[593] The Artha-pañcaka and Tattva-traya are the best known. See text and translation of the first in J.R.A.S. 1910, pp. 565-607.
[594] Râmânuja set less store than Śankara on asceticism and renunciation of the world. He held the doctrine called samucchaya (or combination) namely that good works as well as knowledge are efficacious for salvation.
[595] Also called Ânandatîrtha and Pûrṅaprajña. According to others he was born in 1238 A.D. See for his doctrines Grierson's article Madhvas in E.R.E. and his own commentaries on the Chândogya and Bṛihad Ar. Upanishads published in Sacred Books of the Hindus, vols. III. and XIV. For his date Bhandarkar, Vaishṇ. and Śaivism, pp. 58-59 and I.A.. 1914, pp. 233 ff. and 262 ff. Accounts of his life and teaching have been written by Padmanabha Char. and Kṛishṇa Svami Aiyer (Madras, 1909). His followers maintain that he is not dead but still alive at Badarî in the Himalayas.
[596] See Padmanabha Char. l.c. page 12. Madhva condemned the worship of inanimate objects (e.g. com. Chând. Up. VII. 14. 2) but not the worship of Brahman in inanimate objects.
[597] In a work called the Pâshanda capetikâ or A Slap for Heretics, all the adherents of Madhva are consigned to hell and the Saurapurâṇa, chaps. XXXVIII.-XL. contains a violent polemic against them. See Jahn's Analysis, pp. 90-106 and Barth in Mélanges Harlez, pp. 12-25. It is curious that the Madhvas should have been selected for attack, for in many ways they are less opposed to Śivaites than are other Vishnuite sects but the author was clearly badly informed about the doctrines which he attacks and he was probably an old-fashioned Śivaite of the north who regarded Madhvism as a new-fangled version of objectionable doctrines.
The Madhvas are equally violent in denouncing Śankara and his followers. They miswrite the name Saṃkara, giving it the sense of mongrel or dirt and hold that he was an incarnation of a demon called Maṇimat sent by evil spirits to corrupt the world.
[598] See his comment on Chând. Up. VI. 8. 7. Compare Bhag.-g. XV. 7. The text appears to say that the soul (Jîva) is a part (amsa) of the Lord. Madhva says it is so-called because it bears some reduced similitude to the Lord, though quite distinct from him. Madhva's exegesis is supported by a system of tantric or cabalistic interpretation in which every letter has a special meaning. Thus in the passage of the Chând. Up. mentioned above the simple words sa ya eshah are explained as equivalent to Sâra essence, yama the controller, and ishta the desired one. The reading atat tvam asi is said not to have originated with Madhva but to be found in a Bhâgavata work called the Sâmasamhitâ.
[599] In his commentary on the opening of the Chând. Up. Madhva seems to imply a Trinity consisting of Vishṇu, Ramâ (=Lakshmî) and Vâyu.
[600] This is expressly stated at the end of the commentary on the Brih. Ar. Upan.
[601] Life and teachings of Śrî-Madhvacharyar by Padmanabha Char. 1909, p. 159. Some have suspected a connection between Madhva's teaching and Manicheism, because he attached much importance to an obscure demon called Manimat (see Mahâbh. III. 11, 661) whom he considered incarnate in Śankara. It is conceivable that in his Persian studies he may have heard of Mani as an arch-heretic and have identified him with this demon but this does not imply any connection between his own system (or Śankara's either) and Manicheism.