14 Will the Winner Please Stand Up

Conflicting Narratives of a Seventeenth-Century Philosophical Debate from Karnataka

MADHAV M. DESHPANDE

In medieval times, the competing traditions of Advaita Vednta and Dvaita Vednta in South India produced a plethora of works rejecting the claims of the opponents. The titles of such works containing violent descriptions like breaking, smashing, uprooting and denouncing the views of the other give us a sense of how hot these debates/disputes became. Some detailed accounts of particular debates have come down to us. In this essay, I will discuss the multiple accounts of a philosophical debate that occurred in Ikkeri at the early seventeenth-century court of the Nyaka king Vekaapp between the Advaitin court scholar Ragojibhaa (younger brother of the well-known grammarian Bhaoji Dkita) and his opponent, a Dvaitin scholar named Vidydha. The disputants and their followers produced varying accounts, each claiming to have won the debate and defeated the other. Though we ultimately remain in doubt as to who the real winner was, the material shows how such debates were represented by the various schools to their own audiences.

Will the Winner Please Stand Up

367

The Sanskrit grammarian Bhaoji Dkita and his family as well as his scholarly lineage were engaged in some hot disputes raging between the Advaitins and the Dvaitins in the region of Karnataka. Bambardekar (1939: 161) says that, at the beginning of a work titled Tantrasiddhntadpik, Bhaoji offers salutations to his guru Appayya Dkita:
appayyadkitendrn aeavidygurn aham vande / . yatktibodhbodhau vidvadavidvadbhjakopdh // [I salute the great Appayya Dkita, my Guru in all the branches of learning. Knowledge and ignorance of his works determines who is learned and who is ignorant.]

The virulent disputes between Advaitins and Dvaitins seem to have begun with Appayya Dkitas critique of the Mdhva Vednta in his works Madhvatantramukhamardana, Smacking the Face of the Mdhva System, and Madhvamatavidhvam sana,Demolishing . the Views of Madhva (Appayya Dkita 1940). Appayyas criticisms were answered by his contemporary Mdhva scholar Vijayndra in his work Madhvdhvakaakoddhra,Removing Thorns from the Path of Madhva. Vijayndra is also said to have composed another work critical of Appayya Dkita, namely Appayyakapolacapeik, Slap on the Cheek of Appayya. Similarly, Vijayndras Bhedavidyvilsa, Beauty of the Doctrine of Difference, is a critique of Nsimhramas Bhedadhikkra,Denunciation of the Doctrine . of Difference. The anti-Appayya trend continues in the Mdhva tradition with works like Nryacryas Advaitaklnala,Deadly Fire for Advaita, and Satyantha Yatis Abhinavagad, New Mace [to Crush Advaita]. Describing this last work, B.N.K. Sharma (1961: 233) says, The work has five chapters designated yuddhas (battles) with an obvious allusion to the Gad-yuddha between Bhma and Suyodhana. The intensely bellicose attitude of the author is reflected even in the opening verse.1 At the beginning of his Madhvatantramukhamardana, Appayya Dkitas says:

368

Knowing India

madhvatantramukhamardanam may yat ktam . prakaraam mitkaram // . padyarpam anatisphuayam tat sukhvagatayevivicyate / . [I composed the text Madhvatantramukhamardana as a short treatise in verse. The significance of that text was not self-evident, and hence I am clarifying its meaning in the present work Madhvamatavidhvam sana.] .

Appayyas disciple Bhaoji Dkita composed an Advaitic work titled Tattvakaustubha, The Jewel of Truth, where, following his teacher, he severely criticizes the Mdhva Vednta.2 Bhaoji Dkita, in his grammatical work Prauhamanoram, also disagreed with the views of eaka, his teacher in grammar, who happened to be a Mdhva Vednta scholar. Enraged by Bhaojis disrespect for his teacher eaka, Jaganntha, another disciple in the tradition of eaka, severely attacked Bhaojis Prauhamanoram in his commentary titled Prauhamanoramkucamardin, Crushing the Breasts of Prauhamanoram (included in the 1934 edition of Prauhamanoram, Haridas Sanskrit Series, no. 23). Jaganntha was also an opponent of Bhaojis Vedntic teacher Appayya Dkita. Jagannthas use of mardin in the title of his work is a direct rebuke to Bhaoji, but by evoking Appayya Dkitas Madhvatantramukhamardana, it is an indirect rebuke to Appayya as well. It is pay back using the same abusive language. More details are provided by Kauabhaa, son of Bhaojis brother Ragojibhaa, at the beginning of his [Bhat] Vaiykaraabhaa (1900: 1, verse 4):
pinydimunn praamya pitaram ragojibhabhidham / . dvaitadhvntanivradiphalikm pum bhvavgdevatm // . . huhim gautamajaiminyavacanavykhytbhir ditn / . siddhntn upapattibhi prakaaye tem vaco daye //, . [I salute Pini and the other Munis, my father Ragojibhaa, who is none other than the Goddess of Speech (Sarasvat) in male form who rewards with the removal of the darkness of the doctrine of Dvaita Vednta, and Gaea. I will expound with justification the established

Will the Winner Please Stand Up

369

grammatical theories that were found fault with by the commentators on the works of Gautama and Jaimini, and I will indicate problems in their arguments.]

Kauabhaa gives a full account of what is happening in the world of the Navya grammarians, who their immediate opponents are, and what they must do in order to keep their own head high in the midst of this free-for-all philosophical debate. Tensions were particularly high between the Bhaoji-family and the followers of Rmacandras Prakriykaumud, according to Kauabhaa. Bhaojis brother Ragoji, his nephew Kauabhaa, as well as scholars in his scholastic tradition like Ngeabhaa, were staunch defenders of the Advaita-Vednta, while the ea family, to which Rmacandra and Bhaojis teacher eaka belonged, remained a staunch defender of the Dvaita-Vednta. Rmacandra himself composed a Dvaita work titled Vaiavasiddhntasaddpik, and his lineage remained committed to the Dvaita Vednta. On the contrary, the final verses of Kauabhaas [Bhad] Vaiykaraabhana (1900: 325) offer a salutation to his father Ragojibhaa and say that he defeated a Mdhva scholar named Vidydhavaeru and that he demolished the siddhnta of the Mdhva Vednta. P.K. Gode (1956: 210) says, We have to presume that Vekaappa Nyak or Kelai Vekaayya who ruled at Ikkeri in AD 162324 may have continued his rule up to AD 1629. Very probably Ragojibhaa defeated in a debate the Mdhva ascetic Vaeru at the court of this Vekaappa Nyak of Ikkeri sometime prior to AD 1629. A lost work titled Madhvasiddhntabhajan is attributed to Ragojibhaa, and it is possible that this work may have dealt with his debate with the Mdhva scholar at Ikkeri. Kauabhaa describes his father Ragoji as being at the helm of those scholars who are in full control of the systems of grammar, Mmms, and Nyya.3 Kauabhaa says that, having defeated . the Mdhva scholar Vidydha at the Ikkeri court of king Vekaa, Ragojibhaa received a gift of a palanquin from the king, and that he demolished the doctrines of the Mdhvas.4 If only the works of

370

Knowing India

Bhaoji, Ragoji, and Kauabhaa are consulted, one gets a clear sense that they were the winners in the debates against the Mdhva scholars, and one would never think that others might believe they were defeated by the Mdhvas. In contrast, B.N.K. Sharma (1961: 26869) refers to Mdhva sources that describe this encounter of Ragoji with Vidydha, saying the Mdhva sources, on the other hand, state that the victory was on the side of Vidydha. There is no doubt that there was a meeting between the two. The hagiographical work rvidydhavijaya of Janrdanasri (1926: 63ff.) describes the three-month long debate between the two. Janrdana describes Ragoji as a demon (danuja) born in the garb of a Brahman, barking like a dog at his opponent. They hurled many weapons at each other during the debate. Sharma (1961: 26869, 271, 297) also refers to the existence of a short tract titled Ragojibhaadhikkra in the possession of K.T. Pandurangi, which indicates the heat of the debate between the parties involved, as well as a work titled Bhaojikuanam by Kualagirisri that refuted Bhaojis Advaitakaustubha. These interactions indicate the intensity of Bhaojis debates on Vedntic topics. R. Nagaraja Sarma, in the introduction to his edition of Raghttamayatis Bhvabodha, interestingly refers to three distinct Mdhva works with the same title, i.e., Bhaojikuana, composed by Vijayndra, Kualagiri, and Calri Narasimhcrya. . Sarma remarks (1956: xxxvii), It is transparent that Vijayndras Bhaojikuana should have been the first and supplied necessary inspiration to all subsequent attempts made by others under the same title. The latest reply to Bhaoji Dkita has been written by Mahmahopdhyya Vykaraa Setumdhavcrya (Retd. Principal, Tirupati Venkateswara Sanskrit College). This last work of Setumadhavcrya (1957), an extensive refutation of the Tattvakaustubha under the title Tattvakaustubhakulia, was edited by Ramamurti Sarma and published from Tirupati. Regarding the identity of Ragojis opponent in debate, P .K. Gode (1956: 110) says, Possibly this Mdhva ascetic named

Will the Winner Please Stand Up

371

Vaeru belonged to the Vaiava Mah of the Srasvata Brahmins at Partagali in the Cancon division of Goa. Here is what we know about Vidydha from traditional hagiographies. Vidydha was the sixteenth pontiff of the Uttardi Maha of the Mdhva tradition, where his image is still enshrined, from 1619 to 1631. He was born in a small town called Punatambe in Maharashtra in the Pandurangi family. His original name was Narasimhcrya, son of nanda . Bharaka. He studied the stras under his father. He became a great young scholar in Nyya, Mmms, Vykaraa and Vednta . when he was just sixteen years old. He started teaching these stras at the Trivikrama temple in Puyastambhapura (Punatambe). He defeated ivapaita and Vivapaita in a debate in Vykaraa. Similarly he defeated Goligapaita in Nyya and Tnabhaa in rautastras. There are many stories of his travels and debates with different scholars of various scholarly backgrounds. He was given Sannysa by Vedavysatrtha, made his successor for the position of abbot at Uttardi Maha, and named r Vidydha Trtha. With the blessings of his Guru, r Vidydha Trtha undertook a tour of various parts of north and south India, and afterwards went to Uipi. From Uipi he is said to have gone to Ikkeri and defeated Ragojibhaa in a philosophical debate. The event of this debate is recorded by Kauabhaa in his work [Bhat] Vaiykaraabhaasra in the closing verses as referred to earlier, although Kauabhaa claims that it was Ragoji who won the debate. On the other hand, the Mdhva tradition has preserved a text ascribed to Vidydha titled Ragojibhaadhikkra, where Vidydha provides some first-hand details about his debate with Ragojibhaa. RAGOJIBHAADHIKKRA, CONDEMNATION OF RAGOJIBHAA In my communication with Professor K.T. Pandurangi of Bangalore, I learned that he had a copy of Ragojibhaadhikkra in his personal collection, and during my visit to him in January

372

Knowing India

2007 he gave me a photocopy of his manuscript. I also learned that Professor Pandurangi belongs to the same family as Vidydha, the author of this rare work, and that he had edited a collection of narrative texts describing the life and encounters of Vidydha with Ragojibhaa and others (Pandurangi 1987). In the Ragojibhaadhikkra manuscript we have a unique view of the debate between Ragojibhaa and Vidydha, both in the words of Vidydha himself, as well as in the words of his followers and opponents. While the first folio of the manuscript is unfortunately missing, on the existing folio (1) we find the following colophon:
iti rmad-veda-vysatrtha-pjyapdnm iyea r. vidydha-yatin viracite ragojibhaadhikkre prathama pariccheda || [Thus ends the first chapter in the Rejection of Ragojibhaa composed by the ascetic Vidydha, the disciple of the highly honored Vedavysatrtha.]

Folio (1) also gives us some idea of the first topic of debate between these two individuals. Apparently, Ragojibhaa claimed that dying in Banaras was sufficient in itself to lead to Moka for a person (kmaraamtrea moka). Vidydha on the other hand, rejected Ragojibhaas view, and asserted that only true knowledge leads to Moka (jnasya eva mokasdhanat). Vidydha claimed that while his view was supported by passages from ruti (Vedic texts) and Yukti (logic), Ragojibhaas claims, on the other hand, were contradicted by such evidence and were merely based on his own imagination. For this reason, Ragojibhaas first claim was based purely on a complete misunderstanding of the position of others as well as of his own position.5 The text of Ragojibhaadhikkra continues in this vein till the end of the fourth chapter. Such a debate in itself would not be uncommon in the history of sectarian debates, and we can find many dozens of similar instances. However, what follows the end of the fourth chapter in the manuscript (folio 7) is an account

Will the Winner Please Stand Up

373

from Vidydha of the actual events of his debates and disputes with Ragojibhaa. This portion, for me, is historically the most significant part of the manuscript:
svaiyajanvalokaneccchay ikkerigrme prasthinn asmm s tatratyanyako vidvattvbhimne sati . ragojbhaena saha prasagrtham bhavadbhi prasthya . matsampam gantavyam ity hvayat | [When we [Vidydha] had set out to go to the town of Ikker to visit our disciples, the ruler of that locality issued the following invitation, If you have pride in your learning, then you should come to me [my court] for a debate with Ragojibhaa.] vijiguvdiprativdyupanyastasvasvbhimataprameyasdhakayuktisadasattvanirayakartrbhayasiddhntbhijaprnikbhve prasagasya kolhalamtraparyavasnena svbhimataphalsiddhy bhavatsampe tdaprnikbhvt bhavadvidua prasage llasatve tdnekaprnikopetacolamaaldideavieaprasthnam eva vayor nyyyam iti svakyavidvn api asmatsahyena dentaram . preaya ity asmbhi sttarite pi bhavadasmadyavidvatsam sktaprayogacturnibhlanajanyakautukam. trecchum prati naitdaparyanuyoga samucita . iti na pralobhya sampam upyatn sambhvya asmadupakiptaprameye svakyaviduo daabhaaktisambhvanay svayam eva dau kmaraamtrasya na mokasdhanatvam api tu brahmajnasyaiva ity etem matam ity upkipat | [We responded to the king saying, in the absence of a competent judge to preside over the debate, a judge who is expert in both the competing doctrines and one who is fully capable of deciding the right and false arguments offered by the contenders in the debate desiring to win such a debate, a mere occasion of debate is likely to result in just a shouting match, and this will not lead to what we desire to achieve. Since at your court there [is] no such judge for the debate, if the scholar at your court [Ragojibhaa] does indeed desire such a debate, he should be sent along

374

Knowing India

with us to the Chola region, where many such judges are available. Even after we properly responded like this, the king said, Please, such a rejection of my request is not appropriate. I am merely interested in watching the intellectual skill in the Sanskrit debate between you and our scholars. Having thus lured us into his court, when we got there, realizing the inability of his own court scholars to find faults with the position presented by us, he himself said that the position of the visiting scholar is that death in K alone does not lead to Moka, but that knowledge of Brahman alone leads to Moka.]

The manuscript relates some discussion of this question of the effect of death in K, then proceeds onward:
etat prameyam parityajya asmadudbhvitm asagatim api nyakapakaptabalena avagaayya utkrnter jnaphalatvbhvarpam prameyntaram pratijviayatvena agraht | tadyabaltkravaena tatraikoktayuktijtasvarpam . tanmudritapatrapratinidhipatrd avagantavyam | ity asmbhir ukte pi ity rabhya svayam eva likhitam svakysmadyayuktijtabodhakalipikulam . . svanyaknumatim pdya asmadananumatv api kualikkrea vyattaat | tadanantaram uttaradivase prvgktavdakathtvam parityajya jalpakathtvam . agktya nyakapakaptena samayabandham akrayat | [Then having abandoned this first position, and after disregarding the contradictions pointed by us, with the support of the ruler, he [Ragojibhaa] moved on to another position as the topic for debateis transmigration a result of knowledge, or not? The nature of the arguments we presented there under these forced circumstances can be seen from the documents with the rulers seal and other representative documents (pratinidhipatra?).... Even after we objected, with the consent of the ruler and without our consent, he [Ragojibhaa] falsified the arguments presented by us and by him in writing by circling those portions. Then, next day, with the support of the ruler, Ragojibhaa abandoned the (honest) Vda mode of debate, and entered into a (destructive) Jalpa mode of debate, and appealed for a time-bound debate (samayabandha?).]

Will the Winner Please Stand Up

375

Vidydhas personal account of the debate with Ragojibhaa ends with this information, though the manuscript continues with the work of Keava, a disciple of Vidydha, who persists in rejecting the claims of Ragojibhaa. In the colophon on folio 17, we see how Vidydha was perceived by his successors within his own tradition:
iti rmatsakalavidvaccakracmanm . rmadvidydhatrthapjyapdnm . nijaiyakeavaviracita ragojiyavdndrabauddhadhikkra sampta [Thus ends the Condemnation of the [Crypto-] Buddhist, Vdndra, disciple of Ragoji, composed by Keava, a direct disciple of His Holy Feet, honorable teacher Vidydha, the crest jewel of the entire assembly of learned scholars.]

We have two subsequent narratives of the same event, found in the rvidydhavijaya of Janrdanasri (1926), and in the rvidydhacarita, part of the larger work rprabodhaguruvam . akathkalpataru composed by Daivaja Bhma. The sixth sarga of Janrdanasris rvidydhavijaya (verses 3249) contains poetically embellished accounts of Vidydhas debates with Ragojibhaa and Vdndra. While Vidydhas own account seems to reflect a perception that the king Vekaapp of Ikker was already in favor of Ragojibhaa and ill-disposed toward Vidydha, the narrative of Janrdana seems to simply say that Vidydha was honored by the king of Ikker who was impressed with his fame, and that Vidydha stayed in Ikker happily,6 until the debate with Ragoji came up. Ragoji is described as being a true demon dressed as a Brahman (danujo vanidevaveabht), who acquired a deceptive form of language by worshipping the Ucchia Gaapati (verse 34). In the kings assembly he would bark like a dog. But his logic was defeated by Vidydha, whose own logic seemed like the fierce dance of Tava. Janrdana says that for three months the debaters kept on sending each other

376

Knowing India

various written notes (verse 42; likhitnyonyavicitrapatrikam). This seems to be supported by Vidydhas own account in his Ragojibhaadhikkra. Finally, Ragojibhaa is said to have run away, seeing the weakness of his own arguments (lathapakatay adravat kat, verse 44). Verse 45 of Janrdana clearly says that Ragojibhaa was defeated by Vidydha (ragbhikhyam nirjitya). . The next verse says that Ragojibhaa was caught by the soldiers of the king and brought to the village of Mug to meet Vidydha (narapatibhaakptkaraam). There he fell at the feet of Vidydha (pdanamram), and was let go out of compassion (yatipatir anukampklinnacitta atyajat tam). After that Ragojibhaa is said to have left the region, with his pride shattered (atyajat ... sapadi galitamna so pi tam deam eva, verse 46). . In the second account of Vidydhas encounter with Ragojibhaa, found in the rvidydhacarita (part of rprabodhaguruvam akathkalpataru composed by Daivaja . Bhma), we find a few further details of interest. An abbreviated version of this text is included in the Auvidydhavijaya edited by K.T. Pandurangi (1987). In Bidrur or Bednur (referred to in this text by the name Veupur7), Vidydha had a debate with Ragojibhaa who had come from K (ky samgatam). Here we have a location of debate different from Ikkeri, though still within the Kelai kingdom. After stating that Ragoji was defeated by Vidydha (so tha vidydhai parjita), this account says that the scared Ragoji had run away to the town of Paihaa (bhty palyanaparyaa jagma paihaam). Vidydha chased him to Paihaa.8 There, having defeated him, Vidydha took from Ragoji a jayapatra, a document of victory (tatra jitv myivaram jayapatram praghya). Vidydhas own account does . not provide the details that Ragojibhaa ran away and was forced to yield a jayapatra to Vidydha. Conversely, Daivaja Bhmas account does not say that this debate went on for three months. Vidydhas own account tells us that he was rather dissatisfied with the king constantly showing his favor to Ragojibhaa, and

Will the Winner Please Stand Up

377

felt cheated by the invitation and the way the debate itself was conducted. Furthermore, he seems to indicate that the written reports and documents were falsified with the support of the king, and so finally Vidydha comes across more as an angry person, rather than someone who was accepted by everyone as a winner. Vidydhas followers, on the other hand, gradually changed the narrative conclusively in his favor and declared him a winner of the debate, a win certified apparently by the jayapatra extracted from Ragoji who was on the run. The description of the debate provided by Kauabhaa stands in stark contrast with the one provided by Vidydha and his followers. Did Ragoji win the debate, and was he honored with a palanquin by the king of Ikkeri, as Kauabhaa reports, or did he run away from debate and was finally made to yield a jayapatra to Vidydha, as the accounts of Janrdana and Daivaja Bhma seem to say? We have no conclusive way of deciding what exactly happened at the debate. However, the first-hand account coming from Vidydha himself expresses his misgivings about the invitation for debate and the way the debate was conducted, and claims that the king was in favor of Ragojibhaa from the very beginning and that written documents were falsified with the express support of the king. This would suggest that the debate probably ended in a stalemate of sorts, with each party claiming victory, and finding fault with the claims seen in written documents like the jayapatras. With the charge that the written documents were falsified, probably both sides were free to make statements that were contrary to what one might have found in the written documents, as the probative value of such documents was already discounted by the imputation of falsification. Thus, any possibility of verification is rejected out of hand, as all sources of information are tainted in some way, except ones own perception of what happened as seen in Vidydhas own words, and the perception of the followers about what must have happened. For the followers it is inconceivable that their hero could have been

378

Knowing India

defeated at a debate. Positives from the received information are accentuated, and the negatives are discounted with disbelief. As we move away from the actual historical event to which we have no direct access, subsequent narratives coming from subsequent generations clearly depict the leading figures of their own lineage as the absolute victors in the debate, leaving no room for doubt. This evolving direction of the narratives away from the nuts and bolts of the historical happenings and into a realm of projected perfect victories is fascinating and instructive in helping us make a realistic assessment of all such received accounts. NOTES
1. Sharma cites the verse (1961: 233): sadpeye dkitasya mdhe durabhimnina / ptaymi irasyadya gurvm abhinavm gadm. . 2. I have consulted a manuscript of the Tattvakaustubha of Bhaoji Dkita (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute ms. 319-A/18991915). Karl Potters Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Vol. I, p (1970: 283), cites Bhaoji Dkitas Tattvakaustubha as being published by P. P. S. Shastri in the Journal of the Sri Sankara Gurukulam, Sri Rangam, vol. 3.10 (194142). However, this edition does not contain the complete text. iti rmatpadavkyapramaprvradhuraragojibhatmajakoabhaakte vaiykaraabhae (Kauabhaa 1900: 325) vidydhavaerusam jakayatirmdhvabharakam / . . jitv kevalavekaayyasavidhe py ndolikm prptavn // . ya cakre munivaryastravivtim siddhntabhagam tath / . . mdhvnm tam aham gurpamagurum ragojibhaam bhaje // . . . . (Kauabhaa 1900: 325) rutiyuktibdhitatvena ca svotprekitamtrasya asdhakatvt | tasmt prathamam prameyam tvat . svaparamatnavabodhavijmbhitam iti sthitam || mahipena sa mnito nvaham ravagantukittmakrtin / . mudamracayan manim nyavasat tatra dinni knicit // . (Janardana 1926: verse 33).

3. 4.

5.

6.

Will the Winner Please Stand Up

379

7.

8.

For identification of Veupur with Bidrur or Bednur, see B.N.K. Sharma (1961: 268). Sharma says that this place is within the territory of the Kelai kingdom. The previous account (which claimed that Ragojibhaa was apprehended in Mug village) may not be contradictory to this one. There is a village named Mug very close to Paihaa, just south of Aurangabad in Maharashtra. A treaty between the first Bajirao Peshwa and the Nizam was signed at Mungi-Paithan on March 6, 1728. So both accounts are likely to contain some grain of truth.

REFERENCES
Appayya Dkita. 1940. Madhvatantramukhamardana, with commentary [Madhvamata] Vidhvam sana, ed. Ramacandra Sastri. Anandashrama . Sanskrit Series, no. 113. Pune: Anandashrama Press. Bambardekar, Vasudeo Anant. 1939. Bhaojidkitajtiviveka. Mumbai: published by the author. Bhaoji Dkita. 1928. Prauhamanoram, with Laghuabdaratna by Ngeabhaa (ascribed to Haridkita on the title-page). 3 vols. Benares: Chowkhambha Sanskrit Series Office. . 1934. Prauhamanoram, Avyaybhvnta, with Laghuabdaratna by Haridkita, Jyotsn by Jaganntha stri, and Kucamardin by Paitarja Jaganntha, ed. Sadashiva Sharma Shastri. Banaras: Haridas Sanskrit Series, no. 23. . 1964. Prauhamanoram, with Bhacchabdaratna by Haridkita and Laghuabdaratna by Ngeabhaa. Vol. I, Avyaybhvnta, ed. Sitaram Shastri. Banaras: Hindu Vishwavidyalaya Nepal-Rajya Sanskrit Series, No. VIII. . 1966. Prauhamanoram with commentary [Bhat]abdaratna. Vol. I., ed. V. L. Joshi. Deccan College Monograph Series, no 31. Pune: Deccan College. Deshpande, Madhav M. Forthcoming. Bhaoji Dkitas Perceptions of Intellectual History: Narrative of Fall and Recovery of the Grammatical Authority. Professor Ashok Aklujkar Festschrift, Japan. Gode, P 1956. The Chronology of the Works of Koabhaa. In .K. Studies in Indian Literary History, Vol. 3, 20711. Pune: Prof. P. K. Gode Collected Works Publication Committee

380

Knowing India

Janrdanasri. 1926. rvidydhavijaya, ed. Rangacharya Reddi. Pune: Hanumanamudranalaye. Kauabhaa. 1900. [Bhat] Vaiykaraabhaa, ed. Rama Krishna Sastri (alias Tatya Shastri Patavardhana). Banaras: Benares Sanskrit Series. Lakmnsimha. 1955. bhoga Kalpataruvykhy, ed. Polgam Rama . Sastri and S. Subrahmanya Sastri. Madras Government Oriental Series, no. 128. Madras: Government Oriental Manuscripts Library. Pandurangi, K.T., ed. 1987. Auvidydhavijaya. Sri Vidyadhisha Granthamala No. 1. Bangalore: K.T. Pandurangi. Pollock, Sheldon. 2001. New Intellectuals in Seventeenth-Century India. In Indian Economic and Social History Review 38, no. 1: 331. . 2002. Introduction: Working Papers on Sanskrit Knowledge Systems on the Eve of Colonialism. Journal of Indian Philosophy 30: 43139. Potter, Karl H. 1970. Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Vol. 1: Bibliography. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Raghttamayati. 1956. Bhvabodha Tattvaprakikvykhy, ed. R. Nagaraja Sarma. Madras Government Oriental Series, no. 142. Madras: Government Oriental Manuscripts Library. Ragojibhaa. 1920. Advaitacintmai, ed. Narayana Sastri Khiste. Princess of Wales Sarasvati Bhavana Texts, no. 2. Benares: Govt. Sanskrit Library. Sharma, B.N.K. 1961. A History of the Dvaita School of Vednta and its Literature, Vol. 2. Mumbai: Booksellers Publishing Co. Setumadhavcrya, Srimushnam. 1957. Tattvakaustubhakulia, ed. Ramamurti Sarma. Tirupati: Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. Swaminathan, K.D. 1957. The Nayakas of Ikkeri. Madras: P. Varadachary & Co. Vidydha. n.d. Ragojibhaadhikkra. Photocopy of a manuscript in the personal collection of K.T. Pandurangi, Bangalore.