A C RITIQUE OF K LOSTERMAIER ’ S

‘A S URVEY OF H INDUISM ’

Shrisha Rao

Klostermaier, Klaus K.: A Survey of Hinduism. SUNY Press, Albany, New York.
First edition 1989, Second edition 1994.

The aforementioned book is well known to scholars of South Asian Studies, and
is widely used, especially in the United States, as an undergraduate text.
There however are serious questions about the soundness of the author’s methods,
and thus about the veracity of many of his claims, especially those that relate to
Madhva (13th cent. CE). These problems have not hitherto been noticed by the
scholarly community.
Both editions of the book contain a large number of factual errors; while some
of these errors have been fixed in the second edition, there is no mention therein
of the earlier errors, and no list of errata is provided. As many copies of the first
edition continue to be used, it is likely as not that readers of said first edition will
continue to be misled.
The most striking error in the book is the following (p. 422, second edition):

[Madhva] then went on a missionary tour, engaging Jains, Buddhists,

and Advaitins in discussions and defeating them not only by the power
of his words but also with the help of a king who, on Madhva’s insis-
tence, had thousands of Jains impaled and exiled other infidels.

1
 2

As a matter of fact, the biography of Madhva, “considered authentic” according to

Klostermaier himself on the very same page, fails to mention any such king who
impaled Jains at Madhva’s insistence and exiled other infidels. There is no warrant
for presuming any similar actions or attitudes on Madhva’s part, king or no king.
No other scholar, including B.N.K. Sharma, who wrote the definitive The History
of the Dvaita School of Vedanta and Its Literature (Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi; 2d
edition 1981, 3d edition 2000), mentions anything to support these claims either1 ,
and Klostermaier makes his accusation without indicating a source. The fabrica-
tion is also seen elsewhere—on page 59 and page 254 Madhva is described as “the
hammer of the Jains,” again without any source being indicated in support.
Where on the one hand Klostermaier has failed to give a source for this auda-
cious claim, that thus must be considered his fabrication, in at least one instance
he also fabricates a source—see endnote 19 to chapter 27 (p. 576) where he
says, “See also B.N.K. Sharma, A Comparative Study of Ten Commentaries on
the Brahmasūtras (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass 1984).” A work titled ‘A Compar-
ative Study of Ten Commentaries on the Brahmasūtras’ (which Klostermaier of-
fers as evidence to show that the ten recognized commentators on the Brahmasūtra
are those he names) has not been written by the alleged author, who disclaims2
Klostermaier’s notion that there are “ten recognized Vedāntācāryas.” The website
of the alleged publisher lists no such monograph even by any other author.
Besides these questionable scholarly practices, Klostermaier also gets his facts
wrong on several occasions. Immediately after the portion earlier cited (p. 422),
we read:

The image of Kr.s.n.a that Madhva installed at his Ud.ipı̄ mat.ha is still
an important focus of pilgrimage and the rotation of the headship of
the mat.ha, taking place every twelve years, is also a major social oc-
casion about which newspapers report. Madhva was the most prolific
of all the great Vedāntins; he left more than thirty major works as
well as a number of minor ones. In addition to the traditional com-
 3

mentaries on the Gı̄tā, the Upanis.ads, and the Brahma Sūtra, he wrote
commentaries on the Bhāgavata Purān.a, the R.gveda, and portions of
the Mahābhārata, along with several philosophical monographs and
short summaries of his own commentaries, the most famous of which
is the Anuvyākhyāna, a masterful exposition of the Brahma Sūtra in
eighty-eight verses.

The following are some of the errors in the above:

• Rotation of worship in the Kr.s.n.a temple in Ud.upı̄ takes place every two
years.3

• Madhva wrote partial commentaries on the Bhāgavata Purān.a4 and the R.g
Veda5 , but a digest covering the entire Mahābhārata6 . He wrote no “sum-
maries of his own commentaries.”

• His work called the Anuvyākhyāna consists of close to two thousand verses7 ,
not eighty-eight.

Elsewhere, Klostermaier says (p. 352):

The second [sampradāya] is the Brahmā-sampradāya, founded by

Madhva, also called Ānanda Tı̄rtha or Pūrn.a Prajña. Beginning as a
Daśa-nāmi, Madhva became Advaita’s bitterest (sic) enemy. Mad-
hvites are largely restricted to the South, where they keep custody
over the mat.has established by the founder. In former times, they
must have been quite numerous. Among their peculiar customs is
the adoption of a name of Vis.n.u and the branding of the body with a
red-hot iron to imprint upon it forever the cakra of Vis.n.u.

It is grossly inaccurate to describe Madhva as having been a Daśanāmi sannyāsı̄,

when in fact the designation of Daśanāmi was unknown in his time, and when his
 4

biography fails to make such a claim. The statement that Madhva (as against his
disciples and later followers) established mat.has is inaccurate8 , as is the impli-
cation that followers of his tradition are rare (as opposed to having been “quite
numerous” in the past).

Neither is naming a child after Vis.n.u a practice peculiar to Madhva’s tradition,

nor are all Mādhva children necessarily named this way. The practice of tapta-
mudrā-dhāran.a described here by Klostermaier (and also on p. 229 and p. 254)
is derived from the Pancarātra literature9 , and is also followed by the traditions of
Rāmānuja and Nimbārka.

The description of Madhva’s tradition as the Brahmāsampradāya is a neo-classical

(post 18th cent.) and doctrinally incorrect one (inasmuch as Madhva does not trace
his heritage to Brahmā).

A few other glaring factual errors can be noted briefly:

• In one instance (p. 248), the name Mādhava which is an epithet applied to
Vis.n.u, is confounded with ‘Madhva’!

• Madhva’s dates are given wrongly (p. 485) as 1197-1276, whilst Sharma10
has conclusively shown them on the basis of literary and epigraphical evi-
dence to be 1238-1317.

• Klostermaier says (p. 380) that the calling of Śankara’s Advaita as crypto-
Buddhist is the work of “some of the followers of Madhva,” while Sharma
has again pointed out11 that it may be found in the writings of authors be-
fore Madhva such as Bhāskara, Pārthasārathi Miśra, Yādavaprakāśa, and
Rāmānuja.

There are other errors that are only found in the first edition of Klostermaier’s
book, but correction of which is not noted in the second. The most significant of
these is on page 76 (first edition), where we read:
 5

The present edition of the Mahābhārata itself speaks of three be-

ginnings: manvādi, beginning with Manu, corresponding to the first
twelve parvans (“chapters”) of the present work; āstı̄kādi, beginning
with Astika, comprising parvans 13 to 53; uparicarādi, from parvan
54 onward.

The statements are incongruous with the fact that the whole of the ’Bhārata only
contains 18 parva-s, as also noted by Klostermaier himself (p. 77, first edition).
The story of the Mahābhārata is also summarized wrongly in the first edition—
Klostermaier would have us believe (p. 79, first edition) that the Pān.d.avas spent
the thirteenth year of their exile (which had to be spent incognito, “in the very
court of Duryodhana, without being recognized, and [appeared] at the beginning
of the fourteenth year before the king to reclaim their kingdom. But Duryodhana
is no longer willing to give up his empire. Thus, both parties prepare for an all-out
war.”
In fact, all recensions of the text are agreed that the Pān.d.avas spent their incognito
year in the court of king Virāt.a, and a complete parva of the Epic, called virāt.a-
parva, is devoted to this part of their story. Near the end of the year, Bhı̄masena,
one of the Pān.d.avas, killed Virāt.a’s powerful brother-in-law Kı̄caka for attempting
to molest Draupadı̄. Upon hearing news of the mighty Kı̄caka’s death, Duryod-
hana decided to attack Virāt.a’s kingdom and steal his cattle, suspecting that the
deed could only be the work of the Pān.d.avas, and also calculating that Virāt.a’s
kingdom would be weak, being sans Kı̄caka. The attack was thwarted and Virāt.a’s
kingdom saved, in large part owing to the heroic martial deeds of the Pān.d.avas
upon the occasion. However, Duryodhana insisted that the Pān.d.avas had revealed
themselves before the year was up (although his grandsire Bhı̄s.ma and other coun-
selors advised otherwise), and insisted that they go back to the forest. This set the
stage for the great war, in which Virāt.a was an important ally of the Pān.d.avas.
A passage that only appears in the first edition (p. 382) of Klostermaier’s book
says something strange about Madhva:
 6

On his North Indian tour, he also met with a Muslim ruler. The Mus-
lim intolerance of Hinduism might have been one of the factors that
could explain Madhva’s un-Hindu intolerance toward other opinions
and some of his stranger views.

It is not clarified that according to Madhva’s biography12 , the Muslim king who
met Madhva was so impressed that he offered the latter half his kingdom! Cer-
tainly Madhva is not indicated by his biographer to have encountered any “Mus-
lim intolerance of Hinduism.” Even granting Klostermaier’s imagination in this
matter, it is not at all clear why “Madhva’s un-Hindu intolerance of other opin-
ions” should be focused solely toward Advaita and other Hindu theologies, while
completely ignoring Islam; indeed, “Madhva’s un-Hindu intolerance” is seen in
full measure even in his earlier works that date from before his meeting with the
Muslim king.

Conclusion

Klostermaier’s book has been widely accepted as an authoritative treatment of its

subject. However, it would seem to appear that a greater degree of care is called for
in quoting the book’s claims in scholarly works. Impressionable students should
likewise be advised to use the book with caution. Eventually, it would perhaps be
best if the book were replaced entirely by a more accurate monograph that treats
the subject, and it is this author’s hope that the scholarly community will exert
itself in such a direction.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Ramesh Rao for drawing his attention to Kloster-
maier’s book, and Vicky Maloy for research assistance. Kesava Tadipatri com-
mented upon previous drafts, while B.N.K. Sharma gave important clarifications.
NOTES 7

Notes
1 In a private communication, Sharma dismisses this allegation against Madhva

by Klostermaier as “a pure concoction,” and points out that Klostermaier instead

should have mentioned the true fact that centuries before Madhva, the Buddhists
had such a rough time at the hands of Kumārila Bhat.t.a (8th cent. CE) that they
were forced to flee en masse to Cambodia, Thailand, Tibet, and other parts East,
causing Buddhism to all but disappear in India. Jainism, while never rising to such
strength as Buddhism once did, never suffered such a severe decline either.

2 Private communication, 2002. Sharma points out that his The Brahmasūtras
and Their Principal Commentaries (3 vols., Munshiram Manoharlal, 1986) deals
with three “principal” commentators on the Brahmasūtras, not ten.

3 B.N.K. Sharma, The History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta and Its Litera-
ture, 3d ed., Motilal Banarsidass, 2000, 192.

4 “Madhva’s Bhāgavata-Tātparya (B.T.) is a selective commentary in some

3600 granthas. Out of a total of 18,000 verses of the Purān.a, he has commented
upon some 1600,” Sharma, HDSV 129.

5 “[Madhva] illustrates his thesis with reference to the first three Adhyāyas of
the I As.t.aka (Man.d.ala i, Sūktas 1-40) . . . The purpose being illustrative, [only]
some forty Sūktas of the I Man.d.ala are chosen for comment.” Sharma, HDSV,
181-182.

6 “The historical value of [Madhva’s] Mbh. T.N. lies in its being the earliest
datable running commentary on the Epic, in Sanskrit. It is not, of course, a com-
mentary in the strict sense of the term. But, in so far as it traverses the entire
course of the history of the Kuru Pān.d.avas, without omitting any of the major
incidents, its importance to the “text criticism” of the Epic becomes considerable;
all the more so, when we have it from Madhva himself that he had travelled all
NOTES 8

over the land in search of mss. of the Epic, collected a good number of them
of various recensions and then fixed the standard text for himself to follow and
comment upon.” Sharma, HDSV, 134.

7 “The Anuvyākhyāna (AV) is both a dissertation on the Sūtras and a critical

commentary and supplement to the B.S.B. Its extent is 1985 granthas, as against
2000 of the Bhās.ya.” Sharma, HDSV, 122.

8 See the discussion of this matter in Sharma, HDSV, 195-200.

9 See V. Varadachari, Agamas and South Indian Vaisnavism, Prof. M. Ran-

gacharya Memorial Trust, Madras, 1982, 448, where an extant Pancarātra text
called Vis.n.u-Rahasya is cited upon this point; also see page 421 of the same
source.

10 Sharma, HDSV, 77-9.

11 Sharma, HDSV, 144-5.

12 gāmbhı̄ryam
. dhr.timuruvı̄ryamāryabhāvam. tejo’gryam
. giramapi
deśakālayuktām; rājā’sya sphut.amupalabhya vismito’smai rājyārdham
.
sapadi samarpayāmbabhūva, verse 10.18: “Upon seeing [Madhva’s] stature, no-
bility, brilliance, erudition, appropriate to the time and place, expressed so clearly,
the astounded king offered him half the kingdom.”

L AST UPDATED A PRIL 22, 2003.