[Footnote 593:  The Artha-pancaka and Tattva-traya are the best known.  See text and translation of the first in J.R.A.S. 1910, pp. 565-607.]

[Footnote 594:  Ramanuja set less store than Sankara 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.]

[Footnote 595:  Also called Anandatirtha and Purnaprajna.  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 Chandogya and Brihad Ar.  Upanishads published in Sacred Books of the Hindus, vols.  III. and XIV.  For his date Bhandarkar, Vaishn. and Saivism, 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 Krishna Svami Aiyer (Madras, 1909).  His followers maintain that he is not dead but still alive at Badari in the Himalayas.]

[Footnote 596:  See Padmanabha Char. l.c. page 12.  Madhva condemned the worship of inanimate objects (e.g. com.  Chand.  Up.  VII. 14. 2) but not the worship of Brahman in inanimate objects.]

[Footnote 597:  In a work called the Pashanda capetika or A Slap for Heretics, all the adherents of Madhva are consigned to hell and the Saurapurana, chaps.  XXXVIII.-XL. contains a violent polemic against them.  See Jahn’s Analysis, pp. 90-106 and Barth in Melanges 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 Sivaites 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 Sivaite of the north who regarded Madhvism as a new-fangled version of objectionable doctrines.

The Madhvas are equally violent in denouncing Sankara and his followers.  They miswrite the name Samkara, giving it the sense of mongrel or dirt and hold that he was an incarnation of a demon called Manimat sent by evil spirits to corrupt the world.]

[Footnote 598:  See his comment on Chand.  Up.  VI. 8. 7.  Compare Bhag.-g.  XV. 7.  The text appears to say that the soul (Jiva) 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 Chand.  Up. mentioned above the simple words sa ya eshah are explained as equivalent to Sara 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 Bhagavata work called the Samasamhita.]

[Footnote 599:  In his commentary on the opening of the Chand.  Up.  Madhva seems to imply a Trinity consisting of Vishnu, Rama (=Lakshmi) and Vayu.]