Madhava An Early Unfaithful Exponent Of The Sankhya

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided text:

The text, "Madhava: An Early Unfaithful Exponent of the Sankhya" by V. Raghavan, explores the life and contributions of an early, and apparently controversial, Sankhya philosopher named Madhava.

The author begins by highlighting the diversity within early Sankhya, noting that Paramartha identified eighteen schools. He contrasts this with the later codified and more homogenous version of Sankhya presented by Isvarakrishna. Raghavan emphasizes the importance of reconstructing the early history of Sankhya and understanding the views of its various proponents, including figures like Kapila, Asuri, Pancashikha, Virshaganya, Jaigishavya, and Vindhyavasin, as well as the perspectives found in the Yoga Sutras, Ashvaghosha, Charaka, and the Great Epic.

Madhava is presented as one of these "little known celebrities" of early Sankhya whose contribution was peculiar. The text then delves into the textual evidence for Madhava's existence and views:

• Umveka's Commentary on Slokavarttika: Umveka, in his commentary on Kumarila's Slokavarttika (specifically under the Codana Sutra), refers to Madhava. This reference suggests that Madhava was known to Kumarila. The context is a discussion about whether scriptural injunctions or inference determine dharma (righteousness) and adharma (unrighteousness). Umveka identifies Madhava as a "leader of Sankhya thought" (Sankhya-nayaka) who, by rejecting scriptural authority and arguing that Vedic sacrifices are comparable to mundane acts of injury (himsā), viewed Vedic injunctions (vidhi-nisedha) as the sole arbiters of dharma and adharma. Madhava's argument, as presented by Umveka, is that since the Veda prohibits violence (himsā) and doesn't differentiate between types of violence, Vedic sacrifices, which involve violence, should also be considered adharma.

• Jinendrabuddhi's Gloss on Pramanasamuccaya: Jinendrabuddhi's gloss, Visalamalavati, on Dinnaga's Pramanasamuccaya, contains two references to Madhava. This indicates that Madhava predated Dinnaga. Here, Madhava is presented as holding a distinct view on the nature of pleasure (sukha) and similar experiences. While Kapila and others believed the nature of sukha was uniform across all instances, Madhava argued that it differed in every case. Jinendrabuddhi's commentary also suggests that Madhava's position had fewer flaws compared to an alternative view.

• Karnakagomin's Gloss on Dharmakirti's Pramanavarttika: This is identified as a particularly significant reference. Karnakagomin clarifies that the reading "Sankhya-nayaka" (leader of Sankhya thought) in Umveka's commentary is likely a corruption. Instead, Madhava was known as a "Sankhya-nasaka" – a "destroyer of Sankhya." This is explained in the context of Dharmakirti's discussion on the authority of verbal testimony (like the Veda) and the concept of an "apta" (trustworthy person). Dharmakirti suggests that traditions can be misrepresented by individuals driven by self-importance, dislike, or a penchant for vandalism. Karnakagomin uses Madhava as an example of such a person, stating that Madhava ruined the Sankhya system by expounding it in an unfaithful manner. Thus, "Sankhya-nasaka" is presented as a notoriety earned by Madhava for his "Sankhya-sarathya" (a term likely implying a distorted or misguided guidance of Sankhya).

• Hieun Tsang's Travels: The text cites Hieun Tsang (Yuan Chwang), who mentions a monastery in Magadha dedicated to the Buddhist teacher Gunamati. Hieun Tsang records that Gunamati "vanquished in discussion the great Sankhya Doctor Madhava." This encounter is significant because Gunamati's student, Sthiramati, lived before 425 AD, and Gunamati himself wrote a text that showed "an intimate acquaintance with the Sankhya teachings." This context further supports Madhava's prominence as a Sankhya figure and his engagement with prominent Buddhist thinkers.

In conclusion, the text establishes Madhava as an important, albeit contentious, figure in early Sankhya. While initially appearing as a "leader" of Sankhya thought who questioned Vedic authority, later evidence from Karnakagomin reveals a more critical perspective: Madhava is characterized as a "destroyer of Sankhya" due to his unfaithful exposition of its principles. His debates with Buddhist scholars like Gunamati also underscore his engagement with contemporary philosophical traditions and his controversial legacy.