadaraya’s time and makes a curious reference to his Matha.
Here Sripadaraya’s Matha has been called as “Kala Matha”(
Matha”(ಕಲ ಮಠ)) which must be a variant of
“Kallu Matha” (ಕಲುF ಮಠ)) meaning a religious institution constructed with stones.
stones

It is a well known fact that all Mādhva

dhva Mathas are named after the place or person but have never
been called with objects such as stone. On the other hand, many Veerashaiva Mathas have such
names that are prevalent to this day. Thus it can be confirmed that the place where the present
Sripādarāya’s
ya’s Matha is existing at Narasimha Tirtha has been won by Srip
Sripādar
darāya from Kāpālikās
who’s Matha was being called as “Kallu Matha.” The Saivite images carved on some of the ancient
pillars of Sripādarāya
ya Matha stand testimony for this narration.

Here I wish to highlight a quite heartening feature of Srip

Sripādarāya
ya Matha successors. The subsequent
seers of Sripādarāya
ya have left these K
Kāpālika
lika carvings untouched. Their great gesture has proved two
worthy traits of Dvaitins i.e. (1) tolerance towards other religions and (2) a sense of historicity to keep
those carvings as the living testimony of Srip
Sripādarāya’s greatest achievement.

On the contrary, defacing of the carvings on the Brindavana

Brindavana-in-question
question on the back cover page of
VP’s SJMBM has left a bitter taste.
When seen in the light of how Sripadaraya Matha seers have left the Avaidika carvings to bear a
testimony of their history, I severely condemn the highly deplorable act of defacing the carvings
done on back cover of VP’s book. VP can’t get away by saying that this shameful act has been done
by someone else. The buck stops at him as he is the author, editor and publisher of SJMBM and so
can’t escape from the responsibility of removing the images from the photograph.

Going back to the core topic, with the archeological evidences at Sripadaraya Matha and with the
literary evidence furnished by Vadiraja it can be confirmed that Mulbagal was a hot seat of
hardcore, rigid Saivites such as Kāpālikas and Kālamukhas than being an active religious center of
Advaitins. Hence it is but logical to arrive at a conclusion that Sri Akshobhya Tirtha visited Mulbagal
to get engaged in a debate with a Kālamukha scholar and in this process he drew God Narasimha on
boulder. Narasimha is the Bimba Rupa of Mahā Rudra whom Kālamukhas worship as the Supreme
Godhead and thereby the Narasimha drawing made by Akshbhya Tirtha on the banks of Narasimha
Tirtha is well placed with the context and content.
*****
Vidyāranya’s tryst with Jayatirtha - Evidences from Dāsa Sāhitya:

In order to come to a logical conclusion about the truth in Akshobhya-Vidyāranya debate, so far, I
have extensively used various Archeological and Epigraphic records and the books written for and
against the purported debate.

Subsequently, I have tried to look for some clues in Dāsa Sāhitya as it has been the most widely used
tool by the Dvaita School to spread its message in the masses. In this connection, I have looked to
the kritis on Sri Jayatirtha by referring to the following Dāsa greats:

1. Sri Vādiraja Tirtha

2. Sri Purandara Dāsa
3. Sri Kanaka Dāsa

The reason for which I have chosen the above is that they were the most popular and prolific
kritikārās in Kannada language and have been known for their accuracy and eye-for-things. Also, all of
them were closely associated with Vijayanagara Empire and Hampi. They have traveled extensively
and more importantly to Tirumala which can be accessed through Mulbagal.

It has been found that Purandara and Kanaka have not written much about Jayatirtha but Vādiraja
wrote two kirtanas.

In these two kirtanas one was a regular kriti written with traditional fervor and eulogizes Jayatirtha
with all adjectives that befit his accomplishments. But the following kirtana is the crucial one which
spills beans about Akshobhya – Vidyāranya debate. Hereunder is the reproduction of the kriti from Sri
Vādirajara Kritigalu, published by the Mysore University under the editorship of Dr. Nagaratna.
A rough English translation of the underlined text is as under:

“[with your] skillful works you have infatuated Vidyāranya who

came [to you] with empty words.”

The editorial team of this compilation has given the following meaning to this stanza:
Thus the last stanza says it all!

It is Jayatirtha with whom Vidyāranya interacted and got becharmed by the authorship of the
former. Sri Vādiraja did not mince his words like how he did in Tirtha Prabandha and has not
concealed the incident but made it crystal clear
clear.

If the debate between Akshobhya and Vidyāranya had been a truth then Vādiraja would have credit
Akshobhya Tirtha too but here he gave the credit to Jayatirtha alone. Should this not be treated as
yet another clarification that Vādiraja
Vādirajaru is offering to us to know the truth in its originality?

Alongside of this I wish to quote the very D

Dāsa Sāhitya
hitya evidence that Malkhed supporters extensively
use i.e. “Jೕ ಾ ಾಯರ Gಾದ ೋKದ ೊ ೆ ಧೂM…. ” The very first stanza of this kirtana reads as:

ಮಧHಮತ ೆಂIೋ ದುJಾKLN

M ಳP
ಉದR ದ ಚಂದ ೋ
ಅ ೆSೖತ ಮತ Tನ ೇದ ಕುVಾWಾ
ಾ ರಣ ನ ಗವ< ೆU ಪ0=ಾWಾ

Thus even Vijayadāsaru

saru too has upheld the same fact that Vādiraja mentioned in his kriti that it is with
Jayatirtha to whom Vidyāranya lost supremacy.
Here the moot issue that must be understood is when did Vidyāranya meet with Jayatirtha? This
question has been discussed in detail in the previous eBook but I am reproducing the same text here
for ready reference of the readers.
Thus in all probability Vidyāranya must have met with Jayatirtha before c 3 ; and not anytime later to this At this time Jayatirtha might have not yet
completed his Nyaya Sudha but would be in the process of writing it Hence the purported debate between Jayatirtha and Vidyāranya needs a thorough
investigation
Narahari Sumadhwa of Sumadhwaseva com opines that Vidyāranya must have met Jayatirtha after c 3 ; but strangely contradicts by offering another
opinion that the said meeting might have happened during early years of Jayatirtha’s ascendence i e in c 3 ; during which Yaragola has gone in to
Bahamanis<

In lieu of such contradictionsœ I have tried to build a simulation for this Jayatirtha:Vidyāranya meet which is as under9
In the biography of Sri Vidyāranya posted in Sringeri Peetha’s official websiteœ it is said that Sri Vidyāranya has undertaken a pilgrimage to Kashi but
rushed back to Sringeri as the then pontiff Sri Bharati Tirtha has sensed his death and watned Vidyāranya to come back forthwith This is the only travel
of Vidyranya that is cited in that short biography With this alone one may not be able to make an assertion but I have tried to build the simulation with
this fractured info9
• The time line of Bharati Tirtha is c 333: 30!
• Vidyāranya ascended Sringeri Peetha in c 30!
• Assuming that Vidyāranya might have undertaken pilgrimage a year or so before c 30! then his journey would have began in c 3=
• By making a wild assumption that he would have undertaken pilgrimage to North five years prior to his ascendency for all sorts of ‘Vadaas’ (
‘Digvijayas’ then the year would be c 3=;
• The purported meeting of Vidyāranya and Jayatirtha might have occured during this travel
• The political situation says that by c 3=; Yaragola was under Bahamani Sultanate Bwhich can negate the possibility of Sri Jayatirtha staying
in Yaragola at this timež
• Muhammad Shah Bahamani died in c 3=; and Mujahid Shah Bc 3=;:=0ž sat on the throne and his reign was full of pitched battles with
Vijayanagara particularly in Telangana areas Bagain ruling out the possibility of Sri Jayatirtha staying in Yaragolaž
• After Mujahid’s murder in c 3=0 Mahamood Shah I ascended and ruled the sultanate till c 3 = BAs per Srigenri and Hampi Vidyāranya
Matha’s websites Vidyāranya appeared to have not undertaken any major travel between c 30! 2 0= i e till his demise Thus ruling out the
meeting with Sri Jayatirtha during this period ž
• On the other handœ Jayatirtha would have been in Hampi or Anegondi between c 3=!:00 as he might have moved there owing to the political
insecurity and religious proselytization in Telangana region including the areas of Yaragola ( Malkheda
• It has been witnessed in above paras that Vidyāranya spent his last years in Hampi by building an Ashram for himself
• Soœ in this period i e between c 3=!:0= only there are some chances for both of them coming face:to:face
• If this becomes true then the presence of Sri Jayatirtha in Hampi or Anegondi areas gets confirmed
All said and done the purported meeting of Vidyāranya and Jayatirtha is another confusion that needs thorough probe¡¢£
Vedanta Deshika’s Judgment – A Myth of Confounded Identity!

Another important character in this episode is Sri Vedanta Deshika of Shrivaishnava school of
Vedanta. An impartial assessment of his life history, epigraphy and archeological evidences can lead
us to know whether he was really involved in the disputation of Akshobhya and Vidaranya as judge.
This chapter shall briefly discuss the important and critical anecdotes of Vedanta Deshika.

It is quite striking to note that majority of the ancient Madhva authors be it Vyasatirtha, direct disciple
of Jayatirtha or Chalari Sankarshanacharya or Narayanacharya of Sri Raghavendra Vijaya did not give
out the name of Vedanta Desika as the Judge. This reference comes only in Vedanta Desika Vaibhava
Prakashika written by Srinivasa Mahasuri alias Doddayyachar who hailed from Sholingar
(Ghatikachala) and lived during 16th century. This sole reference is making it as a one-sided story. It
must be noted that this story has been picked up by the Madhva writers of our time only. This
selection of Srinivasa Mahasuri’s narration is in contrast with the earlier Madhva writers. This
difference in approach towards Vedanta Desika should not be taken lightly.

As far as the books and articles that I have read in good numbers about Vedanta Desika quote
“Vedanta Desika Vaibhava Prakashika” as the only earliest source for his purported role of Judge in
the said disputation. In my opinion an incident of the stature of Akshobhya-Vidyaranya debate can’t
be decided by citing a lone reference such as Srinivasa Mahasuri’s work.

The consistency in several Madhva narratives that a particular “Avadika Vidyaranya” has been
defeated by Akshobhya Tirtha is not being found in the account of Vedanta Deshika as the Judge.
Many other Shrivaishnava texts are silent on this achievement of Vedanta Deshika. Hence the validity
of “Vedanta Deshika Vaibhava Prakashika” becomes doubtful and I believe that a separate study is
needed to trace the source material of Srinivasa Mahasuri based on which he told that story.

I have gleaned through the famous disputes of Madhva scholars with their opponents in pre-
Akshobhy and post-Akshobhya periods and found that none of them had a referee from some other
Vedantic school to give out judgment on the winner. This uniformity of polemical disputes of
Madhvas puts a question mark on Vedanta Deshika’s role as a judge.

In addition to these facts, the entire Haridasa Sahitya is silent about the whole incident let alone
taking the name of Vedanta Deshika as the Judge. Hence I am of the opinion that the claim made by
Srinivasa Surin in his “Vedanta Deshika Vaibhava Prakashika” has something to do with his personal
aberration with Advaitins and particularly with the successors of Vidyaranya at Hampi Virupaksha
Matha. An in-depth study in this angle can shed light on this doubtful narration.

With this, I wish to conclude here that the story of Vedanta Deshika is doubtful and its exclusion from
this study shall not alter or hamper the central theme.

*****
Silence of Dāsa Sāhitya on Jayasthambha

The same Dāsa Sāhitya that shed much light on Jayatirtha-Vidyāranya debate has remained silent on
Akshobhya-Vidyāranya debate and more importantly on Jayasthambha. This an important point that
the reader must take a note.

The silence from Sri Sripādarāya who was the native of Mulbagal and the subsequent quietness on
this topic from Sri Vyāsaraja, Vādiraja, Vijayindra and Purandara Dāsa must be understood carefully.
This silence has been held by them alone but also by the later date Dāsa greats such as Vijayadāsa,
Gopāla Dāsa, Jagannatha Dāsa, Pranesha Dāsa etc. These Dāsarāyās too have never written or hinted
about the existence of a victory pillar of Akshobhya Tirtha at Mulbagal.

This deafening silence of Dāsa Sāhitya stands as an irrefutable evidence that there was no
Jayasthambha existing during their periods and there was no story in vogue that involved
Akshobhya’s victory over Mādhava Vidyāranya.

Here comes the moot question as to why Dāsa Sāhitya didn’t praise the chronicled victory of
Akshobhya over an Avadika Pandit of whose reference can found in Sanskrit literature of Dvaita?

Though I can’t answer this question as confidently as I could for the question of “who is Avaidika
Vidyāranya”, I can only ascribe the reason of very few kirtanas written on Padmanabha, Narahari,
Mādhava and Akshobhya Tirtha. It is interesting to note here that after Acharya Madhva it is
Jayatirtha who got more kirtanas to his credit but those four direct disciples of Madhva were
somehow left out by the Dasa parampara. In addition to these facts, we could have lost some kirtanas
on the quartet in the gush of negligence to preserve our literature.

*****
Why Jayasthambha story is dubious?

There are many reasons that could be ascribed to prove Jayasthambha fiction:

1. There are no such other pillars existing anywhere in India though many Dvaita stalwarts such as
Sriyuta Jayadhwaja, Vibhudendra, Sripadaraya, Vyasatirtha, Vādiraja, Vijayendra, Raghuttama,
Raghavendra and other great scholars have traveled all over India and have defeated many
opponents.
2. The Grantha and Tamil characters used for writing the purported Shloka of “ಅ, ಾ ತತ2ಮ, ಾ”
on Jayasthambha don’t conform to the usage of these scripts during early Vijayanagara period.
3. If the said shloka and the pillar have been erected during Akshobhya T’s time then the shloka
must have been written in Nagari or Nandi Nagari of Kannada script. In Book 1, I have
presented a brief study on popular scripts of Vijayanagara. Readers may peruse the same for
further info.
4. Mulbagal had been an integral part of Kannada tradition and language during the entire
sustenance of Vijayanagara Empire. Hence the usage of Grantha characters on Jayasthambha
renders it as a dubious structure.
Conclusion on Avaidika Vidyāranya and Jayasthambha

In light of all the evidences and inferences furnished above, I have come to a conclusion that the story
of Jayasthambha and its alluded association with the defeat of Vidyāranya of Advaita School is
mythical and not factual. Hence the mysterious mention of such a mythical victory pillar in the paper
manuscript of Nārayana Tirtha renders that manuscript as dubious and concocted which in turn casts
a dark cloud of suspicion on its claim of Jayatirtha’s Brindavana being located at Malkhed. Unless and
until this juggernaut is not properly solved by VP and other Malkhed supporters, Anegundi argument
does not lose its ground but can make in-roads into the minds of many serious readers who wish to
know the truth and nothing but truth.

*****
 APPENDIX – I
SAIVITE CARVINGS ON PILLARS OF SRIPADARAYA MATHA