Jayatrtha

Book Review: Nyayasudha of Sr

by B.N.K. Sharma, 3 vols.

March 26, 2002

Nyayasudha of Jayatrthamuni (Pancadhikaran.i), Rendered into English by Dr. B.N.K.

Raghavendra Ashrama, Bangalore-55, 1995. pp. xxx+303.
Sharma, published by Sr
Jayatrtha, vol. II (First Adhyaya complete), Dr. B.N.K. Sharma,
Nyayasudha of Sr
published by Visva Madhva Mahaparis.at, Bangalore 560 004, 2000. pp. xvii+316.
Jayatrtha, vol. III (Second, Third & Fourth Adhyayas), Dr. B.N.K.
Nyayasudha of Sr
Sharma, published by Visva Madhva Mahaparisat, Bangalore 560 004, 2001. pp. xx+136.

In his well-known book titled The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener (St. Martins Press, New York, 1999), Martin Gardner, the celebrated reviewer, amateur
mathematician, and essayist, begins the first essay, The World: Why I Am Not A
Solipsist, with the following words:
Solipsism is the insane belief that only ones self exists. All other
parts of the universe, including other people, are insubstantial figments in the mind of the single person who alone is real. It is almost
the same as thinking one is God, and so far as I know, there has never
been an authentic solipsist outside a mental institution or who in the
past was not considered mad.
Unfortunately, we must note that in contrast with Gardners quick and scientific
dismissal, however justified it may be, there indeed are many claims to solipsism

c

2002, Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha. A preliminary version appeared on the Dvaita mailing

list (http://www.dvaita.org/list) on 2002-01-02.

in the history and literature of Vedanta although its claimants are hard-pressed
to justify the correctness of their view even to themselves, much less to others
(these others being notionally reduced to figments of the solipsist teachers imagination). The false notion, the myth really, that such a misguided perspective is
indeed the final conclusion of Vedanta, is all too pervasive, though the evidences
upon which this notion is sought to be justified are the most tenuous.
The sutra-s (aphorisms) of Badarayan.a, which are considered by all to be authoritative in respect of Vedanta (and are hence also called Vedanta-sutra-s) do
not anywhere support the notion of solipsism. Indeed, in several places they explicitly dismiss it. How then has it come to be widely accepted that such an
un-sanctioned view is the final conclusion of Vedanta? Quite simply, this has happened because of careless and ill-considered explanations of the sutra-s and other
canonical Vedantic texts. Add to the mix an ingredient of unwary worshipfulness
fraudulently obtained in the first place and hallowed in the public eye by centuries
of blind following, and another of unwillingness to critically examine contrasting
claims (preferring to numb ones doubts and persist in the false belief that all ideas
are equal) and you have a recipe for spiritual and material disaster. Is it any
wonder that there is so much affliction in the world?
Ill-considered explanations not only do little justice to the actual purports of these
canonical texts, but even show little hesitation in dismissing their explicit sanctions against solipsism in favor of an imagined higher end that is supplied ex
. kara under sutra 1.2.19: jvasya
cathedra, without basis. For example, see San
tu na parasmadanyatvam
. pratipipadayis.yati kintvanuvadati eva; avidyakalpitam
.
lokaprasiddham
j

vabhedam
([The
s
u
tra]
does
not
propound
the
difference
of
.
the individual from the Supreme, but only re-states it; [for] the difference of the
individual [from the Supreme] that is famous in the world is imagined due to nescience.)
The points to note are that no authority exists to back up the claim, and that it
is never made clear why Badarayan.a needs to moronically re-state well-known
concepts alleged to be falsehoods, without ever correcting himself. Such a style
of commentary not only casts suspicion upon its conclusions, but even tends to
show the revered aphorist to be a fool, and all of Vedanta to be a worthless body of
chimerical knowledge. By nowhere caring for the actual words and intents of the
sutra-s, and by everywhere spouting extraneous preconceptions while claiming
to explain them, it has come to pass that what are alleged to be commentaries
upon the sutra-s are anything but, and only seek to rob the glory of Badarayan.a to
2

further their own parochial agendas.

Thus, if we are to avoid these pitfalls and decide to consider for evaluation only
such commentaries upon the Vedanta-sutra-s as are completely honest to the actual words used, and which nowhere reject, impugn, or disregard them, then the
choice becomes remarkably simple. Only the bhas.ya of Madhva remains for ones
consideration, and all others fall by the wayside.
However, the bhas.ya of Madhva upon the sutra-s is extremely laconic, and is
not given to wasting words. More to the point, it also does not explicitly deal
with the many erroneous interpretations of the sutra-s that may yet plague ones
consciousness in spite of ones analysis above. For this reason, Madhvas biographer informs us, he was requested by his favorite disciple Trivikrama Pan.d.ita to
compose another work explicating the purport of the sutra-s: this metrical text in
about 2000 grantha-s1 is called the Anu-Vyakhyana, and stands unparalleled as a
magnum opus in the entire literary history of Vedanta.
As a Vedantic commentary, and as a work clarifying the tenets of Madhvas theology, the Anu-Vyakhyana scarcely has a parallel much less a superior. Even so,
and perhaps for that very reason, persons such as oneself are not capable of directly digesting its contents, owing to lack of skill, ability, and so on. It took a
truly awesome sub-commentary from a tremendous scholar to bridge the gap and
clarify matters in a way that lesser talents can more easily appreciate. This work
is the Nyaya-Sudha, the subject of the books by B.N.K. Sharma presently under
discussion.
As Dr. Sharma himself notes (vol. 1, p. 3), Though there were some earlier com Jayatrthas work surpasses them all in its all-round commentaries on the AV, Sr
pleteness of detail and range of survey, and is acknowledgedly the most learned,
brilliant, and thoroughgoing exposition of the original. To this day, it stands as the
one and only masterly exposition of the masterly work of a master-mind in Indian
philosophy.
The Nyaya-Sudha is a work of such magnitude that even the most talented and
confident man could not but be humbled by it in all the time since its writing,
there is no instance of anyone claiming to have mastered it completely. Likewise,
no opponent of Madhvas system has come forward with a work of similar scope
Jayatrthas work. Even to the
and depth, nor even with a thorough critique of Sr
skeptical mind, these facts call for notice.
An exposition of such a work in English is awesome to attempt, much less to com3

plete, so it is indeed a great credit to Dr. Sharma that he has completed the task.
To be sure, there have been other authors who wrote about Madhva or the AnuVyakhyana/Nyaya-Sudha chief among these is the late Suzanne Siauve, whose
La voie vers la connaissance de dieu : Brahma-Jijnasa : selon lAnuvyakhyana
de Madhva (Publications de lInstitut francais dindologie. no. 6.; Pondicherry,
Institut Francais dIndologie, 1957) is an important precursor.
Yet the place where Dr. Sharmas exposition succeeds while others are often found
wanting, is in accuracy and depth of understanding. It has become too fashionable
in contemporary academic Indology for scholars who do not really know what
they are talking about to hold forth on issues and texts they are quite ignorant
about. The situation exists in part because there are so few scholars that peer
review exists in that field only in name. Thus there is the unfortunate fact that in
many cases one finds misinformed, or even completely idiotic, assertions being
passed for facts.2
With such a low standard in contemporary academe, Dr. Sharmas expositions are
all the more rare and outstanding.
The first volume in the series deals with the first five adhikaran.a-s (topics of
discussion) in the NS, and does this in relatively greater detail. In doing this, the
author has been faithful to the tradition of Vedanta, which considers these five
adhikaran.a-s as being of primal importance and decisive of all those that come
later. (It may be noted that many studies, and even some whole works of Vedanta,
deal only with these five adhikaran.a-s.) The author of the Nyaya-Sudha also
treats these adhikaran.a-s in far greater detail than later ones. Besides highlighting
some of the main points of discussion raised in the relevant parts of the Sudha,
the author also provides a few choice quotations from the originals to whet the
appetite of the interested student.
The second volume takes over from where the first left off, and covers the discussion up to the end of the first chapter of the sutra-s. Of special note in this volume
is the discussion (pp. 229 ff.) of the prakr.tyadhikaran.a, the explanation of which
sets Madhva especially apart from almost all other commentators, and upon which
his commentary has attracted a great deal of uninformed and misinformed criticism. This section in particular is an important companion to the corresponding
material from Dr. Sharmas own book, The Brahma Sutras and Their Principal
Commentaries.
The third volume deals much more briefly with the remaining chapters of the
Brahma Sutra-s. However, items of special interest include the first two Appen4

dices, the first of which casts a critical light on the Gaud.ya Vais.n.ava schools
claim of affiliation with the Madhva sampradaya, and upon the inherent ludicrousness of that schools doctrinal position of acintya bhedabheda.3 The second
Appendix adds further information to Dr. Sharmas critique in his recent Four
Papers booklet of Robert Zydenboss claims that Madhva borrowed the doctrine
of validity of memory from the Jains.
Shrisha Rao

Notes
1A

grantha is a traditional unit of textual measure having 32 syllables of text,

equivalent to one anus..tubh verse.
2 An

easy example that comes to mind is the cover image depicting Hanuman,
Bhima, and Madhva, on Mesquitas book, Madhvas Unknown Literary Sources:
Some Observations (Aditya Prakashan, Delhi, 2000), which is, the benighted
author informs us, a depiction of Vis.n.us avataras! This shows crass ignorance
of not only Madhvas position, but even of Vais.n.ava theology in general, because
Vis.n.u is famous for his ten avatars. This is only the start of Mesquitas folly, his
monograph being chock-full of factual errors such as the confounding of the
17th-century Ven.kat.anatha with the 14th-century Vedanta Desika as have been
pointed out elsewhere by Dr. Sharma and by this reviewer.
3 Unthinkable

[simultaneous] difference-and-oneness [between the worldly

individual and the Supreme Being]. In this regard, the critique of the various
bogus Caitanya biographies to be found in the third edition of Dr. Sharmas well
known book, T HE H ISTORY OF THE DVAITA S CHOOL OF V ED ANTA
, Motilal
Banarsidass, New Delhi, 2000 may also be noticed.